HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/05/1981 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items
DATE: May 1 , 1981
1 . Mike Sortum called and asked that the final Hospital IR Bond
Resolution be delayed until June 2 , 1981 .
2 . We expect to have material on the May 19 , 1981 agenda regarding
the Bluff Avenue Utility Improvements and the Hauer Lateral
Sanitary Sewer Improvements . We have had a successul second
meeting with SPUC on the design of the Bluff Avenue project and
only need to clarify the assessment procedures . The latter
project requires that we finalize the appraiser' s estimates of
benefits (it looks like there will be a problem) , revise estimates
of project costs , and investiage the feasibility of constructing
the laterals from the main to the homes .
3. Bill Fahey has not returned my calls this week so I don' t have
an update on the Fiscal Disparities suit as requested by the
Mayor. I have a third call in to him now.
4. The City Clerk is advertising for a public hearing on May 19 ,
1981 for the 101 Watermain pursuant to Council Resolution No.
1812 adopted April 7 , 1981 (see SPUC Manager ' s memo attached) .
5. We have hired two new temporary part-time employees for budgeted
positions . Diane Scheffler as the Work Study student replacing
Danelle Nelson and Glen Heyda as a seasonal park maintenance man.
6 . Lou has been contacted by a representative for a UHF station
that is looking for a Twin Cities studio. They are looking
at the industrial park with the possibility of putting a small
dish on top of our elevated tank. The contact was preliminary
so if you have any problems with a small "radar like" dish on
the new tower let me know Tuesday.
7 . Walt has asked staff to clarify the Community Services Program
funding from the school to determine if any of it was grant
money. We received $33,500 from the school with $25,723 of it
levied by the school and $7 ,777 of it coming from the State as
a grant. If the State grant were reduced or eliminated the
Community Services Program would have to be cut accordingly.
8. Early in the year Ted Jaspers and City staff met several times
to discuss his concern over the City not really paying 507 of
the watermain loop that went in between Dakota and Minnesota
Streets. We explained that the City paid 507 of all looping
costs which included some in Minnesota. He did not seem
satisfied but the issue seems to be dead. If the subjects comes
up again, I will let you know otherwise we will drop it .
-2-
9 . You might be interested in knowing that our Fire Department
charges the Renaissance Festival $1 ,590 for 13 days of
protection each year. The proceeds go in their own Volunteer
Association accounts .
10. Attached is the Fund Balance Summary for the month ending
March 31 , 1981 . If you have questions give Gregg a call ,
you will get this monthly.
11. Attached is a memo from Larry Martin suggesting that the one
Staff car sitting at City Hall over night be taken home if
possible. Don Steger, our new Planner, lives in town and
could take it home according to our policy, but theolicy is
somewhat unclear (see attached Resolution and Policy. Let me
know Tuesday if you have a problem with Don taking the car home .
12 . Attached is a letter from Jack Coller regarding our inability
to collect $400 in back rent . We don' t plan to pursue this .
13. Attached is a letter from Jack Coller regarding the piecemeal
sale of the abandon Milwaukee Railroad R/W. Jack and I do not
feel the City needs to require subdivision action. Contact me
if you foresee problems .
14. Attached is a memo from Jim Karkanen regarding the current
charges for snow removal . I now understand it so contact me
if you still have a question.
15. Attached is a memo from the League regarding 1982 nominations
for the League Board of Directors .
16 . Attached is a copy of a letter to Rod regarding the status of
the condemnation of the Minnesota Valley Electric Co-op.
17 . Attached is a letter from Senator Schmitz regarding wine in
grocery stores.
18. Attached is a notice regarding another notice of claim against
the Hockey Association. Rod is handling it .
19. Attached is a memo regarding the Annual League Conference.
Please let Judy know if you wish to be registered.
20. Attached is a conference announcement from the Region V Citizens
Council . Please let Judy know if you wish to be registered.
a, ` 4
21 . Attached are the minutes of the April 64 1981 SPUC meeting.
22. Attached are the minutes of the April 9 , 1981 Planning Commission
meeting.
23. Attached are the minutes of the April 6 , 1981 Cable Communications
Committee
24. The Jackson Township Fire Agreement is now here and signed.
JKA/jms
TO: Judy Cox
FROM: Lou VanHout
DATE: 4-30-81
RE: Highway 101 watermain project
Pursuant to Council directive we requested that waiver
forms be sent out by Suburban Engineering to all property
owners involved.
Please be advised that, as of this date, they report
that there are still 4 property owners who have not
returned signed waiver forms.
6/7
Councilmembers :
Because we do not have signed waivers from all property owners ,
it is necessary to hold a public hearing on the proposed watermain
along 101. In order to comply with law regarding publication and
notification of said hearing, I am advertising in the Valley News
May 6th addition, the notice of public hearing. /�
/CI
•
r0
a) .-I .. • .. .. .. e••••• ..
HJ-1 W00 CV D CO r-1 CO '.0 0 -Zr O' N- 0 O'. ,-.1 u1 N CD 10 .-I U1 -Zr M 10 Co N- 0 0
COO \ NC\ ,-4 NOD N- ,f% 0, r-1 H N ,t ,t00000\ �tN �tOululul ,tul
ri 0CHrI 040C>OI-, N '.0 I CO I I n 10. 000 I ur '.oCV 10 OAul000NCO .ZNMMO\
M 4J H N 0 10 10 ,--1u1 aAwAfta01 N- I OI CO I r-I '.0 0 0I 0 r-1 00 0'. 1, rn M .t 10 CO c0 u1 ul -t '0
\ Ca Cd N I- M 0 r-1 00 0 n Cr) N n 00 u1 -1 u1 r-1 00 -Zr H H-i N 01 OO
M W CO r-I '.0 N M N. r-1 Cr) � H '- H N � M ,-I
C))
a)
ri H CA ul N- O ncost 0 -1- 0000 00 ul 00u100 .7V00 ul r-I 00 N
00 0 0'. CO CO O '.0 r-1 00 ul N- O ul O O ul O M .t ul n U1 N N 00 O 00 N ul O VD
- 4J
H 00n ,t Ou1n '0 NMCr, 0Nul 00ul000 .1" C\ N00010 CAH 0\ O 1--1
r-I no 0'. 01 I 1 ,-4 I .-1 O ul ul I I ,-1 '.0 I- C- 0 h I M O 0 -t 00 r-1 H O M N 0 I '.O 0 V0 '.0 -Zr
Cag T CO N. I I Cr) I N CT 0 1O I I r-1 01 O N N .t I M N CO M CO 1/40 O vO N I CO ,t -Zr O
A 4.1 a ,-.4 u1 -Zr O .1N N If N O0 -t MN 01I- 01r101 0 0'. 4./1 M 1-1
H CJ DC -1- N CA r-I Mri ,I- ul N0 �tHNM �t r-I NN
?+ Q, W ul H ,-1 1--1 r-1 N H ,-1
r-1 U)
CO aJ
- I•+
7 x-1000000 ^ r-1 O\ M OMOuIMOOtr 0rlr-I u100 OOu1
b +J co CV u10000ri0 000, IN- CT 110OAN Nr-10 ^ -. 00/ 0 00 ,-1
W •r1 O'. 10N10OTOONN P, 00 I �* CT ,t ^ ON HN 1-4 .100u) 10 .-100
JJ •0 A A AftAAAAA a w 0 a a a w a w a w a a a w a I a
a) O ,f .1" 01NNO0H M 01 00 I MNMNulC '-0Nul .t .7NNOMr-I 0
COC) OOrAVDu1NNr 0, VD CTI. H N 0/ -t Mr-I r-I I CD .7 N
• 0 OH (NI ,--1 M 00 h
A
PQ W N r-1 r-1
r-I N 10 0 CO �t 0 ,t 0 N 01 01 Cr) �t 0 H .7 ul M
CO N 'D 0 ul CO 0 H Cr) CO r-I M n H 0 ul ,--I M '0
▪ a) 00 ul ,7 M r-I ul ul N VD n - 0 0 ul N '.0 at 00
H O O 01 I CO I I N 01 I 0'. I I I -t r-I I I I I n I - ul N I I u1 I n I 1 ul 10 u1 ul
Ca 0 N %0 I ON 1 I N Cr) I u1 I I I -Zr I I I I x-1 I a\ ul - I 10 I 0 I I '.D N -Zr M
J+ 0 a) ^ ^ I ^ 1 1 ^ ^ 1 ^ 1 1 1 a 1 1 1 1 1 ^ I 1 " I ^ I 1 w w a w
A 14 ? .c) O O 0 co O H r-I H CV a0 H 'D O
1 Qi P co r1 •-iM -I ,-i r-1 M
r-I r-I N
C/)
r-I
W CO
0 -
r-I
OO OO00000 N- O1M000000hu1VD10O r-ION 00
b CO OONOO00000ul0N 0 CTul0000u1O0u100000 00
W CDCT 'DOulCT0000N rn 'DrnMMr1000x-IsZOm �tulcoulr-11 OM
I
w w w w w
pa aJ q -t ,tulVDC- NN- OVD N- N- r-♦ CrlH 01u10001- M -tcm0pO '.000N0
OO a) 00x-lCrHNr-I r-I NH Out r-I CA Nr1 r1 -t ulN d' NO 1 N- cc I
al O N O r-1 H-I r-1 r-I H H VD ul
a
a
PQ P'+ N r4
44
N H Cr) r-I CO VD H C- H ,t 'D 00 H O M 01 VD I, H ul u1 1, VO -t 00 0 CO M O ul u1
nO1nnOk0H000cel N1/4o nO> OhC)DMkDNOOCSN Nk0 C'•1MIll ,t MI\
CU N r-4000N '.01DIll N '010N I H00Co0\ -ZN '0VDCOMI-- NCO0NNulH '.O
() H AAAAAAAAA A AO I I I I I I
O 00 N � MNriMr-101N ....i. ,_4 I N NN0 -t0,) N10NN Or• OONulnIf) ,0Cr) 000000
( -.. I", MMDulCor-Ir-I N .1" NN CO CO 0, ,t -1 CO O'. VDMMr-I -t ,-,OMH M I I 1 I I 1
ri r•1 ,D r-1 Cr) O1 H ,--1 C') ,-i M ,--1 H v M
ca ,-,
P4 r-1 r•1
a) Ca
CJ 4- I`+ 4-1
a) '0 t0 P a) a) aa) ••n fa
co 00 4-) 0 o ai aa) a)
) a) cin a) 0
n H a) 1.1 I-I a)
0 0 O a) Pq 0 C/) ? (1) ? U) a H U
•r1 •ri CA 0 • b O • IJ O co.) Cn 4J Cn CA •i
C.• H ? (I) OO a) J-) H C/) CO H JJ 1J P,' bJ JJ 1J W ?
o 0 H 0 a) U) r0 .1.J .0 a U) U) CO S a o o a) o G 0 a) U) H
.ri ..0 O G CA 0 ,-I .D a) 1J .N 4•1 1.1 0 1J 1.1 1J a) Q a) a) E a) a) a) vrl O a)
JJ co ? •r-I •4-1 O Pa a) A L'• G'+ P) CI) H t:." P+ G", b • H E+ Er o 0 0 F~ iJ •--1 u $.1 Cl)
O a) a) Z P4 N • 'd a) a) a) 1J a) a) a) 4r1 a) a) aJ ? a) 0) a) co a) CA H
a) a) ? P: I •r1 ? C'• a) EE 0 Ca Pa 0 0 E ? +•1 ? ? O ? ? ? O P4 O +J
14 O H • 42) •ri IJ H H U) a) N a) .3 a) a) (I) d (1) o 0 H O O 0 '0 H • H 1-1 .0
O 0 C) a A •ra a) H ? ? ? 0 ? ? ? +•1 a) H H a H H 11 0 H aJ H 0 a)
a) aJ co v1 ro 0 C/) 4-1 04 O o o (a• a) O O o Cn JJ H a a E a a (a. o a 01 A
H P4 ? a) O ♦J ?, 0 1 34 H H H •r1 H H H a) U) 4J 0 E H E Er E W r•1 a) ?, E
CC) a) P4 Cr.t 4-1 r1 1 i C) •r1 a a a D 14 a s a x-( C1) H H H H H , J 4-.)A +J g +
U) 14 +J c4 WP H O •r1 • x E; E E a) E EI E; H 0 1-1 0 •r1 O m H
•o a) g • x a) •r1 ,--I 1J H H H N C/) H H H PC) - 0 a) PCI 0 <4 a) H OJ r-{ H a) 0
q 0 •r+ '0 H a s '0 tom+ .0 H • (24 I I I I I I .0 I I I 3 >, H •r1 U ? 0
O a) 000 CCI Cd I xi a) 0 O) H H I", 4--1 N N M -t ul ,D n n n 0'. O 1J O O H a) 0 •-I 1.3 C0 G 1
W C7 ti W a 00 4 W C/) 41 U Cna %.Dl- N. NNNNNNNNNCOCD000O00 v) a 44 CD W HA4
a)
•o
O r-1 r-I N 01ulN- N01 -tulr-1N VDHN -tulVDn000, HNM �tulv00- 000\ O H ,--1N M �tU1u1
O O H H H H H N N N N 01 M M ,t ,t ,t ,f rt ul ul ul ul ul ul ul ul ul VD n CXR co co CO oo M
„souk, CITY OF SHAKOPEE44,
//
129 East First Elvenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
`;
MEMO
TO: John Anderson, City Administrator
FROM• Larry Martin, City Assessor
SUBJECT: Vehicle #205
DATE: April 24, 1981
Introduction:
This memo is in regard to paragraph 5 of the City Vehicle
Policy where it discusses the taking home of City vehicles.
Background:
At present vehicle #205 is assigned to me. However, because
I am not a City resident , the car remains behind City Hall
overnight. I think this is a problem for 2 reasons:
(1 ) Security and ( 2) maintenance.
Problem #1 is self-explanatory. Problem #2 stems -from the
multiple users of the car; cleanliness is the main area of
concern. It is quite difficult to clean a car adequately in
presentable office clothing during office hours. However, if
the car would be taken home, it is only logical than an employee
would take care of this matter in exchange for the privilege
and I believe this would carry over into other maintenance
aspects.
Alternatives:
I believe the solution would be to assign vehicle #205 to a
department head who is a City resident to take the car home
evenings. However, I would like #205 to remain under Assessing
as it ' s principle user because of the extensive use the vehicle
gets during the 25% re-inspection period.
Recommendation:
Assign #205 to a City resident Department Head to take home
evenings and keep it assigned to Assessing during office hours.
LDM:plk
� l
RESOLUTION NO . 1731
i A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR CLTY VEHICLES
WHEREAS , the Shakopee City Council has determined that it is
in the best interest of the City of Shakopee to provide city
vehicles for some city employees , mileage reimbursement for some
city employees and to provide monthly allowance for others , and
WHEREAS , the City Council desires to maintain as few city
vehicles as possible .
NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA , that the Shakopee City Council does
hereby adopt the City Vehicle Policy dated October 14th, 1980 ,
'• which shall be attached hereto and made a part hereof .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that Resolution No . 1511 is hereby
repealed in its entirety .
Adopted in adj . reg . session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee , Minnesota , held this 14th day of October , 1980 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST :
,S;4L6;,--
City C; rk
Approved as to form this Z day
•
of , 1980
•
City Corney
CITY VEHICLE POLICY
October 14 , 1980
" 1 . The following staff members have enough city use for a
vehicle that the assignment of a city car is warranted .
o City Engineer
o Building Inspector
o Street Superintendent
2 . The following departments have frequent need for a city
vehicle and should have access to a city car or be re-
imbursed for use of their own car when a city vehicle
is not available .
o Engineering Staff
o Assessing Staff
o HRA Staff
o Planning Staff
3 . The following departments should use a city vehicle if
available but primarily are to use their own vehicle
and be reimbursed by a mileage payment .
•
o Administration
• o Finance
4 . The City Administrator and Police Chief should be put on
a monthly car allowance .
M_
L-----5 . City _cars should be taken home (Shakopee only) in the
winter by employees assigned by the City Administrator
rather than left behind City Hall . Where possible
cars taken home should be put in a garage . `
f
6 . To carry out these policies the following would need to
be accomplished .
a . City Assessor would go from a monthly allowance to
using a city vehicle as needed .
b. The city would have to maintain at least the following
vehicles .
1 ) Car for City Engineer
2) Car for Building Inspector
3) Car for Public Works Director
4) One staff car in Engineering in winter and 2 in summer
5) One staff car for use by Assessing and Finance , Planning
and HRA
9
RECEIVED1
APR 2 4 1981
JULIUS A.GOLLER, II CITY OF SHAKOPEE
JULIUS A.COLLER ATTORNEY AT LAW 612-445-1244
1859-1940
2 1 1 WEST FIRST AVENUE
SIIAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
55379
April 23, 1981
Mr. John K. Anderson, City Administrator
Shakopee City Hall
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Mr. Anderson:
In December, 1979 the Council by Resolution #1533 authorized the institution
of a civil suit in Scott County Court against Donald B. Urness dba Don's
Mobile Homes for back rent in the amount of $400. Mr. Urness rented the
two rear rooms on the second floor of City Hall.
Suit, was instituted but Mr. Urness dba Don's Mobile Homes filed bankruptcy.
There are no assets, no possibility of collection and, while I don't think
this suit should be dismissed, there will be no recovery so we may as well
forget about it.
Enclosed is a statement covering money advanced by me.and, for the time
being, I am closing the file.
Very truly yours,
Julius A. Coller, II
Shakopee City Attorney
JAC/bpm
13
JULILS A.GOLLER, II
JULIUS A.COLLER ATTORNEY AT LAW 612-445-1244
1859-1940
2 1 1 WEST FIRST AVENUE
SIIAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
55329
April 10, 1981
Mr. John K. Anderson
City Administrator
City Hall
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Mr. Anderson:
You and I have had some discussion about what steps the City should take
concerning the abandoned right-of-way and subsequent sale thereof by the
Milwaukee Railroad to the Farmington-Shakopee Association, INc. and resale
by this corporation.
Railroad abandoned their right-of-way through Chaska serveral years ago
and I talked to Luke Melchert, City Attorney of Chaska, regarding this
and he said the City has done nothing. It has just handled the various
property acquisitions as they occurred and have considered that the vacated
right-of-way now attaches to the abutting lots and blocks through which the
right-of-way originally ran. This is much the situation that pervails in
Shakopee because the plat of the original city was filed prior to the rail-
road coming through. However, in the newer portions where the plat excluded
the railroad the requirement of platting the abandoned right-of-way might
be something to consider.
I also talked to Mike McGuire at Prior Lake and he indicated that the matter
was going before the Planning Commission but that the worst that they were
considering would involve rezoning and platting of the entire right-of-way
through Prior Lake.
Lakeville was also contacted but I couldn't get any information from there
and apparently there is nothing afoot for any action by Lakeville. This is
understandable because as I recall the track went down the street in Lakeville,
although I am not sure.
Farmington is taking no action because the main facilities of the Milwaukee
Road have not changed. The abandonment of the H & D division involves only
a few hundred feet of track.
So, it would seem any action by the City would only cover the area southeasterly
of Block 203 in the City.
If any further discussion of this matter would be helpful please call me.
Ve 1 cts;rs
Juli . . Coller, II
JAC/nh City Attorney
,0.,, CITY OF SHAKOPEE IV
-`5, / 4-f
it - .
129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
:
J<<�dAi�3t1i'`
MEMO
TO:
John Anderson-Administrator
•
FROM: Jim Karkanen - Public Wnrk
SUBJECT:Equipment rental rates
DATE: 4-29-81
The State of Minnesota pays a maximum of 30 . 00 per hour for
equipment rental for hauling snow on the Highway 101 R/W on First
Ave. The State will contribute payment toward loading the snow if
the City will truck it away. It is the States ' position that they will
be responsible for the center 48 ' fo the R/W, while the City is
responsible for the parking lanes and sidewalk snow deposit. For this
reason, the State considers removing snow on First Ave. as a joint
venture, rather than doing it for them as a contract. )
Two years ago, we proposed a higher rate to the State for equipment
rental than was offered, they refused to pay the higher rate because it
exceeded the payment made to other communities. We then had to offer
a rental rate which was consistent with payment made to surrounding
communities . At present, we are paid $30. 00 per hour for the grader and
loader while loading snow. We have, however, found ourselves to be
liberal with time spent loading snow for the State of Minnesota.
Chaska 27 . 50 per hour Grader
30 . 00 im uloader
. Jordan 25. 00 per hour grader
28. 50 " loader
Shakopee 30. 00 per hour grader
30. 00 " " loader -
Bloomington, Pr.ior. Lake, and Eden Prairie do not have snow removal contracts
The standard rate for hiring a grader or loader from a private
contractor is approx. 35 . 00 to 38 . 00 per hour (depending on the size of
the equipment involved. ) The City should not charge less than the
• contractors because we are not in competition with them to sell our
services. Our snowplow contractors charge us approx. 35. 00 to ,38 . 00 per hr.
4- -Lkslrx Ali- A/ , 114,1Ast) VA, /1e irAM/117.0)4t;
rental rates P. 2
(rental rates of other communities)
Chaska 35 . 00 per hour Grader
35 . 00 " Loader
Jordan No rate structure
Prior Lake 38 . 00 per hour Grader
Eden Prairie 38 . 00 per hour Grader
35. 00 " Loader
Shakopee 38. 00 per hour Grader
38 . 00 " " Loader
RECEIVED
IIII APR 2919 1
IIII CITY OF SHAKOPEE
uuu league of minnesota cities
April 27, 1981
TO: All Members (c/o Mayors, Managers, Clerks)
SUBJECT: 1982 Nominations for Board of Directors
On behalf of the Nominating Committee I would like to request your advice in proposing
candidates for the Board of Directors for the League of Minnesota Cities.
The Board positions that expire June, 1981 , are: John Fedo, Mayor, Duluth; Orvil
Johnson, City Manager, Mendota Heights; Ken Yager, Mayor, Minnetonka; Steven Perkins,
Mayor, Pipestone.
The officers of the League of Minnesota Cities, the President and Vice-President, are
elected annually. Those positions are now filled by: Mayor George Latimer of St. Paul
as President. Mayor Latimer assumed the presidency in January of 1980, due to the
resignation of D. J. Black, Mayor of Hutchinson. Mayor Vaughn Thorfinnson, Vice-President
assumed the vice-presidency in January, after Mayor Latimer assumed the presidency.
The Nominating Committee will work with the guidelines for Board representation, which
were developed as a result of the deliberations of past nominating committees. Those
guidelines appear on the reverse side of this letter. Enclosed, also, is a listing of
present board members and officers of the League.
The Nominating Committee has scheduled a meeting for May 28th and it would be helpful
to have your input. If you know of a city official who would be considered for
nomination, please give his or her name and a brief resume of qualifications to the
League staff or us. This communication can be as informal as you wish, a phone call is
all that is needed.
Our goal is to make sure that any good candidate is considered. Whether or not to let
an individual know that you are submitting his or her name, is, of course, up to you.
The Nominating Committee, however, makes it a practice to confirm the fact that an
individual is willing to serve before presenting his or her name to the Annual Conference,
On behalf of the Nominating Committee, I wish to thank you in advance for your help
and to assure you that all suggeYi'ns will be seriously considered.
Sincerely,
Bob Anderson,
Councilmember, International Falls,
Chairman, Nominating Committee
RA:HMS:cmt (OVER)
Encl :
300 hanover building, 480 cedar street, saint paul, minnesota 55101 C6123222-2861
Page 2
GUIDELINES
1 . Geographic and Population Size Representation
There has been a conscious effort to see that different parts of the
state are represented on the Board, as well as the different sizes of
cities that are among the League's constituency.
2. Twin Cities Area/Outstate Balance
While there are no specific seats on the Board reserved for Twin Cities
area or outstate members, it has been a consistent practice to maintain
a rough balance of Board members from these areas.
3. Elected/Appointed Balance
Traditionally both elected and appointed municipal officials have participated
in all aspects of the League's activities, including membership in the Board
of Directors. Although no specific number of seats on the Board are reserved
for elected as distinct from appointed officials, it as been a consistent
practice to have a majority of the Board composed of elected officials.
Furthermore, there has been some effort to provide an opportunity for a variety
of appointed officials (e.g. , clerks, city managers, attorneys, assessors, etc. )
to serve on the Board.
4. Rotation of Membership
In view of the fact that the League has more than 750 member cities any
individual who serves a full term on the Board is not normally considered
for another Board term. However, persons with Board experience are often
considered as potential officers.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND
OFFICERS OF LEAGUE 1980-1981 %
Terms of Office
President: George Latimer, Mayor, St. Paul
Elected by membership, June, 1980
Term expires June, 1981
Vice-President: Vaughn Thorfinnson, Mayor, Red Lake Falls
Elected by membership, June, 1980
Term expires, June, 1981
Directors: John Fedo, Mayor, Duluth
Appointed to fill term of Beaudin, January, 1980
Term expires, June, 1981
Orvil Johnson, City Manager, Mendota Heights
Elected by membership, June, 1878
Term to expire, June, 1981
Ken Yager, Mayor, Minnetonka
Appointed to fill term of Thorfinnson, January, 1980
Term to expire, June, 1981
Steven Perkins, Mayor, Pipestone
Appointed to fill term of Elam, August, 1980
Term to expire, June, 1981
Sue Edel", Council Member, Winona
• Elected by membership, June, 1979
Term to expire, June, 1982
Bonita Carlson, Assistant City Manager, Finance Director, Morris
Elected by membership, June, 1979
Term to expire, June, 1982
William Jokela, Clerk-Administrator, Sandstone
Elected by membership, June, 1979
Term to expire, June, 1982
June Demos, Mayor, Roseville
Elected by membership to fill unexpired term of
Gerald Weyrens, June, 1980
Term to expire, June, 1982
Robert Anderson, Council Member, International Falls
Elected by membership, June, 1980
Term expires, June, 1983
Walter Rockenstein, Alderman , Minneapolis
Elected by membership, June, 1980
Term to expire, June, 1983
Ann Roseland, City Clerk, Ham Lake
Elected by membership, June, 1980
Term to expire, June, 1983
•
(OVER)
Adrian Herbst, Council Member, Bloomington
Elected by membership, June, 1980
Term to expire, June, 1983
Ex-Officio: Richard Asleson, Administrator, Apple Valley
President of Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
June, 1980
Term expires, June, 1981
Vacant: LMC Immediate Past President, June, 1980
Term expires, June, 1981
8/25/80
-.APR.2`3 Mt
I (:)
______to SharkeyRealty, nc.
311 a+6 East Main Street 758-4456 or Mpls. 445-5499
New Prague, Minnesota
56071 RECEIVED
APR 2.7 1981
April 21 , 1981
CITY OF 3MAXOPEE
Harold LeVander, Jr.
LeVANDER, GILLEN, MILLER & MAGNUSON
Attorneys at Law
633 South Concord Street
South St. Paul, MN 55075
Phillip R. Krass
KRASS, MEYER & KANNING
Attorneys at Law 1
1221 Fourth Avenue East
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Sirs:
I am in receipt of a letter dated March 25, 1981 signed by
Harold LeVander, Jr. indicating some negotiations were
taking place in regard to the matter of the City of Shakopee
vs. Minnesota Valley Electric Co-op.
Please be advised if the counsels in this matter do not have
the issue completely resolved by May 10, 1981 , then the
commissioners will proceed to schedule hearings.
Sincerely,
(-1C
<� Lj_, I
Edwin Sharkey, Chairman
ES / mm
cc: Ray Siebenaler:.
Ray Joachium
RECEIVED 17
ROBERT J. SCHMITZ APR 16 1981
Senator 36th District
Route#1
Jordan, Minnesota 55352 �•�/ OF �► OPEC
Office: j , Senate
235 State Capitol
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Phone: (612)296-7157 State of Minnesota
April 14 , 1981
Mr. John K. Anderson
City Administrator
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee , Minnesota 55379
Dear John :
Thank you for informing me of the Shakopee City Council ' s
position on the sale of wine in grocery stores and the
establishment of one class of beer.
There has not been a bill introduced in either the House
of Representatives or the Senate which would allow the
sale of wine in grocery stores . Although this subject has
been receiving quite a bit of publicity , no bill has ever
been presented .
H . F. 1288 , which would establish one class of beer , had
been introduced in the House of Representatives . Unfortunate-
ly , a hearing date was not scheduled for this bill and because
the deadline for hearing bills in committee has passed , no
further action will be taken on this piece of legislation .
Thanks for the input , John . Should you have further comments
or questions , feel free to give me a call .
Sincerely,
ROBERT J . SCHMITZ
Chairman
Senate Veterans ' Affairs Committee
RJS/st
COMMITTEES • Chairman, Veterans Affairs • Rules & Administration • Transportation •
Taxes& Tax Laws • Elections& Reapportionment
U;
105
THOMAS{� T L. HENNEN
SCOTT COUNTY AUDITOR 'fr„ rt' ''"`"'14� 'r.
irk
4i COURT HOUSE 102 °°` "'
F
SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 (612)-445-7750, Ext. 160
' . APR 161981
Deputy Auditor April 15, 1981 CITY OF SHAKOPEE
THOMAS LANNON
(Ext.168)
Divisions of: City of Shakopee
Taxation 129 E. 1st
ALLEN STICHA City Hall
(Ext.172) Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
GARY McKIVER
(Ext. 167) Subject: Notice of Claim Against
Licensing Public Contractor
JEFF SNYDER
CRYSTALZDENEK Scott CO. Claim NO. 148
(Ext. 171)
Elections Dear Sir:
MARY KAY KES
(Ext.160) Enclosed you will find a claim filed by M. L. Culhane, representing
Internal Audit Northland Electric Supply Co. This is in accordance with the
RAYVYSKOCIL provisions of Sections 57 +.31 & 57+.32 of Minnesota Statutes.
(Ext.160)
The above notice was filed in this office on April 13, 1981 .
Thomas L. Hennen
Scott County Auditor
r(a/k/V77( d/0- /
Deputy
CC: M. L. Culhane
Shak-O-Valley Amateur Hockey, Inc.
TLH/AJS/mkk
Enclosure
An Equal Opportunity Employer
y A0 : K , .1. .4
THOMAS L. H EN N EN
t.A. SCOTT COUNTY AUDITOR
COURT HOUSE 102•
SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 (612)-445-7750, Ext. 160
Deputy Auditor April 15, 1981
THOMAS LANNON
(Ext.168)
Divisions of:
Taxation Shak-O-Valley Amateur Hockey, Inc.
ALLEN STICHA Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
(Ext.172)
GARY McKIVER Subject: Notice of Claim Against
(Ext. 167) Public Contractor
Licensing Scott Co. Claim No. 148
JEFF SNYDER
CRYSTAL ZDENEK Dear Sir:
(Ext. 171)
Elections Enclosed you will find a claim filed by M. L. Culhane representing
MARY KAY KES Northland Electric Supply Co. This is in accordance with the
(Ext.iso) provisions of Sections 574.31 & 574.32 of Minnesota Statutes.
Internal Audit
RAYCIL
(Ext.t. 160) The above notice was filed in this office on April 13, 1981 .
160)
Thomas L. Hennen
Scott County Auditor
Deputy
CC: M. L. Culhane
Ly of Shakopee
Enclosure
TLH/AJS/mkk
•
•
An Equal Opportunity Employer
LAW OFFICES
CULHANE CULHANE (((
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS
1015-16-17 500 LINE BUILDING
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
M.E. CULHANE TELEPHONES
1906-1959 332-1650
332-1929
M. L. CULHANE AREA CODE 512
E.C U L H A N E
M. J.
CULHANE
April 10, 1931
Scott County Auditor
428 South Holmes °QAC �`�;";'
Courthouse j
Shakopee, i'N 55379 1n
Re: Owner : City of Shakopee
Courthouse
428 South Holmes
Shakopee, MN 55379
Lessee: Shak-o-Valley Amateur Hockey, Inc.
Shakopee, MN 55379
Project: Construction of Shakopee Ice Arena, Lions
Park, Shakopee, MN
C Claimant: Northland Electric Supply Co.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that this office, on behalf of
supplier Northland Electric Supply Co. at 521 South Tenth
Street, Minneapolis, MN 55440 , a supplier of Associated
Mechanical Contractors, Inc. on the above project has
furnished building materials to said contractor, which
were incorporated in the Shakopee Ice Arena.
The first date on which such materials were supplied
was October 1, 1980 and the last date materials were
supplied was January 30, 1981.
As a result of the sale and delivery of materials
for the above project and the failure of the owner to re-
quire a bond, required and provided for by Minn. Stat.
S574 . 26, the owner is indebted to claimant in the amount
of $9, 089. 33 together with finance charges accruing at the
rate of 2% per month on the outstanding indebtedness.
CU LH AN E LAW Fl R M
Scott County Auditor
April 10, 1981
Page 2
You are hereby given notice of claim against the above
described project and the owner for said balance together
with accruing finance charges and reasonable attorneys ' fees
incurred and to be incurred in pursuit of its claim pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes.
This notice is being sent via Certified Mail .
Very truly yours ,
CULHANE & CULHAME
By:
MLC:cmc
Balancing
Resources and Services
in the 80 's
L,eague4Annual Cvnferenc June 9=12 ,auk
Whether you agree that the quotation "These are PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS
the best of times, these are the worst of times" Mini-Conference
is an accurate assessment of the early 1980's, The one-day program featuring nuts and bolts
there is no question that the times are making topics of special value for smaller cities has
difficult demands upon cities. Proposed federal been moved to Thursday. This offers
and state cuts combined with double-digit participants the opportunity to enjoy the
inflation are tipping the scales severely, requiring exhibits, Table Talk, the League's
that new skills be mastered quickly to maintain reception/banquet, and to attend the Annual
the precarious balance between dwindling Meeting, all scheduled on that day.
resources and increasing service demands.
