HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/03/1983 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Andrson, City Administrator
RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items
DATE: April 28 , 1983
1 . The consolidation of the Chaska Hockey Association and the
Shakopee Hockey Association has not yet taken place .
2 . According to the City Vehicle Policy , city cars should be
taken home during winter months only. Mr. Steger has requested
and I have given him permission to take home the marked car
he uses thru May 13th because he currently has only one car in
his family.
3 . The V.F.W. has cleaned up the bell in front of City Hall .
While cleaning it they discovered that it is not made of
brass but rather cast iron. They have painted it brass for
Loyalty Day. If Council is not happy with the brass paint ,
the V. F.W. will be happy to repaint it gray. Let us know
withing a week if you want it repainted.
4. Attached is a memo from Mr. Houser regarding a recent meeting
with local contractors .
5 . According to recent reports from the PL-SL Watershed District
the lake elevation during the past five days has been 904.46 ,
904.46 , 904.45 , 904.45 , 904.45 .
6 . Attached is a letter from Robert Dunn of the Waste Management
Board confirming LeRoy' s appointment to their Processing
Areas Task Force .
7 . Attached is a letter from Robert Schmitz thanking us for
sending him Shakopee ' s position on numerous legislative
proposals .
8 . Attached is a letter from Chuck Dimler regarding status on
a number of bills .
9 . Attached is a letter from MPCA advising that permission has
been granted to apply composted sewage sludge ( compost ) from
the MWCC Metro Plant to the land of Louisville Landfill .
10 . Attached are the April 20 , 1983 Shakopee Police Commission
meeting minutes .
11 . Attached are the April 18 , 1983 Cable Communications Advisory
Commission meeting minutes .
12 . Attached are the April 21 , 1983 Energy and Transportation
Committee meeting minutes .
13 . Attached are the April 7 , 1983 Board of Adjustments and
Appeals meeting minutes .
Non-Agenda Informational Items
Page Two
April 28 , 1983
14. Attached are the April. 7 , 1983 Planning Commission meeting
minutes .
15 . Attached are the agendasfor the May 5 , 1983 Board of Adjustments
and Appeals and Planning Commission meetings .
16 . Attached is the monthly calendar for May.
q
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson/City Administrator
FROM: LeRoy Houser/Building Official
RE : Contractors Meeting
DATE : April 25 , 1983
The joint County/City Building Contractors Meeting was held March
1 , 1983 at the K.C . Hall . Attached is a copy of the notice and
agenda for the meeting.
Please take note of the area entitled "Problem Areas - Open
Discussion" . Evidently there were no problem areas in City or
County enforcement or building code/planning/engineering areas .
The only comment made was our turnover time has greatly improved.
LH: cau
Attachment
MEMO TO: All Area Builders and Developers
FROM: Scott County/City of Shakopee Inspection Depts .
TOPIC : 1982 Code Changes
PLACE: K C Hall , East 4th Avenue , Shakopee , MN
DATE: March 1 , 1983
TIME : 9 : 00
You are invited to attend the 1982 code change review sponsored
by Scott County and the City of Shakopee .
The 1982 Building Code changes and County City Engineering Standard
changes will be explained in detail .
This meeting is intended to provide you with code updates to mini-
mize your problems in the field. It will also give you a chance
to air any problems you may be having.
Lunch will be served compliments of City of Shakopee and Scott
County.
R.S .V. P. by February 18 , 1983
Contact Cora Underwood
129 East 1st Avenue
445-3650
CODE CHANGE MEETING
Agenda Items
Register - Coffee 9 : 00
Introduction 9 : 00 - 9 :45
Building Inspectors
LeRoy Houser, Jack Cates
Review of Code Changes 1982 U. R.C. 9 :45 -- 10 : 30
Mr. Arnold Olson, Chief Plan Reviewer
State of Minnesota
Engineers Standards 10 : 30 - 11 :00
City Engineer, Shakopee
County Engineer
Planning and Zoning Changes 11 : 00 - 11 : 30
City Planner - City of Shakopee & Savage
Problem Areas - Open Discussion 11 : 30 - 12 : 00
Lunch . 12 : 00 - 1 : 00
Additional Comments 1 : 00 - 2 :00
Adjourn 2 :00
w �,,kit
piol PRIOR LAKE-SPRI LAKE WATERSHEDy1T7/CT ;c : ( � 4 v.
DISTRICT
C Don 0. Benson Scott-Rice Telephone Bldg.
Staff Goordinatoi 4690 Colorado St. S.E.
(612) 447 4166 Prior Lake, MN 55372
j---/ ...
r40PERIODIC MEMO FROM: '-.Bruce A. Paterson Xiiee
L) District Engineer '
41,2 rt.,-3 . 4'. 4, , 7,,,. 177 -.
'. 4
If tigt,
DATE : q{-L5'--93 �'r�`•
r•
C1 t j of Shakopee •. ,
129 First Ave East
Shakopee, MN 55379
ATTN: Mr. John Anderson & Mr Bo Spurrier
Re; Flow data - Prior Lake Outlet
Gentlemen:
The following information and hydro data is submitted in accordance with your
request (letter of 7 April , 1983): .4 -Z3-''3 q..7-91-5f3 y-z,s-
A. Prior Lake Elevation , MSL 9®4.4.4. ,o4.4' . Tael,i
B. Lake Outlet Release Rate, CFS Z.co �, 2-0
C. C. Data at 36" CMP under CR-42:
1) Area of flow (avg. ) ,S.F. 2.8't 3.00 3.17-
2) Velocity, FPS '1.4z 4.-74. 4..4Z
3) Flow Rate, CFS 13.,t i44-t/ 1 4.406
D. Data at 48" CMP under CR-16:
1) Area of flow (avg. ) ,S.F. 3.01 .5,4,4 3.ZZ
2) Velocity, FPS 3. 62 4,63
3) Flow Rate, CFS It, q..., 14.4, tG.ro
L. Calculated Velocity in Channel Section # 6 3, Ga 3.97 4.10
F. Other pertinent coments :
In order to cooperate with your need for this information to the'
fullest extent possible , this data wi'1 be submitted periodically �
by this form letter as it i, collected. le"' ,
. , . C l. .. . : 441,, _ I..,.s c ►i u
am{ �A�r*se✓v. n�"`., .'�'� y
1
n+...� '�:Y 'V Y;!-.11.::..__
-.:41s:..1.+:...
' Yett.taio w .3a,.u0.al+ls c ,i i:ik.--m .,.,.s.....-.t_. .,......
Ci to 4416,
PRIOR LAKE—SPRING LAKE WATERSHED DISTRIC T
Don O Benson
Scott Rice Telephone Bldg
/ I/ Staff Coordinator 4690 Colorado St. S E.
(612) 447-4166 Prior Lake, MN 55372
4; PERIODIC MEMO FROM:
1 Bruce A. Paterson /�
'Si -51 District Engi nEer O dl
't� �* .
DATE : Ill- 26 -- Y3
City of Shakopee
129 First Ave East
Shakopee, MN 55379
ATTN: Mr. John Anderson & Mr Bo Spurrier
Re; Flow data - Prior Lake Outlet
Gen tlenien:
Tt1e following information and hydro data is submitted in accordance vith your
request (letter of 7 April , 1983):
A. Prior Lake Elevation , MSL 70 eye.4,S
B. Lake Outlet Release Rate, CFS Zo
C. C. Data at 36°' CMP under CR-42:
1) Area of flow (avg. ) ,S.F. 3.tZ.
2) Velocity, FPS 4. 5'5.
3) Flew Rate, CFS E 4,i8
D. Data at 48" CMP under CR-16:
1) Area of flow (avg. ) ,S.F. 2,9c,
2) Velocity, FPS 4.z6
3) Flow Rate, CFS iz. 35
E. Calculated Velocity in Channel Section # 6 341
F. Other pertinent. comments:
t.i
In order to cooperate with your need for this information to the cif
31%11,extent possible , this data wi` 1 be submitted periodically '1'
.7,\
by this form letter as it i> collected.
t..\;:i,/::° Y•f4I7,1(°,1
- • • n'• \,, l ..', ).�, . k �..“,,, fi...A....kr.s*,, .
' x,4.47.
PRIOR LAKE-SPRING LAKE
.44/::$17/8-3 cc . �,rc.
WATERSHED DISTRICT
Don O. Benson J�
Scott-Rice Telephone Bldg.
/ff41111F Staff Coordinator 4690 Colorado St. S E.
(612) 447-4166 Poor Lake, MN 55372
_j .,
PERIOCIC MEMO FROM: ,Q
Bruce A. Paterson /�fI'
I 3 District Engineer ,/
lik.rj .
DATE : Ap►%J 28�, 083
City of Shakopee
129 First Av,D East
Shakopee, MN 55379
ATTN: Mr. do hn Anderson & Mr Bo Spurrier
Re ; Flow data - Prior Lake Outlet
Gentlemen:
The followings informaticn and hydro data is submitted in accordance with your
request (let :er of 7 April , 1983): 2-8-8
A. Prior Lake Elevation , MSL 904,45
B. Lake Cutlet Release Rate, CFS 20
2.-o
C. C. Data t 36" CMP under CR-42:
1) Ar :a of flow (avg. ) ,S.F.
2) Vt locity, FPS '��--�'" 3•it
5.00 4.6Z
3) Flow Rate, CFS 5.
X4-•9
D. Data at 48" CMP under CR-16:
1) Arca of flow (avg. ) ,S•F. 3. 1 4
3 . t2
2) Ve'ocity, FPS 6 3 3, tz
3) F1( w Rate, CFS 15. 2 11.9
E. Calcu ated Velocity in Channel Section # 6
�'�..D? 3.`13
F. Othe► pertinent comments :
in order to coopeate withwi your need for this information to the
fullest extent possible , this data 71 he submitted periodically
by this form letter as it is collected. X ,•
f
M:.. yv..
STATE OF MINNESOTA
° T`84y WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD ROBERT G DUNN
g1 1 23 THORSON BUILDING CHAIRMAN
to ! t 7323 58TH AVENUE NORTH TELEPHONE.
rrt CRYSTAL. MINNESOTA 55428 METRO AREA(612)536-0816
G :
. ,_�•.t. �Q' OUTSTATE 1800-652-9747
'`'4j �° April 18, 1983
Leroy Houser, Bldg. Inspector
c/o City Hall
129 E. 1st Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Mr. Houser:
I am pleased to confirm your appointment to our Processing Areas Task Force.
This Task Force will, over the next several months, help provide recommenda-
tions to the Waste Management Board on the development of the Hazardous
Waste Management Plan and related documents, such as the Report on Mitigation
and Compensation, Assurance of Security of Facilities, and Certificate of
Need. The development of the Hazardous Waste Management Plan is a particularly
important responsibility, as it will provide the guidelines and long-term
policies for the management of hazardous wastes in Minnesota through the end
of the century.
I appreciate your willingness to devote some of your time to this important
task. Some specific information concerning the purpose and functions of the
Task Force is enclosed.
The first meeting of the Processing Areas Task Force has been scheduled for
Tuesday, April 26, 1983, 1 :30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. at the Waste Management Board
offices in Crystal . Kathy Moore of my staff, who will be working with you,
will shortly be sending you some background materials, an agenda for the up-
coming meeting , and directions to our offices. Expenses (travel and meals)
will be reimbursed by the Waste Management Board.
If you have any questions, or need further information, please feel free to
contact Kathy Moore. I thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Robert G. Dunn
Chairman
RGD:kmm •
Enclosure
cc: Mayor Eldon Reinke, Shakopee
City Admnr. John Anderson, Shakopee
•
BOARD MEMBERS DISTRICT 1 LAURENCE HUNTER, Hastings DISTRICT 5 LOUISE KUDERLING. Minneapolis
DISTRICT 2 KEITH KUITERS.Clarks Grove DISTRICT 6 THOMAS RENNER, Elk River
DISTRICT 3 WILLIAM KIRCHNER. Richtieeld DISTRICT 7 ALLAN EIDE.Hitterdal
DISTRICT 4 MILTON KNOLL. JR. Whb,Rete Like DISTRICT 8 DAVID HARTLEY, Hermantown
ROBERT J. SCHMITZ
Senator 36th District
Route#1
Jordan, Minnesota 55352
Office:
235 State Capitol Senate
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Phone: (612)296-7157 State of Minnesota
April 18 , 1983
Mr . John Anderson
City Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 E . First Avenue
Shakopee , Minnesota 55379
Dear John :
Thank you for sending me the Shakopee City Council ' s
position on numerous legislative proposals .
We in the Legislature appreciate such suggestions
from our constituency.
I will carefully file your letter along with my other
notes in my desk in the Senate Chamber for future
reference .
Thank you .
Sincerely,
ROBERT J . SCHMITZ
Chairman
Senate Local & Urban Government Committee
RJS/st
COMMITTEES • Chairman, Veterans Affairs • Rules& Administration • Transportation •
Taxes &Tax Laws • Elections& Reapportionment
Minnesota 3'
Chuck Dimler `ot[DV NOq
District 36A %ft fes° House of
Carver-Scott Counties +
Committees: Representatives
� s �:
Agriculture '
Regulated Industries Harry A.Sieben,Jr.,Speaker
Transportation
r" 7121-110
April 19, 1983 APR 2 1983
John K. Anderson, City Administrator
City of Shakopee CITY OF SHAKOPEE
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Thank you for your letter bringing my attention to H.F. 680, 748
and S.F. 426.
I thought you would like to know the progress of these bills.
H.F. 680 remains in the Tax Committee and its author is not pushing
it through, therefore, action on the bill is unlikely. S.F. 426
was not on the list of bills which made the deadline for committee
hearing. Its companion bill N.F. 887 is still in progress and
remains in the Commerce and Economic Development Committee. H.F. 748
is in the Labor-Management Relations Committee.
Please contact me if you have any further information.
Sincerely,
LT./kAAr-/T—a;r1
Chuck Dimler
State Representative
CD:mm
Reply to: ❑ 388 State Office Building,St. Paul,Minnesota 55155 Office:(612) 296-1072
0 7203 Kiowa Circle,Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Home: (612)934-8974
-,,,,,,--:,-:,, ,:,--- --
7
ai,-‘0' -
1.. .-. .9 a3
49;1
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
COlt>1
APR 1 8 1983
Mr. George W. Lusher
Chief Administrator
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
350 Metro Square Building
7th and Robert Streets
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Dear Mr. Lusher:
This is in response to your proposal of March 17, 1983, wherein permission
was requested to apply composted sewage sludge (compost) from the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) Metro Plant to the land of
Louisville Landfill managed by Joseph Pahl. This property is located in
Section 16, Township 115N, Range 23W, City of Shakopee, Scott County. The
compost will be used as a soil amendment to aid in establishing newly seeded
areas of turf grass. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 115 and 116,
as amended, and in accordance with provisions of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Number MN0029815, such approval
is granted subject to the following conditions:
1. This approval expires 1 July 1984.
2. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) shall receive an analysis
of the compost to be used prior to the issuance of the Final Letter of
Approval.
3. No more than 4500 dry tons of compost may be used on this project.
4. Compost application shall be limited to the 15 acre Louisville Landfill
site.
5. Compost shall be adequately stabilized by a process to further reduce
pathogens as defined in 6 MCAR § 4.6136, Sewage Sludge Management
Rules.
6. The MWCC shall ensure that all delivered compost is properly used in
connection with Louisville Landfill and that any unused portion of the
compost is returned to the Metro Plant.
Phone:
1935 West County Road B2, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-2785
Regional Offices • Duluth/Brainerd/Detroit Lakes/Marshall/Rochester
Equal Opportunity Employer
Mr. George W. Lusher
Page 2
Mk
7. The issuance of this approval shall not exempt the permittee from
compliance with any local requirements that may be applicable.
8. Compost shall be limited to that amount which will supply no more than
20 pounds of Cadmium per acre.
9. Compost shall be applied to provide up to 4 inches of material as a
topsoil replacement in addition to the final cover requirements
stipulated bythe Solid and Hazardous Waste Division.
10. Compost should be worked into the top six inches of final cover to
provide a suitable seed bed for grass establishment.
11. The compost-soil mixture shall be seeded with a perennial grass mixture
as soon as possible to stabilize the slopes and control erosion.
12. Compost may be applied to slopes greater than 12% in connection with
this particular, experimental project.
13. All soil, compost and water test information, compost application
rates, and a narrative summary of the project shall be included in an
annual report submitted to MPCA.
If you have any further questions, please contact George E. Johnson at (612)
296-7214.
Sincerely,
L, I : al-
V
Gordon E. Wegwart, P.E.
Chief, Technical Review Section
Division of Water Quality
GEW/GEJ:cmc
cc: Robert Polta, MWCC
Claude Anderson, MWCC
Nancy Schumacher, MWCC
Allen Freshette, Scott County
Joseph Pahl, Louisville Landfill
John K. Anderson, City of Shalkopee
MINUTES OF THE SHAKOPEE POLICE COMMISSION •
April 20, 1983
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Virgil Mears at 4:16 P.M.
Members present: Commissioner Virgil Mears, Commissioner Dan Steil,
newly appointed Commissioner John Roepke.
Members absent: None
Other individuals: Police Chief Tom Brownell
1. The minutes of the Shakopee Police Commission Meeting held March 3 ,
1982 were read and approved.
20 An election of officers was held for the Shakopee Police Commission
and Mr. Mears was nominated by Dan Steil for the position of Chair—
man and was unanimously elected. Mr. Steil was nominated by John
Roepke for the position of Secretary and was unanimously approved.
Both individuals will serve one year terms at their respective
positions.
3. Police Chief Brownell discussed an officer training program for the
upcoming year which the officers could participate in. The cost
was $150.00 per officer for a maximum of 200 hors training time.
There would be a wide range of topics the officers could choose
from and if enough officers signed up, the training classes would
be held locally. The training program Mr. Brownell is presently
considering is sponsored and operated by Dakota County.
4. Chairman Mears discussed the Shakopee Criminal Apprehension Fund
Program and stated that the Criminal Apprehension Fund would
sponsor a booth on May 2, 1983 at the Shakopee Community Showcase.
A motion to adjourn was made at 4:42 P.M.
Daniel G. Steil
04-25-83
1/
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
ADVISORY COMMISSION
Shakopee , Minnesota
•
Adjourned Organizational Meeting April 18 , 1983
Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order at 7 : 40 p .m. in the
Council Chambers at City Hall with members Abeln , Harrison and
Williams present . Commission member Davis was absent . Also
present were Administrative Assistant Jeanne Andre and City
Administrator , John Anderson (for a portion of the meeting) .
Harrison/Ablen moved to approve the minutes of April 11 , 1983 ,
as presented . Motion carried .
Discussion was held regarding Commission contributions to the
Shakopee Showcase , scheduled May 2 , 1983 . The Consensus was
that Zylstra-United and the Commission will share the same table ,
but each should have a separate identification sign . Staff was
•
directed to provide a map of the service zones and to prepare
two handouts for the public , one outlining Commission functions
and a second explaining public access programming . ZU is
requested to provide additional information on public access
and sample public access programs if possible .
Discussion of public access and the formation of a community
access corporation was held with staff reports on the approach
taken in Chaska , Fridley , and Eden Prarie (Southwest Cable System) .
The Commission consensus is to move slowly in this area and see
what type of services Zylstra-United will provide . Commissioners
Ablen , Anderson and Harrison expressed an interest in meeting
with the Chaska Community Access Corporation on Thursday,
April 21 , 1983 , to learn of their approach and the potential
for cooperation with Shakopee . No other meetings or information
with access groups will be scheduled at this time .
The City Administrator joined the group for a discussion of
reduced-cost cable services for Commissioners . The consensus
was that services received by members should be paid for in
order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest by
those charged with monitoring performance of the cable company .
Staff was directed to see if there will be one central place
where Commissioners can review any cable service they are not
receiving in their homes , in order to better monitor the whole
system.
Harrison/Abeln moved to request staff to contact Will Loew-
Blosser and indicate the Commission support for regional inter-
connect efforts and request that Mr . Loew-Blosser keep the
Commission informed of future developments and meetings on
this subject . Motion carried .
Page Two
Harrison/Abeln moved to request that Commission members be
registered in the National Federation of Local Cable
Programmers (NFLCP) as individuals ($25) or organizational ($75)
members as feasible . Motion carried .
Williams/Harrison moved that Commissioners Anderson , Abeln
and Harrison be registered to attend the May 17 , 1983 ,
Cable Communications and Cable Programming Conference , at a
cost of $15 per person, if they are able to attend .
Motion carried .
Discussion of possible 1983 activities , with priorities and
schedules , was held .
Harrison/Abeln moved to preliminarily approve the 1983
activity priorities (attached hereto) and dates (when listed)
as discussed by the Commission . Staff was directed to schedule
tours of the cable facilities starting at 7 : 00 p .m. , May 23 , 1983 .
Motion carried .
Discussion was held on the request by Zylstra-United to provide
a new color radar system from that listed in the franchise
proposal . Harrison/Abeln moved to table discussion of this
issue until staff has researched the needs of the Scott/Carver
Civil Defense systems and the site selection for the radar and
presented them to the Commission on May 9 , 1983 . Motion carried .
Williams/Harrison moved at 10 : 40 p .m . to adjourn the meeting
to May 9 , 1983 , at 7 : 30 p . m.
Jeanne Andre
Recording Secretary
/r
Shakopee Cable Communications Advisory Commission
Proposed Activities , 1983
Priority Activity Dates
1 Monitor Installation and Provision of Franchise
Facilities and Services
a. Review franchise documents by May 23 , 1983
b. Tour facilities May 23 , 1983 7 : 00 p.m.
c . Hire technical consultant May 23 , 1983 , backgrounc
d. Query company
e. Recommend deadlines/penalties for non-
compliance to City Council
f. Follow-through
2 Preparation and Submission of FCC Waiver
a. Brainstorm on possible uses of franchise fees May 9 , 1983
b. Preparation of prototype budget
c. Recommendation to City Coucil
d. Submission of Waiver Petition
3 Inform Community about Access Opportunities
a. Shakopee Showcase May 2 , 1983
b. Discuss with ZU plans for Access May 23 , 1983
c . Formation of Community Access Corporation
1 ) Discussion (and tour) of access April 21 , 1983 - Chaska
facilities in other communities
2 ) Review of literature
3 ) Formulation of Commission position
4) Recommendation to City Council
5) Follow-through
4 Establish Policy on Subscriber Complaints
a. Determine likely types of complaints
b. Direct staff on procedures , when and
how Commission will be involved
c . Recommbndation to City Council
d. Implementation
5 Establish Format for Annual Report
a. Determine likely Commission activities
b. Determine types of data to be collected
and reported
c . Implementation
6 Establish Community Program Standards
a. Review literature
b. Discussion with parties representing
various perspectives
c . Determination if Commission or Access
Corporation will establish standards
d. Implementation
PROCEEDINGS OF THE ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Shakopee , Minnesota
Regular Session April 21 , 1983
Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order at 7 : 31 p .m.
with Committee members Schwingler , Sorenson, and Ziegler present .
Committee members Dunwell and Toppin were absent . Also
present were Council liaison Colligan and Administrative
Assistant Jeanne Andre .
Schwingler/Ziegler moved to approve the minutes of
March 17 , 1983 , as presented . Motion carried .
Discussion was held on current state legislative activity on
transit issues . It is unknown if any MTC transit tax relief
or the opt out will come out of the current legislative session.
The Administrative Assistant reported that 56 surveys were
distributed to current MTC riders and 46 surveys were completed
and returned . Entering this survey into the computer will be
a priority due to the smaller number of surveys to be entered
and the fact that this survey will give direction on how current
bus riders can best be served with opt out . Discussion
on the surveys was held .
Sorenson/Schwingler moved to adjourn at 8 : 08 p .m.
Jeanne Andre
Recording Secretary
( �
PROCEEDINGS OF THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APRIL 7, 1983
Chrm. Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. with Comm. Koehnen, Czaja,
Perusich, Coller and Stoltzman present. Comm. Rockne arrived later. Also present
were Don Steger, City Planner and Cncl. Vierling.
Perusich/Czaja moved to approve the minutes of March 3, 1983 as kept. Motion
carried with Comm. Coller abstaining because of his absence at that meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING - LINK'S FOURTH ADD'N VARIANCE REQUEST
Czaja/Coller moved to open the public hearing regarding the request for three sets
of variances for each of the proposed six lots of Link's 4th Add'n. Motion carried
unanimously.
The City Planner stated the three sets of variances for lot size, lot width and
sideyard are being requested in order to replat three existing lots located on the
1000 block of East 3rd Avenue, into six lots for redevelopment as twin homes. He
went over the considerations, and stated staff recommends approval of the three
sets of variances because a hardship does exist.
Chrm. Schmitt asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to comment on
this item, and there was no response.
Comm. Coller discussed with the Planner and applicant the vacation of Prairie Street,
and asked if some of that former street could be purchased to avoid the variance
requests.
Comm. Rockne arrived at 7:40 P.M.
The City Planner stated he didn't think additional purchase of the former street
should be addressed, because that would be asking an adjoining property owner to
sell his property. Discussion followed.
Perusich/Czaja moved to close the hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Stoltzman/Perusich offered Variance Resolution No. 333, granting the following
variances to each of the proposed six lots of Link's 4th Addition:
1. 450 square foot variances from the lot size requirements;
2. One foot four inch variances from the lot width requirements;
3. One foot four inch variances from the sideyard setback requirements;
of the R-3 Zone in order to allow the construction of 25 foot wide Twin Homes, and
move for its adoption.
Koehnen/Czaja moved to amend that approval of the variances be contingent upon
the subsequent approval of the Preliminary Plat of Link's 4th Addition at Planning
Commission. Motion to amend carried with Rockne abstaining because he was not
present for all of the discussion.
Main motion as amended carried with Comm. Coller opposed because he felt hardship
had not been established.
Colle Perusich moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned
at 7:47 P.M.
Don Steger, City Planner Diane S. Beuch, Recording Secretary
It
PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AYIHIL 7, 1983
Chrm. Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:48 P.M. with Comm. Koehnen, Rockne,
Czaja, Perusich, Stoltzman and Coller present. Also present were Don Steger, City
Planner and Cncl. Vierling.
Comm. Koehnen again asked if approval of the February and March minutes could be
deferred until she has listened to the tapes of those meetings.
DISCUSSION - ASHLAND CHEMICAL TRANSFER PERMIT
LeRoy Houser, Building Official, sketched a floor plan of the Ashland Chemical Plant
and explained its present operation and what is being proposed to become a trans-
fer station for chemicals. He stated it will only be transferring chemicals from
small customers of its solvents and industrial cleaners. Discussion followed. Mr.
Houser stated he is very confident about the safety of the situation there.
INFORMATIONAL I'T'EM - PERMANENT FOUNDATION DEFINITION
Mr. Houser further defined what is meant by "permanent foundation" as required in
the City's code for building homes. The City Planner added that City Council had
added to the Planning Commission's previous recommendation that a minimum for a
house be 24 feet wide, by stating a house must be 24 feet wide for at least 80%
of its length.
PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LINK'S 4TH ADDITION
Coller/Koehnen moved to open the public hearing regarding the Preliminary Plat of
Link's 4th Addition, lying on the south side of the 1000 block of East 3rd Avenue.
Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner stated the applicant is Cletus Link, who is requesting approval
of a six lot residential subdivision at the above location. He read over the list
of considerations, and stated the staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat
with six conditions.
Chrm. Schmitt asked Mr. Link if he had any problems with the six conditions, and he
stated he did not.
The City Planner added that the 8 foot drainage easement had been approved by the
City Engineer and SPUC. Mr. Link explained the utility arrangements proposed for
the Twin Homes.
Chrm. Schmitt asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to address this
matter, and there was no response.
The City Admr. , John K. Anderson, arrived at this point, 8:08 P.M.
Stoltzman/Colley moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Czaja/Stoltzman moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Preliminary
Plat of Link's 4th Addition with the following conditions:
1. Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney prior to recording the plat.
2. Eight foot drainage and utility easements be shown on the Final Plat for the
Shakopee Planning Commission
April 7, 1983
Page2
entire perimeter of the plat and along both sides of the common lot lines
between Lots 2 and 3 and Lots 4 and 5.
3. The park dedication fee of $250 per Twin Home unit be paid at the time of
issuance of Building Permits for each unit.
4. Prior to Final Plat approval, the developer must demonstrate that the pro-
posed grading on Lots 1-6 will not increase the ponding on existing lots 3,
4 and 5, located immediately to the southeast. Prior to Final Plat approval,
the grading plan must be submitted to the City Engineer and show elevations
at all lot corners and directional arrows for dratage.
5. Curb construction, which must be done in accordance with City Engineering
standards, will be a condition of approval of the Building Permits for each
Twin Home unit.
6. Required benchmarks must be located for and approved by the City Engineer
(Section 12.06, Subd. 2, of the City Code).
Motion carried with Comm. Coller opposed.
PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE
Rockne/Czaja moved to open the public hearing regarding an amendment to Shakopee
City Code, Sec. 11.31, Subd. 3, of the Zoning Ordinance, to allow animal hospitals
and veterinary clinics as a conditional use in a B-3 (Central Business) Zone.
Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner stated there has been a request for an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance which would allow animal hospitals and veterinary services for "com-
panion animals/domesticated pets" as a conditional use in the downtown business
area. The City Planner added the Planning Commission could be very specific about
kinds and numbers of animals when an actual conditional use permit is applied for.
He stated the language regarding companion animals should eliminate exotic animals.
He stated staff recommends approval of an amendment for this purpose.
Discussion followed regarding boarding of pets, other than in conjunction with a
medical treatment or surgery.
Chrm. Schmitt asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to comment on
this matter.
Craig Mertz stated he made the application for the amendment on behalf of his wife,
Aleda M. Mertz, D.V.M. He stated they have no intention of taking care of any exotic
animals such as bears or tigers. He stated their intent would be to house the en-
tire facility in one building. He also stated he would not like to see regular
boarding of pets restricted. He stated that boarding would not be their primary use,
but people often choose a veterinarian on the basis of whether or not they can leave
their pet to be boarded when they go on vacation. He stated their position is that
if a person is an established client, they would have boarding privileges, but they
would not solicit boarding animals. He stated it would be a small part of their
operation, but it does trigger people 's choice of a vet, so they would like to be
able to board pets. Discussion followed.
Chrm. Schmitt asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to comment,
and there was no response.
