HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/06/1981 1 �
sta ti,
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items
DATE : October 1 , 1981
1 . John Mertz , 4th Avenue , has had his storm water problem solved
to his satisfaction. The solution , however , was not the pipe
to the Market Street storm sewer which proved to be too high
in elevation . We improved the gravel alley (acts like a dam)
and reopened the old "French Drain. "
2 . The Library parking lot surfacing should be completed within
the next two weeks , and the lighting will follow that .
3 . State Representative Samuelson of Brainard has asked the State
Department of Corrections to study the feasibility of moving
the Womens Correctional Facility from Shakopee to the recently
vacated State Hospital in Rochester . This is in a preliminary
phase and a report is due in 45 days or so .
4. Council asked for a comparison of the assessed value of the
Dressen Oil land vs . that of Viking Steel :
Owner Acres Assessed Cost/Acre
Value
Dressen .25 $10,000 $40,000*
Viking Steel 9 .28 64,600 6 ,961
*Parcel size is a major factor and the parcel carries the same
$10,000 flat rate on the land since 1978 . Both parcels are
scheduled for re-evaluation in 1982 .
5 . Larry Martin has resolved Walt Muhlenhardt ' s questions at the
Board of Equalization hearing. Larry discussed the "brick
facing" that has effected certain appraisals (LeRoy Houser)
with the County and they both recommend correcting the problem
with the 82 assessments .
6 . Attached is the calendar for the month of October.
7 . Attached is the Planning Commission ' s 1982 meeting schedule .
8 . Attached is a memo from Larry Martin regarding Council ' s deci-
sion on eliminating the City Assessor ' s position. I have also
talked with Jeanne Andre about her HRA duties being budgeted
at half time .
9 . Attached is a memo from Jeanne Andre regarding the status of
the Chaska Cable Franchise .
10. Council cl r.ect d- r-af:f to ask our insurance agent to again
review the facts in the Unze case . Attached is a follow-up
letter from our insurance agent .
Non-Agenda Informational Items
October 1 , 1981
Page Two
11 . Attached is a copy of the new administrative policy for handling
damage claims based upon Council ' s directive following the Unze
casL. I recommend you keep it handy - we have already use it .
12 . Attached is the breakdown Council asked for on the 1981-A bond
issue .
13 . Attached is a copy of a letter from Rod Krass to Pam McCabe that
is an update on the By-pass litigation .
14. Attached is a memo from Don Steger regarilig modification to the
Site Plan for the Red Owl IRB Project .
15 . Attached is an information item regarding the powers of the
Waste Management Board.
16 . Attached is the Fund Balance Summary for the month ending
July 31 , 1981 and August 31 , 1981 .
17 . Attached is the Assessor ' s monthly report for the period ending
September 8, 1981 .
18 . Attached is the 4th quarter statement from Toro that we received
because of our IRB ' s . We get these quarterly and they have
gotten bleaker as the year goes on so I thought you would be
interested in seeing one .
19 . Attached for your information is the latest Community Profile on
Shakopee .
20 . Attached are the minutes from the September 10 , 1981 Board of
Adjustment and Appeals meeting.
21 . Attached are the minutes from the September 10 , 1981 Planning
Commission meeting.
22 . Reminder. There is an open house at Citizens State Bank Tuesday
beginning at 6 :00 P .M. There will be hors d' oeuvres (no formal
meal ) and spouses are invited. I told them that Councilmembers
had a meeting at 7 : 3u P .. .
I
-44
tn
A
H
r
N Cr, Cr) 0
7H N N
A O •
bJD•rI Z
• m •
H • O
,-I• O •• .
rl 00 as U f---. in N
.--1 N N
4,
I
>4
.
1H co
p z :
i-H q
a) as a
W •Ho 0
as r•-1 O 0 o
o r---. o •• U •• T, co
H 7-+ aa -.1- 1--iin N N
0
.,-1 ,-1
?•-4 O U •r-1 -
A
U) o 0 •
Uaa 0 •
I U a
E' ¢ -0o o
(24 •H •• ma c,1
‘,oXUr•-• Cr) O •H ••
.-1 N U f N
RS •
•
U •uaa cn
� � ►
01.--1 .1-1 •,-I -0 a, as
•^ ,.0 •ra cr) E O a) O
• .0 •• r-1 EO -•[ O
alas N 0 O'N 0 •• •,-i •• O
.--1 U c-1 c..... 0 00 N
r.
Q'
E
To
.-1 00
.--1 i-H N
7
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS FOR 1982
Regularly Scheduled
and
Adjourned Regular Session*
Application Application Deadline
Deadline Variances & Agendas To Meeting
Plats & Rezonings Conditional Use Permit Be Delivered Date
December 17th December 23rd December 30th January 7th
*December 30th *January 7th *January 15th *January 21st
January 14th January 21st January 29th February 4th
*January 28th *February 4th *February 12th *February 18th
February 11th February 18th February 26th March 4th
*February 25th *March 4th *March 12th *March 18th
March 18th March 25th April 2nd April 8th
*April 1st *April 8th *April 16th *April 22nd
April 15th April 22nd April 30th May 6th
*April 29th *May 6th *May 14th *May 20th
May 13th May 20th May 28th June 3rd
*May 27th *June 3rd *June 11th *June 17th
June 17th June 24th July 2nd July 8th
*July 1st *July 8th *July 16th *July 22nd
July 15th July 22nd July 30th August 5th
*July 29th *August 5th *August 13th *August 19th
August 19th August 26th September 3rd September 9th
*September 2nd *September 9th *September 17th *September 23rd
September 16th September 23rd October 1st October 7th
*September 30th *October 7th *October 15th *October 21st
October 14th October 21st October 29th November 4th
*October 28th *November 4th *November 12th *November 18th
November 18th November 24th December 3rd December 9th
*ADJOURNED REGULAR SESSION WILL BE SCHEDULED ONLY IF PLANNING COMMISSION DESIRES
DUE TO SPECIAL ISSUES.
itaxeof CITY OF SHAKOPEE
C;A ; 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
AirAL
MEMO
TO:
Mayor & Council of the City of Shakopee
FROM: Larry Martin, City AssessQr
SUBJECT: Assessing Budget Decision
DATE: September 25 , 1981
Introduction:
This memo serves to express my feelings of full support of your
decision to dissolve the Assessing Department, and hire Scott
County to perform the City' s assessing needs.
Background:
From discussing the problem with some of you I am sure that it
was a difficult decision to make; however, considering the cost
savings I am certain the right decision was made.
In respect to quality of future assessments and local control , I
am confident that , if the City makes it a practice to monitor each
assessment as it evolves, and promotes interactive participation
between the assessor and citizens of Shakopee and City representa-
tives, the City will assure itself of an assessment that will best
serve the interests of the community as a whole.
In the next few months, as the County begins it ' s work for 1982
assessment and my appointment comes to an end, I will try my best
to make the transition from the City to the County as smooth as
possible.
Summary:
In conclusion, I would like to convey my sincere admiration for
your concern and devotion to the City and its residents; which
helped to make my term with the City an enjoyable one, that has
provided me with both professional and personal growth. Thank
you.
7
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne A. Andre , Administrative Assistant
RE : Update on Cable Franchise Progress in Chaska
DATE: September 30, 1981
Background
I contacted City Administrator Bill Radio , who provided the follow-
ing update on the cable franchise process in Chaska.
1 . Proposals have been received from the following three companies :
Zylstra Communications , Tribune Cable Company, and Progress
Valley Cablevision . The initial reaction is that all are high
quality proposals .
2 . By December the Chaska City Council hopes to receive an initial
evaluation from its consultant (Anita Benda/CTIC Associates)
and its cable advisory committee . Questions raised in the
initial review will be put to the cable operators for further
clarification. It is anticipated that answers to the questions
and further review will be available by February or March at
which time the franchise will be awarded .
3 . Construction is anticipated to begin in the Spring of 1982 .
Requested Action
No action requested - information item only .
JAA/jms
Transamerica Transamerica Insurance Group Transamerica Insurance Company
Service Office Wolverine Insurance Company
Insurance Services 5100 Edina Industrial Blvd. Premier Insurance Company
Suite 211 Riverside Insurance Company
.q ^ Edina, MN 55435 Canadian Surety Company
IIl 612-831-2223 Automotive Insurance Company
!0,
E E
SEP 211981
September 18, 1981
CITY OFSHAKOPEE
John Anderson
c/o City of Shakopee
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Mr. Anderson,
Per our conservation of September 14th I understand the
position taken by the City Council with regard to Mr. Unze's claim.
However, liability coverage is not written on an "all risks"
basis. In order for us to settle on a claim on this kind of problem,
there has to be evidence of negligence or liability on the part of
our insured as the cause of the loss.
In this case, our investigation revealed that the grading and
construction of this HRA home went along as scheduled and as required
by accepted building methods in the area. A swail or drainage ditch
was included in the final site plans, with the house grade being
designed to handle a normal rainfall. Unfortunatley, before cons-
truction had reached the point to where this swail or ditch could be
installed the unseasonably heavy rainfall experienced in the Shakopee
area at this time caused local flooding in a wide area.
Therefore, because accepted building methods were used and a
ditch was to be provided for, we found that there was no negligence
or liability on the part of the City of Shakopee which caused this
loss.
Very truly yours,
7--/ r
i 1 _, • • 0
Tom Pettygrove' J
TP/mcai/
cc/Capesius Agency
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY NO.
Subject : Procedures for Handling Damage Claims
Date : September 14, 1981
Citizens contacting City staff about a damage claim (eg. water in
their basement, backed-up sewer, vehicle damage because of a street
condition, etc. ) will be handled in the following manner.
1 . The citizen will be instructed to contact their own insurance
company and/or our agent , Sue Sichmeller of Capesius Agency
phone no. 445-1922 . Our insurance agent wants us to have the
citizen contact them so give them the name and phone number.
At this point the employee will notify our carrier by telephone
and written letter of the possible claim.
2 . If the citizen' s insurance company or citizen feels the City' s
insurance carrier should be involved, the citizen will contact
our carrier (or the contractor' s carrier if it is a construction
project) .
3 . If the issue is not resolved by the insurance companies to the
satisfaction of the citizen, then the policy of the City is to
"encourage" the citizen to seek relief from the courts (district
or small claims) so that a disinterested third party can decide
who should pay for damages . The employee should simply explain
this as City policy.
4. No City employee should imply by their actions or comments to
the citizen that "the City will pay the bill or that the matter
will go directly to City Council for a decision." Any citizen
who wishes to go to Council with a claim shall be directed to
the City Administrator who will place them on the agenda for
the next Council meeting.
14c ?
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: 1981-A Bond Issue
DATE: September 17, 1981
You have requested a breakdown of the 1981-A bond issue. The
approximate allocation of principal and the cash charges recorded
as of August 31 , 1981 are :
Project Bond Principal Cash Charges
Third Avenue Water $ 48, 786 $ 47 ,329
Wienandt Acres 68, 338 65, 378
Halo 2nd 120,132 5,595
101 Watermain 228,420 130,525
CR 16 Utilities 259, 910 22 ,152
Bluff Avenue 116,560 11 , 909
Hauer Laterals 97, 854 85,278
$940,000 $368,166
Information only
GV/jms
Law Offices of
KRASS, MEYER & KANNING
• Chartered
Phillip R. Krass
Shakopee Professional Building September 22, 1981 Barry K. Meyer
1221 Fourth Avenue East Philip T. Kanning
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Trevor R. Walsten
(612)445-5080 RECEIVED
Ms. Pam McCabe SEP 2 3 1981
Assistant Scott County Attorney
Scott County Courthouse CITY OF
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 SIiAKOPEIE
Re: Shakopee By-Pass Litigation
Dear Pam:
I am most concerned that this litigation is simply going to set smoldering
on the back burner unless someone takes charge of it. My preference is
that that someone be the State of Minnesota.
I received a copy of your July letter to Mr. Crawford and would like to know
if anything came of it; if nothing has happened what are the intentions of
your office with respect to the litigation? You 're my second choice for
taking the lead in this case since it is the County which has adopted the
official control ,
I renew my suggestion to you that a copy of the Complaint be forwarded to
the Attorney General 's office for their consideration since Mr, Nicklaus
seems to be suggesting the statutes involving official controls are an un-
Constitutional deprivation of property without due process.
At any rate, I wonder if we could set up some system so that this lawsuit
doesn't simply languish.
Thank you.
Yours very truly,
KRASS, MEYER & KANNING CHARTERED
Phillip R, Krass
PRK:sm
cc : John Anderson
/ f
MEMO TO: John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: Don Steger
City Planner
RE: Changes in Site Plan for Red Owl
DATE: September 15, 1981
When the Council approved Industrial Revenue Bonds for the Red Owl expansion,
the site plan indicated several modifications to the west side of the building
(occupied by OK Hardware). The parking along the west building wall was
planned to be removed, the loading doors relocated to the rear of the
building, landscaping be placed along the west side of the building, and a
curb be placed along the roadway.
The City Engineer and I have determined that the loading doors cannot be
moved to the building rear, therefore, modifications to the approved site plan
are in order. The modifications call for the land west of the building to be
used as a delivery/pick-up drive-through lane which could be used by either
customers or truck delivery of merchandise. This modification will still
solve the two major problems: 1) cars parking along the west side of the
building and associated backing into the street; and 2) trucks backing to
the building and extending into the street and blocking traffic and visibility.
The City Engineer, representatives from the store and I agree with the modifica-
tions as planned. We feel the existing situation will be greatly improved.
DS/jiw
itssy »vr a% �jM17r`
11>
SEP 3 01981
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
0�
w
WIN CI"rt
300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 291-6359
September 23, 1981
TO: Metropolitan Area Government Officials
A number of local officials have raised questions in recent months regarding
certain local ordinance "override" provisions of the 1980 State Waste
Management Act.
Specifically, they have asked the Council for more information regarding the
respective powers of the Council and local governments in the establishment and
operation of sanitary landfills, sludge ash landfills or other waste management
facilities.
This letter is an attempt to answer the questions most frequently raised.
With the passage of the 1980 Waste Management Act, the Metropolitan
Council was given the responsibility of reviewing municipal , township and
county restrictions on waste facilities and on the transportation of solid
waste.
With the Council 's approval , local units of government can place restrictions
or conditions on facilities operated by the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission (MWCC) for the disposal of sewage sludge and sewage sludge ash
disposal. These conditions may involve the construction, operation, inspec-
tion, monitoring and maintenance of a MWCC waste facility, and the use of
sewage sludge on private property.
The same 1980 law allows counties and other local units of goverment to have
ordinances that govern the transportation of solid waste. The law provides
that such ordinances must be reasonable and do not prevent the transportation
of solid waste through and between counties and local units of government. Any
licensed waste hauler, metropolitan county or municipality can request that the
Council review such an ordinance. That law states that disapproval by the
Council invalidates the ordinance.
The Waste Management Act gives the Council and the seven metropolitan counties
authority to override city or township ordinances that prevent the establish-
ment of county solid waste landfills and resource recovery facilities. A
county may establish such facilities without complying with local ordinances,
if the action is approved by the Council . At the same time, if the Council
approves, cities and townships may impose and enforce reasonable conditions
respecting the construction, operation, inspection, monitoring and maintenance
of landfills and recovery facilities.
An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising:
Anoka County 0 Carver County G Dakota County 0 Hennepin County 0 Ramsey County 0 Scott County 0 Washington County
September 23, 1981
Page Two
On August 27, the Council approved revisions to its regional solid waste policy
plan. The revised plan includes new criteria for the Council to follow in
reviewing local and county restrictions on waste facilities and the
transportation of solid waste. A copy of these criteria is attached.
If you have questions regarding the criteria or the Council ' s review authority
in this area, please contact Paul Smith (291-6408) of our solid waste program
staff.
Sincerely,
Charles R. Weaver
Chairman
CRW:sa
Enclosure
Criteria
10a. Restrictions imposed by local governmental units on waste facilities
should address social, economic, aesthetic or land use factors of a
facility such as transportation of waste, access routes, hours of
operation, performance standards, bonding, end use, landscaping and
other factors that may potentially impact the surrounding community.
10b. Restrictions imposed by local governmental units on waste collection
services should address environmental and socio-economic factors
including access routes, hours of operation, noise and container size
and material that may impact the community.
10c. Facility need, capacity, technical and environmental factors such as
protection of surface and groundwater supplies , surface water drain-
age, protection of surface water quality, monitoring liquid and gas
emissions and facility design plans which are the authority of state
environmental protection and health agencies (i .e. , MPCA, MDOH, Metro-
politan Council , DNR) should be addressed by the MPCA and Metropolitan
Council and considered by local governmental units during the MPCA and
Council permitting processes.
10d. Local restrictions or conditions upon waste facilities receiving state
permits should not unduly restrict or prevent the establishment or
operation of waste facilities . Local restrictions shall be compatible
with and shall not conflict with state permit conditions. Further-
more, restrictions shall not impair collection services or the
regional waste management system. The Council shall consider the
following factors during the review of a local condition: •
o Extent to which the condition mitigates local environmental ,
socio-economic and developmental impacts;
o Extent to which the condition impairs the operation of the
facility, collection services or other aspects of the regional
waste management system;
o Degree, nature and utility of the difference between the local
restriction and federal and state requirements; and
o The need, justification and adequacy of a more restrictive local
condition.
b
.. ..--, _ _ e..4U1 U00 r-1r-1r-INoOM O0 - rn
U 0104 h - 0 0 N k.00', 0 OY N .--1 0 N
.p CT O .0 0 M I Cb r-I OO �t I I ,7 h 0 I 1+1 ,.-i ,-I ,,y' 111 h p0 0 -4 M M I kp ,7 ,-4 N I I 1 I I
la cdH t, ,-1111 w00o0OVOLr) ON00NC00N- N01rMM -I MCOr, WO0Nr-Iu1OOOOO
I
+4 '-'1 \ O1 ,t .t .0 O ul OA N 00 u1 N 0 M uaana
Ch r-1 CO00 ,-I VD 1 u1 N q0 I vp .4a-I M I I I I I
Cn Cd N u1 Cr) 0 ri 00 O h Cr) Cr) co h h ul .t h H CO Cr) -t H O N O1 Oo u1
W Ol r-♦ vO N Cr) h H Cr) r-1 u ,--104 H N '-,,--1 ---, M
v v
Cn
U
)-1 $.4 M M M .t -4- Cm -f -1001 0 CC N O M O ,fO1 a> 0 u1 d' h .--i M u1 N N ,t -,1- C)
CO .-1 h 00 I o1 I N .0 O1 h u1 ul .-4 I 0 .t h 0 ,--i Cb 0 M CO N .1- CTM C O MCO h ,--I -y- N I h .0 I
• 4J ,t 0 h 0 h 0 ,--I •-1 .O .0 r-I N O C O u1 N N Cb O1 Oo N u1 N ,t 0 0 ,--i r-I N .0 O1 0 0 0
•r1 a I al a n n a a a I a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a n
Op r-I b u1 CT r- p M MON u1 { p M O h h 4a1 N u1 61 COM u1 .0 h co M I `pa I
CA 0 0 W AD r-1 .--i .--i h N h ra Cr) •--i 4 u1 N O .0 .--i N Cr) 01 N d- t--I 4 r-1 N
,-i J0J U 0 Cr) .-i .-i ,-1 CO H Cr) Cr)
Cr) >4 <4 W
H
CO U
P
0
10 4-1
U 'r1 r-HOOOOOO1- r-i mm OMOu1MO0u1O rlr-Iu) o0 OO1/1 -7
4-17) CONu1OOOO .-IO 10001 I I I NO1 %pO1N Nr-IOt- ,1- OMO I OOr-int I I I I I
'0 0 m .oN .oC 00NNOho0OOO -1O - 0Nr-INr-I ,tWu1) 0 +-IOoo u1O0O. 00
�' .7' MNN0hri M M00 MN C10. 1/1p .pNul ,t ,tN .N I M1-10 I I I I 1
W W CO r1 .O ul N N ri h .p 01 h ri N Cr) �t Cr) H H O -t r-.
ul
0 r-1 N H Cn CO h V)
N ri H
rl
CO
- u)
U N .O O o1 00 u1 N O p0 4 M h N 00 ul M N -a a, N CT CC 1 ,t N u1 CT r--1 CT N
r.l 0 'QN j- ul r, 00 ,t Ch C) 01 CD VD CA O' Dir) I CT I O MN LC) N -1N O I h I I r- 01 I O I O1
Cd N .--+ MO1 00Chu1 - 0 --4 u100ON MO I- OOONCOOl -t -t0000OOOOu1MOVpOO
›a (� {J.J 'Uj N O .-i O Co N N CC O r-1 .--i h -t r-1 N O 1 1 co N 01 h ,-- 4 N - I N I I ^ I ales
pow N h N .--i N u'1 N .--i .-+ .--1 .-r Cr) N Cr) Cr) -t N N CS
,� P! O -� - N M .--i
CJ]
H
W CO
0 -
1 'M n)
U U r-iOOOOOOOOOhtie) CTCYlOO000O1u1 .0 .oOr-1ON 00 O
4J CNICA I 0010 I 010111111
PI W0 O1 .oOu101O000NCT .0p CTMM ,-IOC) 0a-I O1 .tu1COulriOOMOOOOOOO
Q 'b `J �t .t ' ON- N1-- O %p r-. 1-- I HCr) H Mu1CDCOt- M ,t O' COOVp I ON VD
1 I ! 1 I I
Z ^� U 00 r-1 0 ri N rV H N H O u1 ri N N H r1 ..1* ul N N O h CO h
a O ri ri H H ri ri .o u1 .O la a
a
N r-I
01 Uri r-1 HrIN 00 CA hH ,t .000 h .O .tM01hO (C'1u1CTco hO1u1C0 001-4u11/4O
.p CT u) .00M I O1r-I01N .0 I -r 00 00 CH 0 -.1 00 ulVDVD 4 4 N .0 I M .tC\ .0 I 1 1 I I
000 u1r-Ih000000OMt-. ON ON NOO .t
. .Ou1o000 .p .D ,f00000pvO0u
I IN a a al I I OOO
I I 1
e-1 rA CT ,t N N O Cr) ri CT ,t r♦ MCT h N O ,t Cr) CT u1 ul N O o1 .t h ul O r-1
cd - ulM .Oulopri 01 h, NN .O Co h - QCT CT 1/40 Mut 0MHCr)
r"1 .O r-1 Cr) O1 H t-4 Cr) �/ r-1 ,.
Cr) r1 ,-1 ,....,..,01
v
U U
CO •C.)u JJ 1 4-1
JUl 'CW U
bn�j 0 • JJ
^ !r U O C. U C!J U W IN U I4 Ia
• U > U
0 • '10 •r4 0 44 LJ 0 Cn U) 4J CJ) Cn Pa H
M Cd 1••1 a.J .0 0 4.1 �J w 44
O ,0 H U U v 4-1 $.4 ,.fin 04000
•u Cn 0 co 0 ,-1 ,0 U a1 �J P 6 JJ 1-1 JJ U 3 E CU ai E ai ai a) H cu 0
D •r1 U as U Cn A 0 0 0 U H 0 0 0 '0 • H 6 6 U 6 6 6 41 H 1J k
cd N U7 > c4 II •rr p 4J U E.. 6 E7 Cd W 6 6 6 C1) › bJ J 7 O > J 0 a40 H
WWW 01-1 Cl.'. H )4 H co U v U 3 U WWW < U o 0 1.+ 0 0 o b 1a • tr 4J
rJ > Cn .7 .7 4-1 U 34 Sa a S-i la $4 0 H aJ H 0
U P m 4r1 4 0 Cn 1+-4 A w' 0 0 0 pa a1 0 o o co 44 la a a 6 a a 040 a U
H a; U a1 0 4J o I >a H >+ H •ri 1a H la U Cn JJ 6 6 H 6 6 W .W, 0
W Cd C4 C4 CP- +J +--I 1•a U 44 'r1 a C• 0.> I. a a 0 H C H H H H H H A 4J 3 +-1
b la IJ w 1 $a P O •?-4 • lax 6 6 6 a) 6 0 6 I-1 3a 0 •r1 0 Cn
U 0 • .-4 U •1-1 r-I 4-1 Cd H H H N CJS H H H pa .r 0 ., Qi U W c.) -ta U !-1 U r-I 14 U
0 U 0 a) Cd P4 Cd Cd I ri U p U 1 1a• H h r-1 N N Cr) ,t ul .O h h h O1 p 44 O O rl a31 Cd•rV 44 m0
4'' 0 h W 4+ ',.C,' 0 0 pC, W Cn a 0 p[, ul Pa .0 h h h h h h h h h h h 0o O CXR 00 co C!J Pa fr..1 D W H
W
T)
• 0 ri r-I N Cr) u'1 h N Cr) -t ul .--1 N u1 .0 r-♦ N 4 u1 .0 h CO CT H N Cr) 4 u1 .o h CO CA p ri H N 01 4 u1
0 O r-1 r--1 r-1 r-1 H N N N N Cr) Cr) Cr) Cr) ,t d -T 4 ,f ,t ul ul u1 u1 ul ul ul u'1 ul .0 h CO CO 00 CO CO
1.
b
C) r-4 _ _ _ _ ___
+1 U � r-4I-IriN0Oo 00 .- -7 '001 MNN '.000N '0010 7 NCV
X00' 0 '.0001 1 COrI00 ,t I I ,tr. 0 I ulrirl ,tul ^ 00 cp. ,f0' O 110 '7riN I I I I I
a. � \ ulr--1ul wop000 '.DU100r. 00N0100 NOul01Mr1 0' 00 ^ OOOONriv1OO000
I A w ^ I I
01 ..7 - OOLfl 01N 00 u1 04 O 01 r-100 r- M u
04 1 vp r• l � N � 11o ,7 ,-.4 01
W M r-1 ul M O r-1 CO O N. M M CO N. N. ul N. ,--1 CO M .7 r-1 O N 0\ CO Ul
\o N M N. r- M u r1 v , (N r-i N r-•1 •-•M
u v
U)
a
PN d- M O '--I O 'o u1 CO u1 O1 O M O 01 00 N O M O NCA vp CO CO 01 01 N Ci 0, N O
- JJ OI. 00u 01CN ,--1 �7OMu r-1 I C -. N. 0 , OOoOM ,tN �1 M <l I r- ctrl ''t 1/40 I OA qo I
.1-f01 .--1 n .--1 N. M V) V0 CO N O CO ul N - 00 01 00 N V0 N -I O O ul �7 �p r O 0 O
CO Cl O r- r-1 N N c Cs co N M ,--I I O M c"l r- O> •P N ul .1- u1 M 1-' I 00 10 r. '.o I M 1
NCA W U vp N. ,--I ,--1 r-1 ul N01 r1 r1 M ,t M .--1
N. N. - 01 '.0 N
1 A �J N M 01 , 1 M M
.--.1 ›.4d 4.1
a
,__1
M
J-1
Cl)
o r-♦ U)
ND CO a)
b J.1
U •r1 r COOOOOI, r-1 Ch Cl OMOuIMOOuIO r-1t-Iu100 OOul .t
4.7! 7..1 00 CV U10000 -.10 10001 I I I I� 01vOO1NNr-IOf. � O0'10 I OOr-1 -, I I I I I
C) G 0^'O 04 NV001OOr- NOr` 000OO 01 f. ONr-1Nr1 �' OOu1VOOr1000u1OOO, OO
'b .41" -t01NN. 0N. -1 M 01 00 MN 01t. 4r1CVDNul -7 .1- NN Mr-10 7
14 W Co t--I VO M N N r-1 N. '.O 0, N. miN M -1• M r-I r l O -. N. ul
O ,--I N r-I M CO 0,
vD
N r.1 r-1
H
00
- to O ul O o1 M u1 O O 00 -7 Mr- N 00 u101 N r--1 0\ N -1- ,--I u1 ,t r- ul �1 O a1 01 0
r--1 0 MVt0tOOOUtOOMOmp o1010u1 I � � 00r- 01 ,H ,t �t0O '.o000Or-+ N ONOOM
MtOM i '.00' l Oto u1 COON MO I ^ ^ I ^ I I ^ I
X01 2 O M ,--I ul 01 N N O -1 , 1 r- ,t r-I N O OO N O o0 --.4.- N O N N 'o N OA
4 r, N -. ul cu '-4 '--1 --1 .--1 -1 M N -t M o1 VD M ,--1
I) 01 ,--i
N M M
VI
ri
W 00
U -
TJ W
4-1 0 00 NOOOOOOOOiON 101010000 V1 100 I O 1 1 1 1 1
PI 0
001 'o C V1 01 0 0 0 0 N 01 V0 001 C 1 M r1 0 0 0 r-i ,1' 01 -- u/ CO ul r-{ 0 0 01 0 '.0 0 0 0 0 0
.P- '0 � � u•1krr, N r• OVO r• 0 I ,-i Mr-1 Mu1000r• M ,1• o1000Vo i ON I VO I I I I I
PCI C) 00 rr I Ori N r-I r-•1 NI'-ICD ul r-I N N r-1 r-I -.1' ul N -7 N O h Co N.
Izl r-I ,--I 'o ul '.0
N r-1
U i-.
rl r-I r-I N CO00 01 I. r-I V0 00 N. '0 M M f. O ul u1 01 pp N. 01 u1 00 Co rl ul '0
00 r-4 '.001 u1v0001101 r-1 01 N '.0 I ,7000001 ,-I C) -.1- 00 ul '.0 '.0 -7 -tN '.0 I M ,f rn '.o I I I I I
00 u1r-It� 000000O01t, %p •0NON u10000N00 �7V010 •47* 000000 ,700u1N ,t00000
I a w a al a a a a a a a a a n n w w n u
r-1 r--1 01 -t N N O M r-I 01 ,-1 M 01 r- N O -t M O1 ul ul N O Ch ,7 1 r, ul 0 r-i 1 I I I I
P:1 ,-4 ul M '0inCO ,-I Mf. N N mOoo N. -7 -101 01 '.oMul OMr� M
\O ri M Ol r--1 r1 M u H u M r•i r-I v�M
ft
r1
a) v)
U 11
P i.1
Cy a) '0 0) ca
^ 0 a) 0 0 U Cl) v • P cu a) O >
1"I •rI 0 1-1 +-1 0 U) U) 4-1 U) U) al
Ft
U • b rl
Cr) CI J 4 1J
J-1 0 1.1 a.1 1 -1
0 X r-I a ) a)-0 1-1 4-I P .0 a U) U) U)
u � 0 m 0 r-♦ ,a a1 a1 L1 1 4.1 >r, E - 1.1 1-1 a) E ai ai E v ai a •ri 0
7 Z •ri a) CA a) Cl) A 0 C,, 0 a) H 0 0 0 10 • H E E (1) E E E 1.1 r1 1-. 1-I
W 0 D Ii •ri D 0 +1 a) E E E N gl E E E 0) 9 +1 7 0 7 7 77 0 04 0 H
N 0 1-I • W •r) +1 14 H a U) a) a) a) 3 WWW Q a) O 0 1+ 0 0 0 10 3-1 • 1-1 41
0 0 0 a 04 •-1 a) a) •ri 7 9 > m 7 7 7 LI a) P W a Ia >a l- 0 FI 4.1 H 0
v v
4-4 40 Uv) wAa4 0 0 0a a) 0 0 0 U) +1 Id aa0 a a a 0 a a)
co ()4 g4 t7 ...I- .1-1 ,�' >, U 0 1.1 •r.1 1•I 1..1 1.1 H •ri 0 P 1.1 a) U) 11 E E H E E E R, r1 a1 E
a a a 1-1 a a a 3 r1 cn H H H H H ,--I A d.1J 3 4..1
) I`+ u W I >•+ >a 0 •1-1 • 1-1 x E E E 41 E E E P >a 0 •-I o U)
li a) 0 • ..NL Q a) •ri r-1 t1 o H H H N cn H H H Cq Q' U < <4 a) CO U C a) 1-I a) r-1 ) a)
W '0 a) ca Lei co al 1 rl a) 0 a) I 1-I H N. r-1 N N M .0 u1 LL7 1. I. N. 01 O 11 O O r-1 a) co •r1 4-1 CU!) 0
W 01--1 W W x U U 4 W coo tl/ U >l.. Cl) P-4 'p r- r• r, r. r. r• I. N. r. r. r- 00 O 00 00 00 C/) 0.1 44 O W H
a)
'0
OI--I r1 N M ul N. N M Zr- in ,--IN 111 '.0 r-I N S7 ul 10 N. CO 01 ,--iN M - in '.0 r- Co 0, O r1 r1 N M -,1' in
O r-I r-i ,--1 r-i r•-i N N N N 01 01 01 01 ,T - -4 ul u1 u1 u1 ul u1 ul ul ul up N. 00 00 00 00 00
N rn.
(1) cd •
N
oo Cr)
4� H
o CO (�
o N
Cl.)
N O •
a) 7
-P a 0
N 5.4
C16 L() a) V Ify C
ca Q N Q. 0 4 C a)
E • U) .0 as • a) E
N L) •r14 a O > • -+ Co
..1...) 4.-, `,,,c f1 Q CO 0 H a) a) a)
H ��' 0) N y U) U U CO
• (4 4--I >, CO C C X CO
a) 0 oCO o c. aE
H Z 0 a) CO X C. W 4-.
N 4-) cr, CO � >, C 4.0 .1 0 C 0
0 m H 4 a) --1
4 •r•I N 0 UI Cl)
H 0 C 11 C C a 4 a)
C./) 00 U >, •.+ 0) 0 CO y 0. .-1
WN a) .0 3f U 0 4 aQ
s.r w •.- H >, O
¢ CIj r-♦ • a)
O cd O O o •o-0 aa) II co v 0
>-1 -4' 4O o s 0 a) a a0) (0
4. O N
CO V < ••I x
O CHH -PC L 14 N 4 y
II O cC .1..)
O (l in 0 (0 3-) 1 C a) a) C0
X 00 L\ a'-•I.0 N O 4.) a7) �0 'L)
H * a)
Z 5-1 H CO COtc
a1 a 0CE
b . a)
•O 0 a .0 > C 0) O C.. a
bO CD Cl) 4 O C 4.40 )
W •
¢ O 0 • a) C) .i In 4 4-)
0
< C .0 V c1O ma � C
x O •H u 0 .-1 0 E
H -P
.1.) 0 4.1 C 4.^ 0 0
(I Cl) .-1 0 (50 CO CO C 4-
14 U) •H v> 0 0 •0 (I) a) O1 4
O HU *c E a) •-I X a) a)
4-, .0 H 4) •�i a) CO + 4-1 CIS 4 0 a
4) • Q co 0 0 0 a) .0 (I) +.)
r. CO 1� 4 a y .0 0
>"1 N 0 = -� to
I aa) N G 4 E y-0-1
H i., .0 0 .0v a o E-•1
(1) CO
CO y -•I 4 4 0 a)
H H •-i 0 >^ 0 0 4a X
H 1 H ..0 O y
H Ul a) CO E .,., 0 •,C{0 +' 03 •O Cl)
CO .0 . Cl) Cl) a•-U1 00 +'a Cl) 0 y
(T ' 03 HI i+ 44 C 61 a 4C
,—i E 4 cC 0. •r+ a 0 (Cl a a)
O. CO E .X y 0) 10
H t]0 C00
al °y' -"r m ate) CO 1,, 0 0)) CO o°'0 O.
RS cC U y CO E 4 4 CO a)
O CO g-1 E V1 •-1 CO CO 00 a) 4 4
Q-. r--I
(Cl > ut H CO 0 < < ao
Q'. <4 W +•' Nb II it
U) O a) W > 0 II
U 4a 4 > 0 I C
Cr) Z, r-I y 0 .0 CO •C y• --4
0 0
W --I
CO •
4•I 0 0 •O HI N > C CO HI N
64
C._7 HI •H --I O v' 0 >v a) 4 > a)
O Cd U)
I
(1; -I � � N E C .0 O 4 O W
0.. S,•1 cd • H •-I a) a
O (U U2 Q a' " 4. Cl) C) y
z a a) -• E. •F4.. 0 V ate0
V ) 0
(� (� �"• II 4 E
E CO .0 0
U) a a) a) cn .-/ a a)
0 N .0
C00
<4 F a CO Cl) CO 4-I
o d' O>) 4 C •-I U 4 4-i
N A-) R C.) 0 H y to ani vs •u > o
• 0. (I) H >, Sa ELI
< E E a < c-
o U] C) C) H H N O •
[n �, 0 H 0 ¢ -Py -, N an v N CO1.
•rl H 0 CSS S4
0
•r7,Q LO (1) S~ 4-3O G or
•
cd O N z ¢ 0 3 z •
ti H
Tenuuy snoaupTTaosTW •
•
I
f Gr
The Toro Company
voR )- R EC 4, 1/ED
James D. Bonneville
Vice President— Assistant Treasurer
_ ,mpany— Commercial Products Division SEP 1} 3 1981 j81
Avenue South, Minneapolis,Minnesota 55420
1 • Telex 29-0463 TY
One Corporate Center 612/887-8520 CIT Y O AKOPEE
7401 Metro Blvd. Telex 29-0463
Edina, Minnesota 55435
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Sept . 18, 1981 Contact: David L. Mona
(612 ) 831-8515
(612 ) 927-6648
Toro Reports Loss
For Fourth Quarter, Year
BLOOMINGTON, Minn.--The Toro Company today reported a net
loss of $13 . 1 million or $2 .66 per share for the year ended
July 31, 1981 .
The loss came on sales of $247 .0 million, a drop of $152 .8
million or 38 .2 percent from a restated $399 .8 million the year
before. In the earlier year Toro earned $5 .3 million or $ .90
per share.
For the fourth quarter the company lost $4 .9 million or
$.95 per share on sales of $42 . 1 million. In the final quarter
the year before the company lost $5 .2 million or $ .98 per share
on sales of $62 .9 million. Financial data for fiscal 1980 and
the fourth quarter of 1980 have been restated to reflect the
divestiture of Barefoot Grass Lawn Service, Inc .
Stephen F. Keating, Chairman of Toro' s Executive
Committee, characterized fiscal 1981 as "extremely difficult
and disappointing. "
He attributed the size of the loss to a number of factors
(over)
/7
SHAKOPEE
rninnta AMNOF MDON
480
DEPCEDARRTESTREET,T SAINTECONOPAUL,IC MINNESOTA
PME5510T1
itZ
COMMUNITY PROFILE
TOWN Shakopee COUNTY Scott REGION 11
Distance and Direction from Minneapolis/St. Paul 31 mi 1 es southwest Duluth 180 miles southwest
POPULATION
City County *SMSA
1950 Census 3,185 16,486 1,186,684
1960 Census 5,201 21,909 1,535,297
1970 Census 6,875 32,423 1,874,612
19 8Q preliminary census 9 ,928 43,763 1,980,918
Bureau of the Census
INDUSTRY
Major employers in area: Union
No. (Give of Emp.
Firm Product/Service employees Initials) In Union
St. Francis Hospital .Health Care 440 None
Midland Glass Company, Tnr._ Mfg. Glass Rnttles 400 GRRA & AFGWII SO _
Certainteed Corporation Mfg. Asphalt Shingles 175 TEAM R AFI /CTO 72
Conklin Company Mfg. Chemicals 165 None
Owens-Illinois Mfg. Corrugated Shipping 1?0 AFI /CIO 70
Rahr Malting Company Malt Containers 115 Team. 80
Warners True Value Hardware W.C(refanitel
s rirt 1QO Team 10
&N�aerFremont Industries, Inc. eatment Yupplles 85 None
Toro Company Die Cast Plant 80 AFT /CTO 60
Import/Mfg. Decorative 57 None
Pouliot Designs Corporation Accessories
Kawasaki Motor Corporation Research & Development 52 None
Custom Molded Rubber 50 None
Rubber Industries Products
* EMPLOYMENT
Labor survey date
Number of Employees
Manufacturing 242,000 Unemployment rate 1 °. •:I . - •s' — • my
Non-manufacturing 834,000
Number in labor force available estimate)
Total labor force 1 ,076,000
1980 annual avg. 7 county estimates
Manufacturing Occupations In Area
(Production and Clerical)
Occupation or Job Title Median Wage
Warehouseperson $ 7.40 /hr.
