HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/30/1981 ki /7/1" 7'M / j2-1)
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: J. I. Case Building Permit/Stop Work Order
DATE: June 26, 1981
Introduction
I explained June 23, 1981 that J. I. Case had been given a stop work order because
their building permit hadn't been processed and the final plat signed.
Background
Eldon has asked if the reason they started to work before their permit was approved
was caused by slow process at City Hall. I checked with Don and Phyllis and learned
the following:
1. The contractor for J. I. Case did check with Phyllis on the status of the
building permit. The first time Phyllis told him it needed signing by the
Engineer and the second time she said it was signed but that Case hadn't
submitted the material to meet the conditions and could not release the
permit.
2. The contractor called Case and then called Phyllis and said the material
was in the mail. It arrived the day we issued the stop work order.
At no time did the contractor say he was going to start work or urgently
needed to start work. At no time did J. I. Case call us and ask us to
expedite the processing.
3. The packet that arrived the day the stop work order was issued included
the Developers Agreement, executed by J. I. Case, but with several sections
deleted. They had not consulted the City and the City Attorney won't
approve the final plat until the Developers Agreement problem is corrected.
4. In summary, the morning of the stop work order we hadn't received the
building permit check or the executed Developers Agreement. On balance
staff believes that any delays we may have had in finalizing the plat did
not contribute to the problem and that J. I. Case should pay the standard
double permit fee.
JKA/jms
6/30/81
EVALUATION OF SHAKOPEE SEWAGE FLOW
YEAR TOTAL FLOW M-401 VIP RAHR
1971 434 MG - 434 = 0
1972 449 MG - 433 = 16 170
1973 462 MG - 450 = 12 130
1974 574 MG - 439 = 135
1975 615 MG - 498 = 117
1976 648 MG - 544 = 104 239
1977 638 MG - 552 = 86 298
1978 675 MG - 587 = 88 240
1979 714 MG - 638 = 76 286
1980 693 MG - 562 = 131 235
Shakopee flow apart from Rahr Malting & VIP area was :
1972-73 291 MG from 7000 .sewered pop. or 114 gpcd
1980 327 MG from 8500 sewered pop. or 105 gpcd
The above flows also include 120+ institutional and commercial connections in 1972-73,
and about 180 such connections in 1980. This is an abnormal number of such connections
in relation to the resident population. However, the City is the county seat for Scott
County and provides hospital , government services, nursing home and State Correctional
Facility for women. The above facilities discharged about 30 MGY of wastewater in 1980,
and together with the remaining institutional (schools, city hall , churches, library,
etc. ) and commercial connections, this non-residential flow was about 100 MG.
The residential flow from a sewered population of 8540 and 2830 households would then be
327 - 100 = 227 MG in 1980. This would he a flow per dwelling unit of 80,000 gpy and a
per capita flow of 73 gpcd. This is a very normal residential flow and would not contain
very much flow other than normal domestic wastewater flow. Other flows include infiltra-
tion of ground water and inflow of surface water into the sewer system.
The cost of treatment and interceptor service by the Commission is $63.40 per 100,000
gallons in 1980. Based on a flow of 80,000 gallons per dwelling unit, the cost per unit
for Commission services would be $50.72 per year or $12.68 per quarter. This is consider-
ably lower flow and cost per dwelling unit than experienced in other Sewer Service Area
#4 communities , particularly those communities adjacent to Lake Minnetonka. In many cases,
the flow exceeds 100,000 gallons per year per dwelling unit.
Therefore, if your rate to a dwelling unit is $2.00/month + $0.76/1000 gallons, the charge
per unit would be $24.00 + $60.30 = $84.80 per year or 521.20 per quarter or $7.07 per
month. This revenue would he available to pay the treatment and interceptor costs of
$.1 -n- per quarter or s4,a7 per month.
/2.68 4cz3
•
4-
O 0. O n O N O LT M V'
CI 1
O r CO h. un Ln
cr
� N r '- r
N M N ' r LC)
I- r N O VD Ln O M N U) N
V O Ln r O O M
0 ID VI
U Y . ., . n n ..
0
03 en.
F-C) V' Cr M Co u) O LT
en
J N N N MO M ev en M ct
Q
O
I-
U
QCT V CO N
N CV V' 0) C V' Lf) Cr) 1�
4, r N LD to 6) CO O Cr
• N r " . r
< 0 N M V' CO O) 1/40 N- M
•N V O D) )- r r
en
ca 0 01
In
• Lei) CO - CO CO CO COO O M Lr) 03 LI)
O
F-• o CO CO Ln L[) 0,1 V'N1.0
CO O LO U)
r N N M N r0 v
V) N N
F- r Lr_ 0
N V) 0
WO F- N r r
LLI n.0 p Cr r,clOrMt�N O CO
00 L..) 4- • - •i 0 r-r Nr-e.13 C54 NJch Lt1/4 N �
Y W 0 U N r ' L.!) O O 6) 4, E N CO
¢Q < 33.0-i IC, C i
CT M
V)Z 0 N t\. �..- Ln In .N.. CO. • 10•r
LL I- L-.) C G v
OW ! ;D
r •-
I-r 7
U0,cO � U b N ^ Ln CO O LC) Cr M co
1 r 1 <LD V' Ln La LO LD LD 1- (C
I LD Y
N M
W M 1- _ 41
c.5 r..- Q)
C Cr,
Q r JC
2 0 0 .-CO M^NO
UOO 4- . 0 cc)en LDS ct Ln
W O C 0 C I LD n LC) V• N V' LI) CO M LL. Q N M N N 0
L)C LU 33 r. O) O M O N- CO 1- LO L!) V) •i
9 d 0- N N r r r r CO d
C C C
W C< 0 i
N<W 4-I AS
LU>- .7 O M V' n CU
C>- r N MO n >-
W I- CO 4•, N O NO .- Lf) r ^ N 'V CO
3 W 2 4, N r r r r ., r n r Q
W Z(C 0 0 Cr O n CO n N M M CO i
Ln rr I-U LD CO r CO N. O M p
Z W N N M M C ' in a) 0
.1- I
16
E i L")V'U)CO n CO(T o MO
V' 01 O .:1- N CO CO p O a••I 10 n n n n n n n W
3k N O r N- VD O) L) ..- (U CT(T(T CT CT O) 0
4••) M O N O ^ V' N N W Y ~
• N
Q 0 C) In Ln 1- M M • O co
•L)
N n O CO O N Cr) M V'
LT D) Ln O) O ct LC) P7 IT
NI N O) Q) ^ C) CO cY O N
3•N C)O ) C) V
N- COLO ' Ln
en co
F-(....)1O 0) M LD O OM h. O) in
r r r N N N M
4-
0 U 1- O r O) 1h C) O OI O
C I
L1') CO Ln a) N l2•) N O
N
I-
N
O
U
4,r M O O O Lf) O O Lf) O
ta N 'OO M Ln
H W L'3 Cr LO LLC) CO LO CO I- n 1\
Q
Z
I-
CD
N CU
01
W 'a
S... M ' Ln CO n O LT O i
LO N- N- N- n N- N- n. O co N .
N C) C) LT O) Cr, LT O) C) C) >
>-
TENTATIVE AGENDA
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
ADJ. REG. SESSION JUNE 30, 1981
Mayor Harbeck presiding
1 ) Roll Call at 7 : 30 P.M.
2 ] Approval of Minutes of June 9, 1981 , June 16, 1981 and June 23 , 1981
3 ] Old Business :
a] 7 : 30 P.M. - Public Informanal Meeting Regarding 1981 Sewer
Rate Increases
b] Shakopee House Liquor License - Nonpayment of Taxes
c ] Fifteen Tax Petitions
d] Reacquisition and Sale of Shakopee Old Wastewater Treatment Plant
4] New Business :
a] 8: 30 P.M. - Public Hearing on Proposed Improvement of County Road
16 by Sanitary Sewer and Watermain 80-4, Resolution
No . 1868 Ordering Improvement
b] Appearance by Dick Marks of Peter J . Patchin and Associates
Regarding K-mart ' s 1981 Assessment
c ] Authorization for Payment - VIP Condemnations
d] Cable Communications Franchise - Legal Services
ey,
5 ] Other Business :
a] Minutes of the June 16 , 1981 Council Meeting
b] 9: 30 P.M. - Adjourn regular meeting for a continuation of
Goals and Objectives Work Session
6] Adjourn
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JUNE 9, 1981
Mayor Harbeck called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. with Cncl. Hullander,
Leroux, Colligan and Reinke present. Cncl. Lebens was absent. Also present were
H. R. Spurrier, City Engineer; Don Steger, City Planner; John K. Anderson, City
Admr. and Judith S. Cox, City Clerk.
Hullander/Reinke moved to app ave the minutes of May 12, 1981, May 19, 1981 •and
May 26, 1981 as kept. Motion carried unanimously.
Hullander/Colligan moved to open the public hearing on the application for $1,100,000
Industrial Revenue Bonds by Valley Industrial Center II. Motion carried unanimously.
Steve Major, President of Major Financial Corp. , addressed the concerns that Robert
D. Pulscher had enumerated in a letter reviewing the application for I.R.B's for this
project.
The City Planner mentioned that one of his concerns was the lack of landscaping around
the building, and Gary Eastlund responded that there are additional plans for land-
scaping which haven't been finalized.
Hullander/Reinke moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Colligan moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval of $1,100,000
Industrial Revenue Bonds for Valley Industrial Center II, said resolution to include
the 8 concerns raised by the City Planner in his memo dated June 2, 1981. Motion
carried unanimously.
Hullander/Leroux moved to open the public hearing on the Hauer Trail Lateral Improve-
ments. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Engineer outlined the route of the sanitary sewer lateral and stated the cost
of the facility had been estimated to be $144,000 in 1980, and now with an increase
in construction costs, the revised estimate is $163,200; which is $4,644.76 ,per lot,
which includes lateral and a "Y" at the property.
The Mayor emphasized that these are estimated costs, and the City Engineer further
explained that this does not include interest or bond costs.
Gene Hauer asked about the procedure for determining assessments. The City Engineer
stated that land that is not subdivided is assessed on a front footage basis, and
gave the amount of his estimated assessment.
Someone in the audience asked if the assessment was figured by lot or by the number
of feet in the lot. The City Engineer responded it was by lot, as they all received
equal benefit.
Joe Theis asked what kind of time table was anticipated for construction. The City
Engineer responded that if there is no significant objection to the project tonight,
he is prepared to submit a recommendation to the Council for awarding of the contract
June 16. In about 3 weeks the contractor should be prepared to start.
Mr. Theis also asked if there was any financial advantage to the property owners con-
necting individual service to their homes at the same time the project is done. The
City Engineer said that according to legal opinion, the City certainly would not pre-
vent these individual contracts, but they would not be included in the City's contract.
Further discussion was held regarding the role of the City in contacting property
owners for individual service.
Mr. Theis also asked about inspection procedure and time required for that and it was
explained by the City Engineer.
Hullander/Colligan moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
The Mayor voiced his concern regarding valuation before and after the improvement
and indicated benefit. He stated these property owners who already have existing
service would not receive 100% benefit from the tax valuation. He will ask for clari-
fication from the City Assessor when the Assessor returns from vacation.
Shakopee City Council
June 9, 1981
Page 2
Hullander/Colligan offered Resolution No. 1854, A Resolution Ordering an Improvement,
Sanitary Sewer Laterals in North One-half of Section 8, Hauer Trail Laterals Project
No. 80-1, and moved its adoption. The City Admr. summarized the resolution.
Roll Call: Ayes; Hullander, Leroux, Colligan, Harbeck
Noes; None
Abstention: Reinke
Motion carried.
Colligan/Leroux moved to open the public hearing regarding the Bluff Avenue Watermain
and Sanitary Sewer from Dakota Street to Halo 1st Addition. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Engineer briefly explained the background of this project, that it was
initiated by petition of citizens for water and sewer. The feasibility study also
considered storm sewer and roadway construction as well, and it was determined that
the storm sewer and roadway were not feasible at this time. The properties now served
by public water main or public sanitary sewer were not included in the assessment
area for this particular improvement because they would not benefit. The properties
in the B-1 Zone were assessed higher because of their increased demand on water and
need for larger diameter water main. The property owners have the option of including
or not including individual services in the project.
Betty Lou Rohlfs stated that she and her sister Ada are against the project. They
have 2 lots on the south side of Bluff and do not intend to sell them, and this is
just too costly.
Dorothy Olson stated that she has a nursery school in the project area. She said she
had not seen the petition and asked how many had signed it. The City Engineer stated
that 42%af benefitted frontage signed the petition. State Statute Section 429 re-
quires that a minimum of 35% of the property sign the petition if the project is to
be petition initiated.
Cncl. Leroux asked if this percentage applies to affected land or landowners. He
asked to have a clarification of this requirement from the City Attorney, who was not
present yet.