Coller/Czaja moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Coller/Koehnen moved to recommend to City Council to amend Section 11.31, Subd. 3,
by adding animal hospitals and veterinary clinics as a conditional use in the B-3
(Central Business) Zone. Motion carried unanimously.
Shakopee Planning Commission
April 7, 1983
Page 3
PUBLIC HEARING - A.I.D. HOMES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST
Coller/Perusich moved to open the public hearing regarding the request for a
conditional use permit for a Community Residential Facility to be located at the
Northeast corner of 3rd and Naumkeag, Lots 1 and 2, Block 29, East Shakopee Plat.
Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner explained the Community Residential Facility will be licensed by
the Minnesota Department of Public Welfare and the Minnesota Department of Health:
He stated the facility is intended to serve 15 mentally retarded adults. He went
over the other considerations of this request. He added he has been involved with
several of these types of facilities in other cities, and in all of the facilities
he has seen built, there have been no problems with neighbors. He stated staff
recommends approval of the proposed facility. He read a section of State law
which basically states it is against the law to discriminate against such facilities.
Chrm. Schmitt asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to comment on
this matter.
Sara Cheever, 1134 East 3rd, asked how the applicant can guarantee this facility
will not have the kind of problems that happened in a St. Paul facility of this
type where someone was severely burned.
David Peterman, applicant for A.I.D. Homes, stated he could not give a guarantee.
All he could say is he has been running a facility for 5 years and they meet all
the staffing requirements of the Dept. of Public Welfare. He stated this is an
intermediate care facility, where they are working primarily with skills. He said
they do not take people who have severe medical or developmental problems. He
added these people are all from Scott County.
Ellen Kess, representative from Scott County, stated that 13 of the 15 are coming
from their parental homes.
Ms. Cheever asked how she could be sure these people will not harm her children.
She asked about them exhibiting more aggressive behavior. Ms. Kess and Mr. Peterman
answered these people are not more aggressive.
The City Planner stated he received a call from Barbara Dellwo, 234 Naumkeag, who
could not be present for the meeting, but indicated she was totally opposed to
the facility. She said she felt the zoning was inappropriate and it was a busy
street which would not be the best choice of locations for this facility.
Linda Bucky asked about the supervision in the homes.
Mr. Peterman replied that the number of staff will vary according to the programs
they will be doing and sleeping hours.
Ms. Bucky stated she couldn't understand why a home for the retarded is allowed to
be built less than one block away from the railroad tracks, when a home for mentally
competent seniors was not allowed.
Chrm. Schmitt stated that this home would be caring for people like those portrayed
in the movie "My Name Is Bill". Mr. Peterman stated it is amazing what these people
are doing now compared to what they were thought capable of doing 10 years ago. He
said they are talking about people who are good candidates for living on their own
in the community and some are working in the community.
Shakopee Planning Commission I
April 7, 193
Page 4
Comm. Czaja asked about the screening process and how the level of competency is
determined. Mr. Peterman replied that they have set up an admissions criteria
for what type of person will be accepted. He said they have a team of professionals
who collect a lot of data, and they also rely heavily upon social workers who have
close contact with the people and families involved. He added they are only licensed
for moderate and above, functioning level of tenants.
Clete Link asked what controls the City would have in the case of any possible abuse
of the tenants by staff or management. Mr. Peterman responded that they are under
a new State Statute called "Vulnerable Adults", and they are mandated to report any
suspected abuse or neglect -- physical, mental or emotional -- and fines are pro-
vided. He added they are subject to many inspections from various departments, up
to a maximum of 13 in one year.
Ms. Kess gave some background on the 15 residents as far as what they are doing now
and where they are coming from.
Donny Hron stated he is a parent of retarded sons, and he has spent the day inspect-
ing the home in Lakeville run by this same group. He met some of the residents, and
stated these people come from families in all walks of life. He stated he was very
impressed with the facility in Lakeville, which was a very natural kind of environ-
ment. He said the management there stated they would sponsor tours of the facility
and set up interviews in the community for anyone who was interested. Mr. Peterman
added the proposed facility in Shakopee would look exactly like the one in Lakeville.
Discussion followed regarding how similar this facility would be to Delphi House.
Mr. Peterman stated they would serve higher functioning adults. Statements were
made regarding the lack of problems associated with Delphi House.
Barb Monnens, 1110 East 3rd, asked if this was going to be settled tonight, or if
it could be delayed a month to allow people to check out the other facilities.
Chrm. Schmitt suggested if this request was approved, there is a 7 day appeal period,
and that time could be used to check out other facilities. He would definitely
recommend touring the Lakeville house to anyone interested.
Darrell Swartwood, 1108 East Third Avenue, stated he has nothing against these
people, and he appreciates those who work with them. He asked about facts and
figures regarding property values in the vicinity of a facility for mentally re-
tarded.
Chrm. Schmitt read off some of the research done on that subject. A copy was given
to Mr. Swartwood. The City Planner concluded by saying that a group home of this
nature had no effect on adjoining property, value-wise or turnover-wise.
LaVerne Anderson, 217 'Naumkeag, asked about the other facilities this group has.
Mr. Peterman stated they are all four-plexes, and they have three of them located
in single and multi-family zoning.
Eilleen Schmokel stated she is from the Scott County Assoc. for Retarded Citizens,
and they are very much in favor of this home.
Someone from the audience asked about recreation for the residents. Mr. Peterman
stated they have certain supportive staff such as social coordinators who plan lots
of activities and work with some to save their money for trips, etc.
Someone asked about the appearance of the facility. The City Planner exhibited a
blueprint of the facility for everyone to see.
Shakopee Planning Commission
April 7, 1983 1 `4
Page 5
Czaja/Stoltzman moved for a five minute recess at 9:13 P.M. Motion carried
unanimously.
Chrm. Schmitt called the meeting back to order at 9:20 P.M.
Chrm. Schmitt read into the record a statement from Gene Hennes and Nickolas G.
Theis, who stated they lived next door to the property and did not want this
facility to go through.
Ms. Cheever stated her biggest concern is that the area is becoming so developed,
there is no place for the children to play. She stated she thinks that area needs
a park, not another building.
The City Planner stated if there is a demonstrated need for a park in the area,
that question should be posed to City Council. Discussion followed regarding
procedure to request a park.
Perusich/Coller moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Coller/Czaja offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 334, granting the con-
struction and operation of a four-plex apartment Intermediate Care Facility/Men-
tally Retarded Facility on Lots 1 and 2, Block 29, East Shakopee Plat, and moved
its adoption, with the inclusion of the program description attached.thereto and
made an official part thereof. Motion carried unanimously.
Chrm. Schmitt explained this action may be appealed to City Council within 7 days.
DISCUSSION - VAT,T,EYFAIR SIGNING
The City Planner stated he has been working with Valleyfair to see what the City
can .do to help it acquire some signing. They have talked with Senator Schmitz,
Representative Dimler and MnDOT people. It was suggested Valleyfair re-apply
to MnDOT and request generic signing, without their name on it. Valleyfair also
intends to research MnDOT's handling of other resorts, skiareas, etc. to see if
there is some inconsistency.
INFORMATIONAL - STAFF REVIEW OF EXISTING CUPS
Perusich/Coller moved to accept staff's approval of the reviews of the following
Conditional Use Permits: Resolution No. 284, Sharon Fenske; Resolution No. 270
(Renewal), Gary Shehan; Resolution No. 298, Wilfred Latour and Resolution No. 271,
(Amended , Maureen Strehlow. Motion carried unanimously.
INFORMATIONAL - SLUDGE FARM SITE NO. 31
The City Admr. stated he has learned in the last week that Senator Schmitz has talked
to the new Commissioner of the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission who has stated
he will recommend selling the Shakopee site.
MISCELLANEOUS
Comm. Czaja reported on water coming back into Dean's Lake
Comm. Collor asked the City Planner to check on who gives permission for cutting
tree branches when moving houses.
Reports were given on ICC tours.
Shakopee Planning Commission
April 7, 1983 ;Li
Page 6
Rockne/Stoltzman moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting ad-
journed at 10:12 P.M.
Don Steger
City Planner
Diane S. Beuch
Recording Secretary
TENTATIVE AGENDA
Board of Adjustment and Appeals
Regular Session Shakopee, Minnesota May 5, 1983
Chrmn. Schmitt presiding
1) Roll Call at 7:30 P.M.
2) Approval of April 7, 1983 Meeting Minutes.
3) 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Request for a 4 foot sideyard variance from
setback requirements for addition on an existing foundation to house for
property located on Lot 2, Block 3, Minnesota Valley 1st addition.
Applicant: Donald Hart, 1199 Harrision
Action: Variance Resolution No. 335
4) Other Business
5) Adjournment.
Don Steger
City Planner
TENTATIVE AGENDA
Shakopee Planning Commission
Regular Session Shakopee, Minnesota May 5, 1983
Chrmn. Schmitt presiding
1) Roll Call at 7:40 P.M.
2) Approval of February 3, 1983, March 3, 1983 and April 7, 1983 Meeting
Minutes.
3) 7 :45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Small Animal Veterinary Hospital in a 8-3 (Central Buxiness) Zone to be
located in the street level of building at 117 West 1st Avenue.
Applicant: Aleda Mertz, Box 216, Chanhassen, MN 55317
Action: Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 337
4) 7:50 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a _
cabinet shoe as a home occupation at 1850 County Road 89.
Applicant: Dennis Fetzer, 1850 County Road 89
Action: Conditional USe Permit Resolution No. 336
5) Informational Items: a) Gerold Mobile Home Annual Review
b) Follow-up Naumkeag Street/3rd Avenue Park
c) Tree Cutting for House Movings
• d) Appeal to City Council - A. I.D. Homes, II
e) Council Action on Code Amendments
6) Discussion : P.U.D. Tour (OPUS II) .
7) Discussion: Ordinance Amendment - Set-ups for Class II Restaurants.
8) Other Business
9) Adjournment
Don Steger
City Planner
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
d x
• O
,-cH
7-1 L1
r17 C�
7d
U<,
cn
.
K
N N I-
N s CO I•-'
n n X ---.19n 00 "a-i 0-, n vyn •P- C ''d
H N• a Crl •• (1 i r. .. O •• Cl W •• rr c
O rr 1C W < 0- COri 5 W < 0- Wr• rf
m `C 0 Or'• H OCD OE O H. r-' Or-' r-'
CD ✓d m (D VI (D rJ• r• 0
CI H '- O 0.0 `0 O '0 rt n
I—' r, � '0 5 0 5 (D :=-
1-, • r i• • ri • • m K
W N F�
LC
O W cr LO N
C) u n
r . N.
Or. Orr
OOAC
vn 0n HI'
•
G 5 G UU
n n
H H
W N I--' I--'
I-' - • --...I 0 U.)
H -P- rd
n .• O
n O H .� .
O n•
U tJ
•• .ti co ti
I--'
O i Go
"L7 v W
N r- 5 H K
L
> > •-•-IHr11 ----Inrd
G X W W (D W a
H '0 '-'0 m H. -C1
• 0 • m O
ri S?° N•^vn f)
(D • rt • O Li
(D 03
rt rt r<
r• r•
o N 0 H' 1--' LP
0o cr o N.)
...... --
hj
::d
U
K
N N H'
--1 0 W cr
Cr)
►-3
Y
N N I--'
! 0o H J
TENTATIVE AGENDA
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MAY 3 , 1983
Mayor Reinke presiding
1] Roll Call at 7 :00 P.M.
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] Communications :
a] Robert Mayer, Sup ' t. of Schools
6] Public Hearings:
a] 7 :30 P.M. - Appeal of Planning Commission' s approval of a
Conditional Use Permit for a Community Residential Facility
for mentally retarded adults (CUP Res. No. CC-334)
7] Boards and Commissions: None
8] Reports from Staff:
a] Valley Park 7th Addition - Request for a time extension for
the submission of the final plat
b] Parking for Highrise Residents
c] Park Naming Process
aa] Procedure for Naming Shakopee Parks
bb] Naming of Park Currently-Refered to as Lions Park
cc] Naming of Proposed Park Area Adjacent to Shakopee Jr. H.S.
dd] Naming of Proposed Trail Along Mn. River from Huber Pk to Scott
d] Shade Tree Program - Diseased elm and oak trees - informational
e] Holmes Street Laterals - report and discussion
f] 1st Avenue Manhole Reconstruction - receive bids
*g] Shakopee Professional Group Project, IR Bonds
h] Building Heating/Cooling System Repair - Police Bldg.
'i] Travel/Subsistence Reimbursement - Stephen Hurley
j ] Authorize Payment of Bills in Amount of $50,852.43
k] Lobbying for Local Government Aid (LGA) Bill
1] Appointment to Metropolitan Wide Agencies
m] 1983-84 Goals and Objectives
n] 8:45 P.M. - Downtown Consultant Contract
9] Resolutions and Ordinances:
a] Res. No. 2082, Increasing Moving of Building Permit Fee
10] Other Business:
a] 1982 Annual Financial Report - informational
b]
c]
11] Adjourn to Tuesday, May 17th, 1983 at 7 :00 P.M.
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
CITY OF SHAKOPEE.
April 26, 1983
Mayor Eldon Reinke
City of Shakopee
I 1 129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota
l �` Dear Mayor Reinke:
Each year the school board of Independent School District
No. 720 has hosted a meeting for various representatives of the
I , I municipalities that are located within the boundaries of the
I1 school district. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the
I ! Community Education program and to explore ways in which, as
governmental units, we might cooperate more fully to serve our
citizens.
We would like to extend an invitation to you and/or another
member of your governing board to attend. The meeting will be
Iheld on Monday evening, May 23. We will meet in the school
board's meeting room located in the Central Elementary building
in Shakopee. The meeting will commence at 7:30 p.m.
I hope that you or someone from your governmental unit will
be able to attend. Please call if you have any questions.
/'
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
l_
Robert Mayer
Superintendent of Schools
: 1:gar
cc John Anderson ,/
George :luenchow
6
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: Don Steger
City Planner
RE: Appeal 'of Planning Commission Decision
DATE: April 27 , 1983
Introduction:
The attached petition represents an appeal of the April 7, 1983
Planning Commission decision regarding a Conditional Use Permit
for a Community Residential Facility (group home) for mentally
retarded adults . The City Council must now make the final decision
on the matter.
Background :
The Planning Commission gave unanimous approval of the requested
Conditional Use Permit. The group home is proposed to be located
on two vacant lots in the Northeast Quadrant of the intersection
of 3rd Avenue and Naumkeag Street.
The facility, which is designed as a 4-plex, would serve 15 mentally
retarded adults. The residents would be employed during the day
and would develop skills which would further their independence.
Full-time supervision of the residents would occur.
Section 462. 357, Subd. 8 , of the State Statutes (see attachment)
clearly states that facilities such as that being proposed, shall
be considered a permitted multi-family residential use of property
in respect to zoning. Discrimination against such facilities is
not permitted.
The staff report to the Planning Commission, the program description,
an analysis of property values as affected by group homes and a
memo from the City Building Official are attached for the City
Council ' s review.
During the Planning Commmission meeting, the Commission and the
applicant, David Peterman, of A. I .D. Homes, Inc. , encouraged concerned
neighborhood residents to visit and view an identical facility in
Lakeville (also operated by A. I.D. Homes, Inc. ) . If the residents
did visit the facility, it is unclear as to what objections remain,
as the petition does not state reasons for the appeal.
4April 27 , 1983
John K. Anderson Page -2-
Appeal
Alternatives :
1 . Approve the Conditional Use Permit for a Community Residential
Facility (group home ) for the mentally retarded, subject to
the conditions astated by the Planning Commission; i .e. ,
subject to the program description submitted by A. I .D. Homes.
2 . Approve the Conditional Use Permit with different or additional
conditions.
3 . Do not approve the Conditional Use permit ( legal advice should
be sought as related to State Statute 462 . 357 , Subd. 8 ) .
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of the
Conditional Use Permit with the following condition: "Subject to
the Program Description as submitted by A. I .D. Homes" .
Action Requested:
Offer Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. CC-334 , allowing for the
construction and operation of a 4-plex apartment Intermediate Care
Facility/Mentally Retarded Facility ( ICF/MR Facilty) ; also known
as a Community Residential Facility (group home ) on Lots 1 & 2,
Block 29 , East Shakopee Plat, for 15 mentally retarded adults, sub-
ject to the following condition:
-Program Description as submitted by A. I .D. Homes, Inc.
and herewith attached and made a part of said Conditional
Use Permit Resolution No. CC-334 . . .
and move for its adoption.
DS/jvm
Attachments
1
F ....
HECEIV
APR 14198 6
DEAR 1.2i. JOHN ANDERSON: CITY OF 34-BAKOPEE
THIS IS TO INFORI''i YOU, ''E ?,IISH TO APPEAL THE DELI STOP l ' 'NNING COi;L•T`;,;IOrr,
OF THE BUILDING FOR THE MENTPI I`..r H ETr,Ii.DED ( ..,'`N THIRD ANT. '. ','-,77
SINCERELY:
Zmac.
2 3V 2 4 -., -/-, -, .• ; ). x
��S - /le/5
t_a x'1.._41', t(. (,(, ki •(.-(_( .1, 14 /'/ o', t
) r`;1 , r_ f iia, l 1 // f� "jj!//��n�'{'�^—'�^—c��" jam "
r1.
4- t_ � C�� 7-#E t �=
1-17'42:1fri.., f,/(...., rAd-71,17—
r.,,
,', ,
,.a/ ,,, c.t.
I 7 G{�(
. ..—. ,y1,✓y1 i.�-
'. ii r' j s„..> 4 -+w°-0 G,_ �f f
,j -- -..-z, - i ••• -,:- ,,', ( -,e ,-/<.- 4-7 2,--4:-.
a 1
/ r ✓
.� h;. �•' ,:.�� ,�,,T/
,, :t4'11,- tt- ti‘t,12 9t .)2-"ZO-gi
F 2v ,.-;'
C""' Zi < /,4,,, l'..• Y,,,,",/,' .) 51 / "/ 1\ L j' e` 7 / l i I/ i'
„71 ,I �, / '"y' ' ,y)....`F' % AC-, Y-,4 C.- `4 �'•
•-, f'..,,,,,l. h , . s.ill "�%1•i 4 R hT
(/ /ave7��� �
1 '7 �. ,., `^ t ,. ;.i;I/o"
t<
PLANNING, ZONING § 462.357 'I t 'f,e F . .11 3
zone where the affected person's land is located. The ho ir(I or governing body as the case s, x" 't . s dl iv,;.• .- lis
may be, may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two , , , :,,,,:-,74 ,11",,0411,.s
family dwelling. The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions , 744fp�
1'
in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties. h,.. ��i '",,,t. ,
Subd. 7. Permitted single family use. In order to implement the policy of this stateIZ- ,t,fine,.c
that mentall • retarded and physically handicapped should not be excluded by " p ' ".. = y
PY Y If persons r .AJ... 0
municipal zoning ordinances from the benefits of normal residential surroundings, a state , , ' f a ,,>;7
licensed group home or foster home serving six or fewer.mentally retarded or physically pi,'`"'t ).' '�"', }"i ra
6 } 6 Y d ) Y , r,,,,,,'
handicapped persons shall he considered a permitted single family residential use of b^►r,.;. t :, ,y k y,p't',AT., i,'',
property for the purposes of zoning;. } sl trY «Subd. 8. Permitted multi-family use. Unless otherwise provided in any town, munici- '. t iar '{ , .:)17,:';:i:0,,'::?'
i1�+pal or county zoning; regulation as authorized by this solidi%ision, a state licens(d residen• ft' ':::,:t.
li 1n :4«a
6;11 facility serving from 7 through lti mentally retarded in p•li)' irally handicapped d persons � z �;
shalt he considered :► permitted multi-Lunily residential 1E-,1' of prop) rlv for purposes of ,301 IP 61.4. ► 11
zoning. A township, municipal or county zoning{authority may require I conditional use or K i 'dE'o ►,r?t '^" x, ,,.p� •,
" t. 7 -,d
spx't'lal use permit in order to assure proper lttalnlell,,ntre and np+rC;lllntl of a facility, y� 4 •,04. xr'r), .it�' 1 irAti
pros idled that no conditions shall be intp osed on the honucs which art' nir{ r,'.;trictive than aIn,. r +�{ } ` , 1
those intpused on other conditional uses or special uses of residential prop'crty in the sane , ,` �• ' gt '+f't ' °tt#'�t
tunes, unless the additional conditions are necessary to protect the health and safety of the1,1'0_
""h i r ; ':.`.;:',A;',' yet p• s W
residents of the residential lacility for the runt:dll• retarded or the ph}•;i,•dry h andicappeii 1441+ `l,1�t �,+`'I°r l4 +p`±i4' pyo en
Nothing herein shall be construed to exclude or pprnhiidi residential home.; for the mentally + t0,i„44Atp r lir,,;;,,l' pts A
retarded or physically handicapped from single family zones if otherw•i,e permitted b• a ,f
-111 t
r eft `
local zoning regulation. + '.'r ,,
hitt. 1965, c. 670, 7,cff. .Ian. I. 19('6. Amended In I aws 1')C'►, c. _'C4, § I Of. Nlay 1, 169; Ia.t, ' tri t `' )' +f }. tpro�F
;');t, t23.:ui.5. 7; Iaws 1973,i. 179, 4,cff. Jul} I. 19'3; law. 1973,c, 519,§ I; laws 1973,c. �, d F
,:9, - I, 2; lbws 1975, i. 60, § 2: laws l9',8, c '86, §§ 14.t 15. cff. April 6, 1978; laws 19";'Q, I pf', rl, ttr{; ti•�t 1f7,r ' �,'' 1'
I v.ticss.,c. 2,�§ 42,43; laws 1981,c.356, 48; laws 1982,c.49f),§ 2: laws 1')X2,c.507,§ 22.elf. , ?R,:ii }' t"ri zJ �,U 1" t ' tj4
Jan. 1. 1982. .•,„.,,,,„„.,..,i,,,-,,,'4''.ih r. . fi 9,:y+, I. ?:7 rc)r+
� ., f, t;r ye5;.�t
iiit
1969 Amendment. Added the last two sen- 1979 Amenxhnenl. Added the second sentence i y". s2„ '' t t .` 11:1 '+t 1
teu:es to subd. I reLuing to extension of roving to sutxl. I. and the third sentence to suhd. 6(2). p,,,, ;i - tp".M`I ,� ; ^•e
s �t ,� �` t
regulations into unincorporated areas. Laws 1979, t:x.Sess., c. 2 did not contain a ' .. `1p s ,,er F� i`"1 ' r
1973 Amendments. laws 1973, c. 123, art. 5, specific effeetisc date, but did include appropria- t' ;"41 ;'r` d" r,�@�� 1 1 417
', was a general authority permitting the con tion items. See ht5.112 for method of dctermin Qt. p.r.',,',, � I'(ieti t "i
solid:Mon of the terms "villages" and "boroughs' in the effective date. ;#....;,,:s:,1.70,::''1'4r "'` �'
K ,,, e rtz r`^`" 4(t
into the term "cities" or the substitution of the 1981 Amendment. laws 1981, c. 356, § 248, '';t r, 9f1` AO`)ti II{ .,'4,411.'440
rf,4)Jt
Icon"St:tutor) cities" for "villages"and/or "hot- directed the mcs•isor of statutes to renumber and to
oughs:' substitute terminology with reference to the cen• E t , :, � r,f;sr
laws 1973,c. 379,ineiudei within the purryses uali/anon of the lrn%ets ;tn,t duties of the corn- ,),., r '"'1r „ ti ;1 A`
I,I nn1iug,"ionst•:Val Itm of shott'I:uuts,as dcGnni urissruncr of crags. I'I.auning and dcvcb'pmcnt in ,' 4.,',br, et',',, .r , �`'0,Y,���{'g1�`, r(" 1{1L,
In seilion l05.485,"and added subd. 8 delineating one chapter. `'.' 1` ' ;f J 4 j$*")X `,r , ,`�'
Pr
the extent of that authority. 1982 Amendments. Iaws, I')82, e. 4tXl, added I" t. ' ";r) ',)i r+R .I jK,, tb;t
I 1973,c. 549, inserted the third sentence of width mutt t)le of found.tuun to the subject matter 1,t', . ' ' s!ij`
,rilsl. 6t2). of ordinances in soler. I,and added ''or manufac- -1.,!;',fr 1 ,t -{� ../`{` ' " .i...•'.,dy" e',"'
t_tws 1973, c. 559, inire:rscd area in which lured hones built in conformance with sections "I"4'i t ',' *1:'1: 1 'J 11 :
u,,ti.e must be sent to owners property from 200 327.31 to 321.35"near the end of the first sentence ,4
•t:::, .1 4:y..el It i1 {)"rt'°iy
to 350 feet from the piojs sty to which the amend- • s '( 't, pea f,,1) . .
of suM1. I. r ><g
mutt leads% in vote(. 3,and in vote(. 5 substituted ; I +,,"`'p` i `s �11w:'`yt,
"total contiguous Jcsclill"'s of real estate hell laws 1982, c. specific or a did rept contain a . ria- t F, } aS g f ,l` ' , ',1114iy'a 'v
pp tp t I 7(l g 4, 1 p n � •^AI^�tf "1 Gbr } , .,
I+t the same owner or any party purchasing any §tr 502 for me mhtxlfdctcrpnining theeffective • 444. ^ a' f`" ')i7,l ta'f-,{r ""°g„;,) a.
,inti'uous ro pert within oneyear receding the '12;',.1...',`:.!f!:':.!>° 1. 41°, ' r;,i W I �' 1 f,rtt"p i,
b P { ) preceding date. } ' � a
,,,,UC st" for "real estate affected" in sulci. 5, '
laws 1982, c. 507, at.kled the second and third ) ,i p �'t6
1975 Amendment. Added suhd.s. 7 and 8. Na 't i ' 4' ti,w t� tt 3 r.
sentences to subxl.6(2)relating to undue hardship. .d' 1: t,lll'1U' v I' . I.
laws 1975, c. 60, § 3. provides that the act be- r } •
:.unit effectit•e the day following final enactment. ('mss References ti.• to''f `p ))`• , ' s I r �'2 t
}(.ioscrnor's approval April 30, 1975) Extent of municipal authority relating to shore- r 'L h ,, r•)t'•"l ,air(f vrh
1978 Amendment, Added"access to direct sun- land devclopmcnl beyond state standards, see r s a t m N1 � �;
iii,'it for solar energy systems as defined in section § 105-485. I ° fk t Mss
11611.02" within the first sentence of soli!. I. Zoning and sutxhvision regulation within order- ' b , kr i1 Vit+ • ►'
\JJcd the second sentence to subd. 6(2). ly annexation areas. see § 414.068. ,Pi ..� :", '',+e,
99 tt ,, t
1
0'•,, Y tzkn
d. `} + y, d 'fir- t
' I 't 1 x) 4 i'/Vii,
1 q Mti. i'at, '. 4 1, 4 f { ;, • 4 ' sti , 'W" t..9
1i eta r� ?i J'''''' } ) y `,2tj ,.. *•• tit h ��' p, 1
. a , .Y 1 i7; �! r$''1,1 ` 1 , } Ili ,, , _ ' �'^7r'N,i4�r(i...G.',F,,,,,'.,,
' f , 1891 474:4304'i, t '}'., Y �' ,.' �[ Q ,p,` '✓y,}, ,
'�i�. 1 >,,,.,4Y,t.,,,, ,... e.ii• •t 1:q �' , 1 . 14 �, - , ).,,M ,,,,:,..,,,,,,1:,,.:4::,t,,, � 1.N M, 1�� ,
�„pr � ��� i,r '1. ;, . I+�� _� ►#dI R)�i }' �1 � `*, !..,.40,,,,,,k,„,..,,,,"� Y�t�}�i7;
fir' ,
�`r,,x .`' r' ri,� } I sr r; r.'i ' "0 4 t w•
w' ,, ,. '. ._
DATE : April 7, 1983
ITEM : Conditional Use Permit
APPLICANT: A. I.O. Homes, II (David Peterman)
LOCATION : Northeast Corner of 3rd & Naumkeag
Lots 1 & 2, Block 29 East Shakopee Plat
ZONING : R-3 (Mid-Density Residential )
LAND USE : Vacant
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 11.04, Subd. 6; Section 11.27, Subd. 3K
FINDINGS REQUIRED: Section 11.04, Subd. 6A
PUBLIC HEARING HELD
CASE HEARD BY PLANNING COMMISSION
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
Proposal
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a Community
Residential Facility to be located at the above site.
Considerations
1. The Zoning Ordinance defines "Community Residential Facility" as follows:
"A State licensed group home or foster home serving mentally retarded or
physically handicapped persons". The proposal complies with the
definition because the facility will be licensed by both the Minnesota
Department of Public Welfare (DPW) and the Minnesota Department of Public
Health. The facility is intended to serve 15 mentally retarded adults
(18 years old or older). The number of residents is in compliance with
the City Code. Please see the 2-page attachment for description of the
program.
2. Twenty-four hour supervision will be provided within the facility. A
full-time supervisor and several counselors will be assisting the residents.
3. The proposed building would be constructed much like a 4-plex. Four
apartment units with two bedrooms per unit are planned.
4. The R-3 zoning permits medium density residential development. The 17,040
square foot parcel could accommodate approximately four townhouse or
apartment units (4,000 square feet per unit requirement) . With an overall
family density in Shakopee of approximately 2.93 persons (1982 estimate) ,
a typical density of 11.72 ( 12) persons on the parcel would result. This
is slightly less than the 15 residents being proposed. However, because
family sizes vary, the proposed density is well within the range of what
may typically occur.
A. I.D. Homes, II April 7, 1983
Conditional USe Permit Page -2-
5. All requirements of the City Code which regulate the placement of
Community Residential Facilities are being met (including the 300 foot
separation requirement between such facilities) .
6. An existing facility which is similar in nature to the proposed facility
is located in the 1400 block of East Shakopee Avenue. The existing facility
has not had an adverse affect on the neighborhood and has not devaluated
adjoining properties. No complaints have been recorded concerning the
existing
7 . A primary concern of neighbor residents is the effect of a facility for
the mentally retarded on local property values. Local and national studies
which have been reported in planning journals have consistently concluded
that such facilities tend to blend into the surrounding neighborhood and
have not decreased adjoining property values (see attached study from the
Minnesota Department of Energy, Planning and Development) . Leroy Houser,
City Building Official , has also attached a memo regarding this matter.
