HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/14/1981 — _
1
t
TENTATIVE AGENDA
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
}
ADJ. REG. SESSION JULY 14, 1981
Mayor Harbeck presiding
1 ] 6 : 30 P .M. - Work Session - Goals and Objectives , Five Year Capital
Improvement Plan and Five Year Capital Outlay Plan
(bring item 10a from July 7th agenda)
2 ] 7 : 30 P.M. - Roll Call
3] Res . No . 1880, A Resolution Accepting Bids for 1980-4 County Road
16 Utilities
4] Resolutions Declaring the Cost to be Assessed and Ordering the
Preparation of the Proposed Assessments
a] Res . No . 1871 , A Resolution Declaring The Cost To Be Assessed And
Ordering The Preparation Of Proposed Assessment 81-1 (VIP Sanitary
Sewer Interceptor)
b] Res . No. 1872 , A Resolution Declaring The Cost To Be Assessed And
Ordering The Preparation Of Proposed Assessment 80-1 Sanitary
Sewer Laterals in North Half of Section 8 (Hauer Trail Laterals)
c ] Res . No. 1873 , A Resolution Declaring The Cost To Be Assessed And
Ordering The Preparation Of Proposed Assessment 80-3 (Holmes
Street Reconstruction) (Sanitary Sewer Services , Curb & Gutter
and Sidewalk)
5 ] Presentation by the Hockey Association (outline attached)
6] Adjourn to Tuesday, July 21 , 1981 at 7 : 30 P.M.
Leave for meeting with Jackson Town Board
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Henry R. Spurrier , City Engineer
RE : County Road 16 UTILITIES Improvement 80-4
DATE: July 10, 1981
Introduction
Bids will be received July 13 , 1981 for the above referenced
project .
Background
A resolution and recommendations for award or no award will be
made Monday July 13 , 1981 after bids are received. Attached is
the resolution format .
Attachment
HRS/jam
H1 V
mr- 3
RESOLUTION NO. 1880
A Resolution Accepting Bid On
1980-4 County Road 16 Utilities
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the improvement of
County Road 16 east of County Road 17 and west of the east line of Section
6-115-22C by sanitary sewer and watermain, bids were received, opened and
tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying
with the advertisement:
AND WHEREAS, it appears that
is the lowest responsible bidder.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter
into a contract with
in the name of the City of Shakopee for the improvement of County Road 16 east
of County Road 17 and west of the east line of Section 6-115-22C by sanitary
sewer and watermain, according to the plans and specifications therefore
approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk.
2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith
to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except the deposits of the
successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract
has been signed.
Resolution No. 1880 3
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
j(6/
L'7/01',/
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM : Henry R. Spurrier, City Engineer
RE : Reconstruction of Holmes Street Improvement 80-3 ,
Hauer Trail Laterals Improvement 80-1 , VIP Inter-
ceptor Improvement 81-1
DATE: July 10, 1981
Introduction
Assessment Hearings are required on the above referenced projects .
Background
In order to assess the projects it is necessary to adopt a reso-
lution certifying the amount of the assessment and to direct the
City Clerk and City Engineer to prepare assessment rolls for the
above captioned projects .
A brief presentation regarding the assessment computation will
be made for each assessment .
Recommendation
Adopt resolutions numbered #1872 , #1873 , #1871 , declaring
the cost to be assessed ordering the preparation of proposed assess-
ments and specifying the dates of the public hearing for assessment
80-1 , 80-3 , 81-1 .
HRS/jam
44 /
V �
RESOLUTION NU. 1871
A Resolution Declaring The Cost To Be Assessed And
Ordering The Preparation Of Proposed Assessment 81-1
(VIP Sanitary Sewer Interceptor)
WHEREAS, a contract has been let for the installation of a sanitary sewer
interceptor beginning at a section of the existing Shakopee interceptor lying
between County Road 83 and County Road 17 thence proceeding southerly to
County Road 16 thence westerly to Marschall Road and there terminating, and
the contract price for such improvements is $617,823.65, the construction
contingency amounts to $9,683.00 and the expenses incurred or to be incurred
in the making of such improvements amounts to $252,406.00 so that the total
cost of the improvements will be $879,912.65 and of this cost the City will
pay $67,969.35, not as its share but for that part of future assessment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,
MINNESOTA:
1. The cost of such improvement to be specially assessed is hereby
declared to be $811,943.30.
2. The City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer shall
forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such
improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the
district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law,
and he shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public
inspection.
3. That the City Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed
assessment, notify the City Council thereof.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That a hearing shall be held on the 11th day of August, 1981, in
the Council Chambers of City Hall at 8:30 PM to pass upon such proposed
assessments and at such time and place all persons owning property affected
by such improvements and proposed assessments will be given an opportunity
to be heard with reference to such assessment.
