HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/04/1982 ";&L
ME1''O TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Non-agenda Informational Items
DATE: April 30, 1982
1 . Mr. John Maras called the City Clerk and indicated that he would
be willing to deed the current road easement in the area to the
City of Shakopee. Jack Coller is working on it now.
2 . We won one ! Judge Mitchell ' s Declaratory Judgment on the Shakopee
By-Pass Lawsuit was in our favor. Trevor Walston said that based
on the strength of the court ' s memorandum he doesn' t expect an
appeal .
3 . We have a City Hall copy of the "fact book" put out by the People
Interested in Education Committee answering questions about the
referendum. If you're interested call Jeanette, you could pick
it up at the end of the day.
4. Attached is the monthly calendar for May.
5 . Attached is the Fund Balance Summary for the period ending
March 31 , 1982 .
6 . Attached is a S .O.P. for securing building maintenance and
equipment that LeRoy will use in the future. It should insure
thorough contact with all local bidders in the future .
7 . Attached is a thank you letter from Barry Kirchmeier.
8 . Attached is a letter from Bob Schmitz responding to letters we
have sent him.
9 . Attached is a summary of Area Bond Sales from Ehlers & Associates
Newsletter.
10 . Attached is a purchase order I sent to Suburban Engineering
authorizing them to proceed, they have already begun work, on
the library railroad acquisition survey. In the future all
such work will have P.O. ' s to comply with Section I of our
annual contract . All but the smallest jobs will be run by
Council for a motion. This one was discussed but there was
only a consensus by Council .
11 . Attached is an interesting article about "Cities Taking the Lead
in Service Redesign" .
12 . Attached are the Planning Commission and Board of Adjustments
and Appeals agendas for May 6 , 1982 .
13 . Attached are the Ad Hoc Cable Communications Committee minutes
of April 26 , 1982 .
14. Attached are the Planning Commission minutes of April 15 , 1982 .
62z-4,?ad
j
•
i 1
H
r7
f1 -.1
N (-NI
•
n
H
Cv
rte- _ 00
,-d N N
c) O •
VI bt•-4 *.--.
.11
E-+ O
cC EM '
- 0 --
N-
-
N N
..` I +
(N >
OC
?.
'.--{ ri
> E E E
1.
N tea' (J a,
r r.--I CD •--4O 0
.nO ,-4OUo
,n cti .. N 0 " U •• p, ,c,
U N- r{ a+ -7 H if) r-+ N
G • • cn U
z
U) 0 • H • O
U - a,.. -) •
v U a
O
\I”-.1 •• CO •. • 00 .r., •• kn
Ur- Ur- ,--i .-+ Ur- N I
—4
y+ cn
L. • v •
u � a c� Qw
-O •,--1M EC S-+ C
M •• O r\ O .. . a •. -I
P-, 0 -.1- •--{ 0 %..0 4-• 00 N M
.t,
d
n
r'7
N M
O
7- N M
,.
y1 10 ul N n Q 00 •-.. 00 00 Oh u1 Q\ Oh co ul Oh O N 00 O N M
V \ 0 00 N. N. 1n .700u1 .7r. u1 cps .-1 ‘DON Ln ch 0 cOona0 N0ch 00 M
O. '.O I- 0N - Oo .-- 0 ,a 0 o ON en in MO N- M
C+" .-1 .7 -+ M N p �D 00 N M 0 �D ON M N N .7 r. 00 I I I 1 I I
A CO CI
N0 OT 00aD .-+ U0D .DNNN ,t .-. "+ O u1OQADr- r- 01ul o0000 ,n000OOO
W CO •-1 00 .-a M v1 .-r M "0 - �D SD -. - co .7 � -, •• -1 M 0 u1
0 01
.-,
u)
4)
N t.i
Q0 Z. -1 M ,-, u1 01 VD M r. CT N O O CO n 4D O 00 u1 Ch Ch N 01 r` 01
03 C)
I N N I u1 •0 ,-4
^ Ou1 CO r` MVDAD 0100 VO 00 O .7 VD Ch
.„I .d ^ I I I .70101 I I N- 0 T000A00 I '.Du100 u1N I N 1 1 1
^ O .7 -O ^ ^ ^ 0 O O - - -Co ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
A u a N N I v M I coN 00 1 I I M .7 u1 0 0 N 0 .7 0, c.1 00 01 0 -.7 01 'D 1- cV 0 10 0
H r M � �
>4 d W
N 0)
00 CO
$
N u1r- 00000 0 -400 00000 u1 un u10 -r mu100 000 u1
.4' `0. 00 '4) 0 'D --r0o0 '0 it) .7 'D0Lr NN00 .-4 MO\ M 00 N Oh
CO 13 � w0, k.0 .7 .70 I .7 u1r, wO u1 MqD V) Du100M00r, .-rN I -7M0VD I I I I I I
0 O ^ - 0 0 0 0 0 0
-� 4) C Ou1N 0N '0 I u1CAu1N I O N .-+ u1M '0u100CD MO\ --+ .-4 I CT .--r M '.D I I I I I I
00 W c01 .-1 O N N N O 00 Oh .--4 u1 .-a --+ N .7 N .. 00 00 N n CO
., •d n ..• -• N 00 VD
00 an 44
-C
U
-.
alN
00
. N CT M 01 O N O r-. u1 Q Ch N 'D M .7 n -4
•-r r`
N
'.-1 O r. u1r•. C4 .7 . rn I I I I I r` I I I I I I .7 .7 I N 1 01 I I I 1 MN I N- 1 r` I
^ ^ ^ ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ 0 0 ^0 0 0 0 ^ ^0 ^0 ^ 0
?+ do +� ) 0 1-4 N .-.4I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I .7 I I N I I I I ul CT I .7 I M
N M 1,
il
d CL)
N -ti
N
W N
U 03
^ u1 0000 OOu1M OOOOOvDu10000NOu1 00 u1 CD
'b CO .7 0000 OOu1r- 0u1000 .40 u1C>\ 0 -+ 000 0CD -4cr
PO ) 4) N O u1u10 I OOr. 00 I '.O Cr` OOu1 .70 .-1u1 -4000 1001010 I I I I I I
41 C CO O0 '.0 0 - 0I 0 N C'. u1 OI in 00 -, N Cr` in 1- M N U;C'. .7 u1 OI 0 `0 rr1 00 O O O O O O
:-7 b0 4) O'. --r N N M CO .4 O M -4 -4 N .. M u1 N N .-4 AD C)'. CO O N
'O > N .- -. -� -I N ON t.
v
01 6.L' N ^
i-. . 4 i-.
a ill N l I• CO CO .--i 00 7 N Cn Cn CO 111 CT M
O oo N- ("4 r•-• in .
r - -+
N CO00 N n CO
UN O r` O O M r, u1 O Oh 00 r. n -. Dr 00 n VD ul M .. O -4 N CT CA u1 M Ch N M
O 00 -, N vD O N .7 M vD O 01 ,1 --. Cm CO s r, u1 00 .-+ ,.D 0- u1 -4 u1 N vD u1 u1 I I I I I I
\ ^ ^ es es eh n es es es ^ ^ ^ ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0
cl -- Co .7 O, M 00 r` M as N. n u1 N 0 0 •-+ u1 u1 OM M u1 0 0 n 1.1.1 00 u1 r• '.0 Ch -1 I 1 I I 1 I
M \ M 01 r. 00 Oh O -00 n .7 'D r. C' u1 u1 r\ .. .7 r\ .7 to N --+ N N --+
.-+
4)
U
u? 44
b > q' u
6.0 boG 1+ u) I. 14 C U)
C O 'C) 7
04 C rn 3 u E a rn w U)
y cri
v.1 H
C0 MI
)`' > 00 u co u, w cn qo u) u) u) can 3 > 4o C Cy C o u
V.1 X w41
0 to .-d 4) 4.1C C C E C C C a > g M 6 E g B Na) u)
co 4) a x x °• !� q4) E E b. > E E a o E > > > > > > n v u F+ L
41) CU
04 1 > 4) E 4) 4) 41 0 41 v 4) L u 0 0 0 0
u C 41 a. x 4~) •4 oat o 0 o a. 0 0 0 V) • • a. a. a. n. o o b ~ " se
..--i aU ; U) •.•I .G to 04 't7 >~ L+ t. E 1. >r >~ rn •,i u E E C H u H C 1.
E K O 4) 5 H
Cu 41 04 4.1 p...'7 „ .>c v •-1 ti E E E~ E E E 3 F+ c/) H rE rEi rEi r, r-1 R .-1
. A 1.
1U) I- JJ p4 W I t.+ I.1 r4 x N H H of H H - 11C1 Q c) < d 1, Q. 040UqCCC •O 'LI.+ Q. C.Z 'C G • O OG 0- N M M . in '.D 1- - N- CS O .0 r-+ N ~ EC003m .1 7I.r 1--1 -D n r. r. l. r, r` r. r. r. r- Cl) N 00 co aovd•r1 udIt. C9 ' v c7 NG w a v) C) w - - - - - - - _ - - - - C) - -
- a) a w w 0-+ x
4)
'o
O 0 •--1 r-4 en .--1 '-I N N N M P'1 M .. N in ‘.01. co QN .-. N M .j in ,..0 r. 0O CT C) ^ .-1 N M 1 Li-, z.7 .7 1 LC-1Lnu1 ti-1u1 u1 ul in in 0o co co co oo oo
S.O.P. for Maintenance and Purchase of Government Building Equipment and
Equipment Parts.
1. The City shall publish a notice in the local newspaper requesting all
interested parties to provide quotes on any part of, or all work
required by the City.
2. Information regarding work to be completed will be available at City
Hall, 129 E. 1st Avenue, Shakopee, MN. (Contact Building Secretary,
Cora Underwood) .
3. In the event all local contractors do not respond within five days
after publication, a registered letter, return receipt requested, will
be sent to all known local contractors in the effected trade requesting
their participation in offering quotes.
4. After five days of receipt of registered letter, the contract will be let.
RECEIVED 7
APR 191982
CITY OP SHAKOPEE
918 Minnesota Street
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
April 17 , 1982
Shakopee City Council
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear City Council Members :
I wish to express my appreciation to you for the trust
and responsibility you have placed in me by the appoint-
ment to the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission.
I want you to know that I will strive to serve the best
interests of the citizens of Shakopee and that I will
always be open to communication with each of you.
Thanks for your support .
Sincerely, .
Barry Kirchmeier
BK/j k
RECEIVED
ROBERT J. SCHMITZ APR 2 3 1982
Senator 36th District
Route#1
Jordan, Minnesota 55352 CITY OF SHAKOP E Senate
Office:
235 State Capitol
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 State of Minnesota
Phone: (612)296-7157
April 20 , 1982
Mr. John K. Anderson
City Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 E . First Avenue
Shakopee , Minnesota 55379
Dear John :
Thank you for your many letters during the session expressing
concern for current legislation .
First of all , I want to apologize for my tardy response to
your letters . These last few weeks have been a day and night
struggle at the Capitol to keep ahead of our work so my
correspondence stayed on my desk a little longer than usual .
H . F. 1625 , known as the Rule of 90 Retirement Bill , was passed
with little opposition . The feeling was that in this day of
high unemployment the early retirement allowance would allow
senior workers to make room for young workers who may need a
job . It does not require retirement, but only after the age
and years of work total 90, can an employee be eligible.
The League of Minnesota Cities' representatives were in my office
to seek support for S . F. 2009 , relating to the League ' s Special
Service District bill . We stated to them we would support this
legislation allowing local units of government to make decisions
affecting their community needs . However , there was some very
strong opposition to this bill and it did not pass . I agree
with your assessment as to the effectiveness of MSA 429 and its
impact to make public improvements . I assume the League of
Minnesota Cities will be back in the 1983 regular session with
this legislation .
If we can be of further assistance to you please contact my
office at 296-7157 or my administrative assistant, Al Loehr ,
at 296-2011 .
Sincerely ,
ROBERT J . SCHMITZ
Chairman
Senate Veterans ' Affairs Committee
RJ 4UIVIMITTEES • Chairman, Veterans Affairs • Rules& Administration • Transportation •
Taxes & Tax Laws • Elections & Reapportionment
EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
FINANCIAL SPECIALISTS
FIRST NATIONAL-SOO LINE CONCOURSE 50RECEFIV.EDEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 339-8291 (AREA CODE 612)
�-' APR 2 ? 1982
File: Financial Specialists: Ehlers and Associates, Inc.
Please distribute to governing body members
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
May 1, 1982
Newsletter
The bond market struggles to come back, but with even a modest improvement the pent up demand for
long term funds surfaces and interest rates head up again.
There is no doubt that our concern of ages ago was
justified: Overuse of tax exempt financing has DOW JONES MUNICIPALS
diluted the interest saving inherent in tax exemption. 14
13
WEEKLY AVERAGEOF TWENTY
1 20 YEAR BONDS
11
LAST WEEK 13.88%
fO PREV.WEEK 13.81%
telt
9:91%
I9
J lBt A S 0 N 0 J , F NIA M J
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Monday, April 12, 1982
* * * * * * * * * *
Minnesota general obligation municipal bond interest rate limits are now one percent above the Bond
Buyer Index of 20, 20 year bonds, rounded to the next highest full percent, as determined by the
Commissioner of Finance on the 20th of each preceding month. G.O. bonds payable from special assess-
ments [sic], as well as non-G.O. bonds, have a one percent higher limit (15% for April).
* * * * * * * * * *
New ideas keep entering the tax exempt bond market such as "puts", letters of credit, insurance,
stepped coupon bonds, zero coupon bonds, mandatory call term bonds, each of which is said to be a
"sure" way to reduce interest rates. Some have promise, but, as with some old "new" ideas, such as
deep discount bids there are apt to be trade-offs. We tend to stay with proven ways until a clear
advantage is shown from novel approaches.
* * * * * * * * * *
Eden Prairie, Minnesota, completed its $18 million tax increment financing. Unique not only because
of its size (for tax increment projects in this area, at least) and because it was insured (first
AMBAC insured G.O. bonds in Minnesota), the financing is particularly noteworthy because of its pur-
pose. The City will now complete an extensive complex of Federal , Interstate, State, County and City
highway interchanges for which funds had dried up which will greatly improve traffic flow, public
safety, the prosperity of the City's major commercial center and the City's own economic base.
* * * * * * * * * *
Ehlers and Associates will have an interesting seminar on May 5 on coping with city revenue problems.
Invitations were limited to twelve counties in and around the metro area but some openings may remain
when this newsletter is received which will be available on a first come first served basis. The
cost is $15 to cover lunch and materials. This meeting will be repeated if there is a demand.
Very truly yours,
EHLERS A s 4.S0 I, ' S,
'Bbert L. Ehlers � N '
(7
SUMMARY OF AREA BOND SALES
Net Dow
Municipality Date Type of Bonds Amount Maturity Rate Jones Rating
MINNESOTA
Buffalo 2/22/82 G.O. Municipal Building Bonds 895M 1984-96 11.04% 13.66% A
Karlstad 2/23/82 G.O. Short-Run Nursing Revenue 500M 1984 9.53% 13.66% NR
Bonds
Mpls.-St. Paul Metro 2/16/82 G.0 Tax Anticipation
Area (Metro Council) Certificates of Indebt. 530M 1983 8.04% 13.81% MIG-1
Ostego 2/22/82 G.O. Improvement Bonds 255M 1983-92 11.05% 13.66% NR
Eden Prairie 3/2/82 G.O. Tax Increment Bonds 18,000M 1985-2000 11.99% 12.41% A
Eden Prairie 3/2/82 G.O. Improvement Bonds 4,300M 1984-95 11.38% 12.41% A
Chippewa County 3/3/82 G.O. Drainage Bonds 410M 1983-97 10.78% 12.41% A
South Washington 3/9/82 G.O. Aid Anticipation
County ISD No. 833 Certificates of Indebt. 2,830M 1982 8.99% 13.21% NR
Winthrop 3/16/82 G.O. Water and Sewer Bonds 300M 1984-88 10.06% 13.44% Baa-1
Albany 3/15/82 G.O. Improvement Bonds 67M 1983-92 11.53% 13.44% NR
Dilworth 3/24/82 G.O. Building Bonds 225M 1984-92 10.97% 13.71% Baa
Elk River ISD No. 728 3/30/82 G.O. Anticipation
Certificates of Indebt. 460M 1982 9.01% 13.76% NR
Elk River ISD No. 728 3/30/82 G.O. Tax Anticipation
Certificates of Indebt. 1,100M 1983 9.20% 13.76% NR
Nashwauk 3/30/82 G.O. Temporary Construction
Bonds 625M 1983 9.12% 13.76% A
Ramsey 3/30/82 G.O. Metropolitan Watershed
District Improvement Bonds 5,290M 1984-93 10.50% 13.76% Aaa
Washington County 3/30/82 G.O. Metropolitan Watershed
District Improvement Bonds 1,490M 1984-93 10.71% 13.76% A
Mahnomen 4/5/82 G.0 Grant Anticipation Bonds 170M 1984 9.29% 13.81% Baa
St. Paul ISD No. 625 4/6/82 G.O. Tax Anticipation
Certificates of Indebt. 10,050M 1982 8.94% 13.81% MIG-1
Willmar 4/7/82 Municipal Utilities
Revenue Bonds 2,700M 1984-96 11.65% 13.81% A
Willmar 4/7/82 G.O. Improvement Bonds 1,445M 1984-98 11.26% 13.81% A
Willmar 4/7/82 G.O. Tax Increment Bonds 850M 1985-95 11.40% 13.81% A
WISCONSIN --..,
La Crosse 1/28/82 Hospital Facilities Revenue
Bds. (St. Francis Hospital) 4,000M 1983-91 12.59% 13.96% A
Grafton 3/2/82 Promissory Un. Tax Notes 1,600M 1983-91 9.00% 12.41% A
Clark County 3/3/82 G.O. Health Care Facility
Revenue Bonds 8,650M 1983-91 11.62% 12.41% AA
Dousman 3/3/82 Special Assessment "B" Bonds 240M 1983-91 12.62% 13.41% NR
West Allis 3/16/82 Promissory Unlimited Tax
Notes 13,530M 1983-92 12.08% 13.44% Al
Rice Lake 3/23/82 Sewerage System Mortgage 2,000M 1984-93 12.13% 13.71% NR
Bonds
Holmen 3/30/82 G.O. Sewage Treatment Bonds 800M 1985-94 12.50% 13.76% Baa-1
Kenosha 4/5/82 Promissory Unlimited Tax
Notes 4,240M 1983-91 11.78% 13.81% A-1
La Crosse 4/6/82 Corporate Purpose Bonds 3,530M 1984-94 11.14% 13.81% Aa
Wauwatosa 4/6/82 Corporate Purpose Bonds 2,485M
Promissory Notes 200M 1983-94 10.65% 13.81% Aaa
Madison 4/6/82 Promissory Notes 5,400M 1983-92 10.27% 13.81% Aaa
NORTH DAKOTA
Grand Forks 3/15/82 Refunding Improvement Bonds 3,650M 1984-97 10.78% 13.44% Aa
SOUTH DAKOTA
So. Dak. Housing
Development Authority 3/16/82 Multi-Family Revenue Bonds 13,595M 1984-95 13.57% 13.44% A-1
2013 & 2022
Sioux Falls 3/30/82 G.O. Coupon-Water
Reclamation Bonds 3,150M 1984-1994 10.92% 13.76% Aa-1
Belle Fouche 4/5/82 G.O. Water Bonds 595M 1988-94 11.91% 13.81% Baa-1
IOWA
Marshalltown 2/24/82 Medical Clinic Revenue Bonds 6,660M 1983-93 10.06% 13.66% Aa-1
Waverly 3/22/82 Electric Revenue Bonds 7,100M 1983-97 12.93% 13.71% A
Sac City 3/15/82 Sewer Improvement Bonds 375M 1983-94 10.48% 13.44% NR
/0
CITY OF SHAKOPEE 01/1 ----:-_
,
129 East 1st Avenue PURCHASE 0111111
Shakopee, MN 55379 ORDER
Phone (612) 445-3650 •
TO /obi-AA/6a/,
Al C✓,r D
❑ 0 Fin Dept.
/ LI ila E. tat Ave. 334 W.2n
d
/6- 31 4l/,�� /
64 ' V ❑ Polls Dept. 0 Comm.Services
E 478 Gorman 129 E. Levee Dr.
m
uvrnM/ . i Iry s 3��Jo T o C5�Garage o
SHIP VIA: F.O.B.:
QUANTITY DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
i laiiiii cht/r 17-ei (1--i- hir .
./� 3 i. - Iiia r off'
.
40 , 6-/ M tOticvitc44,e_, ,
147cr'il'ti/ /)- (/'t„iipia Pik) ,
t x,,,, . i
( A ?LA 10"14-, "---Zy- -,/1-6 ,
r„ , di,-(,1,e, 1 "2--, .
/1......,7x . ,if
ar f il p 41 4 ,. /-7(Pc API, ---
....... .1 / , _
r r i-
2 � . .
. . .
,___ ,
_______
_ _
..... , .
�� ; .
w•
Department Aut izetion • C.y Administrator
Minnesota Sales Tax Exemption No. 8025237 I is -chase Order VOID unless signed
Indicate Purchase Order Number on Invoice by the Shakopee City Administrator
CL News
,,,,
VOLUME XXXI, NO. 8 PUBLISHED BY THE CITIZENS LEAGUE (UPS 114-180) APRIL 13, 1982
Cities TakingLead on Service Redesign
As the League's Services Committee was Such a system would be especially use- proceed to implement any kind of a deceit-
moving through its work, public officials in ful in a time of cutbacks. Latimer said. tralization scheme until it has some sort of
both Saint Paul and Minneapolis were dis- Currently, policymakers have two basic method to offset disparities in wealth.He
cussing and pushing for changes in the way choices, they must either cut back uni- said some sort of voucher system, or
they do business in forinly across services and geographic areas, "neighborhood credit card"might need to
order to restructure or raise taxes everywhere. They cannot be developed.
Update the delivery of public chose to lower service levels in only some As outlined by Latimer in his remarks,
services. areas, or raise taxes only in some areas, the city would not necessarily vary the
Saint Paul Mayor even if the people there would like to see level of assessment from arca to area.
George Latimer said at a recent CL Land- those things happen, Instead,all property owners would pay the
mark Luncheon that he would like to Minneapolis City Clerk/Coordinator same amount of money,and the neighbor-
establish a system in which the city would Lyall Schwarzkopf called the idea"decen- hoods would decide how to spend it.
provide certain basic service-like public tralization"when he spoke at a recent CL Resources would be equalized under this
safety, streets, and sewers—to all areas, Breakfast. Schwarzkopf said he had sup- system,with the decision-snaking apparatus
and leave decisions about additional ported a bill in the Legislature this year changed.
spending—on things like parks, libraries, which would have permitted municipalities
and recreation services—to individual neigh- to establish "special service districts" in Would Neighborhoods Have To Get
borhoods. which higher than normal levels of service Services From City Agencies?
Latimer said the basic services would be would be provided, and financed through
paid for by taxes, and decisions about ser- special assessments. The bill did not pass The League's Services Cornmittee
vice levels would be made at City flail just the Legislature. envisioned a system in which neighbor-
as they are now.Neighborhoods would be The impetus for the proposal,according hoods would be given the authority to hire
told how much money was available for to Schwarzkopf, is the situation with the any group they wanted to,in order to get
additional services, and could decide if Nicollet Mall. The Mall is an example of an various services delivered.Some might hire
they wanted to use it to plant trees,hire area of the city which gets extra service— the city crews, others choose private
recreational staff, or anything else they improved maintenance and other ameni- vendors,and still others use neighborhood
wanted- ties—which is paid for through a special volunteers. Flaherty said he did not think
Saint Paul director of finance Peter assessment on businesses within one block this kind of flexibility would be permitted
Hames said the city has,17 district planning of the Mall. Sentiment now is that other under the bill proposed to the Legislature.
councils and 40 identified neighborhoods. businesses in downtown Minneapolis bene- Hames said such authority would be a logi-
Any of these groups,or some other organi- fit from the Nicollet Mall,but do not help cal extension of the decentralization idea,
zation not yet in place,could serve as the pay the bill. but pointed out it is a major policy
suhcity unit to make decisions on services, Under the proposal Schwarzkopf took decision that has not yet been made in
according to Hames. The city has not to the Legislature,the city would be free Saint Paul.
worked out the details of any such plan to expand the boundaries of assessment
yet. areas and to create new ones,something it
cannot currently do.
90 Attend Flaherty
budget analyst Peter
aherty said the city is currently eonsid• Bi,"ks t Disc i
• ering the application of this concept only i-+
Water Seminar for business areas, in contrast to Saint Services Report
Nearly 90 people attended the Paul's focus on residential neighborhoods,
League's Water Quality Seminar on as well as the downtown.
Tuesday,April 13 at Tartan Park.Those Ronnie Brooks, chairman of the
in attendance heard speakers and What About Neighborhoods That League's Services Committee, will speak at
discussed water quality issues in the Cannot Pay? the Tuesday, May 18 Citizens league
state and region. Community Leadership Breakfast at the
The next issue of the CL NEWS will One of the problems with decentralizing Grain Exchange Cafeteria,Minneapolis.
have a complete story on the event, decision making or relying on increased use Brooks will discuss the report,the work
The CL seminar on Income Support of assessments is that different neighbor- of the committee, and the approach to
Policies is set for Monday. April 26 at hoods have different property values. service redesign the committee took.
Plymouth Congregational Church, and Critics fear a system in which well-off areas League Community Leadership Break-
the seminar on Public Subsidy for Pri- would have a high level of all services,and fasts run from 7:30 to 8:30 a.m.. and
vate Develpment will he held on poor neighborhoods high taxes and inade- include a question and answer period.
Thursday,April 29 at the Northwestern quate services, flames said this is a crucial Other League Breakfasts are listed on page
National Life Insurance building. issue.and the cit., of Saint Paul would not four of this issue.
PAGE 2 _
Citizens League Summary Report
A Positive Alternative:
Redesigning Public Service Delivery
, ............