8. The proposed building is typical of what might be expected in an R-3 Zone.
The neighborhood currently is developed with a mixture of single family
homes, twin homes and apartments. The proposed facility should be regarded
as a typical 4-plex (permitted in the R-3 Zone) and should, therefore, not
be detrimental to the neighborhood.
9. The site plan for the proposed facility indicates a 4-plex type building
and a detached double garage. Approximately ten off-street parking spaces
are planned, including the garage spaces. The number of parking spaces
is sufficient to meet City Code requirements and should provide parking
for staff and visitors.
All requirements of the City Code are met, as indicated on the site plan;
i .e. setbacks and refuse screening. Two existing Box Elder trees will be
removed from the site, however, the remaining existing trees will be
supplemented with numerous new plantings of trees, shrubs and evergreens.
Staff Recommendation
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed facility will be compatible with R-3
uses and will not be detrimental to existing or future development of the area.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
Action Requested
Offer Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 334, granting the construction and
operation of a 4-plex apartment Intermediate Care Facility/Mentally Retarded
Facility ( ICF/MR Facility) on Lots 1 & 2, Block 29, East Shakopee Plat, and move
for its adoption.
DS/jvm
Attachments
i
LIC ANALYSIe SE
•
ISSUES RELATED TO WELSCH v. NOOT /NO 11
•
An Analysis of Minnesota Property Values of Community
Intermediate Care Facilities for Mentally Retarded ICF-MRs)
Since the 1960s, the ideology underlying provision of services to developmen-
tally disabled people, and the methods of treatment deemed appropriate have
undergone a dramatic shift.
The term "normalization" most frequently used to name this shift, encompasses
several interrelated movements. Deinstitutionalization, the most important of
these, aims to return developmentally disabled people to community settings
and to enhance the system of care provided to those who remain in institutions.
Successful deinstitutionalization requires an adequate supply of appropriate
community placements and implies integration of developmentally disabled people
into the community. While the first requirement can be met with sufficient
funds and other government action, integration into the community is a more
subtle obstacle--a collection of factors which hamper community acceptance of
developmentally disabled people. Zoning legislation and court action can force
neighborhood compliance, but neither is equipped to deal with the emotional
concerns that underlie a neighborhood's attempts to exclude a group home.
Wherever group homes are proposed, neighborhood opponents present a familiar
litany of resistance. Though their concerns run the gamut from fear of
increased criminal activity to concern for the safety of group home residents,
these diverse complaints often mask a larger concern: decline in property val-
ues of their own homes.
This paper deals with the reality of property values in neighborhoods which
contain a group home for retarded people. Using assessed valuel as a measure,
property values of group home neighborhoods were analyzed for the year preced-
ing and the year following the establishment of the home. Changes in these
property values were compared to changes in similar neighborhoods without group
homes to determine if the establishment of a home caused a decline in the
assessed value of surrounding property.
I . THE SITUATION IN MINNESOTA
Minnesota was an early leader in developing community alternatives to insti-
tutional care. The number of mentally retarded individuals in group homes
1Assessed value: the value of a home as determined by the tax assessor in cal-
culating property tax. Because many states limit the annual increase in asses-
sed value, the market value of a home often exceeds its assessed value.
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES PLANNING • DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
201 CAPITOL SQUARE BLDG. • 550 CEDAR STREET • ST. PAUL, MN 55101 • 812/296-4018
00 EIX
Policy Analysis Paper #11
July 1 , 1982
Page 2
has increased dramatically from the 100 residents who lived in five facili-
ties in 1962. In July 1982, Minnesota had 298 group homes with a total
licensed capacity of 4,781 . At the same time, the numher of state hospital
residents diagnosed as mentally retarded declined from 5,542 in 1962 to
2,395 in March, 1982. The latest declines can be attributed to a recent
court consent decree (Welsch v. Noot, 1980) which mandated an 850-person
reduction in state hospital MR population by 1987 and sharply curtailed
future admissions to state hospitals. The Welsch v. Noot decree, combined
with general growth in the system, will generate demand for hundreds of new
community spaces by 1987.
Minnesota has not been immune to protracted opposition to group homes.
Local ordinances , restrictive covenants, and narrow definition of "family"
prevented the establishment of many group homes until a 1975 state law
undercut local opposition (M.S. 462.357) . The new legislation required
that local governments treat group homes of six or less as single family
residences. The lengthy process of public hearings and zoning approval was
thus eliminated. The same law established group homes of 7-16 residents
as multi-family dwellings for the purposes of residential zoning. Though
a decade of court challenges ensued2 the law has been upheld by the Minne-
sota Supreme Court.
II . LITERATURE REVIEW
The extensive literature which examines the impact of group homes on pro-
perty values is unanimous in its conclusion: group homes do not reduce sur-
rounding property values. Studies conclude this regardless of the method
used to measure property values.
Measuring impact of group homes is a complicated process, and researchers
have employed several methods. Generally, studies choose a sample of city
blocks or census tracts which contain a grgup home. These group home blocks
are each compared with a similar "control" block. One of several measures
of neighborhood impact might be used. Some studies look for increases in
the number of sales in group home blocks as an indication that neighbors
are trying to escape a nearby group home. Others try to determine if it
takes longer to sell houses in group home blocks than in control blocks.
But the central focus of most studies is change in property values.
Several measures of change in property values have been used. Generally,
researchers compare: (a) changes in assessed property value in group home
neighborhoods to changes in control (non-group home) neighborhoods; (b) sale
price as a percentage of list price in both group home and control neighbor-
hoods; or (c) sale price of homes sold before the group home was established
2Most recently, Costly v. Caromin House, Inc. (313 N.W. 2d. 21 Minn. Supreme
Court 1981 ).
3The control block is a residential block without a group home, but which is
similar in all other respects to the group home block. By comparing group
home blocks and control blocks , the effects of a group home on property values
can be distinguished from changes in housing values generally.
offo 04
Policy Analysis Paper #11
July 1 , 1982
Page 3
.J
to prices these same homes commanded when sold again after the group home
opened.
Group home impact on surrounding property values has been examined in sev-
eral parts of the United States and in a cross-section of neighborhoods.
A Lansing, Michigan, study (Lansing Planning Dept. , 1976) found that the
average sale price of homes in a group home neighborhood was equal to, or
higher than the sale price of homes in control neighborhoods. A Philadel-
phia study (Dear, 1977) examined impact on a number of property transactions.
Of 365 transactions tracked in a six block radius of the sample of group
homes, 59% occurred before the facility opened, and 41% after. There were
no declines in property values; indeed, homes adjacent to group homes exper-
ienced the largest increase in value.
An Ohio study of group home neighborhoods (Montgomery County Board of Men-
tal Retardation, 1981) concluded that property values in these neighbor-
hoods experienced the same increase or decrease in market price as homes
in similar neighborhoods , that close proximity to a group home did not
alter the market value, and that group homes did not generate more property
turnover. Likewise, in White Plains , New York, a 1976 study (Breslow,
1976) tracked property values for six months before and three years after
the opening of a facility. The general trend in property values was compar-
j able to the control areas.
In the Philadelphia study, twelve neighborhoods which contained mental
health group homes were examined. The investigators found that the number
of sales was higher in group home neighborhoods. But the authors concluded
that the mental health facilities were not the cause since the number of
sales was not related to distance from the facility. Moreover, no decline
in property values was found.
In the most extensive study of property values to date (Wolpert, 1978) pro-
perty value changes of 42 neighborhoods in New York State were analyzed
by focusing on homes which were sold before the group home opened, and
again, after the establishment of the home. Once again, no relation was
found between group home placement and decline in property values or number
of transactions. Even adjacent homes experienced the same changes in pro-
perty values as homes in control neighborhoods.
When a 1980 Columbus, Ohio, study (Mitchell and Wagner, 1980) used sale
price as a percentage of asking price as the measure of property value, the
authors concluded that the ratio did not decline in a neighborhood after a
group home was established. Furthermore, homes in experimental neighbor-
hoods sold just as quickly as homes in control neighborhoods.
III. METHOD
A complete list of group homes for the mentally retarded was compiled from
Minnesota Department of Public Welfare licensing records. A random sample
of 34 homes with six or fewer residents was drawn, though only homes for
Policy Analysis Paper #11
July 1 , 1982
Page 4
which a comparable control neighborhood could be located were included in
this analysis. The final sample size of 14 group homes was evenly divided
between homes located in the Twin Cities and homes located in the remainder
of the state.
For each group home in the sample, the investigator marked out a one-block
area and noted the exterior condition of each house. A control block of
housing similar in age, maintenance, and assessed value was then selected.
Assessed value was used to measure property values, and was obtained from
the local tax assessor's office. For each parcel in the group home and
control blocks, the assessed value was obtained for the year preceding and
the year following the establishment of the group home. Any property trans-
actions during this two-year period and their sale prices were also recorded.
The percent increase in value during the two years was calculated for each
house and an average increase in assessed value was derived for each block.
The results were then subjected to statistical testing to determine if dif-
ferences occurred by chance or were statistically significant.
Policy Analysis Paper #11
July 1 , 1982
Page 5
Table 1
Mean Percent Increase in Assessed Value for
Group Home Blocks and Control Blocks
(Minnesota ICF-MRs : 14 Paired Blocks . 1981)
Paireda Mean Increase. ofb Standard N Mean Increase of Standard N
Block Group Home Blocks Deviation Control Blocks Deviation
o '
A 28.22 8. 58 8 29. 13 8.0 9
B 9.04 10.7 14 13.82 7. 1 13
C 33. 10 6.8 10 36. 14 17.4 11
D 22.70 16.0 13 22.20 7.5 13
E 8.83 1 .7 29 9.72 3.4 27
F 16.08 4. 8 11 14.29 .6 10
G 37.92 3. 8 14 39.30 7.7 24
H 35.86 11 .9 30 30.77 12.3 29
T'-z. I 17. 59 4.8 13 17.91 4.8 23
J 31.07 8.6 9 31 .09 6.7 13
K 50.34 21 .9 33 48.80 15.2 38
L � 15. 48 5. 1 24 14.08 5.9 26
M 12.71 11 .0 12 19.44 12.0 11
TOTAL 25.96% 220 26. 7% 247
a) Each block with a group home was paired with a similar block without a
group home, the "control" block. There were 14 pairs in the study. (A-M)
b) The mean is a measure of central tendency, often called the "average." The
mean percentage increase for each block was calculated by totalling the per-
cent increase in assessed value for each house in the block and dividing
by the number of houses.
c) Standard deviation measures whether individual percentages "cluster" around
the mean percentage increase for the block. The standard deviation will be
small in blocks where the percent increase in value was similar for each
home.
Policy Analysis Paper #11
July 1 , 1982
Page 6
40)
Table 2
Difference in Mean Percent Increase in Assessed
Value for Group Home Blocks and Control Blocks.
( Minnesota ICF-MRs: 14 Paired Blocks , 1981)
Paired Difference in Meana t-vaiueb df pc
Blocks Percent Increase
A .91 -.226 15 .83
B 4.78 -1 .377 22 . 18
C 3.04 -. 538 13 .60
D -. 50 -. 103 17 .92
E .89 -1 .222 37 .23
F -1 . 79 1 .232 10 .25
G .38 -.206 35 .84
Aft
H -5.09 1 .619 56 .11 IIP
I -. 33 -. 197 34 .85
J .02 -.004 14 .99
K -1 . 54 .335 55 .74
L -1 .41 .897 48 .37
M 6. 73 -1 .403 21 . 18
TOTAL . 74
a) The mean percentage increase for control blocks was subtracted from the
mean percentage for the corresponding group home block.
b) The t-test helps determine if the difference between means is significantly
different. The higher the t- value, the more likely that the difference in
means is real and not the result of chance fluctuation. None of the t-
values here are statistically significant (for p < .05) .
c) The p value refers to statistical probability value. The p value of .05
indicates the probability of the event's occurrence (by chance) is less
than 1 in 20.
00
1 L.,
Policy
Policy Analysis Paper #11
July 1 , 1982
Page 7
IV. RESULTS
Assessed value increase
Tables 1 and 2 list•the average increase in assessed value for each control
block and each group home block. Althouoh differences were found when the
assessed value increase for group home blocks was compared with the increase
for control blocks, none of the differences was statistically different
(p < .05) .
Mean percent increase in assessed value ranged from 9% - 50% for group home
blocks and from 9. 7% - 49% for control blocks. However, as Table 2 details ,
the differences are not all in the same direction. In five instances , the
mean percent increase in assessed value was higher in the group home neigh-
borhood. Also note that the standard deviations vary substantially which
my indicate that a few extreme cases are artificially affecting the mean
value for a specific block. However, an inspection of the median percent
increase demonstrated that median increases in assessed value for group
home blocks did not vary substantially from the corresponding control block
medians. 4
Overall , the mean percent increase for houses in group home blocks was 25.9%
while all houses in control blocks experienced an average 26. 7% increase
in assessed value.
k J Number of transactions
Although the sample included 220 houses in group home blocks and 247 houses
in control blocks , only 75 property transactions were recorded during the
mt
year preceding and following establishment of a group home. These 75 trans-
actions were almost evenly divided between group home blocks (48%) and con-
trol blocks (52%) , which seems to indicate that group homes do not cause
excessive numbers of transactions.
The analysis of these transactions found that for group home blocks , 49%
occurred in the year before the group home was established and 51% occurred
after the home was established. In control blocks , the figures were 36%
and 64% respectively. Again, the timing of transactions seems unrelated
to the establishment of a group home.
V. DISCUSSION
This study confirms the results of earlier research on group home impact
on the surrounding neighborhood. Changes in property values are not rela-
ted to the presence of a group home in the block. Similarly, neither the
number nor the timing of property transactions in a neighborhood has any-
thing to do with the establishment of a group home.
While' the results of this analysis unequivocally support this conclusion,
there are limitations to this data. First, assessed value may be an
4The median is the value above which and below which half the values fall .
4 , The median is not distorted by extremely large or small values.
Policy Analysis Paper #11
July 1 , 1982
Page 8
imperfect measure of market value. Because annual assessed value increases
are limited by law, assessed value is rarely as high as market value.
Second, because many of the group homes in the sample were established
after 1979, the small number of property transactions may reflect a general
downturn in the housing market rather than satisfaction of property owners
with their new group home neighbors.
WI g
Policy Analysis Paper #11
July 1 , 1982
Page 9
REFERENCES
Banda, J. & Lippert, T. , Developmental Disabilities Trends and Services in the
Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. St. Paul : Metropolitan Health Board, 1980.
Bates, M. State Zoning Legislation: A Purview. Madison: Wisconsin Council
of Developmental Disabilities , 1981 .
Breslow, S. The Effect of Siting Group Homes on the Surrounding Environs.
Unpublished manuscript, 1976.
Carroll , A. & Chronin, M. Group-Based Residential Facilities in Minneapolis.
Minneapolis: City Planning Commission, 1980.
City of Lansing Planning Department. The Influence of Halfway Houses and Fos-
ter Care Facilities Upon Property_ Values. Lansing, Michigan: Author, 1976.
Dear, M. "Impact of Mental Health Facilities on Property Values ," Community
Mental Health Journal , 1977.
Department of Public Welfare. Residential Care Study. St. Paul : Author, 1979.
-,t, Mambort, T. , Thomas, E. & Few, R. Community Acceptance: A Realistic Approach.
t Dayton: Montgomery County Board of Mental Retardation and Developmental
Disabilities, 1981 .
Mitchell , D. , & Wagner, C. Grorp Homes and Property__Values: A Second Look.
Columbus: Metropolitan Human Services Commission, 1980.
Wolpert, J. Group Homes for the Mentally Retarded: An Investijation of
Neighborhood Property Impacts. New York: State Office of Mental Retardation
and Developmental Disabilities , 1978.
CiThe Policy Analysis Series is published by the Minnesota Governor's
Planning Council on Developmental Disabilities and the Developmental
Disabilities Program, Department of Energy, Planning and Development.
Richard Nelson, M.D. , Council Chair - Colleen Wieck, Ph.D. , Director
The purpose of this series is to enhance communication among state and
local agencies, service providers, advocates, and consumers on timely
issues. We encourage reader participation by giving us feedback on
your ideas and perceptions of this problem. This paper may be cited:
Developmental Disabilities Program. Policy Analysis Series #11: An
Analysis of Minnesota Property Values of Community Intermediate Care
Facilities for Mentallu Pettarded (ICF-MRs) . St. Paul, MN: Develop-
mental Disabilities Pre�iram, Department of Energy, Planning and Dev-
elopment, July 1 , 1982.
6
MEMO TO: Don Steger/City Planner
FROM: LeRoy Houser/Building Official
RE: Mentally Retarded Group Homes
DATE: March 28 , 1983
Regarding the possibility or probability of properties being
devalued by being in proximity to homes for the mentally retarded,
it is my opinion based on ten years of appraisal work within the
metropolitan area , that loss in value due to being proximate to
these uses would be very unlikely.
A home of this type under competent management which is well main-
tained and constructed in conformity with the architectural norms
of the neighborhood would be hard to distinguish from any other
residential use in the area .
A valuation impact study on the national level has been conducted
and supports my conclusion . For information regarding this study
contact Harold Tapper, Association of Residences for the Retarded,
291-7475 .
The Planning Commission may want a study on the area level under-
taken, if so , let me know, I will put you in contact with one of my
associates who is qualified to provide you with a study .
LH: cau
CITY OF SUAKOPEE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION OF TILE CITY COUNCIL NO. CC- 334
WHEREAS , A. I . D. Homes , Inc. having duly filed an
application for a Conditional Use Permit_ cJatec March 25, 1983
under the provisions of the Shakopee Zoning Ordinance , Section
11 . 27, Subd . 3K • — __ , as follows :
•
costruction and operation of a4-plex apartment Intermediate Care
Facility/Mentally Retarded Facility ( ICF/MR Facility) ; also known as
Community Residential R-3 (Mid-
nd/or group home f aci lityi n rt __teens-ity__�esisient i;31L__ zoned area ; and
WHEREAS , the property upon which the request is being made is
described as : Lots 1 and 2 , Block 29, East Shakopee Plat ( 27-0041450-0 )
(Northeast Quadrant of the intersection of 3rd & Naumkeag) ; and
WHEREAS , said proposed Conditional Use Permit request was APPROVED
by the Shakopee Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota
at their meeting held April 7 19$3 and said Conditional Use
Permit decision is herewith eing appeal-J-(1—T° the City Council ; and
WHEREAS , the Shakopee City Council on May 3 , 1983 held a
public hearing on the appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission
NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that upon hearing the advice and recommendations
of the Shakopee Planning Commission and upon considering the suggestions
made by the applicant and the suggestions and objections raised by the
affected property owners , within a radius of 350 feet thereof , in public
hearings duly held by the Shakopee Planning Commission and the Shakopee
City Council , that the aforementioned Conditional Use Permit be and
is hereby pursuant to the following:
Adopted in Regular session of the City Council of the City
of Shakopee , Minnesota held Tis —3rd day of May , 19 83
Mayor c►f tEie City of Shakopee
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
COUNTY OF SCOTT ) ss Or l'I Cr or SHAKOPEE CITY CLERK
CITY OF SHAKOPEE )
I , Judith S. Cox, City Clerk ;or the City of Shakopee, Minnesota with and in
for said City, do hereby certify that this is a true and exact copy of the original
record preserved in my office of the City Council decision to the Order
a Conditional Use Permit , as so described above.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my hand this day of
' 19
Shakopee City Clerk
Drafted by:
Approved as to form this day of Don Steger
19 City of Shakopee
-- —
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
City Attorney
1/83
m
• A. 1 .D. HOMES, INC.
3600 KLNNEB( C DRIVE - SUITE, 56
EAGAN, MINNLSOIA 55122
612-452-4264
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
PROGRAM STRUCTURE: 24 HOUR SUPERVISLV A1'ARTMLNI LIVING - RULE 34 LICENSED,
TITLE 19 FUNDED
PROGRAM LOCATIONS: EAST ST. PAUL - WEST ST. PAU!. - LAKEVILLE
CAPACITY: 15 IN tACI! PROGRAM
AGE RANGE,: 18 - 50 AT ADMISSION
SEX: MEMBERS OF BOTH SEXES WILL BE ACCEPTED
ABILITY LEVEL: MODERATE AND ABOVE
PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS: AMBULATORY, EXCEPT LAST ST. 1'AU1. PROGRAM IS (QUIPPED TO
ACCOMMODATE UP TO THREE PHYSICALLY (HANDICAPPED , MOBILE
INDIVIDUALS
ADMISSION CRITERIA: Ae.t apptican.ts must have a pn,iman.y diagnosis oh mental ne.-
tandation and possess a high Levee o6 se.e6-ecvr.e and pe.nsonae hygiene shills .
Each app.l.icant must be capable o6 panticipatLng An a day pnognam such a6 competi-
tive employment on sheltehed wonh. Acceptance wit be detehmi.ned by the. po,tentiat
and dcs.ihe. o6 .the appbicant to grow and develop soe.i.aefy, emotionaefy, and intel-
tectualey in a supeAvised apan,trnent Living situation.
App.e,i.cauts with severe nredieue, emot ona.e, on behaviors problems cannot be. accepted.
PROGRAM GOAL: Om pnognans wehe conceived bon the purpose 06 6unthehi.ng independence
fan the mereta�ey netande.d adult. This .is two-Sold. Some tenants develop and
maintain shuts wliJch enables -them .to suceess6ueey Live in a "supervised apan.tme.n.t
pnognam and .this .Us a tong .teAm Living situation bon them. Others tenants develop
shclts which enables them -to progress -to a move independent Living situation within
the community where supeAvision is minimae. In aft cases, tenants cute encorucaged to
develop thein skins to the 6u.Uest in ondeA to maintain the. Least nest'ua-t.ve en-
viAonment possibte. Tenants witt be JinstAumentat in panning thein goats and pace !'
in the pnognam6. Since each .tenant wilt vary gneatfy in abifities and needs, no
speci.6.ic time .tables on tucnoveh nates ane established.
STAFFING: Ouh pnogn.amb ane stah6e.d on a 24 hour 'h 4t bas-is. Sta66 includes:
1=aai.i_Lty DikectoA, Facility Supehvizon, Apahtment Living Coondinatons , Apah.tmen.t
Living Advi on.s, Day P►cognam/Social Coondinaton, RN/LPN, and bu,i.ding maintenance
and administn.ati.ve support ata66•
PARENTAL ANDi FAMILY INVOLVEMENT: Parents and other close relatives ane encounizged
to maintain positive suppoktive ties with the tenant by providing oceasAonal week-
end and special occas-Lon v.i s.i is. They also ane encorucaged to be -involved in helping
to develop the individual pnognam plans along with the tenant and otheA sta66 to
assure commonaPity 06 goats.
•
DAYTIML PROGRAMS: Laeh tenant wife be .in a day p'toq'retm wi than the community. Th.i.6
may.enc2ude eompe.ti tLve emptoy►nent, shettcted wonfhhup, an a sehov.t program. Some
os .the avaitab!e nesounces in the community ane Owobopte Industn,ies, Minnesota
DiveAs.i_s.ied I ndustAies (MDI) , Deve.eopmentae LecJi n.i.ng Center (DLC) , Anea Vo-Techs,
St. Paw Rehabilitation Center, and UCP. Pubti.c tnanspontation is encoun.aged and
used when poss-ibee within the community.
ENRICHMENT ACTIVITIES: Use o6 community nesou-aee4 bun necneation and £etisune time
will be encow�ag d.ACTIVITIES:.
'netiance and .independence in the use o6 these nesounees
wilt be 6osteted and encoun.aged. Some o6 these community nesounces ane Adet Ed-
ucation, area shopping centers, nestaunants, theaters, pube.ic ne.cne.ati.on centeAs
such as bowling, skating, swimming, etc.
In addition, .sta66 in the program tate encourage a wide range o6 act.-iv.i,ti.ez within
.the apan.tme.btt setting with a strong emphasis on phys icae ac tiv.i.tie,s and the en-
counagement o6 hobbies and teisuAe time activities based on indiv.idaa,e needs and
des.vtes.
DAILY LIFE MANAGEMENT: Each tenant .learns to manage his on. hen own monies in as
independent a manner as poss.ib.ee. Indiv.iduae bank accounts ane es.tabtished at
a community bank and each tenant learns banking pnocedwtes such a5, making deposits,
withdnawa s, estabtush,ing savings account, etc. Rcspons-.bee pwtchas-ing, saving
and spending As teanned in an .inc. .eas.Lngty sophisticated manner in onden that
independence £n money management becomes a neaAty.
In the apah.tment unit, each tenant Learns to cook, plan menus, pwtchase gnoceni es
and undeltstand basic nwt'z tion. Tenants become sarnitiar with ate 6acets o6 the
kitchen .including pnopen use o6 apptLance4.
The tenant teanns pn.open. use o6 cleaning supp,eies, utervsi s and p/topc)t cleaning
methods, washing and cane o6 clothing.
PAide .in one's peJtsonae appearance .is encowtaged. See6-care and putsonai' hygiene
sk.ites ane .learned to the highest attainab-ee teve!.
When seas.ibte, tenants .Leann set6-admi.nietnation o6 medication under a doctor's
pehmiss.Lon and stars supenv-cs.ion.
HEALTH SERVICES: Community clinics and hosp.ctats ane used bon. ate health services.
The stars RN/LPN monito'u5 health services to asswte sound health practices and
comptL.ance with n.egutat.ions. Ps ycholog.icae and psychiatn.Lc senv.ices ane utilized
as needed.
EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT: An .individual pnognam peon .is estabe.ished with ,the tenant.
Reviews are pen6onmed and wn,i tten monthty, stating measunabee and obsen.vab.ee goats
and objectives. A maeti-diseiptiinary team meeting AA heed at .least annually to
evaluate oven.-ale pnognebs and established goats son the coming year. Team meetings
may .include appnoppn.i.ate pnognam stash, the. tenant, tenant's parents, worth supenv.i.6on.,
county soda. woldzen, and other appnopn,iate individuate.
Independence .in the prtogn.am a the. pnima'cy objective aUowLng .the tenant to won.f. at
his o4 hen own pace.
ADMISSION PROCEDURE: An apptica.tion eon. admas..on may be made by .the Gam ty/guard-.an,
applicant on legal nepn es entative to A. I.D. Homes, Inc. , and/on the appnopn i.a.te county
soci t wonfzen.
1; at_ ee* A-6
cl/p1 ti}4,21 7L. XZ
ii uV
c3.4-ei Wa.,,, ,7112.etel
4 toa,„,
Yno-/LL DektaLed, cA/c.
a-LA1 cicjig ,„)z A
a-&) af
Jet •JAJ/- -i-‘- 2X-e- .24
7-4-:rrte_ Lj LA) -41Leed
46-C-cutA-tdL re; --/L-- ,e
-701-6-e-L- CaLe , ,_ ,,LAJt.
yY).-eryjeJLA tJ t34T 0,72L11,.
Lo os-G1e( „t4.e.,-„, et4,e. 6/ ,A14
tke D 40-ki cv-ri 9-a
Loa.„x ,,4L41 zicet Z4.e(.4. 6-1.
tikk YAA _att-c-betf 241 ,-to •
j#Uj
:477
_
errY OF ,4101;‘,104ME
1502.
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson/City Administrator
FROM: Don Steger/City Planner
RE: Valley Park 7th Addition -
Time Extension for Submission of Final Plat
DATE: April 29, 1983
Introduction :
Gary Eastlund, Scottland Inc . , is requesting a 12 month extension
for submission of the Final Plat of Valley Park 7th Addition ( see
attached letter) .
Background :
The City Code ( Subdivision Regulations ) states that Preliminary Plat
approval is valid for 12 months . Because the City Council approved
the Preliminary Plat of Valley Park 7th Addition on May 4, 1982, the
12 month period has almost expired . The City Code authorizes the
City Council to grant an extension for submission of the Final Plat
for good reason. Mr. Eastlund indicated that the delay in submitting
the Final Plat was caused by the need for the Department of Natural
Resources to establish the high water level elevation for Deans Lake .
This procedure is currently underway, however, it is unknown when
completion will occur. When this is completed, the final engineering
for the proposed subdivision may also be completed and the Final Plat
submitted to the City for review and approval .
Staff Recommendation:
Because the delay in submitting the Final Plat was caused by
circumstances beyond Scottland' s control , staff recommends a 12
month extension of the Preliminary Plat approval .
Action Requested:
Motion to grant a 12 month extension of the Preliminary Plat
approval of Valley Park 7th Addition.
DS :cau
Attachment
r Gary Eastlund
Executive Vice President,,,y-
SC OTTLI�N® INS �; ;f' APr� 7 r
s.
r9
rs
April 28, 1983
Don Steger
City of Shakopee
129 E. 1st Ave.
Shakopee , MN 55379
Dear Don:
Due to the delays caused by the Lower Minnesota Watershed
District and the Department of Natural Resources we hereby
request a 12 month extension of the preliminary plat of
Valley Park Seventh Addition.
As soon as we receive confirmation on the high water level
elevation for Deans Lake , we will complete our drainage plans
and submit the final plat for your review.
If you have any questions please give me a call .
Sincerely,
J
Gary Eas fund
GE/ds
5244 Valley Industrial Boulevard South, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379/612-445-3242
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk
RE: Parking for Highrise Residents
DATE: April 22 ,, 1983
Introduction
I was approached by Gaile Sovell and Linda Wagner from the highrise
with a problem they are experiencing regarding parking for residents .
Background
Gaile explained to me that the highrise was built with an inadequate
number of off street parking because it was anticipated that most
seniors would dispose of their vehicles within a couple of years .
In her experience in other areas , that has been the case and Shakopee
is proving to be an exception to the norm.
The highrise has 36 residents who own vehicles . There are 17 parking
spaces at the highrise plus three for handicapped plus one additional
handicapped for congregate dining. There is a need for additional
parking spaces for residents of the highrise and Gail is asking if
the City can help.
