Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/07/1982 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items DATE: December 2 , 1982 1 . It appears that one of the cutback considerations of the State Legislature will now affect City employees directly. The State Legislature has proposed a cut in local government aid, home- stead credit and other aids to local governments . This cut would be offset by a mandated 2-1/2 percent for 12 months or 5 percent for 6 months increase in the individual employee ' s contribution to PERA, thus replacing PERA contributions by the City. The intent of this concept is to insure that the latest cutbacks are passed on to all public employees in the State . 2 . LeRoy has reported that Ton Circuits Inc . , a firm in the Industrial Park, has gone bankrupt . They left with a good deal of hazardous material remaining for the City and/or Scott County to dispose of. LeRoy and Al Frechette have been talking to the City and County Attorneys about filing a joint complaint , and I will keep you posted as we get new developments . 3 . Joe Ries has informed me that Scott County will receive bids on December 3 , 1982 for the removal of the house at 436 Fuller, Lot 5 Block 57 . The bids will state that the house must be removed by April 15 , 1983 . 4. The hospital has done some minor hole patching on Atwood; however, the City Engineer will not be okaying their repairs until a full check of the street surface can be made next spring. 5 . The City of Princeton has run a 37 city survey on park and recreation budgets . The cities ranged in population from 226 to 25 ,000 and were located both inside and outside the metropolitan area. The survey indicated an overall average of 7 . 69% of the municipality' s budget being spent on parks and recreation or approximately $21 . 05 per capita. This was broken down in categories by population and for those cities from 10 ,000 to 15 ,000 in population the percentage was 9 . 25% of the budget or $27 .47 per capita. Shakopee , with a popula- tion of 10 , 160 , was at 7 . 97 of budget or $18. 20 per capita. I have the survey on file if anyone is interested in looking at the figures . 6 . Although most of you are probably now aware of Zylstra-United cable construction, we did issue the building permit on November 19th and Zylstra has begun stringing cable . 7 . The insurance services office that does the City' s fire rating has completed a three day field review of the City of Shakopee ' s water and fire departments . Everything went quite well and we expect to receive a report in 5-6 months . Non-Agenda Informational Items Page Two December 2 , 1982 8 . LeRoy has checked the savings on the new energy efficient water heater that was placed in the Library, it was a replacement paid for by insurance. The savings have amounted to $50-60 per month which confirms our estimated savings on those that we plan to replace in 1983 . 9 . . We have received the 1983 Metropolitan Waste Control Commission cost allocation. The MWCC budget increased from $59 , 137 ,011 in 1981 to $78, 153 ,256 in 1983 for a 32 . 16% increase over the two year period. Shakopee ' s charge has gone from $457 ,770. 64 in 1981 to an estimated $632 ,495 .43 for 1983 or a 38. 18% increase over that same two year period. Our 1983 budget estimate is a net figure and is very close to the 1983 MWCC budget figure; therefore , we expect that no changes will be required. 10. Attached is the monthly calendar for the month of December. 11 . Attached is an invitation for a Christmas attitude at Bo' s place on December 17th. 12 . Attached is the December, January, and February City Hall column schedule. 13 . Attached is the new Shakopee Fire Department officer list . 14. Attached is the monthly Building Activity Report for the month ending November 30 , 1982 . 15 . Attached is a memo from Gregg Voxland regarding procedures for returned goods . A review of our procedures for handling returned goods was requested by Jerry Wampach. If there are further questions about the procedure please contact me. 16 . Attached is a memo from Gregg Voxland regarding the belated items on the bill list that Council had requested. 17 . Attached is a Action Alert from the League of Minnesota Cities regarding the State Budget Deficit. Because of the deadline involved I have already submitted a letter to the League and our Legislators regarding the subject . 18 . Attached is an update on the City' s lawsuits . I requested the update and would like to point out that Item No. 4 is an S .P.U. C. case , Item No. 5 and 9 are settled unless appealed and Item No. 11 the City will be eliminated from the case. If you have any questions regarding these cases please contact me. 19 . Attached is a letter mailed to Mayor Reinke regarding the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency' s medium density homeowner- ship program. The City has a developer who has received preliminary approval for 15 units and the City Planner has reviewed the project and finds no problems with it. This is the program that I had made the phone calls on two Fridays ago. Non-Agenda Informational Items Page Three December 2 , 1982 20 . Attached is a memo the Mayor received regarding the Invest in America' s Cities program. The Mayor may be discussing this at the end of the City Council meeting if time permits . 21 . Attached are the agendas for the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and Planning Commission meetings to be held on December 8 , 1982 . Please note the change in dates . 22 . Attached are the minutes of the November 4, 1982 Planning Commission meeting. 23 . On November 16 , 1982 Council asked staff to review the Hospital ' s request for additional 2 hour parking. The only new 2 hour parking on the list attached is on the south side of 4th Avenue (#2 on list) . Tom put it in to beat the frost and we ' ll review it in six months for formal Council action. 24. Trevor Walsten called to inform us that the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor on the By-Pass Suit which involved the City of Shakopee, Scott County and Jackson Township. 25 . Gene Hauer presented a letter to the City which requested an extension of the deadline for recording the Final Plat of Hauer ' s 2nd Addition. The staff decided not to bring the matter to the City Council at this time because Mr. Hauer still may be able to meet the 180 day recording deadline without the need for the extension. If the deadline is missed, Mr. Hauer ' s request for an extension will be brought to the City Council at a subsequent meeting. Mr. Hauer has been informed of this situation. 26 . Attached is the Engineering Department Monthly Report . r . /C) d C1) cc d t4 E: H GD <4 Uc >-+ t7 H ' U Z ... co O 7•A N M ,--i r-1 Cd pT; a) a) Cts ›, u) ›, C/1 ..........L. . U U U U p N `O .,-I M O "4 e-1 d-1 N M Q cd al 06 E >, Q.. 01. s CC cr) N G O C) cd M •• GD HN N cr 00 Ln N Or `� •--1N N W Cl) CD ,0 ..i- O b.0,10 E co)GI up . U [. 41 .. .f-'I cc p, . Ca ,� U cid E OM O U ,-1 0 •• r\ , c .>4 •1-1 .--1 N N If1 o • U O1. -I C1. E-40 , >,O ›, G O d 4-) O 4-) O R� •,-1 •• -1 O •• 'ZUr- UUN- ---- Cr) O N. N N <4 cc • p a) E a) EaE O U 4-) 01.. 01.E 01. •rl •r-1 • ,� ,� 0 EO C) O •rIM EO O CLI •-tr UQOD.aCO Li) N dN .p r1 .--1 N >4 t1; i Q r0 10 ,. .46.0. . /1 ,..., \ . ...., , 17 (AL ZA/ : , c-:\:::) ,............ \ ........,.„ ,......._._ ,4___.' ----7, 0 p ()I,, , ......) ..___. -., .. ( L V_\) --, ----,--_, ,---. ,--_, 0 K_) -V. C._C c_\ \ \\\ -- \ :c_1 , -'---,, , (1±,. l` r.--- -7.- '._) .---------7"- rs' •') ' . -....1 6.__;.-5L..___ , "---3 4 v.-_, ,._..,._., 0 , „,.____, \....Th 1..- `4-' ---•'\-4-7S7.,---- -.-<_____ i . . ' 1 I . CITY HALL COLUMN Deadline to Clerk Author Issue for Typing Dolores Lebens 12/8/82 12/3/82 Staff 12/15/82 12/10/82 Gloria Vierling 12/22/82 12/17/82 Staff 12/29/82 12/24/82 Eldon Reinke 1/5/83 12/30/82 Staff 1/12/83 1/7/83 John Leroux 1/19/83 1/14/83 Staff 1/26/83 1/21/83 Jerry Wampach 2/2/83 1/28/83 Staff 2/9/83 2/4/83 Dean Colligan 2/16/83 2/11/83 Staff 2/23/83 2/18/83 / ` J Shakopee Fire Department ; SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 88379 ' 1983 General Fire Department Screening Committee for New Firemen Grievance Committee Chief , Joe Ries Mike Theisen Second Chief, Charles Ries Jerry Dircks Third Chief, George Breeggemann Ray Friedges Treasurer, Jim Link Mike Ryan Secretary, Bill Menden Mark Huge , Alt . Gene Pass Frank Ries Finance Committee Nominating Committee Roger Dircks Ray Friedges George Breeggemann Bob Latzke Mark Myers Joe Honermann Robert Zatzke Mark Huge Joe Honermann Purchasing Committee Jim Link Bob Latzke Mike Theisen Relief Association Board of Trustee ' s President , Gene Pass Vice President , Mike Theisen Secretary , Joe Honermann Treasurer, Mike Ryan Trustee, George Breeggemann Trustee , Bob Latzke /V CITY OF SHAKOI'EE BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT November, 1982 I'l l M1 'I'S ISSUED Yr. to Date Total Previous Year 5806-5833 Number Number Valuation Number Valuation •MO. YTD. Single Farn. -Sewered - 17 981,670 2 27 1,587,200 Single F,crn. -Septic - 5 344,500 - 8 642,000 Multiple Dwellings 1 13 1,127,840 2 14 1,478,400 (Mo.11nits) (YTD Units ) (2) (34) (4) (38) Dwelling Add:i Lions 4 63 347,895 1 26 175,113 Other - 5 124,280 - - - Business District 3 9 1,793,825 - 3 240,000 Agricultural - - - - 1 132,000 Industrial -Sewered - 2 '1/10,000 1 5 3,193,000 Industrial -Septic - - - - 3 792,000 Accessory/Garages 3 38 239,235 8 44 313,874 Signs & Fences 1 41 52,766 2 14 19,453 F i rep I ;wt';;/tdood love 3 14 17,555 6 21 109,525 Grading/Foundation 4 8 69,165 - 3 209,000 Remodel ing (Res. ) 4 32 134,300 2 34 131,970 Remodeling ( Inst . ) - 1 - - 2 5,300 Remodel ing, (Other) 3 20 1,392,848 7 39 1,618,800 TOTAL TAXABLE 27 288 7,065,879 31 242 10,642,335 TOTAL 1NSTITUTTCNAL - 1 - - 2 5,300 GRAND TOTAI, 27 289 7,065,879 31 244 10,647,635 MO . YTD. MO . YTD . Variances - 18 - 6 Conditional Use - 18 1 16 U('-/cilli Il)r - 1 - 1 Moving - 2 - 3 Electric Permits 16 159 16 189 Plmbg. & Htg. Permits 25 176 24 190 Razing Permits Residential - - - - Commercial - - - - Total dwelling units in City after completion of all construction permitted to date 3,564 Cora Underwood Bldg. Dept. Secretary ! Lk CITY OF SHAKOPFF BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED IN NOVEMBER, 1982 5806 James McCarthy 600 County Road 83 Alt. $ 300 5807 Void 5808 Gary Snyder 638 E. 3rd Ave. Addn. 700 5809 Quality Builders 625 Lewis Repair 350 5810 Dennis Downs 2056 Hilldale Drive Addn. 550 5811 John Vohnoutka 935 W. 5th Ave. Stg. Bldg. 1,200 5812 Hugo Hennes 429 E. 3rd Ave. Stg. Bldg. 175 5813 Robert Pfalzgraf 940 Swift Alt. 2,500 5814 Valley Fair Addn. 8,500 5815 Tom Riley 1350 E. 1st Ave. Addn. 2,000 5816 Richard Logeais ,..," 982 Eastview Circle 'Rain Home 31,800 ---7 /,e02 eal,,21_, ,,,,.f Q /a_/' 1-unit 5817 Richard Logeais 9$0 tview Circle Twin Home 31,800 __ < v .45 2 ,,zc, ,t-✓ /, 1-unit 5818 J.B. Swedenborg 650 Valley Park Drive Alt. 410,000 5819 Minnesota Petroleum 804 E. 1st Ave. Alt. 4,500 5820 David Anderson 420 E. Shakopee Ave. Wood Stove 1,000 5821 Ram Construction 1145 MN Valley Mall Alt. 39,700 5822 Clarence Monnens 814 W. 4th Ave. Garage 4,100 5823 Laurent Builders 1942 W. 13th Ave. Foundation Only 5,000 cr�44, . '",_,x-4_,- /-a-// 5824 Laurent Builders 1944 W. r3th Ave. Foundation Only 5,000 'd4 I 5825 Laurent Builders � 194 W. 1 Ave Foundation Only 5,000 5826 Laurent Builders 19 W. 1 Ave. Foundation Only 5,000 5827 Vaughn Snow 1946 E. 1lth Ave. Fireplace 1,500 5828 Char Johnson 971 S. Main Alt. 1,000 5829 Laurent Builders 2087 Engle Creek Blvd. Addn. 16,000 5830 Alex Pass 203 W. 6th Ave. Alt. 400 tv2 5831 Certainteed 3303 E. 4th Ave. Sign $ 100 5832 Danny's Const. 232 E. 1st Ave. Demolition 9,200 5833 Roger Lambrecht 611 McDevitt Addn. 300 $587,675 1 /5 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg M. Voxland, Finance Director RE : Procedure for Returned Goods DATE: November 22 , 1982 Introduction & Background You have asked how "returned merchandise" is handled pursuant to a Council question. There are two aspects to this, as follows : A. Parts for Mechanic . Items are returned to local parts store in which we do a number of transactions per month. A credit memo is issued by the store and simply flows through the normal purchasing procedure as a credit instead of a debit . B. Returns other than "A" above . These happen only a couple of times a year. The dept. head notes on the receiving copy of the Purchase Order that items were returned or, if after that point , notifies Finance and then the invoice is adjusted or denied. The employee again receives a credit memo when the goods are returned. No cash is involved. GV/pmp MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg M. Voxland, Finance Director RE: Information item on bill lists. DATE: November 22, 1982 Introduction & Background The lists that Council receives are actually check lists. This saves staff the work of making up separate and redundant bill lists and check lists. Council sees every check that goes out from the City with the exceptions of Community Services and payroll. Personnel checks show on the bill list when something didn't flow through the payroll system quite right or a severance check issued. These usually show up when a payroll check is voided and a handwritten check is issued to replace it. The bill list for off-cycle meetingsreflects checks that have to go out on a different schedule, are needed for shorter deadlines, takes advantage of discounts or show payments authorized by Council separate from the cycle list. Additionally, the business world is shifting from the once standard 30 day pay- ment cycle to asking for payment in 10 to 15 days. Some of our bills miss cycle and can then go 60 days before payment. A low priority item that has been kicking around for a while is moving to having two cycles per month as do numerous cities. GMV:mmr action alert III —;• II Ling league of minnesota of min /7 *t‘ November 19, 1982 TO: Mayors, Managers, Clerks FROM: Peggy Flicker, Pete Tritz, Don Slater RE: State Budget Deficit - Impact on Cities Summary The state faces a substantial deficit in its current budget. Because of this deficit, the December payments of local government aid, homestead credit reimbursement, and other miscellaneous aids and credits are in jeopardy. I. The Problem and Possible Solutions The state budget faces a deficit estimated to total $312 million by the end of this biennium, June 30. The state must balance its budget by that date. Possible solutions include tax increases, expenditure cuts, and shifts of expenditures into the next biennium; most likely, some combination of all three will be adopted, but at this time we have no idea what that combination might be. To get an idea of the magnitude of the problem: -If the state were to balance the budget solely through cuts in expenditures, and the cuts were spread equally over all budget amounts not yet spent, it would result in about a 29% cut in all items. Since the only substantial state payments to cities remaining in this biennium are the December aid and credit payments, this would translate into a 29% reduction in these payments to each city. Note: Unlike last year, these would be cuts, not delays. -If the state were to balance the budget solely through tax increases, it would re- quire the sales tax to be increased to 7% and an additional income tax surcharge of 18% from January 1 to June 30 to raise enough revenue. Cities are scheduled to receive in December local government aid payments totalling $34.2 million; homestead credit reimbursement totalling $13.2 million; and miscellaneous aids and credits of $2.0 million. These are the only substantial state payments to cities remaining to be made in this state biennium. Therefore, these payments must be considered vulnerable to cuts, or possibly even total elimination. (over) 183 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 C6123227-5600 II . The Process A special session of the legislature has been called for December 7. The Senate Tax Committee will hold a hearing on November 29 at 10:00 a.m. , in Room 15 of the state capitol . The League will testify at that hearing. There will also be many informal meetings among legislators and the Governor's office between now and then. Both the Governor and the legislative leadership hope to reach agreement on a solution before the actual date of the session. III. What Should Cities Do 1. Contact Governor Quie's office, and your senator and representative. (Be sure to contact the incumbent legislators; the newly elected legislators do not take office until January.) Stressthese points: -The difficulty of making budget cuts in the last month of the city's fiscal year. -The fact that cities have budgeted and acted in reliance upon the state's promise of aids. -The need for the state to maintain some credibility with cities. -The specific problems which total or partial cuts in the December aid or credit payments would cause in your city. -Emphasize that cities understand the seriousness of the state's problem , and are willing to cooperate to the extent possible, but at the same time the state must recognize the gravity of the impact of last-minute cuts. 2. Develop a plan for dealing with a possible significant cut in the December aid and credit payments. Unfortunately, it is too early to make any guess as to what per- centage such cuts might be. 3. Attend the Nov. 29 Senate hearing if possible. If no, let us know what partial or total cuts inthe December aid and credit payments would do to your city. PF:PT:DS:ara ATE OF MINNESOTA 309 STATE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, ST. PAUL, MN. 55155 TRANSACTION NO. DEPT./DIV. DEPARTMENT NAME VENDOR'SINVOICE NO/DATEAMOUNT1 701000000 67350 REVENUE ,t370.1000000 67350 REVENUE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AlA 57, 575 . 331r4:777.77.7.77;; 14701000000 67350 REVENUE WETLDS REIMBURSEMEN 13 , 19 '^xsx i' ir4If-.+'t f sa =a HOMESTEAD CREDIT Al 31 , 732 . 36 x 1c, 1701000000 67350 REVENUE REDUCED ASSESSMENT 7 , 214 . 65 `'" `` 3701000000 67350 REVENUE ATTACH MACHINERY AI 3, 729 . 83 I C • .. t r4''''' !'''' ,,f> a � •x l4 WARRANT V0 40015258 TOTAL 100 , 265 . 36 ' THIS STATEMENT FOR YOUR FILES. mtormation regarding this payment,contact MN Dept of Finance.309 State Admin Bldg.St Paul,MN 55155 or call(612)296-5900. ars..+-u :Rr t.!m'.T!,.,!�!,-."-.,.^;!r?!...•. •!a: ATE OF MINNESOTA 309 STATE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, Si. PAUL, MN. 55155a'" i'nF 11,•••1 ::..1,1,i :':fats: x ••, t TRANSACTION N0. DEPT./DIV. DEPARTMENT NAME VENDOR'S INVOICE NO/DATE AMOUNT '"`• �• ✓ .�.c t�'a"�+ 3700000000 67350 REVENUE 4700000000 67350 REVENUE ; WETLDS REIMBURSEMENT . 29 1700000000 67350 REVENUE HOMESTEAD CREDIT AID 276 . 29 REDUCED ASSESSASSESSMENT114 . 67 Pi, -.OfTT t..UITT�fi!T!""'�f 040 e.CA..el ' ,; ' WARRANT `'W 40015240 TOTAL 291 . 17* ti i THIS STATEMENT FOR YOUR FI LES. ,i •,.iformation regarding this payment,contact MNDeptof Finance,309 State AdminBldg.,StPaul,MN55155 or call(612)296-5900 • ! K - -.- ae-.' 7 it z- ;r 3r . 7 ;`-.1.;;'13%';'1•*' r .rn,n z� ... ' z - >s �t : 44,4‘41,.; i cm 7 t 44 • xi-TK6 ..,:*124,...41251 �.a „ xskt +xK „, 4ii t -':S"t-+rR' t: I i i a 9.;.:4,....„,:.:,F ax ta iiii.ehf" h». ti;.. aj .-4�� i3jT•.'zT4 . ett fL 'ji N !tr-i :*:,-, ._,.u._... . ' - 2 i t,,,,„1 E'r -.T -'- .+i..._ ,,,- • , i ... 1 : Cfi.,'.--, 1C : Z 11* i-ts :'"?::iii.:-.'� ,-a p7Y♦•v �I -rTg �g.irtt, t . tt la+ i:;.. 1,',.:404 :, t ittit7 Ed;i4;iiii is : ' 7aai af.t ei.} ' cMal*g. aid5oal i { � `s xg { tTgtS • • :.40 • i.ilii -� •2iij i3 a • 25 l. • iiiii`- Iii1 ,p t49 * a# • ,t-!46, , .lf j ” 1 i`tf'..''i, . ' ''' '} fi { /i4'ai . ya' fttilitiey* }M14k* tigii.,'� ll444 `11 • , .,111 t, 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 MEMORANDUM Trevor R.Walsten (612)445-5080 TO: JOHN ANDERSON, SHAKOPEE CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: PHILLIP R. KRASS RE: SHAKOPEE LAWSUITS DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 1982 You requested an update of City of Shakopee litigation in which our firm is representing the City. I will attempt to list these matters in chronological order and they are as follows: 1. The City's acquisition of the Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative's customers and service lines within the city limits of Shakopee. As you are aware, we took this matter through condemnation and had a very unfavorable result. We have appealed to the District Court and the matter is presently in the discovery stage. 2. The Wangerin lawsuit presently involves two separate actions commenced as a suit on the bond and a suit in the form of a mechanic's lien statement. Each suit alleges money due and owing Wangerin on the contract for work as well as for additional work performed at the request of a party or parties undetermined. We are in the process of bringing M.A. Mortenson into the suit to recover on the bond, and Barbarossa is considering a partial settlement of Wangerin's claim in the lawsuit on the mechanic's lien. 3. Shakopee Sand and Gravel Assessment Appeal. This matter is presently in the discovery stage. 4. Eastview Addition - Chard Underground Utilities. Bill Chard has paid all arrearages due and owing and claims by the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission for labor and services provided in the installation of certain underground utilities in Eastview Addition. The Utility Commission has instructed that the matter be frozen until such time as Chard fails to pay any future debts. 5. The Fredeen (ect.) suit is against the City for our alleged failure to properly inspect a roof that collapsed. As you may recall, we recently received a summary judgment from Scott County District Court removing us from this lawsuit. Assuming the Plaintiff does not appeal that decision, the Plaintiff will continue with the lawsuit against the contractor only. 6. The fire truck problem litigation. We have commenced this litigation against several defendants and are presently in the process of answering and proposing discovery interrogatories. / d 7. The Axel Newmann suit against the City on the County Road 16 Project. This matter is also in the discovery stage and we have just received interrogatories from the Plaintiff. In this case, a contractor is claiming approximately $75,000, (or $40,000 depending on which day it is) worth of extras claiming the City failed to adequately inform it of certain telephone cable which the contractor feels increased its costs in placing the County Road 16 watermain in place. 8. The Air Products Assessment Appeal. This appeal has been filed and we have been working with our appraiser to determine how much benefit was given the Air Products parcel on County Road 83 and Valley Industrial Boulevard by virtue of our placement of utilities in Valley Industrial Boulevard. Our difficulty here is that Air Products believes it was adequately serviced on County Road 83 and receives no benefit from the new utilities. 9. Eastview First Addition Chard/Plonski lawsuit. Bill Chard has agreed to pay all special assessments due and owing on the Plonski property at the rate called for in the Developer's Agreement. I am currently waiting for Mr. Chard's check to clear the bank and will send out the appropriate releases and stipulations at such time. 10. Eastview First Addition Chard/Knutson Suit. This is a lawsuit brought by Chard Realty against the City of Shakopee and Richard Knutson for breach of the developer contract and other contracts executed pursuant thereto as well as for negligence which caused delay in the project completion and alleged damages to Chard in the amount of $50,000. The City has asserted numerous affirmative defenses to the Complaint as well as counterclaims including Chard's breach of the Developer's Agreement for non payment of special assessments due and owing, for failure to adequately complete Plan A Improvements, for failure to pay park fund payments required by the Agreement, and for acceleration of all payments due and owing under the Agreement for substantial violation of the covenants and agreements contained in the Developer's Agreement. Additionally, the City has cross claims against Richard Knutson and American Insurance Company (surety) for breach of contract and negligence. In turn, Chard Realty has brought claims against Valley Engineering and Busse Construction for allegedly negligent work performed on the project. The City is considering bringing a third party complaint against Valley Engineering for breach of contract and negligence also. The parties are anticipated to begin discovery procedures in the near future and perhaps settlement negotiations. 11. The Bakken Suit. This is litigation commenced in an effort to foreclose a mechanic's lien filed againt certain property in JEJ Addition, which property is covered by a standard City of Shakopee Developer's Agreement. It was only because of the Developer's Agreement that we were named and I have made arrangements with the attorney for the Plaintiff that we will not in any way be required to answer Defendant's action and the Plaintiff will not be asking for any relief against the City of Shakopee, but will simply be attempting to foreclose the mechanic's lien. We have, of course, many other open files for the City, some of which may eventually end up in litigation. It is my assumption that the report the Council requested was only for present litigation. If you or the Mayor or Council would like to receive more detailed information on any of these files, please let me know. PRK:sm MINNESOTA i` 4 • HOUSING cip FINANCE AGENCY MUM .._. A-.. November 22, 1982 The Honorable Eldon Reinke Mayor of Shakopee 129 E. First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mayor Reinke: The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency was established by the Minnesota Legislature to assist eligible Minnesota residents in improving the quality of their living environment through the construction, pur- chase, and rehabilitation of housing. In October, 1982, the Agency advertised for proposals from developers for the new construction or substantial rehabilitation of moderately priced, energy efficient, attached housing for first-time home buyers under the Medium Density Homeownership Program. The Agency will pro- vide selected developers with a forward commitment agreement for end loan mortgage financing for 12-40 units in any one development. The Agency has received 46 development proposals for a total of 1,233 housing units. We will not be able to fund all the proposals as the Agency has only acquired sufficient funds for 500-600 units. Agency staff visits each proposed site. After the site and proposal have been evaluated, selection of proposals will occur. The evalua- tion involves an examination of local market information; local Hous- ing Plans; Agency energy, design, and material standards; purchase prices and association budgets; and Regional Development Commission priorities and recommendations, where applicable. We are enclosing information on the applications received from your community, emphasizing that no selections have yet been made. The selection of proposed developments will take place in January, 1983. We invite you to submit any comments which are relevant regarding the proposed development; for example, comments on the site, whether the development is acceptable under local codes and ordinances, etc. 333 Sibley Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 (612) 296.7608 Equal Opportunity Housing and Equal Opportunity Employment November 22, 1982 Page 2 It would be helpful to our staff if your comments could be obtained by December 10, 1982, mailed to: Minnesota Housing Finance Agency 333 Sibley Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Attention: Mary Ruch If you have any questions or comments or if there is information your city has which would be helpful to the Agency in making selection decisions, please notify us. Your comments are needed to assist us in selecting the best development for your community. Sincerely, 4111110". 111111111111144, James . olem . ecuti - 'irect.r /wpc Enc. cc: John K. Anderson City Administrator The following development proposals for the Medium Density Homeownership Program have been submitted to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency: CITY Shakopee REGION 11 New Construction x Substantial Rehabilitation Location 2151 West 133rd Street Building Type Townhouses # of Units 15 # of MHFA Units 15 New Construction Substantial Rehabilitation Location Building Type # of Units # of MHFA Units _ ,CO NFF, ""r TIN F o -? UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS 1620 EYE STREET,NORTHWEST WASHINGTON,D.C.20006 TELEPHONE: (202)293-7330 October 29, 1982 Memorandum Re: Invest in America' s Cities - 1983 Hong Kong, March 15-17 Zurich, October 17-20 I am pleased to pass on to you the latest information on our Invest in America' s Cities program for 1983. We view this effort as a positive and relatively inexpensive way for you to attract foreign direct investment into your community. We have received responses from all over Asia from those who plan to participate in the Hong Kong exhibition next March. We have undertaken a direct mail campaign in Chinese, Japanese and English and have placed ads in major newspapers and magazines. The fact that we have scheduled some important policy seminars as part of the exhibition has proven of great interest to potential business- men investors. Nationally known firms such as Arthur Young & Company, Deloitte Haskins and Sells, Peat Marwick Mitchell, Manu- facturers Hanover Trust, Shearson/American Express, Touche Ross International, have all committed top staff to the seminars. With only four months before the Hong Kong exhibition, and a year before Zurich, now is the time to reserve booth space and prepare your presentation. Over eighty percent of the exhibitors who participated in the 19-81- showhave -eammr ted -themselves for the 1983 events. This decision was a direct result of the successful experience in Zurich in October, 1981. We invite you to write or call for a complete information kit. We know your community will benefit from participation in Invest in America ' s Cities. ohn J. Gunther Executive Director INVEST IN AMERICA'S CITIES Producer: D.C. Associates, Inc. NOTE CHANGE IN DATE! ! TENTATIVE AGENDA Board of Adjustments and Appeals Regular Session . Shakopee, Minnesota December 8, 1982 Chrmn. Schmitt presiding 1) Roll Call at 7 : 30 P.M. 2; 7 : 30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING : Request for a 5 ' variance from front yard setback requirements off of 10th Ave. ; 8 ' variance from front yard setback requirements off of Co . Rd. 17 and a 12 ' variance from rear yard setback requirements (So. of church parking lot ) for construction of a condominium unit in an R-4 (Multi-Family Residential) Zone. Applicant : Cletus J. Link, 12831 Link Drive Action : Variance Resolution No. 279 (Reissued) 3 ) Other Business. 4 ) Adjournment Don Steger City Planner CITY OF SHAKOPEE NOTE CHANGE IN DATE ! TENTATIVE AGENDA SHAKOPEE PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Session Shakopee, Minnesota December 8 , 1982 Chrmn. Schmitt presiding 1) Roll Call at 7 : 45 P.M. 2 ) Approval of Meeting Minutes - November 4, 1982. 41010 3 . 7 : 45 P .M. PUBLIC HEARING: Request to renew existing Conditional Use Permit for a preschool and day care center in a B-5 (existing R-3 ) Zone. Applicant : Dorothy ' s Daily Discovery Montessori Preschool 1035 H] u f t Avcnuc Action : Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 169 (Renewed) 4 . 7 : 55 P .M. PUBLIC HEARING :Request to renew existing Conditional Use Permit allowing for an outdoor building materials yard in a B-5 (existing B-1) Zone . Applicant : St . Regis Paper Company, P. O. Box 26499 , St. Louis Pk. Action : Conditional Use Permit Resolution No . 204 (Renewed) 55426 5 . Discussion : Development of property north of Tahpah Park and extension of sewer and water to Tahpah Park. 6 . Informational Items : a) 1983 Planning Commission/Board of Adjustment & Appeals Meeting Schedule b ) Parrott Rezoning c ) "Housekeeping" Amendments to City Code d) e) 7. Other Business 8 . Adj ourriniciit Don Steger City Planner CITY OF SHAKOPEE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 4, 1982 Chrm. Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. with Comm. Coller, Stoltzman, Perusich, Czaja and Koehnen present. Comm. Rockne arrived later. Also present were Doti Steger, City Planner, and Cncl. Vierling. Czaja/Perusich moved to approve the minutes of Octo1 r• 7, 1982, n; kept. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - COX CONDITIONAL, USE PERMIT (PC 82-44C) Perusich/Coller moved to open the public hearing regarding the request for a con- ditional use permit to operate a small plastic fabrication facility in a B-3 Zone. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner stated the applicant is James Cox, and the proposed location is 135 Atwood. He further explained the nature of the business and stated it would be quite small and non-disruptive to adjoining properties. Therefore, he stated r'(. Omuuk'rid:: ;it}l)ruv;il . Mr. Cox stated the business would be very low-key, and he would not even need gar- bage pick-up because the excess plastic is re-cycled. He stated there are no hazardous wastes and the machine draws only the power of a kitchen stove. He said there was a faint odor from the machine, but it does not carry farther than 15-20 feet. He added the machine is temperature controlled, and this is not an injection molding type operation. Chrm. Schmitt asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to comment on this matter, and there was no response. Comm. Rockne arrived and took his seat at this time, 7:40 P.M. Coller/Perusich moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Coller/Stoltzman offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 327, which would permit a fabrication, assembly and wholesale business in a B-3 Zone, with the stipulation that injection molding not be allowed, and moved for its adoption. Mr. Cox stated there would be no assembly. Motion carried with Comm. Rockne abstaining because of his absence during the discussion. PUBLIC HEARING - HENTGES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PC 82-40C) Comm. Perusich left the table at this time, due to conflict of interest. Czaja/Rockne moved to open the public hearing regarding the request to install two underground 8,000 gallon fuel storage tanks in a B-1 Zone. Motion carried unanimously. . November 4, 1982 . Page 2 The City Planner stated the applicant is Steven Hentges and the location is 1523 West 3rd Avenue. He went over the considerations of the request, and stated that staff recommends approval with the condition of State Fire Marshall's approval. Chrm. Schmitt asked if there was anyone from the audience who wished to comment on this matter, and there was no response. Coller7Rockne moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Rockne/Stoltzman oi•fered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 325, which allows the installation of two 8,000 gallon underground bulk liquid storage tanks with the following condition: The tanks and their installation be approved by the State Fire Marshall's office, and moved for its adoption. Motion carried with Comm. Perusich abstaining. Comm. Perusich returned to the table. PUBLIC HEARING - PARROTT REQUEST TO RE-ZONE (PC 82-42R) Perusich/Colley moved to open the public hearing regarding the request to re-zone the R-4 portion of the Don and Lorraine Parrott property located along the north side of CR16, East of CR17, and west of Al 's Landscaping, to I-1. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner stated the applicants wish to have all their property under one zoning classification so as to encourage development in the future. He reviewed all the considerations for the re-zoning request. He stated staff recommends ap- proval of the re-zoning request so as to provide a tract of land which is market- able and developable in harmony with adjoining property. Discussion followed regarding original intent of the zoning and adequate access. Chrm. Schmitt asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to comment on this item. Cliff Stafford, 2056 Eagle Creek Blvd. , stated he lives directly across from Parrott Construction, and he is concerned about screening provisions. Right now there is not sufficient screening, and there are lighting problems, he stated. He would like some assurances that more screening would be required, to make it more desireable to have industrial right across from residential. Chrm. Schmitt stated the land Parrotts presently use for their residence and the construction business is grandfathered in because it was in existence prior to the adoption of the current ordinance. Therefore, as long as they use the property in the same manner, they are not subject to additional screening requirements. However, if they should alter, expand or sell the property for another use, the property would be required to follow current ordinances. Chrm. Perusich added that if the property was sold and the use continued as it is, there would be no additional screening requirements. Chrm. Schmitt added that enforcement in most zoning matters is based on people in the area reporting any changes in current conditions of businesses, etc. The City Planner stated that when new building permits are issued for any new development, code requirements would have to be complied with. Chrm. Schmitt asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to comment, and there was no response. Coller/Perusich moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. • November 4, lyt2 - Page 3 Colter/Rockne moved to recommend to City Council that the R-4 portion of the Parrott property, consisting of approximately 14.78 acres, be rezoned from R-4 to I-1. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner informed the applicants this recommendation should go on the City Council agenda November 16, 1982. PUBLIC HEARING - BAKKEN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PC 82-43C) Rockne/Czaja moved to open the public hearing regarding the request for the place- ment of fillin a Floodplain District located north of Americ-Inn, and east of Marschall Road. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner stated the applicant is Wallace Bakken, owner of Americ-Inn, who intends to construct an addition to the motel, a recreation center and an addi- tional parking lot. He stated the City Engineer's opinion was sought for this request, and he stated the fill would not increase the flood heights, and there- fore the Conditional Use Permit may be approved, as it becomes a land-use question. Staff recommends approval. Wallace Bakken, 2796 150th Street, stated he did not think the figure of 2,222 cu. yds. of fill was correct, as he thought the area to be filled was larger than that. He stated he thought the area is 4.00x30x10, which was re-figured to be 4,444 cu. yds. He stated he would have to have some soil erosion control in the area, because there is to be a road behind his property going down to the bottom- lands. Chrm. Schmitt asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to comment on this matter. A woman stated she is=, a resident of Valley Haven Park and wondered how this would affect her. She stated she didn't want everything around the park built up, with them being a lot lower. Chrm. Schmitt stated this should not affect her, as this property is much lower. Coller/Perusich moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Coller/Rockne offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 326, allowing for the placement of approximately 5,000 cubic yards of clean fill in the Floodway District located north of Americ-Inn and east of Marschall Road for Wallace Bakken, appli- cant, and moved for its adoption. Motion carried with Comm. Koehnen opposed. DISCUSSION - PUD TOUR The City Planner asked for clarification of the Commissioner's intentions in tour- ing an existing PUD. Discussion followed, with consensus being a desire to see a slide presentation of PUDs, describing theory, intention, pros and cons. After that presentation the Commissioners desire a tour of an existing PUD, possibly Opus II, and maybe another, including residential, that has been in existence for some time, with commentary from local staff regarding specifics of that particular PUD. INFORMATION ITEM: The schedule of ICC tours was reviewed, and the City Planner stated each Commis- sioner should contact the ICC member of their own particular tour if there are any problems with attendance. Discussion centered on allowing more than one Commissioner on any particular tour, and possibly switching individual assignments among Commissioners. Shakopee Planning Commission November 4, 1982 Page 4 The City Planner stated the Bill LaTour Conditional Use Permit was scheduled to be reviewed at this time for the six month reviewal, but because he only started his home occupation and the use of the Conditional Use Permit a week ago, the Planner will, review it six months from date of operation. He added more specific language may have to be written into future Conditional Use Permits specifying reviewal six months from commencement of operation, rather than six months from date of issuance. Discussion was held on the review/renewal update of the Conditional Use Permits to Dorothy's Daily Discovery for operation of rr preschool. & day care center in a B-5 sone and the Conditional Use Permit to ;;L. Regis Paper Company for the outside storage or building material in a B-5 Zone. The City Planner asked for direction in these two cases in so far as if the Commissioners wanted to change the original condition of renewal to reviewal. Discussion t'e>llowed. !'erusich/Koetterr moved th.. Conditional Use I',rrn i t fur Dorothy's Daily Discovery be changed to a reviewal, subject to staff review of conditions to insure compliance, and the Conditional Ur;e Permit for St. Regis f.,.y,r Company continue on a renewal basis. Discussion centered on requirement of staff's on-site inspection and compliance with all the conditions origiru1,11y stipulated in the Conditional Use Permit. Motion carried unanimously. Cncl . Vier] lug stated the Council ha:; turned over the responsibility for issuing building permits in the by-pas:; area to the County , which currently will not issue any permits in that area. Discussion ensued on posuiDil .i.ty of some tyle of bonding for Planned Unit Developments and the City Planner is to check with other communities. Czaja/Perusich moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjounred at 9:17 P.M. Don Steger City Planner Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary • ;.:., 6/3 City of Shakopee POLICE DEPARTMENT 476 South Gorman Street SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 Tel. 445-6666 TO: John K. Anderson FROM: Tom Brownell SUBJECT: St. Francis 2 hour parking DATE: November 22 , 1982 I have met with St. Francis Hospital Administration and determined that two hour parking should be implemented at the following locations. 1. Atwood between 4th & 5th Avenues - East & West sides. 2 . 4th Avenue between Atwood & Scott - South side. 3. 5th Avenue between Atwood & Scott - North side 4 . Scott between 4th & 5th Avenues - East side, handicapped only. These are the only areas St. Francis requested . The signing will be reviewed after a trial period and adjusted if necessary. The posts have been driven due to the frost factor and signs have been ordered. JO JEWE al J"Zoteet * v, v `;; \.J1 Fund 4 Co * * * * Q, * �D H 'Priority a) co 1 0\ v, r w CD ter, w F"'.,, H PO O 1irograrrr Number R U) WO 1 W N Q.\ --1 N F'' ;tt .0 mill .- tr1 C trI �1 t=1 '0-i M W M F» U 1 t I M iv N N W w (j N ()j (4 IU ci 1` N $.% cI '11 0• Ip' ci �i c+ f c i c 1 �i c(( 1 c F� F, H. 0 0 0 g o c+ p o E E Fi6.4 H W (D c• c+ cc+ cG c0+ Fes,• c 0. c-+ 0 c�+ c+ H c+ c+ c+ (13' CD• c+ fa,ED p, 0 P. t~-' 9 a a P, 0a w a P ti o N 0 1-1 a O d r 0 a o N o ~' 0 'd 0 0 M P.(n c+ m c+ cn cD (D 0) N C m c+ w c+ c+ c+ hi c+ c+ (+ c+ H c+ ¢o c+ 0 c+ H •• 1 •• u) 1 •• P. •• 0 c •• hi •• Ft o Description CD (D P. M -.I N N C (D N H El a) H O c o IID ‘../1 • \./1 0 11 OD U) i W 0 K 1 mi .i 0 v NI-. . 0 -J 0 !n 0 O o to 0 O 0 K 0 0 0 (�D 0 CO 0 0 O 00 • 0 (D 0 0 0 N `l) c+ K Co • _O H • ‘...41L eacibilit,y •• co w • 07 I oN° keport, :• N N • N ' -a N • rn • SPEC • • . • co o-; • co IN) 111'l�V;II • N n, • N . ty • - LA) • 1 • — IPub l i c c • OD CO • w ; CONHear ing ,I7-1• N N • N CT' .`' • N w • 0 • -. I'lans and •• w ( � • co• : N°' (Specifications •. •• CJ C=1 't• : : z • Might-of-Way x H 0' y • �' Acqu i sit ion --co t.,• N U)•• v, • N ; x Bid y ..• Lk) II., .. 'I; • �- n, • IA) i OJ • • ( , ��:�:;lt:;:.rrl''Ill, •• co I\) •. w N, . o (hearing t • W I ) • 0 ytJ • 0-, • ‘..o : '0• O rn a\ : rn : co Completion y •• OD • CO • W CO CO Cop • Co : 000 Date •• �.- - N •• (,.) N N N .. N •. W c) h1 •.y C) ul ci lit , . () di . • (-) tU :< c) UJ Cl tLi ;) W CN Ouv N N v, N N W N .p- J w 1 ;ngineer 0 0 . co' O O O N co W (,) O N O O W o \.n 1 • VI vi vi o o -I co wN - orn � 0coO O0°o �vW, rn oo°� )Tenhc1an [II 1-, J W H 1-' N Uechnician II 00M 1--, n) "--rno ov'rn� © � 0 � � o0\ ornCo rn Inspector 1I Vi Vl V7 Vl Vl o' o Technician I o 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o I!is l)est0t' 1 0 0 co ;1' 0 N 1 1' ' N 1_,+ N Sec e tar y 0 a. oo co N O _I O O o ---• V7 N 00 '� O Ol OFO O O N F-1 1 • Vl �' VI VI V1 H W• co N NI-' 1" N Total O O oW vi 11 •P" O �O 1 N O .p" 1 coo \O Ov'i co Vi 1 O ' .P" O • N N V1 Vi V1 VI V1 Vl N 69- -4 1- Hpp N H H F-' N N vi N H W W 0\ H Engineering I I N iv w .~N-- 0 I w -a H H o I 0 W H H 1 I N coDept. Fee I I W Ui 1 vi Nn -\ I W C C.: 0' Q\ I N O O\H (3I W W • vi VI Vi v V1 0 0 0 0 0 w CoH 'Fund ¢ H H* H H* H* H* H 'Priority N (D O\ ‘_n -P- W N H 0 VO HCo H w (Program Number H a) LTJ H LTJ hd L i H+ M C] tri N MH M C] M '=J ro m o• m P N to 0 (n Cl cn P (n 0 m 11 c+ H. c+ c+ M c+ • c+ .7a p. cL1+ '.� c+ R° • c+ P) (D H• K N• (1) H• H• H P F-'• td H H'• c+ (D 0 c+ 0 0 0 H 0 ! i i . 0 Pt 0 0 Iv (D p a' Ill c+ P a P C P 0• P •• a Pt H-' 7:1 c+ m c+ Cl c+ 1 c+ • c+ (p (p c+- c+ • c+ O\H'• (p (D c+ (D p (D M c+ 0 (D iU (D LTJ N VO(iq P, c+ a a cf a OD a a P) a P r-' a 0.' `' a 0 CD W CO C) c+ O C] PC' C] cf a O '• 0 P 0 Cl 0 E O • f' 0 0 C 0 M co C cn H C �.. cn H. to p to to O c+ cn O c+ (D c+ r c+ Hi c+ P, c+ c+ c+ c+ p cH M H• cf ,-i •• G •• P •• M •• a) •• O •• O '7r Description 1-1 o(C N• H H'• 1 'i O c+ 0 -Eft -0* 0 fa- 0 -(79-P R° *5* • �• -69- 1 Cn Cl :1 to o' o N w ci- C N) H (D E 0 •w.l • N• W Lei O 0 -I P 0 O P a \-7) U) 0 Cl H 0 o 0 0 '• 0 0Oti 0 O -,7 In 0 o 0 o N 0 0 0 CD 0 (D 0 a O 0 0 N• 0 0 0 Fi 0 C) 0 0 (\ H • o : v a IFeasibilitya ` • c CO• �' ,� z' : w I •• H .. h s� • --.. r • coAPUC . y • oo • co •• N tJ .. r\.) n.. N O �1 ; pproval • `D • ` K: •• HO'•; Public 4 •• CX) �� J a :. CO• :.• - o ; Hearing • ei II, w • �•; 'CI : flans andHi • �' �' �' CON : CO c+. Nay m m (Specifications C 10 •. HH:• 0 H+) to C •-d • � o • H-': (Right-of-Way :.• alx' n x' ;' q : CO �. wW Acquisition 3 CO�~ N N.• Z N H• w(� z n 7.1 .r- • w ••. rn • rid • ?� co • co • o • ( � N • w • •. •. • att O x • ap • -5 Assessment • n)) a • • • Hearing .• .. .. b 0 x • rn • �,)t • rn • V) • V) • : ON : Completion H • �_ • Date • CO • CU • OD • OD • OD • CO • OD • •• - •. N •. N •. N •• W •. N •. N .. a t71 0 tz! ', (-) Gd 3 a 01 Z. a m ' 0 td a td .' :7 til o H CO N H-' - \O CO w ON Engineer 0 0 -1 N •P' 0 4—.1H vi HJ -,4 H-' 0 O\O\ 0 1-' N 0 -) 0 w H 4 Vl vi Vl L' °` H V•1 -F"v1 Co w Technician LII a. O 0V1 0N `° 0W 0 1--3 00' 000 00 N 000 O H VI VI VI .P- N H Technician II '' OD N H H ON‘,0 --I 0) o CO t7 \o --1VD ON c> CO CO.-I j- (-) °`\n o I l>ect.0I. [ I 0 O -I -r- O --I VO OD 00 OO OH' 00 .i c' VI Vl vi Vl a' 0 o Technician 1 Fes,, O O O oO O O O 00 L::::: :: ' tOO OOOO OO OO OO O O M0 0 0'0 H Co N O H VI 0 \110 0 0'4 00" 0 --- CD O 'I v' \It W H v~ W i N „ 04 N H `ft� w °'� H N Total 0 O oo' vWia ~ owu' v"'i : oD 0 -�w ow0 H o ' � 0\n 1 • Co N VI 4f} N 1 1 N N N -JH‘O N VO O F O\ '. N wZ H --I' •• N. •. Engineering O �p VO „ „ N O\ w O CO 0 00 '0UGO o '00 HH vN 003H 0N) ww0 '0 0 Dept. Fee 1 1 \O0 1 0 VI ON 1 H I '0 CA) 1-' -.1 ‘.n ul Vi 0 C) - CS o N, O I Fund * C> H '0 F-' ;.- . W * * * * * * P N N) fu N) N h H h' 'Priority N 17 w N h' o LI oo m N N h' h' h' N N W a H rn o ON -3 o w .fi- 'Program Number NO LTJ C b '' tri •-ci t i < to Ft) trJ t' trj N trJ Cl) oo m hJ m H m O m p) m K m (D m O m I-a. N c'• d h'• (D O c+ ~ � + H c+ a c+ H c+ H• cf) < c+ Li P P W Cr to W P W K W p 0- c r H c+ c+ c+ c+ ti c+ t J U c-+ 0 c+ H (D p) m 0 (D �+ K (D 'i (D P (D P ''i cD ) CD 7C P H P a rn Pw P ' a m P. O. c+ a H W (D CD - (D c+ < P n n (D n H CD • c+ 0 jr' n n lD 0 O4 n 0 o `G 0 0 0 o 0 C> 0 0 0 (D 0 0 m m n m c+ zj m Um < m1-+, m m CO c+ U c+ r c+ 0 (D c+ '1 c+ CD c+ cD c+ w c+ e- m N, •• H H.•• " rn & 0 0 Description a-�• 0 N N• H a o -ED- 0 -Cf)- c+ or -ED- P 0 H• 0 -69- - c+ H (P W p' H. 04m M H Imo. 0 0) (D Y ' H. N P> W 0 0 o o O ((DD '. O N W co W 0 Y • Y 0 . O • 0 (i) 0 0 0 0 O 0 o o 0 z 0 0 o a 0 0 a Fd • -, • (D w . -I (Feasibility •▪ Co o — . co •• Cn a) c Report; I > �. N I` .. N• N .. n) r n H. • • � z • • . N :m \ • SPUC o •` • Co a (Approval (D a tY 0 co . a • : (Public o m1-4 •▪ N N • Hearing �, N) ,.b M & 1 tlj . O `o U) • c� --� . w (Plans and • V. co • °' : o co . co . Specifications c) •• `- N • .. N • c+ N N • c•• • . W • OD : ND • Right-of-Way . . H y. . Co .. Co Co . Acquisition 7 co ., tr N • ...3• • ON .. (Bid • �- • •• co o' • co • Date o .. .. .. N .. N • N 1-1 x . • . : A:,:;c :;nu ill. .. .. .. N°' .' . c : (Hearing t `�° •rn Completion r-3 •. • ... . co. •. co. Co •• Co : Date •$ n tr.) n bi Z n bd n tTJ :?..: n tU Z n to :: c) W .s :D td N1-1 N N p Nl W O 0 NO O 0 0 1-10 0 -r--w 0 0 H O N 000 Engineer N, N, N, 0 0\ o oN -. .---a\ CD Technician III ' o -P- 0o' OO H oo 000 0 \00 0O\0 OON d Nl •1 • N O N W F, H ‘121N `n Technician II ,' Inspector II -P-NO —. o o -co 00NO 00 � 000 o • Co OOON 001- K Q N, v, 1... c ce O Technician I 000 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :::::: I o o m o' m x o w N 0\ N• hN N , , .\-1\f")1 1i 0 -3()--) CowNN H 000 O -3 0 0 0 0 0-3 0 0 0 w H O' („� 0 H N �n N, Y H ,t1 H P ON--4 W N N W - `0 s. Total co (;D \..n \O N ND Ln N, co N ON -3 0 '-0H ON oN,0 000 0 0 H 00 .-" .'"W0 0ODN h' HN 00 o- N I W Ni Nt N, I IV VD h' O\ h' +-J vi ON Co op no N Y Engineering ry 0\71 1 .fi-0 1 I -� I I '-0 H -4 0 I -3� -P'o I I ,!2° Dept. Fee NO Nom' ON0 0 00 00 N0 W O\W 0ODN H -"N 0ON p '.0 00 I -1 rn I I O\ 1 1 N Nt 0 I --1 H N 0 I I '0 Nil 0 O N \. O °` 'Fund • H w CN N N * * * * * ¢, o v co CN v 'Priority M �n V1 vt \n W w N N M NN 'Program Number m H' O\ V1 N a m O to u) W to tri u) A) rr fD O r• ul O Op C+ c+ c+ N c+ (-) C.I c+ 0' c+ 0 c+ U] H) c+ H O o 0 y p C r0 t;`) ti n @ `+ c+ c+ 0. (r) c+ 1-3 Pt cc+ N cc+ N @ 0 @ 0M MR. P. M @ @ 'r' @ c+ C OM P. sit. p P-, P.,P• 0 P• I-' P, @ P, @ P-, c+ a a o cn a k-1 c n o'V PC a W C) « 0 O O r. O 'd O 'W @ O r• O P o mom tri co c t. m 'i m o to to m to m p w c+ c+ o e+ 0 (+ oct :7, c) 0- P. e+ P +P. 0- m & 0 c+ LT" @ 0 PDescription a H f-i 0 & O M - - @ O Eft C -C-0- M Er- @ N 1P CO N m (D ‘...n9 CO 'd Oo 1-' c+ O VI W Fj 0 0 Cl 0 N @ . 0 @ 0 0 ON 0 0 @ 0 O 0 0 0 'i 0 O o - O O O • • K : o• • : H . Feasibility :. • o. • NN• •• m : : Report n .. .. Z Co t+ H • 7 (1). • • I_ • • IS['UC (f' '' M :: r Approval • .. bo N - N O 0 • �, • 1-1 • • 'Public Hi • • M • '' •. O ; Hearing a " • 0 " cb .. t=y N w rn a p•• • co : . w Plans and 1 • N • H : : Specifications • o w m .. .. •0 hi b • m • \ • .. K .. : (Hight-of-Way • P •• Co • : : : Acquisition `� ko ►-'• „ Nw : : N•• Vt y • Bid �. • O - - : N - - :. o, :. 'Date z LA H x r • • . ssessment •• Hearing m .. •. oo w ., o (completion Co• • Coo" ate • N • N .. owo 0 a� u' H w H o• --i NN o Engineer 0 Ow O 0w N L,./ GO 0 00 0 0w H 0 0 ._,1 C Hi (•••0 -as Ha III P 0 0 0 0o o o - 0 O \•O op 0 •✓-- 0 0 0 Op O o N0 0 0 •s • N CI �� �, �, Technician IT �,' 0 w 0 0 0 0 N) 0 Co co N 0 S 0 0 .E 0O N 00 co .Inspector [ I ;} n' 0 0 () • w 0 CO 1.� i P 0' 0 i✓ ' Technician I 000 000 00 0 00 0 000 000 000 000 Inspector I o o @ x @ cn O H 0 0 0 0 w V 0 0 O N Q O H p o N 0•� NO Secretary • vi `n In `n 'v H w H P N ' CO0 v1 Total ' U.) . Hw coVt owo 0O\O OV 00 i \00 O H'0w0\ O • O Co I V7 VI V7 V7 V1 V1 vi 4-:- I Ef! N H w 00 Co - —moi Engineering 1 O\ i F-' \J1' I ON" H CO" I I H" 1 " o rn 0 w v, ON o w -P" W V,-4 0 H"1 0 o 0 0 0 Dept. Fee I co O 1 CO O O\\D 0 1 . H -J --I ~O I N I Vl N 1 OOl g Vl 0 w* N I I Fund M N (Priority a ci- VI Q, W 'Program Number H * O C tri F- a N cC.�- cam+ ti o w fa) p p, w K p P H P P a P, 0 P. a o H o �¢ w co m • m :+ Description ci0 i.0 Cl) ~o o (D o 0 (D o O li 0 0 : Fv •: (Feasibility • . . . : : o • co Report .. .. .. .• .. .. D• N) n . `+ _, is PUC `ci �:y ' oN . .. ° Approval • • •: ' •• •• hi Co : (Public 0 : • • • . • co • co Hearing ti 1-1 . txi (n 'o (Plans and 7 CID Specifications o :. Cr N • N C1 til • . •• `- (Hight-of-Way H . :. :. • t� • t Acquisition 1 CO p 1.; N O' Z H :. :. . :. ' 0' (Date O • • N x C \ossessment • Q° Hearing O N • :. :• :• :• . : oma` Completion '� : • : . . • w ate I • Pa Z c] bd 3 O W caw � c w z o w *.-,:: Qto r :-) w el- r..,aq P'J Po `} o N `H Engineer VI \p0O OON vi (D ul r t� N rnvi F., H w [Technician III N N W pa cam+ cook Os co-- O W a\ o I-' N W c+ P. vt • >✓ 0 e o"'oW I-, c r ITechnicianli �' o m Nvi--4 N M(^' ins inspector II ,+ 0 A� rn u-i w -�\o 0 1-. P �t w cn N F' D� v, vid 0 • c+ VI Technician I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inspector I 0 - worn K 0 00 N"' • F,•N .p- Secretary `� -� coo H NP-H VD 0 .F-- o.w K O o H P VI Co UI NCov Ht H \ft j O ,-d Total " o (D K 0 \JIW \D OW -J U W H t K n -1 ‘,0--IP (D -EA. CoN O N N c0+ H H H ko F' o °'"' n .W °` W H w . Engineering o w rn Nrno (-) o N o\ o Dept. Fee O 0 oo‘o \o N co V1 N \p w ct ‘..71V1 O 0 0 1 .r=" �" .�- I Program rnv �• 00fl co • N) Number n En4 C] Cl) 1-3 0 tv c+ n F3 N•H H P. C) N• 'z1 c+ 1 P •t • H H C N En PI' N cc+ O CDD + ro m • N C. m o GI c+ , U• ~ H 04 Cl) iv CD l) CI- 0 O • 'd '1 • U . • • .• • .. .. .. . .. ((t tj 'b tnn • W xj . 1--I c+ Cli FH v • • • • 'I1 ,:.3 \O .. (D :- OD . .. .. .. (n t N b .. .• . r• te• O I. .. .. •• •. N• H H m •• •. •• •• •. •• .. .. Cl) 0 30td Xotd 30td 30bo ,•?.:. ntd into 4 ntd X ntd oo "' c) TO —1 Co NNO 0 Noo •P-* � o� F;ngineer 0 0 . vi 0 0 OD • vi v, C-1 I w H H N �' H vi technician III w 0 rn v' O 0 O vi km v7 0 v9 p 0 IVO N -P-vt 9 \n 0 0 • O Co O N H -' - . vi VI Technician IT 'J' cn w IN) -� op .p-Ui --I ON N w -„i .g-- .a- N O\vl Inspector II �'' w O H 0 0 OD 0 H oD 0 -r-'0 000 0 1 0 0 OHO (..0 (...0 vI Y. rf V vl V Technician I oo0 000 000 000 000 000 c0 00 000 inspector I oo rn I-1 o' 000 H w vl -11-. 0 0 N 0 o o"' 0 00 H L0 0 o‘./1ecretary �.. ii Vn \n \n v H VI 'U P H N H -'w H N NI-' HH N H Total CDD Covi OD 0 \O I`) H OD 0 vi N w P. H O\p•\ vl O\ko CO O \O 0 H OD CO vl N 0 -J .4'0 0 0 0 - 0 0 vl N)0 N 7 v7 N I •vl ‘...nvl vi Q'\ w"' H H H \O ON �� H \w row H 0\•P'' Engineering I ON N ----4 \O-4 N vi'O-I I I o - \O - H N - I-�i..�Q Dept. Fee Io iv 1-- CoHH coiv p co vi O\ OD O I II O N : "o O O\co o p .fi'\O vl vt vl VI vl 0 0 0 0 0 ti H w H �' . - Program H O\ H o H V1 -~.- H Number R D� (+ ft � H d(D wu) P. 0 j.,. CD MI Fi O CD n n c) 0 0 CO7 :3 ti Po }I HCD N CD c+ • T7 CD CD H' P b c+ H p' ' CD H. o r+ o `+ a.: O I,• C)• CD '-CD • P NK CD ) c+R. am Co CC+- CD Cf N P, 1-,. H w m N .• •. • P h7 [xi • • • L1 • CD .. 0 e1 c+ ti • • • i y\O .. • • a) DD .. .. .. CO t N hi • O y • Cl • •• .. ... , . Q H x • H• r, • c+ «_< .. .. . • 0 brri O :3 C7 tzi 0 W ? 0 tz1 ? 0 tzi 0 Czi a 0 tz1 C7 W :-) w 1 1 t F-' - h' I-' .p- H -' .-- w 0 IJnineer 0 0 1 O O 1 O O I O O H -'0 O V1 0 Covl O O\--I O • V, V, r' wIV H --I N Pechnician III w 0 0 1 0 0 1 001 00w 0 -JO 0 O O1- -3N O d I I I O O O O - 0 Technician II N' N -� .v- N �„ H Inspector I [ ; E ! F-' H HH H {� J N W N F' program -J W N "' H N N umber O 'T] 0 0 F, N, 0 b x 0 d n ;y P On G C tt, ;n• to 0N• N �h C) 0 KCD c+ 1-' pp n o 0 all Fd �i N 'O cci- h 12° (D N. N. O G G ,. 0• 0 0 a a N• 0 • 0 c +c �+ 1 N. 0 CD I lD fa, til P, ( CD 0 N P 'A 0 G CD x 0 M o N• cf CD G K0 ......• CD N`• + ci M 0- .D F-' �.� Cn `. • • ; • rl .. „ .. • K to • • 0 :. :. •• :. :. ti z .. •• til w trJ • It Z :. :. :. . ; CD 0 •• c+ U 'd. : •: : . m. :. . . . •. t 0 •. • : • ; -• . tr 0 .. .. .• .. .• •. •• .. H N '• x • • :. :. . . . . : Cl)° t 0H C) til (] W 30W 0 t Zotx oto 01b 30 tri I I 1 1 1 Cu I 1 igineer o o { o i o 0 1 00 1 00 1 0 1 00 , o \o1 00 oo oo I oo oo o01 001 00 Technician ILI tfr . o ~Y U ° I I II I I `Technician II �' 1 I 1 1 H inspector II �r b 0 0 O H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N H i w �+ci G 0 0 I I I Technician I 1-6 00 � 1 00 i 00 i 00 i 00l 00 � 00 � Inspector I g 0 x m 001 00\ i 00\ � oOD'I OW ' 0Hco cy' ' 0•II1 ::::t ary Vn VI 1n vi• vi vi v, N VI I I 1 i •c, N � °-1 0 H , 0 0\ I 0 0\ I 0 O 1 O-a 0 H 0 -�J (�D V'7 VI VI ‘.....nVn N• t I I I I I 1 0) 1 1 °__, I Engineering H HI I 1 1 ° I I I N I \•O I I I I h I Dept. Fee H -i 0 H 0 --I 0 -J O N CO W o I o CO 4 - I \-0 10) I N I N 0 -H I Co 10 v1 Program Number co t: . m M L N. FC b c+ R. • . : . . : : . • P) . . : : : : : • • . . . . . 4� .. .. .. .. .. .. ., t,i til • . (� tT1 • • • • . . . . IA 2 -3 • . • . . • . 0 • • • . . • • . x . • • r. .• .. .. .• :: .• 1 : 1 . • • • . C .Z., • • 1-i • c: W (-') W Z0tzi C tri ZcOtU ;ZC) bi .s, 0W :) W o \o Engineer 01 w o 1v l'ecttnic it ii 1 1 1 O LA.) . WN \n -) Technician II ';' w Inspector [1 . Pw1 . cr '' \71 f: Technician I ...- ° 0 0 Inspector I H 0 x co N ko Secretary d ,ti • NO U (0 w V1 • ‘J-1K 011 cn W W H Vl Lk)".P-o 'Total 1 o0wCo CO 4f N CO CO u) V V V �`' Engineering rn Dept. Fee \n o 0 0 TENTATIVE AGENDA REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 7, 1982 Mayor Reinke presiding 1] Roll Call at 7 :00 P.M. 2] Adjourn for an H.R.A. meeting 3] Reconvene 4] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 5] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS 6] Approval of Consent Business - (All items listed with an asterick are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. ) *7] Approval of Minutes of November 16, 1982 8] Communications: a] Mr. & Mrs. Ray Deutsch re: accidents at 3rd & Holmes b] League of Mn. Cities re : vacancies on Insurance Trust Board c] Norbert B. Traxler re : Plat of Shimek Addition 9] Public Hearings: a] Application for a Taxicab License from Shakopee Cab & Courier Servi• 10] Boards and Commissions: a] Energy & Transportation Committee: 1] Proposed Transportation Survey 11] Reports from Staff: a] Health and Life Insurance for City Employees b] Flat Sewer Rate for Senior Citizens c] Sanitary Sewer Bill for Macey Manor d] Purchase of a Terminal /Micro Computer e] Authorize Payment of Bills in Amount of $105, 197.48 *f] Travel/Subsistence Reimbursement - S . Hurley *g] Thrift Shop Furnace *h] Snowmobile/ATV Ordinance Revision i] Screening for Rubber Industries j ] Prairie Street Sanitary Sewer Insulation - change order & payment k] Eagle Bluff 2nd Addition Drainage Problem *1] Lighting at CR-42 and Marschall Road DELETE m] City Engineer' s Car *n] Old Treatment Plant Land Transfer *o] Park Dedication Agreement (Furrie' s 2nd & Valley Park 6th) p] Long View Estates 1st Add'n. - Letter of Credit - memo on table *q] Microwave Oven for City Hall Lunchroom r] Employee Performance Evaluations s] Purchase of Parkland for Eastside (JEJ ) Park t] Purchase of Trash Compacter for Parks TENTATIVE AGENDA December 7, 1982 Page -2- 12] Resolutions and Ordinances: *a] Res. No. 2087 , Adopting Uniform Regulations for the Planting of Shrubs and Trees *b] Res. No. 2088, Final Approval of $1 ,300,000 I .R. Bonds for the Cornelius Company c] Res. No. 2085, 1983 Pay Schedule for Non-Union Employees *d] Res. No. 2086, Amendment to Personnel Policy Regarding Salary Adjustments During An Employee ' s Probation *e] Res. No. 2089, Abating Assessments for Bluff Avenue for Dorothy' s Daily Discovery *f] Res. No. 2083, Ordering the 1982 Diseased Tree Removal Program *g] Res. No. 2084, Setting Hearing Date on Proposed Assessment for the 1982 Diseased Tree Removal *h] Res. No. 2090, Ordering Improvements To Road In John Maras Residential Development lying East of CR-89 i] Res . No. 2091 , In Support of Changes in State Aid Formula 13] Other Business : a] b] c] d] 14] Adjourn to Tuesday, December 21 , 1982 at 7 :00 P.M. John K. Anderson City Administrator L, TENTATIVE AGENDA Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Shakopee , Minnesota Regular Session December 7 , 1982 Chairman Leroux presiding 1 . Roll call at 7 : 00 p.m. 2 . Approval of minutes of October 5 , 1982 3. Approve transfer of funds 4. Other business 5 . Adjourn Jeanne Andre Executive Director PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 5, 1982 Chrm. Leroux called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. with Comm. Vierling, Lebens, Wampach and Colligan present. Also present were Jeanne Andre, HRA Director; John K. Anderson, City Admr. and Judith S. Cox, City Clerk. Lebens/Wampach moved to approve the minutes of September 21, 1982 as kept. Motion carried with Comm. Vierling abstaining because of her absence at that meeting. Lebens/Wampach offered Resolution No. 82-i1, A Resolution Adopting A General Fund Budget for 1983, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Colligan/Vierling offered Resolution No. 82-10, A Resolution Requesting The Shakopee City Council To Consent To the Levy Of a Special Tax By The Housing and Redevelopment Authority In and For The City of Shakopee, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Chrm. Leroux gave information relative to the Assoc. of Metropolitan Municipalities Housing Conference to be held October 27, 1982, and suggested anyone wishing to attend should contact the HRA Director so reservations can be made. Lebens/Vierling moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7:06 P.M. MEMO TO: Jeanne Andre, HRA Director FROM: Gregg M. Voxland, Finance Director RE: Interfund Transfer DATE: November 1, 1982 Introduction and Background The expenditures for the 4th & Minnesota project exceeded grant amount. The average on the hooks amounts to $1,664.00 resulting from wages and benefits of staff. The HRA provided for funding this deficit by a transfer from the HRA fund as part of the 1982 Budget. Action Requested Move to approve the transfer of $1,664.00 from the IIRA Fund to the 4th & Minnesota Fund as per the 1982 Budget. GMV:mmr . OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. SPECIAL SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 16, 1982 Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. with Cncl. Colligan, Lebens, Wampach, Vierling and 'Leroux present. Also present were Rod Kress, Ass't City Attorney; Judith S. Cox, City Cleric and John K. Anderson, City Admr. Liaison reports were presented by Councilmembers. Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to address the Council on any item not on the agenda, and there was no response. Collig.R.n/Wampach moved to approve the minutes of November 2, 1982 as kept. Roll Call: Ayes; Wampach, Vierling, Leroux, Colligan, Reinke Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Leroux/Wampach moved to approve the application and grant an On Sale 3.2 Beer License to Capone's Food Shops, Inc. , 1145 Minnesota Valley Mall, Hwy. 169, effective November 20, 1982. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Colligan offered Ordinance No. 110, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Amending the City Code Designating Zoning in the City of Shakopee, and moved its adoption. The City Admr. summarized the ordinance. Brief discussion followed. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. The City Admr. explained that the previously negotiated purchase price for a 9.85 acre parcel for the development of JEJ park did not include the assessment levied for the VIP Interceptor. Mayor Reinke suggested the possibility of transferring density allocations from the parkland to the adjacent land to be used for develop- ment. The City Admr. suggested the density transfer would only need to be enough to cover the cost of the additional assessment. Discussion followed. Leroux/Lebens moved to authorize City officials to negotiate for the purchase of a 9.85 acre parcel lying South of Merrifield Court for the development of JEJ Park in the amount of $88,650, and to negotiate a counter-proposal which exchanged the cost of assessments for a minimum number of additional lots for development on the owners adjacent property. