HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/02/1982 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Non-agenda Informational Items
DATE: October 27 , 1982
1 . Attached is a staff memo regarding the status of labor negotia-
tions for 1983 . I will be discussing it at the end of the
November 2nd meeting. Please read it carefully and call me
if you have questions .
2 . This spring City Council discussed the Metro Transit (MTC )
"opt-out" clause . Council had asked that we have a work
session on the issue , however , after watching the Energy and
Transportation Committee for 3 meetings I believe they will
be able to deal with the issue and make recommendations to
Council regarding "opt-out" thus saving you an extra meeting.
Councilmembers interested in attending Committee meetings
should contact Jeanne Andre to get on their agenda mailing
list .
3 . Tom Brownell is assisting in the establishment of three new
programs in Shakopee ; Helping Hands (red hand in the window) ,
Neighborhood Watch and the Safe Street Program (designates
routes to schools ) .
4. Council asked if the Scott County Assessor ' s looked for
building code violations when they did their house to house
survey. They only note the obvious health and safety items
and will be sending LeRoy a list when violations are found.
They would not then catch an illegal duplex under most
circumstances .
5 . Council asked if Public Works moved tables from one park to
another thus tying up valuable man hours . Jim Karkanen says :
1 ) the practice was discontinued several years ago although
there may be minor exceptions , 2 ) all tables are checked ,
cleaned , repaired and/or painted every year so that is why
they haul them all to the shop , 3 ) they could use about 50
more tables (we can look at this at budget review time ) .
6 . Council asked if the City in any way warns/reminds people
taking out building permits to check all restrictive covenents .
The City has no responsibility in this area and is unaware of
the existance of covenents or deed restrictions . The City
staff feels it is not appropriate for the City to get involved
in even trying to alert people about covenents . A brief
survey of 14 metro area cities indicated that less than 7
do some review of covenents when a condo or subdivision is
platted , none try to monitor them afterward or try to alert
home builders . Unless Council wishes to change this practice
we will continue to provide no warnings/reminders .
Non-agenda Informational Items
Page Two
October 27 , 1982
7 . Attached is the required financial statement from Murphy ' s Landing.
John Lynch said it was late because the auditor does it volun-
tarily.
8 . Attached are Wally Stock' s and Bob Schmitz ' s responses to the
League election survey. No other candidates returned the
survey .
9 . Attached is the resolution permitting the temporary closing of
Atwood until October , 1983 . Note Tom Prusak' s recent letter also
attached.
10 . Enclosed is the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities com-
plete list of legislative policies to be acted on at a general
membership meeting on Thursday , November 18th at the Roseville
City Hall . Please Plan to Attend.
11 . Attached are the minutes of the October 4 , 1982 SPUC meeting.
12 . Attached are the minutes of the October 21 , 1982 Energy and
Transportation Committee meeting.
13 . Attached is the monthly calendar for November.
14. The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency plans to make available
mortgage finance money for attached housing for first time home
buyers within the prescribed income limits . Builders need to
get prior project approval and City Council support of each
project . Sales prices are limited to $70 ,000 per unit with
12-40 units per project . HUD has suggested that additional
235 mortgage commitments may become available in the future .
Although the City has no more lots for this program, we could
support individual builders who can build units on their own
lots . Jeanne Andre is informing local builders of these two
options and Council will be informed of the outcome . Refer
any questions you receive to Jeanne .
15 . Attached is a Newsletter from Springsted, Inc . dated October
27 , 1982 .
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Labor Negotiations
DATE: October 25 , 1982
Introduction
Several weeks ago Council , in an executive session on labor negotia-
tions , agreed that I should continue to seek a settlement with a 5/
wage adjustment and up to an additional $35 in the Health, Life &
Long Term Disability (L.D. ) benefit for a total benefit of $140 per
month ( $105 + $35 ) .
Problem
The police department union wants $150 for Health, Life and L.D. so
we are still $10 apart on the benefit issue with them, and the
public works union won' t be acting on the proposal until the police
department union has been resolved. In addition, the City' s insur-
ance premium for family coverage just went from $156/month to
$168/month which has prompted the police to propose a 4% annual wage
adjustment with a maximum City contribution for Health, Life and
L.D. benefit lid of $175 ( $105 + $70) .
The union is making a direct comparison with settlements made by
other police departments in the metro area for 1983 . The compari-
son looks like this :
Total
Annual Wage Benefit Cost for
Settlements/Proposals Adjustment Adjustment" Shakopee2
1 ) Metro Police Settlements 6% ( $60 ,230) + $20/mo. ( $6 , 720) $66 ,950
2 ) Shakopee Union( s ) 5% ( $50 ,198 ) 0+ $45/mo. ($15 ,120) $65 , 318
3 ) New Police Alternative 4% ( $40 ,160) 3+$ 70/mo. ( $23 ,520)4 $63 ,680
1These adjustments are added on to the current $105/month contribu-
tions that is standard in the metro area and which Shakopee has .
2Total cost is computed for Shakopee as if the settlement appliedto
police , public works and non-union employees .
3These figures are for wages only, therefore would reflect a decreas-
ing amount required for Police PERA ( 12%) , PERA ( 5 . 5%) , FICA ( 6 . 7%) .
The benefit dollars saved as you move from the 6% settlement to the
4Q/o settlement equal the percentage of benefit cost ( ie . FICA' s 6 . 77 )
above times the cost of the wage adjustment .
4This proposal is for a maximum lid of $175 ( current $105 + $70) ;
therefore , with the rates currently at $168/month (they were
$156 when negotiations started) for a family there would be a
$7 . 00/month savings ( $175-$168) to the City; further reducing the
cost of #3 above from 63 ,630 by approximately $2 ,94 : ( 35 employees x
r
12 months x $7 ) until the razes increase .
` 1
Labor Negotiations
Page Two
October 25 , 1982
It is clear that the police department employee ' s felt the effect
of the recent benefit increase for Health, Life and L.D. when the
family premium increased from $156 to $168 per month. Because the
City pays a flat $105 , any increase falls on the employee and thus
the reason for their new proposal which includes a $7 cushion for
the "next premium increase" . Only one policeman carries single
coverage (v. s . family) where the monthly premiums range from a low
of $45 to a high of $105 .
As more dollars are put into our benefit program more wage settlement
dollars will be shifted to person( s ) with family coverage creating
a larger gap in benefits received by single employees . There are
currently 15 of 46 employees on single coverage under the City' s
present benefit plan.
Alternatives
1 . Conclude a settlement with the police and then public works
and non-union employees using proposal #1 , #2 or #3 above.
2 . Continue to seek a settlement on protos1 #2 above but with
$10 less in the benefit adjustment .
3 . Other combinations of alternative 1 o with, for example the
addition of a family assistance progras: at $750/year and/or
the clarification of sick leave policy for dependent children
with no new cost to the City (both of _ iese items were tabled
for 1983 budget/labor negotiation discussions ) .
Recommendations
The two minor alternatives mentioned in alternative No. 3 have not
been discussed in union negotiations to date. Frankly, I do not
believe they carry any bargaining power and would be more appro-
priately used as programs Council is making available for "employee
assistance" .
The Finance Director and I recommend the 57 wage and +$45 ( $150 )
benefit contribution. We also recommend including the Employee
Assistance Program at an estimated $750 for one year and the
clarification of the sick leave proposal . The latter two items
are included in the regular agenda. This settlement is clearly
within the parameters of the settlements reached for 1983 as of
this date .
JKA/jms
7
s.
4.t 1-A
OCT 51982
Olt MK14-1-r
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
MINNESOTA VALLEY RESTORATION PROJECT, INC.
FEBRUARY 28, 1982
and
FEBRUARY 28, 1981
with comparison
e.
Minnesota Valley Restoration Project , Inc.
BALANCE SHEETS
February 28, 1982 and February 28, 1981
February 28 February 28 Increase
ASSETS 1982 1981 (Decrease)
Current assets
Cash $ 28,174 $ 67,068 $ (38,894)
Accounts receivable .64 64 ---
Inventories 19,668 15,140 4,528
Total current assets $ 46,906 $ 82,272 $ (34,366)
Plant Assets
Murphy's Landing $ 2,047,183 $2,015,725 $ 31,458
Gift Shop 3,098 3,098 ---
Print Shop --- 7,097 (7,097)
$ 2,050,281 $2,025,920 $ 24,361
Total $ 2,098,187 $2,108,192 $ (10,005),
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES
Current Liabilities
Bank Loan $ 49,000 $ 50,000 $ (1,000)
Accounts payable 8,624 15,421 (6,797)
Accured liabilities 1,154 37,897 (36,743)
Termination settlement-due in 12,000
one year 12,000 ---
Total current liabilities $ 70,778 $ 103,318 $ (32,540)
Long Term Due
Scott County HRA $ 24,001 $ 31,533 $ (7,532)
Termination settlement 38,000 --- 38,000
$ 62,001 $ 31,533 $ 30,468
Fund Balances
Operating Fund (deficit) $ (84,873) $ (52,579) $ (32,294)
Plant Fund 2,050,281 2,025,920 24,361
$ 1,965,408 $1,973,341 $ (7,933)
Total $ 2,098,187 $2,108,192 $ (10,005)
7
Minnesota Valley Restoration Project, Inc.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT AND REVENUE, EXPENSES, AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
Two years ended February 28, 1982
for the year ended February Increase)
28, 1982 28, 1981 (Decrease)
Support and revenue
Contributions
Private sources $ 85,539 $ 74,660 $ 10,879
Government sources
State and local 1,875 70,023 (68,148)
Federal 22,514 54,152 (31,638)
$109,928 $198,835 $ (88,907)
Admission and special events fees $ 47,739 $ 62,071 $ (14,332)
Auxiliary activities (net) 5,807 11,850 (6,043)
Membership fees 2,954 4,531 (1,577)
Miscellaneous 2,484 6,792 (4,308)
Rentals 24,537 --- 24,537
Total support and revenues $193,449 $284,079 $ (90,630)
Expenses
General operations $ 94,860 $106,074 $ (11,214)
Educational programs 58,912 62,239 (3,327)
Maintenance 22,113 14,562 7,551
Total expenses $175,885 $182,875 $ (6,990)
Excess of support and
revenue over expenses $ 17,564 $101,204 $ (83,640)
Less: Expenditures for the acquistion
and restoration of buildings,
fixtures, artifacts, and
equipment $ 31,458 $149,957 $(118,499)
Cost of termination settlement
over accured salary 18,400 --- 18,400
Excess (deficiency) of
support and revenue over
expenses after acquisition
and restoration of buildings,
fixtures, artifacts, and
equipment; and after termin-
ation settlement $(32,294) $(48,753) $ 16,459
I
1 C o 4. c'. 1332
t ,
September 29, 1982
1982 POLITICAL ACTION PROJECT
CANDIDATES' SURVEY
Dear Candidate:
Please complete this questionnaire and return it to me. I appreciate your
taking the time to consider and respond to the concerns of cities. These
questions are a follow—up to the issue papers you received from the League of
Cities in late July.
Sincerely,
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee , MN 55379
Name of Candidate WA LLA}tiy Sroc:k Legislative District .36 A
1. Do you think that Minnesota's state—local finance system is in need of
comprehensive change? I acieee ,, tco“Jeuty, Z be I. e. Tt.e 4.,e ct, s.zs
el .i2 'plat"e anA_ rit, t •+t u1 6c rrC.. Fd t' d'pv!
el"-
*AAA. Tke S sT.. `} a h, oar
'•( Y -� 9...h��-�".eke+. S• 'Tl�4 T-' it' C4K6 y.�i.ler$Y'a{�o! .
es r d No No position
What areas in particular do you feel might need review? (check one or
more)
school foundation aid county levy limits
school categorial aid X homestead credit
local government aid agricultural mill credit
city levy limits property tax classification
system
other t>
O"i [E 12) 227-5600
Page 2
2. Will you vote to repeal the 8% levy limit law that applies to cities?
Yes X or-723 d- loks -inc1No No position
3. As an alternative to repealing the 8% levy limit law, would you vote to:
(note you may check more than one)
a) Increar. the levy limit of cities that were "caught with their
levies down" in 1981 - (about 80 cities levied less than they could
have and were effectively penalized for it by loss of future levy
authority.)
Yes No No position
b) Allow cities with unreasonably low levy limits (e.g. property taxes
comprise less than 30 of a city's general fund revenues) to apply
to a Levy Limit Review Board to have their levy limit base
increased.
Yes — No No position
c) Increase cities' levy limits to make up for lost revenues should the
Legislature decide to freeze appropriations for local government
aid. 1J ,L 'tb R-re
Yes No No position 8
d) Exempt all cities under 2,500 population from levy limits. (Note -
the total levies of these cities constitute only about 2% of the
total property tax levy of all local governments. These cities were
exempt from the limits from 1975 through 1981.)
Yes No - No position
4. Would you vote to allow all cities to impose a sales tax, at local
option, on hotels, motels, admissions or amusements?
Yes No No position
5. Would you vote to remove statutory maximum license fees for off-sale
liquor, on-sale wine, bottle clubs and Sunday liquor?
Yes No No position
6. Would you vote to guarantee that the local government aid program, which
primarily benefits cities, be funded for at least $270 million in
calendar year 1983? (Note - this is the amount that the Department of
Revenue has already told cities to expect and that the Finance Department
is now including in its F.Y. 1984 budget guidelines.) ff e e •�—
j6LY"b✓+--'L c r �oi r r e/.4- e S Tred. Y'LeeT7s.aT5 It
Yes No — No position
OVER
J7/
Page 3
7. Would you vote for a system whereby funding for local government aid for
1984 and thereafter would increase (or decrease) at the same rate as
growth (or decline) of state general fund revenues?
Yes )( _ No No position
8. Would you support dedicating a specified share of the state sales tax to
fund aid to cities? ,0,2_,c{
Yes No No position
9. Will you oppose any efforts to cut homestead credit reimbursement
payments to cities? (Notes - cuts in these payments to local governments
in both 1981 and 1982 in effect made the state a delinquent property tax
payer.)
Yes X No No position
10. Will you vote to require the Legislature to adopt a process requiring the
consideration of the fiscal impact on local government of every proposed
new mandate?
Yes x No No position
11. Will you vote to allow cities to levy property taxes to pay the costs of
new expenditures mandated but not funded by the Legislature?
Yes No No position
12. Will you vote against a bill permitting non-essential (non-police or fire
personnel) employees to refuse to cross picket lines of other public
employees? f}E- L vi,co✓e__ 1,2ce.,f a C. cz *
Yes No No position
13. Will you vote against a bill limiting the definition of supervisors under
the Public Employment Labor Relations Act to only the city manager (if
the city has a city manager) or the city council (if the city does not
have a city manager)? (Note - only about 46 of the 855 cities in
Minnesota have the city manager form of government.
Yes No No position
•
-01
41(
4
CITY 0,7
c.'"; an -• e sota cities
September 29, 1982
1982 POLITICAL ACTION PROJECT
CANDIDATES' SURVEY
Dear Candidate:
Please complete this questionnaire and return it to me. I appreciate your
tak4ng the time to consider and respond to the concerns of cities. These
questions are a follow—up to the issue papers you received from the League of
Cities in late July.
Sincerely,
John K. Anderson
I City Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee , MN 553 ,9 �`
Name of Candidate J p bCr� �. S�I'h( ty—
' Legislative District 4
1. Do you think that Minnesota's state—local finance system is in need of
comprehensive change?
Yes V No No position
What areas in particular do you feel might need review? (check one or
more)
school foundation aid county levy limits
school categorial aid homestead credit
local government aid _ ✓ agricultural mill credit
city levy limits `. property tax classification
system 1�
other
1.‘J 5_! ', );_ie eE3st, St. paul, Li5II C:'1 C6123227-5600
Si
Page 2
2. Will you vote to repeal the 8i'. levy limit law that applies to cities?
Yes No No position
•
3. As an alternative to repealing the 8% levy limit law, would you vole to:
(note you niay chcci: more than one)
a) Increa! : the levy limit of cities that were "caught with their
levies down" in 1981 - (about 80 cities levied less than they could
have and were effectively penalized for it by loss of future levy
authority. )
Yes ✓ No No position
b) Allow cities with unreasonably low levy limits (e.g. property taxes
comprise less than 30% of a city's general fund revenues) to apply
to a Levy Limit Review Board to have their levy limit base
increased.
Yes _ ✓ No _ No position
c) Increase cities' levy limits to make up for lost revenues should the
Legislature decide to freeze appropriations for local government
aid. 1,/
Yes V No
_ _ No position
d) Exempt all cities under 2,500 population from levy limits. (Note -
the total levies of these cities constitute only about 2% of the
total property tax levy of all local governments. These cities were
exempt from the limits from 1975 through 1981.)
Yes ✓ No No position
4. Would you vote to allow all cities to impose a sales tax, at local
option, on hotels, motels, admissions or amusements?
Yes No ✓ No position
5. Would you vote to remove statutory maximum license fees for off-sale
liquor, on-sale wine, bottle clubs and Sunday liquor?
Yes No No position
6. Would you vote to guarantee that the local government aid program, which
primarily benefits cities, be funded for at least $270 million in
calendar year 1983? (Note - this is the amount that the Department of
Revenue has already told cities to expect and that the Finance Department
is now including in its F.Y. 1984 budget guidelines.)
Yes No No position
OVER
g/
Page 3
7. Would you vote for a system whereby funding for local government aid for
1984 and thereafter would increase (or decrease) at the same rate as
growth (or decline) of state general fund revenues?
Yes ' No ✓ No position
8. Would you support dedicating a specified share of the state sales tax to
fund aid to cities?
Yes No No position
9. Will you oppose any efforts to cut homestead credit reimbursement
payments to cities? (Notes - cuts in these payments to local governments
in both 1981 and 1982 in effect made the state a delinquent property tax
payer.) /
Yes Y No No position
10. Will you vote to require the Legislature to adopt a process requiring the
consideration of the fiscal impact on local government of every proposed
new mandate?
Yes No No position
11. Will you vote to allow cities to levy property taxes to pay the costs of
new expenditures mandated but not funded by the Legislature?
Yes ' No No position
12. Will you vote against a bill permitting non-essential (non-police or fire
personnel) employees to refuse to cross picket lines of other public
employees?
Yes No No Ixuo f t f on
I3. Will you vote against a bill limiting the definition of supervisors under
the Public Employment Labor Relations Act to only the city manager (if
the city has a city manager) or the city council (if the city does not
have a city manager)? (Note - only about 46 of the 855 cities in
Minnesota have the city manager form of government.
Yes No No position ✓
9
RESOLUTION NO. 2007
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 1831 , PERMITTING THE
CLOSING OF ATWOOD STREET BETWEEN 4TH AND 5TH AVENUES DURING
CONSTRUCTION OF ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shakopee , that
Resolution No. 1831 is hereby amended by granting permission to St .
Francis Hospital to close Atwood Street between 4th and 5th Avenues
until October , 1983 with the same conditions as set forth
in said Resolution No. 1831 .
Adopted in •;I u tti9 session of he City Cpuncil 9f
the City of Shakopee , !Minnesota , held this �, : day of:-,_. _ , ,_/ ,
1982 . n"
Iy/°1_r0t e Pity • : a opee
ATTEST :
,I1 --)' , . ,.' \./.., '
City Clerk
Approved- asto form this 3 -
day of t L,, , , 1982 .
y
Z`ity Attney .._
.�. w RESOLUTION NO. 1831 6('
A RESOLUTION PERMITTING THE CLOSING OF ATWOOD STREET BETWEEN
4TH AND 5TH AVENUES DURING CONSTRUCTION AT ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL
WHEREAS , the City of Shakopee has received a request from
St . Francis Hospital to close Atwood Street between 4th and 5th
Avenue for a twelve month period during construction, and
WHEREAS , construction is expected tee last for twelve months
beginning June 1 , 1981 , barring any strikes or unforeseen problems .
NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE , that St . Francis Hospital is hereby granted permission
to close Atwood Street between 4th and 5th Avenues for a twelve
month period ending June 1 , 1982 with the following conditions :
1 . Provisions shall be made for uninhibited access to that
part of the street closed at al.] times for any emergency vehicles .
2 . Prior to closing the street , the hospital shall file with
the City an endorsement to their existing policy or a copy of their
existing policy bearing such endorsement saving the City free and
harmless from any and all claims or suits arising or that might
arise by virtue of the temporary closing and the use the hospital
intends to make of the closed street .
3. That St . Francis Hospital agrees to restore the said Atwood
Street between 4th and 5th Avenues to its original condition (as of
June 1 , 1981 ) , upon the reopening of the Street .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that St . Francis Hospital shall signify
their acceptance and agreement to the foregoing on a certified copy
of this resolution and return it to the City before this resolution
takes effect .
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City
of Shakopee , Minnesota hold this t5 clay of _ ,
1951 .
Mayor ohe City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
1111A.4; At.
erk
A1. . eyed as to form this
day of _, 1981 .
City Attorney
APpravea as Lu1111 �.,.... _..-- 1981981
day of ";��'�:. —'
7R,MU
OCT 2 81982
S� OF kA46 PEE A
rancis hospital
325 WEST FIFTH AVENUE/SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA 553791(612)445-2322
October 26, 1982
Mr. Henry Spurrier
City Engineer
129 E. 1st Ave.
Shakopee, MN 55379
RE: Atwood Street
Dear Bo,
St. Francis Hospital will remove the construction material
currently stored on Atwood Street between 4th and 5th Ave.
on November 3, 1982. Our contractor will clear the street
and contact you for inspection prior to opening it for
through traffic. We are prepared to repair any damages
which were incurred during our building project.
I would like to take this opportunity to request that the
on-street parking on 4th Avenue and Atwood Street which
abutts Block 58 be restricted to two (2) hour parking.
This restriction will provide the incentive needed to get
the long term parking visitor or employee to utilize the
existing parking lots.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Thomas Prusak
Director of Operational Services
TP/fgb
SPONSORED BY THE FRANCISCAN SISTERS OF ST. PAUL, MN
/0 1
LEGISLATIVE POLICIES
1983-1984
I
•MUNICIPAL REVENUES AND TAXES
I-A LEVY LIMIT
A-1 8% LEVY LIMIT REPEAL
Th„? 1981-82 Legislature compounded the problems caused by levy
limits for 1982 and thereafter expanding the law to apply to
all cities in the state, by changing the base to which the present
8% annual allowable increase applies, and by eliminating or
restricting some of the previously allowable special levies . These
changes have added unnecessary complexities to city budgeting
processes and have caused serious budget problems in many cities .
Furthermore, levy limits ultimately work against the interests of
local taxpayers because the law creates an incentive for cities
to take maximimu advantage of the opportunity to make general or
special levies . For example, the arbitrary decision in 1981 to
create a new levy limit base effectively penalized those cities
that were successful in holding down their property tax levies
in 1981 . History has now provided cities with numerous lessons
teaching that cities which choose to levy less than the maxumum
allowed in a given year risk being later tied to unrealistic or
artificially low new limits for future budget years.
The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities has consistently
opposed the levy limit laws in that they apply uniform statewide
restrictions to cities and are too inflexible to accommodate the
high rate of inflation , uncertainties in state and federal financial
aids , and the diverse problems and circumstances faced by cities
throughout the state. Such laws are inconsistent with principles of
local self-government and accountability . Neither do they recognize
changing local conditions as to either expenditure needs or revenue
sources . Therefore ,
THE AMM REMAINS STRONGLY OPPOSED IN PRINCIPLE TO SUCH LIMITATIONS
AND RECOMMENDS THAT THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE REPEAL LEVY LIMIT LAWS
FOR CITIES .
A-2 LEVY LIMIT ALTERNATIVE - TRUTH IN TAXATION
As an alternative to levy limitations the AMM would suggest the
Legislature consider a ' Truth in Taxation ' process similar to that
used by Florida , Montana , Hawaii , Virginia , Maryland and the
District of Columbia . Arbitrary levy limits are not suitable or
practical for all communities all of the time primarily because of the
vast differences in community service needs and desires based on
individual local philosophy and demographics. Arbitrary limits
tend to reduce the average citizens ' interest in spending decisions
of local officials because there are so few choices to be made with
limited resources . Local officials escape the responsibility of
I-1
T
decision making and thus the accountability because the state
has in effect made that decision through the limit . The arbitrary
limit , based on how the rate increase is determined, also may
tend to cause higher than necessary levies in any given year
because of the fear of losing ground for future needs. Therefore,
the limit may in fact become a minimum standard levy rather than
a maximum. The Truth in Taxation process provides individual
property taxpayers with notification of planned taxing levels
compared to current taxing levels and the opportunity to part-
icipate in the final decision making process through public hearings
where actual spending decisions can be discussed and challenged.
It also provides the local taxpayer with information as to what
each taxing jurisdiction is proposing rather than a bottom line
total only. This data along with the participation opportunity
places the responsibility for tax levels squarely on the shoulders
of the appropriate local officials and forces accountability rather
than blame shifting onto state level elected or appointed officials.
Finally, this system of full disclosure enhances public participation
in the conduct of local government by providing real decision making
opportunities and therefore, is an effective compromise between no
state controls over local taxes and substantial control through
stringent state imposed limits.
THE AMM STRONGLY URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES TO
STRINGENT LEVY LIMITATION LAWS. A SPECIFIC ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION
IS THE "TRUTH IN TAXATION" PROCESS AS USED IN FLORIDA AND OTHER STATES.
THIS METHOD PROVIDES IN DEPTH INFORMATION TO THE TAXPAYER AS TO
PLANNED LEVY INCREASES BY EACH TAXING JURISDICTION AND ENHANCES TAX-
PAYER ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FINAL DECISION MAKING PROCESS
PLUS PLACED RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY AT THE APPROPRIATE
LEVEL AND JURISDICTION. UNLIKE OTHER PROPOSALS, THE AMM WOULD
SUGGEST KEEPING THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS SEPARATE FROM THE BUDGET/LEVY
PROCESS TO AVOID CONFUSION.
I-B LEVY LIMIT MODIFICATIONS
Although the AMM is strongly opposed to Levy Limitations as currently
legislated, the organization is aware that there is significant
legislative initiative to maintain the responsibility for local
property tax levels. However, local government must continue and be
allowed to provide for services that people demand and that state
and federal law require. Therefore, if repeal or an alternative is not
adopted, the Association supports amendments to the present levy limit law to
provide further relief from current inequities.
B-1 REALISTIC LEVY BASE
The current levy limit increase applies to only the amount of general
levy made in theprevious year instead of a base which included a
combination of general levy plus local government aids. As a percent
of budget the general levy may range from 10 percent to 60 percent
depending on a particular cities aids and other revenue. Local
government aid has been reducing not increasing and future state
revenue projections would indicate that aids will either stay even
I-2
I
or only increase slightly. Federal Revenue Sharing has not
increasel and in some cases has decreased. Service and permit
gees have been increased in many cities to maximum levels. There-
fore, a levy limit increase factor based only on previous general
ad valorum levy is extremely unfair in treating cities differently,
some cities will probably have less money even with a maximum
increase, and few cities will gain enough revenue to pay nominal
salary increases.
BASED ON TH 1 " RATIONALE, T111'; AMM STRONGLY URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO
ADOPT A REALISTIC LEVY BASE TO WHICH THE ANNUAL INCREASE WILL APPLY
INCLUDING AS A MINIMUM THE GENERAL AD VALORUM LEVY PLUS LOCAL GOVERN-
MENT AID, AND FURTHER, ALLOW THE BASE TO INCREASE ANNUALLY AT THE
ESTABLISHED RATE WITHOUT FORCING LOCAL UNITS TO LEVY THE MAXIMUM TO
RECEIVE MAXIMUM BASE INCREASES. ALSO, THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD USE
THE EXISTING 1981 LEVY LIMIT BASE AS A STARTING FIGURE FOR NEW
BASE CALCULATIONS.
B-2 REALISTIC LEVY BASE INDEX
The present 8% annual levy limit increase of the previous year levy is
totally unrealistic even if the base is expanded to include other
factors. Eight percent or any percent has no relevant relationship
to the increasing costs of labor or material and local service
demands. Wage increases, which account for 60 to 70 percent of a
city budget are controlled by cost of living indices and in many
cases outside arbitrators that are not concerned with city revenue
raising capabilities.
THE PRESENT 8% LEVY LIMIT SHOULD BE AMENDED TO INCORPORATE A MORE
REALISTIC INDEX OF INCREASING MUNICIPAL COSTS IN PLACE OF A FIXED
RATE AND ONE WHICH WOULD RESPOND TO AND REFLECT MORE CLOSELY INFLATION I
RATES AND MUNICIPAL NEEDS . IN TIMES WHEN ECONOMIC INDICATORS SHOW
THAT COST INCREASES EXCEED 8%, LEVY LIMIT BASES SHOULD BE ADJUSTED
UPWARDS TO REFLECT THOSE INCREASES.
B-3 LEVY BASE GROWTH FACTOR - RESIDENTIAL/PEOPLE
The levy limitation law has traditionally recognized that cities
grow and that th general annual levy increase cannot alone provide
sufficient increased funds to provide services for an expanding
service need area . Population was used as a growth factor but due to
dwindling household size this did not recognize increasing numbers
of dwelling units, street miles, and other property related growth •
needs. Many cities with decreasing populations actually experienced
growth in areas demanding service. The 1981 legislature changed
the growth factor to homesteads which to some degree solved the
decreased household size problem. However, because of economy and
housing problems, many cities are experiencing stable or decreasing
homestead growth while rental housing is increasing rapidly, thus
causing increased service needs but not reflecting growth in the
formula. Therefore,
I-3
THE AMM RECOMMENDS THAT TIIE LEVY LIMIT GROWTH FACTOR BE CHANGED,
AT A MINIMUM, FROM HOMESTEAD TO HOUSEHOLD WHICH WILL MORE ACCURATELY
REFLECT SERVICE NEED GROWTH, AND PREFERABLY A COMBINATION FACTOR
CONSIDERING BOTH POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD GROWTH.
B-4 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL LEVY BASE GROWTH.
The current levy limit law recognizes that increased houses and
people require increased revenues to provide services. The law also
recognizes that new commercial industrial expansion causes new city
costs and therefore, provides a special levy for three years equal
to the amount of revenue raised by applying the general mill levy
to the increased value. At one time a portion of the special
levy would be added to the levy limit base when the special levy
expired to provide funds for ongoing service needs. This provision
was inadvertently dropped in 1981 . Without this growth factor,
services for new commercial and industrial property must be provided
from existing revenue , thus reducing service to the remainder of the
community. Without additional revenue to provide this service and
considering metropolitan fiscal disparities, a very real disincentive
exists for allowing any type of new or expanded commercial/industrial
growth.
THE AMM URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO PROVIDE A LEVY BASE INCREASE FOR
NEW AND EXPANDED COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL GROWTH SO THAT SERVICES
MAY BE PROVIDED WITHOUT DECREASING SERVICE TO THE EXISTING RESIDENTS
OF THE CITY.
B-5 REVERSE REFERLNDUM
The 1981 Legislature eliminated the Reverse Referendum procedure which
allowed a local governing body to increase its levy base by up to 10%
if it was at 98% or more of the levy limit the previous year. The
law restricted use to a one time 10% increase or multiple increases
not to exceed a total of 10% and provided significant notification
and public hearing procedures . The increase was subject to a
referendum if a petition was presented containing signatures equal
to 5% of the number of persons voting at the previous general election .
If no petition was received, the increase become effective. This
provision provided a measure of flexibility for cities and counties
that needed base increases for various reasons .
THE AMM REQUESTS THE LEGISLATURE RE-ENACT THE REVERSE REFERENDUM
PROVISION TO ADD FLEXIBILITY FOR LOCAL UNITS.
B-6 SPECIAL LEVY FOR MANDATED STATE AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS.
The cost of local government is being influenced more and more by both
state and federally legislated mandated programs and increased man-
dated benefits or costs for in-place programs. Due to current levy
limitation restrictions, the ability of local government to pay these
increased costs is severely restricted, thereby causingi.n many in-
stances, a reduction in the level of the typical service functions
of police, fire, street , etc. There is a vast range of mandated
program increases which have no bearing or relationship to the annually
allowed 8% levy limit increase. Some of these include worker ' s
compensation benefits, binding arbitration, federal social security,
I-4
7
•
minimum wage laws, comprehensive planning, Critical Areas Act ,
Shorelines Act , OSHA, etc.
THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITES URGES THE LEGISLATURE
TO (1) REINSTATE THE SPECIAL LEVY FOR NEW AND INCREASED PROGRAM
COSTS MANDATED BY STATE LAW, (2) INITIATE A SPECIAL LEVY FOR
INCREASED COSTS .CAUSED BY OTHER STATE ACTION, AND (3) INITIATE A
SPECIAL LEVY FOR FEDERAL MANDATED PROGRAMS.
B-7 DECREASFf NON TAX REVENUE SPECIAL LEVY
The 1981 legislature eliminated the Decreased Non Tax Revenue special
levy by rolling the 1981 actual levy into the levy base. The primary
purpose of this special levy was to provide a method on an annual
basis to recapture revenue decreases in, principally, municipal liquor
store operations using the current year as a comparison to 1971
revenues modified by inflation . When the Levy Limit law was initiated
in 1971 , it did not consider that a major share of some cities general
budget revenue was derived from the liquor store revenue. Since 1971
these revenues or profits have remained constant or in many cases
actually declined, thus causing severe problems because levy
increases were only based on actual 1971 property tax levy. The
decreased non tax revenue special levy was initiated in 1973 and
modified in 1980 to remedy this problem.
THE AMM ENCOURAGES THE LEGISLATURE TO RE-INSTATE THE DECREASED NON
TAX REVENUE SPECIAL LEVY TO MORE ACCURATELY REFLECT THE CURRENT
INCREASE OR DECREASE REVENUES FROM MUNICIPAL ENTERPRISES SUCH AS
LIQUOR STORES.
B-8 ENERGY SPECIAL LEVY
There has been a tremendous interest in energy related issues and
developing methods of saving energy in the past few years. It is
recognized that fuel conservation measures are necessary and, in
fact, federal and state legislation has been passed requiring
certain energy saving measures. Cities are required to make
facility energy audits which are basically paid for through energy
grants. However, facility changes and capitol expenditures, some
required and others that make sense, must be implemented using local
revenues. In many cases these revenues are not available because of
levy limitations. Therefore,
THE AMM URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO ENACT A SPECIAL LEVY TO PAY FOR COSTS
INCURRED FOR ENERGY IMPORVEMENTS INCLUDING CAPITAL EXPENDITURES. THIS
SPECIAL LEVY SHOULD BE NOT ONLY FOR REQUIRED EXPENSES, BUT IT SHOULD
BE BROAD ENOUGH TO ENCOURAGE AND PROVIDE FUNDS FOR VOLUNTARY ENERGY
IMPROVMENTS .
B-9 SPECIAL ELECTION FUNDING
In recent years there have been a rash of special elections to fill
vancies in congressional offices and the State Senate and House of
Representatives . These elections are expensive for cities that have
to pay for election judges, ballots, etc. , and because of strict levy
limitation laws, cause problems when they occur.
I-5
THE AMM REQUESTS THE LEGISLATURE TO REIMBURSE LOCAL UNITS FOR THESE
SPECIAL ELECTION COSTS WEEN THEY OCCUR. IF THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE,
THEN AS AN ALTERNATIVE, THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD AT LEAST PROVIDE A
SPECIAL LEVY PROVISION FOR RECOVERY OF LOCAL COSTS.
B-10 SERVICE SHIFTS-LEVY LIMIT REVIEW BOARD
•
Due to diminishing state funding of county and city services and
tightening levy limits, all units of local government have been
modifying service proc,•-tures and increasing revenues where possible.
For many years some (Jaunties have provided services to cities on a
contract basis for police, prosecution , jailing, assessing, etc. In
order to free up funds for other services , some counties have been
shifting a much larger burden of cost for these services to the
city at a much greater increase than 80. An actual prime example
of this is as follows: One county has done the assessing for all
units within the county on a contract basis for one dollar per year.
This cost has been funded within the county levy base. However,
for 1983 the county is charging actual costs to the local units, as
high as $28, 000 for one city. The city has the option to pay or hire
its own assessor. It can do neither because its base does not include
any funds for this purpose. Because of the law the county can free
up that base levy to be used for other purposes. This type of
activity is more common where cities contract with the county sheriff
for police service and have no control over cost increases.
THE AMM STRONGLY URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO RE-ESTABLISH A LEVY LIMIT
BASE REVIEW BOARD AND AUTHORIZE THE BOARD TO ADJUST CITY LEVY BASES
FOR SERVICE SHIFTS AND EXCESS COST INCREASES FOR CITY/COUNTY CONTRACT
SERVICES SUCH AS POLICE, PROSECUTION, JAILING, ASSESSING, ETC., WHEN
IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT IT IS A NEW COST TO THE CITY OR A COST INCREASE
IN EXCESS OF TIIE STANDARD LEVY BASE INCREASE.
B-11 FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING REPLACEMENT FUNDS
Since 1972 the cities of Minnesota have become more and more dependent
upon Federal Revenue Sharing. Currently almost all cities are using
some or all of their revenue sharing allocation for normal general
operating expenses, and many of these same cities are at, or near,
levy limits . If Federal Revenue Sharing is either discontinued or
reduced, currently there is no alternative method to raise revenue to
replace the loss. In some cases the resulting cuts in service will
be a definite threat to the general health, welfare, and safety of
many of our city residents, Therefore,
TIIE AMM REQUESTS THAT TIIE LEGISLATURE ENACT A PROVISION IN THE LEVY
LIMIT STATUTES TO PROVIDE A LEVY LIMIT BASE INCREASE TO REPLACE ANY
FUNDS LOST THROUGH REDUCTION OR DISCONTINUANCE OF FEDERAL REVENUE
SHARING TO CITIES.
B-12 SPECIAL LEVY - NATURAL DISASTER AND LAWFUL ORDER
The 1977 Legislature eliminated a number of special levies, including
those for expenditures of funds as a result of natural disasters and
lawful orders, neither of which a city can plan for or has any control
over. Lawful orders are a result of not being able to implement some
state or federal regulation . Natural disasters, such as the 1977 and
I-G
I
1978 heavy rains which caused severe flooding in the metropolitan area ,
can cause unnatural large expenditures for emergency repair to city
facilities. NeiLher o1 these are used often, but when needed are
absolutely necessary.
Also, Minnesota Statutes 12 . 25 through 12 . 45 require cities to
establish emergency services programs and appoint a director to be
prepared for disasters such as flood, tornado, drought, hazardous
material spills , etc. At the time of enactment a special levy to
cover costs these programs was allowed but has since been discon-
tinued. An Emergency Services Division of the State Public Safety
Department has been established to provide training for local
participants and help in administration of disaster loans and grants .
Recent example of disasters in Minnesota are numerous and point out
the need for enhancing rather than decreasing the financial capability
of both the state and local units to react in such emergency situations .I
The legislature could utilize several alternatives to provide
additional funds for these activities including authorizing special
levies or possibly a one or two percent rider for property insurance
which could be dedicated to emergency preparedness. Therefore ,
THE AMM URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO REINSTATE THE SPECIAL LEVIES FOR
LAWFUL ORDERS AND NATURAL DISASTERS AND PROVIDE FUND SOURCES FOR
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS.
B-13 FICA SPECIAL LEVY
Normally FICA - Social Security Withholding - is directly proportional
to payroll . However, in recent years the employer contribution
percentage and amount of salary FICA is paid on , has increased drast-
ically, well above even the extremely high inflation rates experienced
the past three years.
THE AMM REQUESTS THE LEGISLATURE ENACT A SPECIAL LEVY TO PROVIDE
CITIES WITH THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NORMAL LEVY BASE INCREASE
ALLOWED BY THE LEVY LIMITATION LAW AND THE FICA INCREASE MANDATED
BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
I-C LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATE AID
For cities to be able to budget and plan in a rational and orderly
manner, cities must have a reliable and predictable source of revenue
other than the property tax. The experience with state aid delays
and cutbacks in the past two years has demonstrated that the current
local government aid system is neither reliable nor predictable. The
current system subjects cities to the dual uncertainty of not knowing
whether the states revenues will be adequate, and not knowing how the
legislature and governor will choose to allocate funding cutbacks when
revenues do fall short .
Under a system in which cities derive a substantial part of their
revenues from state sources, cities must expect that when state
revenues fall short , cities ' state aid funding will also decline .
However, cities must have assurance that they will not be forced to
I-7
absorb a disproportionate share of a revenue shortfall . As a
corollary, it is also reasonable for cities to expect state funding
for local government aid to increase in proportion to increases in
state revenues.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE AMM RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPROPRIATION FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AIDS BE TIED DIRECTLY TO A SPECIFIED SHARE OF THE STATE' S
GENERAL REVENUE TAX COLLECTIONS OR SALES TAX COLLECTIONS.
ti
I-D PROPERTY TAX
D-1 TAX EXEMPT PROPERTY
One of the glaring inequities in the Minnesota tax system involves the
free local services that are provided to tax exempt property owned
by the state and by certain non-governmental organizations . It is
widely acknowledged that such property benefits directly from govern-
mental services such as police and fire protection and street services
provided by cities and counties. However, since there is no legal
basis for claiming reimbursement for the cost of such services, they
are borne by the local taxpayers. Furthermore, such property is
concentrated in certain cities and counties resulting in a heavy cost
burden in certain parts of the state.
THE ASSOCIATION BELIEVES THIS PROBLEM SHOULD BE CORRECTED BY ENACTING
LEGISLATION REQUIRING BOTH THE STATE AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL OWNERS OF
TAX EXEMPT PROPERTY, EXCEPT FOR CHURCHES, HOUSES OF WORSHIP, AND
PROPERTY USED SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES BY ACADEMIES, COLLEGES,
UNIVERSITIES AND SEMINARIES OF LEARNING, TO REIMBURSE CITIES AND
COUNTIES FOR THE COST OF POLICE, FIRE, AND STREET SERVICES, OR
THAT THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD CREATE AN ADDITIONAL PROPERTY CLASS AND
RATE FOR ALL CURRENT TAX EXEMPT PROPERTY OTHER THAN THAT PROPERTY
EXCLUDED FROM TAXATION BY THE MINNESOTA CONSTITUTION.
TIIE LEGISLATURE SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER PROVIDING REIMBURSEMENT FOR
THESE SERVICES FOR ALL STATE OWNED FACILITIES, INCLUDING STATE
UNIVERSITIES.
D-2 MAINTENANCE OF REAL PROPERTY
Many homeowners are confused as to what maintenance and repair can be
performed to maintain a home without increasing the market value of
the property, thereby causing higher taxes. Replacing an old roof may
be maintenance to a home, but it may also increase the market value
of the building. It is necessary to encourage proper maintenance and
repair of existing buildings and yet the property tax structure may
discourage such maintenance.
TO RESOLVE THIS PROBLEM, THE AMM SUGGESTS THE LEGISLATURE MODIFY
CHAPTER 273. 11 TO REQUIRE ALL PROPERTY BE VALUED AS IF IT WERE IN
ADEQUATE MAINTENANCE CONDITION TO THE EXTENT THAT LACI. OF MAINTENANCE
OR DETERIORATION DOES NOT CREATE A TAX ADVANTAGE.
I-8
D-3 PUBLIC PROPERTY ACQUISITION
Municipalities have encountered the situation where another govern-
mental unit has acquired title to property but has not filed the
necessary paperwork to have the property officially removed from the
tax assessment rolls. Consequently, the municipal budget has been
adopted and mill rates established based on the premise that the
property was still on thetax rolls . Under the present prc,perty tax
law, there is not recourse for the municipality to collect any taxes
and penalties that may accrue between the time that the governmental
unit may acquire title and the time they file the necessary paperwork
to remove said property from the assessment rolls.
ANY PUBLIC JURISDICTION ACQUIRING PROPERTY SHOULD BE LIABLE AND SHOULD
PAY, OR ARRANGE FOR PAYMENT OF, ALL TAXES DUE AND PAYABLE UP TO SUCH
TIME AS THE PROPERTY IS FORMALLY REMOVED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ROLLS.
ALL PENALTIES ASSESSED TO PRIVATE OWNERS SHOULD ALSO APPLY TO SAID
PUBLIC JURISDICTIONS.
D-4 PROPERTY TAX DISTRIBUTION FROM COUNTY
The 1980 legislature modified the property tax collection/distribution
process some by requiring counties to distribute 70% of the funds on
hand as of the 5th. day of the month following the collection dates.
The county still has 30 days from the due date in which to make the
distribution and does not pay interest until 45 days after the due
date. The interest rate was set at 8%. However, in many counties
where computer accounting capability exists, the money is virtually
100% available within one working week after the due date. The
county may hold the majority of the money for 30 days and 30%
up to 45 days and collect interest at market rate. At the same time,
many cities are borrowing money and paying market interest rates to
meet payroll and other expenses. It is not practical nor possible in
most cases for cities to accumulate enough reserve funds to cover
normal costs from January 1 through July 5.
THE AMM URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO FURTHER MODIFY THE LAW TO REQUIRE
COUNTIES WITH COMPUTER CAPABILITY TO DISTRIBUTE 90% OF THE PERIOD
PAYMENT TO CITIES WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER THE 5TH. OF THE MONTH DISTRIB-
UTION DATE, THE REMAINDER TO BE DISTRIBUTED WITHIN 30 DAYS. ALSO,
THAT THE INTEREST RATE BE SET AT THE CURRENT PRIME RATE AS OF THE
SETTLEMENT DATE ON ALL MONIES NOT DISTRIBUTED AFTER 15 DAYS.
D-5 RAILROAD PROPERTY TAXATION
The existing system for taxation of railroad property is not consistent
with the taxation of other commercial and industrial properties . The
AMM recommends that a new system of property taxation be established
which enable railroads operating in Minnesota to be taxed consistent
with the taxation of other commercial and industrial properties . This
system should contain the following features :
ALL RAILROAD PROPERTY SHOULD BE ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSOR HAVING
JURISDICTION AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW.
I-9
ALL NON-OPERATING PROPERTY SHOULD BE TAXED AND SHOULD INCLUDE ALL
PROPERTY OTHER THAN OPERATING LAND AND OPERATING STRUCTURES AS
DEFINED BELOW. NON-OPERATING PROPERTY SHOULD INCLUDE REAL PROPERTY
WHICH IS LEASED OR RENTED OR AVAILABLE FOR LEASE OR RENT TO ANY PERSON
WHICH IS NOT A RAILROAD COMPANY. VACANT LAND SHOULD BE PRESUMED TO
BE AVAILABLE FOR LEASE OR RENT IF IT HAS NOT BEEN USED AS OPERATING
LAND FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR PRECEDING THE VALUATION DATE. NON-
OPERATING
ON-
OPERATING PROPERTY SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE LAND WHICH IS NOT NECESSARY
AND INTEGRAL TO THE PERFOIRMANCE OF RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
AND WHICH IS NOT USED ON A REGULAR AND CONTINUAL BASIS IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF THESE SERVICES.
ALL OPERATING LAND (DEFINED TO MEAN ANY LAND WHICH UNDERLIES THE
OPERATING STRUCTURES DEFINED BELOW ANI) RIGHTS-OF-WAY ADJACENT THERETO
AND WHICH IS NECESSARY TO THE INTEGRAL PERFORMANCE OF RAILROAD
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES) SHOULD BE TAXED AND SHOULD BE VALUED BY
TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE VALUE OF ADJACENT LANDS AND THE ZONING
APPLICABLE TO ADJACENT LANDS.
ALL OPER/V, ING STRUCTURES (DEFINED TO MEAN ALL STRUCTURES OWNED OR
USED BY A RAILROAD COMPANY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF RAILROAD TRANS-
PORTATION SERVICES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, FRANCHISES, BRIDGES,
TRESTLES, TRACKS, SHOPS, DOCKS, WHARVES, BUILDINGS AND OTHER RELATED
STRUCTURES) SHOULD BE VALUED BY THE ASSESSOR BY TAKING INTO CON-
SIDERATION THEIR ALTERNATIVE USE, CONSISTENT WITH THE USES OF
ADJACENT AND COMPARABLE STRUCTURES AND THE ZONING APPLICABLE TO
ADJACENT STRUCTURES, IF NOT USED FOR RAILROAD PURPOSES. ALL OPERATING
STRUCTURES EXCEPT RAILROAD BRIDGES, TRESTLES, TRACKS, DOCKS AND
WHARVES, SHOULD BE TAXABLE.
NO TAXING JURISDICTION SHOULD LOSE REVENUE BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE FROM
THE EXISTING UNIT VALUE SYSTEM TO THE NEW LOCAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM.
D-6 PREVIOUS YEAR DATA ON TAX STATEMENTS
Property tax statements sent to property owners by the county contain
the dollar and mill rate for each taxing jurisdiction spacial
assessment amounts , gross total , and net total after homestead credit
deduction for the year in which the property taxes are
payable.
THE AMM BELIEVES TAX STATEMENTS SHOULD RE MODIFIED TO INCLUDE AT LEAST
THE CORRESPONDING DOLLAR LEVY FOR EACH ITEM ON THE CURRENT STATEMENT
FOR TIIE PREVIOUS YEAR SO THAT TAXPAYERS WILL KNOW HOW MUCH EACH UNIT
TAXES HAVE INCREASED OR DECREASED.
1)-7 UNIT ASSESSED VALUE FOR BUDGETING
Due to fluctuating or decreasing state aids and credits and increasing
assessed values in property it is dificult for local units to judge
the impact of budget decisions on individual property taxes. Only one
or two counties in the Metropolitan Area provide a close estimate of
I-10
local units total assessed values in time for use during the
local budget process .
THE AMM URGES THE METROPOLITAN COUNTIES TO PROVIDE LOCAL UNITS WITH
AT LEAST A CLOSE ESTIMATE OF TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE OF THAT UNIT SOMETIME
IN AUGUST FOR USE DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS.
I-E ASSESSMENT EQUALIZATION
Unequal property assessment , both within and among the various taxing
jurisdictions, has been a concern of the legislature in past sessions
due to overlapping tax levies by county, school and various special
districts . For various aid formulas , the state has utilized sales
ratios as an offsetting equalizing factor so that distribution of
aids will be accomplished on as fair and equitable basis as possible .
The legislature has also adopted a penalty provision effective in
1983 based on coefficient of dispersion which is calculated from the
sales ratio and has discussed penalty provisions based on the sales
ratio itself. However, sales ratios individually and collectively
are inherently flawed, inaccurate, and at best are only general
indicators. Many factors not associated with actual value of a piece
of property can affect the sales price of that property. A farmer
may buy a 40 or. 80 acre parcel for well over 'market value ' as an add
on to a current farm and justify the cost by spreading the extra
expense over the entire farm. A person with a very large downpayment
or access to good financing may be able to purchase a house with
a very low or non-existant underlying mortgage well under the 'market
value ' . On the other hand, someone with very limited downpayment may
pay well over the market rate for a house with a high underlying
assumable mortgage . Many other economic and personal reasons may
enter into purchase price of property. Also, in many cases there just
are not enough sales in a class of property to accurately determine
a sales ratio in a given geographic area . Finally, to keep ratios
from constantly jumping up or down from year to year and to level out
statistically the activity, the Revenue Deparment disregards some
sales that are out of line for various reasons and uses two year
samples to create a ratio. At best , sales ratios and various
statistics such as the coefficient of dispersion are only general
indicators. They are tools to be used to determine cases of
incnnsistancy and provide a basis for constructive help to assessors .
Imprecise sales ratios are generally in the ball park and computed
in such a way as to be consistantly imprecise for all units. Therefore,
as just one of several factors in aid formulas, they may be a
necessary ingredient to provide as uniformly as possible an equitable
distribution . However, because sales ratios and coefficient of
dispersion measurements are imprecise and were basically developed as
tools to determine general trends , they should not be used as
precision measurements for penalties or bonuses.
