Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07/07/1981
P i 1 �f MEMO TO: Ma or and Council FROM: John K. Anderson RE : Non-Agenda Informational Items DATE : July 1 , 1981 1 . Attached is the Monthly Calendar of Meetings for July. Please slip me a note for additional meetings to list monthly like Community Service/Recreation Meetings . 2 . Attached is Fund Balance Summary for the period ending May 31 , 1981 . 3 . The Shakopee Police Department will have an "Office" at the Mall ( sign on a door) to create the impression of a police presence to cut down on vandalism. Our police in- tern, Jan Kline, will stop there periodically this summer. Please don ' t tell anyone thatits not being staffed. 4. We have made it an Administrative policy to have all of Rod Krass ' legal work on law suits OK' ed by Council motion. 5 . The Lions tennis Court windscreen and fence were damaged in the windstorm. We are going ahead with repairs paid for from the Park Funds . We did not have insurance coverage. 6. The meeting withthe Jackson Township Board is set for 8 :00 p.m. July 14th at their new Town Hall . 7 . The Chamber Board cannot make a decision on contributing to the Downtown Committee efforts until they meet on July 13 , 1981 . We ' ll report after that on the 21st . 8 . Walt wants to remind everyone that he will be enforcing the two comment rule for the discussion of each agenda item. 9 . Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District will begin contact- ing people regarding R-O-W acquisition. They hope to contact everyone by July 21st to determine if they will need to condemn . 10. We have made our $4124 payment to the League for the new building. 11 . Walter B. Leefur ' s , 825 Sommerville , was building two units above his garage in the wrong zone without a building per- mit . We stopped work on the project . 12 . The LAWCON grant application for J .E.J . park was strictly for acquisition. After we receive final notice of award , Non-Agenda Informational Items July 1 , 1981 Page 2 we ' ll contact them to see about the possibility of an amend- ment if it looks like we should spend more on landscapping, etc . 13 . Attached is a notice regarding an Association of Metro Mun- icipalities meeting on Levy Limits July 30th. Contact Jeanette if you plan to attend. 14. Attached is a summary of the Levy Limit changes . 15 . Attached is an informational item from George Muenchow regarding O'Dowd Lake . There are no City Costs involved . 16 . Attached is a copy of the letter I presented to the Met Council regarding the Jackson Interceptor sewer. 17 . Attached is a copy of the LAWCON Grant funding priorities related to J .E.J. Park funding. 18 . Attached is a copy of a letter from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency regarding Fiscal Year 1981 Section 8 Funding. 19 . Attached is a copy of a letter from Dave Durenberger re- garding Revenue Sharing. 20. Attached is a copy of a Memo from Larry Martin to me re- garding a proceedure we hope will improve responses on ap- praisal call backs . 21 . Attached is a copy of the letter I sent to businessmen attending the Mayor' s Luncheon giving an update on the CR. #83 Railroad signals and CR. #83 Hwy #101 signals . 22 . Attached are the minutes of the June 11 , 1981 Planning Commission. 23 . Attached are the minutes of the June 11 , 1981 Board of Adjustments meeting. 24. Attached are the minutes of the June 9 , 1981 Eastside Park Steering Committee meeting. 25 . Attached are the minutes of the June 17 , 1981 Cable Com- mittee meeting. 26 . Attached are the minutes of the May 21 , 1981 and June 18, 1981 Ad Hoc Downtown Committee meetings . 27 . Attached is a copy of the article on our Obscenity Ordi- nance that appeared in the Minneapolis Star. 28. The addendum to the County Road 16 Utilities that Bo dis- cussed at the June 30, 1981 public hearing was included in your June 16 , 1981 agenda packet as item 9h. ti 9 K N) F- F--,C:3' N In y w. CID n 00 'TJ •• (0 0 •• H- 0 n 9 O '-t O < 8 O 0 r• 'dC) '-' O • (D H. • (p X m rr` 3't70 C • W '' Pi F•-< rr N N 8 F-+ v 0 (D W Cr\ 1 (t _._I .',I nn -J nn vEnn Inn •• 00 . •• 0H. •• 00r• •• O r• w n G rr Lz rr L 1 rr L,,,.) rr 0 X' '.< 0 `,< O T' n '< Ong H I r-ti Cn r• b r• v CA r r • a) H • H • (D H ••d I—, U1 • • • m Li r• P. ►.< 0 0 N N) r--- 00 - V •`•CP "dl.nH .fib --,Jn •• (D 0 .• n •• G •• p0 O PI r-' O n L Cr' OCT � x 'd (D 'c 'd r: ''d t 1 P-C • (1) • • • H 3 r • •art • CA C r• p CO P. H •P F---' N N) F-' I--' r• K \O N U1 00 r'rr H. CD vnE-dut7 > •• O F-' •• 0 (It 'w 0 w 0 OF-'• G Orrt O •T d cr) • am :i • 0 3 r•CM 3 CI) • O • t_-_i K (....) N N 0 W C3- .0 N Fz.i trii H 9 K WN) F-' H' H' • -1-'- v 0 w ..r_ t'2 iy +a 19 N F-' '. F-- til1 CO 3 H W 00 OD 00 Co CO V ON In U' Cl' In t..n In In Ln In A A 1 1 A 1 A A W W W N N N N H H H H i--a 0 CD Ln l!' 1 W N H H O '0 Co v CT Ln 4-- W N H '0 00 V CT 'n 1 N H CT N H Cl' 1 W N •J In W Ni Na h' O Cl. Z H C< C~ 17J b cn Co Co Co O OD V V V V V V V V V V V CT b UD n b cn tri 7C CD n bit C-. 0 rT1 1 'a Cn rt h'• W CD H O O rt O 'D V V V Om In A W NJ N H V N '1 CD a (D H 1 W W W fD 0 CD O < n N'• r1 `< E I I 10' I I I I I 1 (D H H (D 1 CD > n to CD a s C") a Co H H H Cn N H H H rt h. h0'• CD . • • '1 • N• O '.7 n to O r• 0 '1 ti 5 5 5 M 5 5 5 x • r• 0 h 11 ;< x • O m cn rt rt £ rt C7 H H H H H H Cl) H 'LJ 'a TJ '1 < ^0 '0 b H• (7 11F„, rt A.0 I C rt W rt (n 0 'O H 'Ti 5U 5U 5U H 5 5 rt to n • 1-10 1 1.• H I n n O 5 b '0 11 rt Cr) O O 0 'ii O O 0 W M cn C) aa N• Cn CD fD ~ C7 rD O H n H O H h H b H 1 rD rt < < < to < < < N• CD 1.• x 10 (p O 0 O' rt H • '1 C1. O 0 0 H 0 O 0 .> rD rD 0 CD CD CD Cn H r1 rt H. Q+ • ri G ri rt c :h 0 C < < O C < rt < Cr) 55 5 C0 W 5 5 5 CD O < 1.• f ;u < 0 0 H Cr) rD co CD tD rD < (D rD rD N• CD CD CD rt CD @ CD CO i rt hu' rt a 5 CD 5 5 H • L1. a O O H CD O 0 0 C7 CD Co (D < CO rt (D a (D 0 CD O (2) a) O ti (D 'i rt rt rt 5 ' rt rt rt CD Cr H O u) O 0 E tr In Cn '0 Ort (D O) CD fD 0 �' W O R M < rt rt rt 0 rt rt r1 W Cf) '1 hi a n H b 3) (n rrt () (n < (I) • 0 O. • M C0 H. 1.4 CO O CD C O (D 11 CA CDD (D CD O 0 o rt uo fM rt • C rD CD <fn 0 CD W rt ry rt n 01 (D _ 1-a N W W .. H F-' .-. .' W .. H .-. ;..) h' H '0 .. Cl) H CT H H I I I I I I W HW O.. AHW W 0' 'D Ck' 1A V CO CO N N 4" NHH03lnCLa V \ W 000000W CT Li' VU' N0O '0Ni VCT V W 40N V Ni I H1 V '.0H4.' h' NWAV CO 1 1 1 1 1 1 .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . CTHU' VNOODN V W COCTO' NA 'D000Oh' I NCTO' NI1CTCTN00Oh. N ~ CD V W A A U' W W A CT N.) '0 CO Ni O' La 00 "Cl 'p V O' N W 0 Co H CT 0 V V 'D V In LJ' 0 W co O CO A CT V In In H V CT 'D W O H co CT 1 H V H CT Co H W H N N./ v `.'.i � ~ N.) `r0 Cz) 0 In O' H H H H H H O < CL C I COV I O N A N v' 1 H r tJ N N U' O H N H H NJ H O h' CO (D (10 O Ni O O CT O Co '0 .N W V 00 O In W H W H V V CT O V Ni ,l CT Ci' 1 A O CD C0 1 . . 1 . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . W O h. LnCbLi' 1 '01H000Ha W W '00' '0 NOOOO 'OIn00' '.CD (D C 00 OOOOOInOO 'n OO OOIn '0 'ONO tnOOOOOOONCb Cn CL 00 NON✓ 0 CT CT ln .0 0 C) C00 W 'ptnvOOOOOO000F-' C7 00 DTI H w 7C 9 'C Ni N N < (7 H W rt 0010 Ho U' O '4 N W H Ni H y O'N H co O A L''0 (.a 0 p0' I A I CO I In O I I O I O 'O CT A 'D O' V I V I H H I 1 C I W Ni I A 'D O'CT O' M H 0 'D O CT O W CT O O V O '0 A A N W CT V O O V O N 'D 0 0 0 1 O 'D N O W W V 00 W W 1 W I O I to N I I In I Ni CO V O CT A 00 A I O W I W O 00 I I U' I H W I 'O 1 O W In CO V N N V 0 V 0 N V W A 043- H W W CT CO O co 'n A O O 1 CT H V O 03 In O A 0 W W O W W H U' '0 W 'D Ni O A 00 0 0 0 C A Ha h• N IzJ bd V CO W H N H O b C,. V A 0 1 H H W A W N H V 'D CT V H Ni N is O' H CO CD 00 O H W O N N A A U' Ni CT O U' V 4) kJ W I CO W W H V O V Ni W A A a CD 0 . CL rt CO O H CT V' CO A H Ni H Ni O V 1 'D 1 I CO V N V O O '0 CT Ni CT 'D 1-4 CD HOO OwCAV OHtJN 'DCT '0 V 'D 00 OHOOOOU' NCO rt CL Ln 0 0 Co U' H H 0 U' 0 0 W In O W O W 'D H •.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 H ( '1 CD co to H tri aaC X n H N Ni 1 H H H Ni CO 0 ft C H H W H H H Ni W Ni H A 0 N In A H W H V CW H In In V A O co CT H W V W N W A V O N O U' N CT Co W V H CT '0 CL H v 0 I V I H Ni W Ni CO N O' CO W CO Na W In I 1 N Ni 0 U' 1 I H N U' O CO I A I V N A h A O CTO' OO CO I-, W OW HH H03A0000O V OV V 00O OLnU' CoAtvOla000HW H I OA I AAW V tJOAtJ 'DAOCOLn00 I In NV LO V I I Opo CTHCT I CO I NCTO aCO O' O N 00 O U' ON A V 'D In V U' A W O In O O U' O U' O Co In 'D W W In H V (D Ni OCT ln 'DO W HAtJOIn OOInOO OOOOW OA 00OA Ni HCTCT fn .. H W .. Ni H .-. H .-., la h- V W N CT H 03 C11 CO '0 N...... 1 H H A Co H In 1 Ln Co V N W V C CO H O W V N W 0) CT A In In CO Co O' 1 W 'D V '0 00 H O I O CT H I Co I I V I In H O' O' O N \ I� r•► O . . . 0 -• 0 0 . 0 . Ha '0 le.) LJ N A CO Ni CO O In 1/40 O' Ni CT In I O 03 'D I -4 I I CO I Cr. N V 03 0 tJ H 0 U' 1 U' U' U' O 1 N A 'D 00 CO 1 1 N H'H 'D 1 V CT 0 V H '0 V .. n 0 0 V co O' W 1 In H Cr, O Ni In H '0. 0 VD 1' 0 CT Cb H CO CT Na co (D rt v v H CD aCit....) 13 association of metropolitan municipalities St/p 6•C 9�1 June 25, 1981 ,vN2� O# „et Of TO: Chief Administrative Officer 0, - Please copy or inform elected officials and appropriate staff persons of this AMM seminar on the new Levy Limit and local government aid laws to be held Thursday, =July 30, 1981. The subject matter should be of great interest and important to both elected official and staff. Roger E. Peterson Director of Legislative Affairs REP/cr 300 hanover bldg. 480 cedar street, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 222-2861 A ill 111b6. #0111.4% 011010.11% . 1 association of metropolitan municipalities . p June 25, 1981 TO: Metropolitan Area Municipal Officials FROM: Roger E. Peterson, Director of Legislative Affairs The AMM, as an aid to city officials, is again sponsoring a half day seminar on the new levy limit laws, local government aid modification, and other key property tax law changes. Proper understanding and use of levy limitation provisions are vitally important for all cities and city officials expecially due to the inclusion for 1982 of all cities under 2,500 population within the restrictive 8% limitation. The laws are ' complex and often misunderstood. The seminar is designed to provide that understanding and knowledge in a comprehendible manner, so that officials will have as much flexibility as possible for local budget preparation. Although this seminar is similar to previous years, due to exten- sive changes in the Levy Limit law and non-interaction of aids, it will serve as a good refresher for current budget activities. Newly elected and appointed officials, those unable to be at the previous session, and past participants are urged to attend. The AMM is extending to non-member metropolitan officials the opportunity to participate in this seminar. Hopefully, through this participation you will gain some personal knowledge that will benefit your city. REP/cr 300 hanover bldg. 480 cedar street, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 222-2861 7 120 A V 10, uLLETIN association o met opoIEtan municipalities SPECIAL SEMINAR LEVY LIMITS : HOW TO 1'IAKE TIIE BEST OF A COMPLEX TAX LAW TANGLE PLACE : ST. PAUL CIVIC CENTER (3M and Hoerner-Waldorf Rooms; C15-C16) 4th Street Entrance, left of main lobby at bottom of stairs. DATE: Thursday, July 30, 1981 TIME: 12 : 30 p.m. to approximately 4:00 p.m. (parking is available in Civic Center ramp on Kellogg Blvd. Coffee and soft drinks provided) . COST: Fee to defray room, material , and beverage expense : AMM member: $5. 00 AGENDA 1. Brief history of Local Government Aid. 2. Current Aid Formula and 1981 changes. 3. Aids/Levy Limit interaction - old vs. new. 4. Brief history of Levy Limits and changes since 1971. 5. How to calculate levy limits 6. Adjustments to levy limit base. 7. Special levies. 8. Homestead credit modification. 9. Property tax and assessed value calculation - 1981 changes. 10. Other laws affecting budget and revenue. 11. Local influence for the coming year. The afternoon will be extremely informal , with opportunity for much discussion. It is requested that advance reservations be made no later than July 27, 1981 by returning the attached reservation form or calling Cindy (222-2861) . Limited registra- tions will be accepted at the seminar. 6/25/81 300 hanover bldg. 480 cedar street, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 222-2861 T 1174 1. LEVY LIMITS-SUMMARY - 8% Limitation. For taxes payable in 1982, all cities will be limited to an 8% increase over the actual amount levied in 1981, excluding special levies with the following exceptions. - Homestead Growth. A growth factor based on the number of increased homesteads from 1980 to 1981 will be included in the 1982 limitation. (The 1980 census populations were less than 1980 estimated population in 95% of the cities, therefore, this provision will be of greater benefit than the previous law to most cities. ) - Matching Grant . Special Levy for matching grants is repealed except where funds have been appropriated by the State or Federal government prior to September 1, 1981, to be used in 1982 or a program is approved by the Commissioner of Revenue. - Public Service Enterprise and Shade Tree Special Levy. These special levies are repealed. Any amount levied payable 1981 will be included in the newly created 1982 levy base and be subject to the 8% increase. - Other Special Levies. All other special levies, including Bonded Debt and Pensions, remain exempt from the 8% increase limit . - Bonded Debt Option. A city at its option may include bonded debt in the 8% limitation. (This is beneficial to any city where Bonded Debt Levy for 1982 is expected to decrease in actual levy dollars or increase at a rate less than 8%. ) The Commissioner of Revenue must be notified by October 1, 1981 of intent to use this option. - Cities Under 2500 Population and Bonded Debt. For these cities, the portion of the 1981 levy subject to the 8% increase limit will be calculated after excluding bonded debt unless the Bonded Debt Option is chosen. - Referendum. Reverse referendum is repealed. The original straight referendum procedure remains. - 1983. Levy limitations per Minnesota Statutes, Section 275. 50 through 275. 59 are repealed. The intent of the Governor and Legislature is to address levy limits in the 1982 session for 1983 and beyond. 2. MUNICIPAL STATE AID-SUMMARY - 1982 Aids will remain at the originally certified 1981 level . This in effect means that all cities will receive approximately 8. 3% more than actually received in 1981. - 1983 Aids, The distribution pot is increased by $22. 8 million (8, 4%) for 1983 local government aids. (Caution : It is the intent of the Legislature and especially the Governor ' s office to study and change the distribution formula in 1982 for aids payable in 1983 and thereafter. Thus, the increase could be more or less totally per individual city depending on final outcome of the 1982 session. ) -2 • - - General. The payment schedule has been changed. The 75% of payment remaining for 1981 will be made in six (6) equal monthly installments commencing on July 15, 1981. Beginning in 1982 , the entire year' s allotment will be paid in six (6) equal installments starting on July 15. 3. SHADE TREE DISEASE CONTROL PROGRAM - Funding. The Legislature provided $4 million for 1981 and $2 million for 1982. This is considerably less than the amount needed to fully fund the program which had been calculated to be $10 million each year. The $4 million will provide grants at approximately 20% of program cost for 1981. - Program Unmandated. As of January 1, 1982, the program will no longer be mandated in the metropolitan area. A city may choose to discontinue its program. If a city chooses to apply for grant money in 1982, it will have to follow the pro- cedures and rules currently in place. 4. CO-EFFICIENT OF DISPERSION PENALTY - Delayed. Implementation of the co-efficient of dispersion penalty provisions has been delayed until 1983. The intent of the Legislature is to study this issue in the interim and either develop reasonable legislation for the 1982 session or repeal. 5. METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE STUDY The AMM sponsored bill (S.F: 227 - Laws 1981, Chapter 250) for a study commission to examine the Metropolitan Council and Commis- sions was passed and signed by the Governor. The main feature of this act provides for a legislative commission consisting of 5 representatives and 5 senators to be established. The object of the commission will be to develop and recommend to the legislature a comprehensive policy on governance in the metro- politan area. The commission shall submit its report and recom- mendations to the legislature by January 5, 1983. The issues and policies to be considered by this commission during its examina- tion include the following: a) The relationships among the Metropolitan Council and the various metropolitan special purpose agencies and between these metropolitan institutions and other units and agencies of government; b) the structure and powers of the Metropolitan Council and Commissions; c) the appropriate uses of the authority of the Metropolitan Council and metropolitan agencies to review local appli- cations for state and federal financial assistance ; d) the feasibility of legislative approval of the budget and staff complement of the Metropolitan Council. -3- The Legislative Commission expires on January 6, 1983. 6. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCEDURE H.F. 969 (Laws 1981, Chapter 242) , which the AMM co-sponsored with the Metropolitan Council, authorizes the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedure which was adopted by the Metropolitan Council last winter. There was a legal question as to whether the Metropolitan Council had the authority to adopt that pro- cedure which shortened the processing time for comprehensive plan amendments from 9 months to 90 days or less. This Act removes that legal question. 6/15/81 cr AMM LEVY LIMIT SEMINAR c� Names(s) Position(s) City Mail to : ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES 300 Hanover Building 480 Cedar Street St . Paul, Minnesota 55101 • . • .• . 'fK i :� 4x•t* ; r2 .{ Sit i }�. S} } Jtf t� {f«t { t•'yi_t {},�`LK`;�i `• t nttr. t !d- fs,sa +t # yar- 3 •_ _te .,s...a:.+.W..._.._.�.�. .}J gr.-:.�_s.tri•.-...fOijifd_+^x�w-_sf...r:.y..._. t=sj.— •'- `.f�t,7.4.*:2+:...._ 2^~ a t �_. _.,r•...�..d•• �;.s. { ff[. { � k .' tvtrya+,.to • tu4 k 40 1{ ` t{ .i,. pigtliteA\it • -4,i•• •¢„ � J , ti v{ t, t•2Jetiif qti T 34 �xlx.;AA ', f44.itt4'isulfttioffi tt •tRAdoltl#10g§l 043i.4ttsat ttslt{f}•tgit,MSJt$t 0041,4SH OPOpp ftilti tVifi. i p *.. sa<t •f•.' t • "{ :JCS ;y' t > oca: ' f -. ' a;g f•$ k°•a sh e • t °�^ ' AFF; f • s . • _-.�...�........._.. spy .. ,.. ... s •S!ie t•t• f { _ •• - tae•z: I. tit-¢ 'k S S y ;? �z11 •3•145,40,r.7,4.... ; r l tt�n�iee Tntnutunitl eruicen 129 Levee Drive Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Phone 445-2742 Community Education • Parks • Recreation • Adult Education George F. Muenchow, Dir. 6/26/81 John Anderson: (F.Y.I. ) SUBJECT: O'DOWD LAKE FREELOVER PROBLEM O'Dowd Lake is basically a shallow lake, and, therefore, periodically is subject to winter freezover. The most recent time is three winters ago. In all other respects it is a gorgeous, fantastic piece of real estate. The Minnesota Department Of Natural Resources stocks the lake and it has a natural quality of growing fish fast. Fishing once again is good. Many of us citizens have said that the lake should be aerated, but no one so far has stepped forward to make this happen. At the present time the two owners of the Sport Stop Sporting Goods Store have said that they are going to take the bull by the horns to get the job done. I have encouraged them and have asked for them to provide information regarding types of equipment needed, costs, responsibilities etc. As soon as they have this, they will report. They possibly will investi- gate the organizing of a Sportsmans Club to expedite matters like this. I will keep you posted as I receive information and if I am ready to make a recommendation. 1 i Geo ge F. Muenchow A COOPERATIVE EFFORT OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AND SCHOOL DISTRICT 720 SINCE 1954 ,tet CITY OF SHAKOPEE \G * t . INCORPORATED 1870 ea 129 E. First Ave. - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 (612) 445-3650 1/"§ A( y June 24, 1981 Mr. Charles Weaver, Chairman Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul , MN 55101 Re : Proposed Revisions to the 1979 Regional Water Quality Management Policy Dear Mr. Weaver: The City of Shakopee has reviewed the various studies leading to the recommendations in the proposed revisions to the 1979 Regional Water Quality Management Policy. Shakopee was particularly interested in the recommendations as they related to the Chaska Wastewater Treat- ment Plant . On June 23 , 1981 the Shakopee City Council unanimously passed a motion objecting to the recommendations in the Physical Development Committee ' s report of April 2 , 1981 and the "Summary Report on the Southwest Facility Planning Study" done by Harza Engineering Company to expand the Chaska WWTP. The Shakopee objection is based upon two key points . First, there is no consideration given the existing pollution problems in mobile home parks and subdivisions in Jackson Township that would be served by the southside to Prior Lake inter- ceptor alternative (referred to in Scott County as the Jackson Town- ship Interceptor) . Second, the studies cast potential future develop- ment along the southside alternative in a negative light because the area is . . . "not indicated for near term development by the Metropoli- tan Council" and the southside interceptor is likely to encourage development. It is this long term development potential and the need to service existing subdivisions that make the southside alternative the most economically justifiable alternative ! In summary, it is difficult for the Shakopee City Council to understand how a conclusion can be reached on a single alternative for the Chaska WWTP based upon "near term cost effectiveness" while The Heart of Progress Valley An Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Charles Weaver /6 Page Two June 24, 1981 ignoring the potential for solving existing pollution problems and long term development that makes another alternative more cost effective . Shakopee strongly urges that you re-examine your decision to select the Chaska WWTP expansion alternative . Sincerely, John K. Anderson City Administrator JKA/jms cc : File l7 June 19, 1981 4111 FISCAL YEAR 1982 LAWCON/LCMR GRANT RANKING Final Staff Rankings KEY 1 . The "MC/R" column indicates the ranking of applications based on the Metropolitan Council's "Criteria for Review of Local Park Grant Applications - FY 1982." 2. The "MC/H" column indicates the ranking of applications based on the MC/R ranking (two-thirds weight) and one-third weight of the applicant community's performance in providing low- and moderate-income housing. 3. The "OLUA" column indicates the ranking of applications by the Dept. of Economic Development - Office of Local and Urban Affairs. 4. The "Final" column represents the combined rankings of the "MC/H" and "OLUA" columns. We have also indicated a potential funding cut-off line. This line indicates which projects would receive grants from the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) . The LCMR will appropriate $1 million for applications in the Metropolitan Region. LCMR grants can cover up to 50 percent of the total project cost of applications. Using the 50 percent grant limitation, plus the policy planning allocation formula, the following amounts of funds would be available: - $100,000 for top-priority boat launch projects (10 percent "off-the- top" of the $1 million) . - $441 ,000 for projects in the Fully Developed Area (49 percent of the balance--$900,000--after top-priority boat launch projects) . - $306,000 for projects in the Area of Planned Urbanization (34 percent of the $400,000 balance) . - $99,000 for projects in Freestanding Growth Centers (11 percent of the $900,000 balance) . - $54,000 for projects in the Rural Area (6 percent of the $900,000 balance) . Please note that this funding cut-off line does not include any grant funds from the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LAWCON) . President Reagan has recommended that no LAWCON funds be appropriated to states for Fiscal Year 1982. The Congress will be considering this recommendation this summer as part of their FY 1982 budget program. If LAWCON funds are made available, more projects could receive grants. DM074A .. 7 1 FY '82 LAWCON/LCMR GRANT RANKING P (Final Staff Ranking) Freestanding Growth Centers: $99,000 LCMR Funds Available, $100,000 Maximum Grant, 50% Local Match Sponsor Project Ref. No. MC/R MC/H OLUA Final Cost 5o7 r, Chaska East Creek Trail 9720-1 2 2 3 1 $ 95,000 447,coo Shakopee JEJ Park 9731-1 5 4 2 2 $ 85,000 4Z, 5uu Waconia Community 9754-1 4 5 1 3 $1140,000 10,000 Playfield Rosemount Carroll's Woods/ 9721-1 1 1 5 4 $ 50,000 Schwarz Pond Prior Lake Athletic Complex 9739-1 3 3 4 5 $ 55,000 a /..) 0-(c , Rci ,4--,r ►-) Ill c A b v v e r-t, ,, IC/ . i `#4 2 , S o D w; l I 10-,e 4v0 , iA i, it In 7AJv1� itpds rZ'r ��; it,� , ,: ii on a 14 d iGt J c)( J .1 jogr < ' n JhiN is (,) pe . . 2 .4* Ado I. MINNESOTA ..4ii, HOUSING FINANCE { k AGENCY IRECIE. `. •:;is June 19, 1981 N 2.2 l s�=,,i The Honorable Walt Harbeck Mayor of Shakopee City Hall 129 E. 1st Ave. Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Mayor Harbeck: The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency has completed its ranking of multi - family housing development proposals submitted in response to the Fiscal Year 1981 Section 8 Notification of Fund Availability (NOFA) . Of the 145 proposals submitted, 11 have been ranked and selected, contingent on the availability of U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 8 Contract Authority. Although a proposal was not selected from your community, the Brentwood Court proposal has been placed on an alternate list. The proposed develop- ment, containing 24 family units of Section 8 assisted housing, is to be located at Eagle Creek Blvd. (Hwy 16) east of Marshall Rd. The developers are Norman Triebwasser and Jerry Meide. This proposal , along with 21 other alternate proposals, will be considered for mortgage processing if and when additional Section 8 funds become available. As you may know, the Section 8 Program has been subject to a general funding cutback. For this reason the Agency cannot, at the present time, start the mortgage processing of any of the development proposals submitted in response to the Fiscal Year 1981 NOFA. The Brentwood Court proposal will remain on the Agency's alternate list for the duration of 1981 . Should additional Section 8 funds become available, we will be in contact with you. Close cooperation is encouraged among the city, the Agency, and the development team. We would appreciate your informing the appropriate city departments and officials of this and all future notifications regarding this development. If you have any questions, please contact Jack Jenkins, Housing Development .- . Officer, at (612) 296-9828. r Sincere 1 ) `1 \ \ James J':•\Solem v, Execiti ve' Di r:ect � !c: John K. Anderson„--City Administrator 333`"Sibiey--Street;--S Minnesota 55101 (612) 296.7608 Equal Opportunity Housing and Equal Opportunity Employment • J Curtea ,$f of es Zenaf e WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510 RECEIVSD June 17, 1981 JUN 2 2 1981 CITY OF sHAKOPEE Mr. John K. Anderson City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee , Minnesota 55379 Dear John: Thank you for contacting my office concerning federal revenue sharing. You will be pleased to know that the attempts by some ir.embers of the House of Representatives to reduce the funding for revenue sharing did not succeed. When the House considered the first budget resolution for FY 82, it voted in favor of full funding. In the Senate, the issue of trimming the revenue sharing entitlement was not considered. I am a strong supporter and Senate author of this program because I know how useful it has been to the people of Minnesota. You can be certain that I will mobilize support for revenue sharing among my Senate colleagues if further attempts are made to reduce the appropriation. Again, thank you for contacting my office. Please stay in touch. S •cerely, AO D -ve Durenberger United States Senator DD/stf /FEx,.;P� CITYOF m A " j _11`x"' + , ` 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 ;...i:-/'..... 3:, T-if MEMO TO: FROM: Larry Martin, City Assessor el/ John Anderson, City Administrator 61 SUBJECT: liesponse on ('a I I backs ( problem area ) �� DATE: June 18, 1 9 8 1 Introduction: The purpose of this staff report is to introduce a new procedure for handling properties where inspection is attempted, but the property owner is not home. Background: Our present procedure is to place a tag on such a property stating that the Assessor was there that day to inspect the interior of the property and if the property owner is not heard from within 10 days an arbitrary assessment will be made. To date, this pro- cedure has not been very efreeLive. A sLudy of our response has not been conducted, but I feel safe in saying that it is less than 50%. Giving -thought to this problem within our quarterly meetings, I believe we have come up with a procedure that will effectively counteract this problem as outlined on the following proposed standard operating procedure. Summary: I believe the following procedure will increase our effectiveness ' in the field substantially. I do not think that many cases will progress to the point where an arbitrary assessment is necessary because the form letter will discuss the 25% increase . This alone will prompt most property owners to call back after the 1st letter. LDM:plk 6 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Providing for the inspection of property where resident is not home TAGGING THE I'RO1'1':R'I'Y A. Tag property with tag presently in use H. Make note or Lag by use of mini recorder C. A list of those properties tagged in a days time wi I 1 he produced 1 i 1iEN0T1 H I CATION O1' INTENT TO INSPECT ( If no response is made by property owner) A. Form Letter (3 copies) I . After a Len day waiting period the I st copy will be sent. The letter will discuss the need for interior inspection and the hazards of an arbitrary assessment. 2. After a second ten day period a 2nd copy of the form .letter will be sent . 1 1 I ARBITRARY ASSESSMENT A . I I' no r.c':,pons ' i s made by the property owner after the sending of the 2 copies of the form letter, 25% will be added to the valuation deemed reasonable by the Assessor. B. The above should get the owners attention. When the property owner calls, a diplomatic expanation of this policy is required . After explaining to the owner that an inspection is necessary for any adjustment, the property owner should be happy to comply. Np �.11e CITYOF o •Ty INCORPORATED 1870 COW 11=MRAMEMM‘ ,; , > N E', 129 E. First Ave. - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 (612) 445-3650 �a#tKQ !ft 717 i'3 t June 18 , 1981 Ray Peterson Viking Steel E. Hwy. 101 Shakopee , MN 55379 Dear Mr. Peterson: Several industry ' s representatives at the Mayor' s Luncheons asked about the status of the railroad closing guards at Co. Rd. 83 and the signals at the intersection of Co. Rd. 83 and Hwy. 101. I contacted the County Highway Engineer and his letter, which I have enclosed , explains clearly the time table for the two pro- jects . If you have further questions about the status of the projects please contact me . My notes from the Luncheons were not the best , but I have been able to follow-up on a number of the individual inquiries and requests made at the meetings . If I have failed to get back to you on an item please give me a call . I ' ll be happy to get the needed information for you. Sincerely, L 1--(2.01 John K. Anderson City Administrator cc : file JKA/ jam 1' ht // sir ! 