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Leroux moved to authorize payment to SPUC in the amount of $1,804.47, for administration of Well #6, KMart Tax Increment Project. Roll Call: Ayes; Wampach, Vierling, Leroux, Colligan, Reinke Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Vierling/Leroux moved approval of Change Order No. 2, decreasing cost by $430.00, Pumphouse for Well #6, Kmart Tax Increment Project. Roll Call: Ayes; Wampach, Vierling, Leroux, Colligan, Reinke Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling offered Resolution No. 253, A Resolution Accepting Work on the 81-2KT Pumphouse for Well #6, A Part of the Kmart Tax Increment Project, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Wampach, Vierling, Leroux, Colligan, Reinke Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Colligan/Wampach moved to approve payment to Schoell & Madsen, Inc. in the amount of $1,762.05 for engineering, staking and inspection costs. Roll Call: Ayes; Wampach, Vierling, Leroux, Colligan, Reinke Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Vierling/Wampach moved to approve payment to SPUC in the amount of $3,032.43, for administration costs for Pumphouse for Well #6, Kmart Tax Increment Project. Roll Call: Ayes; Wampach, Vierling, Leroux, Reinke Noes; Lebens, Colligan Motion carried. Shakopee City Council November 16, 1982 Page 2 Councilmembers voted by secret paper ballot to fill the appointment to the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. The City Clerk counted the ballots. Leroux/Lebens moved to cast a unanimous ballot to appoint James Cook to fill the unexpired term of Russ Nolting until April, 1983 as Shakopee Public Utilities Commissioner. Motion .carried unanimously. Colligan/Wampach moved to direct the proper City officials to execute Change Order No. 2, a change order providing for the installation of a concrete swale and pavement increasing the contract amount $3,752 for the 1982 Pavement Preser- vation Program for work on 11th Ave. West of Tyler Street for Hardrives, Inc. Roll Call: Ayes; Wampach, Vierling, Leroux, Colligan, Reinke Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Colligan/Wampach moved to purchase the ATD Model #7318 hydraulic transmission jack from Auto Central Supply in the amount of $655.00. Roll Call: Ayes; Wampach, Vierling, Leroux, Colligan, Reinke Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Lebens/Vierling moved that bills in the amount of $235,249.76 be allowed and ordered paid. A few clarifications of items were given by City Admr. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Colligan/Wampach moved to direct staff to investigate the purchase cooperatively of a backhoe by the Public Works Dept. and SPDC, and to check the records for the past two years for rental costs. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Wampach moved to transfer $16,243.33 from the Revenue Sharing Fund and $1,974.00 from the Capital Equipment Revolving Fund into the General Fund for equipment purchases. Roll Call: Ayes; Wampach, Vierling, Leroux, Colligan, Reinke Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Colligan/Leroux moved to open the public hearing regarding the roadway construction of 16th Avenue and 90th Street, which street lies East of CR89 within the John Maras residential development. Motion carried unanimously. The City Engineer gave some background on the ordering and results of the feasi- bility report regarding this proposed project. He showed schematics of three alter- natives for this road construction, and gave estimated costs of each. He stated further investigation has shown two areas of poor sub-grade, and the sub-excavation and removal of peat in these areas has added to the originally estimated cost. He mentioned the other change is that a corner lot has been granted a variance to build and be served by this roadway, and therefore it was included in the assessment. He stated the estimated assessment per lot would be: $4,452 for Alternate #1; $5,820 for Alternate #2 and $5,781 for Alternate #3. He stated the principle advan- tages to the property owners for the project would be a more dependable road, elimi- nate potential damage to vehicles and free them from maintenance of the road. The principle disadvantage would be the cost. He added the City's present policy for assessments would be that they are levied over a 10 year period. He stated the interest rate is established by the amount the City has to pay for the money, plus 2% for administrative costs. Mayor Reinke asked for comments from the audience. Roger Gaustad, Box 1000MM, asked for a more specific figure for the interest rate. The City Engineer responded that the market is so unpredictable that he cannot get bond people to quote a rate. The City Admr. quoted various interest rates from sales of bonds in other cities recently. The City Admr. also clarified the City has the flexibility to charge less than 2% in addition to the bond sale rate. Melissa O'Rourke, Box 1000, stated that most of the residents of this addition did not move out there to have vehicles going by their homes, and she would be vehemently opposed to any connecting road to Savage. She stated there might be less damage to vehicles but more damage to children. She also asked about proving the property value would go up as much as the assessment amount. Shakopee City Council November 16, 1982 Page 3 The City Engineer replied that the City doesn't believe in every case it could prove the property value increases in an amount equal to the assessment, so that is why the City will hold the assessment hearing on the improvement before determining whether or not to go ahead with the project. If there are a lot of appeals filed at that time, that will probably be the end of the project unless the City has appraisals supporting the property value increase. The Ass't City Attorney stated the legal requirement for showing benefit for an improvement if a property owner appeals the assessment to District Court, is that the City is required to show benefit in increased market value at least equal to the amount of the a ;sessment. The law allows the City to hold the public hearing to levy the assessment before the project is awarded. A property owner who wants to appeal the assessment is required to give the City written notice of intent to appeal by that night of the public hearing. The City would still have the option of cancelling the project if there were a large number of appeals. Melissa O'Rourke asked if her regular property taxes would go up if the City main- tained the road. The City Engineer replied they would go up no more than for other property owners. The City Engineer added that Mr. Maras has donated the property for the road to the City, but the City has not actually accepted it. He stated that if there is no improvement project for the road, the City will not accept the road in its present condition. The City does not want a road that is not up to City standards. Carol Hall, Box 1000F, asked to have it clarified if the City would take the road over the way it is, and the City Engineer answered "Absolutely not". Melissa O'Rourke asked why 13th Avenue, which is a part of Shakopee, is maintained as a gravel road but the City would not maintain their road as gravel. The City Engineer stated 13th Avenue i:; a dedicated public right-or-way. The proposed Maras Road is private property, and the City cannot maintain private property. Melissa O'Rourke asked why a property owner was allowed to subdivide and not pro- vide access to lots. Mayor Reinke responded that at that time a lot of property was subdivided by Registered Land Survey or metes and bounds descriptions, but not platted. John Hissink, Box 1000CC, asked about the City's policy of assessing property out- side its jurisdiction. The Ass't City Attorney stated it is not allowed by law. Mr. Hissink then asked how the City could propose to serve Savage with a connecting road and not assess Savage residents for it. The City Engineer stated the two alternates which proposed a connecting road to Savage were found to be not feasible in the report. The Savage Comp Plan denotes the area where the road would connect to be a nature area. Therefore, he recommended Alternate #1. Richard Fenlason asked about the specifications for blacktop for Alternate #1. The City Engineer answered his questions. Mr. Fenlason then asked why it was necessary to make this road wider than CR89. The City Engineer stated these are the City's standards for rural roads, and they result in less maintenance for City crews. Howard Larson, Box 1000M, stated he would prefer Alternate #1. Mayor Reinke stated that if any road was going to be done, it would be Alternate #1. He added the City has the option of rejecting all the bids if they come in a lot higher than estimated. He also asked if there was anyone present who was very op- posed to the project. Judy Olson stated that she and her husband are totally opposed to Alternates #2 and #3, and not too keen on having the road blacktopped, as they would prefer to have it remain gravel. Ms. Olson stated Pat and Ron Martens were absent but asked her to speak for them, and they are not in favor of the project. Roger Gaustad stated he is opposed to the project. He stated he felt he cannot afford it, it is not worth it, and he would do his best to impede the plans. The City Clerk stated the City is in receipt of a letter from Wayne and Karen Miller objecting to the assessment. Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak on this project, and there was no response. Shakopee City Council November 16, 1982 Page L. Lebens/Wampach moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion followed regarding the number of people opposed to the project, and whether it would be wise to continue the process towards the project. Cncl. Lebens stated she feels it is better to wait until all the residents petition the City to do the project than to go ahead now and end up in Court on an appeal. The City Engineer stated 58% signed a petition for the project. A suggestion was made that the residents form some sort of association and try to maintain the road themselves. Cncl. Leroux asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak against the project. Gordon Carlson and Dennis Zirul stated they own property but do not reside on the road. Mr. Carlson stated he doesn't think there is enough traffic to warrant that much money per lot, for the improvement. Ms. O'Rourke asked about obtaining building permits if the road is not upgraded. The City Admr. stated there has been a change in policy to allow pre-existing plats to build on lots not served by City roads. Further discussion followed. Leroux/Colligan moved to direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution for ordering the improvement and setting up the public hearing before the contract is awarded. Roll Call: Ayes; Wampach, Vierling, Leroux, Colligan, Reinke Noes; Lebens Motion carried. The City Admr. pointed out a couple of changes in Resolution No. 2080. Colligan/Leroux offered Resolution No. 2080, A Resolution Establishing A Pay and Benefit Agreement for Police Sergeants for 1983, and moved its approval. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Wampach moved to approve the 1983 labor agreement between the City of Shakopee and Local #320 for Police Officers, and authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the agreement. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Colligan/Vierling moved to approve the 1983 labor agreement between the City of Shakopee and Local #320 for Public Works employees, and authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the agreement. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Considerable discussion took place regarding amendments to the City's Personnel Policy on sick leave, concerning a separate definition for death or serious illness of family members, and whether or not dependent child care should be included. Cncl. Leroux was the only member in favor of including the care of a sick child in the employee sick leave benefit, so no amendment to the current policy will be made. Discussion followed regarding establishing an Employee Assistance Program. The City Admr. stated this counseling program would cover health, legal, financial and marriage problems. Leroux/Vierling moved to direct staff to invite Dor & Associates, Inc. to make a presentation to Council and to review the services provided by other firms with the intent of hiring a firm for 1983 and budgeting for the service. Discussion followed. Moti ai carried with Cncl. Lebens and Wampach opposed. Vierling/Colligan moved to direct staff to draft an amendment to Resolution No. 1571 clarifying that probationary employees are eligible for an annual increase. Motion carried with Cncl. Lebens and Wampach opposed. The City Admr. stated the proposed Clerical/Secretarial pay plan would actually cost the City less over a five year period than the one presently used. Discussion followed. Cncl. Lebens stated she believes when doing salary comparisons the City should just request information from those cities south of the river. Vierling/Leroux moved to implement the proposed pay plan for clerical/secretarial employees as proposed January 1, 1983. Roll Call: Ayes; Vierling, Leroux, Colligan, Reinke Noes; Lebens, Wampach Motion carried. Shakopee City Council November 16, 1982 Page 5 Colligan/Wampach moved to authorize payment to SPUC in the amount of $44,965.45 for Trunk Water Charge from the 80-11 Hwy. 101 Watermain Improvement. Roll Call: Ayes; Wampach, Vierling, Leroux, Colligan, Reinke Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Colligan/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2076, A Resolution Amending the 1982 Budget, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Wampach, Vierling, Leroux, Colligan, Reinke Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Colligan/Leroux offered Resolution No. 2077, A Resolution Apportioning Assessments Among New Parcels Created As a Result of the Subdivision of Land, Nor Dean 1st Add'n, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2078, A Resolution Apportioning Assessments Among New Parcels Created as a Result of the Subdivision of Land, Nor Dean 2nd Add'n, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2079, A Resolution Abating An Assessment Against a Certain Parcel for the 1981-2 Bluff Avenue Utility Improvement, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Wampach, Vierling, Leroux, Colligan, Reinke Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Leroux/Colligan moved to increase the deportment fees (J/:, instead of the proposed 5% in the 1983 Fee Resolution. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Colligan offered Resolution No. 2082, A Resolution Setting Fees for City Licenses, Permits, Services and Documents, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Cncl. Wampach asked the City Engineer about maintenance of a road to the Petch residence. Leroux/Colligan moved to direct staff to complete the 1982 Pavement Preservation Program, any shortfall in funds to be offset by the unused transfer appropriations. The additional encumberance shall not exceed $5,000. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. The City Admr. stated any calls regarding hardship in following the new snow ordinance should be referred to the City Clerk. Colligan/Vierling moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:54 P.M. Judith S. Cox City Clerk Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary MEMO TO : John K . Anderson City Administrator FROM : H . R. Spurrier `,. City Engineer -( RE : Traffic Controls at 3rd - nue & Holmes Street DATE : December 2, 1982 Introduction : City of Shakopee is in receipt of a letter from Mr. Ray Deutsch, 305 South Holmes Street, regarding the placement of traffic controls at 3rd Avenue and Holmes Street. Background: Mr. Deutsch advised the Engineering Department that his property has suffered damages as a result of careless drivers turning from Holmes Street to 3rd Avenue and believes that such traffic controls would reduce the likelihood of further damage occurring to his property and other properties in the vicinity of 3rd and Holmes. Although such controls would probably reduce the likelihood of damage, it would be a serious impediment to flow of traffic on Holmes Street. The accident record of the intersection does not warrant any controls other than stop signs for 3rd Avenue, which would not help Mr. Deutsch. I have discussed this matter with the Chief of Police, Tom Brownell and he concurs that such traffic controls are not warranted at this time. It is, therefore, the recommendation of City staff that no traffic controls be installed at the intersection of 3rd Avenue and Holmes Street. Action Requested : Direct the appropriate City staff to draft a letter to Mr. Deutsch, advising Mr. Deutsch that traffic controls would not be installed at 3rd Avenue and Holmes Street until warrants for such devices were met. HRS/jvm RECEIVED /341,- - 81 ?2 , . Nov 1 2 1982 'by C%TY OF SHAKOPEE. / • ... .. La/ f. ',....,_ . t...., 0 , #' de?? ce-74_e 624, 4d.s2. /;;.4,2 074_, 40 • • ''. rl :.1,-15 zereGta'- a_e-c. r,&1/ 1 %Ay 0, , erne ..t,e (,r,Li.„, ....elPea9: ki.AI/L/e.. .0-re4)t Pc M i /‘7 /, -WI," _ ... _ A 4,4 ' _ -..„Af Ard.e ._., - __. . _,....; Af ..‘ / _ /I i iii. -4/4 At-AL-. A dr t'AVA-Ld-A6A 4141 a / W A, Ill! ..e.f.ct.o.; 01.-- -du if AA dLA 'I Zi_..o, .1 i 4111°',‘.0.i .., Ai- // i ___,- / . -A.0 ../ ...„ id° ,d . -V it -. -A/A° A ' 71/041r . -'4.- - 1 ' Z.4 • C14. ------- +keen/ 0/1.,6"1(4telWaZi eer/ j/LH'A;e4 4Vij24"</ A il'Al.., IL ., AP_, a-cee n soC7 cl.c_e sfi..... .„ A 111 lEEE'°"'w=11511 s , 1 iii 'd ill! i1ili CITY (. q t4,. t1 ... ., iea ! ) :_if..� .) p riwi , 1 %.- s r r '' ' November 16, 1982 TO: City Clerks, LMCIT Member Cities FROM: Pete Tritz RE: LMCIT Board Vacancies There will be two vacancies on the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust Board of Trustees, due to the expiration of regular terms. Elected or appointed officials of cities which participate in any of the LMCIT insurance programs are eligible for appointment to the LMCIT board. The term of office is three years. Elected or appointed city officials interested in being considered for these appointments should send a letter of application containing information as to the applicant' s background and experience, as well as any other information that would be useful to the Board in making its decision (e.g. , the applicant's familiarity with the LMCIT programs, views as to LMCIT's role and the direction LMCIT should take, etc. ) Letters of support from councils or officials of either the applicant' s own or other cities would also be useful . _ Applications should be sent to the attention of Pete Tritz at the League office, no later than Dec. 10. The LMCIT Board consits of five trustees, four of whom are appointed by the League Board for three year terms. The fifth member is the League's Executive Director. Of the remaining four, at least two must be elected officials, and at least one must be a member of the LMC Board of Directors. PT:ara )i•, f9It;y ca-v r"llJt' t'.ci U, S'L. pciU1, 11111 1f .E".-;tlj 3 ._1. O'NEILL, GOGGINS, TRAXLER & ZARD, LTD. � ATTORNEYS AT LAW LAW BUILDING • 222 EAST MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 105 NEW PRAGUE, MINNESOTA 56071 � �' '' ROBERT O. O'NEILL ROBERT J.GOGGINS New Prague: 6121758-2568 NORBERT B. TRAXLER Metro Line: 6121445-3696 STEVEN D.ZARD November 18 , 1982 City of Shakopee 129 East 1st Avenue Shakopee , Minnesota 55379 ATTENTION: Judy Re: Shimek Addition Platting Dear Judy: Please be advised that I represent Ron Shimek and Don Jenkins who are contract for deed purchasers in the property covered by the proposed Shimek addition plat. I have recently heard that the matter was set for council consideration to extend the initial platting application beyond the ordinary time for completion as set by ordinance . It is further my understanding that the matter was placed on the agenda and no one appeared in behalf of the applicants . I have spoken to all involved to determine who was aware of the agenda date and find no one who knew that the agenda date had been set, which explains the lack of appearance. I would respectfully request that the matter be placed on the agenda for reconsideration and notice of same when set be forwarded to my office and to Attorney Marvin Liszt at 140 West 98th Street, Bloomington, Minnesota, 55420 , who is the attorney representing the contract for deed vendor. Our respective offices will insure notification to our clients to be present at the appropriate council meeting. Thank you. Yours very truly, O'NEILL, GO'GINS, TRAXLER & ZARD, LTD. j /- , Norbert B. Traxler NBT:ms cc: Marvin Liszt MAO 00 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson City Administrator FROM : Don Steger City Planner RE: Recording of Shimek' s 1st Addition DATE : September 15 , 1982 Introduction : Shimek' s 1st Addition was not recorded with the County Recorder within the 180 day time frame, as established by the Subdivision Regulations. The City Council may rescind plat approval if desired . 13ackffround : Because the plat was approved almost three years ago, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council require - the final plat of Shimek' s 1st Addition be resubmitted for another review. The Planning Commission further recommended that the previous lot sizes be accepted , even though they would riot meet the current lot size requirements (see attached staff report ) . Alternatives : 1. Allow the plat to be filed with the County Recorder. 2. Require the final plat to be submitted for a new review by the Planning Commission and City Council . Accept the previously approved lot sizes. 3. Rescind the plat approval and require the entire platting process to begl►i over. Recommendation : The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council require the final plat to be resubmitted for a new review and that the previously approved lot sizes be accepted. Joh K. Anderson `` ' '^ September 15, 1982 • h:imek' s 1st Addition Page -2- c- Recommended Action : Move to require that the final plat of Shimek 's 1st Addition be resubmitted for a new review by the Planning Commission and City Council . Move to accept the previously approved tot sizes for the plat . DS/,j vm Attachment September 21 , 1982 - "Colligan/Leroux moved to direct developer of P g P Shimek' s 1st Addition to replat his subdivision to meet current zoning ordinances regarding minimum lot size , with the intent that a variance could be applied for. Motion carried unanimously. MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk RE: Application for a Taxicab License from Shakopee Cab & Courier Service DATE: December 2 , 1982 Introduction The City has received an application from James Link of Shakopee Cab & Courier Service for a taxicab license . Background Mr. Link is asking for a taxicab license for the calender year 1983 . The vehicle to be used is on order so there is no insurance cover- age at this time , but will have to be obtained prior to issuance of a license. In determining whether or not to grant a taxicab license the Council will want to consider: ( 1 ) if the taxicab service is desirable for the public convenience and necessity, ( 2 ) the probable effect of increased service on local traffic conditions , ( 3 ) the character, experience , and responsibility of the applicant , and (4) if the applicant is fit , willing , and able to perform the public transportation and to conform to the provisions of the City Code. The Police Department has checked the traffic and police record of the applicant and finds no reason for denial of the license , see attached. Pursuant to the City Code , Council will have to approve the rates to be charged, when they have been established by Mr. Link. Alternatives 1 . Approve license. 2 . Deny license . 3 . Table application to obtain additional information if needed. Recommendation Approve application and authorize issuance of a license upon compli- ance with the City Code : re : insurance , coverage inspection of vehicle , approval of rates , etc. Action Requested Approve the application of Shakopee Cab & Courier Service , 120 West 5th Avenue for a taxicab license for one vehicle beginning January 1 , 1983 and authorize issuance of a license upon applicant ' s compliance with the requirements of the City Code , Sec . 6 . 22 . JSC/jms /C:)Q/ MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant RE: Proposed Transportation Survey DATE: December 2 , 1982 Introduction The Energy and Transportation Committee is exploring the possi- bility of opting out of MTC service . To that end a survey of community transit needs is proposed , for which Council approval is solicited. Background At its November 18th meeting the Committee recommended the admin- istration of a study of transit needs in Shakopee . The preferred survey method is a telephone questionnaire , due to the improved reliability and greater detail of information available from such a survey. Three to five hundred households would be administered a questionnaire requiring approximately fifteen minutes per house- hold. The Committee has prepared a draft copy of the questionnaire and asked staff to research possible means and expense to administer the survey . It is judged that existing City staff could provide some of the labor necessary to conduct the survey. However out- side labor would be necessary to conduct the survey in a reasonable time period. Use of volunteers , CETA-paid staff and interns has been solicited in order to keep the cost of administering the study at a minimum. However , it is not known which, if any, of these options might be possible and the exact cost of the project . Alternatives 1 . In order to proceed without extensive further interaction between the Committee and the City Council it is suggested that City Council authorize expenditure of time by current City staff (as available) and up to $350 in additional labor and materials to conduct the survey. 2 . City Council can reject the administration of any survey, and direct or indirect expenditures required. 3 . City Council can wait for a more detailed description of the survey and how it could be administered prior to authorization of expenditures . Recommended Action Authorize administration of survey of transit needs in Shakopee as requested by the Energy and Transportation Committee , with labor provided by existing City staff and expenditure of up to $350 for additional labor and materials . JA/jms //a, MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: 1983 Health, Life & Long Term Disability Insurance Bids DATE: December 3 , 1982 • • Introduction City Council , at its September 21st meeting set a bid opening date of November 26 , 1983 for 1983 Health, Life & Long Term Disability Insurance Bids . The bids opened November 26th have been tabulated on the attached sheet . The bid tabulation is being presented December 7 , 1982 so that Council can better understand the deci- sions/choices it can make when selecting an insurance package for 1983 and probably the following 3 years ( the City bids the coverage at least every four years ) . Combination Bids The awarding of the bids would be a straight forward process if the City could select the lowest bidder in each of the three insurance categories . This cannot be done because Bankers Life has stipulated that they will provide insurance in one of three packages : all three j insurances , Health and Life or Life-and Long Term Disability. This situation is further complicated if the City chooses Bankers Life because its 100% participation requirement for health insurance forecloses the City' s option to provide employees with 'optional" HMO coverage . Employers may offer both traditional. "fee" health insurance and an HMO option to one employee group. The HMO Decision These complications and others were discussed at a lengthy meeting with Blue Cross Blue Shield and HMO representatives on December 1 , 1982 . As a result of these discussions we felt that City Council should probably focus on one pivotal decision at its December 7th meeting before making a final decision on December 21st. That decision is whether or not to make the HMO "option" available to City employees even prior to Council knowing how many of our 49 employees might select the option. The reasons for focusing on this decision before it is fully discussed with employees will become apparent as the Blue Cross Blue Shield and HMO representa- tives explain to Councilmembers on December 7th the complicating elements of the decision that I have listed below. The complications that arise by providing the HMO option include : 1 . The problems that occur if a large number of employees select the HMO option leaving a small number of employees under the traditional fee for service health insurance plan. 2 . The problem of the HMO selecting the clinic or doctor ( in Shakopee its the Sundance Clinic ) rather than the employee. When there is a choice between HMO and fee coverage this is no problem, it becomes a problem if the City cannot find a fee for service carrier for those who .didn' t select the HMO, probably because 1983 Health, Life & Long Term 1 ` a, Disability Insurance Bids Page Two December 3 , 1982 of long standing physician/patient relationships, and they must go to the HMO' s clinic and doctors . 3 . The potential for adverse selection. This occurs when the healthier employees select the HMO option and the less health stay on the fee for service option driving up the annual pre- mium or even causing the carrier to withdraw coverage. 4. The potential that 1 or 3 above could force the employer into an expensive pooled insurance program ( if we .:an find one that will cover us ) that will increase the premiums of the fee for service insurance paid by the employee ( i .e. the employee who elected not to change to the HMO ends up paying significantly more for health insurance after 2 to 3 years ) . 5 . The need , according to HMO representatives , for the City to revise its $105 flat rate benefit contribution to single employees to create a financial disincentive for single employees to select the HMO ( 1.8 employees currently have single coverage ) by making them pay something for the HMO. 6 . The' need to get revised fee for service health insurance bids from Blue Cross Blue Shield if more than 14 employees elect the HMO option the initial year beginning January 1 , 1983. According to 1-RIO Minnesota we are not required by law to offer their HMO to employees if even a minimum of 10 employees want it. This is a federal law involked by federally chartered HMO. HMO Minnesota is State chartered . Health Insurance Bids Although the specs stated what medical and major medical benefit schedule we wanted bids on, we were not successful in getting bids that can be compared "apple for apple" . Thus the following chart : Companies* Medical Benefit Bankers BC/BS BC/BS Coverage Life Plan I Plan II 1 . Room & Board/Day 80% no ded. 100% no dec . 80% no ded. No. of Days Unlimited 1st 31 days Unlimited llospi t al ( extra mi .,c.) RO"/„ no did . 100% no <1cd.d . gO% no clod . Ancillaries 70% mental 1st 31 days th`n 1st 31 days then or nervous $100 ded, and 80% $500 ded. and 80% of kyr o� cif pert $100 i . Diagnostic X-Ray $200 no ded . , 200 no ded. $200 no ded. - per ed. -per calendar year per calendar year per calendar year for sickness for sickness for sickness 4. Supplementary $1000/accident $500/accident $500/accident Accident no ded. no ded. no ded. . 