HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/01/1981 /.
I
V
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson
RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items
DATE: November 25 , 1981
1 . Because Larry Martin is leaving, City Hall department heads
have been meeting to discuss how best to use space and locate
departments in City Hall for public convenience . We have boiled
preliminary "ideas" down to three alternatives that are being
checked against actual space requirements . We are keeping the
cost within the $5000 budgeted for 1982 and we are keeping a
separate office for the Mayor. The alternatives along with
their cost will be presented to Council when further refined.
2 . I checked with Rod Krass and he has received about half of the
executed Holmes Street Trunk Storm Sewer Assessment Agreements
and expects the remaining ones in a couple of weeks .
3 . We have heard that a local builder , not invited to submit a pro-
posal for the two new units for the 4th and Minnesota project ,
may complain to HUD that the project should have been bid.
Jeanne has double checked with HUD' s Linda Henning who stated
that neither the 235 Program nor our CDBG require that we bid
the project.
4. At the November 17 , 1981 meeting, Council asked what happened
to money "set aside" for the acquisition of the Hauer property
adjacent to the Public Works Building. Gregg checked the bud-
get and records and found:
1981 - Not budgeted.
1980 - Originally budgeted a $50,000 transfer from Captial
Equipment Revolving (CER) Fund to the General Fund
but the money wasn' t spent or obligated. It was
dropped during budget revisions and the money is
still in the CER Fund balance .
1979 - Originally budgeted $10 ,000 in the General Fund
which was dropped in budget revisions and lapsed
into the General fund balance.
5 . The pre-trial hearing for the Jackson Township Board vs . Scott
County Board Case on the By-Pass is scheduled for December 29 ,
1981 at 1 : 30 p.m. at the Courthouse .
6 . Attached is a letter from the Department of Commerce approving
the $650 ,000 in IRB ' s for Equities Unlimited Project (Rei. Owl
expansion) .
7 . Attached is a memo explaining that we will get an intern for
1982 . We are preparing a list of projects for him to work on.
Non-Agenda Informational Items
November 25 , 1981
Page Two
8 . Attached is a brochure on the "Elected Officials Handbook"
Series I & II . I have seen and used several of the Series I
handbooks and they are very good. Would you be interested in
ordering one set of the Series I handbooks for $25 .00? You
could each take two and them pass them around.
9 . Attached are the minutes from the November 12 , 1981 Board of
Adjustements and Appeals meeting.
10 . Attached are the minutes from the November 12 , 1981 Planning
Commission meeting.
11 . Attached is the December monthly calendar.
12 . Tuesday the Governor outlined his proposal to balance the State ' s
budget . The proposal includes the following items crucial to
cities :
a. 11 .8% cut in State Aid. We have budgeted an 8% cut in 1982
so if this is how the cuts will be when finalized we will
only be looking for an estimated $15 ,000 in additional cuts . *
b. Permenant elimination of Levy Limits which, of course , could
lead to property tax increases in those cities that don' t
cut their budgets to balance them.
c . Reduce homestead credits from $650 to $500. This doesn' t
effect our city budget but effects our taxpayers .
d. Create a State Aid Stabilization Authority which cities
can borrow from for up to five years to spread out the
impact of the 11 .8% cuts listed in ' a ' above .
*Note : In checking with the League on Friday because of a question
the Finance Director raised about the timing of the cut , we
found that the 11 . 8% cut is for the biennium and it equals 20. 7%
in cuts in our 1982 budget since it all falls in one year!
STATE OF MINNESOTA
6
Banking Division of THE s Insurance Division
(612) 296-2135 ` 9 (612) 296-2488
Securities and Real Estate 4:.','.^' 4 f Administrative Services
Division Division
(612) 296-2594 41/NNE'" (612) 296-2283
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ;;met , uY �p�.
500 Metro Square Building "� ; I
ED
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
NOV 2 31 '2,1
CITY OF 3 IAKOPEE
November 19 , 1981
The Honorable Eldon A. Reinke
Acting Mayor , City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee , Minnesota 55379
Re : $650 ,000 Commercial Development Revenue bonds of the
City of Shakopee , Minnesota (Equities Unlimited
Project)
Dear Mayor Reinke :
The Commissioner of Securities and Real Estate has examined
the application and exhibits submitted by you relating to
the proposal to offer revenue bonds as authorized by the
Municipal Industrial Development Act, M.S. Chapter 474 .
Based upon the information submitted by you, approval of the
project is hereby granted by the Commissioner of Securities
and Real Estate . Such approval shall not be deemed to be an
approval by the Commissioner or the State of the feasibility
of the project or the terms of the revenue agreement to be
executed or the bonds to be issued therefor .
Very truly yours, /
ey
MARY ALICE BROPHY
Commissioner of Securities and Real Estate
MAB: BP
Enclosure
cc: Richard A. Helde
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
4W®
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: 1982 Administrative Intern
DATE: November 23 , 1981
Introduction
The 1982 Budget includes money for an administrative intern to be
paid $30/week. I have been contacted by Barry Stock of Prior Lake
who is interested in a winter and spring quarter internship for
credit for his undergraduate degree in Urban Studies/Business Ad-
ministration.
Background
Barry is unique in that he has six years of summer employment with
the Prior Lake Maintenance and Parks Department . I believe this
experience will enable us to use Barry for some projects other
interns have not had the background to handle . Moreover, Barry is
willing to work in Shakopee for nothing if the State ' s fiscal prob-
lems require that the City delete the 1982 money now budgeted for
an intern.
Summary
Barry has to register for his internship now to get credit for it ,
and he is willing to work for nothing if the situation requires it .
Budgeted part-time positions don' t require Council action but I
wanted to let you know that if the budget is changed we will still
have an intern in 1982 .
JKA/jms
8'
1
_ _ el°°
. . ,. ,
,___...„, ..o..,
* , it, A„„,‘,
_.
9 ft • .
et„,
,039
oS
F
pR
GAANsc.„ * , pRNo OFF
°GNI' 1
00 VSA
B
International
11 ay
Management
Association
Feeling
p ..„ressed for
time but Wish
you c 5a,z6u-v,
• Streamline your
council meetings? id
• Build an effective
council team? SERIES I
• STREAMLINING GOVERNING BODY MEETINGS—
First you take a status check to determine where your
• Learn how to set governing body is, then continue on to an array of
examples from cities and counties that have success-
fully cut down on wasted effort and time.
goals together? v IF YOU ONLY HAD MORE TIME—BUTYOU DON'T—
This could be the most popular topic with elected
officials, especially those who serve part-time. Prac-
• Get a grip o n tical and tested examples are offered to help you "get
organized", "prioritize", and save time.
your financial GOAL SETTING BY THE GOVERNING BODY—After
answering the question "Why bother?", this hand-
book goes on to describe roles and responsibilities in
management? goal setting, where the citizens fit in, and possible
problems.
• EVALUATING THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR—Start
with a positive look at evaluation to set the tone,then
on through the principles of evaluation, roles and
responsibilities, and the mechanics.
Let our handbooks help you ' MAKE POLICY? WHO ME?—What is policy? This
tackle these and other challenges handbook answers that question and discusses the
importance of team work and using policy tools such
facing local government decision- as the budget.
makers. They cover 19 different COMMUNICATING—Perhaps this is what you do
subjects in a format that's best. It should be. A review of ways to communicate
with the public, employees, and the news media.
comprehensive yet easy to read.
And they've been used by MONEY: HOW TO RAISE IT AND HOW TO SPEND
IT—This handbook goes into further detail on the
hundreds of officials across ways your municipal policy is made with the budget.
the country. Specifics addressed are: the operating budget, the
capital budget, and revenue sources.
• USE OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES—Committees • MANAGING GROWTH AND DECLINE—What you
abound in private and public areas. They CAN be need to know to deal with the complexities of change
useful, as shown in this handbook, which provides on a day-to-day basis and in your long-term planning.
guidelines for staffing and evaluating committees. A case study approach to help you manage your com-
munity's ups and downs.
• INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS—How do you
deal with officials from other levels of government? • LOCAL HOUSING POLICY—Learn what your role can
Such issues as federalism, regionalism, voluntary be in developing local housing policy—how to coordi-
associations, and special districts and authorities nate local government resources as part of a compre-
are discussed. hensive local housing strategy.
• TAKING STOCK: A GUIDE TO GOVERNING BODY • TEAM BUILDING—Once all the votes are counted
SELF-EVALUATION—No perfect approach to group and you win the election, it's time to become a team
self-evaluation or a standardized format, rather, player. A practical approach to team building as a
options are presented to help you begin the process tool to strengthen the decision-making capabilities of
of looking at yourselves as a governing body, your local government officials.
objectives, and achievements.
• LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND ORGANI-
ZATION—Cities, counties, villages, and towns have
all undergone drastic structural changes in recent
years. A look at the process of structural change and
how you can contribute, plus examples of other ways
to improve local-goveramertt--management through
internal reorganization.
• LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS—A refresher on
the labor-management bargaining process—the local
officials' role in labor-management relations, the
basic steps of the process, and recent developments.
, • PUBLIC OFFICIALS' LIABILITY—What's it all about?
"�*�....,,,� How have recent developments affected officials'
liability to suit?An overview of the problems you face
1i c<}1C1"ftl .� and how to handle them.
Both series area product of the HUD-funded Elected Officials Project
V conducted jointly by the International City Management Association,
the National League of Cities, and the National Association of
� � Counties. 9
..41ifive74/ 14 ' 14"44a
Users Say . . .
"These handbooks are long overdue. ..There are many publi-
cations that cover, in one fashion or another,the role of coun-
cilmen. However, in most cases, theyhave been prepared
by
professors or graduate students.Putting the councilman's role
in a practical and easy to understand context is a milestone."
- --- -- -- -- -- - A Virginia official-
"It's a lot easier to deal with the council today than it was six
months ago."
Comment from a city
administrator shortly after
• COPING WITH STRESS—Here's a resource that completing a handbook
focuses on the special stresses of public life and sug- review program.
gests some techniques to help you survive.
"Newly elected officials are the ones who need this type of
• LIVING IN THE SUNSHINE—Now that all 50 states material.With the large turnover of elected officials we have in
have open meeting laws, sunshine has become a way Nebraska, the handbooks will be very valuable."
of life. The broad principles of sunshine legislation League ofNebraska
P P 9 Municipalities
are discussed as well as examples of how other
elected officials have learned to live in the sunshine. "Since the time the council reviewed the handbooks, indi-
vidually and as a group,they are more effective,staying more
• FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT—You don't have to be a on schedule. The results are better public relations and less
financial wizard to make sound financial decisions 'lost time'for the staff.The council is working more effectively
for your municipality.This handy reference to the key as a team and making decisions without unnecessary delay."
issues of financial management helps you make An Iowa city
better decisions on policies which have a direct finan which tested Series
cial impact on your community.
HANDBOOKS
Series I includes: Series II includes:
• Streamlining • Coping with Stress
• More Time • Living in the Sunshine
• Goal Setting • Financial Management
• Evaluating the CAO • Managing Growth and Decline
• Make Policy • Local Housing Policy
• Communicating • Team Building
• Money • Local Government Structure
• Advisory Committees • Labor-Management Relations
• Intergovernmental Relations • Public Officials' Liability
• Taking Stock
• Users Guide
• •
• •
• •
•• •• 1140 Area Code 202
Films • •
Connecticut 828-3600
Avenue
• ♦ Northwest
In addition to the two Handbook Series,two trainin Washington DC
g 20036
films are available for rent. The films (16mm) are:
• Goal Setting—the process followed by International
one city council and its city manager. (11 City ■
minutes) Management
• The Learning Game—various ways that Association —
elected officials "educate" themselves to
become better municipal decision-makers
and leaders. (13 minutes)
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SERVICES
ORDER FORM
Elected Officials Handbooks are $25.00 per set. FILMS FOR RENT: $40.00
Order 10 or more sets and pay only$20 00 per set.
❑ Goal Setting (24740)
Send sets of Series I Handbooks (24058) ❑ The Learning Game (24759)
Send sets of Series II Handbooks(25550) 955
TOTAL SETS ORDERED Name
Title
10 or more sets, $20 per set TOTAL $
1-9 sets, $25 per set Address
Processing charge $ 2.25 City
TOTAL COST$ State Zip
ElCheck enclosed (U.S. dollars only) Signature Date
Prices subject to change without notice.Allow 3-4 weeks for delivery.
❑ Purchase order enclosed, #
❑ Bill me. Mail to: International AIM. 1140 Area Code 202
(If purchase order is to follow, it must stateCitygefrlerlt II Connecticut 828-3600
"confirming order" or second order will be billed.) Mana Avenue
Northwest
❑ Special billing and shipping instructions attached. Association Washington DC
NNW 20036
11/81
1140 Area Code 202
Connecticut 828-3600
Avenue
Northwest
Washington
on DC
20036
International
II
City
Management
Association
November 1981
Dear Colleague:
The Elected Officials Handbooks are among ICMA's most useful publi-
cations. This series was designed especially to help you work more
effectively with your elected leaders--and them with you.
I am particularly excited about the potential of these handbooks.
Why? The staffs of the International City Management Association,
the National League of Cities, and the National Association of Counties
coked with elected officials and managers in all size jurisdictions
in developing them. The result--19 handbooks covering the questions
most frequently asked by managers and elected officials such as "How
can managers and elected leaders direct their energies as a team to
serve all citizens?"
The booklets are concise, to the point, and easy to read. They can
be used by individuals and can also serve as a powerful tool in group
discussions involving the full elected body. They provide an excellent
take-off point for developing effective decisions, procedures and
relationships.
One manager who tested the handbooks stated. . .
"It's a lot easier to deal with the council
today than six months ago."
More than 4,600 sets have already been purchased by communities
across the_country. L urge lion e--order- a--set for each--of your council
members, county commissioners, or COG board members. The enclosed
brochure describes the handbooks in detail.
Take a few minutes--look the brochure over--and place your order.
Sincerely,
&Ay )1/444411a00
Betsy Sherman, Director
Management Information Service
P.S. : Elected Officials Handbooks help you tackle the many challenges
facing local government decision makers. Order yours today:
PROCEEDINGS OF THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
Regular Session Shakopee, Minnesota November 12, 1981
Chrm. Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. with Comm. Perusich,
Stoltzman, Coller and Vierling present. Absent were Comm. Koehnen and Rockne.
Also present were Don Steger, City Planner and John K. Anderson, City Admr.
Vierling/Stoltzman moved to approve the minutes of October 8, 1981 as kept.
Motion carried with Comm. Coller and Chrm. Schmitt abstaining because of their
absence at that meeting.
Coller/Perusich moved to open the public hearing for a request for a 29 feet
variance from setback requirements to allow the placement of a 1000 gallon above-
ground propane tank. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner explained that the applicant is Valley Industrial Propane, Inc.
for Hennen ICO service station, located at 807 E. 1st Ave. He stated the setback
variance request is for either a 29 foot front yard variance off of Minnesota. St.
or a 29' rear yard variance from alley right-of-way. The City Planner stated staff
is recommending denial of the requested variances due to non-compliance with the
Uniform Fire Code. Staff has suggested other possibilities for the placement of the
propane tank.
Tom Stewart, of Valley Industrial Propane, and Bill Marr, representative of the
propane tank manufacturer, and Jack Hennen, owner of the ICO service station,
responded to questions regarding the tank itself and its placement on the lot.
Bill Marr stated he met with the Minnesota Fire Marshall's office and it is their
position that they have no objection to the placement of the tank on the east side
of Minnesota Street as planned, as long as it was approved by the local authorities.
He showed a copy of a form letter which states the placement meets the intent of
the Fire Code.
The City Planner stated the applicant can justify a variance based on a hardship
case. His concern is th:: Uniform Fire Code, and as interpreted by Leroy Houser,
Building Official, these plans do not meet the requirements.
Tom Stewart stated the problem with locating the tank to the rear or off the alley
right-of-way, was safety and marketing. As far as he and Mr. Hennen were concerned,
the rear location was not a consideration at all.
Perusich/Vierling moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Perusich/Coller offered Variance Resolution No. 291, granting a 29 foot variance
from the 30 foot front yard setback requirement off of Minnesota Street , to install
an above-ground 1000 gallon propane fuel tank for Hennen's ICO Service Station and
moved its adoption, subject to the following conditions:
1. It is contingent upon State Fire Marshall approval;
2. Crash/steel barrier to be worked out with the City staff to do whatever is
necessary to protect the tank;
3. This variance be null and void if in the future a sidewalk is constructed along
the east side of Minnesota Street and adjacent to the propane tank.
Motion carried unanimously.
Coller/Vierling moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned
at 8:05 P.M.
Don Steger, City Planner Diane S. Beuch, Recording Secretary
/o
PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 12, 1981
Chrm. Schmitt called the meeting to order at 8:05 P.M. with Comm. Vierling,
Perusich, Stoltzman and Coller present. Absent were Comm. Koehen and Rockne.
Also present were Don Steger, City Planner and John K. Anderson, City Admr.
Cncl. Leroux arrived later.
Vierling/Stoltzman moved to approve the minutes of October 8, 1981 as kept. Motion
carried with Comm. Coller and Chrm. Schmitt abstaining because of their absence at
that meeting.
Discussion - Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Parks
George Muenchow was present and asked for comments on the park program.
Comm. Vierling asked about plans for a bike trail south of Shakopee on CR79 to
O'Dowd Park, possibly hooking up to Tahpah, making a 5 mile circuit. Mr. Muenchow
stated plans for that trail should have been included in the program.
Comm. Coller asked about grinding pumps at Tahpah Park. The City Admr. replied
that the Jaycees have a fund started for that project.
Chrm. Schmitt asked the City Admr. to check the discussion held with the developer
of the Senior Citizens Highrise at the time of the variance request to determine
if the developer agreed to do some grading and sod work.
Cncl. Leroux arrived at 8:25 P.M.
Coller/Perusich moved to forward the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for
Parks to the City Council with the addition of a bike trail running from 10th
Ave. or the Shakopee Senior High School on the easterly side of CR79 to the park
facility at O'Dowd Lake. Motion carried unanimously.
Comm. Stoltzman left at 8:35 P.M.
Discussion - Lot Splits:
The City Planner stated that City Council reviewed the policies approved by the
Planning Commission regarding lot splits. He stated Council had concurred with
the Planning Commission' s recommendation on Policy A, which states that splitting
lots with existing buildings a simple review by the Planning Commission would be
required (no preliminary or final plat is necessary), but the Council had disagreed
with Policy B, which is splitting existing lots which contain no buildings, a
preliminary and final plat reviewed concurrently by both Planning Commission and
City Council would be required (normal subdivision process regarding public hearing
would be followed). The City Council indicated they would like all lot splits
to be simply reviewed by Planning Commission with no formal platting required.
He requested further discussion.
l5
Shakopee Planning Commission -2- November 12, 1981
The City Planner stated that Gary Eastlund has indicated he is very interested in
the discussion on this subject, but he was unable to be present this evening, so
he sent a letter stating that the .Subdiv, .aoneCommittee's..intent was to waive the
formal platting requirements if the parcel was a recorded plat. He stated the
letter would be kept on file for future reference.
Considerable discussion ensued.
The City Admr. stated the City Council felt that Policy B was contrary to the time
savings originally intended by the subdivision committee. Further discussion ensued.
The consensus was to confirm Policy A with the addition of requiring a hardshell
and confirm Policy B. The Planning Commission stated that they maintained in
support of their recommendations on Policy B because they were uncomfortable with
creating an open ended-policy and that the possibility of splitting one lot three
ways by taking a lot out of the middle could happen. The Planning Commission
requested a one-year trial period to Policy B and then it could be reviewed.
Informational Items
The City Planner informed the Commissioners that the City Council denied by a 5-0
vote the appeal of the Conditional Use Permit and the Mining Application of Scott
County Lumber. He also stated the applicant indicated he would be back in 6 months
with a revised request for conditional use permit.
The City Planner informed the Commissioners that the: City Council concurred with
the Planning Commission's recommendation and will be requiring signing for sub-
divisions and rezonings, and will be adding a $4.5 fee to the application to cover
the costs. This policy to be effective January 1, 1982.
The City Planner stated that during the early 1970's Valleyfair had been given a
blanket variance from height limitations, which is still in effect now. The
blanket variance permits structures up to 100 feet in height. Valleyfair is
currently planning an 80 foot high circular theater which would then fall under
this variance adoption and be allowed.
Discussion - Planned Unit Development (PUD) •
The City Planner stated the Planning Commission has complete review authority over
PUDs, and he explained a little cf the policy involved. He stat..d a PUD is a
negotiable process between the City and the developer. The staff will conduct the
initial review with a developer, and present to the Planning Commission a type
of ledger of what changes have occurred along the process. PUDs could be either
mixed densities or mixed uses.
Comm. Perusich suggested taking a tour through some of the PUDs in the area. Con-
sensus was to set this up in March or April, and to review other information about
the PUD process in the meantime.
Perusich/Vierling moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned
at 9:52 P.M.
Don Steger
City Planner
Diane S. Beuch
Recording Secretary
d
to
N
rl ,--I N
1
4 c/)
A d
H Z
H
I
H
Pe
00 L Z
r1 1-I N U
n o •
Nbt.,_i E
•,ima
•H Eo
cd E r,
P-+ UI- rl N M
C
H Cn
124 E E
W A CD fa. a
PP U
•,-I O 0
W ,--I O U o
U N CS, O •• U •• cn O
W a H Irl ,-1 N 01
k
E
}1 •,-I •,-I •,-I
4 O 0 0 0 ,
A 0
E E E
1- O • O • O •
U 0. U (a, U C1
I
Q 1J cn 1J M .0 M
rl FY, •r1 •• CO L( •r1 •• N •,-a •• cS
ZUN- ,-IU1\ N UN- N
> .
di (ID • • -J •
CD 0) EaE
•74 C •
O 04JP-, R Cl.
t-. .,1 •r •
r-1 1...1 CD EO 4) 0
4 •r1 (-1 E o o
t\ J-J •• -t ,--1 0 •• •,-1 •• 00
P-4 X--:1' r1 N U ,.O fil CO N
r
d
E
(.7
M o 1\
,-1 N N
TENTATIVE AGENDA
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Regular Session December 1 , 1981
Chairman Hullander presiding
1 . Call to order at 7 : 00 P.M.
2 . Approve Minutes of November 17 , 1981
3 . Elderly Highrise
a. Review December 1 , 1981 Amendment and Modification to the
Amended Redevelopment Plan for the Elderly Highrise Rede-
velopment Project No. 1
b. Adopt Resolution No. 81-9
4. Future Projects - Community Development
5. Fourth and Minnesota Neighborhood Revitalization Project
a . Selection of Phase III Contractor
b. Authorization of appropriate officials to execute contract-
for-deed for Lots 3 , 4, and 5 , Block 3 , Macey Second Addition
6 . Payment of Bills
a. Department of Housing and Urban Development , $2 . 92 , copying
cost
b. Pomije Custom Homes , $984. 29 , ( 1/2 ) cost of additional jack-
hammering and fill for Lot 11 , Block 2 and Lot 10, Block 3 ,
Macey Second Addition
7 . Other Business
Jeanne Andre
Executive Director
PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ADJ. SPECIAL SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 17, 1981
Vice Chrm. Leroux called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. with Comm. Colligan,
Reinke and Lebens present. Absent was Chrm. Hullander. Also present were Jeanne
Andre, HRA Director; John K. Anderson, City Admr. and H. R. Spurrier, City Engineer.
Colligan/Reinke moved to approve the minutes of November 4, 1981 as kept. Motion
carried unanimously.
The HRA Director gave an oral report on contractor proposals for the 4th & Minn.
Neighborhood Revitalization Project, in which she stated that all 4 of the con-
tractors who have built in Shakopee were interested in submitting bids on the 3
units. She anticipates being able to recommend proposals at the December 1, 1981
meeting. She also has been getting in touch with potential buyers.
Lebens/Reinke moved to request Shakopee City Council to vacate drainage and utility
easements in Macey Second Addition as follows: 10 feet on the southerly boundary
of Lot 3, Block 3, except the most easterly 10 feet and the most westerly 10 feet
thereof; 10 feet on the northerly boundary of Lot 4, Block 3 except the most east-
erly 10 feet and the most westerly 10 feet thereof. Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Lebens moved to authorize HRA Executive Director to execute Certificate
of Completion to 200 Levee Drive Associates for the developer undertakings in the
Elderly Highrise Redevelopment Project No. 1. Discussion followed. Motion carried
unanimously.
Lebens/Reinke moved to authorize the payment of $35 membership fee for HRA Director
to the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried
Reinke/Colligan moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned
at 7:17 P.M.
Jeanne Andre
Executive Director
Diane S. Beuch
Recording Secretary
ge/9- 3 - b
i
coon I $ci
MEMO TO: Members of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in
and for the City of Shakopee (HRA)
Members of the City Council
FROM: Jeanne Andre , Executive Director, HRA
RE: Amending Elderly Highrise Redevelopment Project No. 1
DATE: November 20, 1981
Introduction
At its November 4, 1981 meeting, the HRA directed staff to prepare
necessary documents to amend the Elderly Highrise Redevelopment
Project No. 1 to provide for the extension of Levee Drive from
Atwood to Scott Street . Said documents are attached.
Background
The attached documents include :
1 . A memo from City Engineer dated November 13, 1981 , outlining
the projected project costs .
2 . An Amendment and Modification to the Amended Redevelopment Plan
for the Elderly Highrise Redevelopment Project , Project No. 1 ,
which incorporates the desired new project and related costs
into the plan.
3 . HRA Resolution No. 81-9 , A Resolution Determining to Undertake
an Amended Redevelopment Project.
4. City Council Resolution No. 1942 , A Resolution Accepting An
Amendment to the Amended Redevelopment Plan for Elderly
Highrise Redevelopment Project and Calling a Public Hearing
on said Amendment .
Requested Action
HRA: Adopt Resolution No. 81-9 , A Resolution Determining To
Undertake An Amended Redevelopment Project .
City Council : Adopt Resolution No. 1942 , A Resolution Accepting
An Amendment To The Amended Redevelopment Plan For Elderly High-
rise Redevelopment Project And Calling A Public Hearing On Said
Amendment .
JA/jms
P I5 ilqt.A.'„'Pr, or
e.
/,//j 670's4-41
7--
_ -
-- ,
' .DivEr
vws litrylcndc4 1)154-y1j- A‘ *11 YEA'S
ri
iar....t...•
IDE PA . ,
Rk
. I
6;
A,E 5 0 TA c.: L • Y1.
AI - • : ',.. • t. : ,I PARK
• .
RIVER LANBQDI
,
--..-
-,---r-------T-1„
--IN_4*;
A.
PARK BEILDRGEC.
I , i !yr. (3)
_ op- i
IV
i-i U B E R PiRK .-----
•• .%•41.',/ ;/7 "7774/. . - .- .1 r
1 1 kWi4e4.,:ir 0044 /A /z Nil II ii CITY , 1 II
•SA, A !? : , HAL ...-. '
Al'Aily,1•W.AO* 04,...,mireg. //,At , . ,..
2- ---. --: V4""'‘‘'b-.**e./ i't i 04
if/II 1. 1 V;- 1=-1 rITI* I v
.A.
H
I tt::: ' // % I. ihi
ill
.., • -
i :•••• ; bil .i____ / lin
1.11111
. ...-..
I
, . .....t.
__
-
/•
, 1 ;
11111 'VI i
, . , 1 X I [ W
I' I
III 111111/IIIIII I ,AI i
1 i
.:
I 1_ '1
1 ___i
__ --/.p."•mehmiimm
•0 ST
try •
.------ J
F ...
' till. 244 . . A 111 I OFFIICr
..._ -
=---
_
' - *-.4 • -----------=----„, , _
--- ---- --- , .., ad a-S4.15"4.1.r4 - _ .
• j f .
• ; •
. 1
- szo FIRE
J.
1 Ill STATION ., 11111111 1111ho'------A_ _1111111111 ft' ; : f‘1*
I i bil_ ' 4 -- --- • -gm i I
, Tt - .
1 N
.24 ! 1 11 i 1 I 1 1.1 0 1
- ! 3th . .,_
1 1 . -1
iii '
-,•-•,..
N ,
i ST
;7, :- gill '-- k• 1 11111/11
1 1 MARKS ,.
• IN L A W, . .
C.HU RCH 4 -4 -al— ma
k iiii
4__] I
SCHOOL (
I.
II IMO; 41 11111 •
,
_.
1 111 -
. ;FRAKlis4, gCC, , -..,,i' __ tt _r. , Ix - •-c- ‘ f
''' linhill:N
,.,,, ,...... , : ;, 7 ,.. _ . 11111
, I ,
.n,..,.. ,,,.../ ,
„..A....*„..., ......c., ._
II A,,I.,;.,' -. .4,.$ 1., 5ffi „
:,,, ,,,,.. • ,-
,4VE. „ .,
, 1
a
.,1 I I I
ST .
.
I I. I
I It's I I I in CENI,RAL MARYS kr;1 --J : lima.
..
