HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/22/1983 a Tom!
TENTATIVE AGENDA
ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 22 , 1983
1 ] Roll Call at 4 : 30 p.m.
2 ] Discussion of goals and objectives with department heads
3 ] Other Business :
a] Park Dedication Foreclosures
b] Senate File No. 219 - Amendment to Sec. 44 . 074 , Subd. 1 & 3 ,
Minnesota Statutes
c ] Res . No. 2118 , Amending Resolution No. 2082 Adopting a Fee
Schedule for 1983
R-oa,
4] Adjourn
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
Bring information from previous goals and objectives sessions !
A/,RA/e3-jnforAlc, ;on al 2 ,11
MEMORANDA
TO : John K. Anderson
City Administrator
FROM : H. R. Spurrier o
City Engineer t
SUBJECT: Horserace Track
Shakopee, Minnesota
DATE : February 18, 1983
Introduction:
City staff has received inquiries regarding potential sites for a racetrack
in Shakopee.
Background:
Scottland and other property owners in the Industrial Park and property owners
along County Road 17 have been promoting sites for a racetrack in Shakopee.
City staff met with Mr. John R. Gabrielson of Benson, Malkerson, Bradbury &
Gabrielson, Inc. , corporate real estate firm, regarding potential sites in
Shakopee.
Staff identified six sites that could be utilized as a racetrack breeding
facility.
The real estate agent was interested in a 160 to 200 acre site. Staff is aware
of six sites offered or available for the racetrack breeding facility. Those
sites are:
1. A site north of 4th Avenue and west of CertainTeed.
2. A site south of 4th Avenue and west of County Road 83.
3. A site north of the proposed bypass right-of-way and west
of County Road 83.
4. A site south of the Chicago, Northwestern Railroad and between
Conklin and Shiely.
5. A site on County Road 17 , south of the proposed bypass.
6. With tongue in cheek, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
sludge farm.
John K. Anderson February 18, 1983
Horserace Track Page Two
The real estate agents that contact the City are interested in whether the
City would be willing to utilize Tax Increment Financing to write down the land
cost or provide other improvements and whether the City was interested in having
a racetrack and breeding facility locate in our community.
The real estate agent was advised that the City is very interested in the race-
track and breeding facility and has passed a resolution so noting that interest.
The City would consider proposals that involve a Tax Increment District. The
proposed facility would probably be a $22 million facility, generating approximate-
ly $650,000 per year in taxes.
If Council , or anyone, is aware of other sites in the City with utilities, staff
will pass that onto the real estate agent.
HRS/jvm
J0.
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk
RE : Park Dedication Foreclosure against East View 1st
Addition, Halo 2nd Addition, and Wiggin' s 1st Addition
DATE: February 18 , 1983
Introduction
On August 3 , 1983 Council authorized and directed staff to foreclose
on the park dedication liens against the developers of the above
mentioned plats . This action was taken because developers failed
to pay the past due amount or execute a recordable amendment.
Background
The authorization and direction to foreclose does not permit staff
to drop the foreclosure should the park dedication lien be fulfilled.
Because some lots (upon which a foreclosure has been filed) have been
sold and because these new owners may now wish to fulfill the park
dedication lien by either making payment or signing an amendment ,
staff asks Council for authority to drop the foreclosure upon ful-
filling the lien.
Action Requested
Authorize and direct the City Attorney to drop the foreclosure
against lots in the East View 1st Addition, Halo 2nd Addition,
and Wiggins 1st Addition, upon authorization from the City Clerk,
after payment of the park dedication fee or the receipt of a record-
able amendment to the developers agreement against a particular lot
or lots .
JSC/jms
•
3b
MEMORANDA
TO : John K. Anderson
City Administrator .
FROM H. R. Spurrier
Ar
City Engineer IMI`1' sr-
SUBJECT: Senate File No. 219
Amendment to Sec. 44.074, Subd. 1 & 3,
Minnesota Statutes
DATE : February 18, 1983
Introduction:
City of Shakopee is not alone is its frustration to construct storm drainage
facilities where problems of benefit occur.
Background:
Attached is Senate File No. 219, a bill introduced by Freeman, Merriam, Olson
and McQuaid, which offers an alternative to cities faced with that problem.
Attached also is a position paper prepared by the City of Richfield, which
summarizes the problem and the solution provided by this bill .
I believe the bill offers a solution to particular problems we have in Shakopee,
serving tax exempt institutions and repairing and renovating old and overtaxed
systems.