0 / Progress Vallct� An Equal Opportunity Employer • SCOTT COUNTY ` HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT COURT HOUSE A106 9nto SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 (612)-445-7750, Ext.346 _ �► p t-ry f. Highway Engineer: E W. PRENEVOST r; l JUN 1 CITY OF SirlikelQ3PE� June ) , 1981 Mr . John Anderson City Administrator Shakopee City Hall 129 East 1st Avenue Shakopee , Minnesota 55379 Re : County Road 83 Dear Sir : In response to your inquiry dated June 1 concerning the status or priority the County , and/or State , has for a traffic signal at Trunk Highway 101 and for flashing light signals at the railroad crossing on the above referenced highway , I submit the following : The intersection of TH 101 and CR 83 currently ranks number 63 for signal installations out of a possible 200-250 by the Minnesota Department of Transportation for this district . At the present rate of approximately 15 installations per year , an installation in 1986 can be expected . However , if its ranking (based on a number of criteria- traffic volume , accidents , number of conflicting movements , etc . ) is improved , it could be earlier . In February , 1981 the Minnesota Department of Transportation requested information concerning the railroad crossing on CR 83 . A preliminary recommendation by Mn/DOT at that time was for the installation of flashing light signals and gates . Scott County collected data during February and March and submitted the requested information in April , 1981 . On March 17 , 1981 this proposal was discussed with the Scott County Board of Commissioners whereupon they concurred and passed a resolution agreeing to participate in the cost of a warning system improvement . Upon checking with Mn/DOT on June 1 , 1981 , they informed us this project will be scheduled for 1982 upon the approval of the Federal Highway Administration . An Equal Opportunity Employer County Road 83 June 9 , 1981 Page 2 Another factor that could affect installation of a traffic signal would be funding . This improvement would be eligible for Federal Aid Urban funding . The current estimate for a traffic signal is approximately 590 , 000 . if you have any questions , or would like any further information , please contact this office . Yours truly , D. W . Prenevost County Highway Engineer EWP/sal Jcti es S Russ Barto, Midland Glass Gary Eastlund, Scottland Ron Matson, True Value Hardware Chuck Allendorf, Rahr Malting Richard Doran, Valley Warehouse Don Higgins, Peavey Don Brooks , K-Mart Byron Glaser, Owens Illinois Ray Peterson, Viking Steel (,9°1- PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPHX, MINNESOTA JUNE 11, 1981 Chrm. Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:45 P.M. with Comm. Vierling, Koehnen and Perusich present. Absent were Comm. Coller, Stoltzman (who arrived later) and Rockne. Also present was Don Steger, City Planner. Perusich/Vierling moved to approve the minutes of May 14, 1981 as kept. Motion carried unanimously. FINAL PLAT - A & G 1st Addition (PC 81-17P) City Planner stated the applicant is James E. Allen, who is requesting final plat approval of a two lot subdivision at Section 12 of Twp. 115, Range 22. This plat received preliminary approval from the Planning Commission on July 12, 1979 and sub- sequent preliminary plat approval from the City Council on July 17, 1979. A final plat application extension was granted by Planning Commission and City Council and the new deadline is July 17, 1981. A discussion was held regarding recording the reason for the extension, and it was decided that it was covered. Koehnen/Perusich moved to recommend to the City Council final plat approval of A & G 1st Addition with the following conditions: 1. Approval of Title Opinion by the City Attorney. 2. Park dedication to be in cash. 3. Access to Co. Rd. 89 be limited to one joint access serving both lots. 4. Execution of a Developers Agreement: a. A drainage report and plan be prepared by the applicant and approved by the City Engineer. Any easement required for the detention of storm water must be dedicated on the final plat. 5. Individual septic systems be utilized on the lots. 6. The signature block be changed to conform with County Recorder requirements. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - James Link CUP (PC 81-19C) Vierling/Perusich moved to open the public hearing on the CUP to move in an existing single family home to 1001 Eastview Circle, R-2 Zoning. Motion carried unanimously. City Planner stated the applicant is James Link, 107 West 1st Avenue, Shakopee, who is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to move a single family home, now located at 214 West 4th Avenue to a vacant lot at 1001 Eastview Circle. The home has to be removed to permit creation of a parking lot for the Courthouse. City Planner showed pictures of the home. Chrm. Schmitt explained that he is uncomfortable with moved-in homes because of the problems experienced in the past, and he is concerned with establishing some type of performance bond to cover the cost of setting up the home. He asked Chuck Mensing, Link's representative, if that would be a problem, and he responded that he didn't think it would be necessary, but it would be no problem. Chrm. Schmitt asked for comments from the audience, and there were none. Shakopee Planning Commission June 11, 1981 1i Page 2 Perusich/Vierling moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Perusich/Vierling offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 278 to move in an existing home to 1001 Eastview Circle & moved for adoption subj. to the following: 1. The owner must show proof of ownership of the lot prior to the issuance of a Building Permit and moving of the structure. 2. The house must meet all requirements of the Building Code within six months after it is moved. 3. All setback requirements of the R-2 Zone must be met. 4. The City Engineer shall approve a drainage plan for the lot prior to moving the structure. 5. A landscape plan must be approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 6. A performance bond be provided equal to the value of the work to be performed to set up the home and receive an occupancy permit. Motion carried unanimously. City Planner informed the applicant about the 7 day appeal time frame process, and that should he choose to proceed before the 7 days have elapsed and an appeal is filed, he will have to stop construction immediately, and should the City Council reverse the Planning Commission decision, he would have to restore the property to its original manner. Comm. Koehnen explained that one of the reasons she was late for the meeting tonight was that she was taking a phone call from Comm. Stoltzman, who said he should be at the meeting between 8:00 - 8:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - Rosenwinkle CUP (PC 81-18C) CANCELLED Chrm. Schmitt announced that the Public Hearing on the Rosenwinkle CUP for mining and mineral extraction is cancelled for tonight and that it will be re-posted and re-heard another night. There was a notice on the door and it was announced on the radio station today. It will be heard on July 9, 1981 and unless otherwise specified because of space needs, will be at City Hall. He apologized for the inconvenience and lack of notice. Chrm. Schmitt stated that it is not his intention to take any testimony tonight, but if there is anyone present who cannot attend the hearing next month he will enter- tain several brief statements on the record now. One gentlemen stated he had travelled 400 miles for the hearing and wanted a further explanation of why the hearing was cancelled. The City Planner responded that it was a staff error in the description of the property which was published which makes the publication void. He just found out about the error that afternoon. Howard Rosenwinkle, representative of the property, volunteered to make a short pre- sentation of his proposed operation so the audience would be somewhat informed. He stated the property was located just off of Co. Rd. 83 and just south of Co. Rd. 16. This operation would be for the source of materials for construction projects, just digging a hole and taking material out; there would be no processing, just removal and possibly occasional crushing. For the actual mining operation, he plans to enter at the northeast corner of the pro- perty and use a 40 acre segment which should take 10-20 years to deplete. He has es- tablished a tree planting schedule around the property with a berm and terracing. After mining is completed there are plans to bring the property back to its original elevation. Shakopee Planning Commission June 11, 1981 Page 3 Mr. Rosenwinkle stated the property had at one time been considered for the sanitary landfill potential site, but has since been removed from those current lists. There were no further comments at this time. DISCUSSION - Gunderson request for auto salvage yard in B-1 Zone City Planner stated that Keith Gunderson spoke to him about his desire to operate an auto salvage yard in a B-1 Zone, along Hwy. 101 on the north side, immediately to the east of Valleyfair. Since the applicant would have to request re-zoning for that type of operation in B-1, he wanted to discuss informally with the Planning Commission and get their reaction to see if it would be worthwhile to pursue the request for re-zoning. Comm. Stoltzman arrived at 8:30 PM. Discussion ensued regarding general feelings of having an auto salvage yard in the community and its location. Mr. Gunderson stated that he does not like seeing a junkyard from the highway, and he would plan to have a building front with a name on it, but nothing of the autos would be seen from the highway. The general consensus of the Commission was that the B-1 is so limited and they are concerned with using a portion of itfor non-highway business, and they encouraged him to look for another site. Mr. Gunderson asked if they would consider I-1 or I-2 Zones. The City Planner stated that I-1 was the only area where it is allowed as a conditional use. There was a concern with liquid drippings and the water table. Mr. Gunderson stated he would like a total salvage operation in a dismantling type process and use drainage tanks. Chrm. Schmitt informed the applicant about the 20 acre minimum for unsevered land. The Planning Commission indicated their willingness to assist and suggested the applicant 6HClf a1eratgv , sits. Minnesota Valley Mall Traffic Circulation Plan ee in ime or City Planner stated the City Council has requested the consultant to work directly with the Planning Commission on this particular issue & make recommendations back to the City Council. He polled the Commissioners on their availability for June 25, 1981 for a meeting, and said he would check with those absent tonight. Chrm. Schmitt said the consultant took the Comprehensive Plan as a standard and didn't investigate the merits of 13th Avenue as a collector street, and that should be looked into more closely, especially in terms of sight lines with Co. Rd. 15. Daniel Jobe, Assistant County Highway Engineer, was present in the audience and Chrm. Schmitt asked him if the County has any preliminary information on traffic flow on Co. Rd. 69. Mr. Jobe answered the County was doing a traffic count soon, and would try to get this information to the Planning Commission for its next meeting. Mr. Jobe stated the County was interested in the mall study as far as how it affected Co. Rd. 15 and Co. Rd. 69. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS City Planner stated the City is making its first attempt at a 5 year plan for capital improvements and capital expenditures. The Planning Commission is involved in a re- view role in terms of capital improvements and this will be discussed at next month's meeting. Discussion followed. Shakopee Planning Commission June 11, 1981 Page 4 City Planner asked for an interpretation of the intention of the Code dealing with small subdivisions and simple lot splits. He has been getting a lot of different interpretations and is looking for direction. Chrm. Schmitt stated they did intend to have preliminary and final plats dealt with at the same time in the small subdivisions of 5 acres or less. Further discussion followed, regarding intent to speed up the process, but not to eliminate review. Chrm. Schmitt stated that without City Council action, the procedure is the same as before. Chrm. Schmitt suggested City Planner draw up a set of administrative guidelines at which time the Planning Commission may suggest Council take action to waive some requirements for small plats. Re-zoning - City Planner stated that Don Woodward, a developer from Bloomington, is interested in some re-zoning for the 1 & 44 Liquor Store, which is losing its lease. He is interested in a parcel of land next to Landey's Camper on the south side of Hwy. 101 which is 2.6 acres of land zoned I-2. He would like this re-zoned to B-1. City Planner asked if the Commission was interested in advertising for re-zoning of any additional land on the south side of Hwy. 101. Discussion followed, in which Chrm. Schmitt suggested the landowners in that area be asked if they would like to be re-zoned to B-l. The Planning Commission does not look favorably on spot zoning such a small amount of land. The City Planner stated he would communicate these sugges- tions to Mr. Woodward, and he thought it would be incumbent upon Mr. Woodward to check with the other landowners. Discussion - Change of meeting night Perusich/Koehnen moved to remove the discussion of the change of meeting nights for the Planning Commission from the table. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Perusich moved to re-table this item in view of the absence of the City Admr. Motion carried unanimously. Comm. Koehnen suggested having a session to go through the subdivision ordinance on PUD, as the majority of the responsibility now lies with the Planning Commission. Chrm. Schmitt asked City Planner to set up such a session when time permits. Koehnen/Stoltzman moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:55 P.M. John Schmitt Chairman Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary ;-)5 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JUNE 11, 1981 Chrm. Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:4.0 P.M. with Comm. Vierling, Koehnen and Perusich present. Absent were Comm. Coller, Rockne and Stoltzman. Also present was City Planner Don Steger. The City Planner informed the Commissioners of his intention to bring back the minutes of the preceeding meeting at the following meeting of the Planning Commission, even if there is nothing else on the agenda, so that the minutes can be approved while the Commissioners remember what occurred at that meeting. The minutes of the meeting approving the previous minutes would be held until there is something on the agenda. Koehnen/Vierling moved to approve the minutes of May 14, 1981 as kept. Motion carried with Perusich abstaining. The City Planner informed the Commissioners that the City Council heard the appeal of the Welter variance and upheld the granting of that variance. Perusich/Vierling moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 P.M. John Schmitt Chairman Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary „�..A „,.n. 4 SHAKOPEE EASTSIDE PARK STEERING COMMITTEE There was an open meeting for the neighbourhood held on June 9 to 7 P.M. at the Junior High Lunch Room. There was 26 people in attendance. Jim Cook, President, welcomed everyone and gave a general outline of the committee function and committee members identified themselves . George Muenchow gave a brief outline of the history of the park. Jim Moriarty spoke on the need for everyone ' s support. Chuck Rieck spoke on summer facilities . Dallas Peterson spoke on winter facilities . Jim Cook urged everyone to attend the Council meeting at 8:30 p.m. on June 16. George Muenchow gave a talk on the drainage of the area. Shiela Mitchell offered to distribute a flier to each household before the June 16 Council meeting to ask for each person to attend and support the committee . The Council tabled the park matter until June 23rd at which time it will be acted upon (hopefully) . We urge everyone to attend the council meeting to show your support. Respectfully submitted • /, C ;1-2 AD HOC CABLE COMMUNICATION COMMITTEE Shakopee, Minnesota Special Meeting June 17, 1981 Chairman Fourdray called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall with Committee members present: Abeln, Christensen, Davis, Gorman, and Kirchmeier. Also present were John Anderson, City Admin- istrator, and Jeanne Andre, Administrative Assistant. Kirchmeier/Gorman moved to approve the May 27, 1981 minutes as presented. Motion carried. Davis/Gorman moved to open discussion with the Consultant, Anita Benda. Motion carried. Discussion of Anita Benda's Memorandum dated June 6, 1981 in reference to Re- quest for Proposals (Draft #2) - Comments and Suggestions. In Section I, Paragraph A, Subparagraph 1 Anita asked if the 30 copies included 4 copies of each proposal which the Committee must supply to the Consultant. The committee decided that there are enough copies being made and the number of copies will remain at 30 copies. Gorman/Abein moved to change the filing fee from $5,000 to $6,000 as Anita suggested in Section I, Paragraph A, Subparagraph 2 of her memo. Motion carried. Gorman/Kirchmeier moved to adopt a figure not to exceed $20,000 to cover the costs of the franchising process which was suggested by Anita Benda in Section I, Paragraph A, Subparagraph 3. Motion carried. Christensen/Davis moved to adopt Section I, Paragraph A, Subparagraph 4, allowing applicants 90 days to prepare and submit their applications, as Anita Benda sug- gested in her memo. Motion carried. Kirchmeier/Davis moved to adopt Section I, Paragraph C, clarification of Applica- tion Documents, requiring requests for clarification to be submitted 45 rather than 21 days prior to filing deadline. Motion carried. Abeln/Gorman moved to change Paragraph E of the Request for Proposals (RFP) to include those points listed in Section I, Paragraph E, points (a) , (b), and (c) which provide more specific information about the selection process. Motion carried. Christensen/Gorman moved to adopt the language in Section I, Paragraph G of the Memo providing additional information about the draft cable ordinance, in place of the language presently in the Request for Proposals (RFP) . Motion carried. Kirchmeier/Davis moved to amend the Request for Proposals (RFP) to incorporate Section II, Paragraph C and Paragraph G, Subparagraph 5, language providing for a 400 MHz System with 50 activated and 30 programmed channels. Motion carried. AD HOC CABLE COMMUNICATION COMMITTEE PAGE 2 Or JUNE 17, 1981 Gorman/Ablen moved to adopt Anita Benda's recommendation in Section II, Paragraph E of her Memo, to clarify that cable will be placed underground in areas where all other utility cables are now underground. Motion carried. Gorman/Kirchmeier moved to delete the word "permitted" in the Request for Proposal (RFP) Section II, Paragraph G Subparagraph 3 as Anita Benda recommended in her Memo. Motion carried. Abeln/Christensen moved to amend the Request for Proposal (RFP) to include "audio and video" emergency alert in Section II, Paragraph G Subparagraph 6 of the RFP as Anita Benda suggested in her Memo. Motion carried. Gorman/Christensen moved to adopt the recommendation in Section II, Paragraph H of the Memo, providing for a system design that accomodates transmissions among institutions rather than an"institutional network". Motion carried. Abeln/Davis moved to adopt Section II, Paragraph I of Anita Benda's Memo, having point #1 read "resonable costs to subscribers" and point #3 read "number of programmed channels". Motion carried. Gorman/Abeln moved to change the annual inflation rate from 8% to 9% as Anita Benda suggested in Sectionll, Paragraph L relating to the estimated inflation rate in the financial plan. Motion carried. Davis/Abeln moved to adopt the suggestion in Section II, Paragraph L, indicating that the City will regulate rates. Motion carried. Gorman/Christensen moved to recess for 10 minutes. Motion carried. Chairman Foudray called the meeting back to order at 9:00 p.m. Discussion was initiated regarding Anita Benda's Memo dated June 6, 1981, relating to Request for Proposals (Draft #2) - Cable Policy Issues. Gorman/Davis moved to adopt recommendation A of the memo relating to Section II B of the Request for Proposals (RFP) , regarding the Initial Service Area. Roll Call. Ayes: Davis, Fourdray Noes: Gorman, Kirchmeier Abstain: Abeln, Christensen Motion defeated. Kirchmeier/Davis moved to have Subparagraph 1 of recommendation A to read as follows: Minimum requirements will be defined in terms of residences. Motion carried. Gorman/Christensen moved to have the consultant and the City Staff work together to propose two alternative initial service territories, and provide Committee with information on the relative difference in cost of the two alternatives: 1) territory with density of 40 dwellings per mile 2) territory which includes (one) above and scattered subdivisions in the South and East of Shakopee. Motion carried. AD HOC CABLE COMMUNICATION COMMITTEE C PAGE 3 JUNE 17, 1981 City Administrator, John Anderson, distributed maps to each committee member so each could draw the lines for which Shakopee would have their Initial Service Area. After all maps were tallied, John made his analysis on the above infor- mation. Barry Kirchmeier asked to have the following incorporated in the minutes: The consultant is doing a good job and we have accomplished alot at this meet- ing tonight with her help. Chairman Foudray left the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Kirchmeier/Davis moved to delete "access channels dedicated to other identified users' from the Request for Proposals (RFP) located on page 7, Paragraph G; and add, "If the applicant proposes tier service, all access channels must be included in all tiers." Motion carried. Abeln/Gorman moved to add to page 7 of Request for Proposals, "Universal service tier providing 15 access channels for the actual cost of installment," to the list of services recommended for consideration by applicants. Motion carried. Davis/Kirchmeier moved to table Access Support, Paragraph E, of recommendation made by Anita Benda until further information is provided by Anita. Motion carried. Gorman/Kirchmeier moved to amend page 7 of RFP, Institutional Capacity, Section II, Paragraph H, Subparagraph 1 to read "Return lines from Shakopee Senior High School and also the Shakopee Branch of the Scott County Library to the head end. Motion carried. Gorman/Abeln moved to refer to ordinance for requirements relating to subscriber service rather than listing again in RFP. Motion carried. Abeln/Gorman moved to table discussion on Paragraph G dealing with Citizens Advisor Committee until the Committee is provided with more information by the Consultant. Motion carried. Davis/Abele moved to adjourn to July 1, 1981 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 11: 10 p.m. R. Gene Foudray Mary Arlt Chairman Recording Secretary AD HCC DOWNTOWN COMMi'i`i' MEETING May 21, 1981 7:00 A.M. City Council Chambers Present: Dan Steil, Bill Werznerskirchen, Jr., Gene Pearson, Joe Topic, Don Steger, Nancy Christensen, Kay Benson, Dick Hullander, Lee Stoltzman, and Don Martin. Chairman Dan Steil called the meeting to order at 7:00 A.M. Don Steger introduced Lee Stoltzman as ex-officio member of the committee. Hullander/Christensen moved to approve the minutes of the April 29, 1981 meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Christensen/Wermerskirchen moved to refer the name of Bill Berens to the City Council for appointment to the committee. Motion carried unanimously. In defining the geographical location of the downtown area, City Planner Don Steger presented the city's zoning map, explaining the various codes . Hull ander/Pearson moved to expand the area called the downtown business district to include the properties from Scott to Spencer Streets and from the river to Sixth Avenue. After much discussion the committee agreed that it would be better to consider the impact of a larger surrounding area. The motion was amended by Hullander/Topic that the downtown business district boundaries, for the purpose of this committee, should include the areas between Apgar and Fillmore Streets and between the river and Sixth Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. In defining the types of businesses in the downtown area, it was noted that many of these businesses do attract customers from outside the Shakopee area. Christensen/Benson moved to define the downtown area as being regional rather than local in nature. Motion carried unan- imously. Discussion was held on the studies of previous committees and on the informational packet handed to the committee members prior to the meeting. It was noted that past committees relyed on the highway by- pass. It was suggested that this committee consider the fact that the highway would probably remain as is. It was also noted that the committee could consider capitalizing on the barriers of the river, of First Avenue, and of the railroad tracks. Hullander/Benson moved to adopt the Steps to Downtown Development plan as a timetable for the committee. Motion carried unanimously. It was decided that the next meeting would consist of a brain—storm /' type session with each member presenting their own idea of what the l� downtown area should or could be. Chairman Dan Steil suggested that committee members give thought on the use of a theme. This will be discussed at the next meeting. The next meeting of the committee will be held on June 18, 1981 at 7:00 A.M. at the City Council Chambers. Wermerskirchen/Hullander moved to adjourn at 8:15 A.M. Carried. Don Martin Secretary t AD HOC DOWNTOWN COMMTTT7E MEETING June h, 1981 7:CO A.M. City Council Chambers Present: Kay Benson, Nancy Christensen, Bill Wermerskirchen Jr., Don Steger, Gene Pearson, Joe Topic, Dan Steil, Don Martin, and Terry Link. Guests: Owners of Opera House . Chairman Dan Steil called the meeting to order at 7:00 A.M. Topic/Link moved to approve minutes of the May 21, 1981 meeting. Motion carried unanimously. It was reported that members Dick Hullander and Fred Corrigan has asked to be excused for various reasons . Slide presentations were presented by Don Steger. The slides showed bus- iness district redevelopments in the cities of Aspen, Colorado and Hopkins and White Bear Lake in Minnesota. Discussion was also held on the redevel- opment project in the City of Red Wing and on the possibility of visiting the city. The balance of the meeting was spent discussing the members ideas or sug- gestions on the downtown redevelopment project. The following items were discussed during this period: 1. It was agreed that an "Old Town" theme for redevelopment purposes be used. This would coincide with the present design of the area without a total revamping program. 2. Ideas were voiced to make use of the river and to intergrarta the river area into a part of the redevelopment plan. Some of these ideas were as follows: a. possiblility of landscaping and general clean up of trees and brush into a park-like appearance. b. installation of walkways and benches. c . designate an area for future use as a restaurant over- looking the river. d. for use as novelty or specialty shops. e. certain areas possibly used for high-rise apartment units. f. extension of Huber Park westward along the river. 3. Discussion was held on the stores located north of First Avenue . It was noted that the city's building codes would affect the out- come of these stores . Tnformation would be needed if it would be feasible to remodel these structures or to recommend their removal. Also included in this discussion were the following suggestions: a. By removing some of the structures on the corner of First Avenue and Holmes Street, right-hand lanes might be install- ed to eliminate some of the congestion of traffic problems . b . The use of the block north of First Avenue and between Holmes and Lewis for a city hall square with park areas and/or a civic center. 1. Discussion was also held regarding placing a no-parking restriction on the downtown area of First Avenue to also eliminate some of the congestion. It has become such a hazard to park there that some members noted that they felt there would be little objection to this . By using this plan it was also noted that the stores on both sides of First Avenue could possibly convert the rear entrances into main entrances. 5. The area of Second Avenue was discussed at length. It was suggested that the use of this street incorporated with the railroad tracts could best be served as a mall. Ideas such as landscaping, the use of banners and flags, and the possible use of the abandoned rail- road depot were also brought up. Sprucing up the alleys was also suggested in conjunction with the Second Avenue mall-type setting. The next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, June 30, 1981 at 7:C0 a.N, at the City Council Chambers. Terry Link volunteered to present a basic drawing of some of the topics which were discussed. Also discussed will be the funding available for the project. Link/Christensen moved to adjourn at 8:45. Motion arried unanimously. Submitted by, Don D. Martin, Sec. 5a4 37 7a< E y. 0 -, 0. to : Upon, 2oA+ oco .-ja.1 zch va< cao° ,D c. g,r, 'O co ",,_ nwm. .. ' w A00 a Ot0 „ eV Q 9 ",my r<p O `" Lb aO� ~ '0 w w�0, met) Pr ^m� oog oe.-° o ^ a E� a70 ff o ^c G a 7� ,,., ASH ch °' x v'.b.0 7 "4 a E•' o 1 V rD 7.. m co A m n 7•..�O - 5° C p A ^�- H A' n::, y0 = ,-.ccooxna . N»mw ;2 r� AO < nor. = 0 ..ar , ?�A < ~ Ci7 .may "+ O � •w ", `.,ci,, -1—*o: Di Sy^ ° w7° Ec" oma, to?A 0 � co" � (� Aoa .. w A -. ptv �o < C � Po" Ef9ma , u,m=. D < 0.O `<`< • .6, 11)��X±yy m cc °'a.c g E E'3 o, 0.o^b Cl)c a f."0 • eD -Ai in 0,fp f'i C A S p� - 7 S r• m y� —ei, C uj c A f79 fD Scr, .. CO 0 O,= a, `<00 w r9 A X,' r9 Sur 0 0 AD co ° C7a' aawe) . Ongi•ra y. '.QO `< 0 ro — (9m5d° oA, AAVa � pAv •» roonmA fl' .-1. tn. row ° a � °=„cop=,°ao . .o $coo ° ^.vr9a .. .CSS icw ° .P�r~pvA o /� �• pmCJv, i b,^, ��Ago°° ix �a car.°`. o `� �' y Aro C O p CA AmM .i 0 y 0 ti ? fl:w ^ 0vs7..CH0 ,0.0 `< co0C000era , E < O rD S CpAoo oog7 y O v> • vi °VP afp •:ycp 6.67 CI)-- p . vo C 7,0.> -t n r- o r = a n ° cso � m° 'w ? r'o foci) CI r,•A G (( a O • C `� ° m tp 0 °v° '� 4,o et,0. 5 CD c n7 ro oil) ro rp = 'E w.,ccA - E. -... ca41) p °aA A ^a w = < ^C '"0 a^ c”" i\ C o°.O y a''< O< °^'° -wt 7 ,...7...Po'w ^•ti 'w•. S `\ nj w C .»•V' Pi w °.a , e -. y era E � A, .. r. ?vim, rp .., CD O °o°° 0 ''DA 0 S n.`< S .". °c A 0•—cp rp a c? m a• .0 ...• •••••• 0 .4..,‘< 0 0 a!)<'' ;* iiiri 4k rs a to a o° °' m° 7P'="� � owr<ow "GE ^ v, ro0mCA_ l""'P' ^ Naw a a ;:t7,< a • to w N A`< w X �� ^nrAaa. ar, m,_3ao `< 0.-. ° x°:a'. o'° 0 Toa raoS'cm0a' •a•ag A < a aOmv, rDa0 ,-o° oro A Gp S.cro A,.y w 'a v) 10 (5 7°: '.o ° (17-CI:° .a.rpa 7CCwp.O ° w0'S 3a -� o.< '..A ^ Px B < <" .. co oa woo°cro co oa.A � '' gC ° Nw7yS , a -..CD CI 0� G7CA ° Ca.tow ' 08 p, cet) C ^ ,-.A a rD ^7 '•o C a to a10 C) 'v' ^ ID 0 :" oo0S ° ro < °° , oa co) `o ° ys° v - c3 - 07..° vyo to Co � limi •J =. t. to W a ° SS?w m ro p'79 aSyaA • 0.A y."ro .w � » y� oaao� °_ avy,» � w,, et w rp 7wp, -w -• ew CO a O co 7 1Cma ( • n'"' a O OrD y .rpm -. (D a A I CD w a.w • v,''< �• =�.a_. o z 7 0.c°°p � 7'0. \ 1 TENTATIVE AGENDA SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 1 REGULAR SESSION JULY 7 , 1981 Mayor Harbeck presiding 1 ] Roll Call at 7 : 30 P.M. 2 ] Communications : a] Letters from Chaska Chamber of Commerce and City Council in support of the Renaissance Festival Should we do something similar? b ] Memo from League of Minnesota Cities re : Minnesota Conference of Local Energy Officials (CLEO) c] Letter from Mr. & Mrs . Timothy S . Lindgren re: Sewer Charge 3] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 4] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS 5 ] Old Business : a ] Hauer Trail and Bluff Avenue Report b] Market Value for the K-mart Distribution Center (bring appraisal) c ] Professional Services Agreement for Infiltration/Inflow Analysis d ] Final Settlement Eastview Improvement Division One 80-2 e ] Holmes Street Change Order No. 2 f] Change Order Administrative Procedures 6 ] Planning Commission Recommendations : None 7 ] Routine Resolutions and Ordinances : a] Res . No. 1874, A Resolution Authorizing Execution of Quit Claim Deed b] Res . No. 1870, A Resolution Approving the By-Laws of the Shakopee Fire Department Relief Association (bring item 6a of the June 16th agenda) c ] Res. No. 1876 , A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 1571 Adopting a Personnel Policy for the City of Shakopee d] Res . No. 1875, A Resolution Amending the 1981 Pay Schedule 8 ] New Business : a] 8:00 P.M. - Open Bids for $940,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds of 1981 , Series A, Resolution No. 1877 b ] Change Order No. 1 On Water Supply Well No. 6 - to be provided Monday c ] No Parking Signs along Service Road adjacent to Raceway Park d ] 9 : 30 P.M. - Beer License - Stagecoach Stores , Inc . el Memo from Julius Coller re : Time Table Schedule for Public Hearing Notices (to be provided) f ] Rental Renewal between the City and Rick Wolfe TENTATIVE AGENDA Page -2- July 7 , 1981 g ] Income and Expenses for Equipment at Highrise h] Transit Services for Shakopee i ] County-wide On-site Sewer and Water Regulations j ] Memo from George Muenchow regarding electrical rates for lighting. George will be attending a July 8 , 1981 SPUC meeting on this subject k] Letter from Rod Krass re : Holmes Street Appeals 1 ] Jim O'Neill , Vice-Chairman of the ICC, has recommended Paul Wermerskirchen and John Manahan to fill the openings on the ICC - A third opening may occur in the near future 9 ] Consent Business : a] Application for Two On Sale Temporary Beer Licenses b] Commendation to the Rotary Club of Shakopee 10] Other Business : a] Five Year Capital Improvement Plan and Five Year Capital Outlay Plan for discussion at Council ' s July 14, 1981 Budget Work Session b] Council tabled the action on the collection of the Shakopee House $3000 bond. How do you want to dispose with the matter? c ] Future City Council Meetings on Cable Communications d] Engineering Department Monthly Report - June 14, 1981 11 ] Adjourn to Tuesday, July 14, 1981 at 6 : 30 P.M. John K. Anderson City Administrator i,_ s I i 1 TENTATIVE AGENDA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE Special Session July 7 , 1981 Chairman Hullander presiding 1 . Roll call at 7 :00 p.m. 2 . Approve Special Meeting Call . 