Briefings and Workshops
As you will note by the conference schedule, this The conference has been designed to
year's conference committee has responded to accommodate the dual need for briefings
this problem, focusing on the most vital and presenting information updates on specific
timely topics of interest to cities of all sizes. topics as well as intensive workshops focusing
Three-plus days are packed with practical on new tools and techniques to apply back in
workshops, important updates, problem-solving your community. Thus, participants can
opportunities, and personal development sessions, choose to pursue overviews of a wide range
as well as fun times to relax and regenerate. of subjects or concentrate on several major
Bring your colleagues, your spouse, and your content areas. Large blocks of time will be
dancing shoes to St. Paul June 9-12 to take devoted to the Financial Condition of Cities;
advantage of a wealth of expertise and a host of Personnel and Labor Relations; A Look to the
exciting events! Future of Energy, Housing, and Transportation;
Cable TV; City Council Procedures; Public
Safety Issues.
TUESDAY EVENING KICKOFF New Format
Because delegates are encouraged to come
Kathryn Barrington, one of the top speakers for the Tuesday evening program, the
of the Twin Cities and beyond, carries on the conference will end earlier on Friday than in
tradition of a Tuesday evening kickoff so recent years. The finale — a brunch featuring
successfully established at last year's a nationally known speaker — will adjourn at
conference. Her topic, Increasing Personal 12:30 p.m. Several affiliate associations have
Effectiveness — with Peers, Employees, and plans to meet following the brunch.
the Public, will be valuable for city officials, SPECIAL EVENTS
staff, and spouses alike. Learn proven
techniques for handling the frustrated or St. Paul City Night — Wednesday, June 10
opinionated person, promoting a positive city Stroll through cascading waterfalls and luscious
image, defining and changing your role in greens right in the heart of downtown St.
various groups and meetings, understanding Paul as the city hosts conference participants
language and its effects, and more. Plan to to a lively reception in the new multi-level
spend an enlightening two hours from 7:00 to Town Square development. In addition, Mayor
9:00 p.m. and then socialize with others at George Latimer promises families plenty of
the reception which follows. entertainment options from which to choose.
April 1981
9
/ `�
League of Cities Reception/Banquet — of the evening will be a musical look at the
Thursday, June 11 life and times of typical city officials in a
This year the League Reception had so much typical city hall in Minnesota. (The names will
to offer, we had to expand it into a banquet! be changed to protect the innocent.) The
Complete with cocktails, dinner, dancing, and League is pleased to have the outstanding
the Ludwig Awards, this event is worth noting musical talents of Philip Brunelle, Janis Hardy,
on your calendar immediately. The highlight and Vern Sutton for this occasion.
Preliminary Program Outline
(Final program listing will appear in May issue)
Tuesday, June 9 Administrative Oversight of the
5:00 - Registration Franchise
8:00 p.m. Reprogramming of Franchise Funds
7:00 p.m. SPECIAL KICK-OFF PROGRAM 3:30 - TABLE TALK in Exhibit Area
Increasing Personal Effectiveness 5:30 p.m.
— With Peers, Employees, and 6:00 p.m. CITY NIGHT RECEPTION
the Public Sponsored by City of St. Paul in
9:00 p.m. RECEPTION/Cash Bar Town Square
Wednesday, June 10
8:00 a.m. - EXHIBITS Open
5:00 p.m.
Thursday, June 11
8:00 a.m. Registration opens
Mini-Conference Day Program
and General Conference
9:00 a.m. OPENING SESSION Program
Welcome
Continental Breakfast 8:00 a.m. - EXHIBITS Open
Keynote Address 6:00 p.m.
8:00 a.m. Registration Opens
10:45 a.m. - THREE CONCURRENT SESSIONS 8:00 - TABLE TALK in Exhibit Area
12:15 p.m. Labor Relations and Personnel 11:00 a.m.
New Personnel Rules 9:00 - THREE CONCURRENT SESSIONS
Workers' Compensation 10:55 a.m. City Council Procedures
A Look to the Future Meeting Procedures
Tax-Exempt Bonding Goal Setting
Industrial Revenue Bonds Council Liability
Legislative Update Open Meeting Law
Making the Job More Fun!
Liquor Store Merchandising and
12:15 LUNCHEON in Exhibit Area Management
Sales Promotion/Advertising
1:30 - THREE CONCURRENT SESSIONS Know Your Competition
5:00 p.m. Labor Relations and Personnel Purchasing Techniques
Pay Plans Inventory
Strike Plans Recent Legislation
Negotiation Guidelines Financial Condition of Cities
A Look to the Future Local Government Aid
Energy, Housing, and Transportation Cash Flow
Cable TV Special Assessments
Awarding the Franchise Budget Formats
Community Program Options Enterprise Funds
10 MINNESOTA CITIES
1 CI11:00 a.m. City Council Procedures
11:55 a.m. (Continued)
Financial Condition of Cities
(Continues to 11:30 a.m.) Splinter Group Breaks
Maintenance of MunicipalAway y League
ImprovementsFrom ea ue
- Streets
Water Systems
Sewer Systems The following article is based on a letter
12:00 noon MAYORS ASSOCIATION/ sent by League of Minnesota Cities Executive
MINI-CONFERENCE LUNCHEON Director Donald A. Slater to all Minnesota
(all conference participants are city mayors, managers, and clerks in early
invited) March. It explains the circumstances
Affiliate Association Luncheons surrounding the decision of the Minnesota
1:45 - THREE CONCURRENT SESSIONS League of Small Cities (MLOSC) to disaffiliate
3:00 p.m. Legislative Update for Small Cities from the League of Minnesota Cities because
Joint Powers and Shared Services of the MLOSC Board's disagreement with the
Effective Purchasing and Cost-Cutting League of Minnesota Cities' position on the
Techniques local government aid formula. It also explains
3:30 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES the reasons the League has not supported the
5:00 p.m. ANNUAL MEETING MLOSC proposal to change the formula.
6:30 p.m. LMC RECEPTION/BANQUET
C.C. Ludwig Awards The Board of Directors of the Minnesota League
Entertainment of Small Cities (MLOSC) has voted to drop affiliation
Frida with the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC). The
y, June 12 resolution was passed on February 23, 1981, effective
8:00 a.m. Registration Opens immediately, and has been accepted by the LMC
8:45 - THREE CONCURRENT SESSIONS Board of Directors. Members of the MLOSC Board
9:45 a.m. Public Safety Issues of Directors present were Matt Kapsch, Mayor,
Hazardous Waste Babbitt (President, MLOSC); Willard Vetter, Mayor,
911 Skyline; Mel Kaasa, Mayor, Lake Crystal; Milt
Data Privacy Arneson, Mayor, Roseau; Lois Johnson, former
Mayor, Badger; and Joyce Griebel, City Clerk-
Selected Assessment Issues Treasurer, Eagle Lake. All voted in favor of the
Deferred Assessments resolution to sever affiliation with LMC.
Large Capital Expenditures
The decision by MLOSC to drop its affiliation
9:55 - Public Safety Issues stems from its intention to pursue legislative changes
10:55 a.m. City's Responsibility in Fire in the local government aid formula. LMC's official
Protection policy, adopted at the annual meeting in Duluth last
Personnel Selection June and reaffirmed by the LMC Board of Directors,
OSHA Safety Requirements is that LMC will oppose any change in the formula
Planning, Financing, and Legal unless that change has been approved through LMC's
Considerations policy development process. Guidelines for affiliated
organizations prohibit them from lobbying for
Personal Development positions contrary to LMC policy.
Computer Information Systems In November 1980, a special League committee on
11:00 a.m. WRAP-UP BRUNCH Local Government Aid asked MLOSC for suggestions
on proposals for the state aid formula as it applies
Featured Speaker. Sponsored by to cities with populations under 2,500 only. In
Minnesota Women in City
Government January, MLOSC presented to the committee a
formula which would apply to all cities. MLOSC's
proposed formula would allocate state aid to each
April 1981 11
.0 1 0 1 °
tip
' REGION V REGION V CITIZENS COUNCIL INC.
CITIZENS(COUNCIL 1307 So. Wabash Ave. » Chicago, Illinois 6060 »»r(312) 922-4635
p A CHARTERED AFFILIATE MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL CITIZENS P cE � CPQ)
0 COMMUNITY meee...o���....
�o DEV ELOPMENTEa-
To SFN,c' cv`•
��1DIA�16 CONFFRFNC?�, ANNOUNCEMENT APF 221981
CITY OF..HAKop
TO : Citizens , Community Development Offices ,
EXECUTIVE BOARD OFFICERS Community action Agencies of the St . Paul
N.Ray Jones,Chairman and Minneapolis Area
Toledo,Ohio
FROM: N . Ray Jones , Chairman
Elizabeth Wair, 1st Vice Chairman
East St. Louis,Illinois Region V Citizens Council , Inc .
Arnold Smith,2nd Vice Chairman The Region •V Citizens Council will conduct its 1981
Banton Harbor,Michigan Spring Conference June 5-7 , 1981, at the Radisson St .
A.L. Smith,3rd Vice Chairman Paul Potel, 11 East Kellogg Blvd , in St . Paul Minnesota .
Chicago, Illinois We are a chartered affiliate of the National Citizens
Shirley Houseworth,Secretary Participation Council , Inc . , which is dedicated to in-
Highland Park,Michigan creasing citizens effectiveness in that State and local
community through workshops and training seminars . You
Wilma Bennett,Assistant Secretary
Flint,Michigan are welcome to attend our conference . We are going to
have some very interesting speakers and workshops .
Eugene Loyd,Treasurer
Lansing,Michigan
Since you are in the local area , a registration fee of
Ruby Flemons.Assistant Treasurer $20. 00 has been established by the Eoard of Directors .
Chicago,Illinois In order that we may know how many will attend the
Solomon Crane,Parliamentarian conference you are requested to pre-register by May 25 ,
Dayton,Ohio 1081 . Checks and/or money orders he made payable to
George Hill, Public Relations the Region V Citizens Council , Inc and mailed t o :
Highland Park,Michigan
Region V Citizens Council , Inc .
George Davis,Sergeant-at-Arms
1307 South Wabash Avenue
Highland Park,Michigan
Chicago , Illinois 606n.5
Victoria Gibson,Senior Citizen Chairman
East St.Louis,Illinois The registration fee includes the banquet on Saturday
night and the Senior Citizens Breakfast on Sunday .
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR So join us - we will be looking forward to seeing you .
Charlotte K. Mock Send your registration form in today .
Please give this conference your immediate attention .
Please join us , we welcome you :
•
r•;,,,,-! n'F.,I i-. ,A -r..n n/ Amnrira
-1'
REGION V CITIZENS COUNCIL 11th ANNUAL CONFERENCE
RADISSON AT . PAUL HOTEL
ST . PAUL, MINNESOTA
June 5-7 , 1981
PRE-REGISTRATION FORM
REGION V CITIZENS COUNCIL, INC. , Annual Conference Fee is $35 . 00
pr person . Please make all checks payable to Region V Citizens
Council, Inc . Send check or money order to:
Region V Citizens Council
1307 South Wabash
Chicago, Illinois 60605
Please print or type
NAME:
ADDRESS :
CITY: STATE : ZIP CODE :
AGENCY OR ORGANIZATION:
ADDRESS :
CITY: STATE: ZIP CODE:
TITLE TO APPEAR ON CONFERENCE BADGE:
WORKSHOP DESIRED :
REGION V SPRING CONFERENCE
TENTATIVE AGENDA
THEME: LET YOUR VOICE EF HEARD
Thursday, June 4 , 1981
8 : 00 P .M. - 10: 00 P .M. Committee Meeting
Friday, June 5, 1981
9 : 00 A.M. - 12 : 00 Noon Committee Meetings
12 : 00 Noon - 7 : 00 P .M. Registration
2 : 00 P.M. - 4 : 00 P .M. Board of Director ' s Meeting
7 : 00 P .M . - 9 : 00 P .M. Opening Session
9 : 00 P .M. - Until Get Acquainted Hour
Saturday, June 6, 1981
8 : 00 A.M. - 1: 00 P .M. Registration
9 : 00 A.M. - 10 : 00 A.M. General Session
10: 00 A.M . - 12 : 30 P .M . Workshops
12 : 30 P .M. - 1: 45 P .M . Lunch
1: 45 P .M . - 4 : 00 P.M. Workshops
4 : 00 P .M . - 5 : 00 P .M. ' Workshop Wrap-Ups
6 : 30 P .M. - 7 : 30 P.M. Reception
7: 30 P .M . - 8: 30 P.M. Banquet
8 : 30 P .M. - 9: 30 P.m . Program
Sunday, June 7 , 1981
8 : 00 A.M. - 9 : 00 A.M. Senior Citizens Breakfast
9: 00 A .M . - 10: 00 A .M . Senior Citizens Program
10: 00 A.M . - 12 : 00 Noon Closing Session
WORKSHOPS
1 . Developmental Disabilities
2 . Energy
3 . CDBG-Build Kit I and II
4 . Community Development
i
MINUTES OF THE
SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
(Regular Meeting)
The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in regular session on
April 6, 1981 at 4:30 P.M. in the Utilities meeting room.
Commissioner Bishop offered a prayer for divine guidance in the deliberations
of the Commission.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Bishop, Nolting and Reinke. Also Superinten-
dent Leaveck, Manager Van Hout and Secretary Menden.
Motion by Nolting, seconded by Reinke that the minutes from the March 2, 1981
regular meeting and March 9, 1981 and March 29, 1981 special meetings be approved
as Kept. Motion carried.
BILLS READ:
Citizens State Bank 60,000.00
City of Shakopee 20,032.00
Air Comm, Inc. 65.50
American Public Power Association 846.47
Auto Central Supply Co. 32.29
B & B Transformer 2,060.00
Border States Electric 6,138.00
Burmeister Electric Co. 96.91
Burroughs Corporation 741.60
Burroughs Corporation 312.29
Burroughs Corporation 1,479.20
Capesius Agency, Inc. 1,737.99
Chanhassen Lawn and Sports 122.55
City of Shakopee 2,248.38
Clay's Printing 135.73
Dressen Oil Co. 211.74
Dunnings Hardware 34.57
Feed Rite Controls 588.59
General Electric Co. 6,613.00
Graybar Electric Supply 443.51
H & C Electric Supply 776.91
Hach Chemical Co. 34.68
Harmon Glass and Glazing Inc. 137.28
Mary Henderson 25.46
Krass, Meyer and Kanning 253.00
Leef Bros. , Inc. 27.96
Vince Marschall 58.90
Millipore Corporation 141.34
Motor Parts Service 225.63
Northern States Power Co. 528.20
Northern States Power Co. 705.48
Northern States Power Co. 135,158.22
Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 180.24
Peat Marwtck Mitchell and Co. 6,000.00
Power 11.00
Power Process Equipment, Inc. 56.02
Power Quip, Inc. 25.61
H J Ring Fire Extinguisher 29.50
Road Machinery and Supplies 198.99
Terry Roquette 18.05
Scott County Sheriffs Office 370.76
Sears Roebuck and Co. 330.52
Serco Laboratories 28.00
Shakopee Floral 26.00
Shakopee Lumber Co. 21.94
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission 132.83
Shakopee Services 18.00
Shakopee Valley News 168.45
Shive Hattery and Associates 2,500.00
Software Consultants 360.00
Starks Cleaning Services 25.95
Suel Business and Equipment 239.93
United Compucred Collections, Inc. 225.00
Valley Industrial Propane, Inc. 9.65 •
Viking Steel PRODUCTS Inc. 14.50
Wesco 880.47
Burroughs Corporation 717.72
Motion by Reinke, seconded by Nolting that the bills be allowed and ordered
paid. Motion carried.
Mr. Ken Adolf, from Schoell and Madsen was present to present exterior designs
for the new pumphouse #6. A discussion followed on the type of design desired on the
new pumphouse. It was the concensus of the Commission to have a brick exterior for
a relatively maintenance free design use. The bids on Well #6 are due April 10, 1981.
A discussion was heldon specifications for Well #5 rehabilitation bids.
Motion by Nolting, seconded by Reinke to authorize for letting of bids for
the rehabilitation of Well 415. Motion carried. The bids will be considered
April 27, 1981 at a special Shakopee Public Utilities Commission meeting.
The Highway 101 watermain feasibility report was discussed. A supplement
to the feasibility report was to have been received before the meeting.
Motion by Reinke, seconded by Nolting to approve the feasibility report
for the Hwy 101 watermain project with the understanding that the report had not
been received prior to the meeting time and the approval is given so as not to
hold up the project. In the future no approval will be given without the report
being seen first. Motion carried.
Manager Van Hout presented an update on the portion to be paid by the Shakopee
Public Utilities Commission for the Holmes St. project and of a meeting on the matter
with the City Administrator and City Engineer. The $16,000.00 amount is for the
watermain between 4th and 5th Avenues and for Miscellaneous extra work done at
the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission request. Motion by Nolting, seconded by
Reinke to authorize the payment of $16,100.00 to the City of Shakopee as the
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission portion of the Holmes St. project. Motion
carried.
A different type of billing format was presented by Manager Van Hout for comment.
The billing format will be looked into further.
The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission workmens compensation insurance was
discussed. Motion by Reinke, seconded by Nolting that the Shakopee Public Utilities
Commission reaffirm our position as far as the workmens compensation insurance with
Transamerica Co. at this point and time and to continue with City policy with workmens
compensation insurance. Motion carried.
Motion by Reinke, seconded by Nolting to advertise for bids for transformers needed.
Motion carried.
The cost of service calls due to the customers own electrical problem -was brought
up. A resolution will be drafted to charge for this type of occurance.
Motion by Nolting, seconded by Reinke that the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission
wants to go on record stating that we would not encourage using a 3/4" water line to split
off to feed two units, but if at all possible each unit should have their own 3/4"
line if it is built new a 1" line if they plan on making it a duplexed lot. Motion
carried.
Mr. Dean Colligan arrived to request the loan of some of the tables owned by
the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission for the senior citizens building.
Next special meeting date is to be on April 27, 1981 at 4:30 P.M.
The next regular meeting of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission will be on
May 4, 1981 at 4:30 P.M.
Motion by Reinke, seconded by Nolting that the meeting be adjourned. Motion
carried.
42.44,1"-‘74-
Lou Va flout, Manager
MINUTES OF THE
SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
(Special Session)
The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in special session
on April 27, 1981 at 4:30 PM in the Utilities meeting room.
Commissioner Bishop offered a prayer for divine guidance in the deliberations
of the Commission.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Bishop, Nolting and Reinke. Also Superintendant
Leaveck, and Manager Van Hout and Ken Adolf of Schoell & Madsen, Inc.
Motion by Reinke, seconded by Nolting that the minutes from the April 6, 1981
regular meeting be approved as kept. Motion carried.
A communication from City Clerk, Judy Cox, was acknowledged.
Ken Adolf presented a bid tabulation for development of Well #5.
Motion by Nolting, seconded by Reinke to award the bid for the rehabilitation
of Well %3` to E. H. Renner and Sons, Inc. in the amount of $17,988.00. Motion
carried.
Motion by Nolting, seconded by Reinke to offer Resolution #228 - A Resolution
approving an Improvement, Approving plans and specifications, and designating a
project Engineer Water Supply No. 6 City of Shakopee Contract No. 81-1 KT. Ayes:
Commissioners Bishop, Nolting, Reinke. Nayes: none. Resolution passed.
Motion carried.
Motion by Reinke, seconded by Nolting to offer Resolution #229 - A Resolution
to concur with Shakopee City Council in Water Supply Well No. 6 Contract No.
81-1 KT. Ayes: Commissioners Bishop, Nolting, Reinke. Nayes: none. Resolution
passed. Motion carried.
An update was given on the status of the Co Rd. 16-83 Watermain Project
and the watertank. The new watermain should be complete in about 2 weeks time.
City Administrator John Anderson and City Engineer Bo Spurrier arrived to
discuss the BluffAvenue Watermain Project between Dakota and Halo 1st. Addition.
The City Engineer presented a memo on the subject. A discussion followed.
The City Engineer stated that a 4-plea_ building pxoperlycanstructed could be built
in 'this 'area.withottt pittting' in a cross-tie 'from First Avenue to;Bluff 'ori Prairie. Street,
but that a 6-plex would be cost prohibitive without the cross-tie. Specific numbers
were: 800 GPM available with the proposed 8 inch main connected at both ends to the
existing watermains at the corner of Bluff and Dakota, and at the West line of Halo
1st. Addition. With the addition of the cross-tie between Bluff and 1st. Avenue
there would be 1,500 GPM available. It was emphasized that these flows were
calculated to be available during maximum water usage on the system.
After the discussion the consensus of the Commission was that they would
stay with their previous position. The City Engineer was asked if he felt that
the construction of a watermain to supply the 800 GPM figure was workable. He
stated that it was, as long as the fact that it was 800 GPM was brought out at the
public hearing.
SII
l
The consensus of the Commission was that if the City Engineer will certify
that 800 GPM will be available, and if development in the area requires no more
water than 800 GPM, then this is what they will approve.
The City Engineer stated that he will certify the 800 GPM figure.
Motion by Reinke, seconded by Molting to award low bid contract' to Westing-
house Electric Supply Co. in the amount of $20,436.84 for specified transformers.
Motion carried.
Motion by Nolting, seconded by Reinke to award Border States Electric a
contract for specified transformers in the amount of $31,332.00. Motion carried.
Motion by Molting, seconded by Reinke to leave it up to the discretion of
the Utility manager to buy extra transformers if the company will provide
them at the designated price on individual purchase orders. Motion carried.
Bill Price and Dan Johnson of Suburban Engineering Co. arrived to discuss
the Highway 101 Watermain Project.
A discussion followed on the specifics of the job and on the administration
of the project by the Utility Commission on the behalf of the City of Shakopee.
Bill Price stated that Suburban has a contract with the City of Shakopee and he
considers the Utility Commission to be a part of the City and he has no problem
with handling any project in the way he is now directed with the Utilities
Commission doing the administration.
Motion by Reinke, seconded by Molting that Art Young take the State Health
Department class offered. Motion carried.
Motion by Molting, seconded by Reinke to contract with Pfeifer and Schultz
for engineering work in the negotiations over the condemnation proceedings.
Motion carried.
Motion by Reinke, seconded by Molting that the Manager be instructed to meet .
with City Attorney Rod Krass to investigate and further study the hydro-electric
feasibility and to progress with the Doe Loan Application up until the point of
the actual signing of the loan agreement itself. Motion carried.
Motion by Reinke, seconded by Nolting that the meeting be adjourned.
a ger, Lou Van Flout
PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APRIL 9, 1981
Chrm. Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with Comm. Perusich, Rockne,
Koehnen, Sloltzman, Vierling and Coller present. Also present were Cncl. Colligan;
Don Steger, City Planner and John K. Anderson, City Admr.
Perusich/Vierling moved to approve the minutes of March 21, 1981 as kept. Motion
carried unanimously.
Public Hearing - Strehlow Conditional Use Permit (PC 81-8C):
Koehnen/Rockne moved to open the public hearing on the conditional use permit request
for a nursery school in basement apartment section of home. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner informed the Commission that the applicant was present and that the
location of the home is 3059 Hauer Trail, and that the nursery school is intended for
15-20 children.
The applicant stated the nursery school would be operated with the Shakopee school
schedule.
John Nelson, 3043 Hauer Trail, asked if this wasn't turning a residential area into
commercial business. The City Planner read the ordinance allowing this type of busi-
ness in a residential area. Mr. Nelson commented that allowing a business in a re-
sidential area seemed to be against what the City is trying to do to revitalize its
downtown area. He also inquired about tax structure in this case.
The City Admr. answered that from his experience he has seen homeowners who have lost
their homestead credit for that portion of the home used for the business.
Mrs. Gene Hauer asked if 20 children would always be the limit allowed in the home.
The applicant explained that State rules required one adult for every 10 children,
and Chrm. Schmitt related that the ordinance allowed only one outside adult teacher,
so therefore 20 would be the limit of the number of children.
Mr. Gene Hauer asked about the time period for the CUP, and Chrm. Schmitt stated that
some previously approved Conditional Use Permits were required to be renewed every
year for the first three years, with an extended period after that if no problems arose.
Coller/Vierling moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Coller/Rockne offered Conditional Use Permit No. Resolution No. 271 to operate a
nursery school in an R-2 Zone, and moved for its adoption, subject to the following:
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 a.m. to Noon, Monday
through Thursday.
5. The nursery school be licensed by the State of Minnesota prior to operation.
6. The maximum number of students is 20.
7. The conditional use be reviewed after qne year in operation.
Motion carried unanimously.
Shakopee Planning Commission
April 9, 1981
Page 2
Public Hearing - Preliminary and Final Plat, Link's 3rd Addition
(PC 81-5P)
Rockne/Perusich moved to open the public hearing on the preliminary and final plat
of Link's '3rd Addition. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner explained that this plat consists of the replatting of four vacant
lots to provide realignment and to incorporate the vacated Prairie Street. A clari-
fication was made on the request for common utility trenches, with individual utility
lines.
The applicant was present and stated he was in agreement with all of the conditions
outlined except for the postponed construction agreement for a sidewalk; he would
like to put the sidewalk in right away rather than waiting with it.
The City Admr. stated the long term effect of putting in a sidewalk now could be ex-
plored between now and the City Council meeting at which this will be presented.
LeRoy Weiers asked for clarification of the placement of the sidewalk and was answered
that it would only be placed in front of this property being platted.
Koehnen/Stoltzman moved to recommend to the City Council Preliminary and Final
Plat approval of Link's 3rd Addition, subject to the following conditions:
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.
Motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing - Preliminary and Final Plat of Case 1st Addition - J.I. Case Company
(PC 81-6P)
Coller/Vierling moved to open the public hearing on the preliminary and final plat
of Case 1st Addition. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner explained that the use of this property has already been determined,
and this hearing is only for approval of the plat.
The applicant was represented and had no problem with the conditions as outlined.
Coller/Perusich moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Coller/Stoltzman moved to recommend to the City Council Preliminary and Final
Plat approval of Case 1st Addition, subject to the following conditions:
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
5) That all conditions of the previously approved Conditional Use Permit
Resolution No. 268, remain in effect:
" Shakopee Planning Commission
April 9, 1981
Page 3
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
Motion carried unanimously
Public Hearing - Sullivan/O'Sickey Conditional Use Permit (PC 81-9C):
Perusich/Vierling moved to open the public hearing for a request for a Conditional
Use Permit for the operation of a game room center in a B-3 (Central Business)
Zone. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner elaborated that this proposed game room would be located in the
former Ben Franklin building, located at 112 Lewis and the proposed use will be
primarily teenagers. The Planner presented several concerns, foremost of which was
lack of provision for bicycles and the noise and litter effects on surrounding
businesses and residences.
The owners stated they would be hiring supervisors and did not foresee themselves
as being actively involved in supervision. They also stated they expected a maximum
of 50 patrons. They explained their idea of providing bicycle racks in a 3 foot area
at the rear of the building.
Comm. Coller expressed his concern for the safety of patrons using these bicycle
racks because of the limited access to the building, and the requirement of keeping
the sidewalk clear for pedestrians. He asked if George Muenchow had reviewed the
application regarding traffic and patrons.
City Planner stated he had forwarded it to him, and had received nothing back.
Clarence Engh stated he was the owner of the Kopp building and Shakopee Floral, which
will be vacated, and he is concerned with the attitude of the kids in that building
and how it will affect tenants in his building.
Cindy Anderson, manager of the VFW, expressed her concern about bicycles, litter and
vandalism and the close proximity of juveniles to the VFW. She also stated that she
understood the easement between the two buildings belonged to the VFW.
Wally Perry suggested that if one parking space was eliminated for vehicles and re-
stricted to bicycles, it amounted to private parking for the business, and if it was
done for one business, other businesses would have a right to request it.
Another member of the audience said he didn't believe this was the best type of traf-
fic to put in the downtown business district. He expressed his concern with having
youngsters arouni during hours when the other downtown businesses were closed.
Harry Rolflect explained he was with the police department, and based on his experience
as a juvenile officer, he just couldn't see that it would be an asset to the downtown
area or to the tax payers of the community in terms of police service.
Considerable similar discussion took place.
Coller/Vierling moved to close the public 'hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Proceedings of the April 9, 1981
Shakopee Planning Commission Page -4-
Coller/Vierling moved to deny Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 272, the
granting of a game room center in a B-3 Zone, based on Shakopee City Code
Section 11.01., Subd. A, Items No. 1 and 9, which state:
Item No. 1. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and
_ enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the
purpose already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair
property values within the immediate vicinity.
Item No. 9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion.
Chrm. Schmitt informed the Commissioners that if they voted to disapprove, the deci-
sion could be appealed to the City Council and then the Commission will not see the
application again, unless the Council referred it back.
The City Planner read the list of considerations for Conditional Use Permit.
Comm. Rockne left at this point, 9:05 p.m.
Roll Call: Ayes; Koehnen, Vierling, Stoltzman, Coller
Noes; Schmitt, Perusich
Motion carried (Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 272 denied)
Chrm. Schmitt informed the applicants that they have a right to appeal within 7 days
by notification to the City, at which time it will be placed on the City Council
agenda, and they have a right to be heard again at that time.
Coller/Koehnen moved that staff be directed to summarize and put on record should the
application be appealed that the maximum occupancy of 50 persons be identified, and
that the bicycle parking be addressed, and that a 6 month renewal be recommended in-
stead of one year, in addition to the recommendations presented by staff. Motion
carried unanimously.
Coller/Koehnen moved to have the license checked and to investigate the business of
game machines which operates in the back of the Eagle Pet Shop to see if it conforms
to the ordinance, and that necessary steps be taken to bring it into compliance.
Motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing - Amending City Code, Section 4.30 - Sign Ordinance
Vierling/Perusich moved to open the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Chrm. Schmitt asked for comments from the audience, and there were none.
Perusich/Vierling moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Coller/Stoltzman moved to recommend to City Council the adoption of the newly revised
Sign Ordinance with the changes presented this evening. Motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing - Amending City Code, Section 11.24, Subd. 3 - Height Limitations
Coller/Vierling moved to open the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
The Commission clarified the fact that the intent of using the word "structures" was
to include the new height limitations.
Chrm. Schmitt asked for comments from the audience, and there was none.
Proceedings of the April 9, 1981 2-
Shakopee
Shakopee Planning Commission Page -5-
Coller/Vierling moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Koehnen/Perusich moved to recommend to the City Council adoption of an. ordinance
which will amend the Zoning Ordinance regarding height limitations. Motion carried
unanimously.
•
A & G 1st Addition - Request for Extension of Final Plat Application:
Coller/Perusich moved to remove the request for final plat extension for A & G 1st
Addition from the table. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner explained the circumstances which led to the delay of filing final
plat application for the A & G 1st Addition.
Coller/Perusich moved that an extension for final plat application be granted to
July 17, 1981 for A & G First Addition. Motion carried unanimously.
Coller moved that a Planning Commission policy be established that extensions for
Final Plat applications shall only be approved when delays are unique to the plat and/or
are due to legal transactions. Requests for extensions will be reviewed on an indi-
vidual plat-by-plat basis, and shall be filed prior to the expiration of the Prelimi-
nary Plat one-year time frame; and that this policy be put on file in the Planning
Commission's administrative guide book. The motion failed for lack of a second.
Horizon Heights 4th Addition - Discussion:
The City Planner presented the preliminary sketch plan and stated his main concerns
were that a few of the lots were under 2.5 acres, and that the grading on many of the
roads seemed too steep. He relayed that the City Engineer thought that with re-design-
ing, the developer could work with the topography a lot better and also work with sub-
standard lots.
Comm. Coller asked if Horizon Drive was over the gas line, and the applicant answered
that it was and that he had submitted the plat to the gas company and hadn't heard
anything back. He also has clearance from County for ingress and egress on the pro-
posed County road. He stated the County doesn' t plan to have the road done until 1983,
and this development is probably 2-4 years away.
Chrm. Schmitt recommended this sketch go to the City Engineer to work with the appli-
cant's engineer on the grades of the road, as the overall concept plan is good.
Extension of Austin Street - Discussion:
The City Planner stated the City Engineer does not recommend the extension of Austin
Street because of the expense of bridging the Upper Valley Drainage Area. The Engi-
neer would be in favor of ending Austin Street with a bubble, and maybe shifting it
into the lots.
Gene Hauer , Developer, suggested a cul-de-sac east of Davis Court.
Chrm. Schmitt asked the City Planner how he felt about individual locked-in neighbor-
hoods, and the Planner responded that would be preferable to isolate neighborhoods,
rather than put a road through them. It is better that they are ringed rather than
bisected by traffic.
Coller/Perusich moved that for concept purposes, Austin Street be planned to not go
through. Motion carried unanimously.
Proceedings of the April 9, 1981 -
Shakopee Planning Commission Page -6-
Kmart Retail Store (Garden Sales in Parking Lot) - Discussion:
Discussion was held on the request made by the Kmart Retail Store, Minnesota
Valley Mall, for a temporary garden sales center in an area of their parking lot.
Don Schniepp, Assistant Manager, was present and explained that they had the garden
sales set up if any of the Commissioners wanted to look at it. They didn't know if
any type of permit was required for this type of sales lot.
