Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/18/1982 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items DATE: May 12 , 1982 1 . In response to Mrs . Lebens question on the market value of Valley- fair, prior to Council ' s recent reduction to $5 ,543 ,000.00, the 1979 market value was $4, 585 ,000. 2 . Staff recommendation on Bob Friendshuh' s request for reduction of interest on the $150.00 uncompleted portion of the 3rd Avenue Watermain Project will be ready for the June 1st Council meeting. 3 . Attached is a memo from the Chief of Police explaining the failure of the warning siren located on CR 15 which requires repair. 4. Attached is a copy of a letter from the Chief of Police to Richard' s In Shakopee regarding complaints of excessive noise originating from their establishment . 5 . Attached is a letter from Robert Mayer, Superintendent of Schools regarding the annual meeting of all governmental units within the district which is set for May 24, 1982 . 6 . Attached is a notice regarding the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Annual Meeting. If you are interested in attend- ing, please call Jeanette or myself in order that we may make reservations for you. 7 . Attached is a copy of the annual financial disclosure report for year ended December 31 , 1982 of the HRA on the two tax increment projects : Kmart Distribution Center and the Senior Citizen Highrise . 8 . Attached are the Ad Hoc Cable Communications Committee minutes of April 28 , 1982 . 9 . Attached are minutes of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission from March 22 and April 5 , 1982 . 10. Attached is the Fund Balance Summary for the period ending April 30 , 1982 . 11 . Attached is the Revenue Report for the period ending April 30 , 1982 . 12 . Attached is the Building Activity Report for April , 1982 . 13 . Attached is a memo from the City Planner regarding campaign signs . 14. Attached is a copy of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission Annual Report - year ended December 31 , 1981 . 3 ,. 4 ,A ws. � City of ShakopeeNit. A:5 F POLICE DEPARTMENT 4 / ` N A K � P F •. r1 N E S 0 _ , A . N�Vi I' .,,q 476 South Gorman Street � ' i ,-'",�1 SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 l ( p"• _ �1"' Tel. 445-6666 �� i' • �F 1 / \"1?553791(1 ,e'/' TO: Mayor, Council Members FROM: Tom Brownell SUBJECT: Warning Siren Repair DATE: May 7, 1982 INTRODUCTION Council has requested an explanation as to the failure of the Warning Siren located on County Road 15 which requires repair. BACKGROUND I have contacted the electrical repair contractor who stated they have received sirens from other areas with similar damage . They believe the sirens froze due to the severe winter weather conditions. When the sirens were activated for a test, the electrical current resulted in damage in their frozen state. They also stated low voltage could cause similar damage. SOLUTION 1 . Do not activate the sirens for monthly testing during the winter months. Federal regulations require monthly test- ing due to the fact that Federal funding was used for pur- chasing the siren. 2 . Utilities will check voltage to insure proper voltage to the motor. go QET VE a) ZOtECL City of Shakopee „, N . E F POLICE DEPARTMENT • •� ,NNESOI J • ,010, Il, q 476 South Gorman Street Ojc, • ' l' SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 Tel. 445-6666 \ v ase. O� IGE "� 55379 May 4, 1982 Mr. Richard Hanover Richard' s In Shakopee 911 East 1st Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Mr. Hanover: I am writing in reference to complaints received by the police department regarding excessive noise originating from your business establishment. Complaints have been received from persons residing within a two block area and are varified by police officers that the noise level created by the musicians is excessive and a public nuisance . The officers have been directed to charge you under City Code, Section 10 . 53 (Public Nuisance) in the event further viola- tions occur . The area residents have indicated their intent to petition the City Council regarding this matter, however I felt it more appropriate to bring the matter to your attention prior to a petition so that you may correct the situation. Sincerely, Thomas G. Brownell CHIEF OF POLICE TGB:dmh 4/1,-,-.)-71A-X-f-;z 454 7o eSezve �o �zoEecE Other Offenses SEC. 10.50. CONSPIRACY. Subd. 1 . ' To Cause Arrest or Prosecution. It is unlaw- ful for any person to conspire with another to cause a third per- son to be arrested or prosecuted on a criminal charge knowing the charge to be false . , Subd. 2. To Commit a Crime . It is unlawful for any person to conspire with another to commit a crime . , SEC. 10.51. COERCION. It is unlawful for any person to • orally or in writing make any of the following threats and there- by cause another against his will to do any act or forbear doing a lawful act: (1) a threat to unlawfully inflict bodily harm up- on, or hold in confinement, the person threatened or another; .or, (2) a threat to unlawfully inflict damage to the property of the person threatened or another; or,. (3) a threat to unlawfully in- jure a trade , business , profession or calling; or, (4) a threat to expose a secret or deformity, publish a defamatory statement or otherwise to expose any person to disgrace or ridicule ; or, (5) a threat to make or cause to be made a criminal charge wheth- er true or false , provided, that a warning of the consequences of a future violation of law given in good faith by a magistrate , po- lice officer or prosecuting attorney to any person shall not be deemed a threat for the purpose of this Section. SEC. 10.52 . INTERFERING WITH RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE . It is unlawful for any person, by threats or violence , intentionally to prevent another person from performing any lawful act enjoined upon him or recommended to him by the religion which he professes . SEC. 10.53. PUBLIC NUISANCE. It is unlawful for any person to maintain a public nuisance by his act or failure to perform a legal duty, and for purposes of this Section, a public nuisance shall be defined as any of the following: (1) maintaining or permitting a condition which unreasonably annoys , injures or en- dangers the safety, health, morals , comfort or repose of any con- siderable number -of members of the public; or, ( 2) interfering with, obstructing or rendering dangerous for passage , any street, public right-of-way, or waters used by the public; or, (3) any other act or omission declared by law to be a public nuisance . SEC. 10 .54. PERMITTING A PUBLIC NUISANCE . It is unlawful for any person to permit real property under his control to be used to maintain a public nuisance , or let, the same to another knowing it is to be so used. SEC. 10 .55. WINDOW PEEPING. It is unlawful for any person to go upon the private premises of another, and in a surrepti- tious manner look, gaze , stare or peep into any window, door or other opening in any building located thereon which is occupied by a person or persons as a place of abode with intent to intrude upon the privacy of a member of the household thereof. 4-1-78 -242- DISTRICT OFFICES INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 720 505 SOUTH HOLMES MARCIA SPAGNOLO, Chairperson SCOTT COUNTY ROBERT MAYER, Ed.D. JAMES STILLMAN, Vice-Chairperson SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 Superintendent of Schools WARREN HALLGREN. D.D.S., Clerk TELEPHONE: 4454884 JOHN GOIHL, Treasurer VIRGIL S. MEARS BECKY KELSO, Director Assistant Superintendent JOAN LYNCH, Director ROBERT MARTIN ROBERT MEADOWS, Director Business Manager • May 14 , 1982 Mr. Eldon Reinke Mayor City of Shakopee Shakopee, Minnesota Dear Mr. Reinke: I would like to remind you of the meeting that has been scheduled by the school board of independent School District No. 720 for Monday, May 24 , 1982. The meeting will he held in the school board meeting room located in the Central Elementary school building and it will commence at 7:30 p.m. The purpose of the meeting will he to discuss some of the common problems that are facing all government officials in our area. There may be some ways that we can address some of these problems by working together. At the very least , we can gain a better understanding of the problems that are being experienced by other governmental units so that we can he sensitive to those problems as we plan for the future. I have attached a sheet listing a number of topics which we might discuss. Perhaps this list can serve as a guide for discussion. Please feel free to add other topics at the beginning of the meeting. We have invited representatives from the county, city and townships. We hope that you will find it possible to come. Sincerely yours, Robert Mayer Superintendent of Schools kM:gar Enclosure cc George Muenchow ✓ John Anderson AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 720 SIIAKOPIEE, MINNESOTA I3OARI) ROOM MAY 24 , 1982 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY 7 :30 p.m. AGENDA I . Call to order by Mrs. Spagnolo II . Introductory comments by Mrs. Spagnolo III . Introduction of participants IV. Discussion topics from participants V. Suggested topics for meeting A. Report on Community Services Program - Mr. George Muenchow 7 :40 p.m. B. Educational Planning Task Force report on fund raising 7 :55 p.m. C. Status report on meeting held with county, city, township, 8: 15 p.m. and school district officials and administrators - Eldon Reinke and others D. Property tax problems 8:25 p.m. 1 . Coordination of long and short range fiscal planning 2. State of Minnesota stance on property tax increases E. Communications between local units of government 8 :40 p.m. 1 . Periodic meetings of administrators 2. Semi-annual or quarterly meetings of elected officials 3. Identification of areas of possible cooperation--do we duplicate services? F. Summer school programs through Community Services 8 :50 p.m. G. Junior high school athletics through Community Services 8:55 p.m. H. Other I. Adjourn 9:00 p.m. C E MAY 1 01982 CITY Or: KOPEE association of metropolitan municipalities NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING DATE: Wednesday, May 26, 1982 PLACE: Sheraton Inn - Northwest I-94 & Hwy. 52 Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 5: 30 to 6: 30 P.M. 6: 30 to 7: 30 P.M. 7: 30 P.M. Social Hour Buffet Dinner Annual Business Meeting (sponsored by Miller Entree : & Schroeder Munici- Roast Round of Beef pals, Inc. ) and Baked Turkey COST: $15. 00 per person BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order - James Krautkremer, President 2. Introduction of Guests and Retiring Board Members. 3. Keynote address: Representative John Brandi , Chairman of the Legislative Commission on Metropolitan Governance. "What are we learning from the study of Metropolitan Governance". 4. Annual Report : President James Krautkremer. 5. Eloction of Officers and Directors - Dick Asleson, Nominating Committee Chairperson (Committee report enclosed) . 6. Comments: President Elect 7. Announcements. 8. Other Business. 9. Adjournment . PLEASE NOTE: A. Each City should send at least one delegate to cast its vote. Cities are encouraged, however, to send as many additional representatives as possible. Spouses and guests welcome. B. Dinner reservations must be confirmed to Carol Williams at the AMM office (227-5600) by noon on Monday, May 24th. C. This notice is being sent to Mayors, Delegates and City Administrativ, Officials. 300 hanover bldg.480 cedar street,st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 222-2861 • May 5, 1982 ,TO: Member City Officials FROM: Dick Asleson, Chairperson, Nominating Committee RE: Nominating Committee Report Pursuant to Article IX, Section 3 of the By-Laws , a Nominating Committee was appointed by the AMM Board of Directors on March 4, 1982 . The Committee has completed its work and has nominated the below listed persons for consideration at the Annual Meeting on May 26th. For President : Mary Anderson, Councilmember, Golden Valley For Vice-President : Jack Irving, Manager, Crystal For Board of Directors: Two-Year Terms (8 to be elected) : Ron Backes, Councilmember, St . Louis Park Bill Barnhart , Senior Planner, Minneapolis Jerry Dulger, Manager, Anoka Laura Fraser, Councilmember, Lake Elmo Jim Miller, Manager, Minnetonka Jackie Slater, Alderman, Minneapolis James Spore, Manager, Burnsville Bob Sundland, Mayor, St . Anthony One-Year Terms (2 to be elected) : Gary Bastian, Councilmember, Maplewood Neil Peterson, Councilmember, Bloomington * Additional candidates may be nominated by any voting delegate from the floor at the Annual Meeting. (over) Member City Officials May 5, 1982 Page 2 Board members whose terms expire May, 1983 : Greg Blees, Budget Director, St . Paul Bea Blomquist , Mayor, Eagan Bill Sandberg, Mayor, North St . Paul • Dennis Schneider, Councilmember, Fridley Joanne Showalter, Councilmember, St. Paul Bob Thistle, Manager, Coon Rapids Members of the Nominating Committee : Dick Asleson , Administrator, Apple Valley Tim Flaherty, Legislature Liaison, Minneapolis Jack Irving, Manager, Crystal Don Masterson, Mayor, Spring Lake Park Carl Meissner, Administrator, Cottage Grove Connie Morrison, Councilmember, Burnsville Bill Sandberg, Mayor, North St. Paul Tom Spies, Councilmember, Bloomington T . ANNUAL FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SHAKOPEE, MINNESO'T'A FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31 , 1981 The following 'information is submitted pursuant to MSA 273.4, Subd. 5. There are two projects in effect, the Kmart Distribution Center and the Senior Citizen Hirise. Kmart Hirise 1) Revenue — -Interest Income $ 190,829 $ 29,502 2) Expenditures - (site acquisition and improvement) -Housing Developement $ 31,514 -Industrial Developement $ 932,918 3) Kmart: Kmart Corporation has guaranteed up to 25% of debt services requirements for the bonds if the increment falls short. In addition there is a debt service reserve of $625,932 with the Trustee. Hirise: The Hirise bonds are backed by the City of Shakopee's full faith and credit. 4) Original Assessed Value $ 123,927 $ 4,934 5) Captured Assessed Value $7,014,712 $691 ,666 6)' Captured Assessed Value shared with other taxing districts. NONE NONE I 7) Tax Increment received $ 219,482 $ 2,074 ve LEGAL NOTICE 1 Annual Financial Statement Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Districts For The Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 1981 The Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority has two tax increment projects that were initiated in 1979. They are the Shakopee Kmart Distribution Center and the Senior Citizen Hirise. The following infor- mation is published pursuant to MSA 273.4, Subd. 5. Kmart Hirise Tax Increment Received $ 219,482 $ 2,074 Tax Increment Expended -0- -0- Original Assessed Value 123,927 4,934 Captured Assessed Value 7,014,712 691,666 Amount of Oustanding Bonded Indebtedness 5,300 000 370,000 Dated this 23rd day of April , 1982 . r Jeanne Andre , Exeuctive Director Housing and Redevelopment Authority Shakopee, Minnesota AD HOC CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE Shakopee , Minnesota Adjourned Special Session April 28 , 1982 Chairman Foudray called the meeting to order at 7 : 08 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall . Committee members Abeln, Christensen, Davis and Kirchmeier were present . Also present were consultant Anita Benda, Attorney Adrian Herbst and Administrative Assistant Jeanne Andre . Committee member Randy Gorman and City Administrator John Anderson came later. Davis/Abeln moved to approve the minutes of April 26 , 1982 , as presented. Motion carried. Committee member Randy Gorman arrived at 7 : 12 p.m. Consultant Anita Benda reviewed the subcategories in her evaluation report and how they can be matched with the categories in the "Evalua- tion Criteria and Weights" printed in the Shakopee Request for Pro- posals ( RFP) . Discussion of how to proceed with the weighting and recommendation to City Council was held. Options included: 1 ) awarding points for each subcategory or only for overall category 2 ) awarding points relative to RFP, dividing points between the two firms or granting all points to the "winner" of the category 3 ) evaluate 4 (or 3 ) proposals simultaneously, evaluate the two companies on Assumption I first and then on Assumption II (next select assumption or leave choice to City Council ) or select assumption first and then select between the two proposals under that assumption. City Administrator, John Anderson, arrived and the Chairman initiated discussion of the suggestions presented in Mr. Anderson' s April 28 , 1982 memorandum. Mr. Herbst commented that some franchise ordinances recently adopted have required the company selected to reinvest a certain portion of earnings into system update . The amount required could be based on the company ' s proposed costs for system update provided in their proposal . Ms . Benda commented that consultants are available to inspect the constructed cable system, and Mr. Herbst indicated that the preliminary ordinance allows the City to request such an inspec- tion at the company' s cost . Gorman/Abeln moved to direct Jeanne Andre to conduct a telephone survey of three communities now served by each of the companies proposing service in Shakopee . The survey is to question the per- formance of the companies in updating their systems , including franchises of the following duration: under 1 year, 1 to 5 years and 5 to 10 years . Davis/Gorman moved to amend the motion to ask additional questions in the telephone survey in the following areas : construction problems , rate increases (how much and how often) , access experience , local staff , penetration rates (have met projections? ) , cooperation when City seeking information, and other general problems . The motion on the amendment carried. Ad Hoc Cable Communications Committee Page Two April 28 , 1982 The Chairman called for a vote on the original motion as amended. Motion carried. Christensen/Kirchmeier moved to contact the companys proposing to serve Shakopee and •ask them to provide the anticipated "Mean Time Between Failures" and "Mean Response Time" in their proposed system for Shakopee , and to get the same data for the three existing systems to be surveyed by staff under the previous motion. Motion carried. Kirchmeier/Davis moved not to direct staff to place article in news- paper on proposed cable rates . Brief discussion was held of problems raised at public hearing by Wally Bishop on the relationship between the cable companies and the Shakopee Public Utilities . The concensus was that the City and Committee should not become further involved as it is a matter to be resolved between private parties . Ms . Benda explained that the pole rental and make ready costs anticipated by each company have been outlined in their proposals . Mr. Kirchmeier volunteered to convey this information to the Shakopee Public Utilities at its next meeting. Further discussion was held on how to prepare for the City Council recommendation of a proposal for cable service. The question was raised if the proposal by Progress Valley Totalvision is a valid proposal . Attorney Herbst stated he did not think the City could force the company to undertake this option but he would ask for further opportunity for research if the Committee wishes a formal opinion on whether the Progress Valley Totalvision (PVT) proposal under Assumption II should be disqualified. The Committee concensus was to include PVT Assumption II in their evaluation process as future legal challenges might require that proposal to be considered. Kirchmeier/Gorman moved to adopt the following three-step process of evaluation: 1 . Select the preferred company under Assumption I . 2 . Select the preferred company under Assumption II . 3 . Compare the preferred proposals under each assumption and select one to recommend to the City Council as the top choice of the Committee . Motion carried. Gorman/Kirchmeier moved to use only the major categories in the evalua- tion process and award all points for that category to the company proposing the superior package in that category (all or nothing) with the decision on the point award to be determined by a majority vote of the Committee . Motion carried . Discussion was held of the findings of fact to be prepared by Attorney Herbst which will include a summary of the evaluation process and the rationale behind the Committee ' s decisions . Christensen/Abeln moved that when the Committee adjourns , it adjourn to Tuesday , May 4 , 1982 , at 7 :00 p.m. , with additional business not completed on May 4th to be carried over to May 5 , 1982 , at 7 : 00 p.m. Motion carried. Ad Hoc Cable Communications Committee Page Three �4 April 28 , 1982 Abeln/Gorman moved that the Committee will present its findings of fact to the City Council with no minority report . Roll Call : Ayes - unanimous Noes - none Motion carried. Discussion was held on areas of confusion on the proposals received, with explanation by Consultant Benda. Issues discussed included: difference between the approach of the two companies to assumptions I and II , how Progress Valley Totalvision can technically provide the 39 programmed channels they have stated they will provide , the differ- ence in upstream capacity of the proposals received, the error in the Zylstra-United management agreement . Davis/Abeln moved to adjourn at 9 :45 p.m. Motion carried. R. Gene Foudray Chairman Jeanne Andre Recording Secretary MINUTES OF THE SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (Special Meeting) The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in special session on March 22, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. in the Utilities meeting room. Commissioner Bishop offered a prayer for divine guidance in the deliberations of the Commission. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Bishop, Nolting, and Reinke. Also Manager Van Hout and Superintendent Leaveck. Work rules governing the SPUC employees were discussed. Sick leave to be taken for funerals for the immediate family will be limited to three days. The immediate family to be defined as child, brother, sister, parent, grandparent, in-laws. An employee will not be allowed to take sick leave for time taken off when their children are sick. An employee will not be allowed to take sick leave for doctors and dentists appointment. They must take vacation, or comp time or make the appointments after working hours. Motion by Reinke, seconded by Nolting to offer Resolution #242 A Resolution Establishing Electric rates for Shakopee Public Utilities Customers. Ayes: Commissioners Reinke, Nolting, and Bishop. nayes: none. Resolution passed. Motion carried. Motion by Reinke, seconded by Nolting to offer Resolution #243 a Resolution Amending Resolution #219 the addition of a power adjustment. Ayes : Commissioners Bishop, Nolting and Reinke. Nayes: None. Resolution passed. Motion carried. The next regular meeting will be held on April 5, 1982, at the Utilities meeting room. Motion carried. Motion by Reinke, seconded by Nolting that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried. L'ouis VanHout MINUTES OF THE SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (Regular Meeting) The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in regular session on April 5, 1982 at 4:30 P.M. in the Utilities meeting room. Commissioner Bishop offered a prayer for divine guidance in the deliberations of the Commission. MEMBER PRESENT: Commissioners Bishop, Nolting and Reinke. Also Manager Van Hout, Superinterdent Leaveck and Secretary Menden and Liaison Wampach. BILLS READ: City of Shakopee 20,032.00 Associated Mechanical 62.53 American Casting & Mfg. Corp 151.70 Auto Central Supply 32.10 Boardman, Suhr, Curry & Field 4,108.41 Burmeister Electric 93.25 Capesius Agency 1,787.99 Chanhassen Lawn & Sports 32.50 City of Shakopee 1,129.00 Clay's Printing Service 81.15 Copy Equipment Inc. 24.50 Davies Water Equipment 1,144.98 Department of Energy, Planning and Dev. 375.46 Dyna Systems 37.41 Graybar. Electric 226.20 H/D Electric Company 36.66 Kuhlman 1,730.00 Lathrop Paint Co. 26.58 Layne Minnesota Co. 151.79 Leef Bros. Inc. 15.10 M/A Associates, Inc. 44.64 Terry Malum 82.33 Vince Marschall 51.30 Minnesota Municipal Uitlities 30.00 R. E. Mooney & Associates 154.87 Motor Parts Service Co. 120.06 NSP 1,239.42 NSP 191,904.83 NSP 287.65 Northland Electric Supply 376.20 Northwestern Bell 258.95 River Electric Association 3,330.00 Scott County Sheriff Office 350.96 Serco 56.00 Shakopee Public Utilities Commission 246.94 Shakopee Services 18.00 Shakopee Hardware 21.84 Shakopee Valley News 79.32 Sofeware Consultants 200.00 Stark's Cleaning Service 8.65 State of Minnesota 3.25 Suel Business Equipment 138.00 Total Tool Supply, Inc. 69.30 Lou Van Hout 113.55 Mrs. Duane Ward 19.21 Wesco 21.82 Motion by Nolting, seconded by Reink' that the bills be allowed and ordered paid. Motion carried. A communication from Northwestern Bell Telephone regarding a new pole contract was read by Manager Van Hout. A new pole contract ill be worked out by Manager Van Hout and a Northwestern Bell representative. ' A communication from the Community Services office regarding the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission in the May 3, 1982 showcase night at the Senior High School was read. A discussion was held on the rate to be charged for the tennis court and the football field at Riverside Park. Motion by Bishop, seconded by Reinke that the tennis court lighting be regulated by the new coin meters and since the time that they will be in operation will be after 9:00 P.M. and not interfere with our peak demand hour that the demand rate be temporarily dropped and that the Community Services wil be billed at the small commercial rate for the electricity and that the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission if asked will install at the community services expense the new coin meters. Also that the Shakopee Public Utilities may install a photocell or a time clock to insure the 9:00 P.M. on time. Motion carried. Motion by Bishop, seconded by Nolting that the SPUC allow the lights at Riverside Park to be billed withou demand at the small commercial rate and that this be for purposes of adult baseball and other youth recreational activities and that the adult baseball tea of Shakopee not activate the lights until after 9:00 P.M. and if the lights are activated before 9:00 P.M. the demand charge will be reinstated. At the year end a bill to be forgiven by the SPUC will be sent to the Community Services based on the forgiven demand charge so they can see the amount of lost revenue by the SPUC. This is to be done on a year to year basis. Motion carried. A letter of resignation from Mr. Don Frank was read. Manager Van Rout reported on the meeting with the line crew about safety. The commission noted that safety continued to be their main concern. Motion by Reinke, seconded by Nolting to authorize the Manager to advertise for a lineman position to be filled and also that a new position be opened for a lineman apprentice and the applicants for the apprentice position should be graduates from an accredited trade school. Motion carried. The audit was presented by Manager Van Hout to the Commission. Representatives from Jaspers, Loosbrock will attend the next meeting to go over the audit figures with the Commission. Two new plats were presented by Manager Van Hout. The Valley Industrial Park 7th Addition preliminary plat and the Hauer 2nd Addition water plan both appeared to be okay by the Commission. An update of the acquisition of the hydro dam was presented by Manager Van Hout. F. E. R. C. has accepted the Hibbing license application for filing. The SPUC has until June 14 for comments. The Commission was advised that the new electric rates will be in effect for the electric bills received on May 1, 1982. Information on the Howe Chemical water system was presented by Manager Van Hout. The Commission is concerned about Howe Chemical's water system as it exists, but are awaiting information from the Health Department. A hearing on the MVEC condemnation is scheduled for April 16. A meeting with NSP will be held in mid-May to respond to their latest figures. The Liaison report was given by Jerry Wampach. The Council has met with a representative from the Adult baseball program to present some activities to raise revenue to pay for the lighting at Riverside Park and to see if the City Council could contribute towards this project. A Motion by Colligan and seconded by Leroux directed staff to contact the Shakopee Public Utilities to determine if they would be willing to fund some percentage of the fees for the baseball lighting. Jerry Wampach further reported that Mr. Dave Moonen from the downtown Ad Hoc committee met with the Council in regards to vacating an alley next to 236 South Lewis. Superintendent Leaveck reported one Loss time accident for Ray Friedges for 21 days for a neck injury. The injury was obtained lifting a crossarm. Two fire calls were reported for the month of March for a total of 1 hour and 25 minutes. The next regular meeting for the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission will be May 3, 1982 at 4:30 P.M. in the utilities meeting room. Motion by Reinke, seconded by Nolting that,the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried. Lou Van Hout, Manager OD CO OD OD 00 COV O\ InlnlnlnlnCnlnlnlnA � i � � A .t- w wwNN NJ h-, r-• h... h-• h. CD Os In l> w NJ r-• r• O '.D CO V O` In > w NJ r-• VD CO V ON Cs NJ - V O1 r-' - w NJ V In w Ni 0--• r-• C7 7CHrrJCr=ib � - O C1 G) CA ID rflCn x U rri L. a' I a W rt H. O (D OO CO CO rt CO v V V v V V v v V V rn H • rt G H. I I W p) o m o (U m (D 3 C C) r• ri `C $ N N rr O' O VD V V V CT In 4 i w N V 70 O • Cr D .w 'b T7 ri Q• H. O N ( ri �•' C n m 1 1 I (D 1 1 1 1 1 fD O fD 0 H. o n (n n MICZP. n Y9c) a03r-, Hr+ wh. Hr+ xr• n n 1 n rtn a rt rt S rt t7 I✓ 9 9 9 9 9 9 c. 1-4 n r-• rt .tom b7 PC w 1-' 0 b b 1--+ b tG I `C rt •o (D I-H (D 'y G 9 9 9 9 9 9 rt H. to ibI o HMn G H rt H G b b b b b b • rt O O O 0 00 0 UH- Cr) x 1--1--,, D :r G rt rt • PI 0. rt Pi rt PI PI PI rn Cn C C C ri C C C (D m rt H. 2' '0 r1 (D Pi G G O O O O O 0 H rt rt (D (D (D 0 (p (D (D 9 (D C I rt H (n PV co C C C C C C 9 0 9 9 9 C 9 9 9 (D • P (CD (CD w rl rt (D rt (D (D (D (D (D () •o a n (D (D (D (D (D (D (D O CI w XI 0 rt C 9 9 9 9 9 9 n C 9 G 0 0 9 0 G G rt (D CO Co (D G w Cn H. (D (D (D (D (D (D O (D rt rt rt (D rt rt rt O" h-• (D rt CD G O O G G G C ' Ci) U) Cn CO G m Cn (n t33 rt a. o fD O M (n (o m m m (n 9 E E (J) 0 � 00 r-C t 0' CH (D r Pi (OC3. (D rt t (n H to O rt rt CO n• R Q0 (D Cr) r. w w - r' r-' wN 03 r- Cd r' N N r N In A v A r-• V In In %,c, V ON A V CO O %D 00 V w W Iv I I I I I 14> '.0 (TV Vt00ln V 00lnw '.0U' ' -• 00NIn V V '.pwvcOU '.p BOO ~' r' 0 0 0 0 0 0. y 1111114- In In rn NJ In r-- In V CN r-' OO In V A CO vD r- 4> w O OM w .4- N O O' N -• 4>rO LJ N VD w In VD VD N r- O r-• w In CT ,I OO LO r' V V OO 1D O In V w O O V O N n 0o V r-, N CO N r✓ In v N V CO w O VD In CO VD s.D N VD CO r-• CO CO V N w Inro u F.,.. r-• NJ pJ CO V VD NJ I-- l•-• r.. (D G N 0O w '-D ON h. N N In w r-• N rr In w O 0- 00 w ND w Lh. N MC OO. Q IIIIIICO OTU0 I tn .4- mDV) Nw VInvel Nr' 000 1 In VD rncorn 000000. . - 0. O (p lull 1 OOOUO I vDOOOr- lnr-• O � InCOVO 'D II C0vCCAOlnOOw4G rt 'Ow00 COO � O '.Ov' Or-• OOOInON uv, 00v, 00004- 0A Ce CD n00 InONOOOOlnCA00000 wln0Or-' 0000 Vo O p' z Oo C7 N to • a r' N (D n H h7 N r-' 00 r-' NJ h. O < rt C7 1 Ln 1 0 1 O\ 4- 1 1 1 I N I r-• 1 O 1' 1 1 1 1 r' I I I I r-• � LO N w (p G Cn 0 . 0 - 0 - . 0 0 0 0 '. 0 - 0 '• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' p w I Chi I In V I I I I w I w I v NI I I I IWO I I I I V r-' .tom rn v 4> 00 G I✓ rr V w V In Ln VD '.D r✓ N CO CO In CO In L> vD N CT CO w O Ch - 00 N h. In In VD O V Co '.D .> 4 m - 00 NJ rC 9 'b rt H. N rzi MIXCw G 0. O CN Lo r-• r-• r r-• V r r-• r-• w (D OO 00 O' Q' A %D 0.--- N 4> NJ r-• r• V r-' VD CO O O' NJ In w r-• In V 1 1 1 1 1 1 ON CT CO NJ1 ,J r-• VD la 0 CO In CN w In r• NJ 0 1 N In LD In 14 N w w 00 CO a rt r- 000000'• '• . O. I I I I I I rnlnw4> I r- -- COU'00 n0' tnrnw '.D II --' vin .4- II 04> 4> tnw �O rt A. CO tD 4> 0 0 w VD w - CO N NJ In 0 O1 A In NJ O 00 r CN O CT O O -L O\ G NJ U' 000 00Li) w4> 0lnLnv, Oo000 OOr-' O OOoCCD V O rt CO CO N tri a rC - - X rt d CO VD r' N r- r✓ NJ r-+ V h. it, G 10 I � II0 VD In O V w I VD In rn NJ n N h. I '. NJ w CT r-' I I I 00 NJ v CT 1 1 In I CT w o00. . '• 00 .. 0. 0. H. I I I O' I V OONU r• I tnw 004> 0 -J11- r- ww .r` I I I V .r` rn I 10 I N10 H. V 00 00 o ,I 4> O w CT CT w V 00 V w In CV O•i.•_, 0 r- N N In rt CO CA Co CO N CO CO CO o Ch V CO O O CO O N VD V VD NJ VD V O 0--- G CO II N (D Cn W '.D r+ p-•-• 1-- ' r , ' c ) I- In Ni NJ CO N N fn In '.O w w /N/1 In 4> 00 V r. O, D\ O. O In l> N O\ CT V 'D N CO W O w U) rt 1 1 1 I 1 I In O Co A (n N V V 0" 03 O In O r- r- r- 4- O N '.O r-' w 1 � O\ w - .A In w w W 000000- r• � I 1 1 I 1 1 OO V A V Ni In '.D CN O w N CO CAO' VD NJ w - 1> I- 0 r-• 00 II N O N V h•-• w �` n \ LO CT 0 CT In O` '.O O O VD In r' vD CT r A \O In V 1> In CO .tom V V 0 0 V O CO (D rt NwOO10000O - O' 4> LA) N000N 0VDI0O1010In100000 000 V NwIn fD Q. O�•..v _ , -, • WGWWWWU • WW LGWuW W4u • Wu WwW uW uu W WUuuuu » du ' T 00000UI0 ) ( 0CA( CAA(4CiWW (J * D24) ...... 00Jo0 • 0aWMWWNNNN0Joo • • aWGWWWWWJWW. Nr1N * NN 02 03 NA W Nrrt.,-2 CO-4 ciao * CM r2 a N.•O W NMo CO .(0%UI - * N,003 -/0%(140 W Np+ON a W Nh• * N1+ •f)O N 0 01:10s13MM.4ACM 0 Nn ' osr-nomwosm m •r m2omoc2 mmmoznmmr 1 mo C n Cr A0r22z0 As D -000-1 -40rr-1 o -4. 00m .4 M«4 -4r'mrlf'1r C00Mrr5r ri.a s .r f+1 z O .r msro sG1c)02rm A CCrs -•nc ar0M290 n mommcFnc.4omomzmn 2 N2 �-1 ' -4 <1nm2• .-. • .,Pr' z nZ.r-iA .0s 1 .1-1• ('1., C ('I momnMrS 3rr n s C) A C mn• .. -4 mo N Z.(Zr'lr•1' 1 -lnnnr-rr•InrelOorn 2 • Mim Am0 P• .m0 ,], N s 0 -c 1 ONnomm,-. 1 V) m1n S M • 1MM N 2 -4m 92..., 1.r M r22 Pr MO 0 mil immmcomn 1 2Gr10012 G) M 0 M s2 .r 22 .0 -44s1-420 1,1 NM M 011 0r'16 Ar11 A0 .0 370 NL0 0 rn r- 12G)OS N moon mn00mmo -4 nr o < n2 2N22no.rZA/42 101-4 G 11D(Am OD NZ mD C3 s r ZOMOMI-• r-.< MM V) mo s.xn zcs ( s. A • A s• 3-Ir12A2 D 20 O• S 1 r'Irs.,r m Dri(/).. A 2n N .+A S n21J 0m-.I (- ►, .40 -41< A. 27 .12 n1 (n 'm9 .•1 mM 1117r- = (nm ml ma. A X 1 NN -1 11 ... 2 O z Msn 0... 2o-1 M m Fc... mmomm mr(.M.4m C2 A 4r 2 c mrlm(I)mc .. N Qo .1 = sM2.1 N M x02('1( M23 ,-. Nnr V)(/3 An .-. 0 11O sMMM.. M n F Z. .r 02 1 V) m 6107:6 A.•.,n NM., M ., c o 'Tl 7 mm .m mz s .40..-4 00 0 2 2 m 2M 211M 22 N ..4 )3 ZC M MI n .r01 •4 M330. s 7,O N M .r MmM.•M .4002 PN0 .r .m Z M n 2 .4 M 1.4 C.r I •, s720 1 2 1 mM('I1.m -4 (/) .rM M1•1 0 0 M MMM 0 0 -DO 2A72 s 1 N 2 =M02 N ri 00r 02 2 N MMN Z. 00) .r -42r. -4 4.41g2 Cl N' M 14 -4 0 (n M U) 'T M 0 1 2 M 1 r.r -4 2 4) • 1 011 N N • C 1I ON Ii N )( .4 N M WO • r1 :0 1 i • • • p . Cl c Cl i C M n • C m N Cri 41,141 '31 N Vd 01V r Q' i J NO A m • • • • • • • • • • • ' • • • M W aN.UI N W 40 0* i • 141-CU m N L4 0,Oft) 0 a4 M CD WNCOa .4 c, N o 01N 1 ,O0-ON 'W 1-4O0N 00'01 N • J m40 A2 0 N O'.0 4.3 W.' (D N 00 4M.4-4 1- P.40 ,00 . 1•U1 O% •7 UI 0 < • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •:• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4 1 a J 0 W'-Jt a',W a m . 0 , ,r.,u ..i u '♦G,.: N ,u ,• a 0 W C Cl r.4, N.- aLiou acs J b0, vOOp N.2 .)4caam aG 'N Uou quJ.u01 '..0 o0,--. '+ '-5 a 04 s 1 1 61 IIIr 2 2 0 C • z Cl i • -'1 I c = m a 37 11 • . Cl s v 2 n 0 M • m .. C) 1 - 1 1 1 pD N W .- r -4 -4 d) ►+ u N N 0 a 0' W-.+Ni a r r v a u r NO 1 WN.•N 000)0D," (J 001a(l0IV1.. 0 u 4*04 0'0%O.. a i .' N0, • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a • • c)u OauoJuJ O WOJau►-W p. is (..4 0..)001- 0,a07aa►•a' r 00.. x L4 .4 u ..J u.•42. (A m -- .' 43 '• .4 N - o W , u J u to,4.0,..,0:..u,)..u - 0 •0 I'. 60607obaC)a a abawbcno b 6I6 o boba0aba6004:200 u oo < • • • . • • • • . • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . • • • M ,,) ..J J .) -2 ' ,7 •J . .)O ,1 '.l7.J r..J'7 1,J U 0 -2 ) J-- 1 aJ,J J O 42 J •J 0 0 J -2 a• O ♦L7 2 .7 J J .'7./ • '7 .70.7 V r7 (J 0 V,.J a.)0 0 uO V'• :J J (3 000 00'4 ,2•7 70 7 a J,, U 7 .) O ,.J C (1 K 11 D G .4 0' Na N N r • N o W UI v N o W NJ • UI 14 Co a ,0 LA .m • • a • 0 • • a • • • • • • • UI WN N L4 a% UI a -4 N u r I41.40 N0m r 0o A W 1V •-.Ni 0 N u UI W .0 N W UI N V(V -•0 i 1V V m W N W UI V N 11“11 U) .D (4 0 UI W o m 0' . r.+ a W u 0.0 V,N W o 4%r N)UI 0' 0 V m CO n • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -r O 0 0Nm CD PO •-,UI Ca C3 c2 C.* (9 v o O 01 J C70 o J 0(y r)o0 u v 0001420,0 u No u C)oJ (J c.. C -r 0, ,O .I 1 -, '-,m .. . , O,.1 0(J i0 '7 ,, r. '1i 7 , •7 C)a ^O O N :7 n 0 0 rJ C7 OD.J N T n,, "7 .-J 0 . co a A ro a D I LA • 1 0 . ►' W r .4 -1 I P N N 0' (40 W- N a r m W W a 0 M Co r.• 4 416.0602.... a ,-. 04.40N6-.N 001 .' 1- art. a a 4 06+ N • • • • • • • • • • • • 'S a0Vv CAUI OO c7 OI Non.:.-5.'WN( Waa N ►'5- W%OGV.05",4 W-Iui.' W O ,01.• D 4'.1,0 V UI ..10 o0 ,0 (4oo au -((n (,a -) (p ., 01 W 41,) OJNu01 V N1••.01-m O 'J 040 N Nu .m 6-.. ., 4• 000 01 07 .. . .,( ' 0I a S O N m .1,0 .0m - M0.0 Ut N I-• .. • . • • . • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • . • • • • • 04 s •UI N.402 •UI o r: . J as J UI :J )m J -) .. „0 ) J ., a, '.•J r> . a ,1 • .7 G cJ ~ (A ")N 2 13 '] 4 N '7 C7 . ..r)•7 .7 .4 , J J t7 1 a ' - VI l ,7 ,..1' 0 ) .`. N) m(:J -, .-1 W -1 0' n D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 'II 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II '1 I I I II M G) M 0 I-N r m W V N UI N 0M .•,0 1V N N N V 1"0% ) 90' '- -' • UI.0 0' .O, CM,-,2 UI) O'N •' a W Cr, • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Gw O'01(A0' ,- . - --- a m •DNm•" GN 01 .00 N •' W . n k 1 • r .1-1 • (d(A 41 LA 41 W (A u W L(.4( u u u(A U W(..1 41 W W U W W W ] r • ,0 .O 2 12 -I V (T'0U1 ;.n al UI U1 UI UI N Ul 0 0 U1 Ul 0 U1 U1 a c� 0 • co,NI U)"'A 41 P. 0' A A A A W 41 (A W 41 N N.N N.+Y r n 2 9 • 0 000...N O O' L.Na 44 0NA LA N 1✓ r 44 N C)33.4 O' C) 7 N 0 • 2i D 13 rr A 0 C 0 ZU) . U) IS 111192 C) Z',C U) (n2 T C C) -1 .4rnm2712. 0O •, ICO mn•,.,O.- O•, m 2.4 4-4 r, 27 .-1 T 1 )-(v 11 n 4.4 .• S.CI A ~ m ( C 2rn T.0Z1. 2r, 0..r1 rn C)n n O t rn � -< A ImZA 22., a -t.0 • = U)OO. O• Cl• ri• 2 O r O21n20 -4 a N21')z C) 0 13 0 72 -4 CI mc) O 70 r'(ni'Itin Iin r 13 4 14 2.0 D ,1no00Cm no on rn 11 r1 r. 210 C)rc) G10 -1 -1 2rr)01-14 "11 .7)7) 71 n2 11 6 2Q• -( (10 0 2 •-• Or rlro L l C)0 Or'1 ,1719 N C rn r) 1104; rr(n rl am on(/)0-427t r44c1317rl ., A 2 7 7 n'77 -, rn r a' m 1 )t rn on r9 rn rn 2.0 n Cl on n b co C Cr10 mr -4, ..v) art V P•wrn I . cl rr,no -4r A .'1 (APS a (n• 2 N O -+O 11 13 v) 70 -4 •+ 0 -1 N 22 l CI0ONAr1N11N Omn -4 0 ')1 J O 07(n r).-0 0 2 r- I -•r'11 r0 x1002 z C rt 1 411 SZ 2(n 13N61 lag XIr < a )) T m a nom a4) m O 241< .• : m O ✓ Uf O 77 !n, O O N•, r)G) 2 O m N G) r 0 n m m -1 m rnv) n 1 (mi) (n r- 2 -n N 1 Cl U) m 1 rt COI • A m i In 2 C ' rt n C NI o 1 70 N .4 A • ! . rn 07 N W NI S U) m .4 O G Al N'O OD C' ^2 < N N n-ON .4 O 0' 1 -1 • • • Jr r• rpt a r..... _. -.... .. ... ... N .. .