HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/06/1982 46
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Non-agenda Informational Items
DATE: April 2 , 1982
1 . Ashland Oil has elected not to use the IRB financing which the
City preliminarily approved.
2 . The cleaning ladies have begun to do some bulk purchasing of
cleaning supplies in an effort to get better prices .
3 . Bo took my new 'K' car to a seminar in Wisconsin and got 32 .45
miles per gallon with less than 1000 miles on the car.
4. The Renaissance Festival recently received a conditional use
permit from the County to: ( 1 ) enlarge their site, ( 2 ) expand
their offices into the home at the site and ( 3 ) add meeting
facilities in a barn that will accomodate 500 people . They
have not expanded the Fair' s 6 weekend schedule with these
changes .
5 . Four property owners from Deerview Acres did not drop their
assessment appeal , all the others have dropped it as per our
agreement . Rod has sent out interrogatories so we will know
shortly why they did not drop the assessment appeal .
6 . One of the subcontractors on the County Road 16 utility project ,
completed last fall, has filed a construction claim against the
general contractor and named the City too. Jack Coller has
advised me to make no further payments until the problem is
resolved.
7 . Al Rybak and Walt Schmitt were served a police "tab charge" for
a street cut without a permit . The Mayor, City Engineer and I
met with Al Rybak and the issue has been resolved with Al paying
double the permit fee. Rybak and Schmitt had felt the City was
"heavy handed" and should have told them to get a permit before
charging them. One reason that wasn' t done was because the
circumstances under which the original plumbing permit was
issued made it appear that they had blatantly disregarded the
need for the street cut permit .
8 . Council had asked whether or not we could require street lighting
in the Industrial Park when processing plats , etc. The City can
require it under Section 12 .06 Subd. 6 and we will be watching
for this on future plats .
9 . John Leroux had given us the name of a MWCC employee in charge
of an experimental tree program. The trees , grown in sludge
and composite , are available and Jim Karkanen is making arrange-
ments to get some .
10. Attached is a follow-up memo from Tom Brownell regarding motor
homes parking at First and Fuller.
Non-agenda Informational Items
Page Two
April 2 , 1982
11 . Attached is another letter from United Cable Corporation regard-
ing the Progress Valley proposal . Jeanne has forwarded it to
the consultant and the Cable Committee.
12 . Attached is a response from Charles R. Weaver regarding our
letter requesting that a scavenger dumping site be provided
at Blue Lake . It appears that our timing was excellent .
13 . Attached is an League up-date on recent bills affecting cities .
14. Attached is a copy of a letter the Mayor received from Rep. Bill
Frenzel .
15 . Attached is a memo from Tom Brownell regarding the department ' s
current practice in handling curfew enforcement . If you have
any question in your mind about the need to change this policy
call me .
16 . Attached are the minutes of the March 4, 1982 Board of Adjustment
and Appeals meeting.
17 . Attached are the minutes of the March 4 , 1982 Planning Commission
meeting.
18. Attached are the minutes of the March 3 , 1982 Shakopee Police
Commission meeting.
19 . Attached are the minutes of the March 8 , 1982 SPUC meeting.
20. Attached is the building activity report for March, 1982 .
21 . Attached is the monthly calendar for April , 1982.
JKA. /jms
>:«moi;, City of Shakopee
-' P e POLICE DEPARTMENT
Ar I)��1 1 476 South Gorman Street l yt E
C tr-
`SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 l� �'`'
Tel. 445-6666 Aq
c{`?) ' 0Y, ...T
P -
t
55379 , l
TO: Mayor, Council Members
FROM: Tom Brownell
SUBJECT: Motor Home Parking - 1st and Fuller
DATE: March 18, 1982
INTRODUCTION
On March 16, 1982 , Council directed staff to review the traffic
hazard created by the parking of recreational vehicles diagonal-
ly on Fuller Street.
BACKGROUND
The Chief of Police , City Engineer and City Planner reviewed the
zoning regulations and City Code to determine if a violation
existed under current regulations with negative results.
The Chief of Police met with the managers of Total Transporta-
tion and Auto Plaza. The managers related that two twenty-eight
foot rental units were the problem vehicles. They indicated a
problem with their lot behind Jim and Lucy' s, which due to the
weather is very muddy, and the roof of their building, which can
be used for parking, has a water problem. They intend to re-
surface the roof as weather permits and will use the lot behind
Jim and Lucy' s on a daily basis as soon as the frost leaves the
ground.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Request Council to consider revising the City Code to pro-
hibit diagonal parking of motor homes. This action would
be directed at one known problem area in the City and would
not resolve the hazard in a timely manner.
2 . Stipulate in the Black Arrow parking lot agreement with
Total Transportation Services authorization to park a maxi-
mum of two twenty-eight foot motor homes parallel to the
south curb line adjacent to the alley within the ten lease
go S'E'CTE JO PZOEECt
Motor Home Parking - 1st and Fuller
Page -2-
spaces authorized by Council until April 15, 1982 .
STAFF ACTION
Include alternative number two in lease agreement and execute
agreement.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
None. Informational memorandum.
united
cable television
corporation
Vit. •
•
March 30 , 1982 i` 1
•
OM 0c41* 3HAKOFE E
Ms. Jeanne Andre
Administrative Assistant
City Hall
127 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN
Dear Ms. Andre:
In our response to the consultant ' s preliminary evaluation of cable
applications, we failed to mention that Zylstra-United ' s competitor ,
Progress Valley Totalvision , has not disclosed its entire rate structure
in Form L of the proposal. Specifically, no mention is made in Form L
of the $2 monthly converter rental charge assessed by the applicant to
Basic (Tier 2) subscribers, although such a charge is clearly indicated
in Form I , page 3. The language used by the applicant is:
Convertors are not necessary for 7 channel universal service.
All other services will require an OAK model L-35 which we
will sell for $60 each or can be rented for $2 per month.
Because the cable system will use standard frequency modulation,
subscribers will also have the freedom to purchase their choice
of converter or cable ready TV on the open market.
In Form G, page 2 , Progress Valley includes revenues from converter
rentals in the "other" category. "Other" revenues per basic subscriber
begin at $24 in year one and increase at a compounded annual rate of
about 4%-5% in years four through fifteen.
In short, we submit that Progress Valley ' s Basic Service cost is $9. 95 if
converter rental charges are included, and not the $7. 95 indicated in
Form L.
We hope this information will be considered in the final evaluation.
Respectfully,
avid nand
Corporate Development
DL :vls
cc Anita Benda
Roger Zylstr a
Denver Technological Center • 4700 South Syracuse Parkway • Denver, Colorado 80237 • (303) 779-5999
Metropolitan Council
4111t44 300 Metro Square Building
�p,>
l'AVR ? 19d2. Seventh Street and Robert Street
f Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
1�+ t�• w. Telephone(612) 291-6453
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
w� Office of the Chairman
Pg-
yF
March 16, 1982
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 E. First Av.
Shakopee, MN 55379
RE: Dumping Facilities for Scavengers
Dear Mr. Anderson:
In response to Shakopee's desire to have a waste disposal site for septage
provided by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) , please be advised
that this subject is under active consideration by the MWCC and its staff.
MWCC consideration of septage disposal sites in the metropolitan disposal
system responds to policy 48b of the Council 's "Water Resources Management
Development Guide, Part 1: Sewage Treatment and Handling Policy Plan." That
policy states, in part, "The commission should determine whether and at what
point septage can be accommodated in the metropolitan wastewater disposal
system. If it can be accommodated, the commission shall establish receiving
points and procedures for such septage."
The MWCC is in the process of responding to that policy, but they have not
identified a specific site in the Shakopee area. The city has an opportunity
to assist the Commission in identifying sites by responding to the March 9,
1982, questionnaire on this subject sent out by the MWCC.
Since the accommodation of septage in the metropolitan area is largely an opera-
tion issue, the Council 's role will be limited. However, please be assured
that we are concerned about the need to provide for adequate, environmentally
sound, cost-effective septage dispsoal .
If you have any further concerns on this subject, please feel free to contact
John Harrington of our staff at 291-6324.
Sincerely,
Ce:la
Charles R. Weaver
Chairman
CRW:sa
cc: Senator Bob Schmitz, Minnesota Senate
Representative Tom Rees, Minnesota House of Representatives
William Sando, Metropolitan Council District 16
Ray Odde, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
John Harrington, Metropolitan Council Staff
action alert
Ill ,
SII /3
league of minnesota cities
,
n.
March 23, 1982 LJ
WiR 2 51982
TO: Managers and Clerks
g CITY°�� Offi �1AK®PEE
FROM: Peggy Flicker, Legislative Counsel
SUBJECT: Impact of tax bill and budget-balancing bill
This memo will briefly highlight several important actions taken by the Governor and
Legislature that might have an immediate effect on cities ' actions. A more detailed
summary will appear in the next Legislative Bulletin which you should receive by
mid-April .
1) Budget cuts
The most recent budget-balancing bill cuts an additional $5.5 million in state pay-
ments to cities due in 1982. The local government aid payments are not cut further.
The cuts will be taken instead in the homestead credit reimbursement payments. The
$5.5 million translates into a 6. 3% cut in each city' s 1982 reimbursement. However,
each city should plan on a total shortfall of 8.2%, due to the proportional cutback
caused by the additional school levies allowed in January.
These figures are based on Dept. of Revenue estimates. The Department will send
each city a letter next week explaining exactly how to calculate the amount to be
cut. No additional levy authority for 1983 has been granted to make up for any
of the cuts.
2) Municipal bond interest rates; negotiated sales
a. The 12% interest ceiling has been removed and replaced with a floating ceiling.
The rate will vary monthly according to the Bond Buyer' s Index of 20 Municipals.
The maximum will be that rate plus one percent and rounded to the next highest
percent. The monthly maximum will be published each month in the State Register
by the Commissioner of Finance. The 12% ceiling applies to any obligations
authorized by resolution before May 1. The new floating rate will apply to any
obligations authorized by resolution after May 1.
b. Effective March 23, the public sale requirement does not apply to obligations
sold by an issuer in an amount not exceeding the total sum of $300,000 (formerly
$200,000) in any three month period.
300 hanover building, 480 cedar street. c, inr naul, minnesota 55101 C6123222-2861
(OVER)
3) Tax increment financing
Numerous changes were made to the tax increment financing law. The changes are
effective :with respect to districts for which certification is requested after
June 30, 1982. (One change relating to changes in the type of district applies to
any district which is changed after March 23.)
Some of the changes make the law somewhat more restrictive and some changes im-
prove the law. For example, authority is given to issue temporary g.o. bonds,
which should reduce interest rate costs. If your city is in the midst of develop-
ing a TIF plan or project, have someone check these changes. You may have to
modify your plans or adjust the timing of the project. If you want to receive a
copy of the changes, call Peggy Flicker at the League.
PF:ara
./f
rif ,,,
. ,,,,1 Ili,/
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MAR C 9 :-J2
WASHINGTON, D C 20515
_
i BILL FRENZEL `�HIRD DISTRICT March 24, 19JCl 'R• i� t„ri'•_
SH,V:, .(4r_
MINNESOTA ��`'
.1„:7::•.;:. .
The Honorable Eldon Reinke
Mayor. Shakopee {
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
i
,, ; Sd
" Dear Mayor Reinke:
0.40011
I,
°P-----lasOn March 12 a U.S. District Court approved a Redistricting Plan for
Minnesota which put Shakopee into a new 3rd Congressional District. Under
the current plan, I represent the existing 3rd District. 4
That Plan has been appealed to the Supreme Court. Those favoring the
appeal, including myself, believe the District Court's duty was to balance
tal the population in the existing districts, rather than to scramble the whole
01>3.; . state. I believe that people can be confused by being shuffled between
411:4�:. various jurisdictions, and therefore that some long-term stability of districts
is desirable.
•
Nevertheless, it is possible that the District Court Plan may stand, and that
I may represent the new 3rd District. I know you are now well represented
op
by Congressman Torn Hagedorn, and have no desire to impose on that
relationship.
' #, However, should you find it convenient or helpful to provide counsel to me
..:_;..1a• on legislative matters, or to seek assistance or information, I will be pleased
to hear from you.
j
Yours vetruly,
1 (14:24, (..;.Th,_
Bill Frenzel
Member of Congress
BF:mjn
0,I
I
1
.lir,.,
y 44,094"4"'''
INAN, City of Shakopee 15. _
s ti A� 0 P E E POLICE DEPARTMENT {
�r1 p r \f
y) er �o w '1,"� 476 South Gorman Street l'O\ •
{) .(....,_
IC)}ice SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 <
l t. Tel. 445.6666 ?
dP .0 L i C
i 55379 _ s . s.
., -••• ��7 '
;a
TO: Mayor, Council Members
FROM: Tom Brownell
SUBJECT: Curfew Enforcement
DATE: March 17, 1982
INTRODUCTION
I have received notification of your council action dated March
16, 1982 , whereby the council expects consistent enforcement of
the existing curfew code .
BACKGROUND
On September 18, 1979, I requested a revision of the curfew code
which would enable the police department to effectively resolve
an on-going problem in the Bluff Street area. Upon adopting the
present curfew code, the council specifically stated they would
expect the curfew law to be enforced with discretion and not as
a basis for numerous arrests.
I believe we have applied the curfew law with consistent dis-
cretion as the following statistics will indicate.
CURFEW VIOLATIONS
1979 (6) - 1980 (4) - 1981 (3) .
go GJEWE ¶Jo . ZOtEct
City of ShakopeeJ7(I�
/, K o POLICE DEPARTMENT
;a• 17 .•q . 1
. �i
� 476 South Gorman Street
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379
TeL 445-6666
•
! 55379
September 18,. 1979 •
Mr. Douglas Reeder
City Administrator
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Doug:
I am writing in reference to a problem which I feel
is very serious and should be brought before the Council
for immediate consideration.
Recodification of the City Ordinances resulted in
the modification of the curfew ordinance, which excludes
juveniles over the age of fifteen years . During the past
two months, the Bluff Street area has developed into a
major problem. Large numbers of juveniles are frequenting
the area for the express purpose of consuming alcohol ,
drug abuse, and engaging in sexual activity. Numerous
complaints from area residents has resulted in the ma-
jority of the police function being directed to this specific
area, drastically reducing patrol availability within the
remainder of the City.
The lack of an effective curfew ordinance prevents the
Police from removing the juveniles from the area until an
overt act is committed. The verbal abuse and threats
directed at the Officers is particularly disturbing. While
the Courts have ruled that Officers must be more tolerant
than other persons , confirmed abuse during the course of
several hours leads to over-reaction.
While the police function is directed primarily toward
enforcing the law, we also have an obligation to prevent
juveniles from becoming involved in activities which will
result in arrest and/or physical injury.
I therefore request that the curfew ordinance (No. 164)
prior to recodification he reinstated in it' s entirety.
J O CS'L4VL JO YOtLet
Mr. Douglas Reeder �5
September 18 , 1979
Page 2
also encourage members of the Council to evaluate the
situation personally and extend an invitation to accompany
an Officer on any Friday or Saturday night. •
Sincerely,
Thomas G. Brownell
CHIEF OF POLICE
TCB :dmh
,/t
PROCEEDINGS OF THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MARCH 4, 1982
Chrm. Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. .with Comm. Koehnen, Coller
and Rockne present. , Comm. Czaja arrived later. Comm. Stoltzman and Perusich were
absent. Also present were Don Steger, City Planner; John K. Anderson, City Admr.
and Cncl. Vierling.
Koehnen/Coller moved to approve the minutes as kept. Motion carried with Comm.
Coller abstaining because of his absence at that meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING - Hvidsten Variance Request (PC 82-7V)
Coller/Koehnen moved to open the public hearing on the request for a 5' variance
from the sideyard setback requirements to increase the size of a bedroom and add a
family room in a R-2 Zone. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner explained the considerations and explained the addition could be
reduced in size, and it is questionable whether the request meets the "hardship"
criteria of the City Code. Therefore staff recommends a reduction in the setback
request.
Mr. Hvidsten stated he re-measured the distances involved and gave the new distances
between the existing structure and the lot line and the closest neighbor's structure.
Comm. Czaja arrived at this point, 7:40 P.M.
Further discussion took place regarding the correct distances.
Chrm. Schmitt asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to comment on
this item, and there was no response.
The City Planner asked the applicant if he could go smaller with the addition. Mr.
Hvidsten explained that with these corrected measurements, the variance request would
be less. After further figuring, the City Planner suggested granting a setback re-
quest of 22 feet.
Mr. Hvidsten stated his nearest neighbor had no objection to the location of his addi-
tion.
Coller/Koehnen moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Coller/Rockne offered Variance Resolution No. 297, granting a 5 foot variance from
the sideyard setback variance, and moved its adoption.
Coller/Rockne moved to amend Variance Resolution No. 297 granting a maximum of 22
foot variance from the sideyard setback variance. Motion to amend carried with Comm.
Czaja abstaining.
Variance Resolution No. 297 as amended carried with Comm. Czaja abstaining.
The City Planner informed the applica n1 of the 7-day appeal period during which time
the decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals can be appealed. Pending no
appeal, the applicant may apply for a Building Permit after the 7-day appeal time
frame.
• Shakopee BORA
March 4, 1982
Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING - Renden Development Variance Request (PC 82-4V)
Coller/Rockne moved to open the public hearing on the variance request for 15'
variance from the front yard setback requirement and a 5' variance from the rear-
yard setback requirements to develop proposed Evergreen Plat. Motion carried
unanimously.
The City Planner explained the request for the variances and the considerations.
He stated that staff is recommending approval of the variances.
Discussion was held with Gary Laurent and Dean Walden of Renden Develop. Corp. re-
garding dimensions of the townhouses and distances shown on the plat.
Chrm. Schmitt asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to comment on
this item, and there was no response.
Coller/Czaja moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Coller/Czaja offered Variance Resolution No. 295, which grants the following variances:
1. A 15 foot front yard variance off of 13th Ave. for buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6;
2. A 5 foot rear yard variance for buildings 4, 5 and 6;
as referenced on the plat dated February 11, 1982, and mored its adoption. Motion
carried unanimously.
Coller/Czaja moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting
adjourned at 8:10 P.M.
Don Steger
City Planner
Diane S. Beuch
Recording Secretary
/7
PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Session Shakopee, Minnesota March 4, 1982
Chrmn. Schmitt called the meeting to order at 8:10 P.M. with Comm. Rockne, Koehnen,
Czaja and Coller present: Absent were Comm. Stoltzman and Perusich. Also present
were Don Steger, City Planner; John Anderson, City Admn. , and Cncl. Vierling.
Koehnen/Czaja moved to amend the minutes of February 5, 1982, Page 3, Paragraph 1,
to read: "Comm. Koehnen stated that although she had not received any complaints
and Mr. Laudon is doing a good job of following the conditions, she would like to
see one more renewal to give the people in the area notice that the permit will
be final. She stated she believed if the people in the area did not get a chance
for one more public hearing, it would cause more problems in the future for the
applicant. Comm. Perusich stated if the people in the area have not complained
in a year, they must be satisfied". Motion carried with Comm. Coller abstaining
because of his absence at that meeting.
Koehnen/Czaja moved to approve the minutes of February 4, 1982, as amended. Motion
carried with Comm. Coller abstaining.
Review - Fenske Conditional Use Permit:
City Planner stated that pursuant to a condition of approval on Conditional Use
Permit Resolution No. 284, adopted August 13, 1981 to allow for a dance studio as a home
occupation for Sharon Fenske, 642 Adams, staff conducted a review and finds no
problems or complaints.
Coller/Czaja moved to accept staff review and establish a second review for
March 1983. Motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing - Shehan Conditional Use Permit Renewal (PC 82-8 C/R):
Coller/Rockne moved to open the public hearing on the request for renewal of existing
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 270, to continue operation of a fast food/
game room facilities in a B-1 Zone. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner stated there have been no complaints concerning the operation of
the business in the last year. He also stated the Police Chief has received no
complaints and indicated the business is being well-managed. Because of the lack
of problems, the City Planner suggested the permit could become permanent.
Chrmn. Schmitt asked if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to
comment on this item. There was no response.
Rockne/Coller moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Coller/Czaja moved that Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 270, allowing a fast
food/game room facilities in a .B-1 Zone be renewed and Condition No. 1 be amended
to read "Annual review". Motion carried unanimously.
Gary Shehan stated he has been strict about enforcing the condition, as set forth in
the adoption of his Conditional Use Permit, regarding curfew hours. He further stated
that after minors leave his place, in accordance with the curfew, they either wait
outside or go to other businesses in the area. He added that the Police do not appear
to enforce the curfew hours at the other places. He stated he feels it is discriminatory
if he is the only business that is required to operate with curfew regulations.
Discussion followed.
Proceedings of the March 4, 1982 17
Shakopee Planning Commission Page -2-
The consensus of the Planning Commission was that Condition No. 5 of Conditional Use
Permit Resolution No. 270, adopted March 12, 1981 which states, "Game room hours of
operation are limited to curfew regulations (5:00 A.M. to 10:30 P.M. )" and pursuant
to Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 270 amended September 10, 1981 which adds
"except on Friday and Saturday where hours are thusly amended to 1:00 A.M. for the
adult patronage", is to be interpreted as game room hours only having curfew
restrictions and if minors are in the restaurant area only, that would not be a
violation of the Conditional Use Permit.
The City Admn. suggested the City Planner communicate this interpretation to the
Police Department.
Public Hearing - Strehlow Conditional Use Permit (Amendment) PC 82-10 C/A:
Coller/Czaja moved to open the public hearing on the request to amend Conditional Use
Permit Resolution No. 271, granting operation of a nursery school in an R-2 Zone,
to provide for additional hours and days of operation. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner stated that pursuant to a condition of Conditional Use Permit
Resolution No. 271, annual review had been conducted by the staff and there are no
problems or complaints. He then detailed the request by the applicant to amend this
Conditional Use Permit by allowing for additional hours of operation. Discussion
followed.
Chrmn. Schmitt asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to comment on
the item. There was no response.
Rockne/Czaja moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Rockne/Coller moved to amend Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 271, allowing
for the operation of a nursery school in an R-2 Zone, adopted April 9, 1981, by
changing the hours of operation to read, "the hours of operation be limited to 9:00 A.M.
to 12:00 Noon Monday, Wednesday and Friday and 9:00 A.M. to 2:45 P.M. Tuesday and
Thursday". Motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing - Whipps Conditional Use Permit (PC 82-6C):
Rockne/Coller moved to open the public hearing on the request for a Conditional Use
Permit to occupy a mobile home as temporary living quarters while assisting in the
family farming operation in an Agriculture Zone. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner stated this mobile home has existed on this site for five years, since
the approval of Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. CC-133, on March 22, 1977. He
stated he has consulted with the City Atorney regarding the intent of the City Code
regarding the five-year term for mobile homes and it is the attorney's opinion that
our Zoning Order of the City Code allows only one five-year term. City Planner stated
he does not agree with that intrepretation and believes the City can issue a new
Conditional Use Permit to keep the mobile home there for another five-year term, if
desired. He stated he thinks it is reasonable in this economic climate to issue this
permit to allow the mobile home to continue to exist at this site.
Comm. Coller stated that the thought process that went into this portion of the Ordinance
was to discourage mobile homes and encourage permanent residency on a farm site.
The City Planner'stated that given the economic circumstances, it is unrealistic to
tell the applicant he can help with the family farm for five years only.
Mr. Whipps stated his mobile home sits on four acres so he cannot build a home there.
He also rents 250 acres in other locations. His farmsite is surrounded by land owned
Proceedings of the March 4+, 1982
Shakopee Planning Commission Page -3-
by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and there is no future for that
particular base farm.
Chrm. Schmitt stated he did not believe this body could issue a permit based on com-
petent legal advice. The City Planner pointed out it is his interpretation that the
Subd. regarding mobile homes does not state the permit could not be reapplied and
considered. It was established that the applicant knew at the tine of the approval
Qf the original permit that this five-year condition existed.
The applicant stated he rents only tillable land, and could not set up residency on
the other parcels he rents. Further discussion ensued regarding the sale of the sur-
rounding farmland to Metropolitan Waste Control Commission.
The City Planner stated the City Attorney did not feel this situation justified the
hardship criteria for issuance of a permit. The City Planner stated that most
communities and counties that have agricultural land tend to feel they- should do
what is possible to accommodate people who are trying to make a living in farming.
It is very common to have a mobile home on a farmstead and have a member of the
family assist with the family farm. The ordinance does not say that the applicant
cannot make out a new application for a Conditional Use Permit for the same purpose.
Coller/Rockne moved to continue the public hearing to April 15, 1982 pending the
availability of a formal legal opinion and alternatives relative to the ordinance.
If the City Attorney does not believe such an application is valid the the Conditional
Us Permit request should not come before the Commission, however, an amendment to
the ordinance could be considered. Motion carried unanimously.
It was further recommended by the Planning Commission that the City Planner research
ideas for changing the ordinance to accommodate the agricultural environment. Comm.
Coller suggested checking with other communities within the Metro area to see how they
handle mobile homes on farmsteads.
PUBLIC HEARING - Renden Development Preliminary Plat of Evergreen _CPC 82-5P)
Coller/Koehnen moved to open the public hearing for preliminary plat approval of
Evergreen, a development which would allow 24 townhouses. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner stated this development proposes six buildings with clusters of four
townhouses in each building. He explained the 11 conditions and stated staff recom-
mended approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to those conditions.
Comm. Koehnen questioned the City Planner regarding the buffering of residential areas
from the proposed by-pass, to determine if the plat meets the requirements. The City
Planner stated this plat meets the requirements of that section.
The developers stated they know of the conditions and have no problems with them.
Further discussion was held with the developers regarding this plat and the adjacent
development.
Comm. Czaja asked about the City's policy regarding signage on a dead-end street.
The City Admr. stated reflective barriers on dead-end streets is among many signage
items that need to be addressed around the City. Further discussion was held regard-
ing sewer allotments, and the City Planner stated the City Engineer was very concerned
about them and is monitoring them closely.
Coller/Czaja moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Coller/Koehnen moved to recommend to City Council the approval of the preliminary
plat of Evergreen Subdivision, subject to the following conditions:
Proceedings of the March 4, 1982 I
Shakopee Planning Commission Page -4-
1. Approval of the Title Opinion by the City Attorney.
2. Cash payments be made to the City, at the time of the issuance of building per-
mits, in lieu of park dedication.
3. Execution of a Developer's Agreement for the construction of the required im-
provements:
m-
provemenis:
a. A sidewalk be installed along the north side of 13th Ave. ;
b. Street lighting be installed in accordance with the requirements of SPUC;
c, Water system. be installed in accordance with the requirements of SPUC;
d. Sanitary and storm water sewer system be installed in accordance with the
requirements of the City Engineer;
e. Street improvements be made in accordance with the requirements of the City
Engineer;
4. The sanitary sewer laterals be distinguished as to private or public prior to
the final platting. If necessary, utility easements will have to be provided.
5. Final utility and street plans be submitted with the final plat in accordance
with Engineering Dept. requirements.
6. Ten foot drainage and utility easements be provided around the perimeter of the
entire final plat.
7. A planting (landscaping) plan be submitted with the final plat which provides
buffers south and southwest of Blocks 4, 5 and 6 and east of Block 3.
8. The final plat be renamed "Evergreen 1st Addition".
9. A final water system plan and a written agreement between the developers of the
plat and the Minn. Valley 6th Add'n, to provide looping of the watermains through
both plats, be submitted with the final plat.
10. Sanitary sewer flow allocation agreement be executed between developer and ap-
proved by the City Engineer prior to final plat approval.
11. Prior to final plat approval the developer must secure from the property owner(s)
west of the Evergreen Subd. a drainage agreement recognizing that surface water
run-off from this subdivision will enter the land to the west and that the property
owner(s) agree to accept the additional surface water run-off.
Motion carried unanimously.
ALLEY VACATION REg1UEST
The City Planner explained that the applicant is David Moonen, owner of the north portion
of Lots 1 & 2, Bik. 30, OSP, who is asking the City to vacate part of the alley in Blk. 30.
The City Planner showed on the overhead projector the location of the building and
alley and explained that the applicant wishes to remodel his building and change the
frontage of the building from Holmes Street to the north. He stated the building
sits within inches of the alley r-o-w and he cannot properly correct a leaking roof
problem without encroaching on the alley.
The City Planner stated the main obstacles to vacating the alley are a lack of plans
by the City for the proposed remodeling of the parking lot located in Block 30 which lies
between 2nd & 3rd Avenues and Holmes & Lewis Streets and the retention of access to
Lot 3, which is now through the alley.
He stated the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee passed a resolution stating their support of this
vacation request, and requested the City Council to vacate that portion of the alley
and encouraged the City to reconstruct the parking lot, thereby providing access to
the apartments in Lotas soon as possible.
David Moonen stated that he only owns the north 51 feet of Lots 1 and 2. He stated
the alley in front of the Huber Building is not vacated, so there is access to Lot
3 off Lewis Street through the parking lot. He plans to front the building to the
north and dress it up to make it attactive to the downtown area. Anything he does
depends on the City's plans for the parking lot reconstruction.
Proceedings of the March 4, 1982 (
Shakopee Planning Commission Page -5-
The City Engineer stated the City's plans for this parking lot are long range, and
tentatively add only 8 feet to the existing drive to Lot 3. If this vacation is
granted, it would add a substantial amount to the property owner of Lot 3 to main-
tain. Further discussion followed regarding modifications of the existing parking
lot and alternatives for access to Lot 3, including removing concrete berms.
The City Admr. stated that one of the emphasis of the Downtown Committee is to move
the focus of -downtown from First to Second Avenue, and maybe this is an opportunity
to generate a "Town Square" effect with greenery, benches, etc. , and this should be
kept in mind before committing the City to a plan for the parking lot.
Cletus Link expanded on the plans for face-lifting Mr. Moonen's building, adding they
want it to be a very attractive first impression for traffic entering town.
Further discussion ensued.
Coller/Koehnen moved to go on record indicating that the concept of the vacation
of the alley in Block 30, OSP, north of Lots 1 and 2 is consistent with Shakopee's plan-
ning desires, noting that the vacation requires City and developer to work out
access to the apartments in Lot 3. Motion carried unanimously.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
The City Planner informed the Commission that the City Council adopted its recom-
mendations regarding one-way street standards. He explained that Mayor Reinke had
a concern about the 28 foot marginal access streets and requested the Planning
Commission to evaluate this requirement. The City Planner has since spoken with
Mayor Reinke and explained the misunderstanding, and therefore no action is necessary
on this item.
Chrm. Schmitt stated he would like to allocate some time to a short work session re-
garding Planning Commission meeting procedures to clarify items and refresh memories
about proper procedure.
Comm. Coller stated his interest in going out into the industrial segment of the
City and having plant tours to find out what the different industries are doing,
their development and expansion plans, perception of the future, why they picked
Shakopee and how they feel now about that selection. He suggested Rahr Malting
would be a good place to start as it is one of the oldest in the City. Discussion
followed, with consensus that the City Planner immediately start planning for plant
tours to be held before a Planning Commission meeting.
Rockne/Coller moved to hold the scheduled April 8th meeting on April 15th to avoid
a Planning Commission on a Holy Day. Motion carried unanimously.
Rockne/Coller moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at
10:40 P.M.
Don Steger
City Planner
Diane S. Beuch
Recording Secretary
MhiR3R 1582
MINUTES OF THE SHAKOPEE POLICE CITY
of
3H OPE
Minutes of the meeting of March 3, 1982
Meeting called to order by Chairperson Virgil Mears at 4:05 P.M.
Members present: Commissioner Virgil Mears, Commissioner Dan Steil,
Commissioner Stan Dircks and Police Chief Tom Brownell .
Members absent: None
1 . Mr. Mears summarized the letter that was sent out to non—profit
organizations in regards to the Shakopee Criminal Apprehension
Fund which has recently been organized. Mr. Mears also stated
that a follow—up letter will be sent to those organizations
listed. At the present time the Apprehension Fund has approxi—
mately $3,000.00 in initial pledges.
2. Police Chief Brownell has set up the accounts for the Shakopee
Criminal Apprehension Fund and has established a separate post
office box. Again, all various groups will be recontacted and
the business will also be contacted. Mr. Mears and Mr. Brownell
will mail the follow—up letter and will follow through on the
responses.
3 . The initial meeting for the Board of Directors of the Shakopee
Criminal Apprehension Fund will be held at 7:00 P.M. on April 6,
1982. That meeting will be held at the police building and will
be the Crime Prevention organizational meeting.
4. There was an election of officers for the Shakopee Police Commission
and Mr. Mears was nominated and approved as Chairman and Mr. Steil
was nominated and approved as Secretary. Both will serve one year
at those positions.
5. Motion to adjourn was made at 4:39 P.M.
Daniel G. Steil
March 29, 1982
/ �
MINUTES OF THE
SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
(Special Meeting)
The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in special session
on March 8, 1982 at 6:00 P.M. in the Utilities meeting room.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Bishop and Reinke, Liaison Jerry Wampach,
Manager Van Hout, Superintendent Leaveck and Secretary Menden. Commissioner
Nolting was out of town.
BILLS READ:
City of Shakopee 20,032.00
Anderson Electric 5. 76
Mary Athmann 185.64
Auto Central Supply 67.32
Battery Tire Warehouse, Inc. 36.85
Bills Toggery 50.99
Border States Electric Supply 5,430.00
Burmeister Electric Company 184.61
Chanhassen Lawn and Sports 925.50
Chicago and Northwestern Transportation Co. 1,225.00
City of Shakopee 1,415.33
Davies WaterEquipment Co. 146. 73
John Dellwo 72.05
Dunnings Hardware Inc. 28.21
Electrical World 10.00
Electrol Equipment, Inc. 12.11
Ray Friedges 65.39
Gopher State Truck Stop 27.95
Graybar Electric Supply Co. 391.27
H & C Electric Supply 371.20
Hennens ICO 6.00
Krass, Meyer and Kenning 581.13
Kremer Spring and Alignment 35.00
Lathrop Paint and Supply Co. 5.63
Leef Bros. , Inc. 15.40
M/A Associates, Inc. 268.75
Malkerson Motors, Inc. 794.07
Minnesota Electric Supply Co. 937.30
Northern States Power Co. 216,668.88
Northern States Power Co. 575.30
Northern States Power Co. 890.28
Nott Company 8.36
Eugene Pass 159.62
Pitney Bowes 79.75
Power 11.00
Power Quip Inc. 20.85
Kent Sanders 3.83
Schoell and Madson, Inc. 2,906.53
Schroeder Mfg Co. 1,006.29
Serco 52.00
Shakopee Oil Company 34.25
Shakopee OK Hardware 38.27
Shakopee Public Utilities Comm. ( Petty Cash ) 541.17
Shakopee Services 36.00
Shakopee Valley News 35.21
Software Consultants, Inc. 620.00
Starks Cleaning Service 17.30
Suels Business Equipment 10.88
Uniforms Unlimited 20.00
Richard Van Aernums 74.68
Transport Clearings 49.93
Water Products Company 919.85
Ziegler Tire Service 109.20
Motion by Reinke, seconded by Bishop that the bills be allowed and ordered
paid. Motion carried.
Manager Van Hout received the concensus of the Commission on sending Sherri
Theisen and Sharon Moonen to a finance seminar at the Marriott Inn on April 16, 1982.
Energy savings booklets have been purchased by the Commission for distribution
to the Shakopee Public Utilities customers. The best way to distribute the booklets
was discussed.
The status of the acquistions from Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative was
reviewed by the Commission.
John Wood arrived to present his objections to tree timming on his property.
The Commissioners will try to visit the site to view the situation.
The next regular meeting of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission will be on
March 15, 1982 at 4:30 P.M. in the Utilities meeting room.
Motion by Reinke, seconded by Bishop that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried.
Lou Van Hout, Utilities Manager
l
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT March, 1982
PERMITS ISSUED Yr. to Date Total Previous Year
5558-5570 Nurrjber ' Number Valuation Number Valuation
MO. YTD.