Coller/Perusich moved that operations such as the Kmart garden center not be required
to obtain a Conditional Use Permit because they are an intregal component of such
business and temporary in duration. It is also recommended that staff be instructed
to monitor over the next two months the operation and make recommendations so we can
Address it next year. Motion carried unanimously.
Scottland, Inc. , Sewer Flows - Discussion:
Coller/Stoltzman moved to concur with the City Council action of March 24, 1981, to
designate two 75 acre areas of VIP, Ltd. , property as, Moratorium Alternative Areas
''X" and "Y" on the City's 1980-90 Comprehensive Plan Sewer Map.
Other Business:
Bob Schilz, 931 Bluff Avenue, initiated discussion on the re-zoning of his business.
He explained that when he bought there, it was commercial, and then later was changed
to R-3 and he had no knowledge of it being done. He is paying commercial rates, and
feels he should be re-zoned commercial. He is especially concerned with the negative
aspects if he wishes to sell the business.
After some discussion, Comm. Coller recommended the item be placed on the May 14th
agenda thus allowing time for staff to check files for dates and pertinent information
on this rezoning . ,He also stated that if Mr. Schilz could have the backing of his
neighbors, it would be helpful.
The City A.dmr. explained some of the problems the staff is having in coordinating
agendas for City Council and Planning Commission, and asked if the Commissioners
would consider meeting on a Monday or Wednesday night instead.
Comm. Coller suggested the A.dmr. lay out a schematic on a calendar to point out the
problems that are occurring and bring it back next meeting.
Coller/Stoltzman moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned
at 11:00 p.m.
John Schmitt
Chairman
Diane S. Beuch
Recording Secretary
AD HOC CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
Shakopee , Minnesota
Regular Meeting April 6 , 1981
Chairman Foudray called the meeting to order at 7 :05 p .m. in the
City Council Chambers of City Hall , with Committee members present :
Davis , Gorman, and Kirchmeier. Members absent were : Abeln and
Christensen. Also present were City Administrator John Anderson
and Administrative Assistant Jeanne Andre .
Davis/Kirchmeier moved to approve the March 16 , 1981 minutes as
mailed. Motion carried.
Jeanne Andre reported that the Committee was invited by the Shakopee
Community Services to sponsor a both at the Shakopee Showcase rela-
ting to Cable Communication to further educate the general public.
This activity will be held on Monday , May 4 from 6 : 30 to 8 : 30 p .m.
The Committee accepted the invitation and will sponsor a booth.
Discussion on the potential consultants will be tabled until the
next Committee meeting when the entire Committee will be present
and the Committee members will have a chance to review all vital
information.
Chairman Foudray called a special sub-committee meeting with Commit-
tee members Davis , Gorman and Kirchmeier. During this meeting the
Committee members will discuss and review the draft , forms and all
other data relating to the Request for Proposals . The meeting
will be held on Thursday , March 9 at 7 p.m. in the conference room
of the City Hall .
Paul Zoschke , Chairman of Chaska ' s Cable Communication Committee ,
shared with the Committee the steps taken and the progress made by
Chaska' s Committee . He related that Chaska has hired a consultant
and expects to get a draft of the Request for Proposals on April 28th,
and expects to publish the Request for Proposals one month later.
Mr. Zoschke reflected that he would like the public , governmental ,
educational and institutional channels in Chaska to interconnect
with Shakopee and other nearby communities . As it is useless for
one community to require interconnects if the others don' t , Mr.
Zoschke requested cooperation in this aspect of the franchise pro-
cess .
Discussion on evaluation methodology was postponed until the next
meeting.
Chairman Foudray opened the floor for volunteers to draft a narra-
tive of the needs assessment . As there were no volunteers , the
topic was delayed until the next meeting.
Andy Driscol , one of our proposed consultants , approached the floor
to expand on the proposal which be submitted to the Committee for
the services he could possibily render.
•
AD HOC CABLE COMMUNICATION COMMITTEE 3
Page 2
April 6 , 1918
Andre asked if the staff should make arrangements to have the con-
sultants attend a meeting to support their proposals or have the
decision based upon the written material which has been submitted.
The Committee decided members should review the proposals of the
consultants before making any decisions on this matter.
The staff will make special arrangements to have the Ad Hoc Cable
Communication Committee scheduled on the agenda of the April 21 City
Council meeting to inform the Council members of the progress the
Committee has made to date .
Kirchmeier suggested that we change the meetings to Tuesday or
Wednesday evenings due to a schedule conflict . Final decision was
delayed until all members are present .
Discussion will be held and decisions made on the following areas :
application fees , consultants , and frachise fees .
Gorman/Davis moved to adjourn the meeting to April 13 , 1981 at 7 p.m.
Motion carried . Meeting adjourned at 8 : 30 p .m.
R. Gene Foudray
Chairman
Mary Arlt
Recording Secretary
TENTATIVE AGENDA
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MAY 5 , 1981
Mayor Harbeck presiding
1 ] Roll Call at 7 : 30 P.M.
2] Approval of Minutes of March 17th, April 14, and April 21 , 1981
3 ] Communications :
a] Independent School District No. 720 re : community services
program
b] Scott County Housing & Redevelopment Authority re : Clifton
Apartments
c] Citizens League re : statement concerning proposed legislative
study of the Metropolitan Council
d] Dennis Anderson re : pornographic literature
4] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS
5 ] Old Business :
al Cable Communications Consultant Presentation
b] Mr & Mrs Roger Luedloff Sewer Damage Claim
c] St. Francis Hospital - Block 57 Parking Lot Acquisition
d] Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed Agreement
e] Appointment to Police Civil Service Commission - tbld 4/28
f] Eminent Domain Proceedings Against Walter Muhlenhardt and wife
g] Revised Sign Ordinance - tbld 4/21 (bring 6b of April 21 agenda)
h] Summary on Tax Increment Financing Bill
i ] - Proposed Council policy statement on tax increment financing
projects
j ] Approve 1981 Sewer Fund Budget and direct staff to prepare
resolution
k] Set Sewer Service Charges - Resolution No. 1832
I ] Report from Fence Reviewers - Harry Weinandt Request (verbal)
6] Planning Commission Recommendations : None
7 ] Routine Resolutions and Ordinances
a] Res . No. 1818, Requiring the Reservation of Utility and Drainage
Easements at the Time of Public Right-of-way Vacation - tbld 4/2
b] Res . No. 1831, Permitting the Closing of Atwood Between 4th and
5th During Construction at St. Francis Hospital
c ] Res . No. 1820, Denying Petition to Vacate Alley in Block 58,
City of Shakopee
d] Res . No . 1819, Authorizing Improvement, Approving Plans and
Specs , Ordering Ad for Bids and Designating Project Engr. for
Landscaping & Irrigation System for Valley Industrial Redevelop-
ment Project No. 1 (Kmart)
8] New Business :
a] 8: 30 P.M. Mr. Bill Sando, Metropolitan Council Member
b] Nominations to Shakopee Public Utilities Commission - Wally
Bishop term expiring
c ] Approve the bills
d] Police Patrol Vehicle Reconstruction
e ] Authorize purchase of one spare rebuilt engine and one set of
engine heads , at a cost not to exceed $1 ,000
TENTATIVE AGENDA
May 5, 1981
Page -2-
f ] Firemen' s Annual Physicals
g] Bus Service for Shakopee
h] Proposed 1982-86 Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Portion
of Metro Waste Control ' s Development Program - informational
i ] Unbudgeted Capital Outlay Purchase Exceeding $300
j ] League Action Alert - Revised Governor' s Budget with a new
8% Levy Limit Proposal - Direct staff to contact the
Governor and our legislators emphasizing our opposition to
the Governor ' s levy limit proposal
9] Consent Business : None
10] Other Business :
a] Engineering Department Monthly Report
b] Appointing Acting Administrator for period May 13th to 15th
c ]
d]
e ]
f]
11 ] Liaison Reports
12 ] Adjourn to Tuesday, May 12th at 7 : 30 P.M. for the Board of Review
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
TENTATIVE AGENDA
SHAKOPEE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Special -Meeting May 5, 1981
Chairman Hullander presiding
1 . Roll call at 7 :00 p.m.
2 . Accept the special call .
3. Approval of the minutes of April 21 , 1981 .
4. Fourth and Minnesota Neighborhood Revitalization Project
a. Establishing Value of Lots in Macey Second Addition
b. Authorization to Execute Contracts-for-Deed
5. Authorize Payment of Bills
a. Louisville Landfill , $20.00, for Disposal of Smokehouse
remains
b.
6 . Other Business
7 . Adjourn
Jeanne Andre
Executive Director
CITY OF SHAKOPEE LA- Lk°F.
t
INCORPORATED 1870 4 4w
129 E. First Ave. - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 (612) 445-3650 41101
JI )
April 30, 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 :00 P.M. , on Tuesday, May 5 , 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 `)
Chairman
Shakopee HRA
RH/jms
enclosure
The Heart of Progress Valley
An Equal Opportunity Employer
PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
SPECIAL SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APRIL 21, 1981
Chrm. Hullander called the meeting to order at 7:15 P.M. with Comm. Lebens, Leroux
and Colligan present. Comm. Reinke arrived later. Also present were Rod Krass,
Ass' t City Attorney; Jeanne Andre, HRA Director; Mayor Harbeck and John K. Anderson,
City Admr.
Colligan/Lebens moved to accept the special meeting call. Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Lebens moved to approve the minutes of April 7, 1981 as kept. Motion carried
unanimously.
Comm. Reinke arrived and took his seat at 7:17 P.M.
The HRA Director informed the Commissioners that the two companies authorized to con-
struct the six additional units in Macey 2nd Add'n were contacted and are willing to
execute agreements with the HRA to construct units as proposed and selected by HRA.
Discussion ensued in which it was the consensus that the contracts be drawn up and
brought back before this body before they were executed. The HRA Director was given
direction to include detailed clauses regarding water and utility connections, fill,
pre-start and after-start delays in construction or sale, letters of credit costs and
allowance of reduction if only one unit is sold, etc.
The HRA Director was requested to have the completed contracts sent to the members as
soon as possible, and it was anticipated meeting May 5, 1981 to consider them.
Lebens/Reinke moved to authorize the payment of bills as presented; Jerome Jaspers,
CPA, $3,023.00 for Community Development Block Grant Audit.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Chrm. Hullander explained that the newspaper ad announcing the Open House for the
Senior Citizens Multipurpose Center was not in the paper last week because the manage-
ment company told the newspaper not to print it. In investigating, Chrm. Hullander
was informed that apparently the management company believed they were having some
problems and couldn't hold the Open House as scheduled.
Chrm. Hullander stated he couldn' t understand why the newspaper pulled the ad on the
request of the management company, when the City was paying for it. He questioned
Roger Linehan, Editor, who stated he had nothing to do with the ad, but he was told
Gail Sovell said not to use the ad and the paper didn' t.
Reinke/Leroux moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at
7:35 P.M.
Jeanne Andre
HRA Director
Diane S. Beuch
Recording Secretary
MEMO TO: Members of the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment
Authority (HRA)
FROM: Jeanne Andre , Executive Director
RE: Establishing Value of Lots in Macey Second Addition
DATE: April 24, 1981
Introduction
The HRA should establish value for lots in Macey Second Addition
to be developed in 1981 .
Background Information
The actual value of the lots created in Macey Second Addition will
not be used in establishing the price of homes sold under the
Shakopee 235 Homeownership Program. However , the HRA has created
a Promissory Note requiring the home purchasers to repay the
Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority an amount equal to
the lot value (or a proportion thereof) if the home is sold within
five years of the date of purchase . Therefore we must establish
a value for each lot to be used in the Promissory Note. Based on
the recommendation of LeRoy Houser, Shakopee Building Inspector,
I recommend that a price of approximately $1 . 25 per square foot
be used to establish a value for the lots on which buildings are
now scheduled for construction. Applying that rate to each lot
and leveling the price off, I recommend the establishment of the
following prices for the lots in Macey Second Addition:
Lot 11 , Block 2 $15 ,000
Lot 6 , Block 3 7 ,200
Lot 7 , Block 3 7 ,200
Lot 8 , Block 3 7 ,200
Lot 9 , Block 3 7 ,200
Lot 10, Block 3 11 ,600
Recommended Action
Adopt Resolutions 81-1 through 81-6 establishing the above lot
values (copy of 81-1 enclosed as sample) .
JA/jms
RESOLUTION NO. 81-1
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HRA OFFICIALS TO ENTER INTO PROMISORY
NOTE AND SECOND REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE FOR PAYMENT OF LOT VALUE
UPON RESALE BY HOMEBUYER FOR LOT 11 BLOCK 2 , MACEY SECOND ADDITION
WHEREAS , the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for
the City of Shakopee , with the assistance of a Community Development
Block Grant , is able to provide lots at no cost to qualified low-
and moderate-income families in its Fourth and Minnesota Neighborhood
Revitalization Project ; and
WHEREAS , the Authority, in the administration of this program,
would like to encourage sale to families who plan to homestead and
improve the property over an extended period ; and
WHEREAS , this goal can be encouraged by the execution of a
"Promissory Note for Payment of Lot Value upon Resale by Homeowner"
and a Second Real Estate Mortgage between the homebuyer and the
Authority;
NON, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED, that the Housing and Redevelop-
ment Authority in and for the City of Shakopee hereby authorizes and
directs the appropriate officials to execute such a promissory note
and second real estate mortgage in the amount of $15 ,000 with a
buyer selected to purchase Lot 11 , Block 2 of Macey Second
Addition.
Adopted in adjourned special session of the Housing and Redevelop-
ment Authority in and for the City of Shakopee held this day
of , 1980.
Chairman
ATTEST:
Executive Director
4b
MEMO TO: Members of the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment
Authority (HRA)
FROM: Jeanne Andre, Executive Director
RE: Format for Contract-for-Deed
Lots in Macey Second Addition
DATE: May 5 , 1981
Introduction
This memo is to serve as an update to the previous memo distributed
with the agenda for the May 5 , 1981 meeting of the HRA. Samples of
contract-for-deed format were attached to that memo.
Background
When the Invitation for Proposals for homes to be built in Phase II
of construction in Macey Second Addition was advertised , contractors
were informed that copies of the contract format would be provided
on request. At its April 21 , 1981 meeting the HRA requested certain
changes to the standard contract previously adopted. In line with
the initial advertisement , attempts have been made to inform the
selected contractors of potential changes . Sharon Goodwin, Treasurer
of Goodwin Builders , Inc. , has objected to one new provision in the
revised contract format . The objection is with the last two sentences
of provision number 5 of the "Exhibit A" , calling for a 92 day delay
in the release of the letter of credit . Ms . Goodwin' s objection to
the delay in releasing the letter of credit is based on the fact that
the contractor is required to present sworn lien waivers at the time
the mortgages are closed. The City Attorney, subsequent to his dis-
cussion with Ms . Goodwin, recommends that the last two sentences
of provision number 5 be removed and the following two sentences be
introduced in place of the removed sentences :
After construction has been completed and the closing has taken
place the letter of credit may be reduced to $10,000 and is to
remain at that figure for the next 92 days and if no claim has
been filed at the expiration of said 92 days the letter of
credit can be released . In case of twin homes , one half the
full letter of credit may be reduced to $10,000 which is to
remain at that figure for the next 92 days and if no claim has
been filed within the 92 days , the letter of credit can be
released.
Requested Action
If the Commissioners are in agreement to Exhibit A, the amended
contract-for-deed format can be adopted and placed on file as
document No. 5 of the HRA Executive Director ' s Official Record
of Documents .
•
JA/jms •
Mr. 0"Conner would like the Council to consider requesting the
Metro Transit Commission to consider changing their rout within
Shakopee which would better accommodate the residents at the
High Rise .
Because there is not now any crossing for the citizens of this
facility to cross the first avenue and promisses that have been
made have not come to pass as yet .
i
I
i
I4 /
,,,
. ,
,___‘ __ .. _
... , i
5-t- Ls ),_____„s)
._ , 4 -1. ,g
O 'Ni, ,e QJ
O I
t
J
li LO
i
of?iy ji„ MllIllimm
�J 4, . - p
U )
.-----;)--- ---i--) - P 1- ./Ld--
/.Y
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
INCORPORATED 1870 t'.a,
129 E. First Ave. - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 (612) 445-3650 } O
roc
g e
April 21 , 1981
Mayor and City Council
City of Shakopee
Shakopee , MN 55379
Re : Board of Review
You are hereby notified that the City Council of the City
of Shakopee will meet at the "Board of Review" in the Council
Chambers of City Hall on Tuesday, May 12th, 1981 at 7 : 30 P.M.
If you are unable to attend at this time , please let me
know.
Sincerely,
di(
John K. An erson
City Administrator
JKA/jms
•
•
The Heart of Progress Valley
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Ya6
MEMO TO: Members of the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment
Authority (HRA)
FROM: Jeanne Andre , Executive Director
RE:- Authorization to Execute Contracts-for-Deed
DATE: April 30, 1981
Introduction
The HRA has selected proposals for the second phase of construction
in Macey Second Addition (6 units in 1981 ) .
Background
Negotiations with Goodwin Builders , Inc . and Pomije Custom Homes ,
Inc . were reported at the April 21 , 1981 meeting of the HRA; both
builders are willing to construct homes as proposed and selected
by the HRA. Commissioners requested that a copy of the contract
to be executed be presented to the HRA for approval . Attached are
contract drafts which have been prepared according to the format
approved in 1980, with a few modifications . Exhibit A was changed
in the following manner: 1 ) additions and modifications to terms
5 , 8, and 9 , and 2) provision of new terms 12 , 13 , 14, 15 and 16 .
The HUD Community Development Representative has informed me that
it is likely the HUD single family division will be able to make
special provision for the reservation of 235 mortgage finance funds
for the six units scheduled for construction phase II in Macey
Second Addition if these units are submitted for appraisals quickly.
A further update on this information will be available at the meet-
ing.
Recommended Action
1 . The HRA review and approve the contract format .
2 . Authorize appropriate HRA officials to execute contracts-for-
deed for the following.
a. 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.
b. Lot 11 , Block 2 , Macey Second Addition with Pomije Custom
Homes , Inc . for the construction of a single-family home
with garage pad and footings for $46 ,063 with the option
of a finished two-car garage at an additional cost of
$2 ,485 .00.
c. 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
Corporation Vendor Minnesota unuurm Lonvcyanctne Blank. (Revised 1976)
Mfjis Rgreetnent, Made and entered into this day of
, 19 , by and between.........T'h.e....H.o.us.i.ng...and....Red.eu.el.Q.pm.ent
Authority in and for the City of Shakopee
a corporation under the laws of the State of.....Mi.nne.so.ta , party of the first part,
and P.omi.3e C.us.t.om...Haxn.e.s.,
, part y of the second part;
uhA itnes5oet i, That the said party of the first part, in consideration of the covenants and agree-
ments of said part y of the second part, hereinafter contained, hereby sells and agrees to convey unto
said part....y of the second part, and assigns, by a Warr e.n.ty Deed,
accompanied by an abstract evidencing good title in party of the first part at the date hereof, or by an
owner's duplicate certificate of title, upon the prompt and full performance by said part...y of the second
part, of its part of this agreement, the tract...s of land lying and being in the County of
Scott and State of Minnesota, described as follows, to-wit:
Lot 10, Block 3, Macey Second Addition
.4 nd said part..y of the second part, in consideration of the premises, hereby agree to pay said party
of the first part, at Shakop.e.e....City...Hall
as and for the purchase price of said premises, the sum of One...D.Q.l.l.ar
Dgkbra,
in-z4w,,nAg w4-cat4i-9es-fege;:t►ifter eit- herewith and as a further consideration
hereby agrees as follows :
Exhibit A, attached hereto, is made a part of this agreement .
Said part...y of the second part further covenant .S and agree..S as follows: to-pay-la efar-e-peft lty-atteekes.-
thcr-ote,-afl-taxes-clue-aid-payable-iff-the-year-11---ra*4l-ice-at liens:-yeeFsraild-aff-speei assessrriettt&4ieretefere-err-
hezzattac-18v d,
also that any buildings and improvements now on said land, or which shall hereafter be erected, placed, or made there-
on, shall not be removed therefrom, but shall be and remain the property of the party of the first part until this con-
tract shall be fully performed by the part...y of the second part; and at its own expense, to keep the buildings
on said premises at all times insured in some reliable insurance company or companies, to be approved by the party of
the first part, against loss by fire for at least the sum of insurable value
Deilara-
and against loss by windstorm for at least the sum of insurable Value
-f otfiars-
payable to said party of the first part, its successors or assigns, and, in case of loss, should there be any surplus over and
above the amount then owing said party of the first part, its successors, or assigns, the balance shall be paid over to the
said party of the second part as its interest shall appear, and to deposit with the party of the first part
policies of said insurance. But should the second part_.y fail to pay any item to be paid by said part..} under the
terms hereof, same may be paid by first party and shall be forthwith payable, with interest thereon, as an additional
amount due first party under this contract.
But should default be made in the payment of principal or interest due hereunder, or of any part thereof, to be by
second party paid, or should it fail to pay the taxes or assessments upon said land, premiums upon said
insurance, or to perform any or either of the covenants, agreements, terms or conditions herein contained, to be by said
second party kept or performed, the said party of the first part may, at its option, by written notice declare this
contract cancelled and terminated, and all rights, title and interest acquired thereunder by said second part..} shall
thereupon cease and terminate, and all improvements made upon the premises, and all payments made hereunder shall
belong to said party of the first part as liquidated damages for breach of this contract by said second part y , said
notice to be in accordance with the statute in such case made and provided. Neither the extension of the time of pay-
ment of any sum or sums of money to be paid hereunder, nor any waiver by the party of the first part of its rights to
declare this contract forfeited by reason of any breach thereof, shall in any manner affect the right of said party to
cancel this contract because of defaults subsequently maturing, and no extension of time shall be valid unless evi-
denced by duly signed instrument. Further, after service of notice and failure to remove, within the period allowed by
law, the default therein specified, said part....y of the second part hereby specifically agree.S , upon demand of said
party of the first part, quietly and peaceably to surrender to it possession of said premises, and every part thereof, it
being understood that until such default, said party ....of the second part..__Ls..to have possession of said premises.
3t i 41utuaHp agtCCb, Ey and between the parties hereto, that the time of payment shall be
an essential part of this contract; and that all the covenants and agreements herein contained shall run
with the land and bind the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the respective parties
hereto.
31n Zeectimonp Uijereof, The said first party has caused these .
presents to be executed in its corporate name by its...Cha.irInan....
,../...-------...N\ President and its S.ec.r..etary ern -ibs-earpora#m-sest-;,o
be-hereu-nto-r41-xe&, and said party of the second part has
hereunto set his hand the day and year first above written.
� The Hous.ing....andKe.d.ev..lo.pmer.......Au.C.hox.i.t.y......
�--� in and for the City of Shakopee
By
Its ..Cha.irman..Presidenb
Its Secretary
,
&tate of ►';' snneiota, s.
County of
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this day of , 19 ,
by Ri.chard....Hul.lande.r.., Chairman j
(NAME OF OFFICER OR AGENT, TITLE OF OFFICER OR AGENT)
and by Do.lo.r.es....Lebens.., Secretary
(NAME OF OFFICER OR AGENT, TITLE OF OFFICER OR AGENT)
of the....H.ous.i..ng....and....Red.eve.lo.pment....Authori.ty i.n...and....for the....C.ity of.....Shakopee
(NAME OF CORPORATION ACKNOWLEDGING)
a Mi.nne.s.a.ta corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
(STATE OR PLACE OF INCORPORATION)
(SIGNATURE OF PERSON TAKING ACKNOWLEDGMENT)
(TITLE OR RANK)
*tate of i' innelSota,
County of
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this day of , 19
by
(NAME OF PERSON ACKNOWLEDGED)
(SIGNATURE OF PERSON TAKING ACKNOWLEDGMENT)
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY (TITLE OR RANK)
Julius A. Coller
211 West First Avenue
•
Shakopee , MN 553Address)
:. o o a o ,s o Isk
q IN o
� > 0 � 't TI o °01
o t STs "'
o "' F� 7 ° �t
N
N _
`j ,' ° "0 �2 y� *;.;!el) oo I rte.
,� `ti p, is p y t3 v
, J II C ~ °�' c o o W W U �. �
EXHIBIT "A"
1 . The Party of the second part agrees to provide builders risk insur-
ance naming the City of Shakopee and the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority as an additional insured, and in the highest amount avail-
able from an insurance company acceptable to the first party.
2 . The Party of the second part will provide public liability insurance
in a total amount of not less than $300,000.00 naming the City of
Shakopee and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority as an additional
insured and in terms and in a company acceptable to the party of the
first part .
3. The Party of the second part will provide standard workman' s compen-
sation insurance naming the City of Shakopee and the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority as a protected party.
4. Copies of the policies or certificates of insurance with a 10 day
cancellation clause must be provided to the first party before any
work or liability are contracted by the party of the second part .
5. Before beginning any construction or incurring any liability, the
party of the second part will provide the party of the first part
with a letter of credit in an amount of not less than 125% of the
total cost of the improvements ; this letter can be drawn upon if
the contractor fails to complete the unit by the designated comple-
tion date , or fails to meet any of the terms of this contact , upon
the giving of reasonable notice of such default prior to drawing
upon the letter of credit . Costs of said letter of credit are
included in quotedcontract cost of construction. Letter of credit
will be released by the party of the first part 92 days after com-
pletion of the structure and closing on the property. In the case
of twin homes , one-half the full letter of credit can be released
92 days after closing of first unit .
6 . That the premises herein described shall at all times be kept free
and clear of all mechanics or labor liens and all other types of
incumbrance .
7 . As a specific covenant running with the above described property,
the party of the first part requires and the party of the second
part agrees that the party of the second part shall construct on
said property a home meeting all the requirements of the Department
of Housing and Urban Development 235 Program, State Housing Code
and City ordinances according to the plans and specifications on
file at the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and shall
convey this property, upon completion of said house, to a buyer or
buyers approved by the party of the first part . Within 30 days of
notification of such an approved buyer, or 30 days of completion of
construction, whichever is later.
8. At the time the deed of conveyance is tendered to part of second
part and from said party to buyer the buyer shall make , execute and
deliver to Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority a promissory
note and real estate mortgage containing principal reduction provi-
sions providing for 20% annual reduction. A copy of said reducing
principal promissory note is hereto attached and made a part hereof.
9 . The party of the second part agrees to begin construction within
30 days of notification to start work by the party of the first
part and the party of the second part agrees to complete all improve-
ments within days of the start of construction. Contract
costs will remain in effect if notice to proceed is provided within
60 days of execution of this contract .
10. After the construction of the dwelling and prior to issuance of the
certificate of occupancy the builder shall replace any public im-
provements damaged by construction by the builder or its subcon-
tractors , to include but not be limited to sidewalk, curb and
gutter , street surfacing and public utility.
• -2-
11 . In the event that a sale to an approved buyer shall not have been
consummated within six months after the said completion date , the
party of the first part shall thereupon pay the contract price
due to party of the second part , and upon such payment party of
the second shall transfer all its right , title and interest in
the subject premises to party of the first part .
12 . The party of the second part is to pay for the cost of FHA apprai-
sals except in the event that 235 financing is not available , and
the homes cannot be built , in such case the party of the first
part will reimburse the party of the second part the cost expended
for FHA appraisals .
13 . Individual water and sewer service has been brought from the street
into each lot as noted in "Macey Second Addition Tie Sheet" on file
with the Shakopee City Engineer. Cost of extending such service
and/or connecting to the service will be the responsibility of the
party of the second part , including the purchase of water meters .
14. The party of the second part will provide underground electrical
service to each unit constructed , such service provided in quoted
costs .
15 . The party of the first part will end all involvement with grading
and fill of lots in subdivision prior to tree start of construction.
Subsequent grading and fill is to be provided by party of the
second part , and is to be in conformance with approved grading
plan and subdivision plan on file with the City Engineer of the
City of Shakopee. Party of the second part is to provide 4" top
soil after construction of the building prior to seeding of front
and rear yard .
16 . Any survey required by the title insurance company or lender to
close on the final sale of the property will be paid by the party
of the second part .
PROMISSORY NOTE FOR PAYMENT
UPON RESALE BY HOMEOWNER
FOR VALUE RECEIVED , (Homeowner)
promises to pay to the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Shakopee (Authority)
or order , the principal sum of Dollars
($ ) , on the date of resale by the Homeowner of the property
located at Minnesota Street , and described as Lot
Block , Macey Second Addition , Shakopee , Scott County , Minnesota .
Such principal sum shall be reduced automatically by twenty
percent (20%) of the initial amount at the end of each year of such
residency, as a Homeowner , and this note shall terminate at the end
of five (5) years of such residency , as determined by the Authority;
provided, however , that the amount payable under this note shall in
no event be more than the net profit on the resale , that is , the
amount by which the resale price exceeds the sum of (1 ) the Home-
owner ' s purchase price , (2) the costs incidental to his acquisition
of ownership , (3) the costs of the resale , including commissions
and mortgage prepayment penalties , if any, and (4) the increase in
value of the Home , determined by appraisal , due to improvements
paid for by the Homeowner .
Any amount Homeowner is required to pay Authority under the
terms of this note shall bear interest at the rate of eight percent
( 8% ) per annum from the date hereof .
If the Homeowner shall pay this note at the time and in the
manner set forth above , or if , by its provisions , the amount of
this note shall be zero (0) , then the note shall terminate and the
Authority shall , within thirty (30) •days after written demand
therefor by the Homeowner , execute a release and satisfaction of
this note . The Homeowner hereby waives the benefits of all statutes
or laws which require the earlier execution or delivery of such
release and satisfaction by the Authority .
Presentment , protest and notice are hereby waived .
Dated : , 19
By:
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority
in and for the City of Shakopee
Richard S . Hullander , Chairman
Delores M . Lebens , Secretary
State of Minnesota )
) ss .
County of )
On this day of , 19 , before me , a
notary public within and for said County personally appeared
Richard S . Hullander and Delores M . Lebens to me personally known ,
who , being each by me duly sworn did say that they are respectively
the Chairman and the Secretary of the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority in and for the City of Shakopee , the corporation named
in the foregoing instrument , and that said instrument was signed
on behalf of said corporation by authority of its members and said
Richard S . Hullander and Delores M. Lebens acknowledged said
instrument to be the free act and deed of said Housing and Redevelop-
ment Authority .
By :
Homeowner
Homeowner
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
19
Pomije Custom Homes , Inc.
Description of Single Family Dwelling for Construction
Lot 10, Block 3, Macey Second Addition
Home will be built according to plans and specifications on file
at the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority at a cost of
$42 ,929 .00. This cost includes the cost of four finished bed-
rooms , 1-3/4 baths , storm doors for each exterior door, triple-
glaze windows , vented range-hood, oak woodwork and cabinets , and
the seeding of front and rear yards . The cost does not include
the cost of the building permit and up to seven FHA points which
will be added to the sales price for each individual buyer.
These additional options will be available to buyers at the listed
additional price :
Installed appliances :
Electric Range $250.00
Refrigerator $319.00
Dishwasher $242 .00
Garbage Disposal $ 57 .00
Additional construction:
Garage Footings and Floor only $1 ,233.00
Finished Two-car Garage $3 ,573.00
Finished Family Room $2 ,252 .00
(12 'x31 ' , carpeted, sheetrocked,
taped, painted, with heating and
electrical )
Pomije Custom Homes , Inc .
Description of Single Family Dwelling for Construction
Lot 11 , Block 2 , Macey Second Addition
Home will be built according to plans and specifications on file
at the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority at a cost of
$46 ,063. This cost includes the cost of four finished bedrooms ,
1-3/4 baths , storm doors for each exterior door, triple-glaze
windows , vented range-hood , oak woodwork and cabinets , the seeding
of front and rear yards , garage footings and floor and an entry
foyer built on to 24' x 38 ' structure . The cost does not include
the cost of the building permit and up to seven FHA points which
will be added to the sales price for each individual buyer.
These additional options will be available to buyers at the listed
additional price :
Installed appliances :
Electric Range $250.00
Refrigerator $319.00
Dishwasher $242 .00
Garbage Disposal $ 57 .00
Optional construction:
Finished Two-car Garage $2 ,485.00
Plan without entry foyer , deduct $400.00
Finished Family Room $2 ,010.00
(12 'x22 ' carpeted , sheetrocked ,
taped and painted)
4
Goodwin Builders , Inc .
Description of Twin-Homes
For Lots 6 and 7 and Lots 8 and 9 , Block 3,
Macey Second Addition
Homes will be built according to plans and specifications on file
at the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority at a cost of
$37 , 750.00 per unit ($75,500.00 per building) . This cost includes
the cost of storm doors for each exterior door, double glaze win-
dows , seed for front and rear yards , oak woodwork and cabinets ,
and vented range hood. Appliances can be added at the prices
listed below at the option of each buyer. The cost of the building
permit and up to seven FHA points is not included in the above cost ,
but will be added to the sales price for each individual buyer.
Options available:
Electric range $ 350.00
Refrigerator $ 450.00
Dishwasher (installed) $ 390.00
Garbage disposal (installed) $ 130.00
Triple glaze on all windows $ 475.00
Optional room finished $1585.00
C
DISTRICT OFFICES J(4e/
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 720
505 SOUTH HOLMES
MARCIA SPAGNOLO, Chairperson SCOTT COUNTY
p SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 ROBERT MAYER, D.ED.
