HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/05/1983 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items
DATE: March 30 , 1983
1 . Walt Harbeck has been in the hospital and had part of his lung
removed. We sent fldwers to Walt from the Mayor and Council .
2 . Perry Cheever, the City mechanic , has been on sick leave for
some time recovering from an operation. Perry' s recovery is
going well and he should be back to work in about two weeks .
3 . At the last Council meeting City Council tabled the item
regarding the Florida Workman' s Comp Bill proposed for this
legislative session. This bill is being reworked with elements
from other bills that incorporated some of the Chamber of
Commerce proposals and some elements from the Wisconsin bill .
When the amended bill is finalized I will bring it back to
Council for action. (Update attached)
4. John Leroux suggested that we contact Bob Pulscher to see if
the proposed Star City Program Slide Show could be worked into
a bond rating increase presentation. Bob is familiar with the
Star Cities Program and said that such a slide program could
be used with a modest amount of editing. Bob also said that
with the completion of our comprehensive plan, the institution
of connection charges for water and other long range planning
the City has done in the last two years we should consider
seeking a bond rating increase the next time we sell bonds .
5 . On March 1st , Council approved an application of Spirit House
Liquors , Inc . for an Off-Sale Liquor License. Judy has learned
that there are some problems with the assignment of the lease
and that the sale from Valley Liquors to Spirit House Liquors
is now off.
7 . Jeanne Andre has clarified the conditions of the JEJ park
purchase . Mr. Lemmons did pay the taxes payable in 1983 .
The amount of the taxes due was deducted from the check
paid to him for the acquisition and a separate check was
then cut for payment to the County which was the check
approved by Council March 15 , 1983 . Mr. Lemmons has also
agreed to pay all taxes payable in 1984 on the parcel which
existed on January 1 , 1983 , which includes the parcel the
City acquired in March of 1983. Jeanne clearly has done an
excellent job in negotiating this sale .
8. I was told by Mike McGuire , City Manager from Prior Lake ,
that the indian reservation had extensive annexation powers .
I asked Don Steger to obtain some specifics and he has done
that . The reservation in Prior Lake purchased 32 acres of
property adjacent to the bingo hall from a willing seller
and then annexed it to the reservation. The Federal Government
' Non-Agenda Informational Items
Page Two
March 30, 1983
actually bought the land and put it in trust for the reserva-
tion. According to Prior Lake officials the City can do
nothing to stop the annexation; however, they sent a letter
of objection to the Feds but have received no response.
Prior Lake ' s Planner said that the reservation has full
powers to annex. Prior Lake is very concerned about additional
development on the reservation and they have heard that an
enlargement of the bingo hall is planned for this summer.
If you have questions about how this may impact Shakopee
please contact Don Steger.
9 . On March 15th, Council approved a parade route for the V.F.W.
for May 1st from the High School to Lions Park. Because the
parade will include over 50 V.F.W. chapters from the second
congressional district , the V.F.W. has asked if the route
could be extended to the Pearson School area. The Chief of
Police has no problems with this route extension and is
willing to work with the V.F.W. on this matter. Unless a
Councilmember sees a problem, staff will assume that the
parade route from Pearson School to Lions Park is acceptable.
10. Attached is a memo from Don Steger regarding the positions
taken by area cities on the County Road 18 bridge .
11 . Attached is a memo from Leroy Houser regarding the heating
system at the Fire Station.
12 . Attached is a 1983 breakdown of the impact of Fiscal Disparities
by counties . Please keep these and carry them with you to
I .C.C. industrial tours so that you can respond to questions
about high taxes in Scott County and Shakopee.
13 . Attached is a copy of the economic impact a $1 ,000,000 commercial
office development has on a community. Again, this is useful
information to keep in mind during I .C.C. industrial tours .
14. Attached is the April calendar. We have also reserved June
7th, 14th and 21st for meeting dates for the Board of Equiliza-
tion with the Scott County Assessor ' s Office.
15 . Attached is a compilation of the fuel disbursements for 1982 .
If you have any questions about the information please contact
me.
16 . Attached is the agenda for the April 5th and 6th Downtown Ad
Hoc Committee that will be to interview consultants .
17 . Attached is the agenda for the first Shakopee Cable Communica-
tions Advisory Commission meeting.
18 . Attached are the agendas for the April 7 , 1983 Board of Adjust-
ments and Appeals and Planning Commission meetings.
19 . Attached are the minutes of the March 3 , 1983 meetings of the
Board of Adjustments and Appeals and Planning Commission.
Non-Agenda Informational Items
Page Three
March 30, 1983
20 . Staff has interpreted Council ' s directive to discount pool fees
to include individual and family season tickets . This means
adults will be eligible dor a discount under the family ticket .
If this doesn' t correspond with what you thought we were doing
please contact me.
21 . Attached are the finalized Council meeting procedures from this
years Goals and Objectives . Please save these.
22 . Attached is a report on the status of the 4th Avenue storm sewer
inspection. Recommendation to Council to follow at a later
meeting.
23 . We have received a certificate of insurance from the Prior Lake-
Spring Lake Watershed District indicating their insurance
coverage .
3
S-3
(c) Ten percent to a special reserve fund for restoration of abandoned
pits or deposits which are on public and tax-forfeited lands in the
county.
Personnel Administration
Workers' compensation benefits, rehabilitation and medical information
changes. S.F. 687 (Frederick, Taylor, Brataas) (Employment) would limit total
disability benefits to 90 percent of a person's spendable weekly wage if
weekly wages are under $150 per week, and 80 percent if the wage is over $150
per week; and limit the maximum weekly benefit for total disability to 150
percent of the state-wide average weekly wage at the time of the injury. If
at the time of ,the injury, the employee or the employee and his dependents
have coverage under an accident and health insurance policy, the employee and
covered dependents would be entitled to coverage under that plan or policy
during the period the employee receives disability benefits. The bill would
require the employer to pay disability benefits for up to one year after the
injury, provided that the employee continues to pay the same share of the
premium he/she paid prior to the injury.
The bill would reduce total disability benefits if the individual receives
other benefits under a government disability program, an old age benefits
program, a public or private sector pension or retirement fund or program, or
other disability benefit plan or program. The legislation would reduce the
benefits the employer must pay by one dollar for each dollar the employee
receives from other benefit sources. If an employee is eligible for these
benefits but has not applied for them, the employer shall notify the employee
of the possible eligibility, and if the employee does not apply within 30 days
of the notice, the legislation would allow the employer to stop payment of
benefits until the employee applies for other benefits. The bill also
establishes the length of total disability payments and bases an employee's
death benefits on the deceased employee's spendable weekly wage at the time of
the injury, and changes the existing allocation of death benefit payments.
The bill would provide that upon the request of a qualified dependent spouse,
the decedent's employer shall provide rehabilitation services. Remarriage of
a surviving dependent spouse would result inthe immediate discontinuance of
benefits to the spouse. The bill would also establish a schedule of
impairment benefits for the purpose of compensating employees whose personal
injuries result in a permanent impairment and to compensate employees for the
noneconomic consequences of permanent bodily impairment. The legislation
would establish an impairment benefit schedule which ranges from a lump sum
payment of $2,500 for ten percent bodily impairment up to a maximum of
$133,000 lump sum benefit for 100 percent bodily impairment. The bill also
requires the release of medical data to insurers and employers and makes
employers responsible for reemploying injured employees. The bill would make
additional changes in the workers' compensation law.
Transkortation
Metropolitan ransit assistance progr ms and bidding requireme ts. H.F. 637
(C. Rodriguez, Schreiber, Vellenga, Anderson, Pauly) (Loc l and Urban
Affairs) would estrict the eligibilit for transit assistance funding for
replacement sery ce based on actual regu ar route service, rather han service
S-4
the Metropolitan Transit Commission provides. The bill would provide that -�
afte the first year of replac'•ment service, the state woi,ld limit the maximum
subsi�'y under the assistance p ogram to the rate of inflation in. the CPI for
the mc ropolitan area. The bil would require the MTC to give 60 days prior
publis ..-d notice of any service , eductions and announce th_ir intent to accept
sealed kids for providing presen services. The MTC would award the contract
to the Lowest qualified bidder, unless the operator under contract for such
services already is the lowest biider or the lowest bid is not more than ten
percent 1-ss than the current c.ntract cost, in which lase the MTC may
eliminate ervice as planned. The bill would remove the te cent cap on bus
fare increa .es, and the specific re.uirements for reduced off peak hour fares,
except to c+nform to federal requi ements for special popu ations (such as
senior citiz:ns and handicapped pers•ns) and mandate an over.11 reduction of
at least te percent for off-pea. hour fares. The le:islation would
appropriate $4' ,505,200 for the next biennium.
Transportation o detoxification cent=rs. S.F. 548 (Ramstad, C. Peterson,
Sieloff, Knaak) Judiciary) would requ're a peace officer or h s designee to
transport to a d=toxification center th.se drivers who meet the standard for
detention under t S. 253B.05, subdivisi.n 2 (if the officer h:s reason to
believe the person is mentally ill, menta 'ly retarded, or chemica 'ly dependent
and an imminent d.nger of injuring him elf or others if not immediately
restrained) . The 'ill would also give the peace officer di .cretion to
transport the person to a detoxification c_ ter if the officer ha reasonable
grounds to believe t - person was operatin: a motor vehicle whil. under the
influence.
The head of a detoxifi .tion facility could of release any person admitted
under this provision hen grounds exist or establishing an -mergency
admission under M.S. 253B 05.
The commissioner of public safety could not res.ore driving privilege, unless
he receives information tha the person paid fo, costs at the detoxi►ication
center, did not receive d- oxification service , or met the stand.rd for
indigency.
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: Don Steger
City Planner
RE: Public Hearing
County Road 18
DATE: March 23, 1983
I attended the March 22, 1983 public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for County Road 18. The following is a listing of preferred
alternatives, as stated by local governments:
Shakopee - Alternate 9, Alternate 5
Prior Lake- Alternate 5
Bloomington- Alternate 9
Norbert Theis - Alternate 5 (unsure if he was speaking
in behalf of Jackson Township or for himself)
Eden Prairie - Alternate 1 (no build) or Alternate 6
Savage - Central Corridor or any location
Eden Prairie was very anti-County Road 18 improvement. Also, several organized
groups and individuals from Ed Prairie spoke against County Road 18 improvements.
There is little doubt that opposition to the County Road 18 project will come
from Eden Prairie and residents living along the route.
DS/jvm
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson/City Administrator
FROM: LeRoy Houser/Building Official
RE : Fire Station Boiler
DATE: March 25 , 1983
After talking with Dean Colligan and checking the specs on the
roof top unit that was installed during the fire station re-
model , I find it was sized to handle the entire fire station' s
heating needs .
It is to bad this came to light at such a late date , we could
have saved about $1 ,000 per year by using the boiler to heat
the hot water only, and not as the primary source of domestic
heat for the building.
I have notified all bidders we are not going to install a new
boiler.
What I propose now is to valve off the heating lines so they
can only be used for heat if the roof top units go out , and
use the boiler for the hot water needs for the fire station.
Thus , reducing the cost of heating water, we will use the
existing water heater as a storage container only.
The modification is estimated to cost approximately $1 ,000 and
the payback should be two years .
Please advise . :I I''
N • COMPARISON OF FISCAL DISPARITY
4CONTRIBUTION AND DISTRIBUTION ASSESSED VALUES
Dt' 12) •
�✓ TAXES PAYABLE 1983
6 Contribution Distribution
Assessed Assessed Difference
Anoka County Value , Value Amount Percent
Towns
Burns $ 31 ,728 $ 955,246 $ 923,518 2910.73%
Columbus 323,653 1 ,742,520 1 ,418,867 438.39
Linwood 70,676 1 ,646,746 1 ,576,070 2229.99
Oak Grove 178,600 1 ,972,464 1 ,793,864 1004.40 .