There is very little I can add to the position paper prepared by the City of
Richfield, except that our Senator, Bob Schmitz, has this bill in his committee
now and he should be aware of the benefits this bill provides.
I would suggest personal contact from Councilmembers and any other interested
official .
Action Requested
Motion to direct staff to contact our legislators to indicate our support
of Senate File No. 219.
HRS/j vm
attachments
STORM WATER UTILITY
POSITION PAPER
CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE PROBLEM - MECHANISM FOR FINANCING STORM SEWER MAINTENANCE ,
RECONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENT IS INADEQUATE
Every city makes a substantial investment in a storm water
conveyance system . The City of Richfield has a 15 to 20 million
dollar investment in its storm water system . In order to protect
this investment , annual maintenance e:<pend ;. ture.s must be made .
Periodically substantial investments must be made to the system
to expand and improve of f i - iency . Such improvements include the
enlargement of holding ponds and the installation or replacement
of pipes and pumps .
The problem is that adequate funds for the maintenance and up-
grading of existing storm water facilities are not available .
Generally , special assessments ore levied to pay for new storm
sewer construction . Recent court decisions have indicated that
special assessments can be used only where special benefit to a
property can be demonstrated . Major storm sewer maintenance and
improvement expenditures provide a general benefit to a community
but do not provide any special benefit to all of the properties of
a drainage district . The properties in the low lying areas are
specially benefited but the high ground is not benefited specifically .
Even money for the day to day cleaning and flushing of storm sewers
must compete with other uses of the general fund money . In order to
be assured that the storm water conveyance system is ready when
it is mcst needed , a dependable source of funding for the maintenance
and improvement of the system must be provided .
THE SOLUTION - ALLOW CITIES TO CHARGE A USER FEE TO FINANCE STORM SEWER
MAINTENANCE . RECONSTRUCTION , AND IMPROVEMENTS
A storm water disposal service is being provided by cities to convey
the storm water from individual parcels of property . The water is
moved by way of curb, drainage swale , ditch , or pipe . All of the
property is served . A user fee can be charged for providing this
service . The larger the property , the more impervious hard surface ,
the larger the fee to be charged . The fee would pay for the on-
going day to day maintenance of the system as well as the major
expenses for improvements such as dredging of ponds and installation
• of pipes and pumps . Such a fee could be collected with the water
or sanitary sewer billing . Special assessments will continue to
provide the primary funding for new storm sewers . A storm water
utility would provide a sensible , dependable , fair method of
protecting a substantial investment .
1/5/33 T (RE7ISOR I EM,/N0 83-0592
•
•
•
Messrs. Freeman, Merriam, Ms. Olson and Mrs. McQuaid introduced--
S. F. No. 219 Referred to the Committee on Local and Urban Government
•
•
1 A bill for an act
2 relating to local government; regulating ng kinds of and
3 charges for water and aewer facilities and services;
4 amending Minnesota Statutes .982, aect.on 444.075,
5 subdivisions 1 ar.d 3 .
6
7 3E IT ENACTED 3Y THE LEGISLAruRE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
8 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1982, section 444.075,
9 subdivlslon 1, is amended to read:
10 Subdivision 1. (AUTHORIZATION. ' Any city, except cities of
11 the first class operating under a home rule charter, or any
12 statutory city as hereby eetherieed and eepowered •es may build,
13 construct, reconstruct, repair, enlarge. improve, or in any
•
14 other manner obtain
15 (i) waterworks systems, including mains, valves, hydrants,
15 service connections` wells, pumps, reservoirs, tants, treatment
17 plants, and other appurtenances of a wateraorks system, and
.8 (u) sewer systems, sewage treatment works, disposal
19 systems, and other facilities for disposing of sewage,
20 industrial waste, or other wastes, and
21 (iii) storm sewer systems, including mains, holding areas
22 and ponds, and other appurtenances and related facilities for
23 t':o collect_ an and iispossl of storm w*ter,
24 all hereinafter called facilities, and se maintain and operate
23 he same ...o: e r cuts.de its corporate limits, and se acgu
y ire
1
•
•
1,'5/33 ' (REVISOR J EMW/M0 83-0592
by gift, purchase, Lease, condemnation or otherwise any and all
2 land and easements _ecu___d for that purpose. The authority
• 3 hereby grunted shall be in addition to all other powers with
4 reference :o each the facilities otherwise granted by the laws
5 , of state or by the charter of any saes city. Counties,
o except counties in the seven county metropolitan area, shall
7 have the same authority granted to cities by this subdivision
3 except for arias of the county organized :n_o cities and areas
? of :he county incorporated within a sanitary district
10 established by special act of the legislature.