Resolution No. 1871
2. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the
hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official
newspaper of the City of Shakopee at least two weeks prior to the hearing and
he shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvements. He shall also
cause mailed notice of such hearing to be given the owner of each parcel
described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing.
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.
A. .
44F/d
Resolution No. 1872
A Resolution Declaring The Cost To Be Assessed And
Ordering The Preparation Of Proposed Assessment 80-1
Sanitary Sewer Laterals in North Half of Section 8
(Hauer Trail Laterals)
WHEREAS, bids have been received for the improvement or:
North one-half of Section 8-115-22 - Hauer Trail by
Sanitary Sewer Laterals
and the contract price for such improvements is $ 44,422.87 , the
construction contingency amounts to $ 2,383.86 and the expenses
incurred or to be incurred in the making of such improvements amount to
59,777.80 and of this cost the City will. pay y $ 0.00 as its share
of the cost.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1 . The cost of such improvement to be specially assessed is hereby
declared to be $ 106,581+.53
2. The City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer, shall
forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such
improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the
district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and
he shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public
inspection.
3. That the City Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed
assessment, notify the City Council thereof.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That a hearing shall be held on the 11th day of August, 1981 in the
Council Chambers of City Hall at 7:30 PM to pass upon such proposed assessments
and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such
improvements and proposed assessments will be given an opportunity to be heard
with reference to such -assessment.
2. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing
on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper of the
City of Shakopee at least two weeks prior to the hearing and he shall state in
the notice the total cost of the improvements. He shall also cause mailed
notice of such hearing to be given the owner of each parcel described in the
assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to r.}'ie hearing.
• ,.
Resolution No. 1860 Page -2- c(
Adopted in session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this day of , 1981.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTLST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this day of
, 1981.
City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 1873
A Resolution Declaring The Cost To Be Assessed
And Ordering The Preparation Of Proposed Assessment 80-3
(Holmes Street Reconstruction)
(Sanitary Sewer Services , Curb and Gutter and Sidewalk)
WHEREAS , a contract has been let for the improvement of :
Holmes Street between 2nd Avenue and 10th Avenue by
sidewalk, curb and gutter and sanitary sewer; and
2nd Avenue between Holmes Street and Fuller Street by
sidewalk; and 6th Avenue between Fuller Street and
Scott Street by sidewalk
and the contract price for such improvements is $31 ,429 . 30 and the
expenses incurred, or to be incurred in the making of such improve-
ment amount to $5 , 183 .27 so the total cost of the improvement will
be $36, 612 . 57 .
NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1 . The cost of such improvement to be specially assessed is
hereby declared to be $36,612 . 57 .
2 . The City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer
shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially as-
sessed for such improvement against every assessable lot , piece
or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to
cash valuation, as provided by law, and he shall file a copy of
such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection.
3 . That the City Clerk shall , upon the completion of such
proposed assessment , notify the City Council thereof .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1 . That a hearing shall be held on the 11th day of August , 1981 ,
in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 9 : 00 PM to pass upon such
proposed assessments and at such time and place all persons owning
property affected by such improvements and proposed assessments
will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such
assessment .
2 . That the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of
the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the
official newspaper of the City of Shakopee at least two weeks prior
to the hearing and he shall state in the notice the total cost of
Resolution No. 1873
the improvements . He shall also cause mailed notice of such
hearing to be given the owner of each parcel described in the
assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing.
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
July 9, 1981
To: John Lnderscn, City Administrator
From: Mary Goetz, Vice-president, Shakopee Hcckey &ssociation
Re: Hcckey Presentation, City Council Meeting July 14, 1981. Page 1.
I. The Effect cf the Ice Arena on ghakcpee Community and Eurrcunding Area.
A. Numbers involved
B. Tournaments
C. Cost of Equipment and upkeep
D. Minnesota Winters
RECEIVED ECE'VED
E. Representatives of our City
JUL 1 0 1981
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
PSip
® elg8l
op
CAN A BUBBLE SURVIVE FINANCIALLY IN SHAKOPEE!
A. Capital investment - maybe.
1. Economic times.
2. Minority sport.
3. Severe P.R. problem for fundraising.
4. Lack of previous fundraising - - mechanics lean - - less
community support.
B. Operating expenses - YES.
1. Ice programs pay operating but not capital expenses.
2. Potential 1500 hours - at least 1,000 already spoken for -
can sell out if guarantee ice time to sell.
3. Modest profit probable - 20 to 25,000.
a. No major breakdowns.
b. No new capital expenditures.