History: A supplemental Agreement to the original lease of December
1979 , was approved by the City Council on March 3 , 1981 . This
Supplemental Agreement reflected an oral agreement secured by
Councilmen Hullander and Leroux and former Administrator Reeder in
December of 1979 . Since the oral agreement did not end up in the
final lease document , staff sought to define this item in the
Supplemental Agreement . The Supplemental Agreement provided 10
parking spaces in the Red Arrow Municipal Parking Lot for highrise
residents and 5 spaces at the highrise lot for congregate dining
participants . In anticipation of the Supplemental Agreement , the
Police Department was requested to avoid ticketing cars in the Red
Arrow Lot until the agreement was in effect . Upon submission of
the Council approved Supplemental Agreement to Mr. John Bergstad,
property owner, he declined to execute it and expressed an interest
in maintaining the current parking situation, even if ticketing
of cars were to be instituted. (Taken from April 1 , 1981 memo
from Jeanne Andre to John Anderson. )
Facts :
1 . The,highrise owners have rented units to 16 more seniors who
own vehicles than off street parking spaces provided.
2 . It doesn' t seem practical (at this time to change the current
status ) to require five residents at the highrise to move
their cars each day for congregate dining patrons .
3 . There is no parking allowed on the south side of Levee Drive
fronting the highrise property and parking on the north is
limited to two hour parking.
Parking for Highrise Residents D
Page Two
April22 , 1983
4. There is a municipal parking lot located to the east of the
highrise which always has a vacancy.
Alternatives
1 . Decline to resolve the parking problem at the highrise, but
rather allow the property owner to do so. [ i .e. 1 ) acquire
additional property for parking, 2 ) limit occupancy to only
20 residents with vehicles , 3 ) advise owners to inform
tenants that they can use the municipal parking lot to the
east but they must observe the 24 hour parking limit just
as all other Shakopee residents . ( Some seniors don' t use
their car every day and are inconvenienced to move it every
24 hours . ) ]
2 . Remove the two hour parking limitation on the north side of
Levee Drive adjacent to the highrise site . Mr. Karkanen and
Mr. Brownell recommend against this . Levee Drive is a narrow
street and extended parking is not advisable; however, two
hour parking does accommodate visitors .
3 . Enter into a lease with the property owner for the use of
parking spaces in the municipal parking lot . (We currently
have a lease with Mr. Brambilla at $10.00 per space per year. )
4. Remove 24 hour parking restriction in the lot. This would
afford unlimited use of the parking lot to all residents .
Recommendation
Although I 'm not totally supportive of the City solving problems
of property owners and residents when caused by themselves and
although the municipal parking lot was built and assessed for
public purpose and private use is not a proper use ; it seems
reasonable to permit private use as long as public parking needs
are not reduced.
Action Requested
Authorize staff to work with the highrise in preparing a lease for
the rental of 16 parking spaces in the Red Arrow Parking Lot at
an annual fee of $10.00 per space and that the highrise be advised
that this lease will be considered annually, it is not an automatic
renewal , and that the City is advising the highrise to pursue
other means of solving their parking problem, such as acquiring
adjacent property as it may become available .
JSC/jms
i
Sovell management CompanySe°
620 Mendelssohn Ave., Suite 160 • Minneapolis, MN 55427 • Phone(612)542-1162
GERALD L.SOVELL
CERTIFIED PROPERTY MANAGER
PRESIDENT
n 77 1 y„
:ni,
,,,, ,,, „ ,,
., . , ,.....,,..„,
._.
i ' April 19, 1983
Judy Cox GIT"P' Of re"%: _,
City Hall
Shakopee, M.1 55379
at t-
a Dear Ms. Cox:
Thank you for taking the time to meet with Linda Wagner and myself today
to discuss the parking problem that exists at 200 Levee Drive. The number
of people owning cars has increased since the building first opened and as
we stated there are only 20 open parking spaces now available and 36 cars,
so we are in need of more parking.
`'a' 4 The possibility of rescinding the two-hour
Y` parking ban in front of the
E , building on Levee Drive and allowing tenants to park there or allowing
'°' ` tenants to park in the municipal lot on an unrestricted basis warrant
further consideration.
You suggested that the city would probably want to sign a one-year lease
agreement and maybe charge a small fee to implement this arrangement.
Those details I feel can be worked out allowing an equitable solution to
the problem.
1
°4 I am encouraged by the cooperation the city has shown in this regard and
will look forward to hearing from you as to when you will be able to put
this on the city council's agenda.
Very truly yours,
6-7•K la-c,. .e,..Z.„--Ci
Gaile L. Sovell
i
GLS:sh
y cc: John T3ergstad
`_ ! _ Asset Management • Brokerage • Insurance • Word Processing
ii
prt
w;r..
f
��tt�2II iPP (Itnniuuuitt 'eruirE5
129 Levee Drive n
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379C .
j J
Phone 445-2742 C�
Community Education • Parks • Recreation • Adult Education
April 29, 1983
Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
From George F. Muenchow, Community Services Director
Subject: Naming of Proposed Trail Along Minnesota River From Huber Park
to Scott Street
Introduction
The City of Shakopee has been successful in being offered a grant from the Lower
Minnesota River Watershed District for purposes of developing a trail along the
Minnesota River from Huber Park to Scott Street, plus general cleanup and beauti—
fication. This proposed trail is in need of an official name.
Alternatives
1) Levee Drive and adjacent parking lots were constructed approximately 15 years
ago. The road was constructed on land designated as Levee when platted in the
early years of this community. A trail on this property could be depictive of
this fact if it were named accordingly (Levee Drive Trail) .
2) Huber Park, the eastern terminus of this proposed trail, was named after
Edward J. Huber, former Shakopee First National Bank President and major civic
leader. The park was primarily named after Mr. Huber because of his specific
interest in this park, including his dedication and devotion to the Shakopee
Boy Scouts which were headquartered in their own facility in that park until
destroyed in the flood of 1965. If he were alive today he would be a strong
proponent for the re—development of the downtown business area which will be
enhanced by this proposed trail (Huber Park Trail).
3) Request the Community Services Board to conduct a Naming Contest for this
proposed trail in accordance with City Council Park Naming Guidelines.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council by its own initiative refer to the pro—
posed downtown river trail as an extension of Huber Park, and hereafter refer
to it as Huber Park Trail.
Action
Move to name the proposed trail segment from Huber Park to Scott Street the
Huber Park Trail.
A COOPERATIVE EFFORT OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AND SCHOOL DISTRICT 720 SINCE 1954
'I akriicc (inrnnuutt Eruitti �a
129 Levee Drive
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Phone 445-2742 C.C_
Community Education • Parks • Recreation • Adult Education
April 28, 1983
Memo To: John K. Anderson
From George F. Muenchow, Community Services Director
Subject: Naming of Proposed Park Area Adjacent to Shakopee Jr. H.S.
Introduction
One of Shakopee 's newest park areas will be the approximate 10 acres
of land adjacent and east of the Shakopee Jr High School. During the
time that applications have been made for grants and other kinds of
funding some kind of name had to be used. In most instances it was
referred to as J.E.J. Park or East Side Park. This proposed park
deserves and reeds a formal name.
Recommendation
Following the guidelines established in the city's Park Naming
Policy, staff recommends that Shakopee Community Services be requested
to develop and supervise a Park Naming Contest for this parcel of land,
and that furthermore the contest be completed in 1983.
Action
Move to request Shakopee Community Services to conduct in 1983 a Park
Naming Contest for the City' s proposed park adjacent to the Shakopee
Jr High School, using the City's Guidelines for park naming.
A COOPERATIVE EFFORT OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AND SCHOOL DISTRICT 720 SINCE 1954
ttka ee (livntimtnit eruires
129 Levee Drive
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 i L 7
Phone 445-2742
Community Education • Parks • Recreation • Adult Education
April 28, 1983
Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
From George F. Muenchow
Subject: Procedure For Naming Shakopee Parks
Date April 28, 1983
Introduction
The Shakopee City Council at its April 19, 1983 Meeting expressed its desire
and intent to develop a policy for naming parks in Shakopee. The Council
furthermore indicated apreference for names of people with early origins
both Indian and Pioneer. Staff is to respond.
Background
There seems to be two reasonable alternatives for naming parks in this
community.
1. City Council initiative.
2. Involve the community in this decision by means of a Park Naming Contest.
This latter method can be used if the Council declines to name a park by
its own determination. Either way the Council should be the final
authority in this matter.
Recommendation
The City Council shall first determine if it wishes to name a park upon
its own initiative. If it declines to do this it shall then request the
Shakopee Community Services Board to conduct a Park Naming Contest. This
contest shall be of an impartial nature and shall be restricted to names
of early origins, either Indian or Pioneer.
Action
Move to institute a Procedure For Naming Shakopee Parks with the City
Council having first opportunity to do this. If it so declines it shall
request the Shakopee Community Services Board to conduct an impartial
contest in the community only considering names of early origins, either
Indian or Pioneer.
A COOPERATIVE EFFORT OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AND SCHOOL DISTRICT 720 SINCE 1954
1 akupee Tunttruuuitl eruices
129 Levee Drive
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Phone 445-2742
Community Education • Parks • Recreation • Adult Education
April 28, 1983
Memo To: John K. Anderson
From George F. Muenchow, Community Services Director
Subject: Naming of Park currently refered to as Lions Park
Date April 28, 1983
Introduction
In 1968 the City Of Shakopee acquired 73 acres of surplus land from the State
Of Minnesota. This encompasses the land in question together with the 40
acre parcel of land now known as Tahpah Park. A Master Plan was developed
and the first major park addition was the construction of the Municipal
Swimming Pool, first used in 1969. Other additions have been made periodically
ever since. Throughout these early times this area was refered to as
Marystown Rd Park, Southwest Community Park etc.
Background
Sometime after this period of time the Shakopee Lions Club expressed an
interest in being involved in the development of this park. On July 4, 1976
there was a Park Dedication Ceremony in the park by the area of the present
picnic shelter. This was a featured attraction of Shakopee's observance of
the American Bicentennial. Attached is a copy of the program used that day
together with the copy of posters used all over town promoting the Bicentennial
Observance.
It was the opinion of the writer that this Park Naming Dedication Ceremony was
in reference to the total area of this planned park, not just the 8-10 acres
in the vicinity of the picnic shelter and tennis courts. In conversations
with Ray Foslid (Master Of Ceremonies at the Dedication) and Walter Harbeck
(Shakopee Mayor at that time) they both have the same opinion.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the park area on south Adams Street continue to bear
the name of Lions Park as dedicated on July 4, 1976, and if there is no
formal indication of this action in succeeding City Council Minutes that
this omission be corrected as soon as possible.
Action
By Council initiative move to re—affirm the Park Naming Action that occured on
July 4, 1976 and formally adopt the name of Lions Park for the City Property
east of Adams Street and south of Sweeney Elementary School.
A COOPERATIVE EFFORT OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AND SCHOOL DISTRICT 720 SINCE 1954
•,•••••••".•
/ 4
/
•
ElOGR1.1.1 jirrY - LIONS PART.
MASTER OF CEREMONIES, Rey Pc,zaid
‘,,-.4's•-• •
OPENING PRAYER, .\\
\ ,
AMERICA, fl . T.
\
\\\\ '
of DI 11:::241d \F" ,t4 .
VFW Color C4.1arri •;;;f
INTRODUCTION 07 GUESTS y
PRESENTATION 07 1,37017-1 Sr,-.1rAT' N.T.?, Don Sel.e- 0 ,
15to Qvarter Pel7y ;
•04'
• '4
c•., • '"• t
3rd. Que..;:t er •
Scholarship trJ er, Dobrn Porr-y 44.
Lionsse Presentation of the Poi44.4,ain totho City
Rite Podmer„
Georr,o :atenchow„ on-Pe Di.rector
DED/CATION OF TE POE Preci.rlent. Heocar2.7-,
Re(Jo o4a of Past r-'-....-r- br.7echt
-Zo,771,0
'[.7.,•7:".".
ra:..41:11 CI'son
E11 Enrons
flitz
•
1...;ecc7ition of Oth.-.4.J.7:. Fell)
Proccntatiel of the Park to
Accoptanco spo!':),37,--1 by .1.:D.yor Pcui
C10 3in g
•
Payei
.(There be games for' Adulto activities, refrot.711riert+4,o tit the
Park througl,out the aftornoon....Prines will be waarded in child:2one 07.:-.1.08.
•
--41-
�� ` — 5
-7..._y - / ,: ,,,,,,,,,,,•', * ..t. , - ve 1
_�'�'- ` K < o 5 cn = Kncnco > * '
..- f .< .°i n sv o a n j Q O =� * 1
o c. m o 0, o
i
0 wgoon . �o � �,< � cnK0� _ < mOa).- *
I x.
(n -Al = (v r o cn n -D -a N N iv •cn 0) 3 0"O O O (n o C+ w
1)• Q 0 o T1 3 nI ! !
iv (nom n _ — -� � � �
lii
ja; ; _� 6- 2) cD C m O CD (n n o Tn = A.) *,�• OO 3 (n -0 , 0 K co lU m C w Q m C a Q Q * * i.Q ,< <• .o S W , CO la)5 O m , * * 44��` d,44, •
W mom ` 2 I
Cn_ C3 Cn n acni �• o _W rn 3 o, w -c. o p * ,,_ * Ail
a�Fi 'U (p o C -CD .-4-' 3 r1-1 o �* i4 .
m O j O �_. . ao m m *
w cn .7-' d
to O O _-• 'S o >v -O '- - — * *
• = • CD cn m O * D n r+• * * g, r i
a 3 Q m n
cC m ('' cD Q C7 m * * r Ftp `':
m *
* ay A At
� � � � w � K KK KKK 11 (n DKKK
c c c c m = sv m w SI) m (o co -o a, a, a,
A _, 4, � 4 W GJ -• 1\7 N �I ' 3 D- D *
w . 1 (n - -1 - — O J v (J� -1 * *
DK (a =C' vu, *
D 'L \ .
`
* *
* *0010c— mm 0Do0 KSz � c_ K000 *cn 7 04 O o m D> o m o O a' a' a, m w �* *ff << m Q < cn g 33 -' oo Km �o (�D . m � m * 3 C CD a c o * ********:**:**.t,
Ili.
3 c o cD h 0 5 T Q v Po (n cn O *
(n 0 7 r r m T z
m w N Z r 2 m CD C 0 0 5 -� - m cn
a Q (D67
ma " T O" CDD 0 *
< 3 N x n m
m cn o o m N CD * *
Q 07 -. * *
m
r . •
i\ ...--
vfrw,
r
: $
lay -,,{-d i L. v v I .. -,
/„.. /.., 4 i i i i i .,.., ,..‘4,s'.4.1 .4 ,, ,,,...,_ ..r, "-I I\
a
-
fk 1 ro -I « Z . (n r- O m
CD D . c O OED
�` u, D = m o p w n rro h CD o co 3 0 -o
Cn c - W CD ro o - ° CJ 0 ° n CD °i a_�i m �'
r m ro ° o co a, ro' ro 1 n m W X
V
'fi ro SD x 3 -. CCD 7 (pp r. ro O ° `< (3.
O
1 `, ca'n u' �' 00 oro < a'. ° O CD
3 E O • rowzo 0 n iv .-0- _Q.
A Wilt.
,,36,"
n • • O c ro (n 7
cn
- O ro O
/J/ .• ro D- O CU _C
T_, n a) En O O
' ti ' i w ro
I.
O N 01 CX) NO 0 O A IV IU j <D p
N
ED W Wo o � 2W � rv � m
•
•
#I sv 0 C. • E� Ox En m
c •
an -L - On. rng CD A � ZOCn W � CnDD � DCAD
°..4.•. •
ro W .+ D cn �• CO • O n CD ED O ED C C CD C C C
n .< .s W ro < o < r. -0 '0-a ert.0 cQ Ea co 3 co
t ti• O 0 D C C D 01 0) • 1 it:
N ::-LI
3ro E<D Cro (<D . OD 0) '1 NCD iljt-'
ir
�' ^� O ro - I CNN _+ ( NN (CDONEnCD ,. Cn
'r ro A
A A A A A A A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A O N
cn cn cn cn En cn cn cn cn cn CDA 0; I
CO W O p L p 7D
Cn �I 1 6 A CA En -+ A A A m ED O • ro fy O CDCD (
AC))01 rn1CD0) — 0) - - I mm « 0 -j 0 < ro o `` c
A ERIC �/ co a) rn (D -.iocav 1' A m Z ro -� = c
J ;.� f'� �"I i Nd /� I I 1 1 1 I 1 I y E� •13 O ED /row % /�''� c <
l;� �Ni G A A A A A A A A - v O -, O
m A A A A A A A A A z 3 C c
0 x En cn 01 01 En En En cn N * m E -
3 cn S
vt - f C 6) C) N N CIA) A 2-, W 0 p w ro a)
N A CD A 0) -• CO N) N 33 p 3 -, p
G) 01 En A A N C0 A CA) X
- 1n A A oCD CD 0 al (
• ,; • .vN31N3°\0
4
'httkopee Q.nmtnuniftl
129 Levee Drive
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 CQc12.
Phone 445-2742
Community Education • Parks • Recreation • Adult Education
April 29, 1983
Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
From George F. Muenchow, Community Services Director
Subject: Naming of Proposed Trail Along Minnesota River From Huber Park
to Scott Street
Introduction
The City of Shakopee has been successful in being offered a grant from the Lower
Minnesota River Watershed District for purposes of developing a trail along the
Minnesota River from Huber Park to Scott Street, plus general cleanup and beauti—
fication. This proposed trail is in need of an official name.
Alternatives
1) Levee Drive and adjacent parking lots were constructed approximately 15 years
ago. The road was constructed on land designated as Levee when platted in the
early years of this community. A trail on this property could be depictive of
this fact if it were named accordingly (Levee Drive Trail).
2) Huber Park, the eastern terminus of this proposed trail, was named after
Edward J. Huber, former Shakopee First National Bank President and major civic
leader. The park was primarily named after Mr. Huber because of his specific
interest in this park, including his dedication and devotion to the Shakopee
Boy Scouts which were headquartered in their own facility in that park until
destroyed in the flood of 1965. If he were alive today he would be a strong
proponent for the re—development of the downtown business area which will be
enhanced by this proposed trail (Huber Park Trail).
3) Request the Community Services Board to conduct a Naming Contest for this
proposed trail in accordance with City Council Park Naming Guidelines.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council by its own initiative refer to the pro—
posed downtown river trail as an extension of Huber Park, and hereafter refer
to it as Huber Park Trail.
Action
Move to name the proposed trail segment from Huber Park to Scott Street the
Huber Park Trail.
A COOPERATIVE EFFORT OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AND SCHOOL DISTRICT 720 SINCE 1954
1?(-4
*hukn re a:mutiutuittu eruit i
129 Levee Drive
Shakopee. Minnesota 55379
Phone 445-2742 e �,
Community Education • Parks • Recreation • Adult Education
April 28, 1983
Memo To: John K. Anderson
From George F. Muenchow, Community Services Director
Subject: Naming of Proposed Park Area Adjacent to Shakopee Jr. H.S.
Introduction
One of Shakopee's newest park areas will be the approximate 10 acres
of land adjacent and east of the Shakopee Jr High School. During the
time that applications have been made for grants and other kinds of
funding some kind of name had to be used. In most instances it was
referred to as J.E.J. Park or East Side Park. This proposed park
deserves and reeds a formal name.
Recommendation
Following the guidelines established in the city's Park Naming
Policy, staff recommends that Shakopee Community Services be requested
to develop and supervise a Park Naming Contest for this parcel of land,
and that furthermore the contest be completed in 1983.
Action
Move to request Shakopee Community Services to conduct in 1983 a Park
Naming Contest for the City's proposed park adjacent to the Shakopee
Jr High School, using the City's Guidelines for park naming.
A COOPERATIVE EFFORT OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AND SCHOOL DISTRICT 720 SINCE 1954
�`crFcEtf4Atft. CITY OF SHAKOPEE
443/ -_ sci
iQ ;i,- 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
.r.s.i i' til
MEMO
TO: _ John K Anderson , Admin; rator
FROM: Jim Karkanon, Public works Supt.
SUBJECT: Shade Tree Program
DATE: April 28 , 1983 -
INTRODUCTION:
This informational memo is in response to your request for
information regarding our Shade Tree Disease Control Program.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Shakopee, and other communities throughout the
state, have been steadily losing elm trees to the dutch elm disease
which, to date, hasn' t been controlled by any chemicals , etc. The
only proven control for D.D. D. is a good sanitation program which we
feel that the City of Shakopee has employed since D.E.D. was initially
observed in our community. A good working sanitation program requires
the immediate removal of infected trees and wood, thereby removing
the breeding habitat of the beetles . A good sanitation program will
not prevent the eventual loss of all elm trees , but will delay the loss
of these trees until a cure is found, or the diseased elms can be
replaced by a vigorous reforestation program. A good sanitation
• program also includes reducing the breeding sites for the beetles
to lay their eggs under logs which have not been debarked. (Beetles
will not lay eggs under bark that is loose and dried, they breed
under tight bark only, emerging in the springtime to find a host
tree. )
The City tree inspector does not enforce sanitation in the rural
areas, nor in the river bottoms , because the City has no intention.
of replanting trees in these areas. This is why the tree inspector
has concentrated his enforcement of the 'sanitation program in the, .
urban areas , where reforestation is employed.
Because 70% of a trees ' strength is in its ' bark, a dead tree
becomes a hazard .to the property, people, and utilities around .it,
as well as being an aesthetic eyesore to the neighborhood, .thereby
-.creating another reason to remove these trees as soon as possible.
The past several winters have been very good for the beetles
survival because of heavier snowfalls and milder temperatures. Because
of this there have been many more tree losses and the Public Works -
Department has been forced to remove the majority of these trees
ourselves instead of contracting them .to private' tree removal firms
because of budget limitations . The majority_ of the money in our
forestry budget has been used in stump removal and tree replacement,
however, it is my feeling that we aren' t replacing enough trees each
year. While we have averaged- 160 tree losses per year in -parks and
. boulevards , we have been replacing trees- at a rate of approximately
80-100 trees per year. Since 1979 , we have replaced them with bare
root 2" - 21/2" saplings @ approximately $28. 00 per tree. Because
our budget limits the amount of trees to be replaced, we have developed
a replacement criteria which somewhat restricts replanting in some
locations.
CRITERIA FOR REPLACEMENT CONSIDERATION :
1. The location has not had replacement in prior years .
2. Adequate room for growth is available.
3 . Newly planted tree is not placed over sewer and water
locations (for future root problems. )
4 . New trees do not create a visibility problem near
intersection.
5. New trees are not planted in future sidewalk R/W.
6. New trees will be cared for by property owner.
Because our City has been known for its' picturesque tree
canopied streets, I think that it is important for us to continue
our sanitation and reforestation programs. This includes continued
inspection of our urban area, inforcing our sanitation program on
urban private property, public R/W and parks , and on our boulevards.
This includes some enforcement in our rural areas where a heavy
concentration of homes are affected by possible dead trees , and oak
wilt disease. Some local nurseries have offered to sell balled and
burlaped trees to communities at approximately $100 . 00-$125 . 00 per
tree if the govermental agency will act as a contractor. This program,
however, only supplies trees to locations that can afford to buy
trees . The governmental agency will advertise for buyers, record
their order for trees , pick the trees up from the nursery and deliver
them to the property owner in the fall. I feel that this method
wouldn' t assure us of getting equal tree replacement on our City streets.
This method could be used for private individuals for their property -
but they would be limited to certain tree varieties only available
on this program. Chaska had used this program last year.
In the 1983 budget, we recommended $5 ,000 for supplies (trees)
and $8,000 for professional services in the forestry budget. The
Common Council reduced the $8 ,000 to $2, 650 in their efforts to
reduce the budget for 1983. This will definately create a hardship
on the tree program, because the stump removal program last year in
itself was over $4 , 500 for removal of the stumps in the boulevards.
Because of the mild tempatures , I expect this year to be very high
in tree mortality. The remainder of the professional services budget
was used to allow tree removal contractors to remove a portion of our
dead trees , to allow us to catch up on our other projects. If we
didn' t have CETA providing summer youth employment help, we would
never have been able to remove the trees the past four years . Incident-
ally, a large number of trees were given to private parties if they
would cut up the tree the same day that it was felled, and remove the
bark, and haul it away. The City crews would then remove the branches
and limbs.
We have 75-80 trees in our original tree farm ready to be
replanted in the boulevards this year, and we have a contractor pre-
pared to rent us a tree spade for this operation. Our newer tree
farm has about 280 trees , but is several years away from the replanting
fct
age/size.
We are still operating a City wide free curbside pickup program,
whereby a private property owner places a diseased tree on the curb-
side, and the City will pickup and dispose of the tree at no cost
to the property owner. This program is designed to encourage the
property owner to cooperate in the shade tree program, because disposal
of the diseased wood is generally the greatest hardship in removing
a diseased tree. The trees are disposed ofin our tree burning
site operated under a Minnesota P. C.A. permit.
ALTERNATIVES :
1. Continue operating the Shade Tree Program.
a. discontinue stump removal in boulevards (this will
curtail reforestation because normally the old stump
must be removed prior to replanting. )
b. discontinue replanting new trees .
c. remove dead trees only as time permits. (a dead/dried
tree is much more difficult to cut with a chain saw. )
d. let dead trees stand.
e. raise the forestry professional services budget to
$10 , 000 in order to remove stumps , transfer .trees from
tree farm, and allow private tree contractors to
remove a portion of the anticipated heavy tree losses ,
allowing the Public Works Department to work on other
projects.
2. Require dead tree removal by adjacent property owner. (This
will create very negative cooperation by this community. )
3. Discontinue Shade Tree Program.
RECOMMENDATION:
Alternate #1 and # 1E, to continue operating the Shade Tree
Control Program, and raise the professional services budget to $10 , 000
to remove stumps, transfer the tree farm to the boulevards , and allow
contractor assistance on tree removal, if needed.
.. fes_
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
FEASIBILITY REPORT
HOLMES STREET BASIN
LATERALS
I hereby certify that this plan,specification,or report
— was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that am a duly Registered Professional
Engineer nder the Ia sof the State innesota.
Date " 2c Registr ion No. 13689
APRIL 1983
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
FEASIBILITY REPORT
HOLMES STREET BASIN
LATERALS
I hereby certify that this plan,specification,or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that am a duly Registered Professional
Engineer nder the la -"If the State • innesota.
Date `Z Registk. ion No. 13689
APRIL 1983
HOLMES STREET BASIN
LATERALS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIPTION PAGE NO2L
INTRODUCTION 1 - 22
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS , , , , , , 3 - 4
DESIGN CRITERIA 5 - 11
SPECIAL PROBLEMS , , , , , , , , , , , , 12
COST AND ASSESSMENTS . . , , , , , , _ , , , 13 - 16
APPENDIX A , , , , , , , , Al - A15
APPENDIX B B1 - B3
APPENDIX C. , , , , , , , , Cl - C15
APPENDIX D , , , , . . , , , , , , , , , D1 - D5
INTRODUCTION
IN MAY 1979, THE FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE REHABILITATION OF
HOLMES STREET FROM 1ST AVENUE TO 10TH AVENUE RECOMMENDED A DETAILED
ANALYSIS OF THE HOLMES STREET BASIN BECAUSE THE FEASIBILITY REPORT
ANALYZED ONLY THE HOLMES STREET TRUNK .
WHEN THE HOLMES STREET TRUNK WAS ANALYZED AND DESIGNED, IT WAS
ANALYZED AND DESIGNED FOR THE SAME RECURRENCE YEAR AS THE SYSTEMS
ON COUNTY ROAD 17 AND THE WEST SIDE STORM SEWER . THE DESIGN
RECURRENCE FOR THOSE SYSTEMS WAS FIVE YEARS .
A SUMMARY REVIEW WAS MADE OF THE COUNTY ROAD 17 STORM SEWER, THE
WEST SIDE STORM SEWER AND THE MARKET STREET STORM SEWER, IN ORDER
TO CONFIRM THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE HOLMES STREET BASIN SYSTEM TO
THESE SYSTEMS . DURING THAT ANALYSIS, IT BECAME OBVIOUS THAT THE
FIVE YEAR DESIGN OF THESE SYSTEMS WAS NOT THE SAME FIVE YEAR DESIGN
USED FOR THE HOLMES STREET LATERAL.
THE MOST IMPORTANT POLICY RECOMMENDATION THIS FEASIBILITY REPORT
MAKES IS THE RECOMMENDATION FOR ADOPTION OF A DESIGN CRITERIA USED
' TO ANALYZE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS IN THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE . THIS REPORT
EXPLAINS WHY THE EXISTING SYSTEMS LACK UNIFORMITY BY ILLUSTRATING
THE IMPACT OF ALTERING ELEMENTS IN THE DESIGN CRITERIA.
IN MAY 1980, THE ESTIMATED COST OF THE HOLMES STREET LATERALS WAS
$800, 000 . 00 . IN THREE YEARS, THAT COST HAS INCREASED TO AN
ESTIMATED $1, 003, 500. 00, AN INCREASE OF 25 . 5 PERCENT. THIS AMOUNT
HAS FOLLOWED THE CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX REPORTED IN ENGINEERING
NEWS-RECORD, THE MCGRAW-HILL CONSTRUCTION WEEKLY, WHICH SHOWS A
31 .6 PERCENT INCREASE FOR MINNEAPOLIS IN THE PERIOD FROM MAY 1980
TO MARCH 1983 AND NATION-WIDE AN INCREASE OF 27 . 5 PERCENT.
THE CURRENT CITY POLICY FOR ASSESSMENT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEMS
WOULD RESULT IN AN ASSESSMENT OF APPROXIMATELY $500 ,00 PER LOT FOR
THE HOLMES STREET BASIN LATERALS . THIS AMOUNT IS OVER AND ABOVE
THE $267 . 77 LEVIED AS A PART OF THE TRUNK COST. THE COST AND
ASSESSMENT SECTION OF THIS REPORT WILL SUGGEST AN ALTERNATIVE
ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUE THAT WOULD FUND THE PROJECT WITH USER FEES
BILLED MONTHLY . THE SECTION WILL ALSO DISCUSS THE POTENTIAL PROBLEMS
THE CITY WOULD ENCOUNTER IF USER FEES WERE UTILIZED TO FUND THIS WORK .
-1-
ALL OF THE ASSESSMENT DATA IS BASED ON A 5-YEAR RECURRENCE DESIGN .
ANY REVISION MADE TO THE ATTACHED DESIGN CRITERIA WOULD HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT AFFECT ON THE COST OF THE PROJECT AND THE AMOUNT OF
ASSESSMENTS .