� s -. C 41 N ,O C1.r .p.• V at.O 0 a G•0 0 O b O:J V A ;:a u .a a u a 1 1 1 1 1 I I ' r.= 2 o C z r1 1 <2 .2 a 7J 11 H S. '13 2 C) 0 m 0 -4 lo C1 4 n)• rl co N 42 0 A N N. P• F• -4 O A 0' OD O U N (A A N N A r • A▪ CO )„). v pr..)0 0O cm Na 0.1u ON 0 A ,0 A 0• 0 u ,D -..o... .a ws 4J ... .1v .. ,u .. ."i .-( r1 co CN O' 0,,O .L ,a. O O C 1 0 0 0 0 c) 0 0 0 < • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ri Gi .J ..". "+.7 .7 -a :a ,a ,• J . , 1 .:i O J4. .a 0 2 ' .J C) u O 00 r= OO O0 OC) O O J JO Q'• ,a J 0700 '0 7 C m a N V N 0 r. u 2.1 . -.(n • . ' a O „- 0 .. A N . V 4* N r' P 1v .0.. -I'w V '.0 I)) a -• (n u A o M+14 r Cl I. A ON O Cl -4 0 0 0' 0' 0 C,�oorO' c+o o...,0424JI00 v ,a .4 u ,• CA ,4 C 11 V .. 7 0 c•.7 -. A O 0 r7 O ' '' u 'a.7 O ,N r7 , p ca 7 a r'co A I LA N .d C- 1-• 0 ti 1 N N O A 40 N ). r Cl 0 N .D UI p LI UI 0' U1 A N A A h. N • • • • 0 C 0' V ,0 -4 ON.+CO 0T ( .. U1A W ,'N .1 Jr N a •+ u ,O CD C c. (,1 .4 LJ n C7 O c4,O ^) 0.4 Ca O N xi , � • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • •J X.2 U W ) .l '- J t). m W 1 u ' .. 3 ) Cl ,. C. .7 r•• 13 U ,0 • 0 '3 -• W Cr, .... .1 ' c1 •) ) 7 N ) .- ) J n Is 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 1 1 I 1,1 C1 n) N , r N N A N N 1u- p ,y N N ( UI (4(D v • • • • • • • • • • • 'V 1) A N -J W N r .4 A O. Cl -4 N • ✓ 0 • a • 00 wr 000 aAAAA • 400000000 11 r • -1 * 0. • UI Ut * AwW W W W W W W W W W W W • NNNNNNNN * rrrrrrrrr 0C .0 • r * r • rm. • .i r .0.00D W -10'UIW NNrr • A W Ww NNrr • 0U/UI AAA W 4CD n2 D * o • r •' rCp, * '4)rrowrm 000 Qr 0 Q.Ca * N AN V N'D 00 r N r0Nr44N0 AO N 0 -4 D 0 r n 013 0 m n a nrr DCH'fl4rDr%1 U) N CmD3ru)rA 'V CtS '9V DrAONC n D m m 2 .0 .0C 4 -4CCO22m-i2CCmomm C m1CCOZCC rpt zor',mr'tmn <n 20 -, .0 D D -•I '0 DD 2 N Dm 2 C C 2r Nro r N OO D .0r Cr-TCDD D 19D .0zz Dr r'ir ..-•r .y 2 Z -1 m r rA m nCN11.0 .0 -IrCZCm-4nt D rrrro .011 '9 N 27tr0woo 9.0 N '-4 N D .D -4 r2' D mr"I 11rr V)r C-4m'V.0rm. r • '0ODr .0r O -92 -I0.4r ,D -..x, C 11 Z N m .0 A .0 rZQ•'Crr 1.4-4 G) N r 00 r r014 2 rmsoo .4.404 ma O m m m o r r1A N r -N m00 •422 c.Im11N m O -43Z110mm OZ Z2 m2m !Am 't1 D 2 D m 1 m m .0 oz mnaP2 rr r/) .0C .0Ii7C r/) r < Nwoo omw 02 Cl) -4 C m m .D zCCno o Nm IIi r0 .4-4.4 m02 3 I' I II 7Dm V) r D )C OO C m V)CCm 22 co p•V) r2, co rr1123rD .0 V) mnr1111 1 1111 rC 2 -r n 0. '0 CT r nmm NLL C 7a 77<J,.0 CA G. -4 m e7r rr Cel 1].0 b D m < m r n C A mm mm or D o r mm D - 3 11 A n V r r -4r m a 2 2 DD m (I)CCQ C)C CN m 2.02W AD C DMm.0 30r r r O 2 D m O S C 2P.4 1 1 MI.4 "PICA 13 A .4 .4/.4 H n• A 011 D Cl) < Z r mr go .0' V) rN mm .0 r D:• r A A Orr -1-4 -4 Z C m 11 1 -4 -4 21- M -.40 r-4 mC ' 2("1 C r (1 322 ' rr 2 m M -1 N C -10 A 01-4I CAM NC A -II)' CO iA N '1100 -123 0 D V) A r I moo 22 IP-. co • a D • C C rmm CA m 2- 0 U)2 0 r'n Pt n r r MM 3 Cit 0• o or zm vm aim n .0 .0 m v), (I) C) no .0 22 • n 2 00 O -4 MM 2 N .0 M v CD . ,0 A rr V r 0 20 C M C r X o r r N r r r -4 D W W ON rNI"•r W. W v.r0 W or UIa NU1 Aro• '9 •. • • • • • • • • • • • I• • • • • m a A N 0-4 Nw'0+W0 N- A rr.0 N.0 CO yr DD 0'.QA m D D 0 A DD O'ramr.OA D' r 0.0W 00' UI 4:1N NOD I.r.01- .02 41 0 43 CO WD A0,VrO.Or 0' A .0..O ODD :m .c ..4 Da'arW n 2 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •.• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -.I.4 .. r r 0 W-.4 0 a' 00.0 D.O W'J a' 43 -ll(AN ...a "U1 '- -c) 'V DD.40• C O .4 .." .4 ...) C) ' N P-,-,C0,0,;. 1701.40,40,000.4 W o W I.).N0•J Nr r '- vCD -I Ui V-1-1 A r 2 04 0 -4 • 2 C 1 D <= m .0 CD N .0 z 2 n m m v 0 T n z -4 r • .0 ✓ r A r r, W W .0 - UI U) Ul A A r N V WN r• N W Co Ut UIUI NO r to ar ta D OD rD D W W r- I"' W 0 .0 W Wr V.0 D A.pr.O uw D; r ,arr•r0 -I0 r r 0 N.O W.OD O) D • + • • •.• •.• • • + • • • • • 0 0 Ill N N r rJ D 0' orO) 4-'D .0-4r.0u I-' -1 43.0 N,D N-1'-•-4 A N0.IrW V.0.rN 'V . - u .J U1 (A -. Ur r UI Q+ .0 "'VT.0 N N Ut u 03 r 44 w 44,4 r u '-' 4* 0A Ut N 0'A W A•• A D ;_) n n O .a c) a .D 7J {0t tJ1 4 U1 GUI 43 0 0 0 0- U1 O O Uf 0 U1 o 4 N -1 0 0.{w Ul'C I N r • is • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .0 .3 .., J ._3 .4) `'4 s J U 3 •'J C.. ;.:n C.0 •4-. C7 4-) -. 6.1M ,,,, C) .3 ..],o.;),..3[J 0 Ga r,� +4 n '0 --3 ) _) 4.) 43 CO 0 ,:110 C) 7 o C)47 O o'3 C3 30 0 ,2 'O G.O OOJ 4 .C) ':3 O 0 ca c+a-'00 -, r O AC .• m 1.. a W .0 W W ,-I 0 N A r- r P. r wr rPr o W W 43 r-N UI.0 4-'C'r W v: W N W W A .O r 0' 0 r N D ,0{V D • • • • • • • • • 4 * • • • • • • • • • • • + • • • 0 0 r a'N V 0.CDD .0r U1 0 D NrD NA A 03(.40 (A,00• V UI A N ry NUI W .-.44,-.4,04,0,0 W S ,-.. .4•0 --44.4 Uf 44(.40 N D'-W 0. .0-1 N 0 0 N NAWNAW WU10ArV r .0 0. u0 W0 W -.1(44-. .IAC0 . .N n • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -1 0 0 aJ '3 u u W LA'' C' .-.u D-.1•'W r A Q,.O'D UI W o w o c3 O A•r w 0 r CO 0' .3 (2 .O 43 D.O.OND C 11 _' 3 c' N 0 • .4 '3 ,1 w..'ms's W.0 W Q+.r UI r 0 e:0 r CO 3 '7.O A r •-11 1.)N V N _ r oD ArD W .0 I I r 0 A A I W -4 O I-• r W r 0A. D 0. 1 J1 0 r .0 r NNW*. 0 D D W41.0 Ni A .0 CArN O. V D m D W W r r 0 UI A W W rUIN P.)UI C'Nv VN r .i .Or- S Dr m.. N -UINN05-'.DCA N • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • vo • • • • • • • • • < 0 '.11 N N 0 0 '-' .4 00.41.. W r r r 0• D D .43,Z ) 0+W.1 V W C) C r'UI 4'.)D W W 0• A ) 0 c) N N '-, .0 _�CJI..r ,0 A A 0 0•0 UI O,Q A m C)D,.UI.0 0 .0*. r W V 0 0*r rr C4 0+ .1 D W W • .1 D 0.4 NJ ATN 4*A U)D r., ' CO 41 CO.O• A' rA w .4D10 -)N '4►r CD.Q r • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ff • � • • A _r e ' Q0a .0 .'4 ''rN ,-,W D UI CAW r A 0. .J0. A 3 ..U1 coD A ' Dr W ,0 o :r -3 , -1r 2 D ,Q 't W -.' -1 .0 :) W 0• -I A •0 0.D U) . .Q. N O o r 0 .O ' CoCOW N c3 O N 0`.D N V no �> r.� :� UI CP - 1 I rn 0 r m N N I V *.r N N W I"N r N N N N W r r W N N N U 1 w r N N .0 -I '= 'D A U O. D 40 r W W Q.U) Q. N 0 W D r,3 W • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 'D .0 UI a' r .4) A O.A UI W • 0.0• ''3 N D r-•r MA Nn D A .1 CO O. n -4 N * 'a * 2 ? A Z CO * - * N O A O N 0 A A 2 1 2 C A o a m am 2 ..• 2 .2 2 x 2 -I r 1 --I — +-• rl A \ < 2 2 -4 a m o 0 a, a D 2 fn m '71 m mz o A 2 -n z z: A b. m co c r) A! m N -4 z 2 7 1 -c fn rn -n D L 0 -I r- 2 T H 0 -4 O 0 '11 v O 73 Z C M n z v rn r- m CO U1 D r- 01 m II. v v • a 0 v p «. A M 0 Z A C m A r x 4442 a a m ,a m a% a z soA z • • • • • • -i-• 0 .. c 0 O u 0 4a 0 a 0 -4 2 C -4 a K= m aa -• a z 2 A m m v v 0 A A 1 N a w 'a ;Jr o a% v o N N, N N .2 • • + O • V 0 0 j v CA . - W W X1 0 W W. UI c11 0 H • • • • • • a 0 0 G.. O ..,0 H 0 I.1 UI a 2 + a UriI a -, to • A p. a• •, 0 0 0 C -T1 y 0 a .-, 0 0 q r• o • a 1 •,• w n r 1 Cis as ON m 0) N N I" N N N • C CI ca . O O D 0 O A, W W c7 27 co W CA U1 Ur h CO fd A D r*r O rn N UI v • U A '-, -4 N Tr 1 e _ /�C CITY OF SHAKOPEE BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT April, 1982 PERMITS ISSUED Yr. to Date Total Previous Year 5571-5615 Nurgber Number Valuation Number Valuation ' MO . YTD. Single Fam. -Sewered 2 4 217,420 5 8 453,600 Single Fam. -Septic - 1 78,500 - 1 75,000 Multiple Dwellings 3 4 428,640 2 4 420,000 (Mo.Units) (YTD Units) (12) (14) (6) (10) Dwelling Additions 11 13 89,537 2 4 61,000 Other - 3 73,780 - - - Business District - - - 1 2 240,000 Agricultural - - - _ _ - Industrial -Sewered - - - - - - Irrdri:.t.rirrl -Sept. - - - - 1 425,000 Accessory/Garages 7 7 34,385 7 14 82,000 i ) n:; & Vcnce:; 7 14 21,838.50 - - 100 F i nep I .ice;/Wed S Love - 4 4,955 -- 2 2,200 Grading/Foundation - 1 1,165 1 1 47,000 Remodeling (Res. ) 2 7 35,000 3 8 16,500 Remodeling ( Inst. ) - - - - 1 - Remodeling (Other) 4 11 698,648 10 23 971,000 TOTAL TAXABLE 45 79 1,683,868.50 30 67 2,793,400 TOTAL INSTITUTIONAL - - - - 1 GRAND TOTAL 45 79 1,683,868.50 30 68 2,793,400 MO . YTD . MO. YTD. Variances 1 4 1 1 c,md i t i onrr I Use 2 7 2 4 Re-Zoning - - - - Movi_ng - - - - Electric Permits 14 36 7 48 I' I mbg. & Htg. Permits 25 48 20 54 IOi: i ng Permits Residential - - - - Commercial - - - - To Lal dwelling units in City after completion of all construction permitted lo date 3,527 Cora Underwood Bldg. Dept. . Secretary i V CITY OF SHAKOPEE BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED IN APRIL, 1982 5571 Tim Monnens 313 3rd Street Garage $ 4,400 5572 Dennis Welter . 815 W. 4th Ave. Deck 1,600 5573 James Fox 1708 W. 12th Ave. Garage 7,560 5574 Joe Link 1178 Monroe St. House c ` a2, e5, a.c-4la. : 52,500 5575 Valley Fair Addition 4,000 5576 Valley Fair Addition 34,720 5577 Emmett Sager 1033 S. Scott Deck 500 5578 Wiggin, Inc. 1211 Taylor St. 4 unit mutt. fm. resid. 16,710 c�,8-2 ? «� 1 unit 5579 Wiggin, Inc. 1213 Taylor St. �44 4 unit mult. fm. resid. 16,710 L3� L7b/i�_ 1 unit 5580 Wiggin, Inc. X1215 Taylor S unit mutt. fm. resid. 16,710 5581 Wiggin, Inc. � 1217 Taylor St.St. 1 unit 4 unit mult. fm. resid. 16,710 Y11,7 `61 unit 5582 Richard Logeais 1020 Eastview Circle twin home - 1 unit '49a 64a1.� ur /-44-. 31,800 5583 Richard Logeais 022 Eastview Circle twin home - 1 unit 5.6p2 e� GQJ^ 31,800 5584 Ierry Link 1173 Mon e S reet House �6 � c �' 53,270 c'S 5585 Thomas Johnsen 1064 S wmut St. Patio 350 5586 Joe Link 703 Lewis Alt. 4,200 5587 Lambrecht Const. 611 W. 7th Porch 3,100 5588 Joe Link RR 2, Box 1189 Deck 1,000 5589 Gerry Construction/ 21����e�� /�6 unit twnhse - 1 unit 39,700 5590 Gerry Construction ,2208 Shawee Trail 6 unit twnhse - 1 unit 39,700 f '2 44/3 / ,ie 44A* 5591 Gerry Construction 206 Shawee Trail 6 unit twnhse - 1 unit 39,700 c & 6/3 l�;e /-a-/' ' 5592 Gerry Construction 204 Shawnee Trail 6 unit twnhse - 1 unit 39,700 o�.� se/.3/V .e /d/' 5593 Gerry Construction 202 Shawn e Trail 6 unit twnhse - 1 unit 39,700 c=f5 ,B/3 / c t 4 /..-.4.-d- 5594 _a..h 5594 Gerry Construction 200 Shawn e Trail 6 unit twnhse - 1 unit 39,700 �lo 46/3 /��%s /-.t/' 5595 Gary Nelson 218 W. 8th Fence 541.50 5596 Martin Schmitt 1146 Van Buren Stg. Shed 175 5597 Roger Culshaw 673 Jackson St. Garage 11,000 e 5598 Valley Fair Addition $ 8,000 5599 Melvin Hennen 835 S. Holmes Shed 750 5600 Roger Bauer • 3693 Marschall Rd. Garage - move 500 5601 Laurent Bldrs. 118 S. Fuller Add'n - shell only 50,000 5602 Vladimir Sokolov 1424 Wood Duck Trail Fence 750 5603 Henry Coyer 637 Madison Deck 1,000 5604 Kaufman Sign Valley Fair Sign 8,000 5605 Attracta Sign 810 E. First Ave. Sign 177 5606 John Menden 1028 Ramsey Patio 8,000 5607 Mertin Sign 135 Atwood Sign 400 5608 Robert Rawson 5215 Eagle Creek Blvd Garage 10,000 5609 Charles Goebel i 702 Madison Deck 750 5610 Floyd Dueffert 630 Madison Deck 675 5611 John Ony 3521 Hwy 101 Add'n 5,000 5612 Raymond Konen RR 1, Box 1000B Deck 617 5613 Valley Auto Plaza 133 West 1st Ave. Temp. Signs & Banners 100 5614 Lambrecht Const. 1028 Swift St. Addition 22,500 5615 Christopher Dircks 486 & 488 MN St. Retaining Wall 200 $664,975.50 /3 MEMO TO: John Anderson City Administrator FROM: Don Steger City Planner RE: Campaign Signs DATE: May 11, 1982 In order to avoid confusion regarding candidate ' s campaign signs during the Fall election, I feel it may be appropriate to inform each candidate of the City' s signing requirements. Once the candidates have been determined, the Planning Department can simply send and/or call the campaign sign requirements to each individual' s attention. If the sign requirements are violated, the penalty clause as stated in the attachment, will be enforced. DS/j iw Attachment II i 7:3 H. Roof signs shall not be permitted in Commercial Districts . I. Signs shall not obstruct any window, door, fire escape or opening intended to provide ingress or egress to any structure or building. J. Campaign signs posted by bona fide candidates for political office or by a person or group promoting a political issue or a candidate may be placed in any zoning district . Signs must be no larger than 20 square feet nor higher than 5 feet and may be posted for a period not to exceed sixty (60 ) days and shall be removed within seven ( 7) days following the date of the election. Signs must be erected at least 2 feet back from the curb line of any street and at least 30 feet away from any street corner and should not in any way obstruct traffic . Signs placed on private property or on the road right- of-way in front of any private property , must have the approval Lan--- the property owner. Campaign signs may not be placed on any publicly-owned property other than City-owned street right- of-way . Signs located in conflict with this section shall be removed by the City at the expense of the owner or property owner. K. Temporary banners and pennants employed for grand openings of business establishments , special events and holidays shall be permitted upon issuance of a Temporary Sign Permit for fourteen ( 14 ) days after erection. L. One temporary identification sign setting forth the name of the project , architects, engineers , contractors and financing agencies may be installed at a construction site in any district for the period of construction only . Prior approval of a majority of the Council shall be required for the use of any such temporary identification sign in excess of 24 square feet in area. M. Temporary real estates signs may be placed in any district for the purpose of advertising the lease or sale of property upon which it is placed. Only one such sign shall be permitted per street frontage. 1. Such sign shall be removed within seven ( 7 ) days following the lease or sale . 2. The maximum size of such sign for each district is as follows : a. Residential Districts - 6 square feet . b . Multiple Districts - 18 square feet . c . Commercial and Industrial Districts (office buildings ) - 32 square feet . 4 y TENTATIVE AGENDA ADJ .REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA MAY 18, 1982 Mayor Reine presiding 1] Roll Call at 8 :00 P .M. 2] Cable Franchise : a] Overview by staff of Com ittee ' s "Findings of Fact" on awarding of cable franchise b] Award of cable franchise 3] Approval of Minutes of April 26th, 27th, and May 4th, 1982 4] Communications : a] Shakopee Public Utilities re : City' s insurance b] Duane R. Marschall re: request to build over easement c] Mrs. Leroy Beagstrom re : sewer bill and water line freezing d] Joe Topic re : request for dust retardant on 11th Ave . West of Spencer 5] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 6] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS : 7] Old Business : a] Cable Legal Services b] Staffing of Planning Department During City Planner' s Leave of Absence - Res. 2003 c] City Code Prohibiting Issuance of a Building Permit on Parcels Not Abutting A Dedicated Public Street d] P.I .R. Fund Review e] Shakopee Amateur Hockey Association - Financial Report by John Goihl 8] Planning Commission Recommendations : a] Extension of 11th Avenue East to Hauer' s Additions b] Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance on Mobile Homes on Farmsteads - Ord. No. 93 9] Resolutions and Ordinances : a] Res. No. 2002 , Preliminary Approval of $1 , 500,000.00 I .R. Bonds for the Cornelius Company b] Res. No. 2005 , Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Setting A Public Hearing for Valley Industrial Blvd. So. Improvements c] Ord. No. 92 , Setting Boundaries Between All Precincts of the City of Shakopee di Ord. No . 94, Amending Liquor & Beer Regulations Regarding Payment of Taxes e] Ord. No. 95 , Amending Regulations on Street Opening Permits 10] New Business : a] 8 : 25 P .M. PUBLIC HEARING - Proposed Amendments to the 1982 Revenue Sharing Fund Budget -- Res. No. 2.006 Amending Budget b] 8: 30 P .M. PUBLIC HEARING - Proposed Improvements to Levee Drive a) Scott to Atwood, . and 2) Lewis to Sommerville - 1982-3 (bring report, item•. 1Of of April 20th agenda) c] 9 :00 P.M. - Application for On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License and Sunday Liquor License by C.R.E. Restaurant Co. TENTATIVE AGENDA May 18, 1982 Page -2- e] 80-1 Hauer Trail Sanitary Sewer Laterals : 1 ) Change Order No. 2 in amount of $2 , 449.00 2) Partial Payment in amount of $4,397.39 f] Noise Enforcement System g] Downtown Redevelopment Project and Tax Increment District h] Authorize payment of bills in amount of $179 ,823. 23 11] Consent Business : a] No Parking Zone - So side of E 5th btwn Holmes and Lewis b] 80-10 Halo 2nd/81-2 Bluff Avenue Improvements - Partial Payment in amount of $4, 711 .6-2 12] Other Business: a] 1983 Budget Schedule b] Sewer Fund Position c] Report from Mr. Colligan and Mr. Anderson on Firemen' s Physicals (bring item 9g of May 4th agenda) d] e] f] 13] Adjourn. John K. Anderson City Administrator 4 ( 7x RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS OF FACTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AD HOC CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE (HEREINAFTER COMMITTEE) WHEREAS, the Committee was formed by the City Council, of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota (hereinafter Council) , in May, 1980, to undertake a process on behalf of the Council to study, develop and evaluate proposals towards the granting of a franchise for a Cable Communications System by the Council; and WHEREAS, based upon the authority granted to it, the Committee has, for some time, undertaken its respon- sibilities and is now prepared to recommend to the Council a company to be selected, to be awarded a franchise grant pur- suant to an ordinance, that will be prepared by the Committee subsequent to the approval of the selection by the Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, at a regular meeting of the Committee, that the Committee does hereby make the following: I . FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS A. The members of the Committee were selected in May, 1980, by the Council to assist the Council. It was expected that a considerable effort would be required in order to fully and completely study and resolve all steps necessary -1- to complete the selection of a proposed cable communications system to best serve the residents of Shakopee. B. The Council has delegated a number of duties and responsibilities to the Committee. But, the Council is the franchising authority and will be required, if it is to grant a cable communications franchise, to adopt an ordi- nance. The recommendations of the Committee are advisory only; not binding on the Council; and, only intended to pro- vide the Council with such information and assistance as will be needed to assist the Council in making its decision. C . During the past two (2 ) years, the Committee has assisted the Council in the franchising process in accor- dance with the steps and legal requirements of the Minnesota Cable Communications Board (MCCB) . It has developed an invitation for applications, a Request for Proposal including a preliminary franchise ordinance, conducted numerous public meetings, reviewed proposals, had discussions with consultants, received comments from the public and other interested groups and fulfilled the requirements of the MCCB. The Council has been regularly kept informed and involved in this process. It has been regularly provided with minutes of Committee meetings. D . The awarding of a franchise, by ordinance, for a cable communications system, is not the award of a contract, or a competitive bidding process, subject to the Uniform -2- Municipal Contracting Law applicable to Minnesota cities . The franchising process is governed specifically by Chapter 238 of Minnesota Statutes and rules of the MCCB. E. A cable commmunications system is exceedingly complex and technical . It is not amenable to exact specifi- cations . Consequently, the Committee has undertaken to pro- vide a process which recognizes this fact and which requires that the technical standards of the MCCB are met and that certain desired performance characteristics be included in the applicants ' proposals. The process allowed for the standards to be met and the desired performance charac- teristics to be included in a proposal and for applicants to make a full presentation of their proposals. F. It is recognized that judgment and discretion are required in making a recommendation because the highly tech- nical nature of the applications make a point by point com- parison impossible. The principal elements used in formulating and arriving at a recommendation by the Committee include the following: 1 . A cable service territory (CST) , that includes the entire area of Shakopee, has been approved by MCCB. 2 . A needs assessment was prepared and the Council did determine to proceed with the franchising process. 3 . The Council hired Anita Benda, cable con- -3- sultant, and Adrian E . Herbst of Herbst & Thue, Ltd. , attorneys (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Consultants) to advise it in various aspects of the cable communications system and the franchising process. Consultants have provided assistance and advice in the preparation of an invitation for application, a Request for Proposal with a preliminary ordinance, and thereafter, in evaluating proposals made in response by cable company applicants. 4 . Certain evaluation criteria and categories for weighting the proposals of cable company applicants were enumerated in the Request for Proposal. These are included in Exhibit "A" , attached hereto. 5 . A lobbyist policy was adopted and distributed to each cable company applicant. The purpose of the policy was to insure fairness in the proceedings. It is the opinion of the Committee that the policy afforded all persons a fair opportunity to be heard, to present their viewpoints, and to object to any of the proceedings . 6. In response to the Request for Proposal, two cable applicants submitted proposals detailing the indi- vidual methods of each applicant to develop, build, operate and maintain a cable communications system to serve Shakopee, Minnesota. The applicants who made pro- -4- posals were Progress Valley Totalvision, Inc. (hereinafter PV) and Zylstra-United Cable Television Company (hereinafter ZU) . 7 . On December 8, 1981 , the proposals of each applicant were received and distributed by the Committee, and the review process started. 8 . All organizations and persons interested in participating in the process had an opportunity to do so and the meetings of the Committee were open to the public. 9. On February 5 , 1982, the members of the Committee visited existing cable communications systems operated by Zylstra Communications Corp. in Worthington and Communications Systems, Inc. in St. Peter, Minnesota. 10. On March 8, 1982, Anita Benda, in conjunction with the Cable Television Information Center Associates, Inc. (CTIC Assoc. ) in Arlington, Virginia, prepared and submitted to the Committee a preliminary evaluation of each applicant' s proposal. This report made possible an opportunity for each applicant to respond to questions and to provide additional comments and information based on the preliminary evaluation. Both applicants made additional comments and responses . 11 . On April 20, 1982, Anita Benda, in conjunction -5- with CTIC Assoc. , submitted a final report to the Committee. 12 . On .April 27, 1982, the Council, as franchising authority, and the Committee jointly met and a public hearing, at the Shakopee Senior High School, was held in accordance with the rules of MCCB. Representatives of ZU and PV were present, as well as, interested citizens. ZU and PV made presentations and others were afforded an opportunity to be heard. The hearing included con- sideration of the following matters as provided for in the MCCB rules: a. Each applicant' s technical ability, financial condition, and qualifications . b. Each applicant ' s plans for constructing and operating a cable communications system in Shakopee, including specific consideration of all portions of Shakopee to be served. c. Whether requirements of MCCB had been complied with. 13 . On April 28, 1982 , the Committee met with its Consultants to start a process of selection. It was determined, at that time, that the proposals of ZU and PV would both be evaluated, that deviation of the propo- sals from the Request for Proposal were not material and should not preclude a proposal from consideration and -6- that the proposals of each applicant should be evaluted in accordance with the evaluation categories in Exhibit "A" . 14. At the meeting of April 28, 1982, Anita Benda described Assumption I and Assumption II as being a dif- ference in a line extension procedure to which each applicant was asked to respond in the Request for Proposal. Because of differences in the proposals with respect to these Assumptions, the Committee determined to separately evaluate each proposal by each assumption and then compare the evaluation of each assumption in making a selection of an applicant to recommend and the particular proposal of that applicant. Further, at that meeting, it was determined by the Committee that each category to be considered would be done so separately and that the applicant receiving the majority of votes of Committee members for that category would receive the full weight of that category. The audience did not object to the procedure and it was approved by the Committee. 15 . At the meeting of April 28, 1982, the staff of the Committee, Jeanne Andre, was asked to contact systems operated by parent company and/or partner of each applicant to procure information pertaining to each applicant' s track record and performance. -7- 16 . On May 5, 1982 , the Committee met to evaluate the proposals of each applicant. Before doing so, Jeanne Andre distributed the review she prepared of the track record and performance of each applicant. This was then discussed by her and the Committee. Thereafter, the evaluation procedure was discussed and the Committee determined that after it commenced its deliberations, that no further comment would he received from the audience unless in response to a question. The Chairman then invited comments from each applicant. Representatives of both applicants were in attendance and neither made any comment or objected to the process of evaluation. 17. The Committee reviewed each category in Exhibit "A" . This was done first for Assumption I and then for Assumption II . The following summarizes the discussion of the Committee. See Exhibit "B" for weighting. a. Experience/Background. ZU and PV have extensive cable experience. However, the Committee determined the cable managerial experience of ZU was more favorable than PV. ZU also had more experience in systems of similar size to Shakopee. The Committee determined there were no differences between Assumption I and Assumption II for this -8- category, and approved ZU based on review with both Assumptions . b. Financial Resources and Commitments. The Committee determined that both applicants have the financial capability to comply with the proposals and that any differences in the final report of the Consultants were not significant under Assumption I . However, it was determined there was a dif- ference in considering Assumption II in that PV has only eight percent (8% ) rate of return with high operating costs as compared to the Consultants ' recommended sixteen to eighteen percent ( 16%-18% ) . For this reason, the Committee gave equal weight to each for Assumption I but determined that in Assumption II , ZU only should be approved. c. Pro Forma Projections . Questions in the Committee occurred because of the operating expense of PV not being consistent with the recommendation of the Consultants . The operating expense ratio of PV is proposed at eighty percent (80% ) as compared to the sixty percent (60% ) of ZU that is the ideal ratio as recommended by the Consultants. Capital costs proposed by PV for Assumption I are $3 . 1 million and for Assumption II $2 . 7 million. ZU has proposed capital costs of $4. 7 million for -9- Assumption I and $4. 7 million for Assumption II . The Committee determined that it is clear that ZU will be expending more money to build a better and more sophisticated system than PV. Important in this evaluation is that ZU has a greater upgrade budget of $2 .8 million as compared to $1 .4 million for PV. This will be important because of the long term of the proposed franchise. The Committee also observed that the Consultant had questioned the pro forma projections of PV. Both Assumption I and II considerations are similar. However, as to Assumption II, it was noted that the monthly subscriber rate of 11 . 95 for PV was excessive. The Committee approved ZU under both Assumptions for this category. d. Construction Plans. The Committee found that the ZU timetable for construction was substan- tially earlier than PV ' s and further, that this was an important factor from the standpoint of costs and needs of residents. The ZU proposal shows a building schedule of six (6 ) months and the PV pro- posal shows a building schedule of twelve (12 ) months. The line extension policy of each appli- cant was reviewed. The response of PV was questioned. Each applicant was asked to again -10- review their plans for the Committee. The Committee found that PV costs and time too great and determined that in both Assumption I and Assumption II , ZU had the best and the most respon- sive proposal . e. System Design. The Committee observed that ZU has budgeted for equipment to have 50 acti- vated channels and PV has budgeted for equipment to have 34 activated channels . (PV has stated they will provide 39 activated channels. ) ZU could receive signals from four satellites and PV three satellites making it possible for a larger variety of programming on the ZU system. ZU will utilize audio/video override. The design and plans of ZU are greater than PV and more has gone into this by ZU to meet the needs of Shakopee. The Committee determined, based on the Consultants ' report, that the design of PV is less sophisticated and not as desirable as that of ZU in that the PV procedure for delivery of programming and services is too cumbersome, too expensive, and has the potential risk of increased expenses to the subscriber. The Committee has determined that the full time person- nel available for repair and other services of ZU as opposed to part time personnel proposed by PV is -11- an important consideration. There are no signifi- cant differences between Assumption I and Assumption II . ZU was approved for this category. f. Programming and Services. Broadcast sta- tion carriage, origination programming, activated programming, local origination, access channels, access support, pay cable services, interactive services, tiered structure, FM service, and service to institutions were all reviewed under Assumption I and Assumption II . Some of the specific matters identified in the Committee review include the following: 1 ) ZU had done a study and has planned for regional interconnection. This was not done by PV. 2 ) ZU has included three (3 ) more character generators than PV in its proposal . 3 ) PV has not included anything in its budget to activate channels to institutions . ZU has done this . 4) The PV proposal would require insti- tutions to procure scrambler and descrambler equipment. The ZU proposal does not. 5 ) The Committee observed that the Consultants identified a conflict in the cable -12- size in the PV proposal and the system design and the concern of whether or not the system, as proposed, is workable. 6 ) ZU has proposed a $10, 000.00 grant for community access . 7 ) ZU will provide a lockout device without charge. PV will charge for this . Also, the ZU system permits more channels on Tier 2 that can be locked out. A great amount of reliance was placed on the final report of the Consultants. ZU has made a greater commitment to programming and services and to pro- viding the staff to accomplish this than has PV. The economy tier of ZU was described as an advan- tage to Shakopee residents . The Committee approved ZU in this category for both Assumption I and II . g. Rates and Charges. ZU has the best package of rates . The Committee determined it is hard to compare individual rates because of dif- ferences in programming and services offered by each applicant. Therefore, it is better to con- sider the whole package of rates of each applicant. Further, the addressable converter is a feature provided by ZU that is desirable. As to Assumption II, the rates and charges of PV would be prohibi- -13- tive. The Committee determined that the average subscriber would benefit from the ZU rates and charges . ZU was approved for both Assumption I and Assumption II in this category. h. System Reliability, Maintenance and Repair, Employment Practices. The main difference in each applicant in this category related to the availability and convenience of service. ZU has a larger staff and its availability is better. PV services other systems outside Shakopee. There were no differences between Assumption I and Assumption II for this category and ZU was approved. i . Response to Local Needs. A number of important matters based on the Needs Assessment were observed by Committee members . 1 ) ZU has the best overall rates and charges. 2 ) ZU has the best construction timetable. 3 ) Citizen reaction to cable is "when are we going to have it?" 4) ZU best addressed the Request for Proposal . 5) The market survey of ZU indicates -14- they have done a significant amount of research and planning for the system to serve Shakopee. 6) Access plans for ZU are in keeping with local needs. There were no differences in Assumption I and II and ZU was approved for this category. 18. The Committee approves the weighting of each applicant ' s proposal in accordance with Exhibit "B" . 19. The Committee reviewed both Assumption I and Assumption II, after determining that ZU should be selected, and determined that Assumption II should be approved based on the fact that this will provide the gratest number of Shakopee residents cable com- munications services at the least possible cost. 20 . In determining a procedure for evaluation and during the time spent by the Committee on evaluating and reviewing the proposals of ZU and PV, the Committee was aware of and discussed the importance of local ownership. The Committee has recognized that there does exist public sentiment in favor of local ownership and that PV does have a partner of local (Shakopee) investors. The Committee determined that although some significance may be given to local ownership, it is not one of the categories to be weighed in the evaluation -15- of the proposals according to the Request for Proposal . The Committee has sought to objectively evaluate the proposals of both ZU and PV according to the approved categories . To do otherwise would alter the process for selection and affect the fairness of the process . 21 . The Committee finds that ZU has the technical ability, financial condition, and legal qualifications to be awarded a franchise for a cable communications system in Shakopee. 22 . The Committee finds that ZU plans for constructing and operating a cable communications system are complete and in conformance with the Request for Proposal. 23 . The Committee finds that after having reviewed the MCCB rules, the ZU proposal is in conformance with the franchise standards . 24. The Committee finds that the categories for evaluation in Exhibit "A" together with consideration of the Consultants ' reports, and responses of each appli- cant, provide a fair, objective and sound means of con- sidering the proposals of each applicant and that ZU will best serve the needs of Shakopee and should be the recipient of the initial franchise for a cable com- munications system to serve Shakopee, Minnesota. In this regard, the Committee recognizes that an exact com- -16- parison of the proposals is not possible and that there may be varying judgments as to the merits of the propo- sals or particular portions of each. However, based upon all the evidence and considerations involved, ZU has made the best proposal overall to Shakopee. II . RECOMMENDATIONS A. ZU should be selected to receive an award of a franchise from Shakopee to build, operate and maintain a cable communications system in accordance with its proposal . B . The proposal of ZU utilizing Assumption II best serves the needs of Shakopee residents and this Assumption should be approved. C. The Council should instruct the Committee to pre- pare and present to the Council, for consideration and adop- tion, an ordinance granting a franchise for a cable communications system to ZU. -17- Motion by Lillian Abeln , seconded by Randy Gorman . Ayes 6 Nays 0 . Members of Committee R. Gene Foudray Lillian Abeln Eileen Christensen Lee Davis Randy Gorman Barry Kirchmeier DATED: May 12 , 1982 ATTEST: By Secretary of Committee -18- EXHIBIT "A" EVALUATION CRITERIA AND WEIGHTS CATEGORY WEIGHT Experience/Background 10% Financial Resources and Commitments ( financial goal, availability of funds) 12 . 5% Pro Forma Projections (projected revenues, capital costs and operating expenses) 5% Construction Plans ( initial service area, line extension policy, construction timetable) 17 . 5% System Design (design concept, channel capacity, interactive capability, technical standards, service security, headend and importation facilities, inter- connection, institutional service design, subscriber equipment ancillary services) 10% Programming and Services (broadcast station carriage, origination programming, automated programming, local origination, access channels, access support, pay-cable services, interactive services, tiered structure, FM service, service to institutions) 15% Rates and Charges 17 . 5% System Reliability, Maintenance and Repair, Employment Practices 5% Response to Local Needs 7 . 5% TOTAL 100 .0% -19- EXHIBIT "B" Assumption Assumption Category. I II Experience/Background ZU ZU 10% 10% Financial Resources ZU & PV ZU and Commitments 12 . 5% 12 . 5% Pro Forma Projections ZU ZU 5% 5% Construction Plans ZU ZU 17 . 5% 17 . 5% System Design ZU ZU 10% 10% Programming and Services ZU ZU 15% 15% Rates and Charges ZU ZU 17 . 5% 17. 5% System Reliability, ZU ZU Maintenance Repair, and 5% 5% Employment Practices Response to Local Needs ZU ZU 7. 5% 7. 5% PV 12 . 5% ZU 100 .0% 100 .0% -20- AD HOC CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE Special Session Shakopee, Minnesota May 12, 1982 Chrm. Foudray called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. with Committee members Kirchmeier, Gorman, Davis, Christensen and Abeln present. Also present were Jeanne Andre, Admin. Ass't and Adrian Herbst, Attorney. Davis/Gorman moved to approve the minutes of May 4, 1982 as kept. Chrm. Foudray stated he wanted to make a statement for the record to clarify the minutes of May 4, 1982. Regarding the fourth paragraph on Page 6 of those minutes, he wants it specifically stated that he does not have any interest in any locally owned system, and his judgment was based on a Minnesota corporation. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Andre stated there was some erroneous material and statements considered at the last meeting, and although she didn't say anything at that meeting, after research she felt she should mention the actual facts. She didn't know if it would change anyone's mind about their decisions, but she wanted the facts clear. Regarding experience, Zylstra has only been around for 2-3 years as a company, although United has had experience since 1953. She stated Zylstra is the manager for ZU, and North American is the management partner for PVT (not CSI). If the length of offering service as a cable company is the issue, ZU has more. But if the basis of the decision is the length of experience of operating cable company of the managing partners, North American has more than ZU. Ms. Andre stated that the statement by PV that they may hire Ray Foslid as their manager is a separate issue and should not be considered. They cannot be held to that as it is not final, and it also was not in their proposal. Ms. Andre stated that the United representative stated at the last Committee meeting that ZU has a policy of extending to 25 homes per mile. This is not true; the Request for Proposals asked only to extend the initial service area when there are 40 homes per mile, and this is the policy put forward by ZU in its proposal. Ms. Andre responded to the previous comment by Mr. Kirchmeier about the possibility of getting a better rate on the converter by using the Tier I converter, even if you have Tier II. She checked with Ms. Benda and she stated that technically it is possible, but then you couldn't get all the services you are paying for on Tier II. She also stated this was not stated in the proposal, so it shouldn't be considered as part of your decision on rate structure. Further discussion took place. Discussion ensued concerning what types of changes could be considered from the original proposals. The attorney stated that if it is a material part of any de- cision, it should be in writing. Davis/Kirchmeier moved to open discussion for review and approval of Findings of Fact. Motion carried unanimously. Chrm. Foudray went through the Findings of Fact page by page, asking for comments on each page. The comments were as follows: Considerable discussion was held regarding the exact wording for changing No. 17a. , Experience/Background to reflect the actual facts regarding partners, managers and parent companies. Shakopee Cable Communications Committee May 12, 1982 Page 2 Christensen/Gorman moved to change Paragraph 17a. to read "ZU and PV had extensive cable experience. However, the committee determined the cable managerial experience of ZU was more favorable than PV. ZU also had experience of systems similar in size to Shakopee. The Committee determined there were no differences between As- sumption I and Assumption II for this category, and approved ZU based on review with both Assumptions:" Kirchmeier/Gorman moved to amend the motion to change the sentence that reads "ZU also had experience of systems similar in size to Shakopee" to read "ZU also had more experience in systems similar in size to Shakopee". Motion to amend carried unanimously. Main motion as amended: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Mr. Kirchmeier asked for a definition of Findings of Fact from the attorney. He wondered how detailed they should be. He stated he was bothered by the ommission, in some cases, of lengthly statements and actual figures which he felt could be helpful to the City Council. He felt that the Findings of Fact as written give the impression there was little difference between the proposals, where in actuality there were great differences in many areas. He stated he felt the Committee 's job was not over until City Council accepted their recommendation, and making the Find- ings more detailed might be what is needed to convince City Council of how clearly they recommend one company and one proposal. Mr. Herbst agreed with this reason- ing and advised the Committee to add statements and figures they feel are very im- portant. Discussion followed regarding changes and figures that should be added to 17b. and 17c. It was suggested that the Committee just supply the figures in the places where they feel they should be inserted, and leave it up to the attorney to provide proper language to fit it in. Kirchmeier/Gorman moved to give the attorney the following direction for figures to be inserted in Paragraph 17b and 17c, but to leave the final language up to the attorney: 17b. Second sentence to read: "However, it was determined there was a difference in considering Assumption II in that PV has too low of a rate of return (8%) as compared to the consultant's recommended rate of return of 16%-18%." 17c. "Pro Forma Protections. Questions occurred as to the operating expense of PV, with an operating expense ratio of 80%, as a problem could be seen. ZU, on the other hand, has an ideal operating ratio as stated by the consultant of 60%. Capital costs for ZU are projected at,14.7 Million Dollars for Assump- tion I, and $4.7 Million Dollars for Assumption II. As compared to PV which has Capital costs of $3.1 Million Dollars for Assumption I and $2.7 Million Dollars for Assumption II. Motion carried unanimously. Chrm. Foudray stated he didn't feel it was the Committee's concern to judge the rate of return. Mr. Kirchmeier stated that it affects the citizens of Shakopee where a franchise is given, and if the company has too low of a rate of return, there is greater risk that rates will be increased to make up for it. Chrm. Foudray men- tioned the possibility of the company wanting to use the operation as a tax write-off. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Herbst stated that rate of return is an important factor because under laws regulating utility rules they are an integral part of permission to raise rates. Shakopee Cable Communications Committee May 12, 1982 Page 3 Gorman/Abeln moved change the second-to-last sentence of 17c. to read: However, as to Assumption II, it was noted that the $11.95 monthly subscriber rate of PV was excessive. " Moticn carried unanimously. Christensen/Abeln moved to change 17e, first sentence, from "34" channels to "34 to 39" channels. .Motion carried unanimously. Kirchmeier/Abeln moved to add an additional statement under Procedure for Delivery "PV's procedure for delivery is too cumbersome and too expensive, and ran the risk of higher service charges to customers. " Chrm. Foudray commented he thought Mr. Kirchmeier was glorifying one company over the other. Mr. Kirchmeier responded that he didn't think he was doing that at all. He stated he likes the idea of a locally owned company, and would have voted for one if the differences between the two companies would have been close, certainly if they were even or better by the local company. But, he stated, in his opinion it is not close between the two companies. He is very concerned that what the Com- mittee gives to City Council does not seem like the voting was close. He stated for the Committee to do their job, they have to let the Council know how clear the recommendation is, based on all our background. Motion carried with Chrm. Foudray opposed. Gorman/Abeln moved to insert "(6 months)" after ZU and "(12 months)" after PV in the first sentence of Paragraph 17d. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Gorman stated that he asked Ms. Andre to do some research with existing cable systems in the area regarding how many companies offer FM and how many subscribers have that service. He also asked her to check on the rates charged for a second set hook-up and how many subscribe to that service. Ms. Andre gave the results of her survey, and summarized that the companies say FM is not hardly needed in the metropolitan area and subscribers are almost non- existent for that service. Second set subscribers are also very low -- 10% to 25%. Kirchmeier/Abeln moved to add the following points in proper language to Paragraph 17f. : Regional Inter-connect: ZU had done a study in the area, and had a much better plan than PV. Character Generators: ZU had three more than PV. Institutional Channel: PV had nothing in their budget to activate channels to institutions, plus the institutions would have to provide their own scramblers/de-scramblers. Cable Size: Consultant had pointed out a contradiction in the size of cable proposed by PV. Community Access: ZU has an additional $10,000 grant. Lock-out: ZU has no charge for lock-out, and can lock-out more channels on the second tier. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion ensued regarding the actual procedure for presenting Findings to the Council and drafting the Ordinance. Mr. Herbst suggested the drafting could be done by himself and staff personnel, and the Committee could review it paragraph by paragraph. Christensen/Abeln moved to change "negotiate" to "prepare" in the first sentence, Paragraph B under Recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. • Shakopee Cable Communications Committee May 12, 1982 Page 4 Abeln/Gorman moved to adopt the Resolution of Findings of Fact, Conclusions And Recommendations of the Ad Hoc Cable Commnications Committee, with the recommended changes. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Andre explained that the letter she had handed out from CSI was their answer to a question by a citizen at the public hearing regarding Meantime Between Fail- ure and Meantime to Repair. She said she received a verbal answer from ZU, and requested it be put in writing. Ms. Andre stated the problem the consultant had with the Management Agreement for ZU has been resolved by changing the description to "a Minnesota partnership". Ms. Andre stated she would research a specific recommendation which could be made to City Council for the formation of a Citizens Advisory Committee for the cable system, and that could be discussed by the Committee during the Ordinance drafting. Christensen/Davis moved to have Ms. Andre present the Findings of Fact to the City Council at its May 18, 1982 meeting, and have the Committee members present for questions. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Kirchmeier initiated dicussion regarding whether or not the Committee was remiss in its duties if in its presentation to the City Council it did not directly comment on the issue of a locally owned system. He stated this has been a major issue in the community, and wondered if it was right to completely ignore it. Discussion ensued. Mr. Herbst suggested he could add a sentence that would be legally proper regarding the evaluation. Mr. Herbst suggested something to the effect that the Committee, in determining how to evaluate the proposals, was mindful of public sentiment and other concerns relative to local ownership and that it is a matter of paramount concern to some people that one of the companies did have local owner ship. However, based upon all factors, they did determine it was in the best in- terests to evaluate according to the weights set forth in the RFP in what would be fair and legal. Christensen/Abeln moved to incorporate the above statement by Mr. Herbst in the Findings of Fact. Foudray/Gorman moved to amend the motion to the effect that the Committee recognizes a minority ownership of a given company. He wants it specifically stated that it is a Minnesota corporation that is involved vs. an out-state corporation. Discussion followed, with Mr. Gorman stating that he didn't feel a Minnesota corpora- tion was the issue, it was a company with local Shakopee citizens involved or another company. Vote on motion to amend failed with all opposed. Original motion carried unanimously. Abeln/Davis moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M. F. Gene Foudray Chairman Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary AD HOC CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE Shakopee, Minnesota Adj . Reg. Session May 4 , 1982 Chrmn. Foudray called the meeting to order at 7 : 15 P.M. at the Scott County Boardroom, Scott County Courthouse. Committee members present were Gorman, Davis , Kirchmeier, Abeln and Christensen. Also present were Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant ; Adrian Herbst , Attorney and his associate , Gary Matz . Chrmn. Foudray questioned if any of the Committee members had ample time in which to review the minutes of the April 28, 1982 meeting. He then suggested the setting aside of these minutes to be approved at a future meeting. Christensen moved to set the meeting minutes of April 28 , 1982 aside pending further review by the Committee. PMIr. Kirchmeier suggested allowing a few minutes for their review so they could get approved at tonights meeting. Christensen withdrew her motion. Abeln/Christensen moved to accept the minutes of April 28 , 1982 . Motion carried unanimously . Ms . Andre stated that Anita Benda did get information on construction work in progress from CTIC Associates . Both companies have included most of the capital for future construction in their initial proposals and little additional would be built into the rates . She also spoke on the Zylstra United Management Agreement where the first paragraph should state a "Minnesota Partnership" instead of a "Delaware Corpora- tion" . Ms . Benda will be consulted to see if this correction will resolve her questions regarding the management agreement . Ms . Andre also stated she had conducted the survey which had been requested by the Committee at the last meeting. Six different communities were surveyed ; three having Cable service provided by Zylstra or United and three having the Cable service provided by Communications Ser- vices , Inc . She reviewed the survey findings with the Committee . Mr. Herbst was asked for comments on the survey. He suggested the applicants of the two companies be allowed to make comments up until the time the Committee goes into deliberation and then at that point no further comments should be allowed. Gorman/Kirchmeier moved to allow no discussion by the applicants of either company or members of the audience once Committee deliberation had begun, unless so directed by the Committee . Motion carried unanimously . Mr. Herbst stated the review should be a three-step process . First , taking each of the nine categories and voting on the preference on each assumption, then compare the assumptions and make recommendation Cable Communications Committee May 4, 1982 Shakopee, Minnesota Page -2- to the City Council and finally, direct the Attorney to prepare the documents stating the findings. Chrmn. Foudray asked for final comments from the members of the audience . There were none . Chrmn. Foudray asked for final comments from the representatives of the two companies. There were none . Mr. Gorman suggested that each major item be voted on separately to determine the vote per category . Discussion was held on how best to determine the prevailing company. Gorman/Kirchmeier moved that the procedure be to limit debate follow- ing discussion of each category and have the Recording Secretary take a roll call vote , with the Committee members each voting for the company of their choice in that category, and that each roll call be alternated among the members of the Committee . Roll Call : Ayes - Unanimous Noes - None Motion carried Davis/Kirchmeier moved to open discussion on Assumption I, Item No . 1, "Experience/Background" . Motion carried unanimously . Ms. Christensen commented on the length of time Zylstra United has been in business and the expertise in the management . She stated she did not find anything on Progress Valley Totalvision' s experience however, Communications Services , Inc . , does go back to 1973 . Mr. Kirchmeier stated he felt both companies had good experience but lends to Zylstra-United with their experience record. Further general discussion was held on the experience and background of both companies. Abeln/Christensen moved to close debate . Motion carried unanimously . Roll Call Assumption I, Item 1, "Experience & Background" : Zylstra United - Unanimous Progress Valley Totalvision- None TOTALS Zylstra United = 6 Progress Valley Totalvision = 0 Kirchmeier/Gorman moved to open discussion on Assumption I, Item No. 2, "Financial Resources and Commitments" . Motion carried unanimously . Mr. Kirchmeier suggested a tie in this area due to his thoughts they were both equal in this category . Discussion continued with each member stating their opinion on the suggestion of Mr . Kirchmeier for a tie vote. Cable Communications Committee May 4, 1982 Shakopee, Minnesota Page -3- Kirchmeier/Gorman moved that the Committee recommend a tie in the category of "Financial Resources and Commitments" , Assumption I, to Zylstra United and Progress Valley Totalvision, thereby giving each company a 12 . 5 percent on Item No . 2. Roll Call : Ayes - Unanimous Noes - None Motion carried Gorman/Christensen moved to open discussion on Assumption I, Item No. 3 , "Proforma Projections" . Motion carried unanimously . Mr. Gorman stated that income is always related to expense in business and could foresee a problem with Progress Valley Totalvision in this area. Ms . Abeln stated that the operating ratio is ideal for Zylstra United and too high for Progress Valley Totalvision for projected revenues . Ms . Christensen stated the Capital Costs for Progress Valley is 3 . 1 and for Zylstra United at 4 . 7. Mr . Kirchmeier questioned if this Capital Cost meant that Zylstra United was putting more money into the system and thereby providing a better system. He stated he would appreciate clarification in order to make a decision in this category . Ms . Christensen stated she was of the opinion that Zylstra United had more money to invest and perhaps Mr. Kirchmeier was correct in his assumption but asked for a concensus from the Committee as to further checking this information out with the applicants of the two companies who were present at the meeting. Mr. Kirchmeier suggested the same before closing the debate. Nancy Myers , of Zylstra United, commented that they have a much more expensive head-in and that their equipment is very sophisticated. She replied that indeed more capital costs meant a much better system. Progress Valley Totalvision' s representative, Arlin Muenzhuber stated that he agreed with the statement regarding Zylstra United ' s equipment but Progress Valley Totalvision had not elected to go that route because they felt that the technology for this type of sophis- ticated equipment had not been proven. Christensen/Gorman moved to end discussion. Motion carried unanimously . Roll Call on Assumption I, Item No . 3, "Proforma Projections" : Zylstra United - Kirchmeier Progress Valley Totalvision - Foudray Abeln Christensen Davis Gorman TOTALS Zylstra United = 5 Progress Valley Totalvision = 1 Cable Communications Committee May 4, 1982 Shakopee, Minnesota Page -4- Christensen/Gorman moved to discuss the "Construction Plans" Item No . 4 , Assumption I. Motion carried unanimously . Discussion was held on the Line Extension Policy, one of the sub- categories of Category "Construction Plans", at great length. Ms . Christensen stated that Progress Valley Totalvision has not budgeted for line extensions and has indicated they would not build it . Mr. Kirchmeier clarified the Line Extension Policy for Progress Valley Totalvision in Assumption I whereby for 40 homes per mile or 20 connections the rates are the same as the initial service area except installation charges of 100 percent and they would go back to the present system to extend. Zylstra United has different rates and installation charges are related to the zone they are in. He stated this is what should be compared at this point . He also stated that Zylstra United would build the system right away and charge higher rates for over a period of time , whereby Progress Valley would re- quire upfront payment on their charges . Mr. Kirchmeier then made a request to verify this information with the applicants of the companies present . He asked to be corrected if this information was not accurate . Progress Valley Totalvision clarified that if 40 homes per mile exist they will build at the standard rates in the proposal , or with 20 subscribers per mile , but if this nuraber is not reached they will charge each individual subscriber the capital cost for extension of the service . David Leonarc. of Zylstra United stated it was correct in that Progress Valley Totalvision would charge upfront fees and Zylstra United would have the charges extended over 15 years . He further stated that Zylstra has agreed to build a line extension regardless of the homes per Discussion was held on construction time and bonus for early completion or penalties for not being completed in the time specified. Chrmn. Foudray asked Mr. Herbst if this was legal . 1v",r. Herbst replied that some of these provisions had been included in the preliminary ordinance and would be perfectly legal . Chrmn. Foudray asked if liquidated damages would be legal without the bonus . He was informed by Mr. Herbst that it was . Mr. Kirchmeier stated that the number one priority was to get this constructed as soon as possible . He stated he was afraid the rates would affect the line extension policy for Progress Valley and added the consultant points out that Progress Valley Totalvision would go back to line of service for extension which could result in a delay . Cable Communications Committee May 4 , 1982 Shakopee, Minnesota Page -5- Abeln/Christensen moved to close debate. Motion carried unanimously . Roll Call on Assumption I, Item No. 4, "Construction Plans" : Zylstra United - Gorman Progress Valley Totalvision - Foudray Christensen Davis Kirchmeier Abeln TOTALS Zylstra United = 5 Progress Valley Totalvision = 1 Abeln/Gorman moved to open discussion on "System Design", Assumption I, Item No . 5 . Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Davis stated he felt he did not have enough knowledge to make a qualified decision, therefore, was going with the consultant ' s recommendation. Ms . Christensen stated that according to the consultant , Zylstra United could have 50 activated channels and Progress Valley Totalvision, 34 . Mr. Kirchmeier stated that Zylstra United could pick up four satelites plus could provide for other factors which Progress Valley could not . However, Progress Valley did have a greater capacity but would have approximately 34 to 39 activated channels compared to Zylstra United' s 46 or so activated channels . He further stated he felt the needs and desires of Shakopee would be who could activate more than who would have the larger capacity. He also stated he felt delivery would require a lot of traps , for Progress Valley Total- vision, which could result in higher charges . Mr. Gorman stated that problems kept coming up with Progress Valley Totalvision and Zylstra Unitedseems to have a stronger design and a better plan. He also stated the advantages of full-time employees vs . part-time . Abeln/Christensen moved to close debate . Motion carried unanimously . Roll Call on Assumption I, Item No. 5 , "System Design" : Zylstra United - Davis Progress Valley Totalvision - Foudray Kirchmeier Abeln Gorman Christensen TOTALS Zylstra United = 5 Progress Valley Totalvision = 1 Cable Communications Committee May 4 , 1982 Shakopee, Minnesota Page -6- Davis/Kirchmeier moved to open debate on Assumption I, Item No. 6, "Programming and Services" . Motion carried unanimously. Chrmn. Foudray stated that in his line of business he has seen too many contractssetaside due to the present economical situation in Minnesota & has seen companies move to other states. He stated he is speaking openly for a Minnesota-based company. He added that in his estimation Zylstra United' s stating they are a Minnesota organization is just a "statement of convenience" and he will vote for Progress Valley Totalvision because they are Minnesota-based. Mr. Kirchmeier stated his concern that Chrmn. Foudray had not been voicing an opinion regarding either firm and felt the Committee and particularly he would be interested in the opinions of the Chrmn. He asked if Chrmn. Foudray would be voting on each category for Progress Valley Totalvision because they were locally-based or would he be willing to share his opinions as to the expertise of the companies on each of the criteria, regardless where the company was based. Chrmn. Foudray once again reiterated his feelings regarding a locally- based company, and said he was using the Committee criteria and his interest in a locally own system in making his decisions . General discussion was held on each of the sub-categories under "Programming and Services" . Mr. Davis expressed his thoughts on the importance of a full-time staff being able to meet service needs faster. Mr. Kirchmeier stated that each company had to be given credit in their area of higher expertise but agreed with Mr. Davis in that staffing is extremely important and Zylstra will have a full-time staff. Further discussion was held on the strong areas of each companies under the category of "Programming and Services" . Mr. Gorman stated that if you do not have staffing a lot of the other criteria presented would be meaningless. He stated that in comparing rates for services , Zylstra United came out ahead. Ms . Christensen felt that the Automated Programming would be of importance to the community . This, she stated, Zylstra United has promised they will do. She also stated the consultant had questions regarding the Tier Structure of Progress Valley Totalvision. Chrmn. Foudray stated that he felt either of the programmings noted would be on a 50/50 basis but would point out that based on the consultant ' s study, Zylstra United is "minimumly" stronger but he felt not enough to change his vote regarding the local company. Cable Communications Committee May 4 , 1982 Shakopee, Minnesota Page -7- Kirchmeier/Christensen moved to close debate . Motion carried unanimously . Roll Call on Assumption I, Item No . 6, "Programming and Services : Zylstra United - Christensen Progress Valley Totalvision - Foudray Gorman Davis Kirchmeier Abeln TOTALS Zylstra United = 5 Progress Valley Totalvision = 1 Kirchmeier/Gorman moved to open debate on Assumption I, Item No . 7, "Rates and Charges" . Motion carried unanimously . Mr. Kirchmeier stated this was a very hard category to consider. He felt that putting himself as the average subscriber, that Zylstra United presented an acvantage with an economy tier of $4. 95 vs . Progress Valley Totalvision at $7 . 95 . Ile stated his problem is with a converter charge . Mr. Davis also voiced his concern with the converter charge and the number of televisions per household. Chrmn. Foudray stated that he would be looking at approximately $1. 00 per day no matter which company he would go with and added those whom he has spoken with would be willing to go with that $1. 00 per day and he weighs this category on a 50/50 basis . Christensen/Gorman moved discussion close. Motion carried unanimously. Roll Call on Assumption I, Item No. 7, "Rates and Charges" : Zylstra United - Abeln Progress Valley Totalvision - Foudray Davis Gorman Christensen Kirchmeier TOTALS Zylstra United = 5 Progress Valley Totalvision = 1 Gorman/Christensen moved to open debate on Assumption I, Item No. 8 , "System Reliability, Maintenance and Repair, Employment Practices" . Motion carried unanimously. General discussion was held and it was the consensus of the Committee that neither company had any great advantage. Cable Communications Committee May 4 , 1982 Shakopee, Minnesota Page -8- Comments were made on the definition of "24-hour service" . Mr. Herbst stated that pursuant to the ordinance, a person must be available 24 hours per day but it states nothing about a full-time employee being required. Mr. Davis commented that at 3 : 00 A.M. , or such hour, he didn't necessarily feel that providing 24-hour service was that important . Discussion was then held on emergency back-up equipment and automatic transfer equipment . Gorman/Kirchmeier moved to limit debate. Motion carried unanimously. Roll Call on Assumption I, Item No. 8, "System Reliability, Maintenance and Repair, Employment Practices" : Zyistra United - Kirchmeier Progress Valley Totalvision - Foudray Abeln Davis Gorman Christensen TOTALS Zyistra United = 4 Progress Valley Totalvision = 2 Gorman/Christensen moved to open debate on Assumption I, Item No. 9 , "Response to Local Needs" . Motion carried unanimously . Ms. Abeln stated she felt Zyistra United had really looked into the needs of Shakopee . Mr. Kirchmeier commented favorably on the market study conducted by Zylstra United. Chrmn. Foudray stated that the responses that he has been receiving was basically on how soon before Shakopee gets Cable Television. He further stated that concern did not seem to be with rates and/or what was being presented but when it would be made available. Ms . Christensen stated that the general public has not been educated to what could be made available to them by cable television and education would be a responsibility of staff. Mr. Kirchmeier asked the Committee to consider which would service the most people to arrive at their answer. Ms. Christensen stated the Committee has a responsibility to service as many people in the community as possible. Ablen/Gorman moved to limit debate . Motion carried unanimously. Cable Communications Committee May 4 , 1982 Shakopee , Minnesota Page -9- Roll Call on Assumption I, Item No. 9, "Response to Local Needs" : Zylstra United - Gorman Progress Valley Totalvision - Foudray Abeln Kirchmeier Davis Christensen TOTALS Zylstra United = 5 Progress Valley Totalvision = 1 Chrmn. Foudray asked for a motion to adjourn. Discussion was held on the possibility of completing debate at this meeting and being able to make a recommendation to City Council at the end of the evening. It was the consensus of the Committee to make a decision and recommendation tonight . Christensen/Abeln moved to a 5-minute recess and then to reconvene. Motion carried unanimously . Chrmn. Froudray called the meeting back to order at 9 : 40 P.M. Davis/Kirchmeier moved to open debate on Assumption II, Item No. 1, "Experience and Background" . Motion carried unanimously. Kirchmeier/Abeln moved to close debate because Assumption II, Item No. 1 was identical to Assumption I, Item No. 1, which had already been discussed at length. Motion carried unanimously . Roll Call on Assumption II , Item No. 1, "Experience and Background" : Zylstra United - Unanimous Progress Valley Totalvision - None TOTALS Zylstra United = 6 Progress Valley Totalvision = 0 Kirchmeier/Gorman moved to open debate on Assumption II, Item No . 2, "Financial Resources and Commitments" . Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Kirchmeier indicated that according to the consultant , Progress Valley Totalvision (PVT) proposes only an 8% rate of return for Assumption II , which is not economically viable , PVT also projects 135% penetration in year 15 which is a risky assumption, and they have a less than adequate operating ratio. Therefore the PVT Assumption II , financial resources and commitments , should not be given a weight equal to that of Zylstra United as was done under Assumption I . Abeln/Christensen moved to close debate . Motion carried unanimously. Cable Communications Committee May 4, 1982 Shakopee , Minnesota Page -10- Roll Call on Assumption II, Item No. 2, "Financial Resources and Commitments" : Zylstra United - Gorman Progress Valley Totalvision - Foudray Christensen Davis Abeln Kirchmeier TOTALS Zylstra United = 5 Progress Valley Totalvision = 1 Gorman/Kirchmeier moved to open debate on Assumption II, Item No. 3, "Proforma Projections" . Motion carried unanimously . Mr. Gorman indicated that Progress Valley totalvision has an inflated operating ratio under this assumption and Zylstra offers better financial protection. Mr. Kirchmeier supported that conclusion and stated that the $11 . 95 monthly charge for everyone, including those in the initial service area, is out of line. Gorman/Ablen moved to close debate. Motion carried unanimously. Roll Call on Assumption II, Item No . 3 , "Proforma Projections" : Zylstra United - Gorman Progress Valley Totalvision - Foudray Kirchmeier Davis Abeln Christensen TOTALS Zylstra United = 5 Progress Valley Totalvision = 1 Christensen/Gorman moved to open debate on Assumption II, Item No . 4 , "Construction Plans" . Motion carried unanimously . Mr. Gorman stated that Zylstra United has a better plan in this category vs. the proposal of Progress Valley Totalvision to build the outlying service in 10 years . Kirchmeier/Gorman moved to limit debate. Motion carried unanimously . Roll Call on Assumption II, Item No. 4 , "Construction Plans" : Zylstra United - Unanimous Progress Valley Totalvision - None TOTALS Zylstra United = 6 Progress Valley Totalvision = 0 Abeln/Gorman moved to open debate on Assumption II, Item No . 5 , "System Design" . Motion carried unanimously. Cable Communications Committee May 4, 1982 Shakopee, Minnesota Page -11- Kirchmeier/Abeln moved to limit debate due to no direct changes in Assumption II from Assumption I, Item No . 5 . Motion carried unanimously . Roll Call on Assumption II, Item No . 5, "System Design" : Zylstra United - Davis Progress Valley Totalvision - Foudray Kirchmeier Gorman Christensen Abeln TOTALS Zylstra United = 5 Progress Valley Totalvision = 1 Davis/Kirchmeier moved to open debate on Assumption II, Item No. 6 , "Programming and Services" . Motion carried unanimously . Gorman/Christensen moved to limit debate due to the similarity in Assumption II, Item No. 6 with Assumption I, Item No . 6 . Motion carried unanimously. Roll Call on Assumption II, Item No . 6 , "Programming and Services" : Zylstra United - Abeln Progress Valley Totalvision - Foudray Christensen Davis Gorman Kirchmeier TOTALS Zylstra United = 5 Progress Valley Totalvision = 1 Kirchmeier/Gorman moved to open debate on Assumption II, Item No. 7 , "Rates and Charges" . Motion carried unanimously . Mr. Kirchmeier stated he felt the monthly charge was out of line for Progress Valley Totalvision. Gorman/Kirchmeier moved to close debate . Motion carried unanimously. Roll Call on Assumption II, Item No . 7, "Rates and Charges" : Zylstra United - Abeln Progress Valley Totalvision - Foudray Davis Gorman Kirchmeier Christensen TOTALS Zylstra United = 5 Progress Valley Totalvision = 1 Gorman/Abeln moved to open debate on Assumption II, Item No . 8 , "System Reliability, Maintenance and Repair, Employment Practices" . Motion carried unanimously . Cable Communications Committee May 4 , 1982 Shakopee, Minnesota Page -12- Gorman/Christensen moved to limit debate due to the similarity in Assumption II, Item No. 8 with Assumption I, Item No. 8 . Motion carried unanimously . Roll Call on Assumption II, Item No. 8 , "System Reliability, Mainten- ance and Repair, Employment Practices" : Zylstra United- Abeln Progress Valley Totalvision - Foudray Christensen Davis Gorman Kirchmeier TOTALS Zylstra United = 4 Progress Valley Totalvision = 2 Abeln/Gorman moved to open debate on Assumption II, Item No. 9, "Response to Local Needs" . Motion carried unanimously. Christensen/Gorman moved to limit debate due to the similarities in Assumption I and II, Item No. 9. Motion carried unanimously. Roll Call on Assumption II, Item No. 9, "Response to Local Needs" : Zylstra United - Davis Progress Valley Totalvision - Foudray Kirchmeier Gorman Christensen Abeln TOTALS Zylstra United = 5 Progress Valley Totalvision = 1 Kirchmeier/Christensen moved to enter into the record that in Assumption I as well as Assumption II, Zylstra United has twice the future upgrade budget than that of Progress Valley Totalvision; a budget of $2,800,000 vs $1,400,000. Motion carried unanimously . Kirchmeier/Gorman moved that the Cable Communications Committee recommend to the City Council to accept the proposal of Zylstra United, Assumption II as first choice and as the best cable proposal for Shakopee. 1 Mr. Kirchmeier stated he had initially gone on record as being opposed to servicing the outlying areas, as is proposed with Assumption II, but for cost of 55 cents per month extra, Zylstra United can service more people and the benefits will exceed the cost per month. Ms. Christensen stated the issue of Assumption II, providing service for outlying areas, has been addressed from day one. She stated that the entire City should benefit by Zylstra United' s services and especially those in the outlying areas who would like to be informed on local happenings but can't get into the core City to participate , such as in the case of City Council meetings. She added Zylstra United has offered a good service . Cable Communicatsions Committee May 4 , 1982 Shakopee, Minnesota Page -13- Roll Call: Ayes - Davis Kirchmeier Christensen Abeln Gorman Noes - 'Foudray Motion carried Gorman/Kirchmeier moved to direct the Attorney to prepare the necessary documents for the City Council ' s action on this recommendation and deliver these documents to the Cable Communications Committee at their meeting to be held May 12th, to be forwarded to City Council for their meeting of May 18, 1982. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Kirchmeier publically thanked Mr. Herbst and Mr . Matz for their work and involvement with the Cable Communications Committee. Mr. Gorman stated he would like the record to show his refusal to accept any City Council offer for brief cases for members of the Cable Communications Committee at this time. Gorman/Davis moved to adjourn. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 10 : 30 P.M. F. Gene Foudray Chairman Jane Wostrel Recording Secretary %"`.) 44,N te. — fie; w CITY OF SHAKOPEE • PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 1030 EAST FOURTH AVENUE �� �` SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 445-1988 TO: Shakopee City Council FROM: Shakopee Public Utilities Commission DATE: 5-12-82 RE: Insurance The Utilities Commission is presently covered under the same insurance policies as General City Government and Community Services in the areas of propertyiliability, and workmens compensation insurance. This has definite advantages and it is the desire of the Commission to continue with this arrangement. We would like to inquire if there are any changes in the area of insurance planned by City Council, and to request that we be advised of any changes to be made in view of some of the special concerns related to the nature of Utility operations. Sincerely, SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION LVH/blm C.C. John Anderson, Gregg Voxland, Lee Hennen The Heart of Progress Valley RECEIVED YL MAY 1 3 1982 May 19, 1982 CITY OR SHAKOPEE Mr. John Anderson City Administrator CITY OF SHAKOPEE Dear Mr. Anderson: We would like to apply for a permit to add a garage to our house. The problem is with a sewer system that runs through the middle of our property. Considering the way the existing house is situated, the new garage would have to be built over this system. We have previously stated that we would assume the responsibility in the event the sewer system had to be worked on. In checking out that possibility, we were told considering the size of the pipe and the fact that it is buried 21 feet down, there never should be a problem. We have had plans drawn up, have shown these to our neighbors , people at City Hall, and have had our property surveyed at the request of the mayor. Mr. Don Steger suggested we go right to the City Council, with this request. We would appreciate it if you would seriously consider our request. Sincere] , ()fp _ __-_) 4 k.