C. Hockey interest is climbing.
I. Minnesota is the hotbed of U. S. Hockey.
2. Success of North Stars.
3. Success of Univ. of Mn. with Minnesota players.
4. State hockey tournament is an unbelievable success.
5. Multiple high school and tournament games in pleasant
surroundings.
/i(IL
TO: Mr. John Anderson
FROM: Karen A. Mathwig
RE: Hockey Presentation - City Council Meeting 7/14/81
Page 3
3. What can the City of Shakopee do to help?
A. Patience regarding lease agreement.
B. Participate in the formation of a Commission
to professionally manage the Ice Arena.
C. Provide guidance to prevent further ill feelings
and financial hardships.
D. Understand that Hockey is now a minority sport in
Shakopee but will not remain so in future years.
, t
PRIOR LAKE HOCKEY ASSOCIATION
P. 0. BOX 92 JUL 1 0 191
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA
55372
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
July 9, 1981
Mr. John Anderson, Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Mr. Anderson,
As Ice Coordinator of the Prior Lake Hockey Association, I would
like to request 150 hours of ice time for the 1981-82 hockey season.
We would be forced to use Northfield if the Shakopee Arena is not
available. We much prefer Shakopee, since this would save us many
hours of drive time and is more convenient to Prior Lake.
We hope the Shakopee facility will be available for our use, and
we would like to schedule our ice hours as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
22,4„,„
Marvin Lund /tri 1
Ice Coordinator,
Prior Lake Hockey Association
ML/mr
7 July 1981
Mayor and City Council
129 E. 1st
Shakopee , MN 55379
C/O John Anderson
City Administrator
Mayor & City Council of Shakopee ,
The Chaska Hockey Association and Chaska H. S. Program wish to offer
support to your Community Ice Arena. We are deeply concerned that
your arena will be fully operative this coming 1981-82 season and
in the future years .
Our communities of Victoria, Chanhassen, Carver and Chaska support
a Hockey youth program of approximately 200 young people. The H. S .
program has about 50 students participating at the varsity and Jr.
level . The ice time required to have a successful youth program
is one hour of indoor ice per member. Therefore , the Chaska Hockey
Association must commit to 200 hours of indoor ice. Additional
80 hours must be contracted for the H. S . program for practice ,
plus all their home games , equals approximately 24 hours . The need
of an indoor ice arena such as yours is quite evident.
Our Hockey Association wishes to thank all of those who volunteered
their time to help construct the arena. More support is required.
Our Hockey Association wishes to offer support to attain a sound
functioning ice arena. This support can be of volunteer work (labor)
or supportive of you local fund raisers . We hope with this enthusiasm
and a commitment of approximately 300 hours of ice rental , that this
can help justify the needed support your city can give to the ice
arena.
Thank you,
Chaska Hockey Association
Leroy Worm
tilt°
IN1;14#
WOW
CI (YE 15
MEMO TO: John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: Don Steger
City Planner
RE: Board of Adjustment and Appeals Action
DATE: July 10, 1981
At the July 9, 1981 meeting, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved
the three requested variances for Cletus Link, as indicated in the attached
staff case report. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals approval was contingent
upon an investigation into whether a drainage and utility easement should
be provided along the easterly property line. If such easement is determined
to be needed, the easement would need to be provided prior to the issuance
of building permits.
As is the normal procedure, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approval
of the variances could be appealed to the City Council by any party within
seven days of the July 9, 1981 public hearing.
DS/jiw
Attachment
44mA %
DATE: July 9, 1981
CASE: PC 81-16V
ITEM: Two Frontyard Variances and Rearyard Variance
APPLICANT: Cletus Link
LOCATION: NE Intersection of 10th Avenue and CR 17
ZONING: R-4, Multiple Family Residential
LAND USE: Vacant
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 17 .04 , Subd. 5; Section 11.28, Subd. 5B
FINDINGS REQUIRED: Section 1.1.04, Subd. 5A
PUBLIC HEARING HELD
CASE HEARD BY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
Proposal:
The applicant is requesting approval of a 5 foot frontyard setback variance
off of 10th Avenue, an 8 foot frontyard setback variance off of County Road 17
and a 12 foot rearyard setback variance from the north property line in order
to construct a 12-unit condominium project at the above location.
Considerations:
1. The applicant desires to construct three 4-ilex buildings containing
a total of 12 condominium units. The land consists of an irregularly
shaped parcel of property of almost one acre in size.
2. Because the property is located at the intersection of two principal
arterials (10th Avenue and County Road 17), the Zoning Ordinance requires
a 50 foot frontyard setback from both streets. However, because of a
provision in the Zoning Ordinance which allows frontyard setbacks to be
reduced to comply with existing adjoining structures, the frontyard set-
back along 10th Avenue can be administratively reduced to 30 feet. The
variance request along 10th Avenue is, therefore, only for 5 feet
(from 30' to 25' ) .