-2-
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DESIGN RECURRENCE YEAR . THE REPORT ANALYZED THE HOLMES STREET
BASIN FOR A 5-YEAR RECURRENCE DESIGN . IN THE METRO AREA, DESIGN
REQUIREMENTS RANGE ,FROM A 10-YEAR RECURRENCE DESIGN TO NO SPECIFIC
REQUIREMENTS WHATSOEVER . NONE OF THE CITIES HAVE A GUIDE CRITERIA
TO GUARANTEE UNIFORMITY , JUDGING FROM THE POSITION AND NUMBER OF
INLETS OBSERVED IN MANY METROPOLITAN COMMUNITIES, NONE ARE AS
CONSERVATIVE IN DESIGN AS THE PROPOSED CRITERIA REQUIRES .
RESIDENTIAL AREAS DO NOT NEED A 5-YEAR RECURRENCE DESIGN . A 2-
YEAR RECURRENCE DESIGN WILL PREVENT MOST DAMAGE TO PUBLIC FACILITIES,
INCLUDING THE STORM SEWER ITSELF . A 10-YEAR RECURRENCE DESIGN
IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE INDUSTRIAL-COMMERCIAL AREAS, BUT IN NO
CASE SHOULD IT BE LESS THAN A 5-YEAR RECURRENCE DESIGN ,
THE QUESTION OF DESIGNN CRITERIA SHOULD BE DISCUSSED BY THE
DEVELOPERS, CONTRACTORS, THE PUBLIC, THE INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL
COMMISSION, THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL . OUT OF THAT
DISCUSSION, ALTERATIONS SHOULD BE MADE TO THE CRITERIA. THIS
REPORT CAN INCORPORATE ANY NECESSARY REVISIONS SO THAT THE WORK
MAY PROCEED ,
FUNDING . THE PROPOSED STORM SEWER UTILITY BILL WHICH WOULD
CREATE A STORM SEWER SYSTEM ENTERPRISE FUND IS THE MOST PROMISING
FINANCING ALTERNATIVE , THE OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED STUMBLED
WITH HIGH TAXES OR FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE BENEFIT , THE ALTERNATIVE
IS NOT WITHOUT ITS PROBLEMS, BECAUSE IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO
REPLACE THE COMPUTER AT SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES OR THE CITY WOULD
HAVE TO GET INTO THE BUSINESS OF BILLING SEWER, GARBAGE AND STORM
DRAINAGE .
IT IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THIS REPORT THAT THE CITY BE PREPARED
TO UTILIZE THE STORM DRAINAGE ENTERPRISE FUND FOR FINANCING THE
HOLMES STREET BASIN LATERALS .
THE PROBLEM OF BILLING A STORM DRAINAGE USER FEE COULD BE A SERIOUS
IMPEDIMENT . THEREFORE, IT IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THIS REPORT
THAT A JOINT COMMITTEE FROM SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES AND THE CITY
-3-
INVESTIGATE THE FEASIBILITY OF UPGRADING THE SHAKOPEE PUBLIC
UTILITY COMMISSION COMPUTER SO THAT THE CITY COULD UTILIZE THE
SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITY FACILITIES FOR BILLING A STORM DRAINAGE
USER FEE ,
-4-
DESIGN CRITERIA
THE TYPE OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM AND THE COST OF THE SYSTEM DEPENDS
ON THE DESIGN CRITERIA FOR ANALYSIS . LISTED BELOW ARE SIX (6)
MAJOR ELEMENTS OF THE DESIGN CRITERIA USED TO ANALYZE THE REQUIRE-
- MENTS FOR THE HOLMES STREET BASIN LATERALS :
1 . RUNOFF ANALYSIS WAS BASED UPON PROPOSED LAND USE .
THE ANALYSIS OF STORM RUNOFF FROM EXISTING DEVELOPED
AREAS LYING WITHIN THE BASIN WERE BASED UPON PRESENT
ZONING AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES .
2. THE PROBABLE FUTURE FLOW PATTERN WAS BASED ON
EXISTING NATURAL TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES (EXISTING
SLOPES, DRAINAGEWAYS, ETC . ) .
3 . AVERAGE LAND SLOPES IN BOTH DEVELOPED AND UNDE-
VELOPED AREAS WERE USED IN COMPUTING RUNOFF . FOR
AREAS IN WHICH DRAINAGE PATTERNS AND SLOPES WERE
ESTABLISHED, THOSE WERE UTILIZED.
4 , FLOWS AND VELOCITIES WHICH WOULD OCCUR AT A DESIGN
POINT WHEN THE UPSTREAM AREA WAS FULLY DEVELOPED
WERE CONSIDERED . DRAINAGE FACILITIES WERE SO
DESIGNED THAT SUCH INCREASED FLOWS AND VELOCITIES
WOULD NOT CAUSE EROSION DAMAGE ,
5 , STREETS WERE NOT USED AS FLOODWAYS FOR THE INITIAL
STORM RUNOFF . THE PRIMARY USE OF STREETS IS FOR
THE CONVEYANCE OF TRAFFIC ,
B . THE OUTFALL POINTS WERE PROPOSED IN SUCH A MANNER
THAT THEY WOULD NOT CREATE FLOODING HAZARDS DOWN-
STREAM.
MODIFYING THE REQUIREMENTS OF ONE ELEMENT OF THE DESIGN CRITERIA
FOR ANALYSIS RESULTS IN A DRAMATIC DIFFERENCE IN THE DRAINAGE
SYSTEM.
AN EXAMPLE OF THAT DIFFERENCE CAN BE SEEN IN THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLES
OF THREE (3) DIFFERENT DESIGNS WHERE ONE ELEMENT OF THE DESIGN
CRITERIA FOR ANALYSIS IS IGNORED, DRAWINGS OF THE EXAMPLES ARE
IN APPENDIX A.
-5-
DESIGN 1. THE DESIGN THAT CONFORMS TO THE DESIGN CRITERIA
ABOVE AND SOME ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS LISTED BELOW :
A) IF FLOW IN SHUMWAY STREET IS NOT COLLECTED AT
7TH AVENUE, IT WILL BYPASS AND OVERLOAD AN
ALREADY OVERLOADED SYSTEM.
B) MITIGATE POTENTIAL DAMAGE IN THE CENTRAL. BUSINESS
DISTRICT, AS A RESULT OF AN INITIAL STORM.
C) UTILIZE STREETS THAT ARE IN THE WORST CONDITIONS
AND TARGETED FOR RECONSTRUCTION TO MINIMIZE
RESTORATION COST ,
D) UTILIZE STREETS WHERE OTHER UNDERGROUND WORK IS
NECESSARY .
E ) OPTIMIZE PARTICIPATION OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS IN
THE COST OF THE STORM SEWER ,
DESIGN 2. THIS DESIGN CONFORMS TO THE DESIGN CRITERIA FOR
ANALYSIS, EXCEPT THAT ELEMENT 5 OF THAT CRITERIA IS IGNORED
FOR THE FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS OF LOCAL AND COLLECTOR
STREETS . THE FIVE (5) ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS LISTED
ABOVE IN DESIGN 1, ARE ALSO IGNORED .
DESIGN 3. THIS DESIGN CONFORMS TO THE DESIGN CRITERIA FOR
ANALYSIS, EXCEPT THAT ELEMENT 5 OF THAT CRITERIA IS IGNORED
FOR ALL STREETS, REGARDLESS OF FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
AND THE ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS LISTED ABOVE IN DESIGN 1,
ARE ALSO IGNORED .
DESIGN 2 AND 3 ABOVE, WHILE GIVING A PROMISING ALTERNATIVE FOR
CONTROLLING THE COST OF STORM SEWER SYSTEMS, HAVE LEGAL PROBLEMS .
_ THE OMITTED ELEMENT OF THE DESIGN CRITERIA FOR ANALYSIS SHOULD NOT
BE OMITTED BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE GENERAL
PUBLIC . THE GENERAL PUBLIC DOES NOT EXPECT TO HAVE THE STREETS
INUNDATED DURING INITIAL STORM RUNOFF . THE GENERAL PUBLIC HAS
THAT EXPECTATION BECAUSE REASONABLE AND ORDINARY ENGINEERING
PRACTICE PROVIDES A DRAINAGE SYSTEM THAT REMOVES THIS SURFACE
WATER FROM THE INITIAL STORM.
ACCORDING TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, THE CITY WOULD BE LIABLE FOR DAMAGE
ATTRIBUTED TO THESE SURFACE WATERS FROM THE INITIAL STORM=
-6-
MORE SUBTLE DIFFERENCES CAN BE NOTED WHEN THE MAGNITUDE OF THE
DESIGN STORM IS ALTERED, THE DRAWINGS IN APPENDIX B ILLUSTRATE
THE DIFFERENCE ACHIEVED BY MODIFYING THE MAGNITUDE OF THE DESIGN
STORM.
THE FOLLOWING TABLE WAS PREPARED FROM THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION PUBLICATION T. P . 40 . IT LISTS THE
DIFFERENCE IN PRECIPITATION FOR RECURRENCE YEARS NOTED,
30-MINUTE PRECIPITATION
RECURRENCE TOTAL 30-MINUTE
YEAR PRECIPITATION_
1 0 .93
2 1 , 12
5 1 , 45
10 1 ,68
25 2. 49
50 2.69
100 2. 09
THERE IS NO SPECIFIC CORRELATION BETWEEN THE TOTAL PRECIPITATION
NOTED ABOVE AND THE COST OF THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM, EXCEPT THAT THERE
IS OBVIOUSLY GREATER EXPENSE TO CAPTURE A GREATER VOLUME OF SURFACE
WATER . EACH DRAINAGE SYSTEM HAS A SPECIFIC COST RELATED TO THE
TOPOGRAPHY AND CONTOURS AND LAND USE IN A GIVEN AREA .
IN APPENDIX C, IS A COPY OF PROPOSED DESIGN CRITERIA FOR STORM
DRAINAGE DESIGN . THAT CRITERIA CONTROLS THE COST OF A PROJECT .
THAT CRITERIA LEAVES FEW CHOICES ON WHAT IS IN AND WHAT IS OUT .
IT SPECIFIES A MINIMUM SYSTEM. THE COST OF THE PROJECT IS CONTROLLED
BY THE ELEMENTS IN THE DESIGN CRITERIA . THE PRECEDING EXAMPLES
SHOW THAT THE SIX BASIC ELEMENTS OF THE ANALYSIS ARE SOMEWHAT
SACRED UNLESS THE CITY IS WILLING TO ASSUME LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES
RESULTING FROM SURFACE WATER RUNOFF ,
BASED ON THE ANALYSIS ABOVE, THE ONLY ELEMENT OF THE DESIGN THAT
CAN BE SAFELY MODIFIED IS THE DESIGN YEAR . ANY OTHER COMPROMISE
WILL RESULT IN FUTURE PROBLEMS . ALTERING THE DESIGN YEAR HAS A
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON SAFETY, PROPERTY DAMAGE AND CONVENIENCE .
-7-
THERE IS NO MAGIC FORMULA THAT SPECIFIED WHAT IS SAFE AND REASONABLE
AND WHAT IS NOT . AT A MINIMUM, REASONABLE ENGINEERING PRACTICE
WOULD PROVIDE AN INITIAL STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGNED FOR A 1-YEAR
RECCURENCE . ANY LESSER SYSTEM WOULD CAUSE SEVERE SAFETY PROBLEMS
WHERE WATER WOULD INUNDATE COLLECTOR AND ARTERIAL STREETS AND THE
FLOW OF SURFACE WATER IN THE CURB WOULD BE DEEP AND HAVE A DANGEROUS
VELOCITY , THE FLOW OF SURFACE WATER WOULD OVERTOP THE CURB AND
HAVE POTENTIAL FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE OUTSIDE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY .
PEDESTRIANS AND AUTOMOBILES WOULD BE INCONVENIENCED BY THE FLOW
OF SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF SURFACE WATER LONG AFTER THE STORM HAD
RECEDED.
AT A MAXIMUM, REASONABLE ENGINEERING PRACTICE WOULD PROVIDE AN
INITIAL STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGNED FOR A 10-YEAR RECURRENCE . THIS
SYSTEM IS MORE SUITABLE IN A COMMERCIAL AREA WHERE PEDESTRIAN AND
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC MUST MOVE SAFELY AND CONVENIENTL`( WITHOUT DAMAGE ,
THIS IS NOT DESIGN APPROPRIATE FOR A RESIDENTIAL AREA WHERE
OCCASIONAL CURB OVERTOPPING DURING THE LIFE OF A PROJECT IS
ACCEPTABLE .
THE CITY MAY TAKE SEVERAL APPROACHES TO ESTABLISHING THE CRITERIA
OR THE DESIGN RECURRENCE YEAR FOR THE STORM SEWER DESIGN , LISTED
BELOW ARE TWO OF THE ALTERNATIVES THAT ARE MOST OFTEN USED TO
DETERMINE THE DESIGN RECURRENCE YEAR FOR STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS .
1 . COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS, PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA
STATUTES CHAPTER 112 FOR WATERSHED DISTRICTS ,
2 . THE CRITERIA FOR DESIGN IS BASED ON WHAT HAS
_ EMPIRICALLY BEEN THE CRITERIA THAT PROVIDES SAFETY
AND CONVENIENCE WHILE REDUCING POTENTIAL PROPERTY
DAMAGE .
THE ANALYSIS PROPOSED BY ALTERNATE 1, IS THE TRADITIONAL COST-
- BENEFIT RATIO THAT HAS BEEN USED TO JUSTIFY PROJECTS EVER SINCE
THERE WERE PROJECTS TO JUSTIFY . As USED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 112,
THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURE IS FOLLOWED. THE COST OF POTENTIAL PROPERTY
DAMAGE, SAFETY HAZARDS AND INCONVENIENCE ARE QUANTIFIED, VALUATED,
AND PLOTTED AGAINST RECURRENCE YEAR . THE COST OF STORM DRAINAGE
-8-
SYSTEMS ARE ANALYZED, VALUATED AND PLOTTED AGAINST RECURRENCE
YEAR . WHEN THE COST OF THE SYSTEM FALLS BELOW THE VALUE OF THE
DAMAGE, THE PROJECT IS FEASIBLE AND IS CONSTRUCTED . OTHERWISE,
THE PROJECT IS ABANDONED UNTIL SUFFICIENT DAMAGE HAS BEEN RECOG-
NIZED OR UNTIL THERE IS SUFFICIENT CHANGE IN THE BASIN TO WARRANT
A REVISED ANALYSIS .
THE ANALYSIS PROPOSED IN ALTERNATE 2, IS A SCIENTIFIC APPROACH
USING THE EXPERIENCE OF ENGINEERS TO PROVIDE A SYSTEM THAT WOULD
WORK WHILE CAREFULLY AVOIDING THE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PROBLEM OF
SUSTAINING A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT .
LISTED BELOW ARE SOME ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES FOR BOTH
ALTERNATE 1 AND ALTERNATE 2 :
ALTERNATE 1
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
1 , THE TERM COST-BENEFIT 1 . AREAS WITH HIGH VALUATION HAVE
CARRIES ITS OWN AN ADVANTAGE OVER AREAS WITH LOW
JUSTIFICATION . VALUATION BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL
FOR BENEFIT; HENCE, AREAS WITH
2. ASSESSMENTS ARE GUARANTEED HIGH VALUATION ARE MORE LIKELY
BECAUSE A POSITIVE BENEFIT TO RECEIVE THE CITY'S SHARE OF
TEST IS ASSURED . SYSTEM COSTS .
3. CRITERIA IS LESS LIKELY TO 2, BLIGHTED AREAS WILL REMAIN UN-
RESULT IN AN OVERBUILT IMPROVED .
SYSTEM.
3 , THERE WILL BE POOR COMPATIBILITY
4 , THE ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE IS OF DRAINAGE SYSTEMS BECAUSE OF
SUITABLE FOR MAJOR DRAINAGE THE VARIETY OF DESIGN CRITERIA .
SYSTEMS BECAUSE IT IS THE
TECHNIQUE MANDATED FOR 44 . MAINTENANCE, USUALLY UNDER-
_ WATERSHED DISTRICTS UNDER ESTIMATED, WILL BE HIGHER FOR
MINNESOTA STATUTES CHAPTER PUBLIC FACILITIES AND DRAINAGE
112. SYSTEMS .
5 , CRITERIA CAUSES UNCERTAINTY FOR
DEVELOPERS BECAUSE THE DESIGN
REQUIREMENTS CANNOT BE SPECIFIED
WITHOUT DETAILED ANALYSIS, THUS
CONSUMING BOTH TIME AND MONEY .
-9-
ALTERNATE 2
EMPIRICALLY ESTABLISH
RECURRENCE YEAR
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
1 . SERVICE TO ALL PROPERTY IS 1 . ASSESSMENTS ARE USUALLY DIFFICULT
EQUIVALENT WITH NO DISTINC- TO PROVE BECAUSE BENEFIT IS OFTEN
TION MADE REGARDING PROPERTY BASED ON SOCIAL COSTS OR VAGUE
VALUE . COSTS RELATED TO SAFETY OR CONVENI-
ENCE .
2. RECURRENCE YEAR ESTABLISHED
TO MINIMIZE MAINTENANCE OF 2. SEGMENTS OF THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM
THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM AND MAY BE OVERBUILT .
PUBLIC FACILITIES .
3 . THE ENTIRE DRAINAGE SYSTEM
IS COMPATABLE BECAUSE OF
THE UNIFORMITY OF DESIGN
RECURRENCE YEAR ,
4 . THE CRITERIA IS SUITABLE FOR ALL
_ DRAINAGE SYSTEMS REGARDLESS
OF SIZE .
5 . CLEAR GUIDELINES EXIST FOR
DEVELOPERS BECAUSE DESIGN
REQUIREMENTS ARE SPECIFIED,
THUS SAVING BOTH TIME AND
MONEY .
SINCE THIS FEASIBILITY REPORT IS PREPARED BY AN ENGINEER, THE
PRECEDING ANALYSIS IS PROBABLY BIASED TOWARD ALTERNATIVE 2. EVEN
THOUGH THE ADVANTAGES OF ALTERNATE 2 OUTNUMBER THE ADVANTAGES OF
ALTERNATE 1, ONE CANNOT OVERLOOK THE FACT THAT ALTERNATE 1 IS THE
ONLY ALTERNATIVE THAT IS ALWAYS FEASIBLE .
WITHOUT BEING FACETIOUS, ALTERNATE 2 IS THE QUALITY OF LIFE ALTERNA-
TIVE BECUASE ALTERNATE 2 MITIGATES SOME OF THE MOST BOTHERSOME
PROBLEMS CREATED BY SURFACE WATERS .
-10-
AS AN EXAMPLE, CONCRETE SWALES, PARTICULARLY THE SWALES ON COLLECTOR
AND ARTERIAL STREETS, ARE A NUISANCE TO MOST CITIZENS . SOME ARE
WORTH THE FRONT-END OF MORE THAN ONE CAR . THE VALUE OF ELIMINATING
THESE SWALES WITH UNDERGROUND PIPING CAN BE COMPUTED, BUT THE
DAMAGE TO THE QUALITY OF LIFE, THE CARS, THE FRONT-ENDS, THE
BICYCLES, CANNOT BE COMPUTED REASONABLE AND ACCURATELY . THEREFORE,
THESE FACTORS ARE ABSENT FROM A CONSIDERATION OF COST-BENEFIT FOR
ALTERNATIVE 2.
THE PRINCIPAL POLICY RECOMMENDATION OF THIS FEASIBILITY REPORT, IS
THE RECOMMENDATION THAT CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE ATTACHED DESIGN
CRITERIA IN ITS PRESENT OR MODIFIED FORM. THE DECISION WILL HAVE
A LONG TERM IMPACT BECAUSE IT WILL SET THE STANDARDS FOR FUTURE
CONSTRUCTION AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT COST . THE DECISION SHOULD
BE MADE AFTER INPUT FROM DEVELOPERS, THE PUBLIC, THE INDUSTRIAL
COMMERCIAL COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION . MOST IMPORTANT,
THE DECISION SHOULD BE MADE .
-11-
SPECIAL PROBLEMS
THERE IS A 10 , 373 ACRE AREA IN THE PRESENT HOLMES STREET BASIN
BOUNDARY THAT HAS BEEN ASSESSED FOR TRUNK SERVICE , NOW, THE
DETAILED ANALYSIS PROPOSES THAT THE PROPERTY BE SERVED WITH A
LATERAL FROM THE MARKET STREET STORM SEWER AT 7TH AVENUE AT A
SIGNIFICANT SAVINGS .
THE ORIGINAL REPORT MISSED THIS ALTERNATIVE BECAUSE THE CITY-WIDE
STORM SEWER MAP WAS COMPILED AND PREPARED EIGHT MONTHS AFTER
THE ORIGINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT WAS COMPLETED ,
THE PROPOSED WORK CONSISTS OF INSTALLING FOUR CATCH BASINS AND
CONNECTING THEM TO AN EXISTING STORM SEWER . THE ESTIMATED COST
WILL BE LESS THAN $12, 000 . 00 . THE CITY HAS ASSESSED THOSE PROPERTIES
$14,160 . 70 FOR THE HOLMES STREET TRUNK , LHE PROPERTIES WOULD
NOT BE SERVED BY THE HOLMES STREET TRUNK IF THE PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED
WORK WAS COMPLETED,
THERE ARE TWO ALTERNATIVES FOR CORRECTING THIS PROBLEM:
1 . ABATE THE ASSESSMENTS AND REASSESS THE CATCH BASIN
CONSTRUCTION AFTER THE WORK HAS BEEN COMPLETED .
2. CONSTRUCT THE CATCH BASINS AND ABATE THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE COST OF THE CATCH BASINS AND THE AMOUNT
PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED,
ALTERNATE 1, ABATING THE ASSESSMENT AND REASSESSING THE CATCH
BASIN CONSTRUCTION AFTER THE WORK HAS BEEN COMPLETED) IS THE MOST
EQUITABLE ALTERNATIVE AND IT IS THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE .
__12_
COST AND ASSESSMENTS
THE ESTIMATED COST OF THE HOLMES STREET BASIN SYSTEM, IS BASED
ON A 5-YEAR RECURRENCE DESIGN , ALTERATIONS MADE TO THE DESIGN
CRITERIA WOULD IMPACT THESE COMPUTATIONS ,
DETAILED ESTIMATES OF THE HOLMES STREET BASIN LATERALS ARE IN
APPENDIX A. THE TOTAL COST OF THE SYSTEM IS ESTIMATED TO BE
$1, 003, 500 , 00
THE CITY SHOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF THE MATCHING SHARE
COST BECAUSE MUCH OF THE LATERAL SYSTEM SERVES A COUNTY ROAD.
THE MATCHING SHARE OF ELEMENTS THAT SERVES A COUNTY ROAD SHOULD
BE PAID FOR BY THE COUNTY , THE ESTIMATED COUNTY SHARE WOULD BE
SUBSTANTIAL . BASED ON THE MN/DOT FORMULA, THE ESTIMATED COUNTY
SHARE WOULD BE $269, 300 . 00 . THIS IS MORE THAN THE $28,651 . 02
PAID BY THE COUNTY FOR THE HOLMES STREET TRUNK , THE ESTIMATES
OF THE COUNTY SHARE IS GREATER BECAUSE MORE PIPES ARE LOCATED
ALONG COUNTY ROADS . THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT THE COUNTY IS RESPONSIBLE
FOR IS BASED ON A 5-YEAR RECURRENCE DESIGN . ANY ALTERATION MADE
TO THE DESIGN CRITERIA WOULD ALTER THE ESTIMATED COUNTY SHARE ,
CITY STAFF HAS NOT DISCUSSED THE COUNTY SHARE OF CONSTRUCTION COST
AND WILL NOT UNTIL THERE IS A SPECIFIC ALTERNATIVE .
THE COUNTY SHARE WOULD BE USED TO REDUCE THE CITY SHARE OR LEVY
FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION .
AN EVALUATION OF THE BENEFIT, PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES
CHAPTER 429 RESULTING FROM THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS SYSTEM, WAS
PERFORMED FOR THE TRUNK ELEMENT OF THIS SYSTEM. THAT BENEFIT WAS
APPROXIMATELY $200 . 00 PER LOT . THE TRUNK ASSESSMENT WAS $267 .77
PER LOT , THAT ASSESSMENT HAS CONSUMED THE BENEFIT RESULTING FROM
A COMPLETE STORM SEWER SYSTEM, INCLUDING LATERALS .
THE CITY IS IN A DIFFICULT POSITION BECAUSE THE CITY STREETS ARE
DETERIORATING MORE RAPIDLY BECAUSE SURFACE WATER IS SATURATING
THE SUBGRADE BECAUSE IT IS NOT REMOVED. REMOVING THE SURFACE
WATER WITH UNDERGROUND PIPING IS EXPENSIVE, BUT THE ALTERNATIVE
TO UNDERGROUND PIPING RESULTS IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF CONCRETE
SWALES AT EVERY CROSS STREET, WHICH ARE A NUISANCE TO MOST CITIZENS ,
-13-
CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONCRETE SWALE IS NO SMALL ITEM, THE SWALE
THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO REPLACE THE UNDERGROUND PIPING WILL
COST APPROXIMATELY $280,000 . 00 TO CONSTRUCT . THAT AMOUNT IS
37 .7 PERCENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION COST OF THE UNDERGROUND SYSTEM.
FUNDING THIS PROJECT IS A PROBLEM BECAUSE OF THE BENEFIT TEST
REQUIRED BY MINNESOTA STATUTES CHAPTER 429 , ASSUMING THAT THE
ASSESSMENT WILL BE CONTROVERSIAL, IF NOT OUT OF THE QUESTION, THE
CITY MAY USE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ALTERNATIVES :
1 . THE CITY COULD PROPOSE A REFERENDUM EXPLAINING THE
ALTERNATIVES TO THE UNDERGROUND SYSTEM; SUCH AS
CONCRETE SWALES AND OTHER SURFACE FACILITIES .
2. THE CITY COULD PROCEED WITH THE PROJECT AND LEVY
LATERAL ASSESSMENTS WITH THE EXPECTATIONS THAT
THE RESIDENTS WOULD PREFER THE UNDERGROUND SYSTEM
TO THE SURFACE FACILITIES .
3. THE CITY COULD WAIT FOR THE PASSAGE IN THIS SESSION
OF THE LEGISLATURE OF A BILL THAT MAKES STORM
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS A UTILITY , IF THE STORM DRAINAGE
SYSTEM WAS A UTILITY, IT COULD BE CONSTRUCTED AND
MANAGED AS THE OTHER CITY ENTERPRISE FUNDS WHERE
USER FEES PAY FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE .
THE REFERENDUM SUGGESTED ABOVE WOULD BE A HARD-FOUGHT BATTLE . THE
LEVY REQUIRED TO FUND THE PROJECT WOULD AMOUNT TO 9 . 2 MILS ,
SINCE THE CITY'S PRESENT LEVY IS TIED FOR FIRST HIGHEST IN THE
METROPOLITAN AREA, THE ADDITIONAL 9 . 2 MILS WOULD BE DIFFICULT
FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TO PAY . THEREFORE, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER,
FUNDING ALTERNATIVE 1 HAS NO FEASIBILITY .
FUNDING ALTERNATIVE 2, IS SIMILAR TO THE PROCESS NOW USED BY THE
CITY FOR MOST IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS , WHEREBY THE PROJECT IS BID.
ONCE THE CITY IS IN RECEIPT OF ACTUAL COSTS FOR THE PROJECT, AN
ASSESSMENT HEARING IS HELD AND THEN PROVIDED THERE ARE FEW APPEALS,
THE PROJECT IS CONSTRUCTED ,
THE DESIGN WORK FOR THE HOLMES STREET BASIN LATERALS WILL COST
APPROXIMATELY $48, 000 . 00 THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO PUT THAT MONEY
AT RISK BECAUSE THE PROJECT IS NOT FEASIBLE, UNLESS THERE ARE A
-14-
MINIMAL NUMBER OF APPEALS . As PREVIOUSLY NOTED IN THIS REPORT,
THE PROJECT IS NOT FEASIBLE BECAUSE OF THE BENEFIT TEST REQUIRED
BY MINNESOTA STATUTES CHAPTER 429 ,
FUNDING ALTERNATIVE 3, IS PERHAPS THE ONLY FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE
AND THIS FUNDING ALTERNATIVE IS CONTINGENT UPON PASSAGE OF AN
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 444, MINNESOTA STATUTES 1982.
IN APPENDIX D, I HAVE ATTACHED A COPY OF A POSITION PAPER FROM
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, ALONG WITH A COPY OF THE BILL INTRODUCED)
AS SENATE FILE No . 219 , THIS MATERIAL_ HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO
COUNCIL AND COUNCIL IS ON RECORD SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT .
THE AMENDMENT ENABLES THE CITY TO ESTABLISH A STORM SEWER ENTERPRISE
FUND SUPPORTED BY USER FEES . THE CITY COULD THEN FINANCE STORM
SEWER MAINTENANCE, RECONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT FROM THAT FUND .
IN THE TABLE BELOW, THE ESTIMATED MONTHLY USER FEE HAS BEEN
COMPUTED, BASED ON AN ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT OF $499 . 11 FOR AN
AVERAGE 142 FOOT X 60 FOOT LOT .
STORM SEWER USER FEE
FOR
HOLMES STREET BASIN LATERALS
MONTHLY
TERM (YEARS) INTEREST RATE (%) USER FEE
10 11 . 5 $7 . 21
10 9 . 5 6 ,62
15 11 . 5 5 , 95
15 9 , 5 5 . 31
20 11 , 5 5 . 40
20 9 . 5 4 . 72
THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION FOR INTEREST RATE AND TERM WOULD BE MADE
WHEN THE SCOPE OF THE WORK HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
THIS ALTERNATIVE IS NOT WITHOUT ITS PROBLEMS . SHAKOPEE PUBLIC
UTILITIES WOULD BE UNABLE TO ADD THE STORM SEWER UTILITY CHARGE
TO THE UTILITY BILLS . THE SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
COMPUTER IS AT CAPACITY .