1983 Health, Life & Long Term Disability insurance Bids /( a' Page Three December 3 , 1982 Companies* Major Medical Bankers BC/BS BC/BS Coverage Life Plan I Plan II 5 . Coverage Unlimited 1 million 1 million 6 . Deductible $100/person $500 $500 deductible 2 per family 7 . Coinsurance a ) Other than mental 80% up to $1000 80% up to $2000 80% up to $2000 and nervous 100% thereafter 100% thereafter 100% thereafter U) Maximum out of $1000/single $500/single $500/single pocket $1000/family 51000/family of 2 $1000/family of 2 x$400/ dd'r child +$400/add'n child c ) Mental and nervous Same same Same disorders 8 . Covered charges Same Same Same *HMO Minnesota and Metropolitan Life are not included because the first is prepaid medical coverage and the second was the highest bidder by a significant margin. There are three key areas of difference: ( 1 ) BC/BS Plan I has more comprehensive coverage with its 31 day 100% coverage for regular hospital stays , ( 2 ) Bankers Life accident coverage is $1000/acci- dent compared to BC/BS Plan I and II $500/accident and ( 3 ) Bankers Life Major Medical deductible is $200/family vs . $500 for BC/BS Plan I and II . I did not list the coverage in #5 above , because BC/BS has said they rarely if ever have claims approaching or exceeding $1 million. Someone else might feel this is important. On balance it is my feeling that thoroughness of benefit on the coverages for the 3 bidders could be ranked: ( 1 ) BC/BS I at $51 .05/ single/month and $150. 89/family/mons' , ( 2 ) Bankers Life a close 2nd at $49. 19/single/month and $146 . 32/family/month and ( 3) BC/BS Plan II a close 3rd at $39 . 50/single/month and $122 . 97/family/month. Life Insurance Bids The bids for. Life Insurance are comparable and therefore the costs shown on the bid tabulation reflect a true comparison. All of the bids stand alone except Bankers Life which must be taken with the Health or Long Term Disability bid. It is clear that Minnesota Mutual is the lowest bidder at $258/month. • Long Term Disability Bids The bids for Long Term Disability Insurance are comparable and therefore the cost shown on the bid tabulation reflect a true comparison. Bankers Life low bid of $551/month cannot be accepted without its life insurance bid which is the 2nd highest bid. 1983 Health, Life & Long Term (/ a' Disability Insurance Bids Page Four December 3 , 1982 Summary & Recommendation Council should make the decision about the HMO option first , then choose a health insurance carrier. The decisions on Life Insur- ance and Long Term Disability should be made last ! I recommend not offering the HMO option because of the potential problems number 1 - 6 on page one and two. Should the decision be made to include the HMO option the Bankers Life Health Insurance bid can no longer be considered. And, once we drop Bankers Life it would be unlikely that they would re-bid our insurance in the future . I also recommend that we award the health insurance bid to Bankers Life , and the life and long term disability bids as well . I would like to reduce the cost of Bankers Life life insurance bid by using another company' s bid but we don' t have that option. However, I recommend that the Finance Director and I review this bid with Bankers Life to see if the program can be made less expensive if changed (eg. a flat $20,000 life insurance coverage for all employees with optional $5000 blocks of insurance paid for by the employee) . JKA/ jms NOTE: A summary of benefits for HMO Minnesota is attached if you would like to compare it with our current coverage listed as items 1-8 on pages 3 and 4 of this memo. t A H a A HI I N // Q/ ' CO d H o : * I I I I I E (I) 4 O) - ON tri ON LIN H .O CO U 0 '- 1- Z M N 0 N co Cel N 0 •r4 cd o Cd •� 0 I I I I 0 I I I I I E xa a) H H LID HSI o . 0 u z 14 0 t� Z 1 I 1 1 Z I I I I 1 HI iWi +) >1 -H O 4-) {~ +) O 4-I OH X N H H e 40 0 -•H E$ O I I I I \ I I I I I H cd 'H. N P4 N A co o O Z 0 H M �. Pt O CD •r400 I I I N 0 0 c. 0 0 Z H .Hy H H H H H Z o y a) cd O E-I 4) Pc a d rl I-1 d 0 +' Q x HO �o 0 z 0 o�.H El U vz I I I CO z z z 0 - o A z aj O w 4 +) 4, +) i, 4-) H zH0 >•'1 •H 0 -P -H .,-i •rI 0 •r1 H H AW O O 0 4-♦ 0 a) 0 a) 0 a) 0 a) 0 a) 0 a) r+ a O 0 d 0 d O d H d 0 0 t O H A H a) -69- c H O) H N H a) -0f} a) H a) HI a) HA EB-PI O) H}PA Eft PQ Ef? PQ \P0 -Oft W -cf.)-r0 A O A \ I I I 'N-U) \ \ \ -0- 1-1 H 4-+ d -0-4-a HI 'H.4-t 'I4.(1-i 'H.(f-i H 44 'F)-4-1 'C)-4-4 PM .,..I \O 0 • O 0 in 0 0 H 0 \O 0 cr\ 0 CO N a A T ,..I a) r1 O H H H H H H H H . b •.H 0 -H \•ri \...4 \-H \•H \H \-H X f~ E • E I I I 0 '19- E '0)- E - E -0- E 'F)- E 'F)- E p H C a o0 pt.. \O f� 4-, \O h`t \O fz 'Q W A 0 F-I + 4-) +' 4-) -P 4- +) +' ZO • 0 •-1 O •ri 0 ,-40 ,-4i OH O •r › o ' H O A 00 04--1 04-4 O 4-i O 4-t O4-+ O 4-i 04-4 O 4-1 +' a E O P; 0 a) 00) 00) 00) 00) 00) 00)OW 0 a) 0 a) OW � 0 a) -H V H H d H f H T HI 0 HI P H 0 HI T H d H o13 > 0 Ef} O I I I Ef} a) Eft O) Ef} (1) Eft O Eft 4) Ef} (ll Eft a) •ri O H a) \Xi \rn \PU \W \U) \U) \CC' \U) P Wr Z P4 41 'C)- 3. -F)- ' )- .1:). - . 'O- -0• cd F`t F.y Hi 44 [ 4-1 'O 4-i O\ 4-i Cr) 4-1 H 4i O 4-a N 44 (I) H rr4 a M O N O N O N O N O (�'1 0 M 0 N O ,--14 A 3 E 44W-( r I 1 I I 1 I Cl) ao o O a co 00 • O •r1 � � 0 I.,--> cd cid +) rel u) Ce) in H w HI 'd Pa bQ E N E N E N +O' 40-1 N 41 .rI 0 d cd HI U f-t U 0 E0 E0 E0 U1 t..1 a �+ H H H •H H H H .H H C-- I I I I I I cd • x a W W W 0 � O En rd4-I F~ O .H H ▪ O Ti a S\ 0 CO CO W '-• I 1 I I I I 3 08 I-1• O + � � cd .0 O U O H x A cd in 00 rn rn ox •r41 \O 0 N O1 in I I I 1 I I 0 I•-1 00 H H H H H H4 X W Eft 1-4 +' -r.i .H O a) 0 H 0 0H � N ( 'd cd H O I I I I I I H H 40 HI t � i \ 40 E ctl u) W 40-1 U a) 4) Hi ,s~ d d H Cl) a U +' * H H H H (dO 4 C.' O) (2C1 CO +' O +, m d a) 4-+ O 0 cd U (I) O) cd f-4 0. rd •1-1 (n cd (n cd m +) 4-4 4-1 +) 0 d >1 a U) H (n H N •r-1 • •H a) H • (n •H a) Cl) ,'4 a) (1) ({dy ow oa o a +' O 0 0 is 4-)) 0 cod (Fd 0) Pit 0• 'd 0 'd Hi Pia H cd H cd +) H 4 H O HI S-t PCI 'd E a) H H X 0 'd cd F-1 d cd cd Cd cd 0 >.) O .. a) a) O a) S t a) cd d d X O 0 d f-, d +' O O) (1) 0 o 0 d •ri d -H 0 +' 4-4 d CO cn 4-1 v -P cd +' u) 4-1 44 z cd HI A r1 ,A ;s' O •ri cd cd m z .H cd d d d O) •H E- E-1 * M MCO MW x Ma 0 0 Xa X ,z. C 3a * * SUMMARY �� OF BENEFITS The following is a short description of the benefits that will be available to you under your HMO MINNESOTA contract. This is only intended to be an outline of your benefits. All benefits are subject to the provisions of the contract between your employer and HMO MINNESOTA. PHYSICIAN SERVICES - The following services are covered in full in the hospital or at the Medical Group: * Routine Medical Services for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Illness or Injury * Preventive Health Services including Health Evaluations, Eye Examinations, Well Baby Care, and Immunizations * Surgical Services * Administration of Anesthesia * Laboratory and X-ray Services * Specialist Consultations MATERNITY SERVICES - Prenatal care, delivery, and postnatal care, including hospital services, are covered in full while coverage is in effect. PRESCRIPTION DRUGS - A maximum of a 100-day supply of prescription drugs may he obtained from any participating pharmacy for $2.00 per prescription. HOSPITAL SERVICES -The following services are covered in full: * Room and Board in a Semi-private Room * General Nursing Care * Physical and Radiation Therapy * All Scheduled Outpatient Services * Laboratory and X-ray Services * Drugs and Medicine * Intensive and Coronary Care EMERGENCY SERVICES HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM - There is a $15.00 Co-Pay for visits to an emergency room if you are not admitted to the hospital as an inpatient within 24 hours. OUT OF AREA EMERGENCIES - You are entitled to the first $10,000 of eligible expenses, and 80% of the remainder up to $250,000 for: * Physician services when you are confined in the hospital as an inpatient * Semi-private room and board in a hospital * All other necessary hospital services and supplies Thew is a $500 allowanir Ioi inispotiing you hat k lu a Ink 1111 when- your Medic al (;foul, i an iisstiiiir treatment. MENTAL HEALTH BENEFITS INPATIENT- Hospitalization for up to 73 days per year for nervous disorders, mental illness, alcoholism, or chemical dependency is covered; you must pay 20% of the cost of these services. OUTPATIENT - Up to 30 days of treatment per year on an outpatient basis for nervous disorders, mental illness, alcoholism, or chemical dependency are covered; you must pay 20% of the cost of these services. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - Up to 30 visits per year to a mental health professional are covered; you must pay 20% of the cost of these services. HOME HEALTH CARE - You may receive up to 40 visits per year at a cost of$3.00 per visit. The following services are covered: * Intermittent Skilled Nursing Service * Services of a Medical Social Worker, Physical Therapist, Occupational Therapist, Speech Therapist, Medical Technologist, or Nutritionist * Services of a Home Health Aide * Use of Medical Appliances which are owned or rented by the Home Health Care Facility GENERAL EXCLUSIONS - Not covered by HMOM are: 1) Any illness resulting from war 2) Dental treatment of any kind 3) Custodial care or rest cures 4) Cosmetic surgery 5) Experimental procedures 6) Physical exams for obtaining employment or insurance 7) Services which are in violation of any governmental law or regulation ti) I hri algia ii it,ulnnu iuir 9) Sex transformation surgery ALL SERVICES MUST BE RECEIVED, REFERRED, OR AUTHORIZED BY A PHYSICIAN AT THE MEDICAL GROUP SELECTED. NOTIFY YOUR MEDICAL GROUP IMMEDIATELY IN CASE OF EMERGENCY. MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg M. Voxland, Finance Director RE: Flat Sewer Rate for Senior Citizens DATE: November 22, 1982 Introduction A memo has been requested reviewing the use of the average flat fee for sewer customers on private water supplies in relation to Senior Citizens. Background Charges for sanitary sewer use are based on water usage (six months winter usage for residential) . For customers on private water supply or new customers there is no water usage data available, so they have been billed a flat rate based on average residential water use. Specifically addressing private water supply as per above, there probably are only a half dozen accounts that fall in that category. A review of a print out by the SPUC billing machine shows that of the 314 accounts classified as Senior Citizens, there was water consumption of 3,286,000 gallons for an average of 10,500 gallons/winter quarter. This average "Senior Citizen" usage applied against the 1983 rate yields a flat rate of $7. 18 compared to the adopted flat rate of $9.00. From the SPUC standpoint there is no mechanical problem in billing the different amount, but the accounts have to be identified and the billing oper- ator has to remember that a different rate is involved. Alternatives 1 . Maintain current billing policy and rate. 2. Modify billing policy and rate to provide extra step on rate. 3. Handle on an exception basis. Recommendation Staff recommends alternative number one to avoid complexity and manual processes in billing. Action Requested Move to maintain current billing policy for sewer customers on private water supplies. GMV:mmr 1 ((:-- MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg M. Voxland, Finance Director RE: Sanitary Sewer Bill for Macey Manor DATE: November 22, 1982 Introduction Mr. Schroers, representing Macey Manor has requested a reduction in his third quarter bill due to water usage for lawn sprinkling. The City Admini- strator directed the preparation of a memo presenting rational for billing Macey Manor, an eleven unit building as a commercial account. Background The City used to bill commercial and industrial accounts for sewer on the basis of water used or measured sewer flow, quarter by quarter. Residential was billed the same flat amount for each residential unit whether it was a large family in a house using 80,000 gallons/quarter, or a single person in a house using 5,000/quarter or an apartment dweller using an undeterminable amount of water. There had long been interest on being able to charge residential users pro- portionally to their usage of the service. About two years ago, SPUC purchased additional memory for their billing machine and Council was then able to set up rates and billing processes to bill a house based on water used during the winter (to avoid charging sewer or lawn sprinkling water) . The impact on multiple unit building (four-plex and up) was to take the charge off each unit and put it on the "house" account since there is only one meter for the build- ing. The house account is classified ara commercial account with quarter by quarter billings because: 1.) It is traditional in the utility industry for the house account to be classified as commercial. 2.) There is usually a common coin-op laundry facility like a commercial laundromat. 3.) Classification is usually done by the account as opposed to trying to determine the end use of the product. 4.) Usually there is a lower total billing when using the house account rather than an average or minimum per unit. 5.) Multiple unit buildings are a business venture to sell (rent) space and provide income or investment gain for the owners. Condominimum/ townhouse owners form an association and the association is in the business of obtaining and in turn reselling (charging for) various services such as water, sewer, garbage, yard care and building main- tenance. -2- l r c- 6.) SPUC's billing machine will not accomodate charging these type of accounts on a winter quarter basis. Additional checking was done on the cost of installing a second meter at Macey Manor for sprinkling. Based on estimates by Mr. Houser and SPUC, the cost would be about $700.00 for either internal or external plumbing for a sprinkling meter which would also entail a $4.00/month minimum. Alternatives & Recommendations See October 13, 1982 memo. Stand by current billing policies. GMV:mmr MEMO TO: John. K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg M. Voxland, Finance Director RE: Sewer Bill Complaints DATE: October 13, 1982 Introduction Two sewer utility customers have requested that [ forward their complaint/ request for billing adjustment to City Council for consideration. Background The first case is Macey Manor represented by Harold Schroers. He is asking for a rebate on the third quarter sewer bill which was higher because of lawn watering. This involves two aspects of the City's billing policy. 1 . Buildings containing or accounts covering four or more living units are considered commercial accounts and thus, are billed for sewer based on water used quarter by quarter. 2. Lawn sprinkling for commercial accounts was addressed last winter. (Dis- cussion was initiated by James O'Neil ) . The policy that was adopted is that any sewer bill unpaid at the time of the complaint would be adjusted if the customer installed a second water meter for lawn sprinkling and thereby have a permanent solution by not charging sewer on the second meter. Mr. Schroers was advised of the above. He related that it appeared to be fairly difficult to install a second meter due to the finished lower level . He was asked if he had a plumber's estimate of how costly the second meter would be. Mr. Schroers declined to get an estimate but took his own guess of $500-1,000 to install separate metering. If a 3/4" meter was installed for sprinkling, the quarterly- minimum would he $4.00. Therefore, his costs would go up $8-$12 per year while the adjustment requested is $48.00. This also sets a precedent for any other commercial/industrial customer to request their summer sewer bill to be adjusted without having to install another meter. Finally, this could be an annually recurring situation. The second case was brought forth by Mr. David Yarusso, who had just moved into a townhouse on West 12th Ave. He moved in 9-1-82 and his meters were read 9-16-82. His water consumption for that period was 1,000 gal. The billing policy is to charge the average residential bill to an account for which there is no past water consumption date (i.e new customer or private well) . The current average bill is $8.70 per month, which Mr. Yarusso was billed. Mr. Yarusso's point of view is that the City should bill him based on usage. Also, he would like this considered as a "class action" complaint in addition to his particular bill. From his point of view, he would be billed $4. 14. V y r • tX 1 / V -2- This should be approached from a policy standpoint . To change the billing policy in this direction would entail more staff work at City Hall and SPUC, and staff would probably need more latitude in this area. When a customer moves in during the summer season (lawn sprinkling) or between quarterly meter reading, there still is no basis for determining "actual use". For example, Mr. Yarusso moved in 9-1-82 and the water meter was read on 9-16-82. His first bill was10-1-82 so he had water consumption on that bill. If he had moved in 8-1-82 or 7-1-82 or any time in between, there would have been no water consumption and therefore, no basis for the City to determine how ►nuch to bill I►im for sewer. Residential sewer billing is monthly. To further compound the problem, any water consumption during ti►e summer would probably be compounded by lawn sprinkling. This does not appear to be the case for Mr. Yarusso because the consumption is small and he lives in a town- house. The City's current policy is not inconsistent with other cities' policies. Alternatives 1 . Stand by current billing policies. 2. Make exception to policy. 3. Change policy. Recommendation Staff recommends alternative #1. CMV:mr / MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg M. Voxland, Finance Director RE: Purchase of Terminal/Microcomputer DATE: December 3, 1982 Introduction Finance is budgeted to buy a terminal in 1982. The current one was under lease agreement until November 1982 and the 1983 budget is based on owning a terminal. Background The City is currently leasing a Microwest Terminal. This is a lower quality machine and we do have significant static problems with it. Also, although we have had only one maintenance call, other units have had more problems with Microwest relative to HP (Hewlett Packard) equipment. Staff has looked at several microcomputers and have found only two to be compatible with our Logis computer. These are HP equipment and Direct equipment. The HP 125 is a microcomputer and is considered herein. The appli- cable HP terminal (HP2622A) is not relatively cost effective due to different built-in features that we would not use. Direct has a 825 terminal and the 1025 microcomputer herein covered. The HP 125 is being used as micro's and terminals by cities. There are about 10 units in use by Logis cities. Direct has about 7 terminals on order but no micro's on order and no units in use by cities. The biggest interest in Direct is from cities on or coming up on the "Posse" system which is a police information/management package. The Direct equipment seems to have some features that are considered more favorable to the Posse application. The micro's have the advantage over a plain terminal (Direct 825) of being able to stand alone, work as a computer, word processor, etc. , as well as the terminal functions. There are many applications on the market current- ly for micro's and other cities are developing programs to run on the machine. For example, Brooklyn Park has developed a special assessment prepayment pro- gram that appears useful for Shakopee. Some cities are acquiring several machines; Eden Prairie has four, three of which are HP 125's. . Acquiring a micro now instead of just a terminal would also serve the purpose of a trial ground for the word processing/engineering applications without buying a complete separate machine. Some of the features and costs are tabulated on the following page: tib -2- Direct Direct Direct HP 125 825 1025 1025 Operating System CP/M -- CP/M CP/M Processor 280A -- 280 280 Memory (Bytes) 64K -- 64K 64K Display 12" 12" 12" 12" 80 Character 80/132 80/132 • 80/132 Character Size 9x15 dots 7x11/6x10 7x11/6x10 7x11/6x10 Disk (Floppy) (2) 54" -- 51" 51" Byte Capacity 512K -- 600K 1 .2M Price Screen & Keyboard $2,495 2,140 3,950 4,550 Matrix Printer IDS Microprism EPSOM EP80 695 675 675 675 Disk Drive 1 ,995 -- Inc. Inc. Printer (Xerox 630-40 char.) 2,395 -- -- -- Printer (Xerox 20-char.) 1 ,495 -- -- -- Printer NEC Spinwriter w/tractor - 33-char. $1 ,896 Software - 3 units Dec. Sale Word 125 Visicalc & Link 125 415 Wordstar Supercalc & Link 1025 -- 975 975 Graphics Software 125 -- 125 125 Graphics plotter (2 pen) 1,750 -- Installation, cables, etc. 300 Modem 1200 baud UDS 212 LP 395 $475 Full price S.E.A. through Logis -3- Alternatives 1 . HP 125 as terminal only HP 125 $2,495 IDS Matrix Printer 675 Miscellaneous 300 3,470 2. Direct 825 terminal only Direct 825 2,140 IDS Matrix Printer 675 Miscellaneous 300 3, 115 3. HP 125 as Terminal/Micro with Word Processing HP 125 2,495 IDS Matrix Printer 675• Disk Drive 1 ,995 NEC Spinwriter Printer 1,896 Software 415 Miscellaneous 300 7,776 4. Direct 1025 (600K) as Terminal/Micro with Word Processing Direct 1025 (600K) 3,950 IDS Matrix Printer 675 NEC Spinwriter Printer 1,896 Software 975 Miscellaneous 300 7 ,796 5. Same as #4 but with twice the disk storage capacity. Add 600 Total 8,396 6. Purchase modems (communications device) now leased for $80/mo. Modem recommended by Logis for uniformity, purchased through Logis from S.E.A. , Universal Data Systems 212 LP. two each @ $475.00 each. Currently on special price that we might be able to get at $395 each. 7. Variation of numbers 3-5 with different combinations of printers, software and graphics. ff Recommendation The consensus of city hall staff is purchase HP equipment for the reasons of proven reliability, proven support, potential communication to the counties' computer and the graphics presently available. There is $3,800 budgeted for a Finance terminal in 1982. Due to delays in pruchase and delivery time, it appears that the equipment will not be received until January, thus making the expen- diture chargeable to 1983 budget. The 1983 budget contains $16,300 for two additional micro's. Staff recommends alternative numbers 3 and 6 to serve a dual purpose of Finance terminal and word processor to get one unit up and run- ning and thus, serve as a trial or break-in period for the work processing uses before buying a second and third machine. Logis may try to put together a group purchase by bidding HP 125 in 1983 and obtain a quantity discount. Requested Action Move to authorize the purchase of an HP 125, an IDS 480 Matrix Printer, HP 51" Disk Drive, NEC Spinwriter Printer, Software composed of Word 125, Link 125 and Visicalc, two each Universal Data Systems 212 LP modems and mis- cellaneous cables, etc. in an amount not to exceed $8,750.00. GMV:mmr G CO CO CO CO d' 7r cr d Cf. Cr d 7t to 0 PJ .t .t .t d. .t .1 .I .t .:t d •f d •a V •t d i ,H H H .H -1 .H -I H H ,H -1 H H H H H H <-I H -H H H -1 H H H r-1 .H H ,H r-1 r-1 O O 0 co Ln Ln Ln in 0 co H N Cr) CO to co O O co O co co O 71- (0 cv H ,H 0 0 0 Ln N N (0 N 0 00 CO to 0 (0 V 0) CO CO cf) 0) CO 0 (0 0 N cam) 00 LC) 0 0) (0 0) ,-1 0) N N CO OD N co Ln ,H -1 N (0 Ln 0) ,H 0) CO • a) a) • a) a) a) 0 U • a • a 0 Ci 1.] O C 0 a 0 U) a) bD 0 U) O .. E .x • '0 .0 0 a) = U) > (1 0 CZ Cr) cd • E _ = U) •H .---1 Q a) a) .0 0 _0 0 z o C) U) a W 4H a U) Cn H U) W (IS O 1' H =.4 I • I co 0 a 0 ›, •H ,4 O 4H • (41 • a) o a) ti U) a) 41 p 0 ii a) a CH H C.) (i) .0 C11 H = a) U) cU 0) (Ii •H H a a 'd bI) r, 0 Si 4 ,-1 a) `� O = = a) H a) (II a) a) r E < 0 O .`.s C) O a > 0.1 - E u 0 U U) a 'J = ,0 o?S (II 0 S-1 C 0 O CO U] U) Q W a 0 .0 0 Ctj H Z = Z a 0 <H : H H a Cl) U) Q Cn Z Q • 1_) a) a) m U) U) C E E al . • . bD 1-) 1.) •r.{ •--1 •H C7 • U) •r-H v1 a 0 0 0 CO H H t0 C a O = H 0 b)0 0 '0a) E 0 E ) u u u O Ul 0 • i 0 H U a) 0 a) E S, Li (l H L4 Sa e > O H > •moi > a) al cU Z W (1) a) f • CO • ,0 > O > O 13 a a O ,. W H H (i-i U) (4-1 LI Si 5-1 S-i U) I 1 (1) U) 0 C) t H H a) a) 1-) a) a (1) a >) m cn U) U) a) a) C11 cd co w 0) H Q •r1 co E U) E co a) a) a) a) •H •ri C.) rn1 H H H •H •--1 •H •� u u I I u u I) 0 u • H H Sa Sa H •H u u X .H .1.4 H Li .H < 4-♦ • 4-1 • H a a (U (U H H IT •H •H H E E E >- E a O a O a •H a s H H •H H E E , a) a) 0 (d a) W Li (U Li CO 1) C) C) (d (U a 1) a) a) ti.: a (2 a a a 0- a L) a 0 Z U) U) U) cn Z Z a a ••• Ct d' 0 0 0 co O in in Ln co (b O) 0 co co (0 ,H ,H N co N O co c)) �; Ln Cr) t 0 0 N 0) d- 0 co H ri d' 0 U co N O H d• co N O N � H ,--i 0 0 0 Lr) (0 LC) N (0 (0 IN 0) 0 00 N. 111 in N 0) CO CO N 0 (0 0) CO cn 00 CO CO 0) (0 (0 0 CO H H c) CO (0 c0 CO N N CO CO [1' 0) (0 0) H 0) N N CO CO 0) N CO H H H H N (0 Ln d H 0) L 7t 1l U 0��J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N (0 ,--1 r-1 H H <-1 H r-1 c-1 .-1 <-1 H <-1 ,--1 r-1 <-1 r-1 ,--1 r-1 ,--1 c-1 .H H H 4-1 H 1 d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a) -1 H H H ,--I H ,--1 H H H ,H -1 H -1 H -1 ,H cH r-1 H H r-1 H ,H c-1 b0 al V r-1 ,--1 .--I ,-I c-i ,H co 1p co co -4 c--i r-1 c--1 c-i ,--1 ,--1 <--1 ri .H c-i ,--1 c-1 r-i c-1 (i• CO co co m co Co NLn N N NOO 0 0 000000 00 co co N CDH H H H H H H ,--1 -1 —1 ,H H N N N N 'H N N CO CO N Ln N ,-1 ,H 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) d' d' d' d' N d' Lo CO CO CO 71 0-) r-1 H (0 Cr) t 0) 0) H ,) • • • • • 0 H r-1 r-1 ,H ,H <-1 0) CO 0) 0) CO (0 N 0 H ,H ,H H N H (\I H N H--1 H Li U H H H H H H 0 0 0 0 H N N CO N H N N CO CO N in N c-1 < 1 a) Z 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) in Ln Ln Ln N d' (.0 (o CO U1 Zt 00 H H (0 CO 0) 0) 4 E H H 0 N H N co 00) 0 0) ctOO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (o Ln a) r-1 N cJ N CO N N H H H H (') H H ('') cn N S N N N <\ N S N N > CO 0 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) co Ln co Ln N N N H H cn co co co co co co co 0) 0) O W d' 7t dt d cr d' d d- d d- dt 1- - dr dr d- d' d• d d d d• 71- d' 71- 4 Z n • . • . • v H H H H H H co co co co ,H H ,H H H H ,H ,H ,H .H H H .H H H co co U) Co Co Co NLn N cV N00 0 0 000000 00 co co 1 N c� LC) H H • LO 0 cO C) N 0 H o) CO Lf) H N L• Ln H , 0 H• a) Ul a) H O Q) 2 I,•I � cti a » up Cl) al • LrT H R U COOLI) CbL- L.C) aJ H 'Kt CO HIP CO d- U) [I- • • • CU •7t Ln LC) LO CO L-, N " �H O a) CO 10 0 .) a) •''i CO t o) LD H O O N Ln H n: H t co H 0 fR {f} LI) 0 CO CO o -1" O • N C�' (- ¢� O H O) CO Lf) H (fl H N- LI) S: U1 H O (t) H E U Ti Q) (Il H Ty C > 5 ( , O O •Q u L 0 0 Q CC-+ CO `1' H H H E C' H E • 0 0 ›) (t1 H ,- u (1) n H H ,Q S S-1 S-.1O U) 110 t U LI7 H m C QI > a) a) H a) I H Q) Cd CtiC7 `LCOCl) paH ii I I I I I I N O H CO 0 H H L!7 •• OD HO H HON Lc) 1 CO CO a 0 C H U 0 H S_, U 0 O E is 0 cv Q) [A H N > Cil CO C) O OI CO z • Ln H CO OD J 1 751 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: \\OVLt RE: Travel/Subsistence Reimbursement DATE: II /Ii / L Introduction The staff member listed below is requesting Council approval for reimbursement of travel/subsistence expenses. Background Staff frequently has to use their own funds to pay for conference or travel expenses. The process for Council to approve reimbursement requests within the regular bill cycle can entail a wait of up to five weeks before the employee receives the money. In order to alleviate a possible hardship on the employee by expediting compensation for expenses incurred on City business, this request is forwarded out of the normal bill cycle. The employee and expenses are: Name: -3Z E EN 40ortc y Amount: flS.O(c Purpose: �tTZ`�t��`IFtiL � r�\Cly T(`LMI41r C-1-i-f-1 t�� ������Ot15 1 N 4�BUC. r0 (Ot4, zE-NC �►��t LVt 1) ‘'CotipotT L rki'i' \ tC L -3l�E of C.t►4"FCe- w,}S *PK)<i N S Alternatives 1. Approve payment 2. Defer to normal bill cycle 3. Deny all or part of request Recommendation Alternative #1. Action k-4tjczL��/ Move to approve payment to in the amount of $ ' C(0 for travel/subsis ence reimbursement. J ( a MEMO TO: John K. Anderson FROM: LeRoy Houser/Bldg. Official RE: Thrift Shop furnace DATE: December 2 , 1982 Sorry to say the heat exchanger is broken in the furnace at the Thrift Shop. It will cost $1 , 250 to replace , which we do not have budgeted . It is necessary to have it replaced as the fire keeps going out . If we do not replace it we will have over $1 , 250 in service calls before the winter is out . Action Requested Authorize appropriate official to purchase replacement heat exchanger for the Thrift Shop from Government Buil Ings budget in the General Fund , at a cost not to exceed $1 ,250. LH: cau . . ; f.� . .�i►►� F City of Shakopee -g /r 5 H A K O p E f POLICE DEPARTMENT 1.4,. i \\ • • 1 e �'` 476 South Gorman Streeter: )'—_ ' SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 th. \ P Tel 445-6666 i,Q r ''455379 , c.t , TO: Mayor, Council Members FROM: Tom Brownell , Chief of Police SUBJECT: Snowmobile/ATV Ordinance Revision DATE: December 1, 1982 INTRODUCTION On October 19, 1982 , Council directed staff to meet with members of the local Snowmobile Club including council members Colligan and Leroux to seek a solution to the operation of snowmobiles within the City. BACKGROUND Two meetings were held which resulted in the Snowmobile Club agreeing to obtain appropriate land leases which will provide two north/south corridors enabling snowmobilers to access the trail system. All parties also approve the revision of the City Code Sec. 8 . 30 , Subd. 3. G. by deleting, "City Limits" , and adding, "Trail System Access. " RECOMMENDATION Revise City Code 8. 30 Subd. 3. G. by deleting, "City Limits , " and adding, "Trail System Access. " COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance amending the snowmobile regulations . go SE•LVE JO P'otect JO. 31141.. . C ,� D. On private property of another without specif- ic permission of the owner or person in control of said property. E. At a rate of speed greater than reasonable or proper under all surrounding circumstances . F. At any place in a careless , reckless or negli- gent manner or heedlessly in disregard of the rights or safety of others , or in a manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger or cause injury 'or damage to any person or property. G. During the hours from 11 :00 o' clock P .M. to 7:00 o' clock A.M. of any day closer than 100 feet to any dwelling which is usually occupied by one or more persons ; provided, how- ever, that snowmobile or ATV operation shall be permitted during such hours when traveling directly to or from the residence of the operator and the nearest Ccy limits at a rale of speed not in excess of fifteen (15) miles per hour. Aov- ILrn Syrreos AoGasS H. So as to tow any person or thing except through use of a rigid towbar attached to the rear of the snowmo- bile or ATV. I . At any place while under the influence of al- cohol or drugs as defined in M.S .A. 169.121 , which is hereby in- corporated herein by reference . J. Within 100 feet of any pedestrian, fisherman, skating rink or sliding area where the operation would conflict with the use or endanger other persons or property. Subd. 4. Special Orders . In addition to the regula- tions provided in Subdivision 3 , it is unlawful to operate a snowmobile or ATV on any public place where prohibited by order of the City. The City shall have the power, by written order, to prohibit such operation whenever in its discretion the same would be likely to produce damage to property or endanger the safety or repose of other persons . Such areas shall be appropriately sign- posted before such order shall become effective . Subd. 5 . Direct Crossings . A snowmobile or ATV may make a direct crossing of a street or highway, except at inter- state highway or freeway, provided: A. The crossing is made at an angle of approxi- mately 90 degrees to the direction of the street or highway and at a place where no obstruction prevents a quick and safe cross- ing. B. The snowmobile or ATV is brought to a complete stop before crossing the shoulder or main traveled way. C. The driver yields the right-of-way to all on- coming traffic which constitutes an immediate hazard. D. In crossing a divided street or highway, the crossing is made only at an intersection of such street or high- way with another public street or highway. E . If the crossing is made between the hours of one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before sunrise or in conditions of reduced visibility, only if both front and rear lights are on. ATV not licensed as a motor vehicle are forbidden to cross highways or streets except when they are pushed across 4-1-78 -196- II AD MEMO TO: John K. Anderson City Administrator FROM: Don Steger City Planner RE: Screening of Rubber Industries DATE: December 2 , 1982 Background: Last Spring the City Council approved Industrial Revenue Bonds for an expansion of Rubber Industries . A condition of approval required screening along the west side of the property , between the points where the land drops on both the northwest and south- west corners of the property. The screening was to consist of berming and plantings located within a 50 foot drainage easement . The City Engineer has recently estimated that a storm sewer will be placed within this easement in three to ten years . Because the sewer construction will probably disrupt the entire 50 foot easement , the screening and berming would have to be obliterated. Therefore , the staff and Rubber Industries requests the City Council to delay the screening requirement until after the sewer is constructed. The attorney for Rubber Industries and the City Attorney both agreed that a written restrictive covenant , which obligates Rubber Industries to install the screening after the sewer installation, would suffice . The screening, which would extend between the low points on the northwest and southwest corners of the property , would consist of a combination of pine trees and berming, which totals at least 5 feet in height . The specific location details and screening types would be determined by the City Council after the sewer installation. The agreement between Rubber Industries and the City would also contain a state- ment which would hold Rubber Industries harmless against loss or damage resulting from surface water drainage across neighboring property due to the berming, as long as the screening would be installed according to the plan approved by the City prior to the screening installation. The City Attorney further indicated that the existing encumbered funds , which were intended to ensure the screening installation, could be released to Rubber Industries . Alternatives : 1 . Delay the screening until the sewer project is completed. 