The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/04/1981 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE : Non-Agenda Informational Items DATE: October 29 , 1981 1 . Enclosed is the financial report for the period ending September 30, 1981 . 2 . Enclosed is an accounting of our General Fund Contingency monies . 3 . Enclosed is an article from the "Citizens League News" regarding Fiscal Disparities . 4. Attached is Jeanne ' s follow-up on the October 20, 1981 questions raised at the end of the HRA meeting. 5 . Attached is the monthly calendar for November. 6 . We have completed organizing our Administrative Procedures Manual . You are welcome to stop in and see Judy who has our only copy. It includes procedures established by Resolution, Council Motion and Administrative Action. The procedures are listed numerically and alphabetically. 7 . We have established Administrative Procedures for Purchase Orders with the help of Jim Streefland. The final copy will get a second review by Department Heads next week and then go into our Administrative Procedures Manual . We will be working on the two remaining items in Streefland ' s auditor' s management letter and I ' ll keep you posted on our progress . 8. Based upon the Governor ' s action October 27 , 1981 to defer Novem- ber 15th State Aid payments of $48,000, I have told all depart- ment heads to make no unnecessary purchases for the balance of the year. We ' ll take more definitive action as we learn more about the specifics of the State cuts . 9 . The School District is proposing to close all elementary schools at 5 : 30 p.m. beginning the end of November to reduce their expenses (they are laying off several janitors) . This will impact several of our Community Services programs and George and the Board are meeting to explore alternatives . I ' ll keep you posted on what they come up with even if what they do doesn ' t directly effect the City (eg. require Council action) . 10. Several Councilmembers have apparently been asked questions about the Tax Levy Resolution levy item for commercial & industrial development . I ' ll review this at the November 4, 1981 Council meeting - its not new and the money doesn ' t go to the industrial park. 11 . Attached are the minutes of the October 8 , 1981 Planning Commission meeting. Non-Agenda Informational Items October 29, 1981 Page Two 12 . Attached are the minutes of the October 8, 1981 Board of Adjust- ment and Appeals meeting. 13 . I have received a letter from the County Attorney' s Office stating that the County will bring a motion for summary judgment on the law suit on the By-Pass right-of-way. This is in response to our formal request for action. 4 _ �aJ Com (. I UI U _rUN I! p O: iJ AjI i Y: N1+ O W W Y 9 U V'Y N YP 'W N O I N N 3 V Y N'N+ N y! , " ; ; _ n V 81 • O V i ' i;WN '' -. (AG,...4 W(..1!(#4 W !* WIG W W!W W 104 14.4 W WAG W WI 1G W W• IW W Wild W 4...4141 W CAI Ca W U1i• W W CM CM •1 W Wjw W 'T r A UIQ U)UI UI'N AW;W W W'W W W 1G W GI W ;.1 W!GO W W • ,...........‘i,......p-.1,....p-.1,....,.........1.-r r 1r r r.r •' •_) 7, ) .) 'A C La)r.31 7 '3 .31.7 r I*• .) IU1 A WI W W W N N NIN J •3'J '7-3 • '.0 W(..1 W W W i(A W WIG 19 e- r rl r _ •i N NI4-' •- :n 2 J) ,,.41W -,4010G I* n14 -3011',4e-' 41(46461 ,41O '.4(7.0'� • lr.0 :.9101 4 % .AIA W N r NIP W NI'. • ' ' - t 'l) 3 01i 0 CI3 13 01.0 :.n y :ay- 11 ',I 01.1. .. C in z zl z C7 a a .e :A 2 A 0 0I-4 -4 J �- . 1 01-1,n• 0 rl p 4 I...1.•-41 r•`1, 1 ,•l r CI u .. . '1 ]r- -1 -,. ..r 1 . I • I l S ,'1 2 •2 '•-00 001021-1=< o 01aGr!a 1n1< re• a ' -419 26101 n IA..1AI19rrinCP.43n ;n141z•n'O ,c' rarIn z ;1'. '-4 •+1. 0000.f•V' a 12 niZ z..11 4a 1.'.•-1..++-. a. ,.9.-4 C' 71. 1"tl r9 n I'7 r Ix 1 r r Cl!)• ) A,C r'l i C) . ,-3 • - 7 • 3 J< I':•'1 r 11 ,-0-1;1171 n rlr:'l ni-4 4 01q)r 1. 2 1 • rnI-1 A 110=01 1-. i4 .-:, CJ 0, r. •.'1 J I I :1 '1 79 '4 <: 00 00 61 410 -4M S 791. '4.40M c1. AF 1171 41Z-4 .-4,4-0-0 r•1 r-,4 ' r ''')1 r ,:10 o ` :D M < 0 nin O 1 <1 112M0,011 7 r9 I,''1 cJ r9 A-a ..2•:'11..-2 21 a n^I1 A..I ' A,-. 1'I 61 i1 !T i• ax1.-11a,o :• 31CzCr)j OO!Olr1(xo .1a I v, ixo`010 Ain01 .11©11cl-s 1. r 1 Q39 < 'n C) '._ x ...,:g '3 i -1;-1'.J-17< . 171.1.'AIn• Ai y D 1Cn.2 'Di L• L_1:y !r- 201.1 CI ill,-4 -• 1�1;' - 9.'4 'TI , (121.= P '13'2 C D • '2'A AI• 2 1119 Z 11.'.✓ a' ,�011 G. I2 1 Mr-A .•.!r )-pin 01.•.; A 'In N 1').1 1 P- O 01'11 CC_ .-, 10•.1(10112 a• ,221..1-4 21 riN a'921 11' 19 r1 ,1 7!1.-- 2.N..'1 JA' I .7, 7. y I '11 -, z I'1 C ZIA' (91 a A .0.H 214.1 73.47 1'I 1) 'r C*41 0"1 9)CO A ;VI r• A:'L••A ,112 r. 110 --.r 'X 1 1 I)O c ,►• n ':) W .;-• 2 a,I`1 2'+I la I . G0 PI r 0 1:1 I'1 .0 (PI 1 4I-4 ✓)n C .;3I v) .D<i'-• ;l '-• ., 7411'3 In Cl -4 r'UI 01Z • .-• (.l 2; Z 1 . N A • CPIA 4.•1.'1 n 41.14.-. .i1 ••-• ,9 C '0 71 'J I AI.2 'A 1 .•'.0 0)..41-r 0141 ll -. 1 2 2 ,'0 132 j3 -4 -lin IZ2 '0 1 -41r1A ZC ''1'7 < V n f-1-1 1-70‹ 1.1.CJI• a 4 s.) 6)1 :1I .. i9 V All-.:1 'r-.0 4.11 2 r'U) J -. ..I). .A 2 'I M1 I'I N C1 M I M a .D 611 a11 .n i 2 1 •9 m r1;1 .a 10 ..',9 r1 /C!V/ '1 ' J 1-1171'9 ,.3 • O 'a0 2a :A, l . i73 MI J13 10 119 n1Wr 'I !-91112 ' ' Iglrl'n 2 1; 0 .. -4 2 a1 1i . ',-. 2 21 444. N r11 .1 01 -1 V);'1 'tin , '').c 01 I C -4 `91 I 1 1..1 1..I -1 . 2' n 1 l2 1 11 1 I V) 1 1 b) I 691 . I 1'..• )• 1 I I N'0I '11 ' - 7 O I i W)I I II ! { I I • 1 I I1i 1 j I I '-A , • 19 • ' i I !K V. N : 0000, , .y O In :(9 ri N it i r1 ! I -A • • • • ' • I • •, • ;• I •I 11 NI .4 .•. J N! CO 9 Ni N ' 4.0.1 N 'O•N.Di Pi 41 A r a W. N as, '4 N -. ,.) 'a N N.,-s.1 ,CO,N Ni Wa 2 0001 r •+ N .D N 0 1 ,0 IT, W C)0 )IN r '.G co W! N ' C7 < • • • • • • • '• • • • • • • • '• • • :• • • • '• • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 1 iJ . . . 9 r'L ',I! -, ".J :4 Wi u G '•:JI N r•...IN 1-•NI- .)i. .. C 1', • W .. ._ . _ W -,1-',53 - 3 • -N -• ri s i0.J-3'.•v.�iG v u1 ••.• -., _ r I - I .a c i Z m I A r1 -4 • n _m ,O z . -4 U n ' 1 617 N W r O` as N -4 i.. a r a .1 W.r 1V N W 1.0N v N' W o' N N 1 :.1:J)()1 O N W .. o N U) .D O r r 1-4'0 01 .0 -W 01 01 • W N W I 4.:1 W • • • • • • • 0 '• •' • • • • :w V •-. UI v .... )V .... ..:r ar -3 c A Co N 0: N 4:•0 V (.4-u ON 411•0 0 0...,,i W 33 .0.A at,D UI: .3 N 33 r O '.c]4': G '3(n W O (3'G U1 .) VI,(•30•7.000:.3 o 0 O:3 00N ,Di ..4 ,O P1 , 1 C .: i a A' U a'43 O O:O N O :1.C7 O 43 O;0 O 40.0430,000 0 O C).0 ..I O .1 < • • • • • • • • • • -• • • • • • :• • • •• • • • • • • • • 4• • •1• • 0001 • • • • • • • • n . 2" . ,, G 3 G,J.-'a .9.il...i.2')'3 i.,0 0, c) :7(3.9,J O '-3 0 C)0710 3 0'0 n 43•C-, ('i 77-.1'2.1, a -> 1 . _ c". ..1'3 -J -.3.;.1 .7 :.2,0.J n' : 2 .7:C ca J! u 0 -'3 O,0 0 ;,'-f 1::•, I4.:. •11, .]'c• c..(904.) C- .J )I•. 1100 F, ' . .4 r'1 • 03 rV NCM r r r. r .. '9 a, r NJ a: a N,W N 4 a 0000 W r N'r.O •-• (Ai T 7•N (A U)N: W,.p W' 0 c.'1 A • • • i.. •• • • '•. • •,i •S . • I.a Ul V .1. NJ N 4J r 0 0 A .O Ai 31 r N U1'N r..N1O a 01!.1) of:D�r A Ir'O U1 N a .t) r•- 4..V N N. A W .0'-J CO V Q1. W O A 0% .0 M IV :11 CA.4i O r W O 0 W!'Q UI, N D -1 N A'.140 r A- W '0 S N.0 U1 r ' W r! W 0 31 01:UI 40 •1'a N CO;C.3 W a-•4 0 0'0 .4 . .1 n • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • '• • • • • • • • • • • • •'• • • •. • • -• • - • • • • --4 0 0 a as.La o 0 O 43 .0 O C)a a,al .0 GA W co 410 0 O-v co co, N 0 0' -N UI UItG N Al43 4 o V Ip 4143 01. '.0'o O, C -n D'D'.J o •3.-) c9 01 000 4.',n :D r,v c 710 0 0.04 n 611 W o 0 cr(1 0 o 0%N N,''3 o .1,-J a c .9 .DI '1;3 •9 .O a 1 r 0 • •D D. 1 . W 1 c W r: A W 1 r A O CO' .1 W. r a r ' r•)V N N. o N. O rl a .0 r W N 'A o u N A r Q• N r u a u' o N r 1%.3 N a u C r r • • • • • • • • • • • • • • C 37 a N -. c) .0 r, C o!u O N N)N 0 (l t.3 A On r N N N r' N 04,N N N.so. 0 O n a .D r r..O C, O N C1C. NrN VN'' C1N00% 01 a •- a .1.1 N4o V.0 r•WN V:W W Cl W A '.41.1-.3W ' W a O' '' 0 - a r' c_. '•r' W , 1) J• N .0 f3 0 .1)7.'-. 9 a..' .D .A •-. A04...;.3 '..-4.4 N -..33 ...,--.10 N 001 4-7,•'J:)4 N u 4. N - C7�. J1 11 1 61.1 a:u a._ •J... :3 c. W. .-3,.. '-31.4 2 A ,.05. , .-. , p . rO N 0000 ..J . 4.. , 4 rl , :7 a W W .3Na. 'I L. CrC) C 104 N ..) . 4C r ) .2.- r .) a 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 $ 1 11 1 I 1 r) .:1 W.+ r r 2-.0-.(A r M.)......02.0., r rl .DI V C1 .J N 9' .D 00.40% CO N 4.,N 01 N '.3 4D r•N aJ 0 A '-+.03) W. W AN 0 Nu 01 CA,, .O.0 a u 01 NJO'W0.•- 4W•O0% 0 N"N W -4 W • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 'O NW "31V -' a V00 4P -.L,411, ...4.2 4 r -.0..+'4.00.; .0010i W 4= '0'.0 .0 ,b 1" n k -. r 0000..:_ a_._ ., , 000 . ___ _ r..- • ., ) o o 0000 0000 - - - /4 4 4 4 4 4'4 4 . • 1 • • • • ♦ ♦,J 4 J V 4 4 'JI 4 N "1" N N V V N,N N (J 0!J ♦ V I O_•• i P 4 ♦ 4 .v -- ,0 i 11 !.�_ 4 N O O O V } 4 ). 'J N`+ O • ,i _?,4 _ 4. V T O D i J-..l 1.....3 _� I 1 1 1 1 I ! I 4 I I 1• 414 4(.0;,1 4 414 G 414 G 414 4 1;1.,. .,1 4'4 U aka tJl 414(.9 4'4 4 k.9 ICA 4 4.4(9 -n 1-• t I • co .0 .42 A .a 01-ti -(0• J1 U1(n iL1 N -71,..,n N N UI s10 co Ul!.Jl N JI J1 J1 40',N N LW 1.11 ti a C it I• 41UI(J1(A.1•3r0.4,'a.w0-.1,0. 01 a i0 a s la 44:4 N 4140 N N N 171w4.+P- w ...r r C74 2 • ! I ,• J I ...3 ..)1J N .J r.••.a)I,i,..• a i4 N 1--•.7 U1 a 1(A N.41 .,as a (o N .J 0 - 0J1 a 410 r () -7 ••-• I 1 '0 XI..A MI.1 -.•-•;A :7 n v7 a Oil v7 a V) L '71 i'71 'D 3 '7 n 11•N 3 L:9 N ,t9 V 010 '9 C 'A I : I1 •-•1Z 1'1 ml 2;r9 a o o'C in I.1 t o in 0-1!.-•n n•.10 0 -••.,a 44 in 12 -1 4-1 C r a,(A 4 = ''•4 I Or n T V r n 11.-I ( t1 C Cl Jr,." ; a n :0 0 c r 2 7 -J Ir;n,n I(9 .0 ,n'9 Ca r l(„ A -•.+ .1 ' ' ! 1 I r`' n . C 2'1'1 C 1'•.1 '.7 Zi-1 r•.l(1 3•.(,).. ,1Ip'( 2 nIn n.y inn 0i=r'1 n <-• 111i4,1 .r . < f ! u 91 3a (nz1.. a -, a -,v: . 2rnoo 0. 19 r'1 �1 n �, o ` I I-!CI 2'7 -4 i'tIz 7-(10 1f r!)2 I1 ICI co V(11;D -1 < 1 O;N C) !'1:.y ! 1- i"..1-6)911-n x (;.rn(I r 3 o,D 2.-.I L Cll., -11-alto v: '9 a c':'I -1. ' :A /11..-..:_r S co 1'1 '1 1I i i r9 a a 2I -C 1'0 r)ir o a qo Ci 0'-1 1 2 r r1 O).... n; * -.I:: Z3 uy(nt ',11 1'I C')2 1 j ! I71 1< r-f '•-/jn ! n .7 o -4:o 3I,-, 0,r 1'1 r)o J a 1 11,.) 'I 012 1V n ':A,9 . , .0 Irn ,n,= ,'-.3. .'71 o c o ►.:r r V)In x in:rA N«•,.2 z•a x.•-•,!‹ 'V 'O i1 O a!1 ; ... A 3 • i i I- I2 O V)7C-i'1 7 /r9 r A 3 n' ,•1 $ 7C rn 7D I n.n )9 .a"n ,)2!o a 1n!r)2-1:' -5 a a ! 1 '0 C 11�< r 1 9! "0 119 '...N 'Dr '0 '0• . . 4.0,r-•.91 I • ,'1 4.0,r-.-• .0"c 1 1,11(9 •71 1 r x U'( N) P..-• a) 1 1 !v) • a 013 N OI1 J ml t i� J 1-0 .0 -4i - ,.1,•; .-- i1 N 1 3 2117 11 , 'R r 1 In (9 AT1 V) 0 01 ( -'t V).. CI •-.(9 n <! 91 la. a r" 7 1 ci �1 O I 'ti 2 NIA 3 n,-.1 r 7.o r11I z ,1 r4.-•rim J 2 �)S; t9 -O )3 2 C )'1 • 4 irn C-1:01'7 1 22 <'g .) o610Ia2x!nr .1 < a' -131+1 I ;n :9 a j .44ao 411117 2 1 D 01i Y',r11 IJ •2 r'1 <! f 1-4 2' r9. CIC O 1 ! i ,r 1 11 N.700'1 -i 3 01 21 '.J O m.41 n .•i 2 o 41 1 to 'r i9 NIA Cl 1 a, 'r .2 n,. rn rn -. 2 V) 1 I'1 3 1 P1 N I -4 01i (n ,0! i ! C ; • '319 1< V) 11 .)I r' • i j ! rn .. .-.1 1 !T ,1) C , 2 -i n I .19 i co • 1 1 N i •.9. In j • I i 1 I 1 G9-4 i i {1{ j I •• 2 r9 Cl CO • • !Cr. CO NI ! ! I4 � D • • • •' • ! I 1' 19 rJ 'UI Nr .1 171 I '014. I ! N I 0 I 4.441 1 ..• -1 NOO. .4 OD, j 'V.4 ! I Ut' d•7.44 a2 V ,a .0 4.1 O• (40). ! 1 .V N I :A C'! UI al Cl n < • ,. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • '• • • • • • ,• • • • • • • • • • • 4 • • -r 1 r -4 , O''. 4.:):.. .., _, !V.D•J -J (-I:J C7♦J.c.... J I(j1 ca .) .J -" _ . )LJ ,.c. J .- N C "I UI P• 4,-J J.• ' ' ) ,, • V(9 J J J,_,.-a r)!C J ..I..)6i .1l,. . , JI•.. 3 c...., J(%) ,_ -. a !' 1 r = 1 1 O C .• I ( • 2 rn 1 i ! I I1 I I I 1 < I A 1 I 0 , t 0 1'1 I I H • • ! ! CC-') 0 . 1 •X n i 1 N . 111 a • N V a a) r .O N. I 1 .+ r 1 CO o UI' a .0 .D al ' N.00. 'N c 4' a r • '• • •C. • • • • • • • • • • • • ' CJ J' .i' Ci N V u' Co(b 4 N I2 0 41 N a s it a N ca .it UI.4 S N 0 c7. V)' G.•:).3 0j � Cl oa•.c: Cac.Or 0. n J t.7 J O'CJI o u.0 0 rn J. U1 O, U) 0.000100..E 0 'CO V O; O O OU 0 000 V O < ' • • • • • • • • • • • • 1• • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • r1 CO O .7 n .3 .3 -' 3 G IO.3.,71.7 .7 r,jt7.3 J V O '3.O O C7•O O(9:I ca,.O•O J (3'C.: talc,G ',2 • IC:. 7 C3 .7 010 ..7 0;0 O(41.0 :)-J 1ca 10 -I0:3 0 .71C)O.•') CI. .3., 3;(•' C: - (30 C:',.!Ci C ( .+ I I I ! • rn F.. Na JJ 4 N 0r r, r I N 0 U1.N (..c r 4 •,. C()•"'. N .4 _ • • • • •, . 0 * • • • • • 4 • 4 • • S 0 CD N 0).41 ••N'•) N Ch,0 r 00 32 N N r.0 N lA.0 N a a N 0U V CL, 01.•)ICA N 0 a''2 -4 UI r 0 V 0C= 4..) 40 0 r r a -4 N J T •-•.a O N CD I0 '4 y...,,.00 3220 •• 4 '- to :J N 04 .) 4)ca .0 Cl • ,• • • • • • • • • • • ,• • • • • • • • • • •- • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -1 0 .7 a Iv 417 M 0,ca.:J O 47 V NIO O O O O N 0 0 O CO O 010 a 7 c.2 v O.O v O O C7 N.O a C 'I1 .1 (0 2'O N a"!.)C7 ,1J 0.11J 0 OQ 0 r C.- 7 C o a n1C7 a .3 n N O:c) .3 .3,d n r3 N a 1 : F'0 , n I i 1 _ 4 0 (n r 4 ••• r9 Jo N N N. 0 4 0 N.p.N r r .- r r • a • • •. • • • • < 04 I-r C't'J 0 N N...0 N2N d 04. 0) 0-• 44 V N.1.0 a CP a .4 r 4 O C1 F•. 7 Ci (4O 2 tot-9r V arO .O N 0,,0 c: r 2 u r r 7 0) 0 'D , 0 N .. r•.0 A 4 r .) a 0 N LO•• (a .0 Co ,-• CO 0 .l '7 'n a.n •C • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a UI N T '-'CA 0C -• _(JCA V10-, '-ci JN 6.4 0. J C:)V C, ..,1.1 JN0C ;J O O•JN.., a L 7 Co N O N '. J ) 7 •J.,4 J o -: --3 ci ' I- 0 -. .. ,. 1 a J UI 7 SJ-3 :) , .J G • N n a I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rn C) Nrr N r N 1- r rn N 0' UI r 0'UI ,a1.-.,-..a W.., N O. I N UI r U1 ci CD u v N .4 40 V.D 0070..4.4 u4 r v ..3 (i '- 4U1 r N a • • • • • • • • • • • • i • • • • • 0 v) N N N. 0 0. O(A'c)O a•7 •l v 000%N 0 'J o a n 1 N • • X-7-•"*.: • i r . ) - _ y ,i . N ) IF C.- _ _ ._ !(J J Y, iaI N'Y O •' J • A N ; V • • O: :,-,; 137 ? • sO NN N N- J NN N •. ' yf J • U ' 0 • O ? 1 • \ V T - _- ^: - 1Il ; ' t I 1 • 4fA A !• A:A A a;A A !IP A A!a A A!a 4 alaAIaAAA 4 a4 • A A1 a 410 a AA a '.0-'W • GWG • uUUWIWU !• NiNNN'NNNII)NNNNNJNN!NNNIN •I ....''..."'"".0"... " .s*C I`0 (4 I• N N N i• r l«-.,+r'r r I• cilia' 11 4.'41;A A'A W LAM U ulN N N;N N 64;04 •1 UI J1l+A A 0,4 U U Ir 0 2. 10 • -. • Nr,"_l • '. AIVI-"•' 1• Id1r , A'4+•Nr -, A U Nr.• Ut a IJINr,, •I NrIc7N r :Y N-4iN 7 j 0 Ir - r) 1-4 ", '0 f Io l 3.r' IW �7IVI N-.1.')N 11 D G n <'A f4 V) �)(l i A 0 0 17! C CI t 17 17I� l (l) 0 0 ;C C1 ' A J Cl 0 A 1'1 i-4 r 2,C 1 C C -t'-. n i 0 rl nt 0 -4 0 jCi r,^1313 b r'0 2 M M ''1 2 0111.'i 1 1M CI 016 a '2 0 N 1.. 3 /•() - ois r. :1 n o 1) N A n No a -l1r .4 'Cm C7 c a ,11-t M -' C1 A '1 .0 2 2'-a c r'11 r j-.r j-. 6 3 .11(1 .-4 11 a 11 2-.I- .' A -1,•. 2 :c r cljo r 3V-.0-.r 1 1 -.10 £ 'I . ,A 3 7c r N,A 1a 11 )•I.0 .. '� rC I. C 6111 n 1'1 r A 2 2 1 r ',r A In cl Z i. • A. 0 r -. S'p-..AIC) , 7, 3 , -..L -0,x1... i ..O r - 1'1i2 n 0) 1 .-.M1 1-. A•. A .Jio A•.I's Cli• �i 2• -c..I oIDt1 2 r 'i T u01 1.-.I,...-. 11 :7 J 1.. AI0 'I .') 11I0 Z 1'1�G• Cl', I'R O Z W (n 0 4)b < bo,r'1 a 3 v 21A 0r 1. ) Z1 i +I 2 19 3,h do C'1 fT ICl -c IG I.. ..IA O A 1" IN b C.7 1 -/1 A.C1,-.0 -( -• a O GI a'C r ,Y r -4 014* Cl)v)1 C) WIN C.) 'Cl 2 K D ;..1 I.' r10 Irl n A f 41 :L 0!3 -' I-'1 -. )I'; .T „.1 .) C I ..1 V1 N C 3 1 1 1 .'1 1 I A '1 �L. 17 �-1 v), ..(II 21-.< .!• rl3 CJ'ry r ;;1A,`I -1 P -.z�r •fl 13 C' CIA V+1 11,1'r T C1 11,1m r.A S '1 '.. i'11 '> - • 0 1 z•-. 21-1 A r'-•2 n,.. 2 1'11.. -y1 a IMA Alb .'1 2404.40-1.1� A !CC MT,* ;a 1 4 lu Al. 1- c': • 51 :? cl,r .-. z a'-- s'z as• -v- 231 vlr z i -•3iT 0 c-)i n -a: r ,-4 r x Cl) (1) Cli ,I ,(9 ) 4 - -1 PI.0 3 f'i v)I4• r'-. <I -0;1'I i'. a, s )•;r r f'1 Iv) .ri IV) x'1'(•1 N.V1,4 '- 1• 0 a.• Ai J) a 3i. A A A 1l• , HCl -r! C')• , AI MM .V 1 , Z..44411):012 C) C7 1'I f'1,,,, A'1'1 Ia � -4i ,••1 - ' f''1 . 1 (A I'l( ' 1l(.) 01 0.-.I-. -41- -1 20 11 l *II 'a iscc -al= l-. 3 19'3 45 3.-.!li•1)AIS OIC Cl) Ir, 22!.Z .-... 2 1'I O 0;0-# -•1< !A t. 414 r -4 Z; s 1ln C a) 0i 7 NiN •-1'- 2 0 j , .. 14, A1-. IV) -.•.I-4 ca • 1;A N 'fl!y -..A I • C1C ..:11 11 Ssi '.'1 1'I!r') (lift j Il D4q i • M A>II'1 1);-. j A1D c i;' rA. r:A ' �A rl,A 3.0 3. r• : "1, ^ C'),N �'.) ' 1 iA 1r 1 I)s 41 in'.D I 2.2 4 , 1 : r r i .J 'a -Hos • N iv) 2 1 c, A • • , I 2 n 1 I 1 C rn i A .a i l 00 ' f A ✓ r .t) N Cr, 10 rt 1.4i r - r MN'4. a10'A ;0 • • '• • •: •1 •1 • 1 • A. • • • • • (l �A o .- A 'N W' ..,!cm ITUiNrr .•4N,A 0 -4 1 UA v,0 1 r T A r A Cu W CuIc) 01'U N•:1 41,0.7 'r N UI100 .0 I a '1 W.'O Nita Cr, a Z A 0 A O c:N D •. 1 4. .,r 4-.....“...04-. W:b -'1;.0 0; N N UI'T u00. A '2 1 • -• • • • • • • • • • • • '• • • • • • I• • • '4 • • ''• • • • • • :• • : • • • • • • • • '• • -• S J' v 0 J .) W --. :') W W .1 ) A.•-+ 4 NI.1 '-' '''P)a N,41, .D , u A J',ln 0, t4 J:D J Cu UI-7 A.N r C 0 • U J V N 0 -- -.D , u.'0 .1 4 40- .4 41:C .. U)►- ., .)'a 0 0.3. r '- .4j ... 4'.4.3 0' t7 .,''0' 'J .D 1'0 "W I-A Cu r. 1. r3 �• 0 -1 Z C I 1 I i (• p ' . O (7 A r • • v -' N - N I r' 'O .A .•. o.,,, r N... LA N1 a' 41,41;0-+ I.4-4 0,......2 13 .D U(4 UI N .0 UI'A 0 '0 r,r IJI 01 r.1'-d'.1 r.T 1..1'(44 0'N r U•r(44 44 a ...•: 'Q'UI 0. V'0' 1•'N a F • • • • • • '• • • • • • • • • •:• • • • • •. • • • • • • • • • • • O 2 A -4 V A J u O'N UI ;,• .0v J N.4 0 ci o U1 0-'p.1 4-',UI a :71,131 N 4li0 .41 u'D A .0 0 r C4„0 N .A ,1,) .. .' r Cu 0'31U) -J 02 01'13 UI 0.3 Gi G,O 0 Nja O.110 0 0:0 0 0';W NI O N'A 0 UI;r 0C)Cl A 42 -. • CJ-.2 CJ CD o O.•% 0 47 q 0 O 010 t7 O'0 0 aro O 0:o O 0.0 O O'0 .1; N O u N 0:U) 0 •7 UI -. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • '• • • '• • • !• • • • • • ,• • • • • • '• • • • ;• • • :• • • • • D t.. .,•.. 1 1 .7 -7 r),.- -J ,) OIA U p O C]t7,0 O 0.421 O O.0 0 0,0 O-7;0 U O A:CS CJ C).0 o‘2.n C: -. .) ..,.) . u G '1,131(3 3 .. tJj.7 ,7 ,, t) V01 Ci C. C3 0 O 0 J':.)•O c-) ..)i.o 'Ji 401L)u G'G C313'13 s. I . 1 L -,4 iIIl i A. T n D 'A • G ►r- i 1r Nj �G. r' Ai W:(4 N A v:-' A 1. r-• CO N A r a r UI r, r -r N 01'a N.r 4.-,.r •N N N.N .0t A T.N. .5 "4.`-' "4 A • • • • • • j • • ..4' • • • •.• .1. . . o ., • • • • • • ♦.•''• • • • • • , N N 0' UI 4 r r -r CO' N C 63,"a T(ALA) UI 0'N A OW W r.'o r•9'al A. .U) J)' -4 NI.1 J N N N .D T. 'O N N3 N T G A o. W "4 r,G r c.T U1 vi Ul N r r v r T N N W r V W .1:r r'O'0 030 -44. 1.- - ). . N 'T -40 a T W W V. W r O 'O 'D a A a NIA W 'O'T 0 N:'O T u,v T O,r u r uip r r o'(..4 -.6 Cl • • • • • • • • • • ;• • • • • • • • • • ,• • • • • • • • • v • •'• • • • • • • • • • • • -1 0 0 i .0 r u r LA N a a N NIU A W OIN'O A.d 4/0.r O O 0 al.a-N 0 Y'',.O W a'W N! M 0:0)0 T W 0 V.A A C M • 73 A ' b ''1 .0 .,1 a .'-0.-' 4 a O' fl N Wr C 'r 0+.0 W v.0 a(A!W A T 3.11 Q3 A10 T' 000 O',0 .7 N'A o r'd r a I r'0 iD i 'O • i c P. . W' N 1 N a r, Cu 4 - r : r r-; UI' rrrN W UI M ..0 N T U1 r r r a aJA N 4 W N 'O...NJ r W T r r'r r r 07 .4.N 0' a(9 N T W v G N N -' • • • • • • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • •. • • • < .I r 'r q 1,-.U1Nr1s.)'0 N 4IV400UINo'JnUlaW.0'aNrTVNo o ATITAV 0 J,TN ID A .1 -4...., 4 a'O r'0UT 0! 'OT W'0 TU1-4.A-4 )NN4W .1.1TW UI,'O W. OJ. CUIN NOW 70 .O W N"' 131 CM Cm 7113 L. T CO '- - . Ui'D aNr "1 IJ1 Wr 0 (4 T Cu W r.A T ON Nr^JA (4 '0 T N -• :J y "CO ". ..1 AU)NUIc- :)I T u.l '4U1.1 a•+Ji'O '0►+r a..4'- -'a'N T A 001+6..-.440,....N0+0 Z A Cu 1.1 ) N -) N .T c-)'-",t.- T O' '-UI A .1 r r r r' .4 G r IV S.1 0' A N r T Cu A U1 :-r ..N N','O W •J el 0 Cl 0 1 I I I Cl r r r. U1 T T T M UI A n 'O a V"Nu 4 r0'N ♦Tara •IT V aN J 0'D -4 00 0 ,6.4 Ui A W'J A JA W LII N A r W N a(J VI tIt'-00 r a UI a.N'O 60 W U)N a r- .1"-"4 W W 'D 'O N • • • I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • A U1 (Cl G N W V N A: -J r N 43 -•N)Q'A N.C. T 32 N 4.d 0 r T CO UI A•/ r A 00 r .1 A V A ') A -4 r -- _ t i rT Y L1 �. ,01 J I ; 0 0 '} •: A . • A A •' A i •'Y 0 ' r '4 Y W N N N N ' + N N N N _ - T 0I _J V - O 0'0 J 01 0 A L N O.0 0 JI T J AI 4' N O 0 01 J 0 u 0 N�•- O 0 0 J 01 0� Or.I. 0 J', 0 -.. A N .. �' I I __r ' ' f I 1 a • a a a a!a a is ala a aia • • Ia a aja a a;a a 4.1 • 14. a 404 * 14)a • -1 jI- 4l' • J1 :.1 :J1 .,U1 UI I• DIO a 40,40 • W Wild W * ',W W WIW W WIW W WI • !W WW1 • ,W W * IA C I`a r • r'r .r: -3'3 • .O W N rir i1 •O.01.0 J7 '0 • ;9,D co.p .1) -•i--1 -.4; • 'T 0,0' * 10. * '.n z 1'7 r i• .0 rU I'• 71•U A I• .09 N)4!•••.-7 * T .4 trim • i 0 W IV r ,3 WII,)14+'.71 • IN r•.3 • ,r c: • 'n0 I1' -• n 04nnnln !!O zInxnIC. n 3Sir0n C "1o31A rGl!C2r*f - • 2 :71 0 !or -4 IC c1 I2 n 'Idel., s> n r !A .-y o r C;n•- 0 ;'1 of..C 0 -r 0 71 m'C D. 1a a r 4 i'1 7D^1 x :A 1'1 A i2 1 2 2'2 2 nI T 0 !'-I i/11"D 0 17'2' ZI 1'1 nIn rn Z -. -0 T1 n' 2 OI-+ -4 r" ''I jT 0 2 -- 1-0) A ;-I•'- -+ V) I n1 •. '•l;- .-9 I.1'r 61 U) (Ir .3 .0 L.4 Tawnl -$ X 71 r -.lir O 0Iri C n C •r 'V • 2 !2 D < 1\ i< A -1 811-4 -4-•1 -1 ''n 10' 14'14 0 1'1 -4 .-4 ,.'12 1'1 .. f'i'n..1:7 • IA A -4 0 1n . -•l -1 r I 17 A 'I. A c• .. • ,2 1-1 2!0 V) 4•33 -1 i0 f'1 ZIP. A 01 P A P r .d 4 j� r ie)Ii 0) 0 1 V. r- --'r r rj r I r1•4--1 -1170 n O Alin 1n -4 C 114 in .-.I r.-1 2 I.•i A '2 2 '(/3 17 ml 1. -1 2i 1 I I 70 42 D!r*4'1 I-,I. '=` IVt N 2 14'1 IN In :70I„1 Z til n n 1 r.:1 31 I.. 47i7c7 1a 7) 1'"1 /i.) r.r Z VI 0'> 0f ri 171 C n V) 2 O i -4 V •2l-4I 1n 1T a l-l •-4 '01') V)10 A 11 0 1 W I> "11n -1 N r 01 x > s 1'1 Z C A > 01 >-C i 0> P r+ i-+0 ,S 42 1.-. 0.11 C<{S -+ 1A 010 N In rl '0 1C V)NI. 7• .CI-+:01.1 r V) N.4 ;'i-►+A) n !t1 D ;n <' !i c-..+ f•,,rn A I0 I Z Y t3 I'i D C7. 12 17 11 2 > i0 r • I TI L.0 11 6-4 C. X I 0 I.1 n'0 ZjA C 0,::.1: n)'t 4 Z AZ), A 1~2 Z,-• r is jC.C"t l rn 11^.VI I" IN VI 1 A .;..1'1 3 r., C) P 1• 2 A A V)144 -+ 1') Cl.4'> , .-.A-+I 2 r'B ,O l) l.0 I 2 •0 I.1. rn0, -. 'L L• < a Cl.')! 90 S Aa>r n 2 '0 21 m ;A2 I 2c a,.-. O! -II -4 nI -4 las -4 r1 C, -1 ' -4 i� Lx'1 2 r' C •y1 ,• .-a a1 ) 1..C , +'1 v) i` -•1 :J -1 ill A i4 I 1�n X V) I-. XI 0. 4 2( 0 1 i.-. 2'C 0 10 G 0 V7 C N: :1 'I-. 'TIn IA ! o OI r 1.1 A 0, ,a IA Ai C `C r I r-+ ..• A l-1 .):,n i 2 171 In IA 14'1 i ',A C >I n I iI �n N L3 Iv o r! 'r a C '• I1 -4 • 2 J' c. 3 r14 Z-4 i 1 111 Ij 1 • rn : I I : 4l • i I I i I i , , I • ! I ! I I j i .30 , ! I M I v 1 1 I I f Z n • I I j I I I C ' '.rn - ( , j f a x N N i I•I CA ,OI Ni UI a', j i z 2 • . , ; •; I • i • i • -I 14'1 ',b r 0' Ir ri a1 r; 00-.41 'O .10 P.W r, a Co! UI id. N1 UIC T1' IA • 'Cl .,lo U .. ., r ' N 'a a 0; 071 r! a TO'! ,'O V Ni of OS.Oj T _1•:r 01 9 IN O it a Z a a '0' '3! 'T .01 UI' co TI r U•o rI N I •4 141 0 10 UI c7' a •0 1+ ,4s Cl 2 • .0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • I • • • • • , • '10 • •10 • • •' • •1 • • • • 1 • '• • 1• -• -4 r ... ._1-. 0,1 ,.71,�a 0,4 o-• IJ c,a,<),7 a 1a • ,01 •:., lu..1 a' W ,0 N 'T C ,0 c_. Jr 1 a.. •..,'.. a :-'. _) '••,-4 .41 ' 'i "1 6' .41 -) ;I-'- , Ul i'-1 N N! 0 ,0,4.0; 1_.. 'r Y ii iv1 L .•-, j ,1 1 r .z i ! I i 1 1 z C . • • Ila A • , _ 2 1 Cl in I • ' i . -4 -4 • 9 3 0, r N! r9 N r�- r N! (.4 1••. r• N 1+I•'• , 'O r.) t)' S N 9 .d a r' ••••• rI 0202' OUP r O W.1: 0,4-404410 .O 0400. 0 0)u :00 A • • . •! . • •. • • • • • a • •, • * Ws, • • • • • • • • O N .' .7' •.)' UI UI 1111 N 0110 '01 =•1-.4%,07 O', ..7 •C r NIIA a a'u-141 V r W WI u UT a •0 :2. u 11) W N '1' a O V. ':: c. 7 T' N-1 N N 0'i N '0 O car) 0•U0 0 01 P 14 0 0' N U) V• IW .A 0 N 0 C '3 UI 0 1471 0 0 0 N: 0 N:v UI Ull o ,O O 0 0,0 0 0, 0 0 0 O; N O N 'CO 1.4 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • : • • • • • • .• • •.• • • • • • • • • • • ' • • • • ' <. c:. 4.) c:, i.:,_. ::) 4.-1..) 4.i.0 01 c.: 11 G O A, O .4 0 0{147 O 0,0 c?O! V !O C7 a")1 C .o V 1, '-• , -.. 'a c_, :)C .7 01')-J C.-.3 OI 0 0..C7)O 0; C) 'V 0 MI O U:.G 0 0 Cl O.a..OI o .O 4 I1 J 'r• . 1 2-t I � I rn • . - j > 1 r.• r. 0..i V - ' 'r 1 0,4 141 N ri N I•. r U1 N .d UI'W N 0 WI VI 0)91 .4 :A P.1 a1 -1 0 CO! UI -d.9 0! r m N 'U0 A • • • • •.• • •: • •' • • • • • , • • •• •I • • • • .p .C? ' V a s a N CA c.i Ut: A. N' 0 ar r ' a , . :. • r 4 0,1 NNI 9 0 0 0,1 r V W 'N a 0 V a9 '4 a o N 0" 0` o VI N N:W W NI r 0 00'N NI CA a. 0 '9 a 07' UI 0.1 r > -. " .J .4 9 01 0, J a I- .0 rt m u' 1--. -/;0 CO07 ar rN l .a ,- W O' l' N N1 I .0 OII I . 'u.O n • •• • • • • • • • ••• • • • •i • • • • •-: • •S . •I• • • •• • • • • •.. •i • .• • • -1 0 0 Ur UI O,CJ UW W :7 O N 0 1 IC/. u.0 01 0 0 O 47•,0I a 'W C1•U1,0 O 0,0 0,'01 co 0 W Wi N 1 4 UI I'U 0 ,T :.1 r :1t+1-U1,e1N '0 urn . No W1 ii NIko• . a• a. • . • • •co 1.P0' OO,• N9U1J 0'v010rr' GA0. rv.NTW LA,rWc:' 9N -40' caC. W.• • • • • • • • •0• O'Cm NO, aW.0Wo.9 Ul,s . l r. ry: VW .4 ,0'0r0), V1ra ' .1• 00,' 0, -10, T Nr, T10• a0, 0 cJO, W NWI a• • • i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2 -) Ni .0 r V. N N 141 0' '". Ui' ""4.-1•10 .41 0 4:14) 4041 0 1..43, '0 0 ,14. *0 N O UI n -+ N J , ' j 0 � - -� Y j.t M. OI 4 ► D N• A Y ► A O •Y Y YV1 Y . t(Y 'N � •N s�N • YN? "11'1'2 N tl 7 J BIJ ► Y! `� + OO i J. ? J ♦ Y N � _ I , I --/- ti i . ! •1 0A0aA.0 a 111 ;r *! O.O 1.2 sO'D 14) -i ,Z• C 117 • • .D OD 101 JOAin.)r ,n I I 1 • rN,-.,)aI- _Io r i j( i I I I I - i t ;0 I • I f 0I n 1 IN zr Z - a IC In t . I I ! -4 ] PIA.19 r1 I1 11 2 r) •-• T z .cr*1 zIz 0 r*... h I 1.1 .4 141 r•1 C 1"),•-• 1 j\ ,- j I I I A '. (,ki Y z -1 b D 11 i I 2 I ( b I1.. 1'1 4l 10 I i I 1 1 `1 I..• A.r b rf1 stn r1 T1 I II I .n z t ; I -1i 0I z 'x O Ir) 1 A)r1 u1 I i I ( CI 1n n i wlrl ..,,u IS i i I IV Z I 2 - 19 -4 '[t T• IA { 1 I I 1 J I w i 111 1 Y .4.r 'G 1 I I ! -41 -1 I••- O • 2 '�O 11 I D I ' ( I 0: C AIC N '2 G fl I 11 .O. V) -11 i 2 }9 , I I I b j r)I i JDI ii I O I ++ rr Inl (4 1 t f I ! cc,-,1 01'11 1'1 Al I i . ! ` I • r!n • i I • I IO. I t I I e 1 O -D I I 1 I ,I I i I ! I I I 1 I I I ' i 1 I I r-• 1 i { • 2 C•1 ( { G • 1 I i j I ri • I i A •Y j wi Ii •I I 11 ,° n1 N1 r nI i i 1 q, w T 0+. .>2 I I arp A 1 i •,, oo; 'z I • •1 • • ♦ • • • • -i 1 j . I i Q`I a.I .. r au = -. C O • am, p .•• { 6 f•1 ! j 1 m 1 1 1 i I FI z I I r1 • i• 0 -a j n A i -, • --I N • A • r• - D • I N 3) UI • (A 'D { ( a' .t,! N II-, u Z l ' • • • • • 0 1 vl w. N J`' S -0 N: aI a u, x) . Cr,: a a ' O 0 r 1 •I • •I • • • • • • • > F 1 0: • OI C. 7 O 00'a O 1 ::J! 0 .a O O 0 •.] .. 0 1 i ; Z ^'6 • 7 . I •I 01, r I w r, r; r r w.; ( .y . • • •• .0 Col N wd� UI n a (./ .O w 0` Q) r W r r N a n . -• R I I • •. • • •• • ••• • 1 0 O • I I t N• Nj co a w U1 miOO G '1 1 { • ' I 1 0',: O, O 0(.4 N 1111.3 '-) 10 r0 • • • . - w w. a i a x • N, r. r r: r . • • •- < r' 0, - a 01 Co w.p; a ..0. r; O+w r.r N .+• -1. UI N c t..(A.CO ::1 c. L V • a. r.. -..4 (9 NJ UI.0 I' n 1> 1 1 1 1 r1 :1 Ir.. r 19 IT U1, N ' , ..J . U1 - ' r W c" • •, • •" • 'D . 01 ., O. w. .3 C1 -4 W •• -_ J • ! -_ ' • ••• ' • ' .3 - .- �• .�..-. ' '1�. . J ., -� MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: General Fund Contingency DATE: October 28, 1981 Budget $ 52,244 4/30 Al Furrie (8,630) 4/30 Prairie View (1,730) 8/81 St. Francis ( 528) 6/81 W.Muhlenhardt ( 410) 10/81 Transfers- Projects (14,957) $ 25,989 .— VOLUME XXX, NO. 21 PUBLISHED BY THE CITIZENS LEAGUE (USPS 114-180) OCTOBER 13, 1981 Mayor Fraser I% of Comrnerciai4ndustrial Calls For A Metro Tax Tax Base Now In Metro Pool. The Metropolitan Council should take More than 20 percent of the region's is functioning as intended.It is gradually , the lead in pushing for a regional tax to commercial-industrial tax base—repre- and partially reducing the differences in assist area cities,according to Minneapolis senting$691 million in assessed value—is commercial-industrial,value among muni- Mayor Donald Fraser. An income, sales, now in the tax base sharing pool estab- cipalities in the metropolitan community. or excise tax levied on the region is a lished by the fiscal disparities law. Without the law,the ratio between the "good idea" and would be better than For taxes payable in 1981, $454 municipality with the highest per capita increased reliance on property taxes, he million, about 16 percent of the total commercial-industrial valuation and the said. valuation, was shared. Tax year 1982's lowest would have been 11 to one.With The Metropolitan Council does not total of $691 million represents an the law,the ratio is five to one.Last year, seem to be too interested in the idea right increase of$237 million, or about half, the respective ratios with and without the now,the mayor added. above the $454 million shared in the law were 5.5 to one and 10.8 to one. Fraser rejected the idea of new munici- 1981 tax year. Thus, the law is gradually reducing the ' pality-by-municipality taxes,saying,"We New construction, inflation, and disparities in commerclal-industrial valu- ate one economic area.We should tax on reassessment not related to inflation act ation available for taxation. that basis." together to push up the percentage of tax The following communities rank One positive outcome of the current base which goes into the shared pool.As highest in commercial-industrial value per ' cutbacks are increased management the accompanying table shows, the per- capita after reabtracting contributions to efficiencies,Fraser said. centage going into the shared pool is the pool and adding in the distributions "Every week we find new protems in increasing. they receive. the way the city does its business," he The total amount being shared, in said. 1982 as every year, is expressed in Maplewood $3,596 The gains which have been made in assessed value, which is 43 percent of Golden Valley 3,091 city reorganization should be written into market value.The$691 million in shared Shakopee 2,960 the charter following a trial period, he assessed value represents about $1.5 bil- Roseville 2,687 said. He said "I hope that is what will lion in market value. Edina 2,598 happen"next year. Under the fiscal disparities law, all Fridley 2,473 Fraser said the structuralchanges,in- municipalities keep 60 percent of their Burnsville 2,416 eluding having the mayor and city council new net growth of comme,-tial-industrial Bloomington 2,416 jointly manage the city,all save Minnea- value since 1971 with the remaining St. Louis Park 2,382 polis a lot of money. amount piaced in a metropolitan pool of Hopkins 2,229 Other points covered by the mayor in valuations. This pool is then shared by all his Oct. 13 address to a CL Breakfast metropolitan municipalities according to Their valuations would be even higher include: population and tax base. As the table without tax base sharing.The_largest- ■ A change in the way the city handles shows,the percentage of valuation shared (DISPARITIES continued on P e"2) tax increment financing. Fraser said continues to increase,indicating the law the city should retain title to the land RATIO OF SHARED BASE TO TOTAL VALUATION I in tax increment projects until the en- tire subsidy has been paid off. Only Total Metropolitan j development projects which conform Tax Commercial-Industrial Total GI Tax Base Percent of Total 1 to the city's master plan for the 1980s Payable Assessed Value In Shared Pool C-I Value In should be considered for subsidy, he y (in millions) (in millions) Shared Pool said. • Deregulate taxis. Fraser said metro- 1975 $2,044 $137 6.7% politan licensing and elimination of 1976 2,161 188 8.7% many municipal regulations could help 1977 2,122 175 8.2% make taxis a more significant part of 1978 2,192 2.01 9.2% the metropolitan region's transporta- 1979 2,337 258 11.0% 9 tion system. 1980 2,503 328 13.1% f ■ Opposition to rent control. On 1981 2,809 454 16.2% balance,the current proposal for rent 1982 3,406 691 20.3% 1 control has more negative than posi- tive features, and should not be en- acted,the mayor said. CHART BY CL NEWS PAGE 2 (DISPARITIES continued from Page i) base; 2) per capita growth since 1971 �j contributors on a per capita basis are: after sharing; and 3) what the growth ague 1 1t.-es Shakopee, $1,092; Maplewood, $819; would have been since 1971 without the Y Help and Plymouth,$689. tax base sharing. Y. Help The following municipalities rank A comparison of columns two and In • g lowest in total commercial-industrial valu- three in the chart shows how much a city ation per capita after contributions and is a net contributior or recipient. Last fall, the League added hundreds distributions. All of these figures represent dollars of of people to its membership rolls thanks tax base,not dollars of taxes.The adjust- to the recruiting efforts of many volut;- Andover $698 ment in valuation mean-that the mill rate teer solicitors. This fall, volunteers are Apple Valley 763 a city will have to levy to raise a given , needed to help follow up on last year's Oakdale 779 number of dollars will be either higher or membership drive. Mound 809 lower than it would have been without A group is currently being formed to Shoreview 811 the adjustment-depending on whether telephone first year members at the time Robbinsdale 839 the city was a contributor or recipient. of their renewal date to encourage them Ramsey 840 The information in this article repre- to continue as CL members. If you can White Bear Lake 905 sents an analysis by CL staff done each donate some time to this project,contact Mounds View 918 year to evaluate the effects of the fiscal Bonnie Sipkins at the League office, North St.Paul 922 disparities law. 338-0791. Every effort will he made to allow Largest gains in per capita distribu- * * * your participation without creating tions went to: South St. Paul, $386; personal scheduling conflicts.All admin- Oakdale, $383;and Mounds View,$333. Earlier this year, the Minnesota Tax istrative matters will be handled by Saint Paul showed a net gain of$147 Court upheld the constitutionality of the League staff. per capita; and Minneapolis a gain of fiscal disparities law. The city of $129 per capita. Shakopee, which brought the suit, is * * * Of the 45 metropolitan cities with appealing the decision to the state populations over 9,000, 19 are net contri- Supreme Court. The League would like to thank Lynn butors,and 26 net recipients. In the first test of the law in 1974,the Argetsinger,Mary Cobb and Carl Lundin The chart on page two shows for each Minnesota Supreme Court upheld its con- for their continued volunteer assistance municipality: 1) total commercial-indus- stitutionality. to the membership program. trial value per capita, after sharing tax PER CAPITA COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL VALUATION 1980 1971-80 1971-80 1980 1971-80 /971-80 Total Growth Growth Total Growth Growth With With If No With With If No Sharing Sharing Sharing Sharing Sharing Sharing • Andover $698 $592 $331 Minneapolis 2,089 885 756 Anoka 1,556 842 809 Minnetonka 1,845 1,438 1,985 Apple Valley 763 505 310 Mound • 809 438 159. Blaine 1,278 1,089 978 Mounds View 918 770 437 Bloomington 2,416 1,056 1,297 New Brighton 1,090 765 648 Brooklyn Center 1,805 1,334 1,210 New!lope 1,693 1,207 1,362 Brooklyn Park 956 674 516 North St.Paul 922 659 356 Burnsville 2,416 891 1,358 Oakdale 779 538 155 Columbia Heights 1,147 783 567 Plymouth 2,191 1,324 2,013 Coon Rapids 1,034 770 536 Ramsey 840 610 463 Cottage Grove 1,180 509 337 Richfield 1,098 652 37' Crystal 972 651 339 Robbinsdale 839 538 255 Eagan 2,108 758 1,219 Roseville 2,687 1,360 1,846 Eden Prairie 2,180 773 1,452 St. Louis Park 2,382 1,193 1,364 Edina 2,598 1,089 1,491 St.Paul 1,822 882 735 Fridley 2,473 1,383 1,692 Shakopee 2,960 2,195 3,287 Golden Valley 3,091 1,417 1,890 Shoreview 811 649 582 Hastings 1,228 1,417 1,890 South St.Paul 1,420 1,050 664 Hopkins 2,229 892 943 Stillwater 931 510 282 Inver Greve Heights 1,531 1,044 1,139 West St.Pau' 1,434 959 990 Lakeville 1,027 610 514 White Bear Lake 905 677 435 Maple Grove 929 483 463 Woodbury 1,717 1,029 1,458 Maplewood 3,596 1,931 2,750 __.