E-1 COEFFICIENT 01' DISPERSION PENALTY
THE AMM URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO REPEAL THE COEFFICIENT OF DISPERSION
PENALTY PROVISION. IF THE LEGISLATURE DETERMINES A NEED EXISTS, THE
COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE SHOULD BE MANDATED TO ORDER A REASSESSMENT OF
I-11
AN AREA BY AN INDEPENDENT ASSESSOR IF THE COEFFICIENT OF DISPERSION
INDICATORS FALLS TO SOME LEVEL BELOW NATIONAL STANDARDS OF ACCEPT-
ABILITY. THE COSTS OF SUCH REASSESSMENT SHOULD BE BORNE BY THE
RESPONSIBLE ASSESSING JURISDICTION.
E-2 SALES RATIO EQUALIZATION
WherEs, taxing units in the seven-county metropolitan area are subject
(1) to certain area-wide levies and (2) to Fiscal Disparity
allocations , it is necessary to ensure tax equalization among these
various tax units. Therefore,
THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD ENACT LEGISLATION WHICH MANDATES AT LEAST A
90% SALES RATIO FOR ALL CITIES WITHIN TIIE SEVEN-COUNTY METROPOLITAN
AREA, THE SALES RATIO SAMPLE TO BE EITHER DONE OR AUDITED BY THE
STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND REQUIRING THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF
REVENUE SHALL MAKE AGGREGATE INCREASES IN THOSE CITIES BELOW 90%.
ALL COSTS INCURRED BY THE COMMISSIONER SHALL BE PAID BY THE ASSESSING
JURISDICTION. THE SALES RATIO DETERMINATION FOR THESE PURPOSES TO BE
MADE ON THE BASIS OF A 12-MONTH PERIOD SAMPLE, BEGINNING NO MORE THAN
18 MONTHS BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT DATE.
FURTHER, THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD DEVELOP LEGISLATION TO ENSURE THAT
SALES RATIO STUDIES AND CALCULATIONS CONSIDER ALL FACTORS OF SALES
AND BE ACCURATE AS TO ACTUAL SALE PRICE OF PROPERTY.
FINALLY, DUE TO INHERENT INACCURACIES IN SALES RATIO DATA AND
CALCULATIONS, THE AMM OBJECTS TO SALES RATIO BEING USED AS A BASIS FOR
PENALTY OR BONUS OF STATE AID FUNDS.
I-F GENERAL FISCAL IMPACT POLICIES
v- ] TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
Tax increment financing has permitted many cities in various parts
of the state to define and carry out rehabilitation , development ,
housing, and economic development projects on their own initiative. It
represents the most feasible and effective legal strategy which is
currently available to cities in preserving and improving the
physical and economic environment in their communities.
THE AMM BELIEVES THAT PRESENTLY NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES ARE NECESSARY
AND RECOMMENDS THAT NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES BE MADE BY THE LEGISLATURE
UNTIL THERE HAS BEEN SUFFICIENT EXPERIENCE TO DETERMINE IF CHANGES
ARE NEEDED.
F-2 FISCAL NOTES
Many laws are passed each year by the legislature which have a
substantial effect on the financial viability of cities. Some
of these, such as revenue and tax measures, have an obvious and direct
effect which is often calculated and reported during the hearing
process. However, many others, such as worker ' s compensation benefit
increases, mandated activities, binding arbitration and other labor
related legislation, social programs, etc. , are not viewed during
the bill process as to the fiscal impact on cities. Due to the
current restrictive levy limitation laws, many of these hidden costs
are causing severe reductions in the standard services which must
be provided by local units .
I-12
THE STATE SHOULD ADOPT A POLICY OF "DELIBERATE RESTRAINT" ON ITS
MANDATED PROGRAMS, INCLUDING A MANDATORY FISCAL NOTE IDENTIFYING
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COSTS ON ANY NEW MANDATED PROGRAMS WHEN THEY ARE
INTRODUCED IN THE LEGISLATURE , AND A STATEMENT OF COMPELLING
STATEWIDE INTEREST TO ACCOMPANY ALL STATE MANDATES .
F-3 HOTEL/MOTEL/AMUSEMENT TAX
Currently five cities in the State of Minnesota under legislative
authority existing prior to 1971 levy a 3% use tax on users of hotels,
motels, and certain amusement activities . This authority was
removed by a 1971 law (Minn . Statues 477A. 01 , Subd. 18) prohibiting
imposiiton of a new tax on sales and income . However, the AMM
believes this authority should be restored to provide a modest non-
property source of revenue to all municipalities equally where
such activities exist .
THE ASSOCAITION URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO PERMIT ALL MUNICIPALITIES BY
ORDINANCE TO IMPOSE A HOTEL/MOTEL/AMUSEMENT TAX-
F-4 ELECTRONIC TRANSFER OF FUNDS
Currently Hennepin , Ramsey, and Carver Counties may transfer payments
from the county checking accounts directly to the school districts
bank account . This eliminates mail or personal delivery delays, does
not cost the county any interest loss since money is transferred from
savings to checking as soon as a warrant is issued, and does
excelerate the local unit ' s earning power on the money by as much
as three or four days. In times of current economic stress any
method of efficiency which not only saves money but increases local
funds should be initiated. Therefore,
THE AMM REQUESTS TIIE LEGISLATURE ENACT LAW ENABLING ELECTRONIC TRANSFER
OF FUNDS FROM COUNTY TO CITY IN THE SEVEN COUNTY METROPOLITAN AREA
TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT AND COST EFFECTIVE FUND TRANSACTIONS.
F-5 INVESTMENT OPTIONS
Many state and local governments have improved their cash management
and investment practices in order to increase the rate of return on
invested public funds. The legislature has from time to time
modified state law to allow additional investment options and should
continue to modify statutes which inhibit the ability of local
governments to benefit from safe and high-yielding investment
instrument .
THE AMM ENCOURAGES THE LEGISLATURE TO MODIFY MINNESTOA STATUTE 475.66,
SUB. 3 TO INCLUDE AS INVESTMENT OPTIONS FOR LOCAL UNITS BANKERS
ACCEPTANCES OF UNITED STATES BANKS ELIGIBLE FOR PURCHASE BY THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, AND COMMERCIAL PAPER ISSUED BY UNITED STATES
CORPORATION OR THEIR CANADIAN SUBSIDIARIES, WHICH ARE OF HIGH
QUALITY AND MATURE IN 270 DAYS OR LESS. ALSO, PERMIT MUNICIPAL
UNITS TO REDUCE FIXED INCOME SECURITY INVESTMENT RISK BY HEDGING
POSITIONS WITH FINANCIAL FUTURES.
I-13
F-6 FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING
The Federal General Revenue Sharing program provides vitally needed
funds to cities in Minnesota . CONTINUATION OF THIS PROGRAM IS
ESSENTIAL FOR FISCAL STABILITY OF OUR COMMUNITIES WITH CONTINUED
MULTIYEAR FUNDING.
I-14
T
II .
GENERAL LEGISLATION
II-A MINNESOTA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE LABOR RELATIONS ACT (PELRA)
The AMM recommends that tilt. I a.11owin(j changes affecting cities be made
A-1 Disciplinary action . Employees presently have a variety of
grievance procedures available to them, including civil service 1
systems, veterans preference, and the equal employment opportunity
act .
EMPLOYEES COVERED BY A PELRA AGREEMENT SHOULD BE ABLE TO SPECIFY
WHICH PROCEDURE SHOULD BE USED BY THEM OR SPECIFY A DIFFERENT
PROCEDURE IN THE AGREEMENT, THUS PRECLUDING AN EMPLOYEE FROM
INVOKING TWO PROCEDURES FOR GRIEVANCE. R1
A-2 IMPASSE RESOLUTION. PELRA SHOULD BE AMENDED SO THAT THE
UMPLOYEES MUST EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO STRIKE WITHIN 15 DAYS
FOLLOWING THE EMPLOYEE' S REFUSAL TO ARBITRATE OR FORFEIT SUCH RIGHT.
CURRENT TIME LINES SHOULD BE ELIMINATED. AUTHORITY TO DECLARE AN
IMPASSE SHOULD REST SOLELY WITH THE MEDIATOR.
A-3 SUPERVISORS AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES WITH PUBLIC COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING. SUPERVISORS OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES SHOULD HAVE THEIR
MANAGEMENT ROLE ACKNOWLEDGED AND HAVE THEIR STATUS LIMITED TO MEET
AND CONFER. IN NO EVENT SHOULD SUPERVISORY OR CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES
BE REPRESENTED BY AN EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION WHICH REPRESENTS THE NON-
SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES THEY SUPERVISE THE TERM "SUPERVISORY"
SHOULD BE AS PRESENTLY DEFINED UNDER PELRA FOR NON-ESSENTIAL
EMPLOYEE SUPERVISORS. THE DEFINITION OF SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES
SHOULD NOT BE FURTHER LIMITED. TO DO SO WOULD ESSENTIALLY PROVIDE
THAT- IN ALL BUT CITY MANAGER CITIIS, SEMPLOOYEES SUCOLILDBE EBELCONSIDERED
TO BE SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES FORPURPOSES
NT
LABOR RELATIONS ACT .
A-4 RIGHT TO STRIKE. THE EXISTING CLASSIFICATION OF ESSENTIAL
EMPLOYEES SHOULD BE ELIMINATED AND ALL EMPLOYEES ORGANIZED UNDER
PELRA GIVEN THE RIGHT TO STRIKE. WITHIN THE LIMITED RIGHT TO STRIKE,
TIIE PUBLIC EMPLOYER WOULD HAVE TIIE OPTION OF EITHER REQUESTING
ARBITRATION WITHIN A SPECIFIC TIME OR ALLOWING EMPLOYEES TO LEGALLY
STRIKE.
A-5 Binding arbitration . In the past several years , the legislature
has modified the essential employee binding arbitration procedures
by changing from conventional to issue by issue final offer,
returning to conventional , and finally adopting a short time issue
by issue final offer which has been challenged in court . A final
resolution should be made to avoid the confusion caused by
jumping from one to the other. Issue by issue final offer provides
some advantages over conventional arbitration . In issue by issue
final offer, the parties must negotiate in good faith and each
arrive at a reasonable position on each issue or face an obvious
loss of that issue, wheras in conventional , the final outcome is
left solely to the judgement of an arbitrator whose knowledge of
unique local conditions and finacing may be somewhat limited .
11-1 1
THE AMM STRONGLY URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO ADOPT A SYSTEM OF ISSUE
BY ISSUE 1INAL BEST OFFER ARBITRATION FOR MUNICIPAL ESSENTIAL
EMPLOYEES IN ORDER TO PROMOTE TIIE BEST OPPORTUNITY FOR NEGOTIATION
IN GOOD FAITH BY BOTH PARTIES.
A-6 PICKET LINES. NO CITY EMPLOYEE SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO REFUSE
TO CROSS THE PICKET LINES OF OTHER CITY EMPLOYEES.
II-B POLICE AND FIRE PENSION PROVISIONS
Local police and full time fire relief associations were phased
out by the 1980 legislature , unless the local council opts to keep
the relief association . All new employees will become part of the
state police and fire PERA fund and the state will reimburse local
units for a portion of the unfunded liability remaining in the local
fund . Employee contributions were set at 8% . However, the Legis-
lative R•?tirement Commission has in the past established a general
policy requiring public safety employees to pay 400 of the normal
pension costs . These changes have greatly helped solve a most
serious problem but a few minor adjustments are still necessary .
The AMM believes that :
13-1 SOME FORM OF PORTABILITY INTO TIIE PERA POLICE FIRE FUND SHOULD
BE PROVIDED TO MEMBERS OF LOCAL POLICE AND FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATIONS
IF THEY TAKE A PUBLIC SAFETY POSITION IN ANOTHER GOVERNMENTAL UNIT
BEFORE THEIR PENSION BENEFITS ARE VESTED. THE PERA LAW SHOULD ALSO
BE AMENDED TO PERMIT A MEMBER OF THE PERA POLICE AND FIRE FUND TO
CONTINUE PERA COVERAGE WHEN THE MEMBER TAKES A PUBLIC SAFETY POSITION
IN A CITY WITH A LOCAL RELIEF ASSOCIATION.
B-2 FURTHER, EVEN THOUGH THE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION AMOUNT WAS SET
AT 8%, IN MANY FUNDS THIS IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO 40% OF THE NORMAL COST.
THE AMM URGES THAT THE CONTRIBUTION LEVEL BE SET AT 40% OF THE
NORMAL COST OF FINANCING THE BENEFITS EVEN IF THIS AMOUNT EXCEEDS 8%
OF BASE SALARY. ANY INCREASE IN BENEFITS FOR CURRENT EMPLOYEES
INCLUDING ANY RESULTING DEFICIT, SHOULD BE FINANCED 50% BY THE
EMPLOYING CITY AND 50% BY EMPLOYEES ON A CURRENT BASIS .
II-C CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
Approximately 150 Minnesota cities receive cable TV service, and under
present state and federal law cities are responsible for setting rates
and can impose franchise fees.
THE AMM BELIEVES THIS LAW HAS ALLOWED LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO PROVIDE
INPUT INTO AN IMPORTANT COMMUNITY SERVICE AND THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE
MODIFIED TO DIMINISH LOCAL CONTROL.
II-2
P
II-D INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS j
The AMM supports the policy of the state to facilitate and encourage 1
action by local units of government through the use of industrial
revenue bonds to prevent or remove blighting influences in their
communities; to retain existing businesses and attract new businesses ,
thereby creating new jobs and retaining present employment opport-
unities within the state; and to maintain and strengthe.-i the tax base
of local units of government . It is recognized that controversy
exists concerning various uses of IDR Bonds for some commercial
activities but the overall control is vested with the Federal
Government and any restrictions imposed by the Legislature might
cause Minnesota to be at a development or economic disadvantage among
other states .
THE AMM BELIEVES THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT NEEDS UF
CITIES ARE VERY DIVERSE, AND THEREFORE RECOMMENDS THAT NO LEGISLATION
BE ENACTED BY THE STATE WHICH RESTRICTS BEYOND FEDERAL LIMITATIONS
THE TYPES OF PROJECTS OR USE OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS .
II-E OPPOSE MUNICIPAL BOND SALES CONTROL BY THE STATE
Legislation proposed in the 1980 session would have made the State
Attorney General Bond Counsel for all municipal bonds and placed
authority for selling all bonds with the State Investment Board. This
could lead to increased bond costs and lengthy delays in bond issuance .
The AG office does not have the professional competency to be recog-
nized by bond buyers and would need years and a great deal of money
to develop the competency necessary to eliminate a dual opinion from
the private sector. This would also be a step in the direction of
government bureaucracy taking over a function of private enterprise
which is competent and is working at a time when the public trend is
demanding less government instead of more .
THE AMM OPPOSES ANY LEGISLATION MAKING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BOND
COUNSEL AND/OR THE STATE INVESTMENT BOARD SALES AGENT FOR MUNICIPAL
BOND SALES. FURTHER, IF THE LEGISLATURE PURSUES THIS ISSUE, THEY
SHOULD UNDERTAKE A DETAILED STUDY PRIOR TO ANY LEGISLATIVE ACTION TO
DETERMINE NEED, EFFECTIVENESS, AND COST.
II- F PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS - DAY LABOR
Under the Local Improvement Code, a $5, 000 limitation is established
and if the cost of an improvement is estimated to exceed this amount,
the city is required to advertise for bids for the improvement.
However, there is no similar limitation for improvements which are not
financed by special assessments . Since many cities use their own
employees to construct remodel , or alter city owned property and
perform construction, repair and maintenance on city streets, roads
bridges, and utilities, and do not specially assess these improvements
to any benefited property owner the existing law does not apply to
them. The cost of preparing specifications and various reports for
bids on these types of projects would probably outweigh any potential
cost savings by using private enterprise to perform these functions .
Also, by requiring use of the 'prevailing wage rate ' , all public
works costs could be increased causing higher property taxes .
II
THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFORM MUNICIPAL CONTRACTING LAW ARE SUFFICIENT
TO ENSURE EFFECTIVE CONTROL OF PUBLIC FUNDS EXPENDITURES SO THAT
FURTHER MODIFICATION OF STATUTES REGULATING THESE ACTIVITIES ARE NOT
NECESSARY. LIMITATIONS ON TIIE USE OF DAY LABOR BY CITIES FOR THE ..
DOING OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD NOT BE ENACTED.
I I-G OPPOSE STATE L I CENS I PSC OF GENERAL TRADE CONTRACTORS
Licensing of general trade contractors and various other activitie.>
has long been a local prerogative and the mechanism for license
review, issuance, and enforcement is already in place. The primary
reason that local licensing has been successful and, therefore ,
maintained at the local level , is that inspection and enforcement
personnel reside at the local level , know the area and activities, and
are familiar with local ordinance and restrictions , thus providing
better and faster enforcement. Suggestions have been made to form
a statewide licensing authority and split the revenue among the
state and various municipalities with the municipalities maintaining
enforcement tasks . It is questionable under this arrangement, if
either the state or municipalities would have enough funds to
accomplish the respective tasks . In these times of economic stress
for both the state and local units it does not seem logical to
increase state participation in an area that has and is being handled
effectively at the local level . Therefore,
THE AMM STRONGLY OPPOSES STATE TAKEOVER OF GENERAL TRADE CONTRACTOR
AND OTHER ASSOCIATED TRADE CONTRACTOR LICENSING.
I I-H UNNIFORM BUILDING CODE
The 1979 Legislature virtually eliminated the use of the mandatory
uniform State Building Code in outstate Minnesota by providing adopt-
ion by referendum on a county bases . Where elections have been held,
defeat has been overwhelming. The code has been in effect in the 7
county metropolitan area for several years and has been accepted and
appears to be working as intended. Some cities would like to see the
standards increased, but recognize the necessity of a uniform code
and have no major objections to its use. In fact , even though some
legislators have discussed elimination of its use in the metropolitan
area , there does not seem to be any objections to its use from
public bodies, the private sector , or general citizenry . The only
problems arise with the need for a State Building Code Department and
the permit surcharge needed to fund that department. The state code
is almost a 100% copy of the national uniform code . Building
Inspectors indicate that local problems can be solved through
colleagues and the State Building Inspectors Organization . Therefore,
the State Building Code Department is virtually unnecessary, a waste
of money, and providing a subsidy from surcharges from cities
committeed to highly qualified inspection to areas not committed to
providing that service.
THE AMM STRONGLY OPPOSES ELIMINATION OF A MANDATORY STATE BUILDING
CODE IN TIIE SEVEN COUNTY METROPOLITAN AREA. FURTHER, TIIE AMM URGES
THE LEGISLATURE TO ELIMINATE BOTH THE STATE BUILDING CODE DEPARTMENT
AND BUILDING PERMIT SURCHARGES AND ADOPT AS THE UNIFORM STATE CODE
THE NATIONAL UNIFORM CODE. FINALLY, IF THE LEGISLATURE DETERMINES
THERE IS A NEED TO PERIODICALLY REVIEW STANDARDS, IT COULD CREATE A
II-4
T T
PROFESSIONAL, ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMPOSED OF MUNICIPAL BUILDING
INSPECTORS .
II- I MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL 30AM
Since its orl.enizat ion, the Minnesota Municipal Board ha; strengthened
municipal government by providing a means for the orderly and
intelligent evaluation of proposed incorporations , consolidations
and annexati,,ns throughout the state. Recent additions and changes 1
in the commission ' s authority in annexation and consolidation areas
will encourage and foster an assessment of the consequences for
governmental framework of certain kinds of development and services
in urbanizing fringe areas around cities .
However, there has been some concern expressed in the area of orderly s
annexation . Some officials feel that if the governing bodies of a
city and town concur that, a portion of the town should be annexed
to the city , but that no added territory should be considered, then
through joint resolution the issue should be presented to the
Municipal Board without fear of territorial expansion by the Board.
This is in no way intended to interfere in the Board ' s authority to
approve or disapprove the annexation .
THE AMM URGES TIIE LEGISLATURE TO MODIFY THE ORDERLY ANNEXATION LAW
TO PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE GOVERNING AUTHORITIES OF A CITY
AND TOWN THROUGH JOINT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST AN ORDERLY ANNEXATION
OF A PORTION OF THE TOWN TO THE CITY WITHOUT THE MUNICIPAL BOARD
AUTHORITY TO EXPAND THE TERRITORY OF THE REQUEST. THE BOARDS
AUTHORITY IN TILIS CASE WOULD BE LIMITED TO APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL
ONLY.
I1-J VETERANS PREFERENCE
In 1975 the Legislature adopted a uniform veterans preference
law for state and local government which modified preference in 1
employment and promotion, and in 1977 the Legislature terminated
veterans preference for persons who enter military service after
1976 .
J-1 THE AMM SUPPORTS THESE MODIFICATIONS AND BELIEVES THAT THESE
PROVISIONS SHOULD NOT BE AMENDED FURTHER.
J-2 VETERANS SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE PROTECTED AGAINST UNJUST
DISMISSALS, BUT WHEN A VETERAN' S EMPLOYMENT IS TERMINATED AND HE
OR SHE DOES NOT REQUEST A HEARING WITHIN TEN DAYS, OR WHEN AN
IMPARTIAL HEARING BODY DETERMINES THAT THE DISMISSAL WAS FOR JUST
CAUSE, TIIE LAW SHOULD NOT REQUIRE THAT TIIE VETERAN RECEIVE COMPEN-
SATION FOR ANY PERIOD WHEN SERVICES WERE NOT ACTUALLY PERFORMED.
J-3 FURTHER, THE LAW SHOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE PETITION PRO-
CEDURE IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS . THE
HEARING BODY NEED NOT BE THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (AT ITS OPTION)
IN THOSE CITIES THAT HAVE SUCH A COMMISSION.
11-5
1
J-4 FINALLY, THE LAW SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO ALLOW CITIES TO
TERMINATE VETERANS WITHOUT CAUSE, THE SAME AS ALL OTHER PERSONS,
DURING THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD WITHOUT HEARING.
II-K EMPLOYEE DISABILITY - LOCAL POLICE AND FIRE FUNDS
A number of cities with local police and fire pension funds are
experiencing a problem with employees receiving disability payments
from the local fund and full worker ' s compensation payments totalling
more in after tax take home pay than if they were working. PERA
police and fire emplo ,ees are prohibited by law from receiving greater
pay while on disability than while working, but Minnesota Statutes
424 . 27 specifically prohibits cities with local plans from correcting
the above situation. This quirk in the law is a costly one for
cities and provides impetus for marginally disabled employees to stay
home . Why work when you can make more by nOt working? Therefore,
THE AMM URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO CORRECT MINNESOTA STATUTE 424 . 27 TO
ELIMINATE THE ABILITY OF AN EMPLOYEE IN A LOCAL POLICE OR FIRE FUND
TO RECEIVE DOUBLE DISABILITY PAYMENTS WHICH EXCEED THE NORMAL AFTER
TAX WORKING INCOME. FURTHER, THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD CLARIFY AND
ESTABLISH STANDARDS SIMILAR TO PERA FOR DETERMINING DISABILITY.
II-L POLICE OFFICER ELIGIBILITY AND RECRUITMENT
During the 1978 legislative session the Legislature adopted a uniform
state licensing recruitment for police officers which is unparalleled
in any other area of the United States . The requirements enforced
by the Minnesota Peace Officer Standards & Training Board (MPOST)
stipulate mandatory minimum standards for recruitment, training and
conduct of police officers which significantly infringe on the pre-
rogatives of local government . In conjunction with establishing the
POST Board and rules and regulations, the legislature also eliminated
the former BCA schooling and training program for entry level police
officers . The POST rules and regulations became effective July 1 , 1979
Under these rules and regulations, any one interested in becoming a
police officer must have two years of law enforcement training after
which they are given a written examination administered by POST. They
are then required to take an eight week skill course. Five institut-
ions are certified as meeting POST requirements for the 2 year
training in the metro area; Metro U, Lakewood Community College,
Inver Hills Community College, North Hennepin Community College and
Normandale Community College . Under the present operation,
completion of the skills level requirements can only be accomplished
through full time day time attendance. In the two years since POST
has been in effect, several problems have arisen . The first of those
problems deals mainly with the age and maturity of the applicant now
being tested for the police officer position by metropolitan
jurisdictions . Formerly that applicant was predominately a mid to
lute twenty year old applicant , many times possessing a four year
degree, however, not necessarily related to the law enforcement area .
Many applicants were individuals interested in a complete career change
and often times older and of more mature character. The two year
law enforcement degree requirement has now shifted that applicant to
a much younger age group. Applicants who have entered the law
enforcement program right out of high school generally, compared to the
11-6
previous applicant pool , demonstrate a lack of maturity and people
contact experience . In many instances this applicants ' interest
.:n police work is based on misrepresented ideas of what police work
is really like.
The second major problem with the present POST regulations is the full I
time eight weeks skill course process . This process makes it extremely )
difficult for an individual interested in a career change , while at
the same time being required to work to support a family, to take
the time off ,iecessary to complete the skills training course .
These two problems have significantly inhibited police agencies ,
particularly in the suburban areas, to attract a mix of qualified
police candidates .
Another problem is that minority enrollment in POST-certified schools
is too low to provide police departments with an opportunity to hire
qualified minority group members as police officers . Under current
POST rules and regulations, some cities may not be able to meet their
affirmative action goals .
The present regulations also effectively deny a police officer
candidate the opportunity to obtain, or police jurisdiction the
opportunity to provide on-the-job-experience and training prior to
becoming a full fledged officer. This practice is followed in many
other employment sectors through either an apprenticeship or intern-
ship program. It works to the advantage of both the employer and
employee .
The present system of certifying police officers in the State of
Minnesota does not contain adequate flexibility to address on-the-
job-training and ultimate certification through a one year apprent-
Iceship or internship program in lieu of 2 years of formalized
training.
AS A RESULT OF THESE PROBLEMS, AMM RECOMMENDS THAT THE PRESENT POST
RULES AND REGULATIONS BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE FOR FOUR-YEAR COLLEGE
GRADUATES TO TAKE AN EQUIVALENCY EXAMINATION AND UPON SUCCESSFUL
COMPLETION OF TI!E EQUIVALENCY EXAMINATION BE ELIGIBLE FOR HIRING AS
A POLICE OFFICER WITH COMPLETION OF TIIE SKILL TRAINING ON A PART TIME
BASIS. FURTHER, THE AMM RECOMMENDS THAT THE SKILLS TRAINING COURSES
BE OFFERED THROUGHOUT TIIE METRO AREA ON A PART TIME BASIS AND THAT
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ENTRY LEVEL POLICE OFFICER BE RE-EXAMINED
THEREBY MAKING AVAILABLE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR APPLICANTS TO ASSUME A
POSITION OF POLICE OFFICER WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT CERTAIN LEVELS OF
TRAINING ANI) SKILLS MUST 13E ACHIEVED WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF
TIME NOT TO EXCEED ONE YEAR PRIOR TO CERTIFICATION. THE AMM ALSO
RECOMMENDS THAT STATE LAW BE AMENDED TO REQUIRE POST-CERTIFIED
SCHOOLS TO DEVELOP A RECRUITMENT SYSTEM WHICH PROVIDES ADEQUATE
REPRESENTATION OF MINORITIES AND THAT THE PRESENT POST RULES AND
REGULATIONS BE AMENDED TO ALLOW COMPARABLE OUT-OF-STATE TRAINING
COURSES AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR POST-CERTIFIED SCHOOL TRAINING. THIS
SUBSTITUTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED ONLY IF THE CANDIDATE CAN PASS AN
EQUIVALENCY EXAM AND TIIE SKILLS COURSE.
1
II-7
1
1
Il-M JUDICIAL SYSTEM
The principal job of municipal government is to protect people and
their property . The people, through their property taxes, pay a
considerable amount for this protection primarily in the form of
polite and fire service . For some while, police departments and
municipal officials have been frustrated by an apparent leniency of
judgements being handed down by our municipal and district courts
whereby, after having expended a considerable amount of the public '_
money and often taking considerable risks, a violater is apprehended
and prosecuted in court only to be turned out with a suspended or
light sentence .
In some communities youth crime and status offense have become such
a major problem that the traditional process is no longer effective .
The courts and probation departments cannot cope with the magnitude
of numbers and, therefore, youthful offenders are more often turned
back with only a reprimand or not even petitioned into the system
for the first two or three offenses. The negative effects of this
process are twofold; 1) It tends to reinforce the violator 's lack
of respeci_ for others and their contempt for the law, especially
impressionable youth; and 2) It is terribly demoralizing for our
police departments and law abiding citizens .
The Assocation realizes that this is an extremely complex subject
but through discussions with various judicial , public safety and
municipal officials would like to offer the following suggestions
as a beginning for possible solution to this most socially destructive
and costly problem.
M-1 Youth Service Bureau . Youth service bureaus operating within
or by joint powers agreement among a small number of communities
and sponsored through federal and state grants have proven successful
in curbing increased incidence of repetitive youth offense,
expecially because of their ease and speed of access by local clients .
Al youth service bureau attempts, through counseling, to avert
establishment of a pattern of youth lawbreaking . Youth are referred
by police, school , and court . In most cases, the youth would either
have been released to parents with police or school reprimand, or
given a lecture by a judge and then released fostering a "nothing
will happen to me" attitude. By utilizing the YSB, a youth will
retain some semblance of respect for the law.
However, the YSB concept is becoming endangered in many areas because
of the limitation of funds caused by current levy limitation
restrictions.
THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD ENCOURAGE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO SPONSOR YOUTH
SERVICE BUREAU TYPE ACTIVITIES AS A HELP AND BUFFER TO THE COURT SYSTEM
AND A PREVENTATIVE FOR HABITUAL YOUTH OFFENSE. THE LEGISLATURE HAS
ALREADY ALLOCATED SOME FUNDS FOR THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY, BUT TO SUCCEED
MUST PROVIDE LOCAL UNITS THE ABILITY TO FUND THESE PROGRAMS THROUGH
THE LOCAL PROPERTY TAX LEVY BY USE OF A SPECIAL LEVY .
II-8
' p
ii
M-2 Community work restitution program for youth and non-violent
adult crime. Many youth crimes involve acts of vandalism.
Incarceration , fines , or reprimands tend not to be a solution
or- future preventative . However, some courts working with local
municipalities have adopted community work restitution programs .
A youthful offender is assigned a work experience for a stated
number of hours , to be completed in a certain length of time
within the local •community. This has proven quite successful
where implemented, and should be integrated into the judical
process so that it may be utilized prior to, or during the
actual court eperience. This same concept could be extended to
adults for nun-violent type crimes where the individual is not
a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the general public.
THE AMM URGES THE VARIOUS COURT SYSTEMS, MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS, AND
THE LEGISLATURE, TO THE EXTENT THAT IT CAN, TO ENCOURAGE AND MAKE
POSSIBLE COMMUNITY WORK RESTITUTION PROGRAMS, TO BE IMPLEMENTED AND
UTILIZED AT ANY TIME WITHIN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS. THIS MAY REQUIRE
MAKING AVAILABLE FUNDING METHODS THROUGH GRANTS OR SPECIAL LEVIES .
M-3 Youth punishment . Because of the increasing incidence of youthful
offenders, the judicial system out of sheer burden tends to be some-
what lax in punishment until the offender has many repeated
appearances before the court .
THE AMM SUGGESTS STRONGER ACTION FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS, ESPECIALLY
BEFORE A PATTERN OF LAWBREAKING HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, THUS DISCOURAGING
REPEATED ACTS BECAUSE THE YOUTH KNOWS THAT HARSH PUNISHMENT WILL OCCUR.
M-4 Criminal justice guideline committee. There is a growing concern
among local officials about the lack of victim protection as well as
a feeling that sentencing guidelines do not provide for strong enough
penalties.
T111', AMM 1t1?('OMMENI)S 'I'UA'I' 'I'111; CRIMINAI, JUSTICE GUIDELINE COMMITTEE
RE-EVALUATE '1'1Il;IIt PRESENT POLICY ANI) PItOVII)E GREATER EMPHASIS ON
RESTITUTION AND PROTECTION TO VICTIMS AND STRONGER PENALTIES FOR
HABITUAL CRIMINALS.
II-N UNIFORM INFORMATION PRACTICES
Under the existing state law, it is necessary that the legislature
continue to classify that city data , the release of which would
adversely affect the public interest , the health /welfare or
reputation of the data subject , or which would render unworkable a
program authorized by law. As an alternative to this very specific 1
method of classifying individual elements of data;
THE AMM RECOMMENDS THAT THE LEGISLATURE ADOPT THE APPROACH TAKEN BY
THE UNIFORM INFORMATION PRACTICES ACT, AS DEVELOPED BY THE NATIONAL
CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS, AND AS MODIFIED
TO MEET THE NEEDS OF CITIES IN MINNESOTA. THIS MODEL ACT WOULD
PROVIDE INCREASED FLEXIBILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY TO THE GOVERNING
BODY FOR MAKING DATA AVAILABLE OR NOT AVAILABLE AS WELL AS PROVIDE A
SYSTEM LESS BURDENSOME TO ADMINISTER THAN THE EXISTING LAW.
II-9
II-O OPPOSE ELIMINATION OF SALE OF 3.2 BEER IN MINNESOTA
Legi.E-lation has been proposed which would eliminate the manufacture
and sale of 3. 2 beer in Minnesota and provide that places currently
sellir.g 3 . 2 beer could sell strong beer. Cities would still have
the authority to license. This could cause problems of control and
policing the sale of a strong alcoholic beverage to minors in the
multitude of grocery stores and service stations throughout the
cities . Therefore,
THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES OPPOSES THE ELIMINATION
OF 3. 2 BEER MANUFACTURE AND SALES IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, AND
FURTHER OPPOSES THE REPLACEMENT OF 3. 2 BEER WITH STRONG BEER AS AN
OPTION FOR SALE AT CURRENT 3. 2 BEER SALES LOCATIONS .
II-P PROSECUTION BY COUNTY ATTORNEYS
Experience over the past few years has shown that many cities,
especially smaller cities, have experienced costs for prosecution and
associated activities beyond their ability to support .
THE AMM RECOMMENDS THAT THE LAW BE AMENDED TO REQUIRE THAT COUNTY
ATTORNEYS PROSECUTE CASES INVOLVING LOCAL OR STATE LAW WHERE THE CITY
COUNCIL BY ORDINANCE HAS DESIGNATED THAT THE VIOLATION OF CERTAIN
ORDINANCES OR MISDEMEANORS WOULD BE PROSECUTED BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY.
THE COUNTY SHOULD RETAIN APPROXIMATELY TWO-THIRDS OF THE FINES WHEN
IT IS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY' S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROSECUTE, AND WHEN IT
IS THE CITY' S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROSECUTE, THE CITY SHOULD RETAIN
APPROXIMATELY TWO-THIRDS OF THE FINES .
II-0 OPPOSE INITIATIVE-REFERENDUM FOR ZONING ORDINANCES
The Municipal Planning Act has been interpreted to allow for initiative
and referendum (IR) in cities with charter provisions allowing for IR.
There is evidence that this interpretation has interfered with cities '
efforts to achieve their planning and development goals, particularly
in the housing field in the metropolitan area .
First, the statutory procedure on zoning ordinances provides ample
opportunity for the participation of both the general public and
individual property owners in decisions relating to zoning ordinances
or the Municipal Comprehensive Plan . It is inappropriate to allow
such a long deliberative process to be overturned by a relatively few
voters who may have narrow interests in the issue .
Second, the clear intent of the existing planning law is that zoning
ordinances and amendments not be subject to IR. Without a clear
uniform statutory procedure for the implementation of municipal
planning, statutory and charter cities will be subject to different
procedures and the intent of the act will not be realized. Therefore,
THE AMM SUPPORTS AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING ACT TO PROVIDE
THAT ZONING ORDINANCES AND AMENDMENTS NOT BE SUBJECT TO CITY CHARTER
PROVISIONS ON INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM.
II-10
II-R SHADE TREE DISEASE CONTROL PROGRAM
Since 1977 the legislature has made a strong comrnittment to control
Dutch Elm and Oak Wilt tree diseases by enacting an excellent Shade
Tree Disease Control proyrain and backing that legislation with
sufficient fundfny to bring the diseases under control . However,
due to lack of financing in the most recent past, Dutch Et,n disease
is once again spreading rapidly as it has in other areas of the
country when inancial comrnittment has stopped. Therefore, the AMM
urges the legislature to:
R-1 CONTINUE THE SHADE TREE DISEASE CONTROL LEGISLATION WITH NO
CHANGES AND TO PERMIT CITIES TO USE SPECIAL LEVIES, SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS,
AND OTHER SOURCES TO FUND LOCAL CONTROL PROGRAMS.
R-2 FURTHER, THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD CONTINUE TO MAKE SHADE TREE DISEASE
CONTROL A TOP PRIORITY ISSUE AND WHEN FUNDS BECOME AVAILABLE RE-ENACT
THE GRANT PROGRAM AT A SUFFICIENT LEVEL TO ACHIEVE A 50% SANITATION
AND REFORESTATION TARGET LEVEL.
II-S TREE REMOVAL AND TREATMENT LICENSING
The high incidence of Dutch Elm and Oak Wilt disease has understandably
caused a large increase in the activity and numbers of firms in the
tree removal and treatment service business . Several proposals have
been made to initiate metropolitan or statewide licensing and setting
of standards . The Association does concur that some form of consumer
and worker protection, as well as control of chemical treatment
activities, would be advisable . However, we would oppose mandatory
licensing on state or metropolitan level . Licensing of contractors and
various activities has long been a local prerogative and the mechanism
for license review, issuance and enforcement is already in place . The
primary reason that local licensing has been successful and, therefore,
maintained at the local level , is that inspection and enforcement
personnel reside at the local level and are much more familiar with
the area and activities , thus providing better and faster enforcement .
Most local units currently have a tree inspector and some form of
control/removal program. It then logically follows that licensing
could most economically and efficiently be initiated and enforced at
this level .
S-1 THE ASSOCIATION URGES MUNICIPALITIES TO ADOPT TREE REMOVAL AND
TREATMENT LICENSING PROCEDURES FOR THE PROTECTION OF PROPERTY OWNERS,
THE GENERAL PUBLIC, AND EMPLOYEES OF FIRMS ENGAGED IN THAT SERVICE.
TO THAT END, THE ASSOCIATION HAS DEVELOPED AND WILL MAKE AVAILABLE TO
INTERESTED MUNICIPALITIES A MODEL ORDINANCE SETTING STANDARDS AND
REGULATING THE ACTIVITIES OF TREE REMOVAL AND TREATMENT FIRMS.
S-2 THE ASSOCIATION STRONGLY SUPPORTS TREE REMOVAL AND TREATMENT
LICENSING AT THE PREROGATIVE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT BUT DOES STRONGLY
OPPOSE INITIATION OF MANDATORY LICENSING AND/OR LICENSING AT THE STATE
OR METROPOLITAN LEVEL IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE STATE ESTABLISH
UNIFORM MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR SHADE TREE TREATMENT CONTRACTORS AND
BUSINESSES.
II-11
S-3 RECOGNIZING THAT THERE ARE EFFORTS ON THE PART OF SOME TO
LEGISLATE STATE OR METROPULITAN WIDE LICENSING, THE AMM URGES THAT IF
AREA WIDE LICENSING IS CONSIDERED, THAT A PROVISION BE INCLUDED
ALLOWING A LOCAL UNIT TO REVOKE THE LICENSE PROVISIONS WITHIN ITS
JURISDICTION FOR CAUSE.
II-T OPPOSE LOCAL AUDIT PROPOSAL BY SIAM AUDITOR
The , State Auditor issued a report dated April 14 , 1982, entitled
' Guideline for the Audit Responsibility of Local Governmental Units
within Minnesota ' . The report indicates that of 4 , 308 units of
government including counties, cities, towns, school districts,
intergovernmental agencies, and fire relief associations only 1369
have a legal audit requirement and of those the state auditor has
mandatory audit responsibility for 370 . The auditor is suggesting
that generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS) are implemented in
Minnesota , that uniform accounting and reporting be standardized for
all units, and that all units meet uniform auditing standards . It is
further proposed that all units have an audit requirement (reporting
requirements for very small units) and fall under the jurisdiction of
the state auditor whose office would be empowered to audit each unit
once every four years. Fees would be related to actual cost. The
local units of government would be expected to select an audit firm
with the approval of the state auditor. Only audit firms passing a
peer review (process established by State Auditor) would qualify for
doing audits. The state auditor would prescribe all standards , proc-
edures, and reporting requirements .
While the AMM finds merit in the goal of achieving a higher degree of
efficiency and accountability, it is questionable if it is necessary
to create a burgeoning buracracy that would in effect dictate which
audit forms are acceptable beyond the standards of education and
competency lready in place. Do all units really need to comply with
a standard audit which may imply costly conversion to accrual
accounting? Most units under 2500 population are on a cost basis,
while all units above that use accrual or modified accruel . Is there
reaily a need to standardize reporting between cities and schools, or
schools and counties? Reporting within individual types of local
units is already fairly well standardized. The auditor currently
reviews all audits and can make suggestons on reporting or procedure
modifications. This proposal appears to suggest moving away from a
well working private sector service to a larger more controlled
governmental operation . It implies greater cost in times when all unitE
of government are trying to reduce costs.
THE AMM OPPOSES AS UNNECESSARY THE STATE AUDITOR HAVING ADDITIONAL
IN HOUSE AUDIT AUTHORITY AND THE ASSUMPTION OF POWER TO DESIGNATE OR
APPROVE AUDIT FIRMS FOR CITIES.
II-12
III
HOUSING IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA
ROUSING PROBLEM
Housing is a .:.:tropolitan problem of major proportions. According to
demographic data compiled by the Metropolitan Council, there is an estimated
need for about 180,000 new housing units in the metropolitan area during
this decade. A significant portion of these units are needed for persons
who cannot afford market rate housing. There are strong indications that
under existing conditions there is no way to meet the total need for housing
or the need of the lower income segment. In addition, there is an equally
important problem of maintaining and re-using the existing housing stock
effectively. Otherwise, more new housing will have to be produced to make
up for unnecessary losses and there will be an under utilization of public
service investments.
The Federal and State Governments appear to be reducing their financial
committments to provide housing for low and moderate income persons and this
will intensify the housing shortage problem for those unable to purchase or
rent at market rates. It is also apparent that local units of government do
not have the financial capability to assume the shortfall in Federal and
State provided subsidies. The housing shortage problem for persons unable to
afford market rate housing can only be solved if all levels of government
and the private sector work together and if each contributes a fair share
to the solution.
THE ASSOCIATION BELIEVES:
The local property tax system should not be used as the vehicle to implement
or finance federal, state or regional housing policies. The city services which
are provided to property owners and financed by property taxes do not relate
to the financial ability of the property owners. Since property taxes provide
the major revenue source for many cities, any reduction in property taxes for
which the cities are not compensated will just compound the problem.
Each level of government should contribute its fair share to help solve the
problem and each level's contributions should be of the kind it is best suited
to make. The Federal and State Levels should continue to provide most of the
direct subsidies for low and moderate income persons. The Federal and State
Governments also have the responsibility to improve the overall investment
climate and to provide a taxing mechanism so that the private sector can produce
rental units that are affordable to low and moderate income households. The
State should also grant local units of government the authority and flexibility
to conduct the kind of housing programs that best meets their diverse needs.
The Metropolitan Council should develop a realistic comprehensive housing
plan for the Metropolitan Area that provides specific guidance to the public
and private sectors so that both can make rational decisions relative to future
housing needs; a plan which delineates the responsibilities of all the "actors"
in a complex housing delivery system.
III-1
Local units of Government have a strong role to play as well .
Even though local land use controls constitute a small portion
of the total cost of housing local units should not set require-
ments which go beyond what is necessary for the protection of health,
safety and welfare. Local units should also work with the private
sector to make 'the best use of existing tools (revenue bonds, tax
increment financing, etc: ) to produce housing which is more
affordable.
Finally decision maker at all levels of government must become more
cognizant of their actions, policies, and decisions which have an
indirect but substantial impact on housing costs. Such actions,
policies, and decisions may in themselves be worthwhile and beneficial
but which do drive up the cost of housing.
BASED ON THE PROBLEM DEFINITION AND THESE BELIEFS, THE ASSOCIATION
RECOMMENDS:
EXAMINE LOCAL REQUIREMENTS
COMMUNITIES EXAMINE THEIR LOCAL REQUIREMENTS (LAND USE
REGULATIONS, SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES, ETC. ) TO SEE IF THESE
REQUIREMENTS GO BEYOND WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF
HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE, AND ACTUALLY INHIBIT THE
CONSTRUCTION OF BASIC SHELTER HOUSING. MODIFICATIONS SHOULD
BE MADE WHEN APPROPRIATE.
While local requirements constitute a very small portion of the
total cost of producing housing, all participants in the housing
delivery system need to do their part to hold costs down .
MANDATORY STANDARDS ANI) ALTERNATIVE HOUSING
THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD NOT PASS LEGISLATION WHICH SETS MANDATORY
ZONING AND SUBDIVISION STANDARDS OR WHICH REMOVES LAND USE
REGULATION AUTHORITY FROM LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT. CITIES
SHOULD RETAIN THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE LOCATION, SIZE,
AMOUNT, AND TYPE OF HOUSING , INCLUDING MANUFACTURI?I) ANI) ACCESSORY
HOUSING, WITHIN THEIR BOUNDARIES.
Mandatory, uniform land use standards for housing style and
location would not be appropriate because of the great diversity
among cities and differences within cities relative to state of
development , topography, lot and dwelling sizes, the mix of
housing values and costs, and the level of municipal services
which are provided. Therefore, cities should retain the
authority to regulate land uses, including the determination as
to whether alternative housing, such as manufactured and accessory
housing can be located in areas where other modes of housing
have been established.
Land use regulation is one of the tools city officials need to
protect the health, safety, welfare, and interests of the city ' s
residents.
III-2
1
C. PROGRAM LATITUDE
THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD PROVIDE BROAD PROGRAM LATITUDE AND
FUNDING TO ENABLE TIIE DEVELOPMENT OF INNOVATIVE APPROACHES AND
CREATIVE PROGRAMS WHICH WILL INCREASE THE PRODUCTION OF
HOUSING FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME PERSONS.
There is a natural tendency on the part of the Legis 'ature
when it provides funding to a state agency or political
subdivisions to make sure that it is a "safe investment" .
Conseque=ntly, the guidelines and strings attached to such
funding may inhibit those agencies and subdivisions from
being creative and innovative .
D. RENEWAL OF FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDING
FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDING SHOULD CONTINUE FOR THE PURPOSES OF
RENOVATING AND REHABILITING SUBSTANDARD HOUSING UNITS.
The Federal and State Levels of Government have a broader and
deeper tax base than local units of government and should
continue to provide the funding necessary to implement federal
and state housing policy. The Federal and State Governments
should maintain their policy committments of providing adequate
housing for those unable to compete in the market place for
such housing.
E. AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR LOCAL HOUSING PROGRAMS
CITIES SHOULD BE GRANTED SUFFICIENT AUTHORITY AND FLEXIBILITY
BY THE LEGISLATURE TO CONDUCT HOUSING PROGRAMS THAT MEET THE
DIFFERING NEEDS OF DIVERSE CITIES AND THAT ENABLE CITIES TO
COMPLY WITH THE METROPOLITAN LAND PLANNING ACT WHICH DIRECTS
CITIES TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY FOR LOW AND MODERATE COST HOUSING.
CITIES SHOULD BE ALLOWED, IF THEY DESIRE, TO REQUIRE LOWER COST
HOUSING IN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND TO REQUIRE THE DEDICATION
OF LAND OR CASH FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING AS AN
ALTERNATIVE TO THE REQUIRED DEDICATION FOR PARKS. ALSO, CITIES
SHOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DEVELOP HOUSING FOR MIDDLE AND
UPPER INCOME PERSONS IF THAT IS NEEDED TO ACHIEVE A BALANCED
HOUSING STOCK.
There is a great diversity among the cities in the metropolitan
area . Some cities need more housing for low and moderate income
persons while other cities need more housing for middle and
upper income persons. Cities should have the authority to promote
whichever kind of housing is within the public purpose and best
interest of the city to do so. It is also important that state
and federal agencies cooperate with cities in developing unique
programs to meet the diverse needs of cities. Cities need to have
more control over the cost of housing hoing developed if they
are to meet the intent of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act . In
a practical sense, municipalities may be able to require reduced
cost housing currently, but it is preferable to have this
authority specified by statute specifically. Dedication would
provide land, or cash in lieu of land, for housing needs and is
not intended to be in addition to parks dedication but a
III-3
1
substitute for it if that would better enable the city to
meet its overall needs .
F. METROPOLITAN BOND GUARANTEE FUND
T1ii LEGISLATURE SIIOULD CONSIDER ESTABLISHING A METROPOLITAN BOND
GUARANTEE FUND TO ASSIST CITY EFFORTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF
LOWER INCOME HOUSING.
Raw land cost is one of the most important factors in the
development of lower income housing. The lack of reasonably
• priced sites for lower income housing often deters developers and
community interest in undertaking its development . It is also
important to recognize that as the availability of reasonable
priced land becomes more scarce in the metropolitan area , the
role of local government in making available low cost sites for
the development of lower income housing becomes more important .
Municipal bonds are the major source of revenue available to
local communities to finance the acquisition of land for lower
income housing. While in many communities the issuance of
municipal obligations for such purposes may not present a
problem, the vast majority of communities in the metropolitan
area do not have an adequate municipal credit rating to insure
a salable or feasible issuance.
A metropolitan bond guarantee fund would provide the necessary
security for the issuance of municipal bonds to finance land
acquisition activities . Local communities would be able to
secure necessary insurance for obligations to finance land
acquisition activities without increasing their debt service
requirements beyond desirable levels.
G. PRACTICES WHICH INCREASE HOUSING COSTS
THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND STATE AGENCIES SHOULD EXAMINE THEIR
PRACTICES AND POLICIES TO DETERMINE POSSIBLE HIDDEN IMPACTS ON
HOUSING COSTS OF SAID PRACTICES AND POLICIES NOT DIRECTLY
RELATED TO HOUSING. CHANGES SHOULD BE MADE AS NECESSARY.
Decision makers at various levels of government must become more
cognizant of actions they take which have an indirect but
substantial impact on housing costs. These actions in themselves
may be worthwhile and beneficial , but when implemented result in
increased housing costs . Example of this type of action would
include such things as the sewer availabilitg charge , restricted
growth policies, building and energy codes, PCA requirements, etc.
H. RENTAL HOUSING IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA
THAT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT BECOME INVOLVED TO SUCCESSFULLY
ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS IN THE RENTAL MARKET. IN PARTICULAR, THE
STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE CRUCIAL ROLES IN IMPROVING
THE OVERALL INVESTMENT CLIMATE SO THAT THE PRIVATE SECTOR CAN
PRODUCE BOTH RENTAL AND OWNER OCCUPIED UNITS AND IN PROVIDING
SUBSIDY FUNDS SO THAT LOW AND MODERATE HOUSEHOLDS CAN AFFORD
DECENT RENTAL UNITS. POSSIBLE ACTIONS INCLUDE:
III-4
- MODIFYING FEDERAL AND STATE TAX POLICIES TO IMPROVE THE
OVERALL INVESTMENT CLIMATE FOR THE PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
OF RENTAL HOUSING.
- CONTINUING AND INCREASING TIIE LEVEL OF FUNDING AIMED AT GIVING
LOW AND. MODERATE INCOME FAMILIES ACCESS TO DECENT HOUSING.