Total Towns $ 604,657 $ 6,316,976 $ 5,712,319 944.72%
Cities
Andover $ 1 ,543,109 $ 5,480,041 $ 3,936,932 255. 13%
Anoka 6,242,172 8,216,827 1 ,974,655 31 .63
Bethel 66,997 219,510 152,513 227.64
Blaine 13,544,945 18,962,614 5,417,669 40.00
Centerville 170,468 466,981 296,513 173.94
Circle Pines 337,929 1 ,969,334 1 ,631 ,405 482.77
Columbia Heights 4,487,006 10,544,639 6,057,633 135.00
Coon Rapids 9,860,631 21 ,372,638 11 ,512,007 116.75
East Bethel 695,151 4,030,687 3,335,536 479.83
Fridley 25,629,645 12,509,174 -13,120,471 - 51 .19
Ham Lake 1 ,387,540 4,758,702 3,371 ,162 242.96
Hilltop 289,751 876,998 587,247 202.67
Lexington 325,947 1 ,747,737 1 ,421 ,790 436.20
Lino Lakes 839,767 2,865,112 2,025,345 241 .18
Ramsey 2,779,489 6,105,604 3,326,115 119.67
St. Francis 525,781 639,961 114,180 21 .72
Spring Lake Park 2,091 ,548 3,653,847 1 ,562,299 74.70
Total Cities $70,817,876 $104,420,406 $ 33,602,530 47.45%
County Total $71 ,422,533 $110,737,382 $ 39,314,849 55.05%
t
COMPARISON OF FISCAL DISPARITY
CONTRIBUTION AND DISTRIBUTION ASSESSED VALUES
TAXES PAYABLE 1983
Contribution Distribution
Assessed Assessed Difference
Carver County . Value Value Amount Percent
Towns
Benton $ 446,065 $ 196,140 $- 249,925 - 56.03%
Camden 83,904 197,601 113,697 135.51
Chaska 1 ,677 74,492 72,815 4341 .98
Dahlgren 168,553 279,396 110,843 65.76
Hancock 22,586 83,464 60,878 269.54
Hollywood 87,190 301 ,931 214,741 246.29
Laketown 146,668 743,039 596,371 406.61
San Francisco 12,142 141 ,889 129,747 1068.58 _
Waconia 118,938 381 ,222 262,284 220.52
Watertown 1 ,280,224 374,336 - 905,888 - 70.76
Young America 147,475 202,400 54,925 37.24
Total Towns $ 2,515 ,422 $ 2,975,910 $ 460,488 18.31%
Cities
Carver $ 58,839 $ 359,730 $ 300,891 511 .38%
Chanhassen 2,154,598 2,280,029 125,431 5.82
Chaska 4,710,666 5,149,732 439,066 9.32
Cologne 204,517 313,199 108,682 53. 14
Hamburg 51 ,073 288,160 237,087 464.21
Mayer 63,675 241 ,420 177,745 279.14
New Germany 29,411 270,215 240,804 818.75
Norwood 298,220 861 ,558 563,338 188.90
Victoria 319,351 736,570 417,219 130.65
Waconia 1 ,249,107 1 ,171 ,627 - 77,480 - 6.20
Watertown 463,266 1 ,456,865 993,599 214.48
Young America 190,912 794,578 603,666 316.20
Total Cities $ 9,793,635 $13,923,683 $ 4,130,048 42. 17%
County Total $12,309,057 $16,899,593 $ 4,590,536 37.29%
%
2
COMPARISON OF FISCAL DISPARITY
CONTRIBUTION AND DISTRIBUTION ASSESSED VALUES
TAXES PAYABLE 1983
Contribution Distribution
Assessed Assessed Difference
Dakota County Value Value Amount Percent
Towns
Castle Rock $ 256,627 $ 361 ,399 $ 104,772 40.83%
Douglas 73,256 129,369 56,113 76.60
Empire 178,857 354,931 176,074 98.44
Eureka 121 ,841 292,124 170,283 139.76
Greenvale 106,455 133,542 27,087 25.44
Hampton 90,123 185,916 95,793 106.29
Marshan 485,515 546,898 61 ,383 12.64
! ininger 16,979 249,140 232,161 1367.34
Randolph 116,741 98,070 - 18,671 - 15.99
Ravenna 137,759 837,562 699,803 507.99
Sciota 7,683 52,165 44,482 578.97
Vermillion 201 ,766 268,546 66,780 33.10
Waterford _ 156,825 104,121 - 52,704 - 33.61
Total Towns $ 1 ,950,427 $ 3,613,783 $ 1 ,663,356 85.28%
Cities
Apple Valley $ 4,603,391 $11 ,092,163 $ 6,488,772 140.96%
Burnsville 30,297,954 13,289,354 -17,008,600 - 56.14
Coates 151 ,502 98,696 - 52,806 - 34.85
Eagan 18,580,256 8,284,433 -10,295,823 - 55.41
_. Farmington 1 ,149,768 2,027,968 878,200 76.38
Hampton 86,971 138,342 51 ,371 59.07
Hastings 3,154,983 7,085,889 3,930,906 124.59
Inver Grove Heights 9,629,161 8,780,418 - 848,743 - 8.81
Lakeville 4,923,382 7,749,637 2,826,255 57.40
Lilydale 345,593 87,637 - 257,956 - 74.64
Mendota 90,104 107,043 16,939 18.80
Mendota heights 4,544,232 2,046,330 - 2,497,902 - 54.97 -
Miesville 60,580 67,606 7,026 11 .60
New Trier 11 ,832 113,094 101 ,262 855.83
Randolph 21 ,342 261 ,868 240,526 1127.01
Rosemount 3,202,297 2,020,039 - 1 ,182,258 - 36.92
South St. Paul -- 10,504,785 10,504,785 --
Sunfish Lake 17,606 70,944 53,338 302.95
Vermillion 77,568 274,805 197,237 254.28
West St. Paul 7,563,566 7,984,379 420,813 5.56
Total Cities $88,512,088 $82,085,430 $- 6,426,658 - 7.26;'
County Total $90,462,515 $85,699,213 $- 4,763,302 - 5.27%
T
� Z=
COMPARISON OF FISCAL DISPARITY
CONTRIBUTION AND DISTRIBUTION ASSESSED VALUES
TAXES PAYABLE 1983
Contribution Distribution
Assessed Assessed Difference
Hennepin County Value Value Amount Percent
Towns
Hassan $ 419,537 $ 727,181 $ 307,644 73.33%
Cities
Bloomington $ 54,985,899 $ 28,051 ,432 $-26,934,467 - 48.98%
Brooklyn Center 16,832,813 15,395,570 - 1 ,437,243 - 8.54
Brooklyn Park 11 ,894,748 23,761 ,797 11 ,867,049 99. 77
Champlin 1 ,068,651 5,424,954 4,356,303 407.65
Chanhassen 326,147 3,339 - 322,808 - 98.98
Corcoran 742,945 2,038,818 1 ,295,873 174.42
Crystal 3,579,126 12,600,567 9,021 ,441 252.06
Dayton 581 ,868 2,356,607 1 ,774,739 305.01
Deephaven 438,583 864,270 425,687 97.06
Eden Prairie 24,309,639 4,276,698 -20,032,941 - 82.41
Edina 34,675,960 10,609,741 -24,066,219 - 69.40
Excelsior 1 ,213,441 1 ,050,812 - 162,629 - 13.40
Golden Valley 20,010,062 6,419,011 -13,591 ,051 - 67.92
Greenfield 422,826 512,678 89,852 21 .25
Greenwood 208,726 157,538 - 51 ,188 - 24.52
Hanover 15,679 128,952 113,273 722.45
Hopkins 7,814,150 6,397,519 - 1 ,416,631 - 18.13
Independence 287,193 886,597 599,404 208.71
Long Lake 1 ,147,433 757,019 - 390,414 - 34.02
Loretto 194,760 147,105 - 47,655 - 24.47
Maple Grove 7,997,311 9,043,956 1 ,046,645 13.09
Maple Plain 728,207 633,075 - 95,132 - 13.06
Medicine Lake 34,875 135,212 100,337 287.70
Medina 1 ,369,444 754,098 - 615,346 - 44.93
Minnetonka 36,015,747 12,238,542 -23,777,205 - 66.02
Minnetonka Beach 180,738 118,936 - 61 ,802 - 34. 19
Minnetrista 298,114 861 ,975 563,861 189.14
Mound 1 ,076,123 4,155,258 3,079,135 286.13
New Hope 14,875,782 10,986,581 - 3,889,201 - 26.14
Orono 1 ,319,378 1 ,500,266 180,888 13.71
Osseo 1 ,176,496 1 ,596,250 419,754 35.68
Plymouth 36,050,635 11 ,326,280 -24,734,355 - 68.59
r
2-
COMPARISON OF FISCAL DISPARITY
CONTRIBUTION AND DISTRIBUTION ASSESSED VALUES
TAXES PAYABLE 1983
Contribution Distribution
Assessed Assessed Difference
Hennepin County (Cont. ) Value Value Amount Percent
,
Richfield $ 4,366,792 $ 17,064,642 $ 12,697,850 290.78%
Robbinsdale 2,102,503 6,551 ,928 4,449,425 211 .63
Rockford 163,109 444,863 281 ,754 172.74
Rogers 1 ,128,802 253,522 - 875,280 - 77.54
St. Anthony 2,207,542 2,087,436 - 120,106 - 5.44
St. Bonifacius 441 ,959 443,820 1 ,861 0.42
St. Louis Park 26,940,209 14,836,569 -12,103,640 - 44.93
Shorewood 1 ,105,205 1 ,415,133 309,928 28.04
Spring Park 1 ,223,245 547,733 - 675,512 - 55.22
Tonka Bay 230,979 304,018 73,039 31 .62
Wayzata 2,729,887 787,066 - 1 ,942,821 - 71 .17
Woodland 7,604 108,503 100,899 1326.92
Minneapolis 137,499,039 164,071 ,538 26,572,499 19.33
Total Cities $462,030,374 $384,108,224 $-77,922,150 - 16.87%
County Total $462,449,911 $384,835,405 $-77,614,506 - 16.78%
, .
COMPARISON OF FISCAL DISPARITY
CONTRIBUTION AND DISTRIBUTION ASSESSED VALUES
TAXES PAYABLE 1983
Contribution Distribution
Assessed Assessed Difference
Ramsey County Value Value Amount Percent
Towns
White Bear Lake $ 749,514 $ 2,676,483 $ 1 ,926,969 257.10%
Cities
Arden Hills $ 10,828,262 $ 2,877,423 $- 7,950,839 - 73.43%
Blaine 37,165 -- - 37,165 --
Falcon Heights 926,087 2,762,034 1 ,835,947 198.25
Gem Lake 519,142 98,905 - 420,237 - 80.95
Lauderdale 311 ,096 986,754 675,658 217.19
Little Canada 4,458,647 3,297,456 - 1 ,161 ,191 - 26.04
Maplewood 34,192,934 9,724,814 -24,468,120 - 71 .56
Mounds View 2,138,801 7,826,215 5,687,414 265.92
New Brighton 7,042,473 11 ,625,707 4,583,234 65.08
North Oaks - . 267,643 603,028 335,385 125.31
North St. Paul 1 ,657,117 6,629,341 4,972,224 300.05
Roseville 31 ,120,700 12,683,197 -18,437,503 - 59.25
St. Anthony 1 ,155,324 909,967 - 245,357 - 21 .24
Shoreview 5,263,707 7,586,465 2,322,758 44.13
Spring Lake Park 13,100 63,433 50,333 384.22
Vadnais Heights 2,651 ,892 2,797,506 145,614 5.49
White Bear Lake 4,408,735 11 ,721 ,691 7,312,956 165.87
St. Paul 81 ,554,403 130,465,782 48,911 ,379 59.97
Total Cities $188,547,228 TYT2,659,718 $ 24,112,490 12.79%
County Total $189,296,742 $215,336,201 $ 26,039,459 13.76%
_ _
,
/ 7
COMPARISON OF FISCAL DISPARITY
CONTRIBUTION AND DISTRIBUTION ASSESSED VALUES
TAXES PAYABLE 1983
Contribution Distribution Difference
Assessed Assessed
Scott County •
Value Value Amount Percent
--i--
TownsP
50,985 $ 158,582 $ 107,597 211 .04%
Belle laine $ 40,311 106,417 66,106 163.99
Cedar rLake 59,996 442,777 382,781 638.01 -
Credit River 152,889 960,880 807,991 528.48
Helena 157,002 320,502 163,500 104.14
390,254 1 ,136,154 745,900 191 .13
Louisvilleuksvn 656,348 294,002 - 362,346 - 55.21
NewwMarket 176,808 438,395 261 ,587 147.95
191 ,739 84,299 - 107,440 - 56.03
StCreek 139,153 464,269 325,116 233.64
Sp.. Lawrence 124,503 932,293 807,790 648.81
Spring Lake 149.47%
Total Towns 3- 2,139,988 $ 5,338,570 $ 3,198,582
Cities
Belle Plaine $ 509,902 $ 1 ,876,480 $ 1 ,366,578 368.01%
Elko 36,450 165,050
Jordan 590,290 2,150,869 1 ,560,579 0,579 264.37
.37
New Market 38,443 194,471
Prior Lake 1 ,499,420 3,079,406 1 ,579,986 105.37
Savage
3,494,831 1 ,647,998 - 1 ,846,833 - 52.84
Shakopee 16,370,726 3,7202201 -12,650,525 - 77.28
Total Cities $22,540,062 $12,834,475 $- 9,705,587 - 43.06%
County.Total $24,680,050 $18,173,045 $- 6,507,005 - 26.37%
.
COMPARISON OF FISCAL DISPARITY
CONTRIBUTION AND DISTRIBUTION ASSESSED VALUES
TAXES PAYABLE 1983
Contribution Distribution
Assessed AssessedDifference
Washington County Value _ Value Amount Percent
Towns
Baytown $ 304,322 $ 295,880 $- 8,442 - 2.77%
Denmark 452,833 301 ,514 - 151 ,319 - 33.42
Forest Lake 545,181 2,181 ,542 1 ,636,361 300. 15
Grant 759,898 1 ,019,722 259,824 34. 19
Grey Cloud 123,538 116,432 - 7,106 - 5.75
May 104,693 587,170 482,477 460.85
New Scandia 361 ,018 1 ,096,509 735,491 203.73
Stillwater -- 519,355 519,355
West Lakeland 339,141 446,115 106,974 31 .54
Total Towns $ 2,990,624 $ 6,564,239 $ 3,573,615 119.49%
Cities
Afton $ 498,388 $ 758,897 $ 260,509 52.27%
Bayport 1 ,360,116 1 ,544,085 183,969 13.53
Birchwood 15,444 344,498 329,054 2130.63
Cottage Grove 4,781 ,254 10,137,960 5,356,706 112.04
Dellwood 192,707 158,582 - 34,125 - 17.71
Forest Lake 2,823,071 2,222,022 - 601 ,049 - 21 .29
Hastings 47,420 11 ,059 - 36,361 - 76.68
Hugo 1 ,324,200 1 ,762,761 438,561 33. 12
Lake Elmo 1 ,332,367 2,370,796 1 ,038,429 77.94
Lakeland 241 ,776 823,999 582,223 240.81
Lake St. Croix Beach 39,101 657,279 618,178 1580.98
Lakeland Shores 20,309 55,921 35,612 175.35
Landfall 34,495 1 ,497,136 1 ,462,641 4240. 15
Mahtomedi 412,764 1 ,605,222 1 ,192,458 288.90
Marine on St. Croix 66,521 155,660 89,139 134.00
Newport 1 ,367,387 1 ,457,282 89,895 6.57
Oakdale 1 ,397,698 6,778,115 5,380,417 384.95
Oak Park Heights 2,030,071 569,642 - 1 ,460,429 - 71 .94
Pine Springs 25,744 87,011 61 ,267 237.99
St. Mary's Point 17,030 155,452 138,422 812.81
2
—
COMPARISON OF FISCAL DISPARITY
CONTRIBUTION AND DISTRIBUTION ASSESSED VALUES
TAXES PAYABLE 1983
Contribution Distribution
. Assessed Assessed Difference
Washington Co. (Cont. ) Value Value Amount Percent
St. Paul Park $ 1 ,540,346 $ 3,042,056 $ 1 ,501 ,710 97.49%
Stillwater 2,832,102 5,929,495 3,097,393 109.37
White Bear Lake 8,600 36,516 27,916 324.60
Willernie 39,976 439,856 399,880 loo0.30-
Woodbury 8,415,912 3,629,851 - 4,786,061 - 56.87
Total Cities $ 30,864,799 $ 46,231 ,153 T76,366,354 49.79%
•
County Total $ 33,855,423 $ 52,795,392 $ 18,939,969 55.94%
SEVEN COUNTY TOTAL $884,476,231 $884,476,231 $ -o-
Prepared by: Local Government Aids and
Analysis Division
Minnesota Department of Revenue
January 27, 1983
/ 3
ECONOMIC IMPACT $1,000,000 COMMERCIAL OFFICE DEVELOPMENT
Property Taxes Paid: $1,000,000
$1,000,000 COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING X 43%
16,000 square foot building @$62.60/sq.ft. Assessed Marked Value $ 430,000
200 sq.ft./person 80 JOBS
Property taxes paid to state,county and local government,
annual$20,000/person
payroll average payroll&benefits X 80=$1,600,000 assuming 100 mil rate=$43,000/year
annual payroll (invested or spent)
Total FIRST YEAR ECONOMIC IMPACT per$1 million
Increase in Minnesota income tax @ 7%=$112,000/year
office space added to economy:
$1,000,000 CONSTRUCTION VALUE $2,776,000
Assume 30%direct labor=$300,000 ANNUAL ECONOMIC IMPACT:
Minnesota income tax=$21,000 Payroll $1,600,000
Value of materials purchased=$300,000 Taxes 176,000
Value of Services Purchased: $1,776,000
—Architects,engineers,lawyers—$150,000
—interest paid to banks and financial institutions—$150,000 TOTALR L MILLIOAR OFF A T MIN MINNESOTA ECONOMY
Profit available for savings or spent=$100,000 $18,760,000
•
N Gm M 0
,-1 N M
P.-4
rn
.. . ♦ -
00 in N
. ,-I N N
d
p 01
Pi cu
rt, p cn
0 4J O
O .,-a --i
o U U
00
,--I N 0 N
>-4 -W
cd
b0•,-A E
06 E
0 •
•3 cn (]- Ci, CI
X.
cd E c`) N cd cn
O •• ••
Poor W HN-
\-D M • O I\
M r{ (1, • N N
cC E
oTho •
,-i O O-,
Cl) ••
E 0
U O cd N ••
121-4 �Tl O a-J U crl
d O I ,--IU
b O •• O U
d Q h-- P-1 I-I
8
cd O a•
V`, N
O ,—I ,-I `-i ,--I N
•r-1
U
R1 • •
zn 3 77 0 • 0 •
U O Ca U CLO CL
Q ii co
d .--) 0
rd O •,--', •• ..
d U r- U n
-0 -.
ti cn CO Lf")
r-1 ,-1 N
0
>1 4J >
ea.) E
U 4--) Q, C 0 C� 01n C1
O , ,--1 O E •,- 0 E0 N0
,0 •rIM .n E > O Eo 0
;..) .. cd O 0 •. Q •• .,-I ••
P.4 -1 UUdr•-• U [-T-i00
.-•--•-.