Single Fam.-Sewered 2 2 111 ,650 1 3 159 ,000
Single Fam.-Septic - 1 78 ,500 - 1 75 ,000
Multiple Dwellings 1 1 60 ,000 2 2 160,000
(Mo.Units) ( Y'TD Units) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 4 ) ( 4 )
Dwelling Additions 1 2 21 , 945 2 2 34,000
Other 1 3 73 , 780 - -
Business District - - - - 1 40 ,000
Agricultural - - - - - -
Industrial -Sewered - - - - - -
Industrial -Septic - - - - - 425 ,000
Accessory/Garages - - - 6 7 47 ,000
:: i fans & Fences
2 7 11 , 670 - - -
Fireplaces/Wood Stove 1 4 4, 955 1 2 2 , 200
Grading/Foundation - 1 1 , 165 1 1 47 ,000
Remodeling (Res. ) 3 5 8 , 300 4 5 3 ,400
1
Remodeling ( Inst. ) 1 7 646 , 928 8 13 307 ,900
Remodeling (Other)
TOTAL TAXABLE 13 34 1 ,018 ,893 25 37 1 , 300 , 500
TOTAL I NST I TUTTCNAL - - - - - -
GRAND TOTAL 13 34 1 ,018 , 893 25 37 1 , 300, 500
MO . YTD. MO . YTD.
Variances - 3 - -
l•(illd i t.i 0151 I Use 1 5 1 2
Re-Zoning - - - -
Moving - - - -
Electric Permits 11 22 15 41
PIlmbg. & Htg. Permits 12 23 17 34
Hazing Permits
Residential - - - -
Commercial - - - -
Total dwelling units in City after completion of all construction permitted
to date 3 , 513
Cora Underwood
Bldg. Dept . Secretary
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
x�0
BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED IN MARCH, 1982
5558 Howard Larson Rt . 1 , Box 1000M Remodel $ 2 , 500
5559 Goodwin Bldrs . •L6 M,�neso a Twin Home ( 1 unit ) 30,000
5560 Goodwin Bldrs . 426 Minn so'a J win Home ( 1 unit ) 30 ,000
.-5 3 � ,
5561 Goodwin Bldrs . 4 6 Minneso a U House 50,650
crs 13 . c
5562 Steve Cramer 1044 Pierce'ac Wood Stove 800
5563 Leroy Signs 804 East 1st Ave . Sign 800
5564 Leroy Signs 129 Holmes Sign 1 ,402
5565 Philip Hvidsten 628 E. 3rd Ave . Addition 20,000
5566 John Vohnoutka 129 Holmes Alteration 12 , 500
5567 Virgil Aarness 427 Minnesota Remodel 1 , 500
5568 Werner Deutsch 223 W. 8th Alteration 300
5569 Valley Fair Addition 40,000
5570 Michael Menke 671 W. Menke Ave . House 61 ,000
c%17/ 3 Z4:4.A.L 4..i ,,,,,. ,.5 i_
$251 ,452
i .
Y
,...._ Qi
--
r,7
M 0 I----
,--I
r1 .—I N
Q
p4
Q w
H
a;
1-4 0
0
N Cr, C.7 ,•O M 0
.--I N cYl
1) O •
0'00^J b10,-1 E
'-1 •
•r L CL
H 0
ci E
.-1 cc ul rl O •• N C .
.--I Pa U r--- N • N
E
cci I ,
> O
M
N " ^
co Ci) r----- a)
oTh Wz E E O � •" > EE
P 3 u H • H •
H ua a -0 a) a)
o cd a a
H .
•,- 0 0 < G 0 O r1 O
P.., ,—I 0 U 0 3 a) O p 0
d n -t O •• 0 •• —I O 1J ci •• 00 cd ••
--1 P-• -t -• Ln N ----(...) r--- (NUI-----
4
-1 -1
p •r1 E E E
(1) U r1 • O • O •
(.1 •," C1, U P-, U Q,
Ei C O 0 ›,O
d O -JO 4JO
p4 O •• c) O •r1 •• n •," ••
Z0n r; N UIQ NUn
. , i
•
r, > •
p a) E C1, E
cn • a)
0 uJ-_) a aca a,
—:
r1 r1 0 E O aJ O
vl ,O •," M N EO ? 0
1J •. .-; e-; O .• .,- •. N
iP-+
� -.t U ..Owco
1
p
W
(.7 Hi
v)
,t d cc L.,-,
.-, [i] c--1 N
TENTATIVE AGENDA
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA APRIL 6, 1982
Mayor Reinke presiding
1] Roll Call at 7 :00 P .M.
2] Recess to conduct an H.R.A. Meeting
3] Reconvene
4] Approve Minutes of March 16th and 23rd, 1982
5] Communications :
a] League of Mn. Cities Action Alert re : Impact of tax bill and
budget-balancing bill
b] Mn. Manufactured Housing Association re : invitation to
Mid-America Housing Exposition
c ] The National Office On Disability re : the International
Year of Disabled Persons, 1981
6] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers
7] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS :
8] Old Business :
a] Request for Extension of Deadline for Recording Final Plat of
Mn. Valley 6th Addition
b] Joint Seven Man Committee/Shakopee and Jackson Twp Planning
and Land Use Control
c] Tennis Court Lighting
d] Update : Memorial Park Millpond Water Quality Problem Background
e] Proposed Amendments to 1982 General Fund Budget - Res. No. 1991
f] Request for Funding for Shakopee Senior Citizen Center Director
(bring memo 11a from March 2nd agenda)
g] Appointment to Shakopee Public Utilities Commission
h] Parking in Municipal Parking Lots
i] Developer' s Agreement (bring memo 11h from March 2nd agenda)
j ] City' s Two Percent 429 Project Interest Surcharge (bring memo
11f from March 2nd agenda)
9] Planning Commission Recommendations : None
10] Resolutions and Ordinances:
a] Ord. No. 91 , Amending the Dog and Cat Regulations and Licensing
b] Res. No. 1994, Setting A Public Hearing for $1 , 500,000 Industrial
Commercial Revenue Bond Application from the Cornelius Co.
(Rubber Industries, Inc . )
c] Res. No. 1992 , Establishing Municipal State Aid Highways
11] New Business :
a] 8 :30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - Request for vacation of the alley
lying North of Lots 1 & 2 , Block 30, Original Shakopee
b] National League of Cities Memorandum on Cable Legislation
c] Fiscal Year 1983 Preliminary LCMR/LAWCON Grant Application
d] Redevelopment of Block 57 , Original Shakopee Plat
e] Levee Drive Improvements - Res. No. 1993, Receiving Report
and Setting a Public Hearing
f] Mark Hurd Aerial Proposal for Upper Valley Drainage
g] Proposed Scott/St . Francis Ambulance Service Agreement
for 1982-1985
TENTATIVE AGENDA
April 6 , 1982
Page -2-
h] Murphy' s Landing Sewer Charges
i] Fire Hall Roof Bids
j ] Request for Release of an Agreement Between City of Shakopee
and CC&F Enterprises
k] Mayors and Administrators Report on County Wide Concerns
1] Move that the bills in the total amount of $174, 298 .07
be allowed and ordered paid
12] Consent Business : None
13] Other Business :
a] Week in April devoted to community beautification - discussion
b]
c]
d]
14] Adjourn to Tuesday, April 20, 1982 at 7 :00 P.M.
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
TENTATIVE AGENDA
Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the
City of Shakopee , Minnesota
Regular Session April 6 , 1982
Chairman Leroux , presiding
1 . Roll Call at 7 : 00 p.m.
2 . Approval of Minutes of March 23 , 1982
3 . Conflict of Interest Disclosure by Commissioners
4. Fourth and Minnesota Neighborhood Revitalization Project -
Program Update
5 . Other Business
6 . Adjourn
Jeanne Andre
Executive Director
YHOCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MARCH 23, 1982
Vice Chrm. Colligan called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. with Comm. Wampach
and Vierling present. Absent were Comm. Lebens and Comm. Leroux. Also present
were Jeanne Andre, HRA Director and John K. Anderson, City Admr.
Vierling/Wampach moved to approve the minutes of March 16, 1982 as kept. Motion
carried unanimously.
The HRA Director briefly went over some of the 1982 budget revisions.
Vierling/Wampach offered Resolution No. 82-3, A Resolution Amending the Tentative
General Fund Budget for 1982, and moved its adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Vierling/Wampach moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned
at 7:08 P.M.
Jeanne Andre
HRA Director
Diane S. Beuch
Recording Secretary
3
MEMO TO: Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
FROM: Jeanne Andre , Executive Director
RE: Conflict of Interest Disclosure by Commissioners
DATE: April 1 , A982
Introduction
At its March 16 , 1982 , meeting the HRA determined that its Commis-
sioners would follow the process of disclosures regarding real
estate interests outlined in Resolution No. 76-1 .
Background
Resolution No. 76-1 calls for disclosure of real estate interests
prior to taking oath as a Commissioner and updated each year at
the annual meeting. Staff and current Commissioners were unaware
of the provisions of this resolution at the time of the annual
meeting. Therefore it was determined that the disclosure would
be by April first in 1982 , and at the annual meeting in future
years .
Attached are copies of the disclosures submitted by the Commissioners .
Recommended Action
To accept the disclosure of real estate interests provided by each
of the HRA Commissioners and place the disclosure statements on
file with the Executive Director of the HRA.
JA/jms
I , Dean Colligan, have interest in the following real estate
located within the corporate limits of the City of Shakopee:
Parcel No. 27-037017-0
Lot 8 , Block 2
West View 3rd .Addition
City of Shakopee
Date : Signature :
Dean Colligan
I , Gloria Vierling, have interest in the following real estate
located within the corporate limits of the City of Shakopee :
Parcel No . 27-001262-1
East 4' of lot 3 and West 30' of lot 4, Block 33
Original Shakopee Plat
One-half interest
Parcel No . 27-907004-00
Section 7 , Township 115, Range 22 - 1 . 3 acres
1 . 3 acres lying within South one-half Southwest one-quarter
lot size 190 ' x 300 '
Date : Signature :
Gloria Vierling
I , John Leroux, have interest in the following real estate
located within the corporate limits of the City of Shakopee :
Lot 4 , Block 4, Scenic Heights Third Addition,
Fee Owner
Lot 1 , Block 3 , Eastview First Addition,
Contract Owner
Date : - • Signature :
I , Jerry Wampach, have interest in the following real estate
located within the corporate limits of the City of Shakopee :
Parcel No. 27-001256-0
Lots 4, 5 , 6 , Block 32
City of Shakopee
Parcel No. . 27-001257-0
Lot 7 , Block 32
City of Shakopee
Parecl No. 27-001259-0
West 22 ' of 9 and East 15 ' of 10 , Block 32
City of Shakopee
Parcel No. 27-001560-0
North 60 ' of Lots 4 and 5 , Block 73
City of Shakopee
CJE'
Aa//4„e`d
Date : /23,47/'c 3 /a fl/ Signature : /
Jerry Wampach
I , Dolores M. Lebens , have interest in the following real estate
located within the corporate limits of the City of Shakopee :
Parcel No. 27-001-0000-260-00
West 45 ' of Lot 10 , Block 32
City of Shakopee
Parcel No. 27-001-0000-453-00
Lot 10 , Block 60
City of Shakopee
Date : at.'" ) Signature :
olores M. Lebens
action aler
'iii
league of minnesota cities
March 23, 1982 it -
MAR 2 51982
TO: Managers and Clerks
FROM: Peggy Flicker, Legislative Counsel CITY OF SHAKOPEE
SUBJECT: Impact of tax bill and budget-balancing bill
This memo will briefly highlight several important actions taken by the Governor and
Legislature that might have an immediate effect on cities ' actions. A more detailed
summary will appear in the next Legislative Bulletin which you should receive by
mid-April .
1) Budget cuts
The most recent budget-balancing bill cuts an additional $5.5 million in state pay-
ments to cities due in 1982. The local government aid payments are not cut further.
The cuts will be taken instead in the homestead credit reimbursement payments. The
$5.5 million translates into a 6.3% cut in each city' s 1982 reimbursement. However,
each city should plan on a total shortfall of 8.2%, due to the proportional cutback
caused by the additional school levies allowed in January.
These figures are based on Dept. of Revenue estimates. The Department will send
each city a letter next week explaining exactly how to calculate the amount to be
cut. No additional levy authority for 1983 has been granted to make up for any
of the cuts.
2) Municipal bond interest rates; negotiated sales
a. The 12% interest ceiling has been removed and replaced with a floating ceiling.
The rate will vary monthly according to the Bond Buyer' s Index of 20 Municipals.
The maximum will be that rate plus one percent and rounded to the next highest
percent. The monthly maximum will be published each month in the State Register
by the Commissioner of Finance. The 12% ceiling applies to any obligations
authorized by resolution before May 1. The new floating rate will apply to any
obligations authorized by resolution after May 1.
b. Effective March 23, the public sale requirement does not apply to obligations
sold by an issuer in an amount not exceeding the total sum of $300,000 (formerly
$200,000) in any three month period.
300 hanover building, 480 cedar street, saint naul, minnesota 55101 C6123222-2861
(OVER)
3) Tax increment financing
Numerous changes were made to the tax increment financing law. The changes are
effective :with respect to districts for which certification is requested after
June 30, 1982. (One change relating to changes in the type of district applies to
any district which is changed after March 23. )
Some of the changes make the law somewhat more restrictive and some changes im-
prove the law. For example, authority is given to issue temporary g.o. bonds,
which should reduce interest rate costs. If your city is in the midst of develop-
ing a TIF plan or project, have someone check these changes. You may have to
modify your plans or adjust the timing of the project. If you want to receive a
copy of the changes, call Peggy Flicker at the League.
PF:ara
•h�F ACTURE .
'V If MINNESOTA :fib
pyo; WA
MANUFACTURED
•
HOUSING
M — ASSOCIATION
;sFM Ms~= ": 222 EAST LITTLE CANADA ROAD, SUITE 222 / LITTLE CANADA, MINNESOTA 551`17 /(61`2)4&2 75
MAR 2 5 1982
President
Jim Jaeger
Senior Vice President
Chuck Mossefin * * SPECIAL INVITATION * *
Past President
Don Bundy
Secretary/Treasurer
Paul Howard
Dear Mayor :
Divisional The Minnesota Manufactured Housing Association is
Vice Presidents hosting a luncheon for local officials interested
Reed Beckler in learning more about the role manufactured housing
Retailers& Brokers can play in your communities . The luncheon is in
Butch Berg conjunction with our Mid-America Housing Exposition
Manufacturers and will be at 11 : 30 a .m. on Friday, April 23 , 1982
Jim Dalton at the Registry Hotel in Bloomington . Please come
Out State Parks join us .
Bruce Hay
Twin City Parks With the passage of recent legislation aimed at
Roger Larson eliminating discrimination against manufactured
Suppliers& Service housing, many communities have been asking for more
information on what we are all about . The purpose
lo
NSchrader
of this luncheon is to explain the le islation and
NationalalFederation p g
how it may affect cities or counties . We will look
Randy Sellhorn
Finance& Insurance at the positive ways to incorporate manufactured
housing in your overall housing plan . Lisa Drake ,
Consumer Affairs Advisor from Manufactured Housing
Regional Institute will give an overview of the industry from
Directors a national perspective and John Farmer, Executive
Greg Aplin Vice President of Minnesota Manufactured Housing
Twin City Association will speak to the local application of
Dave Baker the legislation .
South Central
Dave Goldberg Following the presentation and lunch we will be glad
Northeast to show you around the 55 homes on display in the
Dean Lampe parking lot of Met Stadium.
Northwest
Dave Paquette Please call our office at (612 ) 482-8875 prior to
Southeast April 19 , 1982 if you can attend or if someone
Shannon Rickert else from your city wishes to attend. It promises
Southwest to be an important event for all of us !
Gregg Van Slyke
Central Sincere l
.09
Staff
John T. Farmer
Executive Vice President ohn T. Farmer
Deborah Witt Executive Vice President
Office Manager
JTF/djw
+' The National Office on Dis
I S hL4 / �fi�t
V� � l 1575 Eye Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 2.1 ry, ` r `
• (202) 638-6011
March 17, 982
tv'',"�� 2 c 1S&2
Dear Mayor/Chief Elected Official: (�
Your leadership and support are needed. +As 'fo1M1REEarlier letters
from Mayor Helen Boosalis, president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors,
and myself, I am writing to urge that you continue the momentum of the
DIRECTORS International Year of Disabled Persons (IYDP) 1981. More than 1,850
towns, cities and counties, 330 national organizations, 270 corporations,
Richard M.DeVos,Chairman and all 55g overnors of states and territories participated in the IYDP
President,AMWAY Corporation
Community Partnership Program.
Alan A.Reich,President
But the problems of 35 million Americans with physical or mental disa-
Philip E.Beekman bi li ties did not end with the IYDP. In these days of retrenchment in
President,Seagram Company,Ltd.
government services, these programs take on added importance. Responding
Henry B.Betts,M.D. to a nationwide call to sustain the IYDP momentum, the National Office on
Medical Director Disability has been formed to continue promoting the community-based,
Rof Chiilitation Institute partnership initiatives through 1982 and beyond. While the membership
of Chic ago
of your local Community Partnership Committee may change, we look forward
Mayor Helen Boosalis to a continuing, productive relationship with you and your community.
msulrnt.U.S. Conference of Mayors
The U.S. Congress and President Reagan have officially designated 1982 the
Colby Chandler
President,Eastman Kodak Company National Year of Disabled Persons (See enclosure) . Governors and local
officials throughout the nation are issuing proclamations. (See enclosed
(die Fraser sample.) The NYDP will helpreinforceyourprograms.
President,Eraser/Associates
Robert E.Kirby Your leadership in carrying out the following five steps as soon as possi-
chairman ble will help greatly to ensure the success of your community's program:
1\est inghouse Electric Corporation
Edward C.Merrill,Jr.,Ph.D. 1. Reconfirm or select your Liaison for 1982-1983 to the National Office
President,Gallaudet College on Disability and return the enclosed form so that we may forward
organizational and other information to him/her.
ltzhak Perlman 2. Support your Liaison and your local group or Community Partnership
Committee by holding a planning meeting with them as soon as possible.
Harold Russell
chairman, President's Committee on 3. If you have not done so already, issue a proclamation (Sample enclosed)
employment of the Handicapped designating 1982 as the NYDP and send us a copy.
4. Urge other public officials and community leaders to continue their
fudge Leonard Staisey support in 1982 and beyond.
Honorable lames R.Thompson 5. Ensure public awareness in the media for your commitment and plans.
(,r,vernor of Illinois (See suggested press release) .
Honorable Dick Thornburgh I am sharing this letter with your current IYDP/Community Partnership Liai-
Governor of Pennsylvania
son and/or Chairperson as appropriate. We shall follow-up with him/her
Reverend Harold Wilke immediately. If you have any questions, please call us. To ensure recog-
Director,The Healing Community nition of your efforts and effective exchange of program ideas, please keep
us posted on your activities. If you have already taken these steps, we
David T.Williams thanks
ou foraction.
hairman,Community Y yourspeedy
Advisory Committee
Sincerely,
Alan A. Reich
President
cc: Community Liaison
Mayor Helen Boosalis
Follow Through in '82: The National Year of Disabled Persons
OVER. . . .
March 15, 1982 _
TO: NATIONAL OFFICE ON DISABILITY
I am pleased to inform you that: The Liaison between
(town, or city, or county)
and the National Office on Disability is :
Name: Title:
Address :
Zip Code:
Telephone Number: ( ) -
area code
AND
The Community Partnership Committee Chairperson (IF ANY) is :
Name: Title:
Address:
Zip Code :
Telephone Number: ( ) -
area code
Please return this form as soon as possible to the NATIONAL OFFICE ON DISABILITY, 1575
Eye Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20005.
Signature of Chief Elected Official Title Date Signed
(e.g. Mayor or Chairman of County Commissioners, etc.)
Please note:
1. This letter and form are being sent to mayors and chief elected officials identified
on the current lists of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities, and
National Association of Counties. These lists may overlap. Some communities receiv-
ing this letter will not have participated in the Community Partnership Program of
the International Year of-Disabled Persons in 1981.
2. Many of t?,e 1,850 towns, cities and counties which participated in the 1981 Community
Partnership Program still retain their Liaisons appointed for the IYDP. The mayor or
chief elected official may wish to redesignate this individual as Liaison to the Na-
tional Office on Disability, or he or she may wish to designate a new person. This is
a local decision.
3. For the IYDP, Community Partnership Committees were formed (usually with the Liaison's
help) . They selected a Chairperson. The National Office on Disability hopes to re-
ceive soon the names of the Chairpersons, reconfirmed or new, as well as the names of
the Liaisons, reconfirmed or new. Either or both will be satisfactory.
4. The selection of Liaison and/or Chairperson is for 1982 and for a:= long thereafter
as the community may wish.
5. Mayors or other chief elected officials of towns, cities and counties which have not
yet participated in the Community Partnership Program, are now urged to do so. The
first step is to appoint a Liaison who then will receive organizational and instruc-
tional materials immediately from the National Office on Disability to guide him/her
in developing an effective Community Partnership Program.
***
YOUR LIAISON WILL BEGIN RECEIVING NOD PROGRAM MATERIALS (IDEA BOOKS, "HOW-TO" PROGRAM
MANUAL, NEWSLETTERS, ETC. ) AS SOON AS YOU RETURN THIS COMPLETED FORM. PLEASE ACT NOW!
•
S.J.Res.134
Binett-seventh congress of the united eStatez of ameriea
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday the twenty-fifth day of January,
one thousand nine hundred and eighty-two
•
3oint Resolution
To designate 1982 aa the"National Year of Disabled Persons".
Whereas the designation by the United Nations of 1981 as the In-
ternational Year of Disabled Persons has stimulated new prog-
ress toward achieving the full participation in national and
community life of the thirty-five million Americans who have
disabilities;
Whereas such progress has depended upon the initiative and re-
sources of individuals and organizations in all sectors of
American society who have worked in partnership with disabled
persons;
Whereas such partnership has contributed substantially toward im-
proving the lives of disabled Americans;
Whereas further additional action is required to increase public un-
derstanding of the unfulfilled needs and potential contributions
of disabled persons;and
Whereas further progress should be made in the United States
toward achieving the following long-term goals of and for dis-
abled persons promoted during the International Year of Dis-
abled Persons: (1) expanded educational opportunity; (2) im-
proved access to housing, buildings, and transportation; (3) ex-
panded employment opportunity; (4) expanded participation in
recreational, social, and cultural activities; (5) expanded and
strengthened rehabilitation programs and facilities; (6) purpose-
ful application of biomedical research aimed at conquering major
disabling conditions;(7)reduction in the incidence of disability by
expanded accident and disease prevention; (8)expanded applica-
tion of technology to minimize the effects of disability;and(9)ex-
panded international exchange of information and experience to
benefit all disabled persons;and
Whereas the United Nations is building upon the International
Year of Disabled Persons momentum and is considering long-
term initiatives to improve the lives of the world's one-half bil-
lion disabled persons:Now,therefore,be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That 1982 hereby
is designated the "National Year of Disabled Persons", and the
President of the United States is authorized and requested to issue
a proclamation calling upon the elected officials and people of the
United States to observe such year through activities in support of
the long-term goals for disabled persons promoted during the Inter-
national Year of Disabled Persons.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
AtrrUerWL lik644,141terriget
President of the Senate �' J
APPROVED as
FEB 2 6 1982
(o+r.)
CtttCJ
x LANSING
_
. _._:._:e_.. •
CtttCJ
MICHIGAN
TERRY J.MC KANE, MAYOR
rottamation
WHEREAS: The designation by the United Nations o6 1981 as the InteienationaC
Years o6 Disabled Peons has etimueated new pnogneaa touand
achieving the Gua pantici.pation in nationae and community ti.6e
o6 the thihty-Give mi tion Amen Leans who have diaabititiea; and
WHEREAS: Such pnogneea has drawn upon the initiative and nesouneea 06
individuats and organizations in ate sectors o6 American society
who have worked in pantnenahip with disab.ted penaons; and
WHEREAS: Such pan.tnenship has contn.ibuted substantia ey toward improving
the Lion o6 disabled Amenicanr; and
WHEREAS: Funthen action L nequined to inc Aeaee pubtic undenatanding 06
the un6u.26iteed needs and potential contr-ibutiona 06 di.eabted
pensone; and
WHEREAS: Fwtthen progress shou.Ld be made in the United States toward
achieving the 6otPowi.ng tong-.tenor goats o6 and bon dusabted
pennons promoted dun,ing the Intenna.tiona-t Years o6 D.<sabted
Perrone: (1) expanded edueatLonai oppontuni.ty; (2) improved
accede to housing, buildings, and tnanspontati.on; (3) expanded
emptoyment opportunity; (4) expanded panti.ei.pation in necxea-
tionat, social, and cuLtunal activities; (5) expanded and
stAengthened nehabiti-tation pnognams and bac t ti.ea; (6) pun-
po6e6ut application o6 biomedicat research aimed at conquering
major disabling conditions; (7) reduction in the incidenee
06 disability by expanded accident and disease pneven.ti.on;
(8) expanded application o6 technology to minimize the e66eet6
o6 disabitity; and (9) expanded international exchange o6
in6onmation and experience to bene6it ate disabled persons; and
WHEREAS: The United Nations is building upon the International Years o6
Disabled Persons momentum and is considering .long-tenor initiatives
to improve the live6 06 the won.ld's one-hath bi tion disabted
persons.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, TERRY J. MC KANE, MAYOR o6 the City o6 Lansing, by the
power vested in me, do hereby proclaim 1982 as the NATIONAL
YEAR OF DISABLED PERSONS in the City o6 Laming and call upon
the citizens 06 this community to observe such yeah through
aeti.vitiea in support o6 the tong-tenni goals 06 and bon diaabted
persons promoted during .the Intennationat Years o6 DieabLed penaona.
,.... a.:�.., Given under my hand and the Seat o6
the City o6 Lansing this eighth day o6
• Februany in the yeah o6 Our load one
thousand nine hundred and eighty-two.
•
•
MAYOR
(OVER)
/ C/
SAMPLE RELEASE ANNOUNCING APPOINTMENT OF LIAISON WITH NATIONAL OFFICE ON DISABILITY
THIS PRESS RELEASE HAS BEEN PREPARED SO THAT YOU CAN FILL IN THE APPROPRIATE INFORMATION
IN PLACE OF UNDERLINED WORDS. DO NOT UNDERLINE ON THE FINAL RELEASE. IF THE LIAISON
IS A REAPPOINTMENT, TEXT SHOULD BE MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY.
WHERE SAMPLE RELEASE READS NAME OF COMMUNITY, INSERT NAME OF CITY, COUNTY OR TOWN AS
APPROPRIATE.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: NAME
DATE PHONE
NAME OF ELECTED OFFICIAL APPOINTS LIAISON
WITH NATIONAL OFFICE ON DISABILITY
NAME OF COMMUNITY, STATE, DATE--NAME OF ELECTED OFFICIAL has appointed NAME, AFFILIA-
TION (if appropriate) to be official liaison for 1982-83 with the National Office on Disa-
bility. This is NAME OF COMMUNITY'S first step in joining the National Office on Disabil-
ity's nationwide Community Partnership Program during the 1982 National Year of Disabled
Persons and beyond.
LIAISON'S LAST NAME has scheduled an organizational meeting for DATE, TIME at PLACE.
"I urge all persons willing to commit themselves to improving the job possibilities,
public attitudes, educational, recreational, and cultural opportunities for COMMUNITY'S
disabled citizens, to participate in this important effort," NAME OF ELECTED OFFICIAL
said. "This is in the best interest of all our citizens. We need the active involvement
of concerned citizens from all walks of life, including those who have disabilities and
those who do not, " he (or she) said. "In these days of retrenchment in government ser-
vices, our own efforts are more important than ever."
LAST NAME OF ELECTED OFFICIAL pointed out that the U.S. Congress and President Ronald
Reagan have officially designated 1982 the National Year of Disabled Persons in order to
build on the accomplishments of local communities during last year's observance of the
UN-proclaimed International Year of Disabled Persons. "Disabled and non-disabled people
working as partners in more than 1,850 communities across the country, in cooperation
with 330 national organizations, initiated or strengthened programs to improve the lives
of disabled persons," explained LIAISON'S LAST NAME. "We are delighted to be a part of
the National Office on Disability's Community Partnership Program. Having a 'National
Year' will reinforce our long-term efforts. The NYDP is our opportunity!"
"The first order of business at COMMUNITY'S organizational meeting will be to form a
committee and select a chairperson," LIAISON'S LAST NAME stated. The committee then will
begin the important task of assessing the unmet needs of COMMUNITY'S disabled citizens and
setting goals and developing programs to address those needs.
The National Office on Disability, located in Washington, D.C. is a non-profit organi-
zation formed to promote the "full participation" of the 35 million Americans with physical
or mental disabilities in our national and community life, and to carry on the momentum of
the International Year of Disabled Persons. The National Office on Disability cooperates
closely with private organizations as well as government agencies.
Interested citizens who wish further information may contact LIAISON at PHONE.
-0-
OVER. . .
. _
, . .
-. ---k-i ' - eO4.AQoS:+v. � k J ?0.\!)?0.\!),-,e„rJ. ,. -\ft C- W �M
o � . eoa
Sei-`*o Mc jor in arVt S” st ti veNS ;vs .\Dcv.e cti 1 t 48 L
The National Office On Disability " COMPOSITE II "
1575 I St .'` W Washington D C 20005
(202) 638-6011 Public Service Announcements
available in :60, :30 lengths on 16mm film
60 SECONDS
. ( altillipah.;,,
,fir o y.
SAM: Hi, Louise. LOUISE: Hi, Sam. What'll it be today? SAM: I think I'll have the special. ANNCR (VO): In
Louisville, Kentucky, blind people don't have to ask what's on the menu. They can read it themselves...in Braille.
SAM: I think I'll have strawberry shortcake for dessert. But don't you tell my wife. ANNCR (VO): The Braille menus
are there because a group of local people thought it would be a good idea. They got together and made it happen.
k "k '1/4-..,
or r1. -4 / i
. w
In fact, all across America, people are participating in similar community programs. (B.G. "Hello boys.") In
Vernon Parish, Louisiana, volunteers are modifying disabled people's homes to make them more accessible.
' .,� ",r .
fill' :
.,,,, ,,,, . , ir„,
w ,.r► 1 l THE .
r
And in Champaign, Illinois, disabled children are able to share a playground because a group of volunteers got involved.
This is the National Year of Disabled Persons. Is this the year you get involved? Call the office of your Mayor or
County Commissioner for more information.
A Public Service of A
This Station&
\Uluiltt't'1 Advertising Agency: Needham, harper Steers Advertising, Inc. The Advertising Council
COUICI
cnds - 2160 / 2130
MEMO TO : John K. Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: Don Steger
City Planner
RE: Minnesota Valley 6th Addition
DATE: April 1, 1982
Introduction:
The deadline for recording the final plat of the Minnesota Valley
6th Addition, with the County Recorder' s Office , has expired.
Background :
The Subdivision received final plat approval from the City Council
on May 19 , 1981. The 180 day recording period subsequently expired
November 19, 1981. On January 5 , 1982 the City Council extended
the recording period to March 8 , 1982 . This extended deadline has
also expired and Mr. Dick Wiggin, the plat ' s developer, has failed
to meet the deadline for recording the final plat with the County
Recorder' s Office . Mr. Wiggin apparently intends to record the
plat , as he began the recording process on March 15, 1982 .
Alternatives :
1. Rescind final plat approval and require the Subdivision to
be reviewed again by the Planning Commission and City Council .
Advantages -
a. Uphold the intended Subdivision Regulation requirement
of quickly recording approved subdivision so as to
prevent changing circumstances ;
b . Additional income for City.
Disadvantages -
a. Requires time of developer, City staff, Planning Commission
and City Council;
b . Additional monetary cost to developer.
2 . Grant the developer another extension in which to record final
plat . Mr. Wiggin stated he had requested a soil boring report
(one of the conditions of final plat approval) from Braun
Engineering in January, but had not received the report until
March 11, 1982 and this was the reason for not meeting the
extension deadline of March 8 , 1982 .
John Anderson March 18, 1982 c�
Minnesota Valley 6th Addition Page -2-
Advantages -
a . No extra time needs to be committed to the plat .
Disadvantages -
a. The 180 day recording period and extension were not met
which is non-compliance of City Code and City Council action.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Alternative No. 2 for two reasons :
1. Mr. Wiggin gave a valid reason for failure to meet the
extension deadline;
2. The Soil Borings Report was authorized January 7 , 1982 ,
report dated March 11, 1982 and on March 15 , 1982 Mr. Wiggin
did come into City Hall with report .
Staff, therefore , is recommending a new extension date of May 14 ,
1982 ( 60 days from the date Mr. Wiggin once again started the
recording process ) , which should allow ample time in which to meet
the remaining conditions of final plat approval .
Action Requested :
Council move to grant another and final extension to May 14 , 1982
in which to record the final plat of Minnesota Valley 6th Addition.
DS/j iw
A �SkJ
MEMO TO : John K. Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: Don Steger
City Planner
RE : Seven Member Committee
DATE : April 1, 1982
Background :
Earlier this year, the City Council asked the staff to
contact the Jackson Township Board and Scott County Board and
solicit their interest in an advisory Seven-Member Committee.
Norbert Theis, from the Town Board, indicated to me in a phone
conversation that the Town Board is not interested in an advisory
committee, but prefers to maintain the Committee' s function as it
was in the past . The Town Board perceived the Committee' s past
function as a final authority, when actually the City Planning
Commission and City Council acted on all new subdivisions and
signed the hardshells. It appeas that the Seven-Member
Committee never functioned as it was perceived to function because
of a lack of organization.
Mr. Theis also mentioned in our conversation that the 1975
Annexation Agreement between the Township and City would be
terminated if the Seven-Member Committee does not exist . It is
my opinion that the Annexation Agreement is not vital to the City ' s
interests because any annexation of property could be initiated
by the property owner. If annexation is initiated in this manner,
and if rejected by the Township, the Minnesota Municipal
Commission will rule on the annexation. Their rulings have
generally been in favor of cities if the land is to be urbanized
and if municipal utilities are available to the property.
In my attempt to explain to Mr. Theis the City Council ' s
desire to have the Seven-Member Committee function as an advisory
committee, he reiterated the Town Boards rejection of an advisory
committee and suggested that the Township Board meet with the
City Council to discuss the matter.
John K. Anderson April 1, 1982
Seven-Member Committee Page -2-
Alternatives :
1. Set a date to meet with the Jackson Township Board to discuss
the Seven-Member Committee. (Any date except April 13, 1982
seemed to be okay with Mr. Theis) .
2 . Decide not to pursue the continuation of the Seven-Member
Committee.
Requested Action:
Choose one of the alternatives .
DS/jiw
#Iakuper Taiiiii unitU #rruice
129 Levee Drive
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Phone 445-2742
Community Education • Parks • Recreation • Adult Education
April 1, 1982
Memo To: John Anderson, City Administrator
From George Muenchow, Community Servcies Director
SUBJECT: Tennis Court Lighting
Introduction
Four years ago the City of Shakopee and School District #720 entered into an
agreement to construct two modern tennis courts with lighting at the Jr. High
School property. This was encouraged by a 50% grant from the State of Minnesota.
Following construction it was agreed informally that the facility would become
school property. Since its beginning the facility has been virtually problem
free (except for spiraling lighting costs) and has been a tremendous asset to
the community for which it can be proud.
Background
The first year coins collected in the coin meter apparatus paid for the cost
of lighting. In Year Two Demand Charges became a part of the picture and coin
operation turned out to be a loser for the School District. They felt that they
were not in the business to subsidize adult recreation, so the lights were not
turned on in Year Three until someone could come up with a plan so that the
School was not subsidizing this lighting. A plan did not materialize.