3 . Approval of the minutes of June 16, 1981 4. Authorize purchase of landscaping and sod for 4th and Minne- sota Neighborhood Revitalization Project . 5 . Authorize reimbursement for Handbook for Commissioners . 6. Discussion of conflict of interest legislation. 7 . Accept 1980 Annual Financial Report . 8. Appoint John K. Anderson Deputy Director of HRA 9 . Discuss Hot water problem at highrise . 10. Other business 11 . Adjourn Jeanne Andre Executive Director J. . iii 45,-,„, 14141E.- CITY OF SHAKOPEE 4Y ,. , = INCORPORATED 1870 I ♦�i 129 E. First Ave. - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 (612) 445-3650 { I(ar,`''` 43 July 1 , 1981 Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee , MN 55379 Re : Special Meeting Dear Commissioners : You are hereby notified that there will be a Special Meeting of the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority at 7 :00 P .M. , on Tuesday, July 7 , 1981 , in the Council Chambers at City Hall . The purpose of this meeting is to conduct a regular business meeting per attached agenda. If you are unable to attend this meeting, please contact Jeanne Andre , HRA Director. Sincerely,117, // L / r-I(Lr-',(Q/ GL Richard Hullander Chairman Shakopee HRA RH/jam Enclosure The Heart of Progress Va11eil An Equal Opportunity Employer PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SPECIAL SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JUNE 16, 1981 Vice-Chairman Leroux called the meeting to order at 7:15 P.M. with Comm. Colligan and Lebens present. Absent were Comm. Reinke and Hullander. Also present were Jeanne Andre, HRA Director; Ass't City Atty. Rod Krass and John K. Anderson, City Admr. Lebens/Colligan moved to accept the special meeting call. Motion carried unanimously. Lebens/Leroux moved to approve the minutes of June 2, 1981 as kept. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Lebens moved to authorize appropriate HRA officials to make, execute and deliver a deed to Lot 1, Block 1, Macey Second Addition, subject to inspection and approval by staff of improvements constructed therein, to Quality Development, Inc. This action to be in accordance with contract for deed between Quality Development, Inc. and the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority, for the purpose of convey- ing said property to authorized buyer identified by HRA. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Leroux moved to authorize appropriate HRA officials to make, execute and deliver deed to Lot 1, Block 3, Macey Second Addition, subject to inspection and approval by staff of improvements constructed therein, to Goodwin Builders, Inc. This action to be in accordance with contract for deed between Goodwin Builders, Inc. and the Shakopee HRA, for the purpose of conveying said property to authorized buyer identified by HRA. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Lebens moved to authorize appropriate HRA officials to make, execute and deliver deed to Lot 2, Block 3, Macey Second Addition, subject to inspection and approval by staff of improvements constructed therein, to Goodwin Builders, Inc. This action to be in accordance with contract for deed between Goodwin Builders, Inc. and the Shakopee HRA, for the purpose of conveying said property to authorized buyer identified by HRA. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Lebens moved to pay the bills as presented: 1. Dean Smith Trenching, $5,719.00, partial payment on Minnesota Street Project, for grading and fill. 2. Jeanne Andre, $34.11 fees to attend Metropolitan Council Housing Workshop, and transportation reimbursement. 3. Minnesota League of Cities, $33.00, conference fee for Jeanne Andre to attend annual meeting. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Colligan/Lebens moved to purchase one Handbook for Commissioners for $9 to be distri- buted among all the Commissioners. Motion carried unanimously. Comm. Leroux informed the Commissioners of a letter written to Shannon A. Slagle, R.D. , of the Scott Carver Economic Council by Gai]E Sovell regarding the dishwasher problem at 200 Levee Drive. The HRA Director explained that this was a response to various actions taken with regard to the dishwasher, and said she would keep the Commissioner informed on the progress of this matter. Colligan/Leroux moved to place the letter from Gail Sovell to Shannon A. Slagle, R.D. on file. Motion carried unanimously. Shakopee HRA. ' " June 16, 1981 Page 2 Ass't City Attorney Rod Krass informed the Commissioners that the Legislature has passed a new Conflict of Interest Statute dealing with HRA that is more stringent than the previous one. He has not seen it yet, but when he receives it he will for- ward it to the HRA Director for distribution to the Commissioners. Mayor Harbeck called the Commissioners attention to the minutes of the May 13, 1981 Industrial/Commercial Commission meeting in which the ICC Chairperson mentioned the "phasing out of the Shakopee HRA". Discussion followed. Colligan/Leroux moved to direct City Admr. to contact the County Admr. regarding this phasing out of the Shakopee HRA and to report back about the County's intentions. At this point the ICC Chairperson walked into this meeting, and Comm. Leroux asked her what prompted this statement about phasing out Shakopee HRA. The ICC Chairperson responded that some months ago the Shakopee HRA Chrm. and Shakopee City Admr. discus- sed with her the possibility of Shakopee HRA joining with Scott County HRA, and at that time she asked the City Admr. to get a proposal from the Shakopee HRA to her for evaluation. If it was the desire of the Shakopee HRA to join with Scott County HRA, she would be involved in analyzing the feasibility as far as staff and space and responsibilities. Comm. Leroux stated that as a body the Shakopee HRA has no intentions of phasing out and joining the County, although it might in the future use some of the County services, as it has in the past. The ICC Chairperson stated that "phasing out" was probably a poor choice of words and she should have said a joining of forces. The City Admr. stated that he was looking at alternatives for coordinating and joint service sharing from the aspect of the preparation of the budget. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Leroux moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7:40 P.M. Jeanne Andre, HRA Director Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary MEMO TO: Members of the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Jeanne Andre, Executive Director RE: Landscaping and Sod for the Fourth and Minnesota Neighborhood Revitalization Project DATE: July 1 , 1981 Introduction and Background The HRA has previously approved the provision of sod and landscaping for the above-listed project. Two sod quotes were secured, 75¢ ayard from Tom Siebenaler and 90¢ a yard from Al ' s Nursery. Two landscaping quotes were also secured $2730.21 from Al ' s Nursery and $5400 from Halla Nursery. Requested Action Authorize purchase of landscaping from Al ' s Nursery, not to exceed $2730. 21 . Authorize purchase of sod from Tom Siebenaler at 75¢ per yard, total cost to be kept within budget of remaining grant funds . JA/jam MEMO TO: Members of the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Jeanne Andre , Executive Director RE: Handbook for Commissioners DATE: July 1 , 1981 At the last meeting of the HRA, Commissioners voted to purchase one copy of the Handbook for Commissioners from the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials , but did not authorize payment . Subsequent review of the order procedure indicated that prepayment would be required and a cost reduction is available for members . As I am a member, I have proceeded to order the book and am now requesting authorization to reimburse Jeanne Andre $9.00 for purchase of one copy of Handbook for Com- missioners from the National Association of Housing and Redevel- opment officials . JA/jam 6, 7 MEMO TO: Members of the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Jeanne Andre, Executive Director RE: Miscellaneous items for information and action DATE : July 1 , 1981 1 . Enclosed for your information is a copy of the new legis- lation regarding conflict of interest for commissioners and employees of housing and redevelopment authorities in the State of Minnesota. Mr. Krass forwarded a copy of the actual legis- lation and a summary memo prepared by Holmes and Graven. 2 . As the Commissioners have already had an opportunity to re- view the 1980 Annual Financial Report with the auditor, and Initial questions have been addressed, it is now in order for HRA to accept the 1980 Annual Financial Report of the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority for the fiscal year ended December 31 , 1981 . 3 . Douglas Reeder previously served as Deputy Director of the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority to assist in the smooth operation of the HRA in the absence of the Executive Director. I recommend that the HRA now appoint John K. Anderson as Deputy Director of the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Enclosure JA/jam Attorneys at Law HOLMES & GRAVEN JAMES S. HOLMES CHARTERED DAVID L.GRAVEN ROBERTJ.LINDALL 4610 IDS Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 JOHN M.LEFEVRE,JR. LARRY M. WERTHEIM Telephone 612/338-1177 JOHN C. UTLEY JEFFREY R.BRAUCHLE STANLEY E. KEHL STEFANIE N.GALEY DANIEL R.NELSON Of Counsel: KATHERINE M. HOLMES MEMORANDUM 410401/ph, TO: Concerned Public Officials joy 2 C/' 619.:?� FROM: Stanley E. Kehl Op DATE: May 8, 1981 yiko�� RE: Conflict of Interest Legislation The Legislature has passed and the Governor has signed Chapter 79, Laws of Minnesota 1981, which substantially revises the conflict of interest law as it relates to housing and redevelopment authorities. The bill is summarized below and a copy is attached. Summary of Chapter 79, Laws of Minnesota 1981 Section 462.432, Subdivision 1 requires disclosure by any commissioner or employee of an authority, of any financial interest which could be effected substantially by an action or decision which the commissioner or employee is authorized to take or make in the discharge of his official duties. This subdivision also requires disclosure of the potential conflict if the financial interests of an association to which the commissioner or employee is associated may be substantially affected by an action or a decision the commissioner or employee is authorized to take or make. Disclosure is required only if the effect on the financial interests of the commissioner or employee, or of an association with which the commissioner or employee is associated, is greater than the effect on other members of his business profession, or occupation. The disclosure shall consist of a written statement describing the matter requiring action or decision and the nature of the potential conflict of interest. The statement shall be submitted to the Board of Commis- sioners no later than one week after the potential conflict of interest arises, and shall be entered upon the minutes of the authority at the next meeting thereof. If a person knowingly fails to file a disclosure statement or if a person submits a knowingly statement which contains false information or omits required informa- tion, the individual shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. Subdivision 2, provides that where an employee has a potential conflict of interest, his superior shall immediately assign the matter to another employee who does not have a potential conflict of interest. It further provides that a commissioner who has a potential conflict of interest shall not take part in the action or decision in question. • Memorandum 1Iay 8, 1981 Page 2 Subdivision 3, forbids any commissioner or employee of an authority who is authorized to take part in any manner in making any sale, lease, or contract in his official capacity from voluntarily having a personal financial interest in that sale, lease or contract or from personally benefitting financially therefrom. Every commissioner or employee of an authority who violates this provision is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. Subdivision 4, prohibits a commissioner or employee of an authority from appearing personally before any court or governmental department or agency as agent or attorney, within one year after his employment has ceased, for anyone other than the authority. This subdivision applies in connection to any proceeding, applica- tion, request for ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest or other particular matter in which the authority is substantially interested. This subdivision is further restricted to those employees or commissioners who have taken action or made decisions with respect to the matter involved at any time with a period of one year prior to the termination of such employment. Subdivision 5, limits participation by housing and redevelopment authority employees in housing and redevelopment authority programs which provide finan- cial assistance or financing with respect to real property (other than rental assistance programs) to not more than once for each program. Subdivision 6, authorizes the County Attorney to seek injunction in the district court to enforce the provisions of the proposed amendment to Chapter 462. The law is effective August 1, 1981. SEK:mj Enclosure HF569 SECOND ENGROSSMENT, [ REVISOR ) WO HF0569-2E + 329 State of Minnesota HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 569H• F. NO. SESSION Introduced by Peterson, D.: Heap; Clawson; Pogemiller and Heinitz. Read First Time Feb. 26, 1981 and Referred to the Committee on Labor-Management Relations. Committee Recommendation and Adoption of Report: To Pass as Amended Apr. 2, 1981. Read Second Time Apr. 2, 1981. Committee of the Whole: Progress Apr. 13, 1981. To Pass as Amended Apr. 14, 1981. 1 A bill for an act 2 relating to housing; providing new standards and 3 procedures for disclosing conflicts of interest for 4 commissioners and employees of housing and 5 redevelopment authorities; establishing penalties; 6 proposing new law coded in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 7 462 ; repealing Minnesota Statutes 1980, Section 8 462 . 431 . 9 10 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: 11 Section 1 . [ 462 . 432 ] [ CONFLICT OF INTEREST; PENALTIES FOR 12 FAILURE TO DISCLOSE . ] 13 Subdivision 1 . [DISCLOSURE . ] Before taking an action or 14 making a decision which could substantially affect his financial 15 interests or those of an organization with which he is 16 associated, a commissioner or employee of an authority shall : 17 ( a) prepare a written statement describing the matter requiring 1 18 action or decision and the nature of the potential conflict of 19 interest; and (b) submit the statement to the board of 20 commissioners of the authority, whereupon the disclosure shall 21 be entered upon the minutes of the authority at its next 22 meeting. The disclosure statement shall be submitted no later 23 than one week after the employee or commissioner becomes aware 24 of the potential conflict of interest. However, no disclosure 25 statement shall be required if the effect on the commissioner or 26 employee of the relevant decision or act will be no greater. than 27 on other members of his business, profession or occupation. Any 1 HF569 SECOND ENGROSSMENT ( REVISOR ] wo NE-0569-2E 1 individual who knowingly fails to submit a statement required by 2 this subdivision or submits a statement which he knows contains 3 false information or which he knows omits required information / 4 is guilty of a gross misdemeanor . 5 Subd. 2 . [ EFFECT OF DISCLOSURE. ] If an employee has a 6 potential conflict of interest, his superior shall immediately 7 assign the matter to another employee who does not have a 8 potential conflict of interest . A commissioner who has a 9 potential conflict of interest shall not take part in the action 10 or decision in question and shall not be counted toward a quorum 11 in any meeting of the authority considering such action or 12 decision. 13 Subd. 3 . [CONFLICTS FORBIDDEN. ] A commissioner or employee 14 of an authority who knowingly takes part in any manner in making C 15 any sale, lease, or contract in his official capacity in which 16 he has a personal financial interest is guilty of a gross 17 misdemeanor. 18 Subd. 4. [AGENT OR ATTORNEY. ] For a period of one year 19 after termination of his position as a commissioner or employee 20 of an authority no former commissioner or former employee of an 21 authority shall appear personally before any court or 22 governmental department or agency as agent or attorney for 23 anyone other than the authority in connection with any 24 proceeding, application, request for ruling or other 25 determination, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, 26 arrest, or other particular matter in which the authority is 27 substantially interested, and with respect to which he took any �. 28 action or made any decision as a commissioner or employee of the 29 authority at any time within a period of one year prior to the 30 termination of such employment . 31 Subd. 5 . [ LIMITATIONS. ] With respect to each program 32 established by the authority to provide financial assistance or 33 financing with respect to real property other than rental 34 assistance programs, an employee or commissioner may receive 35 such financial assistance or financing not more than once . 36 Subd. 6 . [ INJUNCTION. ] The county attorney may seek an 2 HF569 SECOND ENGROSSMENT [ REVISOR ] WO HF0569-2E 1 injunction in the district court to enforce the provisions of 2 this section. 3 Sec . 2 . [REPEALER. ] 4 Minnesota Statutes 1980, Section 462 . 431, is repealed. 3 9 MEMO TO: Members of the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Jeanne Andre , Executive Director RE: Hot Water Problem at Highrise DATE: July 1 , 1981 Enclosed are copies of two letters recently received by John Leroux which serve as an update of the current situation regarding the problem with hot water for the dishwasher at the highrise . Also enclosed is a letter the Congregate Dining pro- gram sent Sovell Management Company requesting resolution of this matter. I spoke today with LeAnn Cully, Manager at the Jordan High- rise , to compare data on their hot water system and dishwasher, which seem to be working fine. She indicated they have one hot water system for the whole building which operates in conjunc- tion with the boiler system. Water comming from the boiler is approximately 205°F and is placed in a holding tank until it reaches the desired hot water setting which is 140°F. They have no problem heating the water from 140°F to 180°F with the dish- washer booster heater. The manager also indicated that for a short period when the building hot water heater was not in op- eration, the dishwasher looster heater was able to heat the 70°F water heater to the 180 F temperature necessary to air dry dishes . So perhaps our problem is with the dishwasher and not the hot water system. The congregate dining site manager will monitor the situation closely the next week and I will report at the HRA meeting the most recent observations and recommendations . Enclosure JA/jam Sovell Management Company 312 Central Ave., Suite 367 • Minneapolis, MN 55414 • Phone (612) 379-7870 GERALD L.SOVELL CERTIFIED PROPERTY MANAGER PRESIDENT June 25 , 1981 John G. Leroux City Council 129 E. 1st Ave. Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear John: Please find enclosed a letter received from TAC Engineering Co. , Inc. I am looking into this matter further; however, the representatives from TAC Engineering and Mitsch Plumbing are out of town until next week. FirAA. It would seem from the letter that the heating system is adequate for the apartment units but is not adequate for the commercial dishwasher. The two temperatures needed for the different types of uses are not com- patible. I will, as I say, look into the matter and be in touch with you by July 13, 1981 . I will be out of town the first week in July. I am certain that a solution to this problem can be worked out, and I will keep you informed of any developments pertaining to this matter. Very truly yours, Gaile L. Sovell gs Enclosure • TAC engineering co., inc. consulting engineers 620 Mendelssohn Avenue,Suite 161 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55427 Phone: 612-542-8855 7 June 22 , 1981 Mr . Vic Zeuthen Arvid Elness Architects 838 Butler Square 100 North Sixth Minneapolis , MN 55403 Re : 200 Levee Drive Domestic Hot Water Dear Vic : There continues to be some lack of information on what problems exist on this project . The installing plumber returned to the job site last week and could find nothing wrong with the delivered water temp- erature ( 140° ) or any complaint from the tenants or resident manager . It appears that either Mr . Slagle expects temperatures in excess of 140° , which is not consistent with HUD design criteria nor safe for the resident ' s baths , or there is some inconsistency only in the delivered temperatures that are apparent for minimal periods . There is a possibility that the recirculating system is presently unbalanced but this would only delay the delivery of 140° water for a very short period . It will probably be necessary to arrange for all concerned parties to meet at the site to first determine what and if a problem exists and then to resolve it on the spot . Gary Mitsch will attempt to arrange such a meeting at an early date . 4a5 ^- 3 3 `f4 The plumbing foreman also could find no problem with the flushing action of the public water closets despite an "out of order" sign by management . This too should be on the agenda of the on site meeting . Very truly yours , • TAC ENGINEERING CO . , INC . / Philip L . Anderson PLA/fp cc : John Bergstad Gary Mitsch Jerry Sovell Cott-()aiwek 2eoione CounciP, SNC. Corporate Officers Sixth and Oak Wallace Ess-Chairperson CARVER, MINN. 55315 CAP Chaska Margaret Brown - Vice Chairperson Phone 448-2302 Chaska Sheila Hyde-Secretary/Treasurer New Prague COMMUNITY ACTION .1) PROGRAM Mr Judson L Kenyon Executive Director 10.2 June 30, 1981 31St" ° Gaile L. Sovell Sovell Management Company 312 Central Ave. - Suite 367 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 Ms. Sovell : Re: Water Temperature - 200 Levee Drive This is to keep you informed of our continuing monitoring of the water temperatures in the dishmachine and faucets in the kitchen. The last temperatures that 1 have recorded for the machine were taken Monday, June 29, 1981. I have recorded for the before heavy useage and during the heavy cleanup period. The first temperatures registered at wash at 140 and rinse at 180. However, the temperatures during the heavy cleanup still do not register at the recommended levels, those being, wash 150 and rinse 18d -Minimums. The heavy useage temperatures were: 142` and 172° The running tap water at this time is still not hot to touch and for hand : cis:iin6 of uLc,sill and cleanup. I have also observed that the flooding from the dishwasher door you mentioned seems to occur when the machine either has too much water from the filling process, or too much soap has been added. We are still quite concerned about this water temperature problem as it is quite necessary to remedy this situation so that, we do not endanger our ability to keep our license from the State Health Department and would be forced to relocate this site. Sincerely, (4/Let„,s,..11-er...,L1/43.1-1/-ex/e", Shannon A. Slagle, R.D. Project Dietitian cc : John Berstad, Jean Andre, Barb Malloy, Ruth Gronneberg An Equal Ul,purtunity Lrnployer' 14Rik MEMO TO: Members of the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Jeanne Andre, Executive Director RE: Replacement of Sidewalk in Macey Second Addition DATE: July 2 , 1981 Introduction A problem has come up involving a portion of the sidewalk on the west side of Minnesota Street in Macey Second Addition Direc- tion is now needed from the HRA regarding to best approach to solving the problem. Background The contract between the builders in Macey Second Addition and the HRA calls for the builders to correct any damage caused to public improvements in the course of their construction. Be- cause of that clause Gary Goodwin called to my attention a fault in the sidewalk adjacent to one of the lots he is developing. I reviewed the problem with Ray Ruuska in the Engineering Department who stated he was aware of the problem, which had been caused when SPUC workers installed the adjacent electrical pedestal . The work- ers created too large an opening which was not properly filled and compacted after the pedestal was installed. Consequently the side- walk was undermined and has settled unevenly. Ray informed me that SPUC was to repair the damage . Subsequent review of our contract with SPUC shows that res- ponsibility for damages are not specifically assigned to either party. However, Ray Ruuska has informed me that all the utility companies do routinely undertake such repairs at the request of the City. Mr. Goodwin recently inquired about the repairs and when they would be made . He feels he will need the sidewalk repaired in the next 45 days , before he installs the asphalt driveways . Ray Ruuska suggested I inquire of SPUC when the walk would be repaired. I spoke by phone with Lou Van Hout and Ed Leveck. Neither knew of the problem and Ed indicated that his men had not caused the damage. Ray Ruuska indicated that laying a new section of the walk will cost approximately $3-4 per square foot , for a total of ap- proximately 20 sq. ft . , plus the cost of removing the old walk. Alternatives 1 . Pursue the issue with SPUC requesting that they under- take the repair of the sidewalk. Replacement of Sidewalk in Macey Second Addition Page 2 2 . Use block grant funds to pay for repairs to be undertaken. Funds should be available through limiting area to be sodded. Recommended Action Authorize staff to arrange to replace sidewalk with cost to be paid from block grant funds . JA/jam July 7, 1981 To: John Anderson, City Administrator LeRoy Houser, Building Official Larry Martin, City Assessor Mayor and City Council It is with this letter I hereby submit my resignation to become effective July 21 , 1981 . The reason for my leaving is because I was offered and have accepted a position with a firm that lends future advancement both personally and financially. I would like to thank you for the experience, acquaintances and friends I have gained through my employment with the City of Shakopee. Thank you again for the kindness everyone has showr. me. I will remember you all always. Sincerely, 01411/4:4 Phyllis Knudsen 8 Aa, 010 A A CD C , JUN 2,4 1981 CITY OF SHAKOPEE COMME- P.O. BOX 55 KLEIN OFFICE BUILDING CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 612-448-5000 May 27, 1981 Mr. Fred Corrigan Executive Director Minnesota Renaissance Festival RR 3, Box 117 Shakopee, PST 55379 To whom it may concern: Please be advised that the Chaska Chamber of Commerce is officially on record as supporting the current location of the Renaissance Festival and if relocation should occur that a suitable location be found within the Chaska-Shakopee Trade Area. There is little 'question that the current location has provided considerable retail trade for both the merchants in the Shakopee-Chaska Communities. The Chaska Chamber stands ready to offer any assistance pertaining to this issue and in advance we thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, William I. Jaffa Executive Director j l l cc John Siegfried Harold Ek Chaska WILLIAM M. RADIO City Administrator June 3, 1981 Mr. Fred Corrigan Executive Director Minnesota Renaissance Festival Rural Route 3, Box 117 Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr. Corrigan: At the City Council meeting of June 1,1981, the City Council officially directed me to send this letter to you expressing the city's concern over efforts by the Renaissance Festival to move that activity to another location within the metropolitan area. We support the Renaissance Festival very strongly, recognize the benefits that it makes to our community, and would like to urge you to reconsider your decision to eventually move the festival from this area. We would be willing to work with you in any way possible to bring to reality your continuing this fine activity in the Chaska/Shakopee area and look forward to meeting with you to discuss what could be done at your convenience. Sincerely, William M. Radio City Administrator WMR:jw cc: William I. Jaffa, Executive Director, Chaska Chamber of Commerce Harol d Ek City Of Chaska Minnesota 205 East Fourth Street 55318 Phone 612.448.2851 ( b Ener,gyi„h action aler _ LR6 league of minnesota citieA C EIVED JUN 2 6 1981 June 24, 1981 C/r9•or"jrTAKOPEE TO: Mayors, Managers, Clerks, School Superintendents, County Administrators, City Engineers, County Engineers, Regional Development Commissions, Public Works Directors FROM: Gary Grufman, Director of Energy Progra . � RE: Minnesota Conference of Local Energy Officials (CLEO) Enclosed is the membership brochure and application form for the Minnesota Conference of Local Energy Officials (CLEO) Organization. Also enclosed is an insert announcing the first (CLEO) conference, scheduled for August 26th through the 28th at Cragun's Lodge, Brainerd, Minnesota. Incidently, the complete conference brochure should be ready for mailing in about a week or so. If energy issues are a concern for yourself and the organization which you represent, Minnesota Conference of Local Energy Officials is for you. Please take a few minutes to look over the enclosed brochure and insert. Hopefully yourself or someone else within your organization will want to become a member of this newly formed affiliate organization of the League of Minnesota Cities. Please do not destroy this brochure. Xerox the enclosed application form for yourself and then pass it on to other individuals within your organization. Thank you for your continued enthusiasm and support. GLG:cmt 6/24/81 300 hanover building, 480 cedar street, saint paul, minnesota 55101 C6123222-21361 .. G _;,d O .- W c• r W r = �° c Q c = Or = C < a, m a O co "0 v, a o a ^� o o o N• o ao 00 3 0 3. 3. 3 o CD Li.,O �' < 0 DJ a��o -C o �a a s �D = a co o III 0 o DJ 0 . 3. 3' _. L" c o w o 0 O F C < 2 0 -a w c a N nrr1 o a. w w Cr N w j o CD s 3 ., n r, e•CD, a N r•, a ,•+ 0, p O fD p ,n. ,n '_, N CDacs 0 vs N • AJ �, p O a' = C) 3 0 p' 0 w N w o ° w '"' CD cn ass -� �, a -, moo{ -. o ° . o C o a _ • 3 w a ° < �, w 0 "eL LA ' o ,A `D o- 3 ^,as -, a ° ccoo ° N t a w w w' 3 C• 3, CDD o a o C an w o f��i 7 p vagi ' c 3- O <' O 3 P,•CS' 3' CD• W °".< .°+, - Ow 0 N °_w. w °c �_ <ao � C7 ° a°a m 5• ° 3 s°Q 3 '' � 7 a s CDD 3' r -s a o� s w cD N w cc , w ``, o o p O 3 a r 0 aoo __.o0 CM 0 a co w 3 w 3 co , m ° <D ,; cao 3 CD ,^ a a F Fri O a co CD co = to 0- = a N 7 CD 7' ? Z. COAD 7' �' (7 Aj' -h Ca. a w w °� n. - tr 0 o -h D G n S' a 3 3 5' ° < O C r a. co m co ,-, ts. ~' o c m m 0 0 ? C L. w `^ w N n o Z 3 a O -, c 0- til W �3 w , a o < F. Li 0 -n r- =' C -. s a c o � ° m cD . o a g o v, c 7C Er- cD ,-, = .6 c O 3' 0 a cD ,,, cD 0 a to oS o g _ f D c�D `�° 3 w a w O o caD "—` 0 co _ 2_ CD ° 0 a m n a w — 073 a -v o o c a ° D o = a CO -. ° r cD 3• c, `N° o n c3 o a o o •o N .< 0 a m o m O ° o c, < r 0 33 0. _`s ,a., o 0 0 w Q 3 7J '^ w v v m O � �_ v 3 a ,, Do O O. r* a Oo O 3 N 'B (gyp = n •- ,i, 0-11 a 0 3 a o 0 fD o a- > 0 ,^ 6 o ° o ° o A., aR cD v . r: ° ooa v, "-o W 3. .- 7 3 a 3 7 m CD 0 0 C DJ. C P, 7' 3 o O DJ N 3 3 3 •a a = < a 3 ao N CD < n c°D �' cD (D=r a• o a go 0 tr Fo E r. cD �3 co CD '1�, ISQ 0 w p — a 3 3 fD r 3 0 3 vo co 3 3 m 0 CD ° R CD 5 wy1 O v, A) OO' w G' ‘6,, fD ,.., n w' U O o ° O s CD a v� o s 3 0 -I m H III fl �o a a Ill v, 3 c-'. F' a 5 Cr_ T-o,1 '�' 3. w'' , G co cD cD 7 K < �. 6 O c 0 VD n ° ' r po o ' .. 3 CD LA 3 °, ° fD ° C m = crD �' ° nH A, 0 h tr O c `-' o� 3 C o 3 y' oao ` �, c, m ° ,-, - w O 0- m ° m �' o cep �: O w ° w �• CD o CD 3 --4 E �' 3 �' -�+ co oao 3 CD ? CD p". C '" c<D <' `vs p d = ��`aao C w CD a = c ^' o s S'+ m Vst0 O owo w r•. 3 c�D < `c < r' c� 3' no r, C1 0 Ha S. a CDaO.oaa X c° 0 CD6 -, Y �, 0 3 ' ° o a .a g (L3,' a < o a CCtQ CD CD< as CD 0 CAD o El C ' CD n c 'a. r 13 3. CD -< O 3. n. s a p a C . . N CD D °� ,G Y' a ai, oao °: 0 D ,sin CDD . 40 C 40 4' � s °' Ma b MO cW clc omc � u ao ._ `c p ' C y a ao N aN ) wrbo p o } c bpbC Co `~ c T2 bo c O c Ts t LC na NC u- 'uu 'N > El) _ .1)i Eo c c O J Wcet4 • 4L ` '.. C - c co C e E 4- >..1-- 8 p ✓ . ' O v . s c c. ; Z V Li- Q > s 00 CiCc ' • W L Z O c UO a ' t " c p v a) +- b- s C Um o b co .-+ W O Z ri, 74 YEo `-R boO 3 c f4 Q .� 0o. 0) NZ J o b o 4) ''' 3 � oo o fl 4 o xo E + bo _ N , -p QW Z • 4) C >O O 0 ,_Na C ) 0-0 > t .v 0 � NONca) L �aZ � 5ai -oc .$ •cO wW ' QHco � n O v s c O -c C W < `• t� c O 'RC E u T N � Q E a 5 3 . Z < rnv � co E c0 -� •� € TE r boa- u..0 o Z = a) U u O-0 bC,O - 49 a > . H O�, = O 3 E * d a ft Q o o ft .E 6_ do ac) .T. a.U ° 't. 45 `'45 ,_ bo 00 O u O o ro - m 8 c O ro L - Z0 4, L LA E W ,J, ° W 0 fdv .