General Secretarial $ 5.76 /hr.
Bookkeeping Clerk $ 5.37 /hr.
Production I i ne Assembly $ 7.27 /hr.
Maintenance & Repair $ 6.q3 /hr.
Tool & Die $ 9_2S /hr.
Punch Press Operator $ 8.00 /hr.
TRANSPORTATION
Rail Lines (companies) Chicago & North Western
Frequency of Service Daily
Reciprocal Switching Yes Distance to Main Line Switching In area
Piggy-back Service No Passenger St. Paul
Truck Lines (companies) Bjorkland, Cooke, Fenske, Nitehawk. Shanus
*27 headquartered in metro area (over 100 first class carriers) No.of terminals *60
* Airport 12 Nearest Minneapolis/St. Paul International
* Commercial: (X ) Yes ( ) No Charter Service: ( X ) Yes ( ) No Jet Service: ( X) Yes ( ) No
* Airlines 5 national-international , 6 national , 3 regional and 6 local
* Navigation Aids All FAA aids for international airport
* Runway length,surface 10,000 feet concrete Distance to CBD 19 miles
Bus— Inter City Greyhound Intra City MTC United Parcel Yes
Highway route numbers, Interstate/Distance I-494, I-35W, I-35
Federal #169 State #101
Load Limits None Navigable water Yes Depth 9 ft.
L980 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL TAXES PAYABLE 1981
Specials 4.159
Municipal rate$ 15.631 /$1000/assessed valuation METHOD OF ASSESSMENT
Minnesota real estate taxes are based on market value. Market value is
County $ 36.252 /$1000/assessed valuation construed to be the price that a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller in a
free market. A two-step formula is used for determining property taxes in
School rate $ 32.646 /$1000/assessed valuation Minnesota.
1.Market value times 43%equals assessed valuation.
Total rate $ 94.688 /$1000/assessed valuation 2.Assessed valuation times the mill rate equals property taxes.
(Taxes payable for residential development are determined by market value
times the appropriate classification rate.)
GOVERNMENT
Organization: ( X) mayor council ( ) limited mayor ( ) manager council ( ) commission ( ) other
Refuse service: ( x) public ( ) private ( ) none
Police Force, regular 17 part time Fire dept.,regular volunteer 32
Annual budget$ 2,085,000.00 Master Plan: (X ) yes ( ) no
Industrial plans must be approved by City Building Inspector
Insurance rating in community: class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (circle)
UTILITIES
WATER
Municipal water source: ( ) stream ( ) lake ( X ) wells Storage capacity 3,750,000 gals.
Pumping capacity 4,500 gal./min. Avg.demand 1,500,000 G/D Peak demand 3,600,000 G/D
Industrial water rate 35¢ per thousand gallons (over 60,000 gallons per quarter)
Total hardness tapwater 285 ppm
SEWER Blue Lake Treatment Plant - regional plan encompasses 21 communities
Capacity sewage treatment plant 20M G/D; Peak demand 40M G/D;Avg.demand 14M G/D
Sewer use charge 690 per 1,000 gallons + service charge
ELECTRICITY
Electric service: By Shakopee Public Util ities
For rate data,contact 612/445-1988
GAS
Gas service: By Minnesota Gas Company
For rate data,contact 612/372-4749
TELEPHONE
Telephone company serving area Northwestern Bell Telephone Company
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Number of hotels *48 total rms. *9,032 Number of motels 2 total units 60
Hospital beds 126 Nursing Home Beds 116 Doctors 24 Dentists 9
Nearest hospital, if not in town 35 hospitals in metro area
Number churches: Protestant 11 Catholic 2 Jewish 0 Other 1
Main cultural attraction,festivals Valleyfair, Murphy' s Landing — a Minnesota Restoration Project
of 1840-1890, Minnesota Renaissance Festival ; and all events normally acsoriated with a
metro area of 1.98 million population.
Parks& Playgrounds: municipal 13 State private
Golf courses: municipal *72 private *36 Tennis courts 12 Swimming pools 2
Sports: college (X ) yes ( ) no professional football , baseball , hockey, basketball and soccer
News Media: papers: daily *4 weekly 1 radio stations: AM 20* FM 15* Cable TV: ( ) yes (X ) no
Meeting facilities: no. of 5 Capacity of largest three 200 1 50 1 00
Retail sales (county) $ 121 ,175,000 (1979) Per capita income (county) $ 6,630 (1978)
Names of banks/S&L/deposits for each First National Rank S29.4 Million
Minnesota Federal Savings & loan
Citizens State Bank $ 3.8 Million
Peoples Savings & loan
Public libraries: (X) local ( ) county ( ) regional ( ) bookmobile Post office: 1st class
Service organizations VFW, Knights of Columbus, American I egion, dayCPPS,total membership —
Rotary and Chamber of Commerce
EDUCATION
No.elementary schools 3 total enrollment 1 ,240 grades included K-6
No.junior high schools 1 total enrollment 631 grades included 7-9
No.high schools 1 total enrollment 755 grades included 10-12
Cost per pupil unit$1,641.68 Pupil to teacher ratio: elementary 16/1 high school 16/1r
No. parochial schools 1 total enrollment 472 grades included K-8
No.private schools total enrollment grades included
Nearest area vocational-training school Fden Prairie Distance 8 miles
*Nearest community college 8 in metro area Distance
*Nearest college or university 4—vr: 19 in metro area Distance
*Liberal Arts ' •• •11 • • -• - • - Distance
*Engineering University of Minnesota (degree) ; 1 colleges Distance
*BusinessAdministration 7 colleges & universities Distance
*Graduate Schools_ 10 colleges & universities Distance
CLIMATE
Coldest Month Jan. Mean Daily Max. 12.2 °F Mean Daily Min. 3.2 °F No. days over 90 degrees 15
Hottest Month July Mean Daily Max. 71 .9 °F Mean Daily Min. 61-4 °F No. days between killing frosts 199
Average annual precipitation 25.94 inches Snow 46. 1 inches
INDUSTRIAL SITES
Name or number of site: Val ley Industrial Park Name or number of site:
Total available acreage in site: 1,450 acres Total available acreage in site: acres
Owner of site is: Scottland. Inc. Owner of site is:
Option held by local industrial development group: NO Option held by local industrial development group:
Site is zoned: (X) yes ( ) no In city limts: ( X)yes ( ) no Site is zoned: ( ) yes ( ) no In city limits: ( ) yes ( ) no
If not in city,miles from city limits: If not in city,miles from city limits:
Services available at site: (X ) rail (X ) electricity (X ) gas Services available at site: ( ) rail ( ) electricity ( ) gas
(X ) treated water (X ► sanitary sewer ( X) storm sewer ( ) treated water ( ) sanitary sewer ( ) storm sewer
(X ) curb and gutter ( X) paved roads ( ) curb and gutter ( ) paved roads
LOCATION SERVICES
Name of local development corporation None
Full time chamber of commerce manager (X ) yes ( ) no
Community contacts:
John Anderson Gary Eastlund
City Administrator Scottland, Inc.
City of Shakopee Valley Industrial Drive
129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379
Shakopee, MN 55379 612/445-3242
612/445-3650
REMARKS
*Seven County Metropolitan Statistics
Business and Community Contact Division County-City Code No. 70.09
Department of Economic Development Prepared/Revised 3/19R1
480 Cedar Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Senate District 36 House District 36R
612/296-5021
Form: 1/69, Revised 1979
PROCEEDINGS OF THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 10, 1981
Vice Chrm. Perusich called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. with Comm. Koehnen,
Rockne and Stoltzman present. Chrm. Schmitt arrived later. Absent were Comm.
Vierling and Coller. Also present were Don Steger, City Planner and Cncl. Leroux.
Stoltzman/Rockne moved to approve the minutes of August 13, 1981 as presented.
Motion carried with Comm. Vierling abstaining because of absence.
Chrm. Schmitt arrived at this time, 7:36 P.M.
Stejskal Variance Public Hearing - PC 81-30V
The City Planner explained that the applicant is Stanley Stejskal, 326 So. Fillmore
St. Mr. Stejskal is requesting approval of a 5 foot side yard variance to allow
the construction of an attached garage on the above located property.
The City Planner stated that Mr. Stejskal's consultant, Bill Norton, paid the fee
for the application with a check which was subsequently returned because of insuf-
ficient funds. He wrote a letter to Mr. Norton to that effect stating that the
fee will have to be re-paid before the application can be processed.
Perusich/Rockne moved to open the public hearing on the request for a 5 foot variance
from side yard setback requirements for the construction of an attached garage.
Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner explained the request for thc: variance, and stated that staff is
recommending approval of the variance request because this applicant has a hard-
ship due to the irregular shape of the property.
Chrm. Schmitt asked for comments from the applicant or anyone else in the audience,
and there were none from the applicant.
Leroy Houser, Building Official, recommended that the lot be surveyed.
Consensus of the Commissioners was that no decision be made until the fee is taken
care of.
Perusich/Koehnen moved to continue this public hearing until October 8, 1981. Motion
carried unanimously.
Discussion - Siting of Buildings
Leroy Houser, Building Inspector, was present for this discussion regarding build-
ing setbacks and how to eliminate errors of this type. Mr. Houser stated that dur-
ing his employment with the City he has dealt with over 800 structures, and only
knows of 2 structures which have had errors in the setback allowances. Chrm.
Schmitt stated that the two most recent cases have occurred in the last 12 months,
and that is what has prompted concern.
Mr. Houser stated that the Building Inspector does check setbacks for accuracy, but
if the property pins are in the wrong location, that will cause the problem. He
Shakopee BOAA
September 10, 1981
Page 2
has checked with other cities, and most of them are following the same procedures
as Shakopee. He suggested the builder could be required to furnish a Certificate
of Setback from a Registered Surveyor. Further discussion ensued.
Rockne/Perusich moved to cease discussion. Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion - Safety Problems regarding Permits for Home Businesses
Leroy Houser, Building Official, spoke to the Commissioners regarding his concerns
that some permits are being issued for conditional use or variances without any
reference to compliance to fire and safety codes. He mentioned specifically the
one which was just issued for operation of a dance studio out of a residential
basement in which no provision was made for fire exits. Discussion ensued.
The City Planner was directed to recommend some type of standard statement about
compliance to City Code to be added to the conditions of issuance of variances and
conditional use permits.
Perusich/Stoltzman moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned
at 8:00 P.M.
Don Steger
City Planner
Diane S. Beuch
Recording Secretary
PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 10, 1981
Chrm. Schmitt called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. with Comm. Stoltzman,
Rockne, Koehnen and Perusich present. Absent were Comm. Vierling and Coller.
Also present were City Planner Don Steger and Cncl. Leroux.
Perusich/Rockne moved to approve the minutes of August 13, 1981 as kept. Motion
carried with Comm. Koehnen abstaning because of her absence at that meeting.
Mensing CUP Public Hearing - PC 81-31C
Perusich/Rockne moved to open the public hearing on the request for a conditional
use permit to move a single family home onto a vacant lot. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner stated the applicant is Chuck Mensing, who desires to move a single
family home from 4.25 Atwood Street to 744 E. 2nd Ave. He stated there is some
question as to water service to the lot, and he recommended adding an additional
condition which would require approval of the SPUC Manager of the water service
to the lot before issuance of a building permit. Staff recommends approval of the
conditional use permit subject to stated conditions.
Chuck Mensing was present and further explained the water problem, which he had
just found out about today. Apparently, the water line was stubbed into this lot
and there is some difference of opinion as to whether it is a City service. The
SPUC Manager told him he doesn't think it is a City service.
Leroy Houser, Building Official, stated the water service was mandated by the City
Engineer at the time it was put in, there was an easement obtained, and it is con-
sidered a public system.
Cncl. Leroux stated that no one except SPUC has the authority to turn on the water
to that property, that therefore SPUC has to approve the service. The City Planner
stated he believes this matter is between the applicant and SPUC, and the City
should not be involved in it.
Chrm. Schmitt asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to be heard
on this matter, and there was no response.
Perusich/Stoltzman moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Koehnen/Stoltzman offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 187 to move in
an existing dwelling onto 744 E. 2nd Avenue, and moved for its adoption, subject
to the following conditions:
1. The applicant must show proof of ownership of the lot prior to the issuance of
a building permit and moving the structure.
2. The house must meet all requirements of the building code within six months
after it is moved.
Shakopee Planning Commission
September 10, 1981 ; �
Page 2
3. A Performance Bond shall be required in an amount set by the Building
Inspector.
4. All setback requirements of the R-3 Zone must be met.
5. The City Engineer shall approve a grading plan for the lot prior to moving
the structure.
6. SPUC Manager approve water service to this lot prior to the issuance of a
Building Permit.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sub-Machine Shop Amendment to CUP Public Hearing - PC 81-32C
Perusich/Stoltzman moved to open the public hearing to amend Conditional Use Permit
Resolution No. 270. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner explained that the applicant is Gary Shehan, and he is requesting
an extension of operating hours on Friday and Saturday from the 10:30 P.M. closing
to 1:00 A.M. closing. He stated that he contacted the Police Chief, and received
a memo from him stating he has no objection to the extended hours providing the
curfew hours are strictly observed. Therefore, staff recommends approval.
Mr. Shehan stated that there are a lot of over 16 year olds who wish to buy sand-
wiches and play the machines after the curfew hours. He would strictly enforce
the curfew ordinance for those under 16 years. He stated his doors would be closed
at midnight, if this extension was granted.
Perusich/Rockne moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Perusich/Stoltzman moved to amend Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 270, grant-
ing the extension of closing hours to 1:00 A.M. on Fridays and Saturdays. Motion
carried 4nanimously.
Simmons CUP Public Hearing - PC 81-29C
Rockne/Koehnen moved to open the public hearing on the request for a Conditional
Use Permit to maintain a kennel facility in an R-1 Zone. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner stated that this matter was brought to the staff's attention
through the complaint of a neighbor because of excessive barking of Mr. Simmons'
five dogs. He stated staff recommends denial of this Conditional Use Permit, because
of the setting of a precedent and the infringement on the enjoyment of neighbor's
property.
Mr. Simmons stated he has 3 dogs and 2 puppies under the age of 6 months. He stated
he is unclear as to what excessive barking means. He stated that when he is homer
he doesn't believe there is excessive barking, and on occasion he has taken action
to stop the dogs from barking.
Mr. Simmons also stated that the dogs are only out for about an hour in the morning
and then from late afternoon until about 10:00 P.M. They are not allowed to run
and cause problems in other people's yards. He has a small fenced in area for them
now, and has ordered fence for the entire back yard. They plan to get rid of one
puppy and keep the other. One of the dogs is a mixed breed pet and the other two are
Norwegian Elkhounds, which are show dogs.
Shakopee Planning Commission
September 10, 1981 02
Page 3
Chrm. Schmitt asked for comments from the audience.
Jerry Nelson, 140 Norton Drive, stated he lives right next door to the Simmons'
and stated that on a couple of occasions he called them and asked them to keep
the dogs quiet, and nothing was done to take care of it. In his opinion, the
dogs bark constantly. On numerous occasions the dogs came on his property. He
believes the noise and presence of a kennel would devaluate his property.
Mr. Simmons stated that before he had the fenced in area the dogs probably did
go out. But since the fence was put up, they have never gotten out. The dogs
bark at strangers in the area, etc. , but he doesn't think it is excessive.
Gary Halover stated that he is from North Mankato and the City Council there makes
reference to what exists previous to someone moving in. In this case, the dogs
existed before the Nelsons moved in. The other neighbors have not complained.
Mike Delin stated that he is the brother-in-law of Mr. Simmons and that he has been
living with the Simmons for several months. In that time he did not notice the
dogs barking excessively. He has also witnessed Mr. Simmons taking action to
quiet the dogs immediately upon receiving a complaint from Mr. Nelson.
The City Planner stated it is difficult to judge excessive barking as it is subject
to interpretation. He feels the key point here is that anyone has the option of
applying, for approval of a dog kennel. He feels the City has to draw a line as
to where kennels can operate. The Zoning Ordinance does allow kennels in agricultural
zones, which is appropriate. He views this as a test case as to where kennels
can be allowed.
Arlene Oliver stated she is from North Mankato and is also an exhibitor of Norwe-
gian Elkhounds. She stated these dogs are very valuable, worth about $3,000, and
what is Mr. Simmons to do with the dogs if the kennel is not allowed. She stated
this isn't big time breeding, this is just a hobby of breeding purebread dogs,
and you ,are not making a lot of money off it.
Mr. Simmons stated that is why they moved to a 22 acre lot, so they wouldn't have
a lot of neighbors.
Mr. Halover stated this is a rural area and the dogs existed before the neighbors.
The City Planner stated that this was wrong, the area is zoned residential, a rural
residential subdivision. Maybe the dogs did exist prior to the neighbor, but they
existed illegally. Someone asked about the ordinance referring to agricultural
animals, and the City Planner stated they were 1 unit per acre. He stated the City
made a definition of what is a kennel, which is over 2 dogs over 6 months of age.
Mr. Simmons asked if that is stating that no one in a residential area will ever
get a kennel license. The City Planner answered that there could be someone in the
same zoning area that has a different setting, such as more wooded, more separated,
more area.
Mr. Simmons stated that out of 6-8 neighbors, only 1 complained. He has submitted
a statement signed by 4 neighbors that the dogs do not bark excessively and are not
a nuisance to the neighborhood. Further discussion followed regarding distance of
these neighbors from Mr. Simmons.
Shakopee Planning Commission
September 10, 1981
Page 4
Mr. Nelson stated that he doesn't feel that dogs barking that close to his house
is something he wants to put up with.
Perusich/Koehnen moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Perusich/Stoltzman moved to deny Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 286 based
on Shakopee City Code, Section 11.04, Subd. 6A, item No. 1, which states that
the granting of a Conditional Use Permit shall "not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already
permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the
immediate vicinity". Motion carried with Comm. Koennen voting "no".
Mr. Simmons inquired about how long he has to get rid of the dogs. The City Plan-
ner answered 10 days. Cncl. Leroux stated thE: applicant has 7 days to enter an
appeal to City Council, and doesn't have to get rid of the dogs until after that.
Chrm. Schmitt stated that the applicant has 7 days to appeal to the City Council.
At that time a hearing will be set with the Council. He will have 10 days after
the action of the City Council to get rid of the dogs if the Council concurs with
this action. If he is not comfortable with that decision, he always has legal
recourse.
Annual Review - Howe Chemical CUP Resolution No. 265
The City Planner stated Howe Chemical is not in full operation yet. He stated all
conditions of the permit are being met.
Koehnen/Stoltzman moved that an annual review has been conducted and found Howe
Chemical to be in compliance. Motion carried unanimously.
Amendment to Final Plat of Superior Supply 1st Add'n
The City Planner stated that Superior Supply has requested the elimination of the
20 foot drainage and utility easement which was a condition of approval of the plat.
They statedthey could make more efficient use of the property if this easement is
eliminated. To facilitate this, they have requested of NSP to use its 35 foot
powerline easement as a substitute. Staff is recommending approval of this request
upon approval of NSP.
NSP sent letters dated September 4, 1981 and September 10, 1981 to the City Planner
in which it consents to the easement for utility and drainage purposes.
Perusich/Rockne moved to recommend to the City Council the amendment of the
Final Plat of Superior Supply 1st Add'n by eliminating the 20 foot drainage and
utility easement along the easterly 1,371091 feet of the north property line to
share with NSP their existing 35 foot easement for drainage and utility purposes
for an unlimited period of time, as consented to by NSP in its letter dated Sept.
10,1981. Motion carried unanimously.
Liscussion - Lot Splits
The City Planner stated the section regarding requirements and platting guidelines
for lot splits is ambiguous, and he is looking for some guidance as far as the
Planning Commission's intent. He sees a problem regarding utilities. He has con-
tacted some of the nearby cities, and they tend not to go through the formal Planning
Shakopee Planning Commission
September 10, 1981
Page 5 oL
Commission action on simple lot splits.
Rich Logeais, builder, stated that if it has to go through the formal Planning
Commission action, it adds about 90 days, and in that time interest can really
jump, and he could have the building built in that time.
Considerable discussion ensued, in which it was decided that lot splits with and
without buildings should be considered separately. Chrm. Schmitt stated that at
the time that portion of the ordinance dealing with simple lot splits was designed,
it was for simple splits of one parcel into 2-5 parcels, with no buildings on it.
This did not take into consideration twin homes and zero lot lines.
Cncl. Dean Colligan advised the Commission to be careful of dividing duplexes
which are not built in the middle of the lot & those that don't have sound barriers.
He suggested differentiating between old and new structures.
Clete Link stated he has done several of these splits both ways. He thinks it is
very important to have separate water and sewer from the street. It costs S1,000
per unit to do this, but it is worth it.
Rich Logeais stated the way he did it was to have a survey done at the completion
of the building, with separate utilities and separate abstract for each side.
Chrm. Schmitt stated there could be a problem with some of the older homes and we
should be sure easements are registered. Discussion followed regarding whether
the City receives notification of all lot splits from the County Recorder's office.
Cncl. Leroux stated that currently the City receives all notifications of property
transfers, but not necessarily of splits. He thinks that is because the City has
its own assessor, but that will be changing when the City contracts with the County.
Consensus was given that anytime a split of a pre-existing building is made, a
review by the Planning Commission is required. Simple lot splits of undeveloped
land can have the preliminary and final plats done at the same time.
Discussion - Platting of Outlots
The City Planner stated a question has arisen about the need for platting outlots
before development. He stated that at the staff level there is a disagreement
about the need for it. He has talked to engineers, consultants and other cities,
and for the most part very few require re-platting of outlots; they treat them as
a single lot.
Cncl. Leroux stated that he is the one who started asking the questions, and it was
because of Link's property at CR17 and 10th Avenue, where there was no utility
easement. If he had not come in for a variance, there would be no way to require
a utility easement. He feels that when it comes time to build on any outlot, it
should be re-platted, otherwise you have no control.
The City Planner stated he thinks there are only 2-4 outlots in the City, and the
problem is so minor there is no need to require re-platting of outlots. He was
directed to find out how many outlots there are in the City and if there are any
utility easements on them.
Shakopee Planning Commission
September 10, 1981 /
Page 6 !
Informational - Citizens State Bank temporary facility
Clete Link stated the building is owned by a group of people and it is for sale.
There is a bank that is interested in buying it, but they don't need it yet.
The City-Planner said he didn't know if it was originally a temporary building
permit or a conditional use permit, or what. He was not able to find anything
in the records. Cncl. Leroux stated it was a temporary occupancy permit. He
didn't think it was originally issued by any organized body, just by staff. But
it did come before the City Council on a renewal and the Council did renew it,
but he couldn't remember when or for how long.
Clete Link stated they will definitely be removing it, but maybe not for 2-3 months.
They will be removing the signs, and they have been keeping the lot neat.
The City Planner was directed to check the records again to find what kind of
conditions were put on it. Chrm. Schmitt thought the Planning Commission dealt
with it about 3 years ago.
Discussion - Ordinance Requirements for horse ranch
Clete Link introduced Ted Reitazeld who is the President of Citizens State Bank.
Mr.Reitveld stated that he breeds and boards and trains horses. He is looking at
a piece f property on CR16 & CR89, which is an 182 acre parcel with an existing
home on it. He showed pictures of the parcel and the vicinity.
Mr,Reitveld stated that what he would like to do is breed, board and train horses
and give riding lessons. He has been raising registered Morgans for about 10 years.
He would plan to put up a board fence around the area, put up barns and have an
outside and inside riding arena. All the horses would be boarded inside. He has
7 horses now, which he wants to increase to 10, and in order to make an operation
like this profitable, he would like to board about 20 more. He further explained
the operation and answered questions.
The City Planner stated this area is zoned R-1, but the ordinance does not really
cover this situation. But as far as horses specifically, the ordinance allows
2 animals per 22 acres, which would be about 15 horses. Chrm. Schmitt stated he
thought there was some conflict between ag land use and conditional use, but the
City Planner stated the stricter of clauses always applies.
Considerable discussion ensued. Cncl. Leroux stated the PCA may have to get in-
volved. He knows they get involved in feedlots, and areas of concentration of
animals. Reference was made to some horse ranch which was allowed to expand in
the last year and a half, and the City Planner was directed to research the con-
ditions of that action. It was thought that was in an Industrial Zone. Cncl.
Leroux suggested if a larger number of acres was rented for spreading of wastes,
it might be able to be used for the density clause.
Discussion - posting rezoning sites
Cncl. Leroux stated that back in 1976 or 1977 it was decided that anytime a piece
of land was to be re-zoned or subdivided, it would be posted with signs. Since
that time the practice has been abandoned. He cannot find anyplace where it is
Shakopee Planning Commission
September 10, 1981 0
Page 7
recorded the action was officially taken or abandoned. He is asking for a re-
commendation to City Council that the City post any areas that are going to be
subdivided or re-zoned.
The City Planner stated he doesn't feel this is necessary, since surrounding pro-
perties are notified for a public hearing, and it is also expensive for materials
and labor.
Cncl. Leroux stated one purpose is to notify people who drive past, but may not
be actual adjoining property owners, and also to be sure all in the area are
notified if someone is renting a property and the notice for public hearing goes
to the fee title owner.
The City Planner stated he talked to Jim Karkanen and he decided not to continue
because of the cost and time involved. Further discussion followed.
Perusich/Stoltzman moved the Planning Commission recommend to City Council that
signing be done on re-plats and subdivisions, and the signs are recommended to
be 2' x 2' , on steel posts. Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion - Criteria for October Mining CUP Public Hearing
The City Planner stated they will be using the County Commissioners Meeting
Boom fore the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for October 8, 1981. He
added that it might be a little small, but it has an in-place recording system.
A suggestion was made to check at the High School . Cncl. Leroux stated the
Council has in the past had some problems with the recording system at the High
School.
Discussion was held on limiting presentations. It was decided to have individuals
come up to a central microphone and to limit the time of presentation to 3-5 minutes.
There also should be a tag on the mike to remindpersons to identify themselves.
There should be a sign up sheet at the entrance for anyone who wishes to speak.
Chrm. Schmitt stated he might not be able to be present at that meeting because of
business.
Perusich/St.oltzman moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned
at 12:00 midnight.
Don Steger
City Planner
Diane S. Beuch
Recording Secretary
TENTATIVE AGENDA
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 6, 1981
Mayor Harbeck presiding-
1 ] Roll Call at 7 : 30 P.M.
2] Approval of Minutes of August 18th and 25, Sept . 1 , 8, 14, 1981
3] Communications :
a] Mn. Dep' t . of Health re: Shakopee ' s Water. System
b]
4] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers
5] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS:
— a] Doug McKinnon re : Bluff Avenue Improvement (81-2)
b]
6] Old Business :
_i- a] Contract for Assessing with Scott County
,-[ 9 b] Scott County/ St . Francis Hospital Parking Lot Agreements
4 c] East View 1st Addition Utility Charges
+ d] Requiring Connection to City Sewer and Water
„. e] Amending CR-16 Utility Assessments for 80-4 (Res . No. 1925)
7 ] Planning Commission Recommendations :
a] 8: 00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - Appeal from decision of planning
Commission to deny a Conditional Use Permit for a dog kennel
in an R-1 zone
Applicant : Roy Simmons , 130 Norton Drive
Action: Res . No. CC-286
_--= b] Amendment to Final Plat of Superior Supply 1st Addition -
Res . No . 1912
--f-- c ] Signing Sites for Rezonings and Subdivisions
d]17Mn. Valley Mall Area Traffic Study # '
8] Routine Resolutions and Ordinances :
--- a] Res . No. 1917 , Ordering 1981 Diseased Tree Removal Program
-f- b] Res . No . 1918 , Declaring Cost to be Assessed & Setting Hearing
t c ] Res . No. 1914, Authorizing Execution of Agreement for Rental
of Eagle Creek Town Hall
d ] Res . No. 1911 , Volunteering A Hazardous Waste Disposal Site
f �e] i Res . No . 1915, Abating Assessments for Certain Parcels Involved
. in the Holmes Street Improvements
vq,cA f ] Res . No . 1916, Authorizing Amendment to Joint and Cooperative
Agreement
g] Res . No . 1920, Requesting Authority to Establish Permit Fees ,
Issue Permits For and Inspect On Site Sewage Systems and/or
Water Well Construction
-f- h] Res . No . 1726 , Authorizing Issuance cf G.O . Judgment Bende
and Levying Taxes for the Payment Thereof - Liuk Law Suit
_{- i] Ord. No . 75 , Regulating Erection of Fences
j ] Ord. No . 76 , Prohibiting Interruption of Municipally Owned Public
Utilities
Res .6No . 1913 , Adopting A Procedure for Hiring City Employees
1 Res . No . 1921 , Adopting the 1982 Budget
k
r
t
1
TENTATIVE AGENDA
October 6, 1981
Page -2-
4 m]` Res . No . 1922 , Consenting to the Levy of A Special Tax by the
` H .R .A. in and for the City of Shakopee
n] Res . No . 1923, Directing the County Auditor Not to Levy A Tax
For the Sewage Disposal Plant Bonds of 1961
l o] Res . No . 1927 , Approving 1981 Tax Levy, Collectible in 1982
p] Res . No . 1919 , Designating Polling Places and Appointing Judges
--r of Election
9] New Business :
a] 8: 30 P.M. Presentation by the Ad Hoc Downtown Committee
..(_,Co. ] ' Application for $650,000 Industrial Development Bonds for
Equities Unlimited - Res . No. 1924, Calls for Public Hearing
j- c] Clarification of Request for Proposals to Provide Cable
Communications Services
i
- d] Pending Federal Legislation on Municipal Regulation of Cable TV
i e ] Approve Change Order No. 1 for 80-10 Halo 2nd and 81-2 Bluff
Avenue Improvements at additional cost of $5, 570. 30
76 f ] Memorial Park Millpond Water Quality Problem
1- g] Partial Prepayment of Special Assessments _t_e_J
4
____ij h] The bills in the total amount of $200, 534. 87 be allowed
_
and ordered paid
q,_ i ] Jackson/Shakopee/Scott County Joint Seven Man Committee
10] Consent Business :
r.L a] Lot Split Policy
± b] Additional Easement for CR-16 Utilities (80-4)
-q-c] Publications
4'd] Charges to Fund 58 - 1981A Bond Issue
1.7‘ e] Requiring Bonds for Moving Buildings
1.-f] Transfer of Hauer Escrow to 1980 Improvement Fund
lc-g] Installation of North-South stop signs at 3rd and Fuller
11 ] Other Business :
a] City Engineer ' s Monthly Report
' 17,.:412 b] Gene Hauer wishes to review Council ' s decision on the
,. SAC charge for the Hauer Lateral Improvement 80-1
,c) 1 Res . No . 1928 , Setting Sewer Service Rates
d]
e]
12 ] Adjourn to Tuesday, October 20, 1981 .
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
It
TENTATIVE AGENDA
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Altar Session October 6, 1981
Chairman Hullander presiding
1. Roll call at 7 : 00 P.M.
2 . Approve minutes of September 15, 1981
3. Approve 1982 Budget - Adopt Resolution No. 81-7
4. Recommend HRA 1982 Levy to City Council - Adopt Resolution No. 81-8
5. Consider request by Pomije Custom Homes
6 . Progress report on Fourth and Minnesota Neighborhood Revitalization
Project
7 . Payment of Bills :
Fourth and Minnesota Neighborhood Revitalization Project.
Tom Siebenaler, $262. 50, for sod for 506-508 Minnesota Street
Parrot Construction, $70.00, to remove concrete debris
8. Other business
9. Adjourn to 7 : 00 P.M. , October 20, 1981
Ilir Jeanne Andre
"` Executive Director
2,
PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY •
Special Session Shakopee, Minnesota September 15, 1981
Chrm. Hullander called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. with Comm. Colligan and
Lebens present. Absent was Comm. Reinke, and Comm. Leroux arrived later. Also
present were Rod Krass, Ass't City Atty. and Jeanne Andre, HRA Executive Director.
Colligan/Lebens moved approval of the minutes of August 4, 1981 as kept. Motion
carried unanimously.
The HRA Director stated the memo regarding levy limitations on special taxing dis-
tricts was informational. The City Admr. informed her that the Commissioners would
look at the HRA budget after completion of the City budget, so she had not scheduled
a meeting to discuss the budget.
The HRA Director gave information about two units in Macey Second Add'n which will
be ready to close shortly, and stated the remaining 4 units are scheduled to be
closed in October, 1981.
Colligan/Lebens moved to authorize HRA officials to make, execute and deliver deed
to Lot 8, Block 1, Macey Second Add'n, subject to inspection and approval by staff
of improvements constructed therein, to Goodwin Bldrs. , Inc. This action to be in
accordance with contract for deed between Goodwin Bldrs, Inc. and the Shakopee HRA,
for the purpose of conveying said property to authorized buyer identified by HRA.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Colligan/Lebens moved to authorize approprate HRA Officials to make, execute and
deliver deed to Lot 9, Block 3, Macey Second Add'n, subject to inspection and ap-
proval by staff of improvements constructed therein, to Goodwin Bldrs, Inc. This
action to be in accordance with contract for deed between Gootwin Bldrs, Inc. and
the Shakopee HRA, for the purpose of conveying said property to authorized buyer
identified by HRA.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
The HRA Director informed the Commissioners that regarding the bill from Siehndel
Construction, the amount would be minus the cost of removing the old sidewalk from
the premises.
Lebens/Colligan moved to approve payment of the bills as presented and amended:
1. Mr. Sylvester Unze, $300, payment for water damages incurred to his home.
2. Siehndel Construction, $362.60 for replacement of sidewalk, minus the cost of
removal of the old sidewalk from the premises.
3. Suburban Engineering, $200, for survey work
4. Shakopee Valley News, $28.38 for newspaper ad to advertise home for sale.
All of the above bills were incurred as part of the Fourth and Minnesota Neighbor-
hood Revitalization Project.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Discussion was held on future projects for community development, and the HRA Direc-
tor asked for suggestions for additional projects and also asked the Commissioners
to prioritize the suggestions.
RECEIV_FD
3
SEP 2 4 1981
minnesota department of health CITY OF SHAKOPEE.
717 s.e. defaware st. minneapolis 55440
(612 296-5221
Shakopee City Council
c/o Ms. Judith S. Cox, Clerk
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Council Members:
We are enclosing a copy of the report of our district office
covering an investigation of your municipal water supply.
If you have any questions concerning the information contained
in this report, please communicate with Mr. David B. Engstrom, P.E. ,
Public Health Engineer, Minnesota Department of Health.
Yours very truly,
,
Gary L. Englund, P.E. , Chief
Section of Water Supply and
General Engineering
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Lou Van Hout, Water Supt.
an equal opportunity employer (5)
a j
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
REPORT ON INVESTIGATION OF PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
Name of Water Supply PWS ID Number
}takrpec Municipal Water Supply 1700009
------- _ ___------ -- - - -
-
street Telephone Numbers:
F- 1::!.9 rff9 lst First Avenue • - City: .A45-3650
it, State Zip Code
Shakop. MN 55379 Operator:��_ •
County I District Engineer: 445-3650
Scott. Metropolitan Other: 445-7244 _ —
Water Superintendent Classification Plant Classification Owner Type
Lou VanHout C C Municipal
Other Operators Classification Plant Type Plumbing Permits and
Art Young B Community Yes No
Inspections Required ® ❑
Ken Menden N.C. Date of Previous Survey Date of Survey
March 12, 1980 June 23, 1981
City Engineer
Be Spurrier --- •
__--
SERVICE AREA CHARACTERISTICS:
El Municipal 0 School or College
0 Recreation Area
❑Mobile Home Park ❑Hotel/Motel 0 Campground
0 Company Town ❑Resort 0 Housing Development
0 Institution ❑Restaurant 0 Other
Population Served Service Connections Storage Capacity:
9,600 2,451 (List Separately)
250,000 gallon elevated
Design Capacity (gal/day) Average Daily Production (gal/day) 2,000,000 gallon elevated
4,700.000 1 ,460,000 1 ,500,000 gallon elevated
Emergency Capacity (gal/day) Highest Daily Production (gal/day)
1,1o0 000 3,900,000 . . Total: 3,750,000
gallons
TREATMENT WELL DATA
c d e,t
o
CD
>cC c ° U c o o c . m t _
y pHcO. C) J
., .D d Oc m c •ON dIc J
u —° E . oE Z oF- a; a: E mro 8 d... E cv • a.. + o L c c
m m o
Source Name V8 Q U v) uUin hO 1-m Q u O >w j U tu d mo (7) O a
?ranconia VT
__Well 1 _ G S Dc Va 1911 8 216 7152resbach 28 - 360
?ranconia VT
Well 2 . G P Dc Va 1945 16 , 162 730Jresbach 110 67. 520
conia VT
_.Well 3.-_ G P Dc Va 1956 16 286 780 } 111 49 700
-- VT
_We.11 a G p De _ Va 1971 12 184 256 Jordan 40 70 740
Sub
_Well 5 G P Dc _- Va 1971 12 183 253 Jordan 40 - 920
.__ ._
Remai ks:
Surveyed by: David B. Engstrom
Approved by: Gary,- Englund 1
- --- ---- _ ----- - - — -- -- —� J
HE-008474R
ti
ShahoOce Municipal Recommendations - 2 - 3 -G''
• 1
1 . The air-release valve should be properly screened. (Well #4)
2. The fluoride feed point should he relocated to the lower half of the main.
(Wells #2 & #3)
3. The door to the pumphouse should be rehung to open outward. (Wells #1 & #2)
4. Chlorine cylinders and all pressure lines should be stored in a separate room or
shed located outside of the pumphouse. (Wells #1 & #2) i
5. Chlorine -rooms should have:
A. A louvered air intake located near the ceiling and as far away from #
the exhaust vent as possible. (Wells #3 & #4)
B. An inspection window through which a viewer can see the entire room.
(Well #3)
C. Swi`tches 'for the exhaust fan and lights located outside the chlorine
room, 'preferably near the inspection window. (Well #3)
6. The City should begin a comprehensive program for the detection and correction of
defective plumbing on the distribution system.
7. During :the survey, the field tests for chlorine residuals ranged from 0.1 to 2.5
milligrams per liter of total chlorine. A minimum of 1.0 milligram per liter should
be maintained on all points of the distribution system. The amount of chlorine
added and the residual found indicates a considerable chlorine demand on the
system. ' The City should develop an aggressive hydrant flushing program and
increase chlorine dosages such that a minimum residual can be maintained.
8. The City should provide two complete sets of chemical feed pumps for wells #4
and #5.
9. • The operator should have protective clothing (goggles, apron and rubber gloves)
available when handling acids.
10. Water samples for fluoridation analysis shall be collected, tested and recorded
on a'daily basis.
11-.• The opportunity for additional training in water supply work should be made
available to the operator. Attendance at tha annual waterworks seminar, held
in the area,' is a valuable experience anyone nga ed in this field.
(?::)1
•
David B. Engstrom, .