-- �o- r`
,-I N
}I
RI
iW') H
CO
C) hj H .> n hi CO U) co hi Co 'd
o H C) q d Co C) • Pty `N o
'� H '7 LTJ G) ri H C7 H
a ry H -.
G) Z C VI n
y <' V) • U) rd H U)
Cl0 Co H o r) nrt
LTJ z ;U 70 •
H iii Co
C ro
I ''J Co hi C) Ct-' CL Cr Cir Cr Cl t-1 Cr Cr Cl t-4 CiCr Cr
I 4-' H O F-A '.Z r0 z ri z tilI-I LTJ La LTi z r1 z ri Z rd Z t17 H z rdz r7
' ter r) r-+ :1› rt-' > U) tip r' � ti > ti > t-+ > CU t-4 r >
i i� t-7 H Cn m C7 r7 C7 • LTi C7 Co C7 CI C7 rd C7 rd C7 rd C7 t=i C7 Co CI C) LTJ C)
C1 riy > U) > y y y y t1 > >
H rl t-1 C7 Ci C r C C7 Ci C7 C7 ti Ci C
ri t7 LTi t-] r7 LTJ U) U) b7 rd
O 0 0 C7 0 C7 C7 C7 0 0
•
L' H NJ H
H PM O Ui J Un H H N H H H CD U .A C) NJ
H• . . . . . . . . . • . . . No N . .
W N LD U .A O H NJ O H H NJ NJ H NJ J W O H
U OI .A .A HNC) Ln .A OO H NJ UH Ol F. Ln NJ O H
N .A OO \O CO \D Ul H Ln J CD O .A NJ 00 .A N O U7 VD
• 00
U J J J J -J NJ NJ J Ol .A .A U7 J J CD J H O NJ
H NJ
Ln Ui H .A CO NJ H H \D .A U ON U
U . . . . . . N .
LO Ln CO H Ln NJ CD LID O LCD NJ H CO U7 W Cn NJ NJ CO CO F. 'Ti
N N .A U Co U U] H CD O CO H VD CO U] CD Ol CN J N CD N lO C n
V .A H J N O J U] -J CO CN CO NJ NJ N O O CO W W CM O co U) H
L' • • . • • • • • • • • o H r H
J H U] .A J U J CD NJ Cm U] CO NJ Cn W OM U] H U Un 1-C
C
H -0
H NJ H • H H Cl) 'Ti
lr H NJ .A CO CD H O H .A W H H U
CN . . . . . H C CO
C) .A .A .A U CD CO CO U CO op U] CO .A U] VD H J U] CO U VD lD
l.n O .A U H O U] Ol .A Ol J NJ H U NJ CO NJ J O CO VD ., J NJ CO G') >I
Ln lD H U U] O J CO CN U] NJ .A U NJ NJ O CO U7 A. J LID O NJ .A O U) 'A00 ,,,
em
z rd
F-' U H H H H U)
UJB U] Ul H H O .A .A H H NJ CO
NJ . . . . . . H
U U U1 U O NJ 01 C) -J CO .A H O U7 CO U -J J CO U lO
N NJ J U VO NJ -J H NJ CO 00 -J NJ Ol CD Ol VD 03 LO .A W J F,-
Lo00 U7 .A H O -J NJ H .A l0 .A Cn U CO H O H O Co -J CO C)
A
,A H H H
NJ NJ CO .A NJ H H
NJ H' O
lD U CD --I CO cm -J Ln LID
LO Co .A U LO Ol Ol O N J ())
U CO O .A O NJ CD NJ Ui ,CO
CO
OO H H J U1 H N H
�D .A co NJ C .A H co CD
.A U] C) NJ LID O H CO J
Cr, C H C) NJ Ln On .A J
a, H
oC) H H U7 CD U H
0 O N • J O1 CO U J NJ lD
HH VD U H 1/41) J 00 O -J
H H CO .A VD NJ O LO CD Ol
H H .
Ol H H CO LII N Ol
CS . H
NJ on Ol H .A NJ .A Ol C)
NNJ NJ w CD N J CO .A O In /�
N O J `JI,
t / Y
TENTATIVE AGENDA
Downtown Ad Hoc Committee
City Hall Council Chambers
• April 5, 1983
7:00 A.M.
Chrmn. Steil presiding
1. Call to Order at 7:00 A.M.
2. Approval of March 23, 1983 Meeting Minutes.
3. Consultant Presentations/Interviews:
a. 7:00 A.M. Professional Planning & Development Company
b. 8:00 A.M. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc.
c. 9:00 A.M. Westwood Planning and Engineering Company
4. Miscellaneous
5. Adjournment
Don Steger
City Planner
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
it
AD HOC DOWNTOWN COMMITTEE
MEETING
March 23, 1983
7:30 A.M.
City Council Chambers
Present: Gary Laurent, Terry Link, Bill Wermerskirchen, Jr, Mike Sortum,
Bud Berens, Steve Clay, Dan Steil, Don Steger, Don Martin, Jerry Wampach,
Bill Wermerskirchen Sr, Gene Pearson, John Anderson, Jean Andre and Trevor
Walsten.
Chairman Dan Steil called to meeting to order.
Chairman Steil introduced new voting members Steve Clay and Gary
Laurent and new non-voting member Trevor Walsten.
Link/Clay moved to approve the February 16, 1983 minutes of meeting.
This passed unanimously.
Chairman Steil reviewed the Downtown Survey Summary with the committee
members. Discussion was held on the pro's and con's of development from
both business owners and tenants.
A reviewal of a Consultant Evaluation Sheet drawn up by Don Steger was
discussed. It was suggested by Bill Wermerskirchen Jr. that this could
be used in our interviews with the consultants. The Committee members
agreed.- Discussion was also held on the type of questions that should
be asked and on what the committee members should know about the consult-
ants. Mike Sortum suggested that Don Steger draw up a list of questions
that will be asked.
Don Steger presented the names of the five consultants and reviewed their
backgrounds.
The Schedule of interviews was set for April 5 and 6 with the time set
for 7:00 to 10:00 A.M. each day.
April 13, 1983 was set as a committee meeting date to finalize the
choice.
It was also agreed the City Council, Planning Commission, and Industrial
Commercial Commission be invited to these meetings.
Link/Clay moved to adjourn at 8:42. This passed unanimously.
Submitted by,
Don D. Martin
( /
TENTATIVE AGENDA
Downtown Ad Hoc Committee
City Hall Council Chambers
April 6, 1983
7:00 A.M.
Chrmn. Steil presiding
1. Call to Order at 7:00 A.M.
2. Consultant Presentations/Interviews:
a. 7:00 A.M. Gunnar Isberg and Associates
b. 8:00 A.M. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
3. Discussion of Consultant Proposals
4. Miscellaneous.
5. Adjournment.
Don Steger
City Planner
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
/7
TENTATIVE AGENDA
Shakopee Cable Communications Advisory
Commission
City Hall Council Chambers
Organizational Meeting April 11 , 1983
1 . Roll Call at 7 :00 p.m.
2 . Administer Oath of Office
3 . Election of Officers : Chairman and Vice-Chairman
4. Establish regular meeting time
5 . Determine if additional by-laws are desired
6 . Establish activities for 1983
a . Formation of Community Access Corporation
b.
7 . Update on current legislation
8 : 00 pm 8 . Report on franchise activities by Mary Smith, Regional Manager
of Zylstra-United Cable Television Company
9 . Other business
10. Adjourn
Jeanne Andre
Administrative Assistant
TENTATIVE AGENDA
Board of Adjustment and Appeals
Regular Session Shakopee, Minnesota April 7, 1983
Chrmn. Schmitt presiding
1) Roll Call at 7 :30 P.M.
2) Approval of March 3, 1983 Meeting Minutes.
3) 7 :30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Request for a 450 sq. ft. variance from lot size
requirements; 1 '4" variance from side yard setback requirements and a 1 °4"
variance from lot width requirements for placement of Twin Homes on proposed
Lots 1-6, Link' s 4th Addition
4) Interpretation of Zoning Ordinance -- Allowing Cable TV Business Office in
Shakopee Senior High School , an R-2 (Urban Residential ) Zone.
5) Other Business
6) Adjournment.
Don Steger
City Planner
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
•
/5
TENTATIVE AGENDA
Shakopee Planning Commission
Regular Session Shakopee, Minnesota April 7, 1983
Chrmn. Schmitt presiding
1) Roll Call at 8:00 P.M.
2) Approval of February 3, 1983 and March 3, 1983 Meeting Minutes.
3) 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Plat of Link' s 4th Addition, lying
on the south side of the 1000 block of East 3rd Avenue.
Developer: Clete Link Construction Co. , 223 Holmes, Shakopee, MN 55379
Action: Recommendation to City Council
4) 8: 10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Amendment to Shakopee City Code, Section 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.
Applicant: City of Shakopee
Action: Recommendation to City Council
5) 8:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct
and operate a 4-plex apartment Intermediate Care Facility/Mentally Retarded
Facility ( ICF/MR Facility) in an R-3 (Mid-Density Residential ) Zone on
Lots 1 and 2, Block 29, East Shakopee Plat (NE corner of 3rd & Naumkeag).
Applicant: A. I .D. Homes, II , 3600 Kennebec Drive (#5B) , Eagan, MN 55122
Action : Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 334
6) Discussion: Ashland Chemical Permit for Transfer Station for Chemicals -
Leroy Houser.
7) Discussion: Valleyfair Family Amusement Park, Inc. Signing.
8) Informational Items: a) McGovern Vehicles
b) JoAnn Pauluk, Tom Thumb, Correspondence
c) Staff Review of Existing Conditional Use Permits
d) Definition of "Permanent Foundation" - Leroy Houser
e) Industrial Plant Discharges
f) Downtown Survey Summary
g) Sludge Farm Site No. 31 Administrative Follow-up
h) Updated Portions of Shakopee City Code
9) Other Business.
10) Adjournment.
Don Steger
City Planner
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
CCS'
PROCEEDINGS OF THE I(I
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA March 3, 1983
Chrm. Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. with Comm. Koehnen, Czaja,
Perusich and Rockne present. Comm. Stoltzman and Coller were absent. Also pre-
sent were Don Steger, City Planner and Cncl. Vierling.
Czaja/Koehnen moved to approve the minutes of February 3, 1983 as kept. Motion
carried with Comm. Rockne abstaining because of his absence at that meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING - YARUSSO VARIANCE REQUEST
Perusich/Czaja moved to open the public hearing on the request for a variance from
the six month termination period for a legal non-conforming use in an I-1 Zone.
Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner stated this application is involving Shannon's Place, 18852 Eagle
Creek Blvd. , a used furniture retail business. He stated that because no retail
business was operating in the building within six months prior to the opening of
Shannon's Place, this retail business (a non-conforming use) is currently in viola-
tion of the City Code. The City Planner detailed the history of use of this loca-
tion and listed the criteria which must be met in order to grant a variance. He
stated staff recommends approval of the variance for the front portion of the build-
ing because it is non-conducive to I-1 use. He added he has received a letter from
John Clay, adjacent property owner, who states he does not oppose the variance.
Chrm. Schmitt stated this discussion has been dealing with only the front half of
the building at this location, used for Shannon' s Place. It is his belief that you
have to deal with how the whole structure was built, not in terms of one subdivided
portion of the building. He said the building was constructed as a furniture build-
ing place, and the office and furniture showroom was only a portion of the indus-
trial use of the building. He stated this was similar to Pouliot Designs use of
its building, which is a limited retail sales as an accessory use, not the primary
use.
The City Planner replied that it could be looked at that way, but it is clear the
front portion was utilized as a retail/commercial use thoughout its history, and
it is his opinion it can be separated from the entire building. He stated a sub-
jective opinion would have to be formed. Discussion followed.
Chrm. Schmitt asked if there were any comments from the audience , and there was no
response.
Perusich/Rockne moved to close the hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Perusich/Rockne offered Variance Resolution No. 331, granting a variance from the
six month termination period for a non-conforming use in the I-1 zone, subject to
the variance pertaining to the front portion of the building which is based on the
hardship that the front portion of the building is non-useful for an I-1 (Light
Industrial) use, and moved its adoption. Motion carried with Chrm. Schmitt opposed
and Comm. Koehnen abstaining because she has not looked at the premises.
Chrm. Schmitt stated there was a 7 day appeal period from the date of this action.
Shakopee BOAA /
March 3, 1983
Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING - KRAGTHORPE VARIANCE REQUEST
Perusich/Czaja moved to open the public hearing regarding the request for an ap-
proximate 3 foot variance from side yard setback requirements for property located
at 1017 Legion Street. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner stated this variance request is being made by David Kragthorpe,
who proposes to construct a new 66 foot house with an attached garage and needs
a 3 foot side yard variance on the north side. He stated this proposed floor plan
is identical to a floor pla7 used for an existing house located a couple of lots
from this property, which was built before the required setbacks were changed. He
also stated a rambler was constructed on another lot on Legion Street without any
variances, conforming to the current setback requirements. Therefore, he stated
that because a smaller house could be built on the lot without variances, and based
on a purely technical interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance, staff recommends
denial of the variance request.
Chrm. Schmitt asked if the applicant would like to make any comments.
David Kragthorpe stated it should be taken into consideration that this addition
was platted in 1970, and the lots were platted with the 10 foot and 5 foot sideyard
setbacks in mind. He stated that in Eden Prairie when the ordinance changed, it
did not affect additions that were platted before the change was effected. He asked
about the JEJ Addition, as far as why that did not have to conform to the new setback
requirements. He stated a variance was requested and granted in Shakopee for a 4
foot variance on Shakopee Avenue, which is only 3 blocks away from his proposed lo-
cation. He stated his house is not so big that it is anything unusual.
The City Planner stated that he agrees with the applicant that if the variance is
granted, there will not be any detrimental effect on neighboring properties. He
stated these setbacks are common in the older portions of Shakopee.
Comm. Rockne stated a variance request very similar to this was just turned down,
,,ind consistency should be maintained.
Chrm. Schmitt explained that the reason the ordinance was changed to require setbacks
of 10 foot and 10 foot on the sides, was because of areas developing without alleys.
The 10 foot sideyard setbacks were to enable the property owner to reach the back
of his property with a vehicle without encroaching on his neighbor' s property. It
was also to increase the space for fire protection to the rear of the property.
David Kragthorpe stated his property extended to CR17, so there was no problem with
fire vehicles getting to the back of his property.