Staff members and leadership of the Shakopee Tennis Association have been re—
searching this matter this past winter. A new coin meter has been located that
can be installed that will allow the acceptance of differing amounts of money
which, in turn, is expected to generate more revenue to offset electrical costs.
The Tennis Association leadership has said that their membership will subsidize
any variance between what is collected and what is billed.
Alternatives
1. Do nothing and, therefore, not use the lights this summer.
2. Expend an amount of approximately $6,000.00 to provide a wire to the tennis
courts from the Jr. H.S. Building which would eliminate the special Demand
Charge now invoked because it is a stand alone facility.
3. Authorize the purchase of a new Timing Device for the Tennis Court Lights
together with the accompanying installation charge from the Shakopee Public
Utility Commission. The device will cost approximately $145.00. The labor
could be anywhere from $25.00—$125.00, depending upon how difficult it will
be to fit this new timer in the present control cabinet. This project would
be funded from the Capital Fund.
A COOPERATIVE EFFORT OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AND SCHOOL DISTRICT 720 SINCE 1954
Recommendation C/
Authorize the purchase and installation of a new Timing Device for the Shakopee
Jr. H.S. Tennis Court Lights with the understanding that any shortage of revenue
for the usage of these lights will be provided by a subsidy through the Shakopee
Tennis Association with all of this being done in consultation with School
District #720.
Action
Move for Staff to initiate the purchase and installation of a new Timing Device
for the Shakopee Jr. H.S. Tennis Court Lights with funds to be used from the
Capital Equipment Fund. It is understood that this action will take place in
consultation with the proper officials of School District #720 and that further—
more any revenue shortages in the operation of this facility will be susidized
through the Shakopee Tennis Association.
httkupee CIummunitu *mires Q c�
129 Levee Drive
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Phone 445-2742
Community Education • Parks • Recreation • Adult Education
March 24, 1982
Memo To: John Anderson
From George Muenchow
SUBJECT: UPDATE: MEMORIAL PARK MILLPOND WATER QUALITY PROBLEM BACKGROUND
On December 1, 1981 staff presented a recommendation to the Council for a
Plan Of Action For 1982 re: how to diminish the discoloration of the water
in the Memorial Park Millpond. This included:
1. Application of Copper Sulfate to the water.
2. Reduction of amount of feed given to ducks and geese.
The Council directed that a contact be made with the Minnesota Department
Of Natural Resources requesting that they assume the responsibility for the
application of the chemicals.
The attached letter received in response to this request indicates their
negative reply.
Staff, therefore, re—submits its original recommendation as attached and
recommends that it be followed.
•
A COOPERATIVE EFFORT OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AND SCHOOL DISTRICT 720 SINCE 1954
STATE OF
( I �OO "Lr'
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
BOX , CENTENNIAL OFFICE BUILDING • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA • 55155
DNR INFORMATION
(612) 296-6157 FILE NO.
March 22, 1982
City of Shakopee
c/o George Muenchow
129 Levee Drive
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Mr. Muenchow,
This is to confirm our telephone conversation on March 19, 1982
regarding the control of aquatic vegetation and who is responsible
for doing the work.
Minnesota Statues Chapter 97.42 states that aquatic plants and
organisms in public waters are property of the State of Minnesota.
Minnesota Statues Chapter 98.48 subdivision 9(a) states that the
Commissioner of Natural Resources may issue a special permit, with
fee, to gather, harvest or destroy any aquatic plants or plant parts,
other than wild rice, from public waters of the state. Commissioners
Order 1938 establishes a fee schedule for permits and criteria which
govern issuance of permits. The Department of Natural Resources
does not have a program which actually does the controlling of aquatic
vegetation. If a riparian property owner has aquatic vegetation which
is interferring with some recreation use. The riparian property owner
can obtain a permit for control of the aquatic vegetation. The cost
of aquatic nuisance control operation must be borne by the benefited
lakeshore property owners, however, Minnesota Statue 1961, Section
111.81 authorizes cities, villages, boroughs, and towns to levy taxes
for this purpose.
I hope this information answers your questions on controlling aquatic
vegetation. If you have any further questions, please feel free to
contact me.
6nce7yg�s, 4 1
s(David B. , etillo
Aquatic Biologist
Ecological Services Section
DBZ: kas
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
,,,Artto
'hokopee Tommunitu *tames cLA$
129 Levee Drive
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Phone 445-2742
Community Education • Parks • Recreation • Adult Education
MEMO TO: JOHN ANDERSON; CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM GEORGE MUENCHOW, C.S. & PARK DIRECTOR
RE MEMORIAL PARK MILLPOND WATER QUALITY PROBLEM
DATE SEPTEMBER 16, 1981
INTRODUCTION
Water quality (discoloration) of the Millpond has become a problem of late as noted
by several citizens, City Council Members, and Staff. A solution has been requested.
BACKGROUND
Ever since ducks and geese have been attracted to the pond starting around 10 years
ago there has been algae buildup. The birds are fed grain by the Shakopee House.
Bird droppings act as a fertilizer to enhance the algae growth. Occasional flood—
ing of the nearby Minnesota River also drops nutrients into the pond. Discolorat—
ion results.
Telephone conversations with representatives from Minnesota DNR and Polution
Control Agency have indicated that they have firsthand knowledge of the problem
at this site. Attached Exhibit #1 verifys this. From tests taken in August 1979
there is proof that the problem lies with the ducks and the occasional flooding.
Attached Exhibit #2 explains what algae is and what it does.
Telephone conversations with the cities of Edina, Rochester, and Alexandria indic—
ate several approach's towards a solution:
a. Rochester Do nothing with their famous Silver Lake which hosts
tens of thousands of geese because Zumbro River flows
through lake and flushes it out. Shakopee Millpond
does not have this kind of a flowage.
b. Alexandria Uses Diquat to kill off all aquatic growth in a small
pond in a neighborhood park. Problem with this product
is that it also will kill trees along shoreline that has
roots touching the waters edge.
c. Edina Use periodic sprinkling of Copper Sulfate in ponds with
algae problems. This is a fairly universal temporary
solution used elsewhere.
The solution to this problem is the removeal of nutrients in the pond. Occasion—
al flooding cannot be stopped. Depletion or removeal of the birds and their
resultant droppings is the only solution:
•
ALTERNATIVES
A COOPERATIVE EFFORT OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AND SCHOOL DISTRICT 720 SINCE 1954
1. Dredging This would be an extremely expensive process. Tests taken
of the pond floor in 1960 showed four feet of mud at that time. The
pond is approximately five acres in size. There is not only the tons of
soil to be removed, but also how to deposit it on land to not be an
environmental disaster. Without any removal of birds, the process
would continue with the new droppings.
2. Application of Copper Sulfate periodically. (once a month in June, July,
and August). Would require permet from DNR and would cost approximately
$75.00/application. Would kill off algae, but not the weeds. If handled
properly will not harm fish or wildlife. Cannot apply more than 3 times/
season.
3. Selective removal of birds 100% removal of geese and ducks would be
questionable because most people enjoy having them present. Mr. Strupek
of the Shakopee House is agreeable to listening to the idea of cutting
back on the feed supply given daily on his property to the birds. Diminish-
ing this daily feeding would in turn cut back on the number of geese and
ducks that are attracted to the pond. Mr. David Zappatello, DNR Aquatic
Biologist, has verified this procedure.
4. Do nothing Recognize that algae will exist when nutrients are present
in water and not worry about it.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Apply Copper Sulfate to the Millpond in the summer of 1982 after securing
a permit from the Minnesota Department Of Natural Resources in accordance
with procedures dictated by that agency.
2. Meet with Mr. Strupek of the Shakopee House, Inc. to request that the
feeding of wild fowl on his premises be diminished to an extent agreeable
to both parties.
ACTION
Move to direct Staff to:
1. Apply to the Minnesota Department Of Natural Resources for a permit to
apply Copper Sulfate to the Shakopee Memorial Park Millpond waters during
the summer of 1982 at a rate in compliance with the DNR rules and procedures.
2. Meet with Mr. Tony Strupek of the Shakopee House, Inc. to reach an agree-
ment regarding the cutting back on feeding of wild fowl on the Shakopee
House premises beginning immediately.
491> Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
‘001.
Mr. George Muenchow
Director of Parks and Recreation
Shakopee Community Services
129 Levee Drive
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Mr. Muenchow:
Thank you for your inquiry about the Mill Pond adjacent to Memorial Park in
Shakopee.
The nuisance, eutrophic conditions we discussed are caused by nutrients, main-
ly phosphorus and nitrogen, entering the pond. This allows algae (microscopic
aquatic plants) to flourish in the warm, shallow water.
An investigation by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency staff was performed
on August 30, 1979. At that time, it was noted that there were no point
sources discharging nutrients to the pond. In the absence of discharges to
the Mill Pond, the most likely sources of nutrients are waterfowl and the
Minnesota River. A large concentration of waterfowl can add significant
amounts of nutrients to a small water body. As we discussed, many ducks and
geese frequent the Mill Pond. The Minnesota River also carries moderate to
high concentrations of nutrients. At times of high water, the river inundates
the Mill Pond and imparts its own water chemistry characteristics to the pond.
As long as large numbers of waterfowl use the Mill Pond and the Minnesota
River periodically flows into it, there is very little that can be done to
improve the condition of this water body.
Sincerely,
c), L'a,,,,,),* A , 4.A.) ',04,441j_
Larry A. Livesay, Biologist
Lake Studies Unit
Monitoring and Analysis Section
Division of Water Quality
LAL:jln
• Phone: 612/296-7746
1935 West County Road B2, Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Regional Offices - Duluth!Brainerd/Detroit Lakes/Marshall/Rochester
Equal Opportunity Employer
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: 1982 Budget Amendments
DATE: April 1 , 1982
Introduction
City Council , at its March 23 , 1982 meeting, reviewed the attached
memo dated March 19 , 1982 outlining proposed amendments to the City' s
1982 Budget . The memo has been updated to reflect the decisions
made at the March 23rd meeting.
Additions
LeRoy Houser has completed his spring inspection of all City buildings
and has recommended numerous items that need improvement . Most of the
items can be handled with dollars already budgeted in 1982 for build-
ing maintenance, however three items (underlined on the expenditure
side of the General Fund listing) require additional budget amendments .
These items will cost an additional $6000 which can be offset by re-
ducing the $31 ,500 budget for fire hall roof repair by $6000 . We have
received bids for the roof repairs and the low bid is more than $6000
under the $31 ,500 .
Shakopee Avenue Drainage Improvements
It was agreed at the March 23rd meeting that the above mentioned $34,000
project could not be budgeted in the PIR Fund because there was no way
to recoup the $34,000 through assessments . Staff was directed to make
a recommendation to Council April 6 , 1982 indicating how the project
could be financed.
The Finance Director and I agreed that there are only three funds from
which the City can secure the $34 ,000 and they are the General Fund,
Capital Equipment Revolving Fund and the Revenue Sharing fund. Staff
recommends against use of the General Fund for permanent improvements ,
and that either the Revenue Sharing Fund or the Capital Equipment
Revolving Fund be used.
Revenue Sharing dollars in excess of the maximum two year fund balance
can now be spent on capital improvement projects and if this project
is not selected then the City must, at the up-coming Revenue Sharing
Hearing, earmark funds for a major piece of capital equipment .
Capital Equipment Revolving Funds dollars have been used for library
and parking lot land acquisition thus indicating that all of the
funds are not simply reserved for equipment . Use of Revenue Sharing
dollars would require additional staff work to meet Davis-Bacon
requirement .
The only other alternative is to drop the project .
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the budget amendments included in the
revised March 19 , 1982 memo from the City Administrator, and that
u
Mayor and City Council
April 1 , 1982
Page Two
$34,000 in the Capital Equipment Revolving Fund be budgeted for the
Shakopee Avenue Drainage Improvements . The improvements will
rectify a long standing problem that both the City and residents
have struggled with for years .
Action Requested
1 . Approve Resolution No. 1991 amending the 1982 General Fund
Budget , and direct staff to make the budget amendments as
outlined in the City Administrator March 19, 1982 memo.
2 . Approve a budgeted expenditure of $34,000 from the Capital
Equipment Revolving Fund for the Shakopee Avenue Drainage
Improvements .
JKA/jms
i1
MEMO TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: John K. Anderson/City Adm.
RE: 1982 Budget Amendments
DATE: March 19 , 1982
Introduction:
The proposed amendments presented in this memo include three type of bud-
get changes : changes reflecting cuts in state aid (Homestead Credit
Revenue) , revised ' 82 revenue and expenditure estimates and a smaller
number of changes that relate to council action taken since the 1982
budget was approved.
The figures included in the memo are based upon trial balances for 1981
some of which have been finalized by the auditor, but which have all been
listed as "trial balance" . In addition, as of this writing, the Legis-
lature has not passed the proposed "budget package " , as expected, to solve
the latest $260,000 ,000 deficit. The changes below include the cut ,
$15 ,000 in General Fund Homestead Credit Revenue , that the city would
have to absorb if the "package" as proposed had passed
Format :
The format for each fund is the same and includes : the actual 12/31/80
fund balance, the budgeted 1981 revenue and expenditures , the revenue
and expenditures trial balance for 1981 , the trial fund balance 12/31/81 ,
the budgeted 1982 revenues and expenditures , the proposed changes in 1982
revenue and expenditures ( these are the only numbers listed in line item
detail ) , the revised 1982 revenue and expenditure budgets and the revised
12/31/82 fund balance .
The purpose of this summary is to provide a minimum amount of data show-
ing what happened in 1981 and how the proposed 1982 changes would change
the estimated 12/31/82 fund balances .
The bulk of the changes reflect things we know to have happened in 1981 or
early 1982 and should be reflected in the 1982 budget . There are a handful
of new items that I will touch upon when we discuss the material .
As you will see, the General Fund' s trial balance shows that 1981
revenues exceed expenditures , thus increasing our unappropriated fund
balance to $706 ,302 or 307 of the 1982 operating expenditures . It also
appears that all but six divisions "lived within" the 1981 budgets .
Summary:
Please bring your 1982 budgets to the meeting. The changes are listed
by fund and the funds are in the same order that they appear in the
budget . I hope that we will have a final decision from the Legislature
by Tuesday nights ' meeting so that we can make some meaningful decisions .
If we don' t have the information, or if there are other items that are
unresolved, we can delay any final decision to 4/6/82 .
GENERAL FUND S ,s--
Actual 12/31/80 Fund Balance $659 ,561
Budgeted ' 81 Revenue: $2, 123,526 Budgeted '81 Expenditures : $2,125 ,026
Trial Bal . '81 Revenue: $2,088,957 Trial Bal . ' 81 Expenditures : $1 ,973 ,530
Trial Fund Balance 12/31/81 $774,988
Budgeted ' 82 Revenue $2 ,262 ,059 Budgeted ' 82 Expenditures $2,330, 745
Proposed ' 82 Changes : Proposed ' 82 Changes :
Current Ad Valorem - 13,500 Increase Sen. Cit . 4/wk + 1 ,000
Cable Franchise + 8 ,000 Bldg. Insp. Tires + 200
Pool Table License + 1 ,000 Bldg. Insp. School + 120
Mechanical Permits + 13 ,000 Police Computer Terminal
Homestead Credit - 9 ,600 rent + 1 ,200
DED Grant - 4,185 Police Copy Machine
Local Gov' t Aid - 12 ,500 Maint . Agr. + 480
Attached Machinery Mayor & Council Misc.
Aid - 3 ,000 (Baseball Assoc.Lighting) + 1 ,000
Co. Road & Bridge Aid - 5 ,000 Eng. Distance Measure + 700
Plat-Rezone-Cond. Use - 1 ,000 Mn. Good Roads Sub. + 70
Season Tickets-Pool + 1 ,000 CertainTeed Appraisal + 1 ,000
Pool Concession - 1 ,000 Valley Fair Appraisal + 6 ,000
Interest + 20,000 Mech. Insp. Hospital + 4,500
Rents - 2,000 Workmans Comp. - 12 ,000
Revenue Sharing ICC - 3 ,000
Transfer + 30,000 City Adm. & Chief of
Cap. Equip. Revolving Police Car Allowance + 900
Transfer + 4,000 2 Cash Registers + 600
Miscellaneous + 3 ,000 Cable Personnel Services + 1 ,400
NET CHANGE + 28 ,215 Cable Prof. Services - 29,200
Cable Travel & Subsis-
tance + 450
Bldg. Ins .p Files (RS) + 1 ,400
Eng. Drafting Table (RS ) + 1 , 700
Propane Tank (RS ) + 18,000
Recorder Mayor/Mgr. + 300
Reforestation + 3 ,000
Purchase Used City Hall
Copier (RS ) + 7 ,000
City Adm. Car (RS ) + 1 ,000
Public Works Salt Shed
(CER) + 4,000
Public Works Rear Blade + 1 ,000
Public Works Fertilizer
Spreader + 800
Hosp. Ambulance + 2 ,050
Mayor' s Conference + 1 ,500
Pool Insulation & Ceiling + 1 , 700
Police Office Repair &
Paint + 300
Public Works Roof Drain + 4,000
Fire Dept. Re-roofing - 6 ,000
Contingencies + 11 ,045
NET CHANGE + 28 ,215
Revised ' 82 Revenue: $2 ,290,274 Revised ' 82 Expenditures : $2,358 ,960
Estimated Fund Balance 12/31/82 $706 ,3021
'This unappropriated balance equals 30% of the 1982 revised expenditures
-1-
REVENUE SHARING FUND
Actual 12/31/80 Balance $162 , 751
Budgeted ' 81 Revenue: $105,000 Budgeted ' 81 Expenditures : $ 63 ,250
Trial Bal . ' 81 Revenue: $166 ,080 Trial Bal . ' 81 Expenditures : $ 49 ,629
Trial Fund Balance 12/31/81 $279,202
Budgeted ' 82 Revenue $118,000 Budgeted ' 82 Expenditures $202,600
Proposed ' 82 Changes : Proposed ' 82 Changes :
Interest Income @ 12% + 18,000 City Adm. Car + 1 ,000
NET CHANGE + 18,000 Public Works Rear Blade + 1,000
Public Works Fertilizer
Spreader + 800
City Hall -100,000
City Hall Copier + 7 ,000
Bldg. Insp. Files + 1 ,400
Eng. Drafting Table + 1 , 700
Propane Tank + 18,000
Word Processor -0-
NET CHANGE - 69 ,100
Revised ' 82 Revenue: $136 ,000 Revised ' 82 Expenditures : $133 ,500
Estimated Fund Balance 12/31/82 $281 , 702
PARK RESERVE FUND
Actual 12/31/80 Fund Balance $52 ,862
Budgeted ' 81 Revenue : $ 16 ,500 Budgeted ' 81 Expenditures : $ 52,600
Trial Bal . ' 81 Revenue: $ 43,266 Trial Bal . ' 81 Expenditures : $ 7,921
Trial Fund Balance 12/31/81 $88,210
Budgeted ' 82 Revenue $ 26 ,500 Budgeted ' 82 Expenditures $ 20,400
Proposed ' 82 Changes : Proposed ' 82 Changes :
Jaycee (Tahpah Park) + 15,000 JEJ Acquisition + 88,000
Interest Income @ 127 + 9,000 Tahpah Park Water & Sewer + 45 ,0001
LAWCON LCMR Grant + 42,500 NET CHANGE +133,000
NET CHANGE + 66 ,500
Revised ' 82 Revenue: $ 93 ,000 Revised ' 82 Expenditures : $153 ,400
Estimated Fund Balance 12/31/82 $27 ,810
'Jaycees would pay $15 ,000 per year for three years to pay for Tahpah
Park water and sewer.
-2-
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT REVOLVING FUND
Actual 12/31/80 Fund Balance $313 ,839
Budgeted ' 81 Revenue : $12 ,000 Budgeted ' 81 Expenditures : $20,000
Trial Bal . ' 81 Revenue : $47 ,212 Trial Bal . ' 81 Expenditures : $72 ,4311
Trial Fund Balance 12/31/81 $288 ,620
Budgeted ' 82 Revenus $31 ,000 Budgeted ' 82 Expenditures $26 ,000
Proposed Changes : None Proposed Changes :
Public Works Salt Shed + 4,000
NET CHANGE + 4,000
Revised ' 82 Revenue $31,000 Revised ' 82 Expenditures : $30,000
Estimated Fund Balance 12/31/82 $289 ,620
1Parking lot purchase was not budgeted.
2SPUC contribution exceeding $240 ,384 is , by council policy, placed in
the Capital Equipment Revolving Fund. There was a $18 ,658 excess in
1981 so we are budgeting roughly the same amount for 1982 .
4th AND MINNESOTA FUND
Actual 12/31/80 Fund Balance -0-
Budgeted ' 81 Revenue : $17 ,000 Budgeted ' 81 Expenditures $17 ,000
Trial Balance ' 81 Revenue $18,673 Trail Balance ' 81 Expfnditures $22 , 124
Trial Fund Balnce 12/31/81 ( $3 ,451 )
Budgeted ' 82 Revenues $ -0-2 Budgeted ' 82 Expenditures $ -0-
Proposed Changes : Proposed Changes :
Federal Grants 1 ,788 Housing & Redevelopment -0-
Contributions (City) 1 ,663
NET CHANGE $ 3 ,451 NET CHANGE $ -0-
Revised ' 82 Revenue $ 3 ,451 Revised ' 82 Expenditures $ -0-
Estimated Fund Balance 12/31/82 $ -0-
1Natural lag in expenditure repayment through grant reimbursement.
2Assumed program completed
3Assumes program completed and grant closed out .
SENIOR CENTER FUND
Actual 12/31/80 Fund Balance $634
Budgeted ' 81 Revenue $ 1 ,638 Budgeted ' 81 Expenditures $ 2 ,281
Trial Balance ' 81 Revenue 2 , 773 Trial Balance ' 81 Expenditures 3 ,407
Trial Fund Balance 12/31/82 $ -0-
1
Project
0-1Project completed and grant close out .
-3-
COUNTY ROAD NO. 77 IMPROVEMENTS'
'Program dropped when Five Year Capital Improvement Program finalized
in November ' 81 .
COUNTY ROAD NO. 83 SIGNALS'
1 program without prior fund balance , no changes required
100 percent funded by State.
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FUND
Actual 12/31/80 Balance $ ( 251 ,688 )
Budgeted ' 81 Revenue $2 ,077 , 112 Budgeted ' 81 Expenditures $ 2 ,099 ,201
Trial Balance N/A Trail Balance N/A
Budgeted Fund Balance 12/31/81 ( $273 , 777 )
Trial Fund Balance 12/31/81 N/A
Budgeted ' 82 Revenues $4,048 , 131 Budgeted ' 82 Expenditures $ 2 ,692 ,835
Proposed ' 82 changes : Proposed ' 82 changes :
Upper Valley Drainage - 816 ,480 VIP Interceptor + 6 ,300
Polk Street - 79 ,000 Hauer Laterals + 6 ,000
1st Ave . Rt . Turn Lane + 235 ,000 Bluff Avenue + 6 ,000
2nd Ave . Water & Sewer + 470 ,000 Halo 2nd Addition + 9 ,000
101 Frontage Road + 26 ,000 CR #16 Utilities + 32 ,000
Alley Block 50 OSP + 3 ,800 Valley Ind. Blvd. So. + 5 ,000
Maras Road Improvement 0 Upper Valley Drainage - 816 ,480
Dean' s Lake Basin IVA + 900 ,000 Polk Street - 79 ,000
1st Ave . Rt . Turn Lane + 235 ,000
Net Change $+ 739 , 320 2nd Ave . Water & Sewer + 470,000
101 Frontage Road + 26 ,000
Alley Block 50 OSP + 3 ,800
Deans Lake Basin IVA + 910,000
Eastview + 9 ,600
Net Change $+ 823 ,220
Revised ' 82 Revenue : $4, 787 ,451 Revised ' 82 Expenditures $ 3 ,516 ,055
Estimated Fund Balance 12/31/82 $1 ,007 ,619
CITY HALL FUND'
'Program dropped when Five Year Capital Improvement Program finalized
in November ' 81 .
-4-
DEBT SERVICE FUNDI
1No changes . However, the City has historically paid for assessments
against City property with revenues from the Permanent Improvement
Revolving (PIR) Fund, and those revenues were not reimburseable and
should, therefore , not have been paid out of the PIR Fund. In
1982 , a totalof roughly $9 , 100 in assessments against City property
will be abated and the monies that would have been produced by the
assessment will be generated by special levies as needed to meet debt
service requirements in the future .
P. I .R. FUND
Actual 12/31/80 Balance $313 ,828
Budgeted ' 81 Revenue $ 14,393 Budgeted ' 81 Expenditures $ 70 , 150
Trial Balance ' 81 Revenue 37 ,982 Trial Balance ' 81 Expenditures 37 ,027
Trial Fund Balance 12/31/81 $314, 783
Budgeted ' 82 Revenue $ 15 ,600 Budgeted ' 82 Expenditures $ 50,560
Proposed ' 82 Changes : Proposed ' 82 Changes :
Levee Drive Assessments+16 ,560
Interest Income +15 ,000 Railroad Storm -34,000
Net Change $+31 ,560 Net Change $-34,000
Revised ' 82 Revenue $ 47 , 160 Revised ' 82 Expenditures $ 16 , 560
Estimated Fund Balance 12/31/82 $360 ,383
SEWER FUND
Actual 12/31/80 Balance $331 ,4661
Budgeted ' 81 Revenue $676 ,600 Budgeted ' 81 Expenditures $654, 544
Trial Balance ' 81 Revenue 610 , 757 Trial Balance ' 81 Expenditures 619 , 128
Trial Fund Balance 12/31/81 $323 ,0951
Budgeted ' 82 Revenue $733 ,090 Budgeted ' 82 Expenditures $690,895
Proposed ' 82 changes : None Proposed ' 82 changes : None
Estimated Fund Balance 12/31/82 $365 ,2901
1Because this is an Enterprise Fund, this balance is the Retained
Earnings .
-5-
COMMUNITY SERVICES FUND
No Changes
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
General Fund (HRA)
Separate Budget Memo
KMART FUND
No Changes
HIGHRISE FUND
No change . However, the City share of the Levee Drive Improvements will
come from the $177 ,411 budgeted as Expenditure or Transfer rather than
the P. I .R. Fund as originally budgeted.
-6-
•i _
•
RESOLUTION NO. 1991
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1982 BUDGET
WHEREAS , on ,October 6 , 1981 , the City Council did approve an
annual budget for the City of Shakopee for the fiscal year beginning
January 1 , 1982 ; and
WHEREAS , after reviewing the 1981 year end revenue and expenditure
figures and considering legislative changes affecting the City' s
revenues , the City Council has determined that it is necessary to
amend the 1982 annual budget .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1 . That the 1982 annual budget , adopted in Resolution
No. 1921 , is hereby amended to a total General Fund appropriations
of $2,358,960.
2 . That the appropriate City Officials are hereby
authorized to make the interfund transfers contained in the 1982
budget , as amended, at the appropriate times without further council
authorization.
Adopted in session of the City Council of
the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this day of ,
1982 .
41/1 yor o th ity o -opeS--
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1982 .
s ??j,
Expiring term on the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission
Councilmembers have already received resumes from four
residents expressing a desire to serve on this
Commission: y
Elmer Marschall , 1356 CR 77
Virgil S . Mears , 1813 East Shakopee Avenue
Barry Kirchmeier, 918 Minnesota Street
Calvin L. Brown, 956 South Holmes
If anyone desires an additional copy of any of the resumes , please
call for one .
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson/City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox/City Clerk
RE: Parking in off-street parking lots
DA1'F: March 31, 1982
Introduction:
On March 16th the City Council directed staff to study and recommend municipal
parking lot permit guidelines for Council consideration.
Background:
Tom Brownell, Police Chief, Jeanne Andre, Adm. Assistant, and Judy Cox, City Clerk,
met (having comments from Jim Karkanen, P. W. Supt. ) to discuss the current munic-
ipal parking lot permit process. As a result of that discussion, the attached
policy is recommended. It was also recommended that Council review the policy
for possible changes each year at the same time that Council considers the parking
lot permits for Brambilla and Total Transportation Services.
Note: We have currently issued 12 permits for parking in municipal parking
lots and have in the past issued as many as 22. So, for this year,
staff is recommending that a total of 22 permits may be issued.
There are 20 parking spaces (plus handicapped) at the High Rise and
approximately 24 occupants have cars. It is recomnended that no
permits need be issued for residents of the High Rise because the
municipal lot does have 24 hour parking.
Alternatives:
1. Policy as proposed.
2. Amend policy as proposed.
3. Do nothing and continue to allow staff to issue permits to applicants
on an informal basis.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends policy as outlined with any additions Council may see fit to
make.
Action Requested:
Approve Municipal Parking Lot Policy dated April 6, 1982.
JSC:cu
5
POLICY FOR PARKING IN MUNICIPAL PARKING LOTS
4-6-82
Municipal parking lots are intended to provide parking for customers of local
businesses. Local businessmen should be cognizant of the loss of parking, if
they don't discourage their employees from parking in the municipal parking lots.
Resolution No. 1249 was adopted by the City Council to afford off street parking
for persons residing above commercial buildings at the time the municipal parking
lots were constructed in 1967. The resolution provides for the issuance of a
permit to permit parking in municipal parking lots for a period of time exceeding
the limits contained in the City Code.
The following guidelines shall prevail until amended by the Shakopee City
Council.
1. Parking for periods of time longer than posted shall be limited
to persons residing above commercial buildings erected rior to
construction of the municipal parking lots. (Hotel has own o
street parking lot)
2. Applicants will be expected to park in the rear of the parking
lot, whenever possible.
3. To permit snow removal applicants shall move their vehicle within
twenty-four (24) hours after a snow fall.
4. No storage of vehicles shall be permitted. Vehicles must be
currently licensed, operational and used on a day-today basis.
If it appears that an applicant has not driven his car for a
period longer than four days, the permit may be suspended.
5. No permits shall be issued for parking lots posted for 24 hour
parking, unless a special parking lot lease agreement is approved
by the City Council.
6. The following number of parking lot permits will be issued on a first
come basis. When a resident with a permit moves and so notifies the
City, his permit may be reissued. When the City has issued the number
of permits indicated for a given lot, the applicant may select another
lot.
Parking Lot East of Bill's Toggery - 12
Parking Lot West of Berens - 5
Parking Lot North of Huber Building - 5
(2) 24 hour parking lots abutting Levee Drive -
No limit set at this time.
7. The City reserves the right to suspend the permit, if it is determined that
the car owner is abusing the priviledge of having a permit, and the following
procedure would be followed:
a] Upon observation or complaint, a possible abuser would be spoken
to about his abuse.
b) If there is no change, a certified letter will be sent advising
of the noted abuses and asked to respond positively or the permit
would be suspended upon a date so stated.
c] If there is no change, the permit is suspended and the provisions
of the City Code shall be followed.
d] It would be left to the discretion of the Chief of Police, or the
City Administrator, if and when a new permit may be issued.
MEMO TO: Mayor and CityCouncil
Y
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Developer ' s Agreement
DATE: March 31 , 1982
Introduction
The City held a meeting March 25 , 1982 with developers to receive
their comments of the proposed changes in the City' s developers
agreement . One developer attended, Gary Eastlund . Dick Wiggin
also submitted some comments at an earlier meeting.
Comments
Comments 1 and 2 are from Mr. Wiggin, 3 - 9 are from Gary Eastlund,
and the balance are from City staff:
1 . Page 9 - permits City to keep the extra 50 until all lots have
paid assessment . Questions if legal . Old agreement 50% kept
only until 2/3 lots paid and then the 50% in fact took care of
the balance and the agreement could then be released.
2 . Page 8 and 9 - City may wish to chose the payment method rather
than leave it up to the developer:
a. If its a desirable development where all lots should go fast ,
10% up front would be best .
b. If there are undesirable lots which may not sell for a long
time , or maybe never, 150% method would afford City best
protection.
3 . Page 3 paragraph B - add a performance bond option with the City
named on any bonds provided by subcontractor rather than the
general contractor.
4. Page 6 paragraph D - drop the "100%" petition, its confusing and
may cause problems when an improvement benefits property adjacent
to the development .
5 . a. Page 7 paragraph E( 1 ) - Use the 10% downpayment for the final
assessment payments rather than holding it at 5% until all
the assessments are paid and then returning it to the
developer ( same as #1 above) .
b. Page 7 paragraph E( 1 ) - Can the 57 interest paid by the City
be changed?
6 . Page 7 - Will the City change its policy and allow the assessment
to be passed on to the new owner rather than it being paid at
100% or 150% before the occupancy permit is issued.
7 . Page 8 - Why 150%, why not 125% or some other number?
Mayor and City Council '
March 31 , 1982
Page Two
8. Page 13 - who should sign the agreement? Should it be the fee
owner, all mortgage companies and the developer?
9. The developers agreement as written does not provide for indicat-
ing which payment method is to be used. This needs to be added.
10. In figuring park dedication, it is based on optimum development
permitted by the subdivision ordinance , however, the proposed
agreement allows for adjustment at time of issuance of building
permit .
11 . Will the City permit the 150% assessment payment on older developers
agreements to be changed from collection at the building permit to
collection at the occupancy permit? Amend old agreements .
12 . Should the City include the requirement that electrical and gas
utilities be included as a Plan A requirement in the developers
agreement .
Summary and Recommendation
I have checked with the cities of Edina and Bloomington about questions
No. 1 , No. 5a, and No. 5b. Edina does not require the 107 downpayment
or collect assessments on lots at a rate higher than 100%, therefore ,
they do not deal with interest on the downpayment. Edina only assesses
for 3 years , however, rather than 10 or 15 years , Bloomington combines
a 107 downpayment requirement with the collection of 125% of the assess-
ment on each lot sold. The developers agreement states that the inter-
est rate paid on the 10% and the accumulating 25% ( 125% - 100%) is at
a fixed 72%. However, Mr. Shuck, who handles developers agreements ,
says they pay the same interest that the City paid on its last bond
issue . Bloomington allows the downpayment and 25% that is accumulating
to be used to pay for the final balance on the assessments .
Staff recommends that the changes proposed in items No. 1 , 2 , 4, 5a,
8 , 9 , 10 and 11 above be incorporated in the proposed amendments to
the developers agreement and that items No. 3 , 5b, 6 , 7 and 12 be
discussed before a recommendation is made .
Action Requested
Direct staff to make the above recommended changes in the proposed
developers agreement and present it at the next meeting for final
action.
JKA/jms
/oeU
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson/City Administrator
FROM: Judith S . Cox/City Clerk
RE : Ordinance Amending the Dog and Cat
Regulations and Licensing
DATE: April 2 , 1982
Introduction:
On March 23 , 1982 , the Council directed staff to prepare an
ordinance amending the current dog and cat regulations per the
recommendations of staff at the meeting. The attached ordinance
was prepared by Mr . Coller, the City Attorney, and simply incor-
porates the recommendations made by staff.
Recommendation:
Unless the Council has some new concerns , it is recommended that
the ordinance be adopted as prepared.
Action Requested :
Offer Ordinance No. 91 , An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee
amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 10 Entitled "Public Protection,
Crimes and Offenses" by repealing parts of Subdivisions 4, 5 , 7
and 12 of Section 10. 21 and by adopting new provision for Subdivision
3 of Section 10. 21 and by adopting a new Subdivision 61 and by
adopting by reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 12 and Section 10. 99,
and move its adoption.
JSC :cu
6
/
ORDINANCE NO. 91
Fourth Series
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AMENDING SHAKOPFF CITY CODE
CHAPTER 10 ENTITLED "PUBLIC PROTECTION, CRIMES AND OFFENSES" BY
REPEALING PARTS OF SUBDIVISIONS 4, 5, 7 AND 12 OF SECTION 10.21
AND BY ADOPTING NEW PROVISION FOR SUBDIVISION 3 OF SECTION 10.21
AND BY ADOPTING A NEW SUBDIVISION 61/2 AND BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE
SHAKOPEE CITY CODE CHAFFER 12 AND SECTION 10.99
TIS CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
SECTION 1 Shakopee City Code Chapter 10 Entitled "Public Protection, Crimes and
Offenses" is hereby amended as follows:
A. Repeal:
1. Subd 4 Sec 10.21 All of this Subd repealed after the word "City" in
the second line. Place a period after "City".