Choice, competition, reward for per- tain or improve public service delivery about and manage service delivery,but
formance,and the reduction of subsidy are without a major commitment of new not necessarily to deliver services.
the hallmarks of redesigned public services, money. In its analysis of service delivery, the
and a new Citizens League report outlines The report outlines several different committee identified three central
a strategy for thinking about and moving methods to deliver services, and evaluates elements: the decider, the provider, and
towards new systems of public service the benefits of changing them, as well as the objective.
delivery. the applicability of the various alternatives. The first element in the model is the
The new report. entitled, "A Positive The committee developed a framework decider. The committee defined the
Alternative: Redesigning Public Service within which policy makers can evaluate decider as, "the person, group or entity
Delivery,' follows on the work of the the pros and cons involved in changing deli- that decides I)what services ought to be
League's Committee on the Issues of the very systems, but did not detail specific provided; 2) who ought to provide the
1980s,and more fully develops the idea of services it thought should be restructured. service;and 3)how the service should be
changing the way in which public services The committee said there are three main provided."
are structured and delivered. areas in which to change service delivery Today, the decider is typically an
"Substituting one service for another systems: elected official or government professional.
can save money,open up new alternatives • Allowing users, or consumers, of a For example,in education,the government
for people that want service, and provide service to determine the content and mandates what schooling is needed for
opportunities for new providers to deliver providers of services, instead of having children, and decides which school a
service," the committee said."There may, that decision made by government pro- student will attend.
however, be dislocations for those pro- fessionals. The second element is the provider—the
viding the service being replaced." • Allowing providers of services to individual or organization (public or pri-
The committee, chaired by Ronnie operate more as entrepreneurs in a corn- nate,non-profit or for profit)which actu-
Brooks,said the need to redesign services petitive environment,rather than as sole ally delivers the service. A hospital, the fire
is urgent now,and will continue to be as suppliers of service in a monopty department,and the highway maintenance
the fiscal pinch on the public sector con- environment, department are all service providers.
tinues. In addition to the continuing • Emphasizing, as service content, stra- The third element is the objective to be
revenue shortages, there is growing dissatis- tegies that promote prevention rather accomplished. Fire departments are there
faction with the performance of public than repair. to put out fires,hospitals to care for sick
sector delivery systems, the committee In order to implement these changes people,and road crews to fix streets.
said. successfully,several steps should be taken In the committee's analysis,changes in
Debate at the state, city, county, and to address the important policy concerns any of the three elements can be part of
school district level has concentrated on associated with service redesign, the corn- redesign strategies.
only two options: cutting services or mittee said.
raising taxes. As this debate goes on, the Specifically, the committee said steps Change The Decider
community is losing ground in the delivery should be taken to:
of important public services, especially in • Insure consumers have the economic The committee said redesign strategies
the area of public infrastructure. Over the power and the information necessary to are intended to encourage governments to
long run, failure to maintain the infrastruc- make meaningful choices. concentrate on making the decision about
Lure will weaken the economy and neces- • Attract providers of service and preserve what service should he provided,and leave
sitate increased public expenditures. competition among them. the actual delivery to others.
The redesign option opens a new door • Focus attention of those in government
for policy makers,allowing them to main- on their primary responsibility to deride (SERVICES continued on Page 3)
PAGE 3
(SERVICES continued from Page 2) Schools contract for bus service,and could might sell its service to another unit of
Charging tees, using vouchers, charging contract for counseling service or food government,in this example.
assessments,giving people cash, privatizing service.
the service, or decentralizing it are all The state contracts for some road and Change Service Objective
examples of changing the decider. bridge maintenance, but not all. Minnea-
Charging fees permits providers of a polis does a good deal of its construction The third redesign option is changing
service to measure how much service is in-house, other municipalities typically the service objective.Here,the committee
demanded by the public. Service can afire jobs out. found one example: the substitution of
reflect consumer preferences rather that? "One of the essential advantages of
g prevention for repair.
bureaucratic judgments about what can he contracting is that it creates opportunity Recycling, preventative medicine, and
provided and in what quantity. for change,for buyers to change providers fireproof buildings are all examples of pre-
A familiar example. of a voucher plan is and for providers to gain more work by vention,rather than repair.
the GI Bill,which subsidized education to performing well," the committee said. Recycling reduces the need for publicly-
veterans. Each individual could choose "These opportunities are the economic supported landfills; preventative medicine
the institution he or she wished to attend, incentives for providers to be efficient and the need for hospitalization;and fireproof
and what courses to study. Educational innovative." buildings the need for fire trucks.
institutions all over the country have Contracting also requires discipline Committee members are: Ronnie
redeemed GI Bill vouchers. about deciding just what service is wanted, Brooks, chairman; Jane Anderson, Eric
Most taxpayers are familiar with assess- how performance will he measured, and Bauman, Peter C, Brown, Charles Clay,
meats, which are mandatory levies but how much will be paid. Frequently, ser- John Costello, Tom Eggum, Scotty
levied only on those individuals or busi- vice quality in areas of government respon- Gillette, Max Goldberg, Sonia Bowe-
nesses which are presumed to benefit sibility is difficult to measure. Moreover, Gutman, Peter Hames, Mary Healy,
from the service. Through assessments, in some areas of public services,there are Edward Hennen, Dean Honetschlager,
people know just how much they have few organizations ready to provide the ser- William C. Johnson, Ron Kaatz, Jay
been charged for a given service,like street vice besides the public agency involved. Kiedrowski, Todd Lefko, Richard Little,
repairs, and are therefore better able to Government-to-government contracting Barbara Lukermann, Vici Oshiro, E. H.
evaluate the utility of the services is a potential method of redesign.A county Ross, Steven Rothchild, Janet Shapiro,
rendered. might contract with a municipality for Imogene Treichel,Tom Triplett,and David
police service, and a fire department Winter.
Change The Provider
Besides changing the decider, an- Report Offers Many Specificother redesign strategy is to change the
provider. Use of volunteers and contracting • , r'
are the main strategies identified by the SI %T1Ce e(leSi ! Suggestionscommittee in this area. �✓�
Minnesota makes extensive use of volun I�t' r ,
teer fire departments, for example. Fire "This report is inten.ed to serve as a Commission were listed, and suggestions
suppression costs are lower here than the road map for those elected officials, were listed in changing deciders, provi-
national average,according to U.S.Census government professionals,and community ders,and objectives.
figures. The committee suggested the use leaders involved in the debate over public The second appendix consisted of a
of volunteers may be a logical option for service delivery systems in ways which will, service redesign matrix,which listed policy '
other services as well. in the long term, provide better service at considerations related to the implementa-
Contracting is another major way to less cost, We hope they will examine the tion of each strategy,
change the service provider. Contracting report and use it to generate and evaluate The matrix was intended for use as a
does not necessarily mean contracting for specific redesign proposals, understanding guide for making decisions about how
the whole job,or contracting with a non- the policy implications and general applica- to redesign services.Strategies for redesign
governmental agency, the committee said. bility of each." were listed and defined. Questions about
To this end, the report contains two the applicability of the various strategies
appendices which detail specific redesign were listed to help policy makers deter-
Options, and evaluate the policy considers- mine their use. Policy considerations
__� tions of the various redesign options. related to the implementation of each
� -
The first appendix lists 46 opportunities strategy were also listed,along with techni-
CL N S(114-180)is published bi- the committee said should receive atten- ques to aid in successful implementation.
we ly for $20 per year by the Citizens non. Suggestions include providing In addition,a general evaluation of the
L ague, 84 S. (sth St.,Minneapolis. MN vouchers for the long-term care of the various strategies was included.
5 402. Second Class postage paid at elderly, vouchers for job training, con- The matrix rated each of the redesign
NI nneapolis.MN. POSTMASTER: Send' tracting for highway maintenance, options in each of the four major criteria:
ad ress change to same address. contracting with insurance companies for reduction of public subsidy, promotion of
tire suppression and prevention,and using performance, promotion of competition
_______;;,/
cash grants for mental health counseling. among vendors, and expansion of choices.
Suggestions li)r state, county, city These criteria were rated either high.
government.and the Metropolitan Transit moderate,or not applicable.
J--
-
TENTATIVE AGENDA
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA MAY 4, 1982
Mayor Reinke presiding
1] Roll Call at 7 :00 P .M.
2] Approval of Minutes of April 6th and 20th, 1982
3] Communications :
a] A & K Construction, Inc . re : request for waiving of bldg.
permit fee
b] Municipal Finance Officers Assoc . re : minimum income tax
affecting the tax-exempt bond market
c] Eugene A. Brown re : real estate tax on Outlot A of
Wermerskirchen' s 2nd Addition
d] Robert Friendshuh re : interest on 3rd Avenue Watermain improve-
ment
4] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers
5] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS :
6] Old Business :
a] Suggestions for appointments to League of Mn. Cities Board
of Directors ( see 4e of April 20th meeting)
b] Building Permit Moratorium on Private Streets Serving
Residential Developments
c] Lindstrand/Grayson Assessment Appeal - CR-16 Utilities (coming
d] Soil Conservation Grant for Horizon Heights
Monday)
e] 1981 Annual Report (bring 10b of April 20th meeting)
f] Amendment of City Code on Parking Regulations During Snow
Removal
7] Planning Commission Recommendations :
a] Preliminary Plat of Valley Park 7th Addition
8] Resolutions and Ordinances :
a] Res. No. 2001 , Establishing A Policy for Issuance of Parking
Permits
9] New Business:
a] 8 : 25. P .M. PUBLIC HEARING - Application from the Cornelius Co.
for $1 , 500,000 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds
b] Draft "Comments to the Joint Legislative Commission on
Metropolitan Governance"
c] Request by City Planner for a Leave of Absence
d] Junk Cars/City Wide Clean-up
e] Minnesota Housing Finance Agency' s "Accessory Housing"
Home Improvement Loan Program
f] Stipulation on Valleyfair, Inc . , vs . County of Scott
g] Firemen' s Annual Physicals (bring 6f of April 20th meeting)
h] Reapportionment of Precincts in Shakopee (bring 10h of April 20)
i] City Code Requiring Payment of Taxes Prior to Granting a Beer
or Liquor License
j ] Approve bills in total amount of $44, 52.6. 16
TENTATIVE AGENDA
May 4, 1982
Page -2-
10] Consent Business:
a] Bid Proposal on Propane Tank/Dispensing Equipment
b] Abatement of Special Assessments on City Property
c] Traffic Accident Review and Recommendations
11] Other Business:
a] Engineering Department Monthly Report
b] Discussion by the Mayor about ways to address street
maintenance problems that are too large for patching,
but don' t fit the full improvement project category either
c]
d]
e]
f
12] Adjourn to Tuesday, May 18th, 1982 at 7 :00 P .M.
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
3
/U`.
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
Shakopee Planning Commission
Regular Session Shakopee, Minnesota May 6 , 1982
Chrmn. Schmitt presiding
1. Roll Call at 7 : 35 P.M.
2. Approval of Minutes from April 15 , 1982 meeting.
3. 7 : 35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED : Request for a Conditional
Use Permit for a shoe repair shop as a home occupation in
garage.
Applicant : Wilfred Latour, 322 E. 6th Avenue
Action : Approve/Deny Conditional Use Permit Resolution No . 298
4 . 7 :45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING : Multi-family dwelling in B-3
Zone.
Applicant : Gary and Randy Laurent , 118 Fuller
Action : Approve/Deny Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 300
5 . 7 : 55 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Amendment to Shakopee City Code,
Section 11. 05 , Subd. 8, entitled "Mobile Homes" , Item D.
Applicant : City of Shakopee
Action : Recommendation to City Council
6 . Final Plat of Hauer' s 2nd Addition, plat lying E. of Austin
St . , W. of Hauer' s 1st Addn. & So. of 11th Ave.
Developer: Gene Hauer, 2088 Hauer Trail
Action: Recommendation to City Council
7. Discussion: Residential Lot Size Requirements
8. Information Items :
a) Minnesota Planning Association Membership
b )
c )
9 . Other Business
10. Adjournment
Don Steger
City Planner
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
Boa.rd of Adjustments and Appeals
Regular Session Shakopee, Minnesota May 6 , 1982
Chrmn. Schmitt presiding
1. Roll Call at 7 : 30 P.M.
2. Approval of Minutes of April 15 , 1982 meeting.
3 . Other Business
4 . Adjournment
Don Steger
City Planner
/
AD HOC CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
Shakopee , Minnesota
Special Session April 26 , 1982
Chairman Foudray called the meeting to order at 7 : 10 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of City Hall , with Committee members present :
Abeln, Christensen, Davis , Gorman and Kirchmeier. Also present
was Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant .
The meeting scheduled for April 21 , 1982 , was not held due to a
lack of a quorum. The business scheduled for that meeting was
carried over to this meeting.
I:irchmeier/Christensen moved to accept the minutes of March 24,
1982 , as presented. Motion carried.
Administrative Assistant , Jeanne Andre , reviewed the materials
provided in the agenda packet .
Chairman Foudray introduced discussion of the request by Progress
Valley Totalvision to videotape the public hearing. No specific
objections were raised although members questioned why the company
wants to videotape the meeting and suggested that permission should
be granted to both companies proposing to serve Shakopee .
Discussion began on the award of the franchise . The service tiers
and charges proposed by each company were reviewed. Mr. Kirchmeier
indicated that questions have recently been raised on the cable
consultant ' s capability and the impartiality of the evaluation. It
was the concensus of the Committee that it stands by the credibility
of the Consultant ' s report . Means of applying the criteria and
weights included in the Request for Proposals were discussed. Staff
agreed to provide a matrix of the criteria and weights with columns
for numbers and comments for the April 28 , 1982 , Committee meeting.
Kirchmeier/Abeln moved to prepare a written report to Council re-
garding the Committee ' s findings in selection of the franchise ,
request to be placed on the City Council agenda and orally present
the recommendation and rationale to the Council . The motion was
withdrawn to allow for further thought and discussion at the next
meeting.
Mr. Gorman announced he will not be able to attend the public hearing.
Davis/Gorman moved to adjourn to April 28 , 1982 , at 7 : 00 p.m. Motion
carried . Adjourned at 7 :45 p .m.
R. Gene Foudray
Chairman
Jeanne Andre
Recording Secretary
/4y
PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPFE, MINNESOTA APRIL 15, 1982
Chrm, Schmitt called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. with Comm. Stoltzman, Rockne,
Perusich, Koehnen and Coller present. Also present were Don Steger, City Planner;
John K. Anderson, City'Admr. and Cncl. Vierling.
Rockne/Coller moved to approve the minutes of March 4, 1982 as kept. Motion carried
with Comm. Perusich abstaining because of his absence at that meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION - WHIPPS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: (PC 82-6C) :
Coller/Perusich moved to continue the public hearing on the request for a CUP to
allow a mobile home on a family farm for a second 5 year term. Motion carried
unanimously.
The City Planner stated he had received a written opinion from the City Attorney
regarding this CUP request. He listed the alternatives for handling the request,
which included amending the Zoning Ordinance regarding mobile homes. Discussion
followed regarding amending the Zoning Ordinance.
Koehnen/Coller moved to continue the public hearing to June 3, 1982 due
to supplementary action by the Planning Commission. Motion carried unanimously.
Coller/Perusich moved to direct staff to set a public hearing for the May 6th
meeting to amend Shakopee City Code, Zoning Ordinance, Section 11.05, Subd. 8,
"Mobile Homes", Item D, to read, "The mobile home may be placed on the property
for one 5-year term and reissued at the discretion of the Planning Commission."
Motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - Preliminary Plat of Valley Park 7th Add'n (PC 11P)
Colligan/Stoltzman moved to open the public hearing regarding the preliminary plat
of Valley Park 7th Addition. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner stated the applicant is Scottland, Inc. , and the staff is recommend-
ing approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to 12 conditions. He stated this is a
nine lot industrial subdivision located south and southwest of the intersection of
Valley Industrial Blvd.. So. and Valley Park Drive, in the Valley Industrial Park.
Gary Eastlund, representing Scottland, Inc. , stated that this project involved 106
acres, and the platting process was very involved in order to deal with access and
drainage matters. He explained the drainage as it relates to the Joint Powers Agree-
ment between Shakopee and Spring Lake/Prior Lake Watershed District and how that all
relates to Dean's Lake. He stated there were some irregular shaped lots because of
boundage by the railroad tracks. He passed out aerial photographs of the area, and
stated he had no problem with the tree preservation plans. He stated the only prob-
lem he had was with the Engineer's report regarding street extensions. He stated
he cannot afford to extend the road before the area is developed.
Chrm. Schmitt stated his concern that the railroad tracks could block 4 parcels, and
feels some alternative access should be provided for those parcels.
Comm. Czaja expressed his concern about road surface contaminants (such as petroleum
' Shakopee Planning Commission
April 15, 1982
Page 2
products) which would run off and eventually enter Dean's Lake.
Gary Eastlund explained that the plat has been looked at by the environmental
agency and received verbal approval. They propose to use a skimming device for
surface runoff before tt enters Dean's Lake, which would take care of any possible
contaminants. The City Engineer referred to a study by Barr Engineering which
recommended a skimmer for protection of Dean's Lake, and stated this would be ade-
quate protection. Further discussion was held regarding the watershed district and
high water level of Dean's Lake and downdraw effect of Shiely's pumping.
The City Engineer explained that his concern for the road extension to 0R83 before
1987 or when the area is 70% developed was for emergency service to the area. It
doesn't have to be an elaborate road, just an adequate access for emergency vehicles.
Chrm. Schmitt asked if there were any comments from the audience, and there were
none.
Perusich/Czaja moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Coller/Stoltzman moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Preliminary
Plat of Valley Park 7th Addition, subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of Title Opinion by the City Attorney.
2. Cash payments be made to the City, at the time of Building Permit issuance, in
lieu of park dedication.
3. Two tree preservation plans be provided for the City Planner's review. One tree
preservation plan for the grading and road and utility installation
part of the Developer's Agreement. The other tree preservation plan for the lot
development shall be submitted at the time of each Building Permit application.
4. The railroad right-of-way in Lot 4, Block 1 must be subject to the City easement
so that the City shall not be required to keep and maintain a license for any
utility undercrossings installed in City easement.
5. The design flow from the sanitary sewer service area exceeds the capacity of
existing facilities when proper peak factors are used in accordance with City
of Shakopee Design Criteria. An exception can be made so long as the developer
and future property owners understand peak discharge rates must be limited to
three times the average flow of 2,000 gallons per acre, per day, as specified in
the Comprehensive Plan.
6. This subdivision proposes a public lift station. The lift station is considered
acceptable provided:
a. The pump station must be installed pursuant to City criteria and shall have
a wet well and dry well, together with a three pump system and axillary power.
b. The system may be a package system of approved design conforming to City of
Shakopee Design Criteria.
c. A special lift station surcharge be added to the sewer service bill to capture
100% of the cost of maintaining the lift station. The developer should supply
cost data from private firms that maintain lift stations on a contract basis,
then compute the present worth of additional maintenance and equipment re-
placement cost so that the City and any properties served by the lift station
understand the full cost.
7. Street extensions are now long cul-de-sac extensions that are suitable if 11th
Ave. is extended west to CR83. Prior to final plat approval, the developer should
guarantee the extension of 11th Ave. west to CR83 by agreeing to construct 11th
Ave. by 1987 or when the development of Valley Park 7th Add'n is 70% complete,
whichever is first.
Shakopee Planning Commission
April 15, 1982
Page 3
8. The drainage system uses a combination of open-channel and closed conduit.
The preliminary plat does not identify all of the laterals required. Final
plans will require more detail and must include all of the remaining laterals.
Storm water from Valley Park 3rd Add'n, Kmart site, and Valley Park 7th Add'n
discharge to Dean's Lake which in turn discharges to the Dean's Lake Outlet
which is proposed for reconstruction by the Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed
District. In the 'event the Watershed District does not proceed with plans to
reconstruct the channel from Dean's Lake to Blue Lake, the developer must im-
prove Dean's Lake Outlet from Dean's Lake to the south line of the Kawasaki
property in Section 10, so that the channel has a capacity for the developed
run-off.
9. Part of Lot 4, Block 1 is now railroad spur track. Prior to final plat appro-
val, all of the spur track right-of-way and any proposed spur track right-of-
way should be included in lots so that proper City easements for drainage and
utility easement can be dedicated.
10. Utility easements in Lot 4, Block 1, are insufficient for construction and re-
construction of the proposed utilities. This must be corrected at the time of
the final plat review.
11. The developer must obtain all agreements, licenses or permits for all utility
crossings.
12. Execution of a Developer's Agreement for the construction of the required im-
provements:
a. Street lighting be installed in accordance with the requirements of Shakopee
Public Utilities Commission;
b. The water system be installed in accordance with the requirements of Shako-
pee Public Utilities Commission;
c. Sanitary and storm water sewer systems be installed in accordance with the
requirements of the City Engineer;
d. Street improvements be made in accordance with the requirements of the City
Engineer.
e. Tree Preservation Plan to be submitted at the time of grading, road &
utility installation. Motion carried unanimously
PUBLIC HEARING - LATOUR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PC 82-12C) :
Perusich/Stoltzman moved to open the public hearing regarding the request for a
CUP for a shoe repair shop as a home occupation in his garage located on Lot 8,
Block 79, Original Shakopee Plat. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner stated the applicant is Wilfred Latour, who wishes to operate a
shoe repair facility in his detached garage located at 322 East 6th Ave.
The City Planner reviewed the conditions of the request, one of which was that no
customers were to be allowed to enter the garage for shoe repair services because
the City Building Inspector has indicated the garage does not meet the building
code standards for a retail facility. He stated staff is recommending approval
subject to 6 listed conditions.
Mr. Latour stated he didn't understand why no one could enter his garage for the
shoe repair business. What is he to do if someone comes to the building. He also
stated that if this request is granted, he will close his retail shop downtown.
He stated he has a double car garage in which he proposes to partition off one
stall to use for the shop. It would be approximately 8' x 24' , and the garage is
not more than 5 years old. He stated he was not told what has to be done to his
building to bring it up to retail requirement.
Further discussion ensued regarding what requirements were needed to meet retail
code, which was unknown.
Shakopee Planning Commission
April 15, 1982
Page 4
Ms. Eugena Broeggeman stated she lives west of the garage and she is not fond of
having a repair shop there.
Coller/Stoltzman moved to continue the hearing until May 6, 1982 to receive clari-
fication from the Building Official as to the requirements for a retail facility.
Motion carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION: Karl Bohn=Property Not Abutting Dedicated Street?
City Planner stated that Karl Bohn had requested the City to waive Section 11.03,
Subd. 71 of the Shakopee City Code in order for him to obtain a Building Permit
for a landlocked parcel of property located E. of Co. Rd. 89 in NE4 of Section
13-115 So.-22 W. The Zoning Ordinance requires frontage on a public dedication
street in order for a Building Permit to be issued. Mr. Bohn stated he does have
an easement to a roadway, which serves a housing development located South of
Maras 1st Addition and commonly known as the "Maras Road". However, this is a
privately-owned road by John Maras and also not a public dedicated street. He
added there are about 20 homes on this roadway which had been built before City
annexation or with City Council authorization. He then enumerated alternatives
for handling his request.
Discussion centered on the possibility of the City acquiring all the potential
roadway easement in this development and including the easement to Mr. Bohn's
parcel which could then possibly be connected in the future with Savage. The
City Admin. stated the Council will be handling a petition by homeowners in
this development for the City to maintain this private road.
Coller/Koehnen moved that pursuant to the City's efforts to acquire this private
road easement from Mr. Maras, that they also make attempts to acquire roadway
easement providing access to Mr. Bohn's parcel of property and that details of
this accessory easement to the easterly edge of the property be worked out with
the City Engineer. This must also be a dedicated public road. Motion carried
unanimously.
Coller/Perusich moved to recommend to City Council that no further Building
Permits be issued to parcels abutting the roadway which serves the lots of
record East of County Road 89 in the Northeast quarter of Section 13, Township
115 South, Range 22 West, until the road owned by John Maras and the easement
to the Bohn property have been dedicated to the City. Motion carried unanimously.
Chrmn. Schmitt declared a 2-minutes recess at 10:22 P.M.
Chrmn. Schmitt called the meeting back to order at 10:22 P.M.
DISCUSSION: Brooks Superette Request for Fuel Service Facilities:
The City Planner stated that two options were presented with the request for a fuel
service facility at Brooks Superette. Staff recommends Option No. 1, which sould
be to interpret the Zoning Ordinance to include gasoline sales as a normal and
integral component of a convenience store. The other alternative would be to
amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow convenience stores with accessory gasoline
sales in high-density multi-family residential districts. He also stated that
at the request of Chrmn. Schmitt, he under took two surveys. The first was to
check surrounding communities as to their Zoning Ordinances for convenience stores
Shakopee Planning Commission
April 15, 1982
Page 5
and gasoline sales. The result of that showed there is no standard for zoning
convenience and gasoline sales. The second survey showed that gasoline was not
an accessory use, but a very dominant use to the convenience store. Generally,
gasoline sales were at least 75% of total dollar sales and at least 50% of total
transactions.
Peter Beck, attorney, spoke for Brooks Superette and stated they do not anticipate
the gas sales at Brooks will be nearly that high. It is just the trend across the
country to add gasoline as part of the convenience store. Brooks Superette feels
this is necessary to remain a viable and competitive convenience store.
Keith Carlson of Brooks Superette stated they expect total dollar sales of gasoline
to be about 50%. He stated it must be remembered that the average sale in the store
is $1.50, and the average tank of gas is $15.00, and that is why it appears the gas
is a dominant use, even if they might have only 100 cars for gas and 600 for other
sales.
Mr. Beck stated that according to the Zoning Ordinance, Brooks is now a legal non-
conforming use. Under this ordinance they may continue the size and manner of use
or the nature can be changed to a similar non-conforming use. He feels that gas
sales could fit into either of those categories. They are talking about 4 pumps
out in front of the store, with a canopy, and berm and screening for storage tanks.
The City Planner clarified that the Planning Commission's task is to interpret the
Zoning Ordinance to determine if it is appropriate for a convenience store to have
gas sales as a normal and integral part of the convenience store. Gasoline service
stations per se are only allowed in B-1 Zone.
Chrm. Schmitt stated that it was an intentional statement of policy when the new
Zoning Ordinance was made, to only allow gas stations along Hwy. 169 and 101, in
the B-1 Zone. Chrm. Schmitt passed the gavel to Vice-Chrm. Perusich.
Discussion followed on the effect of additional traffic in this residential area.
Mr. Carlson stated this installation is not geared to a high volume of gas sales;
this is just an extension of the grocery business. They serve 600-700 customers
a day, and gas sales would be just an extension of this business. They are not
looking to pull traffic off the streets just for the gas sales.
Chrm. Schmitt expressed his concern with expanding the existing capacity of a 24
hour facility in a residential area. He is concerned with getting the surrounding
property developed, and doesn't feel adding a lot more traffic would be attractive.
The City Planner stated he didn't think it would be a conflict of land use if this
convenience store adds gas sales, as immediately across the street is B-2 Zone,
which could locate a more disruptive facility. Also, residences are not located
very close to this site.
Comm. Koehnen expressed her concern about traffic at the intersection of GR16 and
0817 and site line problems that could exist with the canopy and storage tanks.
Comm. Coller stated he recalled attempts to keep gas sales in B-1, and is concerned
about setting precedent if gas sales are allowed as an accessory use to a convenience
store.