2 . Require the screening to be installed as originally planned. John K. Anderson December 2 , 1982 Rubber Industries Page -2- lI ' Recommendation: Delay the screening until the sewer project is completed. Action Requested : Motion to delay the screening requirement until the sewer project is completed and authorize the City Attorney to draft a restrictive covenant agreement which would ensure the screening installation. Motion to authorize the destruction of Rubber Industries ' current Letter of Intent and authorize the appropriate City officials to sign the necessary forms to release the encumbered funds to Rubber Industries upon the submission and recording of the restrictive covenant LLrecnicnL;; . DS/jvm J iviEwiO TO : John K . Anderson City Administrator FROM : H. R. Spurrier City Engineer RE: Prairie Street Sanitary Stwe Insulation Project DATE : December 2, 1982 Introduction : The above-referenced project resulted in some surprises and consequently, attached is Change Order No. 1 for the above referenced project. Background : First, the State of Minnesota required the installation of ductile iron pipe in the roadway. Approximately 31 lineal feet of ductile iron pipe was installed at an additional cost of $8. 00 per lineal foot, resulting in an increase of $248.00. In order to install the pipe, two fernco couplers were required. The total increased cost, as a result of pipe material change, was $333. 00, (i.e. $31.66 x 31 - 23.66 x 31 = $333.00) , quantity change reduces original contract. The estimated cost of restoration was below that cost originally anticipated and, therefore, the resulting cost of the project was $76. 43 below the original contract amount. The insulation project resulted in the discovery that the freezing problem may not be the result of a shallow line, but the fact that the sanitary sewer was encased by a storm sewer lead constructed by the State of Minnesota in a storm sewer project. City staff is now investigating the possibility of correcting this when the work on Trunk Highway 101 is performed next summer. Additional investigation will be made to determine whether it is possible to get some reim- bursement for the City's cost in this insulation project, since some of the problem was the result of State construction. It is the recommendation of City staff that Change Order No. 1 for Priarie Street Sanitary Sewer Insulation Project, in the amount of $1, 066.46 be approved. It is further recommended that Partial Estimate Voucher No. 1, in the amount of $6, 327. 17 be approved and paid to S. M. Hentges & Son Excavating, P. O. box 142, Shakopee, MN 55379 . Action Requested : 1) Approve Change Order No. 1, Prairie Street Sanitary Sewer Insulation Project, in the amount of $1, 066. 46. A-333.or 2) Approve Partial Estimate Voucher No. 1, in the amount of $6, 327. 17 to S. M . Hentges & Sons Excavating, P.O. Box 142, Shakopee, MN 55379 to be paid out of the Sewer Fund. HRS/jvm Attachments it Ts xr....„. I _ , , ' t Y -Cat - ' -- , �« ""` _ , PARTIAL ESTIMATE VOIJCII H Contract No. N/A Partial Estimate Voucher No. 1 Period Endinr;: November 15, 1982 T0: Contractor S. M. Hentges & Son Excavating Address P. 0. Box 142 . Shakopee, MN • , 55379 _ ,__ Project Description Prairie Street Sanitary Sewer Insulation Project____ 1 . Original Contract Amount +, 6,403.60 _ Change Order No. 1 Thrs N��. j, 1,066.46 3. Total Funds Encumbered $ 7,470.06 1i . Value of Work Completed $ 6,660. 18 Value of Work Remaining 5. 5 Percent Retainac;e :;: 333.01 $ 0 6. Previous Payments $ 0.00 Percent Complete I. Deductions or Charges $ 0. 00 — __ 100 Percent 8. Total $ 333.01 Payment Due (Line 1+ - Line 8) $ 6, 327. 17 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. r / CONTRACTOR: / (.� 7Y'. ,k, r1 e:_.C."7/��_<-,e'.. BY: ..„,–rY� t, c' TITLE: (.- `T/ DATE: 1/ – / ) _ S_,,/ APP'OV. , - Y OF SHAKOPEE l 7i City ,nter Date City Administrator Date PAYMENT ESTIMATE No. 1 City of Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Contractor: S. M. Hentges & Son Excavating P. 0. box 142 Shakopee, MN 55379 Amount of Contract: Dates of Estimate: Original $ 6,403.60 From November 1, 1982 Revised $ To November 15, 1982 Description of Project: Prairie Street Sanitary Sewer Insulation Project Contract Items This Period Tota to Date Item No. Contract Item Qty. Unit Unit Price Qty. Amount Qty. Amount 1 Pipe Insulation 65 L.F. $ 7.00 76 $ 532.00 76 $ 532. 00 2 8" PVC Sewer Pipe 60 L. F. 23.66 37 875.42 37 875.42 3 4" C. I. Service Pipe 6 L.F. 12. 00 10 120.00 10 120.00 4 6" C. I. Service Pipe 6 L.F. 14. 00 0 0.00 0 0. 00 5 8 x 4 Wyes 1 Ea 35. 50 1 35. 50 1 35. 50 6 8 x 6 Wyes 1 Ea. 49. 50 0 0. 00 0 0. 00 7 Std. Manhole 1 Ea. 1410. 00 1 1,410. 00 1 1,410.00 8 Class 5 63 Ton 6. 00 24.3 145.80 24.3 145. 80 9 Pavement Restoration 38 S.Y. 50.00 37. 5 1,875.00 37. 5 1,875. 00 10 Approved Lane Closure Construction Signing 1 L.S. 600. 00 1 600. 00 1 600. 00 TOTAL $5, 593. 72 $5, 593. 72 ■ CHANGE ORDER Change Order No. : 1 Prairie Street Sanitary Sewer Project Name: Insulation Project Date: November 15, 1982 Contract No. : N/A Original Contract Amount $ 6,403.60 Change Order(s) No. -- thru No. --_ $ 0.00 Total Funds Encumbered Prier to Change Order S 6,403.60 __ Description of Work to be (Added/Deleted): 31 L. F. 8" DIP @ $31.66/L.F. $ 981. 46 2 Ea. 8" fere couplers @ $42. 50/Ea. 85. 00 Total $1, 066.46 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 riot 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/dXX XXX * by $ 1, 066.46 The number of calendar days for completion shall be (increased/decreased) by _ 0 _ . Original Contract Amount $ 6,403.60 Change Order(s) No. 1 _ thru -- $ 1,066.46 Total Funds Encumbered $ 7,470. 06 Completion Date: No Change The undersigned Contractor hereby agrees to perform the work specified in this Change Order in accordance with the specifications, conditions and prices specified herein. Contr eorc ` - r r By....-� cy �_ .. Title: `' < ., Date: ) ( - /`7 - is' _:?__ APPRIVED r ,,�qiAgiiiiir ECOMMENDED: /13C(;(:7 7--- City En! ,er10 ` Dtte APPROVED: City of Shakopee By: Mayor Date Approved as to form this day of City Administrator Date 19 City Clerk Date City Attorney 1Ik MEMO TO: John K . Anderson City Administrator FROM : H. R. Spurri r"-° ._____._ City Engineer RE: Drainage Problem in Eagle B 'f 2nd Addition DATE : December 3, 1982 Introduction : A drainage problem along 11th Avenue has been called to the attention of City staff. The drainage problem results from surface water run-off in Eagle Bluff 2nd Addition between Naumkeag Street and Marschall Road. Background : Eagle Bluff 2nd Addition is adjacent to undeveloped land. Eagle Bluff dedicated one-half of the right of way of 11th Avenue along the southerly line of the plat adjacent to the undeveloped land. Eleventh Avenue is an unconstructed half street that serves as a turn- around for the "no outlet" streets connected to 10th Avenue. It serves as an interceptor for the surface water on the streets north of 11th Avenue. The surface water is conveyed somewhat unsuccessfully to the west and to the east in a ditch along 11th Avenue. The easterly ditch, which flows from Shawmut to a point east of Legion Street, has been a particular nuisance to adjacent property owners because the ditch has a very poor slope and fills with wind-deposited sediments from the fields south of 11th Avenue and fills with water-borne sediments from the developing land in Eagle Bluff 2nd Addition. The poor slope results in sedimentation in the ditch causing standing water and unsightly sediments. The ditch was planned as a temporary facility because development was apparently anticipated south of 11th Avenue. That development has not occurred and may not occur within the next five years. The City has been asked to solve the problem created by not constructing 11th Avenue. The problem may be corrected by building a concrete swale. The necessary earthwork and concrete work required for the swale will cost an estimated $4, 500. If the project were assessed to the property east of Shawmut and along Legion Street, the resulting assessment would be approxi- mately $315 per lot. / l< John K . Anderson December 3, 1982 Eagle Bluff 2nd Addition Page -2- In the event land southerly of this subdivision were developed, it is possible 11th Avenue would be constructed and then these improvements would be abandoned. With the likelihood that such improvements could be abandoned in the future, and given the fact that. construction cost is high, unanimous support by the benefitted property is unlikely and, therefore, the feasibility of assessing the project is unlikely. The only alternative for construction is having the City pay for the improvements. The City has proposed to construct, and pay for, drainage improvements in other parts of the City for existing development when the constructed facilities accepted by the City, proved to be unacceptable. For those cases, the project proposed by the City was a permanent project. While reducing the amount of maintenance required, the proposed construction does not eliminate maintenance, because the wind-deposited sediments must be removed from the proposed concrete swale or the existing ditch. The concrete swale would simplify the removal of the water borne and wind-deposited sediments. The concrete swale would take between 16 and 20 years to pay for itself in reduced maintenance costs. It is not the ultimate solution to the problem because that solution requires development of the land south of Eagle Bluff, so that the surface waters may drain naturally to the south to the Upper Valley Drainageway. Recommendations would be easier if the City's financial position were better. Recommendations would be easier if there were not similar circumstances in other parts of the City, such as along County Road 16, along Bluff Avenue, along 2nd Avenue west of Scott Street and in several other locations around the City. If the City is going to begin a program of systematically eliminating these problems and paying the cost of eliminating the problem, then it is appropriate for the City to construct the concrete swale that would solve this problem. If on the other hand, the City does not plan to do that, then it would be inappropriate to make the improvement at this time. Action Requested: Defer construction of a concrete swale along 11th Avenue until it is incorporated in a systematic plan correcting similar drainage problems in the City. HRS/jvm // MEMO TO: John K. Anderson City Administrator FROM: H. R. Spurner City Engineer ', 0' . RE: Lighting at County Ro 42 and County Road 17 DATE: December 2 , 1982 Introduction: The City of Prior Lake and Scott County have requested that the City of Shakopee install a light at the intersection of County Road 42 and County Road 17 . Background: Pursuant to County policy , Scott County will pay for the installation of the light at the intersection so long as the City of Shakopee maintains the light after. installation. The light is warranted at the intersection. In other words , the light is required according to good engineering practice and is recommended for installation. Action Requested : Authorize Shakopee Public Utilities to install street lighting at County Road 42 and County Road 17 and bill the cost of installa- tion to Scott County . IIItS/ ,Ivm Y / ) • JULIus A.GC)LLER, II JULIUS A.COLLER ATTORNEY AT LAW 612-445-1244 1859-1940 2 1 1 WEST FIRST AVENUE SIIAKOPF:E, MINNESOTA sr)a o November 29, 1982 MEMO: November 29, 1982 TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Julius A. Coller, II, City Attorney IN RE: Old treatment plant land transfer The first step to be completed would be a motion by the Council to accept the transfer on the basis of the 'turnback agreement' and authorize the delivery of a check in payment thereof upon receipt of a like amount from Mr. Bakken. Thereafter, and at a subsequent meeting, the Council would pass a resolution authorizing and directing the transfer of said property from the City to Mr. Bakken subject to all requirements in the NWCC deed to the City and those contained in the 'turnback agreement' . NOTE: The City has received $4,000.00 from Mr. Bakken for purchase of the old treatment plant. ACTION REQUESTED: Accept the transfer of the old treatment plant from the MWCC on the basis of the turnback agreement signed by the City on August 5, 1982, authorize the payment of $3,386.72 to MWCC for the transfer, accept the $4,000.00 from Wallace D. Bakken for purchase of said property from the City, and direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution transferring the property to Mr. Bakken. 11 November 9, 1932 City of Shakopee 129 - 1st Avenue East Shakopee, MN 55379 Attention: John K Anderson, City Administrator Re: 2nd Stage Reconveyance of Part of the Land Containing the Old Shakopee Treatment Plant Dear Mr. Anderson: Originally in September of 1980 the MWCC reconveyed a 0.259 acre parcel of the old treatment plant property to the City of Shakopee in accordance with MWCC Resolution No. 79-13 (Business Item "F") as approved January 16, 1979. Subsequently, by a letter dated May 4, 1981 from this office the 2nd stage reconveyance of a portion of the remaining 2.116 acres to City was indicated wherein the MWCC would retain fee title to only the 0.513 acre area necessary for our existing pumping station (L.S. #16). This site is shown as parcel "A" on the attached survey originally dated September 25, 1980 and recently revised on June 16, 1982. You will note parcel "B" (1.603 acres) then is the remainder and that is to be deeded to the City with the understanding that the MWCC is to retain a 1.019 acre easement for our protecting dike and a 0.017 acre easement area for the fence jog to accommodate our access manhole as shown on the revised survey. Our attorney, Robert Lindall , revised the Turnback Agreement as the result of a meeting in this office on December 31, 1981. This Turnback Agreement then was approved by the Shakopee City Council and you returned the Documents to us on August 6, 1982. Mr. Wallace Bakken has now basically completed the Terms of the Turnback Agreement with the understanding that An "Equivalent Fence" between our property and the residue property will be placed on or before July 1, 1983 (see the memo of Understanding dated October 29, 1982 as attached) . 350 METRO/QUARE BLDG. 7TH&ROBERT/TREET/ /AIM PAUL mn 55101 612 222.8423 (2) Therefore, the Quit Claim Deed with the copy of a Fully Signed Turnback Agreement is enclosed for your use in processing the land transfer to Mr. Bakken. Even though this two stage reconveyance has been somewhat complicated, I believe it is to the mutual benefit of both of our Agencies and to the citizens for whom we work. Very truly yours, ep,/,; George W. Lusher Chief Administrator cc: Bernard Harrington, Director of Engineering Dick Berg, Comptroller Bill Blain, Director of Operations Robert Lindall , Attorney GWL:WES:nl (3JIL Attachment B (Turnback Agreement) Form No.31-M-QUIT CLAIM DEED Minnesota Uniform Conveyancing Blanks(1978) Miller Davis Co.Minneapolis Corporation or Partnership -- -- - I! to Corporation or Partnership u� - -- 1 No delinquent taxes and transfer entered; Certificate of Real Estate Value ( ) filed ( ) not required Certificate of Real Estate Value No. • (;,)i±nf.V Auditor by --- - -- - - - - Deputy STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $ - Exempt Date: 19 (reserved for recording data) FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION _ , a Metropolitan commissJ r the laws of Minnesota- , Grantor, hereby conveys and quitclaims toCity of Shakopee _ , Grantee, ami n i c�ipal_corporation under the laws of Minnesota- , real property in Scott County, Minnesota, described on Exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated herein, subject to easements reserved therein, (if more space is needed,continue on back) together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto. METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL CQMMLSSION By Its Chairman By Its _ri.ief Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA ss. COUNTY OF _ The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of , 19 by and the Chairman and Chief Administrator of Metropolitan Waste Control Commission , ametropolitan commission under the laws of Minnesota , on behalf of the commission NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL(OR OTHER TITLE OR RANK) SIGNATURE OF PERSON TAKING ACKNOWLEDGMENT Tax Statements for the real property described in this Instrument should be sent to(Include name and address of Grantee): THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY(NAME AND ADDRESS): Robert J. Lindall, Esq. Holmes & Graven, Chartered 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 i ( C) MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk RE: Park Dedication Agreement DATE: December 2 , 1982 Introduction On March 2 , 1982 , Council authorized staff to invite developers , whose developers agreements provided that the park dedication was now due , to make payment to make other arrangements . Background I have communicated with Al Furrie , developer of Furrie ' s 2nd Addition, and Gary Eastlund , developer of Valley Park 6th Addition, on numerous occasions and to this date do not have a recordable amended agreement . On August 3rd Council authorized staff to foreclose on the park dedication liens against the developers of three other subdivi- sions , who had not executed an amendment to the developers agree- ment delaying payment of the park dedication. At that time I had executed agreements from Mr. Furrie and Mr. Eastlund, but subsequently learned that they were unrecordable. To date the necessary corrections have not been made . Alternatives 1 . Do nothing. Developers agreements are recorded and anyone examining an agreement might assume the park dedication has been since the date of final payment has passed. 2 . Foreclose on the lien. Recommendation Since more than reasonable attempt has been made by the City to permit the developers involved to amend their agreements to delay payment of the park dedication until a later date and after eight months the City does not have a recordable document , and to be consistent with earlier action taken by the Council against other developers , I recommend the City implement the provision of the agreement and foreclose the lien created by the developers agree- ment for park dedication. Recommended Action Authorize and direct staff to foreclose on the park dedication liens against the developers of Furrie ' s 2nd Addition and Valley Park 6th Addition. JSC/jms cc : Gary Eastlund Al Furrie dr r fel/U ci 24 4 AIOILLSIT, . :4, vIticir CITY ® F SHAKOPEE 110 ka = INCORPORATED 1870 � v 129 E. First Ave. - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 A I .r . Y r�.f November 16 , 1982 Mr. Al Furrie Furrie Corporation 1221 East 4th Avenue Shakopee , MN 55379 Re : Developers Agreement Dear Al : On August 27 , 1982 I returned to you for corrections the amendment to the developers agreement for Furric ' s 2nd Addition . The agreement needs to be signed by a11. present owners and I do need certificates of title in order to record the agreement . I asked if you could follow up on these items for me within the next week to 10 days . Since March of this year , I have been working with you to obtain a recordable document amending the park dedication require- ment contained in the developers agreement which amendment defers payment of the park dedication now due for lots in Furrie ' s 2nd. Al , I would be happy to receive either the park dedication fee now due or a recordable amended agreement . Frankly , I am very disappointed that this matter is still not cleared up after eight months of communications . If I don' t receive payment , or a recordable agreement along wit. : - ificate of title in order to record the agreement by iecember _ , I will be forced to take this matter back to the .ouncil for further direction. Sincerely, . \t4J-1- C). 4/__-• ud th S . Cox City Clerk JSC/ 'ms ' John Anderson , City Admr . T c II ,' ,r I r ,, l I' I ,' ., i " ,1II , An Equal Opportunity Employer 1, 4111°26:011D-- v Ill\silefjper, CITY OF SHAKOPEE . INCORPORATED 1870 129 E. First Ave. - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 P (612) 445-3650 .+ . ,,, November 16 , 1982 • Mr. Gary East 1 and Scottland , Inc . 5244 Valley Industrial lionit'v;lyd So. Shakopee , MN 55179 Re : Developers Agreement Valley Park 6th Addition Dear Gary : On August 27 , 1982 1 returned to you for corrections the amendment to the developers agreement for Valley Park 6th Addi- tion. The agreement needs to be signed by Helmut Horst Mauer & W Jane Kircher and I also need the certificates of title for recording. I asked if you could follow up on these two items for me within the next week to 10 days . Since March of this year , I have been working with you to obtain a recordable document amending the park dedication requirement contained in the developers agreement which amend- ment defers payment of the $715 park dedication now due for Lot 4 , Block 1 . Gary , I would be happy to receive either the $715 payment or a recordable amended agreement . Frankly, I am very disappointed that this matter is still not cleared up after eight months of communications . If I don ' t receive payment , or a recordable agreement along with a certificate of title in order to record the agreement by December 1st , 1 will be forced to take this matter hack to the City Council for further direction. Sincerely , , L j • ed' h S . Cox Ci't`y Clerk JSC/ jms John Anderson,/ City Admr, 1' 17 t' / / tl / 0 I /' tIrcsst� tl 1 1 (/ An Equal Opportunity Employer //10 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson/City Administrator FROM: Judith S . Cox/City Cler / RE : Long View Estates 1st AdditionVV - Letter of Credit DATE : December 7 , 1982 Introduction: The developers of the Long View Estates 1st Addition have asked that the amount of their letter of credit be reduced. Background : Much of the work provided for in the developers agreement has been completed for the above development and the developer would like the letter of credit reduced in order that these funds can become unencumbered so that the contractor performing the work can be paid. After checking with both the City Engineer and the SPUC Manager, the value of the work remaining times the 125% policy equals $4, 239 . 00 . The letter of credit could be reduced to $4, 239. 00. The developer has provided the City with a bond and a letter guaranteeing the work, but they do not meet the requirements of the developers agree- ment . Rather than hold this item up until the December 21st meeting staff recommends Council approve reducing the letter of credit upon sub- mission and approval of the bond and letter by the City Attorney. Action Requested : Authorize staff to return the $60 ,000 letter of credit on file for the Long View Estates 1st Addition improvements upon receipt of 1 ) a new letter of credit in the amount of $4, 239 . 00, and 2 ) receipt and approval of the letter of guarantee and maintenance bond by the City Attorney. JSC : cau MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council ly FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Microwave Oven for City Hall Lunchroom DATE: November 24, 1982 Introduction A substantial number of City Hall employees currently eat their noon meal in the City Hall lunchroom. They have approached me because they believe that the addition of a microwave oven in the lunchroom would increase the types of noon lunches available to them. Background In checking with other departments in the City, I have found that the Police Department kitchen was outfitted by the City when the new Police Department was built. The kitchen currently includes a refrigerator and stove that were purchased by the City and installed in the lunchroom. The Public Works staff has a micro- wave oven they purchased with the proceeds of scrap metals they recycled. Therefore, it would seem in keeping with these earlier precedents that the City should participate in the purchase of a microwave for the employee lunchroom at City Hall . The particular microwave oven invisioned would be an inexpensive one and would be purchased from the 1982 budget as proposed in the attached memo dated November 17 , 1982 . The purchase could be made in December when we have received the expenditure figures for the first 11 months of the 1982 calendar year. According to present City policy a purchase of a capital equipment item costing less than $300 can be approved by the City Administrator if its less than $300. I have decided to run this past City Council , however, because the item would be a benefit to City employees and not the general public. Alternatives 1 . Authorize the purchase of a microwave oven for the employee lunchroom at City Hall . 2 . Do not authorize the purchase of a microwave oven for the City Hall lunchroom. Recommendation I recommend alternative No. 1 for the reasons listed in the November 17th memo which has been attached, and because it would be in keeping with past practice for other departments . Recommended Action Authorize City staff to purchase a microwave oven for a cost not to exceed $300. 00. Said purchase to be taken from the supply line items of the various division budgets after the November expenditure figures have been reviewed by the City Administrator. JKA/ ims // 1 MEMO TO: City Council FROM: City Hall Staff RE: Employee Amenity DATE: November 17 , 1982 Background Numerous City staff support the purchase of a microwave oven for the lunchroom at City Hall . Many public and private employers provide amenities for their employees in the employee lounge or lunchroom. A simple model microwave which runs about $250 will adequately do the job, with the possibility of a used or demon- station model keeping the cost even lower. Funds could be taken from supply dollars remaining year end or from revenue sharing funds . Numerous advantages to this amenity will accrue to the City and its staff , including: 1 . Staff will have better, more economical , hot lunches available to them; 2 . Hot water for tea and cocoa will be available for staff and visitor refreshments , providing healthier alternatives to coffee ; 3 . Staff will save time by being able to more frequently eat lunch in the City Hall and avoid trips home and to restaurants ; 4. Eating lunch together, employees can share perspectives which will help them to undertake their jobs in a more effective manner; 5 . Morale will improve with knowledge of City Council support for employee concerns . Requested Action Authorize staff to research purchase of microwave oven for the City Hall lunchroom. Signed : ?_,vri4,t4, d,1„_. out, 2. 0 i '141.1i% r AV /. '•• 410"4F " 4/YLPx/ jie MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Employee Performance Evaluations DATE: December 1 , 1982 Introduction Currently only department heads have annual performance evaluations . Tom Brownell has volunteered as the staff coordinator to come up with a performance evaluation program for all other City employees . As coordinator, Tom has discussed this subject a number of times with department heads at staff meetings and the consensus was to use something similar to the attached City of Plymouth' s Police Department evaluation forms put together by Total Security Concepts Inc. It is this form that we would hope to expand to cover other employee positions throughout the City. Also attached is the proposal from Total Security Concepts Inc . Process The key to a successful employee evaluation process is -o develop a system with the participation of the employees who will be evaluated. This is the process that I used in developing evalua- tion forms for department heads . As noted in the letter from Total Security Concepts Inc . , this particular process would include about 5 to 10 employees representing those employees doing the evaluation and those employees that would be evaluated, thus giving us involvement by the employees to be evaluated. Total Security Concepts ' involvement would be particularly useful in identifying task indicators and then tying them to objective performance evalu- ation criteria. A second look at the attached evaluation form for the Police Department in the City of Plymouth will indicate how this has been accomplished. Alternatives 1 . Try to create the employee evaluation system with City staff alone. This alternative would save the $750. 00 it would cost to employee Total Security Concepts ; however, it would require a significant amount of time for the department head or administrative person who was coordinating the process . 2 . Employ Total Security Concepts Inc . to provide the overall coordination to insure the timely completion of the performance evaluation system. This alternative will cost $750. 00; however, it will provide a project coordinator with specific background in this field. This in turn should facilitate the whole pro- cess because Total Security Concepts will be able to speak with authority when the employee group preparing the evaluations hits a snag in the process . Employee Performance Evaluations Page Two j.... December 1 , 1982 / f 3 . Other. Recommendation City staff recommends alternative No. 2 . This alternative is recommended because the cost is modest and can be taken from the existing training budgets from the various City departments that will be participating, and because of the reasons given above in discussing alternative No. 2 . Action Requested Motion to accept Total Security Concepts Inc. ' s letter of November 29 , 1982 as an agreement to provide the City with an employee evaluation system at a cost not to exceed $750.00 , said cost to come from existing division training budgets . JKA/jms November 29, 1982 •TOTAL SECURITY CONCEPTS Thomas Brownell INC. Chief of Police Shakopee Police Department 1651 James Road 476 Gorman Street Mendota Heights Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Minnesota 55118 612/452-8992 Dear Tom, Thank you for your inquiry concerning assistance in redesigning your city' s employee evaluation system. This letter will explain how Total Security Concepts, Inc. (TSC) can facilitate your city' s employees in the development of a unique and effective evaluation system. Such a system would consist of four principal components: 1. Position Description. A general description of responsi— bilities for each of a limited number of classifications based on organizational needs and required skills and competences for persons occupying the positions. 