Public Health Engineer
Environmental Field Services
Approved:p -(r------;?—/-- - i,. �r-rte_-._-
Cary L. Englund, P.E. , Chief
{',L_ Section of Water Supply and
'�_ General Engineering
MEMO TO: John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: H. R. Spurrier
City Engineer 141111" ,
1DATERE: Bluff Avenue Improvement 81-
DATE:
: October 5, 1981
Introduction:
It is my understanding that Doug McKinnon will request that the cost
of his service be the actual installation cost instead of the average cost
of installation.
Background:
The City of Shakopee has no specific policy regarding the assessment of
lateral services. The services are assessed in one of two ways:
1) By the actual installation cost, or;
2) By the average installation cost per service.
Method 1 is often used in commercial/industrial areas where the diameter of
the service varies according to the type of building served by the facility.
Method 2 is often used in residential areas; the average is used because it
balances possible inequities caused by the lot configuration.
This area is unique in that it contains a mix of residential, commercial
and even industrial properties and, therefore, the decision on the proper
alternative is complicated. Staff has no preference as to the appropriate
alternative but recommends that Council take Mr. McKinnon's recommendation
and place it on file and consider that along with all the other testimony at
the time this project is assessed.
Recommendation:
It is the recommendation of City staff that Council take no action regarding
the method of computation for the McKinnon service line assessment.
HRS/jiw
MEMO TO : Mayor and City Council
FROM : John K. Anderson , City Administrator
RE : Contract for Assessing with Scott County
DATE : September 30, 1981
Introduction
At the City Council meeting on September 8 , 1981 , City Council
approved a draft agreement between the County and the City for
assessing services prepared by staff . That agreement is now
before Council in a slightly modified form for final action .
Background
The County Attorney and County Board made minor modifications
to Sections #4 , #5 and #7 before giving final approval to the
document . The County Board then approved the amended agreement
at its September 15 , 1981 meeting . Please read these three
sections and contact me before October 6 , 1981 if you have ques-
tions .
Alternatives
1 . Adopt the agreement .
2 . Modify the agreement prior to adoption .
3 . Reject the agreement .
Recommendation
The agreement is substantially like the one Council approved as
to form September 8 , 1981 and I therefore recommend alternative
No. 1 .
Action Requested
Motion approving an Assessment Agreement Between the City of
Shakopee and the County of Scott for the years 1982-1986 .
JKA/jms
ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY OF SHAKOPEE AND COUNTY OF SCOTT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the City of Shakopee
and the County of Scott, State of Minnesota, this day of ,
19 .
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee wishes to enter into an agreement with the
County of Scott to provide for the assessment of the property in said. City by the
County Assessor; and
WHEREAS, it is the wish of said County to cooperate with said City to provide
for a fair and equitable assessment of property;
NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL COVENANTS HEREIN CONTAINED IT
IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the City of Shakopee which lies within the County of Scott and
constitutes a separate district, shall have its property assessed by the County
Assessor of Scott County, for the assessment of the years 1982-1986.
2. That the County Assessor of Scott County assign a knowledgeable assessor
with industrial/commercial experience to provide the Shakopee assessment, said
assessment to be reviewed by the Chief Deputy Assessor who coordinates all in-
dustrial/commercial assessments.
3. That the County Assessor assigned to Shakopee be available during normal
working hours to respond to Shakopee citizens' requests for assessing information
and requests for assessment data from the City of Shakopee.
4. That it is understood that the City of Shakopee may take legal action
against the County of Scott if the City should be penalized of any State Aid re-
sulting from the co-efficient of dispersion standards not being met.
5. That the City of Shakopee will continue to conduct a Board of Review and
upon the agreement of both parties, the City Attorney may assist the County Attor-
ney in any tax appeals.
6. That in consideration for said assessment services, the City of Shakopee
hereby agrees to pay the County of Scott the sum of $3.50 per parcel on or before
July 15, 1982. That the sum shall not be increased by more than 10% in any one
year beginning with the 1983 assessment, with yearly payments payable on or before
July 15th of the assessment year.
7. That termination of this agreement by either party shall be made by
written notice no less than 120 days prior to completion of the current assessment
year on July 15th.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement this day
of , 19 .
In Presence Of: For City of Shakopee
Signed:
By
Attest
In 'r•sence Of: 400, For County of Scott r,
S n -20--- .01,7..- /moi'
/
dir
2 / /1 Attest ,iti1�-� -`ec`, i 4J1
Approved as to Form:
/,% /�" '
-Kathleen Morris
Scott County Attorney
\\
MEMO TO : Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE : County/Hospital Parking Lot Agreements
DATE : September 30, 1981
Introduction
City Council , at its regular August 18 , 1981 meeting, directed staff
to draft individual agreements that would be executed by the City
and Scott County and the City and St . Francis Hospital for the deve-
lopment of parking facilities on Block #57 .
Background
The Assistant City Attorney drafted the initial. agreements which
were reviewed by County and Hospital staff . Then , at a joint
meeting of the three agencies staff , a final draft was prepared
for review by the City Council , Scott County Commissioners and
the St . Francis Hospital Board . The draft , attached , has been
reviewed by the attorneys for all three agencies and is ready
for action by the respective boards . Scott County will be acting
on the agreement during the morning of October 6 , 1981 .
Alternatives
1 . Reject the draft agreement and direct staff to begin over .
2 . Amend and then approve the amended agreement .
3 . Approve the agreement .
Recommendation
It is the recommendation of the Assistant City Attorney and the
City Administrator to approve the draft as presented (alternative
#3) . The agreement for the Hospital sets an early completion
date for the construction of a temporary facility, December 1 ,
1981 , and coordinates the final completion date with that of the
County, August 31 , 1983 , 23 months from now.
Action Requested
1 . Approval of Agreement between the City and Scott County to
create a parking lot in Block #57 .
2 . Approval of Agreement between the City and St . Francis Hospital
to create a parking lot in Block #57 .
JKA/jms
(4 e,-Law Offices of_ . ,
KRASS, MEYER & KANNING
Chartered September 24, 1981 Phillip R.Krass
Shakopee Professional Building Barry K. Meyer
1221 Fourth Avenue East Philip T. Kenning
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
(612)445-5080 RECEI',ED Trevor R. Waisten
Mr. John Anderson SEP 2 51981
Shakopee City Administrator
129 East First Avenue CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Shakopee, Minnesota
Dear John:
I enclose a redraft of the City's Contract with the Hospital , and the City's
Contract with the County. By copy of this letter I am sending both Mike
Sortum and Joe Ries copies of their respective Agreements for review to make
certain they conform with the understandings we reached at our September
17th joint meeting.
If any of you have any additions, corrections or deletions to make, please
do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours ve' t,uly,
KRASS, MER KANNING CHARTERED
P 1 • rass
PRK:sm
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Mike Sortum
Mr. Joe Ries
t I
AGREEMENT TO CREATE PARKING LOT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this day of
1981 , by and between the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, a municipal corporation,
and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota (the City) , and the
County of Scott, Minnesota , a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota
(the County) .
WITNESSETH THAT, in joint and mutual exercise of their powers, and
in consideration of the mutual benefits hereindescribed , the parties hereto
recite and agree as follows:
Section 1 . RECITALS.
1 .01 . Previous City Action. The City has previously made known
its intention to establish public parking on that certain property located in
Block 57, Original Plat of Shakopee, presently under the ownership of or
to be acquired by the County, and described on Appendix "A, " which is attached
hereto and mzde a part hereof, The City' s intent was to alleviate the
severe parking and traffic problems related to the travel and parking of
employees and visitors to the County Courthouse, The City has made known
its intent to create a parking lot district which would include the property
described on Appendix "A. " The County for its part has already acquired
a substantial portion of the property described on Appendix "A" and has
established a surfaced parking lot thereon.
1 .02. The County's Request to Establish a Parking Lot. The County,
for its part, has acknowledged the need for such parking facilities and has
moved to acquire and has acqu'red or will acquire all of the property described
on Appendix "A. " The County has , however, made known its desire to handle
the construction of such parking lot facility as a private venture of the
County alone without public improvement by the City.
1 .03. St. Francis Hospital Involvement. The City and the County
acknowledge and understand that St. Francis Hospital has been acquiring and
is continuing its efforts to acquire all of that portion of Block 57 not
described on Appendix "A, " for purposes of establishing parking facilities
to alleviate the parking and traffic congestion problems related to the
operation of St. Francis Hospital , and that cooperation and coordination
between the City, the County, and St. Francis Hospital will be necessary to
develope the entirety of Block 57 into parking facilities .
1 . 04. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the terms
and conditions by ihich the County will acquire and develop the property
described on Appendix "A" into parking facilities in coordination with the
City and St. Francis Hospital .
1 . 05. Each of the parties hereto has authority to enter into
this Agreement and will take all actions required of it hereby, and has taken
all actions necessary to authorize this Agreement.
Section 2. CITY'S UNDERTAKINGS.
2.01 . In consideration of this Agreement, the City does agree that
it will refrain from taking the actions contemplated by it and recited in
Section 1 .01 , provided that tre County faithfully perform its undertakings
as hereinafter set forth.
2. 02. The County and St. Francis Hospital shall coordinate their
efforts to place parking facilities on Block 57 and shall further coordinate
the engineering services necessary to handle storm drainage from said lot 57 .
it
6
Section 3. COUNTY'S UNDERTAKINGS,
3.01 . The County has or shall obtain fee title to all property
described in Appendix "A," on or before the 31st day of December , 1982.
3.02. The County shall remove or raze all structures located
on the property described in Appendix "A" on or before the 1st day of
May, 1983.
3.03. The County shall construct upon the property described in
Appendix "A" a parking lot in accordance with the plans and specifications
which shall be approved by the City, including engineering plans for drainage,
and shall complete the surfacing of said parking facility on or before
August 31 , 1983.
3.04. The above-described acquisition, structure, removal or
razing, and construction shall be at the exclusive cost and expense of the
County. The construction of said parking facility shall be in accordance
with Shakopee City Code, Section 11 .05, Subdivision 3, Paragraph D and
shall be subject the usual review and permit approval by the City as would
be any such parking facility.
Section 4. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.
4.01 . Notices . All notices, certificates or other communications
required to be given to the City and the County hereunder shall be sufficiently
given and shall be deemed given when delivered , or when deposited in the
United States Mail in registered form with postage fully prepaid and addressed
as follows :
If to the City: City of Shakopee
City Hall
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
If to the County: County of Scott
Scott County Administrator
Courthouse 110
Scott County Courthouse
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Any party by notice given hereunder, may designate different addresses to
which subsequent notices, certificates or other communications will be sent.
4. 02. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit
of and shall be binding upon the parties and their respective successors and
assigns.
4.03. Severability. In the event any provisions of this Agreement
shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction,
such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision
hereof.
4.04. Amendments, Changes and Modifications. This Agreement may be
amended or any of its terms modified only by written amendment authorized
and executed by all of the parties .
4.05. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be simultaneously
executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of
which shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
4.06. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and
construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota,
4.07 . City and County Representatives. Whenever under the provisions
of this Agreement the approval of a particular party is required to take some
action at the request of another party , such approval of such action may be
given for the party by a representative designated by it in writing, and
any part hereto shall be authorized to rely upon such approval or request .
4.08. Captions. The captions and the headings in this Agreement
are for convenience only and in no way define, limit or describe the scope or
intent of any provision or section of this Agreement.
e
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, both of the parties hereto have caused this
Agreement to be executed and in its corporate name by its duly authorized
officers and sealed with its corporate seal as of the date first above
written.
THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
By
Its Mayor
By
Its City Administrator
COUNTY OF SCOTT, MINNESOTA
By
Chairman, Board of Commissioners
By
County Auditor
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF SCOTT
On this day of , 1981 , before me, a Notary Public
within and for said County,, appeared
and _ , to me personally known, who
being by me duly sworn, did say that they are respectively the Mayor and City
Administrator of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota , and the instrument was
signed and sealed on behalf of said corporation by authority of its City
Council , and they acknowledge that said instrument was the free act and
deed of said corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF SCOTT
On this day of , 1981 , before me a Notary
Public within and for said County, appeared
and , tc me personally known, who being by
me duly sworn, did say that they are respectively the Chairman of the Board
and the County Auditor of Scott County, Minnesota , and the instrument was
signed and sealed on behalf of the corporation by authority of its Board of
Directors , and they acknowledge that said instrument was the free act and deed
of the County.
Notary Public
6 4-
APPENDIX A
(Property on Block 57 owned or to be acquired by the County of Scott, Minnesota)
AGREEMENT TO CREATE PARKING LOT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this day of
1981 , by and between the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, a municipal corporation,
and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota (the City) , and St. Francis
Hospital , Inc. , a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State
of Minnesota (the Hospital ) .
WITNESSETH THAT, in joint and mutual exercise of their powers , and
in consideration of the mutual benefits hereindescribed, the parties hereto
recite and agree as follows:
Section RECITALS.
1 .01 . Previous City Action. The City has previously made known its
intention to establish public parking on that certain property located in
Block 57, Original Plat of Shakopee, presently under the ownership of the
Hospital , and described on Appendix "A," which is attached hereto and made a
part hereof. The City' s intent was to alleviate the severe parking and
traffic problems related to the travel and parking of employees, patients,
physicians and visitors of the Hospital . The City had made known its intent
to create a parking lot district which would include the property described
on Appendix "A. " The Hospital has recognized that above referenced parking
and traffic problems and has purchased the property described on Appendix "A"
for the purpose of having the same utilized for parking facilities , all in
accordance with the December 10, 1980 Resolution adopted by its Board of
Directors supporting the development of Block 57 for parking.
1 .02. The Hospital 's Request to Establish a Parking Lot. The
Hospital , for its part, has acknowledged the need for such parking facilities
and has moved to acquire and has acquired all of the property described
on Appendix "A. " The Hospital has, however, made known its desire to handle
the construction of such parking lot facility as a private venture of the
Hospital alone without public improvement by the-City.
1 .03. County of Scott Involvement. The City and the Hospital
acknowledge and understand that the County of Scott has been acquiring and
is continuing its efforts to acquire all of that portion of Block 57 not
described on Appendix "A," for purposes of establishing parking facilities
to alleviate the parking and traffic congestion problems related to the
operation of the Scott County Courthouse, and that cooperation and coordination
between the City, the Hospital and the County of Scott will be necessary to
develop the entirety of Block 57 into parking facilities.
1 .04. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the terms and
conditions by which the Hospital will develop the property described on
Appendix "A" into parking facilities in coordination with the City and the
County of Scott.
1 .05. Each of the parties hereto has authority to enter into this
Agreement and will take all actions required of it hereby, and has taken all
actions necessary to authorize this Agreement.
Section 2. CITY'S UNDERTAKINGS.
2. 01 . In consideration of this Agreement, the City does agree that
it will refrain from taking the actions contemplated by it and recited in
Section 1 .01 , provided that tl-e Hospital faithfully perform its undertakings
as hereinafter set forth.
2.02. The County and St. Francis Hospital shall coordinate their
efforts to place parking facilities on Block 57 and shall further coordinate
the engineering services necessary to handle storm drainage from said lot 57 .
6
Section 3. HOSPITAL'S UNDERTAKINGS.
3.01 . The Hospital has obtained fee title to all property
described on Appendix "A."
3.02. The Hospital shall remove or raze all structures located
on the property described in Appendix "A" on or before November 1 , 1981 .
3.03. The Hospital shall construct upon the property described
in Appendix "A" a temporary parking lot in accordance with the conditional
use permit obtained by the Hospital from the City, no later than December 1 ,
1981 . It is understood and agreed that during construction activities
presently planned at the hospital , it will be necessary for the Hospital
to utilize a portion of said temporary parking facility for the storage of
construction equipment and material . At the conclusion of said construction
the Hospital will cause the property described on Appendix "A" to be
permanently surfaced, which permanent surface shall be placed no later than
August 31 , 1983.
3.04. The above-described acquisition, structure removal or razing,
and construction shall be at the exclusive cost and expense of the Hospital .
The construction of said parking facility shall be in accordance with Shakopee
City Code, Section 11 .05, Subdivision 3, Paragraph D, and shall be subject
to the usual review and permit approval by the City as would by any such
parking facility.
Section 4. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.
4.01 . Notices. All notices, certificates or other communications
required to be given to the City and the Hospital hereunder shall be sufficiently
given and shall be deemed given when delivered, or when deposited in the United
States Mail in registered form with postage fully prepaid and addressed as follows:
If to the City: City of Shakopee
City Hall
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
If to the Hospital : St. Francis Hospital , Inc.
325 West Fifth Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Attention: Executive Director
Any party by notice given hereunder, may designate different addresses to which
subsequent notices, certificates or other communications will be sent.
4.02. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of
and shall be binding upon the parties and their respective successors and
assigns.
4.03. Severability. In the event any provision of this Agreement shall
be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding
shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof.
4.04. Amendments, Changes and Modifications. This Agreement may be
amended or any of its terms modified only by written amendment authorized and
executed by all of the parties.
4.05. Further Assurances and Corrective Instruments. The parties
agree that they will , from time to time, execute, acknowledge and deliver,
or cause to be executed, acknowledged and delivered, such supplements hereto
and such further instruments as may reasonably be required for correcting
any inadequate or incorrect description of real property described herein or
the Project or any bonds issued with respect thereto.
4.06. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall he governed by and
construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota.
4.07. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be simultaneously
executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all
of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
4.08. City and Corporation Representatives. Whenever under the
provisions of this Agreement the approval of a particular party is required
to take some action at the request of another party, such approval of such
action may be given for the party by a representative designated by it in
writing, and any part hereto shall be authorized to rely upon any such
approval or request.
4.09. Captions. The captions and the headings in this Agreement
are for convenience only and in no way define, limit or describe the scope
or intent of any provision of section of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, both of the parties hereto have caused this
Agreement to be executed and in its corporate name by its duly authorized
officers andsealed with its corporate seal as of the date first above written.
THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
By
Its Mayor
By
Its City Administrator
ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL, INC.
By
By
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF SCOTT
On this day of , 1981 , before me, a Notary
Public within and for said County, appeared
and , to me personally known , who being by me
duly sworn, did say that they are respectively the Mayor and City Administrator
of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, anc' the instrument was signed and sealed
on behalf of said corporation by authority of its City Council , and they
acknowledged that said instrument was the free act and deed of said corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF SCOTT
On this day of , 1981 , before me, a Notary
Public within and for said County, appeared
and who are respectively the
and of St. Francis Hospital , Inc. ,
a Minnesota corporation, and the instrument was signed and sealed on behalf
of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors, and they acknowledge
that said instrument was the free act and deed of said corporation.
Notary Public
•
APPENDIX A
(Property on Block 57 owned by St. Francis Hospital )
`,+OfaH1��i CITY OF SHAKOPEE
� f
.-41t--?� � . 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 �^
1L0 C -
1.1 y '
qcza
TO: City Council
FROM: LeRoy Houser
SUBJECI':Eastview Addition Utilities
DATE: SaptPmhar 16, 1gR1
Introduction:
As to date Chard has not paid SPUCS utility charges and further
extension of the service will not be provided until the bill is
paid.
Background:
Building permits are being issued in Eastview Addition without the
utility extension being properly addressed. Until Council puts a
moritorium on all building permits in the subdivision until the
utility problem is resolved, I fear we are placing ourselves in a
precarious position. I don' t think we can legally or morally issue
permits for dwellings where we cannot guarantee electricity. It is
not even reasonable to tell the fee owners to buy portable generators
to service their residences.
Alternatives:
1 . Do nothing at this time and let it work itself out.
(purchasers suing Chard)
2. Install the utilities and lien the subdivision to recover
costs.
3. Take Chard to Court .
4. Put a moritorium on all building permits until it is resolved.
Recommendations :
I recommend alternative number 4. The reason for this recommenda-
tion is that it is quick, clean, results in immediate action and
does not require legal fees or staff court time to force Chard to
perform.
Action Requested:
Direct staff to prepare appropriate moritorium resolution.
y
fili,/�
�+ ' 1 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
MEMO
TO: John K. Anderson
FROM: LeRoy Houser
SUBJECT: Utility Hookups
DATE: September 18, 1981
Introduction:
As per your instructions, I have contacted Met Waste and the City of
Eden Prairie regarding any Ordinances relating to mandatory sewer
hookups.
Background:
As you know, there are differences of opinion at the Council level as
to the application of the State Plumbing Code regarding required sewer
and water hookups.
As you instructed, I contacted Met Waste and Eden Prairie. Met Waste
Sewerage and Waste Control Rules require sewer connections to be made
24 months after the sewer line has been installed (Article 4, Subsection
4-7) .
The City of Eden Prairie by Ordinance No. 157, Section 9 , requires a
hooking within five years or immediately after the system fails. This
includes pumping of the tank.
Neither Met Waste nor any other City I contacted has a specific Ordinance
relating to the well except the State Plumbing Code.
Alternatives:
1 . Continue on as we have been without written policy.
2. Adopt written policy requiring hookup to utilities.
Recommendations :
I recommend the City require hookup to both sewer and water when the
property abuts on any public street or alley in which any sanitary sewer
mains or city water lines have been constructed, within three years or
when the private system becomes defective . This includes, but not limited
to, replacement of drain field lines, pumping of tanks, replacement of
well pump motors.
Anderson/Houser
Utility Hookups
Page -2-
It is also recommenced the public be allowed to use the well for yard
watering, car washing, etc . , as long as it is disconnected from the
interior supply lines and no cross connection to the public water
system exists.
Action Requested:
Direct staff to prepare appropriate ordinance requiring hookup to
utilities.
METROPOLITAN SEWER BOARD
350 Metro Square Building — St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
SEWAGE AND WASTE CONTROL
RULES AND REGULATIONS
FOR THE
METROPOLITAN DISPOSAL SYSTEM
December 1, 1971
% bfl set.
O b�
0?'wrx cs'tl*�
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ARTICLE L AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE. 1
ARTICLE H. DEFINITIONS. 1
Section 24. "Sewer Board" 1
Section 2-2. "Chief Administrator" 1
Section 2-3. "Metropolitan Area" 1
Section 2-4. "Metropolitan Disposal System" 1
Section 2-5. "Disposal System" 1
Section 2-6. "Sewage" 1
Section 2-7. "Industrial Waste" 1
Section 2-8. "Other Waste" 1
Section 2-9. "Waste" 2
Section 2-10. "Sewer" 2
Section 2-11. "Garbage" 2
Section 2-12. "BOD" 2
Section 2-13. "COD" 2
Section 2-14. "Chlorine Requirement" 2
Section 2-15. "pH" 2
Section 2-16. "Slug" 2
Section 2-17. "Suspended Solids" 2
Section 2-18. "Agency," "local government," and "person" 2
Section 2-19. "Shall" and "may" 2
ARTICLE III. NEW CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATION OR
IMPROVEMENT OF DISPOSAL SYSTEMS. 2
ARTICLE IV. CONNECTIONS TO METROPOLITAN
DISPOSAL SYSTEM. 3
Section 4-1. Connection:Permit 3
Section 4-2. Connection:Application 3
Section 4-3. Connection:Application Information 3
Section 4-4. Connection:Inspection Prior to Use 3
Section 4-5. Connection:Notice of Work On 3
Section 4-6. Connection:Requirement for Same 3
Section 4-7. Connections:Private Disposal Systems 3
Section 4-8. Connections:Prohibition 4
Section 4-9. Connections:Information and Reports 4
i—
Page
ARTICLE V. PROHIBITED WASTES INTO THE
METROPOLITAN DISPOSAL SYSTEM—
MEASURING METHODS. 5
Section 5-1. Waste Discharge Regulations 5
Section 5-2. Treatment of Prohibited Waste 5
Section 5-3. Limitations on Discharges 5
Section 54. Exclusion of Waste 5
Section 5-5. Regulatory Actions 7
Section 5-6. Pretreatment Facilities Operations 7
Section 5-7. Admission to Property 7
Section 5-8. Trap Installations 7
Section 5-9. Industrial Waste Measurement and Sampling 8
Section 5-10. Industrial Waste Analyses 8
Section 5-11. Measurement and Test Procedures 8
Section 5-12. Confidentiality of Critical Information 8
Section 5-13. Special Agreements 8
Section 5-14. Industrial Waste Surcharge 9
Section 5-15. Accidental Discharges 9
ARTICLE VI. DISPOSAL OF SEPTIC TANK SLUDGE. 10
Section 6-1. Permits 10
Section 6-2. Approved Sites 10
Section 6-3. Metropolitan Area 10
ARTICLE VII. PENALTIES,AND COST RECOVERY. 11
Section 7-1. Violations 11
Section 7-2. Penalties 11
Section 7-3. Cost Recovery 11
ARTICLE VM. ADMINISTRATION. 12
Section 8-1. Enforcement 12
Section 8-2. Information 12
Section 8-3. Responsibility 12
ARTICLE IX. EFFECTIVE DATE AND SEVERABILITY. .___. 13
Section 9-1. Effective Date 13
Section 9-2. Severability 13
Section 9-3. Date of Adoption 13
—ii—
RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING
CONNECTIONS TO AND THE USE OF
THE METROPOLITAN DISPOSAL SYSTEM;
AND PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS
ARTICLE I. AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE.
These rules and regulations are adopted by the Metropolitan Sewer Board pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 473C, and are declared to be necessary for the efficient, economic
and safe operation of the metropolitan disposal system, and for the protection of the health,
safety, and general welfare of the public in the metropolitan area. They are intended to carry
out the comprehensive plan for the metropolitan disposal system as contained in the Metro-
politan Development Guide for Sanitary Sewers adopted by the Metropolitan Council on
January 22, 1970, and as may be amended, and to prevent and abate pollution through the
regulation and control of connections to and the use of the system for the conveyance, treat-
ment, and disposal of waste.
ARTICLE II. DEFINITIONS.
The terms defined in this Article shall have the meanings given them unless otherwise
indicated by the context.
Section 2-1. "Sewer Board" means the Metropolitan Sewer Service Board established
by Minnesota Statutes, Section 473C.03.
Section 2-2. "Chief Administrator" means the Chief Administrator of the Sewer Board
or his duly authorized representative.
Section 2-3. "Metropolitan Area" means the area in the counties of Anoka, Carver, Da-
kota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington.
Section 2-4. "Metropolitan Disposal System" shall have the meaning given it in Minne-
sota Statutes, Section 473C.02.
Section 2-5. "Disposal System" shall have the meaning given it in Minnesota Statutes,
Section 115.01.
Section 2-6. "Sewage" means the water-carried waste products from residences, public
buildings, institutions or other discharge from the bodies of human beings
or animals.
Section 2-7. "Industrial Waste"means any solid,liquid, or gaseous waste, including cool-
ing water, resulting from any industrial or manufacturing process or from
the development, recovery or processing of natural resources.
Section 2-8. "Other Waste" means garbage, municipal refuse, decayed wood, sawdust,
shavings, bark, lime, sand, ashes, offal, oil, tar, chemicals, and all other
substances not sewage or industrial waste.
—1—
Section 2-9. "Waste" means sewage, industrial waste and other waste as defined herein.
Section 2-10. "Sewer"means a pipe or conduit designed or used to conduct waste. "Sewer
System" means a system or group of sewers. "Combined Sewer" means a
sewer or sewer system all or part of which is designed or used to conduct
both waste and surface water runoff.
Section 2-11. "Garbage" means solid wastes from the preparation, cooking, and dispens-
ing of food, either domestic or commercial, and from the handling, storage
or sale of meat,fish, fowl,fruit or vegetables and condemned food.
Section 2-12. "BOD" (denoting Biochemical Oxygen Demand) means the quantity of
oxygen utilized in the biochemical oxidation of organic matter under stan-
dard laboratory procedure in five days at 20°C, expressed in milligrams
per liter.
Section 2-13. "COD" (denoting Chemical Oxygen Demand) means a measure of the oxy-
gen equivalent of that portion of the organic matter in a water sample that
is susceptible to oxidation by a strong chemical oxidant.
Section 2-14. "Chlorine Requirement" means the amount of chlorine, in milligrams per
liter, which must be added to waste to produce a specified residual chlo-
rine content, or to meet some other standard.
Section 2-15. "pH" means the logarithm of the reciprocal of the hydrogen ion concentra-
tion in moles per liter.
Section 2-16. "Slug"shall mean any waste discharge which, in concentration of any given
constitutent or in quantity of flow, exceeds for any period of duration
longer than fifteen (15) minutes, more than five (5) times the average
twenty-four (24) hour concentration or flow during normal operation.
Section 2-17. "Suspended Solids" means solids that either float on the surface of or are
in suspension in waste and which are removable by laboratory filtration.
Section 2-18. "Agency", "local government unit", and "person" shall have the meanings
given them in Minnesota Statutes, Section 473C.02.
Section 2-19. "Shall" is mandatory; "may" is permissive.
ARTICLE III. NEW CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATION OR IMPROVEMENT
OF DISPOSAL SYSTEMS.
No person or local government unit shall construct a new disposal system or any part
thereof, or substantially alter or improve any such disposal system, until the local government
unit wherein such facilities are located has first determined such facilities to be in conformance
with its comprehensive sewer plan as approved by the Sewer Board.
—2—
ARTICLE IV. CONNECTIONS TO METROPOLITAN DISPOSAL SYSTEM.
Section 4-1. Connection: Permit
No connection to the metropolitan disposal system shall be made without
prior issuance of a permit signed by the Chief Administrator for such con-
nection and, if required, the payment of a permit fee, connection charge,
or both.
Section 4-2. Connection: Application
Whenever any person or local government unit desires to connect to the
metropolitan disposal system, an application for such connection shall be
submitted to the Chief Administrator for his approval. Every such applica-
tion shall be made by an appropriate representative of the local government
unit in which the connection is to be located.
Section 4-3. Connection: Application Information
Any such application shall be accompanied by plans and specifications upon
which shall be shown the location, dimensions, depths and grades of any
sewer or sewer systems to be connected. The application shall also be accom-
panied by full information as to the areas, population, and developments to
be served,zoning, and any other information requested by the Chief Admin-
istrator as to the source, quantity and characteristics of the waste to be
discharged, materials of construction, and construction period.
Section 4-4. Connection: Inspection Prior to Use
All connections made to the metropolitan disposal system shall be subject
to direct inspection by the Chief Administrator prior to the discharge of
any waste into the metropolitan disposal system. No inspection will be made
prior to issuance of a permit and payment of any applicable permit fee and
connection charge.
Section 4-5. Connection: Notice of Work On
Any person or local government unit which has been issued a permit for
connection to the metropolitan disposal system shall notify the Chief Ad-
ministrator at least two (2) full working days prior to the commencement
of any work authorized to be done by such permit.
Section 4-6. Connection: Requirement for Same
Any person or local government unit in the metropolitan area may be re-
quired to provide for the discharge of its waste, directly or indirectly, into
the metropolitan disposal system, or to connect any disposal system or part
thereof with the metropolitan disposal system wherever reasonable oppor-
tunity therefor is provided. Such discharges shall be measured in a manner
approved by the Sewer Board.
Section 4-7. Connections: Private Disposal Systems
Within twenty-four (24) months after a public sewer connected to the met-
ropolitan disposal system becomes available to a property served by a priv-
ate sewage disposal system or treatment works, a direct connection shall
be made to the public sewer in compliance with the terms of these rules and
regulations. The private disposal facilities shall be abandoned in a safe and
suitable manner.
—3—
Section 4-8. Connections: Prohibition
No connection shall be made to the metropolitan disposal system or any
connected disposal system if said connection pipe is carrying any contents
from septic tanks.
Section 4-9. Connections: Information and Reports
Each local government unit shall provide to the Chief Administrator by
January 31 of each year a report showing the number of connections made
to the unit's disposal system during the preceding calendar year, the size of
each such connection, and the nature of the user and the actual or antici-
pated volume of discharge through the connection. The report shall be on
a standard form supplied by the Sewer Board.
—4—
ARTICLE V. PROHIBITED WASTES INTO METROPOLITAN DISPOSAL
SYSTEM - MEASURING METHODS.
Section 5-1. Waste Discharge Regulations
No person or local government unit shall discharge any waste, or cause or
allow any waste to be discharged into the metrolopitan disposal system or
any connected disposal system unless in accordance with these rules and
regulations.
Sectio* 5-2. Treatment of Prohibited Waste
Where the Chief Administrator determines that any waste discharged or to
be discharged has certain characteristics or elements which are or may be
harmful to the structures, processes or operation of the metropolitan dis-
posal system or persons operating it, he may direct that such discharge be
discontinued or that the waste be treated prior to its discharge into the
metropolitan disposal system in a manner which will modify the waste to
such a degree as to be acceptable.
Section 5-3. Limitations on Discharges
No person or local government unit shall discharge or cause or allow to be
discharged into the metropolitan disposal system or any connected disposal
system any waste containing concentrations in excess of the following:
Concentration
Cadmium 2.0 mg/1
Chromium (Total) 25.0 mg/1
Chromium (Hexavalent) 10.0 mg/1
Copper 5.0 mg/1
Cyanide (Total) 10.0 mg/1
Cyanide (Readily released
at 150°F and pH = 5.5) 2.0 mg/i
Iron 50.0 mg/1
Lead 0.5 mg/1
Mercury None at levels acutely
toxic to humans or other
animals or plant life
Nickel 10.0 mg/1
Zinc 15.0 mg/1
Temperature (except where higher
temperatures are required by law) Not over 150°F
pH 5.5- 9.5
Section 5-4. Exclusion of Waste
No person or local government unit shall discharge, or cause or allow to be
discharged into the metropolitan disposal system or any connected disposal
system any waste which contains any of the following:
—5—
(A) More than one hundred (100) mg/1 of fats, wax, grease or oils (hex-
ane soluble), whether emulsified or not, or containing substances
which may solidify or become viscous at temperatures between 32°
and 150°F (0° and 65°C) at the point of discharge into the sewer
system.
(B) Liquids, solids, or gases which by reason of their nature or quantity
are or may be sufficient to cause fire or explosion or be injurious in
any other way to the metropolitan disposal system or to the opera-
tion of the system. At no time shall two (2) successive readings on an
explosimeter,at the point of discharge into the sewer system, be more
than five percent (5%) nor any single reading over ten percent
(10%) of the Lower Explosive Limit (L.E.L.).
(C) Any noxious or maladorous solids, liquids or gases, which either
singly or by interaction with other wastes, are capable of creating a
public nuisance or hazard to life, or are or may be sufficient to pre-
vent entry into a sewer for its maintenance and repair.
(D) Garbage that has not been ground or comminuted to such a degree
that all particles will be carried freely in suspension under flow con-
ditions normally prevailing in public sewers, with no particle greater
than one-half inch (1/2") in any dimension.
(E) Radioactive wastes or isotopes of such half-life or concentration that
they are in noncompliance with regulations issued by the appropriate
authority having control over their use and which will or may cause
damage or hazards to the metropolitan disposal system or personnel
operating it.
(F) Solid or viscous wastes which will or may cause obstruction to the
flow in a sewer, or other interference with the proper operation of
any disposal system, such as grease, uncomminuted garbage, animal
guts or tissues, paunch manure, bones, hair, hides or fleshings, en-
trails, whole blood, feathers, ashes, cinders, sand, spent lime, stone
or marble dust, metal, glass, straw, shavings, grass clippings, rags,
spent grains, spent hops, waste paper, wood, plastic, gas tar, asphalt
residues, residues from refining or processing of fuel or lubricating
oil, gasoline, naphtha, and similar substances.
(G) Any waste from septic tanks or similar facilities unless in accordance
with provisions of Article VI of these rules and regulations.
(H) Materials which exert or cause:
1) Unusually high concentrations of inert suspended solids (such
as, but not limited to, lime slurries and lime residues) or of dis-
solved solids (such as, but not limited to, sodium chloride).
2) Excessive discoloration (such as, but not limited to, dye wastes
and vegetable tanning solutions).
3) Unusually high volume of flow or concentration of waste con-
stituting slugs.
(I) Unusually high concentrations of suspended solids, BOD, COD, or
chlorine requirements, in such quantities as to constitute a significant
load on the treatment works.
(J) Any toxic substances, chemical elements or compounds, phenols or
other taste- or odor-producing substances, or any other substances
which may interfere with the biological processes or efficiency of
treatment works, or that will pass through a treatment works and
—6—
cause the effluent therefrom or the water into which it is discharged,
to fail to meet applicable state or federal standards.
Section 5-5. Regulatory Actions
If any substance described in Section 5-4 of this Article is discharged or pro-
posed to be discharged into the metropolitan disposal system, or any con-
nected disposal system, the Chief Administrator may, after Sewer Board
approval, take all actions necessary to:
(A) Reject the discharges; and/or
(B) Require a discharger to demonstrate that in-plant improvements will
modify the discharge to such a degree as to be acceptable; and/or
(C) Require pretreatment, handling facilities, or flow equalization neces-
sary to reduce or eliminate the objectionable characteristics or sub-
stances so that the discharge will not violate these rules and regula-
tions; and/or
(D) Requirethe person or local government unit making, causing or
allowing the discharge to pay the added cost of handling and treating
excess loads imposed on the metropolitan disposal system by such dis-
charge, to the extent such costs are not covered by existing Sewer
Board charges under the provisions of Sections 5-13 and 5-14 of this
Article or Minnesota Statutes, Section 473C.08.
If the Chief Administrator requires pretreatment or equalization of waste
flows prior to discharge into any part of the metropolitan disposal system,
the plans, specifications and other pertinent data or information relating to
such pretreatment or flow-control facilities shall be submitted to him for
review and approval.Approval shall in no way exempt the discharge or such
facilities from compliance with any applicable code, ordinance, rule or regu-
lation of any local government unit or the agency. Any subsequent altera-
tions or additions to such pretreatment or flow-control facilities shall not be
made without due notice to and approval of the Chief Administrator.
Section 5-6. Pretreatment Facilities Operations
If preliminary treatment or control of waste flows is required, such facili-
ties shall be effectively operated and maintained by the owner at his expense
subject to the requirements of these rules and regulations and all other appli-
cable codes, ordinances, and laws.
Section 5-7. Admission to Property
Whenever it shall be necessary for the purposes of these rules and regula-
tions,the Chief Administrator may enter upon any property for the purpose
of obtaining information or conducting surveys or investigations. Entry
shall be made during daylight or operating hours unless abnormal or emer-
gency circumstances require otherwise.
Section 5-8. Trap Instllations
Grease, oil and sand traps shall be provided when the Chief Administrator
determines they are necessary for the proper discharge of waste containing
excessive amounts of grease, oil, or sand except that such traps shall not be
required for private homes or dwelling units. All installations required un-
der this Section shall be of a type and capacity approved by the Chief Ad-
ministrator and shall be regularly cleaned and maintained for adequate
performance.
—7—
Section 5-9. Industrial Waste Measurement and Sampling
Any person discharging industrial waste into the metropolitan disposal sys-
tem, or any connected disposal system, shall provide and maintain a suit-
able point or points of access together with such necessary meters and
other appurtenances at an appropriate location prior to discharge of the
waste into the disposal system to permit observation,measurement,and sam-
pling of such waste by the Chief Administrator. Plans for such sampling
points and measuring equipment shall be submitted to and approved by
the Chief Administrator prior to construction and installation of same. Sam-
pling and measuring facilities shall be such as to provide safe access for
making inspection and verification of their proper operating condition. The
metered water supply to a source of industrial waste may be used in lieu of
a metered industrial waste volume where it can be established that the me-
tered water supply and waste quantities are approximately the same, or
where a measurable adjustment to the metered supply can be made to deter-
mine the waste volume.