JAMES STILLMAN, Vice Chairperson TELEPHONE: 445 4884 Superintendent of Schools
WARREN HALLGREN, D.D.S, Clerk
VIRGIL S. MEARS
JOHN GOIHL, Treasurer
Assistant Superintendent
WILLIAM CHALMERS, Director
BECKY KELSO, Director ROBERT MARTIN
ROBERT MEADOWS, Director Business Manager
April 29, 1981 ti 1 #
Mr. John Anderson APR 3 0 Mi
City Administrator
129 East First Avenue CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Shakopee, Minnesota Cq-
Dear Mr. Anderson:
The school district has the statutory authority to levy a specified
amount for the support of a community services program. In addition, the
district is eligible to receive state funds for the same purpose.
To be eligible for the levy authority and state funding, the school
board is required by M.S. 275.125, Subd. 8, Clause 3 to invite all govern-
mental bodies located within district boundaries to meet and discuss
"methods of increasing mutual cooperation between such bodies and the
school board of such district."
The school board is considering June 15, 1981 as a possible meeting
date for that purpose. The meeting would be held in the school district
Board Room and would commence at 7:30 p.m.
I thought it might also serve as an opportunity for the school board,
the city council and the community services board to meet together to
discuss informally any concerns that might exist with respect to the com-
munity services program.
Prior to the time that I contact the township officers, I thought I
should check with you to see if the council, would he interestedin attend-
ing such a meeting and if the June 15 date is acceptable.
I would appreciate it if you could let me know, at your earliest con-
venience, the council's reaction to this meeting. We could then set up a
joint agenda.
Thanks, John.
Sincerely yours,
Robert Mayer
Superintendent of Schools
RM:gar
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
SCOTT COUNTY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
34,7,
707 COUNTY ROAD 83 • SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 • (612)445-8700
RECEIVED
APR 301981
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
April 29, 1981
Shakopee City Council
c/o Shakopee City Hall
129 East 1st. Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
RE: Clifton Apartments.
Gentlemen:
It has come to our attention via our staff that the Scott County HRA
is again receiving a number of calls regarding problems in the Clifton
Apartments.
The majority of tenants who have called are concerned about a lack of
response from their management firm in the areas of re-examination of
income/assets (this is done to insure timely re-leasing) and maintenance
problems.
In the past week alone there have been about 8-10 such calls. Each time
tenants have requested phone numbers of persons they could contact at the
HUD Area Office in order to complain to a higher authority.
The Board of Commissioners of the Scott County HRA wishes to share its
concerns in this matter in hopes that you may attempt to resolve this
continuing problem by contacting Realty Management Services, since, as
you are aware, we have no jurisdiction over this housing project.
Sincerely,
\,73/CtrZY-Z ii720 -k2ZW)
Marjorie Henderson,
Chairman, Scott County HRA
ALW;jmp
MARJORIE HENDERSON, SHAKOPEE, CHAIRMAN
111111111111
WILLIAM CHARD, BELLE PLAINE, VICE-CHAIRMAN
KEITH THORKELSON, PRIOR LAKE, SECRETARY
SYLVESTER WACKER, SAVAGE, TREASURER
MARIETTA SHARKEY, JORDAN EQUAL HOUSING
OPPORTUNITY
Equal Opportunity Employer
RECE1VD
CITIZENS LEAGUE APR 2 81981
530 Syndicate Building
Minneapolis,MN 55402 -!A6(C?p�E April 27, 1981
38-0791 C� Of
STATEMENT CONCERNING PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE
STUDY OF THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
RENEWED ATTENTION TO THE METROPOLITAN government officials.
COUNCIL IS ENCOURAGING.
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL CONTINUES TO ENJOY
The Legislature this year is expressing a renewed interest in NATIONAL RESPECT.
the Metropolitan Council. The Legislature, which created
and has nurtured the Council over the 14 years of its exis- Since its creation in 1967 and on through today the Metro-
tence, may this year undertake a formal review of further politan Council has continued to receive national acclaim.
steps it needs to take to fulfill its commitment—greater It has been cited repeatedly by the Advisory Commission on
than that of any other Legislature in the nation—that this Intergovernmental Relations as an example of appropriate
major metropolitan area have an effective system of govern- and effective metropolitan governance.
ance.
SEVERAL ISSUES NEED ATTENTION IN A LEGISLA-
A CENTRAL ROLE FOR THE LEGISLATURE IN RE- TIVE REVIEW.
VIEWING THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL IS ESSEN-
TIAL. We believe legislative review presents an excellent oppor-
tunity to address several questions which have concerned us
For the last quarter century the Legislature has been the in recent years.Our interest in the Council goes back to the
central body in the evolving system of metropolitan gover- years prior to its establishment, when we began to see the
nance. Many persons may not be aware that it was state need for more effective areawide action on problems such
government in Minnesota, not the national government, as sewage disposal and transit.We advocated the creation of
which established the predecessor to the Metropolitan the Metropolitan Council.Two features of the Council,that
Council, the Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC) in. its members be elected from districts of equal population
1957. Ten years later the Legislature built upon that earl- and that the Council not engage in direct operational res-
ier legislation and established the Metropolitan Council. In ponsibility,have been central to our ideas about the Coun-
the years since then the Legislature has passed several acts cil from the outset. Following are several issues that are
building upon this foundation. Perhaps most significant present today,including our own positions on those issues:
among these were the Metropolitan Reorganization Act of
1974, which spelled out the relationship between the )Whether the Council is adequately fulfilling its responsibili-
Council and its subordinate agencies, and the Metropolitan ties as policy advisor to the Governor and Legislature. We
Land Planning Act of 1976, which instructed the Council believe the Council should take more policy initiatives.
to assure that new growth within the seven county area
takes place in those locations which have the necessary ur- In recent years, the Council's work program seems to have
ban services. been made up primarily of assignments given to it by the
state and federal governments.The Council's work program
The Legislature seems to t,' giving more attention to gov- is extensive.It has played a central role in implementing the
ernment structure at the metropolitan level than at the 1976 Metropolitan Land Planning Act. It reviews requests
other levels of government. for federal funds from local governments and agencies in
the metropolitan area. It regularly updates chapters in its
We are encouraged by the continued commitment by the metropolitan development guide. It has ongoing planning
Legislature in 1981 to play the central role in looking at responsibility in a host of areas, including aging, arts, air
metropolitan government. Although in April 1981 action quality, health, housing, transportation, parks and open
on a legislative interim study still was pending, one of the space, public safety, solid waste and water quality. It
first amendments adopted to a bill for the study was to lim- oversees the activities of several metropolitan commissions,
it its membership exclusively to legislators. When intro- including parks, airports, sewers, and transit. "It is being
duced the bill provided mainly for membership from local overwhelmed by large numbers of individual applications
-1-
-l-
and by an endless flow of detailed plans and projects," considerable controversy over whether the Council itself
wrote Arthur Naftalin and John Brandi, professors of pub- would take over the direct operations of transit, airports,
lie affairs, University of Minnesota, in their recent book- sewers, and other regional functions. With our support,the
,m,The Twin Cities Regional Strategy. Legislature made a conscious decision to assure that the
Council would maintain effective control over those func-
The heavy load of "activities" may be squeezing out the tions, hut that the Council itself would not directly operate
Council's ability to take policy initiatives on its own. The them. Keeping the Council free from operational responsi-
Council seems to be functioning more as an administra- bilities makes it possible for the body to cut across a variety
five rady, doing what others want it to do, as contrasted of regional issues and present policy proposals to the Le.=i>,-
with presenting its own ideas about the metropolitan lature. If the Council were responsible for the day-to-do:.
.rea' needs before the Legislature. The following are operations of these metropolitan services, it would ha,
examples where in our view the Legislature needs greater time for little else.The Metropolitan Reorganization Act of
areawide leadership from the Council: 1974 underlined the importance of this separation of
responsibility.
• Cable communications. In the absence of Council
leadership, regional interconnection c f c.cble television From time to time there has been some tendency for the
is uncertain; each mun;ciQality in the metropolitan Council to drift towards direct operations.Perhaps the clo-
area is on its own in dealing with the variety of firms sest it has come is in the area of housing,where the Council
competing with cable franchises. functions as a housing and redevelopment authority. So far.
however, the Council has not actually purchased and run
• Regional employment policy. Several years ago, the housing itself. But the matter of handling rent subsidies i.
Council decided not to enter this area. Although the carried out through an advisory committee to the Council
region is one employment market, efforts are frag which does not have authority independent of the Council
mented among a variety of CETA offices, each with as is true of the other metropolitan agencies. One issue is
its own "turf'. whether a separate housing commission should he created
to replace the advisory committee,to keep policy review by
• Financing regional services. The Council lets the indiv- the Council separate from implementation.
idual regional agencies,such as the Transit Commission Whether the Council is maintaining adequate control ovr
3.
develop their own financing proposals to the Legisla- he metropolitan commissions. We think the Council a,
tore. Council leadership on the appropriate balance whole should assert more influence in the selection of
among users fees, regional taxes and state aids is not commission members.
present. Nor does the Council present any plan to the
Legislature for coordinating the financing of all region- The Council is responsible for selecting the members of
al agencies. these subordinate commissions, approving their long range
plans and approving their capital budgets. From time to
• Functions, structures and boundaries of local govern- time there is some criticism over the alledged autonomy of
ments. The Twin Cities area has about 300 different these other bodies.
units of government. The Council has not provided
leadership in sorting out which units of government It is possible that some of the concern over the Council's
should perform which services. -- influence may relate to how the Council exercises its
responsibilities in selecting the members of the subordinate
A legislative study of the Council should address the ques- commissions. Officially the members of the commissions
tion of whether the Council's role as the region's policy are named by the Council as a whole. In actual practice,
advisor to the Legislature should he clarified. For example, however, a form of "aldermanic courtesy" often prevails.
should the Council be required to present to the Legislature While there has been a few exceptions, usually the Council
every two years policy proposals on the region's needs, members from the precincts from which members of the
broadly construed, as distinguished from proposals which subordinate commissions will he named pick the persons
might relate to the Council's own activities or which arc in for the job. Sometimes Council members take turns so that
response to specific legislative directives? in practice only one person's judgment is involved in the
nomination. In fact, it is possible that the only person who
Whether the Council remains a policy body rather than an
interviews a candidate may he the appointing Council mem-
operational body. We think the principle of separating poli- her in a private discussion. What this means, therefore, is
cy and operational responsibilities should be reaffirmed. that there is a possibility that persons appointed to the :uh
ordinate boards may not sense their responsibility to th
When the Metropolitan Council was first created there was Metropolitan Council as a whole. This may interfere with
3G'
-4- .
agency composed of local elected officials to carry out the appointments themselves. One suggestion for selection
certain functions. It has been a difficult matter to assure of members other than by the Governor or by direct elec-
that the Metropolitan Council,though representative of the tion has been to have the persons officially selected by the
region, can still carry out these areawide planning func- legislators from the affected districts.
tions. We have felt that the federal government should ac-
cept the decision by our directly-elected state Legislature One possible modification of the elective process might
on how regional government should be structured. have to do with dividing the question of who is nominated
and who is elected. The nomination process has been as-
How the members of the Metropolitan Council should be
0sumed to be one in which persons would self-select them-
selves selected. We think they should be elected,except for the selves and be then subject to a primary and general election.
f Chairman who should be appointed by the Governor. Some persons have wondered whether candidates might be
nominated in some other way while still preserving the
We have urged that the Council be directly elected from election.
districts of approximately equal population,be salaried and
serve less than full-time. This was our position on our re- We believe the Chairman, who serves at-large, should con-
port on the Council's creation in 1967 and it remains a cen- tinue to be appointed by the Governor.This will continue a
tral part of our thinking regarding the Council today. In meaningful tie with state government and will afford maxi-
1967 efforts to elect the Council failed by one vote in mum opportunity for coordination of metropolitan pro-
the Senate and four votes in the House. In the years since grams with state programs. Moreover, we believe that an
then the elective issue has been introduced in almost every election campaign for chairman of the Metropolitan Coun-
session. It has passed the House several sessions but not the cil—involving one-half the voters of the state—could be very
Senate. We have felt that the Council as a policy body ap- expensive. An elected chairman might be seen as competi-
propriately should be elected. It makes decisions affecting tion for the Governor. Also,there would be no comparable
the region as a whole and its members need to be account- office representing the rest of the state.
able to the public directly for those decisions. ,
Whether—in the event the Council is made elective—the
One of the more fascinating dimensions of the question e type of political campaign should be contemplated
of election concerns whether "better" people are selected s now exists for other elective offices. We think a new ap-
through appointment rather than election. Some persons proach should be tried.
claim that it is easier for someone to take a more areawide
approach being appointed than if a person were elected. Whether members of the Council are appointed or elected,
Others state that the members are likely to reflect the area there is very little opportunity for their knowledge and
from which they were named no matter what.The election viewpoint of metropolitan issues to be discussed in ad-
approach, however, gives the Council the necessary visibil- vance of their selection. We have advocated that should the
ity and enables members to be credible. Elected officials Council be made elective that there be a portion of public
normally can have the respect of other elected officials,but funds set aside to assure that the positions of candidates for
Council members sometimes do not have the degree of the Council on metropolitan issues are broadly distributed.
respect that they should from local officials because they This could take place through special publicly financed
are not elected. publications circulated to every household and through
special television programs, perhaps on public television
Part of the Legislature's reluctance to permit election has stations.
been the fact that a district for the Council election would
probably be larger than a state Senate district,thereby pos- The question of conduct of a campaign and its expense has
sibly giving greater prominence to a member of the Metro- emerged in recent years as a major factor in the discussion
politan Council than to the Legislature. Some persons have of whether the Council should be elected. As the costs of
pointed out that this is not a valid argument because all of political campaigns has risen, people have wondered whet-
the powers that the Council has are derived from the her it would be in the public interest to add another group
Legislature. of people to this list.
Legislators have been,by statute,involved informally in the
selection of members. The Governor is required to consult
with Legislators3.from each Council district before an ap-
pointment is made. At least one Governor turned over the This statement was prepared by the Structure Task Force
decision entirely to the members of the Legislature from of the Citizens League. The statement is cc nsistent witli
ositions the League has taken in several studies of met
the affected districts. Most Governors,however,have made p
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant
RE: Cable Communications Consultant
DATE: April 30, 1981
At the April 28 , 1981 , meeting of the City Council , the Council
moved to hire Anita Benda and CTIC Associates , Inc . as technical
consultants in the cable communications franchise process . A
limit of $6000 per proposal evaluated and $2000 for advance work
on the Request for Proposals was established. It was also stipu-
lated that payment for use of CTIC forms in the RFP was not to
be made . Ms . Benda would like to discuss with the Council the
scope of work anticipated and the stipulation regarding payment
for the use of forms prior to entering a contractual agreement ,
so she has been invited to make a presentation to the City
Council . Members of the Ad Hoc Cable Communications Committe
have been informed of her presentation and may be in attendance
at the meeting.
JA/jms
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Leudloff Sewer Claim
DATE: May 1 , 1981
Introduction
City Council , at its April 21 , 1981 meeting, received the above
claim and instructed City Staff to meet with the Leudloff ' s to
arrive at a settlement .
Meeting
On April 27 , 1981 Jim Karkenan and I met with the Leudloff ' s to
discuss their claim. After explaining what we felt the City was
responsible for, we asked the Leudloff ' s to submit their claim,
in writing, with copies of all checks , etc. Their claim is
attached .
Scheduled Repairs
The City has scheduled the installation of the required man holes
here and on Fuller at $350 in materials and 50 hours in labor
(City crew) . The money is budgeted for 1981 under utility system
maintenance in the sewer budget .
Summary & Recommendation
Jim Karkanen and I feel that the 4 hours in S & W Plumbing time
"over the main" equalling $457 . 95 is on the high side , however,
it is difficult to nail down and we recommend approval of the
claim. The next two items are similar to Mrs . Egan' s claims
earlier this year, and two of the last three items (the permit
fee is deducted from the total) were costs the Leudloff ' s incurred
and feel should be reimbursed. Staff recommends paying the total
claim of $723. 95 . Our insurance company will cover a portion of
the property damage expenses , but not the $457 . 95 maintenance item.
Council can, of course , drop any item(s) from the list if it feels
they do not qualify for reimbursement .
Action Requested
Authorize a payment of $723. 95 to the Luedloff ' s for sewer damages ,
said payment to come from the Sewer Fund.
JKA/jms
• 72:: J im Kar":alien 6°48
F.QM: Roger `,.gran red.10l ff
_
D tirT'E: Apr, _ ...
___ notify you of our claim for sewer damages at our
ho.:1=,- -71'1, Thank you for meeting with us concerning this
natter trti 27, 1981.
During .Lc meeting, we were advised by you and by John Anderson
as to your ormendation of a fair settlement which :4i11 enable the
City to assume it's responsibi?Ity toward this problem. It is as
follows:
1. The City should make the street repair -
2. The City should install a manhole at this location
manhole to, Pe installed during summero
3 reimburse us for plumbers exreensse, excavating exterse n
street area - removing roots Vfrom s -ee: main,ec _^
to and back filling street area y�
4. reimburse b ';rse us for sewer clean-out expense done -y
�' ' 80 v
I. L". Sewer Service on 3/26/81 and ^/2'
5. reimburse us for the st-eet ore ning permit
6. reimburse us for expense of cleaning t p our flooded
basement. both missed a __al day of work, due to this
problem, and cleaned the basement ou se'-"es instead of
1
having it done prof4ssranall;, . Ye rented a We -7ac from
Taylor Rental in Shakopee.
We feel that if this recommendation is approved, the City will have
assumed it's -responsibility ty. toara this problem.
Attached, please find copies of all receipts. There is a copy of
the full bill, as well as a copy of the breakdown for the time spent over
the main by S & W Plumbing of Shakopee, which includes the street oren_ng
permit, and excavating, as well as material.
Expenses are as follows: S & W Plumbing (full bill) S1314.11
- S & W Plumbing (City's portion) $ 457.95
- I. J. Sewer Service (14/2'4 80) 40.50
- I. J. Sewer Service (3 26 81) 45,50
- Estimate expense of drain cleaners
to maintain:: sewer line from October '80
to April 6, 1981 50.00
- Street Opening permit (15.50
- Loss of wages because we had to
clean up the mess in the basement 130.20
TOTAL _S 94
Since these ;ills are all paid in full, we are requesting the Council
to approve reimbursement in the amount of, / 9, 5 thereby assuming it's
responsibility toward this problem.
,
•
• .
•
...7
Stcternent
z"--1AKnOrc DATE OF JOB: 1 \
f. C4 j
ti..5. '4..., T: i . , ..
1..." . 51 _14.
I.. 1/-4.-.
c n
' iuContractors
0
l- rrinui :- s.-:eaTig o,,
. ....,
220 Sour Atwood Street AMUNT:
/\ Phone:Phone: 445-3284
i-j - cv 8 5-,•,./ .
Sha-:c . LNI:nn_ 55379 19 --
7.72 p., q 4".42227...../401, ,i''''fi.-...r.....a,.:2 • _
.10 --//' 4:.: •-•
.„,„e
,/ <..:? .•. 7) al?-- :..9' 4.._.. ----- ... -e' -
..,
:...
/
-.. ...,....e, ....-.....
'''' ''Ir ,4".....i._.A•-....a me i-...,-.0 _ , _,.,. .. ,_ ,...,A __,S--...Z.,---__7 7
fRET "N--.S 2C. 7 C;N WITH PAYMENT
1 PERCENT INTERE i ADDED'E DA 4S AWE.BILLING AND EVERY 30 DAYS THEREAFTER ,
12 PERCENT ANNUAL INTEREST RATE
i-,
-1L- G\.474e.'•..—....Z .-" :-C7Z-77•12:. A `‘7.-'ej-7-C-f7/17..- ' . -'-' '7."..•.•*1.'.—*---$ •
l•;'
t _
1.;ZI -L.'12.-V-er /---‘ _ • '..•• *71:.......1-4- -'"-..- --r-,f1.-...,4--' _ ----t.... .---=i—i '
•; / .
ki ---s..- • e.,7
__it t_ -., _ _i _ .__ ir• , A.-:-.6-7-. .=-1/_!. .-e---.0.-
/,
,_., t- ,,„ __,
..-2.'-!,--",- f ,-.17 .-!er_._,2 -r--4:. ---)47--dd1:1---, i —
, ,:," A : 1,)
..._ — -- 'F.-- X-/lAe/r ' - .11' ---4—,(7
, -.
._::•:- ,...../ ,, ,-(7
--, f---0-• e" -4"" -,07, c2-0 - ''-f.:,,ii-e-',.---5,.
,.._
fj .; ; .
. e.7.1_,•e_..„1,4_0_7___,..,_..7 _ , I
v 1 -eelfha---:--I /-1---116--,--re-42.7 I Y.—7 P
• .
"•- I/ i/ (// ,V I .. ,_ •
...'( 5-- , C;10(/ c:: !a C.,• CI Ci .
I ., ./) I ;•>'" -...1 I. I . ...
I '
• ,-- , .
1/ X 33 .00 / '4?'' • ola . •
, .
• ' tr--;-` ",-
.....L,7 --L., "--/ i 167-.0 0 1
o• c 0 ,
I
,, ,_ - -----'-\fej4E-- 1.7 t------1 • _
.
.„-2-,tv....-/_,"?.,..,„-__,."
. • .
i 0_40 -
- 4/"X H • i_t.a. ---,e--.7
, I //. f 7
. .
i ----1-! _
/1, 6 7 •
ri - Ai " x H _.....4ei it.d...24.4
I 7r?" 'f2--I
/' P Stir ' 7 ? Oii, ji r
•
. . .
... '-` '''.."---' :.'-•••"' • .....711.....".....11 I
' r 5 cI • .
...- -
-.. .....---s.../. . _ -.42......G I
7 I _.... I/[5-7 7s
,•
_:.9 7.5 .--, • i
ii . .
. -----7
i--t„-....' - / 7 , al ;_____L- 11 .
_._ ______ _ _ ....._ ____
. .
. •
_ .
. • .
. .
, • .
. . _
• .
, .
1 . ._.
i .
1 . . .
! ..... . . .
. • .
1")
Statement
n W r c.'-0 i C 0 P E EINC
.„ ,,,,,,,A v. vi v...i,m 1 IN DATE OF JOB.
„
/ -____g_)T' '_.-LF'
":0IT!DIfia & Heating Controctors
iAN4OLIt:frT- ,
1 SOtiih Atwood Street /3/4, //
Phone: 445-3284
y _ /i,ioae ,/t-.. Minn. 55379 19
/'
— ' .---41--1.1../ 1 ...-e--e , at -- •
.--.." tj tj Aor
/ 5?- •
-• -,:„."----x--1 8
- :- .AETuRN T.,-0 S PCPTiON WiTH PAYMENT
1 PERCENT INTEREST ADOCT,..5 DAYS AFTER aiLLING AND EVERY 30 DAYS THEREAF7ER
... _
12 PERCENT ANNUAL INTEREST RATE
. _.______., ----.-----=---------------- ---______.--7--T----------, i i
1,//' il
11
_LL
. , • d
___L___ i.eloo_f__OJ i
___.,,
, _....4._ 1 .
/ 19 '. -1-ZI -'--ij
- : - . r - . e-------- ' '' .-';"7 t 1
„,:
-111 i<
• -5” ___________.-e'-e-e------/
...
, ,,, --.
:.„.5 . ,---1 ,...,-
, ..)
. ,-, ,, ,) L,/• .......:* ."--,-,. -,,,r,--f---,
_.,--------------7,--;_ _ - _ _._tr.
.,t_A et C./ •
' • 1,• • Y fr 0 rf j
• ,..1-- 4_, y ---7
i.___-----
0(....•__
. .
. .....- . —_ -
r,..., .....0.••
—
I i
t 1- 4.
. ___
i__ —_,...0......._ Al----- -------;-40
•__ ___ .
if"
..._4-----4--------._ ._.::.___r4-c--'.-------- ---1?.i-
a ___ ____
_______L______
r ___..,.._____________ . . .
, ,
- , .... 0_, - A
...4....c _____—: ' -.--- 4,.),!"---..-7,•""--___—___-- . I
....___.
1 : ; V 1 • •is
r .
i , !
• ! 1
r I \ :j::::\:=7 '1 .r....
1 .4..'
I 1 .... ..... ..•••••... .•••••••
•'-.....•'•'.
.14 rr rr r
...... r
i r .
I . .
1 • 0 r . • r
Or
i r, . •
i .
: . • r. r
I r :
1 •
-.......-
1 . .
. _
... • . •
I. ,
-fr
.. '
•
. „ .
. , •
• ,
, ROGER E.LUEDLOFF ;
. 7987
•
KARON R.LUEDLOFF '
12W.8TH AVE. PH.445-4599 .../1 P i, 19 Si/
I' SHAKOPEE,MINN. 55379 4 75--1,14,1.41'7
,
PAY TO THE ..,,.....4/Y1. 4 .
, ..ge ...1„,,41) . 7„2 ,,..,,_ , $ i7.6.-: 5O
,.. C / I
AP-
I ' 601•-••it-• _ _,...,C-4-,49.. 61,---7,t.„....-,--r.„_, ,--- e=-' el---E,..r - DOLLARS
--- - --- '
' r i
pipopQrr NATIONALHANK F,,..1..r ,,, 0
1'11101 OF SHAKOPEE
129 S HOLMES ST "I'LL'_ iK ,, >
SHAKOPEE.MINNESOTA 55319 SHAKO PAC
MEMO (,),,..., v.) ,k, /(.. , 1..
0109 ii 9 0 1191-1 31: f 2' " S 2I ' , 311 ?913 7 it'oricl000 1, s s0.1 -
/
. ,
11 ROGER E.LUEDLOFF / 8 0 1.F
KARON R.LUEDLOFF
132 W.8TH AVE PH.445-4599
SHA OPEE,MINN. 55379 // 6 1 9 // 75-1rili'IN
. 4
PAY TO THE ('
— .0"——/---Z-1
141---
. FIRST NATIIINAL BANK ,,..if 4,,l_ .
i OF SHAKOPEE za:., ,,a'
129 S HOLMES ST "...k(zza) ,p
SHAKOPEE MINNESOTA 55379 ' ;HAKO-PACK
L90 L 9 li 31: 21,-. 11S 2 to, 30 80 i•E• •,'000000• I. Rgri,T;ir •
, ...
, •
"?,- 1
�, g {. 1
Nes 4a ra%
Complete Sewer Cleaning or Any Type of Stoppage
sever Ice, Roos oe and Foe Thawing
Rt. 2.lox 138, Shakopee, MN5379
Phone 445-6930 Li. Shuman
DATE: > 19 –
In consideration of the promise ✓ _ _ t
Clean tom: l' i_
Clean 4 f
7 Clean
Describe other lines or fixtures to be cleaned
Clean feet of inch line from inside the building on customer's premises
(Length) (Dia.)
to on customer's premises servicing the premises at
r >r i (Job Address)
#';n n ,T\. 1' - in accordance with the Conditions set forth on the
ft
reverse side hereof, the undersigned agrees to pay the company the sum of S
payable as follows:
Special Terms:_— ---
U. SEWER SERVICE ACCEPTED BY:
r,
By ` '/9 !~ . : ^•, ti
Authorized Representative Customer's Signature r
Print Name
Billing Address
Owner's Tel. Tenant'>Tel
In addition to the cleaning services as set forth above,the following described parts are recommended and shall
be furnished and installed by Company:—__- — —
at an additional charge cf S _,if authorized below by customer.
Authorizes above parts and installation: Parts and installation not authorized
Customer's Signature Customers Signature
(The reverse side is a part hereof)
i';
C ;TY OF SHA REE / ?,-,"
' .NSF F CT N RE PORT , •
fa
w,.. TIME .
_� �-
0B L.0CATIO - _..
----- N•,-.•-•-----d.++:^t7--•-s'
JOB DESCRIPTIOIN.
OWNER OF RECORD --- f ---'C ./..:,,,..,...-e'' -.
y'.XiT -ACTOR w` .vx.: .--.-...•
PERMIT NO.
ECTI a ,B} AS ALLOWS) ;
- I ) ON SITE I�+S? �-ON._...T?E.SCR,:�a_I?
-.
• 2) ON SITE I NSPECTIO1 REVEALED FOLLOWING CONDI : :ON;
a A - FULL COMPLIANCE
0 9 - SUBSTITUTION OR DEVIATION
0 C - NON-COMPLIANCE, BUILDER WILL COMPLY WITHOUT DELAY
t0 0 - NON-COM PLIANCE, BUILDER DOES NOT INTEND TO COMPLY
0. E - CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ISSUED BUT
COMPLETIOTM OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
DELAYED BY CO? DI IONS) BEYOND CONTROL OF CONTRACTOR _ .
3) ITEMIZE
• . -
•
4) R E M A R K S _ -` /2-3•-'71-:••
•
7 .
i".":./
am'!_."-• i /!.-- -.
L SIGNATURE ,OF CONTRACTOR OR REP. •
I J/
• SIGNATURE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR •
. - .
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Block #57 Parking Lot Acquisition
St . Francis Hospital
DATE: May 1 , 1981
Introduction
City Council , at its regular April 21 , 1981 meeting, encouraged
the hospital to proceed with it ' s proposed parking lot construc-
tion to provide interim parking facilities until a City lot was
constructed.
Problem
St . Francis Hospital would like to proceed with the interim
parking plan; however, the hospital must know if the City will
in turn be purchasing the land at its "parking lot" value or
at the cost St . Francis incurred to acquire and construct the
lot. St. Francis would like to have the City purchase the land
and reimburse them for their costs which are outlined in the
attached letter. Please note that some of the costs are esti-
mated and that St. Francis is looking for a commitment from the
City to reimburse them for actual costs .
Alternatives
1 . Make no commitment .
2 . Make a commitment to cover the actual expense for acquisition,
(FMV estimate for the Meyer property) , development , adminis-
tration costs and other costs .
3. Make a qualified commitment covering the item in alternative
#2.
Recommendation
After reviewing the letter with Rod Krass , we recommend alterna-
tive #2 with a change in the method of arriving at a value on the
Meyer property. If necessary, Rod recommends that a 3rd appraiser
be hired as an arbitrator, that the three sit as a panel to hear
the facts , write independent values and then open the values and
average the closest two.
Requested Action
Pass a formal motion agreeing to reimburse St . Francis Hospital
for acquisition (FMV estimate for the Meyer property using a 3rd
appraiser if necessary) , development , adminstration and other
verified costs when the City acquires hospital properties in
block #57 for construction of a parking lot .
JKA/jms
4°111117111Nihr
A
St.Francis Hospital
325 WEST FIFTH AVENUE/SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA 55379/(612)445-2322
April 29, 1981
Mr. John K. Anderson
City Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear John:
At their April 21 , 1981 meeting, the City Council directed City Staff
to work toward an agreement with the Hospital and the County for
redevelopment of Block 57 for parking. The target date for finalizing
this agreement was September 1 , 1981 .
Prior to the start of construction of our building project, presently
slated for approximately June 1 , 1981 , we would like to develop the
properties we own on Block 57 for use as temporary parking. A
Conditional Use Permit has been applied for and hopefully work could
begin shortly.
In order to proceed with developing these properties for temporary
parking, the homes will have to be moved or razed. Before this is done,
we need an agreement with the City as to how the value of these properties
would be determined if they are purchased or condemned by the City at a
later date. This is necessary since without the houses , obviously, the
valuation of the properties decreases significantly.
For the Moldenhauer, Hennen and Pass properties, we suggest the valuation
be the total of the following:
1 . Acquisition cost of the Hospital , i .e. purchase price,
attorney and appraisal fees, etc.
2. Development costs, i .e. moving or razing of homes, grade work,
fill , engineering costs , etc.
3. Hospital administration costs in acquiring the properties
4. Other direct costs the Hospital can verify relative to these
properties
5. Any monies received from the sale of the houses would be
offset against costs.
We are currently in the process of purchasing the Pass residence contingent
on this agreement with you on the method of valuation. Attached is a
list of our costs on the above properties.
SPONSORED BY THE FRANCISCAN SISTERS OF ST. PAUL, MN
John K. Anderson
April 29, 1981
Page Two
For the Meyer property, presently owned by St. Mary's Association, we
suggest using the fair market value prior to the razing of the house on
the property. The FMV could be determined by averaging an appraisal
obtained by the City and one obtained by the Hospital . Added to this
FMV would be other acquisition costs incurred by the hospital such as
attorney fees, appraisal fees, etc.
We would ask that this portion of the agreement be acted upon by the
Council at their next scheduled meeting. Your prompt action would
enable us to proceed in developing these properties for temporary
parking.
If there are any questions regarding the above, please contact us.
Si
ce re ly,
ree
Mike Sortum
Director of Fiscal Services
MS:hme
Enclosure
ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL
ESTIMATED COSTS OF BLOCK 57 PROPERTIES
Moldenhauer Hennen Pass
Acquisition Costs $ 41,500 $ 45,000 $ 72,500
Development Costs (A) $ 3,000 $ 2,500 $ 6,000
Hospital Administration Costs (B) $ 500 $ 500 $ 500
Other Direct Costs (A) $ 100 $ 100 $ 100
$ 45,100 $ 48,10.0 $ 79,100
(A) Estimated
(B) We are estimating our costs to be $500 per property. We would
agree to use the same administrative costs the City would use
on the properties they acquire.