- CONTINUING PROGRAMS WHICH USE TAX EXEMPT BONDING TO CREATE
BELOW MARKET RATE FUNDS FOR BOTH RENTAL AND OWNER OCCUPIED
UNITS.
- EXPANDING PROGRAMS WHICH ALLOW REHABILITATION AND WEATHER-
IZATION PROGRAMS TO I3E UTILIZED ON RENTAL UNITS.
- GRANTING LOCAL UNITS MORE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE CONVERNSIO:
OF RENTAL UNITS TO CONDOMINIUMS.
Rental housing plays an important role in the Twin Cities
housing market . Approximately 35 per cent of the housing units
in the Twin Cities region are rental units. Traditionally,
rental units have provided an affordable housing option for
singles, young adults, young marrieds .students , the elderly, and
low and moderate income households. In reality rental housing
units serve a market much more diverse than that served by
owner occupied units. Yet over the past several years a number
of problems have developed in the rental market , including:
1 . Production of new rental units has declined drastically
as households are unable to afford the rents which must
be charged to cover costs and financing.
2. Many households which in the past would have moved from
rental to ownership status are unable to do so due to both
the increased cost of housing units and prohibitive interest
rates.
3. The combination of few additions to the supply of rental
units, increased competition for rental units, increased
operating costs, and general inflation has created a
situation where many rental units are not an affordable
option for low and moderate income households.
4. The supply of existing rental units, which is predominately
efficiency and one bedroom units, does not adequately
address the needs of families seeking rental units .
Precisely because rental housing serves so many diverse types
of households and because the relative size of each category
is changing the solution to these problems must be multifaceted.
III-5
7
IV
METROPOLITAN AREA ISSUES & CONCERNS
PHILISOPHY WITH RESPECT TO METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
The source of all governmental power resides with the people .
The purpose of government is to identify and meet the needs
of the governed. Needs of the people should be met with a
mimumum of involvement on the part of governing units. The
degree of involvement shouy}.dbe that necessary to solve the problem.
Because they are closest to the people, local governing bodies
are generally most suited to deal with the day-to-day problems of
their constituents to introduce practical knowledge to the for-
mation of policies and plans affecting their constituents, and
to see the impact of those policies.
Some issues are beyond the scope of a single governing body.
Therefore, when such issues arise, it is in the interests of
all concerned for governing units to cooperate in reaching a
solution.
There are a few problems which are of such magnitude that they
encompass the concerns of an entire metropolitan area . Such
problems and issues must necessarily be dealt with by a metro-
politan unit . However, that unit should act .i.n cooperation with
local governing bodies by attempting to identify the best solution
before determining courses of action . Metropolitan Agencies and
local governmental units should be viewed as partners with each
respecting the role of the other in solving these problems.
Government must not be insulated from the governed. It must be
kept in mind by all officials, elected and non-elected, that
they are servants of the will of the people.
IV-A PURPOSE OF METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
Due to the political fragmentation of this metropolitan area and
the diverse fiscal conditions, geographic locations, and size of
the local units of government, there is a need for a regional
service delivery system to provide certain services or portions
of certain services to most effectively and efficiently satisfy
the needs of the residents living in this area . Examples of this
type of regional service needs would be the prevention of pollution ,
provision of certain transportation functions, etc. There is also
a need for some planning on a metropolitan wide basis which must
be done in cooperation with local government . The federal
government the :rt ate 'tevernment , to ,a lesser extent , require
that most yrant applications be reviewed by a regional agency to
determine consistency of these applications with regional plans
and programs . Since this activity is beyond the control of local
units of government , the Council appears to be the most logical
agency to perform this function .
THE PRIMARY AND PREDOMINATE PURPOSES OF THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
AND METROPOLITAN COMMISSIONS SHOULD BE TO COORDINATE THE PLANNING
IV-1
i 1
AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN AREA: TO PROVIDE WITHOUT
NEEDLESSS DUPLICATION THOSE AREA WIDE SERVICES WHICH ARE BEYOND
THE CAPABILITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNITS TO PROVIDE INDIVIDUALLY
AND JOINTLY: TO PROVIDE AREA WIDE PLANNING WHERE NECESSARY WITH
COVPERATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNITS: AND TO FULFILL THE
REGIONAL REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES FOR GRANTS AND LOANS AS DIRECTED
BY THE STATE AND FEDERAL' GOVERNMENT.
IV-B CRITERIA FOR EXTENSION OF METROPOLITAN ORGANIZATION POWERS
There is a natural tendency of any organization to seek more authority
in both breadth and depth; therefore, increased authority to the
Council and its Commissions should contain carefully considered
specific direction.
B-1 ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE NOT MANDATED BY FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENT
BUT MAY BE UNDERTAKEN THROUGH USE OF GRANT MONEY SHOULD NOT BE
PURSUED MERELY BECAUSE MONEY IS AVAILABLE UNLESS THERE IS A NEED
THAT MUST BE SATISFIED FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE METROPOLITAN AREA AND
THEN SHOULD BE PURSUED ONLY AFTER A THOROUGH EVALUATION TO DETERMINE
WHAT AD)DITIONAI, ILOCAI, OR STATE EXPENDITURES ARE NECESSARY TO COMPLETE
THE AC I T I V ITY, REACT TO THE FINDINGS OR IMPLEMENT A PROGRAM.
TIIE LEGISLATURE, IN GRANTING TIIE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AUTHORITY TO
UNDERTAKE AN ACTIVITY, SHOULD SPECIFICALLY STATE THE AUTHORITY BEING
GRANTED AND NOT INCLUDE GENERAL LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE SUCH AS. . . "IN-
CLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SUCH MATTERS AS. . . "
ANY EXPANSION OR EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ONLY
WHEN AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS EXISTS:
-TIIE SERVICE, FUNCTION, OR ACTIVITY HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE NEEDED AND
CANNOT BE EFFECTIVELY OR EFFICIENTLY PROVIDED OR ADMINISTERED THROUGH
EXISTING GENERAL PURPOSE UNITS OF GOVERNMENT.
-INTERVENTION ON A REGIONAL BASIS IS NEEDED FOR PROTECTION OF THE
REGIONAL INVESTMENT IN THE METROPOLITAN PHYSICAL SERVICE SYSTEMS.
-THE SERVICE FUNCTION OR ACTIVITY IS MANDATED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERN-
MENT.
B-2 THE USE OF THE A-95 OR SIMILAR REVIEW AUTHORITY BY THE METRO-
POLITAN COUNCIL SHOULD BE LIMITED TO JUDGING THE CONSISTENCY OF THE
PROPOSAL WITH THE REGIONAL GOALS AND POLICIES AND NOT GIVE PRIORITY OR
PREFERENCE FOR DEVELOPING EXTRA NON-MANDATED CRITERIA.
IV-C METROPOLITAN COMPREHENSIVE GOVERNANCE STUDY
The Legislative Commission on Metropolitan Governance has now
completed the first phase of its work - - -that of receiving public
input . The second phase will be for the Commission to develop
recommendations based on the imput for ultimate consideration by
the Legislature. The third phase will consist of the Commission
holding hearings on its recommendations prior to submission to the
Legislature. The AMM believes the second and third phases are
very important and we urge the Commission to be very diligent during
these phases.
IV-2
` 1
C-1 THE AMM WILL SUPPORT COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH WOULD:
-PROVIDE FOR A METROPOLITAN SELECTION METHOD FOR MEMBERS OF THE
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND COMMISSIONS AND ALLOW LOCAL ELECTED
OFFICIALS TO SERVE ON BOTH THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND COMMISSIONS
THEREBY INCREASING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR LOCAL OFFICIALS TO BE DIRECTLY
INVOLVED IN REGIONAL POLICY SETTING ANI) DECISION MAKING.
-PROVIDE FOR A MORE DIRECT AND CONTINUING OVERSIGHT OF THE METROPOLITAN!
COUNCIL ANT) COMMISSIONS BY THE LEGISLATURE .
-PROVIDE A MECHANISM FOR RESOLVING DISPUTES BETWEEN METROPOLITAN
AGENCIES AND LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENTS IN A TIMELY, EQUITABLE AND
COST EFFICIENT MANNER.
-REQUIRE A FISCAL NOTE TO BE PREPARED BY THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL FOR I
PROGRAMS, PLANS AND PROJECTS ORIGINATED BY THE COUNCIL WHICH HAVE A
COST IMPACT ON LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT.
C-2 THE AMM WILL OPPOSE COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH:
-GRANT THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL DIRECT OPERATING AUTHORITY UNLESS SUCH
OPERATING AUTHORITY IS CONSISTANT WITH AMM POLICY IV-B.
-AUTHORIZE THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND/OR COMMISSIONS TO INCREASE
TAXING AND SPENDING LIMITS BY THEIR OWN INITIATIVE.
-ESTABLISH A REGIONAL OPERATING COMMISSION FOR REGIONAL PARKS AND
OPEN SPACE.
-ESTABLISH A SINGLE, UNIFIED BUDGET FOR THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND
COMMISSIONS.
-ALTER THE STRUCTURAL ARRANGEMENTS AND INCREASE THE POWER OF THE
REGIONAL GOVERNANCE SYSTEM.
IV-D REZONING REQUIREMENTS - CITIES OF THE FIRST CLASS
The State Municipal Planning Act sets forth special requirements
for rezoning in Cities of the First Class . Land can be rezoned
only with a consent petition approved by two-thirds of the property
owners within 100 feet o / the property to be rezoned or by a "40-
acre study" . In eflect , neiyhboring property owners have more power
over rezoning than the elected city officials. Also, this causes a
problem for the cities of the first class in meeting the requirements
of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act of 1976 .
THEREFORE THE AMM RECOMMENDS THAT THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING ACT BE
REVISED TO MAKE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR REZONING IN CITIES OF THE FIRST
CLASS CONSISTANT WITH THE PRESENT REQUIREMENTS FOR REZONING IN CITIES
OF THE 2ND. , 3RD. , AND 4TH. CLASS.
IV-3
IV-E GROWTH OF DEVELOPMENT PROBLEMS IN ADJACENT COUNTIES
There has been a noticeable increase in development activities
in the counties adjacent to the metropolitan area such as Wright ,
Sh 'rburne, Chisago, and Isanti . Careful monitoring and analysis
of tnis development will likely reveal the beginning stages of
growth problems similar .to the problems which prompted the establ-
ishment of the Development Framework and Mandatory Land Planning
Act in the metropolitan area . In fact, this development in adjacent
counties may accelerate as more growth controls take effect within
the metropolitan are.i .
To correct any undersirable development patterns which may cause
the unnecessary development or expansion of public service systems
such .as water, wastewater treatment and transportation facilities ,
etc. in the areas, and the negative impact that development may
have upon the metropolitan area, the Association recommends that :
THE LEGISLATURE DESIGNATE AN AGENCY SUCH AS THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT TO MONITOR AND ASSESS URBAN DEVELOPMENT IN
THESE ADJACENT COUNTIES AND REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE AND THE ADMIN-
ISTRATION ON THE NEGATIVE IMPACT OF SUCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT.
IF THE AFOREMENTIONED MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT INDICATES THAT A
PROBLEM EXISTS OR WILL EXIST, THEN THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD ACT
IMMEDIATELY TO PROVIDE THE TOOLS NECESSARY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM IF
THE SOLUTION REQUIRES LEGISLATIVE ACTION. POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS COULD
INCLUDE:
-GRANTING COUNTIES SUFFICIENT POWERS TO CONTROL URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AND/OR,
-GRANTING THE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONS PLANNING AND COORD-
]NATING POWERS PARALLEL TO THOSE OF THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND/OR,
-REQUIRE THAT SUB-DIVISION OF LAND INTO PARCELS OF LESS THAN 5 ACRES
IN ORDER TO BE APPROVED MUST HAVE THE AVAILABILITY OF MAJOR PUBLIC
SERV1('H,S SUCH AS A PUBLIC WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM.
IF THE PROBLEM SOLUTION REQUIRES PUBLIC INVESTMENT, THEN THE COSTS
SHOULD BE BORNE BY THE BENEFITING AREA INCLUDING SUCH HIDDEN COSTS
AS HIGHER TAXES, UTILITY FEES, TRANSPORTATION, ETC.
SINCE 'TIE AREA UNDER DISCUSSION IS NOT PART OF THE ASSOCIATION OF
METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES JURISDICTION, THIS CONCERN SHOULD BE
REVIEWED BY THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES FOR STUDY AND RECOMMENDATION
IV-F FEDERAL A-95 REVIEW, PHASE OUT
President Reagan has issued an executive order which substantially
revises the current system of intergovernmental consultation over
federal grant and development programs. The executive order directs
the revocation of Circulor A-95 and shifts the initiative for setting
IV-4
I
review procedures and priorities to the states and localities.
States are encouraged to fashion their own procedures for review
and coordination and such procedures must be recognized by federal
agencies. Current state law M. S. 473. 171, Subd. 1 . requires the
Metropolitan Council to conduct such review if such reviews are
required by the Federal Government . Since federal review will no
longer be required when this executive order takes effect in
Spring of 1983, the question of reviews will most likely uecome a
legislative issue . It is also predictable that the Metropolitan
Council , Re_q' Jnal Development Commissions and the State Department
of Energy, Planning and Development will urge the adoption of a
state procedure similar to the existing federal A-95 review procedure .
THEREFORE, THE AMM BELIEVES THAT IF THE LEGISLATURE PRESCRIBES A
PROCEDURE TO REPLACE THE FEDERAL A-95 REVIEW PROCEDURE SUCH PROCEDURE
SHOULD BE APPLICABLE AND CONSISTENT ON A STATEWIDE BASIS; REVIEWING
AGENCIES' AUTHORITY SHOULD BE LIMITED TO JUDGING THE PROPOSALS
CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL PLANS, GOALS AND POLICIES AND WHEN A
REGIONAL POLICY OR PLAN EXCEEDS THE REQUIREMENT OF A STATE LAW, NO
PREFERENCE OR PRIORITY CAN BE GIVEN TO PROPOSALS WHICH EXCEED STATE
LAW AS OPPOSED TO PROPOSALS WHICH MEET STATE LAW; AND THE REVIEWING
AGENCY SHOULD REVIEW EACH PROPOSAL PRIMARILY ON ITS OWN MERITS AND
THE AGENCY SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO DOCUMENT ITS REASONS FOR CONSIDERING
OTHER FACTORS NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE
PROPOSAL; AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE CURRENT FEDERAL A-95
REVIEW PROCEDURE SHOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO THE STATE PROCEDURE.
IV-G COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING - ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
Regional , state, and federal governmental levels require a variety
of special-purpose and environmental reviews for a proposed develop-
ment project . Each of these reviews represents a response to a need
or a public concern . Environmental review is a good example. Environ-
mental reviews can cause significant delay which creates uncertainty
and usually higher costs to the developer and ultimately the consumer.
The process of environmental review can also be abused and can take
months or years if a lawsuit is brought to stop the proposal .
Recent attempts have been made to simplify the state environmental
review process, administered by the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) .
In 1976 the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was introduced.
The worksheet is a brief document , a worksheet format, to aid in
determining whether a proposed action has potential for significant
environmental effects that would require the thorough ovaluation of
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) . In most cases, an EIS is
not required, and the environmental review process is complete when
the EAW is cleared. The intent of this process was to simplify
environmental review. Session Laws, 1980, Chapter 477, contained
changes which could lead to a more streamlined process and reduce the
amount of time required to process an EIS.
We commend the Legislature and the EQB for taking these positive steps
to simplify and streamline the environmental review process and further
believe that another forward step would be to incorporate the
IV-5
environmental review process into the planning process via the
comprehensive plan . Each metropolitan area community must prepare
a comprehensive plan, and the plan is an excellent vehicle for
such an approach. Such a comprehensive approach might alleviate
muL'-1 of the delay in the development process caused by the pre-
sentation and reargument of the same issues to various agencies at
different governmental levels.
THEREFORE, THE AMM SUPPORTS THE CONCEPT OF ALLOWING LOCAL COMPRE-
HENSIVE PLANS WHICH CrNTAIN ACCEPTABLE ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS TO
BE USED TO SATISFY F..AVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE EAW AND
EIS PROCESS. FURTHER, THE ENTIRE STATE' S ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY
SYSTEM SHOULD BE STREAMLINED IN SUCH A MANNER TO ENABLE A "ONE-STOP"
PERMIT SYSTEM FOR ALL STATE PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. IN THE SEVEN
COUNTY METROPOLITAN AREA, THIS "ONE-STOP" AUTHORITY COULD POSSIBLY
BE DELEGATED TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL. WE WOULD URGE THE
LEGISLATURE AND OTHER INTERESTED GOVERNMENTAL UNITS AND AGENCIES
TO GIVE THIS MATTER EARLY CONSIDERATION. THE AMM PLEDGES ITS SUPPORT
AND COOPERATION.
IV-H COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING - LOCAL AND REGIONAL INTERACTION
Implementation of the legislation passed in 1976 mandating the
completion of local and regional comprehensive plans is nearly
complete. However, it must be recognized that planning is an ongoing
process, and several precepts should be kept in mind by local units
of government, the Metropolitan Agencies, and the State as this
planning process continues during the 1980 ' s.
METROPOLITAN SYSTEM PLANS, AS WELL AS REGIONAL PLANS FOR THE PHYSICAL
SERVICE SYSTEMS PROVIDING FOR ORDERLY AND MANAGED GROWTH, MUST CONTINUE
TO BE SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC IN TERMS OF LOCATIONS, CAPACITIES, AND
TIMING TO ALLOW FOR CONSIDERATION IN LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING.
THE REGIONAL INVESTMENT IN METROPOLITAN PHYSICAL SERVICE SYSTEMS
(TRANSPORTATION, WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT, AIRPORTS, AND PARK AND OPEN
SPACE) SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE PROTECTED BY PREVENTING ADVERSE IMPACT
ON THESE SYSTEMS DUE TO LACK OF INTEGRATION BETWEEN REGIONAL AND
LOCAL PLANNING.
LOCAL OFFICIALS S MAST HAVE EFFECTIVE INPUT INTO THE REGTONAL PT,ANNTNr,,
PROCESS, PARTICULARLY DURING THE INITIAL PHASES.
DESIGNATION OF OTHER PLANS AS METROPOLITAN SYSTEM PLANS SHOULD NOT
BE MADE UNLESS THERE IS A COMPELLING METROPOLITAN AREA WIDE PROBLEM
OR CONCERN THAT CAN ONLY BE SOLVED THROUGH REGIONAL INTERVENTION.
THE INTEGRITY OF THE LOCAL PLANNING PROCESS SHOULD BE PRESERVED
AND LOCAL PLANS SHOULD REFLECT THE WISHES AND DESIRES OF ITS RESIDENTS
TO THE LARGEST DEGREE POSSIBLE, AND SAID PLANS SHOULD NOT BE IMPINGED
UPON EXCEPT TO PREVENT ADVERSE IMPACT ON METROPOLITAN SYSTEM PLANS OR
OTHER UNITS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
IV-6
1
FINANCIAL ANI) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR LOCAL PLANNING SHOULD BE
PROVIDED FOR THOSE LOCAL UNITS THAT DO NOT HAVE THE FINANCIAL
CAPACITY TO ACCOMPLISH THEIR OWN PLANNING.
COSTS INCURRED BY A LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT IN MODIFYING AN APPROVED
LOCAL PLAN AND/OR MODIFYING PHYSICAL FACILITIES OR SERVICE SYSTEMS
TO INCORPORATE MANDATED STATE OR REGIONAL DICTATES SHOULD BE PAID
FOR BY THE LEVEL MANDATING THE CHANGE .
IV- I HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE PLANNING AND DISPOSAL
The problem of solid and hazardous waste disposal is one of the major
environmental issues of this decade. Legislation addressing this
problem, enacted in 1980 and 1982 responded to most of the concerns
of the Association and the Association supports the general goal of
said legislation . Future legislation should enhance and not diminish
emphasis on the following concepts:
I-1 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL. THE AGENCY OR AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR
DEVELOPING PLANS FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SHOULD FIRST IDENTIFY THE
TYPES OF SOLID WASTE INVOLVED AND THE SOURCES OF THE SOLID WASTE.
THE PLAN SHOULD GIVE FIRST PRIORITY TO ALTERNATIVE USE OF SOLID
WASTE, EMPLOYING THE GENERATION OF ENERGY FROM INCINERATION AND
RECYCLING. LANDFILLS SHOULD ONLY BE PLANNED FOR AND USED AS A LAST
RESORT. SPECIAL EMPHASIS SHOULD BE MADE TO IDENTIFY THE RESPON-
SIBILITIES OF WASTE GENERATORS TO MINIMIZE SOLID WASTE AND MAXIMIZE
ITS RECOVERY AND REUSE.
I-2 HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL. A STATEWIDE PLAN FOR TIIE DISPOSAL AND
REGULATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MUST BE DEVELOPED. HAZARDOUS WASTE
MUST BE DEFINED AND THE SOURCES IDENTIFIED BY TYPE, VOLUME, LOCATION,
AND GENERATOR. THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR GENERATION MUST BE INVOLVED IN
SOLVING THE DISPOSAL PROBLEM. HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATORS MUST BE
ENCOURAGED TO MODIFY PRODUCTION PROCESSES TO RE-USE OR RECOVER AS
MUCH WASTE AS POSSIBLE AND TO USE LESS HAZARDOUS RAW MATERIALS IN
THEIR PROCESS. HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATORS MUST BE REQUIRED TO
HANDLE THE WASTES THAT ARE PRODUCED IN SUCH A WAY THAT WILL ALLOW
THESE WASTES TO BE IDENTIFIED, COLLECTED AND RECYCLED, OR TO BE
DISPOSED OF IN A TECHNOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND MANNER.
DETERMINATION MUST BE MADE OF THE TYPES OF DISPOSAL FACILITIES NEEDED,
AND HOW MANY. SITE SELECTION RULES AND CRITERIA MUST BE ADOPTED PRIOR '
TO THE SITING PROCESS AND MUST BE SUBJECT TO EXHAUSTIVE PUBLIC
HEARINGS. IF LANDFILLING OF VARIOUS TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE BECOME NECESSARY,
PRIME CRI'1ERIA CONSIDERATION SHOULt) BE GIVEN TO GEOLOGICAL ACCEPTABILITY OF
VARIOUS SITES AND TECHNOLOGICAL FAIL/SAFE DESIGN OF THE FACILITY.
I-3 PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING PROCESS. ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT'
INCLUDING CITES, TOGETHER WITH PRIVATE INDUSTRY, MUST BE ENCOURAGED
AND ENABLED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ENTIRE PLANNING PROCESS AND ALSO
TO PROVIDE SOLUTIONS TO TIIE PROBLEMS WHERE FEASIBLE. BECAUSE OF THE
COMPLEXITY OF DEALING WITH HAZARDOUS WASTES, A STATE AGENCY SHOULD
HAVE THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR OVERSIGHT OF HAZARDOUS WASTES,
A STATE AGENCY SHOULD HAVE THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR OVERSIGHT
OF HAZARDOUS WASTES PROCESSING AND LANDFILL DISPOSAL FACILITIES, TO
THE EXTENT THAT HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL SOLUTIONS ARE NOT FORTH-
COMING FROM PRIVATE INDUSTRY.
IV-7
I-4 INCENTIVES FOR HOST COMMUNITIES. BECAUSE THE SITES FOR THE
DISPOSAL OF SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE WILL BE LOCATED WITHIN THE
GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS, INCENTIVES SHOULD
BE PROVIDED BY THE STATE OR REGION TO THE HOST OF THE FACILITY.
SPFCIFICALLY, CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF
TAXL,3 TO THE HOST COMMUNITY FOR THE PROPERTY REMOVED FROM THE TAX
ROLLS: THE HOST COMMUNI.TY SHOULD BE PROTECTED BY THE STATE FROM
SEVERE LIABILITY PROBLEMS : PREFERENCE FOR TIIE CITY OR TOWN CON-
TAINING A FACILITY IN FEDERAL A-95 REVIEWS CONDUCTED BY THE
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL: PAYMENT OF ALL COSTS TO SERVICE THE FACILITIES,
INCLUDING THE COSTS JF ROADS, MONITORING, INSPECTIONS, POLICE AND
FIRE, AND LITTER CLEANUP COSTS: PAYMENT FOR BUFFER ZONE AMENITIES
AND IMPROVEMENTS: AND CITY OR TOWN CONTROL OVER BUFFER ZONE DESIGN.
PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT, FINANCING, OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF SOLID
WASTE DISPOSAL SITES IS ENCOURAGED.
I-5 TIPPING CHARGES. IF A MONOPOLISTIC CONDITION OCCURS IN DISPOSAL,
THEN SOME MECHANISM SHOULD BE DEVELOPED TO REGULATE THE DROP AND
COLLECTION RATES.
I-6 CLEANUP OF SOLID WASTE AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LOCATIONS. THE
LEGISLATURE SHOULD ESTABLISH A STATE FUND TO FINANCE THE CLEANUP OF
EXISTING HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LOCATIONS AND FUTURE SPILLS OF TRANS-
SHIPMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE, AND FOR THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
OF PROJECTS REQUIRED TO MITIGATE AND COMPENSATE FOR THE IMPACT OF
POLLUTION EMINATING FROM HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LOCATIONS, SOLID
WASTE LANDFILLS AND WASTEWATER SLUDGE DISPOSAL AREAS.
LEGISLATION CLEARLY DEFINING THE LIABILITY OF DISPOSERS OF HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES SHOULD BE ENACTED. INNOCENT LANDOWNERS OF EXISTING
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LOCATIONS SHOULD BE PROTECTED FROM LIABILITY BUT
SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO CLEAN UP THE HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE THROUGH
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES.
MJNICIPAL LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES FROM IMPROPER DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES ON PUBLIC PROPERTY IN OTHER THAN A STATE PERMITTED
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL SITE, SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THE AMOUNTS
SPECIFIED IN THE MUNICIPAL TORT CLAIMS ACT.
Iv-i METROPOLITAN COUNCIL BUDGET PROCEDURES
The Metropolitan Council is a multi-million dollar organization with
an annual budget of over 9 million dollars. Its stockholders are
the 2 million people of the metropolitan area . In private corporations
and other public entities, such as municipalities, the stockholders
or taxpaying citizens have the right to know how their money is being
spent; therefore, the annual budget is a tremendously important
document. It should convey enough information so that the taxpayer
can determine what product is being produced and how much the product
costs. Also, the budget should be prepared early enough in the
annual adoption process so that the "stockholders" can provide
meaningful input as to program activities and program priorities.
IV-8
'
The Metropolitan Council has taken recent steps to open up their
budget process and we commend them far this . The following suggestions
are made in the hope that the Council budget process can be upgraded
to even higher standards .
J-J PROGRAM EXPENSE. Most city budget show at least prior year
manpower and expense and many show current year to date actuals
compared to budget . Some programs have a definite lifesrzn and many
budgets indicate for these activities a total program cost in either
prior or exp-::ted future costs columns . Most city budgets break
down expen:,es to the level that activities are defined, rather than
simply a major program total . The Metropolitan Council ' s Budget
should show:
BUDGET EXPENSES ITEMIZED TO THE SUB-ELEMENT LEVEL AND TOTALLED TO
THE PROGRAM LEVEL, NOT JUST TOTALLED TO THE PROGRAM LEVEL.
AT LEAST TWO YEARS ' ACTUAL COSTS INCLUDED FOR EACH PROGRAM SUB-ELEMENT,
IF APPLICABLE.
CURRENT YEAR TO DATE ACTUALS ALONG WITH CURRENT YEAR APPROVED BUDGETED
AND EXPECTED ACTUALS FOR EACH PROGRAM SUB-ELEMENT.
FOR PROGRAM AND SUB-ELEMENT ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE A DEFINED LIFESPAN
AS OPPOSED TO ONGOING ACTIVITIES, THE TOTAL EXPECTED ACTIVITY EXPENSE
BY YEAR OR YEARS OF EXPECTED ACTIVITY.
J-2 OVERLAPPING PROGRAMS ANI) PROGRAM SUB-ELEMENTS. If programs
listed in the budget are also listed as sub-elements of other Council
programs, then the sub-elements should be cost itemized to show what
the complete total program costs are.
IT IS SUGGESTED THAT ALONG WITH SUB-ELEMENT COST ITEMIZATION THE
COUNCIL SHOULD PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL SUMMARY SHEET WHICH SHOWS THE
TOTAL COST FOR EACH FUNCTIONAL ACTIVITY WHICH HAS SUB-ELEMENTS IN
OTHER PROGRAM FUNCTIONAL ACTIVITIES.
J-3 PROGRAM NARRATIVE. Many of the Council tasks are mandated by
state and federal law and, therefore, must be done. However, in times
when funds are scarce and cuts may be in order, it is necessary to
know what is or is not expendable. A budget should:
IDENTIFY ALL MANDATED SUB-ELEMENTS IN EACH PROGRAM. THIS MAY BE
ACCOMPLISHED EASILY BY AN ASTERISK OR CHECK MARK BY THE ELEMENT
NUMBER. IDENTIFY ACTIVITIES WHICH MAY NOT BE MANDATED BUT ARE
TOTALLY FUNDED BY A GRANT PROGRAM.
J-4 COMMISSION BUDGET COORDINATION. The Council is required to
review and approve the development program and/or capital budgets of
the Metropolitan Commissions.
THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS/CAPITAL BUDGETS SHOULD BE SCRUTINIZED TO
INSURE THAT THE COMMISSION FUNDS ARE BEING SPENT ON PROJECTS
CONSISTENT WITH THE METROPOLITAN SYSTEM PLANS AND DEVELOPMENT FRAME-
WORK POLICIES.
IV-9
IV-K SEWER AVAILABILITY CHARGE (SAC)
This charue is levied against all building units within the sewer
service area whether or not these units will connect to a metro-
politan sewer facility. Sewer service area boundaries basically
foll:'w municipal boundaries where some portion of a city is connected
to a sewer facility. The Development Framework established a
Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) line different from and in
many cases, inside the old sewer service area boundaries creating
the situation where SAC is levied against units which will not be
served within the foreseeable planning future. The current funding
boundaries are inconsistent with Development Framework policy.
THE AMM URGES MODIFICATION TO THE SEWER AVAILABILITY CHARGE BOUNDARY
TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MUSA BOUNDARY AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE WITH
CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO THE TIMING AND METHOD OF PAYMENT FOR RESERVE
CAPACITY CONSTRUCTED FOR AREAS OUTSIDE THE PRESENT MUSA BOUNDARY.
IV-L METROPOLITAN PARKS AND OPEN SPACE FUNDING
The 1974 Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Act which established the
Metropolitan Parks and Open Space system provided state/regional
fiscal support for acquisition and development of the regional park
system. Funding for the operations and maintenance of regional parks
was and is the responsibility of the implementing agencies (counties
and cities) . This funding arrangement incidently was strongly
supported by the metropolitan counties and the Metropolitan Council
at that point in time. However, due to increased usage, decreased
state aids and tighter levy limit restrictions, it is becoming
increasingly difficult for the implementing agencies to operate and
maintain these regional facilities. Furthermore, these regional
parks provide the same basic function in the metropolitan area
as state parks provide in outstate Minnesota . State funding is
provided for operation and maintenance of state parks.
THEREFORE THE AMM RECOMMENDS THAT STATE OR REGIONAL FUNDS BE
PROVIDED TO IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES HELP TO FUND THE MAINTENANCE AND
OPERATION COSTS FOR THE REGIONAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE SYSTEM. FUTHER
THE STATE/REGIONAL FUNDS SHOULD BE IN THE FORM OF A CONTINUING
REVENUE SOURCE NOT DEPENDENT UPON BIENNIAL LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION
AND PREFERRABLY FROM A SOURCE OTHER THAN THE PROPERTY TAX AND A FAIR
AND EQUITABLE FORMULA FOR DISTRIBUTION OF THE STATE/REGIONAL FUNDS
SHOULD BE DEVELOPED. TIIE REGIONAL PARKS SHOULD REMAIN UNDER THE
CONTROL OF THE IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES.
IV-M IMPACT OF REGIONAL PARKS ON HOST COMMUNITIES
The 1974 Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Act provided a "payment
in lieu of taxes" to local units of government in a decreasing basis
over a four year period. This "payment in lieu of taxes" was to
lessen the immediate impact of property taken off the tax rolls for
regional park purposes. However, no provision was made then or since
then to mitigate the continuing cost impacts of a regional park on
the host community. These impacts include such items as increased
police and fire protection costs, street maintenance, litter cleanup,
permanent loss of tax revenues, etc.
Iv-l0'
THE AMM RECOMMENDS THAT THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL INITIATE A STUDY
OF THE COST IMPACTS OF REGIONAL PARKS ON THE HOST COMMUNITIES. THE
RESULTS OF THIS STUDY SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO TIIE LEGISLATURE ALONG
WITH LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS TO MITIGATE THESE IMPACTS BY NO
LATER THAN JANUARY 1, 1983.
IV-N SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA
In 1982 the Legislature adopted a Surface Water Management Act for the '
7-County Met " ,politan Area . The Act as adopted addressed most of
the concerrof the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities and
any future legislation should not diminish emphasis on the following
principles :
THE COST TO LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT FOR PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING
THIS ACT MUST REMAIN OUTSIDE OF LEVY LIMITS AND ADDITIONAL MANDATES
PLACED ON LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE FULLY FUNDED BY STATE
RAISED REVENUES. A METROPOLITAN AREA WIDE AD VALORUM PROPERTY TAX
SHOULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED TO PAY FOR SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT
(PLANNING,PROJECTS, MAINTENANCE) EXCEPT FOR REGIONAL PLANNING OR
PROJECTS THAT ARE JUDGED TO BE OF METROPOLITAN SIGNIFICANCE PER
M. S. 473. 173. TIIE AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ASSIGNED TO THE
VARIOUS UNITS AND LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT BY THE 1982 SURFACE WATER
MANAGEMENT ACT SEEM TO BE IN GOOD BALANCE AND SHOULD ALLOW FOR EFFECTIVE
EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT OF SURFACE WATER. THESE AUTHORITIES AND RESPON-
SIBILITIES SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED UNLESS THE SYSTEM DELINEATED IN THIS
ACT PROVES UNWORKABLE.
IV-0 REGULATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT CHARGE RATE INCREASES
Treatment of wasterwater in most of the 7-County Metropolitan Area
is the responsibility of the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
(MWCC) . The MWCC is governed by a Chairman appointed by the Governor
and eight Commission members who are appointed by the Metropolitan
Council which also is an appointive body. Consequently, the
Metropolitan Area residents who are affected by the MWCC decisions
and policies do not have any direct impact on the selection of those
persons responsible for the decisions and policies. In effect , the
MWCC is a public utility monopoly. However, other public utilities
which are privately owned and not subject to voter control (Telephone,
Electric, Gas, etc. ) must get approval from the State Public Service
Commission for rate increases. The MWCC has total and complete
comtrol over rate increases and is not even required to hold a public
hearing on such increases.
THEREFORE, THE AMM BELIEVES THAT THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD REVIEW THE
MWCC TREATMENT CHARGE RATE SETTING PROCESS VERY CAREFULLY AND ACT TO
INSURE THAT TIIE INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC ARE PROTECTED. THE AMM
BELIEVES THAT TIIE LEGISLATIVE SHOULD EXPLORE VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES
WHICH WOULD INSURE MORE ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE RATE SETTING PROCESS.
ONE POSSIPLE ArTERNATTVE 1OULD BE TO SUBJECT RATE INCREASES TO
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL APPROVAL AND THEN ONLY AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING IS
CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL' S "PROCEDURE
FOR ADOPTING OR AMENDING METROPOLITAN REGIONAL POLICY PLANS" .
IV-11
I
V
TRANSPORTATION
V-A MNDOT HIGHWAY FUNDING
An efficient transportation system is a vital element in planning
for physical , economic, and social development at state, regional ,
and local levels . Because of extremely high inflation, decreasing
state revenues from decreasing gasoline sales, and federal cutbacks ,
MNDOT delayed a substantial number of projects in the state and
metropolitan area in the last several years .
THE AMM URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF FUNDS
SO THAT NECESSARY HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE MAY BE CONTINUED, NECESSARY
ADDITIONAL HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION MAY OCCUR, AND THE MUNICIPAL STATE
AID HIGHWAY FUND LEVEL IS ADEQUATE. ANY INCREASE IN OR CHANGE IN
FUNDING FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES SHOULD GO INTO THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND.
V-B MNDOT TRANSIT FUNDING
MNDOT, by Legislative action and funding, is a major contributor
to statewide transit programs . This is especially true in the
Metropolitan Area where approximately 80% of the total transit funds
are spent. This imbalance is more than offset by the fact that a
majority of the highway funding is channeled to rural Minnesota .
Because of the large economically diverse population but rather compact
nature of the Twin City Metropolitan Area , it is an absolute necessity
to provide an effective and efficient public transit service with a
variety of programs, to protect the economic viability of the area .
Without a good transit system, the Metropolitan Highway system would
not just be crowded, it would be totally inadequate . Many elderly and
handicapped persons residing in the area primarily because of access
to unique services would be almost totally immobile. Finally, due to
statutory constraints, there are no funding resources available for
other units of government to pick up the difference if the programs
are allowed to deteriorate.
THE AMM REQUESTS THE LEGISLATURE TO CONSIDER THE MNDOT TRANSIT PROGRAM
AS VERY HIGH PRIORITY AND FUND IT SUFFICIENTLY TO MAINTAIN AT LEAST
THE CURRENT SERVICE LEVEL.
V-C RIDESHARE PROGRAM
MNDOT participation in the Rideshare program sunsets under current law
June of 1983. A Task Force appointed by the Governor has recommended
continuation of the program through an overall policy committee
coordinating local programs. At this time no mechanism exists to set
up such a control committee and because of strict levy limits, cities
do not have the financial resources to continue Rideshare on their
own . MNDOT funding of under $100, 000 annually for the last two years
has made it one of the lowest cost options to improve highway usage.
V-1
T
THE AMM URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO EXTEND LEGISLATION DESIGNATING
MNDOT AS THE RIDESHARE PROGRAM COORDINATING AGENCY AND TO PROVIDE
ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR ITS CONTINUATION.
V-D CITY/MNDOT COOPERATIVE PROJECT PAYMENTS
Frequently MNDOT and cities cooperate with each other in construction
of various kinds of public improvements to the benefit of both
parties by avoiding certain work duplication . The cooperation can
take two forms: (1) the city, can by resolution agree to pay for
public improvements acid have them included as part of a state contract ,
or (2) the state can agree to pay for public improvements included
in part of a city contract . If the state has the contract the city
must , at the time of agreement , advance to the Commissioner the city ' s
total share of the cost, whereas, if the city has the contract , the
state will only pay after 50% of the work is completed and then not
more than 90% of the actual cost to date . Either way, the city loses
use of the money and the state gains use of the money plus interest .
This situation is totally unfair and should be changed.
THE AMM BELIEVES THE PROCEDURE/LAW SHOULD BE CHANGED TO ALLOW
PAYMENT OF COOPERATIVE CONTRACTS BY BILLING AND PAYING FULL COST TO
DATE ON A MONTHLY BASIS, REGARDLESS OF WHICH UNIT HAS THE CONTRACT.
FURTHER, IF NECESSARY TO SATISFY CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR FULL
FUNDING AVAILABILITY AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF A PROJECT, CITIES SHOULD
BE ALLOWED TO ESTABLISH A DEDICATED FUND WHICH WILL ACCRUE INTEREST
TO THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY WHILE BEING USED TO MAKE MONTHLY CONTRACT
PAYMENTS TO MNDOT.
V-E STATE AND COUNTY HIGHWAY TURNBACKS
Current state law provides that the state and/or county may declassify
a trunk highway and turn it back to a local unit of government. The
only provision is that it must be in good condition. The unit
receiving the highway does not have the option to refuse title and
must, thereafter, maintain the turned back road. The local unit may
add the turnback highway to its MSA highway mileage and even exceed
the unit ' s mileage limit if it is already at its designated limit.
This will qualify that particular stretch of street for MSA maintenance
funds. However, two problems exist : 1) the maintenance allocation
may not be sufficient if the street is a high volume carrier, such as
Highway 8 through Ramsey County; and 2) the miles of turnback
designated by the local unit as MSA streets will be deducted from the
unit ' s future additional MSA allocation limit, thus forcing the local
unit to totally maintain that portion from its local funds or lose the
right to determine at its option other local streets as part of the
MSA system.
THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES REQUESTS THE LEGIS-
; LATURE TO MODIFY THE LAW TO EITHER 1) ALLOW CITIES THE RIGHT TO
REFUSE HIGHWAY TURNBACKS FROM THE STATE OR COUNTY, OR 2) ALLOW
THE LOCAL UNITS MSA MILE LIMIT TO BE INCREASED BY THE MILES OF
TURNBACK WITHOUT AFFECTING FUTURE ALLOCATIONS AND ESTABLISH A SPECIAL
MAINTENANCE ALLOCATION FOR TURNED BACK HIGHWAY MILES BASED ON VOLUME
OF USAGE . FURTHER, STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR TURNBACK ROADS SHOULD
BE ESTABLISHED BY MNDOT IN CONJUNCTION WITH LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT,
AND NOT MEETING THESE STANDARDS BE MADE PART OF THE CRITERIA FOR
V-2
WHICH A CITY MAY REJECT THE TURNBACK.
V-F "3C" TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS - ROLE OF ELECTED OFFICIALS
The transportation planning process in the twin city metropolitan
area has been developed in response to a variety of federal and
state laws and regulations. The Metropolitan Council (MC) was for-
mally designated by the Legislature in 1974 (1974 MRA) as the agency
responsible for the administration sand coordination of said planning
process. ln'' ! uded within this designation is the responsibility for
long range comprehensive transportation planning required by Section
134 of the Federal Highway Act of 1962, Section 4 of Urban Mass
Transportation Act of 1964 and Section 112 of Federal Aid Highway
Act of 1973, and such other federal transportation laws as may be
enacted subsequently. The planning required under the federal laws
is commonly referred to as the "3C" process (continuous, comprehensive,
and cooperative) , and the MC is the metropolitan planning organization
(MPO) under federal terminology.
Federal law and regulations require that the MPO function as "the
forum for cooperative decision making by principal elected officials
of general purpose local government" and receipt of federal financial
aid for the planning, construction and operation of transportation
improvements in urbanized areas is contingent upon the existence of
a planning process which is satisfactory to federal authorities . When
the Legislature designated the MC as the transportation planning
agency for the metropolitan area , it also mandated the establishment
of an "advisory body" to assist the MC and Metropolitan Transit
Commission (MTC) in carrying out their responsibilities . While
specific duties were not assigned, the Legislature did specify that
the advisory body would consist of citizen representatives,
commissions , munic•.i1,,c1 , county , and appropriate state agency represent-
atives . This advisory body is now called the Transportation
Advisory Board (TAB) and contains 17 local elected officials among
its membership of about 30 officials.
The MC has consistently viewed the role of TAB as an advisory body
based on the 1974 MRA. Hence, local elected officials in this area do
not play as vital a role in the federally manadated'3C" transportation
planning process as is intended by federal law and regulation .
Consequently, the continuation of federal financial funding for
transportation purposes and projects in this area could be jeopardized
if the local " 3C" process is ever found to be in conflict with the
federal requirements.
THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD EXAMINE THE PROCESS AND STRUCTURE FOR
IMPLEMENTING TIIE FEDERALLY MANDATED "3C" TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
PROCESS IN THE TWIN CITY METROPOLITAN AREA. IN PARTICULAR, THE ROLES
OF TAB AND TIIE ELECTED OFFICIALS ON TAB, AS DEFINED AND ASSIGNED BY
THE MC, SHOULD BE ANALYZED WITH RESPECT TO THE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS PARTICIPATION IN THE "3C" PROCESS.
MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 473A, SHOULD BE AMENDED TO BRING THE
TWIN CITY AREA TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS AND STRUCTURE INTO
COMPLIANCE WITH '1'111; FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS 13Y DESIGNATING THE 17
V-3
ELECTED OFFICIALS ON TAB AS THE FINAL APPROVAL AUTHORITY FOR "3C"
PROCESS FEDERAL FUNDS WITH THE AMM AND COUNTIES AS THE APPOINTING
AGENCIES RATHER THAN RECOMMENDING AGENCIES FOR THESE ELECTED
OFFICIALS.
V-G 1ITC FUNDING
Current MTC funding includes Federal (8 . 8% - $8 million) , State
(12. 8% - $11 million) , Property Tax (40. 8% - $36 million) , and
Farebox (37. 7% - $34 million) . Transit systems outside of the
Twin City Metropolita-; Area average about 21% from the farebox
and between 20% and 32% state subsidy. Due to reduced Federal
funding, use of reserves, and increasing costs, the MTC is expecting
a deficit problem of approximately $25 million in the next budget
year. A good effective and efficient Public Transportation Service
is vital to the Metropolitan Area . The existing Highway System
could not handle the pressure of a reduced transit system. The
elderly, handicpped, and lower income persons depend on public
transit for job transportation and service accessibility. The
business and industrial community would suffer extreme economic
setbacks if workers and shoppers were denied public transit . Finally,
the state economy as a whole could suffer reduced income and sales
tax revenues, if public transit in the metropolitan area is allowed
to deteriorate.
THE AMM STRONGLY URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO ADOPT PROGRAM AND FUNDING
ALTERNATIVES UTILIZING THE STATE GENERAL FUND, PROPERTY TAX, FAREBOX,
AND SERVICE EFFICIENCIES TO ENSURE A GOOD EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT
METROPOLITAN PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEM WHICH CAN PROVIDE SERVICE EQUAL
TO OR BETTER THAN EXISTING SERVICE.
V-H TAXI CAB REGULATIONS
The Taxi Cab industry is currently licensed and regulated on a city by
city basis with each city providing its own set of fees and regulations.
Recently the Citizens League released a study entitled "TAXIS:
Solutions in the City; A New Future in the Suburbs. " This study
recommends much deregulation and transfers license authority to the
Minnesota Department of Public Safety. One of the major thrusts
behind the Citizens League proposal is to free up the taxi industry
into a more competitive private business and attempt through this
procedure to create a climate whereby cabs and cities could provide
increased opportunity for rideshare programs and other vitally needed
transportation opportunities, especially in the suburbs. In addition ,
a bill has been introduced in the legislature transferring regulatory
and licensing authority from cities to the MTC. However, neither the
Citizens League document nor the bill addresses the complex problems
associated with providing reasonable services to outlying areas or
less desireable districts of some communities. Even if a degree of
deregulation is advisable, some regulation will always be needed making
it necessary to determine who and how to enforce such regulations.
THE AMM SUPPORTS LEGISLATION WHICH WOULD ASSURE UPdIFORM REGULATION
OF TAXICAB CARRIERS OPERATING IN THE TWIN CITY METROPOLITAN AREA.
SPECIAICALLY:
V-4
H-1 VEHICLE LICENSING, RULE MAKING, AND REGULATIONS SHOULD BE
VESTED WITH A SINGLE ENTITY, EITHER THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, OR TRANSPORATION
REGULATION BOARD:
H-2 UNIFORM RULES AND REGULATIONS OF OPERATIONS SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED:
H-3 UNIFORM, REASONABLE, AND NON-DISCRIMINATORY RATES AND FARES
SIHOUILD BE ESTABLISHED WITH CHANGES MADE ONLY AFTER APPORPRTATE NOTICE
ANI) PUBLIC HEARING :
11-4 RESTRICTIONS CONCERNING SUCH ISSUES AS NUMBERS OF CABS AND GROUP
LOADING SHOULD BE STUDIED ANI) POSSIBLY ELIMINATED:
H-5 MUNICIPALITIES SHOULD RETAIN THE AUTHORITY TO LICENSE DRIVERS AND 1
TO INVESTIGATE AND REMOVE DRIVERS AND ;
H-6 REGULATIONS SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED AND ENFORCED TO ASSURE THAT
hEASONABLE SERVICE IS PROVIDED TO PERSONS IN LESS DESIREABLE DISTRICTS
AND OUTLYING SUBURBAN AREAS.
V- 1 LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES
Light Rail , as an alternative transit opportunity, is becoming a
subject of much concern and is generating a great deal of activity in
the Metropolitan Area . The Metropolitan Council modified its
Transportation Plan to allow consideration of the issue and completed
in March 1981 a state financed preliminary corridor selection criteria
study . That study looked at 15 possible corridors and narrowed the
list to 6 corridors that might qualify for further feasibility study.
Tt did indicate that University Ave. was a most likely candidate for
t urtlrer :;twig hut lacking t and;; nothing furtlif'r was done. MNDUT
completed a :;t. udy on Hiawatha Ave , and developed an EIS which is
currently under Federal review. The Metropolitan Council discovered in
August of 1982 that a $500, 000 UMPTA grant was available for detailed
LRT alternative study and submitted a grant application to study the
University and SW corridors.
The AMM is concerned by several issues. The original study was not a
corridor selection study but more a criteria development study . Of
the two corridors proposed for UMPTA grant study , the SW corridor
scored lower than other corridor based on the developed criteria .
The UMPTA study assumes a corridor selection which does not appear to
have been done . The previous study was predominately a staff function
and did not go through advisory committees or public hearings to
provide input for criteria or other major concerns that have not been
addressed. Basically the ' 3C' (continuous, comprehensive, and
cooperative with local elected officials involvement) process has not
been initiated in this area as it usually is for Federally funded and
other important programs .
V-5
THE AMM STRONGLY URGES THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL TO INITIATE A 3C
PROCESS UTILIZING TAB, TAC, AND PUBLIC INPUT TO ESTABLISH CRITERIA
AND PROCEDURES FOR THE STUDY OF LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AS WELL AS ALL
OTHER TRANSIT OPTIONS WHICH COULD BENEFIT THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT
SYSTEM. THE PROCESS SHOULD INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO SUCH
ISS':ES AS : SPECIFIC TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE SELECTION CRITERIA;
INTERFACE WITH EXISTING TRANSIT MODES: CONSTRUCTION, OWNERSHIP, AND
OPERATION FUNDING AND CONTROL (PRIVATE, PUBLIC, JOINT POWERS OR A
COMBINATION) ; FUNDING METHODS; AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT WITHIN A
CORRIDOR. THESE QUESTIONS AND OTHERS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED SO THAT
STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES CAN BE DEVELOPED FOR APPLICATION TO
CORRIDOR SELECTION STUDIES AND SPECIFIC TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
V-6
•
•
association of
metropolitan
mmu ;cipalit es
October 12, 1982
TO: AMM General Membership
FROM: Mary Anderson - President
SUBJECT: MTC OPT OUT AND ZONE FARE
The policy as written on the reverse side was recommended to the
AMM Board of Directors by the Transportation Committee on a very
c:IO:k. vote with much
After reviewing the co-an .tee action and comments submitted by
several member cities in opposition to the policy , the Board of
Directors on a 13 to 3 vote determined to not recommend it for
consideration by the general membership.
The primary basis for this recommendation was that the policy was
very divisive among AMM member cities. The Board recognized that
while there are a great number of policies that our membership can
agree upon, there will always be some issues that the membership
will have strong split feelings over. In areas such as these,
including the Opt out/Zone Fare issue, the Board feels that the AMM
would better serve the entire membership by remaining neutral and
silent on the issue.