Section 5-10. Industrial Waste Analyses
Determination of the character and concentration of an industrial waste
discharged into the metropolitan disposal system shall be made by the per-
son discharging it, or his designated agent. Reports showing quantities and
pertinent analytical data of such industrial waste discharges shall be filed
with the Sewer Board as required by the Chief Administrator.
Section 5-11. Measurement and Test Procedures
All measurements, tests, and analyses of the characteristics of waste to
which reference is made in these rules and regulations shall be determined
in accordance with the latest edition of "Standard Methods for the Exam-
ination of Water and Wastewater," published jointly by the American Pub-
lic Health Association, The American Water Works Association and The
Water Pollution Control Federation. Sampling shall be carried out by
methods acceptable to and approved by the Chief Administrator. Alternate
methods for certain analyses may be used subject to prior written approval
by the Chief Administrator.
Section 5-12. Confidentiality of Critical Information
Any records or other information obtained by the Chief Administrator or
furnished him by an industrial waste discharger which are certified by said
discharger to relate to (a) production or sales figures, (b) processes or pro-
duction unique to the discharger, or (c) information which would tend to
affect adversely the competitive position of said discharger, shall be only
for the confidential use of the Sewer Board in discharging its statutory
obligations unless otherwise authorized by said discharger. However, all
such information may be used by the Chief Administrator in compiling or
publishing analyses or summaries relating to the general condition of the
public waters so long as such analyses or summaries do not identify any
discharger who has so certified.
Section 5-13. Special Agreements
No statement contained in this Article shall be construed as preventing any
special agreement or arrangement between the Sewer Board and any dis-
charger whereby a waste of unusual strength or character may be accepted
into the metropolitain disposal system for treatment, subject to payment
therefor, by the discharger.
—8—
Section 5-14. Industrial Waste Surcharge
Where an industrial waste discharged into the metropolitan disposal sys-
tem has an unusually high concentration of suspended solids or chemical
oxygen demand, or both, the normal waste charges may be increased ac-
cording to the following formula:
0.20 (SS-305) 0.17 (COD-575)
F = 1 -x- 0.52 +
305 575
Where:
F= Factor to be applied to base charge
0.52 =Ratio of quality cost to total annual cost.
0.20 and 0.17= Ratio of additional treatment requirements to meet
state standards.
SS = Suspended solids of the industrial waste in milligrams per liter
(mg/1) (SS >305)
COD= Chemical oxygen demand of the industrial waste in milligrams per
liter (mg/1) (COD > 575)
Whenever a surcharge factor is determined to be applicable to an unusually
high strength waste, the analysis of which indicates suspended solids and/or
chemical oxygen demand concentrations greater than the base values of 305
and 575 mg/1, respectively, then the local government unit shall apply the
surcharge factor to the normal waste charges of the person discharging
such waste or causing it to be discharged into its disposal system. Sur-
charges attributable to this Section and collected by the local government
unit shall be for the account of and payable to the Sewer Board as compen-
sation for the additional costs resulting from the discharge of such high
strength waste.
Section 5-15. Accidental Discharges
Accidental discharges of prohibited waste into the metropolitan disposal
system, directly or through another disposal system, or to any place from
which such waste may enter the metropolitan disposal system, shall be re-
ported to the Chief Administrator by the person responsible for the dis-
charge, or by the owner or occupant of the premises where the discharge
occurs, promptly upon obtaining knowledge of the fact of such discharge.
—9—
ARTICLE VI. DISPOSAL OF SEPTIC TANK SLUDGE.
Section 6-1. Permits
No person collecting and disposing of waste from septic tanks or other sim-
ilar facilities shall discharge such material into a local disposal system with-
out prior issuance of an annual permit from the local government unit for
such discharge and vehicle making the discharge. Copies of permits issued,
together with the terms and conditions imposed on the user, shall be filed
with the Sewer Board.
The Sewer Board shall require an annual permit for disposal of such wastes
at designated sites in the metropolitan disposal system (including treatment
works).
Section 6-2. Approved Sites
No discharge of waste from septic tanks or other similiar facilities, whether
by a person or a local government unit, shall be made to the metropolitan
disposal system, or any connected disposal system, unless such discharge is
made at a site previously approved by the Chief Administrator.
Section 6-3. Metropolitan Area
No waste from septic tanks or other similar facilities emanating from loca-
tions outside the metropolitan area may be discharged into the metropolitan
disposal system or any connected disposal system.
—10—
ARTICLE VII. PENALTIES, AND COST RECOVERY.
Section 7-1. Violations
Any person or local government unit found to be violating any provision of
these rules and regulations may be served by the Chief Administrator with
written notice of the violation. The notice may require immediate termina-
tion of the violation or may specify a future date for termination of it. The
violator shall, within the period of time stated in such notice, permanently
cease the violation.
Section 7-2. Penalties
Any person who intentionally conceals a violation of these rules and regu-
lations, and any person or local government unit who shall continue any
violation beyond the time limit provided for in the Chief Administrator's
written notice of violation shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on convic-
tion thereof,shall be fined in an amount not exceeding One Hundred Dollars
($100.00) for each violation, recoverable with costs occasioned the Sewer
Board by reason of such violation. Each day in which any such violation
shall continue shall be deemed a separate offense. In the case of partner-
ships and associations, the penalty may be imposed upon the partners or
members thereof, and in the case of corporations and local government
units, upon the person authorizing the violation or officers thereof.
Section 7-3. Cost Recovery
The Chief Administrator shall take all actions necessary to recover all costs
incurred as a result of the violation of any of these rules and regulations.
—11—
ARTICLE VIII. ADMINISTRATION.
Section 8-1. Enforcement
The Chief Administrator shall administer and enforce these rules and regu-
lations, except that no proceeding for the imposition of a penalty and cost
recovery due to violations shall be instituted without prior approval by the
Sewer Board.
Section 8-2. Information
The Chief Administrator shall prescribe the form and detail of all applica-
tions, permits and reports required by these rules and regulations; may
determine the frequency of such items excpt where a frequency is specified;
and may provide interpretations or determine the application of these rules
and regulations where their meaning or application is questioned.
Section 8-3. Responsibility
The Chief Administrator may delegate to local government units the re-
sponsibility for administering under his supervision, any part of these rules
and regulations,where such delegation is deemed to be in the best interests
of the Sewer Board and the units.
—12—
ARTICLE IX. EFFECTIVE DATE AND SEVERABILITY.
Section 9-1. Effective Date
These rules and regulations shall become effective thirty (30) days after
approval by the Sewer Board and publication as required by law.
Section 9-2. Severability
If the provisions of any Article, Section, paragraph, or sentence of these
rules and regulations shall for any reason be held to be unconstitutional or
invalid by any Court of competent jurisdiction, the provisions of the remain-
ing Articles, Sections, paragraphs and sentences shall nevertheless continue
in full force and effect.
Section 9-3. Date of Adoption
Approved and adopted by the Metropolitan Sewer Board on the first day of
December, 1971.
—13—
T
, _ RECEIvr- n L
SEP 3 819 51
VILLAGE OF EDEN PRAIRIE
All HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA CITY OF SHAKOPEE
ORDINANCE NO. 157
All ORDINANCE REGULATING PLUMBING AND GAS FITTING WORK IN THE
VILLAGE, INCLUDING THE INSTALLATION OF "ATER SOFTENING AND
FILTERING EQUIPMENT; REQUIRING LICENSES, PERMITS AND BONDS;
REQUIRING CONNECTION TO THE SE"ER SYSTEM AND PRESCRIBING A
PENALTY; REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 5 AND ALL OTHER ORDINANCES
AND PARIS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH.
The Village Council of the Village of Eden Prairie does hereby ordain as
follows:
SECTION
1 License Required for Plumbing Work; Responsibility of Owner.
2 Evidence of License.
3 Bond Required.
4 Liability Insurance. •
5 Minneapolis Plumbing Code Adopted.
6 Minneapolis Plumbing Permit Fees Adopted.
7 Official Copies on File.
• 8 Additional Regulations for Plumbing Installations.
9 Connection Required.
10 Failure to Comply; Notice.
11 Connection by Pillage.
12 Assessment and Collection.
13 Certain Connection Forbidden; Removal Thereof.
14 License Required for Gas Fitting Work.
15 Class A and Class B Licenses.
16 Journeyman Gas Fitter's License.
17 License Procedure or Control ; Penalties; License Period.
18 Applications.
19 , Bond
20 Liability Insurance.
21 Fee.
22 Minneapolis Gas Piping Installation Ordinance Adopted.
23 Minneapolis Gas Fitting Permit Fees Adopted.
24 Who flay Install Water Softening and Filtering Equipment.
25 Application for License.
26 License Fee.
27 Lica.1s;, Perla:
28 Surety Bond.
29 Permits; Fee.
30 Regulations.
31 Type of Copper Tubing Required.
,2 Inspection,
IL • 3 Procedure in Case of Violation.
Penalty.
35 Repeals.
6
\ if
•
Section 1. Licensf Resuired for Plumbing !ork; Res onsibilitv of Owner.
No person shall construct, reconstruct, extend, alter or repair any plumbing work
or building drainage, o construct cesspools or construct, reconstruct, or connect
any building drainage writ+ cesspool- or the sewer system of the Village either
directly or indirectly, unless such person shall hold a valid plumbing license from
the Minnesota State Board of Health to do such work; provided that a journeyman
plumber shall be permitted to do plumbing work only under the supervision of a master
plumber. No holder of any such license shall allow his name to be used by any other
person or persons for the purpose of doing plumbing work or obtaining a permit for
doing such work, or cause or permit any person in his employ to do or perform any
plumbing work for him or then unless such employee shall hold a valid license to do
oplumbing work issued by the Minnesota State Board of Health. No person shall display
any sign stating or implying that he is carrying on the business of plumbing unless .
he holds a valid master plumber' s license issued by the state. ido owner, lessee or
occupant of any premises in the Village, nor the representative or agent of any such
owner, lessee or occupant, shall knowingly hire or otherwise engage any person to do
plumbing work on such premises who does not hold a valid license issued by the state.
/Anyone not so licensed nay do plumbing work which complies with the provisions of
the minimum standard prescribed by the State Board of Health on premises or that
part of premises owned and actually occupied by him as his residence, unless
otherwise forbidden to do so by a local ordinance.
Section 2. Evidence of License. Before obtaining any permit hereunder to do
plumbing work in the Village, the applicant shall furnish proof to the Village Plumbing
41/ Inspector that he holds a valid master's plumbing license issued by the Minnesota
State Board of Health.
-2-
V
Section 3. Bond Required. Before obtaining any permit hereunder to do
pl'.mbi ng work in the Vi l l act a, the applicant shall have on file with the Village Clerk
a bend running to the Village in the penal sum of $?.0_.00 which bond shall be
conditioned that the applicant will save the Village harmless from all actions or
daiages arising from his failure to comply with any provisions of this ordinance, or
frog. any opening in any street, lane or avenue made by him or by any person in his
employ, or with whom he has contra:ted for the work, for the purpose of putting down
service pipes connecting with the eater works or sewerage system of the Village, and
that he will restore all streets, lanes and avenues excavated by him to their former
good condition, and will keep and maintain such streets, lanes and avenues in good
.c.. :,dition for the period of one y r next thereafter, and that he will reimburse the
Village for any expense which it may incur in completing, reconstructing or repairing
•im y faulty or incomplete plumbing work done or to be done by him and that he will pay
all i:enllties imposed upon him by the Village for the violation of any portion of this
c:.:i;:lanre. The bond shall apply to all plumbing work to be done by the applicant in
Village during a period expiring on January 1 of the year next following the year
in which any work is to be done under any permit issued to the applicant.
Such bond shall be submitted on the form on file in the office of the Village
Clerk. Copies thereof shall be available to all applicants without charge. The
surety thereon shall be a co. p...-et on duly authorized to act as such under the laws
of the State of Minnesota.
nnesota.
Provided, that the p.'u'.isic,as of this section shall not apply to, nor shall
any bond be required of, any journeyman plumber who is employed only as such.
Section 4. Liability Insurance. The applicant for a plumbing permit shall
also furnish proof that a policy of public liability insurance has been procured with
• espect to work to be performed by him during the period of the permit for death or
-3-
•
4111
personal injury arising therefrom to any person or persons, in amounts of not less
than $100,000 for each person and $300,000 for each incident, and for damage to
property arising from any incident in the amount of not less than $50,000.
Section 5. Minneapolis Plumbing Code Adopted. There is hereby adopted by
reference the Plumbing Code of the City of (Minneapolis, being Chapters 130 and 131
of the Minneapolis Ordinance Code of July 1, 1960, with all amendments subsequently
made thereto, including the amendments made in 1970, as the regulations which shall
apply in the Village of Eden Prairie for the installation, extension or alteration
of all plumbing.
In t:ie application and interpretation of said Code, all references therein
to the "City" shall be construed as referring to the Village; all references therein
411/to "Inspector of Building" or "Department of Buildings" shall be construed as referring
o the Village's Plumbing Inspector; and all references therein to "Commissioners of
Health" or "Department of Health" shall be construed as referring to the Village Health
Officer or the Village Public Health Sanitarian, either or both.
Section 6. Minneapolis Plumbing Permit Fees Adopted. There is also hereby
adopted by reference Chapter 203 (Plumbing Permit Fees) of said Minneapolis Ordinance
Code of July 1, 1960, with all amendments subsequently made thereto, as the schedule
of fees for permits for all plumbing work in the Village of Eden Prairie for which a
permit is required; provided, that the minimum fee for any plumbing permit shall be
$5. All references therein to "City" shall be construed as referring to the Village;
and all references therein to "Inspector of Buildings" shall be construed as referring
to the Village's Plumbing Inspector.
Section 7. Official Copies on File. Three copies of the ordinances above
4110
described, together with three copies of each code or standard referred to in said
-4-
6
•'dinance, shall be marked as official copies and filed for use and examination by
the public in the office of the Village Clerk.
Section 8. Additional Regulations for Plumbing Installations.
The following additional regulations shall apply to all plumbing work:
Sewer lines shall be constructed of extra heavy cast iron, vitrified clay or
transite.
If water lines are laid in the sane ditch or within 10 feet of the sewer, the
sewer must be extra heavy cast iron.
Joints in clay pipe shall be made with well packed oakum and good cement
mortar, well packed oakum and hot or cold plastic, or ASTM--C-425-type 1 or 3 factory
made joint.
Joints in cast iron sewer pipe shall be made with well packed oakum and caulked
with lead, or with neoprene gaskets.
• All sewers shall be laid with an even pitch without sags or bows. Grades of
one inch per 8 feet minimum and not over one inch per 2 feet maximum. All lines
shall be laid on firm ground with back fill well compacted.
All water service pipe up to and including 12" shall be type K copper. under-
ground connections shall be of the compression type. Uater service 2" and over shall
be Class 150 and Federal Spec. !!W-P-4218 cast iron water main and 1501 hydrostatic
test shall be placed on main at time of inspection. All water services shall be
individually valved. All bends and fittings in cast iron main shall be adequately
blocked, shored and/or rodded.
Meters shall be set at least 1 foot above the floor and not over 4 feet above
it. There must be a gate valve on each side of the meter.
All voter services passing through a portion of the building shall be run
jnder the floor or slab to the location of the meter.
-.ri-
/ � I
Water services run in a common ditch with a c':st iron sewer line must be at
past 18" above the sewer line on a shelf of well compacted ground. Pio water service
shall be run in a common ditch with a sewer unless the sewer is extra heavy cast iron.
Minimum depth of house service line shall be 7 feet.
Curb boxes must be brought up to grade and must be plumb, and operable after
backfilling.
Ill sewer services being cut into manholes where required shall be inside drops
of cast iron with the pipe strapped to the manhole wall and painted with two coats of
IMERTOL EOXITAR paint or equal .
All ditches shall be left open until after inspection.
Safety regulations applicable whenever the plumbing work requires the digging
::itches or holes more than four feet deep:
There must be two men on each job at all tines when work is in progress.
• All hand dug holes must be cribbed from the top to bottom as they arc dug.
All machine dug holes or ditches with perpendicular side !'calls must be shored
or braced from top to bottom for their entire length. Metal box frames with
3/4" plywood sides or 3/4" plywood with metal jack spreaders spaced every 3'
on center horizontally and vertically are acceptable as shoring. All frames
or sh.ring must be left in the excavation until after inspection.
•
Unshored holes and ditches arc acceptable only if the sides arc sloped one
foot out for every one and one half feet in depth. A seven foot ditch must
be 11'4" across the top.. an eight foot ditch must be 12'8" across the top,
and a nine foot ditch must be 14 foot across the top, assuming a two foot
width across the bottom.
All materials shall be kev.t. back at least two feet from the edge of the
ditch. All rocks or large f: 'zen pieces must be piled far enough back to
prevent their rol l i 7•g back into the ditch.
Where it is necessary to tunnel or undermine a slab or a curb or gutter to
make a connection, the slab or curb and gutter must be shored with 4x4 timbers.
A 4x4 header rust be placed under the slab or curb and gutter and supported by
2 4x4 timbers resting on solid ground. Shores shall be placed at no more than
3 foot intervals. When digging next to foundations the proper safety precautions
shall be observed, including bracing and shoring of walls to prevent cave-in.
1110 •
-6-
• •
All excavations must be covered or barricaded when work is not in nroaress.
All excavations on streets or sidewalk ways must be protected by flares and
barricades.
Because of the numerous underground services installed in the Village by the
public utilities, the location of gas lines, telephone lines and electric lines
must be ascertained by the person in charge of the work before digging is started.
Section 9. egek-traymetifyin Whenever property in any platted area abuts
upon any public street or alley in which any sanitary sewer mains have been constructed,
the owner or occupant of every dwelling house or business building located on such
property 5•.e w '> %./0 ,,Ja 3 •p+',.^ .7.`..,'.N'..c. _`.C. re-`-j ` 01'a$;t 4k i 6 ! t''. S.:i e i`i,k 'j4444.4` ffi
.
• "� ► r" _ �tl w i4 ?'`:, c,r,ai_ rtl°lit �9: � k_.!�.»�. 1 +wE ft.t•s;. whichever date
is later, connect the sewage disposal lines in such house or building with such mains
in such a street or alley; provided, s
s
y`gtp ��"'(� y�
k<L,.'.`a'b i.. .. r.',..' ii Pillaz)' ' GN1G§'OS A • _ 4F� =.n 0:1fil}... - y,
yI IMCi• .feiV- • l -6nY�,sHwf..T' .a. ?, ;� 's'...01;;;---
Section
1 , "Section 10. Failure to Comply; Notice. Any person required by Section 9
hereof to connect the sewage disposal lines with the sanitary sewer shall make such
connection with ten days after written notice is given to such person to make such
connection. The written notice shall be prepared and mailed by certified mail or
delivered by the Village Public Health Sanitarian on order of the Village Manager.
Section 11. Connection by Village. Whenever any owner or occupant shall fail
to comply with such written notice, the Council nay by resolution direct that a con-
nection be made with the sanitary sewer and that the cost of said installation be
paid in the first instance out of the general revenue fund and then assessed against
the property benefited.
Section 12. Assessment and Collection. After such installation and connection
•
-7-
II" completed by order of the Council , the Village Clerk shall serve a written notice
if the assessment upon the owner or his representative directing him to pay said
assessment within ten days after the service of said notice to the Village Treasurer.
If such assessment is not paid within ten days the Village Clerk shall certify the
amount thereof to the county auditor for collection in the same manner as other
special assessments and the same shall become a lien upon said property until paid;
provided, the Village Council may by resolution provide that the assessment be spread
over a term of three years upon request of the owner of the property or his representa-
tive.
Section 13. Certain Connection Forbidden; Removal Thereof. Mo person, owner,
lessee or occupant of any parcel of land, building or premises situated within the
corporate limits of the Village shall discharge, or permit to be discharged, directly
or indirectly into the sanitary sewer system, water from roofs, yards, lawns, streets,
•,r alleys; water or other fluid used for the operation of air cooling and aircondition-
ing equipment, plants or units; nor discharge or permit to be discharged, directly or
Ili
indirectly, into the sanitary sewer system, any gravel , sand, dirt or any other heavy
material or any substance causing any extraordinary, obnoxious odors or gases, or any
surface or subsurface waters.
Any person, owner, lessee or occupant, and any plumber or building contractor
who has heretofore made or permitted to be made, or shall hereafter make or permit to
be made, any connection to the sanitary sewer system for the purpose of discharging
into said system the substances described in this section shall immediately remove
such connection. If such connection is not removed within 15 days after notice of
such violation delivered personally to such person, owner, lessee or occupant, or
posted in the premises where such violation may occur, the Council may order the
• -6-
iiiumbing Inspector to cause such connection to be removed at the expense of the Village,
na the expense of such removal shall be assessed against such premises and certified
to the county auditor of Hennepin County for collection in the sane manner as other
special assessments, and the same shall become a lien on such property until paid.
Any person, owner, lessee, occupant, plumber or building contractor may in addition
be prosecuted for having committed a misdemeanor.
Section 14. License Required for Gas Fitting work. No person except a person
holding a Class A or Class B Gas Fitters' License hereunder or a licensed journeyman
gas fitter working under the immediate supervision of a person holding a Class A or
Class B gas fitter's license hereunder shall install , alter (sr repair any gas piping
for illuminating or fuel gas or install , alter, repair or service any gas burning
devices connected thereto, in or for any building or structure in the Village. r
Section 15. Class A and Class B Licenses. Licenses hereunder shall be
"Issued for either of the following classes of work:
(a) Class A License. A Class A Gas Fitter's License shall entitle the holder
thereof to engage in all branches of the business of installing, altering and repairing
gas piping for illuminating or fuel gas and installing,, altering, repairing and servicing
gas burning devices connected thereto, including gas burners and gas burner equipment,
as herein defined; and for the purpose of this ordinance the term "gas burner" shall
mean: (1) a device for the final conveyance of the gas, or a mixture of gas and air,
to the combustion zone of a boiler or furnace used in connection with a heating system;
(2) a power burner in which either gas or air, or both, are supplied at pressures ex-
ceeding, for gas, the house line pressure, and for air, atmospheric pressure; or (3) an
atmospheric burner (other than a gas range or a gas water heater) in which air at
atmospheric pressure is injected into the burner by a jet of gas under pressure, and
chose input exceeds 50,000 BTU per hour, and the term "gas burner equipment" shall
-9-
•lclude "gas burners" as above defined; and all piping (other than supply piping from
meter to appliance shutoff valve, blowers, control devices and accessories, connected
to such burners. )
(b) Class B License. A Class B Gas Fitter's license shall entitle the holder
thereof to engage in all branches of the business covered by a Class A license, as
above set forth, except the installing, altering, repairing and servicing of "gas
burners" and "gas equipment" as above defined.
Section 16. Journeyman Gas Fitter's License. Every person doing gas fitting
work for any Class A or Class B licensee hereunder shall hold a journeyman gas fitter's
license hereunder.
Section 17. License Period. Licenses and renewals shall be granted or denied
by the Plumbing Inspector and every license hereunder shall expire on 'the 1st day of
January next following.
Section 13. Applications. The application for a Class A or Class B license
or renewal of license shall be accompanied by proof that the applicant holds either a
master's certificate of competency issued by the Minneapolis Board of Examiners of
Plumber or a gas fitter' s license of the same class as that for which the application
is made issued by the City of Minneapolis, or the City of-Bloomington or the City f
St. Louis Park iThe application fora journeyman gas fitter's license shall be
accompanied by proof that the applicant holds a journeyman gas fitter's license issued
by one of the same three cities. .
Section 19. Bond. Every applicant for a Class A license shall file kith his
application a bond running to the Village in the penal sum of $1000, conditioned that
the licensee, in all material and equipment by him furnished and in all work by him
done and performed in installing, altering or repairing gas piping or installing, alter-
4111
-10-
II
ing, repairing or servicing gas burner devices or gas burner equipment, as herein de-
lined, will strictly conform to the provisions of the ordinances of the Village relating
thereto. The bond shall apply to all work to be done under the license during the
period from the date of issuance to the date of expiration of the license.
Section 20. Liability Insurance. The applicant for a Class A or Class B •
license shall also furnish proof that a policy of public liability insurance has been
procured with respect to work to be performed by him during the license period, for
death or personal injury arising therefrom to any person or persons, in amounts of
not less than $100,000 for each person and $300,000 for each incident, and for damage
to property arising from any incident in the amount of not less than $50,000.
Section 21. Fee. The fee for each license required by this ordinance shall
be $10, except that if the license applied for will expire !"ithin 6 months from the
date of application, the fee shall be $5.
Section 22. Minneapolis Gas Piping Installation Ordinance Adopted. There
.s also hereby adopted by reference Chapter 133 (Gas Piping Installation) and Chanter
11 (Gag BI!rner Installation) of said Minneapolis Ordinance Code of July 1,1960, with
all amendments subsequently made thereto, as the regulations which shall apply in the
Village of Eden Prairie for the installation of gas piping and burners. All references
therein to "City' shall be construed as referring to the Village; all references
therein to "Department of Buildings" or "Inspector of Buildings" or "Plumbing Division
of the Department of Buildings" shall be construed as referring to the Plumbing
Inspector of the Village; and all references therein to "City Treasurer" shall be
construed as re-fat-Hag to the Village Treasurer.
Section 23. Minneapolis Gas Fitting Permit Fees Adopted. There is also hereby '
adopted by reference Chapter 204 (Gas Fitting Permit Fees) of said Minneapolis Ordinance
Code of July 1, 1960, with all amendments subsequently made thereto, as the schedule
1111
-11- (�
of fees for permits for all gas fitting work in the Village of Eden Prairie for which
a permit is required; provided that the minimum fee for any permit shall be $5. All
references therein to "Inspector of Buildings" shall be construed as referring to the
Plumbing Inspector of the Village.
Section 24. Who flay Install Hater Softening and Filtering Equipment. No
person may install or connect water softening or water filtering equipment unless he
is qualified to do plumbing work under Part 1 of this ordinance, except that a person
who is engaged in the business of installing water softeners, though not licensed by
the State Board of Health as a masterup12of or journeyman plumber, but who is
licensed hereunder, may install or connect water softening and water filtering equip-
ment to a private residence water distribution system, provided provision has
previously been made therefor and o enin9s,,,left for that,purpose, or provided such,
connection may be made by use of cold water connections to a domestic water heater
• or provided it not necessary to rearrange, make any extensions or alterations .of,
or addition to, any pipe, fixture or plumbing connected with the water system except
to connect the water softener.
Section 25. Application for License. The applicant shall state the
following in the application for a license:
(a) His name and business and home address, or, if the applicant is a
partnership, association or corporation, the name and address of such
partnership, association or corporation;
(b) If the applicant is a partnership, the names and business and home
addresses of all parties; if the applicant is an association or a
corporation, the names and business and home addresses of the majority
of the owners thereof; and
(c) A description of the experience of each person named in the application x
in connecting water softening equipment.
Section 26. License Fee. The annual license fee for the license required
by this ordinance shall be $10.
111/ -12-
Section 27. License Period. Licenses and renewals thereof shall be granted .
4111
r denied by the-Plumbing .Inspector, and every license hereunder shall expire on the
1st day of January next following.
Section 28. Surety Bond. No license for installation of water softening
and filtering equipment shall be effective until the licensee shall have executed
and deposited with the Village Clerk a bond in the penal sun of $2000, with corporate
surety approved by the Village Manager, which bond shall be conditioned that the
applicant will save the Village harmless from all actions or damages arising from
his making connections, repairs and installations of water softening devices of any
kind, and that he will pay all permit fees and penalties imposed upon hin, and will
reimburse the Village for any expense which it may incur in completing, reconstructing
•or repairing any faulty or incomplete work done or to be done by him. The bond shall
apply to all work to be done under the license during the period from the date of
"Issuance to the date of expiration of the license.
Section 29. Permits; Fee. No water softening devices shall be installed
or connected to any water pipe or main unless a permit for such installation or con-
nection has been issued by the Plumbing Inspector. The fee for each permit shall be
•
$5.00. No such permit shall be issued to any person not authorized to make such
installation under Part 6 of this ordinance. When a permit has been issued for such
an installation or connection, no additional permit shall be required for subsequent
interchange of water softening devices or units using the same water pipe connection
with no additional cutting of the water pipe.
Section 30. Regulations. All installations and connections of water
softening devices to any private residence water distribution system shall be made
so as to comply with Part 2 of this ordinance. •
4111
-13-
Section 31 . Type of Copper Tubing Required. Any such connection, if mace
•% lth copper tubing, shall use only type "L" copper conforming to A.S.T.M "Standard
Specifications for Copper Water Tubes", serial designation 808-55. Three copies of
said code of specifications marked "Official Copy" have been filed for use and
examination by the public in the office of the Village Clerk, and are incorporated
into this ordinance by reference, to the extent reference thereto is made above.
Section 32. Inspection. All work for which a permit is required by this
ordinance shall be subject to inspection by the Plumbing Inspector or his deputy,
who shall be permitted access for purposes of inspection at all reasonable tines
by the owner or occupant of the premises where the work is to be or is being done,
and by the person doing the work.
Section 33. Procedure in Case of Violation.
(a) The Plumbing Inspector of the Village shall notify the Village Manager
or his deputy of any violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance.
• (b) In case of any violation, the Plumbing Inspector nay serve upon the
person, firm or company which performed the work or upon the owner or
occupant of the premises where the work was done a written notice
describing the location and nature of the violation and the steps to be
undertaken to remedy the violation, and ordering that such steps be taken
within a reasonable period from the date of such service, which shall be
not less than 5 days nor more than 90 days. Failure by the party so
served to remedy the violation within the period specified shall be
deemed a violation of this ordinance.
Section 34. Penalty. Any person violating this ordinance shall be guilty
of a misdemeanor, and subject to a fine of not exceeding $300 or imprisonment in the
Village or county jail for a period of not exceeding 90 days, with costs of prosecution
in either case to be added. Such penalty may be imposed in addition to revocation or
suspension of license.
fr
• -14-
Section 35. Repeals. Ordinances No.
•aro hereby repealed.
First read at a regular meeting of the Council of the Village of Eden Prairie
this 22nd day of Juno, 1971 , and finally read, adopted and ordered published at a
regular meeting of the Council of said Village on this 13th day of July, 1971 .
David W: Os terhol t, f layer of the
Village of Eden Prairie
Attest:
Clerk
Published in the Ninnetonka - Eden Prairie Sun on August 12, 1971 .
•
•
-15-
n
MEMO TO : John K. Anderson , City Administrator 4x2}
FROM : Judith S . Cox, City Clerk
RE : CR-16 Utility Assessments
DATE : October 1 , 1981
Introduction
The assessment roll for the CR-16 Utilities , adopted on September 15th,
did assess some parcels originally belonging to the abandoned railroad
which parcels or parts thereof have now been added to and are now a
part of abutting parcels .
Background
It is my understanding that when the assessment roll was prepared
by the Engineering Department , parcel numbers had not yet been
assigned by the County to the three new parcels acquired from the
railroad , so that these parcels were listed in the assessment roll ,
but with no parcel number . Because the abandoned railroad parcels
were purchased by abutting property owners , the County simply ex-
panded the property owners legal description to include the newly
acquired abandoned property and kept the same original parcel number .
Four property owners purchased parts of the three abandoned parcels
so that the amended assessment roll now assesses parcels according
to the actual front footage and total acres after the expansion .
The parcel acquired by Mr. Schmitt remains the same . $103 .52 +
$9 .09 = $112 . 61 .
The two parcels $864.42 and $1 ,837 . 54 are now spread against three
parcels all of which are owned by Gary Laurent .
Because all property owners involved remain the same , the City
Attorney has advised me that it is appropriate to simply amend the
original assessment roll .
Action Requested
Offer Resolution No . 1925 , A Resolution Amending Assessments 80-4
Public Improvement Program, County Road 16 Utilities , and move its
adoption .
JSC/jms
Original Roll Revised Roll
9-15-81 10-7-81
Farmington-Shakopee Ass 'n . 864.42* 517 . 62
(Rainbow Terrace , Inc .
CD/Inca Development)
Inca Development
c/o Laurent Builders , Inc . 14,230. 86 14,365 .44
1 ,837 .54*
Marcella Larson Co .
Inca Development 92 ,246 . 60 94,296 . 36
Carl Lindstrand 39 ,307 .94 39 ,307 . 94
Richard Grayson 81 ,709 .38 81 , 709 .38
Howard Schmitt 103 . 52* 112 . 61
9 .09
6 ,191 .51 6 ,191 . 51
*Assessments to abandoned RR parcels , now included in the revised
assessment roll .
RESOLUTION NO. 1925
A RESOLUTION AMENDING ASSESSMENTS 80-4 PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, COUNTY ROAD 16 UTILITIES
WHEREAS , on September 15 , 1981 , the City Council adopted the
assessment roll for the CR-16 Utilities Improvement , which assess-
ment roll contained three parcels originally owned by the abandoned
railroad and purchased by private citizens which parcels had not
yet received parcel numbers from the County Auditor ' s office ; and
WHEREAS , parts of the three parcels in question were purchased
by the owners of four abutting properties ; and
WHEREAS , the County Auditor has now expanded the legal descrip-
tions of the abutting parcels to include the newly acquired parcels ,
so that the original parcel numbers of each property owner now in-
clude the original parcel plus the newly acquired parcel ; and
WHEREAS , the City of Shakopee desires to amend the assessment
roll for the CR-16 Utilities Improvement in order to conform to the
records of the County.
NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA that the assessment roll adopted on September
15 , 1981 by Resolution No . 1905 is hereby amended in its entirety
by the attached assessment roll which shall constitute the special
assessment against the lands named therein .
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City
of Shakopee , Minnesota , held this day of
1981 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST :
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1981 .
City Attorney
MEMO TO: John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: Don Steger
City Planner
RE: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision on Dog Kennel
DATE: September 28, 1981
At the September 10, 1981 meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously voted
to deny a request for a dog kennel in an R-1, Rural Residential Zone (130 Norton
Drive - Deerview Acres). The denial was based on diminishing the enjoyment of
other property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed kennel, and based on
the setting of a precedent. The applicant, Roy Simmons, is appealing the
Planning Commission's decision to the City Council.
The Planning Commission felt that the adjoining neighbor to the kennel would
not have full enjoyment of his property due to noise (barking). Also, the
Planning Commission felt that by granting approval of the kennel, other kennels
would also have to be approved throughout the R-1 Zone, when requested. This
precedent could create a very undesirable situation in rural subdivisions.
Alternatives
The City Council has two options:
1) Concur with the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the request for
a Conditional Use Permit for a dog kennel; or
2) Approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a dog kennel.
Action Requested:
1) Determine prior to offering Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. CC-286,
which alternative the Council prefers.
2) Adopt Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. CC-286.
DS/jiw
Attachments
September 10, 1981
Page 2 GU,
.
3. A Performance Bond shall be required in an amount set by the Building
Inspector.
4. All setback requirements of the R-3 Zone must be met.
5. The City Engineer shall approve a grading plan for the lot prior to moving
the structure.
6. SPUC Manager approve water service to this lot prior to the issuance of a
Building Permit.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sub-Machine Shop Amendment to CUP Public Hearing - PC 81-32C
Perusich/Stoltzman moved to open the public hearing to amend Conditional Use Permit
Resolution No. 270. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner explained that the applicant is Gary Shehan, and he is requesting
an extension of operating hours on Friday and Saturday from the 10:30 P.M. closing
to 1:00 A.M. closing. He stated that he contacted the Police Chief, and received
a memo from him stating he has no objection to the extended hours providing the
curfew hours are strictly observed. Therefore, staff recommends approval.
Mr. Shehan stated that there are a lot of over 16 year olds who wish to buy sand-
wiches and play the machines after the curfew hours. He would strictly enforce
the curfew ordinance for those under 16 years. He stated his doors would be closed
at midnight, if this extension was granted.
Perusich/Rockne moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Perusich/Stoltzman moved to amend Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 270, grant-
ing the extension of closing hours to 1:00 A.M. on Fridays and Saturdays. Motion
carried unanimously.
i
a / Simmons CUP Public Hearing PC 81-29C
,- rRockne/Koehnen moved to open the public hearing on the request for a Conditional
Use Permit to maintain a kennel facility in an R-1 Zone. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner stated that this matter was brought to the staff's attention
through the complaint of a neighbor because of excessive barking of Mr. Simmons'
five dogs. He stated staff recommends denial of this Conditional Use Permit, because
of the setting of a precedent and the infringement on the enjoyment of neighbor's
property.
Mr. Simmons stated he has 3 dogs and 2 puppies under the age of 6 months. He stated
he is unclear as to what excessive barking means. He stated that when he is home
he doesn't believe there is excessive barking, and on occasion he has taken 'actio
to stop•the dogs from barking.
Mr. Simmons also stated that the dogs are only out for about an hour in the morning
and then from late afternoon until about 10:00 P.M. They are not allowed to run
and cause problems in other people's yards. He has a small fenced in area for them
now, and has ordered fence for the entire back yard. They plan to get rid of one
puppy and keep the other. One of the dogs is a mixed breed pet and the, other two are
Norwegian Elkhounds, which are show dogs.
September 10, 1981
Page 3
7
Chrm. Schmitt asked for comments from the audience.
Jerry Nelson, 140 Norton Drive, stated he lives right next door to the Simmons'
and stated that on a couple of occasions he called them and asked them to keep
the dogs quiet, and nothing was done to take care of it. In his opinion, the
dogs bark constantly. On numerous occasions the dogs came on his property. He
believes the noise and presence of a kennel would devaluate his property.
Mr. Simmons stated that before he had the fenc(d in area the dogs probably did
go out. But since the fence was put up, they have never gotten out. The dogs
bark at strangers in the area, etc. , but he doesn't think it is excessive.
Gary Halover stated that he is from North Mankato and the City Council there makes
reference to what exists previous to someone moving in. In this case, the dogs
existed before the Nelsons moved in. The other neighbors have not complained.
Mike Delin stated that he is the brother-in-law of Mr. Simmons and that he has been
living with the Simmons for several months. In that time he did not notice the
dogs barking excessively. He has also witnessed Mr. Simmons taking action to
quiet the dogs immediately upon receiving a complaint from Mr. Nelson.
The City Planner stated it is difficult to judge excessive barking as it is subject
to interpretation. He feels the key point here is that anyone has the option of
applying, for approval of a dog kennel. He feels the City has to draw a line as
to where kennels can operate. The Zoning Ordinance does allow kennels in agricultural,,
zones, which is appropriate. He views this as a test case as to where kennels
can be allowed.
•
Arlene Oliver stated she is from North Mankato and is also an exhibitor of Norwe-
gian Elkhounds. She stated these dogs are very valuable, worth about $3,000, and
what is Mr. Simmons to do with the dogs if the kennel is not allowed. She stated
this isn't big time breeding, this is just a hobby of breeding purebread dogs,
and you {are not making a lot of money off it.
Mr. Simmons stated that is why they moved to a 21 acre lot, so they wouldn't have
a lot of neighbors.
Mr. Halover stated this is a rural area and the dogs existed before the neighbors. •
The City Planner stated that this was wrong, the area is zoned residential, a rural
residential subdivision. Maybe the dogs did exist prior to the neighbor, but they
existed illegally. Someone asked about the ordinance referring to agricultural
animals, and the City Planner stated they were 1 unit per acre. He 'stated the City
maclie a definition of what is a kennel, which is over 2 dogs over 6 months of age.
Mr. Simmons asked if that is stating that no one in a residential area will ever I
get a kennel license. The City Planner answered that there could be someone in the ,
same zoning area that has a different setting, such as more wooded, 'more separated,
more area.