Shakopee Planning Commission
April 15, 1982
Page 6
Mr. Beck stated that the situation at Brooks is unique in the City. He also added
there was no opposition in the neighborhood at their prior application for re-zoning
of this property to B-1. The gas sales would change the existing use, but would
change it to a similar use. Further discussion followed regarding re-zoning.
Coller/Schmitt moved tb go on record as interpreting the Zoning Ordinance to not
allow gasoline sales as an integral component of convenience stores, and to suggest
to the developer if he wishes to pursue gasoline sales in his location, that he
apply for re-zoning. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Beck informally polled the Commissioners as to their feelings on re-zoning this
property to B-l.
Chrm. Schmitt took back the gavel.
DISCUSSION: Minor Amendments to the Zoain` Ordinance:
Discussion was held on minor wording and typographical changes to the Zoning
Ordinance. The consenses was to place these minor changes in pending and add
them to a major zoning amendment, is;sue which wi I I require a public hearing,
rather than going through the time and expense of a public hearing at this point.
Discussion was held with the City Engineer on possible corrections to the City
designated Flood Plain areas.
Coller/Stoltzman moved to have the minor wording amendments and any major code
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance considered simultaneously and also to have the
City Engineer present his suggestions for conforming the City Flood Plain
designation brought back to the Commission for recommendation to the City Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION: Meeting Procedures:
Discussion was held on suggestions for Planning Commission/Board of Adjustment
and Appeals meeting procedures. The consensus was to review the procedural items
adopted by the City Council and incorporate some of these ideas in Planning
Commission and Board of Adjustments and Appeals meetings.
Informational Items :
Rockne/Perusich moved to accept staff's favorable review of Conditional Use
Permit Resolution No. 286, operation of a dog kennel in a R-1 Zone, Roy Simmons,
applicant. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner informed Commissioners that the new lot split policy worked
very smoothly when used for the first time in Eastview 1st Addition.
Staff was instructed to check with legal counsel regarding the placement of
stop signs and/or warning lights at the Minnesota Valley Mall. Staff was also
requested to request the Police Department to ticket illegal parking at the Mall.
Shakopee Planning Commission
April 15, 1982
Page 7
The City Planner stated the staff position regarding headend facility location for
cable TV. Comm. Perusich suggested checking the height limitations regarding Fly-
ing Cloud Airport airspace.
The City Planner stated the industrial plant tour for Rahr Malting was tentatively
scheduled for June 3. The Kmart Distribution Center stated that because of security
problems, they cannot schedule plant tours for evenings or week-ends.
Coller/Czaja moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at
12:10 A.M.
Don Steger
City Planner
Diane Beuch
Recording Secretary
PROCEEDINGS OF THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APRIL 15, 1982
Chrm. Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. with Comm. Perusich,
Koehnen, Stoltzman, Roekne, Czaja and Coller present. Also present were Don
Steger, City Planner and Cncl. Vierling.
Rockne/Coller moved to approve the minutes of March 4, 1982 as kept. Motion carried
with Comm. Perusich abstaining because of his absence at that meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING - WIGGIN VARIANCE REQUEST (PC 82-13V)
Perusich/Coller moved to open the public hearing on the request for a blanket 20'
front yard variance and blanket 5' side yard variances for Lots 1, 2 and 3 of
Block 1 of Minn. Valley 5th Add'n and for all eight lots of Minn. Valley 6th Add'n.
Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner explained that the applicant is David Wiggin, and enumerated the
considerations in this request. He stated staff recommends that the variances be
denied because without site plans blanket variances are not justifiable and hard-
ship has not been demonstrated. It was platted since the new Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Wiggin stated that he is not asking for a variance off the back yard, and even
with the variance his buildings will still be set back farther than a nearby develop-
ment. He stated they may not use the variance on each lot, but just requested a
blanket variance so they would not have to keep coming back to the Planning Commission
for each lot. He stated he didn't think a 30' setback was unreasonable on a cul-de-
sac. He further explained plans for the development. Further discussion followed.
Koehnen/Perusich moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Perusich/Koehnen offered Variance Resolution No. 299, a request for 20' front yard
and 5' side yard variances from setback requirements for Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1,
Minn. Valley 5th Add'n and Lots 1-8, Block 1, Minn. Valley 6th Add'n, and moved its
denial based on non-complaince with Shakopee City Code, Section 11.04, Subd. 5A:
Item No. 1 - Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which
do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result
from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of
property since enactment of this Chapter have had no control; and
Item No. 2 - The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Chapter would
deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same
district under the terms of this Chapter; and
Item No. 3 - That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the
actions of the applicant; and
Item No. 4 - That granting of the variance requested will not confer on the applicant
any special privilege that is denied by this Chapter to owners of other lands, struc-
tures or buildings in the same district; and
Item No. 5 - The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate
the hardship.
Motion carried unanimously. Variance Resolution No. 299 denied.
Shakopee BOAA
April 15, 1982
Page 2
Chrm. Schmitt explained that the applicant has 7 days in which to file an appeal
to City Council from the Planning Commission's actions.
Coller/Koehnen moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at
7:57 P.M.
Don Steger
City Planner
Diane S. Beuch
Recording Secretary
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APRIL 6, 1982
Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. with Cncl. Lebens, Wampach,
Colligan, Vierling, and Leroux present. Also present were Julius A. Coller, II,
City Attorney; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk and John K. Anderson, City Admr.
Colligan/Vierling moved to recess to conduct an HRA meeting. Motion carried
unanimously.
Colligan/Vierling moved to re-convene at 7:15 P.M. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Admr. made a correction in the minutes of March 23, 1982 which consisted
of deleting the line "HEA GENERAL FUND: No change", on page 2, paragraph 20.
Vierling/Wampach moved to approve the minutes of March 16, 1982 and March 23, 1982
as corrected. Motion carried with Cncl. Lebens abstaining because of her absence
at those meetings.
Cncl. Leroux and Wampach stated their intention to attend a luncheon sponsored by
the Minnesota Manufactured Housing Assoc. on April 23, 1982.
Leroux/Colligan moved to take no action on the correspondence received from
the National Office on Disability, dated March 17, 1982, and to place the letter
on file. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Wampach moved to direct staff, to write to the National League of Cities
and Senator Barry Goldwater requesting the lines of authority betweeen federal,
state and local regulations of cable communications to be more clearly drawn in
the proposed legislation regarding cable communications. &tion carried unanimously.
The Admin. Assistant related some background regarding applications for grants under
LCMR/LAWCON as it relates to JEJ (Eastside) Park development and Levee Drive Park.
Further discussion ensued regarding costs and priority items of the two parks.
The City Admr. stated the City could make a Preliminary Application and then with-
draw the request before the Final Application is due if circumstances change.
Colligan/Leroux moved to establish Levee Drive Park as priority No. 1 for an appli-
cation for LCMR/LAWCON funding, and directed staff to bring back further details
about the application at the next meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Ed Sharkey stated that Mayor Reinke is now a member of Murphy's Landing Board, and
they are grateful for his participation. He stated the Board has voted to go along
with the alternative proposed by the City of requiring a flat rate charge or meter
to be installed at Murphy's Landing, and inquired about the cost of a meter.
Leroux/Lebens moved that beginning July 1, 1982 Murphy's Landing will be charged
for sanitary sewer usage on either a flat rate charge or by meter.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Liaison reports were received from Councilpersons.
Mayor Reinke stated that he met with the Shakopee School Board and gave a statement
offering City Council's cooperation in working with the School Board for alternative
solutions to their financial problems. He also offered the help of Community Services
Board.
Gary Eastlund, President of Shakopee Area Chamber or Commerce, stated his organi-
zation would also like to help the School Board.
Consensus was to have staff contact the Superintendent of Schools and Community
Services Director to set up a time for a joint meeting between all three bodies.
The Mayor asked if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to address
the Council on any item not on the agenda.
Nellie Personius stated that she represented the Shakopee Senior Citizens who meet
at the First National Bank, and stated that it was erroneous that this group did
not want a director at their meetings. At their meeting yesterday they voted on
whether or not they would like a director, and the result was 54 for a director
1 and 2 against.
Shakopee City Council
April 6, 1982
Page 2
Cncl. Lebens stated she had received calls from seniors who stated they did not
want the City to become involved in paying for anything regarding a director.
They thought this was entirely a County responsibility. Cncl. Lebens stated she
was not against a director, and she asked the County representatives to take a vote
of the seniors. She was glad they took the vote and glad of the outcome.
Dave Lay stated he would like to comment on an item that would be later on the agenda,
the week to be set aside for beautification of the City. He suggested that school
groups that needed money for sports projects could help with this project to earn
funds for sports programs.
Walt Harbeck stated he is still receiving material from the Metro Council and the
Sewer Board, and gave the Council two packets of this information for their reading.
The City Planner explained that the deadline for recording the final plat of the
Minn. Valley 6th Add'n with the County Recorder's office has expired. He stated
the developer, Mr. Wiggin, indicated the reason it was not recorded was because
soil boring tests were not finished in time by the firm he hired. The City Planner
asked direction from the Council in either granting another deadline or rescinding
the final plat. Discussion followed. The City Planner added that he agreed that
if a new extension is granted, the developer should be subject -to the new Developers
Agreement being formulated. He also stated it is his belief that the developer is
acting in good faith, and that this is a situation beyond his control. The developer
ordered the soil boring test early enough to meet the deadline, but just didn't
receive the results in time.
Colligan/Wampach moved to grant another extension to May 14, 1982 to record the
final plat of Minn. Valley 6th Add'n, with the stipulation that the developer
realizes there will not be another extension, and a new Developers Agreement is
required. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner stated that he contacted the County regarding its participation
in the Joint Seven Member Committee, but had not received any written reply. He
stated that in his discussions with Norbert Theis, of Jackson Township, Mr. Theis
stated the Town Board did not find it acceptable to have this Committee operate as
an advisory board. He wanted the Committee to be a final authority as they had
perceived it to be in the past. The City Planner explained that in actuality, the
Committee had never functioned as a final authority, as the Council and Planning
Commission reviewed all plats, and the Committee never signed any hardshells. Mr.
Theis also stated that if the Committee was not made a final authority, the Annexa-
tion Agreement between the Township and the City would be terminated. He also
stated the Town Board would like a joint meeting with the Council to discuss the
matter.
Discussion followed. Cncl. Colligan stated that as a member of the Seven Member
Committee, he would like to meet with the Town Board to keep the avenues of commu-
nication open, although he agrees the Committee should function as an advisory
committee.
Walt Harbeck stated there are By-Laws for the formation of this Committee, which
were workable as long as they weren't challenged. He also mentioned the Met Council's
position on annexation if services are received by the Township.
The City Planner stated that it was the County Attorney who decided the Agreement
for the Seven Member Committee was not valid. Further discussion followed.
Leroux/Wampach moved to have the City staff meet with the members of the Town Board
and County staff to prepare preliminaries regarding what everyone wants in an Agree-
ment, and to set a date for a joint meeting with representatives of the Town Board
and County. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Wampach moved to authorize staff to initiate the purchase and installation
of Timing Device(s) as required 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 furthermore, any revenue shortages in the operation of this facility will
be subsidized through the Shakopee Tennis Assoc.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Shakopee City Council
April 6, 1982
Page 3
Vierling/Leroux moved to direct staff to apply to the Minn. Dept. of Natural Re-
sources 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, and to contact Tony Strupek of the Shakopee House, Inc. to reach an
agreement regarding the cutting back on feeding of wild fowl on the Shakopee House
premises beginning immediately. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Lebens offered Resolution No. 1991, A Resolution Amending the 1982 Budget,
and moved its adoption. The City Admr. summarized the resolution.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Colligan/Wampach moved to approve a budgeted expenditure of $34,000 from the Capital
Equipment Revolving Fund for the Shakopee Avenue Drainage Improvements. Discussion
followed with the City Engineer and City Attorney regarding responsibility of the
City for maintenance of this area.
Leroux/Vierling moved to amend the motion to state that staff also secure all
necessary easements prior to initiating the project.
Roll Call on amendment: Ayes; Wampach, Vierling, Colligan,Leroux, Reinke
Noes; Lebens
Motion to amend carried.
Roll Call on main motion as amended: Ayes; Wampach, Vierling, Colligan, Leroux, ReinkE
Noes; Lebens
Main motion as amended carried.
Colligan/Vierling moved to open the public hearing on the request for vacation of the
alley lying north of Lots 1 & 2, Block 30, OSP. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Admr. stated that staff is requesting that final action not be taken on
this matter after the public hearing, as staff would like to check more options
for expanded improvements and financing in this area.
Dave Moonen, petitioner, stated that the owner of the apartment building, which
requires access from the alley is in a nursing home, but he has been talked to
about the matter. Mr. Moonen felt that since he is only asking for vacation of
half of the alley, there wouldn't be a problem for the apartment building.
Mr. Moonen explained his plans for remodeling his building and the need for the partial
alley vacation. He stated he has a problem with the recommendation for tabling
this action, as time is very important to him. He does not have a renter in the
back of the building, and he can't do anything with it until he fixes the roof,
and he can't get any financing until his plans are finalized. He also stated he
first heard today about curb work being needed and hadn't a chance to check on the
costs and responsibility for that, but he felt it was a minor problem and should be
able to be worked out. He stated he has already talked with the Downtown Redevelop-
ment Committee and was told his plans fit into the over-all downtown plans; and
he does not think his plans should be delayed for the City to check out a larger
tax increment district.
The City Admr. explained that in establishing a Tax Increment District, the law
permits that the value of property improved within the preceeding 18 months and
future 12 months may be included, and therefore it would be possible to use the
addition to the First Nat'l Bank and Mr. Moonen's remodeling plans to establish
a Tax Increment District with a plan to include funds for the parking lot adja-
cent to this alley. Further discussion ensued.
Mayor Reinke asked if there was any other comment from the audience, and there was
none.
Colligan/Wampach moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Lebens moved to direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution to va-
cate the alley lying north of Lots 1 and 2 of Block 30, OSP. Motion carried with
Cncl. Lebens opposed.
Cncl. Lebens stated that Nellie Personius said it was her and other senior's opinion
that the funding for director of the Senior Citizens Center should be the sole res-
ponsibility of the County, and they did not feel the City should be involved in it.
Discussion followed.
Colligan/Vierling moved to table action on funding Senior Citizens Director until
Scott County Human Services could be contacted about what they intend to do. Motion
carried unanimously.
Shakopee City Council
April 6, 1982
Page 4
Ballots were passed out by the City Clerk to appoint a member to Shakopee Public
Utilities Commission (SPDC). Mayor Reinke gave the results of the first vote as
2 votes each for Elmer Marschall, Virgil Mears and Barry Kirchmeier. On the second
vote Barry Kirchmeier received the majority.
Leroux/Wampach moved to cast a unanimous ballot for Barry Kirchmeier to SPUC.
Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Wampach moved to approve Municipal Parking Lot Policy dated April 6, 1982,
and that it be incorporated into a resolution to be brought back to City Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
Jim O'Neill spoke as Chairman of the Industrial/Commercial Commission (ICC). He
stated that when the ICC was formed 42 years ago it was charged with establishing
a better rapport with builders and developers. He felt they had done that and had
recommended to the City the hiring of a City Planner. Another charge it undertook
was to re-draft a Subdivision Ordinance, and its Ad Hoc Committee did that. He
stated this new Developers Agreement goes with the Subdivision Ordinance, and the
ICC was not informed there were any changes being made in the Developers Agreement.
Mr. O'Neill asked if the Council's philosophy has changed and if they want to pro-
ceed with these changes to the Developers Agreement without the assistance of the ICC.
The City Admr. explained that it was an oversight of the staff that ICC was not
notified. The proposed changes were addressed to respond to problems perceived by
staff, and did not entail any change in philosophy. He stated staff took a list of
30 local builders and developers and informed them that the City was re-drafting
the Developers Agreement and asked for their suggestions.
Leroux/Wampach moved to refer the Developers Agreement and the proposed changes
to the ICC for their April 14, 1982 -meeting. Motion carried unanimously, with Cncl.
Colligan being absent for the vote.
Leroux/Vierling moved to refer discussion on the City's 2% 429 Project Interest Sur-
charge to the ICC. Motion carried with Cncl. Colligan abstaining.
Leroux/Vierling offered Ordinance No. 91, Fourth Series, 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 62 And By Adopting By Reference Shakopee City Code Chap-
ter 12 and Section 10.99, and moved its adoption. The City Admr. summarized the
resolution.
Roll Call: Ayes; Wampach, Lebens, Vierling, Leroux, Reinke
Noes; Colligan
Motion carried.
Colligan/Vierling offered Resolution No. 1994, A Resolution Called For Public
Hearing Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sec. 474.01, Subd. 7b, (application for
IR Bonds from the Cornelius Co. ), and moved its adoption. The City Admr. summa-
rized the resolution. The Cornelius Company is applying for 1.5 million dollar
IR bonds to be used for the purchase of attached machinery to be installed in
Rubber Industries, Inc.
Cncl. Leroux stated it has been a general rule that IR Bonds are used for purchase
and improvement of real property, as its purpose is to create jobs. He is against
using IR Bonds for attached machinery purchase, as that is too portable.
Mayor Reinke stated that he and the City Admr. looked at the property involved,
Rubber Industries, Inc. , they were told that the addition of this machinery will
increase employment and also, if this does not go through, there is a possibility
of a loss of employment for some employees who work there now. Mayor Reinke also
stated that IR Bonds have been used before for attached machinery. Also, under the
terms of the bonds, the machinery cannot be sold or used elsewhere for the duration
of the bonds. Further discussion followed.
Tom Strand, of the Dorsey firm, stated he is representing Cornelius Co. , which is
making the application for IR Bonds. He explained that Cornelius Co. is head-
quartered in Anoka, and they are making a proposal to purchase equipment for injec-
tion molded tank tops and install this equipment in existing space at Rubber Indus-
tries in Shakopee. He stated that if this project is not approved, there will be
lost jobs in Rubber Industries, because the equipment it presently has will not be
used in the future by Cornelius Co. He addressed further questions of Council-
members. He stated that 13 of Rubber Industries employees are employed operating
equipment that produces parts for Cornelius Co. If the new proposed equipment is
installed, there will be the retention of these 13 people, and an additional 4 posi-
tions, which will be filled locally. Bill Aires, representative of Cornelius Co. ,
and Art Hatch, owner of Rubber Industries, explained the proposal further.
Shakopee City Council
April 6, 1982
Page 5
Roll Call on Resolution No. 1994: Ayes; Wampach, Lebens, Vierling, Colligan, Reinke
Noes; Leroux
Motion carried.
Colligan/Wampach offered Resolution No. 1992, A Resolution Establishing Municipal
State Aid Highways and.Repealing Resolution No. 1983, and moved its adoption. The
City Admr. summarited the resolution.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Discussion ensued regarding redevelopment of Block 57 in regard to storm sewer and
its attendant benefits and costs. The City Engineer stated that none of the alter-
natives investigated are feasible because the amount of the assessment is greater
than the amount by which the value of the property to be assessed increases. He
further expanded some of the alternatives. Discussion followed.
Mayor Reinke asked for comments from Scott County, St. Francis Hospital and St. Mark's
Church.
Tom Prusak, Director of Operational Services for St. Francis Hospital, stated he
was looking at only the addition of storm sewer serving Block 56. He stated the
two alternatives for laterals along 4th Street would be acceptable, but they do not
care for a holding pond on the site. The hospital would like to see a storm sewer,
and would favor the least costly alternative. He stated he didn't know the specific
cost figures, but he understands a major project would not be feasible, as the City
cannot show that benefit exceeds the cost.
Jim Sulerud, Assistant Administrator for Scott County, stated he is just representing
staff position, not the County Board. He stated staff recommendation would not be
in favor of on-site holding, as it would encumber the site, and specialized reten-
tion should be taken care of by the City. , They are interested in the lowest cost
to the County, but also the lowest cost across-the-board to the City. They are con-
cerned that the City use an equitable assessment policy, and look to consistency
with the City's past policies. They would look to cooperate in an over-all plan,
but would not think it acceptable to have an additional cost to the County.
Father Cassidy, Pastor of St. Mark's Church, stated he just can't understand why
they can't blacktop their playground, put in play equipment and update their pro-
perty. They have a lot of problems because the playground is dirt. When they paid
a big assessment a couple of years ago, he thought that was for a big project to
solve all these problems.
Bill Streff, Principal of Shakopee Area Catholic Schools, stated he was just informed
of this meeting yesterday, and picked up the plans today, so hasn't had time to
check it out sufficiently. He stated they have collected $4,000 - $5,000 for play-
ground equipment by collecting aluminum cans, and they can't do anything with it
because of uncertainties. He is concerned that if something isn't done soon, they
will lose their momemtum. After Holmes Street improvement they have been expecting
laterals, and asked if they were mislead. He asked what he can tell the parents
about the current status.
The City Admr. explained the problems the City is having with establishing benefit
according the Court definition. The City is trying to find out the people's reaction
to the assessment and judge the possibility of appeals. This has all changed in
the last 1i years, and has affected the method of financing projects. More dis-
sion followed.
Colligan/Leroux moved to direct staff to prepare the necessary paperwork for Alter-
natives 1 and 2 of the City Engineer's memo of April 2, 1982 to set a public hear-
ing for Holmes Street Laterals. Motion carried with Cncl. Lebens opposed.
The City Admr. explained that the City of Savage is meeting Thursday, and they may
not go along with the Ambulance Service Agreement with St. Francis Hospital, and
that would affect the other users.
Leroux/Lebens moved to approve the Scott/Francis Ambulance Service Agreement for two
years if the City of Savage does not also approve it, and for 3 years if Savage does
accept it.
Mayor Reinke stated he will contact the Mayor of Savage and request their support
of St. Francis Hospital Ambulance Service Agreement.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
A representative of Industrial Restoration explained the basis for their bid for the
Fire Hall roof restoration.
Shakopee City Council
April 6, 1982
Page 6
Colligan/Wampach moved to direct staff to draft and enter into a contract with In-
dustrial Restoration for the carboline roof system at the fire station at a cost
of $24,310.00.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Lebens/Colligan moved to 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. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Vierling moved to 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. Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Wampach moved that the bills in the total amount of $174,298.07 be allowed
and ordered paid.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Colligan/Leroux moved to direct appropriate City officials to accept Item 2 and 3 of
the 'proposal dated March 29, 1982, from Mark Hurd Aerial Surveys, for topographic
mapping for 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.
Roll Call: Ayes; Wampach, Vierling, Leroux, Colligan, Reinke
Noes; Lebens
Motion carried.
Leroux/Colligan moved to direct staff to accept the proposal for aereial photo-
graphy and mosaic at a cost of $1,750.00, lump sum, by Mark Hurd Aerial Surveys.
Roll Call: Ayes; Wampach, Vierling, Leroux, Colligan, Reinke
Noes; Lebens
Motion carried.
Leroux/Vierling moved to have City designate by resolution April 18 through April
24, 1982 Keep America Beautiful Week, and direct staff to find a coordinator for
those efforts. Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Reinke stated the Joint Legislative Committee on Metropolitan Governance,
chaired by Senator Schmitz, asked to schedule one of their meetings for the last
week in April in Shakopee. He will be preparing a position paper for that meeting,
the purpose of which is to get comments from local governments and citizens about
the performance of the Metropolitan Council.
The City Engineer stated the Ass't City Attorney asked for a consensus of Council
regarding a settlement offer in the Richard Knutson case for improvements in the
Eastview subdivision. He explained the alternatives further. The consensus was
to settle for the amount of the retainage for liquidated damages, $1900.00, and
pay only 5-% interest on the balance due the contractor on the original contract
since the City could be obligated to pay more under a new State law.
Leroux/Lebens moved to adjourn to April 20, 1982 at 7:00 P.M. Motion carried with
Cncl. Colligan opposed. Meeting adjourned at 11:20 P.M.
Judith S. Cox
City Clerk
Diane S. Beuch
Recording Secretary
.4
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APRIL 20, 1982
Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. with Cncl. Wampach, Lebens,
Vierling and Colligan present. Cncl. Leroux arrived at 7:05 P.M. Also present
were Jeanne Andre; Admin. Asst; H. R. Spurrier, City Engineer; John K. Anderson,
City Admr. ; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk and Julius A. Coller, II, City Attorney. Also
present was the Cable Communications Commission (CCC) consisting of Gene Foudray,
Eilleen Christensen, Barry Kirchmeier, Lee Davis, Lillian Abeln, Randy Gorman and
Consultant Anita Benda.
Mayor Reinke flipped a coin to determine which applicant would give a presentation
first at the public hearing for the granting of a cable franchise. Progress-Valley
won the toss to present first.
Ms. Benda, Cable Consultant, apologized for the fact that her final report had just
been handed out, and no one had had the time to digest the material yet. Gene
Foudray suggested Ms. Benda make a final summary and then adjourn to a special meet-
ing to hear questions from the Council before the scheduled public hearing. This
was the consensus of the Council.
Cncl. Leroux arrived at 7:05 P.M. and took his seat.
Ms. Benda highlighted several areas in the final report, specifically mentioning
questions and responses just received from the applicants. She stated there were
additional comments regarding the effects of new head-end sites required when it
was learned the originally proposed head-end sites were not going to be approved
by the Planning Commission. Ms. Benda made further summaries of the various
chapters in the final report.
It was decided that written responses would be received from the two applicants,
but any oral presentation would be reserved for the public hearing.
Leroux/Wampach moved that when Council adjourns, it adjourn to 8:00 P.M. Monday,
April 26, 1982 for the purpose of meeting with the Cable Communications Commission.
Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Colligan moved for a 5 minute recess at 7:45 P.M. Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Lebens moved to re-convene at 7:55 P.M. Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Leroux moved to request the other two cable consultants to be available by
telephone during the public hearing on April 27, 1982. Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Lebens moved to approve the minutes of March 30, 1982 as kept. Motion
carried unanimously.
Cncl. Leroux and Wampach asked the City Admr. to schedule a tour for them of Rubber
Industries, as per the invitation from Rubber Industries.
Discussion was held regarding the possibility of parking problems in conjunction
with HotAir Balloon rides offered during the open house for First National Bank and
Capesius Agency. Cncl. Wampach offered his lot next to Abeln's Bar for parking.
Leroux/Wampach moved to accept the proposal by Capesius Agency and First National
Bank to utilize the parking lot on Second Avenue in front of the Huber Building on
May 21, 1982. Motion cairled unanimously.
Colligan/Vierling moved to direct staff to take whatever steps are necessary to
comply with the request by State of Minnesota, Motor Vehicle Services Division, to
have a 3 vehicle space designated NO PARKING on Wednesdays only, on the East side
of the Courthouse South of the apron going into the garage. Motion carried
unanimously.