Someone in the audience spoke about the great cost involved in changing the blue-
print for the house. Chrm. Schmitt answered that the current zoning requirements
should have been taken into consideration before investing money in housing plans.
He stated there are a number of styles of homes that are being built on 83 foot and
smaller lots in Shakopee, without variances.
Mr. Gene Brown stated he is one of the developers of this addition, and stated it
seems ridiculous to change the ordinance after it has been platted. He asked why
the JEJ Addition received a blanket variance.
The City Planner replied that was because of the very narrow lots in that addition.
Mr. Brown replied that doesn't seem fair. He stated the variance should be granted,
or he would come in and ask for a blanket variance for the rest of the addition.
Shakopee BOAA
March 3, 1983 /
Page 3
The City Planner stated he had to respond to the comment about the cost of chang-
ing the house plans. While he agrees it is expensive, State Law specifically states
that variances cannot be granted for economic reasons.
Mr. Brown stated that when they platted this addition, they wanted alleys. He
stated the City does not want alleys because it does not want to maintain them.
He said that with this particular property extending to CR17, there is no problem
with rear yard access. Chrm. Schmitt stated that fact could be an extenuating cir-
cumstance for the granting of a variance.
Candy Kragthorpe asked if not being able to prove a hardship is the only reason for
not granting a variance. She stated Lot 1 of the addition will also be asking for
a variance, and is supporting their variance request.
Chrm. Schmitt stated the criteria for granting a variance are clearly laid out, and
hardship is the only one that might fit this case.
Candy Kragthorpe then asked if the zoning ordinance could be amended so that it
would not apply to any lots platted before the change went into effect. She stated
it is to the City 's advantage to encourage people to develop homes on these lots.
Chrm. Schmitt stated if they wanted the ordinance changed, someone would have to
make application to have the zoning ordinance changed, and it would have to apply
to the entire community, not just that subdivision. It would have to published in
the media and go through a public hearing before the Planning Commission and City
Council. It could be expensive for the applicant.
The City Planner explained that for a blanket variance that would cover all unbuilt
platted lots in the addition, the applicant would have to supply names of all pro-
perty owners within 350 feet of all the lots, so it would be very expensive. He
added an ordinance amendment could be initiated by the applicant, but the problems
of rear access would still have to be addressed. Mr. Brown stated all the lots left
in the addition either went all the way to CR17 or were corner lots, so rear access
wouldn't be a problem.
Comm. Perusich stated this is the body that made the ordinance change. He stated
there were public hearings issue by issue, and this was one that was not challenged
by anyone.
Cal Brown stated that if this variance is granted he would see to it that no more
requests for variances would be coming from that subdivision. Comm. Perusich stated
he could not make that guarantee, because he could not control what people would do
after buying the property. Mr. Brown repeated he could see to it that there would
be no more variance requests.
Chrm. Schmitt asked if there were any more comments from the audience.
Perusich/Koehnen moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Koehnen/Perusich offered Variance Resolution No. 332, a request for a three foot side
yard setback variance for Lot 2, Block 7, Eagle Bluff 2nd Addition, the reason being
the granting of this variance requested will not confer on the applicant any specific
priviledge that is denied by this chapter to owners of other lands, structures or
buildings in the same district, and also that there is alternate access to the pro-
perty, pursuant to Shakopee City Code Section 11.04, Subd. 5A4, and moved its
adoption.
Shakopee BOAA
' March 3, 1983
/ 1
Page 4
Discussion followed reg rding the adequacy of the alternate access to the property.
Motion carried with Comm. Czaja and Rockne opposed.
Chrm. Schmitt stated there is a 7 day appeal period during which time this action
may be appealed to City Council.
Rockne/Perusich moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned
at 8:30 P.M.
Don Steger
City Planner
Diane S. Beuch
Recording Secretary
PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MARCH 3, 1983
Chrm. Schmitt called the meeting to order at 8:30 P.M. with Comm. Perusich,
Czaja, Koehnen and Rockne present. Comm. Stoltzman and Coller were absent. Also
present were Don Steger, City Planner and Cncl. Vierl:i;ng.
PUBLIC HEARING - CITY CODE AMENDMENT, SEC. 11.03, Subd. 8
Czaja/Koehnen moved to open the public hearing regarding the amendment to City
Code Section 11.03, Subd. 8, setting minimum standards for all new single-family
detached homes. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner stated this sets forth specific building requirements for new
single-family detached residences: 1.) 24 foot minimum width requirement; and 2)
permanent foundation requirement. He added he sent copies of the proposed amend-
ment to an extensive list of builders and developers and has received no negative
response.
Discussion followed regarding the definition of "permanent foundation:' The City
Planner stated that exact wording was suggested by the Building Official, so it
should be adequate.
Chrm. Schmitt asked if there were any comments from the audience.
Cncl. Colligan asked for a clarification of the amendment. He asked if this would
eliminate "trailer parks". Chrm. Schmitt replied there still could be mobile home
parks, and separate rules and regulations apply to them.
Perusich/Rockne moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Perusich/Czaja moved to recommend to City Council that Section 11.03, Subd. 8 be
amended by changing the title and adding a second paragraph as follows:
Change title to read "Subd. 8. Building Standards for Dwellings."
Add second paragraph to read "All new single family detached residences
shall be at least 24 feet wide and placed on a permanent foundation. "
Motion carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION: SLUDGE SPREADING SITE NO. 31
The City Admr. arrived and took his seat at this point.
Mr. Robin Jaeger of the Bureau of Indian Affairs introduced himself, and stated he
is a representative of the Shakopee Sioux community, and he has been asked by the
Tribal Council to be its representative. He stated he would like some background
information as to what are the plans and feelings of Shakopee regarding Site 31.
He asked if anyone from the City had contacted the Sioux community to find out if
they have the same types of concerns. He stated the site is adjacent to the re-
servation land, and he feels they are missing a lot of information. He suggested
that if Shakopee and the Sioux community had the same kinds of concerns, they might
join forces regarding the Site 31. He stated he was just recently appointed as
representative in this area, and he did not know if a representative had attended
any of the previous public hearings regarding the site.
Shakopee Planning Commission
March 3, 1983
Page 2
The City Admr. stated he would provide Mr. Jaeger with a packet of information
regarding the site and the City's actions regarding it. He stated that as far as
he knew no one from the City made a contact of the Sioux community. He agreed
there may be some merit in both knowing where the other stands on this issue.
The City Admr. stated there has been a City Councilperson acting as liaison while
all the hearings have been going on. He stated basically Shakopee's position was
initially totally against the picking of Site 31. This is because the site wasn't
being processed according to State law, and therefore it was illegally included
in the selection process. Also, as the process went along, Shakopee tried to get
defined exactly what was going to be done with the site. He stated most of our
documentation is on that. The City has tried to get Met Council, Metropolitan
Waste Control Commission (MWCC) or Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to
define sludge and amounts to be put on the site. The City feels that if this can
be sufficiently defined and the City is comfortable with it, it would be satisfied.
He stated the underlying theme of this is whether or not it is being applied at
agronomic rates, and what those rates are. The other question sought to be answered
is if the sludge would be applied at the same rate on this site because it is owned
by them as that which is put on the leased land. He stated he has just received
from MPCA a letter further defining terms. Although the language in this letter
is not 100% tight, it appears it is going to be applied at a comparable rate to the
leased land application. He stated if that is the case, there doesn't appear to
be a problem. He stated Shakopee was involved in a Court case regarding this site,
and a negotiated settlement was reached wherein an agreement to search for other
sludge spreading sites was reached. He stated throughout this whole process, this
has been the only sludge spreading site included. He added that the legal advice
to the City is that unless the City is damaged, there is not much else it can do
to end the process.
Mr. Jaeger asked about the next step.
The City Planner replied that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is planned
for next fall for the site . He added he did receive a letter 2 days ago from Met
Council stating that many of Shakopee' s concerns would be addressed in the EIS.
Comm. Czaja stated he has some concerns because agronomic rates are being defined
in terms of nitrates, without reference to heavy metal content. Comm. Koehnen
stated that each batch can be different in content, so it is imperative that every
load be analyzed.
Discussion followed regarding the capabilities of the engineering firm that will
be undertaking the EIS.
Comm. Koehnen stated that her Biology Professor, Mr. McCollum, was on a board that
was charged with looking at the preliminary report done for all the sludge ash
sites, and the board's recommendation was that this same engineering firm had done
such a poor job that the whole thing should be shelved, and start over again. This
advisory committee has no idea where that recommendation is now. She said when she
asked about this at the public hearing in Chaska, she was told it was with the EPA,
who was not pleased with the work done by this engineering firm.
She stated Professor McCollum suggested the EIS could be challenged by asking what
data was used to establish the limits and if this data has credibility outside of
MPCA. He also suggested not relying solely on the University of Minnesota for this
credibility.
Shakopee Planning Commission
Page 3
March 3, 1983
Chrm. Schmitt stated he thinks it is about time we do something positive and say
we will support this site for sludge spreading under certain criteria, and then set
the criteria. He stated the whole problem is no one wants to take responsibility
for this waste. He said we should state that under certain conditions we will deal
with this problem. He said everything involved in this process has been so negative.
Comm. Koehnen responded that there have been many creative suggestions for using
sludge and sludge ash. Chrm. Schmitt stated there are many ideas, but no one wants
to take it themselves as a community. Comm. Koehnen stated that is why she said in
the first place that Shakopee or Scott County needs sludge rules and regulations.
She stated she is not objecting to land spreading. Discussion followed.
The City Admr. stated that tactic might be feasible. However, in a similar fashion
Shakopee offered the old PCI site for hazardous waste as long as it would conform
to all of Shakopee 's rules and controls. The reply at that time was negative --
if it was decided Shakopee's rules were impractical, they would just condemn and
supercede the City in authority. Chrm. Schmitt stated there isn't anything that
can't be negotiated positively. Comm. Koehnen stated that is a fine idea, but from
their past history, she doesn't think the MWCC will. he interested. There have been
volunteer sites before. Further discussion followed.
The City Admr. stated it appears Site 31 has to have a permit issued by MPCA just
like the other leased sites, and in that certain conditions will be laid out. At
that point if Shakopee is not happy about some of it, the City can act. He stated
the idea now is to wait for the EIS and permit, and then petition to get further
definition, if need be. Or the City can write up ordinances regarding sludge spread-
ing.
Chrm. Schmitt stated he preferred writing the ordinances with limits, definitions
monitoring, etc. and then negotiate with MWCC in an offensive manner, rather than
defensive. The City Admr. suggested ways that could be handled by the City -- by
contracting with an outside firm. to do the research involved in writing an ordinance.
The City Planner stated the two choices of action at this point would be to recommend
to City Council to write an ordinance dealing with sludge spreading, or wait for the
EIS and review it for possible action at that time .
Comm. Koehnen stated that Al Frechette, with Scott County, first made the sugges-
tion that an ordinance is needed. The City Admr. stated Mr. Frechette told him he
didn't want the burden of writing that ordinance himself. Discussion followed re-
garding the merits of the City being responsible for an ordinance or the County.
Discussion ensued regarding how closely limits involved in agronomic rates can be
defined -- if there is a widespread definition which would not vary much. Comm.
Koehnen stated there is a narrow range of tolerability, and if the question is put
before a group of people with a good background in these matters, they would come
up with a very narrow range of limits for agronomic rates.
Discussion was concluded with Comm. Koehnen stating she would be further contacting
some people knowledgable in this area, and she would come back with recommended
action to be taken or direction for staff.
Shakopee Planning Commission
March 3, 1983
Page 4
MINUTES
Koehnen/Czaja moved to amend the minutes of January 6, 1983 as follows:
To add: John Anderson volunteered to check with Al Frechette to find out:
1. What sludge rules are now in place and in effect.
2. Setback requirements from residences and adjoining properties.
3. How many tons per acre they plan to apply (application rates).
4. Storage rules.
John Schmitt:
We are dealing with two issues. We ought to understand what agronomic
rates are and what that means -- also, the storage issue. And if some
action is required, then we ought to see what has to be done to take
some action.
Are rules for 31 and normal lease application the same? We ought to
apply the same rules consistently, that's the key. Are the rules chang-
ing and is that something we ought to be doing something about?
Joe Perusich:
Do you have a written piece of paper saying, these are the perimeters
you are going to work within? The City has to nail this down formally.
Bev Koehnen:
There is one other way or option to fight this site as the Sand Creek
people have done and suggest -- through the County Commissioners and
utilize the Scott County Attorney at no expense.
In conversations with Al Frechette, he has told me that an ordinance
needs to be adopted by the City and County for sludge rules.
To change: on page 6, second to the last paragraph name of Stoltzman to Czaja;
and to approve the minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously.
Comm. Koehnen asked that approval of the February 3, 1983 minutes be deferred one
month so that she might listen to the tape of that meeting.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
Discussion was held regarding the response from Mn/DOT to Valleyfair's request
for directional signage. The City Planner stated that in a telephone conversation
with Mn/DOT it was stated they would be receptive to some type of signage that
would simply say "Amusement Park", but not the name of Valleyfair. He suggested
finding out from Valleyfair what type of signage was requested before action is
taken by the City.
The City Admr. stated he would check out references to placement of advertising
flyers in relation to mailboxes.
Comm. Koehnen reported on the ICC tour to Fremont Industries. She stated from that
tour she became concerned about MWCC's requirements for pre-treatment of waste water.
The City Admr. replied that MPCA sets the rules for that. He suggested asking the
Building Official about the requirements before MPCA is approached.
Shakopee Planning Commission
March 3, 1983
Page 5 I c7
Chrm. Schmitt asked the City Planner to follow up on Ashland Chemical's applica-
tion to serve as a used chemical transfer station. It is his understanding they
have completed all of the applications to get a transfer station permit to serve
as a pick-up for the smaller chemical units, and he wonders if there is any storage
involved.
Discussion ensued regarding the City's foam fire-fighting capabilities. The City
Admr. stated the Fire Department is looking into that area of supplies and capa-
bilities.
Comm. Rockne reported on the ICC tour to Pouliot Designs.
Czaja/Koehnen moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned
at 10:42 P.M.
Don Steger
City Planner
Diane S. Beuch
Recording Secretary
A JOINT COALS & OBJECTIVES WORKSHOP
FOR CITY COUNCILMEMBERS AND THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF
SHAKOPEE, MN
JANUARY 1983
Introduction: Many appointed and elected policy-making bodies are
recognizing the importance and necessity of paying
attention to the decision-making and communication
processes they use , the procedures by which these
entities carry out the business of governing. There
is a growing awareness that , while elected officials
are rightly to represent their constitutencies , there
is also a need for a high degrees of collaboration
and joint problem-solving in order to effectively
address the complex issues facing today ' s decision-
makers .
An essential relationship in city government today
is that of the legislators , Councilmembers, and their
administrative staff . These individuals comprise
the group that will develop and implement policy .
Their ability to effectively communicate with each
other around substantive issues determines the
quality of addressing those issues .
Workshop.
Objectives : Recognizing this need, Shakopee has been making
steps over the last two years to improve Council ,
staff and citizen communication through clearly
stated Council goal s & objectives , established
Council meeting procedures , and an evaluation of
the Council staff relationship by staff. This
year' s workshop for City Councilmembers and admin-
istrative staff is another step in bring Council-
members and administrative staff together to
address key issues . The objectives of this work-
shop are to:
• Improve communications and information flow.