However, since this policy was adopted by the committee as a committee
recommendation, the Board felt that it should be sent to the general
membership as an item of information.
is
•
V-J FITC OPT OUT AND ZONE FARE •
_
Recent Legislation was provided to-allow certain communities at+the
end of the line or those not receiving direct MTC service within the
primary transit taxing district to opt out of the MTC system: The
legislation makes it very difficult to opt out and requires a local
community at its own cost to provide a detailed study and plan provin
an equal or better service for the same or less subsidy than the RTC
average subsidy. It is estimated that if all eligible units opted
out , the MTC would lose $4. 6 million but save much less in reduced
service co•.t.:: fur ., r.r,r..1 r not I r►';s. Although ;ttr i nequit_tJ between
property tax paid and direct service provided can in fact be shown
for many outlying communities, the need and benefit of a good, well
financed, public transit system can be shown_ As only one example,
without a good transit system, the highway system could be clogged te.
the point where outlying drivers could not reach places of employment
or central area services and the vitality .of the business community
could be affected to a degree that would increase outlying community
unemployment. The property tax inequity issue should not be a
motivator for this issue alone. A prime example of basic property
tax inequity is the school property taxpayers
that do not have children. A direct and tangible benefit cannot he
shown but the indirect and intangible benefits of a good school
system are accepted in our s.ciety as reason enough for the continue
apparent inequity_ A good public transit system should be accepted ,
to a degree, on the same basis. The RTC bus fare is structured on z
concentric circular zone system which provides a base fare in the
core area and increases by 150 (l00 in zone 4) per zone as the
distance traveled increases to the outlying suburbs. In most case,-
the
asesthe number of runs decrease as the distance increases, however, the
property tax levy is constant throughout the primary transit distric
which includes all operating zones . This, there is an apparent
inequity of property tax paid versus service received for these
outlying suburbs. The zone fare, which raises only $25 million or
2. 8% of the MTC total budget , can be looked at as double charging
and more of an irritant to these persons than a real budget need to
the 1•:TC. Finally, there is a limit to how high bus fare can go
before it becomes less costly to drive and statistics would seem to
indicate that as rates increase, ridership decreases.
•
THE =1 OPPOSES ANY LEGISLATION WHICH WOULD `J.AKE IT EASIER FOR
AREAS WITHIN THE METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT TAXING DISTRICT TO OPT
OUT OF THE MTC SERVICE SYSTEM, AND THE AM..I SUPPORTS ELInINATION
OF THE ZONE FARE IN FAVOR OF A SINGLE BASE RATE FOR. THE ENTIRE BUS
SYSTEM TO REDUCE THE APPARENT INEQUITY OF FUNDING BY OUTLYING
COMMUNITIES, TO ENCOURAGE INCREASED RIDERSHIP, AND AS A BYPRODUCT,
EXTEND THE LIFE OF THE INPLACE HIGHWAY SYSTEM.
//
MINUTES OF THE
SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
(Regular Meeting)
The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in regular session on
October 4, 1982 at 4:30 P.M. in the Utilities meeting room.
Commissioner Bishop offered a prayer for divine guidance in the deliberations
of the.Commission.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Bishop and Kirchmeier. Also Liaison Wampach,
Manager Van Hout, Superintendent Leaveck and Secretary Menden. Commissioner Nolting
was absent.
Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Bishop that the minutes of the September 8, 1982
regular meeting be approved as kept. Motion carried.
BILLS READ:
City of Shakopee 20,032.00
ABM Equipment and Supply 45.93
Associated Mechanical 9.34'
Auto Central Supply, Inc. 60.05
Battery Tire and Warehouse 237.31
Bills Toggery 408.00
Border States Electric Supply 3,525.00
Burroughs Corporation 1,358.71
Capesius Agency, Inc. 126.00
Chanhassen Lawn and Sports 130.43
City of Shakopee 361.26
Fox Valley Marking System 117.78
Graybar Electric Supply Co. 2,827.15
H & C Electric Supply 567.00
Hennens ICO 14.00
Krass, Meyer and Kanning 462.50
Lathrop Paint Supply Co. 31.40
Layne Minnesota Co. 115.69
M/A Associates 135.32
Vince Marschall 98.99
Minnesota Municipal Utilities Assoc. 750.00
Motor Parts Service 46.61
Myers Automotive and Tire 51.95
Ted Neisen 352.00
North Supply Co. 193.80
Northern States Power Co. 1,006.39
Northern States Power Co. 188,595.64
Northland Electric Supply Co. 257.75
Schilz Ornamental Iron 60.00
Serco 56.00
Shakopee Floral 27.75
Shakopee Public Utilities Comm. 175.95
Shakopee Services 18.00
Southwest Suburban Publishing, Inc. 66.89
State of Minnesota, Dept. of Labor and Industry 25.00
Suel Business Equipment 39.22
Travel Design 325.00
Utilities Telecommunications Council 55.00
Valley Industrial Propane, Inc. 10.77
Lou Van Hout 48.39
Water Products Co. 282.62
Wesco 842.14
Motion by Bishop, seconded by Kirchmeier that the bills be allowed and ordered
paid. Motion carried.
Manager Van Hout presented a Resolution on Authorizing collection of the trunk
water charges.
Motion by Bishop, seconded by Kirchmeier to authorize Resolution #245, A Resolution
authorizing collection of the Trunk Water Charges and approving of the pipe oversizing
on the watermain project Bluff Avenue from Dakota Street east on the West line of
the Halo 1st Addition. Ayes: Commissioners Bishop and Kirchmeier. Nayes: none. Motion
carried. Resolution passed.
Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Bishop to authorize Resolution #246, A Resolution
Approving Payment for Oversizing on the Watermain Project Bluff Avenue, Dakota Street
East to the West Line of Halo 1st Addition. Ayes: Commissioners Bishop and Kirchemier.
Nayes: none. Motion carried. Resolution passed.
Motion by Bishop, seconded by Kirchmeier to authorize Resolution #247, A Resolution
Setting Electric Rates for the Lighting of Tennis Courts Operated by the Shakopee
Community Services: Ayes: Commissioners Bishop and Kirchemier. Nayes: none.
Motion carried. Resolution passed.
Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Bishop to authorize Resolution #248, A
Resolution Accepting Work on the 81-1 KT Water Supply Well No. 6 Within The K-Mart
Tax Increment Project.
A discussion followed. Commissioner Kirchmeier withdrew his motion to authorize
Resolution #248. Commissioner Bishop withdrew his second to the motion.
Manager Van Hout presented copies of the cable TV agreement to the commissioners
for their perusal. The agreement will be discussed at the October 14, 1982 meeting.
Manager- Van Hout informed the Commission that he will have a tabulation for bids
on transformers at the next meeting.
Manager Van Hout presented a report on Longview Estates plat. The plat has been
approved at this time and they will be installing the water system. The Manger recommends
to the Commission to approve the oversizing costs in concept.
A communication was acknowledged regarding cable TV pole attachments in Prior Lake.
The Manager will acknowledge this communication.
Manager Van HOut presented a plat for the Sand Point Subdivision 2nd Addition.
Motion by Bishop, seconded by Kirchmeier to remove the stipulation concerning our
overhead electric line that is in the Sand Point 2nd Addition property and that the
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission be safeguarded with the customers it presently
serving so that in no way are we giving up the right to be there on the remainder of the
property. Motion carried.
/
Superintendent Leaveck reported 3 fire calls for a total of 2 hours and 43 minutes for
the month of September, 1982.
There were no now plats for September.
Superintendent Leaveck reported no loss time accidents for September, 1982.
Motion by Bishop, seconded by Kirchmeier to adjourn to October 14, 1982. Motion
carried.
Manager Lou Van Bout
/
PROCEEDINGS OF THE ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Shakopee , Minnesota
Regular Session October 21 , 1982
Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order at 7 :42 p.m. with the
following members present : David Dunwell , Dawn Schwingler , Lauren
Sorenson, John Toppin and Robert Ziegler. Also present were Bob
Benke (MDOT) , Mike Peterson and Barb Latham ( Scott County Transpor-
tation Services ) , John Anderson (City Administrator) and Jeanne
Andre (Administrative Assistant ) . Freeman Chi-Shing Tsui and
Loren Wolfe were absent .
The Chairman noted the members present .
Ziegler/Swingler moved to approve the minutes of September 30, 1982 ,
as presented. Motion carried.
Bob Benke , a representative of the Minnesota Department of Transpor-
tation (MDOT) gave a brief overview of the program for communities
to "opt out" of MTC (Metropolitan Transit Commission) bus service
and provide their own transit services . He explained that the pro-
gram was created by the legislature in 1981 ,. with additional legisla-
tion to clarify that replacement services must meet the MTC Service
Standards ( $1 . 50 per person for route maximum and $1 . 25 per person
per route average ) . Still no community, including those who initiated
the legislation, has decided to opt out . He outlined some of the
problems with the program as follows : 1 ) it is difficult for commu-
nities to provide the detailed information required to document sub-
sidy standards for proposed alternate service ; 2 ) it is difficult
to establish what is adequate replacement service ; 3 ) communities
don' t have the time or resources to develop alternate service and
no opt out money is available for planning; 4 ) this program is an
imperfect solution to the current disparities between taxes paid
and services received.
The following issues were introduced during a question/answer period
with Mr. Benke and the Committee .
- In any given year a community could expect to receive the amount
of funds already allocated to the MTC for service in that City,
prorated by number of months remaining in year. Funds for the
next year will vary based on contract negotiations with MDOT in
the summer and fall of the preceeding year.
- In 1983 the MTC will receive $264 ,372 from Shakopee tax levies
and $76 ,234 from State aid for Shakopee . Up to $314,169 would
be available to Shakopee if it opts out .
- Under opt out communities can provide additional (new) transit
services beyond basic replacement of current MTC routes and
service , but all services provided must meet MTC subsidy standard.
- The Minnesota Commissioner of Transportation has latitude to
determine how quickly a new route must meet the subsidy standards
and can allow time to build route efficiency.
Proceedings of the Energy and
Transportation Committee
Page Two � �✓
October 21 , 1982
- MTC could lose up to $4. 9 million in property tax revenue and state
aid each year if all eligible communities opt out .
- If a system created through opt out fails , the MTC would resume
receipt of local revenues and would resume local service , although
there might be a lapse between cessation of one system and intro-
duction of the other.
- There is a 50% chance that MTC will succeed in passing legislation
closing out the opt out program in 1983 .
- In Shakopee it would be easy to provide alternative bus service to
regular commuters , but the random passengers would be harder to
serve.
- When a City develops an opt out plan, MTC is to review and comment ,
Metropolitan Council is to review and approve , in addition to final
MDOT approval .
- It is unclear whether MTC buses would accept transfers from out
out systems . Lou Olson, MTC Executive Director, recently said
transfers would be accepted although MTC staff have previously
indicated transfers would not be accepted.
- Under current rules Eden Prairie can' t opt out unless Shakopee,
Chaska and Chanhassen opt out first .
- A city could opt out initially, providing only replacement service
but gradually adding other services . This plan has an advantage
over a grand scheme to provide replacement and new services all
at one time in that the city can gain transit experience gradually.
The disadvantage is that MTC will continue to receive local
revenues not used by the local system., Some staff time can be
built in to operating even a minimal system, but MDOT will look
hard at administrative overhead.
- Opt out funds are available for operating expenses only, not
capital expenses . Equipment can be leased as an operating expense.
- Vans available from van pool services have the advantage of bulk
insurance rates and fleet management by Chrysler. Typically van
pools are fully paid by passengers , but the City could subsidize
this type of service .
- The City can ask the MTC for alternate service such as vans with-
out opting out and providing the service directly.
- Under the opt out , the City could contract with Scott County to
provide transit services .
- Special legislation would be necessary to change the MTC taxing
district so that Shakopee could realize a significant tax break.
Proceedings of the Energy and
Transportation Committee
Page Three
October 21 , 1982
Mr. Benke stated he would be available to answer further questions
as the Committee studies opt out in the next few months .
Mike Peterson and Barb Latham from the County transit system explained
the current system they operate. The County utilizes three vehicles
(a van and 13 and 18 passenger vehicles ) and volunteer drivers reim-
bursed at 25per mile . Scheduled trips include once a week shopping
in Shakopee and transport to congregate dining, once a month trips
to downtown Minneapolis and Southdale . The bus can be scheduled for
group activities on Fridays . Specialtrips can be made with volunteer
drivers who provide approximately 45% of the average 2300 trips per
month. The County system is subsidized approximately 65/ from State
aid, 15% with federal funds , 10% with MTC exurban funds , and 10%
with County funds . Fares are SO¢ for shopping in Shakopee , 25¢ to
go to nutrition, and $3 .00 per round trip to Minneapolis . The latter
is available to elderly, handicapped and persons referred by other
human services units .
Committee members directed staff to place the County representatives
on the mailing list to receive packets of information prepared for
the Committee .
The Committee determined to initiate the study of possible alternate
transit services for Shakopee at its next meeting, including a
questionnaire to survey community needs . The Administrative Assistant
stated that DECA has been approached to assist in the survey and
should respond soon.
A discussion was held on information presented by staff at the meet-
ing regarding the proposed update of the Metropolitan Council Trans-
portation Development Guide/Policy Plan. Staff indicated that
Committee recommendation to the City Council is necessary by Novem-
ber 2 , 1982 , in order to appropriately respond to the Metro Council
review process . The Committee noted that the proposed polices would
seem to preclude Shakopee from providing additional buses beyond
current MTC service if it chooses to opt out . In addition Shakopee
is not in an identified subregion and therefore is not included in
the encouraged transit between subregions . Although cost effective
systems are promotied in one policy the standard for cost efficiency
relative to total system costs is not defined.
Toppin/Dunwell moved to adjourn the discussion of the proposed trans-
portation plan to Tuesday, October 26 , 1982 , at 7 : 30 p.m. Motion
carried and the meeting was adjourned at 10 : 23 p.m.
Jeanne Andre
Recording Secretary
C\(-) N N
U)
_. - i n
N a\ O
Ln , ,1 N
}4
n
R=i
Czm
.-1 00 O in
G Q cd 1-1
VI GD•� E Cl) 0 } H
• m Z a •
•,-1 a ›, C
ES • O WbiD LI)
GO Z
cd E ce) H N cd 01 d
N O •• W •• Z
00 PLIUr--- > W HN H
d,. a -1-
,--1 .......
p� >-+ c e-) O� i .--1
tcNi
:;
Pa
>• P E E
o a) a a
Z pl •� O o •
r1 O U O
O •• U ••
Pa -.tHifl
N ,-1O, �O Cr) O
•,-I r N Cr)
}+ U
GI Z E E
cn O O • •
.:1 H U R ,I CZ.
H U
E+ W 4JO OO
,_.] •ri •. •,-a O ••
W Uo0 OUn
r1 co ul N o-
,---1
,-1 N N
•
(/) • • 4-1 •
-1 • ) E c
• U •
U 4..1 p.., a Q a
=1 ,-10 EO NO
4 •,-1M EO O
• ,u .. 0 .. .,-4 ..
P- U W c0
I. .--1 cc
1--I N N
N
d
f
B
(.7
J
,, SPRINGSTED 27 October 1982
INCORPORATED
V 4 PUBLIC FINANCE
ADVISORS
SPECIAL ISSUE
SPRINGSTED NEWSLETTER
The recently enacted U.S. "Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982"
(TEFRA) included a number of modifications affecting the issuance of Industrial
Development Bonds. Included in the sweeping modifications was a requirement
that ALL tax-exempt bond issues be subject to registration after January I,
1983, except those of less than 12 months in length.
Initially, while we knew registration meant the end of bearer bonds and interest
coupons, we hoped the new requirement might be reasonably met with only minor
modifications in current procedures. A further analysis has led us to believe that
registration will have a profound effect on the cost of issuing traditional, truly
public purpose tax-exempt bonds. Some of the adverse effects include:
I. A dramatic increase in the net interest cost required to market the
securities. Several major regional underwriters and investment
bankers have indicated to us they think net interest rates will
increase by at least .50%. On a $1,000,000 issue sold for 20 years
that translates to $65,000 in added interest costs .
2. The fees to be charged by registrars, and accompanying paying
agents, will increase issue costs significantly. One major paying
agent in our region has indicated its charges for payment per
interest coupon may go from .15c per coupon to $1.50 per
registered interest payment. For a recent $3,200,000 issue with an
18-year term issued by an S-I client the paying agency charges
would be increased from a current estimated $2,496 to $24,960
with registration.
3. Initially, only a handful of major banks and trust companies will
have computerized systems in place to accommodate registration.
As a result, initial high costs may remain in effect indefinitely, and
you as an issuer may be faced to deal with a registrar with whom
you have had no experience.
4. A number of states, including Wisconsin, may need to pass legis-
lation permitting full implementation of registration (Wisconsin
law does not permit authentication for bond signing which is
imperative for registered bonds). That cannot be done by January
I, 1983.
5. Registration will require significant changes in current procedures
including but not limited to:
a, Delays in settlement pending receipt of final instruction on
how many purchasers will be involved in each issue.
800 Osborn Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 (612) 222-4241
250 North Sunnyslope Road, Brookfield, Wisconsin 53005 (414) 782-8222
b. Confusion as to how many bonds need to be printed, since
sufficient bond forms must be available for future regis-
tration changes as bonds are sold and repurchased in the
secondary market.
c. Potential future added costs if issuers are required to pay
for the costs of future registration charges, with no
opportunity to budget intelligently for those costs.
We believe the negative impact of registration, the current confusion on required
procedural charges, and the near term monopoly of a limited number of
registrars warrants a reexamination of the registration requirements and much
more time to develop workable, cost-effective procedures. The Municipal
Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) has requested a two year delay in imple-
mentation of the registration requirement. The U.S. Treasury Department
apparently has rejected that request.
Congress will meet in lame duck session following the general election. We
suggest this issue is of sufficient importance to your community to warrant
adoption of a formal resolution requesting a two year delay of the registration
requirement for traditional, non-industrial development, tax-exempt bonds. We
suggest that resolution be forwarded to your U.S. Representative and Senator at
an early date. It may also be well to contact your professional associations to
urge them to do whatever they can. The matter is urgent because it is doubtful
that bonds sold after December I, I982 can be printed and delivered prior to
January I. It is an especially critical matter for small issuers because of the
substantial added cost.
If you have any questions about this matter please feel free to call us at (612)
222-424 I.
TENTATIVE AGENDA
SPECIAL SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 2 , 1982
1] Roll Call at 8:00 P.M. (after polls close)
2] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers
3] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS
4] 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. )
*5] Approval of Minutes of October 12th and 19th, 1982
6] Communications:
a] Robert L. Meller, Jr. re : Access of Mn. Body & Equipment Co .
onto TH 101
b] Tom Prusak, St. Francis Hospital re : restricted parking on 4th
and Atwood Street
7] Public Hearings
a] 8 :30 P.M. - Vacation of Alley in Block 57, Shakopee City;
lying between 4th & 5th Avenues and between Atwood and
Fuller Streets (Res. No. 2073)
8] Boards and Commissions:
a] Transportation Committee - Transportation Development Guide/
Policy Plan Review Draft, August 1982
9] Reports from Staff:
a] Claim by Mr. & Mrs. Parrott
b] Sewer Bill Complaints
*c] Workmen' s Compensation Insurance
*d] Evaluation of Data Processing/Microcomputers
e] Approve the bills in the amount of $183 , 241 . 86
*f] Partial Payment to Valley Paving Inc . in amount of $5, 225.00
for work on Valley Industrial. Blvd . So. (82-2)
g] Bluff Avenue Improvements(81-2)-Leland Scheller Assessment
h] Upper Valley Drainageway in the Vicinity of SHakopee Valley
Publishing, Inc .
i] Pedestrian Bridge in Memorial Park
*j ] Prairie Street Sanitary Sewer Insulation Project (No. of 1st)
k] Application for wine license by Capone ' s Food Shops, Inc . ,
Mn. Valley Mall - tabled 10/5
1] Appointment to Shakopee Public Utility Commission
m] Farmer-Bugher Management Company Claim
n] Energy Saving/Wind Generator - Discussion
o] Building Permit Issuance in Bypass right-of-way
p] Amendments to City' s Personnel Policy on Sick Leave
q] Employee Assistance Program
r] Administration of Pay Plan During an Employee ' s Probation
s] Clerical/Secretarial Pay Plan
10] Resolutions & Ordinances:
a] Res. No. 2071 , A Res. of Appreciation to Russ Nolting
*b] Res. No. 2046 , Abating Deferred 1967 Parking Facilities
Assessments
*c] Res. No. 2072, Authorizing the Institution of Proceedings to
Register Title to Property in Blocks 29&30, ShakopeeCity
d] Res. No. 2074, Requesting the State to Perform Alternatives
Study for Free Right
*e] Ord. No. 96, Amending Zoning Ordinance (minor changes)
11] Other Business:
*a] Engineering Department Monthly Report
b] Labor Negotiations
c]
12] Adjourn to Tuesday, November 16th at 7 :00 P .M.
John K. Anderson, City Administrator
OWICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOP ;, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 12, 1982
Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. with Cncl. Wampach, Lebens,
Vierling, Leroux and Colligan present. Also present were John K. Anderson, City
Admr. ; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Julius A. Coller, II, City Attorney and Jeanne
Andre, Admin. Ass't.
Leroux/Colligan moved to open the public hearing regarding the proposed amendment
to the Cable Franchise Ordinance, to move the proposed tower and earth station
site from CR16 in Shakopee to the Chaska school property. Motion carried unanimously.
The Admin. Ass't stated the letter from CTIC was just received today, and suggested
everyone read it before going on with the hearing.
Mayor Reinke asked if the members of the former Ad Hoc Cable Communications Committee
had any comments to make.
Barry Kirchmeier stated he is concerned about the savings for Shakopee. His under-
standing is that Chaska is saving a lot more, and he thinks the savings should be
divided more equally. Nancy Zylstra responded that the savings will be about equal
for both cities. She stated because of the number of variables bid in the two dif-
ferent systems, it was hard to see by the figures presented by CTIC.
Nancy Zylstra gave a presentation illustrating just what the changes will consist
of and why they are being requested and how this change will affect each city of
Shakopee and Chaska.
Ms. Zylstra stated the articles which will change are one 120 foot tower which
brings in the off-air signal and three earth stations (dishes) and some modulator
equipment. So the only thing the two cities will be sharing is the source of the
signals. She stated that originally they didn't think the two cities could be joined
because of the water and lay-out, but now have discovered it will work and it would
be a cost savings for Zylstra-United (ZU), and therefore for Shakopee. She explained
that at Chaska's headend, a super-trunk will be put in extending to Shakopee, which
will improve the quality of the signal received in Shakopee. She stated the headends
are owned by ZU, not by Shakopee or Chaska.
Ms. Zylstra explained the arrangements which would be made for any selling of the
franchise in the future. She stated with the systems joined, it makes for a very
efficient system, and she could not imagine ZU wanting to sell it. But arrange-
ments would be made that would reflect the capital cost of the system for each City,
and the price the city wishing to buy the system would pay would be reduced by that
amount.
Ms. Zylstra stated Shakopee would have a much better system with this shared facil-
ity, because the super-trunk is cost-prohibitive unless savings can be made by the
sharing of the source of the signal. She stated the sound in the outlying areas
would be much improved, and the institutional channels would be made into more of a
network. She stated that all of the Minneapolis suburbs are designed this way, as
this is a more sophisticated way to serve a territory. She continued with further
clarification of the cost savings and flexibility of the shared tower and dishes.
She stated that pay per view projections of the cable industry are not coming to
fruition and companies across the nation are losing money this year through use
of these projections. The proposed change in capital expenditures would save ZU
$130,000 which will help offset money lost until pay per view revenues increase.
She stated the cost per month per subscriber would not change that much -- about
10¢ to 13¢, and therefore, ZU plans to offer free installation instead, which
would result in a $19-$79 savings per subscriber that could be experienced right
away.
Cncl. Colligan asked about what would happen if Chaska decided to buy the Franchise.
Ms. Zylstra stated she couldn't imagine they would sell just one or the other. But
if they did, Chaska would buy their service with a reduced price for the capital
equipment, ZU would still have Shakopee, and the tower and dishes would be jointly
owned. She stated a provision of the sale would be that the tower, dishes and mo-
dulator would be jointly owned and used.
ZU's engineer, Wes Schick, explained just how the super-trunk enables Shakopee to
receive a better signal, with the feed forward amplifier. Ms. Zylstra explained
that Chaska and Shakopee would each have their separate staff engineer, and Wes
would be the shared Head Engineer.
Shakopee City Council
// ., October 12, 1982
Page 2 _
The City Attorney pointed out that before there would be any joint use between
Chaska and Shakopee, an agreement would have to be executed spelling out the joint
ownership and maintenance responsibilities for each City. He stated each City
would be the owner of an undivided one-half interest in the system.
Discussion followed regarding any possible jeopardy with the other bidder, Progress
Valley, since ZU has not actually accepted the Franchise yet. Ms. Zylstra stated
it is the position of the MCCB that after the Franchise is awarded negotiations are
held and proposals can be changed. She stated it is standard procedure to negotiate
about all sorts of things after awarding of the Franchise. She also pointed out
that according to CTIC, this change would have only helped ZU in the bidding pro-
cess, as they would have been rated even higher if they had proposed this system.
Discussion took place regarding when, if and how Chanhassen could be joined to
the system and the ramifications and cost factors involved.
Discussion ensued regarding rates. Jim Abbott, President of ZU, stated he could
not make any promises about rate increases in the future, but ZU is saving money
on this proposed change, and that is something they should be reminded of when they
come in for a rate increase request. Ms. Zylstra stated they will be offering free
installation because they feel the subscribers should have an immediate savings
like ZU is saving in installation costs. There will also be quite a saving over
the term of the Franchise because of lower maintenance costs, and the people who
subscribe later should also benefit just from not having to pay as much for instal-
lation costs later.
Barry Kirchmeier stated he feels the biggest reason Shakopee should go along with
this change is the savings of dollars and he thinks there should be some physical
form of savings for the people. He stated it is a very common practice to offer
free installation as a promotional, marketing practice as it is to the company's
benefit to offer free installation the first month to get more subscribers. He
stated ZU has offered free installation in Worthington and in Chaska, before the
idea of the shared services. He would like to see a little something more concrete
for subscribers in Shakopee. He stated it still appears to him that Chaska is
saving $300,000 and Shakopee only $130,000, and he thinks there should be a fairer
split of the surplus. Ms. Zylstra tried to clarify that Chaska is paying for part
of the super-trunk. The Admin. Ass't stated the consultant from CTIC told her over
the phone that Shakopee is paying the full amount of the super-trunk.
ZU's Manager in Chaska stated it was just decided a short time ago to offer free
installation in Chaska as part of a_marketing package to pick up more subscribers.
She stated the number of premiums make a difference on when this is offered.
Bill Radio, Chaska Administrator, stated it was the Chaska City Council's under-
standing that the tower and dishes would be shared, and Chaska would pay a portion
of the cable cost that would be directly related to the interconnect with Shakopee.
That portion that had nothing to do with the interconnect, but just to get the cable
to Shakopee, should be paid by Shakopee.
Discussion was further held on the capabilities of the super-trunk and its sus-
ceptibility to damage by the elements, especially water. The Zylstra-United engineer
stated the super-trunk is dedicated for direct signal, there are no taps off it.
Randy Gorman asked about construction time-table, and the added time necessary to
draft legal agreements regarding shared facilities. Mr. Zylstra stated this pro-
posed change decreases construction time. She added that Adrian Herbst, the City's
legal consultant, wrote all the shared headend agreements for the Minneaspolis
area, so he should be able to do that quickly.
A man in audience stated he thinks the tower should remain in Shakopee instead of
on Chaska soil, and then we wouldn't have to worry about all that other stuff.
Ray Foslid stated that he is speaking for the only other contender for the Franchise
and he is getting concerned about the number of variances and changes being made.
Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone in the audience who had any new questions
or comments, and there was no response.
Lebens/Wampach moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Cncl. Colligan stated he is concerned about the problem of control of the system
and the savings now and in the future. He doesn't believe this is the greatest
savings Shakopee can have. He thinks the Franchise was fair as it was bid, and
would not like to change it now.
Shakopee City Council
' October 12, 1982
Page 3
Cncl. Leroux stated the City put out its REIT with the items it wanted in it. The
City had the chance to join in a cable territory with Prior Lake and Savage, but
decided it wanted its own system, not a shared one. He feels we are now looking
at whether or not the City wants to change this philosophy. He stated he would
doubt if the City would have any legal problems with the other bidding company,
because that company would undoubtedly request changes also.
Ms. Zylstra stated Chaska and Shakopee are totally independent of each other in
their system management, it is only the source of the signal that is shared.
Cncl. Wampach stated he believes the stability of the system would not be as great
if shared with Chaska. He stated the original franchise was set up long in advance
and he would not like changes now.
The City Admr. asked that if ZU had bid the proposal this way initially, would the
City have considered it as our own system? He asked if an agreement over sharing
capital costs really changes it and makes it significantly different. He added
he thinks it is the proximity to the bid process that has taken away Council's
flexibility in considering the proposed change.
Cncl. Lebens stated she feels this is just too close to the time the bid was awarded.
She thinks it would be totally unfair to Progress Valley to change the rules now.
Colligan/Lebens moved to deny the Variance Request for an amendment to move the
headend facilities as requested by Zylstra-United for the tower and earth stations
for the cable communications system.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Colligan/Wampach moved to direct staff to bring back a Resolution stating the
denial of the Variance Request and the reasons for it. Motion carried unanimously.
Cncl. Vierling stated that Dorothy Olson has questioned her assessment on Bluff
Avenue.
The City Admr. stated the Leland Scheller property has been determined to be build-
able with variances.
Discussion was held regarding homeowners who are concerned about the proposed
changes to Second Avenue because of the pending grant application. Mayor Reinke
stated the Admin. Ass't and himself will be talking with some of those residents.
Mayor Reinke called on the Councilmembers to publically support Amendment No. 2
regarding financing for Minnesota roads.
The City Attorney stated he now has all the deeds for the additional property near
the library and will proceed .to clear the title, and will prepare a resolution to
that effect and submit it to the Council.
Leroux/Colligan moved to adjourn to 7:00 P.M., October 19, 1982. Motion carried
unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:25 P.M.
Judith S. Cox
City Clerk
Diane S. Beuch
Recording Secretary
OF+N'ICIAL PROCWDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 19, 1982
Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. with Cncl. Wampach, Lebens,
Colligan, Leroux and Vierling present. Also present were Rod Krass, Ass't City
Attorney; John K. Anderson, City Admr. and Judith S. Cox, City Clerk.
Lebens/Vierling moved to approve the minutes of October 5, 1982 as kept. Motion
carried unanimously.
The City Admr. related additional information regarding the letter from William
Sando, Councilmem ber of Metro Council regarding sludge ash land disposal sites.
Vierling/Leroux moved to accept the resignation of H. J. Ring from the Fire Dept.
with regrets. Motion carried unanimously.
Cilligan/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2068, A Resolution Of Appreciation to
Harold Ring, and moved its adoption. The City Admr. read the resolution. Motion
carried unanimously.
Leroux/Colligan moved to accept the resignation of H. R. Nolting, effective Novem-
ber 30, 1982, with regrets.
The City Admr. explained that because of the two resignations from SPUC, Wally
Bishop has agreed to stay on the Commission for a couple of months to insure
smoother transition so there wouldn't be three new people on SPUC all at once.
Mr. Bishop's resignation was worded that it would be effective as of time of
replacement, so he suggested using the applications being received now to fill
Mr. Nolting's term first.
The City Admr. stated he would bring back a list of the dates of the terms of the
Utility Commissioners. He also took note of a direction to draw up a resolution
of appreciation to H. R. Nolting.
Motion carried unanimously.
The City Admr. gave additional information in response to the letter from Leeland
M. Sifferath regarding a request to have the City correct drainage problems by the
installation of a concrete swale across 11th Ave. West of Tyler Street. He stated
the City has no desire to pave 11th Ave. , but correcting the storm sewer problem
is appropriate for long term plans in the area. He stated Mr. Sifferath and
his neighbor, Dean Colligan, have agreed to pay the cost of paving the street, if
the City would correct this drainage problem in a timely manner so they could take
advantage of the overlay contractor now in the City so they can get a good price
on the paving.
Further discussion followed with the City Engineer regarding the alternatives for
correcting the storm sewer problem. The City Engineer stated this plan is in
accordance with City policy.
Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize the City to install the concrete pan at the
corner of 11th Avenue and Tyler Street, on the west side of the intersection, and
pave 11th Avenue according to City Engineer' s verbal specifications at this time, and
to assess the property owners for approximately $1250.00, with the City paying the
required $2400.00 for the concrete pan from the Contingency Fund. Cncl. Leroux
stated he felt this was consistent with City policy in the past.
Cncl. Colligan clarified that the City would also perform grading work necessary
for installation of the pan.
Roll Call: Ayes; Wampach, Lebens, Vierling, Leroux, Reinke
Noes; None
Abstain: Colligan
Motion carried.
Liaison reports were presented by Councilpersons.
Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to address
the Council on any item not on the agenda.
Mr. McKenna talked with Cncl. Wampach about his fence dispute with his neighbor,
Mr. Petch. Cncl. Wampach stated the fence viewers have done all they can with this
Shakopee City Council
October 19, 1982
Page 2
fence dispute, and if Mr. McKenna is not satisfied, his recourse is now the Courts.
Cncl. Lebens stated the problem is actually a dispute about property lines.
The Ass't City Attorney stated that if this is a property line dispute, he would
urge the City Council not to get involved in it any further.
Ms. Delores Wendorff of the Shakopee Jaycee Women presented T-shirts to the Council-
members by way of advertising the Bowlathon to benefit Cystic Fibrosis, which is the
No. 1 genetic killer of adults and children. She urged all the Councilmembers to
come to the Bowlathon.
Discussion on the proposed snowmobile and all-terrain vehicle regulations was ini-
tiated by Shakopee Police Chief Tom Brownell. He stated he feels very uncomfort-
able when he receives calls from citizens about snowmobile violations to which he
can't respond adequately because of lack of personnel and over-time limits for
funding. He stated he received 25 complaints last year of snowmobile violations
that occurred in residential areas. He stated the Police Dept. cannot apprehend
violators in a squad car, and they don't have adequate funding or personnel to
operate a snowmobile patrol. He stated most of the complaints are concerning
machines on private property without permission, and the biggest problem is young
drivers operating after school. Therefore, of the various alternatives, he is
recommending prohibiting the operation of snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles
except south of 13th Avenue, with property owner's written permission. He added
lack of parental control compounds the problem.
Mayor Reinke asked for comments from the audience.
Bob Skorczewski, 1029 Swift, asked how the snowmobilers are supposed to get their
machines out of town to where they are allowed to ride them. He pointed out that
if they had to trailer them out, what would the residents do with the trailers
when they weren't in use. He stated the City crews would be plowing around a lot
of snowmobile trailers in town. He said with a lot of snow, it wouldn't be easy
to get the trailers on the lawns off the street. He stated in the past the snow-
mobile club met with the Police Department and told the police they wanted to
accomodate them. They volunteered to provide one member of the patrol and stated
they could help at anytime. He stated they heard nothing from the Police Dept.
He stated he would rather see a couple of designated routes, with a possible usage
permit of some type to use them, than to outlaw snowmobiles completely in the City.
He stated there are a lot of trails south of town they can use, but they have to
be able to get to them. He added that he doesn't think half of the drivers know
where they can operate snowmobiles in town. He stated he lives in Shakopee par-
tially because they can get out and snowmobile and don't have to trailer the machines
everywhere. He said it would be like living in the cities if it is outlawed.
Chief Brownell responded that the snowmobile club did meet with his department and
offer their assistance. However, he stated that since most of these people are
employed, there was a conflict with the time when the most problems occur, which
is after school.
Discussion followed regarding more education for operators, curtailing snowmobiling
until after 6:00 P.M. and registration of owners.
Lawrence Searling, who lives at 10th & Scott, stated he thinks the problem is
greater with motorcycles and automobiles than with snowmobiles. He thinks snowmo-
bilers are being picked on. He stated he felt 25 complaints from 10,000 people
sounds like not too much. He stated there are some people who will break the law
no matter what they are driving. He stated everyone is so worried with liability,
but wherever you go, someone is liable.
Izzy Mahowald stated he is a member of the snowmobile club, and has been a snowmo-
bile instructor since 1970. He stated he has had two snowmobile instruction classes
a year for as long as he can remember. He stated they can't get the young people
who are driving around on snowmobiles to come to the classes, and they can't get
parents to get their kids to come. He stated he also talked to the Police Dept.
and stated he would help them patrol anytime, but he has never gotten a call. He
stated he didn't want to see snowmobiling banned in the City, but he did agree there
should be some corridors and limitations on where snowmobiling is allowed. He
stated that the route through Shakopee is one link of a long snowmobile trail all
around the Twin Cities. He further explained the snowmobile policy in Prior Lake.
Cncl. Wampach suggested some method of registration of snowmobiles and some way to
teach violators by giving some authority to the snowmobile club to restrict operators.
Shakopee City Council
October 19, 1982
Page 3
Kim Workmister stated that he believes the key seems to be enforcement of the law.
He stated that Prior Lake has the reputation of being very strict in its enforce-
ment of snowmobile laws, and Shakopee is known to have essentially no enforcement.
He stated the word gets around quickly, so whatever the rules are, they have to be
enforced. If the City just enforced the law that a person has to have a drivers
license to operate a snowmobile on City streets, that would eliminate the biggest
problem with young people. He stated the snowmobile club could maybe raise some
money to fund some overtime for the Police Dept. He stated he thinks some system
of limited restrictions should be enforced, with snowmobiles allowed only to and
from these corridors to where it is permissible to ride. He stated the snowmobile
club has gotten permission from many landowners outside of town to make a trail.
They would like to get the kids out of town and onto these groomed trails. He
stated the laws in existence regarding snowmobiling are very confusing, and he would
like to see some simplified ones.
Discussion followed regarding some way of registering snowmobiles and enforcing
education for operators. Cncl. Vierling suggested marking trails in town along
allowed corridors.
Jerry Hagedon asked some questions of Chief Brownell relative to the complaints
and procedure of the Police Dept. Chief Brownell stated in the past the City was
not charged by the County for its help in snowmobile patrolling, but additional
help from the County will probably not be available next year because of the State
Aid cutbacks.
Mr. Workmister stated the snowmobile club has some money it received from the State
because of its trail system, and it could take some of this money to help in
patrolling and provide volunteers and a sled and enforce the laws strictly at the
beginning of the season. He stated Shakopee needs to change its reputation re-
garding snowmobil ers, and if it hits violators hard right away, the word will.
travel fast. Further discussion ensued.
Leroux/Wampach moved to establish a committee to come up with some alternatives
to the snowmobile problem in the City; said committee to consist of Cncl. Leroux
and Cncl. Colligan, Chief Brownell and representatives from the snowmobile club.
Cncl. Leroux stated the snowmobile club could have 3,4 or 5 members, whatever it
felt was necessary. Someone in the audience asked if someone who doesn't belong
to the snowmobile club could also participate, and the response was affirmative.
Motion carried unanimously.
It was decided to meet October 26, 1982 at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers.
Leroux/Vierling moved to open the public hearing regarding the vacation of Ramsey
Street north of Shakopee Avenue. Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Reinke asked if any of the property owners in the area had any problems with
the proposed vacation. One person from the audience asked just what was being
vacated, and the response was both north/south and east/west portions of the street.
The City Lngineer stated that Mr. Hoen has property with frontage on both sides
of Ramsey. He stated he is not present tonight because his wife is in the hospital
having a baby. He stated he spoke to him last week and explained to him what the
City is proposing to do, and Mr. Noce is in agreement with the plans, and under-
stands the storm sewer easement would be on his property. He viewed it as a bene-
ficial buffer. The City Engineer stated he explained to him that in order to
create a building site, the storm sewer would have to be re-located.
Colligan/Leroux moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Wampach moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution vacating Ramsey Street
north of Shakopee Avenue retaining utility and drainage easements along the north
line of the east/west segment and along the west line of the north/south segment.
Motion carried with Cncl. Lebens opposed.
Discussion was initiated regarding the proposed Noise Elimination/Prevention Code
with Chief Brownell introducing Sgt. Dennis Anderson, who has attended school
regarding operation of the monitoring equipment; and John Nelson who is an
Environmentalist for Bloomington.
Mr. Nelson stated there has not been a single prosecution lost by any municipality
enforcing noise elimination under this code. He stated all of the sections of this
proposed ordinance are in some other community ordinance in some way.
Shakopee City Council
October 19, 1982
Page 4-
Sgt. Anderson stated he could train other officers in using the monitoring equip-
ment. Mr. Nelson explained the funding for the training, and stated they hope to
have schooling available on an annual basis in the future and propose that Sgt.
Anderson be a field leader, and they are very confident of his skills.
Mr. Nelson suggested that once the ordinance is adopted, it should be given a
lot of publicity, and suggested getting signs made regarding enforcement of the
noise ordinance. He stated if the Police Dept. gives consistent response to com-
plaints, there will be immediate response and noise elimination. He added this
enforcement could also be used in conjunction with the snowmobile regulations. He
would definitely suggest creating "Quiet Zones" by libraries, senior citizen com-
plexes, hospitals and schools.
Cncl. Leroux asked about noise from trucks in town. Mr. Nelson replied there is
a separate body of law that regulates truck noise. He stated it has been their
experience that after you tag 2-3 trucks, the word gets out very fast and the
trucks get much quieter.
Cncl. Wampach asked about the difference between noise from a band in a bar vs.
truck noise on the street. Mr. Nelson stated these are two different noise levels.
He stated stationary noise is regulated more strictly than transient noise.
Colligan/Wampach offered Ordinance No. 108, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City
of Shakopee Amending Shakopee City Code By Adopting A New Section 10.60 Entitled
"Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention" and By Adopting By Reference City Code,
Chapter 1 And Providing For the Penalties Of the Violation Of Said Ordinance, and
moved its adoption. The City Admr. summarized the ordinance.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
The City Admr. was directed to properly publicize the Ordinance and research the
status of enforcement of truck noise. Mr. Nelson stated he could supply materials.
Leroux/Colligan moved to authorize the hiring of Sherri Lee conrady as Police
Secretary, at a salary rate of $916.00 per month commencing October 20, 1982.
(Clerical Range 3, Step 2)
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the City was withholding the 1983 pay
raise until after the six month probationary period. The City Admr. stated it
had not been the policy to withhold the first-of-the-year raise until after the
six month probationary period. General consensus was there should be no raise
during the probationary period. However, if an agreement was already made with
this particular applicant, that agreement would have to be in effect.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Colligan/Lebens moved to direct staff to research the resolution regarding salary
increases during the six month probationary period. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Lebens moved to remove from the table Ordinance No. 107. Motion carried
unanimously.
Leroux/Vierling offered Ordinance No. 107, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee,
Minnesota, Amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 9 Entitled "Parking Regulations"
By Repealing Subd. 1 of Sec. 9.08 Entitled, "Parking Hours" And by Repealing Sec.
9.50 Entitled "Parking During Street Maintenance Or a Weather Emergency" And By
Adopting A New Subd. 1 of Sec. 9.08 Entitled "Parking Regulations" And by Adopt-
ing A New Sec. 9.50 Entitled "Parking During Street Maintenance or Snow Plowing
or Removal" And By Adopting By Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Section
9.99, and moved its adoption. The City Admr. summarized the ordinance.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Colligan/Vierling moved to direct the appropriate City staff (City Attorney) to
prepare an ordinance which would amend the zoning regulations of the City Code by
correcting typos and making simple clarifications as recommended by the Planning
Commission (see City Planner's memo dated October 12, 1982) . Motion carried
unanimously.
Discussion was held regarding City policy regarding fee waivers and clarification
of groups and organizations which would pay on an actual-cost basis.
Colligan/Leroux moved to direct staff to prepare a policy regarding civic and
religious organizations which would pay building and planning fees on an "Actual-
Cost"basis. It was clarified that staff would make the decision as to what groups
qualify as religious or civic. Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Lebens offer Resolution No. 2066, A Resolution Approving the Final Plat
of Evergreen 1st Addition, and moved its adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Shakopee City Council
• October 19, 1982
Page 5
Leroux/Colligan moved the consent business as follows:
1. Accept the apparent low bid of Wheeler Lumber & Bridge Co. of Shakopee,
for the salt storage structure materials as specified in the amount of
$7,037.03.
2. Authorize proper City officials to execute an agreement with Gary and Randolf
Laurent for Lot 6, Block 21, Shakopee City, which provides for the covering
of openings on the west side of the building by fireproof material upon
construction of a building to the west, if within 10 feet of the lot line.
Roll Call: Ayes; Vierling, Leroux, Reinke, Lebens
Noes; Colligan
A1:stain: Wampaeh
Motion carried.
Paul Wermerskirchen addressed the Council regarding the Industrial/Commerical
Commission's proposed visitation program for industries in Shakopee. He explained
the desired agenda and purpose of the visits. He stated the Chamber of Commerce
and Planning Commission will also be joining them for the visits.
Discussion was held regarding whether or not Kawasaki was closed, and additional
names of industries not covered on this agenda. Mr. Wermerskirchen stated the
ICC would research the other industries and complete a schedule with them.
Leroux/Vierling moved to approve the Industrial/Commercial Commission's Visitation
Program and agreed to participate in the scheduled tours. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Engineer stated that as soon as there is good weather the Public Works
Dept. will televise the segment of service line on Leland Scheller's property on
Bluff Avenue, and Council would be informed of the results.
The City Engineer gave a response to Dorothy Olson's appeal of her assessments.
He stated the requirement of having to have a playground in order to be a State
licensed pre-school makes the two lots a single unit. He stated it is considered
one school lot like the other schools in town that occupy more than one lot.
Discussion followed regarding how the lots would be assessed if the school was
vacated and the two lots were separated and the school was turned into a duplex.
In that case there would be a need for an additional connection for sanitary sewer
line. Cncl. Leroux stated the other schools in town are platted as one lot and
cannot be broken up without being re-platted, and that is how these parcels are
different.
Further discussion centered on putting some sort of restrictive covenant on the
vacant lot. The City Clerk suggested some agreement with Ms. Olson whereby that
at such time as the vacant lot was developed a sewer charge would be due and
payable, and it would be deferred at this time. Further discussion ensued.
Leroux/Colligan moved to direct City staff to prepare a resolution abating the
sanitary sewer assessment for Lots 3 and 4, Block 23, East Shakopee, Parcel No.
27-004115-2, 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 that vacant lot, this sewer charge would have to be
paid back to the Sewer Fund. Motion carried with Cncl. Colligan and Vierling
opposed.
Colligan/Lebens moved to remove consideration of consent agenda possibilities
and agenda format changes from the table. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Admr. explained various non-controversial and routine items which could
be included in the consent agenda. Further discussion followed regarding changes
in agenda format.
Vierling/Leroux moved to authorize utilization of a consent agenda of non-contro-
versial and routine items which may include approving minutes, Planning Commission
recommendations, accepting bids, approving licenses (excluding liquor), appoint-
ments, misc, items which need no discussion, agreements, change orders under 1%,
ordinances with minor amendments having already been discussed, and resolutions
such as partial acceptance of work on final improvements. Motion carried
unanimously.
Shakopee City Council
October 19, 1982
Page 6
Leroux/Lebens moved to direct staff to prepare the agenda using the following
format, commencing with the November 2, 1982 meeting:
1. Roll Call; 2. Liaison reports; 3. Recognition of citizens; 4. Consent; 5. Minutes;
6. Communications; 7. Public Hearings; 8. Planning Commission; 9. Reports from
staff; 10. Resolutions; 11. Ordinances; 12. Other Business; 13. Adjourn.
Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion was initiated by Mayor Reinke asking how the Councilmembers felt about
always making a motion before beginning discussion about an item. Discussion
followed with consensus being to encourage a motion initially, but not to require
it.
Leroux/Lebens offered Resolution No. 2067, A Resolution Denying the Request of
Zylstra-United to Amend the Cable Franchise Ordinance to Permit Moving the Proposed
Tower and Earth Site from Shakopee to Chaska, and moved its adoption. The City
Admr. stated he spoke to Mary Smith, Zylstra's manager in Chaska, who told him
that Zylstra is presently going over the figures contained in the Cable Franchise,
and have not signed the ordinance yet.
Motion carried unanimously.
Wampach/Vierling moved to authorize proper City officials to execute Change Order
No. 1 with Hardrives, Inc. , for the 1982 Pavement Preservation and Rehabilitation
Program in the amount of $1,740.00 for the bituminous pavement in the Alley of
Block 50 with no increase in completion time.
Roll Call: Ayes; Leroux, Wampach, Vierling, Colligan, Reinke
Noes; Lebens
Motion carried.
Lebens/Wampach moved to authorize staff to hire Lundgren Excavating, 5609 35th
Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minn. to furnish a D-5 Dozer for the following terms:
1 hr. mobilization will be paid and the contractor will be compensated at a rate
of $60.00 per hour for the D-5 Dozer, for Block 2, Timber Trails.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Leroux/Wampach moved to authorize SPUC to relocate the electric cable at a cost
of approximately $235.00, at Block 2 Timber Trails, Improvement No. 1982-5.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Colligan/Lebens moved that the bills in the amount of $579,519.95 be allowed and
ordered paid.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Colligan/Lebens moved to approve Change Order No. 2 for CR83 Widening, Contract
No. 1982-1KT with Hardrives, Inc. , 7200 Hemlock Lane North, Maple Grove, Minn. ,
increasing the contract amount by S1,074.00 with no change in the number of calendar
days for completion.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Colligan/Lebens moved to approve the payment of Partial Estimate Voucher No. 2
for contract No. 1982-1KT with Hardrives, Inc. , 7200 Hemlock Lane North, Maple
Grove, Minnesota, in the amount of $1.18,259.30.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Discussion was held with the City Engineer regarding the Hwy 101 service road and
the problem with School Bus Sales loosing access to Hwy 101. Mayor Reinke stated
the City has received letters from all the businesses along the road supporting
School Bus Sales' position.
Leroux/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2069, A Resolution Amending Resolution No.
2057 Levying Taxes Payable in 1983, and moved its adoption. Motion carried with
Cncl. Lebens opposed.
Colligan/Leroux offered Resolution No. 2070, A Resolution Amending the 1983 Budget,
and moved its adoption . Motion carried with Cncl. Lebens opposed.
Cncl. Wampach asked the City Admr. to check the City's policy regarding returned
merchandise by employees.
Colligan/Lebens moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned
at 10:27 P.M.
Judith S. Cox Diane S. Beuch
City Clerk Recording Secretary
WARD B LEWIS CLIA RLE.i C BEROT:IST
BELLOWIs BEST 8C F LA NA GA N WILLIAM C KL-IT L..MANi
.)O,1?, H.CARROT Y:O R(:Y: C) LI-Dc Kl: III
JA?ii 0,OL+�o� ,TTOIt\!'.l"; Al LAW
E J(e.r.t n LAI AVE III
ARC HIRALD 4040 II)`` CH?-TER I'ATRICI B. IIEN NESSY
PORI RT 'l S.:ARE (.R7 CORY D. SOT:LI.
HORER7 L.CRutiIiY \�1FNl APC)LIF,��INNE',OTA :17,101' ( URI STIN 1Z SoL;o
I.EO"A.RD "l ADDI\GTON (CSI.'. 3:35-x'121 ERIiI W !DELI:
B-my u: H BARTH ERICA S. LAT-ER
N \\AITI R GRAFF
.A I. EN D. BAR\ARD -
}Z1CHATit) A.PETERSON
-I IT(,.AS II C-ARLSON ov (o•.'.--.r.:.