+ i L c0w b N tW bN E oE , )F- ,c ,« a) u a) n U }3 7 C a) E. ur Q y '' O a) N y N 4 C N bo J E V) OC > a J N v a) `� aci 3� d y c 4- .c - — ON W O Q o v o m a) ( E o 4� c p N E a co o cd a .. I- W W N Ce `o. c a) N C E C v q� O �. a) E E a) C > U Z W L b ..0a) u C b N N = ` a) U a) Z '-' R7 •V C O s w0 b a) > C Z O � a u c o ca �° >O C- -fl •N 0 'o bpoo 4) E o N H Z a/ i •+, O 'C U s bo O i ao• I bo C C N .p a) y a) C N o_ • `) u aci ate' +s' N c N C Cu cC O b b uE N o o b o o v p $°V c w s . Z ww `� ,TI > _ E Z o - E `° Ow Y '> > o h - > c `Z 4U- o o b 0 O E u .o a,c a> a U o 4c- y v c LA o a ` c O Q o oo a To W a E .S ^' E ,0 E t C .-4) > "0.)) U "a -a Rs •> c -_ C W •C .c LL J m e 2 E _ N • ac' Q 3 tO ft > o 2 '3 u E 0 N Oa) = c 1._ 0 L u Hrr_tA HJ o o a s a=i 3 'c aXi aci c Q c .►_ $ L7 _b C U CL,L 73 - L .-c c c .E 4- Q U ate) r., E `'' - toLa= W -�J 1-- - E 3202 1- o o - a+3 u- ° o °) O N C70J 1s-• J 4- . O „ N cs U M • 4 tb a) O 2 IA C a) e U c N O o 2co 0 ." C ZoO 6 o E J >. N QE U a`) u '.-p) O ` w E. U bo v U ca v.. �, J c o. aig Q 0.) 4-- E E " ° Oo i v, o a E O o E J E c ' a) d _ — bTo 'J C L. ai E 0 S m }' c L. N c V) o a) U o E a) u u o 2 ce L. • c w c m a) w 0 N •'r ft Z d O .. 's ,_ ,d 4) R ate) • m _ s -p p 2 U Al N v E " p i o` c a) -. c C7 to o 0 0- W a) p a 0 7 O 0.• v _4 4' Rt y 0 = a) 0 °0 .,j 2 o- J .°� Z O o_ o >- < N 1- V) 1- o N U ,.) J cn � v) 3c July 2, 1981 To The City Council:. This letter is in regard to our sewer charge. I nave spoxen to doth kir. Voxlana aria kir. hnaerson and was told to bring triis matter before the City Council. We have had re..ther nigh water bills for quite some time. These Dills were between 440 and 450 a quarter. The only place we thought we coula be losing water was from our toilets as our faucets were not leaking. We nad plannea a year ago to install new,. toilets, but my husband became ill ane was out of work from July until ifiarch. (v0° - 1'"° In April a month after he returned to work we installed a new toilet in the upstairs and fixed the one in the casement. This seems to have made a oig aifference in our water bills . Our water bill in April was 447.40 and our water oill for July was 4125.20. Being that our sewer bill was cased on the 447.40 it was q;3O.37 for sewer. At our present water rate of 4325.20 our sewer charge would be aoout 4116.00 a difference of 4114.00. From now, July until tae next winter quarter billing of tipril 1982 tuis over charge would come to 41126.00 which we feel is excessive. we would really appreciate you looking into this matter. Our personal water use has not changed except we have done more lawn watering ane watering frequently new trees we have put in during the spring quarter 'or water. Thank you lam„ Vi\s\ . y \1 -1.SYY\ 5 635 W. y.th Ave. Shakopee _ �`,��QFEH.,�,f CITY OF SHAKOPEE '�• i_°. .,r,! s..t 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 N+-fir''. 4.4.41,144 MEMO TO: John Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Larry Martin, City Assessor SUBJECT: Hauer Trail & Bluff Ave. Report DATE: June 22, 19 81 INTRODUCTION: This report serves to clarify the ambiguous nature of the Hauer Trail and Bluff Avenue preliminary appraisal reports. BACKGROUND : The main concern that was raised in regard to the reports as submitted are how they may relate to the market value that the Assessor will place on the property in the future . When the time comes for the properties to be reevaluated for tax purposes the benefit for additional improvements will be recognized ; however, when a property has the option of two improvements that provide the same service such as a well and public waterline, or a septic system and public sanitary sewer, only one will be recognized. Furthermore, I do not foresee the land value rising to the "Market Value after the improvement" for tax purposes because the values indicated represent 1uu/ of present day market conditions. Our Assessors Market Value typically is somewhat less than actual market value . The terms valuation before improvement and valuation after improvement both mean the market value of the property as of the 'effective date of the appraisal . To arrive at these valuations, comparable sales are used. Sales used to determine the before improvement valuation must be adjusted to the subject giving no recognition to the improvement to be installed. Comparable sales used to determine the after improvement valuation must be adjusted to the subject and must include the type of improvement contemplated for the subject , but must not reflect any double utility such as public sanitary sewer and a private septic system, as mentioned earlier in the report . . 7. W John Anderson Page 2 June 22, 1981 Both reports indicated that, the typical properties to be assessed will receive full benefit from the improvements to be installed; however, the margin of benefit* (for each subject considered typical ) varies ranging from 4% to 11%. In the preliminary appraisal made for Bluff Avenue no recognition was given to access to the interceptor which some improved properties have , also, no recognition was given to any well improvement that some properties there have. If they would have been recognized it would have been in the before improvement valuation. On the other hand, when making the before improvement valuation of the Hauer Trail properties , the septic tank was considered in the valuation because the typical property there has one installed, therefore, the indicated benefit from the report is 100% in spite of the presence of septic systems as shown below. .35 acre . 6 acre Indicated raw land value 10,373 15 ,377 Adjustment for improvements (not present in comparables waterline curb gutter & septic ) 5 , 300 5, 500 Indicated Value BEFORE IMPROVEMENT 15, 673 20. 877 Indicated Value AFTER IMPROVEMENT 22,000 27,400 Indicated Benefit (After Value - Before Value ) 6,300 6, 500 The above indicates taht a typical . 35 acre tract on Hauer Trail will absorb up to $6, 300 for sanitary sewer and a typical . 6 acre tract will absorb up to $6 , 500 for sanitary sewer. LDM :plk *The margin of benefit as considered by the appraiser is the amount over and above the before improvement valuation plus the cost of the improvement, as compared to the after improvement valuation. A good illustration of this would be the calculation of the margin of benefit for the typical .35 acre tract on Hauer Trail . After Improvement Valuation (Before Improvement Valuation + Cost to Improve) 22 ,000 = 1 .0852 or 8. 5% Margin of Benefit 15 , 673 + 4600 Sib MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Larry D. Martin, City Assessor RE : K-Mart DATE: July 1 , 1981 Introduction The City of Shakopee has been presented with an appraisal report by Peter J. Patcher and Associates , Inc. , which renders an opinion of market value for the K-Mart Distribution Center as of January 1 , 1981 . Background After receiving the report, I have reviewed it and dis- cussed areas of concern with the author. After this review I have come to the opinion that the appraiser has completed an exhaustive appraisal exercise that puts forth a reliable market valuation of the subject property of seventeen million nine hundred seventy thousand dollars ($17 ,970,000) . Because the above estimate represents the full market value of the subject as of January 1 , 1981 , (also the assessment date for 1981) , the average level of assessment must be recog- nized. I have therefore referred to the assessing departments monthly report to the administrator which gists a mean level of assessment of 86%, and a median level of assessment of 84%, this would indicate a proper modification of the subject of 85% or $15 ,274,500; however, it has been agreed by the Shakopee Housing Authority and K-Mart Corporation that the subject shall have an assessors market value of not less than $16,136,500. Recommendation With the above in mind, I would recommend that the City of Shakopee recommend to the Scott County Board of Review that the 1981 market value of the K-Mart Distribution Center be placed at an assessor ' s market value of $16, 136, 500. This figure would represent a true market value of $18,984, 117 . 65 . LDM/jam MEMO TO: John Anderson City Administrator \ FROM: H. R. Spurrier .�). City Engineer RE: Infiltration/Inflow Analysi DATE: July 2, 1981 Introduction: On April 7, 1981, City Council adopted Resolution No. 1809, a resolution which initiated the preliminary steps of executing the contract with Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. Background: The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) have reviewed, amended and approved the attached Professional Services Agreement for an I/I Analysis for the City of Shakopee. In spite of the recent precipitation which raised the monthly total precipitation well above average, there is still an insufficient amount of water to perform an acceptable I/I Analysis. I have discussed several alternative methods the City might use in proceeding with an I/I Analysis under optimum conditions. An example of optimum conditions would be conditions that prevailed in the spring of 1979 when the Minnesota River overflowed to Huber Park. It is evident that existing conditions are far from duplicating that event and unless that event occurs, there is little chance of getting meaningful data from an I/I Analysis. I contacted Gene Soderbeck, Grant Administrator with MPCA, and advised him of the difficulties Shakopee would have in collecting meaningful data. I explained that the City of Shakopee would not want to waste money, regardless of whose money it was, on an I/I Study if meaningful data could not be collected. Mr. Soderbeck agreed and indicated that he concurred with the following plan of action. It is appropriate to execute the Professional Services Agreement with Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. and then limit the work authorized to that work which is ordinarily performed during low river stage or dry weather. • John Anderson July 2, 1981 �G I/I Analysis Page -2- It would be the plan of City staff that the Administrator be authorized to order the consultant to proceed when it has been determined that conditions are more appropriate for the I/I Analysis approved April 7, 1981.* Recommendation: Staff recommends that: 1. Council authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the Professional Services Agreement with Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. for an Infiltration/Inflow Analysis 2. Council authorizes the City Administrator to issue an authorization to the consultant to proceed in the event climatic conditions are more appropriate for the conduct of an Infiltration/Inflow Analysis. HRS/jiw *Contract has been amended by deleting public hearings before and after the completion of the study. The public hearings were required by EPA and the re- quirement has been waived.. Complete contracts are in the Engineering Depart- ment for inspection. II 5d MEMO TO: John Anderson City Administrator FROM: H. R. Spurrier City Engineer 11110� RE: Eastview 1st Addition Im. ovement Division 1, Contract No. 80-2A DATE: July 2, 1981 Introduction: On June 10, 1980, the City of Shakopee entered into a contract with Richard Knutson, Inc. for construction of the above-referenced project. Among other provisions, the contract specified that the work be completed sixty (60) calendar days after written Notice to Proceed. Said Notice to Proceed was issued June 12, 1980. Background: During the progress of the work, it was discovered that part of this project had not been constructed according to the Plans and Specifications. The contractor, when advised of the deficiency, then set about to remedy the problem by relaying a portion of watermain in Eastview Circle. That work was completed and the construction specified in the contract referenced above has been completed and the final contract amount is $151,088.25. The City has made payment in the amount of $143,533.84, leaving a balance of $7,554.41 in retainage. As a result of the delay in the completion of the Division 1 work, the Division 2 work, which was the construction of roadway in the subdivision, was not completed in 1980 and it is therefore, necessary to complete that work in 1981. During the past six months, the cost of material for that work has increased and now it will cost approximately $1,900.00 more to complete the Division 2 work. It is recommended that the City withhold $1,900.00 from this contract, not as penalty, but as damages for the increased cost the City will have to pay in order to complete the work. That matter is one issue. As a result of the delay, the developer has notified the City of Shakopee, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466.05, Subdivision 1, that it is his intent to seek damages from the City of Shakopee as the result of this delay. John Anderson -2- July 2, 1981 ij d After consulting the Assistant City Attorney, I have been advised that the City should not pay any of the balance of monies owed the contract and, therefore, the balance of $5,654.41 should be placed in an interest-bearing escrow account, until the claim by Mr. William Chard is settled. Recommendations: City staff recommends that: 1. Council specify that damages in the amount of $1,900.00, not as penalty, but as liquidated damages for 19 days be deducted from the retainage owed Richard Knutson, Inc. , 201 Travelers Trail, Burnsville, Minnesota 55337, in contract for Eastview 1st Addition Improvement Division 1, Contract 80-2A; 2. That the appropriate City officials be directed to place the balance of $5,654.41 in a interest-bearing escrow account until the claim by Mr. William Chard for damages as a result of delay in the contract is settled. HRS/jiw MEMO TO: John Anderson City Administrator FROM: H. R. Spurrier City Engineer RE: Reconstruction of Holmes Street Improvement 80-3 DATE: July 2, 1981 Introduction: As a result of a meeting with the contractor on the above-referenced project and after reviewing the language used in Change Order No. 1 for the abover-referenced project, an additional alteration to the contract is recommended. Background: The City Council specified that Fuller Street south of 1st Avenue would be paved full-width after storm sewer reconstruction. Fuller Street was actually paved full-width from Levee Drive to 2nd Avenue. It had been the intent of Change Order No. 1 to pay the additional paving under lower priced items. The Change Order altered the quantity but did not alter the description of patching which may be why the contractor took no exception with the Change Order. In any case, it is necessary to change that description. In a meeting with the contractor and paving sub-contractor, the staff indicated that staff would recommend the following: 1. Pay a total 677 tons of material placed on Fuller Street at $32.00/ton; adds $9,632.00. 2. Pay the additional 93 tons of wear course at the bid price for wear course plus $4.00 per ton; adds $2,232.00. 3. Pay the additional 92 tons of binder course at the bid price plus $4.00; adds $1,886.00. Fiscal Impact: The fiscal impact, as noted in Table 1, which revises the Table 1 of a memorandum dated March 12, 1981. John Anderson July 2, 1981 Holmes Street Reconstruction Page -2- .9� Table 1 Project Budget Project Cost Description Estimated Change Actual Watermain $ 86,955.00 + 20,806.00 $ 107,761.00 Sanitary Sewer 78,240.00 + 67,190.00 145,430.00 Storm Sewer 415,540.00 + 59,046.50 474,586.50 Roadway 321,165.00 + 4,507.80 327,672.80 Subtotal $ 903,900.00 +151,550.30 $1,055,450.30 Technical Services 186,200.00 - 74,864.99 111,335.01 Total $1,090,100.00 + 76,685.31 $1,166,785.31 Project Budget Project Revenue Description Estimated Change Actual Highrise Tax Increment $ 100,000.00 - 360.54 $ 99,639.46 Municipal State Aid 300,000.00 +166,546.11 466,546.11 Sewer Fund 99,340.00 + 46,090.00 145,430.00 Assessed 270,000.00 + 28,717.26 298,717.26 SPDC 12,000.00 + 4,100.00 16,100.00 City Levy 308,760.00 -200,976.70 107,783.30 Scott County -0- 32,569.18 32,569.18 $1,090,100.00 + 76,685.31 $1,166,785.31 Recommendation: Authorize proper City officials to execute Change Order No. 2 for the Holmes Street Reconstruction Project 80-3 HRS/jiw Attachment CHANGE ORDER Change Order No. : 2 Project Name: Holmes Street Reconstruction Date: July 2 , 1981 _ Contract No. : 80-3 Original Contract Amount $ 935,143 . 70 Change Order(s) No. 1 thru No. $ 67 ,021 .00 Total Funds Encumbered Prior to Change Order $1 ,002 ,164. 70 Description of Work to be (Added/DLl,L..ct): (See attached) The above described work shall be incorporated in the Contract, referenced above, under the same conditions specified in the original Contract as amended unless otherwise specified herein. Any work not so specified shall be performed in accordance with the Standard Specifications adopted by the City of Shakopee, Minnesota. The amount of the Contract shall be (increased/doawca. ) by $ 13 ,75 0.00 The number of calendar days for completion shall be (increased/decreased) by 0 Original Contract Amount $ 935,143 . 70 Change Order(s) No. 1 thru 2 $ 80, 771 .00 Total Funds Encumbered $ 1 ,015,914. 70 Completion Date: May 15, 1981 The undersigned Contractor hereby agrees to perform the work specified in this Change Order in accordance with the specifications, conditions and prices specified herein. Contractor: By: Title: Date: APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED: City Engineer Date APPROVED: City of Shakopee By: Mayor Date Approved as to form this day of City Administrator Date — 19 City Clerk Date City Attorney 1) Change the patching quantity from 376 tons to 677 tons at the same unit price of $32 .00/ton. Total addition cost is $9 , 632 .00 2) Change the wearing course quantity from 2606 tons to 2699 tons and pay for the difference in tonnage (93 tons) at an adjusted unit price of $24.00/ton. Total additional cost is $2 ,232 .00 3) Change the binder course quantity from 2414 tons to 2506 tons and pay for the difference in tonnage (92 tons) at an adjusted unit price of $20. 50/ton . Totaladditional cost is $1,886 .00 Grand Total = $13 ,750.00 This payment shall constitute full and final payment for all paving quantities in this Contract . MEMO TO : Mayor and Council FROM: John K. Anderson RE: Change Order Administrative Procedures DATE: July 2 , 1981 Introduction In early April City Council implemented a new policy on the Administration of Change Orders beginning with the VIP San- itary Sewer Project . Council has asked that the policy be re- viewed now that we have had some experience with three projects . Background In the City Engineer' s Original memo dated April 10, 1981 , he outlined a number of considerations and potential adminis- trative procedures . Council came to a consensus that each pro- ject ' s Change Order guideline would be established individually and that in most instances the following guidelines would be used: 1 . Individual Change Orders and/or quantity changes of less than 1% could be made by the project administrator (Bo or Lou) with the concurrance of the City Admini- strator and then reported to City Council at its next meeting. 2 . Change Orders and/or quanity changes in excess of 1% required prior Council approval . Major Change Orders that effect the project ' s original design concepts , etc. also required prior Council approval . 3 . When project Change Orders of type 1 and 2 above exceed 5% of the project costs in aggregate, all must be brought to Council for review and a decision on how to handle future project Change Orders . Two other concerns were discussed at the April meeting: (1) Emergency Situations . Council decided to stick with guidelines #1 , #2 , and #3 above and call a special meet- ing to handle situations #2 or #3 if required. (2) Small Contracts . Council decided that it would pro- bably set a fixed number in excess of the 1% and 5% in guidelines #1 and #3 above . Change Order Administrative Procedures July 2 , 1981 Page 2 57s le' Policy Guidelines Established VIP Sanitary Sewer Project - $617 , 823 . 65 Policy: Specific Guidelines set at 1% and 5% or $6 , 170 and $30, 850 respectively for guidelines #1 and #3 above . 101 Watermain Project - $170,643 . 75 Policy: Specific guidelines set at 1% and 5% or $1 , 706 and $8,530 respectively for guide- lines #1 and #3 above . Hauer Addition Sanitary Sewer Project - $44,422 ,87 Policy: Specific guidelines set at $2 ,000 and $5 ,000 for guidelines #1 and #3 above because of the size of the project . Experience To Date There have been no emergency meetings required of Council and several Change Orders have been brought before Council for action by the project administrators . The most difficult ele- ment to evaluate will be quantity changes (these are not con- sidered "Change Orders" by engineers) that exceed the guidelines . Quantity Changes that exceed the guidelines are supposed to come before Council , however, we haven ' t seen any yet . This is some- thing new and it may require a careful analysis of the final contract payment voucher to see where we are on this . I have reminded both Bo Spurrier and Lou to watch for this as project administrators . Recommendation Continue to use the present guidelines and monitor the programs overall effect. Action Requested Establish September 15 , 1981 as a date to again review the policy. JKA/jam Law Offices of KRASS, MEYER & KANNING Chartered Phillip R.Krass Shakopee Professional Building Barry K. Meyer 1221 Fourth Avenue East Philip T. Kenning Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 (612)445-5080 June 15, 1981 Mr. John Anderson City Hall 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear John: Enclosed please find a Resolution and Quit Claim Deed for the City of Shakopee together with a copy of a Quit Claim Deed executed by Elmer Marschall for Eagle Creek Township some 15 years ago. Bill Schmokel , the County Surveyor who received the Quit Claim Deed, is unable to file it because it was not accompanied by an appropriate Resolution. This the Eagle Creek Township is no more, he is requesting that the City of Shakopee pass the appropriate Resolution and execute the Quit Claim Deed. I see no problem with this as it has happened on occasion previously. Call if you have any questions. Yours very truly, KRASS, MEYER & KANNING CHARTERED Phillip R. Krass PRK:ph File #1-1373- Enclosures RESOLUTION NO. 1874 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF QUIT CLAIM DEED WHEREAS, on January 17th, 1966, Eagle Creek Township conveyed to William J. Schmokel , by Quit Claim Deed, certain property located in the County of Scott, State of Minnesota, and described as follows: A tract of land lying in the E. 2 of the S.W. 4 of Section Nine (9) , Township 115, Range twenty two (R. 22) described as follows: Commencing at the SW corner where the Credit River Road intersects the Fredricks Crop Road on the E' of SW4 of Section 9-115-22; thence Westerly 6 rods on the line of Credit River Road; thence South 6 rods; thence East 6 rods; thence North 6 rods to place of beginning. Also being subject to a Road Easement over the Northerly 33 feet thereof for C.S.A.H. #16 and a Road over the Easterly 33 feet thereof for County Road #83. This property has been commonly known as the Duffy School House Property, and WHEREAS, Eagle Creek Township failed to pass the required Resolution authorizing said Quit Claim Deed; and WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee is the successor in interest to Eagle Creek Township to the above-described property; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, as follows: 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Shakopee are hereby authorized and directed to execute a Quit Claim Deed conveying the above-described property to William J. Schmokel . Adopted this day of , 1981, by the City Council of the City of Shakopee. Mayor Walter C. Harbeck ATTEST: John K. Anderson, Administrator Quit Claim Deed. Forth No. 30-M. Hitler-D.rvis Co., lblinncapolis Corporation to Individual. Minnc+ora Uniform Con+-c,;.0 rine Blanks (Rrci,d 1976) W TIjts 3itibcntut' ', .ilade this day of June , /981 , betucen City of Shakopee,_ .a....body corporate and politic, a..cuyxa•ak>un r4,n4tw.tdre+-1-runs of the State, of Minnesota , party of the first part, and .....W.i.1.1iam J. S.c hmo ke l of the County of Scott and State of Minnesota part...y of the second 1)apt, Iitnc sttI�, That the said party of the first part, in consideration, of the sum of On.e...D.a.1.l.a.r and. other good and valuable consideration DOLL.gRS, to it in hand paid by the said part y of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, does hereby Grant, Bargain, Quitclaim, and Convey unto the said part_...Y of the second part, hi S heirs and assifn-s, Forever, all the tract or parcel of land lyin4,s and beim in the County of Scott and State of .4!innsota, describrd as follows, to-crit: A tract of land lying in the E. 2 of the S.W, 4 of Section Nine (9) , Township 115, Range twenty two (R. 22) described as follows: Commencing at the SW corner where the Credit River Road intersects the Fredricks Crop Road on the EI of SW4 of Section 9-115-22; thence Westerly 6 rods on the line of Credit River Road; thence South 6 rods; thence East 6 rods; thence North 6 rods to place of beginning. Also being subject to a Road Easement over the Northerly 33 feet thereof for C. S. A. H. #16 and a Road over the Easterly 33 feet thereof for County Road #83. This property has been commonly known as the Duffy School House property. This Deed is given to confirm a Deed to the same party of the second part for the same parcel of land, which Deed was dated January 17th, 1966, and granted by Eagle Creek Township, predecessor in interest to the party of the first part. Said January 17th, 1966, Deed was not accompanied by an appropriate Resolution from the Board of Eagle Creek Township as required. STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREUNDER: Exempt TO 1.1)a!JC nub to )OIb Nit gbanUC, Together with all the hereditaments and appurtenances (here- unto (here- unto belonging or in anywise appertaining, to the said part y of the second part,...hi.S heirs and assigns, Forever. tl TCgti1I1011p ailbereof, The said Corporation has caused these presents to be executed ori iI.'i corporate name by its ' r.rirtrrt.fi and it.s Clerk Mayor and it.s corporate seal to lie re 1(1110 affixed this day f _ , I9 . ._City of Shakopee Walter C. •Harbeck. .. ... its _ Mayor. Judith CO): Its .0 i.e.r k .► , &tate of r Inne ota, I .s. County of Scott `. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before ane this day of June , 19 81 , by Waiter C......Har..bec.k,...Mayo.r.., (NAME OF OFFICER OR AGENT, TITLE OF OFFICER OR AGENT) and by Judith Cox, Clerk (NAME OF OFFI(.ER OR AGENT, TITLE OF OFFICER OR AGENT) of City-of Shakopee (NAME OF CORPORATION ACKNOWLEDGING) a Mi nnewta corporation, (an behalf of the corporation,. (STATE OR PLACE OF INCORPORATION) by authority of its City Council . (SIGNATURE OF PERSON TAKING Al KNOWLEDGMENT) (TITLE OR RANK) THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY KRASS, MEYER & KANNING CHARTERED 1221 Fourth Avenue Eas(tame) (Address) Shako.pe_e, MN 5537 ____________ I �--, ti L 1 ` .-- C v C.., _ IS a54 tCMI 4... . p = C --- c p = C . "C K O c r . Z A O o co •• C.:11 b RESOLUTION NO. 1870 A Resolution Approving the By-Laws of The Shakopee Fire Department Relief Association WHEREAS, The Shakopee Fire Department Relief Association submitted in writing proposed By-Laws of said association consisting of nine different articles, and WHEREAS, the said proposed By-Laws were not dated but given preliminary consider- ation and approval by the council on June 16, 1981, which date has been appended to the By-Laws for identification purposes. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Shakopee Common Council in meeting assembled that said Council hereby approve said By-Laws of the Shakopee Fire Department Relief Association consisting of nine Articles and bearing the identification date of June 16, 1981. Passed in session of the Shakopee City Council held this day of June, 1981. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Prepared and approved as to form this 29th day of June, 1981. J ius A. Coller, II City Atttorne V his death shall be paid to his named beneficiary , and if no bene- ficiary has been named , to his surviving spouse , child or children , or estate . The association shall add interest , compounded annually, at the rate actually earned on the assets of the Special Fund, but not to exceed 5% per year, to the unpaid amount of installments owed to any member who has made an installment election, or to his survivors . Section 6 . If a member shall have served for more than 10 years , but less than 20 years , as an active firefighter in the Shakopee Fire Department , he may retire from said Fire Department and be placed on the early vested pension roll . When he reaches the age of 50 years , and provided that at that time he has been a member of the association for at least 10 years , he shall upon application therefor , be paid in the following manner : (a) For active duty of more than 15 years , but less than 16 years , 80% of the amount per year of service which would have been earned , had the member served for 20 years or more ; (b) For active duty of more than 16 years , but less than 20 years , 4% of the amount per year of service which would have been earned , had the member served for 20 years or more , shall be added to all years of service for each additional year of service between 16 and 20 years . (c) During the time that any member is on the early vested pension roll , he shall continue to pay his dues , and he will not be eligible to receive any of the benefits provided for in Article VII . Pensions payable to members on the early vested pension roll shall be based on the amount payable per year of service in effect at the time of such early retirement . ARTICLE IX AMENDMENTS Section 1 . The bylaws of this association may be amended at any regular or special meeting of the association by a favor- able vote of 2/3 of the members present and voting, provided that a quorum is present ; and provided further that notice of any proposed amendment or amendments shall be given by reading the same at a regular or special meeting not more than 31 days next preceeding the date upon which such amendment or amendments are to be acted upon , and that a notice be mailed to each member at his last known address not less than 10 days prior to such meet- ing; and provided further , that if such amendment or amendments shall change the amount of benefits or pensions , approval of the City Council of Shakopee must be obtained before such change may take effect . 7c. MEMO TO: Mayor and Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Amendments to the City' s Personnel Policy DATE: July 2 , 1981 Introduction In an effort to keep the City' s Personnel Policies Resolution (and employee manual) up-to-date, staff has collected a number of changes (by Council Motion) and administrative policies/practices that should be formally included in Resolution No. 1571 . Proposed Amendments There are six amendments included in the attached resolution and the Whereas section proceeding each amendment provides the reason(s) for incorporating the proposed change or additions in Resolution No. 1571 . The amendments for the most part are house- keeping in nature . Alternatives City Council may modify or delete any part of the proposed resolution. The resolution is designed to consolidate the changes rather than having to keep track of numerous resolutions ; there- fore, if any Council member has a question about one or more parts of the resolution I 'd appreciate a call Monday so I can provide any additional information, clarification and/or changes in advance of Tuesday' s meeting. Recommendation Approve Resolution No. 1876. Action Recommended Approve Resolution No. 1876 amending Resolution No. 1761 adopting a personnel policy for the City of Shakopee. JKA/jam RESOLUTION NO. 1876 ? C — A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 1571 ADOPTING A PERSONNEL POLICY FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1571 was adopted by the City to provide reasonable and clear expectation of the conditions of em- ployment for its employees ; and WHEREAS , it is necessary to amend certain sections of Re- solution No. 1571 from time to time to maintain reasonable and clear conditions of employment ; and WHEREAS , the following sections are in need of modification and/or amendment ; PART 1 WHEREAS , temporary employees whether full or part time are not eligible for sick leave, vacation leave, holiday pay or compen- satory time accrual , under the present policy and WHEREAS , this policy has long existed but is not in written form WHEREAS , it is the City of Shakopee ' s intent to place in writing, this policy. NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Shakopee , Minnesota : 1 . That Section 6 entitled Compensation Subdivision 3 be amended to read "Temporary employees whether full or part time are not eligible for sick leave, vacation leave, holiday pay or compensatory time accrual , overtime is payed as worked. " PART 2 WHEREAS , It is the intent of the City to eliminate the word "continuous" from Section 8 entitled Vacation Leave With Pay, Subdivision 1 of the personnel policy. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota : 1 . That Section 8 entitled Vacation Leave With Pay, Sub- division 1 entitled Amount be amended to read: "0-5 years of employment 10 days" "6-15 years of employment 15 days" "16 + years of employment 20 days" PART 3 WHEREAS, the extension of Vacation/Sick leave is a concern of the personnel policy of the City of Shakopee and WHEREAS , the issue of leave requested in excess of an em- ployee ' s current balance must be approved and WHEREAS , it is intended by the City of Shakopee to incor- porate into the personnel policy dated May 5 , 1980 this revision of Section 8. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota : 1 . That Section 8 entitled Vacation Leave With Pay, Sub- division 4 and Section 10 entitled Sick Leave, Subdivision 6 en- titled Extension of be amended to read "leave requested in excess Resolution No. 1876 Page 2 of an employee ' s current balance must be approved in writing by the City Administrator in advance. Unless the Payroll department is notified of such approval , employees claiming leave will not be paid any unearned portion. " PART 4 WHEREAS , there was ambiguity in the comprehension of Section 9 entitled Group Insurance by Various Employees and WHEREAS , it is the City of Shakopee ' s intent to eliminate this ambiguity by amending Section 9 entitled Group Insurance so as to be more clearly understood by the personnel which are affected by it . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota: 1 . That Section 9 entitled Group Insurance be amended to read " . . . With the City paying no more than a maximum of $95 per month toward the total cost of these coverages for an employee , whether they be Individual or family coverages . " PART 5 WHEREAS , present State Law specifically addresses an em- ployee ' s responsibility for allowing a terminated employee to par- ticipate in the employee ' s group health plan for up to six months , and WHEREAS , State Law and the City ' s current personnel policy do not address an employee ' s participation in the group plan who has elected to terminate his(her) employment by retirement; and WHEREAS , the City has had problems when extending group plan benefits to retirees . NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota : 1 . That Section 9 entitled Group Insurance be amended by adding " . . . dependent coverage premiums . The City shall not ex- tend group insurance plan benefits to retirees beyond the month of their termination . " PART 6 WHEREAS , the City provides City employees the choice of recording (banking) overtime as comp time or taking it as overtime pay, and WHEREAS , this practice has not been put into the personnel policy in writing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota : 1 . That Section 6 entitled Compensation Subdivision 4 be amended to read "Comp time shall be earned at a rate of 1z x base. The employee has the choice of recording overtime hours worked on a given day as being payed at the rate of 12 x base or of banking comp time at a rate of 12 x base . 2 . That Section 6 entitled Compensation Subdivision 5 entitled Accumulated Comp Time be amended to read 1) "Banked time can be taken with the department head ' s approval during the pay period or during a future pay period as comp time . A maximum of 40 hours accumulation of comp time can be carried from year to year. After a maximum of 40 hours if the employee is required to work overtime , the additional hours of overtime worked must be paid. " 2) "Accumulated comp time may not be taken as cash at a later date . " 3)"Verification that the accumulated comp time recor- ded on the check is correct is the responsibility of each employees Resolution No . 1876 Page 3 -Z any discrepancies are to be brought to the attention of the accoun- ting clerk within one week from receipt of pay check. The official comp time records will be the finance departments records . Un- official records kept by department heads cannot be used to question the official records after the one week verification period. 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 Administrator Approved as to form this day of , 1981 . City Attorney 17 40 - MEMO TO: John Anderson City Administrator PROM: H. R. Spurrier11 City Engineer 1 lk RE: Compensation Rate for Tem.. ary Full-time Employees DATE: July 2, 1981 Introduction: It has come to my attention that Resolution No. 1719, establishing the 1981 pay schedule, specified the maximum hourly rate paid to temporary full-time employees. I was not aware of that there was a limit on the amount paid temporary full-time employees and had proposed to pay an inspector $8.75 per hour. Background: The Engineering Department proposed to rehire Fulton Schliesman as an Inspector II for the balance of the 1981 construction season. Fulton was employed by the Engineering Department in 1980 and had the primary inspection responsibility for the Holmes Street Reconstruction Project. I was more than satisfied with his performance and plan to rehire him for the balance of 1981 contruction season since the City has adopted a new policy regarding inspection procedures. I had proposed to pay Fulton $8.75 per hour. That amountsto $9,000 in salary costs for the balance of 1981 and represents approximately $12,400 in revenue for his inspection work. The amount of $9,000 is budgeted and is money that was planned for this position. In order to hire Fulton Schliesman at $8.75 per hour, it would be necessary to amend the City of Shakopee's 1981 pay schedule by specifying that the fee compensation for temporary employees is $3.00 to $8.75 per hour. Recommendation: It is the recommendation of City staff that City Council adopt Resolution No. 1875, A Resolution Amending The 1981 Pay Schedule by specifying that the compensation for temporary employees is $3.00 to $8.75 per hour. HRS/jiw Attachment ,7 RESOLUTION NO. 1875 A Resolution Amending The 1981 Pay Schedule BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA that the 1981 pay schedule for officers and employees of the City of Shakopee adopted by Resolution No. 1719 is hereby amended by adding the following: temporary employees $3.00 to $8.75 per hour. 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 CERTIFICATION OF MINUTES RELATING TO $940,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1981 , SERIES A Issuer: City of Shakopee, Minnesota Governing Body: City Council Kind, date, time and place of meeting: A meeting held Tuesday, July 7, 1981 at 8 :00 o' clock P.M. , at the City Hall. Members present: Members absent: Documents Attached: Minutes of said meeting (including) : RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE, AWARDING SALE, PRESCRIBING THE FORM AND DETAILS AND PROVIDING_ FOR THE PAYMENT OF $940,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1981, SERIES A I , the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting recording officer of the public corporation issuing the bonds referred to in the title of this certificate, certifying that the documents attached hereto, as described above, have been carefully compared with the original records of said corporation in my legal custody, from which they have been transcribed; , that said documents are a correct and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the governing body of said corporation, and correct and complete copies of all resolutions and other actions taken and of all documents approved by the governing body at said meeting, so far as they relate to said bonds; and that said meeting was duly held by the governing body at the time and place and was attended throughout by the members indicated above, pursuant to call and notice of such meeting given as required by law. WITNESS my hand officially as such recording officer this day of July, 1981. John K. Anderson City Administrator ay. The City Administrator presented to the Council affidavits showing publication in the official newspaper and the Commercial West of a notice of sale of $940,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1981, Series A, of the City, for which sealed bids were to be received and considered at this meeting in accordance with the resolution adopted by the City Council on June 2, 1981 . Said affidavits were examined and found satisfactory and directed to be placed on file in the office of the Administrator. The Administrator then announced that sealed bids had been received at his office prior to 8:00 P.M. pursuant to said notice of call for bids. The bids were then opened, read and tabulated, and the highest and best bid of each bidder was found to be as follows: Bid For Interest Total Interest Cost Name of Bidder Principal Rates - Net Average Rate Councilmember then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 1877 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE, AWARDING SALE, PRESCRIBING THE FORM AND DETAILS AND PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF $940,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1981 , SERIES A BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1 . Authorization and Sale. 1 .01 This Council, by a resolution adopted June 2 , 1981 , authorized the issuance and public sale of $940,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1981 , Series A, of the City, to finance the cost of the local improvements designated in Section 1 of said resolution. Said resolution is incorporated herein by reference. 1 .02 Notice of sale of the Bonds has been duly published, and the Council, having examined and considered all bids received pursuant to the published notice, does hereby find and determine that the most favorable bid received is that of of , and associates, to purchase the Bonds at a price of $ plus accrued interest on all Bonds to the day of delivery and payment, on the further terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. 1 .03 The sale of the Bonds is hereby awarded to said bidder, and the Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized and directed on behalf of the City to execute a contract for the sale of the Bonds in accordance with the terms of said bid. The good faith check of the successful bidder shall be retained by the City Administrator until the Bonds have been delivered and the purchase price paid. The good faith checks of other bidders shall be returned to them forthwith. Section 2 . Bond Terms, Execution and Delivery. 2 .01 The Bonds shall be designated General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1981 , Series A, shall be dated August 1 , 1981, shall be issued in the denomination of $5,000 each, numbered serially from 1 to 188, inclusive, shall mature serially on February 1 in the g a/ respective years and amounts stated below, and shall bear interest from date of issue until paid or duly called for redemption at the respective annual rates set forth opposite such years and amounts, as follows: Year Amount Rate Year Amount Rate 1983 $95,000 % 1988 $95,000 1984 95,000 1989 95,000 1985 95,000 1990 90,000 1986 95 ,000 1991 90,000 1987 95,000 1992 90,000 The maturities of the Bonds, together with the maturities of all other outstanding general obligation bonds of the City, meet the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.54. 2 .02 Bonds maturing in the years 1983 through 1987 shall not be subject to redemption prior to maturity, but Bonds maturing on or after February 1 , 1988, shall be subject to redemption and prepayment at the option of the City, in inverse order of maturity dates, on February 1, 1987, and any interest payment date thereafter at a price equal to the principal amount thereof and accrued interest to the date of redemption. The Bonds shall be subject to redemption and prepayment in inverse order of maturity and by lot within a maturity, as selected by the paying agent • specified in Section 2 .03 on behalf of the City. At least thirty days prior to the date set for redemption of any Bond prior to its stated maturity date, the City Administrator shall cause notice of the call for redemption thereof to be published in a daily or weekly periodical published in a Minnesota city of the first class, or its metropolitan area, which circulates throughout the state and furnishes financial news as a part of its service, and mailed to the bank at which principal of and interest on the Bonds are then payable, but no defect in or failure to give such mailed notice of redemption shall affect the validity of proceedings for the redemption of any Bond. 2 .03 The interest on the Bonds shall be payable semiannually on each February 1 and August 1, commencing August 1 , 1982 . The principal of and interest on the Bonds shall be payable at , which is designated as paying agent, or in the event of its resignation, removal or incapability of acting as paying agent, at the office of such successor paying agent as may be appointed by the Council. 2 .04 The Bonds, appurtenant interest coupons and certification of legal opinion shall be in substantially the following form: g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF SCOTT CITY OF SHAKOPEE GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BOND OF 1981, SERIES A No. $5 ,000 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the City of Shakopee, a duly organized and existing municipal corporation of the County of Scott, State of Minnesota, acknowledges itself to be indebted and for value received promises to pay to bearer upon presentation and surrender of this Bond, the sum of FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS on the 1st day of February, 19 , or, jf this Bond is redeemable as provided below, then on a date prior thereto on which it shall have been duly called for redemption, and to pay interest on said principal sum at the rate of per cent ( % ) per annum, from the date hereof until said principal sum is paid, or if this Bond is redeemable, until it has been duly called for redemption, payable semiannually on each February 1 and August 1 , commencing August 1 , 1982, interest to maturity being payable in accordance with and upon presentation and surrender of the interest coupons appurtenant hereto. Both principal and interest are payable at in , Minnesota, in any coin or currency of the United States of America which on their respective dates of payment is legal tender for payment of public and private debts . For the prompt and full payment of such principal and interest as the same respectively become due, the full faith and credit and taxing powers of the City have been and are hereby irrevocably pledged. This Bond is one of an issue in the total principal amount of $940,000, all of like date and tenor except as to serial number, maturity date, interest rate and redemption privilege, all issued for the purpose of financing the construction of local improvements hereto- fore duly ordered to be made within the City in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and is issued pursuant to and in full conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota thereunto enabling, and pursuant to resolutions duly adopted by the City Council. Bonds of this issue maturing in 1987 and earlier years are payable on their respective stated maturity : dates without option of prior payment, but Bonds having stated maturity dates in 1988 and later years are each subject to redemption and prepayment at the option oftthe City on February 1 , 1987 and any interest payment date thereafter, at par and accrued interest. The Bonds are subject to redemption and prepayment in inverse order of maturity and by lot within a maturity, as selected by the paying agent on behalf of the City. At least thirty days prior to the date specified for the redemption of any Bond prior to its stated maturity date, notice of the call for redemption will be published in a daily or weekly periodical published in a Minnesota city of the first class, or its metropolitan area, which circulates throughout the state and furnishes financial news as a part of its service, and will be mailed to the bank at which the Bonds are then payable, but no defect in or failure to give such mailed notice of redemption shall affect the validity of proceedings for the redemption of any Bond. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED, RECITED, COVENANTED AND AGREED that all acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen and to be performed preliminary to and in the issuance of this Bond in order to make it a valid and binding general obligation of the City in accordance with its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened and have been performed as so required; that prior to the issuance hereof the City has covenanted and agreed to levy special assessments upon property specially benefited by the local improvements financed by the Bonds, and has levied ad valorem taxes upon all taxable property in the City, which special assessments and taxes will be collectible for the years and in amounts sufficient to produce sums not less than 5% in excess of the principal of and interest on the Bonds of this issue when due, and has appropriated such special assessments and taxes to the payment of such principal and interest; that if necessary for payment of such principal and interest, additional ad valorem taxes are required to be levied upon all taxable property in the City, without limitation as to rate or amount; and that the issuance of this Bond does not cause the indebtedness of the City to exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation of indebtedness . IN WITNESS WHEREOF the City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota, by its City Council, has caused this bond and the interest coupons appurtenant hereto and the if certificate appearing on the reverse side hereof to be executed by the printed facsimile signatures of the Mayor and the City Administrator, has caused this Bond also to be executed by the manual signature of one of said officers, and has caused this Bond to be dated as of August 1 , 1981 . (Facsimile signature) (Facsimile signature) City Administrator Mayor (Manual Signature) (Form of Coupon) No. $ Unless the Bond described below is subject to and has been duly called for earlier redemption, on the 1st day of August (February) , 19 , the City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota, will pay to bearer at , in Minnesota, the amount shown hereon in lawful money of the United States of America, for the interest then due on its General Obligation Improvement Bond of 1981 , Series A, dated as of August 1 , 1981, No. (Facsimile signature) (Facsimile signature) City Administrator Mayor (Form of certificate to be printed on the reverse side of each bond, following a full copy of the legal opinion) We certify that the above is a full, true and correct copy of the legal opinion rendered by Bond Counsel on the issue of Bonds of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, which includes the within Bond, dated as of the date of delivery of and payment for the Bonds. (Facsimile signature) (Facsimile signature) City Administrator Mayor 2 .05 The Bonds shall be prepared under the direction of the City Administrator and shall be executed on behalf of the City by the printed facsimile signatures of the Mayor and the City Administrator, and by the manual (,tom signatures of either of said officers . The interest coupons attached to each Bond and the legal opinion certificate shall be executed and authenticated by the printed facsimile signatures of the Mayor and the City Administrator. When the Bonds have been so executed and authenticated, they shall be delivered by the City Administrator to the purchaser thereof upon payment of the purchase price in accordance with the contract of sale heretofore made and executed, and said purchaser shall not be obligated to see to the application of the purchase price . Section 3 . 1981 Improvement Construction Fund. There is hereby established on the official books and records of the City a 1981 Improvement Construction Fund, and an account for each improvement financed by the Bonds, and the City Administrator shall continue to maintain each account until payment of all costs and expenses incurred in construction of the improvement for which it is established. To each account there shall be credited from the proceeds of the Bonds an amount equal to the estimated cost of the improvement for which the account was established, and such other funds as may from time to time be appropriated by this Council; and from each account there shall be paid all costs and expenses of said improvement. There shall also be credited to each account all special assessments collected with respect to the improvement financed by the Bonds, until all costs of said improvement have been fully paid. Each account shall be used solely to defray expenses of the improvement for which it was created, including but not limited to the transfer to the 1981 Bond Fund created in Section 4 hereof, of amounts sufficient for the payment of interest and principal, if any, due on the Bonds prior to the completion and payment of all costs of the improvement. After payment of all costs incurred with respect to each improvement, the account for it shall be discontinued and any Bond proceeds remaining therein may be transferred to the other funds or accounts established for construction of other improvements instituted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. All special assessments on hand in each account when terminated or thereafter received, and any Bond proceeds not so transferred, shall be credited to the 1981 Improvement Bond Fund of the City. Section 4. 1981 Improvement Bond Fund. The Bonds to be issued shall be payable from a separate and special 1981 Improvement Bond Fund of the City, which Fund the City agrees to maintain until said Bonds have been paid in full. If the money in said Fund should at any et time be insufficient to pay principal and interest due on the Bonds, such amounts shall be paid from other moneys on hand in other funds of the City, which other funds shall be reimbursed therefor when sufficient money becomes available in said Fund. The moneys on hand in said Fund from time to time shall be used only to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds . Into said Fund shall be paid all special assessments collected after the costs of the improvement have been paid in full, any excess bond proceeds, as provided in Section 3 , and all taxes collected pursuant to Section 6 hereof. Section 5 . Special Assessments. The City hereby covenants and agrees that, for the payment of the cost of improvements financed by the Bonds the City will do and perform all acts and things necessary for the final and valid levy of special assessments in an amount not less than 20% of the cost of each of the improvements financed by the Bonds. It is presently estimated assessments will be levied in the aggregate amount of $ . The principal of said assessments shall be payable in annual installments, with interest on unpaid installments thereof from time to time at the rate of not less than % per annum. It is presently estimated that the prin is pal and interest on such special assessments will be collected in the following years and amounts : Year Amount Year Amount 1982 $ 1987 $ 1983 1988 1984 1989 1985 1990 1986 1991 In the event that any such assessment shall at any time be held invalid with respect to any lot or tract of land, due to any error, defect or irregularity in any action or proceeding taken or to be taken by the City or by this Council or by any of the officers or employees of the City, either in the making of such assessment or in the performance of any condition precedent thereto, the City hereby covenants and agrees that it will forthwith do all such further things and take all such further proceedings as shall be required by law to make such assessment a valid and binding lien upon said property. Section 6. Pledge of Taxing Powers . For the prompt and full payment of the principal of and interest on said Bonds as such payments respectively become due, the full faith, credit and unlimited taxing powers of the City shall be and are hereby irrevocably pledged. In order to produce sums for the payment of the principal of and interest on ,the Bonds which, together with Bond proceeds appropriated to pay interest coming due during the construction period and the collections of the assessments and interest thereon, are not less than 5% in excess of such principal and interest when due, there is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City, a direct, annual, ad valorem tax which shall be spread upon the tax rolls for the years and in the amounts set forth below, and collected with and as a part of other general taxes of the City in the respective ensuing collection years : Levy Collection Levy Collection Year Year Amount Year Year Amount 1981 1982 1986 1987 1982 1983 1987 1988 1983 1984 1988 1989 1984 1985 1989 1990 1985 1986 1990 1991 Said tax shall be irrepealable as long as any of said Bonds are outstanding and unpaid; provided, that the City reserves the right and power to reduce the levies in the manner and to the extent permitted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475 .61 . Section 7 . Defeasance. When all of the Bonds issued and all coupons appertaining thereto have been discharged as provided in this section, all pledges, covenants and other rights granted by this resolution to the holders of the Bonds shall cease. The City may discharge its obligations with respect to any Bonds and coupons appertaining thereto which are due on any date by depositing with the paying agent on or before that date a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full; or, if any Bond or coupon should not be paid when due, it may nevertheless be discharged by depositing with the paying agent a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full with interest accrued to the date of such deposit. The City may also discharge its obligations with respect to any prepayable Bonds according to their terms, by depositing with the paying agent on or before that date an amount equal to the principal, interest and redemption premium, if any, which are then due, provided that notice of such redemption has been duly given as provided herein. The City may also at any time discharge its obligations with respect to any Bonds, subject to the provisions of law now or hereafter authorizing and regulating such action, by depositing irrevocably in escrow, with a bank qualified by law as an escrow agent for this purpose, cash or securities which are authorized by law to be so deposited, bearing interest payable at such time and at such rates and maturing on such dates as shall be required to pay all principal, interest and redemption premiums to become due thereon to maturity or said redemption date. Section 8. Registration of Bonds. The City Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Auditor of Scott County, together with such additional information as he shall require, and to obtain from said County Auditor a certificate that the Bonds have been duly entered upon his bond register and that the tax required for the payment thereof has been levied and filed as required by law. Section 9. Authentication of Transcript. The officers of the City and the County Auditor are hereby authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the purchasers of the Bonds, and to the attorneys rendering an opinion as to the legality thereof, certified copies of all proceedings and records relating to the Bonds and such -other affidavits, certificates and information as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Bonds, as the same appear from the books and records in their custody and control or as otherwise known to them, and all such certified copies, affidavits and certificates, including any heretofore furnished, shall be deemed representations of the City as to the correctness of all statements contained therein. Section 10. Arbitrage. 10 .01 The City covenants and agrees with the holders from time to time of the Bonds herein authorized, that it will not take, or permit to be taken by any of its officers, employees or agents, any action which would cause the interest payable on the Bonds to become subject to taxation under the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the Code) and regulations issued �fCt/ thereunder, and that it will take, or it will cause its officers, employees or agents to take, all affirmative actions within its powers which may be necessary to insure that such interest will not become subject to taxation under the Code. 10.02 From and after February 1 , 1987, the City Administrator shall ascertain monthly the amount on deposit in the sinking fund referred to in Section 4 hereof. If the amount on deposit therein ever exceeds by more than $141,000 the aggregate amount of principal and interest due and payable from the fund within 13 months thereafter, such excess shall not be invested except at a yield less than or equal to the yield on the Bonds, based upon their amounts, maturities and interest rates on their date of issue, computed by the actuarial method. The City reserves the right to amend the provisions of this Section 10 .02 at any time, whether prior to or after the delivery of the Bonds, if and to the extent that this Council determines that the provisions of this Section 10.02 are not necessary in order to assure that the Bonds are not arbitrage bonds under Section 103(c) of the Code and the applicable regulations. 10.03 The Mayor and :the City Administrator being the officers of the City charged with the responsibility for issuing the Bonds pursuant to this resolution, are authorized and directed to execute and deliver to the purchaser a certification in order to satisfy the provisions of Section 103(c) of the Code and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Mayor Attest: City Administrator The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, and was signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Administrator. QJ STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY AUDITOR' S CERTIFICATE ) SS. AS TO BOND REGISTRATION COUNTY OF SCOTT ) AND TAX LEVY I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting County Auditor of Scott County, Minnesota, hereby certify that there has been filed in my office a certified copy of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, adopted on July 7, 1981 , setting forth the form and details of an issue of $940,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1981 , Series A, of said City, to be dated August 1 , 1981, and levying taxes for the payment of principal and interest on said issue. I further certify that said Bond issue has been entered on my bond register, and that the tax required to be levied for the payment of the Bonds, has been levied and certified, as required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475 . WITNESS my hand and official seal this day of , 1981 . (SEAL) County Auditor WILLIAM D. SCHOELL RECEIVED CARLISLE MADSON JACK T. NOBLER J U L O 6 1981 JAMES R ORR 5? HAROLD E. DAHLIN LARRY L. HANSON JACK E. GILL 4k: . SCHOELL MAOSen ( PSHAKOPEE THEODORE D. KEMNA ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS JOHN W. EMOND KENNETH E. ADOLF WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT R SCOTT HARRI (612) 938-7601 • 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH • HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343 GERALD L. BACKMAN July 6 , 1981 Shakopee Public Utilities Commission c/o Mr. Lou Van Hout 1030 East Fourth Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Subject : Water Supply Well No. 6 Contract No. 81-1 KT Gentlemen: Enclosed please find seven (7) copies of the Change Order No. 1 for the subject project. The change order adds blasting of the rock for future watermains and drain lines for the pumphouse. This work was to have been included in the future contract for the pumphouse construction which will be started after completion of the well. It is now proposed to do the blasting prior to well construction to eliminate any possible damage to the well. This requires adding the work to the subject project. The unit cost contained in the change order reflects the lowest of the costs obtained from several contractors. This change order adds $3 , 993. 04 to yield a revised total contract amount of $78, 608. 