• Generate more effective methods for problem-
solving, resolving conflict , and setting priori-
ties .
II
• Establish improved guidelines for handling the
overlap in policy-administration roles .
• Develop greater collaboration in the working
relationships among and between Councilmembers
and administrative staff.
This workshop will offer to the City Councilmembers
of Shakopee and staff an opportunity to deal more
effectively with each other around such issues as :
Roles and responsibilities
Group decision making capabilities
Decision making for public policy -
Responsiveness to citizens
Council meeting procedures - making decisions
in a public forum
Commitment of both human and physical ( equipment)
resources to stated goals & objectives
Expected
Results : City Counci Imembers and staff can anticipale the
workshop to have the following results :
• Increased competence in problem-solving and
decision-making
• Improved communication
• Increased ability to anticipate and adapt to change
• Increased efficiency, economy and creativity
Workshop
Agenda : 3 : 00 p.m. - Wednesday , January 25 , 1983 , arrive at
Schumacher Hotel , New Prague (Note : No action will
be taken and therefore the Council will not for-
mally convene . The meeting is open to the public
and press who have received the normal notification
of the meeting. )
3 : 05 p.m. - Brief introduction by the Mayor .
Brief review of the workshop' s goals , review of
agenda and response to questions by the City
Administrator.
3 : 20 p.m. - Listing of ' 82 successes and failures ,
organizational strengths and weaknesses , and City
problems and needs ( short and long term) .
1 . Only one item, whether listing a problem or a
success , should he listed on each sheet of paper.
2 . Items should he listed whether or not they are
on the present 1983 Goals & Objectives list
( this workshop is a joint Council /staff effort
to create ' 83 Goals & Objectives .
3 . Items need not he limited to things that the
City can deal with itself , eg. schools , county
government , etc .
4. Questions you may find helpful in examining
Shakopee ' s needs are : Do we have problems in
the areas of
• Protection of life
• Provision of essential services
• Maintenance of public health
• Protection of property
• Cost reduction/increased performance
• Replacement of obsolete facilities
• Expansion of services
• Financing
• Political ( citizenry ) acceptance of programs
or services
3 : 50 p.m. - Grouping of items by subject area
1 . Discussion and comparison of items with the pre-
sent list of 1983 Goals & Objectives .
2 . Development of a consensus of which item( s ) should
remain on or be added to the 1983 list of Goals &
Objectives .
3 . This is only the initial discussion to determine
what items wi I I be discussed in detail so that we
can arrive at the necessary action to be taken.
4 : 30 p.m. - Break
r 7 ,
4 :40 p.m. - Listing of 1983 Goals & Objectives
1 . Prioritizing Shakopee ' s 1983 Goals & Objectives .
2 . Planning action to he taken for 1983 Goals &
Objectives .
6 : 00 p.m. - Dinner - ordered from the menu
7 :00 p.m. - 4:40 session continued
8 :00 p.m. - Review Council meeting procedures (attached)
8 :45 p.m. - Workshop wrap-up by City Administrator
1 . What went right .
2 . What went wrong.
9 : 00 m. - Adjourn
Note : This agenda is a guide and Councilmembers and
staff should feel free to go hack to earlier
discussion, etc . We don' t want structure to
inhibit discussion.
NEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mayor and City Administrator
RE : Council Meeting Procedures
DATE: December 30 , 1982
Introduction •
Because of the light agenda January 4 , 1983 and our scheduled
goals and objectives session on January 25th, I though= it
would be a good time to review our 1982 worksession materials
on Council procedures . i believe we made noticeable progress
on these items in 1982 . What ' s your reaction looking back
over the last 12 months? This is a good opportunity to take
stock and fine tune the procedures from 1982 if you have good
suggestions .
Review of 1982 Procedures
1 . How Counc i 1 members get i ems on the agenda .
2 . 11 : 00 P.M. stopping time , 10 : 30 P.M. when there is no ERA
agenda.
3. Chairman to comment on issues last and try to facilitate
discussion.
4. Informal effort to "go around the table" for comments .
5 . Informal limit of two comments per item.
6 . Use of "How to Aid Discussion by Asking the Right Question"
( S,ie.et in plastic cover) .
7 . Procedures for Public Hearings : (announce and emphasize rules )
a . Citizen give name and address before speaking.
b. Everyone speaks once before a second chance to speak
is given.
c . Citizens speak to Chair or Council not other members of
the audience ( to avoid back and forth discussions ) .
8. All items to be acted on should be on the agenda with completed
staff work.
9. Staff ' s role and responsibilities for completing staff work for
agenda items :
a . What a good staff report should accomplish.
b. The staff report process (problems with information not
in the agenda packets ) .
c . Calls to City staff - the 20 minute rule of thumb.
d. When to ask questions about agenda items .
e . When to ask staff to follow-up on miscelleanous items -
pot -hal (` , dunk cars ,
.vuor_il i���4wt�b i' LULLuute$Page Two L1
December 30, 1982
f. Responses to citizens ' complaints about City staff
handling of a problem, etc . "I ' ll check into it and
call you back" .
g. What to do when Sta i l comes to Councilmembers about
a problem or i em on the agenda .
10. Use of Council worksessions ( i .e . committee meetings ) .
Summary
The ability of. City Council to effectively make decisions at public
Council meetings depends in large part on how Council conducts its
meeting and how the information necessary to make those decisions
is provided to all Councilmembers . The meeting procedures and the
staff memo system outlined above will play a key role in determining
the effectiveness of the Council in 1983 . If you have questions
about the material in this memo or would like to suggest changes
please plan to do so Tuesday .
JCA/jms
.-MEMO TO: H. R. Spurrier
City Engineer
FROM: Ray Ruuska
Engineering Coordinator
RE: Existing Storm Sewer on County Road 17 @ 4th Avenue
DATE: March 31, 1983
Introduction
Recent service excavation adjacent to this storm sewer revealed widely spaced
joints which measured up to 32 inches. Fulton took pictures of this condition.
I have lamped about 100 feet of this line. The joints are very poor,
especially where the pipe was deflected for the curved alignment. A "sink
hole" has developed directly above a joint adjacent to the catch basin in the
Northeast corner of 4th Avenue and County Road 17. The curb has also become
slightly misaligned in the same location.
Background
This storm sewer was installed on a 1974 project. It is apparent that the
pipe was jointed improperly and that no effort was made to grout the joints.
Recommendation
I suggest that we lamp more of this line to determine the extend of the
problem. We should also look at the possibility of grouting the inside joints
as this line is located almost directly under the east curb line of County
Road 17.
RR/j vm
Zylstra--United Cable Television Co. z Y
Chaska Shakopee Northfield
123 West Third Street
P.O. Box 146
Chaska, MN 55318 ,1
(612) 448-3831
PRESS RELEASE
of
TO: Shakopee Valley News
KSMM Radio "
FM: Mary A. Smith, Manager
I t ,
DT: April 5, 1983
RE: SHAKOPEE CABLE. TV SUBSCRIBER S I CN IIP R INSTALLATION PIAN S
CC: John Anderson, City Administrator
Jeanne Andre, Administrative Assistant
WATCH THE MAIL FOR CABLE TV BROCHURE!
Cable Television sign-ups for Shakopee will begin the week of April 18
with a direct-mail brochure going to each resident of the cable service
territory. The brochure will explain the services offered and the
sign-up procedure.
CABLE INSTALLATION PLAN
Cable TV installations in Shakopee homes will begin April 26. The install-
ation will take place in six phases beginning with the core District Zone
of Shakopee where the aerial construction has been completed. Persons
living in the following areas of the core zone will have to wait for the
underground construction season which will begin as soon as the ground
drys out. The underground areas of the core zone includes:
1. South of Tenth Avenue between County Road 17 and Adams Street.
2. South of 12th. Avenue and west of Monroe to Highway 169.
3. South of Shakopee Avenue between Swift Street and Austin Street.
After the aerial and underground in the core zone are installed, the
installation will follow the underground construction in four phases
through the remaining 3 zones, which include Killarney Hills Addition,
Montesito Heights, Zoschke's Addition, Horizon Heights, Riverview Estates,
Maras Addition, Hillside Estates, Timber Trails Addition, Deerview Addition
and Eaglewood Addition. The underground construction will begin as soon
as the ground conditions permit with completion slated for mid summer.
Zylstra-United has already contacted many of the apartment complexes in
Shakopee for pre-wiring cable installation. Any apartment complex that
has not been contacted and wishes to have cable service available to its
residents should call Zylstra-United at 448-3167 for further information
on apartment pre-wiring.
TENTATIVE AGENDA
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA APRIL 5, 1983
Mayor Reinke presiding
1 ] Roll Call at 7 :00 P.M.
2] Recess for H.R.A. Meeting
3] Reconvene
4] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers
5] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS
6] Approval of Consent Business - (All items listed with an asterick are
considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by
one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items
unless a councilmember so requests, in which event the item will
be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal
sequence on the agenda. )
*7] Approval of Minutes of March 15th and 21st, 1983
8] Communications :
a] League Action Alert re : state-wide lodging tax
b] League Action Alert re : a state-wide system of licensing builders
and contractors
c] League Action Alert re : the good samaritan bill
d] League Action Alert re : H.R. 748 which redefines "public employee" &
"supervisory employee" , permits nonessential public employees
to refuse to cross a picket line , puts more authority in an
arbitrator' s decision
9] Public Hearings: None
10] Boards and Commissions: None
11 ] Reports from Staff:
a] Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District - status report by
Cleve Mickley
b] Facility for Cable Communications Studio at High School
c] Deadline for Provision of Cable Studio Facility
*d] Proposed National Cable Legislation (Goldwater Bill )
*e] Probation Termination of Senior Accouting Clerk
*f] Request for Leave of Absence
*g] Appointment to SPUC
*h] Easement to City from Shakopee Village Homes Association, Inc .
i] Authorize payment of the bills in amount of $40,407 . 14
j ] Authorize purchase of five multiple channel radios
k] Recommendations for Officers/Directors for 1983/84 AMM Board
1] Levee Drive Extension 1982-3
m] No Parking on the Service Road North of North Star Auto Auction
n] Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Replacement Contract
o] Highway 101 Frontage Road - discussion
p] J .E.J . Drainage along the former CMSP&P Railroad right-of-way-on tabl:
12] Resolutions and Ordinances:
*a] Ord. No. 116, Amending the Building Standards for Dwellings
*b] Res. No. 2129, Accepting Work on the VIP Interceptor 81-1 - on table
c] Res. No. 2130, Prescribing Requirements for Monitoring Exemption
from Dram Shop Insurance
*d] Res. No: 2126, Authorizing Condemnation Proceedings for A Walkway
from Park Ridge Avenue to 11th Avenue
*e] Res., No; 2128 Supporting Mn. DOT Efforts in Planning Construction
bf Shakopee By-Pass
*f.1 ele7, Apportioning Assessments
13] Other Business:
a] Acquisition of railroad right-of-way - report by Mr. Coller
b] Unpaid special assessments of Milwaukee Road-Report by Mr. Coller
c]
14] Adjourn to Tuesday, April 19th, 1983 .
John K. Anderson, City Administrator
TENTATIVE AGENDA
Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the
City of Shakopee , Minnesota
City Hall Council Chambers
Regular Session April 5 , 1983
1 . Roll Call at 7 : 00 P.M.
2 . Approval of Minutes of February 1 , 1983
3 . Communications
a. Conferences sponsored by National Association of
Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO)
b. Metropolitan Council , Progress Report on 1980-83
Subsidized Housing Allocation Plan
c . First National Bank of Shakopee - Report on Phase 9
MHFA (Minnesota Housing Finance Agency)
d. Scott County HRA - Annual Report on Housing Assistance
in Shakopee
4. Interfund Transfer
5 . Housing Development Issues
6 . Other Business
7 . Adjourn Jeanne Andre
Executive Director
PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 1, 1983
Chrm. Colligan called the meeting to order at 7:10 P.M. with Comm. Wampach,
Lebens and Vierling present. Absent was Comm. Leroux. Also present were Mayor
Reinke; Julius A. Coller, II, City Attorney; Jeanne Andre, HRA Director; H. R.
Spurrier, City Engineer; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk and John K. Anderson, City Admr.
Lebens/Wampach moved to approve the minutes of January 4, 1983 as kept. Motion
carried unanimously.
Mayor Reinke stated he has been contacted by someone who wanted the voluntary
move program proposed as part of the Community Development Block Grant for
1983 extended to the residential area dropped from the project area after
the public hearing, due to opposition to proposed multifamily housing. The
reason behind the request is that housing on Second Avenue East of Naumkeag
(and West of County Road 17) still will be deficient due to lack of public
water or sanitary sewer. The Mayor asked if the City could make and amend-
ment to the application to extend the voluntary acquisition program to these
units.
The HRA Director stated the City could always file a grant amendment. A
decision would have to be made at that time as to the availability of funds
to acquire additional units. Discussion followed regarding sewer and water
availability and cost and relocation possibilities. General consensus was
to help those people who wanted to participate by filing an amendment. The
City Admr. stated that if an amendment is made, a new public hearing would
be held, at which time others would have an opportunity to comment.
Lebens/Wampach moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned
at 7:25 P.M.
Jeanne Andre
HRA Director
Diane S. Beuch
Recording Secretary
i
_,, 4.:--:::,-;-_,-0, -...-,:;,:) ,,,, ___,..;,.....____
, ,,_ ,„,." , .....b., _„.„..-,...•,,,,__:_„:___
, , ,,... c ,. - ,,, .3,'I 'i-Gf'
{ ! f
,. L_CR;c is I'5
ru
1
E
d
L ) tjUju2J2
JILA1' hi. St1`ILil'(i
JtiAilkJer,r, IIUJUJ1t' V rit`iJ i
ii�11C,VL,LU4-'�,riw1 ttUrl-iO '
ttl'1Y j �'
11y r 1J,1, Av L — C1.1. 11 rt,tLL ..
J1tAAUer.L. MN JJ.j /4 ,
1
40,14,f4;1,:„ a} ` 1.4 .: y
�{,. e i°� ^�' <„.Tta tri ,%., "1.�atu4' 04,• s : ..,.
r,
, ,. , ,, , , , ,:5
,. .,.., , , ,, , ,,,.. „ ; , , ,
1
i ,
1
a
, t,„ '1,':,,,,,, ,,,...,, , • , , ,I , ,)„ , „,, ,
t.
1 •
' ift '�Phi t t `1 t' 'k, C. 1' ;�
�1 s
A Step-By-Step Guide commercial,and industrial components. Panelists will
Through The li>ilnCi:[1gnk' explore the unique planning and financing needs of
mixed use developments with a focus on overall
Successful practitioners and experts from both the project financing packages,differences in develop-
private and public sectors will take you step-by-step ment requirements for different uses,sources of
through the complex maze of housing and develop- capital,and determination of financial viability.
ment financing tools and alternatives available today. • Financing Housing For
You will learn what works,what doesn't,and how to Low Income Persons
get the job done. From initial planning to the
inU icacics of syndication Experts and successful practitioners will explore
y packaging,from private and common Iinancial and procedural impediments to the
public sources of financing to leveraging mechanisms production of public and other low income housing
and tax incentives,you can learn it all in New Orleans with a focus on how to overcome obstacles to
April 10-12. If you are concerned with providing low stimulate production of units in the pipeline and how
and moderate income housing or with carrying out to finance privately owned low income housing as
community and economic development this is the well as public housing.
workshop you can't afford to miss!