CHURCH*. •T-----0,—.., amnia,
1...,
I 1. 11 il 1
iiii SCHOOL SCHOOL ;
611 AVE .-. •.-.-- IIIIIffg.4111
l: —Th
•.
G
* V 1
r: .4 .! moirliiiiti
,.. mpg! ,, A , , P1111
7,1 2 „D i
_ ..._
__ ___]. ---, I. _--4- uf _ .11 a'
Iri III 111/111-11ii /
,„
. -
7)sh ...
,
. -
,. .
. „ 11111
I ,
. I• . ' a 1 101 1..... , — ..,
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
ST. IHN.S7 I St I I --
, — 1 ‘.- - LUTH. tr• • enti ”
CHURCH AIV 1111 TAX INCREMENT
DISTRICT
•
--- --. .-;‘,.;,7-., ..,,
1
, f cmIcal0 Irf SC•II
_ -- ._
‘C,•.... ••••••OrlD IT.1./` '..
-1.'s .a ii • I) MI [
4° 1.14111 NUA111111
At -
3
III lit
,
_ "`
-71-7----1 _
dr-
MEMO TO : Jeanne Andre
HRA Director
FROM: H . R. Spurriek
City Engineer r
RE: Construction of Levee Drive
Atwood Street to Scott Street
DATE : November 13, 1981
Pursuant to your request, I have prepared an estimate of the cost of
constructing Levee Drive between Scott Street and Atwood Street and
I attach a description of the right-of-way that would be required in
order to construct this roadway.
An estimate of the total project cost is summarized below. This estimate
assumes that part of the project cost will be assessed. If none of the
project cost is assessed, the total project cost may be reduced by $1,000.
Estimate
Roadway Construction 330 L.F. @ $54. 00 $17,820
10 Percent Contingency 1, 780
Total Construction $19, 600
Design 3, 200
Inspection 2, 700
Improvement District Cost 1,000
Subtotal $26, 500
Right-of-Way Acquisition 22,875
Total Project Cost $49, 375
I attach two descriptions; one description is the description of right-of-way
that must be acquired for the extension of Levee Drive to Scott Street. A
second description specifies the additional area that must be included in the
original Highrise Tax Increment District .
Should you need any other information, please contact me.
HRS/jiw
Attachments
3
Tax Increment Disrict
Lots 6 through 10 inclusive, Block 7, Original Shakopee Plat, Scott County,
Minnesota and the right-of-way of Scott Street east of 1st Avenue and
the vacated right-of-way of Levee Drive east of the Scott Street and west
of Atwood Street according to the aforementioned Original Shakopee Plat
Right-of-Way To Be Acquired
A permanent roadway, utility and drainage easement over, under and across
Lots 8, 9 and 10, Block 7, Original Shakopee Plat, Scott County, Minnesota
more particularly described as follows :
All that part of Lots 8, 9 and 10, Block 7, north of the following
described line: Beginning at the northeast corner of said Lot 8,
thence southerly along the east line of said Lot 8, a distance of
30. 00 feet, thence westerly parallel to the north line of said
Block 7, a distance of 30. 00 feet, thence southwest to a point
on the west line of Block 7 which point is 80. 00 feet from the
northwest corner of said Block 7, thence north to the north-
west corner of Block 7 and there terminating.
AN AMENDMENT AND MODIFICATION TO THE
AMENDED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
ELDERLY HIGHRISE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT,
PROJECT NO. 1
December 1, 1981
It is hereby proposed that the present Amended Redevelopment Plan for
the Elderly Highrise Redevelopment Project, Project No. 1 (the Project) be
modified and amended as follows:
1 . That Paragraph I be amended to include the addition of that
portion of Levee Drive described as follows:
Lots 6 through 10 inclusive, Block 7, Original Shakopee Plat, Scott County, Minnesota
and the right-of-way of Scott Street east of 1st Avenue and the vacated right-of-way of
Levee Drive east of the Scott Street and west of Atwood Street according to the afore-
mentioned Original Shakopee Plat.
2. That Paragraph II(4) be amended to provide a new subparagraph
(f. ) as follows:
"f. The acquisition, upgrading and construction of Levee
Drive, westerly of Block 6, Original Plat of the City of
Shakopee. "
3. That III(1 ) be modified and amended to include the acquisition of
any portions of Levee Drive hereinafter described not presently owned by the
public, to-wit: A permanent roadway, utility and drainage easement over, under and
across Lots 8, 9 and 10, Block 7, Original Shakopee Plat, Scott County, Minnesota more
particularly described as follows: All that part of Lots 8, 9 and 10, Block 7, north of
the following described line: Beginning at the northeast corner of said Lot 8, thence
southerly along the east line of said Lot 8, a distance of 30.00 feet, thence westerly
parallelto the north line of said Block 7 a distance of 30.00 feet, thence southwest to
a point on the west line of Block 7 which point is 80.00 feet from the northwest corner
of said Block 7, thence north to the northwest corner of Block 7 and there terminating.
4. That III(2) be amended and modified to provide for the amount of
$22,875.00 for the cost of the acquisition of that portion of Levee Drive
not presently owned by the public.
5. That V(1 ) shall be modified and amended to provide a new
paragraph (f. ) as follows:
"f. The acquisition of that portion of Levee Drive as
described in paragraph I(1 ) not presently owned by the
public and the construction of a public roadway on Levee
Drive as described in paragraph I(1 ) .
3 C-
6. Paragraph V(2) shall be modified and amended to provide a new
item (j) as follows:
"j. Acqusition and construction of Levee Drive
$ 49,375.0o •'1
1
RESOLUTION NO. 81-9
A RESOLUTION DETERMINING TO UNDERTAKE AN
AMENDED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City
of Shakopee, Minnesota, as follows:
Section 1 . Recitals.
1 .01 . There has previously been established an Eldery Highrise
Redevelopment Project No. 1 .
1 .02. There has been prepared and presented to the Authority a
written Amended Redevelopment Plan, dated December 1st, 1981 , proposing an
amendment to said Elderly Highrise Redevelopment Project, Project No. 1 (the
Project) .
1 .03. The Authority has investigated the facts and reviewed the
amended Redevelopment Plan, and hereby finds, determines and declares that it
is necessary and in the best interests of the City and its inhabitants for the
Authority to undertake and complete the Project in accordance with said
Amended Redevelopment Plan, and in accordance with the modification authority
in Paragraph XI of the original Amended Redevelopment Plan for said Project.
1 .04. The undertaking and completion of the Project in accordance
with said Amended Redevelopment Plan, will result in the accomplishment of the
public purposes and objectives set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Sections
462.411 through 462.485.
Section 2. Submission to Planning Commission. The Secretarty is
authorized and directed to submit a certified copy of this Resolution and said
Amended Redevelopment Plan to the Planning Commission of the City and shall
request the Commission to issue its written opinion as to whether said
Redevelopment Plan conforms to the comprehensive plans for the development of
the City, the Zoning Ordinance and to any other general plan for the
development of the Project area and surrounding area.
Section 3. Submission to City Council . The Secretary, upon receipt
of the written opinion of the Planning Commission is authorized and directed
to submit a certified copy of this Resolution, said Amended Redevelopment Plan
and said opinion to the City Council , which is hereby requested to approve the
Amended Redevelopment Plan in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section
462.521 .
Adopted in Session of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1981 .
Richard S. Hullander,
Chairman
Jeanne Andre
Executive Director
i 4
RESOLUTION NO. 1942
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AN AMENDMENT
TO THE AMENDED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
ELDERLY HIGHRISE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AND CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING ON SAID AMENDMENT.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shakopee,
Minnesota, as follows:
Section 1 . Recitals. This Council has received from the Shakopee
Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the Authority) a Resolution of the
Authority determining to amend and modify the Amended Redevelopment Plan for
Elderly Highrise Redevelopment Project, Project No. 1 (the Project); and will
receive a written opinion of the Planning Commission relating thereto which
has been requested by the Authority. The Authority has requested that the
City Council consider and approve the amendment and modification of said
Project and the amendment to the Amended Redevelopment Plan therefor all in
accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 462.521 .
Section 2. Hearing and Notice. This Council shall meet at City Hall
on Tuesday the 22nd day of December , 1981 , at 7: 5 o'clock p.m. ,
for the purpose of holding a public hearing on the amendment an modification
of the Amended Redevelopment Plan for said Project. The City Clerk is
authorized and directed to publish notice of the meeting and the purpose of it
in the official newspaper not less than then ten (10) nor more than thirty
(30) days prior to the date of said public hearing.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City
of Shakopee, held thi s day of ; 1981.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
Lf
MEMO TO: Members of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
FROM: Jeanne Andre, Executive Director
RE: Future Projects - Community Development
DATE: November 25 , 1981
INTRODUCTION
In September, 1981 , the attached memo was prepared to initiate dis-
cussion of future community development pkojects . HRA discussion
was deferred at that time , but should be reintroduced at this time.
BACKGROUND
Potential Local Projects
Staff suggested projects remain the same, with additional suggestions
from HRA Commissioners solicited. As further information on the
revised block grant process becomes available , certain projects may
become more desirable from a grantsmanship perspective ( i .e. projects
which will receive more points on the rating system or for which
more grant dollars will be available) . In the meantime I need pri-
orities from the HRA and City council as to which projects are most
desirable in terms of meeting City objectives .
Block Grant Process and Criteria
The following items are meant as an update on the process of State
involvement in administering block grants :
a. The State has decided it will not administer fiscal year 1982
funds unless it can do so in a more timely manner than HUD.
At this time it is estimated that HUD could initiate the pro-
cess in February of 1982 and the State could initiate the pro-
cess in June of 1982 .
b. In the current draft regulations :
1 . Local matches will not be required to secure block grant
funds , but points will be awarded to projects which leverage
local or private funds .
2 . Funds will be available on a statewide competitive basis
for both single-purpose and comprehensive projects .
3 . Regional Development Commissions (RDCs ) will no longer be
directly involved in awarding points in the rating system.
The Minnesota League of Cities staff feel this issue will
still be pushed by the RDCs .
REQUESTED ACTION
Suggest possible community development projects and prioritize
newly suggested projects and staff-suggested projects ( from Septem-
ber 9 , 1981 , list ) for further staff investigation.
JA/jms
MEMO TO: Members of the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Jeanne Andre, Executive Director
RE: Future Projects — Community Development
DATE: September 9, 1981
Introduction
The HRA is winding down its 1978 Block Grant, the Fourth and Minnesota Neighbor—
hood Revitalization Project. It is time to consider potential new projects.
This memo is to provide background on the current status of the block grant
program and introduce discussion of potential projects.
Background
1. Block Grant Process and Criteria. As you know, recent legislation allows
administration of Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) to be shifted
from the federal to the state level, at the discretion of the states. Guide—
lines and time schedules for the administration of the program can be modified
by the state if it elects to administer the program. Normally the City would
be preparing a CDBG pre-application now for submission in the fall. By year—
end selected communities would be invited to submit final applications, and
final award would occur by the start of the 1982 construction season. As
the State of Minnesota is still considering whether it will be involved in
the program in 1982 and the guidelines which would be implemented for their
program, the application cycle and guidelines have not yet been established.
The following are some of the rumored provisions of the state implemented
program:
1. Housing Assistance Plan would probably not be required.
2. Application process may be shortened, with no pre—application.
3. Local matches may be required of applicants.
4. Funds may be allocated on the basis of regional development commissions
such that all areas receive part of the pie, but no large grants are
available.
As more concrete information on a state—administered program becomes available
it will be provided to the HRA.
2. Potential Local Projects. The following lkt of projects is presented for
discussion, based on suggestions presented by City staff and the Council.
Although these proposals are anticipated to benefit low— and moderate—income
families, extensive background work on ownership of parcels and income
status is reserved until further suggestions and comments from the HRA are
provided. Under recent federal administration of the block grant program,
public improvements are accepted for funding only in conjunction with housing
(new construction or rehabilitation). In addition, targeting of improvements
is encouraged. Funds for rehabilitation are often requested as part of the
block grant. Funds for new construction have traditionally been secured from
1
Members of the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority
September 9, 1981
Page Two
other federal sources (eg. 235 or Section 8) , however these sources are scant
or non-existent now. If the state would put a similar emphasis on housing,
and the potential sources for funding new construction are two unknowns in
the current process.
Some suggested projects are listed below:
a. Downtown Redevelopment: Project would be to assist in redevelopment as
defined by the Downtown Committee (housing or economic development) and
could include acquisition, demolition, land write-down, or rehabilitation
loans or grants. If specific projects have not been identified, planning
funds could be requested.
b. Fourth and Shumway (N.E. corner) : The Scott County garage is unsightly
and a non-conforming use in a residential area. The County plans to
relocate the garage within the next five years. The City could encourage
this relocation by planning acquisition, demolition and development of
new housing.
c. Fifth Avenue between Spencer and Main: The street has not been constructed
on this portion of Fifth Avenue and there is no water or sanitary sewer
from Spencer to Fillmore. Gene Brown has requested a 429 assessment pro-
ject for land he owns in this area. A joint public/private project could
be undertaken with housing rehabilitation and new construction combined
with the public improvements.
d. Market Street between Fourth and Seventh Avenues: This portion of Market
Street has limestone, no water or sanitary sewer, open land and substandard
structures. The project could install water and sewer and provide rehabili-
tation and/or construction of new housing.
e. Second Avenue between Naumkeag and Next Block East: Two homes in this
area have fecal, coiform pollution in their wells. A temporary solution
was devised in 1980, but installation of City water and sanitary sewer
is the long-term answer. Housing rehabilitation could be combined with
this program.
Requested Action
Additional projects are solicited, as well as comments on those outlined above.
The HRA should provide direction as to which projects warrent follow-up and
further examination. It is possible that some of the smaller projects can be
packaged together into a single grant application.
JA/jms
P-44-
5- ib 4-5-
MEMO TO: Members of the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment
Authority (HRA)
FROM: Jeanne Andre , Executive Director
RE: Selection of Phase III Contractor
DATE: December 1 , 1981
Introduction
The HRA has solicited and received proposals to construct homes on
Lots 3 , 4 and 5 , Block 3 , Macey Second Addition. The HRA now must
select a contractor and authorize execution of a contract for deed
for these remaining lots .
Background
Proposals were solicited and received from four builders with pre-
vious experience building in other phases of this project . One
builder, Quality Development , subsequently withdrew his proposals .
The spread sheet is attached for the proposals received. The follow-
ing is a brief summary of the proposals received and considered:
1 . Haefner Enterprizes submitted a proposal to build only the twin
homes . The plan submitted includes a two bedroom one-story
bungalow with full basement and 16 ' x 22 ' garage attached in the
front . Although the price is low at $40,650, this plan is not
as desirable because the basement cannot be utilized as living
space (a split entry or two-story plan was suggested in the
invitation for proposals ) and the garage is smaller than re-
quested. In addition I am not entirely confident that the eleva-
tion of the rock underlying these lots will allow a full basement
without further biasing.
2 . Pomije Custom Homes submitted proposals for the single family
and the twin homes . The plan for the twin homes was the same
as the single family plan built at 526 Minnesota Street , joined
at the center by two 16 ' x 22 ' garages . Although the plan has a
large amount of square footage, the cost of $45 ,106 would push
the purchase price significantly above even the revised two bed-
room mortgage limit of $47 ,000 , and would require a large down-
payment . The plan proposed for the single-family home is the
same as the unit built at 547 Minnesota Street . Although the
plan is good for the lot , and certain amenities such as 2" x 6"
wall studs and triple glaze windows are proposed, the cost of
$48 ,600 is significantly above a similar plan proposed by Goodwin
Builders .
3 . Goodwin Builders proposals for the single family and twin homes
are recommended for approval by the HRA. The twin home is similar
in plan to the other twin homes built by Goodwin, with an option
for an extra 60 square feet per unit on the lower level for expan-
sion. The basic plan is $40,800 and the option plan costs $41 , 730.
For the single family home , a split entry plan with two bedrooms
Members of the Shakopee HRA
Page Two
December 1 , 1981
. up and two bedrooms finished downstairs was submitted at a base
cost of $45 ,850.00 . With a two car garage in the front the cost
would be $50 ,650.00. Construction would be proposed for winter
or spring (with no cost difference ) dependent on the weather.
Allowance has been made to connect to the existing water and
sewer lines and to redo the driveway cuts as necessary. The plot
plan for the Goodwin proposal is attached for review. All of
the plans submitted will be available for review at the meeting.
Alternatives
Select from the three builders still interested in the project
( three for twin homes , two for single family) proposals for homes
for Lots 3 , 4 and 5 . Those with two proposals have agreed to build
either one or both of the plans submitted.
Recommended Action
Authorize appropriate HRA officials to execute contract for deed for
Lots 3 , 4 and 5 , Block 3 , Macey Second Addition, with Goodwin Build-
ers Inc . on the condition that structures be built in accordance with
plans and specifications submitted by Goodwin Builers ( in response
to the invitation deadline of November 17 , 1981 ) on Lots 3 and 4 for
a base price of $81 ,600 ($40,800 per unit ) and on Lot 5 for a base
cost of $45 ,850.
JA/jms
Sl.w 1I(_ (j'71i i (JOOKWi'1 I
Pci a ,,/0 i, n
L9. L3 _ /. 2z 'lstIvo
Base Price 4.. ' 46, 14200 48,40® —
, • -
No . Sq . Ft . /8-2-4 /82-z, I75c,
No . Finished Sq . Ft . /344 /3sy /37A
Cost/Sq. Ft . S 1I- L0. /7 27.5(.
Cost/Finished Sq. Ft . . 3+. 11 35,
7v _ _ 35.94
Sq . Ft . Storage 40
Bdrm. Sq. Ft . #1 / 4/, ? 14) /�a
#2 1I-75 /2 / ii., S
#3 49 / 24. 5 ,34.. 4
#4 '5u '79 ,3 Z
Kitchen Cabinets Du /L Cil /, p,, 14-
.
Kitchen Floor v'Lry',„i I:„c i,. . gar �',/
Tyl'( (1,,, 4
Bathtub Area A b�1A 4''
fl i7fItl,rr Cf 0-7rni u
Bathroom Floor "(y1 i,r,olcti.., GAF 53'
hjix3 ((10
A
Mirror - Vanity 06 k- L
t tI'rror oe 1 •
ir. rvor _ Oa IC. rr,rt. ••Y• ,
Floor Finish fir/„ r Ca�✓tx,f corIx F
Woodwork Oct i da iz !
Lighting Allow. *?.c,0 0
Heat . SY st . 445 1 i4 ' .ST ���j y5' req
1041Z000
Elec . Service /00 �, ,, ? /G G a y).
Hotwater Heater fr 1 ri , A
Windows c'"
/4
Doors
-
rp,p,, t
Exterior Finish -7/.4- /),4 so e`
ilora{i''. ".1 w dah+..,
Stove
&e ,' r r_.,
Refrigerator
St) ,
Dishwasher
q as . >
t
Disposal
4f
Triple Glaze Windows .4, ,,F ”"'�
:i, ;f.
Sod for Front 7
'
2" Tree
/So
• r
Garage : Slab /790 _
Single 24/ l
Double �4xiz.OU _ 359
Other ho $4-01,....doe/ hc s!v►�
1;,,k,) d r vp 114-"i
YhvIlt 1.1.1iI
oY WV®14 A •-t
u v i- i;.�. ado s
way,4 fit, .e.
"id.5�'<b' � 4S2' r�
vyFnk
,sp, ',.5 "i"t O„5}r.,{
TM AI W 2/V1 C /f AErivaZ Poriij if Y. 6B'OWIN 6OUDW/P' .51e-'14/
(rilr Un i t •
31 10 r2,i.,.,..,_
fi , 37.3, ofti- .-
Base Price 40, ( O 45 1 No 43, aoo 40, 000 1-1 730
No . Sq . Ft . Liv,rtr 7475 152-4 'co9L f j l^clO 1.b.0
No . Finished Sq . Ft . 7t,q> 9ii- 149 14,2
Cost/Sq . Ft . 5.;,q3 )4.13 ;5.513138 37./r>
_
Cost/Finished Sq. Ft . 52 93 q.y, 4„ 5i,069 43.40 `4=, •
-
Sq . Ft . Storage 1 $,$fmN,r� Lew*lave/ tow*uV,l
D _ 112- 040 31
Bdrm. Sq. Ft . #1 e-rlI`•" ''s
, 0. 7, l34, 14$r 13l.,5
#2 I/O (y,. 95
/r 5 l 1 0 12gt. 2 ,_ ,
#3
#4
I _
Kitchen Cabinets Oak 0 c fL , k„,
Kitchen Floor n IA, it ,'.,'4,iL
&A r Si n tip( 3
vinyl �1d.5S
� -t-
Bathtub
Bathtub Area fiixr1l40 fibony/a” (Gran
Bathroom Floor .'nik:ot Gni r; hipt
Mirror - Vanity o `r`
YCS op lc.
yes "'`..•'
Floor Finish
Gl Y nC r Core t f!< Y p' Cel r ix
Woodwork oak. Oak
___� r9 UE r
Lighting Allow. -r,y 4-4h4r1S rl * fi30o
e'll >
Heat . Sys t . Fort(.' at'r iasrk 9A5 r7 ((A ff; Prrt4{ pc•.5 tomcat
4 ,00o-1,0,00o 44000 SoOav r ,ppao 570o 000
Elec . Service
I S l/ M,ryo L.,cc;cs wish / , ,:p IO0 a4
3a
Hotwater Heater e( 40 I
u ��� I 9~s
3v '
Windows1 o
"— ,.. p c 04A oti 4 ,�"�
Doors I ~`door
Exterior Finish Plo6:y,. -- 7/ia; ' PIOCi.' w >'Y`,4''". '-
re/or lac. l,nrdbo„ro( woce5„h„ N ' ,s.,,.
Stove r 5 --4.-__
ato5 ?.65 * 380
Refrigerator 1-0(, Soo
Dishwasher ao5 3 4aS
Disposal /00 05 14)
- ,i,..0,,, r,l.. ua}'
Triple Glaze Windows VC! 4q0 4')_
Sod for Front t S; 400 `Ia
2” Tree /SO e / r1
Garage : Slab
/!__
Single r le i,er plc/,/p/ ,'nrl ,L,A,/10,c2Z /
Double C40ic
rt VI iz 21 " 17 ,17.3$ Lc+.1 ►�'f 3iZJ
Other yri n1PV SFr,
"1
ce+r sh�r F„r a,.n+u- 0-1,`(0»S�r, r 1;,-. W'''.----
rip jerrNi+^f F III Rant L,•, "15 a Op h 1 r.'siv4 $IS()
cJ ✓ Wood bust-.,,,4 wool b.y,.... , Goivvclti boo, r,,,.,,il c„,_
F'f'ym ds0✓ IL;1-e{M,r, i bPTM Stprm r)to, i{a J
„ot /,'641,1 CI..., },,td- I,sk'
1,-.4-,1%,..f>.+. .
vt+,4yA Me.* 4-, Vell -., Ft..wA v(,..,1-c4t-)..6,.
g Kat- IISYW ttt
1,5,0 11 ff,r 0,6.4, ,,,,i, a-
N, DBOyhd i
Corporation Vendor M nnesnta Uniiurin Conveyancing Blanks (Revised 1976)
scr
Two agreement, Made and entered into this day of
, 19.. 1 , by and between the Housing and...Re.devel:opme.nt
Authority in and for the City of Shakopee
acorporation under the laws of the State of.....Minne.sota , party of the first part,
and G.00.dwin...Buil.d.er.s., Inc..
, part ..y.....of the second part;
r
,,:,itttegtcetb, That the said party of the first part, in consideration of the covenants and agree-
ments of said part y of the second part, hereinafter contained, hereby sells and agrees to convey unto
said part..y of the second part, and assigns, by a Warrenty Deed,
accompanied by an abstract evidencing Food title in party of the first part at the date hereof, or by an
owner's duplicate certificate of title, upon the prompt and full performance by said part.y of the second
part, of it.s part of this agreement, the tract...S._........_...of land lying and being in the County of
Scott and State of Minnesota, described as follows, to-wit:
Lots and , Block 3 , Macey Seond Addition
•
.4nd said part..y of the second part, in consideration of the premises, hereby agree to pay said party
of the first part, at Shakop.e.e....City...Hall
as and for the purchase price of said premises, the sum of One Dollar
Dollars,
Ln - ue-g4gU4q rte-zut: herewith and as a further consideration
hereby agrees as follows :
Exhibit A, attached hereto, is made a part of this agreement .
Said part y of the second part further covenant. S. and agree..S. as follows: 4 -psy-befat'e-gena}4y-aHeeke&
th.=,..to-ail taA stitre-and•payable-in- he-year-49--- ,�an ti—in-5t b eet+en -y.earsroe de1i-speeiai•esses entente-iteretefer-eor
hereafter �eviec},
also that any buildings and improvements now on said land, or which shall hereafter be erected, placed, or made there-
on, shall not be removed therefrom, but shall be and remain the property of the party of the first part until this con-
tract shall be fully performed by the part..[ of the second part; and at...i.t.S own expense, to keep the buildings
on said premises at all times insured in some reliable insurance company or companies, to be approved by the party of
the first part, against loss by fire for at least the sum of insurable value..._
Hv}fars
and against loss by windstorm for at least the sum of insurable value
Dryilar,
payable to said party of the first part, its successors or assigns, and, in case of loss, should there be any surolus over and
above the amount then owing said party of the first part, its successors, or assigns, the balance shall be paid over to the
said part...y......of the second part as .l.tS interest shall appear, and to deposit with the party of the first part
policies of said insurance. But should the second part_.y fail to pay any item to be paid by said party under the
terms hereof, same may be paid by first party and shall be forthwith payable, with interest thereon, as an additional
amount due first party under this contract.
But should default be made in the payment of principal or interest due hereunder, or of any part thereof, to be by
second part_' paid, or should it fail to pay the taxes or assessments upon said land, premiums upon said
insurance, or to perform any or either of the covenants, agreements, terms or conditions herein contained, to be by said
second part y kept or performed, the said party of the first part may, at its option, by written notice declare this
contract cancelled and terminated, and all rights, title and interest acquired thereunder by said second part.._ shall
thereupon cease and terminate, and all improvements made upon the premises, and all payments made hereunder shall
belong to said party of the first part as liquidated damages for breach of this contract by said second part...y......, said
notice to be in accordance with the statute in such case made and provided. Neither the extension of the time of pay-
ment of any sum or sums of money to be paid hereunder, nor any waiver by the party of the first part of its rights to
declare this contract forfeited by reason of any breach thereof, shall in any manner affect the right of said party to
cancel this contract because of defaults subsequently maturing, and no extension of time shall be valid unless evi-
denced by duly signed instrument. Further, after service of notice and failure to remove, within the period allowed by
law, the default therein specified, said part..y.......of the second part hereby specifically agree...S , upon demand of said
party of the first part, quietly and peaceably to surrender to it possession of said premises, and every part thereof, it
being understood that until such default, said part._y.._.of the second part_.i.S._.to have possession of said premises.
EXHIBIT "A"
1 . The Party of the second part agrees to provide builders risk insur-'
ance naming the City of Shakopee and the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority as an additional insured , and in the highest amount avail•
• able from an insurance company acceptable to the first party.
2 . The Party of the second part will provide public liability insuranc
in a total .ariount of not less than $300,000.00 naming the City of
Shakopee and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority as an additions
insured and in terms and in a company acceptable to the party of the
first part .
3. The Party of the second part will provide standard workman ' s compen-
sation insurance naming the City of Shakopee and the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority as a protected party.
4. Copies of the policies or certificates of insurance with a 10 day
cancellation clause must be provided to the first party before any
work or liability are contracted by the party of the second part .
5. Before beginning any construction or incurring any liability, the
party of the second part will provide the party of the first part
with a letter of credit in an amount of not less than 125% of the
total cost of the improvements ; this letter can be drawn upon if
the contractor fails to complete the unit by the designated comple-
tion date , or fails to meet any of the terms of this contract, upon
the giving of reasonable notice of such default prior to drawing
upon the letter of credit . Costs of said letter of credit are
included in quoted contract cost of construction. After constructio
has been completed and the closing has taken place the letter of
credit may be reduced to $10,000 and is to remain at that figure
for the. next 92 days and if no claim has been filed at the expiratio
of said 92 days the letter of credit can be released . In case of
twin homes , one half the full letter of credit may be reduced to
$10,000 which is to remain at that figure for the next 92 days and
if no claim has been filed within the 92 days , the letter of credit
can be released .
b . That the premises herein described shaH J at all times be kept free
and clear of all mechanics or labor liens and all other types of
incumbrance .
7 . As a specific covenant running with the above described property,
the party of the first part requires and the party of the second
part agrees that the party of the second part shall construct on
said property a home meeting all the requirements of the Department
of Housing and Urban Development 235 Program , State Housing Code
and City ordinances according to the plans and specifications on
file at the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and shall
convey this property , upon completion of said house , to a buyer or
buyers approved by the party of the first part . Within 30 days of
notification of such an approved buyer , or 30 days of completion of
construction, whichever is later .