Bob Schilz stated that he is a property owner north of Bluff Avenue and has city
sewer and asked about his assessment. The City Engineer responded that his property
was not proposed to be assessed for sewer. He added that any parcel now served by
sanitary sewer will not be assessed.
Mrs. Olson asked if she was being assessed residential or commercial, because of the
nursery school. The City Engineer said it would be residential, as it is based on the
zoning, not the activity.
Mr. Schilz also asked if his assessment was residential or commercial, and was answered
residential, since his business was grandfathered into the new zoning.
Mr. Schilz asked if there has been any attempt to get a federal grant for the project.
The City Engineer stated an application was made, but based on the guidelines esta-
blished for those grants, the property owners on Bluff Street or Dakota made too much
money.
Mr. Schilz then asked about low interest loans, if no grants are available. The Mayor
responded that the City's GO Bonds get about the lowest interest rate, which is
generally about 8-10%. Cncl. Leroux stated the only other alternative was to make
personal application for a loan, to see if there is any federally subsidized money
available.
Doug McKinnon stated that he is in the process of buying property and was also won-
dering about grants. Further discussion was held regarding a previous improvement
project on Bluff and the fact that the people east of Dakota didn't want to be in on
that project at the time, and resident west of Dakota assessed earlier could not
be re-assessed now.
The City Attorney arrived at this point, 8:45 P.M. , and stated he was delayed at the
airport.
There was discussion about delaying the project, hoping for a possible grant or more
favorable interest, with several councilmen stating this was unrealistic based on the
financial status of the State and Federal Governments
Loren Habegger expressed his opinion that bids have been coming in very reasonably
and this was a good time to go forward with this project.
Shakopee City Council
June 9, 1981
Page 3
The Mayor asked the City Attorney if the requirement was 35% of property owners or
35% of land required to petition a project. The City Attorney answered that it was
35% of front footage. The City Engineer stated the petition represented Li, of the
frontage.
Mr. Schilz asked about the procedure for approving or delaying this project, and it
was explained to him by the Mayor and City Admr.
Ron Share asked if the procedure doesn't pass, if it will come up again. The Mayor
answered that if the required number of people want it again, it will have to be
re-considered by Council. Mr. Share stated that if it was going to go through at
some time, it might as well be now, as it will just get more expensive.
George Harris stated he owns the Shakopee Body Shop, and asked about the procedure
for a vacated corner lot, and the City Attorney answered it becomes part of the ad-
joining lot.
The City Engineer stated that based on a previous bond issue, this project would be
approximately 9% more for bond costs and fees. The City Admr. explained that it
would be approximately 9% more than the estimated project costs if the property owner
elected to pay it all at the time of construction of the project, but if the amount
of the assessment was paid over the life of the bond issue, then the annual payments
would have some interest on them too. They mayor said this interest is usually about 2%
more than what the City sells the bonds for, which would be roughly 8%•
Mr. Schilz asked about what happens if the actual costs exceed the estimate by quite
a lot. The Mayor answered that if the costs come in a lot higher than the estimates,
the Council has the right to stop the project. The City Admr. further explained that
by law if the costs are 25% higher than the estimate, the City has to hold annother
public hearing.
There was a discussion about the value of the increase in taxes to the property because
of the benefit of the improvement.
Doug McKinnon asked if curb and gutter will be going in soon, and the Mayor answered
that it was not considered feasible at this time. There was further discussion about
putting in a roadway and the drainage problems involved.
Cncl. Hullander suggested putting dust controlling chemicals on Bluff between Prairie
and Naumkeag and up to First.
Hullander/Colligan moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Hullander/Colligan offered Resolution No. 1855, A Resolution Ordering An Improvement
And The Preparation of Plans, Bluff Avenue - Dakota to West Line of Halo 1st Addition,
Project No. 81-2, and moved its adoption. The City Admr. summarized the resolution.
The Mayor stated there is a deferment for senior citizens involved in this project.
Roll Call: Ayes; Hullander, Leroux, Harbeck
Noes; Colligan, Reinke
Motion carried.
Hullander/Reinke moved the gravel roadway on Prairie Street to Bluff Avenue and Bluff
from Dakota to Naumkeag be treated with calcium chloride for dust reduction.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Colligan/Leroux moved to open the public hearing on the request for a five foot variance
from the side yard setback requirements to construct an attached single-car garage to
an existing home. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner explained that this is an appeal by Richard Maki of a Planning Com-
mission decision on a side yard variance applied for by Dennis Welter for the construc-
tion of an attached garage to his residence. The Planner said he just today received
further information that there is an access easement to the rear portion of the lot,
but even with this new information the staff recommendation is still that a garage to
the rear of the lot is not feasible and therefore still recommends approval of the side
yard setback variance.
Richard Maki identified himself as the neighbor of Mr. Welter and stated that his reasons
for the appeal are the lack of safety and air circulation between his house and the pro-
posed garage if the variance is granted. He is not against Mr. Welter building a
garage, but thinks he could build it at the rear of the lot. When he bought his own
lot he was concerned with building a garage, and he anticipates putting his garage to
the rear of his lot.
' Shakopee City Council
June 9, 1981
Page 4
Dennis Welter stated that the original drawing of his lot showed an easement in back
of his lot, but he still requested the variance because to put a garage to the back
would create undue hardship in conflict with the school buses, garbage trucks, snow
removal and steepness of the access to the house. He is asking only for what is
presently in existence with most of the houses in the area. It would cost him 4
times as much to build a garage in the hill.
The City Plannner stated that there are 5 homes along that stretch and they all, on
one side or the other, have just 5 feet between the homes. If it was an unattached
garage the 5 foot set back would be allowed, but because it is attached, it is con-
sidered part of a principal structure and is dealt with differently. He feels it
is reasonable for the property owner to use this location as he proposes for the
garage.
The City Planner also explained that it is his understanding that the easement to the
rear of the property extended directly across adjoining properties on both sides and
that is where he would have to have access to the garage, if built in the back.
Cncl. Colligan asked Mr. Maki about his response to the Planning Commission about his
own intentions for building a garage on his lot, and Mr. Maki responded that he in-
tends to build at the bottom of the hill where the easement. is.
Hullander/Leroux moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Colligan offered Variance Resolution No. CC-274, and moved its adoption. The
City Admr. summarized the resolution.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Dan Johnson, Suburban Engineering, explained there is a need for a Change Order for
the Hwy. 101 watermain project because the gas line is not where it was originally
indicated by Minnesota Valley Gas Co. , and therefore the water line has to be moved
in a couple of places to avoid the gas line. He stated the estimated cost for the
added work would be $4,500.00.
Discussion was held regarding the fault of the gas company and the possibility of
having the gas company pay the additional expense.
Hullander/Leroux moved to approve Change Order No. 1 for an increase in the amount
of $4,500.00 for the Hwy. 101 Watermain Project.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Hullander/Colligan moved that the appropriate City Staff be instructed to submit the
$4i500 bill for additional work on the Hwy. 101 Watermain to Minnesota Valley Gas
Co. , and also to give appropriate staff the power to negotiate on the bill. Motion
carried unanimously. Discussion was held on which department should send the bill.
The City Admr. asked for a clarification of the policy for change orders in general.
Discussion was held to determine the intent of the Council.regarding this project.
Hullander/Colligan moved that the policy on change orders for the Hwy 101 watermain
Project No. 80-11, would be that if the change order is less than 1% of the contract
price it can be approved by the Project Engineer and City Admr. and forwarded to
City Council at its next regular meeting; if the change order is for more than 1% or
there is a change in design or concept, it has to come to the City Council for prior
approval, and when individual change orders equal the aggregate of 5%, it has to be
brought to City Council. Discussion followed on the adequacy of the percentages.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
George Muenchow showed Council a map of the Spring Lake Regional Park concept plan
He explained that this is a 320 acre park which has already been acquired. There is
no development in it now except for hiking trails, and he doesn't anticipate develop-
ment for quite some time. All the land was purchased with Metro funds, so it has a
Regional designation.
Hullander/Colligan moved that the City of Shakopee go on record to support the Spring
Lake Park concept plan as presented. Motion carried unanimously.
Reinke/Leroux moved to authorize payment of the bills as presented:
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Harbeck/Reinke moved to appoint the City Administrator as acting city clerk during
the duration of the City Clerk's sick leave. Motion carried unanimously.
Reinke/Hullander offered Resolution No. 1856, A Resolution Appointing An Acting City
Clerk, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously.
- Shakopee City Council
June 9, 1981
Page 5
Harbeck/Colligan moved to continue the Diseased Tree Removal Policy for public
property only and delete the subsidy for low-income families.
Roll Call: Ayes; Hullander, Reinke, Colligan, Harbeck
Noes; Leroux
Motion carried.
Leroux/Reinke offered Ordinance No. 62, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending he Shakopee City Code, Chapter 9 Entitled "Parking
Regulations", by Changing Provisions As To Parking Rules in Municipal Parking Lots
and During Street Maintenance or an Emergency; And, By Adopting By Reference Shakopee
City Code, Chapter 1 and Section 9.99 Which, Among Other Things Contain Penalty Pro-
visions, and moved its adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Hullander/Leroux offered Ordinance No. 63, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City
of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending the Shakopee City Code, Chapter 8 Entitled "Traffic
Regulations", by Changing the Provision Relating to Adoption of Certain Minnesota
Statutes by Reference; And, By Adopting By Reference Shakopee City Code, Chapter 1
And Section 8.99 Which, Among other Things, Contain Penalty Provisions, and moved
its adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes;. Unanimous Noes; None Motion.carried.
Colligan/Leroux offered Ordinance No. 64, 4th Series, An Ordinance of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending the Shakopee City Code, Chapter 5, Entitled "Liquor,
Beer and Wine Licensing and Regulation", by Changing Provisions As to Corporate Appli-
cants and Licensees, Terms of Temporary Beer License, and Wine License Restrictions;
By Adding Provisions As to Requirement of Resident Manager and Eligible Establish-
ments; By Repealing Ordinances Numbered 22 and 23; And, By Adopting By Reference Shako-
pee City Code, Chapter 1, and Section 5.99 Which, Among other Things, Contain Penalty
Provisions, and moved its adoption.
There was a discussion about the requirement of resident managers.
Hullander/Harbeck moved to amend Ordinance No. 64 strike Section 2, Subd. 9
relating to resident -management. Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Roll Call on Main Motion as amended: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Colligan/Reinke offered Ordinance No. 65, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City
of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending the Shakopee City Code, Chapter 2, Entitled "Admin-
istration and General Government", by Changing The Provision Relating to Receipts
From Sales of Surplus Property; By Adding a Provision As to Worker's Compensation;
By Repealing the Provision As to Disbursement of Funds and Allowance of Accounts; And,
By Adopting By Reference Shakopee City Code, Chapter 1 and Section 2.99 Which, Among
Other Things, Contain Penalty Provisions, and moved its adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Leroux/Hullander offered Ordinance No. 66, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City
of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Shakopee City Code, Chapter 10, Entitled "Public
Protection, Crimes and Offenses", By changing the Provision Relating to Impoundment
of Dogs; By Changing the Provision Relating to Keeping of Animals And Fowl; By
Changing the Provision As to Curfew; and, By Adopting By Reference Shakopee City
Code, Chapter 1 and Section 10.99 Which, Among Other Things, Contain Penalty Provisions,
and moved its adoption.
Leroux/Reinke moved to amend Ordinance No. 66 in Section 1, Subd. 10, the sentence
reading "If unclaimed, such dog or cat shall be humanely destroyed and the carcass
disposed of. " with the balance of that Subd. striken. Motion carried with Cncl.
Colligan opposed.
Roll Call on Main Motion as amended: Ayes; Reinke, Leroux, Colligan, Harbeck
Noes; Hullander
Motion carried.
Colligan/Reinke offered Ordinance No. 67, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending the Shakopee City Code, Chapter 4, Entitled "Construc-
tion Licensing, Permits and Regulations", By Changing the Provision Relating to Adop-
tion of the State Building Code; By Changing the Provision As to Building Permits;
By Repealing Section 4.04 Entitled "Plans and Specifications"; By Changing The Pro-
vision As To Building Permit Fees and Charges, and The Provisions As to Inspections,
And Certificate of Occupancy; By Repealing Section 4.08 Entitled "Powers and Duties
of the Building Official"; By Adding A Provision As to Moving Buildings; By Chang-
ing Provisions Relating to Signs; By Changing The Provision As to Adoption Of the
Uniform Housing Code; And, By Adopting By Reference Shakopee City Code, Chapter 1,
And Section 4.99 Which, Among Other Things, Contain Penalty Provisions, and moved its
adoption.
Shakopee City Council
June 9, 1981
Page 6
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
A discussion was held about how to eliminate some of the paperwork received by the
Councilmembers. The Councilmembers indicated the various minutes and information
they do want to receive and just asked the City Admr. to be conscious about limiting
the amount of paperwork that goes to Council.