-15-
LOGIS COULD HANDLE THE BILLING, BUT IT WOULD BE TOO INEFFICIENT
TO HAVE TWO CITY DEPARTMENTS MAILING MONTHLY BILLS TO THE SAME
PEOPLE , LOGIS IS DEVELOPING AN ELECTRIC SERVICE BILLING SYSTEM,
BUT THAT WILL NOT BE ON LINE UNTIL LATE SUMMER OR EARLY FALL : SO
SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COULD NOT CONVERT TO LOGIS IMMEDIATELY
ANYWAY .
-16-
APPENDIX A
DESIGN 1
Cumulative
Work Description Cost Cost
(1) 48 Inch RCP - 380 Feet $ 25 , 840. 00
3 LP Catch Basins .with Leads 6 , 300. 00
Restoration 3 , 880. 00
1 Manhole 1 , 100 . 00
$37 , 120. 00
10% Construction Contingency 3 , 712 . 00
25% Technical Services & Admn . 9 , 280. 00
$ 50 , 112 . 00 $ 50 , 112 . 00
(2) 36 Inch RCp - 190 Feet $ 9, 500.00
2 LP Catch Basins with Leads 4 , 200. 00
Restoration 2 , 240 . 00
1 Manhole $ 1 , 100. 00
$ 17 ,040. 00
10% Construction Contingency 1 , 704. 00
25% Technical Services & Admn . 4 , 260 . 00
$ 23 ,004 . 00 $ 73 , 116 . 00
(3) 36 Inch RCP - 380 Feet $ 19 , 000 . 00
2 LP Catch Basins with Leads 4 , 200.00
Restoration 3 , 680. 00
1 Manhole 1 , 100. 00
$ 27 , 980. 00
10% Construction Contingency 2 , 798 . 00
25% Technical Services & Admn. 6 , 995 . 00
$ 37 , 773 . 00 $110 ,889 . 00
(4) 27 Inch RCP - 380 Feet $ 14 , 060. 00
2 LP Catch Basins with Leads 4 , 200. 00
Restoration 3 , 680 . 00
1 Manhole 1 , 100 . 00
$ 23 , 040 . 00
10% Construction Contingency 2 , 304 . 00
25% Technical Services & Admn . 5 , 760 . 00
$ 31 , 104 . 00 $141 , 993 . 00
A-1
Cumulative
Work Description Cost Cost
(5) 27 Inch RCP - 380 Feet $ 14 , 060 . 00
4 LP Catch Basins with Leads 6 , 100. 00
Restoration 3 , 680. 00
1 Manhole 1 , 100. 00
$ 24, 940. 00
10% Construction Contingency 2 ,494 . 00
25% Technical Services & Admn. 6 , 235 . 00
$ 33 , 669. 00 $175 , 662 . 00
(6) 24 Inch RCP - 380 Feet $ 11 ,400 . 00
2 LP Catch Basins with Leads 4 , 200 . 00
Restoration 3 , 680. 00
1 Manhole 1 , 100 . 00
$ 20 , 380 . 00
10% Construction Contingency 2 , 038 . 00
25% Technical Services & Admn. 5 , 095 . 00
$ 27 , 513 . 00 $203 , 175 . 00
(7) 21 Inch RCP - 380 Feet $ 9 , 120. 00
2 LP Catch Basins with Leads 4 , 200 . 00
Restoration 3 , 680. 00
1 Manhole 1 , 100. 00
$ 18 , 100 . 00
10'/a Construction Contingency 1 , 810. 00
25% Technical Services & Admn. 4 , 525 . 00
$ 24 ,435 . 00 $227 , 610 . 00
(8) 24 Inch RCP - 380 Feet $ 11 ,400. 00
4 LP Catch Basins with Leads 6 , 100. 00
Restoration 3 , 680. 00
1 Manhole 1 , 100. 00
$ 22 , 280. 00
10% Construction Contingency 2 , 228 . 00
25% Technical Services & Admn. 5 , 570 . 00
$ 30 , 078 . 00 $257 , 688 . 00
A-2
Cumulative
Work Description Cost 'Cost
(9) 33 Inch RCP - 380 Feet $ 17 , 100. 00
2 LP Catch Basins with Leads 4 , 200. 00
Restoration 3 , 680 . 00
1 Manhole 1 , 100 . 00
$ 26 , 080. 00
10% Construction Contingency 2 , 608 . 00
25% Technical Services & Admn. 6 , 520. 00
$ 35 , 208 . 00 $ 35 , 208 . 00
(10) 18 Inch RCP - 380 Feet $ 8 , 740 . 00
2 LP Catch Basins with Leads 4 , 200 . 00
Restoration 3 , 680 . 00
1 Manhole 1 , 100 . 00
$ 17 , 720 . 00
10% Construction Contingency 1 , 772 . 00
25% Technical Services & Admn. 4 ,430 . 00
$ 23 , 922 . 00 $ 59 , 130. 00
(11)30 Inch RCP - 380 Feet $ 15 , 960. 00
2 LP Catch Basins with Leads 4 , 200. 00
Restoration 3 , 680. 00
1 Manhole 1 , 100. 00
$ 24 , 940 . 00
10% Construction Contingency 2 , 494 . 00
25% Technical Services & Admn. 6 , 235 . 00
$ 33 , 669. 00 $ 92 , 799 . 00
(12) 18 Inch RCP - 380 Feet $ 8 , 740. 00
2 LP Catch Basins with Leads 4 , 200. 00
Restoration 3 , 680. 00
1 Manhole 1 , 100. 00
$ 17 , 720 . 00
10% Construction Contingency 1 , 772 . 00
25% Technical Services & Admn . 4 ,430 . 00
$ 23 , 922 . 00 5116 , 721 . 00
A-3
Work Description Cost Cumulative
Cost
(13) 24 Inch RCP - 380 Feet $ 11 , 400. 00
2 LP Catch Basins with Leads 4 , 200 . 00
Restoration •
3 , 680. 00
1 Manhole 1 , 100 . 00
$ 20 , 380. 00
10% Construction Contingency 2 , 038 . 00
25% Technical Services & Admn . 5 , 095 . 00
$ 27 , 513 . 00 $144 , 234 . 00
(14) 27 Inch RCP - $ 14 , 060 . 00
2 LP Catch Basins with Leads 4 , 200 . 00
Restoration 3 , 680 . 00
1 Manhole 1 , 100. 00
$ 23 , 040 . 00
107 Construction Contingency 2 , 304. 00
25% Technical Services & Admn. 5 , 760 . 00
$ 31 , 104. 00 $175 , 338 . 00
(15) 21 Inch RCP - 380 Feet $ 9 , 120. 00
2 LP Catch Basins with Leads 4 , 200. 00
Restoration 3 , 680. 00
1 Manhole 1, 100. 00
$ 18 , 100. 00
10% Construction Contingency 1 , 810 . 00
25% Technical Services & Admn. 4 , 525 . 00
$ 24 , 435 . 00 $199 , 773 . 00
(16) 42 Inch RCP - 380 Feet $ 24 , 700 . 00
4 LP Catch Basins with Leads 6 , 100. 00
Restoration 3 , 680. 00
1 Manhole 1 , 100 . 00
Rock Excavation 9 , 290 . 00
$ 44 , 870. 00
10% Construction Contingency 4 ,487 . 00
257 Technical Services & Admn. 11 , 217 . 50
$ 60 , 574 . 50 $ 60 , 574. 50
A-4
Cumulative
Work Description 'Cost Cost
(17) 36 Inch RCP - 380 Feet $ 19 , 000. 00
4 LP Catch Basins with Leads 6 , 100. 00
Restoration 3 , 680. 00
1 Manhole 1 , 100 . 00
Rock Excavation 8 , 445 . 00
$ 38 , 325 . 00
10% Construction Contingency 3 , 832 . 50
25% Technical Services & Admn. 9 , 581 . 25
$ 51 , 738 . 75 $112 , 313 . 25
(18) 21 Inch RCP - 380 Feet $ 9 , 120. 00
2 LP Catch Basins with Leads 4 , 200. 00
Restoration 3 , 680 . 00
1 Manhole 1 , 100. 00
Rock Excavation 6 , 755 . 00
$ 24 , 855 . 00
10% Construction Contingency 2 , 485 . 50
25% Technical Services & Admn. 6 , 213 . 75
$ 33 , 554. 25 $145 ,867 . 50
(19) 42 Inch RCP - 20 Feet ,
30 Inch RCP - 360 Feet $ 16 ,420. 00
6 LP Catch Basins with Leads 10 , 300 . 00
Restoration 4 , 080. 00
1 Manhole 1 , 100. 00
Rock Excavation 4 , 225 . 00
$ 36 , 125 . 00
10% Construction Contingency 3 , 612 . 50
25% Technical Services & Admn. 9, 031 . 25
$ 48 , 768 . 75 $ 48 , 768 . 75
(20) 21 Inch RCP - 380 Feet $ 9 , 120. 00
5 LP Catch Basins with Leads 7 , 050 . 00
Restoration 3 , 680.00
1 Manhole 1 , 100. 00
$ 20 , 950. 00
10% Construction Contingency 2 , 095 . 00
25% Technical Services & Admn . 5 , 237 . 50
$ 28 , 282 . 50 $ 77 ,051. 25
A-5
Cumulative
Work Description Cost Cost
(21) 21 Inch RCP - 380 Feet $ 9 , 120. 00
2 LP Catch Basins with Leads 4 , 200. 00
Restoration 3 , 680. 00
1 Manhole 1 , 100. 00
$ 18 , 100 . 00
107 Construction Contingency 1 , 810 . 00
257 Technical Services & Admn. 4 , 509 . 25
$ 24 , 435 . 00 $101 ,470. 50
(22) 42 Inch RCP - 380 Feet $ 24 , 700. 00
4 LP Catch Basins with Leads 8 , 400. 00
Restoration 4 , 080. 00
1 Manhole 1 , 100 . 00
$ 38 , 280 . 00
107 Construction Contingency 3 , 828 . 00
25% Technical Services & Admn. 9 , 570 . 00
$ 51 , 678 . 00 $ 51 , 678 . 00
(23) 42 Inch RCP - 380 Feet $ 24 , 700. 00
4 LP Catch Basins with Leads 8 , 400 . 00
Restoration 4 , 080 . 00
1 Manhole 1 , 100. 00
$ 38 , 280. 00
10% Construction Contingency 3 , 828 . 00
25% Technical Services & Admn. 9 , 570. 00
$ 51 , 678 . 00 $103 , 356 . 00
(24) 36 Inch RCP - $ 19 , 000 . 00
4 LP Catch Basins with Leads 8 ,400 . 00
Restoration 4 ,080. 00
1 Manhole 1 , 100 . 00
.- $ 32 , 580. 00
10% Construction Contingency 3 , 258 . 00
25% Technical Services & Admn. 8 , 145 . 00
$ 43 , 983 . 00 $147 , 339 . 00
A-6
'Cumulative
fork Description Cost ' Cost
(25) 36 Inch RCP - 380 Feet $ 19 , 000. 00
2 LP Catch Basins with Leads 4 , 200. 00
Restoration 3 , 680. 00
1 Manhole 1 , 100 . 00
$ 27 , 980 . 00
10% Construction Contingency 2 , 798 . 00
25% Technical Services & Admn . 6 , 995 . 00
$ 37 , 773 . 00 $185 , 112 . 00
(26) 36 Inch RCP - $ 19 , 000 . 00
2 LP Catch Basins with Leads 4 , 200 . 00
Restoration 3 , 680. 00
1 Manhole 1 , 100. 00
$ 27 , 980. 00
10% Construction Contingency 2 , 798 . 00
25% Technical Services & Admn. 6 , 995 . 00
$ 37 , 773 . 00 $222 , 885 . 00
(27) 27 Inch RCP - 600 Feet $ 22 , 200. 00
4 LP Catch Basins with Leads 8 , 400. 00
Restoration 4 , 080. 00
1 Manhole 1, 100 . 00
$ 35 , 780. 00
10% Construction Contingency 3 , 578 .00
25% Technical Services & Admn . 8 , 945 . 00
$ 48 , 303 . 00 $271 , 188 . 00
(28) 24 Inch RCP - 380 Feet $ 11 , 400. 00
2 LP Catch Basins with Leads 4 , 200. 00
Restoration 3 , 680. 00
1 Manhole 1 , 100. 00
$ 20 , 380. 00
10% Construction Contingency 2 , 038 . 00
25% Technical Services & Admn. 5 , 095 . 00
$ 27 , 513 . 00 $298 , 701 . 00
A-7
TOTALS
1 - 8 $ 257 , 688 . 00
9 - 15 199 , 773 . 00
17 - 19 145 , 867 . 50
19 - 21 101 , 470 . 50
22 - 28 298 , 701 . 00
$1 , 003 , 500 . 00
A-8
,.. \
. �Vp
.. .
j
—04.41°6'
tt
ae ° i .. z4... v .r ,,. is f, ,.. . w» a � $ k,:m.A .
:«wn
.i . 1.,::"1.*. .:Ili.:
\ , it--.7.7:••• •
eh
q�� ( ew
ark, 1 .�.w.
tioo
# agoriv,,� i ,� ;
a.i i EI
2
„„,. .... \ ..... •:t......"..:(.;.w.,•• _ : — ,,,:. . . _ ,,r7i, t_.,,,A
I
M .6r
+ L rZ Vt., 4� Tr III «
•
, r:r....._., _.,
.mow
\ , -. '.' .Y: .-''.—'. '—.17- ., . . . .. r- ....- - ,
•e.i ..0..
_ . . .
.,...„.„
„,., - .: . ... .
-.• . ., ,,...•' 0, .
. ....„
,,..
• b - .- i . ,es. -
I
., .,„._
,., .. ,:
,, __•, ..\ ... ....
ۥ .
°. -ml\..1
,X:. A',.„ --- "., y�_ '” ' '
149”
„,„,„ .., ,.„.„ , :. „...... , ,. , 0
.,
, 6 „, , .. ,i•i. ....,, .5...... \ 46.:;„......„..„
Al1, , .._. : - ,... ..„_....::„. .. irtio, 1.17.,,,(0.4.....:,,,,,.051..i. ..: 1: rt,n.:. it. .".....*.,1.f, _11,1 .,cm›....e..... ;,....-...t,.
1k ‘ :•,,,,---1._ V,.....' .,..,.-. ,... ,,, 1, . ..,,,,i
t„ ,jl
g N ... . • \,........:;„....,rni
I .„
i
;
\ •. .. ---- : — 4 \i' '44 '44 ---44r.-i. '. • ''''''''''''''' r
\ i) '..,........•''... .'.”. ' A) . 1R
\ / • 4431, 1 '., '..,:1'..'., ... *: c'''''...'11.'"TC:...1..'
_ 4 .
=ii
=
I- ........".** iiiii.t ,,.. ....... ,FT-------------4,1
") , -
, imi,... . ,
1 1 -*-----0.- - ,. —1 L _ _ —
• ....... ....,..:.,,, , , ,,,.. ..,,,, , ,
11P41111111171‘itipq : II ::::::::• ::•. -/..: /.0.• i 4,,, fr or .... *'
iIIIMig&44 ' i ,—*" ...4 `'"'"''''''''''' ' ••••••••••fi.:::::: :::::: ••••• .•
,,,., =...:., ...A....‘. .. .4
i 1 0
. t 0
.... .. .. .....
- - - - ./ 4 ,,,,j_,_j„ :::•q...t31.:.::::::%:::::::::„,::::::•:•.:•:•5'....:..... .;:•.....:.,....-.-...
- - < - - 4 ' ... .................::::,:if......t:::::::.:::::::.::::::::::::::*?::::::.:::::::;::::::::.:i:i*:....iff.3iiii
r ,_
........................................::::::„....:::..:::::: ........................................................... , I
0§.
U1 4
•••••••••:::::::: ::::::if::::::••.;:....."...•'•••:•••••••••-••%.........•:••:::::::::•••••••••.•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•••••••••••.•:••••••••••••••.•:•:•:•:•••••.•:••.•:•::::.
••••••:•••••••••••). .*7::-:: •••:::.• ..............•••••••••••••••••.•:•:•:•:•:••••••••... ........• .•:. .. 0•• ....,:.N., r,..r:...........:.:.:
, - J .••:::::::•'".....• ••••:•••••• •.•:••.•.......:•:::::::::::::•:••••••••••••;;......;...::::::::::.: •:••/. •••• • '............:::.. :....... .••••:...xtes..... LL1 ._
, • :: ':*.*:':.............:::::::::.:::::::::::::::*:'•'''• ::::::::::::::::::::::::::''' ..::.•'•'.':::.:**::.:::::.:UK::::::.:::: -J
< Cf)
%*•::::::::::::::::::::::::::%::;:::::::::: ..f..:Iii..ii.g..fe:::::::::7iiiii...:.::::::::::•::.............
'..f. . ...•..•.•. ....•,......... ..
Z CL
— 00 ,.,
i
--1 ":.-%::.::::,::::;0::::::::::-... :::::: •::::::::*',...%:.'*:•'
. ''''''''' ..,\ :: ::::::::::.:::::i*:.:.•::::::. ::::::::: 1 # ' " &
4 ',A•::•A..............$:I.:::::•::::::\
'"" Aili, ,,,, ,,,, .., V....•....iii..i.i.•::::::::::::::::: ::::.?::::•••••'
,,,,, .,
11
44
...-......or, $ . .*
4-
1...
rm°77t.m.:7,,,, • A *-----------;
Ai
U) F-
-
2.
I-- LL1
CC
0
1-1- Z I—
C) 0 1-1-1 0 ,
— I
I-- /
CC .. i
0. I 1. '1°j 4. :
Att'..
}... > .
. C' . 0
4. 0 Li , , • z ill
Z '
,
.„„ ...
— 1 r."..r/r.".....'....3. —. „
_,:r Ca 1
„m"....M.) Z 0 ci•c.. r .„
..,, 4,.. ' Cr) ''. (r) >
2 k„
I--
-k". a • '' t 1 ..„,.. ., J.MAtke,a—,... .„--
0 71 Z litgL' ' i
r 0 W 0 .''', i•J
4 ' -\r A
"...° 03
+ Ir
tu
i 0
i 03 0 w
- --,---4.--.-, I1 -, , 4 ''‘'.`"'"
.... T... 0 t•-•., a
„... ,
------t- . lap, -4'5,
' -, 4_ ..,—, 4,-.*------t-----11
r- --Ak 4 ,‘I'' ,„, ' ;:,,..,:,,' ,.-;' - - - - 1 -br' '' $"
0 0 01 I
J I 6,9, 0
.. - ‘,..,._ , ,
.. •
,, 1 F.-
rm'm ''' \---S*4- - - __, — ,,,iii4,..- . L1.1
•„
t --ert-_,SSt -.1. -- ---"- ' 1' ' It
,
rrnmr:::11,,,„1„,- , * -
1. ) fr, ,. _.-.4 , ,,, a 1 Ea
, , .
,
.......,..._
I, , ,, ,,„„ ____,,,___
0 \
.11 ' ..,5
\----4 „..•-•,.-------'r----r-ai 4":44444r 1--- UJ
‘'' - ).- •
*--t- 01 1p,-
,...T.4,,.., ,, ., , , , .., i , 0 , ,,
i ' *
L_ -I I-- - - - .1
1 t.tirlre'• 4'.,..,,4
IK•ti
, Lt.), -'• 0 '
• 4
0 , .: -,.. .„..
im_4.,.........., „...,..1 ,., , , , •
Of
=
,
• -1.f."-
.... ---
i,....,
aii i i/Wte ,. , ,•,.
, 21 ,..-1 4 .
ti .7-_,.....-.'
VP ''''
---1 . , - lc- • r....-1.--,„&., ..-.7.- -,..--___ 04 --,..‘
. .
-
.„4.........--...„4.*"*.„..„. „s 4.....m...„.4....„—..r,,,---.* ...
-k \' -1', A ----"----if— ;470eWiP-TiS , r
-.
_ - t__,,,,«: -.° 4.4
•-• -Z°.
,o...'i
r
.....,., „......„.., ...,
Alr , 1..„ 4,.....71,. 1,-. v ,....L.:47,L.7,i.,...,,.„..).........,4÷......... ‘,.,....,. r.....,.. , ....o. 4.
I:772k\- ' '-' ' r 1 ,,,, I •I ' <
* •.
4 „—
‘,....,1_,..0.............1 .1 __,.:4 ,*
.1 ., , _,..,..,'- %.„-._ -..„....--____:-.......,...._ ...,....._-_,.... ./......„---
.........„, _ , .
f - ‘
1 ...,......--t....."*"' i re<
i
DESIGN 2
Cumulative
Work Description Cost Cost
(1) 60 Inch RCP - 380 Feet $ 38 , 380 . 00
4 LP Catch Basins with Leads 6 , 100. 00
Restoration 3 , 680.00
1 Manhole 1 , 500. 00
Rock Excavation 11 , 822 . 00
$ 61 , 482 . 00
107 Construction Contingency 6 , 148 . 20
25% Technical Services & Admn . 15 , 370 . 50
$ 83 , 000 . 70 $ 83 , 000 . 70
(2) 54 Inch RCP - 380 Feet $ 30 ,400 . 00
4 LP Catch Basins with Leads 6 , 100 . 00
Restoration 3 , 680. 00
1 Manhole 1 , 500. 00
Rock Excavation 10 , 978 . 00
$ 52 , 658 . 00
107 Construction Contingency 5 , 265 . 80
25% Technical Services & Admn. 13 , 164 . 50
$ 71 , 088 . 30 $154 , 089 . 00
(3) 42 Inch RCP - 380 Feet $ 24 , 700 . 00
2 LP Catch Basins with Leads 4 , 200. 00
Restoration 3 , 680. 00
1 Manhole 1 , 100. 00
Rock Excavation 9 , 290 . 00
$ 42 , 970. 00
107 Construction Contingency 4 , 297 . 00
25% Technical Services & Admn. 10 , 742 . 50
$ 58 , 009 . 50 $212 ,098 . 50
6th to 7th Avenues on Lewis Street
(4) 30 Inch RCP - 380 Feet $ 15 , 960. 00
4 LP Catch Basins with Leads 8 ,400 . 00
Restoration 4 , 080 . 00
2 Manholes 2 , 200. 00
Gutter and Street 2 , 500 . 00
$ 33 , 140. 00
10% Construction Contingency 3 , 314 . 00
25% Technical Services & Admn. 8 , 285 . 00
$ 44 , 739 . 00 $ 44 , 739 . 00
A-10
Cumulative
Work Description Cost Cost
(5) 48 Inch RCP - 380 Feet $ 25 , 840. 00
3 LP Catch Basins 'with Leads 6 , 300. 00
Restoration 3 , 880 . 00
1 Manhole 1 , 100 . 00
$ 37 , 120 . 00
10% Construction Contingency 3 , 712 . 00
25% Technical Services & Admn. 9 , 280 . 00
$ 50 , 112 . 00 $ 50 , 112 . 00
(6) 30 Inch RCP - 190 Feet $ 7 , 980 . 00
2 LP Catch Basins with Leads 4 , 200 . 00
Restoration 2 , 240 . 00
1 Manhole 1 , 100 . 00
$ 15 , 520 . 00
10% Construction Contingency 1 , 552 . 00
25% Technical Services & Admn. 3 ,880. 00
$ 20 , 952 . 00 $ 71 ,064 . 00
(7) 36 Inch RCP - 380 Feet $ 19 ,000. 00
2 LP Catch Basins with Leads 4 , 200. 00
Restoration 3 , 680.00
1 Manhole 1 , 100 . 00
$ 27 , 980.00
10% Construction Contingency 2 , 798 . 00
25% Technical Services & Admn. 6 , 995 .00
$ 37 , 773 .00 $108 , 837 . 00
(8) 27 Inch RCP - 380 Feet $ 14 , 060 . 00
2 LP Catch Basins with Leads 4 , 200 . 00
Restoration 3 , 680 . 00
1 Manhole 1 , 100 . 00
$ 23 , 040 . 00
107 Construction Contingency 2 , 304 . 00
25% Technical Services & Admn . 5 , 760 . 00
$ 31 , 104. 00 $139 , 941 . 00
A-11
Cumulative
Work Description Cost Cost
(9) 27 Inch RCP - 380 Feet $ 14 , 060. 00
4 LP Catch Basins 'with Leads 6 , 100. 00
Restoration 3 , 680 . 00
1 Manhole 1 , 100 . 00
$ 24 , 940. 00
10% Construction Contingency 2 ,494 . 00
25% Technical Services & Admn. 6 , 235 . 00
$ 33 , 669 . 00 $173 , 610 . 00
TOTALS
1 - 3 $212 ,098 . 50
4 44 , 739 . 00
5 - 9 173 ,610 . 00
$430 ,447 . 50
A-].2
.w '*41'N .a.a..).,;...)-. .*:: --- -11 ' : — . (':. ; '', ...-- A...,....„,........, ,.----- :,„ ....,...,..4 1.---•, / I
r.
b „ „s nw�"..i..,.„3.,,
.....":".:713.„,,t
t "ST ,a % ..:iWA/ i i ..ter.
_„.:__. ,
1.r . ,i. : .,. '4 y. s . :,.; �,:1.7.,,,,..:„.....,,,,,t_
� -�
�.eq
.. 2 t . . 2
•
‘ §
w
---41--------ft----- lr •,- — -4
„: R g° ' ,..., O
r •
iii2n.
i f .'. V.
10 .09 ,,.
i , � Z C
.t..-- ' ' V'. ". ''''' 111 i 1,
,. .4 ,"w
. ,.+-.,�+�`�' . fir.. �....:.
£
l .s.:.'''':::—.1.'..1..---':'. •—•••11''''''''''—'71,4
Iis
1,...
8 .m 2...:...- -141,1'''''".. _...:::, ':
1\''''......
..., S.. „....... „
µ:
> �
D .. 8
L. t '
b
.
'
PA '.. TX.... '........4...,..t..r.,..............„
i F.7=-----"`", --- L
: ,3 1 4=•,- '4 V ' ? ek
, F1 4 , !. : , : _
] .
.,./.., ,
to ? 1 /
i .9i ae A • -.704 T "
!.-1•. Ntrit ••
.....y..x.:„.... 1
:„:::.:::,.::,3-'1-:,:-..*-::•:::::::x::::;:k:::::
::::::..........f..:-.......,x.:::::::-.4.....: z
-.../..-..y.....:,......:,,,,,„-../..:-.4. .,....:,.,,,-.....
-,..;:;.:„..;;;.;...........-..............::::).::::::::::..........x.:.:*1:::::::!::::::::::::::',..:+:••exeS.•>•:::::•::::::::::::::::::::: t a
a
IN.::::•:::;iiMi:::::::M::::::::::*:':::•:' a
.::::-:::....x.:::::.... :::::::::::-4,4:.:::WA:44+,,t1.....-:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:::•t":"."?........•,••.:°*:**!•:*:•:
3,..
1 ...„:.:...........,
A :::
44,.....:::::;:::....x.....x.x,„:„:„..,:.....".........:.:.::::::::::•:::•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:••/...:..x:...Y.•:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::•::*:*:**,:*:*:
:: : ::::::::•:•:•:•::::•:•:•:•:;;;A:::-.::::::::!::::::::rmr., •mt,,-Xxl•VMOrs1;A'.-k!4*4--::::::::::::: .- _ , i
...14...... ..t.f.o...:!t,............:................:....:::.•;•;;;;;;;::::-..x..,..:-.K.:.:•:•:•:•:*:•:•:•-4%.4-r*/,..4::::.X.--..H-424... 4 .... -4-:•:•:•.....-:- — ' ' -
.:'.--:;V.7...-..i...;../..:•:•:•:•:•:•:::::4:4+),,M".:/..:•:•::::::::::::•:***..''' . *****:.:*%***'''-':'''''"'''':*:':':://
...,,,,,o,,--,4:- ::•:•::.:................:4:44:*:•:•:•,.•:•:,:•*//.4:1-:•::...;•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•::- :•:.:•:.:•:.:•:•:•:-:•:•:•*0-*-t:•••••••••••••':
::;;;44;f4yie>r....,::::::$::::::if...?;,:.÷:4:+:.:.•.•:•*.•:-:.:•:•:•:•: 00
,,, r, --vet., :.5•::::::::::!:•5 :::::::,.:•;k:::::),',:',.:.7...5,..„,''' '• --- 2
.:....-:::::,, ,-,,,,,,-.", %.,-S-:•:•••••,:!‘.! to r
A t,....------.,'. . • ,:$,.........:...,..........,....x...:::......
•
.
v.......„........«1 r---- 1. ,, •,, .:::::::::: :::::::,:••••••••
I g •
._ . ,
-
,..,,
---1 ' . ,.. 1.,•--A k '---- .:%-, --- ',1,...,...-.4.,,, .
r----------
..„„,,,...,,,,,: ., ,t,..,,..._....,..„,,,•,..7..„
...-
'6%491 t * .4tA ti: '‘ ,..„----A % :i L,..„..,...,-,,,•'-'''' U) g f
u
r, .,
0. .)'L
. i't 3 0 '----"°°.'' ,,,m,-...,,,.r>1 •.: .. 1 i,,,,,...2,A4 .: ..3,im.,%..„,, - ',
,, '-- '..-- I ": •‘ --•-**••••••,---'r--'-'1 t '-,..-,•;: Ai
--I ,,,,,. ' ,,,- :„,:•,A ..„., „ „ • t---•'- -t :,,....t:' ....,, ,.
1.71
At, tt. „:•:: . : - Li :
zi I-
1
6 d
1,‘T. • -------''' '' ir- t,-----,'''''
04 —
, .
,.,..,, -J
,..,1 ., 'mTFrri:-""—'. —
:,,
' e
r i
<
-1-1. --:-' i- - ii'ci . . ,..i. . • ''',:', :.:7-1 't.---- - .',.,, -J. : : : '.•
\. —1
1
, Z CC0 ° 6 a. Lo
,........„..4,------i, , ,v,..„-IL----- ----- ,, ,,,• . ! , ',,,L4 • ,4/..4 ,77.4,,:.,:,. e ....... * 0
„ ,,,.,,,, ,---- ,
(I) 0 C9
,----•-:•.% .,5 al (NI 'Tr •
.:, . ,, .-. ,
. --A\r-- k .\----1,----- 't 1, -, -'''tt' •- t I„ t- ,•----,', It,: ' ': • • 0 63 ,
.0 ,,,:iti•------1 t „...,.\,•,r---- A :t _it-----A 1 ..,' e i ' : ' ' ' i' . .