8 . At the time the deed of conveyance is tendered to part of second
part and from said party to buyer the buyer shall make , execute and
deliver to Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority a promissory
note and real estate mortgage containing principal reduction provi-
sions providing for 20% annual reduction. A copy of said reducing
principal promissory note is hereto attached and made a part hereof.
9 . The party of the second part agrees to begin construction within
30 days of notification to start work by the party of the first
part and the party of the second part agrees to complete all improve-
ments within days of the start of construction. Contract
costs will remain in effect if notice to proceed is provided within
60 days of execution of this contract .
10. After the construction of the dwelling and prior to issuance of the
certificate of occupancy the builder shall replace any public im-
provements damaged by construction by the builder or its subcon—
tractors , to include but not be limited to sidewalk , curb and
gutter , street surfacing and public utility .
Revised May 1981
�
-2- '�1/
11 . In the event that a sale to an approved buyer shall not have been
consummated within six months after the said completion date, the
party of the first part shall thereupon pay the contract price
due to party of the second part , and upon such payment party of
• the second shall transfer all its right , title and interest in
the subject premises to party of the first part .
12 . The party of . the second part is to pay for the cost of FHA apprai-
sals except' in the event that 235 financing is not available , and
the homes cannot be built , in such case the party of the first
part will reimburse the party of the second part the cost expended
for FHA appraisals .
13 . Individual water and sewer service has been brought from the street
into each lot as noted in "Macey Second Addition Tie Sheet" on file
with the Shakopee City Engineer. Cost of extending such service
and/or connecting to the service will be the responsibility of the
party of the second part , including the purchase of water meters .
14 . The party of the second part will provide underground electrical
service to each unit constructed , such service provided in quoted
costs .
15 . The party of the first part will end all involvement with grading
and fill of lots in subdivision prior to the start of construction.
Subsequent grading and fill is to be provided by party of the
second part , and is to be in conformance with approved grading
plan and subdivision plan on file with the City Engineer of the
City of Shakopee . Party of the second part is to provide 4" top
soil after construction of the building prior to seeding of front
and rear yard .
16 . Any survey required by the title insurance company or lender to
close on the final sale of the property will be paid by the party
of the second part .
Revised May 1981
PROMISSORY NOTE FOR PAYMENT
UPON RESALE BY HOMEOWNER
• FOR VALUE RECEIVED , (Homeowner)
promises to pay Lo the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Shakopee (Authority)
or order , the principal sum of Dollars
( $ ) , on the date of resale by the Homeowner of the property
located at Minnesota Street , and described as Lot
Block , Macey Second Addition , Shakopee , Scott County, Minnesota.
Such principal sum shall be reduced automatically by twenty
percent (207 ) of the initial amount at the end of each year of such
residency , as a Homeowner , and this note shall terminate at the end
of five (5) years of such residency , as determined by the Authority;
provided , however , that the amount payable under this note shall in
no event be more than the net profit on the resale , that is , the
amount by which the resale price exceeds the sum of (1) the Home-
owner ' s purchase price , (2 ) the costs incidental to his acquisition
of ownership , ( 3 ) the costs of the resale , including commissions
and mortgage prepayment penalties , if any , and (4) the increase in
value of the Home , determined by appraisal , due to improvements
paid for by the Homeowner .
Any amount Homeowner is required to pay Authority under the
terms of this note shall bear interest at the rate of eight percent
(8X ) per annum from the date hereof .
If the Homeowner shall pay this note at the time and in the
manner set forth above , or if , by its provisions , the amount of
this note shall be zero (0) , then the note shall terminate and the
Authority shall , within thirty (30) •days after written demand
therefor by the Homeowner , execute a release and satisfaction of
this note . The Homeowner hereby waives the benefits of all statutes
or laws which require the earlier execution or delivery of such
release and satisfaction by the Authority .
Presentment , protest and notice are hereby waived.
Dated : , 19
By .
The Housitig and Redevelopment Authority
in and for the City of Shakopee
Richard S . Hullander , Chairman
Delores M . Lebens , Secretary
State of Minnesota )
) ss .
County of )
On this day of , 19 , before me , a
notary public within and for said County personally appeared
Richard S . Hullander and Delores M . Lebens to me personally known,
who , being each by me duly sworn did say that they are respectively
the Chairman and the Secretary of the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority in and for the City of Shakopee , the corporation named :'
in the foregoing instrument , and that said instrument was signed
on behalf of said corporation by authority of its members and said
Richard S . Hullander and Delores M. Lebens acknowledged said
instrument to be the free act and deed of said Housing and Redevelop—
ment_ Authority .
By .
Homeowner
Homeowner
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , go
. '
19
Goodwin Builders , Inc .
Description of Single Family Home
For Lot 5 , Block 3
Macey Second Addition
House will be built according to plans and specifications on file
at the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment authority at a base cost
of $45 ,850.00 . This cost includes the cost of storm doors for each
exterior door, double glaze windows , seed for front and rear yards ,
oak woodwork and cabinets , and vented range hood. Additional options
can be added at the prices listed below if selected by each buyer.
The cost of the building permit and up to seven FHA points is not
included in the above cost , but will be added to the sales price for
each individual buyer.
Options available :
Electric range $ 380 .00
Refrigerator $ 500.00
Dishwasher ( installed) $ 425 .00
Garbage disposal ( installed) $ 140 .00
Triple glaze on all windows $ 495 .00
Optional room finished $
Foyer closet $ 350 .00
Extended foyer $ 688 .00
Double car garage $4800.00
Garage slab and footings only $1750 .00
Sod for front and side yards $ 400.00
2" tree $ 150 .00
Goodwin Builders , Inc .
Description of Twin-Homes
For Lots 3 and 4, Block 3
Macey Second Addition
Homes will be built according to plans and specifications on file
at the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority at a cost of
$40,800.00 per unit ( $81 ,600.00 per building) . This cost includes
the cost of storm doors for each exterior door, double glaze win-
dows , seed for front and rear yards , oak woodwork and cabinets ,
and vented range hood. Additional options can be added at the
prices listed below if selected by each buyer. the cost of the
building permit and up to seven FHA points is not included in the
above cost , but will be added to the sales price for each individual
buyer.
Options available :
Electric range $ 380.00
Refrigerator $ 500.00
Dishwasher ( installed) $ 425 .00
Garbage disposal ( installed) $ 140 .00
Triple glaze on all windows $ 495 .00
Optional room finished $1610.00
Larger lower level $ 930.00
Rough-in second bath $ 150.00
Sod for front and side yards $ 225 .00
2" tree $ 150 .00
TENTATIVE AGENDA
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 1, .1981
Mayor Harbeck presiding
1 ] Roll Call at 7 : 30 P.M.
4 ,
2] Approval of Minutes of November 10th, and 17th, 1981
3 ] Comminications :
a] Mr & Mrs Howard Schmitt re : connecting to city utilities
b] Gloria Vierling re : resignation from Shakopee Community
Services Board
c] Mayor Burr, Findlay, Ohio re : acquisition of Marathon Oil Co..
by Mobil Corporation
d] Metropolitan Council re : public meeting on proposed operation
and maintenance funding for regional park facilities
e ] Metropolitan Council re : draft surface water management plan
4] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers
5 ] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS :
6 ] Old Business :
a] Five-Year Capital Improvement Program - Parks
b] Six-Year Capital Improvement Plan
c] Applications from Iowa Falls , Inc . for On Sale and Sunday
Intoxicating Liquor Licenses - tbld. 11/17
d] Memorial Park Millpond Water Pollution Problem
e] Unassessed Project Costs for Market Street Storm Sewer
f] Valley Fair Ride Inspection
g] Storm Sewer Financing - tbld. 11/17
h] From November 17th Agenda : (bring nemos 9c , 9e, and 9f)
aa] Permanent Improvement Rovolving (PI R) Fund
bb] Energy Saving Recommendation
cc] Metro Government Commission review of Met Council
7 ] Planning Commission Recommendations : None
8] Resolutions and Ordinances :
a] Res . No. 1941 , Authorizing Acquisition and Construction of
A Project on Behalf of S & W Realty (Red Owl ) - Final Approval
- Commercial Development Revenue Notes
b] Res . No. 1911 , Volunteering A Hazardous Waste Processing
Site
c] Res . No. 1942 , Accepting An Amendment to the Amended Redevelop-
ment Plan for Elderly Highrise Redevelopment Project and
Calling A Public Hearing On Said Amendment
d] Res . No. 1943, Setting Fees for City Licenses , Permits ,
Services and Documents
e ] Res . No. 1944, Adopting the 1982 Pay Schedule for the Officers
and Non-Union Employees of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota
f] Ord. No . 81 , Affirming the Dedication of the Highway
Herein Described (Road adjacent to Viking Steel )
g] Ord. No. 82 , Authorizing Partial Prepayment of Assessments
for Local Improvements Prior to Certification to County
TENTATIVE AGENDA
Page -2-
12-1-81
9] New Business :
a ] 8 : 30 P.M. - Awarding quotations for $165,000 General
Obligation Judgement Bonds of 1981 - Res . No . 1945
(Res . coming from Mr. Pulscher on Tuesday)
b] Authorize purchase of two vehicles
c] 1982 Workman' s Compensation Proposals
d] Herrgott Garage Permit
e ] Move that the bills in the total amound of $28 , 340. 17 be
allowed and ordered paid
10] Consent Business :
a] Employment of Ralph Campbell by cable consultant Anita Benda
b] Accept service charge of $25/hr for financial and management
services by Jerome Jaspers and Company
c ] Transfer assets and fund balance of $2 ,892 . 69 from the 1971
Improvement Fund to the P. I .R. Fund
d ] Interfund Transfers - Capital Purchases
e] Industrial Revenue Bond Deposits
f] Transfer the remaining assets of the Certificates of
Indebtedness Fund to the General Fund after final payment
is made in December, 1981
11 ] Other Business :
a ] Engineering Department Monthly Report
b] Mr . Reinke has requested that Council discuss the on sale
liquor license requirement of 50/ food sales when the
establishment is more than 4,000 sq. ft .
c]
d]
e ]
12 ] Adjourn to Tuesday, December 15, 1981
John. K. Anderson
City Administrator
RECEIVED
Nov 41981
CITY OF SIiAKOPEE tR) / 981
• 9OA/nI3l ' 1/ 1
'\tio- a-L4a7 4e;- (--4:;1"")
rif 14'
0 40
D ert I r,,-• O&L/2J
C9yia/72_12).,4,0-42_.)
(7)92 ' • WerurrOzyzieteltryuit-
17 94, , , Ci42Se) : 1/4
/ �
• ' ' 1 21 , 5'6-3 7?
30�
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Letter From Howard Schmitt/Definition of Hardship
DATE: November 27 , 1981
Introduction
Ordinance No. 77 passed by City Council October 20 , 1981 , requires
that property owners hook-up to available utilities when their pri-
vate systems fail or within a maximum of three years . The Ordinance
states that exceptions can be made for "hardship" , and the Schmitt ' s
are asking for a "hardship" exception. The need then is for the City
to develop a definition( s ) of "hardship" .
Possible Definitions of Hardship
The Building Inspector, City Engineer and I have discussed this sub-
ject and find three approachs for defining hardship:
1 . High total cost of the installation of the utility line. This
can be measured in several ways .
a. Above the average cost of utility lines installed during the
same calendar year.
b. Above average unit costs .
c . Above the average length of private service lines required to
hook up to available City utilities .
2 . Ability of homeowner to pay for utility installation. This could
be measured using HUD Section #8 income guidelines that are
updated regularly and widely accepted.
3 . A combination of one and two above .
Summary and Recommendation
The definition ultimately decided upon by the City should be well
thought out and be an applicable test of "hardship" for all types
of situations . Therefore, I recommend that the City check with
those cities that have been using ordinances similar to our Ordi-
nance No. 77 to determine if there are more potential definitions
than those listed above and to find out what seems the most workable .
Action Requested
Direct staff to further investigate and recommend a workable defini-
tion of "hardship" to use in implementing Ordinance No. 77 .
JKA/jms
js # ;.7`ter cn4 P
NCV 1 81981
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
November 17, 1981
City Council
Shakopee City Hall
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
To Whom It May Concern:
With much regret and all due respect, I submit my resignation as a council
appointed Shakopee Community Services board member, effective January 1 , 1982
or until the position has been filled.
My association with this board has been very gratifying in terms of learning
and sharing solving of problems. The City is very fortunate to have a body
of this quality who are willing to commit their time.
Thank you for allowing me to sit on this board.
Sincerely,
n 2L
(1c..577
Gloria M. Vierling
GMV:nae
cc: Dick Stoks
George Muenchow
0‘-;-- /
-./ OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
MUNICIPAL BUILDING
FI°[ LT.„„)
°sriTuo�N�
FINDLAY, OHIO 45840
0 I tl RECEIVED TELEPHONE (419) 422-1012
W. BENTLE), BURR November 17, 1981
MAYOR NOVn
DAVID J. WOBSER Ny 2 3 1981
SERVICE-SAFETY OIREC"fOR
Mayor Walter Harbeck CITY OF SHAKOPEE
129 E. First Ave.
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Mayor:
As a retired. Marathon Oil Company employee and currently serving as Mayor
of the City of Findlay, Ohio, I am deeply concerned because of the current
takeover attempt of Marathon Oil Company by Mobil Corporation.
I'm writing to you and others in similar capacities throughout this great
land of ours to seek your help. Most of you are familiar with what happens
when a takeover is successful. The real crunch is felt by cities and towns
like ours and ultimately by the people. It's not hard to find displaced
employees as a result of a merger or takeover; in fact, you may at this very
moment be going through the pains of such an event. I believe it's time to
put ,a stop to this type of activity.
I won't go into much detail about the Mobil acquisition of Marathon other than
to recite a few facts. Foremost, it is clear that Mobil, rather than using it's
tremendous resources to explore for oil, is attempting to acquire it by
purchasing the Marathon Oil Company. Competition will be lessened, as Mobil
and Marathon are currently competitors. As Senator Metzenbaum stated, "Mobil
does not believe in the independent dealers network which is vital to the
interests of all people in this country." Marathon's record of supplying
them during the previous oil crisis was superb. Not one additional drop of
oil aaill be available to people in the United States and the City of Findlay
will he devastated, as I'm sure you can appreciate. Mobil's success will
encourage ' h., other very large oil companies to take over the intermediate
sized companies, resulting in monopolistic power in the hands of a few oil
companies.
How 1.,a0 you help? Please form a group in your community of businessmen,
merchants, professionals, union employees and other interested citizens to
organize a letter-writing campaign to call attention to the seriousness of
this problem. Write the President, your Senator, your Congressman, and to
the Honorable James C. Miller II, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission, 6th
Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20580. Your efforts
may help to stop not only this acquisition, but perhaps discourage a crisis
in your city.
Sincerely ,
? :{ of
MEMO TO: 'Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Public Meeting on Proposed Operation and Maintenance
Funding for Regional Park Facilities
DATE: November 27 , 1981
Introduction
The attached communication regarding a meeting December 3 , 1981 at
4 : 30 P.M. in the Met Council Chambers to discuss Operation and
Maintenance Funding for Regional Park Facilities "appears" to be
yet another step in the growth of regional governments control
over local decision making.
Background
The Operation and Maintenance Proposal , I believe , is the result of
the State ' s existing regional park acquisition program which hasn' t
fared too well because local government could foresee the massive
long term operational cost that would fall on them if they partici-
pated in the acquisition program. Thus , the attached proposal to
create operation and maintenance funding is an attempt to make the
earlier regional park acquisition program viable . Moreover, the
proposal reflects what local government has been telling the State
( or regions ) was required to make the program work.
The problem that I foresee is that another state wide tax would be
imposed and funneled through (distributed through) Met Council giving
it TOTAL discretion in how the funds would be distributed.
The proposal was also reviewed by the City Planner, HRA Director and
Community Services Director. The three had mixed to favorable reac-
tions to the proposal as it related to the financing of operation
and maintenance of regional parks . They did not address the broader
implications of the proposed funding mechanism that I have discussed
above.
Summary and Recommendation
In summary, from strictly a parks prospective the proposal seems
reasonable. However, the City of Shakopee ' s stance on the impact
of funding mechanisms collected state wide and controlled by the
Met Council has been to oppose them. This can be correctly perceived
as another effort on the part of the Met Council to move from its
original mandate to plan park facilities into regional administration
of regional park facilities . Finally, the League and Association of
Metropolitan Municipalities have reviewed this and they are concerned
about the funding implications , but they have taken no position on it
because it effects counties who are responsible for operation and
maintenance of regional parks and not cities .
Action Requested
Direct staff to send a letter and a representative to the December 3rd
meeting in opposition to the Met Council ' s proposed Regional Park
Operation and Maintenance Funding Proposal .
4ei staff RECEiVED
iL :k
NOV 13 1981
104
o� CITYOF �a{`pKO'P�,E
WIN C1.11-'
P`Z
300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 291-6359
November 10, 1981
TO: METROPOLITAN AREA CITIZENS AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
The attached document will be considered at a public meeting to be held on
Dec. 3 in the Metropolitan Council Chambers. The meeting will begin at
4:30 p.m. or immediately following the meeting of the Council , should that run
beyond 4:30.
The document is a report of a special task force, appointed by the Metropolitan
Council last March, called the Operation and Maintenance Funding Task Force.
The report recommends ways in which the Council may seek to increase the
funding for the operation and maintenance of the Area's regional park system,
ways in which it might disburse those funds, and a position on the question of
whether the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission should be restructured.
We hope you will give the Council your comments and suggestions for improvement
of the report. Written comments are as helpful as verbal ones, and should be
submitted by the time of the meeting on Dec. 3 to Bob Nethercut of the
Council 's parks and open space staff.
Anyone who wishes to speak at the meeting should call Bill Lester at 291-6481.
Speakers will be placed on the agenda in the order in which their names are
received. Others will be given the chance to speak after those individuals
have been heard. Individuals are asked to keep their remarks to five minutes,
and representatives of agencies are asked to limit theirs to ten minutes.
Sincerely,
Charles Weaver
Chairman
An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising:
Anoka County o Carver County o Dakota County o Hennepin County o Ramsey County o Scott County a Washington County
An Equal Opportunity Employer
30`'
•
SUMMARY
OF THE
REPORT OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING TASK FORCE
Attached is the Report of the Operation and Maintenance Funding Task Force.
The task force recommendations from the report are stated below.
Task Force Recommendations
A. Revenue Generation
That the Council seek the necessary legislative authorization to
accomplish the following:
1. Two million dollars of additional 0 & M funding should be secured
annually from direct users of the regional system. The bulk of
this money should be raised through use of a regional park
parking permit.
2. Up to $7,650,000 for regional 0 & M should be derived by removing
the current exemption on soft drinks and candy from the five
percent general sales tax.
Application of the five percent general sales tax to soft
drinks and candy is projected to raise about $15,300,000
annually statewide. This revenue should be dedicated to
funding park 0 & M costs, to be distributed as follows:
Metropolitan Council for Regional Parks 50 percent
DNR for State Parks 43 percent
Office of Local and Urban Affairs for
Outstate Regional Parks 7 percent
If the amount derived from this source for the regional system is
in excess of the amount for 0 & M needs in any one year, the
balance of the money available should be used for regional
recreation open space acquisition and development projects not
funded by state bonding.
3. One million dollars should be raised annually by redirecting the
appropriation of State Natural Resource funds from regional bond
debt service to 0 & M costs for regional parks.
B. Revenue Distribution
1 . That regional 0 & M funds be distributed to implementing agencies
based on the following factors:
2
15% Incentive to start new, high-priority projects;
temporary relief from gross inequities resulting from
the distribution formula.
- distribution determined by Metropolitan Council,
with recommendations from the Metropolitan "arks
and Open Space Commission.
30% Encourage and recognize implementing agency effort to
support regional 0 & M, determined by annual budget
less regional funds but including taxes, state aids,
other grants and general fees.
25% Regional System Acreage
- distribution based on regional system land
acreage, with park reserve management lands (the
80%) weighted 1 and other lands weighted 4.
30% Total Use
- distribution based on total use of regional
facilities managed, as measured with standard
methods and reported by implementing agencies, and
with use measured periodically by Metropolitan
Council.
2. That the Metropolitan Council seek legislative authority to
distribute 0 & M funds in accord with the above factors.
3. That the legislation not incorporate the specific percentages
recommended above, sothat they can be adiusted by the_Council_ as
experience shows to be needed.
C. Makeup of the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission
That the makeup of the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission as
presently constituted should not be changed.
•
faitao
0'4 0,
4,14
g -4,13;i- hi I
0�
� Pew
NCITlYS
300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 291-6359
November 1981
TO: METROPOLITAN AREA CITIZENS AND GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS
Attached is a draft surface water management plan proposed by the Metropolitan
Council as part of a Metropolitan Development Guide chapter on water resources.
When adopted by the Council , it will supersede the Council 's Guide chapter on
protection open space and portions of its Guide on water resources. It will
also fulfill federal requirements as the Region's plan for controlling
"ncnpoint" source pollution under Section 208 of the Federal Clean Water Act.
The document is a plan to deal with the problems caused by snowmelt and storm
water runoff, which carries various pollutants into the Region's rivers, lakes
and streams, and causes erosion, flooding and related problems. The plan
describes the extent of such problems in the Metropolitan Area, recommends
measures to solve the problem, and outlines the responsibilities of
governmental agencies and others to carry out a region-wide surface water
management program.
This draft plan will be the subject of discussion at five public meetings in
December at various locations around the Metropolitan Area:
Tuesday, Dec. 8, 7 p.m. Wednesday, Dec. 9, 7 p.m.
Dakota County Vo-Tech Chaska Middle School
County Rd. 42 and Akron Rd. 1750 Chestnut St.
Rosemount Chaska
Thursday, Dec. 10, 7 p.m. Tuesday, Dec. 15, 7 p.m.
Plymouth City Hall Blaine City Hall
3400 Plymouth Blvd. 9150 Central Av. NE.
Plymouth Blaine
Thursday, Dec. 17, 7 p.m.
Metropolitan Council Chambers
300 Metro Square Bldg.
7th and Robert Sts.
St. Paul
An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising:
Anoka County o Carver County a Dakota County a Hennepin County o Ramsey County o Scott County o Washington County
An Equal Opportunity Employer
•
3
A public hearing will be held in the first quarter of 1982 to consider plan
revisions based on comments made at the public meetings . A report summarizing
findings from the public meetings and proposed revisions will be available when
the public hearing is announced.
If you are interested in speaking at one of the public meetings, please call
the Council 's Community Services staff at 291-6421.
I hope you will be able to attend the public meetings and offer your comments.
Sincerely,
Charles R. Weaver
Chairman
Enclosure:
CRW/poc
MEMO TO : John Anderson, City Administrator
.01FROM : H . R. Spurrier, City Engineer
RE : Draft Water Resources Management Developme Guide
Part II . Surface Water Management
DATE: November 25, 1981
Introduction:
Between December 8th and December 17th, 1981 public meetings will be held by
the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities area for the purpose of discussing
the Draft Guide.
I have reviewed the Draft Development Guide together with the proposed policies
identifying the matters which would be of special interest to the City of Shakopee.
Background :
The report is a 142 page document which in classic fashion identifies the problem,
proposes a plan, recommends a program and then proposes rules by which the
program would be implemented.
With an overwhelming amount of proof, this Guide documents the fact that non-
point sources of pollution are a problem. The Development Guide infers that
more pollution is contributed from storm sewer sites than from mainstem agriculture
and urban watersheds. The report does not comment on the general characteristic
of the basin, whether it is a developed basin or a developing basin.
The next element in the Guide is the plan of implementation. Of interest to
Shakopee are the additional controls proposed in this Development Guide. First,
the Guide recommends that the entire Metropolitan Area be divided into secondary
watersheds. As proposed, these watersheds would be responsible for seeing that
surface water management planning is consistent with the Metropolitan Development
Framework Plan and supporting the Metropolitan System Plans.
The Development Guide proposes that Shakopee and parts of Savage, Jackson and
Louisville Townships, comprising 52. 1 square miles be annexed to the Spring
Lake/Prior Lake Watershed District, which is now approximately 31 square miles.
The City should be cautious about this annexation because the Spring Lake/Prior
Lake Watershed as it exists is recommended for critical priority because of poor
water quality in Spring Lake and Prior Lake.
The City of Shakopee should have some assurance that the City of Shakopee will
not be responsible for improving the water quality in Spring Lake and Prior Lake,
just as the City of Shakopee would not expect Spring Lake and Prior Lake to
participate in the cost of providing the improvements for the Mill Pond Basin or
any other drainage system the City of Shakopee may construct
John K . Anderson November 25, 1981
Metropolitan Draft Water Guide Page -2-
After identifying the problems and after specifying which problems should be
addressed first, the Development Guide proposes a Management Program; that
Program should conform to Federal directives in the 1977 Clean Water Act. Those
directives have the following major characteristics:
1. Full advantage should be taken of existing Legislative authority
and the administrative capability of existing agencies;
2. Designated management agencies should have the capabilities
to fulfill their assigned responsibilities;
3. No regulatory programs are to be used unless it can be clearly
demonstrated that non-regulatory efforts, such as education or
technical assistance will achieve water quality goals;
4. Where best management practices use physical structures, the
responsible management agencies must have the authority to
set rules and restrictions and to conduct, operate and main-
tain works of improvement;
5. The management agency or agencies charged with implementation
must have the capabilities to finance the program; that is,
accept and spend grant funds, raise revenue for management
and incur long and short-term indebtedness;
6. The management agency or agencies charged with implementation
must have adequate administrative capability, including adequate
staff and establish report procedure and methods for co-ordinating
surface water work within and among various agencies.
The Development Guide then adds a set of seven additional guidelines developed
by Metropolitan Councils Water Quality Management Advisory Committee.
Five of the guidelines are directed at eliminating administrative problems caused
by duplication of effort or clarification of responsibility, two address new policy.
One, that the leading management agencies should be strong advocates for surface
water planning and improvements. Active surface management should be one of
the key reasons and responsibilities for the management agencies existence. The
second, any watershed planning and implementing financial programs should provide
for equitable involvement on the part of those who caused the problems and those
who benefit from the improvements.
The Surface Water Management Program then recommends the establishment of 43
secondary watersheds and that they be charged with the responsibility of
preparing plans which conform to the content guidelines presented in the
Development Guide. The Development Guide leaves to the watershed plans any
recommendations that should be made regarding the type of organizations required
to implement the plan and any construction program required. The Development
Guide states that ''at this time the main emphasis should be put on preparing the
watershed plans and programs rather than on trying to set up permanent new
governmental jurisdictions" .
John K. Anderson November 25, 1981
Metropolitan Draft Water Guide Page -3-
The Development Guide then recommends that the counties be responsible for the
preparation of the watershed plans. It requires that the Metropolitan Council
approve the plans. After approval by Metropolitan Council it recommends approval
by the State of Minnesota. After the plans have been approved the Development
Guide recommends that the management unit should be established to schedule and
carry out the plan. At this point the counties and/or watershed management units
existing and new would work with the cities and urban townships to prepare and
revise local storm water management plans so that they conformed to the approved
plan.
The Development Guide then recommends that the counties provide financing by
including proposed projects in their capital improvement plans and programs.
Local government is charged with the responsibility of controlling over developments
and municipal house-keeping. Municipal house-keeping is a term that refers to
street sweeping, gutter and drain cleaning, pickup of leaves and branches, trash
and garbage removal, and similar tasks that help keep streets, yards and business
places in a tidy condition.
The Development Guide specifies that essential surface water management tasks occur
at four distinct levels and since the surface water management task occur at four
distinct levels the Development Guide concludes that four government agencies must
participate in surface water management tasks.
The State would review and approve plans and issue permits. Metropolitan Council
would review and approve plans, review and suspend district projects, pursuant to
existing authority under Section 112 and distribute available planning funds. Watershed
management units would review and approve plans, The seven counties would be lead
management agencies and review and approve plans. Cities and townships would re-
view and comment on plans and modify local comprehensive plans to conform to the
approved plans. Soil and water conservation districts would be lead agencies for
preparation of watershed plans and would assist in the funding and implementation
of erosion control and soil and water conservation plans and practices on individual
properties.
In the watershed management program four broad catagories of cost are incurred.
The costs are:
I. Planning at various levels.
2. Operation of ongoing nonpoint source pollution and water
control programs.
3. Solving existing flooding and storm water problems or catastrophic
situations.
4. Restoring lakes.
The Development Guide recommends that each of these costs be supported by an
adequate financial program.
The Development Guide finds that there is sufficient tax base in the watershed
districts to support the cost of the improvements but requires that major changes be
made to the watershed districts taxing authority.
Finally, the Development Guide specifies the actual guidelines for surface water
management plans. Unlike most watershed management plans these plans are limited
to Metropolitan Council projections for population and employment for 1990 and 2000.
To the extent possible no drainage improvement should increase the predevelopment
rate of runoff.