- .-._..._.�...___ MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant RE: Shakopee Senior Multipurpose Center DATE : October 28, 1981 Introduction In response to inquiries from Council members , certain conditions at the Senior Multipurpose Center have been investigated. Background The issues and their resolution is as follows : Elevator - The elevator serving the apartment units has been mal- functioning. This issue was discussed at the October 6, 1981 Senior Task Force meeting (see attached minutes) . As a follow-up to that discussion Gaile Sovell darfted a letter on the topic of elevator service to the tenants (a copy is also attached) . In addition a wiring malfunction was discovered and corrected which should lead to fewer problems in the future. The City would only be formally involved in this issue if the building inspector or fire marshall cited the operation of the elevator as a safety problem. Kitchen Range - Report from the congregate dining site director (Vicki Laddusaw) is that the oven pilot has not been a problem and cooks rarely if ever have had to light the oven pilot . The burners do need to be manually lit , but this has not been a prob- lem. One person who works part-time as a cook burned her arm with boiling water when she was' serving at a funeral in Chaska. This incident has no connection to the Congregate dining program. Kitchen Dishwasher - The congregate dining site director, Vicki Laddusaw indicates that the dishwasher is working adequately. The dishes do need to be thoroughly pre-rinsed and do not completely air dry, but she is convinced that the machine is working properly and these conditions are indicative of the machine model selected rather than the installation or operation of the dishwasher. Requested Action This memo is for information purposes only. JA/jms MINUTES Senior Task Force Shakopee Senior Multipurpose Center Tuesday , October 6 , 1981 , 9 :40 A.M. , Senior Multipurpose Center Members Present : Vicki Laddusaw Margaret Haas LaVina Busacker Ruth Gronneberg Jeanne Andre Gaile Sovell (portion of meeting) The meeting began at 9 :40 A.M. No corrections to the September 1 , 1981 minutes were presented. No regular business was scheduled. The following minor problems were discussed : 1 . The building elevator is frequently out of operation, which has at times been a problem for building residents who have attended Center events (particularly those in wheel chairs) . Possible ways to alleviate this problem were discussed : a . Higher quality elevator which can handle freight (i.e. resident ' s furniture) and passengers . b. Resident caretaker who can help to resolve the problem more quickly. c . Post notice for residents on where to call for elevator repair services . d . Relocate wheel chair residents to first floor apartments. Gaile Sovell said' she would check into this matter. 2 . There is no lever to turn on heat in the conference room. Margaret Haas said she would check with Bill Malloy. 3 . Congregate Dining Range - doors don ' t always shut tightly and oven may not be correctly calibrated . Jeanne Andre said these had been adjusted within last six months . Congregate dining representatives suggested that the cooks can learn to adjust to the individual characteristics of this range. Other information was exchanged on ongoing operations . The Senior Center Apple Fest was a successful fundraiser. The Christmas Party will be funded from the Center treasury and is scheduled for December 16, 1981 at 12 : 30 P.M. Congregate dining staff will cook the meal and no congregate dining will be held that day. Margaret Haas regularly welcomes new residents and invites them to the congregate dining and Senior Center . Senior Task Force Minutes Page Two October 6, 1981 114 The new window to the conference room provided by the building owner is appreciated and helps in the operation of the Congregate Dining . Friendship Manor has agreed to provide free blood pressure checks for seniors at their facility, but no transportation has been arranged. Scott County has said there are no funds to provide monthly blood pressure screening at the Senior Center. A health clinic will be held at the Center at a cost of $1 . 50 per person . The meeting was adjourned at 10: 30 A.M . Respectively Submitted Jeanne Andre Recording Secretary Sovell Management Company 312 Central Ave., Suite 367 • Minneapolis, MN 55414 • Phone (612) 379-7870 GERALD L SOVELL CERTIFIED PROPERTY MANAGER PRESIDENT October 6, 1981 Dear Tenant : Subject : Elevator Service Two Hundred Levee Drive has an Otis elevator and a contractural maintenance agreement with R & 0 Elevator Company for monthly service and maintenance repair call-backs . R & 0's staff that service the Shakopee area live within a five -mile radius of the building and are able to make normal service calls in a two-hour turn-around time , The last service call being answered and repaired was within minutes . No one can guarantee perfect operation from a machine, thus all people using the elevator at 200 Levee Drive must realize that there will be times when service is interrupted. Tenants of 200 Levee Drive unable to use the stairs should ® live on the first floor of the building. Tenants within the building wishing to relocate to first floor for health reasons are given priority . This situation has occurred in the past and tenants have been accommodated. October 6th, a meeting was held of all tenants residing on the upper floors at 200 Levee Drive that used wheel chairs. These tenants have indicated that they do not wish to relocate and are, at this time, able to negotiate the stairs in case of an emergency . Should these tenants, at any time, want to contact the management office to make the appropriate arrange- ments to move, they should do so. There are presently only two tenants living on the upper floors that use wheel chairs. Tenants on the first floor were also notified of the need to use the first floor for handicapped persons. Week-end breakdowns may have a longer repair time due to irregular work-hours and the demand for on-call personnel . Your patience and cooperation is asked for if this situation occurs . If there are any questions regarding elevator service, please contact Gaile Sovell at 379-7870. Very truly yours Gaile L. SovellA.a �u C- 073- e/ )1u. �Cc v:L�fznay. � a d+ocb,rt �'� a, n"".e6""„'`" `t7 `� tom±-h‘ - 1ki.t' c � tti,� �v v��.�.�- dh -w far w mad A ,, ,, -rn c on.. c ► w . 3l ,404.,,, h Ili H cow off. Cy",d llw� ;lint,,t 4t 'x"."o Gfi. • N N 1-i 1/4.0 N In oo 1--L G7 - . W N oo cm n 1--, 'd 0 W •• H. •• 0 p1 qp •• rt G Ni O P 0LA) r• p' O N O0H h-' ...., 'dC1b • 'drt n O 3b 3 (D r G • rt• ,..1 • cn • 4 – 1- ND N V 0 F-` I V ('-) 1--` tri 3 •• r• V •• r• 0 r-' G w W rt 1 W rt N 0 LC OAC n r• rt 0 • 0 • 0 17 3G . 3G w cn 0 — F" • 0 H. H. 1-C l • Z Ni 'VC) t, I" liH C 1" VC) X 0 In rt 0 0 oo •• CTh LTi f--, •• r• - C (D O E O C') H w rt > CTI Z OZ 0 C'1 0"C 3 rt 1-,• rt 7cI I A td rrt • rt • Z •• o V ti pci r• 3rD Z 3 cn 3c •• d 0 0 Cn f-' `.„, a H. 'C r 'd coo 3 H N N V C) 'd "d r-• ch 10 •• 0 1—' 0 N In Y w W r-, Z oir• r• 0 H C/) • cnrco En n H 3 H.Go 4- C • 0 •• kJ Z 0 C) ►{ 3 N.) Ni i" v 0 w rn H ►-C _T N N 1-' Co h- V cn P> l/ PROCVV,DINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPW, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 8, 1981 Vice Chrm. Perusich called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. with Comm. Rockne, Koehnen, Vierling and Stoltzman present. Absent were Chrm. Schmitt and Comm. Coller. Also present were City Planner, Don Steger, Cncl Leroux and City Eng. , H. R. Spurrier. Koehnen/Rockne moved to approve the minutes of September 10, 1981 as kept. Motion carried with Comm. Vierling abstaining because of her absence at that meeting. Boyer CUP Public Hearing - PC 81-33C Rockne/Koehnen moved to open the public hearing on the request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a beauty shop as a home occupation. Motion carried unani- mously. The City Planner stated the applicant is Patricia Boyer, 2350 Muhlenhardt Road, who is present in the audience. He explained the considerations for this home occupation request, and stated the staff recommendation is for approval of this request with 2 conditions. Vice Chrm. Perusich asked if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to comment on this application, and there was no response. Discussion ensued regarding the need for an annual review of this permit. Mr. Boyer stated their property is very secluded and he does not foresee any close neighbors in the near future. Rockne/Stoltzman moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Koehnen/Vierling offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 288 to operate a beauty salon as a home occupation at 2350 Muhlenhardt Road, and moved its adoption, subject to the following conditions: 1. The beauty salon meet all Building Codes prior to commencing operation; 2. Any changes in the business as proposed, will require a new CUP. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner informed the applicant that to satisfy Condition No. 1, she should talk to the Building Inspector before proceeding further and get his approval of her plans. The City Planner also explained there is a 7 day appeal period during which time anyone can appeal this decision. If at the end of that time no one has filed an appeal, at that time she can apply for a building permit. Cncl. Leroux arrived at this time, 7:42 P.M. Mr. Boyer asked Vice Chrm. Perusich to sign a licensing statement to be presented to the State. Vice Chrmn. Perusich signed the form, again reminding the applicant the decision was not final until after the 7-day appeal period. Mrs. Boyer stated it takes six weeks for the State to process her request, so that is why she wants to get it signed as soon as possible to start the proceedings. Shakopee Planning Commission October 8, 1981 Page 2 Reitveld CUP Public Hearing - PC 81-34C Stoltzman/Rockne moved to open the public hearing on the request for a conditional use permit to board horses in an R-1 Zone at a density of 2 horses per 2'-z acres. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner explained the applicant is Ted Reitveld, who is requesting this conditional use permit to allow horses on 18.75 acres at 8535 Eagle Creek Blvd. , at the density of two horses per 22 acres. Staff is recommending approval of this request subject to approval of Minn. PCA. The applicant is not present at this time. Vice Chrm. Perusich asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to comment on this matter. Ken Waldron, 8537 Eagle Creek Blvd. , stated that he and his wife Betsy were present with several concerns about this request. He stated their property is immediately to the east of the proposed site, and the majority of their view is to the west and towards this proposed site. Their concern is the aestetics of the operation that is proposed. They would like to know more about what the buildings are going to look like. Mr. Waldron also stated that his back property has been flooded several times, and the proposed property has the same water problem. For several months of the year, they will not be allowed to pasture horses in that area, which cuts down on the amount of useable acreage. They are also concerned with odor from the horses and noise from the barn, as they have heard there will be boarders. He also stated they have lost most of the vege- tation on the border between their property and the proposed site, which is now wide open to the west in the winter. He said they are most concerned about where the applicant is going to put 15 horses with most of the lower pasture flooded most of the year. Mr. Waldron was showed a sketch plan of the premises which had been submitted by the applicant to the Planning Commission. Mr. Reitveld appeared at this time and answered questions put to him by the Waldrons. Mr. Reitveld stated he plans to board horses for training purposes. The buildings would be metal and be built over a three year span. He stated he is quite willing to replace trees on the boundary between his property and Waldrons. He also stated he thought maybe about 4 acres in the back is the amount of property that gets flooded, but he didn't plan to pasture any horses there. Even when it is not flooded, it is just too wet to be good for horses. There was a discussion about how far Mr. Waldron's home and barn are from the property line. Vice Chrm. Perusich asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to comment on this matter. Kay Belr.ose 8440 Eagle Creek Blvd. , questioned the applicant about his plans for the outside arena. She also questioned the strength of the fence the applicant is putting up, as far as keeping in the horses. The applicant responded there would be an electric fence also. He stated he plans to keep the horses in the barn almost all the time. These are show horses, and his 7 horses are worth about $50,000, so he will take all precautions necessary to keep them from getting loose. Vierling/Rockne moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Shakopee Planning Commission ' October 8, 1981 /r Page 3 Rockne/Vierling offered Conditional Use Permit No. 289 to allow a maximum of 15 horses to be boarded on 18.75 acres at 8535 Eagle Creek Blvd. , subject to the con- dition that any permits required by the Minn. Pollution Control Agency be obtained prior to commencing the operation, and that this permit is subject to a bi-annual (2 year) review, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner informed the applicant that this approval is subject to a 7 day appeal period, during which time anyone can appeal the decision to City Council. If after the 7 days, there has been no appeal filed, the applicant is eligible to apply for a building permit. Conklin Company CUP Public Hearing (PC 81-35C) Stoltzman/Koehnen moved to open the public hearing on the request for a conditional use permit to expand a chemical manufacturing and distribution operation and install underground chemical storage tanks. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner explained the request and stated that staff recommended approval subject to approval of the Minn. PCA. Al Schafer stated he is representing Conklin Company, and stated they have received positive feedback from PCA in their verbal discussions. They will be submitting their plans to PCA for approval as soon as the CUP is granted. He stated that Conklin Company voluntarily seeks out the opinion of PCA and Metropolitan Waste Control Commission regarding their plans to avoid possible future problems. Vice Chrm. Perusich asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to comment on this matter, and there was no response. Stoltzman/Rockne moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Koehnen/Stoltzman offered Conditional Use Permit No. 290, to allow the addition of liquid storage tanks as part of an expansion program, subject to the condition that prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the Minn. PCA review and approve the underground and above-ground installation of the proposed tanks, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner informed the applicant about the 7 day appeal period and stated that after that 7 days he would be eligible to apply for a Building Permit if there were no appeals filed. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat of Hauer's 3rd Addition - Gene Hauer - PC 81-32P Rockne/Vierling moved to open the public hearing on the preliminary plat of Hauer's 3rd Addition. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner explained that Hauer's 3rd Addition is a 5 lot subdivision, and enumerated the considerations regarding this request. He stated staff is recommend- ing approval of the Preliminary Plat, subject to certain conditions. Vice Chrm. Perusich asked if there were any comments from the applicant or anyone else in the audience, and there were none. A brief discussion was held by the Commissioners, City Planner and CityEngineer regarding the staff recommendation to redesign Lots 2 and 3 to reduce he angle between the common lot line and Austin Court. Shakopee Planning Commission October 8, 1981 1 / Page 4 Stoltzman/Rockne moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Koehnen/Stoltzman moved to recommend to City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat of Hauer's 3rd Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. The small triangular parcel of property abutting the northwest corner of Lot 1 should be dedicated as 11th Avenue. 2. Execution of a Developer's Agreement to include: a. Curb and gutter must be installed throughout Austin Court, in addition to Austin Street. b. If the two existing watermain services to the property do not match the proposed lot, they must be removed, according to State Health Dept. rule. 3. The easement along the west property line of Lot 5, be increased to 10 feet on the east side of the proposed sanitary sewer pipe and up to 10 feet on the west side of the pipe where possible. 4. The subdivision be retitled "Hauer's 2nd Addition". 5. Lots 2 and 3 be redesigned in order to reduce the angle between the common lot line and Austin Court. 6. The railroad trestle be removed prior to recording the plat. 7. Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney. 8. A cash payment be made to the City in lieu of park dedication. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner informed the applicant this matter will most likely be on the agenda for City Council on October 20, 1981. Scott County Lumber CUP Public Hearing (Cont. from 7-9-81) PC 81-18C Stoltzman/Vierling moved to continue the public hearing on the request for a CUP and Mining and Mineral Land Extraction Permit. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner explained that this public hearing was tabled 3 months ago with the express purpose of obtaining questions from the Shakopee Environmental Protec- tion Assoc. , which were answered by the applicant's consultant, Howard. Rosenwinkel, the City Planner and other individuals with some State and Federal agencies. A booklet was put together by the applicant 's consultant which contained composit questions and answers, and was sent to the four individuals who formed the citizens' group and to the Planning Commission. The City Planner stated that staff's recommendations remain the same as initially presented 3 months ago, with only some slight wording changes in the 17 conditions. The City Planner then read the list of conditions recommended by staff for approval. Vice Chrm. Perusich stated that the purpose of this hearing is for the Planning Commission to gather information to help make a decision. He explained that the conditions for discussion are to have each individual limit his/her comments to 3-5 minutes and to make them as direct as possible and without repetition. Vice Chrm. Perusich asked if there were any comments from the audience. Roberta Schneider, 330 Valley View Road, stated she is the President of Shakopee Environmental Protection Assoc. , and asked if the questions from the Assoc. pertaining to the proposed permits had been received and entered into the record. • Shakopee Planning Commission October 8, 1981 Page -5- Rockne/Vierling moved to enter the questions and answers contained in the booklet entitled, "Supplement to 'Application and Plan for Mineral Extraction - June 1981' , dated October 2, 1981 as prepared by Howard K. Rosenwinkel, Engineering Consultant for the applicant - Scott Sounty Lumber Company, Inc. and Bert Noterman, Shakopee, Minnesota" and labeled as "Exhibit A", as part of the official record on file in the office of the Shakopee City Clerk. Motion carried with Comm. Koehnen abstaining due to conflict of interest. Robert Schneider then read a letter dated October 8, 1981 to the Shakopee Planning Commission from the Shakopee Environmental Protection Association. The letter raised various objections to actions of the Planning Commission at their meeting of July 9, 1981 in regards to the notification procedure for the proposed permits. Rockne/Stoltzman moved to enter the letter dated October 8, 1981 from Roberta Schneider, President of the Shakopee Environmental Protectibn__Association, as "Exhibit B" and hereto made a part of the official record on file in the office of the Shakopee City Clerk. Motion carried with Comm. Koehnen abstaining due to conflict of interest. The City Planner responded to the letter voicing objections to Planning Commission procedure, which he said is a part of the Shakopee City Code, on notification of public hearing time and place. He also added that there were no separate questions from the Planning Commission because Comm. Coller had been of the opinion all of the questions were contained in the questions put forth by the Citizens Group. Roberta Schneider stated the Citizen's Group was under the impression they were to meet with Comm. Coller to draw up the questions. Vice Chrm. Perusich read the minutes of the last meeting to clarify this item. Vice Chrm. Perusich read through each question contained in the booklet entitled "Supplement to 'Application and Plan For Mineral Extraction - June 1981'", and each question was answered to its fullest extent by Howard K. Rosenwinkel, consul- tant for the applicant and by the City Planner. Additional comments and discussion followed. There was some more specific discussion regarding the effect of the mining opera- tion on the property of Ken Rutt and its value and,the actual areas of mining within the site, and location of the berms. Mr. Schneider stated the planting of trees on the boundary would devaluate the "Agriculture" land around them for 75 - 100 feet. Howard Rosenwinkel .responded to his questions about the location of trees. He stated he has made application for site inspection and evaluation from the Scott County Soil Soncervation Dept. and they might make some changes in plantings because of its recommendations. Gene Rosenwinkel, 1481 Scenic View, stated he is working with his brother, Howard, concerning the development of this property. He stated he is in the real estate business. He was in the sand and gravel business for about 25 years in Carver County and never found any devaluation in properties because of mining operations. He stated there are a lot of holes around Shakopee, and he has sold lots near them and the land has increased in value. In Carver County he started taking a hill away, but then went 100 feet into the ground and eventually built aflake and the property escalated in value. He personally thinks the property is going to in- crease tremendously in value. Shakopee Planning Commission ( f October 8, 1981 Page -6- Ken Rutt asked how the applicant plans to get to Area C, (the north and south- western portion of the site). The City Planner stated that this area is essentially a landlocked piece of property. Gene Rosenwinkel stated they cannot get to this area without the permission of Mr. Rutt. Vern Lang stated he is concerned about getting some type of bond from the applicants to protect the people. The City Planner answered that a bond for reclamation is one of the conditions recommended by staff, and the conditions go with the opera- tion, not the owners. There was additional discussion about allowing gravel trucks to drive on CR16. Cncl. Leroux stated that CR16 and CR17 are truck routes, and if no conditions are put on the original permit, the City has no control over those County roads. Lengthy discussion took place on the adequacy of access roads (Question No. 3). The City Engineer commented that Scott County very soom plans to institute a tax on raw materials taken from the county and he would presume that tax would go for any cost the county has for road maintenance, etc. Gene Rosenwinkel stated that Scott County plans to upgrade CR83 in 1983 no matter what development happens on that road. The City Engineer stated that is true, but it is possible that if this mining operation begins, it would require an addi- tional strength of road for the amount of repetitions of a 9 ton axle. Gene Rosenwinkel stated that the Legislature is trying to pass a surcharge on mining operations in the 7 county metro area. The City Planner stated that last year this was passed, and the 7 county metro area is now working on how to imple- ment it. It can be applied to existing as well as new operations, but it is a county option only. Roberta Schneider stated that the creation of artificial berms has a definite effect on natural drainage, and she doesn't feel that has been addressed. Howard Rosen- winkel stated the Soil Conservation study should address that. Dave Czaja stated there is a problem with water flow in the area around CR83 dur- ing a frozen state, not counting normal perculation. The City Engineer replied that the project would not begin without a proper drainage plan which would ad- dress that. Howard Rosenwinkel stated the Soil Conservation study would also be covering the spring time conditions. Comm. Stoltzman asked who would actually be the people mining the gravel. Howard. Rosenwinkel stated the applicants would form their own management company for the operation, and it would be only an intermittant operation, used only when there is a need for materials. Comm. Stoltzman asked further if the applicants had checked out the sound levels of the appropriate machinery that would be used to be sure it could be maintained at or under 60 decibels. Dave Czaja made considerable comments relative to the water table level and how it has been affected by the Shiely Operation. He stated they have information that Shiely will be operating for 25 years, and it takes considerable time after that is terminated for the water to seek its new level. So it is not really known what the water table level is, as ShieJy has been pumping since 1968, and they do not have well log records before that time. Shakopee Planning Commission /1 October 8, 1981 Page -7- Cncl. Leroux stated that the site is not an inventory site, as it was rejected by the Scott County Solid Waste Advisory Committee. Dave Czaja read a memorandum dated October 8, 1981, to the Planning Commission from Roberta Schneider, President of the Shakopee Environmental Protection Asso. , urging the Planning Commission to deny this request. Rockne/Stoltzman moved to place the memo dated October 8, 1981 from the Shakopee Environmental Protection Association on file in the office of the City Clerk, as part of the official City record of the Planning Commission and entitled, "Exhibit C". Motion carried with Comm. Koehnen abstaining due to conflict of interest. Rockne/Stoltzman moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Rockne/Stoltzman moved that the Planning Commission deny Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 277, subject to the Shakopee City Code (which includes the criteria that has not been met) , Section 11.0+, Subd. 6A: Item No. 1. 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. Item No. 6 The use, in the opinion of the Council is reasonably related to. the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. Item No. 7 The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. and Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 277, further denied because the use is not consistent with the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed .use, per Shakopee City Code Section 11.24, Subd. 1, ad follows: "the purpose of the Agricultural Preservation (AG) area are established for the purpose of preserving, promoting, maintaining, and enhancing use of land for a commercial agricultural purpose, to prevent scattered and leap-frog non-farm 1 growth, to protect expenditures for such public services as roads and road maintenance and police and fire protection". Roll Call: Ayes: Rockne, Vierling, Stoltzman, Perusich Noes: None Abstain: Koehnen (due to conflict of interest) Motion carried (Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 277 denied) The City Planner stated that the Planning Commission's action was to deny this permit; that decision must undergo a 7-day appeal period. If the decision of the Planning Commission is appealed to the City Council, another public hearing will be held by the City Council and at that time those people who received original notification of this hearing will be so notified again. Shakopee Planning Commission 'f October 8, 1981 Page -8- Informational Items: Koehnen/Vierling moved to approve the 1980 Annual Report as prepared by the, Planning Department, and receommen it to the City Council for their records. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Stoltzman moved to approve the Planning Commission schedule of meetings~ for 1982, which represents the first Thursday following the first City Council meeting of the month. Motion carried unanimously. It was also noted that in the event a second meeting per month was desired by the Commission, this meetings then would be held the third Thursday after the third Tuesday (adj . reg. session of City Council). The City Planner informed the Commissioners about the City Council action regarding the appeal to the Planning Commission decision of denial on the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a dog kennel facility in an R-1 Zone, as requested by Roy Simmons. He stated that the City Council at their meeting of October 8, 1981 moved to approve this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The dogs remain in the kennel or within the fenced yard; 2. A maximum of four dogs be boarded on the premises; 3. The kennel be moved to the west side of the house within 30 days; 4. The Conditional Use Permit must be reviewed in six months. The City Planner informed the Commissioners that the Citizens State Bank temporary facility had a temporary occupancy permit which expired in January 1981. A letter has been sent to the owners informing them of this and requesting them to move the building and inform the City as to the date of removal. The City Planner apologized for the mix-up involved in the Commissioners receiving the wrong person's commendation for work done on the Comprehensive Plan. City Planner reported on a discussion with Leroy Houser about insuring code compliance on conditional use permits. He stated a new line on the conditional use permits has been added for Mr. Houser's checkoff for compliance. The City Planner informed the Commissioners that the City Council adopted Alternative No. 8, as had been outlined in the report from Bennet-Ringrose- Wolsfeld, Jarvis, Gardner, Inc. (BRW), traffic consultants, in their report dated May 18, 1981 for the traffic study of the Minnesota Valley Mall area, instead of Alternative No. 3 which the Planning Commission had recommended. Koehnen/Vierling moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:00 Midnight. Don Steger City Planner Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MNNNESOTA OCTOBER 8, 1981 Vice Chrm. Perusich called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. with Comm. Rockne, Koehnen, Vierling and Stoltzman present. Absent were Chrm. Schmitt and Comm. Coller. Also present was Don Steger, City Planner. Koehnen/Stoltzman moved to approve the minutes of September 10, 1981 with the change that in the second paragraph Comm. Koehnen abstained, not Vierling. Motion carried with Comm. Vierling abstaining. Stejskal Variance Public Hearing - PC 81-30V Stoltzman/Vierling moved to open the public hearing on the request for approval of a 5 foot sideyard variance for the construction of a garage. Motion carried unani- mously. The City Planner stated the applicant is Stanley Stejskal of 326 So. Fillmore Street. He explained the variance is to allow construction of an attached garage on his property. He stated that staff is recommending approval of the variance request with the condition that a survey be done and presented to the City. The applicant was present. Vice Chrm. Perusich asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to comment on the request, and there was no response. Koehnen/Rockne moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Rockne/Stoltzman offered Variance Resolution No. 285, granting a 5 foot sideyard variance for the construction of an attached garage, and moved its adoption, with the condition that an official survey of the lot be presented to the City at the time of Building Permit application. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner explained to 'the applicant that his request for variance has been approved. He further stated that there is a 7 day appeal period during which any- one can appeal this decision, and at the end of that time if there is no appeal filed, he can apply for a building permit. Koehnen/Vierling moved to close the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7: 35P.M. Don Steger City Planner Diane S. Bouch Recording Secretary • TENTATIVE AGENDA SPECIAL SESSION SHAKOPEE MINNESOTA - WEDNESDAY - NOVEMBER 4, 1981 Mayor Harbeck presiding 1 ] Roll Call at 7 : 30 P.M. 2 ] Approval of Minutes of October 6, 1981 3 ] Communications : 4] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 5] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS: 6] Old Business : a] County/Hospital Parking Lot Agreements - tabled 10/20 (coming Mon. ) b] Drainage on Abandoned RR r-of-w North of JEJ Addition and Scenic Heights Additions c ] Pay Plan for Clerical and/or Non-Union City Employees d] Five Year Capital Improvement Program (bring memo 9d of 10/20 mtg) eJ Sewer Billings 7 ] Planning Commission Recommendations : None 8] Resolutions and Ordinances : a] Res . No. 1911 , Volunteering A Hazardous Waste Disposal Site - tabled 10/20 b] Res . No. 1934, Canvassing Returns for the Municipal Election c ] Ord . No . 76, Amending City Code Entitled "Municipal and Public Utilities - Rules and Regulations , Franchises and Rates" d] Ord. No. 75, Amending City Code Relating to Fence Permits - tabled 10/6 e] Ord . No. 69, Amending City Code Relating to Street Openings and Excavation f] Ord. No . 