Colligan/Vierling moved to table discussion of a candidate for the Board of Directors
for the League of Minnesota Cities. Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Lebens moved to direct staff to prepare a letter from the City Council
to our Senators and Representatives regarding the anit-trust legislation embodied
in the Boulder Decision. Motion carried unanimously.
It was decided that Mayor Reinke or Acting Mayor Lebens or Cncl. Leroux would attend
a public hearing, scheduled for April 29th, on the Metropolitan Council's Proposed
Surface Water Management Plan and present a position paper similar to that presented
at the meeting in Chaska.
Shakopee City Council
April 20, 1982
Page 2
Leroux/Lebens moved to forward the letter from Blackmar and Rehm, dated April 15,
1982, regarding a claim by John Wood to the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission.
Motion carried unanimously.
Liaison reports were received from Councilpersons. Cncl. Colligan inquired as to
the progress of negotiations between SPUC and NSP. Mayor Reinke stated it took a
long time for NSP to a6sign a value to its equipment and loss of revenue, but a meet-
ing will be scheduled in the near future to discuss that value.
Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to address the
Council on any matter not on the agenda, and there was no response.
Ms. Betty Pink stated the County has limited the Senior Citizens' Director's hours,
and the director feels that with the high membership and two centers to coordinate,
she needs more time for administration duties. Ms. Pink stated that Jordan, Prior
Lake and Savage all partially fund the salary for the Senior Citizens' Director.
The combined membership is close to 200, and the additional hours requested would be
divided between the two centers.
Mary Schmitt stated she is a member of the Senior Citizens Group that meets in the
First National Bank building, although she was not its spokesperson. She does not
feel the need for additional hours has been proven. Of the activities she knows
about there are only 15-25 who participate, not the whole membership, so she doesn't
see the need for additional hours. They have very competent officers and members
who handle a lot of the detail themselves. Even if the need is demonstrated, she
doesn't believe the City should become involved in the funding. This is a County
program and its responsibility and the City shouldn't pay for County employees.
Ms. Pink responded that precedent has been set with other cities sharing the funding
with the County. She feels the program benefits the entire City and if there is
not additional funding, the seniors will be missing many of the programs they are
entitled to, because of lack of time for the Director to coordinate them.
Lavina Busacker, Director, stated that Shakopee has the biggest groups in the County,
and between the two centers, she just doesn't have time to take the groups to as
many places as other centers go to. She stated that staff meetings take time out
from the centers, and also helping at various nursing homes at holiday times, and
other things mentioned by members they would like to participate in would not be
able to be done without the additional hours.
Further discussion followed.
Leroux/Colligan moved to fund four hours per week for Senior Citizens Director for
the balance of 1982, and that notice be given to the County that the City will not
fund this program after December 31, 1982.
Cncl. Colligan wondered if the City had the funds to do this. Cncl. Lebens stated
that the City is opening a big door if they start to fund County programs, as there
could easily be other groups requesting City assistance. Since the County initiated
the program, it is their responsibility. Further discussion ensued.
Roll Call: Ayes; Leroux
Noes; Wampach, Lebens, Vierling, Colligan, Reinke
.Motion failed.
Leroux/Colligan moved to open the public hearing regarding proposed uses of revenue
sharing funds. Motion carried unanimously.
The Finance Director explained that the public hearing is for the purpose of receiv-
ing comments and suggestions for uses for revenue sharing funds before the City
Admr. forwards the budget changes to Council for adoption. There will be a second
public hearing held to discuss the suggestions.
Mayor Reinke asked if there were any comments from the audience.
Dennis Hron suggested they be used to fund lighting for the Shakopee Baseball Assoc.
and Tennis Courts.
Richard Hullander suggested using them to build a new City Hall.
Lebens/Vieriing moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Shakopee City Council
April 20, 1982
Page 3
Tom Prusak, Director of Operational Services for St. Francis Hospital, presented
a request to the City to vacate Atwood Street between 4th and 5th Avenues as part
of their overall parking plan for Block 57.
Cncl. Leroux stated his concern for emergency vehicles. Mr. Prusak stated the lot
could be designed to allow for fire service to the hospital. The City Admr. stated
the City presently has 42% of its property in streets, which is a very high percen-
tage. Cncl. Lebens suggested also closing Fuller Street between 4th and 5th Avenues.
She stated it was a lot safer now that the street is closed for construction, and
it would be especially nice if the hospital planned to use it for additional parking.
Leroux/Vierling moved to refer the request for vacation of Atwood Street to the Plan-
ning Commission for its input and investigation. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Lebens moved to include the possibility of vacating Fuller Street between 4th
and 5th Avenues in the referral to the Planning Commission. Motion carried unanimously.
Steve O'Neill presented the 1982 budget for the Shakopee Baseball Assoc. He stated
SPUC informed them that the lights will be charged on a non-demand rate after 9:00
P.M. SPUC Director told them if there is a problem later on in the season where the
lights have to be turned on earlier, something could be worked out. So, depending
on the number of games and weather conditions, it is possible they won't have any
trouble paying the charge for the lights. However, if they have to pay any demand
charges for lights, they won't be able to afford it, so they are requesting some
financial help from the City if it is needed. He stated they have contacted several
civic groups and businesses and industries in the City, but they are unsure about
what kind of contributions they might be receiving. Discussion followed.
Leroux/Lebens moved that the City donate monies for lighting for the Shakopee Base-
ball Assoc. , not to exceed $300 for the season.
Dick Hullander stated that what the Baseball Assoc. is looking for is for the City
and/or SPUC to contribute any demand charges needed for lights. He stated they
don't want the City to put a dollar limit on it so they don't have to come back to
the City later in the season if the demand rate is charged more often.
Jim O'Neill stated the Baseball Assoc. was not notified early enough by SPUC regard-
ing the exact charges so they could not budget for this season. They are asking for
assistance from the City for this year, as in the future when they know what the
charges are for the lights, they will be able to plan ahead and raise the money
before the season starts.
Cncl. Lebens stated that precedence has already been set by the City/SPUC paying for
the lights completely. She would like it worked out between the City and SPUC to
pay the overage that the Baseball Assoc. cannot afford this year. Cncl. Colligan
stated there was no demand charge in previous years for the lights, and he does not
like approving a blank check with no ceiling. Considerable discussion ensued.
Motion carried with Cncl. Lebens opposed.
Colligan/Leroux offered Resolution No. 1999, a Resolution Declaring The Adequacy of
Petition And Ordering Preparation Of Report For the Improvement Of Roadway Serving
the Lots of Record East of County Road 89 in the Northeast Quarter of Section 13,
Township 115 South, Range 22 West, Scott County, Minnesota, and moved its adoption.
The City Admr. summarized the resolution. The City Admr. explained that the road
in question is a private road. The City would have to acquire the road, and they
have had no response from the owner on the City's inquiry about purchasing the road.
The City Engineer stated that the Planning Commission, in considering another matter
in this area, recommended acquiring additional right-of-way off this private road
to provide access to another property, and opening a potential roadway to Savage.
He stated the cul-de-sac formed by this road does not conform to the City's 1000
foot limit, but it doesn't exceed rural residential roadways. He stated that most
of the owners of developed property in the area are in favor of this project.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to comment.
Melissa O'Rourke stated she lives in the area and inquired about the possibility of
heavy traffic through the area if the road connected to Savage. The City Engineer
stated that will be investigated in the final report.
Shakopee City Council
April 20, 1982
Page 4
Colligan/Vierling moved to concur with the Planning Commission recommendation to
not issue building permits in this residential development until the road is made
public. Discussion followed about the application of this policy on other develop-
ments in a similar situation.
Colligan/Vierling moved to table the motion pending staff's investigation of other
similar situations,. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Vierling offered Resolution No. 1996, A Resolution Vacating That Part of the
Public Alley in Block 30, Lying North of Lots 1 and 2, According to the Plat of
Original Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota, and moved its adoption. The City Admr.
summarized the resolution. The City Admr. explained that a Promissory Note is re-
quested from Dave Moonen for curb work.
Dave Moonen stated he doesn't object to putting in curb, but he feels the City's
figures are a little high. He also didn't know if he wanted to sod a lot in front
of his building, especially when the City is uncertain what and when it will change
the parking lot adjacent to his building. Further discussion ensued.
Roll Call: Ayes; Wampach, Vierling, Leroux, Colligan, Reinke
Noes; Lebens
Motion carried.
Leroux/Wampach moved to accept the Promissory Note in the amount of $2180 from Dave
Moonen for curb work to be placed on file in conjunction with Resolution No. 1996.
Motion carried unanimously.
Rich Logais, developer for Eastview 1st Add'n, requested Council to change the policy
in the Developer's Agreement to require payment of assessments at the time of occu-
pancy permit instead of at the time of building permit, to allow him to take advan-
tage of this before the new Developers Agreement is adopted, which will implement same.
Leroux/Wampach moved to authorize proper City officials to execute an amendment to
the Developers Agreements already signed permitting payment of special assessments
at the issuance of occupancy permit, rather than issuance of building permits.
Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Leroux moved to table further discussion of changes in the Developer's
Agreement. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Wampach moved to authorize appropriate City staff to prepare, execute and
submit a grant application for funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LAWCON) and the Legislative Commission for Minnesota Resources (LCMR) for fiscal
year 1983, the project to provide for the development of Levee Drive Park with a
grant of $113,968 and anticipated City contribution of $43,156 from the Park Reserve
Fund.
Colligan/Vierling moved to table the list of grants available to Shakopee for further
study by Councilmembers. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Colligan moved that the bills in the total amount of $169,690.79 be allowed
and ordered paid.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
•
Colligan/Leroux offered Resolution No. 1997, A Resolution Accepting Work on the 1980-2
Public Improvement Program - Eastview 1st Addition (Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer and
Watermain), and moved its adoption. The City Admr. summarized the resolution.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Leroux/Colligan offered Resolution No. 2000, A Resolution Approving Plans and
Specifications And Ordering Advertisement for Bids - Valley Industrial Boulevard
South, County Road No. 83 to the East Line of Valley Park 2nd Addition, Improvement
No. 1982-2, and moved its adoption. The City Admr. summarized the resolution.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Colligan/Leroux offered Resolution No. 1995, a Resolution Authorizing the Disposal
of Unclaimed Property, and moved its adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Leroux/Lebens offered Resolution No. 1998, A Resolution Deferring 1982 Payable Spe-
cial Assessments on Property Designated "Green Acres", and moved its adoption. The
City Admr. summarized the resolution.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Leroux/Lebens moved to authorize proper City officials to execute the draft Develo-
Shakopee City Council
April 20, 1982
Page 5
per's Agreement dated April 20, 1982 for the plat of Minnesota Valley 6th Addition.
Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Vierling offered 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, and moved its adoption. Motion
carried unanimously.
Colligan/Wampach moved to authorize the consent business as follows:
1. Direct staff to concur with Valleyfair, in writing, that $8,000 is an acceptable
amount for payment in 1982 of the annual fee agreement.
2. Direct staff to enter into an agreement with Associated Mechanical for the in-
stallation of four roof drains for the sum of $4,4.36.00 at the Public Service Build-
ing.
3. Direct staff to enter into an agreement with Associated Mechanical for $3,375.00
to replace the heating and air conditioning system at the library.
4. Approve partial Estimate Voucher No. 10 in the amount of $3,084.40 to Arcon
Construction Co. , Inc. , 903 East Forest, P.O. Box 57, Mora, Mn. for the VIP Sanitary
Sewer Interceptor Project No. 81-1.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Leroux/Wampach moved to forward the May 1981 Joint Report of the Metropolitan Council
and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities on "The Cost of Public Services
for Housing" to the Planning Commission to consider how it relates to the City's
Subdivision Ordinance, including consideration of reducing current lot size require-
ments among other things, as recommended by the Industrial Commercial Commission.
Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Wampach moved to direct the recording of the Quit Claim Deed from MinDOT
to Shakopee for a part of Trunk Hwy. No. 187, Renumbered 101, to the City of
Shakopee. Motion carried with Cncl. Vierling abstaining.
Colligan/Vierling moved to adopt the policy of not refunding garbage collection
service charges for the reason of non-use of the service unless the billing is in
error. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Vierling moved to set the Board of Equalization to begin June 8, 1982. Motion
carried unanimously.
Colligan/Wampach moved to adjourn to April 26, 1982, at 7:00 P.M. Motion carried
unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:15 P.M.
Judith S. Cox
City Clerk
Diane S. Beuch
Recording Secretary
RECEIVED
& R ea/tot:action, IJnC. APR 21 1982
GENERAL & MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS
9038 - 110th ST. NO. - STILLWATER, MN 55082 • (612) 426-1613
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
April 19, 1982
City of Shakopee
City Administrator of Shakopee, Minnesota
City Hall
129 East First Avenue
Sahkopee, Minnesota
Attention: Mr. John Anderson, City Administrator
Re : Pump House for Water Suuply
Well No. 6
Contract No. 81 -2 KT
Dear Mr. Anderson:
On behalf of A & K Construction, Incorporated, being the
Contractor on the above mentioned project, I would at this
time like to request that the Building Permit fee be waived
on this project.
Please contact our office if I may be of any further assistance.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
A, & Construction, Incorporated
'! f
/ John H. Aderman,President
JHA/trn
VU\ICIPAE FI \A\CE 3 ii
#11 Ft EC717itr F.:0 • OFFICERS ASSOCIATIO\
SUI1E65
k
1750 K STREET N W
A R2b V TO
CITY OF Zh KOPEE
ACTION
ALERT !
THE ISSUE: The Administration's Proposed Minimum Corporate Income Tax and
It's Potential Effect on the Municipal Bond Market. The proposed
minimum corporate income tax being discussed by the U.S. Senate
Finance and House Ways and Means Committees includes a
recommendation which would subject the interest costs incurred by
banks in the purchase of municipal bonds to a minimum income tax.
The inclusion of this item in the new minimum income tax would
affect municipal bond interest rates and would result in a
significant increase in the cost of borrowing for state and local
government issuers.
ACTION NEEDED: Contact Members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives
and ask them to oppose the inclusion of an item in any minimum
7,..'—'
income tax which will, either directly or indirectly, affect the tax-
exempt bond market. It is especially important to contact
Members of the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means
Committees (See list below.) to make known the opposition of state
a___r locaI government—officials to this fax issue.
BACKGROUND: Included in a long list of tax changes recently submitted to
Congress by the Administration is a new minimum income tax on
corporations. While the Municipal Finance Officers Association
does not find it to be within our province to advise Congress on the
desirability of adopting a corporate minimum income tax, we have
testified before congressional committees in opposition to one
feature of the Administration's proposal which would affect the
municipal bond market. This minimum income tax proposal would
partially disallow the interest deductions banks now incur by
subjecting those interest expenses to a 15 percent minimum income
tax. The current federal law disallowing deduction of expenses and
interest relating to tax-exempt income does not apply to banks.
According to a recently-released study by John E. Petersen, the
Director of MFOA's Government Finance Research Center, "An
Analysis of the Impact of the Proposed Corporate Minimum Income
Tax on Tax-Exempt Interest Rates and Borrowing Costs," the
proposed change would greatly reduce the attractiveness of tax-
exempt securities to commercial banks. Bank demand is crucial to
the municipal bond market because commercial banks hold about
$155 billion, or 45 percent, of all outstanding municipal securities.
Any action that would greatly diminish demand for tax-exempt
bonds will have severe impacts on an already weakened municipal
market.
The MFOA study calculates that if this new tax were imposed,
banks would reduce their holdings of municipal securities on the
order of 25 to 30 percent -- resulting in increased tax-exempt
interest costs of 120 to 200 basis points. In dollar terms, this
increase could cost municipal issuers $960 million to $1.6 billion in
the first year alone. The study suggests that a possible effect on
the market would be the midpoint of these potential increases or
(over)
- 2 -
160 basis points or $1.3 billion a year. The analysis also points out
that commercial banks could easily alter their demand for munici-
pal bonds. Banks hold an estimated $20 billion in short-term, tax-
exempt securities (those due in less than one year) and another $10
to $15 billion in bonds maturing annually. Thus, banks have the
capacity to alter their portfolios rapidly if tax-exempt bonds
suddenly became less attractive to hold.
Tax-exempt rates are at record highs and the ratio of tax-exempt
rates to taxable rates has risen sharply over the past two years.
The Federal Liaison Center staff of the MFOA encourages all
MFOA members to contact your elected federal representatives and
ask them to oppose this feature of the minimum income tax
proposal because it would result in a substantial increase in your
borrowing costs.
Senate Finance Committee House Ways and Means Committee
Robert Dole (R-KS), Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL),
Bob Packwood (R-OR) Chairman
William V. Roth, Jr. (RDE) Sam M. Gibbons (D-FL)
John C. Danforth (R-MO) J. J. Pickle (D-TX)
John H. Chafee (R-RI) Charles B. Rangel (D-NY)
John Heinz (R-PA) Fortney H. Stark (D-CA)
Malcolm Wallop (R-WY) James R. Jones (D-OK)
David Durenberger (R-MN) Andrew Jacobs, Jr. (D-IN)
William L. Armstrong (R-CO) Harold E. Ford (D-TN)
Steven D. Symms (R-ID) Ken Holland (D-SC)
Charles E. Grassley (R-IA) William M. Brodhead (D-MI)
Russell B. Long (D-LA) Ed Jenkins (D-GA)
Harry F. Byrd, Jr. (D-VA) Richard A. Gephardt (D-MO)
Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX) Thomas J. Downey (D-NY)
Spark M. Matsunaga (D-HI) Cecil Heftel (D-HI)
Daniel P. Moynihan (D-NY) Wyche Fowler, Jr. (D-GA)
Max Baucus (D-MT) Frank J. Guarini (D-NJ)
David L. Boren (D-OK) James M. Shannon (D-MA)
Bill Bradley (D-NJ) Marty Russo (D-IL)
George J. Mitchell (D-ME) Donald J. Pease (D-OH)
Kent Hance (D-TX)
Robert T. Matsui (D-CA)
Don Bailey (D-PA)
Beryl F. Anthony, Jr. (D-AR)
Barber B. Conable, Jr. (R-NY)
John J. Duncan (R-TN)
Bill Archer (R-TX)
Guy Vander Jagt (R-MI)
Philip M. Crane (R-IL)
Bill Frenzel (R-MN)
James G. Martin (R-NC)
L. A. Bafalis (R-FL)
Richard T. Schulze (R-PA)
Willis D. Gradison, Jr. (R-OH)
John H. Rousselot (R-CA)
W. Henson Moore (R-LA)
The following information can be used in writing Members of
Congress. All Senators and Representatives can be telephoned at
202/224-3121.
Senator Representative
U.S. Senate U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20515
FOR INFORMATION
CONTACT: Jeff Esser or Cathie Eitelberg at 202/466-2014.
P.S. We are asking for your help because you live in a State or Congressional district
which is represented by a Member of Congress on either the U.S. Senate Finance
or House Ways and Means Committees. Please contact the appropriate Members
(listed above) and other Members of Congress from your state.
I,
AititIrPll LISTING S[RYIC[
REALTOR* MLS Gene Brown Agency, Inc.
119 SOUTH LEWIS STREET SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA 55379 TELEPHONE:445-5560
President Vice President
EUGENE A.BROWN ROBERT J.BROWN ..
RE
CEIVED
April 29, 19822
APR 3 01982
Common Council
City of Shakopee �� OF
129 E. 1st Ave.
SHAKOPEE
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
RE: Outlot A — Weriiierskirchen's
2nd Addition except the West
107.22 feet.
Parcel #27-010016-0
Gentlemen:
Enclosed is a copy of the real estate tax statement for
the above parcel.
I have requested a permit for an apartment on this property
and was refused. I requested fifth Avenue to be extended to
Main Street and was refused.
Because of the above reasons I now request that the real
estate taxes be reduced to the minimum of one dollar until
such time that the land may be developed.
Since ely,
E ug ne A. Brown
EAB/kv
Enclosure
I
•-134;),-1x;.-
M� ! W !V
`.-`7 z Xi -4 m - = ti l i
BO C�•ODyZ). T a T = O i" W a 1<<iii Q CO C!
-1::,tt' 2O-1irAZ 3 m z 7 - X T 0 C --I
I -1
ins r�ww<= .:.. ? O ? -5 0 i -1 O V y ??
.-y O nl w w O a m - O Tr r+ o D -i r i3
!re-c c>oVC O aP a m 3 w m ; r" T 0 0. s ? 0
? to Cr;nam<-1 1, f c c(o c 0300C a - • 0 '1 Z
rnn pl;:fOI V :Ja o N 3 c -43 r 0 • Cr '17 -!
Z fZmr.n 0 W' 9 O N O O If v _ F,1 NJ O $ m C
2 A ;MAX •j• to o n 7 n c "• j•J Z 0 n
I.L.. (10-414110] A2C. .. o. N KO . r: 1.:. t
r I A 'Lio .. r c m mac° m D 0 5z -• t?
xn n •
a O o ,-,•0,1_ ro 4 0 w w W b m C) rt C; R C
Z_;� e 0 C1 < }'
er p�'�<214< -313c„. a 33 ] 4 z < 3 rK
wlijrr•Ip `' gym c c 2. m` m m
CZ 19
mr p��ApO� w o G 0
�i n -g r c " r � /r
mi -Is r.
} ih
--9 'i >24; < i
.i 6
7.1
Zb ,7.7CO 4".
g o
D1-' 0b v w
L 7 £ `r: O
(D
O 0 iTI Z
13 •m11 .p = a S 4 :
0
Fr -i i1i -4 n D
r w
7
m 3tTui k • .. 0
z - ri i • 2 Q
r n I8s, P'1
D • • t�
I
00 0 "
0 0 0 -y
b 2' -C
1a r*s £ T - -4 n N y i
XC-. m Z m p A rm
r-,-.1„ n n D pc n
ma A m n m n mm
r: C9 — r y 9
`$� t n m rp
mW
J: g" o A r� 11 m p
rs D A ` ng
t,`r Cr:r " D C 1'1 .4 nig
i -4 Y; r r ill T 0
xn� a'..
C Ft *4 -DC ; -6 . •
m 2 en c'• D -' O m }1s V aD V7 A \ )
Zc 5 .0 71 -o -0mvc� ouD21 ). r -®( n00 ►J A
Xm 0 • m �c WOMXc o o = c .�; n ;
,r n > a m c � 8 z z m
- r Nit z; z2 i- T -< op r
Cin y2 x � '<
� mto A n oz. X m � xQ
0 m = o 5 zriE 33 ,�
r
�+ O Z co r• 3 S m m m 2m in 11 -i* t 5 j A
j = m c C a ...4ftl N0
K • Gi D W S : —
m 1"r c
><oc 0
+ o a $ 3 -4 r
x
If 2Z
_-1 "'1 41,
` W '� W GI >r 1.1
�� <301 01 r .1 -1 14+ NW " C0 ' O
.4 . 4:1 14
'0 t
0 3O 0 � 0 m0• , W 6, ,r
iw. > ,.
RECEIVED
it - )4- ff2.. APR 2 81982
)41-74-z_ CITY OF SHAKOPEE
71,4 A.-
-rife dr.
?ea-ye ez-7-
6 '
/77 '
e;?ez/Zee
1
- r76
7er4.,/
G C s i I
!t::6/
O
e,*
7727 1/. • 71::; ;--
// 03 / 3
.....---••
MI. i 1
••••••••••.••..• •.• ••.•.• ...•. •...........
le I 1 4 'V •::::::::::::: :::::::.:.1.. ... ...::.:......:A 0. .:-........ ..'. .)
, !I
011
Ilt......'"vaii.kel.. ,, .. :?..',."..".•'.......:::,..;.* ...:•.:,..........,..............
.1114", ..... :.:.:,... .:1
....'..'1'.11
. ..
IS...:...........:1 , lc
rn
i io-- ILE .... ...3
•
• 1 1
.11117721111:7 1 ..................1.1
.
gIIIIIII
A
. .
..•
....•....•
.. .--1
IIIIIIIIII . .
. .
10
...
,..... 3),,
x) "c Co c° "4 a) 13 A •••..............................................••........
............................... ........
........................:..... ........... ...:........................................... , ...................
, •
. , ....••••...........
.•• •••
r .................r-
:.•:•••:-..... t i- i -- *..-..*.::......-.:-....:-...... rri .
''••••• • - -.......-.......:.. -
1 . . ......
.... .. .
'r \\1 :. • *:.::::::•::::::'•: _-- .,
0
wi .. . ..............................i..........., ,4....
i r
q
.. .
.:............ ret
••••••••.•
. - 1:::-.::::,.....••....................••••:.::::.:„............................:f.........................................
inimiiiiiiiiis \ . ............................::......:„................................................ .. .
. .• .. .. .•• •• ••• •• •••••• • •• • •••••••
SW ••••.. ,.. .
....•::,.. .,..tai 1 WI 116 '..:.....'....::::•:::::::::::. iii
-IIIIIIIIIII. , ..: :.:..:1:..:.:.....;.:i......I...7;.!*:l____goH..'''''''.::':':,.,f,::: ....:::::.::.........•:...•:............•.:.•...::..•.4..;............. .....:::;:::."..;..........,..:., i
us
1111116iiiiis* 'y \ - ' 1.‘ ; t.i.'.............•:::....i.:.
1
it win-------
III ii . ' TallitriA 103
' • .•,. ....
I I I I I I I I I I. % 1 i?. 1 : ‘ k, '...•••••./. 411‹.
. ..
,. :-..•:..;.
- ...
ii
III 4, , litiosoir ..................:::: L
ill Milli - . -. • NIII .
' ill iiill '
\ ....11001110:::.;:::';
1111NIM .•• t i . •. ......- :.::::,,,::::::::•:.i,:,:::,:::::::::::*:*:::*:,::::::::::::twx,*
' ^44's'7, '1....,'". , t-', ,,,_:. , :. „''' ,-. •t," ' .,, .
' t
'ill• 1 AL.
IlliWI • '.........-...../.................................................. . ...:X..:.::Z:::::::::::.:.-::i.'...".....,:r..•;•..•-..-...;',,'...'.... i''.;..., -,;. ..:,„..,,,rli _....
• •• • •• •• •• •• • •• •• • •• •. •• • . . ,.7.:•.......... 1
..... ,.. .. .. ... .. ....... .. ...... .. ..,. .._. .:.:.:.:.,:.... .
I .........::::::..........................................::.......-...........•••••• . :
t f .. " , ,.. .
•... IIIIIIIIII . :.,- .• ': . i4.,, , ' or.''..441111111111111
'..1' 11°411Millir 11111110 :: r I i.'.. '':',:' ''. :. '''''1.1-.- . Li.i.:.i.r11110 t\--.1
9
01 01:. CO IV " -
I Sill III 11111161111 111111111.1 EL _.•'Illr':::<''. lita '' L '.' '
WI
110111111111 I 011111111111 0 ' '. '' l' 1 ' 1 C°
1% Watt r--
to
• . - ........,,,,,,,,,,,i.x.AN:'::t.,: iiAilltiiL,: iiMniMkiim::,::::,' 0110:.ler .ri ii.