Cncl. Hullander suggested using an evaluation similar to the City Administrator's
evaluation for all the department heads and that it be done on a regular basis. The
City Admr. statedthat it was his goal to have all city employees evaluated annually.
Leroux/Hullander moved to change the City Admr. status to permanent employee.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carr. a.
Reinke/Leroux moved to adjourn to June 16, 1981 at 7:30 p.m. Motion carried unani-
mously. Meeting adjourned at 11:12 P.M.
Judith S. Cox
City Clerk
Diane S. Beuch
Recording Secretary
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JUNE 16, 1981
Mayor Harbeck called the meeting to order at 7:4.0 P.M. with Cncl. Leroux, Colligan
and Lebens present. Absent were Cncl. Reinke and Hullander. Also present were
Ass't City Attorney Rod Krass, City Engineer H. R. Spurrier and City Admr. John K.
Anderson.
Leroux/Lebens moved to approve the minutes of June 2, 1981 as kept. Motion carried
unanimously.
Leroux/Colligan moved to place the letter received June 10, 1981 from "Friend of
Parks" on file. Motion carried unanimously.
The Mayor received liaison reports from councilmembers regarding Community Services,
Sanitary Landfill Siting Committee and Hazardous Waste.
The Ass't City Atty. reported on a meeting held with other communities adversely af-
fected by the Fiscal Disparities Act wherein he informed them of Shakopee's status
with the Supreme Court and its desire for support in terms of financial contribution
and an Amicus Curaie brief.
Paul Magneson, Inver Grove Heights' attorney, has volunteered to take the lead in
working on the brief. Mr. Krass has drafted a memo to the City Attorneys of all
the communities contacted regarding this action informing them of the legal status
of the appeal and the issues Shakopee is intending to raise. Mr. Krass is waiting
to hear from Burnsville about its intentions, and he would like Burnsville to donate
its legal staff, rather than financial help, as that would be more worthwhile. Our
brief should be filed by early September.
Leroux/Lebens offered Resolution No. 1853, A Resolution of Appreciation to Marjorie
R. Henderson, and moved its adoption. The Mayor read the resolution and expressed
his personal gratitude. Motion carried unanimously. The Mayor presented Ms.
Henderson with a plaque of the resolution.
Colligan/Leroux moved to remove the Fire Relief Association By-laws from the table.
Motion carried unanimously.
Harbeck/Colligan moved to accept the Fire Relief Contribution and Amended By-laws as
presented. Discussion ensued regarding the contribution figure in the future. Bill
Anderson, President of the Fire Relief Assoc. , explained further some of the aspects
of the pension fund. Cncl. Lebens explained that she would abstain from the voting
because she was not in on the initial discussion and also she has 4 nephews who would
be affected by this.
Roll Call: Ayes; Leroux, Colligan, Harbeck
Noes; None
Abstain: Lebens
Motion carried.
Jim Cook, Chairman of the Shakopee Eastside Park Steering Committee, handed out a
typed presentation and elaborated on it. This steering group was established to
help in the orderly development of 11 acres of land on the east side of the Junior
High School to be developed as a new city park. Because of the complicated drainage
negotiations which must be made with Jackson Township for the adjacent area to the
proposed park and the estimated 2-3 years it would take to accomplish, the steering
group has suggested building an interim park on school property.
Mr. Cook outlined the expenses involved to establish the interim facilities -- the
playground equipment, hockey rink and warming house. He explained the possibility
of a donation of a warming house and the change in figures this would entail.
The Mayor asked for comments from the audience on this park proposal. Jim Moriarty
urged development of the park and thanked all the people who have helped so far.
Shiela Mitchell stated she felt a park in that area would really benefit the area
and the community.
Discussion was held regarding funding for the park facili ties.
Leroux/Lebens moved the establishment of a community park on the east side of Shakopee,
and directed the committee's report to staff for clarification of the financing of the
costs of the park listing alternatives on how the financing could be stepped or phased.
Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Lebens offered Resolution No, 1865, A Resolution Approving the Final Plat
of A & G 1st Addition, and moved its adoption. The City Admr. summarized the
• Shakopee City Council
June 16, 1981
Page 2
resolution. Motion carried unanimously.
Harbeck/Lebens offered Resolution No. 1858, A Resolution Amending Resolution No.
1790 Regarding Payment of Judgment, and moved its adoption. The City Admr. summar-
ized the resolution.
The Mayor asked the Ass't City Atty. if Res. Nu. 1858 would constitute a change in the co
of the project and therefore should be re-assessed throughout the project. The Ass't
City Attorney replied that to go back and assess this additional cost 5-6 years
later, as a practical matter, could not be done.
Roll Call: Ayes; Lebens, Leroux, Harbeck
Noes; None
Abstain: Colligan
Motion carried.
Discussion ensued regarding amending the Sign Ordinance to provide for an exception
in size regulations for municipal facilities.
Harbeck/Lebens moved to amend Ordinance No. 68, Subd. 3. "W" to read "Signs for
tion on municipal facilities shall be exempt from size restrictions."
iginal Roll Call: Ayes; Lebens, Colligan, Harbeck
d. made Noes; Leroux
30/81 Motion carried.
Upon question from the Mayor, "Shall Ordinance No. 68 now pass?"
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Colligan/Harbeck moved to approve the transfer of contingency funds to create two new
line items under the Planning Department budget to cover expenses of the Ad Hoc
Downtown Committee.
The City Planner explained the lack of an account to charge for expenses incurred
by the Downtown Committee. The City Admr. stated he thought this transfer would put
the contingency fund at approximately $48,000. Discussion was initiated by the Mayor
about whether the Chamber of Commerce or the downtown businesses were willing to share
some of the costs. The City Planner explained that the Chamber was providing the
secretarial component for the committee.
Leroux/Lebens moved to table this item for direction back to staff for clarification
of financing for the committee. Motion carried with Cncl. Colligan opposed.
Leroux/Colligan moved to open the public hearing on the proposed use of revenue shar-
ing. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Admr. stated that under the Federal Revenue Sharing rules, the City is obli-
gated to hold two public hearings. This initial public hearing is just for the purpose
of _receiving ideas and comments from citizens on proposed uses of Revenue Sharing Funds.
The Mayor asked for comments from anyone in the audience regarding revenue sharing,
and there was no response.
Leroux/Lebens moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Colligan offered Resolution No. 1866, A Resolution Determining To Proceed With
A Project And Its Financing Under the Municipal Industrial Development Act; Referring
The Proposal to the Commissioner of Securities for Approval; And Authorizing Prepara-
tion of Necessary Documents, and moved its adoption.
Discussion ensued regarding making the conditions of the City Planner part of the reso-
lution itself. Gary Eastlund suggested making them a condition of the occupancy permit.
The Ass't City Atty. suggested against making any other developmental matters a part of
the resolution.
Roll Call: Ayes; Leroux, Colligan, Harbeck
Noes; Lebens
Motion carried.
Colligan/Harbeck moved to make the 8 points of the City Planner's recommendations
conditions of occupancy for Valley Industrial Center II. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Admr. explained that in the case of the Scott County Restaurant Corp. all is
in order for its on sale and Sunday liquor license application, but it has not shown
proof of taxes being paid. The property owner and the liquor license holder are two
Shakopee City Council
' June 16, 1981
Page 3
different entities. The Ass't City Attorney explained that he had not checked stock
ownership to see if the license holder actually also owns the corporation that owns
the property.
Leroux/Colligan moved to approve the application and grant an On Sale Liquor License
to the Pullman Club, Inc. , 124 W. 1st Ave. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Lebens moved to recess for 5 minutes at 9:35 P.M. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Lebens moved to re-convene at 9:40 P.M. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Lebens moved to approve the applications and grant an On Sale Liquor License
and a Sunday Liquor License to XX Corporation and Wittles, Inc. , 1561 East First.
Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Lebens moved to approve the application and grant an On Sale Liquor License
to Clair's Bar, Inc. , 124 S. Holmes. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Lebens moved to table the application for an On Sale and Sunday Liquor License
for the Scott County Restaurant Corp. , East First Avenue. Motion carried with Mayor
Harbeck opposed.
Colligan/Lebens moved to approve the applications and grant an On Sale Liquor License
and a Sunday Liquor License to R. Hanover, Inc. , 911 East 1st Ave. Motion carried
unanimously.
Colligan/Leroux moved to approve the application and grant an On Sale Liquor License
and a Sunday Liquor License to House of Hoy, Inc. , 101 East 1st Ave. Motion carried
unanimously.
Harbeck/Colligan moved to approve the applications and grant an On Sale Liquor License
and a Sunday Liquor License to The Friendly Folks Club, Inc. , 122 E. 1st Avenue. Motion
carried unanimously.
Leroux/Colligan. moved to pay $3,270.92 from the Tax Increment Public Improvement
Fund to Schoell & Madson for inspection services for Well No. 6, part of Kmart Tax
Increment Project.
Roll Call: Ayes; Leroux, Colligan, Harbeck
Noes; Lebens
Motion carried.
SPUC Utilities Manager, Lou VonHout, explained the quantity changes in the Co. Rd. 16-
83 watermain project.
Leroux/Colligan moved to approve Change Order. No. 2 plus the quantity changes for the
Co. Rd. 16-83 Watermain, Contract No. 80-l0kt.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Leroux/Lebens offered Resolution No. 1867, A Resolution Accepting Work On The 80-10
Project CR16/CR83 Watermain Withinihe Kmart Tax Increment Project (80-10kt), and moved
its adoption. The City Admr. summarized the resolution.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Discussion was held regarding property and liability insurance and the quotations
received and reviewed by the Capesius Agency, Inc. The Ass't City Attorney informed
the Council that if the City buys insurance over and above the statutory limits, it
is waiving that limit up to the maximum coverage purchased. He also stated he is of
the belief that the Courts will be throwing out municipal liability limits soon.
Leroux/Colligan moved to accept the coverage from Transamerica for general liability
insurance as quoted by staff to be basic at $300,000 city statutory limit for a price
of $30,673 per diem.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Cncl. Leroux initiated a discussion about Workmen's Compensation Insurance and the
possibility of saving the City some money with dividends, etc. Lee Hennen, of the
Capesius Agency, discussed this item.
Leroux/Colligan offered Resolution No. 1860, A Resolution Accepting Bid On Sanitary
Sewer Laterals In North Half of Section 8, Hauer Trail Lateral Project No. 80-1, and
moved its adoption. The City Admr. summarized the resolution.
iJ11ci,1lV�i c:C V1 Vy uUU11O11
June 16, 1981
Page 4
The City Engineer stated the lowest bid was a reduction of 4.0% from the original
estimated assessment. This is a tremendous break for the property owners, as it
takes the assessment from estimated $4.600 down to $2400.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None motion carried.
Leroux/Colligan moved to authorize individual changes by staff of not more than $2,000
and the aggregate change be not more than $5,000 for the Hauer Trail Lateral Project
No. 80-1. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Colligan offered Resolution No. 1861, A Resolution Declaring the Adequacy Of
A Petition and Ordering the Preparation of Report, County Road 16 Utilities - Pro-
ject No. 80-4, and moved its adoption. The City Admr. summarized the resolution.
motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Leroux offered Resolution No. 1862, A Resolution Receiving A Report And
Calling A Hearing On Improvement 80-4, Co. Rd. 16 Utilities, and moved its adoption.
The City Admr. summarized the resolution. Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Leroux offered Resolution No. 1863, A Resolution Ordering the Preparation
Of Plans and Specifications, Co. Rd. 16 Utilities Project No. 80-4, and moved its
adoption. The City Admr. summarized the resolution. Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Leroux offered Resolution No. 1864, A Resolution Approving Plans and Speci-
fications And Ordering Advertisement for Bids, Co. Rd. 16 Utilities Project No. 80-4,
and moved its adoption. The City Admr. summarized the resolution. Motion carried
unanimously.
There was some discussion on the Engineer's monthly report regarding paving schedule
for Weinandt Acres and the alley on the list. Further discussion was about the
closing of street cuts and problems encountered.
Leroux/Colligan moved that the memo from the Finance Director stating that the hill
forwarded to the City by the ICC from the K.C. Hall includes $466.50 for liquor,
be placed on file. Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Leroux moved to authorize payment of the bills as presented.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Leroux/Harbeck moved to authorize payment of $4,890.00 to Associated Mechanical
Contractors, Inc. for a 72 ton HVAC unit.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Colligan/Leroux moved to accept the quote of Steins Plumbing in the amount of $4,954.00
for replacement boilers for the west side of City Hall.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Leroux/Colligan moved the consent business, Res. No. 1857, A Resolution Adopting a
Diseased Tree Removal Policy. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Admr. informed Council about a situation wherein a developer is challenging
the City's interpretation of when assessments are to be paid when a Contract for Deed
is involved. It is the developers contention that the assessments can be paid over
10 years, and not up front.