Mr. Simmons stated that out of 6-8 neighbors, only 1 complained. He has submitted
a statement signed by 4 neighbors that the dogs do not bark excessively and are not
a nuisance to the neighborhood. Further discussion followed regarding distance of
these neighbors from Mr. Simmons.
Shakopee Planning Commission
September 10, 1981
Page 4 7 GC-
Mr. Nelson stated that he doesn't feel that dogs barking that close to his house
is something he wants to put up with.
Perusich/Koehnen moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Perusich/Stoltzman moved to deny Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 286 based
on Shakopee City Code, Section 11.04, Subd. 6A, item No. 1, which states that
the granting of a Conditional Use Permit shall "not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already
permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the
immediate vicinity". Motion carried with Comm. Koennen voting "no".
Mr. Simmons inquired about how long he has to ret; rid of the dogs. The City Plan-
ner answered 10 days. Cncl. Leroux statedthc: applicant has 7 days to enter an
appeal to City Council, and doesn't have to get rid of the dogs until after that.
Chrm. Schmitt stated that the applicant has 7 days to appeal to the City Council.
At that time a hearing will be set with the Council. He will have 10 days after
the action of the City Council to get rid of the dogs if the Council concurs with
this action. If he is not comfortable with that decision, he always has legal
recourse.
Annual Review - Howe Chemical CUP Resolution No. 265
The City Planner stated Howe Chemical is not in full operation yet. He stated all
conditions of the permit are being met.
Koehnen/Stoltzman moved that an annual review has been conducted and found Howe
Chemical to be in compliance. Motion carried unanimously.
Amendment to Final Plat of Superior Supply 1st Add'n
The City Planner stated that Superior Supply has requested the elimination of the
20 foot drainage and utility easement which was a condition of approval of the plat.
They statedthey could make more efficient use of the property if this easement is
eliminated. To facilitate this, they have requested of NSP to use its 35 foot
powerline easement as a substitute. Staff is recommending approval of this request
upon approval of NSP.
NSP sentletters dated September 4, 1981 and September 10, 1981 to the City Planner
in which it consents to the easement for utiliLy and drainage purposes.
Perusich/Rockne moved to recommend to the City Council the amendment of the
Final Plat of Superior Supply 1st Add'n by eliminating the 20 foot drainage and
utility easement along the easterly 1,371.91 feet of the north property line to
share with NSP their existing 35 foot easement for drainage and utility purposes
for an unlimited period of time, as consented to by NSP in its letter dated Sept.
10,1981. Motion carried unanimously.
iscussion - Lot Splits
The City Planner stated the section regarding requirements and platting guidelines
for lot splits is ambiguous, and he is looking for some guidance as far as the
Planning Commission's intent. He sees a problem regarding utilities. He has con-
tacted some of the nearby cities, and they tend not to go through the formal Planning
DATE: September 10, 1981
CASE: PC 81-29C •
ITEM: Conditional Use Permit for Dog Kennel
APPLICANT: Roy Simmons
LOCATION: 130 Norton Drive (Deerview Acres)
ZONING: R-1 (Rural Residential)
LAND USE: Single-family Residential
APPLICABLE.REGULATIONS: Section 11.04, Subd. 6; Section 11.25, Subd. 3H;.
Section 11.02, No. 2.4
FINDINGS REQUIRED: Section 11.04 , Subd. 6A
PUBLIC HEARING
CASE HEARD BY PLANNING COMMISSION
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
Proposal:
The aplicant is requestng approval of a Conditional Use Permit to have a
dog kennel at the above location.
Considerations:
1. The Zoning Ordinance lists kennels as a conditional use in the R-1
Zone. Kennels are not, defined in the Ordinance, however, "Commercial
Dog Kennel" is defined as follows: "Any premises where more than two
dogs, over six months of age, are owned, boarded, bred or offered
for sale". It seems reasonable to apply this definition to this case.
2. The applicant currently has five dogs (see attachment), which is a
violation of the Ordinance. This matter was brought to staff's attention
through a neighbor's complaint - the Jerry Nelson family. The complaint
was prompted by their claim of excessive barking.
3. Robert McAllister, the City Dog Catcher, informed staff that he
periodically encounters a premises with more than'two dogs; he either
follows up a complaint or notices such a situation himself. In
previous cases, after informing a party of the Code violation, the dogs
have been reduced to two. Mr. McAllister also informed staff that
most cities include in the definition of a kennel, a 500 foot separation
requirement between kennels and adjoining residences.
4. A major consideration in this case is the setting of a precedent. Should
the Permit be granted, all other similar requests for kennels would also
have to be approved. The effect on neighboring properties must be
considered should numerous kennels exist.
Planning Commission September 10, 1981
Case No. PC 81-29C Page -2-
5. A Conditional Use Permit may not be granted if it diminishes the
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity. The applicant's
house is located in a residential subdivision, and many neighbors have
signed a petition not objecting to the kennel (see attached) . However,
new home developments in the future and new homeowners may object to
such a land use.
Staff Recommendation:
Based on diminishing the enjoyment of other property in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed kennel, and base on the setting of a precedent
through granting approval of the request, staff recommends denial of
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 286.
Staff further feels that the definition of "kennel" be amended to include
a 500 foot separation requirement between kennels and adjoining residences.
This could occur at next month's meeting through a public hearing.
Planning Commission Action:
Denied based on Section 11.0+, Subd. 6A Item No. 1 of the Shakopee City Code;
approval would "diminish the enjoyment of other property in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed Conditional Use Permit".
Appeal to City Council:
DS/jiw
Attachments
6
Mr. Don Steger, City Planner August 26, 1901
129 E. First Ave.
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Mr. Steger :
In response to your letter dated August 12th regarding
the boarding of dogs, I would like to present some background
information which may be helpful Ln your decision on this
matter.
I presently own three dogs unci two pU),: ies one of which
will be returned to the breeder .n the near future. Of the
four dogs we plan to retain, one is mixed breed weighing
20 lbs with a height of 10 inches . The other three are
Norwegian Elkhounds, two of which weigh 50 lbs with a height
of 20 inches, the third a puppy weighing 20 lbs with a height of
9 inches . During the school year the dogs are outside for
only one hour in the morning and from late afternoon to no
later than 10: u p.m. When the doLs are outside they are
contained in an exercise pen and are not allowed to run
loose, and are only outside when someone is home.
I am enclosing on application for a conditional use
permit with the required application fee as you requested.
I am also enclosing a petition signed by the majority of
our neighbors within reasonable distance stating that the
dogs do not constitute a nuisance. I am looking forward to
discussing this situation at the appointed meeting on September
10th. If you have any questions or require any additional
information please feel free to c::;ntact me at 445-1985 after
3:00 p.m.
/Sincerely,
(Cif/
Roy Simmons
I
I hereby testify to all concerned parties that the dogs
owned by .Roy and Lee Simmons of l;;(.- Norton Drive Do
- bark excess ' 'ely are a nuisance to the neighborhood.
42. •
%. -t' �
btize
r
��.t.2-vim... ��---C._-•�.�.0 ��-- ,.� rl_ 57/
• • s
a
1
11
i
I
i
I
I
il I ,
11 1
:w.f.
I
1,i I ` --- 1,5'. 4- _._. I
1 I ,
ii I
i is
li .
1I
11I
1
4
1
1
I 1 if
1 I
1
f 1
i
ti o tl 0.r-it/A--
.
f it/A--
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. CC-286
WHEREAS, Roy Simmons having duly filed
an application for a ConditionalNUse Permit dated August 27, 1981
under the provisions of the Shakopee Zoning Ordinance, to allow for the operation
and maintenance of a dog kennel
in an R-1 (Rural Residential) zone area; and
WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made is described as
Lnt 3, Rlnrk 3, fpprview Amps (lin Nnrtnn Drive) ; and
WHEREAS, said proposed Conditional Use Permit request was DENIED
by the Planning Commission at their meeting held September 10, 1981
and said Conditional Use Permit decision is herewith being appealed to the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council on October 6, 1981 held
a public hearing on the appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,
MINNESOTA, that upon hearing the advice and recommendations of the Shakopee
Planning Commission and upon considering the suggestions made by the applicant
and the suggestions and objections raised by the affected property owners,
within a radius of 350 feet thereof, in public hearings duly held by the Shakopee
Planning Commission and the Shakopee City Council that the aforementioned
Conditional Use Permit be and is hereby: DENIED, based upon Section 11.0+,
Subd. 6A, Item No. 1, of the Shakopee City Code, which states:
"1. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment
of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted,
nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate
vicinity."
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City
of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 19
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this day of
19
City Attorney
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. CC-286
WHEREAS, Roy Simmons having duly filed
an application for a Conditional Use Permit dated August 27, 1981
under the provisions of the Shakopee Zoning Ordinance, to allow for the operation
and maintenance of a dog kennel
in an R-1, Rural Residential zone area; and
WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made is described as
Lot 3, Block 3, Deerview Acres (130 Norton Drive) ; and
WHEREAS, said proposed Conditional Use Permit request was DENIED
by the Planning Commission at their meeting held September 10, 1981
and said Conditional Use Permit decision is herewith being appealed to the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council on October 6, 1981 held
a public hearing on the appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,
MINNESOTA, that upon hearing the advice and recommendations of the Shakopee
4
Planning Commission and upon considering the suggestions made by the applicant
and the suggestions and objections raised by the affected property owners,
within a radius of 350 feet thereof, in public hearings duly held by the Shakopee
Planning Commission and the Shakopee City Council that the aforementioned
Conditional Use Permit be and is hereby: APPROVED
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City
of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of ,
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this y day of
, 19
City Attorney
N
MEMO TO: John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: Don Steger
City Planner
RE: Amendment to Final Plat of Superior Supply 1st Addition
(Resolution No. 1912)
DATE: September 22, 1981
Background
At the September 10, 1981 meeting, the Planning Commission approved an
amendment to the Final Plat of Superior Supply 1st Addition, which would
eliminate a 20 foot drainage and utility easement and combine it with an
existing 35 foot Northern States Power (NSP) easement (see attached Planning
Commission staff report) . Both the City Engineer and Utilities Manager
have agreed to the change as per NSP's September 10, 1981 letter (see
attachment).
Alternatives:
1. Approve the final plat amendment.
2. Do not approve the amendment.
Recommendation/Action Requested:
Adopt Resolution No. 1912, A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 1795, A
Resolution Approving The Final Plat of Superior Supply 1st Addition.
Direct the City Attorney to provide the legal mechanism for securing the
easement.
DS/jiw
Attachments: Memo from Lou VanHout dated 9/18/81
Letter from NSP dated 9/1+/81
Staff Report to Planning Commission
Resolution No. 1912
1'.
k- ,
TO: Don Steger
FROM: Lou VanHout
DATE: 9-18-81
RE: Easement on the North property line of the
Superior Supply 1st. Add'n
Don:
The easement from NSP appears to be satisfactory
and answers all of our concerns. I can see no
problem with vacating the other easements and
using this one instead.
amu, fI
11711 ‘eleitaf/t6et
Kjj (.11
SEP. lycl
Northern States Power Company /
414 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis,Minnesota 55401 di
Telephone(612)330-5500
September 4, 1981
Mr. Don Steger
City Planner
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
COMPATIBLE USE REQUEST
Line 0897 - Sec 12, Twp 115, Rge 22
Northern States Power Company has an easement dated October 13, 1972, from
the Gunnar I . Johnson Trust as defined in that certain document 133048 filed
for record October 16, 1972, in the office of the County Recorder. That
easement grants NSP a 35 foot wide easement over the property described
therein, said easement lies southerly of and adjacent to the southerly right
of way line of the railroad.
Mr. Cherne informs us that the City of Shakopee requires a 20 foot wide
utility and drainage easement which would also be southerly of and adjacent
to the southerly right of way of the railroad. Since that easement overlaps
the NSP easement, the City is seeking NSP' s consent.
Therefore, the purpose of this letter is to express NSP's consent to the
easement for utility and drainage purposes. This consent is granted on the
condition that the construction, operation, and maintenance of the facilities
on said easement do not interfere with the operation and maintenance of the
NSP transmission line. In addition, NSP reserves the right to review, prior
to construction, the plans for the proposed utilities on said easement. The
purpose for this review is to avoid conflict and hazards in the construction
of said utilities .
D. J. Fisher
Asst. Administrator, Real Estate
JJ
cc: Bill Anderson
•
MEMO TO: Shakopee Planning Commission
FROM: Don Steger, City Planner
RE: Amendment to Superior Supply 1st Addition
DATE: September 3, 1981
Earlier this year, the Planning Commission and City Council granted final
approval of Superior Supply 1st Addition, with conditions (see attached
Resolution No. 1795). The final plat, which has not yet been recorded, contained
a 20 foot drainage and utility easement around the entire perimeter of the
plat. The owners have recently determined that a much more efficient use
of the property and layout of the planned facilities would be possible if
the 20 foot easement along the north property line could be eliminated.
Because this 20 foot easement directly parallels a 35 foot NSP powerline
easement, the owner is requesting to use the NSP easement as a substitute,
thereby eliminating the need for the adjacent separate easements. The
owner will discuss this matter with NSP if approved by the Planning Commission
and City Council.
The City Engineer has reviewed the request to eliminate the 20 foot easement
and has approved the request with the stipulation that NSP also approve the
multiple use of their existing 35 foot easement. The Utilities Manager of
SPUC is/ in favor of eliminating the 20 foot drainage and utility easement
only if NSP would grant the City an indefinite use of their easement.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends amending the Final Plat of Superior Supply 1st Addition
by eliminating the 20 foot drainage and utility easement along the easterly
1,371.91 feet of the north property line contingent upon approval of
Northern States Power Company to share their existing 35 foot easement for
drainage and utility purposes for an unlimited tod of time.
",DS/jiwjo,C
Attachment U tc, I 31
(! * e v I 1-
fr)' (1,,W0-
,E
L.�
Ary
•
7
RESOLUTION NO. 1912
A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 1795
A Resolution Approving The Final Plat of
Superior Supply 1st Addition
WHEREAS, City Council approved a final plat of Superior Supply 1st
Addition on February 17, 1981, which plat included a 20 foot drainage and
utility easement lying south of an existing 35 foot Northern States Power
easement; and
WHEREAS, the developer has requested that the required 20 foot drainage
and utility easement be contained within the 35 foot Northern States Power
easement to allow for a more efficient use of the property and planned
facilities; and
WHEREAS, Northern States Power and Shakopee Public Utilities have approved
the request of the developer.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,
MINNESOTA, that the final plat of Superior Supply 1st Addition be amended
by eliminating the 20 foot drainage and utility easement parallel and
adjacent to the Northern States Power easement on the north property line of the
proposed Superior Supply 1st Addition and requiring the dedication, by
appropriate document, of a 35 foot utility and drainage easement along that
part of the North line of the proposed Superior Supply 1st Addition within the
NE?-, of Section 12-115-22, the sidelines of said North 35 feet shall be lengthened
or shortened to intersect the West line of the NE4 of said Section 12-115-22
and the East line of said proposed Superior Supply 1st Addition.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1981.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this day of
, 1981.
City Attorney ��
MEMO TO: John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: Don Steger
City Planner
RE: Signing Sites for Rezonings and Subdivisions
DATE: September 21, 1981
Background:
At the September 10, 1981 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended that
the City Council reinstitute the procedure of placing signs on properties
being considered for either rezoning or subdivision. The Planning Commission
suggested the signs list the City Hall phone number which could be called
for information.
In order to control the costs associated with this procedure, the Planning
Commission suggested using 2'x2' signs with a single steel post. The
number of signs could be kept to a minimum by using the same sign for either
rezonings or subdivisions. The exact wording of the signs was not
discussed by the Planning Commission.
Advantages:
1. Informing the general public of specific land use proposals.
Disadvantages:
1. Funds must be budgeted for sign construction and maintenance.
2. Public Works staff time must be allocated for sign placement and removal.
3. Planning Department staff time must be allocated to answer questions.
(Planning Department Secretary indicated that when signing occured in
the past, many calls were received, however, almost all callers were
requesting information which the Planning Department did not have; i.e.
cost of houses, type of houses, when houses will be available,
financing, etc. The type of information being requested was almost
always realty-oriented and not planning-oriented).
4. Utilizing one sign for both rezonings and subdivisions tends to cause
double calling; i.e. calling for rezoning information when a subdivision
is being proposed and visa-versa.
John Anderson September 21, 1981
Signing Sites for Rezonings & Subdivisions Page -2-
Alternatives:
1. Reinstitute the signing of sites for rezonings and subdivisions;
2. Reinstitute the signing but use two separate signs; one for proposed
rezoning and the other for proposed subdivisions;
3. Do not sign sites.
Recommendation:
1. The Planning Commission recommends reinstituting the procedure of
signing rezoning and subdivision sites. (NOTE: Staff had recommended
against this procedure based on the fact that few communities sign
sites and based on the disadvantages listed in this report. )
City Council Action:
1. If intending to reinstitute the signing procedure:
a. Move to reinstitute the signing of rezoning and subdivision sites;
b. Determine the number and wording of signs;
c. Instruct staff to report the cost of signing at a later meeting so
as to amend the budget.
2. If intending not to sign sites:
a. Move not to reinstitute the signing of rezoning and subdivision
sites.
DS/j iw
4
MEMO TO: John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: Don Steger
City Planner
RE: Mall Area Traffic Study
DATE: September 22, 1981
Background:
The traffic consulting firm of BRW, Inc. , presented a study to the Shakopee
Planning Commission detailing alternatives designed to improve traffic
flow around the Minnesota Valley Mall. At the July 23, 1981 meeting, the
Planning Commission gave concept approval to Alternative No. 3 (see attachment
and copy of BRW report distributed to City Council at an earlier date -- NOTE:
Please contact Engineering Department if you do not have this report). The
Planning Commission slightly modified Alternative No. 3 by closing the existing
12th Avenue entrance to the Mall and by providing a different temporary
entrance to the Mall rear (see attachment). The modifications to Alternative
No. 3 were included so as to correct the existing traffic/loading conflict on
the south side of the Kmart Store.
13th Avenue Extension:
Part of the Planning Commission discussion concerning this issue was the
eastward extension of 13th Avenue as a collector street. Questions arose as
to whether or not such an extension could cross parkland (Lions Park). The
attached letter from the City Attorney indicates that because the parkland is
City-owned property, no problem should be anticipated when utilizing this
property.
12th Avenue Extension:
The 12th Avenue entrance to the Mall has been in existance for several years
and its installation and construction has been paid for by the Mall as part of
the 12th Avenue assessment project. Should the City require this entrance
to be closed, it appears that the cost for the temporary entrance replacement
would have to be borne by the City. If this is not desireable, an alternative
would be to continue to utilize the 12th Avenue entrance until the new
permanent entrance is completed. However, because this new permanent entrance
may not occur for numerous years, the traffic/loading conflict on the south
side of Kmart would remain.
John Anderson September 22, 1981
Mall Area Traffic Study Page -2-
1
Alternatives:
1. Approve Alternative No. 3.
2. Approve Alternative No. 3 with modifications (close existing 12th Avenue
entrance and create new temporary entrance).
3. Approve one of the other alternatives, as presented in the BRW report.
4. Formulate a new alternative.
Recommendation:
Approve Alternative No. 2 above.
Action:
Move to approve traffic plan Alternative No. 3, as presented by BRW, Inc. ,
with the following modifications:
1. Close the existing 12th Avenue entrance;
2. Create new temporary entrance (as indicated on attached map).
Further move to direct City staff to investigate the cost of the new temporary
entrance and report to the City Council at a future meeting.
DS/jiw
Attachments: Alternative No. 3
Letter from City Attorney dated August 12, 1981
Excerpt from Planning Commission minutes of July 23, 1981
, ,00 -'' 77
yi �P 5M
./:______„..., • ,, --ii—,,
). 1. _ i--61. 51 !
i i , — f ,Cin _:� ^--iF--
•////:.°,0
f•
11111110. •
i
:::.--- . 1121211.-4(
1.
' / .�4.
I i. I f t�
ht:
, MINFPC90TA
,' V4llCY .1
i MALL MID -
AISA y� �'
/, e a ._. 4,_. �.
,e .,
• . , ,, ,,, ‘1:4151 ,>
•
• r 1 z'
:: ,., , s.1
,: ,:, ,
Oile
t— , i— iv
•
•
.. 1- .._
/
PROPOSED-'' '® °'«i.........• :;"r I a_ yE • PROPOSED
TH 101 R.O.W. — T1 COLLECTO
s
1--�(WNQ --IT \ ......—.7
hi t Sr r
1
ti
2 S., , 7' ik • ( T'MR
f co
I W I\S RAN
�` i W G. _
CC 0
!
:., FIGURE 3 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ANALYST
ALTERNATIVE 3 MINNESOTA VALLEY MALL
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
LEGEND
itteeteue PROPOSED ROADWAY l�1JI�■�1Il ,_,_�
itElli
outer 1 FNTPANf_ 2n
F n' drm, Qac, r
R
7
7 �
JULIUS A.GOLLER, IT
JULIUS A.COLLER ATTORNEY AT LAW 612-445-1244
1859-1940
2 1 1 WEST FIRST AVENUE
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
55379
August 12, 1981
Mr. Don Steger
City Planner
129 EastFirst Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Mr. Steger:
This will answer your inquiry of July 30, 1981.inq_uiring what would be
necessary to secure a right-of-way across the Lions Park area for a
future extension of 13th Avenue.
The description you sent me is the entire tract acquired from the State
of Minnesota in 1973. No part of this has been transfered to either
Tahpah or Lions Park. So, all that is necessary would be to determine
to build a raod and to advise Lions or the Jaycees to remove whatever
improvements are on the area to be used for road purposes.
Very'�trul •urs,
Jul'Cs A. Coller, II
City Attorney
JAC/nh
1
PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
ADJ. REG. .SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JULY 23, 1981
Chrm. Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. with Comm. Perusich,
Stoltzman, Koehnen, Rockne and Coller (arriving at 7:40) present. Absent was
Comm. Vierling. Also present were Council Liaison Leroux; City Planner Don
Steger; City Engineer H. R. Spurrier and City Admr. John K. Anderson.
41.. . .
Dave Warner of Bennet-Ringrose-Wolsfeld-Jarvis-Gardner, Inc. (BRW) gave a presenta-
tion regarding the traffic study of the Minnesota Valley Mall area. Mr. Warner
stated he identified 5 areas of concern:
1. Access to center;
2. Entrances operating safely and of adequate capacity;
3. Presence of through traffic in residential areas;
4. How to develop remaining undeveloped land while maintaining good traffic
access to the center;
5. Match up with future anticipated programs, such as by-pass.
His guidelines were to separate incompatible traffic flow (behind Kmart especially);
direct traffic to streets designated as collectors; use roads effectively, such as
for buffers; access to inplace utilities; minimize investment (not too many roads)
and maintain development potential.
Comm. Coller arrived at this point, 7:40 P.M.
Mr. Warner recommended Alternative No. 6, which is to extend 13th Avenue almost to
the r-o-w for the Shakopee By-pass and to the north and west to make a new entrance
to the parking lot of the shopping center; 12th Avenue would be extended to the
cul-de-sac; 13th can be extended eastward across the City without any serious
obstacles. Since it may be some time until. 13th Ave. is extended to the East,
an interim solution would be to extend 12th Avenue to the rear of the shopping
center;
Chrm. Schmitt stated that we are operating with the assumption that 13th Avenue
would be the collector street. He questioned if the site line was appropriate
at 13th & Adams. City Engineer stated that at that intersection there is no
geometric problem;
Mr. Warner stated it is good to have collector streets continue for a good distance
so local streets can feed into them, and 13th can more easily do that than 12th.
Chrm. Schmitt stated they had previously been told they could not take property in
Lion's Park for street as this was a land transaction from the State strictly for
park dedication. He suggested this item be studied.
Cncl. Leroux stated that with the advext of the bypass, Adams Street will be moved
to the east, so that should be kept in mind in aligning 13th Avenue.
Dick Wiggin stated he has purchased property near the shopping center and wanted
to present a proposal for solving the traffic problem. He put up a drawing which
presented his ideas of extending 13th Ave. westward to the end of the lots he is
platting, and block off 12th Ave. , continue Taylor Street and make another
entrance to the shopping center in any of several locations, which leaves numerous
options. With his proposal he can use lots on both sides of 13th Avenue.
Shakopee Planning Commission
July 23,. 1981 d'
Page 2
Further discussion was held regarding the possibility of getting roadway out of
Lion's Park to enable a collector street to proceed uninterrupted across the City.
The City Planner stated that it is accepted that an east-west collector street is
in order in addition to 10th. He thinks the right-of-way for 12th is not appro-
priate, and it is too close to 10th. We still need to design another entrance to
the shopping center to get the traffic away from the back. Further discussion
ensued on the different alternatives and advantages and disadvantages.
Gary Laurent stated he realized the Commission is addressing a complex problem, but
would like some action taken soon so he can continue to develop his property.
Chrm. Schmitt asked for any comments from the audience.
Shelly Johnson stated he is representing Bob Dalton anr? the Minnesota Valley Mall,
and they are concerned with the financing responsibilities for any new roadway,
and where a roadway ceases to be a public roadway.
The City Admr. stated the intent right now is to take the 12th Street entrance and
move it to the southwest and adjoin it to the parking lot.
Mr. Warner stated his intent would be to make a positive physical barrier between
the road and the back of Kmart to separate the types of traffic.
Dick Wiegel, representing Watson Construction, stated that he felt 50% - 80% of
the traffic on 12th was from people trying to get from east to west, beyond the
shopping center. He suggested checking on the destinations of people driving there.
The City Engineer stated that from the figures available to them from traffic counts,
the counts are much higher during the operation of the mall. The actual traffic
count does not show that it is being used as a shortcut.
Coller/Stoltzman moved that based on the traffic study presented by .,RW and the
evaluation criteria presented, concept approval be give to Alternative No. 3,
described as to provide a 12th Ave. to 13th Ave. loop. To provide access to the
shopping center, 13th Ave. is extended to a new entrance at the front face of the
center, and enter herwith as an official part of the record, the attached
map as "Exhibit A" detailing Alternative No. which offers a better interim
:solution and future options by closing the exi:;t,i ng access and moving it to
the southwest. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Admr. stated that at the previous joint meetin , with City Council, there
was considerable concern regarding the upgrading of the intersection of the mall
and Hwy. 300. This could be added to the Capital Improvements Projects, or could
direct staff to look at it now.
The City Admr. also stated that several Councilmembers had concerns about the en-
trance funneling traffic into the parking lot at the front of the businesses and
had suggested a perimeter road around the parking lot.
Mr. Warner stated that this was not recommended because it is a large amount of
roadway to be constructed without providing significant access, so it is very
costly. The other reason is that the conflict of traffic and pedestrians at the
face of the building is inevitable, even when a perimeter road is provided.
Chrm. Schmitt stated that putting in a perimeter roadbisects diagonally a parcel
of property, rendering it useless and eliminating development, putting the burden
of the construction cost of the street on the community, rather than a developer.
Shakopee Planning Commission
July 23, 1981
Page 3 '�
Cncl. Leroux stated he thought by putting the roadway out along the bypass r-o-w,
you could allow some development within the area and have a buildable piece of
property.
Comm. Coller recommended not advising where to exactly extend the roadway, but
to leave it open for options.
PUBLIC HEARING - (CONT. ) - Comprehensive Development Plan
Coller/Koenen moved to continue the public hearing on the amendments & adoption of
the Comprehensive Development Plan. Motion carried unanimously.
Chrm. Schmitt asked for comments from the audience, and there were none.
Coller/Koehnen moved to close the public hearing. Moticn carried unanimously.
Coller/Perusich moved to approve as revised the Comprehensive Development Plan and
to recommend adoption to the City Council. Motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - (CONT. ) - Five year Capital Improvement Plan
Perusich/Koehnen moved to continue the public hearing on the Five Year Capital
Improvement Plan. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Admr. explained the ranking criteria for the projects. He asked if there
were any projects that weren't on the list that should be definitely considered in
the next 6 years. The other consideration should be to compare if the Capital
Improvement Plan matches the 5 year Comp Plan.
Chrm. Schmitt stated he thinks we should establish traffic patterns by upgrading
some streets and downgrading others and thinking about where we want railroad
crossings. He asked what the catagory Pavement Evaluation means.
The City Engineer stated this is the first step in identifying street classifications.
This process would rate the streets, and with that information we could have a
traffic engineer evaluate our grid system and determine what appropriate measures
could be taken to funnel traffic to certain streets so we don't overbuild all the
streets. The City Admr. suggested adding Traffic/Street Plan on the line with
Pavement Evaluation. Chrm. Schmitt said we should identify that there is a suc-
ceeding procedure for future street projects as per traffic study.
Comm. Coller suggested acquiring the vacant railroad right-of-way next to the
library and expanding the library. The City Admr. said he would put in on the list.
Comm. Coller suggested the ice arena, be added to the CIP. City Adm. stated there
is a place for projects that have private donations, so that could be added.
Chrm. Schmitt stated there should be some unnamed collector street paralleling the
Valley Interceptor. There should be a frontage road from Conklin to Cavenaugh Dr.
as a concept, maybe listed but not rated.
The City Admr. stated the County has asked for direction from the City regarding
,its _desires .concerniug:any county road projects.
4/4
MEMO TO: John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: H. R. Spurrier 0, � •
City Engineer '
RE: Minnesota Valley Mall Tra fic Circulation Study
DATE: May 20, 1981
Introduction:
In a meeting April 7, 1981 City Council of the City of Shakopee accepted
a proposal from Bather, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Jarvis, Gardner, Inc. (BRW)
for a traffic study in the vicinity of Minnesota Valley Mall.
Background:
A traffic study was ordered in this area in order to determine the most
acceptable and efficient street configuration.
Attached are copies of the report prepared by BRW recommending the street
configuration that should be utilized for the development of the balance
of land south of 12th Avenue and south of Valley Mall Subdivision.
Mr. David Warner, an Engineering with BRW, will be present at the meeting
May 26th to present the report and answer any questions.
HRS/i iw
Attachments
sja^ D ,� n,�'� - „ L0 p (). , of 4v/
Rai 4- .4)
MEMO TO : John K. Anderson , City Administrator
FROM : Judith S . Cox, City Clerk
RE : 1981 Diseased Tree Removal Program
DATE : September 29 , 1981
Introduction
On June 16 , 1981 the Council adopted Resolution No . 1857 which estab-
lished Shakopee ' s Diseased Tree Removal Policy, which provides that
the City will contract with private firms to remove trees on private
property and special assess costs to the property owner.
Background
To date Shakopee did contract to remove trees from the property of
two Shakopee residents . The two attached resolutions : a) Orders
the 1981 Diseased Tree Removal Program; and b) Declares the Amount
to be Assessed and Sets a Public Hearing on the Proposed Assessments .
Action Requested
A) Offer Resolution No . 1917 , A Resolution Ordering The 1981 Diseased
Tree Removal Program, and move its adoption .
B) Offer Resolution No . 1918 , A Resolution Declaring The Cost To Be
Assessed , Ordering The Preparation Of And Setting A Hearing Date
On The Proposed Assessments For The 1981 Deseased Tree Removal
Program, and move its adoption .
JSC/jms
0
RESOLUTION NO . 1917
A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE 1981 DISEASED TREE REMOVAL PROGRAM
WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Shakopee has received
a letter from the following owners of property waiving their right
to a public hearing :
E . J . Thalacker and Eugene A. Brown
and
WHEREAS , the City Council did on July 6 , 1981 adopt Resolution
No . 1857 establishing the City of Shakopee ' s Diseased Tree Removal
Policy ; and
WHEREAS , the Diseased Tree Removal. Policy as approved provides
that the City of Shakopee will contract with private firms to remove
trees on private property and special assess costs to the property
owner .
NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA , that the 1981 Diseased Tree Removal Program
for the City of Shakopee is hereby ordered.
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
C-144'
RESOLUTION NO. 1918
A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE COST TO BE ASSESSED, ORDERING
THE PREPARATION OF AND SETTING A HEARING DATE ON THE PROPOSED
ASSESSMENTS FOR THE 1981 DISEASED TREE REMOVAL PROGRAM
WHEREAS , contracts have heretofore been let for the 1981 Deseased
Tree Removal Program covering the removal of diseased trees from the
following described property :
Original Shakopee Plat : Lot 6 , Block 27 .
G & 0 Addition: N 40 ' of Lots 4, 5 and 6 and
all of Lots 7 , 8 and 9 , Block 7 .
WHEREAS , the contract price for such improvements is $678 .00
and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in making said improve-
ments amounts to -0- so that the total cost of the improve-
ments would be $678 .00 and of this $678 .00 the State will pay
-0- as its share of the costs and the City will pay -0-
as its share of the costs .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1 . That the cost of such improvements to be specially assessed
is hereby declared to be $678 .00 .
2 . That the City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer,
or his assistant , shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be
specially assessed for such improvements against every assessable
lot , piece or parcel of land within the district affected without
regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and they shall file a
copy of such proposed assessment in the office of the City Clerk for
public inspection.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1 . That a hearing shall be held on the 17th day of November,
1981 , in the City Hall at 8 : 15 P.M. to pass upon such proposed assess-
ments and at such time and place all persons owning property affected
by such improvements and proposed assessments will be given an oppor-
tunity 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
S °'"+Resolution No. 1918 Page Two
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 .
City Attorney
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox , City Clerk
RE: Rental of Eagle Creek Town Hall
DATE: September 22 , 1981
Introduction
For a number of years , the Scott Carver Economic Council has
rented the Eagle Creek Town Hall and are asking that their
lease be renewed for another year.
Background
The Scott Carver Economic Council has rented the hall , rent
free , but have been responsible for utilities , telephone , and
day to day maintenance of the building. The attached lease is
identical to the lease executed last year, with the exception
of the addition to the lease that the SCEC shall also be respon-
sible for the monthly expense of the security service , which
condition was added by the Council last year after the fire.
Alternatives
1 . Renew lease , rent free , similar to last years lease.
2 . Renew lease and charge rent .
3 . Do not renew the lease .
Recommendation
Alternative number one , renew the lease with the SCEC for use
of the Eagle Creek Town Hall with the addition that the security
service is paid by the SCEC.
Action Requested
Offer Resolution No. 1914, A Resolution Authorizing The Execution
Of A Cooperative Agreement For Utilization Of Eagle Creek Hall
Between The City Of Shakopee And The Scott-Carver Economic Council ,
and move its adoption.
P .S . Would Council like staff to investigate theossibility of
obtaining a longer lease (more than one year) next time this
comes up for renewal?
JSC/jms
RESOLUTION NO. 1q14
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENT FOR UTILIZATION OF EAGLE CREEK HALL BETWEEN THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE AND THE SCOTT-CARVER ECONOMIC COUNCIL
NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE that proper City officials are hereby authorized
and directed to execute a cooperative agreement between the City
of Shakopee and the Scott-Carver Economic Council for utilization
of the Eagle Creek Town Hall .
Adopted in session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee held this day of , 1981 .
Mayor of the City of chakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1981 .
City Attorney
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR UTILIZATION OF EAGLE CREEK HALL
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
AND
SCOTT-CARVER ECONOMIC COUNCIL
This Agreement entered into this _ day of , 1981
between Scott-Carver Economic Council, Inc. (here-in-after referred to as the
Council) , and the City of Shakopee, (here-in-after referred to as the City) .
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Council intends to undertake a program for the disbursement
of Community Service Administration activities to improve the economic and
social status of low-income eligible families and individuals, in the Counties
of Scott and Carver.
WHEREAS, the Council wishes to utilize the building known as the Eagle Creek
Hall, located at the intersections of 83 and 16, for the purpose of delivering
such Community Services Administration programs. State building is owned by
the City.
WHEREAS, the City has by resolution indicated its desire to participate in
these Community Service Administration program activities, by making such
building available from June 1, 1981 thru May 30, 1982.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained
herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. The Council shall provide direct administrative services to Scott-Carver
Economic Counicl staff located in the building for delivery of CSA program
activities.
2. The Council will assume day to day repair and maintenance of the building.
This includes routine cleaning and monitoring of parking and surrounding
outside areas to maintain an orderly and neat site.
3. The Council agrees to assume financial responsibility for utilities, tele-
phone, refuse removal and security service.
4. The Council will will carry adequate liability insurance coverage to hold
harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees.
5. The City will provide the building to the Council for a period from June 1,
1981 to May 30, 1982 at no cost to the Council, other than in the areas
covered in items 2, 3 and 4 above.
6. The City will continue ground maintenance (snow removal and grading of road
and lot) at no cost to Council .
7. The City will assume all maintenance and repair cost to the facility which
exceed $100 per individual case. Should the Council be deemed negligent in
daily maintenance and repairs are thus necessitated because of such negli-
gence the City will not be held liable for such repairs.
8. The Agreement may be terminated at any time by either party upon 30 days
written notice to the other party.
9. The City retains the right to use building for elections and other public
purposes as required and will give one week notice of such intended use by
the City.
10. All matters, whether sounding in tort or in contract, relating to the validity,
performance, or enforcement of the Agreement, shall be determined according
to the laws of the State of Minnesota.
11. If any term or provision of the Agreement is finally judged by any court
to be invalid, the remaining terms and provisions shall remain in full
force and effect, and they shall be interpreted, performed and enforced
as if said invalid provision did not appear herein.
12. It is understood that the City will have the use of the Hall on Tuesday,
Novemeber 3rd 1981 for the General Election.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed on
the day and year first above written by their authorized representatives.
City of Shakopee Scott-Carver Economic Council
BY BY \\ `_.� ► ��-x%i-r_"...
Mayor cting Executive Director
BY BY
City Clerk Board Chairperson
DATE DATE
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Date
Z(7
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson , City Administrator
RE : A Resolution Volunteering A Hazardous Waste Disposal Site
DATE : October 1 , 1981
Introduction
Pursuant to Council directive , I have prepared the attached resolu-
tion volunteering the PCA for a hazardous waste disposal site .
Action Requested
Offer Resolution No . 1911 , A Resolution Volunteering A Hazardous
Waste Disposal Site , and move its adoption .
JKA/jms
g
RESOLUTION NO. 1911
A RESOLUTION VOLUNTEERING A HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
WHEREAS, there is a critical need in the State of Minnesota to
resolve its hazardous waste disposal problems , and
WHEREAS , the Minnesota Waste Management Board is currently
screening potential sites for hazardous waste disposal , and
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee would like to confirm its volun-
teering of the inactive Pollution Controls Incorporated (PCI) hazard-
ous waste incineration site in Shakopee for the purpose of converting
hazardous waste into a usable product for electrical generation and/or
use in a district heating plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA,
1 . That the City of Shakopee reaffirms its volunteering of
the PCI site .
2 . That the City of Shakopee shall have the resources of the
Waste Management Board to research all of the possible
ramifications of such a program.
3. That the City of Shakopee shall have final authority over
all private and governmentaldecisions regarding the control
and monitoring of said site should it be selected as a
site for hazardous wate disposal .
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
-2/
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk
RE: Appeals from Holmes Street Storm Sewer Assessments
DATE: September 24, 1981
Background
Pursuant to your request I have prepared the attached resolution
abating the assessments for those certain parcels involved in the
appeal process for the Holmes Street Storm Sewer Assessments . I
understand that Judge Daly did set these assessments aside which.
does require the abatement .
How these assessments will be collected has not vet been resolved ,
as Council made a proposal at its meeting on September 15th to
enter into an agreement between the City and the property owners
regarding the assessments . Property owners will he contacted by
staff and the agreement will be brought back to the council .