2. Subd 5 Sec 10.21 Strike from the 4th sentence lines 8, 9 and 10 the
following words: "The owner shows proof every two (2) years that the dog has been
imounized against rabies within that period and providing that".
3. Subd 7 Sec 10.21 Strike the last six words, to-wit: "and the date of
rabies vaccination." Place period after the previous word dog.
4. Subd 12 Sec 10.21 Strike all of this Subdivision after the word "has"
at the end of line 3.
B. Amendment:
1. Add the following to the end of Subd 3 Sec 10.21, to-wit: ''the owner of
any dog picked up by the pound master whose license is not current, shall be subject to
a fine as established by the Council by Resolution. This fine must be paid prior to
releasing the dog."
2. Add to Subd 6 of Sec 10.21 the following new Subd 62, "Innoculation
Against Rabies. Subd 62. All dogs shall be innoculated against rabies by a
veterinarian duly licensed to practice veterinary medicine in the State of Minnesota.
It is the duty of the owner of the animal to keep irnoculations current. The owner
of any dog picked up by the Pound Master whose rabies innoculation is not current,
shall be subject to a fine as established by the Council by resolution. The fine
must be paid prior to the release of the dog."
Upon payment of the fine and release of the dog, the owner shall have
15 days in which to have his dog innoculated. If the dog is picked up after this
15 day period and the owner cannot provide proof of innoculation against rabies,
the owner shall be subject to another fine.
3. Add the following to Subd 12 of Sec 10.21 after the word "has' , to-wit:
"been duly issued fcr an impounded animal, proof that the rabies innoculation is
16 6(
current, and payment of impounding fees as established by the Council by resolution.
In the case of an unlicensed dog the owner shall purchase a license from the Pound
Master.
SECTION II: Penalty Provisions adopted:
Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire City Code including Penalty for Violations" and Sec 10.99
entitled "Violation a Petty Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by
reference as though repeated verbatim herein.
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 said publica-
tion.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota in
session of the City Council held this day of , 1982.
Eldon A. Reinke
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
AIThST:
Judith S. Cox
City Clerk
Prepared and approved as to form
this day of , 1982.
Julius A. Coller, II
City Attorney
X06
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk
RE: Application for IR Bonds from the Cornelius Co.
(Rubber Industries , Inc . )
DATE: April 2 , J982
Introduction
The City has received an application from the Cornelius Company
for $1 , 500 ,000 Revenue Bonds to purchase equipment needed to
continue the operation of the firm.
Background
Included is a copy of the application and exhibits . If Council
accepts the application, a public hearing should be set by
adopting the resolution attached.
Alternatives
1 . Accept application and set public hearing.
2 . Accept application and do not set a public hearing for reasons
determined by the Council .
3 . Accept application and table action.
Action Requested
Offer Resolution No. 1994, A Resolution Calling For Public Hearing
Pursuant To Minnesota Statutes , Section 474.01 , Subd. 7b, and move
its adoption.
JSC/jms
/C)
MEMO TO : John K. Anderson
City Administrator
FROM : H . R. Spurrie(***-:
City Engineer
RE : Establishing Municipal Sta Aid Highways
DATE : March 26, 1982
Introduction :
City of Shakopee approved Resolution No. 1983, February 16, 1982 establishing
two Municipal State Aid Highways (MSAH) .
Background :
State Law specifies that the designation is subject to approval of the
Commissioners of Highways of the State of Minnesota. Resolution No. 1983
was forwarded to Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) for
approval.
The routes were not approved because the routes exceed the permitted mileage
of 2.40 miles by 0. 05 miles, which is approximately 290 feet.
Proposed Resolution No. 1992 revises the alignment of Segment 4 on the
drawing and that revision reduces the total mileage 290 feet, so that the
total mileage is 2.40 miles. According to the District State Aid Engineer,
this reduction would assure the approval of the two segments.
Recommendations:
It is the recommendation of City staff that City Council adopt Resolution
No. 1992, A Resolution Establishing Municipal State Aid Highways And Repealing
Resolution No. 1983.
Action Requested :
Adopt Resolution No. 1992, A Resolution Establishing Municipal State Aid Highways
And Repealing Resolution No. 1983.
HRS/jiw
Attachments: Original Map
Revised Map
Resolution No. 1992
4. -•-•\( Q.)\i/C) r,
+4...
/ .
1 /
co a)
• .,
CD .t,-. ,...-----•\
i .
y.... 1
S•• .
1
f/
,
/
\ .
:
i
.'
1
9 - 09 N. e I;
( (
. , ,
i
, . .
i
c. .
0
.,_
, . .
, 0,. , c.,,,,
N.,
N
/ r'" - O. - •
_ Tana
't
V Cil)
CN
-J ,
NI v 0
0
CD ' '
f 1 0
0
CV (m
iii
CD CD
I i
Z
e Ao..-7-10) I coN19107 I (")
1 (0
,
c,,, 0
LI ir
.....
If ,
i 7••N 0 I
• r 9 0 0 sa ...--
7^ •P"'" N 1,1" (,— CV--
,0 „)
0
\
0 : CO
, . N„. g" 0
: co T-• ,
0:
1
CV. 0 1 C\1
/'4
.4 0 •
)
: ' 0 0 LO lo
I
; .
" CO
/
cncr)
0 0
c0 /::
.
,
, -
0 .
I
1 (N
•
c•
.-
.1 0 - 0 i
...--
. .
...--
c0 -
1 1
0
''' ' -----'
i CO .
1
,I
1
•
CO 4
- •.... '•'
4 ..• ,
'1 0
I I
11
,1
. I
1.
0 0 I 5 • , -
co
<
• ,
v. .
• .4. .
_
.,-
N
. ,
i , ' ,I;r„ •- ..•'f t
: .
II
;! I
,..
.97 ' . .: ----• -:14 .
; .....
,
11 'i
\ /: '" I,
. j
• , .
. •,- .
E / I, •, . J
-
\ '
,1 •,,, mar am . .was mut mar law min was .mt mucimrasig 111111CJIMINE111111
.., A\ )0.1
10'0.51
'...-'
\•,.( ) - •''''' After_ammiTIL-ioi°11111 ' I
,
.•••• II
., ..•
__--.-.; • ,
4
....
,. ,..)
,. .,„
0.,.__ ,....„. _, _... ,.....,(,,, ,,
,...,
w c.,
` _ O
).\\\
, Oro o �(p c T— O �6
\\
di
O
co /
\\\ ,
I i - i
1
1 ' OT-1 9 iill. ,, CO N
CO
O
O
/1 1' / O O T"'"I(
1/1 0
�, a 2
/ c°
O (C)•
cp
\ i \ 9 . 0 7 ....6
CO0 e—O\\; I N41
111'd 0 0 ,e r Qr-
I
CO ' O w
. O co
H co c
w
® (. 5• O r 0
• 00 fV (4
fI. O O 10 0• 0 i
ILI
IC r—
, / h
Cr )� CO
i
0 0
;1 OC° Cf) / .
i
\� G N 0
J\\ O
i.
1111
•
•
i , . 1
Cr
1
i‘. ' 0 7.
.7.
• 0 i
/ ^SCO
o .
0
,_ Oon
a ' r nt; no
1 0 Q _
N
I
i 1
` i `
5
`
/ 11
1 11
I t I
111r°
'r' ♦ms's °r
y_ ) ......rte. d
1
RESOLUTION NO . 1992
A Resolution Establishing
Municipal State Aid Highways And
Repealing Resolution No. 1983
WHEREAS, it appears to the City Council of the City of Shakopee,
Minnesota that the streets hereinafter described should be designated Municipal
State Aid Streets, under the provisions of Minnesota Laws of 1967, Chapter 162;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the roads described as follows, to-wit:
1 . Beginning at the intersection of Trunk Highway 169, and the
North line of the Southwest quarter of Section 11, Town-
ship 115 North, Range 23 West; thence Southeast to 13th
Avenue as platted in Minnesota Valley 3rd Addition, on
record in the office of the Recorder of Scott County, Minnesota,
thence along the alignment of 13th Avenue East to County
State Aid Highway No. 15 and there terminating.
Said road to be numbered and known as Municipal State
Aid Street No. 104.
2. Beginning at the intersection of MSAH 108 and the center
of Section 5, Township 115 North, Range 22 West; thence
South to a point 675 feet North of the South line of said
Section 5; thence Southeasterly a distance of 1060 feet
along a tangential curve concave to the east, having a
radius of 675 feet and a central angle of 90 degrees to a
point on the south line of said Section 5; thence East to
the Southeast corner of said Section 5; thence South
along the East line of Section 8, Township 115 North,
Range 22 West to County State Aid Highway No. 16 and
there terminating.
Said road to be numbered and known as Municipal State
Aid Street No. 106.
be, and hereby are established, located and designated Municipal State Aid
Streets of said City, subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Highways
of the State of Minnesota.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and
directed to forward two certified copies of this resolution to the Commissioner of
Highways for his consideration and that upon his approval of the designation of
said roads, or a portion thereof, the same be constructed, improved and main-
tained as Municipal State Aid Streets of the City of Shakopee, to be numbered
and known as Municipal State Aid Streets as noted above.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Resolution No. 1983 is hereby repealed
in its entirety.
Resolution No. 1992
Adopted in session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this day of
1982.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST :
City Clerk
Approved as to form this day of
, 1982.
City Attorney
•
I1aU
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk
RE: Vacation of Alley North of Lots 1 and 2 , in Block 30 O. S .P.
DATE: April 2 , 1982
Introduction
A letter was received by the City of Shakopee on February 11 , 1982
from David Moonen asking the City to vacate the alley lying North
of Lots 1 and 2 of block 30 , O.S.P.
Background
Council set a public hearing for April 6th at 8 : 30 p.m. to consider
the vacation of the alley lying North of Lots 1 and 2 , Block 30.
The state law provides that no street or alley may be vacated unless
vacation would be beneficial to the public interest .
Should said part of the alley be vacated, there is a minimum of curb
work needed to protect the general public from using the unvacated
part of the alley at an estimated cost of
Staff has approached Mr. Moonen regarding a more extensive improve-
ment than what he is planning for his building which might generate
tax increment money to also improve the municipal parking lot in-
cluding green space ; however, this is only in the discussion stage .
Council should conduct the public hearing, as advertised, but may
wish to delay taking action:
1 . if the vacation would not be beneficial to the public interest .
2 . until it is determined where funds are coming from to pay for
the minimum curb work needed as a result of any vacation .
3 . until it is known whether or not tax increment plans are going
to be implemented.
If and when a vacation takes place , Shakopee Public Utilities has
requested that a utility easement be retained.
Alternatives
1 . Deny the request for vacation.
2 . Table action on the vacation request until May 4th (allowing
additional time to learn whether or not a tax increment plan
maybe implemented and/or how the needed curb work might be
funded) .
3 . Direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution vacating the
partial alley as requested.
John K. Anderson
Page Two
April 2 , 1982
Recommended Action
1 . Conduct public hearing.
2 . Table action on the request for vacation of the alley lying
North of Lots 1 and 2 in Block 30, 0. S.P. until May 4, 1982 .
JSC/jms
ENL) WHI & PINK COPIES INTACT. WHITE COPY WILL BE RETURNED W17 I! REPLY
� t C'-
c FROM: SHAKOPEE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
1030 East Fourth Avenue
SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 (612) 445-1988
Name:
SUBJECT: ///61770 A,' 0/5 / Py j3Z-OC•,e 3(.) C)• P.
DATE
kiF F'p's
, T," e4 y( P n.;'• A1-7-4 i /v 7-A//Ye O ,i r-
7--e
_?e e° j- T/7<P .moi?F S F N;- A L L E 0 Si/t u C/,/t,' e
CC c ✓f r S"A C E- >~i 1/e/'2 1 E'_ Q /l: ;—//L e_ t.,!// %/-( 47- c'/C/N e
,-- O//V y-•, A'c-cp v 4,A y 77/.4 7 :r/y e f=v 1,4///,e) :/V /3-e_
fc / r A 7-77/N - 4 5-(-) VIA() /v
REPLY TO DATE BY
RETURN PART 1 TO SENDER WITH REPLY BY
I MCC 847-3
t '..wr.
•
-.
` .t.wXSy;i :� � I §v' 1.F.. � e��k
•
S t kG . �: ,443
‘01,•,4;H .e; 6= �_Z a;r 4 ,F �;• gl 1*i t i #4,a; rs { 1141,4•144;01i1,'
•t4 ''• 1:4;;;,-
y ` � .. jjgv{M'4 ,ui c't.{ R#�"r t 44' 10.4:4,„$*it. iz 4. 'i}W'1
�f a/
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given to the affected property owners
and the public that the City Council of the City of Shakopee ,
will hold a pubic hearing on Tuesday , April 6 , 1982 at 8 : 30 P.M. ,
or thereafter, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 129
East 1st Avenue , to consider the vacation of that part of the
alley lying North of Lots 1 and 2, in Block 30 , Original Shakopee
Plat ; lying between Second and Third Avenues and between Lewis
and Holmes Streets ; to which the City of Shakopee has asserted
a claim.
All persons interested in the above vacation will be given
an opportunity to be heard .
Dated this 12th day of March 1982 .
Judith S. Cox
City Clerk
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING
I, Judith S. Cox, City Clerk of the City of Shakopee ,
Minnesota, do hereby certify thatI d'd post a copy of the above
notice of public hearing on Y /P /9`� on
the bulletin board on the main floor of the Scott County Courthouse,
on the bulletin board in the Shakopee City Hall and on the
bulletin board in the lobby of the Shakopee Public Utilities .
Dated this / day of rfic/A424, , 1982 .
i
SEAL
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
/iL
FROM: Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant
RE: National League of Cities Memorandum on Cable Legislation
DATE: April 2 , 1982
Introduction
The attached National League of Cities (NLC) memorandum outlines
federal legislation recently introduced regarding cable communi-
cations . The NLC has requested cities to forward comments by
April 9 , 1982 , to be considered in NLC response to this legisla-
tion ( see lower half of page 5 ) . Senate subcommittee hearing on
this legislation will be held April 27 - 30, 1982 .
Background
The legislation introduced has many positive provisions , such as
the establishment of access standards at the federal level and
allowing state and local government to continue rate regulation.
Even negative aspects such as FCC (Federal Communication Commission)
to continue to limit franchise fees are not unmanageable for muni-
cipalities . However, unclear language which may preempt certain
state and local regulations and/or existing franchise provisions
should be dropped or revised to more effectively integrate federal ,
state and local regulation of cable communications .
Recommended Action
Direct staff to write to the National League of Cities and Senator
Barry Goldwater requesting the lines of authority between federal ,
state and local regulations of cable communications to be more
clearly drawn in the proposed legislation.
JA/jms
44PAc&
National 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Officers;
League Washington,D.C. President
Ferd L Harrison
Of 20004 Mayor.Scotland Neck.North Carolina
Cities (202)626-3000 First Vice President
Cable:NLCITIES Charles Royer
Mayor,Seattle.Washington
+' Second Vice President
Yt George Latimer
Mayor,Si.PaulMinnesota
• 1 Immediate Past President
1.'+ L us William H Hudnut.III
Mayor,Indianapolis.Indiana
Executive Director
ern'ern' 9,." � r �'jr1 Alan Beals
ii �s,.' a 6' is♦ b �..�
TO: (1) Mayors and Managers of Direct Member Cities
(2) Executive Directors of State Municipal Leagues
From: George Gross, Director, Federal Relations
Subject: NLC Legislative Letter : 22 March 1982
In this Issue: Cable Legislation
Senator Barry Goldwater, Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on
Communications, on March 4 introduced a comprehensive bill deal-
ing with cable television. Entitled the "Cable Telecommunications
Act of 1982" (S. 2172 ) , it would establish national policy on cable,
increasing the role of the Federal Government in cable regulation and
preempting state and local authority in certain areas; require
the Federal _Government to establish access st4ns s ar;d _a veil-
in9 on franchise.,•fees; and allow states_ 41114_10.aal.._,gouernments
to regulate rtes charged to subscribers for basic cable ser-
vice. Subcommittee hearings have been set for April 27 - 30.
Following are the major provisions of S. 2172.
Jurisdictional Framework
S . 2172 would add a new title VI to the Communications Act of
1934 , treating cable as a unique medium rather than as a broad-
cast-type service. Its findings state that "a national and uni-
form policy for cable . . . to prevent the emergence of conflicting
regulation" is needed, that the Federal Government has an interest
in the development of cable telecommunications, and that "cable
systems are engaged in interstate commerce. " Two purposes for
the bill are specified: (1) to clarify jurisdictional responsi-
bility by apportioning authority for the regulation of cable be-
tween the Federal Goverment and the states ; and (2) to enable
"cable systems to compete in the marketplace with the providers
of telecommunications services to the public. " Under Section
603 (1) , the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would have
exclusive jurisdiction in a number of areas. States or local
governments (or other federal _agenclexplici-t7. __prohi-
bitec, trQmm establishing•,or makin,,g "r les._ r gD1,.1,.ciea_r arding
matters dealt with in this [bill] . "
Pest Presidents:Tom Bradley,Mayor,Los Angeles.CaI'fornia•Henry W.Maier,Mayor.Mrwaukee,Wisconsin•Tom Moody,Mayor,Columbus.Ohio•Jessie M.Rattley,Councilwoman Newport
News Virginia•John P Rousakis,Mayor•Savannah Georgia•Directors:Richard Arrington,Jr.,Mayor.Birmingham,Alabama•Carol Bellamy,Council President,New York New York•Arne
Boyum,Executive Director,North Dakota League of Cities•Richard S.Caliguiri,Mayor,Pittsburgh.Pennsylvania•Malcolm Clark,Council Member,Port Arthur,Texas•Joanne Collins,Council
Member,Kansas City Missouri•Thomas H.Cooke,Jr.,Mayor.East Orange,New Jersey•David Cunningham,Council Member,Los Angeles.California•W.Elmer George,Executive Director,
Georgia Municipal Association•Karen M.Graves,Commissioner,Salina,Kansas•Anne Gresham,Council Member.Grand Prairie,Texas•Paul E.Haney,Council Member.Rochester New York•
Jonathan B.Howes,Mayor Pro Tern,Chapel Hd North Carolina•George M.Israel,Ill,Mayor,Macon.Georgia•Myra Jones,Vice Mayor.Little Rock Arkansas•Christopher G.Lockwood,
Ex^^tithe Director.Maine Municipal Association•Bob Martinez,Mayor.Tampa,Florida•Robert H.Miller,Executive Director.South Dakota Municipal League•Jack Nelson,Mayor.Beaverton,
Oregon•Mary Neuhauser,Council Member.Iowa City,Iowa•C.David Nuessen,Mayor.Quincy,Illinois•Hernan Padilla,Mayor,San Juan,Puerto Rico•Donald R.Peoples,Chef Executive,
Butte,Montana•Martin L.Peterson,Executive Director.Association of Idaho Cities•Michael J.Quinn,Executive Director,Indiana Association of Cities and Towns•Vernon H.Ricks,Jr.,Mayor Pro
Tem,Takoma Park,Maryland•Arthur E.Trujillo,Mayor,Santa Fe.New Mexico•George V.Voinovlch,Mayor.Cleveland.Ohio•Daniel K.Whitehurst,Mayor,Fresno.Calilornia•Don A.
Zimmerman,Executive Director,Arkansas Municipal League
vommmummommilli
- 2
Under Section 603 (2) any "federal rule , regulation, order or
standard" is null and void to the extent that the requirement is
inconsistent with the provisions of the bill. All cable systems
are subject to the provisions of the bill and "such orders , rules ,
or regulations as may be adopted pursuant thereto. " States and
local governments a�re_,_s_pecifical „Allowed by Section 603 (3)
to adopt or cont.unuein force laws or regulations" unless they
are "inTI5 ns'istent with the exclusive _grants. of authority. under
this;'Gill) -in {are "not forbidden to any governmental authority
under this [bill) . "
•
Access
Section 606 establishes federal access requirements and Section
607 outlines the extent to which the rates charged to programmers
for the use of these channels may be regulated. Each systemwi.th
20or more cha,nr,�1s..Tmust set aside ,10 percent of its__channels..._.for
use by public educational, and gov_ernmenta.l ch.anne.l. prngrammers,
anAiIO percent for use by leased channel _pro.gramm,e , (i.e. , pro-
grammers other tfian those selected by the cable operator) . Pro-
grammers who are eligible to use these access channels are defined
as program originators (origination means the "use of a cable
channel . . . to create and distribute programs such as news, public
affairs, entertainment, sports, educational, and religious. . " )
and a cable operator is allowed to put his own programming on
the access channels (channel programmers include a "cable system
operator to the extent that such operator . . . is engaged in pro-
gram origination" ) . Because channel programmers are defined as
program originators, those service providers who are not program
originators (e.g. , security system operators and data transmitters)
will not be eligible to use the federally required access chan-
nels.
Section 606 (b) establishes a trigger mechanism for sunsetting
the federal 1e sed access requirements. THe T- C is authorized
toy determine on a markCey-markeE iasis whether "there are rea-
sonably available alternatives for persons desiring to provide
programming service to the public in a particular geographic
area or market. " In making this determination -- which will re-
sult in a federal agency measuring local communications needs --
the FCC must consider the following factors: (1) the number and
size of other providers; (2) the extent to which service is a-
vailable from alternative sources; (3) the ability of other pro-
viders to make service available at comparable rates, terms, and
conditions; and (4) other indicators of competition.
Section 606 (c) requires that these federally mandated access
channels be made available "on a first-come, first-served non-
discriminatory basis. "
- 3 -
Section 606 (d) allows for the combination of the access program-
ming onto a smaller number of channels if demand for the use of
the set-aside channels is not sufficient for their full time use.
Rate Regulation •
States and local governments are specifically,__authorized to re-
gulate subscriber rales for-5asic_ cabley_.service (Section 607 (b) )
and rates charged to programmers for the use of the public, edu-
cational, and governmental access channels (Section 607 (a) ) .
Section 607 (c) explicitly prohibits federalstate and local
ti
governments from regulang t ierates'cFarge, or the use of- the
feCerally manaa_t. Teased access. channels.
The right of states and local governments to regulate the rates
charged to subscribers for basic cable service is limited by
Section 604 (1) , which defines basic cable service as "the re-
7.
tr� ansmisai n of broadcast _,signa s an any other service as deter-
mined by a cable operator. " This means that the franchising
a"GtlibTity`mayrregulate the rates charged to subscribers for re-
ceiving local and distant broadcasting signals.
Franchise Fees
Section 611 directs the FCC to "establish reasonable ceilings" on
the franchise fees paid; to state-S-- and coca governments. e
appropriateness ' and leverof' the Me ceirth-W i►►ay be challenged
b etition. Section 611 sanctions the FCC' s current practice
oo imposing a ceiling (that ceiling, first imposed in 1972 , is 3
percent of gross revenues, or up to 5 percent upon FCC grant of a
waiver) . The FCC has under consideration a petition to strike
down that ceiling, which is not based on any clear legislative
authority.
Ownership
Federal state, , and local government s....arc_. specificall,X_denied
the "_authority to prohibit or _�
otherwiseregulate, the ow_ner-
ship"of cable systems ' y �in y �.-.
_ � e�s,c,�n. " (Section 605 '(a)T: This-
broar p alfa€T n'of" government regulation of the ownership of
cable systems will eliminate the FCC' s existing crossownership
restrictions prohibiting networks, broadcasters, and telephone
companies from owning cable systems, and prevent states and local
governments from imposing similar restrictions. Despite the
broad prohibition of government restrictions on ownership the
bill includes several specific restrictions : (1) the right of
s
munici alities to own ca e stems is sobject to several con-
--------- . �'
itIons; (2) the right", hone., Cmp.,, ` "" °` 3.e sys-
tems is limited; an-a (3) the FCC is authorized to .„KaatIlz. for-
eign ownership. Conditions are specifically imposed on owner-
ship o -cable systems by the following entities :
- 4 -
Foreign Companies. Section 605 (b) gives the FCC discretionary
authority to establish regulations governing the right of foreign
owned cable companies to participate in the American market, based
on whether the foreign country in question provides reciprocal
treatment for American firms. This provision is most likely to
affect Canadian ownership, as Canadian law does not allow Amer-
ican companies to own cable systems and therefore would not sa-
tisfy the reciprocity requirement. The FCC' s authority is dis-
cretionary in this area and it could choose not to limit foreign
ownership. If, however, the FCC decides to limit foreign owner-
ship, it would have the discretion to require foreign companies
to divest their American cable holdings.
Municipalities. Under Section 605 (c) , municipal governments
are prohibited from controlling the programming on municipally
owned systems (except for the programming on the federally re-
quired public, educational, and governmental access channels) .
As a result of this prohibition, the tv would have to establish
an independent agency or board to make programming decisions,
lease the system to a private_ cabl q_pR _,tororM operate the
system as �acommon"carrier. The city' s ability to acquire a
cable system" £firough b'uy back, forfeiture, or condemnation is
specifically limited. Whenever the city acquires a cable sys-
tem through conditions set in the franchise agreement (i.e. , by
the enforcement of buy back, forfeiture, or condemnation clauses) ,
it is required to pay fair market value. Provisions of franchise
agreements that allow for acquisitions at less than fair market
value (e. g. , franchise agreements which permit buy back at book
value or depreciated value) would be invalid. Fair market value
is not defined so it is unclear whether the value of intangibles,
such as good will and franchise rights, would be included in
fair market value.
Telephone Companies. Telephone companies -- such as the Bell sys-
tem' s operating companies -- would not be allowed to provide cable
service in their own operating areas unless their provision of
cable service would promote diversity and competition (Section
605 (d) . The FCC would have to approve such operations.
All telephone companies could provide cable service in areas out-
side of their operating areas. Operating area -- although not
defined by the bill -- apparently means the local exchange area
(i.e. , the local telephone network) . The American Telephone and
Telegraph Company (AT&T) , as restructured by the recent anti-
trust settlement, would have an unrestricted right to provide
cable service. This is because the settlement agreement requires
- 5 -
the divestiture of the operating companies that will have ex-
clusive responsibility for local exchange service within the
existing Bell network and precludes AT&T from providing that
exchange service.
Other Provisions
S. 2172 includes a number of other provisions which are not of
direct concern to cities. They include : (1) limitations on the
civil and criminal liability of_ cable operators Tori `"program-
ming of unaffiliated programmers (Section 608) ; (2) authorization
for'-t1ie' FCC to adopt must-carry
brequirements for the restrans-
mitted of over-the-air roadcast signals (Section
�O ) � ) elim-
ina ire `OrThi"e"a'-PTication of fairness doctrine, equal time,and
reasona e access requirements. to cable operators (Section 610) ;
(4)t ons"for sti15s'criber privacy (Section 612) ; (5) author-
ization for the FCC to estairrgh-technical standards and to impose
record-keeping requirements (Sections 613 and 614) ; (6) direction
to- e-FCC"' `o 1 nsure equal employment opportunity (Section 615) ;
(7) territorial exclusive)ty"-"Tor'prOfe"ssional sports teams (Sec-
tion 616) ; and (8) a prohibition piracy (Section 617) .
* * *
City officials should analyze the bill, a copy of which is en-
closed, and provide NLC staff with your specific comments by
April 9. Of overriding concern, is the extent to which S. 2172
may preempt state and local authority, nullify provisions of
franchise agreements, and necessitate the renegotiation of
franchise agreements. The preemptive scope of Section 603 (1)
is not clear: it precludes states and local governments from
establishing rules or policies in "matters dealt with in the
[bill) " but does not specify what is left to states and local
governments. The bill establishes particular federal require-
ments in a number of areas--ownership, access, rate regulation
and franchise fees -- and specifies permissible state and loca,_
regulation in certain areas (rate regulation) , but authorizes
no specific state and local regulation in other areas (access) .
Whether the Federal Government' s exclusive jurisdiction in
these areas refers only to specifically authorized federal ac-
tions or to any kind of regulatory action in those four broad
areas is not clear. Should the bill preempt all state and local
regulation of ownership, access , rate regulation, and franchise
fee matters, unless specifically authorized by the bill, then
state and local authority would be drastically reduced since
these are the areas that have traditionally been of concern to
states and local governments.
P
0
- 6 -
On the other hand, if states and local governments can establish
requirements in these areas as long as the bill does not expli-
citly prohibit the requirement in question, then the federal re-
quirements simply operate to establish federal minimum access
requirements , to authorize state and local regulation of rates
for basic subscriber service and the use of the federally re-
quired public, educational , and governmental access channels,
to set maximum franchise fees, and to prohibit regulation of the
rates charged for the federally required leased access channels.
Please send your comments on the bill to Cynthia Pols at NLC' s
Office of Federal Relations.
— (for S.2172 "(2) Any cahla system s'.;i:1 i-, j
By Mr. GOLDWATER
self and KASTE ): hire Be it enacted by the Senate and House of the i.ru.: :. ;.:.s [1::e a:.: : c:-.rr-
2172. A bill to amend the Commu- Representatives of the United States of rules, or regulations as may be adopted pur-
S. America in Congress assembled, That (a) suant thereto and any Federal rule, regula-
nications Act of 1934; to the Commit- this Act may be cited as the "Cable Tele- tion, order, or standard applicable to cable
tee on Commerce, Science, and Trans- communications Act of 1982". systems shall, to the extent inconsistent
portation. (b) The Communications Act of 1934 is with the provisions of this title•be null and
CABLE TIMECOMMI NTCATIONS ACT OF 1982 amended by inserting immediately after void.
• Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, title V the following new title: "(3) A State, instrumentality, agency,
"TITLE VT—CABLE board, commission, or authority or any the bill I Introduce today, the Cable po-
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT lltical subdivision thereof may adopt or con-
Telecommunications Act of 1982, rep- tinue in force any law, rule, regulation.
resents the culmination of a process "FINDINGS order, or standard affecting cable systems,
that began In 1979 when I introduced "Sec. 601. The Congress hereby finds unless such law,rule,or regulation,or order
legislation that contained similar pro- that— or standard is inconsistent with the exclu-
visions. Extensive hearings were held (1) cable systems are engaged In inter- sive grants of authority under this title and
state commerce through the origination, is not forbidden to any governmental au-
on that bill but no action was taken in transmission, distribution, and dissemina• thority under this title.
the 96th Congress, tion of broadband telecommunications serv-
Last year, the Commerce Committee ices; "DEFINITIONS
considered a number of communica- "(2) the expansion and development of "Sac. 604. For purposes of this title, the
tions bills that were passed by the cable telecommunications is of primary con- term—
Senate. Among those was S. 898, cern to the Federal Government; "(1)'basic service', 'basic cable service', or
which contained several cable televi- "(3)it is necessary and appropriate forshe 'basic subscriber service'means the retrans-
Sion provisions. However, no hearings Federal Government to establish and main- mission of broadcast signals and any other
fain a national policy for cable telecommu- service as determined by a cable operator,
had been held on those particular sec- nications to assure the evolution of cable as "(2) 'broadband telecommunications'
tions in S. 898. Therefore, during the a medium In its own right;and means any receipt or transmission of elec-
flaor debates on that bill, I objected to „(4) a national and uniform policy for tromagnetic signals over one or mere co•
these cable Is needed to prevent the emergence of axial cables or other closed transmission
provisions because of the corn- conflicting regulation and to allow the medium;
n';t nents I h::d ma,. e that.there would growth and development of cable as a "(3) 'broadcasting' means telecommunica-
be no Cable legislation without hear- medium which will be responsive to and tions by radio intended to be received by the
ings.I also made it clear that I was not serve the needs and interests of the public. public, directly or by the intermediary of
objecting to the substance of the cable -primps= relay stations;
provisions in S. 898. My amendment to "Sac. 602. The purposes of this Act are "(4) 'cable channel' or 'channel' means
delete those provisions was successful, to— that portion of the electromagnetic frequen-
and they were stricken from the bill. "(1) create a jurisdictional framework cy spectrum used in a cable system for the
Mr. President, this bill is the first which apportions the authority to regulate propagation of a radio, teletiision, or other
time that a comprehensive bill has cable systems between the Federal Govern- electromagnetic signal;
been introduced on cable television, ment and each of the several States of the "(5)'cable operator'or'cable system oper-
been
will be ampleUnited States;and at ' means any person or persons, or an
p opportunity for "(2)allow cable systems to compete in the agent or employee thereof, that operates a
public comment on its provisions, as I marketplace with other providers of tele- cable system, or that directly or indirectly
have steadfastly promised in the past. communications services to the public. - owns a significant interest in any cable
The subcommittee has tentatively "STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY system, or that otherwise controls or is re-
scheduled 4 days Of hearings On this "Sac.603.The provisions of this title shall sponsible for, through any arrangement,
bill next month: April 27, 28, 29, and apply as follows: the management and operation of such a
30, 1982. "(1) The Commission shall have jurisdic- cable system;
Mr. President, I invite my colleagues tion and exercise authority with respect to "(6) 'cable service' means the retransmis-
sion of any television or radio broadcast
to join in cosponsoring this bill. Commission jurisdiction under this title is signal, or program origination, for distribu-
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- exclusive and no other Federal or Slate in- tion by cable or any other closed transmis-
sent that this bill and a summary de- sion medium to multiple subscribers;
scribing it be printed in its entirety in strumentality or agency or any political sub- "(7) 'cable subscriber' means any person
the RECORD, following my remarks. division thereof shall make or establi:a who receives radio,television• or other elec-
There being no objection, the mate- rules or palic'cs regarding the matters d_:_." tromagnetic signals distributed or dissemi-
Tial was ordered to be printed in the grassier
in this title. nated by a cable operator or a channel pro-
RECORD,as follows: over a cable system;
7 _
"(8)'cable system'means a facility or corn- •'(17) 'United States' means the several "(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of
bination of facilities under the ownership or States and territories.the District of Colum- subsection(a)of this section.no telecommu-
control of any person or persons,which con- bia, and the possessions of the United nications carrier shall engage in the provi-
sists of a primary control center used to re- States. sion of cable services in the same operating
ceive and retransmit, or to originate broad- "oV.'NEF.sHIP OR CONTROL OP CABLE SYSTEMS area,unless the Commission, in any particu-
band telecommunications services over one lar case, shall otherwise permit and then
"Sec. 605. (a) Except in,the case of the
or more coaxial cables, or other closed only upon a sufficient showing that such
transmission media, from the primary con- antitrust laws of the United States and to provision by a carrier will provide signifi•
trol center to a point of reception at the the extent otherwise provided in subsections cant additional media diversity and competi-
premisesb), (c), and (d) of this section, no executive
of a cable subscriber, but such ,cncc of the United States, including the tion.In any particular case,the Commission
term does not include a facility or comcina- Commission. and no State or political subdi-
purposes
require conditions which foster the
tion of facilities that serves only to retrans- vision or agency thereof, including a cable purposes and policy of this Act.
mit the television signals of television "(e)(1) Notwithstanding the provision of
authority, shall have the au-
subsection stations located withal the franchisingsubsection (d) of this section, telecommuni-
thority to prohibit, or otherwise regulate,
market in which such facility is located, nor the ownership of cable systems by any cations carriers serving rural areas with low
shall a common carrier subject to the provi- population density, as defined by the Cor-
sions of title II of this Act be deemed to be a person. mission, may provide cable services in such
"(b)(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of
cable system solely by reason of receiving or areas.
transporting broadband telecommunications subsection (a) of this section, for the par- "(2)The Commission shall prescribe regu-
services in the ordinary ccurse of its busi- Pose of ensuring fair and equitable treat lations necessary to carry out the provisions
ness as a common carrier, ment of United States cable enterprises of this section within the 180-day period fol-
"(9) 'channel programer' means any seeking access to markets in a foreign coon- lowing the date of its enactment.