John K. Anderson November 25, 1981
Metropolitan Draft Water Guide Page -4-
Except for a requirement of scheduling surface water system improvements and
except for the review and approval process the guidelines for the surface water
management plans are reasonable and appropriate.
Commentary
This Metropolitan Development Guide Chapter on Water Resources is an important
chapter. This chapter specifies conservation practices and critical area treatment
for approximately 152 square miles of Shakopee, Savage, Jackson and Louisville
Township. By including Shakopee in the Spring Lake-Prior Lake watershed the
city would be in watershed that is recommended for critical priority because of poor
water quality in two "regionally important" lakes.
Under the proposed surface management program the state, regional, county and
watershed would have complete control of watershed plans and construction programs.
The role of cities and urban townships would be primarily advisory. The role of
soil and water conservation districts would also be advisory.
The Development Guide gives broad powers to the managers of the watershed districts
and gives additional broad powers to Metropolitan Council. Those powers include but
are not limited to additional taxing authority and additional control over any land
disturbing activity whether it is new construction or whether it is expansion of
existing facilities.
Given the traditional position taken by Shakopee, City Council should be aware that
according to the proposed Development Guide Lines two non-elected agencies would
have virtual control of surface water management.
The alternative previously recommended was to vest more control with the county and
the state. In that scheme the state would review and approve watershed plans.
The county would act as lead agency in coordination of watershed plan preparation.
Metropolitan Council would act in the advisory capacity establishing the general
planning criteria for preparation of the plans. The cities and urban townships
would prepare watershed plans. Although the cities and urban townships would
surrender some of their authority to the county, the county is at least an elected
body and would be responsive to the cities and urban townships,
Many watershed districtscross boundaries of political subdivisions. Higher authority
is needed to arbitrate differences and make decisions once arbitration proves fruit-
less. The counties or the state should be that power.
The questions not addressed yet in this commentary is whether this planning is
necessary at all. Shakopee is faced with the problems or potential problems of the
Mill Pond Basin to the west and south and the Prior Lake-Spring Lake watershed
district to the south. It is evident that some interceding authority would be useful
in expediting these matters. The planning is necessary, but the general preference
is that the responsible authority is an elected authority,
Recommendations
At the beginning of this memo it was noted that public meetings will be held
throughout the Metropolitan area. Wednesday, December 9th at 7.00 p.m. a meeting
John K . Anderson November 25, 1981
Metropolitan Draft Water Guide Page -5--
will be held at Chaska Middle School, 1750 Chestnut Street, Chaska. It is
recommended that Council members voice their opinion, pro or con, at that time so
that Metropolitan Council staff gets a clear indication of the position Shakopee will
take in the matter of surface water management in the metropolitan area.
HRS/jiw
6.cu
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant
RE: Five-Year Capital Improvement Program-Parks (CIP-Parks )
DATE: November 24, 1981
Introduction
In an overall planning strategy the City Council desires to have a
Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for Parks. Such a program is
required to be submitted with LAWCON applications . The attached
plan has been developed by City staff and reviewed by the Community
Services Board and Planning Commission.
Background
The last Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for Shakopee Parks
was developed and adopted in 1976. (Annual revisions since that
time have simply outlined the recreational operating budget without
identifying new projects . ) Since 1976 the City Council has devel-
oped and adopted a Comprehensive Plan which contains a parks compo-
nent . Using these existing schemas for park development as a
starting point , the attached draft plan adds maintenance activities ,
identifies new development ideas , and allocates revenue sources with
listed expenditure needs . Most of the listed projects are included
in the overall Capital Improvement Program now under consideration
by the City Council , with the exception of playground updating for
older parks and projects suggested by the Community Services Board
and the Planning Commission.
The draft plan has been presented to the Community Services Board
and the Planning Commission for review. These policy boards were
invited to suggest additions , deletions and revisions based on
their own experience with parks in Shakopee and anticipated future
needs . The Community Services Board recommended adding clean-up
of the Millpond to the Memorial Park allocation, although a specific
amount was not recommended. This item may be a operational rather
than a capital expense . The Planning Commission recommended adding
a bike trail from the Senior High School to O' Dowd Lake , although
once again a specific dollar allocation was not suggested. The
City Council can refer their items back to staff for further infor-
mation if they wish to add them to the Parks CIP.
A goal in future years will be to revise the program on an annual
basis so that a plan for park improvements will always be available
for five years into the future.
Requested Action
Discussion and suggestions for additions , deletions and revisions
with adoption of the consensus Five-Year Capital Improvement-Parks .
JA/jms
MEMO TO: Jeanne Andre
Administrative Assistant
FROM: Don Steger
• City Planner
RE: Planning Commission Action on Capital Improvement Program - Parks
DATE: November 19, 1981
At the November 12, 1981 meeting, the Shakopee Planning Commission reviewed
the Capital Improvement Program for Parks. The Planning Commission added
to the project list a bike trail from the Senior High School to the City Park
at O'Dowd Lake (via County Road 79). The CIP for Parks was approved by the
Planning Commission and referred to the City Council for action.
DS/jiw
4 6-
October 26, 1981
Memo To: Ms. Jeanne Andre
Administrative Assistant
City Of Shakopee
From George F. Muenchow
Director of Community Services
Subject: Community Services Board Response to Five Year Capital Improvement
Program—Parks (Proposed)
The Community Services Board at its monthly meeting on October 19 reviewed
the Proposed Five Year Capital Improvement Program for Parks and unanimously
concurred with its content. One addition is recommended. The Memorial Park
Project should include cleanup of the Millpond e.g. dead tree removal, algae
removal etc. This would be 1982 and really doesn't need more dollars allocated.
Overall the Board was quite pleased with what they saw and especially were
impressed with the financial emphasis on usage of donations.
g
CITY OF SHAKOPEE b
FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM-PARKS
1981-85
Narrative
Park acquisition and development in the City of Shakopee for
the period of 1981-85 will follow the broad outline of the Compre-
hensive Plan formally adopted by the Shakopee City Council August 4,
1981 . The overall direction for parks in this period is one of
further development and improvement of existing parks and limited
expansion of parkland. New directions not addressed in the Compre-
hensive Plan include two projects :
1 . Development of City and State owned land on the north side
of Levee Drive into a park. Improvements conceptualized
include a trail to Huber Park and a scenic outlook on the
river. This project complements downtown improvements
under scrutiny by the City and local businessmen.
2 . Acquisition and development of the Upper Valley Trail
would be completed in conjunction with the Upper Valley
Drainageway and would link Hauer Addition with the Minne-
sota Valley Mall . The trail would be designed to link
the Junior and Senior High Schools , JEJ and Lions/Tahpah
Parks and tie into the "Minnesota River Valley Trail"
System envisioned by the State of Minnesota, Scott-Hennepin
Park Advisory and the Metropolitan Council .
Financial Projections
Individual projects anticipated for the next five years are
outlined on the attached "Projects 1981-85" list. The total pro-
jected cost of the projects is $251 ,350. Projected revenues for
this period are $279,125 as outlined below. The difference is
$27 ,775 in excess revenue which is reserved as a contingency for
unexpected expenses or revenue shortfalls .
Total Projected Revenues
Park Reserve Fund 1981-85 $150,000
Local Donations 1981-85 57 ,000
Revenue Sharing 1982-84 2 ,800
Government Grants
Watershed, LAWCON, LCMR 1981-85 54,325
Tax-Increment District 15,000
$279,125
Draft
10/16/81
e-I
CO
O 4-) 1/40
O 44 ,-.4
O roC
0 n A 0
o o r-1
o N
444- 0 Cn 0
O O N 0
(-•) .-, O c''") 0
4:6- .0 n Vs
G -Z 'b Cr)
„-. r-I 444 '0
v O � a
0 N .0 0 •�
4-4
U G oN cd 0 o -�. ro 0 co .
C >,O 0 4. $4 u O Cr) G Iv 0 $4
�+
u cd O •r+ O e-4 C7 ,-1 O Co O C7 4-+ �
p ) O .-7 O4,0,)- 4f) 4t}4.4 4f} r•41
G '-N 00 a..) (N • 4.1 U
O -C7 4 4s�- .co 'O 'T.7 'q 49- b 4-4 U "U
v) G •• G •4-1 G G G G G ■ •r1 G a)
G co at) co o0 G 3+ G G G co G of I.. G co co ,C
w G G G G 4, u G. L=, G4 G 4. I4 w G G
G 0 •,-I 0 .•-1 cn 0 0 v) 0 O ,-4
-r1 a) •r4 I, •ri 3-+ a) •ri a a) a) C) •r4 a) .r 1 •4-1 r-4
b > � cd cd > A > > > > tY, < A > .0 .r4 .
G I-+ CO .0 cd -0 I-C 3•+ k �+ Cti 3-+ X $a al cd 3 .
G a) G to G to a) • a) cll C) G a) O r 'Ci a) C G
w u) 0 0 u) CU u) L 400 ti) r-1 vO o 0 U)
0) b C) ro C) a) x a) a) (1) A a) .0 a) -0 "0 4..)
r-+ G G a a r-i c O F 1-+ L4 r -•1 r-I co
Cd a) Cd a) a) . .. "`l Ctl ,.L U I a) ...L al RI 0
)-1 U > U > I) 144) }.+ 3'+ I.4 U ."�." 4J 3-+ U U
Cd O a) 0 a) cd al cd cd of O CV ¢ cd ro 0 0
v,
,--; x - a3 a a a -a as 3a ,_1 .-a
G
P4 a)
°t7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I a) 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 if) 0 0 U, o
I11 0 0 co rn Lf) a 0 e- 0 0 M ,�
al V n n n n n L h n C)
c4 E co - N r-1 '.O .-1 '.0 N. CO 'r' b N N e-4 V>!
0 .4-1 0 M N r-i N c') Cr) w
O 1) U ri N -0
c)4 co 44- 4,4-
H W oo
G
W z co -t7 `a
W W I •44 N .7 c') <t w-- -1
r3, Z e-4 }-, CO CO 00 CO to CO CO c' u1
0 W c0 a) I i I I I Co 00 co I I co co .4.4
> CP a 41 1-1 e-1 N ON ON C e-i N C' CT ;.d
Q 0 e-1 CO CO CC CO 1-4 e-4 .-I CO CO e--1 e-4 •4-4
Z 1Y a) CT C Oh 0' rn o, co
Cl) a I E c-4 ,-4 ,--1 ,--1 ,-i ra •r4
L.,.., Cr) H c
o a H al
Q'
?+ < W I
1
1-4 I--1-1 0 O 1 ... 0 •
U a cG r-+ '0 G 3 b
c,...) a > oo al 1-+
✓ G r-4 Ce
roto
(4 "0 •r+ a) 4-4
'0 3 U 0 •,- r-I co
n.-1 a) >, .0 ."4 al,A 4J
/) G G 3 coG00 G A al 0
.c 'n '0 o0 E • u
H 0 co •r4 ci 4,-1 -0 I, A. 0)) G
Lz., cd G > G G G a) O r-a do O
a) O O •r4 Cr .-1 .0 r-4 .-4 •,-4 .,a
r-4 •r4 0 (1) U r-i a)
(0 a b "0 •r4 .Ir C ' C.) V3
4-1 W n Cn C. co .0 I, 'A •r.1
O U CV G v G 00 0 G t) b a.� o
G o u o I•+ a) G G a,cn u
O 0 fa U r-1 o0 E ce al ;.) •r4 Ce
•r4 a) M Ri 0- "Q
Cd O r-1 "0 r-1 4 O G 4-e iJ O
r-I 4a o0 a) G 4.) 0. C) r-1 •r-1 0 4r•1 ai
r-4 G .0 CO G > '0 0 3 C 1J
Ce a •,4 co a) a) a) a0 cl ,-1 tn G
4J G a. -I E -0 '0 G I.4 4-) Ia ni
u) I al 0 •H 0. C •4-1 C10 0 U 00
11 G r.. U 1J Cd 0 IL4 ..,.,, 0 4.) 4.) •r4 4-, C
U •r4 0 u) }1 r-4 r-4 00 '0 }a a) G G d-) cd •rl
aJ 0 '0 a) )J 0 (1) a. G Ri 4 $a a.) a) U 3 4•)
• n.0 G U }4 > G 0.i 0. •rd a) E E C G
O+ 0 >`+ r.4 > G G -0 nG ., Cl., •d •In aG) U
p., r-+ a) I•+ Cd 0 1-1 34 4-) ^ )„+ 0 0 G .0
-0 .0 b a) r^1 U ”0 cd O 00 Or. Ci" 0 3 (1)
ctl 00 cd G to 3 G G 0,-i G 'U a) a) U u
O G 3 co O Cl) CO O •r1 G ,-.. CO
}+ •-4 r-1 r-1 U) U r-4 4J 4-) RI 'O 'V C (1) a)
_ 'd CO Cd a) 44 G Cd O G C C ti-I RS U
C) I-+ G aU) U 04 r-1 0 cn G 4 al .- G
O Cd at I-r •r.4 O U •r4 •r4 •/-1 0 r-) -,-4 U 0 G a) C
.r4 a. cd I••a 1.-4 - cd Cd 4 J G •r4 ^ a0. al I4 ' ^L U •ra
> r-1 4-) a) S. •r4 C .0 a.) Ia I r L`0
i-. t4.4 •.-4 cn U > cd H U) a) •-I I•. cd "0 4.) >, 3•, 0 G 'V
(1) O cd cn ...L a) a) CL. 1.4 •r4 4-) "O G A. G .SL CO al 4.) •r.) r-4
cn Ia co I-i r-1 "0 0 P., 0 b 0 Cd Cn 3.4 1-1 r-1
.SC G 3-+ cd a) a) C. 4) CT a) Ce U a) G 0 P. . P. (1) aJ 0
.- a) )-. 0 .-G o0 n. ." .at .-1 U . 0 -k > Ct. 0 A. U V ,C U
)-4
Ce a .v-1
o rob ,-4 b C 'CC 0 0 C Ce w x ii -.- Cd "L G.. b 0 • d3
C14 U G a G Cd •r4 •r4 •r4 ,> r-4 a I•+ I-+ •r1 (1) A G E ,L' Cd Cd E C
O .0 cd 4J co •r4 > 0. -0 > •r1 G Ce C Ce }• 0 $-1a) G
-.+ r-1 cd O. G U) P. 3-+ 0 CO 3 0 + Ce 0 u) a 0" U a) a) 4a cd o0 a) 00 .-i ,o -0 0
Q) a) CI, X a) G iC 0 3-+ U 0 N Ci >~ G (1) U Ia a) ,--) •,-1 3 n. E a. co G
.0 g .0 C.1.1 E 0 W E Lt, U) A P•. Q,E-+ Cd a4 h < Cd > 0 4 0 r-1 4.1 O CO
Cd •r1 Cl) - C3. .0 W a) •r-1 0 0 H -Y•
z H a Z 0 (A '-) a z x H -}c
I akapEP TIIllimunit l Eruice
129 Levee Drive
..0gOr
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Phone 445-2742
Community Education • Parks • Recreation • Adult Education
George F. Muenchow, Dir.
November 24, 1981
Memo To John Anderson
SUBJECT: MEMORIAL PARK MILLPOND WATER POLLUTION PROBLEM
Regarding action to alleviate water quality problems at the Memorial
Park Millpond, my recommendations enumerated in my memo of September
16,; 19$1 still stands :
1 . Apply copper sulfate in accordance with procedures
established by the Minnesota Department Of Natural
Resources.
2. Work out an agreement with Mr Strupeck to diminish
the amount of waterfowl feeding taking place on
Shakopee House property.
Information requested by the City Council regarding other ptential
solutions to this problem were refered to Mr Spurrier. I have just
received his findings. (See attachment ). Costs involved in these
prodedures together with questions regarding the permanency of these
solutions seems to indicate a negative response..
Geor e F. Muenchow
A COOPERATIVE EFFORT OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AND SCHOOL DISTRICT 720 SINCE 1954
MEMO TO : George Muenchow
Community Services Director
FROM: H . R. Spurrier /�
City Engineer • / l7
RE : Mill Pond Pollution
DATE : November 23, 1981
Introduction:
Pursuant to your request, I have investigated the feasibility of utilizing
several alternatives to eliminate the pollution problem at Memorial Park.
I have investigated five different alternatives in dealing with the problem.
1. Aerate the Mill Pond;
2. Remove the benthal deposits with an Hydraulic Dredge;
3. Fill a part of the Mill Pond to reduce the Mill Pond area;
4. Stop feeding the water fowl;
5. Do nothing.
Alternate 1 and 2 are corrective alternatives. Alternate 3 and 4 reduce the
problem. Alternate 5 ignores the problem.
Aeration is an alternative recommended by the Department of Natural Resources.
This alternative would improve the environment in the Mill Pond by increasing
the amount of oxygen by installing aeration equipment. The Mill Pond would
become a treatment plant and the material treated would be the organic
contaminants contained in the benthal deposits. The supply of contaminants
is being replenished, therefore, aeration would have to continue for as
long as the water fowl were fed at the Mill Pond.
Aeration equipment would cost approximately $9, 900. That cost includes the
cost of the equipment and installation. It does not include the operation and
maintenance costs. Operation and maintenance costs would depend upon the
number of hours of operation. The estimated cost of furnishing electricity
alone for the aerator is estimated to be approximately $9, 800. If the aerator
was used for a period of five years, present value of power cost for that
period would be approximately $31, 700. That amount does not include the
cost of routine maintenance required for the aerator.
Alternate 2 proposes to remove the pollutants in the benthal deposits with
hydraulicdredging. The estimated cost of hydraulic dredging is between
George Muenchow November 23, 1981
Mill Pond Pollution Page -2-
$20, 000 and $30, 000, depending on the availability of other parts of Memorial
Park as a temporary disposal area for the deposits dredged from the Mill
Pond.
It is estimated that the pollutants would not build to a damaging level for at
least five years. Therefore, these costs would be comparable to the aeration
alternative.
Alternative 3 proposes to fill the Mill Pond. This alternative would eliminate
the visible pollutant problem by covering it and reducing the size of the Mill
Pond so there would be less habitate for water fowl. Fill would cost
approximately $1. 50 per cubic yard to haul in and place. It is estimated that
a minimum 15,000 cubic yards of fill would be required for an estimated cost
of $22, 500.
There is no guarantee that this alternative would not just move the problem
further east in the Mill Pond. In the event water fowl are not discouraged,
this alternative will simply move the problem further east.
Alternate 4 proposes to reduce the water fowl population by eliminating regular
feedings, This alternative has no affect on the pollutants that are in the benthal
deposits now, but reduces the pollutants added in the future. This alternative
will probably not improve the water quality of the Mill Pond, however, it is
likely that the water quality will not worsen.
The last alternative is to do nothing which will certainly result in additional
problems with pollutants in the Mill Pond.
Summary:
This report makes no recommendation regarding the alternative that should be
selected, Alternate 1 and 2 are comparable in terms of cost. Alternate 3 is
judged a waste of money because it does not guarantee any improvement of
water quality. Alternate 4 maintains present conditions while not making any
visible improvement to water quality. Alternate 5 is not recommended because
it results in a further degradation of water quality in the Mill Pond.
HRS/jiw
MEMO TO : John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM : H
H . R. Spurrier
City Engineer
RE : Unassessed Project Costs for Market Street Storm Sewer
DATE : November 23, 1981
Introduction:
City Council has directed staff to reconstruct an assessment roll and proceed
with the assessments for the Market Street Storm Sewer Project.
Background :
City Staff has attempted to determine what area should have been assessed
and what that assessment should have been. The attached memo from
Steve Hurley, noted that a main system would be built sometime in the future
and when that system was built, this amount would be assessed.
At this point, we have no knowledge and cannot locate information on what
area should be assessed and what estimated amount that assessment would be.
In order to establish the area to be assessed and the amount of the assessment,
it would be necessary to prepare a Feasibility Report and proceed as if none
of the improvements had been constructed. Once the entire scope of the project
was identified and the service area was identified, this assessment could be
spread as a deferred assessment or as an ordinary assessment and would
represent a partial assessment for laterals serving the district identified.
Once the balance of the improvements were constructed, a supplemental
assessment would be made for that work.
Preparation of the Feasibility Report would cost an estimated $5, 000. The amount
of the cost of the study would be over and above the unassessed project cost
now on the books.
There appear to be three alternatives:
1. Order a Feasibility Report and proceed with the creation of a
Special Improvement District, pursuant to Chapter 429,
2. Pay the amount of the assessment from PIR Fund; prepare a
Feasibility Report which would identify the service area and be on
record as deferring this assessment until the balance of the
improvements were made in the service area;
John Anderson November 23, 1981
Market Street Storm Sewer Page -2_
3. Pay the entire amount out of the General Fund and special
levy for $15, 776. 99.
Recommendations:
It is the recommendation of the Engineering Staff that City Council select
Alternate No. 2, that the amount of $15, 776. 99 be paid out of the PIR Fund
and that a Feasibility Report be ordered. The Feasibility Report should
identify the balance of the work required and the service area. City Council
should be on record as deferring the assessment until the balance of the improve-
ments are made.
Action Requested :
Direct Staff to pay $15, 776. 99 out of the PIR Fund.
Direct Staff to prepare a Feasibility Report for the laterals required for the
Market Street Storm Sewer.
HRS/jiw
Attachment
MEMO TO: Bo Spurrier
City Engineer
FROM: Steve Hurley
Engineering Technician
RE: Market Street Storm Sewer Unassessed Project Costs
DATE: September 10, 1981
Introduction:
On July 21, 1981, City Council directed staff to attempt reconstruction of
an assessment roll and proceed with assessments for the Market Street
Storm Sewer Project.
Background:
An attempt was made to identify the project for which $15,776.99 in unassessed
project costs remain on City books. That project appears to be 1976-1 Public
Improvement Program, Project No. 2, Schedule M. Schedule M consists of streets,
sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer along Market Street from 1st Avenue
to 7th Avenue. Resolution No. 1101 states that the $15,776.99 belongs to the
storm sewer portion of the Market Street Project. As Built plans received
from Suburban Engineering indicate that the storm sewer part of that project
consists of 125 feet open drainage ditch and 223 feet of 33 inch RCP flowing
to the existing storm sewer in Market Street.
City Engineering records, Suburban Engineering records and the City Clerk's
records were searched for any reference to the Market Street Storm Sewer
Project. A specific effort was made to locate information concerning the
benefitted property owners and the storm sewer tributary area. Nothing in
this regard was found.
Resolution No. 909, ordering the 76-1 improvements deleted the Market Street
portion, however, Resolution No. 932 ordered the Market Street Storm Sewer
back into the 76-1 Program.
City records show that the contractor, McGrand & Frovarp, Inc. , bid $9,298.20
for the storm sewer job. A "Preliminary Bond Issuance Data" form indicated
that $9,298.20 would be a deferred assessment until the main system was
built in an "unknown" number of years. It also indicated that a $15,000
prepayment was expected before the assessment roll was certified.
SH/j iw
Law Offices of
KRASS, MEYER & KANNING — —
Chartered Phillip R. Krass
'Shakopee Professional Building Barry K. Meyer
1221 Fourth Avenue East Philip T. Kenning
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Trevor R.Walston
(612)445-5080
MEMORANDUM
TO: John K. Anderson
FROM: Phillip R. Krass
DATE: November 30, 1981
SUBJECT: Unassessed Project Costs for Market Street Storm Sewer
Introduction: I have reviewed Bo Spurrier's November 17th, 1981, Memorandum and
discussed this matter with both you and Bo on the telephone.
Background: My understanding is that the work done back in 1976 as part of the
1976-1 Public Improvement Program, was done with the understanding that it would
be assessed at sometime in the future when additional work was done to complete
the Project. It was not anticipated exactly when this work would be done.
The problem this creates is that the City Council appears to have recognized in
1976 that the benefit to the properties in question would not be complete until
additional work was done.
Alternatives : 1. Attempt to assess at this time.
2. Wait for the laterals to be constructed and assess for the
laterals as well as the trunk.
Recommendations: Chapter 429.051 provides as follows:
"The municipality may subsequently reimburse itself for all or any
of the portion of the cost of a water, storm sewer or sanitary sewer
improvement so paid (paid by the municipality from non-assessment
funds) by levying additional assessments upon any properties abutting
on, but not previously assessed for the improvement, on notice and
hearing as provided for the assessments initially made. To the extent
that such an improvement benefits non-abutting properties which may be
served by the improvement when one or more later extensions or improve-
ments are made but which are not initially assessed therefor, the
municipality may also reimburse itself by adding all or any of the
portion of the cost so paid to the assessments levied for any of such
later extensions or improvements , provided that notice that making such
additional amount will be assessed is included and the notice of hearing
on the making such extensions or improvements . The additional assess-
ments herein authorized may be made whether or not the properties
assessed were included in the area described in the notice of hearing
on the making of the original improvement. "
Mr. John K. Anderson
Page 2
November 30, 1981
There appears to be statutory authority for making the assessment now, but it would
be my opinion that the statute simply did not Invision what we are proposing now, that
is, the construction of the trunk facility, assessment of that facility five years
after its construction and before the construction of the laterals and then later
construction of and assessment of the laterals. An awfully strong argument is avail-
able to the property owners that the City Council has already determined that benefit
has not been given these properties until the laterals are constructed. Moreover, with
the small amount of funds involved, we are very liable to expend staff time and money
far in excess of the amount involved.
It is the recommendation of our office that you pay the amount in question from other
funds and assess the amount at such time as you construct and assess any laterals.
61711
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Valley Fair Ride Inspection
DATE: November 25 , 1981
Introduction
City Council has been dealing with the question of how best to do
Valley Fair ride inspections off and on for nearly a year. At
Council ' s July 21 , 1981 meeting, Council received a staff memo
outlining what other cities in other states were doing to inspect
theme parks , and a memo outlining what our legal responsibilities
were from Rod Krass . As a result of those memos and subsequent
Council discussion, staff was directed to meet with Valley Fair
officials and draft the language that would go in a contract and/or
Ordinance that would secure ride inspection through certification
by a Registered Minnesota Engineer.
Background
The initial approach taken by staff was to consider outlining the
specific engineering requirements on testing that the Registered
Engineer would be required to certify to. Ultimately this approach
was discarded because it was leading us right back to where we were,
that is , heavily involved in prescribing what kind of inspection was
required. Even this level of involvement placed the City in a role
that increased our exposure to a law suit .
Therefore , we began again with the basic concept which was to require
certification by a Registered Minnesota Engineer. The results of
these discussions have been put in outline form and are attached.
Alternatives
1 . Reject the proposed certification concept .
2 . Accept certification as proposed in the outline in the memo
from Mr. Houser dated November 12 , 1981 .
3 . Accept the certification concept as proposed with modifications .
Recommendation
The certification concept outlined in the Novemerber 12th memo from
Mr. Houser has been reviewed by Mr. Krass . Staff recommends alter-
native #2 .
Action Requested
Direct staff to draft an Ordinance incorporating the certification
of ride inspection at theme parcels s outlined in Mr. Houser' s memo
of November 12 , 1981 ; and an—agrttent to be executed by the City
and Valley Fair insuring that said certification will be accomplished
as required by the Ordinance .
JKA/jms
— EH,i, f CITY OF SHA E
i ,
: a
129 East First Avenue, Shako, Minnesota 55379 6
(r;+p1►P��
MEMO
TO: H.R . Spurrier/City Engineer
FROM: LeRoy Houser/Bldg. Official
SUBJECT:_ Valley Fair
DATE: November 12 , 1981
Bo:
Evidently you are the one who is taking care of the new program for
Valley Fair. Remember in your negotiations the following is to be . '
mandated :
1 . New Construction:
a) All new construction other then ride construction
is still subject to permit fees, state and local
code requirements and local inspections as required
by code.
2 . New Ride Construction:
a) All new ride construction is subject to permits
and fees of $10.00 per ride for documentation.
b ) The proposed ride in its entirety will have plans
submitted and signed by registered Minnesota
architects and/or engineers, (Footings, structure,
electrical and mechanical ) ; or for construction of
used rides registered Minnesota engineers shall
furnish the City with a code compliance certificate
stating that the ride has been inspected by him(them)
and is "to the best of his belief and knowledge
structurally and mechanically safe and is in con-
formance with all applicable codes to same. "
c ) The application for permit will have an attachment
signed by the engineer(s) that states, (or each
sheet may be signed) , "The plans detailed in sheet
# ' s for the ride have been drawn and/or reviewed
by me and to the best of my belief and knowledge
are in conformance with all applicable state and
local codes governing same. "
d) Prior to the certificate of occupancy being issued
for the operating year the engineer(s) will provide
a written certificate of code compliance for any
new rides stating that "to the best of his belief
and knowledge the construction and erection are
in conformance with plan specifications as sub-
mitted at permit application time."
•
e
Spurrier/Houser
Valley Fair
Page -2-
b) A registered Minnesota engineer shall furnish
the City with a code compliance certificate
stating that all rides have been inspected by
him or his designated agents and "to the best
of his belief and knowledge have been found to
be structurally, electrically and mechanically
safe and are in conformance with all applicable
codes and laws relating to same. "
c ) Valley Fair shall provide a $1 ,000,000.00
liability insurance policy covering the City
of Shakopee and any of its designated agents
(note will not cover registered engineers,
only City elected and appointed officials) .