It is important that these assessments be abated prior to the
October 10th date upon which assessments for the following year
are to be certified to the County. If the assessments are not
abated before October 10th, the 2nd year payment will have to he
certified .
Action Requested
Offer Resolution No. 1915 ,. A Resolution Abating Assessments for
Certain Parcels Involved in the Holmes Street Storm Sewer Improve-
ment 80-3 (Appealed Assessments) , and move its adoption.
JSC/jms
RESOLUTION NO. 1915
A RESOLUTION ABATING ASSESSMENTS FOR CERTAIN PARCELS
INVOLVED IN THE HOLMES STREET STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT 80-3
(APPEALED ASSESSMENTS)
WHEREAS, on August 26 , 1980 Resolution No. 1670 was adopted
setting assessments for the Holmes Street storm sewer improvements ;
and
WHEREAS , certain property owners did appeal their assessments
to District Court ; and
WHEREAS , the Honorable John J. Daly did order that the special
assessments levied against these certain parcels he set aside and
he ordered a reassessment of these certain parcels .
NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COTTNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, that the special assessments levied against the follow-
ing parcels by Resolution No. 1670 are hereby abated and cancelled
pursuant to the order of the Honorable John J. Daly, Judge of Dis-
trict Court :
Owner Parcel No. Legal Description
John Brambilla 27-001-060-00 E 1/3 of L 3 , all of L 4,
620 Monroe Avenue ex. E 30 ' of W 58 ' of S 1 /9
thereof , all. of L 5 , Rik 5 ,
O. S.P.
Calvin G & Harold A . 27-001-059-00 L 1 , 2 , & W 2 /1 of L 3 ,
Johnson Blk 5 O. S.P.
133 West 1st Avenue
Brambilla Motors
620 Monroe Avenue
Francis P. O'Connor 27-001-140-00 L 6 , B 21 , O. S.P.
1st & Fuller
Jerome K. Wampach 27-001-256-00 L 4-6 , R 32 , O. S.P.
524 South Holmes
Jerome K. Wampach 27-001-257-00 L 7 , Blk 32 , O.S .P.
524 South Holmes
Jerome K. Wampach 27-001-259-00 W 22 ' of L 0 & E 15 ' of
524 South Holmes L 10 all in Rlk 39 , O.S.P.
Charles A. Mensing 27-001-156-00 L 9 ex. W 36 ' of S 75 '
117 Fuller thereof R 22 , O.S .P.
Charles A. Mensing 27-001-157-00 W 36 ' of S 75 ' of L q &
117 Fuller all L 10, B 22 , O.S .P.
Arthur Fonder 27-001-283-00
Box #57 L 7 , Blk 35 , O. S.P.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that proper City officials are hereby
authorized and directed to refund any payments already made and/or
payable with the 1981 payable taxes .
Adopted in session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee, held this day of , 1Q81 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
Approved as to form this day
City Clerk of , 1081 .
City Attorney
_ U
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk
RE: Suburban Rate Authority
DATE: September 24, 1981
Introduction
On August 4, 1981 the Council approved the Joint and Cooperative
Agreement for membership in the Suburban Rate Authority and
authorized proper City officials to execute same .
Background
In order to be considered for membership in the Suburban Rate Author-
ity the City first must adopt the attached resolution which autho-
rizes the execution of the Amendment to Joint and Cooperative Agree-
ment (Amended Agreement) and submit it along with the executed agree-
ment to the authority.
Note : I was confused at the title "Amendment To Joint and Cooperative
Agreement . " It was explained to me that the original agreement was
amended prior to implementation or execution, so that the original
agreement is actually known as "Amendment To Joint and Cooperative
Agreement" which is in essence an amended Joint and Cooperative
Agreement .
Council should also appoint a director (board member) and an alter-
nate director to the board of the Suburban Rate Authority who will
be included in the initial resolution. The director and/or alternate
need not be an elected official .
Action Requested
a. Determine who will be Shakopee ' s first director and alternate
director.
b. Offer Resolution No. 1916 , A Resolution Authorizing Amendment
To Joint And Cooperative Agreement , and move its adoption.
JSC/jms
RESOLUTION NO. 1916
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO
JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee , Minnesota desires to enter into
a Joint and Cooperative Agreement providing for the creation of the
Suburban Rate Authority, and
WHEREAS , the present form of such Joint and Cooperative Agree-
ment does not authorize the Suburban Rate Authority to participate
in proceedings or engage in activities involving the Metropolitan
Waste Control Commission, and
WHEREAS , the Board of Directors of the Suburban Rate Authority
has recommended that such organization be authorized to participate
in proceedings or engage in activities involving the Metropolitan
Waste Control Commission, and
WHEREAS, it appears necessary and desirable that such authority
be conferred upon the Suburban Rate Authority and that this be accom-
plished by the execution of the amendment to the Joint and Coopera-
tive Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA as follows :
1 . The Mayor and City Administrator are authorized and directed
to execute the Amendment to the Joint and Cooperative Agreement which
amended agreement does , among other things , give authority for Sub-
urban Rate Authority involvement in matters relating to the Metro-
politan Waste Control Commission.
2 . The City Clerk is directed to file a copy of the executed
Amendment to the Joint and Cooperative Agreement , together with a
certified copy of this resolution, with the Secretary/Treasurer of
the Suburban Rate 4uthority.
3. and
are hereby appointed first Director and first Alternate , respectively,
as Shakopee ' s representatives on the Board of Directors .
Adopted in session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee held this day of , 1981 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1981 .
City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 1920
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH PERMIT FEES ,
ISSUE PERMITS FOR AND INSPECT ON-SITE SEWAGE SYSTEMS AND/OR
WATER WELL CONSTRUCTION , AND OTHERWISE ENFORCE SCOTT COUNTY
ORDINANCES NOS . 4 AND 5 , REGULATING ON-SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT
SYSTEMS AND WATER WELL CONSTRUCTION RESPECTIVELY
WHEREAS , Scott County has adopted Ordinance No . 4, regulating
on-site sewage treatment systems and Ordinance No . 5 regulating
water well construction under the authority of the Minnesota Public
Health Law; and
WHEREAS , these ordinances are effective throughout Scott County
and in the City of Shakopee and supercede all existing ordinances
regulating on-site sewage systems and water well construction ; and
WHEREAS , these ordinances will provide for uniform standards
for on-site sewage system regulation and water well construction
which are consistent with current state standards .
NOW THEREFORE , BE 1T RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA, that the City of Shakopee hereby requests
the authority to establish permit fees , issue permits for and
inspect on-site sewage systems and/or water well construction , and
otherwise enforce Scott County Ordinances Nos . 4 and 5 , regulating
on-site sewage treatment systems and water well construction respec-
tively .
Adopted in . � session of= the City Cdun ' 1 Of the
City of Shakopee , Min esota held this day of (.J-_' -a.ivi > ,
1981 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST :
J
Crty Clerk
Approved as to form this G:
day ofL;e . , 1981 .
•
City Attorney'
Councilmember introduced the
following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. / `7
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF
GENERAL OBLIGATION JUDGMENT BONDS AND
LEVYING TAXES FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shakopee , Minnesota, as follows :
Section 1 . Authorization. The City has paid out
of available funds of the City a judgment against it in
favor of Link Brothers , Inc . , plus costs associated with the
litigation, in the total amount of $155 , 451 . 37. A copy of
said judgment as entered by the District Court, First Judicial
District, is on file and available for inspection during normal
business hours at the office of the City Clerk. It is hereby
found and determined to be in the best interests of the City to
issue its general obligation judyment bonds in an amount not to
exceed $165, 000 , pursuant to the authority of Minnesota Statutes ,
Section 475 . 58, Subd . 1 (1) , in order to provide funds to recover
such funds paid to satisfy the judgment and its related costs ,
to pay miscellaneous expenses pertaining to the issuance of the
Bonds and to sell and issue additional bonds representing interest,
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes , Section 475 . 56 .
Section 2 . Tax Levy. The full faith, credit and
taxing powers of the City shall be and are hereby pledged
for the payment of principal of and interest on the Bonds as
such principal and interest respectively fall due; and for the
purpose of paying the principal of and interest on the Bonds ,
there is hereby levied upon all taxable property within the
City, a direct, annual , irrepealable tax. The Clerk is hereby
directed to place upon the tax rolls in the year 1981 the amount
of $ 81 , 572 .00 , which amount shall be collected in 1982 , and
shall be credited against the tax required to be levied prior
to delivery of the Bonds . This Council shall by resolution
further authorize the Clerk to place upon the tax rolls in
subsequent years the amounts sufficient to produce not less
than the principal and interest payments due on the Bonds in
such subsequent years . The tax that is hereby levied shall be
irrepealable until all payments of principal and interest on
the Bonds have been provided for and shall be from year to year
carried into the tax roll of the City and collected as other
taxes are collected. The City reserves the right to reduce
said levies to the extent and in the manner specified by
Section 475. 61 ( 3) , Minnesota Statutes.
Section 3 . Registration of Bonds. The City Admini-
strator 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.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved as tc form this
day of October , 1981 .
City Attorney
MEMO TO : John K. Anderson , City Administrator
FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk
RE : Ordinance No . 75 and 76
DATE : September 29 , 1981
Introduction
Pursuant to Council ' s direction , Mr . Coller has prepared the
attached two ordinances . Ordinance No . 75 is an ordinance
regulating and requiring construction of fences and No . 76
is an ordinance prohibiting the interruption of a municipally
owned public utility .
Action Requested
Offer Ordinance No . 75 , An Ordinance Of The City of Shakopee ,
Minnesota , Amending The Shakopee City Code , Chapter 4 , Entitled
"Construction Licensing, Permits And Regulations" By Adding
Thereto A Requirement For Fence Permits And Detailing Construc-
tion Requirements Of Fences And By Adopting By Reference Shakopee
City Code Chapter 1 , Section 4 . 99 , Which Among Other Things ,
Contain Penalty Provisions , and move its adoption .
Offer Ordinance No . 76 , An Ordinance Of The City of Shakopee ,
Minnesota , Amending Shakopee City Code Entitled "Municipal And
Public Utilities - Rules and Rgulations , Franchises and Rates"
By Adding Thereto Section 3 .03 Entitled "Prohibited Acts" And
Providing Penalties For Violation Thereof , and move its adoption .
JSC/jms
1 \
ORDINANCE NO. 75
Fourth Series
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE SHAKOPEE
CITY CODE, CHAPTER 4, ENTITLED "CONSTRUCTION LICENSING, PERMITS AND
REGULATIONS" BY ADDING THERETO A REQUIREMENT FOR FENCE PERMITS AND
DETAILING CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS OF FENCES AND BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE
SHAKOPEE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1, SECTION 4.99, WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS,
CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
SECTION I: PERMITS REQUIRED
Add to the end of Section 4.03 the following:
It shall be unlawful for any firm, person or corporation to erect, enlarge,
improve, construct or move a fence in all zoning districts of the City of Shakopee
except agricultural within the corporate limits of the City without first obtaining
a permit.
SECTION IIS FENCE CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
New Subsection 5 to be added to Section 4.03
A. General Requirements
1. All fencing erected in the City of S /kopee in all zones except agri-
cultural shall be constructed adjacent to . : . •. the property lines. Sufficient
room should be maintained to maintain the fence faces withoutencroaching on the
neighboring property line.
2. Type of construction shall be of any materials not deemed hazardous by
the Building Official and in appearance not deemed- detrimental to the property values
of the-area by the City Planner.-
3.
lanner.3. All proposed fence designs shall be approved by the Building Official
prior to the issuance of a permit.
4. Additional requirements
a. Fences 6 feet and under shall be permitted anywhere on the lot
except in the front yard setback. Fences up to 3 feet in height shall be allowed in
the front yard setback.
b. Fences in excess of the above heights shall require a conditional
use permit.
B. Junk Yards and Automobile Wrecking Yards
1. All junk yards and automobile wrecking yards shall be completely screened
ism . atv,,,
from the roads or developed areas with a solid fence or wall 8 feet or more in
height, maintained in good condition and screened with suitable planting. All
existing junk yards and automobile wrecking yards shall comply with this require-
ment within one (1) year of the effective date of this Chapter or shall terminate
their operation.
2. No junk yard or automobile wrecking yard established after the effective
date of this chaptershall be located closer than 1,000 feet to existing State and
Federal roads, nor closer than 100 feet to any other City thoroughfare.
C. Sanitary Landfills and WasteDisposal Sites
Sanitary landfills and waste disposal sites must be located at a minimum
of 1,000 feet from public roads and must be completely enclosed by trees and terrain
so as to be obstructed from sight and shall be permitted only by conditional use
permit.
D. Swimming Pools
1. General Requirements.
a. All pool installations will require a permit.
b. The applicant for a permit to install a pool is to indicate the
height of the proposed pool, the type of pool , fencing details, gate details and
location on the property.
2. In Ground Pools
a. All in ground pools are to have fencing with a minimum height of 6
feet and maximum distance between the ground and the bottom of the fence is 6 inches.
b. Gates: All in ground pools areftioave self closing, self locking
gates.
c. Wood, steel mesh, concrete block or stone are acceptable materials
for construction. Intermediate rails horizontally or vertically placed must be
spaced so that the maximum spacing between shall not exceed 6 inches.
3. Above Ground Pools
Pools that are entirely 6 feet above ground need not be fenced. ' However,
ladder access to the pool must be fenced. According to the above criteria, any
portion of the above ground pool less than 6 feet above ground will require the
entire pool to be fenced.
2 -
... .._._...- ,.rt.a#x a`-."F - %. a r - ^'.� ."1i `9 e t� t�] I'^p,C�fi+4'vr"P.. rs� ,`1w"t ,r�Sn�r 4 4N,.k
J
SECTION III; PENALTY PROVISIONS ADOPTED
The Shakopee City Code , Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions-
Applicable to the Entire Code including penalty provisions"and Section 4.99 entitled
"Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though
repeated verbatim herein.
SECTION IV: WHEN IN FORCE
This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City of
Shakopee and shall be in full force and effect on and after thedate of such publication.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, this
day of , 1981.
-----Mayor
ATTEST:
------City Clerk------------ --
Prepared and approved as to form this
23rd day of September, 1981.
ty Attorney
{
-,.-.
ORDINANCE NO. _ 7 6
Fourth Series
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING SHAKOPEE CITY
CODE ENTITLED " MUNICIPAL AND PUBLIC UTILITIES - RULES AND REGULATIONS,
FRANCHISES AND RATES" BY ADDING THERETO SECTION 3.03 ENTITLED "PROHIBITED
ACTS" AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION THEREOF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
SECTION I: Shakopee City Code Chapter 3 entitled "Municipal and Public
Utilities - Rules and Regulations, Franchises and Rates" is amended by adding a new
Section 3.03 entitled "Prohibited Acts" as follows:
1
Section 3.03
Subdivision A - Certain Acts Prohibited
No person, firm, association or corporation other than an authorized
employee of the City of Shakopee and its various commissions shall in any manner
whatever interfere with or change or interrupt the operation of any municipally
owned or controlled Public Utility by manipulating, turning, operating or working
with any valve, switch or lever or any appurtenance connected thereto or used in
connection therewith, including but not limited to all mains pipes, outlets, inlets,
hydrants, poles, , wires and cables whether buried or overhead.
Subdivision B - Penalties. for Violation hereof
1. The general provisions and definitions applicable to the entire City
Code including the penalty provisions of Chapter 1 and Section 4.99 entitled
"Violation a Misdemeanor"are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as
though repeated verbatim.
2. In addition to the above and in the event any person, firm, association
or corporation violates either directly or by agent or employee or a combination thereof
any provisions hereof and has funds or monies coming from the City for any reason:
the payment thereof shall be withheld until an and all damages resulting from the
doing of any of the prohibited acts is paid in full; otherwise reimbursement for any
and all damages so caused shall be paid to the City or recovered by a civil action. .
Subdivision C -When in Force
After the adoption, signing and attestation of this Ordinance it shall be
published once in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee and shall be in full
'41111111MONSOMMISOMMEIMMIMPOWLilatrisiastailiffam
force and effect on and after the date following such publication.
Adopted in ----T _session of the City Council of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota, held this, --_day of ___--- ---- , 1981.
Mayor
ATTEST:
-----City Clerk-------- --
Prepared and approved as to form
this. 24th day of September, 1981.
0.
City ttorney
•Y a .f €..<:keN4'�eth� psDH FY�P�45•
S))C.
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
RE: Resolution Adopting a Procedure for Hiring City Employees
DATE: September 22 , 1981
Introduction
Pursuant to your request , I have incorporated the hiring procedures
presented to the City Council on September 15th into the attached
resolution.
Action Requested
Offer Resolution No. 1913 , A Resolution Adopting A Procedure For
Hiring City Employees , and move its adoption.
JSC/jms
g �A
RESOLUTION NO. 1913
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A PROCEDURE FOR HIRING
CITY EMPLOYEES
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE ,
MINNESOTA, that the following procedure for hiring City employees
except sworn police officers is hereby approved and adopted :
1 .0 Position is vacated by resignation.
1 . 1 Immediately after the receipt of a formal resignation, and
prior to Council action, the City Administrator will check
the Budget/Personnel Resolution and if it is a full-time
permanent position notices will be posted in all city work
places for five (5) days , prior to advertising publicly.
1 . 2 City Council is notified at their next regular meeting and
acts on resignation and formally authorizes the filling of
the position. If Council does not authorize filling of the
position the advertising is stopped .
1 . 3 Any qualified City employee can apply for the position by
submitting a completed application.
1 .4 At the end of the five (5) day period the department head
involved will review any City employee applications and
will decide to :
a. Interview the City employee(s) .
b. Advertise . If the department head decides to advertise
he will notify the City Clerk (and City Administrator)
who will in turn notify the employee(s) who applied .
All City employee applicants will then be included with
the group of finalists interviewed for the position.
1 . 5 An application file will be started containing all pertinent
information regarding the position.
2 .0 Advertising for the vacant position.
2 . 1 The City Clerk will prepare and publish the ad in the news-
paper.
2 . 2 The City shall advertise in the local newspaper and in any
other publication that is deemed appropriate for the posi-
tion. The position shall be advertised for a minimum two
week period beginning at time of publication in the Shakopee
Valley News . Applications received for positions will be
kept on file for one year.
2 . 3 All applications received by the date included in the ad
will be keep in an application file in the Clerk ' s office .
2 .4 All questions regarding the ad or the position will he
directed to the City Clerk and may be referred to appropriate
department head.
3 .0 Screening
3. 1 After the application deadline the Clerk will present the
applications to the department head and City Administrator
who will jointly screen the applicants as provided in
Section 4 Subd. 1 of the City ' s Personnel Policy.
3. 2 If there is to be any tests administered they will be con-
ducted by the City Clerk, scored and presented to the
department head and City Administrator for further screen-
ing .
3. 3 n.pplicants that are candidates for interviews will he pre-
: ented to the Clerk who will schedule the interviews .
Resolution No. 1913 8 K
Page Two
4.0 Selection
4. 1 After the department head and City Administrator have decided
upon a candidate to be offered the job they will decide upon
a salary to be offered within the appropriate salary range and
the department head (or City Clerk) will make the offer pending
City Council approval .
4. 2 City Council will be presented with a staff memo covering
the hiring process , eg. date of advertising , number of
applicants , screening and interviewing process , qualifica-
tions of the recommended applicant and recommended starting
date and salary prepared by the City Clerk.
4. 3 City Council action.
a. City Council can approve the recommendation by simple
motion and the Clerk will notify the applicant the
following day, followed by a formal letter of employ-
ment and preliminary employment papers .
b. City Council can adjust the recommended starting salary
should they find reason to do so.
c. City Council can reject the recommendation should they
find a reason to do so , and instruct the City Administra-
tor to come back with a new recommendation.
5.0 Upon reporting to work on the first day, a new employee shall
be sent to the City Clerk ' s office for completion of necessary
forms .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the procedure for hiring sworn
police officers shall be regulated by the Police Civil Service
Commission and that the City Council shall make appointments for
sworn police officers selected from recommendations made by the
Shakopee Police Civil Service Commission.
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
gC3'>"If
MEMO TO: John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland 1/ C
Finance Director
RE: Resolution Nos. 1921, 1922, 1923, 1927 and 1928
DATE: October 2, 1981
The attached Resolutions are needed in order to implement
the 1982 budget :
St. Resolution No. 1921, adopts the 1982 budget ;
Resolution No. 1927, sets the 1981/82 tax levy;
gl'"1 Resolution No. 1922, consents to the 1981/82 HRA tax levy;
g.N Resolution No . 1923, cancels the 1981/82 tax levy in support of
the 1961 Sewer Plant Bonds . MWCC is paying off these bonds and
therefore, the City has been cancelling the tax levy annually.
li c Resolution No. 1928 , sets the sewer service charge as
reflected in the budget effective with the bills sent out
on or about 1/1/82 .
GV/j iw
Attachments
fI
Ilk
RESOLUTION NO . 1921
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1982 BUDGET
WHEREAS , the annual budget of the City of Shakopee for the
fiscal year beginning January 1 , 1982 has been submitted by the
City Administrator and modified and approved by the City Council ,
and
WHEREAS , a public hearing on the budget was held on September 15 ,
1981 .
NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA :
1 . That said budget with total General Fund appropriations
of $ for 1982 is hereby adopted and approved.
2 . That the appropriate City officials are hereby authorized
to make the interfund transfers contained in the 1982 budget at the
appropriate times without further council authorization .
Adopted in session of the City Council of
the City of Shakopee , Minnesota held this day of
1981 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST :
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1981 .
City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO . 1922
A RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO THE LEVY OF A
SPECIAL TAX BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND
FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE
WHEREAS , the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the
City of Shakopee was created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes , Section
462 .411 et . seq . , as amended , and
WHEREAS , Minnesota Statutes 1965 , Section 462 . 545 designates
all the territory within the area of operation of the authority as
a taxing district for the purpose of levying and collecting a special
benefit tax, and
WHEREAS , Section 462 . 545 states that the special levy shall not
exceed 10 cents on each $100 of taxable valuation in the area of
operation , and
WHEREAS , Section 462 . 545 states that the governing body of the
municipality must give its consent to such a tax levy.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA , that the City Council consents to and joins
in a special tax levy of $12 , 500 by the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority in and for the City of Shakopee for taxes payable in 1982 .
Adopted in session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee , Minnesota , held this day of
1981 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST :
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1981 .
City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 1923
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COUNTY AUDITOR
NOT TO LEVY A TAX FOR SEWAGE DISPOSAL PLANT BONDS OF 1961
WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Shakopee has issued
Sewage Disposal Plant Bonds dated January 1 , 1961 : and
WHEREAS , the tax levy for 1981 collectible in 1982 , as set as
the time of the bond sale is $22 ,800.00; and
WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Shakopee has determined
to raise the required $22 ,800.00 from the sewer revenues rather than
property taxes ; and
NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA, that the County Auditor of Scott County is
hereby directed not to levy a tax in the amount of $22 ,800.00 col-
lectible in 1982 for the Sewage Disposal Plant Bonds of 1961 .
Adopted in session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee , Minnesota held this day of
1981 .
Mayor of-tie City of S-T akopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1981 .
City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO . 1927
A RESOLUTION APPROVING 1981 TAX LEVY, COLLECTIBLE IN 1982 ,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE ,
COUNTY OF SCOTT, MINNESOTA, that the following sums of money be
levied for the current year, collectible in 1982, upon the taxable
property in said City of Shakopee , for the following purposes:
GENERAL FUND LEVY $ 720, 392
SPECIAL LEVIES :
Judgements $ 14, 217
Matching Funds 25,094
Shade Tree 1 , 335
Pension Funds 15, 734
Ind. & Comm. Dev. 169, 994
Tax Abatements 2, 735
TOTAL SPECIAL LEVY $ 229, 109
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
DEBT SERVICE :
' 67 Imp . $ 18, 950
' 74 Imp . 17, 916
' 75 Imp . 405
' 76 Imp . 4, 658
' 77-B Imp . 72,090
' 77-C Imp. 22, 240
' 80-A Imp . 25,986
Public Service Building 104,055
' 77-C Imp . (Link) 61 , 572
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE $ 327,872
TOTAL CITY LEVY $1 , 277,373
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby instructed
to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the County Auditor
of Scott County, Minnesota.
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
4
MEMO TO : John K. Anderson , City Administrator
FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk
RE: Appointment of Election Judges for November 3rd
Municipal Election
DATE : September 30, 1981
Introduction
Pursuant to Mn . Statutes , the Council shall appoint judges of
election for the municipal election on November 3rd .
Background
The election judges named in the attached resolution have all
attended a basic training session for election judges , have
been contacted by their respective chairwoman, and have con-
sented to work in the upcoming municipal election .
Because of the creation of two additional precincts , we are
short of judges who do reside within the appropriate precincts .
Current law does provide that election judges may work outside
their own precinct , but must reside within the corporate limits
of the municipality. You will notice that a number of first
precinct judges are working in a third or fourth precinct .
During 1981 the Legislature amended the laws on compensation for
election judges . Beginning with this election we will be re-
quired to pay the minimum Minnesota wage which is currently
$3 .35/hour. I also recommend paying the Chairwomen an additional
fifty cents an hour which is approximately an additional $10.00.
They have added responsibilities including scheduling, obtaining
election supplies from the City Clerk and additional instruction
time .
The recommended compensations will fall within the compensation
budgeted for the 1981 municipal election .
Action Requested
Offer Resolution No . 1919 , A Resolution Designating Six Polling
Places For All Election Precincts In The City Of Shakopee ,
Appointing Judges Of Election , And Establishing Compensation ,
and move its adoption.
JSC/jms
RESOLUTION NO . 1919
A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING FOUR POLLING PLACES FOR ALL ELECTION
PRECINCTS IN THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE , APPOINTING JUDGES OF ELECTION,
AND ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE ,
that there shall be six polling places for six election precincts
(6 wards) in the City of Shakopee for the upcoming municipal election
on November 3, 1981 , and the polling places are hereby designated
as follows:
First Precinct - Fire Hall - 334 W. Second Ave.
Second Precinct - Shakpoee Public Library - 235 S . Lewis
Third North Precinct - Public Utilities Bldg. - 1030 E. 4th Ave.
Third South Precinct - Junior High - 11th Ave. & Marschall Rd.
Fourth West Precinct Eagle Creek Town Hall - Jct. C .R. 83 & C .R . 16
Fourth East Precinct - Eagle Creek Town Hall - Jct. C .R. 83 & C .R. 16
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the following persons are hereby
appointed Judges of Election for the said six polling precincts:
FIRST PRECINCT: Gladys M. Theis - Chrm.
Marie Nigg Susan Niewind
Claude Sinnen Bonnie Notermann
Ethel Schneider Sally Juba
ADDITIONAL JUDGES : Rita Steinhoff Marcie Schmitt
Virgilla Geske Winnie Anderson
SECOND PRECINCT: Carol Bishop - Chrm.
Marvel Siebenaler Barbara Runge
Hazel Bisek
Beryl Barrett
ADDITIONAL JUDGES: Candace Kragthorpe Joanne Davis
Joanne Kruger
THIRD SOUTH Lillian Weinandt - Chrm.
PRECINCT:
June Sebald - Bernadette Gerlach
Joan Hart Kathryn Marschall
Tal Nolting
ADDITIONAL JUDGES : Marvis Fickes Dean Obernolte
Paulette Rislund
THIRD NORTH: Rita Bodmer - Chrm.
Marilyn Long Phyllis Schesso
Lucille Odenwald Marie Kocks
Harriet Bart zal Loretta Jassers
Nancy Huss Bernice Mottinger
ADDITIONAL JUDGES : Sally Herzog Dean Trutnau
Don Clemens
FOURTH EAST Glenda Spiotta - Chrm.
PRECINCT:
Sharon Fernholz Doris Ann Solseth
Louis Vyskocil
Thea May
Murrel Fenlason
ADDITIONAL JUDGES : Janet O 'Connor
Lil Kopisca
Connie Berens
FOURTH WEST Maetta Jurewicz - Chrm.
PRECINCT:
Ray Schmitt
Joyce Schwartz
Lill Abeln
ADDITIONAL JUDGES: Pat Clemens
Frank Schneider
Helen O 'Brien
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Election Judges shall be compensated
for their work at the rate of $3.35 per hour and the Chairman of the
Election Judges shall be compensated at the rate of $3.85 per hour.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that the proper officials be and hereby
are authorized and directed to do and perform all acts necessary to
carry out the terms, intents, and purposes of this Resolution.
Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 6th day of October, 1981 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST :
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1981
City Attorney
N..
MEMO TO: John Anderson
City Administrztor
FROM: Don Steger
City Planner
RE: Report from Ad Hoc Downtown Committee
DATE: September 21, 1981
' The Ad Hoc Downtown Committee will make a presentation and hold a
discussion with the City Council at the October 6, 1981 meeting.
Attached is the Downtown Concept Plan which will be presented at that
meeting. Also attached is the list of the Committee members.
DS/jiw
Attachments
RI
Qi
DOWNTOWN DESIGN CONCEPTS
1st Avenue:
- "Old Town" theme.
- Storefront beautification (awnings, paint, etc. ).
- Eliminate on-street parking between Fuller and Sommerville Streets.
- Right turn lanes from 1st Avenue unto Highway 169 and from Highway 169
unto 1st Avenue.
- Wider sidewalks; incorporate streetscapes (plantings, benches, lighting,
etc. ).
- Relocate signal lights from Lewis Street to Spencer Street.
North Side of 1st Avenue:
- Eliminate buildings (between Holmes and Lewis Streets and between Holmes
and Fuller Streets except auto dealer).
- Well-designed parking lots.
- Construct City Hall complex (possibly between Holmes and Spencer Streets).
- Heavy (dense) plantings between Lewis and Holmes Streets.
- Theme lighting, benches, etc.
- Eliminate Sommerville, Lewis, Fuller and Atwood Streets between Levee
Drive and 1st Avenue.
- Future development between Holmes and Spencer Streets consisting of
retail/office/high-density residential.
River Area:
- Extend linear park and trails along river (throughout downtown).
- Beautify revierfront.
- Eliminate overhead utility lines.
- Possible campgrounds along north bank of river.
- Possible paddleboat/canoe rental and other recreational activities along
river.
- Extend Levee Drive eastward to Spencer Street and eventually to Bluff
Avenue.
r
Downtown Design Concepts (cont. )
Page -2-
Railroad Theme:
- Old-style railroad shelter extending from railroad depot eastward
to Sommerville Street and one block north and south of 2nd Avenue
along cross streets.
- Use theme lighting, benches, plantings, etc.
- Incorporate flags and banners.
- Restore and utilize railroad depot as restaurant , etc. , if possible.
- Beautify rail line (landscaping with plantings, rock, etc. ) .
2nd Avenue:
- Straighten.
- Eliminate overhead utility lines.
- Alley beautification (convert to main store entrances).
- Develop retail uses.
DS/jiw
AD HOC DOWNTOWN COMMITTEE
Sub-Committee of the Industrial/Commercial Committee
City of Shakopee
Appointed members April 21 , 1981 :
Voting:
1 . Nancy Christensen 8. Joe Topic
832 E. 8th Avenue 2051 Marschall Road
Shakopee , MN Shakopee , MN
445-4965 (home) 445-2770 (home)
2 . Dick Hullander 9. Bill Berens
938 So. Lewis 1033 So. Shumway
Shakopee , MN Shakopee , MN
445-7086 (home) 445-1262 (work)
830-6299 (work)
3. Terry Link
Link Print Ex-officio Members :
123 E. 1st Avenue
Shakopee, MN 1 . Chair Person ICC
445-7200 (work)
2 . Don Steger
4. Bill Wermerskirchen, Jr. City Planner
Bill ' s Toggery City Hall
138 So. Lewis 129 E. 1st Avenue
Shakopee , MN Shakopee , MN
445-3735 (work) 445-3650 (work)
5. Gene Pearson 3. Lee Stoltzman
Pearson Florists 1234 Harrison
112 Sommerville Shakopee , MN
Shakopee , MN 445-5200 (work)
445-4344 (work)
4. Fred Corrigan
6. Dan Steil President
First National Bank Chamber of Commerce
129 So. Holmes P. 0. Box 203
Shakopee , MN Shakopee , MN
445-6300 (work) 445-1660 (Chamber)
445-7361 (Renaissance)
7 . Don Martin
County Assessor
Scott County Courthouse
428 So. Holmes
Shakopee, MN
445-7750 (work)
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson , City Administrator
FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk
RE: Application for $650,000 Industrial Development Bonds
for Equities Unlimited
DATE : October 1 , 1981
Introduction
The City has received an application from Equities Unlimited for
$650,000 Industrial Development Bonds for a structure to be located
east of Landey' s Camping Center which will be leased to 1 & 44 Off
Sale and another operation yet to be determined.
Note : The municipal election falls on a Council meeting night .
Since Council must convene within two days after the election to
canvass the ballots , staff is recommending the Tuesday meeting be
postponed to Thursday , November 5th. The date for the public
hearing for the above application has therefore been set for
November 5th. If Council desires to meet on Wednesday instead,
please advise staff prior to the adoption of Resolution No. 1924.
Action Requested
Offer Resolution No . 1924, A Resolution Calling For Public Hearing
Pursuant To Minnesota Statutes , Section 474.01 , Subd . 7b, and move
its adoption .
JSC/jms
RESOLUTION NO. 1924
T
A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO
MINNESOTA STATUTES , SECTION 474 .01 , SUBD. 7b
WHEREAS , a proposal has been made to this Council by Equities
Unlimited, a Minnesota general partnership (the "Company") , to
undertake a project (the "Project") pursuant to the Minnesota
Municipal Industrial Development Act , Minnesota Statutes , Chapter
474 (the "Act") ; and
WHEREAS , the Project consists of the acquisition and construc-
tion of a commercial retail facility for lease to Family Dining,
Inc . , dba 1 & 44 Liquor Center , and other tenants to be determined;
and
WHEREAS , Section 474.01 , Subd. 7b of the Act requires this
Council to conduct a public hearing on said proposal and to pub-
lish notice of said public hearing not less than 15 days nor more
than 30 days prior to the date fixed for the hearing; and
WHEREAS , a draft copy of a proposed application to the Minne-
sota Commissioner of Securities , together with all attachments and
exhibits thereto, will be placed on file with the City Clerk.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA, as follows :
1 . A public hearing shall be conducted by this Council on the
proposal to undertake and finance the Project on November 5 , 1981
at 8 : 30 o ' clock P.M. at the City Hall , at which hearing all parties
who appear shall be given an opportunity to express their views with
respect to said proposal .
2 . Notice setting forth the time and place of hearing, the
general nature of the Project and an estimate of the principal
amount of bonds or other obligations to be issued to finance the
Project shall be published at least once not less than 15 days nor
more than 30 days prior to the date fixed for the hearing, in the
official newspaper and a newspaper of general circulation of the
City . The notice shall state that a draft copy of the proposed
application to the Minnesota Commissioner of Securities , together
will all attachments and exhibits thereto, shall be available for
public inspection following the publication of such notice and
shall specify the place and times where and when it will be so
available .
Adopted in session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee , Minnesota , held this day of
1981 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST :
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1981 .
City Attorney
MEMO TO : John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant
RE : Clarification of Request for Proposals to Provide Cable
Communications Services
DATE : ' September 29 , 1981
This memo is an outline of the procedure proposed to deal with requests
from cable companies for clarification of the RFP adopted by the City
Council on August 18, 1981 and amended September 15 , 1981 .
1 . City staff will evaluate whether the inquiry is more administrative
or policy oriented , and whether it can reasonable be addressed at
the staff level or should be referred to the City Council .
2 . If the staff feels the question is more administrative , a response
will be formulated and immediately sent to the company who has
raised the question. Copies of the response will be circulated
to members of the City Council and the Ad Hoc Cable Communications
Committee for information . Subsequently, copies of the response
will be sent to all companies listed as holders of the RFP.
3 . If the inquiry is considered policy oriented , staff will direct
the inquiry to the City Council with suggested alternatives . Copies
of related memos will also be provided to Ad Hoc Cable Communica-
tions Committee members who will be requested to provide oral or
written comments to staff or City Council members prior to the
meeting of the City Council at which a response to the inquiry
will be adopted . Upon adoption of a response by the City Council ,
copier will be sent to the original questioner and all other
companies listed as holders of the RFP.
Attached is a copy of the initial inquiry received, which is judged
by staff to be administrative in nature . Also enclosed is a copy
of the staff response which will be sent if the above policy is
adopted .
Requested Action
Adopt procedures as outlined in September 29 , 1981 memo "Clarification
of Request for Proposals to Provide Cable Communications Services" to
John Anderson from Jeanne Andre .
—
13=== _______
________
._:„.• _____=, _,
--------=---------- -II Et";EWE ---- ----
=- = SEP 2 3 1981
GRa JP
CITY OF SHAKOPEE September 18, 1981
Dear Ms. Andre,
This letter is in response to our phone conversation of September
18 , 1981 in regards to the "Acknowledgement of Resolution 1796" .
ELRA Group, Inc. is a market research/consulting firm in East Lansing,
Michigan. We have been retained by Zylstra-United Cable Television
to conduct market penetration studies in Shakopee, Minnesota.
We will be generating random samples of phone listings to conduct
our research and therefore have no way of knowing who we will be
contacting before the actual phone calls are made. Our staff of
part-time interviewers exceeds 70 persons and any one of them
could potentially contact city council or cable commission members.
In view of the above facts, we are having a problem complying with
the requirement to furnish you with a list of our official speakers.
However, we have dealt extensively with the cable television industry
and fully recognize the need for the 'no-contact' clause. All our
survey instruments screen potential respondents with respect to
individual city/consortium requirements and immediately terminate
those with city council persons , cable commissioners or members
of their families. Also be aware that ELRA' s research staff does
not fulfill any political or lobbying functions. We believe any
lobbying functions at the city level could seriously compromise the
integrity of our research efforts .
What I propose in our response to the Acknowledgement is to send you
a list of ELRA' s principals who may be acting as consultants to
a cable company in Shakopee ' s franchising process. These persons,
as with our research staff , do not fulfill any lobbying services
but may be contacting city offices. If you wish, we will send a
list of all our interviewing staff, but I don 't think this is the
intent of Resolution 1796.
In any case, we will not proceed with any research until we have
heard from you. if you have any questions please do not hesitate
to call me at (517) 337-2090.
Sincerely ,
0,41,644"1 ' • -- ,/ .
William J ' coding
WA a•' Hicks Building, P O Box 70, Fast Lansing, Michigan 48823 • (517)337 2O9U
ELWI 1!I ;,'.a,;;I , l:;I 2608 California Street,San Francisco.California 94115 • (415)921 8880
•
THE COMPANY
ELRA Group is a full-time national cable television research
company. The senior principals of the company have extensive
telecommunications policy and cable experience, and ELRA' s staff
of managers, supervisors, and interviewers have broad experience
in custom and service cable research. Since cable is our primary
business, ELRA is able to provide the most cost-effective,
timely, and creative research available to the franchise applicant.
To better serve our clients , ELRA maintains two national offices.
In ELRA's home office a centralized data collection facility and
on-premise computer facilities insure timely analysis and complete
protection of client information. Our research specialists can
perform any type of statistical or secondary analysis, up to and
including economic modelling and computer simulation.
We are also extremely experienced in providing seminars about
cable for community participants , as well as expert testimony at
any hearing relevant to an application for which we have provided
research services .
Most of the major cable MSO' s, prominent broadcast groups, major
Fortune Top-50 corporations, and major federal and state
government units are included on ELRA ' s list of clients .