H Vow. nc»/(3: MALONEY
MAIIINI', W.VAN PUTTEN. LEONARD NC. SIMOSET
.IA.'IES C. DIRACLES
JAMES A.IJOF2\IG ,JAMES r BEST
}�t1;ITI i' J. PRATTI. 1'c_ i'.•!.
ROI3EITT L MELLER,JI2.
SCOTT D. ELLER September 30 , 1982 HUfit:F(T J. FLAI:AGAN
Mr. John Anderson
City Manager
City of Shakopee
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Mr. Eldon Reinke
Mayor
City of Shakopee { ` 1982
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 CITY } EE
Mr. Rod Krass
City Attorney
City of Shakopee
211 West 1st Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
RE: Access of Minnesota Body & Equipment Co. onto TH No. 101
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that this office represents Minnesota Body &
Equipment Co. , Inc. , which owns premises located at 7380 Highway
101, Shakopee, Minnesota. This is to formally request an oppor-
tunity to appear before the City Council to again request that it
reconsider its decision to build a frontage road behind the Minnesota
Body & Equipment premises as opposed to the previously planned and
logical location for the frontage road in front of Minnesota Body &
Equipment.
Please find enclosed a copy of the PETITION executed by various
affected landowners objecting to the location of the frontage road
behind the Minnesota Body premises. This PETITION speaks for it-
self, and we ask that you carefully take it into consideration in
reassessing your position as these individuals are most affected
and it is our hope that their opinions will carry substantial weight.
Because I presume that you are all aware of the history surrounding
the proposed closing of the present easement onto T.H. No. 101 bene-
fitting Minnesota Body & Equipment, I will not discuss it here.
Suffice to say that it is our position that the removal of the ex-
isting access and substitution of the rear frontage road will have a
/ ��
BEST & FLANAGAN
Mr. John Anderson
Mr. Eldon Reinke
Mr. Rod Krass
September 30 , 1982
Page Two
•
remarkable adverse affect on Minnesota Body. If after you have heard
and considered our presentation and reviewed this petition you are
still unwilling to either leave the Minnesota Body access as is, or
put the frontage road in front of the premises as was done for all
the other businesses on 101, you will leave us in the obviously un-
fortunate position of having no choice but to initiate an action
against the City of Shakopee, among others. To briefly outline a few
of the counts in this action, you should be advised that it is the Law
in the State of Minnesota that reasonable, convenient and suitable
access to a main thoroughfare from abutting property is a right which
cannot be denied without just compensation. Hendrickson v. State,
127 N.W. 2d 165 (Minn. 1965) . See also the more recent case of Johnson
v. City of Plymouth, 263 N.W. 2d 603 (Minn. 1974) wherein the Court
clearly stated that the power to regulate does not include the power
to take without compensation, and if there is to be a denial of a
right of access it must be the result of a compensated taking under
condemnation and not an uncompensated one under the guise of police
regulation. The present frontage road denies reasonable access to
Minnesota Body & Equipment and will result in extremely substantial
damages.
We recognize that such a trial would entail a jury question with
regard to reasonable access and that this would be a lengthy and ex-
tremely expensive proceeding. Please note, however, that under Minnesota
law and recent Federal cases under 42 U. S.C. §§1983 and §1988 , including
Maine v. Thiboutot, 48 Law Week 4859 , Entertainment Concepts, Inc. ,
III v. Maciejewski , 7th Cir. 9/23/80 , Boldt v. State, 297 N.W. 2d 29
(Wisc. 1980) , etc. , Minnesota Body would be awarded its reasonable
attorneys ' fees from the City if it were to prevail.
I wish to stress that absolutely the last thing that my client
desires is litigation with the City of Shakopee, and it is our sincere
hope that you will conscientiously consider alternatives and either
build the frontage road as originally planned in front of the Minnesota
Body & Equipment premises, or leave the present direct access onto
101 unaffected.
Thank you for your cooperation and please contact me with a date when
we may appear before the Council.
Yours very truly,
BES ' £NAGAN
111
i . , i /i ,______
R.•ert L. e ler, Jr.
RLM/srg
encl.
cc: Robert Rost
MEMO TO : John K . Anderson
City Administrator
FROM : H. R. Spurrier
City Engineer
RE : Trunk Highway 101 Frontage Road -
County Road 89 to the West Line of Cretex Industrial Park 1st
Addition
DATE : October 29, 1982
Introduction :
School Bus Sales is adjacent to the above-referenced project. In order to
complete the project, the drive entrance of School Bus Sales would have to
be closed and a new entrance constructed on the frontage road south of the
facility.
I have contacted Earl Howe, Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
and have been advised that in order to close an access, the City would have
to initiate condemnation procedure to acquire the access.
The City must have the access appraised and determine what the value and
damages would be for closing the access. That price, pursuant to City
policy, would be offered to the property owner at the same time the City
proceeded with condemnation. A Board of Commissioners would finally establish
the value of the closing based on appraisals submitted by the property owner
and the City.
Mr. Howe was unable to estimate what the value of a closing such as this
might be. Staff has not had sufficient opportunity to research the value of
similar closings, therefore, staff would not be prepared to make any recommenda-
tions regarding the course of action to follow at this point.
Since a representative from School Bus Sales intends to be present, it is the
recommendation of City staff that Council hear the request from the property
owner and proceed from that point.
HRS/jvm
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Rod
FROM: Joel
DATE: October 13, 1982
RE: Access of Minnesota Body and Equipment Company
Onto Highway 101
FACTS
In this action, Minnesota Body and Equipment Company is challenging
the City of Shakopee's proposed location of a frontage road to Highway No. 101.
The proposed frontage road is set back a substantial distance, presumably to
accommodate access interests of land owners located further away from 101. Once
the road is completed, direct access easements to Highway No. 101 will be terminated
requiring businesses in front of Highway 101 to utilize the frontage road. Minnesota
Body is dissatisfied with this location because unlike other businesses in the area,
the new road passes behind Minnesota Body's business premises. Claiming that removal
of the existing access and substitution of a rear frontage road will have an adverse
affect, Minnesota Body is demanding either: (1) reconsideration of the frontage
road planned so that it passes in front of the premises or (2) continued allowance
of the present direct access easement to Highway 101.
APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
The right of access to a highway by an abutting land owner has been
extensively litigated by Minnesota Courts. Traditional principals of eminent
domain are reflected in Minn. Const. , Article 1, Section 13, requiring that
"private property shall not be taken, destroyed or damaged for public use without
just compensation therefore." Acting pursuant to this mandate, Minnesota Statute
160.08 requires compensation to be a purchase or condemnation for damaged property
rights resulting from either limited access or no access to controlled-access
highways. Recke vs. State, 215 NW2d 786, 787 (Minn. 1974) . Further interpretation
of the rule requires that property owners are entitled to reasonably convenient and
suitable access to the main thoroughfare. Johnson Bros. Grocery vs. State, 229 NW2d
504, 505 (Minn. 1975) . Deprivation of this property right requires compensation. Id.
Unfortunately Minnesota Case Law interpreting the above principals may
favor the position asserted by Minnesota Body. The leading case on point (in fact,
the case referred to in the Memorandum sent to you by Mr. Meller) is Hendrickson vs .
State, 127 NW2d 165 (Minn. 1964) . In Hendrickson, the highway which the Plaintiff
abutted was converted into a frontage road after construction of a new highway. This
new road was contolled-access highway meaning that entrance to the highway was
possible only in limited locations. Therefore, Plaintiff was disallowed direct
access to the new highwaylinstead of being required to enter the highway from the
frontage road. Although the frontage road access to the highway was reasonably
close, Plaintiff's new access was circuitous in comparison to the direct access he
previously enjoyed. Despite the fact that Plaintiff still had reasonable access to
the highway, the Court held that where in the construction of a controlled-access
highway, an owner of abutting property is denied reasonably convenient and suitable
access to the main traveled portion of the highway, compensable damage may be
sustained notwithstanding the availability of a frontage road from which the
property has circuitous access to the main thoroughfare. Thus, although closing
the land owner's existing direct access is well within the power of the municipality,
the destruction of a direct access constitutes damage to a property right requiring
compensation.
Following Hendrickson, numerous cases have arisen concerning compensable
damages where a land owner's direct access to a highway has been eliminated. See
Johnson Bros. Grocery vs . State Department of Highways, 229 NW2d 504 (Minn. 19-71-T,
State vs . Prows Motel , Inc. , 171 NW2d 83 (Minn. 1969). In these cases, direct
access was eliminated requiring circuitous entrance to a highway by way of a
frontage road. The Hendrickson decision was applied and followed indicating its
present vitality.
City liability is nonexistent only in situations where governmental
action is more an exercise of its inherent police powers rather than a compensable
taking. City action is seen as an exercise of its police powers when the city is
attempting to legislatively impose reasonable restrictions and regulations upon
how an owner may utilize the property. The intention of these restrictions is
to promote the public's general welfare or secure property rights lawfully entitled
to other individuals. In contrast, "when the legislature attempts to forbid an
owner from making use of his property which is not harmful to the public and does
not interfere with others property rights" the action is a compensable taking rather
than an exercise of police power. State ex rel Lachtman vs. Houghton, 158 NW 1017,
1019 (Minn. 1916) , cited in Johnson vs. City of Plymouth, 263 NW2d 603, 606-07 (Minn.
1978).
Unquestionably, Shakopee can argue that the proposed placement of the
frontage road is in the interest of the public's general welfare, making such
action an exercise of their inherent police powers. Two considerations, however,
weaken this argument. First, prior case law has somewhat defined whattypes of
highway regulations will be construed as a noncompensable exercise of police powers.
Included in this category are establishment of: (1) one-way streets, (2) median
strips limiting crossovers from one lane of traffic to another and (3) restrictions
on left and right-hand turns , etc. Hendrickson vs. State, 127 NW2d 165, 170 (Minn.
1964) . Considering the above case law, I doubt that courts will view the construction
of a frontage road and a subsequent closing of direct access as within the scope of
this power. Second, courts are hesitant to deny compensation for damages even
where the action is defined as an exercise of police power. The Hendrickson Court
specifically noted that, "the prohibiting of limited of access to a highway may well
be an exercise of police power in the sense that it is designed to promote traffic
safety, but at the same time it may cause compensable injury to an abutting owner. "
Id. at 170. In Johnson, the Supreme Court affirmed the disposition stating that
'The operative question is not whether the City of Plymouth exercised its police
powers in a reasonable fashion,but rather if the City's admittedly legitimate police
power action unduly restricted vehicular access to the subject property and thereby
deprived Appellants of their right of reasonableaccess." Johnson vs. City of Plymouth,
263 NW2d 603, 607 (Minn. 1978) . Thus, police power or not, injury to a property
right can result in compensation to the injured land owner.
to
Although past case law is detrimental to Shakopee's position, they can certainly
assert that the inconvenience suffered by Minnesota Body was not severe enought to
merit compensation through condemnation proceedings. As mentioned earlier, abutting
land owners are only entitled to reasonably convenient and suitable access to the
main thoroughfare. Johnson Bros. Grocery vs. State, 229 NW2d 504, 505 (Minn. 1975) .
What is reasonable ingress and egress is a fact ' question. When considering
reasonableness, the jury must ask whether or not the new access substantially impairs
the landowner's right to reasonably convenient and suitable access to the main
thoroughfare. Hendrickson vs. State, 127 NW2d at 173. Not all inconveniences
will support a claim for damages. Rather, a landlord must demonstrate the requisite
threshhold of aggrevation. State vs. Kohler, 128 NW2d 90, 93 (Minn. 1974) . Imposition
of even a substantial inconvenience has not been considered tandamount to the denial
of the right to reasonable access. Johnson, 229 NW2d at 607.
Should Minnesota Body be entitled to compensation, the measure of
damages is the difference between the market value of the property before and
after suitable access has been denied. Hendrickson, 127 NW2d at 173. Damages may
not include, however, compensation for diversion of traffic, loss of customer's
business, goodwill , income, or profits. Id. These figures depend upon considerations
other than simply the location of the business.
In conclusion, Minnesota Body's direct access to Highway No. 101 is a
valuable asset. Closing this access is likely to be construed as a compensable
taking rather than an exercise of police powers. Although afforded highway access
by construction of a frontage road, requiring a former direct access land owner to
utilize a certain circuitous access has been held by the Minnesota Supreme Court
to be a compensable taking. This is not to argue that Shakopee cannot build a
frontage road as they so desire. Rather, if they proceed with this proposal , the
City should expect to compensate land owners abutting Highway No. 101 for future
in- conveniences resulting from their loss of a direct access. Although monetary
damages are likely, they are not absolute. Instead, they pivot upon satisfaction of
a requisite threshhold of reasonableness which ultimately is a jury question.
66
PETITION
A PETITION TO THE CITY OF SHAI{OPEE AND THE MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION OF A
FRONTAGE ROAD ALONG T.H. 101.
WHEREAS, the original plan for construction of the
frontage road along T.H. 101 provided for the road to be
located within the right of way on the south side of T.H.
101 from J. L. Sheely Company Road east to Peterson Seed.
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee in its original resolution
requesting state aid for construction of the frontage road
described said road using this description.
WHEREAS, on or about May 16, 1978, for reasons unknown
to the petitioners the plan for the proposed frontage road
was altered.
WHEREAS, the revised plan will place the frontage road
behind Minnesota Body & Equipment and deny it access to T.H. 101.
WHEREAS, the proposed frontage road as it is now planned
benefits only Cretex, Inc. by building a road to service
unsold platted lots owned by Cretex with taxpayer funds.
WHEREAS, the proposed frontage road represents a unique
and wholly unnecessary departure from the existing frontage
road system along T.H. 101, which in all other instances runs
in the T.H. 101 right of way in front of affected property owners.
WHEREAS, the revised plan for the frontage road will
adversely affect the business and property value of Minnesota
Body & Equipment, as well as adversely affecting the signatories
hereto, and is not in the public interest except Cretex.
THEREFORE, the undersigned petitioners being all property
owners affected by the proposed service road, hereby request
the City of Shakopee and the Minnesota Department of Trans-
portation to take the following action:
r �
6
1. That the service road be repositioned in front
of the Minnesota Body & Equipment property within the
easement of T.H. 101.
2. That if the service road cannot be so repositioned,
it not be built.
3. That since the proposed frontage road as it now
stands benefits only Cretex, Inc. , if and when they desire
to market the unsold platted lots owned by them, it should
be their responsibility to install a road to service those
lots. 7
2--4l/t/ii:1,/' 4 - c '..1
-'1. .7 ./IC ; — .--1.A 0-re5Z
�_ D.v to r .,'
7 .w, 1 17 /,..e.,/,;,-- -I, �" ( ."i c-'.1i�..,
f{ /1,„e, <i r Cit1/</_.____-_ (,,//a_/ . 1,2,7/ k'--
/ .. .4.1v\ •) 1,_.>\c_i -'c t .
ZIEGLER INC.
H. M. Mullinix
901 WEST 94th STREET Vie Prt;:irirnt
miTEmi LIS, m i 5542x) ` Adrnin & tiveret:uy
� n
WARD B. LEWIS 13 7 I' CHARLES C. BERQUIST
CHARLES S. BELLOWS L S T & LA AGA 7.\-: N•ILI.IAM C.KL:HLMAST
JOHN R.CARROLL Gt:r')Itf:7: 0. I.T;DCKE HI
JAMES D.OLSON _ATTORNEYS AT LAW GEE. Inti KPH LEDCHFAVE III
.•'fRCHIBALD SPENCER ER 40 10 IDS C ENTER PA-rnics 13. HENNESSY
ROBERT �I-SRARE GI/E.rwRY D. SOULE
R0I3EHT L.CHOSfY MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA :S:1.J02 CII1tISTI\E K.SOLSO
LEONARD M.jDDINGTON ERIK W. IFIELE
ROBERT R.BARTII
, ERICA S. LAUE
A:.:.7:\" Il, BAH\'A HI)
RICA ARD A.PETERSON
THOMAS D. CAIu.s(x
rOr VSEL
FRANK VOGL (-'1.oi r_,E _MALONEY
MARTS W.VAN PI"TTEN..11t. LEONARD W. SIMosET
JAMES C WS C. DI RACLES
JAMES A.J ORNIG `�r:
a ! du �.!.' +l..i f I •
JAMES I. BEST
ROBERT J. I MATTE i,,(
ROBERT I L. .EI7.JIt. October 14 , 19 82
DTI ll- ELLER ROnhi1)T J. FLANAc.AN
u .e-I4ra
Mr. John Anderson
City Manager
City of Shakopee
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Mr. Eldon Reinke
Mayor
City of Shakopee
,7129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Mr. Rod Krass
City Attorney
City of Shakopee
211 West 1st Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
RE : Access of Minnesota Body & Equipment Co. onto TH No. 101
Gentlemen:
Please find enclosed a correspondence of the attorney for Howe ,
Inc. which confirms our position and the position of the effected
landowners that the construction of a frontage road to the rear of
my client' s property would serve little purpose and would not benefit
the affected parcels. We respectfully request that you consider
this correspondence along with the Petition and other materials in
your consideration of our requests which we will bring before the
Council on November 2 , 1982.
Yours very truly,
BEST-4 FLANAGAN
' ? /
Robrt L. xeller r.
RLM/srg
encl.
cc: Robert Rost
JAMES H. RUSSELL, P.A.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
202 THORPE BUILDING
BOBS WAYZATA BOULEVARD
GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA 55426
TE.EPHONE • ^ /�p 9RUCE E .lUB6ELL
(6'2) 545 5653 October 12 , 19 8 2 R JEFFREY MCLE00
LEE W
OF COUNSEL
Mr . R . C . Rost
Minnesota Body & Equipment Co .
7380 Highway 101
Shakopee , MN 55379
Dear Mr . Rost :
You have brought to our attention the proposed construction of
the frontage road south of T .H. 101 in Shakopee in a relocated position
at the rear of your property .
Our recently platted property east of your land includes a dedication
to the public of a street to connect Cretex Avenue with an existing
entrance to T . H. 101 . We were unaware prior to this time that a con-
troversy existed as to the location of the frontage road .
We do not request , at this time , that the frontage road be built .
Cretex Avenue is dedicated and provides access to the platted Cretex
lots . It appears to us that the present construction of a frontage
road would serve little purpose and would not benefit the affected
parcels .
Very truly yours ,
4gOr z.liA2.4%%!%>''
mes H. Russell
Attorney for Howe , Inc .
JHR :bh
St. Francis Hospital -
325 WEST FIFTH AVENUE/SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA 55379/(612)445-2322
October 26, 1982
Mr. Henry Spurrier
City Engineer
129 E. 1st Ave.
Shakopee, MN 55379
RE: Atwood Street
Dear Bo,
St. Francis Hospital will remove the construction material
currently stored on Atwood Street between 4th and 5th Ave.
on November 3, 1982. Our contractor will clear the street
and contact you for inspection prior to opening it for
through traffic. We are prepared to repair any damages
which were incurred during our building project.
I would like to take this opportunity to request that the
on-street parking on 4th Avenue and Atwood Street which
abutts Block 58 be restricted to two (2) hour parking.
This restriction will provide the incentive needed to get
the long term parking visitor or employee to utilize the
existing parking lots.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
T� /�/�-XGA Z `y �
Thomasl/ Prusak ,.c1 1? ,
,! 7
Director of Operational Services ' °
T P/f g b ( ,y' ° -% i::
'� -; �`..
<1; ,
SPONSORED BY THE FRANCISCAN SISTERS OF ST. PAUL, MN
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk
RE: Vacation of the Alley in Block 57 , Shakopee City
DATE: October 28 , 1982
Introduction
On October 5 , the Council set a public hearing for November 2nd at
8 : 30 p.m. to consider the vacation of the alley in Block 57 , which
lies between 4th and 5th Avenues and between Atwood and Fuller
Streets .
Background
The alley in question lies within the block between St . Francis
Hospital and Scott County Courthouse. A letter was received on
September 24th, from the Scott County Administrator asking that
the City consider the vacation.
The Utilities Manager, Lou VanHout , has advised me that SPUC desires
that an easement be retained over the existing alley way due to
the existing overhead electric line needed to supply St. Francis
Hospital . The attached resolution does so.
Alternatives
1 . Vacate alley retaining easements .
2 . Vacate alley not retaining easements .
3 . Do not vacate the alley.
Recommendation
Alternative No. 1
Action Requested
1 . Hold public hearing; and if no reasonable objection is presented:
2 . Offer Resolution No. 2073 , A Resolution Vacating the Public Alley
in Block 57 , According to the Plat of Shakopee City, Scott
County, Minnesota, and move its adoption.
JSC/jms
RESOLUTION NO. 2073
A RESOLUTION VACATING THE PUBLIC ALLEY
IN BLOCK 57 , ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF
SHAKOPEE CITY, SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
•
WHEREAS , the alley in Block 57 , Shakopee City was platted and
dedicated to the public use ; and
WHEREAS , it has been made to appear to the Council that it
would be to the best interests of the general public to vacate said
alley ; and
WHEREAS , the Council has set a date for a public hearing at
which time to consider said vacation and due notice of the hearing
has been given , as prescribed by law; and
WHEREAS , all persons desiring to be heard on the matter were
heard at the public hearing on November 2 , 1982 in the Council
Chambers in the City of Shakopee ; and
WHEREAS , the Council has been fully advised in all things .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1 . That it finds and determines that the vacation of the alley
hereinafter described is in the public interest and serves no further
public need as an alley,
2 . That the alley in Block 57 , according to the plat of Shakopee
City , Scott County, Minnesota , is hereby vacated,
3 . That the City reserves , however , to the City of Shakopee ,
its licensees and franchise holders a perpetual 16 foot wide easement
on, under , and over the said vacated alley for utilities with the
right to install , maintain, repair, lay and re-lay the utilities by
the City, its licensees and franchise holders ,
4 . After the adoption of the Resolution, the City Clerk shall
file certified copies hereof with the County Auditor and County
Recorder of Scott County.
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
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator PC,
FROM: Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant
RE: Transportation Development Guide/Policy Plan
Review Draft , August 1982
DATE: October 2.8, 1982
INTRODUCTION
The Metropolitan Council is considering the adoption of a New
Transportation Development Guide/Policy Plan which would replace
the current plan adopted in 1976. Public comments on the new
Plan are solicited before November 15 , 1982 . The Energy and
Transportation Committee has reviewed the draft plan and presents
three recommendations to the City Council on approaches to revise
the pian to better reflect Shakopee objectives .
BACKGROUND
Attached are pages of the revised Plan which contain the overall
goals of the Plan and policies 1 through 39 . These policies are
to replace polices 1 through 53 of the current plan. The full
Plan is 85 pages long and will be provided to Council members on
request . There is also a packet of background papers to the
proposed plan which is 123 pages long. See especially policies
20, 37 and 38 with special pertinence to Shakopee. The members
of the Energy and Transportation Committee received the same
packet of information to make their recommendation.
City staff have held discussions with staff at the Metropolitan
Council as to how the revised policies would effect Shakopee. We
have been advised that general interpretations are difficult to
prepare , and a more positive approach is to state the City objec-
tives and request an interpretation as to whether our objectives
are considered contrary to the metropolitan-wide policies .
Recommendation No. 1
The Committee recommended that policy number 18 should be revised
and placed in the general policies as follows : "Subregions should
be linked to one another and to freestanding _growth centers with
transit service when the need has been demonstrated and the service
can be provided in a cost efficient manner". This change would
allow transit connections between Shakopee and Southdale or Burns-
ville if the need is demonstrated.
Additional Recommendations
The Committee has interpreted policy No. 38 to he the most pro-
blematical . This policy changes the existing policy which calls
for fixed route transit services between freestanding growth
centers and the urban service areas by providing for no expansion
of this type of service , with new emphasis on rideshare oppor-
tunities . Council previously discussed this issue in July of
Transportation Development Guide/Policy Plan
Review Draft , August 1982
October 28 , 1982
Page Two
1982 . Although it is not entirely clear in the transportation plan
what constitutes the rural service area the Committee has inter-
preted the MUSA (Metropolitan Urban Service Area) line to delineate
the urban versus rural service areas . Based on this interpretation
the Committee has two additional recommendations . Number 2 is pre-
ferred , with recommendation number 3 a fall back position. The
recommended alternates seek to tie the taxing authority and the
services received together, which the current plan does not do.
Although this is a very rational approach, it may be hard to imple-
ment because the Transportation Plan is adopted by the Metropolitan
Council and the MTC taxing district is created by the legislature .
Recommendation No. 2
Request that the MTC taxing district be revised to follow the MUSA
line , thereby removing Shakopee from both the service area and
the taxing district for MTC services . This recommendation is
contingent on Shakopee receiving the same capability as outstate
communities to tax and receive state aid funds to provide replace-
ment transportation services , and the City Council commitment to
provide such transportation. For 1982 it is estimated that the
MTC receives $202 ,268 in property taxes and $41 , 393 in state aid
to serve Shakopee , and pays out $36 , 557 in subsidy to provide the
current four buses to and from Shakopee ( 56 daily passengers x
2 trips daily, x 240 days per year x $1 . 36 per passenger trip
subsidy) . The revenues are scheduled to increase in 1983 to
$264 , 372 from property taxes and $76 ,234 in state aid. If Shakopee
can provide equivalent service at a lower price , there would
be an overall savings for Shakopee citizens .
Recommendation No. 3
Keep Shakopee in the M'I'C taxing district but allow MTC transit
services for Shakopee to expand accordingly, by either:
a . Changing language in current policy number 38 to read "Commuter
trips from freestanding growth centers to the urban service
area can be served by rideshare strategies , expanding metro-
politan highways or fix-route transit services" . (This would
have a full range of transit options available to all freestand-
ing growth centers . ) ; or
b. Revising the delineation of urban and rural services areas to
follow the MTC taxing. district , thereby placing Shakopee in
the urban service area and subject to the policies for that
area. Expanded services would then still be available to
Shakopee .
ALTERNATIVES
1 . Select one or more of the Committee recommendations to present
to the Metropolitan Council as the Shakopee position on the
proposed Transportation Policy Plan, ( 1 , 2 , 3A or 3b) .
Transportation Development Guide/Policy Plan
Review Draft , August 1982c1---
• October 28 , 1982
Page Three
2 . Select some other recommendation, as determined by City Council ,
to present to the Metropolitan Council .
3 . Take no Shakopee position to the Metropolitan Council .
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Direct City staff to promote recommendations numbers 1 and 2 as
the Shakopee position on the proposed Transportation Policy Plan
to the Metropolitan Council . Leave recommendations 3a and 3b as
back up positions if there is no action to accept recommendation
number 2 .
JA/jms
t I L.IhAr',ll•
I
(RSI
'�• : NI(RNy I \S().rt r+Rf rt 1
1 Ir-- i
I ANOKA CO -;u.wn�s �
• NAMSt, I GROW NAY1..“ 1 t__,'
'ti .w
IO.111 LAR( •+1 w •1
of(cr.
N
c� 1 7
t•� LINO I•tt5 ,
DAYTON .0h IR� Roti I IN II COON R•r101 yi...." --1,
"CIN' .1111 •,•,
ebt
EILAINE
r- - TF y M..
N.NL:i� a-1 I
It Rlwc100 :iif7C uar 111.10 WASHINGTON CO
I 5510 L
11 1»011.01 SR/rll•
t11 Nt HID (JRIORAN MARL GROYf 1---lo f 7[�
1. YORI»
IS _ I BROORl1«1111 II 1OtRL 7/'.[' 5••.�• 1
Note: Areas outside [Oct TORO I rnol[Y —L_y .t 111•'
HENNE' IN CO e.00Nl•0 w.0 .�tt .'�.• 1111•
MTTD, but within I 11«11. T.•D•LLL•.SJJJf7r
___.___ _ .._.__._.._—_._. T._1� ` IR RIc»ruN I„I,urllilro/•` 7• •
,
7 counties, Shall be 11 o.cuo c VslA' 2.1311.., •rnlN •; Yls, .s,„.
(' Nu,S
taxed at 1/10 the I t Nile 1 -�--: ;,. �1 �_
I ,Ani.INNNII ;\ rt Dp,• PETMOUIN Hort, (110 I .51
5 �, 1:..'..o%
l.r rll J _y- ✓ S.
levy tot the MIT D. I rt•� t'i', r ' 1 I�I •011Y1u! 1: ..o% s NRY,',1
. '1) 40101« is 1 r Y•r-1-1q.00D •-'J\O•RD•$( l•.1
I EI • y. '. a ru l[I 1'`1.x1-.- - 9,-1 I (uo J ..,,�
--_T - N 11 .1 RAMSEY CO •
L_(«',, •'1 rfJ.N ___- .__ - i.Q tl r
^ ...__ (.__-tel.J I � ^--
•N 1 010.(1.„.
11«tif L . (�),a::1L101100�•�,, Si LOUIS 1 SAINT PAUL 1 1 21 t•.I.•.'
I i J PR•” arlrr[RPous i'•� I -
t 1 r011•N•Y[N t1:W.10� f 0 n 1
I W.. ' ....�I�t'y� 1:----
e t. !.„.i , .000WF. • L11541 10 o:o
• I:
l�
S1,TONT.•(11 .rim 1 II I PAUL 1 .�+ ••'0•
1__.,
-_�_—.—: [DIM• 10 5011••• y
I.n" I 1 v nc Hr.(ED`ga.roa MI Noo1. I.:6.r
NnGN15 auwnsN r•m,N
i‘
I - CHA««A SSI« N I X17 . 1%.1
1
1tt'1,1h I n.i G'hll yf1 L•rt1I,o.. 'J -�,--L I
[O1«.1101111 '•+•.W
CONI• .P••••
11100M1«GTON _ r /
1 CHISKA YY!•GROtT
CARVER CO ucA« »uGNIS t' c0 44444 14.0.1 )
LITr utc I CNA.,- DAKOTA CO. •'�Y. .
L I. LICA ((�� t` r SNA ROI[E __1._ .
1L I COL OGN11 wNl,.Nth 1 I t , su.«sYHle / l_�
Mow •••11 Yttttt •051.00«1 •. IS
kk-
4.1
L_—_ I tAKtYILI( •••••
.
�_i '.•Nn IXF EN $RRIN1.1 tot CREn,,I It"'1•'1 I1/ iI
IIJ 11YFN I I vl•.'\`'ON
1,:i J r.1rl«cio«
SCOTT CO. I I_ I 1 I
I ,I lee •
.,l•.!I I 10.0A. I 1 1
4.,-A lieu'.,tIM I — ------ I T
h1„N.,. 1 ,)•••,• ..1.
..1 I 01l11 , ,.1 I I nl l r I .III , . I MIYIIIN ,
li N1n :::,"'"'I
f.n ATI
I
1 Mrlgh I nr
1 «t.-T•AGu[ N_,)1,17.111,
1110 I I 1 1 1
——fil--— - --. - -.. — --- J —I — -,. .,-1.T...- _ _
�� 1 GRIIN5.1I IA,'X I. .. .r,/M��IAO
M 5 0) 15 20 25 ILJI .. ,1
1 1
Tedi' CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA
Metrcpoftar Transit Taxing District
I SPRING,PARK 9 VICII,RIA 17 FALCON HEIGHTS 25 GEM(ANE ANOKA ---COUnty
T 0.000, 10 R011IINSDACI 18 MINDOTA 76 SIpCNWOOD --
3 MINN11000 4 111010 11 SPRING 10111 PARK 19 tItYDAII 27 A.1.11 HI IN _ _ _ Township
4 TONKA NAT 11 U S 1Lt
..)tit,20 I.81 Y L •)llt, 28 IA Y1.001 - - -.
5 (5(11010111 13 HUItor 21 LANDFALL 29 811111111E
O G1LEN8000 14 COI 00810 HEIGHTS 22 DUE WOOD 30 OAK PARK HEIGHTS 05510 PVIUnielpall ty
7 8001NLAh0 15 ST ANTHONY 23 110E SPRINGS 31 LAKELAND SHORES
8 0(01(101 LAKE 16 LAUDERDALE 24 MAHTOMEDI 32 ST MARY S POINT
•
EFFECTIVE FOR TAXES LEVIED IN 1975 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS
(BOUNDARIES StiOWN AS OF JULY 1, 1975.)
`•` o olitan Center ® Service to Metro Centers (Primarily Express)40 oeri7Predominantly Fixed-Route Subregional Service
A Gv
'/a Freestanding Growth Center
/ 6....°1MUSA Boundary
.....;?< Predominantly Paratransit Subregional Service
4. O Intermodal Transfer Terminal (Conceptual)
DRAFT �LI
APRIL 1982 l
L �; ';"
REVISED HS 1 /
AUGUST 1982 I �---------i
` <4ff;
I
Ic.,
!, ';-,' ii ,„ I . ''', 1 -7-77,—
..r.. ANOKA ..-,... J -,�Ij-.. .}I.�.
II I 1 I I fi1\' °G
L.
.y.. '1`::1;!:1 h.•!i%' •
1� '. �!
(57,
y •,I � �t9w w wai � � � �1
iil'I
Ili 1 I p' 1 c '
11,1 11,1 I a
r 1 1 \IA 1 I \ , r . ... 1 WA:,lIIN,ION \I
,,:;:.4 „...,..:•:•:•::.:.,...c,• 4.....,„] AN§§ r.1
1.1
:iii ii:. :;�:�,.,1. ,:�.w-r 'i:�.vfi,:.,� o��t
1 /
ft
. A is : } +I, C...
oHE NEPI � I Al r``t. ° " a .e � 'a1 .
4°6
V 'FI ..... w +r '^ ' '.« t ' � '
t' P f
t.,..t» �� 1
...:- ____
....,... .
---1-',.--,.—a...:--1
_ 1' ..,..:41,..,
1 ."1y 0/ . - •, : ....:;,, -'i:::!:,;:,., o ..1.., �.
...,...,......:. •...... ig WI 'got,' " ..:. ...:.:?•"1"..:.W!,:h
,�,'1 ----� - v. J.i. fir. :•.i-,if '_� . 'iL.
•
1 ,"I \� . Q '%W .e• $..` tt(t ;.ok S9: ,X 5 _ fff 1l w�,,.� `�l"e
H "yb+
_I Gni:...... �,: �� j! ff . s _
• 4."40 g 4;'•.,_I of 1411150. .:740...i, :.•.,.
L •-z(.,i, , ' . ,,,,. .. Ise *.kiim kil /e.:,:::..-:...iellit . 1 ...?•.... '
- • :— *- 4,.......... ,t .-::::::-...., • ..
I `
to\� I . `
. "::::?:-.%6 il • .:Ei,i':', ::9 Alp- .--:,
: f{#
}f
? .f
CA VERi ; :Mt • i otvMNa,
I1 i
f; f
I t' if If' fir` ---...:gAl':
-I
I 1 I r , Iloizi:' . ,• 0`,) . 41)
Ell''''''''' •• ig.. i�II .y
I ''i ' j DAKOTA
I
X.,. , I1 1 �I I
.N,l.,,. I I'I • I ..
SCOT Ti -1 I // 1 1 I
1 l l ------ - - --
� '
i j l j � -' I
i ; � _�
I
- 1 . iI
1I ;
'
_.—.-Co�nly eo�•neary Freeway or ExPressw.ry I 1 „„,,•0,.,-. ly
Faun,C,VaI BnunOary ---Pio;oson Inlerslale freessoy • i v~
I iI I
T.,wnfnip Bo.may --a renal I I I
L.______1 ._—J__--) _:_, :_ __ _.
4 „ _ , -_ _ _. _ -, - - - - -. - -- r- - —. - -
Figure 7. 2000 METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM PLAN
53
CONTENTS
Preface 1
Transportation Policy Index 3
INTRODUCTION 7
Background 7
Philosophy of the Plan 7
PART I. GOALS AND POLICIES 11
Goals 11
Policies 12
PART II. THE PLAN 20
Transportation System Evaluation 20
Existing Systems 20
General Assumptions 21
Forecasts 22
Subregions 29
Deficiencies 33
Transportation Needs 41
Transportation System Plan 49
Functional Classification 49
2000 Metropolitan Highway System Plan 50
2000 Metropolitan Transit System Plan 52
PART III. COSTS, PRIORITIES, IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES 56
Introduction 56
Costs 56
Priorities 58
Implementation Guidelines 59
APPENDICES 63
A. Definitions 65
B. Subregion Criteria 69
C. Functional Classification System Criteria and Roadway
Characteristics 70
D. Concepts and Alternate Transit Mode Applications for
Transit Service Inside Metropolitan Urban Service
Area 75
E. Interchange Criteria and Procedures 79
F. Bicycle Facility Guidelines 83
G. Park/Ride Guidelines 85
LIST OF FIGURES
1 . Transportation Policy Areas 30
2. Distribution of Subregional Opportunities, Subregion 3 31
3. Existing and Committed Metropolitan Highways 35
4. Major Deficiencies on Existing and Committed Metropolitan
Highways 37
5. Metropolitan Fixed Route Transit Deficiencies 47
t
6. 2000 Metropolitan Highway System Plan 51
7. 2000 Metropolitan Transit System Plan 53
8. Roadway Spacing Characteristics of Functional
Classification System 74
LIST OF TABLES
1 . Population, Households, and Employment Estimates: Twin
Cities Metropolitan Area, 1980/2000 23
2. Total Daily Regional Travel Estimates, 1980/2000 24
3. Daily Person Trips by Urban and Rural Areas, 1980/2000 25
4. Estimated Regional Travel, 1980/2000 26
5. Projected Auto Driver Trip Distances 27
6. Total Daily and Morning Peak Hour Person Trip Estimates
To Minneapolis and St. Paul Metro Centers, 1980/2000 28
7. Population, Households and Employment Estimates by
Subregion, 1980/2000 32
8. Committed Projects on Metropolitan Highways 36
9. Major Deficiencies on Existing and Committed Metropolitan
Highways 38
10. Major Metropolitan Transit Deficiencies 40
11 . Metropolitan Transportation System Needs 43
17. Metropolitan Highway Needs 45
13. Metropolitan Transit Needs 48
14. Cost-Revenue Summary of 2000 Metropolitan Highway
System Plan 57
15. Cost-Revenue Summary of 2000 Metropolitan Transit
System Plan 57
16. Metropolitan Transportation Priorities 58
17. Functional Classification System Criteria for Roadways 72
18. Functional Classification System Characteristics for Roadways73
19. Major Concepts for Transit Service Inside
Metropolitan Urban Service Area 77
20. General Application of Alternate Transit Modes 78
ii
GOALS AND POLICIES
GOALS
A necessary step in the preparation of the Transportation Policy Plan is the
development of goals that can provide the general framework for the formulation
of policies and plans. The following transportation goals are representative
of long-term values shown in past studies to be important to the Region and its
residents. These goals have been selected by the Council as applicable
primarily to transportation. They also reflect concerns and values found in
other chapters of the development guide. Orderly development, access to
opportunity and reasonable alternate choices are concepts well established in
the entire Metropolitan Development Guide. This is true also for the role of
the metro (_enters, b r plans that produce positive impacts and for an open and
responsive planning process. By intent, then, these goals relate
transportation to other guide chapters, particularly, the Development Framework
and waste management chapters. Goals may never he completely attained, but the
direction they provide allows for better decisions about needed policies.
In the following goals, the term "transportation" refers to the broad spectrum
of surface transportation modes, i .e. , highways, transit, rail and water. Prior
transportation chapters were directed mainly to auto use of highways and to
transit services. These still predominate here but work has begun on extending
regional transportation concerns to goods movement and its alternate modes.
This mirrors the trend begun when the State Legislature first established a
Minnesota Department of Transportation. In subsequent plan supplements or
addenda, more specific goods movement plans and policies will be included. The
Council has already done substantial work on river corridors, which will be
integrated with other goods movement analyses. It is possible, however, to
adopt goals general enough to be applicable to a broadened concept of regional
transportation facilities and services. This is to provide some additional
regional transportation input to river corridor issues. The six goals are:
1. Provide transportation facilities and services to promote the orderly and
economic development of the Metropolitan Area.
2. Provide metropolitan residents with good accessibility to suhregional and
regional opportunities.
3. Provide residents of the urban service area, as defined in the Development
Framework, with cost-effective, convenient and attractive alternative
choices of transportation to hoth subregional and regional activities.
4. Utilize transportation to strengthen the two metro centers as the major
employment, financial, institutional , retail, cultural, entertainment,
medical , and service centers for the Metropolitan Area, the State of
Minnesota and the upper midwest.
5. Provide transportation facilities and services that produce positive
impacts upon the social , economic and physical environment, and conserve
the supply of metropolitan energy resources.
6. Maintain a regional transportation planning and programming process that is
responsive to the needs and interests of metropolitan residents, groups,
11
ec
1111111
counties, municipalities and affected agencies--with sufficient opportunity
provided for them to participate in policy and implementation decisions.
POLICIES
The transportation policies were developed: (1) to help attain the stated
transportation goals; (2) to provide a basis for present and future planning by
implementation agencies, counties, municipalities and the private sector; and
(3) to guide present and future decision-making of the Metropolitan Council
when reviewing the various referrals and proposals submitted to the Council
under federal and state laws. The policies are also the basis for the
?000 Metropolitan Highway and Transit System Plans outlined in subsequent
sections of this document.
It is intended that the policies provide as much direction for implementation
action or review of proposals as possible. However, it is not possible to be
specific about all future situations and there is room for interpretation of
specific cases in the policies as well . All relevant policies always apply to
the metropolitan highways or regional transit system. Often, however, policies
must be applied to transportation facilities or services not specifically
designated as metropolitan. Insofar as possible, this intent is indicated in
the discussion following a policy. Also, a policy is a statement providing
direction for the Metropolitan Area in working toward established goals. It
can be expressed as an objective, a strategy, a standard or a criterion. This
latitude in policy formulation allows further flexibility in addressing the
major issues relating to the goals.
The policies are organized into three categories: general , urban and rural .
General policies are applicable to the entire Metropolitan Area, urban policies
to the urban service area only and rural policies to the rural service area
only.
In the policies, the term "transportation" refers to the broad spectrum of
surface transportation modes, i .e. , highways, transit, rail and water. In
instances where policies address specific modes of transportation, the
appropriate modes are identified. The word "need, " as used in the following
policies, refers to a course of action to mitigate or remove a deficiency in
the transportation system. Deficiencies, as discussed in detail further on,
have been identified by applying the goals and policies to existing
transportation facilities under travel conditions projected for the future.
GENERAL POLICIES
1 . TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES SHOULD BE PLANNED, DESIGNED AND OPERATED TO
PROMOTE AND SERVE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT
FRAMEWORK CHAPTER OF THE METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE.
2. TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS SHOULD BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF NEED AND THE
ABILITY OF THE METROPOLITAN AREA TO FINANCE AND MAINTAIN THESE INVESTMENTS
IN RELATION TO OTHER METROPOLITAN SYSTEM NEEDS AND INVESTMENTS OVER TIME.
Discussion: Policy 1 establishes the primary linkage of transportation
facilities with the policies and priorities of the Development Framework .
Policy 2 states the necessity to evaluate transportation needs in relation
to overall metropolitan needs and investments (housing, health facilities,
parks, sewers, etc.) and the ability of the Area to support these
12
_
,L
investments. In some cases, needs, such as economic or development, could
suggest supporting a transportation investment where no immediate
transportation need exists. This policy includes, when possible,
consideration of capital , operating and maintenance costs in determining
the ability to finance a proposed investment.
3. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS SHOULD BE DEVELOPED AND MANAGED TO UTILIZE EXISTING
INVESTMENTS MORE EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY .
Discussion: Policy 3 uses the broad term "transportation systems" to
apply to different modes, to operation and to physical facilities or
structures. Better utilization and management of these resources prior to
investing in additional capital-intensive facilities and services is a
policy intended to reduced overall needs for revenue and todiscourage
duplication of facilities or services.
4. CITIZEN AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SHOULD BE PROMOTED IN THE FORMULATION OF
TRANSPORTATION POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS.
5. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES SHOULD BE PROVIDED THAT ARE RESPONSIVE TO THE
SPECIAL NEEDS OF THE YOUNG, DISABLED AND ECONOMICALLY HANDICAPPED LIVING IN
THE METROPOLITAN AREA.
Discussion: Policies 4 and 5 state two social concerns. The first deals
with the-involvement of the public when change to the transportation system
may affect Area residents or their use of transportation. Policy 5
addresses a specific market or segment of the population whose needs cannot
always he met with conventional transit or through use of cars. The
Minnesota legislature, as evidenced through special "social-fare" funding,
has established this principal for nearly a decade. Policy 4 is applicable
to all surface transportations modes also.
6. SAFETY STANDARDS MUST BE A MAJOR CONSIDERATION IN THE PLANNING, DESIGN,
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND SERVICES.
7. CONSISTENCY WITH STATE, FEDERAL AND REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANS, POLICIES
AND STANDARDS SHOULD BE A MAJOR CONSIDERATION IN THE PLANNING, DESIGN AND
OPERATION OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS AND FACILITIES.
Discussion: Policies 6 and 7 set the basis for two important general
design considerations : basic good practices in providing safe
transportation, and applicable laws and guidelines dealing with the
environment. These policies are applicable to all transportation modes
and may on occasion also need to be applied to nonmetropolitan highways.
8. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND INVESTMENT SHOULD PROVIDE FOR THE EFFICIENT
REGIONAL MOVEMENT OF GOODS AND THE INCORPORATION OF GOODS MOVEMENT SYSTEMS
INTO THE DESIGN OF MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS.
9. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES SHOULD BE PLANNED, DESIGNED AND OPERATED TO
FUNCTION IN A MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT LAND USE; IN THOSE INSTANCES
WHERE THE FUNCTION OF A FACILITY AND ADJACENT LAND USE HAVE BECOME
INCOMPATIBLE, AFFECTED AGENCIES AND LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT SHOULD
ESTABLISH A PROGRAM TO MITIGATE THIS INCOMPATIBILITY .
13
ti
10. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES SHOULD BE PLANNED, DESIGNED AND OPERATED TO
MINIMIZE THE DISRUPTION OF NEIGHBORHOODS.
Discussion: Policies 9 and 10 relate the type and function of
transportation facilities to the nature and extent of development they
serve. Policy 9 acknowledges that existing relationships between streets,
highways or other transportation facilities and adjoining development are
not necessarily static . Rather, the nature and intensity of adjoining
development might change because of redevelopment programs or through
development of vacant lands that adjoin existing facilities. When such
land-use changes result in an incompatibility with existing roadways or,
conversely, when a transportation facility has changed to he incompatible
with existing land use, then a joint effort should be undertaken by
affected jurisdictions to mitigate the incompatibility. Policy 10 applies
particularly to the design and location of regional and local
transportation facilities in the vicinity of existing and planned
neighhorhoods. This policy recognizes the social and physical integrity of
neighborhoods. Project planning, design and operation should consider the
transportation needs and environmental values of affected neighborhoods in
addition to regional needs.
11 . DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS SHOULD TEST NEW SERVICE AND PRICING/FINANCING
CONCEPTS OR STRATEGIES, AND CONTAIN AN EVALUATION PROGRAM SUFFICIENT TO
ASSESS THE PERFORMANCE AND FURTHER APPLICABILITY OF THE PROJECT OBJECTIVES.
Discussion: The intent of Policy 11 is to promote or encourage
demonstration projects to test new service concepts and strategies or
market segments, and fare concepts and strategies ( see policy 23) . Each
demonstration project should contain an evaluation program with criteria
adequate to determine if the specified performance objectives were achieved
and to what extent the results of the project can he incorporated into the
relevant transportation system.
URBAN SERVICE AREA POLICIES
12. THE TRANSIT AND STREET AND HIGHWAY SYSTEMS SHOULD PROVIDE A TRAVEL TIME OF
NO MORE THAN 30 MINUTES IN OFF-PEAK PERIODS FROM ANY PART OF A SUBREGION TO
ANY OTHER PART OF THAT SUBREGION FOR 90 PER CENT OF THE RESIDENTS IN THE
SUBREGION.
13. THE STREET AND HIGHWAY SYSTEM SHOULD PROVIDE A TRAVEL TIME OF NO MORE THAN
30 MINUTES IN OFF-PEAK PERIODS FROM ANY PART OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA TO
ONE OF THE METRO CENTERS FOR 90 PERCENT OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE URBAN
SERVICE AREA.
Discussion: Policies 12 and 13 establish the minimum standards of
regional accessibility in terms of travel time during off-peak periods for
trips generated within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary.
Policy 12 relates to internal subregional transit, auto and truck travel .
Policy 1.3 relates to general vehicular accessibility to the Minneapolis and
St. Paul metro centers from anywhere within the MUSA. Policy 1.2 uses
transit in the broadly intended definition found elsewhere in the text to
include paratransit and special services as well as public fixed-route
service. The definition of travel time includes time in the vehicle and
transfer times, but does not include walking and waiting times.
14
14, THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM SHOULD BE PLANNED, DESIGNED AND OPERATED TO
ENCOURAGE HIGHER VEHICLE OCCUPANCIES. MAJOR TRAVEL SEGMENTS OF THE
METROPOLITAN HIGHWAY SYSTEM SHOULD BE DESIGNED FOR 1.6 PERSONS PER AUTO AND
35 PERCENT OF THE PEAK-HOUR PERSON-TRAVEL FROM THE SUBURBAN SUBREGIONS TO
THE METRO CENTERS ON FIXED-ROUTE TRANSIT.
Discussion: Policy 14 establishes an interrelated standard for peak-
hour auto occupancy'and fixed-route transit use for highway design on
certain major travel segments of the metropolitan highways. Policy 14
assumes that incentives should be provided to encourage people to ride
rather than drive to their destinations and that, to the degree possible,
this is to be a part of alternatives evaluated in the design of the
highways in question. Achieving the occupancy goals of this policy will
require some of the following actions: (a) consciously restricting the
capacity made available to single-occupant automobiles, (b) giving
priority treatment to buses and carpools at freeway/expressway entrance
points and on reserved lanes through congested locations in the system, (c)
providing exclusive transit facilities such as high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV)
lanes, busways and/or rail transit when and where appropriate, (d)
increasing public support for ridesharing and (e) restraining the supply
and increasing the cost of day-long parking spaces in the metro centers.
The following metropolitan highway segments are designated as major travel
segments for the purposes of policy 14.
1 . Interstate 35-W from its junction with I-35E in the south to its
junction with I-35E in the north.
2. Interstate 35-E from its junction with I-35W in the south to its
junction with I-35W in the north.
3. Interstate 94 from the I-694/I-494 junction to the junction with 1-694
in Brooklyn Center.
4. Interstate 394 from I-494 to Washington Av. N.
15. INTERCHANGES ON THE METROPOLITAN HIGHWAY SYSTEM SHOULD BE SPACED AT A
MINIMUM OF ONE MILE (CENTER TO CENTER) , BUT IF IT IS DETERMINED APPROPRIATE
TO LOCATE AN INTERCHANGE AT LESS THAN ONE MILE, THE SAFE OPERATION OF THE
MAIN ROADWAY MUST BE MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CRITERIA AND
PROCEDURES STATED IN APPENDIX E.
16. THE TRANSIT SYSTEM SHOULD PROVIDE A TRAVEL TIME OF NO MORE THAN 45 MINUTES
IN EITHER PEAK OR OFF-PEAK PERIODS FROM ANY PART OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA
TO ONE OF THE METRO CENTERS FOR 90 PER CENT OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE URBAN
SERVICE AREA.
17. ALL-DAY EXPRESS TRANSIT SERVICE SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO THE METRO CENTERS
FROM THE SUBURBAN SUBREGIONS, COMMENSURATE WITH DEMAND, WITH PRIORITY
ACCESS AND MOVEMENT ALONG THE FREEWAYS, EXPRESSWAYS AND OTHER HIGH-VOLUME
TRAVEL CORRIDORS.