The Ass't City Attorney stated that the dispute is in relation to the definition of
the term "transfer" in our standard Developer's Agreement as it relates to contracts
for deeds. There is no clear legal interpretation. Further discussion ensued about
the advantages and disadvantages involved with the different interpretations and as it
relates to developer's agreements. The City Admr. pointed out the difficulties in enforce
ment which could result with each transfer with Contract for Deed, and the amount of
protection that is actually given to a buyer, when no building permit is taken out.
Colligan/Leroux moved that the City's policy towards enforcement of the Developer's
Agreement be that the assessment be paid upon the building permit being taken out.
Motion carried with Cncl. Lebens opposed,
The Ass't City Attorney stated that both Bill Chard, developer, and Knutson Construction
Co, have informed the City that they intend to sue the City regarding the Eastview
development.
Leroux/Colligan moved to adjourn to 5:30 P.M. at the Rock Spring Supper Club, and
thereafter to return to the City Council chambers for a work session on goals and ob-
jectives for 1982. Cncl. Colligan stated he would be absent for the next two Council
meetings. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:20 P.M.
John K. Anderson, Acting City Clerk
•
Diane S. Beuch, Recording Secretary
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JUNE 23, 1981
Mayor Harbeck called the meeting or order at 8:00 P.M. with Cncl. Leroux, Reinke
and Lebens present. Absent were Cncl. Colligan and Hullander. Also present were
Julius A. Coller, II, City Attorney and John K. Anderson, City Admr.
The City Admr. highlighted the costs and funding alternatives contained in his memo
regarding the Eastside Park Proposal. George Muenchow spoke in an advisory capacity
for the Eastside Park Committee, because the chairman, Jim Cook, was on vacation. He
stated the person providing the alternate warming house facility is still not sure
if he will donate the structure or the costs associated with it. He is checking
on the tax advantages of doing the donation. George also stated the Rotary Club
had donated the money to prepare the land for installation of the proposed facili-
ties, and that the City Engineer would take care of the survey for the area.
Discussion was held regarding funding for J.E.J. Park and equipment being recommended,
using revenue sharing funds, park reserve funds and Lawcon grant money.
George Muenchow displayed a map showing the location of the various facilities on the
school property and pointed out the location to which it would be moved once the park
land is acquired. George stated that the committee was aware of the problems that
would have to be solved relative to the upper valley drainage area before the park
equipment could be moved from the school to its permanent location in J.E.J. Park.
Leroux/Reinke moved to authorize appropriate City officials to enter into an agreement
with the school district for the use of their property for the Eastside Park, and to
purchase equipment under Priority No. 1 Playground Equipment @ $3,424, and Priority
No. 2 Alternate Warming House @ $6,000, for installation on school property, and
also that Priority No. 3, the Hockey Rink, be considered at this time, if the warming
house total cost can be held to under $3500.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Leroux/Reinke moved that if the City is unable to purchase the warming house for $3500
or less, the hockey rink be put into next year's Park Reserve Fund Budget.
Discussion was held regarding the limits on the uses to which the grant received from
Lawcon can be used, along with its matching funds. The City Admr. was directed to
check on grant restrictions. Cncl. Leroux clarified that his motion was that the
$3500 figure was for buying, moving and grading the warming house, not the utilities.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
A brief discussion was held regarding the advisability of withholding a liquor license
from the operator of a business when he does not own the property itself and therefore
cannot be responsible for the payment of property taxes, which is a requirement of
receiving a liquor license.
The City Admr. informed Council that the new utility program did not pick up the in-
crease of 10 cents in the commercial and industrial rates, but this would be rectified
next month.
The City Admr. informed the Council that the City had stopped construction on the
J. I. Case sales lot today because they didn't have a building permit and had started
moving dirt.
The City Admr. informed Council that there will be a meeting on June 25, 1981 at 1:30
P.M. by the Met Council regarding the 201 Water Quality Plan, and they they have
chosen the alternative of expanding the Chaska Treatment Plant over the Jackson
Interceptor. The mayor suggested Shakopee go on record objecting to this expansion
and at least request the Jackson Interceptor for 1990. The City Admr. explained the
Met Council plan to expand the Chaska plant to double its output by 1986, and that
Chaska does prefer the expansion alternative. It was decided to go on with other
matters on the agenda while the City Admr. drafted a statement to be made at the
public hearing.
Cncl. Lebens stated that although the parking lot being built by St. Francis Hospital
on St. Mark's lot is not finished, she is very concerned about the safety factor of
the holding pond, especially in view of the close proximity of the school.
Reinke/Lebens moved to direct the City Engineer to review the drainage plan at the new
St. Francis parking lot and suggest safety devices for the protection of children at
the same time. Motion carried unanimously.
Shakopee City Council
June 23, 1981
Page 2
Cncl. Leroux informed Council about the meeting being held by Met Council regarding
sludge farms for landfill sites. Shakopee is still being listed as Site No. 31 for
land-spreading of sludge, even though land-spreading is not needed.
Mayor Harbeck asked the Councilmembers about their feelings of volunteering the site
of the former PCI for incinerating hazardous waste. He elaborated on the benefits
to Shakopee if it initiates the idea and sets up strict criteria for initial clean-up,
operating standards and monitoring and the use of steam for generation of electricity.
He stressed the need for properly informing the citizens to gain their approval.
The Mayor said he would prepare a statement for presentation at the meeting on
June 29, 1981 being held by the Waste Management Board, and he requested that
Councilmembers think about his proposal and inform him of their feelings by Monday
so that he can state if the majority agrees with him. Further discussion was held.
Reinke/Lebens moved to make a statement to the Met Council on June 25, 1981 regard-
ing the 201 Water Quality Plan stating that the Shakopee City Council formally objects
to the Metro Council's selection of the Chaska Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion
alternative. This objection is based upon: 1. The lack of consideration given to
the existing pollution problem in Jackson Township and Louisville Township sub-
divisions and trailer courts that are potential health problems to both the residents
of the townships and the City of Shakopee; and 2. The Jackson Interceptor (Shakopee
Alternative) would be more cost effective in the future because of the phase-out
of the Chaska Treatment Plant and the potential for urban development in and around
the Jackson Interceptor. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Attorney informed Council that a survey is needed to identify the boundaries
of the railroad r-o-w on the Library property. Discussion was held regarding pur-
chasing additional land from the Shakopee Farmington Association to square out the
property so a survey would not be needed. The City Attorney was directed to check
on the possibility and report back to Council.
The City Admr. stated that as the tax cases came in challenging the 1980 assessments
he had referred them to the Ass't City Attorney, who had handled similar cases in the
past. However, there was never any formal direction by Council to retain the Ass't
City Attorney for this purpose. Now, many of the Interrogatories are not being
answered because of a Council motion directing the Ass't City Attorney to handle
the cases.
Discussion was held regarding the advisability of being represented by our own City
Attorney at the pre-trial hearings, in view of the fact that the County Attorney and
the City Assessor would be present on the City's behalf. The City Attorney advised
that if the cases were going to be tried, the attorney trying the case should appear
at the pre-trail hearing.
Harbeck/Leroux moved that the handling of the 15 tax cases now pending before the tax
court in Scott County be referred to the Ass't City Attorney.
Roll Call: Ayes; Leroux, Reinke, Harbeck
Noes; Lebens
Motion carried.
Reinke/Leroux moved to request the Ass't City Attorney to report the status of all
the tax cases to the City Council at the next meeting, June 30, 1981, with projected
costs for defending these particular cases and also the potential tax loss of each,
together with any recommendations he wished to make.
Roll Call: Ayes; Leroux, Reinke, Harbeck
Noes; Lebens
Motion carried.
Cncl. Reinke asked about the feasibility of a more adequate crossing from Hauer's
Add'n to the Eastside Park. The City Admr. said he would check on it.
Leroux/Reinke moved to adjourn to 7:30 P,M. on June 30, 1981. Motion carried unani-
mously. Meeting adjourned at 10:37 P.M.
John K. Anderson
Acting City Clerk
Diane S. Beuch
Recording Secretary
3 a.,
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Public Informational Meeting Regarding 1981 Sewer
Rate Increases
DATE: June 25 , 1981
Introduction
Shortly after approval of the 1981 change in sewer rates , City
Council set June 30, 1981 as a date to explain the new rates
and winter quarter billing formula to citizens . June 30th was
selected because it fell after the first mailing of the new
bills so that citizens could see the impact the new rate and
formula would have on their bill .
Calls and Letters Received
City staff kept a log of all calls and letters and received only
four calls and letters regarding the new rate and formula :
1 . Letter from Ery Deering protesting the size of his bill
(letter attached) .
2 . Call from Gretchen Start regarding her high bill . It was
reduced when we found that she had a leak and used 144,000
gallons vs . her normal 27 ,000 gallons .
3. Mrs . Harry Dressen called wanting an explanationof her bill
and received it .
4. Urban Lenzmeier called regarding his bill . His bill was
reduced when we found he had been soaking a sewer excavation.
Review and Discussion by Council and Staff
The four calls/complaints logged bring up one specific problem
related to large families , and two broad policy questions.
1 . Mr. Deering ' s bill has been checked and there are no computa-
tional errors , leaks , etc. The present water rate is 55¢/1000
gallons for the first 14 ,000 gallons and the sewer rate is
76¢/1000 gallons with a $2 .00 service charge . Thus , everyone ' s
sewer bill is considerably higher than their water bill . Mr.
Deering feels that this is an unreasonable burden for large
families . Probably the only way to provide relief for the
large family would be to use a declining block rate for
residential sewer users even though Metro Waste charges the
City of Shakopee a flat rate. Such a rate structure would
contradict our present flat rate structure with a surcharge
on very large users that encourages conservation.
•
Mayor and City Council 3 c-
1981
1981 Sewer Rate Increases
Page Two
June 25 , 1981
2 . Gretchen Stark' s leak presents the first of two policy questions .
Should we reduce sewer bills if there is a leak of any kind?
Should we reduce sewer bills if there is a leaky toilet that
still runs into the sanitary sewer and/or should we reduce
water service leaks that don' t go into the sewer. Or, should
we simply manually compute last years average monthly usage
or record the next quarter ' s usage , after the repairs are made,
and use either of these numbers for the "winter quarter" rate
for the year?
3. Urban Lenzmeier ' s problem presents the second policy question.
What type of reductions shall we make , if any, for exceptional
usage that does not flow into the sewer system. Should we
make an adjustment to the prior 12 months average bill or should
we manually record the next quarter' s usage and use that figure
for the balance of the year?
4. Discussion of any other issues stemming from citizen comment at
the meeting.
Recommendation
Staff has been able to address the complaints and policy questions
raised prior to the meeting , and makes the following recommendations :
1 . Mr. Deering ' s water usage for the spring quarter is slightly
higher than his winter quarter usage indicating that the
winter quarter was not abnormally high. Any adjustment in
Mr. Deering ' s bill would have to reflect a restructuring of
the rate system. Staff does not recommend a change .
2 . When leaks occur during the winter quarter we manually compute
a winter quarter based upon actual usage during the previous
12 months . Note this would include summer water usage which
would tend to make the bill higher, but if we select one
quarter to base it on we may be arguing with residents who
want us to pick their lowest usage quarter.
3 . Same as #2 above .
Action Requested
1 . Direct staff to send Mr. Deering a letter stating that the
City has reviewed his letter, but does not plan to change
it ' s rate structure .
2 . Direct staff to replace any "winter quarter" usage due to
leaks , extraordinary usage , etc . by the customer ' s average
monthly usage for the prior 12 months .
JKA/jms
_ , _.
_ ,..,.,:•.
,c.,-,-„...,,,i, t:.'D 5 a.,,,
rteNdit-:-A '
3131\11- 1 "'1
On! OF ® ®T� //7/ /4 lL C Z 7-
r 4 / 1‘7(� Jr K // /'.
i/ee i/ t,' e /r f-/.
• =.6, /
/ .
i-- �� /
/ f (--( ,-, tl 1-E-. , e-, ,-, /-
/e•-• 7,-, Z i, ,c (-- -•'' .1 c" 1- _.1 ee t c-e, , 1 c,
;A.(' 4 -1 -r- // / r r / _.,/ L' 1: ' e" <=.- /c7 /e<'' 11
t F 9 ( I (4 r et_ i /- /17 7" .G. /1/, 4 Q l 7
(/Y . �� � - �! / C tr < " L � 7 r � �
fj
Cei -i- 74 r )-1-1 .-/ / (---C_� a'('-/
4./.1>Z,L i
V . 4' at < < e-t.c/ e.- ( c ,e -
Sz cF ll} <t ./ cl i1e ,- r.
!) / ,l//r /2l /4-c c
.4 1' r- c f' c 4, t' ,-.71'/cc //j l• /,� /` -
i
/ /I e" ��) , , r { ./� i t. , ..--C S . C.