2. Task Indicators. A listing of behaviors or products which are part of an employee's job performance and which can be objectively observed or inferred from the work environment. 3. Performance Evaluation. The procedures and forms used to collect information concerning performance relative to task indicators and the position description. This information is • used to compare individual and relative performance to objectively rate accomplishment of individual and agency goals. 4. Improvement Plan. A plan developed from the performance review for establishing new goals for the employee and identifying the means for accomplishment of these goals. TSC can assist in sequentially developing the above—described evaluation system by coordinating a representative task force composed of effected employees. For instance, it is proposed that a task force be formed that is composed of from five to ten employees representing evaluators and those to be evaluated from the major three or four classifications which currently exist for the city. Such a task force would meet four times I Page 2 - Tom Brownell in two-hour sessions held on a scheduled, weekly basis. This group would be charged with the responsibility of developing the previously-described components. Either Dick Cariquist or myself would act as facilitators for the task, force and review products and agenda to make recommendations for ensuring its progress and success. Voluntary participation in the task force should be emphasized. This process has been successful in creating evaluation systems which have employee commitment and have demonstratably improved individual development and agency productivity. TSC' s role in the process would include development of agendas and interim reports as well as monitoring and assisting task force progress. Interim progress reports would be prepared and submitted after each task force meeting. A final report with recommendations for implementing the employee evaluation system would be submitted within 30 days of the conclusion of the task force activities. Such report would include a detailed summary of task force findings and recommendations as well as recommendations for forms and procedures to be adopted by the city. The total estimated cost for providing the services as described would be $750.00. If this general proposal meets with your approval, please contact me and I will prepare `a retainer agreement specifying services and costs and with your authoriza- tion we' ll commence work on the project. If you have any questions concerning this plan or modifications you would like made, please call me and I will make the appropriate adjustments to the proposed retainer agreement. Again, thank you for your inquiry and I hope that we can serve you. Both Dick and I are very interested in pursuing this interesting and important project. pe tfully, • U,A,LC CDonald C. TL dy, PP President DCT:jst cc: Dick Cariquist ' 6/30 PLYMOUTH POLICE PATROL DIVISION EVALUATION REPORT DATE: OFFICER Evaluation Period: From To POSITION WRITE-UP PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES IN\NN:>>N \ A 3t y is \` > 0 '9 /0 ljN !2 'S !eeNs -re,, A \rCfSI y 9��0( �Ges,. Foo„p„ ("Pi. Apr,.f erixPF9 , O�y,r' (/,,,, F'PF�404, A�' 94, sIC �t 47/ ,)-97I 9TTF No A�'i/`'4`TrG ,4110 4,0 pr`r/7 M ygpi0 IO,ys i, 470_ cr,,,,,,,Poe, A 9l q Sb04'S`y 00043, 044,0 y/, \N fl •ZS f .yS 7 fJ 4;' f C�,, r ., 6 Oy \0 "���T�1'ISO�S f�� S CONSISTENTLY I ( — I OUTSTANDING EXCEEDS I ( — REOUIR ;.1 NT5 SATISFACTORY 1 MARGINAL OR .PROGRESSING ____ UNSATISFACTORY COMMENTS: (Refer to 1 - 14 above. Specifically, cite strengths and weaknesses) PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT OBJECTIVES (Specific Objectives with Target Dates for Performance Improvement) SUMMARY I Do Do Not Recommend Employee Be Granted Pay Increase Permanent Status I HAVE READ THE ABOVE EVALUATION AND RECEIVED A COPY SUPERVISOR'S SIGNATURE CHIEF'S SIGNATURE MANAGER'S SIGNATURE Date s`' Position Title Police Officer Date June, 1980 li 1 Department Police Division: Operations Accountable To Field Supervisor Section: Patrol Primary Objective of Position To uphold state and local laws, and provide timely response and appropriate public safety services at all times and to demonstrate and maintain effective relations with the public. Major Areas of Accountability Responds to a wide variety of public safety and divergent interpersonal situations 1 in which a variety of alternative actions may be taken. --- Exhibits initiative, problem solving capacity, and sound judgment in rendering effective public safety service. --- Capable of exercising a wide variety of appropriate responses from 1 friendliness and persuasion to firmness and force where appropriate. Patrols designated areas of the city. 1 --- While on patrol actively observes events in assigned area taking necessary action such as issuing citations and warnings, communicating with citizens, checking identification data, updating reports and checking residential and business premises. --- Makes police presence known in a fashion which creates positive public image for police services and deters violations. -- Remains aware of staffing and deployment of others on shift to insure Y satisfactory coverage of the City. Conducts accident investigations and preliminary investigations at crime scenes. I --- Gathers evidence in accordance with accepted departmental procedures and practices. 1 _-_ Interviews suspects and witnesses to collect necessary data. --- Controls and protects the scene. --- Apprehends offenders by vehicle or on foot and makes arrests when required. - Documents information received through report writing and submits completed reports and supporting information in a timely fashion. nton Associates Inc Magor Areas of Accountability (cont. ) --- Where possible, assumes major responsibility for completing investigation 1 leading to clearing certain types of crime. Prepares accurate reports and documents activities. 4 --- Collects and assembles data from interviews, photographs, and CJRS checks , into report format according to departmental procedures and practices. --- Maintains day-to-day logs in a timely, orderly and accurate fashion. Develops support for public safety services by educating public regarding preventa- 5 tive measures to reduce opportunity for crime. --, Daily dealings with the public reflect a positive action oriented approach to accident and crime prevention. --- Prepares public relations materials as directed for distribution, distributes materials during shift and/or represents department at speaking engagements. il Operates and maintains equipment in a fashion which will maximize useful life 6 consistant with public safety objectives. --- Operates equipment safely. 11 --- Performs required maintenance check of vehicle and contents, daily reporting any malfunctions, replacement or maintenance required. I --- Completes necessary report forms in the event of vehicular accident/or property damage incident involving city equipment. Acts with care and consideration towards peers and general public displaying 7 concern for safety, rights and feelings of others. I --- Develops and maintains good working relations with persons with whom he/she comes in contact. t Performs other work as apparent or assigned. 8 EXAMPLES OF PERFORMANCE CRITERIA il 11 Exhibits va nng uambereholce ompn lormpychaomoteomersgy uucath ios,,bfutirnontg la imwedonto, safely accurately under varied conditions, showing facility in self-defense and apprehen- sion, maintaining agility, endurance, and strength. Tolerates stress in a multitude of forms, such as pursuit driving, violent behavior or treating victims of serious injuries or illness. Exhibits a high level of personal integrity and ethical conduct. 11 Displays a professional and courteous manner in his conduct with fellow officer, superiors , offenders, the public and the courts. Eiarrrples of Performance Criteria (cont.) Actions demonstrate concern for motorized and pedestrian traffic safety; responding quickly to accidents and taking proper actions to preserve life and protect property. Remains knowledgable of patrol area and the City as a whole, including physical characteristics and normal routine of events. UAQ LIFICATIONS - Must be licensable under the rules and regulations of the Minnesota Board of Peace A Officers Standards and Training (P.O. S.T.) . - Communicates effectively orally and in writing. - Must possess valid Minnesota Drivers License - Eligible to obtain a permit to carry a gun. - Must pass city physical examination for this position. I 2, I Position Write Up • Attributes PERSONNEL REVIEW GUIDELINES 1. Responds to a wide variety of public safety and divergent interpersonal situations in which. a variety of alternative actions may be taken. --- Exhibits initiative, problem solving capacity, and sound judgment in rendering effective public safety service. --- Capable of exercising a wide variety of appropriate responses from friendliness and persuasion to firmness and force where appropriate. 5 CONSISTENTLY OUTSTANDING - The officer has the knowledge, ability, and confidence to handle all situations on his shift and is the one officer others come to for advice. The officer demonstrates the ability to handle stress problems quickly and correctly. The officer reflects a calm, self assured attitude that demonstrates outstanding leadership. 4 EXCEEDS REQUIREMENTS - The officer consistently demonstrates ability to handle difficult situations with control as required by the circumstances involved. The officer makes appropriate decisions. 3 SATISFACTORY - Officer operates correctly in majority of stressful conditions without direct supervision. The officer needs only moderate supervision, but may check with the supervisor after action is taken to see if the right decision has been made. 2 MARGINAL OR PROGRESSING - The officer often does not commit himself to dealing with a difficult situation without consulting a supervisor. 1 UNSATISFACTORY - Officer frequently avoids decision making. Prefers to have others make decisions. The officer is generally ineffective in making decisions. Demonstrates very little initiative and tends to compound problems in stress situations. PERSONNEL REVIEW GUIDELINLS 2. Patrols designated area of the city. --- While on patrol actively observes events in assigned area taking necessary action such as issuing citations and warnings , communicating with citizens, checking identification data , updating reports and checking residential and business premises. --- Makes police presence known in a fashion which creates positive public image for police services and deters violations. --- Remains aware of staffing and deployment of others on shift to insure satisfactory coverage of the city. • 5 CONSISTENTLY OUTSTANDING - Constantly aware of on-going activities and changes. The officer makes it his duty to know business activity and any geographical', changes. The officer significantly exceeds in his activity rate when compared to his peers. 4 EXCEEDS REQUIREMENTS - Officer reads all reports , making notations of problem areas. Officer is usually close to problem areas and takes appropriate action. The officer is above average in his activity rate when compared to his peers. 3 SATISFACTORY - Officer has complete understanding of his district and takes appropriate and effective measures to fulfill his patrol objectives . The officer shows an average performance rate regarding his patrol activity when compared to his peers. 2 MARGINAL OR PROGRESSING - Officer does not have acceptable familiarity with on-going geographical and business activities. The officer' s activity rate in relation to his patrol activity shows a need for improvement when compared to his peers. 1 UNSATISFACTORY - Officer has inadequate understanding of current activity and displays no pro-active interest in his patrol functions. The officer demonstrates a low activity rate when compared to his peers. Requires additional training, or coaching to improve performance. PERSONNEL REVIEW GUIDELINES 3. Conducts accident investigations and preliminary investigations at crime scenes. --- Gathers evidence in accordance with accepted departmental procedures and practices. --- Interviews suspects and witnesses to collect necessary data. --- Controls and protects the scene. --- Apprehends offenders by vehicle or on foot and makes arrests when required. --- Documents information received through report writing and submits com;)leter' reports and supporting information in a timely fashion. --- Where possible, assumes major responsibility for completing investigation leading to clearing certain types of crime. 5 CONSISTENTLY OUTSTANDING - Accurately proceeds with the preliminary, consistently performs in an objective and thorough manner when gathering, evaluating, organizing and compiling relative fact information. When appropriate, will pursue his investigation to it' s conclusion, using proper support groups. 4 EXCEEDS REQUIREMENTS - Officer gathers and organizes essential information • in an objective manner. His reports are concise and correct, and he proceeds with additional investigation. 3 SATISFACTORY - Officer has knowledge of what is expected of him regarding preliminary investigations. He obtains and proceeds with necessary information. 2 MARGINAL OR PROGRESSING - Officer often does not recognize essential information to the investigation and has difficulty independently proceeding with further investigation. 1 UNSATISFACTORY - Has limited knowledge of elements of offense. Disregards vital pieces of information and evidence. Does not pursue investigations. PERSONNEL REVIEW GUIDELINLS 4. Prepares reports and documents activities. --- Collects and assembles data from interviews , photographs , and CJRS checks into report format according to department procedures and practices. --- Maintains day-to-day logs in a timely, orderly and accurate fashion. 5 CONSISTENTLY OUTSTANDING - The officer consistently demonstrates effective listening and communications skills. The officer accurately and completely reproduces all pertinent information in a clear and concise manner whether orally or in writing. 4 EXCEEDS REQUIREMENTS - The officer communicates clearly to make himself understood. He has the facts and information in his reports , which are easy to read. He maintains proper sentence structure and grammar. 3 SATISFACTORY - The officer is able to understand, gather, and give information to others and can adequately express himself - both in written and oral form. 2 MARGINAL OR PROGRESSING - The officer has some difficulty in understanding and being understood. Reports are sometimes missing information and the officer experiences occassional difficulty in expressing himself in a clear concise manner. 1 UNSATISFACTORY - Has consistent difficulty expressing himself. The officer doesn't gather appropriate information for report purposes. PERSONNEL REVIEW GUIDELINES 5. Develops support for public safety by educating public regarding preventative measures to reduce the opportunity for crime. --- Daily dealings with the public reflect a positive action oriented approach to accident and crime prevention. --- Prepares public relations materials for distribution, distributes materials during shift and/or represents department at speaking engagements. 5 CONSISTENTLY OUTSTANDING - Officer consistently displays considerable knowledge of effective crime prevention, such as, silent alarms , security mechanisms , lighting, and patrol strategies. Actively participates in crime prevention programs during regular shift or by giving special presentations aimed at educating citizens in preventative measures. 4 EXCEEDS REQUIREMENTS - Officer keeps abreast of relevant information which would aid the citizenry in protecting life and property. Volunteers for programs relevant to crime prevention. 3 SATISFACTORY - Officer is aware of trends in criminal activity. Advises citizenry of potential vulnerability and suggests positive remedies. 2 MARGINAL OR PROGRESSING - Officer is aware of potential crime problems in his area and has some knowledge of crime preventative measures. 1 UNSATISFACTORY - Officer generally does not demonstrate awareness of crime prevention measures. Displays an apathetic attitude toward crime prevention. if PERSONNEL REVIEW GUIDELINES 6. Operates and maintains equipment in a fashion which will maximize useful life consistent with public safety objectives. --- Operates equipment safely. --- Performs required maintenance check to vehicle and contents, daily • reporting any malfunctions , replacement or maintenance required. --- Completes necessary report forms in the event of vehicular accident/or property damage ircident involving city equipment. 5 CONSISTENTLY OUTSTANDING - Officer consistently demonstrates proficiency and knowledge of equipment pertinent to the patrol work and is diligent in equipment maintenance practices. Officer does not expose himself or coworkers to unnecessary danger. Officer' s driving habits are appropriate to the given situation. Officer, through example, inspires others to display similiar practices. 0 4 EXCEEDS REQUIREMENTS - Officer is consistently careful and thoughtful . He pays careful attention to the vehicle, equipment, and maintenance. 3 SATISFACTORY - Officer complies with safety practices with little supervision. 2 MARGINAL OR PROGRESSING - Officer is lax in following accepted safety practices and in the use of equipment. Requires supervision and direction. l' 1 UNSATISFACTORY - Officer shows lack of good judgment in safety practices, resistance to supervision and tendency to be abusive/careless toward equipment. I i ar a 4 P 1 • PERSONNEL REVIEW GUIDELINES 7. Acts with care and consideration towards peers and general public displaying concern for safety, rights and feelings of others. --- Develops and maintains good working relations with persons with whom he comes in contact. 5 CONSISTENTLY OUTSTANDING - The officer' s actions and attitudes consistently exemplify the Code of Ethics. The officer' s personality is always positive in public and is considerate of people with whom he comes in contact. 4 EXCEEDS REQUIREMENTS - The officer displays a positive attitude toward police work, and does a consistently good job. Demonstrates the ability to establish good rapport, and will go the "extra mile" on own initiative. 3 SATISFACTORY - The officer maintains professional demeanor, and generally considers the safety, rights and feelings of others before acting. 2 MARGINAL OR PROGRESSING - The officer handles situations without adequate consideration of impact upon others. 1 UNSATISFACTORY - The officer displays an apathetic attitude toward his job and general public contact. MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator /( 15 FROM: Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant RE: Purchase of Parkland for Eastside (JEJ) Park DATE: November 24 , 1982 INTRODUCTION At the November 16 , 1982 , meeting of the City Council a motion was made to acquire parkland for Eastside (JEJ) Park at the appraised value of $88 ,650 , with the value of the assessments ( $20 ,440. 11 ) to be traded for increased density on the remaining parcel if possible . City staff have explored alternatives for providing increased density and judged none to be desirable . Alternatives are explained below for Council consideration. BACKGROUND a John Anderson, Don Steger and Jeanne Andre met to consider alterna- tives . As Mayor Reinke suggested the density transfer idea, he also sat in on the discussion. The alternatives and comments on the alternatives are as follows : Variance A variance from the density specified in the City Code could be requested. However the City Planner does not recommend this course of action because a variance can only be granted for undue hard- ship unique to the parcel which is not purely economic in nature . A public hearing presenting the reasoning in support of the vari- ance would need to be held. Mr. Steger can see no circumstances which would place this parcel in such a category. Rezoning The parcel could be up-zoned to R-3 or R-4. This process would also require a public hearing to amend the City Code. It would be diffi- cult in terms of timing and a questionable ethical practice to tie rezoning to a land purchase from which the City stands to gain. In order to avoid spot zoning a larger parcel would probably be desig- nated for rezoning and the overall increase in land value would be in hundreds of thousands rather than the $20 ,000 the City is trying to save . Such a rezoning should appropriately be considered if the City Council determines that an R-3 or R-4 zone is appropriate for the area between the proposed Upper Valley Drainageway and the pro- posed by-pass in terms of the overall City zoning. Amendment to Code for Increased Density A standard provision allowing increased density under special cir- cumstances could be placed in the City Code by amendment . This process would also involve a public hearing and would apply to all other developers whose parcels meet the special circumstances . It would be difficult to design criteria which would be specific enough to allow increased density for this one parcel only and therefore should only be considered by the City Council if a more general increase in density is considered desirable . Purchase of Parkland for Eastside (JEJ) Park (( Page Two November 24, 1982 Park Dedication Park dedication was considered as a means to decrease the current expenditure for land by purchasing only two-thirds of the land now and acquiring the rest through park dedication. There are a number of drawbacks to this alternative as the developer has no plans for development at this time so park dedication would be left to an indefinite time in the future. If the cost of the land purchased is below the $88 ,650 appraised value , the grant funds would be reduced proportionately. Also the owner would gain no further density as the square footage required for each lot is determined after dedication of roads and parkland. Therefore the City couldn' t expect a cost break with no density increase. Use of Parkland for Density Allowing the developer to use the open space created with park property as a portion of the required subdivision density. The City Planner stated that this is not customary practice and once extended to one developer would reasonably be requested by other developers , effectively decreasing the amount of open space in all developments . ALTERNATIVES The City Council can consider any of the above alternatives but staff recommends outright purchase of the parcel at an increased value which includes the cost of the assessed improvements . RECOMMENDED ACTION Authorize purchase of approximately 9.85 acres of land for Eastside Park at the appraised value of $88 ,650 plus $20,440. 11 for sanitary sewer improvements assessed since the appraisal . JA/jms ```,A,ce�rr,efCITY OF SHAKOPEE ik' ,'�'' ~mo ii 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379. 7,?' ',4,e ,,,,, , .7q•Zil .`, MEMO TO: John Anderson, Administrator FROM: Jim 1:arkan-i D • ' • l' _ " pt. SUBJECT: Park Refuse Hauling DATE: Dec . 3, 1982 . INTRODUCTION: The Park Department has just been made ariare of the availability of a used trash hauler mini-compactor which could be used in our park system. This "mini-compactor" is designed to be mounted on a heavy duty 3/4 ton • pickup or one of our 4 X 4 military vehicles , and could he used to empty our park system trash and refuse barrels into a mobile container and then haul it directly to our refuse haulers ' vehicle, or hauled directly to the local landfill. This type of operation would greatly reduce the need for numerous unsightly dumpsters in some of our parks , and would obviously save countless manhours needed to "hand dump" the individual barrels at . each park. Many of our neighboring communities have used "mini-compactors" for quite some time. In fact, this particular "mini-compactor" was used by Village Sanitation Inc . in the Minnetonka Park District, as a contract hauler . BACKGROUND: ' The Shakopee Park Department currently must manually load all of its ' trash barrels onto a stake body truck, haul the barrels to a centrally located site, then manually unload the barrels into 2 yard "dumpsters" provided by our contract refuse hauler. They then return the barrels for distribution around the park areas. This method is dictated by the equipment available to empty the trash -and refuse containers in our park system. Several years ago we tested another system whereby we would connect the dumpster to the tailgate of a dump truck and haul the dumpster to . the barrels, but this method wasn' t practical for various reasons. The mini-compactor that we looked at, was used by Village Sanitation Inc. of Shakopee, and was used for contract hauling at the Minnetonka park system. The compactor is rated at 6 yards, has a hydraulic "rammer" plate for compaction and ejection, and is powered by a hydraulic pump which is belt driven from the pickup 'engine. The load can be ejected either into a larger hauler, or ejected directly onto the ground at a landfill. This compactor has been recently overhauled, assuring us that it is in good used condition. n We hadn' t budgeted for this type of equipment because the price of a new compactor begins at $8, 000. 00 , and we didn' t feel that we could justify the cost. The cost of the used compactor is $1, 500 . 00 and we can virtually pay for the compactor in one season by: 1. Using less manhours hauling the trash barrels to the dumpsters , and then returning them to their area, thereby, not having to handle the barrels twice. 2. Using less 2 yard dumpsters on a rental basis with the refuse contractor . 3. Servicing all of our park system with one compacted load, and possibly hauling it to the landfill area ourselves, this would represent a drastic savings in manhours. 4 . Using the compactor at our shop area for refuse, instead of renting a dumpster. 5 . Use the mini-compactor to pick up trash in the city refuse containers in the Central Business District. ALTERNATIVES : 1. Authorize the Public Works Dept. to purchase the mini-compactor from Village Sanitation, Inc. , not to exceed $1, 500 . 00 . Authorize payment from Revenue Sharing Funds. 2. Do not purchase the mini-compactor for the Public Works Dept. to use in thepark system. LE- - &J/11\ Q sO..' T /e.//?`77%/ — RECOMMENDATION/ACTION NEEDED: 1. ALTERNATIVE #1. Authorize the Public Works Dept. to purchase the "NEW WAY" garbage hauler from Village Sanitation, Inc. 'of Shakopee for a purchase price not to exceed $1, 500 . 00 /S e:„ (41-- /C)<-11 cS Ake- O 6 — �,� h /(e r 7-i». - - APP 11-615C › ,. .Q_SIXEM NIVCZAT 720Sg tee l (cel/e e %o,cti ' 14-1 CAPPRer5 Arps 'ezd�4 �pedpx /mss . //4/1Pe4h Oa/flys-L-14'4 0 1190 0 ,tool;ec ,Q4dr`` I ✓OZ/ monks ,16. �d�-gid 0 /22 1 f -L ,e-,-/2(C. j,/il`�'��, ul' 7-0 �' U,.;.;5 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator CU FROM: Judith S . Cox , City Clerk RE: Adopting Standards Regulating the Planting of Shrubs and Trees DATE: December 2 , 1982 Introduction The City Code provides that standards regulating the planting of shrubs and trees shall be adopted by the Council . Background We have had these guidelines for sometime , but need Council approval as per the City Code. The resolution has been review by both the Public Works Director and Community Services Director. Staff will not seek out violators , but will publicize the regulations and will contact violators when they are brought to our attention. Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 2087, A Resolution Adopting Uniform Standards Relating to Tree Control as Provided by Sec. 7 .05 of City Code, and move its adoption. JSC/jms RESOLUTION NO. 2031__ A Resolution Adopting Uniform Standards Relating to Tree Control as Provided by Sec 7.05 of City Code WHEREAS, Sec 7.05 of the City Code Provides that the City shall have control and supervision of planting shrubs and trees upon or overhanging, all streets and other public property and may establish and enforce uniform standards relative thereto, and WHEREAS, Any such standards so adopted by the Shakopee City Council upon recommendation of the City Administrator shall be kept on file in the office of the City Administrator and may be opened to inspection by the public. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ShAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL That it herewith adopts uniform standards relating to species, types, placement and maintenance of trees in the City as follows: A. Duties of_private land owners: 1. The owners of land adjacent to a public highway or street shall be responsible for all trees between his property line and the center of the street right-of-way and between his side lot lines extended. 2. Property owner shall trim his trees and plants covered hereby so as to avoid causing a hazard to public places, interfering with proper lighting of public highways, and a minimum clearance shall be maintained over sidewalks of not less than 9 feet and over roadways of not less than 12 feet and the property owner shall not willfully plant a tree directly on top of a water shutoff and on top of sewer service lines. 3. All cuts larger than 2 inches in diameter on any tree shall forthwith be covered with an approved tree-wound dressing and when a tree is removed the root or stump shall be grubbed out , or otherwise removed and replaced with necessary fill and seeded or sodded. B. Prohibition 1. No tree shall be planted within the City right-of-way without it complying with the provisions of this Resolution. 2. No tree shall be planted, placed or allowed to remain in a position which the City Engineer determines to be or likely to cause a traffic hazard. 4.0,4,4 44*014044400114404******itossow4********04144104111061***44410401400E44# +*.....,.,.w. .,,.,... 1x 7rWety..s..ay...wW... tl h.•.+ aw'+.4�- :-L ,I„+"�+st; .. r. ,.;:::'1'iL`.......J.:�€-tvro -.w- S#'..e' .',': . R ' �/ v V� 3. No tree shall be planted in present or future sidewalk right -of-way nor shall they be planted closer than 15 feet from the side yard property line or 30 feet from the property line on a corner lot and not be planted closer than 30 feet to another tree on the right-of-way. 4. None of the following species of trees shall be planted in the City right-of-way: a. All Elms b. Red and Pin Oaks c. Cottonwood d. Box Elder C. When in force and Effect This Resolution shall be in force and effect after its passage and one publication in the official newspaper and shall remain in effect until further revised or changed by action of the Council upon recommendation of the City Administ- rator. Passed in session of the Shakopee City Council held this day of , 1982. ATTEST: Mayor of the City of Shakopee City Clerk Prepared and approved as to form this 29th day of September, 1982. 111, / • lir City a *torneyy ! Law Offices of c KRASS, MEYER, KANNING, & WALSTEN Chartered Shakopee Professional Building Philip R. Krass 1221 Fourth Avenue East (� 3' �' Barry K.Mayor Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Y �` 1 Mit y Philip T. Kanninp (612)445-5080 Trim,R.Walston November 29, 1982 City of Shakopee ATTN: Judy Cox 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: Resolution for Cornelius Company Revenue Bonds Dear Ms. Cox: I have reviwed the Resolution you forwarded to me on November 26th, and find it to be in order and recommend it for consideration by the City Council at their December 3rd meeting. Thank you. Yours very truly, KRASS, MEYER, KANNING & WALSTEN CHARTERp r // e-1 t Ph lisp` R_ K R.