. .•••''''...m.,.,:-]*i.?,*i*,w,,„:,-...:::,iiltai:i:!4...,:miiii,„1,N,,,...,..
i.C•'...t:.7•;:'-:,'--..'"..,": :::i:K:':::::::: : a ,t0iMai -f 1.:Za:i:i:ii::;ii;',.::;i;;i;i;:;i;1;i:i:i::•...•..::;.,,?:,..:.;:;;;::::•::.•.• -• •
S °1 4' 11111111111111111111111114
;0,,;.?;---•- --,','„,'",i ::::::::::::::-:.:•:•::::: svimi,og . • co
q •:.: :••••• .:.:.: ,..... .,, it.„. ....ii., :...
.A% ,-• • ::.:0 -.-.g... ..... „,i,i,..--44'.
i
lb
Wis
5 101
:ii,.., N• k44e :-:.- •:•. .•:.:. :,,,....: ,..f.. .:.Ai ....
r431 51 1 51 F.i: i. I a
... 1-•
MIMI < VIII Ill° -
0 5)1 0 12 0 M 1011111
it Oa
0) 73 M
Z "0-
'rig Ogl v ,
G) X hi WI 100 ilia
,•\ , , , ..)k • •....
•••••••••• •••
...........-...:.•:.:......:..:.+2.1.:....:::::..cii...... la t C i
t cC)
.... .
ortZI • 1 .....i '
, 1 "
--r-----3 r ....5.4i.4.44............... a
-
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator 4o�j
RE: Building Permit Moratorium on Private Streets Serving
Residential Developments
DATE: April ' 27 , 1982
Introduction
City Council , at its regular April 20 , 1982 meeting received a
recommendation from the Planning Commission that it cease the
issuance of building permits on Maras Road until the problems
with the road ' s maintenance are resolved (memo from Don Steger
dated April 26 , 1982 ) .
Issues
The key issues are :
1 . How does Section 11 .03 Subd. ( 7i ) ( page 278 approved 10/25/79 )
of the City Code prohibiting the issuance of building permits
for lots not abutting a dedicated public street apply to
private streets?
2 . How does Section 11 .03 Subd. ( 7i ) apply to private roads that
were grandfathered in before the 10/25/79 change in the ordi-
nance?
3 . Can maintenance of a private road, or the lack of it , be used
to invoke Section 11 .03 Subd. ( 7i ) .
4. What is the proper role for the City now and in the future as
it relates to issues (eg. minimum construction standards ,
maintenance standards including utility cuts , snow removal
policy, regulatory signing, etc . ) that are likely to arise
as the number of private streets increases?
Summary
It appears that there exists only one other private road in Shakopee
with circumstances comparable to those of Maras Road and that is Deans
Lake Road. Can the City envoke Section 11 . 03 Subd. ( 7i ) for one and
not the other? If the City does , under what rationale would we
differentiate between Maras Road and Deans Lake Road? How would we
like to see these roads and other private roads built and main-
tained in the future?
We are proposing that the Maras Road problems be solved by making
ISI
it a public road , do we want Deans Lake Road too? Would it meet public
road design standards?
/—* Mayor and City Council
Page Two
April 27 , 1982
Alternatives
1 . Do not invoke Section 11 .03 Subd. ( 7i ) . No repercussion assuming
a MSA 429 project is successful and the road becomes public. If
the MSA 429 'is not successful the homeowners will have to take
civil action against the road ' s owner .
2 . Invoke Section 11 .03 Subd . ( 7i ) for both Deans Lake Road and
Maras Road treating 2-4 in Don Steger ' s attached memo as
different situations . This alternative could lead to serious
repercussions in the Deans Lake Road subdivision should we
actually deny a building permit . Moreover, the MSA 429 peti-
tioned project could fail and then the balance of the vacant
lots would be unbuildable in Maras Additions too.
3 . Invoke Section 11 .03 Subd. ( 7i ) for Maras Road only because ,
although a prior Council had agreed to issue building permits ,
the seriousness of the road maintenance problem is cause to
reverse that commitment . Perhaps an argument can be made that
the City is unable to provide fire protection to the subdivision
because of the road conditions and that this condition calls for
emergency actions uniquely applied to Maras Road.
4 . Table the idea to invoke Section 11 .03 Subd. ( 7i ) until the out-
come of the MSA 429 project is determined. This approach could
imply that the building permit moratorium might be used in the
future .
Recommendation
Staff recommends alternative #1 because there are probably not enough
undeveloped lots in Maras Addition for the moratorium to be a factor.
More importantly, we have treated the Maras Addition and Deans Lake
Road Addition as grandfathered-in subdivisions and to change that
policy will create more problems than it will solve .
Action Requested
Take no action to impose a building permit moratorium in the Maras
Addition. Direct staff to draft an amendment to Secticn 11.03
Subd. ( 7i ) that would permit building permits on certain private
roads so that Deans Lake Road , Maras Road and projects with
associations like Evergreer and Patricia ' s Addition can have
private roads .
JKA/jms
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Don Steger, City Planner
RE: Private Streets Serving Residential Developments
DATE: April 26 , . 1982
In addition to the development off of County Road 89 (Maras Road) ,
other residential developments in Shakopee which are served by
private streets are as follows :
1 . Deans Lake Road. This road extends northward from County Road
16 towards Deans Lake. Approximately 8 or 9 homes are served
by this road. Like Maras Road, this situation was inherited
through annexation. It ' s been estimated that the last home
built along this road was about 1975 , prior to the enactment of
the current Zoning Ordinance.
2 . Garden Lane. This private street serves several apartment
buildings . Technically, this situation does not violate the
City Code because the property containing the apartment build-
ings is a flag lot which abuts County Road 17 .
3 . Candlewyck. The street (driveway) serving the Candlewyck Apts .
is private, however, the situation is the same as No. 2 , i .e .
a flag lot .
4. Laurent ' s Evergreen Townhouses . Each townhouse unit comprises
a separate lot encompassing the building ' s ( townhouse ) dimensions .
Although each lot does not abut a public street , the City Code
is not technically violated because the common owned property
(Howeowner' s Association) does abut a public street .
DS/jms
RECEIVED6c'
Howard E. my 3 1982
Shenehon
& Associates, Inc. CITY OF
Real Estate Analysts
505 East Grant Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404 •(612)333-6.533
April 29, 1982
Mr. John K. Anderson
City Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
RE: SPECIAL ASSESS?€. APPEAL OF THE LINDSTRAND-GRAYSON PROPERTY
Dear John:
Pursuant to our recent telephone conversation, our firm is pleased
to do a special assessment of the Lindstrand and Grayson property in
Shakopee. The purpose of the appraisal will be to estimate the benefit
that the property experiences as a result of certain special assessments
that have been placed in service around the subject property. We will
develop four copies of a documented appraisal for your use in settling
the matter with the property owner.
The subject property is a larger tract of vacant land that will be
subdivided in our analysis to reflect it's mast probable, highest and
best use. Using a subdivision valuation analysis, we will measure
the benefit that the property experiences as a result of the utilities
and roads that have been extended to the subject property. It is our
assumption that the city of Shakopee has properly assessed these costs
and it will not be part of our assignment to check the assessment
process.
We handle our accounts on an hourly basis. The hourly rates for
appraisers range between $45.00 to $65.00 per hour. We keep careful
time sheets on each job and the information is available to you at
the time of billing. We expect the cost of this appraisal will not
exceed $3,000.00 unless sane extraordinary problem should arise that
should become apparent to us upon initial review of the site information.
If this happens, we will contact you immediately before spending any
time on the assignment.
Howard E.Shenehon • Alan P Leirness • Robert J.Strachota
Associated with The Real Estate Counseling Group of America,Inc.
e
Mr. John K. Anderson
Page 2
April 29, 1982
I will be one of the principal appraisers on the assignment, and will
be involkred in the complete analysis of the property. If it becomes
necessary, I will be available for court testimany as the principal
appraiser.
John, thank you for contacting us. We look forward to working with
you on this appraisal.
Respectfully,
4
• • . " 't ' * A •
IDW' t a ,,DI i fr t ,1!",_.. .• t . c.
Ador
„of)
jillle: / v r 4.7.-..", •
Robert J. lehota, MAI, SRPA
RJS/jf
V v
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Soil Conservation Grant for Horizon Heights
DATE: April 29 ,. 1982
Introduction
City Council , at its regular January 19 , 1982 meeting, authorized
staff to submit a Soil Conservation Grant application for an erosion
control project in Horizon Heights . We are nearing the Scott County
S .W. Conservation District ' s ( SCSWCD) decision making deadline and
we have now inspected the site now that the snow cover is gone .
Proposed Project
John Pascal , from the SCSWCD, and the City Engineer inspected the
site and roughly estimated the project cost at $15 ,000. The SCSWCD
will make the decision on funding projects May 11 , 1982 , and has
$14,000 in grant money available , but the maximum size any one
grant can be is $3 ,500. The SCSWCD staff would design the project
since they have the experience in this type of work, however, the
City would need to budget $11 ,500 of its own revenue for the project .
As Council may recall this project is one of several erosion control
problem areas the City has and it was picked by the City Engineer
as the most critical . If the area in question begins to collapse
then the timing of improvements may well be out of the City' s control .
Alternatives
1 . Request funding for 1982 and budget the $11 ,500 from the Capital
Equipment Revolving Fund. The only other funds that could be
used would be the Revenue Sharing Fund and Contingencies in the
General Fund. Staff recommends the Capital Equipment Fund because
Revenue Sharing requires Davis Bacon Wage Rates , the General Fund
Contingencies should be protected given the uncertainty of State
Aid funding and we have used Capital Equipment Revolving funds
for a few projects of this nature.
2 . Inform the SCSWCD that the City would prefer funding in 1983.
This would give Council more time to consider the project while
considering all 1983 capital projects .
Recommendation
Because the cost of the project to the City is larger than we antici-
pated staff recommends alternative #2 .
Action Requested
Direct staff ' to inform SCSWCD that the City would prefer that the
Horizon Heights project be scheduled for 1983 .
JKA/jms
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk
RE: Amendment to the City Code on Parking Regulations
During Snow Removal
DATE: April' 29 , 1982
Introduction
Attached is an ordinance amending the parking regulations during
snow removal , prepared by Mr. Coller, the City Attorney.
Background
Council directed preparation of amendments to the current City Code .
Mr. Coller and Mr. Karkanen, the Street Superintendent, have worked
together in preparing the proposed ordinance .
Council also talked about having a public hearing at the time of
consideration of the ordinance . Council may wish to delay the
public hearing and consideration of this ordinance until this
fall when snow fall will be ahead of us instead of behind us .
Alternatives
1 . Adopt the Ordinance now, without a public hearing.
2 . Direct staff to bring the Ordinance before the Council in the
fall in conjunction with a public hearing.
3 . Set a public hearing for May or June.
Recommendation
None , Council ' s pleasure.
ORDINANCE NO.
Fourth Series
AN ORDNANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AMENDING SHAKOPEE CITY CODECHAPTER
9 ENTITLED "PARKING REGULATIONS" BY REPEALING SUED. 1 OF SEC. 9.08 ENTITLED "PARKING
HOURS" AND BY REPEALING SEC. 9.50 ENTITLED "PARKING DURING STREET MAINTENANCE OR A
WEATHER EMERGENCY" AND BY ADOPTING A NEW SUBD. 1 OF SEC. 9.08 ENTITLED "PARKING
REGULATIONS" AND BY ADOPTING A NEW SEC. 9.50 ENTITLED "PARKING DURING STREET MAIN-
TENANCE OR SNOW PLOWING OR REMOVAL" AND BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE SHAKOPEE CITY CODE
CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 9.99.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
SECTIONI: Repeal
Subd. 1 of Sec. 9.08 and all of Section 9.50 are hreby repealed.
SECTION II: Parking Hours
Subd. 1 of Sec. 9.08: It is unlawful for any person to stop, park or leave
standing any vehicle upon any street for a continuous period in excess of 24 hours.
SECTION III:
Sec. 9.50: Parking during street maintenance and parking between November 15
and April 1.
Subd. 1. There shall be no parking on any city street, alley or public parking
lot when all or any of said street, alley or public parking lot is designated and/or
posted for maintenanee _work by proper city officials or , employees.
Sec. 2. Between November 15 and April 1, inclusive, parking is prohibited between
midnight and 8:00 A.M. on the West and South sides of streets or avenues on even 040
numbered days and on the East and North sides of streets or avenues on the odd num-
bered days.
Sec. 3. Between November 15 and April,l, inclusive, there shall be no parking
on the following streets in the central business district between 2:00 AM and 6:00 A.M.
to-wit:
Second Avenue, First Avenue and Levee Drive between Sommerville and Fuller
Streets; and. Sommerville Street, Lewis Street, Holmes Street and Fuller
Street. between Second Avenue and Levee Drive.
SECTION IV: Exceptions
Upon showing of undue hardship in individual cases, the council may grant modi-
fication or exemption from the above upon notifying the City Engineer, the Street
Department and the Police Department.
..moi _
SECTION V. Penalty Provisions Adopted
Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
applicable to the entire City Code including penalty for violations" and Section
9.99 entitled "Violations a misdemeanor or Petty Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted
in their entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim herein.
SECTION VI. 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
publication.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota in
session of the Council held this _ day of 1982.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
Prepared and approved as to form
this 14th day of April, 1982.
City A orney
l
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: Don Steger
City Planner
RE : Preliminary Plat of Valley Park 7th Addition
DATE: April 26 , 1982
Background :
At the April 15, 1982 meeting the Planning Commission approved
the Preliminary Plat of Valley Park 7th Addition, with the
following conditions :
1. Approval of Title Opinion by the City Attorney.
2. Cash payments be made to the City , at the time of Building
Permit issuance, in lieu of park dedication.
3 . Two tree preservation plans be provided for the City Planner ' s
review. One tree preservation plan for the grading, road and
utility installation to be a part of the Developer ' s Agreement .
The other tree preservation plan for the lot development shall
be submitted at the time of each Building Permit application.
4 . The railroad right-of-way 'in Lot 4 , Block 1, must be
subject to the City easement so that the City shall not be
required to keep and maintain a license for any utility
undercrossings installed in City easement .
5 . The design flow from the sanitary sewer service area exceeds
the capacity of existing facilities when proper peak factors
are used in accordance with City of Shakopee Design Criteria.
An exception can be made so long as the developer and
future property owners understand peak discharge rates must
be limited to three times the average flow of 2000 gallons
per acre, per day, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan.
6 . This subdivision proposes a public lift station. The lift
station is considered acceptable provided :
a. The pump station must be installed pursuant to City
criteria and shall have a wet well and dry well,
together with a three pump system and axillary power.
b . The system may be a package system of approved design
conforming to the City of Shakopee Design Criteria.
c . A special lift station surchage be added to the
sewer service bill to capture 100 percent of the cost
of maintaining the lift station. The developer should
•
John K. Anderson April 26 , 1982
Valley Park 7th Addition Page -2-
supply cost data from private firms that maintain
lift stations on a contract basis , then compute the
present worth of additional maintenance and equipment
replacement cost so that the City and any properties
served by the lift station understand the full cost .
7. Street extensions are now long cul-de-sac extensions that are
suitable if 11th Avenue is extended west to County Road 83 .
Prior to final plat approval, the developer should guarantee
the extension of 11th Avenue west to County Road 83 by
agreeing to construct 11th Avenue by 1987 or when the
development of Valley Park 7th Addition is 70 percent
complete, whichever is first .
8 . The drainage system uses a combination of open-channel and
closed conduit . The preliminary plan does not identify all
of the laterals required. Final plans will require more detail
and must include all of the remaining laterals. Storm water
from Valley Park 3rd Addition, the Kmart site, and Valley
Park 7th Addition, discharge to Dean' s Lake which in turn
discharges to the Dean' s Lake Outlet which is proposed for
reconstruction by the Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District .
In the event the Watershed District does not proceed with
plans to reconstruct the channel from Dean' s Lake to Blue
Lake, the developer must improve Dean' s Lake Outlet from
Dean ' s Lake to the south line of the Kawaski property in
Section 10 , so that the channel has a capacity for the
developed run-off.
9 . Part of Lot 4 , Block 1 is now railroad spur track. Prior to
final plat approval, all of the spur track right-of-way
and any proposed spur track right-of-way should be included
in the lots so that proper City easements for drainage and
utility easement can be dedicated.
10 . Utility easements in Lot 4 , Block 1 are insufficient for
construction and reconstruction of the proposed utilities .
This must be corrected at the time of the final plat review.
11. The developer must obtain all agreements , licenses or permits
for all utility crossings.
12. Execution of a Developer' s Agreement for the construction of
the required improvements :
a. Street lighting be installed in accordance with the
requirements of Shakopee Public Utilities Commission.
b . The water system be installed in accordance with the
requirements of Shakopee Public Utilities Commission.
c . Sanitary and storm water sewer systems be installed in
accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer.
d . Street improvements be made in accordance with the
requirements of the City Engineer.
e. Tree preservation plan to be submitted at the time of
grading, road and utility installation.
•
John K. Anderson April 26 , 1982
Valley Park 7th Addition Page -3-
The staff report and the memo dated April 13, 1982 to the Planning
Commission are both attached. The City Council ' s review of this
preliminary plat is being requested at this time.
Alternatives : •
1. Approve the Preliminary Plat with the conditions as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
2 . Approve the Preliminary Plat with different conditionsof
approval .
3 . Do not approve the Preliminary Plat .
Action Requested :
Motion to approve the Preliminary Plat of Valley Park 7th
Addition with the 12 conditions of approval as recommended by
the Planning Commission at their meeting of April 15 , 1982 .
DS/j iw
Attachments
DATE: April 15 , 1982
CASE: PC 82-11P
ITEM: Preliminary Plat of Valley Park 7th Addition
APPLICANT: Valley Industrial Park, Ltd. (Gary Eastlund )
LOCATION: Valley Industrial Park
ZONING : I-2 Heavy Industrial
LAND USe : Vacant
AREA: 106.06 Acres
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS : Section 11 . 33 ; Section 12
PUBLIC HEARING HELD
CASE HEARD BY PLANNING COMMISSION
CASE HEARD BY CITY COUNCIL
Proposal ;
The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval of a
nine ( 9 ) lot industrial subdivision located south and south-
west of the intersection of Valley Industrial Boulevard South
and Valley Park Drive , in the Valley Industrial Park.
Land Use Compatibility:
Land Use Plan: The entire surrounding area is zoned I-2 Heavy
Industrial to accommodate a variety of ind-
ustrial land uses generally associated with an
industrial park. The proposed plat is in
complete compliance with the Shakopee Compre-
hensive Plan.
Utilities : All utilities are readily available to the sub-
division.
Considerations :
1 . The proposed subdivision ( totaling 106 .06 acres ) is a south-
ward expansion of the industrial park. All nine lots meet
the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and vary
considerably in size :
Block 1 Lot 1 6. 13 acres
Lot 2 9. 87 acres
Lot 3 20. 51 acres
Lot 4 17 .88 acres
Block 2 Lot 1 3.86 acres
Lot 2 6.20 acres
Lot 3 19. 66 acres
Lot 4 7 . 50 acres
Block 3 Lot 1 9. 13 acres
Shakopee Planning Commission April 15 , 1982
PC 82-11P (Valley Park 7th Addn. ) Page -2-
2 . Because of the irregular shape of the entire subdivision,
and the desire to serve most of the lots with rail access ,
many of the lots have an irregular shape . This is part-
icularly true of Lots 3 and 4 , Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2 ,
Block 2 . However, the shape of these lots should not cause
problems with their development , as all setback requirements
can be met . ' Iri addition, basic planning principles have
not been violated.
3 . Drainage and utility easements are being provided around
the periphery of each lot , with the exception of those lot
sides which are formed by the rail lines .
4. The topography of the subdivision is variable . While most
of the proposed lots are sufficiently flat or gently sloping
to accommodate development , Lots 1 and 2 , Block 1 and Lot 1
of Block 2 , appear to need grading in order to be developed.
In addition, grading will be necessary for the rail lines
and roadways . The grading plans are included with the
packet of maps .
5 . Existing stands of trees are scattered throughout the proposed
subdivision. The Subdivision Regulations require their
preservation when possible and desirable. A lineal stand
of pine trees aligns along the southern lot line of Lot 4
of Block 1 . Because of its location, this stand should be
able to be preserved. Other stands of trees tend to be
concentrated on Lots 1 , 2 and 3 , Block 2 . Because of the
necessary grading of these -lots , portions of these tree stands
will be removed. At the time of grading and at the time of
actual development of the lots , particular care should be
taken so as to ensure the greatest degree of tree preservation.
It is widely accepted that the greater use of natural
vegetation can positively affect the quality of the develop-
ment . A tree preservation plan should accompany all Building
Permit applications .
6 . The park dedication should be made in cash, payable at the
time Building Permits are issued.
7 . The acompanying small map indicates the overall plan for
the industrial park in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed plat . The planned layout of the streets and rail
lines are indicated on this map. Disregard the actual
lots on this map, as they are being changed. The align-
ment of rail lines has been approved by the railroad company,
according to the developer. The overall plan for this area
is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
1
Shakopee Planning Commission April 15 , 1982
PC 82-11P (Valley Park 7th Addn. ) Page -3-
8 . Because of the nature of this proposed subdivision, the
Engineering Department review has not been completed at the
time of this writing. This review will be provided at the
Planning Commission meeting.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat of Valley
Park 7th Addition, subject to the following conditions :
1 . Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney;
2 . Cash payments be made to the City, at the time of Building
Permit issuance , in lieu of park dedication;
3 . Execution of a Developers Agreement for the construction
of the required improvements :
a ) Street lighting be installed in accordance with
the requirements of Shakopee Public Utilities Commission;
b) The water system be installed in accordance with the
requirements of Shakopee Public Utilities Commission;
c ) Sanitary and storm water sewer systems be installed
in accordance with the requirements of the City
Engineer;
d ) Street improvements be made in accordance with the
requirements of the City Engineer.
4. A tree preservation plan be provided for the City Planner' s
review prior to any grading or improvements .
NOTE: Staff recommendation is subject to change , depending on the
Engineering Department ' s review of the plat .
Planning Commission Action of April 15 , 1982 -
Moved to approve the Preliminary Plat of Valley Park 7th Addition, subject to
the conditions No. 1 through 12, as indicated on the memo to the Planning
Commission from the City Planner of April 13, 1982 (attached), with the following
amendments to the following numbered conditions:
Condition No. 3: Twotree preservation plansbe provided for the City Planner's
review. One tree preservation plan for the grading and road and utility installation
to be a part of the Developers Agreement. The other tree preservation plan
for the lot development shall be s.ibmitted at the time cf Building Permit applications.
Condition No. 9: Part of Lot 4, Block 1 is now railroad spur track. Prior to final
plat approval, all of the spur track right-of-way and any proposed spur track
right-of-way should be included in the lots so that proper City easements for
drainage and utility easement can be dedicated.
Condition No. 12e: Add the tree preservation plan as outlined above (Condition
No. 3) .
•
v
Q.)
ro C d
U •a
b w
U)
a
Vif1..c > , /)
A cr
z
/•"1 b 1 Q O W m
T. CO 1 > o __Ji Q °3 I,
fa X. > t`.. —'
Q) 1 J
1 > Co
V V) 1 ��=77 O )i
Ii
WI ¢ O1, Q a O
, IZU
.. zd law
Q) .-a u. flir/_.,„„a,rei,
� WL 11 � O1 > ' W0 1 /11/ °`
O ti 1ro111 /111 _Ail
Ai
•,_, Cf) 1 .
ir
Q) 1 0
o t '1 0
4v I 1!/
Li,
-i ,,,I / 4 .I
Q)w ••
Lf;
0..)u_., , z0 12-
• o if
•
•
w w Q
�0 °
•ct
Q) CO
S-i
Ct -+
"� /
cG ,
r-+ o
1 ¢
Q) cd / U
•• > . •
• Z« 1
O
. .
• w
741-34/..
•
MEMO TO : Shakopee Planning Commission
FROM: Don Steger, City Planner
RE : Valley, Park 7th Addition
DATE : April 13, 1982
The City Engineer' s review of the proposed subdivision has been
completed. His comments are as indicated on the "Staff Review
Record - Platting Process" form, attached.
The staff recommendation is being changed as follows :
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat of Valley Park 7th
Addition, subject to the following conditions :
1. Approval of Title Opinion by the City Attorney .
2. Cash payments be made to the City, at the time of Building
Permit issuance , in lieu of park dedication.
3. A tree preservation plan be provided for the City Planner' s
review prior to any grading or improvements.
4 . The railroad right-of-way in Lot 4 , Block 1 must be subject
to the City easement so that the City shall not be required
to keep and maintain a license for any utility undercrossings
installed in City easement .
5. The design flow from the sanitary sewer service area exceeds
the capacity of existing facilities when proper peak factors are
used in accordance with City of Shakopee Design Criteria. An
exception can be made so long as the developer and future
property owners understand peak discharge rates must be
limited to three times the average flow of 2 ,000 gallons per
acre, per day , as specified in the Comprehensive Plan.
6 . This subdivision proposes a public lift station. The lift
station is considered acceptable provided :
a. The pump station must be installed pursuant to City
criteria and shall have a wet well and dry well, together
with a three pump system and axillary power.
b . The system may be a package system of approved design
conforming to City of Shakopee Design Criteria.
c . A special lift station surcharge be added to the sewer
service bill to capture 100 percent of the cost of main-
taining the lift station. The developer should supply
Valley Park 7th Add�,,ion -2-
April 13, 1982
cost data from private firms that maintain lift
stations on a contract basis , then compute the pre-
sent worth of additional maintenance and equipment
replacement cost so that the City and any properties
served by the lift station understand the full cost .
7 . Street extensions are now long cul-de-sac extensions that are
suitable if 11th Avenue is extended west to County Road 83 .
Prior to final plat approval, the developer should guarantee
the extension of 11th Avenue west to County Road 83 by agreeing
to construct 11th Avenue by 1987 or when the development of
Valley Park 7th Addition is 70 percent complete, whichever is
first .
8 . The drainage system uses a combination of open-channel and closed
conduit . The preliminary plan does not identify all of the
laterals required. Final plans will require more detail and
must include all of the remaining laterals. Storm water from
Valley Park 3th Addition, the Kmart site, and Valley Park 7th
Addition, discharge to Dean' s Lake which in turn discharges to
the Dean ' s Lake Outlet which is proposed for reconstruction
by the Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District . In the event
the Watershed District does not proceed with plans to reconstruct
the channel from Dean' s Lake to Blue Lake, the developer must
improve Dean' s Lake Outlet from Dean ' s Lake to the south line of
the Kawasaki property in Section 10 , so that the channel has a
capacity for the developed run-off.