Discussion: The intent of policies 16 and 17 is to emphasize the
importance of providing transit (especially express transit) services to
the Minneapolis and St. Paul metro centers that is competitive with auto
travel time. As with Policy 12, travel time includes time in the vehicle
15
Lk
and transfers but not walk and wait time. Policy 17 further recognizes
that demand for express transit will vary significantly and that the extent
of express service provided should reflect this . Express transit service
would usually be provided by fixed-route express buses, but peak-period
work trips could be accommodated with van pools, car pools, and other lower-
cost transit services including subscription buses with part-time drivers.
Where appropriate, access to transit services by car should be encouraged
by provision of park-ride lots.
18. SUBREGIONS SHOULD BE LINKED TO ONE ANOTHER WITH TRANSIT SERVICE WHEN THE
NEED HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED AND THE SERVICE CAN BE PROVIDED IN A COST-
EFFICIENT MANNER.
19. THE HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR TRANSIT SERVICES SHOULD BE IN AREAS OR ALONG
ROUTES WITH A RELATIVELY HIGH DENSITY OF DEMAND FOR THE SERVICE AND A
POPULATION DEPENDENT UPON TRANSIT BY AGE, INCOME, OR PHYSICAL OR MENTAL
DISABILITY.
Discussion: Policy 19 states that those segments of the population that
must depend on transit for work, social , health, business and shopping
trips and those locations where the potential market is high compared to
the rest of the Area should receive the highest priority for maintaining
existing service or providing new or improved services.
20. TRANSIT SERVICES SHOULD BE PROVIDED THAT ACHIEVE THE MOST EFFICIENT,
PRODUCTIVE AND EFFECTIVE USE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES AND INVESTMENTS.
Discussion: Policy 20 means that transit services should be "efficient"
in terms of return on investment (low subsidy) , "productive" in terms of
number of passengers carried per mile of service, and "effective" in terms
of achieving the goals and policies (social , development, air quality,
energy conservation) of the Area. This policy stresses good management of
public funds while recognizing that trade-offs exist among efficiency,
productivity and effectiveness.
21 . TRANSIT FOR DISABLED PERSONS SHOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE MOST COST-EFFECTIVE
MIX OF SERVICES.
Discussion: Existing information should be reviewed or additional studies
and/or demonstrations conducted to determine the appropriate mix. The mix
could include (but not be limited to) demand-responsive paratransit
vehicles, taxi service, and accessible regular-route buses.
RTANT
ERS OF
RNSIT
22. THE UBLIC SERVICES; WHICHEVER ACAN TE SPROOVIDES ATHE RE BMOST OTH ICOOST-EFFECTIVEISERVICEiSHOULD BE
ENCOURAGED TO DO SO.
Discussion: Policy 22 acknowledges the need for continuing joint
part Ci itit on of the public and private sectors in providing reliable, low-
cost transit services that are responsive to the goals and policies of the
Metropolitan Area. In this regard, it is important that the private sector
be periodically apprised of transit needs that are not being met by the
public sector and be encouraged to satisfy those unfulfilled needs.
23. THE TRANSIT FARE STRUCTURE SHOULD REFLECT A BALANCE BETWEEN THE ACTUAL
OPERATING COST OF THE SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED AND THE PUBLIC PURPOSE OR NEED
FOR THE SERVICE.
16
J
l/
Discussion: Policy 23 encourages recovery of transit costs through fares.
f An equitable transit fare structure also identifies and weighs the various
public purposes and/or needs for transit services ( in regard to both the
types and locations of services to be provided) against the actual cost of
providing those services. Who should bear the cost is also a policy
consideration. This policy requires transit operators to evaluate fare and
operating-cost disparities between population segments as they relate to
the various sources of operating funds.
24. TRANSPORTATION TERMINALS SHOULD BE INCORPORATED WITHIN MAJOR ACTIVITY
CENTERS FOR SUBRFGIONAL TRANSIT, TAXIS, AND AIRPORT SERVICES. THE
TERMINALS SHOULD BE ATTRACTIVE, CLIMATIZED, CONVENIENT, CLEARLY SIGNED,
AND CONTAIN TRANSIT INFORMATION AND SCHEDULES.
25 . LIVING, WORKING AND SHOPPING IN THE METRO CENTERS SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED BY
PROVIDING A CIRCULATION SYSTEM WITH A HIGH LEVEL OF ALI -DAY SERVICE.
26. CIRCULATION/DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS FOR MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS SHOULD BE
PROVIDED TO ACCOMMODATE VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT.
27. PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY SHOULD BE SEPARATED FROM VEHICULAR TRAFFIC WITHIN THE
METRO CENTERS, WHERE FEASIBLE.
Discussion: Policy 27 stresses the importance of providing for safe
separation of pedestrians and vehicles within the metro centers. Examples
of strategies to achieve policy 27 are: (a) complete the planned skyway
system and clearly identify pedestrian access to this system and movement
within it, (b) link the principal parking facilities to destination areas
with skyways, and (c) provide pedestrian malls.
28. THE METRO CENTERS SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH ADEQUATE PARKING TO SUPPORT THEIR
DIVERSE REGIONAL ROLES, COMMENSURATE WITH THE NEED TO ENCOURAGE TRANSIT
ALTERNATIVES.
Discussion: Policy 28 acknowledges the need for either managing existing
parking or expanding parking supply while trying to make the most of
transit potential in the metro centers. Examples of strategies to achieve
policy 28 are: ( a) relate parking facilities to appropriate short- or
longer-term trip purposes; (b) incorporate parking requirements of specific
development projects in comprehensive metro center transportation plans
(which would include a balance of parking requirements with the existing
and potential transit services) ; and (c) use pricing in governing the
number of parking spaces to be provided, their location and utilization.
29. MUNICIPALITIES SHOULD DEVELOP LOCAL CIRCULATION, TRANSIT AND JOINT PARKING
SYSTEMS FOR HIGH-ACTIVITY CONTIGUOUS LAND-USE AREAS, TO ACCOMMODATE LOCAL
TRAFFIC AND CONSOLIDATE PARKING.
Discussion: Along the freeways, where extensive commercial , industrial or
high-density residential development exists or is planned, parking is
becoming a regional issue. Too much parking attracts too many single-
occupant cars with resulting overloads on the metropolitan highways. Also,
parking standards are changing because of changes in vehicle size. This
policy is intended to provide a regional basis for review and update of
parking practices so that parking does not go unmanaged or become excessive
in use of land. It further encourages parking policies to be related to
ridesharing .
17
In addition, such locations require special consideration in implementing
other road systems to handle local access and circulation without diverting
local trips to metropolitan highways. This policy applies therefore to
frontage roads, interchanges, and other streets and roads in high activity
land-use areas adjacent to Metropolitan Highways.
30. SHORTER TRIPS AND REDUCED AUTO DRIVING SHOULD BE PROMOTED BY:
A. ENCOURAGING TRAVEL PATTERNS WHEREBY PEOPLE LIVE, WORK AND SHOP WITHIN
SUBREG IONS.
B. PROVIDING HIGH QUALITY, CONVENIENT TRANSIT SERVICE, COMMENSURATE WITH
THE DEMAND, TO THE MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS FROM THEIR SUBREGION.
31 . MULTI-PASSENGER STRATEGIES SHOULD BE GENERALLY PROMOTED AT THE REGIONAL
LEVEL AND SPECIFICALLY ENCOURAGED AT THE SUBREGIONAL/LOCAL LEVEL BY:
A. ESTABLISHING ON-GOING RIDESHARING PROGRAMS THAT ARE COST-EFFECTIVE
B. FOSTERING A CLOSE PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS
IN THE PROVISION OF RIDESHARING SERVICES
C. TARGETING SELECTED PROBLEM AREAS, CONGESTED CORRIDORS OR SUBREGIONS
Discussion: Policy 31 underlines the importance of a regionally
coordinated approach to ridesharing, which involves active participation
of both the private and public sectors. Cost-effective programs would
achieve regional goals with less resources than other transportation modes,
rather than simply reaching a break-even point.
32. BICYCLE USE SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED THROUGH PROVISION OF SAFE ACCESS AND
PROVISION OF STORAGE FACILITIES.
Discussion: For certain periods of the year and for many locations in the
Metropolitan Area the bicycle represents an increasingly popular mode of
travel . Although recreational use dominates, the bike does serve for some
work and other travel and has a potential for substantial growth in use if
energy supplies were to be severely restricted. Therefore this policy is
included to recognize and encourage planning for improved bike access
especially at major activity centers, the metro centers and bike hazard
locations such as bridges.
33. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS SHOULD BE PLANNED AND MANAGED SO THAT
THE RESULTING QUALITY OF THE AIR CONFORMS WITH THE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR
QUALITY STANDARDS.
34. A TRANSPORTATION PROJECT WHICH IS AN ADOPTED STRATEGY OF THE AIR QUALITY
CONTROL PLAN FOR TRANSPORTATION SHALL BE GIVEN IMPLEMENTATION PRIORITY.
Discussion: Policies 33 and 34 reflect the special place of air quality
concerns in transportation planning. Both federal and state law require
specific action through a state implementation plan to protect air quality
from degradation due to vehicle emissions. The Metropolitan Council is
responsible for developing the state 's plan for control of vehicle
emissions in the Metropolitan Area. The air quality control plan for
18
' f
/ transportation is a supplement to the policy plan. Policies 33 and 34 are
included as the regional planning commitment to the appropriate state and
federal standards.
RURAL SERVICE AREA POLICIES
35. THE HIGHWAY SYSTEM SHOULD PROVIDE A TRAVEL TIME OF NO MORE THAN 60 MINUTES
IN OFF-PEAK PERIODS FROM ANY PART OF THE RURAL SERVICE AREA TO ONE OF THE
METRO CENTERS FOR 90 PERCENT OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE RURAL SERVICE
AREA.
36. RURAL ROADS SHOULD BE PLANNED, DESIGNED AND OPERATED WITH PRIMARY EMPHASIS
ON TRANSPORTING FARM PRODUCTS TO THE URBAN MARKET AND DELIVERING GOODS AND
SERVICES TO THE RURAL COMMUNITIES.
37. INTERNAL TRANSIT SERVICE SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED FOR THE LIVING/WORKING/
SHOPPING OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN FREESTANDING GROWTH CENTERS AS WARRANTED
BY THESE ACTIVITIES.
38. COMMUTER TRIPS FROM FREESTANDING GROWTH CENTERS TO THE URBAN SERVICE AREA
SHOULD BE SERVED BY RIDESHARE STRATEGIES RATHER THAN BY EXPANDING
METROPOLITAN HIGHWAYS AND FIXED-ROUTE TRANSIT SERVICES.
39. THE DEVELOPMENT OF PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE TRAILS SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO SERVE
FREESTANDING GROWTH CENTERS AND RURAL COMMUNITIES.
Discussion: The general orientation of policies 35 through 39 is
toward the planning and design of transportation facilities in the rural
service area to discourage urban-type development. The rural road system
is to function as a means of getting farm products to their market and to
provide rural residents with accessibility to rural communities,
freestanding growth centers and the metro centers. In policy 35, rural
roads means all roads in the rural service area of the Development
Framework. These roads should not be increased in capacity sufficiently to
trigger urban growth but can be improved on a spot basis to handle hazards.
The metropolitan highways in the rural areas function as a farm-to-market
system, link rural communities, metro centers and freestanding growth
centers , and provide primary connection to other urban areas in the state
and other states. Interstate highways provide the linkage with major
centers nationally and transport commodities to and from the Twin Cities
that are shipped by truck . Improvements to metropolitan highways in the
rural areas may be needed to support these functions but should still be
made in a manner that minimizes the access granted to lands designated for
agricultural use. Fixed-route transit services are generally to be
discouraged in the rural service area except in the case of internal
circulation within freestanding growth centers. Of special importance is
the promotion of rideshare strategies rather than the expansion of
metropolitan highway and transit services. Also, providing transit
services to increase mobility of low-income, elderly and handicapped
persons in the rural area by both private individuals and organizations is
not only consistent with this policy plan hut encouraged.
19
MR. & MRS. DONALD PARROTT �i
2055 Eagle Creek Blvd. I
aL—
Shakopee, Mn. 55379
a ;
Ct, LI_ 'E' ' 'Z,ct2,
0 k-Le)1- 1/cydei-kt_64 dz-ttu, ,-7, _ ,F,---
_12_6_4_, itkA, :
91,,v, /9 i(l Lattrel
4.P44- & . CO,e, AAA 6--,A-- C L' &-
CL-Aka ,a-OL4-44t At4)-74 --Lire, 11,a-LeY,. '1 t t_.;'_ •
r .
A41,45-1(4_,41, fl.) 11,4,0_,) 1---y*t-e- -tAi-e_ cl.„.7:1_ At2r 44
...i_i_ 0
,/,4.0._, . (,,,,,,ttn,..124.} _ iaia_z___, c:-Loc..„.,,yrceiai
4
pvttia,,i-, .t.)) ajl-C ii - `. 35._,3,
cy,-1,..,d- h, 1 ,,,r,„ ,C. j i r,6 S I, ,It_
9),''',
//J� //11 P JJ
J- J -IcL. .nl — 155-3, // ''j / ♦ 1f/h/1/."
CA—V-(4-4 ,A140
115,CE V FD .„Jt-1A-c,..,-R-i-eitj t ici
k)(At ,e/4-1-4,-72
2, 9 1952
CLOW THE INDUSTRY'S MOST COMPLETE LINE OF PRODUCTS
FOR WATER, SEWAGE & CONSTRUCTION PIPING
F 3hAKOPEE
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg M. Voxland, Finance Director
RE: Claim by Mr. & Mrs. Parrott
DATE: October 19, 1982
Introduction
Reference attached letter the Parrott's are claiming interest on money
held by the City resulting from their payment of an incorrect tax statement.
Background
The parcel in question (27-908-006-0) was previously filed under green
acres. The 1980-81 tax statement sent out by the County had a special assess-
ment shown on it. The assessment should not have been on the statement because
of green acres. The Parrott's paid the tax statement. The second half was
paid 10-30-81 and it is assumed they the first half about 5-30-81 .
They questioned the 80/81 tax statement in about June 1982. They were
refunded what they had actually paid (principal and interest) on check number
195823 dated 7-14-82.
The claim is for approximately 10% interest for 12 years. The City re-
ceived the first half on 7-16-81 and the second half on 12-16-81. Thus the
City had possession of 2 the billed amount for 12 months and the other half
for seven months. If the Council does pay interest, the City Attorney advises
that the rate of 6% should be used. Therefore:
Amount Billed $2,353.42
($2,353.42 2) x 6.00% for 12 months = $ 70.60
($2,353.42 2) x 6.00% x 7/12 months = 41.18
$111. 78
Compound Interest
$111.78 @ 6% for 114 days (7-14-82 - 11-5-82) = $2.12
$113. 90
Recap of Significant Points
1. County erred in preparing the tax statement.
2. The Parrott's paid the amount in 2 parts - half on 5-30-81 and half
on 10-30-81.
3. The County held the money part of the time.
4. The Parrott's had the tax statement from early 1981 until about June
of 1982 before they questioned it.
Alternatives
1. Pay the requested amount of $353.99.
2. Pay the amount calculated above ($113.90) .
3. Deny the claim.
4. Pay some other amount.
-2-
Recommendation
Based on City's Attorney's advice, alternative #2 is recommended.
Action Requested
Move to pay Mr. & Mrs. Parrott .90 for interest on monies while in
the possession of the city. Payment to be charged to Fund 46-72-2 VIP Water-
main.
GMV:mr
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg M. Voxland, Finance Director
RE: Parrott Interest Claim
DATE: October 27, 1982
Supplemental to previous memo.
The Parrott's were sent a copy of the previous memo. Mrs. Parrott called
today and emphatically stated that they are not satisified with the recom-
mended action and felt that their original request was reasonable. I said
that I would forward those comments to Council.
Also, they filed for green acres on 4-22-80. They paid the first half on
1981 taxes and then questioned the assessment being on the tax statement on
8-28-81 (see significant point #4) . The second half was paid on 10-30-81. On
8-28-81, Mrs. Parrott talked to Al Sticha of the Auditor's office who apparently
suggested to her that they keep paying the assessment in question since they
had already paid it for several years.
The issue next came up when a person at the Treasurer's office said the
assessment should not be on the 1982 tax statement when the property is green
acres (assessment for V.I.P. sewer initiated G.A. application in 4/80) . This
occurred when Mrs. Parrott paid the first half of 1982 taxes. As I recall, the
City was first aware of the situation in June of 1982.
GMV:mr
( b
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 I 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 be $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.
-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 much to bill him for sewer. Residential sewer billing is monthly. To
further compound the problem, any water consumption during the 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.
GMV:mr
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg M. Voxland, Finance Director
RE: Workmen's Compensation Insurance
DATE: October 27, 1982
Introduction & Background
January 1st is the anniversary of our workmen's compensation insurance.
Council decided to go with the League cooperative self insurance program for
1982. There is no policy with an expiration date, it is an on-going program.
Since we are a member and as such have some "ownership" interest, and the pro-
gram is doing weel, I see no reason to change. Especially, I don't feel we
should bounce from program to program on a yearly basis. We are into a co-
operative program and I recommend that the City stay for a least another two
years provided things run smoothly.
Alternatives
1. Rebid
2. Select new carrier/program without bidding.
3. Stay with League.
Recommendation
Alternative #3 is recommended.
Action Requested
Move to continue carrying the City's workmen's compensation insurance with
the League through 1984.
GMV:mr
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg M. Voxland, Finance Director
RE: Evaluation of Data Processing/Microcomputers
DATE: October 28•, 1982
Introduction
There is a computer terminal budgeted for 1982 and two microcomputers
budgeted for 1983. Staff and the Equipment Committee has begun to study
various equipment and configurations to meet the City's needs.
Background
A necessary function of the equipment is that it be compatable with the
H.P. 3000 at Logis which, of course, is the purpose of the terminal for Finance.
Accessing our data base at Logis is desirable for the Administration and
Engineering uses. Councilman Leroux suggested obtaining the services of a
consultant to analyze the compatibility and downloading of data and programs
ability of several machines with Logis. The amount to be spent would not
exceed $500.00
Alternatives
1. Authorize engagement of outside Consultant.
2. Rely on Logis staff.
3. Rely on vendors.
Recommendation
Alternative #1. Logis staff felt that the compatibility information
would probably have to be obtained from the factory and vendor. Having the
authorization to engage a consultant would cover any gaps in knowledge/ex-
pertise that appear and provide assistance in evaluating products as needed.
Action Requested
Move to authorize the engagement of a consultant for microcomputer
evaluation, not to exceed $500.00 and chargeable to the Finance budget.
GMV:mr
0 0 Co Co Cr CO Co CO Co W cnCnNO 00 0 000000 0 Ni C:
H H I- 1-' H H H 1- I--' CO 0) 0D Cl) H I-' H H H H I-' H H H H Cl) d C
Ni c
A A A A A A A A A A A A -P A A A A A A A A A A A A c C
H H CD CD CO CO CD CD CD W W CO W CO N N Co IN N N N N N co 01 H C
0 0 N N N Ni Ni Cl) Ni H H F-' H I-' H H CA) (A) F-' 1-' I--, I--' H N H Ct
0 0 Ni F' 0 W J H J 00000 0 0 0 N-) 00000 0 CD 9 '-
• • • • • n
Cn Cl) CD (1) CO CD CD CO CD 01 U1 01 CO H A A Cl) W H N .A H CD H U1 0 H
N (,J H H H H I-' 1-' H Cl-) 0 H' H 0) Ni I ) Ni H' J Cl) I--' CO H Cl) H r- .L
F-' H H H H' H H H' H 0 I--' CD H F-' 0) F-' H F-' H H H' H H H CO '2 0
. • • • . . . H r.
0) (A) CD CD CD CO ' CO (0 CD A A ACD H A A Cl) co H N A H CO H A
N 0) I••' H H . H H H H H H H H 0) N) N- Ni H J Cl) H Cl) I-' CO H
'-C
g)
O 0 CO CO CO CO OD CO CO U1U1U1N0 00 0 000000 0 Ni n or,
H' H' H' I-' H F-' H H' F-' Co 0) CO Cl) H H H H H H H H H H H Cl) ZI
• • • • • • • . II
H H I-' H H H H H H I' H H H H I-' I-' H H H H H I-' H H H
O 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
H H H H H H H H H H H F-' H H H H H F-' H H' H H H H H n
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 H
H
H
' ) co 0) U1 H CO
.A W F' H A J Ni J J 01 J H 01 Ni �
C)) U1 CD H U1 U1 Cl) W 4 N J U1 Co N A 0 co H H H H H H 0 01 Fr
J H J J J CD 0 0 CO U1U10JU1 Co .4N 0 JINU1JU1CO 0 CO 0
Ni 0) 0 J Ni A 0 0 A O O O 01 O N A Ni 01 N CO CO A N 0 CO
a
0 CP Ni H H 0 0 0 0 00000 JH .A 00) 0) 0CTI A 0 0 H
I
U) Cf) Zi '.T1 Z ;U z7 '17 Z1 'd U) H tri Cr) 'II 0 Nir
'
CD CD CD CD CD p CD '1 o F'S .C) o O cr H
F-• F- <B B B B B B = _ _ = o 'd g) C '0 U) n
Q) A) H H. H. H. H. H3 H. H) 'C) < F-'• N) CI CD >;
F'S F'S n CI ct (-r ct 0 cr = H CD 'O = = _ = H ¢) '7
H. H. I H H. H • H. OR
CD CD ''1 Cl) ''1 'T) CO H C7 Cl) CD CD CD H
Cr) C H H H tr1 CD CD CD (D Q. U) B Nizi
C) H H H) Cl) H) : _ _ _ - 5) N) r
'1 '''1 > > • g) • C Cl) H. F'S
H. C 0 0
C) H. C) C) 6' cr <
H H 0 0 CD (I) • CD
I 1 B OR B U) N• • B
H H '0 U) N) Cr) R° CD
H. H. • C
B B • ;U CT
CD CD CD U)
N)
x C) Cn c) H b H H x r x Cl) Z
N• 0 rt 0 CR tri CI CI) Cl) '" _ PO • C • Q)
• sv CD • r 0 • ,-5 C
O c Q) H• a) U a CO b N• o
H l H 0 cr H) rt CD PCI C 0 < MI
a F'S H) • CD • Hh CD N) H- (1) U) CD
X CD CD I I _ _ = _ '-S H. cr CA
C F'S S 7J CD H Cl) CD = 0 OR D B
H' g U) CD C) n a CD )
FJ 0 C C U) Iv 0 — C CD CD H
¢) 0 '1 CD x • Nv B C) U) CI
• G). CD 0 0 'O A) CI CD CD
p. 11 G 'O '0 • _ _ _ _ 0 up 1 •
CD CD CD (I)
F'S CD CD •
H
• H
J Cl) 0) U1 Ni CO
.A Cl) H H A J Ni J J A H U1 Ni n
O 01 CO H 01 U1 Co Cr A H A Cl) CO 0 U1 x
J H J J J CO 0 0 C9 Ni J 0 Co O CD
Ni• co 0 J Ni A 0 0 A 01 O) Ni H 0 Co
co U1 Ni H H 0 0 0 0 0 0) A H' 0 0
H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H n
H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H
A A A .A A A A A A A A A A A A
H H H H H H H H H 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.
co J 0) 01 A Cr Ni H 0 CC> CO J CP U1 A 0
n
Doo 01 of 00 00000
H 4 H H H H H H H H H Q
• d �:
• N- P A .P • A. P -A IN 0.4 r-r
HO CO 0101 010101010 oyo
-P N N J J J J J v v r-+ CJ'
0oC0 (TiUtUtN0r-3 NO 0) OY 00 00000 ''-1 CD
.PH000D0) CA) HO • • • • r-5
1 1 1 1 1 1 I cr CO 0 (0 C0 CoA GC -A Co H H n
LII-C1 CO CO Co 0A) N0 H H CPry NNHQ) CO n H
(I) P) N H 0 I CD H H 0 H H H �] N H H H N.) 0 CO
C) << I I I U) . . . . c. co
''S ~5 YY ›' ly (D 010 l0 C9 W - 01 01HH N
O .O 15 I-5 (' N 0 H H 01 N N N H CX) CO
I-3 '-5 F-5 1- '1 001 OD co 00 00000 01
F.5 0 0 0 Cr H 4. H H H H H H H H H 0 CD
S✓ C C < R• . • • • . w I
U) CD CD CD R.. H H H H H H H H H H H CO
cr 9 B 9 00 0 0 CO 00000 y
CD CD CD H H H H H H H H H H H n
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H
(-1 ct cr
CD U) U) 64
H
OD H N
CJ N -P
N.) H N
.P 0) 0 CD 0) -P H �] (A N
H - 0 ,.] N N CO 01 -) 0) 01
Co O N N C31 01 0 OD CO H H 0
-En 0) 00) 0) 0 U10 -P0H C,O -
H H
CO N N H H y
CO -P•-P CO U1
N N CO U1 N -1 (D CD CD CD ct c
-P 0WN01 �3C.0LP 3 3 B 9 I"'' H. y
H NOD U1 0 (.11 0) () H. H. H. H. = H H H3
•
CI cr Ci CI H. _ _ _ = H- C)
CO OD -P000O --] I I CI CI x
(3) 0) x] 0000 CEJ 0 U) 0 n H. H.
H• cr ¢) ¢) CD CD
c r ¢) U) U)
-< c () C) Xi
CD CD CD til Z tT)
CD Y r5 ci
_ _ _= COCD c 7C
H. H H O •
Cfl R• cr cn
H- U) (f) • • C)
0 • _ = _ _ >v
U)
(n X r X X
R Z 0 = Z H.
-'' Co CD <
• CD p. _ _ _ = CD
Cn H 04
'15 CD c = 'J Q) .;
H' H) ¢) CD U) CT]
_ -5 H. 11 K O r
CD ct 0 C7
t1 0
- H•
CD U) H) = CD
H U) CD O
= H. 0 c
CD C) H
H) •
U)
fn
H •
CO 01 •
CO0) •
N W H' H
A O) CO 0 0) n
H Co 0 -) .P N 7C
co co N U1 Co J
O) 0) co 0 61 N
H H H H H
H H H H H n
.P -IN .P -P -P 7C
CO N.) CO N H •
CJ CO H 0 (0 0
REPLACES 9F
MEMO TO : John K. Anderson
City Administrator
•
FROM : H. R. Spurrier
City Engineer I. _--
RE: Valley Industrial Boulevard outh
Improvement No. 1982-2
DATE : November 1 , 1982
Introduction :
Attached is Partial Estimate Voucher No. 4 for the above- referenced project.
Background:
A quantity of seeding and sod was unintentionally omitted from the
September payment voucher. In order to correct that, it is recommended
that a payment in the amount of $5, 230.93 be made out of cycle for that
amount.
Action Requested :
Approve Partial Estimate Voucher No. 4 to Valley Paving, Inc. , in the amount
of $5, 230.93 for Valley Industrial Boulevard South, Improvement No. 1982-2.
HRS/jvm
Attachment
-
/ �~'
� ~ PARTIAL }'�3'PlMATKV()UCUK|< "
��
Contract No. 82-2 �ur�ial �'���UmoC, �`'m'h,�' C`,, _4_ __ Period |'�/"Uu/�� October 28 1982
TD: Contractor Valley Paving, Inc. _________________________ ____
Addrc:s 12494 WyomingAvenue South, Savage, MN 55378
'--- --- ------------------'--'-- - __________
Project Description ___�� U Idumtr��Y Boulevard South ___________________________
: . Vrj8inu] Contract 6n,uut ± 141, 583.80 _
1 3 10, 772.42
__
� ' Change Order N . _________ ])u'u Q' . _____ _____ _ � ��__
l�2
i. '�'/�'�| Fund.; i�.oni,.•r''.| ' ' 356' 23_ _ _ ___
V./| u'' of `'rk Completed � 141, Q�2.u2 ' Vuiw' ./[ Work Remaining,
• . ____ i'' n` /.t. i�'' �' i'.,.� . ! __ 7' O96�6Z' - '- ^ 18.423, 80
e. 7r,vi.'us Payment:' $ 129^604'87
|` /\ C'mo|,|':Lc
Deductions or Cbvcg^; | 0_______ __
93 Percent
$
136, 701.49 ----------
�, Total
Cayuoxt Due (Line 4 - Line 8) � 5, 230.93
e|3k|'(y|[/Y|'K 'U/ PAYMENT
(1 , We) hereby agree that the quantity and value of work :b(..xn herein is a fair
estimate of the work completed to date.
CAlRACTD8:
W\: ___ ______-_-___
':'|'U.E: _-__'-------. - _'-_ _-'_--
:`'.! C: --------_________________-______
.j} i' '`|) - ` 2Y 0y .111XKV1`E.:
,
/ef2._
rt
� eve��m�
�^- - / �
N�
Cjty Engin`cr � DuDc
-- -----' ---
City Administrator Date
Page 1 of 2
ry
PAYMENT ESTIMATE `
4
No.
CONTRACT NO. 82-2
City of Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Contractor:
Valley Paving, Inc. , 12494 Wyoming Avenue South, Savage, MN 55378
Amount of Contract: Dates of Estimate:
Original 141, 583.80 From October 1, 1982
Revised $ 152, 356. 20 To October 28, 1982
Description of Project:
Valley Industrial Boulevard South
Contract Items Th` 6 '••. • , • 11 .
tem
No. Contract Item Qty. Unit Unit Price Qty. Amount Qty. Amount
Clear & Grub 17 Ln/ $ 1 .85
Dia -0- -0- -0- -0-
2 Base Prep & Test Rollin,: 27.4 R.S. 440.00 -- 0- -0- 22 968. 00
3 Class V Aggregate (3138; 7,560 Ton 4.35 -0-- -0- 7, 212 31, 372. 20
4 3" Bit. Base Course 10,190 Sq.Yd 3.00
(2331) --0-- -0- 10, 150 30,450.00
5 1:,2" Bit. Binder Course 10,190 Sq.Yd 1.65
(2331) -0- -0- 10, 132 16, 717.80
i> 15" CMI', 114 ga. 103 L. F. 12.21) -0- -0- 1 103 1, 256.60
7 22" x 36" CMP, 14 ga. 240 L.F. 17.65 -0-- -0- 240 4,236.00
8 27" x 43" CMP, 14 ga. 340 L.F. 22.50 -0- -0- 340 7,650. 00
9 15" CMP Apron, 16 ga. 4 Ea. 115.00 -0-- --0- 4 460. 00
10 22" x 36" Apron, 16 ga. 12 Eu. 183.00 -0- 0 12 2, 196.00
11 27" x 43" CMP Apron 12 Ea. 235.00 -0- --0- 12 2,820. 00
i
12 24" RCP, Cl. IV w/R-4 - 60 L.F. 25.50
I
Joint -0- -0- 58 1,479. 00
13 24" RCP Apron 2 Ea. 260.00 -0- -0- 1 260. 00
14 Riprap w/filter blanket 190 Ton 14.00 -0- -0- -0- -0-
15 Seed & Mulch 6,000 Sq.Yd .73 5, 000 3,650 5,000 3,650. 00
1.6 Sod 4,000 Sq.Yd 1.65 1, 125 1,856. 25 1, 125 1,856. 25
17 Timber Retaining Wall 1,000 Sq.Ft, 6.58 0- -0- 1 ,405 9, 244.90
r ay,1: L
Valley Paving, inc., rO
Contract No. 82-2 Valley Industrial Boulevard South. .
T�
Payment Estimate No. 4 ///
Item Contract Items This Period Total to Date
No. Contract Item Qty. Unit Unit Price Qty. Amount Qty. Amoun
reconstruct Ex. San. 6 ,a. $575.00
Sewer Mn.h. -0- -0-- 7 4, 025. 0C
19 Relocate.1 x. Hyd. & 6 Ea. 520.00 -0-- -0- 5 2, 600.0C
Gate Valve
20 Furnish & INstall 12" I T .S. ! ,100.00
( t o Valve & Box 0 -0- 1 1 , 100. 00
21 Concrete Swale (20 ,;. F'. 5.25 0 -0-- 613 3, 218. 25
134, 272. 00
Change rder No. 1
Pd. un .ler Unit Pri e -0--
Change •rder No. 2 1, 514. 13
Change Order No. 3 ` 6, 146.29
141, 932.42
Cif
MEMO TO : John K. Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: H. R. Spurrier
City Engineer
RE : Valley Industrial Boulevard South
Improvement No. 1982-2
DATE : October 29, 1982
Introduction :
Attached is Partial Estimate Voucher No. 4, for the above-referenced project.
Background:
Seeding and sodding is now essentially complete. A large part of this work,
the placing of topsoil, was done in late September. The Contractor has
asked for payment for this work. In order to avoid undue hardship on the
Contractor, it is recommended that a payment in the amount of $3,814. 24 be
made, out of cycle, for that amount.
Action Requested:
Approve Partial Estimate Voucher No. 4, to Valley Paving, Inc. , 12494
Wyoming Avenue South, Savage, MN 55378, in the amount of $3,814.24
for Valley Industrial Boulevard South Project Improvement No. 1982-2.
HRS/jtt/jvm
Attachment
9
�
' y~
PAk�IAL K�ZlMAT� V<)|)CUB<
Contract No. 03-2pu�t�/d ���UxmL,` Y.'u''}..,�' C.,. 4 |'"r�."| ���o'|io/�� October 28, 1982
-_ ___ ___
i2): Contractor ValleyPaving, Inc.
_ �� _____.___ ____ _ __��� `�����
Address 12494 Wyoming Avenue South, Savage, MN 55378
____ __ __-_ -_____'______ _
Project Description Va|lay__Industrial Boulevard South ____
I . Original Contract Aom' nt1, 141, 583.80 __---------------------
��. Chance Order No. _ 1 ___ �'6ru �.`' _ _ 3 �� 1O, 772.42 -
i, T;`(u1 1''1inJ8nclm/h.`a'.( 152, 356.22
---- -------
>/ ^ V"2u6 of Wo/`b ( xl'l'1'`xd ��
� O^�41�l�
' -- ' Vow, "IWork kcmxinln/'
',' 5 | ,� '''u� |<'' ujxu.' ' 7,022.06
'---- �
- -- '-- ' _ - -'- - $ 11,915. 05
o. 7reviouu Payments $ Y29,604.87
- '--'-- -------
Percent Complete
7. Deductions or Charges $ -0-
--' 92 percent
8. Total $ 136, 626.93 -------- -
-----------
iaymo:t Due (Line 4 - Line 3) $ 3,314. 24_
C0Yy||/1CJYTK V; |Y\TUW'y
(}, We) hereby agree that the quu/.Li| y and v/Jx' or »`rk :1^m/ herein i:.; a fair
estimate of the work completed to date.
CL`0T8ACTOD:
BY:
'|']1'/.C: _____ _
|VYyy: ---' — ---' --�� '---------
y LUU��o1'�K
} � �Y V
__,,, ---,____
-,,,„...,!,..
City Er ;in er ate�
.
-____ - _-_-_____-- _-_
City Administrator Date
l'utse 1 ui 2
PAYMENT ESTIMATE
No.
CONTRACT NO. 2;'
City of Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Contractor: '
Valley Paving, Inc. , 12491+ Wyoming Avenue South, Savage, MN 55378
Amount of Contract: Dates of Estimate:
Original $ /`L/. 643 SSo FromCc--7L // /9S'2
Revised $ /521 3 6, 2G To Dc / 2c // '2_
Description of Project:
Valley Industrial Boulevard South
Contract Items Thi§ Period TiDtaL1n Date
Item -
No. Contract Item Qty. Unit Unit Price Qty. I Amount Qty. Amour
1 Clear & Grub 17 In/ 1 .85 -C
Dia
2 Base Prep & Test Rollinir 27.4 R.S. 440.00 —c:.— - .2_2_ c?60,e
.3 Clau:.; V A•greg;aLe (3138; 7,560 'Ion 4.35 -0 -- .._o - t72/2 3/, 371,
4 3" Bit. Base Course 10,1.90 Sq.Yci 3.00 --e- - 10 /�L . G, 103-r.
(2'33.I.)
5 1i" Bit. Binder Course 10,190 Sq.Yd 1.65 -0 c~ /O /32- /4 V?,
(2331)
6 15" CMP, 14 ga. 103 L.E. 12.20 -0-
_0-_ /0 3 i 2f)7-
1 22" x 36" CMP, 14 ga. 240 L.F. 17.65 -0- --o-- 2`f0 '123G.
8 27" x 43" CMI', 111 ga. 340 L.V. 22!.50 -O- -c -- ? 1,f-o ')G-5,-.
9 15" CMP Apron, 16 ga. 4 Ea. 115.00 -0 - -0 - i/L-G
10 22" x 36" Apron, 16 ga. 12 Ea. 183.00 -0- c I2 2/ 9 .,
11 - 27" .x 43" CMP Apron 12 Ea. 235.00 -0- -0- /2 25`ZeG
12 24" RCP, Cl. IV w/R-4 Co L.F. 25.50 -0 --0- S8 /'t 9•e
Joint
13 24" RCP Apron 2 Ea. 260.00 -O- -o /
2loD,e
14 Riprap w/filter blanket 190 Ton 14.00 -D- -0- -e- - "
15 Seed & Mulch 6,000 Sq.Yd .73 ;-;500 G/5, 5-5e'f4/>.r
16 Sod 4,000 Sq.Yd 1.65 -0- -0- --c- —0--
17 Timber Retaining Wall 1,000 Sq.Vt 6.58 0- —o— / i/ ,; 9.2'ty; y.
Page 2 of 2
7, • Talley Paving, Inc.
Contract No. 82-2 Valley Industrial Boulevard South
Payment Estimate No. _
Contract Items This Period Total to Dat
Item
No. Contract Item Qty. Unit Unit Price Qty. Amount Qty. AmoL
18 Deconstruct Ex. San. ( Fa. $575.00 �, _ _.c _. 7
Sewer Mn.h.
19 Delocate.Ex. Hyd. & 6 ! a. 520.00 --r
Gate Valve
20 Furnish & INstall 12" 1 L.S. 1,100.00 -c _c• / //oe `
Gate Valve & Box
21 Concrete Swale 720 S.F. 5.25 _p- 6/3 32/S. 2
/// v. e /
1�1! �r
Yui<f t`. rie tar - t" / 4
•
C-47.- "pp/ r = 3
MEMO TO : John K . Anderson
City Administrator ,
FROM: H . R. Spurrier -
City Engineer -(
RE: Bluff Avenue Improvements
Project No. 1981-2
DATE: October 28, 1982
Introduction :
In a memoranda dated October 15, 1982, City staff recommended additional
study before making a recommendation on the assessment of Leland Scheller,
Lot 2, Block 17, East Shakopee, for the above-referenced improvement.
Background :
Public Works Department located the service line connection for Lot 2, and
the Building Department located a receipt and Plumbing Permit for the install-
ation of the service line.
The existence of the service line is prima facie evidence that the lot is
served given the fact that this land is zoned R-3 and given the fact that the
property owner with assemblage could acquire other vacant undeveloped
adjacent lots and construct the multi-family units this district is zoned for.
In the event a structure conforming to the zoning was built, additional
service lines would be requested so that each unit would have a separate service
line. Only one service line could be connected to the interceptor, the others
would have to be connected to the sanitary sewer in Bluff Avenue.
The zoning ordinance requires 5, 500 square feet per unit for 2-family units
and 4,000 square feet per unit for more than 2- family units. Lot 2, Block 17,
has 5, 500 square feet, which is only enough for one-half of a twin home.
This, of course, does not rule out assemblage with vacant land west or north
of Lot 2.
There are three alternatives:
1. The assessment on the vacant lot could be deferred so that
in the event the lot was developed as R-3 use and a service
connection made, the assessment could be levied and collected.
2. The assessment on the vacant lot could be abated.
3. The City could do nothing.
John K . Anderson October 28, 1982
Bluff Avenue Improvements Page -2-
Alternate 1, provides the greatest flexibility for the City. The assessment
could be paid out of the Sewer Fund until the deferred assessment was levied.
It is the recommendation of City staff that the assessment be deferred so that
in the event the lot is •developed and the sanitary sewer line in Bluff Avenue
is required, the assessment will be levied and collected.
Action Requested :
Direct City staff to prepare a resolution deferring the sanitary sewer assessment
to Lot 2, Block 17, Parcel No. 27-004111-1 in the amount of $1, 237. 56 and
funding any shortfall out of the Sewer Fund.
HRS/jvm
91/
MEMO TO : John K . Anderson
City Administrator
FROM : H. R. Spurrier
City Engineer -----
RE: Upper Valley Drainageway.II the Vicinity of Shakopee Valley
Publishing, Inc.
DATE : October 29, 1982
Introduction :
Attached is a copy of memo dated October 1, 1982 outlining work to be
performed on the channel in the vicinity of Shakopee Valley Publishing,
Inc.
Background:
After conversations with the property owner and in an effort to eliminate
unnecessary legal expense, the property owner has indicated that he would
be satisfied if the City would remove the dike located at the east line of
the Jr. High playfields.
The attached memo estimates the cost of that work to be approximately
$2,800 to $4, 000. This work anticipated the use of contractors and anticipated
the construction of all of the work.
If only the dike is removed, the cost of the project would be significantly
less, and if City forces performed the work, the cost would be approximately
$500. That work would require a Front-end Loader and one 22 Ton Dump
Truck for approximately 8 hours.
It is the recommendation of City staff that Council direct staff to expedite
the removal of the dike by directing staff to appear before School District
No. 720 in order to gain permission for such removal.
Action Requested :
Direct City staff to expedite the removal of the dike along the east line of
the detention pond at the south end of the Jr. High playfield with City
forces.
Direct City staff to appear before School District No. 720, in order to gain
permission for such removal.
HRS/jvm
Attachments
III
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson
City Administrator /
,-
FROM: H. R. Spurrier r
City Engineer.
RE: Upper Valley Drainageway in the Vicinity of Shakopee Valley
Publishing, Inc.
DATE: October 1, 1982
l n t rodue t i on:
Mr. George Roberts, Shakopee Valley Publishing, Inc. , advised me that, the
School District No. 720, during the construction of the Jr. High School had
obstructed the drainage easterly of his building increasing the potential for
flooding.
Background:
After my first contact with Mr. Roberts, I advised him that the City was updating
topography and would compare original topography flown before the school site
had been approved and topography plotted after the improvements were made to
determine whether Mr. Roberts claim was valid.
The City has received updated topography of the area east of Mr. Roberts and
Mr. Roberts is correct that the fill paced at the direction of the City, does
obstruct the run-off from Mr. Roberts property. Mr. Roberts also mentioned
some problems created by the construction of County Road 17. Again, in analyzing
the facilities constructed, those facilities were found to be undersized.
There are two problems created by the City. One, the problem with blocking the
drainageway east of Mr. Roberts by constructing a detention pond at the south
end of the Jr. High piayfie.ld. Second, constructing culverts in front of Mr.
Roberts building without properly draining the outfall.
The solution will require the removal of the present dyke at the east end of the
detention area and the construction of a small swale between the present
detention pond and culverts at the Publishing Company driveway. In addition to
the construction of the swu.lc, the culverts :should be replaced with an adequately-
sized culvert to carry the up-stream flow.
The estimated cost of performing such work would be between $2,800 and $4,000.
The most urgent of the two problems is the removal of the dyke on the school
property. Such removal should be performed prior to November 15th so that the
ground would not be frozen.
410
John K. Anderson "t' October 1, 1982
Upper Valley Drainage Page -2-
The work on the culvert, though not as urgent, was improperly constructed and
should be replaced with proper facilities.
Cross sections illustrating the manner and extent of the blockage are available
on file in the Engineering Department for any interested parties to inspect.
It is the recommendation of City Staff that Council direct staff to expedite
the removal of the dyke in order to eliminate the flood hazard caused by the
construction of the detention area.
In order to accomplish that, IL will be necessary for staff to appear before
the School Board and get permission to remove the dyke.
Action Requested:
Direct City Staff to expedite the removal of the dike along the east line of
the detention pond at the south end of the Jr. IIigh playfield.
Also direct staff to appear before School District No. 720, in order to
expedite such removal.
HRS/jvm
Attachment
, 7
s1�aKopE E valley publishing INC.
v v
1257 Marschall Road • P.O. Box 38 • Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 • Tel. (612)445-8260
WEB OFFSET },._ .—.f u• 1 +a i,.✓ ,
- r.. , .
1.1r. ,loh .,hd rson
.;itv o.0 il.oc,
1 - 9 • .L.,
-)ear .'h'. _inuerson : •
:after nay discussion with 3o :1purrior, City 1n ineer,
it is al.purent to :0 that construction work performed
by the ...,bakopee •rr. Fi on their football field behind
our building h,,s stopl)Fl the flow of ru.1-off water.
I requesting that the City take the necessary steps
to correct the probl La of run-off water pondin and flood-
our k).t•J1'( r L v .
ofe further request thai; this work be completed by Jovember
15, 1982.
Very truly yours,
,_Jiakopee Vall bl i::,)linr , Inc .
v
�eor;;f: .�ober ,:,
,Jhairei .n of the board
Specializing in Newspaper Publications, Shoppers and Catalogs
9
94
MEMO TO : John K . Anderson
City Administrator
1
FROM : H. R. S urrier '''
City Engineer ,�. �,
RE : Pedestrian Bridge in Memo Park
DATE: October 29, 1982
Introduction :
The Mayor has discussed the possibility of acquiring pre--stressed concrete
from Fab-Con, in Savage, Minnesota that could be utilized in the construction
of a pedestrian bridge across one of the waterways in Memorial Park.
Background :
Several years ago the City investigated the feasibility of constructing a
bridge across this waterway, in order to link the trail along the Minnesota
River to the trails in Memorial Park.
The major impediment has been the cost of the bridge itself.
Fab-Con of Savage, Minnesota has offered blemished concrete sections to the
City, along with other material.
These concrete sections would be suitable for a pedestrian bridge. The
principal problem at this point, is to determine what the bearings strata
is in order to determine the type of bridge abutments required for a
pedestrian bridge.
The answer to that question would come from soil tests on borings made at
each abutment.
With the results of the soil tests, the City would be able to prepare detailed
plans for abutments incorporating the concrete plank that would be donated
by Fab-Con.
The boringsltests and recommendations will cost an estimated $1, 500. 00
for both abutments.
Action Requested:
Direct City staff to order borings and soil tests for a pedestrian bridge at
Memorial Park from Braun Engineering Testing, Inc. for an amount not to
exceed $1, 500.00. The cost to oe funded from the Park Reserve Fund.
HRS/jvm
1j
1
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson
City Administrator
FROM : H. R. Spurrier
City Engineer
RE: Prairie Street Sanitary Sewer Insulation Project
DATE: October 29, 1982
Introduction :
Pursuant to direction of City Council, staff has solicited proposals from
local contractors for the insulation of a sanitary sewer in Prairie Street,
north of 1st Avenue.
Background :
The City expected to receive two proposals. The City was unable to receive
one proposal because of a death in the contractors family.
The City received one bid. That bid is reasonably close to the estimated cost
of the project. The bid is also reasonably close to the cost of similar work
performed in 1981, on Main Street. The apparent difference in the two prices
is the cost of closing 1st Avenue and restoring the pavement. That cost is
approximately 39 percent of the total cost.
It is the recommendation of City staff that the contract be awarded to S. M.
Hentges & Son, Inc. , for $6,403.60.
Action Requested :
Direct the proper City officials to execute a contract with S. M. Hentges & Son,
Inc. , for the Prairie Street Sanitary Sewer Insulation Project, north of 1st
Avenue, in the amount of $6,403.60 to be funded out of the Sewer Fund.
HRS/jvm
Attachment: Abstract of Bid
1
r+
._, a)
O CO 00 V Cr) u, .0 W N —. 3
Z
O
D n cn o0 0o al oo -v n
o-0 m w 07 • n n < fD -
< (D VI —• S ,r. — — n 7 n
to (D 7 Q_
' `< r+� Qr+ _
`< (/) v) LP C
• (D (D fD CD (D
—I rn+ d (D ^ N N < < (gyp rr fEr �D
O n� o• 3
-I o D r+ -a n n D
D 0 (D O 'D n (D -0
r (i) n al o -o 'V ".
r+
n 0' O p• x .0 -a (D
O C 0 d CD CD
-I Lc (
7o
D 717
n 4. 0,
—I •.
W m D
C CP CO
r« (n
O --I
r (n --I m m m r r r r C n., a 73
d m cu
(n -< z 71 TI TI T .-- Cr - n
0 --1
-s N
O
cc °; m
co _,
0 )v p co
w O cn Cl.) p
—• OD Co —. Cr) Cr) O ut -D
rr 0
n
rr
U,
C
rn •P r+ I
O V7 _, W -+ -• N
O O Cr) O CO V1 N W V 13 CD
-v)-
O O O O VI V) 0 0 a) O ' r+
al 0 0 0 O O O O 0 as 0 nn (Q
CD fD
CD
W Cn
Cr) (f)
CD —. — — 0
D W
Cr) C .M' ,� Q Q
CD CD V .= CN Co V _ V7 r+
O O Co0 CO V7 .p. NJ 1.0 V) 0.) _
CD O CD CD Cr) Vi CD O a, 0 Q
0 CD CD 0 CD 0 CD 0 0 CD n
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
RE: Application for Wine License by Capone' s Food Shops , Inc. ,
Minnesota Valley Mall
DATE: October 29 , 1982
Introduction
The City has received an application from Capone ' s Food Shops , Inc .
for a wine license for a restaurant in the Minnesota Valley Mall .
Background
The application is in order , including proper insurance and bond ,
the taxes have been paid through May 31 , 1982 , and the Chief of
Police has recommended issuance of the license .
When a restaurant sells liquor, wine or beer , it is considered a
Class II restaurant per the Shakopee City Code zoning regulations .
In a B-1 zone (which is the zoning of the mall property) a condi-
tional use permit is required in order to operate a Class II
restaurant . (This is new and was not part of the zoning ordinance
at the time the original restaurant located at the Mall . )
The Planning Commission has held a public hearing on the applica-
tion by Capone ' s Food Shops , Inc . for a conditional use permit
for a Class II restaurant in the B-1 zone and did subsequently
approve the conditional use permit .
Alternatives
1 . Grant the wine license.
2 . Deny the wine license .
Recommendation
Approve the application and grant the license .
Action Requested
Approve the application and grant an on sale wine license to Capone ' s
Food Shops , Inc . , 1145 Minnesota Valley Mall , Highway 169 , effective
November 20 , 1982 .
JSC/jms
CONDITIONAL USE PER\IIT RESOLUTION NO. 3214
WHEREAS, Gary Capone, Capone ' s Food Shops , Inc . having
duly filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit dated September 23, 1982
under the provisions of the Shakopee Zoning Ordinance, as follows:
to allow for a Class II Restaurant per Shakopee City Code,
Section 11. 29 , Subd. 3 J ; and
WHEREAS, the present zoning for the parcel on which the Conditional
Use Permit is being requested is designated as B-1 (Highway Business)
- -- — - --- -- — ; a n d
WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made is
described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Minnesota Valley Mall 1st Addition
lying within the Minnesota Valley Mall Shopping Center to the :;ouLhand
of the Radio Shack
WHEREAS, upon hearing the advice and recommendation of the City Planner
and upon considering the suggestions and objections raised by the affected property
owners within a radius of 350 feet thereof in a public hearing duly held thereon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the aforementioned Conditional Use
Permit application be and is hereby : APPROVED
pursuant to:
1. Exterior signage be in conformance with the City Code.
, • � I
q, ,
Adopted in Regular session of the Shakopee Planning
C:o:,,;nission held this 7th day of October 19 82
I A '
•
r. irma o t e •fanning Commission
ATTF. ' 1 :
,` ` 'r t ,, City of Shakopee
�r 5 H A K F f f POLICE DEPARTMENT 41 4`:
r \N N E S P ' ^ eltiN
k ti '•
fi ���� � 476 South Gorman Streets
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379
Tel. 445-6666 111/t'Z
•
`'t 55374
TO: Mayor, Council Members
FROM: Tom Brownell
SUBJECT: On-Sale Wine License
DATE: September 30, 1982
INTRODUCTION
A corporation known as Capone' s Food Shops, Inc. , to be located
at the Minnesota Valley Mall in Shakopee, has submitted an
application to receive an On-Sale Wine License.