• Downtown Development Strategies
;YJN111lI', APRIL 10 An outstanding panel of developers, local officials,
and civic group leaders involved in the development
process will discuss successful approaches to down-
9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. town development. Financing methods,developer
Registration needs,local community business,and civic concerns
will be discussed with an emphasis on how to develop
financial packages that will attract both private and
1:30 p.m.-2:00 p.m. public financing.
Opening Session
Noon-1:30 p.m.
2:00 p.m.-3:30 p.m. Lunch Break
The Changing_World Of
Financing Housing&Development
An up-to-the-minute general session presentation of 1:30 p.m. 2:30 p.m.
the various financing mechanisms being used to Financing Housing Development:
successfully finance housing,economic,and A British Perspective
community development in today's ma ket. You will A general session presentation by Alan E. Kilburn,
learn how,when,and where to use different financing F.I.H.,president of the British Institute of Housing,
techniques and instruments. New trends and general and Chief Executive,North Housing Association,Ltd.,
characteristics of today's successful financing tools Newcastle on Tyne, England. Mr. Kilburn will present
and techniques will be explored to provide a context an overview of the British approach to financing assis-
for other workshop presentations. ted housing development for lower income persons
3:45 p.m. 5:15 p.m. with a special emphasis on the housing association as
delivery agent in developing housing with national
Tax Advantaged Investment Programs government assistance.
An up-to-the minute general session review of how
1981 and 1982 tax act changes affect local housing 2:45 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
and development strategies. Participants will learn
how to use current provisions for tax exempt finan- 4:15 p.m.-5:45 p.m.
cing,accelerated cost recovery system, rehabilitation Financing Techniques Workshops
tax credits,and tax leasing to enhance housing and
development programs. • Syndication Packaging
A detailed step-by-step presentation of how to
NI,0 N D `i.', APRIL 11 accomplish syndication financing will be presented by
9:00 a.m.-Noon knowledgeable experts.The focus will be on how to
develop a successful syndication package from A to Z.
Workshops on Planning&Financing
Housing&Community Development • Essentials of Rehabilitation Financing
The intricacies of financing commercial and
• Planning&Financing Mixed Use Projects:
Residential, Commercial, Industrial residential rehabilitation will be presented by
knowledgeable experts and practitioners. Participants
A detailed presentation by a panel of successful will be taken step-by-step through various financing
practitioners and experts on the techniques and the techniques, how to achieve leveraging, use of
mechanics of planning and financing large scale, long advantageous tax code provisions, deferred payment,
term, mixed use projects combining residential, and tax-exempt financing.
mmums .�z:,.::rf ,-per , o,. .,,. _.__----------
• Tax-Exempt Financing R egiStration information
IRB's/MRB's (Please read carefully before completing
Participants will have the opportunity to interact form. Certain procedures have been changed
with experienced users of tax-exempt financing and to for this conference.)
learn from experts how to utilize tax-exempt bond
financing for local development.The opportunities Your conference registration fee in full or request for
and the specific problems associated with structuring claim voucher must accompany this document. Make
and issuing tax-exempt bonds will be explored. all checks payable to NAHRO CONFERENCE
REGISTRATION CENTER.
• Creative Financing Return form with remittance. Early Bird registra-
Experts in creative financing techniques will iden- tions postmarked no later than February 28 save $40
tify and describe non-conventional and alternative from on-site registration fee. Registrations post-
financing methods that can make seemingly unwork- marked after February 28, but before April 1 save $20
able projects possible. Participants will learn when from on-site registration fee.
various creative financing tools are indicated for dif- Return Form to:
ferent types of projects, what tools may be used, how
to negotiate creative financing,and where to find it.
• Financing Needs of
Small Cities NAIIRO Conference
Specifically designed to improve the capacity of Registration Center
small cities to finance development,and to improve P.O. Box 17413
their ability to obtain UDAG funding. HUD officials Dulles International Airport
and small city officials, financiers,and industry Washington, DC 20041
representatives will discuss unique issues associated Attn: Leslie Campbell
with small city development and how to overcome
obstacles,changes in UDAG requirements,and how
to improve the quality of UDAG applications.
6:00 p.m.-7:30 p.m.
Ca r axe Policy
Reception Registrants cancelling before March 31 will receive a
p refund less$35. To obtain a refund, there must be
written notice received by NAHRO by March 31.
Refunds cannot be made after that date.
TUESDAY, APRIL 12
9:00 a.m.-10:00 a.m.
NAHRO Housing Production
Task Force Recommendations fi n,
A detailed general session presentation of the recom- (Please read carefully as these procedures
mendations of the NAHRO Housing Production Task are new to this conference.)
Force, the alternatives examined, the conclusions A block of specially priced rooms has been reserved at
reached, the rationale established,and the program- the Sheraton New Orleans Hotel. All room reservations
matic vehicles developed to ensure an adequate supply are being made through the NAHRO CONFERENCE
of low and moderate income housing. REGISTRATION CENTER. In order to assure that
these rooms are indeed given to conference
10:15 a.m.-12:15 p.m. registrants NAHRO WILL ONLY HONOR REQUESTS
The Local Housing&Development SUBMITTED ON THIS FORM. YOU MUST BE
P REGISTERED FOR THE CONFERENCE IN ORDER TO
Process: A Roundtable Discussion OBTAIN THESE SPECIALLY PRICED ROOMS.
A distinguished group of knowledgeable experts will
present a general session discussion of the decision
making process of local communities in planning and
financing housing,community,and economic
development. Designed to meet the needs of both Travel Assistance
private sector and public sector participants in the Special discount air fares are available through the
development process.Topics to be explored include: NAHRO CONFERENCE TRAVEL CENTER for those
(1)How decisions are made to initiate new housing or attending the legislative conference. You may phone
development activity,(2)How decisions are made on the Center at (800) 368-3239 to make your reserva-
the financing of new housing or development,and (3) tions or check the indicated box on this form and the
The resources and the personnel a community re- Center will contact you. Airline reservations can be
quires to plan and finance housing and development. paid for either by check or major credit card.
Ammismommagnaammgmartwormemwammumernimasu
Please Note Sheraton New Orleans
A separate form must be completed for each ❑ Single Room @$65
registrant. Photo copies of this form may be used. No ❑ Double Room @$75
reservations will be accepted by telephone. All reserva- ❑ Twin Room @$75
tions and registrations must be made on this official
form. Suite information is available
Preregistration is to your advantage in both time and from the NAHRO CON-
money. Preregistered delegates will have badges and FERENCE REGISTRATION
materials waiting for them at the conference. In addi CENTER. Phone Leslie
tion. preregistered delegates receive priority on head-
quarters hotel assignments, are eligible for special dis- Complete and mail this form today.
count air fares,and save $20 to$40 on their registra-
tion fees. Housing requests postmarked after March 18 will be
processed on a space available basis.
Room Occupant
Registration Form Co-Occupant
Please type or print clearly all requested information concer- Arrival Date
ning registration and housing. A separate form is required Departure Date
for each registrant. Photo copies of this form are acceptable Special Housing Needs
for multiple registrations.
Name A deposit equal to one night's charge is requested. Room
(Last) (First) Initial) deposits are credited to the hotel indicated on your official
Title confirmation. These deposits are not transferable between
hotels. Please enclose either check or major credit card name
Organization and number to guarantee your room.
Card Name Card
Mailing Address
Exp. Date
City State Zip The NAHRO Conference Registration Center and/or the
NAHRO Conference Travel Center are authorized to use the
Phone( ) above card to guarantee my hotel reservations and/or to
issue airline tickets reserved by me to attend this conference.
First Name For Badge(if different from above) I understand that one night's room charge will be billed
through this card if I fail to show up for my assigned housing
Check appropriate registration category. The below at the confirmed arrival date unless I have cancelled my
fees apply to registrations postmarked no later than reservation with the hotel at least 48 hours in advance. I
February 28. There will be an additional charge of$20 understand that I may return any unused tickets for travel
for registrations postmarked after February 28, but purchased by this card for full refund as a result of said
before April 1. There will be an additional late charge cancellation unless the terms of the fare published by the
of$40 for registrations received after April 1 and for airline carry a cancellation penalty.
on-site registrations. Cardholder Signature
❑ Delegate who is an individual NAHRO $135 Date
member and comes from an organization
that is an agency member of NAHRO ❑ Please have the NAHRO CONFERENCE TRAVEL
❑ Delegate who is an individual member $160 CENTER contact me about discount air fares available
of NAHRO to attend the conference.
❑ Delegate who comes from an organization $160 Enclosed please find my check (made out to NAHRO
that is an agency member of NAHRO Conference Registration Center) to cover the
❑ Nonmember delegate $185 following:
❑ Additional charge for registrations $ 20 Registration Fees $
postmarked after February 28, but
before April 1 Housing Deposit $
❑ Late charge for registrations postmarked $ 40
after March 31 Total Amount $
Check appropriate housing category. A confirmation of
room reserved in your name will be sent by return mail. Check Number
CC-ABCDEFGH.
. . . .... .. ...... . .
m a y
19 20
NABRO
ANNUAL CONFERENCE
Cragun's Pine Beach Lodge, Brainerd
May 18 - 20, 1983
*annual meeting
*election of officers
*updates and forecasts
*round table discussions
Theme for the conference this year is f'
Recovery: At The Crossroads
Cragun's has requested that all participants be pre-registered
by April 15, 1983. After that date, there will be no guarantee
of lodging. Registration materials will be coming soon.
6/14\1—AlCI ,,\Lf
l��
ca—
NAI-02-0
Public Housing and Program Content:
Community Development Commissioners as Politicians
• The Joy of Politics
Commissioners Training • Political Strategies
• Lobbying
Designed For: • Avoiding Political Mistakes
Public housing and community development • Political Decisions
commissioners and their executive staffs; execu- Commissioners as Policy Makers
tive directors, deputy and assistant directors, and • Roles and Responsibilities
department heads of local and state housing • Policy vs. Administration
authorities,community development agencies • Setting Priorities and Directions
and neighborhood organizations. • Setting Program Goals
Program Goals: Commissioners as Community Leaders
To provide commissioners with practical • Public Relations Strategies• Hiring a Public Relations Firm
methods, strategies and techniques for increas- • Building aSupport
ing their knowledge, skills and effectiveness in • Duang with CommunitytyiSu
housing authorities and community develop-
ts
ment environments; to enhance commissioners Effective Communications and
performance as political strategists, planners, Listening Skills
policy makers. advocates for local and state • Misdirected Communications
housing and community development agencies. • Developing Active Listening Skills
• Ungarbling the Message
Teaching Techniques: • Effective Board Meetings
A variety of innovative training and educational Assertiveness
techniques are utilized to maximize participant • Response styles:
understanding and retention, including visual Assertive and Non-assertive Behavior
aids, specific case studies, small group problem
• Basic Human Rights
solving exercises and role playing. • How to Behave Assertively
Small Classes: • How to Swim with "Sharks"
Limited class size of 60 participants fosters inti-
mate and active involvement of every commis- Dates And Locations
sioner in the learning process and ensures time April 29May 1 San Antonio,Texas
to answer specific questions. June 3-5 Boston, Massachusetts
Expert Faculty: June 24-26 Denver, Colorado
September 9-11 Washington, D.C.
Experienced public administration professionals September 23-25 Louisville, Kentucky
with extensive communications and instruction November 4-6 Miami Beach, Florida _
al expertise.
William A. Gibson Graduate Program Director
at the Institute of Urban Studies and Public Registration Fees
Administration at Old Dominion University, Dr.
Gibson is a recognized expert on human be- $235 Participants who are individual members
of NAHRO and who are employed by an
havior in public organizations. He has conducted anization that is an agency member of
seminars for local officials in public management, NAHRO.or ganiz
social change, administrative processes and
public budgeting. $265 Participants who are individual members
Wolfgang Pindur Chairman of Urban Studies of NAHRO or who come from an organiza-
and Public Administration and Director of the tion that is an agency member of NAHRO.
Public Service Training Center at Old Dominion of
Participants who are not members University, Dr. Pindur has conducted numerous $295 NAHRO and who are not ewith an
training sessions for commissioners and other. agency member of NAHRO.
government officials in the Southeast. He has
also authored many articles for professional
journals on urban management, program
delivery and evaluation.
4
• 3b
pZ,tatz
r �p � Metropolitan Council
• vk 300 Metro Square Building
tr; f� I Seventh and Robert Streets
t "'" 4 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
t j Telephone (612) 291-6359
114,1N CITU
•
MEMORANDUM February 22, 1983
TO: Local Officials, Developers and Interested Citizens
FROM: Housing Division, Metropolitan Council
SU3„ECT: 1980-33 Subsidized Housing Allocation Plan Progress Report
Attadhed are the Metropolitan Council ' s current estimates of the remaining
subsidized housing goals for Area communities during the 1980-83 Subsidized
Housing Allocation Plan period.
The Council is making this information available to assist communities and
developers considering noosing proposals involving federal subsidies. ihe
Council uses • the figures to review and rank subsidized housing proposals during
the Allocation Plan period.
The goal oT the Council ' s Allocation Plan is to have an equitable distribution
of subsidized housing throughout the Region. Therefore, the Council plans to
use the allocations as strictly as possible. Proposals for federal housing
subsidies in communities where the Allocation, Plan goal has not been met will ,
in most instances, receive a higher ranking through the Council ' s review
process than will proposals in co:^mun i ti es where the -goals have been met or
exceoded.
Those estimates of remaining unachieved gals are based on 1382 new
construction fair market rent limits.
The number r,+ units for each community represents the remaining Allocation Plan
goal for all subsidized rental housing programs, however, communities may
choose to transfer their allocation of funding for housing for the elderly to
support family units. Not only will these runbers be drawn in ny Sertioq 10`
developments, but also by 3ection 3 Existing and Moder, to Rehabilitation units,
new units of public housing and Farmers Home Administration assisted housing
pro,iects.
it is iE;ortant to note that th numbers represent the remai n i hg allocation, of
a. 1930 estivate of the total ainbuat of federal subb�idies for the Region in the
1980-33 period. These numbers do not represent available subsidy dollars .
They represent only what would be each community' s share of such subsidies
Should any oecome available in the Region.
Any question:, about the estimates should to directed to Guy Peterson of the
Council ' s 1.4,ousing staff at %91-5527.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
3
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FAMILY UNITS
REMAINING DURING 1980-1983 ALLOCATION PLAN PERIOD
FEBRUARY, 1983
40+ Family Units*
Edina 55
St. Louis Park 41
Roseville 40
20 - 39 Family Units*
Hopkins 30
Richfield 28
Bloomington 27
Eagan 24
Brooklyn Center 23
Plymouth 23
Woodbury 21
New Brighton 21
Shoreview 20
Blaine 20
10 - 19 Family Units*
Brooklyn Park 19
New Hope 17
Maplewood 15
Grove
Inver Grove Heights 15
South St. Paul 15
Fridley 14
Chaska 14
St. Anthony 13
Little Canada 12
Minnetonka 11
White Bear Lake 11
*Unit totals are based on 1982 estimated New Construction annual subsidy of
56,600/unit.