`Kress PRK:ph File #1-1373-148 . w GEORGCo. CLINTOCA E BEIHOFFER F A E G R E & BENSON RODGER L.NORDSTE ETERS R.K TCHAK BONNIE M`FLEMING ARY TpIPPI[R HENRY F FRISCH CS L VOLLING GOEOIRGs E.H RDING GALE R MELLUM LAER E.BEDOFF RICHARD K.BAUMAN OLTEN JERRY w.SNIDER WINTHROP .ROCKWELL NANCY S.BENDER-KEENER G.A N wu NNINCHAH NDRIK a• 0 e 1300 NORTHWESTERN BANK BUILDING JYACKT M.FRIBLEY HOMAS H.BE NNIN ROBERT .pELKE STEPHEN OSHOLT T JAMES A. LLS FRANK B.BUTLER STEVEN C.JOHN S. ASCHROER GIELA SUSAN SHELL EY A.FITZMAU RICE GERALD T�FLOM GORDON A.CONN,JR. JOHN P.BORDER GERARD Kw MOLTING CHARLES L.HORN BRUCE A CnRMAN HEIDI M.HOARD HAEL R`STEwART JACK D.GAGE MI EL H HARPER,JR. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-1790 Ic AVID m. NDER H PETER W SON THOMAS L. MER RICHARD A AYE LDE TDIMOTHY J HA AR F T2 MAV RICE JOSEPH M.PRICE MARGARET HELD PETER J WILLIAMSLLMAMAR GORDON IG.BUSDICKER W.SMITH SHARPS,JR. MA' w wHROFF JOHN D FRENCH PHILIP S.GABON STEVEN ANDERSON AWARD E i EMEDIOS .BERGMAN RONALD B STAR JOHN F BEUKEMA 612/371-5300 JAY D.CH R15TIAN SEN HOWARD J R.CARPENTER LTCB CHARLES S.F RELI.. LISA p ER O.BUSE ORmAN BROWN HtN-.IIT 711 F A .`14 0019 VIp B EISENBEHG ON ION ...or, IARR, tIIIAVII PKI NII >MO IH NFI II�FF VRt CAUL it BI NpCDHA ELESRE DERBRINK JOHN n STEEPEN I B I .A B EADIE JOHN B.GORDONERLE • JOHN _BENSON !„';',:;;;...!=7-- SCHURR RICHA DAvID R.BR SN NAN OMAS Ar PAULOCHRISTO PHCRSON ELIZABETH ABEiH L TAYLOR DANIEL G.WILCZEK RD C.-CHMOKER THOMAS G.MORGAN � AS M ROSBY,J WARD GRETiREo STEPHEN D.HARD T. BELL WIO B.GARTNER,JR. JOHN H HEILMANDERAnER -.___ ROBERT L COLLINS MES B LOKEN ROBERT I NEL JR. UCE M.ENGLER DOTCN HIC HARD A N ROPIER, , r.HR .ON Ill,. ',Op, USANJACOBSON ARTHUR ROHNNE B.ONEIILL Li - — ER LA i HOMAS J MOORRE CJERCTT n ANNA NIA LD SHAVERS. MES A UEHOGEORGE W. ILM MICHAEL E r DONALD L.ROBERTSON WENDY J TDUNG VBERT VDFORCIER JOHN D.RSHIVELVT SL JAMES M.SAMPLES WILLIAM R.BUSCH,JR. wRIGHT w KS SCOTT w �OC JOHNSON JOHN B.F R. JAMES D. ONNOR CORNSCL November 23, 1982 Ms . Judy Cox City Clerk City Hall , . 129 East 1st Avenue Shakopee , MN 55379 Re: $1 , 300 , 000 City of Shakopee Industrial Development Revenue Bond (The Cornelius Company Equipment Project) Dear Ms. Cox: As we discussed on the telephone, I am enclosing ten copies of the bond resolution for the above-referenced project for your use for the City Council meeting on December 7 . The closing has been scheduled for December 10 in our office. I will be contacting you to make arrangements to have the Mayor and yourself execute the closing documents and cer- tificates. Please contact me if you have any questions or if there will be any problem in having the Bond Resolution considered for final approval on December 7 . Very truly yours, / • Rita Ormsby Legal Assistant RO:kar Enclosures A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF REVENUE BOND PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 474 , MINNESOTA STATUTES , TO PROVIDE FUNDS TO BE LOANED THE CORNELIUS COMPANY FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota, as follows : 1. Authority. The City is , by the Constitution and Laws of the State of Minnesota, including Chapter 474 , Minnesota Statutes , as amended (the "Act") authorized to issue and sell its revenue bonds for the purpose of financing the cost of acquisi- tion and construction of authorized projects and to enter into contracts necessary or convenient in the exercise of the powers granted by the Act and to pledge revenues of the project and otherwise secure such bonds. 2 . Authorization of Bonds . The City Council hereby determines that it is necessary and expedient to authorize, and the City Council does hereby authorize, the issuance of revenue bonds of the City in the aggregate principal amount of One Million Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1 , 300 ,000) pursuant to the Act to provide money to be loaned to The Cornelius Company, a Minnesota corporation (the "Company" ) , to finance costs of acquiring, and installing manufacturing equipment (the "Project Equipment") in a facility owned by Rubber Industries , Inc. (the "Project Building") to be used by the Company in its business, (collectively the "Project" as more fully defined in the Loan Agreement hereinafter mentioned) . The City shall issue and sell its $1 ,300 ,000 City of Shakopee Industrial Development Revenue Bond (The Cornelius Company Equipment Project) (the "Bond") . 3 . Documents Presented. Forms of the following docu- ments relating to the Bond and the Project have been submitted to and examined by the City Council and are now on file in the office of the City Clerk: (a) Loan and Purchase Agreement (the "Loan Agree- ment") , dated as of December 1, 1982 , by and among the City, the Company and First National Bank of Minneapolis (the "Bank") whereby, among other things , the City agrees to sell and the Bank agrees to purchase the Bond, the City agrees to make a loan to the Company of the proceeds of the sale of the Bond and the Company covenants to complete the Project and to pay amounts sufficient to provide for the prompt payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bond; (b) Escrow Agreement dated as of December 1, 1982 among the City, the Company and the Bank acting as escrow agent, pursuant to which the costs of the project are to be disbursed by the escrow agent. (c) Guaranty Agreement dated December 1 , 1982 (the "Guaranty Agreement" ) from IMI plc a British corporation (the "Guarantor") to the Bank whereby the Guarantor uncon- ditionally guarantees to the Bank payment of principal of, premium (if any) and interest on the Bond and other expenses (this document not to be executed by the City) ; (d) Security Agreement dated December 1 , 1982 from the Company to the Bank whereby the Company grants a security interest in the Project Equipment to the Bank to secure the Company ' s obligations under the Bond (this document not to be executed by the City) ; and (e) Loan Agreement Assignment (the "Assignment" ) dated as of December 1 , 1982 , whereby the City assigns to the Bank all of its interest in the Loan and Purchase Agreement and Loan Repayments of the Company thereunder (except its rights under Sections 5. 02 , 7 . 01, 8 . 04 and 8 . 05) , for the purpose of securing the Bond. 4. Findings. It is hereby found, determined and declared that: (a) The Project, as described in the Loan Agreement, constitutes a project authorized by and described in Section 474 . 02, Subd. 1 of the Act. (b) The purpose of the Project is and the effect thereof will be to promote the public welfare by: pre- venting the emergence of blighted and marginal lands and areas of chronic unemployment; preventing economic dete- rioration; the development of sound industry and commerce to use the available resources of the community, in order to retain the benefit of the community' s existing investment in educational and public service facilities; halting the movement of talented, educated personnel to other areas and thus preserving the economic and human resources needed as a base for providing governmental services and facilities; adding to the tax base of the City and the county and school district in which the Project Facilities will be located. (c) The Project, after a public hearing duly called and held, has been approved by preliminary resolution of the Council duly adopted May 18 , 1982 , and by the Commissioner of Securities of the State of Minnesota as tending to further the purposes and policies of the Act. -2- 1 � (d) The issuance and sale of the Bond, the execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement, the Escrow Agreement and the Assignment and the performance of all covenants and agreements of the City contained in the Bond, the Loan Agreement, the Escrow Agreement and the Assignment and of all other acts and things required under the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to make the Bond, Loan Agreement, the Escrow Agreement and the Assignment valid and binding obligations of the City in accordance with their terms, are authorized by the Act. (e) There is no litigation pending or, to the best of its knowledge threatened, against the City relating to the Project or to the Bond, the Escrow Agreement or Loan Agree- ment, or questioning the organization of the City or its power or authority to issue the Bond or execute and deliver the Loan Agreement, the Escrow Agreement and the Assignment. (f) The execution, delivery and performance of the City ' s obligations under the Bond, the Loan Agreement, the Escrow Agreement and the Assignment have been fully author- ized by all requisite action and do not and will not violate any law, any order of any court or other agency of govern- ment, or any indenture , agreement or other instrument to which the City is a party or by which it or any of its property is bound, or be in conflict with, result in a breach of, or constitute (with due notice or lapse of time or both) a default under any such indenture, agreement or other instrument. (g) The Loan Agreement provides for payments by the Company to the Holder of the Bond for the account of the City of such amounts as will be sufficient to pay the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bond when due. No reserve funds are deemed necessary for this pur- pose. The Loan Agreement obligates the Company to provide for the operation and maintenance of the Project Facilities , including adequate insurance, taxes and special assessments. (h) Under the provisions of Section 474. 10 of the Act, and the Bond shall recite that, the Bond is not to be payable from nor charged upon any funds other than amounts payable by the Company pursuant to the Loan Agreement which are pledged to the payment thereof, and, in event of default, moneys derived or under the Security Agreement and Guaranty Agreement; the City is not subject to any liability thereon; no Holder of the Bond shall ever have the right to compel the exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the Bond or the interest thereon, nor to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City; the Bond shall not con- stitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City; and such Bond does not con- stitute an indebtedness of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. -3- • (i) No member of the City Council (i) has a direct or indirect interest in the Project , the Loan Agreement, the Escrow Agreement, the Assignment or the Bond, (ii) owns any capital stock of or other interest in the Project, the Company, the Guarantor or the Bank, (iii) is an officer or director of the Company, of the Guarantor or of the Bank, (iv) will be involved in supervising the completion of the Project on behalf of the Company, or (v) will receive any commission, bonus or other remuneration for or in respect of the Project, the Loan Agreement the Escrow Agreement or the Bond. 5 . Approval and Execution of Documents. The forms of Loan Agreement, Escrow Agreement, Guaranty Agreement and Assign- ment referred to in paragraph 3 are approved. The Loan Agree- ment, Escrow Agreement and Assignment shall be executed in the name and on behalf of the City by the Mayor and the City Clerk in substantially the form on file, but with all such changes there- in, not inconsistent with the Act or other law, as may be approved by the Mayor and City Clerk, which approval shall be conclusively evidenced by the execution thereof. The Guaranty Agreement and Security Agreement may contain such revisions as may be approved by the Guarantor, the Company and the Bank. • 6 . Approval of Terms and Sale of Bond. The City shall proceed forthwith to issue its City of Shakopee Industrial Development Revenue Bond (The Cornelius Company Equipment Pro- ject) in the authorized principal amount of $1 , 300 , 000 sub- stantially in the form, maturing, bearing interest, payable in the installments and otherwise containing the provisions set forth in the form of Bond attached hereto as Exhibit 1, which terms and provisions are hereby approved and incorporated in this Bond Resolution and made a part hereof. A single Bond, substantially in the form of Exhibit 1 to this Bond Resolution, shall be issued and delivered to the Bank in exchange for the purchase price of $1 , 300 , 000 as auth- orized by the Act, principal of and interest on the Bond shall be payable at the office of the Bank in Minneapolis , Minnesota. The proposal of the Bank to purchase such Bond at a price of $1 , 300 , 000 (100% of par value) is hereby found and determined to be reasonable and is hereby accepted. 7. Execution, Delivery and Endorsement of Bond. The Bond may be in typewritten or printed form and shall be executed by the manual signatures of the Mayor and City Clerk and the official seal of the City shall be affixed thereto. When so prepared and executed, the Bond shall be delivered to the Bank upon payment of the purchase price, and upon receipt of the signed legal opinion of Faegre & Benson, of Minneapolis , Minne- sota, bond counsel, pursuant to the Loan Agreement. The Bond shall contain a recital that it is issued pursuant to the Act, and such recital shall be conclusive evidence of the validity and regularity of the issuance thereof. -4- 11 8 . Registration Records. The City Clerk as Bond registrar, shall keep a Bond register in which the City shall provide for the registration of the Bond and for transfers of the Bond. The principal of and interest on the Bond shall be paid to the Bank for the account of the Holder entitled thereto in Federal or other immediately available funds. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to deliver a certified copy of this Bond Resolution to the County Auditor of Scott County, together with such other information as the County Auditor may require, and obtain the certificate of the County Auditor as to entry of the Bond on his bond register as required by the Act and Section 475 . 63 , Minnesota Statutes. 9 . Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Bond. If the Bond is mutilated, lost, stolen or destroyed, the City may execute and deliver to the Holder a new Bond of like amount, date , number and tenor as that mutilated, lost, stolen or destroyed; provided that, in the case of mutilation, the mu- tilated Bond shall first be surrendered to the City, and in the case of a lost, stolen or destroyed Bond, there shall be first furnished to the City and the Company evidence of such loss , theft or destruction satisfactory to the City and the Company, together with indemnity satisfactory to them, provided that, so long as the Bank shall be the Holder, its personal indemnity shall be satisfactory to them. The City and Company may charge the Holder with their reasonable fees and expenses in replacing any mutilated, lost, stolen or destroyed Bond. 10 . Transfer of Bond; Person Treated as Holder. The Bond shall be transferable by the Owner on the bond register of the City, upon presentation of the Bond for notation of such transfer thereon at the office of the City Clerk as Bond regis- trar, accompanied by a written instrument of transfer in form satisfactory to the City Clerk and the City Attorney duly exe- cuted by the Owner or its attorney duly authorized in writing. The Owner seeking to transfer ownership of the Bond shall also give written notice thereof to the Company. The Bond shall continue to be subject to successive transfers at the option of the Owner of the Bond. No service charge shall be made for any such transfer, but the City Clerk may require payment of a sum sufficient to cover any tax or other governmental charge payable in connection therewith. The person in whose name the Bond shall be issued or, if transferred, shall be registered from time to time shall be deemed and regarded as the absolute Holder thereof for all purposes , and payment of or on account of the principal of and interest on the Bond shall be made only to or upon the order of the Holder thereof, or its attorney duly authorized in writing, and neither the City, the City Clerk, the Company, nor the Bank shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. All such payments shall be valid and effectual to satisfy and dis- charge the liability upon the Bond to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. The Bond shall be initially registered in the name of the Bank. -5- 11. Amendments , Chances and Modifications to Loan Agreement, Assignment, Escrow Agreement and Bond Resolution. Except pursuant to Section 9 . 03 of the Loan Agreement, the City shall not enter into or make any change , modification, alteration or termination of the Loan Agreement, Escrow Agreement, Assign- ment or this Bond Resolution. 12. Pledge to Holder. Pursuant to the Assignment, the City shall pledge and assign to the Bank and its successor Holders of the Bond all interest of the City in the revenues of the Project and the Project Facilities, including all Loan Repayments to be made by the Company under the Loan Agreement. All collections of moneys by the City in any proceeding for enforcement of the obligations of the Company under the Loan Agreement and the Security Agreement shall be received, held and applied by the City for the benefit of the Holder of the Bond. 13 . Covenants with Holders; Enforceability. All pro- visions of the Bond and of this Bond Resolution and all repre- sentations and undertakings by the City in the Loan Agreement and Escrow Agreement are hereby declared to be covenants between the City and the Bank and its successor Holders of the Bond and shall be enforceable by the Bank or any Holder in a proceeding brought for that purpose. 14 . Definitions and Interpretation. Terms not other- wise defined in this Bond Resolution but defined in the Loan Agreement shall have the same meanings in this Bond Resolution and shall be interpreted herein as provided therein. Notices may be given as provided in Section 9 . 01 of the Loan Agreement. In case any provision of this Bond Resolution is for any reason illegal or invalid or inoperable, such illegality or invalidity or inoperability shall not affect the remaining provisions of this Bond Resolution, which shall be construed or enforced as if such illegal or invalid or inoperable provision were not con- tained herein. 15. City ' s Election. The City hereby elects that the $10 million limitation of capital expenditures set forth in Section 103 (b) (6) (D) of the Internal Revenue Code shall be applicable to the Project and the Bond and the City Clerk shall execute and file on behalf of the City the form of election required by said Section and the regulations thereunder. 16. Certifications. The Mayor, City Clerk and other officers of the City are authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to Faegre & Benson, bond counsel , to the Company, to the Bank and to counsel for the Company and the Bank, certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the Project and the Bond, and such other affidavits and certificates as may be required to show the facts appearing from the books and records in the officers ' custody and control or as otherwise known to them; and all such certified copies , certificates and affidavits , including any heretofore furnished, shall constitute -6- representations of the City as to the truth of all statements contained therein. Approved Mayor Attest City Clerk -7- er" EXHIBIT 1 TO BOND RESOLUTION (Form of Bond) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF SCOTT CITY OF SHAKOPEE Industrial Development Revenue Bond (The Cornelius Company Equipment Project) No. R-1 $1 , 300 ,000 The City of Shakopee , a municipal corporation in the County of Scott and State of Minnesota (the "City") , for value received, hereby promises to pay, but solely from the source and in the manner hereinafter provided, to the First National Bank of Minneapolis or registered assigns the outstanding and unpaid balance of advances on account of an authorized principal sum of One Million Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1 ,300 , 000 ) , with interest on the unpaid principal amount at the rate specified in paragraph (a) hereof (the "Tax-Exempt Rate" ) , as such Tax-Exempt Rate may change from time to time, or at such higher rate as is provided in paragraph (b) hereof (the "Taxable Rate" ) , as such Taxable Rate may change from time to time, in any coin or currency which at the time or times of payment is legal tender for the payment of public or private debts in the United States of America, in accordance with the terms hereinafter set forth: (a) (i) Interest shall accrue from the date hereof on the unpaid principal balance of this Bond at the Tax-Exempt Rate in effect from time to time as hereinafter provided and shall be payable on each Rate Change Date, as hereinafter defined, and on the Final Maturity Date, as hereinafter defined. The Tax Exempt Rate in effect from time to time under this paragraph (a) shall be initially determined on the date of the closing and shall be redetermined on each succeeding Rate Change Date through and including the Rate Change Date next preceding the Final Maturity Date and shall accrue on the unpaid principal balance of this Bond from the date of such determination through and including the next Rate Change Date or, in the case of the final rate change, through and including the Final Maturity Date. As of any date of determination, the Tax-Exempt Rate shall be a rate per annum equal to eighty percent (80%) of the Adjusted Certificate ) 7' of Deposit Rate, as hereinafter defined, which at all times shall not equal or exceed 35% percent per annum. (ii) The principal balance hereof shall be payable on the Final Maturity Date. (b) (i) In the event that the interest on this Bond shall become subject to federal income taxation pursuant to a Determination of Taxability, as hereinafter defined, the interest rate on this Bond shall , be automatically increased, retro- actively effective from and after the Date of Taxability, as hereinafter defined, to a rate per annum which is at all times equal to the rate per annum from time to time publicly announced by the Bank as its prime rate (the "Taxable Rate" ) , which Taxable Rate shall change as said prime rate changes , provided, however, that in no event shall the Taxable Rate for any period be less than the Tax-Exempt Rate otherwise in effect for the same period. The City shall immediately upon demand pay to the Holder and to each prior Holder affected by such Determination of Taxability an amount equal to the amount by which the interest accrued retro- actively at such increased rate from the Date of Taxability to the date of payment exceeds the amount of interest actually accrued and paid to the Holder any any such prior Holder during said period. (Such obligation of the City shall survive the payment in full of the principal amount of this Bond. ) There- after (unless this Bond is prepaid pursuant to paragraph 3 (b) hereof) , interest shall continue to accrue at the Taxable Rate and shall be payable on the dates specified in paragraph (a) hereof. (ii) The Holder shall permit the Company to contest, litigate or appeal any Determination of Taxability at the Company ' s sole expense , provided that any such contest, litigation or appeal is , in the reasonable opinion of the Holder, being undertaken and carried forward in good faith, diligently and with reasonable dispatch. In the event that any such con- test, litigation or appeal is undertaken, the increased interest provided in paragraph (b) (i) shall, nevertheless , be payable to the Holder and shall be held by the Holder in escrow (without payment of interest thereon) pending final disposition of such contest, litigation or appeal , provided that the Company shall indemnify the Holder and each prior Holder from and against any and all penalties , interest or other liabilities which they may incur on account of any such contest, litigation for appeal. (c) All interest hereon shall be computed on the basis of the actual number of days elapsed and a year of three hundred sixty (360) days. -2- 4- f v (d) Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the Company will make loan repayments sufficient to pay principal and interest on the Bond as such payments become due hereunder. 2 . As used herein with initial capital letters , the following terms have the following meanings: "Adjusted Certificate of Deposit Rate" means , for any day on which the Tax-Exempt Rate is being determined, the sum (rounded to the nearest one-hundredth of one percent) of (A) the rate obtained by dividing (1) the Certificate of Deposit Rate for the day on which the Tax-Exempt Rate is being determined, by (2) a percentage equal to 100% minus the full reserve requirement percentage as specified by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System that the Bank determined would be applicable on such day to a cer- tificate of deposit of the Bank in excess of $100 ,000 and maturing on the next succeeding Rate Change Date (including, without limitation, any marginal, emer- gency, supplemental, special or other reserves if the Bank, in its sole discretion, determines that it is required to maintain any such reserves on such day) , plus (B) the then daily net annual assessment rate as estimated by the Bank for determining the current annual assessment payable by the Bank to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for insuring its certificates of deposit maturing on the next succeeding Rate Change Date, all as determined by the Bank in accordance with its regular business practice consistently applied. "Assignment" means the Loan Agreement Assignment dated December 1 , 1982 from the City to the Bank. "Banking Day" means a day on which commercial banks in the City of Minneapolis , Minnesota are open for business. "Certificate of Deposit Rate" means , for any day on which the Tax-Exempt Rate is to be determined, the average of the dealer bid rates at 10 : 00 a.m. Minneapolis time (or as soon thereafter as is practicable) on such day for the purchase at face value of negotiable certificates of deposit of the Bank -3- maturing on the next succeeding Rate Change Date (or on the Final Maturity Date , in the case of the determination to be made on the thirty-ninth Rate Change Date) , as such average is determined by the Bank from three certificate of deposit dealers of recognized standing or, if such quotations are unavailable , then on the basis of other sources reasonably selected by the Bank, all as determined in accordance by the Lender in accordance with its regular business practice consistently applied. "Company" means Cornelius Cannon, Inc. , a Minnesota corporation. "Date of Taxability" means the "Date of Taxability" as defined in the Loan Agreement. "Determination of Taxability" means a "Determination of Taxability" as defined in the Loan Agreement. "Escrow Agreement" means the Escrow Agreement, dated December 1 , 1982 of, among the City, the Company and the Bank. "Final Maturity Date" means the Banking Day coincident with or next following the date which is ninety (90) days after the thirty-ninth (39th) Rate Change Date. "Loan Agreement" means the Loan Agreement, dated December 1 , 1982 among the City, the Company and the Bank. "Rate Change Date" means any of the dates determined as follows : The first (1st) Rate Change Date shall be the date which is ninety (90) days after the date of delivery hereof, provided, however, that if such date is not a Banking Day (as herein defined) , such Rate Change Date shall be the next suc- ceeding Banking Day. The second (2nd) and succeeding Rate Change Dates shall be determined in the same manner as the first Rate Change Date, such that each of said Rate Change Dates will fall on the Banking Day which coincides with or next succeeds the date which is 90 days after the next preceding Rate Change Date. The last Rate Change Date shall be the thirty-ninth (39th) such Rate Change Date. 3. This Bond is subject to prepayment as follows : (a) Prepayment in whole or in part in increments of $100 , 000 , at the option of the Company, on any Rate Change Date upon at lease thirty (30) days ' written notice to the Holder (or such lesser period of notice as may be acceptable to the Holder) . (b) Prepayment in whole , at the option of the Holder, on any date following a Determination of Taxability (subject to paragraph (b) (ii) , hereof) upon at least thirty (30) days ' -4- 12� written notice to the Company (or such lesser period of notice as may be acceptable to the Company. (c) Prepayment in whole, at the option of the Company, on any date following a Determination of Taxability, or on any date within sixty (60) days after the Bank ' s giving of a notice relating to increased costs under Section 5 . 06 of the Loan Agreement (provided that the Company' s election is made and notice thereof is given to the Bank within 30 days ' after the giving of such notice by the Bank) , upon at lease thirty (30) days ' written notice to the Holder (or such lesser period of notice as may be acceptable to the Holder) . (d) Prepayment in whole at the option of the Holder on any date upon the occurrence of certain "Events of Default" under the Escrow Agreement and/or the Loan Agreement and the accelera- tion by the Holder of the amounts due under this Bond, the Escrow Agreement and the Loan Agreement. (e) Mandatory prepayment pursuant to the Escrow Agreement in the event that there shall be any amount remaining in the Equipment Fund on the Completion Date after payment of all Project Costs, as those terms are defined in the Escrow Agree- ment. (f) Mandatory prepayment, which mandatory prepayment is hereby waived by the Bank, subject to any subsequent revoca- tion of such waiver by the Bank, in the event that interest on the Bond equals or exceeds 35% percent per annum, upon five days written notice by the Bank to the Company of revocation of such waiver of mandatory redemption. To effect any such prepayment, the City shall pay or cause to be paid to the Holder an amount equal to the principal amount being so prepaid (using first for this purpose any amount then held in the Equipment Fund) , plus accrued interest on this Bond to the date of prepayment. This Bond is issued pursuant to the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Chapter 474 , Minnesota Statutes , as amended (the "Act") , and in conformity with the provisions , restrictions and limitations thereof. This Bond does not consti- tute a charge against the general credit, property or taxing powers of the City and does not grant to the owner or holder of this Bond any right to have the City levy any taxes or appro- priate any funds for the payment of the principal hereof or interest hereon, nor is this Bond a general obligation of the City or an obligation of the individual officers or agents thereof. This Bond and interest hereon are payable solely and only from the moneys received under the Loan Agreement, including -5- loan repayments to be made by the Company and from enforcement of the Security Agreement and Guaranty Agreement hereinafter mentioned. This Bond represents an authorized series of special obligation Bonds of an aggregate principal amount of $1 , 300 , 000 , which have been authorized by law to be issued and have been issued for the purpose of funding a loan from the City to the Company to finance costs of acquiring and installing certain equipment to be located in a facility owned by Rubber Industries, Inc. in a building in the City for use by the Company (the "Project" ) under the Act. This Bond is issued pursuant to a Loan and Purchase Agreement (the "Loan Agreement" ) by and among the City, the Company and the Bank, dated as of December 1 , 1982 , and a Bond Resolution of the City duly adopted December 7 , 1982. Pursuant to a Loan Agreement Assignment dated as of December 1 , 1982 (the "Assignment" ) , the City has assigned its interest in the Loan Agreement (except its rights under Sections 5. 02 , 7. 01, 8 . 04 and 8 . 