BACKGROUND
Applicant information identifies the corporate officer to be :
1. Gary Lee Capone, President
An appropriate investigation was conducted by the police depart-
ment; no information was developed which would indicate the
denial of a license would be appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION
Based solely on the facts provided during the course of a police
investigation, and not having knowledge of other factors which
may be considered, I recommend issuing an On-Sale Wine License
to Capone ' s Food Shops, Inc.
.J O GSE2VE JO PWtect
Form PS9114-5-75 - 1
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
LIQUOR CONTROL DIRECTOR
APPLICATION FOR COUNTY OR CITY ON SALE WINE LICENSE
NOT•TO EXCEED 14% OF ALCOHOL BY VOLUME
This application and the bond shall be submitted in duplicate.
Whoever shall knowingly and wilfully falsity the answers to the following questionnaire shall he deemed guilty of perjury and_shall
he punished accordingly.
In answering the following questions "APPLICANTS" shall he governed as follows: For a Corporation one officer shall execute
this application for all officers,directors and stockholders. For a partnership one of the "APPLICANTS"shall execute this application
for all members of the partnership.
EVERY QUESTION MUST BE ANSWERED l0C 161- (77°
I. I, ( LiTy L. Capone as President,
(Individual owner,officer,or partner)
Capone'r, Food ,"bops , Tnc. '
for and in behalf of ,hereby apply Y
I for an On Sale
Wine License to be located at ,iititw:,oi„]. Val Toy Mal. 1. , Cltaltopee, MN 55-i7)
(Post Office Address)
('panty or tlty of
County or ,:L tt. , C] Ly o1' :7,11akopee 5530
State of Minnesota, in`'accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,Chapter 340,commencing October 1
14 82 and ending September 30 19_.3 .
(;ive applicants' date of birth 2 .Io,I y 1c11`0
(Day) (Month) (Year)
Birthdates of Partners
(Day) (Month) (Year)
or
(Day) (Month) (Year)
Officers of Corporation
(Day) (Month) (Year)
3. The residence for each of the applicants named herein for the past five years is as follows:
56110 Troy Lane, Plymouth, Minnesota 5531+0
4. Is the applicant a citizen of the United States? Yes
If naturalized state date and place of naturalization
If a corporation,or partnership,state citizenship status of all officers or partners.
All U.S. Cit1Zeu:
5. The person who executes this application shall give wife's or husband's full name and address
Christine Ann Capone 56110 Troy Lane. Plymouth, Minnrcr;t.n 55;i10
L' f
?,. What occupations have applicant and associates in this application followed for the past five years? �
Owner/Manager Surge Softwater Sales Hopkins, MN
7. If a partnership,state name and address of each member of partnership
•
If a corporation,date of incorporation 9-15-82 ,state in which incorporated Minnesota
amount of authoritcd eapttalitatlon 25,000.00 ,amount of paid in capital —0—
if a subsidiary of any other corporation,so slate
give purpose of corporation General Business Purposes
name and address of all officers,directors and stockholders and the number of shares held by each 5,000 (100%)
Gary L. Capone 5640 Troy Lane, Plymouth, Minnesota 55340
(Name) I Address-number and street or lot and block) (City)
(Nance) (Address-number and street or lot and Mock) (City)
(Name) (Address-number and street or lot and block) (City)
(Name) (Address- number and street or lot and block) (City)
If incorporated under the laws of another state, is corporation authorized to do business in this State?
Number of certificate of authority
If this application is for a new Corporation include a certified copy of Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws.
If this application is fora RFNLWAL of license state whether any changes have been made in the Articles of Incorporation
and By-laws since the last issue of I icense
H. On what floor is the establishment located, or to he located'' Main Floor
9. Describe the premises to he licensed. Restaurant in Shopping Mall
10. Is the establishment located near an academy. colleie. university,church, grade or high school? No -_
St,itr of the establishment f+oni .such school or church
I I. State name and address of owner of building United National Corp, 745 5th Av, N.Y , N.Y. 10151
H is owner of building any connection.directly or indirectly, with applicant") NO
12. Are the taxes on the above property delinquent? No
l i. State whether applicant, on any of his associates in This application,have :ver had an application for a Liquor License rejected by
No
ally municipality or State authorit if so,give date and details
14- Has the applicant,or any of his associates in this application,during the five years immediately preceding this application ever had
a license under the Minrfesota Liquor Control Act revoked for any violation of such laws or local ordinances;if so, give date and details
No
15. Slate whether applicant, or any of his associates in this application, during the past five years were ever convicted of any Liquor
Law violations or any crime in this state,or any other state, or under Federal Laws, and if so, give date and details No
In, Is applicant, or any of his associates in this application, a member of the county hoard of the county or council of the city in
which this license is to be issued? No If so, in what capacity''
If applicant for license is the spouse of a member of the governing body,or where other family relationship exists,such member shall
not vote on this application.
17. State whether any person other than applicants has any right, title or interest in the furniture, fixtures, or equipment in the
premises for which license is applied,and if so give name and details Equipment leased from building
owner; United National Corporation
IS. Have applicants any interest whatsoever,directly on indirectly, in any other liquor estabilshnteni in I he State of Minnesota?
Give name and address of such establishment No
19. Furnish the name and address of at least three business references, including one hank reference
Golden Valley St. Bank 8200 Golden Valley, Rd, Golden Valley, MN 55427
Frederick & Rosen, Ltd. 5922 Excelsior Blvd. Mpls, MN 55416
Babson Brothers Com. 21100 S. York Rd, Oakbrook, ILL 60521
20. What is the seating capacity of this establishment'? 200
21. During what hours will food he available.' 11 a.m. — 11 p.m. (Sun—Thurs. ) 11 a.m. — 1 a.m. (Fri—Sat)
2' State name of person who will operate restaurant. Gary L. Capone
Gary L. Capone
23. State name of person who will operate bar.
24. State number of people restaurant will employ. 10
25. Will food service he the principal business of this establishment'? Yes
2h. State trade name to he used.
If this restaurant is in conjunction with any other business(such as resort,etc.) describe such business. No
_ ow titans years has this business been in operation under this ownership'? —0— New liusi neon
,s How
29. Stake whether appliram has, or will be granted, an "On-sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Beverage"(3.2)and/or a "Set-up" License in
conjunction with this wine license'? Yes
30. Does applicant intend to sell wine to other than the consumer? No
31. How many months of the year will this establishment he open?
1
32. Applicant, and his associates in this application, will strictly comply with all the Laws of the State of Minnesota governing the
taxation and the sale of wine, rules and regulations promulgated by the Liquor Control Director; and all laws of the county; and I
hereby certify that I have read the foregoing questions and that the anfivers to said-4.• ti) s re true of my own knowledge.
(Signature of applicant)
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2U .e.�
r
day of ��. .ICC....) , 19 ck ? 7
(Notary Public)
My commission expires (- (`f/ \', \\ °°•
REPORT ON APPLICANT OR APPLICANTS BY SHERIFF'S OFFICE OR POLICE DEPARTMENT
This is to certify that to the best of my knowledge, the applicant,or his associates,named herein have not been convicted within the
past five years for any violation of Laws of the State of Minnesota, or Municipal Ordinances relating to the sale of non-intoxicating
malt liquor or intoxicating liquors,except as hereinafter stated.
It is my judgement that the applicant will comply with the laws and regulations relating to the conduct of this business should a
license be granted.
Sheriff
County
Chief of Police
Date City
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S . Cox , City Clerk
RE: Appointment to Shakopee Public Utility Commission
DATE : October 2,7 , 1982
Introduction
On October 5th Council tabled making nominations to SPUC for
thirty days . We have to date received the attached resumes
expressing interest in serving on SPUC.
Council could make nominations on November 2nd for appointment
on November 16th, pursuant to their policy - if prepared to do so.
Action Requested
Open and accept nominations for appointment to Shakopee Public
Utility Commission.
JSC/jms
DISTRICT OFFICES
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 720
505 SOUTH HOLMES
JAMES STILLMAN, Chairperson SCOTT COUNTY
WARREN HALLGREN, D.D.S., Vice-Chairperson SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ROBERT dent of Ed.D.
JOHN GOIHL. Clerk TELEPHONE: 445-4884 Superintendent of Schools
BECKY KELSO. Treasurer VIRGIL S. MEARS
JERRY LEBENS, Director Rn, , `.g Assistant Superintendent
JOAN LYNCH. Director e� x.�
ROBERT MEADOWS, Director ROBERT MARTIN
:� +s I, rI 'a;€
Business Manager
SEP 2 9 1982
CITY OF 3I-cAKOPEE
9-27-82
Mr. John Anderson
Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 E . 1st Ave .
Shakopee , MN 55379
Dear Mr. Anderson :
I have sent to Mayor Reinke a request to be considered
as a candidate for the Public Utilities Commission.
In the event that I should he successful this may serve
as my resignation from the Police Commi.7sion . I have enjoyed
my involvement with the Police Commission and, should I not
be successful in being appointed to the Utility Commission,
would wish to remain a member .
In any event I should wish to remain on the Crime
Prevention Committee of the City of Shakopee .
Si. - -rely,
' 1
Virg /I
S Mears
M/d
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
October 12 , 19_F(2
RESUME OF JAMES R. COOK
rrL 1-�SCN.
V.�. L
Ace 37
Married to wife Mary 14 years
3 children--Jeffrey, 8 ; Scott, 5; and Kelly, 2
Reside at 1075 Miller Street in Shakopee since 1971
EMPLOYMENT
Employed at M. A . Gedney Company, Chaska since May,
1971 . Current position is Vice President of Technical
Services . Duties include administration and supervision
of Product Development Department, Quality Control
Department, Quality Assurance Department and Waste-
water Treatment Facilities.
Background includes 11 years in Gedney operation,
starting with Quality Control Supervisor, and rising
to present position.
Prior to employment with Gedney, spent two years with
Green Giant at Glencnr,, Minnesota as a producrinn
S" oervisor.
SCHOOLING
Was graduated from Lawrence Central High School,
Indianapolis , Indiana in 1962 in college prep.
Was graduated with BS degree from the University of
Wisconsin, Madison, in 1969 with a major in Bacteriology
and minors in Chemistry and Mathematics
Currently has graduate credits at the University of
Minnesota, St. Paul , in a Master of Agriculture program.
PROFESS IONAL AFFILIATIONS
Professional Member, Institute of Food Technologists
Executive Technical Board, Association for Dressings
and Sauces
Ecology Committee, Pickle Packers International
Food Science and Nutrition Advisory Council, University
of Minnesota
COMMUNITY AFFILIATIONS
S t . Kary's Catholic Church, Shakopee
Shakopee Rotary Club
Past :Member, Shakopee Jaycees ( past vice president)
Chairman, Shakopee Eastside Park Steering Committee
Shakopee Community Services Advisory Council
Shakopee Knights of Columbus Council
Shakopee Tennis Association ( past president)
INTERESTS
Fishing, Downhill Skiing, Golf, Tennis , Howling
?/
Lou SchjilsAi u ._ ,u:.:_i-t ap C,ltiuii Lo i;fi,: 1 Toiluri%tulu
'. ayui' :;iii<. (7__i,,) ;ui L.!., 1)u ] i ricin Gli PaLliu i.ili t j�
(
L�L;i..l C-.i: 11)11:,_,'•
T a,.. a r<2,J i?t of Makuli.;l and havl Loon :.i iici i)6O.
Iii T have tlur od for liycon and T'ar Lon Construction,
from 17(J0 tliru 1;c;. " oi.0 worl'. involved free ray utility
sy.3t0:. Chan[5.
T then :_L to wor' fc)i�' TTayes Contracting until 1j'7 as
o-oral .. aiia ;c:r. ',.i duties cover,,d co ti,. atirig all work
aid supervision of co-ordination and collection.
In 1979 I became self-employed as Lee $clieller Tapping. Ty
work involy,s ail water systems in the metro area and the
five state systems.
r..y reason for submitting my application for Public Utility
Commissioner is that I want to help improve living conditions
in the City of Shakopee and feel that I am well qualified
for this position.
CY/ dlOrik'
r
tyi /
n . S5
NOVtr
21982
CITY OF 3HAKO E
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
?/1/1
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Farmer-Bugher Management Company Claim
DATE: October 22 , 1982
Introduction
A month ago Dennis Moriarty appeared before Council on behalf of
Farmer-Bugher Management Company regarding Mr. Clete Link' s
threat to close off the driveway access between County Road 17
and their apartments . Council directed the Assistant City
Attorney to review the facts in the cases and his response is
attached along with a copy of Doug Goriesky' s letter.
Findings
Mr. Krass found that the City, based on his research, had a
responsibility in handling the problem. He suggests two alter-
natives .
Alternatives
1 . The City might condemn the driveway easement. The City does
not have a description of the property so it is hard to find
out just what the dimensions of the easement should be. The
County Recorder does not even have the sliver of land listed
so we may need a survey costing roughly $300-$600 to define
what it is that Mr. Link owns and the dimensions of the
easement for a driveway across his property. The problem
is we need a public purpose if we condemn to get the easement .
2 . Rod ' s second alternative is to get the $1700 Farmer-Bugher
offered Mr. Link for the property, he ' s asking $4000, and
then the City negotiate for the easement as an alternative to
condemning it .
3 . Dennis Moriarty has suggested that if a pro rata assessment
can be assigned to the sliver of land in question which would
be a fraction of the $1736 ( 15 acres @ $1400 = $21 ,000
therefore 1 . 24 acres = $1736 ) , his clients might buy the
land for $1 plus the assessments . Again, we cannot easily
define the property involved without a survey.
4. Build a driveway outlet from the parking lot in question to
their other driveway outlet on 4th Avenue (drawing included)
at an estimated cost of $5 ,162 .00. This alternative would
eliminate a driveway with a poor grade onto a major collector
street .
5 . Dennis Moriarty' s clients would also agree to pay for the survey
at $300-$600 and to sell sidewalk R-O-W to the City for $1 . The
City could then comdemn an additional 10' of R-O-W for County
Farmer-Bugher Management Company Claim 71/)
Page Two
October 22 , 1982
Road 17 sidewalk purposes paying Mr. Link only for the actual
square footage of land in the sliver he owns between County
Road 17 and the, apartments owned by Farmer-Bugher Management
Company.
Recommendation
I haven' t talked to Mr. Link about the claim in his June 7 , 1982 letter
that he has approximately $8 ,000 in assessments against the sliver
in question, explaining that because of the lawsuit the assessments
are at best a small fraction of $1 ,736 . If Mr. Link does not agree
and is still taking the position that he will only sell it for
$4,000 , I recommend alternative No. 5 . I will try to discuss it
with him before Tuesday.
Action Requested
Pass a motion directing staff to obtain a survey of the sliver of
land owned by Mr. Link at 4th Avenue and County Road 17 , said
survey to be paid for through an agreement with the Farmer-Bugher
Management Company who will pay for the survey and sell sidewalk
R-O-W to the City for $1 .
JKA/jms
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Energy Saving/Wind Generator
DATE: October 27 , 1982
Introduction
City Council has seen a number of energy saving ideas from City
staff. To date most of the ideas have been modest and a large
number of them have been implemented. LeRoy Houser has been
investigating the possible use of wind generators to generate
electricity for the Public Works building, an idea that could
be a significant saving for the City.
Background
The proposal would require that the City seek competitive bids
and that specifications for the bidding be drafted. The attached
memo from LeRoy indicates that any time spent preparing specs ,
etc . would be time well spent . The $310 ,000 saved over 25 years
amounts to $2 ,400/year ( $310 ,000 + 25 ) with payback occuring in
the first 13 years . If we budget an estimated $85 ,000 in
Revenue Sharing money to purchase and install a system we will
be decreasing general fund energy requirements for the Public
Works building by $12 ,400 per year ( this figure assumes that
electrical rates would not increase) . Increases , should they
occur , would only increase the savings and speed up the payback period.
Alternatives
1 . Direct staff to prepare specifications for bidding and prelimi-
narly allocate $85 ,000 of the proposed unappropriated $268 ,000
1983 Revenue Sharing Fund balance.
2 . Direct staff to do additional research to verify the estimated
savings , etc . before speces are prepared.
3 . Other
Recommendation
Staff recommends alternative #2 and #1 in that order. Should the
estimates prove to be correct and the savings we realize begin
in the first year after implementation, this would be an excellent
candidate for the City energy savings award.
Action Requested
Discussion of cost for anamometer testing.
JKA/jms
a _
MEMO TO : John K. Anderson/City Administrator
FROM: LeRoy Houser/Building Official
RE: Wind Generator
DATE : October 21 , 1982
I have reviewed the proposal submitted by Oak Ridge Wind Power on
installing two 20 K.W. Wind Generators on the Public Service Building.
Their projections indicate a total savings in utility costs for 25
years of $499 ,080 and a payback at year eight .
I have applied a present worth discount factor to their projection
and arrived at a total accumulated saving of $310,000 with the pay-
back period being year thirteen.
To be able to accurately predict the payback period and the savings
is impossible unless we could accurately predict future utility
cost and the inflation rate .
I am of the opinion we should try to enter into a contract for install-
ation of the proposed generators . I do think the proposal submitted
is in need of modification. Specifically, ( 1 ) the project should be
turn key, ( 2 ) the warranty period should be extended to five years ,
both system and components , ( 3 ) the units should be warranted by
contract to provide 80% of the K.W.H. projected in their proposal
or they remove them at their own expense and refund our money, (4)
they should disclose to us the cost of the footing installation to
allow us to bid them locally.
I have contacted the owner of the Buick dealership in Burnsville and
discussed the system they have installed . He said the system is
providing 95% of all of his company' s electrical needs . He said the
payback for small users is too long. Their usage is 507 of what ours
is . It appears his only complaint was that his installation is
extremely noisy due to being installed on a 12" hollow steel pole
which results in a sound transmission problem.
Note : Minnesota Energy Agency has informed me that the first
step that should be taken is to have an anamometer test
due for a period of one year. The estimated cost of the
test is $2 , 500. "Discuss"
LH: cau
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
9-D
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Building Permit Issuance in By-Pass Right-Of-Way
DATE: October 25 , 1982
Introduction
City Council , at its July 6 , 1982 meeting, received a memo from me
regarding Killarney Hills subdivision building permit/subdivision
problems caused by the By-Pass R-O-W. The recommendation and
action taken regarding these problems was to attach a notice regard-
ing the By-Pass R-O-W to any building permits issued.
Problem
We have now received an opinion from Rod Krass ' s office that the
City or County can actually deny building permits in the designated
By-Pass R-O-W ( letter attached). Given this new legal interpreta-
tion, one that Scott County had likewise over looked or misunder-
stood, the City must decide if our Building Department will be the
agency denying the building permits or if it will be the County.
Alternatives
1 . Allow the County to handle the issuing of building permits in
the By-Pass R-O-W.
2 . Pass the attached resolution formally notifying Scott County
that the City will handle the building permits in the By-Pass
R-O-W.
Recommendation
The City Planner, Building Inspector and I have discussed the matter
and we do not believe the City has anything to gain by taking over
the permit process . The third paragraph of Trevor Walsten' s letter
seems to underscore this point of view.
Action Requested
Pass a motion directing staff to notify Scott County in writing
that we will expect them to handle the issuance of building permits
in the area designated for the Shakopee By-Pass .
JKA/jms
Law Offices of
KRASS, MEYER, KANNING, & WALSTEN `+
Chartered
Phillip R. Kress
Shakopee Professional Building - Barry K. Meyer
1221 Fourth Avenue East Philip T. Kenning
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
(612)445-5080 Trevor R.Walston
October 11, 1982
Mr. John Anderson
Shakopee City Administrator
129 East First Street
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Re: Shakopee By-Pass Resolution
Dear John:
Jim Degiovannl , my law clerk, informed me that he discussed with you
the need for this Resolution and you expressed a concern that the City of
Shakopee does not have the authority to prevent issuance of building permits
in this area. As you are probably aware, that is one of the issues involved
In the Jackson Township Board of Supervisors suit against the County Board of
Commissioners and the City of Shakopee.
It is my opinion that the Court will hold that you do have the power
to prevent construction in that area without compensating the land owners at
this time. Minnesota Statute Section 394.361 is the relevant law. While it
does not expressly state that the County or the City can prohibit building in
the proposed corridor, the strong sense of the provision is that you are
permitted to withhold building permits in the corridor. The owners will be
compensated when the State Highway Department begins land acquisition in the
area. In my opinion, the restrictions on growth are not unlike "slow growth"
ordinances that permit municipalities to phase development of outlying areas.
You are not preventing the current land owners from using the property as it
is now being used and therefore it does not constitute a taking at this time.
This issue will certainly be resolved in the Jackson Township lawsuit.
With that background, however, I would like you to consider what the
implications are of the City taking over control of this corridor area. It
seems that you are only gaining the power to deny building permits. On the
otherhand, it does seem like the City may be creating liability where there is
no real benefit to be obtained from it. For example, if you make a mistake
and issue a permit in that area and the State Highway Department is later
required to compensate the owner for the improvement, it seems plausible that
the State might look to the City of Shakopee for damages resulting from its
increased acquisition costs. Likewise, if a property owner approaches you and
you deny a permit, even though I think you have the authority to do that, if
he decides to take legal action, you appear to be the lead defendant.
Mr. John Anderson
October 11, 1982
Page Two
As I stated, I believe this lawsuit will resolve the question in
favor of the County and the City. Therefore, if you do want to take over
controls I believe there is statutory authority that gives you the power to
deny building permits on the basis of the highway corridor.
Please contact me if you want to discuss this further.
Yours very truly,
KRASS, MEYER, KANNING & WALSTEN
tIART'E ED
/ ,i 1/1 I '/1/7/i
TrevoriR. Walsten
TRW/sm
qa
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE INTENTIONA OF THE CITY OF
SHAKOPEE TO ENFORCE LAND USE CONTROLS IN THAT PART OF
OF THE CITY DESIGNATED ON THE OFFICIAL SCOTT COUNTY MAP
AS A CORRIDOR FOR TRUNK HIGHWAYS 169, 212, and 41.
WHEREAS, on December 30, 1980, the County of Scott Board of
Commissioners adopted an official map for the corridor for Trunk Highways 169,
212, and 41, known as the Shakopee By-Pass area; and
WHEREAS, the aforesaid official map includes areas located within the
corporate limits of the City of Shakopee; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shakopee is on record as
requesting the County of Scott to adopt the aforesaid map and controls; and
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
394.32, Subdivision 3, may at any time, take over planning functions,
including adoption and enforcement of official controls, with respect to areas
within its corporate limits for which the County has adopted an official map;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shakopee desires at this
time to take over all planning functions including adoption and enforcement of
official controls with respect to those areas within its corporate limits that
are designated on the County of Scott official map as the Shakopee By-Pass
area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shakopee that pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statute 394.32,
Subdivision 3, that the City of Shakopee take over the planning functions
including adoption and enforcement of official controls in that part of the
Shakopee By-Pass area that is located within the corporate limits of the City
of Shakopee; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Shakopee
does hereby adopt the same official map as was adopted for the By-Pass area by
the County of Scott on December 30, 1980; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that it is the intention of the City Council
of the City of Shakopee to control development of land in the Shakopee By-Pass
area by using City of Shakopee procedures and controls to prevent diversion to
non-public uses of the land designated as needed for the future highway
corridor; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager notify the County of
Scott Board of Commissioners of this action taken by the City Council by
adoption of this resolution.
Mayor
Attested to by:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this day of
, 1982.
Krass, Meyer, Kanning & Walsten
Chartered
Shakopee City Attorneys
1221 Fourth Avenue East
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
• /1c, per-
1.� ��. ,ou- het l c�x J
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council ° �
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Amendments to the City' s Personnel Policy on Sick Leave
DATE: June 10 , 1982
Introduction
Recent use of our Personnel Policy has brought to our attention the
need to clarify the policy ' s section on use of sick leave.
Present Language
Section 10 Sick Leave - Subdivision 2 Purposes - currently reads :
Sick leave may be granted when the employee is unable to perform
work duties due to illness , disability, the necessity for medical ,
dental , or chiropractic care , childbirth, or exposure to contagious
disease where such exposure may endanger the health of others with
whom the employee would come in contact in the course of performing
work duties . Sick leave may also be granted for a maximum of three
days for death or serious illness of an employee ' s immediate family.
Present Practice
City employees and department heads have used sick leave for care of
dependent children when a child must stay home with a cold, the flu,
etc . This practice was never discussed or questioned by those of us
who administered the policy until recently when I looked carefully
at the language and decided that : ( 1 ) I did not know the intent of
the phrase "serious illness of an employee ' s immediate family" , and
( 2 ) I felt the term "serious illness" was not broad enough to interpret
administratively to include staying home to care for a child with a
cold, the flu, etc .
Experience
The City has not experienced a problem with the practice to date .
Our average sick leave usage per employee per year is :
1982 Used to date - 1 ,108. 8 hours ; 51 employees =
21 . 74 average number of hours used per employee
1981 Used - 2 ,426 . 1 hours 50 employees =
48. 5 average number of hours used per employee
1980 Used - 1 ,616 .8 hours ; 46 employees =
35 . 1 average number of hours used per employee
The practice can be limited to six days per year, witi t":e addition
of the phrase "per year", and clarified to include dependent child
care with the phrase "or illness of dependent children requiring the
parents presence because other child care arrangements are not available . "
Mayor and City Council
. Page Two
June 10, 1982 n
Survey
Through a telephone survey of eleven meto suburbs we found that three
cities did not allow usage of sick leave for this type of dependent
child care. The administration of the policy in the remaining eight
cities permitted this type of usage with varying limitations such as
the three day maximum. The definition of "immediate family" was
almost identical to ours in all of the cities . The general "rule
of thumb" for the majority of the cities was to leave the enforce- -
ment of the sick leave policy primarily to the discretion of the
supervisor. (Survey results are available if a Councilmember would
like to see them. )
Alternatives
1 . Continue with the present language and prohibit use of sick leave
for care or dependent. children unless Il is a serious illness .
2 . Amend the policy to clearly include use of sick leave up to 6 days
per year for care of dependent children.
Recommendation
Sick leave has not been abused as practiced and it was the concensus
of all department heads that it should be continued. Six days per
year. is recommended because it is one half of the twelve days an
employee earns each year and equal to our average yearly usage .
Action Requested
Adoption of Resolution No. 2075 , A Resolution Amending Resolution
No. 1571 Adopting A Personnel Policy for the City of Shakopee.
JKA/jms
• - i P
RESOLUTION NO. 2075
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 Resolu-
tion No. 1571 from time to time to maintain reasonable and clear
conditions of employment ; and
WHEREAS , the following section is in need of modification and/or
amendment :
NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA :
1 . That the second sentence of Section 10 entitled Sick Leave ,
subdivision 2 entitled Purposes , be amended to read:
"Sick leave may be granted for a maximum of six days
per year for death or serious illness of an employee ' s
immediate family. Sick leave may also be granted for
a maximum of six days per year for illness of dependent
children requiring the parents presence because other
child care arrangements are not available . "
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: Mayor and City Council
7g1
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Employee Assistance Program
DATE: September 13 , 1982
Introduction
At a Goals and Objectives Worksession this summer Councilmember
Leroux asked if the City could look into Employee Assistance
Programs (employee and/or family counseling) . Council agreed
that staff should make a brief investigation. The results are
being presented now so that the program can be discussed with
the 1983 Budget and with 1983 labor negotiations .
Findings
While there are a number of forms an employee assistance program
can take , the model discussed below is the one provided by Dor &
Associates , Inc . of Minneapolis and used by Conklin here in
Shakopee . The program provides free ( the employer pays $15 per
employee per year fee ) , confidential , professional assistance
(up to 3 visits per year) to help employees and their families
resolve problems that affect their personal lives or job perfor-
mance. The program is voluntary and designed to allow the
employee or family seek help on their own (average usage is about
15% of an employer' s employees ) .
The approach used by Dor and about 3 other firms in the metro area
is to provide a comprehensive counseling and referral service
rather than to just focus on a specific area like alcohol or drug
abuse . After initialscreening visits , an employee may be referred
to an appropriate agency in the community or may be placed in one
of Dor' s programs and the employee then pays for future visits
( these costs may be eligible for reimbursement under our current
medical/major medical plan) . Dor provides a 24 hour hotline and
telephone calls are not part of the 3 visits per year.
Also included in the Dor program is a 15-20 minute orientation
for employees and a 1-1/2 hour training session for supervisors .
Supervisors with questions about how to handle a certain employee
with a problem can call Dor for advice without a charge . Frankly,
this may be one of the bigger assets of the program (copies of
sample employer checklists attached) . The City will also be
provided with quarterly payroll stuffers reminding employees and
supervisors about the program and when to use it . Finally, Dor
assists the City in developing a formal Employee Assistance Program.
Summary
Janet Deining, who I spoke to at Dor, said that Dor has a presenta-
tion they could make to Council if Council was interested. In addition
Conklin Company has shared with us their criteria for evaluation
Employee Assistance Program
Page Two
September 13 , 1982
of the firms they considered before hiring Dor (Dor contracts for
2 year periods ) . At less than 50 full time employees , the City' s
cost for 1 year would be less than $750. This compares to counsel-
ing cost incurred by City employees and reimbursed under our medical
program of $1 ,098. 70 so far in 1982.
Alternatives
•
1 . Drop the idea of an Employee Assistance Program.
2 . Invite Dor 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.
3. Other.
Recommendation
Staff recommends alternative #2 .
Action Requested
Direct staff to invite Dor 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 .
JKA/jms
EMPLOYEE BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST FOR THE
IDENTIFICATION OF THE TROUBLED EMPLOYEE
Instructions
1. The checklist below is to be used when you 've become concerned about an
employee' s declining performance.
2. THIS CHECKLIST IS TO BE USED ONLY AS AN OBSERVATIONAL AID FOR THE MANAGER.
IN NO EVENT SHOULD •THIS DATA BE INCLUDED AS PART OF AN OFFICIAL FILE.
3. Where a combination of THREE (3) or more items appear on a continuous basis ,
this is a likely indication of a troubled employee.
I . CURRENT BEHAVIORAL PATTERNS
(check those that best describe the current situation)
Employee 's Appearance
sloppy
inappropriate clothing
Mood
withdrawn
sad
mood swings, high and low
suspiciousness
extreme sensitivity
nervousness
frequent irritability with others
preoccupation with illness and death (morbidity)
Actions
physically assaultive (or threatening)
unduly talkative
exaggerated self-importance
rigidity - inability to change plans with reasonable ease
making incoherent or irrelevant statements on the job
over compliance with any routine (making it a ritual)
frequent argumentativeness
frequent outbursts of crying
excessive amount of personal telephone time
II. JOB PERFORMANCE
Absenteeism
multiple instances of improper reporting of time off
excessive sick leave
repeated absences following a pattern
excessive lateness in the morning, or upon returning from lunch
peculiar and increasingly improbable excuses for absence
high absenteeism rate for colds , flu, gastritis, general malaise , etc.
frequent unscheduled short-term absences (with or without medical
explanation)
frequent use of unscheduled vacation time
"On The Job" Absenteeism
continued absence from job location more than job requires
frequent trips to water fountain or restroom
long coffee breaks
dor and associates, inc./416 East Hennepin/Minneapolis, MN 55414/(612)378-2335G�
SUPERVISOR'S TRAPS
Beware of the following traps, when working with troubled employees :
1. Trying to help, but making things worse.
This happens when the supervisor trys to help by using off-the-job methods ,
such as "giving advice" which results in an emotional attachment to the
employee.
Such emotional attachements interfere with the effective supervisory rela-
tionship, where the supervisor is the one in charge. Examples of being
tied up emotionally would include:
a) giving advice with conviction
b) giving "pep talks"
c) protecting the employee by covering up poor performance
d) actually doing some of the employee' s work because "he's in a bad spot"
e) doing the employee's own emotional work, such as feeling his pain,
talking to his adversaries (spouse, for example)
f) doing the employee's own personal work, such as calling his creditors
In the chemical dependency treatment and recovery community, the above
behaviors are called "enabling". The intention is to be honestly helpful ,
but such actions are not helpful and only prolong everyone's misery.
2. Denying there is any problem at all .
As supervisor, you just overlook your reality and do not see what is happening.
Of course matters will not improve. When the situation progresses further, your
own job as supervisor may become threatened. Denial is dangerous.
3. Withdrawing
In this case, the supervisor knows what is happening, but still decides to do
nothing for fear of being powerless or hurt, or something else. The outcome
is the same as with denial , except that the supervisor feels guilty and shame-
ful for not doing what he knows he should.
4. Becoming angry
This trap often follows the above three.
One solution, obviously, is to get angry and fire the troubled employee. While
the immediate problem is taken care of, nothing else changes , for the supervisor
has not learned how to intervene with the troubled employee and use the Employee
Assistance Program.
In fact, a new employee may encounter the same kinds of problems.
The fired employee is also at a loss , for he is cast adrift and loses a fine
opportunity for effective problem solving action. Without diagnosis, referral ,
and help, the employee will bring his problems to his next job and eventually
wind up in the same place. History will repeat itself.
•
The best course of action is a successful intervention and referral to appropriate
help. Everyone wins that way.
dor and associates, inc. /416 East Hennepin/Minneapolis, MN 55414/(612)378-2335
EMPLOYEE DEFENSE STRATEGIES
When you meet with the employee, you can expect him/her to be threatened
and use various defenses to protect himself/herself. Below are listed
and described some of these defenses and recommended counter-moves. You
will also be able to add to this list from your own experiences.
DEFENSE DESCRIPTION COUNTER-MOVE
Excuses & Employee will have a good "Your problems at home are no concern of
Sympathy reason for everything that mine. My concern involves your perfor-
happens. "You'd have the mance, and my data here says you are
same troubles I do if you not doing your job. "
had a wife like mine. "
Apology & "I 'm really sorry. You "I appreciate your apology. But what
Promise know that! 1 ' ll never do you did is serious, and this was your last
it that way again. " chance. I 'm filing a deficiency report."
Switching "I know about that, but "You did do well on Ajax, but I want good
look what a good job I 've work on all jobs. You have had more prob-
done on that Ajax job! " lem jobs that successful ones lately.
Look at the record right here. "
Anger "Damn it! ! One mistake and "I expect you to listen to me. Getting
the roof falls in - after angry won ' t help anyone , especially you.
15 years of killing myself I 'm concerned about your performance.
for this place." And I 'm not talking about one mistake.
Look at the record here. "
Tears & "I don 't know what to do. "I appreciate your sadness. I want you to
Helplessness I ' ll bever get out of this know that I want to help, which is why I
mess. (crying)" set up this meeting. You have been a
valuable part of our organization. I want
to tell you about our Employee Assistance
• Program. . . "
Self-Pity "I knew this would happen. "I wouldn't be taking this time to talk
I 've never been able to do with you if I didn't have faith in you.
anything right." So let's move on to talk about what can
be done to help. You know, our Employee
Assistance Program would be just right. . . "
Innocence & "It' s not my fault. Joe "I 've checked into this in detail (points
Blaming let me down. I dont get any to records) , and you 've got to start
help at all around here." - looking at your part in what happens.
Maybe that's a problem you have, and. . . "
Hopelessness "I may as well quit right "That's crazy. You have done excellent
now." work. I want more of that from your
department. Which is why I set up this
meeting. You, know. . . "
Friendliness "Now, Bill , . . .you know we 've "I know we 've been through this before,
& Seduction been through this before and and this time things will be different.
we worked it out together. I am filing a discrepancy report, because
Let's get together after I 've done all I can to work this out on
work and figure this out the job. I think something else is
where we can be more com- bothering you, and I want you to talk
fortable. " with out EAP counselor. "
(&.
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Administration of Pay Plan During an Employee ' s
Probationary Period
DATE: October 25, 1982
Introduction
City Council , at its October 19 , 1982 meeting, directed staff to
look for the resolution that established City policy for employee ' s
probationary period. Council ' s intent was to determine whether
or not the resolution addressed a probationary employee ' s eligibility
for an annual adjustment at the same time the adjustment was applied
to all non-probationary employees .
Findings
The City Clerk found the resolution in question, Resolution No. 1571
passed March 5 , 1980. The portion of the resolution addressing an
employee ' s probationary period is attached. Neither the resolution
or the blue Personnel Manual , containing all personnel policies
established by resolution, address the issue of a probationary
employee ' s eligibility for an annual adjustment .
Since there was no clear policy statement staff checked past
practice. What we found was that employees hired with no pay
plan did not receive an annual adjustment during their probation-
ary period. Employees covered by union contracts that had estab-
lished pay plans (we could find one public works employee that
fit the correct circumstances ) received the annual increase. A
policeman who also fit the circumstances was on a pay plan under
which the bottom ( starting) step which he was initially on did
not get increased over a 3 year period therefore he did not get
an increase .
We then checked this with Linda Willemssen who formally handled
payroll . She confirmed the above findings when she said that the
City did not give annual wage adjustments to anyone on their
6-month probationary period, but that since the new pay plan was
adopted the City would give the annual adjustment during the
6-month probationary period.
Finally to do a little more research we contacted 11 metro area
cities . Six said they would give the annual increase , three said
they would not and two said it depended upon performance . We
also tried to survey several area firms , one would provide the
increase (St . Francis ) , one would not (Rahr) and the others said
they didn' t fit the example or circumstances .
Alternatives
Clarify the Personnel Policy by:
1 . Stating that employees are not eligible for the annual increase
if they are on their probationary period.
Administration of Pay Plan During an Employee ' s
7g--
Probationary Period
Page Two
October 25 , 1982
2 . Stating that employees are eligible for the annual increase
during their probationary period.
Recommendation
Although there are examples to support either alternative 1 or 2 ,
I believe that the earlier public works case clearly indicates
that when a pay plan exists the employee has received the annual
increase. I recommend that we continue that policy and that it
also be applied to employees not on a pay plan. I make the second
recommendation because we are trying to standardize administration
of our personnel policies to better insure equal treatment . Further-
more , I believe that since our personnel policies clearly state
that vacation and sick leave can be earned and taken during an
employee ' s probationary period (Section 5 Subd. 6 page 4) that
withholding the annual adjustment would be inconsistent .
I would also like to invite any Councilmembers who wants an
explanation of how an employee goes through a pay plan to
contact me before Tuesday night , because I believe I can
illustrate how withholding the annual adjustment will only
increase Council and administrative work without really
achieving a meaningful financial or psychological impact on
an employee who has not fully proven themselves by making it
through the full six month probationary period.
Action Requested
Direct staff to draft an amendment to Resolution No. 1571
clarifying that probationary employees are eligible for an
annual increase.
JKA/jms
y
hcf t viI u,t ---- _
- - 'Nf'f'iiC.it i ()IIS
9q
All applicants for a position with the City of Shakopee are req
to file an application on forms provided by the City . Any9 ed
giving false information or making false or misleading statementsant
the application shall not be considered for the position or will be
subject to immediate dismissal with complete loss of benefits .
Section 5 . Probationary Period :
Subdivi. s_ ion 1 . I'urpos:e - The probationary period is an
q ,,1 Cflit r•egra l part of the selective process and shall be
%� q
utilized for observing the employee ' s work
"5the most effective ad ju�:tme�nl of the employeecltoStherinl,
posit ion :and for rejecting any employee whose performance
does nut n ct. the rc;dui-rcd work standard: .
Subdivision Duration - l;vrsr g
arca ever. -_.l,=c; -- y o►•i inai. appointment
y promotional appointment is subject to a
probationary period of six months after appointment .
`subdivision 3 . Termination -- 'I he City Council
may t o r-m i na t o a probationary employee
prc�h:rl iun:lry peri,,<I if in the City
anytime during the
opinion the working Lest indicates thlart rrthe raemployee is
unable „r lull:'i 1. 1 i ns; to perform the duties of the position
satisfactorily or that his habits and dependability do
not merit continuance hi the posit i un . Thy employee so
terminated shall be notified in writing of the reasons
for the termination and shall not have the right to
appeal unless he is a veteran , in which case the procedure
prescribed in Minnesota Statutes Seci.on 197 .46 shall be
followed .
A permanent employee terminated during
robat
period from a position t9/which he has been cpromote doorrY
transferred shall be reinstated to a position in the
class from which he was promoted or transferred unless
he is discharged from the City
. service . If a permanent
employee promoted or transferred to a position not in
the competitive service is terminated from that position,
he shall he reinstated to a position in the class from
which he came unless he is; discharged as provided by the
rules .
Subdivision 4 . r:xtensiun Any employee ' s probationary .
period may be extended tear- :rn additional six (6) months
i f the City Ad i n i s i r-a i r reque,..ts and the City council
7 .
Subd i v i i e)n 5 . t:(m3p i et i-on -- An employe(' who has completed
the period of probationary service and who has not
received within thirty ( 30) days of completion of that
period , a written not ice from the City Administrator
upon approval by the City Council that his services are
terminated or his probationary period extended in
accordance with Subdivision 4 , shall be considered to
have successfully completed the probationary period and
at lanced Clie slat us of permanent el>lploycc .
Subdivision 6 . neat.l i oil and i ck heave - During the
1 111 1 i a l p1-olr t I oI1:11-v period Va('a t Ion lea“(' !111(1 r i caa leave
`;ha I I he earned II11I III:!`r' 1)t' 11'.('(I . I I ('1111) I ( yin(.'IIi
terminates prior- t comp Iition of thr' i11it inl. probationary
period , no pJ:'mhnt I or accrued vacation or sick leave shall
he allowed .
„!I'eI1s.It i 'II :
5111,1 I IIII
:I I , � I �I i':nip I rev('(',, o i t11- (' i t ;+ shall be
! • t h.' e.lt ahI i shed by the
Cit ' e • i I .:nc11I:I1 I '. } v mes(,lill i ;.;1 . r,n w;1,.( , or sal.ary
i shed i :. t h, I ,I .1 i r( nnlnera t i ;,n for employment: ,
hilt ;il ii I 11 0 he considered as reimbursement for official
other expenses which may be allowed for the
Cc.)id114•1 o1 of I iciai business .
Suhcl i • i r; i on 2 . Evaluation - Evaluations of each City
employee :1t least annually shall be used by the City
Ac III 1 t1-:Itor in recommending salaries :ind wages t0
the City ('ounc i i .
Subdivision 3 . I'en11)or;liy and . Part 'l'ime I?rlployees ...
Whenever an employee works for a period less than the
regu1 .11 I v est :Ibl i shed number of hours a clay , days a
week , or weeks a month , the amount paid shall bear
lhc same relationship to the full -time rate for the
posi t ien as the time actually worked bears to the time
re(111i ( d 1-I;r I ul i I lily' s('rvic(' . Tempo rary employees
ars' not ,'11t it le l to sick leave , vacation leave , or
holidays I h p.Iv . i'c'1 :nancnt. Inn time employees are
elft i t led to :; ick leap-' ' , vacation leave and holidays with
pay ea r:l('J l or the t i 1111.' actually worked .
Subdivision v i :; ion '� . Ov(_'rt inn' -- Employees to whom the state
fair labor standards act applies shall Ice compensated
or overt ince rates ate one ar1(1 one-half the regular. rate •
of: pay . To the extend permitted by law , compensatory
lime oft sha l l be taken as approved by the City
Administrator .
— ,
- 71, ,e(hYcvnzizczer &c,afe .- e-fr7-) --te,71) --/(el'(7';'' - -4T-
•x- AV777 "1 1,
7,n2 . p,e,ce- '?LY
,(7
- 47f_ el a4- i ) .
.
zyler 494,741 aliznAe,a,"_.e/"C.Va-C2-2-e_2, • . • • • I
- •
zfiruil 4gille(o7z, i-ex,0- 4.7/an-C....e_i
,e7/7
v.'
1
1
,i, ,4 ,,1 /,
,y xrnt•tz - Gdel R--€11
> '
11-
1
1
/ di./Af.i/ / GN2,neeee., -/
--,'"nC21,a72...el. • -
!7-1
— 4/-(ile-el yll a/111/76,7-"Ze/lea , _
r
1 111/4-4mit
4,/ b,:tmz6 - _
/0
(4
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
S
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Pay Plan
DATE: October 27 , 1982
Introduction
City Council completed its discussions on the proposed 1983 Budget
at its October 5 , 1982 meeting. At that meeting it was decided
that the "Proposed Pay Plan" would not be implemented; however,
the City Administrator was given permission to present additional
information regarding secretaries . That information follows below.
Background
The current clerical/secretarial pay plan is attached. The plan
shows the actual placement of current personnel . When I arrived
as City Administrator this plan was being used informally, but
was not followed (administered) consistently. As a result , some
clerical/secretarial jobs were inappropriately classified either
for historical reasons or because the nature of their work changed
so that they were performing work comparable to that done by others ,
but were not reclassified and hence were paid less . In 1982 we
made a step in the right direction by making the plan official .
We did not correct existing problems , because an across the board
pay adjustment was decided upon and Council directed staff to
do an in depth pay plan analysis for Council consideration during
the 1983 budget process .
The pay plan analysis was completed by staff for the 1983 budget
and discussed, as mentioned above , and Council decided to drop
implementation which would leave in place the original classifi-
cation and pay inequities for a third year. While I fully
realize the current economic conditions put constraints on
Council ' s ability to make changes , it would be partical and
beneficial if we could resolve the clerical/secretarial inequities .
The plan below will solve the inequities at a cost of $1 ,368/year,
$912 for one employee and $456 for a second. Another two inequities
would be automatically removed during 1983 at the time of their
regular step increase , with the final inequity being corrected four
months into 1984. One of these latter three employees is less than
$24/month low and the other two who are currently high will be auto-
matically brought into line. Finally, as noted in the proposed pay
plan in footnote #9 one employee is working for reclassification during
1983.
Alternatives
1 . Implement the proposed pay plan for clerical/secretarial employees
as proposed January 1 , 1983 .
2 . Do not implement the proposed pay plan.
3. Other.
Pay Plan
October 27 , 1982
Page Two
Summary & Recommendation
City Council has worked to bring equity to the City ' s benefit
program completing .that goal January 1 , 1982 . Council has also
managed to put both its Police and Public Works unions on
identical 4 step pay plans with the conversion of Public Works
from a 5 step plan to the current 4 step plan January 1 , 1982 .
These moves greatly improved internal and external equity for
the union employees and simplified administration of the pay-
roll , etc. by reducing the number of different pay plans/formulas .
Placing the clerical/secretarial on the same 4-step pay plan will
be another important step in Council ' s effort to get external
equity (comparable pay for comparable positions in neighboring
City governments ) and internal equity ( comparable pay for com-
parably classified work) . In addition, this will replace a six
step plan that had higher top salaries , with a 4 step plan that
can be administered in the same manner as the two union 4 step
plans . The only employees remaining off the standardized 4 step
plan will be the three engineering technicians and all department
heads . For this reason I recommend alternative No. 1 .
Action Requested
Implement the proposed pay plan for clerical/secretarial employees
as proposed effective January 1 , 1983.
JKA/jms
1400
1/20/81
(1 u CITY OF SHAKOPEE
1982 PAY SCHEDULE
Clerical Ranges*
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7
Start 6_Mos 1�_Yr 2 Yrs 3 Yrs 5 Yrs 10 Yrs
Range 1. 674 709 743 780 820 861 905
Range 2 818 858 900 (945 ) ( 1 ) 992 1041 1093
Range 3 872 ( 916 ) (961 ) ( 1009 ) 1059 1112 1167
Range 4 970 ( 1018 ) ( 1068 ) ( 1122 ) ( 1 1 /7 ) 1236 1297
1
Job Classifications
Rnns,e 1
Public Works Clerk
Assessing Clerk
Range 2
Receptionist
Range 3
Police Clerk
Finance Clerk
Range 4
1
Police Admin. Assistant
Building Secretary
Engineering Secretary
Senior Accounting Clerk
*Note : This is the 1981 set of clerical pay ranges with each step
multiplied by 97-
( 1 ) Bracketed numbers indicate where current employees are positioned
o..
40
•
v / '
o u) .—
S-. 4-3+3 f. Lr\ NH H N COd
cd I I I I I
cd a) in in in in \p 0 cd
+' N' c0 c0 CO c0 N-
O E
Cl) � � � � 1 •
a)
0 a)) v v v v al U 0 (d
a) .0 M M c H H\0\0\0\O \0 N-N- N- ON, +) C 4)
El N N N N- N- N- N- N- N- N-a0� I`- 0 � O\0\CO •r+ •�� • 0
II .� -zt -\) \O\O \I)kl) k.0 N N- N- H - N- N- 0\ a) 3-, U) C C
C° .-I H H .-I .-I ,-1 H .-I H .-I H ,-H N H H H r-1 .4 a) 0 cd a)
•
_ +3 K P. HP.. ••�
\0 C a) a) a)
5— •,i s~ A P.
--..-.O .-.—..
^ __I- I\ H cr)-zt ....1- N P. a)
N I I I I I I U) •r1 0 I
O 0 I cr (Yl cY) in in\0 0 3 •r1 C a) I
\. \-O\.0 N- u >in \00 ,. 0 I
E-I a3 Lr1 H r-1 .-I
4 i > H `..J..' \-O S 0�0 .0 a) cad f�i C
)
O H H ,-I-I- -1- -1- -1- -1 -1-Co CO o\ \O Ln H\ . L0 › -P
H
0 C0c0C00000O0 0000\ 0\ HH00 3 ,-I cd X
b� N N N Ln Ln Lr\ Ln «\ Lr\ Ln\0\0 LIN CO \0\0 N- P. a) u) a)
Ei HH Hr1 r1 -i r1 .--1 H I H H H -1, H H O N - 0 CH
cd 0
l I U) N
1' , I II IU
41. ' I U. 01 Ill
0 (C) •rf 0 N C cd
H H f. +-3 • f. cd
4-4 cd c0 CO c0 l- 1 H H H H H 0 0 N [ \0\o\O N 4-1 H 40 +3 a)
0 a) c r) (Yl M M cYl -� -� M CYl N CD M MOO N O cd H 0
o H H H Cr) r')(v) M cY) rn CV .�-f \O � ....1- Lr\ 'd 0 4-I f.
0 UH H H ,-I H .--I ,-1 ,-I .--I r Jl H .--I .-I .---I.---I .--
- I H Jb\ TI a) T3
O H -69
H Cf) N > 0 3-1
N H
••-I •,-I 0 H H
P: 0
d 0--. U) •,-$ U) 0 0
E O)
F1 N- N- N- M c'l N- N- 1— N- N-0 0 cP)N \0\0 N- P. f. f. a) f. ,C
4-I +) \0\O\O If\ in Ln II\ Lf\ LIN Lr\ -- Cr)00 -� -f a0 co 0 C a) 3
co O f-I O o 0 N N N N N N N cY)cYl (Yl Ln rYl rr)-1- u) 4) 4-1 -P 4
:J Z o cd irlrlrirl , Irirlrl I , I I ,� rI rlrlri - U) 40 a)
• IS 4-) +A
x. N- 0 0 HC C 0
40 H > H
C .0 u) U) cd a) a)
HEED
P W ' P --+ . P-� c 40 P 4-.O N 0 -,-1
w > H H H H -I i I ,--1H ,-I rI 1 rI H O rI , 1 .-I rel co >> r'
PO. u) 0 o 0 cc�' .4
w — H Ha >' o
H ch a) >a E C 410
C C: cdN C ,C �. 0
f
cd .
o ca E '-. > TI •1-1 0 +) Ln a)
•r-1 ..