--v Mac '\'r'YS, Duane R. Marschall 300 Jackson Park ShAkopee, MN 55379 4+4+5-3577 -7(2. MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Mrs . Leroy Beagstrom DATE: May 11 , 1982 Introduction The letter from Mrs . Beagstrom is the result of a lengthy discussion between City staff and Mrs . Beagstrom. We have solved one problem by agreeing to manually compute her sewer bill based upon a four quarter average rather than the normal two winter quarters which artifically inflate her sewer bill by over $3 per month. The second problem is a matter that is more appropriate for City Council to address . Problem The City Council could verify the events outlined in Mrs . Beagstrom' s letter as they relate to the lowering of Clay Street between 4th and 5th Avenues . Then, the Council could decide if there is any reason for the City to resolve the freeze-up problems she has with her water line , or whether it is strictly her responsibility as a home- owner. Alternatives 1 . Decide that there is no additional responsibility to the City for fixing the water line freezing problem. 2 . Ask the staff to verify the facts creating the problem and come back with a recommendation. 3 . Other. Recommendation Staff recommends alternative #2 . Action Requested Direct staff to verify the facts creating the problem and come back with a recommendation. JKA/jms IV R .: y-, MAY 1 0 1962 // CITY OF 3HAKOPEE 7iz , g— 8 z Lel 172-174, LC �L y � o_� e c eC�,C C� sit Q 4h / yL R cc t t tee et 1 Q Q NA 6- 7 O1 e, a vet e_ t' Cyt �Z-c/�iLJ ...-c-C-'-a-- c c � 44. 7Ct..'2-6_,(..4 4 / 9 a —/9 S(I Le 2( �� (124-zb4geb-,4-e-u--e--(409-09, `-f,...A _et i I._ A.-I- 12-1 p B--7.-c • t c 2 l_ G f-yam( tel. , -e %t c A--7 (C1—,(3 ^ .e c —el t� to --/t--t-t-ee_, , O ia_t& 1,s.,1,14 Z.-11 , t2 /) 4J 02-4t )- 4 G C.gee�/.�- C 2 � /YY�O 7t-F j o/J dc, *Vt ..„,12-0•--L- ift. ;1-ka CC. - .I!_J to -ce- �e do rz Qac ✓ _Ce.et c t CL i Q-/J�% t ✓T ��2� (�LQJ�/_ �i Z_i'�ili VLA j�L) / / / G 4_y _d . ca � / 9 7 ? 7O- tom,' (1_e% t• . .��QU�c4/7 6-44_)-- : t[ CU/ � Q Q GLl L ?r • 1 Q.J 2_7/ et e c� -f GK 19 YC 11 J f 0ela -r 24--e'_tjL' -d *1_4 c4--1 2-4 . 771/2_4/ --maces ke z�,� � . J ) 7 7 yi MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Letter from Joe Topic DATE: May 11 , 1982 Introduction Mr. Topic has requested that our Street Department apply dust control measures to 11th Avenue . I explained that current City policy does not permit City staff to apply dust control measures in the urban area . Policy Council has established the policy of not providing any dust control in the urban area . In 1981 Council made an exception to the policy on Bluff Avenue when the Bluff Avenue Utility Improvement hearings were being conducted. The policy question is whether or not the 1981 dust control on Bluff Avenue was a one time exception or whether it represents a change in policy. Alternatives 1 . Maintain the existing policy and make the Bluff Avenue applica- tion a one time exception due to utility construction. 2 . Maintain the existing policy and bring urban property owners requesting dust treatment to Council on a case by case basis with the assumption that once a street is added to the list it will receive similar treatment in future years . 3 . Modify the present policy and include urban streets with the Public Works Director making a judgment on which street will be treated. 4. Other. Recommendation Staff recommends alternative #1 because any other alternative will increase the dollars and time the City expends on its dust control problem at a time when resources are tight. Action Requested Reject the request of dust treatment for 11th Avenue and instruct staff to maintain the current policy which will exclude Bluff Avenue in 1982 . JKA/jms May 8, 1982 Shakopee City Council 129 E. 1st Ave. Shakopee, MN 55379 To Whom Tt May Concern: We the undersigned request application of Dust Retardant on one block of 11th Ave. from Spencer to Main. I ,-A44,4..4.-ei eco • I ,--- 4. CITY OF SHAKOPEE _ _y,, w 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 MEMO . o: Douglas S. Reeder, Administrator Jim Karkanen & Bo Spurrier • .:OM: JBJECT: Dust Control (`ATE: May 13, 1980 As per your request, we have conducted some research regarding a dust control • program for the City of Shakopee. Addmittedly there have been more than the normal dust complaints because of the unusually dry spring this year. Because there are more than 30 blocks of gravel streets in the urban area of Shakopee, we don't recommend dust control for the city streets because these streets should be paved. They should be surfaced by petition or council initiative. If we start a dust control program on these streets, it would be very difficult to encourage anyone to want to pay for a frontage assessment to improve the street. Also we have many miles of alleys which would also be subject to dust control (a "cost per front foot" assessment for dust control, however could be considered. ) c However a dust control program could'Ainitated on the rural roads (only) because of the improbability of these roads being paved because of the extreme cost. The recommendation would be to initiate a dust control program • as utilized by the Scott County Hwy. Dept. It must be pointed out that once we've committed ourselves to a dust control program, it will be very difficult to terminate such a program. The county has indicated that they're sorry to be involved in such a program. The Scott Co. Hwy. Dept. opened bids for dust control on Friday, May 9,1980. . The two bidders were: 1. Dust Coating, Inc. (Larry Johnson) 90.545 per gallon. 2. Van Waters & Rogers ( SO.554 per gallon. The County policy is as follows: • 1. The daily traffic count in question must be 150 cars or more. _ (This count is too high for the city roads. ) 2. Homes must be situated within 175 ft. of the road R/W. 3. Length of road treated is 300 ft. per home. The width for our roads is recommended at 22 ft. in width. 4. A maximum of two (2) calcuim Chloride treatment will be applied per calen- der year. • 5. The Calcium Chloride liquid solution is applied with a distributor at a rate of 0. 18 gallons per sq. yd. 6. The County & Municipalities shall be given 3 days notice prior to application to allow time for road surface preparation, grading, etc. . 7, First application shall be between May 27 & June 6 and the second application shall be between Aug. 18 & Aug. 29, 1980. • 1 The City Roads recommended for dust control are: (Each location etc. -300 ft. :x 22 ft) Valley View Road Fire Numbers 0-141 0-142 0-148 0-161 0-167 0-176 Roger Marschall Rd. N-481 Hauer Addt. (East Hill) N-585 Mc Kenna Rd. N-766 (2 houses - 400 ft. ) E. 13th Ave. near the Stewart's Addt. has had oil applied to the surface by a oil distributor in the area. A dust control application is not recommended at this time, however, it may need an application in August. Pike Lake Rd. -- the 3 houses belong to Prior Lake It must be mentioned that Calcium Chloride isn't too effective on the first application, nor is it very effective in extremely dry soil or sandy soils. Calcium Chloride should be re-applied later in the summer season. (Generally in August) Each location shown on the enclosed map will require approximately 132. gallons of Calcium Chloride at each location. This will amount to $72.00 per application However, Calcium Chloride must be applied twice a year for a total cost of approximately $153.00 per location each year. There are 10 locations involved, for a total of approximately 3,000 ft. x 22 ft. This amounts to approximately 2640 gallons per season at .545 cents per gallon or $1438.80. Calcium Chloride: Example: 300 x 22 ft. = 60) = 733 sq. yds. 733 sq. yds. x 0.18 per gallon (per sq. yd. ) = 132 gallon (per application) 132 gallons (per application) © .541 cents per gallon OR: $71.94 per 300 x 22 ft. application Calcium Chloride must be applied twice per year. However, the first application could be increased to .25 gallons per sq. yd. - at a total cost of $99.91 per location - The second application could then be reduced to .i6 gallon per sq. yd. for a cost of 63.94 per location. OIL Example 733 sq. yds. x 30 per gallon = 219.9 gallons per application. 219.9 gallons per application @ .48 cents per gallon OR: $105.55 per 300 x 22 ft. application OIL can be Applied Once per season: INNINomsanit ... . • • • - .�._�..... SSSS._.�...,w•r. ..�.�—..�...�.... I �" :^•L".-..� ) • i , (' _- ' •�•�. • �. f , ' . ' •� ^ �Y' SSSS. ..,-4 ^i/ ,t,..14,.t • I 1�, 1 'en. I I .. • • \, �C:. . i. 1 i { - r----.� • ___ _ r . !� 1 _• C-i, /` •�+.. I .. I ..-_ .......�...� S _SSSS. + .. �7 ., .T '. ..y... r` • . •-•)/' • • .. - ....`y �_ _� • •sem-. - - '. 'j r /_', ^`,.t' • 1 I �t !. �.,` • j - h ?Ij.-' ,4 • �� ... J C • S/' t . .i J /C � v1 r. ..► ,I I, Lr----V iAet - . r. y.... • NJ • ',VISION CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE 1 A VI f, 3 S A113 1.IS/,.0 tt�p11 9:1,1,.1. ,, 1HfE1 BASE MAP %7WHAN 0 NEW ADDITIONS I 11 14 C ADOr019749Tn!ri �•I D WN II, n, 0.611 DEC, 1977 ""4" 12-+-7- `\� CNft. lO Al_� I, w '♦ SCAT/ iy ' t:J .. •►P•Ov1O 9• I"_2000• 0" 1.42000' . • • 2000 •2000'2000 0 2000 40 f !HAWING NO. ' .. SCALE !Err / B M DNlff NUM/1111 71,1 MEN) TO: John K. Anderson/City Administrator FROM: Jeanne Andre/Assistant Administrator Cable Legal Services DAi'L: May 12, 1982 Introduction: The City Council has approved hiring Attorney Adrian Herbst for additional duties related to the award of the cable franchise beyond his original contract to draft the cable ordinance. It appears Mr. Herbst will need to exceed the authorized time expenditure to accomplish these duties, so additional con- sideration by the City Council is necessary. Background: City Council authorized an additional expenditure of up to fifteen hours for Mr. Herbst to attend meetings of the Ad Hoc Cable Committees for the recommendation of a company to provide a cable system for Shakopee. In fulfilling this function Mr. Herbst will attend a total of three Committee meetings and draft a "Findings of Fact" to document the Committee's decision to the City Council and the public. Unfortunately, all of this activity will occur prior to the next City Council meeting and Mr. Herbst estimates he will spend 25-30 hours on this project (as per his attached letter) . City Council must therefore determine if it will increase the authorized expenditure to Mr. Herbst. Money is available in the cable budget for this expenditure. Recommended Action: Authorize payment to Mr. Adrian Herbst for up to 30 hours of additional work beyond his contract for legal services for the preparation of the cable ordinance. JA:cu HERBST 8C TRUE, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2030 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER ADRIAN E. HERBST 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH TELEPHONE DANIEL D. THUE BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 (612) 835-2434 GARY R. `SATz JOHN F. GIBBS LSOAL ASSISTANT May 10, 1982 Ms. Jeanne Andre c/o Shakopee City Hall 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 RE: Our File Number 81-1026G Dear Jeanne: I received your letter with regard to the additional time approved by the City Council of Shakopee regarding additional work. I do not believe that fifteen hours is a sufficient amount of time to be approved and I have already exceeded that. With the meeting on Wednesday night this week, that will mean that there have been three meetings devoted to evaluation that were not contemplated by us. Furthermore, I had to do work in preparation for the meeting to assist in providing advice to the Committee relative to methods and alternatives for evaluating the cable systems. Addi- tionally, utilizing the recommended procedure required additional time to prepare a written set of Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations. Procedurally, this will provide a great deal of benefit to the City of Shakopee inasmuch as the record made following the procedures that we developed are very good. It is my estimate that the time for this additional work is between 25 and 30 hours. Very (7- oursr, L. ,'W ji 1.^ : t Adrian E. Herbst AEH:ndr MEMO TO : John Anderson City AdministratdP FROM: Don Steger / s �•:�'� City Planner RE : Staffing of Planning Department During City Planner' s Leave of Absence DATE : May 10 , 1982 The Planning Department needs to be staffed during my leave of absence . My recommendation concerning this staffing is contained in this memo . The Standard Operating Procedures Manual for the Planning Department outlines the major areas of responsibility for the department . These areas of responsibility and the suggested staffing recommendations are as follows : Responsibilities Staffing Subdivision Jeanne Andre and a consultant Conditional Use Permits as back-up Variances Rezonings Building Permit Reviews Jeanne Andre with assistance from the City Engineer and Building Inspector City Council Memos Jeanne Andre Nuisance Inspections Leroy Houser Planning Commission Agenda Jane Wostrel & Jeanne Andre Preparation Zoning Ordinance Amendments Jeanne Andre and Jane Wostrel with assistance from the City Attorney and consultant as back-up Lot Splits Jeanne Andre and consultant as back-up In addition to recommending that Jeanne Andre serve as Acting City Planner, I am recommending that Jane Wostrel assume the responsibility of Recording Secretary for the Planning Commission for June, July and August . This would facilitate her ability to conduct Planning Commission follow-up activities after each meeting. The present John Anderson -2- May 10, 1982 4 Recording Secretary , Diane Beuch, has agreed to this arrangement for the three months . Also, Jane Wostrel has indicated a willing- ness to answer Planning and Zoning inquiries which are straight forward in nature . I am recommending that Rob Chelseth be contracted for consulting services. His firm; Planning and Development Services , located in Minneapolis, prepared the Shakopee Comprehensive Plan. His prof- essional experience and background should highly qualify him to prepare the more difficult planning case studies for the Planning Commission and City Council. He presently staffsvarious Planning Commissions in and out of the Metropolitan area. His fee is $25 per hour, with no minimum charge per month. He is completely willing to assist the City of Shakopee on an "on-call" basis. He can be called to prepare case studies and reports and to answer specific planning and zoning questions . Planning projects could be delayed until my return, therefore, planning activities should involve those listed in the first portion of this memo. Although it is difficult to accurately predict a specific work load, it seems reasonable that approximately 15 to 20 hours per week of Jeanne Andre'stime should be blocked out for planning activities . Undoubtedly , some weeks may require more hours and some less. These staffing recommendations have been approved by all involved parties and appear to be workable . Action Requested : 1. Adopt Resolution No . 2003 , A Resolution Appointing An Acting City Planner; and 2. Authorize the proper City officials to enter into a Letter of Agreement with Rob Chelseth for consulting planning services . DS/jiw Attachment RESOLUTION NO. 2003 A Resolution Appointing An Acting City Planner WHEREAS, the City Planner will be on a 90-day leave of absence beginning June 1, 1982, for medical reasons. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the Administrative Assistant is hereby appointed Acting City Planner beginning June 1, 1982 for a 90-day period or until the City Planner returns to the office . Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this day of 1982 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST : City Clerk Approved as to form this day of , 1982 . City Attorney MEMO TO: John K. Anderson/City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox/City Clerk RE: City Code Prohibiting Issuance of a Building Permit on Parcels Not Abutting a Dedicated Public Street [Maras Road and Dean Lake Road] DATE: May 12, 1982 Introduction: On April 20, 1982, City Council received a recommendation from the Planning Com- mission that it cease the issuance of building permits to parcels abutting Maras Road until the road has been dedicated to the City. On May 4th Council received a recommendation from the City Administrator and took action that an ordinance be drafted amending Section 11.03 Subd. (7i) of the City Code permitting building permits on certain private streets. The attached ordinance attempts to amend the current City Code, which, after adop- tion and publication would prohibit the issuance of building permits on parcels not abutting a dedicated public street, except parcels abutting the two streets currently known as Dean's Lake Road and Maras Road, and except parcels abutting a street which is owned and maintained by an association or condominium. If Council desires to amend the zoning regulations a public hearing must be held pursuant to the City Code. The Planning Commission has been holding public hear- ings on amendments to the zoning ordinance, although Council may hold it if they so chose. Recommendation: If Council desires to amend the zoning ordinance, it is recommended that the pro- posed amendment be sent to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and recom- mendation. Action Requested: Refer the proposed amendment to the City Code Sec 11.03 Subd. (7i) , which would permit issuance of building permits to certain private streets, to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. JSC:cu ORDINANCE NO. Fourth Series An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Shakopee City Code Chapter II entitled "Land Use Regulation (Zoning)" by striking the Period at the end of Subd 71 and adding Certain Provisions and Adopting by Reference Shakopee City Code, Chapter I and Section 11.99. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section I: Shakopee City Code Sec 11.03 Subd 7 I is hereby amended as follows: Strike the period at the end of the sentence. Add to Subd 7 I the following: "Except, the two streets currently known as Deans Lake Road and Maras Road, (which were in existance prior to implementation of this provision on April 1, 1978) and except, any street or road that is owned and maintained by any association or condominium are not subject to the provisions of this section." Section II: Adopted by reference The general provisions and definitions applicable to the entire City Code including the penalty provisions of Chapter I and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation of Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though verbatim herein. Section III: When in force and effect After the adoption, signing and attestation of this Ordinance it shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee and shall be in full force and effect on and after the date following such publication. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1982. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Ar1'1 ST: City Clerk MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: P.I.R. Fund Review DATE: May 11, 1982 Introduction: Per your request and Council directive, a review of the P.I.R. Fund expenditures for the past ten (10) years has been completed. Background: The review entailed a detailed examination of 1978-1981 and a review of 1972-1977 to the extent of examining annual financial reports and brief discussion with the auditor. To delve any deeper for 1972-1977 would involve substantial time in researching checks, minutes, etc. The result of the review is that I am of the opinion that the only inappropriate use of P.I.R. monies was to pay special assessments on city property which totals $30,692 for the years 1979-1981. If Council wishes to pursue this any further than receiving the information above, the alternatives are: 1. Leave status quo 2. Transfer $30,692 from the General Fund to the P.I.R. Fund GV/ljw SHAKOPEE HOCKEY ASSOCIATION BUILDING FUND BALANCE SHEET 7 (COMPILED) DECEMBER 31 , 1981 and APRIL 30, 1982 ASSETS December 31 , 1981 April 30, 1982 Current Assets Cash $ 9,784.00 $ 1 ,242.00 Pledges receivable — cash $73,557.00 $61 ,703.00 Less allowance for uncollectables [$28,400.] 45, 157.00 [ 28,400.00] 33,303.00 Accounts receivable — ice time 3,698.00 8,000.00 Total current assets $58,639.00 $42,545.00 "IF' Property and Equipment, at Cost $306,065.00 $306,065.00 Other Assets Stock $ 600.00 — 0 — Total Assets $365,304.00 $348,610.00 LIABILITIES Current Liabilities Notes payable $ 54,932.00 $ 50,750.00 Accounts payable 53,262.00 47,457.00 Payroll taxes payable 240.00 — 0 — Interest payable 1 ,588.00 709.00 Total Current Liabilities $110,022.00 $ 98,916.00 -, Deferred contribution revenue (Pledges) $ 26,460.00 $ 16,460.00 Contributed Property $ 40,600.00 $ 40,600.00 Fund Balance $188,222.00 $ 192,634.00 Total Liabilities, Deferred Revenue Contributed Property and Equity $365,304.00 $348,610.00 SHAKOPEE HOCKEY ASSOCIATION UU 1 LD I NG F UNu STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND EQUITY FOR YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31 , 1981 and FOR THE FOUR MONTHS ENDED APRIL 30, 1982 (COMPILED) December 31 , 1981 April 30, 1982 Income Pledges earned (received for period) ($52,744.00) $ 55,241 .00 ($16,854. ) $ 14,693.00 Ice Time 46,354.00 20,314.00 $ 101 ,595.00 $ 35,007.00 Expenses Insurance $ 8,308.00 $ 3,488.00 Telephone 589.00 201 .00 Office Supplies 254.00 402.00 Interest Expense 12,888.00 2,762.00 Utilities 20,824.00 14,887.00 Operating Supplies 8,694.00 815.00 Repairs and Maintenance 5,991 .00 4,595.00 Wages 1 ,386.00 3,290.00 Legal 900.00 — 0 — Taxes — 0 — 155.00 Total Operating Expense $ 59,834.00 $ 30,595.00 Net Income from Operations $ 41 ,761 .00 $ 4,412.00 Other Receipts Insurance Claim $ 68,635.00 Interest Income 14.00 $68,649.00 Total Net Income $110,410.00 $ 4,412.00 Fund Balance At beginning of period $ 77,812.00 $188.222.00 At end of period $ 188,222.00 $ 192,634.00 SHAKOPEE HOCKEY ASSOCIATION BUILDING FUND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FROM SEPTEMBER I, 1981 TO APRIL 30, 1982 (COMPILED) INCOME Pledges Earned $27,338.00 Ice Time 38.917.00 ! SPP 6'0D0'so $66.255.00 EXPENSES Insurance $ 7,088.00 Telephone 340.00 Office Supplies 567.00 Interest Expenses 11 ,236.00 Utilities 20,439.00 Operating Supplies 2,907.00 Repairs and Maintenance 8,327.00 Wages 4,676.00 Legal 900.00 Taxes 155.00 Total Operating Expense $56,635.00 Net Income from Operations $ 9,620.00 Other Receipts Interest $ 10.00 Total Net Income $ 9,630.00 SHAKOPEE HOCKEY ASSOCIATION BUILDING FUND SCHEDULE OF LIABILITIES DECEMBER 31 , 1981 Interest Payable $ 1 ,588.00 Taxes Payable 240.40 Air—Tech Industries, Inc. 307.21 Auto Central Supply 3,685.54 Automatic Garage Door Company 1,590.00 Bryan Aggregates, Inc. 2, 150.00 C. H. Carpenter Lumber 11 ,000.34 Fabcon, Inc. 5,217.00 First National Bank of Shakopee 22,500.00 Hardrivers, Inc. 1,981 .30 Jaspers, Moriarty & Walburg 900.00 Johnson—Bigler Company 4,024.08 Kusske Construction Company 203.00 Link Building Supply 222.95 L. L. Le Jeune Company 238.21 Minnesota Valley Fence Construction 2,580.00 Mid America Bank of Roseville 10,932.00 R. A. Bergh & Associates 21 ,500.00 Schmidt Ready—Mix 144.40 Shakopee Public Utilities 6,381 .70 Unistrut Northern 6,431 .50 Valley Engineering Company 605.47 Valley Paving 384.00 Wm. Mueller & Sons 866.83 Walden Bros. Lumber Company 3, 198.83 Zaback Insulation, Inc. 1 , 150.00 Total $110,022.76 SHAKOPEE HOCKEY ASSOCIATION BUILDING FUND SCHEDULE OF LIABILITIES APRIL 30, 1982 o,° owi d rbd 17 'y1� Ree` pd„K Interest Payable $ 709.001J 5,000.00 - P� '"' m�I •' S7 Agri—Nutrition Services, Inc. (Yr6 Air—Tech Industries, Inc. 307.21 Auto Central Supply 3,485.54 Automatic Garage Door Company 1 ,590.00 Bryan Aggregates, Inc. 1 ,500.00 C. H. Carpenter Lumber 10,000.34 Fabcon, Inc. 5,217.00 ew First National Bank of Shakopee 20,250.00 — 61-0' io obJe.' (X0 Hardrivers, Inc. 1 ,981 .30 Jaspers, Moriarty and Walburg 900.00 Johnson—Bigler Company, Inc. 4,024.08 Kusske Construction Company 103.00 Link Building Supply 222.95 L. L. Le Jeune Company 238.21 Minnesota Valley Fence Construction 2,580.00 R. A. Berg & Associates 19,500.00 — ( ti*o re,vety`idc- Schmidt Ready Mix, Inc. 144.40 Shakopee Public Utilities Corm. 3,38 I .70 — P� 750' 1I;;X93 Unistrut Northern 6, 131 .50 Valley Engineering Company, Inc. 605.47 Valley Paving 384.00 Wm. Mueller & Sons, Inc. 866.83 Walden Bros. Lumber 3, 198.83 Zaback Insulation, Inc. 595.00 w Shakopee Junior Hockey Association 6,000.00 — f�'l�'� T C a we o` Total $98,916.360al Cred•fi%," MEMO TO : John K . Anderson City Administrator FROM : H . R. Spurrier City Engineer RE : Construction of 11th Avenue - Park Ridge Drive to Austin Street DATE : May 14, 1982 Introduction: The Planning Commission has requested that City Council study the possibility of connecting 11th Avenue and Park Ridge Drive. Background : On a number of occasions during the past three years, City Council has studied the possibility of connecting 11th Avenue and Park Ridge Drive. Every time such a survey is conducted, the property owners who would be affected by the construction have overwhelmingly objected to such construction. Those sentiments were again evident in the most recent survey conducted by City staff. Alternatives: There are obviously two alternatives; wile is to construct 11th Avenue between Park Ridge Drive and Austin Street. The second is to do nothing. Based on previous surveys and the most recent survey, it is receommended that City Council select the second alternative, to do nothing; since the connection of the two roads is not necessary for traffic circulation and would simply disrupt existing neighborhoods. A second matter considered by the Planning Commission was the possibility of constructing a walkway between Park Ridge Drive and 11th Avenue. It is the intent of the City to construct that walkway sometime this summer. Action Requested : Direct staff to advise the Shakopee Planning Commission that the possibility of connecting 11th Avenue and Park Ridge Dri Je has been studied and it is the decision of the City Council that 11th Avenue should not be extended to Park Ridge Drive. HRS/jiw MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Intern RE : 11th. Avenue Extension Survey Results DATE: March 9 , 1982 Intro uction r At th request of a local ci;t ' zen , action was taken to invest- igate' the potential and proba•ility of connecting the Scenic Heights Addition to the Hauer Addition via the extension of 11th. Avenue to Park Ridge Dir've . Situation At the present time 11th. Ave ue and Park Ridge Drive are dead end streets . These two scree s were previously separated by the Milwaukee , St . Paul , and 'acific RR. However, since the abandonment of the RR it is n.w possible to join these two streets. This prompted the citizens request . A survey was conducted by the city in the Scenic Heights Addition and the Hauer Addition to see what the public sentiment is in regard to this issue . The area surveyed in the Scenic Heights Addition included those who lived along the streets from Shakopee Avenue and Miller Street , 10th. Avenue and Miller Street , and Merritt Street and 11th. Avenue to the end of 11th. Avenue . The area in the Hauer Addition surveyed included all those who lived along Park Ridge Drive . See map on the following page . Of the total surveyed 60. 8% were either strongly opposed or slightly opposed to the extension of the streets while 21 .7% were in favor of the extension. The remaining 17 . 3% were neutral on the issue . The total sample included forty households . Public opinion on Park Ridge Drive was unanimously opposed to the extension while 47% of those surveyed from the Scenic Heights Addition were opposed to the extension and 29 . 4% were in favor of it while 23. 5% had no opinion. With this information in mind it should be determined if any further action should be taken in regard to this issue . Alternatives 1 . Keep the status quo . 2 . Hold a public hearing in regard to the ' issue . Recommendation Due to the public opposition of the citizens directly affected by the issue it is hereby recommended that alternative No. 1 - i be implemented and no further action be taken. g Action Requested • Move that no further action be taken by the city in regard to the 11th. Avenue extension. L * `_ i 1 _______ _ _ _.. _____ SURVEYED AREA - .41iiii_ " 1 xA h 3i c-A% C, `oh c' 'A E.- ' t U 0•s I / 4ti / 410v r lt 3#4. O 1 A 6 .D t c9 S- A'4 o ;f X j - 14.1 - ti ic:.„), \ t ,e, 4 / , + 1 e 2 JKA/bas MEMO TO: John Anderson City Administrator FROM: Don Steger City Planner RE : Zoning Ordinance Amendment Mobile Homes on Farmsteads DATE : May 10, 1982 Background : A recent planning case has precipitated a recommendation by the Planning Commission to amend the Zoning Ordinance concerning mobile homes on farmsteads . Currently , the Zoning Ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit for placing a mobile home on a farmstead so that a family member may assist with a family farming operation. The Zoning Ordinance further specifies that the mobile home can be placed on the property for no more than five years . The Planning Commission approved and recommended to the City Council that the 5-year term should be able to be reissued for additional 5-year term(s ) at the discretion of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is attempting to help the family farm and not create an economic burden for the mobile home owner who must invest in a mobile home, well, septic system, utilities , etc . Alternatives : 1. Approve the amendment to Shakopee City Code, Zoning Ordinance Section 11. 05 , Subd. 8 , Item D. 2. Do not approve the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Action Requested : Adopt Ordinance No. 93, an ordinance to amend Section 11. 05, Subd. 8 , Item D, Lo read, "The mobile home may be placed on the property for one 5-year term and the permit may be reissued for additional 5 year term or terms at the discretion of the Planning Commission. DS/j iw Attachments 1. Within a period of three (3) months after ® the termination of a mining operation , or within three (3) months after abandonment of such operation for a period of six (6) months , or within three (3) months after expiration of a mining permit, all buildings, structures and plants incidental to such operation shall be dismantled and removed by, and at the expense of, the mining operator last operating such buildings, structures and plants. A conditional use permit may be granted for those buildings, structures, machinery and plants required to process previously mined materials stored on the site. Such permit may apply for only one (1) year , after which said buildings, struc- tures, machinery and plants shall be removed. 2. The peaks and depressions of the area shall be graded and backfilled to a surface which will result in gently rolling topography in substantial conformity to the land area immediately surrounding , and which will minimize erosion due to rainfall. No finished slope shall exceed eighteen percent ( 18% ) in grade. 3 . Reclaimed areas shall be sodded or sur- faced with soil of a quality at least equal to the topsoil of land areas immediately surrounding , and to a depth of at least three ( 3) inches. Such required topsoil shall be planted with legumes and grasses. Trees and shrubs may also be planted, but not as a substitute for legumes and grasses . Such planting shall adequately retard soil erosion. Excavations completed to a water producing depth need not be backfilled if the water depth is at 11/ least ten (10) feet and if banks shall be sloped to the water line at a slope no greater than three (3) feet horizontal to one (1) foot vertical. The finished grade shall be such that it will not adversely affect the surrounding land or future development of the site upon which mining operations have been conducted. The finished plan shall restore the mining site to a condition whereby it can be utilized for the type of land use proposed to occupy the site after mining operations cease. Subd. 8 . Mobile Homes. Mobile homes shall be regula- ted by Section 4 . 60 of the City Code, except that mobile homes shall be a conditional use in the "A-1" and "R-1" Districts for agricultural purposes if they meet the following standards: A. Property must be being used as an agricultural use. B. Mobile home may not be the only occupied resi- dential structure on the property. C. The persons living in the mobile home must be related to the farm operator and must work on that farm. D. The mobile home be placed on the property for no more than five (5) years. E. The conditional use must be reviewed on an an- nual basis. Subd. 9 . Moving of Structures. A conditional use per- mit shall be required before a building permit is issued to move any dwelling unit or other structure to a permanent location within the *City. The minimum requirements of a conditional use -297- S ORDINANCE NO. 93 Fourth Series An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 11 entitled "Land Use and Regulation (Zoning)" by Repealing D of Subd 8, Section 11.05 and Enacting a New D Subd 8, Sec 11.05 as herein Setout and Adopting by Reference Shakopee City Code, Chapter 11 and Section 11.99 Entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor". THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION I: D of Subd 8 of Sec 11.05 is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION_ II:_ Ad2ptin a new D to Subd 8 of Sec 11.05 The mobile home may be placed on the property for one 5 year term and the permit may be reissued for additional 5 year term or terms at the discretion of the Planning Commission. SECTION III: Adopted by Reference The general provisions and definitions applicable to the entire City Code including the penalty provisions of Chapter 1 and Section 11.99 entitled Violations a Misdemeanorare adopted hereby in their entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim herein. SECTION III: When in force and effect After the adoption, signing and attestation of this Ordinance it shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee and shall be in full force and effect on and after the date following such publication. Adopted in . session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this _day of , 1982. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Prepared and approved as to form this 10th day of May, 1982. Olt; Attorney ,f 9Cti MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk RE: $1 , 500 ,000.00 Industrial Revenue Bonds DATE: May 11 , 1982 Introduction On May 4 , 1982 Council held a public hearing on the application from the Cornelius Company for $1 ,500 ,000.00 Industrial Revenue Bonds . After the public hearing, Council directed staff to prepare a resolution granting preliminary approval to the appli- cation. Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 2002 , A Resolution Giving Preliminary Approval to a Proposed Industrial Development Project by the Cornelius Company under the Municipal Industrial Development Act and Authoriz- ing Submission of an Application to the Commissioner of Energy, Planning and Development for Approval Thereof , and move its adoption. JSC/jms RESOLUTION NO. 2002 RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BY THE CORNELIUS COMPANY UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT AND AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSIONER OF ENERGY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT . FOR APPROVAL THEREOF BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, as follows: 1 . There has been presented to this Council a pro- posal by The Cornelius Company, a Minnesota corporation (the "Company" ) that the City undertake and finance a project pursuant to the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474 (the "Act" ) generally consisting of the acquisition and installation of equipment in the Rubber Industries, Inc . plant in Shakopee (the "Project" ) . Under the proposal, the Project facilities will be owned by the Company, and the Company will enter into a revenue agreement with the City upon such terms and conditions as are necessary to produce income and revenues sufficient to pay when due the principal of and the interest on up to approximately $1 , 500, 000 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds of the City to be issued pursuant to the Act, to provide monies for the acquisition, construction and installation of the Project; and the City will pledge its interest in the revenue agreement to secure the bonds . 2 . As required by the Act, this Council conducted a public hearing on , 19 on the proposal to undertake and finance the Project after publication in the official newspaper and a newspaper of general circulation in the City of a notice setting forth the time and place of hearing; stating the general nature of the Project and an estimate of the principal amount of bonds or other obligations to be issued to finance the Project; stating that a draft copy of the proposed Application to the Commissioner of Energy, Planning and Development, together with all attachments and exhibits thereto, is available for public inspection at the office of the City Clerk, in the City Hall , at all times between the hours of A.M. and P .M. each day except Saturdays, Sundays and holidays to and including the day of hearing; and stating that all parties who appear at the public hearing shall have an opportunity to express their views with respect to the proposal . The draft application to the Commissioner of Energy, Planning and Development, together with all attachments and exhibits thereto, was on file and available for public inspection at the place and times set forth in the notice. 3 . It is hereby found, determined and declared that the Project furthers the purposes stated in Section 474. 01 of the Act in that the purpose of the Project is and the effect thereof will be to promote the public welfare by the attraction, encouragement and development of economically sound industry and -1- commerce so as to prevent, so far as possible, the emergence of blighted and marginal lands and areas of chronic unemployment; the retention and development of industry to use the available resources of the community, in order to retain the benefit of its existing investment in educational and public service facilities; by halting the movement of talented, educated personnel of mature age to other areas .and thus preserving the economic and human resources needed as a base for providing governmental services and facilities; and the more intensive development of land avail- able in the area to provide a more adequate tax base to finance the cost of governmental services in the Municipality, county and school district where the Project is located. 4. The Company has entered into preliminary discussions with Daugherty, Dawkins, Strand & Yost Incorporated, as underwriter, and the underwriter has reported that the Project and the sale of bonds therefor are feasible . 