4 . The above does not preempt the City ' s right of entry,
electrical , plumbing, mechanical , building code or
fire code requirements or applicable permit fees.
5 . Prior to issuing a certificate of occupancy, the City
Inspection Department will conduct an inspection of
buildings for safety, electrical , mechanical , plumbing
and fire code compliance .
6 . License Fees :
a) License fees are to remain at present City Code
level .
1,H: cu
, --�
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 507° (i .e . the City as a whole pays for 507°) . 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 .
4
.
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 507°,
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 .
.LULI Jewel r J.nancing
Page Two
October 28, 1981
6
2 . Modify the City ' s current storm sewer policy so that it would
read, "assess the benefit received up to a maximum of 507. 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
507. 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 1007, 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 507. 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 507. 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 507, 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 207.,
a savings that might make some projects feasible when
the "benefit" test is applied and it would keep the
present policy in place.
1
Storm Sewer Financing
Page Three
October 28, 1981 Iv
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
5O7 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
U
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
"/ e J
Member introduced the
following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. p"-/‹.//
c//
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION
AND CONSTRUCTION OF A PROJECT UNDER THE
MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
ACT AND THE SALE AND ISSUANCE OF A COMMER-
CIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE NOTE TO FINANCE
THE PROJECT, AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING
THE EXECUTION OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTS
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Shakoppe, Minnesota (the City) , as follows :
Section 1 , Definitions.
1 . 01 . In this Resolution, the following terms
shall have the following respective meanings, unless the
context hereof clearly requires otherwise:
Act: the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Develop-
ment Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474 , as amended;
Assignment of Rents: the Assignment of Rents and
Leases, from the Mortgagors to the Lender;
Improvements: the approximately 28 , 900 square foot
commercial shopping center to be renovated and constructed
on the Land by the Obligors in accordance with the terms of
the Loan Agreement;
City: the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, or its
successors;
Construction Loan Agreement: the Construction Loan
Agreement, among the City, the Lender, the Obligors and the
Disbursing Agent;
Disbursing Agent: Title Insurance Company of Minnesota,
or its successors or assigns under the Construction Loan
Agreement;
Land: the real estate described in Exhibit A
attached to the Mortgage;
l Lender: First Southdale National Bank of Edina, in
Edina, Minnesota, and its successors and assigns;
Loan Agreement: the Loan Agreement to be entered
into between the City and the Obligors;
g a-
.
Loan Assignment: the Assignment of Loan Agreement,
to be executed by the City in favor of the Lender;
Mortgage: the Mortgage, Security Agreement and
Fixture Financing Statement, from the Mortgagors, as mort-
gagor, to the Lender, as mortgagee;
Mortgagors: the Obligors and Fremajane Wolfson
and Jeanne Segal;
Note: the Commercial Development Revenue Note
(Shakopee Shops Shopping Center) , Series 1981, dated as of
the date of its delivery, numbered R-1 , and issued by the
City in the principal amount of $600, 000, or so much as may
be advanced thereunder;
Obligors: Blair Wolfson, Robert E. Segal, Robert E.
Segal, as personal representative of the estate of Benjamin
Segal, deceased, and Blair Wolfson and Elizabeth Wolfson, as
trustees of the residuary trust established under the last
will and testament of Wilfred Wilson, deceased, and their
permitted successors and assigns under the Loan Agreement;
Project: the Improvements and the Project Equipment;
Project Costs: those costs defined as Project Costs
in Section 1 . 01 of the Loan Agreement;
Project Equipment: the items of furniture, machinery,
equipment, display fixtures or other personal property located
on the Land and paid for in whole or in part from the proceeds
of the Note, together with any replacements thereof or substi-
tutions therefor; and
Resolution: this -resolution authorizing the issuance
of the Note.
Section 2 . Authorization and Receipt of Documents.
2 . 01. Authorization. The City is authorized by
the Act to issue revenue bonds or notes and loan the proceeds
thereof to business enterprises to finance the acquisition,
construction and equipping of "projects" as defined in the
Act, and to make all contracts, execute all instruments and
do all things necessary or convenient in the exercies of such
authority.
2 . 02 . Preliminary City Approval . By preliminary
resolution adopted by the Council on January 6 , 1981, this
Council approved the sale of revenue notes pursuant to the
Act in the aggregate principal amount of $600, 000 and the
loan of the proceeds thereof to S&W Realty for the payment
of Project Costs, so as to render the Project suitable for
use as a commercial shopping center, and authorized the
preparation of such documents as may be appropriate to the
Project. S&W Realty, the approved borrower under the pre-
liminary resolution, was intended by the Obligors to be a
Minnesota general partnership composed of the Obligors.
It is now proposed that the Obligors individually and jointly
and severally be the borrowers of the proceeds of the Note
and -the obligors under the Loan Agreement. The Lender has
approved and the Council hereby approves the substitution of
the Obligors for S&W Realty.
2 . 03 . Receipt of Documents. Pursuant to the
resolution granting preliminary approval of the Project,
there have been prepared and presented to this Council
copies of the following documents, all of which have been
reviewed by the City Attorney and which are now, or shall
be, placed on file in the office of the City Clerk:
(a) Loan Agreement;
(b) Loan Assignment;
(c) Construction Loan Agreement;
(d) Mortgage;
(e) Assignment of Rents;
(f) Form of the Note.
Section 3 . Findings. This Council hereby finds,
determines and declares that:
(a) the Project to be financed constitutes a
"pros ect" as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 474 . 02,
Subdivision la;
(b) the purpose of the Project is, and the effect
thereof will be, (i) to encourage the development of economi-
cally sound commerce in the City, (ii) to increase the tax
base of the City and overlapping taxing jurisdictions, and
(iii) to provide additional employment opportunities for
residents of the City and surrounding areas;
(c) the Project has been approved by the Commissioner
of Securities of the State of Minnesota as tending to further
the purposes and policies of the Act;
(d) it is desirable that the Partnership be author-
ized, in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Section 474 . 03 (7) , and subject to the terms and conditions set
forth in the Construction Loan Agreement and Loan Agreement,
which terms and conditions the City determines to be necessary,
CC-
desirable and proper, to provide for the construction of
the Project by such means as shall be available to the
Obligors, and with or without advertisement for bids as
required for the construction and acquisition of other
municipal facilities;
(e) it is desirable that the Note in the amount
of $-600, 000 be issued by the City to the Lender, and that
the .,City' s interest in the Loan Agreement and the payments
receivable pursuant thereto be pledged to the Lender pursuant
to the Loan Assignment as security for the payment of prin-
cipal of and interest on the Note;
(f) the payments required by the Loan Agreement
are fixed, and required to be revised from time to time as
necessary, so as to produce income and revenue sufficient
to provide for prompt payment of the principal of and
interest on the Note, and the Loan Agreement and Mortgage
also provide that the Obligors and the Mortgagors are required
to pay all expenses of the operation and maintenance of the
Project including, but without limitation, adequate property
damage insurance thereon and insurance against all liability
for injury to persons or property arising from the operation
thereof, and all taxes and special assessments levied upon
or with respect to the Project and payable during the term
of the Loan Agreement; and
(g) under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Section 474 . 10, and as provided in the Loan Agreement and
Note, the Note is not to be payable from nor constitute a
charge, lien or encumbrance upon any funds of the City
other than the revenue pledged to the payment thereof; the
City is not subject to any pecuniary liability thereon;
no holder of the Note shall ever have the right to compel
any exercise of the taxing powers of the City to pay the
Note or the interest thereon, nor to enforce payment thereof
against any property of the City except the revenues pledged
to the payment thereof; the Note shall recite that it is
payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment
thereof; and the Note shall not constitute a debt of the
City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory
limitation.
Section 4 . Approval and Execution of Documents.
The form of Loan Agreement, Loan Assignment and Construction
Loan Agreement referred to in Section 2 . 03 hereof are hereby
approved. Each such document , with such variations, inser-
tions and additions as the City Attorney may hereafter approve,
are directed to be executed in the name and on behalf of the
City by the Mayor, City Administrator and City Clerk. In
the absence or disability of the Mayor any of the documents
authorized by this Council to be executed shall be executed
by the acting Mayor, and in the absence of the City Adminis-
trator or City Clerk by an officer or officers of the City
who in the opinion of the City Attorney has authority to
execute such documents. Copies of all of the documents
shall be delivered, filed and recorded as provided therein.
The forms of Mortgage and Assignment of Rents are also
approved.
Section 5, The Note.
5. 01. Form and Authorized Amount. The Note shall
be issued substantially in the form on file in the office
of the City Clerk, with such appropriate variations, omis-
sions and insertions as are permitted or required by this
Resolution, in the principal amount of $600, 000, or so much
thereof as may be advanced thereunder.
5 . 02 . Execution. The Note shall be executed on
behalf of the City by the signature of the Mayor and attested
by the signatures of the City Administrator and City Clerk,
and shall be sealed with the corporate seal of the City. In
the event any officer whose signature shall appear on the
Note shall cease to be such officer before the delivery
thereof, such signature shall nevertheless be valid and
sufficient for all purposes.
5 . 03 . Mutilated, Lost and Destroyed Note. In case
the Note shall become mutilated or be destroyed or lost,
the City shall cause to be executed and delivered a new Note
of like outstanding principal amount and tenor in exchange
and substitution for and upon cancellation of the mutilated
Note, or in lieu of and in substitution for such Note destroyed
or lost, upon payment by the holder of the reasonable expenses
and charges of the City in connection therewith, and, in case
a Note is destroyed or lost, upon filing with the City evi-
dence satisfactory to it of such loss or destruction.
5. 04 . Registration, Assignment and Exchange. The
City Clerk shall act as Note Registrar and as such shall
maintain a Note Register for purposes of recording the name
and address of the owner of the Note. The Note shall initially
be registered in the name of the Lender. The Note shall be
transferable by the registered owner or its attorney duly
authorized in writing upon presentation thereof to the City
Clerk together with a written instrument of transfer satis-
factory to the City Clerk duly executed by the registered
owner or its attorney. The following form of assignment shall
be sufficient for said purpose:
For value received _ hereby sells,
assigns and transfers unto
the within Note of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota,
and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint
attorney to transfer said Note on
the books of said City with full power of substi-
tution in the premises.
Dated:
Registered Owner
. 84c61
Such transfer shall also be noted on the Note . Upon request
of the registered owner or transferee, and upon surrender of
the Note, the City shall execute and deliver one or more
other notes, in denominations of $1000 or integral multiples
thereof, in an aggregate principal amount equal to the prin-
cipal amount of the Note which then remains unpaid, and
maturing at the same time or times as the then unpaid principal
thereof, and the Note shall be promptly cancelled by the City
Clerk. No service charge shall be made for such transfer or
exchange, but the City may require payment of a sum sufficient
to cover any tax, fee or govenmental charge or other expense
incurred by the City with respect to such exchange. In the
event of a request for the issuance of more than one new note
upon any such exchange, the City Council shall by resolution
make such provisions relative to the form, whether coupon or
registered, of such notes as shall be deemed necessary or
desirable to ensure that the terms of and the security for
the indebtedness represented by the Note shall not be varied
in any material respect by reason of such exchange.
5 . 05 . Delivery and Use of Proceeds . Prior to delivery
of the Note, the documents referred to in Section 2 . 03 hereof
shall be completed and executed in form and substance as
approved by the City Attorney and an original , executed counter-
part of each such document shall be delivered to the Lender.
The City shall thereupon deliver to the Lender the Note,
together with a copy, duly certified by the City Clerk, of
this Resolution and such closing certificates as are required ,
by bond counsel .
Upon delivery of the Note and the above items to the
Lender, the Lender shall , on behalf of the City, advance and
disburse the proceeds of the Note to the Obligors in payment
and reimbursement of Project Costs pursuant to the provisions
of the Loan Agreement and -the Construction Loan Agreement.
Adopted: , 1981.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolu-
tion was duly seconded by Member , and
upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof :
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Volunteered Hazardous Waste Processing Site
DATE: November 25 , 1981
Introduction
City Council , at its regular October 20, 1981 meeting tabled proposed
Resolution No. 1911 pending written communication from the Waste Man-
agement Board stating that they would agree to conditions 1-4 in
Resolution No. 1911 . We have received the attached letter from Robert
Dunn, Chairman of the Waste Management Board.
Background
Although Mr. Dunn does not state directly that his Board cannot agree
to conditions in proposed Resolution No. 1911 , the reference in his
letter indicates that the Board cannot comply with conditions 2 , 3 and
4 . I called Mr. Dunn on November 24th to insure than I am interpreting
his letter corectly. I am.
Alternatives
1 . Approve the original Resolution No. 1911 reoffering the volunteered
site .
2 . Approve the revised Resolution No. 1911 withdrawing the site .
Recommendation
Because conditions 2 , 3 and 4 were always part of the City' s conditions
in offering the site, staff recommends alternative #2 . Note I have
also attached a recent PCA report on the monitoring going on at the
old PCI site .
Council Action
Approval of Resolution No. 1911 , A Resolution Withdrawing A Volunteered
Hazardous Waste Processing Site.
• •
aix«Et.
/ Mr . Melvyn Bell
Page three
As a result of the volatile organic contamination in the ground
water beneath the PCI site and in order to complete the clean up
activities at the site , the Agency requests that PCI perform
the following clean up and monitoringactivities at the site :
1 . General Site Clean Up
a . Testing and proper disposal of liquid in the concrete holding
basin in front of the old incinerator .
b . Investigation of all underground tanks on the site to
make sure that they are empty, and have them either filled
with sand or removed from the site .
c . Removal and proper disposal of all above ground storage
tanks , the concrete holding basins around the tanks and
in front of the old incinerator , the incinerator and
its appurtenants , and the loading area structure .
d . Removal of visually contamined soils around the storage
tanks , around other structures on the site and along the
fence line on the east and southeast edges .
2 . Soil Contamination by Volatile Organic_adrocarbons
Wrill five soilborings to the shallow ground water table
with soil sample collection at 2 foot intervals . Analyze five
of the intervals from each boring for volatile organic
hydrocarbons so that the extent of soil contamination can
be determined and necessary remedial actions evaluated .
3 . Continued Monitoring of PCI Monitorin Wells
Quarterly monitoring of the five (57" PCI wells for volatile
organic hydrocarbons should commence for a one ( 1 ) year
period beginning with the September 25, 1981 sample collec-
tion and analysis so that ground water contamination levels can
be confirmed and necessary remedial actions evaluated .
After completion of analysis of the soil samples , the Agency can
determine the necessity and extent of any remedial action to pre-
vent ground water contamination .
Finally, we have outstanding the question of civil penalties .
The staff suggests that we discuss this civil penalties issue
after completion of the soil study but please understand that it
is out intent to seek the payment of a civil penalty .
r ,�
og THAI STATE OF MINNESOTA I fi-
V fre- 9,4 WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD ROBERT G. DUNN
q +7 123 THORSON BUILDING CHAIRMAN
♦ 7323 58TH AVENUE NORTH
TELEPHONE:
'41,N. . , CRYSTAL, MINNESOTA 55428 METRO AREA(612)536-0816
444 -e . 0 November 13, 1981 OUTSTATE 1-800-652-9747
INNS
RECEIVED
Mr. John K. Anderson NOV 24 1981
City Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 East rirst Avenue -r31fG ;_KGPEE
Shakopee, MN 55379
Re : Shakopee ' s Volunteered Hazardous Waste
Processing Site
Dear Mr. Anderson :
I have received your letter of November 6 , 1981 and feel that there
still exists some misunderstanding concerning the Waste Management
Board ' s responsibilities for the inventory of hazardous waste
processing facilities .
As you know, the volunteered site in Shakopee has been included as one
of 18 areas proposed for processing facilities based on information
presented to the Board by Mayor Waiter Harbeck . The Board is now
holding hearings for each of the proposed areas and will identify a
final inventory of preferred areas for processing facilities in early
1982 .
The Board is able to offer two advantages through the inventory of
preferred areas .
1 . The Board will have basic land use and natural resources infor-
mation available for each area ; and
2 . The Board can offer aid to a potential developer in obtaining
local permits through the supplementary review process .
The Board ' s authorities for hazardous waste processing under the Wagee
Management Act ore outlined in the enclosed legal memorandum. I direct
your attention specifically to pages 3 and 4 of that memorandum.
With this information in mind , it is questionable whether the Waste
Management Board would be in a position to supply the resources and
authorities requested in items 2 , 3 and 4 in Shakopee Resolution No.
1911 .
BOARD MEMBERS. DISTRICT 1 LAURENCE HUNTER, Hastings DISTRICT 5 LOUISE KUDERLING,Minneapolis
DISTRICT 2 KEITH KUITERS.Clarks Grove DISTRICT 6 THOMAS RENNER, Elk River
DISTRICT 3 WILLIAM KIRCHNER, Richfield DISTRICT 7 ALLAN EIDE, Hitterdal
DISTRICT 4 MILTON KNOLL,JR, White Bear Lake DISTRICT 8 DAVID HARTLEY, Hermantown
bb
RESOLUTION NO. 1911
A RESOLUTION VOLUNTEERING A HAZARDOUS WASTE PROCESSING 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/qr
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 have full authority to make and enforce any
health and safety regulations .
4. That the City of Shakopee shall have final authority over
all private and governmental decisions regarding the con-
trol and monitoring of said site should it be selected as
a site for hazardous waste processing.
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. 1911
A RESOLUTION WITHDRAWING A VOLUNTEERED HAZARDOUS WASTE
PROCESSING 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 had volunteered the inactive
Pollution Controls Incorporated (PCI ) hazardous 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, and
WHEREAS , the Waste Management Board cannot assure the City of
Shakopee that the City would have full authority to make and enforce
any health and safety regulations , and that the City of Shakopee
would have final authority over all private and governmental deci-
sions regarding the control and monitoring of said site should it
be selected as a site for hazardous waste processing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the City formally withdraws said volun-
teered site .
Adopted in session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee , Minnesota , held this day of
1981 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST :
City Clerk
Approved as to form this day
of , 1981 .
City Attorney
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk
RE: Fee Resolution for 1982
DATE: November 27 , 1981
Introduction
The City Council adopted a 1982 budget including an increase of 10%
in revenues derived from liquor, beer and engineering fees and 50%
in sewer service fees . In addition, Council in separate action
changed several other fees for 1982 . The attached Resolution incor-
porates all the changes in the Master Fee Resolution for 1982 .
Changes
The attached fee resolution includes a 10% increase in liquor, beer
and engineering fees ; revises the on site well and sewage disposal
permits to coincide with Scott County charges ; revises garbage rates
as approved for 1982 ; revises sewer service charges as budgeted;
adds a $25 charge for the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan (pre-
viously omitted) ; reflects our current rental agreement with the
State for snow removal ; and increases application fees for plats and
subdivisions by $45 .00 for signing as approved.
All of these changes plus the unchanged fees and charges are updated
annually in one resolution in accordance with the recommendation of
our codifiers, and so that all fees will be kept in one document .
Action Recommended
Offer Resolution No. 1943 , A Resolution Setting Fees For City Licenses ,
Permits , Services and Documents , and move its adoption.
JSC/jms
Res. No. 1943
FEE SCHEDULE
Adopted.
Shakopee, Minnesota
January 1 , 1982
Fees are listed by department and are to be updated annually.
CITY CLERK/Misc . Business Licenses
Movies & Theaters (Authorized by City Code 6. 42) Fees
1 . Annual fee for showing 16 mm films $ 25.00
2 . Annual fee for showing 35 mm films (or larger) 100.00
3. Annual fee for conducting theatrical play(s) 25.00
Scavengers [Dumping or discharge of waste]
(Authorized by City Code 6.43)
1 . From sources within the City of Shakopee
(measured to nearest 100 gallons) 1 .00/100 gal.
2. From sources outside the City of Shakopee
(measured to nearest 100 gallons) 4. 50/100 gal .
No permit nor fee shall be required for pumping and
cleaning cesspools and/or septic tanks.
Gambling Devices Includi g Raffles
(Authorized by Ord. No. 9)
1 . Annual fee for gambling devices including raffles 100.00
2 . Annual fee for a separate raffle license 2.00
3. Annual fee for a bingo license ( if less than
five times per year there is no fee) 100.00
License for the Sale of Beer, Liquor, Wine, Set-up
License, Liquor License, Club License and Temporary
Beer License (Authorized by City Code 5.06)
1 . Annual fee for On Sale Beer License 275.00
2. Annual fee for Off Sale Beer License 88.00
3. Temporary Beer License 11 .00
4. Annual fee for Set Up License 88.00
5. Annual fee for On Sale Wine License 1/2 of On Sale Liquor Lic.
or $2 ,000 - whicheveris less
6. Annual fee for On Sale Club License 220.00
7. Annual fee for Sunday Liquor License 200.00
8. Annual fee for Off Sale Liquor License 150.00
9. Application & Investigation fee for Off
Sale or On Sale Liquor License :
a) If investigation within MN 55.00
b ) If investigation without MN 330.00
-C- _
Fees
10. Annual fee for On Sale Liquor License :
Customer Used Floor Area Bars Restaurants
Under 1 ,000 $3, 520 $2,970
1 ,000 - 2,000 4,070 3,520
2,000 - 3,000 4,620 4,070
3,000 - 4,000 5, 170 4,620
4,000 - 5,000 5,170
5 ,000 - 6 ,000 5,720
6, 000 - 7 ,000 6, 270
7 ,000 - 8,000 6,820
8,000 - 9,000 7,370
9,000 -10,000 7,920
Over 10,000 8,470
Other Business Regulations and Licenses
(City Code - Chapter 6 - all applicants require a
$5 .00 application fee)
Peddlers (Authorized by City Code 6 . 21 )
1 . Daily License Fee 5.00
2. Weekly License Fee 10.00
3. Annual License Fee 25.00
4. Six Month License Fee 20.00
5. Sale of a Single Truck Load or Car Load of Mdse. 5.00
Taxicabs and Drivers (Authorized by City Code 6. 22)
1 . Annual fee per vehicle 25 .00
Tobacco (Authorized by City Code 6. 23)
1 . Annual fee for Tobacco License 12.00
Shows, Non-Transient Theme Parks, Amusement Parks, etc .
(Authorized by City Code 6. 24)
1 . Annual license fee equaling the number of rides
X $45.00 45.00/ride
2. Show without rides 75 .00
3. Non-Transient Theme Parks A.1 per agree-
ment
Billiards, Pool and Other Game Tables (Authorized by
City Code 6.31 )
1 . Annual license fee for the first table 100.00
-3-
Fees
2. Each additional table 50.00
Massage Parlors, Saunas, Steam Baths, Heat-Bathing
Rooms (Authorized by City Code 6. 40)
1 . Annual License fee 2000.00
2 . Initial license requires one time investigation
fee 500.00
Masseur and Masseuse Registration Fee (Authorized by
City Code 6.41 )
1 . Annual registration fee 100.00
Rental of Pat Thielen Rodeo Arena (Authorized by
Res. No. 1910)
Rental of arena for a period not to exceed seven . t
consecutive days :
a. Non-profit organizations within corporate
limits of City of Shakopee 0.00
b . Other non-profit organizations $200.00 or 15% of gross
ticket sales, whichever
is greater
c . Profit making organizations $200.00 or 15% of gross
ticket sales, whichever
is greater
BUILDING INSPECTOR/ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR
Electrical Inspection (Authorized by City Code 4.05)
1 . Payment of Fees : are due and payable to the City of Shakopee
at or before commencement of the installation and shall be
forwarded to the City of Shakopee . An additional $ .50 State
Surcharge must accompany each permit .
2 . Signs : shall be computed in accordance with State •
Schedule with a minimum fee of 8 .00
3 . Swimming pool . 24.00 Minimum
4. Minimum fee for each separate inspection of an
installation , replacement , alteration or repair
limited to one inspection only . 8 .00
5 . Services , change of services , temporary services ,
additions , alterations or repairs on either
primary or secondary services shall be computed
separately .
a . 0 to and including 60 ampere capacity 6 .00
b. 60 to 100 ampere capacity 7 .50
Fees
c . 101 to and including 200 ampere capacity or
fraction thereof 10.00
d . For each additional. 100 ampere or fraction
thereof 4.00
6 . Circuit , installation of , additions , alterations
or repairs of each circuit or sub-feeder shall
be computed separately including circuits fed
from sub-feeders and including the equipment
served . Circuits of 250 volts or less .
a . 0 to and including 30 ampere capacity 2 .00
b. 31 to and including 100 ampere capacity 4.00
c . For each additional 100 ampere capacity or
fraction thereof 3 .00
The maximum fee on a single family dwelling or
farmstead which is limited to 100 ampere capacity
and limited to two inspections shall be 30.00
The maximum fee on a single family dwelling or
farmstead which is limited to a 200 ampere capacity
and limited to three (3) inspections shall be 45 .00
Additional inspections shall be at the minimum
fee as per section 6G. The maximum fee on an
apartment building shall not exceed 20.00/dwelling
unit for the first 20 units and
per dwelling unit for the balance 15 .00
A 2 unit dwelling (duplex) maximum fee per
unit as per single family dwelling.
For circuits over 250 volts double the fee for 250 volts or less .
6A. In addition to the above fees ; a charge of $1 .00 will be made
for each street lighting standard .
B . A charge of $2 .00 will be made for each traffic signal head.
C . In addition to the above fees , all transformers and generators
for light , heat and power shall be computed separately at
$3 .00 per unit plus 10¢ per KVA up to and including 100 KVA,
101 KVA and over at S¢ per KVA. The maximum fee for any
transformer or generator in this category is $20.00
D. In addition to the above fees , all transformers for signs
and outline lighting shall be computed at $2 .00 for the
first 500 VA or fraction thereof per unit , plus 20¢ for
each additional 100 VA or fraction thereof .
E . In addition to the above fees , (unless included in the maximum
fee filed by the initial installer) , remote controls , signal
circuits and circuits of less than 50 volts shall be computed
at $2 .00 per each ten openings or devices or each system plus
$ . 50 for each additional ten or fraction thereof .
F . For the review of plans and specifications of proposed installa-
tions , there shall be a minimum fee of $100.00 up to and includ-
ing $30,000 to be paid by persons or firms requesting the review.
G. When reinspection is necessary to determine whether unsafe
conditions have been corrected and such conditions are not
the subject of an appeal pending before the Board or any
court , a reinspection fee of not to exceed the original
unit fee , or $8 ,00 whichever is less , may be assessed in
writing by the Inspector.
H. For inspection not covered herein, or for requested special
inspections or services , the fees shall be $25.00 per man
hour, including travel time plus 28¢ per mile traveled,
plus the reasonable cost of equipment or material consumed.
This section is also applicable to inspection of empty con-
duits and such other jobs as determined by the Inspector.
•
7 . For inspections of transient projects including but not
limited to Carnivals and Circuses , the inspection fee shall
be computed as follows :
a . Power supply units - according to section 6C .
A like fee will be required on power supply units at
each engagement during the season , except that a fee
of $15 .00 per hour will be charged for additional time
time spent by the Inspector if the power supply is not
ready for inspection as required by law.
b . Rides , Devices or Concessions - shall be inspected at
their first appearance of the season and the inspection
fee shall be $10.00 per unit .
Plumbing Permits (Authorized by City Code 4 .05) Fees
1 . Alterations and Repairs - Minimum Fee 12 .00
+ 50¢ State Surcharge Tax
2 . New Construction
Residential - Minimum Fee 36 .00
+ 50¢ State Surcharge Tax
Commercial - Minimum Fee 60.00
+ 50¢ State Surcharge Tax
3 . Residential Plumbing Permit Fees
All fixtures listed below will be figured at 6..00/eagh,
Water Closet Water Softener
Lavatory (Basin) Bathtub
Floor Drain Laundry Tray
Sink Shower Stall
Disposal Dishwasher
Water Heater (Gas or Electric) Clothes Washer - Standpipe
Permit fees for rough-ins for future bathrooms will
be $5 .00 per fixture .
-6-
Fees ��
4. Replacements Only
Water Heater - Gas 12 .00
Water Softeners - New or replacement in other than
homes under construction (installer must be licensed
by the State Board of Health 12 .00
5. Commercial Plumbing Permit Fees
Water Closet , Lavatory (Basin) , Urinal ,
Individual Shower 6.00
Shower - Gang Type - Per Head 4.80
Drinking Fountain 6.00
Dental Unit 12 .00
Sink - Service or Mop 6.00
Flat rim, bar, counter, laboratory 8. 50
Pot or Skullery 8 . 50
Clothes Washer - First five units or less 18.00
Each Additional Unit 3.60
Floor Drain - 2 inch 6 .00
3 and 4 inch 7 .50
Catch Basin 9.00
Sewage Ejector 12 .00
Sumps and Receiving tanks 12 .00
Water Softeners 18.00
Water Heater - Gas - Replacement only 24.00
Building Permit Fees (Authorized by City Code 4.05)
Building Value Fee
$1 .00 to 500.00 $10.00
501 .00 to 2 ,000.00 $10.00 for the first 500.00 plus
1 . 50 for each additional 100.00
or fraction thereof, including
2 ,000.00
2 ,001 .00 to 25 ,000.00 $32 . 50 for the first 2 ,000.00 plus
6 .00 for each additional 1 ,000.00
or fraction thereof, to and includ-
ing 25 ,000.00
25 ,001 .00 to 50,000.00 $170. 50 for the first 25,000.00 plus
4. 50 for each additional 1 ,000.00
or fraction thereof, to and includ-
ing 50,000.00
50,001 .00 to 100,000.00 $283.00 for the first 50,000.00
plus 3.00 for each additional
1 ,000.00 or fraction thereof, to
and including 100,000.00
100,001 .00 and up $433.00 for the first 100,000.00
plus 2 . 50 for each additional
1 ,000.00 or fraction thereof.