4-3 0 0 a) H H a) a) •) $.)H N 3
cd W cd w 0 H 'd u) P. H •r1 4
U 4 a) x Gi. H •rl •r1 X U) U) •H
•'� a .� Ti < H a) 0 a) a) b
CH '
•.-1 a) f. TI f. f. d < v
P. P. f. •.--I a)
u) 0 0 a) 0 0 - H 0 d C 40 cd U
(ii al C CC-, cd c 3 H � U ..0 � 4-. cd a)
r-IO a) a) 40 a) f. s~ >, • a) +3 co •r♦
Q) 0 P. •� 0p., a) U U) U) 3 a) 0 m 0 >
• EO+ 1 U) Ti cid H •rcd �1 <H N
td • Ti • cr) M (4-1 C a) •r1 P. 4-1 CO
a) •H f. f. •° a) a) + f. •� H P. 1n a) a) 4-I
>,H o42 C N N C C > 1, +3 C O a) C -1-3 O
a) +3 cd Ci' P. P. Cr' U •,-1 a) Ti cd f. •.-I E 0 •
> [H CO .d w a) N w •H H h� cd P, C) U) P. f. C U) f.
C I 40 f. d •r1 a) P. cd — S. 0
f. 0 +3 •� x >, cd 4-3 C >>0 v) (1-, a) cd H in E cd +3
cO 08 0 +3 4 x x > .0 U) •,-1 f. •H >, cd I a) a) 0
U 40 f-1 f' cd U f. f. +) 0 Pi CO 0 (1) CO U\ H >> a)
C • •H cd rd a) a) •r+ a) C o 0 U) H f. co .0 P.
00 0 04 P. P. x Z r=1 (1) W > El cd P. a) H \0 0 o U)
H E C H H f. 3 P
C H •,-1 0 W 3 < — P. E •r1
.�
-PCP F0 a, • rel Ln X N- O 0 in \o H N ( - Ln \o
1.1 H H H .- .- .� �.
Ln
3 40 3 3
0 •ri O O
H ,C H H
I I I I
,0 0 .0 .0
P. P. P. P-.
a
ao
—.S — -.
o 0) 00r)\D -,-4HIN
+) t-a u1 N- N-CO CO r-1 r-I r-I ri N r-1 r-1 r-I
0 03 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IIII
4--' >+ 001COCOCCO 0 0 N 0 N-0101-
V) O r-I ,--I r-I H N N N M __1-.4.1- -1- VO •..4
O N N C V N N C U N N N N C V N cu
0
0 .0 N- N- N- N- tiN- N-- N- N-.�VDVOVD VO O c0 0 44 MCO
H N- N- N- N- N- N- N- N- N-c000CX)COQ CO N- H 0 O10\0 O1 0 03
IIII CU CU CV CV CV CV 000000NCU CU OONNNN N N Hr 0000 S, O
rlrlrlri a) I
101,
Ei • 44-1
•H 4)
....... rd •
N H a)
I r-1 HO
CV
ON
0O SC, 0 t I~ •,-,i
cd 0 a) 0 31
H
0 01 O' O1 01 01 01 01 01(3D N
1� - N - N-
- NCr) 0
\D q0 q)q) u
0 `0 VD MO VD q) 1 Cr) r
) ) re-) 01 O N- CO c0 O co C 41 a)
b\ c0 CO CO 00cccc00c000 ON N N N - 0 H 01010101 a3 >, 3,
O El HHHHHHHHH N N N N N N H H f•, 0
_ >, cd •H
N cid n,
p I H O)
cH
0 0 H m ,-i 0
H O1
41 03 NNNNNNNNN N-01010101 0 --I- 0 u1Ir1C11O c 0 • m
0 0 VO VD'.0 VD V0 VD V0'D q0 N Cb c0 00 cc -1 01-f N- N- 0 N- a) •r+ a) 1
>+ \0\0\D\0\0\0\0'-0\0 CO O1 01 01 01 N CO 0 CO CO CO CO E Icd
O HH r-1 ,--i ,-Ir-1 H r- r-1 1 H H ,-I r-{ H r-1 al ,-1
u1 a) 'd 3, a)
c0 I
C), 0-' H cd (1)
C H O 01 cd c 0 >,
c0 00 c0 00 00 c0 CO 00 00 u1 u
r1 u1 u1\ u1 CO O1 u1 .. a) s, 0
41 -P u1 u1 u1 u\to u1 u\ u1 u1 H VD VD VD V0 N- m N- N H V\N cd a) R,
O ;, u1 u\ u1 u1 u1 u1 if in in N--c0 c0 CO c0 O CO a\ c0 CO N-00 0 E E
EZ cd r-1 r-1 ,-I ,---1H ,-I ,--Ir-1 i-I r-1 r-I ,-I ,--1 ,--I N
cd LI\ �
•C N
y,•r1 +P -H
-P > .0
c!) •H a) 0 +3
C
0i a0 0 i 0
0 ,_-1 'd 4-1 ,
U) r-i rA r-1 r-1 rA r-1 rA r-1 rA O H ,AH r� i O H -I H rrH O O H . c)0 N
0
w 0
� • E (Di + p a)
In 0 -. a) Q)
� u1 0 � E
+ H
0 •H .0 O~ C
•r-i +3 4, 3
c' aa) m
ai-) Ua) a) ::C +) 3 � a� a) 4-)• 0
cH Q 0 a F,4 f•-1 I~
CO a) m H 0
� ao 0
W v
0 O Q 40 •ri a)a) m cd U
d
40 ' ��, •H O
•Ha) •0) 43 a) H C 0 >
.
0 03
v C d C 0 0 & 'd
�) a) a)
a) 41
Q) E U)
0) 4) 0 cd +' C0d •H 0 PO A-) 41 -, -P
0 0 a) z� 0 ar40 0 m 0 0 W �O N p+ E
U) o$ S`, a0 • C 0 •H H -H +' cd a) 0 'dd E
+- 4-) Iti +) •r-I 0 0 H H 0 •H + 0' a) X
0 O N• 03 a) a0.H +3 0 a) as •,-1 a) 3 cd •H r-1 4-) •H
0 0 w u) u) C ¢ U) C ..- OD U) 0 r-1 41 m Cl)
• 0 r;, a, E
+)) 0 w0 civ >; CO >< °N1 u •
u\'.o H 0 Cv cy)u; Imo 00
-
ca r,Cr) 0 H --I .�
N
40
•
{ •H
I I
,0 •.o
0. O,
Q.
ao y,
C '
Ts S
O u) H
o •,n
cd a) in
0
in R,
a) U)
ms-+ M ON
C
X EN � a)
¢+ H H rH-I rC"I H rn O cH
d
O
H aD
O • 'd a)
H a) H
N N cd
I I Oa F, N N a)
N [- H (1)
H cd H 'd U
(4--1U
a)
O H \O q) C F,
0
OON HHH N U N
H H H ,--1-I r-I , X
E{
ON ^ ^ a)
O\^ N w
�N I cf..., I
Ln 'o• d 0
H ON HH cd U
4a cid v d
o °
N cd
N- MMM 0 -� 0
. ON ON ON ON 0 4
CO '
cd (1)
-P
O H
a)
HN U
H O lf\ N N N ('UCV (!) U
CT O\ O\ 0 .0
cd H idLIN W
IV
N Cd U
aJ
w O H
C
+, a
Hal Q)
4-) 0
.r1 ,-4 u)
W H r-I H r-I 0 4-+ .,-1
a° in .P
w
.4-)
( s~
H a)
r-I •• U
a) (1) •-i
,d s+ 4D
O (Cl m
W
O
cd 0 0
O C w 4-. 4-3
x G3 tap b
•H (1) C U
co C .) •H .,
W U .x U
H � C 0 Q.)
o F, a) >, 3 U •
O 'd Q, cad w >
H a) a) F~ +) •ri F~ a)
Cl, °
Q) u;
H +) i b + U F C
o H 0 H ° •°
t, H U +, I~ cd F, a+ F.-1 +'
U) 08v H ., •CO � Fes, U U N •r
H H F1 C U ,C.i C ›, Fi
O O U .. +3 CO CO (1) U) •H a) w
z F WN Cll
o rd
'd
cd .n (1) 0 v a,
CO ~) U H co � --1-N- E -c0 CT H
3 3 a0
0 0 •,-1
H H ,)
I 1 I
A ,n 4)
a a a,
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S . Cox , City Clerk
RE : Resolution of Appreciation to Russ Nolting
DATE : October 26 , 1982
Introduction
Pursuant to your request , I have prepared the attached resolution
of appreciation to Russ Nolting for his years of service on the
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission.
Terms of Utility Commissioners expire as follows :
Russ Nolting April , 1983
Wally Bishop April , 1984
Barry Kirchmeier April , 1985
Action Requested
Offer Resolution No. 2071 , A Resolution of Appreciation to
Russ Nolting, and move its adoption.
JSC/jms
/ 6 a—
RESOLUTION NO. 2071
A RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO RUSS NOLTING
WHEREAS , Russ 'Nolting has been a respected resident of the City
of Shakopee and while living in the City with his family has been
very active and interested in both public and civic endeavors ; and
WHEREAS , Russ has gladly contributed many hours of service to
civic and public endeavors and- has been an active and valued member
of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission from July, 1977 until
his resignation effective November 30, 1982 .
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL,
in behalf of the people of Shakopee and on behalf of the City, its
commissions and its staff , that the Council does hereby extend to
Russ Nolting the deep appreciation of the City and all of its
inhabitants for his years of civic interest and dedicated service .
Adopted in session of the City Council of
the City of Shakopee , Minnesota, held this day of
1982 .
Mayor of the City of Sh kopee
ATTEST:
pity Clerk -- -
Approved as to form this
day of ,- -- , 1982 .
City Attorney
/ 1) Or-D
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson
FROM: Gregg M. Voxland
RE: Resolution No. 2046
DATE: October 21, 1982
Introduction
The purpose of Resolution No. 2046 is to have the 1967 Deferred Parking
Assessment abatements moved by Council on 10-5-82 formally documented
by resolution.
Action Requested
Request Council move to adopt Resolution No. 2046.
GMV:mmr
�6 `e--
RESOLUTION
rRESOLUTION NO. 2046
A RESOLUTION ABATING DEFERRED 1967 PARKING FACILITIES ASSESSMENTS
WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council did pass Resolutions No. 205, 215
and 222 levying specisl assessments for 1967 Parking Facilities and
WHEREAS, some of the assessments that were adopted were deferred and
WHEREAS, the Council did determine on October 5, 1982 to abate the
remaining deferred assessments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota that the following assessments are abated.
1967 Parking Assessment Code 21
Parcel Amount
27-001-042-0 $ 452.00
27-001-068-0 1 ,272.00
27-001-069-0 1 ,568.00
27-001-134-0 1,272.00
27-001-141-0 1,999.00
27-001-142-0 1,499.00
27-001-157-0 1,092.00
27-001-238-0 2, 157.00
27-001-239-0 455.00
27-001-240-0 1,375.00
27-001-249-0 1,397.00
27-001-251-0 1,092.00
27-001-252-0 1, 162.00
27-001-259-0 829.00
ADOPTED in session of the Shakopee City Council held this
day of, 1982.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Prepared and approved as: to form
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator /DC
FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk
RE: Registering Title to Property in Blocks 29 and 30
DATE: October 26 , 1982
Introduction
Pursuant to Council authorization, the City Attorney has prepared
the attached resolution which gives him authority to complete the
necessary proceedings to register title to the property owned by
the City in the vicinity of the public library.
Action Requested
Offer Resolution No. 2072 , A Resolution Authorizing the Institution
of Proceedings to Register the Title in the Name of the City of
Shakopee to Property it Owns in Blocks 29 and 30, and move its
adoption.
JSC/jms
e G
RESOLUTION NO. 2072
Resolution Authorizing the Institution of Proceedings to Register the
Title in the Name of, the City of Shakopee to Property it Owns in Blocks
29 and 30
WHEREAS, The City of Shakopee purchased from Schesso Bros. , Inc. for a
Contract for Deed, Lots 1 and 2, Block 29, in the City of Shakopee, Scott County,
Minnesota, iesa , en t--of_wav Of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific
Railroad. and
Wi3Tt,;;A3, The o t.r: et for Oeedwas p6id- in ruil several irs ago but through
some oversight the deed conveyance was never delivered to the City for recording, and
WHEREAS, the Corporation Schesso f;tos. , Inc. has been :?issolved an(7 ft is not
now possible to obtain a suitable deed of oonveyance., and
WHEREAS, recently the City of Shakopee has also purchased additional property
in Block 29 including the abandoned railroad right-of--way, and
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee has also purchased the right--of-way and additional
property in Block 30 in the City of Shakopee, and
WHEREAS, the Council deems it fitting any;,proper to clear the title to said
real estate above described upon recommendation of. the City Attorney.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL at .a meeting duly
assembled that the City Attorney be hereby instructed and hereby is instructed and
authorized to institute and complete the necessary District Court proceedings to
Register Title to the property owned by the City of Shakopee in Blocks 29 and 30
in the City of Shakopee, and to do all things necessary and proper to institute and
complete the proceedings.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the proper City officials are hereby authorized and
instructed to sign any necessary documents for the above purpose in the name of the
City.
Passed in session of the Shakopee City Council held this
day of , 1982. ----_..
1Uc�
MEMO TO : John K. Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: H. R. Spurrier of op-
City Engineer �1
RE: First Avenue Improvements ari+ Free Right
DATE : November 1, 1982
Introduction :
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) plans to reconstruct
andoverlay part of 1st Avenue (Trunk Highway 101) between Marschall Road
(County Road 17) and Holmes Street (Trunk Highway 169/Trunk Highway 101
Junction) in 1983.
Background :
Pursuant to State Cooperative Agreement Policy, the Department of Transporta-
tion requests a resolution from the governing body of the political subdivision
in which the improvement is made.
This City supports improvement proposed for 1st Avenue, recognizing the fact
that the roadway is in poor condition due to the fact that the road is badly
rutted because of the heavy traffic volume.
Mn/DOT has been advised that the City believes a serious drainway problem
exists between Minnesota Street and Shawmut Street on 1st Avenue. It is a
problem the City sought to eliminate by constructing the Prairie Street Storm
Sewer.
I'm advised by Mn/DOT State Aid Engineer that due to a scheduling problem
it is doubtful that the drainage problem could be resolved in time to be included
in this project. Nevertheless, Mn/DOT should be formally advised that the
City expects the problem to be addressed and corrected in the future.
It should be noted that this project received more favorable consideration
because of the City's plans to acquire and demolish the Opera House in order for
Mn/DOT to construct a free right at 1st Avenue and Holmes Street (junction of
Trunk Highway 169 and Trunk Highway 101) .
In order for the City to proceed further on the free right, it is necessary to
make a formal request of Mn/DOT for an alternative study that would lead to
the eventual condemnation, purchase and removal of the Opera House.
John Anderson November 1, 1982
1st Avenue Improvements Page -2-
All of this proposed work, the reconstruction and overlay of 1st Avenue, the
notice of a drainage problem between Minnesota Street and Shawmut Street, the
notice of the City's intent to use FAU Funds to acquire and remove the building
at the intersection of 1st and Holmes and the request that the State prepare
the alternative studies are all included in attached Resolution No. 20714.
The cost of the reconstruction and overlay of 1st Avenue will be 100 percent
State funding from a State Cooperative Agreement Fund.
Funding for the storm sewer in Prairie Street, should it be feasible, may be
some combination of State and local funding. State funding could possibly
consist of State Aid or the State Cooperative Agreement Fund, while local
funding could be City funds and assessments to benefitted properties.
As previously discussed, funding for the acquisition and removal of the Opera
House would be funded with Federal Aid Urban Funds. The State's study
of alternatives would be paid for with State funds.
It is the recommendation of City staff that City Council adopt Resolution
No. 2074, a resolution that provides the following :
- A request and recommendation for the reconstruction and resurfacing
of 1st Avenue between County Road 17 and the junction of Trunk
Highway 101 and 169. A request that the project be paid for with State
funds from the, State Cooperative Agreement. Fund.
- A request that Mn/DOT consider including drainage improvements
between Minnesota Street and Shawmut Street to correct the serious
drainageway problem that exists there.
- A notice of intent by the City of Shakopee to acquire and demolish
a structure in the Northeast quadrant of the junction of Trunk
Highway 101 and 169 for the purpose of providing right-of-way to
the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the construction of
a free right for west bound Trunk Highway 101 .
- A request that the Minnesota Department of Transportation under-
take a study of alternatives for increasing the capacity at the junction
of Trunk Highway 101 and 169 in Shakopee. Specifically, the
construction of a free right for west bound Trunk Highway 101.
Action Requested:
Adopt Resolution No. 2074, a resolution relating to construction on Trunk
Highway 101 in Shakopee between County Road 17 and Holmes Street.
HRS/jvm
Attachment
b (I*
RESOLUTION NO. 2074
A Resolution Relating To Construction On
Trunk Highway 101 and Trunk Highway 169
In Shakopee
Between County Road 17 And Fuller Street
WHEREAS, Minnesota Department of Transporation proposes bituminous
resurfacing on Trunk Highway 101 and Trunk Highway 169, between County
Road 17 and Fuller Street, as a part of State Project No. 7005-47 (T.H. 101)
and State Project No. 7009-48 (T.H. 169) ; and
WHEREAS, said projects would enhance and improve 1st Avenue;
and
WHEREAS, the City has utilities that must be adjusted to final grade; and
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee has identified drainage problems
associated with Trunk Highway 101 between County Road 17 and Minnesota
Street; and
WHEREAS, the elimination of these problems would rec wire a storm sewer
pipe that would be installed in and across 1st Avenue at Prairie Street; and
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee for its part of improving 1st Avenue
has directed the City Engineer to proceed with the work necessary to acquire
and demolish the building in the Northeast quadrant of the intersection at the
junction of Trunk Highway 101 and Trunk Highway 169 in Shakopee; and
WHEREAS, continuing with said project requires the preparation of a study
of the alternatives for improving the intersection capacity; and
WHEREAS, if said preparation was performed by the Minnesota Department
of Transportation, acquisition and demolition could be expedited in 1983.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1. That the improvement of 1st Avenue between Fuller Street and County
Road 17, is hereby requested with funds from the State Cooperative Agreement
Fund.
2. That Minnesota Department of Transportation include the adjustment
of all City utilities to final grade in the contract for the improvement.
3. That the Minnesota Department of Transportation recognize and correct
the drainage problem between County Road 17 and Minnesota Street on Trunk
Highway 101.
Resolution No. 2074 (Cont. )
4. That the Minnesota Department of Transportation be advised that it
is the intention of the City of Shakopee to acquire and remove the building in
the Northeast quadrant of the Junction of Trunk Highway 101 and Trunk
Highway 169 in Shakopee, utilizing Federal Aid Urban Funds.
5. That the Minnesota Department of Transportation is, hereby, requested
to prepare a study of the alternatives for improving the capacity of the
intersection of said Junction, specifically regarding the improvement resulting
from construction of a free right turn from West bound Trunk Highway 101 at
the Junction of Trunk Highway 101 and Trunk Highway 169.
Adopted in session of the City Counci 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
/0e-
MEMO TO : John K . Anderson
City Administrator
FROM : Jane VanMaldeghem
Planning Secretary
RE : Ordinance No. 96 and Ordinance No. 109
Housekeeping Amendments to Chapter 11 and Chapter 12 of the
Shakopee City Code
DATE : October 29, 1982
Introduction :
Ordinance No. 96 and Ordinance No. 109 have been prepared for City Council
adoption.
Background :
At the City Council meeting of October 19, 1982, Council received the recommenda-
tion from the Planning Commission for certain minor amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. Council then directed the appropriate
City officials to prepare ordinances which would incorporate these various
"housekeeping" amendments. The Assistant City Attorney has prepared the
attached ordinances to include the approved changes.
Action Requested:
City Council adopt Ordinance No. 96 and Ordinance No. 109.
jvm
Attachments
ORDINANCE NO. 96
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE SHAKOPEE
CITY CODE, "LAND USE REGULATION (ZONING)"
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shakopee as follows:
Section 1. Section 11.03 of the Shakopee City Code is hereby amended
to delete from line 4 the word "major" and replace with the word "principal". •
Section 2. Section 11.04, Subd. 2(C) is hereby amended to delete
from line 3 the word "use" and replace with the word "uses,".
Section 3. Section 11.04, Subd. 6(C)(9) is hereby deleted in its
entirety and replaced with the following:
"9. If a time limit or periodic renewal is included as a
condition by which a conditional use permit may be renewed
at a public hearing with notice of said hearing published at
least ten (10) days prior to the renewal; it shall be the
responsibility of the Administrator to schedule such public
hearings and the owner of the land having a conditional use
permit shall be required to pay a fee for said renewal. A
public hearing for the annual renewal of a conditional use
permit may be granted at the discretion of the Council.
Source: Ordinance No. 31, Fourth Series, Effective
Date: 10/25/79."
Section 4. Section 11.04, Subd. 6(C) is hereby amended to add a new
Paragraph 12 as follows:
"12. A conditional use permit shall be used within one year,
or it shall become void. A conditional use permit which is
discontinued to six months shall be void."
Section 5. Section 11.05, Subd. 3(B) shall be amended by deleting
the term "B-4" and repLacing it with the term "B-3".
Section 6. Section 11.28, Subd. 5 of the Shakopee City Code shall be
amended by deleting Paragraph A in its entirety and renumbering Paragraph B to
Paragraph A.
Section 7. Section 11.31, Subd. 3 of the Shakopee City Code is
hereby amended to delete Paragraph A in its entirety and replace with the
following new Paragraph A:
"A. Commercial Recreation."
Section 8. Section 11.32, Subd. 3 of the Shakopee City Code is hereby
amended to add a new Paragraph 0 as follows:
"0. Structures in Excess of 45 Feet in Height."
Section 9. Section 11.32, Subd. 4(F) of the Shakopee City Code is
hereby amended to delete Paragraph 2 thereof and to renumber the present
Paragraph 3 as Paragraph 2.
Section 10. Section 11.33, Subd. 4(F) is hereby amended to delete
Paragraph 3 thereof and to renumber the present Paragraph 4 as Paragraph 3.
Section 11. Section 11.40, Subd. 2 of the Shakopee City Code is
hereby amended to delete the term "B-4" and replace it with the term "B-3".
Section 12. Section 11.60, Subd. 20(A) is hereby amended to delete
from line 3 the words "an intermediate or arterial" and replaced with "a
principal or intermediate arterial".
Section 13. Summary approved. The Council hereby determines that
the text of the summary of this Ordinance marked "Official Summary of
Ordinance No. 96 ", and a copy of which is attached hereto, clearly informs
the public of the intent and effect of the Ordinance. The Council further
determines that the publication of the title and such summary will clearly
inform the public of the intent of the Ordinance.
Section 14. Posting and Filing. The City Clerk shall see that a
copy of this Ordinance is filed in her office and in the public library, which
the Council hereby designates as to the locations at which a copy is available
for inspection by any person during regular office hours.
Section 15. Publication. The Clerk shall publish the title of this
Ordinance and the official summary in the official newspaper with notice that
a printed copy of the Ordinance is available for inspection by any person
during regular office hours at the Office of City Clerk and the City Library.
Section 16. Effective Date. This Ordinance takes effect upon its
passage and the publication of its title and the official summary.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Shakopee this 2nd day of
November, 1982.
Eldon Reinke, Mayor
ATTEST:
Judy Cox, City Clerk
The following is the official summary of Ordinance No. 96 approved
by the City Council on the 2nd day of November, 1982.
Said Ordinance makes a series of minor corrections and housekeeping
changes to Section 11 of the Shakopee City Code, known as the Shakopee Zoning
Ordinance.
ORDINANCE NO. 109
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12 OF THE SHAKOPEE
CITY CODE KNOWN AS THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (PLATTING)
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shakopee as follows:
Section 1. Section 12.01, Subd. 3 of the Shakopee City Code is
hereby amended to delete the following language from the third and fourth
sentences thereof, to-wit: Division of residential land in tracts larger than
20 acres in area and 500 feet in width shall be exempt from the requirements
of this Chapter. All industrial and commercial developments", and replace
with the following: "Division of land for residential uses into tracts 20
acres or larger In area and at least 500 feet in width shall be exempt from
the requirements of this Chapter. All industrial and commercial subdivisions
regardless of the size of resultant tracts".
Section 2. Section 12.02, Paragraph 31, of the Shakopee City Code
shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following new Paragraph
31, to-wit:
"31. 'Subd. '--a described tract of land which is to be or
has been divided into 2 or more lots or parcels, any of
which resultant parcel is less than 20 acres in area and
less than 500 feet in width for residential purposes or any
size parcel for commercial and industrial uses for the
purpose of transfer of ownership or building development
or, if a new street is involved, any division of a parcel
of land. The term includes resubdivision and, where it is
appropriate to context, relates either to the process of
subdividing or to the land subdivided."
Passed by the City Council of the City of Shakopee this 2nd day of
November, 1982.
Eldon Reinke, Mayor
ATTEST:
Judy Cox, City Clerk
* "' \„ N, VI V' 'Fund ,
W \-O Co OD OD ON
R. * * * * * ,CPQ .
OD -4 rn V, W N H Priority
cf
0 N Wo -I •P" W N rn 'Program Number
H
CO E.) t 1 < tll 'ri tli x tri Ui tri x to C tri 'moi
N m P Cn P m O N P (A H m P Cl) H m (D
c+ hi c+ H cf c+ g cf H cfg cf c ct b cf !1
H r�' HH P. 0 0 M5. (D F (D
P) c+ P P 'xi 0. P N P • P POPM
c+ c+ c+ P. c+ 0 c+ Cl- r-) c+ c+ c+ H
(D Cl) maD H D D P+ m D hi m D D O
P, C P. mP• a 0a w P Z a 0 0
C) co C) P o o n 0 P.' C) P C) F-' 0 m 0 m
o m o m o ft it o P.' o m o o Fd 0 0
m c+ m c+ WOO (n N• m m H m c+ m c+
c+- c+ hi c+ Cl- c+ c+ c+ p c+ 0 c+
H �. I .. o. .. .. o Description
qd H ft 0-.1 0 ft ft w
-Ea- o -Eft -C 0 -EA- �»- o P -EftP -Cl)- W
V.
*Y H 0. H m m H H P•
o 5 H R+ 0 K N W (CD O\ W W co
o m�yy V1 • Vl CO O 0 W 0 ht 1 Ni
v 0 V V U) V c+ V Ni- v e-{ v �1
O c+ 0 U) 0 c+ 0 0 m 0 0 0 ..
O U) 0 0 0 ft 0 0 0 U) 0 Cl) 0
O 0 • 0 m 0 0 0 CD 0 (D 0 0
(D f) t; U)
c+ • m 'TJ
ft
co
• rn Feasibility
co• N : $•••••..
• o C Nc" 'Report
• Z : SPUC
•• N N �� • (��' Approval
IN t>
tr
• � : Public o
H
•• N n w . 10t0 co Hearing tz
tai
• I" W• : -� • . Plans and v.
•• co
w N W -1 : NOS Specifications o
.. tC=i
• z : Right-of-WayH
CDNa : Acquisition .. co
• W vi •• NUJ V .. co y
`�� •( . id
co• • Date O I
:. w CO :. W U i 1 x
ON U ,_,
, ' co r'
.� °` ••• u- • Assessment
• • fr:
��
:. coWN :. W $ ¢ Hearing
0
• rn • • ‘o a\ rn a\ : ficr\ : al Completion H
co•• p • o • o 0 o cop • coo : o Date
•• N.) W N N N .. N .. W
XC) tri 3C) W Zow XC) CI1 ;7.; C) W Saw low 1 ) W
ON CD vi H H I--+ -P- N H W N -P' W -J Engineer
o o .- N O \.O 0 O 0 O N co 0 --A W O N 0 -F'W VI 0 V1 -.1
•
Vl Ul Vl
Vi
N I + N ko N f-' H N vi N vi O\ Technician I H P
o 0_4 co PIH COCO Q\ o O\ O\ 0000 O 0DO 0 ---.10-‘ o O -4
O
V▪II hi
H
CO W H W H H N 'Technician 11
00_4 W• --� N H O C V1 0 O) 0 00 oH CO 0 O\ CO 0 d\H <{ U
� o H v, o f rn IftspectonTI „� �,
Vl Vl VI V7 f.,• cF
d O
P
Technician I r
o 0o 000 00 0 000 000 00 0 o0 O 000 inspector I
0
xC)
ii cf.
o o o �� o o H o vi vl a\ o rn 0 o rn 0 o•�-N ��eCI'etdry m d
• m
\n O \..n ‘..l u, ft
W H
0 0 - -CN v- VI Ni0 0H-+ o \n --I Ej 0 0 IND N 0vxiN Total
H
�n �n vl �n �n \.n \O c�
Co
H
N V II-�' F' N N H N • W W O\ CO
I I NA Nle �-Cl)' I iH I 0 H 0 " I W" Engineering
0 o N CX -i� � 000 0 W � C\ 0 D o w W o w O N S Dept,. Fee
I W Ui �� ‘ri ON I'0 W I W O \O I N o N \n W W P
\ i V1 VI VI Vl
0 0 0 0 0
tri o f ii a II�'und
Oq H H H H H H* H 'Priority
m
c+ O‘ V1 W N F'- 0 \O
R oo,., H w H w VD Program Number
H
Nt=J ti ni tr1 H t 1 n t1 N ti I-3 LTJ 0 tri 'TJ
m to P to 3 m O to O to P m 0 Cl) K
c+ H. c+ < c+ M c+ • c+ a c+ 0' c+ e•9 • c+ w m
"' 11 c 0' 0 0 H 0 MI �' H.
P t" ) 7i H. c+ CD
P (D P m P c+ P) a W K < W 13• W •• a w P W
c+ lD c+ p c+ Is c+ • c+ m m c+ c+ • c+ O\1-'•
(D 0 (D c+ (D p m (D c+ O (D 'd OM m \DOR
P, c+ a a c+ a Cl) a a P aP H a 0'
0' trJ N• W CD m K to O\ c+
n n < n 0 C] C] c+ n n c+ n
O 0 P 0 0 0 y O • 0 0 C 0 t-y i
Cl) C Cl) H Cl) to h'• Cl) W to to O c+ m O
c+ (D c+ 0 c+ H c+ a c+ c+ c+ Cf p c+,kt H. c+ ,1
• Description
(D H• H N• Fi O c+ 0
-EA- tss 0 -EA- 0 -EA- -EA-P R. •• H. -EA-
04 P
w
C 0 w m 0'
O N) W N) H m. P' a -.1 • H• W til
o 0 —a 0 o P m Vn w 0 0 1-' c,
0 0 0 �' w IS • (D .. H ..
0 0 o �m o 0 0 N 0 ((DD 0 P.
o 0 O H O O O Fi O C) 0
Cl) H
O1
•• �� `-, C)Z, . -4 • '11 n : 1•'C'a;;ibility
o' ,0 j' T : •: co o ; °N° lieport
•• .• ., z o t ltat- N ; c+ 1_, .. S
• N 1 a U a :. N�0) :. R' o �y • pproval
ro • W ,Q • m
C"' 0 (e C) l�
M • do� K: a (Cl• ; Public
8 a Z :.• �w aq :• a m :. (Hearing H
cf
m 0 nJ r�
• F a z C., w •o HO • vi w ° . 1-1
m ` as •. N• '� , Plans and
�' Q N �+; (Specifications 0
o H
Q. I-4) N
tri
o : " �: " : t Hight-of-Way
w Y `C ; NAcquisition
M
c9 co
F ._A .-J N
u\ y
•• W z : J C,: °\ P'� rid•:. CO t * a cNo 5: N P (1: ate o
m
Y �{: G ssessment
: :U Hearing tt
o
1-3
• rn : 411
::•:-.7\,, completion
- (: ate
: N :• co :. �:. co - N)
.. P- f N � N 'i''
xaw :ynw Znw xow Znw Xnw Xnw Xow
--4 H H H H f-' Ln sneer
O NCo N H -N'---.1 'O HCo HW 1- ' g
00 .--.1 -10 .fi' OHO ON- 0 -4-3 OWVI HW-3 000
VI Vl VI \n
H MOvi H -P-0M N w Technician III d
O o vi H H VO O W 0 '---J .N- 00 ,01 000 CON) 000 0
VI \n V7
H C7
N VI rn p- N H Technician II m
00 � -1 -10\ 0 -30 w'0_ oo .r..- 000 0HVi oo0 inspector ti w
\.71Vl• H.
Technician I 0
0 00 000 000 000 000 000 000 0 00 Inspector I g
o0
x m
H vi W V, N H • Secretary ;n H
00 N N O H H \110 0 0 0 0 0 -P--0 O .� CO
kit Vl u
VI 'd
W H P)
H H N Co D
N 0 \51H H N (,) W W � M H � � M HNA- Total N
0 0 0 -� \i'l H 0 W ", co ---co O •� w 0 W 0 I-' ‘.0 .p- 0 P v, i
vl VI \n I N
40.
H N
--I N O ko N O\ko HO .F.- N fi- M
1 ico
_ o w vl Zo 1 .p-,0 oo N 1 N m i W o o I w Engineering
0 iH-' o o o w P N H N o",° (-4-) `° N o Dept. Fee
w ..n vl vn
0 0 0 0
__- I
* 0 H o \-A I Fund
td
* * * * *
N - w N INS 0 H H 'Priority
c+ vi \n `n \n \-n `n ‘n .n
a H 0 H - 0 w 'Program Number
H
‘-O tj C M . t b M L b M t t1 I--' tx1 Cl)
OD m 'd U7 H U) 0 Cr) p Cl) K m (D U) 0 U) W
N c+ rd c+ H c+ H H c+ + N
I-' c • c+ (U ti c+ F-' c+ P,
p P P 0° m P cG (n . P P K P P
c+ c+ H• c+ c+ c+ c+ t-+ c+ txi t7 c+ 0 c+ H
(D w ro m a '- (D b m (D P 0i (D (D
P, a a ( m a a ac H c a 0
c) m C) H 0 • c+ C) x' C) C) (D C) CP C) 0
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0
to m () m c+ hi m ti m Cl) II) m u) m
c+ tJ c+ T c+ O (D c+ K c+ (D c+ (D c+ 7d c+ c+
•. P •. •. ••
P v) H U)) �• M m cm+ p Description
H• 0 N W p H fi a n
(= 4+ t0 cF EY 46- w •Efir 0 -Eft-r• 0 -EA- -6()- c+
H P I-• M m 1-4) F-' }•
Q4 W H (D .. 0
Co (D *• W N 9 W 0 i
O 0 0 M c•s' 0 N W Z 0 H
O v O
O O Co O O O O O O
o O O c+ O 0 0 CL O O
o O O 0 O 0 0 0 0
a
t<
• H .b - r7 - 7... w : -a 'Feasibility
co• po •. CO OJ C \ • w Report
.. N cam. . H. NW N
(D N 1 m
n I.i.
• `+ • �� 0
• O •
• J {J•. ('t)'^' C N )"
ISAPUC
pproval
0' 1Y) W
N
U r (D
• w •�y�i. U) r, - Public 0
• (D Co : • rid: v. H. C •: Hearing
.. N N ',.. Fv •. m
. cC r OW
H
i� t� -• ---.1 : w Plans and
•
N •
• 1.. LA) �.. 0 N) • N Specifications
U3 l
1-1 ( b
• o • ;• f.A) U1; Comalight-of-Way �d H
• �i �• CD , OD • Acquisition V3
•• •. p. N N .. OD
�•
0-3
N
•• •z • r• ►: (,) °` : �d
:. . 11• oR d'. :. :. Date
.. W �: rH
• r G� (( `, • Assessment
:. :. lt) :01 . :. \ t11' :. :. Hearing l
V.
o
• ti %
• • . O �: 0 : co : m �Completion '�
• • ' • — 'Fr`,
o �: c�oG�" �: ao ; • ate
•• .. r) •• ,1.• NUJ _i. N ..
XC W C) tO XC) bd C) W � C) bd $ C) W C) W ;) tzl
N) N H O
�, .r✓ Engineer
0 Co O .F'�O O O O H 0 0 '0 0 "O O H .F'"H O N 0 0 0
\ •
n \n \n
C-'
I--, rn N) ON H-� �-rn C 'Technician III o'
N - 0 0 0 '0 00H 00 -4 OO0 0 BOO 0 0\0 0 ON O
Un '1
N t7
v, w H rn H \0 N \n 1echnician .I I H.
Co v"', o o o o o o o 0 H 0 o rn� 0 o� o o� l Inspector I.I y Pte'
H. c+
‘n vi vi o' O
Technician I ,`
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 00 0 0 0 0 o O o 00 0 00 [nspector I 0 0
C)
c+
N x 00'
W N Q1 H F-'N V1 • Un SecrP_tary ;n a)
0\0 o - ) LA) o o 0 o o — 0 0 ODW 0 HN 0' OW v
Un V) ',n vt vn Co H
b
F ' --" P
W
v
(\ `J N W H H N -) '0"O -� r''Otal (D
H --'N .F'O Vt 0 0 vi 0 0 co 0 .0 0\ H OD 0 0 OH O ODS aqCo H
O 0 H •g' • 0 • • N N ON N 1
\II \n Ui \n W
,A W ON H H I I �� I I 1 �O �Co 1 I 10) Engineering
�- F-r -1 w \n o 0 0-I o o'0 01.00 w o00) o wo 0 co Dept. Fee
F., F-' H N -a 0 I 10 I ICT '0 I Lx)WO \O N) I NN) 1 1�N p
Un v)
0 0
o w co -v N i-, I Fund
a o V CO rn (Priority
V1 VI V1 V1 N �n V1 Vt
04
mw N rn VI N (Program Number
P.,
I-, j ti tJ ti H L1 C H (") H 0 t' Ii ti x
aC
• cm+
0 c* c+ UQ', cc+ � c+ o' cP ccm+ + CAM c+
N . c+c 0 y r 6 t', t7 r rn r ° B rK g' 2
c0+ 4 0 cC+ m c0+ p c0+ 1.--] c+ p (4- 0Cmm
'> Cf
(D ',..1' (DO (D (D R° H. 0 (o 0 (D c+ •C (1) Cl)
a a a a p' Ha N a (D a K
C0 w c0 to 0 r 0 �otl a < C) W C a m
o o I,. o *d o W D o N• o P o tt o (D
m x m c+ m l i m o (Ti m m m UI p1 m c+
o w
Description
V
h ci-
0 •69- t» (CD Et113- •E» H tfr 0 (MD
H
C+ Ft
Cf) tl
p
I
I-'• 00 N m (o N fd C H
c+ N \n w K o 'i (o O CO
�cTn+ 0 VI W 0 0 ) 0
,V . V
(D 0 0 0\ 0 0 (D O
O 0 .." 0 00 +10
O 0 .F
'b : : 0 : : H Feasibility
• o . Co . Report
• 1- ' : 0. : : H •
• S PUC
. w • cL . • •` Approval
: • Public
m . y . H (Hearing
m •. •
m tTi
m ¢, x
m (Plans and ~'
OD a Specifications cl
�. .:. • tia
N • o .•. w ..' fid
v, i-.1 ' (Hight-of-Way
P ; co N ; : . : cquisition 7 ko
.. I... .• .. •. .. m co
N
t4' H
. o . VI •. (Bid
fi • Date• o
:. ..• �J :. :. :. ):• N
r
). • Assessment
v, z1
15: y:. • : Hearing t�
.. �.. • co
w o
• . rn
Completion
co coN Date
•
.5. o W 3 C) W 0 W 0 W 0 tU O W . (') W ;4 :.--) W
H N -J
H w H w H Cr -a N o Engineer
O w0 00V0 TW 0 Own No 0 00 0 o w H o0-1
C'
H U.) 10 H '1'echn.i.c ian i 1 I �1.
000 000 -P---r-c) 0 ‘.00) N 4' 0 000) 00N) ooml o
n
Technician II ~'
vN1 --moi N0 0 co Inspector II w
N N O~D a 0000 0 0 0D OOP VD N. c*
1-- 00 000 000 O
U .D
Technician I -'
o
000 000 000 000 coo 00o 000 000 Inspector I
0
0
x c+
K o
HN 4- rn secretary m0
0 H O O o0 O w 0 O ko N N O 0 H co 0 N 0 co +i
') Vl Vl VI i--,
I' w
p
W N --3E, w �I CO 0 0 N Total I..J o)
0
1--, w O rn pooch 0 0" rn o 0 H .p- Owe I
VI VI O 0 �n •n C� �n O �n Cn •V O I-
-
I., 1--,w o co r I Engineering
cn I F-' N vi,,, I Com, F-' -1.. I V I H
co c I co o w I Owo� 4 N) fes., I N N VI rn rn Dept. Fee
•n
0 0 0 •N 0 0 0
o O
* off 13 I Fund •
iv
N N 'Priority
m
0. 'Program Number
co
co M 1-3 tri
ch C
a N P
iI
N• In (I)
Description
0
a) H
w Cn o
O (D .•
o a
0
o K 0
O
•• . • . . . hi : Feasibility
K co Report
p N
. • . . . - ISAPUC
o . N pproval
0 t,
�'Public
K co Hearing z
tilO
• : : . 0 vo : ti Plans and 7
. a Co
. N '•11,t Specifications °
. e ' .\ Right-of-Way z H
. 00Acquisition y
'3
.. .. K z dD N r3 i d
. .. GJ Assessment
:. •:. :. :. :. :. \ (Hearing m
o
.. .. .. .. IN\
~3
. • : :
: : : q) :, Date
!Completion
62 w m :K a tai Q ai •z 0 to Z O to 7 O W ; 7 to
g: 67cri
` cf. N N -P-vi vii-' Engineer
• 0
C, Ou .F'0 Nar Hyo\
O vl
vl
O
H
i rt�� H FH, rn H, H ,; jiechnician E. I r).H ft W (i N R0) kn n N .pr a W ,),
H H co c+ P.
V V N• j --,
HoNP
.. w c+ N .r.- Technician
m'
o o o N (..o -a N H o, �' Inspector [I �' `7
c) Q� ow \o •`, p K P
O coH w o -P- .P-~ N.
m V1 Ut
c+
Technician I H
-co- 0OO 000 oo c) inspector I o 0
HH c+
Hoo a o
ornoc ./ a)
Hm c+ .
N OO
(D 0 N\ Secretary n K
ANON - � o •co •
U
OD H H P
O '-d vl co N o rn Total '�
(D N O\W '� • v N 1
K W vt %...nK \.n • ..
‘.0O \40...4 CD.� W (D Ut -
H \J-tui c+ 0 f..,
►'' H \O H W H
\O H .n an o rn Cr, H �, Engineering
O o N o rn wv,° Dept. Fee
co M '-D H vt coOJ
c+ 0
•
4- -P- .P- I Program
k0 OD OD VI ON N Number
cc+ in P. 00 Cl) H a,
t �+ H �•
P H'CI H ca H 0 (D
IP P• 7d cc+ CPel o (CD
CD N n
W Z m m
b w N
~'
I-I
m
itsm
0
ch
I-,.
0
p
I
•
. • • : :-t1
. • • • (D
. • iy
.. .. •• •• .. .. •• • p)
r.t
•
;S• t
•
••• • • . • • t) 'y
0.1 •qcz
• • •
�+ 1-,
• • • . •
.. • .. a
ti
: •• • ••
• '� y
�
•• CD CO
.. d
o
'.:1
3
• • ••
•
P.d •O
• • • . • 1--,cf ,...<. • 0
.. .. .. .. .. .. •• .. (n 0
0
• • • • : •• : • H
0 td n co I ct i n to X O W C) txt C) W to
e- ..---- .F- IJ \o \~
. r, N Co rn .P- V1 co Engineer
0 0 O o\ OD N N O N O O 000 0 1-' O 000 LO P O
VIvl
W 1-' 1-' N N Iv �- 1--' n~.) v, Technician III w
coy" OOVl ovi1/4.77 000 00\j, Ocoo oN0 WWv,
0
d
Technician II H'
H
rn� a\N.) W g • .P-v, Inspector II + ci
1-' 1- O o coo N o\vt H 0 0 0 0 0 -� 0 0 0-\O N o v P. c
Na
+
v, vi vi \n 0
Technician I c 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 inspector I o 0
0
d
m
H '1 F1
0 0 0 T
N -F' 1� 000 --.1 k0 O1Secretary vND VI
ViH FVWN O\ON LO 0\N O 1-' 1-' H Tota l NOo (1)1-' ko._,3 0 C\0o 0\O\o\N \-1 1 --.10 0 0 v., 0 o\V H-I CON_
�O vi •vn � 1
O 0 0 0 0Vi
kn I
•69-
W H •P-- N vi
o\,� 1 —I.1_, a\ '" 1 1 H 1 F-'W N O W .p-- 1--' " Engineering
H Nr N 0 �� w N--4 0 0",..„ 10 N 4- �-oN\•P" W �•o Dept. Fee
\-Jul 1 Vl • U7 O 0 0 0 �„
0 0 v, 0 0
0
•
I
H H H --I --- .P- . - I Program
LAI O' N) O H, vi H N Number
H rn H w
co tv c)
N p� 0 P� H C
c1 6 rA I-•. rd N. (D `T' c+ 0 CDn
N4 '1• O 0 (D Otd F1� i
F1
0 0 I"'• C)
H N• d m cn '-.Jd!D CD N F.
CD to CD c+ • a g CD
•x ' c i
~ w H• a tv ( P o
p ri
o 1- 0 NH a
CDD I • . �' CD
0 0 0 w
F v CD C) R. c:
P (1) o c r c-1-
I---'
-+I---' :1 cn N.
w •
H H.
0)
m
• it
• . 1.1
.. •• •• •• .. .. • P1
ci
It
• • • . • C)
.. 'd tri
1-1
•• •• .
•
•
.. • ..•. ti
N •
• • (CD y OD
•• .. m t•r, N
.. rd
O ...-1
tn
. . . . . O
•
• • O xJ
N tr]
•. •• .. •. .. .. 'T1
()
{J
Z C) t1 x C bI Z C] tad ? n co 7 C) td (-] W .moi• O til X :) ed
I I I H.G- H H G' N .G" LA) N1 N Engineer
0 0 I 0 0 1 0 0 1 O \n0 N W 0 O V1 O 0 - 0 —I H 0
VI
r.,
No Technic Ian I 1 1 to
O 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 00 0 HO O VI 0 i
.-1
'Pectin l.cian 11 G1'
ins )e ctor I I + �'
N) N <7) F-' ,p � � � ,--t C.
0 0 I 0 0 I (..0N I 0 0\0 0 0\0 0 0 VI 0 0 0 0 \.n �n C
I 1 Vl R.
Technician I 0*
o o 1 o o 1 o o i o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o o 0 0 0 [nspector I
0
n
°o
N H w•ro Secretary `� 0
o LA) j O Co 1 N N) I 0 H"0 0 0 V1 0 0 V1 0 \n 0 H 0
\Jl \n V Vl VI CD r1J
H V
Gti
F, H rn�, Total H eD
N --I 1 IN)H Vt\p H V1 r�) 0\ O
0 W 1 0 CD I \n P" 0 VI N N O\V1 0 V1 O 0 �\n -) l,J V1 co 11
I I • O N
V7 Vl V7 VI VI Vl 1
H H 4 H H N H -Np Engineering
I N I I I iv I 10 %aiv 1 \n. - I i,o� n v1�,1 Dept. Fee
O 1 O \0 1 Co V1 1 0 0\rn 0\\n N 0 H--.3 0 N O co ----.-
I O\ 1 I 0 I H OD 1 I W 0 O\---1 0 I H V1 1 \D 0 --1 N V1
•
\n
H H H H H t- IProgram
H H N N V1 1_, 1--- O Number
--1 W
Off N• H• 0 H F3 O 0
(-b () ;1 I IJ• K
F'• H n C] H. I-, I--1 Or U c+ ",3 F-'•
H CD N H Cl) 1-' '.J :1 '00 i'C 'd
c+
• K i P t;1 (14 K K R. K t•:, H.
,Ti P 7..• '-b S= 1-:- M P I'• 0
id c+ 1 9 R' [d (I !II cI '.11 ..1
C) -''• 04 t 1 M ••,: ID •-• ID
N. O :1- N 1) ;1 1J. Ii,
..1 (1 III cI :i ,I s s ID • . ID
CII ID ID I'• --' 4) •'
W
CiO P u) a 1- II '
0 00
Boq
� 0K
N• c+ (n (D F'• c+ c+
cf N ,I I 1/)
cI P' In IV' (D
N H'
0
U)
.
•
. • • CD
. • • P
In
H
• 0
• . . • • .• d F-1
• (D
.. .. • .. .. .. .. .. 'd t'1
P H
K
. • 0i
• II
.▪. .. .. •• c-I C.1
P t=1
H "Ll
• • d z N
• • O �3
• . in CO J
.. .. .. .. .. .. 'd l= N
O U
• a
. • . • • •• 0]
•
•
U' 1.
• • • N.
.. .. .. ., .. .. I-' '--'
N• ;SI
cl. C,
• • . (D
• . • UI J_'
• . • • • . . • cri
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 't1
C
H
. • • 5
., (-) to :•". C) (z1 ti a W () (31 . 0 H .. C) Ut C) H •_s ;) tII
1 I I I r'it11)I't'
I N N
0 O I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 1 0 0 i O •P' I 0 0 1 "0 "O I
I I I I I I I I Technician i I I U.
I 1
0O 0O 00 00 00 . 00 0O 00
I I I I I I Technician 1 I 'c '
11 1 I I I I I cf C_,
1 1 �, inspector 1 i s p
0 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O\11) ' • `:
\ •
n vi 1:
I I I Tk'I.'Ilt(it! I an I F,,
I I i 1 1 Inspector 1 o
0 0 1 0 0 j 0 0 i 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
d
N
1 1 H I V1 \o 1 1 .H :E i`T2tSr� K
Vl 'n 1 O 0 1 O CT 1 0 0\ I 0 a' 1 O\W 0 H -J ' 1 '
Co
'J1 V7 V1 vi V-1 Vi vi
H
I I 1 II�ot a l coBP'
1
I I I O\ I I
H � � - "vi CoN 00
V1 Vl 1 0 H' 1 0 O\ 0 O\ 0 CD O\—4 0 H W -4 (D
Vi '11 VI\-71 v1CO
1
1 I I CO I I H H i Engineering
1 1 I I " I I I 1 Dept. Fee
Ol O\ I O 1-' 1 O -J O-J O N Vi O N --I OD
O O 1 1 Cb I N I N Co 1 Co O O
‘..,n \.n —
r
•
Program
Number
cn ti
7 (1
. 1 N
7 iip.
,-; 'ti
,.t
I..
Li
•
: m
•
ii
: . : :
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
:s C. o f a w s 0 w ; o w C7 W o wIJ :.' n w .s. :] tv
a)co� I'tl/',1neer
' iv, W
. ‘..71
r\.)rn N I'echni c i.ttrr l l i CI.
.1
Pechnician 1I
c,
v, lnsif ctc�r [ i
rnrn (.._,
VI Ff
Technician I i,
00 C) Inopee t.ot' I C,
H
H Secretary j'
Ioo
N)-P- 0 t
Ill
(:)
W L.)
F' I
N) 0 U Tutu i vt
Co CO N I
0\ •-- Cb N)
Vl VI {fT
FT CT
vi b w
KIICineer iflg,
H o Dept. Fee
\n \n 0
0 0 0