person or persons that lease, rent. or are try, the Commission shall have authority t0
otherwise authorized to use the facilities of conduct inquiries and establish policies, DEDICATION OF CHANNEL CAPACITY
rules,regulations.and requirements applica- "SEC. 606. (a) The Commission shall re-
a cable system for the origination of pro- ):.- ,r• r; psrsons from that country quire cable systems having twenty or more
grarning over a cable channel, and such :._c•-s to domestic mart.ets in the television broadcast channels (120 MHz or
term shall include a cable system operator United States in connection with the con- more of bandwidth)for immediate or poten-
to the extent that such operator, or person struction. ownership,and operation of cable tial use to dedicate or set aside—
or persons under common ownership or con- enterprises with a view to assuring that "(1) 10 percent of such channels for use
trol with such operator, is engaged in pro- such United States cable enterprises are by public, educational, and governmental
gram origination permitted access to such foreign markets channel programers;and
"(10) *closed transmission medium' or upon terms and conditions which are recap- (2) 10 percent of such channels for use
'closed transmission media' means media rocal with the terms and conditions under by leased channel pgation er.
having the capacity to transmit simulta- which such foreign persons have access to "(b) (1) The obligation to of e access
neously electromagnetic signals over a domestic markets in the United States. imposed under paragraph (2) of subsection
common transmission path such as coaxial „(2) For purposes of this subsection, the (a) of this section (relating to leased char-
cable, optical fiber, wire, waveguide, orterm'foreign persons'includes any individu• nets) shall cease upon determination by the
of her such signal conductor or device; al who is not a citizen of the United States. Commission that there are reasonably avail-
"(11)'origination'or'program origination' any subsidiary (although established under able alternatives for persons desiring to pro-
means the use of a cable channel by a chan- the laws of the United States or any State vide programing service to the public in a
nel programer to create and distribute pro- thereof) of a corporation or other business particular geographic area or market.
grams such as news, public affairs, enter- entity which was established under the laws "(2) IN determining whether there are
tainment, sports, educational, information- of a foreign country, any corporation or reasonably available alternatives in the rele-
al, and religious, but such term does not in- other business entity established under the vant area or market, the Commission shall
dude carriage of radio or television broad- laws of a foreign country, or any corpora- consider—
c,st signals by a cable operator, tion or other busintss entity established "(A)the number and size of other provid-
"(12) 'person' means an individual, part- under the laws of the United States or any ers of service;
nership, association, joint stock company, State thereof, if 25 percent or more of the "(B) the extent to which service is availa-
trust, corporation, or any governmental au- capital stock or equivalent ownership 1s ble from other providers;
thority: owned or controlled by an individual who is "(C)the ability of such other providers to
"(13) 'radio or television signal' means a not a citizen of the United States or by a make such service readily available at cora-
signal or any radio or television broadcast corporation or other business entity estab- parable rates,terms,and conditions;and
station, domestic or foreign, operating on a lished under the laws of a foreign country, "(D) other indicators of the extent of the
channel regularly assigned to its common!- or any subsidiary of a corporation or other
ty,which is receivable by the general publicCompetition.
business entity established under the laws "(c) The channels referred to in para-
without charge; of a foreign country. graphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) of this
"(14) 'telecommunications' means the "(3) The Commission shall adopt such
transmission,between or among points spec- section shall be made available on a first-
rules, regulations, policies, requirements, come,first-served,nondiscriminatory basis.
user's choosing,without change in the form and procedures, and may impose such re- "(d) Until such time as there is demand
or content of the information, by means of strictions as it determines to be necessary or for each channel full time for its designated
electromagnetic transmission, with or with- appropriate to carry out the provisions of use, public, educational, governmental, and
out benefit of any closed transmission this subsection. programing channel may be com-
medium, including all instrumentalities, (C) Notwithstanding the provisions of bined on one or more channels. To the
facilities, apparatus, and services (including subsection(a)of this section.a State or any extent time is available therefor. such dedi-
the collection, storage, forwarding, switch- political subdivision or agency thereof may cated channels may be used for other serv-
ing,and delivery of such information)essen- not own or acquire an ownership Interest in ices.
h St
any cable system,unless sucate,subdivl-
tial to such transmission: sion, or agency acquires such ownership or "RATE REGULATION
"(15) 'telecommunications carrier' or 'car- interest at not less than fair market value "SEC. 607. (a) Each State or political sub-
rier' means any person, including any gov- and not by condition of franchise unless the division or agency thereof,or cable franchis-
ernsnent or quasi-government entity, which franchise provides for purchase at fair lig authority,is authorized to establish,fix,
offers any telecommunications service or market value.In any case in which any such or otherwise restrict the rates, on a nondis-
facilities used by any person to provide tele- State,subdivision,or agency has or acquires criminatory basis, charged for the use or
communications services, except that a any such ownership or interest in accord- sale of cable channel capacity or time on
person engaged in broadcasting, or in pro- ance with this subsection,such State,subdi- such channels referred to in paragraph (1)
viding any cable service,shall not.insofar as vision, or agency shall, in no case, own or of subsection(a)of section 606.
such person is so engaged, be deemed a car- control, directly or indirectly, any of the "(b) Each State or political subdivision or
ries; programing on such cable system except as agency thereof,or cable franchising author-
"(16) 'telecommunications service' means
the offering for hire of telecommunications provided in section 606(a)(1). is authorized establish, fix, or other-
the
e restrict the rates, on a nondiscrimina-
facilities, or of telecommunications by tory basis,charged for basic services.
means of such facilities;and
rf
— 8 —
"(c) No executive agency of the United "(d) No cable operator, channel pro- "(2) Any person who violates the provi-
States, including the Commission, and no gramer, or originator of broadband telecom- sions of subsection (a)shall be liable to any
State or political subdivision or agency munications, shall disclose personally iden- person aggrieved by such violation, for dam-
thereof, or cable franchising authority, tifiable information with respect to a cable ages as provided by subsection(c).
shall have authority to establish,fix,or oth- subscriber, or personally identifiable infor- "(3) Any civil action under this section
erwise restrict the rates charged channel mation with respect to the broadband serv- may be commenced in any United States
programers by cable system operators for ices provided to or received by a particular district court of competent jurisdiction,
the use of channels described in paragraph , cable subscriber by way of a cable system, without regard to the amount in controver-
(2)of subsection(a)of section 606. except upon the prior written consent of sy,or in any other court of competent juris-
"CRIMINAL AND am LIABILITY the subscriber,or pursuant to a lawful court diction.
"SEC. 608. Nothing in this title shall be order authorizing such disclosure. "(c)(1)(A)Damages awarded under subsec-
"(e)If a court shall authorize or order dis- tion (b)(2) shall be computed in accordance
deemed to affect the criminal or civil liabili- closure, the cable subscriber shall be noti- with subparagraph(B)or subparagraph(C).
ty of channel programers pursuant to the tied of such order by the cable operator, or "(B)The party aggrieved is entitled to re-
law of libel, slander, obscenity, incitement, other person to whom such order may be di- cover the actual damages suffered by him as
invasions of privacy, false or misleading ad- rected, within a reasonable time before the a result of the violation, any profits of the
vertising, or other similar laws, except that disclosure is made. For the purposes of thiserson committing the violation that are at-
the cable operator shall not incur such ha- paragraph,a reasonable period of time shall t ibutable to the violation and are not taken
bility for any program carried on any not be less than fourteen calendar days. in account in computing the actual dam-
public, educational, governmental, or leased "(f)Any cable subscriber whose privacy is ages. In establishing such profits, the party
channel referred to in paragraphs (1) and violated in contravention of this subsection, aggrieved is required to present proof only
(2) of subsection (a) of section 606, or for shall be entitled to recover civil damages as of the gross revenue of the person commit-
any program originated by a channel pro- authorized and in the manner set forth in ting the violation, and such person is re-
gramer having no ownership affiliation with section 2520 of title 18 of the United States quired to prove his deductible expenses and
the cable system operator. Code. This remedy shall be in addition to the elements of profit attributable to fac-
"CARRIAGE OF BROADCAST SIGNALS any other remedy available to such sub- tors other than the violation.
"Sec. 609. The Commission may establish scriber. "(C) The party aggrieved may elect, at
the terms and conditions respecting the car- "TECHNICAL STANDARDS any time before final judgment is rendered.
riage of radio and television broadcast sig- "Sec. 613. The Commission shall ensure to recover, instead of actual damages and
naffs by cable system operators. that cable system operators conform to profits under subparagraph(B),an award of
"FAIRNESS DOCTRINE,EQUAL TIME,AND technical standards necessary to promote statutory damages for all violations involved
REASONABLE ACCESS the compatibility and interoperability of in the action,in a sum of not less than$250,
cable systems, the compatibility of the re- or more than$10,000,as the court considers
"SEC. 610. No executive agency of the celvers and other terminal equipment con- Just.
United States, including the Commission, nected to such systems by cable subscribers, "(2) In a case where the party aggrieved
and no State or political subdivision or andto prevent harmful interference to sustains the burden of proving, and the
agency thereof, or cable franchising author- radio and television communications. No court finds that the violation of subsection
ity,shall require a cable operator to comply (a) was committed willfullyand for
with the provisions of sections 312(a)(7)and person shall manufacture,import,sell,offer pur-
315 of this Act. for sale or lease, ship, or use devices which poses of commercial advantage or private ft-
fall to comply with .such regulations pro-
"FRANCHISE
gain, the court in its discretion may
"FRANCHISE FEES mulgated by the Commission. increase the award of damages, whether
"Sec.611.(a)The Commission shall estab- actual or statutory under paragraph (1), by
lish reasonable ceilings for the fees to be "RECORDS an amount of not more than $50,000. In a
"Sec. 614. The Commission shall require case where the person committing a viola-
paid to States, or any political subdivision viola-
the maintenance of such records by cable tion sustains the burden of proving,and the
therethereby operators of cable systems re- operators and the submission of such re- court finds, that such person was not aware
(; franchises from such State or poirti• ports to the Commission as may be neces- and had no reason to believe that his acts
cal subdivision thereof and,
sary and relevant to the performance of its constituted a violation of subsection(a),the
upon its own motion or upon petition. may duties and responsibilities as provided under court in its discretion may reduce the award
upon
the apprupria!er•_; of suet, ceilings this title or under any rule, regulation, or of damages to a sum of not less than $100.
and make adjustments therein. order adopted pursuant thereto. "(d)(1) Any person who violates subset-
"(b) The Commission shall prescribe pro- "EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY tion (a) willfully shall be fined not more
cedures necessary to carry out the provi- "Svc. 615. The Commission shall ensure than$1,000 or imprisoned for not more than
cions of this section within the 180-day and promote equal employment opportunity six months,or both.
period following the date of its enactment. by cable system operators. "(2) Any person who violates subsection
"PROTECTION OF SUBSCRIBER PRIVACY
(a) willfully and for purposes of commercial
"Sec. 612. (a) No person shall intercept or "SPORTS advantage or private financial gain shall be
616. (a) o cable system shall re-
receive not more than $25,000 or imprisoned
"Sac. N
receive broadband telecommunicationsfor not more than one year,or both,for the
unless specifically authorized to do so by a transmit into any area within 50 miles of
cable system operator, channel programer, the home stadium of a cub which is a first such offense, and shall be fined not
or originator of broadband telecommunica•
member of a professional ;pons h ooue the more than $50,000 or imprison,-(1 for not
tions or as may otherwise be specifically au- broadcast or any part thereof of r.ny game more than two years,or both, for any subse-
thorized by law. involving that home club or a member club quent cftense.
"(b)In order to safeguard the right to ri- of that league unless it obtains the consent
g g P "(e)(1) No criminal Drrxerdi;;t :;hall he
vacy and security of broadband telecommu- of that home club or its designee. n maintained under th
nications, such broadband telecommunica- "(b) Nothing in this section shall prevent f '" `
a cable system from retransmitting the pro- tion s it is cthe c nc.•J r: . th;.
tions shall be deemed to be a 'wire commu- three years after the cause of action arises.
nication' within the meaning of section area ing of any broadcast station into an "(2) No civil action shall be maintained
1510(1)of title 18 of the United States Code. area which is located wholly within that sta-
tion's 'local service area', as defined in sec- under the provisions of this section unless it
"(c) In the event that there may be any tion 111(f)of title 17, United States Code.". is commenced not later than three years
difference between the provisions of this after the claim accrues.",
section and chapter 119 of title 18 of the SIGNAL PIRACY
United States Code, or any regulations pro- Sec.2.Section 705 of the Communications REDESIGNATION
mulgated thereunder, it is the intent of the Act of 1934 (as redesignated by section 3 of Sec. 3. The existing title VI of the Corn-
Congress that such chapter 119 shall be this Act) is amended (1) by designating the munications Act of 1934 is redesignated as
controlling. existing text thereof as subsection (a), and title VII, and sections 601 through 609 are
(2) by adding at the end thereof the follow- redesignated as sections 701 through 709,re-
ing; spectively.
"(b)(1) Any court having Jurisdiction of a
civil action under this section may grant
temporary and final injunctions on such
terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent
or restrain violations of subsection(a).
11 �
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant
RE: Fiscal Year 1983 Preliminary LCMR/LAWCON Grant Application
DATE: April 2 , 1982
Introduction
Applications for grants under LCMR (Legislative Commission for
Minnesota Resources ) and LAWCON (U. S . Land and Water Conservation
Fund) are now being solicited by the Minnesota Department of
Energy, Planning and Development . The City of Shakopee must deter-
mine if an application for park funding should be submitted, and
if so, the nature of the application.
Background
The City of Shakopee has applied for numerous LCMR/LAWCON grants
in past years , successfully securing funds for acquisition of land
for O' Dowd Lake Park and JEJ (or Eastside ) Park. Applications for
the current funding cycle (FY 83 ) are due by April 30 , 1982 .
No LAWCON funds are anticipated for fiscal year 1983 ; approximately
$950 ,000 has been allocated by the State for the seven-county metro-
politan area . According to a funding allocation prepared by the
Metropolitan Council , $82 ,935 will be available to freestanding
growth centers ( category in which Shakopee falls ) . Shakopee could
therefore submit an application for a project costing up to $165 ,870 ,
of which one-half would be paid by grant funds and one-half would
be the required local match.
Two projects have been suggested as possibities for grant funding.
The Council should determine if an application should be prepared
and recommend a project for further staff research. If an applica-
tion is to be prepared, further information on the proposal will
be provided at the April 20 , 1982 , Council meeting.
The two recommended projects are as follows . The attached Five-
Year Capital Improvement Program-Parks , and development schema for
JEJ Park are included for further information.
1 . JEJ (Eastside ) Park Development
Approximately 11 acres of land for JEJ Park are to be acquired
with 1982 LCMR/LAWCON grant funds in the summer of 1982 . Pro-
posed development of this land included a parking lot , shelter
( to be moved from school property) sliding hill , walkway from
Merrifield Court , ice rink and archery range. Development costs
are anticipated to be approximately $40 ,000-$44 ,000. Funds for
development could be solicited for fiscal year 1983 . The major
drawback to selecting this project for 1983 is a recommendation
by the City Engineer that the Upper Valley Drainageway be designed
prior to constructing park facilities in this area. Design for
this reach of the Upper Valley Drainageway has not been ordered
by the City Council , and would take at least nine months to com-
John K. Anderson
Page Two
April 2 , 1982
pile , therefore completion in time for the 1983 construction
season ( for park development with grant funds ) is not likely.
In addition 13th Avenue , which would provide automotive access
to the park, is not part of any presently-adopted improvement
schedule .
2 . Levee Drive Park
No formal plans for this park exist at this time , but it was
included on the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) adopted in
1981 . That project list called for clean-up and planting,
site grading and development of bituminous trail and river out-
look, with a budget of $15 ,000 . A more detailed site plan could
be much more expensive, depending on the extent of development .
A seven foot wide bituminous trail costs approximately $8. 35/
foot to construct (or $3173 per block) . Rough estimates of other
possible improvements include : clear and grub and new landscap-
ing - $4000, public restrooms connected to Community Services
Building - $30,000, and look-out at old river-crossing - $50 ,000.
Drawbacks to selection of this site include the need to coordi-
nate with downtown planning, other riverside park development
(Huber and Memorial Park) , trail development (at state , federal
and adjacent municipality levels ) , and the extension of Levee
Drive. Preliminary staff investigation suggests a project on
Levee Drive should be included on a master development plan for
all riverside recreational areas in Shakopee. Such a plan
would integrate park, downtown and street development along
the river, determine ownership of pertinent parcels and how
proposed development should be phased. This plan could also
be used to solicit funds from the Watershed District and DNR-
trails division for these improvements .
Requested Action
Determine whether Shakopee will submit application for fiscal year
1983 LCMR/LAWCON funding and select project for staff to develop in
application. Suggest parameters for local dollar match.
JA/jms
1 i I c2\ \
— - - . - - -
J
�
ut
II
� _ _
CjDp./i4 G HOO L•
Pi�' SGT - —
2 . I yc.,y,►J4 F4 LL
QQ
�� ( .29 s"
fii"'— _ -4d— —so I 11111 -_ .i... •''
_ - - so
YES •
rrgodn" sol
g.e5 .ar=m -. -- 4
'
� / ♦ v
- i
4, •
i -----ti R.kN
V ♦ I4t
../ ♦ C i+�+rA 0667? i Islam
,,, /
• 0 / ➢fW�WnG
41)/1 / '
`.� 1
4.
1-
•
10 1%" 1 ''.
U' . - ----
7/ i
I
Map /i,..-
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
.. J E JEJ PA
SCOTT COUNTY
C--
"C) r-I
co
O u
O Q.r-I
O 0�
O 10 Cg
r-1 ¢ r-♦
cv
O tom- 00 N
0
MO r. 0 c+•) O
-1 in
N 0 0 kr) O a)
a) 0 0 N O •H
a) to 0 0 O co U) O G 4-1
U G a, co ^0 ^b ^ cd •r1
a) ›,o O ^ $a cn 0 M G O 3-1 3.
U cU O •rt 0 .-I C.7 .-i 0 00 0 r-I C7 CU
3-I '-) 0 a 0 ^ 4-4 4A- r-I
O �N BOO U N 4-1 U
1
O - 4:03- 443- b U b b b 409- b Jr) 70 U
Cf) G •. .. G r+ G G G G G G •rI a)
0 v) 00 0 00 0 3• 0 cn 0 0 G P 0 (n A
G�. G G G G L*. u W L�. f3. G ri. 3a [_, u G G
G O •rI O •r-4 V) O L) U) 0 0 r-I
•rI a) •�+ 3� •� 3a a) •rl U v a) •r1 aJ v •r1 •r1 •r•I ra
'd > 4J cU U cd > A • +J P4 A ra
G 3a cU cU.0 3• 3a 3a 3• a1 3a 3a cd cU 3
O a) G G a) - a) a) a) G a) 0 v - G G
rx. •
U3 0 0 CO a) Cl) CO U) 0 (1) ,--1 (4v 0 0 U)
(1) 'd (1) "C) (1) a) .G a) a) a) A a) - a) 4 -0 b .0
2 0 0 2 U) P; 2 P.' 2 Z 2 V) co
r4 G r--I G -4 r•I 0 $a r-4 r-1 0
,. cU a) CO (3) - a) ,. r- cU ,l C) ,. (1) cU co U
3-) U 9 U > 3-1 4) 3. }-i 3• 0 P 3 3• 4-1 U U
cU 0 a) 0 a) cd cU 0 cU cU 0 cU ¢ cU CU 0 0
P-4 act arx a3 a w 41-4 i-• 44 1- a. 3 a a •
x c
P. b0 0 0 o 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 a,
I a) 0 0 0 0 0 0 o En 0 0 0 in O
Eu 0 0 00 a, cn 0 0 ,4 0 0 0 M r-♦
¢ co 4-) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ (1)
P4 E U) �' N 1-1 VO r-I %O I- 00 to N N �O
C)• •r-1 0 M N r•1 N 1--I Cr) 0)
0 u 0 1--1 CNI -0
2 cn u)
P. W -d
G
H Ln b cU
W Z 00 0
W W 1 ••I N �' M Lr) -4 G
a, z 4-1 $a co 0o 0o 00 �t L( co 00 M cn 0
O 1L) oo a) I I I I 00 00 00 I I co 00 •r.I
> a1 P. •-1 r-I .-4 N a\ a1 01 r-I N ON a, U
¢ 0 r-I 00 00 co 00 r"1 r'1 00 CO 1-4 1-4 •r I
z x a) cm rn a, as (:, a, co
Cl) P. I E -1 r-1 r-I r4 rl 4r1
z w C/) E 4 o'
O H U
HI () CO
•
0 P. 2 I G 3' 0
U a > b0 al 00 4
a) G r-I al Cr)
P4 '0 •r1 a) 4-I G •r.1 •
¢ b 3 U 0 •r1 r-I U)
W ^r-I C) ', 4-1 •r-1 Cd .n 1-►
}+ ti) •r1 G 0 G U 3-+ cU U)
W w r0 a) a) E p aa)) A ( U
4-4 0 co •d cU •r b I'+ E 4-4 a) U G
P64 cd G > G 0 0 a) 0 r-I U) 0
(1) 0 0 •r•I d' r-1 1-► r4 r4 4-1 •r4
p m p. ) U 0 a) 9 > U •4
Cl) b b •rl rC a) U U)
^ U) G U) 70 3a •r1 •r1
O O k O G 0 G -0 b O.u v'
G O U 0 3. a) 0 G a, (4 U
o U GG) CCU cid >1 a 0A •"d CO
. CO 0 U 00 4 G
0 0 � s...."s...."b r-I r-1 0 G •_ U b 0
r-I 4-1 00 a) G U a. a) r1 •rI 0 •r•I a)
r-I G 4 co G r7 'd 0 3 ..0 1-)
co 0. •rl CO a) a) a) bO 0 r--1 cn G
aJ 0 p. 1-4 E ' b G 3'+ 4-) G 3•+ v
U) I cU 0 •ra a. (U 4,1 CO 0 0 a) 00
U G x u U co 0 3•+ ^x 0 U U •r1 4-) G
U •r1 0 U) )•i r-1 r-I 130 b 3a a) G G 4-) cU •r1
a) 0 '0 a) 4-) 0 a) 0. G cd U P a) a) U 3 4
•r- ^ G U 3+ 9 0 cd O. 4r1 a) E E G G
O u •r4•d U a) r-I U) > a. a. 0 G 0
•+ •r4 .r4 4r1 •n W U
a. r-4 N P+c0U 0 •0 +i )4 U ^ $a 0 0 G 4
-0 U b a) .--I U b 3. cd O b0 Cf U' 0 3 a)
cU 00 cd G co 3 G 0 P.r-1 G -0 a) a) u co
O 0 3 cd 0 cn cU 0 •r4 G .. co
3. •.-1 1--1 r-4 Cl) U r-•I U 4-) cU -0 b G a a)
b co co a) -3c G cd O G G G •,- cn 3-+
a) 3-+ G a1 0 a. U r-4 0 U) G U cd ,4 0 0 cU U
U «3 0 3-+ •r4 0 U •r1 4•1 4r1 0 r-1 •r-I 0 0 G a) G
4-1 a. Cd 3• 1-1 ,- cU CU 4 G •r1 ^ .. a. cd 3-4 3-4 a) 34 •r-1
> r-I 4--) a) 3a 3- 4r1 G 4-) U 34 $a b0 bO x u
$• 4-I •,-I U) U > td .. H co a) •r1 3.1 0 b 4-) T T 0 G d
W O cU co ,.. a) a) P. 3-1 •r-4 u b 0 P. G r- 00 4-) •r1 r-I
U) $. CO 3-1 r-I'd cU ›, 0 b 0 RI (4) 3-1 r-1 .--I 3• 0
x a 0G 4-) 3 a) v a a) C' a) 0U a) 0 cd P. .. P. a) 4-) o
3•
,2 C 0 x b0 a ^ x r•i u ,� U •3C > a. 0 P. P -0 d U
3. 4 cC •rI 4-4 3-4 a) 0,0 cd a) r-I 0 P cd 4s a) 9, •r-I 0 G a) cd a) G 60
al CO P. m 0 cU b r-1 '0 G a b cd al 4-I . 3•+ P 3• I •r1 al-0 P. 'd 0 •r4 .0
P. u G P. G cU •r1 •rI •r1 > r-I P. 3a 3-1 •rI W A G E L" 0 0 E G
O ,C cU U ca •r1 > a.. b 7 •r1 0 cd 0 .0 0 0 U 3-i U) P a) 0
.4 r-1 cd a.. G cn a. 3a 0 0 3 0 3a cU cn CI) P. Cr U a) a) U cd b0 a) to r-1
do) 0 ) X a) G < 0 3-+ U 0 3a W P G a) U 3a a) r-1 •r-1 3 a. E a. 0 0 E
a
rn 2 .0 w E 0 w E P. CO Aa. a.H co rw '- ¢ co > 0.a aAA ;:o
H ') °' o o F <
x a Z o c) = x H c
-)c
/f C='
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
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 $236 ,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
$264,125
•
Adopted
12/1/81
l 1
MEf.O TO : John K . Anderson
City Administrator
FROM : H . R. Spurrier
City Engineer
RE : Redevelopment of Block 57
DATE : March 30, 1982
Introduction :
At your request, the Engineering Department has analyzed additional alterna-
tives to facilitate the redevelopment of Block 57, Original Shakopee Plat.
Eackaround :
Pursuant to your request, the redevelopment of block 57 was first analyzed
December 8, 1980. lig that preliminary analysis, the redevelopment was
judged not feasible unless a storm sewer serving Block 57 was constructed.
The estimated cost of that off-site storm sewer was $104, 100.
On April 28, 1981 City Council ordered a Feasibility Report for the Fuller
Street Storm Sewer. The report estimated the cost of the storm sewer at
$87, 700. and concluded that the project was not feasible because the cost
exceeded the benefit. The report concluded by recommending that other
funding alternatives be investigated.
On October 16, 1981 still another alternative method was proposed for
serving Block 57. This alternative served Block 57 through the Holmes Street
Storm Sewer by way of a connection at 4th and Holmes Street. This lateral
had an estimated cost of $38,780. This cost resulted in a unit cost approxi-
mately 34 percent greater than the Fuller Street alternative and lacked
flexibility in that it served only Block 57.
On December 22, 1981 City Council approved and entered into an agreement
with St. Francis Hospital, whereby the City agreed to make storm sewer
facilities available by August 31, 1983.
Scope
This report has investigated the cost of additional alternatives available to the
City for providing storm sewer facilities to serve Block 57, as well as other
property adjacent to Block 57.
John K . Anderson March 30, 1982 /
Redevelopment of Block 57 Page -2-
This report investigated the cost of two alternative-sized facilities; one
designed to accommodate the storm, which has a 20 percent chance of occurring.
It is a so-called 5-year design and the second, designed to accommodate the
storm which has a 50 percent chance of occurring. It is a so-called 2-year
design.
•
Discussion :
The cost of the 5-year design has previously been documented in the Feasibility
Report for the Fuller Street Storm Sewer Lateral. That cost is $87, 700. An
alternative not discussed in that report, yet considered here, is construction of
the lateral main and omitting the inlets until redevelopment of other property
north of 4th Avenue occurs. This alternative would postpone the expenditure
of approximately 31 percent of the total project cost.
The second alternative is to provide facilities that would accommodate a more
frequent occurrence; a 2-year design. That design would be at or near
capacity during most thunderstorms and any significant precipitation would
exceed the capacity of these facilities.
The cost of the 2-year design serving Block 57 is $29, 980, a significant
reduction. The reason this is so low is that it presumes the installation of all
of the facilities required to accommodate the 2-year design storm. Since those
facilities are not in place and not proposed, the additional run-off from Block 57
could be shown to be damaging to several downstream properties north of
4th Avenue.
The storm sewer which would mitigate potential damage caused by developed
run-off is the proposed storm sewer in 5th Avenue between Holmes Street and
Apgar.
Conclusion :
A table below compares all of the alternatives considered thus far, including
the Fuller Street Storm Sewer Laterals and the 4th Avenue Lateral.
ALTERNATIVES
A. Fuller Street Lateral Proposed August 14, 1981 -- 5-Year Design
Pro Con
1. Reduces potential downstream 1. Project cost makes this alternative
flooding problems; not feasible,
2. Design capacity appropriate for 2. Public does not perceive a drain-
Commercial area; age problem exists;
John K . Anderson March 30, 1982
Redevelopment of Block 57 Page -3-
Pro (cont. ) Con (cont. )
3. Design capacity conforms to all
other new storm sewers in the City ,
4. Fewer complaints of flooding are
received because capacity is exceeded
infrequently;
5. Permits Redevelopment of Btbck 57.
B . Fourth Avenue Lateral Proposed October 16, 1981 -- 5-Year Design
Pro Con
1 . Reduces potential downstream 1. Project cost is 21 percent higher
flooding problems; than "Alternate A" above;
2. Design capacity appropriate for 2. Project is "Not Feasible";
Commercial area; 3. Public does not perceive a drain-
3. Design capacity conforms to all aae problem exists;
other new storm sewer in the 4. Extension lacks flexibility.
City;
4. Fewer complaints of flooding are
received because capacity is
exceeded infrequently;
5. Permits Redevelopment of Block 57.
C. Fuller Street Lateral Without All Inlets -- 5 Year Design
Pro Con
1. Reduces potential downstream 1. Project cost makes this alternative
flooding problems; "Not Feasible";
2. Design capacity appropriate for 2. Public does not perceive a drainage
Commercial area; problem exists.
3. Design capacity conforms to all
new storm sewers in the City;
4. Fewer complaints of flooding are
received because capacity is
exceeded infrequently;
5. Permits the Redevelopment of
Block 57.
D. Fuller Street Lateral -- 2-Year Design
Pro Con
1. Project is probably feasible if the 1. Does not by itself reduce the
City share is increased. potential downstream flooding problems;
2. Design capacity is not appropriate
for Commercial area;
John K . Anderson March 30, 1982
Redevelopment of Block 57 Page -4-
Pro (cont. ) Con (cont.)
3. More complaints are received
because of the public expectation;
4. Public does not perceive a drainage
' problem exists;
5. Block 57 should not be developed
unless 5th Avenue Storm Sewer is
installed.
All of these alternatives have one general problem in that each of the alternatives
in one degree or another, require participation by the City in the cost of the
storm sewer.
Summary :
All of the alternatives are not feasible because the amount of the assessment is
greater than the amount by which the value of the property to be assessed
increases.
Designing for a smaller storm had the effect of reducing project cost but left
numerous problems unresolved and still lacks feasibility.
Alternatives :
1 . Construct the Fuller Street Lateral with a 5--year design and assess up to
50 percent of the project cost but no less than 25 percent of the project
cost.
2. Reconsider on-site detention of developed run-off from Block 57, eliminating
the need for any laterals.
3. Do nothing.
Recommendation :
This report recommends Alternative No. 1, constructhg the Fuller Street Lateral
with a 5-year design and assess up to 50 percent of the project cost, but no
less than 25 percent of the project cost.
HRS/jiw
Attachments
I h^r r;cort;f; t,1:i this pi-:n, f.,• :i%i:.ation,car mrort
;��I ; ,or un cr <<a.,
i
COST ESTIMATES
5-YEAR DESIGN WITHOUT INLETS
Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total
•
1 18'• RCP . ' 510 L.F. $ 28.00 $ 14, 280.00
2 24" RCP 380 L.F. 32.00 12, 160.00
3 42''' RCP 15 L.F. 75.00 1, 125.00
4 48" Dia. Manhole 1 Ea. 900.00 900.00
5 84h Dia. Manhole 1 Ea. 3, 000.00 3, 000.00
6 L.P. Catch Basin 5 Ea. 900.00 4, 500.00
7 Remove Curb and Gutter 570 L.F. 2.00 1, 140.00
8 B618 Curb and Gutter 570 L.F. 6.00 3, 420.00
9 Bituminous Patches ( 2341) 292 S.Y . 4.25 1, 241.00
10 Sod 2000 S.Y . 2. 00 4, 000. 00
Subtotal $ 45, 766.00
10% Construction Contingency 14, 577.00
•
$ 50, 343.00
8% Technical Services 4, 027.00
Subtotal $ 54, 370.00
Subtotal City Share and _ $54,370
Improvement District Share 2 527. 185.00
'
CityShare Improvement District Share
Subtotal $27, 185. 00 Subtotal $27, 185. 00
5% Inspection 1,360. 00 17% Improvement District Cost 4, 620. 00
Total $28, 545. 00 Total $31,805. 00
Assessment Computation
Benefit Area 303, 750 . q. Ft.
Assessment Rate _ $31,805. 00 = $0. 104708/Sq. Ft.
303, 750 Sq. Ft.
Cost Summary
City Share $28, 545. 00
iIthprcvement D'Istrict Share 31,305. 00
GRAND TOTAL $60,3 50. 00
2-YEAR DESIGN
Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total
1 24" RCP 40 L.F. $ 32. 00 $ 1, 280.00
2 27" RCP •
40 L.F. 36.00 1, 440.00
3 42" RCP 95 L.F. 61. 00 5, 795.00
4 84'' Dia. Manhole 1 L.S. 3, 000.00 3, 000.00
5 L.P. Catch basin 5 Ea. 900.00 4, 500.00
6 Remove Curb and Gutter 175 L.F. 2. 00 350.00
7 B618 Curb and Gutter 175 L.F. 6. 00 1, 050.00
8 Bituminous Patches (2341) 164 S.Y. 4.25 697.00
9 Cross Pans 4 Ea. 1, 000.00 4, 000.00
Subtotal $ 22, 122.00
10o Construction Contingency 2, 212.00
Subtotal $ 24, 334.00
11% Technical Services 2, 676.00
Subtotal $ 27, 010.00
9
Subtotal City Share and __ $27, 010
Improvement District Share 2 $13, 505. 00
City Share Improvement District Share
Subtotal $13, 505. 00 Subtotal $13, 505. 00
5% Inspection 675. 00 17% Improvement District Cost 2, 295. 00
Total $14, 180. 00 Total $15,800. 00
Assessment Computation
Benefit Area 303, 750 Sq. Ft.
Assessment Rate = $15,800. 00
303, 750 Sq. Ft. $0. 052016/Sq. Ft.
Cost Summary
City Share $14, 180.00
Improvement District Share 15,800. 00
GRAND TOTAL $29, 980. 00
g1 ): (f) MLEi:; M LL I ° :::::::.::::.:.:
j — 2Lij lelltgi —JLIJ i r-9 :::*
1
0 .....
A :::::<:::: a -. S{
s :: : ....
.::.:::...:.:.::.
N """ 4 t h
7 111 I MI I
got
S>
i:s
/I I ,
''' 3rd
i:7111] , [ '. ,,
.. . _ , I te2 Jo. . . ..
6"........4..z.-......4. i
NOii
' '':\4 ,, j ' :i
= :---___t 2 n d
XN-- ,
D O
(1) i id 7 2-,1 I.,ic
REDEVELOPMENT
OF BLOCK 57
ASSESSABLE AREA
4
' I
MEMO TO : John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM : H. R. Spurrier
City Engineer
RE : Redevelopment of Block 57
Original Shakopee Plat
DATE: December 8 , 1980
Pursuant to your request , I attach an estimate of the Redevelopment
cost o1' Block 57, Original Shakopee Plat ; the block located
between Scott County Courthouse and St . Francis Hospital .
Land acquisition costs were estimated by Larry Martin and are
detailed in the attached memo. Relocation administration and
relocation costs are estimated based on current relocation costs .
The values are $5,000. 00 and $15 ,000 . 00 , respectively for actual
relocation costs for each of the five dwellings that must
be acquired. Parking lot construction is based on 1981 construc-
tion costs . The off-site storm sewer is required because paving
Block 57, increases runoff and exceeds the capacity of downstream
facilities. The storm sewer must be extended from 2nd and
Fuller and from 4th and Fuller to 4th and Atwood; that cost is
also contained in the attached estimate .