11 Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 1982, section 444.075,
12 subdivision 3, is amended to read:
13 Subd. 3. (C?ArRGES; NET REVENUES. ' For the purpose of
14 paying for the construction, reconstruction, repair,
15 enlargement, improvement, or other obtainment and the
16 maintenance, operation and use of such facilities, the governing
17 body of any such city or county shall have authority to impose
18 just and equitable charges for the use and for the availability
19 of such facilities and for connections therewith and to make
20 contracts for such charges as hereinafter provided. Such
21 charges may be imposed with respect to facilities made available
22 by agreement • ith other municipalities, counties or private
23 corporations or individuals, as well as those owned and operated
24 by the city or county itself. Charges made for service directly
25 rendered shall be as nearly as possible proportionate to the
25 cost of furnisning the same, and sewer charges may be fixed on
27 the basis of water consumed, or by reference to a reasonable
2S classification of the types of ?remises to which service is
29 furnished, or by reference to the quantity, pollution qualities
30 and difficulty of disposal of sewage and storm water produced,
31 or on any other equitable basis including, but without
32 limitation, any combination of those referred to above. Minimum
33 charges for the availability of water or sewer service may be
34 imposed for all premises abutting on streets or other places
35 where municipal or county water mains or sewers are located,
36 whether or not connected thereto. Charges for connections to
2
•
1/i. 33 ('-7.502 I h'T.r/MO 83-0592
the facilities nay in the _iscret-on of the ;over.._ng body
be
2 _i:ced :o the the _por-
__or, of the cost thereof which has
3 been paid by assessment of the en_ses to de connected, in
4 comparison. •crit., other premises, as •.+ell as the cost of making or
5 supervising the connection. The governing body may make any
5 such charges a charge against the owner, lessee, occupant or all
7 of them and may provide and covenant 'o- ,-e--4fying unpaid
3 charges to the county auditor +• to taxes against the property
9 se=-vee for co' e __cr. as .then taxes are collected. The
13 governing body may fix and Levy taxes for the payment of
11 reasonable :har,en to the municipality or county itself for the
12 use and ava__abil-ty of :he facilities for fire protection and,
13 for ra_..-1:...fg sand-?:y :?r, .. )ria, :: : for proper storm crater
l4 drainage _.. and ___ �= t rjar'cs, streets, and other
15 public places. ... teiermining the : ascnablenems of the charges
_o to be imposed, ove y
the �,' -.._.:; body may give consideration to all
17 costs of the establishment, operation, maintenance, depreciation
18 and necessary replacements of the system, and of improvements,
19 enlargements and extensions necessary to serve adequately the
20 the territory � e __ty or county including the principal and
21 interest to become due on obligations issued or to be issued
22 therefor. when net revenues have been appropriated to the
23 payment of :he cost of the establishment, or of any specified
24 replacement, improvement, enlargement or extension thereof, or
25 to pay the principal and interest due on obligations to be
25 issued for such purpose, no charges imposed to produce net
revenues adequate for such purpose shall be deemed unreasonable
29 by virtue of the fact that the project to be financed has not
29 been commenced :r completed, if proceedings therefor are taken
30 with reasonable ,._spate; and -h±
- project, when Completed, may be
31 expected to make service available :o. the premises charged which
32 will have a value reasonably commensurate with such charges.