9 . Part of Lot 4 , Block 1 is •now railroad spur track. Prior to
final plat approval, all of the spur track right-of-way and
any proposed spur track right-of-way should be included in
outlots so that proper City easements for drainage and utility
easement can be dedicated.
10. Utility easements in Lot 4 , Block 1, are insufficient for
construction and reconstruction of the proposed utilities . This
must be corrected at the time of the final plat review.
11 . The developer must obtain allagreemcnts , licenses or•permits
for all utility crossings .
12. Execution of a Developers Agreement for the construction of the
required improvements :
a. Street lighting be installed in accordance with the
requirements of Shakopee Public Utilities Commission;
b . The water system be installed in accordance with the
requirements of Shakopee Public Utilities Commission;
Valley Park 7th Addition -3- April 13, 1982
c . Sanitary and storm water sewer systems be installed
in accordance with the requirements of the City
Engineer;
d. Street improvements be made in accordance with the
requirements of the City Engineer.
D /,j iw
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk
RE: Establishing a Policy for Issuance of Parking Permits
DATE: April 29 , 1982
Introduction
On April 6 , 1982 Council : pproved a parking permit policy and
directed that staff prepare a resolution setting forth the
policy.
New Consideration
The B-3 zone is exempt from providing any off street parking. The
B-3 zone pernits multi-family structures with a conditional use
permit . Any apartment unit built in any zone will undoubtedly
be occupied by persons owning one vehicle , if not two. Since the
City has adopted a policy which allows for issuance cf parking
lot pern its for apartment dwellers it seems reasonable to assume
that apartment dwellers in new Etrlctures will some time also ask
for a parking lot permit .
The policy recently prepared was set up for apartments which were in
existence at the time of construction of the municipal parking lots ,
as that is what prompted the parking lot pernit process in the first
place . It exc'udes newer construction. The Huber building and the
High Rise are newer construction and have some off street parking.
Gary Laurent is asking for a conditional use permit fcr a three unit
multi-family structure above the Pat O'Conner building and will have
no off street parking.
Whether or not the City shall allow municipal parking lots for off
street parking fcr apartments constructed in the B-3 zone should be
looked at . Staff recommends that this issue be referred to the ICC
for recommendation and that they irvite input from the downtown
businesses who will lose customer parking if the municipal parking
lots become off street parking for multi-family structures it the
B-3 zone.
Action Requested
Refer the matter or off street parking for apartments in the B-3
zone to the ICC for recommendations .
JSC/kms
RESOLUTION NO. 2001
A Resolution Establishing A Policy For Issuance of
Parking Permits
WHEREAS , Resolution No. 1249 permits the issuance of parking
permits for designated public parking areas in the City of Shakopee,
and
WHEREAS , upon occasion abuse of this privilege is made and it
is the desire of the City Council to establish guidelines for issuance
of said parking permits .
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA that the following policy on parking permits
is hereby adopted :
1 . Parking for periods of time longer than posted shall be limited
to persons residing above commercial buildings which were erected
prior to construction of the municipal parking lots . (Hotel has
own off-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-to-day 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 privilege 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 pro-
visions 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.
/ �1
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson/City Administrator
PROM: Judith S. Cox/City Clerk
RE: Application for $1,500,000 Industrial Development Revenue
Bonds from the Cornelius company
DAI1 : May 5, 1982
•
Introduction:
Both the City Planner and City Engineer have been in touch with Mr. Art Hatch of
Rubber. Industries, since my memo was written on April 30th; as a result, staff
recommendations are as follows (conditions of issuance of an electrical permit) :
A] Building Official's Recommendations:
1] Installation of backflow preventer on main water supply
line.
2] Designation and illumination of three (3) exits as per
Chapter 33 of the State Building Code.
B] City Planner's Recommendations:
1] Because the property abuts a residential development,
screening of the property should be required along the
west side, between the points where the land drops on both
the northwest and southwest ends of the property. The
screening, which must block direct vision, may consist of
fencing, plantings or berms of not less than five feet in
height. (Note: Fencing may. not exceed six feet in height. )
It is recommended that plantings be utilized for screening
because of the aesthetics and ease of maintenance. If plantings
are required by the City Council, the City Council must approve
the type of size of the plantings per City Code. It is rec-
ommended that dense pine trees be utilized of an initial height
of at least 4 feet.
2] Vehicular traffic may not be allowed to gain access to the
property via the south and west. Existing trails must be
blocked.
C] City Engineer's Recommendations:
1] Submission of easement dedicating a 50 foot drainage
easement on the west 50 feet of the Rubber Industries
parcel.
Action Requested:
If application meets the City's policy on Industrial Revenue Bonds: (1) direct
staff to prepare the appropriate resolution granting preliminary approval to the
Cornelius Company for $1,500,000 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, (2) direct
staff to inform the applicant that no electrical permit will be issued until:
a) the installation of a backflow preventer on main water supply line, b) desig-
nation and illumination of three (3) exits as per Chapter 33 of the State Building
Code, c) the parcel.is screened along the west side, between the points where the
land drops on both the northwest and southwest corners of the property (Council
Cox/Anderson
May 5, 1982
Page -2-
shall stipulate screening) , d) access to the south and west is blocked to dis-
courage use, e) an easement is submitted to the City dedicating a 50 foot drainage
easement on the west 50 feet of the Rubber Industries parcel.
JSC:cu
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson/City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox/City Clerk
RE: Application for $1,500,000 Industrial Development Revenue
Bonds from the Cornelius Company
DAI'1: April 30, 1982
Introduction:
A public hearing was set by Council for May 4th at 8:25 p.m. to consider the application
from the Cornelius Company for Industrial Development Revenue Bonds.
Background:
Application has been provided to Council in April, when the hearing date was set.
Application was sent to Mr. Pulscher of Springsted Inc. , the City's bonding consultant,
for review. Mr. Pulscher raised questions which were answered by Dougherty, Dawkins
Inc. to Mr. Pulscher's satisfaction.
Because there is no new construction planned, as the funds will be used for attached
machinery, there are no site plans for staff to review. Although there has been
no site review, and no building permit is required for the installation of the
machinery, staff is recommending that various conditions be placed on the issuance
of the required electrical permit in order that the site and operation is in compli-
ance with the City's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Platting and Building
Regulations, as required in paragraph ld of the City's policy for Review of Bond
Applications.
A] Building Official's Recommendations:
1] Installation of backflow preventer on main water supply
line.
2] Designation and illumination of three (3) exits as per
Chapter 33 of the State Building Code.
B] City Planner's Recommendations:
1] Because the property abuts a residential development,
screening of the property should be required along the
west and south sides. The screening may consist of
fencing, plantings or berms of not less than five feet
in height.
NOTE: Fencing may not exceed six feet in height.
The screening must block direct vision.
2] Vehicular traffic may not be allowed to gain access to
the property via the south. Existing trails must be
blocked. This can be accomplished in conjunction with
the screening.
C] City Engineer's Recommendations:
1] Unpaved parking areas should be paved.
2] Submission of easement dedicating a 50 foot drainage
easement on the west 50 feet of the Rubber Industries
parcel.
Cox/Anderson
April 30, 1982
Page -2-
Our current policy provides that the total aggregate amount of industrial develop-
ment bonds outstanding at any one time shall not exceed 50% of the total assessed
valuation of the City. biding the value in this application, the total amount of
bonds applied for, issued and not issued, is well below the City's 50% assessed
valuation.
Alternatives:
1. Approve application and place no conditions on the issuance of an electric
permit.
2. Approve application and place some conditions on the issuance of an electric
permit.
3. Approve application and place all staff recommended conditions on the issuance
of an electric permit.
4. Deny application.
Recommendation:
1. If Council believes the application meets the policy adopted by the City,
direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution granting preliminary approval.
2. If Council does not believe the policy meets the guidelines, deny application.
Action Requested:
If application meets the City's policy on Industrial Revenue Bonds: (1) direct
staff to prepare the appropriate resolution granting preliminary approval to the
Cornelius Company for $1,500,000 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, (2) direct
staff to inform the applicant that no electrical permit will be issued until:
a) the installation of a backflow preventer on main water supply line, b) desig-
nation and illumination of three (3) exists as per Chapter 33 of the State Building
Code, c) the parcel is screened along the west and south sides, d) access to the
south is blocked to discourage use, e) the unpaved parking areas are paved, f) an
easement is submitted to the City dedicating a 50 foot drainage easement on the
west 50 feet of the Rubber Industries parcel.
JSC:cu
N
INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS OUTSTANDING
Preliminary Date Of
Firm Approval Issuance Amount
Valley Park, Inc .
(Valleyfair) Series 1976 $ 925 ,000
Toro Series 1975 $ 2 ,100,000
Certain Teed Series 1973 $ 1 ,000,000
* Perkins Steak & Cake Feb. of 1980 3-21-80 $ 600,000
* Ziegler , Inc . Dec . of 1979 3-28-80 $ 2 ,300,000
* Scottland Warehouse Feb. of 1980 2-22-80 $ 1 ,000,000
* K-Mart Store Dec . of 1979 3-11-80 $ 1 ,000,000
Ashland Oil Feb. 5 , 1980 Withdrawn $-1,000,.000
* J & B Enterprises Aug. 26 , 1980 1-8-81 $ 490 ,000
* Citizens Bank Building July 29, 1980 11 -8-80 $ 1 ,300,000
Progress Valley Park Dec. 2, 1980 $ 2 ,400,000
(4 warehouses)
St . Francis Hospital Jan. 6 , 1981 $ 9 ,120 ,000
• S & W Realty - Shakopee Jan. 6, 1981 12-15-81 $ 600,000
Shops
Shakopee Professional Group 3/17/81 $ 1 ,000,000
• Valley Health Properties 3/17/81 3-24-82 $ 850,000
• Valley Industrial Center-II 6/16/81 $ 1 , 100,000
* Equities Unlimited ( 1&44) 1-19-82 $ 650,000
Cornelius Company 1 , 500 ,000
$27 ,935 ,000
Note : Current policy states the total aggregate amount of industrial
development bonds outstanding at any one time shall not exceed 50%
of the total assessed valuation of the City.
1982 payable = $81 ,483 ,822 .00.
i
* Closing Documents Executed Ai
SPRINGSTED
INCORPORATED
PUBLIC FINANCE " ;;1/fir
ADVISORS
20 April 1982
2 i 2
Mr. John K. Anderson, City Administrator CITY O & AK E -
City Hall
129 East I st Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Mr. Anderson:
We have reviewed the application for industrial revenue bond financing as
submitted to you by The Cornelius Company. The application appears to meet
the major requirements of the City's policy for industrial revenue financing,
with the following possible exceptions:
The City requires that in the event bonds are issued, such obligations
must be secured by a mortgage, and no senior unsecured debt may be
used unless the company carries a current investment grade rating from
either Moody's Investors Service or Standard & Poor's.
We cannot determine from the information submitted what the security
for the obligations will be. These bonds apparently are to be guaranteed
by The Cornelius Company, or it's parent corporation, IMI Ltd., and the
proceeds used for the acquisition of equipment to be installed in a
structure owned by Rubber Industries Inc. The responsibility, if any, of
the latter company also is not clear.
If you are concerned about the security for these obligations, we suggest
this matter be explained fully prior to the time of the public hearing.
2. The City requires that with any financing, a debt service schedule shall
be fixed to coincide with the useful life of any equipment and furnishings
which are not considered an integral part of the building.
Since this issue is solely for the apparent purpose of acquiring equipment
which is not an integral part of a building, we suggest you request
additional information about the length of the proposed financing and the
useful life of the equipment. The application indicates debt service on
the bonds will be required over a twenty year period.
I am certain the underwriter can provide sufficient information on those
concerns outlined hereinbefore, so as to permit you to proceed with the public
hearing on May 14th.
We are returning the material you sent to us, but are retaining one copy of the
application document.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Very sincerely yours,
Robert D. Pulscher
800 Osborn Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 (612) 222-4241
DOUGHERTY, DAWKINS, STRAND & YOSTp j'"pv,
INCORPORATED La Y
Ajajl
,
111 1382
April 27, 1982 071, 0,
r* ILCP '
•
Mr. John K. Anderson
City Administrator
City Hall
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
RE: Proposed $1 ,500,000 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds
(The Cornelius Company Project)
Dear Mr. Anderson:
We have reviewed the report of Springsted, Inc. submitted to you regarding
the application for the above captioned financing. The report raised some
questions concerning possible exceptions to the City's policy for Industrial
Revenue financing which we would like to clarify by means of this letter.
It is our understanding that the questions raised by the Springsted report
relate to the security for the bonds, the responsibility of Rubber Industries,
Inc. in the financing, and the proposed term of the bond issue.
With respect to the security, it is. the intention that the property acquired
from bond proceeds will be "mortgaged" to secure repayment of the bonds and
interest. Since such property consists wholly of manufacturing equipment
and tooling, which is personal property rather than real estate, the actual
legal document evidencing the lien on such property will be a "Security
Agreement" rather than a mortgage.
With regard to the nature of the obligation of the respective parties to
the transaction, it is the intention that the Cornelius Company, not its
parent, IMI plc, will be the sole guarantor of payment of the bonds.
Pursuant to a contract between The Cornelius Company and Rubber Industries,
Inc. , the Project equipment will be installed in a plant owned by Rubber
Industries, Inc. in the City of Shakopee, but will at all times remain
under the ownership of The Cornelius Company, subject to the Security Interest
granted to the City. Under this contract, Rubber Industries, Inc. will
agree to operate the equipment and produce specified quantities of molded
rubber components to be shipped to Cornelius. In the event of termination
of the contract with Rubber Industries, The Cornelius Company could not
relocate the equipment in another facility outside the City unless and €
until provision has been made for payment of all outstanding bonds.
With respect to the proposed term of the bond issue, it is anticipated
that the principal will be amortized over a period of up to 12 years from
the date the bonds are issued. The Cornelius Company has advised that the
INVESTMENT BANKERS
700 LUMBER EXCHANGE BUILDING O MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55401 0 612/341-6000
Mr. John K. Anderson
April 27, 1982
Page Two
proposed 12 year term is within the estimated useful life of the equipment.
We hope that the foregoing clarifies the points raised by the Springsted
letter. If there are any further questions, we would be pleased to respond
at the May 4th public hearing.
Very truly yours,
Thomas M. Strand
Executive Vice President
TMS:cag
cc: Robert Pulscher
Arthur Hatch
William Ayers
Steve Larson
•
b
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Draft "Comments to the Joint Legislative Commission on
Metropolitan Governance"
DATE: April 30 , 1982
COMMENTS TO THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION ON
METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE
PRESENI'EI) BY THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE
The notice for the Commission' s hearing states that "we will hear
testimony from individuals , groups and organizations regarding their
thoughts and concerns about regional government in the Metropolitan
area and their views on the Metropolitan Council " .
The City of Shakopee has numerous concerns that it intends to present ;
however , the first and most crucial concern falls into the category
of "abuse of Legislative intent".
The most recent example of this has been the Met Council ' s and Metro-
politan Waste Control Commission' s (MWCC ) handling of the sludge land
spreading and sludge ash siting process established by State law.
We have attached a letter from our Assistant City Attorney that out-
lines what has happened in detail .
Shakopee , as a result of legal action costing the City $ J5I9 '. 8 1 ,
was finally able to stop the MWCC from dumping Blue Lake Treatment
plant sludge that was defined as hazardous waste by the court , in
an agriculture area with adjacent residential homes . As a result of
that effort , the City and the MWCC, in an agreement stipulated by
by both parties , agreed to a subsequently approved 1980 State law
specifying how sludge and sludge ash siting would be conducted. In
1981 the law was amended by the Legislature apparently at the request
of the Met Council . Under the directives provided in the amended
law, the Met Council began its siting process . Throughout that
siting process the Met Council has failed to comply with either the
amenc'ed law or the intent of the 1980 law by considering only one
sludge land spreading site and that is the Shakopee site currently
owned by MWCC. So we again have had to employ legal assistance
simply to get the Met Council to follow the siting guidelines estab-
lished by the Legislature .
The second example of Met Council ' s disregard for State Legislative
action is their recently drafted Surface Water Management Policy .
The policy, drafted before Chapter 509 was passed by the Legislature
this year, continues to pursue the same objectives through the same
procedures even where it is clear that they are in conflict with the
newly passed Chapter 509 . The City has attached a memorandum from
the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities that outlines the
areas in conflict in detail .
Mayor and City Council
Page Two
April 30 , 1982
Why are cities required to carry on this constant vigil and expend
untold dollars for expensive legal assistance simply to make sure
that the Met Council fellows and complies with State Legislative
action? These are 'but two 1982 examples ! What about the last eight
years? Perhaps' it is time for the Legislature to appoint a permanent
oversite committee that will do ongoing legislative audits to deter-
mine if the Met Council is adhering to the laws the Legislature itself
passes !
The second area of concern deals with inflexibility of Met Council
staff when applying standards bssed upon Metro averages to individual
communities when the averages are clearly inappropriate for that
specific City.
Shakopee ' s most recent examples with this problem come from our experi-
ence in seeking approval of our Comprehensive Plan. Met Council
staff applied the Metro average sewer flow figures for industrial
areas , 2000 gal . /acre/day, to Shakopee when Shakopee has years of
experience with industrial operations that have an average flow of
less than 1000 gal . /acre/day. This seemingly, innocuous application
of a "metro average" had the impact of cutting in half the 580 acres
of industrial park the City felt could be included in its 1990 expan-
sion area. The City spent untold staff hours and well over $5000
in consulting engineer' s time to "convince" Met Council staff that :
( 1 ) the Metro average was inappropriate , and ( 2 ) that we were capable
of monitoring the average annual flow to insure we did not approach
or exceed a 1000 gal . /acre/day - average .
A seconc' example of this problem, again experienced when seeking our
Comprehensive Plan approval , dealt with standardized rules and regu-
lations for on-site sewage systems . After considerable correspon-
dence we finslly obtained concret requirements that we could in fact
react to. These requirements spelled out quite clearly what was
indeed required and what was "advisory" . It was at this point that
we were able to find a mutually agreeable solution. Today there are
few people in Shakopee who worked on the plan that are not convinced
that the whole drawn-out process took place because Met Council staff
did rot like our 5 acre rural lot sizes and was trying desperately
to get us to change to a 10 acre lot size even though it only was
advisory .
While the City will except some of the blame for the delay, this
type of "tactical maneuver" is inexcuseable when it requires
meeting after meeting for volunteer citizens serving on a City
Planning Commission!
A third area of concern is the cost of Metropolitan government and
services . It is difficult to categorize these concerns but two
categories seen more clear than others :
The first could be called a Management category. Here you find
action such as the MWCC excessive wage rates as outlined in the
Suburban Rate Authorities testimony, the scheduling of 24 hour treatment
plartcoverage that includes a schedule with three 12 hour days
Mayor and City Courcil
Page Three
April 30 , 1982
with the employee being paid for a regular 40 hour work week and
overtime for the additional 4 hours worked each of the three days ,
construction contract change orders that have exceeded 70 and 80
change orders on a 'single contract , construction contract overruns
that total almost 60 million dollars , and benefit payouts to employees
that are totally illegal and may nct even be properly rectified yet
even after notice from the State Auditors Office .
The second category could he called equitability in service delivery.
Why is it that a Transit financing policy can take $203 ,000 out of
Shakopee and for that sun provide only two commuter buses in the
morning and two in the evening? While there may be a rationale for
"regional financing" this is a gross injustice. Oh yes , if we spend
the time and create our own local service we can opt out of part
of this expense. Why is it the rural residential lots pay SAC
charges when the zoning is such that they will never have municipal
sewer or water? Why is it that one community has two large MWCC
facilities in its boundaries ( the second 500 acres ) and the are
no in lieu of taxes? Why is it that we may soon see a Metro Area
Surface Water Management Plan that could tax property owners in
Shakopee for the solution to surface water management problems in
the northern suburbs? Why is it that a community that had its own
sewage treatment plant finds itself in the MWCC district with the
highest debt service costs requiring its property owners to pay for
interceptor se:wersas far South as Prior Lake and as far North as
Minnetonka? Will we have in the not too distant future a Regional
Parks Operation and Maintenance program that again takes dollars
from one area to pay for services in another?
In closing I would like to say that as the new Mayor of Shakopee
I am speaking for all of the Members of the Shakopee City Council
when I say that we fully intend to pursue these concerns and our
concerns about inequities in the Fiscal Disparities Law with the
Legislature. We applaud this effort by the Legislature to get first
hand information about the Met Council ' s performance from the cities
in the seven county metropolitan area , and sincerely hope you will
seriously consider our suggestion that a permanent over site committee
be established! We can assure you that with or without such a
committee Shakopee will be before the Legislature to raise these
and other issues addressed year after year until they are resolved.
9c-
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Request by Don Steger for a Leave of Absence
DATE: April 28 , ' 1982
Introduction
Don Steger is requesting 90 days leave without pay beginning June 1 ,
1982 . Don has also asked that his hours of accrued sick leave be
applied to the first 84. 3 hours of his leave without pay. The request
for leave without pay is for medical reasons cited in his letter
dated April 26 , 1982 which is attached .
Personnel Policy
The applicable portion of the City' s Personnel Policy are listed
below:
Section 13 . Leaves Without Pay
The City Council may grant any permanent employee a leave of absence
without pay for a period not exceeding 90 days except that it may
extend such leaves to a maximum period of one year in case the
employee is disabled or where extraordinary circumstances , in its
judgement , warrant such extension. No vacation or sick leave bene-
fits shall accrue during a leave of absence without pay.
Section 10 . Sick Leave
Subdivision 2 . Purposes - Sick leave may be granted when the employee
is unable to perform work duties due to illness , disability, the
necessity for medical , dental , or chiropractic care , childbirth, or
exposure to contagious disease where such exposure may endanger the
health of others with whom the employee would come in contact in the
course of performing work duties . Sick leave may also be granted for
a maximum of three days for death or serious illness of an employee ' s
immediate family.
Subdivision 3 . Proof - To be eligible for sick leave with pay, an
employee shall :
1 . Report as soon as possible to his department head the reason for
his absence .
2 . Keep his department head informed of his condition if the absence
is of more than three days duration.
3 . Submit a medical certificate for any absence if required by the
City Administrator.
Mayor and City Council
Page Two
April 28 , 1982
The City has no prior experience with such a request , but Don' s
request along with the letter from Dr. Richard K. Waeschle meet
the requirements of the personnel policy.
Staffing Alternatives
A second concern is that of staffing the Planning Department during
Don' s absence . Don and I have discussed this along with the other
personnel that will be affected. There seems to be a number of
alternatives one of which can be nailed down before Don' s leave
would begin:
1 . The City can hire a planning consultant for the 90 days
independently or through only a planning firm.
2 . The City can hire a planning consultant for 20 hours per week
and ask the planning secretary to do more of the routine work
( this has been discussed and is workable given the anticipated
June - August planning and engineering work load) .
3 . The City can hire a summer intern if the individual has the
necessary background.
4. The City could hire Glenda Spiotta who has a planning background
and some familarity with Shakopee .
Summary and Recommendation
If Council grants the request for the 90 day leave of absense without
pay , no pay or benefit payments would be made and Don would have to
decide if he wished to pay the premium for his group Health and Life
policy. Moreover, staff would need to research the four alternatives
and present them to Council by May 18, 1982 .
It is my recommendation that both requests be granted and that staff
be directed to pursue one or more of the above alternatives .
Action Requested
1 . Approve a 90 day leave of absence without pay for Don Steger
beginning June 1 , 1982 . (The first 20 days will be utilized
as sick and vacation time ) , and that his service date be
adjusted accordingly.
2 . Approve the payment of 84. 8 hours accumulated sick leave for
the first 84. 8 hours of his leave without pay.
3 . Direct staff to finalize one or more of the four alternatives
by May 18 , 1982 for final Council action.
JKA/jms
401 -1-rep
!
CITY OF SHAKOPEE ° :ir
INCORPORATED 1870 L.
likkOi
129 E. First Ave. - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 77' -;
.�
April 26 , 1982
04,
Mayor and City Council
City of Shakopee
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Mayor Reinke and Councilmembers :
Pursuant to Section 13 (pg. 10 ) of the Personnel Policies
Manual, I am requesting a 90-day leave of absence without pay .
As indicated in the enclosed letter, my Allergist has suggested
that a drier, warmer and more stable climate may provide an
environment which is better suited to control my allergy/asthma
health condition. The various factors permitting my wife and I
to temporarily relocate to such a climate , so as to determine the
effects on my health, are favorable during June, July and August .
Therefore , we have concluded that this opportunity is simply too
important to pass up . If the leave of absence is approved, I
would request it to begin on June 1, 1982 .
Because the City Policy Manual further states that sick leave
may be granted due to the necessity for medical care, I am also
requesting authorization to apply the approximate two weeks of
sick leave I have accrued to the first two weeks of the leave of
absence .
I would be willing to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Si erely ,
4 - 41
Don Steger
City Planner
DS/jiw
cc : John K. Anderson
City Administrator
Enclosure
7' 170 Hear ( al Pro (7rOcs a11C11
An Equal Opportunity Employer
St. Louis Park
Medical Center
5000 West Thirty-Ninth Street
Minneapolis,Minnesota 55416
Telephone:(612)927-3123
Don Steger
4I ' 1897 East Shakopee Avenue
PAPO A
r
Shakopee, MN 55379
• TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Re: Don Steger
SLPMC #56-92-26
Mr. Steger has asthma which has been chronic in its expression
throughout his lifetime at least from late childhood to the
present. At a prior time he was evaluated by another physician
recognizing dust-mold allergy. Allergy injections were attempted
with unfavorable outcome. Patient relies on medication to con-
trol his asthma. He also needs to maintain environmental con-
trols wherever possible to minimize symptoms. Accordingly, it
has been recommended that his asthma might be more easily managed
in an environment that minimized mold exposure such as the South
west United States. In that climate constancy of temperature
and humidity disallows the expression of mold growth to any great
concentration. Nonspecifically constant weather conditions also
help reduce the symptoms of asthma in those people with very
irritable airways.
If you have any additional requests regarding this patient'.s
health needs, feel free to contact this office.
Sincerely yours ,
L
Richard K. Waeschle, M.D.
mp
701
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Junk Cars/City Wide Clean-up
DATE: April 29 , 1982
Introduction
Council , I believe , has discussed the level of policing City staff
should use in its efforts to keep junk cars and general debris to
a minimum. This spring staff has again discussed the problem and
would like to get Council direction after Council has had an
opportunity to discuss the issue .
Present Conditions
The City Building Inspector, City Planner, Chief of Police and I
have discussed the problem several times in the past few months .