72 ( ((.. -1 2 e'
- / , 4t-'7 i /1,/ e'. /t- f'''K' , t" "----
/ le." 47 eZ l , t f r /{ tie i. c ,
/ey e I. 1 c e-'72 e" d L y/7..e- (,--c. r- e'c' 74" ,- c - er .e- ...v.:-.,
l' / % gr`' - J' ( -
L !% 7; C c e -/Z / / c's'; c
(--- _./et c-..r.) c.-- /X - .he ?( / /- Z( 4 it (:_ -,,,
i. le /14/ 4- "2 Z e I, << '
C/ ,
e" Cc' e , • 2 • / art C < �- - ,,..�- -, V c
c� 4• ,.- i c . , ti of 1 r r GL c(
L7Zr-/-
V-Zdt 7 z, ,,,, 7:- , l . S' —
. ,i,./ ‘4 ,t7 ,'_ 7 32 f2 t4-. (-.
L./Iy_ c c c/-4 e (I
ir...„...,,.. :47 I, ,----:: ____,• /--z:r e__,--, ,_,_. / .---.4... ,---
,, 7, C._ ( ‘L cr
6 moi/. / eel') /2 a ,:_j e ila /
r e ct K a 7 (" --t-- f- F cc ( , 7cc .) 7 ( i --->.-
-Z- e". , n x /r /-,1 .1 e(1 ,
��— C,e, /^ ` i. L `' c'C. G - !- `1 ` ( /✓ ! C G /7
t/e e_R y. 7-k
/4` ' 7 //
V(-- - 27 -i-Zr Y. /21 t-- /II:, 7
LL ; « J (e' r �4` // // l Z c<
,-(' 4. e. . //( /Lc 6' e) ( ..-. e ( e^ t ,Z-e-:--)-- / t i -1--- i e
(._ t I e I . 7- /--- .e-/-: .-t- 1 ,/V f/ /-d, ,
L L< ` r a 4 _C' V e_. ,.,. 4 L !-1 ‘-z ! C
i_ i 4, 'e/c c: a cle, - - r- ,f-'41 ii,l e= ,/d.' f 4-t (
LL ; A f- / t ' e to ,e. / i < < ? / t1' '1-.0Vc-ef
770 x -/ / .K
� , �- c a / �' t � ' r: zee- V c. e-
(-7
ket x-rt t. & j- (*c(re' e) 77 f:e- r" e7 e- .<1 L -c.. .e, re e cr 4-
cl ' -1 c/7"/-r- 0i2( /- c� r '-- K/sr 5 G r' c c l° 1' E-
<< .1 .I" -'.f s e Q-(r Acs s Cr" f PC. e e, /
j� ti= ( ec c ' f - CJ ' r !�/
' / /-61 t11alt1 , p
/77 Z1 ` L ✓ F CZE c2 c ` ! C?_ ,
' / - -c e-i i,11- L a n '-e-:' c -„..)_- 4 4:- 6-
/1c 7j / --/—
LLi c, c � l / / Le /7 y' 4- c- (.1 cmc " . CLL /e-c'c" .-f c
2 ! ` Ce' /e% C/ e <- e- - ( re-/ • -N / Cc ' C s?
v //'.; /
/
if 7`/C '--- / '--e " <"' �' �l' /" t• C'- C°' s ,cam
T r , R —
3
KJ 7
' /2 ,-‘ (---,..,- e°.-c. 7 /1 G L.,. c-*
tti..' l l� il!c ' ' '(-"
-� 4.-- _ f
C cJ f -cam c:) v C1 E' r L ' ( C e 1.4-N-
A , ,t,_ , _ ---7-7, , r e--, , - e<t. e ,(.. (
,
E-' 1,A. 7d
Lt.' / 4!-� j1► << / C I- /c K, c ,` c-' s P ,- 0A. /tit-e° tiA_i
e, • c-i -•f , i--, 1 '•-i X. t b_ Z_ /-`z 1/r- -} e 1 .. / d../ (-'(/e-e /f1,,,,,,
A / e- e— e R /4 9/-?' C- // G--"L( t'
4?_/7 e S / - C• I ( 1.--t c" e v e- U.-
.
lc' L G Y- ( / C !_ A e t - C7 ��_ 7 /J. Ct G2, „ J. ,/ c'..'---...,-.L
4,/Z /, .i l 4- 1/ r�--� c „t 7F, 4 i .
-r—ea (- 4 k' 417 J c. L/L// L4 i- 4,-..._C X. L-e, (- CXL /7-
/-t--. / 14L c`' cf a
/y(_2 e u e I-- i t‘, , e / /-1- ,./1--71. .- A v
A-7- -)..._
l' r hL( L cc ,t i /1�
/ ' " " c .fe, fri_t << 4., t
4 c rD �2 t cr i -,, e, / r/ 7' _
c�
1
•
RECEIVED
Law Offices of JUN 2 6 1981
KRASS, MEYER & KANNING
Chartered CITY OF SHAK®PEE Phillip R. Krass
Shakopee Professional Building Barry K.Meyer
1221 Fourth Avenue East Philip T. Kenning
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
(612)445-5080
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
of the City of Shakopee
FROM: Phillip R. Krass
DATE: June 25, 1981
SUBJECT: Shakopee House Liquor License - Nonpayment of Taxes
John Anderson and I met with Tony Strupeck of the Scott County Restaurant
Corporation and his attorney, John Manahan, on Wednesday, June 24th. The
discussion related to the City's requirement in Chapter 5 of the Code,
Section 5.02, Subd. 8 (page 117) which states as follows:
"Subd. 8. Delinquent Taxes and Charges. No license shall
be granted for operation on any premises upon which taxes,
assessments, or installments thereof, or other financial
claims of the City, are owed by the applicant and are
delinquent and unpaid. "
The applicant in this case is Scott County Restaurant Corporation. The land
is owned by a partnership. However, Mr. Strupeck and one other individual own
the stock in the corporation and constitute the partnership. They could have
decided to purchase the land in the corporation name, but decided instead to own
the land as a separate legal entity. Consequently, although the subdivision in
question does not directly address this separate ownership question, it would
appear to me that the intent of Subdivision 8 would, in fact, apply to the
Shakopee House situation, and our ordinance does require that the taxes be paid.
Our understanding from discussions with Mr. Strupeck are that he now understands
and agrees that the taxes must be paid and he is not attempting to contest the
Subdivision 8. He does indicate that the taxes due for 1979 and 1980 (since
there is some question whether 1981 first half taxes are legally considered
delinquent) total approximately $15,000.
Mr. Strupeck has requested that in view of last year's license being granted
despite the existance of delinquent taxes, that we grant this year's license
with the understanding that all delinquent 1979 and 1980 taxes will be paid on
or before December 31st of this year. He will make that request in writing, and
I will attach a copy of his letter to this Memorandum. He understands that failure
Page 2 _3 4
June 25, 1981
to make those delinquent tax payments before December 31st will be grounds for the
Council to revoke his liquor license. He understands and agrees that the 1981 taxes
will be paid prior to application for next year's liquor license, and thereafter he
will always have the previous year's taxes paid prior to the Council 's consideration
of his liquor license application.
There is some serious question as to whether or not the Shakopee House can remain
functioning and open without the liquor license. It probaly cannot.
In view of the fact that we apparently did not require proof that there were no
delinquent taxes before we issued last year' s licence, it is the recommendation of
John and myself that we do give Mr. Strupeck until December 31st to make the
delinquent tax payments. The amount in question is considerable, and will probably
be difficult to raise in the short time involved in this application.
It is our further recommendation that Subdivision 8 be looked at in terms of drawing
a distinction between the owner of a liquor license, and the owner of the real estate
upon which the establishment is located. While in this case it makes little difference
since the ultimate owners are the same even thought the legal entities are different,
it could occur that applicant has conformed in all respects to our ordinance but his
landlord has failed to pay the taxes. This could prove to be an impossible situation
for applicant and before that occurs, perhaps we ought to address it with some amend-
ment to Subdivision 8, exempting from the tax payment requirement all applicants who
are not the ultimate owners of the real estate in question. We might also consider
addressing the situation that we have with the Shakopee House where the legal entities
are different but the ultimate owners are the same. Moreover, we could have variations
of that situation where one of the owners of the liquor license is also one of the
owners of the land, but other owners are distinct and separate. It is my recommendation
that where any ownership of the land and license are ultimately identical , Subdivision
8 should apply.
Yours very truly,
KRASS, MEYER & KANNING CHARTERED
r
Phillip R. Krass
PRK:ph
1.-1"(
,ilt
The
SAb eE�
Ck Coast ,
f ��,)
1583 East First Avenue • Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 • (612) 445-1400
t
(lej)e) .41, •
�� � _, y June 24 , 1981
, f, 410IL j
Hon. Walt Harbeck, Mayor
Members of the Shakopee City Council
Shakopee City Hall
Shakopee, MN 55379
RE: 1981 -82 Liquor License
Scott County Restaurant Corporation
Mayor Harbeck and Members of the Council:
Application has been made by Scott County Restaurant Corporation
for issuance of liquor licenses on July 1 , 1981 . At the present
time real estate taxes for 1979 and 1980 are delinquent on the
premises for which these licenses will be granted.
I hereby request that the licenses be granted as requested upon
payment of the license fee, on the condition that all 1979 and
1980 taxes , plus interest and penalties , be paid on or before
December 31 , 1981 , and further that all 1981 taxes be paid on
or before May 31 , 1982 .
This request is made with the understanding that failure to
comply with the above conditions may result in the licenses
being immediately revoked as provided by law.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter .
1
Sincerely,
— -( //,)---( ji:-A- (''L. - ,(-"---O
Anthony C. Strupeck, President
Scott County Restaurant Corporation
cc : John Anderson, City Administrator
Phillip R. Krass , Assistant City Attorney
3 c�
RECEIVED
Law Offices of
KRASS, MEYER & KANNING JUN 26 1981
Chartered Phillip R. Kress
Shakopee Professional Building C� OF SHAKOPEE Barry K. Meyer
1221 Fourth Avenue East Philip T.Kenning
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
(612)445-5080
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
of the City of Shakopee
FROM: Phillip R. Krass
DATE: June 25, 1981
SUBJECT: Fifteen Tax Petitions
John Anderson has asked me to write a Memo to you relative to the 15 tax cases
now pending before the Tax Court. He indicates you are interested in a status
report on each of these cases, along with estimated costs and recommendations.
As you may know, when a Tax Petition is filed, literally all the tax payer need
do is indicate that he believes his property is assessed at too high a value.
That is what virtually all of the Petitions say and they do not give me any
indication of the grounds upon which the Petition is based, or the amount that
the tax payer believes would be appropriate.
Consequently, I have sent out Interrogatories requesting some basic information
on these items, and I enclose a sample copy of those Interrogatories. When I
receive responses to this request for information, I will be in a better position
to sit down with Larry Martin and make some better judgment about whether or not
any of some or all of these tax payers have a good legal basis for their Petition.
The information I have requested is fairly basic and I believe it to be necessary
for the defense of these Petitions. You can read it yourself, and determine whether
you believe the requested information is too great an imposition on the petitioning
tax payers.
With respect to the estimated attorney's fees on each file, I am not in a position
to give you that estimate at this point. I might say that through the pre-trial
conference, we are probably not talking about more than two hours ' work on each
file. Thereafter, the amount of work necessary by myself, Larry Martin or other
staff will be directly related to the claims being made by the tax payers themselves.
If they are making general objections to standard assessment procedures, there will
be very little work to do. If they are making specific objections and claiming some
unusual or special situations for their property, those matters will have to be
addressed in detail .
It is impossible to estimate the loss of taxes for each of these petitioning parcels
without knowing the amount the petitioning tax payer feels his property should be
assessed at. If the tax payer were to win, we would lose the difference between the
present valuation and the tax payers' adjusted valuation, and thereby lose the taxes
on that difference. After the tax payers have answered our Interrogatories, we will
Page 2
June 25, 1981
know what each of them feels is a fair valuation for their property and we can
tell you with some precision the assessed valuations, the general taxes lost and
the tax lost to the City specifically.
John also indicated you are interested in a recommendation regarding the disposition
of any of the cases. Until I know the specific requests of the individual tax payers
and the basis for their claim, I will not be able to review that with Larry Martin to
determine if some of the cases ought to, in fact, be settled. That is certainly always
a possibility.
I wouldlike to make a general comment about the question I understand you discussed as
to whether or not the City should defend these assessment challenges. As you may know,
the statute gives the City the option of defending these assessment challenges or
allowing the county attorney to do so. The City has had some adverse rulings in the
past when the county has represented us. That is why the Council several years ago
instructed me to participate in these appeals, and I have done so since that time.
I makes sense to me that since the appeals are being taken from the City's method of
assessment, made by City staff and approved by the City Council , that the City itself
is in the best position to defend these appeals. I know that that means the City is
extending funds it would not otherwise expend to defend its assessment procedures and
whether or not you wish to do that is a policy judgment for you to make. The option
is always open for the City to authorize the county attorney to handle these or future
appeals from assessed valuation. Unless I hear otherwise, I will assume you want me
to proceed with these particular appeals.