1
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF ELDERLY UNITS
REMAINING DURING 1980-1983 ALLOCATION PLAN PERIOD
FEBRUARY, 1983
50+ Elderly Units*
Minneapolis 426
St. Paul 125
St. Louis Park 62
Bloomington 62
20 - 49 Elderly Units*
Roseville 31
Richfield 27
Minnetonka 26
Golden Valley 24
Brooklyn Center 24
West St. Paul 24
Hopkins 22
Plymouth 20**
Burnsville 20**
10 - 19 Elderly Units*
Crystal 19**
Maplewood 19
Fridley 19
Brooklyn Park 17
Columbia Heights 13
Blaine 13
Robbinsdale 12
New Brighton 11
White Bear Lake 11
Maple Grove 11**
Anoka 11
Eagan 11**
*Unit totals are based on 1982 estimated New Construction annual subsidy of
$5,412/elderly unit.
**City does not have newly constructed, assisted elderly housing.
2
1980-1983 SUBSIDIZED HOUSING ALLOCATION PLAN PROGRESS REPORT
REMAINING ALLOCATION*
FEBRUARY, 1983
Community Family Elderly
ANOKA COUNTY
Andover 4 5
Anoka 7 11
Blaine 20 13
Circle Pines 2 2
Columbia Heights 7 13
Coon Rapids - 0 0
Fridley 14 19
Hilltop 3 3
Lexington 0 1
Spring Lake Park 0 0
CARVER COUNTY
Chanhssen 9 6
Chaska_ 14 0
Victoria 1 1
Waconia 3 3
DAKOTA COUNTY
Apple Valley 4 9
Burnsville 0 20
Eagan 24 11
Farmington 1 3
Hastings 0 7
Inver Grove Heights 15 9
Lakeville 5 7
Lilydale 1 0
Mendota 0 0
Mendota Heights 7 0
Rosemount 0 0
South St. Paul 15 9
Sunfish Lake 0 0
West St. Paul 4 24
*Totals are based on a 1982 estimated New Construction annual subsidy of
$6,600/family units, and $5,412/elderly unit.
3
1980-1983 SUBSIDIZED HOUSING ALLOCATION PLAN PROGRESS REPORT
REMAINING ALLOCATION*
FEBRUARY, 1933
Community Family Elderly
HENNEPIN COUNTY
Bloomington 27 62
Brooklyn Center 23 24
Brooklyn Park 19 17
Champlin 7 4
Crystal 9 19
Deephaven 3 3
Eden Prairie 0 0
Edina 55 0
Excelsior 3 0
Golden Valley 0 24
Greenwood 0 1
Hopkins 30 22
Long Lake 2 2
Maple Grove 0 11
Medicine Lake 0 0
Minneapolis 0 426
Minnetonka 11 26
Minnetonka Beach 0 1
Minnetrista 2 2
Mound 5 0
New Hope 17 0
Orono 5 7
Osseo 2 2
Plymouth 23 20
Richfield 28 29
Robbinsdale 9 12
St. Anthony 13 8
St. Louis Park 41 62
Shorewood 3 4
Spring Park 4 3
Tonka Bay 0 1
Wayzata 6 3
Woodland 0 0
*Totals are based on a 1982 estimated New Construction annual subsidy of
$6,600/family units, and $5,412/elderly unit.
4
3 4-
1980-1983 SUBSIDIZED HOUSING ALLOCATION PLAN PROGRESS REPORT
REMAINING ALLOCATION*
FEBRUARY, 1983
Community Family Elderly
RAMSEY COUNTY
Arden Hills 2 4
Falcon Heights 3 1
Gem Lake 0 0
Lauderdale 4 2
Little Canada 12 0
Maplewood 15 19
Moundsview 8 0
New Brighton 21 11
North Oaks 2 2
North St. Paul 0 3
Roseville 40 31
St. Paul 0 125
Shoreview 20 9
Vadnais Heights 0 3
White Bear Lake 11 11
White -Bear Township 4 3
SCOTT COUNTY
Belle Plaine 1 3
Jordan 0 2
Prior Lake 1 0
Sava e7 2
akkoope�e' — �__ ____ ____.--- — 15 —^7
WASHINGTON COUNTY
Birchwood 0 1
Cottage Grove 15 9
Forest Lake 0 0
Landfall 0 0
Mahtomedi 2 0
Newport 0 2
Oakdale 0 6
Pine Springs 0 0
St. Paul Park 3 3
Stillwater 5 2
Willernie 0 0
Woodbury 21 8
*Totals are based on a 1982 estimated New Construction annual subsidy of
$6,600/family units, and $5,412/elderly unit.
5
PHONE 612-445-6300
eigir
•
March 7, 1983
Ms. Jeanne Andre
Executive Director
Shakopee HRA
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Jeanne:
The following is the information you requested me in regard to our MHFA
Home Improvement Loan Program. This program has been in effect for approx-
imately six years here and has been very successful and in that we have liquid-
ated all of our commitment money every year. The current program is Phase
9 and it was initiated on January 1, 1982. It was meant to expire on
December 31 of the same year but was extended til June 30 of 1983 due to
the poor economy and conditions existing around the metropolitan area in
regard _to finding qualified buyers. Our bank has a policy of only lending
this money out to existing customers of our bank. When you are dealing with
the sum of money of only $40,000.00 per year you must allot it to people
who definitely need if and therefore you confine that to your immediate
customer population.
The qualifications are quite simple in the MHFA Program. The first qualif-
cation is that you do not exceed $18,000.00 for adjusted gross income. Most
of our loans fall in the $12,000 to $18,000 category therefore they are at
the highest interest rate allowable through the MHFA Program of 12.007°. We
currently have three loans on the books that are all at 12.007° and were made
to male head of households with families in excess of three or more individuals.
I will now breifly describe to you each of the loans we have made;
Loan number one was made to a young couple with one child that were
doing constructional improvements to their home. They do live out-
side of our area but are customers of ours. The money was used for
structural improvements to their home in the amount of $3,000.00.
Their interest rate was 12.00% their adjusted gross income was
$17,600.00. The husband and wife were both 27 years old and they
have a one year old child.
Loan number two was made to a couple with four childred in Jordan,
Minnesota, they borrowed $9,140.00 at a rate of 12.00% and used this
money to add an addition to their home and make some structural
improvements on their existing dwelling. Their adjusted gross
income was $16,000.00.
rtIFIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SHAKOPEE
MEMBER FDIC
SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA 55379
3c---
07 PHONE 612-445-6300
page 2
Loan number three was made to a Shakopee couple both at the age
of 22 with one child three months old. They borrowed $15,000.00
at 12.00% to do some major structural improvements to their home
and also install a new septic system and well.
As you can see by the above report our major concentration of customers
is not always in the Shakopee area. Much ofthe money we lend does stay
in Shakopee but some of it does reach out into other communities adjacent
to our city. If this program is successful again in Phase 9 we will de—
finitely participate in Phase 10 and possibly look for an allocation
of a larger sum of money. Currently we have about $29,000.00 extended
with $11,000.00 remaining for future obligations. We do not feel we will
have any problem liquidating the rest of the cash because we do open it
up to outside customers in the last 60 days if we were not able to extend
the money to our existing customer base. I hope this answers the questions
you had in regard to the MHFA Program but if not feel free to call and I
will be more than happy to give you added information.
i rel1
y,
itI 1
William J. Klein
Installment Loan Officer
WJK/pt
rtaFIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SHAKOPEE
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 MEMBER FDIC
3 c(
SCOTT COUNTY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
707 COUNTY ROAD 83 • SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 • (612)445-8700
February 10, 1983 CITY O
Ms. Jeanne Andre
Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Ms. Andre,
Enclosed please find a general summary of housing assistance provided
by the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority. I have
categorized the programs by amounts spent county wide and amounts
received by Shakopee residents.
Again, feel free to call myself or Mark E. Nagel if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
xdetiv✓
Toni M. Laffrenzen
Housing Aide
TML:spw
enclosure
3 MARJORIE HENDERSON, SHAKOPEE, CHAIRMAN
WILLIAM CHARD, BELLE PLAINE, VICE-CHAIRMAN
KEITH THORKELSON, PRIOR LAKE, SECRETARY
SYLVESTER WACKER, SAVAGE, TREASURER
MARIETTA SHARKEY, JORDAN, MEMBER EQUAL MOUSING
OPPORTUNITY
Equal Opportunity Employer
. 3 9-
1981 Community Development Block Grant
TohaZ Zd t 4-vn+/ €t ' 5-2401000 03,1% eupriZ49
•
RehabilitationJ Grants To Date CA-/0-93)
Ara/a„ /'44 (.. 4c61,to
Total County $79,388. 12 l;i awards
Shakopee $25,556.00 7 awards
(32.2%) (4-4.7%)
Mole 9 tilIII A Home Improvement Loan
Tara air nd4y IaGCt. _ffi75, Goo (.28 10,70 ! a"'t"L)
'I'o Date ( -(o-63)
Total County $21,450.00 7 loans
Shakopee $ 2,317.00 3 loans
(10.8%) (41,0%)
MIIFA Rehabilitation Loan Program
To fatU-n r av4,14,174 = f31i Doo (l5 % -(00.-„,"4)
To Date ('1-10...43)
Total County $ 6,000.00 1 award
Shakopee $ 0 0 awards
Section 8 Rental Assistance Program - December, 1982
Total County 127 contracts
Shakopee 55 contracts (4-3, 3Z)
4
MEMO TO : Jeanne Andre
FROM: Gregg M. Voxland
RE : Interfund Transfer
DATE : March 10 , 1983
Introduction & Background
The City/HRA retains custody of the K-Mart tax increment
for a period of time each year before it is remitted to the
Trustee . When certain conditions are met , we can keep the
interest earned on the increment while we hold it . Interest
earned during 1982 that we are able to keep amounts to
$ 18 , 140 .01 . We have received a larger increment sooner than
expected . Request that the Commissioners approve moving of
$ 18 , 140 .01 from the K-Mart Trust Fund to the HRA General Fund .
Alternatives
1 . Transfer to HRA General Fund .
2 . Give funds to City .
3 . Transfer to some other Fund/use .
Recommendation
Alternative number one is recommended .
Action Requested
Move to approve the transfer of $ 18 , 140 . 01 from the K-Mart
Trust Fund to the HRA General Fund .
GMV : pmp
—j
MEMO TO: Shakopee HRA
FROM: Jeanne Adnre , Executive director
RE: Housing Programs and Priorities
DATE : March 31 , 1983
Introduction:
Numerous goals and objectives have been brought forth by the HRA,
more than the staff can reasonably handle . In an effort to address
those goals numerous programs are outlined in the attached memorandum.
A two step process is proposed 1 ) to familiarize the HRA with avail-
able programs ( funding) and 2 ) to have the HRA prioritize goals in
light of the available programs and the urgency and desirability of
each goal .
Background :
It is proposed that the April , 1983 , meeting of the HRA be devoted to
discussion of the programs listed in the attached memo . A complete
understanding of each program will be the aim, with unanswered
questions to be researched by staff prior to the next meeting. HRA
Commissioners should also request staff research of other programs
not listed but known to the Commissioners .
It is then proposed that an adjourned regular session of the HRA be
held in May, 1983 , to prioritize goals in light of staff availability.
That meeting would be devoted to selecting those programs suitable to
meet Shakopee goals . Alternately the HRA could identify broad goals
and select numerous programs which could contribute to the achieve-
ment of those goals . Some such goals include 1 ) development of new
housing and subdivisions ; 2 ) Second Avenue redevelopment ; 3 ) downtown
redevelopment ; and 4) development of elderly housing. The HRA must
then prioritize the programs or goals in light of staff availability.
It is likely that progress in only one or perhaps two areas can be
made over a one or two year period.
Staff efforts toward a goal would depend on the type and availability
of programs . A high priority program which is not now funded, has
minimal funding or is likely to be discontinued may be sought through
lobbying efforts . Some programs may be implemented by others with
the HRA role mainly that of facilitator (developer involvement in
medium density homeownership program or bank involvement in home
improvement loans ) . In others the HRA could be directly involved in
implementing a program.
JA:cau
MEMO TO: Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Jeanne Andre , Executive Director
RE: Housing Programs
DATE: March 11 , 1983
•
Enclosed is a summary of various programs which make public
subsidies or assistance available for the promotion of housing,
mostly for low- and moderate- income households . I have tried,
whenever possible , to indicate limitations , and funding con-
straints related to each program as well as examples of each pro-
gram in Shakopee or the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area . The
following is an index of programs summarized.
1 .00 - General
1 . 01 Tax Increment Financing
2 . 00 - Federally Authorized or Administered
2 . 01 Section 235 Mortgage Financing
2 . 02 Section 8 Housing Subsidies
Existing
Substantial Rehabilitation
New Construction
2 . 03 Community Development Block Grants - Small Cities
(Small Cities Development Grant )
2 .04 Rental Housing Bonds
2 .05 Loans-to-Lenders
2 .06 202 Mortgages for Elderly Housing
2 .07 FHA Insured 203 (K) Mortgage
2 .08 Public Housing
3 . 00 - Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) Programs
3 .01 Home Improvement Loans
3 . 02 Rehabilitation Loans
3 . 03 Rental Rehabilitation Program
3 . 04 Mortgage Revenue Bonds for First-Time Homebuyers
(City Issued)
3 .05 Mortgage Revenue Bonds for First-Time Homebuyers
(MHFA Issued)
3 .06 Veterans ' Downpayment Assistance Program
3 .07 Rollover Housing Demonstration Program
3 . 08 Medium Density Homeownership Program Funds
3 . 09 Innovative Loan Program
JA: cau
1 .01 - TAX-INCREMENT FINANCING
Tax-Increment financing is a way to write-down the cost of
land and/or public improvements related to a housing project.
A particular parcel on which improvements are to be constructed
is defined and the 'difference between the current assessed value
of that parcel and the anticipated assessed value after the
improvement is calculated. The increase in taxes generated by
the increased value can be captured for a period of time and used
to pay back bonds sold to cover the initial cost of assistance
provided.
Expenditures which can be paid with bond proceeds include
land acquisition, relocation, demolition and public improvements
necessary to prepare the site . Rental subsidies for low- income
persons are also permitted expenditures .
In order for an area to be redeveloped with tax-increment
funds it must be blighted or have unique geographic character-
istics which make it particularly difficult and costly to im-
prove . Any type of improvement , including housing, can be
constructed on a tax increment site , as long as the parcel has
an increased assessed value after the completion of the improve-
ments . There is no statutory requirement that the expenditures
be justified by the provision of housing to low- or moderate-
income persons , although some cities establish this type of
policy at a local level .
There are three statutes under state law which allow tax-
increment financing, each with slightly different requirements .
No significant changes are anticipated in the language or these
statutes at this time .
200 Levee Drive is an example of a project for which land
write-down and public improvements were provided with tax-incre-
ment financing.