78, Amending City Code Relating to Individual Sewage Disposal Systems and Water Treatment Systems g] Res . No . 1933 , Accepting Bid on Pumphouse #6 , Contract 81-2KT h] Res . No. 1935, Ordering Preparation of A Report on 2nd Avenue Utilities , Market to Naumkeag Res . No. 1931 , Ordering Preparation of A Report on Hwy 101 Frontage Road j ] Res . No . 1932 , Receiving Report & Ordering Public Hearing on Hwy 101 Frontage Road - 82-1 9] New Business : a] 8 : 30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - Application for $650,000 I .R. Bonds for Equities Unlimited b] Removal of Building in NE Corner of 1st and Holmes for Construc- . tion of a Right-Turn Lane - Discussion c ] Storm Sewer Financing d] Upper Valley Drainage e] Change Order No. 1 for Kmart Landscaping and Irrigation Project f] 1981 Audit Engagement g] Computer Terminal. Lease h] Move that the bills in the total amount of $93, 235. 10 be allowed and ordered paid i ] Shade Tree Reforestation j ] 10: 00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - Considering Revocation of On. Sale Club Liquor License of American Legion TENTATIVE AGENDA November 4, 1981 Page -2- 10] Consent Business : a] Purchase of Typewriters b] Purchase of File Cabinets c] Purchase of Vehicles d] Installation of Traffic Control Signs at 12th and Harrison 11 ] Other Business : a] Engineering Monthly Report b] c ] d] e] 12] Adjourn to Tuesday, November 10th, 1981 at 7 : 30 P.M. John K. Anderson City Administrator TENTATIVE AGENDA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE Special Session November 4, 1981 Chairman Hullander presiding 1 . Roll call at 7 :00 p.m. 2 . Accept Special Meeting Call 3 . Approval of Minutes of October 20, 1981 4. Elderly Highrise Redevelopment Project a. Discussion of expansion of the district b. Discussion of additional improvements ° 5 . Fourth and Minnesota Neighborhood Redevelopment Project a. Discussion of future development or use of property b. Discussion of availability of 235 funding c . Closings under the 235 Homeownership Program 6. Approval of the bills for Fourth and Minnesota Neighborhood Revitalization Project GIP a. 'Tom Siebenaler, $1 /201 .50, for installation of sod b. Al ' s Landscaping, $657 . 69, for landscaping c . Suburban Engineering, $151 .00, for as-built lot survey d. Community Development Digest, $147 .00 for subscription 7 . Approval of purchase of typewriter under 1981 Budget 8. Other Business 9 . Adjourn to November 17, 1981 Jeanne Andre Executive Director r 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 20, 1981 Vice Chrm. Leroux called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. with Comm. Colligan, Lebens and Reinke present. Chrm. Hullander arrived later. Also present was City Admr. John K. Anderson. Reinke/Lebens moved to approve the minutes of October 6, 1981 as kept. Motion carried unanimously. Chrm. Hullander arrived at this time, 7:10 P.M. Leroux/Colligan moved to authorize appropriate HRA officials to make, execute and deliver deed to Lot 6, Block 3, Macey Second Addition, subject to inspection and approval by staff of improvements constructed therein, to Goodwin Builders, Inc. This action to be in accordance with contract for deed between Goodwin Builders, Inc. and the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority, for the purpose of con- veying said property to authorized buyer identified by HRA. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Reinke moved to authorize appropriate HRA officials to make, execute and deliver deed to Lot 7, Block 3, Macey Second Addition, subject to inspection and approval by staff of improvements constructed therein, to Goodwin Builders, Inc. This action to be in accordance with contract for deed between Goodwin Builders, Inc. and the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority, for the purpose of con- veying said property to authorized buyer identified by HRA. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. The City Admr. summarized the invitation for an open house at the Fourth and Minne- sota Neighborhood Revitalization Project to be held October 26, 1981 from 3:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Colligan/Reinke moved to authorize payment of the bill to Shakopee Public Works for $157.85 for materials to improve drainage of "outlot A" in Macey Second Add'n. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Chrm. Hullander initiated discussion about the presentation of the Downtown Commit- tee at the last meeting. Discussion centered on the committee's plans to have some sort of public meeting to notify the community, or at least other businesses down- town, of what they have developed so far. Chrm. Hullander stated the committee had hesitated involving the community further until they had some more definite plans. Discussion also ensued regarding funding of the projects. Applying to the State for CDBG was discussed, even though the State has not decided how it will handle the funds. The City Admr. stated the Commissioners had previously received a staff memo listing 5 potential projects for the HRA, and one of them was the downtown redevelopment. Chrm. Hullander suggested staff research what funding is available ' and what has to be done to qualify. Discussion was held on the progress of the development of the west end of Levee Drive. Chrm. Hullander stated that study is in the process and the new City Council should be able to act on that after the first of the year. It was also suggested that staff keep checking with the Highway Dept. about its plans for putting in a turn lane on the north side of First Avenue at Holmes. The State has indicated it • Shakopee HRA October 20, 1981 Page 2 is doing a traffic study and would take care of the cost of constructing a turn lane and the expense of moving the traffic lights. It has also indicated it may fund moving the traffic lights at Lewis if the City desires to do that. Chrm. Hullander stated he would recommend at the next meeting of the Downtown Committee on Thursday, that it bring its ideas to the rest of the business persons downtown to invite their reaction. Comm. Reinke reported he has had some complaints that the elevator in the Senior Citizen' s Highrise is frequently out of order, and also that they are still ex- periencing problems with the dishwasher. Comm. Colligan stated he has received complaints that the ovens are not working properly and have to be manually lit, many times causing burns. The City A dmr. was directed to check out these complaints. Colligan/Reinke moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 P.M. Jeanne Andre HRA Executive Director Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary fl 4/ Q, d- b. MEMO TO: Members of the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Jeanne Andre , HRA Director RE: Elderly Highrise Tax Increment District DATE: October 30, 1981 Introduction During various discussions of the City Council and HRA, questions of expanding the tax increment district for the Elderly Highrise Redevelopment Project No. 1 have been raised. Staff has researched this issue to provide the City Council with further information . Background In Gregg Voxland' s attached memo of July 13 , 1981 on tax-increment projects , he estimated that $82 ,000 remains unencumbered in the fund for improvements for the Elderly Highrise Redevelopment Pro- ject . This money can be spent on additional improvements or placed in a sinking bond fund. The City! Council identified two projects adjacent but not in the tax-increment district it wished to consider, a) park improvements along Levee Drive , b) extension of Levee Drive to the west of the highrise . Staff has examined the possibility of expanding the tax-increment district to provide for these projects . Rod Krass , in consultation with Tom Hay, has judged that the park project could not be undertaken with tax-increment funds and the road could only be extended if appropriate bodies find the road necessary for the project (see attached letter) . Mr. Krass questions whether the City Council would go otn record saying the road is necessary now that the building has been completed and occupied. However I feel that this project could be justified to improve traffic cir- culation and fire department access via the semaphore at Scott Street . If the HRA and City Council wish to proceed with the extension of Levee Drive as part of the tax-increment district, the whole process followed in establishing the initial project must be repeated (see attached tentative outline of the process) . The initial step would be for the HRA to approve by resolution modifica- tion No . 1 and authorize its submission to the City Council and Planning Commission. The HRA therefore can direct staff to pre- pare Modification number 1 , the expansion of the tax-increment district and definition of additional improvements to be under- taken if it is desired to proceed with this project . Suggested Action Direct staff to prepare Modification No . 1 , the expansion of the district and definition of additional improvements , to the Elderly Highrise Redevelopment Project No . 1 . JA/jms . oft 114 :;:_fit MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Tax Increment Projects DATE: July 13, 1981 1) After reviewing the bond prospectivcs and consulting with Mr. Hay it appears that the Kmart bond proceeds must be used only for the improve- ments listed in the Agreement (well , watermain, tank, CR 83, rough grading and utilities, and parking lot) and the trustee must transfer unused construction funds into the sinking fund. 85% of construction funds must be spent by November 1, 1982. 2) Likewise, the Hirise funds would be handled as above but with the possibility of going through the process of amending the plan to include other improvements within the district. We are facing arbitrage provisions on these bonds if 85% of the proceeds are not spent by November 1, 1983, ($82,000 left) . Funds available Balance 12/31/80 $ 179, 711 Nct Interest (36,300) $ 143,411 Alternatives: (Hirise) A. Proceed with obtaining legal advice and amending the redevelop- ment plan to expend funds for other improvements within the district by 11/1/83. B. Not expend the funds which would then be placed in the sinking fund at restricted interest earnings (bond rate) and used to retire and/or recall bonds when possible. This issue does have balloon payments of $100,000 in 1991, 1992 and 1993. There is tax levies in support of the three final years of $244,262. Depending on surplus built up, these levies may be reduced. Also, the bonds may be refunded to provide financing at that time depending on various factors that may exist in 1989. GV/ljw / J RECE1k1FD , Law Offices of L a * KRASS, MEYER 8: KANNING ---- -Grj- Z A 1932 --- Chartered Phillip R. Kress Shakopee Professional Building c)TY OF SHAKOPff Barry K. Meyer 1221 Fourth Avenue East Philip T. Kenning Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Trevor R. Walston (612)445-5080 October 23, 1981 Ms. Jeanne Andre City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: Elderly Highrise Dear Jeanne: Tom Hay got back to me last Tuesday, the 20th, and we discussed at some length the questions raised in your August 25th letter. 4e has some significant problems with both projects that you propose, but especially the park project. He simply doesn't see any way in which we can utilize those funds for a park. Although questionable, it may be possible to expend funds for the construction of Levee Drive to the west if we make a finding that the road is necessary to the project. Since the project seems to function fine without the road, it simply is a question of whether or not the City Council and HRA are prepared to go on record saying the road is necessary. If they will say it, I think Tom will approve it. , If that's going to be done, we are going to have to expand the tax increment district which is going to require public notice and hearing in tho same manner as the establishment of the original district. I am sorry this took so long, but I did have to get some word back from Mr. Hay before I could give you any kind of an answer. Thank you. Yours very truly, KRASSMEYERAI KANNING CHARTERED / .:, / 441"Ap R. Krass PRK:ph File #1-1373-73 • { Tentative Steps to Modify Elderly Highrise Project No. 1* 1 . HRA adopt resolution approving modification and authorizing submission to Planning Commission and City Council . 2 . Discussion and approval of modification by Planning Commission. 3 . City Council adopt resolution to set public hearing on modifi- cation with 10 day publication period (publish, etc . ) . 4. City Council hold public hearing, discuss and adopt modification by resolution. 5 . HRA adopt resolution requesting auditor to certify original taxable value of modified project area . 6. Adopt resolution requesting City to act as redevelopment agent . 7 . City Council adopt resolution agreeing to act as Agent for the HRA in the redevelopment. 8. City Council follow normal procedure to undertake public improve- ment, project (acquisition, approve plans and specifications , award contract , etc. ) . 9. County certify original taxable value of the expanded project area. • *To be reviewed by legal counsel 10/30/81 1/(, MEMO TO: Members of the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Jeanne Andre , Executive Director RE: Certificate of Completion for Elderly Highrise Redevelop- ment Project No. 1 DATE : November 2 , 1981 Introduction The Contract for Sale of Land for Private Development in Elderly Highrise Redevelopment Project No. 1 calls for the HRA to provide a completion certificate as cited in Section 4.06. Mr. Bergstad, representing 200 Levee Drive Associates , LTD. , has requested the certificate. Background The above-listed contract outlines in Section 4 the Developer Undertakings . Section 4.06 outlines the provisions under which the HRA is to provide a completion certificate. Attached you will find a summary of the provisions of Section 4. The City Building Inspector, Assessor and Engineer have been questioned whether any outstanding deficiencies exist regarding the satis- factory completion of the highrise. None were cited. It is therefore recommended that the Certificate of Completion be issued, subject to review for form by the Assistant City Attorney. Alternatives 1 . Do not issue Certificate of Completion. 2 . Issue Certificate of Completion subject to satisfaction of any deficiencies citied by HRA Commissioners . 3 . Authorize issuance of Certificate of Completion. Recommended Action Authorize HRA Executive Director to issue Certificate of Comple- tion to 200 Levee Drive Associates for the developer undertakings in the Elderly Highrise Redevelopment Project No . 1 , subject to review for form by the Assistant City Attorney. JA/jms 7 � - SUMMARY - Section 4 Developer Undertakings 4.01 Construction and Value of Facilities a. Construct facility b. Minimum value for taxes of $33 ,873 4.02 Plans and Specifications a. Constructed according to plans , agreement , appli- cable state and local laws , ordinances , rules and regulations b. Change in plans to be approved by HRA < 4.03 Construction Contracts a. Enter into contract to construct facility valued at $1 ,850,000 by 12/31/79 or agreed on later date b. Completed on or before 12/31/80 subject to unavoid- able delays c . Value of completed facilities established as of 12/1/81 at market value 4.04 Access to Property a. Permitted as necessary to carry out provisions 4.05 Construction Progress Report a. Upon written request of HRA, developer will provide construction 'report (quarterly) 4.06 Completion Certificate a. Conclusive determination of satisfaction and termina- tion of the covenants of this Section 4 with respect to the Developer to construct the facilities and the dates of completion thereof shall be in form of Appendix C 4.07 Enforcement : Damages a. HRA has right to enforce terms of this agreement against contractors and developer for performance or damages b. HRA expenses may include fees for legal counselto enforce agreement c. Developer not liable to HRA or City for expense or loss as result of contractor ' s default in construction in excess of the liability of the contractor to the developer for such default Completion Certificate The undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Executive Director of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, hereby certifies pursuant to Section 4 of the Contract For Sale of Land for Private Redevelopment in Elderly Highrise Redevelopment Project No. 1 , dated as of December 10, 1979 by and between the Authority and 200 Levee Drive Associates , Ltd. , that 200 Levee Drive Associates , Ltd. has completed the acquisition and construction of the Facilities (as defined in said Contract) in accordance with said Contract , all conditions of the land development contract are satisfied and the forfeiture conditions are void and no longer of any force or effect . Dated : Executive Director Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Shakopee State of Minnesota ) ) ss County of The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me , a notary public , this day of , 19 By Notary Seal : This instrument was drafted by: 5 Q. b. MEMO TO: Members of the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Jeanne Andre, HRA Director RE : Disposition of Remaining Unsold Property in Macey Second Addition DATE: October 30, 1981 Introduction The HRA Commissioners have requested a report on the disposition of remaining unsold property in Macey Second Addition to initiate discussion and action by the HRA on future development or use of these lots . Recent information related to 235 financing encourages 4 discussion of this issue at this time . Background Current budget cutting at the federal level provides no funds for the 235 mortgage program in 1981 , 1982 or anticipated thereafter. However previously budgeted funds are gradually being allocated to area offices . The Minneapolis office was allocated 105 units on October 27 , 1981 , on the condition that conditional commitments can be made by December 18, 1981 . To insure a conditional commitment the building plans and specifications for a specific lot must be submitted by the builder and approved by FHA. The local HUD office is taking the position that housing authorities and builders affected by previous 235 delays will be given the first chance for these reallocated funds . The HRA could use property it owns in Macey Second Addition for new 235 units , but the final disposition of this property is still to be discussed. Various options have been presented on the remaining undeveloped land in Macey Second Addition over the life of this project. Options with the advantages and disadvantages are presented below. 1 . Leave the land (Lots 3 , 4 and 5, Block 3 and Outlot A) open and undeveloped to provide more open space in the subdivision. Advantages a . The developed area is relatively dense and inhabited by many children. More open space would be welcome by local residents . b. No park dedication was collected on the building permits for houses constructed on Minnesota Street, but this open land could be a substitute . Disadvantages a. The current park development policy is not supportive of small pocket parks or parks located adjacent to collector streets , both of which are applicable in this case . . Hiawatha Park is three blocks from this parcel . Members of the Shakdpee Housing and Redevelopment Authority '- Page Two October 30, 1981 b. If the HRA maintains title to this land rather than making it a formal park, the HRA retains the responsibility and cost of maintaining the land. c . The land would be kept off the tax roles . d. Additional families would not be provided homes . 2 . Leave the land (Lots 3 , 4 and 5, Block 3 and Outlot A) to be developed at some future time . Advantages a . Water and sewer improvements for Market Street are tenta- tively scheduled in the draft Capital Improvement Program for 1982-84. The four remaining parcels would potentially be developed together or jointed with additional land for development if water and sewer services are available on Market Street . Disadvantages a. Mortgage financing for future development is an unknown 'which could prevent development indefinitely. b. The HRA would have the responsibility of maintaining the land in the interim period prior to development and the land would remain off the tax roles during this period. 3 . Develop the land now (Lots 3 , 4 and 5 , Block 3 and Outlot A) Advantages a . The HRA could take advantage of 235 funds available now which may not be available in the future. b. Additional families will be provided homes . c . The land would cease to be a maintenance responsibility of the HRA and would go back on the tax roles . Disadvantages a . Less open space for neighborhood and no services in Market Street . b. No time to replat Outlot A (to create lots) or Lot 3 , Block 3 to resolve problem created by large utility easement on northern portion of lot . c . Difficult to find large families eligible for four bed- room, single family homes . Members of the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority 5�� Page Three October 30, 1981 Recommended Action 1 . Hold Outlot A for future development when Market Street improve- ments are constructed. 2 . Develop Lots 3 , 4 and 5, Block 3 with 235 funds available now. Set aside Lot 5 for construction of a four-bedroom, single family home, and construct a zero-lot-line twin home on Lots 3 and 4, each side to be for a two- or three-bedroom unit . 3 . In order to meet the FHA deadline , contract for construction of homes on a negotiated basis with either : a. All those contractors who have submitted proposals to previous HRA solicitations ; or b. All those contractors who have previously contracted with the HRA to construct homes in this project . JA/jms MEMO TO: Members of the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) FROM: Jeanne Andre , Executive Director RE: Closings Under the 235 Homeownership Program Fourth and Minnesota Neighborhood Revitalization Project DATE: October 30, 1981 Background Two units in Macey Second Addition should be ready to close by the end of November. The units are : Lot 11, Block 2 , to be purchased by Can Doan and Mau Nguyen constructed by Pomije Custom Homes , inc . Lot 10, Block 3 , to be purchased by Alan and Carolyn Barnard constructed by Pomije Custom Homes , Inc . The units are not yet complete, but will be before staff arranges for the execution of the deeds . The Shakopee Building Inspector and FHA inspector must grant final approval before the closings occur. Requested Action The following motions should be adopted by the HRA to prepare for the closings : 1 . Authorize appropriate HRA officials to make, execute and deliver deed to Lot 11 , Block 2 , Macey Second Addition, subject to in- spection and approval by staff of improvements constructed therein, to Pomije Custom Homes , Inc. This action to be in accordance with contract for deed between Pomije Custom Homes, Inc . and the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority, for the purpose of conveying said property to authorized buyer identified by HRA. 2 . Authorize appropriate HRA officials to make, execute and deliver deed to Lot 10, Block 3 , Macey Second Addition, subject to in- spection and approval by staff of improvements constructed therein, to Pomije Custom Homes , Inc . This action to be in accordance with contract for deed between Pomije Custom Homes , Inc. and the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority, for the purpose of conveying said property to authorized buyer identified by HRA._ JA/jms H/9/9 7 Ceo#c COQ MEMO TO: Members of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne Andre , HRA Director RE : Purchase of Typewriter(s) DATE : October 29, 1981 Introduction Three models of typewriters have been tested and quotations solicited in preparation to purchase typewriters budgeted in 1981 for Adminis- tration and in 1982 for the HRA. Background All models tested are electronic and include the Olivetti ET 121 , Olivetti 221 and the IBM 60. Quotes were secured on all three (see attached) and evaluated in terms of features provided. The preferred models are the Olivetti ET 121 for Administration ($1100 budgeted) and the Olivetti ET 221 for the HRA ($1500 budgeted) . Although the machines will be purchased under these budgets , it has been determined administratively that a policy of assigning newer typewriters to the personnel who do the most typing will be adopted. Two typewriters are to be traded in , the Olivetti Lexicon 90 (5 years old) and the Lexicon 90C (4 years old) . Staff recommends purchase of two typewriters , one Olivetti ET 121 and one Olivetti ET 221 . The features which have influenced the decision are price on the Olivetti ET 121 (to stay within the administrative budget) and the memory features and variations in type size on the Olivetti E?T 221 . Olivettis were also preferred due to their quietness . The HRA actually has no typewriter to trade, but the City would trade one of its typewriters in consideration of the use the City will make of the HRA typewriter. Given this factor, the cost of the Olivetti ET 221 would be $1564.00 to the HRA (or $64 above budget) . The City would be able to secure a very reasonable price of $796 .00 for the Olivetti ET 121 , which is $229.00 less than the cost of that machine if it is purchased alone . To secure this savings both machines must be purchased at the same time . However as the typewriters are budgeted in two different years , authority must be given to purchase the HRA typewriter in 1981 to achieve this savings and to exceed the budget by $64.00. As of September 30, 1981 only 48% of the HRA budget of $27 ,900 for 1981 had been expended, and no unusually high expenditures are anticipated for the last quarter of the year. Therefore the HRA can remain within its budget and purchase the desired typewriter in 1981 and provide the City the savings available by purchasing two typewriters at the same time. Purchase of Typewriter(s) October 29, 1981 7 Page Two- Requested Action HRA: Approve purchase of Olivetti ET 221 electronic typewriter at a base cost of $2020, with trade in of $456 for a net cost of $1564 in fiscal year 1981 . City Council : Approve purchase of Olivetti ET 121 electronic typewriter at a base cost of $1350, with trade in of $554 as budgeted for Administration in 1981 . _ 7 * F' F� F-' F-' N 00 N) £ H £ 0 £ 0 * * F-, i_._, r• ed H. r-' H. 1--4 HI 0 i--1 0 F--1 H. H. 0 rt X rt H• rt H. H ,` - e0 r-' tz1 F-, t d C C F-' �" ? < R < Q' X H. 3 r• 3 CD (D H. rn co co o o C C rt rt < N 0 N) rt N rt (D < < CT (D ON (D ON rt rt (D rt rt 0 co Orr Ort 0 H. H. rt rt O.. H. O. H. n rr rt rt k< w N H. Z C) H. H. t'I t'I r• b H. tli H. t'I rt 7d r• H H H. cn H (n H (D > rt H H IHI--, N CI0 N F-, F-' N N FI N) F-' 1-' 1--1 N ('D F-1 £a" HI 0 CO 1/4.D N N N F--' CD (D O• N 00 F-' F-' Q) I-1 (D (D (D (D F-, Z I-' Fs F-' ed ed Z co �' CD m Ca- G a a rt GQ a cr) (D GQ rt Ai E '11 rt -Eft -ER H. rt 0 1-' F-' rt H. H1 •. V 0 > N) La ''(D 0 -64 -ER Eft 0 -EA- Oft - 0 0 VI H. W h-, N N f" F-, LAD F-, N F-, N I-, C, f-h O J V V V x X V V V O H. NN0 ON (vW u..) L,..) N O W 1t X (n V 00 N Li) 00 00 N) --.3 Ln N N 00 N.) 00 Z W Hi ro 1-1 VVO VVO II 000 + v 0 0 C) I-1 Po w 0 0 0 H. rt -Ea 0 0 0 0 rt rt H. N) (D b 0 Ln II H.U H. U) fD — v -6, (n ...� rt 4> N 0 0 H. 0 V rt rt Lw) Z lD 0 rt (1 rt '0 CD £ F-' I-' F-' I-' I-' I-' F-' F-' i--' 1-1 I--' FI F--' I-' I-, F-' /1 ZD ".D 1D .D NO %.0 ND 0,.0 H. vv -..iv VV VV Vv vv vv VV rt - ON VON Vag Va-' •-...1 ON VON (-4.1 a Val 1-3 Pt rt O n rr ,rr rr rr t- r4 rr rr rr W rr (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D a (D 0 XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX (DZ Hi H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. r• H. H. I rt () 0 0 0 0 () (3 () () () 0 0 0 0 0 0 HI H. eft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d 0 I" Z Z Z Z Z O i Z i Z O O Z Z 1--' 0 \0 VD qD 0 q0 0 '0 .0'.0 '.0 '.0 10 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 -EA -Eft ER _ -63 - f-- -ER I--'{tq F-'{R -Eft H' - 4> -Eft 4> -Eft H' Vi 4> -E&N 0 L1' 0 W I-% 0 LJ'1 U'1 Ln VD F-' 0 4>Ln La)00 0 4> O LA N 0 Ln ON i)N) N 0 0 U'1 Ln Ln 0 Ls Ln 4> 00 Ln v, H b -64-EA.-EA. -E3-ER-ER 'tis ff} -El--El -Eft -ff3- -Eft -Eft-Eft �t-Eft -(f3-Eft et 't N1--x F-' N h' t-' N.) 1--, N FH H' F -' F-' H' f--, N F-1 I-' P3 r• v v v uto to to to u u (1. r) a, F-' 4> N F-' 0 Li) H, h' W V Ln V 00 OD F-' H' .P Ln 0 0 (D (D ON 0000 H' 00N . •ON 00 ON .0 ON 0N00 aiOo 00 O` Nt0 V V 0 N V U'1 1/4.0,N) V 0 ON 4> O N 00 N V 0 Ln In Ln Hi Z * * * * * Zr• � r CD 0 0 0 rt C) Z 11 H. ;U art CD Z 0 Z H. 70 rt > H. XI H- 7d rr > rt > rt > Ot+FICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 6, 1981 Mayor Harbeck called the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M. with Cncl. Hullander, Lebens, Reinke, Leroux and Colligan present. Also present were Julius A. Coller, II, City Attorney; H. R. Spurrier, City Engineer; Don Steger, City Planner; John K. Anderson, City Admr. and Judith S. Cox, City Clerk. Hullander/Reinke_ moved to approve the minutes of August 18, 1981, August 25, 1981, September 1, 1981, September 8, 1981 and September 15, 1981. as kept. Cncl. Leroux initiated a discussion about the revision in the minutes of August 18, 1981 ii eference to the motion regarding John Nelson's charges for the VIP Interceptor. Discussion followed regarding the intent of the motion. Leroux/Lebens moved to amend the minutes of August 18, 1981 page 4, paragraph 4, as follows: "Leroux/Lebens moved that regarding the property of John Nelson the City finds that it is not feasible for Mr. Nelson to hook up to the VIP Interceptor using it as a lateral , and therefore does not charge him a lateral charge. However, there are interceptor and trunk charges to the property if a lateral is con- structed in another manner, and therefore he should be charged the area charge for interceptor and trunk. Motion carried with Cncl. Colligan opposed and Cncl. Reinke abstaining." Motion carried with Cncl. Colligan opposed and Mayor Harbeck abstaining. Main motion for approval of all the minutes listed carried unanimously. Leroux/Hullander moved to accept the report of the Minnesota Dept. of Health from Gary L. Englund dated Sept. 22, 1981, and refer it to SPUC, and that the report's recommendations be complied with in a timely manner. Harbeck/Leroux moved to amend the motion to have SPUC notify City Council when the work is completed. Motion on amendment carried unanimously. Lou VanHout, SPUC Manager, stated that many of the items listed on the report are routine and occur every year, and do not really present any health hazard, and are not cost effective. Shakopee received a rating of 98%, and 90% is considered excellent. Motion carried unanimously. A brief discussion was held regarding pursuing the earlier motion to sue the Minn. Waste Control Commission to cease and desist from any further consideration of the Shakopee Site. The City Admr. stated he would pursue consideration of the matter with the Ass't City Attorney. The Mayor asked if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to address the Council on any item not on the agenda, and Gary Eastlund, of Scottland, asked the Council why the improvements have not been made to Valley Industrial Blvd. South, when the Council agreed to make the improvements in March. The City Engineer addressed the question and recited the dates when action had occurred to proceed with the project, stating that the final plans came back from the City's consultant, Suburban Engineering, too late to be let yet this year. The City Engineer had previously informed Mr. Eastlund that he thought the project would be ready for bids by mid-September. The City Engineer stated the plans are finalized now and construction is scheduled for first thing in 1982. Mr. Eastlund stated he wished the City had followed up better to get the plans earlier from its consultant, as the road is in such terrible repair. Doug McKinnon addressed the Council regarding costs associated with the Bluff Ave. Improvement Project 81-2. Mr. McKinnon stated that he thought his costs should be the actual installation of the service lines, instead of the average instal- lation cost. He only had to have 16 feet of service lines installed and others have 43 feet, and he is paying the same amount . He did not understand at the time he signed the request for service that the cost would be handled in this way. If he knew it would cost that much for such a little distance, he would not have requested the service. Shakopee City Council October 6, 1981 Page 2 The City Engineer stated that his service line could be omitted from the list at this time, as the work has not been done, and he is not required to have a service line installed. Mr. McKinnon indicated this was his preference. The City Admr. asked about Council's preference for the assessment of service lines. Colligan/Leroux moved to adopt the policy of assessment of service lines by the average installation cost per service line to each home in the improvement district. Motion carried unanimously. The Mayor informed Council that on November 19, 1981 the Government Training Ser- vices is holding a session on computers and how they can help cities. He will plan to attend it, as it is just one day prior to the State Mayors' Conference, but he asked if someone else would like to attend. Cncl. Leroux volunteered. The Mayor asked the City Clerk to be sure to remind them of the computer conference as more information becomes available. Leroux/Colligan moved to open the public hearing on the appeal from the Planning Commission's decision to deny a Conditional Use Permit for a dog kennel in an R-1 Zone. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner gave a brief background report on the application and decision of the Planning Commission. He stated that the applicant is Roy Simmons, and that he presently has 4 dogs. The situation came to the attention of the City because of the complaint of a neighbor about excessive barking. The Planning Commission denied the permit because it felt the adjoining neighbor would not have the full enjoyment of his property because of the excessive barking if the permit was al- lowed, and also because of the setting of a precedent in the R-1 Zone. Mr. Simmons, the applicant, was in the audience and a considerable amount of discussion followed. Reinke/Leroux moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Hullander/Leroux moved to adopt Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. CC-286 with the following conditions: 1. The dogs remain fenced in the back yard; 2. The applicant have no more than 4 dogs; 3. This Conditional Use Permit be reviewed in 6 months. Discussion was held regarding under what circumstances the Conditional Use Permit would be revoked. Cncl. Leroux suggested the City tighten up the ordinance regarding kennels. The City Planner stated that in his staff report to the Planning Commission he suggested the City consider adding a separation clause regarding kennels, such as it would have to be 500 feet from adjoining neighbors. This would give a distance factor on which to base the definition of a kennel. Cncl. Colligan asked the applicant about the possibility of moving his kennel away from the complaining neighbor. Mr. Simmons stated he could do that by putting it on the west side of the house, but it would take a while as he would have to move a lot of rock. Hullander/Leroux moved to amend the motion to add an additional condition requiring that the applicant move the kennel to the west side of his house within 30 days. Motion carried unanimously. Lou VanHout asked about this action as setting a precedent. He asked the Council to make a statement on the record that this permit is allowed partially because the dogs are not out in the day and that there are no neighbors too close. He thought this would ensure that fewer kennels would be allowed in the future. Motion carried unanimously. Dan Steil made a presentation to the Council on behalf of the Ad Hoc Downtown Com- mittee, which is a subcommittee of the Industrial/Commercial Commission. This committee has been meeting since April 1981 to redesign the downtown area. He presented the overall design concept for the downtown area, which they have defined as everything between Apgar and Filmore Streets and from the river to 6th Avenue. • Shakopee City Council October 6, 1981 V Page 3 Mr. Steil stated the committee does believe this entire overall concept can be accomplished in time, but they now want to concentrate on 4 immediate goals so they do not lose their momentum, and also to show the community they are making progress. The immediate goals are: 1. Installing a turn lane on the north side of 1st Ave. and Holmes, which would incorporate removing the Opera House building. 2. Eliminate parking between Holmes and Lewis on the north side. 3. Extend Levee Drive eastward. 4. Re-locate power lines on 2nd Ave. The Mayor asked what the committee has done to investigate funding for the project. He also stated the prime goal should be getting rid of all the traffic downtown. Discussion followed. Mr. Steil stated the committee has explored economic strategies for development of the downtown area. The City Planner, an ex-officio member of the committee, addressed this subject. He stated the committee estimated it would take $15,000 to $40,000 just to get the initial steps taken, and they realize this would be too much to ask from the community. These things will not occur in a short time, but it is appropriate to set some direction for the future. Cncl. Hullander spoke as a member of the committee, and stated they felt it would give additional private investment drive to see some things have been done. The committee felt it could not afford to wait any longer, as the downtown area is losing businesses monthly. They feel it is important to give the business community and private development firms confidence that the community is willing to do somethirg without coming to the taxpayers. The Mayor asked if there was anyone else on the Downtown Committee or in the audience who wished to comment on the concept plan. Bill Wermerskirchen stated that in the past it was generally felt that nothing should be done to help the traffic pattern on 1st Avenue because it might jeopardize the by-pass, but the committee feels it cannot afford to wait any longer. Reinke/Leroux moved to concur with the Ad Hoc Downtown Committee overall design concept of the downtown area, and direct the committee to proceed with the initial 4 steps for redevelopment as outlined. Cncl. Leroux suggested the "no parking" on the north side of 1st Avenue be continued from Holmes to Fuller. The City Planner stated the elimination of parking on the north side of 1st Avenue was meant to be done as an integral part of the construc- tion of turn lanes, and they have done some checking with the State Hwy. Dept. , and it will take some time. Cncl. Hullander stated that for the immediate future this is going to take some staff time and the committee is asking for Council approval of staff time on this project. The City Admr. stated that the wording of the motion signifies approval. The Mayor asked that any Councilperson who sees any problems with this plan relate the concerns to the Downtown Committee. Motion carried unanimously. Hullander/Lebens moved to approve the Assessment Agreement between the City of Shakopee and County of Scott for the years 1982-1986, and authorize proper City officials to execute same. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Joe Ries, County Admr. , stated that on the advice of the County Attorney, the County Board was directed to issue a letter of intent regarding the development of the parking lot at Block 57, in lieu of the Agreement drawn up by the City. He read a letter from the Chairman of the County Board to the Mayor stating the County's intent to acquire the remaining 3 properties in the southeast portion of Block 57 to construct a parking lot by December 31, 1982; that the County has jointly with the hospital engaged the firm of Israelson & Son to do the work and intend to have the parking lot completed by August of 1983 if there are no delays beyond the control of the County. Mr. Ries gave the letter of intent to the record- ing secretary, and is attached hereto as a part of these minutes. Mr. Ries pledged his personal effort in moving the construction of this parking lot along as smoothly and quickly as possible, stating that he is to be in charge and is fully cognizant and agreeable to the City's position. Shakopee City Council October 6, 1981 Page 4 Chrm, Hullander asked what objection the County Attorney had to the Agreement, and Mr. Ries stated that he was not at liberty to divulge anything that happened today in this regard, as the County'Attorney's response was confidential, Discussion followed regarding the County's actions of keeping their reasoning confidential. Leroux/Lebens moved to table the County's portion of the Agreement for the parking lot on Block 57 until October 20, 1981, at which time all Councilmembers should have a copy of the County's letter of intent together with reaction from City staff, including the Ass't City Attorney. Motion carried with Mayor Harbeck opposed. Mike Sortum appeared for St. Francis Hospital, and stated the hospital's Board has reviewed the Agreement for the completion of the parking lot on Block 57, and accepted it with the contingency that the Agreement will be entered into with the County also. The hosptial has all its property razed and will have temporary parking there by November 1. With the submission of the County's letter of intent, he stated he is sure the hospital would be willing to submit a similar letter of intent with similar dates. Hullander/Colligan moved to table the Agreement regarding the hospital to give staff a chance to meet with the County and hospital to work out the problems. Joe Ries suggested that if it is the City's intent to enter into discussion with the County, that it include the County Attorney, as he did not intend to represent the County any more on this matter without her present. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion was held on Eastview Add'n utilities and what the City can do to pro- tect itself and the property owners regarding issuance of building permits. The City Admr. stated the staff's recommendation is to not issue occupancy permits when there is no electricity, instead of establishing a moratorium on building permits. Cncl. Reinke stated Mr. Chard, the developer, has two signed agreements with SPUC for the provision of utilities, but he has not paid the charges. The City Atty. stated the City cannot sue Mr. Chard because of the lack of elec- tricity in individual homes; that is between the individual and the developer. Further discussion ensued. Harbeck/Hullander moved to direct staff that all building permits will carry a statement that no occupancy permit will be issued in the Eastview Add'n until necessary utilities are connected. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion was held on requiring connection to City sewer and water as far as what constitutes failure of a private system. Hullander/Colligan moved to 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; and direct City staff to bring back an ordinance to this effect. Cncl. Leroux suggested clarifying that the three years to hookup is from the date of the ordinance or system failure, whichever comes first. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Colligan offered Resolution No. 1925, A Resolution Amending Assessments 80-4- Public Improvement Program, CR16 Utilities, and moved its adoption. The City Admr. summarized the resolution. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Hullander/Leroux moved to 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, to state "Bond or Cash Equivalent". Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Hullander moved to offer Resolution No. 1912, A Resolution Amending Resolu- tion No. 1795, A Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Superior Supply 1st Add'n, and moved its adoption. The City Admr. summarized the resolution. Motion carried with Cncl. Colligan abstaining. Harbeck/Hullander moved not to reinstate the signing of rezoning and subdivision sites. Discussion followed. Shakopee City Council October 6, 1981 Page 5 Hullander/Leroux moved that City staff be directed to come up with plans and specs- 'ications and an ordinance concerning signing of replatting and rezoning. Roll Call: Ayes; Hullander, Reinke, Leroux, Colligan Noes; Lebens, Harbeck Motion carried. The City Planner presented the decision of the Planning Commission regarding the Minnesota Valley Mall area traffic study done by Bennett-Ringrose-Walsfeld-Jarvis— Gardner, Inc. ; which is Alternative No. 3, with modifications. Discussion followed regarding where 13th Avenue would go through Lions Park. The City Engineer stated that construction of 13th Ave. would only occur in conjunction with development in the area. This alignment is to help developers identify the road and thereby work around it. Hullander/Leroux moved to approve traffic plan Alternative No. 3 with modifications as follows: 1. Close the existing 12th Ave. entrance. 2. Create new temporary entrance as indicated on map, immediately south of K-mart. And to direct staff to investigate the cost of the new temporary entrance and report to the City Council at a future meeting. Harbeck/Hullander moved to amend the motion that the 12th Street exit into the mall does not become closed until such time as development with the development absorbing the cost of closing 12th Street and opening of new entrance. Further discussion followed, with Cncl. Leroux stating he doesn' t like alterna— tive No. 3 at all, and would rather have Alternative No. 8. Alternative No. 8 does not dump the traffic right in front of the highly trafficked store and would still allow for development within the area. He stated apparently the Planning Commission thought extending the asphalt that much farther was a waste. The City Admr. stated the consultant had informed the Planning Commission that even if the entrance is not right in front of the mall, the traffic would all move down to the entrances and there would still be the conflict of motorized and foot traffic. Roll Call on Amendment: Ayes; Hullander, Reinke, Leroux, Colligan, Harbeck Noes; Lebens Motion to amend carried. Roll Call on Main Motion as Amended: Ayes; None Noes; Unanimous Motion failed. Colligan/Leroux moved to approve traffic plan Alternative No. 8 as presented by BRW, Inc. regarding the Minn. Valley Mall area traffic study, with the additional condition that the 12th Street exit into the mall does not become closed until such time as development occurs, and that said development absorbs the cost of closing 12th Avenue and opening a new entrance to the mall. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Colligan/Leroux offered Resolution No. 1917, A Resolution Ordering the 1981 Diseased Tree Removal Program, and moved its adoption. The City Admr. summarized the resolution.I Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Colligan offered 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, and moved its adoption. The City Admr. summarized the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. Hullander/Leroux offered 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 Exonomic Council, and moved its adoption. The City Admr. summarized the resolution. Harbeck/Hullander moved to amend the agreement to add to No. 4 of the Agreement that the City would continue to carry the insurance for the Eagle Creek Hall, but that the Scott-Carver Economic Council pay the building's pro rata share of the insurance costs. Motion carried unanimously. Roll Call on Main Motion as amended: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Colligan/Leroux offered Resolution No. 1911, A Resolution Volunteering a Hazardous Waste Disposal Site, and moved its adoption. The City Admr. summarized the reso- lution. Cncl. Reinke initiated discussion regarding whether this resolution speci- fies just what Shakopee will receive in return for volunteering this site, which would be electricity/heat/money. Shakopee City Council October 6, 1981 Page 6 Cncl. Hullander left the meeting at 10:45 P.M. Reinke/Leroux moved to table Resolution No. 1911 and have staff bring back futher study regarding what Shakopee is getting from the donation. Motion carried unanimously. Lebens/Reinke offered Resolution 1915, A Resolution Abating Assessments for Certain Parcels Involved in the Holmes Street Storm Sewer Improvement 80-3 (Appealed Assessments), and moved its adoption. The City Admr. summarized the resolution. The City Admr. stated this action was a directive of the Judge, as stated by the Ass't City Attorney. The City Clerk stated that the Judge set the assessments aside, and in order to clarify the bookkeeping, this abatement is requested. The City can still re-assess however it decides to handle the assessment. Discussion followed. Roll Call: Ayes; Lebens, Reinke Noes; Leroux, Colligan, Harbeck Motion failed, Colligan/Leroux offered Resolution No. 1916, A Resolution Authorizing Amendment to Joint and Cooperative Agreement, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Reinke offered 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 & 5, Regulating On-Site Sewage Treatment Systems and Water Well Construction Respectively, and moved its adoption. The City Administrator summarized the reso- lution. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Colligan moved to direct staff to prepare appropriate ordinances adopting the Scott County Water Well Construction Ordinance No. 5 and Scott County Sewage Treatment System Ordinance No. 4 by reference and repealing Shakopee's current ordinances. Motion carried unanimously. Harbeck/Leroux offered Resolution No. 1726, A Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of General Obligation Judgment Bonds and Levying Taxes for the Payment Thereof, and moved its adoption. Harbeck/Reinke moved to amend Resolution No. 1726 to change the dollar amount in Section 2 from $81,572.00 to $61,572.00, as noted by the Finance Director. Motion to amend carried unanimously. Roll Call on Resolution No. 1726 as amended: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carriede! Leroux/Colligan offered Resolution No. 1924, A Resolution Calling For Public Hearing Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01, Subd. 7b, (Equities Unlimited) and moved its adoption. Reinke/Leroux moved to amend Resolution No. 1924 to change the date of public hearing from November 5, 1981 to November 4, 1981 at 8:30 P.M. Motion to amend carried unanimously. Resolution No. 1924 carried unanimously. Leroux/Colligan offered Resolution No. 1928, a Resolution Setting Sewer Service Charges, and moved its adoption. The City Admr. summarized the resolution. Bill Runge asked several questions about the sewer service charges, which were answered by the Finance Director. Mr. Runge concluded by stating he felt this is a fantastic increase in charges. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Gene Hauer addressed the Council regarding SAC charges for the Hauer Lateral Im- provement No. 80-1. He stated he attended all the public hearings and it was his clear understanding that there would be no SAC charges on existing homes. He could not understand why 32 homes are excused from SAC charges and 8 properties have to pay. Discussion followed to try to clarify which properties were excused from the SAC charges in Council ' s motions of August 11 , 1981 . Shakopee CityCouncil October 6, 1981 Page 7 Leroux/Lebens moved to amend previous City Council action of August 11, 1981 re- gaiding SAC charges for the Hauer Lateral Sewer Service Connection to state that should include all of the north half of Section 8, but that it will still only include: l)Anyone who has paid a SAC charge will not be reimbursed; and 2) Any parcel subsequently to receive sewer service or to be built upon will be assessed a SAC charge. Roll Calls Ayes; Lebens, Leroux Noes; Colligan, Harbeck Abstain: Reinke Motion failed. Leroux/Colligan offered Resolution No. 1921, A Resolution Adopting the 1982 Budget, and moved its adoption. The City Admr. summarized the resolution. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Colligan/Leroux offered 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, and moved its adoption. The City Admr. summarized the resolution. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Colligan offered Resolution No. 1923, A Resolution Directing the County Auditor Not to Levy a Tax for Sewage Disposal Plant Borns of 1961, and moved its adoption. The City Admr. summarized the resolution. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Colligan/Lebens offered Resolution No. 1927, A Resolution Approving 1981 Tax Levy, Collectible in 1982, and moved its adoption. The City Admr. summarized the resolution. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Lebens/Reinke offered 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, and moved its adoption. The City Admr. summarized the resolution. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Lebens/Colligan offered Ordinance No. 75, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending the Shakopee City Code, Chapter 4, Entitled "Con- struction Licensing, Permits and Regulations" by Adding Thereto A Requirement for Fence Permits and Detailing Construction Requirements of Fences and by Adoption by Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1, Section 4.99, Which Among Other Things, Contain Penalty Provisions, and moved its adoption. The City Admr. summarized the resolution. Colligan/Harbeck moved to amend Ordinance No. 75 to have it state that all fencing be erected at least 2 feet off the property line. Discussion was held regarding barbed wire fences which are present within the City limits in rural areas. The City Atty. stated that State law prohibits barbed wire fences in City limits. Mayor suggested staff contact our state representatives about the amount of rural area that is within City limits and the rural need for barbed wire fences. Reinke/Leroux moved to table Ordinance No. 75 for clarification. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Lebens offered Resolution No. 1913, A Resolution Adopting a Procedure For Hiring City Employees, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Reinke/Harbeck moved to adopt procedures as outlined in September 29, 1981 memo "Clarification of Request for Proposals to Provide Cable Communications Services" to City Admr. from Admr. Asst. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Lebens moved to direct staff to send a letter to Minnesota Senators and amendment author, Senator Robert Packwood, expressing the .opposition of the City to Packwood amendment to Senate file 898. Motion carried unanimously. Reinke/Leroux moved to authorize execution of Change Order No. 1 for Halo 2nd Add'n Improvements Project No. 80-10 (Schedule no. 1), in the amount of $5,570.30. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Shakopee City Council October 6, 1981 ^/ Page 8 Colligan/Lebens moved to direct staff to investigate the use of an aerator for Millpond and also research the change in size of Millpond in regard to the water quality problem. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Colligan moved to direct staff to prepare an ordinance providing for partial pre-payments of special assessments. Motion carried with Cncl. Lebens opposed. Leroux/Colligan moved that the bills in the total amount of $200,534.87 be allowed and ordered paid. Roll Call : Ayes; Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. The City Planner informed Council the County Atty. declared invalid the origi- nal Joint Powers Agreement establishing the Seven-Man Committee consisting of Shakopee, Jackson Township and Scott County. The County Attorney's office has therefore drafted a proposed new agreement which transfers to the Seven-Man Commit- tee all planning and zoning authority within the Committee's original jurisdictional area. The City Planner advises against this proposed new agreement. Discussion followedregarding keeping the committee advisory. Leroux/Reinke moved to deny the agreement proposed by the County Attorney regard- ing the Seven-Man Committee. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Leroux moved to direct staff to have the City Attorney research this agree- ment and bring back more information as to the City' s rights in this area. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Reinke moved the consent business: 1. Authorize the payment of $8,000 to Grayson & Lindstrand for an additional ease- ment for the CR16 Utilities Improvement 80-4 to be paid for out of the construc- tion contingency fund. 2. Direct staff to discontinue the publication of the bills and resolutions (ex- cept those requested) beginning October 1, 1981. 3. 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. 4. Authorize the transfer of the balance of the "Hauer Escrow" in the amount of $6,126.97 to the 1980 Improvement Fund. 5. Direct staff to install North and South stop signs on 3rd and Fuller. Motion carried unanimously. Gary Eastlund addressed the Council regarding the policy on lot splits. He stated he was on the subdivision committee at the time this was drawn up, and the purpose was to make simple lot splits as quick and easy as possible. He said the intent for splitting existing lots which contain no buildings was to only have a review by the Planning Commission and not go through the formal public hearing process. Discussion followed with the City Planner and Council. Reinke/Harbeck moved to table this policy item and send it back to the Planning Commission in an effort to get back to the original intent of the policy. Motion carried unanimously. Reinke/Leroux moved to adjourn to October 20, 1981 at 7:30 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:15 A.M. Judith S. Cox City Clerk Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary Y `^ 1 6 t1) MEMO TO: John Anderson City Administrator FROM: H. R. Spurrier N 7/;41.71 City Engineer RE: Drainage on Abandoned Chicv. , Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way North of JEJ addition and Scenic Heights Additions DATE: October 9, 1981 Introduction: On July 21, 1981 in a public meeting with property owners in Scenic Heights and JEJ Addition, City Council directed City staff to prepare a preliminary report on the permanent repairs which should be made and included in the Capital Improvement Program. Background: The City is dealing with an old and recurring problem; $14,708.43 was spent in 1976 to clean and improve the drainage along the Milwaukee right-of-way. The City of Shakopee had performed that work pursuant to an agreement dated May 27, 1975 between the City of Shakopee and the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company. It was necessary for the City to enter into the agreement in order to facilitate the development of JEJ Addition. Run-off developed in JEJ Addition had to be discharged onto the railroad right-of-way at two points; one between Lots7 & 8 in Block 5 and the second between Lots 13 & 14 in Block 5. There were three alternatives analyzed in correcting this problem. Alternate No. 1 is a maintenance alternative, whereby the City would continue to clean- out and maintain the railroad right-of-way which includes major grading every five years. Alternate No. 2 provides an underground storm sewer and obliterates the present channels so that the only run-off in the railroad right-of-way would be that run-off in the storm sewer pipe. This alternative would be proposed only if property owners agreed to release the City from the May 27, 1975 agreement. In order to construct Alternate No. 2, it will be necessary to acquire easement for the storm sewer across the Gilbertson parcel. Mr. Gilbertson has indicated a willingness to dedicate this right-of-way provided the outfall was piped to the point noted on the attached drawing. Should this dedication be made at no cost, it is recommended that the pipe be installed. In the event that such dedication is not made, it would be necessary to revert to Alternate No. 1. John Anderson October 9, 1981 Abandoned Railroad Page -2- Alternate No. 3, is to do nothing. Cost estimates for the work detailed herein are contained in the Appendix, together with schematics indicating the scope of the work proposed. On the face of it, it appears Alternate No. 1 would be most effective because it has the least cost now. Comparing Alternate No. 1 and No. 2 over 50 years, the difference is reduced to only $1,032.42. The risk taken in constructing Alternate No. 1 is that eventually the City could be faced with building Alternate No. 2 and all of the money spent on Alternate No. 1 would be wasted. The result of Alternate No. 2 is very clear. The most significant result is that the City would be released from a very cumbersome agreement. There is a possibility that the City would not receive waivers from all of the property owners holding former railroad right-of-way. In that case, the only choice would be between Alternate No. 1 and Alternate No. 3. No cost data was prepared for Alternate No. 3 because it is presumed that the "do nothing" alternative would result in litigation so no attempt was made to estimate those costs. Funding Alternatives: Alternate No. 1 - Maintenance Alternative A. Fund $13,584.00 from the General Fund Contingency Fund. B. Fund $13,584.00 from Permanent Improvement Revolving (PIR) Fund. Alternate No. 2 - Permanent Repairs A. Create a Special Improvement District and assess the cost of $39,485.00 to JEJ Addition at the rate of approximately $745.15 per lot. B. Fund $33,644.00 from PIR Fund. Funding Alternative A for Alternate No. 1, is not recommended because that amount would significantly deplete the General Fund Contingency Fund. Funding Alternative B for Alternate No. 1, is recommended because there are presently budgeted funds in the PIR Fund to pay for work necessary to correct problems along the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad right-of-way. Funding Alternative A for Alternate No. 2, is not feasible because property value will not increase $745.00. According to Leroy Houser, Certified Appraisor, it is most probable that there will be no increase in property value whatsoever. Funding Alternative B for Alternate No. 2, is recommended because $33,644.00 has been budgeted for 1982 in the PIR Fund. John Anderson October 9, 1981 (Q Abandoned Railroad Page -3- Recommendation: The most certain course, and the recommended course of action to take, is to approve Alternate No. 2, the installation of underground facilities provided the City of Shakopee receives release from the successors or assigns of the former Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company property adjacent to JEJ Addition and affected by the proposed project. Action Requested: It is the recommendation of City Staff that: 1. City Staff be directed to prepare Plans and Specifications for an underground Storm Sewer connecting the existing Storm Sewer Outlets in JEJ Addition to points northerly of the former Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad right- of-way. 2. Staff be directed to obtain conditional releases from the agreement between the City of Shakopee and the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company dated May 27, 1975 on a form approved by the City Attorney, which form will condition the release on the construction of improvements specified in No. 1 above. 3. City Staff be directed to obtain the necessary easement descriptions for the Storm Sewer Outlet across the Gilbertson parcel and proceed with the acquisition of the easement, so long as the acquisition is dedicated without any cost to the City. HRS/jiw Attachment: Cost Estimate COST ESTIMATES Alternate 1 Item Description Quantity Unit Price Total 1 18" RCP 66 L.F. $ 22.65 $ 1,517.55 2 Common Excavation 5000 C.Y. 1.25 6,250.00 3 Seed & Mulch 13,500 S.Y. 0.22 2,970.00 Subtotal $10,737.55 10 Percent Construction Contingency 1,073.75 Subtotal $11,811.30 Technical Services 1,772.70 TOTAL $13,584.00 Present worth of 50 years of Alternate 1 maintenance - $32,611.58 Alternate 2 - Not Assessed Item Description Quantity Unit Price Total 1 18" RCP 660 L.F. $ 22.65 $14,949.00 2 Manholes 3 Ea. 850.00 2,550.00 3 French Drain 100 L.F. 34.00 3,400.00 4 Common Excavation 2400 C.Y. 1.25 3,000.00 5 Sod 1000 S.Y. 1.50 1,500.00 6 Seed & Mulch 9300 S.Y. 0.22 2,046.00 Subtotal $27,445.00 10 Percent Construction Contingency 2,744.00 Subtotal $30,189.00 Technical Services ' 3,455.00 TOTAL $33,644.00 Alternate 2 - Assessed Construction Subtotal $30,189.00 Technical Services 3,455.00 Improvement District Cost 5,841.00 TOTAL $39,485.00 Assessment: Total Assessable Cost - $39,485.00 __ Total Number of Lots 53 lots $745.00/Lot 5 d"" MEMO TO: , John K. Anderson , City Admistrator FROM: 4ludith S . Cox, City Clerk ~ RE: Pay Plan for Clerical and/or Non-Union City Employees DATE : October 27 , 1981 Introduction On October 20th the City Council directed staff to research whether or not the Council had officially adopted a Pay Plan for clerical employees in recent years . Background In researching the minutes of 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980 I can find no mention of a motion adopting any kind of a salary plan for the clerical or non-union employees . I did find a rather lengthy memo and report from the Administrator in both 1979 and 1980 dealing with salaries and a "plan(s)" ; however, the minutes do not show that there was ever a plan actually adopted, just a resolution setting salaries for all non-union employees . As mentioned in my memo of October 15 , 1981 , the City has been using the unofficial 1981 clerical ranges during 1981 . The question at hand is , shall the City continue to use the unofficial 1981 clerical ranges during 1982 , or not . Staff needs direction ; as the current desires of the Council are not clear. Alternatives 1 . Use unofficial 1981 clerical range through December 31 , 1981 . 2 . Use unofficial 1981 clerical range through December 31 , 1982 . 3 . Use unofficial 1981 clerical range until such time as another plan is approved and adopted by the Council . Action Requested Direct staff to continue implementing the unofficial 1981 clerical ranges through December 31 , 198 JSC/jms b MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Sewer Billings DATE: October 27, 1981 Introduction: The attached letter was received regarding the method of billing sewer for the City. Background: Pursuant to the change in methods of billing sewer this year the accounts with the water meter are being billed for sewer. Mrs. Trickle (attachment) is the only landlord out of several I have seen and talked to who is pursuing the issue with Council as of this date. Mrs. Trickle owns a duplex with one water meter and incidently does not reside there. Her request is to split the sewer bill and put it on the tenant's accounts. Staff has informed all inquiries of this issue that it would have to be a policy decision of Council to split bills like this and the policy should apply across the board. To accomplish this would entail substantial manual labor for every rate and base period change and would be contrary to normal accepted billing practices. Alternatives: 1. Continue with sewer billed to the account with the water meter. 2. Adopt policy that multi-unit residential buildings have the sewer bill split equally among the apartments. Recommendation: Recommend alternative #1 because sewer bill is based on water use, the landlord is ultimately responsible for the property, the landlord is already supplying the water and alternative #2 imposes a substantial administrative burden. Action: Move to maintain current policy that the "house" account with the water meter bear the sewer charges. GV/ljw attachment RECEIVED OCT 1 4 1981 Com(OF SHAKOPEE 3 �% -e____C -41x, r 9 / 9, P _ " ® -- .1 / -- . je:ZI" 4. ,/,,�_� I7 _ __ _. // / di sr. = - iir -17 �I / / / . r / f 'rLC- i , "-J ••••"-",--N,-- - =/• ,ZYL,4, 1e,_ .tam t , . _ - / / / le i _ 1-� / ,okli_-' ' -.-.L.A.. ._, . eir-- -,.._„.....&r______ z,..,z_:,r__,__(___, t 42( C ....,%,..„......z...