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between the CITY
OF PRIOR LAKE, Minnesota , a municipal corporation, ( "PRIOR
LAKE" ) ; the CITY OF SHAKOPEE, Minnesota , a municipal corporation, •
( "SHAKOPEE") ; and the PRIOR LAKE-SPRING LAKE WATERSHED DISTRICT,
Prior Lake, Minnesota, a political subdivision of the State of
Minnesota , ( "WATERSHED DISTRICT" ) .
WHEREAS , the Watershed District is presently engaged in
the implementation of a project , identified as the "Lake Outlet
Project , Number WD 76-4" , ( "Lake Outlet") , to construct an arlti-
ficial outlet for Prior Lake for the purpose of draining water
from Prior Lake and transporting such water to the Minnesota
River; and
WHEREAS , the plans and specifications for the Lake Outlet
require the improvement of cer':ain natural drainage courses and
the construction of certain dr,.iinage channels within the munic-
ipal boundaries of Shakopee and more particularly .described on
Exhibit "A" , which is attached hereto and by reference made a
part hereof ; and
WHEREAS , the temporary and permanent easements specified
by the plans and specifications for the construction of the fore-
going drainage improvements can only be obtained from the
affected property owners with the cooperation and assistance
of Shakopee ; and
WHEREAS, the drainage improvements and easement acquisitions
contemplated by the Watershed District are of direct and immedi-
ate benefit to Shakopee because (a) the drainage channel impr
ove-
ments are in conformance with Shakopee ' s overall drainage plate
in the area of the Lake Outlet ' s drainage route , (b) the ease-
ments to be acquired can also be used by Shakopee for public
utility and right-of-way purposes , and (c) the channel improve-
ments may reroute local runoff into Dean' s Lake and thereby
siOp—
q -'
plement and increase the level of the lake; and
WHEREAS , Prior Lake and Shakopee desire to assist the
Watershed District acquire the easements necessary for the con-
struction of the drainage channel improvements specified in the
Lake Outlet plans and specifications , upon the conditions herein-
after set forth ; and
WHEREAS , the implementation of the Lake Outlet is of direct
and immediate benefit to Prior Lake because the improvements
contemplated by the Lake Outlet are designed to reduce the impact
of flooding on Prior Lake insofar as it affects the owners of
property along the shore and within the established flood plain,
and as it affects the capability of Prior Lake to provide essn-
tial municipal services during times of flooding; and
WHEREAS , Prior Lake desires to be made a party to this
Agreement to enable it to participate in decisions affecting
the use and management of the Lake Outlet ; and
WHEREAS , the parties her( to desire to enter into a joint
powers agreement pursuant to nn.Stat . Sec . 471 . 51 , ( 1949 , ab
amended) , upon the terms and conditions hereinafter specified;
and
WHEREAS , the Watershed District has authority under Minn.
Stat . Sec . 112 .43 , Subd. 1 ( 2 ) , ( 1955 , as amended) , to contract
with other public corporations to effectuate the purposes of
the Act ; and
WHEREAS , Prior Lake and Shakopee have authority to engage
in a joint powers agreement for utility and drainage purposes
pursuant to Minn.Stat . Sec . 412 . , ( 19 , as amended) .
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants
and agreements hereinafter contained , it is agreed by and between
the parties hereto as follows : '
ARTICLE I
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
Section 1 .01 . General Purpose . The general purpose of
this Agreement is to provide a format whereby the Watershed
District can construct and operate an artificial outlet that
•
can be used to drain flood waters from Prio- Lake and transport
them to the Minnesota River. The constructi a of the Lake Outlet
-2-
requires the acquisition of easements in Prior Lake and Shakopee.
Thereafter, the Watershed District must construct improvements
to the drainage channel along the entire system. The portion of
the drainage channel located in Shakopee is within an area which
has been identified by Shakopee as needing future capacity i
excess of the levels projected by the Watershed District as being
required for safe and efficient operation of the Lake Outlet .
It is the intention of the parties to this Agreement to establish
a legally binding procedure for acquiring the necessary easements
in Shakopee and to set forth conditions that must be fulfilled
to construct and operate the necessary channel improvements . I
The Agreement shall specify the procedures and responsibilities
for maintenance of the channel improvements and the conditions
that must be fulfilled prior to actually releasing water from
Prior Lake . The Agreement shall specify the responsibilities
of the parties with respect tr maintenance of the drainage chan-
nel and the additional uses tl, , t may he made of theeasements
by Shakopee .
ARTICLE II
ACQUISITION OF DRAINAGE CHANNEL EASEMENTS
Section 2.01 . Acquisition of Channel Easements . The
Watershed District is authorized to negotiate for and acquire
suitable easements within the municipal boundaries of Shakopee
for the construction of the Lake Outlet . In conducting the nego-
tiations and/or condemnation proceedings necessary for the acqui-
sition of the required easements , the Watershed District shall
comply in all respects with Shakopee Resolution No. 1643 , enti-
tled "A Resolution Adopting a Policy for the City of Shakopee,
Concerning the Condemnation of Easements and Land Needed for
the Installation of Public Improvements". To the extent possible
with the budgetary limitations established by the Watershed
District for the Lake Outlet, the Watershed District shall
endeavor through its acquisition of easements to align the outlet
channel to locations satisfactory to the affected landowners . ,
To the extent possible within the budgetary limitations estab-
lished by the Watershed District for the Lal Outlet , the
-3-
Watershed District shall also endeavor to acquire easements in
dimensions required by Shakopee. The plans and specifications
for the Lake Outlet shall specify the ultimate alignment and
dimensions of the easements .
Section 2 .02 . Uses of and Title to Easements . The ease-
ments to be acquired by the Watershed District shall be for util-
ity and drainage purposes over, under, and across the affected
properties . The title to the easements shall be acquired in the
joint names of the Watershed District and Shakopee .
Section 2 .03 . Assistance by Shakopee . In the event that
it becomes necegsar.y in the opiinion of the Watershed District) to
acquire the required easements by means of condemnation proceed-
ings , Shakopee shall cooperate with and assist the Watershed
District in pursuing condemnation . In that event , all legal
proceedings shall be brought in the joint name of the Watershed
District and Shakopee by the Shakopee City Attorney in accord-
ance with Shakopee Resolutioi. Number 1643 .
Section 2.04. Easement Acquisition Costs . All cost or
expense necessary and incidental to the acquisition of the ease-
ments shall be the responsibility of and borne by the Watershed
District . The costs for which the Watershed District shall have
direct and exclusive responsibility shall include without limita-
tion all costs related to the ficquisiti.on of the easements , legal
fees , court costs , appraisal fees , survey fees , abstracting fees ,
and recording fees . The Watershed District agrees to indemnify
and hold Shakopee harmless from any and all liability of any
nature arising from, and for all •cost and expense relating to
the acquisition of the easements .
Section 2 . 05 . Payment of Easement Acquisition Costs . Tke
Watershed District shall pay the easement acquisition costs on
or before 30 days following receipt of the proceeds from the
sale of the municipal bonds used to finance the Lake Outlet in
the event that the contracts for the improvements are let and
the work on the improvements proceeds . In the event that the
Watershed District elects eithgr not to let c mtracts for the ,
-4-
1
fd
improvements or elects not to let contracts for the improvements
or elects not to commence work on the improvements , the easement
acquisition cost shall be paid on or before 30 days after receipt
of the reimbursement funds received from Scott County in accord-
ance with Minn. Stat . Sec . 112 . , Subd . ( ) , ( 1955 , as
amended ) .
ARTICLE III
CONSTRUCTION OF LAKE OUTLET
Section 3 .01 . Obligation of Watershed District . The con-
struction of the Lake Outlet including without limitation the
construction of all channel improvements appurtenant thereto
shall be the sole and exclusive responsibility of the Watershed
District . Prior to the commencement of construction, the
Watershed District shall obtain all permits and approvals
required by any governmental unit having jurisdiction over the
Lake Outlet improvements including without limitation permits
from Shakopee , the Lower Minn(. )ta Watershed District , the
Minnesota Water Resources Board, the Department of Natural
Resources , the Environmental Quality Council and the Metropolitan
Council .
Section 3 .02 . Plans and Specifications for the Lake Outlet
Improvements . The Watershed District shall design the Lake
Outlet improvements to conform with generally acceptable engifie-
ering specifications . The Watershed District shall furnish
Shakopee with complete copies of the plans and specifications
for the Lake Outlet improvements certified to by the Watershed
District ' s engineer. The Watershed District ' s determination on
questions of design shall be conclusive as to the parties to
this Agreement .
Section 3.03 . Payment of Lake Outlet Construction Costs .
All costs or expenses incurred to construct the Lake Outlet
improvements shall be the responsibility of and borne by the
Watershed District . The costs to be paid by the Watershed
District shall include without limitation all direct construe Lon
costs , engineering fees , legal fees , administration expense iU
-5-
permit application fees . The Watershed District shall indemnify
and hold Shakopee harmless from any liability for any cost or
expense incurred in constructing the Lake Outlet improvements .
ARTICLE IV
OPERATION OF LAKE OUTLET
Section 4.01 . General . ( a ) Water shallnot be released
from Prior Lake by opening the main Lake Outlet gate at any time
when such discharge would jeopardize the health, safety or prop-
erty of the residents or property owners of Shakopee .
(b) The determination of when and to what degree such jeop-
ardy has ceased, or has been reduced to the extent that the d$.s-
1
charge of water from Prior Lake may commence , shall be made
jointly by the engineers of the Watershed District , Shakopee
and Prior Lake in accordance with the following procedures :
( 1 ) An inspection shall be made to determine the depth
and velocity of the flow at various locations in
the drainage channel .
( ii ) The available calx :ity in the drainage channel shall
be determined by using Manning ' s equation for open-
channel flow. All calculations shall be performed
by the Watershed District ' s engineer .and shall be
confirmed by the engineers of Prior Lake and
Shakopee .
( iii ) The "available capacity in the drainage channel"
shall be defined as the calculated maximum rate
of discharge at which the Lake Outlet can be allowed
to operate without resultant damage to the drainage
channel or to adjoining properties .
(c ) After the available Capacity in the drainage channel
has been determined by the engineers of the Watershed District ,
Prior Lake and Shakopee , the main Lake Outlet gate may be opened
subject to adjustment so as to release water at a rate that will
not exceed the available capacity in the drainage channel .
Section 4.02 . Notice to Shakopee of Intent to Open Main
Lake Outlet Gate . Prior to the opening of the main Lake Outlet
gate and the release of water from Prior Lake , the Watershed
District shall give Shakopee no less than 24 hours ' advance
notice in accordance with Section 12.01 .
Section 4.03. Inspection of Drainage Channel . (a) Prior
to the opening of the main Lake Outlet gate and the release o
-6-
water from Prior Lake, the Watershed District shall inspect
the drainage channel to insure the free flow of water for the
anticipated rate and duration of the release period and to deter-
mine the available capacity in the drainage channel in accordance
with Section 4.01 (b) . Notice of any such inspection shall be I
given to the engineers of Prior Lake and Shakopee and either
City may elect to have a representative present for any inspec-
tion. In the event that the inspection reveals that repair or
maintenance is required to insure the free flow of water through
the drainage channel , the party having responsibility for such
repair and maintenance in accordance with Article VI shall
promptly perform such repairs or maintenance so as to prevent
any undue delay in the release of water from Prior Lake . In
the event that such repairs are not promptly undertaken by the
responsible party, the Watershed District shall have the right
to perform, or cause to be performed , the repairs to be made
after 24 hours ' notice and to 2cover the costs pertinent thei-eto
from the responsible party. Daily inspection of channel condi-
tions shall be made by the District during lake outlet drainage
rates exceeding 20 CFS . In such event , the responsible party
shall reimburse the Watershed District upon due demand therefor
for all sums paid, or for the fair value of any work performed,
by the Watershed District in connection with such repair or mlin-
tenance . In addition thereto , the Watershed District shall per-
form daily inspections of the drainage channel conditons during
times that water is being released from Prior Lake at rates
exceeding 20 CFS .
(b) After the main lake outlet gate has been closed and
the water in the drainage channel has receded, the Watershed
District shall make an inspection of the drainage channel to
determine whether it has been damaged by the flow of water from
Prior Lake. Notice of any such inspection shall be given to
the engineers of Prior Lake and Shakopee and either City may
elect to nave a representative present for any inspection. Yn '
-7-
the event that the inspection reveals that repair or maintenance
is required to insure the free flow of water through the drainage
channel , the party having responsibility for such repair and
maintenance in accordance with Article VI shall promptly perform
such repairs or maintenance so. as to prevent any undue delay l
in the release of water from Prior Lake .
( c ) The inspection requirements set forth in Sections
4.03 (a) and (b) constitute the minimum obligation of the parties ;
and any party to this Agreement shall have the full right to
make such additional inspection of the drainage channel as it
may deem necessary, with or without notice to any other party'.
(d) Written reports of allinspections shall be made by
the inspecting party and shall be forwarded to each of the other
parties .
Section 4.04. Operation of Dean ' s Lake Diversion Structure
Gate . . (a ) The Watershed District shall have the exclusive
authority for the operation of :he Dean ' s Lake diversion stru6-
ture gate except as otherwise provided in this Section 4.04.
(b) The normal position of the Dean ' s Lake diversion struc-
ture gate ( that is , the position of the gate during times that
water is not being released from Prior Lake) shall direct the
flow of runnoff through the existing natural drainage route and
shall not divert such runoff t1rough Dean ' s Lake. Nevertheleks,
the Watershed District agrees to comply with reasonable requests
by Shakopee to divert normal runoff through Dean' s Lake;
provided, however, that such request shall be made to the
Watershed District in writing and shall be accompanied by the
Agreement of Shakopee to indemnify and hold the Watershed
District harmless from any liability for loss , damage and cos ,
including without limitations reasonable attorney' s fees , result-
ing from the diversion of runoff through Dean ' s Lake pursuant
to the request of Shakopee .
(c ) During the periods that water being released from Prior
Lake is , lowing through the Dean' s Lake diversion structure ,
the diversion structure gate smallbe positioned so as to ut u
-8-
4-2
all runoff through Dean' s Lake. However, in the event that the
diversion of runoff into Dean ' s Lake is causing or creates an
eminent danger of damage to private property, Shakopee shall
have the authority to abate the flow of runoff into Dean ' s Lake
by repositioning the diversion structure gate to direct all 1
or part of the runoff to the existing natural drainage route.
Shakopee shall give the Watershed District prior notice of its
intent to redirect the flow of runoff by adjustment of the diver-
sion structure gate .
Section 4. 05 . Additional Operational Conditions Imposed
Upon the Watershed District . the Lake Outlet will be operated
in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit issued
by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources . A copy of
the permit is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" , and by reference
made a part hereof . In no event will the Watershed District
discharge water from Prior Lake.
ART7 „E V
USES OF DRAINAGE CHANNEL
Section 5 .01 . Permitted Uses by Watershed District . The
Watershed District shall use the drainage channel for the purpose
of draining water from Prior Lake and for no other purposes.
Section 5.02 . Permitted Uses by Shakopee . Shakopee
reserves the right to use the basements obtained by the Watershed
District in connection with its overall drainage plans as they
are from time to time developed by Shakopee . In the event runoff
in Shakopee results in or causes the need for expansion of the
design capacity for the drainage ' channel,, Shakopee shall make
or install all improvements necessary to increase the capacit
of the drainage channel to handle the increased flow. Any suc
improvements shall be made at the sole cost or expense of
Shakopee ; and Prior Lake and the Watershed District shall be
indemnified and held harmless from any and all liability for
such cost or expense and for such increased flow.
4
-9-
Section 5 . 03. Additional Authorized Shakopee Uses.
Shakopee may use the easements without termination of this
Agreement, for the installation, operation and maintenance of
public services and utilities to include without limitation pub-
lic streets, sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, electrical and
natural gas. In no event shall such uses interfere or otherwise
restrict the drainage function of the channel. All cost or
expense to install, operate and maintain such utilities and any
damage to the channel resulting from such installation, operation
and maintenance shall be borne by Shakopee and both Prior Lake
and the Watershed District shall be indemnified and held harm-
less from any liability therefor.
ARTICLE VI
MAINTENANCE OF DRAINAGE CHANNEL
Section 6 . 01. Obligation of Watershed District to Provide
Initial Construction Warranty for Drainage Channel Improvements .
For a period of three (3) years following completion of the
improvements made to the drainage channel as part of the initial
construction of the Lake Outlet, the Watershed District shall
have the sole and exclusive obligation to stabilize the channel
bank and restore any damage to the drainage channel or adjoining
private property resulting from the initial construction work.
In addition, any work performed by the Watershed District dur,llfng
the foregoing three (3) year period to repair, replace or correct
defects that arise out of or in connection with the initial
construction work shall be similarly guaranteed for an additional
three (3) year period from and after the date of such repair,
replacement or correction. .
Section 6 .02 . Obligations of Watershed District to Contribute
to the Routine Maintenance of Drainage Channel.
(a) In addition to its obligations to provide a three (3)
year initial construction warranty pursuant to Section 6 . 01,
the Watershed District shall have a continuing obligation
throughout the entire term of this Agreement to contribute tO,
the cost incurred for the routine maintenance of the drainaar`
-10-
24/
channel . The amount of the Watershed District ' s contribution
to the routine maintenance of the drainage channel shall be
determined as follows :
( i ) Before the time that Shakopee alters or otherwise
makes use of the drainage channel in connection
with its overall drainage plan or in connection f
with the installation of public services and utili-
ties , the Watershed District shall have sole and
exclusive obligations to perform and pay the cost '
of all routine maintenance to the drainage channel .
( ii ) After the time that Shakopee modifies the drainage
channel in connection with its overall drainage
plan or in connection with the installation of pub-
lic services and utilities , the Watershed District
shall have the sole and exclusive obligation to
perform and pay the cost of all routine maintenance
to that' portion of the drainage channel lying so th-
erly of Dean ' s Lake ( including the Dean' s Lake
diversion structure ) ; provided, however, that at
such time as there exists a continuous flow of water
betwen the main outlet structure on Prior Lake and
State Trunk Highway Number 101 , the Watershed
District shall have the sole and exclusive obli-
gation to perform and pay the cost of routine main-
tenance for the entire drainage channel . In no
event , however, shall the Watershed District have
any responsibility for loss or damage to any public
services or utili . Les installed or maintained in,
the drainage chan al easement by Shakopee .
(b) In addition to the continuing obligations of the
Watershed District to contribute to the routine maintenance of
the drainage channel , the Watershed District shall have the obli-
gation of inspecting the drainage channel before and after
releasing water from Prior Lake and shall repair any impedimert
to such discharge before releaing water and restore any damage
caused to the drainage channel by such discharge thereafter.
The post-discharge inspection shall be made as soon as practical
after the discharge has ended. Any emergency restoration work
as evidenced by the inspection shall be completed within a time
frame consistent with the severity of the damage caused and sµch
other physical and weather conditions that may bear upon the
work to be performed. In no event , however, shall the time frame
for completing permanent repairs exceed one (1 ) year from the
date that the discharge causing the damage was ended.
Section 6.03 . Obligation of Shakopee to Contribute to the
Routine Maintenance of Drainage Channel .
(a) Before the time that ' Shakopee mod ' fies the drainage
-11-
/,
J
channel in connection with its overall drainage plan or in con-
nection with the installation of public services and utilities ,
Shakopee shall have no obligation to contribute to the cost of
the routine maintenance of the drainage channel .
(b) After the time that Shakopee modifies the drainage I
channel in connection with its overall drainage plan, or in con-
nection with the installation of public services and utilities ,
and except as otherwise provided in Section 6 . 02 (a) ( ii ) Shakopee
shall have the sole and exclusive obligation to perform and pay
the cost of all routine maintenance to that portion of the drain-
age channel lying northerly ofiDean ' s Lake .
ARTICLE VII
INDEMNIFICATION
Section 7 .01 . Indemnification of Shakopee by the Watershed
District . The Watershed District shall indemnify and hold
Shakopee harmless from any and all liability , cost or expense ,l
including without limitation 1 asonable attorney' s fees and curt
costs , arising out of or in connection with the construction,
improvement , use and maintenance of the drainage channel by
the Watershed District .
Section 7 .02 . Indemnification of the Watershed District
by Shakopee . Shakopee shall indemnify and hold the Watershed
District harmless from any andlall liability, cost or expense',
including without limitation reasonable attorney' s fees and
court costs , arising out of or in connection with the improve-
ment , use and maintenance of the drainage channel and the drain-
age channel easement . •
Section 7.03. Insurance and Evidence Thereof . Each of
the parties to this Agreement hall provide on the demand of
the other, evidence that the risks covered by this Article are
insured through an insurance company licensed to do business
in the State of Minnesota by a policy or policies having minimum
per occurrence limits of One Million Dollars ($1 ,000,000.00)".
4001/
-12-
ARTICLE VIII •
RESOLUTIONS OF DISPUTES
Section 8 .01 . Policy for Resolving Disputes . The parties
to this Agreement acknowledge that if disputes do arise over
the the construction of this Agreement , or over the rights wild
obligations of the parties hereto , such disputes will , in all
likelihood , affect substantial rights with respect to the health
and safety of the persons and property of the citizens residing
within their respective jurisdictions and will further arise
under the time frames that do not allow for extended investi-
gation of or negotiations regarding the relative merits of tt�e
respective position to the dispute . Therefore , the following
procedure for resolving disputes has been implemented to give
each party to this Agreement the opportunity to present , to the
fullest extent possible , the essence of their position to a qual-
ified arbitrator and yet at the same Lime receive a knowledgeable
decision, from a person havin sufficient technical experience
and expertise , within the shortest possible time .
Section 8 .02 . Procedure for Resolving Disputes . All dis-
putes arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall
be resolved by arbitration in accordance with Minn.Stat . Sec .
572 .08 c , ( 1957 , as amended) , the Minnesota Uniform Arbitration
Act , and the following conditipns : I
(a) The dispute shall be heard by a board consisting of
three ( 3) arbitrators . The Watershed District and Prior Lake
shall appoint one ( 1 ) member to the board. Shakopee shall
appoint one ( 1 ) member to the board. The third board member
shall be appointed by the members previously appointed by the
parties .
(b) The election to arbitrate a dispute shall be made in
writing, duly served upon all of the other parties in the manner
provided herein for notices .
(c) The hearing before the arbitrators shall be held within
five ( 5 ) days after service of the election to arbitrate , uri O
-13-
otherwise agreed in writing by each of the parties .
(d ) The decision of the arbitrators shall be rendered not
later than seven ( 7 ) days after service of the election to arbi-
trate , unless otherwise agreed in writing by each of the parties .
Section 8 .03 . Enforcement of Award . The award of the Irbi •
-
trators shall be enforceable by any district judge of the First
Judicial District of the State of Minnesota .
ARTICLE IX
AMENDMENT
Section 9 .01 . Amendment . Any amendment to this Agreement
shall he in writing and duly executed by each of the parties .
Any amendment shall be effective from and after the date that
it is recorded in the Office of the Scott County Recorder.
ARTICLE X
TERMINATION
Section 10. 01 . Perpetua ' . The duration of this Agreement
shall be perpetual , or until o _ herwise expressly rescinded or
terminated by the parties . Any such agreement of• rescission
or termination shall be recorded in the Office of the Scott
County Recorder.
ARTICLE XI
DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY
Section 11 .01 . Distribution of Property Generally . In
the event of the rescission or termination of this Agreement ,
all property or surplus monies acquired as a result of the joint
exercise of powers provided for herein shall be returned to the
contributing party in proportion' to the contribution provided
for by the respective party.
Section 11 .02 . Title to Easements Upon Termination. Upon
termination of this Agreement , the Watershed District shall
convey to Shakopee, all of its right , title and interest in that
portion of the drainage channel lying northerly of Scott County
Road 16 and within the municipal limits of Shakopee . In exchange
therefor, Shakopee shall pay to the Watershed District an amount
-14-
G_
equal to the depreciated costs actually incurred by the Watershed
District in acquiring and initially improving ( including amounts
incurred by the Watershed District in accordance with Section
6 .01 ) that portion of the drainage channel lying northerly of
Scott County Road 16 and within the municipal limits of Shakoke.
The term "depreciated cost" shall mean and refer to the cost
based upon an assumed rate of depreciation equally amortized
over the useful life of fifteen ( 15 ) years .
ARTICLE XII
MISCELLANEOUS
Section 12 .01 . Notices . Any notice required to be give
or submitted under this Agreement shall be duly given if deliv-
ered personally or if mailed , by certified or registered mail ,
postage prepaid , addressed to the parties at their respective
addresses specified below, or to such other address with respect
to any party as such party shall notify the others in writing.
If to Prior Lake : I
(Name)
City Administrator
4629 Dakota Street Southeast
Prior Lake , Minnesota 55372
If to Shakopee :
(Name)
City Administrator
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
If to the Watershed District :
(Name)
Staff Administrator
4690 Colorado Street
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
Section 12.02 . Successors and Assigns . This Agreement
shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the legal sluc-
cessors and assigns of the parties .
Section 12 .03 . Construction. This Agreement shall be con-
strued in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Section 12 .04. Definitions . The terms defined in this
Section 12 .04 (except as may be otherwise expressly provi .
in this Agreement or when the context otherwise requires )
-14-
.((1''
for all purposes of this Agreement, have the following respective
meanings :
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Agreement on the day of , 1981 .
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
BY
ITS
\N D
ITS
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
BY
ITS
AND
ITS
PRIOR LAKE-SPRING LAKE WATERSHJD
DISTRICT
BY
ITS
AND
ITS
•
•
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF SCOTT )
On this day of , 1981, the foregoing Joint
Powers Agreement was acknowledged before me by
and , the and
, respectively, of the City of Prior Lake, a
municipal corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
•
-15-
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss .
COUNTY OF SCOTT )
On this day of , 1981 , the foregoing Joint
Powers Agreement was acknowledged before me by
and , the and , ,
respectively , of the City of Shakopee , a municipal—corporation,
on behalf of said corporation .
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss .
COUNTY OF SCOTT )
On this day of , 1981 , the foregoing Joint'
Powers Agreement was acknowledged before me by
and , the and
respectively, of the Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District ,
a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota , on behalf of
said district .
777E77—Public
•
, ,t,
-16-
do"A4o. CITY OF SHAKOPEE
0 ' i U 129 East First avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
MEMO
TO: John_Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Larry Martin. City Assessor
SUBJECT: Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed Project
DATE: April 29 , 1981
Introduction:
i
As requested I have reviewed the preliminary project plans 1
to form a general opinion as to its impace on taxable value
within Shakopee.
Background:
Because the preliminary corridor follows, for the most part ,
public waters and/or natural water flow patterns already present,
I do not foresee any appreciable loss in taxable acreage.
Furthermore, because the corridor passes through an area which
is primarily undeveloped, the unit value of the acreage absorbed
is minimal .
My main concern with this project is, as you state in your speed
letter of April 26, damage avoidance, or the impact the corridor
might have to surrounding acreage as it disects parcels of land.
This is an area in which the City will want to pay strict
attention to and weigh each argument as it effects the City, the 1
property owners, and the project as a whole. I
1
Summary:
I don' t consider the taxable acreage under the easement itself
a major concern, however, consideration should be given to the
corridors path as it relates to accessibility, future development
plans and the long term damaging effects that may be present in
the preliminary plan.
LDM :plk
JULIUS A.GOLLER, II
JULIUS A.COLLER ATTORNEY AT LAW 612-445-1244
1859-1940
2 1 1 WEST FIRST AVENUE
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
553Z9
April 29, 1981
Mr. John K. Anderson, City Administrator
Shakopee CityHall
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear John:
In connection with the eminent domain proceedings brought by the City of
Shakopee against John M. Dunkers and wife and Walter C. Muhlenhardt and
wife, I was furnished with two real estate descriptions. One covered
the property then owned by the Dunkers, now owned by the Lindemanns; the
other was the Muhlenhardt parcel.
Condemnation proceedings were instituted on the basis of the two descrip-
tions and the Commissioners were appointed, made their awards and the
condemnation proceedings were completed.
The only award in which we are presently interested is the Muhlenhardt
which was set at $500 plus the appraisers fees of $150, as allowed by law,
making a total of $650 awarded to Mr. Muhlenhardt. Shortly thereafter,
I was advised that the description furnished for the Muhlenhardt]was much
larger than it should have been and larger than was needed. In order to
keep the negotiation process somewhat open, I appealed the award and this
appeal is now pending in the District Court and will shortly come up for
trial.
Negotiations were undertaken with Mr. Muhlenhardt's attorney to reduce the
required land taking to a 60'x60" tract for which the City would pay a
proportionate fee to Mr. Muhlenhardt. Mr. Muhlenhardt and his attorney
are not interested and want the full amount of the award.
Under these circumstances, I recommend dismissing the appeal and paying
the award but taking the entire tract described in the proceedings. I
doubt if we would prevail on the contested appeal and the cost would
materially increase monies invested in the above project.
Re •-ctfully submitted,
,p
Ju us A. Coller, II
Shakopee City Attorney
JAC/bpm
Action Requested:
Authorize dismissing appeal oraward of eminent domain proceed-
ings against Walter C. Muhlenhardt and wife, and authorize and
direct appropriate city officials to pay the award of $650 and
take possession of the entire tract described in the proceedings .
MEMO TO: John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: Don Steger J°
..1
City Planner v
RE : Newly Revised Sign Ordinance
DATE : April 27 , 1981
At the City Council meeting of April 21st , the Council
elected to not take any action on the above-referenced . At
that time, a suggestion was made to include a reference
on City water storage tanks . This has been so noted and included
on Page 90 as Item "W" , as follows :
W. Signs for City water storage facilities shall
be exempt from size restrictions .
Since this was the only change noted, corrected copies have
not been made for the City Council, but now included on the
original copy of the newly revised Sign Ordinance .
Action Requested :
City Council approve the newly revised Sign Ordinance and
direct the proper City Officials to prepare an appropriate
ordinance for Council adoption.
j iw
0qp(4, CITY OF SHAKOPEE
,..<7.1)t}
te t . 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
`a it
MEMO
Mayor and Council
TO:
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Tax Increment Financing (TIF) - S .F. 635
DATE: May 1 , 1981
Introduction:
City Council , at its regular April 21 , 1981 meeting, asked that
I summarize the Action Alert from the League regarding Senator
Mary Hanson' s Bill S .F. 635 which would amend the TIF statutes.
I contacted the League to determine the current status of the
bill and learned that it was voted out of the Senate Tax
Committee with minor changes and that the bulk of the League ' s
objections to the bill were still valid.
Summary:
The League objects to 10 sections, ie. proposed changes, recom-
mended by the bill . The bill , according to the League would
virtually kill economic development projects (districts) , and
put greater limitation on redevelopment projects (districts) .
Should the bill pass, the changes would negatively effect TIF
just when it may be the only viable tool left (grant programs
are declining) for local governments to use for redevelopment
like those Shakopee is considering for its CBD . The League
feels it is imparative that local elected officials contact their
State Legislators and ask them to vote against this bill :
Because the bill is a critical one and is now on the Senate
floor I am also including a detailed summary of the Leagues
review of the bill below. If you do not -wish to spend time
on it , skip to the "recommended action" section.
V-
1 . S . F. 635 WOULD CAUSE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TIF DISTRICTS TO RESULT
IN HIGHER SCHOOL MILL RATES .
Summary Under section 1 of S .F. 635, the captured assessed value (CAV)
of parcels in economic development districts would be included in
adjusted assessed value of each school district for purposes of com-
puting 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 pro-
posal 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.
2. DATE FOR DETERMINATION OF "ORIGINAL ASSESSED VALUE" MODITIED - 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 .
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. Itis essential
to have a "real number" at the time the district is certified so
that the appropriate cash flow projections may be made. This 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 is to delete it. The problem
it is meant to address , that of "windfall" gains in captured
assessed value , is not really that great .
3. DEFINITION OF REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TIGHTENED UP - MUCH MORE
DIFFICULT TO QUALITY AS A "BLIGHTED AREA" .
-2- .J
Summary M.S. 273. 73 , subd. 10, defines the types of projects which
may qualify as redevelopment districts . Paragraph 2 of the sub-
division 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 rennova-
tions or clearance" in order to remove specified problem conditions .
Section 3 of S.F. 635 would increase the 207 requirement to 257 and
the 307 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 redevelop-
ment 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.
This portion of the bill would make TIF much more unworkable , espe-
cially for smaller cities .
4. INCLUDES BOND CONSEL 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 toal 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 . "
League Amendment
Strike Section 4
Explanation of Amendment
By requiring that payments for bond consel 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 57 limit , so there
would be no room to add the costs for bond consel and consultant
services . It particularly discriminates against smaller cities
and projects where the city does not have sophisticated planning
staff.
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 .
-3-
Leauge 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 .
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 dis-
tricts . 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.
Explanation of Amendment
The League opposes this reverse referendum provision for several
reasons . First , it could allow for a minority of voters to stand
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
-4- f r
referendum provision applies only to economic development districts ,
and it a fairly transparent attempt to make it more difficult to use
TIF for economic development purposes .
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 certifica-
tion 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
Retain the 5 year provision in current law.
Explanation of Amendment
There are two major problems with the bill . First , it may reasonably
take as long as five years to begin necessary work, given problems
with acquisistion, relocation, etc. 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 improve-
ments for which building permits were issued 18 months before approval
of the TIF plan - "prior planned improvements . " The idea is to pre-
vent a TIF district from benefiting from development which was
occurring or going to occur anyway. 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 balue.
League Amendment
Retain current statutory language relating to prior planned improve-
ments .
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.