5 . The Company has agreed to pay any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the Project whether or not the Project is approved by the Commissioner of Energy, Planning and Development and whether or not the Project is carried to completion. 6 . The Project is hereby given preliminary approval by the City subject to approval of the Project by the Commissioner of Energy, Planning and Development and subject to final approval by this Council and by the purchasers of any bonds to be issued as to the ultimate details of the Project and as to the terms of the bonds . 7 . In accordance with Section 474. 01, Subd. 7 of the Act, the Mayor, the City Clerk, and such other officers and representatives of the City as may from time to time be designated are hereby authorized and directed to submit the proposal for the Project to the Commissioner of Energy, Planning and Development and request his approval thereof, and the Mayor, the City Clerk, and other officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized to provide the Commissioner with such preliminary information as he may require. The Company, Faegre & Benson as bond counsel, the City Clerk, the City Attorney, and other City officials are also authorized to initiate the preparation of a proposed loan agreement and such other documents as may be necessary or appropriate to the Project so that, when and if the proposed Project is approved by the Commissioner and this Council gives its final approval thereto, the Project may be carried forward expeditiously. 8 . The Company is hereby authorized to enter into such contracts, in its own name and not as agent for the City, as may be necessary for the construction of the Project by any means available to it and in the manner it determines without advertise- ment for bids as may be required for the acquisition or construc- tion of other municipal facilities, but the City shall not be liable on any such contracts . -2- C_ Law Offices of KRASS, MEYER, KANNING, & WALSTEN Chartered Phillip R. Kress Shakopee Professional Building Barry K. Meyer 1221 Fourth Avenue East Philip T. Kenning Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Trevor R. Walston (612)445-5080 • MEMORANDUM TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SHAKOPEE FROM: PHILLIP R. KRASS RE: CORNELIUS COMPANY BONDS DATE: MAY 18, 1982 I have reviewed the documents Judy Cox forwarded to me on the Cornelius Company bond matter including the financial information, the correspondence involving Springsted and also involving Dougherty, Dawkins. I have reviewed the proposed preliminary resolution and requested the bond attorney handling this matter, Stephen Rosholt, to allow me to add a view paragraph 9 to this proposed resolution. He has agreed and with this addition, the resolution is in order for your consideration. Thank you. PRK:sm 9 . In all events , it is understood, however, that the Revenue Bonds of the City shall not constitute a charge , lien or encumbrance , legal or equitable, upon any property of the City, except the revenues pledged to the payment thereof , and each Revenue Bond, when, as and if issued, shall recite in substance that the Revenue Bond, including interest thereon, is payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment thereof , and shall not constitute a debt of the City. Adopted in Adjourned Regular Session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota held this 18th day of May, 1982 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of May, 1982 . City Attorney 91 MEMO TO : John K . Anderson/City Administra r FROM : H .R. Spurrier/City Engineer RE : Valley Industrial Boulevard South, ' ��• County Road 83 to the East line of Valley Park 2nd Addition Improvement 1582-2 DATE : May 13, 1982 Introduction : The City will receive bids on the above referenced project Monday, May 17th. Background : When the public hearing for this improvement was held the City received objections from several property owners. In view of the potential for assessment appeals was a recommendation to City staff that the assessment hearing for this project be held prior to awarding the contract for construction. Attached is Resolution No. 2005, a resolution declaring the cost to be assessed and ordering the preparation of the assessment. It a recommendation of staff that Council adopt Resolution No. 2005 ordering the hearing on the assessment and after the hearing City Council may except or reject the bids on the proposed project. Action Requested : Adopt Resolution No. 2005, a resolution declaring the cost to be assessed and order- ing the preparation of the proposed assessment 1982-2, Valley Industrial Boulevard South from County Road 83 to the East line of Valley Park 2nd Addition. HRS :cu RESOLUTION NO. 2005 A Resolution Declaring The Cost To Be Assessed And Ordering The Preparation Of Proposed Assessment 1982-2, Valley Industrial Blvd. South, County Road 83 to the East line of Valley Park 2nd Addition WHEREAS, a contract has been bid for the improvement of Valley Industrial Boulevard South from County Road 83 to the East line of Valley Park 2nd Addition and the bid price for such improvement is $ the construction contingency amounts to $ and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the making of the improvements amounts to $ so that the total cost of the improvement will be $ and of this cost the City will pay $0.00 as its share of the cost. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: I. The cost of such improvement to be specially assessed is hereby declared to be $ 2. The City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and he shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection. 3. That the City Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City Council thereof. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED : I. That a hearing shall be held on the 15th day of June, 1982 , in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 8:30 P.M. to pass upon such proposed assessments and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvements and proposed assessments will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 2. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee at least two weeks prior to the hearing and he shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvements. He shall also cause mailed notice of such hearing to be given the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 1982. Cie"' MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk RE: Reapportionment of Precincts DATE: May 11 , 1982 Introduction On May 4th Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance establish- ing five precincts within the City of Shakopee . Action Requested Offer Ordinance No. 92 , An Ordinance Amending the City Code Setting Boundaries Between All Precincts of the City of Shakopee . JSC/jms ORDINANCE NO. 92 , FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE SETTING BOUNDARIES BETWEEN ALL PRECINCTS OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AS FOLLOWS : SECTION I Repeal : Section I of Ordinance No. 70 is hereby repealed. SECTION II : Shakopee City Code , Section 2 . 20 is hereby amended as follows , to-wit : That the First Precinct shall be bounded on the East by Fuller Street , on the South by 10th Avenue , and on the West and North by the corporate city limits ; that the Second Precinct shall be bounded on the West by• Fuller Street , on the East by Market Street , on the South by 11th Avenue extended and on the North by the corporate city limits ; that the Third Precinct shall be bounded on the West by Market Street to 11th Avenue , 11th Avenue West to CR 79 and CR 79 South to corporate city limits , on the East by Marschall Road, and on the North and South by the corporate city limits ; that the Fourth Precinct shall be bounded on the West by Marschall Road and on the North, South and East by the corporate city limits ; and that the Fifth Precinct shall be bounded on the East by CR 77 (Apgar Street) , on the North by 10th Avenue and on the West and South by the corporate city limits . SECTION III : Certain provisions of the Shakopee City Code adopted by reference . Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the entire City Code including the penalty provisions" and Section 2 . 99 , which, among other things , contains penalty provisions , are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim herein. SECTION IV: Provisions for After Adoption After adoption , signing , attestation , this ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee and then shall be in full force and effect . Adopted in adjourned regular session of the City Council of the 9C‘ MEMO TO: John K. Anderson/City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox/City Clerk RE: Amendment to City Code on Liquor and Beer Licensing and Regulations DATE: May 12, 1982 Introduction: On May 4th Council directed the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance amending the City Code to provide that there are no delinquent taxes on property upon which an applicant is seeking a license, whether or not the property is owned by the applicant. Mr. Coller has prepared the attached ordinance. Action Requested: Offer Ordinance No. 94, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amend- ing Shakopee City Code Chapter 5 entitled "Liquor, Beer and Wine Licensing and Regulations" by Striking Certain Provision of Section 5.02 Subd. 8 and Adopting by Reference Shakopee City Code, Chapter 1 and Section 5.99. JSC:cu ORDINANCE NO. 9 4 Fourth Series An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 5 entitled "Liquor, Beer and Wine Licensing and Regulations" by Striking Certain Provision of Section 5.02 Subd 8 and Adopting by Reference Shakopee City Code, Chapter 1 and Section 5.99 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION I: Shakopee City Code Sec 5.02 Subd 8 amended The following words are hereby deleted from the last line and sentence of Subd 8, Section 5.02, to-wit: "are owed by the applicant and." As amended Subd 8 will read as follows: "Delinquent taxes and charges. 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 delinquent and unpaid." SECTION II: Adopted by reference The general provisions and definitions applicable to the entire City Code including the penalty provisions of Chapter 1 and Section 5.99 entitled "Violations a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim herein. SECTION III: When in force and effect After the adoption, signing and attestation of this Ordinance it shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee and shall be in full force and effect on and after the date following such publication. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1982. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: _._ City Clerk 7$21 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk RE: Payment of Taxes Prior to Issuance of a Liquor or Beer License DATE: May 18 , 1982 Per your suggestion, twelve municipalities were surveyed to see if they require payment of taxes prior to issuance of a liquor or beer license . Of the twelve called, nine do require payment . Mr. Coller checked Mn. State Statutes and could find no requirement for payment of property taxes . He also checked with the League of Mn. Cities and they too were unaware of a state law so requiring payment of taxes prior to issuance of a license. However, it is the option of a municipality to add this requirement to their regu- lations and when so doing it must be adhered to. Of the twelve municipalities surveyed only four have licensing years beginning July 1st and of those four, none require payment of the first one-half of taxes prior to issuance of a license. Recommendation My recommendations , in order of my preference , are as follows : 1 . Status quo - make no amendments to the City Code - taxes do not have to be paid when applicant doesn' t own property and first one-half taxes do not have to be paid prior to approval of a license application. 2 . City Code amendment Council received on Friday with agenda - requires payment of taxes by owners and renters , but not first one-half taxes of current year. 3 . "B" of attached City Code amendment , which provides that taxes may not be delinquent or late (taxes not paid by May 31st are considered late until January 1st when they become delinquent ) . 4. "A" , "C" , and "D" place a burden on applicants to pay the first one-half of their taxes prior to the May 31st dead line established by law and I 'm not sure I wish to recommend that . I guess I would be willing to delay taking all applications to Council until the first meeting in June . c Require Payment l Require of First 1/2 License Year Taxes Paid of Current Year Burnsville July 1-June 30 Yes No Richfield Jan 1-Dec 31 Yes N/A Bloomington July 1-June 30 Yes No Eden Prairie Jan 1-Dec 31 Yes N/A Chaska July 1-June 30 No No Prior Lake July 1-June 30 Yes No Savage March 1-Feb 28 No N/A Chanhassen May 1-April 30 Yes N/A Edina April 1-March 31 Yes N/A Minnetonka Jan 1-Dec 31 Yes N/A Apple Valley Jan 1-Dec 31 Yes N/A Hopkins Jan 1-Dec 31 No N/A ORDINANCE NO. Fourth Series AN ORDINANCE OF. THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AMENDING SHAKOPEE CITY CODE CHAPTER 5 ENTITLED "LIQUOR, BEER AND WINE LICENSING AND REGULATION" BY REPEALING PART OF SECTION 5.02 Subd 8 AND BY ADDING NEW PROVISIONS TO SECTION 5.02 SUB 1, 5.02 Sub 8, 5.11 Sub 5 and 5.32 Sub AND BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 and SECTION 5.99, WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: SECTION I: Shakopee City Code, Chapter 5 entitled "Liquor, Beer and Wine Licensing and Regulation" is hereby amended as follows: A. Section 5.02 Subd 1 is amended by adding the following "and must be filed by May 15 of each year beginning May 15, 1983,except applications for on-sale liquor licenses which shall be filed by June 10th of each year beginning June 10, 1983. B. Section 5.02 Subd 8 is amended by striking therefrom the following words in the last line, to-wit: "owed by the applicant and are" and substituting in lieu thereof the words "delinquent or late and unpaid" so the last sentence of Subd 8 shall read" No license shall be granted for operation on amy premises upon which taxes, assessments, or installments thereof, or other financial claims of the City, are delinquent or late and unpaid. C. Section 5.11 amended by adding a new Subd 5. Subd 5 - Each such application shall also be accompanied by a receipt showing the payment of at least the first half of the current real estate taxes. D. Section 5.32 Subd 6 is amended by adding the following: "Each such application shall also be accompanied by a receipt showing the payment of at least the first one-half of the current real estate taxes. SECTION II: Penalty Provisions Adopted Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and definitions applicable to the entire City Code including Penalty provisions" and Section 5.99 entitled "Violations a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim herein. SECTION III: When in force This Ordinance shall be published once in Oe official newspaper of the 'Q/ MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S . Cox , City Clerk RE: Amendment to City Code on Work in Public Right-of-Way DATE: May 11 , 1982 Introduction On May 4th Council directed the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance amending the City Code to provide that public service corporations that are self insured are exempt from insurance requirements pro- viding the corporation files a letter stating that the corporation is currently self insured. Action Requested Offer Ordinance No. 95 , An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota, Amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 7 entitled "Streets and Sidewalks Generally" by adding a New Provision to Sec 7 .07 Subd 3 B and by Adopting by reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Section 7 . 99 , and move its adoption. JSC/jms ORDINANCE N0. 95 Fourth Series • An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 7 entitled "Streets and Sidewalks Generally" by adding a New Provision to Sec 7.07 Subd 3 B and by Adopting by reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Section 7.99. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section I - Shakopee City Code Sec 7.07 Subd 3B is hereby amended by adding the following paragraph: Public Service Corporations that are self insured are exempt from said insurance requirements providing that each year before January 30 the said corporations file with the City Administrator a letter stating that said corporation is currently self insured. Section II: Adopted by reference The general provisions and definitions applicable to the entire City Code including the penalty provisions of Chapter 1 and Section 7.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim herein. SECTION III: When in force and effect After the adoption, signing and attestation of this Ordinance it shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee and shall be in full force and effect on and after the date following such publication. Adopted in _ session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1982. Mayor of-the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Prepared and approved as to form this 7 day of May, 1982. MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Public Hearing 5/18/82 for Revenue Sharing DATE: May 11, 1982 Introduction: There is a public hearing set for 8:25 P.M. on 5/18/82 for the purpose of receiving public comment on the Administrator's proposed amendments to the 1982 Revenue Sharing Fund Budget. Background: Attached is the Revenue Sharing Fund exerpt from the City Administrator's memo dated 4/1/82 on 1982 budget amendments. At the Proposed Use Public Hearing held on 4/20/82 the uses of ballfield lighting and building a new city hall were suggested by members of the audience. These suggestions are not included in the Administrator's memo. Additionally, the Police Department has requested $1,000 for a noise measuring device to be funded by Revenue Sharing monies. See 5/13/82 memo from Tom Brownell for justification, item 10f on this agenda. Alternatives: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 2006 2. Adopt an amended Resolution No. 2006 Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2006 to implement 1982 budget amendments as forwarded by the City Administrator. GV/ljw attachment /C' RESOLUTION NO. 2006 A Resolution Amending the 1982 Budget WHEREAS, on October 6, 1981, the City Council did approve an annual budget for all funds of the City of Shakopee for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 1982; and WHEREAS, after reviewing the 1981 year end results of operations and considering legislative changes affecting the City's revenues, the City Council has determined that it is necessary to amend the 1982 budget; and WHEREAS, City Council did pass Resolution No. 1991 on April 6, 1982, which amended the General Fund budget; and WHEREAS, City Council has now held the public hearings required by Revenue Sharing regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the 1982 budget amendments contained in the attached memo from the City Administrator dated April 1, 1982, for all funds other than the General Fund are hereby adopted with the addition of an additional $1,000 transfer to the General Fund from the Revenue Sharing Fund for a noise measuring device for the Police Department. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1982. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council = , FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: 1982 Budget Amendments DATE : April 1 , 1982 Introduction City Council , at its March 23 , 1982 meeting, reviewed the attached memo dated March 19 , 1982 outlining proposed amendments to the City ' s 1982 Budget . The memo has been updated to reflect the decisions made at the March 23rd meeting. Additions LeRoy Houser has completed his spring inspection of all City buildings and has recommended numerous items that need improvement . Most of the items can be handled with dollars already budgeted in 1982 for build- ing maintenance , however three items (underlined on the expenditure side of the General Fund listing ) require additional budget amendments . These items will cost an additional $6000 which can be offset by re- ducing the $31 , 500 budget for fire hall roof repair by $6000. We have received bids for the roof repairs and the low bid is more than $6000 under the $31 ,500. Shakopee Avenue Drainage Improvements It was agreed at the March 23rd meeting that the above mentioned $34 ,000 project could not be budgeted in the PIR Fund because there was no way to recoup the $34,000 through assessments . Staff was directed to make a recommendation to Council April 6 , 1982 indicating how the project could be financed . The Finance Director and I agreed that there are only three funds from which the City can secure the $34 ,000 and they are the General Fund, Capital Equipment Revolving Fund and the Revenue Sharing fund. Staff recommends against use of the General Fund for permanent improvements , and that either the Revenue Sharing Fund or the Capital Equipment Revolving Fund be used . Revenue Sharing dollars in excess of the maximum two year fund balance can now be spent on capital improvement projects and if this project is not selected then the City must , at the up-coming Revenue Sharing Hearing, earmark funds for a major piece of capital equipment . Capital Equipment Revolving Funds dollars have been used for library and parking lot land acquisition thus indicating that all of the funds are not simply reserved for equipment . Use of Revenue Sharing dollars would require additional staff work to meet Davis-Bacon requirement . The only other alternative is to drop the project . Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the budget amendments included in the revised March 19 , 1982 memo from the City Administrator , and that Mayor and City Council April 1 , 1982 Page Two $34 ,000 in the Capital Equipment Revolving Fund be budgeted for the Shakopee Avenue Drainage Improvements . The improvements will rectify a long standing problem that both the City and residents have struggled with for years . Action Requested 1 . Approve Resolution No. 1991 amending the 1982 General Fund Budget , and direct staff to make the budget amendments as outlined in the City Administrator March 19 , 1982 memo. 2 . Approve a budgeted expenditure of $34 ,000 from the Capital Equipment Revolving Fund for the Shakopee Avenue Drainag : Improvements . JKA/jms MEMO TO: Mayor and Council FROM: John K. Anderson/City Adm. RE: 1982 Budget Amendments DATE: March 19 , 1.982 Introduction: • The proposed amendments presented in this memo include three type of bud- get changes : changes reflecting cuts in state aid (Homestead Credit Revenue ) , revised ' 82 revenue and expenditure estimates and a smaller number of changes that relate to council action taken since the 1982 budget was approved . The figures included in the memo are based upon trial balances for 1981 some of which have been finalized by the auditor, but which have all been listed as "trial balance". In addition, as of this writing, the Legis- lature has not passed the proposed "budget package " , as expected, to solve the latest $260 ,000 ,000 deficit . The changes below include the cut , $15 ,000 in General Fund Homestead Credit Revenue , that the city would have to absorb if the "package" as proposed had passed Format : The format for each fund is the same and includes : the actual 12/31/80 fund balance , the budgeted 1981 revenue and expenditures , the revenue and expenditures trial balance for 1981 , the trial fund balance 12/31/81 , the budgeted 1982 revenues and expenditures , the proposed changes in 1982 revenue and expenditures ( these are the only numbers listed in line item detail ) , the revised 1982 revenue and expenditure budgets and the revised 12/31/82 fund balance . The purpose of this summary is to provide a minimum amount of data show- ing what happened in 1981 and how the proposed 1982 changes would change the estimated 12/31/82 fund balances . The bulk of the changes reflect things we know to have happened in 1981 or early 1982 and should be reflected in the 1982 budget . There are a handful of new items that I will touch upon when we discuss the material . As you will see , the General Fund ' s trial balance shows that 1981 revenues exceed expenditures , thus increasing our unappropriated fund balance to $706 , 302 or 30% of the 1982 operating expenditures . It also appears that all but six divisions "lived within" the 1981 budgets . Summary: Please bring your 1982 budgets to the meeting. The changes are listed by fund and the funds are in the same order that they appear in the budget . I hope that we will have a final decision from the Legislature by Tuesday nights ' meeting so that we can make some meaningful decisions . If we don ' t have the information, or if there are other items that are unresolved, we can delay any final decision to 4/6/82 . Actual 12/31/80 Fund Balance $659 , 561 Budgeted ' 81 Revenue : $2 , 123 , 526 Budgeted ' 81 Expenditures : $2 , 125 ,026 Trial Bal . ' 81 Revenue : $2 ,088 ,957 Trial Bal . ' 81 Expenditures : $1 ,973 ,530 Trial Fund Balance 12/31/81 $774 ,988 Budgeted ' 82 Revenue $2 , 262 ,059 Budgeted ' 82 Expenditures $2 ,330 , 745 Proposed ' 82 Changes : Proposed ' 82 Changes : Current Ad Valorem - 13 ,500 Increase Sen. Cit . 4/wk + 1 ,000 Cable Franchise . + 8 ,000 Bldg. Insp. Tires + 200 Pool Table License . + 1 ,000 Bldg. Insp. School + 120 Mechanical Permits 4 13 ,000 Police Computer Terminal Homestead Credit - 9 ,600 rent + 1 , 200 DED Grant - 4 , 185 Police Copy Machine Local Gov ' t Aid - 12 , 500 Maint . Agr. + 480 Attached Machinery Mayor & Council Misc . Aid - 3 ,000 ( Baseball Assoc . Lighting) + 1 ,000 Co . Road & Bridge Aid - 5 ,000 Eng. Distance Measure + 700 Plat-Rezone-Cond . Use - 1 ,000 Mn. Good Roads Sub. + 70 Season Tickets-Pool. + 1 ,000 CertainTeed Appraisal + 1 ,000 Pool Concession - 1 ,000 Valley Fair Appraisal + 6 ,000 Interest + 20,000 Mech. Insp. Hospital + 4 ,500 Rents - 2 ,000 Workmans Comp. 12 ,000 Revenue Sharing ICC 3 ,000 Transfer + 30,000 City Adm. & Chief of Cap. Equip. Revolving Police Car Allowance + 900 Transfer + 4 ,000 2 Cash Registers + 600 Miscellaneous + 3 ,000 Cable Personnel Services + 1 ,400 NET CHANGE + 28 ,215 Cable Prof. Services - 29 ,200 Cable Travel & Subsis- tance + 450 Bldg. Ins . p Files (RS ) + 1 ,400 Eng. Drafting Table (RS ) + 1 , 700 Propane Tank ( RS ) + 18 ,000 Recorder Mayor/Mgr. + 300 Reforestation + 3 ,000 Purchase Used City Hall Copier (RS) + 7 ,000 City Adm. Car ( RS ) + 1 ,000 Public Works Salt Shed (CER) + 4 ,000 Public Works Rear Blade + 1 ,000 Public Works Fertilizer Spreader + 800 Hosp. Ambulance + 2 ,050 Mayor ' s Conference + 1 ,500 Pool Insulation & Ceiling + 1 , 700 Police Office Repair & . Paint + 300 Public Works Roof Drain + 4 ,000 _Fire Dept . Re-roofing - 6 ,000 Contingencies + 11 ,045 NET CHANGE + 28,215 Revised ' 82 Revenue : $2 ,290 ,274 Revised ' 82 Expenditures : $2 ,358,960 Estimated Fund Balance 12/31/82 $706 , 3021 'This unappropriated balance equals 30% of the 1982 revised expenditures -1- REVENUE SHARING FUND Actual 12/31/80 Balance $162 , 751 Budgeted ' 81 Revenue : $105 ,000 Budgeted ' 81 Expenditures : $ 63 ,250 Trial Bal . '81 Revenue : $166 ,080 Trial Bal . '81 Expenditures : $ 49 ,629 Trial Fund Balance 12/31/81 $279 , 202 Budgeted ' 82 Revenue , . $118 ,000 Budgeted ' 82 Expenditures $202 ,600 Proposed ' 82 Changes : Proposed ' 82 Changes : Interest Income @ 12% + 18,000 City Adm. Car + 1 ,000 NET CHANGE + 18 ,000 Public Works Rear Blade + 1 ,000 Public Works Fertilizer Spreader + 800 City Hall -100,000 City Hall Copier + 7 ,000 Bldg. Insp. Files + 1 ,400 Eng. Drafting Table + 1 , 700 Propane Tank + 18 ,000 Word Processor -0- NET CHANGE - 69 ,100 Revised ' 82 Revenue : $136 ,000 Revised ' 82 Expenditures : $133 ,500 Estimated Fund Balance 12/31/82 $281 , 702 ' PARK RESERVE FUND Actual 12/31/80 Fund Balance $52 ,862 Budgeted ' 81 Revenue : $ 16 ,500 Budgeted ' 81 Expenditures : $ 52 ,600 Trial Bal . ' 81 Revenue : $ 43 ,266 Trial Bal . ' 81 Expenditures : $ 7 ,921 Trial Fund Balance 12/31 /81 $88 ,210 Budgeted ' 82 Revenue $ 26 , 500 Budgeted ' 82 Expenditures $ 20,400 Proposed ' 82 Changes : Proposed ' 82 Changes : Jaycee (Tahpah Park) + 15 ,000 JEJ Acquisition + 88 ,000 Interest Income @ 12% + 9 ,000 Tahpah Park Water & Sewer + 45 ,0001 LAWCON LCMR Grant + 42 ,500 NET CHANGE +133 ,000 NET CHANGE + 56 ,500 Revised ' 82 Revenue : $ 93 ,000 Revised ' 82 Expenditures : $153 ,400 Estimated Fund Balance 12/31 /82 $27 ,810 1Jaycees would pay $15 ,000 per year for three years to pay for Tahpah Park water and sewer . -2- • CAPITAL EQUIPMENT REVOLVING FUND Actual 12/31/80 Fund Balance $313 ,839 Budgeted ' 81 Revenue : $12 ,000 Budgeted ' 81 Expenditures : $20,000 Trial Bal . ' 81 Revenue : $47 , 212 Trial Bal . ' 81 Expenditures : $72 ,4311 Trial Fund Balance 12/31/81 $288 ,620 Budgeted ' 82 Revenus $31 ,000 Budgeted ' 82 Expenditures $26,000 Proposed Changes : ' None Proposed Changes : Public Works Salt Shed + 4 ,000 NET CHANGE + 4,000 Revised ' 82 Revenue $31,000 Revised ' 82 Expenditures : $30,000 Estimated Fund Balance 12/31/82 $289 ,620 1Parking lot purchase was not budgeted. 2SPUC contribution exceeding $240, 384 is , by council policy, placed in the Capital Equipment Revolving Fund. There was a $18,658 excess in 1981 so we are budgeting roughly the same amount for 1982 . 4th AND MINNESOTA FUND Actual 12/31/80 Fund Balance -0- Budgeted ' 81 Revenue : $17 ,000 Budgeted ' 81 Expenditures $17 ,000 Trial Balance ' 81 Revenue $18,673 Trail Balance ' 81 Expenditures $22 , 124 Trial Fund Balnce 12/31/81 ( $3,451 ) Budgeted ' 82 Revenues $ -0-2 Budgeted ' 82 Expenditures $ -0- Proposed Changes : Proposed Changes : Federal Grants 1 , 788 Housing & Redevelopment -0- Contributions (City ) 1 ,663 NET CHANGE $ 3 ,451 NET CHANGE $ -0- Revised ' 82 Revenue $ 3 ,451 Revised ' 82 Expenditures $ -0- Estimated Fund Balance 12/31/82 $ -0- 1Natural lag in expenditure repayment through grant reimbursement . 2Assumed program completed 3Assumes program completed and grant closed out . SENIOR CENTER FUND Actual 12/31/80 Fund Balance $634 Budgeted ' 81 Revenue $ 1 ,638 Budgeted ' 81 Expenditures $ 2 ,281 Trial Balance ' 81 Revenue 2 , 773 Trial. Balance ' 81 Expenditures 3 ,407 Trial Fund Balance 12/31/82 $ -0- 1 Project 0-1Project completed and grant close out . -3- COUNTY ROAD NO. 77 IMPROVEMENTS1 1Program dropped when Five Year Capital Improvement Program finalized in November ' 81 . COUNTY ROAD NO. 83 SIGNALS1 1New program without prior fund balance, no changes required 100 percent funded by State. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FUND Actual 12/31/80 Balance $ ( 251 ,688 ) Budgeted ' 81 Revenue $2 ,077 , 112 Budgeted ' 81 Expenditures $ 2 ,099 ,: Trial Balance N/A Trail. Balance N/A Budgeted Fund Balance 12/31/81 ( $273 ,777 ) Trial Fund .Balance 12/31/81 N/A Budgeted ' 82 Revenues $4 ,048 , 131 Budgeted ' 82 Expenditures $ 2 ,692 ,E Proposed ' 82 changes : Proposed ' 82 changes : Upper Valley Drainage - 816 ,480 VIP Interceptor + 6 , . Polk Street - 79 ,000 Hauer Laterals + 6 ,C 1st Ave . Rt . Turn Lane + 235 ,000 Bluff Avenue + 6 ,C 2nd Ave . Water & Sewer + 470 ,000 Halo 2nd Addition + 9 ,C 101 Frontage Road + 26 ,000 CR #16 Utilities + 32 ,C Alley Block 50 OSP + 3 ,800 Valley Ind. Blvd. So. + 5 ,C Maras Road Improvement 0 Upper Valley Drainage - 816 ,4 Dean ' s Lake Basin IVA + 900 ,000 Polk Street - 79 ,C 1st Ave . Rt . Turn Lane + 235 ,C Net Change $+ 739 , 320 2nd Ave . Water & Sewer + 470,C 101 Frontage Road + 26 ,C Alley Block 50 OSP + 3 ,8 Deans Lake Basin IVA + 910,0 Eastview + 9 ,6 Net Change $+ 823 ,2 Revised ' 82 Revenue : $4 , 787 ,451 Revised ' 82 Expenditures $ 3 ,516 ,0 Estimated Fund Balance 12/31/82 $1 ,007 ,619 CITY HALL FUNDI 1Program dropped when Five Year Capital Improvement Program finalized in November ' 81 . -4- i 1 . DEBT SERVICE FUND1 1No changes . However , the City has historically paid for assessments against City property with revenues from the Permanent Improvement Revolving ( PIR) Fund , and those revenues were not reimburseable and should , therefore , not have been paid out of the PIR Fund. In 1982 , a totalof roughly $9 , 100 in assessments against City property will be abated and the monies that would have been produced by the assessment will be generated by special levies as needed to meet debt service requirements in the future. P. I . R. FUND Actual 12/31/80 Balance $313 ,828 Budgeted ' 81 Revenue $ 14,393 Budgeted ' 81 Expenditures $ 70, 150 Trial Balance ' 81 Revenue 37 ,982 Trial Balance ' 81 Expenditures 37 ,027 Trial Fund Balance 12/31/81 $314 ,783 Budgeted ' 82 Revenue $ 15 ,600 Budgeted ' 82 Expenditures $ 50,560 Proposed ' 82 Changes : Proposed ' 82 Changes : Levee Drive Assessments+16 , 560 Interest Income 115 ,000 Railroad Storm -34 ,000 Net Change $+31 , 560 Net Change $-34,000 Revised ' 82 Revenue $ 47 , 160 Revised ' 82 Expenditures $ 16 , 560 Estimated Fund Balance 12/31/82 $360 , 383 SEWER FUND Actual 12/31/80 Balance $331 ,4661 Budgeted ' 81 Revenue $676 ,600 Budgeted ' 81 Expenditures $654 , 544 Trial Balance ' 81 Revenue 610 , 757 Trial Balance ' 81 Expenditures 619 , 128 Trial Fund Balance 12/31/81 $ 323 ,0951 Budgeted ' 82 Revenue $733 ,090 Budgeted ' 82 Expenditures $690,895 Proposed ' 82 changes : None Proposed ' 82 changes : None Estimated Fund Balance 12/31 /82 $ 365 , 2901 1Because this is an Enterprise Fund , this balance is the Retained Earnings . -5- /4 . r COMMUNITY SERVICES FUND No Changes Housing and Redevelopment Authority General Fund (HRA) Separate Budget Memo KMART FUND No Changes HIGHRISE FUND No change . However, the City share of the Levee Drive Improvements will come from the $177 ,411 budgeted as Expenditure or Transfer rather than the P. I .R. Fund as .originally budgeted. -6- /(13 MEMO TO : John K . Anderson City Administrator FROM : H. R. Spurrier City Engineer RE : Improvement of Levee Drive DATE : May 14, 1982 Introduction : Copies of the above-referenced Feasibility Report have been distributed to City Council. Background : The Feasibility Report concludes that this project is not feasible unless part of the assessment is paid for using other funding sources; such as, Tax Increment Financing or Revenue Sharing to cover the non-assessable cost. The decision City Council must make is whether there is sufficient public benefit in funding this project with Tax Increment Financing or Revenue Sharing based on the advantages and benefits resulting from the recommended construction. Action Requested : Adopt Alternate A, B . C, or D, as stated in the Feasibility Study dated March 1982 and excerpt of alternatives herewith attached, and direct staff to bring back the appropriate resolution depending on the alternative selected. HRS/jiw Attachment ALTERNATIVES A. Build West and East Segments - Pros Cons 1. Traffic on Levee Drive has access 1 . Project cost exceeds the benefit; to semaphore controlled intersec- 2 Public does not perceive a need tions East and West for Levee Drive East at this 2. Larger project with more competi- time; tive bids; 3. Semaphore would be desirable 3. Improved access to Levee area; at Sommerville Street. 4. Maintenance of steep hill on Sommerville Street eliminated; 5. Eliminates some of the dumping in the Levee area; 6. Construction would upgrade and improve river front areas. B. Build West Segment - Pros Cons 1 . Traffic on Levee Drive has access 1. Project cost exceeds the benefit; to semaphore controlled inter- 2. Smaller project with higher bids; sections East and West; 2. Improves access to westerly Le v ee area; 3. Some of dumping area in the West Levee area eliminated; 4. Construction would upgrade and improve a segment of river front. C. Building East Segment - Pros Cons 1. Improves access to Levee Drive 1 . Project cost exceeds the benefit; area; 2. Public does not perceive a need 2. Maintenance of steep hill on for Levee Drive East at this Sommerville Street eliminated; time; 3. Construction would upgrade and 3. Semaphore would be desirable at improve a segment of river front. Sommerville Street; 4. Smaller project with higher bids. -3- j0 D. Do Nothing - Pros Cons 1 . City would incur no expense. 1 . Traffic must use semaphore at Lewis Street or enter First Avenue at an uncontrolled inter- section. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Alternatives A, B & C are not feasible because the amount of the assess- ment is greater than the amount by which the value of the property to be assessed increases. Using other funding sources, such as Tax Increment Financing or Revenue Sharing to cover the cost that could not be assessed would make this project feasible. Considering the fact that there have been few real estate transactions, proving benefit will be a complex and necessary task that must be undertaken before proceeding with this project. Both segments East and West of Levee Drive are desirable. Both segments are feasible so long as another funding source is utilized to pay the part of the proposed assessment that could not be levied. RECOMMENDATION This report recommends the construction of Alternate A -- Levee Drive between Scott Street and Atwood Street and Levee Drive between Lewis Street and Sommerville Street; such construction is hereby judged feasible as proposed. -4- /& MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk RE: Application for On Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License by C.R.E. Restaurant Company DATE: May 14, 1982 Introduction The City has received application from C.R.E. Restaurant Company for an On Sale and a Sunday Liquor License . Background The application on file is not in order as of this writing. I am not in receipt of the insurance policy, $5 ,000 Surety Bond, or $2 , 585 .00 On Sale fee and $200.00 Sunday fee . The 19811 payable taxes are delinquent; however, the applicant is not the owner of the property and is 'therefore not bound by the City Code (as currently written) to make p yment . If the City Code is amended, the applicant understands that payment must be made prior to 1982/83 re ewal . Also, applicant intends to make payment by May 31st for the !payable 1981 and first one-half of 1982 taxes , pursuant to an under tanding made with the Council on June 30 , 1981 . Section 5 .02 , Subd. 4 (B) of the City Code specifically provides that in the case of an on sale licens fee , the pro rata share shall be not less than one-half of the an ual on sale license fee . The appli- cant ' s attorney, Steve Solomon, has indicated to me that the applicant will be submitting a letter asking that the Council reduce the fee . Mr. Coller has informed me that as the City Code is written, there is no way to consider such a request . Council could adopt an ordi- nance amending the City Code ; however, that amendment would not be effective until published, so no reduction could be approved on May 18th. I did suggest to Mr. Solomon that if Council approval of the license could be delayed until June 1st , Council could con- sider and adopt an amendment to the Code on the 18th of May, if that was Council ' s desire. Mr. Solomon indicated, however, that the applicant did not wish to delay Council action on the applica- tion until June 1st . Alternatives 1 . If application is in order on May 18th, approve applications and grant a license . 