•
State Surcharge : (These fees forwarded to the State Treasurer)
Less than $1 ,000 50¢
$1 ,000 but less than
$999 , 999 . 99 Times .0005
$1 ,000,000 but less than
$9 , 999 , 999 . 99 $1 ,000
$10,000,000 but less than
$19 , 999 , 999 . 99 $1 , 500
$20,000,000 & Over $2 ,000
Fire Protection Equipment hereby set as follows :
Stand pipes and hose cabinets shall be computed at 1% of the contract
plus 50¢ State Surcharge Tax.
Sprinkler Systems shall be computed at $5 .00 for the first 10 heads
and $2 .00 for each additional 10 heads or part thereof plus State
Surcharge Tax .
Well and Individual Sewage Disposal Permits hereby set as follows :
Fees
Residential : Well 5. 50
Commercial : Well 5. 50
Residential : Sewage Disposal �I I 3� • J 50
Commercial : Sewage Disposal 37. 50
Heating, Air Conditioning, Refrigeration, and Ventilation Permits
hereby set as follows :
Minimum Fee 9 .00
+500 State Surcharge Tax
Single Family Residence 24.00
i50¢ State Surcharge Tax
Central Air Conditioning (at the time of 6 .00
construction) 450¢ State Surcharge Tax
Refrigerant Systems Permit Fees
3 horsepower or less 9 .00
over 3 to 15 horsepower 12 .00
over 15 to 50 horsepower 30.00
excess of 50 horsepower 60.00
Alterations and repairs Minimum Fee
• Commercial fee shall be computed at 1 . 25% of the contract
plus State Surcharge Tax.
-8-
Permits shall cover only single installations .
Multiple furnaces , boilers , etc . shall be considered separate
installations .
Tank & Piping Permits hereby set as follows :
Underground fuel storage tanks and piping permit fee to be 1 .25%
of contract plus State Surcharge Tax .
Sewer & Water Opening Permit Fees hereby set as follows :
Fees
Water Opening 12 .00
Sewer Opening 12 .00
Water Heaters - New (Including Pool Heaters) hereby set as follows : '
For inputs not exceeding 100,000 BTU 9 .00
100,001 to 200,000 BTU 12 .00
200,001 to 300,000 BTU 14. 50
300,001 to 500,000 BTU 15.00
500,001 to 700,000 BTU 36 .00
700,001 to 1 ,000,000 BTU 48.00
Any fixture not listed above 6 .00
Rain water Leaders - all stacks 10 stories or less 12 .00
- all stacks over 10 stories 18.00
Area Roof Drains (each) 7 . 50
Lawn Sprinkler Systems - Residential 18.00
Lawn Sprinkler Systems - Commercial (This fee includes
water connection from building piping to yard side
of siphon breaker) 30.00
Commercial plumbing permits to be figured by the above
fixture schedule but at the time the permit is to be
issued, the permitee will certify the contract price
and the fee will be based on the above method or 1 . 251
of the contract price , whichever is greater .
Gas Piping Permits hereby set as follows :
Minimum Fee 3 .60
+50¢ State Surcharge Tax
Residential - Each fixture or appliance 2 .50
+SOO State Surcharge Tax
Alterations and Repairs - Minimum Fee
•
•
Where the gas piping is divided between two contractors
such as the Heating Contractor installing the gas line
to the furnace and the Plumbing Contractor doing the
balance of the gas piping, each Contractor shall take
out a permit .
Commercial
Fees
For installation of piping up to and including
two (2) inches in size , providing not over
three (3) openings 11 .00
and for each additional opening 3.00
For installation of piping exceeding two (2)
inches in size , providing not over three (3) . ,
openings 14. 50
and for each additional opening 4.00
Enameling ovens , retorts and similar gas burning
devices : Fees to be determined as for commercial
water heaters .
Steam Generators for process use (pressing, dry
cleaning , etc . ) : Fees to be determined as per
heating code .
Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Storage Form (Report)
Annual report processing 10.00
FINANCE - hereby set as follows :
Industrial Revenue Bond Fees
1 . Fee for the first $1 ,000,000 1000.00
2 . Fee for each additional dollar over $1 ,000,000 X .5%
3 . Legal expenses as billed
Garbage Rates (Authorized by City Code 3 .02)
1 . Urban Residence 4,33/month
2 . Senior Citizen in urban residence 2.80/month
3 . Commercial and non-urban rates not set by the City
-1.0-
•
Fees
Sewer Service Charges ( Authorized by City Code 3.02)
1 . Quarterly service charge 9 .00
2. For every 1 ,000 gallons or part thereof
of metered flow or water usage 1 . 14
3 . For annalized flow in excess of one million
gallons a service charge per million gallons
or part thereof of metered flow or water usage 49. 00/mil . gal .
Standard Service Availability Charge (SAC) Units for Various
Commercial , Public , and Institutional Facilities (Mandated by
MWCC) (These fees forwarded to MWCC)
Type of Facility Parameter SAC Un4s
Arenas 110 seats 1
Automobile Service 2 service bays 1
Ballroom
Facility without liquor service 825 sq. ft . 1
Facility with liquor service 590 sq. ft . 1
Banquet Room
Food catered 2060 sq. ft . 1
Food catering with dishwashing 1180 sq . ft . 1
Food preparation and dishwashing 825 sq . ft . 1
Food preparation , dishwashing with 590 sq . ft . 1
liquor
Barber Shop 4 chairs 1
Beauty Salon 4 stations 1
Boarding House 5 beds 1
Bowling Alleys 3 alleys 1
Car Wash (Self-Service) 1 stall 3
Car Wash (Service Station) 6
Car Wash
(Requires specification on equipment
flow rate and cycle time)
Churches 275 seats 1
Cocktail Lounge 23 seats 1
Fast Service Restaurant 22 seats 1
(minimal dishwashing)
Example : Pizza Parlor , McDonald ' s , etc .
-11-
Type of Facility Parameter SAC Units
General Office Building 2400 sq. ft .
floor space 1
Handball and Racquet Courts 1 court 2
Hospitals 1 bed 1
Laundromats
(requires water volume for cycle
time , 8 cycles per day)
Motels and Hotels (assume 2 persons/
room) 2 rooms 1
Nursing Home 3 beds 1
Restaurant (Drive-in) 9 parking spaces 1
Restaurant (18-24 hours service) 6 seats 1
Restaurant (12-18 hours service) 8 each 1
Restaurant ( 12 hours service) 12 seats 1
Restaurant (with cocktail lounge) 10 seats 1
Retail Stores 3000 sq. ft .
floor space 1
Rooming Houses 7 beds 1
Schools (Sunday) 55 students 1
Schools (Elementary) 18 students 1
Schools (Secondary) 14 students 1
Service Station (gas pumping only) 1
Service Station (with service center) 2
Service Station (with service center
and car wash) 8
Swimming Pools 900 sq. ft .
pool area 1
Tennis Courts 1 court 2
Theater 64 seats 1
Theater (drive-in) 55 parking spaces 1
Warehouses 14 employees 1
Speculative Warehouse 10,000 sq . ft . 1
(to be adjusted based on employees when user is established)
-12-
The SAC unit for a facility not included in the above list will be
determined by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. A request
for SAC unit determination should be made prior to the issuance of
the Building Permit.
Residential SAC Charge (Mandated by MWCC ) ( These fees forwarded to
MWCC)
Fees
Residential 425 .00/unit
Office Charges hereby set as follows:
1 . Assessment searches 5.00
2. Copy fee
General public . 20
Other governmental/non profit public service .07
3. City Code 25.00
4. Comprehensive Plan (see page 14) 25.00
POLICE
Accident Report Copies hereby set as follows :
1 . One page 2 .00
2 . Two pages 3.00
Towing and Impounding of Vehicles hereby set as follows:
Towing and impounding is done by a private contractor having
appropriate impounding facilities. Fees are set by contractor.
Dog Licenses_, Impounding Fees, etc. (Authorized by City
Code 10. 21 )
1 . Dog Licenses (good for the life of the dog) 5.00
2. First impoundment 10.00
3. Second impoundment 20.00 •
4. Third and successive impoundment within a 12-month
period 30.00
5. Amount charged per day when confined to the Pound 3.00
6. In the case of an unlicensed dog or a dog for whom
proof of a current rabies vaccination cannot be
shown, an additional penalty of $5.00 shall be paid.
-13-
ectCL•
Fees
PUBLIC WORKS
Equipment Rental hereby set as follows :
Caterpillar Grader (private) 38.00/hour
(State snow removal ) 33.00/hour
Front end loader (private) 38.00/hour
(State snow removal) 33.00/hour
Elgin street sweeper 40.00/hour
Littleford pull broom 15 .00/hour
2-1 /2 ton dump truck (single) 20.00/hour
5 ton dump trunk (tandem) 26 .00/hour"
Mower tractor 25 .00/hour
Asphalt roller (1-1/2 ton) 15 ,00/hour
Pull paver 12 .00/hour
Steamer 35 .00/hour
Huber maintainer 20.00/hour
Sewer rodder 40.00/hour
(or .50 per foot)
TV sewer system 40.00/hour
(or .25 per foot)
Sewer jetting cleaner 40.00/hour
(or .50 per foot)
Barricades w/flashers 3 .00/day
Barricades w/o flashers 1 . 50/day
State snow removal 33 .00/hour
PLANNING - hereby set as follows :
Application for Conditional Use Permit
Home Occupations 50.00
All Others 100.00
Renewal 10.00
Application for Variances
Single Family Residential 50.00
All Others 100.00
Application for Plats , Divisions ( incl . $45 .00 for
Preliminary Plat signing) 245 .00 +
$5/lot minimum
145 .00 +
$3/acre , whichever greater
-14-
•
Fees
Final Plat 50.00
Lot Split 50.00
Registered Land Survey 50.00
Lot Consolidation 50.00
Application for Rezoning ( incl. $45.00 for signing)
1 Acre or less 195 .00
Over 1 Acre 195 .00 + $10/Acre
Application for Planned Unit Development
Concept Plan 100.00
Preliminary Plan 200.00 + $15/Acre
Final Plan 100.00
Application for Fill & Mining Permit
1 - 1000 yards 25 .00
1000 - 20,000 yards 100.00 (C .U:P. Fee
Over 20,000 yards 100.00 (C .U. ) . Fee
+ all consultant
fees
2500.00 cash
deposit required
Application for Signs Permit
Permanent 20.00 -+- .25/sq ft
Temporary 5 .00
Copy of Official Maps
Zoning (22" x 34") 2 .00
(M" x 11") . 25
Special Printed Maps .25/sq. ft .
Topography Maps 50.00 + $5/Acre
Flood Plain Maps .00 Free
Developers Package
Land Use Regulations (Zoning) 5 .00
Subdivision Regulations 3.00
Sign Regulations 1 .00
Comprehensive Plan 25.00
ENGINEERING - hereby set as follows :
Department Fees (employees )
City Engineer 33.00/hour
Technician III 22.00/hour
Technician I 19.00/hour
Inspector II 19 . 00/hour
Inspector I 14.00/hour
Secretary 12 .00/hour
-15-
•
Fees
Salary multiplier ] . '/600 used when an employee ' s
rate is not specified above .
Project Plans & Specifications
Charged at 90% of the fees computed according to
Curve B expressed as a percentage of construction
costs for projects of average complexity from
1972 ASCE Manual No . 45 .
Permit Review
1 . Commercial 30.00
2 . Residential 15 .00
3 . Recheck @ 1/2 the original fee
Plan, Plat and Report Review
1 . Review 30.00
2 . Plus hourly rate
3 . Recheck @ hourly rate
•
Igc
RESOLUTION NO . 1943
A RESOLUTION SETTING FEES FOR CITY LICENSES,
PERMITS, SERVICES AND DOCUMENTS
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota, that the attached Fee Schedule, dated
January 1 , 1982, is hereby approved and adopted by reference
in its entirety as though repeated verbatim herein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that the attached Fee Schedule
shall become effective on January 1 , 1982, and Resolution No.
1814 shall be repeated effective January 1 , 1982.
Adopted in session of the City Council of
the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this day of
, 1981 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1981 .
City Attorney
`k1
sr
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: 1982 Non-Union Pay Schedule
DATE: November 20 , 1981
Introduction
The proposed 1982 pay schedule has been prepared in accordance with
City Council action in passing the 1982 Budget and Council action
November 4, 1981 to use the proposed 1981 clerical pay range sched-
ule through December 31 , 1982 .
Background
The City Council approved the 1982 Budget which included an overall
pay adjustment of 97 for City employees . This is consistent with the
increase provided the Police in the 2nd year of their contract and
the current negotiation with Public Works employees .
Changes in personnel from the 1981 pay schedule include : deletion
of the City Assessor ' s position, reduction of the HRA Director ' s
position to half-time , changing a part-time Engineering Tech I
from 3/4 time to full time, listing of the Assistant Police Chief
and custodians on this schedule, creation of a third Fire Department
Engineer at $700/year and an increase in the total number of autho-
rized volunteer Fireman positions from 33 to 34.
Summary & Recommendation
The proposed 1982 Pay Resolution for non-union employees merely
implements actions already taken by Council by authorizing the
issuance of pay warrants upon the City Treasury. Staff will be
preparing a comprehensive pay plan review during 1982 .
Action Requested
Offer Resolution No. 1944, A Resolution Adopting The 1982 Pay
Schedule for The Officers and Non-Union Employees Of The City
Of Shakopee , Minnesota , and move its adoption.
JKA/jms
11/20/81
CITY OF SHAKOPEE g j:---
1982 PAY SCHEDULE*
Positions
Elected Officials Salary Authorized
Mayor $ 3 ,600/year 1
Councilpersons 3 ,000/year 5
City Employees - Permanent/Full Time
City Administrator 33 , 790/year 1
City Engineer 33 ,572/year 1
Police Chief 33 ,267/year 1
Assistant Police Chief 150/month over 1
top sergeant
Community Services Director 3 ,222/year 1
(City share 10% of $32 ,223)
Superintendent of Public Works 30,848/year 1
Building Official 29 ,844/year 1
Finance Director 27 , 521/year 1
City Planner 21 ,800/year 1
City Clerk 18 , 530/year 1
Engineer Tech II 22 ,633/year 1
Engineer Tech I 19 ,857/year 2
Police Admin. Assistant See attached 1982 Clerical 1
Pay Ranges
Senior Accounting Clerk " 1
Building Secretary " 1
Engineering/Planning Secretary " 1
Finance Clerk " 1
Receptionist " 1
Police Clerk II " 1
Police Clerk " 1
City Employees - Permanent/Part Time
HRA Director 8 . 909/hour 1
City Attorney 20,940/year 1
Senior Custodian 6 . 54/hour 1
Custodian 5 . 93/hour 2
Fire Chief 2 ,000/year 1
Assistant Fire Chief ( 1st ) 1 ,000/year 1
Assistant Fire Chief ( 2nd) 900/year 1
Fire Department Engineer 1 ,650/year 1
1st Ass ' t Fire Department Engr. 1 , 350/year 1
2nd Ass ' t Fire Department Engr. 700/year 1
Training Officer 1 ,350/year 1
Captain 500/year 2
Firemen 7 . 35/hour 34
City Employees - Temporary Part Time
Misc. Temp. Part Time Employees 3 . 35/hour to N/A
8 . 75/hour
eNote : This is the 1981 Pay Schedule multiplied by 9% for all
positions except volunteer firemen and temporary, part
time employees which remain at their 1981. rate .
11/20/81
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
1982 PAY SCHEDULE
Clerical Ranges*
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7
Start 6 Mos 1 Yr 2 Yrs 3 Yrs 5 Yrs 10 Yrs
Range 1 674 709 743 780 820 861 905
Range 2 818 858 900 945 992 1041 1093
Range 3 872 916 961 1009 1059 1112 1167
Range 4 970 1018 1068 1122 1177 1236 1297
Job Classifications
Range 1
Public Works Clerk
Assessing Clerk
Range 2
Receptionist
Range 3
Police Clerk
Finance Clerk
Range 4
Police Admin. Assistant
Building Secretary
Engineering Secretary
Senior Accounting Clerk
*Note : This is the 1981 set of clerical pay ranges with each step
multiplied by 9%.
RESOLUTION NO. 1944
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1982 PAY SCHEDULE FOR THE OFFICERS
AND NON-UNION EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,
MINNESOTA, that the City Administrator be and the same is hereby
authorized to issue warrants upon the City Treasury, from and
after January 1 , 1982 or other date as specified and payable to
the duly elected, appointed, or hereby designated and appointed
non-union employees of the City of Shakopee , in accordance with the
attached 1982 pay schedule dated November 20 , 1981 heretofore
adopted , or hereinafter adjusted .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all aforesaid disbursements shall
be made subject to the prevailing conditions of employement , and
satisfactory performance of all the respective duties and responsi-
bilities as specified in the State Law, City Code and Resolutions
as adopted , or as amended and supplemented from time to time by
the Council .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all Resolutions in conflict with
this Resolution are hereby repealed and terminated, effective
December 31 , 1981 .
Adopted in session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee , Minnesota, held this day of
1981 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this day
of , 1981 .
City Attorney
gf
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Dedication of the Roadway East of Viking Steel as a
Public Highway
DATE: November 27 , 1981
Background
City Council , at its September 15 , 1981 meeting, reviewed the
public access problem( s ) regarding the Dressen Oil property.
After discussing the problem, Council directed staff to inves-
tigate the dedication of the existing North-South roadway
adjacent to the eastern property line of Viking Steel . The
investigation of this alternative is complete and the City
Attorney has drafted the necessary Ordinance which is attached.
Action Requested
Approval of Ordinance No. 81 , An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee
Affirming the Dedication of the Highway Herein Described as a
Public Highway Pursuant to MSA 160.05 .
JKA/jms
•
ORDINANCE ii 81 •
Fourth Series
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AFFIRMING THE DEDICATION OF THE HIGHWAY HEREIN
• DESCRIBED AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY PURSUANT TO MSA 160.05
PREAMBLE
WHEREAS, A roadway herein described has been opened and used in an open and
notorious manner by the general public and the City of Shakopee for more than 20
years last past and the City of Shakopee has worked the roadway and maintained it
as a public way for all of the aforesaid time and desires now to have it placed on
record as a public highway.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
SECTION Imo:— Highway Designated
The highway described in Exhibit A hereto attached and made a part hereof is
declared of record to be a public highway pursuant to MSA 160.05 because of its use
and maintenance by the City of Shakopee and the general public for more than 20 years
last past.
SECTION II: When in Force
This ordinance shall be published once in the official paper of the City of
Shakopee and shall be in full force and effect on and after the date of such publi-
cation.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota this day of
, 1981.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
-------- ------ ----- City Clerk -----
Prepared and approved as to form this 27th day of November, 1981
Cit Attorney
}
•
A public highway over and across the East 25. 0 feet and
the North 100. 0 feet of the East 80. 0 feet of the following described tract :
All that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of
Section 6, Township 115 North, Range 22 West, Scott County,
Minnesota, lying South of the railroad right-of-way of the Chicago,
St. Paul, Minneapolis, & Omaha Railroad and lying East of the
following described line: Commencing at a point on the South right-
of-way line of the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railroad,
South 79 degrees West 450. 9 feet from an iron pin located on the
East line of said Section 6, Township 115, Range 22 about 1, 260 •
feet North of the East Quarter corner of said Section 6, thence South-
easterly at right angles to said railroad right-of-way a distance of
328 feet; thence South and parallel with the East line of said Section 6
to a point on the South line of the Southeast Quarter of the North-
east Quarter of said Section 6; EXCEPTING therefrom the following
described tract: Commencing at a point on the South right--of-way
line of the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railroad South 79
degrees West 81. 5 feet from an iron pin located on the East line of
said Section 6 about 1,260 feet North of the East Quarter corner of
said Section 6, thence 79 degrees West along said railroad right-of-
way 369.4 feet, thence Southeasterly at right angles a distance of
328 feet, thence Northeasterly at right angles a distance of 305. 7
feet to a point 80 feet West of the Section line of said Section 6,
thence North parallel to and 80 feet West of the East line of said
Section 6 to the point of beginning of the excepted tract.
EXHIBIT A
o
AI /
max. '�'♦.� s
♦S' �t
`.
J
11
., t ic• '
i
1
ri$
',,,4*‘,'..' 8 `
,, ' �i,.
s
W
x Via°
xz.
s •`� II
r
A r«.- t
,,,,',\...":„.-
ctx '''i'-,.,'.
4 `
r.
} ?A 0. l t
�= '
' ,r I
-lit 1
� f
ot,,, ,,,.,,. 0- t
°
', _ i , .1, aiiPi
..moi - 1
r '
K
•
y� - LL a
x! .�1yJ xis '
s p
4014
, ' . iiiiil , . ,,,
t. v fi°
g
1 • 4
,r .
" rx ak '2.-..-.......,::-,7:46,..-
_
# -
. `' .'w_. ' F_ .y.<A 'N .rq. # Y
a �IF
p
,Y",�j*x q�,f
r •
A
-
_2.
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Prepayment of Assessments
DATE: November •27 , 1981
Background
City Council , at its October 6 , 1981 meeting, reviewed a request
from the Finance Director to modify our present procedure regarding
prepayment of assessments to improve the administration of assess-
ments . After discussing the matter, Council directed staff to
prepare the necessary Ordinance to implement the modification.
The City Attorney has prepareed the necessary Ordinance which is
attached.
Action requested
Approval of Ordinance No. 82 , An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee
Authorizing Partial Prepayment of Assessments for Local Improvements
Prior to Certification of the Assessment or Installments Thereof to
the County Auditor.
JKA/jms
g 111
ORDINANCE # 82
Fourth Series
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AUTHORIZING PARTIAL PREPAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS
FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS PRIOR TO CERTIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT OR INSTALLMENTS
THEREOF TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
SECTION I: Partial Prepayment of Special Assessments Permitted.
Partial prepayments of special assessments for local improvements may be made ,
after the adoptinn of the assessment and prior to the first certification thereof
to the County Auditor.
SECTION II: Limitation on Partial Prepayment of Special Assessments
There may be only one partial prepayment and it must be in an amount not less
than $100.
SECTION III: 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 of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Prepared and approved as toform this 27th day of November, 1981.
vT y Attorney
1 "` a4. "' s+ z $ "t'$''",:471.41•:,-- 3 e` .,2
SPRINGSTED Ci'q.9
/ INNCORPORATED
PUBLIC FINANCE
ADVISORS
INVITATION TO BID
ON
NEGOTIATED SALE
$165,000
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
GENERAL OBLIGATION JUDGEMENT BONDS OF 1982
Bonds Dated: January I, 1982 Interest Due: August I and February I
and February 1 commencing August I, 1982
The Bonds will mature February I as follows:
$55,000 1983-1985
The Bonds will not be subject to payment in advance of their stated maturity.
Bids must be for not less than $161,800 and accrued interest on the total
principal amount of the Bonds. The successful purchaser will be required to
furnish a certified or cashier's check in the amount of $1,650 payable to the
order of the City within 48 hours of notification of award.
Bidders shall specify rates in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. No rate
for a maturity shall exceed the rate specified for any subsequent maturity by
more than 1%. Neither the individual rate nor the effective rate for the entire
Issue shall exceed 12%.
The Bonds will be in the denomination of $5,000 in coupon form and non-
registrable and shall be delivered without cost to the purchaser within 40 days
following the date of their award.
The Bonds are offered subject to the approving legal opinion of Dorsey,
Windhorst, Hannaford, Whitney & Holladay of Saint Paul and Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
BID RECEIPT: December I, 1981 (Tuesday) at 11:00 A.M. Bids will be
received by the City's Financial Advisor, SPRINGSTED
Incorporated, 800 Osborn Building, Saint Paul,
Minnesota 55102, no later than 11:00 A.M.
AWARD: December I, 1981 (Tuesday) at 7:30 P.M. Bids received
will be compiled and submitted to the City Council for
appropriate action at their regularly scheduled meeting.
The date of this Invitation is November 18, 1981.
Further information may be obtained from the City's Financial Advisor,
SPRINGSTED Incorporated, 800 Osborn Building, Saint Paul. Minnesota 55102
612/222-4241.
800 Osborn Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 (612) 222-4241
PURPOSE AND SECURITY
Purpose
These Bonds are issued pursuant to Section 475, subdivision 6, Minnesota
Statutes. The City has heretofore paid a legal judgement and associated costs
out of available funds of the City in the amount of $155,451.37. To this amount
has been added $9,700 to provide for bond issuance costs and allowance for
discount bidding. Said judgement arose from a suit regarding special
assessments against benefited property. The proceeds of the Issue will be used
to reimburse the internal loan.
Security
These Bonds are general obligations of the City for which the City shall pledge
its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes
without limit as to rate or amount. In anticipation of issuing these Bonds, the
City has heretofore certified a tax levy in the amount of $61,572 for collection
in 1982. Upon the sale of these Bonds, the City will certify to the county
auditor a tax levy which will provide 105% of the required debt service
payments as required by statute. The City has budgeted up to $20,000 of
general unencumbered funds to pay the difference of the tax levy made and the
required debt service due through February I, 1983.
STATISTICAL DATA
1980 Indicated Market Value of Taxable Property: $369,050,674*
* Calculated by dividing the county assessor's estimated market value of
$266,085,536 by the EARC's 1979 sales ratio of 72.1% for the City.
1980 Assessed Value: $79,063,402
Real Estate $77,428,930 97.9%
Personal Property 1 .634,472 2. I
Total $79,063,402 100.0%
1980 Taxable Assessed Value: $68,451,455
1980 Assessed Value $ 79,063,402
Less: Contribution to Fiscal Disparities Pool ( 10,575,902)
Plus: Distribution from Fiscal Disparities Pool 2,21 1 ,204
Less: Captured Tax Increment Value (2,247,249)
1980 Taxable Assessed Value $ 68,451 ,455
9"' Q'
1980 Taxable Assessed Value By Class of Property
Residential $24, 163,509 35.3%
Residential Non-Homestead 6,683,070 9.8
Commercial/Industrial, Public Utility
and Personal Property 32,857,919* 48.0
Other 4,746,957 6.9
Total $68,451 ,455 100.0%
* Fiscal disparities and tax increment adjustments were applied to this class of
property.
Debt Statistics
General Obligation Debt (Includes This Issue) as of 12-1-81 $8,540,000
Debt Service Funds on Hand as of 10-31-81 3,321 ,532
Net General Obligation Debt $5,218,468
Special Obligation Debt $5,300,000
These Bonds are secured by a pledge of all tax increment revenue from the
defined project area and a guarantee by Kmart Corporation for payment of up
to 25% of principal and 25% of interest, in the event tax increment revenues
are insufficient at any time. These Bonds are not a general obligation of the
City.
Debt Ratios
Net General Obligation Debt
To Indicated Market Value 1 .41%
Per Capita - Residential Share $185.30
Indirect Debt
Debt Applicable
To Valuation
Within City
1980 Taxable G.O. Debt
Taxing Unit* Assessed Value As of 6-2-81 Percent Amount
Scott County $ 231 ,700,958 $ 1 ,005,000 29.5% $ 296,475
ISD 720 (Shakopee) 75,044,522 6,800,000 85.8 5,834,400
ISD 191 (Burnsville) 230,961 ,839 23,095,000 1 .8 415,710
SISD 917 (Vo-Tech) 991 , 195, 160 2,559,000** 0.4 10,236
Metropolitan Council I 1 ,205,937,520 33,930,000*** 0.6 203,580
Metropolitan Transit
District 10,366,397,680 14,000,000 0.7 98,000
* Only those units with debt outstanding are listed here.
** SISD 917 has a total of $8,530,000 outstanding, but since 70%-80% of the
debt service is from State and federal aids, only 3096 has been shown here.
*** In addition, Metropolitan Council has outstanding $123,267,000 general
obligation sanitary bonds, which are supported by revenues; $610,000
General Obligation Tax Anticipation Certificates of Indebtedness of 1981,
due February 1, 1982; and $55,000,000 Sports Facilities Revenue Bonds of
1979.
Future Financing
The City does not anticipate the need to issue additional bonds to finance its
capital improvements until the spring of 1982.
On December I, 1981, the Metropolitan Council will offer for sale $32,200,000
of General Obligation Sewer Bonds to finance ongoing projects of the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission.