CC
..----- ,-- i 1------3' -,,,,,------7—" •1 r- : ,,
„:::.,,,,,,,J,.,,,,,,------ .„-, , ,„,... 'E: •,, - , , i - : , • t LLI
, c. • ----- -..,i,,?\,-\1 ,,' ,„,..,..._-.P, .-.4q 4.-'4 >
ll -4
1 i -, , 1 : ,
-8 , ,
‘
,....,-----0
0 :-;"#°''''' '”• ,..„,„„.„,,,,-------I ii !...... , ;„ ,, . : ..„. , • -, • •
Z. ---';+1 - gWv-''''' &-, ---.9 r.s...,,,,,,,4,,„,„,. ., ,4,...„.„.: 144. 41.„'',,,' : ,/. ..1-•' 1:i
\ • •• •i.•
it' • \ %,„•,----i*;' t, ', ...v, --. i,404,
, , ,...j,,,.-- ----1 t ,.. ,---•- . i. t „Y, j. - i , i - .,4 4.', 1, :
--A v #)., . ---,,, V • .., A,,, . .,,:i i••• '',, '..,„_...........,,;_:_i___1, L ,
ti
• i
,..
, 1--.--- ,,-; ? -
:.A
kl: : .',
,,-,••=.•,'4"nr''''',.m.i t.,- -. 4 _41444_, ---:,--t•••, ,
V--- -1, ,, , .,,,,,,,-,,,,,,: - • : - I
..,
1\------ i.„...„,„„.4 ,----,••
•••, --- .
. , ' , -
4 , ' • ,, ' .,. : ---, !,,,,,,,,,..4 • : ;;,,,:v
,.- _ •,,,
,„„ : ,1 • . , i i
.
. .,• ...4 ,,:,,..... z
.1
„,- --- •- -
St Ai --•
, ,,,,,,„ 44 -,. .-4.---......„
'..I .:--4
44 .
:l17 Z 1
1.4G 1, 1 .., ':-r ''.. • .; •''....:-..:'•.'..'it"...:-:::-:•:%:_::•:z:::' ''..-ii :4'.:, -:...•-.......----4 f• ..,„---• , -
4. .,,
•.•:: ::,.. ,...,,..., :
FOR ESTIMATE OF DESIGN 3, SEE ITEM NO, 4, DESIGN 2.
A-14
,r.f0
4
• . 1 -td4b144
W "-I 1
11
,„.., / 1 1
, ,•'
t,.\„ ,;,!/ . . ; ' ' .. - ...ill/1110111114 * i• . "*". 141
..................4 # • •
1• ..„,,„...ml. ' I i ,•
WI i • •
4.>.* ' .,.....•-•*--.^1 .,
"„,„..........• .m... ‘ SO ' ' •,,' , 4,„
41'I
0
smiiiiii \ 1601 . . . :.: ::,1
r..............._...,
r"----- ••.
, '
SI ‘ 11
:i.:,..)• ;•(,:';..:,.;........... 6. , • bet ' t la • WI.
'le°4' k , : ., . ,
\ „,..,. a- t ' ---• .., . ;#:.t4, •. . .. . 1011 • .
IA / . .
..
..,.....,-
.:). ' 4 L.-4- • 1 '-• • i .4 FLIO111.1111 '
,' .• • 011111
I 1
000 A opt 0
'i or, . ‘ M .........cr
'.-
\
via"
ker.* - ,,,. 1 .,
.k. i "-'-mt,.....e. .* r-- CC 1 i
\ .
, ; ,cc., _jit. 4 ,.-- '', oi ; '''''m i ''' ,._„,, 1111•08 ''''''' .
\ ..,''''' dill.."It. _ '". ' t..:4•4 1 _ ,.3a / *,.,"^--
\....
\
*kw
, • 1 kb,i t 11111 -' ' /11:1161P1 1 V. '
IV. /11 6 2''ttli
..•.*.* ....1.i.Q , of Milti'
1,
,; „,* ,
, . .,„,,.„wit '.71•10. ,..01. '
4." 1"--- 4,----. .,....- ,----- '.4,i \ : 0 Ail
.•
.... )„...i ., . ILit-IlL 0 ---21•", , 0 '
z. , Wit ' ' -- ' ', 1110 , .
g
yir-....T - 1----.
0 . * loviiiv -111
cc ci
14. Air "V"Iir.
. t•O
.. ., • ‘, -r.AV .: !
, 1
. 10:000.1101. .. ---„.: ..- 01101.' . . .• — •
. , .........- . . ."
lir .00 kb, . I
• llk
. ...-
, -Ar JO 411"....,A•••• Sili Oil',-- - • • le
o W.
.. _
4111k: X •1 , . .,. . .
• • •
. W.3
Wili itk • ..:'•:-•••• .,, , .
., '' > 4dir .„). It. •f''';‘,.''.
r• , *1 IX l' '. .
trl . ...., S ,,,,••g.•
_..._. . ..
. ,
. ...
, i t„. . 1...it...____ 7.1 5 e 1,4.,•,,,,,,,..,..,•
\ .
1 t
. .
W. 1 . -,*:',. r
\ 2.^11--''--- . et k ''...;... ' .,
r:\ 'OW
Nor
.k •••tOi it
-.)1.
Clr... •• , t ......-*,_
ler i
. ,t;.:clier- •, A. . iTj. i .., . ra--71A .......„.
....
)
- `, • - --
- r411F .
' -----*----."
t ,,....----•,
.,.
,. • la
',..,
, .....44 .,._ , ,,‘), ra • • 1' --- ''' •-- '
• - , ....I . i,,.t \%,•
' i:W allailV,.....4 'I. I IR. ,.... -
— is.- .11181 Wit; , . 1
i t VI , vel .
4 . 4
ea 2 K2 ami
111P41.111111‘: -41fiffil I -......-
, 11112,,all aim Eno . . i
. ... ...,
T---"'-;-..,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,, 7 • ii::::;.::: ,:.: ...:...:.:.,..........,.............. :......
• ••• . .1.......:::.:.....:.:.:.:.:.::::::::::.:.:.:.:. :.:.
. r. . ..w
•
•
.,_....„
a ,
aim . - . :::::.:.:....... . ::::: .......:...........:.:::.....:::.:.::.:.:::.:..............:.............................::...:: ::::::::
....... ...........!...,......::•::.::.::::.:....................:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:............:.:.:.:.::::
i soi :iinspi.....!!!!!:::::::.: . ...7,.t........:...........:......:::::.......:....:....::::::::::::::::.:::::::::....:.......:„_,.:2.:,..:.:.:::::::.:„............;.:,...:.:u.:: :.,.................i...i. .
ig
•„ ::viont • 7......:::::::::.•:::::::::: :::::::::::./:;"." I.••••••:.ARP V 3.......:::*.... ...5.......,............. ...........:::::: ti ...,—
I 0
•••••••• ..„,,,,sistiftst,::::::m.,,, •••• . ...,, . . ....•. 0
. 202,o00,. •••••••:11 ,1
_ giiii\.
I 1.0 •
0 ,t ,......•.....t ,
,..
11011.000
lowe' OS It8W
r----1 • * r- Nur ; •:1----,zia
! 41
_ .74
I "41.
,." _ Olt•
„..._ . , . .
101', *'• S.=,,.. '
01O0 1•
4 ii.212)1i3 4 !'O• a. •
zi
„,a-r,,,0,zuZ• ',, 0
S OP 7fr - 1i.• gVs4 twuiII
.,„
.
::.q*. ”;,• .
.
,g-
:
-
z .loz
...
3 10----, wit • . . '. , , . S ' ' '
1 *t illig r01 illill
S 1 re 0 lea
it,
, z . •
.
‘•
• I ,..J
cr, .
.,
alw
0 Az
/ >-
CO
• • " '
, wig' , ,, • - .---i
Mliiij CO 0 a
•
eillIllgillilk
----- .-1 *
...-
° -
..> . c
----,
c ' i SWIM
i SWILLS
• • , 1 , '1‘ CC ° Dy
2 Q,CI NI di
as
.___.... •:17- = ... N. ' • . • 4.684•........t.........., -t-..-L-._
lit IN Es. .
; 1 [
Oil 11011111 i'm ; , • •_— itt
. i 4 . ot •
•
. , .
'
= i , CI 1
11::17A
. CC
L:j
,
II.
r....,........,,.._..„.,
,
i..
S.
3' WS x i‘l , ,
\ ‘ t ON
• 't
. - L
4
! 1 ,
, 1 1 - • .
,s .„. .
. I
L.....,._ 1
\ , . 1 i: :4, -.T.---711: _.....l... :7 : .C.111;171:k'.11t;•.,:ii. rib.;:l.it,'Iti,;Ir.;.:
-(..:.
' '•• ' ! i ... i,..„,.i.,.., ''
to= lik,
--- . ,
. ---- . 4t f,1 i • . sy
i
X^ -
t ,. —.."-; L„,.....t.......ai....
1•' -.?':: , ,
".•;‘,' _
Ii
.....- .........
' --7 :
A,‘ , _ . --i- . I, ; 1 „i• T... let , I
.
, m .
!
i 1 i I 1 i 1 1 i i 4
t ',.„. •-
' _.,......-- i
,..,,,,, : _ ; [ 4. ji. • tot . I f It
i i ' 4
-.11r-L,...i........1 •
_ • , f. I
! 7 IQ
.. ..,
- 1 . • , ' ' *I 'I
. •.:li
I t C° - •
..,
0 0- -""111111111:111111114,‘i 4-r • . •
i .....------ i ..........I..—L.-• •
"-----°°'...---1-1 r.1 _.....--- '27.1„,.••• . ..-.L. . ,,\r_gi_
r i 1 .
APPENDIX B
. i.. ii ,
i 23
t
a
0
.• 434.k*:
co
_. co
2
. O ■
T t r
o y
i
7 Vii 4 44046',
illiglkIIIIIII '.'!'14
r x
CD
=3 Y• •
v13 idly,
k
i 1,
U
Z ~
LU J
AA! CC co '..
Q o
1.M U m o
O �
CC CC o
Q" N .
4 I Q e ,
co cc
W O
›- O
T
e 4
, , `Y
O
M RY
. F rT
;; ;
4,4 Efosii66,
r;r. ..
m Q' •
r
r
a.S, �y','V moo. _ _____. ,
,.,...
.f Q!
vs.
.Q4 f .M.
�� r''s. .„rA
CO
" 1.
CO
...�,_ \
CA r 20
a. 4:1' • i
y.
-1 r n rt 16
"IS . Z i A
•
4. . (U Cc
• u) g2
. frisk,
e i
W
U ›-
Z
-40A , LU —
cO I cf) m oD Q041
— UmO NCVaQ \
W
>. O
w i LO
N
o
M a
:•T
�Sl .r,Aays.�,t
4.
? 3`.. a
a^
r
CO I T
, #11 at'3 44't.
4 Ivo, iiiil. .. ...-- -- ,y,„„4„ .
5
, 1
,i, 1
..... :„.:, .A Or iii 0 it '''. 1
11 44
‘ ,
i
4\40 .
1111
.44Ia
ha t
„.S. , y e., 4. .) Ao
z
le3
a
0
ti
')7'40.1..
.. CO
O
Z
� r
fle
.r... or
Tr r
s ..y
•r A
t ` = j Y
•: All° (1) g! •
U CC
'441111111111111141t.
W
0 >-
Z F—
*044. , Z J
.4.... 144
m• o a
W Q �
Cc N I
4
t0 Q.LI O
M Q C
`
r
4, so sa'
CO
C .�r it
1 ':. _:��eyti.
_ .....,,,i'''-'''''''''''IL in',1,1:::'4'0:71✓
.. • P \��111 j _.
.
t
Naw
sir t9AA+w
4 IMO. '
t
1 .. _ ....., __ . _.....1.- ... —
APPENDIX C
PART I
STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN
and
TECHNICAL CRITERIA
SECTION 1 .00 GENERAL: This part sets forth the minimum design and
technical criteria and specifications for the analysis and design of
drainage systems . All subdivision plats , planned building groups , or
any other proposed construction submitted for approval shall include
adequate storm drainage analysis and appropriate drainage system
design before approval of any phase of construction will be made by the
City Engineer . Such analysis and design shall conform to the criteria
set forth herein .
SECTION 2.00 MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA:
2.01 ANALYSIS
2.01 . 1 ACCEPTABLE METHODS. Analysis and determination of
the amount of flow at various points in the drainage system
shall be made by approved systematic and comprehensive
methods . The following methods shall be used to verify the
adequacy of designs submitted for approval :
a. Rational Method .
,. b. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds Technical
Release No . 55 published by Soil Conservation Service ,
U .S. Department of Argriculture.
c . Statistical analysis conforming to the approved
hydrograph procedure or criteria set forth herein .
2.01 .2 CRITERIA FOR STORM—FLOW ANALYSIS. The following
criteria shall be utilized in the analysis of the drainage
system.
a. Runoff analysis shall be based upon proposed land
use , and shall take into consideration all contributing
runoff from areas outside of the study area .
The analysis of storm runoff from existing developed
areas lying outside of the study area shall be based upon
present land use and topographic features .
All undeveloped land lying outside of the study area shall
be considered as fully developed based upon the most
probable anticipated future land use . Provided ,
however , that whenever the future land use of a specific
undeveloped area cannot be accurately predicted , the
average runoff coefficient to be used in said area shall
not be less than 0 .65 for the Rational Method runoff
coefficient or an approved equivalent value for any other
method .
C-1
b. The probable future flow pattern in undeveloped areas
shall be based on existing natural topographic features
(existing slopes , drainage ways , etc . )
c. Average land slopes inboth developed and undeveloped
area may be used in computing runoff. However , for areas
in which drainage patterns and slopes are established ,
these 'shall be utilized .
d. Flows and velocities which may occur at a design point
when the upstream area is fully developed shall be
considered . Drainage facilities shall be so designed
such that increased flows and velocities will not cause
erosion damage .
e. Streets shall not be used as floodways for the initial
storm runoff. The primary use of streets shall be for the
conveyance of traffic . The computed amount of runoff in
streets shall not exceed the requirements set forth in
Subsection 2 .02 .09 below .
f. The use of on-site detention and natural drainage
ways is recommended and encouraged whenever possible .
The changing of natural drainage way locations will not be
approved unless such change is shown to be without
unreasonable hazard and liability , substantiated by
thorough analysis and investigation .
g. The planning and design of drainage systems shall be
such that problems are not transferred from one location
to another. Outfall points shall be designed in such a
• manner that will not create flooding hazards downstream.
h. Flood plain information will be required on all
preliminary and final drainage drawings, and shall
include the area inundated by the major storm runoff.
i. Where a master drainage plan for the City is
available , the flow routing for both the initial storm and
major storm runoff shall conform to said plan . Drainage
easements conforming to the master plan will be required
and shall be designated on all drainage drawings and
subdivision plats .
In areas where a master plan is not yet available and where
subdivision platting and building is contemplated along
natural drainage ways not yet developed upstream or
downstream, drainage easements which will include the
major storm runoff shall be required . These easements
shall be shown on all drainage drawings and subdivision
plats .
j . Approval will not be made for any proposed building or
construction of any type of structure including retaining
C-2
walls , fences , etc . , or the placement of any type of fill
material , which will encroach on any utility or drainage
easement and impair surface or subsurface drainage from
surrounding areas .
2.02 DESIGN STANDARDS
2.02. 1 INITIAL AND MAJOR DESIGN STORM. Every urban area has
two separate and distinct drainage systems , whether or not
they are actually planned for and designed . One is the inital
system corresponding to the initial (or ordinary) storm
recurring regularly. The other is the major system
corresponding to the major (or extraordinary storm) which has
a 1 percent chance of recurrance . Since the effects and
routing of storm waters for the major storm may not be the same
as for the initial storm, all storm drainage plans submitted
for approval shall be submitted in detail in two separate
phases . One indicating the effects of the initial storm and
the other showing the effects of the major storm.
a. Initial Storm Provisions. The initial storm
drainage system shall be so designed as to provide
protection against regularly recurring damage , to reduce
street maintenance costs , to provide an orderly urban
drainage system and to provide convenience to the urban
residents . Storm sewer systems consisting of under-
ground piping , natural drainage ways and other required
appurtenances shall be considered as a part of the initial
storm drainage system.
b. Major Storm Provisions. The major storm drainage
system shall be so designed as not to cause major property
damage or loss of life from storm runoff expected from the
major storm. The affects of the major storm on the
initial drainage system shall be noted .
2.02.2 DESIGN STORM FREQUENCIES. The initial and major
design storms shall not be less than the following return
period frequencies :
C-3
TABLE 1-1
DESIGN STORM FREQUENCIES
DESIGN STORM RETURN PERIOD
Land Use Inital Storm Major Storm
Residential 5 Year 100 Year
Planned Building Group
( Residential ) 5 Year 100 Year
(Business) 5 Year 100 Year
Public Building Area 5 Year 100 Year
High Value General , Commercial
and Business Areas 5 Year 100 Year
Parks , Greenbelts , etc . 5 Year 100 Year
Open Channels & Drainage Way - 100 Year
Detention and Retention Ponds - 100 Year
2.02.3 RAINFALL INTENSITIES. The rainfall intensities to be
used in the computation of runoff shall be obtained from the
Intensity - Duration - Frequency Curves for Shakopee ,
Minnesota , or from the corresponding Rainfall - Depth -
Duration - Intensity Tables , including in these
specifications .
2.02.4 RUNOFF COMPUTATION. Total storm water runoff shall be
computed in accordance with the criteria set forth in
Subsection 2 .01 above . Runoff computations for both the
initial storm and the major storm shall be submitted with the
proposed storm drainage plan . Computations shall be
submitted on forms similar to those included in these
specifications .
The Rational Method shall not be used to compute storm runoff
for areas in excess of 200 acres or for complex drainage
basins . These larger basins shall be analyzed by T . R . No . 55
if the area does not exceed 2 ,000 acres , or by appropriate
hydrograph methods .
2.02.5 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS
a . Rational Method Runoff Coefficients by Land Use.
The runoff coefficient (C ) to be used in conjunction with
the Rational Method shall not be less than those listed in
the following table :
C-4
TABLE 1-2
RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (RATIONAL METHOD)
Area Description Runoff Coeff. (C)
Business :
Downtown Areas 0 .95
Neighborhood Areas 0 .70
Residential :
Single-family Areas 0 .50
Multi-units (detached) 0 .60
Multi-units (attached) 0 .75
Residential ( 1/2 acre lots or larger) 0 .40
Apartment Dwelling Areas 0 .70
Industrial :
Light Areas 0 .80
Heavy Areas 0 .90
Parks , Cemeteries 0 .25
Playgrounds :
Paved 0 .95
Grass 0 .35
Gravel 0 .60
Railroad Yard Areas 0 .40
Undeveloped Areas :
Permanent Unimproved Areas ,
Greenbelts , etc . 0 .20
Temporary Unimproved Areas which
can be considered as fully developed
in the future 0 .65
b. Rational Method Runoff Coefficients for Composite
Analysis. As an alternate to the above coefficients or
for areas not specifically listed above (Planned Building
Groups , Shopping Centers , Trailer Parks , etc . ) a
composite runoff coefficient based on the percentage of
the different types of surfaces involved shall be used .
Coefficients with respect to surface type shall not be
less than those listed in the following table:
C-5
TABLE 1-3
RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR COMPOSITE ANALYSIS
( RATIONAL METHOD)
Surface Type Runoff Coeff. (C)
Streets :
Asphalt 0 . 95
Concrete 0 .95
Drives and Walks 0 .85
��
Roofs 0 .95
Lawns , Sandy Soil :
1O
Flat 2% 0 . 10
Average 2% - 7% 0 . 15
20
Steep 7% 0 .20
Lawns , Heavy Soil :
2O
Flat 2% 0 .20
Average 2% - 7% 0 .25
��
Steep 7% 0 .35
The composite runoff coefficient ( Co) shall be calculated
using:
C �
2.7t1 i
-o - -- ' -------
A
t
where:
Co composite runoff coefficient
Ci = individual runoff coefficient corresponding
to the specific type of surface
A .& = area of each different type of surfaces to b
considered
At = total drainage area
involved for which the composite coeffi-
cient is applicable
' = number of different types of surfaces to be
considered
It should be noted that the units of Ai and At are
immaterial as long as they are the same .
The coefficients listed in Tables 1 -2 and 1-3 are
applicable only for storms of 2 to 10 year fregueocieo .
Less frequent higher-intensity storms will require
modification of the runoff coefficient to account for
antecedent precipitation and the corresponding
-
lessening amount of infiltration and other losses which
have a direct affect on runoff. The Rational Method
Formula for use with major storms shall be modified by a
frequency factor Cf so that the Rational Formula now
becomes :
C-6
Q = (CCf)IA CCfS 1 .0
where:
Q = storm flow ( cfs)
I = rainfall intensity ( in ./hr . )
A = drainage area (acres)
C = runoff coefficient obtained from Tables 1 -2
or 1 -3
Cf = frequency factor used to account for antecedent
precipitation
The values of Cf to be used shall not be less than those
listed in Table 1-4. The product of C x Cf should not
exceed 1 .0 .
TABLE 1-4
FREQUENCY FACTORS (Cf FOR RATIONAL FORMULA)
Design Storm Frequency Formula
Return Period Cf
2 1 .0
5 1 .0
_ 10 1 .0
25 1 . 1
50 1 .2
100 1 .25
2.02.6 OPEN CHANNELS. Except as modified herein , open
channels shall be designed for the 100 year frequency storm
and shall conform to the criteria set forth herein. The
channel design shall also be analyzed with respect to initial
storm runoff and its effect made known . Whenever practical ,
the channel should have slow flow characteristics , be wide and
shallow, and be natural in its appearance and functioning .
Channels should be designed in such a manner that flows at the
critical depth and supercritical flows are avoided . Channel
capacities should be computed from Manning ' s Formula for
uniform flow.
The channel cross section may be almost any type suitable to
the location . However , the limitations for design for the
major storm and initial storm design flows shall include:
a. Side Slopes. Side slopes shall be as flat as
practical . Side slopes of 4 : 1 shall be considered a
normal minimum. Under special conditions approved by
the City Engineer , slopes of 3 : 1 or steeper may be
utilized with paved channels .
b. Depth. The maximum design depth of flow for the
major storm should be limited to 3 .5 feet , although depths
of 4 .0 feet may be acceptable where good channel
C-7
maintenance may be expected and durations of peak flows
are short. The design depth of flow for the initial storm
runoff should not be less than 1 .0 feet.
Critical depths shall be investigated for both the major
and initial storm runoffs and these values made known .
c. Freeboard. Except where localized overflow in
certain areas is desirable for additional ponding
benefits or other reasons , the minimum allowable free-
, board shall be 2 .0 feet.
d. Bottom Width. Normally the bottom width should be at
least 6 to 8 times the depth of flow. Minimum acceptable
bottom width is normally 10 .0 feet .
e. Longitudinal Slope of Channel. Grass-lined chan-
nels normally will have longitudinal slopes of 0 .2 to 0 .6
percent . Where the natural topography is steeper than
desirable , drops may have to be utilized .
f. Curvature. Generally , the center line curvature
should not have a radius less than twice the design flow
top width , but not less than 100 feet .
g. Trickle Channels. Trickle channels or underdrain
pipes to carry low flows will be requied for all urban
grassed channels . The capacity of a trickle channel
should be approximately 1 .0 percent of the major design
flow.
h. Design Velocity. Maximum velocities for the
initial storm shall not cause erosion in unlined channels
with vegitative cover .
Maximum velocities for lined channels shall not exceed
2 .0 feet per second for the major storm runoff.
Maximum velocities for the major storm design runoff
shall not exceed 7 .5 feet per second for unlined channels .
Design supercritical flow for unpaved channels shall not
be permitted .
i. Roughness Coefficient (n) . The values for
Manning ' s "n" shall not be less than those specified in
Subsection 4 .02 below.
j. Erosion. All channels shall be designed with the
proper and adequate erosion control features .
k. Water Surface Profile. A water surface profile for
the major storm runoff shall be computed for all channels
and clearly shown on the final drawings submitted for
C-8
approval . Computations of the water surface profile
should utilize standard backwater methods , taking into
consideration all losses due to velocity changes , drops ,
bridge and culvert openings , and other obstructions.
Computations shall be submitted with the final design
plan . Whether or not the energy gradient line is shown on
the final drawings is optional .
2.02.7 STORM SEWERS AND STORM INLETS. Except as sub-
sequently modified , the design of storm sewers and storm
inlets shall conform to the criteria set forth herein and to
acceptable engineering practice . Storm sewers and inlets
shall be of sufficient capacity to adequately carry the
expected runoff from the initial design storm. The storm
water system and subsequent storm inlets shall commence at all
locations where the allowable street capacity is exceeded or
wherever unacceptable ponding of water is likely to occur.
a. Storm Sewers.
1 . The minimum allowable pipe size to be used in
storm sewers shall be 18 inches or 2 .40 square feet
Arch Pipes , Horizontal or Eliptical Pipes and Vert-
ical Eliptical Pipes will be allowed where design
conditions dictate , provided however , the minimum
cross-sectional areas shall not be less than those
specified above . All storm sewer conduits shall be
of sufficient structural strength to withstand a
, minimum H-20 design load and the criteria set forth in
Part II , Section 9 .00 .
2. The maximum allowable distance between manholes
or other suitable appurtenances for cleanouts shall
not exceed those listed in Table 1 -5 below:
TABLE 1-5
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE MANHOLE SPACING
Inside Diameter Maximum Allowable
or Distance Between
Minimum Head Room Manholes & Cleanouts
18" - 36" 400 ft .
36" - 60" 500 ft .
60" & Larger 750 ft .
3. The capacities of conduits shall be computed
using Manning ' s Formula or appropriate flow nomo-
graphs . The value of the roughness coefficient (n)
to be used shall not be less than those specified in
Subsection 4 .02 below. The average full-flow velo-
city in conduits shall not be less than 2 .0 feet per
second .
b. Storm Inlets. Standard storm inlets shall be curb
C-9
opening inlets conforming to City of Shakopee Standard
Specifications . Combination curb and gutter inlets may
be used only with prior approval of the City Engineer.
The theoretical capacity and spacing of storm inlets will
be analyzed using the criteria set forth herein and in
accordance with approved empirical or theoretical
analysis . The allowable capacity will be determined
using 'the reduction factors listed in Table 1 -6 below.
These reduction factors compensate for debris plugging ,
pavement overlaying , variations in design assumptions or
other factors which decrease inlet capacities .
The size of outlet pipes from storm water linlets shall be
based upon the theoretical capacity of the inlet, but
shall not be less than 18 inches in diameter.
TABLE 1-6
INLET REDUCTION FACTORS
FOR INITIAL STORM
Percentage of
Allowable Theoretical
Condition Inlet Type Capacity Allowed
Sump Combination curb and gutter 65%
Grade Combination curb and gutter 65%
Sump Curb 100%
Grade Curb 100%
Computations for storm sewer design and storm inlet
designs shall be submitted on forms similar to those
included in these specifications for approval .
Adequate details of the proposed storm sewer system,
including plan and profile , details of inlets , manholes
and other appurtenances shall be included in the overall
drainage plan submitted for approval .
2.02.8 CULVERTS. Culvert capacities shall be at least
equal to the capacities of culverts designed in accordance
with the procedures outlined in the U.S. Department of
Transportation Federal Highway Administration , Hydraulic
Engineering Circulars No . 's 5 & 10. Culverts may be of any
shape and construction as required by existing topographic
features ; provided , however , the size , shape , location and
type of construction of culverts shall be subject to approval .
Culvert installations shall be designed with an emergency
overflow for the major storm on all streets other than major
arterials . Culverts under arterials shall have sufficient
capacity to pass all of the runoff from the major storm. In
determining the amount of emergency overflow required , the
following capacity credits shall apply:
C-10
TABLE 1-7
CAPACITY FOR STRUCTURES
Capacity Credit % of Major Storm
Cross-Sectional % of Full Flow Flow to be
Area of Structure Capacity Considered as Overflow
20 Sq.' Ft . 0% 100%
20 Sq. Ft . 80% 20%
The appropriate amount of emergency overflow onto streets
shall be taken into account when analyzing storm runoff and
allowable street capacities for the major storm.
The following design criteria shall be utilized for all
culvert design :
a. General . The culvert including inlet and outlet
structures shall properly take care of water , bed-load
and debris at all stages of flow.
b. Inlets. Culvert inlets shall be designed to
minimize entrance and friction losses . Inlets shall be
provided with either flared-end sections or head walls
with wing walls . Projecting ends will not be acceptable .
For large structures , provisions shall be made to resist
possible structural failure due to hydrostatic uplift
forces.
c. Outlets. Culvert outlets shall be designed to avoid
sedimentation , undermining of the culvert , or erosion of
the downstream channel . Outlets shall e provided with
either flared-end sections or headwalls , with wing-
walls . Projecting outlets will not be acceptable .
Additional outlet control in the form of an energy
dissapator , riprap , channel shaping or other measure may
be required where excessive discharge velocities occur.
d. Slopes. Culvert slopes should be such that neiter
silting nore excessive velocities and scour occur.
Generally, the minimum slope of culverts shall be limited
to 0 .50 percent. Other slopes may be used only with prior
approval of the City Engineer.
e. Headwater. Generally , the headwater to diameter
ratios should not exceed those recommended below:
TABLE 1-8
RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM HW/D RATIOS
Storm Frequency HW/D
10 Year and Less 1 .0
100 Year 1 .5
C-11
Excessive ponding of headwater above culvert entrances
wil not be acceptable if such ponding appears likely to
cause property or roadway damage , culvert clogging ,
saturation of fills , detrimental upstream deposits of
debris , or inundate existing or future utilties and
structures .
f. Tailwater. The height of tailwater at the outlet
shall be subject to the criteria set forth in Subsection
2 .02 .8 (e) above .
g. Hydraulic Design. Culverts shall e analyzed to
determine whether discharge is controlled by inlet or
outlet conditions for both the initial storm discharge
and the major storm discharge . The value of the
roughness coefficient (n) used shall not be less than
those specified in Subsection 4 .02 below. Computations
for selected culvert sizes shall be submitted for
approval on forms similar to those included in these
specifications .
h. Minimum Allowable Size. The required size of the
culvert shall be based upon adequate hydraulic design
analysis . In no case , however , will approval be made for
round culverts with less than 36 inches inside diameter ,
or for arched or oval shaped culverts with span-rise
dimensions less than 54 inches x 27 inches nominal , or for
culverts of any other shape which have a cross-sectional
area less than 6 .4 square feet .
i. Multiple Culvert Installation. Whwere physical
conditions dictate , multiple culvert installations will
be acceptable , subject to approval . Provided , however ,
the minimum size of any culvert to be used shall not be less
than the requirements set forth in Subsection 2 .03 .9 (h)
above .
j . Structural Design. The structural design of
culverts shall conform to those methods and criteria
recommended by the manufacturer of a specific type of
culvert for the specified embankment conditions . Where
appropriate , the applicable provisions of Subsection
2 .02 .7 above shall also apply to the design of culverts .