When I receive Answers to the Interrogatories, I will be able to give you some
specific case-by-case information on the 15 appeals we have received, telling you
what' s involved, what we have at stake, and whether or not we should be thinking of
compromising.
Yours very t"ruly,
KRASS, MEYER,& KANNING CHARTERED
Phillip R. Krass
PRK:ph
File #1-1373-120
3
6/
STATE OF MINNESOTA COURT
COUNTY OF JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Petitioner,
-vs-
Respondent.
TO:
Pursuant to Rules 26.02 and 33 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil
Procedure for the District Court of Minnesota, Respondent directs the
following Interrogatories to Petitioner and demands that said Petitioner
answer them under oath. These Interrogatories are to be deemed continuing
and if information is discovered after the Interrogatories are answered
which would change or supplement the answers given, demand is hereby made
that such information be furnished immediately upon such discovery by means
of supplemental or amended answers.
INSTRUCTIONS
Respondentdemands the Petitioner follow these instructions in
answering the Interrogatories:
A. The interrogatory or subpart thereof being answered shall be
restated immediately preceding the answer to such interrogatory or subpart
thereof.
B. All factual information which is in the possession, custody
or control of Petitioner,their attorneys, investigators, agents, or other
representatives or persons acting on their behalf shall be divulged.
C. In the event an objection is made with respect to an interro-
gatory on the grounds that it calls for the divulgence of privileged
VAA ()ilk 15
.Ii\ s and \1\1\►1\N communications between attorney and client the said objection shall state
( II\IrrHal)
1221 4111 \\I._ I`. the following:
sII\1.111'1 1_ \t1. 55379
1441U1-2 I.:%kV UFFII'F:
3115 1 i-"IH41. \\F.. N.
I'.(1. III IX 2S1
PH1(1k 1.\FE. \11. 55372
c/
1. The date on which the communication took place;
2. The parties to the communication;
3. The manner in which the communication took place;
i .e. , personal conversation, telephone conversation, or
written communication;
4. The identity of any persons who were present when the communi-
cation took place or who overheard or read the communication as
the case may be; and
5. The identity of all persons to whom the communication has
been divulged.
D. In the event an objection is made with respect to any
interrogatory on the grounds that it calls for the divulgence of information
provisionally or conditionally protected by the limited "work-product"
doctrine, state all facts on which you rely or will rely to support the
validity of such objection.
E. In the event that any answer to any interrogatory or subpart
thereof is "not applicable" or any similar phrase or answer, shall explain
in detail why the interrogatory or subpart there of is not applicable.
F. In the event that the answer to any interrogatory or subpart
thereof is 'unknown" or "do not know" or any similar phrase or answer
Plaintiff shall explain in detail all effortsmade by them or persons
acting on their behalf to obtain information which would pertain to the
said interrogatory or any part thereof.
DEFINITIONS
As used in the above instructions and the interrogatories that
follow:
A. The words "your" and "you" refer to Petitioner and all persons
acting on their behalf including, but not limited to, attorneys and their
associates, investigators , agents , employees or other representatives .
B. The word "person" refers to any natural person and any
association, joint venture, partnership, corporation or other legal or
VAA „I I I( I ti
Il\SS and 11\N\11:\\ business entity.
('ll\RiI:a])
I__'I 4111 ,\11.. E.
SII\I01PFI., \1\. 5537',
14k111k 1.11,E (II II(1-:
l,, ,-1.'.1 R kl. :\\'E. N.
P.l).
BOX 253
i911,1k I.,\h E, \IN. 55372
�'_ —
•
C. The word "document" means any written, recorded or graphic
matter, whether produced, reproduced or stored on papers, cards, tapes,
belts or computer storage devises or any other medium in your possession,
'custody or control or known by you to exist and includes originals, all
copies of originals and all prior drafts thereof.
D. The words "identify" or 'identity" when used in reference to
a natural person means that you shall state:
1. His full name;
2. His present business and home address;
3. His present employer and his present position with such
employer;
4. The relationship, e. g. , business associates , between such
persons and plaintiffs; and,
5. The dates of employment with Petitioner; if any, and all
job positions held with the Petitioner.
E. The words "identify" or "identity" when used in reference to
a document means that you shall state:
1 . The date of its preparation ;
2. Its author;
3. The addressee or other intended recipient thereof;
4. Persons who received copies thereof;
5. The type of document, e. g. , letter, memorandum, inventory
list, work notes , etc. ;
6. Its title, heading or other designation, numerical or
otherwise;
7. The summary of its contents or other means of identifying it;
and
8. Its present location and the person who has possession, custody
and control thereof.
F. "Identify" or "identity" when used in reference to a conversation,
conference or meeting, means that you shall state:
1 , 1. The date and time thereof;
\S' ;Ind \l t \11,%N.
( 11\urrIOD 2. The location thereof;
1221 4111 01 E.
sl!‘1,1)14 1,
1'141l1k 1.\1:1•: 01114.
3u>
I 1.\'lit:\1, t\"F:. \.
I'.U. BOX ?53
141(1k 1,:%M., \t\, 55372
3. The identity of all persons participating or attending;
4. The identity of all documents recording or summarizing or
otherwise arising from the conversation, conference or meeting in
accordance with the definitions above; and
5. The method of communication utilized e. g. , telephone, in
person communications, or other means, or if the method of
communication was by telephone, specify the caller and the
person called.
G. The word "facts" shall be considered to include either the
singular or the plural as the case may be and mean a thing done, something
having actual existence, and actual occurrence or event, or any information
presented as having objective reality. The word "evidence" shall include
facts and vice versa .
H. The word "his" shall be considered to include either the
masculine or the feminine gender.
INTERROGATORIES
1. Identify each person you expect to call as an expert witness
at trial , state the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify,
state the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected
to testify and a summary of the grounds for each such opinion.
2. Identify any expert witness whom you have consulted who you do
not intend to call as a witness at trial .
3. State in particular, and not in general , the objections you
have raised to the valuation appealed from.
4. State your opinion as to the actual market value of your
property.
5. State in detail the facts or opinions upon which you have relied
to make your determination of actual market value of your property as set
forth in the previous Interrogatory.
6. Identify all documents of any nature whatsoever that you contend
support the allegations contained in your Petition.
vvv .'I I R
I\ ""'' "k�"'\! 7. Identify all individuals not previouslyidentified who you
( II \IZ I I,RI])
1221 4111 \\L. E.
'II\1,(111:1.., \I\. 55370 believe have information relating to the allegations contained in your Petition.
I'HIUH I.1FF OFFICE
3115 I F.\THAI_ A\E. N.
I'. 1. BOX 253
1'111(11 I.\KF:, \I\. 55372
•
•
8. Identify each and every property you contend is comparable to
yours which has an assessed valuation that tends to support the allegations
in your Petition.
KRASS, MEYER & KANNING CHARTERED
fillip R. Krass
1221 Fourth Avenue East
Shakopee, MN 55379
(612) 445-5080
I A'AA ( 1 I I( rs
t\\S and \1:\\:1 II\\
('II
\ I I•:It Ell
1221 4 1 11 \\F.. F..
II\KUI'E6:, A1A. 55379
'MOH I.\KF: OFFICE
1,5 ( F:\'I H\1. \\1%. \.
P.O. BOX 253
tIUH I -%Kr. AIN. 55372
3 d
MEMO TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: John K. Anderson
RE: Reacquisition and Sale of Shakopee Old Wastewater
Treatment Plant
DATE: June 26 , 1981
Introduction
City Council , at its June 2nd Meeting, received a staff memo
dated May 27 , 1981 which discussed Mr. Wallace Bakken' s request
for Shakopee ' s assistance in acquiring part of Shakopee ' s Old
Wastewater Treatment Plant from the Metro Waste Control Commission,
so that he could "clean the area up" and include it in part of
his proposed recreational facilities . That memo outlined five
procedures required to assist Mr. Bakken and recommended that
Frank J. Wicker be employed to complete Step #1 , the appraisal .
Procedures
Step #1 . Mr. Wicker has now completed the appraisal which is on
file at City Hall for Council review, attached are the elements
of the appraisal relating specifically to the property in question.
The property is valued at $4000. LeRoy Houser has reviewed Mr.
Wicker ' s appraisal and concurs in his conclusion (memo attached) .
Step #2 . Mr. Bakken has deposited a certified check for $4700,
the appraised amount of the land and $700 for the cost of the
appraisal .
Step #3. If City Council approves the acquisition price , the City
must formally request the Stage 2 land transfer from George
Lusher, Chief Administrator, Metro Waste Control . That portion
of the old plant being sold to Mr. Bakken is attached as the
last page of Mr. Wicker' s appraisal .
Step #4. After City Council completes step #3 and the Land is
transferred from Metro Waste Control to the City, the City can
find, by resolution, that the land no longer serves a public
purpose and sell it to Mr. Bakken at the agreed upon price.
Step #5 . Upon passage of the resolution mentioned in step '#4,
the deed can be presented to Mr. Bakken and the check for $4700
deposited.
Alternatives
1 . The City can decide not to sell the property. Under this al-
ternative the property should remain in the hands of Metro
Waste Control . It will also remain an eye sore to the Com-
munity and visitors .
Page 2
June 26 , 1981 3 fit'
2 . The City could negotiate with Mr. Bakken for some other price
for the land and/or place other non-monetary conditions on
the sale. It would be a departure from general City policy,
ie. the policy we follow when acquiring easements and right-
of-way fromthe public, to vary from the appraised value .
This could jeopardize the sale , however , staff has done no
negotiating with Mr. Bakken.
3. The City can accept the appraised value as the "fair market
value" for the land and authorize the sale . This would be
acceptable to Mr. Bakken, would be the first step in clean-
ing up the site , would put the site back on the tax rolls ,
and would permit the development of a potential asset to
the community. On the negative side , Council could possi-
bly be criticized for the sale and/or sale price ; however
the parcel has severely limited access to present and plan-
ned public right-of-way and the most logical access is across
property owned by Mr. Bakken.
Recommendation
Staff recommends alternative #3 for the reason listed above .
Action
1 . Direct staff to prepare the necessary resolution for the
sale of Old Wastewater Treatment Plant property to Mr. Wallace
Bakken for $4000 plus appraisal expense of $700.
2. Pass Resolution No. 1869 requesting the Stage #2 land
transfer from Metro Waste Control .
JKA/jam
THE APPRAISAL PROCESS
to
The valuation part of the appraisal process is a series
of "checks" on the appraiser ' s judgment . These "checks"
are used as a guide in arriving at a final estimate of
"value" .
The first appraisal procedure is an estimate of the value
of the vacant land or underlying land in the case of im-
proved properties, recognizing its highest, best and most
profitable use. This, then, is the "estimate of value"
in vacant land.
The market place normally recognizes three procedures as
guides for calculating "value" of improved properties.
Any and/or all of these three methods are used, as
applicable.
The first appraisal procedure is known as the Cost Approach
to Value. This approach is an emphasis on cost, realizing
that a buyer for the property being appraised has an alter-
native of erecting all-new facilities of his choice. After
the cost of all-new facilities has been estimated, the
appraiser then relates the subject property to the all-new
facilities, applying "depreciation" factors where applicable.
The second procedure is known as the Direct Comparison Ap-
proach
to Value, sometimes called the "Market" Approach to
Value. This approach is a consideration of the subject
property as it competes with sales of other already im-
proved properties, with the emphasis placed on market sales
and/or offerings of competitive property. This procedure is
also the normal approach to estimating value of vacant or
underlying land.
The third approach to value is known as the Income Approach
to Value. In this estimate the emphasis is placed on the
investment potential for the subject property, recognizing
the past, present and future income potential for the prop-
erty.
In this appraisal the value of the subject site, if vacant,
has been estimated. After that estimate, all three of the
approaches have been considered and applied where applicable,
or explained where not applicable. Following the application
of the approaches is a correlation of the various approaches
and a statement as to the final estimate of value of the
real estate.
L
- 11 -
COMPARABLE SALES
Buyer/ Date Zoning Size Sale Price per
Location Seller Price Acre
1) Lot 2, Blk. 17 D.Link/ 5/78 Bl 5500 $4,500 $35,640
East Shakopee Lureen sq.ft.
Superior location, superior access, superior easement condition, superior
topography, partially in flood hazard area.
2) Lot 3 P/O 4 R.Schilz/ 1/79 B1 7700 $9,000 $37,268
Blk. 17 Lureen sq. ft.
East Shakopee
Superior location, superior access, superior easement condition, superior
topography, partially in flood hazard area.
3) Lots 3 4, D.Olson/ 6/78 Bl 10000 $10,000 $43,560
Blk. 23 £ add'l E. Brown sq.ft.
land-East Shakopee
Superior location, superior access, superior easement condition, superior
topography, partially in flood hazard area.