ELRA Group does not perform research services for franchising
authorities in order to avoid conflict of interest problems with
our clients .
ELRA is comprised of six principal associates (with Ph.D. 's in
communication research) who participate directly in all on-going
work .
CITY OF SHAKOPEE i \o. =
INCORPORATED 1570
129 E. First Ave. - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379— (612) 445-3650
1376 ' ^
October 7 , 1981 ;4r ;
Mr . William J . Gooding
ELRA Group
Hicks Building
PO Box 70
East Lansing, MI 48823
Dear Mr . Gooding :
In response to your recent inquiry regarding the conformance
of the ELRA Group with the City of Shakopee Resolution No . 1796,
the following guidelines will be imposed .
1 . In regard to telephone market studies , if callers a) ask
each respondent whether they are an immediate relative of
an official or employee of the City of Shakopee and b) if
the respondent replies yes and the conversation is then
terminated , then the market research will not be considered
in violation of the policy established in Resolution No.
1796 , and telephone interviewers need not be listed as
"official representatives" of the firm to be filed with
the City of Shakopee .
2 . If the marketing group also has questions for City employees
and officials on a governmental institutional network,
persons representing your firm in this regard should a)
be listed on the official "Acknowledgement of Resolution
No. 1796" (Section 3 , List of Representatives) to be sup-
plied to the City by your firm and b) submit all questions
orally at a public meeting of the City Council or Ad Hoc
Cable Communications Committee , or in writing, sent to
Judith S . Cox, City Clerk, 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee ,
Minnesota 55379 .
It is understood that market research personnel will not under-
take lobbying on behalf of any individual cable operator. I will be
happy to provide additional clarification of this issue at your
request .
Sincerely,
Jeanne Andre
Administrative Assistant
JA/jms
The Heart of Progress Valley
An Equal Opportunity Employer
9c1
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson , City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant
RE : Pending Federal Legislation on Municipal Regulation of
Cable TV
DATE : September 28, 1981
Introduction
Senate File 898 has been amended to limit municipal authority to
regulate cable communications franchises . Reaction to this amend-
ment by the Shakopee City Council is now recommended .
Background
The Ad Hoc Cable Communications Committee was aware that an amend-
ment limiting municipal authority to regulate cable TV has been
introduced, but was not aware of the specific provisions of that
amendment . On July 15 , 1981 , the Committee directed staff to go
on record requesting hearings to be held to fully air comments
representing all perspectives on the issues addressed in this
legislation. A copy of that letter and the responses received
is attached for your information.
Since initial notice of the amendment was received by the Committee,
addition information on the substance of the amendment has been
provided . The attached memos from the National League of Cities
and the City ' s cable attorney, Adrian Herbst , outline the major
provisions of the amendment . A speaker at the recent ICMA con-
ference characterized the amendment as a move by the cable lobby
to remove all but minimal government control of cable communications .
Upon reading explanation of the amendment to Senate File 898 it
appears in the best interest of the City to express opposition to
the amendment .
Recommended Action
Direct staff to send letter to Minnesota Senators and amendment
author , Senator Robert Packwood, expressing the opposition of the
City to Packwood amendment to Senate file 898 .
JA/jms
HERBST & TRUE, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2030 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER
ADRIAN E.HERBST7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH
TELEPHONE
DANIEL D. TnuE BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 5 ,431 (612) 835-2434
JOHN F. Glees ((_ VED
LEGLEGALASSISTANT September 24 , 1981
p YY-• 1f//T:�
SEP 2 8 1981
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
All Herbst & Thue Cable Clients:
For your information , the United States Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science and Transportation passed a bill on
July 16 , 1981 , which would greatly affect the local regulation
of cable television. The bill principally addresses the de-
regulation of certain aspects of telephone service and other
common carriers but was amended two days prior to passage so
as to include several provisions relating to cable television.
Senate #898 was amended to address the following:
1.. Pole Attachment. The Pole Attachment Law was enacted
in 1978 and directed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
to regulate the rates and conditions under which cable television
operators are given access to poles and rights of way controlled
by utilities. Cooperatively organized telephone and power utilities
as well as government owned utilities were excluded from the cover-
age of the 1978 law. Senate #898 would extend coverage to these
entities also. The 1978 law also provided for a five-year sunset
provision of FCC oversight of pole rates. This provision would
be repealed by Senate #898 due to the many unresolved complaints
in this area.
2. Franchise Fees. Senate #898 authorizes the FCC to estab-
lish reasonable ceilings for franchise fees and to periodically,
upon its own motion or petition, review the appropriateness of -
such ceilings and make any necessary adjustments. Present FCC
regulations limit franchise fees to 3% to 5% of gross subscriber
revenues. Consequently, the effect of this bill is to put into
law the FCC ' s jurisdiction over this area.
3. Rate Regulation. Senate #898 prohibits federal, state
and local governments or agencies thereof from establishing or
regulating in any way the rates charged for basic cable television •
service or pay service. A state or municipality may, however,
establish or regulate the rates for the retransmission of broadcast
signals whenever there are no reasonably available alternative
electronic media services to such retransmission. In other words,
03--
1
HERBST & TRUE, LTD.
All Herbst & Thue Cable Clients
Page Two
September 24 , 1981
municipalities will have no jurisdiction over both pay and basic
rates if the cable system is not in a monopoly environment. The
definition of a monopoly environment is left to the discretion
of the FCC.
This aspect of Senate #898 apparently nullifies rate pro-
visions of existing franchise agreements and calls into question
the legality of municipal ownership. Committee Chairman Robert
Packwood (R-OR) indicated that municipalities may still enter
into arms-length contracts with cable companies to specify the
rates they are to charge. This statement has led to considerable
confusion that has yet to be resolved.
4 . Access Channels . Senate #898 permits a state or munici-
pality to require the dedication of access channels for governmental,
public or educational access. The local authorities may fix or
regulate the rates for use or time on such channels.
Rate regulation has been an important tool for cities to use
in administering a franchise agreement. Senate #898 , if enacted
in whole, would seriously curtail the ability of local authorities
to regulate cable television just at the time the cable industry
promises a telecommunications revolution. Considerable opposition
has emerged to the rate regulation provision of Senate #898 . Among
those voicing their opposition include the National League of Cities,
the Cable Television Information Center, the National Citizens Com-
mittee for Broadcasting and the National Federation of Local Cable
Programmers .
John Gibbs, from this office, recently returned from Washington,
D.C. where he attended a seminar on behalf of the city of Bloomington
Cable Commission. While in Washington, Mr. Gibbs discussed Senate
#898 with various members of Congress and staff members that have
worked with this legislation. It is our understanding that Senate
#898 is scheduled to reach the Senate floor on approximately Oc-
tober 1. Because there was no hearing prior to the inclusion of
the cable television provisions of the bill , Senator Barry Goldwater
of Arizona has announced that he will propose an amendment to the
bill that would delete all the cable legislation except the pole
attachment provisions.
The Goldwater amendment would be advantageous to municipalities
in protecting their authority to regulate rates. Accordingly,
any contact with members of Congress regarding this legislation
would properly be directed toward the Goldwater amendments .
HERBST & THUE, LTD.
All Herbst & Thue Cable Clients
Page Three
September 24 , 1981
Hopefully, this letter will assist in keeping you up to
date with the recent developments in cable television law
which may affect your municipality.
Very truly yours,
1/, (F!...e-y -7.fir
it,
Adrian E. Herbst
AEH:ndr
0 • til /t `'ME 4� e t�i �: {
�' • �A i
z; r
} }R WiC • •,C
}r
¢ xinr
IIII�III TSL
league of minnesota cities
LIO
August 13, 1981
TO: Clerks, Administrators, Managers of Member Cities.
FROM: Duke Addicks, Legislative Counsel
RE: Federal Legislation Preventing Cities From Establishing Rates, etc.
In the U.S. Senate, S. 898 will soon reach the floor for a vote. As amended, this bill
in Section 202(h) prohibits cities and states from regulating or establishing rates for
subscriptions to cable and information services. Section 202(i ) would give the FCC the
authority to set a ceiling on franchise fees.
If your city presently has or is considering cable TV, your city council should be con-
cerned over these two provisions.
In addition, the cable industry will be proposing to prohibit cities from requiring •
public access channels and to prohibit city ownership of cable systems.
Please, on behalf of your city council , contact your U.S. Senators and your U.S.
Representative to express your city's concerns over the provisions of this bill , and
any other amendments which would reduce your city's ability to regulate cable TV.
Please explain the situation in your city and be specific as to the effect these
proposals would have in your community.
DA/ks
300 hanover building, 480 cedar street, saint paul, minnesota 55101 C6123222-2881
K '""
olici-.A.,e..,,,.
rt*
CITY OF SHAKOPEE = ;?.`,;,-
14::::!':::.•1.%:',..!'
INCORPORATED 1870 ';�'
129 E. First Ave. - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 (612) 445-3650 F41.411 E
July 16 , 1981 n. P
The Honorable Robert Packwood
U. S. Senate
Washington , D.C . 20510
Re : Amendment to Senate Bill 898
Dear Senator Packwood :
The Shakopee Ad Hoc Cable Communications Committee has
been appointed by the City Council of the City of Shakopee to
serve in an advisory capacity to the City in the adoption of
a cable communications franchise . It has recently come to the
attention of this Committee that you have introduced an amend-
ment to Senate Bill 898 which would limit municipal authority
to regulate cable franchise rates and would create a new ceil-
ing on franchise fees charged by municipalities .
No extensive information is available to the Committee on
the full details of this amendment . As such legislation is of
great interest to the Committee members they want to know more
about the provisions of your amendment before it is brought to
a vote . To this end the Committee moved at its July 15 , 1981 ,
meeting to request provision for public comment , specifically
a public hearing, on pending legislation related to cable com-
munications . In addition I would appreciate receipt of a copy
of your amendment to share with the Committee .
I trust you are commited to an open legislative process
and will help the Committee keep informed of legislation re-
lated to its activities . Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely ,
,9, e ` , , < , i . l .q
b r ,t_
Jeanne Andre
Administrative Assistant
cc : Senator Rudolph Boschwitz
Senator David Durenberger
JA/jam
T h e Heart of P r g r c' ti s V a / / !y
An Equal Opportunity Employer
o
rite) .Staten .Senate
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20510
ikle
August 3 , 1981 q PUG
C/h,of 1981
Jeanne Andre
Administrative Assistant 4100
129 E. 1st Avenue
Shakopee , Minnesota 55379
Dear Jeanne :
Thanks for contacting me regarding an amendment to the
Telecommunications Deregulation Act (S . 898 ) which limits
municipal authorities from regulating cable franchise rates . I
cannot emphasize enough how important your concerns are to me (as
they should be ) , so I really appreciate your getting in touch.
As you may know, S. 898 was passed by the Senate Commerce,
Science and Transportation Committee 'on July 16. You can be
assured I will keep your thoughts in mind when this legislation
is considered on the floor . 1
Again , thanks for taking gime to contact me.
f it
e lY
711. f
Rudy Boschwitz
United States Senator
RB/cb
BOB PACKWOOD,ORIG.,CHAIRMAN /.� l YS�• T., r '.
BARRY GOLDWATER.ARIL. HOWARD W.CANNON,NEV.
HARRISON H.SCHMITT.N.MIX. RUSSELL B.LONG.LA.
JOHN C.DANFORTH,MO. ERNEST F.HOLLINGS,S.C. AUG ,
NANCY LANDON KASSESAUM,KANS. DANIEL K.INOUYE,HAWAII
LARRY PRESSLER.S.DAN. WENDELL H.FORD.KY.
SLADE GORTON,WASH. DONALD W.RIEGLE.JR.,MICH. �j J C if/'Sb ,�f of ez
TED STEVENS,ALASKA J.JAMES EXON,NEER, III/'"►►►Y"'B e -i�f1�YYcsie
BOB KASTEN,WIS. HOWELL HEFUN,ALA. /�Ll i'.S\.�
WILLIAM M.DIEFENOERFER,CHIEF COUNSEL COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,SCIENCE. C•• t OF .SHAKOPEE
AUBREY L.SARVIS.MINORITY CHIEF COUNSEL AND TRANSPORTATION
EDWIN K.HALL,MINORITY GENERAL COUNSEL
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20510
August 12 , 1981
Ms . Jeanne Andre
Administrative Assistant
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee , Minnesota 55379
Dear Ms . Andre :
Thank you for letting me know of your concern
over the cable provisions contained within S , 898, the
Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act
of 1981 .
I respect your thoughts on this subject . The cable
amendments , however, do permit state or local governments
to dedicate access channels for governmental , public and
educational access , and do permit the regulation of rates
for the use or sale of cable channels capacity or time on
such access channels .
Additionally, state and local governments are not
prohibited from regulating rates for cable service when
there are no reasonably available alternatives ,
Finally, these provisions do not affect the existing
franchise agreements ,
I'm glad that you took the time to let me know how
you feel . It is always helpful to me to hear your views ,
Please continue to keep me informed of them.
Cordially,
( , ( l'•
BOB PACKWOOD
BP/ccm
• 4 e
� � ' ROBEgT J.DOL[,KANi.,CHAIRMAN / // Cj � 'f( C_
BOB PACKWOOD,OREG. RUSSELL B.LONG.LA. t ^
WILLIAM V.ROTH,JR..DEL. HARRY F.BYRD.JR.,VA. l^I
JOHN C.DANFORTH.MO. LLOYD BENTSEN.TEX.
JOHN H.CNA EE,R.I. SAM. AGA.HAWAIRECEIVED
JOHN HEINZ,PA. DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN,N.Y, /�� �((((( `` (� /
JOHN H M WALLOP, WVO. MAX BAUCUS, MONT. •JCni jc �}-�i i fes �cnatc
DAVID DURENBERGER, MINN. DAVID L. BOREN,OKLA, �/V' ••��+i aCC /'�Jj, (. .7�7 I
WILLIAM L.ARMSTRONG, COLO. BILL BRADLEY, N.J.
STEVEN D.SYMMS.IDAHO -GEORGE J.MITCHELL,MAINE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
CHARLES E.GRASSLEY,IOWA
WASHINGTON.O.C. 20510 SEP 1 0 1981
ROBERT E.LIGHTHIIER,CHIEF COUNSEL.
MICHAEL STERN.MINORITY STAFF DIRECTOR
September 2 , 1981
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Jeanne Andre
Administrative Assistant
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee , Minnesota 55379
Dear Jeanne:
In the last few weeks , some additional Senators have thrown
their support to legislation preventing municipally or publicly
owned cable television systems , and the issue has gained a great
deal of publicity, I just want to let you know that my position
hasn' t changed on this , and I continue to oppose legislation that
would rule out the possibility of a municipally owned cable system,
There are examples of the benefits that can come from this approach.
in nearly' three dozen cities , and the plans being discussed in the
Twin Cities follow in that path, Neither House of Congress is
likely to consider these bills before the fall , but t can assure you
I will be opposing that amendment if and when it does come to the
Senate floor,
Sincer. y ,
Da sur-t ik
Uni e. a es Sena •
DD/j rp
72/
MEMO TO: John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: H. R. Spurrier 11/
City Engineer •.
RE: Halo 2nd Addition Improvem;nt Project No. 80-10
Bluff Avenue Improvement Project No. 81-2
DATE: September 28, 1981
Introduction:
The developer's consultant for Halo 2nd Addition did not include two major
items in the proposal, which must be included in order to proceed with the
project.
Background:
Proposed Change Order No. 1, is for work in Halo 2nd Addition only and includes
the following:
1. Replacement of loop detector wiring for the semaphore
at 1st Avenue and Marschall Road, at a cost of $4,683.55.
2. Installation of one 6" x 6" tee and two 6 inch gate valves,
at a cost of $1,886.75.
3. Delete one 6" x 6" tapping sleeve with 6 inch gate valve
and box at a cost of $1,000.00
According to MnJDOT Traffic Engineer, Dennis Ehler, the price is high. He
indicated that this is ordinarily the case this time of year because only a
few electrical contractors are specialized in traffic signal construction
and that the City could expect high bids for such work.
The next two items, No. 2 and 3, are tied together. Instead of a tapping valve,
an additional valve was installed and the contractor had to utilize a different
construction technique. The total cost amount to an $886.75, with the reduction
because of the deletion of the tapping sleeve.
As specified in the introduction, this work is necessary in order to proceed
with the construction. The watermain additions have been approved by the
Shakopee Public Utilities.
John Anderson September 28, 1981
Halo/Bluff Projects No. 80-10/81-2
Page -2-
Recommendation:
It is the recommendation of City staff that the appropriate City officials
be authorized to execute Change Order No. 1 for Halo 2nd Addition Improvements
Project No. 80-10 (Schedule No. 1), in the amount of $5, 570.30.
HRS/jiw
'1lako ier UIininiuunit l PCUiCE -
129 Levee Drive
Shakopee. Minnesota 55379
Phone 445-2742
Community Education • Parks • Recreation • Adult Education
George F. Muenchow, Dir.
MEMO TO: JOHN ANDERSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM : GEORGE MUENCHOW, C.S. & PARK DIRECTOR
RE : MEMORIAL PARK MILLPOND WATER QUALITY PROBLEM
DATE : SEPTEMBER 16, 19$1
INTRODUCTION
Water quality (discoloration) of the Millpond has become a
problem of late as noted by several citizens, City Council Members,
and Staff. A solution has been requested.
Bggkgro and
Ever since ducks and geese have been attracted to the pond starting
around 10 years ago, there has been algae buildup. The birds are fed
grain by the Shakopee House. Bird droppings act as a fertilizer to
enhance the algae growth. Occasional flooding of the nearby Minnesota
R. also drops nutrients into• the pond. Discoloration results.
Telephone conversations with representatives from Minnesota DNR and
Polution Control Agency have indicated that they have firsthand
knowledge of the problem at this site. Attached Exhibit #1 verifys
this. From tests taken in August 1979 there is proof that the problem
lies with the ducks and the occasional flooding. Attached Exhibit #2
explains what algae is and what it does.
Telephone conversations with the cities of Edina, Rochester, and
Alexandria indicate several approachb towards a solution:
a. Rochester Do nothing with their famous Silver Lake
which hosts tens of thousands of geese because
Zumbro R. flows through lake and flushes it
out. Shakopee Millpond does not have this kind
of a flowage.
b. AlexandriaUses Diquat to kill off all aquatic growth in
a small pond in a neighborhood park. Problem
with this product is that it also will kill
trees along shoreline that has roots touching
the waters edge.
c. Edina Use periodic sprinkling of Copper Sulfate in
ponds with algae problems. This is a fairly
universal temporary solution used elsewhere.
A COOPERATIVE EFFORT OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AND SCHOOL DISTRICT 720 SINCE 1954
P2TIP/
MILLPOND WATER QUALITY PROBLEM
The solution to, this problem is the removeal of nutrients in the
pond. Occasional flooding cannot be stopped. Depletion or removeal
of the birds and their resultant droppings is the only solution:
ALTERNATIVES
1 . Dredging. . . . .This would be an extremely expensive process. Tests
taken of the pond floor in 1960 showed four feet of mud at that
time. The pond is approximately five acres in size. There is not
only the tons of soil to be removed, but also how to deposit it
on land to not be an environmental disaster. Without any removal
of birds, the process would continue with the new droppings.
2. Application of Copper Sulfate periodically. (once a month in
June, July, and August ). Would require permit from DNR and would
cost approximately $ 75.00/application. Would kill off algae,
but not the weeds. If handled properly will not harm fish or
wildlife. Cannot apply more than 3 times/season.
3. Selective removal of birds 100% removal of geese and ducks
would be questionable because most people enjoy having them
present. Mr Strupek of the Shakopee House is agreeable to
listening to the idea of cutting back on the feed supply given
daily on his property to the birds. Dimishing this daily feeding
would in turn cut back on the number of geese and ducks that are
attracted to the pond. Mk- David Zappatello, DNR Aquatic Biologist,
has verified this procedure.
4. Do nothing Recognize that algae will exist when nutrients
are present in water and not worry about it.
RECOi.114ENDATION
1 . Apply Copper Sulfate to the Millpond ib the summer of 19$2 after
securing a permit from the Minnesota Dpartment Of Natural Resources
in accordance with procedures dictated by that agency.
2. Meet with Mr Strupek of the Shakopee House, Inc. to request that
the feeding of wild fowl on his premises be diminished to an extent
agreeable to both parties.
ACTION
Move to direct Staff to :
1 . Apply to the Minnesota Department Of Natural Resources for a permit
to apply Copper Sulfate to the Shakopee Memorial Park Millpond
waters during the summer of 19$2 at a rate in compliance with the
DNR rules and procedures.
2. Meet with Mr Tony Strupek of ttfe Shakopee House, Inc. to reach an
agreement regarding the cutting back on feeding of wild fowl on
the Shakopee House premises beginning immediately.
_ �,.,.. __.w W .........._.....
.L _
, . . r-Fx .‘ , .../, / - - 1
4.3
-;:, 1, . Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
'' 'AVAIII01-'
Mr. George Muenchow
Director of Parks and Recreation
Shakopee Community Services
129 Levee Drive
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Mr. Muenchow:
Thank you for your inquiry about the Mill Pond adjacent to Memorial Park in
Shakopee.
The nuisance, eutrophic conditions we discussed are caused by nutrients, main-
ly phosphorus and nitrogen, entering the pond. This allows algae (microscopic
aquatic plants) to flourish in the warm, shallow water.
An investigation by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency staff was performed
on August 30, 1979. At that time, it was noted that there were no point
sources discharging nutrients to the pond. In the absence of discharges to
the Mill Pond, the most likely sources of nutrients are waterfowl and the
Minnesota River. A large concentration of waterfowl can add significant
amounts of nutrients to a small water body. As we discussed, many ducks and
geese frequent the Mill Pond. The Minnesota River also carries moderate to
high concentrations of nutrients. At times of high water, the river inundates
the Mill Pond and imparts its own water chemistry characteristics to the pond.
As long as large numbers of waterfowl use the Mill Pond and the Minnesota
River periodically flows into it, there is very little that can be done to
improve the condition of this water body.
Sincerely,
r
A. . -4- - )--
0 is
Larry A. Livesay, Biologist
Lake Studies Unit
Monitoring and Analysis Section
Division of Water Quality
LAL:jln
Phone: 612/296-7746
1935 West County Road B2, Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Regional Offices • Duluth/Brainerd,Detroit Lakes/Marshall/Rochester
Equal Opportunity Employer
0J
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: Partial Prepayment of Special Assessments
DATE: September 24, 1981
Introduction:
The Special Assessment Policy adopted by Council in 1978 permits partial
prepayment of special assessments by property owners and tax exempt owners.
(See attached excerpt.)
Background:
The current policy was adopted prior to my employment with the City and there-
fore I do not know what discussion preceeded the provisions for partial
payments. With continuing attempts to ease the workload wherever possible
for the Finance Department and to simplify the most complicated and trying
aspect of municipal finance, I request that Council consider amending the
special assessment policy to not allow partial prepayments. Minnesota
Statutes do not allow partial prepayment unless permitted by ordinance,
City Policy was adopted by resolution. I have no indication of the probable
frequency of private partial prepayment but am not aware of any desires or
inquires for tax exempt partial prepayments.
A quick survey of six (6) cities showed that four (4) did not accept partial
payments.
Alternatives:
1. Change policy to not accept partial payments and conform to state law.
2. Adopt ordinance providing for partial prepayments.
Recommendation:
#1, do not accept partial prepayments in order to simplify the special
assessment process and reduce administrative workload and fallow state law.
Requested Action:
Move to not accept partial prepayments on assessments and direct staff to
prepare a resolution amending the Special Assessment Policy.
GV/ljw
I r 1)t
V. ASSESSMENT POLICIES APPLICABLE TO ALL TYPES OF IMPROVEMENTS
Where an improvement is constructed which is of special
benefit to properties within a definable area , it is the intent of
the City Council that special assessments be levied against the
benefited properties within that area to the extent that the
costs of such project can be deemed to benefit the properties .
The following generol principles shall be used as a basis of
the City ' s assessment policy :
1 . The "project cost" of an improvement shall be deemed to
include the costs of all necessary construction work re-
quired to accomplish the improvement , plus engineering,
legal , administrative , financing and other contingent
costs , including acquisition of right of way and property .
The financing charges shall include all applicable costs
of financing the project . These costs include but are not
limited to - financial consultant ' s fees, Moody ' s fee, bond
attorney ' s fees and capitalized interest . When the project
is started and funds are expended prior to receiving the
proceeds from a bond sale , the project will be charged in-
terest on the funds expended from the date of expenditure to
the date the bond proceeds are received . The interest rate
charged will be the average interest rate earned by the
City ' s investments during the six months preceeding the
receipt of the bond proceeds . The interest charged to
the project shall be included as financing charges .
2 . Interest Rate - The City of Shakopee will charge interest
on special assessments at a rate specified in the resolu-
tion . The interest rate shall be two percent (2%) more
• than the average interest rate of the bonds sold to finance.
• the improvement project . The interest rate shall be round-
• ed to the nearest quarter of a percent . The interest rate
shall not exceed the maximum rate allowed by state law.
3 . Property owners may pay their assessments in full (interest
free) for a period of 30 days after the assessment hearing.
After such period interest shall be computed from the date
specified in the assessment resolution. The. City will cert-
ify each year ' s collection (principal and interest) to the
County Auditor by October 10. Prior to the first certifi-
cation of principal and interest to the County Auditor, a
property owner may make a partial pre-payment of the prin-
cipal to the City of Shakopee . Such partial pre-payment
shall be a minimum amount of $100.00. If the partial pre-
payment is made after the 30 day "interest free" period
allowed by state law, interest will be charged on the amount
of the partial pre-payment from the date specified in the
resolution and paid along with the partial pre-payment .
After the City of Shakopee has made the first certification
of principal and interest to the County Auditor, pre-payment
• will be accepted only for the remaining principal balance
plus any interest . If a parcel has two or more separate
special assessments, pre-payment of the remaining principal
. /
It•
V . Continued
3 . balance may be made on one or more . Provided , however, tax
exempt parcels such as churches , school districts , and other
public tax exempt buildings will be allowed to make a partia
pre-payment at any time during the term of the special asses
ment . The minimum partial pre-payment shall be one half of
the principal balance at the time of pre-payment . The tax
exempt parcel 'will be allowed to make only one partial pre-
payment during the term of the special assessment . The re-
maining principal after the partial pre-payment will be paid
in equal installments over the remaining term of the special
assessments . A tax exempt parcel will also be allowed to
make a partial pre-payment prior to the first certification
to the County Auditor.
4 . Where the current improvement is installed as an extention
of an existing improvement in which the City, through the
use of courses other than special assessments, has partici-
pated in the costs of such existing system, and where the
area served by such current improvement can be shown to.
benefit directly from the City ' s prior expenditures, the
special assessments levied against the properties served by
the newly extended improvement may include a "system charge"
equal to that portion of the City' s prior expenditures which,
in the opinion of the City Council , are chargeable to the
area served by the current extension.
Whenever the City intends to include a "system charge" as
a part of the assessable cost for an improvement , the
notices of public hearing sent to the property owners
prior to the making of the improvement shall specify the
total amount of such "system charge" to be made against
the proposed improvement .
5 . Where an improvement is designed for service of an area
beyond that of direct benefit , increased project costs due
to such provisions for future service extensions may be
funded by the City as a "system cost ." This "system cost"
may be funded by the City to be assessed as a "system charge"
together with direct benefits for lateral utility lines as
stated in paragraph 4, above, or may be assessed to the area
of future benefit immediately .
6 . Where the project cost of an improvement is not entirely
attributable to the need for service to the area served by
said improvement , or where unusual conditions beyond the
control of the owners of the property in the area served by
the improvement would result in an inequitable distribution
of special assessments, the City, through the use of other
funds , may pay such "City cost" which, in the opinion of the
City Council , represents the excess cost not directly attri-
butable to the area served .
.
(6)
0 0 0 0000 01 00 00000 co OD a) 0 I•-' 0 00 •00W 0 U) , //e___
H H H H H I--' H a) H H H H H H H H H H H W H H F-' 0) (7) I--' (D
•P 4 •A 4 A 4 4 4 .A .A 4 •A 4 •A -A •A 4 4 A A W •A .A W _CO J' c
W CO Co CO WWW U1 W Co Co Co Co Co W c0 c0 c0 co 0 -.1 N N co W •
(0 co (0 NIN) NIr H '\7 --1 -.1 --7 -.1 •.1 -.1 N N N) c0 O W NN HH c0 a
0 OHHHHH c0 00 H H H H H 01 A �) 0 W H O O O H O -
t
a)
W A H W -4CA) Co 01 -A Co 0) a) W1--• 1-• c0 c0 (0 a) a) O W rn 0 0 I--' H H
H H N) H N Co 0 O N 01 N H N co co H H H N N 0 H N 0 0 U1 I
H H H H H I-' H H -.7 H N H H N) I-' H H H H H O H N O O H 'TJ 9
(A) -4 I--' CA) -ACA) W -4 -4 CA) CnrnWHH (0 c0 (0 a) a) O W (5 00 H QC ()
H H N) H N co Ui H N 01 N H NCO CO H H H N N) 0 H N 00 Ul CD 0
W H
0 0 0 0000 0 00 00000 au W 00 O H 0 00 W W 0
H H H H H H H 07 HH H H H H H H H H H W H HH IMM H
H H H H H H H H HH H H H H H H H H H H H HI--' H H H n
0 0 0 0000 0 00 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0
H H H H H H H H HH H H H H H H H H H H H HH H H H
0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 00 C n
Cm
H
H
H
01 N W 4
H H
N NH N CO W (J1 CO CO W H 0) 01 0 N) O H 01 (0 A
01 0 W •A --7 -1 -4 01 Ul a) H co co a) co 4 4 0 0 0 N .p W a J 0
0 0 0 Wc0c0c0 A -1c0 0OHN00 0 0 0 0 M C N U10 0 o
c-'
0 0 0 0000 A N H v O W O c0 cn Ul O O O J v -(1 Co (-0 C :�
H
a
n U)
C (D O H - -- Z :V ;C1 :U co Co :l7 0 H0 U) td
(D H CD - - - = CT a B 0 �' Q, M C CD 0
cr H
o 0 Cl) (D (D C) I— I-'• H' 0 M C = 0 CD • 0
C)
H H S2o o 0 = _ _ I-1 c-r rt c•r c r 0 C/) C 1 0 x
_ 1-1 _ go tIo c I H • a H U) rn H
m Cl) Cn 0
H
H) _ _ _ Cn p) 3 C R° O c r <
C R
Qs, Q. 0 (D 'b H 3 r• ° Si) U) c< R° x'
a C) Cl) 0
co T' 0 U) n 0 I
H) H) H :: _ cn d C H 'i C ;x
r Cl) . c-r `° H C H)
•
cT 3 H m C 0)
• C, M 'i Cl.
0) (D CD
0)
CZo _ _ = Z 0 3 X MI r H r U) C =
DZ r
3' = Z H
� 0 d • � b C 0
(D Cr) • _ _ _ (D = _ _
'O H pSQ = - cD (D H H • r = N
H. UI H 0 H 0'D U) H C
R I Cl) m c H) • Z o Cl)Z c< O t, (D • (D nrri
a ,1 O H• 0 H C X Cl a
i 0
N f20 - 0 CDD C U) C _
[n n ¢) O W C
0 ,-�
I-'• H H
'b zT H CD
O C "i
H C 0
N• CD Iv
C) ¢ •
CD
H
H
01 N) J
(-)
H' H H 0) W H 0 (0
N N) H 44. 03 (0 CO 01 0 0 N 0 H 01 4
U1 O Co W U1 N W •A A0 O O N -,1 CO O
0 0H
00 4 a) N) 0 -1 0 0 0 a) co 0
O 0 0 U1 -P Co (0 CTI U1 0 0 0 �l ) 0
co (0 c0 (0 c0 c0 (0 (0 (0 (0 c0 (0 (0 (0 c0 c0 n
N) N N N N) N) N) N) N N N) N N) N N N 7
v 01 A co (c) (0 (0 Co •Co co a) a) a) z
0 (0 a) - rn 01 4 \ o
H p 00 00 00 00 . 0o 0 U)
J H H H H H H H CD
. 't:1
- -P ,A .A • - A Cl
(J1 CO CO CO CO Cfl N •
0 N N OD Ni Ni Ni
J • CO 0 H N H 0 - C7
• H • • • • OD CI
O N CO CO co CO CO (A) H' Ozi
COCO (nHH0 H H H H H H H H i•-' I H
0) H 0) J CO H 0 H H H H F-' H H H 'ii
1 1 1 1 1 1 Cl • Ni (ll y
1-0000 '00 A) cO CO CO CO CO W 04 n
A) O A) ) CD H H H H H H H H CD C)
''i O ''S 0' H
ct HHtr1 ;O ) (<
H 3 ) CD H
C1 'd C) En 'Tl H CO CO CO 00 00 0
CD H 'j I-'• CD '17 C �7 OH H H H H H h-'
0' 11 O 'O 11 C • n
ct < • < cl. H Hct a H H H H H H 7�
CI) CD (1) a C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U) h--' H H H H H H H
CD CD CD '11 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n
< ctO H
H 01 H CI
C) < {
CD I-'• N
0 (n
04 0 H 01 CT Ni
'xi Ul 0 H .p 6/ CJ) 00 01
W 01 p 0 0) 0) 0 H
H CO J 0 0 v CO
CL 0
•
o
CO 0 0 -A 0 H 01 U1 Cl
0 (0 0) 0 0 OD 0 Z
N H
OHN U1
0 -0C1O Y N i
01 CO H H O1 O C31 b txi CD p CD CD CD ed
ODUl �1000I1O �1 '1 n B (< 5 3 H
-A OD CO cn H O I"'' C7 • > I-'• 11 H• H' CD n
• Cl O c-t ct hi x
Ooa1O.14 000 P n7 H
�1 -10O •A00 Cnn N H '=1 H 'TJ U) H
CD 0 ct H H H
O CD H A) y U) 0 H C✓ rri
H) 0 < 'C7
frlJ H I-• 'O
pzi
P a. H.R. H,O4 H-
&I
Cl) CD
Q. O4 (n
N
C) `i7 H H CJ) C)
• rt t=i Cl) CD ct 0
H. L R Cl g) H'
C) O ct H)
A) n, Z (D • 0
hi
O � cct c H 0 C
H) CD m
G1 H H CD z
o
x i 1 A) C
U) U) Cl) cI zi
H CD O < I—
• (1)
(D ) 11 () H•
C) o o hi G H'
X' '0 '71 CD ct
Cl) CD CD CD
CD CD CD ¢.
71 .
N .
0 0
O H U1 0) 0) Ni
. n
Cn 0 F-+ -IR 0) 0) 00 01 7C
CO CP O 0 rn 0) 0 H
•A H O CO .1 0 0 �1 CO P>
0• 0 .A • H--' 01 Ul H
03
0 CO 0) 0 0 co 0
n
CO kip CO CO CO CO CO CO x
(.J' W W CO CO CO N N
0 04. 0 0 0 0 cO cO 0
CD CO N) H 0 CO CO
d
t �
•
MEMO TO: John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: Don Steger
City Planner
RE: Seven-Man Committee
DATE: September 21, 1981
Background:
In 1975, two agreements between the City of Shakopee and Jackson Township
were signed. The first agreement (Attachment A) dealt with orderly
annexation and stipulated the terms covering annexation of property from
Jackson Township into Shakopee. The second agreement (Attachment B) was
a Joint Powers Agreement involving these two units of government along
with Scott County. This agreement created the Seven-Man Committee and
established its function as a joint planning and zoning committee. The
members consisted of three from the Township, three from the City and one
from the County. The original agreement in 1975 gave the Seven-Man
Committee full authority over planning and zoning matters in the southwest
portion of Shakopee and part of Jackson Township.
The County Attorney's office has voiced the opinion that the original Joint
Powers Agreement establishing the Seven-Man Committee is invalid because it
constitutes an improper delegation of authority, according to the Minnesota
law under which the agreement was set up. Because of this, a proposed new
agreement (Attachment C) has been drafted by the County which would
legitimately establish the Seven-Man Committee by using a different
Minnesota law. This proposed new agreement would transfer to the Seven-Man
Committee all planning and zoning authority within the Committee's original
jurisdictional area. The City would not have approval or veto power of
planning and zoning matters and the Seven-Man Committee's decisions would
be final, subject to District Court appeal. I, as the City Planner, strongly
feel that such a transfer of City authority is highly risky and unnecessary.
Such an action may cause very serious development problems in future years
for the southwest portion of the City. The City Attorney agreed that the
proposed agreement could "hand-tie" the City within the Seven-Man Committee's
jurisdictional area. It is my opinion that the Seven-Man Committee should
only be advisory, and have no formal or final authority over City matters.
Alternatives:
The City Council could:
1. Approve the proposed new agreement;
2. Not approve the proposed new agreement;
3. Draft a different agreement which stipulates the function of the Seven-
Man Committee as advisory to the City on planning and zoning matters
within the jurisdictional area.
ft
John Anderson September 21, 981
Seven-Man Committee Page -2-
Recommended City Council Action:
Move not to enter into the proposed new agreement with Jackson Township
and Scott County. This action would essentially terminate the Seven-Man
Committee but should not affect the 1975 orderly annexation agreement.
DS/j iw
Attachments
ET: _ECUTED COPY
0) JOINT RESOLUTION AS TO ORDERLY ANNEXATION:
Tcr,,`1.44yid! JACKSON TOWNSHIP - SHAKOPEE
WHEREAS, recurring boundary adjustments between the
City of Shakopee and the Town of Jackson and uncertainty as to
future adjustments have made joint cooperation and planning
difficult; and
WHEREAS, the Township and City desire to stabilize
and enhance the predictability of the boundary situation insofar
as this is consistent with the rights of property owners and
other citizens; and
WHEREAS, there is a basis for agreement between the
parties for accomplishing these ends and the parties hereto do
hereby set forth the terms of this agreement by means of this
resolution,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township of
Jackson and the City of Shakopee, as follows:
1. That the following described area in Jackson
Township is properly subject to orderly annexa-
tion under and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
414.032, and the parties hereto do hereby
designate this area as in need of orderly
annexation as provided by statute:
That portion of Jackson Township adjacent
to and Southerly of the City of Shakopee
which can presently receive sewer service
from the City of Shakopee by gravity flow
without lift stations, the exact decription
of which shall be agreed upon by engineers for the
City of Shakopee and the Township of Jackson.
It being expressly understood and agreed that
the two parcels of land, whose owners have
petitioned for annexation into the City of
Shakopee by ordinance, and more commonly
known as the "Shopping Center" and the
"McDevitt Farm" will be annexed to the City
of Shakopee by ordinance and will not be
subject to orderly annexation. It is
further agreed that the parcel known as
"Jack's Truck Stop" will present a petition
for annexation by ordinance to the City of
Shakopee, which petition is agreed to by the
parties hereto and therefore will not be
subject to orderly annexation.
That the Township of Jackson does upon the passage
of this resolution and it's adoption by the Council
of the City of Shakopee, confer jurisdiction upon
the Minnesota Municipal Commission so as to
accomplish said orderly annexation in accordance
with the terms of this resolution.
2. That no annexation will take place anywhere
within the area designated as in need of orderly
annexation unless the area involved is or is about
to become urban or suburban in character and
unless the City has available and is capable of
providing the municipal services required by the
area.