2 . Deny applications . 3 . Table applications . 4 . Reduce fee as set forth in City Code . 5 . Deny request to have fee reduced. John K. Anderson Page Two ci May 14 , 1982 Recommendation Staff recommends approval of applications provided everything is in order; however, recommends denial of request to reduce license fee , because it would be • contrary to the City Code . Action Requested If application is in order: Approve applications and grant an On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License and a Sunday Liquor License to C.R. E. Restaurant Company, 1583 East First Avenue , upon surrender of the existing license for the same location, if surrendered within seven days , and Deny any request for a reduction in the fee , set by Council , for an on sale intoxicating liquor license. JSC/jms ME/140-TO : John K. Anderson City Administrator FROM : H. R. Spu'rrier City Engineer RE : Hauer Trail Lateral - Project No. 1980-1 DATE : May 14, 1982 Introduction : Attached is Change Order No. 2 for the above-captioned project. Background: The original project proposed to install short stubs. It was the desire of the property owners to receive services stubbed to the property lines so that additional encroachments into adjacent property would not have to be made. The amount has already been assessed to the property owner since the cost of the services was known at the time the assessment roll was prepared. The contractor has not executed the change order prior to this because of negotiations that were undertaken on another project which this contractor has been involved with. In order to pay the contractor for this change order and for balance of the work on the contract, a semi-final payment must be approved out of normal payment cycle. Siaff recommends that a semi-final payment to Parrott Construction, Inc. , 2047 Eagle Creek Blvd. , Shakopee, MN 55379 be made in the amount of $4,397.39. Action Requested : 1 . Approve Change Order No. 2 for Hauer Trail Laterals Contract No. 80-1 for installation of 4" PVC service pipe. The contract shall be increased $2, 449. 00 and the completion date shall not be changed. 2. Approve Semi-Final Partial Estimate Voucher No. 5 for Hauer Trail Laterals in the amount of $4,397.39 for Parrott Construction, Inc. HRS/jiw Attachments f6 CHANGE ORDER Change Order No. : 2 Project Name: Hauer Trail Laterals Date: May 5, 1982 Contract No. : 80-1 Original Contract Amount $ 44 ,422. 87 Change Order(s) No. 1 thru No. $ 4 ,200. 00 Total Funds Encumbered Prior to Change Order $ 48 ,622. 87 Description of Work to be (Added/Deleted): Installation of 316 L. F. of 4" PVC Service Pipe @ $7. 75/L.F. The above described work shall be incorporated in the Contract, referenced above, under the same conditions specified in the original Contract as amended unless otherwise specified herein. Any work not so specified shall be performed in accordance with the Standard Specifications adopted by the City of Shakopee, Minnesota. The amount of the Contract shall be (increased/de raxarredl by $ 2 ,4)49 . 00 The number of calendar days for completion shall be (increased/decreased) by 0 . Original Contract Amount $ 44 ,422 . 87 Change Order(s) No. 1 thru 2 $ 6 ,649 . 00 Total Funds Encumbered $ 51,071. 87 Completion Date: October 30 , 1981 The undersigned Contractor hereby agrees to perform the work specified in this Change Order in accordance with the specifications, conditions and prices specified herein. Contractor: By: ,� a� is Title: ,b)// 4 . Date: 01- AP -ROVED APROVED AN, ' COMMENDED: •' /7/07 ity E _ ' 'ee e APPROVED:, City of Shakopee By: Mayor Date Approved as to form this day of City Administrator Date 19 City Clerk Date City Attorney S 6 $? SEMI-FINAL /g PARTIAL ESTIMATE VOUCHER Contract No. 80-1 Partial Estimate Voucher No. 5 Period Ending: April 30 , 1982 TO: Contractor Parrott Construction, Inc . Address 2047 Eagle Creek Boulevard, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Project Description Hauer Trail Laterals 1. Original Contract Amount $ 44 ,422 . 87 2. Change Order No. 1 Thru No. 2 $ 6 ,6 4 9 . 0 0 3. Total Funds Encumbered $ 51 ,071. 87 44. Value of Work Completed $ 51,373 . 08 Value of Work Remaining 5. 5 Percent Retainage $ 2,568 . 65 6. Previous Payments $ 4 4 ,4 0 7 . 04 Percent Complete 7. Deductions or Charges $ -0- 100% 8. Total $ 46 ;9 5. 69 Payment Due (Line 4+ - Line 8) $ 4 .397 . 39 CERTIFICATE OF PAYMENT (I, We) hereby agree that the quantity and value of work shown herein is a fair estimate of the work completed to date. CONTRACTOR: BY: /%4' TITLE: DATE: APPOVED CITY OF SHAKOPEE / 4 ))' City Engineer bate City Administrator Date : PROPOSAL SCHEDULE j�j PROJECT NAME Hauer argil, Laterals OWNER [ TYPE OF WORK --__ PHOJ. NO. 8o-_,2__ _ SHEET 1 OF 2 HIM CONTRACT ITFM UNIT UNIT CONTRACT ®uantitle.g__________ NO. PRI CF ;uANTITY AMOUNT To Date Total 1 8" PVC San. Sewer 0'-8' L.F. $ 6.55 272 $ 1,781.60 3// 243x'05 2 8" PVC San. Sewer 8'-10' L.I�'. 6.55 ] ,522 9,969.10 /53.7 /OpwI.5 3 8" PVC San. Sewer'10'-.12' L.F. 7.05 858 6,048.90 54.9 -o,j 2/5 14 8" PVC San. Sewer 12'-114 ' L.]'. 8.07 392 3,155.60 570 6005 5-o 5 8" PVC Sari. Sewer 14 '-!6' L.l.'. 9. .{ 38.20 /05 DO 6 8" PVC San. Sewer 16'-18' L.]'L.F . 12. 55 5 62.75` /b- 1.1 ;5 i 8" PVC San. Sewer 18'-:.'0' L.],'. 13.55 14 54.20 _ 10 135 !..70 8 8" PVC San. Sewer 20'-22' L.;'. 15.55 4 62.20 -p- -4)- 9 4" on 8" Wyes Ea. 25.00 27 675.00675 ? 7 10 4" XHCISP Service Pipe L.F. 9.00 100 900.00_ /DO gin900 I I 8" Stub;; l;a. 65.cio 130.00 2 _ 1_3p OD 12 Std. 143" Dia. MH to 8' Ea. 720.00 13 9,360.00 / 7 ? 340 o 13 48" Dia. Excess MH Depth L.F. 66.00 35.1 2,316.60 31.9 .2171,4/0 14 Outside Drop Connection Ea. 700.00 1 700.00 / 7Q0 00 15 Excess Drop Section L.F. 41.00 11.5 471.50-_ /�,S' +71:5-0 16 Pavement Restoration S.Y. 8.50 130 1,105.00 20 7 /75a,5a 17 Aggregate Surfacing Ton 5.75 314 1,805.50 Zs,,,t 1527 re 18 Concrete Curb & Gutter L.F. 17.50 20 350.00 45 7g7, So 19 Sodding S.Y. 1.40 1,644 2,301.60 Nee. 20€6? 0 20 Seed S.Y. 0.12 11,016 1,321.92 10/ Itotf 1 21 c1 eog 21 Mulch S.Y. .25 4,589 1,147.25 - -8.71 i 2/78. 00 22 Fertil. Analysis 10-10-10 Ton 305.00 0.7. 240.95 72 20? 6; • 23 Clear & Grub Tree 75.00 5 375.00 5 3 '7,51.00 24 Rock Excavation C.Y. 1.00 50 50.00 ti-, ? if, Z5-- I TOTAL #6117/ .1 1 1 I I. PROPOSAL SCHEDULE IQ * PROJECT NAME Hauer Trail Laterals OWNER Main Street San'itarY-Sewer _ __- TYPE OF WORK Insulation PROD. NO, 80-1 SHEET 2 OF 2 Ulm CONTRACT !Um UNIT UNIT - v CONTRACT Quantities NO. PRICE QUANTITY AMOUNT To Date Total Change 0rdjr No. 1 i i Main Street - Sanitary Sewer Insulation Project • 1 Pipe Insulation L.P. 1 11.00 180 $1,980.00 /S /65 00 2 Pavement Restoration S.Y. 12.50 160 2,000.00 g2 /02_5' p0 3 Sod S.Y. 5.50 40 220.00 -O- -p- Alternate Items 1 8" PVC plus Insulation L.F. 15.00 120 1,800.00 /QO /SOD Old 2 4" CISP plus Insulation L.F. 16.00 60 960.00 O- -0' - 3 p3 6" CISP plus Insulation L.I.'. 17.50 60 1 ,050.00 -O- -0 - - 4 8 x 4 Wyes lia. 30.00 2 6o.00 5 8 x 6 Wyes Ea. 33.00 2 66.00 3.3._ 7 7 / 2753,oD *7: -.-71- l POt / `/-6 /7/ ods =Lo7 1 A,e Z LC ,n e Oro/a,. do i) 2753 0 To T4 1 G/, - n e o ofd-- No 2 Zs!' 59 00 30674- / .S/)37,3 CS IC-i34 Minnesota Department of Revenue Read the instructions (Rev. 7/80) Centennial Office Building on the other side St.Paul,Minnesota 55145 before completing form. - /C Affidavit For Obtaining Final Settlement Of Contract With The State Of Minnesota And Any Of Its Political Or Governmental Subdivisions Name of Contractor or Subcontractor Minnesota Identification Number • Business Address • 2047 Eagle Creek Blvd. City,Town or Post Office Shakopee, Mn. 55379 State Zip Code Project Location �/ ,J, /1 di Project or Contra?t Number 4.611? // ai zi-k_c. 7 /# lir"(t qd -p e W - Name of St ep tment of Governmental Subdivision f r hick k Was Performed / Total Amount of Contract Addre o Departman o ••ivision/� City, own or P st if ice Zip Code�-�: oun Still Due ��� 9.,„ ��� /�—�'/ if2-e..----" .5 _ /i Statement On Withholding Of In ome Taxes On Wages Paid (A) Contractor or Subcontractor — If you pay or supervise the payment of persons employed on this contract or project,you are a contractor or-is bcontractor and should co• • ete thi section. I, ,Y) (-rif ' ' 4--446-S/ ,declare Your name) (Title) under the penalties of perjury and criminal liability, that as provided in Minnesota Statute 290.97, I pay or supervise the .PARROTTi= CONSTRUCTION INC. payment of the persons employed by ;that the wages of all employees (Contractor or subcontractor) employed by the above contractor or subcontractor were subjected to withholding as provided in Minnesota Statute 290.92 and that all money withheld and all returns required by this section, to date, have been properly deposited or paid and all returns properly filed with the ommissioner of Rev `37 e--)A,6 .,v, gig Ic,e _ — 7---- (Your signature) (Date) (B) Prime Contractor — If any portion of the above project has been subcontracted, certify below that you have received a certificate of compliance Form IC-134) from each of subcontractors involved. I G1 / ,declare (Your name) (Title) under the penalties of perjury and criminal liability,that as provided in Minnesota Statute 290.97, I have obtained certificates of compliance from all of my subcontractors, on this project or contract, stating that all of their employees were subjected to withholding as provide in Minnesota Statute •0.92 and that as required by this section,all money was properly deposited or paid and all returns filed with the Com .ner of Rev nue as of the date of this certification. i (Your signature) (Date) Certificate Of Compliance With Minnesota Statutes 290.92 and 290.97 Based on the facts stated in the above affidavit and the facts in the files and records of the Department of Revenue, I find that the above contractor (subcontractor) has, to date, properly complied with all of the provisions of Minnesota Statute 290.92 relating to the withholding of income tax on wages paid to employees and Minnesota Statute 290.97 relating to contract services with the State or any of its,governmental or political subidivisions. i ,(Department of Revenue) (Date) IC-134 Minnesota Department of Revenue Read the instructions.,1 (Rev. 7/80) Centennial Office Building on the other side (U before completing St. Paul,Minnesota 55145 the form. Affidavit For Obtaining Final Settlement Of Contract With The State Of Minnesota And Any Of Its Political Or Governmental Subdivisions Name of Contractor or Subcontractor Minpesota Identification Number PARROTT' CONSTRUCTION INC, - (� l 1 �3 Business Address • 2047 Eagle Creek Blvd, City,Town or Post Office Shakopee, Mn. 5537.$ State Zip Code Project Location 1 / Project or Contract Number P-CO-411} °}2'-67-4-1. e 0 Name of State Oepartrt1 nt o Governmental Subdivision for hich Work Was Performed Total Amount of Contract Address of Department pr ub ivision Ci ow or •ost Office Zip Code Am nt till Due 555'77 or/ Statement On Withholding Of Income Taxes On Wages Paid (A) Contractor or Subcontractor — If you pay or supervise the payment of persons employed on this contract or project,you are a contractor or subyontractor and should co lete this se tion. a_AA 442--2- ,declare (Your name) (Title) under the penalties of perjury and criminal liability, that as provided in Minnesota Statute 290.97, I pay or supervise the payment of the persons employed by ��RR�n,' CONST,RUCTInw INC. ;that the wages of all employees (Contractor or subcontractor) employed by the above contractor or subcontractor were subjected to withholding as provided in Minnesota Statute 290.92 and that all money withheld and all returns required by this section, to date, have been properly deposited or paid and all returns properly filed with/ he Commissipner of enue.. �7 f�/-f b .s�- �-'�I' u-`}� 6-- ./ - (Your signature) (Date) (B) Prime Contractor — If any portion of the above project has been subcontracted, certify below that you have received a certificate of compliancy (Form IC-134) from ea f the subcontractors involved. I, (—)) [1���- ->✓.2� 6�ti� �� ��� C/C_/ ,declare (Your name) (Title) under the penalties of perjury and criminal liability,that as provided in Minnesota Statute 290.97, I have obtained certificates of compliance from all of my subcontractors, on this project or contract, stating that all of their employees were subjected to withholding as provided in Minnesota Statute 290.92 and that as required by this section,all money was properly deposited or paid and all returns filed with the Corn ' sioner of Revenue as of the date of this certification. G (Your signature (Date Certificate Of Compliance With Minnesota Statutes 290.92 and 290.97 Based on the facts stated in the above affidavit and the facts in the files and records of the Department of Revenue, I find that the above contractor (subcontractor) has, to date, properly complied with all of the provisions of Minnesota Statute 290.92 relating to the withholding of income tax on wages paid to employees and Minnesota Statute 290.97 relating to contract services with the State or any of its governmental or political subidivisions. .(Department of Revenue) (Date) i I I IC-134 Minnesota Department of Revenue Read the instructions (Rev. 7/80) Centennial Office Building on the other side before completing St. Paul, Minnesota 55145 the form. Affidavit For Obtaining Final Settlement Of Contract With The State Of Minnesota And Any Of Its Political Or Governmental Subdivisions Name of C.owtracaoe or Subcontractor Minnesota Identification Number Valley paving, Inc. 5565541 Business Address 12494 Wyoming Avenue South City,Town or Post Office State Zip Code Savage, Minnesota 55378 Project Location Project or Contract Number Halo 2nd Addition Bluff Ave. Improvements in Shakopee, MN 80-10 & 81-2 Name of State Department of Governmental Subdivision for Which Work Was Performed Total Amount of Contract City of Shakopee $27,447.30 Address of Department or Subdivision City,Town or Post Office Zip Code Amount Still Due 129 E. 1st Ave. Shakopee , MN 55379 $10,386.24 Statement On Withholding Of Income Taxes On Wages Paid (A) NaiiRKeUdif or Subcontractor — If you pay or supervise thei payment of persons employed on this contract or project,you are a contractor}or subcontractor and should complete this Section. i I, Richard A. Carron ,1president ,declare (Your name) (Title) under the penalties of perjury and criminal liability, that as provided in Minnesota Statute 290.97, I pay or supervise the payment of the persons employed by Valley paving, Inc. ;that the wages of all employees xxX09,51t,jor subcontractor) employed by the above contractor or subcontractor were subje�4llted to withholding as provided in Minnesota Statute 290.92 and that all money withheld ..-.11 r ..- s required by this section, to date, have been properly deposited or paid and all returns properly filed with • vr.•'<o�r of Revenue. ' May 7, 1982 (Your signature) (Date) (B) Prime Contractor — If any portion of the above project has been subcontracted, certify below that you have received a certificate of compliance (Form IC-134) from each of the subcontractors involved. I, ,declare (Your name) (Title) under the penalties of perjury and criminal liability,that as provided in Minnesota Statute 290.97, I have obtained certificates of compliance from all of my subcontractors, on this project or contract, stating that all of their employees were subjected to withholding as provided in Minnesota Statute 290.92 and that as required by this section,all money was properly deposited or paid and all returns were filed with the Commissioner of Revenue as of the date of this certification. (Your signature) (Date) Certificate Of Compliance With Minnesota Statutes 290.92 and 290.97 Based on the facts stated in the above affidavit and the facts in the files and records of the Department of Revenue, I find that the above contractor (subcontractor) has, to date, properly complied with all of the provisions of Minnesota Statute 290.92 relating to the withholding of income tax on wages paid to employees and Minnesota Statute 290.97 relating to contract services with the State or any of its governmental or political subidivisions. X• t!l i 2,-e".,'.= k,r` (Department of Revenue) (Date) IC-134 Minnesota Department of Revenue Read the instructions (Rev.7/80) Centennial Office Building on the other side before completing St. Paul,Minnesota 55145 the form. Affidavit For Obtaining Final Settlement Of Contract With The State Of Minnesota And Any Of Its Political Or Governmental Subdivisions Name of MOM=or Subcontractor Minnesota Identification Number valley paving, .Inc. 5565541 Business Address 12494 Wyoming Avenue South City,Town or Post Office State Zip Code Savage Minnesota 55378 Project Location Project or Contract Number Hauer Trail — Laterals in Shakopee 80-1 Name of State Department of Governmental Subdivision for Which Work Was Performed Total Amount of Contract City of Shakopee $ 1,552.50 Address of Department or Subdivision City,Town or Post Office Zip Code Amount Still Due 129 E. 1st Ave. Shakopee, MN 55379 $937.50 Statement On Withholding Of Income Taxes On Wages Paid (A) Contractor or Subcontractor — If you pay or supervise the payment of persons employed on this contract or project,you are a contractor or subcontractor and should complete this section. Richard A. Carron president ,declare (Your name) (Title) under the penalties of perjury and criminal liability, that as provided in Minnesota Statute 290.97, I pay or supervise the payment of the persons employed by Valley paving, Inc. ;that the wages of all employees (gU3( 1){pr subcontractor) employed by the above contractor or subcontractor were subjected to withholding as provided in Minnesota Statute 290.92 and that all money withhe $ and all returns required by this section, to date, have been properly deposited or paid and all returns properly filed w' - 1%4. Co loner of Reve ue. May 7, 1982 (Y.ur signature) (Date) (B) Prime Contractor — If any portion of the above project has been subcontracted, certify below that you have received a certificate of compliance (Form IC-134) from each of the subcontractors involved. ,declare (Your name) (Title) under the penalties of perjury and criminal liability,that as provided in Minnesota Statute 290.97, I have obtained certificates of compliance from all of my subcontractors, on this project or contract, stating that all of their employees were subjected to withholding as provided in Minnesota Statute 290.92 and that as required by this section,all money was properly deposited or paid and all returns were filed with the Commissioner of Revenue as of the date of this certification. (Your signature) (Date) - --s Certificate Of Compliance With Minnesota Statutes 290.92 and 290.97 Based on the facts stated in the above affidavit and the facts in the files and records of the Department of Revenue, I find that the above contractor (subcontractor) has, to date, properly complied with all of the provisions of Minnesota Statute 290.92 relating to the withholding of income tax on wages paid to employees and Minnesota Statute 290.97 relating to contract services with the State or any..ef ts.governmental or political subidivisions. MAY 0 >A2 Y (Date) fa''r(Department'D(Revenue) to . 3e City of Shakopee 4.,;„ / , 4,‘p NK O p TE F POLICE DEPARTMENT f �HESOt� 11 i� N �� 476 South Gorman Street {.. w ‘1 0) SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 P O\ Tel. 445-6666 ( ;` L 1 i ` 55379 j f : TO: Mayor , Council Members FROM: Tom Brownell SUBJECT: Noise Enforcement System DATE: May 13 , 1982 INTRODUCTION Historically, City officials and staff have been contacted by citizens complaining of noise problems which they feel are excessive, such as motor vehicles, noisy parties, sound amplifiers, animals, etc. BACKGROUND Staff has reviewed the feasibility of implementing a noise abatement program which establishes noise limits by City Code that are measureable using a sound level meter, other than human discretion to determine offensive noise factors. The program would primarily be directed to noise problems related to truck traffic, motor vehicles and motorcycles with faulty or illegal equipment, noisy parties and noise levels from commercial businesses such as bars. An officer attended the Minnesota Department of Transportation training session and is qualified to use the equipment. It was our intent to participate in the equipment loan program, however no equipment is available. RECOMMENDATION I recommend implementation of a noise abatement program as it will establish noise standards that are measureable , and will enable the department to be proactive to an ongoing source of citizen concern. gocSE4VE zoEEct I° Noise Enforcement System Page -2- PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS Funding: Revenue Sharing Funds for purchase of monitoring device $1, 000 .00 . City Code : Adopt Noise Control Code. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Direct staff to implement a noise abatement program using $1,000 . 00 of Revenue Sharing Funds for the purchase of one noise monitoring device , and recommend to council an appropriate Noise Abatement Code . • league of minnesota cities 111111.511300 hanovor building. 4E30 cedar ot.,onint, poul. minn 55101 • 11111111-1-1111. JJ information for municipal officials 400b January, 1981 MINNESOTA MODEL NOISE CONTROL ORDINANCES • hi/Fated/19 i749AI aVi/ ,t ,C1/OA/ RINg /ED (a• INTRODUCY';°yN The following two ordinances, one an abridged a cost within the means of any city that might version of the other, have been prepared by the wish to adopt its own noise control program. It League staff as an undertaking of the League's is not necessary to include state standards on re- Noise Project with the helpful assistance of Orville ceivers in local ordinances since these are in effect Peterson, former Executive Director and Chief in the absence of a noise ordinance specifying a Counsel for the League, and Al Perez, Chief of different set of decibel levels. Because the state the Noise Section, Minnesota Pollution Control standards do not set minimum limiting levels that Agency. In preparing them, substantial use has local governments must meet, any city may include been made of the noise control ordinances adopted in its ordinance its own standards different from by the cities of Bioomingtcn and St. Louis Park those of the state. as well as model noise control ordinances prepared by the National Institute of Municipal Law Of- The PCA has also adopted noise limits for motor ricers and the U.S. Environmental Protection vehicles. By statute, it is unlawful to operate, sell, Agency. The long-form ordinance is patterned offer for sale, or modify a motor vehicle which particularly after the Bloomington ordinance will violate these limits. (M.S. 169.693.) The model which has been the basis for that city's highly ordinances merely repeat the substance of the successful noise control program - a program which statute as a matter of information. has received national recognition. Any city council considering adoption of an The longer ordinance contemplates an enforce- ordinance similar to the models may find that ment program that makes use of trained personnel restrictions on various kinds of noises are in- and scientific measurement of sound. It also cluded in several existing ordinances. Care should includes a list of nuisance-type unnecessary or be taken to insure that adoption of a comprehen- excessive noises, recognizing that it is not practi- sive noise control ordinance without repealing cal to employ sound measurement techniques to these scattered provisions does not result in over- control all noise sources. The briefer ordinance lapping and inconsistent provisions. If existing omits any provisions for technical measurement, provisions are retained as being more appropriate designates excessive or unusual noise as a nuisance, in their present context, it may be wise to include and relies on available city personnel with no these provisions along with the new ordinance in special expertise in the field. Cities not using sound a complete informational compilation of the city's measurement devices, particularly larger cities noise control provisions. • with more varied sources of objectionable noise, may wish to expand the model ordinance list when The model ordinance uses a simple numbering adopting the scheme of the briefer ordinance. system consisting of sections and subdivisions. Cities with ordinance codes will wish to renumber The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in the ordinance and its parts to make it an appro- 1974 adopted standards of acceptable sound levels priately numbered part of the ordinance code in for receivers of sound within areas grouped accord- its proper place. If there is an existing code, some ing to land activities by a noise classification sys- of its general provisions may permit dropping or tern described in the standards. These standards modifying certain formal parts of the model ordi- are by law maximum standards; local governments nance, such as provisions on penalty, severability, may not set stricter standards in terms of sound and effective date. pressure levels allowed to occur in the outdoor atmosphere. (M.S. 116.07, Subd. 2.) Local govern- Help on the development of local noise control ments may, howevert set noise emission regulations programs, equipment loans, and technical assis- with respect to stationary sources that are more tance is available from the Noise Control Section stringent than those set by the PCA. (M.S. 116.07, of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Subd. 4.) Provisions for such standards are in- through Al Perez, Noise Control Chief, 1935 West cluded in the longer model ordinance. These pro- County Road B2, Roseville, MN, 55113, and the visions contemplate measuring noise scientifi- League of Minnesota Cities through its Noise Pro- cally by means of sound level meters, now avail- ject Director, Kathleen Callahan. able in the size of pocket transistor radios and at - 1 - MODEL ORDINANCES I. Long-Form Noise Control'Ordinance (Includes provisions for measurement of noise by acoustical instrumentation) AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO NOISE, PROVIDING FOR THE ELIMINATION AND PREVEN- TION OF PROHIBITED NOISE, AND IMPOSING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION The City Council of Ordains: Comment: This is the enacting clause prescribed in statutory cities. A home rule city should adapt it to conform to requirements of its charter. Section 1. Definitions. Subdivision 1. General. Comment: This will adopt the latest ANSI standards in effect of the time of adopt- Words and phrases defined in this section have, ion of the ordinance. If later modifications by ANSI are desired they will need to be when used in this ordinance, the meanings given adopted by amendment to this ordinance. below. Any other word or phrase used in this Subd. 4. L50 means the sound level similarly ordinance, and defined in regulations of the expressed and measured which is exceeded 50 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Noise PoI- percent of the time for a one-hour period. lution Control Section, NPC-1 and NPC-4, has the Subd. 5. Person means an individual, firm, meaning given in those regulations. partnership, corporation, trustee, association, the Subd. 2. Air circulation device means a mecha- state and its agencies and subdivisions, or any nism designed and used for the controlled flow body of persons whether incorporated or not. With of -air used in ventilation, cooling, or condition- respect to acts prohibited or required herein, ing, including, but not limited to, central and win- "person" shall include employees and licensees. dow air conditioning units. Comment: This section largely relies on definitions found in state noise control Subd. 3. L10 means the sound level, expressed regulations supplemented by ordinance definitions of three terms. The terms "L10" in decibels (dBA) which is exceeded 10 percent and "L50" as used in Section 4, which sets receiving land use noise standards, need defi- of the time for a one-hour period, as measured by nition if Section 4 is to be understood even in a general way by persons affected by the a sound level meter having characteristics as ordinance. Some ordinances contain numer- ous other definitions. specified in the latest standards, Si ,4, of the Terminology used throughout the ordinance American National Standards Institute and using should conform to definitions included in this section. Definitions need not be in- test procedures approved by the (noise control cluded for terms given their dictionary meaning or so easily understood that or- officer). dinance definition is superfluous. -2 - (6C Section 2. Noises Prohibited. Subdivision 1. Comment: In order to further restrict the use of certain of these devices, "danger" can be General prohibition. No person shall make or cause more fully defined, formal permits for the use of these devices can be required, or to be made , any distinctly and loudly audible operational curfews can be established by the city. Furthermore, the city may wish noise that unreasonably annoys, disturbs, injures, to extend this provision to stationary sources which would include noon whistles, or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace, church bells,etc. safety, or welfare of any persons or precludes Subd. 4. Exhaust. No person shall discharge their enjoyment of property or affects their the exhaust, or permit the discharge of the exhaust property's value. This general prohibition is not of any steam engine, stationary internal combus- limited by the specific restrictions of the follow- tion engine, motor boat, motor vehicle, or snow- ing subdivisions. mobile except through a muffler or other device Subd. 2. Motor vehicles. No person shall operate that effectively prevents loud or explosive noises a motor vehicle in the city in violation of the therefrom and complies with all applicable state motor vehicle noise limits of the Minnesota Pollu- laws and regulations. tion Control Agency. Comment: Motor vehicle mufflers are pres- cribed by M.S. 169.69. Water craft mufflers Comment: Even in the absence of this pro- are prescribed by M.S. 316.17. Snowmobile vision, it is unlawful to operate a motor mufflers .are required under M.S. 84.871 vehicle in violation of these regulations and Department of Natural Resources adopted in 1975 (updated in 1977) as regulation, 6 MCAR 1 .0057, Clause (e). NPC-4. (M.S. 169.693.) The provision is If snowmobile operation within the city included only to inform the public that is prohibited, the city may wish to omit there are noise regulations of this type the reference to snowmobiles in this sub- applicable within the city as well as those division. of other kinds set out in the ordinance. A city adopting this provision may wish to Subd. 5. Defective vehicles or loads. No person provide a copy of the regulations in the city clerk's office for reference, but this is shall use any vehicle so out of repair or so loaded not legally necessary. Since the term "mo- tor vehicle" is defined' in NPC-4 which as to create loud and unnecessary grating, grinding, includes the substance of Subd. 2, it is not necessary to define the term in the ordi- rattling, or other noise. nance. Subd. 6. Loading, unloading, unpacking. No Subd. 3. Horns, audible signaling devices, etc. person shall create loud and excessive noise in No person shall sound any signaling device on any loading, unloading, or unpacking any vehicle. vehicle except as a warning of danger. (M.S. Subd. 7. Radios, phonographs, paging systems, 169.68.) etc. No person shall use or operate or permit the 3 7o use or operation of any radio receiving set, musical Subd. 9. Loudspeakers, amplifiers for adver- instrument, phonograph, paging system, machine, tising, etc. No person shall operate or permit the or other device for the production or reproduction use or operation of any loudspeaker, sound ampli- of sound in a distinctly and loudly audible manner fier, or other device for the production or repro- as to disturb the peace, quiet, and comfort of duction of sound on a street or other public place any person nearby. Operation of any KA set, for the purpose of commercial advertising or instrument, phonograph, machine, or other device attracting the attention of the public to any between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. commercial establishment or vehicle. in such a manner as to be plainly audible at the Comment: Some cities may wish to allow such devices under city permit. If this property line of the structure or building in which approach is used, provisions for a permit should be substituted and standards for it is located, in the hallway or apartment adjacent, use of the device under permit included. or at a distance of 50 feet if the source is located Subd. 10. Animals. No person shall keep any outside a structure or building shall be prima facie animal that disturbs the comfort or repose of per- evidence of a violation of this section. sons in the vicinity by its frequent or continued Subd. 8. Participation in noisy parties or gather- noise. ings. No person shall participate in any party or Subd. 11. Schools, churches, hospitals, etc. other gathering of people giving rise to noise, No person shall create any excessive noise on a disturbing the peace, quiet, or repose of another street, alley, or public grounds adjacent to any person. When a police officer determines that a school, institution of learning, church, or hospital .!c gathering is creating such a noise disturbance, when the noise unreasonably interferes with the the officer may order all persons present, other working of the institution or disturbs or unduly than the owner or tenant of the premises where the annoys its occupants or residents and when con- disturbance is occurring, to disperse immediately. spicuous signs indicate the presence of such in- No person shall refuse to leave after being ordered stitution. by a police officer to do so. Every owner or tenant Comment: The list of institutions may be al- of such premises who has knowledge of the dis- tered to meet local needs. Some ordinances, for example, add courts, nursing homes, turbance shall make every reasonable effort to and homes for the elderly to the list. see that the disturbance is stopped. - 4 - 6 Section 2 Is Intended to prohibit various noise equipment except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. nuisances not controlled or not easily controlled through Section 4, sound level standards, or that and 10:00 p.m. on any weekday or between the may be controlled easier in this fashion. It includes noise nuisances commonly proscribed by ordi- hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on any weekend nances. Others may be added to take account of local nuisance situations. Among, other noise or holiday. Snow removal equipment is exempt nuisances sometimes found in noise control ordi- nances are (1) noise pollution from building, from this provision. repairing, or testing motor vehicles or other in- ternal combustion engines; (2) use of model vehi- Subd. 3. Refuse hauling. No person shall collect cies or model airplanes during certain hours or in certain places; (3) use of explosives, firearms or remove garbage or refuse in any residential (see M.S. 116.07, Subd. 2a), or similar devices causing a noise disturbance beyond property lines district except between the hours of 7:00 'a.m. and (sometimes permitted under certain conditions with a special variance); (4) unmuffled operation 10:00 p.m. on any weekday or between the hours of blower or power fans; (5) noise from idling diesel engines. of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on any weekend or Some provisions either included or omitted in holiday. the model section may already appear in city ordinances dealing with nuisances, and some Subd. 4. Construction activities. No person directed at noise by people (e.g., loud parties) may be treated in ordinances on disorderly con- shall engage in or permit construction activities duct or breaches of the peace. involving the use of any kind of electric, diesel, Section 3. Hourly Restriction on Certain Opera- or gas-powered machine or other power equipment tions. Subdivision 1. Recreational vehicles. No except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 •person shall, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and p.m. on any weekday or between the hours of 7:00 a.m., drive or operate any minibike, snow- 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on any weekend or holi- mobile, or other recreational vehicle not licensed day. for travel on public highways. Section 4. Receiving Land Use Standards. Comment: If other ordinances regulate or pro- hibit the use of snowmobiles or other non- Subdivision 1. Maximum noise levels by receiving highway recreational vehicles within the city, this provision should be modified land use districts. No person shall operate or cause accordingly. It should be noted that M.S. 84.90 regulates the operation of snowmo- or permit to be operated any source of noise in biles and other recreational vehicles in the absence of a city ordinance. such a manner as to create a noise level exceeding Subd. 2. Domestic power equipment, No person the limit set in Table I for the receiving land use shall operate a power lawn mower, power hedge category specified when measured at or within clipper, chain saw, mulcher, garden tiller, edger, the property line of the receiving land use. drill, or other similar domestic power maintenance - 5 - Table I. Sound Levels by Receiving Land Use Districts Day Night (7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.) (10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.) Land Use Districts . L10 L50 L10 L50 Residential 65 60 55 50 Commercial 70 65 70 65 Industrial 80 75 80 75 The limits of the most restrictive district shall Subd. 2. Exemptions. The levels prescribed in apply at the boundaries between different land Subdivision 1 do not apply to noise originating use categories. The determination of land use on public streets and alleys but such noise shall shall be by its zoned designation. be subject to other applicable sections of this Comment: These state standards dealing with ordinance. sound levels at the point of reception estab- lish a set of criteria which cities can utilize as is or change to reflect their own corn- Section 5. Air Circulation Devices. No person munity values. The ordinance section above imposes requirements at or within the pro- shall