The total land acquisition and relocation cost is an estimated
$379,500 . 00. This amount does not reflect any cost for property
now owned by St . Francis Hospital and Scott County.
Parking lot construction will cost an estimated $178, 100 . 00. This
amount includes building demolition, grading and paving.
The off-site storm sewer necessitated by the amount of coverage
made by Block 57 is a part of the Holmes Street laterals and is
estimated to cost $104 ,700. 00. This amount does not include
any Special Improvement District cost if the project were to be
assessed.
The project is not feasible without including every element contained
in this estimate . The storm sewer is the only element of this
estimate not previously discussed with the county or the hospital .
HRS/,j iw
attachments
cc : St . Francis Hospital
Scott County
I /d
III 410
REDEVELOPMENT OF BLOCK 57
ORIGINAL SHAKOPEE PLAT
Land Acquisition and Relocation :
From December 8, 1980, Larry Martin Memo:
Parcel 'No. 427 $ 48 ,000 . 00
428 ',7 , 000. 00
429 < `' , 000 . 00
431
y1 ,000 . 00
432 1,7 , 1,09:p9
Subtotal $279, 500. 00
Relocation Administration $ 25 ,000. 00
Relocation _75�000. 00
Total $379, 500. 00
Parking Lot Construction
Description Quantity Unit Cost Total
Demolish & Remove House 8 La. $ 8 ,000. 00 $ 64 , 000 . 00
Granular Borrow 6 , 200 C . Y . 2. 25 13, 950. 00
Clearing & Grubbing 1 L .S . 10 ,000 . 00 10,000. 00
Grading 1 L. S. 15 ,000. 00 15,000. 00
Class V Base 2 , 820 Ton 4 . 00 11 280. 00
2341 Wear Coui e 1 , 200 'l'on, 23 . 00 27, ()00 . 00
Curb &'. Gutter 1 ,800 L. P. 4 . 50 • 8 , 100. 00
Subtotal $149, 930 . 00
10% Contingency 14, 990.00
Subtotal $164 , 920 . 00
8% Technical
Services 13, 180. 00
TOTAL $178, 100 . 00
1
An -1 ,r)ifAPC
) by-mi n u A Y -
L-T 4
1 7p> > 0to
410 III
Off-Site Storm Sewer :
Description Quantity Unit Price Total
Remove Pavement 2 ,600 S .Y . $ 0 . 50 $ 1, 300 . 00
Class IV Base 680 Ton 4 . 50 3,060. 00
2341 Bituminous Patch 290 Ton 38 . 00 11, 020 . 00
42" R.C. , Pipe Sewer 380 L. P. 65 . 00 24 ,700 . 00
24" R.C . Pipe Sewer 760 L.P. 35 . 00 26 , 600. 00
18" R. C. Pipe :;ewer ;70 L. V. 28 . 00 7 , 560. 00
Manhole 14 k,r. 1, 100. 00 4 ,400 . 00
Catch Basin () Ea . 1 , 000 . 00 9, 000 . 00
Subtotal 87 ,640. 00
10% Contingency 8 ,760. 00
Subtotal $ 96, 400. 00
8% Technical
Services 7 , 700. 00
TOTAL ]04 , J00. 00
Summary :
Land Acquisition and Relocation $379,500. 00
Parking Lot Construction -1vu' 2r:217°
Off-Site Storm Sewer 104 , 100. 00
'].'OTAL $.4,-+-7-Trytrin> (2 e6, 3e.o
11
MEMO TO: John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: H. R. Spurrier
City Engineer
RE: Fuller Street Storm Sewer Lateral
DATE: August 14, 1981
Introduction:
The feasibility report for the Fuller Street Storm Sewer Laterals was ordered
by Resolution No. 1829 on April 28, 1981.
Background:
The City Council of the City of Shakopee has determined that a parking lot
be established on Block 57, Original Plat of the City of Shakopee. In order
to construct a parking lot on Block 57, additional storm sewer laterals are
required in order to accommodate run-off developed on-site.
In 1980, a major trunk storm sewer was constructed in order to serve laterals
which would drain Block 57 and other property in the vicinity of Block 57.
Scope:
This report has investigated the cost of extending storm sewer facilities to
serve Block 57, as well as other property adjacent to Block 57 along Fuller
Street between 2nd Avenue and 4th Avenue.
Before the feasibility of the project can be established, certain elements of
policy required by the City must be discussed and established so that feasibility
may be determined.
The storm sewer facilities proposed to serve Block 57 are designed to
accommodate the storm which has a 20 percent chance of occurring. It is a
so-called "5-year" storm.
Discussion:
In a memoranda dated December 8, 1980, a preliminary estimate of off-
site storm sewer required for the development of Block 57 was prepared. After
a detailed study of the storm sewer requirements for Block 57 and adjacent
land, a more detailed estimate has been prepared.
Fuller Street Storm Sewer August 14, 1981
Laterals - Feasibility Report Page -2- /1 a'
The detailed study resulted in an estimated cost $22,800.00 less than the
original estimate. The amount $86,200.00 still presents funding problems,
in as much as the City is responsible for one-half of that cost, pursuant to
present policy, or $40,650.00. The assessed cost is $47,050.00.
The area benefitted by.this lateral is along Fuller Street between 5th Avenue
and 2nd Avenue and' amounts to approximately 292,500 square feet. The resulting
rate is approximately 16 cents per square foot. If Block 57 was assessed for
its share of the assessed costs, the assessment would be $14,476.92.
The unadjusted assessment rate was computed in order to determine the approximate
assessment of Block 57. The rate exceeds the amount by which the appraised
value of the property is judged to increase as a result of storm sewer facilities.
Conclusions:
The storm sewer lateral in Fuller Street is judged to be not feasible because
the amount by which the value of the property increases as a result of storm
sewer facilities is less than the estimated assessed cost to the property.
The City must investigate other funding methods for the construction of the
Fuller Street Storm Sewer, Holmes Street Laterals and other drainage projects.
The City must investigate other alternatives for developing Block 57.
Alternatives:
1. Judge the project not feasible and direct City staff to research potential
alternatives for funding storm sewer projects which alternatives could be
used for the Fuller Street Storm Sewer, Holmes Street Laterals, Upper
Valley Drainage and other storm sewer projects proposed for and in the City
of Shakopee.
2. Provide on-site detention for developed runoff in the basin negating any
need for the Holmes Street Trunk Storm Sewer.
3. Do nothing.
Recommendations:
It is the recommendation of City staff that Council approve Alternate No. 1.
HRS/jiw
Attachment: Cost Estimate & Assessment Computations
I h::reby certify that this pian,specification,or report
`AT_; rmrroci by ma or ant's r my direct supervi;ion
c.c.71 tiat am a duh R si:,tcred Professional
Cnc ince nder the Qf ne S a#.9-.of Minnesota.
�_ E
-/ �--_
Date re 1i 41P istration No. 13689
r
pfd
APPENDIX
Cost Estimate
and
Assessment Computations
Storm Sewer Estimate
Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total.
1 18" RCP 730 L.F. $ 28.00 $ 20,440.00
2 24" RCP 380 L.F. 32.00 12,160.00
3 42" RCP 95 L.F. 61.00 5,795.00
4 Standard Manhole 1 Ea. 900.00 900.00
5 84" Diameter Manhole 1 L.S. 3,000.00 3,000.00
6 L.P. Catch Basin 12 Ea. 900.00 10,800.00
7 Remove Curb and Gutter 995 L.F. 2.00 1,990.00
8 Concrete Curb and Gutter 995 L.F. 6.0o 5,970.00
9 Bituminous Patches (2341) 800 S.Y. 4.25 3,400.00
10 Sod 2000 S.Y. 2.00 4,000.00
Subtotal $ 68,455.00
10 Percent Construction Contingency 6,845.00
Subtotal $ 75,300.00
8 Percent Technical Services 6,000.00
Improvement District Cost 6,400.00
TOTAL $ 87,700.00
City Share - One-half $87,700 - 6400-
2 - $40,650.00
Assessed Cost:
Construction $37,650.00
8 Percent Technical Services 3,000.00
17 Percent Improvment District Cost 6,400.00
Total Assessed Cost $47,050.00
Total Assessment Cost $47,n5A_nl
Unadjusted Assessment Rate = Basin Area 292,500 = $0.16085/Sq. Ft.
Block 57: 90,000 ($0.16085) = $14,476.92
/cr
co :: 1. :1 Lr 0
Lij i::::::::i3 . - :,*;:i:::.:1 k...) ::::'1.4:7:..,,.
J P t
—7:1 %...) :iiiiiiiii :i:i:i::::i:i1 LL. CI
F.
N 4th
PI . „
, -10(
....., ........ a) . t----'
o II S>
.-2.2. 1i..
L. .,,
3rd
M
in
, fr-f--
_ , .,,,,, , . . E
• I � ; � � t�711
4...
_ �_.-- _ 2nd
H
I.: P CO W
Lki ' I
I
CI) 7. X `o [T], , N__J
fi
0
v f—ill 9
u)cr I ill
FULLER ST . LATERAL
STORM SEXIER
•
4111
CITY OF SHAKOPEE i, 00'tio
_: =
INCORPORATED 1870 by
129 E. First Ave. - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 fl%K11
October 16, 101
Mr. Fry Prenevost
County Highway Engineer
Scott County Courthouse
428 So. Holmes
Shakopee, MN 55379
RE: Storm Sewer Facilities for Block 57
Dear Erv:
Pursuant to our discussion, I have analyzed the capacity of the Holmes
Street Storm Sewer in order to determine the feasibility of extending a
lateral westerly from the Holmes Street Trunk on 4th Avenue to serve
Block 57.
According to my analysis, there is capacity for approximately 4.76
acres of land with impervious cover that could be served by the Holmes Street
Trunk. The cost of construction is much less than the cost of constructing
the Fuller Street Storm Sewer approximately $38,780 vs. $87,700 for the
Fuller Street Storm Sewer, -but a larger area benefits by the Fulller Street
Storm Sewer and, therefore, the unit costs are considerably lower. That
fact is of interest to the City because the City would desire to make the
most efficient use of its matching funds for storm sewer construction and,
therefore, would prefer the Fuller Street alternative for that reason.
For purposes of di:,cussion, it can be noted though, that the 4th Avenue
Lateral is feasible in a technical sense, in that there is capacity in the
Holmes Street Trunk.
Should you have any other quest ions regard i_nlr this matter, do not
hesitate to contact me.
Ver/17q5 truly yours,
H. Rer
Cityr
HRS/j iw
cc: Greg Halling, israelson & Sons
Thomas Prusak, St. Francis Hospital
Enclosure: Estimate 11
11t // 4.7 r l /- l� r �1 r , s �/ (7 I l
An Equal Opportunity Employer
- ' • 0 I /1d.
ESTIMATE
Item No. Description Quantity Units Unit Price Total
1 21" RCP Lateral 340 L.F. $ 30.00 $10,200
2 18" RCP. 2atch Basin Leads 188 L.F. 28.00 5,264
3 48" Diameter Manhole 1 Ea. 900.00 900
4 84" Diameter Manhole 1 Ea. 3000.00 3,000
5 L.P. Catch Basin 5 Ea.
900.00 4,500 -
6 Remove Curb & Cutter 115 L.F. 2.00 230
7 Curb & Gutter 115 L.F. 10.00 1,150
8 Patching 1180 S.Y. 4.25 5,015
SUBTOTAL $30,259
10 Percent Construction Contingency 3,026
SUBTOTAL $33,285
8 Percent Technical Services 2,665
SUBTOTAL $35,950
Improvement District Costs 2,830
TOTAL $38,780
//
MEMO TO : John K . Anderson
City Administrator
FROM : H. R. Spurrier
City Engineer
RE: Holmes Street Laterals for ock 46 and Block 58
DATE: April 2, 1982
Introduction :
Pursuant to your request, I have analyzed the feasibility of extending
storm sewer service to the above-referenced parcels. Those parcels are
St. Mark's Church and School and St. Francis Hospital respectively.
Background:
During preparation of the Feasibility Report for the extension of storm sewer
facilities to Block 57, it became apparent that storm sewer service to the
above-referenced parcels was not feasible if the project was undertaken
pursuant to Chapter 429.
I have attached twoalignment alternatives for the Holmes Street Laterals north
of 5th Avenue and west of Holmes Street. Alternate 1, is an alternate
proposed to be concurrent with street reconstruction because the laterals are
sited in those streets that have the poorest condition. Alternate 2, is the
most efficient arrangement of laterals found. This alternate results in the
lowest cost to the Central Business District and Multi-family area targeted for
redevelopment by the Downtown Committee.
None of the alternatives are feasible unless redevelopment becomes a practical
alternative.
Included in the area covered by Alternate 1 and Alternate 2, are the two
above-referenced parcels. Storm sewer service extended to St. Francis
Hospital would cost approximately $101,960.00, in accordance with the alignment
shown in Alternate 2. In the event Atwood Street and 2nd Avenue would be
reconstructed, the total cost could be reduced by 20 percent. At the present
time, there are no plans to reconstruct either Atwood Street or 2nd Avenue.
Since the extension of storm sewer to either of these properties lacks feasibility,
it is recommended that no other action be taken regarding this project unless
redevelopment occurs immediately north or east of these parcels.
HRS/jiw
Attachments
--- .. • ,
._. _
. ..
ALTERN A
A E 1
, ivtRs,, ., /..,
„
,ARK ,0,—, ____ i
i _ ._._
. _..., ESOT A
- mINN
_-
- _
RIVER _ ____ _ - -
, ... ..,..A.
MIIIIIIPme"r".1"-__ A.11111
- . =
GEE iBLDG.
'i LEVEE' : 0 WE
:ER P:Ai
- iiime in rii
611111SP1111111 lin k
Nt..4. ..___. ,::14 illi
In ..4
--,^ 1111 ... ..id 1111 4
.- I !III t • t.- (., i4•
• a .•
_. . _ •
. 4:111n1 iiIIIT NINO • ,
(4 Ems d!1
_.. pii
.
..
.... .. ..
-A A IllnIP NMI' ,6 I ri 1111. 0 •
_&I
16 MI .
a
• 1 0 S T 11= 14,4 2 kis
u•
m ._.:4i ----.... - I 111#7111
IN Ayr __ FICE'
1
-- - -- , ;4•" ----- .46 4- ----.-
e.- ....___
16-,le :&,.. 6,A .4,,,z,i 60,46.a. - r .3 ILL jfirI.1 wit id.
1
•., 1 Ille EC . ' 111011 i Ili 17
i ii .r.,; ARE, =NIP ;lift mg,,-----te..‹,_
a N15 ,••
.0 1 ?,., d...• -. • ,
,...)Ilk
11111 II alv ill. I r C''''iri_1 •.--.."14 '71. III Ii
. ,
mi
CO
-
- . 110 " I
•Itt lit
Ilk
CH 0' •r--..0 . • - "et - '
i
CHOOLM:11pg
:111 I 1111111 - - m :. _: II i h
.1.-- -;-: -s
, „ ..
Mom!IIII! Immill IP I 1.*:;‘,:::::•; '.,. .:451,,,...,,,';.'s3..; IPP ii:,;..._. . ..... . :
I 1111111 : II
e ;b
;:::.:; . t ix _ 1 , 0
ti10.. . . ':;:t. , . 0, 1 00 - • e' . AOC -
k ,„.! 11 _—.._, —
s;i:v: ..'i'-
.
Mill Irgli iii,. .,..,#' .. Rill ", - -- ,-,
API.ti'.,.., .5Ith ,L _,4ve. :
-
11
-i s ST. LS
ii p 11.,.1m . ,.: ._.,_4TIT U ...A CENT RAL MARYS INN. 1
EL s , 8 i : '• 1 - t- r '''' . ' g CHURCH t •ammo I 1
. I ill I ' I '` I
S SCHOOL
m 64 SCHOOL
AVE
II -
, - - 71...
,
... /{, a• . zr IIPI " ,
'I
• r 6 • ° t
L_ pip
. Ala . Iiii : 0., i I
.. /DE r 4 ' :.°- . - • g inme II
1 , .
- MIMI ... 710 41-.u.' AV(
••-•
., _
' womird'ArAr.e.somminr,ovarememiemorAr.r.r... .orar.eirAINIIIIIIIIIIIINr.r.e.. ANIMINEWAr./.... eIMINININiir.#,
1111111 e•
.. :I .1 • _ Isti
0
r .4) I. .;- _
.' ' - - •
110h1 , I
-_
T. INN'S
cLHULITRHC.H--- - -_
AV 1111111 I
2inftlillummilli . .
_
_
4 /
3 ,
k
wa ..„' 4,...... ,. •
. ,
FU [ 7 LF4cIAL
s
A
... ra.'"r**..7 .__
,r• ''' (A. ' r".."---*-••••-...-
..;.
_ • ,
ALTERNTE2
? _ I
- INNESOT A
- RIVER �; .
.ori c .
-- - - --
PARK 8 REC. t
i SLOG. "
.--_____-- L__________; -------- : LEVEE -IVE
:ER P: RK
i'.- III jJPI •lill X1111 . e i.
JIUbuulill II;NIP 1�! le
__ i
I1PP Iii 1 ik4 o . 1! 11111 . 11
PI HP) Mit OST MI
, I w .ii
i.,.. .,4.) :: Tawra _
iiiil ....v. 0i,- ..-...,_,...timm 1 Iii F---
pi. uiia iFj ; .11111 M11
fammulil
ST ..
11 11PSARK .° a 1Mb , le c •1 •: 11
g .Iii 15111 ; t.,
HooLr r; ���� 4t .V -. AVV 111111 b
hill 11l! tr:71.' . 1.0..:-.7•.:.::4-
. e
r } v t 1� r 'a
01 r 1111 '.51
\ r �H _ .. . 5�h 1,,
.. _ AVE'. _, I hll
N
1111!
CEN1RAL \11 liii! 1
to CHURCH*
illi ; 11x11 - -; `_ 1 _ _ z� 6;6 SAVE` 1 i 1
J, te
\
P11 11111 1 1 e : 1111 .\ 1�. 011 .a1 M11 f),..
1. _ P� - , , J Lr :
: ii,. : J ' jI0
I.,. - 1 : . . � 1. - 1tel 1 I___. .
,:i. 1r
ST. -JOHN'S'
= jr .c
mi
S v CHURCH _�A1
LUTH.
v 3
. ,
. , sift. e al 4 game j !"! 0 V
ar
v -
//e
MEMO TO : John K . Anderson
City Administrator
FROM : H . R. Spurrier •
City Engineer
RE: Levee Drive - Scott Streeto Sommerville Street
DATE: April 2, 1982
Introduction :
Attached is Resolution No. 1993.
Action Requested:
Adopt Resolution No. 1993, A Resolution Receiving A Report And Calling
A Hearing On Improvement Levee Drive - Scott Street to Atwood Street
and Levee Drive - Lewis Street to Sommerville Street.
HRS/jiw
Attachment
I1
RESOLUTION NO, 1993
A Resolution Receiving A Report And
Calling A Hearing On Improvement
Levee Drive - Scott Street to Atwood Street
And
Levee Drive - Lewis Street to Sommerville Street
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 1778, of the City Council adopted
January 6, 1981, a report has been prepared by Henry R. Spurrier, City
Engineer, with reference to the improvement of Levee Drive between Scott
Street and Sommerville Street by roadway and storm sewer and this report was
received by the Council on April 6, 1982.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1. The Council will consider the improvement of Levee Drive between
Scott Street and Sommerville Street in accordance with the report and assessment
of abutting and benefitted property for all or a portion of the cost of the
improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total
cost of the improvement of $97, 700. 00.
2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvements on
the 4th day of May 1982 at 8:30 P.M. , or thereafter in the Council Chambers
of City Hall at 129 East 1st Avenue and the Clerk shall give mailed and
published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law.
3. The work of this project is hereby designated as part of the
1982-3 Public Improvement Program.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City
of Shakopee, Minnesota held this day of , 1982.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST :
City Clerk
Approved as to form this day
of , 1982.
City Attorney
FEASIBILITY REPORT
IMPROVEMENT OF LEVEE DRIVE
From
SCOTT STREET TO ATWOOD STREET
And
LEWIS STREET TO SOMMERVILLE STREET
Prepared by : Ray G. Ruuska, Engineering Coordinator
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by ma or under my direct supervision
and that I am duly Registered Professional
Engi er under the\laws of the State of Minnesota.
-
Date 3 2 Registration No. 13689
March 1982
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Description Page
Feasibility Report
Introduction 1
Background 1
Scope 1
Discussion 1-2
Alternatives 3-4
Summary and Conclusions 4
Recommendation 4
Appendix
Cost Estimates 5-6
Assessment Computations 7
Drawings
Proposed Construction Area 8
Levee Drive - Atwood to Scott Streets . . . . 9
Levee Drive - Sommerville to Lewis Streets . . 10
FEASIBILITY REPORT
IMPROVEMENT OF LEVEE DRIVE
SCOTT STREET TO ATWOOD STREET
and
LEWIS STREET TO SOMMERVILLE STREET
INTRODUCTION
The City Council of the City of Shakopee ordered the preparation of
a Feasibility Report by Resolution No. 1778 on January 6, 1981.
BACKGROUND
The segments of Levee Drive included in this report are situated in
the Original Shakopee Plat. Levee Drive, from Atwood Street to Lewis Street,
was constructed in 1967. The segment between Lewis Street and Sommerville
Street was deleted from that project.
SCOPE
This report has investigated the feasibility of constructing roadway
and storm sewer improvements. These elements were analyzed and included
herein. Costs of construction are in the Appendix. Roadway and storm
sewer construction would conform to the City of Shakopee Design Criteria
and Standard Specifications. No extension of facilities were proposed by the
Shakopee Public Utility Commission in either segment covered by this report.
DISCUSSION
Total cost of construction of both segments is estimated at $97, 707.88.
A breakdown of this cost is as follows: Atwood Street to Scott Street --
$62, 747. 13, and Lewis Street to Sommerville Street -- $34,960. 75.
The reasons for the higher cost of the Atwood Street to Scott Street
segment lie in right-of-way acquisition cost and in storm sewer improvement
costs. Right-of-way for the Lewis Street to Sommerville Street segment was
acquired in 1968.
-1-
The following table illustrates the effect of these costs:
Levee Drive - Atwood Street to Scott Street
Item Amount Assessment Rate
A. Roadway Cost $27,492. 55 $35.34/F.F.
B. Right-of-Way Acquisition 11,835. 00 15.21/F.F.
C. Storm Sewer 23,419. 58 30. 10/F.F.
Total $62, 747. 13 $80.65/F.F.
Levee Drive - Lewis Street to Sommerville Street
Item Amount Assessment Rate
A. Roadway Cost $30, 765.46 $39. 54/F.F.
B. Right-of-Way Acquisition 0. 00 0. 00/F.F.
C. Storm Sewer 4, 195. 29 5.39/F.F.
Total $34,960. 75 $44.93/F.F.
For two years there has been little market activity, making it extremely
difficult to appraise property. Nonetheless, a detailed appraisal will be
required in order to establish the amount of the assessment.
City Council has contemplated using Tax Increment Funds for elements
of Levee Drive construction. Some type of assistance is necessary to make
this project feasible. The precise amount of assistance will depend on the
formal appraisal.
-2-
ALTERNATIVES
A. Build West and East Segments -
Pros Cons
1. Traffic on Levee Drive has access 1. Project cost exceeds the benefit;
to semaphore controlled intersec- 2. Public does not perceive a need
tions East and West for Levee Drive East at this
2. Larger project with more competi- time;
tive bids; 3. Semaphore would be desirable
3. Improved access to Levee area; at Sommerville Street.
4. Maintenance of steep hill on
Sommerville Street eliminated;
5. Eliminates some of the dumping in
the Levee area;
6. Construction would upgrade and
improve river front areas.
B. Build West Segment -
Pros Cons
1. Traffic on Levee Drive has access 1. Project cost exceeds the benefit;
to semaphore controlled inter- 2. Smaller project with higher bids;
sections East and West;
2. Improves access to westerly Levee
area;
3. Some of dumping area in the West
Levee area eliminated,
4. Construction would upgrade and
improve a segment of river front.
C. Building East Segment -
Pros Cons
1. Improves access to Levee Drive 1. Project cost exceeds the benefit;
area; 2. Public does not perceive a need
2. Maintenance of steep hill on for Levee Drive East at this
Sommerville Street eliminated; time;
3. Construction would upgrade and 3. Semaphore would be desirable at
improve a segment of river front. Sommerville Street;
4. Smaller project with higher bids.
-3-
I/
D. Do Nothing -
Pros Cons
1 . City would incur no expense. 1. Traffic must use semaphore at
Lewis Street or enter First
Avenue at an uncontrolled inter-
section.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Alternatives A, B & C are not feasible because the amount of the assess-
ment is greater than the amount by which the value of the property to be
assessed increases.
Using other funding sources, such as Tax Increment Financing or Revenue
Sharing to cover the cost that could not be assessed would make this project
feasible.
Considering the fact that there have been few real estate transactions,
proving benefit will be a complex and necessary task that must be undertaken
before proceeding with this project.
Both segments East and West of Levee Drive are desirable. Both segments
are feasible so long as another funding source is utilized to pay the part of
the proposed assessment that could not be levied.
RECOMMENDATION
This report recommends the construction of Alternate A -- Levee Drive
between Scott Street and Atwood Street and Levee Drive between Lewis Street
and Sommerville Street; such construction is hereby judged feasible as proposed.
-4-
t/ sem
APPENDIX
COST ESTIMATES
The following are estimated quantities and costs for building Levee
Drive between Atwood Street and Scott Street and Lewis Street and Sommerville
Street. -
Atwood Street to Scott Street
1. Excavation 500 C.Y. @ $ 3.00 = $ 1, 500. 00
2. Class 5 Base 430 Tons @ 6. 50 = 2, 795. 00
3. 24" RCP 363 L.F. @ 27.00 = 9,801. 00
4. 24" RCP 45 Degree Bnds 3 Ea. @ 100. 00 = 300. 00
5. Std. M.H.'s (shallow) 2 Ea. @ 600.00 = 1,200. 00
6. Std. C.B.'s (LP) 3 Ea. @ 1000. 00 = 3, 000.00
7. Rock Excavation 130 C.Y . @ 20. 00 = 2,600.00
8. B-618 Curb & Gutter 960 L.F. @ 10. 00 = 9,600. 00
9. Wear 2341 171 Ton @ 25. 00 = 4, 275. 00
10. Sod 978 S.Y. @ 2.00 = 1,956.00
Total $37,027. 00
10% Construction Contingency 3, 703. 00
Subtotal $40, 730. 00
25% Technical Services 10, 180. 00
Right-of-Way Acquisition 11, 830.00
Total $62, 740. 00
-5-
Lewis Street to Sommerville Street
1. Clearing & Grubbing 10 Ea. @ $ 75. 00 = $ 750. 00
2. Excavation 750 C.','. @ 3. 00 = 2, 250. 00
3. 18" RCP 40 L.F. @ 25. 00 = 1,000. 00
4. Std. Catch Basins. (LP) 2 Ea. @ 1000.00 = 2,000. 00
5. Class 5 Base 430 Ton @ 6. 50 = 2, 795. 00
6. B-618 Curb & Gutter 960 L.F. @ 10. 00 = 9,600.00
7. Wear 2341 171 Ton @ 25. 00 = 4,275.00
8. Sod 978 S.Y. @ 2. 00 = 1,956. 00
9. Adjust Manhole 2 Ea. @ 300. 00 = 600. 00
10. Adjust C.B. 2 Ea. @ 100. 00 = 200.00
Total $25,426. 00
10o Construction Contingency 2, 543. 00
Subtotal $27, 969. 00
25% Technical Services 6, 991. 00
Total $34, 960.00
Atwood Street to Scott Street $62,740. 00
Lewis Street to Sommerville Street 34,960. 00
GRAND TOTAL $97,700. 00
-6-
//.v
ASSESSMENT COMPUTATIONS
Atwood Street to Scott Street
Total estimated cost = $62,740. 00
Total Front Footage = 778 feet
$62, 740. 00 $80. 65/Front Feet
778 F.F.
City owned property accounts for approximately 500 feet of the total. This
amounts to a City obligation of $40, 325. 00.
There are two other property owners in the assessment area :
Mrs. Art Pass - 120 feet or $ 9,678. 00
Northern States Lumber - 158 feet or $12, 742. 70
Lewis Street to Sommerville Street
Total estimated cost = $34, 960.00
Total Front Footage = 778 feet
$34,960. 00 = $44.94/Front Feet
778 F.F.
City owned property accounts for approximately 500 feet of the total.
This amounts to a City obligation of $22,470. 00.
The other property owner in the assessment area is Loren Gross with
278 front feet or $12,493. 32.
-7-
/l
J r
t Xl
- , J
o SCI .
..a g ., � — : —' ,1
} Z N) r
i j N) C
•
-1
-< j
i'f%) -• "0 ATWOOD
aR A
- 1:14
rr 1 1
m N .yn Aw ,=
tbe . --I A _ �_ J J - ri.
o FUER 33 m
Z , . e
o, t n 1 v
be -< CP
o
0n J ' -Ixi
33 HOLMES STREET ) o m
-< f--- -.�__— _-
- o _ I z
/
, �
m s ,
_-j
L___ t__ t---... . L______.—_- J
LEWIS STREET- 1
- —7 !
0
!V .1 ( 1,:
(0 �. `� .. Z
Z
I _
SOMMERVILLE STR
MEMO TO : John K . Anderson
City Administrator
FROM : H. R. Spurrier
City Engineer
RE: Upper Valley Drainage Syst m
DATE : April 2, 1982
Introduction :
City Council has authorized and budgeted for the analysis of the Upper Valley
Drainage System in order to determine the historic rate of run-off.
A copy of a memoranda dated October 30, 1981 is attached. In that memoranda,
aerial photography required for the analysis of the basin was included and
specified to be approximately $8, 500. 00.
I attach a copy of a proposal from Mark Hurd Aerial Surveys, Inc. for three
specific tasks. Skipping Task No. 1, Task No. 2, topographic mapping of
1,920 acres at a cost of $5,810. 00, lump sum, and additional aerial photography
for further mapping at a cost of $350.00 for a total cost of $6, 160.00 are tasks
anticipated and included in the estimated $8, 500. 00 for aerial photography.
Approximately $2, 340. 00 of mapping remains.
Task 1 is the preparation of an aerial photography mosaic which would
replace the mosaic now on display in Council chambers. Staff has no particular
recommendation as to whether the aerial photography mosaic is desirable or
is not. The mosaic would have the most recent additions to the City including
the Kmart Distribution Center and other industrial additions and the recent
subdivisions, including JEJ, Prairie View, Furrie's, Horizon Heights, Montecito
Heights, Cretex, Minnesota Valley, Halo, Clifton, Hillside Estates, Century
Plaza Square, Wiggins 1st, Ziegler Addition, Macey's 2nd Addition, Weinandt
Acres, Link's 2nd, Case 1st, Howe 1st and other additions not mentioned.
The aerial photography and mosaic can be produced at a savings because
of the other aerial photography and mapping that is being done.
Recommended Action :
Move to direct appropriate City officials to accept Item 2 and 3 of the proposal
dated March 29, 1982 for topographic mapping of 1,920 acres at a cost of
$5,810. 00, lump sum and additional aerial photography for future mapping at
a cost of $350. 00, lump sum.
Direct City staff to accept or reject the proposal for the aerial photography and
mosaic at a cost of $1, 750. 00, lump sum.
HRS/jiw
Attachments
MEMO TO : John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM : H. R. Spurrier
City Engineer
RE : Upper Valley Drainage Syst
DATE : October 30, 1981
Introduction :
The City of Shakopee is interested in developing the VIP service area. In
order to do so, it is necessary to reserve the proper amount of land for a
drainage corridor through Section 5, 6, 7 and 8 in Township 115, Range 22,
all within the Mill Pond Basin.
Background :
The City of Shakopee has previously received an opinion from City Attorney,
Julius A. Coller, II , dated June 4, 1981 regarding the obligation of the City
in sizing drainage facilities. City Council was given several alternatives;
among those alternatives was a Joint Powers Agreement between the City of
Shakopee and Jackson and Louisville Townships for the management of storm
water in the Mill Pond Basin.
The purpose of managing the storm water was to permit the City of Shakopee
to construct whatever facilities were necessary for the historic runoff and in
the event development in Jackson or Louisville Townships required larger facilities,
Jackson and Louisville Townships would contribute funds for oversizing the
facilities.
Successful management of storm water in the Mill Pond Basin requires a detailed
hydraulic and hydrologic analysis of the basin. The hydraulic and hydrologic
analysis depend on accurate contour maps of the-study area.
There are 8, 780 acres in the Mill Pond Basin to be studied. Approximately
half of that area is in Jackson and Louisville Townships where there is little
or no accurate mapping. Within the 4,640 acres in Jackson and Louisville
Township, an estimated 800 acres will need detailed aerial photography. That
photography will cost an estimated $8, 000. 00.
There is a need for aerial photography for the City of Shakopee.tn the event
design work is ordered and if Council anticipates ordering the design work,
the photographs should be taken this fall. Getting the photography is a
nominal cost compared to actually plotting the photography. The cost of aerial
photography for the City of Shakopee would be approximately $500.00; design
photography will be approximately $15,000. 00 and will not be included here.
John Anderson October 30, 1981 /l
Upper Valley Drainay rr System Page -2-
A detailed engineering study could then be prepared. This study would
present the basic data collected, the design criteria, the results of the
hydraulic and hydrologic analysis which would specify the historic rate of runoff
for three events. Two minor occurrence events; one which would have a 50
percent chance of occurrence; one which would have a 20 percent chance of
occurrence and one which have a 1 percent chance of occurrence. This is the
information which, would pertain to historic conditions that would be required
for the Joint Powers Agreement.
A detailed breakdown of the estimated manhours required to complete this project,
together with the aerial photography required is listed in the table below :
Time and Cost Estimate
Task Personnel Hours Cost
1. Preliminary Mapping Engineer 10 $ 290
Technician III 10 200
Technician II 30 _ 510
50 $ 1, 000
2. Aerial Photography Mark Hurd $ 8, 500
3. Data Development Engineer 40 $ 1, 160
Technician HI 10 200
Technician I I 150 2, 550
200 $ 3, 910
4. Data Analysis Engineer 100 $ 2, 900
Technician H I 80 1,600
Technician I I 200 3,400
380 $ 7, 900
5. Report Engineer 60 $ 1,740
Secretary 30 330
90 $ 2, 070
TOTAL $23, 380
The work proposed above would be completed on or before March 31, 1982,
provided it is possible to get the aerial photography between the time that the
corn and other crops are taken out of the field and the first significant snowfall
occurs.
Recommendations
It is the recommendation of City staff that City Council authorize the Engineering
Department to perform the necessary analysis of the Upper Valley Drainage System.
City staff would bring back an agreement form for any outside technical services
John Anderson October 30, 1981
77
Upper Valley Drainage System Page -3-
such as the preparation of aerial photography, in the event such work exceeded
limits now established by City Council.
Action Requested :
Authorize City staff to perform a hydraulic and hydrologic analysis of the
Upper Valley Drainage System in order to generate the necessary information
required for the Louisville Township, Jackson Township Joint Powers Agreement.
HRS/jiw
.O.
MARK HVRD �-_='
AERIAL SURVEYS INC `.%
345 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE SOUTH •MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55426
TELEX:290-474 MARKHURD GOVY •TELEPHONE: (612)545-2583
IN REPLY, REFER TO: E-538
March 29, 1982
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Attention: Bo Spurrier
Gentlemen:
Reference is made to our recent communications. Accordingly, we are
pleased to present our proposal for aerial photographic services of
the City of Shakopee. Details of our proposal are described below.
AREA
It is assumed that the Shakopee area to be photographed and mosaiced is
the same as for the previous job. This area is shown on the attached
photo print. The area for aerial photography and topographic mapping
is shown in red on the attached maps. We estimate that this area
contains approximately 1,920 acres, The four areas for aerial photo-
graphy to be used for future mapping are outlined in black on the
attached map.