3. The rearyard setback requirement in the R-4 zone is 40 feet. The variance
request if for a 12 foot variance from the north property line (from 4O'
to 28' ).
4. The frontyard variance request off of 10th Avenue would not be detrimental
to the adjoining residence, as the house located immediately to the
east is only 20 feet from its front property line. The proposed 4-plex
and garages would be 25 feet from the front property line. In addition,
the frontyard variance along 10th Avenue would not cause a line-of-sight
problem at the intersection of 10th Avenue and County Road 17.
:-o-
YC 81-16V July 9, 1981
« Link Variances Page -2-
• .
5. The frontyard variance request from County Road 17 would not cause
traffic problem or line-of-sight problem along the county road or at
its intersection with 10th Avenue. The apartment building located north
of this site (at the intersection of County Road 17 and Shakopee
Avenue) is considerably closer to the county road than the proposed 1
4-plex buildings and no apparent problem hal:, resulted. In addition, the
Scott County Highway Department has no objections to the variance
request.
6. The rearyard variance request is not expected to cause problems for two
reasons: 1) no buildings adjoin the north property line of this site,
except for the church, which is located a considerable distance from
the property line; 2) the proposed detached garages may be located
5 feet from the property line which is considerable closer than the
28 foot setback franthe 4-plex.
7. All other site design and Zoning Ordinance requirements can be met.
Staff feels that the layout is well-designed and of a high quality.
8. Because of the irregular shape of the property, a functional and attractive
layout becomes exceedingly difficult to maintain without variances. With
no anticipated negative effects on adjoining property, it appears that
the layout of the proposed condominiums and garages would be the
most practical.
Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of Variance Resolution No. 279, granting a 5 foot
variance from the frontyard setback requirement off of 10th Avenue, an 8 foot
variance from the frontyard setback requirement off of County Road 17, and
a 12 foot variance from the rearyard setback requirement off the north property
line in order to construct three four -rplexes and associated detached garages.
Board of Adjustments and Appeals Action:
Approved subject to easement along easterly property line be determined
' and satisfied.
DS/jiw
Attachment: Site Plan
II
/ ,
TENTATIVE AGENDA
AD HOC CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
Shakopee , Minnesota
Adjourned Regular Session July 15 , 1981.
Chairman Foudray presiding
1 . Call to order at 7 :00 p.m.
2 . Approval of minutes of July 1 , 1981.
3 . Communications
a . Cable Access Programming
b.
4. Discussion of Cable Franchise Ordinance
a. Policy issues
b. Review of other changes to June 10, 1981 draft
5 . Another look at Initial Service Area and Line Extension Policy
6. Review of Request for Proposals (RFP) - Draft No. 3
7. Other Business
8. Adjourn
Jeanne Andre
Administrative Assistant
AD HOC CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
Shakopee, Minnesota
Regular Session July 1 , 1981
Chairman Foudray called the meeting to order at 7 :05 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of City Hall with Committee Members present;
Abeln , Davis , Gorman, and Kirchmeier. Committee Member Christensen
was absent . Also present were John Anderson , City Administrator,
and Jeanne Andre, Administrative Assistant .
Davis/Gorman moved to reconvene meeting of June 17 , 1981 .
Motion carried .
Gorman/Davis moved to approve minutes as presented. Consultant
Anita Benda offered two corrections/additions as follows :
1 . Motion on Page 1 , paragraph 6 , should include the follow-
ing sentence : Application Fees collected by the City
and not expended for evaluation will be refunded on an
equal basis to all applicants .
2 . Motion on page 3 , paragraph 6 should read 5 access channels ,
not 15 .
The Chairman asked for any other additions or corrections . Hearing
none he stated the minutes will stand approved as read.
Administrative Assistant Jeanne Andre indicated there were no com-
munications .
Chairman Foudray asked if any person in the audience wished to he
heard . No one responded.
The Chairman called on Anita Benda to continue the discussion on
cable policy issues from the last meeting, as outlined in her memo
of June 6, 1981 .
As requested by the Committee at the previous meeting Ms . Benda pre-
sented an additional memo (of July 1 , 1981 ) suggesting specific
language to be included in the Request for Proposals (RFP) regard-
ing Access Support and a Citizen ' s Advisory Committee .
Gorman/Kirchmeier moved to accept Ms . Benda ' s recommended changes/
additions as follows :
Access Support :
1 . to substitute the following in the RFP draft no . 2 , part II .