04. Approval is recommended. Very truly yours, SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. KEAdolf:mkr - a 1� enclosures CHANGE ORDER Change Order No: 1 Project Name: Water Supply Well No. 6 Date: July 2, 1981 Contract No: 81-1 KT Original Contract Amount: $ 74,615.00 Change Order(s) No. thru No. $ 0.00 Total Funds Encumbered Prior to Change Order $ 74,615.00 Description of Work to be Added : Addition of rock blasting for future watermains and drain lines for pumphouse at Well No. 6. Rock Blasting 152 L.F. @ $26.27/L.F. $3,993.04 The above described work shall be incorporated in the Contract, referenced above, under the same conditions specified in the original Contract as amended unless otherwise specified herein. Any work not so specified shall be performed in accordance with the Standard Specifications adopted by the City of Shakopee, Minnesota. The amount of the Contract shall be increased by $ 3,993.04 The number of calendar days for completion shall be (increased/descreased) by None Original Contract Amount $ 74,615.00 Change Order No. 1 thru $+ 3,993.04 Total Funds Encumbered $ 78,608.04 Completion Date: No change The undersigned Contractor hereby agrees to perform the work specified in this Change Order in accordance with the Specifications, conditions and prices specified herein. APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED: Contractor: E, H. Renner & Sons, Inc. Schoell & Madson, Inc. By: l � /l BY: T Kenneth Adolf Title: Date: 7- „) -,pi/ Date: APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED: REVIEW BY: Shakopee Public Utilities Commission • By: City Engineer Date Uti ity Manager (Date) APPROVED: City of Shakopee Approved as to form this day of By: 19 • Mayor Date City Administrator Date City Attorney City Clerk Date (gel MEMO TO: John Anderson City Administrator r r FROM: H. R. Spurrier City Engineer RE: No Parking Along Service Road Adjacent to Raceway Park DATE: June 29, 1981 Introduction: Pursuant to your request, I have reviewed the request of Raceway Park to have the "No Parking" signs removed along the Highway 101 Service Road adjacent to Raceway Park. Background: The letter from Mr. Darwin Hentz, President of Raceway Park, Inc. , indicated that the "No Parking" signs along the Service Road were first placed in order to prevent some customers from parking on the Service Road instead of paying for parking on the park grounds. Irrespective of the original intent for installing no parking along the Service Road, the signs have a legitimate purpose. That purpose is to keep automobiles, trucks and other vehicles from parking on a shoulder which does not have the structural section to support the traffic. Should vehicles begin to park along the Service Road, the edge of the Service Road pavement will begin to deteriorate. It will then be the responsibility of the City of Shakopee to repair any such deterioration since this roadway has recently been "TURNED-BACK" to the City of Shakopee from the State of Minnesota for maintenance. Recommendations: It is the recommendation of City staff that City Council place the letter on file and direct staff to advise Raceway Park, Inc. that the "No Parking" signs will not be removed. HRS/jiw Attachments: Mn/DOT Letter Raceway Park Letter i 04ESOp D ° Minnesota Department of Transportation O� District Five ��T OF TRP�� 5801 Duluth Street Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 (612)545-3761 June 11. , 1981 "r. Darwin Hentz , Prsicasnt P,ACEtTY PAPK INC. Pt. #1 , Box 1074 Shakopee , Minnesota 55379 In feply Defer. to 315: C.S. 1005 n t� ra.t"t7in'Xtt s4.-rn on m.7. 191 e1 ioe ?lad in Front of Paccway Park Dear '^r. Hentz : Your letter 'iris been forwarded to the City of Shakopee. As of Ttp.ril 1, 1930, the City is respon i le for this service Sincerely, / 14 L. 0. 'ticKenzie Traffic Services Suoervi_sor 'r. TIenr_y Spurrier Shakopee City Tilngineer 129 East 1st Avenue Shakopee , "n. 55379 Ah.. C',0 981'. Vl / / N An Equal Opportunity Employer iDARWIN C. HENT7.President Oe"a E WA Phone: 44515638 s, J Z DUANE HENTZ i-''''''� ,. II A i 1General Manager ' ' '-3 '0, Phone: 445-2257 MFAST 1 MILE -HIGH BANKED PAVED OVAL - WILD FIGURE "8"COURSE -MINN'S FIRST AND FINEST Conveniently I�rcated On II..y. IIII Between Savage&Shakopee — 3 mi.S.1%.of Bloomington over the Ferry Bridge June 6, 1981 Mr Mike Robinson Dist . #5 Traffic Eng. Mn. D.O .T. 2055 No. Lilac Drive Golden Valley, Minn. 55422 fl Dear Mr Robinson: fi r! This is a request to have the "NO PARKING" signs removed from the Service Road 11 along highway 101 between Savage and Shakopee in front of Landey's Camping Center Raceway Park and Mapco Sand and Gravel Co. These signs were installed at my request when the Service Road was first built because at the time I anticipated charging for parking, however I did not initiate this charge and since than the signs have become unnecessary and inconvenient . Trucks and other vehicles now park along this road periodically anyway for loading, unloading, etc. , and for highway department inspections, also the signs are in the way for mowing and snow removal . A check of the other Service Roads in the area indicates they DONOT have "NO E PARKING" signs. Sincerely Darwin Hent', Pres. RACEWAY PARK INC. Rt. #1 Box 1074 Shakopee, Minn. 55379 €. l I a t `6' cl MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Jeanette Shaner RE: Application for Beer License DATE: July 2 , 1981 I have received an application from Stagecoach Stores , Inc. for an On Sale 3. 2 Beer License. Also received was the appropriate bond and fee . We will get the insurance policy on Monday, July 6th and the City Attorney will examine it then. Recommended Action Approve the application and grant an On Sale 3. 2 Beer License to Stagecoach Stores , Inc. from July 15 , 1981 to June 30, 1982 . Ft EC Ell/Fp JUL 06 1981 ge. JULIUS A.GOLLEA, II drry OF SHAKOPEE 612-445-1244 JULIUS A.COLLER ATTORNEY AT LAW 1859-1940 2 1 1 WEST FIRST AVENUE SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA 55379 July 2, 1981 MEMO TO SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL FROM JULIUS A. COLLER, II, CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: TIME TABLE FOR NOTICES OF PUBLIC HEARINGS The Council has requested that a research be made concerning notices for public hearings with an end in view of shortening the period of notices. Public hearing notices in connection with any public improvements under and pursuant to Chapter 429 of the Laws of Minnesota are all governed by statute and the Council cannot alter this requirement. There are a few places in the Code where notices are prescribed as follows: 1. The notice required by Section 2.03 and 2.70(1) (d) and 2.70(3) all follow the statutory requirements and cannot be changed. 2. The 10-day notice required by 6.22(6) can be shortened; this is not statutory nor is the 10-day notice required by 6.31(4) . Resp-ctfully submitted, (:_ Ake Jul us A. Coller, II Shakopee City Attorney JAC/bpm 8f MEMO TO: Mayor and Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Rental Renewal DATE : June 30, 1981 Introduction The rental agreement the City has with Rick Wolfe, coin shop up-stairs, expires July 14, 1981 . I talked to Rick and the attached rental agreement is acceptable to him. Provisions The new two year rental agreement is identical to the one that is expiring with two exceptions . First, the rent has been increased from $200 per month to $250 per month based upon a brief rental survey done by Larry Martin. Second, we have added a 90 day written notice to terminate the agreement to add flex- ibility for the City should our plans change regarding the Down- town and/or City Hall . 3 Alternatives 1 . Do not renew the lease . This might prove to be premature if Rick decided that he would look elsewhere rather than be without a lease . It would, however, provide maximum flexibility for the City. 2 . Do not renew the lease, and use the space for City offices to lessen crowding downstairs . Such a move , I believe, is pre- mature until the Downtown Committee presents its initial con- cept(s) for downtown redevelopment . Staff has a space need re- port that will be presented to Council during the budget process so that it can be considered along with the Downtown Committee ' s recommendations . 3 . Approve the proposed lease agreement that is attached. This will insure that we receive rental income until we make a deci- sion to use the space ourselves or vacate the building altogether 4. Renegotiate the proposed lease to secure a higher monthly rent . Recommendation I recommend alternative #3 . Action Requested Approval of the proposed 1981-83 two year lease agreement between the City and Rick Wolfe . JKA/jam Form 1624—Lease—For Store or Commercial Building. Miller-Davis Co.,Minneapolis,Minn. Xbi5 Zgrcttnent, .Made this day of July 19 81 by and between The City of Shakopee, a municipal corporation, part_y _of the first part, hereinafter called Lessor , and Richard L. Wolfe, dba Minnesota Stamp Company of 4369 Colorado Street, Prior Lake, MN. 55372 part_ Y of the second part, hereinafter called Lessee ; WITNESSETH, That the said part Y of the first part, in consideration of the rents and coven- ants hereinafter mentioned, do es _hereby Demise, Lease and Let unto the said part Y of the sec- ond part, and the said part Y of the second part, do es hereby hire and take from the said part Y of the first part, the following described premises,situated in the City of Shakopee in the County of Scott and State of Minnesota viz.: That portion of the second floor of the City Hall known as the Council Chambers, located in that building known as the City Hall located on part of Lot 4, Block 4, City of Shakopee with use in common with others of the lavatory and hall-ways on the second floor of said building and the stair well affording ingress and egress from First Avenue to said second floor. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD,The said premises just as they are,without any liability or obligation on the part of said Lessor of making any alterations, improvements or repairs of any kind on or about said premises,for the term of two (2) years from July 15 , 19 81 ,for the following purposes,to-wit: Operation of a coin and stamp business yielding and paying therefor the rent of Two Hundred and Fifty and no/loo Dollars($ 250.00 ) per month in advance; including utilities except telephone whichleasee assumes and agrees to -pay. And the said Lessee dieScovenant to pay the said rent in equal monthly payments in advance,to-wit:The sum of Two Hundred Fifty and no/100 Dollars (S 250.00 on or before the first day of every month during said term. starting July 15, 1981 in lawful money of the United States at the office of said Lessor or at such other place as the said Lessor may designate in writing,and that said Lessee will keep and maintain the said premises during the aforesaid term,and quit and deliver up the said premises to the said Lessor peaceably and quietly at the end of the aforesaid term or at any previous termination thereof for any cause,in as good order and condition and state of repair, reasonable use and wearing thereof and inevitable accidents excepted,as the same now are or may be put into by said Lessor or by said Lessee That said Lessee will put and keep said premises continually in a neat,clean and respectable condition,including the water closets,and will keep the side- walks in front and along said premises cleared of ice and snow,or other obstructions or objectionable thing,also all ashes,garbage and refuse of any kind to be removed at.said Lessee's expense.That said Lessee will not keep or allow any liquors or beverages of an intoxicating nature or tendency,to be sold,kept or tolerated on said premises,nor any gambling nor other immoral practice.The said Lessee will not make or suffer any waste thereon or thereof,and will not assign or underlet said premises or any part thereof without the consent of said Lessor written and signed on the back of this lease,and not to use said premises nor any part thereof for any purpose called extra hazardous by insurance companies.Said Lessee also agree to replace all glass now or hereafter broken on said premises during said term, and pay for all the city water,sewer disposal charge or rental,or any other service used thereon during the same time. The said Lessee agree Sto put and keep all skylights,fire-escapes,plumbing,toilets,sinks,pipes,drains,water-meters,steam pipes and radiators in and for said premises in good order and repair at said Lessee's own cost and expense during said term. The said Lessee also agree Sat said Lessee's own cost and expense during the term of this lease to put and keep said premises in good and substantial repair. The said Lessee also agreeS at said Lessee's own cost and expense to put and keep said premises in such condition that they will comply with all Federal, State and Municipal Laws,Charters,Ordinances and Regulations,and furnish at said Lessee's own risk,cost and expense and additional plumbing,ventilation,fire- escapes,fire protection or other improvements required by State,Municipal or other lawful authorities. The said Lessee covenant Sand agreeS at said Lessee's own risk,cost and expense,to keep all plate glass,if any,on said premises insured against loss or injuries,at all times during said term,in a first-class insurance company,satisfactory to said Lessor,and will deliver the policy of such insurance to the said Lessor or Lessor's Agent,and exhibit receipts for the premiums thereon upon demand within a reasonable time thereafter.The said Policy to be written in the name of said Lessor ,if requested. The said Lessee agree that the said Lessor shall not be holden or liable for any loss or damage which may be sustained by the said Lessee or others by the reason of the freezing,bursting,overflowing or defect of any water,sewer,gas or steam pipes,closets or sinks,in or about said premises or from premises over- head,nor for any loss or damage which directly or indirectly may be sustained by water,sewer or gas,nor for loss or damage caused by water,ice or snow from roof, skylights,trapdoors or otherwise,nor for loss or damage by the reason of the present or future condition of repair of said premises or for loss or damage arising from acts or omissions of said Lessee or others as tenants or occupiers. The said Lessee agree Sto permit said Lessor or Lessor's Agent,contractors or employees to enter said premises at all reasonable times,to view them,or show them to parties wishing to purchase,lease,or to make repairs,alterations or improvements to building or parts,a part of which is herein leased,and insert such tools,appliances and pipes as they may deem necessary for the purpose of making said repairs,alterations and improvements,said Lessee hereby waiving any and all claims and demands for loss or damage or diminution of rent on account thereof m on account of any obstruction to sidewalk,entrance or windows,also permit for rent signs to be put and remain on within leased premises 90 days before the expiration of within term,without hindrance or molestation. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. All remodeling and redecorating costs and expenses to be paid by lessee and made only after written approval of lessor. 2. Erection of any signs must be approved in writing by this City before being erected and erection shall be at expense of lessee and shall be removed at his expense before e:-.p1,-ation of t.hi^ e r,.nt • Z. T- ^" e" !-n ccmol.,, w. -1" •_nc:='zy cons7er,at=o-. p 'i. cs - L'h= c!l.f_° i ri,; rt,,,el„_ t lesscr °O da” . writtcn. r.c,ticc if 'esa^,. tc renv:.7 fc,r an. at� i :oval 2 .,^..r^, w>-.;ch option lessor grants to lessee. (opar.ial c^nt . d I. k, 4. Lessee shall have sole and exclusive use of the vault within leased space. If • 1 combination is changed, it is at sole expense of lessee who will furnish city with new combination. • 5. Lessor will secure door between leased space and rear office in said building. 6. This lease may be cancelled at any time by either party hereto by giving the other party a written 90 day cancellation notice. 1 •And if said monthly payments,or either of them,whether the same be demanded or not,are not paid when they become due;or if said leased premises shall be appropriated to or used for any other purpose or use than is hereinbefore specified;or if any liquor,gambling or any other immoral practices are allowed on said premises, or any damage or waste shall be made thereon;or if any part of said premises shall be underlet or this lease be assigned without the eminent of said Lessor on the back of this lease as above specified;or if any term,condition or covenant of this lease on the part of said Cesace to be by said Lessee kept or performed, shall be violated or neglected,then and in either of said cases the said Lessee do hereby authorize and fully empower said Lessor or Lessor's Agent to cancel and annul this lease at once,and to reenter and take possession of said premises immediately,and by force if necessary,without any previous notice of intention to re-enter,and remove all persons and their property therefrom,and to use such force and assistance in effecting and perfecting such removal as said Lessor may deem advisable to recover at once full and exclusive possession of all said demised premises,whether in possession of said Lessee or of third persons,or vacant;or said Lessor or Lessor's Agent may at their option at any time after such default or violation of condition or covenant,re-enter and take possession of said premises,without such re-entering working a forfeiture of the rents to be paid and the covenants to be kept by said Lessor for the full terve of this lease. That in ease the buildings on said demised premises shall,without ally fault or neglect on the part of said Lessee or of said Lessee's servants or employees,be destroyed,or be so injured by the elements or any cause,as to be untenantable and unfit for occupancy,t hen the liability of said Lessee for the rent of said premises thereafter,and all right to the possession thereof,shall at once cease. AND IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED,That all the covenants,terms and conditions of this lease shall extend,apply to and firmly bind the heirs,executors, administrators,successors and assigns of the respective parties hereto as fully as the respective parties are themselves bound,but this provision shall not authorize the assignment or underletting of this lease contrary to the provisions hereinbefore contained. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF,The said parties have signed,sealed and executed this instrument in duplicate the day and year first above written. THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE (SEAL) Signed,Sealed and Delivered in Presence of By (srto Mayor (SEAL) By City Administrator PERSONAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT *tate of Minnesota _ Richard L. Wolfe ss. On this .-day of - July 1981 Scott Richard L. Wolfe County of before me personally appeared to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the his same as free act and deed. (SEAL) _. Notary Public, My commission exeires ,19 _-. ..... ......County ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CORPORATION *tate of MINNESOTA ss. (:ounty• _ofSCOTT On this - . _. _ .. _ ..... . _..__ _ day of. July - . , 19 81 , before me personally a;,peared Walter Harbeck and John K. Anderson to me personally known,who being duly sworn,did say that blixpfx they are the Mayor. and the Administrator.. of City of Shakopee, a municipal ,xt corporation; that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation,and that said incl rument was executed by authority of its X Walter Harbeck and John K. Anderso fy ou and the said itcknowk�dged said instrument to be the free ac and deenFil of said corporation. (SEAL) Notary Public, My commission expires ,19County ASSIGNMENT Consent is herewith given for the . (Insert Assign or Underlet) of the within Lease to Dated , 19 a W � V! � z W W w i 213 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant RE: Income and Expenses for Equipment at Highrise (Exclusive of Grant Funds) DATE: June 19 , 1981 Introduction This memo is meant to serve as a summary of income and ex- penses for the highrise , and as a request for the purchase of one final item to equip the highrise. Background The following contributions and expenditures have been made to date to initially equip the highrise : Contributions (Income) Expenses Jaycess Women $1000 Window Blinds $ 831 .40 Lions Club 200 Tables (6) 478 . 90 Rotary 450 Smoking Signs 20.00 HRA 1135 Towel Cabinet 26 .66 Phillip Funeral Home 50 First Aid Kit 20. 11 $2835 2 Clocks & Bulletin Board146 .81 Equipment Installation 1134.00 Recognition Plaque 31 .04 $2689. 92 This accounting leaves $145 .08 still remaining of the funds which have been contributed. I recommend that the City Council approve an additional expenditure of up to $135 for a rubber mat to place on the kitchen floor adjacent to the dishwasher. Such a mat is necessary as a safety and health precaution (two quotes were secured, the second quote was for $176) . I additionally recommend that the remaining funds be contributed to the general operating fund for the Senior Multipurpose Center. Alternatives 1 . Provide the rubber mat at this time , directing excess funds to general operating expenses of Senior Multipurpose Center. 2 . Postpone any expenditures at this time . 3. Direct all remaining funds to the general operating expenses of the Senior Multipurpose Center. 4. Purchase other items with remaining funds . Page 2 June 19, 1981 g Requested Action City Council authorize staff to purchase rubber mat for kitchen at Shakopee Senior Multipurpose Center at a cost not to exceed $135.00, and direct any remaining funds contributed to the Center to general operating expenses . 211 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne Andre, Administrative Assistant RE: Transit Services for Shakopee DATE: June 22 , 1981 INTRODUCTION Gayle Kincannon, MTC Commissioner (Metropolitan Transit Com- mission) , Precinct H, has informed us of current study regarding a possible change in bus service for Shakopee . The City Council should be kept informed of the discussion related to this study and polled regarding the interest of the City in contributing to the discussion, in favor or against possible changes . BACKGROUND There are currently two morning and two evening MTC buses between Shakopee and downtown Minneapolis (Route 53S) . The aver- age daily ridership on each of these buses is 46 persons . (Ca- pacity is 49 person per bus) . This route has been operating since approximately 1975. Riders recently requested an additional bus be added as shifts between the early and late bus often leads to standing-room-only conditions . The MTC could not provide this additional bus during peak hours because many other routes have more overcrowding, and not enough buses are available to provide additional service. The Metropolitan Council directs policy of many metropolitan- wide services , including the bus service . In its comprehensive planning process it has developed the concept of a "freestanding growth center" and related a transportation policy plan for such centers . Shakopee , as a city with capital and operational ser- vices and a significant employment and retail base , has been de- fined as a freestanding growth center which is self-sufficient and can be encouraged by Council policies to develop as a free- standing community. There are currently two policies in the Transportation Policy Plan for transit services to freestanding growth centers , which are as follows : 43. "Emphasize the living/working/shopping opportunities within Freestanding Growth Centers by providing good internal transit service as warranted by these activi- ties . " 44. "Ensure accessibility to the urbanized area by: a) providing scheduled public transit or paratransit service between the freestanding cities and the nearest major center or Metro Center; b) Encouraging car pools , van pools , subscription bus , etc . , especially for work trips ; Page 2 �Z June 22 , 1981 c) emphasizing public expenditures for metropolitan highways on safety and operation improvements , rather than increased capacity. " Current MTC bus service to Shakopee is compatible with policy 44a. However Metropolitan Council Staff have suggested that policy 44a is incompatible with encouraging the development of self-sufficient freestanding growth centers , whose residents are not dependant on jobs outside the community. That is the nature of the current discussion. If a policy change is instituted by the Transportation Committee it would still require action by the Met- ropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) be- fore it would affect the Shakopee MTC Service . Commissioner Kincannon has suggested that input from cities would be most use- ful at the earlier stages of this process . Some background on the fiscal effect of this potential change may be helpful to the City Council in evaluating its position. The legislature has established a special taxing district for the MTC which roughly corresponds to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. The mill levy for this district as set by the legislature is currently 1 . 71 for operating expenses and . 39 for debt service. This amount is adjusted by the State Department of Revenue for each county based on how their assessed valuation relates to other counties. The net levy for Shakopee is 3.053 . With Shakopee ' s current assessed valuation of approximately 66 million the esti- mated amount collected in Shakopee in 1981 is $201 ,498. The mill levy to cities such as Jordan which are within the seven county metropolitan area but have no direct transit services to their community is . 171 mills for operating expenses with . 39 for debt service. Legislative action is required to remove a city from the MTC taxing district . The City of Victoria recently requested to be removed from the special taxing district because it received no MTC bus service . This legislation was passed in the 1981 legis- lative session with no opposition. Another financial alternative which is available due to 1981 legislation involves petitioning MDOT (Minnesota Department of Transportation) to draw up to 90% of the local tax levy for MTC service, to examine and institute a local public transit altern- ative (such as the proposed Metropolitan Council policy for free- standing growth centers would promote) . If a local system were instituted it could also negotiate a contract for an operating subsidy with the Minnesota Department of Transportation after . it is established . This option is only available to communities with limited or no MTC service. When reviewing its position on possible changes in Metro- politan Council transportation policy the City Council could consider the following advantages and disadvantages of the cur- rent transit options for Shakopee (4 MTC buses daily to and from Shakopee) . Page 3 g June 22 , 1981 ter✓ Advantages 1 . The existing system has an established ridership of 92+ per- sons, many of whom may be dependent on the existing bus ser- vice to get to their jobs . Limiting individual trips between Shakopee and Minneapolis probably conserves more energy than other shorter distance public transportation alternatives . 2 . Commuter bus service is an amenity in drawing people to live in Shakopee. With more two-worker households the likelihood that both workers can find jobs in the home community is re- duced, so families seek to locate in communities where com- muter transportation is available to destinations outside the community. Disadvantages 1 . The whole community is helping to subsidize commuter trans- portation which is serving only about 100 households , whereas the same subsidy could potentially reach more families as a_ subsidy to local service, or provide tax relief to Shakopee citizens . 2. The City and its residents have little control over the a- mount or type of service provided by the MTC and no control over the levy for this service. ALTERNATIVES FOR DISCUSSION The City Council could take a stand in favor or against the proposed change in Metropolitan Council Transportation Policy Plan for freestanding growth centers with the following consider- ations : 1 . Current commuter service be encouraged to expand with more buses between Shakopee and Minneapolis . 2 . Growth of commuter service be limited but current ser- vice be permitted to continue (ie . 4 daily buses) . 3 . Allow commuter service to be discontinued. 4. Current commitment of local funding to MTC service be continued. 5 . Current commitment of local funding to MTC service be stopped or diverted to the provision of local service . 6 . Seek a reduced level of funding for MTC service and direct the remaining funds to local service or back to citizens . JA/jam g• I r I 1.,,,.., I M1/4 a — Y' elk,% 1 I +.•• ANOKA CO �iiif( _ rL « UMu1 1 'r11 I GR!A O MAULARI [0•(51(A•( .. 1 /FLA') r• ` r._--I DAYTON 11+01""15 ••1�r CN lIN COON RAPIDS ` _.-- - F% Nuco 05510• 'raLSL.7O•;:' Clal(n•LL. IS WASMI &TON CO •.n1+Iu1D cu•(oR•N r•n[G.ovr � ' t 1I Ou.Dt 1No•In,,!_ I�, -'-" -^----- 1• r 80„N 7, RPOOKI YN P•RK 121 I O•P1 I .... • Note: Areas outside i0(K,DRD .ID11,�-1 `1 �`_,,,SL�'r ' r MTTD, but within MENN. IN CO I.woars N(. 17-- $ 7 counties, shall be -- f ”"''" 18RIGNI0N Y"o.•rllfi'�''• r�ponno ---- -------- r ,GN,S,! ��2:;ae� a •De. 7s, t_y:• •••I taxed at 1/10 the I (\ NI.� 1_: ,. } �M" ,_ :t7. ` 1 INDnr.DI•Lf IrlmN• PL1r0u,N NOPE ("{10 MS. levy tor the MTTD ( �y' ? j hl .D5(Y11(( 5.°1 I___ 7 .- vOLtOt I IL ,7 i NAVA q•OOO •1110•RO�I CIIl r A. _ Y.rl+L.t•Nt� _-L' (, I f)I 6-1_ S ^ I I I ir'y[ .•� —T-- ,. — TV:.•r•Io•� ._-- ' ..,,...:7,, ;`„3,37::0".4.7,47'4:. a.o o •`v2,_.1-,_, �-{ 1 RAMSEY CO i :M1. I YI4 4(i4 111• _•• 'J YIMNIfOMR alb \"/ ��/ T'V• • I S1.••N'S I SAINT PAUL I I �, t••Il1N wcil NlJwN I J ;^•♦ ':��' /,jam/�//J 1�• i,�!�1 MIr N1A10lIL (:_•III 71 .l•w 4•�f,,./ ..'t.1G+"; JDEEPNAVI.. °IKINS I-' ^r 1t� DNH.I r�•5 :,I., ty, ,S •°OOtu•• 11(rM•1e• :1".EITOrnp'_J (o/i N•+. ..y _ "' SIL �._ �1Du•.• I PK No/Lo • L {� .'•CN•RNASS[N IJ 12 NIIG N.S siSI/N . ki. w CONI• ELI.PRAIR1t ••ul I , Rl DOMING,ON ",; ) CARVER CO iN•(RI 1 i t•G•M ,R rucrtt"( I eJ J•:47,r, cH....' 41 . -` •I(• DAKOTA CO •+OODC+ C�11 t••5Iy SHAKOPEE —1.-_._—_- i 1 -. COI OG�II IrAn"„NLN ( ` -I S•Y•E1 1 RO•NSrllll 1 PRION I APPA r•1LI1 ROSS roust, . Lam” a` 1 -- — r f LLE (1 at,,,1 I ._ ,.+ I sA,. N r. , I, L1 5 I ---' I �� I 1 •1 N�11 lI ____ t. •Nl tDI lK l•Rt Yllll i -'I I- t I SPRING IIRf I [RI LIi !«r•�RI ..,,, ..„ r 1 ' I RIVED Yl•rr•110+ , ICL S' SCOTT CO. I ( .� rARrINGTON 1 a 1 1 1 SI ,...,/if.,c(('I I lOIOAM 1 1 I�. I I I --t---- --T._ —i — J �—.stat,(•.( 1 —— i ––-__ NIM MARKT . I )•I•I•r1• r----, I.1• IIel11P1ANr I Mt11N• II»N I<•.f I I N1YI1p+ f: r' f.rNr w. •1111 N,. r 1 1 I •I•ru•fI I I •nt•riul I 1 'YI I _L.,IrN f.. NrR ••GUII I N ' • J.�- _--1 1110 1 I , 1 N I I wa.DN.....P.. - OC(.74 ii:': 1y-- 20 25 ( I. I ..1. YYYY I I 1 I—- _l_____J__.1 TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA Metropo' itan Transit Taxing District 1 SPRING PARK 9 VICTORIA 17 FALCON HEIGHTS 25 GEM LAK( ANOKKA_--—County 7 ORONO 10 ROODINSOAL( 18 MENDOTA 26 SIRCNM000 3 MINNETONKA 5(A(N 11 SPRING 1AKE PARK 19 LILYDALE 27 rv111l1 111:4. 4 5ONKA 1141 12 U S GOVT 201.H1 Y L.1,t , 28 BAYPORT _ - -- - - - Township N (1(115108 13 /1111 I OP 21 LANDTALL 29 Wllll R1111 6GREENW000 14 COLUMLIA HEIGHTS 22 DeltROOD 30 OAK PARK 14(107.15 01510 Municipality 7 WOODLAND 15 ST ANTHONY 23 PIN( SPRINGS 31 LAKELAND SHORES 8 MEDICINE LAKE 16 LAUDERDALE 24 MANTOM(DI 32 ST MART 5 POINT EFFECTIVE FOR TAXES LEVIED IN 197$ AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS. (BOUNDARIES SHOWN AS OF JULY 1, 1975.) !E C.) ! MEMO TO: Mayor and Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: County-wide On-Site Sewer and Water Regulations DATE: June 18 , 1981 Introduction As part of the City of Shakopee ' s Comprehensive Plan, the City discussed coordinating its on-site sewer and water regula- tion/enforcement with Scott County' s efforts . Scott County has now prepared draft County-wide Ordinances for both on-site sewer and water regulation and will have a public hearing on the subject July 21 , 1981 . Background The City Building Inspector is currently responsible for enforcing the City' s present ordinance regarding on-site sewer and water systems . We already use the same standards as proposed by the County , therefore he is in favor of Option #2 outlined in Al Frechette ' s letter of March 27 , 1981 . The City Planner also belietes Option #2 is the preferable option. The County' s proposed ordinances and the administrative procedures they plan to implement will meet many of the Metropol- itan Council ' s recommendations made in the review of our Compre- hensive Plan because of our 22 acre minimum lot size . The County does not plan an annual inspection program but will mon- itor wells and septic systems by requiring licensing and report- ing on all septic tank pumping, etc. Summary and Recommendation The City has two alternatives as outlined in Al Frechette ' s letter. Because our City Building Inspector and Planner are com- fortable with Option #2 , and becuase it would help us do much of the monitoring of on-site systems we told the Met Council we would do (doesn' t include annual inspections) , I recommend that we support Option #2 . Action Requested 1) Pass a motion recommending to the County that they adopt the Sewage ordinance under the provision of the Community Health Service ' s Act (Option #2) . 2) Pass a motion instructing City Staff to prepare neces- sary ordinance(s) etc. , for Council review and action, upon a- doption of the County' s proposed Ordinance under the Community Health Service ' s Act. scarr COUNTY COURT HOUSE - SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 r (612) 445-7750 tt" EXT.377 June 12, 1981 evion REC JUN : 6 John Anderson CO Of Ski Clerk, City of Shakopee Shakopee City Hall 129 East 1st Ave. Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Clerk: Enclosed for your information is a Public Notice for a Public Hearing on two ordinances which we had apprised you of earlier this spring. I've also enclosed another copy of the draft ordinances for your use. Please refer to my March 27, 1981, letter for more discussion on the coordination of these ordinances with your municipality. (I've enclosed a copy of that letter for your convenience.) S We have received written responses from three municipalities regarding this issue, and I will read them into the record at the Public Hearing. If you have any questions or concerns regarding these ordinances that you wish to discuss prior to the Public Hearing, please give me a call. Sincerely, a/L., Allen J. Frechette Environmental Health Specialist AJF:jem Enc: ALLEN J. FRECHETTE Environmental Health Specialist Office of Planning & Zoning Scott County Is An Equal Opportunity Employer SCOTT COUNTY COURT HOUSE - SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 (612) 445-7750 EXT.377 X I March 27 , 1981 Scott County is in the process of adopting an on-site sewage treatment ordinance. This ordinance, we feel, should address the requirements of Metroplitan Council's 208 Water Quality Manage- ment - Development Guide/Policy Plan. We have attempted to coordinate our program with that of Carver County's. Carver County is in the process of adopting an ordinance almost identical to Scott County's proposed ordinance enclosed. We have attempted to minimize the difficulties for sewage system installers by eliminating conflicting standards between the counties. We will be presenting this ordinance to the surrounding counties as well, so that they may consider a unified approach to on-site sewage system regulation. Since some of the municipalities within Scott County have ordinances regulating various aspects of on-site sewage system construction, there will be some conflicting standards within Scott County. In addition, some of the programs for on-site sewage system management in the municipalities will not meet the requirements of the Metropolitan Council 's 208 Policy Plan. Some of the municipalities, realizing this, have already contacted us to see what could be done to coordinate the on-site sewage program and meet the requirements of the Metropolitan Council. There are two approaches that Scott County has regarding on-site sewage system management, they are: 1. Adopt the sewage ordinance under the provisions of the Land Planning Act. This would make the ordinance effective only in the townships . a. Advantage: There will be the opportunity for munici- palities to regulate on-site sewage systems using their own standards. ALLEN J. FRECHETTE Environmental Health Specialist Office of Planning &Zoning a,r Scott County Is An Equal Opportunity Employer - 2 - b. Disadvantage: There will probably be conflicting standards and controls within the county. The municipalities will have to address the Metropolitan Council's requirements individually. 2. Adopt the sewage ordinance under the provisions of the Community Health Service's Act. This would make the ordinance effective throughout the entire county irrespective of municipal boundaries. a. Advantage: The municipalities could sign agreements with the county to delineate responsibilities for program enforcement, thereby allowing for local control where desired and a uniform program through- out the county. b. Disadvantage: Municipal ordinance standards may be superseded by the county's ordinance unless municipal standards are more restrictive. Scott County will also be replacing its outdated water well ordinance with the proposed draft enclosed. Since local units of government cannot license well drillers (this has been delegated to the Minnesota Department of Health) and the Metropolitan Council has not developed any plan requirements on wells, the only advantage for a uniform approach in this area would be to insure inspections are done on all wells. Scott County however will not be inspecting all of the wells drilled, only a percentage of them. Inspections are not required in this proposed ordinance. I would appreciate your comments on the issue of a uniform on- site sewage system ordinance as soon as possible. We would like to adopt this ordinance before the construction season begins. Your comments will be submitted to the County Board of Commissioners to help determine which approach we should take. Sincerely, /9.)--12-2/1- 11,4k* Allen J. Frechette Environmental Health Specialist AJF:j em cc: Anthony Worm, Chairman, Scott County Board of Commissioners PS: THIS ISSUE WILL BE DISCUSSED AT THE APRIL 1, 1981 ADMINISTRATORS LUNCHEN MEETING. MIRE RUTTEN WILL BE PRESENT TO RECEIVE YOUR COMMENTS AND DISCUSS THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES. Final Draft 2-10-81 SCOTT COUNTY SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM ORDINANCE NO. 15 1.00 PURPOSE. It is the purpose of this ordinance to provide an adequate and safe method of sewage treatment to prevent the contamination of any existing or future water supply by an existing or future sewage treatment system. 1.01 Intent. The improper design, location, installation, use and maintenance of on-site sewage treatment systems adversely affects the public health, safety and general welfare by discharge of inadequately treated sewage to surface and ground waters. Scott County does herein provide the minimum requirements for the design, location, installation, use and maintenance of on-site sewage treat- ment systems. Scott County, in adopting this Ordinance, does not guarantee or warrant that compliance with the requirements herein will result in on-site sewage treatment systems that are fail safe, but consider that compliance with the requirements herein will result in on-site sewage treatment systems with a reasonable assurance of satisfactory performance when properly maintained. 2.00 GENERAL PROVISIONS. 2.01 Administrative Procedures. All of the provisions of the Scott County Adminis- trative Procedures Ordinance relating to: definitions, license and permit pro- visions; duties of the County; license application and processing; suspensions and revocations; variances; appeals procedures; severability; provisions accumulative; and no consent, shall apply as if fully set forth herin. 2.02 Administration. This ordinance shall be administered by the Scott County Office of Planning, Inspections and Environmental Health. The term "Office", where used in this ordinance and the "Administrative Procedures Ordinance", shall mean the Scott County Office of Planning, Inspections and Environmental Health. 2.03 Definitions. The following words and phrases, when used in this ordinance, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section: A. "Agency" when used in the standards adopted herein as a regulatory body, shall mean the Scott County Board or the inspector as appropriate and in accord with Scott County Ordinance No. 13, Administrative Procedures. B. "County Board" shall mean the Scott County Board of Commissioners. C. "Director or Executive Director" when used in the standards adopted herein shall mean Inspector. D. "Inspector" shall mean the person or persons employed or engaged by the County Board, and assigned the responsibility for the administration of this ordinance. 2.04 Compliance. No person shall install, alter, or repair, pump solids or liquids from, nor dispose of wastes from, an on-site sewage treatment system, except in full compliance with the provisions of this ordinance, and the standards adopted herein. 3.00 STANDARDS FOR HEALTH, SAFETY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION. 3.01 Standards Adopted. The rules of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency o MCAR 4.8040, Individual Sewage Treatment Systems Standards and Appendixes J A, B, C, D and E are hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this ordinance. 3.02 Standards Amended. The above adopted Rules of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency are hereby amended as follows: A. Section C3 shall be deleted in its entirety. B. Section F.2.13 a. shall be amended to read: "There shall be one or more manholes at least 20 inches least dimension, and located within six feet of all the walls of the tank. An access pipe of at least 5 inches diameter (inside dimension) shall extend through the manhole cover and be capped flush or above finished grade, except that access pipes with an inside diameter larger than 6 inches shall terminate at a point within 12 inches but no closer than 6 inches below finished grade. A manhole cover shall be covered with at least 6 inches of earth. C. Section K is deleted in its entirety. 3.03 Additional Standards. In addition to the above standards the following shall also apply. A. Alternative systems described in Appendix A, Section E. 1, E. 2, E. 3, E. 4, E. 5 of the Standards adopted herein except those systems expressly permitted by the County prior to subdivision, shall be used only for the repair or replacement of existing non-conforming systems or on existing lots of record. B. All proposed building sites and preliminary plats for proposed subdivisions shall be submitted to the inspector for review to determine whether sewage treatment systems which comply with this ordinance could reasonably be installed on each lot in the proposed subdivision. The inspector may require information and studies relating to the soils, water table level, percolation rate, and other relevant features, and information as to the economic feasibility of construction of a sewage treatment system to serve all or a portion of such lots evidenced in a preliminary plat. No preliminary plat or proposed building site shall be approved by Scott County unless the Inspector makes a favorable recommendation regarding the ability of each lot to accomodate a standard sewage treatment system. Appeal from an unfavorable recommendation hereunder shall be in accordance with the provisions adopted in Section 2.01. The review and recommendation provided herein shall not eliminate the need for complying with the permit and other requirements contained herein with respect to sewage treatment systems on the lots in the preliminary plat. C. No more than one dwelling, commercial, business, institutional, or industrial unit shall be connected to the same sewage treatment system, unless such multiple connection was specified in the application submitted and in the permit issued for the system. D. No dwelling, commercial, business, institutional or industrial unit shall be redesigned or enlarged if such redesign or enlargement results in exceeding the designed capacity of the sewage treatment system, until a permit has been granted by the inspector to enlarge or redesign the sewage treatment system, to accommodate the expected increase in sewage. 4.00 LICENSING. 4.01 License required. No person, firm or.corporation shall engage in the business of installing, repairing, pumping, or performing percolation rate tests and soil evaluations for on-site sewage treatment systems within Scott County without first obtaining a license to carry on such operation. Such license C cJ shall be issued by the Director of Planning, Inspections and Environmental Health, shall be renewable and may be revoked or refused for cause. Any installation, repair, pumping, percolation rate test or soil evaluation on or for construction for an on—site sewage treatment system by a licensee in violation of the provisions of this ordinance or refusal on the part of a licensee to correct such defective work performed by such licensee, shall be cause for revocation of or refusal to renew a license. 4.02 License provisions. License provisions for this ordinance are subject to the procedural requirements of Section 3.00 of the Scott County Administrative Procedures Ordinance No. 13. Licenses issued pursuant hereto shall be in effect for one year. 4.03 License application requirements. Before any license under this ordinance can be issued, an applicant for the license shall: A. Demonstrate acquisition of suitable experience and training as determined by resolution of the County Board. B. Submit a certificate of insurance and/or bond with limits to be established by resolution of the County Board. The insurance and/or bond shall be written by an insurer or bonder licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota. C. Pay the license fee. 5.00 PERMITS. 5.01 Permit required. No person, firm or corporation shall install, alter, repair or extend any individual sewage treatment system in Scott County without first obtaining a permit therefore from the inspector for each specific installation, alteration, repair or extension; and, at the time of applying for said permit, shall pay a fee therefore as established by resolution of the County Board. Such permits shall be valid for a period of twelve (12) months from date of issuance. No building permit or occupancy permit, where required, will be issued until after the on—site sewage system permit is approved and issued. 5.02 Permit application requirements. A. Applications for permits shall be made in writing on forms furnished by the department and shall be signed by the applicant and the licensed installer. Each application shall contain: 1. Legal description of the proposed site 2. Location description of the proposed site 3. Name, address and phone number of the property owner(s) 4. Name, address and phone number of the licensee 5. Maximum number of bedrooms 6. Estimated water usage if building is not a dwelling unit 7. List of water using appliances 6. Estimated depth of well 3. Each application shall be accompanied by: 1. Two copies of a plot plan of the land drawn to scale showing: a. boundary lines b. proposed and/or existing buildings c. location of well and water pipes d. location of septic tank e. location of drainfield f. location of building sewer g. location of distribution box(es) 3 2 h. feedlots i. water bodies j. roads and driveway k. land elevations 2. Two copies of a complete on-site sewage system plan showing location, size and design of all parts of the system to be installed, altered, repaired or extended. 3. Two copies of the results of the site evaluation. 4. Any additional information that may be required by the inspector to assure compliance with this ordinance. 6.00 INSPECTIONS. 0.01 Inspector. The official designated by the Scott County Board shall cause such inspection or inspections to be made as are necessary to determine compliance with this ordinance within eight (8) county working hours of the time requested for the inspection. Upon satisfactory completion and final inspection of the system, the inspector shall issue to the applicant a certificate of approval. If upon inspection, the inspector discovers that any part of the system is not constructed in accordance with the minimum standards provided in this ordinance, he shall give the licensed installer and the permittee, written notification describing the defects. Failure of the County to inspect shall not relieve or lessen the responsibility or liability of any person owning, controlling or installing any on-site sewage treatment system. 6.02 Permittee responsibilities. It shall be the responsibility of the permittee to notify the inspector that the job is ready for inspection. It shall be the responsibility of the permittee to provide the inspector with free access to the property at reasonable times for the purpose of making such inspections. • The permittee shall pay an additional fee as established by resolution of the County Board for each re-inspection that is necessary, except those re- inspections necessitated as a result of construction by a licensed installer in violation of this ordinance. The permittee shall be responsible for the correction or elimination of all defects, and no system shall be placed or replaced in service until all defects have been corrected or eliminated. No part of the system shall be covered until it has been inspected and approved by the inspector. 7.00 CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS. 7.01 Compliance required. Every individual sewage treatment system installed after the effective date of this ordinance and every alteration, extension and repair to any system after that date, shall conform to the standards of the code adopted herein. Any individual sewage system, irrespective of the date of original installation, which is found to be in violation of Section C 2 a of the standards adopted herein, shall be relocated, reconstructed or reinstalled, so as to be in compliance with this ordinance. Any septic tank that is exposed for inspection or repairs shall be brought into compliance with Section 3.02k of this ordinance. 7.02 Abandonment of on-site sewage systems and connections to community sewer service. A. When on-site sewage systems are abandoned, all septic tanks, cesspools, and leaching pits shall be pumped to remove all liquid, sludge and scum. 4 The covers to all septic tanks, cesspools and leaching pits shall be either collapsed or removed and tanks or cavities shall be filled with clean earth. The earth shall be adequately mounded to allow for settling. B. When community sewer services are available all failing systems shall make connection immediately. 8.00 MAINTENANCE. 8.01 Failing systems. All on—site sewage systems in violation of Section C 2 a of the standards adopted herein, shall be pumped immediately to abate the discharge and as often thereafter as necessary until satisfactory repairs have been completed. 8.02 Pumping of septic tanks. All septic tanks shall be pumped through the pipe extending from the manhole cover (if so equipped) rather than the inspection pipes located over the baffles and shall be pumped to remove all scum and solids. Sludge and scum shall be removed whenever the sludge reaches a point twelve (12) inches below the bottom of the outlet baffle and/or scum reaches a point three (3) inches above the bottom of the outlet baffle. 8.03 Disposal of septage. All spetage removed from septic tanks or holding tanks shall be removed from the site in sealed containers and shall be disposed of in a location and manner approved by the Director of Planning, Inspections and Environmental Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency or the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission if it is disposed of into a Commission controlled sewage facility. Recipients of septage used for benefiting soil on their property, shall have in the possession, evidence of written approval from the Director of Planning, Inspections and Environmental Health prior to receipt of septage. 8.04 Licensed Pumper responsibilities. Each pumping of every septic tank and holding tank shall be reported to the County inspector on forms provided for that pur— pose, within 30 calendar days of the pumping. The licensed pumper shall report the dates of pumpings, property addresses and names of property owners, loca— tions of septage disposal, presence of surface discharge from sewage system, and_the condition of the septic tank baffles (if the condition of the baffles cannot be determined without excavation to expose the septic tank, this may be excluded from the report). 9.00 EVALUATION OF SITES. 9.01 Licensed Percolation Tester responsibilities. All site evaluations shall comply to the procedures in Section 0 of the standards adopted herein. All reports submitted to the County shall be submitted on forms approved by the inspector. 10.00 VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES. 10.01 Misdemeanor. Any person who fails to comply with the provisions of this ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor. A seperate offense shall be deemed committed upon each day during or on which a violation of Section C2a of the standards adopted herein occurs or continues. :3.02 Injunctive Relief. In the event of a violation of this ordinance, the County may institute appropriate actions or proceedings, including requesting in— junctive relief to prevent, restrain, correct or abate such violations. 5 ( It . 10.03 Civil Action or Cost as Special Tax. If a person fails to comply with the provisions of this ordinance, the County may recover cost incurred for corrective action in a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction or, at the discretion of the County Board, the costs may be certified to the County Auditor as a special tax against the real property. 10.04 Variances. A variance from the provisions of this ordinance may be applied for • according to the provisions of Section 6.00 of the Administrative Procedures Ordinance adopted herein. The County Board of Adjustment may grant variances from the provisions of this ordinance upon such conditions as it may prescribe, consistent with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance, the standards adopted herein and the Administrative Procedures Ordinance. 11.00 EFFECTIVE DATE. 11.01 Standards. The standards, procedures and provisions adopted herein shall be effective immediately upon passage by the County Board. 11.02 License provisions. The licensing provisions for pumpers of septic tanks and percolation testers—site evaluators shall be effective on January 1, 1982. 11.03 Ordinance repealed. Ordinance No. 4 adopted October 29, 1971 and entitled "Individual Sewage Disposal System Ordinance" is hereby repealed. 12.00 SEPARABILITY AND AMENDMENTS. 12.01 Separability. It is hereby declared to be the intention that the several provisions of this ordinance are separable in accordance with the following: If any court of competent jurisdiction shall adjudge any provision of this ordinance to be invalid, such judgement shall not affect any other provisions of this ordinance not specifically included in said judgement. 12.02 Amendments. The procedure for amending this Ordinance is the same as prescribed by law for its adoption. 6 • ,11 r` Draft 2-25-81 • SCOTT COUNTY Water Well Construction Ordinance No. 1.00 PURPOSE 1.01 Purpose. It is the purpose and intent of this Ordinance to supercede and replace Scott County Ordinance No. 5 as adopted October 29, 1971 and to establish rules, regulations and standards for water well construction in Scott County Minnesota for: the installation, construction, extension, repair and abandonment of individual water supply systems, requiring permits for, prescribing penalties for non-compliance; and other matters as determined to be necessary for the health, welfare and safety of the public pursuant to the Minnesota Community Health Services Act Chapter 145. 2.00 GENERAL PROVISIONS 2.01 Administrative Procedures. All of the provisions of the Scott County Administrative Procedures Ordinance relating to: definitions; license and permit provisions; duties of the Office; license application and processing; suspensions and revo- cations; separability; provisions cumulative; and no consent, shall apply as if fully set forth herein. 2.02 Administration. This ordinance shall be administered by the Scott County Office of Planning, Inspections and Environmental Health. 2.03 Definitions. The following words and phrases, when used in this ordinance, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section: A. "Office" shall mean the Scott County Office of Planning, Inspections and Environmental Health. B. "Permittee" shall mean the person who has been given the authority by the issuance of a permit by the County to cause any construction or major reconstruc- tion of a well to occur. 2.04 Compliance. No person shall construct, repair, modify or abandon a well, except in full compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. 3.00 STANDARDS FOR WATER WELL CONSTRUCTION 3.01 Standards Adopted. The Rules and Regulations of the Minnesota State Board of Health 7 MCAR 1.210-1.230 relating to water well construction are hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this ordinance. 3.02 Standards Amended. The above adopted Rules and Regulations of the Minnesota State Board of Health are hereby amended as follows: A. Wherever the terms "State of Minnesota", "Board", or "Commissioner", appear in these adopted rules and regulations, they shall be held to mean the Office. B. 7 MCAR 1.211 is deleted in its entirety. 4.00 PERMITS 4.01 Permit Required'. No person shall within the County, allow a well to be constructed or an existing well to be deepened, on property under their control or ownership, unless they or their authorized agent first obtain a permit from the Office for such purposes. 4.02 Permits Not Issued. No well construction permit shall be issued where municipal water is available without the authorized consent of the governing body of the municipality. 1 ■ f. • 0 4.03 Perdfit not Exclusive. The obtaining of a well permit from Scott County shall not be deemed to exclude the necessity of obtaining other appropriate licenses or permits. 4.04 Permit term. Unless otherwise provided by the County Board, each permit granted pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance shall be non—transferable, shall apply to only one well and shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of issuance. 4.05 Responsibilities of the Permittee. It shall be the responsibility of the permittee or kis agent to notify the Office of the date and time that the well construction is to take place, prior to construction. 5.00 VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES 5.01 Misdemeanor. Any person who fails to comply with the provisions of this ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor. 5.02 Injunctive Relief. In the event of a violation or a threat of violation of this ordinance, the County may institute appropriate actions or proceedings, including requesting injunctive relief to prevent, restrain, correct or abate such violations or threatened violations. 5.03 Civil Action or Cost as Special Tax. If a person fails to comply with the pro— visions of this ordinance, the County may recover costs incurred for corrective action in a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction or, at the dis— cretion of the County Board, the costs may be certified to the County Auditor as a special tax against the real property. 6.00 EFFECTIVE DATE 6.01 Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon passage. 6.02 Repeal of Ordinance No. 5. Upon adoption of this Ordinance, Ordinance No. 5, Well Ordinance, adopted October 29, 1971 shall be repealed in its entirety. 2 PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING For the Adoption of the Scott County On-Site Sewage Treatment System Ordinance and Water Well Construction Ordinance. The Scott County Board of Commissioners will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, July 21, 1981, at 10:00 A.M. in the Scott County Commissioner's Room (109) in the Scott County Courthouse, to receive comments from the general public on an On-Site Sewage Treatment System Ordinance and a Water Well Construction Ordinance. The On-Site Sewage Treatment System Ordinance will replace Scott County's Individual Sewage Disposal System Ordinance #4 which was adopted in 1971. This new ordinance will adopt the recent standards of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for design and construction of on-site sewage treatment systems. In addition, the ordinance will provide for the licensing of installers of on-site systems, septic tank pumpers and site evaluators (perculation testers) . The ordinance will establish design and construction standards through- out the entire County, irrespective of municipal boundaries, which are consistent with those already in effect in the shoreland areas throughout the state. The ordinance will provide for the up-grading of any sewage systems that are discharging to the surface, a body of surface water, or are found to be contaminating ground water. The Water Well Construction Ordinance will replace the Scott County Well Ordinance #5 which was adopted in 1971. This new ordinance adopts the standards for water well construction as recently revised by the Minnesota Department of Health. There are no provisions for licensing of water well contractors, as this is currently the respon- sibility of the Minnesota Department of Health. The Water Well Construction Ordinance will also be effective throughout the entire County, irrespective of municipal boundaries. Both of these ordinances are being adopted pursuant to the Minnesota Public Health Law, Chapter 145, and therefore will result in uniform standards throughout the entire County. Local administra- tion and enforcement of these Ordinances will be accomplished through letters of agreement between the County and each municipality. Copies of the proposed Ordinances are available for review at the Public Libraries in Scott County and in the Office of the Scott County Administrator, Scott County Courthouse. Individual copies may be purchased in the Scott County Office of Planning, Inspections and Environmental Health. Allen Frechette Environmental Health Specialist Office of Planning, Inspections and Environmental Health Scott County Courthouse Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 #Iztkupte Tommunitg #truires ti 129 Levee Drive Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Phone 445-2742 Community Education • Parks • Recreation • Adult Education George F. Muenchow, Dir. 6/12/$1 John Anderson (F.Y.I. ) : Subject : S.P.U.C. Rates For Shakopee Athletic Facilities Shakopee Public Utility Commission apparently is attempting to become more consistent in the electrical rates for all of their users. Last summer the bill for the School District Jr H.S. Tennis Court lights included a Demand Charge. Apparently this was not included the previous year, the first year of usage. Anytime those lights are turned on for even a few minutes the Kilowatts used at that facility now require a Demand Charge of $ 125.00. Last summer the lights were not used enough to make up the difference from coins in the meter box. The school district appealed to S.P.U.C. and it was denied. The school has chosen, therefore, not to hook up the lights this summer. S.P.U.C. has also decided to review all other athletic facilities to be consistent. All others seem to be fine (city facilities ) except Riverside Park. There, the Demand Charge will be $1 ,000.00/month. This morning I had a meeting which was hastily set up, with Lou Van Rout, and reps from Shakopee Baseball Association (town team), Legion Baseball. Team. and Shakopee School District, the prime users of Riverside Park besides our own directed programs. Lou explained the above to them. Consensus, of courses was that this policy will eliminate any usage of those lights in the future. We did agree that the status quo would continue until at least the end of this month. The group did agree that this should be appealed. Lou will investigate what some other towns do. I feel that the Council should be apprised of this, and if they so agree, an appeal be made on the basis that these activities are administered under the auspices of a sub-division of this city government. Long range we should investigate the installation of a more modern and efficient lighting system. The present one is badly outdated. If you so deem, I'll write up a memo on this. G.F.M. A COOPERATIVE EFFORT OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AND SCHOOL DISTRICT 720 SINCE 1954 Law Offices of KRASS, MEYER & KANNING Chartered Phillip R. Kress Shakopee Professional Building Barry K. Meyer 1221 Fourth Avenue East Philip T.Kenning Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 (612)445-5080 June 18, 1981 Mr. John Anderson City Administrator 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear John: I have forwarded to you Findings of Fact and Order on the six Holmes Street Appeals. I discussed with Judge Daily his Order, and he is requiring that we, the City, go back, order a new public hearing and take testimony at that public hearing as to before and after values as arrived at by our appraiser. Then we can assess the matter in the manner the Council desires. I asked him specifically if he was requiring that we reduce the assessments that were made, and he responded that except for the error on Mr. Fonder's which we discovered and related to him at trial , he was not requiring that we reduce any assessments. He was only determining that we assessed in a manner inconsistent with the Supreme Court decision in that we did not have before and after appraisals on each parcel at the time of the assessment. I then called Stan Pescar at the League to determine whether or not other courts were coming up with the same holding and Stan said that no they were not. He indicated that if courts began to require cities to do before and after appraisals on every parcel they assessed as part of every Chapter 429 project, there would be no further 429 projects, and he was unaware of any other courts placing this burden on cities. While we might appeal the Supreme Court and get a firm ruling, that would be expensive and cumbersome and I think we should remember we are dealing with tax payers representing themselves, and I hate to put them through a cumbersome legal process. I am, therefore, recommending that the Council order a new public hearing_and receive testimony of the before and after market values of the property in question, and if it feels inclined to, assess the properties again. Yours very truly, KRASS, MEYER & KANNING CHARTERED Phillip R. Krass P4001-1373- MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Jeanette Shaner RE: Application for Two On Sale Temporary Beer Licenses DATE: July 2 , 1981 Introduction I have received an application from the Shakopee Jaycees for two temporary 3. 