33 ALL such charges. when collected, and all moneys received from
34 the sale of any facilities or equipment or any by-products
33 thereof, ..nal_ 2e placed .n a Separst_ fund, and shall be used
35 first to =av the formal, reasonable and current Costs of
3
l'E'':sce j '^.W/Ma 33-0592
operas:n; and .ea_nta:--ng the facilities. :he net revenues from
2 time
time c2
2 resoto
- excess of such :3t3 may be pledged by
_..e ;rvern:-y' oody, or maybe used though not so
pledged, fcr __._ payment of principal and
interest on
5 obligations issue-_ a3 provided in subdivision 2, or to pay such
6 •pbrt:on of said principal and interest as may be directed
in
7
such resolution:-, and net revenues derived
3 of �� ed :_cm any facili,._es
types listed _n subdivision 1, whether or `
3 er not f_Zarce-, by
the issuance of such obl:;ac'ors,
may be pledged or used to:her general '
a
•0 obl:;at-en.s issued for other facilities p Y
1� _ - ._ any such types. +.,
re3J .... aLLtnor__.:nq the iseuance of tither or
special ob1_yatIone and pledging net revenues thereto, the
== governing body may make such covenants for the protection of
14 holders of the bli a,tioro and taxpayers of the municipality or
15 county as it teems necessary, including, but without limitation,
Io a covenant that the municipality .:
_pality or county will impose and
17 collect charges of the nature herein authorized at the
19 t..aes andin th a amounts required to produce, together with any taxes or
19 s sci
P a_ es_es_c:eeze designated
20 the obligations, payment of
net revenues adequate to pay all principal and
2- interest •cher, u::c on the ob
1ieat:ons and to create m
alnta_n`2
such reserves securing 3a:d payments as may be provided
23 r :n said
e3O1utiens. :when such a covenant i3 made it shall be 2 Y enforceable
eable by appropriate a
ct'on on the part of any holder of
25 the obligations or any taxpayer of the municipality or county in
25 a court of :empe..,nt lu-:sdi_tion, and the obligations shall be
deemed to ne payarle wholly from the income of the system whose
29 revenues are so _:edged, within the a meaning of section3 475.51
29 ind 475. 58.
20 Sec, 3 i _-C:' ;c DA:_. 1
3: '2::3 ac= _o effective the jay after its final. enac_eent.
4
Y r 3G
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: Sewer Rate Increase
DATE: February 18, 1983
Introduction & Background
Council has adopted a 3% sewer rate increase effective on bills mailed on or
about 4/1/83. Council may want to reconsider this increase after a review
of the sewer fund position. The figures for 1982 are not final and won't be
until significantly more work is done on the annual financial report. Keep-
ing that in mind, the figures under consideration are:
Actual Est. Budget
12/31/81 12/31/82 12/31/83
Operating Cash Balance $ 68,000 $232,000 $195,000
Operating Revenue 510,000 781,000 814,000
The greater than expected increase in the cash balance is due to collecting
more revenues than expected, greatly increased interest earnings and expend-
ing less than was expected in labor and equipment. At. the time the 1983
budget was adopted, the 3% increase was expected to generate $16,000. The
1982 budget contained $18,000 for an eductor that was moved to 1983. This
roughly offsets the rate increase.
Alternatives
1 . No action - rate increase implemented.
2. Cancel rate increase for 1983.
Recommendation
Alternative No. 2
Requested Action
Adopt Resolution No. 2118
GV:mmr
i
• ti •
•
RESOLUTION NO. 2118
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2082 ADOPTING A FEE SCHEDULE FOR 1983.
WHEREAS, the Sewer Fund of the City of Shakopee has realized a larger
increase in cash balance than anticipated, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the rate increase for
1983 is not necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
That the sewer service rate for 1983 shall remain at :
Service Charge $36.00Jyear.
Flow Charge $1 .14/1,000 gallons or part thereof
of metered flow or water use.
Large Flow $49.00/million gallons or part thereof
for an annualized flow in excess of
one million gallons of metered flow
or water use.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City
of Shakopee, Minnesota held this day of , 1983.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1983.
City Attorney
d
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson/City Administrator
FRCS:: Jeanne Andre/HRA Executive Director
RE: Resolution No . 2119
DATE: February 22 , 1983
As explained in the Resolution, the State Department of Energy,
Planning and Economic Development wants the authorization for the
Mayor to submit the application to be included in the resolution.
As the additional resolution is to be submitted by March 1 , 1983,
the Council is requested to adopt Resolution No. 2119 at its
Adjourned Regular Session, February 22 , 1983 .
.
RESOLUTION NO. 2119
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN A
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION
FOR EAST SECOND AVENUE
WHEREAS , Resolution No. 2108 , A Resolution Authorizing the Sub-
mission of a Community Development Block Grant for Fiscal Year 1983
was previously adopted in February 1 , 1983; and
WHEREAS, the Department of energy, Planning and Economic Develop-
ment has requested that such authorization shall include the name of
the official authorized to submit said application on behalf of the
City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Shakopee act
as sponsoring unit of government for the project titled East Second
Avenue Neighborhood Revitalization to be conducted over an approximate
two year period from July 1983 through 1984.
Be it further resolved that the Mayor, Eldon A. Reinke, is
hereby authorized to apply to the Minnesota Department of Energy,
Planning and Development for funding of this project on behalf of
the City of Shakopee .
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City
of Shakopee , Minnesota , held this day of 1983 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of l9S
City Attorney