Additional information regarding the City may be found in the Official
Statement dated July 7, 1981 prepared for the $940,000 General Obligation
Improvement Bonds of 1981, Series A or from the City's Financial Advisor,
SPRINGSTED Incorporated, 800 Osborn Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
612/222-4241.
ci
Ct�
SPRINGSTED
INCORPORATED
PUBLIC FINANCE
ADVISORS
- NOTICE TO BIDDERS -
RE: CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
$165,000
GENERAL OBLIGATION JUDGEMENT BONDS OF 1982
The dating and title of these Bonds are hereby changed as follows:
$165,000
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
GENERAL OBLIGATION JUDGEMENT BONDS OF 1981
Bonds Dated: December I, 1981
All other terms of the Invitation remain the same.
Attached is a new Schedule of Bond Years.
The date of this Notice is November 24, 1981.
Further information may be obtained from SPRINGSTED Incorporated,
Financial Advisor to the Issuer, 800 Osborn Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota
55102 612/222-4241.
800 Osborn Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 (612) 222-4241
I
SCHEDULE OF BOND YEARS
$165,000
GENERAL OBLIGATION JUDGEMENT BONDS OF 1981
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
CUMULATIVE
YEAR PRINCIPAL BOND YEARS BOND YEARS
1983 $55,000 64. 1667 64. 1667
1984 $55,000 119. 1667 183.3334
1985 $55,000 174.1667 357. 5001
Average Maturity: 2. 17 Years
Bonds Dated: December 1, 1981
Interest Due : August 1, 1982 and each February 1 and
August 1 to maturity.
Principal Due: February 1, 1983-1985 inclusive.
Redemption: None.
• City of Shakopee
`[11 ,
s K ° P E f POLICE DEPARTMENT fx'"` r
�1NESp
, 4 - 476 South Gorman Street
I
)-
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379
p `� r; Tel. 445-6666 1
C
t ,
" 55379
TO: Mayor , Council Members
FROM: Tom Brownell
SUBJECT: Vehicle Purchase
DATE : November 25, 1981
On November 24, 1981, at 10 : 30 a.m. , the bid proposal submitted
by Freeway Dodge , Inc . was reviewed. Bid requests were mailed
to twelve vendors in Shakopee , Scott County, and the metropolitan
area, in addition to the required advertising. Freeway Dodge , Inc.
was the only vendor submitting a bid.
BID PROPOSAL
Freeway Dodge , Inc. 1-1982 Dodge Aries K
4 door, 2 . 6 Liter Engine
Automatic Transmission $ 7, 853. 00
1-1982 Dodge Aries K
4 door, 2 . 2 Liter Engine
Manual Transmission 7, 372.00
$15, 225.00
FUNDING
Capital Improvement Fund - Police $ 8, 200
Admin. 6,500
$14, 700
ALTERNATIVES
1. Accept proposal submitted by Freeway Dodge, Inc. and increase
Capital Fund expenditure by $525 .00 .
2 . Re-bid vehicles with the possibility that other vendors may
respond with lower bid and continue to pay monthly car
allowance from operating budget pending vehicle delivery
during February or March of 1982 .
go ,.Sezve ¶o Pzotect
Vehicle Purchase
Page -2-
RECOMMENDATION
Accept the Freeway Dodge, Inc. bid proposal .
COUNCIL ACTION
Authorize the purchase of two vehicles from Freeway Dodge, Inc.
as per bid proposal/specifications, and increase Capital Im-
provement funding by $525.00 .
•
•
PROPOSAL
To be opened 11-13"-81 10: 30 a.m. CST.
For the furnishing and delivery Proposal of:
of two - 4 door sedans for the
City of Shakopee , in accordance �j' iL��k�t�
J4.,2
with the attached specifications
which were submitted with this Address:
Proposal and upon which this aA4.
Proposal is made . ��/�� �.�,I
City, State and Zip Code:
Phone:
?7d2- eFer 9/
d
Two - 4 door sedans Price: / / /
Manials
01,
Parts
Service #3O �
Make, Model and Year of Vehicle /9K A , -'a,r,42 y9,,(9�
Delivery Date of Vehicle 4/.5 °b A ,e4.24•//qQ,
Mik; . •
la;/...e;-•e ;
�-'� �/
i() Pt-eP
/4/if 6--)t..a.e7L.-
%-
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: 1982 Workman' s Compensation Proposals
DATE: November 19 , 1981
Introduction
Proposals for the City ' s 1982 Workman' s Compensation Insurance were
received and tabulated by Lee Hennen of Capesius Agency, the City' s
local agent . The proposals have been reviewed by the Finance Direc-
tor and City Administrator.
Proposals
Proposals were received from the League of Minnesota Cities Insur-
ance Trust , Transamerica Insurance Company, and Western Casualty
and Surety Insurance Company. All three companies based their
proposals on the same Classification and Estimated Annual Payroll
figures which are attached with a page coverning premium calcula-
tions and a summary page .
In addition to the estimated annual premium figures on page 2 of
the Capesius report , Council should consider the Dividend Programs ,
Assessability, and Voluntary Compensation Endorsement and Payment
Method :
Dividend Programs : Shakopee ' s loss ratio in the last four
years has been excellent ( 78-79 6 . 31%, 79-80 2 . 79%, 80-81
9 . 26% and 81-82 to date 3 . 1%) . Prior to these four years of
excellent claim ratios , the City had to change companies
because our ratio had been so bad. If we join the League ' s
program our claims ratio will be pooled, and the dividend
we receive will represent in part the claim ratios of all
the cities in the pool .
Assessability : The League program is the only one of the three
proposals that is assessable. In a word , being assessable
means that if the League program needs additional funds because
of excessive claims they can assess all participants .
Voluntary Compensation Endorsement : This feature covers vol-
unteers that might be working for the City without the City
having to provide the carrier with a list of the volunteers .
The League program doesn' t have this feature .
Payment Method: Transamerica and the League program provide
for the traditional lump sum payment . Western Casualty has
a monthly payment plan which would allow the City to invest
the money ( 12 month declining balance invested at 10% = $1697 . 88) .
This would mean that the Western premium would be roughly $400
less than the League premium (Western @ $37 ,045 - League at
Mayor and City Council �' G
Page 2
November 19 , 1981
$35 , 751 = $1 ,294 less $1 ,697 . 88 interest earned on Western
monthly payment = $403 . 88 ) . (Note the city would have to
process 12 checks instead of one check. )
Summary and Recommendation
Lee Hennen, the Finance Director and I all feel that is is nearly
a toss-up between the League and Western proposals . We feel that
the Voluntary Compensation Endorsement , the $400 net difference in
premium and Capesius ' long experience with Western suggests that
it would be the company to select for 1982-83 . The local agent
fees would be 2% for all policies .
Staff did discuss again self insurance with Lee Hennen and a
Western Casualty program that is a hybred self insurance/tradi-
tional insurance program. As we learned when investigated earlier,
an annual premium cost as small as $35 ,000 is not sufficient
for a self insurance program.
Action Requested
Authorize the appropriate City officials to obtain Workman' s Com-
pensation coverage for 1982 with Western Casualty and Surety
Company of Fort Scott , Kansas .
JKA/jms
10 1
Capesius Agency, inc
YOUR INDEPENDENT INSURANCE AGENTS
P.O. Box 97. First National Bank Bldg.. Shakopee. MN 55379 Tel. (612) 445-1922
CITY OF SHAKOPEE & SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION & SHAKOPEE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY - SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379
WORKER' S COMPENSATION & EMPLOYER ' S LIABILITY COVERAGE
PROPOSAL/ANALYSIS
The Following Proposals for all Carriers are Based on the Following
Classifications & Estimated annual Payrolls :
Code Description of Work Estimated Annuzl Payrolls
9015 Buildings , N.O. C. $ 34,000
7539 Electric Power Co. N.O. C. $178,000
9410 Municipal Employees , N. O. C. $206 ,000
9102 Park Employees N.O.C. $ 73 ,000
7720 Policemen $320,000
5506 Street or Road Construction $155 ,000
7520 Waterworks $ 21 ,000
7708 Volunteer Firemen 9 ,929 Pop.
8810 Clerical Office $200,000
BROAD FORM "ALL STATES" ENDORSEMENT
VOLUNTARY COMPENSATION ENDORSEMENT - LEAGUE OF CITIES ON
LIMITED BASIS ONLY
City of Shakopee, Etal - 2 -
PREMIUM CALCULATIONS
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INSURANCE TRUST
Manual Premium $54, 508
Current Experience Modification . 89
Standard Premium $48 , 512
Premium Discount 6 ,452
Discounted Standard Premium $42 ,060
League of Minn. Trust Discount . 15
*Estimated Annual Premium $35 , 751
*Subject to Attached Dividend Program
TRANSAMRICA INSURANCE COMPANY
Manual Premium $54, 508
Current Experience Modification . 89
Standard Premium $48, 512
Premium Discount 6 ,452
*Estimated Annual Premium $42 ,060
*Subject to Attached rividend Program
WESTERN CASUALTY & SURETY INSURANCE COMPANY
Manual Premium $54, 508
Current Experience Modification . 89
Standard Premium $48, 512
Premium Discount 6 ,452
Discounted Standard Premium $42 ,060
Western Casualty Discount 11 . 97
*Estimated Annual Premium $37 ,045 .
*Subject to Attached Dividend Program
I .
1
R0,
City of Shakopee, Etal _ 3 _
SUMMARY/CONSIDERATIONS :
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INSURANCE TRUST:
- End of year dividend is based on loss history of ALL Cities
participating in program
- Assessable
IIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIII
- Will not write the Voluntary Compensation Endorsement on Blanket basis
- Program has been in existence for only 2 years . Not sufficient time
for reliable experience
WESTERN CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY:
- End of Year dividend is based on City of Shakopee ' s individual
loss history
- Non-Assessable
- Will write the Voluntary Compensation Endorsement on Blanket basis
- Company has been in existence since 1926 -Best ' s Key Rating A+
- Premium payable on Monthly Payment Plan with NO Finance or
Carrying Charge
- Company is represented by and policy would be serviced by the
Capesius Agency, Inc.
TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY:
- End of Year dividend is based on City of Shakopee ' s individual
loss history
- Non-Assessable
- Company is currently writing the City of Shakopee ' s Worker' s
Compensation Policy since 1977. Transamerica also writes the
Property & Casualty insurance fur the City
- Will write Voluntary Compensation Endorsement on Blanket Basis
- Company is represented by and policy would be serviced by the
Capesius Agency, Inc.
- Company does not allow up-front discount
Submitted by,
CAPESIUS AGENCY, INC.
MEMO TO: John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: LeRoy Houser
RE: Herrgott Garage Permit
DATE: November 24, 1981
Introduction:
The Herrgott Garage Building Permit has been questioned by residents who
contacted Councilman Reinke. As per your instructions, I have prepared this
memo to provide all Councilmembers with background on the issue.
Background:
On October 29, 1981 a Building Permit was issued to Mr. Herrgott for the
erection of a wood frame garage (accessory building). No mention of home
occupation use had or has since been indicated relating to this structure.
As Building Inspector, I was aware that a Conditional Use Permit application
had been denied by the Council for a pole shed for home occupation purposes to
this applicant. However, I can find no place in the City Code or Building Code
that gives me the authority to request this applicant to first obtain a
Conditional Use Permit for a wood frame garage.
As Building Inspector, I assume all responsibility in this matter if it is
contrary to City or State Codes, as I was aware of the history regarding the
applicant and did not inform the Planner.
Policy Questions:
From the Building Permit standpoint, it is my opinion the garage is not in
violation, although the potential use of the garage may be in violation. From
a policy standpoint, how do I respond to any request for a Building Permit if
I have to question its potential use such as oil changes or putting air in
tires inside a garage? I know of at least 25 salesmen changing oil, etc. , in
town now.
From a Building Permit standpoint, how should I have handled the garage
addition granted to Walt Jefferson that is being used as a cabinet shop? How
should I handle the other oversized garages in town being used for more than
storage?
cr
John Anderson November 24, 1981
Herrgott Garage Permit Page -2-
Finally, how should the City have handled the pole shed right next door to
this applicant that was issued a Building Permit in the same time frame as
Herrgott's was denied by the Council. It is being used for personal storage,
just as Herrgott intends to use his garage. How should the City deal with the
City employee with a nursery and pole shed right across the street from the
applicant on one-half the land area that Herrgott has?
I think the answer to this policy issue lays in an applicant's use of a
structure. If it is not going to be a home occupation use as defined by City
Code, then I cannot see how I could then deny the Building Permit. If, after
a permit is issued and the building is up, the owners use the building for an
activity meeting the definition of "Home Occupation", then it is a Zoning matter
and the City should probably make the owner go through the Conditional Use
Permit process.
Alternatives:
1. Order removal of the garage.
2. Let applicant complete garage and tag him if he does use it for a home
occupation, as everyone fears.
3. Do nothing.
Conclusions:
If I did in fact act contrary to Code and a removal order is issued, I see
the City being liable for damages. If the Council concludes that Herrgott
is to be denied the right to erect an accessory building, then I believe we
must deny all future applicants that right too in order to be consistant.
Therefore, I recommend Alternative #2 . The current permit is for a 30' x 40'
structure and the 1980 Conditional Use Permit was requested for a 40' x 60' pole
barn to store and repair trucks.
LH/jiw
A-
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: Don Steger
City Planner
RE: Dallas Herrgott's Garage
DATE: November 214, 1981
I signed the Building Permit for Dallas Herrgott's garage because the
structure is clearly an accessory building. Later, being informed of the
history of this situation, I am still of the opinion that the garage is
nothing more than an accessory building in which Mr. Herrgott may house
his semi-tractor. This is comparable to a salesman, merchant, etc. , who
places his company vehicle in his garage on his residential property.
Several large garages exist in Shakopee which currently house semi-tractors,
large trucks or large campers.
Should Mr. Herrgott run a trucking business or a truck repair business
from his house or garage, a Conditional Use Permit for a home occupation
would be required. The definition of "Home Occupation", as listed in the
Zoning Ordinance is as follows:
"Home Occupation" - Any gainful occupation or profession engaged
in by the occupant of a dwelling at or from the dwelling when carried on
within a dwelling unit or an accessory building. Such uses include profes-
sional offices, minor repair services, photo or art studios, dressmaking,
barber shops, beauty shops, tourist homes, or similar uses.
Until a home occupation is undertaken or proposed to be undertaken, a
Conditional Use Permit cannot be required.
DS/jiw
5 Z
.,t' -,-ii.,..,:.;,,, CITY O F SHA . O PE .
0/ 1I �� 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
f
✓. 1 til
MEMO
TO: _i Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Keane , City Planner
SUBJECT:Case # Conditional Use Permit , Home Occupation
January 4 , 1980 Dallas F . Herrgott , 2540 Marschall Road
DATE:._ _
REQUEST: The petitioner is requesting approval of a Conditional Use
Permit in order to conduct a home occupation in an R-1
zone. The petitioner plans to construct a 40' x Gtr' pole
barn to store semi trucks and trailers for storage and
maintenance of trucks on this site . The parcel is 10
acres in size .
CONSIDERATIONS :
1. A home occupation is a Conditional Use in a R-1 zone.
2 . The petitioner plans to store and repair trucks for
`/ individuals not living on the premises .
3 . Staff feels that the proposed use has a number of
potential effects that would encroach on the residential
character of the area . These include: ,
- Exterior storage of trucks and parts .
- Noise from trucks , repair operations and equipment.
4 . Staff feels that a truck storage and repair operation is
not a business appropriate to a residential area and
should be restricted to the proper zones .
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff would recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit
to conduct a home occupation incident only to the storage
and maintenance of one semi trailer truck owned by himself.
•
" Proceedings of the Page -3-
• Planning Commission January 10, 1980
5. This would create excessive noise in a relatively quiet
residential area
6. Granting of this Conditional Use Permit could produce potentially
undesirable chemical pollutants.
7. Builging could accommodate four tractor-trailer units so
they questioned how many more would be parked outside.
Joe McVey, Developer for Timber Trails, stated he felt approval of
this Conditional Use Permit would not be consistent in an R-1 zone .
Marlene Larson questioned if any traffic control study had been done
for this area. She asked if a study would be warranted by the County
since this is a county road. She further stated that if this would
be allowed, where then would home occupations stop ?
City Admin. answered her concerns and also stated that home occupations
are a conditional use in an R-1 zone so anyone could apply for a
Conditional Use Permit for a home occupation.
George Muenchow stated he would be against any approval on this
Conditional Use Permit because this would be "stretching the
limitations" of a home occupation.
Tim Johnson stated his concern with safety measures and traffic
4,.) concerns on County Road 17. He stated that County Road 17 South
was too narrow for these type of rigs and the site distance would be
very minimal for a slow moving rig pulling out on County Road 17 .
Dennis Purell stated he could see no problem with approval of this
Conditional Use Permit request and had checked out site allowances
which he; considered be adequate .
Jim Wermerskirchen stated that what concerned him the most was the
excessive noise level of a business such as this and the low noise
level out in his are-a was a specific reason for buying there.
Harry Weinandt asked if legally Mc . Lt could park tractor-
trailers outside on his properly , and qq, :; Lioned the building of the barn ..
City Admin . staled that parking t r.,ctiw i lai lers outside a R-1 area
would be illegal . He further stated that building a pole barn of
40 ' x 66 ' would be allowed i n an It- I a rr ;1 hut it is the business in
the structure that is iru question.
Dennis Furtney stated he is consider•irg; Luilding a very large home
out in tis area but would question this if he would be next to a
tractor-trailer operation.
Bob Lisko stated the noise level and traffic hazard was of great
( `y concern to him.
r
' Proceedings of the Page -4-
Planning Commission January 10, 1980
�.J Jim Larson stated that if he had known there would be tractor-trailers
adjacent to his property, he would not have bought in this area .
Joe McVey stated a developer must rely on the City to not allow uses
which would devalue property and/or developments.
Bill Devine stated that County Road 17 could get extremely dangerous
in the winter. He further stated that he could riot see semi-trailers
using the hill on County Road 17 near Timber Trails .
Duane Purellquestioned if there wasn ' t some proposal on the county
level to upgrade County hoad 17 .
City Engineer replied that nobody working for the City ot Shakopee
was aware of any such proposal .
Jim Larson stated it would be a great injustice to allow a home
occupation such as this in an K-1 zone .
Marlene Larson stated that since this area is near the area being
proposed for the regional O' Dowd Lake Park , she questioned if this
would be an appropriate location for tractor-trailers in regard Lu
getting he O'Dowd Lake area designated as a regional park.
City Admin. read the guidelines which would have to be followed in
( order for the Planning Commission to grant approval to this request.
Colligan/Koehnen moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried
unanimously.
Comm. Koehnen stated that according to the information the Planning
Commission had received, this request was for a "home occupation"
and yet Mr. Herrgott was making it sound like this request was just
to allow small repair and maintenance work on his tractor-trailer
units alone . She asked Mr. Herrgott for clarification on what was
being requested by him and for what .
Mr. Herrgott replied that he is an independent trucker and he would be
servicing and storing only his own trucks.
Comm. Colligan stated that he is very much against the approval of
this Conditional Use Permit due to what is in the area at this
time . He further stated he would be once again be against any form of
precedent setting, such as this .
City Admin. stated that the written application does not describe in
detail gnat the applicant intends to do.
. : Proceedings Proceedin s of the
Jage -5
Planning Commission January
10, 1980
42 Colligan/Koehnen moved the denial of Conditional Use Permit Resolution
No. 239, a request for a home occupation to construct a pole barn
for storage and maintenance of tractor-trailers in an R-1 zone for
the reason that it does not comply with one of the stipulations set
forth in the Shakopee City Code, Subdivision 6, Section A -2
which states "establishment of the Conditional Use will not
impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surround-
ing vacant property for uses predominant in the area" .
Roll Call : Ayes - Colligan, Koehnen
Noes - Rockne, Perusich
Abstaining. - Marschal: Motion failed due to a
tie vote
Colligan moved that this request for a Conditional Use Permit be sent
to the City Council without a recommendation from the Planning Commissioi'
Motion died for lack of second.
Rockne/Koehnen offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 239,
and moved for its adoption with the following conditions:
1 ) Applicant does not store more than two semi tractor-trailer units
on the site.
2) Said vehicles be stored under cover in proposed storage dwelling.
. 3) Said tractor-trailer be owned by applicant.
4) Said vehicles be stored in an empty state; without load .
Motion carried with Comm. Colligan voting "no" and Comm. Marschall
abstaining.
City Admin. stated the decision made by the Planning Commission can
be appealed within a seven-day time frame to the City Admin. If
this is done it then will come before the City Council, and all
notifications of the public hearing will once again be advertised and
surrounding property owners would receive notification by mail .
Further discussion was held between the audience and the Planning
Commission.
Joe McVey questioned why public hearing notices had even been sent
out if the Planning Commission was not going to listen to the remarks
of the majority of the residents in the audience (29 opposed and 1 for
the granting of the Conditional Use Permit) .
Comm. Koehnen stated that there appeared to be confusion on what had
been acted on and what actually had been requested.
Comm. Colligan suggested that discussions cease and further discussion
be taken to the City Council , if this is the wish of the residents.
4 ,.r
j,ub11<.: hearing on the request for
j • B Enic.rprises . Motion carried ,9
olo
-mayor Harbeck asked for comments 2'l oar; the audience . There were none
Leroux/Hullander moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried
unanimously.
Leroux/Colligan moved that City staff be directed to prepare the
appropriate preliminary resolution for Industrial Revenue Bonds for
J & B Enterprises. Motion carried unanimously.
City Admin. suggested that a change le made in the contract for the
Dog Catcher . His suggestion was to pay on an individual pick-up
basis. Discussion was held .
Hullander/Lebens moved to accept the recommendation of the City Admi
and approve the fee schedule recommended for dog catching services
( $25.00 per dog or cat picked up, $7 .00 to pick up and bury dead
animals , $10 .00 to pick up and bury dead skunks, S20.00 to deliver a
animal to the University of Minnesota for rabies test) and authorize
the Mayor and City Admin. to enter into an agreement.
Roll Call : Ayes - Unanimous
Noes - None Motion carried
Leroux/Colligan moved to open the public hearing on the request for
a Conditional Use Permit for a home occupation to construct a pole
barn for storage and maintenance of tracter trailers in an R-1 zone .
Motion carried unanimously.
City Planner stated that the applicant, Dallas Herrgott, had applied
the Planning Commission for this Conditional Use Permit. The Planni
Commission granted approval of Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
at their meeting held on January 10th . An appeal of this decision i
now being made to the City Council . He also stated that staff is
recommending denial for various reasons ( i .e . R-1 zone , traffic safe
County Road 17 , possible devaluation of neighboring properties) .
reasons were discussed by the Council .
Mayor Harbeck asked for comments from the audience. He stated that
the City Council had all the information from the Planning Commissio
meeting and most of the Councilmembers had gone to see this property
question, but any new information available, the Council would like t
hear .
Jim Larson submitted an additional two names to the petition which h
been presented at the Planning Commission meeting and which was now
file with City Hall.
Joe McVey, developer for Timber Trails , presented a plat showing the
development of Timber Trails and how this property in question relat
to the Timber Trails development. He spoke on the devaluation of
property in the area should a trucking business be allowed in the ar
Tim Johnson stated he thought this piece of property was too close t
the quietness of the 0 . Dowd Lake area and the noise level would be a
element of concern. He also stated he felt his property would be
devalued.
AddIrOmbor•
�i w ..max , +.-
rd-
r
3
}t
,.,
. .
. . , ,_, ,
_ . ,
. _ .:
fi`. .
James Speckland , attorney repref7, r, r.i r:€,.
substantial �r�iu:��. SI,uk��i�F " Investments, stat,
that this would be a
that the property would be devalued . to abutting land owners a,
George Muenchow stated the s i tua ti r n l oc,ked to be a "no win" type
deal for both the applicant and 1,i;,,
rongly r<ei0hbor'ir,g residents, but he
Cfenditiolt very
nall stUserrni t gu i}dIe• I irne�ltir• t le not a good exception to tt
Cncl . Leroux stated he thought the ordinance pertaining to home
occupations in a R-1 and R-2 zone would i•eed to be looked at agair
He also stated that one thing to consider in approving a home oecu
in these zone,;; wa;; i1' an additional structure was needed in prder
they home occupation to be in bu:;inL ss.
Cncl . Colligan gave his concerns with traffic
pulling out onto
Road 17, but reminded the Council that an additional structure ofu
nature is allowable in an R-1 zone ..
Mayor Harbeck stated his „nnosi ti on to this
Cdiional because one person ' s gain would be det ri ment a lorrto tothers . Permit
•
Cncl . Reinke stated there could be a lot more objectionable use
this pole barn than that or diesel ticks� s t
at
commercial industry in an R-1 zone would not beagoodsfored tthehCity.
Cncl . Hullunder stated his agreement that the ordinance pertaining
requests of this nature should be clarified.
He also concern with the safety level and the idea of placing aoss i
residential area. business i
Mayor Harbeck asked if the applicant had any comments. Mr. Herr of
was present in the audience and stated he could ,add no additional
information.
Hullander/Call igan moved to close the public hearing. Motion carric
unanimously .
Hul lander/1.e•he•n:, i,ioveci that stalf he requested to draw up a resoluti
of denial based on the lack of the findings for a Conditional Use
Permit , as stated in the Shakopee City Code , Chapter 11 , Subdivision
1 ) the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and en o en
of other property in the immediate vicinity , usis
ostn
with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes ofthezoning
district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use;
9) the use wi I l nut cause traffic hazard
1 unanimously. orcongestion. Motion carr
i•ir•. Herrgott :asked if lie ad any further
rec .the City Atty . that he did not for a hu:,ine�ssuofethisonatur.ewas ,,l'or•rntu
City Planner then stated the willingness of City staff to help Mr.
Herrgott get together with other truckers for a trucking business in
a comwer•cial zone , if Mr. Herrgott so desired.
Leroux/}Iullander moved to table the appointment to the Police Civil
Service Commission until the next meeting to allow time for the Mayor•
to speak with the applicant. Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion was held on the limits on Industrial Revenue Bonds.
The upper limit of 25 percent of the assessed valuation for the issuar
of these bonds had been established some time ago by the City Council.
Jim O'Neil stated that one of the biggest assets available for promotir
industries in Shakopee is the use of Industrial Revenue funding.
•
0 co 71- l!) ,-1 N co V 0 cO
• N- N N C� n
x Cn C) C) M en CO Co CO CO Co Co CO CO CO el
U O) o) 0) C) O\ a1 Ok Ok o) o) o) o) (n O7 O,
0 0 0 co rn In 0 0 0)
0 0 ao o N o O` Ln 0 H H 0 N
• - N N 0 CO . . H
CO 0 0 in H 0 (7)
0
N 0 CO kc v) Ln 0) L) rn Co co al 0
U 0 00 CO .0 44- Ln 0 co C) N M
r-1 % N %D fl) N H
co
p) N
0 0
•r•1 Cl) UO)
U CU 0
CY+ 0 •-1 E ,.
• a1 0 0 O.)
u
-' C • Z
O) M 00) C) U R
;-I a) 3 a) 0 a a 0 -1 o
a) E H a0o ) .M C N C u -1
.0 •r1
U
\ a) H = co C U •27
C7 Q O W W r-1 r`1 H a) Cii •
w 0 u ++ H r+ : LTa a0 N d
Ti li U 0• • tb (� •r1 (V H •�
z z 3• C C )) E C)
(Ti ( a+' u 1 a) Z • : : _ H O 0 N
0 Cl) U c°) H H a
A Z Z = Z a n, x
,
„
-L
E m
(1) b
(n a a C ca - a) C
a0 E 4-1
• s� a a, ,� a a) G
U00 , a)
U U1 4 D5
CL a) .0 O � u 0 N
H 7 C -1 e) .H a c)
N Cl) a) cn H U C (i) C E w
- , U) — H 0 (Ti (n
U b ob (d d H '(7 - _ _ _ [_7 H d
C H u I
H
U) U 0 H H 0 0 a) H C) 0
CO (+-I U H H • y4 g 4a a) H u E
a) C cli W a) r1 a) ( a) w
C a �+ vi 4. P, a c4 N e• Z cZ 0rx 4
H
n 0 0 0 co Om 0000 0 ( C) NHWO O o)
0 Lf) 0 0 co 0 N 0 rn Ln 0 0 0) '1- 0) 0) tD H Cr t.D 't Ln CO Ln N H...1' N N --1
' 0 00 .