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY
We will obtain new aerial photography as soon after notice to proceed
is received, as weather and ground conditions permit. This photography
will be suitable for preparation of the topo maps, and mosaic described
below. Delivery will consist of a set of contact prints.
PHOTO MOSIAC
Utilizing the photography described above, we will prepare an uncontrolled
aerial photographic mosaic at an approximate scale of 1"=400' . The size
of the mosaic will be 6' x 10' and will consist of photographic paper
enlargements mounted on a cloth backing suitable for framing. The scale
of the mosaic will be determined by ratioing from the best available map
source. A limited amount of name data will be added for general orient-
ation along with a brief title.
MAPPING SPECIALISTS SINCE 1922
1)
fJARK HURD
AERIAL SURVEYS INC
City of Shakopee - Marvh 29, 1982 - Page 2
GROUND CONTROL
We will provide all ground control necessary for topographic mapping.
The horizontal and vertical datums will be the same as for previous
mapping in and around the area.
TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING
We will provide maps at a scale of 1"=100' showing two-foot contours.
In addition to contours, the maps will include spot elevations, roads,
trails, buildings, railroads, major fences, drainage courses, shorelines,
swamps, bridges, culverts, driveways, public sidewalks, utility poles
and trees, to the extent that these features are visible on the photo-
graphy. Feature names, benchmarks, grids and grid values will also be
shown.
We will update areas where previously mapped. Delivery will consist of
a reproducible positive on stable base material made directly from our
pencil plotted manuscript, with each sheet containing a quarter-section.
MAP ACCURACY AND LIABILITY
By accepting this proposal, you agree that the work described herein will
meet your intended purpose: The use of this map for a purpose other than
that which is originally contemplated may render the map unreliable.
Except where the ground may be obscured, map accuracy will comply with
National Map Accuracy Standards. Briefly, these state that 90% of all
well defined features shall be correct within 1/30 inch and 90% of all
elevations correct within 1/2 contour interval. If areas are obscured,
contours will be dashed to indicate that they are approximate. The
accuracy standards should be applied only to the basic scale and contour
interval (1"=100' and two-foot C.I.) for which the maps were designed.
MARKHURD's liability, in the production or use of these maps, for any
inaccuracies that may be found in these maps shall be limited to the
correction of such inaccuracies, and shall not exceed the contract
value of the maps. No representations or warranties are made other than
those stated herein.
PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
We will obtain aerial photography in the spring of 1982 as soon as weather
and ground conditions permit, and notice to proceed is received. The time
required to deliver the materials will depend, to some extent, upon our
work load when suitable aerial photography has been obtained, However,
we estimate that the aerial photography can be furnished within approxi-
mately 10 days after flying. The mosaic can be supplied within approxi-
mately 30 days after flying has been completed. The mapping can be
delivered within approximately 60 days after flying has been completed.
if//ARK HURD
AERIAL SURVEYS INC
I
City of Shakopee - March 29, 1982 - Page 3
PAYMENT
Our charge for the services described above will be as follows:
1. Aerial Photography and Mosaic $1,750.00 lump sum
2. Topographic Mapping of 1,920 acres $5,810.00 lump sum
3. Additional Aerial Photography for
Future Mapping $ 350.00 lump sum
Payment of our invoice will be due within 30 days after delivery and
invoicing.
We appreciate the opportunity of presenting this proposal and look
forward to being of service. Your signature on the enclosed acceptance
copy of this proposal will serve as our contract and notice to proceed.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
icfat /;-574.01.41../
Brian D. Lieffers
Marketing
BDL/LRM/bb
Enclosure
Proposal accepted fo the City of Shakopee by:
Signature
Title
Date
Items accepted
. . I I i(
t
, I ., : I r r •I!'f,� '. t,^ i_. t4. ;r. w I ' •
a '+ t':. +y i,,,........_:� *7,7i jrr .Z4 w, t4. X1 > '4�t -.•.';-•,"1-
'NON
qp
L ,,17411,1;k14 ) 7 t _: W.' ' ' -"',
-1 .• ••- -0.....„. .,,,,,,„... __,. .. . .
iii 9
-4e-444> j ::t eft - '_Y•:a.... ,.dr r` . ice` 4� �.
11, le
, 7,,,,,, .
)r• v ,. .l ,1ij . "" . ► .1 �►w� ' "s i� � If>�� v� .alts ��"
+�f AC
i +_ r.1++_trhnit 'L. -'ci i •
iv, c..g. -tai T
111
�•'' - '•I'friffil 1 I - iftli• ...-- to -'fir _ � �� ,� ! .��/ •',,..
�
K.
..i's
_ i . 1 O ff. sop ti �. % „ ,� i ..j, - '�
1 i "--4.....„ a
moi- r.. - e • .� \, II! 1 . _ hI
2'' .• 144
tStv
3t e
,.• • p+a
, 4 ?6,1111--.. if
,r1fr‘,.., Atg,.z *ty, " i,,
f rTQ a - -F[
' • . . . it
1(
,.
, .
/ \ .
. , ...,
yam /
___,
.......-- - .
• _ _
.% .. .. _ ___ .„. -1-----------------------\------
. . ..... ,
�1 V ,, 1t �,.]_ I.
' / ,� -..`_'L�?�l IJ�� � �` �__II�. r to I-___._
P ' , JCS-I' [ ; J, , ,_„ . \, 1
a II i
r I 1It T, , L�I�' _„ c, , * of ---
` s � --, i—,,,—.—.,—..1.----,, --,,,-
_,,
I `I
-"'" )/// (` [,, T!i is �l . I. E�f Sr.:K_P`_c „Df->. -t° �Idl l � I �• _ 1._v�>I cR 3'�E�_ ��� I I 1 CST{ 44,< Ali) �
1 / /j��\T-%,1,L71•.l. y \ .��• ..".s...--- ur om 1! ...4� �
ti� �/1 D Kiu�j I I \ I
/ I _ t 1 4 s-7- ---- - il . ./"./ ,T , I
. . [ . . . .
1
,__
06 1`2 1111
• 1
j I 1 1
L
_] C .._._ __. _. t _ as
, .. 0.. C. if rt „,,,i, ,
_____ Mil Ilk. -,Ine ---w...fq-,---\., _____ ____ ____.. _
1 1 _ -._1,‘
. -- 19 _--- I -- 20
err--- -. Edi 'iNRS-s S1»-'
4 TINDER '---
tl I s \ TRAMS _ __.___
ADD'RIipp./..„,,._„ if-4,
/ _ , J \ ; , I
•
. . . .!------- . r / r
1 / .JbwO-(OAp
nE. r0'�
/I's • i'
L.11.1 1 .-77.. ' ' 1
--;
f— i �! 1 I •1-� - _-
II
trini
' 11 I 7 - , ,....:.-•:-'' .,---\\
, ,• , .
. . . „___:„... ......,
, . .....,
, I„Ill
..
,___, ,,,,‘,„. ,
I �� a b.c.l �l vv I i
1
//j_
3:.)-
St. Francis Hospital -
325 WEST FIFTH AVENUE•SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA 55379•(612)445-2322
March 23, 1982
Mr. John Anderson
City Administrator
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Mr. Anderson,
Enclosed are the proposed Scott/Francis Ambulance Service Agreement
for the years 1982 through 1985, a financial analysis of the St. Francis
ALS Ambulance operation, monthly statistical information for runs in
the City of Shakopee, and a copy of the spread sheet of information on
ambulance services in the seven 'county metropolitan area.
Please note that the only changes in the proposed Agreement from the one
currently in force are:
1 . Under Item A.2. wording addressing the implementation phase of the
St. Francis Hospital Advanced Life Support operation has been
deleted. The second to the last sentence in this section is also
amended to reflect current operating procedure.
2. Under Item A.5. it is suggested that the community statistics be
provided on a quarterly basis rather than the current monthly basis.
3. Item A. 10. is an addition in total .
4. Section B is new in total .
As I indicated to you on the phone, someone from St. Francis Hospital
will be present at the Shakopee City Council meeting on April 6, 1982
at which time you indicated this proposal would be presented.
We look forward to serving you with quality ambulance service for the
next three years and desire to continue a positive relationship for years
to come.
Sincerely,
Siste Agnes ir
Ottyg Dorolyn Sohner
Executive Director Director of Nursing Services
SAO/DS/hme
SPONSORED BY THE FRANCISCAN SISTERS OF ST. PAUL, MN
/I I
SCOTT/FRANCIS
AMBULANCE SERVICE AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the Cities of Savage and Shakopee and the Townships of Sand Creek,
Louisville and Jackson, Scott County, Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as
Scott/Francis) are authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Section 471 .476 to provide
ambulance service by contracting with any person, firm or other political sub-
division upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon, and,
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 471 .59, permits two or more governmental •
units to jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the governmental
units (such as providing ambulance service as above described) , and,
WHEREAS, St. Francis Hospital has submitted a proposal dated March 5, 1982,
for which ambulance service would be provided for three years beginning July 1 , 1982
and ending June 30, 1985, for a per capita per annum charge as shown in Section B.
WHEREAS, The Scott/Francis communities desire to jointly assure that adequate
ambulance service is available and recognize that a public subsidy is necessary for
the purpose of receiving adequate ambulance service,
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements of the
parties hereto, said parties hereby agree as follows:
A. St. Francis Hospital (hereinafter referred to as St. Francis) agrees as follows:
1 . That it will operate an ambulance service in a professional and businesslike
manner during the term of this Agreement including, but not limited to, it's
other commitments herein contained.
I
2. That it will , at all times, provide and have available within the jurisdic-
tions of the participating communities two (2) properly equipped ambulances
meeting all current state licensing requirements. One (1 ) of said ambulances
(primary) shall be continuously staffed twenty-four hours per day with two (2)
qualified paramedics. St. Francis will attempt to staff the other said ambu-
lance (backup) , when needed, with qualified paramedics and/or EMT's. If
staffing personnel is not available for backup ambulance, Scott County
dispatch will be notified to call a BLS ambulance when necessary utilizing
existing mutual aid agreements. This shall not be construed as an obligation
of St. Francis to have, at all times, two (2) ambulances in said area if one
or both leave said area for the purpose of transporting, to a medical facility
a patient load that originated within said area.
3. That it will , notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, provide
ambulance service in such a manner that the response time in the City of
Shakopee and Jackson and Louisville Townships shall be a maximum of ten (10)
minutes ninety percent (90%) of the time and to the City of Savage and
Sand Creek Township shall be a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes ninety percent
(90%) of the time.
4. That the rate schedule described in Section B shall remain in full force and
effect for the term of this Agreement.
5. That it will furnish on a Quarterly basis, a report to Scott/Francis Communi-
ties, itemizing, on a community by community basis, data related to all responses
including, but not limited to, date, nature, point of origin, destination and
response time.
6. That it will furnish annually to each Scott/Francis community, financial
information, itemized in reasonable detail , on its ambulance operations.
lJ
Additionally, it agrees to permit, at reasonable times, the Chief Adminis-
trative official of each Scott/Francis community or their designated
representative, to review and/or audit its financial records.
7. That it will hold ,harmless each Scott/Francis community from any and all
claims or legal action resulting from operation of the ambulance service.
St. Francis shall file with Scott/Francis, upon execution of this Agreement,
a certificate of insurance naming each Scott/Francis participant as an
additional insured under St. Francis ' insurance policy in the following
minimum amount: General Liability - $ 300,000 Single Limit and $ 100,000 "
Property Damage, Auto Liability - $ 250,000/500,000 and $ 100,000 Property
Damage.
8. That it will coordinate basic first responder education and provide on-going
education for the Shakopee and Savage Police Departments, and the Scott
County Sheriffs Department. This is not to be construed that St. Francis
shall be responsible for the training and/or skill levels of these first
responder units.
9. That its Ambulance Service, upon a patient request, will take the patient to
the facility of his choice within a forty (40) mile radius, unless it is in
the best interest of the patient to take him elsewhere as determined by the
ambulance personnel or monitoring physician.
10. That it will call a meeting of representatives of the Scott/Francis Communities
and St. Francis Hospital at such times that it feels changes in its Ambulance
Program are necessary, such as additional staffing, additional services, purchase
of additional major equipment, etc . If the outcome of said meeting indicates
lack of support for the change by the Scott/Francis Communities, it is under-
stood that St. Francis Hospital would bear the total expense of the proposed
// �
change should it be implemented.
B. Scott/Francis Communities agrees as follows:
1 . To pay St. Francis, upon receipt of invoice, once every three (3) months
during the term of this Agreement the following amounts from each Scott/
Francis entity for ambulance services described herein beginning 7/1/82
through 6/30/85.
a. The amount shall be determined by using each jurisdictions current popu
lations as established by the Metropolitan Council on April 1 , 1982,
multiplied by $ 1 .67 per capita per annum for the year July 1 , 1982
through June 30, 1983.
b. For the following year, July 1 , 1983 through June 30, 1984, the amount
shall be determined by using each jurisdictions current populations as
established by the Metropolitan Council on April 1 , 1983, multiplied
by $ 1 .83 per capita per annum.
c. For the following year, July 1 , 1984 through June 30, 1985, the amount
shall be determined by using each jurisdiction's current population as
established by the Metropolitan Council on April 1 , 1984, multiplied by a
per capita per annum amount, as determined by the following procedure:
1 ) St. Francis Hospital shall prepare a projected operating statement
for the ambulance service for the hospital fiscal year 10/1/84-9/30/85.
Components of this statement are described below.
2) Gross Revenues shall be based on the projected activity level for said
fiscal year and shall approximate 60% of the Gross Direct Expenses.
3) Gross Revenues shall be reduced by actual bad debts on ambulance service
revenues and third party payor discounts to arrive at Net Revenues.
4) Gross Direct Expenses shall reflect expenses directly related to the
operation of the ambulance service, such as salaries, employee benefits
depreciation, supplies, repairs & maintenance etc.
/1 A
5) Gross Direct Expenses shall be reduced by the salary costs for time
worked in other areas of the hospital by the ambulance personnel to
arrive at Net Direct Expenses.
6) Indirect Expenses for the ambulance service shall not be taken into
account.
7) The Net Direct Expenses shall be subtracted from the Net Revenues to
arrive at the Operating Profit or (Loss) of the ambulance service.
8) If there is an Operating Profit there shall be no per capita charge
to the Scott/Francis Communities. If there is an Operating Loss,
the Scott/Francis Communities and St. Francis Hospital shall share
equally in covering this loss.
9) The per capita per annum amount shall be determined by dividing the
Scott/Francis Communities share of the Loss by the total population
of the Scott/Francis Communities as established by the Metropolitan
Council on April 1 , 1984.
C. Agreement Term:
1 . This Agreement shall become effective upon the approval and execution of the
Agreement by St. Francis and all five (5) communities within Scott/Francis.
2. This Agreement shall be effective July 1 , 1982 and shall terminate June 30,
1985.
D. Cancellation:
Either Scott/Francis or St. Francis have the right to terminate this Agreement,
with cause, by providing the other party with ninety (90) days written notice by
Certified Mail .
E. Equal Opportunity Employer:
St. Francis recognizes that the Scott/Francis are equal opportunity employers
and hereby agrees .to adhere to a policy of non-discrimination and Equal
Employment Opportunity.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Approved this day of. 1982.
St. Francis Hospital by
and
Sister Agnes Otting, Executive Director Sister Johanna Metzen, Secretary
Date of Council
Approved by Scott/Francis Communities as follows: Approval
Shakopee by and on
Mayor Administrator
Savage by and on
Mayor Administrator
Sand Creek by and on
Chairman Clerk
Louisville by and on
Chairman Clerk
Jackson by and on
Chairman Clerk
a
AoRtys/s0FALS /A4eut41,3clr - OPE 12417140^)-5— ---
_FM FscAc .1&A-ks fivi/N6 9/3oIso '+F 9/aa/8/ -(4cri•�Rc) - . ..
yE _ s--1_ ! -tea_ , — _ _
Fb Fly Fly FI
---- -- ---------- ------ -- - - -- -. . q 30-go 9-30$1 9-30 -Tr r 9'3o b'3
IL___ ____ - n
�_-_„ (AcruAO ��crarQG) (/1,itcTLD ...CPA-iJe,cTI-D1
11T/+TI ST/cS 'i : .
2 1 4 ! „ ; I I , i . •
o £ - PEoDccc/N6 44 . , . . 7 I ; 7/' .7, 4" I . ' 7147
3 _ E ENu NS I E
4 is li lif . 1 ,, ! ! : � ,,, , j
5 1 / 4i2 ( Pte- u,0 I3 - I ' JSP.`� ! ! /719- /93.•.
6 - 1I 1 l
W8 • F'EUFNa
y•, . C�QoSS vEN � ; . ,_ 9,7.$99 / sooc Iomoo.
•
10 LESS: Accow. Foa //Ncacc_ cep AJTs I -' as 7/ > C 27 > c' 31 oro >
I I . Auo.w, Fo,e 3–°/° FJ4za s oaT < ,3,o10 > �1 ff,aj 1 •.zz3o %
12 I. I • H l r
111 111 , W
13 /USTveau� ( 9?�(,Z3
2:d 29d! I/3(02o'
14 ! I , ( I I
f
15 EXPENsEs I ! I ' ; i
16. +ecr C}cf 1sEs , I . .
11 SALA-(2/Es/ I/'/S:/4g; I1�97,9io .217700
�81,8 PAy,eou lA�F-c/&�errrs ; . , i 139x8, j ,?2- 4o' ;Soo a
1i /p 333 , 1.1 1290' a3,sfao
19 ��PQFCI� rlO/I i ! Fi
201 ;, SupPuEs Fres W-OAras f ,f, iN7 ,-A7�� /6 3Sz �131Soo 1�f�SSo
21 1 I I '
. ; . . '
22 i-- - D/e.2 c 1 i" -.pr..#- '3 : I/SS 7 d Q l • - • Z Ss , , __q o 9 7 o
I
' I
23 1 • . . , I ►• t ' .
14 top rercr S( n).sEs-: . , i 1
! ;
25 ApHlNtSr2ATIuF : I /805// i9:zSo', ! 3?18o
p /8?iii
26 1 C/� T/ uND -y , I I S/9 ,iiiI FS..o, ! �.ito.
111 >."yec cOE-N�F/TS 3'C 16 ;4,82o: ' . '7500.
.) Alt/R.56062Alt/R.5606 oc�crsion) : . /13vZ Ill .do18!76
29 I ' 1 , 1 ! �' , .
30 ---IOTA‘ J.ib,eecr- �k Scs 13 SSS 49'0'4- , I !.51f980 ( 6o4W0;
32 7TAL Er,.PcNsEs /9333 9! 3l o y/o 3,1I Igso:
33 ,CESS: 4GGe, frw -- Fol IrnC ,-RKLA , i i . I I i
34 1a Orni.ic buffs <! X?6,1II> " f 411974' . L'Ifo '
35 _Ner � s
,,, es I/63I/a8! ; i1 ‘,16i1/6 ' 'S 4 ,
36
I i i i t I i i "1
•
'
411.'1 coss> F�cH D�.Q. 2-�,is , 171 loS> G//5r19j. > I ,8;111 � 16og-0
38 1 l iiHiI
I I I
39 ,AM(juch-Nct r.-cs/o r,Nct : X3891% 33.407.- X5461 34 /S3
I '
/0 I i I I III ill ; i
- 1 .
NGT GAIN \1-oSi> FL 9,41 O�A1'roNL3. _! _ 5/7 213 >• < 9/191] [</AA1/3> /°�q,3 97,-;
N. V
•
O O O
is h. s
rk` ` �\ �`
a y y. •
-- s -[-=c—r_:r-:cs �. -r�� r .�_ -� - r -r _.--r_-r rr-•�_. .�. .-Q - _ s_ - ..
�
1 0 AVe a‘ ir
2
1 Q r•
0+
.f 0 Y )L1: !i.iI
LJiJ
•
1.I1 '
14
1 ti , , ,
. . . . . . : : . .,
. . . .1, c:1)
6
•
I - _' . —�. ...__ -
t._
I ' , 1 ---- . r r r aL
I v
ice- I . --_ . .. y r W
+7-777
� H v
c --:-o;_.`-- b , , A, . o _ 4 . . ., . , Q.
a . 1 ; t b I. , , o • • : : • � " •
7=
_ _�'
el
t=
11
H 11 W f`7 rZf1 _ n 0� 0 v1 4.
If
o w �`hn` m%
vs
' Av —``� l j a , cl : fi. 4.. _ N _: oil tiro _
tl W
_; t !- • I :I-.-I'l ''. . ; 0.1 4i 0; 1
1,Iii '_:_il - _:-..___L___ ._.-.-' 4._. _.1_:____:__H_, ______3_,______-
71 O a! �
4 ' 1
, .
q I' ,
1 4 1:d !
1 ‘;:.., ,
t . ...
: r 4 �' 1 •
Al ,,, .
s i w. 4.
' o z N.
c� vW
4 t m 1 ` ,3i R ti ,
•
M (71 `' ly0-i
�I j7 cs 4° 3 •• (-Nil v �/ rN �- �` Vts-
2.1%r: A _
✓ O
o " N -� N "i— co - n -D- M `9 to
Y
1
N J -
7 Y
"N
�� e
_ o — o ^ v r Q ' -,e3-'
3* _ .
r
M r9 •a' r
w o a— o
U yyy — CS> M1 ( o M No c��l\ lc`‘
C) W
>1 .a �-
W11rr >yF11I p 7
L.
4-1 01ro
h L. u ei >, E C>• Q Z ui
I
.oG F..3 .3t .1 •/n w o
0 ...1 E,xU U µ3 ra Eti 4 N d u .. L a. 7 u ro_ u c n r. C. a. c ., W a 4.1 1.tic. Z -) n c Wd , Wt.t.., CL iH 2 0zo r < s • . n . E-. .x W V/
fil L4 :44 4J __.
H ( g.. O) �, • • - .� (N 1 „, , Nv , _
,.....
..
. .. ,,:, v,
v)
0.1 Ce
1.J 14
Ems. °o U1 III ` �J CEl C) III
O n 3
uv 1 1
V) ti O I ' j 7 I n._ . 010
4.
r O
u
7
oSoG J 1
11111 )
iU
(j) MEE Mu- \-- IN—5
I
u j
o u a 7 _
..1S —. — cP
ori
I . 4i. T
TTT1TJ
U
J a C
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council Il
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator l
RE: Murphy ' s Landing Sewer Charges
DATE: February 5 , 1982
Introduction
Since its inception, Murphy' s Landing has benefited by having City
sewer, but has not been receiving sewer bills .
Situation
Today there are approximately 9 sewer hook-ups at Murphy' s Landing
and with no municipal water, they would either have to be charged
the average flat rate or have a "running time meter" or an "event
counter" installed depending upon which is appropriate. The
question is do we want to continue to provide the service without
charging for it or should we begin charging them?
If the City decides not to charge them as a method of assisting
Murphy' s Landing financially, then it should be determined if the
financial assistance is best provided through free sewer hook-ups
or some clearer and more direct decision to provide such assistance .
Alternatives
1 . Keep the status quo.
2 . Require that a flat rate charge or appropriate meter be installed
( the meters would be an additional expense to Murphy' s Landing) .
3 . Alternative No. 2 with Council action to provide financial
assistance directly with an appropriation from the General Fund.
4. Notify Murphy ' s Landing that Council is going to continue alter-
native No. 1 to a specified time when alternative No. 2 or 3
would be implemented. This would give their Board time to pre-
pare for the change .
Recommendation
Alternative No. 2 with it being implemented July 1 , 1982 .
Action Requested
Direct staff to contact Murphy' s Landing informing them that beginning
July 1 , 1982 they will be charged for sanitary sewer usage .
JKA/jms
Sharkey Appraisal Service F l /l'-
Ed. Sharkey
i�z .' ION OF
I\Utllti\1111 1.4. 1°ft‘1,4 IIIsINC
314 East Main Street Office: 612.758.4457
New Prague, Minnesota Metro: 612.445.5499 RECEIVED
56071 Home: 612.492.2866 i�„
•
MAR 1 1982
March 1 , 1982 CITY OF SHAKOPEE
John Anderson
City Administrator
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
• Dear John:
I am writing in regard to the Shakopee City Council meeting which
is being held March 2nd. Part of the agenda of this meeting is for
a discussion of the future of the sewer charges at Murphy' s Landing.
When we talked a week ago, I told you some representatives from
Murphy' s Landing including myself would attend. I now find I have
a conflict. The annual New Prague Rotary Farmer's Night is that
same evening and I have to be there. I am planning on starting a
woodworking course in our well equipt woodworking shop on the site .
I would like to give a pitch at the Rotary meeting for volunteers to
take part in this course and eventually help repair and restore the
rooms full of damaged old furniture at the site.
One of my main objectives as manager will be to get much more involve-
ment in the site, especially from the people of the Shakopee area.
The following ads will appear in the Shakopee paper:
1 ) Are you thinking of retiring or are retired?
We will be starting a woodworking class at
Murphy' s Landing soon. You can learn how to
restore and repair old furniture or make some-
thing for yourself!
Call 445-6900.
2) WANTED: We need families to adopt an old house
at Murphy' s Landing. We have several who need
T.L.C. and someone to tell their story to visitors.
Call 445-6900.
11
John Anderson • '`' ;; � % ' �'' `
Page " ' •
March 1 , 1982 6-
I contacted some of the other board members about attentftng _ }
your meeting and this is the situation. John Lynch, Les
Malkerson and Nancy Christensen are all on vacation . The
only one who might be able to attend will be Ron Weiler.
In regard to the proposed sewer charge it would certainly help
if the city of Shakopee could give us a years moratorium. This
year will be very critical in regard to our financial survival .
We received a generous grant of $33,000 from Scott County which
will be a great help but our budget requirements of course are
much greater.
I apologize for our boards absence at your meeting but this time
of the year seems to be difficult to get people together. If
you wish to schedule us again towards the end of March, most of
our people are supposed to be back .
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,.
Ed Sharkey, Manager
Murphy' s Landing
ES / mm
M ICURPEY'S LANDING
a Minnesota Valley Restoration of 1840-1890
Box 275 Shakopee,Minnesota, 55379
o1/11"4:.- CITY OF SHAKOPEE
o � f~� 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 /
STI , G
•
MEMO
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM:
LeRoy Houser/Bldg. Official
SUBJECT: Fire Hall Roof Bids
DATE: March 30, 1982
Introduction
As required by law, the bid process for the fire hall roof job has been completed.
Background
Listed below are the results of the bid letting from low to high:
1. Industrial Restoration Co. $15,845.00
Alternate - Carboline
$24,310.00
2. Industrial Roof Maint. $24,450.00
Alternate - Carboline
$31,625.00
3. Insul Spray Coatings $24,900.00
No Alternate
4. Feltmann Drywall $25,440.00
No Alternate
All bids are with a seven year full warranty. All bids conform to specs.
I am still of the opinion the carboline roof is far superior to the polymate roof
system. The carboline roof as bid by Industrial Restoration is still lower then
the other bidders bidding the polymate application as specified. The carboline
bid is $7,690.00 lower then first projected. The carboline application has a ten
year full warranty.
Alternative
1. Use the polymate application on the fire station.
2. Rebid the roof repair project on the fire station.
Recommendation
I recommend the carboline application as bid on alternate by Industrial
Restoration for the sum of $24,310.00.
Recommended Action
Direct staff to draft and enter into a contract with Industrial Restoration for
the carboline roof system at the tire station at a cost of $24,310.00.
LH:cu
/ 1Y—
MEMO
TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk
RE: Request for Release of an Agreement Between City of
Shakopee and CC&F Enterprises
DATE: April ' 1 , 1982
Introduction
The City has received a letter from John Manahan requesting the
release of an agreement made in October of 1977 at the time of
plat approval of Furrie 1st Addition.
Background
The Village Homes Association, Inc . has released the obligations
contained in the agreement. CC&F Enterprises has submitted a
letter placing in escrow the sum of $7 ,500 .00 to be held by the
City until completion of the drainage project . The check received
equals 125% of the City Engineer ' s estimate on the cost of the
project . The letter authorizes the City to utilize the $7 ,500
to do the project , if CC&F Enterprises does not complete the
project by August 1 , 1982 . The drainage project is scheduled to
be done in conjunction with the construction of the Valley Health
Properties Professional Building.
Alternatives
1 . Release the agreement with CC&F Enterprises dated October 17 ,
1977 .
2 . Deny request and do not release agreement until work is com-
pleted and approved.
Recommendation
Staff recommends release of the agreement in light of receipt of
a letter of intent to complete the project and the $7 ,500 .00
escrow amount .
Recommended Action
Authorize proper City officials to execute a termination agreement
which releases the agreement between CC&F Enterprises and the City
of Shakopee dated October 17 , 1977 .
JSC/jms
) I '?/
1221 EAST FOURTH AVENUE
JOHN M. MANAHAN P.O. BOX 282
az Yam, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379
TELEPHONE (612)445-7470
• RECEVF.
March 2 , 1982
1082
MAR 3 -
Mr. John Anderson CITY Or Siiks‘ 3
City Administrator
4
City of shakopee
City Hall
129 E. 1st Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
RE: Release of an Agreement
Dear Mr . Anderson:
Enclosed herein for your reference please
find a copy of an agreement entered into between
C C & F Enterprises and the City of Shakopee,
October 17 , 1977 (although said Agreement was
never actually executed by the City of Shakopee) .
The reference is particularly made to Para-
graphs 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , and 5 . At this point in time , the
developer has already placed on the property an earthen
berm in accordance with Paragraph 1 . I have been ad-
vised that the Shakopee Townhouse Association (see
Paragraph 5) no longer desires that a fence be erected
on the berm; however , they are agreeable continuing the
maintenance of the East side of the berm.
As you may know, the developer is now in the process
of developing the subject property and, of course, it
would be convenient if the property could be released from
the requirements of the attached agreement. As I under-
stand it, the only reason the City entered into this
Agreement was because of concerns expressed by the
Shakopee Townhouse Association in separating their resi-
dential property from the commercially zoned subject
property.
Therefore, I am asking what type of documentation
you would require in order for the City to release the
property from this Agreement. I might add parenthetically
that I believe the term of Paragraphs 6 , 7 and 8 have al-
ready been satisfied by the developer ; however, you might
l(t
-2-
check with your Engineering Department to make sure
of that.
It would be my suggestion that we obtain a release
from the 'Shakopee Townhouse Association releasing both
the City and the developer from any further obligations
pursuant to this Agreement and authorizing the City to
release the property from the terms of the Agreement insofar
as it relates to at least Paragraphs 1 through 5 . Upon re-
ceipt of such a release , then the City would be in a position
to simply execute a simple release for the entire agreement
(assuming that Paragraphs 6 through 8 have been satisfied) .
In the event that such a release by the City would
require action by the Council, I would also request that
the matter be placed on the agenda for the meeting scheduled
for March 16 , 1982 , and I will arrange to have the necessary
documentation provided to you prior to that time.
By the way the subject property has since been plated and
is now known as "Furrie ' s First Addition" .
Perhaps you could let me know your thoughts on this
matter. Thank you for your cooperation.
Yours very truly,,
John M. Manahan
Attorney at Law
JMM:mlt
File #1289-1
Enc.
cc: Mr . Rod Krass
Mr. Al Furrie
eft•
ACREEMEKI
This Agreement is entered into by and between C C 6 F ENTERPRISES.
a Partnership organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter
referred to as Developer, and the CITY OF SHAKOPEE. a Municipal Corporation
located within the County of Scott, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred
to as City.
WHEREAS. it is the intent and desire of the Developer to develop
certain property located in the City of Shakopee, the legal description of
which is marked Appendix A, attached hereto and made a part hereof by
reference; and
WHEREAS, to facilitate such development the City has rezoned said
property and accepted a preliminary and final plat of said property; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of both the Developer and the City to
protect the property interests of properties located immediately contiguc.::
to and easterly of the Developers property;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of said rezoning, said acceptance
of the Developer's plat, and other and further assistance rendered by the
City to the Developer. the Developer hereby agrees with the City as follows:
1. That the Developer will cause an earthen berm to be placed
lalong the easterly line of said property.
2. That the Developer, or its succeFs .theirs or assigns will
4 a le.V
cause to be built upon said earthen berm a fence six 6') feet in height of
vertical design and good quality, which fence shall be uniform in design,
construction and color, from one end of the berm to the other.
3. That said fence shall be constructed at the time of the develop-
ment of any lot which extends to the eastern border of the Developer's
property. The responsibility for the construction of said fence shall rest
with whichever party owns a particular lot at the time of development.
y 4. If the owner of any lot which extends to the eastern border of
lAmG the Developer's property as described on Appendix A comments development
cple i,'Q,r�_ without constructing or causing to be constructed a fence in accordance with
IS, *4
0
°6 4a ATG - . .
EXHIBIT!_,_ PgGOF
omismo
PAGES
o_.
-66
•
s
• A.
fin' 4�
F
4
this Agreement, the City is hereby authorizeo to construct such a fence and is
hereby authorized access to the property described on Appendix A in order to do
so. The cost of said fence. plus 154 administrative costs, shall become 4 lien
against the property affected and the City is authorized to foreclose against
the affected property to collect said lien and said administrative costs and
further to collect any and all reasonable attorney's fees and costs necessitated
by such foreclosure.
5. The Developer's obligations under Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 he.eof
are contingent upon the Shakopee Townhouse Association, that association
controlling the common grounds and the property adjacent to and easterly of this
property, whereby the Townhouse Association will accept the responsibility for
the maintenance of the earthen berm as set forth in Paragraph 1, until such
time as the fence as set forth in Paragraph 2 is constructed. At that time, the
association shall be responsible for the maintenance of the east side of
feaca-and-o` the berm and property easterly of thy: fence. Should said associa-
tion refuse or fail to enter into such an Agreement, the Developer will be
released from the obligations as set forth in ?a,agraphs I, 2, 3, and 4 and
shall be required only ;.o meet the minimum requirements of the hak pee Zoning,,"7"
Ordinance as it 'es tc this property as of the date of this-Agreement.'
6. The Developer agrees to place along or near the northerly line of
said property a storm sewer drainage pine as per the drainage plan which has
been submitted to and approved by the City, and to place said pipe in the
ground on or before J. ly 31, 1978. If the Ceveloper fails to do so, the City
may install said pipe and the Developer hereby gives the City any and all
easements necessary for the City to install said pipe. The cost of said
installation, plus 154 administrative costs, shall become a lien against the
property affected and the City is aut;-)rized to foreclose against the affected
property and to collect said lien and administrative costs and further to
collect any and all reasoe..ole attorneys fees and costs necessitated by said
foreclosure.
7. The Developer will attempt tc obtain any necessary right-of-way
easements for said pipe as it goes across the property, with the specific
: understanding Jet', the Developer will pay any costs of obtaining said easement.
ft
%.
• e -2-
• J
4t, .
EXHIBIT__,._ PAGF OFpAGES
11
,'9tr,
I% ,,
,,,_.r,
T,
!i ,. '' '
If the Developer is unable to negotiate said right-of-way easement at a cost
agreeable to the Developer, the City agrees to proceed to secure said easement
right by condemnation and the Developer will pay all costs of any nature incur-
red by the City to secure said easement by condemnation, and all said costs will
become a lien against the property affected and way be collected in accordance
with the lien provisions of Paragraphs 4 and 6.
8. As an alternative to the placement of the storm sewer pipe going -' $
JlT4 tihpnywMl.
in an easterly direction pursuant to Paragraphs 6 and 7. the Developer. at its c /
•
option. may elect to extend a storm sewer pipe in a westerly direction at or J'
near the northerly line of said property to connect up with the storm sewer
presently located in Courty Road 17. Provided, however, that the Developer
must extend said drainage pipe in one of the two manners set forth above on or
before July 31. 1978. or the City may elect to proceed under Paragraph 6 above.
9. This Agreement shall bind the heirs. successors and assigns of the
•
i Developer and all such heirs, successors and assigns shall be required to meet
the term and conditions of this Agreement.