G. (Services which shall be provided by Cable Operator)
4. a. "video production equipment to accomodate studio and
location recording, a portable camera/videotape recorder
and access to post-production videotape editing. "
4. b. "staff assistance for training users in production
techniques and in actual productions . "
2 . to add in part II . G. of RFP draft no. 2 applicants might
consider offering "access support to include equipment
maintenance budgets and policies , access promotion plans ,
run of existing production facilities within the City and
metropolitan area, plans to accomodate the growth of access ,
•
Page 2
access budgets , and financial support for any non-profit
corporation that may develop for the promotion of access
channel use. "
3 . to change RFP draft no. 2 , Section II . I . (Priorities and
Criteria for Evaluation) item 7 from "Early availability
of public access studio provided and supported by fran-
chisee" to "Early availability of access facilities and
staff provided and supported by franchisee . "
Citizen ' s Advisory Committee :
Add new Section I . item H. to RFP, Citizens ' Advisory
Committee, which would read as follows :
The City of Shakopee willestablish an advisory committee
for the purpose of assisting the city council with the
task of administering the franchise , including but not
limited to : monitoring the franchisee ' s performance , hear-
ing and acting upon subscriber complaints , researching re-
quests for rate adjustments and other issues , providing in-
formation on cable to the public , preparing reports for the
council regarding cable matters , and promoting the develop-
ment of the access opportunities on the system. The Com-
mittee ' s structure will be determined by the city after the
franchise award.
Chairman Foudray passed the gavel to Mr. Davis and asked if the
citizens ' advisory committee proposed in the motion wouldn ' t duplicate
the current committee . Mr. Foudray moved to amend motion to strike
portion on recommendation of citizens ' advisory committee . Dis-
cussion followed in which the concensus of the other committee mem-
bers was that the current committee was designed as advisory prior
to adoption of the franchise while the proposed committee would be
advisory after the adoption of the franchise . It would be up to
City Council to decide if there should be a linkage of the two
advisory capacities . The amendment died for lack of a second . Vo-
ting on the original motion took place and the motion carried . Mr .
Kirchmeier suggested the Committee could make further recommendations
on make-up and duties of new committee in the future.
Ms . Benda reintroduced the topic of the initial service territory
on which the committee had requested further cost information on
the expense to all subscribers of broadening the initial service
territory to include scattered subdivisions to the South and East
of the core downtown area of Shakopee . Her projections were cal-
culated with the assistance of CTIC Associates based on conservative
estimates of full costs to provide the system (eg. construction,
capital , operating costs , profits) and full revenues (eg. installa-
tion fees , second set costs , and monthly rates) assuming 50% pene-
tration. She estimated a base cost of $29 . 60/mo. /per subscriber
over 15 years for the core residential area and then estimated the
additional cost _all subscribers if the system were to be extended
to the East and South as follows :
Extension to : Incremental Cumulative
Cost Add-On Cost Add-On
Hauer Add 'n/Killarney Hills Add 'n No add-on , within base area
Montecito Heights Addition $ . 12 $ . 12
Zoschke ' s Add 'n/Horizon Heights Add 'n . 17 . 29
•
. Page 3
Incremental Cumulative
Extension to: Cost Add-On Cost Add-On
Riverview Estates $ .40 $ . 69
CR 89 .01 . 70
Maras Addition . 31 1 . 11
Hillside Estates . 56 . 56
Timber Trails Addition .09 . 65
Deerview Addition . 22 . 87
Eaglewood .24 1 . 11
Ms . Benda explained that if these subdivisions were to be served by
a line extension policy calling for them to be charged the full cost
of the extension the cost would be prohibitive and these areas will
not be served by cable .
Kirchmeier/Davis moved to keep the initial service territory as
that area where there are 40 homes per street mile of cable as in
the current RFP, but to include a map delineating the area the
Committee considers will meet this criteria to avoid interpreta-
tion by the applicants . The initial service territory is to in-
clude Hauer Addition and Killarney Hills Addition. Motion carried.
Consultant Benda presented information on alternative approaches
to requesting line extension policies from applicants . The RFP
can define a line extension policy and ask the operators to quote
costs or can invite applicants to offer their own line extension
policy, perhaps providing Committee preferences .
Davis/Kirchmeier moved to include map in RFP which circles and num-
bers current residential pockets and ask for line extension cost
for each pocket . Motion carried.
Kirchmeier/Davis moved to state preference in RFP for a line ex-
tension policy which recovers the actual cost of time and materials
from the persons served by the extension. Chairman Foudray called
for a division of the house :
Roll Call : Ayes : Kirchmeier, Gorman, Davis
Noes : Abeln , Foudray Motion carried
Ms . Benda presented recommendations on requirements related to the
construction timetable which should be placed in the RFP.