The Building Inspector estimates that there may be as many as
300 junk cars that could be cited in Shakopee at the present time .
This includes a number of vehicles that can be marginally defined
as "race cars" or "stock cars" . In the latter case , staff has
had the frustration of seeing the vehicles "moved" from one loca-
tion to the next when owners are notified. The Building Inspector
also feels that there is a number of piles of old steel , lumber,
etc . that should be checked.
As a group , staff feels that there is a crucial , but subtle, "level
of public acceptance" of community cleanliness that must be guarded.
We feel that the community standards are decreasing and that it
should be turned around. Should Council concur in this assessment ,
the question is how do we turn it around?
Alternatives
1 . The City staff can make periodic (eg. annual or semi-annual )
City-wide inspections .
2 . The City can run ads in the newspaper and over the radio for
a clean-up week and designate clean-up days . This had been done
in the past and can be a major undertaking for the Public Works
crew at a busy time .
3 . The City can approach the problem comprehensively with one of the
successful pre-package national city-wide clean-up programs . This
type of undertaking will require a considerable commitment of
City staff ' s time plus volunteer time .
4. A focused effort could be aimed at a specific problem like junk
cars .
5 . Any combination of alternatives 1 - 4.
Mayor and City Council
Page Two
April 29 , 1982
Recommendation
Staff recommends that for 1982 the City uses a combination of
alternatives 1 and 2 .
Action Requested
Direct staff to notify the public with radio and newspaper ads that
there will be a City-wide inspection for a specified week in May.
JKA/jms
712.)
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Minnesota Housing Finance Agency' s "Accessory Housing"
Home Improvement Loan Program
DATE: April. 30, 1982
Introduction
The Scott County HRA currently administers all of the County' s
Minnesota Housing Finance Agencies (MnHFA) home improvement loan
programs . The demonstration program discussed in the attached
article may be tailor made for Shakopee since all of our urban
residential areas are zoned R2 or R3.
Program
The MnHFA programs can be administered by local banks and my
experience with them has been very positive. The particular
demonstration program discussed in the attached article is ,
I believe , the "right program at the right time" . The article
is brief and the agency is unclear about their goal . Is it to
actually leverage zoning changes with the program, or simply to
find a City that has compatable zoning to try to get the idea of
accessory housing tested? If the latter statement is correct
we have an excellent chance.
Alternatives
1 . Do not pursue the idea.
2 . Direct staff to contact the MnHFA and bring back more details
about the program.
Recommendation
Staff recommends alternative #2 .
Action Requested
Direct staff to contact the MnHFA and obtain information about their
"accessory housing" demonstration home-improvement loan program.
JKA/;ms
..•. wiry,,.. :.,��...� n
•
iJxWf �r'b, q /y
Put apartments in private homes?
.By Leonard InBkip become a controversial issue for lo- most frequently mentioned by peo-
Assoiate editor cal communities. ThCit
e izens pie the league interviewed. "AcCes-
e has been studying housing sory apartments," said the report,
and wil offer recommendations "could be generated quickly to meet
Your neighbor is an elderly person soon.James Solent,head of the limo- a pressing need. They are likely,to
alone in a four-bedroom house. votive Minnesota Housing Finance be more affordable than new con-
Across the street is a retired couple. Agency,—says T s agency struction. They would
permit
Both houses were built for larger looking for some time aF how to elderly,somet
People, especially the to
families, as were others down•the crank "accessory housing" into its maintain a long-term resiuence and
block. The cost to heat and maintain home-improvement loan program. receive enough income to ease the
such houses is the same as though , We're beginning`("o look,"he says, burden of increasing utill'y, incur-
families of five lived in them. Th "for a city desiring to cooperate in a ance and property costs. This ap-
houses are underutilized. .demonstration program." proach...would probably ease the
• housing crunch for young adults and
Meanwhile, Minneapolis has a short- Minneapolis's Bill Rogers, a regular seniors."
age of affordable housing, particu- source of exotic concepts (such as
lady for low-income families, young making Minneapolis a more liveable Tom Musii, director of the real-es-
people of the baby-boom generation winter city by planting more ever- tate education program at the uni-
and the fixed-income elderly. Yet greens), is touting "accessory hous- versity, has an a ditional reason:
half of its housing units (that in- log."..Our zopina laws may be as out The expensive e
eludes apartments) are occupied.by ,of date as thgrbig car," he told lea- housing to meet tto phis
scarcity will
only one or two people. There exists guers. Today% zoning was designed probably result in more underuti-
a mismatch between housing space in an era when a family of four was sized:housing in the 1990s. For one
and housing needs. Zoning laws for the norm, he said, "and I hardly thing, declining school enrollments
single-family neighborhoods block know any anymore." (Rogers is di- today will mean reduced housing de-
greater utilization. • rector of the university's World Af- mends tomorrow. "Why not use our
fairs Center and active in the city's existing housing stock?" asks Mush!,
Greater utilization would require re- Committee on Urban Environment.) an advocate of "accessory housing"
vision of zoning laws to permit your ltcontrolled and done properly.
neighbors, given adequate aesthetic The•League of Women Voters report
standards,to put in a separate apart- spelled out lifestyle changes since Many people will react this way:
meat in their underused house. And 1963 when the city last significantly Okay, but not In my neighborhood.
that is just what some people are changed its zoning code: more old Rezoning in a single-family neighbor-
beginning to talk about. people living alone; more young hood is the most difficult issue zoo-
adults Iiving away from home; later ing officials face,Mike Cronin,a city
.„The League of Women Voters of marriage decisions for young people; planner, told the leaguers. Seventh
rlin- a lis last week issued a re- smaller families; more divorces; Ward Alderman Barbara Carlson
port on Minneapolis housing and ma- more single-parent households. Min- would expect "a lot. of Wince.,"
' Ing,and in May its 600 members will neapolis's population decreased 15 City°Meta's are moving gingerly on
study whether the league should rec- percent in the 1970s,but the number a proto permit conversion 61
ommend permitting such apart- of households rose. some of the Lowry Hill mansions
ments. In the trade, an apartment tg
hvo tfoursize.apartments, depending
added to a single-family dwelling is "More recent concerns about energy on a building's
size.
called"accessory housing." consumption, mass transportation
and the shortage of housing are not The league wants Mayor Fraser and
v. AI ule Tuesday announced a reflected in the zoning document," the City Council to create a task
series of five vernor's Forums" said the report. "While stability and force to give "accessory housing"
to introduce issues he'd like dis- constancy may be attractive, a zon- and other alternative zoning ideas an
cussed in the fall election. The first ing code unchanging over time is not airing. It's an easy thing — for citi-
forum will address'accessory hour- necessarily the most effective or zens or politicians — to deplore
Ing." An aide said- the g eov�rnor is best tool for achieving desirable de- housing costs and scarcity; it's quite
concerned about underuse of exist- velopment.The zoning code could be another to accept change in one's
ing housing when so many people revised to reflect changing lifestyles own neighborhood.How,the leaguers
can't find affordable housing. and thus he a more effective tool for themselves respond may give a clue
• But QLeague uis and the of Women providing affordable housing" . to "accessory housing's" future in
the city's single-family neighbor-
Voters aren't alone on what'could "Accessory housing" was the change hoods.
Law Offices of RECEIVED
KRASS, MEYER, KANNING, & WALSTEN APR 2 1 1982
Chartered Phillip R. Kress
Shakopee Professional Building CITY O SHAKOPEE Berry K. Meyer
1221 Fourth Avenue East Philip T. Kenning
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Trevor R.Walston
(612)445-5080 •
April 20,1982
Mr. John Anderson
City Administrator
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Re: Valleyfair, Inc. , vs. County of Scott
Dear John:
Enclosed please find a Stipulation in the above matter which I
would ask that you submit to the Council for approval . Thank you.
Yours very ly,
KRASS 'EYE' , NNING & WALSTEN
,RTE' D /
'. • Krass
PRK:ph
File #1-1373-120(h)
Enclosure
Action Requested :
Approve Court File No. 81-04444 which stipulates an order for
judgement reducing Valleyfair' s market value for 1980 by $350,000 and
setting their market value for 1980, 1981 and 1982 at $5, 543,000.00.
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF SCOTT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Valleyfair, Inc. ,
Petitioner;
-vs- STIPULATION
County of Scott, Court File No. 81-04444
Respondent.
This Stipulation is made and entered into by and between Petitioner,
Valleyfair, Inc. , and Respondent, Scott County, and their respective coun3el .
WITNESSET H:
WHEREAS, Petitioner filed a Petition with this court dated May 28,
1981 , alleging Respondent's valuation and assessment of Petitioner's property
for real estate taxes levied in 1980 and payable in 1981 were excessive,
partial , unfair, unequal and, therefore, illegal ; and
WHEREAS, this matter came on for trial before the Honorable Carl
Jensen, Judge of State of Minnesota Tax Cort on the 16th day of March, 1982,
at Shakopee, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, before the time for commencement of trial , the parties were
able to reach an agreement and resolution of all the issues involved including
the valuation and assessment of Petitioner' s property for real estate taxes
levied in 1981 and 1982, and payable in 1982 and 1983, respectively; and
WHEREAS, counsel for the parties read said agreement into the record
before this Court on March 16, 1982; and
WHEREAS, the parties wish to incorporate said agreement into a
written Stipulation and Order for Judgment of the Court.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated and agreed as follows:
1 . The market value of Petitioner's taxable real property, legally
described in the Petition filed herein, as of January 2, 1980, for the purpose
of determining property taxes payable in 1981 , shall be reduced by Three
Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($350,000) to Five Million Five Hundred Forty
Three Thousand Dollars ($5,543,000) .
2. The market value of Petitioner's taxable real property, legally
described in the Petition herein, as of January 2, 1981 , and January 2, 1982,
for purposes of determining property taxes payable in 1982 and 1983
respectively, shall be Five Million Five Hundred Forty Three Thousand Dollars
($5,543,000) , provided, however, that Respondent may determine separately the
market values of any taxable inprovements to Petitioner's real property not
subject to assessment as of January 2, 1980, and levy appropriate additional
taxes thereon.
3. The terms of this Stipulation may be incorporated into the Order
for Judgment of the Court. Upon entry of Judgment, Respondent shall correct
its tax list and asessment rolls to reflect the terms of the Judgment.
Petitioner shall pay the amount due under Paragraph 2 of this Stipulation,
less amounts already paid thereon, within fifteen (15) days of receipt of an
amended tax statement from Respondent.
4. Petitioner shall not be required to pay any interest or penalties
which may have accrued on any previously unpaid real estate taxes on matters
involved in this proceeding.
5. No costs or disbursements shall be awarded to either party.
Dated:
VALLEYFAIR, INC. COUNTY OF SCOTT
By By
Its F1don Reinke, Mayor, City of
Shakopee
By
John / n erson, i ty Administrator,
City of Shakopee
BROEKER, HARTFELDT, HEDGES & KRASS, MEYER, KANNING & WALSTEN
GRANT CHARTERED
By By
John M. Broeker Phillip R. Krass
And Attorney for Respondent
1221 Fourth Avenue East
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Telephone: (612) 445-5080
By
Terri A. Hagemeyer
Attorneys for Petitioner
2850 Metro Drive, Suite 800
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55420
Telephone: (612) 854-5263
•
91,0
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk
RE: City Code Requiring Payment of Taxes Prior to Granting
a Beer or Liquor License
DATE: April '28 , 1982
Introduction
Pursuant to your request , I have reviewed the current City Code
requiring payment of taxes prior to Council approval of a beer
or liquor license and offer possible options as set forth later
in this memo.
Background
The City Code currently reads "No license shall be granted for
operation on any premises upon which taxes , assessments , or
installments thereof, or other financial claims of the City, are
owed by the applicant and are delinquent and unpaid" . Does the
City Council wish to make any changes at this time? Because licenses
will be considered by the Council in June , any amendments desired
for the upcoming licensing year should be made in May in order to
be effective June 1st .
Alternatives
The following alternatives are offered for consideration, but are
not limited to same :
1 . No change . This does not require payment by property owner when
applicant is leasing premises .
2 . Amend City Code by striking "are owed by the applicant and".
This would require payment of taxes whether or not applicant
owns the premises . This could place the applicant in a diffi-
cut situation if the owner was not able to pay his taxes , but
would be more uniform.
3 . Amend Ordinance to allow one grace period of 6 months or so,
this would encourage the delinquency of payments . Once an
applicant became used to utilizing this procedure , I question
the merit of its existance .
4. Amend City Code to provide that no taxes are delinquent as of
December 31 of the year preceeding the application. The way
the City Code is written, if Council considers an application
in June , the 1st 1/2 of the current year' s taxes should be paid.
Since beer and liquor applications are considered in May and
June , there is a duplication of effort required here , if appli-
cations scheduled for May consideration by Council are delayed
until a June meeting. This would simplify the administrative
process which get hectic in June anyway. (This is how I have
been operating) .
John K. Anderson, City Administrator
Page Two
April 28 , 1982
5 . Do not amend the City Code as outlined in 4 above requiring all
applications considered by the Council in June to have first
1/2 of current year ' s taxes paid. (This year applications are
scheduled for Council consideration on June 1st , and I do not
know if I can actually obtain that information on the same day
following the May 31st deadline .
6 . Amend the City Code deleting the provision requiring that payment
of taxes be current . In today ' s economic climate especially, I
believe the City should encourage payment of taxes in a timely
manner because the County, school and City governments depend
upon this revenue to operate; however, if it is not going to be
enforced it should be deleted.
Recommendations
The City Clerk recommends alternative 4 , which provides that there
are no delinquent taxes as of December 31st of the year preceding
the application. The subdivision would then read: "No license shall
be granted for operation on any premises upon which taxes , assess-
ments , or installments thereof, or other financial claims of the
City , are owned by the applicant and are delinquent and unpaid as
of December 31st of the year preceding the application" .
Action Requested
Direct staff to prepare an ordinance amending the City Code to pro-
vide that no beer or liquor license shall be issued if taxes are
delinquent and unpaid as of December 31st of the year preceding the
application.
JSC/jms
a) a) co a) 0 0000000 00 a) 00000 a) a) w a) co U1 Co CI/•
H H' H H F--` F-, F-' H H' F-' 1-' 1✓ N N A H F-' F•-' 1--` 1-, F-' N N F-` F-' 01 .A I
4 .A -P -P .A -P -P � � � 1P -PJB N) � •AA � � A •P - -11. -I' - N ti -'
CD CO CD CC) CO COW COW W WWW W W W N N N N N (C) (t) c0 (C) (1) U'1 0+•) t*7
N N) N) N) N ".,1 �l -.4 -.] �) �l �l -'] J 0 Ca CO CO CA) CJ N) N CO N N ' O CU h
C a) .A (n 1-' 0000000 00 0 00000 Cil N F--' H' 0 COO H
• . • . . • • H r
CO CO (0 CO 0) 01 C CO F-' H' -A W W A 0 H H' 1-' W (0 (D CD CD CD 01 0 a C,
H H' H F- F"' N H N co OD N I- (I7 N 0 co N a0 CO H' F-' F-' N 1-' F- 0 0 n C
H H H H H N H H N H H H H J 0 - H H N H H H 1-' H H 0 C) r;
O
CO CD (DH H H CO H HN)at) auNF-' 01 N 0 a0NaDa0H H 0
H H H H H H0 H
L•;
CCC
I
CO CO a) a) 0 0000000 00 co 00000 a) a) co co a) Ong
H' F- HF•-' H' H H H H FA H H HH A H I- I--' HH H H H H H 0 -1 n
1- F-' F--' H H H H H I--' H HI-' HH H H H H H H H H H' H' F� F� H
0 0 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 CO
H H H H H 1-' H' 1-' H H H H HH H H F--' FH H H H H H F-' H' }-" 1-' Cl
0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O n
H
CTI H 01 -1 N �7 H (n
H _A U1 1-' H CS) H N 0 U1 -.) H' �7 cD 0 CD CO
0 • N H A (TIHCx) 4 01N) 010) '4-1 co
co �l -.1 H -. I-' NCO0H' -.1aD Cn01 H COW W CnCn CO coH 0 CO �7 01 -
0.) 01 4 -7 CD U1 0 .A co cn -.7 -.1 0 0 U1 U1 0 U1 cn 0 co 0 .A H W N 0
H 0 01 U1 0 a) -3 -1 01 a) co a) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Co N 0 N) CO 0“-A) z
H
Pi P7 Pi P7 H C b7 '17 P xJ 0 tz1
CD CD CD CD (D Cl Cl H 1-' (D CD p CD CD Cl_
,v
3 3 3 3 H H. H. Cl) = _ - - Q 3 3 'C 3 3 - H
H. N. H. H. CD H H C) O4 H H. r-j H. H- CD n
R Cl R Cl •U H. H • • Cl Cl 0 Cl Cl
C) 0 C CU 0 H. H. tri 'TJ ''_] H Cl) '_] H
A) A) A) CD CD X P C11 H H H
F'• CD C) Cl) V = _ _ Z. ). Z 0 (n H H 0 CT)
Cl(D CD CD Z t j Ci C
0
'I '1 'I P H' Cl) • N• C
C7 C) Cl CD CD a) 7C
H H C C) C20 QQ = a cn
C C CD t" = Cl cn cD
CD C) C) H (;) r.S ;U C
H) P H. _ _ _ = CD cr
CD (n C) T7 Cl)
H.
Cl
Z t" r CO Z -I cn 'b CA . H 0 H xl
Z 0 0 P H. = Z CD ct Cl) ct Cl) C Cl) H.
M c) M n a p Z )) Cl art =n
CO OD I) T, CO 0 < • _ _ _ = n r Cl 3 ' ty
CD 1H (D CD CD Iv x' CD Z • Z Iv z
• C/) '1 H IN H tri Cl) P P 0
CD R C Cn H W = H x H Cl 0 Cl a 0
H) p C Cl) CD •0 Cl '-i - '-+) -
H. rs H. t" C) c< '1 __. CD 1-' I--+
R 0 H. 0 CD 0 W I P7
t" C H) t=i _ _ - _ P Cl) Cl) (D Cl) =Cc, I
> H. CD 1--H Cl) C C
H. 'I Po CD cncn
O N cr Cl) '1 0 C
C) H 0 ''S
O N CD
CD CD
C) n
•
01 N 01 J N J n
H' 01 co H •.1 H v (D 0 Co
0 N H' a) CO N 0 CO aD (A) .A U1 0)
CJ �] �] H �l U1 0 H' Cl CO H 0 CO �7 0
CA) U1 �] �] CD• (A) �1 0 0 0 CD O .A H' 01
H 0 01 (n 0 N 00 0 0 co N) 0 N) m ��
n
co co (O CD CO CO CD CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
(I1 U1 U1 CTI 01 U1 01 01 01 01 01 U1 U1 U1 U1 •Z
CO CD CD CO CO CO co CD CO CD CO CO Op 0) 0
CO a) -) a) (I1 0) N H 0 CO CO -) 01 01
• 1
,.
o cn H co
H rn H H PE
A A H A
W cn 0 c0 c
CO H co N tal
O c0 0 •-1 t
• • • .-3
H 01 0 (0
N) 0 0 H
OD Cb Ul H O H F-' 0) 0 I-' n
At-' 01Hi' O H A 0 c0 C
•
LTib C)
o c-+ 4] Cl) N I-' 0 I-'
UI ) O cY CD F-' H
n na • cn .
O 0 Zi n C 0 01 r-' m
• H H CD A) << H 01 H 1---
i--' a C) H n
'0 • rxj H H H H
y '1 ell C 0 0 0 C
n 0H H H H
ril n
• < C a O O C n
U) CD Q. n
c t B sa H
CD
ClSol
A
(I) A ()
Ul 0 ci N
N co O C.J
(y) W A O o
F- N A O 0 0
0) 01 O 0 0 c
fR .64y
A N
A U1 (001 CO
cn (0(0 001 0 Cn C-.)C-.)0 -- co R. cD
N O CO 0 0 'L3 < a to
• .u) 0) OO • 0 Cl C Cl Hn
H NCO JON H C) I
(3) CONCf) O0' U) H CD H
I C7
Ro H C] Cl)
0 'O• a
0 i-5 a
• O •
M C
• CD
• CD
CD ti
• <
cr H
U) 0
CD
U)
0 a 0 H
H 11 H. C7
Cl () Cl cn
H 0
N r ri
CD 0 H Z
• 0 H) M 0
U) o CD 0
O U)
r cn H
CD cr )
Co • K. cn
OR 0 •
C b
o CD
CD
VI
A ca
A nPq
Cn O cn N
0) c) �A O O
H N A O O
0) Ut O O O
n
cn cn cn rn
o O O O o
W N H , 0 •
,,r. .,„ tj+�,> City of Shakopee
/ - a K 9 P f POLICE DEPARTMENT r ' ' A
v�r 5...•
f wF
,/ .. \�NES0 I\ :-
�1l �.NNk Pi 74<s � 476 South Gorman Street (1 tee.
';/
( ) 1�f. . SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 lai.t: M
P \—�E Tel. 445-6666 It'.
f.0 j G st
•
''55379 ( y'
,...1_ „55379
17
TO: Mayor, Council Members
FROM: Tom Brownell
SUBJECT: Bid Proposal, Propane Tank/Dispensing Equipment
DATE : April 21, 1982
INTRODUCTION
On March 23 , 1982 , Council directed staff to prepare bids for
an 11,000 gallon propane storage tank and related dispensing
equipment using revenue sharing funds.
BACKGROUND
A bid proposal has been prepared by the Chief of Police, Public
Works Director and reviewed by the City Attorney.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Approve bid proposal and direct staff to advertise for bids
for propane storage tank capacity of at least 11,000 gallons
and necessary dispensing equipment.
170 .St've zotect
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
BID PROPOSAL
PROPANE TANK/DISPENSING EQUIPMENT
Bid proposal to be opened Tuesday, May 25 , 1982, 10 :30 a.m. CDT,
Shakopee City Hall, 129 East 1st Avenue , Shakopee , Minnesota
55379.
INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS
A. Bid must be typewritten or written in ink.
B. Bid envelope must be sealed and bear the inscription "Bid
for L.P. Tank" as well as the name and address of bidder .
C. Bid envelopes shall be addressed to the City of Shakopee,
Director of Finance , 129 East 1st Avenue , Shakopee , Minne-
sota 55379.
D. Bids must be accompanied by a certified check, cashier' s
check or bid bond payable to the City of Shakopee in the
amount of 5% of the total bid.
DELIVERY
A. Bidders shall quote on the basis of delivered price and all
bids shall include all transportation and delivery charges.
B. The delivery point shall be the City of Shakopee, Public
Works Facility, 500 Gorman Street.
FINAL INSTALLATION DATE
Bidder shall indicate on the bid proposal the number of calendar
days after the receipt of order that the unit will be fully
operational and capable of fueling motor vehicles.
MANUFACTURER' S SPECIFICATIONS
A complete set of manufacturer ' s specifications and illustrated
description shall be furnished with each bid proposal.
- 2 -
WARRANTY
Bid proposal shall include warranty period, whereby any defective
material, parts, workmanship and/or inadequate design shall
promptly be replaced or repaired at no cost to the purchaser .
BID SECURITY
Money deposited as represented by thecertified check, cashiers
check or bid bond accompanying the proposal shall be held until
delivery/installation is completed.
BID AWARD AND ACCEPTANCE
Award shall be based on, but not necessarily limited to, the
factors of price, delivery, experience with proposed product,
evaluation of the bidder' s ability to service the City in terms
of the requirements as called for in the specifications, general
reputation and experience of bidder, the nature and extent of
company data furnished with this bid or furnished upon request
by the City at any time prior to bid award, financial respon-
sibility of the bidder, quality of product (s) or service ,
analysis and comparison of specification detail, discount
offered and bidder ' s ability to meet delivery requirements.
The City reserves the right to award or reject bids where such
action is deemed to best serve the interests of the City of
Shakopee .
TERMS
Net thirty (30) days .
GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS
A. Bidder shall obtain all permits, site approval of the State
of Minnesota Fire Marshall and furnish drawings to the City.
B. Bidder shall install storage tank and pumping systems on
concrete foundations.
C. Tank shall be placed on piers and fitted with all necessary
valves and gauges as required by Minnesota State Code and
NFPA No. 58 .
D. The transport riser shall be located 10 feet from the
storage tank.
E. Bidder shall provide all piping, valves and fittings which
shall be new and installed in accordance with Minnesota
State Code and NFPA No. 58.
- .J -
CITY WILL PROVIDE
1. Site preparation.
2 . Electrical service to. site.
3. Install guard posts.
4. Provide additional fencing if necessary.
EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS
A. One (1) new/used 11,000 water gallon minimum propane storage
tank or combination of tanks, not to exceed a total of two.
Tank (s) shall be retrofitted with new relief valves, excess
flow valves, regular valves, gauging devices, including
float and roto gauges, breakaway adapters, rain caps for
relief valve stacks and any other devices as required to
insure safety. Tank (s) shall be retested and certified.
B. Transport unloading riser which meets or exceeds the current
Minnesota and local code requirements.
C. Gas pump capable of 12 GPM flow or better at 50 PSI .
D. Meter with a flow rate of 14 gallons per minute.
E. One (1) "Code Lock Console" with a minimum of 16 totalizers
installed, including electrical with the capability of add-
ing additional totalizers.
F. Pump cabinet, piping, valves, fittings, safety signs and
fire extinguisher .
G. Tank, riser and piping to be painted with a primer and white
finishing coat.
•
/010
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: Abatement .of Special Assessments on City Property
DATE: April 28, 1982
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND:
The Council has levied assessments against various City properties
for improvement projects over the past few years. These assessments have
been paid out of the P.I.R. Fund but it has come to light that it is not
appropriate to use P.I.R. monies in this manner. The alternatives are to
use General Fund resources to pay the assessments or to abate the assessments
and use the special levy for debt service, if needed, to make bond payments.
In reviewing the five funds involved, I am confident that four will not need
the extra levy. The fifth (1980-A) is a more recent issue with a longer time
to run and is at a higher interest rate. The interest earnings and the rate
of delinquencies play a major role in the health of an assessment fund. At
this point, it appears that the 1980-A fund will not need an extra levy to
to offset these abatements. The need for a special levy for debt service
across the whole City will be addressed in budget cycle.
The recent 1982 budget amendment package that Council passesd on 4/6/82
included the alternative of abating the assessments. Therefore, this memo is
to request that Council pass the motion below to abate the assessments on City
property and subsequent budgets will provide for tax levies to service bonds
if needed.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Move to abate the assessments on City property as contained in the
attached list in order to conserve the City's General Fund resources.