permanently install or place any air circula- perty line of the receiving land use unit cate- gorized by zoning use districts. It seems tion device, except a window air conditioning desirable to use the major districts estab- lished in the city's zoning ordinance as the unit, in any outdoor location until the (noise • districts referred to in this section,although state law actually applies to the receiving control officer) determines that the device in that land use unit according to its current use. As in the state standards, the table used in location will comply with the noise level standards the ordinance prescribes a somewhat more restrictive L50 standard than L10 standard. prescribed in Section 4 and issues a permit for In each category of uses the L50 standard is 5 dBA less than the L10 standard. the installation. The noise produced by any win- If a city omits this section because it does dow unit and by any existing air circulation not wish to involve itself in sound level measurement (though this section may be device shall be attenuated by means deemed ap- easier to enforce than ordinance standards that leave more room for interpretation in propriate by the (noise control officer), including, their application), it should also omit or adapt other portions of.the ordinance re- but not limited to, relocation of such device, if lated to this section on receiving land use standards. Such cities may prefer patterning the noise results in or contributes to a violation their ordinance after the short form ordi • nance, which omits technical standards. of Section 4. - 6 - Section 6. Exception for Emergency Work. noise control program established by this ordinance shall be administered by the noise Noise created exclusively in the performance of control officer. Until otherwise provided by ordinance, the emergency work to preserve the public health, shall serve as the noise control officer." safety, or welfare, or in the performance of emer- If the council provides for a separate posi- tion of noise control officer, the appoint- gency work necessary to restore a public service ing authority referred to in this subdivision is the general appointing authority estab- or eliminate a public hazard shall be exempt from lished by law or charter, such as the manager in a council - manager city, the mayor in a the provisions of this ordinance for a period not strong mayor - council city, or the council in most statutory and some charter cities. to exceed 24 hours after the work is commenced. If a new position is established and the city has a formal merit system, an additional Persons responsible for such work shall inform the provision placing the position in the classi- fied service may be required if new posi- (noise control officer) of the need to initiate such tions are not automatically in that class in the absence of appropriate action to the work or, if the work is commenced during non- contrary. business hours of the city, at the beginning of busi- Subd. 2. Testing procedures. The (noise control ness hours of the first business day thereafter. Any officer) shall adopt guidelines establishing the test person responsible for such emergency work shall procedures and instrumentation to be used in take all reasonable actions to minimize the amount enforcing the provisions of Section 4 imposing of noise. noise standards. A copy of such guidelines shall be kept on file in the office of the (noise control • . Section 7. Powers and Duties of (Noise Control officer) and shall be available to the public for Officer). Subdivision 1. Administering officer. reference during office hours. The noise control program established by this Subd. 3. Studies, etc. The (noise control of- ordinance shall be administered by the (noise ficer) shall conduct such research, monitoring, and control officer), who shall be appointed by the other studies related to sound as are necessary (appointing authority). or useful in enforcing this ordinance and reducing Comment: In most cities the noise control duties are assigned to an existing officer noise in the city. He/she shall make such investi- or department. In that case the language should be altered by substituting the name gations and inspections in accordance with law as of the official or department and omitting the clause about the appointment. Instead required in applying ordinance requirements. of substitu'tingAhe name of that official or department throughout the ordinance, the Subd. 4. Noise impact statements. The (noise subdivision may be modified to read, "The control officer) may require any person applying - 7 - j to the city for a change in zoning classification (noise control officer). If the application is for a or a permit or license for any structure, operation, variance for more than three days, the (noise process, installation, or alteration, or project control officer) shall give mailed notice of the re- that may be considered a potential noise source quested variance to all property owners within to submit a noise impact statement on; a form 500 feet of the noise source..Any person claiming prescribed by the officer. He/she shall evaluate to be adversely affected by the variance applied each such statement and make appropriate recom- for may, within 20 days of mailing of the notice, mendations to the council or other agency or of- file a statement with the (noise control officer) ficer authorized to take the action or approve the in support of his/her claim. license or permit applied for. Subd. 3. Action on application. If the (noise Subd. 5. Other powers and duties. The (noise control officer) finds that sufficient controversy control officer) shall exercise such other Owe rs exists regarding the proposed variance, he/she may and perform such other duties as are reais'dnable hold a public hearing on the proposal at which all and necessary to enforce this ordinance. `!' persons affected shall be given an opportunity to be heard. He/she shall also hold such a hearing Section 8. Variances. Subdivison 1 . Authority. r,r upon request of the applicant or any person The (noise control officer) shall have authority, claiming to be adversely affected by the variance consistent with this section, to grant ,variances '3applied for. Within 30 days of receipt of the from the requirements of any section of this ''ai'' application, the officer shall approve or deny the ordinance. application. It may be approved only if the officer Subd. 2. Application. Any person seeking a finds that full compliance with the requirements variance shall file an application with the (noise of the ordinance would constitute an unreasonable control officer) on a form prescribed by the hardship on the applicant, on other persons, or officer. The application shall state the dates during on the community. In determining whether to which the variance is proposed, the location of the grant or deny the application, the officer shall noise source and times of operation, the nature of balance the hardship to the applicant against the noise source, reasons why the variance is the adverse impact on the health, safety, and sought, steps taken to minimize the noise level, welfare of the persons affected, the adverse impact and such other information as is required by the - 8 - on property affected, and any other adverse ef- the (noise control officer) shall be given at least fects of granting the variance. The variance may be 10 days mailed notice of the time when and place granted subject to conditions, including a time where the appeal will be considered by the coun- limit, which shall be clearly stated. cil. The council may affirm, modify, or overrule Comment: Most comprehensive ordinances con- the action of the (noise control officer) on the tain provisions for varying the sound source requirements of the ordinance to prevent basis of the criteria set out in Subdivision 3. undue hardship. This special dispensation from the requirements is granted variously Comment: Ordinances that include provisions by procedures for exceptions, variances, for taking care of hardship cases usually or temporary (or sometimes permanent) provide for appeals from administrative permits. rulings on the application for an exception from ordinance requirements. Typically Sometimes such special treatment is limited this appeal is to the city council, but.some to the provision of special time limits for cities provide for appeals to a higher ad- bringing existing noise sources into corn- ministrative officer or agency either before pliance when the ordinance first goes into or in lieu of appeal to the council. effect, and sometimes it is confined to specified ordinance restrictions. The model follows a practice similar to that used in Section 9. Enforcement. Subdivision 1 . Notice zoning ordinances for variances. Provisions in the local zoning ordinances may provide of certain violations. When the (noise control a pattern that the council may wish to fol- low instead, tying it in to the noise control officer) determines that a noise exceeds the maxi- ordinance to the extent it is found feasible. If there is some officer other than the (noise mum sound level permittee: under Section 4, control officer), who might better perform the task of administering the variance he or she shall give written notice of the violation provisions, such as the city manager, ad- ministrator, environmental commission, to the owner or occupant of the premises where planning commission, or a special ad hoc board, such an officer or board may be sub- the noise originates and order such person to stituted in this section. correct or remove each specified violation within Subd. 4. Appeals. Either the applicant or any such reasonable time as is prescribed in the notice. party aggrieved may, within 20 days of the de- The failure to remove or correct any such violation cision on the variance application, appeal to the within the time so prescribed constitutes a viola- city council for a review of the decision. The tion of this ordinance. appeal shall be filed in writing with the city clerk. Comment: Until the determination by the The appeal shall be heard as soon as practicable officer that there is a violation of the sound level requirements of Section 4, the person and within 20 days of the filing of the appeal, responsible may not know that a violation exists, particularly when the ordinance and the applicant and any person who has filed first goes into effect. This section is in- cluded, therefore, to assure the person a statement on the application for a variance with responsible of an opportunity to correct - 9 - • • the condition before any prosecution is with an inadequate muffler, like most vio- attempted under the penalty provision of lations of the traffic code, are petty mis- Subdivision 3 or before other means of demeanors under the state law. (M.S. abatement are resorted to. Some ordi- 169.89, Subd. 1.) The law also provides nances confine notice provisions of this that local ordinances may not fix a different kind to situations existing when the ordi- penalty. (M.S. 169.03, Subd. 9.) The ordi- nance goes into effect. Some also set maxi- nance may make all or specified violations mum time limits for compliance, in some petty misdemeanors, if preferred. In that cases fixing longer limits for 'more costly case the violator is subject only to the corrective installations. maximum $100 fine on conviction with no possibility of a jail sentence. In prosecu- Subd. 2. Civil remedies. This ordinance may be tions under a petty misdemeanor provision, there is no right to a trial by jury and enforced by injunction, action for abatement, appeals are permitted only on questions of law. or other appropriate civil remedy. In a city with an ordinance code containing Comment: Although it may not be possible a general penalty provision, the penalty to affect the jurisdiction and procedure ' section of this ordinance may be abridged. of the courts by ordinance provision in most cities, the provision at least calls attention to available civil remedies. Section 10. Severability. If any provision of this Subd. 3. Criminal penalties. Any violation of ordinance or the application of any provision to this ordinance involving the operation of a motor a particular situation is held to be invalid by a vehicle is a petty misdemeanor and, upon con- court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining viction, the violator shall be punished by a fine of portions of the ordinance and the application of not to exceed $100, plus the costs of prosecution. the ordinance to any other situation shall not be Every person who violates any other provision invalidated. of this ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor and Comment: While there is some doubt that a severability provision alters what a court shall, upon conviction, be subject to a fine of not would do otherwise in construing ordi- nances, it is common to include it in ordi- more than $500 or imprisonment for a term of nances containing such varied provisions as this one. For example, the PCA regu- not to exceed 90 days, or both, plus, in either lation establishing noise standards con- tains such a provision. case, the costs of prosecution. Each act of viola- tion and each day a violation occurs or continues Section 11. Effective Date. This ordinance be- constitutes a separate offense. comes effective Comment: The penalty provided for mis- 19 demeanors is the maximum allowed by law. The provision for adding the costs of prose- Comment: In statutory cities ordinances be- cution is based on the statutory city code. come effective upon passage and publi- (M.S. 412.231.) Violations of noise limits cation unless a later date is fixed in the on motor vehicle operation and for driving ordinance. In many home rule charter cities, - 10 - l6 MODEL ORDINANCES II. Short-Form Noise Control Ordinance ,l; Comment: Motor vehicle mufflers are pre- ..? scribed by M.S. 169.69. Water craft .muf- The City Council of iprdains: flers are prescribed by M.S. 361.17. Snow- mobile mufflers are required under M.S. Section 1. Noises Prohibited. Subdivision 1. 84.871 and Department of Natural Re- sources regulation, 6 MCAR 1.0057, Clause General prohibition. No person shall make or cause (e). If snowmobile operation within the city is prohibited, the city may wish to omit the to be made any distinctly and loudly audible reference to snowmobiles in this subdivision. noise that unreasonably annoys, disturbs, injures, Subd. 4. Defective vehicles or loads. No person or endangers the comfort, repose, healthpeace, shall use any vehicle so out of repair or so loaded safety, or welfare of any person or precludes their ..as to create loud and unnecessary grating, grinding, enjoyment of property or affects their property's rattling, or other noise. value. This general prohibition is not limited by Subd. 5. Loading, unloading, unpacking. No the specific restriction of the following subdi- person shall create loud and excessive noise in visions. loading, unloading, or unpacking any vehicle. Subd. 2. Horns, audible signaling devices, etc. Subd. 6. Radius, phonographs, paging systems, No person shall sound any audible signaling device etc. No person shall use or operate or permit the on any vehicle except as a warning of danger. use or operation of any radio receiving set, musi- (M.S. 169.68.) cal instrument, phonograph, paging system, ma- Comment: In order to further restrict the use chine, or other device for the production or re- of these certain devices, danger can be more fully defined, formal permits for the use of production of sound in a distinct and loudly these devices can be required, or operational curfews can be established by the city. audible manner as to disturb the peace, quiet, Furthermore, the cities may wish to extend this provision to stationary sources which and comfort of any person nearby. Operation of would include noon whistles, church bells, etc. any such set, instrument, phonograph, machine, Subd. 3. Exhaust. No person shall discharge or other device between the hours of 10:00 p.m. the exhaust or permit the discharge of the exhaust and 7:00 a.m. in such a manner as to be plainly of any steam engine, stationary internal combus- audible at the property line of the structure or tion engine, motor boat, motor vehicle, or snow- building in which it is located, in the hallway or mobile except through a muffler or other device apartment adjacent, or at a distance of 50 feet if that effectively prevents loud or explosive noises the source is located outside a structure or building therefrom and complies with all applicable state shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this laws and regulations. section. - 12 - MODEL ORDINANCES II. Short-Form Noise Control Ordinance Comment: Motor vehicle mufflers are pre- scribed by M.S. 169.69. Water craft .muf- The City Council of ordains: flers are prescribed by M.S. 361.17. Snow- mobile mufflers are required under M.S. Section 1. Noises Prohibited. Subdivision 1. 84.871 and Department of Natural Re- sources regulation, 6 MCAR 1 .0057, Clause General prohibition. No person shall make or cause (e). If snowmobile operation within the city is prohibited, the city may, wish to omit the to be made any distinctly and loudly audible reference to snowmobiles in this subdivision. noise that unreasonably annoys, disturbs, injures, Subd. 4. Defective vehicles or loads. No person or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace, shall use any vehicle so out of repair or so loaded safety, or welfare of any person or precludes their as to create loud and unnecessary grating, grinding, enjoyment of property or affects their property's rattling, or other noise. value. This general prohibition is not limited by Subd. 5. Loading, unloading, unpacking. No the specific restriction of the following subdi- person shall create loud and excessive noise in visions. loading, unloading, or unpacking any vehicle. Subd. 2. Horns, audible signaling devices, etc. Subd. 6. Radios, phonographs, paging systems, No person shall sound any audible signaling device etc. No person shall use or operate or permit the on any vehicle except as a warning of danger. use or operation of any radio receiving set, musi- . (M.S. 169.68.) cal instrument, phonograph, paging system, ma- Comment: In order to further restrict the use chine, or other device for the production or re- of these certain devices, danger can be more fully defined, formal permits for the use of production of sound in a distinct and loudly these devices can be required,or operational curfews can be established by the city. audible manner as to disturb the peace, quiet, Furthermore, the cities may wish to extend this provision to stationary sources which .and comfort of any person nearby. Operation of would include noon whistles, church bells, etc. any such set, instrument, phonograph, machine, Subd. 3. Exhaust. No person shall discharge or other device between the hours of 10:00 p.m. the exhaust or permit the discharge of the exhaust and 7:00 a.m. in such a manner as to be plainly of any steam engine, stationary internal combus- audible at the property line of the structure or tion engine, motor boat, motor vehicle, or snow- building in which it is located, in the hallway or mobile except through a muffler or other device apartment adjacent, or at a distance of 50 feet if that effectively prevents loud or explosive noises the source is located cutside a structure or building therefrom and complies with all applicable state shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this laws and regulations. section. - 12 - Subd. 7. Participation in noisy parties or gather- Subd. 10. Schools, churches, hospitals, etc. ings. No person shall participate in any party or No person shall create any excessive noise on a other gathering of people giving rise to noise, street, alley, or public grounds adjacent to any disturbing the peace, quiet, or repose of another school, institution of learning, church, or hospital person. When a police officer determines that a when the noise unreasonably interferes with the gathering is creating such a noise disturbance, the working of the institution or disturbs or unduly officer may order all persons present, other than annoys its occupants or residents and when con- the owner or tenant of the premises where the spicuous signs indicate the presence of such institu- disturbance is occurring, to disperse immediately. tion. No person shall refuse to leave after being ordered Comment: The list of institutions may be al- tered to meet local needs. Some ordinances, by a police officer to do so. Every owner or tenant for example, add courts, nursing homes, and homes for the elderly to the list. of such premises who has knowledge of the dis- turbance shall make every reasonable effort to see Section 1 is intended to prohibit various noise r;s nuisances commonly proscribed by ordinances. that the disturbance is stopped. •!rio, Others may be added to take account of local nuisance situations. Among others sometimes Subd. 8. Loudspeakers, amplifiers for adver- found in noise control ordinances are (1 ) noise pollution from building, repairing, or testing inotor tising, etc. No person shall operate or permit the vehicles or other internal combustion engines; (2) use of model vehicles or model airplanes during use or operation of any loudspeaker, sound ampli- certain hours or in certain places; (3) use of ex- . plosives, firearms (see M.S. 116.07, Subd. 2a), or fier, or other device for the production or repro- similar devices causing a noise disturbance beyond property lines (sometimes permitted under certain duction of sound on a street or other public conditions with a special variance); (4) unmuffled operation of blower or power fans; (5) noise from place for the purpose of commercial advertising idling diesel engines. or attracting the attention of the public to any Some provisions either included or omitted in the model section may already appear in city ordi- commercial establishment or vehicle. nances dealing with nuisances, and some directed at noise by people (e.g., loud parties) may be Comment: Some cities may wish to allow such treated in ordinances on disorderly conduct or devices under city permit. If this approach breaches of the peace. is used, provisions for a permit should be substituted and standards for use of the device under permit included. Section 2. Hourly Restriction on Certain Opera- Subd. 9. Animals. No person shall keep any tions. Subdivision 1. Recreational vehicles. No,per- animal that disturbs the comfort or repose of per son shall, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and sons in the vicinity by its frequent or continued 7:00 a.m., drive or operate any minibike, snow- noise, mobile, or other recreational vehicle not licensed for travel on public highways. --13-- • /o Comment: If other ordinances regulate or t Section 3. Enforcement. Subdivision 1. En- prohibit the use of snowmobiles or other non-highway recreational vehicles within the fOrcement duties. The (police city, this provision should be modified accordingly. It should be noted that M.S. department, building inspector, or other specified 84.90 regulates the operation of snow- mobiles and other recreational .vehicles in officer or agency) shall enforce the provisions of the absence of a city ordinance. this ordinance. The police department or its mem- Subd. 2. Domestic power equipment. No person bers (substitute other specified officer or agency shall operate a power lawn mower, power hedge if listed above) may inspect private premises other clipper, chain saw, mulcher, garden tiller, edger, than private residences and shall make all reason- drill, or other similar domestic power maintenance able efforts to prevent violations of this ordinance. equipment except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. Comment: This Subdivision must be adapted and 10:00 p.m. on any weekday or between the • to fit the administrative structure and personnel of the individual city. In many hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on any weekend small cities the police department may be the only agency available for the purpose. or holiday. Snow removal equipment is exempt In that case the subdivision is consistent with the general responsibility given the from this provision. police department to enforce laws and ordinances. Subd. 3. Refuse hauling. No person shall collect Subd. 2. Civil remedies. This ordinance may be • or remove garbage or refuse in any residential enforced by injunction, action for abatement, district except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and • or other appropriate civil remedy. 10:00 p.m. on any weekday or between the hours Comment: Although it may not be possible of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on any weekend or to affect the jurisdiction and procedure of the courts by ordinance provision in most holiday. cities, the provision at least calls attention to available civil remedies. Subd. 4. Construction activities. No person shall Subd. 3. Noise impact statements. The council engage in or permit construction activities involv- may require any person applying for a change in ing the use of any kind of electric, diesel, or gas- zoning classification or a permit or license for any powered machine or other power equipment ex- structure, operation, process, installation or altera- cept between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 tion, or project that may be considered a potential p.m. on any weekday or between the hours of 9:00 noise source to submit a noise impact statement a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on any weekend or holiday. - 14 on a form prescribed by , the council, It or both, plus, in either case, the costs of prose- shall evaluate each such statement and take its cution. Each act of violation and each day a viola- evaluation into account in approving or disapprov- tion occurs or continues constitutes a separate ing the license or permit applied for or the zoning offense. change requested. Comment: The penalty provided in this sub- division is the maximum allowed by law Comment: If there is some other officer who for misdemeanors. The provision for adding may appropriately require noise impact the costs of prosecution is based on the city statements, that officer may be substituted code. The ordinance may make all or speci- for the council in the first sentence and the fied violations petty misdemeanors, if pre- second then may be altered to provide for ferred. In that case, the violator is subject evaluation of the statement by that officer only to the maximum $100 fine on convic- and the making of appropriate recommenda- tion with no possibility of a jail sentence. tions to the council or other officer author- In prosecutions under a petty misdemeanor ized to take action. Some cities,particularly provision, there is no right to a trial by smaller cities, may prefer to omit this sub- jury and appeals are permitted only on division altogether. question of law. Sucd. 4. Criminal penalties. Every person who In a city with an ordinance code containing a general penalty provision, the penalty violates any. provision of this ordinance is guilty section of this ordinance may be abridged. of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction, be If the city finds that full compliance with the requirements of this ordinance consti- subject to a fine of not more than $500 or im- tutes an unreasonable hardship, a variance may be granted. (See Long Form Ordinance prisonment for a term of not to exceed 90 days, Section 8.) KC:rmm 1/9/81 - 15 - Law Offices of KRASS, MEYER, KANNING, & WALSTEN Chartered Phillip R. Krass Shakopee Professional Building Barry K. Meyer 1221 Fourth Avenue East Philip T. Kenning Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Trevor R. Walston (612)445-5080 MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL FROM: PHILLIP R. KRASS, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY RE: DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT DATE: MAY 13, 1982 Introduction The City staff has been for some time working on a program to assist development in the downtown area of the City. The program would be a fairly modest one involving the creation of a small park-like area toward the western one-third of the parking lot on the north half of Lot 30, together with some street scape work on Holmes and perhaps Lewis with the intent of moving the commercial center of downtown off First Street. Background The staff is now at a point where specific action must be taken by the Council due to the fact that a new amendment to the tax increment law which will take effect as of July 1 , 1982, will preclude the City from "capturing" the increment created by the new addition to the First National Bank, unless we have that district created and in place before July 1st. The increment from the bank addition is vital to any plans we might have for making significant contributions to the downtown area. The bond attorney firms we have met with have suggested similar but somewhat different approaches to this project. It is generally agreed that we should create a redevelopment project area which encompasses all of the portion of the downtown area in which we may eventually choose to expend public funds. We would then create a tax increment district within the redevelopment project which will not be coterminc =-s with the project area. This is a significant departure to the two previous efforts we have had in the tax increment financing area, namely the K Mart Regional Distribution Center, and the Elderly Highrise. There we created a redevelopment project area which was exactly the same (coterminous) with the tax increment district. We are recommending that we not take this approach this time, but rather only take the parcels necessary to create a viable tax increment district, and take the parcels that are being built upon or in some way will be generating increased taxation in the immediate future. As there is more development within the redevelopment project area, we can create additional tax increment districts to capture the growth which may occur in the future. This has the advantage of not tieing the entire downtown area up into a tax increment district, but yet allows us to spend funds from any tax increment district we create anywhere within the redevelopment project area. It is our strong recommendation that we utilize this option in creating a large redevelopment area, and a small tax increment district. It may well be that if the documents we utilized in creating the Elderly Highrise project area allow for it, we may simply expand that redevelopment project area, and create a second tax increment financing district to include the bank, the Laurent building and perhaps the Moonen building. The estimates that we have received for maximum amounts involved in the creation of the expanded redevelopment project area, and the new tax increment financing district, are in the $7,000 to $8,000 range, reimbursable from the district. The more staff work we can do here in Shakopee, the less the cost will be. Alternatives 1 . Take no action at this time to create a tax increment district before July 1st and accept the fact that we will lose the increment created by the bank expansion. 2. Direct the staff to proceed to create the redevelopment project, and the new tax increment district, understanding the we can make the purpose of the district very broad, and add amendments later in order to allow the City Council the maximum number of options with respect to what you may wish to do to assist the downtown area. 3. If you determine to proceed now, you will need to select a bond counsel firm to manage the creation of the project and district. Recommendations The staff strongly recommends that we proceed now to create the expanded redevelopment project and the new tax increment district in order not to lose the increment created by the bank expansion. We feel staff could do a fair amount of the work here so as to cut down the cost of the creation of the project and district. Staff is unaware of any presently planned future development of the downtown area which would create as much increment as the bank expansion. If we are going to make any effort to help out the downtown area, now is the time to do it. Action 1 . The City Council should approve the creation of the project and district. 2. Direct staff to take all action necessary to assist in the creation of the project and the district. 3. Request that the H.R.A. commence the creation of the project and district and enter into an agreement with a bond counsel to manage the project and district. PRK:sm • /Gh I-. • r • r r r r•-•r r • r r r r • r • r r • ....1 -30' r W • W • W W W W W W W • W W W W W W W W W W W • W • U W • 04. 0 n .0 N • N • N N N lJ Na N N * N N N N N N Na N N N N * NJ * NN • W W W 2 'a' IJ • ► '1 .'J O '1 CD J • c) > a 0 O r. -3 (3 A U * 3 * 0 U • O O O 111 NJ 0 • 0 • ..I A W'A W (A(A • NN NN NNN N N AJ N. • r • ,7 * a' A W n r • A * C' N fn UI<n N cn • .... ..4 -.4 -4 0' 0' T 0 0 0 0 • is • a a • N N N' 7C '.l ti 7 -4 ,3 .7 -T1 C. ( - • _ ., . .A V )<., (L- J _ _ J 0 0 N N UI N N J1 N c., ,...1 .114/1 N N UI N N N N N JI N 000 V N .... .. r u••r ••r r r r r r r r r r r rr ( r r r r b N rJ Na N N N NJ N N N N IV Na N-IJ IJ,N N N N Na Na N N N N. X \ N \ -- N. ... ... N \ \ n O :D JO .D 9,.D 'O D .O O D CC,0 D 'J) X0 :0 D W m .D .21 m .S D :D T IJ V N 13 IJ NNNN !J N N'J N N N IU N NJ N Na Na") NNN m M • D 2 W v. C ~'• • •. z .0 9 A W U1 F'N ' (+1 r m "" Cr, '.4 N in W W O V N W m J.-) ON' N .V N N N NN N m F mm 0 D NUI NN .0 N r N N r 50 01N -JN-4 0000C) -.100i N N r r 0 , F O • + • • • • • • • '• • • • • • • • • • • • ' • • • • • ' 0000 A 0 o) IJ 00 N `-. .4N4 . O D C' :P JI 'F (J.0. ♦C '•' r A OI .. _' Cr, 'T ) • b .0 A a ,(N c) :> > ) r)O r N N W W O'D''-''J CM D N.0 V• 0) 0'CO MDQ O J rl r) r r .'T i) I ^A 0 C.. C.CC.C- D . . . . . a, A TOL An0, A O 000000 :1(91919 CC CCCCCI r ..-. OLP, -c P 1 M(A(R N(n(/1 -1 -4 -1-4 -1 -4.1, "0 MD 11 T T L 000000 Z Z Z Z 00n0000 2r'1 n M U NI 2 7C n nn nl) A 2222 7C • • • • • • mei rn r9 nal n n Cl Cl 01 n C 0.*+-+1 (n 3) n • 322ZS'3 '11Mrgr'111I'lt'1l -4 Y S CCC! Z O 0 r'i r'1 rl Ig rg,rl a.D a D Z Z Z Z Z Z Z'. O SC 000 O n Z D 000000 22 2 2 O 0 A. (n Z 12 S S 2.L O O U O :u A x A A A D' r D D a' A() -I O . • • • 4 A'A D A 0'0. 00000' 000' n T • Ig n n n n n n rg n M r'1 r r r r r r r' T r'I rg('I; I . 70 A 00000.0A ZZZ £1 Cl M Z Z Z z 0 Z (A(/1 N(n N In N, Cl n Cl n (1 J 0 -4-1-4 -4 -4-4 CCCCCCC O -4 -1 -4 * C 2 A A A A A A T A T T T T T T C A n • • . • • • T'T T T T T T n rrrrrrr:; -1 m• v) 0 • 1 In -4 Ig A 0 r1 •4 naa da a .40V)-1 r'1r'trrga 3N. In Ptr'1 Mr.-. Iti C a A n r r r r r A c n A o o o o r o c. 0 00 01.4(4' -1 A T a M0000'0 D M S D C C C C O -I T, C C CCNN C T .-+ •C .rCI9)C) CI9 co CC '-4.-I•4M •nOT .. .4r ram' I a .1 h1 -1• • • • • r9'. O in TTTT• Ar' T TT TNN' A r-P r r • • • • •.+• • • • • .r V O r1 r r x 2 3323 N 211M: I1 P t D a a D D 400 P S 3 2 S >C N 3 31 2 N 2 -. (n 1..4 r.-4.4►4 c P 0000.4M D D D D (1 P 1 V) OZZZZZ Nd N rh•.'-►+ ZC "-4 "'( r r A -4 T C Cork ZZZZ1Vt Z ZZ Z r M A :2 r• • • • • rp n O S -4-4-1.4• -4 -I-4 -1 T A Cl N T 0.0.1110.4ND Z N • • • • • • • • -r r t r . PPPPP P r L M V) UT T• N PPPP P PU• P Z ✓ 1 -4 A A A AA -I:-I r A V) rr1 • IM in rg r1 PI 00 • A AA Ar'I A MV mmA 2-v T A D'T )*1 rn r'I 1'1 O r'1 .. 0 1 0 . 1 T v T V • V T T '0 N 7 _• .1 O U 1 4 m r r pJ O .D ) O(3 :-' ':) O J .:) U •) P 0. (A r r r r r r r 00 00 r r r r r r r r 0.P. r r r n I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 n F O O N O O F 0000000 O 0 0 000 0 N 0 W UI N N N N N W W W W N N N N N N N. N Na N NNN C W. r W r W W W W W .J W W U1 W W W W N r CA WW W r r 1 N 0 c7 +(' G. O GO o r ^)h NNNN ONCa N NN NOO -1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A V• r r a(,.I Gl r r ' r r r V A W W P 0 F P 0 0 ♦r r 2 N r'• N C0 N Nr MS 000,0 r NNr 0 (A N N Nr Nrr 0 .I %0 '. N r r r I J r .)r r r a 0'r NJ r r r as r r as r r • 1 I I I I 1 1 1 11 I I I F O r .+ OU Wrr -)r••r JF W W 00' F O 00 Frr r IJ '^ N D N N I. mco 0041 0 r NNr F NN N Nr N 0.r. C O • r N • M '0 WN T 1 • r C N • D Y. N 3 Ci Ti N D • • • * * • N G) . • • • • • D rt • • • • 0 1 1 I I I I ('1 CI r) Il n n n 7C A 'x N y y •+ 0 0 0 h.N r r r • r • r• • r • r r r • r r i.e r r r r • r • r • h. uuwwu * w * w * w * ((A u * wwuu www • w • u * n •0 NN NNN • NJ 5 N • NJ . • N NJ N ► N N NJ N• fJ NJ N • N • N • .'- A • r • 7 • C) • O C) C) • hl N C) -7 Cl .J •1 • O • _7 • rl N Q•w (A w w • • .0 • W • rD F IT) • V V V•-d d -0 V * 01 * .T * n ,', C. 'J • m • (A * -I 5 NJ N 'r • w W w w NJ N NJ * O) ► L,1 • A n z -1 A • -,.J '1 .. r .... _ ... C ._ �... _... S' N 2 N 2 JI 0 0 (n 'JI (.1 2 0 2 2 2 1_11 (II (J1 ;1 :Jl -4 Co \ \ \ \ \ ..\\ % .4 - \ I'1 S r•.. 14 .. .. 0. V r N .r r r..• . . I.. 1J N N 1J IJ 1'J J r.l NJ f) N IV IJ N N )J N NJ I) f) x \ . N. N. N N. N.N. N. N. N.N. N. N. \ N. t CJ A J) D 9 J) n A 3) 'D A 10 m•) 33 ,n J) -A D -D :P `1 ,) ,') :J 14 FJ N IJ N I)iJ N N NJ N.. N NfJ N IJ :J . 1 f1 . ,J r•r r r C •.•) r r N r! N N • -4 J` ;,J1 •9 .9 '3 .0 -.11•d a r'P w c.1 73 01(1 a N v i)1 N u .4 J V rU1'•J ! G -1 d 1,C P Pm NN 1-•••1N VI( Pr -)N J -1 '.•� • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • AfJ .J )J LA S J1 N N .0 .J .. ! • , .i0N dNV\' CP • U' Sl4 •' • d -d 13 J w•''!1 L41(44 (JI J) •JO •• '7'C) . •3 PN •-)PI y P -J --/ '' 'D P 1 • • •' • • * • • - * O OnnO A n A nn n (D fL rS fa 000 -4 A CCCCC C r O I* .1. CCCC. •r •-+.+ • I C 2 r a 11 11 -a W ..4-•.4 -•, A a a • O N 2Z 222 < rlc.l ' rrrr' 222 2 IA N H.r.-1 C N H N D Cl) 11 r'1.'1 M113 rl 11 In • A 2 < 2 2 ?_ 2 Z J) 2 •r-0.4 AAAA (/) I1 •'1 :) G) C 0 0 •0 n C C b V)N N N -• (1)y N (1)N D M • N V) b O a A • • • n Cl) J • n = x x s � z. n a o 17 9 11 13 71 0 011 '1 .. 0 C., 0 o o n .4 0 0 1.1 m rl(1' r1 9 I'1 .n C n rtC = >L o ... 1,1 1,1 C 9 ;03373• CCC o z z :•l rl rl rh('l r z z2 v nnn C z I.1 • • • • • r Ci n n t .4. -r -r 2 C) ri -• < o Al r r c rn r :O n H • r1 Cl 0 H H • (I) H i'1 3) (A N Cl) Vi V) Al 11 13 ,-4 I-4 m N Cl)Cl)N Z)Q -0 -4 N .w CCCCC 73 b A 2 2 O CCCC. A a A A C ~ T '0 17 T t) O 2 2 C C •C• I) V V 11 11 '11 < 9 S rrrrr • -1 -• 77 .9 v rrrr • • • I.1 r M '-•r•M H .4 H D. } • H M N N r N 0 1 111 in 1.1 I (1) 2 2 2 2 in Cl Ni r1• Cl)b)V) rn I'1 N N V) V)N rl 0 C) n n IC N V)V) N r1 ri r1 V) N V) .9 rir') 3. AAA C n < Q• a• - < < < .D L r• 2 .