Gorman/Davis moved that the following provisions should be included
in the RFP:
1 . Required construction completion and provision of service
to the initial service area within 2 years from the date of
MCCB (Minnesota Cable Communications Board) Certification;
2 . Require applicants to submit a plan for construction and
service , plotting time against construction areas in 6 month
periods and defining when residences in the line extension
areas will receive service ;
3 . Establish the shortest construction timetable for the initial
service area as one priority for judging applicant ' s pro-
posals .
Motion carried .
• Page 4
Ms . Benda provided background information on regional intercon-
nection between cable systems . The capability to interconnect
is required by state regulations , but the Committee may wish to
stress this service beyond the minimum level established by the
state .
Davis/Gorman moved to incorporate the following provisions into the
RFP:
1 . Require detailed information from all applicants regarding
their plans to interconnect with metropolitan cable systems ;
and
2 . State a preference for the applicant proposing the strong-
est commitment to interconnect its facilities with systems
located in the Shakopee or metropolitan area .
Mr. Gorman withdrew his second to the motion and Ms . Abeln seconded.
Gorman called the question and the molion carried .
Ms . Benda explained local-generated automated information systems,
-whereby community announcements or City Council agendas can be
typed into the system and displayed over cable TV. Equipment for
such a service can be required or requested as well as personnel
to operate the system and channel (s) to display.
Gorman/Kirchmeier moved to require an automated information system
provided by the cable operator for a community announcement service,
with keyboard and video dquipment to be located at the head-end
and at the office of the Shakopee Community Services . Motion carried.
Ms . Benda explained the restrictions on the use of the franchise
fee . Under current FCC regulations the City may set a 3% franchise
fee and use the funds for any purpose . If, as in the current Shak-
opee RFP the franchise fee is to be 5%, the City must submit a
waiver to the FCC in which it demonstrates that the 5% fee is nec-
essary to support local cable regulation or access programming.
As the FCC is currently considering dropping this regulation the
Committee should recommend whether this intent should continue to
be followed if the FCC drops this requirement .
Davis/Gorman moved to state in the franchise ordinance that funds
from the franchise fee will be allocated to cable-related activi-
ties only, to include regulation and access .
Davis called the question and the motion carried.
Ms . Benda summarized her memo on ownership options for cable com-
munications systems , explaining the advantages and disadvantages
of various options .
Kirchmeier/Gorman moved that the Committee go on record as suppor-
ting a system of private ownership by the operator presenting the
best proposal .
Roll call vote : Ayes : Davis , Abeln, Gorman, Kirchmeier, Foudray
Noes : None Motion carried.
Ms . Benda reviewed the Evaluation Priorities and Criteria previous-
ly adopted by the Committee and City Council and explained that
she had added descriptive subcategories to each criteria to clari-
fy the evaluation process .
Page 5
Gorman/Abeln moved to include the subcategories of the Evaluation
Priorities and Criteria submitted by Anita Benda in her memo of
June 6, 1981 on said topic .
Mr. Kirchmeier raised the issue of whether cable operators might
look into a microwave hop to provide service to residential pock-
ets distant from the residential core . Three cable operators re-
presented in the audience responded they would look into this option.
Gorman/Davis moved to adopt the June 10, 1981 Preliminary Cable
Communications Franchise Ordinance . The motion was withdrawn .
It was decided that Anita Benda and Jeanne Andre would meet with
Attorney Adrian Herbst to discuss minor revisions to the ordinance .
Mr. Herbst will then be requested to meet with the Committee to
review the ordinance , particularly those areas which will involve policy
decisions .
Kirchmeier/Davis moved to adopt the following timetable and request
City Council concurrence :
July 15, 1981 Committee meets with Mr. Herbst
July 28, 1.981 Joint Committee/Council work session to review
RFP and ordinance
August 11 , 1981 City Council holds public hearing on RFP.
Motion carried.
Davis/Abeln moved to adjourn meeting until 7 :00 p.m. on July 15 ,
1981 . Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 10:09 p.m.
R. Gene Foudray
Chairman
Jeanne Andre
Recording Secretary
MEMO TO: John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: H. R. Spurrier IVO
City Engineer
44-00‘:RE: Upper Valley Drainage Sy em
DATE: July 13, 1981
Introduction:
I recently posed two questions to the City Attorney, Julius A. Coller, II,
regarding the upper valley drainage (copy enclosed) . The purpose of the
inquiry was to help determine the most prudent course to follow in proceeding
with development of drainage facilities.
Background:
I also attach a letter addressed to the City Engineer from Julius A. Coller,
II, dated June 4, 1981, regarding the above-captioned matter. In layman's
terms, the letter from Mr. Coller indicates that the City has serious problems.