10. NOT MORE THAN 5% OF TIF PROCEEDS MAY BE USED FOR TRUNK HIGHWAYS
-5-
Summary S.F. 635 was amended in subcommittee to include a new pro-
vision 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 legis-
lative 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 . This could
effect Shakopee ' s CBD redevelopment efforts .
Action Requested
Approve a motion strongly objecting to Senator Mary Hanson' s TIF - S.F.
635 and instructing the City Administrator to write members of the
Senate Tax Committee.
Designate the Mayor or another Councilmember to personally contact our
State Senator and Representative about our opposition to S.F. 635.
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Subject : Review of Tax Increment Economic Development Projects
There are three types of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Districts :
Redevelopment , Low & Moderate Income Housing and Economic Develop-
ment . Shakopee has elected not to make TIF available for any type
of low and moderate income or conventional housing unless it meets
Redevelopment Project Criteria outlined on a similar Council Policy
Statement (i .e . TIF is no available for housing on bare land) . TIF
thus is available for Redevelopment Projects under a separate , but
similar, Policy Statement .
The purpose of this policy is to establish the City' s position with
respect to the processing of requests for, and the creation and imple-
mentation of tax increment financing districts for economic develop-
ment purposes.
STATEMENT OF POLICY
Applicability
It is the policy of the City of Shakopee to ensure a stable employ-
ment and tax base. New industrial , commercial , and residential
development can assist the City in achieving this objective . In a
limited number of such cases , the City will consider applications
from qualified companies or individuals for the creation of a tax
increment district to provide all or a portion of the funding for
the public improvements necessary for such developments. Funding
for such improvements will only be considered where it would be
consistent with the applicable provisions of State law and this
policy, where the public benefit of the improvement can be clearly
demonstrated , and where the cost of such improvement is considered
by the City Council to be extraordinary (i .e. cost not incurred in
typical projects/improvements in Shakopee) .
It is in the public interest that the creation of tax increment dis-
tricts occur only after the City has been fully informed concerning
the proposal and its current and future prospects . Protection of
the City' s interests requires thorough investigation of any such
request . The company or individual requesting creation of a tax
increment district will be required to furnish certain information
and assume the cots of the City' s efforts .
It shall be the expressed intent of the City to expedite to the
greatest extent feasible the processing of all requests for the
creation of tax increment districts so that no undue delays are
experienced by the applicant . However, nothing herein shall be
construed as representing a commitment on the part of the City to
create tax increment districts .
Policy
The following policies will be observed in the Council ' s considera-
tion of the creation of tax increment districts :
-2-
1 . Benefit to the City: For purposes of determining benefit of a
proposed tax increment district , both its estimated economic and
other benefits shall be considered : (1 ) The economic benefit
is the increased tax base that will result , not only in terms of
the absolute increase in the tax base , but also with respect to
how great an increase will be received from a given public invest-
ment ; (2) A 10-to-1 ratio of estimated market value increase to
amount of tax increment assistance requested shall be used as an
approximation of the return necessary for a minimally adequate
project ; (3) A ratio of jobs created to the amount of tax increment
assistance requested shall be used to determine benefit to the City;
(4) The length of the required pay-off , and (5) Other benefits of
the proposal to be considered including land dedications , etc. The
developer will normally be expected to pay for municipal services
costs attributable to the project during the tax increment district ' s
life, except in those instances when the City Council deems such
contributions as unnecessary.
2 . Character of Improvement : Only that portion of the costs asso-
ciated with the installation of public improvement and deemed
extraordinary shall be considered for financing through tax
increment. A viable project should typically be able to pay
for the cost of streets , utility service , site preparation, etc.
3. Demonstration of Need : A request for tax increment financing
shall demonstrate that feasible alternative financing is not
available and that the assistance applied for is needed in the
amount requested. The developer will be asked to submit a pro-
forma, an estimate of costs and revenues of the project , the
amount of private capital in the project , and other information
as deemed essential for analysis by the City. Such analysis will
either be made by Staff or through the City ' s financial consultant
when considered necessary. An applicant who is not willing to
provide this information to the City should not make a formal
request for tax increment financing assistance .
4. Size of the Project : Because of the time and cost involved in
analyzing a request for tax increment financing , and because tax
increment financing should only be used in those instances where
the project will have a demonstrable positive impact on the
community as a whole , requests for tax increment financing of
less than $100,000 will not be considered as a general rule . A
request of this minimum size would require a development to
increase the market value of the property by $1 ,000,000 assuming
the 10-to-1 ratio noted above .
5. Project Certainty/Financial Guarantees : In addition to the other
factors , favorable consideration for tax increment financing will
be based on: (1) when the development is expected to occur ; (2)
the demonstrated capacity of the applicant to successfully complete
the development ; (3) the certainty that the tax increments will be
received .
Tax Increment Revenue Bonds , rather than General Obligation Bonds ,
will be used to fund improvements to be repaid with tax increment .
Applicants for tax increment financing of improvements will be
-3- N
A
required to sign an acceptable written agreement setting forth
the responsibilities of the applicant and the City with respect
to the project . The performance of the applicant under such
contract shall be supported by presentation of a financial
guarantee in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit .
Procedure
The following procedures will be utilized in reviewing tax increment
financing proposals :
1 . A written request shall be submitted to the City Administrator' s
office by the person or firm requesting the City to utilize its
tax increment financing capacity. The request shall contain, at
a minimum, the information specified in the pre-application form.
2. Upon submission to the City Administrator' s office the request
shall be reviewed by a committee consisting of the City Planner,
City Engineer, Public Works Director, Utilities Director, City
Assessor, and Finance Director and chaired by the City Administra-
tor to determine , on a preliminary basis , whether the proposal
appears to be feasible .
3. The application and accompanying supportive financial data shall
be forwarded to the City' s Financial Consultant for review.
4. The preliminary proposal shall be placed on the next scheduled
Work Session agenda of the City Council for its preliminary
review. At that time, the developer may make a presentation to
the Council , and Staff will make preliminary comments concerning
the perceived feasibility of the project .
5. Based on the City Council ' s preliminary review, the applicant
may elect to file a formal application, accompanied by a non-
refundable fee of $2 ,500.00. In addition, the applicant must
agree to assume all direct costs (i . e. non-staff costs) to the
City for its analysis and evaluation of the request .
6 . Upon the filing of a formal application, Staff shall proceed
to complete a tax increment financing analysis which shall
examine in detail the proposal ' s financial viability (which may
include a full appraisal by Staff or M.A. I . ) , and benefit to
the community as outlined in the policies above.
7 . The developer shall attend at least one (1) meeting with resi-
dents and property owners in and within 500 feet of the proposed
tax increment district conducted by the City Council .
8. After the meeting in Step 7 and upon completion of the tax
increment financing analysis , .a recommendation will be made to
the City Council . Based upon that recommendation, the Council
may authorize the Staff to commence negotiation of a development
contract.
9 . Negotiation of the development contract prepared by the City occurs .
10. During the negotiation of the development contract , a tax incre-
ment financing plan and development district plan will be pre-
-4- is
pared by Staff, with notification being provided to Scott County
and the School District .
11 . The City Council will be asked to approve a development contract ,
tax increment financing plan, and development district plan,
after public hearings with published notice and notice mailed to
residents in and within 500 feet of the project .
12 . The adopted plans will be filed with Scott County and the State
of Minnesota.
13. Tax increment bonds are issued.
•
CITY OF SHAKOPEE /;i
APPLICATION
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ASSISTANCE
•
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Legal name of applicant:
Address :
Telephone number:
Name of contact person:
DISTRICT INFORMATION
Addendums shall be attached hereto addressing in detail :
1 . Location - include a location map with exact boundaries of
projected development as proposed.
2. Size - describe the size of the proposed project in terms of
acres . Show parcel boundaries , if known.
3 . Use - describe the proposed uses for the property, by parcel ,
if known.
4. Value - list the estimated market value to result from the
project by year and by parcel, by building or other appropriate
spatial subdivision.
5 . Timing - describe the timing of the development improvements .
6 . Public improvements - identify the public improvements requested
to be financed through the district and the timing of such
improvements .
7 . Impact - to the extent feasible , identify:
a. New jobs to be created.
b . Valuation to be added.
c . Other assets to accrue to the community.
3 . Traffic - to the extent feasible , identify:
a. Projected vehicle counts caused by development of
the district.
b . Impact on existing traffic arteries .
c . Plan for traffic flow.
9 . Need - explain why the improvement is not one that would
ncrmaily be financed by the private reveloper and why the costs
of :he improvement cannot be paid by the applicant.
::: ::' I :F0RMATICN: Provide any further information you feel may assist
the City in assessing the merits of this proposal .
l
/l
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Subject : Review of Tax Increment Redevelopment Projects
There are three types of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Districts :
Redevelopment , Low & Moderate Income Housing and Economic Develop-
ment . Shakopee has elected not to make TIF available for any type
of low and moderate income or conventional housing unless it meets
Redevelopment Project Criteria outlined in this Policy Statement
(i .e . TIF is not available for housing on bare land) . TIF is avail-
able for Economic Development Projects under a separate , but similar ,
Policy Statement .
Minnesota statutes place the responsibility for redevelopment pro-
jects with housing and redevelopment authorities . Under Minnesota
statutes , however, the redevelopment and tax increment financing
plans of the authority must be approved by the City Council . In
addition, the financing of such projects requires the active involve-
ment of the City. As a result , it is necessary that the City have
a policy in regard to these projects .
The purpose of this policy statement is to establish the City' s posi-
tion with respect to the processing of requests for , and the creation
and implementation of , tax increment financing districts for redevelop-
ment purposes .
STATEMENT OF POLICY
Applicability
It is the policy of the City of Shakopee to remove , prevent , or reduce
blight ,' blighting factors or the causes of blight (M. S.A. 462 .421 ,
Subd . 13) in order to protect property values and the tax base of the
City. For those purposes it may be necessary to create tax increment
redevelopment districts in selected portions of the City and to fund
public improvements or public redevelopment costs for private develop-
ments within such districts .
Creation of tax increment redevelopment districts or requests for tax
increment funding of improvements may come as the result of City ini-
tiative , Housing and Redevelopment Authority action, or a private
proposal . It is in the public interest that the creation of tax
increment districts and the financing of improvements with tax incre-
ments be made only after the City has been fully informed concerning
the proposal and its current and future prospects , and has been able
to thoroughly investigate it . Where a company or individual is
requesting creation of a tax increment district or the financing of
improvements via tax increments , that company or individual will be
required to furnish certain information needed for such investigation
and will be required to assume the costs of the City ' s efforts .
It shall be the expressed intent of the City to expedite to the great-
est extent feasible the processing' of all requests for the approval
-2- D ..v
of tax increment projects so that no undue delays are experienced
by the applicant . However, nothing herein shall be construed as
representing a commitment on the part of the City to create tax
increment districts .
Policy
The following policies will be observed in the Council ' s considera-
tion of the approval of tax increment projects :
1 . Benefit to the City : For purposes of determining benefit of a
proposed tax increment district or project , both its estimated
economic and other benefits shall be considered : (1 ) The economic
benefit is the increased tax base that will result , not only in
terms of the absolute increase in the tax base , but also with
respect to how great an increase will be received from a given
public investment ; (2 ) Equally important is the contribution the
proposal makes to eliminating blight , preventing the spread of
blight , or supporting other parts of the redevelopment plan that
achieve those ends ; and (3) The removal of particularly detri-
mental land uses or buildings , or the provision or especially
needed services or types of development are benefits that will
be considered in evaluating requests .
2 . Character of Improvement : A viable project should typically be
able to pay the cost of streets , utility service , site prepara-
tion, etc. It is recognized , however , that redevelopment pro-
jects often involve extraordinary costs not associated with
typical development projects . Examples of such extraordinary
costs include : (1 ) cost to acquire property, relocate building
occupants and remove existing structures ; (2 ) costs associated
with changing the image of a declining area ; and (3) costs to
relocate or realign existing public utilities or streets . In
determining improvements to be funded with tax increments , the
City will consider the extent to which these improvements are ,
or are not the result of circumstances , in fact unique to a
redevelopment situation ( i . e . circumstances not found in typical
development) .
3. Demonstration of Need : A request for tax increment financing
shall demonstrate that feasible alternative financing is not
available and that the assistance applied for is needed in the
amount requested . The developer will be asked to submit a
proforma , an estimate of the costs and revenues of the project ,
the amount of private capital in the project , and other informa-
tion as deemed essential for analysis by the City. Such analysis
will either be made by Staff or through the City ' s financial con-
sultant when considered necessary. An applicant who is not
willing to provide this information to the City should not make
a formal request for tax increment financing assistance .
4. Size of the Project : Because of the time and cost involved in
analyzing a request for tax increment financing, and because
tax increment financing should only be used in those instances
where the project will have a demonstrable positive impact on
-3- ,67/z.2
on the community as a whole , requests for tax increment financ-
ing of less than $100,000 will not be considered as a general
rule . A request of this minimum size would require a redelop-
ment to increase the market value of the property by $1 ,000,000
assuming the 10-to-i ratio noted above .
5. Project Certainty/Financial Guarantees : In addition to the other
factors , favorable consideration for tax increment financing will
be based on: (1 ) When the development is expected to occur ; (2)
The demonstrated capacity of the applicant to successfully com-
plete the development , and (3) The certainty that the tax incre-
ments will be received .
Tax Increment Revenue Bonds , rather than General Obligation Bonds ,
will be used to fund improvements to be repaid with tax increment .
Applicants for tax increment financing of improvements will be
required to sign an acceptable written agreement setting forth
the responsibilities of the applicant and the City with respect
to the project . The performance of the applicant under such
contract shall be supported by presentation of a financial guaran-
tee in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit .
Procedure
The following procedures will be utilized in reviewing tax increment
financing proposals :
1 . A written request shall be submitted concurrently to the City
Manager ' s office and to the Executive Director of the Shakopee
Housing and Redevelopment Authority by the person or firm re-
questing the City and HRA to utilize their tay increment financ-
ing capacity. The request shall contain, at a minimum, the
information in the pre-application form.
2 . Upon submission the request shall be reviewed by a committee
consisting of the City Planner, City Engineer , Public Works
Director , Utilities Director , City Assessor , Finance Director ,
and HRA Executive Director and chaired by the City Administrator
to determine , on a preliminary basis , whether the proposal appears
to be feasible .
3 . The application and supporting financial data shall be submitted
to the City ' s Financial Consultant for review.
4. The preliminary proposal shall be placed on the next regularly
scheduled agendas of the HRA and of a City Council Work Session
for their preliminary review. At those times , the developer
may make a presentation, and Staff will make preliminary comments
concerning the perceived feasibility of the project .
5. Based on the preliminary review, the applicant may elect to file
a formal application with the City, accompanied by a fee of $500.
6 . Upon the filing of a formal application, Staff shall proceed to
complete a tax increment financing analysis which shall examine
in detail the proposal ' s financial. viability (which may include
a full appraisal by Staff .or M.A. I . ) , and benefit to the commu-
nity as outlined in the policies above .
-4-
7 . The developer shall attend at least one (1 ) meeting with resi-
dents and property owners in and within 500 feet of the proposed
tax increment district conducted by the City Council and HRA.
8. After the meeting noted in Step 7 and upon completion of the
tax increment financing analysis , a recommendation will be made
to the City Council and HRA. Based upon that recommendation,
the Council and HRA may authorize the Staff to commence negotia-
tion of a redevelopment project .
9 . Negotiation of the redevelopment contract prepared by the HRA
occurs .
10. During the negotiation of the redevelopment contract , a tax
increment financing plan and redevelopment plan will be prepared
by Staff with notification being provided to Scott County and
the School District , if such plans have not already been adopted.
11 . If a redevelopment plan is needed , such plan shall be transmitted
to the Planning Commission for review and comment .
12 . The HRA will be asked to approve a redevelopment contract and a
tax increment financing plan and redevelopment plan in the event
such plans are needed .
13. The City Council will be asked to approve the redevelopment con-
tract and, if necessary and after the appropriate public hearings
(noticed via published notice and notice mailed to property
owners in and within 500 feet of the proposed district) , a tax
increment financing plan and redevelopment plan.
14. The adopted plans will be filed with Scott County and the State
of Minnesota.
15 . Tax increment bonds are issued .
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
APPLICATION „)
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ASSISTANCE
1CKGROUND INFORMATION
.gal name of applicant :
'Address :
Telephone number:
lame of contact person:
DISTRICT INFORMATION
Addendums shall be attached hereto addressing in detail :
1 . Location - include a location map with exact boundaries of
projected development as proposed.
2. Size - describe the size of the proposed project in terms of
acres . Show parcel boundaries , if known.
3 . Use - describe the proposed uses for the property, by parcel, '
if known.
4. Value - list the estimated market value to result from the .
project by year and by parcel , by building or other appropriate
spatial subdivision.
5 . Timing - describe the timing of the development improvements .
6 . Public improvements - identify the public improvements requested
to be financed through the district and the timing of such
improvements .
7 . Impact - to the extent feasible , identify:
a. New jobs to be created.
b . Valuation to be added.
c . Other assets to accrue to the community.
3 . Traffic - to the extent feasible , identify:
a. Projected vehicle counts caused by development of
the district.
5 . Impact on existing traffic arteries .
c . ?i an for traffic flow.
9 . Need - exwlain why the improvement is not one that would
ncrmal l v be financed by the private ,eveloper and why _
� by `he cos:.,
of the improvement cannot be paid by the applicant.
27-1.77. :NFORMATICN : Provide any further information t;on you feel may assist
the City in assess-ng =::e T,er_ts or :his proposal .
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: Sewer Fund Budget/Rate Information
DATE: May 1, 1981
Additional information pursuant to discussions of 4/28/81 is furnished
as follows:
Debt Schedule for $168,000 - Spencer to Prairie Sanitary Sewer Project.
10 year issue - $26,000/year, P & I Revenue/G.O.
15 year issue - $20,800/year, P & I Revenue/G.O.
Discussion with Bob Pulscher and Phil Chenoweth of Ehlers & Associates.
Question: How do most cities schedule debt service?
Pulscher: I would like to see them schedule a certain amount for debt service
and coordinate it with capital projects. Most do not, and thus
can run a deficit after each project until rates are increased.
Chenoweth: Most cities wait until their excess funds are depleted before
they increase rates for debt service - its less difficult than to
explain why rates are being increased a year before the additional
funds are needed to retire the debt.
Question: How do cities fund debt?
Pulscher: Metro Area Cities are using a connection charge for trunk
facilities, etc. About 50/50, or maybe less, use revenue from
fees and G.O. Levy. Cities in Minnesota are probably using
G.O. because of the Homestead Credit benefit which means 50%
of the cost is picked up by the State. Connection fees don't
help much for replacing older lines. Wisconsin uses user fees
exclusively.
Chenoweth: Cities use connection charges, water and sewer rates and G.O. Bonds.
Most sell Revenue/G.0. Bonds to get the benefit of the G.O.
interest rates then they annually levy as little as possible.
Under the PCA, sewer charges for use of MWCC facilities must be
paid for through user fees.
Question: What do bond rating companies prefer in retiring debt: G.O. or
revenues, (ie. fees)?
Pulscher: Prefer that it be paid by revenues not taxes.
Chenoweth: Rating services prefer to see it paid by assessments or user
fees because it is not then part of the city's per capita debt.
Observation: Any type of tax levy could be a real problem if Governor Quie's
budget proposal goes through,with an 8% tax increase limit on any
property taxes.
GV/ljw
Comparative Sewer Service Charges
Current Rate $24/year 66c/1000g $44/yr/mg
Rate A-2 32 78 53
Rate B-2 36 84 56
Rate C-2 - 30 74 49
Residential Sewer Charges
Water Use Current Rate Rate A-2 Rate B-2 Rate C-2
4000 g/mo 4.64/mo 5.79/mo 6.36/mo 5.46/mo
5000 g/mo 5.30/mo 6.57/mo 7.20/mo 6.20/mo
6000 g/mo 5.96/mo 7.35/mo 8.04/mo 6.94/mo
7000 g/mo 6.62/mo 8.13/mo 8.88/mo 7.68/mo
8000 g/mo 7.28/mo 8.91/mo 9.72/mo 8.42/mo
9000 g/mo 7.94/mo 9.69/mo 10.56/mo 9.16/mo
10,000 g/mo 8.60/mo 10.47/mo 11.40/m0 9.90/mo
11,000 g/mo 9.26/mo 11.25/mo 12.24/mo 10.64/mo
12,000 g/mo 9.92/mo 12.03/mo 13.08/mo 11.38/mo
15,000 g/mo 11.90/mo 14.37/mo 15.60/mo 13.60/mo
Commercial
Use Flow Current Rate Rate A-2 Rate B-2 Rate C-2
#1 18,146,000/mo $12,770.00 $15,111.00 $16,253.00 $14,313.00
#2 372,000/mo 262.00 310.00 334.00 294.00
#3 181,000/mo 128.00 153.00 164.00 145.00
#4 111,000/mo 79.00 94.00 101.00 89.00
#5 48,000/mo 34.00 40.00 43.00 39.00
#6 226,000/mo 158.00 188.00 202.00 178.00
#7 59,000/mo 41.00 49.00 53.00 47.00
#8 280,000/mo 198.00 234.00 252.00 222.00
#9 1,000/mo 2.66 3.45 3.84 3.24
q 0 in %00rnt- 0 0 0 0
•rl U) O '--11.•••• 0 N O O O O
b N
..- a) O 0 0 0 N .--I ,-ii .-Il .--I
,-I oU
CO O 0 — 0 Cr% s.0 O\ Li-) O N U U U U
W Z Z n VO rl N O' n N N Ul to
01/4 u)- M M c'', N N CO CO n t-
N 'K </T
U)
.t a)
a)
W
a) 0 0 O C O O
•H CD CO N .t n 0 0 E O O 0 0
la U) U) 10 .-1 M HI 0 E 0 O O�1 O
p •rl b a) c) CU N- 5--.4 HI Ol HI - 0 ,--1 r-I HI
a1 RI G U) 0 t~ , v- Ul •
wa < z z co � H vii ornri •HCuo 0 0 Co
.7 N N HI CO + </)- E %.O 10 10
0
.% '•••• E 0 0
0 • O Li-) 0O 0 � 0 �
b-) Cn 0000 O N • ` '.0 " 0 "... 0
a) cn cn 0000 O • 00 • 010 o1/4o
U) 0 G 0 0 0 0 H4 E N• HN N• N N
•
0 U) 0 O O O O .7 U <I)- • .7 </)- .t HI .•t' ri
Z W <1 Z Z U) '.0 0 00 Ul II 0 II II II II II II
qc �
t- t- t- N- 0 5 LL O R'+ c..) c4 U
1/4
H
a) O O O C O
•ri U) Co (''1HNCD O 0 0 0 O O O
4" CO CO Cn1OO1OO1 O E O E O O O
.0 '0 a) a) a) t- C''1 .t en CO r1 \ r♦ \ r1 H H
U 0 ca 0 '— c} '— U
'H 0 U) 0 0 O CO .0 N .0 U- 1/40 U- '.O <} U 0-
cc)
t A < z z r-1 .7 rl '.O N N CO N in Ul Ul •
ul Ul .7 .7 C'1 10 + III + If) N N 0lc
(..n-
.H
4-)
U
"- o - oo - -
b 0) O �• rnNN '. + 0 ---. ± 0 --- + 0 "--.+ 0 ---. ± 0 --- + 0 "--.. + 0 --- -1- 0 m
U) U) O N- 0 1-1 H .7 t- 0 n Or-•• Or"... On 0 r
O 'H
'0 a) CU O r--1 Ol O N- N 10 <! r� '.O <} U- T-1U- e-4 ri 1O l �O VO U HI 0
O 0 co Cr) .. • c' -. • C''1 \ • M \ • M \ U
O cd 0 U) 0 N t` 00 CO T O\ .7 C'1 U.t C'l U .t Cl U N M U N M <1 a)
O c4 Pa < Z '.O .-i 10 N- 10 O II II Ls') II II LI) II II Ul II II t\ 11 II N P
v? in .t M M .* R4 O '.O G4 U 1O C4 U 10 c4 O M p4 O 0'1
G
Cd
-0
a)
O 0 O O C O 1-1
co O O 'O .t00 O E O O O O 0
)-+ U) U) O HI r-I ul ul O O \ 0 O O O LH
O ,a) '0 CO a) O .t r-1 r♦ n O. H 00 . H •ri
• ro 0 Ln 0 O CO CA 0 NCD U • 0 U- U U U 0
p, ,a pa Q Z N O .tC'1NCO tr) Cl •HO O O O
</} <N r-1 H rI Ol </} E CO c. '.O '.O • CO
m +-) .Cd
4.) a) co
0 C.• •H '0
a a)
>a)
• r{ 3-4 •� a) r-i O1-1O CN Co00 l O\ co N H Cll
o cd 0 4-.1 Cl) Co co N. N. t` CO CO N- h. N 9
$4 ,J u., U CN 01/4 01 O1 O\ CN CT Ol CT 01 ID $4
(y'H V) 0 H r-I H H H H-1 H H H Hi
•rrHIlU)
U G U a) m
a)
))
4ro U) U 000 C-• U) •I 13
cn a) O N a) 0 P x 0
U O w ro $-1 U 0 0
U
CU
P4 0 0 O• a 0 O 0) U v
I O E O '- CO U) U) '2) 0
GO I4-4 O
*I-1 4:1
' U) a) 0) ro
o 0 ob v o 044 0 0
0
H -0 0
I-1 4- N •
t
Z U) Cd a)
Q ,n x U) C) 33 w Z D G 0
G Z
0 .-' .. .. .. .. r; •H i
0 HI N C') .7 Ul VO
RESOLUTION NO. 1832
A RESOLUTION SETTING SEWER SERVICE CHARGES
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,
MINNESOTA, pursuant to Section 3.02 , Shakopee City Code, the
following sewer service charges are hereby set and established
pursuant there to:
Sewer Service :
Service charge (connection) of $ per month.
Flow charge of ¢ per 1000 gallons of metered sewer
flow or water usage.
Service charge (large flow) of $ per million gallons
or part thereof of metered sewer flow or water usage for
all users with an annualized flow/use in excess of one
million gallons .
The above rates to be effective with bills sent out on or
about June 1 , 1981 .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Resolution No. 1594 is hereby
repealed and Resolution No. 1814 is amended as cited above.
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
7
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
RE: Reservations of Utility and Drainage Easements at the
Time of Public Right-of-Way Vacations
DATE: April 29 , 1981
Background
At your request , I have spoken with Eldon Reinke regarding vacations
of public right-of-way and the reserving of easements for present and
future utility services.
It is my understanding that the City wishes to reserve easements
across the entire public right-of-way to be vacated, but will con-
sider vacating part or all of the reserved easement when the property
is being developed , if the developer submits an alternative which
is acceptable to the City.
In the resolution I have not detailed the requirements to be made
of the developer requesting the vacation of the easements, but rather
just stated that such a request could be made and would be considered
if the Council determines that the reserved easement no longer serves
a public interest (which could be because of an approved alternative) .
Recommended Action
Offer Resolution No. 1818, A Resolution Requiring The Reservation Of
Utility And Drainage Easements At The Time Of Public Right-Of-Way
Vacation, and move its adoption.
JSC/jms
RESOLUTION NO. 1818
A RESOLUTION REQUIRING THE RESERVATION OF UTILITY AND
DRAINAGE EASEMENTS AT THE TIME OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION
WHEREAS , the City of Shakopee has the authority to vacate
certain public right-of-way, and
WHEREAS , the City of Shakopee desires to reserve any and
all easements required for present and future utility services .
NOW THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA, that when the Council does vacate certain
public right-of-way, a utility and drainage easement shall be
reserved encompassing the entire right-of-way being vacated.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council may consider, at this
same time or at a later date , vacating part or all of the reserved
easement , if the Council determines that said part or all of the
reserved easement no longer serves a public use or interest .
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
L
JJULIus (, )LEER, Jr
JULIUS A.COLLER ATTORNEY AT LAW 6I2-445-1244
1859-1940
2 1 1 W E S T FIRS T AVENUE
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
55329
April 29, 1981
Mr. John K. Anderson, City Administrator
Shakopee City Hall
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear John:
In re: Closing part of Atwood Street
for construction at St. Francis
Hospital
You state that St. Francis Hospital has requested, among other things, the
temporary closing of Atwood Street between 4th and 5th Avenues duringthe
period of demolition and construction, which they estimate would last for
approximately 12 months.
You ask if the City has any liability for the street if it is blocked off
from the general public.
My answer to the City is that the City is liable and responsible for the
maintenance and safety of streets and public ways and is liable for any
negligence, malfeasance or misfeasance in the operation of the street and
this would be true whether the street is open or closed to the public. It
is true that, if closed to the public, the possibility of anyone being
injured is reduced, but if the area is being used for demolition purposes,
the liability is increased.
In view of the fact that the hospital is adjacent to the area of/St. Mar 's
Church, I would only advise thatlany temporary closing of the street for
demolition and construction is granted, provisions be made for uninhibited
access to that part of the street closed at all times by any emergency
vehicles, and that, before any steps are taken to close the street to the
public, the hospital file with the City an insurance policy or an endorsement
to their existing policy saving the City free and harmless from any and all
claims or suits arising or that might arise by virtue of the temporary
closing and the use the hospital intends to make of the closed street. The
endorsement or a copy of the policy bearing such endorsement must be filed
with the City before any work is done.
I would further recommend that, if the closing is granted, there would be
a definite date set when the street will be opened and of course a provision
that the street be restored to its present condition. .
There are other requests which do not 'involve any legal liability question.
If there are any questions, I willbe glad to discuss them.
Very u y yolf
°'_ ♦ /
JAC/bpm Julius Co e . City Attorney
7-1
�y
1
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 AoiN, 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,
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
/8
RESOLUTION
NO. 1831
A RESOLUTION PERMITTING THE CLOSING OF ATWOOD STREET BETWEEN
4TH AND 5TH AVENUES DURING CONSTRUCTION AT ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee has received a request from
St . Francis Hospital to close Atwood Street between 4th and 5th
Avenue for a twelve month period during construction, and
WHEREAS , construction is expected to last for twelve months
beginning June 1 , 1981 , barring any strikes or unforeseen problems .
NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, that St . Francis Hospital is hereby granted permission
to close Atwood Street between 4th and 5th Avenues for a twelve
month period ending June 1 , 1982 with the following conditions :
1 . Provisions shall be made for uninhibited access to that
part of the street closed at all times for any emergency vehicles .
2 . Prior to closing the street , the hospital shall file with
the City an endorsement to their existing policy or a copy of their
existing policy bearing such endorsement saving the City free and
harmless from any and all claims or suits arising or that might
arise by virtue of the temporary closing and the use the hospital
intends to make of the closed street .
3. That St . Francis Hospital agrees to restore the said Atwood
Street between 4th and 5th Avenues to its original condition (as of
June 1 , 1981 ) , upon the reopening of the Street .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that St . Francis Hospital shall signify
their acceptance and agreement to the foregoing on a certified copy
of this resc;lution and return it to the City before this resolution
takes effect .
Adopted in session of the City CouLAl 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
DORSEY, WINDHORST, HANNAFORD, WHITNEY a HALLADAY
HENRY HALLADAY G.LARRY GRIFFITH 2300 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING EMERY W.BARTLE W.CHARLES LANTZ
JULE HANNAFORD CRAIG A.BECK WILLIAM A.JOHNSTONE STEVEN F.WOLGAMOT
ARTHUR B.WHITNEY DAVID L McCUSKEY MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 5 5 4 0 2 STEVEN K.CHAMPLIN J MARQUIS EASTWOOD
RUSSELL W.LINOOUIST THOMAS 0.MOE MICHAEL J.RADMER EDWARD J.PLUIMER
DAVID R.BRINK JAMES H.OHAGAN MICHAEL TRUCANO OWEN C.MARX
HORACE HITCH JOHN M.MASON JAMES A.FLADER JAMES E.BOWLUS
VIRGIL H.HILL LARRY L VICKREY (612) 340-2600 DAVID L BOEHNEN GEORGE L CHAPMAN
ROBERT V.TARBOX LOREN R.KNOTT MICHEL A.LAFOND THOMAS D.VANDER MOLEN
ROBERT J.JOHNSON PHILLIP H.MARTIN DON D.CARLSON MARK A.JARBOE
MAYNARD B.HASSELOUIST REESE C JOHNSON PAUL J.SCHEERER BRUCE D.BOLANDER
PETER DORSET CHARLES J.HAUENSTEIN FRANK H.VOIGT JUDITH A.ROGOSHESKE
GEORGE P.FLANNERY CHARLES A.GEER WILLIAM H.HIPPEE,JR. PAUL B.KLAAS
CURTIS L ROY JOHN C.ZWAKMAN ROBERT A.BURNS MARGERY K.OTTO
ARTHUR E.WEISBERG JOHN R.WICKS CABLE: DOROW ROGER J.MAGNUSON RONALD J.BROWN
DUANE E.JOSEPH EUGENE L.JOHNSON PETER S.HENDRIXSON MARC L.KRUGER
JAMES B.VESSEY JOHN W.WINDHORST,JR. TELEX:29-0605 J.ROBERT HIBBS CATHERINE A.BARTLETT
WILLIAM A.WHITLOCK MICHAEL PRICHARD JAY F COOK DAVID J.LUBBER
EDWARD J.SCHWARTZBAUER JOHN P.VITKO TELECO PIER:1612)34O-2868 STANLEY M.REIN BRUCE J.SHNIDER
THOMAS M.BROWN WILLIAM R.00TH CHARLES L.POTUZNIK GEORGE G.ECK
CORNELIUS D.MAHONEY,JR. RICHARD G.SWANSON 1468 W—FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING VERLANE L ENDORF CARRON C.KNUTSON
WILLIAM C.BABCOCK FAITH L OHMAN DENNIS P.BURATTI BARBARA B.FARRELL
THOMAS S.ERICKSON DAVID A.RANHEIM ST.PAUL,MINNESOTA 55101 GEORGEANN BECKER LENZA McELRATH,JR.