„61/„ MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Resolution No. 1911 , Volunteering A Hazardous Waste Disposal Site DATE: October 27 , 1981. Introduction City Council , at its October 20, 1981 meeting tabled Resolution No. 1911 volunteering the old PCI site for a hazardous waste processing site . Council asked for additional information on two questions : (1) Did the owners of the PCI site agree with the City ' s action, and (2) Could the City really have total con- trol over the site once it was offered. Findings The first question has been answered in the affirmative . Melvyn Bell , President of PCI , has indicated their desire to cooperate with the City (letter attached) . The second question, regarding the City maintaining total control over the site was discussed by Bill Kirchner at a recent Waste Management Board meeting. Bill ' s summary of the discussion by the Board is brief and straight forward. He said that the State has the power to condemn land for a processing site ; however, the City has the authority to make and enforce any "reasonable" health and safety regulations . "Reasonable" is defined as any regulation that isn ' t simply put in place to prohibit the establishment of a waste processing site . Interestingly, Bill mentioned that the State could use its condemnation authority to remove the current owner, PCI , if they should 'try to block development . Given the City ' s experience with PCI , this might be a useful tool if the City does try to locate a plant on the site . Summary & Recommendation We clearly have PCI ' s support in our efforts ; however, as long as we are on the list the State will retain condemnation powers . The question is whether or not this is a real problem given the State ' s statements that we can establish regulations for health and safety. It is my recommendation that Council pass the resolution, forward it to the Waste Management Board, and ask that they send us a letter outlining the authority the City will be able to exercise in regu- lating health and safety at the site . Action Requested 1 . Approve Resolution No. 1911 . 2 . Request that the Waste Management Board respond in writing to Resolution No . 1911 which volunteers the site only if Shakopee can regulate it . JKA/jms PO Box 238 Shakopee, MN 55379 October 22, 1981 Mr. John K. Anderson City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: PCI Site Dear Mr. Anderson: As per our discussion of October 22, 1981 I am aware of the City of Shakopee 's offer of the former PCI site to the Waste Management Board for a hazardous waste management site. We are happy to cooperate in this endeavor. Sincerely, 7/(ILL Melvyn Bell President Pollution Control Incorporated MB/jms 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 governmental decisions 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 6 day of , , 1981 . City Attorney 1 1 7 ",_, I II III SO III NO IV W IV E TOTAL MAYOR Dean B. Colligan 450 168 13 226 129 23 1 ,009 Eldon Reinke 407 161 44 285 188 35 1 , 120 Write-Ins : Howard Hentges 2 2 4 Paul Johnson 1 1 Vera Balder 1 1 Eugene Brown 1 1 Fred Becker 1 1 COUNCILPERSON Dolores M. Lebens 533 162 24 289 163 32 1 , 203 Paul J. Smith 64 18 6 42 32 8 170 Gloria M. Vierling 413 156 30 260 198 30 1 ,087 Jerry Wampach 427 207 33 255 121 23 1 ,066 Wally Welter 214 91 7 146 93 17 568 Write-Ins : Dave Lindsey 1 1 • ' Ray Taylor 1 1 Eldon Reinke 2 2 John DuBois 1 1 Ray Siebenaler 1 1 Lee Stoltzman 1 1 Registered Voters 2175 649 113 1366 751 266 5 , 320 Voters 870 335 57 517 317 58 2 , 154 M I D RESOLUTION NO. 1934 A RESOLUTION CANVASSING RETURNS FOR THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that it is hereby found and determined and declared that the regular municipal election held in and for said City on Novem- ber 3 , 1981 , was in all respects duly and legally held and the returns thereof have been duly canvassed, and the votes cast at said election were as follows : For Mayor, two year term: Dean B. Colligan 1 ,009 Eldon Reinke 1 , 120 Howard Hentges 4 Paul Johnson 1 Vera Balder 1 Eugene Brown 1 Fred Becker 1 For Councilpersons-at-large , four year term: Dolores M. Lebens 1 ,203 Paul J. Smith 170 Gloria M. Vierling 1 ,087 Jerry Wampach 1 ,066 Wally Welter 568 Dave Lindsey 1 Ray Taylor 1 Eldon Reinke 2 John DuBois 1 Ray Siebenaler 1 Lee Stoltzman 1 NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that Eldon Reinke is duly elected Mayor, for a two year term, commencing January, 1982 and Dolores M. Lebens and Gloria M. Vierling are duly elected Councilpersons , each for a four year term, commencing January, 1982 . Adopted in Special Session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee , held this 4th day of November, 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 : Resolution No. 1934, Canvassing Returns for the Municipal Election DATE: October 30, 1981 Introduction After the November 3rd election, it is necessary for City Council to adopt a resolution canvassing returns for the municipal election. Attached is a sample of Resolution No . 1934. You will be provided with a completed copy on Wednesday, November 4th. Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 1934, A Resolution Canvassing Returns For the Municipal Election, and move its adoption. JSC/jma e RESOLUTION NO. 1934 A RESOLUTION CANVASSING RETURNS FOR THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that it is hereby found and determined and declared that the regular municipal election held in and for said City on Novem- ber 3 , 1981 , was in all respects duly and legally held and the returns thereof have been duly canvassed, and the votes cast at said election were as follows : For Mayor, two year term: For Councilpersons-at-large, four year term: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that is duly elected Mayor, for a two year term, commencing January, 1982 and and are duly elected Councilpersons , each for a four year term, commencing January, 1982 Adopted in Special Session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, held this 4th day of November, 1981 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST : City Clerk Approved as to form this day of — , 1981 . City Attorney MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson , City Administrator RE : Ordinance No. 76 Amending Shakopee City Code Entitled "Municipal and Public Utilities - Rules and Regulations , Franchises and Rates" DATE : October 29, 1981 Background City Council , at its October 6, 1981 meeting, l&leth the above mentioned ordinance pending review by SPUC ' s attorney. That review has now been completed and the Ordinance approved by their attorney as per my telephone conversation with Lou Van Hout October 29, 1981 . The City Engineer has also been included in the review of the Ordinance and the Ordinance is recommended for approval . Action Requested Offer Ordinance No. 76, 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 , and move its adoption . JKA/jms Ci ORDINANCE NO. 76 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: Section 3.03 Subdivision A - Certain Acts Prohibited No person, firm, association or corporation other than an authorized agent or 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 Misdsiueanor"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 wither 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 any 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 =all be published once in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee and shall be in full force and effect on and after the date following such publication. Adopted in 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. City Attorney gCj MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk RE : Ordinance No . 75 DATE : October 30, 1981 Introduction At its October 6, 1981 meeting, City Council tabled Ordinance No. 75 and requested that two changes be made . The first change was to Section II . A. 1 . The first sentence now reads "All fencing erected in the City of Shakopee in all zones except agricultural shall be constructed adjacent to and two feet off the property lines" . The second change was to delete the sentence "Electric and barbed wire fences are prohibited" from Section II . A. 2 . Action Requested Take 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 Construction Requirements Of Fences And By Adopting By Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 , Section 4. 99, Which Among Other Things , Contain Penalty Provisions , off the table and vote on its adoption. JSC/jms M 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 1: 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 II: FENCE CONTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS New Subsection 5 to be added to Section 4.03 A. General Requirements 1 . All fencing erected in the City of Shakopee in all zones except agricultural shall be constructed adjacent to and two feet off the property lines. This two feet provides sufficient room to maintain the fence faces without encroaching 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. All proposed fence designs shall be approved by the Building Offi- cial 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 condi- tional use permit. B. Junk Yards and Automobile Wrecking Yards 1 . All junk yards and automobile wrecking yards shall be completely screened 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 re- quirement within one (1) year of the effective date of this Chapter or shall terminate their operation. ,, LU ORDINANCE NO. 75 Page Two 2. No junk or automobile wrecking yard established after the effective date of this chapter shall 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 Waste Disposal 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 ter- rain so as to he obstructed from sight and shall he 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 heights of 6 feet and maximum distance between the ground and the bottom of the fence is t) inches. b. Gates: All in ground pools are to have self closing, self locking gates. c. Wood, steel mesh, concrete block or stone are acceptable mater- ials 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 neednot be fenced. How ever, 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. SECTION III: PENALTY PROVISIONS ADOPTED The Shakopee City Code, Chapter 1, entitled "General ,Provisions and Defini- tions Applicable to the Entire Code including penalty provisions" and Section 4.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirely 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 the date of such publication. ORDINANCE NO. 75 Page Three Adopted by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1981. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Prepared and approved as to form this 23rd day of September, 1981 . City Attorney a n MEMO TO: John Anderson City Administrator FROM: H. R. Spurrier City Engineer RE: Permit for Work in Public ight-of-Way DATE: October 13, 1981 introduction: The City of Shakopee is revising the Street Cut Permit. Along with that revision is a revision to the ordinance covering work in public right-of-way. The proposed form of that ordinance is attached. Background: In 1979, the City undertook a study of Street Opening Permit process. The study included a review of the administrative process, construction process and then evaluation of the success or failure of the administrative and construction processes. Until 1980, the Street Opening Permit process started with an application for permit to make a street excavation. That application was filed with the City Administrator. The City Administrator would then compute the estimated cost of repairing the street excavation or opening and place any special requirements on the work. The City Administrator would then issue a permit for a street opening, provided the estimated cost of repair was deposited in advance with the City and provided the applicant agreed to indemnify and hold the City harmless for any liability, injury or damage arising out of the actions of the applicant performing the work covered by the permit and that the applicant further agreed to pay the actual cost of repairs over and above the estimate and agreed to be responsible for any additional repairs or restoration to the excavation within one year of the completion of the work. The ordinance further required that the contractor take out and maintain public liability insurance which named the City as additionally insured. The ordinance specified that the backfill compacting and resurfacing should then be made or contracted for by the City and that the permit holder would pay the cost of those repairs. John Anderson October 13, 1981 Permit for Work in Public Right-of-Way Page -2- 5� In practice, the investigation and estimate of cost of repair was not made. The payment of estimated cost was not made. Evidence of public liability insurance was not furnished. The applicant did not agree to indemnify or hold the City harmless for any liability for injury or damage and repairs that should of been warranty repairs were paid for by the City and not by the applicant. In order to make the ordinance more nearly parallel practice and in order to eliminate some of the problems of restoration, the City Code was revised in November of 1975 by eliminating the investigation and payment of cost by shifting the responsibility to repair from the City to the contractor and by reiterating the requirement for insurance. Now after being in affect for two years, the Street Opening Permit process was re-examined. From the City's standpoint, the new process is a qualified success. It is a success because it has reduced the City's labor requirements, it has virtually eliminated the repatching of trenches and it has also eliminated the problems in identifying responsibility for the repair of patches. During the past two years, contractors who have made excavations in City right-of-way have done a commendable job of restoring the pavement surface. In checking with all of the other City departments, only four problems could be identified. They are as follows: 1. The street or right-of-way opening should be restored in a timely manner; 2. Barricades and other traffic controls should be furnished by the contractor; 3. The contractor should carry the specified insurance naming the City additionally-named insured; 4. Any public improvements which settle as the result of being undermined by construction must be replaced. In correcting the problems noted above, the ordinance controlling work in public right-of-way was amended to include provisions for non-completion or abandonment of work. It reset the liability limits for insurance, included a save-harmless clause to protect the City from claims arising from the work covered by the permit and eliminated the need to file copies of insurance policies with the City, requiring only that Certificates of Insurance be filed with the City. A new permit form has been prepared and this form contains more multiple choice covering those improvements made in public right-of-way. It also lists all of the general and special requirements of the permit. Samples of the 1979 permit form and the revised permit form are attached for purposes of comparison. As detailed above, Ordinance No. 69 implements the changes noted herein. It is recommended that the ordinance be adopted and staff directed to follow the procedures outlined therein. John K. Anderson 4 October 13, 19$1 12-- Permit for Work in Public Right-of-Way Page -3- Action Requested: It is the recommendation of City staff that Council adopt Ordinance No. 69, An Ordinance Of The City Of Shakopee Amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 7 Entitled "Streets And Sidewalks Generally" By Repealing Section 7.07, Street Openings And Excavation And Adopting A New Section 7.07, Work In Public Right-of-Way; And Adopting By Reference Shakopee City Code, Chapter 1 And Section 7.99, Which Among Other Things Contain Penalty Provisions. HRS/jiw Attachments 4 Vcc...k.) lS lamNj , ,. . PERMIT FOR WORK IN PUBLIC RIGHT OF ,WAY 129 E. 1st AVE. CITY OF SHAKOPEE 445-3650 1 PERMIT 2 PERMIT FEES 81-00o --- OQ o.7 -9/V I __ __ FEE: E f 'W r, Y E. DLl )3: PENALTY: J• n' Y t^-'S TOTAL: "; �,..OO . .- 1,11, :'r. ,F.'.I 1:11.1' .. nI,,,: ❑, „ - .. . t x.345 In. •51:.:, i,,h L: I I,r)N DA.. UF' 1.4.,. ,•1 '.l'AI.11:A'l'lot. rI 3 PERMITTEE 4 RESPONSIBLE CHAR ___*_1'1,11_N. C-o cst _T_K x x t o N C . ;` --0--c DoE COIL:.' ,i:nt, .;01F1t4i:;rrlt 1 7-34 EV E c y STREET ___ S i•ACQTi-4 TOV> PSV t Iv C' 4cco - 7890 —�ty.�So\/�! (\1 ) MLS__ 55000 ( 12-3 .x C,t-t- / OF St-4AsKO 'EE Ig-3 , 1 89' — 0 12_3 5 LOCATION , i- 6 L-ocK 50x.1T OF 1 kE . olyt &O CC M NN 5T• , 6 STREET AND ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS 7 CONCRETE WORK (CONSTRUCT OR REPLACE) �J C sr ❑::,I.:.,..�:'-:. [3_,.. J:.1 a _I��J7C t\tQ� c,,,i UT._._.— -1 ,:, PANF.. INLETS OTHER f• .�rr :;..:. O co,.:i:..:c hi.:...Y .F. ❑;A.'', SE ACF ,. .,h:YLWAY :7:DEIiALi( L.P. .:...i.., .:',l:.y: ✓ i:, a. ... ✓ ,,'E ✓ .'11H8 1 01 L.P. 8 STREET CUTS ;.:`.::flail 6EAr.h:INCEI-.V E: ..1'.: 0:1A.:. a;:i.I,. ❑SERV;CE 1.1Ni. 0Y.„L': -1-' SEMLIt: ❑SEEVICE LINE Q MAIN OTHER: l-S. 9 GENERAL PROVISIONS r '. ,, v,,:Id : Cr,,-. F..• r '...w-. fr'.• '.:.1.. ,:m•' ;,r •d, p,:•r1•. 1.t Ire vevall,L•rted prior to beginning cork. A call for ' � , :;: :� I.r pcr,:,lt. I,..,,.,I, , �,,�r•..r.t ul,h ', .ur.,,. • ;., y r:un:e1i ien/expiration/renecal day or 1 year �.. . � :.- �. . . •.. . . , , --:.1t 1 an Aly: "-- :a w':.. LE, site at all tines. ..., .1., caret, - , .. �t ,., 1 „ ,. y and all Earn until construction is complete and for I .. .;,:,:1 : ; . : rairow., ie, rt,. apt 1., ,.I ,.1:.,i.. .., I, ;, .nrd:uu.e MP.II current City apecificatlona. Engineer. ` . .q,,.I:. ,i.: sl,a,. :- ' 1.1'I, .u:Vent City .,.an",,•1.; .. , .1 , , - _:t.ru:tion practice. -' '1 be responsible :11.: : temporary .0 II, ;on•trt:::., - ; ,tr., , �.'ac.; or :terracing.: daily, if necessary, until permanent cc...,Ieted and approved .. rt nttna,,ce .hal: be.y44 . 0at the prevailing rates. .. _y agrees to conp.:y w1rh all pr ions aontalned lc Sl SRI... .ur 1. ,, (one (1) year guarantee period) of City Code. t ... tee . return the hil'It Its 1'Ioal eonditio!. t t', -Ni. ,t F:rgineer and chall remove all rubbish end debris ) : .I :A coup Ietl,, ori -, 1 I '4W''( '. , ; r 1II Ina ect Inv determines correct ice measure• are l'.rrmittev. ... I r;e u:1 lu,l l cru, , .. 'no Ill-, 1•, , •. , I,- - .). : .lets arising from the construction and/or :..'Atte,'.: I'. ,p• ,, ..1. , . . , - l,,.:uran_e wn1.I. :ur,forms to the requirements ▪ 1 ._. 7.07, ._ . C' . a.. i• '.,::.I....' :.,-. I romp', 00•r' :: r •, 1 LF 1 .. : ,''- . n, a result of work covered by the permit. „!., ..,..:.. : :.., this i„ : .qui a' '.1 ' r; ' :trtan way, the closure or obstruction shall be made .. , whicl: I. ad! „ , , . ,•':-, Mann.11 zing or land signaling devices that conform . ,rot Trill _ I' , . . y, • t'1• •-.ntrols ;oat 1I be maintained until permanent r• ... . the roadwj,1,v , . .. , . atrcets riot commence before 9:00 A.M. and cease t _ , . .. .. that the c•. - d•.,. .. The City does not furnish or rent traffic controls. .0 : 1,..ene11 be a;'. ...1 vel the .. . • , tt': ,. „ ,rad by the EnClceer. :A. .. ... • ...;,,IA wlthau'. Recc' ' Yom, Flrancc 1 . ,..::-. Mk.INTPt1N ®I- E• L--AMIE nom_ y...AFE\G_5214_ CSRMPSN• 10 APPROVAL FOR PERMITTEE 11 DETOUR APPROVAL .. ur .,r.•.:.: :.;. •,e:.Ing Fr _ :!+ •7.:, , I..„.,...... f ::.n , ,-:, 1:,•.• fa b.,,'.: , ...: .. ",: .. .'..-'. (Y-,.,, I.r.-. t r•, 1:'.,c,•. To, (1) copies of approved plan required). . . at.,1... .1' lhi:. para:' . So:.. 12 APPROVAL FOR CIT ENGINEER , 1.17(5-5?„.... 10/Zq Ie ' I ..i.,. ,,. �..... • l',1, ):ED SIGNATURE 13 INSPECTION RECORD ...I .'„ ,n';F: ,....;t -, DATE. I'l:k - A:t.v-. E:.c r. - Cotract,, 1171 RECORD OF APPLICATION FOR PERMIT Q FOR WORK IN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY CASHIER'S COPY v iii)3 IS 00 CONTRACTOR'S COPY CityMe... . �� OC Permit 151'O • (Please Print or Type) Site Address 1 Z.q E . l'51- Contractor's Permit ,P City Permit 05t-cCONTRACTOR Name M ITH- CON isTtzucT taN, - Site Address 129 t :. 1,51_" NNE. At.- 1 -�� r�,e��, CO Address I Z 3 A- �al-Cy `5-nrc- .-T' r Con t ,lc t or_ C- O `�T <-UG�Q , City tN WlA.M'hone -'15(D-`1 S9O Type ,,t Construction I tr-VE1VCN;}(t..107D OWNER Starting Date (O17-q18(Expiration Date (Ie I5/8( Name GA-1-4, 4:2F .3 t+is,t(Q) E Rogues ted By qOt\Ny SDE Date ( 0/Z."!(§31 Address 1.z. N . t gat- AVE • (Permittee) City j1-{f4s1:C7 'hone 4.'j- l...0-5--C)PAYMENT OF PERMIT FEES t ►-. I hereby acknowledge that I have read this applicatior ✓Cash Fee $ t Z .O O and state that the information herein is correct; and Check Penalty $ I agree to comply with the Cityof Shakopee ordinance: Billed Total $ 1-2:- C)10 and State of Minnesota laws governing this �� Z/`8` �- N 1iSignature ' pa- , Date 10 129 t Conditions (41A.INTAIN ONE LAtAE OF (Permittee) - FFN C,1 FU Z N t5 F-{ -t -AFF C ► . •1 1 ►. . .rte . • ' PAYMENT'OF PERMIT FEES WARNING: Before digging call local utU4ties -- l."-cash ' Fee $ I Z•00 Telephone, Electric, Gas, Etc ` _Check Penalty $ ---REQUIRED BY LAW--- Billed Total $_11::_12.0 CALL FOR INSPECTIONS • Engineering Department -- City of Shakopee, Permit Approved By Date (o1z.Loh`8 t 445-365Q, , i 1 ENGINEER'S COPY Site Address 129 "E . 1ST PVE. Contractor's Permit #CrYpO City Permit # j31-DtJOp Contractor 5 t.\ TN N sTTcue.T1 Oo, CO. Phone 1t5 -45c -1 ODa to Permit Requested (O fZsb let Type of Construction - EjN\C. 41 Starting Date (Oft_?fo Completion Date105/451 Surface Type Street: le/Permanent 'Temporary Other Boulevard: /Sod Sidewalk Other Method: VOpen Trench _-_Jack Auger Method: VOpen Trench Jack Auger Location of Main CSC--t`.t€1 . OF S\KA0 t Detour Required: Yes ).No Size and Type of Pipe4 'eH.yPnepth from Surface J( 'FT. Dimensions of Excavation Z® ' )C.4p1 Permit Approved By ( �.(.A..A. 0\ Date /® Z9 81 N MhiT/41Kt (oMe LE P.r4of �t c Conditions FUTr,415 -4 TTZAFF' C, CoN'MO LS1 __ _^ NretNI-AfN 2IfiC(t DAWLy. Original Inspection: Approved Rejected Second Inspection: —Approved Rejected Inspector Date Inspector Date Remarks _ Remarks .. s. ...r 1 ...:t.• , 40,..,S v ,. r } }kms-5 W, 1 1, Ci 1 C\ ORDINANCE NO. 3 ke\ASIO IQ F;.L r. SERIFS E I An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee A^.endin^ Shakopee City Code Chapter 7 1 Entitled Streets and Sidewalks Generally by Adopting Design Criteria and Standard Specifications for Construction and Reconstruction of Roadways; By Adding New Subdivisions or by Adding to '•asting Subdivisions and by Repealing Parts thereof and by Renumbering some Subdivisons; and Adopting by =reference Shakopee City Code, Cha?ter 1 and Section 11.99, which, Among other Things, Contain Penalty Provisions. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE DOES ?RDAIN: SECTION I: Renumbering Subdivisions of Section 7.36 The Present Subdivisions of Section 7.06, 1 through 4 are hereby renumberel Subdivisions 1 throur.h 5. SECTION II : Adopting a new Subdivision 1 entitled Design Criteria and Standard Speci- `ications for Construction and Reconstruction of Roadways. Desicn Criteria and Standard Specifications including details shall be fixed, determined and amended by the Council and adopted by resolution. Suct. resolutic containing the effective date thereof shall be kept on file and open to inspection in the office of the City Administrator and shall be uniformly enforced. SECTION 111: Amendingnewly numbered Subdivision 3. The last two sentences of this Subdivision are hereby repealed and are replaced by the following two sentences: All such applications shall contain an agreement by the applicant to be bound by this chapter and plans and specifications consistent with the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications shall be approved by the City Engineer and shall also accompany the application. A permit from the City shall not relieve the permit holder from danagesto the person or pro )erty of another caused by such work. SECTION IV; Repeal of newly numbered Subdivision 4. The newly numbered Subdivision 4 is hereby repealed. Specifications V: Adopting a new Subdivision 4 entitled Design Criteria and Standard All construction and reconstruction of roadways, including sidewalk and curb and gutter improvements, and curb cuts shall be strictly in accordance with the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications on file in the offi^e of the City Engineer and open to inspection and copying there. Such Design Criteria and Standard Specifi- cations may be amended from time to time by the City, but ,shall be uniformly enforced. 4. } M' "0.''1 Y f c Y yyi WA` , ,:•...' t 3 , r, x a+ :. 1111 e 5L- SECTION VI: Repeal of newly numbered Subdivision 5 The newly renumbered Subdivision 5 is hereby repealed. SECTION VII: Adopting a new Subdivision 5 entitled "Inspection". The City Engineer shall inspect roadway construction and reconstruction. Any work not done according to the approved Design Criteria and Standar:: Specifications shall be removed and corrected at the expense of the permit holder. Any work done here�..det may be stopped by the City Engineer if found to be unsatisfactory or not in accordance with the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications, but this shall not place a continuing burden upon the City to inspect or supervise such work. SECTION VIII: Certain part of Section 7.07-repealed. Section 7.07 and Subdivisions 1 and 2 thereof and paragraph B of Subdivision 3 and all of Subdivision 4 are hereby repealed. SECTION IX: Adopting a new Section 7.07, Street Openings and Excavation It is a misdemeanor for any person, except a City employee acting within the course and scope of his employment, or a contractor acting within the course and scope of a contract with the City, to make any excavation, opening or tunnel in, over. across or upon a street or other public right-of-way or easement without first having it obtained a written permit from the City engineer as herein provided. Subd. 1. Application. Application for a permit to make a street excavation shall describe with reasonable particularity the name and address and telephone number of the applicant, the place, purpose and size of the excavation, and such other information as may be necessary or desirable to facilitate the investigation hereinafter provided for and shall be filed with theCity Engineer. Subd. 2. Fixing Rate and Charges fcc Street Opening Permits. All rates and charges for street opening P g paretics shall be fixed, determined and amended by Council and adopted by resolution. Such resolution containing the effective date thereof shall be kept on file and open to inspection in the office of the City Administrator and shall be uniformly enforced. Subd. 3. A new paragraph B of Subdivision 3 is enacted as follows: Prior to the commencement of the work described in the permit application, the applicant shall take out and maintain at his own cost and expense during the period from which 1 st the commencement until final completion of the work under this permit such public ,, liability and property damage insurance and shall protect the applicant and the Ctty from claims for damage for personal injury, including accidental death from claims for property damage which may arise from operation under this permit, whether such operation be by the applicant or by anyone directly or indirectly employed by him and including claims arising by reason of any injury or damage sustained after the applicant has completed thework or left the site thereof. The public liability insurance shall be in an amount not less than $300,000.00 for injuries including accidental death to anyone person and in the minimum amount of $750,000.00 for injuries including death for any one accident or occurrence. The property damage insurance shall be in the minimum amount of $200 000.00, The contractor shell not commence work until the insurance has been obtained. Copies of all pplicies shall be deposited with the City Administrator and certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with the City Administrator. Certificates ehall be executed by the insurer and shall expressly stipulate that the policies are nota-cancellable until after ten(10) days notiee in writing to the City shall be filed with the City Adrainistretott Certi- ficates for liability policies must show that the City is one of the parties insured by the applicant. All insurance policies and certificates shall be submitted prior to issuance of the permit and shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney. Subd. 4. Issuance of Permit. The City Engineer shall issue such permit after (1) permit fees have been established; (2) payment by the applicant of the permit fee; (3) agreement by the applicant to the conditions of time and manner as specified in the permit; (4) receipt by the City of insurance policies and certifiaatae of insurance specified in the provisions of this section; (5) agreement by the appliesit in writing to pay all actual costs of repairs and restoration necessitated by ream ',.i of such street cut and subsequent to completion of the wotk ant within one year there- . after; and (6) agreement by the applicant in writing to be bound by all the provisions in this section. SECTION X: Adoption by Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to Entire City Code including penalty for violations" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violations a Petty Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim herein. Icke) sfr' ' ORDINANCE NO. Ag, ? V ksTo FOURTH SERIES 7 • An Ordin of the Cityof Shakopee hakopee Amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 7 Entitled "Streets and Sidewalks Generally" by Repealing Section 7.07, Street Openings and Excavation and Adopting a new Section 7.07, Work in Public Right-of-Way; and Adopting by Reference Shakopee City Code, Chapter 1 and Section 7 .99, Which Among Other Things Contain Penalty Provisions. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE DOES ORDAIN: SECTION I: Repeal of Section 7.07. Section 7.07 and Subdivisions 1, 2, 3 and 4, thereof, are hereby repealed. SECTION II: Adopting a New Section 7.07, Work in Public Right-of-Way. It is a misdemeanor for any person, except a City employee acting within the course and scope of his employment, or a Contractor acting within the course and scope of a contract with the City, to make any excavation, opening, or tunnel in, over, across or upon a street, or other public right-of-way or easement without first having obtained a written permit from the City Engineer, as herein provided. Subd. 1. Applic4tion. Application for a pehmit to work in public right-of-way shall describe with reasonable particularity the name and address and phone number of the application, the place, the type of work and such other information as may be necessary or desirable and shall be filed with the City Engineer. Subd. 2. Fixing Rate and Charges for Permits for Work in Public Right-of-Way. All rates and charges for permits for work in public right-of- way shall be fixed, determined and amended by Council and adopted by resolution. Such resolution containing the effective date thereof shall be kept on file and open to inspection in the office of the City Administrator and shall be uniformly enforced. Subd. 3. Protection of the City and the Public. A. Non-completion or abandonment. Work shall progress expeditiously to completion in accordance with any time limitation placed thereon so as to avoid unneccessary inconvenience to the public. In the event that work is not performed in accordance therewith, or shall cease.or be abandoned without due cause, the City may, after six (6) hours notice in writing to the holder of the permit of its intention to do so, correct the work, fill the excavation and repair the public property, and the cost thereof shall be paid by the person holding the permit. Ordinance No. /4 Fourth Series Page -2- B. Insurance. Prior to the commencement of work described in the permit application, the applicant shall take out and maintain insurance at his own cost and expense. The insurance shall remain in force from the commencement of work continually until final completion of the work under this permit. The insurance shall be public liability and property damage insurance and shall protect the applicant and the City from claims for damage for personal injury, including accidental death from claims for property damage which may arise from operation under this permit, whether such operation be by the applicant or by anyone directly, or indirectly employed by him and including claims arising by reason of any injury or damage sustained after the applicant has completed the work or left the site thereof. The public liability insurance shall be in an amount not less than $300,000 for injuries including accidental death to any one person and in the minimum amount of $300,000 for injuries including death for any one accident or occurance. The property damage insurance shall be in the minimum amount of $300,000. The permit shall not be issued until the insurance has been obtained. Certificates of Insurance shall be deposited with the City Administrator and the insurance shall include general liability coverage for comprehensive form, premises-operations, ,explosion and collapse hazard, underground hazard and products/completed operations hazard. Certificates shall be executed by the insurer or its agent and shall expressly stipulate that the policies are non-cancellable until after ten (10) days notice in writing to the City and shall be filed with the City Administrator. Certificates., for liability policies must show that the City is one of the parties insured by -04 the applicant. All certificates shall be submitted prior to issuance of the * ,,fia permit and shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney, Subd. 4. Issuance of Permit. The City Engineer shall issue such permit after the following conditions are met. A. Permit fees have been established. B. Payment by the applicant of the permit fee. C. Agreement by the applicant to the conditions of time and manner as specified in the permit. D. Receipt by the City of insurance certificates of insurance specified in the provisions of this section. E. Agreement by the applicant, in writing, to guarantee the work covered by this permit for a period of one (1) year. Ordinance No. Page _3- Fourth Series F. Agreement by the applicant, in writing, to pay all actual costs of repairs and restoration necessitated by reason of such work in public right-of-way and subsequent to final inspection of the work and within one year thereafter. C. Agreement by the applicant, in writing, to save and hold harmless the City of Shakopee, its employees and agents from any acts arising from the construction and/or maintenance of the applicants' facilities or work covered by the permit. H. Agreement by the applicant, in writing, to be bound by all the provisions in this section. SECTION III. Adoption by Reference. Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 entitled,"General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violations" and Section 7.99 entitled, "Violations a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim herein. SECTION IV. Provisions for After Adoption. After adoption, signing and attestation, this ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee and shall be in affect on and after the day following such publication. 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 Attorney Approved as to form this day of , 1917— City Attorney V 91' SECTION XI: Provisions for after adoption After adoption, signing and attestation, this Ordinance shall be pub- lished once in the official newspaper of the City and shall be in effect on and after the day following such publication. Adopted in ,t y session of the Shakopee City Council, held this day of ) 4�(;17r(/ t / 1979. T:ayor of the Ci ity of Shakopee ATTEST •City . ..mini- rator Prepared and approved as to form this 31st day of October, 1979. Cicalt.„44).'\"V-E,14-i> City Attorney Published in the Shakopee Valley News : November 14, 1979 • • ,5'`# a r 11, * r fz 14 Y %o Ayy • per• # :l SEC. 7 .07 . STREET OPENINGS OR EXCAVATIONS . It is a misde- Lmeanor for any person, except a City employee acting within the course and scope of his employment or a contractor acting within the course and scope of a contract with the City, to make any ex- cavation, opening or tunnel in, over, across or upon a street or other public property without first having obtained a written permit from the City Administrator as herein provided. Subd. 1 . Application. Application for a permit to make a street excavation shall describe with reasonable particu- larity the name and address of the applicant, the place , purpose and size of the excavation , and such other information as may be necessary or desirable to facilitate the investigation hereinaf- ter provided for, and shall be filed with the City Administrator. Subd. 2. Investigation and Payment of Estimated Costs . Upon receipt of such application, the City Administrator shall cause such investigation to be made as he may deem necessary to determine estimated cost of repair, such as back-filling, compac- ting, resurfacing and replacement, and the conditions as to the time of commencement of work, manner of procedure and time limi- tation upon such excavation. The foregoing estimated costs shall include permanent and temporary repairs due to weather or other conditions , and the cost of such investigation shall be included in such estimate . Subd. 3 . Protection of the City and the Public. A. Non-completion or Abandonment. Work shall progress expeditiously to completion in accordance with any time limitation placed thereon so as to avoid unnecessary inconveni- ence to the public. In the event that work is not performed in accordance therewith, or shall cease or be abandoned without due cause , the City may, after six (6 ) hours notice in writing to the holder of the permit of its intention to do so, correct the work, fill the excavation arid repair the public property, and the cost thereof shall be paid by the person holding the permit. B. Insurance . Prior to commencement of the work described in the application, the applicant shall furnish the City satisfactory evidence in writing that the applicant will keep in effect public liability insurance of not less than $100 , 000.00 for any person, $300, 000.00 for any occurrence and property damage insurance of not less than $25,000.00, issued by an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota on which the City is named as a co-insured. C. Indemnification. Before issuance of a permit, the applicant shall , in writing, agree to indemnify and hold the City harmless from any liability for injury or damage arising Mit of the action of the applicant in performance of the work, or any expense whatsoever incurred by the City incident to a claim er action brought or commenced by any person arising therefrom. Subd. 4 . Issuance of Permit. The City Administrator shall i.s uo :;uch petmi t: after ( 1) completion of such investiga- tion, ( 2) payment by the applicant in advance of all estimated -176- 4-1-78 4 . costs as aforesaid: ( 3) agreement by the applicant to the condi- tions of time and manner as aforesaid; (4) agreement in writing by the applicant to pay all actual cost of repairs over and above such estimate , including cost of such investigation: (5) agree- ment by the applicant in writing to pay all actual costs of re- pairs and restoration necessitated by reason of such excavation subsequent to completion of the work and within one year there- after; and, (6 ) agreement in writing by the applicant to be bound by all of the provisions of this Section. Subd. 5 . Repairs . All temporary and permanent repairs , including back-filling, compacting and resurfacing shall be made , or contracted for, by the City in a manner prescribed by the City Engineer, and an accurate account of costs thereof shall be kept. At the option of the City, the permit holder may be required to make his own repairs , in which case , advance payment of the esti- mated costs may be waived . Subd. 6 . Cost Adjustment. Within sixty (60) days fol- lowing completion of such permanent repairs the City Administra- tor shall determine actual costs of repairs , including cost of investigation , and prepare and furnish to such permit holder an itemized statement thereof and claim additional payment from, or make refund (without interest) to, the permit holder, as the case may be . Subd. 7 . Alternate Method of Charging. In lieu of the above provisions relating to cost and cost adjustment for street 41 openings , the City may charge on the basis of surface square feet removed, excavated cubic feet, or a combination of surface square feet and excavated cubic feet, on an established unit price uni- formly charged. SEC . 7 .08. OBSTRUCTIONS , FIRE , DUMPING, SIGNS AND OTHER STRUCTURES . Subd. 1 . Obstructions . It is unlawful .for any person to place , deposit, display or offer for sale , any fence , goods or other obstructions upon , over, across or under any street or oth- er public property without first having obtained a written permit from the Council , and then only in compliance in all respects with the terms and conditions of such permit, and taking precau- tionary measures for the protection of the public. An electrical cord or device of any kind is hereby included, but not by way of limitation , within the definition of an obstruction. Subd. 2 . Fires . It is unlawful for any person to build or maintain a fire upon a roadway. Subd. 3 . Dumping in Streets . It is unlawful for an' person to throw or deposit in any street or any other pubic place any nails , dirt, glass , tin cans , metal scraps , garbage , leaves , grass or tree limbs , shreds or rubbish, or to empty any 411 water containing salt or other injurious chemical thereon: the effect of this Subdivision shall ext^nd, but not by bay of lim.i- 4-1-78 -177- gf MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE : Adoption by Reference of the Scott County Ordinances Regulating Individual Water and Sewer Systems DATE : October 30, 1981 Introduction One of the key steps in obtaining approval of our Comprehensive Plan, as negotiated with the Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, was the adoption of a system of control- ling and monitoring on site Sewage Systems . Both parties agreed that the City would accomplish this by adopting the appropriate Scott County Ordinances by reference . Background The purpose of the Ordinances is to develop uniform reporting requirements and record keeping at the County level so well and septic tank construction and maintenance can be systematically monitored. Both County Ordinances have been reviewed by our Building Inspector. The on site sewer ordinance is comparable to the same requirements the City has been using. Action Requested Offer Ordinance No . 78, An Ordinance Of The City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Shakopee City Code , Chapter 4 Entitled "Construction, Licensing, Permits and Regulations" By Repealing Section 4. 20 Entitled "Construction, Alteration, Extension and Repair Of Individual Sewage Disposal System" And In Lieu Thereof Adopting A New Section 4. 20 Entitled "Sewage Treatment System"; By Repealing Section 4. 25 Thereof Entitled "Construction, Alteration, Extension and Repair Of Individual Water Supply System: And In Lieu Thereof Adopting A New Section 4.25 Entitled "Water Well Construction" And Adopting By Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 And Section 4. 99 Which, Among Other Things , Contain Penalty Provisions , and move its adoption . JKA/jms } C� ORDINANCE NO. 78 Fourth Series AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING SHAKOPEE CITY CODE, CHAPTER 4 ENTITLED "CONSTRUCTION, LICENSING, PERMITS AND REGULATIONS" BY REPEALING SECTION 4.20 ENTITLED "CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATION, EXTENSION AND REPAIR OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM" AND IN LIEU THEREOF ADOPTING A NEW SECTION 4.20 ENTITLED "SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM" ; BY REPEALING SECTION 4.25 THEREOF ENTITLED "CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATION, EXTENSION AND REPAIR OF INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM: AND IN LIEU THEREOF ADOPTING A NEW SECTION 4.25 ENTITLED "WATER WELL CONSTRUCTION" AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE SHAKOPEE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 4.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION I: REPEAL Section 4.20 entitled "Construction, Alteration, Extension and repair of individual sewage disposal system" and Section 4.25 of the City Code entitled "Con- struction, Alteration, Extension and repair of individual water supply systems" are hereby repealed. SECTION II: SCOTT COUNTY SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM ORDINANCE NO. 4 ADOPTED AND AMENDED. Subd. A: Scott County Sewage Treatment System Ordinance No. 4 adopted August 18, 1981 is herebyadopted in its entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim herein except as hereinafter provided. Subd. B: Provisions of County Ordinance No. 4 are amended as follows: 1. The words "City of Shakopee" shall replace the words "Scott County" throughout the ordinance unless clearly inconsistent with the meaning of this Ordinance. 2. The words "Shakopee City Council" shall replace the words "Scott County Board" or "County Board" wherever they appear in the ordinance. 3. Section 2.01 of said ordinance is entirely deleted. 4. Section 2.02 of said ordinance Is entirely deleted. 5. A new Setion 2.02 entitled "Administration" is adopted to provide that the Administrator shall be as directed by the Shakopee City Council under the supervision of the City Administrator or designee. 6. Section 11.03 of said County edinance is entirely deleted. SECTION III: SCOTT COUNTY WATER WELL CONSTRUCTION ORDINANCE NO. 5 ADOPTED AND AMENDED Subd A: Scott County Water Well Construction Ordinance No. 5 adopted August 18, 1981 is hereby adopted in its entitrety by reference as though repeated verbatim herein except as hereinafter provided. Subd B: Provisions of County Ordinance No. 5 are amended as follows: 1. The words "City of Shakopee" shall replace the words "Scott County" or "County" unless clearly inconsistent with the meaning of this Ordinance. 2 ' The words "Shakopee City Council's shall replace the words "Scott County Board" or "County Board" or "Board". 3. Sections 2.01 and 2.02 of maid County Ordinance are del.tad. 4. All fees to be collected shall be set by Council resolution. Subd C: The Administrator of this Ordinance shall be as directed by the Shakopee City Council under the supervision of the City Administrator or designee. 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 the date 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 28th day of October, 1981. City Attorney WILLIAM D. SCHOELL 1$ E ,CARLISLE MADSON JACK T. VOSLER COT 2 3 3 9 q� ,� • JAMES R. ORR J lC HAROLD E. DAHLIN LARRY L. HANSON SCHOELL & MADS1'CI rsiS aAKOPEE JACK E. GILL i713 ---111111 THEODORE D. KEMNA ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS, PLANNERS JOHN W. EMOND AND SOIL TESTING KENNETH E. ADOLF WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT R. SCOTT HARRI (612) 938-7601 • 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH • HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343 GERALD L. BACKMAN R. MARK KOEGLER October 22 , 1981 City of Shakopee c/o Mr. John Anderson, City Administrator 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Subject: Pump Mouse for Water Supply Well No. 6 Contract No. 81-2 KT Gentlemen: Enclosed is a tabulation of bids which were received for the subject project on October 16 , 1981. Eleven bids were received ranging from a low bid of $110 , 972 . 00 to a high bid of $154, 200. 00. The low bid from A & K Construction, Inc. is 11 percent below our cost estimate of $125, 000 . A & K Construction, Inc. has indicated they have constructed 70 to 80 pumphouses. We have checked with several engineers and municipalities and found their work to be satisfactory. They plan to start construction this fall . Following is a list of their subcontractors : 1) Twin City Electric (Electrical) 2) Dahn Builders (Concrete and Masonry) 3) Dalbec (Roofing and Sheet Metal) 4) Moline Concrete (Prestressed Concrete) Award to A & K Construction, Inc. , the low bidder, in the amount of $110 , 972 . 00 is recommended. Very truly yours, SCHOELL & MADSON,� INC. KEAdolf:mkr ue/.014/ enclosure cc: Mr. Lou Van Hout, Shakopee Public Utilities Commission 37 RESOLUTION NO. 1933 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID ON WATER SUPPLY PUMPHOUSE #6, CONTRACT NO. 81-2KT WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the construction of Water Supply Pumphouse No. 6, Contract No. 81-2KT including structure, piping, chemical feed equipment, and controls, and other related work to'be located in the extreme corner of the NW 4 of 9-115N-22W, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: BIDDER AMOUNT A & K Construction, Inc. $110,972.00 ABJ Enterprises, Inc. $111,470.00 Lysne Construction, Inc. $113,377.00 Gridor Construction, Inc. $119,000.00 Orvedahl Construction, Inc. $118,800.00 Norman T. Berglund Construction, Inc. $123,333.00 Lee Richert Plumbing & Heating, Inc. $125,770.00 Kratochvil Construction Co! $128,480.00 Henry K. Lindahl and Sons $127,210.00 Van Eeckhout Building Corp. $154,200.00 David N. Volkmann Construction, Inc. $129,999.00 7\ND WHEREAS, it appears that A & K Construction, Inc. of Stillwater is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. The mayor, City Administrator and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with A & K Construction, Inc. of Stillwater, Minnesota, in the name of the City of Shakopee for the construction of Water Supply Pumphouse No. 6, Contract No. 81-2KT according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposit made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. e 0 � 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 4 day of , 1981. City Attorney 1 TO: John Anderson FROM: Lou Van Hout RE: Watermain, 2nd Ave. , East of Market DATE: October 18, 1981 At the October meeting the Utilities Commission voted to request City Council to form a Public Improvement Project, to be 100% assessed, for Second Avenue, East of Market Street. Introduction: According to the arrangements with City Council and Utility Commission, a Public Improvement Project can be iniated by City Council, by Citizens and by SPUC request. Background: There is no watermian presently in place in 2nd. Avenue between Market Street and Naumkeag Street. There have been inquires of water availability in the area from potential property buyers. The matter is brought to a head by a house move-in by Chuck Mensing with the intent to hook-up to a waterline run through a neighboring lot. He has been given permission to do this provided he has signed and filed an agreement that this is only temporary and will pay assessments and properly hook-up to the City Watermain when one is installed to serve that property. I Recommendations: That City Council pass a motion to begin the studies needed to form a Public Improvement Project for watermain in this area. Action Requested: Offer Resolution No. 1935, A Resolution Ordering The Preparation Of A Report On An Improvement 2nd Avenue Utilities Market to Naumkeag, _a 0 move its adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 1935 A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF A REPORT ON AN IMPROVEMENT 2ND AVENUE UTILITIES MARKET TO NAUMKEAG WHEREAS , it is proposed to improve Second Avenue between Market and Naumkeag by watermain and sanitary sewer and to assess the bene- fited properties for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA, that the proposed improvement be referred to Henry R. Spurrier , City Engineer, for study and that he is in- structed to report to the Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improve- ment is feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement , and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. 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 Q -4,' S) MEMO TO: John Anderson City Administrator FROM: H. R. Spurrier City Engineer RE: Trunk Highway 101 Frontage '•ad County Road 89 to West line sf Cretex Industrial Park 1st Addition DATE: October 27, 1981 Introduction: In 1980, Council initiated the above-captioned project. Background: This project was initiated by City Council in order to make the City eligible for any State Turn-back Funds for roadways adjacent to Trunk Highways. The City ordered a feasibility report, received the report and on August 5th, ordered the improvement and preparation of plans for the above-referenced project. The project was not bid prior to August 5, 1981, therefore, it is necessary to re-initiate this project. According to C. W. Weichselbaum, District State Aid Engineer, funds are now available for the construction of the frontage road between County Road 89 and the west line of Cretex 1st Addition. According to the previous understanding, the State will fund all of the road- way construction cost and the City will fund all of the technical services. The City will finance 100 percent of the City's share by specially assessing the properties benefitted by the improvement. It is, therefore, necessary to re-initiate the project by ordering and receiving a revised feasibility report and then calling for a public hearing on the proposed improvement. City staff has contacted property owners along the proposed improvement and has received objections from two property owners; one, is Mr. Robert Rost, School Bus Sales and the second, is Mr. Sam Gelt, Auto Auction. Mr. Rost believes that the proposed improvement would damage his business. Mr. Gelt feels that the proposed improvement does not benefit his property. The purpose of the frontage road is to remove dangerous access points from the Trunk Highway unto a safer location on a frontage road. John Anderson October 27, 1981 T.H. 101 Frontage Road Page -2- It is the recommendation of City staff that Council adopt Resolution No. 1931 and Resolution No. 1932, ordering the report, receiving the report and calling for a public hearing on the improvement. Action Requested: It is the recommendation of City staff that: 1. City Council adopt Resolution No. 1931, A Resolution Ordering The Preparation Of A Report On An Improvement, Trunk Highway 101 Frontage Road, County Road 89 To The West Line Of Cretex Industrial Park 1st Addition. 2. Council adopt Resolution No. 1932, A Resolution Receiving A Report And Calling A Hearing On Improvement, Trunk Highway 101 Frontage Road, County Road 89 To The West Line of Cretex Industrial Park 1st Addition. HES/jiw Attachment FOOTNOTE: Subsequent objections or requests for clarification were received from Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. and Ziegler, Inc. It is recommended that all the concerns expressed by all of the property owners be addressed in a public hearing to be held December 1, 1981. NOTE : BRING SUBURBAN ENGINEERING REPORT TITLED, "FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR T. H. 101 FRONTAGE ROAD (SHIELY ROAD TO CR 89) ." 'DATED APRIL 15, 198P. • El ` ZIEGLER INC. 901 WEST 94TH STREET 03 MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55420 r.G7 October 27, 1981 11111111111111 Mr. Steve Hurley CITY OF SHAKOPEE Shakopee, MN. 55379 Dear Mr. Hurley: 4 Mr. Ron Bjokne, the manager of our Ziegler Tire Services` - operation in Shakopee, told me of a conversation he had Aukorr with you last week. The subject was the frontage road which the City plans to improve in the area west of County Road 89 and in front of the existing Ziegler property along the south side of State Highway 101 . Before any work is started on the road we'd like to have a meeting with you to determine if the road will **01, .t orf .141 be built along the easement outlined in the Ziegler plat and what cost if any might be charged to us. ` We feel the road is adequate and do not wish to be charged for the road improvement during these ex- tremely tough economic times . Please give me a call so we can discuss it further. Very truly yours, kk H. M. Mullinix Vice President Finance & Secretary HMM:sl.*'aS`.-f- i� d } y r"Fi `.ts. gat' c+.y "xa �` ^ ; 1. , �ktw.?„{#. `.{. �f�'' �€� Vin. 9rr, A. $ x 'ai#�#a�' 1 't. }'� .x `,;:r14 ;, . PIONEER HI- BRED INTERNATIONAL, INC . PETERSON FORAGE SEED DIVISION (.4411 P.O. BOX 346 • SAVAGE, MINNESOTA 55378/PHONE (812) 445-2608 MINNESOTA WATS 800-752-5833 / OUT OF STATE WATS 800-328-5898 PIONEER® October 26, 1981 trstIR EC City Manager City of ShakopeeQC A q.b.1 Court House Shakopee , MN 55379 cfry O },i h1'e��'� 'v. F Dear Sir: Last Friday I was contacted by the engineer and technician , Steve Healy. He informed me that there is to be an assess- ment for the service road beginning at Shiely and ending at County Road 89. He also stated that we would have to notify the city before this Thursday , October 29, as to whether or not we will accept the assessment . We feel that this is a very short notice. We 'd like to have more details of what the road is to do . The road will be built on the frontage area in front of our property, but we still do not know where the access will be for entering this frontage road, or when the project is planned to be con- structed. He did mention that it is to be a state-paid construction project at this time , unless the monies have all been previously allocated and the state will have to come up with the funding of this project . There are alot of unanswered questions , and before we can agree to the assessment , we would like to have these ques- tions answered. We would also like to know if there is going to be a public hearing on this , and, if so, when will the public hearing take place? I will, be awaiting your reply . Sincerely , PIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL, INC. Turf and Forage Seed Division REE : EB Ronald E. Evans , Comptroller CC: City Engineer '' Ross Porter Karen Benhart Jerry Peterson Clint Patterson drift® PeterS0i3 FORAGE SEED HELPING AGRICULTURE GROW THROUGH GENETIC RESEARCH NORTHSTAR AUTO AUCTION INC: r*)X � a4 � October 26, 1981 City Administrator Shakopee i.innesota 55379 Dear Sir: This communication is in reference to the proposed frontage road running parallel to my property, known as Northstar Auto Auction, along Highway 101. I see no valid reason for construction of this road. From a per— sonal point of view the road will eliminate the direct access we now have to our property and it will increase my taxes. Neither of these items are things that are needed in my business at this time. In fairness to my neighbors, this road will provide an excellent test track for my customers and my neighbors can look forward to 250 — 400 cars and trucks being test—driven by their doors each Thursday. I see no necessity for the proposed road and hereby object to same. You4 very tru 'y, am Gelt, President NORTHSTAR AUTO AUCTION SG/sml MEMBER OF NATIONAL AUTO AUCTION ASSOCIATION , .•, .. ..:-- �„�: _. _• wVis, :<. .. ,„ .,.,a-, . . _ FEASIBILITY REPORT for Trunk Highway 101 Frontage Road County Road 89 To West Line Of Cretex Industrial Park 1st Addition Introduction : A feasibility report on the improvement of the frontage road between County Road 89 and the west line of Cretex Industrial Park 1st Addition, was first ordered March 6, 1979. A report on the feasibility of that project was prepared by William J. Brezinsky, P.E. of Suburban Engineering, Inc. , was received by City Council on April 15, 1980 and City Council called for a hearing on the proposed improvement. On August 5, 1980, City Council ordered the improvement of the Trunk Highway 101 frontage road and ordered the preparation of plans and specifications. A. contract has not been awarded for construction of that project and, therefore, pursuant to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, the project must be reinitiated. Background : The original feasibility report is judged to be sufficient and accurate except as revised or updated herein. The revised cost is $382, 350. 00. The detailed cost estimate is attached. That attached estimate is a revision of the original estimate contained in the original 'report. The revised estimate is approximately 5. 4 percent lower than the original estimate, due to the fact that the revised estimate uses actual plan quantities. The estimated assessment rate would be $8. 04520 per front foot and a summary of individual assessments is included with the cost estimate. The original feasibility report concluded that construction of the frontage road was technically feasible. The report did not determine whether property values would equal or exceed the amount of the proposed assessment. Certified Appriaser, Leroy Houser, concluded that it would be difficult to prove the benefit until there was more activity in the real estate market . Mr. Houser added that any appraisal prepared at this time, would be completely subjective reflecting only the appraisers own prejudices. As the original feasibility report indicated, the only part of the project cost to be assessed is the cost of technical services. At this time, approximately Feasibility Report October 1981 ' ' T.H. 101 FrOntage Road Page -2- 6- ^/ > $2' 200' 00 in right-of-way acquisition cost must be added to the assessable cost of the project. It is important to note that 60 percent of the cost to be assessed has been disbursed by the City for the plans and specifications for this project. The balance of the cost is the estimated cost of inspection, legal services, right-of-way acquisition and fiscal services required for monitoring construction or in the assessment of the project. The right-of-way required is a segment of right-of-way along Cretex Avenue, which was not included in the Cretex Industrial Park 1st Addition plat and must now be acquired in order to construct the project. It is important to reiterate the purpose of the frontage road ; that purpose is to provide a safer access to these properties along a trunk highway. Construction of the frontage road also eliminates dangerous cross-overs on curves and eliminates several dangerous access points between County Road 89 and the west line of Cretex industrial Park 1st Addition. Alternatives: There are two general alternatives. The first is to stop or cease further work on the frontage road. The second, is to proceed in the manner proposed August 5, 1980 when this project was first ordered. The first alternative requires that City Council judge the project not feasible and directs staff to halt the plan approval process now underway and notify Minnesota Department of Transportation that the City of Shakopee does not want $326' 150' 00 in turnback funds for the construction of the frontage road. In selecting that alternative, City Council must appropriate approximately $32' 000. 00 from the General Fund to pay for technical services already ordered. The second alternative reorders the improvement after holding the public hearing on that improvement. In selecting that alternative, City Council may be able to assess the entire $55,800. 00 in project costs, provided there are no successful appeals of the assessment. Conclusions: The City plans to assess approimately 15 percent of the total cost of the frontage road construction. The balance of the cost would be paid by the State of Minnesota out of turnback funds, which are allocated for projects which improve safe access for property along trunk highways. It is the conclusion of this report that a frontage road along Trunk Highway 101 between County Read 89 and the west line of Cretex Industrial Park 1st Addition is desirable and necessary. Feasibility Report October 1981 , T.H. 101 Frontage Road Page -3-- This report concludes that showing an increase in the value of property benefitted by this improvement is difficult. Conversely, feasibility is difficult to prove because this report cannot specify that the project is technically feasible. This report does conclude that it would be in the best interest of the City Council to attempt to specially assess as much as possible in order to recover funds expended to date. In order to specially assess those costs, it is necessary to proceed with the construction of the Trunk Highway 101 frontage road between County Road 89 and the west line of Cretex Industrial Park 1st Addition. HRS/jiw I hereby certify that this plan,specification, or report was pre•-red by me or nder my direct supervision and t I am ra •u1 --Registered Professional Engi\ -:r under the I of e State of Minnesota. Lam- ---- Date _arraRegistration No. 13689 A REVISED ESTIMATE Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Mobilization 1 L.S. $5, 000. 00 $ 5, 000. 00 Remove existing pipe culverts 320 L.F. 1 . 00 320. 00 Remove Bituminous Pavement 2,603. 3 S.Y . 1 . 00 2, 603. 30 Salvage flared end sections 3 Ea. 50. 00 150. 00 Common Excavation 18, 825 C .Y. 1. 25 23, 531. 25 Subgrade Excavation 5, 764 C. Y'. 1 . 50 8, 646. 00 Granular Borrow (Ev. ) 4, 870 C.Y. 4. 00 19,480. 00 Subgrade Preparation 55.44 Rd.Sta. 120. 00 6,652. 80 Aggregate Base Class V 6, 525 Ton 5. 75 37, 51'3.75 Aggregate Shoulder Class I 1, 175 Ton 6. 00 7, 050. 00 Aggregate Shoulder Class II 51. 8 Ton 6. 00 310. 80 Aggregate Shoulder Class III 3, 133 Ton 6. 00 18, 798. 00 Bituminous Matti. for Mixture 229. 47 Ton 230. 00 52, 778. 10 Wearing .Course Mixture 2, 036.9 Ton 15. 50 31, 571. 95 Binder Course Mixture 2,036. 9 Ton 15. 50 31, 571. 91 Bit. Mat'I. for Tack Coat 939. 10 Gal. 1 . 00 939. 10 Furnish & Install 48" R.C. Pipe Culvert Class III 48 L.F. 57. 00 2, 736. 00 Furnish & Install 30" R.C. Pipe Culveri Class III 120 L.F. 35. 00 4,200. 00 Furnish .& Install 30" C.M. Pipe Culvert ( 16 Gage) 120 L.F. 23. 00 2, 760. 00 Furnish & Install 27" C.M. Pipe Culvert (16 Gage) 122 L.F. 21. 00 2, 562. 00 Furnish & Install 24" C.M. Pipe Culvert ( 16 Gage) 52 L.F. 20. 00 1, 040. 00 Furnish & Install 21" C.M. Pipe Culvert ( 16 Gage) 120 L. F. 18. 00 2, 160.00 Furnish & Install 18°' C.M. Pipe Culvert ( 16 Gage) 95 L.F. 17. 00 1,615. 00 Furnish & Install 30" R.C. Apron Class III 1 Ea. 300. 00 300. 00 Furnish & Install 30" C.M. Apron ( 16 Gage) 4 Ea. 140. 00 560. 00 Furnish & Install 27" C.M. Apron (16 Gage) 4 Ea. 130. 00 520. 00 Revised Estimate -2-- October 29, 1981 - 3 Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Furnish & Install 24' G.M. Apron ( 16 Gage) 2 Ea. $ 80. 00 $ 160' 00 Furnish & Install 21" G.M. Apron ( 16 Gage) 4 Ea. 75' 00 300. 00 Furnish & Install 18" C.M. Apron ( 16 Gage) 2 Ea. 70. 00 140.00 Construct 72" Dia. M.H . Std. Plate 4020B 1 Ea, 1' 500.00 1 ' 500. 00 Casting Assembilies Neenah R- 2560 E 1 Ea. 175. 00 775, 00 Seed & Mulch 2. 5 Acre 3, 600. 00 8, 750. 00 Sodding 8' 210 S.Y. 1 .50 12' 315. 00 Clear & Grub 4 Ea. 100. 00 400. 00 Rip Rap 155 C.Y ' 50- 00 7' 760. 00 Subtotal 296, 865, 00 10 Percent Contingency 29'685'00 Subtotal $326' 550. 00 Design 9. 276% $30'790. 00 Inspection 5, 000% 16' 330' 00 Legal Fiscal and Miscellaneous 2. 7 % 6' 980. 00 Right-of-way Acquisition 2' 200' 00 *Technical Services Subtotal $ 65' 800' 00 Total Project Cost $382' 350, 00 *Total Assessable Cost Assessment Rate Computation Total Cost = $55,800.00 Total Front---- --- = �8' O4S2O/F'F^ Footage 6, 935. 81 . '. ' Estimated Assessments Property Owner Frontage Estimated Assessment Howe Chemical 630. 88 $ 5' 075. 56 Samuel Gelt 305. 00 2' 453' 79 Pioneer Hybrid 265, 00 2, 131. 98 Ziegler 1, 563' 34 12' 577' 29 Cretex 3' 738. 91 30' 080' 28 School Bus Sales 432.68 3,481 ' 00 TOTAL $55, 808. 00 .‘ )--- 11){ 11 Le--l ' a" ' /--a- --1-- -•-• NIL t.. , ( ( � ) I I ,k I , _ i .� I I -- -- r- ( op L I it C _2_ 2o r C r .D x!, rnrn R D •I $ xa ;_i_________ r I m -4 m D Zx V _' -i m7 _.,.., I 0 7 ' rV M ( v m 07 _ • w „4 to 1. 11 x 0 7 s < RO T r 902 081 I- d 11 909 09,2 O -11 ( 07906 °171 7 :11:11 ' /INOWE1 ., , 21 t A ki —— i- ----- i_____ 10 6 01 /,. - - _4111,.,,,, aro A '' i - nI 1 * 01608 / t‘ t1°I I / PIONEER ‘ 1 BRED 33 1 /634 ,4 -glow it *01 ' • 7 0 g M cj / \'‘'' // ' 0 14, ot 0 \ / tA I//-Z' o f rb / tt_ _ _ ..„.... \51 r+i r . r • RESOLUTION NO. 1932 A Resolution Receiving A Report And Calling A Hearing On Improvement Trunk Highway 101 Frontage Road County Road 89 To The West Line Of Cretex Industrial Park 1st Addition WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 1931, of the City Council adopted November 4, 1981 a report has been prepared by Henry R. Spurrier, City Engineer, with reference to the improvements of Trunk Highway 101 Frontage Road, County Road 89 to the west line of Cretex Industrial Park 1st Addition by roadway and this report was received by the Council on November 4, 1981. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. The Council will consider the improvement of the Trunk Highway 101 frontage road between County Road 89 and the west line of Cretex Industrial Park 1st Addition by roadway, in accordance with the report and the asessment of abutting and benefitted property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvements pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes Chapter 429, at an extimated total cost of the improvement of 5382,350.00. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvements on the 1st day of December 1981, at 8:30 P.M. , or thereafter, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 129 East 1st Avenue and the City Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. 