As an example, in the event the City constructs drainage facilities and in
the event development in Jackson and Louisville Townships increases the runoff
so that that developed runoff exceeds the capacity of the facilities the City
built, the City is liable for any damage that developed runoff caused and the
City would have to rebuild the facilities.
This problem will not go away. It will exist regardless of whether the City
does or does not develop the upper valley.
Alternatives:
The alternatives are much as they were described in a City Council meeting
January 20, 1981. Those alternatives are as follows:
1. Request that Scott County create a watershed district to
manage the runoff in the Mill Pond Basin. This undertaking
would delay the start of a project 18 to 36 months.
2. Petition the lower Minnesota or Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed
District to expand its watershed district boundaries and
construct necessary facilities to mitigate potential damage caused
by runoff in the Mill Pond Basin. This would delay the start
of the project 18 to 36 months.
John Anderson July 13, 1981
Upper Valley Drainage System Page -2-
3. Enter into an agreement with Jackson and Louisville Townships
to have the City develop and improve the drainageway without
participation by either of the Townships with the understanding
that Jackson and Louisville Townships will not increase develop-
ment without mitigating potential damage caused by increased
runoff. This would add approximately 12 months to negotiate the
agreement.
4. Enter into a Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Shakopee
and Jackson and Louisville Townships for the management of
storm water in the Mill Pond Basin. This would add approximately
12 months for negotiation of the Joint Powers Agreement.
Recommendation:
Obviously, the City is at a disadvantage in negotiating an acceptable arrange-
ment for the management of storm water in the upper valley. Without legal
recourse, the City is obliged to provide the oversize facility in the event
Jackson or Louisville would develop. Unless other legislation is passed
altering the obligation of the City in this regard, the City has but one
apparent course of action to take:
1. Negotiate with Jackson Township and determine whether it is
possible to enter into an agreement. An agreement which would
limit development in Jackson and Louisville Townships should
the City proceed with the construction of facilities in Shakopee
or a Joint Powers Agreement which would specify the obligation
of the Townships and the City in redesign and financing of
drainage facilities.
2. Should the negotiation fail, petition the Lower Minnesota
Watershed District or better, the Prior Lake-Spring Lake
Watershed District for inclusion of the Mill Pond Basin and
for the improvement of the Mill Pond Basin in Shakopee.
HRS/jiw
Attachments
00/0
MEMO TO: Julius A. Coller, II
City Attorney
FROM: H. R. Spurrier
City Engineer
RE: Upper Valley Drainage
Mill Pond Basin
DATE: April 27, 1981
The City of Shakopee has adopted a Storm Water Management Plan, as a part of
the Shakopee Comprehensive Plan. The Storm Water Management Plan specifies
that storm water detention facilities will be utilized to detain peak flows
and reduce the run-off rate. Some of these facilities are proposed in an area
east of County Road 17, south of 11th Avenue, westerly of County Road 16 and
northerly of the proposed 101 Bypass.
The Shakopee Comprehensive Plan further specifies that the area described above
is scheduled for development between 1980 and 1985. The area, therefore, is
the first undeveloped area where the City must now establish easements or right-
of-way required to convey storm water from this tributary upper basin area,
called the Mill Pond Basin.
This tributary basin includes part of the City of Shakopee, part of Jackson
Township and part of Louisville Township. At the present time, there is very
little development or land disturbing activities in the upper basin area which
would cause an increase in run-off over and above historic rates.
It is important to note that any development or land disturbing activity
including agriculture activity in the tributary upper basin has an effect on
the rate and amount of run-off. There are apparently no major development or
major land-disturbing activities contemplated now or in the next five to ten
years in the tributary upper basin inside and outside present City limits of
the City of Shakopee.
In view of the fact that the size and capacity of downstream facilities depend
on the amount and rate of run-off from the upper basin, there are two
questions regarding that run-off:
1) Is there an amount of run-off the City is obliged to take?
2) If development or land disturbing activities in the tributary upper basin
alter the run-off so that the capacity of the storm sewer facilities built
to accommodate the run-off specified in question No. 1 above is exceeded,
does the City have any legal remedy under Minnesota Statutes?
Should you have any questions regarding th ' •tent or meaning of these questions,
do not hesitate to call.
ti
HRS/jiw H. R. Sp ier, City Engineer
.A. c0r.r.I:r?, I T
UU LIUS A.COLLER .\J• 'UIts LY AT 1.11\' 612-445-1244
1859-1940
2 1 1 W55 T FIRST AVENUE
ti11 \1i<)19P:1:,
55aZO
June 4, 1981
l
JfIPv.i':Cr/vr9 v
19$1,,_
-r:
Mr. H. R. Spurrier, City Engineer \\'l ' ui rl
Shakopee City Hall i / '
Shakopee,Minnesota 55379 fi 11;
Dear Bo:
Your Memo of April 27, 1981 raises two questions in connection with the
adoption by the City of a Storm Water Management Plan.