MICHAEL E.BRESS ROBERT J.SILVERMAN (612) 227-8017 ROBERT L.HORNING MARIANNE D.SHORT
RAYMOND A.REISTER THOMAS R.MANTHEY BARRY D.GLAZER MICHAEL E.REESLUND
JOHN J.TAYLOR WILLIAM R.HIBBS IRVING WEISER ELIZABETH A.GOODMAN
WILLIAM J.HEMPEL PHILIP F.BOELTER 115 THIRD STREET SOUTHWEST STEPHEN E.GOTTSCHALK
JOHN S.HIBBS WILLIAM B.PAYNE KENNETH L.CUTLER
ROBERT O.FLOTTEN ROBERT A.HEIBERG ROCHESTER,MINNESOTA 55901 GARY M_JOHNSON
JOHN D.LEVINE JOHN D.KIRBY (507) 288-3156 JAY L BENNETT
ROBERT J.STRUYK ROBERT A.SCHWARTZ BAUER ROBERT G.BAYER OF COUNSEL
MICHAEL A OLSON DAVID N.FRONEK SUZANNE B.VAN DYK WALDO F.MAROUART
LARRY W.JOHNSON THOMAS W TINKHAM STUART R.HEMPHILL GEORGE E.ANDERSON
THOMAS S.HAY JON F TUTTLE J DAVID JACKSON JOHN F.FINN
April 10, 1981
City Clerk
City of Shakopee
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Re: Petition of St. Francis Hospital of
Shakopee for Vacation of Alley in
Block 58
Gentlemen:
Enclosed please find a Petition for the Vacation of the
Alley in Block 58, which we would like to present to the City
Council.
We have talked to Mr. Coller about this , and it may well
be that the Council will refuse to entertain the Petition. I am
sending a copy of the Petition to Mr. Coller, together with the
letter outlining our view of the situation.
Very tru yours ,
Of
A
J. Robert Hibbs
JR slz
Enc
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
PETITION FOR ALLEY VACATION
Dated: Ppri t IS , 1981
The undersigned, owner of Lots 1 through 10 , Block 58 , City
of Shakopee, according to the recorded plat thereof, Scott County,
Minnesota, abutting on the alley hereinafter described, hereby
petitions to the City Council of the City of Shakopee to vacate
the following:
The alley extending between Atwood Street
and Scott Street through Block 58 , City of
Shakopee, according to the recorded plat
thereof, Scott County, Minnesota.
PETITIONER:
St. Francis Hospital of Shakopee, Minnesota
By -3)%)1.4b1_4154
. .� k • 1) 0,Q
Its !J vi.Q.c4t of argc1.4 &'ruk..CQ.o
7G
RESOLUTION II
A Resolution Denying Petition to Vacate the
Alley in Block 58, City of Shakopee
WHEREAS, St. Francis Hospital of Shakopee, Minnesota as the owner of Block 58,
City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota, has filed a petition with the City
Council for the vacation of the alley as shown on the plat thereof running between
Atwood Street and Scott Street through the middle of said Block 58 on the grounds
that the records in the office of the County Recorder, Scott County, Minnesota showed
no record of any actual vacation of the alley by the City of Shakopee; and
WHEREAS, On the basis of investigations and actual knowledge made and obtained
by this Council, as assisted by the City Attorney, the Council has determined that
for a period in excess of fifteen (15) years before the adoption of the laws of
Minnesota for 1899 Chapter 65, approved March 18, 1899, the ownership of all of
said Block has been held by a succession of one party owners, and that during said
period, said owners had continuously occupied and used said alley and that said
occupation and use and possession during said period was hostile, open, actual, con-
tinuous and exclusive as to the City of Shakopee and the public in general and such
alley has never been opened or used as an alley; and
WHEREAS, By reason of such occupancy, use and possession for a period in
excess of fifteen (15) years prior to January 5, 1894, the Church of St. Mark of
Shakopee, Minnesota had acquired actual title to said alley by such adverse use of
occupation, use and possession. That on said date they transferred title to all of
said Block 58, including the alley,by a deed running to the County of Scott filed
January 18, 1894 in the office of the Register of Deeds, Scott County, Minnesota
and recorded in Book 39 of Deeds, page 21. That the County of Scott was the owner
of all of said Block 58 including the alley as of the adoption of Chapter 65 ofthe
Laws of Minnesota for 1899 on March 18, 1899; and
WHEREAS, By reason of the fact that the title to the alley has been passed
to the present owner of said Block 58, namely St. Francis Hospital of Shakopee,
not have
Minnesota, the City of Shakopee does/the authority and power to vacate said alley or
act on the Petition therefor.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED That the Petition of St. Francis Hospital of
Shakopee for the vacation of the alley through said Block 58 be, and the same hereby
is, denied on the grounds that said alley no longer exists and has not existed since
at least January5, 1894 and that said Petitioner is already the fee owner of said
alley.
Passed in session of the Shakopee City Council held this day of
, 1981.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Prepared and approved as to form
this 'th day of April, 1981
r ; - Tl , _!
. City Attorney
/ CI
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne Andre, HRA Executive Director
RE: K-Mart Landscaping Proposals
DATE: April 29, 1981
Introduction
The Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) has under-
taken the Valley Park Redevelopment Project No. 1 . In the contract
for sale of land for private redevelopment with the K-Mart Corpora-
tion the HRA has agreed to undertake certain site-improvements as
part of this project. A request has now been received to under-
take the landscaping and irrigation system for the project .
Background
The HRA has previously requested the City of Shakopee to undertake
all approved site improvements for the Valley Park Redevelopment
Project No. 1 on behalf of the HRA. On August 5, 1980 the Housing
and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Shakopee , Minne-
sota and the K-Mart Corporation executed an "Amendment to Contract
for Sale of Land for Private Redevelopment in Valley Industrial
Park Redevelopment No. 1". This amendment defines landscaping as
an acceptable site improvement which can be paid from tax-increment
funds. However the irrigation system is not specifically listed
as an acceptable site improvement , so an attorney' s opinion was
solicited to determine if a combined landscaping and irrigation
system should be undertaken. Assistant City Attorney Phillip Krass
determined that the irrigation system could be interpreted as an
accepted site preparation for landscaping.
Recommended Action
Offer Resolution No. 1819 , A Resolution Authorizing Improvement ,
Approving Plans and Specifications , Ordering Advertisement for
Bids and Designating a Project Engineer, and move its adoption.
JA/jms
RESOLUTION NO. 1819
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING IMPROVEMENT, APPROVING
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS , ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT
FOR BIDS AND DESIGNATING A PROJECT ENGINEER
FOR LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR
VALLEY INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
WHEREAS , the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority has
entered into an agreement relative to Valley Industrial Park Redevelop-
ment Project No. 1 ; and
WHEREAS, that agreement provides that the City construct specific
off-site improvements including a landscaping and an irrigation system ;
and
WHEREAS, Daniel , Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall Architects has
prepared and presented to the City Council , for approval , plans and
specifications for the construction of landscaping and an irrigation
system for the K-Mart Shakopee Distribution Center.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1 . The installation of landscaping and an irrigation system
for the K-Mart Shakopee Distribution Center is hereby
authorized.
2 . Plans and specifications for said landscaping and irrigation
system, a copy of which is on file and of record in the
office of the City Clerk, are hereby approved.
3. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in
the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an
advertisement for bids upon the installation of said land-
scaping and irrigation system under such approved plans and
specifications . The advertisement shall be published for
two weeks , shall specify the work to be done , shall state
that bids will be received by the City Clerk until 10: 30 A.M. ,
on May 26 , 1981 , at which time they will be publicly opened
in the Council Chambers of the City Hall by the Project
Engineer and the City Clerk, or their designee, and will be
considered by the Council at 7 : 30 P.M. , or thereafter, on
June 2 , 1981 , in the Council Chambers , and that no bids will
be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and
accompanied by a cash deposit , cashier ' s check, bid bond or
Resolution No. 1819 Page Two ? k
certified check payable to the order of the City of Shakopee
for not less than five (5%) percent of the amount of the bid.
4. ` H. R. Spurrier, City Engineer, is hereby designated as the
Project Engineer for this improvement .
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
I-' 0 0 0 Ui In 0 0 00 OD OD Oo OD 0 Cy
I-, 1-, 1-• rn CT • 1-, 1- r-• r-
•
..0 ..r.• U) U) -P•.• A A A A
HOo Int 0 H 10 10 10 10 W W 1/40 10 N0 HH C' N H 0 0,3 Co rt
;01O p.- O 0 0 0 • W N � O OI I I i
rsi N)
b 0o n GJ 00 la 1/4,0 tat Ui --• r 10 10 10 10 10 r-• ,;-;C)
I11) O 0 G G 1-' 1-' p r• Or r0 1-• p _ p.. i--. `-•• f.. N n0
II 0 fp
1 •
O • ri ' CO U) ',fp 1/40 A .A 1-. 1- '
I-' H a) I-!, ' H f r N N �p �0 '..0 r
k-'b cn m1--A O 1- I--, N H r
O
G o C O
0 (t) • 0 I- 0 0 0 v, Cn o 0 0o co co 00 0o O C7
LICI
p0~ 0~ F--' r-' h-" r-, r-+ h-• h-+ I-• I--, h-+ I-,0 rt
0 H 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 O n
O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 O 0 O O C)
H
W N H
A F-' H
V
0 N In co W
W O\ co O co A V
N 1/4/1 O' 0 0 In • N Cr.
00t�0000000 W 0 00 m V N --.1 4- VI VI 0 Oo CO 0 O' Ln
0
N 0 0 -0 0 A H In In 0 10 A -o N 0 O
O 0 0 10 0 ' 0 0 N0 0 N) Cr) N) 00 1- 00 la ON0 H
s
DJ
C z x Cl) n b z 7i x ;� b y
Z C)
H N•
cn n 0 0 �, fOn .nom' 0" kC 9 9 9 El m x
\ n rt �� 0 00 00 0 rt rt rt rt ate)
• o0 CYQ co cn cn n H I I i I I oD
a. VD m 7i
• n n R, R+ O H 'H3 tri
Cl) ,C n c) <
x c
h,� , x
a)
cn
Cn
0
n
a)
m
I-6 Z "Ti C) x C) C) I--, b f./) C) •
C rt n a) n H < 11 rt CTI rt P)C(0 rt 0 rt
o Z Ia_, �•• 0 0' 0 o Z CD • Z .n c
H 17-1 • 0 H Cl) �- H hi r•• 0 C7
CO •
0• — n N a w r • Pa z, I rt 21
I-1 fD x n h'• 0 •I Cl (D Cn
o x
£ CD w QO 00"' C < ami cn
VD C7 is O CD W CD
N b C i IN x n G 0 (1)
rD 14 Ci) .d m 'CD n
(I) I-, N 0CCD
0 n rD
Mc
K (C)•
W U) (D
WOs V N r• O1 Ca CO IO` n
N O OO 0 OD 0 0
n 0 '.O 0 -P-• 1- In Ui 0 1/40 N)
• O
o O 0 �p O F"' 10 O O O . 00 co 0
0 O 10 0 1- 0 0 N O N O1 N 10 0
H
•
V V V V V V V V V V V V V V PC
10 \0 10 10 tO '.0 10 10 1/4.0 10 lO 10 VO
N •
N N N N) N 1-, H. I--. I-• 1-, $.._, 1-, Z
W N f--` 0 10 CO V 01 Ui W 0
c4
City of Shakopee
POLICE DEPARTMENT
476 South Gorman Street
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379
Tel. 445-6666
TO: Mayor, Council Members
FROM: Thomas Brownell
SUBJECT: Police Patrol Vehicle Reconstruction
DATE: April 21, 1981
INTRODUCTION
The substantial annual price increase for patrol vehicles has
resulted in a review of our current purchasing practices,
future cost increases, and the feasibility of reconstructing
our existing vehicles in order to extend the operational life
of the vehicle.
The estimated replacement cost of a patrol vehicle in 1982 will
be $10 ,000 per unit, $10, 800 in 1983, and $11, 600 in 1984,
using current price increases.
The cost of reconstructing our existing units is estimated at
$3, 000 per unit in 1983 for rebuilding suspension, engine,
seats, and drive train.
ESTIMATED COST BENEFIT
Current Program - Replacement of three patrol vehicles annually.
1982 - 30,000
1983 - 32, 400
1984 - 34, 800
97, 200
Proposal - Reconstruct three 1980 patrol vehicles and one 1980
Jeep.
1983 - 12,000
Estimated cost saving is $85,200 .
�o cSE¢vE aotECt
d
Police Patrol Vehicle Reconstruction
April 21, 1981
Page -2-
RECOMMENDATION
1. Maintain existing vehicles by reconstruction through 1984.
Replace fleet in 1985.
2 . Budget for one vehicle annually as a replacement in the
event of loss due to major damage.
City of Shakopee
POLICE DEPARTMENT
476 South Gorman Street
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379
Tel. 445.6666
TO: Mayor, Council Members
FROM: Thomas Brownell
SUBJECT: Capital Items Purchase (Vehicle Engine & Heads)
DATE: April 24, 1981
INTRODUCTION
In order to facilitate the reconstruction of patrol vehicles
and decrease vehicle down time for engine repair, I am re-
questing authorization to purchase one spare engine and a
set of engine heads.
The number of primary patrol vehicles has been decreased
from four units to three. Repairs, routine maintenance, and
radio communication problems generally result in one vehicle
being out of service . In the event an engine requires major
repair, a vehicle is out of service for one week due to a
lack of parts being available from parts dealers, as they are
maintaining low inventories.
We have been notified of a substantial price increase to be-
come effective May 20, 1981.
Perry Cheever and myself have reviewed the reconstruction
program and current maintenance problems and agree that the
purchase would be cost effective and improve vehicle down
time.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION
I have revised the 1981 Capital Items Fund to allow for the
expenditure using current funding.
Cost of an engine and heads, approximately $1, 000 prior
to May 20 , 1981.
J O �E2(7E _JO J"ZOEEat
Capital Items Purchase Q' �},
(Vehicle Engine & Heads) 0 -�
April 24, 1981
Page -2-
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the purchase of one spare rebuilt engine and one set
of engine heads.
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Firemen' s Annual Physicals
DATE: April 29 , 1981
Introduction
The City currently requires an annual physical for all firemen.
Staff now questions if the physical is doing what it was designed
to do and whether it justifies the time and cost to administer
the program.
Background
Attached are four items for your review:
1 . The annual physical form filled out by the doctor.
2 . A memo from Linda Willemssen regarding the cost of the
physicals .
3. A memo from Linda Willemssen regarding the administration of
the program.
4. The results of a brief six City phone survey regarding the
subject .
To date no doctor has noted that a fireman is unqualified to perform
a fireman' s duties (see circled item on physical form) . In addition,
the cost of the physicals seem to indicate that some of the physicals
are at best cursory while others are significantly more thorough.
Because of these findings , I question if the City is accomplishing
anything other than having a "doctor' s" name on the line for "insur-
ance" purposes . This added bit of "protection" for the City, should
a fireman have a heart attact , etc . , is something other cities
apparently don' t feel is necessary.
I have questioned the former City Administrator about why the pro-
gram was instituted, and he said it was to screen out some firemen
who were becoming "fat and sloppy" . If this was the purpose of
the annual inspection and possibly the "insurance" aspect mentioned
above , I feel there is a better way to accomplish the same thing
while making what physicals that are required more meaningful .
Recommendation
I have reviewed the matter with Butch Ring and he is willing to
implement a practical departmental physical stress test administered
annually by the department itself at one of their regular training
Firemen' s Annual Physicals
Page 2
April 29 , 1981
meetings . The test would include those functions that a fireman
is "expected" to perform at a fire and any fireman unable to
perform them to the established norm would be required to have
a thorough physical . Once designed , the program could be reviewed
by a doctor(s) before used if it was deemed worthwhile. Pre-employ-
ment physicals would still be required and the City would pay for
them.
Requested Action
Motion by City Council to institute an annual physical stress test
for all firemen with thorough physicals required of firemen not
meeting a pre-established norm, and that said physical along with
the pre-employment physical be paid for by the City.
JKA/jms
PHYSICAL EXAMINATION
FOR 3
SHAKOPEE FIRE DEPARTMENT
I . TO BE COMPLETED BY EXAMINEE: DATE
NAME BIRTH DATE
ADDRESS PHONE NO.
MEDICAL HISTORY: Have you ever been treated or had?
YES NO YES NO YES NO
1 . Operations 7 . Heart Disease 11 . Drug Allergy
2 . Serious Injury 8. Lung Trouble 12 . Current
3 . Serious Illness 9 . Service Connected Medication
4. Back Trouble Disability 13 . Blood Test
5 . Epilepsy 10. Hernia 14. Diabetes Test
6 . Ulcers
IF YES, EXPLAIN:
DATE OF LAST .TETANUS BOOSTER:
II . TO BE COMPLETED BY ATTENDING PHYSICIAN: Physical Findings
HT. WT. BP C.E.N.T.
NECK HEART LUNGS
ABDOMEN G.U. EXTREMITIES
CHEST X-RAY F.E.V.
SPIROMETRY F.V.C. HEMOGLOBIN
SIMPLE URINANALYSIS EKG
(if history of heart disease)
CARBON MONOXIDE TEST
HEARING: R L VISION: R L
FINAL DIAGNOSIS :
IS EXAMINEE QUALIFIED TO PERFORM THE PHYSICAL ACTIVITIES NECESSA' OF A
FIREMAN? YES NO
4 _ DATE
Signature
ADDRESS PHONE NO.
RELEASE OF EXAMINATION INFORMATION:
" I , , hereby authorize
to release copies of this physical to the City of
Shakopee and Shakopee Volunteer Fire Department . I agree to release the
named clinic, City and Fire Department from any liability in the release of
this information. "
Signature of Examinee Date
a
ri
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Linda J. Willemssen, Sr. Acct'g. Clerk
RE: Individual charges for Firemen's physicals
DATE: February 13, 1981
The following is in response to your request for individual charges for
firemen's physicals. I have, briefly, gone through the bills paid for
these services without spending too much time on it. I feel that this
should give you enough to go on, however, if you need more details or
more information please let me know.
1980
Harold Ring $ 62.50 Chaska Medical Center
Mark Klein 35.00 Sundance Medical
Wm. Engel 35.00 Sundance Medical
Tim Berens 35.00 Sundance Medical
Mark Theisen 35.00 Sundance Medical
A. LaTour 35.00 Sundance Medical
R. Snell 35.00 Sundance Medical
E. Pass 98.50 Shakopee Medical
G. Dircks 93.00 Shakopee Medical
G. Breggemann 111.00 Shakopee Medical
R. Friedges 35.00 Sundance Medical
F. Ries 35.00 Sundance Medical
R. Latzke 35.00 Sundance Medical
1981
L. Link 35.00 Sundance Medical
L. McGovern 40.00 Ivy B. Heinz
H. Ring 106.00 Chaska Medical
C. Ries 86.00 Shakopee Medical
W. Anderson 75.00 Shakopee Medical
M. Ryan 35.00 Sundance Medical
M. Myers 42.00 Sundance Medical
J. Link 48.00 Paul A. Stahler, M.D.
Again, I would like to stress the fact that I did not spend too much time
on this and may not have all the information on everyone, i.e.,under 1980,
above would indicate that not all of the firemen had physicals in that year,
but without reconciling charges paid against forms turned in this may be
inconclusive.
/lw
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Linda J. Willemssen, Sr. Acct'g. Clerk
RE: Firemen's Physicals
DATE: February 5, 1981
I am not aware of a written agreement, or directive, covering firemen's
physicals. The past procedure, as I know it, has been that the City
require each fireman to have an annaul physical, with the agreement that
the City pay for any/all costs incurred for the physical. The only item
I'm aware of that was not authorized for payment was when one fireman
had received some shots that were not required nor relevant to the
physical.
If you find that there is, in fact, no written policy on this and decide
to pursue it, may I suggest:
1) That a schedule be established and followed, ie. all physicals
are to be completed and paperwork executed by a specific date,
such as January 31 or February 15 of every new year. This practice
would eliminate a lot of going back and forth with bills for approval
and paperwork all year long. It would also alleviate a lot of
confusion with billing problems we seem to be having with the
various clinics. It would also allow us to maintain a
"tighter reign" on this procedure. It would seem to me that if
the City is requiring this someone should be following up on it to
insure that each and every fireman is meeting requirements.
2) That each fireman be advised that they are not to instruct the
clinic to bill to "The City of Shakopee", but rather to their own
individual accounts and then render the clinic bill to me for
reimbursement to them. The way it is now, where some firemen
have the City of Shakopee as the "bill to", has created a great deal
of confusion resulting in delay of payment as the clinic often times
does not specify the person's name for whom the physical was given.
By asking them all to follow this procedure for billing it would
create a system of consistency which would insure more expedient
payment and decrease the margin of error when we have to try to find
out who the bill is for.
/lw
Phone Survey
Pre-Employment/Annual Physicals
1 . Hopkins a. Pre-employment physicals for Firemen only
b. No annual physicals required
2 . Chaska a. Pre-employment physicals for Police and Firemen
b. No annual physicals required
3. Bloomington a. Pre-employment physicals required for all full
time employees
b. No annual physicals for Firemen
Police - up to 40 years old - every 3 years
40-50 years old - every 2 years
over 50 years old - annually
4. Minnetonka a. Pre-employment physicals for Police and Firemen
b. No annual physicals required
5 . Richfield a . Pre-employment physicals for Police and Firemen
b. No annual physicals required - but the Police and
Fire Chiefs could require a physical of one of
their employees if there seems to be a problem
6 . Cottage a. Pre-employment physicals for Police and Firemen
Grove b. No annual physicals required
g
MEMO TO: John Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant
RE: Bus Service for Shakopee
DATE: April 28, 1981
Introduction
In the winter/spring of 1980 Mayor Walt Harbeck approached industry
leaders regarding the possibility of initiating a bus service in
Shakopee. Leaders cooperated by providing lists of the points of
origin of their employees with the general hours of employment as
a basis for further exploration of transit alternatives . Based on
the responses received the Mayor expressed interest in promoting
local bus service.
Background Information
Mr. Norbert Schmitt , owner of Shakopee Services (a local bus company) ,
expressed an interest in providing bus service in Shakopee without
government subsidy. The City staff agreed to try and identify poten-
tial riders for a twice daily route from the core of the Shakopee
residential district to the industrial park. The staff decided to
try and reach potential riders through employers . In order to broaden
employer' s willingness to distribute information, it was decided
to combine promotion of the bus service with promotion of the Minne-
sota Rideshare program (car and van pooling) which could serve
employees emanating from other communities besides Shakopee . The
Chamber of Commerce sponsored a luncheon meeting to promote transit
options for member and non-member companies which was attended by
65 persons . Follow-up telephone calls assured cooperation of employ-
ers . Shakopee Valley Publishing, School District 720, Owens-Illinois
and St. Francis Hospital requested presentations for their employees
and 11 other employers agreed to distribute information to employees .
Employers were asked to distribute information, collect applications
and return them to the City. Over 1500 brochures and applications
were distributed . At this point eight applications have been received ,
8 for rideshare and 1 also requesting bus service. Additional promo-
tion included newspaper stories , a presentation on KSMM (This , That
and the Other) and a booth at the local Energy Carnival on March 12 ,
1981 .
Alternatives
1 . Forward applications for Rideshare to Minnesota Department of
Transportation and terminate further promotion of that program.
Notify Mr. Schmitt and the one interested rider that interest ex-
pressed in commuter bus service in Shakopee has been minimal and
would not warrent initiation of commuter service at this time .
2 . Explore other means of promoting Minnesota Rideshare and local
bus service.
John Anderson
Page 2
April 28, 1981
Recommendation
Staff recommends the first alternative listed above . An extensive
amount of staff time has already gone into the promotion of trans-
portation alternatives for Shakopee , and there does not appear to
be much interest in such alternatives at this time .
JA/jms
2it,/
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Proposed 1982-86 Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
Portion of Metro Waste Control ' s Development Program
DATE: April 28, 1981
Introduction
Included in this 1982-86 Development Program are two items of
interest to Shakopee: (1) The Blue Lake WWTP Solids Handling
Facilities and Sludge Processing which include a sludge digester
and a sludge loadout for land application scheduled for 1982 and ;
(2) The Chaska WWTP expansion which is being selected as the
"preferred alternative" over the Jackson Township Interceptor
and is scheduled for 1983-84. This memo will focus on item
Number 2 .
Background
The Met Council is currently revising its Areawide Policy Plan
and has received from the Metro Waste Control Commission (MWCC)
their 1982-86 Development Program recommendations . There was a
public hearing on Number 2 above last August and Met Council
Staff is now compiling data for the public hearing to be held
June 25, 1981 to formally revise their Areawide Policy Plan.
The impact of the decision to expand the Chaska WWTP on Shakopee ' s
growth patterns is significant ! With Federal money drying up for
projects like the Jackson Township Interceptor, they will become
less and less a reality if they depend on Federal Grant assistance.
If what little Federal aid is available goes into the Chaska alter-
native, then the location (the planning) , engineering and financing
of Sanitary Sewer facilities in the upper valley needs to be re-
examined when the present system is again saturated and/or the
City' s Comprehensive Plan is reviewed in 1985.
Summary
John Harrington from the Met Council Staff will be sending us data
that their Staff and MWCC Staff used in arriving at the selection
of the Chaska WWTP Expansion Alternative. When we receive the
material and analyze it ourselves , we can decide what ,. if any,
type of presentation we would like to make at the June 25 , 1981
public hearing.
Action Requested
None required - file until additional material received.
JKA/jms
Business Item "H"
METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION
350 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul , Minnesota 55101
222-8423
MEMORANDUM February 4, 1981
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
FOR YEARS 1982-1986 TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission is required by the Metropolitan
Reorganization Act of 1974 to submit a five year Development Program on
at least a biennial basis to the Metropolitan Council for its review and
approval . A Development Program for years 1982-1986 has been prepared for
submission to the Metropolitan Council by March 1, 1981 in accord with the
Metropolitan Reorganization Act of 1974. Approval of projects in a
development program constitutes consent by the Metropolitan Council for the
Commission to proceed with funding and grant application for the projects.
The Commission has recently completed a comprehensive Wastewater Management
and Facilities Plan (201 Plan) to fulfill the needs and requirements of the
Metropolitan Council 's 201 Areawide Wastewater Management and Policy Plan.
The 201 Plan has proposed projects needed during the next twenty year period
(1980-2000) .
The Metropolitan Council will have ninety (90) days subsequent to March 1 to
complete its review and either approve the program or return it to the
Commission for revisions and resubmission of the program to the Council . The
Council will either approve or disapprove the program based upon its consistency
with the Council 's Areawide Wastewater Management and Policy Plan. The Council
has the option to hold a public hearing and would be required to conduct a
hearing prior to the approval if requested by the Commission. Since most of
the projects have gone through the 201 planning process , it is suggested that
the Council not be requested to hold a hearing.
The preparation of the Development Program has been closely coordinated with the
staff of the Metropolitan Council in an effort to determine the consistency of
the projects with their Areawide Management and Policy Plan. Discussions were,
also, held to determine the scheduling of the projects and if they should be
constructed within the state and federal construction grants program or with
full metropolitan funds. As a result of these discussions, including input
from the regulatory agencies, it is proposed that the projects contained with
the five year program should be funded mainly by federal and state grants and
a number of interceptor projects should be fully financed with full metropolitan
funds. Attached for your information is a summary of the projects, by name,
anticipated costs and scheduling.
The scheduling of projects has been determined based upon several important
considerations which are, for example, the need to adher to permit require-
ments or other existing or impending regulatory requirements, system
deficiencies and improvement or replacement of obsolescent systems. The
projects may be classified broadly as those related to wastewater treatment
and water quality and interceptors to serve the metropolitan area. The
proposed Development Program also includes an analysis of the impact of projects
on the cost allocation.
Q
MEMORANDUM -2- February 4, 1981
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission authorize
the submission of the proposed Development Program for years 1982-1986 to
the Metropolitan Council for their review and approval . It is further
recommended that the Metropolitan Council be requested to amend their
Areawide Wastewater Management Policy Plan as necessary to provide the basis
for approving the proposed Development Program.
•
Reviewed By: Prepared By:
TI4 C--)"
Anthony C. Gne ,:ernard J. Harington J
Deputy Chief nistrator Director of Erg'ineering
•
ACG:JDT:EJB:hw
Attachment
e„t,, y 7f 1/t'
•
q c?t'
,,-1/4-,,-.,)q 1(.'ii2._i .-,,6 fl[Vt'1(,I .."'lit f 1 ,iiim
t'astc:;: to Trf,,atmcnt Plant Portion
Wastev: ter Treatment Plant Cost Stej Year Cor.��:�ent
8tue Lake Sol ids Handl ing j
Facilities - Sludge <gdp,..a14'il-,Processing .93 II 198wlac`
CAB/AnokaViid-
WTP Phaseout 0.185 II 1982 1/
2.164 III 1983 17
L.-� Chaska 1.11.ITP Expansion �fiYA it .216 II 1983 Cie �`'Mfr. .
, c 2.729 III 1984 �' i"'"---, �Z�
f riee t'il �- .643 I I 1983(_ ' '� '� �(�4'"``�
w % i /W2`' 12.576 III 1986 --" ez-4.4 .6,e .'
s , =4/ ��i" pl�P1 a'i n4WWTP xpa son, Aro �.o067 II1982 . 9,1.770 III 1983 ' r4t,AJ1
Ji," 1 Medina WWTP Expansion .020 II 1982
Z ,gi t .170 III 1983
;sjvj
J' 1,111TP: Chemical Feed - AST .421 II 1984
8.808 III 1986
MWTP: Effluent Reaeration - .050 II 1981
AST - 1 .110 III 1984
MWTP: Final Clarifiers - 1 .499 II 1984
AST 30.718 III 1986
MWTP: Odor Control - AST . II 1981
9.292 III 1984
N1-ITP: Pilot Plant Studies
for disinfection .253 II 1982
MWTP: Pilot Study for
Process Demonstration - AST 1 .014 II 1982
MWTP: Pump Station - AST .485 II 1981
10.654 III 1984
MWTP: Relocate C12 facili-
ties Reduce C12 residuals .403 II 1982
& reaeration 5.780 III 1983
1Financed by Metropolitan funds .
','.�:t� _,.ator Treatment Plant Cost Step Year Cr�n�riunt
''JP: Rou(.hi ng Filters - 2.473 II 1931
AST 44.895 III 1984
Rosemount WUTP Replacement .301 II 1982
5.819 III 1985
Seneca: Incinerator .118 II 1981 1/
Air Pollution Control 1 .185 III 1981 T/
Seneca: Air Flotation .060 II 1983
Thickeners .670 III 1984
Seneca: Instrumentation
Control
Stillwater WWTP Expansion .849 II 1984
11 .239 III - 1985
..
. 1 g.,-
,,,(:e 1 -i ;6_ , _v,.1,.;'_ _Ht on,r;;'n
Interi_ e;•tors Purl
_Interceptors CostStep Year Comment
Battle Creek (Special
Assessment) 1 .00 I 1982 1/
Bayport Interceptor .114 II 1985
1 .514 III 1986
Blaine Interceptor .307 II 1934 1/
Amendment 1 .396 III 1985 1/
CAB/Andover Extension .316 II 1985 1/
2.326 III 1986 1/
CAB/Lower Segment 1 .822 II 1932 1/
21 .45 III 1984 Ti
CAB/2nd Ramsey .139 II 1984 1/
Connection .953 III 1985 Ti
Lake Ann .386 II 1982 1/
5.964 III 1983 1/
Lower Beltline Div/ .49 II 1982
Storage 8.72 III 1985
Mahtomedi Improvements .177 II 1981 1/
1 .831 III 1983 1/
• Minneapolis East 2.662 II 1982
Phase I 22.661 III 1983
Minneapolis East II 1984
Phase II 24.848 III 1985
Minneapolis Replacement
of Reach 1-MN-313 .033 II 1986
Minneapolis Replacement .050 II 1982
of Reach 1 -MN-320 .230 III 1983
,Minneapolis Replacement .038 II 1982
of Reach 1-MN-342 .149 III 1983
( Savage .305 II 1986
III 1987 .
St. Paul Replacement .15 II 1984
of Reach 1-SP-210 1 .43 III 1986
Iiitci'C 'j %urs Cost Sick) YPar Cr' :("-!t
St. P601 R(`p1acc?:('nt
of Trout Brook .12 II 1982
Reach 1-SP-22.0 1 .09 ] l I 1983
St. Paul Replacement .038 II 1982
of Reach 1 -SP-223 .298 III 1983
White Bear Lake .108 II 1985 1/
1 .047 1II 1936 1/
P; rosod 1_:32-i'"6 ^( v1.' art P .,r�_n
Mitico116ncous Projorts Purt :un
Miscellaneous Projects Cost Step Year Comment
Apple Valley Lift .059 II 1981 1/
Station Improvements .190 III 1932 1/
ue Lake Solids Hand-
ling Facilities , Land &
Ultimate Disposal .518 II 1982
Coon Rapids Lift Station .003 II 1982 1/
.037 III 1983 1/
I/I Study Interceptor
Improvements 2.5 I
Interceptor Improve.