3. The work of this project is hereby designated as part of the 1982-1 Public Improvement Program. 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. 1931 A Resolution Ordering The Preparation Of A Report On An Improvement Trunk Highway 101 Frontage Road • County Road 89 To The West Line Of Cretex Industrial Park 1st Addition WHEREAS, it is proposed to improve Trunk Highway 101 frontage road between County Road 89 and the west line of Cretex Industrial Park 1st Addition by roadway and to assess the benefitted properties for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes Chapter 429. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the proposed improvement be referred to Henry R. Spurrier, City Engineer, for study and that he is instructed to report to the Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvemeit as recommended. 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 Cla-/ MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE : Application by Equities Unlimited for $600,000 in Industrial Revenue Bonds DATE : October 30, 1981 Introduction City Council , at its November 4, 1981 meeting, will conducted a public hearing to receive comments on the above mentioned project . As part of that Hearing, Council will receive staff reports from the City Planner and Robert D. Pulscher, our financial consultant (attached) . In accordance with Council policy, Council will close the hearing and instruct staff to provide the necessary resolution granting the project preliminary approval at its next meeting if Council choses to proceed. Background The required resolution, prepared by the Dorsey Firm, will be presented at the next meeting, however, it will not incorporate the requirements/concerns from the City Planner or Mr. Pulscher. Those concerns are listed below with recommendations on how they might be handled: City Planner : 1 . The City Planner recommends approval of the site plan with the requirement that conditions #1-#7 (attached) listed in the City Planner ' s memo of 'October 28, 1981 be met prior to issuance of a building permit . Mr. Pulscher: 2 . Mr. Pulscher recommends that the City make satisfactory arrangements for the payment of local public improvements . There are $3310. 21 in assessments on parcel #27-901-022-1 from the 1977-1 improvements that should be paid for before the issuance of a building permit . There are no new public improvements required for the project . 3 . Mr. Pulscher recommends that the developer be required to use mortgage revenue notes meeting the requirements of the Golden Valley Bank commitment as a condition for approval of the final resolution. Recommendation These concerns should be handled with a separate motion, after adoption of the preliminary resolution. Mayor and City Council ; ct-r October 30, 1981 Page Two Action Requested Direct staff to present the preliminary resolution at the next meeting. JKA/jms INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS OUTSTANDING Preliminary Date Of Firm Approval Issuance Amount Valley Park, Inc . (Valleyfair) Series 1976 $ 925 ,000 Toro Series 1975 $ 2 ,100,000 Certain Teed Series 1973 $ 1 ,000,000 * Perkins Steak & Cake Feb. of 1980 $ 600,000 * Ziegler , Inc . Dec . of 1979 $ 2 ,300,000 , * Scottland Warehouse Feb . of 1980 $ 1 ,000,000 * K-Mart Store Dec . of 1979 $ 1 ,000,000 Ashland Oil Feb. 5 , 1980 $ 1 ,000,000 * J & B Enterprises Aug. 26 , 1980 $ 490 ,000 * Citizens Bank Building Jul1980 July 29, $ 1 ,300,000 Progress Valley Park Dec. 2 , 1980 $ 2 ,400,000 (4 warehouses) St . Francis Hospital Jan. 6 , 1981 $ 9 ,120 ,000 S & W Realty - Shakopee Jan. 6, 1981 $ 600,000 Shops Shakopee Professional Group 3/17/81 $ 1,000,000 Valley Health Properties 3/17/81 $ 850,000 Valley Industrial Center-II 6/16/81 $ 1 , 100,000 Equities Unlimited ( 1&44) $ 650,000 $27 ,435,000 Note : Current policy states the total aggregate amount of industrial development bonds outstanding at any one time shall not exceed 507 of the total assessed valuation of the City. 1981 payable = $76, 816 , 153. 00. * Closing Documents Executed SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED RECEivFD PUBLIC FINANCE ADVISORS OCT 2 9 1 q81 28 October 1981 CiTy OF SHAKOPEE Mr. John K. Anderson City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 E. First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55375 RE: Equities Unlimited Industrial Revenue Bonds Dear Mr. Anderson: We have reviewed the application and related material submitted to us relative to this issue. The application and material appear to satisfy the City's requirements for consideration of a preliminary resolution for commercial development projects with one exception. That exception relates to satisfactory arrangements being made with the City for reimbursement of all local public costs, including the cost of any public improvements required for the property. I assume your office will resolve, or has resolved, that issue. Attachment E, a commitment letter from the Golden Valley Bank, indicates that the loan to value will not exceed $600,000 or 80% of appraised value whichever is less. This should satisfy your requirement that a loan to value relationship of not more than 90% be certified. The preliminary resolution, as is standard, does not specify that the financing instrument is to be a mortgage revenue note, issued under the general requirement of the Golden Valley Bank commitment. As a result the Council may wish to condition the preliminary resolution to the effect that the final resolution will not be approved unless the financing arrangements meet that requirement. If you have any questions about these matters please feel free to contact us. I am returning the material submitted to us. Very sincerely yours, Robert D. Pulscher President /djp Enclosure 800 Osborn Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 (612) 222-4241 MEMO TO: John Anderson City Administrator FROM: Don Steger City Planner RE: Site Plan Review - Equities Unlimited (IR Bond Application) DATE: October 28, 1981 As part of the site plan review for Industrial Revenue Bonds, the following comments are offered: 1. All lot size and setback requirements of the B-1 Zone are met. 2. All existing easements are free of structures, except the northeast corner of the building extends over an existing road easement. This easement is a private easement owned by the property owner. 3. The trash dumpster is located in the building interior. • 4. The loading area is recessed along the west side of the building, thereby buffering loading activities. 5. The planned lighting of the site must be directed away from the highway. 6. Parking stall design meets City Code. 7. The width of the internal circulation lanes comply with City Code requirements. 8. The City Code parking requirements are based on the net floor area of the building. Because only halt of the total 28,200 square foot building is leased, calculating parking requirements for the entire building is not possible. However, of the 1+,100 square feet of building that is leased, only about half is net floor area. The City Code requires approximately 50 parking stalls for this portion of the building. Because 136 parking stalls are provided on the site plan, sufficient parking for the remaining half of the building should result. As building permits are requested for the remainder of the building, parking requirements can be checked at that time. 9. The City Building Inspector has indicated that the finish floor elevation should be 1.5 feet above the service road. 10. The City Engineer has stated that the plan should show the location of the existing watermain and sanitary sewer lines and indicate the computation necessary to demonstrate that the VIP Interceptor, located in the 25 foot sanitary sewer easement, has the capacity to support a 9-ton axel load any- where on the parking lot at whatever plan-grade is proposed. John Anderson October 28, 1981 Liquor City U.S.A. Page -2- 11. The City Engineer has stated that prior to approval of the site plan, the Engineering Department must receive a drainage report analyzing the site and downstream drainage facilities to verify that there is sufficient downstream capacity for the developed runoff. The analysis should verify that there is capacity for both the minor and major storm. Any drainage facilities required as a result of that analysis must be included in the proposed construction. 12. The westerly driveway entrance should not be located on the curve of the service road. 13. A rural road section is appropriate along the service road and, therefore, no curb and gutter is required. 14. Twenty (20) foot drainage and utility easements are required along each lot line. 15. Landscaping on the site plan is minimal (only six trees). In keeping with the character of the area and buffering the building, more extensive plantings of pine/oak should occur. Alternatives: The City Council could, as part of the IRB review, either: 1. Approve the site plan; 2. Approve the site plan with conditions; 3. Not approve the site plan. Recommended Action: • City Council approve the site plan and the following conditions must be satisfied priorto the issuance of a building permit: 1. A revised landscaping plan be submitted and approved by the City Planner. 2. The exterior lighting be directed away from the highway. 3. The plan should show the location of the existing watermain and sanitary sewer lines and indicate the computation necessary to demonstrate that the VIP Interceptor, located in the 25 foot sanitary sewer easement, has the capacity to support a 9-ton axel load anywhere on the parking lot at whatever plan-grade is proposed. 4+. The finish floor elevation be 1.5 feet above the service road. 5. Prior to approval of the site plan, the Engineering Department must receive a drainage report analyzing the site and downstream drainage facilities to verify that there is sufficient downstream capacity for the developed runoff. � a John Anderson October 28, 1981 Liquor City U.S.A. Page -3- The analysis should verify that there is capacity for both minor and major storm. Any drainage facilities required as a result of that analysis must be included in the proposed construction. 6. The westerly driveway entrance not be located on the curve of the service road. 7. Twenty (20) foot drainage and utility easements be provided around the perimeter of the lot. DS/jiw S Ch(2) MEMO TO: John Anderson City Administrator FROM: Don Steger City Planner RE: Removal of Opera House Building DATE: October 28, 1981 Introduction: On October 6, 1981 the City Council agreed with the Ad Hoc Downtown Committee's recommendations concerning the overall downtown plan. One immediate action, which was approved, was to pursue the creation of a right-turn lane at 1st and Holmes (Highways 169 and 101). The Downtown Committee, at their October 22nd meeting recommended to the City Council that Federal Aid Urban Funds (FAU) be pursued in order to acquire and demolish the Opera House building, thereby, permitting the Minnesota Depart- ment of Transportation (Mn/DOT) to construct the right-turn lane. Background: 1. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has indicated their willingness to construct the right-turn lane if the Opera House building is removed and the land necessary for the lane right-of-way is dedicated to them. Mn/DOT will pay for the cost of lane construction. Mn/DOT's analysis indicates that considerable improvment to the intersection's capacity would result from ,the creation of a right-turn lane. 2. Federal Aid Urban Funds (FAU) are available and could be used to acquire and remove the Opera House building. The FAU balance for the City of Shakopee is $191,000 as of September 1981. In addition, it may be possible to utilize the City's 1982 FAU allotment for this project, which amounts to an additional $35,000+. The total FAU funding level would then be approximately $226,000. 3. The costs associated with the acquisition and demolition of the Opera House building are eligible expenses under the Federal Aid Urban (FAU) program. However, these FAU funds designated for use by the City of Shakopee could be used for other projects within the City; that is, right-of-way acquisition for 13th Avenue, sidewalk program, etc. The City Council must decide whether to commit the FAU funds to the right- turn lane project or designate the funds to other projects. The FAU funds must be used by September 30, 1982 in order to avoid losing the funds. However, because of processing delays, application for the funds should occur as soon as possible. John.Anderson October 28, 1981 Removal of Opera House Building Page -2- 4. Leroy Houser estimated the cost of the building acquisition and demolition at approximately $200,000. Additional costs would result from either constructing ,a west wall for the adjoining building or acquiring the adjacent building. (NOTE: The Opera House and adjoining building share a common wall). Acquisition of the adjoining building is estimated to raise the total cost to approximately $225,000. 5. The staff has been informed that the Opera House building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Because federal funds are intended to be used for its removal, a lengthy procedure must be followed which will result in a review by the Historical Society. This review procedure may take up to a year in length which may jeopardize the FAU funds. The owner of the Opera House building is requesting the Historical Society to remove the building from the National Register of Historic Places. It is not clear, however, whether this action on the part of the owner will achieve the removal from the list. Alternatives: 1. Instruct the staff to pursue the Federal Aid Urban (FAU) funds for use in acquiring and demolishing the Opera House and possibly adjoining building and proceed with the historical review procedure. This action would lead to the possible construction of a right-turn lane at Highway 101 and 169. 2. Designate the Federal Aid Urban (FAU) funds to be used for other projects in the City and instruct the staff to pursue the FAU funds for the specified projects. 3. Do not pursue Federal Aid Urban (FAU) funds at this time. • Recommended Action: The Ad Hoc Downtown Committee recommends Alternative No. 1, the City Council proceed with pursuing the construction of a right-turn lane at Highway 101 and 169, by: 1. Instructing the staff to pursue Federal Aid Urban (FAU) funds for use in acquiring and demolishing the Opera House building and possibly adjoining building. 2. Instructing the staff to proceed with the historical review procedure for the Opera House building. DS/jiw MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Storm Sewer Financing DATE : October 28, 1981 Introduction The City' s present policy regarding the financing of storm sewers is to assess 50% of the benefited property owners and special levy the remaining 50% (i .e . the City as a whole pays for 50%) . This policy is in jeopardy under the ruling of the State Supreme Court which requires that a City special assess property owners for an amount that does not exceed the "benefit" received. Problem The Court ' s benefit requirement has recently effected the Holmes Street Trunk Sewer Project , the proposed Holmes Street Laterals on Fuller Street and the proposed Bluff Avenue Prairie Street Storm Sewer. In the latter two cases the projects were found to be un- feasible because the 50% assessment cost exceeded what the City Assessor projected to be the "benefit" to project property owners . In the Holmes Street Trunk Storm Sewer Case , the City had several assessments appealed. Given the City' s need to have the financial tools to build storms , City staff (City Engineer, Assistant City Attorney, Building Inspec- tor, and City Administrator) has attempted to examine the impact of the "benefit" requirement on the City' s current storm sewer financing policy and alternatives to that policy. Impact of the Court ' s "Benefit" Requirement on Current City Policy It is the consensus of staff that the Fuller Street and Bluff Avenue Prairie Street findings (that the proposed assessment computed at 50 of the project ' s cost exceeded the Assessor ' s estimate of benefit) will become the norm. From a legal standpoint this means that City Council cannot proceed with these projects - they cannot be built ! Thus , by holding to our existing policy of assessing 50%, the City is killing the majority, if not all , new storm sewer projects . Financing Alternatives 1 . Continue with the City ' s current policy of specially assessing 50% of the improvement. Pros : The City would be maintaining a consistent policy. Cons : The City could well be prohibited from building any more storm sewers for the reasons outlined above . Storm Sewer Financing Page Two October 28, 1981 2 . Modify the City' s current storm sewer policy so that it would read, "assess the benefit received up to a maximum of 50% of the project cost" . Pros : The policy would mean that storm sewers could be built, that the City could special levy for its share as long as the benefit exceeded 20% of the improvement costs , and that cost would be spread to property owners on a special assessment basis through the familiar #429 process . Cons : The policy would mean a change from the hard and fast 50% assessment policy thus allowing for criticism from those assessed under the old policy. 3 . Use Minnesota Statute #444 that provides for the creation of a special drainage tax district based upon the drainage basin . Pros : The Statute hasn ' t been used very extensively and there is no Supreme Court ruling requiring the application of the "benefit" received concept and 100% of the project cost would be levied as a tax on property within the drainage basin. Better for developed areas . Cons : The Statute would require that Council and staff become familiar with a new procedure, the project cost would not be assessed using the typical assessment techniques (front foot , area or equal service unit charge) but would be based upon property values which may or may not relate to benefit received, and the present policy of assessing 50% would be changed to 100% (we cannot tax for only 50% under #444) . Discourages new development . 4. Plan to use Minnesota Statute #444, but seek to have it amended by the Legislature to permit a tax levy of less than 100% (eg. 50%) and allow a City to special levy for the balance . Pros : The policy would have all the benefits of Alternative #3 , allow Council to continue its 50% policy and enable the City to special levy for the unassessed (not taxed) portion as it currently does for various #429 projects that are not 100% assessed. Better for developed areas . Cons : The 50% tax would still be based upon property value and it requires favorable action by the Legislature . Discourages new development . 5 . Reduce our storm sewer design criteria from a 5 year occurance to a 2 year occurance and keep the current 50% assessment policy. Pros : The approach may reduce the typical projects cost by 20%, a savings that might make some projects feasible when the "benefit" test is applied and it would keep the present policy in place . Storm Sewer Financing Page Three October 28, 1981 Cons : The policy may not save enough to permit the construction of most projects and we would be moving away from the widely accepted 5 year occurance criteria (the City Engi- neer is willing to look at the use of the 2 year occurance in residential areas on a case by case basis) . 6. Seek State legislation to alter the test of benefit to technical benefit or eliminate the present Supreme Court ruling requiring the "benefit" test . Pros : This would allow the City to continue with its present policy. Cons : The Assistant City Attorney does not see much potential of the Legislature finding a way to make a real change . 7 . Seek a referendum for a City wide storm sewer program or referen- dum on a project by project basis . Pros : The approach provides 100% financing and eliminates the need for the benefit test. Cons : The approach contradicts our existing policy of assessing 50% and citizens who paid "their fair share" for earlier projects would probably object verbally and at the polls . 8. Establish an area storm sewer charge similar to our present area charge for Trunk Watermains . Pros : The approach would establish a flat rate per square foot (Burnsville currently has a rate of 9¢/sq. ft. ) . Cons : The approach would not automatically eliminate legal action through appeals that would require the "benefit" test , the approach would be difficult to administer in built up areas where we are currently trying to complete our storm sewers , and the approach requires careful management and escrowing of funds . 9 . Shift the 50% storm sewer assessment to a 50% street reconstruction assessment . Pros : The approach could be sold to citizens by explaining that residents will still pay 50%, only a different 50%. Cons : The City Assessor believes it will be as difficult to meet the "benefit" test for a reconstructed street as a new storm sewer. Summary and Recommendations City staff has tried to list all of the potential alternatives and discuss the pros and cons of each. After discussing the alternatives , it became apparent that the choice was really one of choosing between the "lessor of evils" rather than the one best approach. The storm sewer projects that the policy selected would effect are : Holmes Street Storm Sewer Financing Page Four October 28, 1981 Laterals , Market Street Laterals, Bluff Avenue and Prairie Street Trunk, Upper Valley Drainage and Valley Industrial Park Drainage North and South. Staff recommends alternative #2 and #6 for the reasons discussed above . They are the most pragmatic approachs in that they modify the current policy the least and will not hold up any potential 1982 construction while we wait to establish new procedures or wait for action by some elected body over which we have no control . Action Requested 1 . Direct City staff to draft a resolution amending Resolution No. 1282 , which sets forth the City' s Storm Sewer Assessment Policy, by "assessing the storm sewer benefit received (as determined by the Assessor) up to a maximum of 50% of the project costs" . 2 . Direct City staff to contact our State Legislators and ask them to sponsor legislation that would change the Supreme Court ' s "benefit" text . JKA/jms . . � MEMO TO : John Anderson City Administrator - , FROM : H. Q. Spurrier - -- / City Engineer111 ~��~� RE : Upper Valley Drainage Sys| *� DATE : October 30, 1981 Introduction : The City of Shakopee is interested in developing the VIP service area. In order to do so, it is necessary to reserve the proper amount of land for a drainage corridor through Section 5, 6, 7 and 8 in Township 115' Range 22, aU within the Mill Pond Basin. Background : The City of Shakopee has previously received an opinion from City Attorney, A:Ju|ius � Co||mr' II , dated June 4, 1981 regarding the obligation f the City in sizing drainage facilities. City Council was given several alternatives; among those alternatives was a Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Shakopee and Jackson and Louisville Townships for the management of storm water in the Mill Pond Basin. The purpose of managing the storm water was to permit the City of Shakopee to construct whatever facilities were necessary for the historic runoff and in the event development in Jackson or Louisville Townships required larger facilities, Jackson and Louisville Townships would contribute funds for oversizing the facilities. ^ Successful management of storm water in the Mill Pond Basin requires a detailed hydraulic and hydrologic analysis of the basin. The hydraulic and hydrologic analysis depend on accurate contour maps of the study area. There are 8, 780 acres in the Mill Pond Basin to be studied. Approximately/ half of that area is in Jackson and Louisville Townships where there is little or no accurate mapping. Within the 4,640 acres in Jackson and Louisville Township, an estimated 800 acres will need detni|md aerial photography. That photography will cost an estimated $8, 000' 00. There is a need for aerial photography for the City of 8hakopee°Vn the event design work is ordered and if Council anticipates ordering the design work, the e pnmtmBraphs should be taken this fall. Getting the photography is a nominal cost compared to actually plotting the photography. The cost of aerial photography for the City of Shakopee would be approximately $500,80; design photography will be approximately $15, 000' 80 and will not be included here. *» � ] /( // ��o � �' / �«L/� /)� ~�r�"`^ ,' John Anderson October 30, 1981 Upper Valley Drainage System Page -2- f cL A detailed engineering study could then be prepared. This study would present the basic data collected, the design criteria, the results of the hydraulic and hydrologic analysis which would specify the historic rate of runoff for three events. Two minor occurrence events; one which would have a 50 percent chance of occurrence; one which would have a 20 percent chance of occurrence and one which have a 1 percent chance of occurrence. This is the information which would pertain to historic conditions that would be required for the Joint Powers Agreement. A detailed breakdown of the estimated manhours required to complete this project, together with the aerial photography required is listed in the table below : Time and Cost Estimate Task Personnel Hours Cost 1 . Preliminary Mapping Engineer 10 $ 290 Technician III 10 200 Technician II 30 510 50 $ 1, 000 2. Aerial Photography Mark Hurd $ 8, 500 3. Data" Development Engineer 40 $ 1, 160 Technician III 10 200 Technician H 150 2, 550 200 $ 3, 910 4. Data Analysis Engineer 100 $ 2, 900 Technician III 80 1,600 Technician I I 200 3,400 380 $ 7, 900 5. Report Engineer 60 $ 1, 740 Secretary 30 330 90 $ 2, 070 TOTAL $23, 380 The work proposed above would be completed on or before March 31, 1982, provided it is possible to get the aerial photography between the time that the corn and other crops are taken out of the field and the first significant snowfall occurs. Recommendations It is the recommendation of City staff that City Council authorize the Engineering Department to perform the necessary analysis of the Upper Valley Drainage System. City staff would bring back an agreement form for any outside technical services John Anderson ` Upper Valley Drainage System October 30, 1981 Page -3- such as the preparation of aerial photography, in the event such work exceeded limits now established by City Council. Action Requested : Authorize City staff to perform a hydraulic and hydrologic analysis of the Upper Valley Drainage System in order to generate the necessary information required for the Louisville Township, Jackson Township Joint Powers Agreement. HRS/jiw MEMO TO: John Anderson City Administrator FROM: H. R. Spurrier City Engineer ' RE: Kmart Tax Increment 'ro e t Landscaping Contract DATE: October 26, 1981 Introduction: Attached is Change Order No. 1 for the above-referenced contract. Background: The general contractor and Kmart Corporation have recommended and approved, and the contractor has accepted and approved the adjustment proposed in the above-referenced contract. It is therefore the recommendation of City staff that Change Order No. 1 be approved. Action Requested: Approve Change Order No. 1 for Contract No. K 81-1 (Kmart Landscaping and Irrigation Project), which provides for a revised lay-out and configuration of the sprinkler system and extends the warranty of the sprinkler system until August 7, 1983 and decreases the contract $1,500.00. HRS/jiw Attachment k 1111 WI I I I.4.01/11 I II I EMI 1°4111 M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY GENERAL CONTRACTORS • 700 MEADOW LANE NORTH MAILING ADDRESS: PO BOX 710•MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55440•TELEPHONE(612.)377-2630 September 29, 1981 City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Attention: Mr. Bo Spurrier Re: Kmart Distribution Center Shakopee, Minnesota Landscape Change Order Gentlemen: Enclosed are five copies of Chan e dcr_ No. 1, reducing the above referenced con ract amount to $122, 14 00. Please incorporate these changes at the November City Council Meeting. If you have any comments or questions, please contact Mr. Don Wilson. Very truly yours , Ir► 4OP • David G. Turney 1.0 11911 DGT/tb Enc. C c rn cc: Kmart Corporation � "(i� `ga/ Kmart Distribution Center N ^KC, F Hoffman McNamara 4° INNE RECEIVED CHANGE ORDER ¢ Change Order No. : 1 Project Name: Kmart Landscapi OCT 2 2 1981 Date: August 18, 1981 Contract No. : CITY BHAK®PEE Original Contract Amount $ 123 , 649 . 00 Change Order(s) No. thru No. _ --- $ -0- Total Funds Encumbered Prior to Change Order 4123 , 649 . 00 ULKL Description tion of Work txXb )f 11cke: i; 34:e.Ox NADON MOTTERSHAW MILLER p PANCZYK READ i DISCARD BULKLEY BROWN Revise layout and configuration of sprinkler system and"OYtend -----FRANKLIN warranty of sprinkler system until,. August 7 , 1983 . ,,SEP.21 1981 • RLOR• n,v OINTNAL Mil cONTRACTI REPORTI MIRO ' XTRAI %WOR% ..e above 6,-:scribed vnrk shall be in' 'ly'po t.r 1 in tre Contract, r. - under the same conditions speci iea in the original. Contlacl, as amended unless otherwise specified herein. Any work not so specified shall be performed in accordance with the Standard Specifications adopted by the City of Shakopee, Minnesota. The amount of the Contract shall be (xiimz /decreased) by $ 1,500 . 00 . The number of calendar days for completion shall be (increascd/decreased) by N/A . Original Contract Amount $ 123, 649 . 00 Change Order(s) No. _ 1 thru $ 1,500 . 00 Total Funds Encumbered $ 122, 149 ..00 • Completion Date: N/A . The undersigned Contractor hereby agrees to perform the work specified in this Change Order in accord with the mae ,fications, conditions and pr' es s.ecified herein. ` c n SND RECOMMENDED: Contractor: 11\4.-1 /:;firein rel (,`a,By e �('� . yt ‹_ Title: VT `�.(�►. 1-1--' , Date: /) -- z1, '"6/ A•• ,� IE. / !gid Kmart • Corpor ion City En• eer :� Dat By: i�1 / i Approved - City of Shakopee Title:• 0C-40` IF, il , /9/+)-x/15/ Date • Mayor Date M. A. Mort.son,�pany BY: — . / Al City Administrator , Date ��,� Title: f�ie�/c� . /1 72 8 -/9-6/ City Clerk Date Date Approved as to form this day of , 19 . City Attorney ?pi MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: 1981 Audit Engagement DATE: October 30, 1981 Introduction Attached is a proposal from Jerome Jaspers & Company for 1981 audit services. Background As is evident on the proposal, there are four (4) options shown with varying fees, target dates and degrees of auditor involvement. Option 1 is theoretically how an audit should be done with management preparing the re- port and the outside auditor doing only "auditing" because the report is the responsibility of management (City) . To do otherwise is essentially to hire an auditor to do the work and then have him check his own work. The target date of 4/30/82 is based on staff being able to devote time to the report and not be tied up with a significant amount of other reports/projects. There are probably very few cities that have their report out before April with most falling in the April-May time frame. I would also venture to say that there are very few cities anywhere close to the size of Shakopee that produce their own report and have an informative report of such high quality. Alternatives Alternatives one (1) through four (4) are shown on attached proposal. Recommendation Staff recommends option 1 because the annual financial report is management's responsibility and staff is capable as shown by the reports for the past three (3) years. However, all parties need to recognize that 4/30/82 is a target date highly dependent on the workload imposed on the finance staff. Action Move to accept the proposal of Jerome Jaspers & Company for 1981 audit services in the amount of $6,600. GV/ljw attachment ti w JEROME JASPERS & COMPANY 61/` 1/ Cenl$'eJJ J uG/ic Jiccounlanls 206 SCOTT STREET Sit:MI ERS(1F 1111 AMERICAN INSi11 ME OF SHAKOPEE,MINNF:S(YI'A 55379 l'h;141111h 11 PV lI.11ACl'Ot1N'1'ANIS TELEPHONE:(612)445-2817 October 29 1981 Members of the City Council City of Shakopee Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 R.E . Examination of the City ' s financial statements and financial review of the Revenue Sharing Fund. Dear Council Members : Our fee for audit services for 1981 is catogorically presented below as requested by Mr. Voxlund; Estimated Fee Report Date Option-1 $6,400.00-6,600.00 April 30,1982 Option-2 $7, 900.00-8, 100.00 April 15,1982 Option-3 $9, 300 .00-9, 500.00 March 31,1982 Option-4 fi10,000.00-11, 000.00 March 31,1982 Option-1 above entails the same amount of work for the auditor 's as the 1980 report. Option-2 includes all of option-1 and would require us to complete the assessments receivable schedules as well as preparing the trial balances necessary for each fund. Option-3 covers all of option-2 plus the auditor ' s writing section 11-A and 11-B of the audit report. Option-4 covers all of option-3 plus the auditor 's typing and reproducing the audit report. The completion of the examination can be expected on the above dates providing the city ' s staff completes the agreed upon preliminary schedules for the examination within a reasonable amount of time after year end. Our management letter will also be presented with the audit report. The personal from our office who will be assigned on this engagement, will consist of James Streefland, CPA, throughout the examination and two or three staff members when deemed necessary for the testing of records and gathering other evidence for the examination. The audit report at the completion of the examination will conform to all material aspects required by the State Auditor and the requirements of the American Institute of Certified Public Accounts. We will also work with City staff in stucturing the audit report to conform with MFOA certificate criteria. Yours truly Jerome Jars Company MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Computer Terminal Lease DATE: October 27, 1981 Introduction: Council has previously declined to purchase a new terminal for the Finance Department to replace the outmoded terminal currently in use. At the time, the possibility of leasing new terminal was brought up. Background: Attached is a proposal to lease a new terminal from Teleterminals, our present lessor. It is for the Microwest terminal which has been evaluated and selected by Logis staff as being the most suited for Logis members and therefore is now the "standard" Logis terminal. We virtually cannot use our present terminal for the fixed asset system. Funds are alloted in the 1982 budget for the lease. The terminal is needed now to get fixed assets up before the end of the year. Alternatives: 1. Status Quo - no fixed assets on system 2. Send employee to another city to use their terminal if and when possible for certain applications 3. Lease terminal for ,one year 4. Buy terminal Recommendation: Staff recommends alternative #3 - lease new terminal for one year. Action: Move to authorize the City Administrator to execute a lease with Teleterminals for a Microwest Mark II-C terminal and equipment per quotation at $190 per month for one year commencing in November, 1981. GV/ljw attachment rjr 7216 BOONE AVENUE NORTH • BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55428 • PHONE (612) 535-5330 October 14, 1981 RECEIVED OCT 151981 Mr. Greg Voxland Shakopee City Hall 129 East 1st Avenue CITY OF SHAKOPEE Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Greg: This letter may be considered a formal quotation for your lease or purchase of the following computer terminal equipment for use on the LOGIS network: PURCHASE MONTHLY ONE YEAR EQUIPMENT PRICE MAINT. LEASE Microwest Mark II-C Video terminal and keyboard 2120.00 25.00 110.00/mo. Okidata 82A Receive Only Printer 670.00 18.00 40.00/mo. General DataComm 212A 300/1200 baud Modem with Touch Tone- Exclusion Key Telephone 895.00 7.00 40.00/mo. Interface Cables 60.00 Installation 110.00 *Purchase price includes a 90 day on-site warranty after which maintenance charges begin *Lease prices include monthly maintenance but installation charge is applied *Purchase price at end of one year lease will allow 15% of the lease payments as credit or purchase at fair market value, whichever is lower We have this equipment in inventory and could install it within 3 - 7 days after receipt of your order. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you and hope to continue our support of your data processing needs. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Sin erely yours, Charles R. Zi CRZ/dlr Vice President' enol: 94) H' H' N F-' H' 1" H' H' H' H' 1--' F-' F� 1-' H' H' H' F-' H I-' H' H' U H' F� F-4 F-' H' H' 1-4 1" N H' I-+ H•' H' F-' F-' F-4 H' H' H' • H' 1-' F" C) 4N -P .P -P -P -P A -P •IA -P -P A •A -A N W W W W N CO OD W W OD W OD OD N CO GJ N W W OD W C7 N F-' H' H cn NCO N (SD CA) CO J CO 1-` W I" I" W H' H' H' N tai O cn cn (n N 0 0 I-' 0 0 0 I-' - 01 N 01 cn N cit cn Ul Cn co' HH' CO CD CO CO CO CO CO CD CD CO CO CO CO OD 01 CO CO OD CO CO CD CO H 1 I-' H, 1-> N F-' f" h' F-' I-' F-' 1-4 F-' I- I- F-' I-' H' I--' H' H' 1-' H' 'd H' H' N I-' H' H' I-' 1-' F-' F-' F-' H' H F-' H H' H' H' H' N F" F-' n p) Co Co Co oo co co Co CO co 0D Co Co oo Co Co 0D Oo Co CD CO OD CO 0 QD (D H' N F� H' H' H' N 1-- I-' I-' F-' F-' 1-' F-' H' F" 1-' 1 F-' F-' I- H' R ,-1 N I-' 1_, F-' I-' F" I-' H' F-' 1" I" 1-4 I-' N F� F' F" I-' H' H' I" F-' F•' H' N I-' F-' 1" F-' I-' F-' I-' 1" N � H-' N H' H' 1" F-' H' H' N H' • • • • • C) N H' H' N F-' F•-' H' 1-4 I" H' H' I" H' F-' H' F-4 I" 1-' F-' F' N H-' O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I" 1" H' N H' H' H•' F-' HA F-4 H' I-' H' H' F, H' H' H-' H' H H' H' r' 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n n H H' H' H' (Ai H' F-' 0) H' Co N c0 -.l N co A N 0 .A 1-; rn ' .A 0 4 0 rn 0 CW �l -Q H' 0) Co .P Cr -1 0 .A 01 W H --7 co (O N J N H' 0 0) O (SI iv cn rn N 0 ao 0 cn O ' w 0 0 cn 0 co 0 0 0 0 0 (0 0 cnNN O 0) co 0 co 0 b 0 O 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 H O O O O b Ji--3 U) H U) Z W 0 < 0 0 G 000 0 CD ct Cl R 1 O (D (D C) II 0 p) 0 ct (D R rt CD ct Cl Cl Cl H CD (D CD CD 0 C (D 0 C O • •'c CD • CD CD •0 (D CD CD CD n 'i 'i 'i '•i c t 'i 'Cl 0 CD O U) 1 'i 'i 1 1 'i 'i x H. a H' H' HJ 0 1-4 b 'd 'T! ''1 Cl) 0 Cn Cn p) R° 'd p) 'd 'b 'd 'd 't Cl' 1 'i 'i OQ C tri U) 'S H. 'S '1 H '1 1 'i 'i U) 0 0 0 CD CD R. X R. 'T1 O o o .O o o O ps C H) H) H) R° Ro Hh Cr H) H) Cl H) Hy l'-') H) tri CU) 0 CD 0 U) Cl) Cl) CDD CD ct CO R° U) U) RO U) U) U) U) H. CD CD CD 'O H) CD Hy (Q H' CD CD CD CD CD CD CD ci) CD 1 'i 'S 'i • (D 1 7d 'i 'i 7z1 'i 'i 'i 'i ID < < < 0 cr < (D < < CD < < C C H H. H• • U) H• '0 F+• H. 'CD H. H. H• H- o C) C) C) • 0 C) • C) C) C) C) CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD U) U) U) Cn U) U) Cl) Cl) U) U) Cn x Z bi 0 C) z Z Y x > C 0 > r C CD 0 H • p) p) H• o H CD 3 o '< N p) CD 0 (D < C = CI p R = 1 C 0 4< > U) 1 CT 'i C + I-' H. C) < 1 • • T.' C 'I t' C C '-< ? 0 H• • ( H• H' CD ¢) (D CD 0 C U) <C C7 U) b7 CD 0 CD 01 (IQ E CrC 0 ct 0 H. CD ttzi C U) U) M U) CD CD C) p) 1 CD U) ? 0 A) H-' pi a Z U) 't7 0 U) HA C) ,O U) X C a CD C p) A) Cn p H• H. 1 CO Z H' • Z. C C) H. Cn CD H. a 'S C) C 0 CD ct ? 0 H. 0 N cn Cn p) x ? ) a m x C a = p) 1 'D N H, 'i cD '.‹ CD U) CD a (D ct p) H a H' 'S cn 's "o o x 0 a o Cn (D H. (D y C) U) U) Cr) • n • H, H I-' () H' H' 0) H' co N CO �1 -1 -P tv 0 CSI 0) H•, - 0 -P 0 0) 0 CO �1 �) H' 0 J co v O Co (.J H' �1 Cb co N �7 N HA C 0) O 01 N Cn co 0 co 0 01 - w 0 0 UI 0 (0 0 0 0 0 c0 0 Cn 0 Cn 0 c0 0 N 0 N 0 0 0 0 01 0 C 0 0 co (0 (0 CD CO CO c0 CO (0 CO c0 (0 CO (0 CO (0 (O CO co CO n (x) CA) (A) W (A) (A) (A) OD (.) G) (a) CA) CD (a) (x) W W (A) CA) G.) x CA) W W W W (a) W N N N N N N N N N N H' H' H' 0) 01 4 Co N H' 0 co Cb ) 0) 01 •P 03 N H' 0 I Co 00 J O Co Co co co co cc (J1 CrI CJ1 LP CI1cnC, cnLT) N0 00000 H H H H 0 I-+ H H H H Co co Co co co W co co 0» Co H H H> H H H H H H H C) A A A A A A A A A A A A A AAAA A AAAA A A A A • co c0 co co co CP W W 01 0 W W W W W W W UI N N N N N) N N W N N) co N N H H H H H H H H H H H H H N.) N N N N N 0.) H d - N U) H 0 H �l U1c11LPUlUlcnon 0000 - 0101cncn 0 0 0 01 �cc H co co co c0 co U1 cn U1 U1 U1 (J1 01 c0 U1 (.71 co H A A Cn 0) A co co co Co H H H H H H 0 H H H O H O H 00 H 01 A N N cn A H H H H H ''b H H H H 1-, CO N W c0 00 A W H A H H H H H H H H H H H H n Q4 CO CO CO CO CO A AAAAAA (D AAc0H AA01cnA co co co co C) CD H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H cn A N) N U1 A H H H H O W H co co co co op cn cn cn cn u1 Cn cn U1 Ut Ut N 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H H H H H H H H CO CO cc Cb cc cc CO Cb cc c W H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n C') H cc Cn U1 cn N Co H Cb W O1 N Ul -) H H co N H N H CO A H N A co H H �l c0 Cr) C co N N A WCOU1Wrn cn co WA O01U1O O N A H A H N 0 cn 01 cn AWHH W �1N U101NO 00000 0 co cc CO -..J 0 • 01 A CO ( 00ODa) W NN 000 -.1 00000 cn 0 0 --Q0 co W 0 u1 N a) NO0001Aoo 000cn 00000 0 0 A 01 H I Pi ro b Pi P 0 r a cn 0 'v t1 0 CD tii CD CD g) R _ _ Co - - CD 0 '0 Cl H. 11 H. H. (D CD - - _ 'pu H - - _ H CCD cr IH-', a) 9 rt 0 Cl 7 'I �i cH Cl H ''i g) '0 r$ H H' x H H r 'T7 'I Cl) P3 '0 Cn H H b x H Cl H H H• co t a Cl) H H O t�i - - - = O CI) ¢) 0 › ) M = _ = < •O H 0 H. M Pc G '0 O • trl Cl) cr CD '0 C 'O • H cio Cl) n • '1 N CD Cl)U) CD Cl) cn C H'• p) Xi H' C) Cl) CD C) CD CD 't CD Cl) Cl) • Cl) Cl) 'O H H C) x1 CI a C c co trci cr t'I Cn Cn O H'• 0 Ii N ) • g) Cl > Cl cr a C Cl)n Cl) O H • C) CY CD Z Z • W Cl) = _ = Cn H CD 0 p C H g)g 0 a II (< _ __ = H• '.< 1-5'd i Cl 0 A) z M Z CCDD H H (.4 'O ClCCn O g) I I :d CD H. CD H o aPzJ Cl) Cn Cl) CD 0 CD 'l = _ _ = O 'i ¢) CD < cc Cl 0 Cl Cl) CD D 0 0 = _ _ H Cl) CD Cn C 'I 0 0 0 CD '1 O 'S 0 '0 '0 CD Cn CD CD CD cr H. CD CD CD 04 Q1 01 U1 01 N co H H N C) W CO 0) N Ul -1 N CO, (J1 H H x �1 CO O1 01 CO N 0 H 0 N A H A H N 0 u1 rn cn 0 W 0 - 0 co C D c0 -a 0 01 A (0 0 ---J0 01 0 0 ---.1H W Co 0 01 N M 0 U1 0 0 0 A 01 CO c0 (D c0 CO CO CO CD CO (0 c0 (.0 c0 C) Co co co co CO (A) Co W CO Co CO CO W A A A A A A A A A A co co co z co W v Q1 cn A co N) H 0 . c0 CO J 0 , 0 0 000 00 6 H H •H H H H H C) . • • . • . et A -P AA A AA W W W CO W W W d _ CO N ,.l �l ,.1 • 1 `,1 0 H H H H 0 0 CCI co' HH' H CO (rH H WA Hl N H N CO CO 01 N '-d a, cn (II NH0 F-3 Ul H NN H H -.1 ng) Hco0) WHH O 1 1 1 1 1 1 (1 N W CT) H' H' W A ClO O ro co Cb (-, c) P.) W H N co co Ul N c) O O I R A • MI > ' XI i oi o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H H rt CD c) < H H HHH 1-' 1-' H a 0 C) H H H H H H H H n O b • C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '1 0 o 'T7 H H H H H H H s✓ C C 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > CA CD CD 12 n CTsa n CDCD H . CT R CO Cn Cn CJ N W U1 H CO Cr' (.W 01 0 - rn G 0 Cr (J) H O CO N C11 N O) A 0 0 0 N O (D (O Ul 0 H • {{3 . Cl) 1-3 z t=i (D N (J) C) CD = _ pi u CO H A N W H cT CD CO> .. ,. .. .. .. 0 CD C) H N •.I CO 0) HO1Ul 0 0 Ci n W NNAWO) A C.)� O = F, Ul Q7 Ul H NOD 0 . . _ = (I) o H ' 0000CTI Co fN CD H• 0 Co6) 000) 0O Q., ct Zi O H) of C z 3 • • H' = Z H• 0 C • 0 C > CD CD Ill li OD = =OR '-, r; CO co Po = H' [=7 H. H CD CD CT H 0 c< 0 0 PO tri o H H) CD . C) z '1 H• C) cc w n N Co Ui 01 CD U1 0 ) C iv H O CO O I--' H 0 0 0 H A ' (O CD CO CD C7 CA) w CU w 0 (n (n Ul 01 Z t, W N H 0 0 ecEVA.tftf CITY O SHAKOS ]E " 4. )' , 0 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 :.SII �,�,;, amsoNNOw MEMO XJohn Anderson - Administrator • :OM: Jim Karkanen - Public Works Dept. t"BJECT:_ Shade tree refore:,It�itinn__ E: Oct. 28, 1981 INTRODUCTION: The City of Shakopee has been recently informed of drastic cuts in State Aid revenues to local governmental agencies for the remainder of 1982, thereby creating a curtailment of expenditures which are not considered essential toward our daily operation. BACKGROUND: The Minnesota Shade Tree Program has provided subsidies' the past 4 years for removal and reforestation of infected Dutch Elm trees. in the City of Shakopee. This subsidy has generally been granted at 45 to 50% reimbursement of time and equipment used on the removal of infected trees by the Public Works Dept. This subsidy was also provided for replanting trees in the boulevards to replace the infected trees. This year, the Minnesota State Legislature has reduced the subsidy provided down to a projected 25% reimbursement. The Public Works Dept. had already reduced the forestry program budget by by $ 1000. 00 when Council had asked the department to provide a .$8700 reduction in operating capital from the Public Works Dept. In order to compensate for this anticipated loss, of funding, the Street and Park departments elected to remove the majority of their infected trees from boulevards, public R/W' s and parks with their own labor in order to make more money available for the reforestation program. This year, the community experienced an abnormal loss of trees because of the past two mild winters resulting in minimum adult beetle kill normally expected- during the winter months. • Our Lrce replacement inventory shows us that some locations have had trees planted from previous years, while other locations have never experienced tree losses before and 'need replanting • to maintain an aesthetic street and boulevard appearance. Through the past several years, we have had a very good survival rate of bare root trees. We have learned to not use certain species, and some species should not be planted in the fall of the year. There are several locations however, that trees could be replanted where they did not survive. We have had several inquiries from some of these property owners asking if these- trees ' will be replaced. It has been explained to these property owners that no promises can be made because of uncertain funding from the State Shade Tree Program. ALTERNATIVES : 1. Replace each tree which has been removed. 186 trees @ approx. 29. 00 $ 5394. 00 2 . Selective tree replacement - Replace only where situation and location merits replacement using criteria listed. 100 trees @ approx. 29. 00 2900. 00 3 . Replace prior tree which did not survive in conjunction with replacing this years losses. an additional 30 trees @ 29 . 00 870. 00 4 . Do no planting or replacement at all. CRITERIA FOR REPLACEMENT CONSIDERATION: 1. Location has not had any replacement in prior years. 2 . Adequate room for normal tree growth must be available. 3 . Newly planted trees should not be placed over sewer/water service lines to prevent potential root problems. 4 . New trees should not create a future visibility or safety problem in the future. 5. New trees must be at least 15 feet from the property line and at least 30 fegt from .the intersection. 6 . The new tree must be positioned to receive adequate light and waterfor maximum survival. 7 . Does the property owner want a tree in front of his lot, and will the property owner water and maintain the tree. RECOMMENDATION: Alternate # 2 should be considered to continue to assure us of having adequate shade tees in the future. ACTION REQUIRED Request the City Council to authorize approximately $3000 to replace a portion -of the infected shade trees which have been removed this season. This will allow approx. $2339 to remain in the budget PROJECTED FUNDING AND EXPENDITURES : FUNDING FORESTRY Division 65 Code 4220 (General Supplies) $1000 4315 (Professional Services) 9000 $10, 000 EXPENDITURES TREE REMOVAL CONTRACT Scherer Tree Service $394. 00 Lutz Tree Service 664 . 00 Stump Removal Contract Family Tree Service 3603. 00 $4661. 00 PROJECTED REPLACEMENTS COST 103 Bare Root Tree 11 - 2" @ 29. 00 - $ 3000 Money Available $ 10, 000 Pro. Services Spent - 4661 1981 Tree Replacement- 3000 To Remain in budget ---2339. 00 1,� 1 , , City of Shakopee Natts/ ' pKOPff POLICE DEPARTMENT µ Vi ' ;',,,- --,--,-.517" 5O ,/ 401 (. g }' ,\\ f,l 1 ?' 476 South Gorman Street t ), 0 k� SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 i � : "' ( Wi , P ,..-r- _,,-:--,.. L 1 G Tel. 445-6666 i`y 5 3'79 (�1 j + ILA^`7of TO: Mayor, Council Members FROM: Tom Brownell SUBJECT: Shakopee American Legion DATE: October 14, 1981 INTRODUCTION Upon the receipt of complaints regarding non-member sale of liquor at the Shakopee American Legion Club, an investigation was initiated which resulted in the sale to non-members on February 20 , 1981, and February 24, 1981, in violation of the City Code . On October 5, 1981, legal counsel for the American Legion negotiated a plea of guilty to one charge of a sale to a non- member ar_c' a fir`_ of Y,^C . 00 was i.r.posed by the court. BACKGROUND , On April 1, 1980 , representatives of the American Legion appeared before the City Council for the same violation which was determined to be a non-willful violation and a warning was given by the Council . RECOMMENDATION In the event the governing body of the Shakopee American Legion Club were to present to the City Council an acceptable solution to the club' s continuing violations of the City and State Liquor Regulations, a second warning may be appropriate. If an acceptable solution is not presented, a license sus- pension is recommended. it should be noted that this is a second conviction; a third conviction requires revocation of the license -- reference City Code Section 5.02 Subd. 4 (E) . goeSe tot ¶0 1n-wtect Shakopee American Legion Page -2- ALTERNATIVES Legal alternatives should be presented to the Council key the City Attorney. r - plication shall be a pro rata share of the annual license fee. Provided, however, that in the case of on-sale liquor licenses , the pro rata share shall be not less than one-half of the annual on-sale liquor license fee. Licenses shall be valid only at one location and on the premises therein described. C. License Refundment in Certain Cases . In the event that, during the license year, the licensed premises shall be destroyed or so damaged by fire , or otherwise , that the licen- see shall cease to carry on the licensed business , or in case the business of the licensee shall cease by reason of his illness or death, or if it shall become unlawful for the licensee to carry on the licensed business under his license , except when such li- cense is revoked, the City shall, upon the happening of any such event, refund to the licensee , or to his estate , such part of the license fee paid by him as corresponds to the time such license had yet to rie In the event of death of the licensee , his per- sonal represenn tive is hereby authorized to continue operation of said business for not more than ninety (90) days after the death of such licensee . D. Transfer. No license shall be transferable between persons . No license shall be transferable to a different location without prior consent of the Council and upon payment of the fee for a duplicate license. It is unlawful to make any transfer in violation of this Subparagraph. E. Refusal , Revocation and Termination. The Council may, in its sole discretion and for any reasonable cause , refuse to grant any application, or revoke , or suspend for a per- iod not to exceed sixty (60) days , any license granted or appli- cation made under the provisions of this Chapter. The Council shall revoke the license upon conviction of any licensee or agent or employee of a licensee for violation of any law relating to the sale or possession of beer, wine or liquor upon premises of the licensee . If it shall be made to appear at the hearing thereon that s'. ch violation was not willful, the Council may or- der suspensic provided, that revocation shall be ordered upon the third such violation or offense. No suspension or revocation shall take effect until the licensee has been afforded an oppor- tunity for a hearing pursuant to Minnesota Statutes . No license shall be granted to a person of questionable moral character or business reputation. Licenses shall terminate only by expiration or revocation. F. Notice . No beer, wine or liquor license ap- plication, or request for transfer thereof between persons or lo- cations , shall be acted upon by the Council until at least ten (10) days have elapsed after the date of one publication, in the legal newspaper of the City, of a notice of such application or request f9r transfer. G. Corporate Applicants and Licensees . A corpor- ate applicant, at the time of application, shall furnish the City with a list of -all persons that have an interest in such corpora- tion and the extent of such interest. The list shall name all shareholders and show the number of shares held by each, either individually or beneficially for others . It is the duty of each corporate licensee to notify the City Administrator of any change in legal ownership or beneficial interest in such corporation or 41-78 -116- CIT SHAKOPEE 4`�,�pf..N4rro, 4/ s P 3f 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 0 \C) • Jlc„ri ~►�J/ MEMO TO: John K. Anderson/City Council FROM: LeRoy Houser/Bldg. Official SUBJECT: Central File Cabinet DATE_.__ October 28, 1981 Introduction: As per our conversation, we are short three filing cabinets for central file. All platted land parcels are in file, however, no ` section land parcels have been filed because of the three filing cabinets we are missing. Background: 1 The cost of the cabinets are expected to be $466.00 each, total cost is in excess of $1 ,000.00 and will be purchased from 1981 revenue sharing, although not budgeted for 1981 there is a sufficient balance. Recommendation: Purchase filing cabinets for central file . Alternatives: 1 . Do nothing 2. Purchase cabinets as requested. Action Requested: Authorize the purchase of three file cabinets at an estimated cost of $1 ,400.00 to come out of the 1981 revenue sharing funds. A,k Ai, . : 1 -t+A•\,, City of Shakopee .0,11,-......,. - ..P------- '. POLICE DEPARTMENT).L.__ '' ‘ . 0, --Y 476 South Gorman Street . .- ,ki'Ll,,,s4; r"--- :1`•,. -:,--';''' . .414i1MISSaCK . SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 14 . ,140 ..Q, To: Mayor, Council Members From: Tom Brownell Subject: Vehicle Purchase , Date : October 27, 1981 INTRODUCTION Presently, the City Administrator and Chief of Police are re- ceiving a monthly car allowance for the operation of personal vehicles for city business. Effective January 1, 1982 the reimbursement will be terminated and the city, by council action, will purchase two vehicles. Capitol Improvement Funds have been authorized for the pur- chase; the specifications have been reviewed by the city council equipment purchasing committee. Due to the time required to award the bid and the 60/90 day delivery period, authorization to commence the purchasing process is requested for delivery of the vehicles on January 1, 1982 . COUNCIL ACTION Approve specifications and set a bid opening date for November 23 , 1981 at 10: 30 A.M. for two vehicles . go .:_- ElvEJO cAotect /a G „.,,? -;›,,..„H" ,t,'7r,-:1\ ` � City of Shakopee v.„.„,----_,.,-------,. 7:2 , ,,,,,,'..kr--,, AP f POLICE DEPARTMENT n '--, NNE 7 E r� 7 ' G` lrJ �\ a �j'q ',%.1p476 South Gorman Street � ' 0.-_/.' a 1;�'- pSHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 i'' p ' �' Tel. 445-6666 r 1' . tr.�... .• ...� / If 55379 ' j VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS : Body Style: 4 door sedan Chassis: 105. 5 maximum wheel base Engine : 4 cylinder, 2 . 5 liter minimum Brakes: Power, front disc Steering: Power assist Transmission: 4 speed manual Tires: Manufacturer ' s standard steel belted radial Electrical: 12 volt system Color : Manufacturer' s standard MISCELLANEOUS: AM radio Cigarette Lighter Air Conditioning Tinted glass all windows Rear window electric defogger Bucket seats, cloth Tilt steering wheel Body side moldings High capacity battery Conventional spare tire Automatic transmission Light group go �£2VE JO PZOEECt n � -,47.::'' 1.,..,I i t�� ,,,.. City of Shakopee 1V ,./.4-.5µ P P e f POLICE DEPARTMENT . . ) 5O, n ; f j i ‘\ i -'� ! 476 South Gorman Street ')..___1-,-, ):�_ SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 Ei, l.... P----'j' Tel. 445-660 1 r' t,t +w 1 V .'' 55379 ;t'� 4 ` r vol TO: Mayor, Council Members FROM: Tom BrDwnell SUBJECT: Traffic Control Sign - 12th and Harrison DATE : October 26, 1981 INTRODUCTION The City Administrator has received a request from residents in the area of 12th and Harrison for a traffic control device based upon the volume of vehicles using 12th as a route to and from the shopping mall , accidents occurring at the inter- section, and the use of location as a school bus stop. CONCLUSION The City Engineer and myself have reviewed the request and believe the intersection of 12th and Harrison warrants a traffic control device based upon the following facts: 1 . 12th Avenue West is used by persons frequenting the shopping mall generating a volume of traffic re- quiring control. 2 . School buses use the location for a bus stop. 3. Police Department records indicate one personal injury accident in May of 1981 , and one property damage accident in September of 1981. Residents stated unreported additional accidents have also occurred at the location. ALTERNATIVES 1 . Deny request for traffic control device at 12th Avenue and Harrison. 2 . Install two-way stop signs north and south on Harrison. r7 o cse¢ve o .1J¢ottet I DSL Traffic Control Sign - 12th and Harrison Page -2- 3 . Install two-way stop signs east and west on West 12th Avenue . 4. Install four-way stop signs at West 12th Avenue and Harrison. RECOMMENDATION Install four way stop signs at West 12th Avenue and Harrison which will assist in reducing vehicle speed on West 12th Avenue . ACTION Direct staff to install four way stop signs at West 12th Avenue and Harrison. //a___ a`ell W r•' H jPriol•i tv 0 II op i rn co rn co w rn bund o td c+ 0 \n \n \n \n \l1 \n \11 (D P• 0 0 0 0 W 4a. CO \It W 0 t' rc (%:' lr'. f'.'17.1 r' H c+ II Cy cn 0 (n (D (n 1-; N o cn 0 bi N co t u) O i o k c(o m H i s ei c . µ°� 6' 7 (-o (D c+ c+ c+ F- c+ c+ w c+ cG c+ (• cm* a Cl cn ° (D c+ (D (D 0 (D .. (D C (D 7d ( (D c+ cc+il° N O (p Cn 41 a g 's a '� a 0 o a a a .q M 0 0 11 (� po4 o ° o 0 CO 0 d o n (oC • o • CO CD ' '- O amjc+ Cl) c+ N N co N i Nc+o c+ p' c+ c+ Cl) o • 0 0 VO g 1'4 (D .. •• .. CDD 'JC:;C:':Iil.• ;(�C:tl M •6" E++ t d 40- o (ID H• Et'? o t m N XW c~+ W c+ c+ P kJ • O '•C N N O c+ 4 O bNdCI\ O p .� \n vi \n O O W cn N c+ A O a O O O (D O o p 0 W F_,. fi • O O O Wo O O O b O (D O p p • K O O O ti O W O O O W 1 cF VI VI ''' :l:.f I)i I I I • Q O:1 ::-.1.' lii:i,nr(, • °` S PUC O \ • / Approval 0 • r. n 1'u1 iI• \ H ~ 0 ll • 0 •• 0 flans ::1d co o Specii' cat iioiw c+ • H d • rn • \n \ 7-2: IZight-of-Way • \ • co � °�° Acquisition 3 N r.`. i tokm co • \Go \� Bid 3 I P •• N N o (Date c) CDw• m w .-, 'ti v • Co Assessrnent c+ Co • \ \ • cN 0o co ✓ Ifear i n •., ISI p' N N rt H N .. o o ' • CoOD Compiel. i n y Co Co C IDat e N N O . � : 0 til •; 0 t U .: O III : (.) u, . O 1 ' . I ) Ili . : () b' .: :) u CO N c+ CO F-' \n N H H N N H D I--'N O\ N N coOut O Q) • W ---.1 --1 O W W CO i';nt'1:1('(_'I' O O O O \O dl \ O N O\ CO CO 0 W --7 O n c+ 0 aWo rnrnop � � oiai �' w i ornw �� o � 0 'Technician iLl r. 0 --I LI) O VI 0 j N Co N V J Co VI W F-' Vn Tec 1ln.ciart 1i '" H N O N t- O\ \D Co N N Co O 000 \" O 0 co p 0 o 0 o W co O \n o O N ti \D 1 0 Inspector If. .. P N c+ c7 : �- Ol I\n Technician 1 O 'O o W O 0 0\ O o \) 0 0 Oo N o o N o o 0 Inspector I O o 1-1 O\ N co N 1' N f--' N a\ \,r, Secretary O Ho O ‘..it p O 1--' N O O O ON 1-' 0 co Q\ O 0 N N \.n I Co •y F CO N -P--P" 1-' N ry Oo co 1 N F-' 1 O t 31 o HH o1_'0 \DO \° \nOJN OOOo W \,D0 -�\O 0 0OIW co W -EA- ~ f(T I-' H 'N W O y O\\D U W \n H Engineering 1 \Nilo oho co kCI N o o �w Co N N Fo °�` w o Dept. Fee O \n \D \n o O\ I . - O\ O\\n Q\ 1 n4 F-' • k . co --1 \ * .. C: *_ (Priority v2 I vt vi vt --1 I N \0 I Co \-0 'O H I t-" IFund N N N N N N �n �� 0 V' w N H ~o t (Program Number tti C coi p N '� tcc, td H tI x t i Cl) t� ro tai c+ H c+ A c+ O c+ c C cco c+ P cm+ ►°� cN+ P 14 P H ge N � p � � ppm P & c+ m c+ . .c+ y c+ 0 K c+ J c+ c+ +-i '� �' a �+ a P• tp a, 'G 0 w a Ci) as a. cP il o 0 P. 0 P. 0 m o o o •o w o 0 to d to M• m W Cl) to t-+ co D a to Cl) Cl) CD c4. '1 C c C+ c c+ H c+ p c+ o ''f c+ ca•• C+ �* c0+ P. 0 0 04* 4 y+ 0 0 `i 11 o 0 N N De: �cri}�t, l uTt Y�y to EANcP.+ 6+ I- IA t) N p N I-, N N rl p ca+c4 c+ P _ P N I- O O\ 0 0 0 vt c+ c+ CD0 ac+ 0 0 O 0 . Z o‘ P.a O o tp 0 VO c+ V � V 0 00 O in 0 nr� .4 0 O • P. 0 0 0 0 0 c„ O tD 0 °G 0 • 0 0 a O • N• 0 0CD 0 • :i • I o 0 o 00 0 0 00 0 H CO • • ' n tri CO 0 ,„ b: Feasibility • ODa a r NQS °• :• Report •• p N H. Ci N m ry a ' PUC N w c+ wIS Approval Cr P. F, ty cm+ I-, •: r0 '-Cl P 3 � Public 0 • NOo a co y , . rn Hearing e H y : oo t=i N • ai W En c+ a> flans ;ir;(i -. oo 0 c+ �, 0 N• OD +i co `< : Specific;:i, i rn:, N . b .Ly •• „ 0 -4 o . Right-of-Way. o -••••••co a lcquisitionc, 0 64 n a •r `: I M :-3 �w a . r>d rnCO & Date e •4, -• I , N ♦ H H H :. x I--, • N co • Asses: me n!, • H CO IV P a g Hearin .• O .• .5 tra 'if • o • • N N • • V' °0 • P • 'CompletionH • ,,CD CO •• • �co • co • Co a t e N N •• H .. N .. N •• MC0w Xott 3ntoi 3nw .: (-; ry 3013: 3ntzi 3 :-.) w N N I-' I_, 1--, H- N NO\ N w ON V, w - 1 F'' w N O JEnineer ,No N �"`a w .c'N o N ;;I N N w -•1 iLtecjcja0 LII jD 0 CA ON 0 0 0 O H vi vi ao v, w \•0 4 O co w O vi 0 0 0 O o 0 v •o o o 0 0 o woo H "i 0 Q co N H co H Technician I I �,' win NN r000 ONw oNOD o 0o Inspector II 1 `? N. r• cY N VI N w H Technician I 0 H-4 0 0 0 o ff H 0 o 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 ON 0 0 0 o inspector I 0 o c+ o 0 vt 0 0 0 0 N N M H N ON VI OD 0 0 w o rn oo owo o w 0 Secretary "' H co N NCO N N v,-a r r co ww Total co OON 0OD-�1 -1 IW �W w�v Od\N o -0.1"0 O O N - H VI �, H H k0 w N � t to Engineering I N ~ I O Dept. Fee V r N CT v, P � m"v1 t N N O\� O\ -J ‘D N N �W O W� � O Oo I � w H 0 W 0\ 0\0 \0 -.l \O\O H " I N vl N vi N t- '.0 ON 1 N w N\O OD OD N H N H • * * • rn w r� N o \O Priority o I 1 o o �co w lv I 'F1 tn.(' N N N ni N) vi \A ‘./1 \.n w N 1-' �p co �j Pr0[;Ttltll Number Pi til H tui x Cr! C t=i ri tzi to m C) to 0 N hj u, m t,7 O N e+ 1+ c+ H c• H c+ 'd c+ .4 c* c+ c+ p. d••• Mc+- c+ c+ c c+ a tl c+- c+ c+ N. t'' cD 0 ( m to me- mo m x m ' a o• 1-4 a c a H ao • at. a. 0 a C) c0 rn c0 CD c0 m 0 o 0 o °` c0 a, o o b• 0 0 +D 0 0 a cD o • 0 0 0 0 a .4 0 0 0 Cl-0)e+ Cl) UI U) W c+ 0 CO Cl) G d c+ c+ c+ • W Cl- w Cl- (1)•• •. a .' w o N N Description M M f t!► Eft. M 4' 0 EA- ~' 4 • En- PJ 4'- 0 t r' ti H 9 t•+ !D C C' co ., 44 mm 0 # r U) 00 0 00 O vi N --a H. 0 0 F 0 0 0 04 0 1:7 3 vi O 0 0 p 0 to 0 CD O 0 0 0 0 n O 0 0 +n • - 8 Cl) O O O O0 O D\ 0 0 0 ��,' • K :' Feasibility ;. N ti o : I. II eport '; m •• • Com. .. 0 n) p Ci • • • • 1S PUC w • N w D Ix m• p, Oo , oo . Appl ova: N •. . N •• ro • a .. • IM tT: co • • r • N o4 : : 'Public• : \ : �: •• OD N o .` • •. CO •. Hearing i n� co • o 0 c- IE lans <..:ci �. . \ • \ Cl). • • N c+ •4 •: co • co 'Tit Specifications a' - N • N C0]}. 0 rriH •, W O a • CO • OD CO I--'aAcquisition GL w N H c. .. tT: • L.) • w • v, b : Bid • N,; • \ H. • •• •• .• o' ••• co MI.Cl-.. Date W pU'' w N H c+•• • • • • O� • • Co 0\ Co • Assessment '` :.co :. co • 0, co IIlearing tri N w N H .. ;.c7 Lk) O ' 0\ • 0\ • 0\ . •n : : Completion . • •• \ • •\ . \ . .. . . ;• co •• au :. ry ate r N N X c) td = 0 td 3 0 th 4 0 CO < C to 3 c) to X 0 bd t N �I O\ H N H -- -4 N H v, w F Engineer H N H N0 t- CR •-•\/1 0 0 P 0 VD ' 0 0 0 O \n +-' 00 0 0 \0 0 0 vt C-' vii o vii o H N 1 ' Technician III r 0 00 000 0 .--- 0 0"-f O 000, 0\ °n 001 ' 00 \A N N N Technician II -4 VO -4 fi' N o� 0 0 w v 0\ 0 0 , "t H 0 rn 0Inspector I I (1' • 0 00 000 \J10 0 01-' O 000 o 000 00 0 H• C s✓ • Technician I c+ 18. Vn a vt 0 Inspector I 00 0 0 0 000 00 0 000 000 O HO 000 000 c+ 0 N N N 'Y 0 CO 0 0 0\ Co •n 0\ Secretary "' O 00 000 00 O OHO 00c) N -P-co 000 Ow0 F-, Co V V V 0 0 0 OVI0O \wn0fi\ O ON0 O0 ji co NW O N Total CO 07 Co 0 O R.) O\ H N H H 0 0 COVN VD 0\ Co . .., O I . I . I I O\ H O 1 O O\ 0 1-' 1-' Engineering O\ I I-1 vt \n N ON 1 0 0 0) w I Q\ I —4 10 o 0 vii 00 VO vi 0 0 0 O 0 11 H H w Vo -P ' 'C) Dept. Fee 0 • • • • • • • • • * %) I-, O VD Cu H (Priority N I (Fund •11 �n •n �n W N N N N N Program ^:member 0 VD c c-, C tA. 0' m o to t 14 tor0 0 m a ro `+ e Ov a Cy H •P a a a a 0 c+ a < 0 CD C� U fA W U ,x' to m m 0 ®v c+ c+ c+ F+ c+ O c+ ( + N. 0 Description I. P o2go c+ cD ,t a • c+ co VN, 0 .. , Ci m v eo 0 a (D ?, .. 0 00 0 e o Oct' • 0 O CI 0 0. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 • . Feasibility :. :. . :. :. • :. [ eport • • ISPUC •. 'Public 1-4 • ...Hearing t • : .• . •flans an ••. :. :. Snecil'icat ion: ,. Might-of-way z • • . : •. Acquisition. • " , .. - • I �a :...z.,.. ' • lssessmt.nit : • . •• Hearing r 0 x. .• Completion r. 3 )ate ts1 z0tri XC W 3Cui : n _ (--; to n w ._> :) til k c+ `+ H N W •NP- CO v� i',ngineer W 0 W -P"0 O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g IC: HH VD 0 N 'Technician [ li '00 00 00 OHO 00 0 00 vi 0 H O5- '0 w • �w CD ° ro N v, `Technician II�' • o0 oaw 00 0VD 0 00 O o0 o Inspector II y ;_ p' H. c•a'+ o Technician i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w 0 00 0 0 0 0 Inspector I ° o .eeHi OH 0x o a -J H g o N N w U) H O � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Secretary N O N H 00 H u H -p- o o o 0 0 `Total b H W N IC 0O V1W(D '1W Ui P� fDH-J In -� c+ 0 N ~� � � Cb � \O Fngllleerin$ 0, 030tstCO 0a. 0 o wI 0) oO o o o o Dept. Fee CO 0 0 0 - r r x rn w N o w P Prcgrar.: (Number o (Fe K m w a)071 N C1 1r• 0 1-4 W go fp ~' 0 () M I-IrD N 1-.• O CA p R, `J~• R• H Citi UJ N c+ 'd g (D l) a cf 1-4 '0 • . • p • • •s • :. • ' • • ' 4N • . , . • 0 •. • (1) .• • .. .. .. o t*1 ,r tTJ p X • c t�-' • • 7 G7 • .. •• .. � CJ t1 PI 'ro • .. ••• 0 • o y :• :. .. :. :. o F.. • • • c� K .. .. (.) ,J 0 • • • 3 C') tT1 3 0 W 3 C) to 300.; . • Ci (U .. 0 bp Z 0 tS1 i -) :['• V1 Oho I 0 \0 1 Co l...) � 00 1 0 0 1 O 0 / 0 1 0 O � 1•;!1(;18("-'1' 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 ob � 001 001 00 1 00 1 .r -N• 1 001 001 Technician. [ 1I 0 1 1 1 1 1 ' I 1 1 . ti H N N �' F-' H T( chnicir>,n IF O N 1 O N I O f✓ 1 O co I vi w 1 vi N 1 O Ut I 00 1ri Ins}lector . 1 * �� F.. c. ce C ' 0 0 I D oo I O I 0 0 1 O 1N� I ON) I 0 0 1 0 0 ( 1E.Chn1C1F1r I fi 1 • 1 nsl)ec torI 0 0o cl0 H I I 1 1 I • I v, -- I H1 1 0) 0 0\ 1 0 0 1 001 001 ww I OPI -P---.11 1 \O 1 ;n I 1 1 1 1 1 I I c,cret,ary IJ H I 1 N 1 1 1 N 1 ON I I H 1V 1 vt 1 N I N I OT I VI `n 1 \n O\ I 1--. c I \.n o'N 1 0 'o 1 co a I 0 00 I CD--1 1 v, ON 1 .r✓O\ 1 1 \o 1 Total co I I I I 1 I I I H W 1 I N 1 I H I N W I 1 I H I '• I 1 I 1 . 1 v '• 1 v I I 1'.f11.;1tICe1 l:),!, N N I 101 N W 1 I -F' 1 H o I N vi 1 vi - I H O II N I O 1 I LA.) \0 1 c0 -41 H H I vi 0 1 \O OD I OD l...) 1.. DC1)t.• Vt.,i; Vt N I N N N I O1 OD ON \O \O -'Co 1 \O vH 1 H H Pro r<_' id umb e r co P coo 0 N in I-, P. ty F! CD cif `C c�+ n cli W . . N 3 H 'N p, P. co 4 g1 '� ro 0 0 A H co C O to CD (EI CD c+ C tD f+. Y t! 1J' b •. If 0 } A c.... co N n c+ • cn • • • • .• . ... . •.. .• CD P K . 7 rn • N. • • • ps .• .. .. . •. • ..CCD t=i b h1 . .. . . .• :1 F •. •. •. ..• .. s 0 c+ t1 HP .-r)• . : H • •. .. N tri i• 'a 0 H • CJI• • 3 • P. 0 .. •• • . .. • • ..N • P. s3'. 0 • r • . . . D• v 0 • •• I-3 3 c 01 3 C7 1x 3 o to 3 n co ., c--. 'L ? t) c.t 7.::: c-t t.rt . .; „! .p- I .p' I W I O\ 1 1 I I N I o NI O N I o 1- Cr O ' I \ 1 Oen 1 0 F' W 1 O 1 Nin I iItl;lItn. I 1 I I I 1 1 o I o o I 0 0 1 0 rev I o o o w• 1 o o co I JTechniciar. LI r Cr I I I I I • I I I 7 N =---= -.1 •"'"' I I N •�] 1 I W I w 1 f I W I ::t_'CturiCian , i 0 O I O 1 C W I O W 1 0 ] 1 O\ 1 W 'I Oo O 1 r� 1 I I I I I ( I r1:'•pC:ctor . i . c- C I I 1 I I H I 1_ Technic iar; I F„ 0 0 1 00 1 0 0 I 0 - 1 0 0 1 0 0 I 0V't1 O - I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I rlspec toI. 1• n o o c+ N 1 1 1 i I W I I� I I I I j d 0 •• C" I o w I N N 1 ko ko 1 O ro O O I O o O G\� Secretary .� n H N H OD Co 0 W I 0O\ j 010\ 1 \rt -P' � 0 -P' -P"W I 1 NI HI I I 1 I 1 ~ ryI c col 'iot.al \x)1 1 1 1 I 1 W NI co col op H - '4" I ~ 1 N1 I I 1 'I fI i•;rrgirleeri:1 ••, O N ( O W I N N I Q\Vt 1 I \D 1 N fJ1 W NI I ko 1 1 F} I ON O\I O •P' I 0 0 1 ON Co I N col v N 1 1 Dept.. I t:«- N ko O N w N 1 O\ OD CO H vt -\O I•-• Yrograr•: rn Number 0 CDb • H H t-� m n K H n •-•• H H ct- 1-4o ti m r• DI H. 0 H n tt co to . • t7 . • z 0 • H • . . .. .. .. .. .. .. rD tT. 'd t:, • • c+ == • • . 0 . r• .. .. .• .. .. `+ U tri H • • . . • • N Htzz�� w ' .. .. ..ii. .. to `Z s y.,`± O H H. 0 ..• .. .. . . H.t "3 .. • .. .. H ..I. om• C' • . c- G .. rri .. ... . .. N 'V O • H . . .. • . . . • $ (1tri 3ntz1 3nt3:1 ar) t:! . tz' > t) to �. ,. tr.J .. "") ..• .P' O O I -AVD 1 V V O V/y1� Y W H \O • • • ' O O 1 it'C}ltl l,' Lail l H c. . I 1 I ..'t•r}it.lc:l'l11 : i O '0 I . 11:11.Ett1L,rl' C' ' I t'Ctin : 1111. 1. O-O 1 • 1 i tt.,,poet.i t' 0 n O I O ;c'Crr'Cat � ' ' c+ 1 K O \Ot H1 ,..t31 to 1 I H CO 1 o gni 0(1.1 . :..t...' I W f