CO O 0 (0 V) co NtON- N o) O) 0 (DHNtt O
• N 0 O t` M O -Y• In co Ln H H CO (JO In to N co C) CO Oh o
0 co L) c .0 In N Cr H CO 0) N cn
w
00
,--I t0 N 10 Lr) N N
H
U
U
O 0 0 0 00 0000 0000000 0 0
O O O O O H HH H H H H H H H H H H H H H OH
v
0 0 0 ,-1 H H H ,-1 0 00 0000 0000000 0 0 H
H H H O 0 O O 0 H H H H H H ,-1 H H H H H 1/4-1H H H
. • H H H H H
J H Un N • in -4 -4 HHHH -4 -4 -4 -4 -1 -14-1 H CU
4-4 o 0 H H4-4-4
4-4
m o 00 0000 0000000 (b N `n
A n
S
, o O O) H 0 N In N H In CO H N 00 N N H CO H C)
() 0 H 0) 0 d• Cr) t CO (r) CO C) 7r H C) CD CDH C) H
{ C> .-1 H H H H
) .Q 0 H H ON ON ON ON ON 0 N H H H H H H L-4 .--1 H N H N H CO 00
H 0 0T) H H• H H • • 0 N L() N H Ln CO H N CO N N H CC) H CP •
H 0 H Q) -1 ,-1 --1 H H 0 co d• co co co C) V' H C7 co CO H o) -44 O
o
• W C- H C- 0 0 0 H H H H H H H H H H H V 0)
) a co ( 0 N H O H cn .H C\ N N N N N N c---. 1-- N N N N H O
H Co Ln N N N Co N CO CO CO CO C) CO CO CO CO CO CO CO Cr) CO 0 L!) r-
co Ct .7 - -Zr C) V �t V d Ct •7 a V d M
H Ln N H H r•..1 r1 H in -4 -4 H H H H -4 -4 -4 -4 ,-4 ,--4 ,-1 H N• W
0 H H co cc CO co co oz) 00 0000 0000000 a0 N ii
0
z
5i
U
0
z
w
U,
co
c
as 0 0 as Os N.
0000N rINUI r1
0900u1 %OV1 0
z O� N O CO O\ 03 Vl -.Y'
r-1 O O\ N N U'1 Cr
r♦ ri N N 00
N
<I> VT
•
H a,
a) 0 la
J t�
•._
C1
0 b a W N H
H 0
v" O 14 4.1
V A W W 1 H O
d cd cd H
00 1i i W O O
N C) **-4 d f.+ Cl
Ic0 rs•
r-1 U rl tfl N. N 10 rl tP1
00 d 0r-I . 4 NU1co00
N
0
IOQ,
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant
RE: Cable Consultant
DATE: November 25 , 1981
Introduction
Anita Benda , the cable consultant under contract with the City of
Shakopee to evaluate cable communications proposals , plans to employ
Ralph Campbell to assist her. Council consent is requested.
Background
In Ms . Benda ' s contract one clause provides for prior Council approval
if she contracts with a subcontractor to assist in her duties . At
this time she plans to employ Ralph. Campbell to assist in her evalua-
tion, but will not be actually subcontracting with him. The City
Attorney has judged that this situation does not fall under the pro-
visions of the consultant contract , but Ms . Benda seeks Council con-
sent before employing Mr. Campbell , and has indicated she will not
hire him if the Council does not consent .
Background available to me at this time is that Mr. Campbell has
recently been employed by Minnesota Cable Systems and before that
worked as Assistant City Manager in the City of Edina and coordina-
tor of the Southwestern Suburbs Cable Commission. A more detailed
resume of his experience should be available by the December 1 , 1981
City Council meeting. Ms . Benda has judged that Mr. Campbell would
be willing to file a statement that he has no conflict of interest
if desired by the City Council .
Requested Council Action
Consent to employment of Ralph Campbell by cable consultant Anita
Benda to assist in her evaluation of cable communications proposals
for Shakopee , subject to Mr. Campbell ' s filing a "Statement of No
Conflict of Interest" with the City Clerk.
JA/jms
/010
JEROME JASPERS & COMPANY
Qerl 'ed J u6l'c .'ccounlanls
206 SCOTT STREET
MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA 55379
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS TELEPHONE:(612)045-2817
JEROME JASPERS,C.P.A.
JAMES STREEFLAND,Jr.C.P.A.
November 23 1981
Members of the City Council
City of Shakopee
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Council Members:
We are prepared to assist you with a wide range of finacial and
management services . Our charge for such services is $25 per hour.
If you have any questions please call.
Yours truly
{"'J3rome Jasp s & o.
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: Close out of the 1971 Improvement Fund
DATE: November 27, 1981
The 1971 Improvement bonds are paid off. Request Council
approve transfer of remaining assets and fund balance ($2,892.69)
to the P.I.R. Fund in order to close this.
Action
Move to transfer assets and fund balance of $2,892.69 from
the 1971 Improvement Fund to the P.I.R. Fund.
GV/ljw
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: Interfund Transfers - Capital Purchases
DATE: November 23, 1981
Request Council approve the following interfund transfers in accordance
with the budget.
Revenue Sharing
Police
Video recorder & equip. Century Camera $ 3,546.27
Propane equipment Auto Energy 4,094.85
F ire
Movie projector National Camera 734.45
Park
Propane equipment Propane Carb 1,570.00
Toro Riding Mower Minnesota Toro 3,600.00
Shop
Band Saw Caroline Tool 1,400.00
Engineerina
Print File Copy Equipment 1,455.75
Street
Propane Equipment Auto Energy 541.33
Snow Box Bryan Equipment 3,000.00
Gov't. Bldgs.
Heating,Venting,Air Condi-
tioning - City Hall Associated Mechanical 4,890.00
Air Conditioning-City Hall Associated Mechanical 5,618.00
Boilers - City Hall Stiens 4,900.00
Administration
Typewriter Suels 796.00
$ 36,146.65
John K. Anderson, City Administrator
Interfund Transfers - Page 2
November 23, 1981
Capital Equipment Revolving
Fire
Hose $ 2,405.90
Door Modifications 4,021.00
Police
Door Opener 260.00
Office Remodeling 4,857.41
$ 11,544.31
Action
Move to approve transfer of $36,146.65 from the Revenue Sharing Fund and
$11,544.31 from the Capital Equipment Revolving Fund to the General Fund.
GV/ljw
/OS
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: IR Bond Deposits
DATE: November 13, 1981
Introduction
When older applications were filed for IR Bonds, the City took in
$1,000 on deposit to pay expenses.
Background
The City has paid various printing and legal costs on these
IR Bonds. The balances remaining for the issues that appear complete
are:
Perkins $ 803.78
Hauser/Scottland 486.99
Kmart Retail 802.18
Stephens & Rathan/
J & B 689.02
The Ashland Oil bond has not been completed. These issues have
not been charged for staff costs yet. Time logs have not been kept
for these issues but it is estimated that there is about $300.00 in
staff costs per issue.
Alternatives
1. Refund the balances as shown above.
2. Refund the balances shown above less $300.00 per issue and the
$300.00 transferred to the General Fund.
3. Transfer balances shown above to the General Fund.
Recommendation
Alternative #2 - Refund the balances shown above less $300.00 per issue
and the $300.00 transferred to the General Fund.
Action
City Council move to charge the Perkins, Hauser/Scottland, Kmart
Retail and Stephens & Rathen/J & B Industrial Revenue Bond deposits
$300.00 each which is to be transferred to the General Fund and refund the
remaining balances to the respective parties.
GV/ljw
Jo
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxiand, Finance Director
RE: Defeasance of Certificates of Indebtedness
DATE: November 19, 1981
Introduction & Background
Final payment on the Certificates of Indebtedness will be made
during December, 1981. Due to the timing of the payment, tax
settlement and interest allocation, it is requested that Council
authorize the transfer of the remaining assets of the fund (after
final payment) to the General Fund in order to close out this fund
in 1981. This transfer is planned in the revised 1981 budget.
Action
Move to transfer the remaining assets of the Certificates of
Indebtedness Fund to the General Fund after final payment is made
in December, 1981.
GV/ljw
//v
* W w to hl (Priority •
at 11 v1 1 v1 N v1 vi
0 ba co 1 O\ w O\ co W T I Fund
\fit
cD d O O o O CD
VI \.nW -4 �J W0 N VI
I}'r(�t,;:• r. i,):IGtr:i'
c+
N
cD 71 tri •C
1 P' tubi 0 0 cD cn H t'J C) CD 0 'w C tri M
cn 0
tr c+ 0 H c+ PA c+ ''d m O cf ca0. �c+ f+• 0 138 c+ H
J
cG P) H• P1 N W to
0 co im � a Oaw1, 4 aa11 ay aPoa' cDy11I +
MI $ O 'Im ] n (II CD
e. O 4) 1.. 0 11 0 d n ~' p' o 0 y f] N• cn o c
0 cc+ p' 1 cam+ c+ cam+ O N H cn O c cD m d- m c+
c+ “ m0 - O .. K c1- m ” 4 - m c+ cD c+
Co a4 M m .. .. o Descrint,ion
-6 c+ ds bd P t* c.0 P N EH• H E0 tzi 0
•3 O H f+ vi O !� o O cD
8 ?' - „ 0 o 0
0 0 0 0 O r
s+ o o QN 0 At •p 0 0 00 o w o
00 O 00 'b O oW° OO o ro
0 0 0 o
m
c+
VI r'vrt ib i i L
0D -va keport.
ISq PUC
Co• � •
• H pp)'oval
•
[Y
m • - PUb1. iC
0 iiC71l'1lit' :-:
pi
v1 Plans a:1d
o ~
1 •• Co
Specifications
t ions o
• H u
• .�- z Right-of-Way r
•• N Acquisition
[r
CO
•▪ O� l.) y
'Bid ,,
1 �' •• CO Co o Date
O ko .,
n 0° Asses1;1;wnt,
0 Hoc) : co Hearing E,-1
co
c' N H •;)
4i.i)
\ \ \ co co w Completion • 1
k. . CO oo Co •: Co H I-, (Date
1-•
N • H O
0 ...COW ..11. 0W .C o I i : o w :-_;: ow % C) w . : C> tI l :: -) w
00H
c+
O H H . •\J1 N H H H H 0 \O
N N c. N ul O Cu w -1 N.) 0 0 H V1 co I�.tlgItl0et'
O 0 0 0 �"In O a\ O N O\ w H 0J okoko m W O
4
ce(I) VO Co� vN, �0 iv N ~ Technician III
II. .• ow0 ornvp www off wo .P- oo°w o ..",ON o 0vio
H •
‘...n r\.) N J
Co v1 w H _p-vn Technician II U,'
o �°O 0 V�1 0 W O 0 0 0 vl 0 ) 0 VI O 0 N N v, N o Inspector I L ,j_ 1,
H �+
a'
'0 - rn km Technician I ,--
F'•
000 ow0 0rn0 o o OH--.I00N)ooro 001) 000 Inspector I o 0
0
H H N N C 0
O\ N CO N H N H H Orn v1 Secretary
o H o H O\O H N N 0 () O O�H 0 0°O\ c":".,0 O '0`n i
H
C-\
•
H HN H \...n\_n
V
I-' O) 0\N k0 H w w ND H km H N W H Tot a l H
0 H 0 Ul VO W H H o 0 0 Cu--�1 0 W N 0 0 C\toil H \O VNi H
O
H-
co.p-• HH 0 k
H N W O H ch v::, a\_...1 W vt H
NI H 01a t-03v, I I H NH ON ( -JW Engineering
ov"'i� -tel No rnN� �� o� °�N � �� � 0� Dept. Fee
CO --.1 Co NI .0 "
'Priority
I Co Co o H I iw
'Fund
ON Viw N 0 Program Number
ti ' FLI
tsi g bd ti x 65. I0 � P
ace* ii SA a At, CD a. p o. ED w s ' a 0
1 Pr A r A a A s 0 N A �+ C!? A A A riig
1 C+ c+ c+ c+ cf H
c+ po c+ O if C+ c+ W 0
o in .. 0 `t
o rH
H03Hr d
Description
oi.t..., M to !o- M b+ N N µ .69-
0.: A
IV 4
t
1-4
0\ M
0
0
+ .4c+
n0o CR w CO o~ µJCd • A' 8
OOAOO mu) OO OO D., § go
' ,i •• • p • I
O 0 0 A 0 0 0
0 F.,
0
.
• .r• 114 0 by W C' z 0 : �- Feasibility
•;. y �, ty 0, I
.....
: opo Report
N fD 4 • H
• a o• a) -, . z • - pproval
cam+ H F' • Y c+ Y w •• co
Ix H
ON z �? N1 Pub.l i c
Co C a : - (Hearing
•( H Fa AO H • y H. o0
CA H •-•
c+
• ON .4 I- \ \ Z,gi; Plans and '
• oo 0 c co y co ' . Specifications
•• ` 0 \ \ O z o : Right-of-Way
•. Co ►i Co Co y • (Acquisition z
H H H n'�+ fD Cr.
Pi..
0
• -a' x ON ON -. v, id
• copo> e+ co oo o co . Date c�
•• Hco H H H H .. H
:i;
.
• :.:
• P.
z; • z Assessment,
• H • H a : Hearing
0
• vl co • IH-� .. N • v1 Complet ion
•• m Cop . opo : Co •: co • ate
N 1-1 1-i H N .. ..
c'SW C) tai ZOOS otzw xntxintb (-] txi ) to
J 1-� H
I j O N . -rn \I1 W — O N co N 0 N Engineer
o co Co 0 Co.I w-� w -1 -P" H w 'v 0 ^1 1-' 0 H 0
�, r
H �' V, N W -� Technician III '',.
• , Np I._, W Nw Nom' I-1W W 0 0 0 0
c 00\ CT GOO N) WVI NO Lo R) 0 0V1n
• ON 0 H N N O 1-H n) 0 H \C H N H Technician II ; '
0 0 0 0 0 o rn H r H H o 0 0 0 l W 0 N co 0 0 o Inspector II
H vi iN w cn Technician I
OP -4 000 OH H 00NH1 oleo 000 0p'` 0 0 0o inspector I ° o'
c
x d
° VIC 000 Nw vi 0N) ooW orno, ow0 o W 0 Secretary
N
. rn
H
IV 'O W N c vi --4 H w w Total
W --I VI ON P.LA) •P-H 07 N 0 --1 - " 0 Nt Co
0 0 H 0C - .i HN •P'0w .0'� N 0ONN 0 �\0 0 -0 iJ
40
H H H H H .P--I 1 I Engineering
V1 -1 H H CTS N "" 0 W , N I , , 0 0
•' \ o I rn 1 Dept. Fee
1 4-vio"1 N) N) NOCT cocoC N) w ww I w� �o N I 0Co zr
0 W H O W CT N N ko N1 -"10 N1 H `0 N� N)N1 N
1 vo ON I N W 0 NO Co O N H \O P P' •
* * * _
w H H H ,.r 'Priority .
O\ I I ON ON \J1 N I
0 1 1 0 o CO W I (Fl ind
vt vt •n \n •n \n Vl \J1
N tN) N o H H IProl;r<lm ;Iur;t�F t
03 a-a- ca H too O U) 'tzi d u) (D m Of 0 cn 0 U) b
e+ N•rs. c+ H c+ 5 c+ 'd c+ C e+ c+ g c+ P.
9 � ry
��►►•• (D 1 O (D h� g. .. W O
W p cc1D 61 Cl) c(D ti • c c+ N• r
P. c+ P. H P. K a H a o • a ►°•e a• o ca,
O CO OAoP.a C) D 'G D • C C) O 0
cc+ fD ci+ R cam► `+ cc+ ti ci+ cN+ cam+ •• w cd+• W ci+ m
•. •. , o '• �, N •• - ''( Description
CD c} F'. H M
llEf f y N W r+ f [
~D aD
S: F-+ N M CO
C' Co
0WD 0 0 vWi Go 0 t3 1-4 0 O4 0 t7
r-' v . v v .. (D
SI� BVI0 8 �trJ
v 0 0 0 P3 0 n 0 0 0
0 cn
O 0 00
0 0 c+
O O\ 0 O
: b : Feasibility
:. N 41/41-•co Co :. :. :.• N o Report
Is m
n
• w m kg •• • w •, N •�+ . : pApPUC
m . • . OD • (� : : proval
N t7 N .• N
. rt
�.. �' •• N ota : 'Pub
• coBc+ • . „ : •
.. N O .` — n)op .. co g Hearing `.
Q •
t,,
• H • H H.
tz
o • • 0 �-• e :::: i r:. N c+ , ;, oo • Co 'di 'Plans
Specilicat ioncs
N • N 0/. ..
ce• . 1•-+ ,1
f..
• H e •• H • - H. Right-of-W y x
• w (I' a oD • co co H. • )Acquisition y
P. •• W N H .. .,
f1
• � � 8 . :-3
• r/Fite
id. La . • w • v, -a b . ... Co \!�. •.. .• av au ao (o• i;
, ON • . •ao rn aD •COAssessm� nt
:. coo •, • opo • o• po co • . Hearin , '''
:. g
N •. W .. N N .. ,• 'V
:7,?
' ON • ON • O\ . •n : : Completion
•
co • • co• Co ate
.. •. .• .• - .• coN • , :. :.
() W X 0 td 3 0 td X0 c c� 0 W 3 c) td X () bd3 � w
N —4 ON N P •n W H Engineer
~ N W NH 1-' N 0 H \n ,-,i OOH O '0 H
OO 0 O\I-, N O0 0 0O\ 0 (...0 Lk) ‘n
., • Vi
Wo 0 s°D H H N N Technician [II cr
O\ —7
00 0 00 0 vitro 0 ,0 ‘..110o`, O\ 0. "W VI 00H 00 \A ,
N N N _-'
. N Technician IT �'
0 o N v
co 0 o , -1 cNo H o\ Inspector I I d"
000 000 --- .p- 0 OHO o', <r, o o\Wo 000 000 H
c
Technician I -+ _
\n � vii Inspector I a'
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 O O H O 0 0 0 0 0 0 N
Q'
'I (D
0 1-I 1--, CO 0 o CT v1 c:3oo Secretary nFt
000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-, N.) 0 0 0 O 0 .p- a) 0 0 0 O W O H
.PH P- H ,.
V
H W r-0 N \orn 1-' 1.J0 N 1-4 0 4rnw OD - Total `O
00 0 ON 1-4 \Ow0 H .--0 v, v, v, HO' co 00 N ON 0\ CO
IJ
-J N -4 N N 0
kO H OD 1-4 NO Co N . ,, I I N 1 H 0
SI V r w CO o\Co 0 0 0 0\ 0 H H Engineering
I I O\ co o \n v, men 0 \o W W ao \p v, x-- I I ON 1 rn �
0 0 \O ON 0 OD 0 0 VO H LA) 0 0 O H H N (,,) VS) •�" \o Dept. E'ee
I t 0 4---- o '0 op OD 0 • • 0 w 'o v,
N H C) 'D 0) --,7
(Priority
w 1 rn 'Fund
oo OD -3 rn Program Number
•
0 m N g N ;.x1c+ bpro 1 4 m � ;
aaaa U . a aO a �
om
•0
o. 6,k •• •• 9,, Description
- • ..-'., ie.: M 1:2r
t• ,4 ., txl ,:-., U3a0 to
' p':',:a a CO • 03 1\.) 0
.14"64.•. cn a) 0 0 . o
.;�, 0 0 0
0 cop 0 0
0 0 0
0 o 0
• Feasibility
• t
: . • Report
SPUC
• Approval
• . :T'
.• •
•
(Public 4-:
• •
Hearing H
x
• • (Plans and
•• Specifications C'
r.1
•
• : height-of-Way
•
• cquisition y
i' •• .. ;
0.
z
•-3
s • id
•• • c
.. Date
x
•
• ssessment
• :. •:. • : : Hearing '
0
• • Completion
H
•
;• ;- :- : Date
X 30tri 30tri 30W 3 (.•- bd 3oed 3otri :--) to
c+ FCRi
D
N
& `+ F-' w '' OD
& Engineer
H. waN o ON P \II O 000 00 0
CI VD o
-Eft- lD N Technician III a•
•' Nr+ ' , D 0 0 0 0 00 OHO 000 0 0 ' 0
o .V
co vi N v, Technician II U,'
- "'�' fD N o o Inspector Ii �' �,
• O a 00 0Co 00 0O 0 000 00 h �i C-
c+ ,
o Technician IH.
o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 000 Inspector I
P
ON n
x
El
VD a'
V V V c} 0
K K
H H C 0 I----' 0 �,,, W n, 1-10 0 000 0 0 o Secretary
• O CA f-J H
.J
�- TotalCo
'd 1.....) -3 OH (1,-
U..) N )
0 0 0 N0 00 J
['''
h
Co VD
VD vt n
▪ �0 ~ 0 0 0 o or° Engineering
0D-1o
.!-"j
w QS o i i i i Dept. Fee
0 vi �O w �o o rn I o 0
..-- .P- -r-- --- ..L.-• ...-- P p
0 o 0 o o 0 W tv rrograr.
Number
o
q ti
0 1 ti)
p• p.
. c)
E 0
o w
3 e
. &Ca r•-•ct.
0 M K cr
M V1- 01
• e, P) H.
o t..1 p•
5 m
ti 4 0 o
c+ P R•
0
R• H atr
4 , ., i•
p (1,
t ' a•«•::: 0
•..i• 1 .,i i.4
1.-'•
'0
CP .
s . . . . .
• .
• • • • . . '
• . . .
o .. • . . • . 7,
• (1)
.. .. .. .. •• .
* ,.4
, co)
,14•4 c • 1
. . . IN'
.. • . .
. . .
• .
• • • . . ^ . •
' o' ° •• • • • • •
. ... ,
. . . . • . • —
0• • • •
:
•
. . . • . • . . F-I
• • • . . U
•• •• . 0 0-1
.. .. .. . .
'LI LTJ
• . . . . . . • '1 --.1
....
• •
1
(t
. •
.
.
.
. •
.
. ...
U
• • • .
• •
.. .. . . . .. . .. ..5 U
c' t-1
• . . . ).---,
: • . •
. . . .
. ' • .
W .17.J
. . . . .
.. •
. •
.. •
.. .
.. •
. • . rb
on F1:
. ..
0
• • . . •• . • •
. . . . •
on X
• • ,-.• 0
• . . • . . • cr •..--,
. .
•• . .. '
. .
. .
.. .
.. .
•• p•
H. t--•
• .
e •
. • . • • . C•
P. P;
. • . • .
• • • • . • .
• ,. (A 01
. . * • 'LI
'• . •• .. .. •• . • 0
•-.0
• . ,-3
• e .
. •
• .
. •
• •
.
•
•
. : • . • .
o • . .
• .
•• •• •• •• .. •' ..
= r) to X 0 CO X 0 bri X 0n, •:'.• 0t
P 1
H ...__. I I I HI _...1 I I 1 lEngino,er
P I
vio....ol o \ol owl 00 00 --4 ---11o _p-- I ool
I I i 1 1 I 1
t.—
oc
00 00 c-, 0 I . \_n I ! Cechnician HI P
.coo II o II N.) (.,01 001 001 cf
-0
.--0
Technicin.n lf -"
H. I I ..-- I L.; kfi I .ol i P I H I -o
0N) I cDov4 l oPO viuo co H I OD 0 1 0 \r0 1 1 I--.0 1 Inspector ; I
1 4 i 1 4 1 cz
Technician I
1.-
0 0 1 0 co I 0 - ' 1 0 0 0 0-- 1 0 r0 1 0 .....) 1 0C) 0 0-
. Inspector 1 t i 1 1 I
o
---1 ..
HI I I I I • I c)* o I op
H —.4 I 0 0 I co co I o co u..) I CH I o ---1 I cr,vo co
Secretary
I I i I i I
c'
I I I I I I I
H IF-
H1 1-0 II—,I I —1 i
-r-- I o...11 I o'‘) I (..,,) I ---) I N.) OD I OX'f\.) 1 :). I FOt al \o
co
oN N.) I 0 \.3 I OD ."--- I \_.r (...0 I 00\JI I ---I W I 0 ON I --I 0,
0--°
WI I N) I I HI ---" 1 Co 1 0-0
'. I I . 1 . 1 .... 1 ••• I . 1%ngineering
-fi"C\ I I Co I ,•-•- I \./0 I H 1-, I 0\ H I Ch H I H
--"'01 1 0 --3 I Co OD I OD 0\ I 1-,-) \-11 I 0\--I I 0 .-• I Co N) I Dept-. f'et'
ON oo I H op 0 01 H O\N) 0.0 CD 0 CD 0......) 1\.)
w IBJ I N N o 0 o Program
.-- v, .r H 0 Co -4 Number
0 in ti
K 1-i c+ k4 f'4 cn
C) tn
it/Ia (a n) n
PCI
N•
H7 Fi'
4 it
Pa
d act
0 61
n co 'CI `�
a rt)
m
w
b
1 ,, w o
av .
C)
C+ .
U
•
• 4 "
- : • • • • •• ' .
r e • • • • m
s • • •
rl
•
ci
a t* tri
• m `U
•
i •:. MI
•' •
ti) rri
b y
'� o
to 3
• • •
f 0
• H•
H.
•
I.--•
• ° c- K
•• .. •, •V
0
• •
H
3n131 X000 3oGT/ Soon .0to XC') W X w 3• n co
1 I I H I I I I lal i n e e r
.o- I t I W I IJ - I H 1 I I N 1
I-' w I 0 r) I H N I w D I --3 N) I 0 - I 0 W I N -.1
,• ' N I i i i i • _ f N w i !Technic III a
cr
O --1 I 001 o I L- co I oo l ' owlo0 Owl
7
J
Technician if
N 1 I I 1 1 I I I-' I ;7
- 1I H ---.1I v, I H v, I 01VD I ,.9 1 F r_-, Inspector f o r i J C)
0 O O • •- 1 fi w 1 N vt I w0 I H -J 1 N oN I 0 0 I p ^s F
H r
C '
1 1 1 1 1 1 I I. Technician I (+
I I I I I I I-, 1 -0\I • " 6
o o I o 0 1 0 0 1 0 �" I o o 1 0 0 1 0 ‘..fl1 0 1 .I nst)ector I C
m
I 1 1
1" S 1 1 t 1 ! ' I I 1 'Y N
OO w IW vi I rnv, I O N I 0 0 I 0 01 o (311 Secretary "'
H
C>\
I I I I I I I I
N 1 1 H I \p I I H I I N I H
N 1 .G I H H I 0'\ N 1 N -1 I C T 0 I ---1 i r.) ---11 t o t.a l
-
J . I 0 Cn 1 Co 0 I N CJ I O t-' I H �" I N +I N O I N
1 I I I I I 1I
"I H I N I v~i I H I H H I H I - l Il 1nCi'T 1I1.
I 1 1 .• 1 1I ' I . I Dept.. FeeW I w W N �o ..r-- N w O C� N . -O\ P
N N 0 H O N w —I CO U.) L., N) (A) H N) vl
H I qp 0 .fi- .- '.p 1:'0 - \." .F"'-C) Co '
1 •
•
0 H Program
Iv
a• Number
,
O O n t7
H G c
m H.
H 0
,-., p
n
c- g
f--3N.
H R. H cs'
i fD N.
Cr) {gyp < 0
R N.
(D Cr)
'S "'
HO
o !D ,.1
a.4' tj 0
'
c+-
0
H.
cf
W
hi P
• • •
H
•
. .. .. .. .. • CrMI
• . up X
. • N• 0
•
•
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. H. x
-.,. I:"
. c* K
• � (•
CIO
x1
•
•
X n til .s n to Z 0 bd 3 n to 'o- n rti X iQ to a' 0 td ;: n :'
.c-f) 1 1ngineer
0 0 0 C
\.n
N -J
N ~ ' [technician i 1 i
.• • -� � 00 0C Q
•T
i :'echnician - I "'
I
0 0 0 •n :nspecLur : 1
•0
•
1 1i'echn 1r_:iar: I c�
0 0 0 of ' .Inspector i oo
t -1 (D
Secretary ) /1
H H 0 0
N
Ch
H
j Total
NN o \of Co
I
-691
I
1 E:nE;iecr iN
o H i Dept. Fee
H H I \J1
N I--1 w
.
ORDINANCE1
NO. 2 3 1,�
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5 OF THE SHAKOPEE
CITY CODE BY PROVIDING A NEW PARAGRAPH H TO SUB-
DIVISION 4 OF SECTION 5.02, ENTITLED "ESTABLISH-
MENTS ELIGIBLE".
Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Shakopee as follows :
Section 1. The Shakopee City Code, Chapter 5, Section 5.02, is hereby amended to
provide the following new Paragraph H thereto:
"H. Establishments Eligible. No on-sale liquor license shall be issued or
renewed for any establishment which contains more than 4,000square feet
unless:
•
1. Said establishment qualifies as a restaurant as defined in this
Chapter; and
2. Said establishment receives at least 50 percent of its gross
receipts from the sale of food for consumption on the premises.
For purposes of this Paragraph, "square feet of space" is defined as
customer used floor area. "
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication.
Adopted by the Shakopee City Council this 7th day of August , 1979.
By the City Council for the
City of Shakopee
Mayor Waiter Harbeck
ATTEST:
f _ Lei.► t,,• S
Douglas .. Re:•er, Administrator
PREPARED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Krass, Mahanan, Meyer .& Kanning
Assistant Shakopee City Attorneys
1221 Fourth Avenue East
Shakopee, MN 55379
Published in the Shakopee Valley News : 8/15/79