2.02.9 STREET FLOW CAPACITIES. Except as modified herein ,
the criteria set forth in this criteria and acceptable
engineering practice will be used in analyzing and approving
the adequacy of streets as a function of the drainage system.
Both the initial storm runoff and major storm runoff must be
considered and calculations showing such runoff at critical
sections shall be submitted . The following criteria shall
apply in the determination of allowable street flow
capacities .
C-12
a. Street Capacity for Initial Storms. Pavement
encroachment of storrnwater for the initial design storm
shall not exceed the limitations set forth inn the
following Table 1 -10:
TABLE 1-10
ALLOWABLE PAVEMENT ENCROACHMENT
AND
DEPTH OF FLOW FOR INITIAL STORM RUNOFF
Functional
Classification Type Maximum Encroachment*
Local Urban No curb overtopping . Flow may
spread to crown of street .
Rural Maximum depth in ditch 2 .5
feet . Flow may spread to crown
of street .
Collector Urban No curb overtopping . Flow
spread must leave the equiva-
lent of one 10-foot driving
lane clear of water .
Rural Maximum depth in detch 30 feet .
Flow spread must leave the
equivalent of one 10-foot
driving lane clear of water .
Arterials Urban No curb overtopping . Flow
spread must leave the equiva-
lent of two 10-foot driving
lanes clear of water . One lane
in each direction .
Rural Maximum depth in ditch 3 .5
feet. Flow spread must leave
the equivalent of two 10-foot
driving lanes clear of water .
One lane in each direction .
The storm sewer system shall commence at the point
where the maximum allowable encroachment occurs.
b. Street Capacity for Major Storm. The allowable
depth of flow and inundated area for the major design
storm shall not exceed the limitations set forth in the
following table :
C-13
TABLE 1-11
ALLOWABLE DEPTH OF FLOW
AND
INUNDATED AREA FOR MAJOR STORM RUNOFF
Functional
Classification Type Maximum Encroachment*
Local & All Residential dwellings , public ,
Collector commercial and industrial
buildings , shall not be inun-
dated at the ground line ,
unless buildings are flood
proofed . The depth of water
over the gutter flowline or
edge of the shoulder shall not
exceed 18-inches .
Arterial All Residential dwellings , public ,
commercial and industrial
buildings , shall not be inun-
dated at the ground line ,
unless buildings are flood
proofed . Depth of water at the
street crown shall not exceed
6-inches to allow operation
of emergenc vehicles . The
depth of water over the gutter
flowline or shoulder shall not
exceed 18-inches .
d . Cross Street Flow. Cross stret flow can occur by two
separate means . One is runoff which has been flowing in a
gutter and then flows across the street to the opposite
gutter or inlet . The second case is flow from some
external source , such as a drainage way or conduit , which
will flow across the crown of the street when the conduit
capacity is exceeded . The maximum allowable cross
street flow depth based on the worst condition shall not
exceed the limitations stipulated in the following table :
C-14
TABLE 1-12
ALLOWABLE CROSS STREET FLOW
Street Initial Design Major Design
Classification Storm Runoff Storm Runoff
Local 6 inch depth at 18-inches of depth
crown or in cross above gutter flow-
pan or concrete line
swale
Collector Where cross pans 18-inches of depth
or concrete swale above gutter flow-
allowed , depth of line
flow shall not
exceed 6-inches
Arterial None 6-inches or less
over crown
e. Capacity Calculations. All theoretical flow
capacities shall be reduced by the appropriate reduction
factors to obtain allowable flow capacities .
C-15
APPENDIX D
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 expenditures must be made .
Periodically substantial investments must be made to the system
to expand and improve efficiency . 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 are 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 most 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 .
D-1
1/5/83 (REVISOR I r.:'IW/MJ 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 kinds of and
3 charges for water and sewer facilities and services;
4 amending Minnesota Statutes 1982, section 444.075,
5 subdivisions 1 and 3.
6
7 SE IT ENACTED 3Y TE5 LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
8, Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1982, section 444.075,
9 subdivision 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 is hereby amehev eed and empowered is may build,
13 construct, reconstruct, repair, enlarge, improve, or in any
14 other manner obtain
15 (i) waterworks systems, including mains, valves, hydrants,
16 service connections, wells, pumps, reservoirs, tanks, treatment
17 plants, and other appurtenances of a waterworks system, and
18 (ii) 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 the collection and disposal of storm water,
24 all hereinafter called facilities, and so maintain and operate
acquire
25 the same inside or outside its corporate Limits, and se acy
D-2
1/5/33 (REVISOR J HMW/MO 83-0592
• 1 by gift, purchase, lease, condemnation or otherwise any and all
2 Land and easements required for that purpose. The authority
3 hereby granted shall be in addition to all other powers with
4 reference to cue's the facilities otherwise granted by the laws
•
5 of this state or by the charter of any such city. Counties,
6 except counties in the seven county metropolitan area, shall
7 have the same authority granted to cities by this subdivision
8 except for areas of the county organized into cities and areas
9 of the 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. (CEi3 RCES; NET REVENUES. o r 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 elf 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 with 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
26 cost of furnishing the same, and sewer charges may be fixed on
27 the basis of water consumed, or by reference to a reasonable
28 classification of the types of premises 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 o tier 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 ocher places
35 where municipal or county water mains or sewers are 'located,
36 whether or not connected thereto. Charges for connections to
D-3
1/5,'33 (REVISOR ( t.:'W/MO 33-0592
1 the facilities may in the discretion of the governing body be
2 fixed by reference to the portion of the cost thereof which has
3 been paid by assessment of the premises to be connected, in
4 comparison with other premises, as well as the cost of making or
5 'supervising the connection. The governing body may make any
6 such charges a charge against the owner, lessee, occupant or all
7 of them and may provide and covenant for certifying unpaid
8 charges to the county auditor with taxes against the property
9 served for collection as other taxes are collected. The
10 governing body may fix and levy taxes for the payment of
11 reasonable charges to the municipality or county itself 'for the
12 use and availability of the facilities for fire protection and,
• 13 for maintaining sanitary conditions, and for proper storm water
14 drainage in and for public buildings, parks, streets, and other
15 public places. In determining the reasonableness of the charges
16 to be imposed, the governing 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 territory of the city 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 the 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
26 issued for such purpose, no charges imposed to produce net
27 revenues adequate for such purpose shall be deemed unreasonable
28 by virtue of the fact that the project to be financed has not
29 teen commenced or completed, if proceedings therefor are taken
30 with reasonable dispatch and the project, when completed, may be
31 expected to make service available to 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
35 thereof, shall be placed in a separate fund, and shall be used
36 first to pay the normal, reasonable and current costs of
D-4
•� ��
•
•
•
• - 1/S/33 (REVISOR a .?W/MO 83-0592
I operating and maintaining the facilities. :he net revenues from
2 time to mime received in excess of such costs may be pledged by
3 resolutions of the governing body, or may be used though not so
4 pledged, for the payment of principal and interest on
5 obligations issued as provided in subdivision 2, or to pay such
6 portion of said principal and interest as may be directed in
7 such resolutions, and net revenues derived from any facilities
8 of the types listed in subdivision 1, whether or not financed by
9 the issuance of such obligations, may be pledged or used to pay
10 obligations issued for other facilities of any such types. In
11 resolutions authorizing the issuance of either general or
12 special obligations and pledging net revenues thereto, the
13 governing body may make such covenants for the protection of
i 14 holders of the obligations and taxpayers of the municipality or
15 county as it deems necessary, including, but without limitation,
16 a covenant that the municipality or county will impose and
17 collect charges of the nature herein authorized at the times and
18 in the amounts required to produce, together with any taxes or
19 special assessments designateda ym as a primary source of payment of
20 the obligations, net revenues adequate to pay all principal and
21 interest when due on the obligations and to create and maintain
22 such reserves securing said payments as may be provided in said
23 resolutions. When such a covenant is made it shall be
24 enforceable by appropriate action on the part of any holder of
25 the obligations or any taxpayer of the municipality or county in
26 a court of competent jurisdiction, and the obligations shall be
27 deemed to be payable wholly from the income of the system whose
•- 28 revenues are so pledged, within the meaning of sections 475.51
• 29 and 475.58.
30 Sec. 3. (EZ?ZCTIVE DATE. ]
31 This act is effective the day after its final enactment.
D-5
5y)
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson/City Administ
.�
FROM: H.R. Spurrier/City Engineer -
RE : First Avenue Manhole Reconstruction
DATE : May 3 , 1983
Introduction:
The City received bids for the above referenced work May 2 , 1983 .
Background :
There were two bidders submitting proposals :
Channel Construction - $16 , 870 .00
F.F. Jedlicki Inc . - $23 , 532 .00
The low bidder is $6 , 520 . 00 more than F.F. Jedlicki Inc . proposed in the
emergency change order not allowed.
The low bidder is a new construction company and has no references
other than a good reference from a former employer. The low bidder
is bonded. Since a qualified replacement could be put to work in the
event of difficulty, it is recommended that the contract be awarded
to the low bidder Channel Construction.
Action Requested:
Award the contract for Manhole Reconstruction and Adjustments in
First Avenue (T.H. 101 ) Shakopee , Minnesota, to Channel Construction.
Route II Box 53 , Isle , Minnesota 56342 in the amount of $16 , 870 . 00 .
This work shall be funded by the Sewer Fund.
HRS : cau
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator CJ O?5-1
FROM: Judith S. Cox , City Clerk
RE: The Shakopee Professional Group Project
Commercial Development Revenue Bonds
DATE: April 21 ,, 1983
Introduction
Mr. John C. Palmer, of F & M Marquette National Bank, trustee under
the Indenture of Trust for the above bonds has proposed an amend-
ment to the Indenture which will permit the investment income to
be reinvested on a monthly basis rather than having to be invested
within five days after being received.
Background
Mr. Krass has reviewed the amendment and has recommended approval .
The proposal is very minor and simply requires the reinvestment
of all receipts received to be made no later than the 5th day of
the next month following receipt of the investment income . Current-
ly the investment income must be reinvested within five days of
receipt . Since there are a number of investment incomes which are
received during a one month period it is administratively desireable
to reinvest them all at one time rather than doing so each time one
is received and within five days .
Alternatives
1 . Approve the proposed amendment .
2 . Do not approve the proposed amendment .
Recommendation
Staff recommends alternative No. 1 .
Action Requested
Approve the proposed amendment to the Indenture for the Shakopee
Professional Group Project Commercial Development Revenue Bonds
which will allow the Trustee to Transfer investment income from
the Bond Fund and the Reserve Fund monthly, rather than within
five days of receipt and authorize and direct proper City officials
:o execute the letter agreement .
JSC/jms
uFam m
National B )6_
Member FDIC
Sixth and Marquette, Minneapolis, MN 55480(612)341-5600
76-7004
April 1, 1983
The Shakopee Professional Group
c/o Phillip R. Krass, Esquire
Krass, Meyer, Kaning & Walston, Chartered
1221 East Fourth Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Re: $1, 100 , 000 Commercial Development Revenue Bond
(The Shakopee Professional Group Project) , Series
1982, City of Shakopee, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Krass :
I have enclosed a photocopy of a letter from Joseph C. Gonnella,
Esquire of Dorsey & Whitney, along with seven copies of a
letter agreement, Agreement to Modify Indenture of Trust,
with its attached Consent of Partnership. The letter
agreement amends Sections 4. 03 and 4. 04 of the Indenture of
Trust.
Mr. Gonella' s letter and the letter agreement itself describe
the amendment. The amendment allows the Trustee to transfer
investment income from the Bond Fund and the Reserve Fund
monthly, rather than within five days of receipt. The
amendments intended to facilitate the Trustee 's administration
and management of Trust Funds under Indenture, and would
result in no loss of earnings to the Trust. The Trustee would
reinvest the investment income received for credit to the
Bond Fund and Reserve Fund, respectively, if it was not
transferred immediately to the Escrow Fund.
I have signed all seven copies of the letter agreement on
behalf of the Trustee. If the amendment is acceptable to you,
please attend to execution of the Consent of Partnership on
behalf of the Shakopee Professional Group.
When this has been done, please forward all seven copies of
the letter agreement to the City.
-1-
row
Phillip R. Krass, Esq.
Page 2
April 1, 1983
As Mr. Gonella states in his letter, City approval of the
amendment should be given by the City Council. A formal
resolution is not necessary, so long as the minutes of the
meeting reflect that the amendment is presented to the City
Council, and a motion is passed authorizing and directing
the City officers to sign the letter agreement.
When the City Council approves the amendment, and it has been
executed, please return all seven execution copies to me and
I will distribute one execution copy to all the parties.
Thank you for your assistance Mr. Krass.
Sincerely,
John C. Palmer
Assistant Vice President
and Trust Officer
JCP/wj
Enclosures
4
DORSEY & WHITNEY
A PartnersPlD '..c.'uding PrOte55 0^c _7'DOratidn5
2200 FIRST BANK EAST
MINNEAPOLIS,MINNES C-A :5402
.'EST•FIRST NA'OVAL BANK BUILDING 512) 340- nipI • VIDSON BUILDING
ST.PAUL.M':7.2017 55101 'ELC< 29-"' ! a�a-A LS,MONTANOAR59401
TH
_=7-c'017 TELE:-OPIER: '612 :< _cc_ (406)727-3632
P O PDv 248
_43 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING (,QQ SUITE 675
SJHESTER.. '•NESOTA 55903 • ' ) 7 I..M 00 M STREET NTNORTH w.
507 _23.3a4i
56 HINGTON,D.C.20036
1202)296.2780
''RST NA71CNAL BANK BUILDING
wATZATA,MINNESOTA 55391 JOSEPH C. GC_NN-
_.-+
612,475-0373 612.1340-x _ yu� A Ut /' 1
l P'SRA CE
II562 32 50
� M MARQUETTE NATIONAL BANP.
March 4 , 17-132
The Shakopee Professional Group Mr . Ronald Berg
c/o Phillip R. Krass , Esq. Miller Securities Incorporated
:.sass , Meyer, Kannina & Walston Suite 421
Chartered 1660 South Highway 100
1221 East Fourth Avenue Minneapolis , Minnesota 55416
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Mr . John K. Anderson Walter C. Parkins , Esq.
Ms. Judith S. Cox O' Connor & Hannan
City Hall 3800 IDS Center
129 East First Avenue Minneapolis , Minnesota 55402
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Mr. John Palmer
F & M Marquette National Bank
91 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Attn: Corporate Trust Department
Re: $1, 100 , 000 Commercial :evelopment Revenue Bonds
(The Shakopee Professional Group Project) , Series 1982
City of Shakopee, Minnesota
Gentlemen and Ms. Cox:
Mr. Palmer of F & M Marquette `rational Bank, acting as
trustee under the Indenture of Trust , sated as of August 1 , 1982 ,
pursuant to which the above-describecn_?s were issued, has
proposed that Sections 4 . 03 and 4 . 04 of the Indenture be amended
to provide for the crediting of investment income from the Bond
Fund and the Reserve Fund to the Escrow Fund on a monthly basis ,
instead of within five days of receipt. The amendment is
proposed by the Trustee to aid its administration and management
of the Trust Funds under the Indenture. The Trustee would
•
DORSEY & WHITNEY
The Shakopee Professional Group
Mr. John K. Anderson
Ms. Judith S. Cox
Mr. John Palmer
Mr. Ronald Berg
Walter C. Parkins , Esq.
March 4 , 1983
Page Two
reinvest the investment income it received for the credit of the
Bdnd Fund and the Reserve Fund, respectively, if it was not to be
immediately transferred to the Escrow Fund.
We believe that the Trustee may reasonably determine
that the proposed amendment may be entered into without the consent
of the holders of any Bonds , as permitted by Section 10 . 01 (D) for
modifications determined by the Trustee not to adversely affect
the interests of the holders of outstanding Bonds. Whether such
a modification should be made is, of course, up to the parties.
To implement the proposal of the Trustee, we have
drafted and enclosed a copy of a letter agreement modifying
Sections 4 . 03 and 4 . 04 of the Indenture. We enclose seven
execution copies of the agreement to Mr. Palmer. If the Trustee
finds the agreement acceptable, we ask that the execution copies
be executed by the Trustee and forwarded to Mr. Krass . If the
Partnership finds the amendment acceptable, we request that the
consent attached hereto be executed and the agreement forwarded
to the City. City approval of the amendment should be given by
the City Council. We believe that a formal resolution is
unnecessary, so long as the minutes of the meeting reflect that
the amendment has been presented to the City Council and a motion
is passed authorizing and directing the City officers to sign
the letter agreement. If the City Council approves the amendment
and it has been executed, we ask that the execution copies be
returned to Mr. Palmer , who should then distribute an execution
copy to all the parties .
If you have any questions, comments or suggestions
concerning the letter agreement or any objection to the amendment
or this proposed procedure, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
Joseph C. Gonnella
JCG/mw U
Enclosure
cc: John D. Kirby, Esq.
AGREEMENT TO MODIFY INDENTURE OF TRUST
March 1, 1983
City of Shakopee
City Hall
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Re: $1 , 100 , 000 Commercial Development Revenue Bonds
(The Shakopee Professional Group Project) , Series 1982
City of Shakopee, Minnesota
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We are acting as trustee under an Indenture of Trust,
dated as of August 1, 1982 , between the City and us (the Indenture) ,
pursuant to which the above-described Bonds were issued. At
present, Sections 4 . 03 and 4 . 04 of the Indenture require the
Trustee to transfer to the Escrow Fund within five days of receipt
investment income earned on moneys deposited in the Bond Fund
and the Reserve Fund. Because of our internal bookkeeping pro-
cedures, it would aid our administration and management of the
Trust Funds if such transfers would be made on a monthly basis .
We would reinvest such investment earnings in Qualified Investments
as permitted by the Indenture for the credit of the Bond Fund
and the Reserve Fund, respectively, until the date all such
investment earnings are transferred to the Escrow Fund.
We thus propose the following amendments to Sections
4 . 03 and 4 . 04 of the Indenture:
"Section 4 . 03 . Bond Fund. A special trust fund is
hereby established with the Trustee and designated as the
"Bond Fund. " The Trustee shall deposit in the Bond Fund,
forthwith upon receipt of the proceeds of the Bonds, interest
accrued thereon from their date to the date of delivery
thereof to the Original Purchaser plus the sum of $76, 650
as funded construction interest. Thereafter the Trustee
shall deposit in the Bond Fund, as received, each of the
payments required by Section 2. 2 of the Loan Agreement,
any interest on payments not made when due and any other
moneys paid to the Trustee under the Loan Agreement or
Indenture for credit or transfer to the Bond Fund. Money
City of Shakopee
Agreement to Modify
Indenture of Trust
March 1 , 1983
Page Two
•
in the Bond Fund shall be used and withdrawn by the Trustee
solely to pay interest on the Bonds as it becomes due and
payable, including interest accruing on any Bond after its
Stated Maturity, if not then paid or redeemed, and, to the
extent that payment of such interest is lawful , interest
on overdue installments of interest at the rate borne by
the Bonds; to pay the principal amount of the Bonds at
their respective stated maturities; to redeem Bonds in
accordance with Sections 3 . 03 , 3. 04 , 3 . 05 and 3 . 06 and
Article XII hereof; or to purchase Bonds in accordance with
the provisions hereof. Earnings on investments of moneys
on deposit in the Bond Fund shall be transferred to the
Escrow Fund withn-fire-days-e€-reeeipt monthly, and in no
event later than the fifth day of the next succeeding
month following receipt. "
"Section 4 . 04 . Reserve Fund. A special trust fund
is hereby established with the Trustee and designated as
the "Reserve Fund. " The Trustee shall deposit in the Reserve
Fund, forthwith upon receipt of the proceeds of the Bonds from
the Original Purchaser, the sum of $118 ,750 . Thereafter,
the Trustee shall deposit in the Reserve Fund any other monies
paid to the Trustee under the Loan Agreement or the Indenture
for credit or transfer to the Reserve Fund. Amounts on hand
in the Reserve Fund shall be transferred by the Trustee to
the Bond Fund if on any Interest Payment Date the amount then
on hand in the Bond Fund is not sufficient to pay the principal
of and interest on the Bonds then due, whether at maturity
or upon redemption or by acceleration. If not used for that
purpose, the Trustee shall hold the Reserve Fund in trust,
to be applied toward payment of the final payment or payments
of the Loan or toward redemption of Outstanding Bonds when
Bonds are by their terms redeemable and all of the Outstanding
Bonds are to be redeemed and paid in full; provided that if no
Determination of Taxability arises , the moneys, together with
interest accrued thereon, deposited in the Reserve Fund by
the Obligor pursuant to Section 7 . 6 of the Loan Agreement shall
be returned to the Obligor. Earnings on investments of moneys
on deposit in the Reserve Fund shall be transferred to the
Escrow Fund withn-€ ve-daps-ef-reeeipt monthly, and in no
event later than the fifth day of the next succeeding month
following receipt. "
City of Shakopee
Agreement to Modify
Indenture of Trust
March 1, 1983
Page Three
We have determined that these amendments may be made without notice
to or the consent of the Holders of Outstanding Bonds as permitted
by Section 10 . 01 (D) of the Indenture.
If these amendments are acceptable to you, kindly sign
the acknowledgement below and upon execution of the consent
appearing below by The Shakopee Professional Group, this agreement
shall constitute a supplemental indenture binding upon us in
accordance with its terms. Terms defined in the Indenture shall
have the same meaning when used herein unless the context otherwise
clearly requires.
Very truly yours,
F & M MARQUETTE NATIONAL BANK
Confirmed and accepted as of the date first above written.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
By
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk And
City Administrator
(SEAL)
CONSENT OF PARTNERSHIP
The undersigned, on behalf of The Shakopee Professional
Group, a Minnesota general partnership (the Partnership) , hereby
consents to the amendment of the Indenture of Trust, dated as of
August 1, 1982, between the City of Shakopee, Minnesota and
F & M Marquette National Bank, as trustee, by the foregoing
Agreement to Modify Indenture of Trust, executed as of March 1 ,
1983 , by said City and said Trustee.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand this /` day
of 4¢.0:40i4 , 1983.
THE SHAKOPEE PROFESSIONAL GROUP
BY - ,
IGe al Partner
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Suite 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul , Minnesota 55101
MEMORANDUM April 28, 1983
TO: Fred Tanzer, Duane Brown, John Sandahl , Staffs of Blaine, Shakopee,
Scott County, Brooklyn Park.
FROM: Connie Kozlak ,, "
SUBJECT: Meeting on Guidelines for ROW Revolving Fund
On May 3, 1983 at 1:00 p.m. you are invited to an informal meeting to discuss
the attached preliminary guidelines for the Right-of-Way Revolving Fund. The
meeting will be at the Metropolitan Council offices, Conference Room B. If you
are unable to attend please read over the guidelines and call me with any
comments at 291-6346 by May 1.1 , 1983.
Thank you.
CK:das
DE025A
PHTRN2
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Suite 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul , Minnesota 55301.
MEMORANDUM April 26, 1983
TO: Transportation Staff, John Hoeft, Tim Fleetham
FROM: Connie Kozlak
SUBJECT: Preliminary Discussion of R-O-W Guidelines
In 1982 the Minnesota Legislature authorized the Metropolitan Council to levy a
tax to establish a fund for purchase of right-of-way for certain highways. The
law, which is attached, is fairly specific regarding eligiblity and
procedures. However, certain aspects require more clarification so it is
necessary that the Metropolitan Council prepare guidelines for distribution of
these funds. The funds will be available by July.
The following is an outline of suggested guidelines and the issues, if any,
around each guideline which need further discussion. Most are based directly
on the law. A schedule is also attached.
Eligibility Guidelines
1 . Any county, town or statutory or home rule city within (or partially
within) the 7-county metropolitan area is eligible to apply for a loan.
.Mn/DOT is not eligible.
2. Loans are for the purchase of property within the right-of-way of a state
trunk highway shown on an official map adopted pursuant to section 394.361
or 462.359, or for the purchase of property within the proposed right-of-
way of an interstate freeway or major arterial highway designated by the
Council as a part of the metropolitan highway system plan and approved by
the Council pursuant to subdivision 1 .
3. The Council shall make loans only to avert the imminent conversion or the
granting of approvals which would allow the conversion of property to uses
which would jeopardize its availability for highway construction.
ISSUE: Determination of imminent conversion. FHWA has guidelines for
"protective buying" which appear to be useful . (attached)
4. The Council shall not make loans for the purchase of property at a price
which exceeds the fair market value of the property. The loan applicant
should submit an appraisal .
5. Applications will be considered as they are received, not on a periodic
funding cycle.
Procedural Guidelines
Application
The application must include, at a minimum:
I . Resolution of local jurisdiction authorizing loan application and purchase
of property.
2. Statement of need to acquire property, including evidence regarding
imminent conversion.
3. Appraisal of property, and amount of loan requested.
4. Map and legal description of land.
5. Purchase agreement between seller and loan applicant.
Council Approval
1. Staff will prepare a report on each loan application.
2. Loans must be approved by Metropolitan Council by resolution. Applicant
will be notified of approval or disapproval within 90 days of receipt of
application.
Loan Agreement
After Council approval of a loan application, Council legal staff will prepare
a loan agreement which will include at least the following points and any
others the Council might specify as a condition of approval .
1 . Loans bear no interest.
2. A private property owner may elect to receive the purchase price either in
a lump sum or in not more than four annual installments without interest on
the deferred installments. If the purchase agreement provides for
installment payments, the Council shall make the loan in installments
corresponding to those in the purchase agreement.
3. Loans shall not cover relocation costs of persons or property.
4. The recipient of an acquisition loan shall convey the property for the
construction of the highway at the same price which the recipient paid for
the property.
5. In the event the loan recipient is also the highway constructor (i .e. a
county highway) the loan shall be repaid at a time prior to actual
construction as specified in the loan agreement.
6. A status report on the revolving fund will be prepared for the Council by
staff prior to August 31 every year to assist the Council in determining
a levy amount by October. Loan recipients will be required to submit an
annual report by June 30 for use in preparing this status report.
.L........,_ �,.,.+ » .».�..�..» _ tu,AFf tj rJ t W 2 r� h � 3 ? GaA �
i tfi
. q !j
a
•
7. Upon notification by the Council that the plan to construct the highway has
been abandoned or the anticipated location of the highway changed, the
recipient shall sell the property at market value in accordance with the
procedures required for the disposition of the property.
ISSUE: What procedures for disposition of the property? Are these
commonly accepted or do we have to define some?
8. All net rents and other money received because of the recipient's
ownership of the property and all proceeds from the conveyance or sale of
the property shall be paid to the Council .
ISSUE: When? Within 30 days of recipient's receipt of rents and proceeds?
9. Every consideration should be given to renting and maintaining acquired
improvements (including buildings) in a manner compatibile with the
surrounding environment until full project acquisition.
ISSUE: If rents received must be paid to the Council how would buildings
be maintained in a rentable condition.
Financial
1 . The Metropolitan Council finance department will handle receipt and
dispersal of funds according to its usual procedures.
2. In general, the revolving fund will not contain a balance higher than
twice the amount produced by a .05 mill levy. The amount levied for
1.983 (.05) will produce an initial 1983. balance of slightly over $1
million (received in two parts).
JM491A
` ��' City of Shakopee 004;4,4' -41.1m°
y s N p K o POLICE DEPARTMENT
t' z
A ik 1J \��� i 476 South Gorman Street `' .�
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 ±$
P Tel. 445-6666 `'. w
4 55379
TO: Mayor, Council Members
FROM: Tom Brownell, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Building Heating/Cooling System Repair
DATE: April 29, 1983
INTRODUCTION
The primary compressor for the police building heating and air
conditioning system, which was installed in 1975, has burnt out.
BACKGROUND
The unit controls the heating and air conditioning for the building
and the system will not function without the unit. The current
budget does not contain funding for the expenditure and a special
appropriation is required.
Bids for replacement:
Associated Mechanical Contractors $2, 700.00
Marsh Heating and Air Conditioning $2,710.00
RECOMMENDATION
Accept the bid of Associated Mechanical Contractors, Inc. , to install
one new compressor as per bid proposal of. April 27, 1983 , at a cost
of $2, 700.00, and approve a special appropriation to the police
department 1983 operating budget in the amount of $2,700 . 00 for the
expenditure.
ACTION REQUESTED
Accept the bid of Associated Mechanical Contractors , Inc . , to install
one new compressor at a cost of $2 , 700.00 and approve a special
appropriation go the police department 1983 operating budget in
the amount of $2 , 700 . 00 for the expenditure.
17o Setvz 5:AoteCt
p,tv
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: 5\�P k Aute--L
RE: Travel/Subsistence Reimbursement
DATE: Gi 770/83
Introduction
The staff member listed below is requesting Council approval for
reimbursement of travel/subsistence expenses.
Background
Staff frequently has to use their own funds to pay for conference
or travel expenses. The process for Council to approve reimbursement
requests within the regular bill cycle can entail a wait of up to
five weeks before the employee receives the money. In order to alleviate
a possible hardship on the employee by expediting compensation for expenses
incurred on City business, this request is forwarded out of the normal bill
cycle. The employee and expenses are:
Name: 3( f1A WUTZLEy
Amount: j 18.b 3
Purpose: (-OF Fbcxey EXpely S ES F ci? GA-SOLI -IE
moot CL)rz2ED D uretNG T7Zi / To HAD,SON, W(
Ffl2 S -e'45 G Sit(KAs[Z. P 'fZll- 13 .
Alternatives
1 . Approve payment
2. Defer to normal bill cycle
3. Deny all or part of request
Recommendation
Alternative #1.
Action
Move to approve payment to 15 ti,..-.p1-4 in the amount
of $ 5 0.1 for travel/subsistence reimbursement.