05 thereof) to the Bank. This Bond is secured by the Loan Agreement, the Assignment, the Bond Resolution, and a Guaranty Agreement dated as of December 1 , 1982 , executed by IMI plc, a foreign corporation, the indirect parent of the Company (the "Guarantor" ) to the Bank (the "Guaranty Agreement" ) , an Escrow Agreement dated as of December 1 , 1982 among the Bank, the Company and the City (the "Escrow Agreement" ) and a Security Agreement dated as of December 1 , 1982 from the Company to the Bank (the "Security Agreement" ) to which Loan Agreement, Assign- ment, Bond Resolution, Escrow Agreement, Security Agreement and Guaranty Agreement and amendments thereof reference is hereby made for a description and limitation of the revenues and funds pledged and appropriated to the payment of the Bond, the nature and extent of the security thereby created, the rights of the Holder of the Bond, the rights , duties and immunities of the Bank and the rights, immunities and obligations of the City there- under. Certified copies of the Bond Resolution and executed counterparts of the Loan Agreement, the Assignment, the, Escrow Agreement, Security Agreement and the Guaranty Agreement are on file at the office of the City Clerk. Notice of any such prepayment shall be given to the owner or registered assigns of the Bond by certified or registered mail , addressed to him at his registered address , not less than thirty (30) days prior to the date fixed for prepayment , and shall be published, if required by law, in a financial journal circulated in the English language in the cities of Minneapolis or St. Paul, Minnesota, at least once , not less than thirty (30) days before the date so fixed for prepayment. At the date fixed for prepay- ment, funds shall be paid to the owner hereof at the office of the Bank or shall be deposited with the Bank, sufficient to pay the Bond, or the principal amount thereof to be prepaid, accrued interest thereon and premium, if any. Upon the happening of the above conditions , the Bond thus called or the principal portions -6- thereof prepaid shall not bear interest after the date specified for prepayment. This Bond is transferable , as provided in the Bond Resolution, only upon the bond register of the City Clerk as bond registrar, by the owner hereof in person or by his duly authorized attorney, as provided in the Bond Resolution. In case an Event of Default as defined in the Loan Agreement occurs , this Bond and the Loan Repayments thereafter to become due under the Loan Agreement may become immediately due and payable , in the manner and with the effect and subject to the conditions provided in the Loan Agreement. The Holder of this Bond shall have the right to enforce the provisions of the Bond Resolution, Loan Agreement, Escrow Agreement, Security Agreement, Assignment and the Guaranty Agreement. The terms and provisions of the Bond Resolution, Loan Agreement, Assignment, Escrow Agreement, Guaranty Agreement and Security Agreement, or of any instrument supplemental thereto, may be modified or altered pursuant to Section 9 . 03 of the Loan Agreement. It is hereby certified and recited and the City Council has found: That the Project is an eligible "project" defined in Section 474 . 02, Subd. 1 of the Act; that the issuance of the Bond and the acquisition and construction of the Project will promote the public welfare and carry out the purposes of the Act; that the Project has been approved by the Commissioner of Securities of the State of Minnesota as tending to further the purposes and policies of the Act; that all acts , conditions and things required to be done precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond have been properly done, have happened and have been performed in regular and due time, form and manner as required by law; and that this Bond does not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Shakopee , by its City Council, has caused this Bond to be signed in its behalf by the manual signature of the Mayor and sealed with the corporate seal of the City attested by the City Clerk all as of the day of December, 1982. CITY OF SHAKOPEE ATTEST: By Mayor City Clerk (SEAL) -7- e- 1,- (Form r(Form cf Transfer) For value received, the undersigned owner does hereby assign and transfer the foregoing Bond to the named Assignee, and the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Shakopee as bond registrar hereby certifies that the foregoing Bond has been transferred and registered on the bond register in the name of such Assignee. Name of Signature of Signature of Date of Assignee Owner City Clerk Transfer on Bond Register -8- EXHIBIT 2 TO BOND RESOLUTION LOAN AGREEMENT ASSIGNMENT This Assianment is made as of the 1st day of December, 1982 , between the CITY OF SHAKOPEE, Minnesota, a municipal corporation in the County of Scott and State of Minnesota (herein called the "City" ) and FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MINNEAPOLIS (herein called the "Bank" ) . Recitals The City has executed and delivered to the Bank its single fully registered Industrial Development Revenue Bond (The Cornelius Company Equipment Project) in the principal amount of $1 , 300 , 000 dated the date of delivery, issued pursuant to a resolution adopted December 7 , 1982 (the "Bond Resolution" ) . The proceeds of the Bond have been loaned to The Cornelius Company (the "Company" ) , pursuant to a Loan and Pur- chase Agreement dated as of December 1 , 1982, between the City, the Bank and the Company (the "Loan Agreement") . The Bond is payable from and secured by the Loan Repay- ments to be made by the Company under the Loan Agreement and the Bondholder, as a condition to the purchase of the Bond, has required the execution of this Assignment. ACCORDINGLY, as authorized by the Bond Resolution and in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City does hereby grant, transfer and assign to the Bank and its registered assigns of the Bond, all of the right, title and interest of the City in the Loan Agreement and the Loan Repay- ments of the Company payable thereunder (except for the rights of the City reserved to it under Sections 5 . 02 , 7 . 01 , 8 . 04 and 8 . 05 thereof relating to expenses, indemnity and advances of the City and except for the obligations of the City) , all for the purpose of securing the Bond. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has executed this Assign- ment as of the date first above written, but actually on the day of December, 1982. CITY OF SHAKOPEE By Mayor Attest City Clerk (Seal) NEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: 1983 Pay Schedule DATE: December 1 , 1982 Introduction Pursuant to your direction I have prepared the attached resolution adopting the 1983 pay schedule for non-union City employees . It reflects a 5/ across the board increase for all employees , except the Fire Department which is the same as 1982 , and except the clerical employees , whose increases are according to the clerical pay ranges adopted by the Council on October 19 , 1982 . Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 2085, A Resolution Adopting the 1983 Pay Schedule for the Officers and Non-Union Employees of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota, and move its adoption. JSC/jms P.S. The Engineering Technicians have asked that City Council give them a specific yes or no to their request ( see attached memo) . They also would like to know why Council feels they should not be treated like other hourly employees if the response is no. i December 2, 1982 Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council City of Shakopee Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mayor & Councilmembers: We have followed with interest the development of the "Proposed Pay Plan Using Stanton Survey 1982 Mean Salaries" and the recent use of the Plan in establish- ing 1983 salary schedules. Consequently, it was quite a surprise for us to learn that all hourly paid employees working for the City of Shakopee will be at or above the pay rates established by the Proposed Pay Plan with the exception of the Engineering Technicians. It is our understanding that the Plan has been used in wage adjustments for the clerical staff and we are aware of the use of the Plan as a guide in negotiating the union contract with Public Works employees. Coupled with the existing Police Department agreement, where wage rates are uniformly higher than the Metro average, a pattern becomes apparent in which an average Metropolitan wage rate plays a part. There are two other points we feel worth consideration. One, in light of a 5 percent across the board increase, a delay in implementing the Plan for the Engineering Technicians would widen the already existing gap between current salaries and the mean Metro salaries for the positions involved. Second, future implementation of the Plan for those now omitted from it may cause some discord with those employees not receiving a proportional increase at that - same future date. We consider the Pay Plan valid and feel that a uniform application is necessary and logical. We hope the City Council concurs and will include the Engineering Technicians when establishing 1983 wage schedules. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. cteve Hurle ./ Ry Ruuska " Ruu ka Fulton Schleisman Engineering Technici n Engineering Technician Engineering Technician cc: John Anderson, City Administrator H. R. Spurrier, City Engineer December 2, 1982 Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council City of Shakopee Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mayor & Councilmembers: We have followed with interest the development of the "Proposed Pay Plan Using Stanton Survey 1982 Mean Salaries" and the recent use of the Plan in establish- ing 1983 salary schedules. Consequently, it was quite a surprise for us to learn that rill hour Lywjn o1 :nu)]oye( work for I,hr C w i l j be n.t or above the pay rates established by the Proposed Pay Phut with the exception of the Engineering Technicians. It is our understanding that the Plan has been used in wage adjustments for the clerical staff and we are aware of the use of the Plan as a guide in negotiating the union contract with Public Works employees. Coupled with the existing Police Department agreement, where wage rates are uniformly higher than the Metro average, a pattern becomes apparent in which an average Metropolitan wage rate plays a part. There are two other points we feel worth consideration. One, in light of a 5 percent across the board increase, a delay in implementing the Plan for the Engineering Technicians would widen the already existing gap between current salaries and the mean Metro salaries for the positions involved. Second, future implementation of the Plan for those now omitted from it may cause some discord with those employees not receiving a proportional increase at that same future date. We consider the Pay Plan valid and feel that a uniform application is necessary and logical. We hope the City Council concurs and will include the Engineering Technicians when establishing 1983 wage schedules. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. c`liL t C\1._ Steve Hurle Ray Ruuska Fulton Schleisman Engineering Technician Engineering Technician Engineering Technician cc: John Anderson, City Administrator H. R. Spurrier, City Engineer RESOLUTION NO. 2085 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1983 PAY SCHEDULE FOR THE OFFICERS AND NON-UNION EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the City Administrator be and the same is hereby authorized to issue warrants upon the City Treasury, from and after January 1 , 1983 or other date as specified and payable to the duly elected , appointed , or hereby designated and appointed non-union employees of the City of Shakopee , in accordance with the attached 1983 pay schedule dated December 7 , 1982 heretofore adopted , or hereinafter adjusted . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all aforesaid disbursements shall be made subject to the prevailing conditions of employment , and satisfactory performance of all the respective duties and respon- sibilities as specified in the State Law, City Code and Resolutions as adopted , or as amended and supplemented from time to time by the Council . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all Resolutions in conflict with this Resolution are hereby repealed and terminated, effective December 31 , 1982 . Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota , held this day of 1982 . [payor of thie City of-Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of , 1982 . City Attorney 1 C- CITY OF SHAKOPEE 1983 PAY SCHEDULE December 7 , 1982 Positions Elected Officials Salary Authorized Mayor $ 3 ,600/year 1 Councilpersons 3 ,000/year 5 City Employees - Permanent/Full Time City Administrator 35 ,480/year 1 City Engineer 35 ,251/year 1 Police Chief 34,930/year 1 Assistant Police Chief 158/month over 1 top sergeant Community Services Director 3 , 383/year 1 (City share 10% of $33 ,834) Superintendent of Public Works 32 , 390/year 1 Building Official 31 ,336/year 1 Finance Director 28 ,897/year 1 City Planner 22 ,890/year 1 City Clerk 19 ,457/year 1 HRA Director 19 ,457/year 1 Engineer Tech II 23 , 765/year 1 Engineer Tech 1 20 ,850/year 1 See attached 1983 Clerical Senior Accounting Clerk Pay Ranges 1 Accounting Clerk II 1 Secretary " 3 Senior Steno " 1 Senior Clerk Typist ii2 City Employees - Permanent/Part Time City Attorney 21 ,987/year 1 Senior Custodian 6 .86/hour 1 Custodian 6. 22/hour 2 Fire Chief 2 ,000/year 1 Assistant Fire Chief ( 1st) 1 ,000/year 1 Assistant Fire Chief ( 2nd) 900/year 1 Fire Department Engineer 1 ,650/year 1 1st Ass ' t Fire Department Engr. 1 ,350/year 1 2nd Ass ' t Fire Department Engr. 700/year 1 Training Officer 1 ,350/year 1 Captain 500/year 2 Firemen 7 . 35/hour 34 City Employees - Temporary Part Time Misc . Temp. Part Time Employees 3 . 35/hour to N/A 8 . 75/hour e IZ � '_ , • 1983 CLER[CAL PAY FLANGES December 7, 1982 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Stanton Survey 75% of Top 80% of Top 90% of Top Top=Mean Stanton V gp. Job No. & Title (ie Classification) Start One Year Two Years Three Years 35. Accounting 'Clerk(1) 881 .939 1,056 1,194 36. Senior Accounting Clerk(2) 1,024 1,092 1,229 1,365 42. Senior Clerk Typist(3) 862 919 1,034 1,149 862 919 1,034 1,149 43. Switch Board/Receptionist 790 842 948 1,053 45. Data Entry 865 922 1,037 1,153 46. Senior Steno(5) 894 952 1,072 1,191 47. Secretary(4) 968 1 ,012 1 ,161 1 ,290 968 1,03 ' 1,.161 1,290 968 1,032 1,161 1,290 48. Senior Secretary 1,073 1,145 1,287 1,430 Upon implementation of this new pay plan on January 1, 1983, some employees are out of step, but will move into proper step at their anniversary date. (1)This employee shall receive $1,060/month until reaching Step 4. (2)This employee shall receive $1,068/month until reaching Step 2 and received a six month service credit when hired. (3)One employee shall receive $962/month until reaching Step 3 and received a six month service credit when hired. One employee shall receive $1,009/month until reaching Sept 3. (4)Engr/Planning Secretary shall receive $1,178/month until reaching Step 4. Building Secretary 5h;cl1 recc'ive $.1 ,1.78/month until r (!achIfl( Step 4 and rc.cel.vcri a one year service credit when hired. When the Police Secretary was promoted under the old plan from Range 3 to 4 replacing Diane Heinz, she was given a two year service credit in Range 4. She shall receive $1,235 until reaching Step 4. (`)This employee is hereby reclassified from receptionist and will retain her accumulated service credit. MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk RE : Amendment to Personnel Policy Regarding Salary Adjustments During an Employee ' s Probation DATE: November. 30 , 1982 Introduction Pursuant to your direction I have prepared the attached resolution which amends the personnel policy clarifying that probationary employees are eligible for an annual increase . This amendment reflects the Council ' s action of October 19 , 1982. Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 2086 , A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 1571 Adopting A Personnel Policy For The City of Shakopee , and move its adoption. JSC/jms RESOLUTION NO. 2086 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 1571 ADOPTING A PERSONNEL POLICY FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE WHEREAS , Resolution No. 1571 was adopted by the City to provide reasonable and clear expectation of the conditions of employment for its employees ; and WHEREAS , it is necessary to amend certain sections of Resolution No. 1571 from time to time to maintain reasonable and clear conditions of employment . NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA that a subdivision 7 entitled Salary Adjust- ment be added to Section 5 Probationary Period to read as follows : Subdivision 7 . Salary Adjustment Any employee on probation shall receive the annual salary adjustment , as do other employees , whenever the salary for their position is annually adjusted by the City Council (usually occurs the first of the year) . 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 /1; 7 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Abatement of Sanitary Sewer Assessment for Bluff Avenue Dorothy' s Daily Discovery DATE: December 2 , 1982 Introduction On October 19 , 1982 , Council directed staff to prepare a resolution abating the sanitary sewer assessment for Lots 3 and 4, Block 23, East Shakopee , Parcel No. 27-004-115-2 , in the amount of $1 ,237 . 56 , funding the shortfall out of the Sewer Fund after receipt of a recordable document from Ms . Olson agreeing that if there is ever anything built on the vacant lot , this sewer charge would have to be paid back to the Sewer Fund. Background Ms . Olson has executed the agreement which has been recorded. Action Requested Offer Resolution No. , A Resolution Abating An Assessment Against A Certain Parcel For The 1981-2 Bluff Avenue Utility Improvement , and move its adoption. JSC/jms RESOLUTION NO. 2089 A RESOLUTION ABATING AN ASSESSMENT AGAINST A CERTAIN PARCEL FOR THE 1981-2 BLUFF AVENUE UTILITY IMPROVEMENT WHEREAS , the Shakopee City Council did adopt Resolution No. 2064 levying special assessments for the Bluff Avenue Improvements 1 81-2 ; and WHEREAS , on October 19 , 1982 , City Council authorized prepara- tion of a resolution abating the sanitary sewer assessment for Lots 3 and 4 , Block 23 , East Shakopee , funding the shortfall out of the sewer fund , upon receipt of a recordable document which provides for payment of the sanitary sewer improvement in the amount of $1 ,237 . 56 to the City for reimbursement to the sewer fund if and when a building permit is issued by the City for development of the property ; and WHEREAS , said document has been received and recorded by the City Clerk. NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA that the sanitary sewer assessment in the amount of $1 ,237 . 56 against parcel number 27-004-115-2 ( Lots 3 and 4 , Block 23 , E. S. P. ) is hereby abated . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the $1 ,237 . 56 shall he paid out o l the ;4'we r Fund . 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 /,2 o FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE : 1982 Diseased Tree Removal Program DATE: November 24, 1982 Introduction On June 16 , 1981 the Council adopted Resolution No. 1857 which estab- lished Shakopee ' s Diseased Tree Removal Policy, which provided that the City will contract with private firms to remove trees on private property and special assess costs to the property owner. Background To date Shakopee did contract to remove trees from the property of two Shakopee residents . The two attached resolutions : a) Orders the 1982 Diseased Tree Removal Program; and b) Declares the Amount to be Assessed and Sets a Public Hearing on the Proposed Assessments . Action Requested A ) Offer Resolution No. 2083 , A Resolution Ordering the 1982 Diseased Tree Removal Program, and move its adoption. B) Offer Resolution No. 2084 , A Resolution Declaring the Cost To Be Assessed, Ordering The Preparation Of And Setting A Hearing Date On The Proposed Assessment For The 1982 Diseased Tree Removal Program, and move its adoption. JSC/jms RESOLUTION NO. 2083 A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE 1982 DISEASED TREE REMOVAL PROGRAM WHEREAS , the City Council of the • City of Shakopee has received a letter from the following owners of property waiving their right to a public hearing: Mary Shanus and Stephen Schmitz and WHEREAS , the City Council did on July 6 , 1981 adopt Resolution No. 1857 establishing the City of Shakopee ' s Diseased Tree Removal Policy ; and WHEREAS , the Diseased Tree Remova I Policy as approved provides that the City of Shakopee will contract with private firms to remove trees on private property and special assess costs to the property owner. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the 1982 Diseased Tree Removal Program for the City of Shakopee is hereby ordered. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota , held this day of 19`82 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City C..erk Approved as to form this day of City Attorney /`‘r RESOLUTION NO. 2084 A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE COST TO BE ASSESSED, ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF AND SETTING A HEARING DATE ON THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR THE 1982 DISEASED TREE REMOVAL PROGRAM WHEREAS , contracts have heretofore been let for the 1982 Diseased Tree Removal Program covering the removal of diseased trees from the following described property: Original. Shakopee Plat : Lots 1 and 2 , Block 80 Except N . 60 ' 2 . 27 acres in Government Lot 5 of 6-115-22 (Valley Haven Trailer Park ) WHEREAS , the contract price for such improvements of $1148.00 and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in making said improvements amounts to -0- so that the total cost of the improvements would be $1148 . 00 and of this $1148. 00 the State will pay -0- as its share of the costs and the City will pay -0- as its share of the costs . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1 . That the cost of such improvements to he specially assessed is hereby declared to be $1148.00. 2 . That the City Clerk , with the assistance of the City Engineer, or his assistant , shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvements against every assessable lot , piece or parcel of land within the district affected without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and they shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in the office of the City Clerk for public inspection. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1 . That a hearing shall be held on the 4th day of January, 1983 , in the City Hall at 7 : 15 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 oppor- tunity 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 , h Fd this day of , 1982 - Mayor of the City of Shakopee /c1"/ MEMO TO : John K . Anderson City Administrator FROM : H. R. Spurrier City Engineer RE : Improvement of 16th Avenue arid. 0th Street East of County Road 89 Improvement Project No. 1982-6 DATE : December 3, 1982 Introduction : On November 16, 1982 City Council held a hearing on the above-referenced project. Background: At the public hearing City Council decided to order the project and receive bids before determining whether the City would proceed on the project. In order to accomplish that, the Plans and Specifications for the project must be prepared. Attached is Resolution No. 2090, a resolution ordering the project and directing the City Engineer to prepare Plans and Specifications. The alternate specified in the resolution is the alternate desired by the property owners in the benefitted area. Action Requested : Adopt Resolution No. 2090, A Resolution Ordering An Improvement And The Preparation Of Plans And Specifications For 16th Avenue And 90th Street East of County Road 89, Improvement Project No. 1982-6. HRS/jvm Attachment RESOLUTION NO. 2090 A Resolution Ordering An Improvement And The Preparation Of Plans And Specifications For • East of County Road 89 Improvement Project No. 1982-6 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2053 of the City Council adopted on the 5th day of October 1982 fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed improve- ment of 16th Avenue and 90th Street, east of County Road 89 by roadway; and WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice was given and the hearing was held on the 16th day of November 1982, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA : 1. That such improvement is hereby ordered pursuant to Alternate No. 1 of the Feasibility Report prepared by Henry R. Spurrier. 2. Henry R. Spurrier, City Engineer, is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement and he shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvements. 3. The work of this project is hereby designated as a part of the 1982-6 Public Improvement Program. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1982. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST : l� 1 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: State Aid Formula DATE: December 3 , 1982 Introduction Gloria Vierling and I have been meeting with the Metropolitan Losers ' Group for several months . The group has focused on two issues , The State Aid Formula and Fiscal Disparities . Recent Developments The memos attached reflect specific actions the Losers ' Group are recommending each city take . The recommendations are to finance the Group with $100 annual dues and to pass the attached resolution requesting that the Legislature change the State formula. Alternatives 1 . Pass the proposed resolution. 2 . Modify the proposed resolution. 3 . Contribute $100 to the Losers ' Group for 1983 . 4. Contribute $0 to the Losers ' Group for 1983. 5 . Other Recommendation Gloria Vierling and I recommend alternatives No. 1 and 3 . Action Requested 1 . Approve Resolution No . 2091 , A Resolution in Support of Changes in State Aid Formula. 2 . Authorize the appropriate City officials to contribute $100 in dues to the Metropolitan Losers ' Group for 1983 . JKA/jms CITY of SAVAGE 'A r- r , -: :E- a : 12305 QUENTIN AVE. SO. i SAVAGE, MINNESOTA 55378 �,•� � � CITY HALL 612/890-1045 Oti December 2 1982 Home of Don Patch MEMO TO: Members of the Metropolitan Losers" Group FR0M: Hank Sinda RE : Lobbying for Change in State Aid Formula The Losers ' Group met on Tuesday, November 30 , and by concensus agreed to formally organize the group by establishing officers and a budget to cover expenses (clerical , typing, postage, etc . ) The purpose of the organization, as you know, is to deal with the inequities of fiscal disparities and state aid. In order for us to continue in that pursuit , we are requesting that each city contribute dues in the amount of $100 per year. The objective is not to build a long lasting, ongoing organization, but to disband after achieving our goals . We appreciate your assistance in this effort. Secondly, please ask your council to review and adopt the sample resolution that is enclosed. As you may well understand, provisions of this resolution are not "cast in stone , " nor do they represent the precise opinion of each member city. They do , however, represent a starting position for negotiation with the Legislature. It is important that these resolutions be returned to us by Dec . 31, 1982 so that they may be used as a tool to take to the Legislature. We ask, also, that group members sit down with senators and representatives in their district, show them the resolution, explain the problems at hand, and ask for their support. The Losers ' Group will soon make arrangements to have a bill drafted. We , along with representatives from the Association of Small Cities , will then schedule a special lobbying breakfast in January, a unique opportunity to muster the support of legislators while introducing the bill . For utmost effect , it is imperative that each city send representatives to the breakfast and , prior to that , do whatever possible to solicit attendance and support of district legislators . Additional information in regard to the breakfast will be forthcoming. If you know of any legislators willing to sponsor or co-sponsor such a bill , please let us know. Please call my office if there are any questions , and 1 would be happy to discuss them with you. I 9- MEMO TO: Metropolitan Losers ' Group and Association of Small Cities DATE : December 1 , 1982 RE : League of Minnesota Cities State Aid Legislative Policy The Metropolitan Losers ' Group and the Association of Small Cities have been working through the committee system of the League of Minnesota Cities to gain support for changes that will make the state aid formula more equitable . The lobbying efforts of the League of Minnesota Cities would be vital in gaining the necessary legislative changes . The issue has been raised and acted upon by the Revenue Resource Committee. By a vote of 14 to 6 , this committee recommended that the state aid formula be changed. Several options , based on per capita and need, were then reviewed, but the committee was unable to reach a decision as to how the formula should be changed. The recomwendation of the Revenue Resource Committee, to change the state aid formula, was then forwarded to the League of Minnesota Cities Board of Directors . At this level the committee decision was reversed, and the existing LMC policy was stressed--no legislative change is to be considered until it has been first reviewed and approved by the League. It appears that the board decision was based, not so much on the merits of the recommended change, but on the issue itself. From the viewpoint of members of the board, the matter is too hot, too volatile , and a delve into change threatens to split the League of Minnesota Cities . This , they feel , would be detrimental to all cities . The issue will be brought to the League of Minnesota Cities legislative conference to be held January 26 , 1983 in St. Paul. The purpose of the conference is for the general membership to change or ratify the recoulmendations of the Board of Directors . Without question the existing state aid formula is inequitable , and affected cities must be persistant in a quest for a change that is equitable. It is of vital importance that every city be present at the January 26 conference to vote for a change in the state aid formula. Your vote, and the assistance of any other city that you may be able to contact and influence, will be greatly appreciated and can have a great impact . P. S. Legislative lobbying efforts are included in another memo. RESOLUTION NO. 2091 A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF CHANGES IN STATE AID FORMULA WHEREAS , Minnesota state local government aid to cities was originally distributed on a per capita basis ; and WHEREAS , the current state aid distribution is not equitable in that some cities receive as much as $122 . 95 per capita, and other cities receive as little as $11 . 61 per capita; and WHEREAS , the State Revenue Department report indicates that "90 percent of the inequities are caused by the grandfather clause , and the present formula fails to achieve the purpose of equity"; and WHEREAS , the following revenue sharing mechanisms , which may be duplicative of state aid, are also available and assist in achieving equity : (a ) Gas tax for cities over 5000 population ( b) Fiscal disparities ; ( c ) Metropolitan Transit Commission; (d) Federal aid entitlements ; (e ) Special local taxes . NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Shakopee strongly requests and supports changes in the state aid formula. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Shakopee specifically supports/requests changes that wi 1 1 accomplish the following: ( a ) Provide for equitable fund distribution; (b) Include no grandfather clause ; (c ) Provide for periodic review and adjustment to assure the goal of equity; (d ) include no incentive for spending; (e ) Provide for distribution on a per capita basis , with cities receiving a lessor disbursement (as the result of a change in state aid formula ) given the option/ authority to raise a one percent ( 170) sales tax. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee , Ninnesota , held this day of 1982. Mayor of the City of Shi opee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of , 1982 .