3. That neither the City nor the Township will initiate
any further annexations within the above described
orderly annexation area without the other's
approval for a period of two (2) years from the
date of final execution of this agreement. It is
understood by the parties that this agreement will
not preclude the Minnesota Municipal Commission from
initiating such annexations in response to petitions
of property owners or in other extraordinary
circumstances, but the parties urge that the
Commission enforce this limited moratorium to
enhance local planning and cooperation. If however,
any federal, state, metropolitan, or local governmental
unit or agency with authority to do so, directs the
City of Shakopee to service any portion of Jackson
Township with municipal services, such area as is
so ordered shall become a portion of the area
designated as in need of orderly annexation under
the terms of this agreement.
4. That the City agrees not to comment _ or approve any
annexations outside the above described orderly
4
9
annexation area until such time as bids are let for
construction within Jackson Township, of the so-called
"Jackson Interceptor". It is agreed and understood
that the City of Shakopee will neither approve nor
instigate any such annexations for a period of
one hundred eighty days (180) after the letting of
such bids, in order to provide Jackson Township
with the opportunity to present to the Municipal
Commission a petition for incorporation. It is the
intent of the parties that should Jackson Township
decide not to so petition for incorporation, or in
the alternative, if Jackson Township should so petition,
and said petition be denied by the Municipal Commission,
that the parties to this agreement will endeavor to
enter into a new agreement providing for orderly
annexation.
5. That the City agrees to extend utilities to
petitioning property owners within the above
described orderly annexation area or in anyarea
included in the orderly annexation area pursuant to
paragraph three (3) of this agreement, at an annual
user charge which shall include the following:
a. The projected actual cost to the
City which is not born by City tax—
payers through general taxation;
b. The property owners' fair share of
utility costs including administration
which are financed from City taxes and
aids;
c. The cost of extending the service which
the Town agrees to assess against the
benefitted property as a prerequisite
to extension.
A hookup charge (in addition to the hetropolitan
Waste Commission hookup charge) shall also
be levied upon extension of the utility equaL
to the depreciated value of the utility s;) tm
divided by the number of users Dispute- to
the amount of the above charges shall be
decided by the Commission and the parties agree
to be bound by it's decisions.
6. That it is understood by the parties that the
provisions of this agreement do not supercede the
statutory authority and responsibility of the
Municipal Commission established by the Legislature.
7. After the expiration of this agreement in the event
that the petition of Jackson Township for incorpora— .
tion is denied, the Township and the City agree
that no annexation will take place within the
Township of Jackson unless the area involved is or is
about to become urban or suburban in character
and unless the City has available and is capable of
providing the municipal services required by the
area. The construction and availability of the
"sewer interceptor" in the unincorporated area shall
not by itself be considered the area urban or
suburban in character.
•
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
' Passed and adopted by the City of Shakopee this 8th
day of Sppt.emh8r , 1975.
ATTEST:
By 41e c- �r��I.
It's Mayor
/10 c \- 9zzy
City Clerk
TOWN OF JACKSON
Passed and adopted by the Town of Jackson this lith
day of September , 1975.
ATTEST:
ByL!//�JZ ?5 '??
It's Chairman
/'
4 Ow eft/e A6/1
Town Cle
A JOINT POWERS AG-Di InGT BETWEEN
SCOTT COUNTY AND THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE
AND TOWNSHIP OF JACKSON FOR PLANNING
AND LAND USE CONTROL
WHEREAS, the parties to this agreement have common
or similar powers to plan for and control land uses; and
WHEREAS, guiding orderly development in the below
described area involves interdependent interests of the citizens
of the three governmental parties requiring joint planning and
cooperation; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 471.39 provides for the
joint exercise of governmental authority irrespective of political
boundaries by joint agreement, and the governmental parties
hereto desire to set forth the terms of the agreement by means
of this resolution,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the County of Scott
and the City of Shakopee and Township of Jackson, as follows:
1. That the purpose of agreement is to provide, in
consideration of the mutual agreements herein contained, for
joint planning and land use control in the following described
area:
That portion of Jackson Township North of the more
Northerly Bluff area in Jackson Township the exact
description for which shall be determined by the
engineers for the City of Shakopee and Township of
Jackson. Moreover all areas of Jackson Township
which are annexed to the City of Shakopee pursuant
to the orderly annexation joint resolution of the
same date as this joint resolution, shall be included
in said area. Moreover, those two areas which are
being annexed to the City of Shakopee by ordinance,
commonly known as "the Shopping Center" and "the
McDevitt, Farm" shall be included in this area.
Moreover that portion of Tahpah Park and Lions Park
presently located in the City of Shakopee which may
affect Jackson Township by virtue of drainage questions,
the exact description for which shall be determined
by the engineers for the City of. Shakopee and
Township of Jackson, shall be included in this area.
It is understood and agreed that the legal descrip—
tions for the above described property shall be
determined by the engineers for the City of Shakopee
and the Township of Jackson and inserted into this
agreement as an addendum thereto.
N
Gi' L,
2. That the parties hereby delegate their complete
authority and jurisdiction for planning and land use control
in the above described area to the below described seven man
committee. It is agreed that the decisions of this committee
will be final, subject to District Court appeal.
3. That the seven man committee shall be composed of
one representative appointed by the County Board, three
representatives appointed by the Town Board and three representa—
tives appointed by the City Council. The members shall serve
at the pleasure of the governing body which they represent. They
may be replaced at any time by their governing bodies.
4. That the seven man committee shall follow the
procedures contained in Minnesota Statutes 394.21 to 391.37 in
adopting or amending official controls and shall also have the
duties of a board of adjustment outlined therein.
5. That the City of Shakopee shall be responsible
for administering and enforcing committee decisions for all areas
within the joint land use control area which are served by
sewer or water by the City of Shakopee, and the committee shall
select an administrator who is granted responsibility for
administering and enforcing committee decisions for the remain—
ing joint planning area, though this will not preclude actions
for the enforcement by the parties in the event that the administrator
fails to do so.
6. That the seven committee members shall consult
with their respective governing bodies in all major decisions.
The governing bodies retain the right to instruct their committee
representatives to vote for or against particular proposals.
7. That the existing zoning in the above described area
shall continue in effect until properly modified by the committee
pursuant to public notice and public hearing.
IA/
8. The committee shall determine and designate all
financial arrangements necessary to accomplish the planning,
zoning, or enforcement as contemplated by this joint powers
agreement. Each governmental unit shall be responsible for
reimbursing expenses of the members representing that govern—
mental unit, and to pay any such member such stipend as is
agreed upon by the respective governmental unit.
9. That this agreement shall remain in full force
and effect for the purposes stated herein for a period commencing
on the date of it's final execution, until one hundred eighty (180)
days after letting of the bids for the construction within Jackson
Township, of the so=called "Jackson Interceptor" sewer system,
unless terminated by mutual consent of all the parties, or
superceded by a subsequent agreement of all the parties.
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF MINNESOTA
City of Shakopee
Office of the City Clerk
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a
true and correct copy of the Resolution
presented to and adopted by the City Council of the City of
Shakopee at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the 8th
day of September —, 1975, as shown by the minutes of
said meeting.
�.
•
City Clerk
CERTIFICATION
TIFICATION
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Town of Jackson
Office of the Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a
true and correct copy of the Resolution _
presented to and adopted by the Town Board of the Town of ci
Jackson at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the
day of >.y , , 1975, as shown by the minutes of said
meeting.
6TOWCk
- CERTIFICATION
STATE OF MINNESOTA
County of Scott
Office of the County Administrator
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a
true and correct copy of the Resolution
presented to and adopted by the County Board of the Scott County
Board of Commissioners at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on
the 9th day of September ,1975, as shown b; the minutes of said
meeting. 2
N
1�Iounty Administrator
Attatc,k,r.ct-
A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN
SCOTT COUNTY AND THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE
AND TOWNSHIP OF JACKSON FOR PLANNING
AND LAND USE CONTROL
WHEREAS, the parties to this agreement have common or similar powers to plan
and control land uses; and
WHEREAS, guiding orderly development in the below described area involves
interdependent interests of the citizens of the three governmental parties requiring
joint planning and cooperation; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 414.033 provides for the establishment of a
board to exercise planning and land use control authority within any area designated
as an orderly annexation area by joint resolution and the governmental parties hereto
desire to set forth the terms of the agreement by means of this resolution,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the County of Scott and the City of Shakopee
and Township of Jackson as follows:
1. That the purpose of agreement is to provide, in consideration of the
mutual agreements 'herein contained, for joint planning and land use control in the
following described area:
That portion of Jackson Township North of the more Northerly
Bluff area in Jackson Township the exact description for which
shall be determined by the engineers for the City of Shakopee
and Township of Jackson. Moreover all areas of Jackson Township
which are annexed to the City of Shakopee pursuant to the orderly
annexation joint resolution of the same date as this joint resolution,
shall be included in said area. Moreover, those two areas which are
being annexed to the City of Shakopee by ordinance, commonly known
as "the Shopping Center" and "the McDevitt Farm" shall be included
in this area. Moreover that portion of Tahpah Park presently located
in the City of Shakopee which may affect Jackson Township by virtue
of drainage questions, the exact description for which shall be
determined by the engineers for the City of Shakopee and Township of
Jackson, shall be included in this area. It is understood and agreed
that the legal descriptions for the above described property shall be
determined by the engineers for the City of Shakopee and the Township
of Jackson and inserted into this agreement as an addendum thereto.
2. In the above described area the below seven man committee shall have all
of the powers contained in Minn. Stat . Sections 462. 351 to 462 . 364. It is agreed
that the decisions of this committee will be final , subject to District Court
appeal.
-1- + r v
3. That the seven man committee shall be compnr;(.d of one representative
appointed by the County Board, three representatives appointed by the Town Board
and three representatives appointed by the City Council . The members shall serve
at the pleasure of the governing body which they represent. They may be replaced at
anytime by their governing bodies for good cause shown.
4. That the seven man committee shall follow the procedure contained in
Minnesota Statutes 462.351 to 462.364 in adopting or amending official controls and
shall also have the duties of the board of adjustment outlined herein.
5. That the City of Shakopee shall be responsible for administering and
enforcing committee decisions for all areas within the joint use control area which
are served by sewer or water by the City of Shakopee, and the committee shall select
an administrator who is granted responsibility for administering and enforcing
committee decisions for the remaining joint planning area, though this will not
preclude actions for the enforcement by the parties in the event that the administrator
fails to do so.
6. That the seven committee members shall consult with the respective governing
bodies on all major decisions. The governing bodies retain the right to instruct
their committee representatives to vote for or against particular proposals.
7. That the existing zoning in the above described area shall continue in
effect until properly modified by the committee pursuant to notice and hearing.
8. The committee shall determine and designate all financial arrangements
necessary to accomplish the planning, zoning or enforcement as contemplated by this
joint powers agreement, and each governmental unit shall be responsible for reimbursing
expenses of the members representing that governmental unit, and to pay any such
member such stipend as is agreed upon by the committee.
9. That this agreement shall remain in full force and effect that the
purposes stated herein for a period commencing on the date of it 's final execution,
until ninety (90) days after letting of the bids for the construction within Jackson
•
Township, of the so-called "Jackson Interceptor" sewer system, unless terminated by
mutual consent of all the parties, or superseded by a subsequent agreement of
all the parties.
Adopted by the City Council of Shakopee, this day of , 1981 .
Mayor
ATTEST:
, City Clerk
Adopted by the County Board of Commissioners of Scott County this
day of , 1981 .
Chairman, County Board of Commissioners
ATTEST:
, County Administer as Clerk of the Board
Adopted by the Town Board of Supervisors of Jackson Township this
day of 1981 .
Chairman, Town Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
_ _ , Town Clerk
-3-
JDaL,
MEMO TO: John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: Don Steger
City Planner
RE: Policy on Lot Splits
DATE: September 28, 1981
At the September 10, 1981 meeting, the Shakopee Planning Commission approved
a policy regarding the simple splitting of existing platted lots. It was
intended to make the splitting of platted property as quick and easy as
possible, which necessitated modifying the formal subdivision process. The
approved Planning Commission policy on lot splits is being recommended to
the City Council for approval. The recommended policy is as follows:
For splitting existing lots with existing buildings -- a simple
review by the Planning Commission would be required (no preliminary
or final plat is necessary).
For splitting existing lots which contain no buildings -- a
preliminary and final plat reviewed concurrently by both the
Planning Commission and City Council would be required (normal
subdivision process regarding public hearing would be followed).
Because of the existing wording in the Subdivision Regulation, no amendment
to this Ordinance is necessary in order to adopt this policy.
Requested City Council Action:
Motion to approve the Lot Split Policy as recommended by the
Planning Commission on September 10, 1981.
DS/jiw
lob
MEMO TO : John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk
RE : Additional Easement for CR-16 Utilities
DATE : October 1 , 1981
Introduction
On September 8, 1981 Council directed staff to enter into nego-
tiations with Lindstrand and Grayson to acquire 10 feet of
additional r-o-w on the north side of CR-16 , to be paid for out
of the construction contingency fund.
Background
During the discussion on the assessments on the 8th the City
Engineer informed the Council that it was necessary to acquire
additional easement because of the close proximity of the tele-
phone conduit within the r-o-w. He indicated that the estimated
cost for acquiring the needed easement would be approximately
$13 , 600.
As it turned out , the additional easement was negotiated at $8000
so that the total cost for the expanded easement from Grayson and
Lindstrand is $16 ,300.00, $8, 300 of which was determined through
condemnation and has already been paid .
Alternatives
a) Acquire the needed additional easement at a cost of $8 ,000.
b) Direct staff to negotiate cost .
c) Don ' t acquire easement .
Action Requested
Authorize the payment of $8,000 to Grayson & Lindstrand for an
additional easement for the CR-16 Utilities Improvement 80-4 to
be paid for out of the construction contingency fund .
JSC/jms
1oC
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clem/
RE: Publications
DATE : October 1 , 1981
Introduction
Pursuant to your request , I have checked with the City Attorney
regarding the legal requirements of publishing the Council minutes ,
resolutions and ordinances .
Background
It has been the practice of the City to publish all minutes with
bills , ordinances , resolutions , and miscellaneous legal notices .
Copies of all publications are grouped together, according to
type, and copied for our permanent records by the Shakopee Valley
News .
Mr. Coller has informed me that we must publish the minutes and
the ordinances ; however, we need not publish the bills or the
resolutions , unless the Council or a resolution would so direct .
An example of when we may wish to publish a resolution would be
when the Council is commending someone for their services .
City expenses would be reduced if publication of the bills and
resolutions was discontinued.
Alternatives
1 . Publish resolutions and bills .
2 . Publish only resolutions the Council or a resolution would so direct.
3 . Discontinue with publishing the bills .
Suggest implementing any changes beginning with Council actions taken
after October 1 , 1981 .
Recommended Action
Move to direct staff to discontinue the publication of the bills
and resolutions (except those regtested) beginning October 1 , 1981 .
JSC/jms
/ 03'
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland , Finance Director
RE: Charges to Fund 58 - 1981-A Bond Issue
DATE: September 17 , 1981
Introduction
A review of transactions recorded in Fund 58 - 1981-A improvements
shows several transactions over the past three years that have been
paid for by a different fund .
Background
At the time various bills come in for preliminary phases of a pro-
ject , it is sometimes difficult to determine where the project will
end up being financed from. This situation can exist for several
years and is compounded by the nulzmer of projects affecting the
City. To correct the siutation for funds 58 , 59 and 60 and bring
them up to date , request the following transfers approved as a
result of expenditures in 1979 and 1980.
Hauer Laterals From Fund 58 to Fund 59 16 , 847 . 95
CR 16 Utilities From Fund 58 to Fund 59 420. 50
Adams 4th to 9th From Fund 01 to Fund 58 2 , 365 .43
Wienandt From Fund 58 to Fund 01 24.47
101 Front From Fund 60 to Fund 58 18 . 51
MN Valley 3rd From Fund 01 to Fund 59 138.00
Valley Park 5th From Fund 01 to Fund 59 453. 8Q
Deans Lake Outlet From Fund 01 to Fund 59 12 ,000.00
Action Requested
Move to approve the transfer of $17 ,268 .45 from fund 58 (1981-A
Improvements) to fund 59 (1982-A Improvements) , $24.47 from fund
58 to fund 01 (General Fund) , $2 , 365.42 from fund 01 to fund 58 ,
$12 ,591 . 89 from fund 01 to fund 59 and $18 . 51 from fund 60 (1982-B
Improvements) to fund 58 .
GV/jms
`` cee ePf CITY ® F SHAKOPEE
i ',�-`•tap
- of 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 ! V
c 0.
sagegaimMinistaiewswaime
MEMO
TO: John K. Anderson
FROM: LeRoy Houser
SUBJECT: Moved Building Bonds
DATE: September 18, 1981
Introduction:
The Ordinance requires a bond to be posted in the amount I
deem necessary before issuing a permit to move a building.
Background:
The bonding requirement is for performance purposes. I now
find it is difficult for persons to secure a bond that have
no performance record (average homeowner) and they are extreme-
ly expensive - $500.00 for a $5,000.00 bond.
Could we change the wording to "Bond or Cash equivalent, " this
would provide for a certified check.
Alternatives :
1 . No Change
2 . Change Ordinance to read "Bond or Cash Equivalent" .
Recommendation:
Change Ordinance to read "Bond or Cash Equivalent" as indicated in
Alternative number 2 .
Action Requested :
Direct staff to prepare appropriate Ordinance amending the current
Ordinance requiring filing a bond for moving a building when a
conditional use permit is granted.
/()
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: Hauer Escrow
DATE: September 24, 1981
Introduction & Background
The City has held money in the "Hauer Escrow" for several years.
The assessments for Parkridge Drive were reduced by the balance
of the escrow at the time assessments were adopted. As of this
date, no action has been taken to authorize the transfer of the
monies from the escrow to the improvement fund. Request Council
authorize the transfer of the balance ($6,126.97) of the "Hauer
Escrow" to the 1980 Imrpovement Fund to follow through on Council's
intent.
Requested Action
Council move to authorize the transfer of the balance of the "Hauer
Escrow" in the amount of $6,126.97 to the 1980 Improvement Fund.
GV/ljw
`00E tP- CITY OF SHAKOPEE
/4,-4 ,
4ta'. A Nys /DG
4 f 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
dw' • i1'
MEMO
TO: John Anderson/City Council
FROM: LeRoy Houser
SUBJECT: Traffic control 3rd & Fuller
DATE: September 29 , 1981
Introduction:
We have a traffic control problem on 3rd and Fuller. Three
accidents and numerous near misses in the last three months
confirm this.
Background:
I have talked to the police and engineer and all have agreed there
is a traffic problem. To many blind spots on three of the block
corners and no one pays attention to the yield sign.
Recommendation:
Install a stop sign for North, South traffic on 3rd and Fuller.
Alternative :
1 . Illiminate all blind spots on this corner, two power poles ,
one bush, one 3 ' diameter tree .
2 . Do nothing.
3. Install the stop signs as requested.
Action Requested:
Direct staff to install North, South stop signs on 3rd and Fuller.
%
/ 6t2
w w rc H ,Priority r
it vt 1 \,n r\ VI \J1 N Ut
CO 1 ( ,3\ t. Cl Co W T ,Fun d
w
0 vi
P. 0 0 0 v' O O VI X11
�D OJ "1 a\ �; W N �r D'U({r�1P: �:llrrlt):r, 1
c+
CD
P' •
Ca 0 vi rD m H r=J C'1 t=J L=7 t i E L.t] cn 0
Pc+ O I-' cf f3, c+ U) 0 cf in c+ H. c+ H
/ • 0 P (D H• g
cf W N• fn .~s N W rn
a rC (11 (D 0 rD rD c rD M 0- c+ (1) O CD
Cip
v c� p c� rn c7 m p F a a a P 11 -4) la R )1
no
OCi) 0 c+ 0 ' O ] R- O '0 O 'i C'] O' +� 0 CD
c+ R' I c+ c+ 0
N u, 'i rn al0 K W DIcf
co 0 O .. 'i c+ 0\ .. < .. U1 cf N ..
o H CD Uencrii,t,ion
II 0 Ef! IWC fir H? 0 fF} -EA- N E9 a
• D4V P. c+ N .
O to ON W c+ 0 N Ca O c+N
o 0 F-' I-, V1 00 . 0 0CD O W
O 0 a -J • 0 0 0 v O a N cf
cA+ 0 0 0 (D 0 CID 0 O 0 W P.
0 0 0 rD 0 O W 0
O O 0 'l7 O 0 Co
O 0 O ib
O 0 O 0
lD
p
c+
1-•• v, JiLaibi1 [I,;f
Co - Report
°\
rue
• a proval
rn
Co• -1 ---- 'Public E-;
co h1 'c
ari nu,
tri
Il tri
• t
0 • N 0and =
a
• c co 11'lans
Spec Inuit ions
t:r H G
c4 • "td
• v
v, 05 V Right-of-Way
a a Acquisition
N rxi
0 2
•
e : rn w y
0 co — 113id
i 1-' co o Date op a
•-,-
r_-•
Co Assessment,
mtri
c-tH0 co aD a Hearing xl
N N '-cJ
N C�
o . o ion: co • a) •• c CO a' 1CoinpleL
Uate
07 N H • . 0
H S 0 t,I o W 1
� n l� .. ( � ( 1 c) to ., <) IU . : () to ,ti Ul
O
H
Cl) H H vi H NH O �p
O N 0 O\ 0 N W --1 0 Ch-4 Opp Engineer
'd 0 0 0 O N 0 011 01 003 0 O N p\ 0 -P' ct) 0 `13' vO O O
(to
I3
Q'
ro
il H• -a H H 4- w.. , C\v, Pechnician III ('
O
N W 0 0 0 '0 W H W 0—1 0 H �" 4-- vi COW 0 \.n 0 0 vi 0 0
O .1
N N U
N CO v, u, 0 0 0 0 w i-' 'p n Technician II H
'O N0 NNS Co N I..JN u,
Co O Co O O N O Co O HW 0 Ut O 0 N N 003 0 Inspector II cf d
ti
f.. c+
w `.0 N rn1✓- a\\.n Technician I c` cn
0 \0 0 0 0) 0 O\ 0-1 0 I-,� 0 0 N O O N 0 O p inspector I 0 'd
:.s c+
rn
N NN ••i
o
0H0 O 'l1DO� ONN 0OD0 0IV chN OCpH OON 0 �� Secretary fi
N
O
N f_,N f,_, \.n vi
-4 N N a\r0 H \p N N W1-1 N W H Total 'C
NO N 0 WH ND WD ~ ffH OpO'wo �" CoO 1--1‘'Ci H0 0 ION v,lnO 0 vi
N W--" H N o
H W N N O F' I vl\O vl W vt
O N 1 I a C'� O-1 0 N \0 H H fi 0 I O\O\ g
o o u) Engineering
1
i 0 rnw � t CO I - o � O� �� Dept. Feev o NO4 � tv �
w co
-4 cr \-n .p-
II 'Priority
w Ut I \n \s v) I N
p0 v I OD '0 O' H I Rwj Fund
k
v, v,
iu Noff 'Program Number
a rx1 < tri
izi
m m o u ca m HH m' w um `pJp m o
0 cL.+ H c+• CD c+ H ��c-*± M k CCD -• . . F'• N H XX FH'•
O•
124 �(', W H m N Ti M 3 1 B w c+ 0 0 B c+
0 'TJ a, c+ 0 a 0 .{ 0 K (D `G CD • CD
(m a• P . a a (Ti a
C) a Cl o Cl o 0 o w C) . 0 o CD CD o (Ti
m 0 ma 0 0 U 0 b H. L+ (1) m UMD
& II c+ c+ c+ c+ c^ H r+ 0 c+ O K c+ O H. c+
o - G - N. .. H.. g.
II1-4 0 0 K F H N• Description
0 0 HH t7
N H
0 0 CT 0 0 (Ti 0 "1 C CD &&+ 0 H.
V c+ V foi-• V
c► o 0 0 0 m 0 4r 0 0 •D a 0
O O 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 O CDl 0 • H 0 0 (D
n • • I H-'
O 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 H
O O 0 0 O 0 0 0
c+
P.
a) • e o � .,• \ � f'casibi.liY.y
/ • Co ;y p a co
Iiteport
• H N P.
• ~ •
N (Ti
Ori • \n CD p a •
Cl 0 ti a �a SPUC
• �• • • OD t• • ' Approval
c+ H., ' H' • )• c+ b N • Oo
a- P H H
• rn t' v, pxo ti Public z
V o (D r, : .-- (Hearing v
ra
11 •' H • M 0 H • 1-1 i''' . 0JH trj
M.
0• • rn `n c+ 4, k; (Plans and ,-1y ` " Specifications 0
(.4 (D ° �' H 'md tri
Id
• ' o v, K, o• . Right-of-Way
•,, o o Co ° . Acquisition '�
o H C r H H n a.. z
4 . ! g e `3
�' • -a' � 0 \ rn \ \ : Hid
• o r+ CO of 0) co .• Date :;
•• H m H H H H ..
n• • Co H CI) r'
G • o ssessment '`
CI) • Co — • -. :.v
r+ • H o H y Hearing
N O .-J
Co , O
• • v, co • N • H-+ • v, : Lompletion
y
• o o • o • OD • CO • ate
OD ” N H .. H •. H •. N •. .•
o '.z1 o CTJ :-: C: tz1 3 (-) to .� a W C] t7.1 o (xi s :) W
0
CD
Fd
kn Co co O Oo•-I co �� co�' O N N O H O) o -.1 H H H O Engineer
d
11 N H H ' F' ro -a Technician III w
000ti0\ o00 �w oar `s oww o � 0 opo cr
0
• s
•
o H Oo' 01 -No -4 •
� o H N Technician II cn
Hoo 0 00 ° off H� 0 OD o 0 H w 0 Nyco 0 0 0 Inspector II r;'
Ps ct.
o' 7)
N 1---I
`Technician I
OH ^1 00 0 0 H oo �n ons ' ' O o0 0 �0 000 inspector I
U]
lD
'i c+
0 vi O 0 0 O N O N I--' co H O W• 0 0.\co O W O H W (D 'ec etary
d
(D
N
N.) kc) H HN H "-7 .C-- I H WCo ':'otal O
Co -- ' 0 OV-) N ON Co --I - -0) DeN
VI H 0 OD-J O WV) Co' N 'o H W '_., O OlNn N 0 ---1�0 N 4 O H
• VD
Co
H
VI H
H H H N -a rn rn I
Engineering
� (�) W�' N O S kO W . . N C O
I ,
I I \oN O N I Dept. Fee
�'W \ I N R) 0H0\ Co NN -JW 0 \OCo
00.W
v1\40 1'"' O W O> --I i0 t'H'O H v.n�O I W I N\.�
• . O\ i N W N --7 cn -P-- r--.i J H a)I ' N�
* * .* •
w HF f F ' H f '
°` "' r" �' H 0w 'Priority
II ,r. I I \„
It, I , p, (AI I (1''und
0• V1 V1 v, \n \fi V1 V1 \n
: N N N IU N N H i''' 'Program
w N 1-, o vp Co Num,�er
yy
to i7 to 0 to 0J to Id cn' CD N 0 to 0 m it
i-) C+ ~. C�!- H C+ b c+ b Cf c 0- • {�C.y+ ci- H•
:1 B Cl) R tD k I �-) tD w R7r c E P '1
o P) tD cm+ tD P� Co
gS .s �+ CD ix (b c- d c(DD o m ! m o
�, .L Cf a �• �. 0- a H a • a MI-' a 0 a
C ',D 0 tD 0 fD 0 CD 0 O 0 0 Q1 0 a 0 C
c+ lD c+ 0 to•
ct• `� Cfl O a N to Cc c+ 0 C) to 0
0 .. ID •. 0 .. r .. d ct cf• c+ • p. c+ W c+ at
O p, W P C H H �,) e s c r i p t ion
13 tii { - 0 40.
W 41) r D• P 0
Ib
co r 0) F, MMtoo
c_ O W0 to 0 W I-,• -J H 0 0 \p I
tD 0 CO 0 0 \0 .n to 0 s O Qq 0 t7
t7 V .. v• V y m
• O \A 0 0 0 t..I 0 CD 0 0
0 0
a 0 0 o w 0 0 0 c0
00
0 0 0 `+ 0 rn 0 •0
ID
" o • Ili . Feasibility
. co �. • • 0�.,° : cooN° coi (Report
R. : : • .
o w Z (�, • N •
ISAPUCt N • • c
'dD pproval
to N H .. N " N • ,•
0' p• tT;
• -p- �' •• •• •-I • N) C • • (Pub- is
c�
OD o , CO • OD E .• : Hearing y
H
N P. N N c'4-
1-,
,- " [T;
II +,• r
o O (D .. O • L' H.
•
Plans s and '
ci+ ; coo a Co • co 't'I • Specifications c,
N P' N • N n}•. CJ
tri
Gq .d
• m • F m . : Hight-of-Way r'x
e+ •
'fn- y
• :il CO Na cquisition
• (� m W N H 4. [T,
® n Z
M • 0 I-3
w • v,•
•
Bid
1 :. ,, a' • • co • co D 01, • Dat(: ..
µI. .• .. .. N H Cf.. .. I-I
,1:4
• '
• • co : O\ Cu : Assessment `
aq :, a) :. :. :. H co :. 0' Co :. • (Hearingrri
ai W N 'L,
c+ w O
t7
N Q\ • C\ • O\ v: v' . Completion
W
� •
w • • Co • \oo . COp • ate
.. • N N •.
H
" Xow ',=< c--) to Sow 30w i) t tow Zotx xnw
H
c+
O
--I N —J ON 0 H v w H Engineer
U! H N N H O W oa \.n 00 H O \0 H
0 00 0 0 \n H 00 0 O C 0 OO \n
Cf
fD r
0
v, w v, cu H N H Technician [I I v'.
00 0 00 0 0P--0 ov, 0 000 \ow 00 -• o o - o
4
•
No n N ' Technician II e
-J ,0 —.1 .g' N -' W to
H 0 o N) o o vi H'\n o' Inspector II '+ a
A 0 0 0 0 0 0 N \n 0 o ff O 0 0 0 Q\W O 0 0 O 0 0 0 N. c+
H
0 r)
G '
Technician I & m
1-•• m
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N -.1 o o v' 0 0 0 o Inspector I
0 0
0
00 m
x o'
00 o 00 0' 00 0 0l-) 0 000\ ' co o0 `" rn Secretary
O O 0 O O W O 0W 0 V N
0
N
01 O N O\ N O O W COpTotal c
O O O O \n H N \O 0 O W 0 O O \n N .F' 00 O O N O N
N
•
VI '- H O
\p W J H 0\ a) ,. I Is. I ,•
o\ N �„ v, rn I vi - i I o, -tea w o0 I0 Engineering
I I LA) 0 \D 0 0 0 0 I✓ w - w \O '0 Dept. Fee
o O 0 0 \n ' -F-\n 0 I N 0 I I
*
n) fV N H H F'
N f-' D Cu0 ` -- !Priority
w I I (Fund
U, n) N n) (Program Number
o w
Oc+ & c+ I-' c+ M
CD Fi fD CD CD CDDi. 0 cf CD a
R G R R. p, 0 c p, !D N I
�) C) G CD ') C) a C] N C) (D C')
PO .. " ..
�+ c+
N. o " 4o Description
RH a o ,�^^ tr Cl)
V V,
00
P., 0 O • a' vi n
N 0 3' 0 0
a
CD (D 0 0 0 c
2 0 0 0 O
ti O O 0
0 0
a
. Feasibility
Report
: •
• 1SPUC
: : • . .. Approval
F
t
'Public 0
�� • • • Heari ng '
•• t.
CT I
y _
. • • Plans and
• :. Specifications o
•
,t,i
•
' • • I�ight-of-Way x
;.•
• cquisition
r4
: • •: •: : : : `3
.. ., .. !Dat _
t : . Date o
J a
x
t~
ssessment
• : •• : : Hearing
70
A : Completion 'A
• : : : . : : rate
>n t� a :? Q td Z O W 3 O W Z c '- c) td : c-) w x :) w
'� EF3
• 6t TD
„,+ ' 0) Engineer
N C t� W OC\ ON O -P" 0 000 00 0
U.)
or
@ o N Technician III i
CO ,S N 00 00 00- OH O 000 00 'J 0
1-1P act 'I
O \0-J C• F'• p 0
CI) �'�,. a N v, Technician II
,d N �, H o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o 0 0 0 o o o Inspector II d
0 VI C-) a N. c+
CD ce 0
5 c+
m H Technician I
c
0 0 0 0 0 0\0 0 0 0 0 0 Inspector I rn
N 0 0
1 "N l 0 c+ N LJ �" 4" U) 0'
o .c N 0 0H L.) F-, 0 'D0 000 000 Secretary
CO ��O m 11_, v K
N
0
H
-C" .P.' o Total H
O W 0 -� W W 0 O 0 00 0 0� OD
CD 11 •
w, 0
N f
� o 1-' `+ 00 i Co i t VD Engineering
•.�N N• `' w HN i 0 i 0 oma, o a, Dept. Fee
m 0)w 1 OD w Co 0 t-o i i .
o —I OD os woo i rnt 0 0
O 0 • . •
1
td O O O .P" 0 0 N H
II O' W W N Program
t� I-1
(Number
a
M
CD C)
i•-•• ro 1,
R � P Cr) c+ N ( b
P• `• B
F + OJ• 7 xic+ F..
•� cc+ M CJ n Cl)M1K.•
CD
q In
CD 0 N
Co 1J. o
rt" w
U)
it P.
C) R' H M
0
II c 'd
ro
Co
P
I-•
•a
C
r>a •
/ • U
•
•
•
I
t�
•0 to
0 •1
Ci • • �h
1..-4•••
:-S b
c4 M
0 ti
0 .. Cl) H
Cr) ; : ' z •-.3
'. 0
Qh
1--. -.•
h'• C"
u) ch
ro x
W to
xi
1 , : ( 1-3
H •
:. • .. .. 1
cc+ C; ti _. r., ,7 3: 0 tri n •- _.
tri n t31
[L
U)ro
b
C+ 4 L o -r_-ko i o LA) I o o i o 0 I rN) I o - I 0 0 I Engineer
El I I 1 1 I I I 1
ro
1-j
No 0 0 � 0 0 0 Co I 0 0 i 0 O I 0 --1 I 0 0 0 0 I
i'e c h n i c i a r. [ 1 1
,. I I I I 1 1 1 1 cf
7
OD
I
H H I I I N 1 W I 1J I 1J H I Technician I I 7
•)JN 1 CN i O N I W CD I O co I O •--•1 I ovi 1 0 0 1
I 1 1 1 1 1 Inspector it P
-.•• r
cr 1
00 1 0 0. f o N I 0 0 1 0 IF--'' I O N) 1 0 0 1 0 0 Technician Icf
}
• Inspector I
c+
N I 1 I 1 1 • i --.11 rn l o
N ON I O O I 00 I 00 I 00 I 0H 1 (TW 1
CX)
N 1
1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 Secretary
N.)
O
t I 1 I I
1 I I
ch
N N I 01 I O I N j ' 1 H O j —7 N 1 --4 It Total po
W I' I "\.O R 0 Co I W Co I 0 '0 1 N II I rn N 1 CJD N) 1
. H
Eft
W N N O\
V V
\./1 0 I H co 1 I H I -p" 1 co I W N I co co 1 W 1
—J-I I Q'H I I O 1 H 0\ I 0 I \O� 1 O)0 Oo N 0 Engineering
• • 1 • • I • I • • I I • 1 • 1 al 1 • • 1 Dept.. let.•
11W- v, H~ 0 0 •P"' 0 prografr
w �' 0' Illumber
PI,
or
CD .rnn Cl)cl V/ •U
D, C H CD • N] cam+
7 CD 0 c+ fD P. <<; c+ 0 (ND
w �, CD
`p < H " N
O N• I-I EY a •g
CD n 0 0
�' w K x 0 0
N (D < c 0
r) LI
m "
c
0 c+
c) m N.
II �; ,
1-0
\0
P.
el
‘.0 P. 0
HCO CD
Vo
P
o
c+
/ ' . ..
. ; a
co
4-3
II
•
1
ij
0' 0 0
• • c+ h7
•
•
r :
.. .
•
.. .
.. .
•
.. .
•• .
. ,
•
• •
• w
0
0 .. ..
o• Hw 0: a;I
H. y
✓ •
H ;t;
Q4 H. t-'
c* k
!D a7
.. N Cr]
MI
W O
FJ �• �3
c) t 1 ..: n to z n to 3 n w ... c, t cC) W c7 W ) w
0 ..
CD H
rD t:
0 N i w ry N N I rn ON I o v, I
r I 0 w I w ; Ptl�iinecr
I i I
Q'
M
El H
N I I I p I 1
0 0 -- O 0 O 0 � 0 N I 0 0 I • o w�I o o I o v o Technician 111 cr
1 1
H
co 1 I \,..n1 \..n I W I H W I �I N N I •
Technician it J
H 0 0 1- ; i O D OW I O -1 � N i
SNI NNI
cn
I 1 inspector : I nF
._,. r
a
C
I 9 i 1I 1 1 1 Technician I r
0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 O -"--- 1 0 0 1 O O t 0 \n 1 0.-I Inspector I O
n cnrn
1 1 I . I 1 x cam+
II I 1 I 1 a CD
0 - I 0 �,� I 0 0 1 1v I -r- i 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 H akI Secretary Q
co
'-s
1 I I I I N
N I I I OD j
Gi1\.i 1 I CJI vlO\ 1 `.li1 I-' W 1 Vl NWS Dotal 0
-7 Ok I N O I co 1 1 co ko 1 ‘.0 1 CO 0 1 F
1-1
J ff� CO
W
I 1 v
i NI NWI kOi kOvtl � j W —a � Hk )i VI 1
O �G I kn I-' I viol N -P`1 O 1 vi N I I ' Cr‘1 W 171 Engineering
I N I vi \C) I CO N I ON N 1 -P"Q\1 - 0 I k.0 4 O V 1 Dept. ,..*e '.
•
1
N Program
rn Number
H o
trim
NN
a) n
,i
H rD ti
d
fC H cf
c q o
ray P.
P.
Pi 0
n 0
.
•
• •
; . .
,. .. (D)
• P
V
•
s c5
• :) d
hi
x
P.
•. rn Cd
$ ntrf Xc'1t1d ZC') bd actor . (.• !,r c") tu ; < W _. n
Cz1
fi'ON 0 O j Engineer
N H
ko
H H
tTechnician [ 11 o
ocr D
j '.' hnician . [
c:
--1 \o :n:;pec Lor If ,+ .:•'• r
Cechnician I
0 01 I n:3pector [ o r'
cl-
r r:;
)
Secretary
O Or
ry
0
i r,
c, a1 H
co
i
1
F-' 1--,1 ;'.n6;itieerirr,_
wt Dept. Fee
//c
RESOLUTION NO. 1928
A Resolution Setting Sewer Service Charges
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, pursuant to Section 3 . 02, Shakopee City
Code , the following sewer service charges are hereby set and
established pursuant thereto :
Sewer Service :
Service charge (connection) of $3 . 00 per month.
Flow charge of $1. 14 per 1000 gallons of metered
sewer flow or water usage .
Service charge (large flow) of $49. 00 per million
gallons or part thereof of metered sewer flow or
water usage for all users with an annualized flow/
use in excess of one million gallons .
The above rates to be effective with bills sent out on or
about January 1, 1982 .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Resolution No. 1832 , is hereby
repealed as of January 1, 1982 and Resolution No. 1814 , is
amended as cited above .
Adopted in session of the City Council of
the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of
, 1981.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1981.
City Attorney