4) P/0 Blks. 31 32 Habegger/ 3/78 B1 6.01 $50,000 $8,319
East Shakopee E W. Hauer acres
iir P/0 Gov't Lot 4
Superior location, superior access, superior easement condition, superior
topography, partially in flood hazard area.
5) P/0 Gov't Lot 4 Habegger/ 2/80 Bl (.25 per sq. ft.) $10,890
City of
Shakopee
Superior location, superior access, superior easement condition, superior
topography.
L
- 12 -
%
in � y
tl
t
r
rl
II •
�/ ///
'`l � _ JTp - � / W
I\ QJ t, is m CouN`r V
SP 4
I, Oa3"_, - - • : i W
s %=d - ` - 777 o p
\ I \ 7.
'- N 4 !
\ 1 < W / E.=1 5 of.o `, I
ri• r'' oa •.----
s CC\ *., -' 4. :0.. .._,•-• - ; a .
Of
� 111 •
1 - y�L 'J'.J �J 3 :. �t
\___
\ �' L-- awy 1Drnvw _ •
� V.. lo(N
CL\ ' r -°tt _Af�y7 13vu 1 :O Q.. �L
1� s fr
Jy
\ \ at -- L-!---,-i--_
L- / Lc r i.` ,c;t.•aw It Niro q M
\ 11111111
, . __,
M ' ...
; ` _ - , ,_ 111111 . _ -. 3'lN3od5 �..tl37N3tlt —
\.. 1 I
a'''-`7"C3%-_ ,-..f:,-"\--=_ � 3y0^file ^IA. ,- _ �, D
.,..1:
_". mei-
\ _ • ila } _ �-"l.,fl-S'j d5 .. --S loo
,\ .0 _ E Al tl W-i \0> Si a 3 l na3nn05 1
d 11 0 �• L- ‹Z
�1 N.. .fib^ts E: u �- ;.
\ .� N��� - all 1°°o_.f%e�' m rt. �n --f r31��� Z I
m+J,i -,� Mr IllaRts- _0-+, (tFF 'n __ ! - • .-T a �._. Y:.ihW
\..,�\\ • y5 ' ' T��• ��� � N > _ `„041 i,
i� Z 4 LLL;:7-0
- i.4:i _ _mom- �_ It 53NlON
•
• It , of _ ‘.r w-OM \---
:i
4-, C''-'- -^�O.P �,::.1 ; e _
'' 1 1 dY_ ‹.y
t 1 I.0 �N '�. 1r A ��"- � 15 t a3ll0i i �^.L.
of 1 •4 O 1 = ' �— _ ®oma° �tv.a =m~ `I,,L,,-,....-,..
o n ^a`•� �. I is s CD
_ 32- 111
s
F 'lt 1100f t I w :
1� ISI' ... 1, p- --o-C\ \ 1 p0s cl. �1 �-_^��'
-, t 1�0 1 Y �� tl.Odr aY,.. -_--14r
^j2 ^Oyl _1.)-L, - J ,__ ..,„ ._, 7„ N 7
�:lam'' Yi d ` .4._ t ... -.IS
1,1
�,. i S C ` nnN fig
�� es-•T tt1��� �_- 1 � a
n� -1 'tom— -a. • 1 ,=- 2-,
,�
.rJ 15 i .. 1Q1 7.4-_---1 r �y .. � ;w
mc —+ 1-o- - „ �p l_ .
\--
il t1 --3
1� 1 -42".., \_ �_-�� .-'-1,5-.r.,T O
-.--,—;..'tr,-."7.,:f'\i :z.f.'7::" ;A'
1 .. - .0- : -0- .. _
. ._,,,.. f..\-
i ' ,:fu'"-.selm =t�1 r,0^ .Q.� -- a3s°3..
^j
L
Z. 1 1 = r- 1,
--11_-- F ti 1 1 *O.
�%SS k405 avw. t
ler _�..__. N-..._ `_+,' _-x c
\ �` Oy 4.N W` 15 30a NOn
". A
r+ rt r• n = d r-- CO n O ' A) I-3 r. C 'd a I-3 O H •.
O Al 'C a '-3 O to 'd 0 0 r• r+ 0 P> r+ K r• O c+ C D
O C v' K r• O O (D 0 CD p) n C r• O HI ,C r•
'1 r+ rt to CD 0 rt ao`< )-'hCIO to rt CD P t '`O f- r• (D to 7:
O .: .0 CD a cD K cn r• r• r• CD cD C K rr
HI CD (D O (�D +-I p� '� 0 r -• to r+ 'i K a p y
O 0 0 (D a o\o t N K r•'d C+) `< rt rn r• ^O '0
K I-) P> FhC F-, F-) • `< n K 'd n
CD O'd I '' D K W a r• CD n Po O K 0
•• �. 'd rt rt u a a n r' rh to rt CD rt '0 O
'i = 7' L... 0 0 `< '� to (D CD Pob
(D P (D CD p p p • K n >
r• C
r+ rt CD rt rt 0 ."'3- P ct
P., (D C $:.)
Cr C '. p 0 PD- P. r
0 O
V) K O < C Fes-' ro0 r+t a (D r• 0-3 < (D Cu
W O
`< C < 'd 111r• H-. Z
P to K CD CD ✓ '-< .. '0 Cu p b; HI i u+ C r+
"< r• n CD O O O C +-.) CD (D r• 0 .0 Po D
0 0 H• v, to 0 0 0 C C to K 1-) p> pp +-' ''J
44'd K P K I-i ri �• (D (D r• 1-- 1-h rt C b
V; r• • :.i d 'd O N
C -o o r+UO n K K Sv 0
CD r• C K P to 0 0 K n >
0ow5 r+ cnPrt (Do n
oF-, w 1-,• ',..7-., rtn ' =
H• r+ Z VI V) V) (rs n O P� (D n to
'-p
o "< o• p o 0 C z w O < rt o r•
H. 01 O 0 r• to to
(D
• C rt CSD CDS ,
0 '.ri to C 'd r+
O\ 'd O •• v K K K O\ • P C-,' O C p; to
C) CD CD rh ~' r• r• ~'' .A (D C Cr,-)• K
W K to rt o O O 0,-io I-) 0O CD rt p) CD P.) O
r+ r+ K P to n C HI
_ G P r• .� CD r• r• CD r+ F-,
n n (D I III I 1 a to a (D =
K K Po P V H N F-' I-, r+ D c•+ 'd P
7 CD (D rt n a U' CD CD C" n ':, C P 0 K 0 7
V) • (D O '--1• • P a d O K r•
H a 5 C to r• to 'd
X -i (I) b Z Cly Cn Cn s4 n D CD r• r+ CD n CrO
H '-3 sz r+ CC a 1-i
O
▪ K (D 'moi O 'd '0 '0 V O �-.1 (D r• CD c+ 5, a
0 to CD K P ^.• .. r+ CD CD CD - '5 C (D p) rJ `< 'd r
C •• 7' C W K K K N • Cn :, C P 'd •• CD K
Cn O (n O F < r• r• r• a K K r+ CD
D O C r+ CD V 0 0 0 Co n CD P r• 0 •
Z CD C•• to I- K K K NJ I . O 1-h '0 = a rt rt
C '-�• < C Z d r• K r•c_.,• r.
II CD p) pJ (D 1 I I 1 I 10\,z H to < O (n C < n
t7 n N V r-- N H- r, F•-, > r+ 0 'd CD to CD 0
O r+ C a r• to CD CD VI Ln to a c--,-)
K CD c+ •.
t- CD to •J C sn K r+ 5 'd
0o to Z h1 n '1 ch '� CD rt. P
D •• C C' C C rt CD `< P K
O K `< 5 CD CD r+ rt P r
•
(/) F' < C _ O � a d r• o r+ toC C g- 0 ch CD rtO rf W K 0 Po 0
`< K CD CD (D CD
rf (D P C- C
CD to CD CO K K K to • O to W C K p.3 to
1...,. d CD r• H. H. Q\ CD C CD <
r, rJ O 0 0 0 CD _ to to ••< CD 0
P.P .• 4',- K K K W 'C rt r• (D 5 1-h
Cn r• K w O CD = K W to
P n r N•• I I 1 I I I c < a r• a O r+
`< p7 CD N V r-, N h-+ r-' r� D r' CD +-i ✓
r+ r+ P O\ to O O to Cn Ln C-
.. r+ rh P r• a CD
CD C VO K F•-. r+
V) n a CD K r' O K to
0 P f-) (D C 1
� =
• 'd w Q, ' ' Z Cr s s n C.. C nO ) C" 0 t-• 1
P C w 6 o ' v '' o K p� `< o CD
K CD - r+ O (D r (,l '5 C r+ r+ rt 0
W r• r• I-) W F-. 'i ri '; - N p-"F ' r• C n F-' r+
W •d CD N `< r• r• r• CD r+ CD 0 0 0 `<
V.) 0 DO .. V 0 0 O 5 K 5 • 'd
n C ix) 0 5 'd
Key L C O o p O
5
CD > O I I I I 1CA
'd E'd o I C C t~n VI • tUrt n .� CD Cr K
H• 11 r+ (D P r• HI I---. r+
• O K C a to O CD `<
p 'd aCD h-• 'I
r• P n Z Z CA Cn -,es. n P p; r• I 0 H.
N r+ K w O O 'd 'd 'd O 0 K rt I--, II rt
(D I--,• r+ CD CD CD CD •• 'C '1 H• P C
to (D • N K K Ii too • r• O K
I C. C' r• r• r• CD <
I n V O O O O a (D •
1 F--) F-) t� K K K Ln
i
I O O co
I Cl) r+ 1 I III I I o\o
(D CD to O to (n to a
v
•
FINAL CORRELATION OF INDICATED VALUE
The three methods used by an appraiser as assistance to arrive
at an opinion of the market value of the subject property were
considered .
In this case , the Income Approach was not used because the
property in its present condition has no income producing
capability .
The structures are so badly deteriorated that the cost of
rehabilitation would not justify the use . Therefore , the Cost
Approach was not used .
The appraiser has investigated the cost of demolition of the
structures to clear the site for other uses as permitted by
the present zoning . A local expert in demolition, James Hauer,
of Shakopee , inspected the structures and stated that the
salvage value , in his opinion, would be negligible because of
the intensive labor process of hand cleaning and stacking the
bricks and salvaging metal beams . If the basement could be
used for disposal of some of the debris , the cost of demo-
lition, removal and leveling of the balance of debris and
clearing the site would be about $4 ,000 . 00 .
Another consideration in determining the market value of the
tO property is the diking . The City of Shakopee has stated the
purchaser must assume the total liability of maintaining the
dike in its present condition . This responsibility is offset
by the flood protection within the protected area , so the
owner should be able to utilize that portion of the land with-
out concern for water problems that beset the balance of the
site.
The purchaser must also provide adequate fencing around Parcel
A. However, much of this is currently in place .
In addition, a driveway for proper access to Parcel A must be
constructed at the purchaser' s expense . This would require
a curb cut when Marschall Road and Bluff Avenue are finished.
Because of the limited access to the subject , the appraiser
recommends an additional curb cut for ingress to the area
west of Parcel A.
It is the understanding of the appraiser that concrete tanks
on Parcel A must be filled with dirt to ground level by the
purchaser. This would be to eliminate a potential hazard.
In the appraiser ' s opinion, this can be accomplished simul-
taneously with the above work on the subject at a cost in-
cluded in the demolition estimate .
- 15 -
•
A copy of a memo dated May 27 , 1981 from the City Administrator
to the City Council and a copy of a letter from a staff engineer
of MW CC to the City of Shakopee are in the addenda. These
support the conclusion and clarify some of the arrangements for
the acquisition of the subject site by Mr. Bakken, the potential
purchaser.
The Market Comparison Approach to value is generally the most
helpful because this reflects the actions of buyers and sellers
in the current market place. There have been sales recently in
the general area of the subject property. Of course, these
needed to be adjusted for differences from the subject . After
studying these transactions , five were mentioned in this report
for further consideration. They indicate a market value for the
subject land of $5 ,000 . 00 per acre , or Eight Thousand Dollars
for the 1 . 603 acres . The improvements on the site are so de-
teriorated that , in the opinion of the appraiser, they should
be demolished . The estimated value of $8 ,000 . 00 for the site ,
less the estimated cost of demolition, $4 , 000 . 00 , would re-
sult in a value of $4 ,000 . 00 for the subject in its present
condition.
Therefore , after a detailed study of pertinent factors , data
and all available information, and based on my experience in
the Real Estate sales and Appraisal field, it is my opinion
that the estimated Market Value of the subject property as of
110, June 16 , 1981 is $4 ,000 . 00 .
FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS
CERTIFICATION
I , the undersigned, hereby certify that I have inspected the
property and investigated all information believed to indicate
the value , and that to the best of my knowledge and belief,
the statements contained in this appraisal are correct , subject
to the limiting conditions herein set forth . I have no present
or contemplated future interest in the property; the amount of
the fee or employment is not contingent on reporting a pre-
determined value or upon the value of the estimate . This
appraisal has been made in conformity with accepted professional
standards .