GV/ljw
attachment
Deferred
Parcel Number Code /1 '82 Interest '82 Principal Principal
27-001077-0 51 40.73 56.57
27-001087-0 51 16.29 22.63 181.02
27-001136-0 51 27.24 37.84 302.72
27-001137-0 51 18.94 26.28 210. 19
27-001139-0 51 11.73 16.29 130. 35
27-001138-0 51 17.88 24.82 198.52
27-002021-0 51 23.24 32.26 258.07
27-001454-0 45 107.61 236.47 1,418.85
27-001267-0 51 57.85 80.33 642.66
27-001244-0 51 54.99 76.37 610.98
27-001243-0 51 40.05 55.63 445.03
27-001175-0 51 13.58 18.86 150.85
27-001176-0 51 18.74 26.02 208. 19
27-001177-0 51 13.04 18. 10 144.83
27-001178-0 51 31.51 43.75 349.99
27-001228-0 51 77. 13 107. 11 856.88
27-001229-0 51 19.02 26.40 211.20
27-001231-0 51 20.37 28.29 226.28
27-912038-0 45 123. 15 270.67 1,623.99
27-912042-0 45 14.77 32.45 194.67
27-908030-0 55 10.49 8.87 79.78
27-089006-0 20 114.25 178.51 1,249.52
30 6.42 26.74 53.50
40 22.65 56.63 226.51
27-046008-0 55 172. 16 145.66 1,310.98
52 1,542.26 1,958.42 15,667.37
27-065039-0 55 10.70 9.06 81.51
27-020004-0 51 7.98 11.06 88.51
27-015018-0 45 160. 76 353.30 2,119.83
27-002013-0 51 15.56 21.60 172. 78
27-001067-0 51 77. 13 107. 11 856.88
27-001066-0 51 25.72 35.70 285.64
27-001063-0 51 90.00 124.96 499.84
27-001058-0 51 3.63 5.03 40.22
27-001057-0 51 7.60 10.56 84.48
27-001056-0 51 25.34 35.20 281.60
27-001055-0 51 21.99 30.55 244.38
27-001054-0 51 5.70 7.92 63.36
27-001053-0 51 38.57 53.55 428.44
27-001052-0 51 62.99 87.47 699.72
27-001051-0 51 18.67 25.93 207.42
27-001049-0 51 19.28 26.78 214.21
27-001050-1 51 13.50 18.74 149.96
Code 51 Total 935.99 1 ,299.71 9,445.20
Code 45 Total 406.29 892.89 5,357.34
Code 55 Total 193.35 163.59 1,472.27
Code 20 Total 114.25 178.51 1,249.52
Code 30 Total 6.42 26.74 53.50
Code 40 Total 22.65 56.63 226.51
Code 52 Total 1,542.26 1,958.42 15,667.37
f
/o
,,f -7
-,�.,�• .,; a\,� City of Shakopee N
-5 N t• K P E E POLICE DEPARTMENT
� ,� 0NNESpI
' Is' IL/ 4 476 South Gorman Street 1
L - i 1•S,
15/' l° . SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 14
, Tel. 445.6666 '1./ KC
O L G E � •� ,,r t
' 55379 f "
TO: Mayor , Council Members
FROM: Tom Brownell
SUBJECT: Traffic Accident Review
DATE: April 27, 1982
INTRODUCTION
Council Goal, to be informed as to traffic problems on specific
streets.
BACKGROUND
Traffic accidents for 1981 and the first quarter of 1982 are be-
ing reviewed; two intersections .require corrective signing as
soon as possible due to a frequent on-going accident rate.
1. East 4th Avenue and Sommerville Street:
a. 6 property damage accidents.
2 . East 3rd Avenue and Sommerville Street :
a. 4 personal injury accidents.
b. 1 property damage accident.
The Chief of Police, City Engineer and Director of Public Works
have consulted and concur as to the best recommendation to reduce
the accident potential at the two intersections. Our goal is to
discourage motorists from using Sommerville Street as a north/
south route which has contributed to 9 property damage/2 personal
injury/l pedestrian accident at East 1st Avenue and Sommerville
Street.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Intersection of East 4th Avenue and Sommerville Street:
a. Remove yield signs from southeast and northwest corner
of intersection.
go ,..s. J0 ,uottct
- 2 -
b. Install stop signs on southeast and northwest corners of
intersection.
Impact: Vehicles proceeding north or south on Sommer-
ville must stop at East 4th Avenue
2 . East 3rd Avenue and Sommerville Street:
a. Install stop signs on southeast and northwest corners of
intersection.
Impact: Vehicles proceeding north or south on Sommer-
ville must stop at East 3rd Avenue.
ACTION REQUESTED
Direct staff to implement the recommendations to replace the yield
signs at the S .W. and N.W. corners of 4th and Sommerville with
stop signs and install stop signs at the S .E. and N.W. corners of
3rd and Sommerville.
%/a
* Ui \" \" \n \n (Fund
w co co a\
a * * * * *
N
co -3 ON v, -P- w N H 'Priority
cl-
a N 0 -w.1 c~-w N rnw IV ON IProgram Number
H
Cogti pZA t[=J 1 ...i tri x t+i ud ti = Lii C ti W
N �u�c+ K ems+ e+ e+ ccamc+ H c+ emsto M to+ 0 (D
C~• Or oS. o w. • K H
i+4 CY 0 � y c+ y c�+ c�+ cC+ F---,
i► CDa rn C o 4 o CD CD o
P. e+ aa < a a rn a 0 a 11 a PC
104
CD Ca 0 p 0 a C) N CI 6 Ca 2 o rn
o m 0 040 0 a 0 m 0 0 PO 0 i
co c+ to to (D CD to I-i- cn to t1 w c+ Cl) c+
•e+ a `+ H PI • � 1 `+ N C* •`•t 0 :•+ 0
c+ O b m M Description
4 N g c+ 1 �� Cl) .. P. h:
go N a O m N H fD H O O co •
c7 m V1 • Vi Co 0 i� W 2 0 i —3 \n
O c+ O 0) O c+ O 0 Cl) 0 �� 0 0
O W O p O �S O 0 0 Cl) 0 U1 O
O 0 0 N 0 0 0 CD 0 CD 0 0
ci- aD ,TJ
CO
• 'easibility
• rvv 1°'v :. 1N) 11, ONo Report
• w Cop •• o : o PUC
•• N N . N . N pproval
• co W • -. m
• co Co • CO . o JPublic
0
• N N • N . N Hearing z
H m
•• � • ,, • • Plans and
Co• : co
•
OD
:. w- NN (Specifications c:
• --- : •. (Right-of-Way x H
.• cquisition ', OO
[r N
2
OD -3
• •----
. •• � • id
•: co •. NN :. :. N (Date 0
H
• •g" w co
L-,
• •• . — Assessment• '<
:. - .. N) :. :. N• O) . (Hearing co m
m
0
. •
• rn • k.o •. : rn : rn : rn : rn : w completion• H
• Crn •• o • Co • o • o • o • Cop • o ate
.. ,p. " N •• w •. N .. N •. N .. N .. W
Z C br1
XC) b d M O W r o w ;? o tcd Z C t i 3 C) W ;-) is
O\ N
O\ H HO' 1 H H H W N w H W W-a JEngineer
0 0 - Ww O O O O-J co N w O 0\ 0 N 0\\Il Vl V7----3
..r,
--a H W rn vo N H H N V, ND vi 0\ fechnician III
cr
O 0-'1 0\�� 0 0 ON 0 W Q\ 0 0\ 0 0 N 0 N)U) 0 0^I J
CO N w H N 1Technician 1I 'f.;
ON 4-vi 0 H N vi W ON Co O\co H
0 0--d N -- \n 0 0 0 0 co H 0 co Vl c: 0 0 N W H 0\ 0\O\ Inspector : 1 ,
F.-
I✓
Technician 1 (-••000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 inspector 1 o 'd
1s
_ P.
'l H
Oo H N w H H H • N) Secretary m `0
O O-,1 N) \0 H o 0 H H N VI H ON 0 -P"0 NII 0 •F` N
V7 VI Vi VI Vl Vm H
W 0 Co
N
\p —3 --I ON .P" Nil NO H co +~-' N -,4 r'\O of Total
O O Vt W W W 0 0-J H Vl 0 N)\O .-- 0 H 0 0\- N \n Vi N
vi vi Vl Vl Vl vi vi
io-
N H 4-� N H f-' N N W N ON H v. VH CO
1 1 w 0\H �p 1 1 p N ,p --"N I . N ro w W w Engineering
I I w w ti � o o .- N - o a\ I H w0 vi:rn -a w co Dept. Fee
vvi
0
o w CO
bbi (Fund
t(D HH H H 1~v H 0 'Priority
P., ,fi P H N CO (Program Number
N
oho t'i H ti 'V t=i 1-I LII 0 tri N LII +3 til O tiJ 'TJ
N + H. + .4 + 5 cc+ •0 Cn c+ `X Cal + pa + go • + p) m
m m o m s m a p we w 10, P• N :d
c+ (D c+ ;y c+ y c+ • c+ (D (D c+ c+ • c+ ON P-
M 0 (D c+ (D {b (I) (D c+ C3 (D ori (D t'J ( \o 014
Pu c+ a Pc a Co a � z a tp aim ON a
O 0 O o O O c+ 0 W O c+ C)
o a 0o o 0 E o • o o c o M
co < C14C)) \ co F'• m p) C) m o c+ m 0
c+ (D c+ c+ H c+ gl, c+ c+ c+ c+ p) c+ r-y N. c+ K
tN HKO ~ o Description
( H • 2 c+
•611- ttr 0 t 0 w R. rte• • H1:0e• 1
ul ti xm
CoIv
N w 0 H (D 4 r a - • U) W
O 0 —1 r. 0 0 ) (D VI Cl) 0 0 N
O 0 0 c< 0 0 Oq •0 (D • N . g
O 0 0 m 0 0 0 N 0 CD 0 0 a
O O 0 H• 0 0 0 11 0 0 0
M N ..
0
. ON I-'
• -4 •
•
. Cr\ • 'easibility
• o a •• C° • co
• N : N :. N
0 Report
_5 JPUC
S• co a • N • oo ppproval.
• N
•
W.
•• 0 • Co,, •• ,, .. `Public o
• . Iv • a • (Hearing
N
• H 2 .
CO• w • H • "' Plans and I-,.) • oNo ••• oN° CoN • Specifications•
• „
• N 2 2 • 2 • \ \ • ▪ Right-of-Way
x
CO P
•▪ J A : a •:N • Co •cquisition 1
•. .. .. Cr
N
a • OD • OD • CO id 0
:. t.....) • N :. �") :. rat
tH
ssessment ,--C
°W° :. • SHearing x
0
•• CR • • ON • Vo : Vo • .� • v\ �omplet ion• '�
• �rn • neo •• o • o • o • o • opo • ate
•• - N •• to •. N .. la •• N .. N ..
SOW XObn $ OW XO W 70to 3c) b:7 z0to 3 :] W
o CO N co-~.t \o Co w rn Engineer
0 0 -4 0 0 •P'• O H 0 0 CA-I 0 -p----..) 0 0 V1 0 0.4 0 0 0
\r,
H1.
H Vi H H 0v~i eo H W Technician III 0
O O V1 CD COO 0 W 0 V1 \O.p- 0 OV1 0 0 0 0 ON N 0 0 0 0
V1 '1
H
kO VI N N H Technician II "•
00O -I -1rn 0 -40 OD U1-1 )-...1 0 0��- 0 00 0N) 000 Inspector It c,".14- w
H. C'
v, CY
Technician I
0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 O0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 :Inspector I o
x
0 0'0 0 ON vi 0 p o 0_1 o O j 0 -�-0 o•O V, Secretary
H
O O • v N
V
U.) 't
v k-' P
ctl
VI
0 0 0 V �H 0 Nu) w H co 0 -1-10 0 0co 0 0 IND 0 0 Total w
1
v1 v1 iv
r -4 0 w 0 �- H fi- rn
, I 1 0 w wap 1 -1=-� O' O• N 1 N 1 I.) 1 i--0 1 1 Engineering
0co
Oo \o 'o0 o N O ro0 0 0Co o o o rn Dept. Fee
O N N V1 O O
V1 Vl
0 O
bd o H �H I Fund .
mN- w N N o \to Co 'Priority
c+ •n `n •n •n •n `n �n •n
a N rn o rn o w 'Program Number
H
coo gii P 0 o m C tiiJ 1- vii cr'b tiJ o uii C
N c+ c+ b41 c� i-. 1-� c+ c+ o c+ 4 F-' c+ a
gy,. Pi' I" 0° 4 i g N' 'n-; • w
a H • b gmc+e .1 a a e a
'o o ) ocD a ° o
CO)44 C) a) ooo 0 o
co Ca c+ p OD c+ Ki to b cn C Co co co to
c+ t1 c+ t) c+ O CI) c+ 11 c+ (D c+ CD c+ x ct c+
•' I.J. a•• " N " " tits) " •• Description
11
44-01
CD cD c+ Co 1-1
W N CD
. W . 00
O CO tr O CCD c.40 N W t,' O OD
Y Y Y • Y Y Y
O O O U1 O O 0 0 0 0
o 0 0) 0 0 0 0 a 0 0
• ca •
' • - N w : --1easibility
•• co . OD •• Co • ' �rn co Report
..▪ N .. .. N •. N •• N N
• • w 'SPUC
• :. • °ND . . OD : !Approval
N
t-.;
W ; •
Public �,
• • : • OD : • : Hearing
.. .. .. N .. .. N t-r7
ri
• • • w : : - w : �7 IPlans and
•
. co • co • co Specifications o
.. .. •. N .. N . N) :.
-crM
. . w : co v, Right-of-Way
. • �. • • „ — H
Co cquisition vj
co
.• tr N
H
• • ONBid �-
• . . „ • • Co CoDate ��
. . OD ' •
.. .. .. •. N •. .. N •. N
r-,
: '▪ w -, Assessment
• CD
• 'C oD Hearing
.. N . •
W •. N .. H
C
H
•
�n : o • co cr. • H
completion
• . .
co •• Co • OD ' Co ate
•• :. :. :. N :. N :. w .• W ..
3ntzd Xatc Xntx1 ZOW � 0W c-, tri Z W :.< :] W
N N H .O
H H H -4 W H-I W W CD N co 0 Engineer
tO 0 0 0 0 o O H O O '0 N1-10 H w H o -a 4 000
o E.
rn o rn w ",-4 H H rnechnician III
000 00� OOH 00 `J 000 Sn o0 7 -J0 00N
Vl
N
echnician II "
•
N o\ 0 0 aD o o o o 000 rn rn� o o H o ow Inspector IL y ;
�•
\nVn CY
Technician I
00H.
0 000 000 o oO 000 0 00 000 00o Inspector 1 °
x1
�
N ,.i H.
W N ON H N %..n ' '-n Secretary Cl) H
O\ O\0 o ow o 0 0 O O 1 O O O\ ON...) 0 H N 0 ow U H
-. N "
H
w i-1 N f-' oo fi Total
.� -�N O ovi v., °D H O\ OD H O H -----1-1O 00-\ N
O 0 0 0 H 0 0 • N H 0 Co H N) -J ON O\ I
SPI . . i,•
v, v, )1 I
L...)..°\ 1 t.4 I I .. I I ,. ON Co w N. ) r? Engineering
-P-H--4--4 0 00 0 0-4 o 0\O w 0 H "-,1 Co --J O 0 OL, Dept. Fee
0 0NH I t O I 1 0 1 1 \O 0.`, �OCO o N 4-"\.O N I I N p
O\ .--O O\ O\ p- O\'p O 0 WH •Jr 0
‘.n 0
o
Ho w rn o °, 'Fund -
*
w * * * *
a wo m rn (Priority
04
m v ...11, vi v, r v \J-1-, vi , �
c+ N N o Nw N N JProgram Number
m co -4 \D N O! vt N
a
N M O M M m cnn m w to m m r m O
CONc+ N F!- c+ ce+ c+ n 0- a- 0 p3 c+ c+ 5
0 o p C P' hdd P m p r P M w w
c ig c+ m c+ w 0- y c+ c+ m 1+ c+
a m m a. N• m m m m c+ c m m
Pi, o a aro a H a (Cl a0 a d
0 a a cn a 6 a ov 0 c 0 td 0 0 C] CD
o 0 N• 0 Iti O W m O )-6 OPOWOM
m to
c+ to K M 0 m I Cl) N CA EDP co c+
c+ O c+ m c+ 0 c+ O c+ N• c+ H c+ Nk• fn c+
•• n •• — g —.. ,t - g - 0 - +• c+ •' r Description
O !-� - r
Description
to m •.* o fA C 9 4 {H m
c+ P. c �m w
c+ O \./1N W O O 0 0 O N
m V .. V V •• m n V
II O o 0\ o om o
O O O O ) O
O O -P' O O 0
U' : 0 • .
N • m • Report
(Cl " . :.
o
• 0-
.
P.
W •.. m .. S PUC
• • '` m . pproval
p • b
o (Cl
• p, • rn • Public �;
:, w •� o •• Bearing
rn r...j
m a
• • (1) • ---- m •
. PIA' Plans and .71
• c
• ' r • cx • • Specifications n
. .. '0o •• •• 0
M.
rn (Cl
m• •. \ .. •
I^Right-of-Way
• • �: • : • cquisition -
rn
R>
. N• Vn • 3
•
:. • •. Bid �.
r„ • (Date :;
x
: (Hssessment.
earing mi
0
•
1-3
• • : : . Completion
:. :. N • 1 :. :. . Date
Znw Xntb xnw xnw . nw Xnw Xnw xnw
H ON - I N
Co w o Engineer
Ow O 00\0 wo.00 O ON 00 O 000 00p 00 _4
C'
N N -4 echnician III w
000 000 'D00 00m OOO 00m OON 00 \A 0
F-' 7
Technician II ,'
H N Co 0 0ry 0 0 N 0 0 co Inspector II
o \O O 0 0 0 000 VD 0 0 0 CO H \.O
• o o
P.
Technician I
0 0 0 0 000 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 o Inspector I o
Ilix
•P- rn :::::tY
000000 : : :: : :
0000NOOvl h-'ON0 oo`oO O 0� 0 0ko . . o i.
i
H I t w II H t t Engineering
t a\ i H H w ch i 00' o o o ov, t t o o Dept. Fee
0 00 00� LA.) (A) N 0 . Qo O\
of
0 .,
* 1-9 (Fund .
to I
m (Priority
a ‘..n
(Program Number
1-'
I.
w
0 m
m o
la w
o
o w
ci-
Description
.e3. [
1-,
H
0
0
0
0
• : • . • vi easibility
• • OD Report
ISPUC
:: .; Approval
tv
•• . , IPubl i c Ga
• • • ' cD Hearing 1-1
. :. N CT1
til
• .' (Plans and ~'
: • • : . ' Specifications o
0
m
b
co
.. .. .. .. • (Right-of-Way
• • • �p H
n cquisition
•• Z N
y
• : • • . . . cam° Bid
. : oo Date o
x
L--,
• •• . . ;' °ssessment .<
.. .. .... :. earing m
O
•. .. O1 Completion
ate
•
pi Cat1 3c-) tri Zoti , oti � C) W BCW :) ti
g: TID N
0 H w O til Engineer
as
VI\J1 H VI \-n
C'
y mi wTechnician III a.
worn o0
H-W �
•"-� ' f-, .' .P- echnician II u,'
w
�o O o Q, N .p- w Inspector II a
echnician I
4* 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inspector I o
N Fi
0 W, m c+ 'I ~
\o Co o w U . - Secretary `� H
L N.) -.3
O
w N N •F"
VI H 't1
• 'o Co 04
0 ' 1 co O H H ITotal N m
ro .P-N o --4 --.1 Vi I
ro . . 1
Co W cf. -69- v, Es
0" Nvt NLN 1-'
at. 0C w w f1 Engineering
Oro Co°N°o 0 0 0 Dept. Fee
w M VI NV
Vi VI
<t 0 0
�" �" .p-- .-- Program
0 0 c�
‘.orn \..nv H Number
a En
c+ co 1-3 o ild
c+ U C m H- rn
'tl . H H O
En C� 0 7:1 c�h Otl n
1D 0 oy
tl U CD N'� .
O G)
c+ R.
H• Cn
H• H
Otl U)
0
n
c+
H.
0
O
•• •• :• •
:• •
c
•• • . • C
• ti
•• •
b t=i
•
: . : • : n
.. .. . G
t�
• • • : • : .
W 2
• , m CO
•• •• .. .. .. .. " Cf) CT N
'ti
. • .
O y
• • •
•• o' 0
•• • .• H• t--4• • • • • H• K
•
•
•
• at XI
•
•• •• •• •. •. ,. •• .. U b
0
• • • • . . : : y
x (-) tri `a' n td X 0 td 3 0 Gi ;
H H 1-' .P-- -4 .A- �- i- I Program
1
FWD Lo N w 1-' vi N Numb e r
c � K a. ro§ 4 N m ei
`� w F+. �d N• N g• car lD cn
11 lD Q4 'I 0 W W n
H ' K
w ti) cD cD t-,
K 'moi ~ 1-1 N p• by CD 1+
0
wN o rD 0 3 0
R
• p n po n 0
as .�w (D
OD tD cn N c+
N.
a)
N
• CD
.ry
. • •
. b F
••• ..• ..• .. .. 1C try
• • • f
. . • • • •• . . C aCo
.. .. .. cn C�' N
'Ci
o y
d 0
F-,
P. C-4
• .• • •• •. .• 0.-<
•• •
. . . • . • . . �
0
. • H
Znt» Zobi Znbi 3n0) Xoto into ;< nw bl
1 I 1 fi r H N fi' H ,o N Engineer
O O I 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 N 0 0 \O 0 0 H 0 '-O CTS 0 N '0 0
vi
C"
W c, N N HU,No !Technic ian III c�',
0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 000 0 -40 000 HuO -11\40 0
1 1 1
Technician IT ''?
1 0) VD Inspector• II
;� :
N
0 0 I 0 0 I 1 1 -, 0) I N o\O 0 O\O 0 0 0 0 O -P- v) d
• r .
Technician I H.
0 0 0 0 0 Inspector I 0 ,0
O C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) O O C) 0 0 0 0
x I-�
H 1 1 H 1 , 1-, N •O\ Secretary H
F
o --J I 0 o71 0 \O 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oj HH L& \O0
vi vi H
H
ri H H Wi... Total I\'
H N vi HO N\o Vfl W V) 4- W� I
0 -4 1 0 O 1 H vi 1 N Co O c) N O 1-' H co 0h rn
1
vl vl i {f}
H - H Hy) 0,o
N - Engineering
1 N 1 I 1 w i 1� 1 ivN 1 w� v,%,o 'o � Dept. Fee
0 H O \O N -P" l ) 0) 0 NO 0 -,I� vi Ho O Lo-P-
0
I 0 1 I o\1 Co 10 I a) 00 i vi 1 \O H N N \.O
1
H H F--' 1-' H N program
Iry ...r, F-' H `N.) H INUMb e r
Cf) r• N o b -3 0 o a
R kaN ar
rJ n C) P. F H c�+ c+ p N•
(D c+ H' 04 n o o 0 04 (74 ti
M CD o a a
00 a n• I m (0D N
P m x 0 ( ro
Ha)
til m I-'• c+ c+
c+ 1s m
CO W m
I-,
•
: • : :• : .
J,'
. U:
•
. 0
. • ti t-+
m ,
.. .. .. .. •. b tT]
w ri
.,t :n
. Cl'• :-:
. . . : a) 0
0
:. -• • :. :.
Ib 0
H 'CI
0
0 '-3
• • : N
. •
•
:• • •• • .• .•a 0
•• .. .• .. •• .. •• H -3
N• x
<• • H'
• m
•
N 01
.• .. .. .• •. .. .. .. ''
0
• • • y
Zola/ Z CI MI row mow ZQtb 3obd Xc) tzt ') td
UJ --4
\n H -4
•F-N w I I I I I 1 Engineer
0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 o o 1 o o I 0 0 I
VI V1
Nr r
-4 CO� i i I i i Technician III Q
00 00 00 00 00 00
„1
H I i 1 I 1 I Technician II ,'
v„ W I I I I I I Inspector II n a
rnv' 0
• 00 00 00 00 0o c\0\ P.
I I !Technic ian I i
000 oo 1 00 I oo I o0 I 0o I 001 Inspector I
10
X N•
N N I -� w 1 I I ISecretaryII oF-' 1 0•W 1 .�
o • •
VI V1 Vl �7 -J VI VI
VI vn H
UJ `O
N N 1 1 1 N I I I 1 T Otal Nrn QG
CO CD t-, 0\ H O\ CO COB0 0 F-' ON ("
• O 1
�n \.n -J -1 V I \...na
EA- VI VI I
N Cr I I I I I I Engineering
O\N'0 I I 1 N I \.O i I I
H N I
Dept. Fee
W \A I-' -J H-, CO o N W O\ 0 I--' H 1-'
COW CO OD N I-, 1 `n o\O\ 1 op •F"0
I
o 0 0 c Cl) C 0
El 20 0 2 �' ro Fd
0P CD y 0 m El co
440 CD c+
y x I- y
N• 0 0
0 H 7Z1
lD H. CD 0
P,
b CD
<
0 0
0 c+
I--,• hi
Cr' 11
+,• 0
H
N• m
c' C)
•
I
. . ; ; . ;
C)
I,.
b
.. tri
t_1
r'ra r'+moi tri
1 0 .0 cl) F 1 I3
ti
1-3 rnn '' .. .. .. .. .. ..
0
c 3 n t>> :c C to L (-) tz1 :; 0 W :< .) W
1-H
000 000 [,!.. Iv
I?nginccr
I I I
A0 I N I I km H '^I H - o
' N N Cr, •i 0 O\ .p'N W \0 '-0 —I
V1 V1 V1 V1 V1 V1
H t.'
Technician III
Cl) 0 0 I Co N) I H '.0 I -4 -P"
Ni W 0 co .
000 000 H `J1 "' 1 \-, Technician II ';
w iv I I I N o Now Inspector T I �' �'
N 00 I H W I I v1 ^.1 W N p 1 r
0 0 0\0 0 W 01 V1 0 --.1 H .F-
• o'
V1 V1 V1 V1 Z
Technician I ,;
0 I o0 I 0o I o0 0 0 0 0 Inspector I (, i
000 000 H �-
O —•
N
1 N 1 W1 N N ‘.0 �n o
O O 1 00 ----- I "' I 0\N O tN o W Secretary• ;
Vi \...nV1 w H
W H W I-' \p I N
c-( Total
bb
!-' OON 000 `.?-:i
CoNVl 1 1 Ol I 1 -1W H �ON0
t� NW 1 00 NN 1 �N Co
•
1 I • 1
Vl Vl fy.
N O\ HW FN-1
y vn W 0 C Engineering
H 0 0 N 0 0 0 y w\A0 o�OD IV N) Dept. Fee
cow ,p v1 N "