The first question is whether or not there was an amount of runoff the
City is obligated to take; and the second question raises the question
of the City's liability and remedy in the event the runoff is increased
as a result of certain further improvements at some later date.
Basically, Minnesota law is that the City is not obligated to do anything
about drainage waters, but, when the City undertakes to do something, then
by such undertaking the City assumes liability.
In any storm sewer drainage plan, the first thing to consider is limiting
the area to be drained. This naturally would be done in the event there
is an assessment. But, whether there is an assessment or not, the area
to be drained should be very definitely limited and then normal and abnormal
water must be reckoned with and the City must be prepared to take it. I
assume the 100-year storm or the 50-year storm would be an exception; but
otherwise, once the City takes runoff, it should be prepared to handle
normal and abnormal runoffs, except as above limited.
Your other question concerning the increase of capacity of the storm sewer
as the result of development within the defined area, it would then be
necessary for the City to take care of the additional runoff by increasing
the size of existing, or constructing new, storm water drainage and assessing
or re-assessing the benefited property, as permitted by law.
Very truly yours,
Jul uoller, II
City Attorney
JAC/bpm /
cf)tom- . . Ec?
� O 6 31 `�
7
k\c,n -VT (3v-z- -We4;-<' c_a\nsc-c-kcik.) t c t)
' -u\.% � S, \A-c,€A
I CA91 -A- ) 6 c)0,c) o
\ ® Cc) i 8 .S 3
fib--
Cc)M-KV-4\cf\--
CAST" 3 VA-
'
kntZKyI 1 080
12. ,5
\\.)
CrA. Ck.i\C7 C.T3%7 �ll ) 23 k5-)
k(-)\\ CrLf-c ) (:)g3 , (X )
1v31 TT1V Ct) � e) 4 �1bo
i
MEMO TO: John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: H. R. Spurrier ill1110
City Engineer ' off-%
t
RE: Award of County Road 16 Utilities
DATE: July 14, 1981
Engineering staff has investigated the apparent low bidder on the
above-referenced contract and recommends award of the contract to
Axel Newman Heating and Plumbing Company, 1608 Como Avenue West, St.
Paul, Minnesota 55108.
HRS/jiw
Attachment: Resolution No.1880
Memo from Ray Ruuska, dated July 14, 1981
MEMO TO: H. R. Spurrier
City Engineer
FROM: Ray Ruuska
Engineering Coordinator
RE: Axel Newman Heating & Plumbing Company - References
DATE: July 14, 1981
I received several references from Wayne Herquinet, comptroller for
the above-referenced company. I contacted three of them and the
references are as follows:
1. City of Hastings, MN - Len Olson, City Engineer.
Storm sewer project - value $500,000. Hastings is
satisfied with Newman's work.
2. City of St. Paul, MN - Doug Schwab, Inspector,
commercial hook-ups and systems - value $10,000 to
$200,000. St. Paul is satisfied with Newman's work.
3. Israelson & Associates, Inc. , Warren Israelson,
Engineer, sanitary sewer and water project in Eden
Prairie - value $200,000. Israelson is satisfied
with Newmans work.
RR/j iw
RESOLUTION NO. 1880
A Resolution Accepting Bid On
1980-4 County Road 16 Utilities
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the improvement of
County Road 16 east of County Road 17 and west of the east line of Section
6-115-22C by sanitary sewer and watermain, bids were received, opened and
tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying
with the advertisement:
Axel Newman Heating & Plumbing $167,410.30
Orfei & Sons 169,116.93
West Central Landscaping, Inc. 169,309.11
Richard Knutson, Inc. 169,359.00
krcon Construction 171,010.40
Nodland Associates 182,286.00
Kenko, Inc. 187,820.00
Parrott Construction Company 192,584.20
Barbarossa & Sons 192,799.00
Ideal Enterprises 200,468.50
Brown & Cris 206,958.10
AND WHEREAS, it appears that Axel Newman Heating & Plumbing Company, 1608
Como Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55108
is the lowest responsible bidder.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVH:u BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter
into a contract with Axel Newman Heating & Plumbing Company
in the name of the City of Shakopee for the improvement of County Road 16 east
of County Road 17 and west of the east line of Section 6-115-22C by sanitary
sewer and watermain, according to the plans and specifications therefore
appr<ved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk.
2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith
to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except the deposits of the
successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract
has been signed.
Resolution No. 1880
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.
I
City Attorney
1