Frank J . Wicker
- 16 -
RESOLUTION NO. 1869
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE METROPOLITAN WASTE
CONTROL COMMISSION COMPLETE THE SECOND STAGE
RECONVEYANCE OF PART OF THE LAND CONTAINING THE
OLD SHAKOPEE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT TO THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission presently
owns the land described as the old Shakopee Wastewater Treatment
plant legally described in Attachment "A" , and
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee has been contacted by Mr. Wallace
Bakken who is interested in developing the property that is currently
part of the City' s former Wastewater Treatment Plant site , and
WHEREAS, the return of this unused property to the tax rolls is
advantageous to the taxpayers of Shakopee , and
WHEREAS, the property in question can be made available to Mr.
Bakken with fewer complications through the City of Shakopee .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1 . That the City requests that the property legally described
in Attachment "A" be reconveyed by the Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission to the City of Shakopee .
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:
Acting City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1981 .
City Attorney
INDICATED CORRELATION OF
'�llI CA1 LD VALUE
ild
The three methods used by an appraiser as assistance to arrive
at an opinion of the market value of the subject property were
considered .
In this case , the Income Approach was not used because the
property in its present condition has no income producing
capability.
The structures are so badly deteriorated that the cost of
rehabilitation would not justify the use . Therefore , the Cost
Approach was not used .
The appraiser has investigated the cost of demolition of the
structures to clear the site for other uses as permitted by
the present zoning . A local expert in demolition, James Hauer ,
of Shakopee , inspected the structures and stated that the
salvage value , in his opinion, would be negligible because of
the intensive labor process of hand cleaning and stacking the
bricks and salvaging metal beams . If the basement could be
used for disposal of some of the debris , the cost of demo-
lition, removal and leveling of the balance of debris and
clearing the site would be about $4 , 000 . 00 .
UV Another consideration in determining the market value of the
property is the diking . The City of Shakopee has stated the
purchaser must assume the total liability of maintaining the
dike in its present condition. This responsibility is offset
by the flood protection within the protected area, so the
owner should be able to utilize that portion of the land with-
out concern for water problems that beset the balance of the
site .
The purchaser must also provide adequate fencing around Parcel
A. However, much of this is currently in place .
In addition, a driveway for proper access to Parcel A must be
constructed at the purchaser' s expense . This would require
a curb cut when Marschall Road and Bluff Avenue are finished.
Because of the limited access to the subject , the appraiser
recommends an additional curb cut for ingress to the area
west of Parcel A.
It is the understanding of the appraiser that concrete tanks
on Parcel A must be filled with dirt to ground level by the
purchaser. This would be to eliminate a potential hazard.
In the appraiser ' s opinion, this can be accomplished simul-
taneously with the above work on the subject at a cost in-
cluded in the demolition estimate .
- 15 -
Attachment "A"
111 LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Parcel B
That part of Government Lots 4 and 5 , Section 6 , Township 115 ,
Range 22 , Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows :
Commencing at a point where the West line of said Government
Lot 5 , intersects the Northerly right-of-way line of State
Highway No. 101 ; thence on an assumed bearing of North 79 degrees
15 minutes 36 seconds East , along said Northerly right-of-way line ,
a distance of 270 . 79 feet ; thence North 10 degrees 38 minutes 28
seconds West a distance of 294 .60 feet to the point of beginning
of the parcel herein described; thence North 79 degrees 21 minutes
32 seconds East a distance of 160 . 00 feet ; thence North 9 degrees
38 minutes 20 seconds West a distance of 300 . 00 feet ; thence South
81 degrees 42 minutes 48 seconds West a distance of 365 . 00 feet;
thence South 6 degrees 33 minutes 04 seconds West a distance of
165. 77 feet ; thence South 68 degrees 25 minutes 12 seconds East
a distance of 293 . 67 feet to the point of beginning .
EXCEPT that part of said Government Lot 5 , described as follows :
Commencing at the southwest corner of the Southwest
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 6 ;
thence on an assumed hearing of North 0 degrees 02
10 minutes 15 seconds West along the westerly line of
said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a
distance of 1276. 84 feet to the northerly right-of-
way line of State Highway No. 101 ; thence North 79
degrees 15 minutes 36 seconds East along said norther-
ly right-of-way line a distance of 270 . 79 feet ; thence
North 10 degrees 38 minutes 28 seconds West a distance
of 294 . 60 feet to the point of beginning of the land
to be described ; thence North 79 degrees 21 minutes 32
seconds East a distance of 160 . 00 feet ; thence North 9
degrees 38 minutes 20 seconds West a distance of 55 . 25
feet ; thence South 79 degrees 21 minutes 32 seconds
West a distance of 248 . 62 feet to the intersection with 1
a line that bears North 68 degrees 25 minutes 12 seconds
West from said point of beginning ; thence South 68 degrees
25 minutes 12 seconds East a distance of 103 . 61 feet to
said point of beginning .
ALSO EXCEPT that part of said Government Lot 5 , described as
follows :
Commencing at the southwest corner of the Southwest
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 6 ;
thence on an assumed hearing of North 0 degrees 02
minutes 15 seconds West along the westerly line of
10 said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a
distance of 1276 . 84 feet to the northerly right-of-
way line of State Highway No. 101 ; thence North 79
degrees 15 minutes 36 seconds East along said norther-
ly right-of-way line a distance of 270 . 79 feet; thence
- 3 -
3614'
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (continued)
North 10 degrees 38 minutes 28 seconds West a distance
of 294. 60 feet ; thence North 79 degrees 21 minutes 32
seconds East a distance of 160 . 00 feet; thence North
9 degrees 38 minutes 20 seconds West a distance of
55 . 25 feet ; thence South 79 degrees 21 minutes 32
seconds West a distance of 55 . 05 feet to the point of
beginning of the land to be described; thence North 10
degrees 41 minutes 39 seconds West a distance of 189 . 87
feet ; thence South 79 degrees 15 minutes 20 seconds West
a distance of 117 . 28 feet ; thence South 10 degrees 35
minutes 17 seconds East a distance of 177 . 60 feet ; thence
South 18 degrees 53 minutes 47 seconds East to the inter-
section with a line drawn South 79 degrees 21 minutes 32
seconds West from the point of beginning ; thence North
79 degrees 21 minutes 32 seconds East to the point of
beginning .
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING EASEMENT :
A perpetual easement over and across that part of Government
Lots 4 and 5 , Section 6 , Township 115 , Range 22 , Scott County,
Minnesota, described as follows : Commencing at a point where
the West line of said Government Lot 5 , intersects the Norther-
ly right-of-way line of State Highway No . 101 ; thence on anassumed bearing of North 79 degrees 15 minutes 36 seconds East,
along said Northerly right-of-way line , a distance of 270 . 79
feet ; thence North 10 degrees 38 minutes 28 seconds West a dis-
tance of 294 . 60 feet; thence North 79 degrees 21 minutes 32
seconds East a distance of 160 . 00 feet ; thence North 9 degrees
38 minutes 20 seconds West a distance of 300 . 00 feet ; thence
South 81 degrees 42 minutes 48 seconds West a distance of 365 . 00
feet ; thence South 6 degrees 33 minutes 04 seconds West a dis-
tance of 165 . 77 feet ; thence South 68 degrees 25 minutes 12
seconds East a distance of 112 . 00 feet to the point of beginning
of the land to be described; thence North 68 degrees 25 minutes
12 seconds West a distance of 112 . 00 feet ; thence North 6 degrees
33 minutes 04 seconds East a distance of 165 . 77 feet; thence North
81 degrees 42 minutes 48 seconds East a distance of 365 . 00 feet;
thence South 9 degrees 38 minutes 20 seconds East a distance of
244 . 75 feet; thence South 79 degrees 21 minutes 32 seconds West
a distance of 55 . 05 feet ; thence North 10 degrees 41 minutes 39
seconds West a distance of 189 . 87 feet ; thence South 79 degrees
15 minutes 20 seconds West a distance of 258 . 30 feet; thence
southerly to the point of beginning .
`tofSttgjCP
CITY O H A ® P E E/�c` fy4.11 s;44
129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
...)
MEMO
TO: John Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: LeRoy Houser, Staff Appraiser
SUBJECT: Wicker Appraisal Review
DATE: June 23 , 1981
I have this date reviewed the appraisal report submitted by
Frank Wicker and Associates on the Waste Water Treatment
Plant.
I have found it to be in conformance with accepted standards
of the Institutue and Society.
I also have found the comparable sales data to be current and
comparable . I have found the correlation to be logical and
supporting and do believe the final value conclusion is
indicative of current market value .
LFH:plk
1
1
CZ
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Henry R. Spurrier, City Engineer
RE: County Road 16 Utilities 80-4
DATE: June 25 , 1981
Introduction
The Public Hearing for the above referenced project will be held
June 30, 1981 .
Background
The Public Hearing for the above referenced project is being held
for the second time. The project did not proceed because of Right-
of-Way (ROW) acquisition. Now the City has the ROW and is prepared
to proceed and expects to because the project is being advertized
for bid and bids will be received July 13 , 1981 .
Alternatives
The alternatives are to proceed or stop. ROW has been paid for so
the Gity would absorb that cost if the project did not proceed.
If Council proceeds , the project should be ordered.
Recommendations
Staff recommends that Council adopt Resolution No. 1868 , a Reso-
lution ordering Project No. 80-4 County Road 16 Utilites .
HRS/jam
RESOLUTION NO. 1868
A RESOLUTION ORDERING AN IMPROVEMENT
FOR COUNTY ROAD 16 UTILITIES
PROJECT NO. 80-4
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1862 of the City Council adopted the
16th day of June 1981 , fixed a date for Council hearing on the pro-
posed improvement on County Road 16 east of County Road 17 and west
of the east line of Section 6-115-22C by Sanitary Sewer And Water-
main.
WHEREAS , ten days published notice of the hearing through two
weekly publications of the required notice was given and the hear-
ing was held thereon on the 30th day of June , 1981 at which all
persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard
thereon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
That the improvement is ordered as hereinafter described :
Sanitary Sewer Lateral and Watermain along County Road 16,
east of County Road 17 and west of the east line of Section 6 ,
T115, R22 , Scott County, Minnesota in accordance with the
Report Titled "1980 Improvements , Sanitary Sewer and Watermain,
County Road 16 and Gorman Street , City of Shakopee" , prepared
by William E. Price, P.E. dated April 1 , 1981 and ammended in
a report titled "Feasibility Report , County Road 16 Utilities ,
(Project No. 80-4) Addendum No. 1 prepared by Henry R. Spurrier,
P. E. and dated June 12 , 1981 .
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
g
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanette Shaner
RE: Authorization for Payment
DATE: June 25 , 1981
The following are two of the final agreed settlements on the VIP
condemnations sent to us by the City Attorney. Request approval
for payment .
1 . Leonard Wangerin/Edna Wangerin $ 75 . 00
2 . Certain-Teed Corporation 1832 . 50
Total $1907 . 50
is
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant
RE: Cable Communications Franchise - Legal Services
DATE: June 22 , 1981
Introduction and Background
The City of Shakopee currently has a contract with Thomsen,
Nybeck, Herbst and Johnson, P.A. , for the provision of legal
services related to the adoption of an ordinance for a cable com-
munications franchise for the City of Shakopee. It is the ex-
pectation of the City that Mr Adrian Herbst , partner in that
firm would provide these services .
Mr. Herbst has now informed me that he will be leaving his
current firm and starting a new firm. He has requested the City
to authorize the firm of Thomsen, Nybeck, Herbst and Johnson, P.A.
to deliver files related to the City of Shakopee contract to Mr.
Herbst so he can continue to provide the anticipated legal ser-
vices . I reviewed this case with Mr. Coller and he indicated
that the division of the clients of a law firm among the lawyers
is common if the firm partnership is changed. Such action would
not normally require nullification of the previous contract and
execution of a new contract . Mr. Coller recommended the City
make the request to continue the services of Mr. Herbst , and
await official notification from Thomsen, Nybeck, Herbst and John-
son, P.A. if the request has been honored.
Requested Action
Authorize appropriate City officials to request the firm of
Thomsen, Nybeck, Herbst and Johnson, P.A. to deliver to Adrian E.
Herbst the full and complete file of the City of Shakopee so that
he may continue to provide legal representation to the City.
5a
MEMO TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Minutes of the June 16 , 1981 Council Meeting
DATE: June 25 , 1981
Problem
Ordinance No. 68, implementing Shakopee ' s new sign Ordinance,
was considered during Council ' s June 16 , 1981 meeting and was
voted on and approved after action an amendment without a motion
and second on the Ordinance itself. See page #2 of the June 16 ,
1981 minutes with the note in the left hand margin.
Recommendation
The City Attorney has recommended that Ordinance No. 68 be
reoffered for the record.
Action
Approval of Ordinance No. 68 .
JKA/jam