Meters 1 .49 I 1/
Land Acquisition for 3.432 II 1982
Central Ash 3.779 III 1983
Sludge Transport Equipment .08 II 1983
.82 III 1984
Sludge Transport Equipment .10 II 1981
at Metro 1 .19 , . III 1982
St. Louis Park Lift .023 II 1981 1/
Station .101 III 1982 1/
White Bear Lake Lift II 1981
Station .06 III 1982
S-;)_2:3
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Unbudgeted Capital Outlay Purchase Exceeding $300
DATE: April 21 , 1981
Introduction
The Engineering Department and Inspection Department saw the
opportunity to cut their annual office supply and general
supply line item expenses by purchasing a Kroy Lettering
Machine for $616 .05. The two departments jointly purchased
the item planning to split the expense and charge the amount
to their respective supply budgets where the savings would
occur. The Finance Director, however, has indicated that the
item is a Capital Outlay and should be so recorded .
Procedure and Recommendation
The Finance Director has recommended that the two departments '
Office and General Supply line items ($2800 in Engineering and
$900 in Inspection) be reduced by $308.03 each and thata $616 .05
Capital Outlay line item be inserted in the Engineering Depart-
ment 1981 Budget . In this manner the total General Fund appro-
priation will remain the same and the two departments will have
to live with decreased Office and General Supply Budgets for
1981 . I concur with the Finance Director ' s recommendation.
Since the item exceeds Council ' s $300 limit for unbudgeted
capital outlays it requires Council action.
Action Requested
Approval of a Capital Outlay of $616 .05 for the Engineering
Department for a Kroy Lettering Machine through respective $308.03
reductions in the Engineering and Inspections Departments ' Office
and General Supply line items .
JKA/js
action alert
'iiiIIil�lll
league of minnesota cities CITY OF 3HAKOPEE
April 22, 1981
TO: Mayors, Managers, Clerks, Legislative Contacts
FROM: Donald Slater, Executive Director
Peggy Flicker, Legislative Counsel
RE: Revised Governor's Budget - New 8% Levy Limit Proposal
INTRODUCTION
The Governor and the Legislature are now engaged in a pitched battle over taxes, services
and programs, and budget cuts. Cities, unfortunately, are faring very poorly in the
infighting over the budget crisis. It appears that the Governor and DFL leaders will
accept the proposed shifts of state aid payment schedules which will cost cities an
estimated $15 million over the biennium It also seems likely that local government aid
will not be increased.
Most disturbing of all is the Governor's proposal for a new, more restrictive levy limit.
Do not assume that the proposal will not be seriously considered, despite its drastic
implications. * Revenue Commissioner Clyde Allen argues the new levy limit is needed to
curtail increased demand for homestead credit payments because of property tax increases
necessitated by the proposed shifts and stabilization of state aid payments. Instead of
proposing further direct restrictions on the homestead credit, the Governor intends to
restrict cities' ability to tax.
The seriousness of this proposal cannot be underestimated. Even though the DFL made a
counter proposal regarding the taxation and budget crisis, this proposed new levy limit
was not mentioned. Moreover, the Governor has completely reversed his position on the
levy limit. The problem is compounded because the DFL has traditionally favored levy
limits. The proposal hands a politically hot issue to the DFL and dares them to be the
ones to "allow" significant property tax increases. The danger is that this part of
the Governor's proposal could be approved, even over the opposition of responsible
local officials.
The League Board of Directors held an emergency meeting on April 20, inviting a number
of city officials from throughout the state to review with them the Governor's new levy
limit proposal and assess its potential impact on cities. Officials unanimously con-
cluded that the proposal will have ominous consequences for cities, and enthusiastically
reaffirmed the League's opposition to levy limits in general and this proposal in
particular,
(OVER)
300 hanover building, 480 cedar street, saint paul, minnesota 55101 C6123222-2861
-2-
Cities need to set aside differences and unite in opposition to this new threat to local
financial integrity.
NEW LEVY LIMIT PROPOSAL - EXTREMELY RESTRICTIVE
1 This new, more restrictive levy limit would apply to all cities - not just cities
over 2,500.
2: There would be an 8% cap on any city property tax increase. The 8% limit would be
applied to a new type of levy limit base - the total 1981 city levy. In other words,
if your city raised a total of $1,000,000 through the property tax in 1981, you
would be able to raise no more than $1,080,000 in property taxes, for whatever
purpose, in 1982. This is very different from the current system, under which the
8% limit is applied to a base, consisting of the combination of local government
aids and the limited levy. Under the existing system, this base is allowed to grow
to reflect population increases and there are various "special", or unlimited
levies allowed for such purposes as bonded debt, pension costs, matching grants
and court judgments. However, under the new proposal , no special levies would be
allowed nor would population increases expand the base.
3: The 8% levy limit proposal would apply to cities, counties and towns. For compari-
son, the average city levy increase for payable 1981 was 15.3%. Schools would be
allowed to raise their basic maintenance levies 27.3% and "all other" 10.5%, for a
total increase of 19.9%.
HOW THE LEVY LIMIT PROPOSAL WILL HURT ALL CITIES
The League fears that in 1982 and certainly in 1983 many cities will be forced into major
service and expenditure cutbacks because of an inability to raise revenues locally under
the Governor's proposed levy limit. Our position is that local officials are responsible
and accountable, and should not be subject to arbitrary, across-the-board limits. Cities
must protect their ability to use or not use the property tax as local needs require,
The Governor has now admitted that he, at the state level , cannot make more expenditure
cuts - "But there comes a point where you touch the nerve - where you can cut no more
without doing serious damage. " His proposal does not allow city officials the freedom
to make the same judgment.
SOME CITIES MAY BE PARTICULARLY HARD HIT
1. Cities that have been frugal and attempted to keep property taxes down will be
penalized, because their new "property tax levy base" will be smaller and thus the
8% allowed increase will be less.
2 Cities that have incurred bonded debt and expected to begin to levy for debt service
in 1982 or later will be especially hard hit. In general , city bond ratings will be
threatened because of limited ability to meet any full faith and credit obligations
that might arise. Any activities necessitating bonded debt would have to be curtailed.
3, Cities that have any "special needs" such as an increase in bonded debt, increased
need for services because of a growing population, requirements to fund growing
pension costs, etc. - these cities will be hampered in their ability to deal respon-
sibly with their unique local situation.
4 Cities that have been receiving a relatively high proportion of local government
aids (LGA) will be especially hard hit, particularly in 1983.
-3-
YOU NEED TO ACT NOW
1. It is extremely important for city officials, particularly elected officials, to
protest this proposed levy limit - vigorously, unequivocably and soon. Call or
write the Governor, your legislators, and the leadership (Rep. Harry Sieben -
Speaker of the House; Sen. Roger Moe - Senate Majority Leader) . Tell them you
oppose the Governor's levy limit proposal .
2. Take the time to project the effect of the proposals on your city and understand
the full impact. Suggestions on how to do this are enclosed.
CONCLUSION
No one wants to be blamed for property tax increases, and the legislature must have
support from you if they are to reject the Governor's proposal . Legislators must be
reminded that local officials are accountable to voters, too, and will use the power
to tax responsibly. Cities have not been united on the issue of LGA cutbacks and
payment shifts and it has severely hampered our lobbying effort. (It still looks like
there will be an LGA freeze and payment shifts. ) We must unite and act now on this
issue or we run the risk of taking a giant step backward on the question of local
financial stability.
Without your help cities may end the legislative session as losers in two ways - local
government aids frozen and payments delayed; and no power to make up for cutbacks in
state and federal programs by raising revenue locally.
DS:PF:rmm
Enc.
HOW TO CALCULATE THE PROJECTED EFFECT OF THE
PROPOSED 8% LIMIT ON LEVY INCREASES
Complete the attached table, using the city's actual budget figures for 1981, and
projecting for 1982 and 1983 as described below.
1. Assume a general fund budget increase of 9% annually in both 1982 and 1983.
(Lines 2 and 3. )
2. Include an increased debt levy for 1982 and 1983 (lines 5 and 6) only if the
levy is for bonds for projects to which the city is finally comitted; i .e.
contracts have been let.
3. The 1981 and local government aid figure should be the city's 1981 aid after
the 8.3% cutback. The aid figure for both 1982 and 1983 should be the
amount originally certified for 1981, before the 8.3% cutback.
4. The 1981 property tax levy figure should be the total property tax levy,
including all debt and other special levies. This figure should be
increased by 8% annually for 1982 and 1983.
5. Because of the differences among cities in the makeup of their other general
fund revenues - revenue sharing, federal grants, license and permit fees,
franchise fees, municipal liquor store or other enterprise fund contribu-
tions, etc. - no general rule can be given for projecting these revenues
for 1982 and 1983. The percent of increase will vary from city to city.
Assume that revenue sharing will remain constant (no increase or decrease) ,
and that CETA funding will be eliminated. Income from sources such as fees
and enterprise fund contributions should be estimated based on the trend in
previous years.
4/22/81
PROJECTED EFFECTS ON THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE
OF THE PROPOSED 8% LIMIT ON LEVY INCREASES
1981 1982 1983
A. General Fund Budget 1 . 2 ,084,981 2 . 2 ,272 ,629 3. 2 ,477 ,166
Inc. of 9%
B. Debt Retirement Levy 4. 290,409 5. 266 ,300 6 . 293,751
C. Total 7 . 2 ,375,390 8. 2 ,538,929 9. 2 ,770,917
(Line A plus Line B)
D. Local Government Aid 10. 328,743 11 . 358,498 12. 358,498
E Property Tax Levy 13. 1 ,059,006 14. 1 ,143,726 15. 1,235,224
F. Other Revenues-8% w/o SPUC 16.a 17 .a 1 ,015,316 18.a 1 ,077 ,341
10% w/o SPUC b 957 ,886 b 1 ,029 ,674 b 1 ,108,641
G. Total 19.a 20.a 2 ,517 ,540 21 .a 2 ,671 ,063
(Sum of Lines D, E, F) b 2,345,635 b 2 ,531 ,898 b 2 ,702 ,363
H. Shortfall 22.a 21 ,389 23.a 99,854
(Line C minus Line G) b. 7 ,013 b 68,554
*Link settlement of $148,XXX not reflected
•
/ 3 •
td Co rn "' �- (.^) N H (Priority
II Co I rn w O\ Co w ov'\
w Fund
0rn 0 0 0 0 0 0
N) Progr•am Number
c+
Cl) ti H t1 W t=1 C t'i 0 ti t'1 t'i tri x t=1 W
P"' U) 0 U) (D U) H U) • U) w U) (D U) R m 0
c+ H c+ a + 1
cU c+ cF Cu c+ H. c+ P c+ H
0 H• (D H. • H. c+ H. Cl H. "i 1-'. H
P 6 O 0 < H H H < H w H (o c+ 0 lD
w P (D w Cl w H P H• P Cl w U) P (n
Cl c+ c+ c+ c+ H c+ c+ c+ O\ c+ (D c+ a c+ (D 0 c+
P O (D (D O (D ii(D (D a)a `- a d a n a I a H a p' O I a ci
m H.w UOi c+ N '� O b O F1 O O N
cf I c c+ o c}' • c* o c+ U) c+ aD c+
Co
0 ko CO CD H llescrii,tiot)
II • c p � � Cl) -69- •69- CD -EA- 0
b k . H w c+ V
'1 O W c+ W c+ t\) cnc Cl)
0 CD 0 c+
O O H H v1 0 P 0 (1 viNilvii 0 P• W
o 0 c a 0 0 w 0 0 0 Cl) DO cam+
0 CO 0 H 0 0• 0 c+ Lk) H•
`+ o o 0 0 (D 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 w 0
0 o 0 0• 'd 0 c• CD •D 0 0 " 0 0 c -i
g0 0 0 Ii 0 0 0 0 04 0
0 (n
H
w
c+ •
H. • v, v, reasibiliLy
m • oo -4 Report
H
0 Ispuc
CO• HApproval
D,
.
• ----' IPubl.is 4•-•Iieari rig v
•
•• H 0
II tri
o • H Plans and v
0 ••
w o Specifications 0
H ~ DI
�,• Right-of-Way
P • w Co Acquisition1-3
N tr,
O Z
E • cia • � Lo Bid
HH • Na) H o Date
P
�'
�s •
-.61.'1
co �„ JAsscssrnenL
N :. • N . CD : Hearing b
w
0
c+ :d
O • H • H • co •• Ho •• : ' JCornpleLon H
• o • o v,
Fd :. • cop ; op co •• � •• op • • H Date
Fi
N H • H • co • O H
1-,• :5. O W .: n ul C) W .: (") U! i) of .: i) IU : (-) w :,7. :o W
HH
H N 0ND I N O\ o H H 0H vl c
1 N O\ N I N 1 O\O a\.--.3 N � � E:nglneEr
N N 0 O\ vi O\ v) O\ I -P--00\ 0 0 0o (2, 0\•0 �'00
CD
H
r.
o w l 0 0 . -w o • .1 i o w o �w 0 �0 LU w v'o Technician ITI a
*
I o
d NN
(D d
w H w
Co , Technician II H•
rn0 � iww NNNytdo0O0 vv LA.)
Inspector II •( 0o' I w .r✓ 0 0o
w
(n H. c+
H a' 0
s✓
I w I `O o\vi Technician I 0
Cl 0 `o I 0 W 0 -COo 0 - i 0 H-0\CD 0 0VN° 0 oN CO'0 Inspector I o d
0 - H•
N H
a), x
H
t=iI ON NO co N I H N H H I:vNi Secretary .
H H I O H 0 O\\..fiN 0 -J I 0 ----"H 0 �O\ 0 ON N H i
H.
H
Co
(D H N H - v) H
H W H I v1 N H W oo)N "O I 0 H � '.ii FH-' NN 1.) Total
l l I \O HH 1 I H O 0 O\0 0 O --I -�vi
'd
H
0 N 'P-O H v~i
LA)\J-1 N
CD H 00 0\ „ H -a I H 0H, I v,0 00\0 0 0\W Engineering
c+ iv I H `ow v, H0 4H I H0� I -i I -SCO rn�o Dept. Fee
0-\\J-1 I 0v,0 O\\OO\ � `n I D\�� N� vim O�
\o vl I �O .� • • •• • •. • • •
a y
* *
II `H" w N 1-1 Ho `O IPriority
L \o I co \o H I L.'" 'Fund
P,
00
v1 v1 v1 v1 \n v1 v1
H
CD
Iv HH H
0 w 'Program Number
c+
(Cl
P' LII < LII x LII x tli td LII x tri CO tr1 -d LII r
car co d 0 cC* H Cl) H C 0 ca 0 CF 0 to c+amP
5. HCD 0
r M N (Cl N• H N.
(Cl 6 M 'i W c+ O c+
O
c- cit OHi CF i c+ (1) W CD O . (Cl O' c+• CD H
(1) b m c+ o a m
En a a a �' P• CD a c P• cCfl+ Cl) P, a 0
Cl)o 0 m ¢ N H.
En O EOn H En (1)Z tp m O m Ca CCD
0 + O •' O c+ H c+ Cl) •• • `S •• 0 ~Cr c+ cc+
o 0 E z o H H H ty Description
II y} W EA EA- EA O ttr nH-, EH M Co E-N H. EA- N.
0 011
CD 1-1 H �'�c
• .1 �, HO N H (�D En C� N Ft
/�� 0 0 CO �0L CD O P.
O\ N Co cam+• 0 CC)
Y• �• •• c- V V
c-+- 0 0 0 o Cl) 0 CO .F- 0 •fD 0 0 `+
I" O 0 0 0 0 — . .O CD 0 `•S 0
0 I 0 0 0 0 O • H. 0 0 CD
0 0 0 0 0
E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H
Fl0
cam.
o .
00.,. • --•' • -:w • d: .F- easibility
:, Hcu y H. Report
P •. `P .. H
0 al
o • • z : •
P !Approval
SPUC
J�, •, HOSI : • a':
• H •• y pCb
P, H
P•
• • o. (Public
• : �- : O
:; �, • v K. •-•.....
•
Hearing H
II o H L.i
CD C.1•
CT • VI : .F- 'd' w Plans and
N
• •- CO • Co • CO o. Co 'Specifications o
c•� M
tzl
• ci-•
P • . � : � •
• z �. ` (Right-of-Way
o • Co • Co• H • CoH • 5> 5 Acquisition
trj
'1 . y
• --1 7. • CT • CT : --I : VI Ca -F
I
Bid
:. co " �' • CO • CO • CO : CO I✓: w Date o
H •. .• H •. H .• H .. H �. H
�s y
0
0. •• CO • z . CO • CO . CO
� • z Ss essment
N CO• CO • CO CO . \ \ 7:1: H •• I---' c' Hearing
o • o
. H • H • Si
• CO • H • H • \A • Cr completion 1-3
Fd • • • .• Cb • O CO • oO cO oO .
1-1 C ate
N• .. N .. H " H •. H .. N .. H .. ..
H
C7 tt1 QW 'XC7 W 3 C7 Cb ' n W x Q W 0W C t[i
H
\O Co CT N H o\ - o V X11 --1 W N N o I Engineer
co \n1 01 OD 0 -;i -J 0 Co-J Oo \O vi \O N 0 \O CO H 0 0
H
C~
N 0 1- ' w H 0\ N N w -4 1 echnician III a
* 0 0\CT 0 0 0 0 0 V 01-in I 0 0 0 0 W N.) \110 0 0 I 0
G
(Cl K
0
H H N H H Technician II `''
0 0 o H rn--I opo 0 0 1 Inspector II '.ii" d
Cl) 000 OOO 0 .--- --" N O N N 4v
P.
H 0' 0
O
O
o Hu, N w H H I Technician I N
Cl)• OP---1 000 O H H 0 0 \j„ 0 0 0 000 \O -30 0 0 1 Inspector I o
o
tI x H
.F- H ~t
P• O v1 Cfq 0 0 0 0 0\O\_n co Co 0 -F-w 0 0 Oo W W O N N I Secretary'
0
CD
CD H
E
ODN.
0a v, w� 0 0� 0 N N rn CO �� o CO \ �v1 N N 1 Total H
HJN �O
ti1
0
cam. 69-
(1)
u0_,1 H H 1-' W 1 H H N) W .F I Engineering
H 0 N 11 0 0\ 10 0 '0 N I0 rn OD N N 1 Dept. Fee
V1 H CT W W H W �F �I �O �p �, F v1
* * *
W N NN N) N H H H
II
-P- Co NH 0 k0 Co - 2 I Priority
171 o I I o o vi n)w I I Fitnd
ma P vi VI VI `i ‘.n v1 \n
mw N N N) op (Program Number
P-, tt 1-3 til H tJ x t1 C t1 ti tri O t'i 0 t=i ill
Cl) Cl) o 0 o tn 1dN (D 0 Cl)0 0 Cl) 11
10) c+ H. c+ N c+ F-• c+ ti c+ c+ 1!-4,-. c+ N•
o P+ CD P+ n P Cl) + C P P -� per, ) cC P O �i
9b P'CD 0 m D Cl) (D p D c+ (D 0 CD 0 0o
a c+ P �• P a N ao aa• 1-5H 0 P
0 C) (Cl 0 CD 0 (D 0 0 0 0 CZ a 0 C
o 9 0 0 CD 0 kG o a m O • C 0 0 0
cN+ CD cC+ 0 Cf c+ cam-+- t7 cam-+ Cl) + • H Cf co w cN+ (D
o a P, ' 'P 0 1-.., H K Description
H
11 o CD -Eft ter �' w a -69-0
01 1--1 P r (D (I)Co -P- COoo H N 0D w Cl) N N• -4
O w 0 Cl) 0 w F'• -J F • 0 VO
^, O 0o O O v) •
0 0 0 (X O U
P V V V • o
c+ 0 vi 0 0 V 0 0 Cf) 0 0 P
F-'• 0 VO 0 0 0 t' • O (D 0 0 0
0 0 0 o o P 0 () o o Cl)
' 0 0 0 0 0` +00 00 0 N
o 0\ o o Ps-'
0
C._,.
1-d • Feasibility
• ao • (Report
g :.
`+ : •
SPDC
Cl) ..• m 'Approval
Q• P
• (1) i-,• t
• • w� : (Public 0
• CDD ; • Hearing z
11 •• a .. .. ;. ;, trJ
H• XI
t�J
Hi• . ~: Plans and
c+ • • Co. (Specifications °
H N. • O). •. ei
•
•
�- m : •
\
IRAight-of-Way
;, cm+ • • • OD N: . cquisition
O (I) ~ o� •• z
• •
m : : -I ro Bid
;, �+� ; (Date z
•P ~ 0CF a
Fl g x
•
: ssessment '-<
w :. ;. : : f Hearing
•. .. .. ,• H •. •,
c+ 0
o o
•
v, •
completion `�
�t .. . 00 ate
N• .. .. N .• ..
H CD to 0 ed x c) to c) co ? (-] to (-) to X 0 tO :] td
H
H -a N rn (A) Nw H Engineer
co 0 0 H o H H o 0 H vl 0) O o 0 Vi d\ 0 0�' J H
L-•
VIw vi co N N H Technician III a
V o v, 0 0 0\ .fi-
** 00 0 00 0 000 0v, 0 00 0. 00 � 001 00 �n
0 N N N d
_c+ Technician II
cn o 0 0 o Vii H ro 0\ Inspector II c* d
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 H. +
HI a' 0
oTechnician I
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 vi --a vi o Inspector I d El
000 000 o N o 0 00 0 00
m H
tri rI 0 0 0 0 o O0 0 0 Oo rn w V 0\ Secretary_
H. O O 0 000 000 00007 000 0w0
H
Cu -P-' H .P' F�
H
V V • W
• I" \.nH O vi N co o� H
cyci0 0 0 0H N Oo 0 v, ~�-0 00vOi v, vi co 00 to -4 -I � Total
f-d
Fi -69-
IV H
�. -4 N -4 I-' I-' km I-, O
I I ' I I i w I I H Co VD CS\ Co N 0 I I N o iH Engineering
c+ rn �n rn 0 0 0o �--G- - o o rn o H -
00 0 0 � o00 ` moo I I H Vn -P-e, I Iu (A) VD Dept. Fee
• v,
*
N N) v)
(Priority
w
1 w (Fund
II I
vi vl
W -4 rn (Program Number
P, L
0 P
P. I HI
P. <m 4 • to
• cf- M Description
f» w
--1 � R.
N • ( 0
N
0 aD o- O (D
O
0O . 0 cr
H 0 00 0
O 0
i : . . . .
: : : Feasibility
: Report
w
o
Fici
• SPUC
: . ••
lApproval
o •• .. ..
cam.
m tri
c+ ; (Public
- ... . Hearing 1-1
to
t
Fl (Plans and 1-4
m Specifications
G
N
• :
(Right-of-Way
ii .. • .
Acquisition
. tn
Z
0 .: : Bid
H :' :• : : ,Date
x
: r
ssessment
o • ; : : g Hearinm
Z ., o
• y
completion
P - :. - - :. : : ate
II
3 nc-) tici
Rc7 t� C] CZJ c 1 ai C] td c W ] et
N
UJ 0' I-, m
cP+ c+ 1 Co vNi Engineer
o N• P., 00 1 0 00 000
a CD
ti m
1
N 0 N F, r
H m VDI o N Technician III a
W HO I-' I 0 00 00\-J-1 0
0 .--4 N f✓
d
H OD.fi- N Iv N v, Technician II
cl
OD � �v :nc� F o � i 0 00 00o Inspector II
Ho 1--., c+
M cf m
0-
H Technician I
�* o f 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inspector I o a
Hti
- H
0 '�1
o m H
m
N o `� H o l ; 000 000 Secretary_
0 I-,
N F-, \o
fD
F.-El co
• m --- -p- o Total I-'
0 K O I N IJ1n H� C I o 0 0 0 0 v7
.--�p - 0
0
O1Vl • cI� m 1 iCo I I \OEngineering
b p0 H� � I I orn 000 De t. Fee
c . H I-' I o 0
' �- H H -
o g W N O (Program4:3\ PW NII Number
OD
H
9 o 0 tn Ft o H.o Pc)
I" pay
w
Cl) 10 K C R. w
go
p :
O c+
N
R. H O4
rn cc) N
c+ by
o
o
p, ct.
,o •
11 a n
0
•
• :
:. •••• :•: . •:• • : Cl)
o
a •,
It • • • en
Cl) U)
P U
. • H
N .. .. •. .. O t-.1W •• •• 'CD trl
W w
c+ . . .K H
Id ••• .. •.. : :. :s C7
Ft c+ ty7
P.
W
H H
.. •.. • • • • (D
to txi
H O
%.0 • 11
CO • • cn t
H.
• r
:. •. in° xi
. .. .. •, o
: : : : y
0tx1 foto :Zotxl 3flw ' CC w ? oto Xoat r) mi
pi an 1 I N I I I I- I I Engineer
CA-F- I O O I O oo I O O I O o I O 1 O O I 0 0 1 I
I I I I 1 I I I t-
ooi o o i co 0o o o i ooi o• v-1•i o o I o o I Technician III 0
0
coI N i H N i I H I H F--, I Technician i t
o Vl I 0 N I 0 W I Co ' 1 0 0 I 0 0\ I W 0 I 0 0 I IflSI)G'CtOr 1.1 J
p• Ct
o'
I 1 I 1 I I I I a
I 1 I I N I 1 I 1 `Technician I c+
o o I o o I co Co 1 0 o I 0 0 I O N I o 0 I • 0..0 t'••.,' Inspector [ O
1-1
N.
H
I I I I I I I-., IN.) I I - K
I I I I I I 0 - I H N) I Secretary ;n H
0 0 I 00 I 00 1 CD 0 1 0 0 I O H' I COW I 0 0 1
H
I I I I I I F N 1 I CO
I-'v I I W O N I H N 1 NI Co I IJ OD I N W 1 `I'O t,a t H
co\O I O N I 0 -1 I OD - I 0 0 I 0 0 I H - I 0 0 I
ff}
H H H HLA)
\A al I 1 I '.n -:- I W -P" I I N I I O\ I N N I N W I Engineering
N H I I LA) I VD I H H I I 0 I Io H I VD H I 0 0 I Wept.. Fee
n .
H H H 0 C Program
n0 VD (Number
H
VD
OD
N
m W N w • w ��"+ t r�
O Po
c f N `moi c�+ 0 0
1-1 W K 0 O O
b u0i
O
to
hi
ct ii
P. 0
(a C
m
II
c+ •
Z r.n
0
c
0"
•
. :
o P):.•
rn : x
Py M
'i • • • . • • . tri
•
0
• • • 11
W ,0 tri
P W
H
11c+ t']
P.
P Pt
H • N
H
0 H
OO
0
N N
•. „ .. .• ,• N x
.•
H. t°
•
.. .. N ro
0
W
•X• o tri Z C7 txi Z 0 tx Z n cxi Z n Cz1 Z n try Z o w Xnw
I I I I I I I I
0 W 1 O 1 N N I 'J 1 0 0 I 0 0 1 0 0 I W I F Ilgineer
I 1 1 H 1 I 1 I i
o - I o o I o o I N "Cl o 0 I • W W� I o 0 I o 0 I
Technician. III P
o
H I I I I I I I I J
-P- I I i H W v
1 I , I I I Technician II
0 0 I 0 0 I O N I W -G' 1 0 0 I vi N I O N) I 0\ G I Inspector II. r:-,- C7
G
pp 1 Technician I H.
0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 1 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I O\0\ I • Inspector I
d
w N•
1 I 1 Ni 11 I I "r
N Secretary �'
0 0 1 H •--- 1 0 0 I �D N I 0 0 I 0 0 1 0 O I 0 0 I •
H 1 I I I-, vl H
O O I U) I I H0 I I vi I I N W I 'Total H
W
I \ i N 'P- I H - 1 O O 1 COv1 I 0 N I In \D I
n W
-69-
CO W I-, 03
0 0 I-' 1 N 1 0\U1 I I I 1 H\D I I 1 W -J I Engineering
� � I -4 � 1 VI I ww I I I I 'Ui - I I - I �w I Dept. r'ee
Jct-'
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE:_ Spring Manager ' s Conference
DATE: April 30, 1981
I will be at the Spring Manager' s Conference May 13 through May
15 , 1981 .
I recommend the appointment of the City Clerk as Acting Adminis-
trator during my absence .
JKA/jms
•
NI,
,,o7 .,:r7,i://o Minnesota
74E7
Department of Transportation
`` District 5
fiy `"' ' L� 4" 20 5 No. Lilac Drive
''OF TO, Golden Valley, Minnesota 5422.
April-30, 1981 (612) 4537st
Honorable Walt Harbeck •
Mayor of Shakopee
1305 West Sixth Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
•
Dear Mayor Harbeck: •
Funding for the "Minnesota Ride Share" Program is in trouble in the
Legislature. Mn/DOT's efforts to encourage and facilitate increased
ridesharing would virtually come to a halt without this funding and
one of the few practical solutions to our energy and transportation
management problems would be curtailed.
Since the inception of the Ride Share Program in November,- 1980, many
car and van-pools have been formed. As the cost of gasoline increases,
the formation of car and van-pools will accelerate. In the event of an
energy emergency, it is the only alternative at the present time that
we have to keep the business community functioning.
I feel that the Minnesota Ride Share Program is most desirable for
the State and the communities in the Metropolitan Area. If you concur
in this assessment, please let your legislators know that you think the
Minnesota Ride Share Program should be an ongoing program.
Sincerely
•
//;,"1„4,..
4..
W. M. Crawfo d, P.h �
District Engineer
WMC:bn
•
•
An Equal C)pportrmily Employer
`^'re's':� ()
at
CITY OF SHAKOPEE '1lz
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
1030 EAST FOURTH AVENUE Kc
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 ,`�
4451988
4
f.
May 5, 1981
Dear Industry Member:
You will recall that in the mid-70's, the City of Shakopee and
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission negotiated with those Shakopee
industries being served electricity at retail by Northern States
Power Company. The results of those negotiations were the entering
into of an Industry Agreement whereby your company and the other
industries being served by NSP made voluntary payments to the City
of Shakopee to replace the profit the City and the Utilities Commis-
sion would have made had we served you with electricity at retail
during the five-year period covered by the Agreement.
You will recall that at that time we indicated that it was the
eventual goal of the City and the Utilities Commission to serve
all electric customers located within the City Limits of Shakopee.
This is still our goal and to that end we have written Northern
States Power Company with a request to open up negotiations with
them for the acquisition of their service area within the City of
Shakopee, as well as their facilities necessary and useful to
service those customers.
We will be happy to keep you informed of the results of those
negotiations and their effect on your company. We will attempt
periodically to give you a report on those negotiations.
If you have any specific questions, please feel free to communicate
them to Lou VanHout, Utilities Manager, at 1030 E. Fourth Ave, or to
John Anderson, Shakopee City Administrator, at City Hall, or to bring
them before a meeting of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission, or
a meeting of the Shakopee City Council. Both the Council and Commission
have determined that it is in the best interest of the City that individual
members of these two bodies not discuss the negotiations or acquisitions
privately. We know you will understand the reasons for that policy and
honor it. Thank you.
Yours very truly,
Wallace Bishop, President Walter Harbeck, Mayor
Shakopee Public Utilities Comm. City of Shakopee
The Heart of Progress Valley
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION '\\
1030 EAST FOURTH AVENUE KC?
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 � e
445-1988
a
May 5, 1981
Clayton Larson, President
Northern States Power Company
414 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, MN
Re: City of Shakopee Acquisition of Northern States Power Service Area.
Dear Mr. Larson:
As you may know, it has been the policy of the City of Shakopee and the
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission that the Commission should eventually
serve all retail electric customers located within the City of Shakopee.
This has been a goal toward which we have been striving for many years.
We are now in the process of concluding our acquisition of the service area
of the Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative located within the City and
thought it appropriate to open communications with Northern States Power
toward the end of acquiring Northern States Power Company's service area
within the City Limits of Shakopee.
Toward that end, we are asking that you consider the creation of a committee
to meet with us to discuss this possibility. We are prepared to create a
committee at the very highest level of the City Council and Utilities
Commission, who together with our staff, would be most pleased to meet with
our counterparts from Northern States Power.
The applicable portions of Minnesota Statutes 216B relative to just compensa-
tion for such acquisition consider the original cost of the property acquired
less depreciation, integration of facilities expenses, as well as loss of
revenue to the utility. If your company is prepared to discuss with us the
proposed acquisition, you may deem is appropriate to examine these areas of
compensation in a preliminary way so that they can be discussed at our meeting.
You will recall that various representatives of Shakopee have over the past
decade broached the subject of this acquisition with various representatives
of Northern States Power Company. We are certain you will understand that our
desire to make this acquisition relates to our long-term plan to serve all of
Shakopee'€ residents and businesses.
We await your early response and look forward to meeting with you to discuss
this matter.
Yours very truly,
Walter Harbeck, Mayor 'Wallace Bishop, President, Shakopee
City of Shakopee Public Utilities Commission
The Heart of Progress Valle y
Mr. 0"Conner would like the Council to consider requesting the
Metro Transit Commission to consider changing their rout within
Shakopee which would better accommodate the residents at the
High Rise.
Because there is not now any crossing for the citizens of this
facility to cross the first avenue and promisses that have been
made have not come to pass as yet .
edu
,i
i
1/4muinmen
_ _
o
I r�
I
01) A
i i
z_
:r7