Dated this alb' C-y of (p',747!..)1 ) , 1977.
C C & F ENTERPRISES
44
494 '
'4
: tJ
•y:
4t., '`Z,4 FX9 partner
_"tea *
i
EXHIBIT. /1 _PAGE 3 OF. 4 PAGES
.
•
ti ,,
(4^I
..51, I I
4 : p=f
. 4410
Shy
C
14
APPENDIX A
That part of the West 2/3 of the Southwest 1/4 of thr Northeast 1/4 of
Section 6, Township 115, Range 22, lying southerly of the southerly
right of way line of the Chicago, St. Paul , Minneapolis and Omaha ,
Railroad, and lying easterly of the following described line:
Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Southwest 1/4 of tie
Northeast 1/4; thence easterly along the south line of said Southwest 1
1,/4 of the Northeast 1/4, a distance of 622.00 feet to the point of
beginning of the line to be described; thence north at a right angle,
a distance of 50.00 feet; thence northerly along a tangent curve 1
concave to the west, having a radius 702.23 feet, a central angle '
of 25 degrees 31 minutes 30 seconds, a distance of 312.84 feet;
thence northwesterly tangent to the last described curve, a distance
of 235.65 feet; thence northerly along a tangent curve concave to
the east, having a radius of 1077.38 feet, a central angle of 15 1
degrees 17 minutes 30 seconds, a distance of 287.54 feet; thence
northerly tangent to the last described curve, a distance of
10.00 feet to Lhe southerly right of way line of the Chicago,
St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Omaha Railroad, and said line there
terminating.
i
Part of an agreement between C C & F Enterprises, a Partnership and' : '=-
, .. the City of. Shakopee executed October 17, 1977. r { a �
y f I..ar C .aka. i .... r
y - ,t ' f 'i row do or ow tom- ^ ri,
,p ;? ..;
��� tf s �''�.. • • 4 i� ,. h� as TC. 4fJ, `Y�'1
EI., ....7.0,2. •it,
`I� .. .jam f'�t;•• �r l � ".t „7,7.--
�A ,�' A .i t�♦ �7/ ,y��� �•/or L • 1�,•-.
.. is Fa , " �r4; w. ._ •'+•'C 'S �1y,�'� l ;'e •^.�,.'. , .'
�..P � / .• A••••., q.. ,+ , A..� .`,,,..,;•,..,..,,,_.• . I• '"L 1... y! i+.— ~1 y
•
•kihks- . �. h c s �i k� +, off, ,r,, y, A c t• i
^4r •w ,• 4 .r .e.r',J.'fri..-X,. ♦.�.' �. ♦. ..ti b T
r, V./...
c1•__
c.
•
TA PAGE.='—OF PAGES
EXHIBIT____..�
TERMINATION AGREEMENT
Agreement dated this 30th day of March, 1982 between
C C & F Enterprises , a Minnesota general partnership ("CC&F") ,
and the City of Shakopee, a municipal corporation, Scott County,
Minnesota, ("City" ) .
WHEREAS , the parties hereto are also parties to that
certain Agreement dated October 15 , 1977, and filed for record
October 19 , 1977 , as Document No. 158687 ; and
WHEREAS , Shakopee Village Homes Association, Inc. ,
(a/k/a Shakopee Townhouse Association) has executed a "Release" ,
releasing both parties hereto from any further obligation relative
said Agreement; and
WHEREAS, C C & F has by letter agreement with the City
agreed to satisfy its obligations relative to a certain drainage
plan referred to in said Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises
and covenants contained herein, and for other good and valuable
consideration, the parties hereto agree as follows :
I .
That the parties hereto do hereby terminate that certain
Agreement dated October 15 , 1977 , and filed for record on
October 19 , 1977 , as Document No. 158687 , and neither party shall
have any further liability thereunder .
In witness whereof , the parties hereto have set their
hands and the seal of the City on the day and year first above
written.
I (�
RELEASE
Shakopee Village Homes Association, Inc. , a
Minnesota corporation, does hereby release the City of Shakopee
and C . C. & F. Enterprises from any and all obligations under-
taken by them pursuant to that certain Agreement dated October
15 , 1977 and filed for record on October 19 , 1977 , as Document
No. 158687
Shakopee Village Homes Association,Inc.
BY:
Its Rresident
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
SS
COUNTY OF SCOTT
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this 29th day of March, 1982 ,
by Gary R. Kahnke, President
of Shakopee Village Homes Association, Inc.
a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the
corporation .
/ /4
JOHN M.MANAHAN
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY �}'' ' Natant me Public-Minnesota
wb8G1a
ft
My Comm.Exp.MM.10.1988
John M. Manahan , Attorney at Law
1221 East Fourth Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Mayors and Administrators Report on County Wide
Concerns
DATE: April . l , 1982
Introduction
The Mayor and I have been meeting with the other mayors and admin-
istrators in Scott County to prepare a list of "concerns" to be
presented to the County Board. That report is attached.
Purpose
The purpose of the report to the Scott County Board from the cities
of the County is to provide , in a unified manner, a list of concerns
we all share. The cities listed on the second page of the report
will all be acting on the report with the goal of presenting the
report at the April 20, 1982 County Board Meeting.
The concerns should be reviewed carefully and Councilmembers should
indicate at the meeting if, for any reason, you cannot wholeheartedly
support the concerns as presented.
Alternatives
1 . Approve all of the report .
2 . Disapprove the report .
3 . Approve an amended report .
Recommendation
The Mayor and I recommend Council approval of the report . The cities
involved have exhibited excellent cooperation in the preparation of
the report , and the mayors and administrators all feel that this is
perhaps the best time to present our concerns because of the atten-
tion being focused on the cost of public services , taxes , etc.
Action Requested
Approve the "Report of Scott County Mayor ' s Committee on County
Wide Concerns" dated March 31 , 1982 , and direct the Mayor to present
the report to the Scott County Board.
JKA/jms
11 �
March 31 , 1982
Scott County Board
Honorable Board Members
Scott County Court House
Shakopee, MN 55379
In January of 1982, the Mayors and Administrators of the Cities of Belle Plaine,
Jordan, New Prague, Prior Lake, Savage and Shakopee met to discuss issues of
mutual concerns. The meeting was called for a number of reasons, some of which
were:
- Concern over the inequity of the tax dollar distribution
- Duplication of effort
- The current financial condition
- Concern over the total cost of local government in Scott County
- Recognition of the fact that Scott County is in a transition from
a rural to an urban county
- Concern over the State Aid Formula to local Government
At that meeting it was decided that these concerns should be pursued and that
the County Board Chairman and Administrator should be invited to attend future
meetings.
At this time, the Committee members feel it is appropriate to inform the entire
County Board of the Committee's preliminary findings and invite you along with the
Township Board Chairmen to participate in future meetings. It is our hope that
thru a cooperative effort we can address and resolve these concerns, thusly reducing
the total cost of local government, and more equitably spread the cost of services
received.
Also, it is the recommendation of the Committee that the County Board, by resolution,
petition the District Court to establish a "County Government Study Commission".
This action is requested, in part, because of; the necessity for increased government
efficiency, the changing role of County Government, the need for more accountability
of the departmentswithin the County to the public, the recognition that Scott County
is changing from a rural to an urban County.
Your cooperation, and input into these concerns is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Eldon Reinke, Chairman
Scott County Mayors/Administrator Committee
jkm
PRELIMINARY REPORT
OF
, • SCOTT COUNTY MAYORS COMMITTEE
ON
COUNTY WIDE CONCERNS
To
The Scott County Board
of Commissioners
Eldon Reinke, Chairman Michael McGuire, Staff Coordinator
Mayor, City of Shakopee Manager, City of Prior Lake
Frances Schuman Larry Thompson
Mayor, City of Belle Plaine Administrator, City of Belle Plaine
Gail Andersen Thomas Reber
Mayor, City of Jordan Administrator, City of Jordan
Paul Flick Jerome Bohnsack
Mayor, City of New Prague Administrator, City of New Prague
Walter A. Stock Hank Sinda
Mayor, City of Prior Lake Administrator, City of Savage
Rod Hopp John Anderson
Mayor, City of Savage Administrator, City of Shakopee
kciCk ,t1t J l a�k-'& r bar; �� e(lco
K
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I . Concerns Reviewed by Committee
a. Road and Bridge Levy 1
b. Assessed Valuations 2
c. County Road Right of Way Acquisition 3
d. County Library System Financing 4
e. Sheriffs Patrol 5
f. County Services -VS- Cost Allocation
5 £ _11- 4 6
Ate+S. 6 „ty C � -a,iv—r COP-C¢YJT 0 DQ.
II . Scott County Organizational Structure 7
III . Appendixes
Appendix A, Comparison of Assessed Values to Sales
Appendix B, Chapter 375A - Optional Forms of County Government
(
CONCERNS
Road and Bridge Levy
CONCERN
Since 1968, (except 1976 and 1977) , Scott County has returned a percentage
of the road and bridge levy to the Municipalities for the purpose of general
maintenance of County roads. This money is used to defray the costs of
snow removal , street sweeping, etc.
A letter dated December 31 , 1981 from E.W. Prenevost, County Highway Engineer,
indicated that this policy was being reviewed and that these payments may not
be made in 1982 and thereafter. Thus, there are two problems; timing and the
uncertainty of the allocation.
CURRENT PRACTICE
In December of each year the County Board determines the percentage of the
road and bridge levy that will be distributed to the Municipalities. This
money is budgeted by the Municipalities each year as a source of revenue to
help defray road maintenance costs.
ALTERNATIVES
1 . Continue with current policy.
2. Discontinue the appropriation.
3. Base appropriation on miles of County roads within City limits.
4. Continue with current appropriation policy, but determine the dollar
amount by(10A,Orf 1st of each year for the year following, ie: determine
the amoun for 1983 by July 1 , 1982.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1 . That the 1982 appropriation, which has been included in each City's
budget, be authorized by July 1 , 1982.
2. That alternative number 4 be adopted for all future years.
-1-
CONCERNS
Assessed Valuations
CONCERN
Under the current assessment guidelines, the possibility exists for local
units of government to be assessed at lower percentages of market values
than surrounding units. Thus individual tax payers bear an inequitable
burden to overlapping taxing jurisdictions. (See Appendix A)
CURRENT PRACTICE
All local units of government have the alternative of contracting assessor's
service from the County, contracting the service from a private concern, or
using in-house staff. The present system is geared towards appealing
properties which are assessed too high, and is seldom used to appeal properties
which are assessed too low. County assessment guidelines allow assessors to
use a great deal of discretion for certain categories of property.
ALTERNATIVES
1 . Continue with the status quo
2. Mandate that all Cities and Townships be assessed by the County.
3. Adopt a County wide assessment policy which produces uniformity in
assessment practices.
4. Establish a system which effectively monitors assessed values throughout
the County.
RECOMMENTAT I ON
It is the recommendation of the Scott County Cities that the Scott County
Board pursue alternatives numbers 3 and 4 by appointing a Committee consisting
of local officials, assessors, and County staff, to recommend guidelines that
will produce uniformity in all jurisdictions.
-2-
lam
CONCERNS
County Road Right-Of-Way Acquisition
CONCERN
Scott County does not have a consistant policy with Cities and Townships
relative to County Road Right-Of-Way Acquisition.
CURRENT PRACTICE
Currently Scott County pays for Right-Of-Way Acquisition within the Township
boundaries, but Cities are required to pay for Right-Of-Way Acquisition for
urban section County roads within municipal boundaries.
ALTERNATIVES
1 . Continue current policies.
2. Scott County acquire all Right-of Way for County roads.
5. Asa„.v.` '0Ii GLA-J ,A;,x- 40 be,
RECOMMENDATION
It is the recommendation of the Scott County Cities that the Scott County
Board adopt alternative number 2.
-3-
j (�
CONCERNS
County Library System Financing
CONCERN
Scott County residents share equally in the benefits, but not the costs of
the County Library System.
CURRENT PRACTICE
Scott County provides books, shelving and librarians while Cities provide
buildings, maintenance and utilities.
ALTERNATIVES
1 . Continue current policies.
2. County provide Library System costs.
RECOMMENDATION
It is the recommendation of the Scott County Cities that the Scott County
Board adopt alternative number 2.
-4-
/J
CONCERNS
Sheriffs Patrol
CONCERN
The tax payers from the Cities contribute towards the Sheriff' s Patrol Service
costs, but do not receive benefit from them.
CURRENT PRACTICE
All the Sheriff's Patrol Services are provided to the Townships, while the
Cities pay 71% of the cost, as well as providing their own patrol service.
ALTERNATIVES
1 . Continue with status quo.
2. Levy for Sheriff's Patrol by area of service.
3. Townships contract for service.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is the recommendation of the Scott County Cities that the Scott County
Board adopt alternative number 2 or 3.
-5-
/l
CONCERNS
County Services -VS- Cost Allocation
CONCERN
Many of the services provided by Scott County are supported by a County wide
Property Tax, yet a number of those services only benefit Townships and not
Cities.
CURRENT PRACTICES
Scott County currently taxes all property in the County to provide the revenue
to finance County services. Today 71% of the County's assessed valuations lies
within the Cities of Scott County which also has two/thirds of the County's
population. With the increasing urbanization of Scott County it is appropriate
for the County Board to questions the validity of the relationship between the
County's traditional revenue sources and the delivery of traditional County
services. A brief review of the County's 1982 budget by Scott County Cities
suggests that the following services costing approximately $450,000.00, deserve
careful scrutiny:
1 . Planning and Zoning
2. Argiculture Extension Services
3. Soil and Water Conservation
4. Ag Inspector - Weed Inspector
5. Investigation (Sheriff)
ALTERNATIVES
1 . Continue with the status quo.
2. Authorize the County Administrator to employ the participation of the County
Officers responsible, to review the services in quesiton.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Scott County adopt alternative number 2.
l/ K
Scott County Organizational Structure
•
CONCERN
Is the current organizational structure of Scott County the most efficient
and cost effective for the delivery of County Services.
CURRENT PRACTICE
Control and accountability does not rest solely with the County Board because,
the Treasurer, Auditor, Surveyor, Register of Deeds, Sheriff and County Attorney
are elected and do not answer to a central authority. This may result in:
a. An inexperienced individual heading a department.
b. Lack of coordination and or cooperation.
c. Officials that respond to their departments interests and priorities
rather than priorities established by the County Board.
The County Board has appointed an Administrator and has made efforts to re-
organize certain areas within the government, but are severely limited because
of the great degree of independence that the six elected "Department Heads"
enjoy.
ALTERNATIVES
1 . Continue with the present organization.
2. Adopt an optional form of County Government, pursuant to M.S.A. 375.A.
(See Appendix B)
3. Seek special legislation that would provide for a form of government most
suitable to Scott County.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the County Board by resolution, petition the District
Court to establish a "County Government Study Commission" to consider the
various options available, under M.S.A. 375.A
-7-
•
APPENDIX A
Comparison of Assessed Values to Sales
2 YEAR RESIDENTIAL STUDY 7-78 thru 6-80
JURISDICTION . AGGREGATE RATIO
1 . Blakeley 53
2 . Savage 85
3 . Louisville 87
4 . Belle Plaine 88
5 . Sand Creek 88
6. Helena 89
7 . New Prague 90
8 . Prior Lake 91
9 . Shakopee 93
10. New Market Twp. 94
•
11 . Cedar Lake 96
12 . Credit River 96
13 . Spring Lake 96
14 . Belle Plaine City 96
15 . Jackson Twp. 99
16. New Market City 100
17 . - St. Lawrence Twp. 101
18 . Jordan 101
19 . Elko 106
MEAN 92 .05 MEDIAN 94 MODE 96
NOTE: Prepared by Shakopee City Assessor
vim
•
W
N J -4 N '
CLE
EW (V
d 1-
0-4
W
F-
a
C=1
n ' v1 0 00
(.7 H
4 N C$ N 040
K Q ul t(1 n
OW
0
00
►—x
0<
O
H Q
F-
<0
WO
Wen
N Z W
W Z
ZO
a F.vi `t H 00
(- p.
Ko OC 0C1 r. ON
)-O W W CY o0 atl 00
ZLLO'
W
E0
00
W}
U
0<
Q Z
WO
0,W
'-i
Z 0
<1.-4 ••••1M M 000
W 1-
OC M N. 00 U) OM
> •-
4 •
•• } .
a )- •
1-- .
W h •
a. K •
• W .
0 LU •
O CY CL ,J • O .
U CL 0 < • OC
0 z -1 • a a
-J•• Q a. O < • h,
i-. 'rH- =� ao
Z J Q h-CK H
= Z W -TW ..J W 0}
Z W 0z CY =c1.
K
00
0O a OW HK E�
Cl) Q ¢W LY LL E0
W W 0 00
< N Q U
/iK i1
I
LU i i ul I-1.-a.t N .-4 uil M ul tel N tn.;tel.e.D..1'1 N
J cri .-c .r NM n .e .-c
•
a
Lc)H
1
UJ ,
I— I CP.N.DON1opq ulO.nNNfNNOroll n
as . . . .
01i NO.Ncol Opco,try .tO•nop.p.0.-1.4.-a O 1
W1-• c0no060hc040 rnnopnoOo0ula0c0 n
Oc 4
r a Oa
re 0
a
>-o
o U
rX
to a
r
0
F.4
r 1—
aO
Oa to
W to
N Z W
WZJ Z NNNOn.DO•.... cr.nOnN)nN NI O..° 1
J1-.a sl ti . . . . . .
QEtA t-44-w nO•ODMnref N nSNop.4trt..4oO -4 .t
N a4 earn 00corn coop opcOO•ntro0ulnco n
s.Oc o W OG
r 000 Z
Z u_O•
W .4
E to
0 H
to N
W)
of J
to Q
aZ
a
0
00 to
rn W
.-1 J
a
to ZCI OhNill N.DUlN! All 0`1tM.-4PNN.i .t '
a t-1
Wt--1 NI O•NI•T 00 M3 .7.-Io 000,.0-4.-1 N} ..t
E< 00no0apIn.COcO ant*O•no0opula00O In. .
r >-
OC
W I i r
CL WCIC O!
✓' O Z W W W
l�
r! OC I t ti LU LI- W> 1—0 Y X P.
0 O. I < Y n SG n4 WZW0
U -J a W t) <OC J][LU W J� OC l
LA, J O. J W< VI Ji Z H Oa Oe OL
I a Z WO_ a ►-<0>4 3Q( W
I-4W as C0O0�. 1-+ OCt-IZu) 2:<X 7� !- I 0
>- r c/I _JO C]O<]t s 40W x ..)0 x 'N 4
1.-..; LZ LWLL .JYOC►-4>4� N OWJU=I3 ZpO�Q W ',W >
Z. W M WJOCY<XUJ Z WOCW<O]WI-a Z •Noe[
O t-� 00 UJ p.NN 3 U'OX JZcnu1tf�7 F- I- N
a N
L.) I O 1 ` OC t-1
IW r t < U
. OC 4
I , I
L
I i
_ J _ --- -- . _) _
I ,
, If i'
s
w
J M ry ,
U)-4
I I r
W ,
F-
Co b b
U►y P.n. v)p NO.C4
.-
WF- .Y N , • Or
POI.a. srsirWalr..0
F„ fi'Q o0 00.-1 M A M.-� d04
N
04 0
O b
}p '_
Q0
M
o-X
0Q
0
.--4a
/-1-
<0
-I-aO
WO
W0
4zi...
W Z J Z O
�r.q ar-1 N
aryl b
\moo G< N h.CV �MNMoe
�-pa0 W4C P o0 OW MO•M..0a
Z U..P MM ../...0450N0 N
LU .y Zb
E0
0.-4
Nu)
W}
0-I
0<
<Z
Q
0
MO
C^W
-._...1
a
0 Z.O.
W^ N w NN 00N0o0
4 o N ,
a
MM MPM.- 4.0T ,y
W ,
•
1 1
I{
a
wW
iW W W W 11.1
NVdL O 0 r ►-Ijwa a a a>- w a aoc1, o -+ z o-w
1-
2 .40e
wp .
a zzW` = ao �p ,su ,o Cg -� zw�wa u� a
N r` � ~UOU �' CUU2NtUw F-loc
E ryW U F- IH
la o v
i R E 1 iI
I
I ( I { i
I
((l-
W ' • J,.i'.•Il '
--
-Jul
E
<I-
M H
W
f-. MIf1N •O c0
<a • • • .
0)-1 111.70 .ON
W F- v ul 111 o•0• '
I- 0 O:
Oe C.,
O <
}co
0
I-X
In.4
I-
0
H<
I-•i••••
<0
Ce N
lLN
If)Z W
WZJ Z0 N r-N ..0 Op
JH< <I-i • • • • •
-Eln Hr ulc0o .oN
v) 0< ssl•In o•o.
N Oe o IL Oe
A.-o c0 E
zu.o•
IL ri
Z N
ll1 4
U,!n
w>
In J
In<
<Z
<
O
o0N
o•W
ri J
a
N Z re)Il1N .000
,Q H . . •
ILr .ot.o .oN.12
< •.:Y in Ifl O.4• _ I
C
I
I i
I-
OL
L.1.1 LL I i
I- n. zw
I- 0 w 1 ►+x
a m Y as
U O_ < W JJ
N J lil N G.
J IL O. 6. 0 !
Q 0!t7d 0-• LUX
)- H N '3<SG S J H ' I I
I- 0 W 0-4>< If) —1 O: I I
1
z w ►1-110 a.IA cri 3EO U)
0 `'i r
U
I I
Li
LiI
J
r C ttc � crc c c c S /l
bO � O � 0000000 0 � � 0 0 )-.,.
h-- F-' 1--‘ 1—, H 1--, 1-, 1--, 1--, 1-, 1-, H H F-' H H F-' 1--` H H 1-' F-' H H 1-, 01 H
.pAAAA A AA A A :AA A .A A :A -A .A A A -A A A AA .A -A 0
N W WWW CO W W W ) W W CO co CO W (A) Co O CO CD CO CO 01 01 (11 U1 tri .3
N N N N ••••3 ',..) •••1 '...1 .3 %.4 �7 N N ',.) CO N N CO N) N) N H H H H by C)
HHRH 0000000 01 01 00 H �1 W H 0 H . N.) HH c0 H H C'
H
H• W W A W 01 Cn W H H W A CD CD .A W H (0 c0 (0 O c0 CO W1-, 01 H �..
OD 01 W N F-' N H N OD 00 F•-` N H H N 01 N H H H H H H H N 0 N 9 ,L
1-, H1-, 1-, 1--, N H H N I--, 1-, H I-' H •-) H 1-' H H H H H H HH, 0) H n Cl.
H' co W A W Cr O1 CO H HO) A CD CO A W (:) W H H CO COCD CO CO CO cA 1-' 0
OD U1 W N I-' N H N 0D OD H N H F-' N ()1 N H H H H H H H N H N
H -t
• g)
CT;
00000 0000000 00 00 00 OCOMMCOMMOO U1 0
H H H H H HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH C) H I
1-, HI-, 1--, H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 1-' H HH H H-' Pzi
00000 0000000 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0
H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 1--, 1-, H H y
00000 0000000 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 12
H
H
I" 01 U1 J N �.) �1 -1 0)
N H CD H W 011 N CO N J •l H CO N) `...1CA) CO C''
H' N 0A �lAH' ACD U1 U1 W H CA) J CO CO 0 ) W (.D A
IV
1-4
A CO WNCOWU1O -1 U1 -10 W 0 A 0 0) CO N O1H 0 U1 0
A W W W W 0 0 A A O N W 0 cD HO 0 0 rn 0 cD 00 A 00 O 0 H
W OOOU1 cONAHOOcc 0 U1 AO 0 0 0 0 U1 CO A 00 0 0
000
CO H C Z1 Z1 C e) Z1 b 1-0 ZJ Z1 Z) (-) 0 0 u' H
H (D ct CD CD Cl C CD tri ¢) (D CD CD I) c1 A) — C)
a H HH,' 3 9 H' Cl)3 < 3 3 3 10 .d
OQ 11 H• H• H. H• CD H-
'0 H• c-t ct = I-'• ct 0 ct ct Cl = Cl '1 Cl
_ _ _ Cl I I Cl f° I H' I I A)
0 H• 0 LID H• H H. H 'T1 U) '71 H H H r'O
g) O Al A) (D Cn C7 ct H H H I 3 I tri
H. CD CD C CD C U) U) H H 0 tr1 '0 tr1
C C) I 0 ¢) a .C] h .0 7J
Cl Z CD CD trI U7 C7 0 < = C O C
• A) ''S 11 H C) CD H H• H• < H- Ci)
ct U) cD '1 H) a 0 '0 CD '0
R. H C) H. • H. OID • 9 •
0 t = ct 'CI U) CD
PO U) H- '1 ct 0 CO
CD )) • H) H. • o Cl
'0 U) cD () 3 m
H. '0
Cl
_ _ _ = Z t' td 3 H 117 H H C) U) '1 > C7
H. 0 p) = Z '0 1Z1 tr1 U) U) 0 rt ''S 11 C)
C C H U) ;l7 Cl Cl 3 ¢) CD n 'C
td C CD x' < U) > 3 ct = (D 0 C
CD CD (D Q) • t-' Z Z • cD Cl t'I
_ _ _ = H OQ CA '1 = I" H. A) il) W cG z
H 1) Cl U) H C) 1-1) cr Cl 0 H cC C] o
n 'I O - HJ CD-' cC Q) HH C7 CDD
O H. '1 H I I '.>-1 p) 0 Cn XI
t H-1) tri U) U) CD Cn = a Cl H•
H• CD H Qo Cn C C OQ • U)
Hy (D • )) g) (t) Fs CD cr
CD C) H x' x' C Cl)
= Cr '1 0 0 C 11 W
11 H- '0 '0 CD '7
H. Cr CD CD
C) C Cl) CD
CD •
H H C7
0) 01 01 -) N ',) 01 0)
' 0) Cu N) J v H C0 N) H CO
Cn H 01 C0 H CO �) CO ••Q00 0 0 CO A s�
O s4 -1 U1 0) W 0 A 0 Cr) cD N 0) O U7
A H U1 LO H 0 0 C 0 (0 CO A 0 0 0
co 01 0 U1 A 0 O O 0 01 00 A 0 0 0
co co co co co co co c0 co co co CO co co co [7
U1 U1 01 U1 U1 U1 U1 U1 01 01 01 U1 01 co 01 .x
0) Q1 0) O1 01 C71 0) 01 01 01 01 01 U1 U1 01 Z
CO CO •-) 0) 01 A W N) H 0 CO OD -) 0) U1 0
c
H Ci H ,.
.
41)
A N -A 1
N 0 LO
H A Ni [rzi
O 0 Ln to
• H '_.
CO 0 CO H .
CO Cb Cn O I-3 H 0 H a ,,
() H O/ H 0 H 0 Hn
I I I I cco 0 CO p
' -d0oO )�
1 Al OCD H H 0 1-' `'µ
'< l1 (n
S) a CD H
cr HHQ) cC I
H 0 H 0 CO CO
H '0 'T7 H 01 H
11 1-3 I5 'Tl • C)n
• il O C 0 H H H
cncca a 0 0 0
c-r Cn CD Q. H H H 9
n 0 0 0 0
CD H
c-r
CDIF-' I--'
-,l 0
.A CO
N 0 Ci
up IV cc, CO
co O Cn 0
O O .A CTI
v 0 CO 0 H
�1 O (.) H H
A CO O OP CO
N 0 CO CO CU Cl) H by
(D
CO CP ••••1 0 -A "0 8 3 H
'O H C)
0 -PCbO •-.1 H H c-r
J 0) N0 --.1 H I
0
CI) )1
CD H 7C
0
c-r U
G cn
(D
I Cf)
n
ct
2 t"
2 0
0
t" 2 P C
rt H CIC
2 0
t'1 H 0
I N.
I-F) Cn 0
0 Cr 0
n •
O
CD '0 Ca
3 p) Ni
CD 0 0
C H
Cr
H H
0 C)
Ni41. oo
0 (,)
Cp Ni co co
Co 0 Ui 0
0 0 - (n
•••1 O Cb 0
C)
LU LU L x
1 U1 CJ1 Z
U
0
N H 0
Member Cities and Towns
A Blackduck Clearbrook E. Grand Forks Gaylord Hitterdal
Blaine Clear Lake East Gull Lake Gem Lake Hoffman
Ada Blomkest Clearwater Easton Geneva Hokah
Adams Blooming Prairie Clements Echo Ghent Holdingford
Adrian Bloomington Cleveland Eden Prairie Gibbon Holland
Afton Blue Earth Climax Eden Valley Gilbert Hollandale
Aitkin Bluffton Clinton Edgerton Glencoe Holloway
Akeley Bock Clontarf Edina Glenwood Hopkins
Albany Borup Cloquet Effie Glyndon Houston
Alberta Bovey Coates Eitzen Golden Valley Howard Lake
Albert Lea Bowlus Cokato Elba Gonvick Hoyt Lakes
Albertville Boyd Cold Spring Elbow Lake Goodhue Hugo
Alden Braham Coleraine Elgin Goodridge Humboldt
Aldrich Brainerd Cologne Elizabeth Good Thunder Hutchinson
Alexandria Branch Columbia Heights Elko Goodview
Alpha Brandon Comfrey Elk River Graceville I
Altura Breckenridge Conger Elkton Grand Marais
Amboy Breezy Point Coon Rapids Ellendale Grand Meadow Independence
Andover Brewster Cook Ellsworth Grand Rapids International Falls
Annandale Bricelyn Corcoran Elmore Granite Falls Inver Grove Heights
Anoka Brooklyn Center Cosmos Elrosa Grasston Iron Junction
Appleton Brooklyn Park Cottage Grove Ely Greenbush Ironton
Apple Valley Brook Park Cottonwood Elysian Greenfield Isanti
Arden Hills Brooks Courtland Emily Green Isle Island View
Argyle Brooten Crookston Emmons Greenwald Isle
Arlington Browerville Cromwell Erhard Greenway Twp. Ivanhoe
Ashby Brownsdale Crosby Evans Greenwood
Askov Browns Valley Crosslake Evansville Grey Eagle J
Atwater Brownton Crystal Eveleth Grove City
Aurora Bruno Currie Excelsior Grygla Jackson
Austin Buckman Cyrus Eyota Gully Janesville
Avoca Buffalo Jasper
Avon Buffalo Lake DF Jeffers
Jenkins
Buhl H
BBurnsville Dalton Fairfax Jordan
Burtrum Danube Fairmont Hackensack
Babbitt Butterfield Danvers Falcon Heights Hallock R
Backus Darfur Faribault Halsted
Badger Darwin Farmington Hamburg Kandiyohi
Bagley CDassel Farwell Ham Lake Karlstad
BalatonDawson Felton Hammond Kasota
Barnesville CaledoniaDayton Fergus Falls Hampton Kasson
Barnum Callaway Deephaven Fertile Hancock Keewatin
Barrett Calumet Deer Creek Fifty Lakes Hanley Falls Kelliher
Battle Lake Cambridge Deer River Finlayson Hanover Kellogg
Baudette Campbell Deerwood Fischer Henske Kennedy
Baxter Canby DeGraff Flensburg Harwick Kensington
Bayport Cannon Falls Delano Floodwood Harmony Kenyon
Beaver Bay Canton Delavan Foley Harris Kerkhoven
Beaver Creek Carlton Dellwood Forada Hartland Kettle River
Becker Carver Dennison Forest Lake Hastings Kiester
Belgrade Cass Lake Dent Foreston Hawley Kilkenny
Bellechester Center City Detroit Lakes Fosston Hayfield Kimball
Belle Plaine Centerville Dexter Fountain Hayward Kinney
Bellingham Ceylon Dilworth Foxhome Hector
Belview Champlin Dodge Center Franklin Heidelberg L
Bemidji Chandler Donnelly (Renville Co.) Henderson
Bena Chanhassen Doran Frazee Hendricks La Crescent
Benson ChaskaDovray Freeborn Hendrum Lafayette
Bertha Chatfield Dover Freeport Henning Lake Benton
Bethel Chickamaw Beach Duluth Fridley Henriette Lake City
Bigelow Chisago City Dundas Frost Herman Lake Crystal
Big Falls Chisholm Dunnell Fulda Hermantown Lake Elmo
Bigfork Chokio Heron Lake Lakefield
Big Lake Circle Pines EG Hewitt Lakeland
Bingham Lake Clara City Hibbing Lakeland Shores
Birchwood Claremont Eagan Garfield Hill City Lake Lillian
Bird Island Clarissa Eagle Bend Garrison Hills Lake Park
Biscay Clarkfield Eagle Lake Garvin Hilltop Lake St. Croix Beach
Biwabik Clarks Grove East Bethel Gary Hinckley Lake Shore
26 MINNESOTA CITIES
Cable television conference slated Week in April 3d
devoted to
A national conference on the agreements. The conference is aimed C
mmunity beautificatio
municipal administration of cable at elected local officials, cable board
television is scheduled for May 16-18 members, administrators, and clerks. The fiat joW. __,-first..-.---Keeep America
in Madison, Wisconsin, by the All sessions will be held at the Beautiful Week will be observed
University of Wisconsin-Extension Wisconsin Center on the university April 18 through April 24. The
Communication Programs. campus. The conference begins Sun- weeklong event expands the KAB
The conference will discuss the day with a 4 p.m. reception. Pre- Day activities carried out in
basics of local regulation and utiliza- registration is recommended. The fee American communities for the past
( tion of cable television. Topics in- is $95.
11 years. Both observances are Spon
elude rate regulation, performance For more information, contact sored by Keep America Beautiful,
( monitoring, construction oversight, Barry Orton, University of Inc., a nonprofit public service
consumer complaints, networking Wisconsin-Extension, Communica- organization founded in 1953.
with schools, emergency uses, tion Programs, 220 Lowell Hall, 610 The event gives civic groups,
government channels, franchise fee Langdon Street, Madison, Wisconsin businesses, local officials, and other
options, community programming, 53706, (608) 262-2394. citizens the opportunity to show their
and updating ordinances and commitment to community improve-
ment through specific programs and
to receive positive recognition for
Computer to match communities, new industries their cooperative efforts. KAB Day
activities have included recycling,
beautification, restoration of historic
Minnesota's rural communities munity can then match its resources monuments, cleanups, educational
now have available a computer- with the needs of industries wishing efforts, and many others. A special
based program to help them find and to relocate. award competition will honor the
recruit new industries. The industrial The service is funded by a grant best KAB Week projects.
location service, housed at St. Cloud from the Minnesota Balance of State KAB is dedicated to promoting in-
State University, compares the re- Private Industry Council, Inc., a dividual responsibility for en-
quirements of industries which are group of business and community vironmental improvement. Its major
relocating or expanding with the leaders who develop and finance program, the Clean Community
resources of participating rural Min- programs which increase employ- System, is a behavioral approach to
nesota communities. ment opportunities. waste handling being implemented
To use this service, local officials To learn more about the service, in 241 cities and counties in 35 states.
work with regional development contact your regional development KAB reports that litter reductions up
planners to complete an inventory of commission or the Minnesota to 80 percent are being achieved and
the community's transportation ser- Balance of State Private Industry sustained through the system.
vices, labor force, energy sources, Council, (612) 296-5754 or (800) Further information on KAB Week
and existing industries. The corn- 652-9747. and materials are available from KAB,
99 Park Avenue, New York, N.Y.
10016, (212) 682-4564.
Viking WATERTOWER
4:10PrE SERVICES CO.
Box 187, C-7 • Bemidji, MN 56601 PAINT & REPAIR CO., INC.
(218)751.5828(24 Hours)
A.W.W.A. Member Prompt Service on Emergency Winter Work
Specialists in Pipeline Cleaning Cal; (515) 357-2101 — 357-2102
and Telespection Box 67, Clear Lake, Iowa 50428
Serving Consulting Engineers, Municipalities,
Contractors and Industry ''The Tank With The Red Roof"
March 1982 25