2 beer licenses for July 18 and 19 , and July 25 and 26 , 1981 . I am in receipt of a certificate of insurance in the proper amount . Recommended Action Approve the application and grant temporary On Sale 3. 2 Beer Licenses to the Shakopee Jaycees for Tahpah Park Ball Fields for the weekends of July 18 and 19 , and July 25 and 26 , 1981 . is b MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne Andre, Administrative Assistant RE: Commendation to the Rotary Club of Shakopee DATE: June 25 , 1981 Introduction and Background The Rotary Club of Shakopee donated $450 to the City to be used to purchase equipment for the new Senior Multipurpose Center (see separate report for list of items) . The City Council has previously presented a Certificate of Commendation to donors to the facility. Requested Action The City Council move to present to Rotary Club Officials a Certificate of Commendation to the Rotary Club of Shakopee, as prepared by City Staff, in recognition of $450 contributed by the Club to equip the Shakopee Senior Multipurpose Center. JA/jam /a '.'..'..:‘.31e- " ' v � �/ ^ A + G}' � /:lr..i .:tY j ,r "�fe �\ ': � --:-.•:::11.:(46M5,4.:$4.40:- '+ rr•` av�, S%sy 4 'i ti: 4��' /f , ZL�roSv,rr�'G r ? ai4 aivJV to •qvr � •,aar 3 i r,/�\ y�'' yR " z i, y. ! � lM✓tarers%a .j: tPr4N1u`-t- ' i `<5e5 't .-. 41 5 .- n .,l tt% r' r :::' f — s::4y''-:: X � 41t�e1;1r k �2f1/ .., F •Yn � Y..4"-r. ., app�tttl'b +/" r . at�� i. 6;jrFqz(( y Y - .u ..: ter p .E, ;r £ 4 J . 4#, 1,0407P)3400 IVI o1� � yyf V � .I43aV` W. •:. f' r� 4 1-' fs /r �'r e ' xM ,. f10'�a' {f$ `p4 � gs£b . � �---� 7l),tivAP1 °i e1��lfrl:ri FCrtrer ✓tle 2L +F " Y 4,-------7 ' �/ a ` /L\• 7, --. ;,r, COMMENDATION TO THE ROTARY CLUB OF SHAKOPEE ' �.� WHEREAS, a new Senior Citizens Highrise Apartment .' > ' •d -W-,.-.-,1 has been constructed in the City of Shakopee; and !-4 N ''P ` WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee has leased a por- �;� �' ' , F`' tion of this building ,for the provision of a Senior F` li„,:p31.5.11: : .7•„„,:„-;,,,,A.-:9\l•r.Y Multipurpose Center for the citizens of Shakopee; ands, �,r�; WHEREAS , the Center requires certain furnishings ,..„-,.. ,...,0.,p i§...:-..-, '. ire in order to be effectively used by the senior citizens ;i , ,R''> 'a`` : • �� s and 1� aa24•��nt ,•.\-• -t ,,4 : ' WHEREAS, the Rotary `-Club. of Shakopee has gener- b'•!,-V'');-/4'•,*. 'i` c1.1 ►'' ously contributed the` sum, 'oft .$450.00 to be used for • 1_s; y�j�r >'' the provisionoffurnishi s ,forthe Shakopee Senior P 1V; �y"s �w� ��iMultipurpose Center. { ',,-...,'4,, � ���'�:� �4r � `►:: NOW, THEREFORE; .,• OLVED, that the Shakopee ' + \ `I' r rr {. �, City Council 'on beha ti`$f .t e[tizens of the Commis- '�, ? _ . ys nity, especially the sena car �. izens, does hereby � ': .� . thank and commend the Rotary b of Shakopee for its '` contribution. '' '7:;:::::: " 1 ;L :,,/,,,Dated this 7th=day of';July,` 1981 . a (.:.:i3. --. (..., {4'4'' • Mayor of the City of Shakopee, ' 7, i',s ' A f ' •\ ! �}yy� �` �. City Administrator '/��Vp` " '...kb. 'n r. . r,\�• 5 • p , :"t 0. '' - 01'.. ;...t,T .__-1.7): ,. . . ,, \ .7 ' ....-: o.A ' C 1 I t�s" 1tM� t l �/ \� rr«rc'��s1• k'' � � � .,gig '4.�� / yqv s ',. �' '.n -i- asi A r r ee7". , r -, ^ "'l,t a a fi/ )j.. If1e• ef7/1.1e� ] si1 4.1 -1.' .1 /jrliR x'- ... i fVi+t t ::;'lea n i _ ee♦ e,ecce 4!'-'''''VV + ell 4 tirel). a+ t by+: 'li ' u', t t.` �b'G'�{js, � ♦, 1{s I�§�aliB�Nn)sD:,,',.''.:'''',-,,i♦e�c�J�gS'l'1��+��,( I}ta�,t'�g4y: �s��gyg �4. ID�'�As�� �'� `.� ', \ p k+ +4 I rt ' Sir otit t ,.A pili d ",`t'h '4.011'10k .,^� �£•�111h k A �/vv .rr£:i`+ '� } tip ^ NyD s ,1 a..y(, J\ w /1.,*, �, y Pf1 l: 4�4ac2 S'YI'eeY flrh'' A� 3,e,e,e.I �.. ,e. •Y, $�' J4Y�"' MPS jetMM`�i� ,,R ,U ,J{ t + s;= ,t. .,..A.. . .-.0:0.0.iv.3 \ ! 45..... /■`�p�g'( y :+� a �5'A4 Vit\ .,.'.i„4,,,f`1�' 15+'+,as ` r•-' 4 ,.... !+ o wt,,�r.:E,• .:4 "`� 45 - Y",..:-:,..,..g.-,..„:„..,,,,,,:.:...,..,r ,%�t!4 N 3 M _ \'• :;zo. ,l^�j ,,,1+ey .2•L - t'+Ty;#yt 94.0 ' . `.Jtrr`r, t� - + r „. +.•: f a i- +• .•lv:: ,�� / \t^ \.G• .yYr.: i t rk p MEMO TO: jCity Council and Planning Commission FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Five Year Capital Improvement Plan DATE: July 1 , 1981 Introduction The City of Shakopee received a grant to put together a Five Year Capital Improvement Program (Plan) in 1980. The project element of the plan is now completed and is attached in draft form for your review. Also attached are samples of the forms and instructions we used to develop the project list. Remaining to be completed is the narrative portion of the plan which discusses long term financing. Timing We have been pushing hard to put the project portion of the Plan together for Planning Commission and City Council review as part of the City' s 1982 budget preparations . Staff would like to complete Planning Commission and City Council review of the pro- jects list in July. Process The Plan is one tool for implementing the comprehensive Plan and should be reviewed and recommended to City Council by Plan- ning Commission annually prior to City Council ' s budget prepara- tions . Since this is the first Plan to be acted upon in a number of years , it is staff ' s recommendation that both bodies remember that the only year of the Plan that will be acted upon before you review it again will be 1982 . Therefore, you can and should view 1983-86 with considerably more flexibility than 1982 . Staff anticipates two opportunities for each body to discuss the Plan with action to be taken at the end of the second meet- ing. Once the Plan has been appraised, it will become a key part of the annual budget cycle with all or most of the first year (1982) of the Plan being incorporated into the annual budget. Focus Planning Commission. Planning Commission should look at the projects listed to determine if they are in accord with the first five years of the City' s Comprehensive Plan. Projects not complimenting the Comprehensive Plan should be noted and projects omitted, but needed, should also be noted. City Council . Upon receipt and review of the Planning Com- mission' s recommendations on the Plan, City Council should focus Five Year Capital Improvement Plan h Q July 1, 1981 Page 2 on the financing of the first year of the Plan (1982) so that it can be put in the annual budget. Summary This is the first draft of the first effort by staff to put together a Plan. Planning Commission and Council should not hesitate to ask questions and/or suggest changes in the projects listed or the priority given the projects . GOOD LUCK! Enclosures JKA/jam - Planning Department CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM icNcC\ C� Shakopee , MN Form A Instructions An Individual Project Request is to be submitted for each and every new project . (*Items #3 , #13 , #14 , #19 , and #20 are to be answered by department heads only . 1 . Department - State name of department making the request . 2 . Date - Insert date of filing this form. -ti3 . Department Project Number - Each department should number their requests in order of their filing. (The number will stay the same even if priority is altered from year to year. ) Use the department codes for the first letters and use sequential numbering beginning with number 1 , 2 , 3 and so on, for the last digits . For example , the first three projects listed for the Planning Department would be numbered thusly : P-1 , P-2 and P-3 (see next page for department codes) . 4. Project Name - A short , description name should be given to each project . 5 . Project Location - Give the location of the project in suffi- cient detail to permit siting on the attached map . If no site has been selected, designate "general area" , "undetermined" , or "city-wide" , as appropriate . 6 . Description of Project - In the blanks provided designate whether project is new construction , or replacement of an existing project or an expansion to an existing project . The description of the project should be in sufficient detail to permit full understanding of the nature and scope of the work. If the improvement is to be a building, give floor space , number of stories , parking, specific equipment to be installed , etc . For other construction , indicate size , capacity , type of construction and all other pertinent data . 7 . Purpose and Need - The need for the project should be explained in detail . State the reason , such as present building and { • -2- `� equipment obsolete ; area in which facility is to be located is now unserved or inadequately served; fire hazard ; traffic congestion ; City population and building trends if they have relevance ; etc . Specific need should be documented. Refer to special reports , engineering , planning, etc . State also whether the use of the proposed facility would be dependent upon the completion of some other project . 8 . Status of Project - Check whichever item best describes the status of this project . 9 . History - State any pertinent information on past efforts re- lating to this project . 10. Amount of Time Estimated for Completion of Project - Give the time estimated for completing all phases of the project from the beginning of planning and engineering to the completion of the project . 11 . Conformance With Comprehensive Plan - All project proposals should conform to the Comp. Plan of Shakopee . If they do not , explain how the Plan should be revised to obtain such confor- mance . This explanation should be attached on a separate sheet and should list in detail all proposed changes in the Master Plan and justify the need for such changes . To be completed by the Planning Department . 12 . Financial Schedule - List the total estimate cost for engineer- ing, land , construction , and equipment , etc . and the estimated City share of such costs . In the column headed "Prior Approp 'n" list amounts from any source which have been previously approp- riated to cover each of the items of cost . There are six columns under the heading "Required Appropriation" . In the first one , fill in the year in which it is recommended that the project should begin , giving the estimated appropriation required for each item of cost . If it is estimated that the project will not be completed in the year in which it is begun, place an "x" in the next year ' s column , marking an "x" in every succeeding year ' s column until the project is expected to be completed. -3- • *13 . Source and Amount of Funds - Give the total City Share , by year, as needed to complete the project . If possible , list amounts by category, such as proposed appropriation , bonding, etc . If any State or Federal Assistance is contemplated for the project , list such amounts in the proper blanks , specifying the name of the particular grant or loan . Be informative , indicating poten- tial funding sources where possible . *14 . Effect on Operating Budget - Give the amount , as indicated by which the annual budget may be increased or decreased due to the operating costs incidental to the use of the project . For example , a new building may necessitate additional personnel to staff it , additional supplies , contractural expenses may be less- ened because the new building ends the need to pay rent , and maintenance and equipment costs may be lessened or increased because of new and better facilities . 15 . Additional Facilities for Capital Improvements Needed to Make Project Fully Usuable - If any additional facilities will be required as a result of this project which were not included in the cost estimate , such as added street lighting or paving, list them and give the estimated annual cost of these services if recurring, or total cost if non-recurring. Indicate "None" if no other facilities are required . 16 . Expansion of Existing Program - Answer yes or no if proposed project is an expansion of an existing project or program, an addition or improvement to an existing structure , road, water line , etc . , or if the proposed project is a new project . 17 . Useful Life of Project - State the estimated useful life of the project . 18. Is Approval or Review of Other Governmental Agency Required - Answer yes or no ; name the requesting local , state or federal agency. If it is not known whether approval or review is required , answer "Not Known" . *19 . Department Priority Rating - Indicate which category best describes the requesting departments ' point of view concerning the project ' s priority rating. 1 -4 a Urgent - projects which effect public health or safety, or improve an imminently life threatening situa- tion Necessary - projects which are now underway and must be completed ; projects needed to correct a totally obsolete facility or projects which will correct extraordinary high maintenance or operating costs Desirable - projects which cut costs ; improve operating and/or maintenance costs ; improve public convenience ; provide new or expanded public services *20. Department Priority Number - Rank this project by priority in relation to all other proposed projects within your department by assigning a number , such as first , second, third and so on . 21 . Remarks - Give any additional information needed to further clarify the subject , such as relationship to other existing or future projects , etc . 22 . Signature and Title - This form should be signed by the head of the requesting department with the signee ' s title given in the appropriate space . Planning Department r ra Department Codes Capital Improvement Programs Shakopee , MN Department Code Administration Ad Finance Fn Engineering E Assessor As Building Inspection B Planning P1 Superintendent of Public Works PW Police Po Fire F Community Services CS Utilities U . 1982-1986 / 6 /Shakopee , MN STATUS SHEET \f-V INDIVIDUAL PROJECT REQUEST Ff.\ Department : Par K Department Project No : Pa- 1 ,,240/7/3 Project Name : 3 T P rKProject Priority Rating : / - Date : Submission of Project : %(,/t1 Comments C . I .P . Staff Review : C . I .P. Committee Review : Finance Information : z�c�fJ � �-•-t -� 3.����- ' � / 1/ /� 5 D v 3 / l , c---z --1 Notes : <CV 'Og A—°— • � ' � uaplcau- Improvement Program • �D C� CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT RATING SHEET Project Name 'i ELT Pork Project No. Project Cost 91- Criteria 9Criteria Score Range Points A. City Department Priority Classification 1 . Urgent 10 2 . Necessary 7 3. Desirable 5 !- B. Policy Area Priority `J 1 . Very High 10 2 . High 7 3. Medium 5 4. Low 2 C. Project ' s Expected Useful Life Three years or less score zero 1. 20 or more years 10 2 . 10-9 5 3. 4-9 2 D. Effect on Operating and Maintenance Costs /0 1 . Reduce Cost 15 2 . Cost Unchanged 5 3. Increase Cost /'XSc�, 0 0 E. Effect on City' s Source of Revenue (tax Base) 1 . Increase Revenues 10 2 . Revenues Unchanged 5 3. Decrease Revenues 2 3- F. Availability of State/Federal Grant Monies If no, score zero 1 . 75-100% 1O 2 . 50-75% 5 3 . Lower than 50% 0 • ttanning Department Shakopee , MN C . I . P . Committee Use Oni INDIVIDUAL PROJECT REQUEST Project No . FORM A Priority No . 1 . Department : 4. Project Name 2 . Date : j 5 . Project Location : (Location on � map) „3 • Department Project No. /2(.1)- 6 . Description of Pro b et : New Replacement Expansion 011ier . Purpose and Need : C.-4)m'n. 7,;, �� /D,j 1^ /C',5 � � U pQ. .° e A S. Status of Project : Nothing done except this report Sketch plans in preparation Preliminary estimated received ?Sketch plans completed _Surveys completed Detail plans in preparation _Work on plans scheduled _Detail plans and specifica- Land acquired tions completed Plans not requried Q. History : 7--/; ; . • l A , ire • .�. 1 /j e ([/ � �' 10. Amount of Time Estimated for Completion of Project : Years 4 Months 11 . Conformance with Comprehensive Plan : Yes No (To be completed by Planning Dept . ) P- rage No. 12 . Financial Schedule: • Estimated Cost Requir-bd Appropriation Prior ITLM Total City nrl�ro` ' n 19 I9. _. 19 19 1925- 19 Survey ^ ----- Land Acsition - -- - MEM Architectural 111111111111111 Engineering i ,, , Construction = , . • Equipment — �Q., ,� Purchase ^Other -----_ _. �r TOTAL — �� 2 .:> 500 • ;;13 . Source and Amount of Funds : 19_j_i_______ 19 19 - 19.,'=,[ City Share I —� ] 9 ------. Proposed Approp ' n I General Oblibation Bonds r Dedicated Revenue or Revenue Bonds a Assessment Bonds Reserve Funds 1v4,, State Share Grants-in-Aid : _ 1 r>:. / , I Loan Federal Shard `- Grants-In-Aid : • i Loan: -- _ TOTAL * 14 . Effect on Operating Budget: 15 . Additional Facilities for Increase Revenue Capital Improvements Needed to Decrease Revenue Make Project Fully Usuable: No. New Positions ( for example : streets , utilities) Add. Salary Costs s- . Add. Other Costs -.�. Maintenance y Equipment __ a 1)0 .>,7 Not Effect (+ or -j 4. _ ! 4- i52.-, . : N •6. Expansion of Existing Program : Yes �� No New Program : Yes No 17 . Useful Life of Project : 18 . Is Approval or Review of Other Governmental Agency Required : Yes ' ,'' No Name of Agency /0h1:r, , n ' ' /4P74 CDH r+c, x'•19. Department Priority Rating : Urgent Necessary Desirable b� Department Priority Number : (1.// 21 . Remarks , J� 1, :, ": > P' f.,. %• , , /' C O h.•_ ' /r X k. , `i ,Ei v`i / - / / Ass /� � ;� 1r` p r ,�+ `'_ ��1�G h Pr h h�Y4Pd?I r� J 22 . Submitted By �-e2e--fe 0✓,✓,1„e. 4: Signature Title l6,) °'-' too trl C.1 H t9 C) HH TJH co < Cil Cs1 > H Ci) C!) H H H 7J H CI Cn Z r W • G H 0 rD G z n cn 0 rt H 0 a rt < 0 Cl) H '71a r n CD a d 0 c C) o H t rD G CO Cf) c rh tri Z rt • H rt H H C C) a-. • z W 7 co (D rn i CD C) CZ 0 rt H Z H. LH'< H n OD ''''•••I—' 0 Cn ri H xi H Z 7J H CD 03 C W C [17 fl)0 H 0 H zrt H Z rI co H 0 In H H W H H ✓ C 07 Oo H H H A as V O N W V .A W In V N.) H H CS. - O O O 00 O O V CO lD 0 0 O O O W C O In H O O O O O O VD O 0 H H H CT H H Ni H �+ CO O Ni Ni H In H -P- LO W In (.) lD V C In V H tri o lD H 0 0 0 0 0 .0 lD O O C C O 0 O N H H O O O O O O O 0 .h7 i cn .Z- rt H 0 r '-i a) V H H H H r O Ni •A V H H - H rt l0 CS V - V N VI O H .D lD H O O O O O 00 ,..0 O O O O O O O C 140 O O O O O O O 1 ►C r .P W W O O V V H In OD H In A V N In 0 H W 0' 0 0 O O O 110 lD O O O 0 O 0 0 CO O O O O O O O 0 N H N W V Ln Cu) H H In 4> W V -N V N In C H � lD lD O O O O O l0 kr) O O O O O O O CO O O O O 0 0 0 O LP N H Ni In CO H H In O 4> kr) -NV Ni In O H N N CO O O O O C lD V lD O O O O O O O � N O C C O o O O O co H %D a' c" 9 9 0 0) H. G a CIi CO 7) (CD 9 H C) ((DD H C) ) 9 •H--' CIi CIC.1 ;i H N• C o (D rt G `C o CO `C o G G a C O H C N G Pa r• sy p rt 'a 0 m b 0 0 rt H. w n CD W a'til H. {o I--' F-' i-, 0 o (D b H. CD '0 (D 0 0 <o H T.` 0 {/r H H. (D co 1M0 ort0 Pr oCo mon ~ w ° P) 1PI � . roll Pi (D rt Cr• N H- D CYH Ort rt ° Ort r• w O (D C) r• rt n rt n r• d 0 (D ° G O (D rt rt O H- to OO H (D CD H co 0 n H. 0 (D H. H rt G (D ri H II H (D U (D C) Cli rt 0 co CD kC rt r• (D CD CD C/) A) CD OD !-' G rt f•-' ° I-, .-. H rt �. C) rt rt to CI rt (D (ll (D x 0 A. H 0 0 H rt A) mo o F-' A) C) Hh b w H. H. H. r• �t, n (D rn rt rt) G. H Z 0 `C G G kC O rt) It n rti H- O H (D C P) o G r-( R, rt 0 H G C m W E-+ 1-, P) (1) H ° r• H G 0 CD 9 II ri O N rrtt 0 0• CIi roLC C' M an H FH Cr) a d Co0 Cl) a O. H."C (D H. rt G C t) ft, C) C) Do H. • I Co I CD I I ... ... Co H H H %.O 1D CO CO po N LO IV I I F-' q) 00W 1 V W vlF'' H ® O V ' F CO 0 ® 0 O H O Z :o n o ro H H 9 — r O O R n.) 0 `� ro Z H r H co H H 8 co W I co i rC 1-' 00 kD OD 0 i', 0 O C> 0 ln 00 8 H H O 00 0 oN tri ~d G O n 1-d by hd n 7cJ cn H. cn n "d 7J :"' H to C C C PJ :h id N P3 H.H. PI O A) G G -0 W ri cD O rf ri H. W r• Oa co a n H (-) G H. a. i-i CD a) t-1 O 1-1 P) a a n cn U' a.-o b a a G b r• C (D ti P) 'd 0 a rh p) C a H. G H. H H I rt r O CD ri CD W A) a r• M rt O A) Cr. I''• O W N ''d rr `.0 H. fD G fD G H. G' a I-'' f) n b r'i rT] a G tri fD H d0 0 7y 9 ri a tT3 ft, C. H. H. n t'] G d n G / G N, O O� `C 0 A) Cn G cn cn G H. G ti H. rt) fD a ffDD rot 5 G 1-...n G rZ b b (D rr i-,. 4) ) n a w 5 w w b (D n cn 0, a sC) ' o Cn CD a) Cn H. - rt G a G fA rt $ n fD a F-1 (D rt 5 rt /I r-i W O G' m P Il - I-, Cn X A I-, In H H I-, vp N - V.) 4 .G H N N 0 OD Co 0 0 0 0 0 041 0 0 O 0 I-, o 0 0 0 0 00 0 O Q 0 0 0 0 LII.5 9.> P. n O o H Or", O ....• H H r r1 W N s0 a CT7 00 CAVY0 N H 00 00 " O H b r-3 Hv H Cl) ® N H AJ Q H H 0 " p',i $ -0 ®o co I 0 0 $ 8 w O o o cn mop 0 8 o 0 K 1H 00 h' N H O O O O O 0 8 s L t)� - W V H 0 O Q O co e•-. p W W 6` VI W H 0 O O 00 8 Co /D cn rt H. ri ri cn 'TJ ''b CP '1 N A cn cn cn cn N tz1 (D ;U f-, 7J :d Pd Z X n G O r-i G H . _ G rt W rr n,\ a (D W N0 N (D (D (D H. (D O £ �o 1 0 t„ O PIH I-t n rt a Ln a m U) b E n CA C y E (D r* (D H T H. O H. G n 1-+ H n W A) r� rt H I-; n (D G O 0 1--h n G a G7 n G (D Cd [ O .a) tz7 rt v) rt a G x (n 'd‘C H. N o n n o N o w m o rzi G En i•-, rt n o G rt O (D a ni D{ rt0,C a.H £ Cr) n FH-' a' rt n '0 o rat n o m cn PI H. 0 ti 'd (D (D a G O G E MOOG HI G (D rt (-I- 1-3 N• C"G G 't (D Oo (n a n \ rt H r; n rt rt 7J cn (D H. rt O n 5 •t7 (D G• ..0 (n -" • H. U) tt n 0 c W x••cy . (D n G 9 O cm) 0 a rt (D a G n to 't b:) H. 0 G 70 0 H i 00 O Cl) (Cl U) rt -, - n G G (D HI D7 11 'i (Cl rt a CO x' H.10 fTJ a G () Cl) Z m 1-, )-, H. X) ..� n (D G x o a ,,,\ n (Cl rt a H. 1.1 n = (D K7 G (D rt rt (D '.• H H rt n G 5 x a 0 G' 0 I— o n Cn G o (n (Cl H. rt O (D � a 0 rh rt 0 HI N N H `� l0 W N W w h" H O O 0 0 0 o 0 0 p O n vl H 0 H O r w H H--H 2.> Ln —W Lo o0 1 o O in o o H0o Qc bO o 0 z H r H N H O () \.,0 co I O O V W O 0 O diFC O w o N., © O w .0 op o O o 0 00 0 O w 9) H sj1 -1 o r'' J 0000 8 0 0 0 0 6' 0 8 0 F-' 00 rn • Icn 43 b F0 1-, Fd tO t'' Z ''.i x 'Tl rty V) rri H tv X C a t�C t7 C --' ,.b ,-d ° 0 o w o w `- (D ,_ ,i n w n w ri w H to Q• 11 ^e H. a rl O w O w 1-. G H. rt £ n o rt cm (D n n rt 4 w N.b n o C C7 a 1'� (D rt n (D 11 E • H. G 1-' w rt E (D C F-' (D ri m ci G rt X t7'4 Co ~ 0 a x (Gp Ol n 0 W ''d I rt. QQ O (D 1 rl N rt CO r• rt (D E rt w w A) fD ^e n rt o (D F--, a o E t- r• F-' o n T n 0 x`C O n • O (D \ n G a En H. --• D it N5cn £ n r• tO cn H o x (D et Gn CD wit nC11 (D C) O 0 xO 11 G ] 0 x V) A) CDD rt co cm; x w oo m Ca, n b n n 4 rt O 'z7 (D G n H H• rt rt • n 1/40 H Wim, co N °�° C 00 00 0 0o o n a b H .-. H V> ND N H w tv F-' 1.-., CO — w t=7 O 0 1 OO TV 0 O N H O O O 0 0 O Fi Z H r H V) 1..-, P _W N H In 0 ® � o O - Q co I o p0 cn 0 x O t 1✓ 4 0CCo 8 8g 0 0 0 0 J • 0 0 N QD CO In d0 �° ON 0 i 0 I ) o H. 0 C./.1 H. hi I H H. ~ 5 M b rh re Cl) m H rn OD o H o o n H H �Hrri o 00 0 O F i O b H H H H Co i U) I� Ico H N Co Co O O H tD OD 1O MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne Andre, Administrative Assistant RE: Future City Council Meetings on Cable Communications DATE: July 2 , 1981 At its July 1 , 1981 meeting, the Ad Hoc Cable Communications Committee , requested to have a joint work-session with the City Council to discuss the revised Request for Proposals (RFP) and Draft Cable Franchise Ordinance on July 28, 1981 . In addition the Committee recommends the Council schedule a public hearing on the RFP and draft Ordinance on August 11 , 1981 . JA/jam try OD "J rn v1 r- w II v, r " N ry Priority tai vi co I G` CA) O� Cu h)i , '7\ (Fund mola rn v, o 0 N �, Pr„�-r�ur: i:'Yrr,t,F r m I ¢ to O to N.) U H M 0 M to M t H c+ n H c+ p, c+ b cc+ 7 c• am+ p O O t;+ p in O P N. O P. O F . F. • F `+ F. c+ p c+ F R• 'Y R, 'd CL ti a 1 O ti ct O < tt O U) C7 p (7 (D 0 ¢ H R R 0 I R- c/ ° p 0O O 'd O •C� p i'd O n O Ul n CD - 1 c-+ m c-+ u m ,1 o R o P. o m O CD U) cu 0 M ,,�GCrijttIr,n 11 {o dfn Lt o, P v) W H O ro k F' { ,s .. < H u) Iv trj rn • w 1+ u) c N in et 0 c 0 p 0 a) 0 0 H H vt 0 o '-1 _rl Ui 0 CD N K �E o et n0 p 0 0 0amwO • o om0 H' 0 c+ N`+ O 0 D 0 C0 0 W 0•0 o o O 'U O N 0 O W _)- O 0 O YO O U iq 0,- ni H P c+ • I. N Oo V1 if . ...." : H -1 reasibiepor't, VD p «3 o SPUC H • Approval •• IP ub i i c ' HOW Hearing II M H o O v, (Plans and ti o Spec if I.cat ions 0 :. co • d `C M 1. Hight-of-Way �' a, (Acquisition 7 ° • t : ‘..n uKi ' i \'cr:D • i w y °�\ IBid r t N H Date �� • nai '• co OJ • K • = IAs x'. .;rlt•n 1. co •• CO • rn -• �. ' ;c; Hear i rtg m r, °N° °�° o • • H (Date o : to l• • C7 a' .. a to , c ) Ui . it, tO tit :St :] ti, N N W HCY\ W _n H 1--' H CC) c0 H 0 0 G vi CO 0 N H O, O\CoNv Ol J CT CD 0 C Engineer�D CT 1 O N VD CD C 0VD w 0 0 0 ro VI w 0 H 0 H H� - H rn•n w 'Technician .i.II p 1--, •-n w 0v 0 v, H o 0• '1 N N 0 CO or\-) H0N O HCo ff o\ No v, Technician lI d -4C00 000 o (O e,, o\„ o 0 1Nv n.) ND o o Inspector IL i Criw H' et- o O o o 0 N rn a� CO W N !'echr,ician I 0 w 0 O\ 0 0 0 0 H -� o O N O o N 0\00 In spec tor I o 1--, •-• 0 N N rS CD O H O 0 W 0 0 CO N H B O H 'J1J1 110'' H CDC\ 0 0 10 NWS SeC rEtal'j H H C) V V H O 0 H O\ H CO 1 J 0 FH , N L...) H N H N H o t a Co J O\CO U7 `,0 t-' W 0 0 c0 W O \O 0 0 o\a vi H \J1 ~ N N I„_, 1-' tet? P H N W N oO H v1 CO�O J W\Tt N 7 1 10 \ji t0 Co WO CTcoO O o-) N co RD p -Co O\ 0\W0 Engineeringp . e( v,0\ CO r v, N rn w rn t v,\O 0 w, Dept. Fee 0 td * * P F II 0\ vn W N H O W i � v (Priority . 1 N) k.p "p H kwFund c 0\ v, r (.^) r" o \ IProgr m Number c+ 1) U) 0 cU+ W UU-+ Hsm ml W C� Co m `0 b u) p a H CD 0 H. H. CD 1- :> H. H. IJ H H II CD CD c+ CD a CD CD K m CD • Fi x n �' P, a 0 P, H fa, CO P, a • F• 0- o O a o P 0 C0D 0 o o • p 0 0 U1 0 U) P. U) H. Cl) Cl) t-1 Ul ''_' (D CA CD c+ K c+ c+ c+ c+ H c+ c+ C) •• P •• F,. .. H. •. IJ et- O K •• c+ 1�. 1 O 0 c+ •• O 0" •• c II 0 0 K 0 H H Description ITJ �- P -69- -_,9, 4f)- 0 '(,) P - °) En -Eft R) ~ > H. 1-1 N e0, N.� (D N N H to N N K c+ H 0 N CD \J-1 Dr) c� CD 0 O\ 0 0 0 0 01 c+ +H. CO + v 10 0. 0n C+ 0 O 0 0 c roi� O v (D !v 0 C+ 0 c� 0 0 o 0 0O cn 0 m 0 • . o 5 •0 0 0 0 0 •0 • H. 0 I 0 N 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 0 N P cx) o Ch • \ y I J • •, co I. .•. 'L . co keport P _ O ' V1 • `'� \ • `Z • '�. . Vl rI'�C A • N '> Oo • \ . \ • 1---, . \ Approval I-' • t, \ V 0v F II'Ub11C it •, 1_, • • 1--• • Cl) H • R• . 0 • 01 • v1 eF • i'l �n:: :LI Id o' w Specificatior:s `- o� : : Right-of-Way •• Co • Co Co • a • • Acquisition o of . F-' H . ti N H I • ; •z • rn : v, : : rid ti •. •�' :. :. N Co .. CO .. (Date ti Iv �; '' • CO O, • CO O-.) Co \ \ ls:essmenI. .• I-' :. : I 1 • I_' . I ' . ;1 : hearing •In �, ,-1 o • • • : "' rn Completion \ \ \ &+ • co • w • w • op . co • co Date o •• N •. H •. F-' .. H •. N .. F' • �• C_ 0 tT1 C) W Z 0 W N C•) of :: n try F n trV :; C) tri ;0 tri CD H H H N H ' N .vN1 - co oa) `�a o . vw, +�.- acorn ' O'o rn o-1 o 00 ,, L;rI ,ineer N Co o rn rn 0 0 o w H a N N �) w r 'technician l i t o OO\n OF v) OO ) NN W 0 v 0 OO 0 H HN •-., 000 000 orO� ww N COSH. i'echr.ician II ; ' o w o 0 0 !c ON N) 0 0 o Inspector I �+ �' r H. Q' o H 'Ui H . F-' 'Technician I :•+ 0o o off H ' NN 'o r• o o v, N N 0 0 0 0 00\ 0 0 0 0 Inspector I o F N W {_, Nv, 0 \n O O O O O\O V, v,k.0 CO N I-' W N N co O W O �:: ' F O N (> • CO n) N -1 N -] W N H --I V, Lot},-) H N 0) - --- -,1 N 0 O V1 v, '-O H O 00-1 0 N r\) N co 0) H N r,) - W N O\--1 '-p 0 N c-) {f} H V,•tel N -!- Vl I»-- N --'� N 10 10 Engineering - N VI O N �v I -rn N I--' n) i,)o �w w �„ o o co I N I Dept. Fee N N H I W 0\ I 0"0 N N ,0 v, -3 'ON W v, O 0\ N) c,) HO, N v, i —1 0 I 1\)(3\W „c°,1 iv N �n N W N N N N * * II 0\ W N H O o' Priority I 1 W o 1 1 O o co W 1 ' P, 1 'Fn.nd vi (�D iN N R) N N (D N O Program Number er P., tr1 H tx1 H trj x w d r ,b Cf w cc--* 0 cc+ H c ti to m -f • Cl) 0 c-W Fl f w m pi (cf p E " (1) ~' H. O ct (Cl c+ w m w w P -7 p c+ p m K K Cl Cl) H. a fD < m c d (Do rn x (D C n Cl H p M a Oo co (7 N (� H O rn R ww Cl H (D EEn CC) m CD 0 u 0w. m m . C 00 Cl a o. a t r �* d c+ ct N 1 � �+ m H R w o H K Description -69- -co- (D - P. c F Fes, N d K H w H i Cl 4A 0 • o °' of P Ham m M w 0 O U) N. H. 0 0 \p 0 ODc+ OU 0 m 0 0 0 O o P (D 0 o cn O 0 0 0 c O cn cn 0 0 0 o o o O o 0\ o o hi P K • FJ Feasibility o . co o • cox, li . H :•• I-' •; N c, Ikeport P c-+ 0 :. o . w • z I. � N b • co ' •I. ISPUC U1 N H • •• • N .. :. Approval • o'' H- • m •• F. • • • I'Ubl i i N H '• • :. :. co :. Hearing f n .. U • : : : H. Plans and • N N • o �` • Plans _i, icon: . l H c1 U P • ell .• ; ,, \ •• \ H. Right-of-Way Z, ' w c+ w ,• co • Co H1 Acquisition :3 O N • H 4. • rfi • • • O ti to • • W • Vl •• --1 Fd . �3 I : tz• •. H. • (Bid r U) W N H c+.. a) CAI H co • Assessment " co w :. :. N .. .. • Hearing c� • M H co : Co • Co (Completion o 3 o td 0 ai Z o r n a: tb Z () c; W x Cl m �' -4 N -3 n-s N O\ 1 H I , 1 t w 0 0 1 1W I 1',111'lnt• `t' O 0 o O 'ul H O O 0 o O\ 0 o O 411 H H VD CoW Hoo 0 0 0 o "' CO H - JTechnician [Il 0 0 0 0 o Vl 0 0 0 0. O\ O\\J-1 0 0 1-' 0 0 n 0 N N N 0 0 -4 N L-, Technician 1I O 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c�` inspector ; ( cf 0 0 t - Q' .D Teohn is i an 1 ,•- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oN - 1 \„ o Insnectot• l o c-, 0 o 0 0 000 c1 N N .� D 0 co p N 'S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Q O I ONOo 0\ Secretary N O O O p W 0 4-- H 4. H H H 0 c1-- N p vn 1\) OD 0\ a i , 0 0 0 0 V1H 0 00 0 NO 0 Olt N 0cc 0 0NS lOtiil H 0 \ NOS N) I-' 1, I I '0 I I I I O\ I I 0-) N F I I �'1 1-) 0 O 0 O\ 0 I-,fn 0 0 O\ o V1 a=- o O" vo H O 0 0 O\ H I Engineering I I 1/40 I •'---CO I I I CO 0 I I Co 4--J I I N o I o v,v0 0 H o wow rno Dept. Fee N * co --.1 N N w --.1 °1 va !Priorityy nF w F (Fund. co -3 rn 'Program Number 0oil tJ d� t7 t=ien cr H p. (D �— crr+ y cF H c+ v-1)a' t=J c+ 9 c+ c+ L=J O w w P 0 rt. c+ td cc-1 P H 0 ? C] a r R, o cam+ ClI h ((D 0 o a N n C7 • 0II m ° t7 t•-.1 c, `• • cF .+ c+ ,°-i) sc_ription d , o — Haw Hr cn . . H Ro 'd c+ H cc Co• N H o o \n tCy CO :7' o cD C) 0 0 i. O I-1 C=J O 0 • 0 c-! U 0 (Cl 0 O C=1 0 0 0 Fd O 0 0 11 • Feasibility • . Iiepor•t • ; . • S F'UC • • . lf'ubi i c p " .• • .. :. - _ • Herlririt- .. • • • • •• • •• . . Plans and [j. : Specification:. 'e''. tr, • Eight-of-Way a--: •• •. •• ?cquisition H. m •• • . Bid N " • : rid • 2 m • • • • • • • • 11sseJ:Jment Hearing P-1, �; p •. ,. 1 G 11 i : •completion ate P3 2 i 0 w C7 tz7 C') U7 : c] nj z a W o w s 7 w C CH0 q -r✓--- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Engineer 00 M N c+ ° o n I'cchnic irtr; Il .Iro: n O N O O O O O O �f�Vl Li (D coN a) N N NoN TechnicIan it"' Nn opo 00 0 00 0 In:pcctor H ,1 .. ° • en VD ., OD H Technician I , `I 0 \O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 inspector I 0 � NIA a) v, \n I—' w .--- r '1 m � o -3 0 `� � a 00 0 00 o Secretary F-' H VD N N N H .0 Total CO H O b N N0 0 0 0 0 0 \n :(11:'eD P 11 0 O \O W\O f--' cwt' H H} • fJ • . N Engineering cM o .0� r o o ~ 1 F °' Dept. Fee oo �-rnro F 0 000 o c-r w o o �- -- ,-- II O, 0 c 0 p o H H W N i_. w Program • aNumber on CD (-) H o HO~ P. Crq 7r:4P n N. H O m rJ rnin en C a N. R` m41-P. N til U) p kb '.3 cfCDri O W O F H OQ I I m H g 'CD OD P.n H I- N• O C O cA s✓ H p c+ H• • P CD 0co • r • tri: ;• • 0 • U (D N II 'U til ' w Hi H •• • Y c U • ql ; ti .r L.) H-� H H .J 0 0 t o °' !dumber P. CD (-I m Cl) 'b o o a CD P H CD w P G CD N' c+ CD �• 4c+' + n N CD m H 1, H H P O co its H. H la, CD W !� R C + �' ld 0 0 H P 01-1 U) H. CD 'Ti0 UJ r) 0 El C o C+ 0 c+ c+ P H. H. II 1-4 CF W H C ,T1 Co ii IJ' 0 c H CD ,• . W CD oC) c+ Ti) P c+ [ll (U '1 • • . -. el LTJ HP oHf FA c+ (-«- z H b CF tr1 : P • o :. : r1 W 1i b z m O H • H •. 0 • • `� H x CO . . . : 0 H • •• •, ., ,. ,b 0 W • H • ; • H 0 Ci s. C; p s r) D7.1 ` C) W 4 1) co CD H I W I W I H N I H C)) I I I I H 1 I..tlF;if1C:•,- U) I -a I W -—4 I -C'—1 I N I\) I 0 0 I UJ U) I W W I H CO H I _. N I i 'Technician 1. 11 O -1 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 N I 0 0 I ' 0 W I 0 0 1 - 0 I 7 71 i i I I I 1 1 ectlf;i c ittll : 1 — C 0 ! 0 0 i W Vl I 0 - I H-' H I I I J I1 W W I 0 \O I .I~_--' 0 1 U) H I i f l:>I)C-C t i.t t' i 1 '-' P 'S w & o 1 I I G I I i I 1 I I `I'echniciah 1 c o 0 I o o I 0 0 1 0 - I 0 0 0 0 i i \~n i o-- 1 .l 1 i pec t.,or 1 I I I W I I , I r•. H' i I CT ---- I 1 I I 'i o W I 0 W 1 0 0 1 0 \n I 0 0 I 0 0 1 0 0 1 H I Sec retiry ,...0 1I I 1 1 n.) I IC31 H 1 1 HW I CT j I I I F' 1 W OO I -P--0 I CT CO 1 - �D 1 \_Hn \n I 0 CO I CO 1 ODI 't 0r a 1 F-‘ - ee- I H O I ~ I 1 I 1 I H I 0 H� H H I -G' CD I O \O I N N I I ) I \n ---.1I \,..n\O COD \O H O I IU 0\ I Cr 0 I ----4 -.1 I 0 0 I G\\t I 7...l t:( e 1'1 f -J _p" I O\ I OO OD I 0 W I \O \O I I W I \.n \O I \n CD I ;)opt.. c'',.,. /Oe MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Thomas Brownell , Police Chief RE : Movie Production DATE: July 6, 1981 A request has been received to film segments of a movie production called "The Minnesota Connection" within the City of Shakopee Sunday, July 12 , 1981 . I have reviewed the request with the City Attorney who has made the following recommendations : 1 . Council approval 2 . Proof of liability insurance coverage 3 . Authorization from the State Highway Department to impede the flow of traffic on 1st Avenue at Lewis Street for short periods of time I have suggested a representative be present at the July 7th meeting to respond to any concerns expressed by the Council . The City has been requested to provide traffic control , which would involve off-duty officers for a fee . TB/jms