•.r.r w 17 n -o - -1 nnn m C fn rI r1 V) M (/) 9 93 • Cc)NN -4 • • P • o d A 1' • t. '.). (7 ') .i .. p c)C .9C) r r) .J -. (i 9. I- 4..r r r r r r r r r r r r r LA r r r r• Cl 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( ( 1 1 I I n A A A P P F P P P P P P P P P P P P P A O N N)N IJ IJ w w w LA L4 N N N N N (A N w (A N C r I. ..h•r (n (JI Cr U1 cm ..rrr rrr L4 *• 2 ✓ C) G U O 33 G N . U U O C, c) ' •. G) (3 4) ��' '' -•I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 11 I I I _ ris 1"- c...4•-• w (A P. r rrr •w+ u O N) N)P. N 0•. r 1�• r N r CO L11 VJ .0 .I r r r • )O N)h. Pr r r r rr N ••' P N••. r Pr 1 1 1 • I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 0, 0+ Prr r U SU CA h. L. Lod rrr rrr-• u u N !J N 4- -n 0 0) r r r PJ r )'-9 T W 43 .. •• . '-• (i1 Z. r N fJ • I • r ••• c• -a 0. P 0s r ss CA 07 r N :21 % •1) a 1) I 0 r 0 7.) • J: A NJ :C Cl• 9 C) a 4. • * • * • • • V) C1 • * • • • • • • A I'1 • • • * ► • * • 0 I I I I 1 1 1 I Cl n n n n n n n n N Cl) 1/) 0 01 ✓) (/) 4) 1J ' ( _ • • r * or • r r * r r • r • ......r or * r • r 0 r r r r • W w W • W W • W(A • W I (AAA W U W W W W * W 0 W I W W u C) .0 • N + N • NN * NN * N + NN NIV NA)NN • N • N • N NN I CO • N • N • N N No N N • r 1 I- r rrrr rr * r • r • r r Po M N • W • W * r r I -- ' • CD 0 to y 32 X Cc Cc.V., -:D • r • W • W W (..0 C) • -1 * N • rr * 00 • Ul • -. r rr r r r r • (w * .0 • V '4 . X •1 r 7 r J < • • • O 0 71 ..� __ r- r �. .J F. . . .r .'. ,. O U) U)Cl UI UI UI UI JI U1 Ul UI Jl UI U) Cl U) Jl UI Cl -4 N \ \ .\i \ \\ \ \ \ \ \\ m 2 I-• r r r r H I•r r r r r r 0. 0..... 0. t, N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I•., 1V ;V N A \ N. NN. -55- \ N. N.\ \ N. N.\N. \. \ N-... .... O C) :D J) 30 30 .G .D CD 3) 'D .b CD CO CD CO 7i 03 D JJ. V N N NN N I V N N N N N N N I J I J N N N N N ri D • 2 r r C) C O' C 0 • z r r.. , W r or or N -1 (D 0) Wp)r rr ?UI'WNNNNUN NN! .43 '0 W.. rr J10 00 7 -)') NNN 00 N O: 00C1l 'A W Ul 43,0i UIUI -1 -I W '7, • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 7 , NJ 10 N N - .0 it .y 42:.4 .O .0...�'' •_.� ..' , ...i..,s 0 .0 v ., .� .0 4 UI D JD J10 UI 1)1 -' 0 .4 r UI U) 30 30 cJ 0 r)C) .J.7",471 C)c3 0 Ul UI W r N * • • + • 0 - Al + • I • .r r S 2 2 S -O 0.0 0 G) 0 G) 0 G) m• '.I 0 O 0! s 2 I'•I(i .x. I 7 D- D CCC, O 2 22 'A A 1) P'P P P P P P P 30: r 222' ' 2 zz 22 S rI r zzz W n MM 'Cl..? Cl '..C .21111.1 -4 _,_11 C - Ci Z 7_ Z2 ,72 1 -)1 M 722! m A A 00 V)(i) 041100000.0 r' • 0001 2 ..� p • n D A D D D D T• D e b m' O NNN' O p • r r IT -4 2,2222022 n A O ✓ nn (:77.-.7 )- -.".rrrr rr rr A m 1 S S U N 000. n O ,...7Q q Cl D D D R D D D R N ECIC' I O I • m :m 11 ('1 n r 04,04 r N N N M N 7 • • • 0 A = 2 A 0'0000000 A i+.1,. C 222222 .27' A ZZ 0 • AA Am r (0) m 30 2 (A (92 000 t•1 CCCC CCC'C -1 2 mmo r r C 00 CC 0 7o 0 0 0 C -I MM C b r CCM m 0 '0.4o 0V0 -4 rrrrrrrr < o l.04 '0 2 • r mg) rr m m z mmr. - • r r • -4-1-1-I -1-4'-I.4 r • • r o m m -1 mm '*1 m m m m m m m m m m P C 2 2 V). o Y N 3 C N U1 3 ✓ D1- D 00000000 D D n z 0404 r w r 0404 )u -4 2N 2 G)Gl 0 G)C>0)00 C Cl) 22 or • --1 r D DYD Y D DD CD- -1-4 9 • • ,XI 12 A A A A AA Nr. I • -r P C7'SOJ2 ► m3l WM `• G• W DDDD DDDR Vl PP 0 00000000 -• -Z (0 A A m m m m m m m_m • =V • I 1 MM 9 • •• • • • ,) ,'1 0 7 C 4 '7 c-,0 ,-,00000 O c) C) c., C D r r rr rr r r r r r r r n I I I I I I 1 ) 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I n ✓ O 40 0 O O OO O N NNN 0 NN NN NN N W W W W W W GI W WN W N r C W r W N rr W N N p .2 G) NN 00 N 0 0 0 0(7 C)n 0 O N11 4 1 1 1 1 It I 1 1 1 1 . 1 4 1 I I 1 I W I 2 W 0 uO 0' W u VO' 0' OW Wrr u' N WNW O ✓ r 1...N Nr r NNNN Nr 3O) r ✓ r Ncm Nr N r(p 0 O' rr C) • I 1 I 1 11 I I I 1 1 1 W O WO 0'W (A •40' 00WW0'r W 0 0'W0 -r r r rN Nr r NNNNNr W O) r N NNN 2 0 • r a, • A2 C) W 30 Cl 30 'O 1 W • r O N CO 30 N 3 Cl 'O N D • • 0 • • • N G) * 0 * 0 • • • r • D m • w * * + • * G) 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 A r) n n n n C) n n 7c2 I 2 2 2 1 • 2 x W N 0 0 0 0 0 (/) 0 0 4 ` • .. • r.• 1,+ • N.•r • r • r • • r-r•.• * r N • tw • 44 4 • 4 LI LA • w 4 • 4 • 44444 * u4(.14 • 4 n ,G * N • N N N • N N N * N N • N * N N(J N N • N N N N • N 2 37 • '4 * 4 L.1 (4.1 • 4 4 4 ► (9 4 ► N • N N N N Al r N N N N. • N in N • .+ ► r.- •• • . :% r - - • 'O * J7 a' a 3) tD .1 v r J • Cr, n • 'O • -I.1 ON • (A (.1 4 • .' ..) • -( * O Q 543 (D 00 • • ._ 0 .4 • .1 7C n H .2 -4 U t • 0 11 _ c. .- c c, a kr t ,.. )) !)1 (3) U1 N (n 'r 0 N UI ()) UI U1 LI U1 LP UI N U)4 N 1 G) H.• •+M N H N F+.+ r H N r F+ F+ D I) N N •J N N(v N N IJ N N N N N Al N IJ IJ N lr I) o P '.0 31 9 'p .D :J 33 U) 5 .D ,o J7 03 J) D ,L) :D "D 3 N '4 N N Al N- Al 1.1 N N rJ N N fJ IJ N N N N 1'1 m ). C U PA,r r r C • • • •. - 4 N Y.- .D F'O" O a C.1 4 N r J•'•' •- F -4 4 13' 0' ON U1 .1 CO, N N 0 0 r p..4.4 r :D.+.I 4 N 6'0' N'O U) 'O .O ON 4 N.•i d d .O)D N N O'N 0' 'O N 4 4 N1 Ln -1 07: to m • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • '• I • . • • • • :J1 L4 O V -/ .-NI J' .) d N P) N U1 •D -,. a 0' ') (J U1 • .) ,n SUI -) ) O T.D 4 4 Lig 1 U) :)' 0 UI O O TIT -1 J• O O U1 O '.r`] 1J . .+. + .) 2 ; Z : r r r r z r r-r-.r•r r 7C 7C 7t 7C 7t 1' r+ n '5 .-r ..... O C O n Is 2. Y D. 3771 A79 J T n n b 7 n•7n N 0 -i'-4 -•-( -• D r. b t• m n nO 7C 7C 7t Is v) •. 22222 N1./3 (1)0 I C C s• r m v) A.A A 70 .Z) (/)v)() v). 2 < r I'1 (A II 11 13; r OOACO - \\ s C9 "Ti mm N A70 A' C r j '9 '013 " 3 3 3 7C 2 1 7• 2 •5 .4 M.-1' 1 m I').9(9' to 0 n z z z .- f "D 'a'O ' t < < t'. O I I'• .•• -1 -4-i (.3 s• > > > L n .9,9.9 m. v. ,-. C 0 1. 2 C ., .a.....r A A A A -1 n CC -i A L Z2 22 _- '- a I ..., r1 a I'1 -9 -1 1-1-1 74 74 7c 7C 2 m nom N 14 2 b b D Tx'r O n • • fJ n v) v) N N(A 2.2.2 .2 D 7C O Cl CC C C C 2222 V 13 '13 '0 '0 '0 .r 04 0.4•-•. L9 S '0:'0 '0 '0 13 2222 m rrrrr co co c1 c) C) t t .1 t � N N -I ('1 A 1 m N 0 '0 '0 '0 3 ..4 73 RI CO co O co 3 13 '0 '0 VI r A 0C C AAA m ,3 m a,rrrC 737J 703 CO -4 I. C3 T •—(r••.+ Z D 2 C C.003 0000 0 m < .. '0 '0 2 2 2 4-1 < -1 •.0 0 0 '0 11 1) 11 1) .• 2 PI 13r r - -5-4 1 m a '0• • • r • • • • '0 r • .. .. r-•....•. 1 r r • ., • 0 C) t1 222, C N ;3 7C[1 0000 m co •-' P as P O N .4222 < < <<I. A C 2 z C 2 -4 -/-1 M.-I.•04. 2 F. a -1 13 '0 '9 s -1.• •P . n n(-3 n -1 '0 N • CCC O 0 • mmmm • -4 H O '.D CO C •-' P 01 W N N N(n 0.4 v) as • • • m o 0•' 0• O -4 N -4 A A 3 2 • A • A Rimm 7D r') m O -0 0 m -0 -0 • • • '0 • . • 1 C31) o U1• .-7 CO c' o 000(3o N(AN ' C a .+ .-r .+ SO r r r r r r.'r r r 7) O'4r 4- n 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I n o a s o a o a O O a o o a a F O 4 N N N 4 4 4 NO 4 4 N N N N N 4 4 4 4 N C 4 4r r (.11 CD o N 4 CO 44444- r...+ 0. 4 2 Cl N O O [' O O O O 0 N C`0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N -1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I •-• a a 4 (Ji O' 4 ,O 4 .- O' a' a' r 0' (n)O W •-. 4 2 N NN N 4►"4 r .- ( N4•' O N 0+r0Q' r 7 .' Cr*0, )- Or r .• 0' P. 00 .1 P.N 'O r•. r N • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 r Fa (,1 OCf, 4 .O 4 •- T O' 0' 0-40' O'O 'OOA 4 •• N NN N IA)r4 r .• is N Al r O N r.'r 0' •' t ).- ca 4 a • a 0 0+ Cn N '0 1 • r O N • O a Al 4-;'1 '0 V) I. * • • • • ► • • V) 7 • • ► • I • • • > m • * ► • • * • • C) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.1 n n A C) n n n n 7C X 7t 7t 7C I I I co co N 0 N 0 N 0 F • r' • ►" • r • • • .2 144 •-•I-. ► r r r * rrr r W * W • W P. W W W W W W W W W W W W W • W W W W ► CA W 44 * W W W n .0 N • N • N • N N N N N N N N N N N N N p N N N N • N N N •• N N N 2 O A * O • O • CA(A CA W r.l W ..) (a(A C W C W • W W W(./ * (A W W ► W W W m N S • P • W * 7 ,o0777730 ')27 .07 ,3 • 0000 s LA F P • 000 n -I • rs • P • . -4-4 .4 -4 .4 -4 -4 .4 .4-4 -4 -4 -4 • F o P A • '• .0 '' * O. 0`0• X '9 r-• 7 -4 0 -C • O 0 -i : r: - c.. .... ., 00c -. L .. 4: 2 C:: c. ) ,, ti c. ] .) . S. 'o (0 0 Ul (012 (00 UIUlU1 Ul UlN (AU1UI 0000 0 Ul Ct) UI NU1 -4 V \ \ \ \\ . ... . . .\ \ \ \ \ \\ -, -. \ - --. . m 2 • r to IA I-) NNNN NNNN NN NNN r) NNN N N n) N N N 7C MJ N N 1.) N r.) 1`( N iv N N N N N(V NN C.)N IJ N N N IJ N N Iv 11 a 2 co ' -a- C i 2 ,Q W r Ul UI MM r r 1 .P .o. F P -d r Cr. -4 W U1 0• N r 0 W N W (F r r N A .0 .Q U1 LA LA u U N./. -J D 'XI 'b CO : W CO O W 0.J r N Cr. J r LA .O Ul 'O'NN Nm j JO 030 0 0• W W LAN ' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .• • • • • • • • • • • • • • P NPS - •)• W V-.) V WUIU1 .) P 'NO' W :.O •l ,Q 04) `' oo .ON PN CO 00 •) P.)0'fprNrN' -J5D0' W :U1 .2 •.' oUI ..),.../ o.6 .Q.O F0o(0 • • • .• • * * • • a 13 11 z2Tz7_ 7zz77 Zzz 1333 It p 3 '733 L. 0 .r LZLECLCCLCLLS « < -( 2 O 12 000 , -4 1^,(1 r'1 m • 2 r -4 -1 -4 0 = -• 7022272702D77 DSO I 2)727131 01 0 000 ' 0 A 9 i'1mm"1mr'1r1 lrl rl lr91"1 N V) 00 3 A • ADm < < rrrrrrrrrrrrr i C -4 N rt O 0 r r r .. .. .r r r r r a o n n i m -4 12 12 12 2 p C -4-4H r 3 a a s n J CO -/ r 0 A XAA 0 m m a. Cl 0 0 0 I'I 4a -y -1 -r Al X m 7333 F r a• ( (0 C.) n N 0000 r I 2 -4-1-4-4 p• r -i m n H N M.- N • CCC ‹ N -4 mmmm n r1 m 2 A c a • 0 z m -, N 1 0 A M r'1 7 -/ -4 -L.. .. .. .-4-4 -1 m m m m N 12 m m 1 0 '- 0 0 m m m m m r'.rl m m P1 m m m m 0000 c z (0 00C -+ • c-• CCCC ZI 0 .-• ti0 1, 2 . -.-- t '1 4 mmmmmml'lmmmmm .4.4.4 r4 m ' Z 12 12 a 121212 12 12 12 12 12 0 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 P -07r • • r 2222222222272 • • • • 0 H • .-L O CO 000000000000 m 'nm r9 3 3 2222222222222 3222 m 0 3 C cn N n n Is 'lmmmm mmm l'lmmm Da a n 3 '0 art n ✓ N M M N H D C P Z N 'y Z Z ZZZZ -4 .-• -4 1 1r -4y m A 12 -4 12 . . • • A m c -4 • • r N CO m Q• Q• 102. 00 P • P 0 . r z :9 .0 Iv r., mmmmM.y -o 12-o -o '2 12 • • • • • • • .) t J r.7g(.3 '0C•Cl '000U`, r3 OOp .] 0 •, =) [•rO -7 D ✓ ►• r N r r r r r r r r r r n 1 1 a 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 P) a a A a000 A A A A a a Cl N N W W W W W W W W W W W W W W N N N N N W W N N N : W W LD N N N N N N N N N N N N N W W LAW r r 0 WN/—. v Cl N N 0 -I N N I0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1414 1 N , LI 1 I 1 1 1 o T r r O A W W W N rrr rrr 0.A W r a W r a s 0• 2 N W W 'ONrW NrC( -/UI WNr W N r-1 N r r NNN ClN m r r r 0• N r -1 • 1 1 1 1 1 i t 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 0 r r A a CA W ().N 0A W r A W r O A 0• .4 N r) W .O NrWA)a CA m d to WNr NN0.-' -1 N 0• W NNN C m O .0 • A W W a Cl 111 CO 0• N 7 .0 7 V I W N • r N A O N • • 1 . CO a N 3 M 12 v) a * • • • • • n 001 • * * • • • • • • • • • 7 1 1 I I 1 a m A n n n n fl X 0 0 N N 0 0N N N r • r'I r • r r P.r 0 rrrr 0. P. * .4 p4 • r • r * r,r r ► r 4 • 4 4(A • (A 4 (A 4 • CA lo 4 (A (a 4 • (A u • A • CA * 4 4 4 * n .0 N • N N N * N N N N * N N N N N r J • N N • N * N • N N N * S CO cn • rn(n UI • 0(n(n (n • N ut u) U1 (n N • a a • a • a • .0-8. 0 • r-1 N r * .. • .J J .J '_7 * a 0 '3 .7 C. 4 ► 4)W * 0 • Co • Ch S C• • Cl .I • 33rD CD • r II r n(n UI • (A 444 NN • 43 .0 • rJ • •.7 • rrr * 7C Cl H 2 -a L.) -4 • 0 co -n J1 U1 N-U) U1 4 UI N Ur Ur U1 U) (n JI to U• U1 UI to (n LA -4 N I- o+r-r r r r r r r r.+ r r r r r... r TT N N NJ P4 N NNN NNNN NN Ne 6.8 N N N N N X (A Cu D y D CO m D :D CO 13 ]D 7D (D JD 43 (D .D D 3 D 13 N N NJ r) iv N N N N N N(V N N (J N N N N N `D 01 (1 r• 2 0 C 2 N N r -4 07. .4 UI 4 �LA �a r N N tA a a 'UI 0 14,CA N -.UN•' 4 JrNJ 004a -.I '.0 •N J'.11 .O V(3) .0 S •NUI 4- 4..4 JCDI• .1 -4 • • • • • • • • • • ',• • • • • • • • • • • '• • • • • • ' • • a .J ' T ' ' -+l U7NN D ;4)NJ W NN Cn -.7 Q. N -1 • . O. ' •• N e. a m -Ir .D 0M .1 UT .• 4 J G r(Si r.0 'J u LA LA ,- .1 Ij C4 N is'.UI .) 7D 1 • • • • • .• •• • •. • • (n Vl N v) () N In N N V)NIA N N (q N N CD 12,1:073 -17 2 r 2 2222 2222 22 • nn n• '• PI(I 01 C n la n n n n n 1.1. a D. a 0 0 0 -4 N .4 « Cl X 7C X X X X X 7C X 7C X 7C X -1-I Cl •• 2 2 2 • opo 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 :7 1-I, r 'a 0.0 0 - 4 -n Cra L Ti 13 13 13 13 13 1313 13 I r Cl rrr ;7 MMM +1rti1r9 1-11r1I'1Cl , rn PI nn 1+ a 000 2 r;r1(1 rn r1 r1 rn Cl In r1 rn • rn r1 -It -4 .4Z N N Cl) 0 <<< rrrr ; X2. .22 n 1 • • tc:= i A 0 00 Cc Cc 0000 pU .-4 n101.1 n rrr r 222 L L SL A7) ...4.4 z r'r-r _ rrr 0203231 1'1rl11rl 00 .177 0 000 n . P m r) r1 C r)in • • • • r1 Cl C .-.2.r.'-+ n .( 4C < ]1 A :LI 10 • a s N -� 2 z .71c N N ' --1 G1.N GI Z 2 2 • C C 2 • A . !limn • 7070 •.. piCl S L N N N N M N 1 A C 131313 03 c NN ri(NNN VI I)13 A 0 r1NN ►. -. 70 A7) rr CC OCCC 00 3013 f9 C OCC ..1 H M...H 001113 C1) CC CC -1,1 z t1 CTT rn r z z 2 GIr7 17 1:1 4-413 ro 1 .' .'I Z2ti N -4'roro 2 ..+ -4 -4-4 • • r r 1rrr 1:1 1) '-I 1 0 vrr 14_4 N .4.1 • M M M • • • M N r es • •..4 0 r 7_ .22 22x1)1 4-1 rn rn zz N rim • to 4-n c) 01 G) DDNN 2 VI NN 22 G10 N 2'NN N N ....•.. a a s C a C) \ go Q•go Z Z •• H 1ti go P• 07 N' A 41 .-4 -4 2 2 Z N 2' 1-• ✓ 131313 -1 -(-4 1313 -n -I to 4-n c Cc • • • Fog CD • Cl IC0 ea e4 W -4 • • • es ' goes • • la es. 0 • 77 2 •9 2 mm ('1 Om • A 12 1:34-'1 11 4-q • in. • • II lo ro v' • • • • • r '1 0 a 0 0 a 'a 0 0 0 • o n 0 0 Ci .GD ')CT o a r U1►+r r rrr Wo........ ...•-• 4-r r r rrr Cl I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 I I I I I I I I n a a a a a a a a a a a a • a •a a a a v a a 0 'A 4 4 4 N N N N N N N N N N 4 4 4 W N N N M 0 in N 44 r r (04r4-4-. 44 NUI OD .0 014-4- Z u 0Gr7 c7 CP 0 C. N 000 NN OO o r N.p o "1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ISIS • I I I I 1 I I I P-4 hNr 0%40% D • CMCM a 004 •r 0' 4 • a4 2 op .D 4 N 4 r N 4 N N N N NJ-4 C(J I N 4 N N N 0 r rrr or 4-r us Ni r.- 4-r U)4- • r OT p.4- • I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 r rNr- 0. 40) P a0. 0• a a4- a4- 0• 4 004 14 9 N 4 N N r N N N N N N N V r al N) 4 N N N c • Is c in 13 • r 0 N • 1 co a N 2 Cl 13 N a • * • • • • N C) • • * • • * * * a Cl 1 I t 1 I I 1 I Cl A n r) r) Cl ('l n C) 7t X X 7C 7C 7C X X N N N N N N N V1 CI) • _.. _ _.. .-.. 444.4 _._. _ .__4_4_. .. __._.,.-' • -� ` 4+.r • - • .+N P' • F. - .+.+r .. • ".'.••. • .-• ...M.N••N a 4+ .' Col(A * ,A • W W W * W W W W W (A * W CA 4I W I. W (N (A(A 41 LA W W W W W CM CM n 43 IV N * N * N N N • N N N WIS.! N • N N N N • N N 4.) N N N N N N N N N N t CO LIFO • UI • t/l N Ln • (11 N UI Ut(n Ul • N UI UI UI • LA Ut Ul UI UI cn U1 U1(.11 UI UI Ui U1 i'1 nl - F • A' * W'A W • N N IV IJ N N.) • N N N N • .' .-` .•I..'•'.'N..'N.'r 4-' ." 0 Col U4 * 7, • r r+'• • -U V 0 O.rn 111 • ) CI ': * 'D -U V - . .. .. V V V V X P T_ -4 'C • 0 O , .. c. _ .� .. _. t _, I. UI N 0 (JC UI Ul U1(71 :ri La U1 :JI N UI Ul U7 UI I-'1 VI .11 J1 U1 U1 Ul U1(1 U1 JI (11 -4 () �.sc � I.� ••• � N. . 's " I.N. ' ". r1 CD r.4- .. H N r• Y+ ...FA M. FA•• .+ .. P. .. r.- .-..•.-r ..r Y .i 1, Ti PUP) ,',) ',It.) iJ N N N N N N:'J IV N IJ IV N N N N N n) N IV I.) 3 7D 4)) D D A D .D '1) CD,CD.D .0 ./313 -01) D -A D tD Jl rD.D J)".D A M CD '0 T NN I. N(J IV NN N iV IJ .'J N N N(J n.) N IJ N N N (J IJ I.) IJ N N IV i'1 'Ti A 3 '3 NJD i` N C • W.• W(A 01 U(N� W 1W V A '4 N V - V 1.' I- W UI UI ::-.1 C N A N WI .JJ CO•4►' J1.0 CD AD NJ NJ (A UI UI W .D N ON N ON N W' UJ (JI -,OD V W c.)C", N C. Cl A...N 0' •'(0.G.' A .J. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -• "C.4(7, 0. U•r I,4- ' (11 :, U1 4 ;A c. . CA U1.-'W'A A 0(A D 'D Iv Y` .J •-/ _. 4444� �� � ' D "-J , 1'3t..3 .3 •.- WW—LA N U1'D A .1 V .-J CO J '.1.J C '. cl.-. -0 N V'A Z N N •3 A N A • * • • • • • • NN n NNN NN N N(A N 1 (AN NN V) (/4NN NNN/• V)N C/) NN' no r L t S Cc CCC C -I-4 -4-4 -4 V 'oV 0 9 'J V V D V 1 U 2 T. Pi AAA MM "1(1,1 a n IS n n 1 • CCC C C C C C C C C C 7,, 2 XMA MM rrr C AAAA n nnnnnnnnnnn mm J OOO A-A A MAMA V < 4-4- D - 0 a 24,D4 'L ' D- CD N cn V) UI CO '1 rr i-i rn T 33 CCC n n 2 V m(1m 21 r'1 N V)0 2 n n n n 1 2 O a•Q• -07) A •--.'4 Y» rrr r n 0 C ] C) a r-. G z 0' m in I'1 I'1 3 :C 0 4'.4... nn mmr: 2 aD DD v) n nl> -4 r-r- r .0 .0 woo 0 2222 _ 00 -4 000 • .-i..4 M .-4 S Cl 171 01 n 72 > 2 O n C., Li MMM 69 0 .0 N )< zz C300 .Vr CCC M ,,1 NM -4 "1 .D ' J D4 • I- N -4 /1 A 'DM V MMM OW NNN V WCDmOJ V A AC CCc c CccCc "4 '00) :a cop Cc CCC A rrrr ZI mm . .... -4-4-44 4 .4 '.4 00 CD C C C MM M V V O 0000 O •c -c m TIM m .4.4.•4 VV V V V T 0000 P .4.. rrrrrr rrrr 3 . . • 12 -013 rr r r r • • • • • • -4 -4 P1 • • • OW (n (~'1 Cl Cl P. ('i 23 ZS V) 00 'n MM Cl 333 NN NNN m DDD D m -4 -4m mmmmmmmmm N 7:47:1 ,-p Dn S •4.44-.'4 A SSNNNNNNNV) NN n '0 < < 4-44-4 h < 2222 < mm \ \\\ '5 \' \\ \ CO .-..4 •• 22Z I. -111"1 P. A Am m m m m mm ('1 mm '4 nn n -4 -(.4 n • • • • n r r r r r r r r r -To m I'1 • • • m m n n m m m m m m m m m m .4 N'i) N N Q•Q• Q•Qs N OOnnnnnnnnnn .4 PPP, 707O44A rr• • • • • • • • • • 2 mmmrl . • 1'MM vvv0 V V'9 • • • • • • • N N a O CD C3 0 0 .0 t]u Uf Co 0 CJ fJ 7 CO a -,.)y.., CO,O CO (= '7 r-1 D W W r 1+4+•' ►-r rrr 32 0-.441+1- r W W''4+/+ ►• II I III II III I 1 1 1 1 I n A A 41 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A W W 'A NNN NN NNN W NNNN W '0 0 W W W W W W W W W W C 4-4• r W W W .•r .- .'r •- W W CA W r (A(A. ...... .-4 V 2 C)CD C) NNN OO 000 CI (:000 n 00000000000 0 -4 I , I 11 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 4 U1 U1 N A W r P W 4,(A 1- U1 W.+r r W 'A W 0 1T O' O' A A W W W•" 2 CC) N N 4+N .-.' N4(04 n "COMM r r 1+ NN N r NNON►' 00 0 *OW •' MN*. *A NJ P.W.r op r.0 NS- (A N 4•• CO 1,11 N. ..... N • so I I I I 11 I I I 1 I S I / 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 / 1 1 AA N 40 W'' A W A W" A W''1-4 N W .D .00 0' 0 0 A A W W W r "' .-.• N N r N N t' N r W .- ►'00 M 00 •" 1".. N N N."N N O N Y' 41 C r .0 . CD a a N N U1V I m • r I O N • D a N V Cl v N n • • • • • N 0 • • • • * a rn l • • • • • m 1 I 1 I I n n n n n X R 7C CD CD V N 0 0 0 N • C .- .+ r r r O. • .•W. * r.•. * H ► •- r.•• * N I... • I. .- 4 4 4 Cl 4 41 ► CA 4 * CA W • W • W (A W • U W 4 • W n .D N N 14 N N N * N N * N N • N • N N N • N P)N • N = S CD CD A CO 03 3. • 0A Cr • 01 Q•" • 0. • N UI ut • UI 411 cll * U1 m N ) .. ..7 -) • 4 W. • NN. • r.. • W .0 4) • v V V • O n O 'A N •• : ":]. * 0 0 • .J.0 * , • • W 4 * .0 (b 7. . • F 7C n 2 -. �) -4 • 0 U1 L) CJ1 U UI '.1U1 UI Cl U1 U1 U1 UI UI cn U (.'1 (414 Cl) I - � N. N. N. N N.N. N. � ▪ N.N. N. s - rD I .• .• ..r: .-.. ••. -. .+... r• ..r .-• T• r%) P. n, rJ N N N(r)' N Ni N 1J N N. N 1'4 44 fJ 7C \\ \ \ -. -• \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 .D 'A JG 9 'D 4D. ,D A 9.D, 4., J) 6D '.D A •9 :9 Co 9 •'J • N N N rA I•) wN' N N N N NN N N N PJ r'1 •'1 a r 2 0 .0 .0 r . ! 4 C •• 4 4 0. as .+ W N ..• .-. N•N 0.0' •O T -4 N -4 -4 NN rA W NJ 01 0 a(A:. .1 a Wi 02 CO 00 U.UI 4.31:0 .... row NN UI'. "D J7 ••r v .1 c.o G. • -d 0 N• V (A 4 O a OrM1.)N A:a .D .D '', ' CD J) N' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • - • • • • • • • • • • • • • ' 'a c.' U .0 UI U) .. .. r) -.) a J`A r.0• )) 'D .O .p • .O UI 'Ai co 'JI U1 F A .A . P) N 'A U) D ) .., ...,D .•. ,• C)Cl' • • N 71 .0'••D •9 JI V •.) r.J .i .•... 'D. • • * * * • • • • • 4. • • C) '3 to A 0 0 x X X C C7 < .0 •C C C C (A •• A a C ; 3 01rI .-,.. A a a D. • z2 0 y2) o • • A A r r C`1 ('r r N .-•..y < .4 nl n n •1) •7: 0 O n n' o t- 'r r '• M 'n .h NA V) J 4 C C. X X 0 O i c) (9 :in m n .) o r < 1" -, -n 0 A x I < '< < • XX r r.1 A .0 0 • • nn c ' '3 z z L. O C7 .. 0 0' V V' 00 I-.1.4 • N N 3 'J o a r C C AA a 9.1 x i V 2z 3. c) • r O 'U' >r V 9 L. r 0 0 U '0 C C 2 ti I'' Z .. .A A • • 1•1 m, y A • • In 2 2 ID n s V x AA' L -4 V rr C) S A v) c7) Cl)V) O V) V V • M N r'1 m C r'1 O� I:DA 22 3. n 1 n 0 0 C) ..P. m 7C m .J . . V V o -, 4 z • • D. a z m m , -4 A F. • 2 2 -0 0 0 I m 11 1't • 0 0 a N -4 Cl Z) r7 "7 m I'1 0 0 '0 V V)N 1 0 3 N V m 0 C •-, C 9 0 0 C C A A C C' A C O C A O C -, -1 r1 o C C mm .... 'o 3. 0 V '-4T o C3 .-. m (v) 71 P. .. 00 22' VV C V 0V 31 .. V r 3 • -0 V -1•. rr m r Ar • ro (-' .. X • • Q•Q• *..1 4-4, -P. r .• H • ., -4 0 0 z 2' m m m -41 m V) m .. i'1 0 m 3 3 00 0 C) 00. Q• N CO m 20 m 0 C A b D• C C m A 1. 0 ri 7) < .. •-, 2 CD as as V) r < r A 0 ►• 2 2 N N • C co a, z .. .l n -4 ti n n V V 3. n -4 v A 01 • • AA C C N m • -4 N N H W 72 P. 0 H 'v Q• Q• m m . • N w o -I -1 y 2 • A A • • • A m PC m '0 '0 V • • • ..1 o ro on - 0 - o o -2 C3 o b P• r .. r r.• 0 r H 4- P• r r r r 1--.. r r) 1 1 I 1 11 1 1 I I I I 'I 1 I I I 1 r) a a a a aa' F a as a a 'aa a • a • 0 Co W N N W 4 4 4 N N Co N N N 4 N N W C •0 .• W (a .p y UI N r.+ L/ P-' N r r 4 r -4 2 •- CI N N r.• O n O 0 O A N O O N O 0 -4 1 i 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 I , I I 1 I I •-• V a O a • P•r .p W r 4 a • H 4 4 .. 2 •• N =• N r .0 UI P.P. Ut I- N N 0. H PCO 0 ••• .' 0 • r P. PN P.P. .. CO 0 P. r N P- • • I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I •-• -4 a a •a •••r .0 (..• P. 4 a s r 4 W r P. .. .- N r N.. .D UI r.- N i-• N N A •-.• 9 2 N ... N .- • •.• 0' Ul U1 tJ N 4 4 a a N .O U1 1.1 (.0 3) CO -4 d V I r 0. U. • 4- o O N • CO a N m V N • • * • • • N 0) • * • • • • Y m • • • • • • o 1 1 I I I I m n r1 n n n n 7C X X 5 7C 7C N N N Cl) Cl) 0 32 r C -' P. r r r 1• r r r I-. l H 1-. r r r r r r r (A U U w w u W u (A U. (A w LA W w co W (.• n .D N N N N N N N N N N N N N) N N N N N S 3 a co CD (0 co co 7D (D a (D m co J) :D co 31 a 37 Al N . N N ^J r r .+ H ,..• r r r r r -J :) ... -i n N ..4 '1 .O O0 .. S (11 A U1 N •- `) .a b v CP U7 7( n 2 -4 • .0 -C • - 0 O -(1 _ ., C. _ ._ _ 15. U1 Cl UI N U) UI U1 U1 Ul UI UI ul UI UI N UI VI UI -1 N \ \ . . \ - .. � _\ \ _\ \ \ _\ _\ \ \ -. r S ✓ r 1•. r r r r .-. I-. ♦. r ►. lb N N IJ Al N N N Is N NJ N N r,) N NI IC N IJ R 5- \ \ \ \ \ 5- \ \ \ \. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ u I0 0 U. '0 0 A D '0 (0 (A 93 3 D ;D .D D .x1 'p Z) IJ PJ N :J N (J IJ :J N N N 1J N rJ N N N N I9 • r) A 3 O C 2 r r r'r U u rir I.,h. U1.U1 P F - 1-'r -$ -o C:1 Cl U) N.U) 7'(T r r N N ,A''4 • N.N N N 0,•4 Cl UI S ON •4 V .4..4 V J A .A m no N, 1.. t.• a u o Ul N UI,UI U)UI N N r r r r o (J .O..O r -.I (A•L( C)0 N N N Ul 0 U O. O. ,, • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • y D ... •. . 41. 40 ' + ' +�� .1 �i �. . .D .D •, • N,N •-• .7 O •J.� N, 0 NJ U) U1 . ,1 ..• (.II Iii ) ..) ''1 J P F U) 0 ) ...' 0 I UI N 7•J r'r. 0 co 093 (:I•I UI'U) •1 1..1 UI.U( •f LA - • • • • • * * * • • •' * • • • • * * • , 5) .2 ? 2 2 3 'C t r r Ir 7C 'H T S V) 0 O) r - n y ••r• 4 -• Cl rl '.a is 2 0 rn • a a t>• -1 -1 Z '0 -( w a IC 13 'N r 'n a n r l I • • a '0 3 IC a 0 l(4 n -•1 .-1 ''O • (/) rt 2 - 0 a n .1 a r C 10 x 'a O N (4 2 < H T C) C) 2 V) 11 l3 C b -.1 I Z I •-4 O C n -4 A 19 \ r) S r 1'•1 .r 0 , Z O A C 3 O 0 • 2 3 iti 0 Cl w 2 4 O O rI 7 • • N C -1 4 ;A (0 4 r ti O O 0 p • -i 2 I9 • '.O 71 y : 1 7 C A) V. v n n r1 n a 0 • •• Z x 11 V) 19 (1 . (I) a n rt (I) rI H ' • v n • C Cl) -, r- = O 0 n 2 (A r r a 1-4 '(/) 19 7J rl rI 1n-4 r 1 n .U) N 1-•. 'a r b -4 7C n C S • C m rI • G 1 U1 C- a -4 • 97 V) Cl) •'• O 0 H 70 H v C) • z n (9 C) r Cl n s v) 1.• '-I I1 a (7 O 0 (A O 0 11 O m N VI N rl N '0 a (A rn H C C C n C C 0 C O n C C O A a a C C -4 m m (A 0 0 cm V) .C. N .C• 0 a 13'a '0 1C.. O ')1 0 13 v � 3 Cl) 11 u, (nCts (n v v 0 r r -o o • • r v I* a• w r w w • r. . • o N • w N r1 r1 • co vs N r) Cl N co Cl) Cl) C C 3 Cl) 2 N co 2 y .0 Cl C C C w C n C P w h. w A C (0 A N V) V1 n V1 Cl) 2 Cl) 2 n 2 n of. ^ 2 r n r) n O n n 1 n r O 1 O n n -4 9 23 a a 2 ;0 a • a • Z • 2 M rI • .y H H H T H H .'• 71 T N N r ✓ (0 •0 • a 13 w '0 w • P • w 1 '• 2 -4 - -4 -.1 -I • • • • • a • a 72 a 19 19 I.1 19 2 'O .0 '0 • • • • • h•• -1 U J r .) 0 C3 0 O 0 0 P O 0 D ).- r r UI r r r Cl r r r r r r r r r r n I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 n A P A A A A A A A A A A F F P P P A O (A co (A W (A (A N co N) W N) N N W (A (A N Ni C .0 .D .O .D .0 .0 0 .0 (A .O r r 4 W r r r CA %- ✓ r r 0 r r N r N O C) o N O co co O N -1 1 1 1 I I 4 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 r y( r r (A r P r r r A W W r N .O P r 2 -4 N N .0 1-" N N .O m r N r r (A G r A '.b O .0 r r r r r H. r NJ r O. r N r r r r N • I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I ✓ (A r r (.1 r F r r r A G U r N .O A r r r N Ul .p r N N .D 00 r N r r W L4 r A co 2 N) y. p. • A W 4 1Z o -J No u (n r LA :A 97 1 • r 0 A) a .• N 3 r1 'D Cl) O Cl) C) n- rl O m y • r r r r r r •+ .+ r r r .+ • 4 4 4 W 4 W 4 W W 4 W A .0 • N N N N N N N Na N N N I Co • 73 co ,b cD '0 Q) co rID mm m r N • r11 N Na N N N N N Na N N f) • ) .0 'D -4 -4-4 m (11 .A a 4 7C A M • 2 -4 t • .a 0 n .. l •. p ' U1 (31 Cr N Ut Ul U1 0 0 UI UI 1 In - - - m z r - ... - -.+ •-. ✓ r1s (,) .- Na N Ni N Na N N Na IV I, ; \ . \ \ \\ . \ ' \ - C) .Sf J) Co 03."D Co ;D Co Co J) D 17 N N N NNN iJ N N N NJ 4'1 I1 b z 40 4 a U W U1 40, 0' U C • • • 2 '.0 'Dav' r a 1-•,d 'Ww 1..4•••• -• .. NNNPJ! 0 -I v '.D X0;-1 710. : (0 co Imo -. o 03 I CT0 N•rr 00 • Na ,-) d—4'4 NI CIl(3102 W;U1 UI UI i 00 NJN a'a cD•n I).a 0NN 00 I .• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • :• • • • • • • • , 7 0, -4 N U1 U1•., •2 U r IV �) - �Ul N 00 '.0 1J a ♦ 00 ,.).) •');:. .-• �• , d 'D 0 UI U1' 4 CJ N 0 4" 0 n :o n J 0 N N ' •) n'c/ 7 '7 o:n•J <7 C) • 1 • • * * • • • • ' I 67 D -4 N N In N D N 0 D -4 A Z O AAA C r• 00 ('1 O 1, 11 -11 /1'11111171 .41 ,1,71 a \ 1.. • O O O ''v A 00 0 • -.4 CCCCCCCCCCC A ,-• Pi 1-4-4 • A -4-4 d 2222.2222222 I 2 -111 < -4-4 0 < r 0000;0000000 .- N 9 M 14 r1 ) 1 -4 A AAA 0 0 .CIA 2 o rD ID -I,UI r21 C71 a N r O D \ -+ -1 -1-4 r 4 -4-4 -4 O A W r 4-,0(0 Cr"r W 0 r+ r A O -! Q < w 0 — 0 ✓ ('1 0) i • • • Cl A • • A U -4 -4-• 1.111 . 1 iii -( A (•I i rl 74 O A 0 000000000 0 -1 11-'1 ..1-4 2 S N • \ AAA A 3333 '71 P1 D 1► D . . . . . b to s T b rl m ri r! '.111-n • A r r r r r r r r r r r 441 A ' D 7. x. A pp. A n A NU CI) .0 Ny x 1 • • • • C • • A 04 • , 4 r1 2 1 C) 0 • r N -4 rt Ti 77 N 0 1 00 1 T) 7313 N I-+ A C C i Y C C A A 3331 Cl 1 ►• 0 11 3.4 •71 -0 a 0 00 I rl 2 V v P113-0 < -1) -11 /1 0 2 1 r r Nrr rn • • I 0 1- .• M , — , r r o z r'1 In rl rl 0 0 N U) Irl G) N N 00 P rl r1 Pi N A A A W n a' N < < < A C ..I r.►I 0 ►r TI m Cl A A 0 ro IN- rn N N N Tl I-I • N • 0 -1 2 • 0 67 N 0 1 4 " 1,- ,t 0 Y I.* r r Orr r /.. an 1- r A • 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 0 0 0 .0 .0 a .0 .0 00 .0 0 W N N UI N N 4 4 W4 W C UI ►+ r '-, r r 4 r r r 0 a 0 0 0 V 0 0 r O o 0 O -y I I 1 I I I I • 1 1 1 ✓ r r Ulrr r r h.(A r- 2 Ul UI r o r r N N 4)W w o N r r N r r r — r Pr • I I • I I I I 1 1 1 I r r r A r l+ r r W r .• UI UI r r r r N N .n W 4 2 • s c". UI a I • ►- O N • CO a N 3 r1 17 N a • Cn G) • 70 r1 • C) I to A 0 • ( ar Co 0 J J CO 0 CD co OD OD CO CO A H H H A H H H H H H H X N A /• A A N A A A A A A A 0`G CA) N A A CJ CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CI O Ni H H 0 C0 N N CO N N N Cb 0 O N N H 0 0 J J H () H O H w O A▪ c0 c0 0 H CO CD CO CO CO CO 9 CD O N H H O Ni H H H H H H 0 1 O 0) H H O H H H H H H H n H 0 OD CO J O -3 0 A (0 (0 0 H CO CO CO CO CO CO A H H H 0 0 N H H 0 N H H H H H H H MI 1 I ct tri '17 U) 0 A) C)• &< g Cr) co 0 J J CO 0 CO CD OD CO CO CD 1 j t-$ CD CD A H H H A H H H H H H H n O O 11 ri 0 • • • H ¢) - HHHHHHHHHHHH H 'Ti H 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 'Ti HHHHHHHHHHHH 9 H 0 'Ti G 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O n (-1 1-1 a z a H Cn a c-, co A Ut a) U1 ' J CP N 0> CO A CO N U1 J N ) J - 0> N H H CO H 0 01 A CO CO H CO 0 0) (0 0 O A O H CO 0 0 cn Cn 0> H O 0 Ul A 0 J A 0 0 01 A H O 0) O 0 O 01 0 N 0 0 0 LP H w H OD H (TZ X 0 J U) Z 7z1 HO Pi Z Ul J a) OJ CO H• 0 (D C (D C) CD 0 p) _ CD CD CD W (n c, (n P1 H S 9 k B 9 9 > CO 01 (pHA C) 0 (D 11 CD 0 I-'• H• 11 H H H n N H N0 J ii CD A) 0 R c 0 cr c, c, cc) c0JAH < 0 CD H I I H tri rri CD rt CD CD CO CO H 0 Cl) n I H OACDJ k 0 -.. CD CD CI H H 0) O CO U1 N "0 CD C) C tri f2° H) H) Cr) '.b H H CD H )) Cn Cn ) A CI Cn P) CD P1 0 C) C) N• ;,. O H• :3' H) 3 0c1 CT g) • Ha 'Z7 CD En C< ri 'Ti . arc a CD CD a 'Ti H ;3a C) C) C H H 0 C) H 0 0 CD • 11 • 0 CD LTi 0 Cl) 04 7: hl a eC)i QQ • Cl) c, P:1 n CDD r1 0 0 C) r ' C ¢) Tl R° H' ) Ni H a - 3 H) Cr 0 ci r CD W 'Ti CD • (D - H) - tll H = CD • '---' H 0 X ct r 0 H I I %h Ha 0 CD tTi 0 CD 0 Cl) CD CO n H• 0 a H) rn C CD H c, CJR • • A) CD A) CD CD CD x 0 CD H '1 C) 0 0 0 Ha 0 Ha CD Ha 0 ''i a CD CD H. Ha CD CD En • (D Cn • b3 OD U1 U1 Co CO J Ul N 0) n co A H (.3] J N J J -.7 0) N H H 0 0 0) A CO CO H CO 0 CO CO 0 A 0 H CO 0 0 U1 0) 0) H O 0 CO 0 J A 0 0 01 A H 01 O 0 01 0 N 0 0 0 01 H cv n co co) C0 (0 CD CD CO (0 CO (.0 CO 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) H H H H H 0 0 0 0 O 0 Z Z A CO N H 0 CO 00 J 0) U1 A V. 4il t t.�, City of Shakopee 4. S H A E EG liPOLICE DEPARTMENT r * ' ' - .. \N14ESpI tCj ... 4 '�x iA!'ii �'�'' 476 South Gorman Street ', SHAT{OPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 ' ` w'r *�� __ Tel. 445.6666 ;,: 55379 illi 4' - TO: Mayor, Council Members FROM: Tom Brownell SUBJECT: No Parking Zone DATE: May 6, 1982 INTRODUCTION The south side of East 5th Avenue between Holmes and Lewis Street is designated "No parking during school hours" . BACKGROUND The Central Elementary Principal has requested a sign change whereby parking would be permitted except during hours required to load school buses, which would provide additional parking on a short term basis for persons frequenting the elementary school and district offices. RECOMMENDATION Remove the "No parking during school hours" signs from the south side of East 5th Avenue between Holmes and Lewis Street and re- place them with signs prohibiting parking between the hours of "2 PM and 4PM during school days" . ACTION REQUESTED Direct staff to remove the "No parking during school hours" signs from the south side of East 5th Avenue between Holmes and Lewis Street and replace them with signs prohibiting parking between the hours of "2 PM and 4 PM during school days" . JO �EZVE JO J of ct 1/h MEMO TO: John K . Anderson City Administrator FROM : H . R. Spurrier City Engineer RE : Halo 2nd Addition/Bluff Avenue Improvements DATE : May 14, 1982 Introduction: Attached is Semi-Final Partial Estimate Voucher No. 4 for the above-referenced project in the amount of $4,868.91 . Background: The attached Partial Estimate Voucher establishes final quantities for the above- referenced projects and provides for payment of $4,868.91. Action Requested : Direct proper City officials to make payment to Parrott Construction Company, Inc. , in the amount of $4,868.91 for 80-10 Halo 2nd/81-2 Bluff Avenue Improvements . HRS/jiw Attachment Semi-Final PARTIAL ESTIMATE VOUCHER • #80-10/ ContractNo. #81-2 Partial Estimate Voucher No. -f+.. --- - 1'''r•i vd Ending: TO: Contractor Parrott Construction Company Address 2047 Eagle Creek Blvd. ,_Shakopee,_-MN__ 55379 _ Project Description Halo 2nd Addition/Bluff Avenue Improvements 1. Original Contract Amount I: _171 701.50 2. Change Order No. 1 Thru No. 3 $ 26,922.39 3. Total Funds Encumbered :j 198,623.89 4. Value of Work Completed j• 158774.23_ _ _ Value of work remaining 5. 5 Percent Retainage 749,38-11 _ -0- 6. Previous Payments $ 145 96 Percent Complete 7. Deductions or Charges -0- 12r. 8. Total $ 153,905.32 Payment Due (Line 4 - Line 8) 4,868.91 CEli'.I'I F ICA' I: OF NMI.= i (I, We) hereby agree that: the quantity and v;►luw or w(>r•I. :;lO ,n Irn:rein is a fair estimate of the work completed Lo dote. CONTRACTOR: �i%�+�f�( 3�� /� BY SHAKOPEE PUBLIC s / ) UT Il,IVIES COMM TSS TON 131': /cal- v�'�� /{IL ,L, �2�1 l TITLE: PNi:i r,rf;c.; APPRO - CITY OF SHAKOPEE • Engineer City Administrator /(L? PRO 'SAL SCHEDULE PROJECT NAME Halo 2nd Addition Improvem nisi OWNER Don Parrott Construction Fluff Avenue -Improve,nen s - - _. TYPE OF WORK ___--_---_--- •-------+- PROJ. NO.t40a10�1-2� SHEET 1 OF 3 - ITEM CONTRACT ITEM UNIT )NIT - CONTRACT ACTUAL -- ___ _____-. _-_ -___ N0. 'RICE p U _ .___ � ___ __ .-_ Quantity Total WA ERMA1N (Schedule 1) 1 6" D.I.P. L.F. $ 13.60 250 $ 3,400.00_22_6- D --- 3 60 o0 2 Hydrant Assemblies; Ea. :20.00 2' 1,640.00 .2 IGD Do , 3 6" G.V. & Box Ea. 2(5.00 :' 550.00 Z 5000 4 Fittings lbs. 1 .20 300 360.00 _ 3Z0 3gif DC 5 Relocate Existing Hydrant & 6" G.V. La. 910.00 900.00 / _ c/DOcv, 6 i,' & I 6" x 6" Tapping Sleeve ti./ Oe. /e te.l Av -_ - 6" C.V. & Box La. 1000.00 1 1,000.00 ma e )O a.y 41 7 Remove Existing 6" Plug & Connect to existing 6" DIP La. 75.00 1 75.00 / 7500 8 Rock Excavation C.Y. 18.95 175 3,316.25_- _ 5. 56 =`052- gk, 9 Granular Bedding C.Y. 5.60 440 224.00 X2.5 14. 00 SANITARY SEWER (Schedule 1 ) r04Y, '77e 7.g4 1 6" Extra heavy C.1.S.P. (incluj :; restoration of Hwy. 101) L.I . $ 113. 14 7,, $ 3,235.50 2 Cut in 6" extra heavy C.I.S.P. 7S 3Z3S SO into existing Sanitary Sewer include Bend & Wye Ea. 276.20 .1 276.20 / 3 Hock Excavation ('.Y. 18.95 100 1,895.00 11 Granular Bedding i'or 6" C. [.S. 1'. C.Y. 5.60 15 84.00 STORM SEWER (Schedule 1 ) "To f 3/5 g0 12" R.C.P. (0-8) Cl. IV L.F. 29.20 't'; 1,314.00 33 96 , 60 2 Std. 2' x 4' Catch Basin w/ Salvaged Casting (C.B. #2) Pa. 60.00 650,00 r`vSG; OD 3 build Catch Basin over existing 12" R.C.P. Storm Sewer line (C.B. #1) w/Salvved C'isl, inl- La. 650.00 050.00 6,50,Do 4 Raise existing storm Sewer Manhole 0.9 Ea. 100.0( 1 100.00 / /co, oo ROADWAY (Schedule 11 711;40 / ),..,u;3 404, .1. Concrete Curb & Gutter 1161.' L.F. 3.75 120 .450.0Q 10 3 Do. 00 2 Concrete Curb & Gutter B618 L.Y. 10.05 508 5,105.00 4,%4 6,9979. q`o 3 Concrete Curb & Gutter B624 L.F. 12.65 260 3,289.00 335' I/),37 75- 4 Transition Section (13618-h624) L.F. 14.35 21 387.45 1p an 09 5 Concrete Sidewalk .04" thicknc:ss S.F. .1.95 5685 11,085.75 1 -285- CS355-.I,j 6 Concrete Sidewalk (8" thickness S.F. 3.00 4)40 1,320.00 Few 2 c/./g% D® 7 4" Sand Base for Sidewalk/Apron. S.Y. 2.10 681 1,430.10 ,57j //”, /0 FROPOSA SCHEDULE 4k Halo 2nd Addition Lnprbvem�nt•-� PROJECT NAME t33uff-Aven•1ue--____y_eTrt-s OWNER Don Parrott Construction TYPE OF WORK PROD. NO,80-2Q/81-2 SHEET 2 OF ITEM CONTRACT ITEM UNIT UNIT CONTRACT ------- Na T PRICE _ QUANTITY AMOUNT 8 18" Pit Run Gravel (Inset #2) S.Y. $ 7.16 695 $ 4,976.20 .._0_ _0_ 9 6" Class 5 Gravel Base (Inset #2) S.Y. 1.50 835 1,252.50 9'gq l 4 gZ,o0 10 9" Class 5 Gravel Base (Inset #1) S.Y. 2.33 547 1,274.51 ”e9 // / Z/) 1.1 5" Class 5 Gravel Base S.Y. 2.33 553 1,288.149 3Q-; 12 6" Base Course Bituminous Mn/DOT 2331 (Inset #2) S.Y. 15.23 615 9,366.145 6o/?' ?33s q9 13 2" Base Course Bituminous Mn/DOT 2331 (Inset #1) S.Y. 5.45 526 2,866.70 4/19 2470,50 14 li" Binder Course Bituminous Mn/DOT 2341 (Inset #2) S.Y. 4.35 615 2,675.25 613 24.4„4„5-3-1 15 -1-2" Wearing Course Bituminous MnDOT 2341 (Inset #2) S.Y. 4.55 615 2,798,25 6l3 .Z781, /5 ' 16 2" Wearing Course Bituminous MnDOT 2341 (Inset #1) S.Y. 6.05 340 2,057.00 q‘p 2.4,3soo 17 Reconstruct 110' ± of MWCC Driveway 6" Cl. 5 Gravel; 2" 2341 L.S. 985.00 NA 985.00 - /DD' o __`T ng-,4%P 1.8 Concrete Apron Ea. 402.50 3 1,207.50 3 gyp 7, 5 19 Removal of Existing Concrete Curb & Gutter L.F. 2.00 640 1 ,1'80.00 7,F 1 Lt..oG,,00 20 Poured Concrete 4" Thickness (Center Island) S.F. 2.65 342 9°6.30 26 6A:T, 21 Relocate Fence & Gate L.S. 400.00 1 400.00 / �tDo 400• 22 Rough Grading of Bluff Ave. �,, (Sta. 7+50 to 10+55) L.S. 1500.00 1 1,500.00 �� j �� �� 23 Sod S.Y. 2.05 2600 5,330.00 )/5,2 ItAtIL4c. WATERhIAIN (Schedule 2) 7.04-1 60597 - 1 6" DIP L.F. 11.60 78 9014.80 7 7f z. 517. $ 2 8" DIP L.F. 11.60 1081 12,539.60 /.2.7c„5 /97%4,40 3 Hyd. Assembly Ea. 820.00 3 2,460.00 ? .24,40 4 6" G.V. Ea. 275.00 3 825.00 3 fr),5;oo. 5 8" G.V. Ea. 366.50 3 1,099.50 -3 /499, �d 6 Fittings lbs. 1.10 930 1,023.00 ?,, a 14,12,4,4% 7 3/4 Copper L.F. 3.85 500 1,925.00 / 8 3/4" Corporations Ea. 27.00 15 405.00 I vQ , ' Halo 2nd Addition 'Improlit.WWAL SCHEDULE 46'� PROJECT NAME Bluff Avenue ImprQvgmentsOWNER Don Parrott Construction • TYPE OF WORK ___ PRO.). NO. _80-10/81-2 SHEET 3 OF 3 ITEM CONTRACT ITEM UNIT UNIT CONTRACT NO. PRICI QUANTITY AMOUNT 9 3/4" Curb Stops & Boxes Ea. $ 49.00 15 $ '(35.00 i/- L96_.Qo 10 Rock Excavation . C.Y. 18.95 1000 18,950.007 Z q25-31e,.047 /� ----- SANITARY SEWER (Schedule 2) Tofs,/ 36-i I'S 1 8" D.1.P. 0/8 L.F. i 3.60 'fit ; 10, 1.04.80 74.0 /_.0,336 oc 2 8" D.I.P. 8/10 L.F. 13.65 100 1,1;65.00_ / 13 ,5y.2. -f 3 8" D.I.P. 1.0/72 L.F. 13.65 20 ;'73.00 _d_ mo- 4 Std. Manholes Ea. '(15.00 3 2,325.0o 3 2325OO 5 4" Wyes Ea. 190.00 15 2,850.00 6 14" E.H. C.I. L.F. 10.05 500 5,025.00 D o-- 7 Rock Excavation C.Y. 18.95 1000 18,950.00 2'3'2 535`? ?d 8 Sod S.Y. 2.05 2000 4,7.00.00 S'27 /bq 35 9 Drwy. Rock Ton 5.60 75 420.00 ,514 5'* 30,x,_1/4.2.-. 10 Granular Bedding C.Y. 5.60 450 2,520.00 $D / c c' Tour/ 147'14. 12. To+m l '9h t' AMIokKi /31'3/3'775-9 _CAI Or e. # / A04? 5570 30 Gict 9t, e Or er j A' / / 932, CT Valu o wiljt 6.0PiQfe � I 1 I 2GL' MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: 1983 Budget DATE: May 11, 1982 May 17, 1982 - Department Heads receive Capital Improvement Plan forms June 7, 1982 - Finance receives completed Capital Improvement Plan forms - Finance revenue estimates for Capital Improvement Plan June 15, 1982 - Preliminary Revenue Sharing hearing - Regular Council meeting date. June 17, 1982 - Capital Improvement Plan to Planning Commission June 21, 1982 - Community Service review of Park Plan - Department Heads receive budget worksheets (including 5 year Capital Equipment) June 22, 1982 - Work session on Goals & Objectives and review Capital Improvement July 13, 1982 - Department Heads receive 6 month reports for budget request review - Council discusses and approves Goals and Capital Improvement Plan July 20, 1982 - Finance Director receives budget requests from Department Heads (2 alternative budgets @ "needs" and 10% cut from 1982) . - Finance Director receives final 5 year Capital Equipment list from Department Heads - Revenue Estimates are due at this time Aug. 24, 1982 - Council receives and discusses City Administrator's recommended 1983 budget. (Work session) Sept. 7, 1982 - Public Hearing - Proposed use of Revenue Sharing Funds-Regular Meeting - Last Date for Council to levy special assessments Sept. 14, 1982 - Reserved for discussion of proposed 1983 budget, if needed. (Work session) Sept. 21, 1982 - Council has regular meeting - Discuss and approve 1983 budget. Oct. 8, 1982 - Deadline for Certifying 1983 Tax Levy to County. Notes: 1) Legal deadline of 10/8/82 to certify levy to County. 2) 2 work sessions scheduled for Goals and Capital Improvement Plan (6/22/82 and 7/13/82) . 3) 2 work sessions on budget (including Capital Equipment) (8/24/82 and 9/14/82) Total of 4 special work sessions. GV/ljw MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Sewer Fund Position DATE: May 11, 1982 Council has requested information on the position of the sewer fund. The data below is as of March 31, 1982. Cash Cash on hand 12/31/81 $ 68,379 Cash on hand 3/31/82 $ 152,540 Note: The sewer actually did run out of cash early in 1982. Revenue Revenue per books 3/31/81 $ 222,687 Less 1/1/82 Accounts Receivable -155,195 Plus 3/31/82 Estimated Receivables 140,000 $ 207,497 1982 Budget $ 728,090 First Quarter Revenue 28 % of budget Note: 3 % of budget = $21,842 Expenses 1982 Budget $ 686,695 Less MWCC -591,690 "Local" Costs $ 95,005 Expenses per books 3/31/82 $ 147,534 Less MWCC -141,643 Plus pro-rated depreciation 7,500 $ 13,391 Net 1982 Budget $ 95,005 First Quarter Expenses 14 % of budget Note: $10,000 budget for system maintenance occurs mainly in summer and $9,500 budget for billing occurs at year end, these two items are 21 of the "local" budget. John K. Anderson Sewer Fund Position May 11, 1982 Page 2 Note: The following are lump sum cash outlays that the sewer fund is budgeted to make in 1982 that are not part of the accrual basis expenses shown previously. Debt Service $ 49,300 Capital Equipment 28,000 S.A.C. Payments 5,000 Eagle Creek Deferment 6,750 $ 89,050 Summary: At this time, it appears that the sewer is proceeding as planned in the 1982 budget. Attached are graphs of cash balances and receipts for your information. GV/ljw attachment C:A-1 (54 S1.•e,ccapte Stwse Fwiced I t, e----- C...0.%‘‘ CS 41.\0.htQ. a.0o,00a V'.5 ,c o 0 d r ` �` 150,pOp / ♦ i• /' ♦ tut8a. "D.6,000 ./ �• `• / • • . / _.._. Vitala o to©,000 ! ' •-/ 1180 N..., `15 ,00p ,/- — 1919 S0,c00 *-•,,,,' S,Oc)o 3 fr h A M S 3 At S o rV 0 t`15,000 150,OBtu — liv!? X716,00® tsar I00,00C) A _-__ t94o 0 - /' S01000 Ilk / ... i• . \ ),51000 •4 ,. V 0 T it M P. M 3• 3` Ar S 0 N 0