March 1983
2 . 01 - SECTION 235 MORTGAGE FINANCING
This is a mortgage subsidy provided by the federal govern-
ment to individual families who fall within established income
limitations . The subsidy is reserved by a builder for a specific
home to be newly constructed and sold to an approved buyer. The
mortgage is closed at the prevailing FHA mortgage interest rate
but the federal government pays an interest differential which
subsidizes the payments made by the homeowner to as low as 4%,
depending on the homeowners income and the prevailing interest
rates . The federal government secures a second mortgage on
the property which requires the homeowner to repay from the
equity gained upon sale of the home either the value of the sub-
sidy received or one-half the equity gain, whichever is less .
There are mortgage limits and sales price limits which
builders seeking reservations under this program must follow.
These currently are ; three or less bedroom home , mortgage limit
of $47 ,500 and sales price limit of $57 ,000; four or more bedroom 1
home , mortgage limit of $55 ,000 and sales price limit of $66 ,000.
This program was used to finance housing in the Fourth and
Minnesota Neighborhood Revitalization Project . Although this
program still exists under law, with current budgetary limitations
at the federal level , no new funds have been allocated and the
program is unlikely to be available to create many, if any, new
housing units in Shakopee .
In recent months it has been rumored that unspent prior
year allocations might be made available for additional 235 units .
Dan Boots at FHA single family indicated on 3/3/83 that the only
money which might be recaptured is if a buyer falls through on
an existing reservation, in which case each builder is finding
his own replacement and recapturing the reservation for the
same structure .
March 1983
2 . 02 - SECTION 8 HOUSING SUBSIDIES
The general operation of Section 8 Housing Subsidies pro-
vides a rent subsidy to families who meet established income
limits and live in approved housing. The program requires the
tenant to pay 25 to' 307 of their income toward the rent , with
the remainder paid by the federal government . Income and rent
limits are revised at approximate 12 to 18 month intervals to
reflect changes in the market . Housing approved for Section 8
rent subsidies is of three types , as explained below.
Existing - This program provides a subsidy to occupants of
single or multifamily housing units which exist in the private
market . Selected families who meet the income limit are
allowed to find existing housing units which fall within the
rental rate maximum established by HUD. The units must also
meet basic standards of health and safety. In this program the
subsidy is attached to the occupant , and could be transferred to
another suitable unit within the same general geographic area .
In Shakopee this program is operated by the Scott County HRA.
As of December, 1982 , there are 55 subsidies for units in Shakopee
in existing privately owned structures .
Substantial Rehabilitation - Owners of residential rental
units in need of rehabilitation are provided funds at a reduced
interest rate to undertake the necessary improvements . As part
of the repayment agreement the borrower agrees to establish
rental rates within a maximum limit established by HUD and rent
the units to families who meet the Section 8 income limits . The
federal government agrees to provide rent subsidies to the
tenants . This subsidy is therefore attached to the unit , and a
tenant who moves loses the subsidy . This program is used by HUD
to promote neighborhood revitalization in blighted areas without
displacement of lower income tenants . There has never been ex-
tensive funding for Seciton 8 Rehabilitation.
New Construction - Developers compete for subsidy authority
which will be guaranteed for the term of the mortgage of newly
constructed units . HUD still establishes maximum rental rates ,
but these are higher for new construction in order to reflect
the higher cost of current construction. As in the other programs ,
March 1983
2 . 02 - SECTION 8 HOUSING SUBSIDIES - cont 'd
tenants still pay just 25 to 30% of their income , so the cost of
the subsidy is much higher. That is one reason President Reagan
has recommended deep cuts in budget allocation for Section 8,
New Construction and the only Section 8 New Construction funds
available now are tied to the 202 Mortgage Program ( see separate
listing) .
These projects are generally not feasible under market
interest rates and usually are financed under some sort of tax-
free bonding authority. Many state housing financing agencies
were created to assist implementing Section 8 new construction
with their bonding authority.
Nationwide the allocation of Section 8 units is done on a
formula which largely reflects population. In Minnesota the
area HUD office has traditionally assigned the majority of the
State allocation of Section 8 New Construction units to the
State Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) to award competitively.
Communities which have not received their fair share of previous
allocations are given priority for new funding. 200 Levee Drive
and Clifton are examples of Section 8, New Construction with
mortgage financing provided by MHFA.
March 1983
2 . 03 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS
(CDBG - Small Cities , known as Small Cities Development
Grant Program - SCDC - under State )
Under this federal program funds are made available on a
competitive basis to cities under 50,000 in population or not in
urban counties to meet community development needs . Provision
of housing for low- and moderate- income persons is one of the
needs which can be addressed with these funds , with the ex-
ception that new construction cannot be directly financed with
the grant .
Communities are given flexibility to suggest innovative
ways to meet housing needs . Some activities which have been
undertaken in the past are rehabilitation loans to homeowners
or landlords with low- income tenants , or interest write-downs
on bank or state housing finance loans of this nature. Also
possible is land acquisition, relocation and demolotion to make
land available for new construction, or public improvements
necessary to make the land suitable for construction. This land
can be subdivided and used for the construction of single family
units as in the Fourth and Minnesota Project or assembled and
written-down for the construction of multifamily housing. In
either case the cost of housing is reduced by lowering the cost
of land and public improvements .
The statewide allocation for fiscal year 1984 is anticipated
to be approximately the same as the fiscal year 1983 allocation
of $22 million. If Shakopee is funded for a three year compre-
hensive package in the 1983 cycle a new application could not
be submitted for fiscal year 1984.
March 1983
2 . 04 - RENTAL HOUSING BONDS
Under legislation sponsored by Representative Ullman in
1981 , cities have the authority to sell bonds at their reduced
tax-free rates to finance multifamily rental housing projects .
This legislation is' scheduled to sunset in 1983 unless extended
by Congress . The City secures funds at lower rates available to
tax-free bonds and loans money directly to a developer for a
specific project . The developer promises to make 15/ of the
units in the project available for 10 years or one-half the
life of the bonds (whichever is less ) to low-- and moderate-
income persons . The affordability is achieved either with
skewed rents ( some units renting at higher rates to compensate
for other units rented at below- market rates ) or with rent
subsidies available from other local_ sources such as Lax-incre-
ment .
Practically , due to the fixed costs incurred in any bond
sale , a project should have approximately 100 units or a value
of $5 minion to work. Two or more projects in one or more cities
can be packaged to reach this scale . One-half of one percent
of the issue is allowed for administration. The rates for these
bonds are not easily pegged to any other interest rates in the
market . The bonds are secured by the real estate development
itself .
March 1983
2 .05 - LOANS-TO-LENDERS
The 1981 Ullman legislation also authorizes the loans-to-
lenders program which is also scheduled to sunset in 1983 .
Under this program the city is once again lending its name to
secure lower-interest tax-free bonds . However, the proceeds
are lent directly to a financial institution which provides
its portfolio of lower-interest mortgages or government
securities as collateral for the bonds . This collateral gener-
ally gives these bonds a higher rating and therefore lower
interest rates . The financial institution then makes a loan to
the developer of new or rehabilitated multifamily rental units ,
determining the developer' s credit worthiness and the feasibility
of the project . The developer agrees to make 15% of the units
available to low- and moderate- income persons , with subsidies
coming from the project itself or some other local source . Again
the bond sale should be in the $5 million range to be feasible.
Lenders are allowed to charge an interest rate 1% above the yield
on the bonds .
March 1983
2 . 06 - 202 MORTGAGES FOR ELDERLY HOUSING
The federal government has a program to provide up to
100% loan-to-equity mortgages for multifamily rental housing
for the elderly developed by non-profit organizations . Develop-
ers must make an approximate $10,000 to $25 ,000 capital contri-
bution. In the practical implementation of this program in
Minnesota HUD has always tied these mortgages to Section 8 , new
construction subsidies , so almost any such subsidies available
now are tied to the 202 mortgage program.
In 1982 , 499 units were approved for development under the
202 in Minnesota . It is anticipated that 300 units will be
available in statewide competition in 1983 . Cities and Housing
Authorities are not eligible to receive the mortgage loans .
Commonly, an existing, financially secure non-profit becomes
the sponsor and forms a separate non-profit specifically to
borrow funds and serve as the developer. The sponsor serves
the role of a cosigner to the loan. The board of directors of
the sponsor and the borrower may overlap.
This is one of the few programs which has been funded in
recent years and for which appropriations are anticipated next
year. A competitive application process is generally implemented
the spring of each year. The application includes background
information on the sponsor and borrower, site control of a
suitable development parcel , narrative description of proposed
development and evidence of community support . Consultants are
available to help cities package their application and are
frequently contracted with fees contingent on project approval .
In the notice of fund availability HUD identifies those
Counties which will receive funding priority among equivalent
applications . Scott County has not been listed in recent years .
The priority list is based on HUD calculations of elderly popu-
lation that is income eligible and lives in substandard or
overcrowded housing. Based on these criteria the HUD office
estimates that Scott County has met 131% of its need and with
projects recently opening in Prior Lake and Chaska , Shakopee
( Scott County) is unlikely to be a priority in the near future .
The only way to gain priority status is to demonstrate that a
percentage of currently available subsidized elderly units
March 1983
2 . 06 - 202 MORTGAGES FOR ELDERLY HOUSING - cont 'd
have been rented to persons previously residing in other
cities and counties .
March 1983
2 . 07 - FHA INSURED 203 (K) MORTGAGE - SUBSTANTIAL REHABILITATION
This mortgage program provides construction and permanent
financing in a single mortgage instrument to be utilized to pur-
chase housing in need of significant rehabilitation. There is
no subsidy in the program which provides standard FHA insurance
at prevailing FHA interest rates . However the Program could be
very useful in a neighborhood requiring significant rehabilitation
because long-term financing and construction financing are
assured in advance, therefore encouraging buyers willing to
undertake the improvements .
The loan is closed at the time of acquisition after rehab-
ilitation costs have been firmly established. The owner has
up to 18 months to complete the rehabilitation and can make up
to 5 draws to pay contractors .
FHA is now able to insure loans under this program but the
local HUD office isn' t aware of any Minnesota financial institu-
tions willing to offer these mortgages . Although banks can
charge extra fees to compensate for the extra problems related
to construction financing, they still are unwilling to partici-
pate .
March 1983
2 . 08 - PUBLIC HOUSING - NEW CONSTRUCTION
Public Housing is financed with long-term bonds sold by the
federal government and backed by a commitment to supply annual
payments from the federal budget repaying the bonded debt for
the life of the bonds (generally 30 years ) . Each year the
local HUD office seeks proposals for projects which compete
for the state-wide allocation of annual payment commitments .
The payment commitments are not designed to cover operating ex-
penses which should be paid from operating revenues . If there
are operating deficits , the federal government sometimes pro-
vides operating subsidies and modernization funds under a
separate program.
No funds for new public housing commitments were approved
by Congress for fiscal year 1983 (ending September 30 , 1983 ) and
the Regan administration proposes no new commitments for fiscal
year 1984. Approximately 55 units of public housing are current-
ly owned and operated by the Scott County HRA in Jordan, Savage
and Prior Lake .
March 1983
3 .00 - MHFA PROGRAMS
The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) offers many
programs to stimulate housing. It is difficult to keep current
on these programs because they vary according to each bond
issue or other source of funding, depending on rules established
by legislative bodies or stipulations recommended by bond counsel .
Interest rates also vary according to the market prevailing at
the time bonds are sold. Often there is little opportunity to
effectively advertise these programs due to delays in bond sales
combined with the need for quick distribution of funds . Some
recent programs are explained on the following pages .
March 1983
3 . 01 - HOME IMPROVEMENT LOANS
MHFA serves as a secondary market for loans originated by
local FHA Title I lenders . Lenders reserve funds by paying a
commitment fee of . 5% which is rebated with each loan sold on
the secondary market . The maximum loan amount is $15,000 and
can include room additions . Applicants can have a maximum in-
come of $24,000 ( $18 ,000 in the program administered by the
bank) , with interest rates on loans varying from 3 to 14. 5%
depending on the borrower' s income ( 3 to 12% in program
administered by the bank) .
Bonds in the amount of approximately $50 million were sold
to finance this program in December of 1981 . Fifty percent of
these funds had been committed in September of 1982 . The current
phase of the program was to end in November of 1982 but was
extended until June 30, 1983 , as funds were still available .
A new phase will probably begin in July of 1983 depending on the
bond market and program demand .
These loans are administered in Shakopee by the Scott County
Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the First National Bank
of Shakopee .
Phase 9 of this program is currently underway, ending on
June 30 , 1983 . In February of 1983 the County HRA had loaned
29% of the $75 ,000 commitment it received for Phase 9 with 3
loans totaling $2 , 317 made to Shakopee residents . First National
has issued 72 . 5% of the $40,000 commitment it received with one
loan of $15 ,000 made to Shakopee residents .
3 . 02 - REHABILITATION LOANS
This program is designed to undertake the most basic code-
related home improvements for very-low-income families . MHFA
is the lender and uses funds provided by legislative appropria-
tion. There are therefore fewer dollars with less strings
attached . Loans of up to $6 ,000 can be made at a 3% interest
rate for up to a ten year term. If persons do not have the
demonstrated ability to make payments , the loan can take the
form of an interest-free loan payable in 10 years or on sale of
the property, whichever is first . The maximum income for
applicants is $6 ,000 with an asset limit of $25 ,000 not in-
cluding the value of the homestead property .
This program was previously operated as a grant program.
Continuation of the program is dependent on legislative
appropriations for the 1984-85 biennium. Past allocations have
been on a County basis , based on the number of poverty persons
in the County .
These loans are administered in Shakopee by the Scott
County Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Fifteen percent
of the current cycle of $38 ,000 had been loaned in February
of 1983 , with no loans in Shakopee .
March 1983
3 . 03 - RENTAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM
Funds are available to individual owners (not partnerships
or corporations ) to rehabilitate multifamily housing. Individ-
ual communities request a commitment of funds which are adminis-
tered by local FHA Title I lenders . The community reviews
applications for compliance with basic program standards and the
lender reviews the application for credit worthiness and to assure
that all FHA lending practices are met . The lender prepares the
loan package , gets MHFA approval , makes the loan and sells the
loan to MHFA. No commitment fees are charged the lender. A
processing fee of $115 or 1% of the loan, whichever is greater,
is paid to the lender.
Lending maximums are established at $7 , 500 per unit or
$37 , 500 per building (whichever is less ) for multifamily units
and $15 ,000 per single family unit or duplex. Energy improve-
ments mandated by the Minnesota legislature in 1979 must be
undertaken ( if can be accomplished within a 10 year payback
period) caith more general improvements then permitted until the
loan maximums are reached. Improvements in mixed-use building
( commercial/residential ) are permitted as long as at least 50%
of the building square footage is in residential use .
There is no income limit for the property owner but the
owner must agree to provide 50 to 75% of the units at rent levels
( including the cost of utilities ) which do not exceed 30% of the
tenant ' s gross annual income .
Only buildings owned individually, not those owned by a
partnership, corporation or other entity, are eligible .
The initial program was created in 1980 with approximately
$1 to 1 . 5 million dollars available outside constraints established
in the 1981 Ullman legislation. These are bond funds recycled
from the operation of the home improvement loan program. Loans
under the initial phase are available at an 11% interest rate
for up to a 15year term. A maximum of $2 million is anticipated
for the phase two ( current phase ) .
Funds available for phase III have not yet been established,
but are expected to be available at the same 11% interest and 15
year term available for phases I and II . The City as a commitment
March 1983
3 . 03 - RENTAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM - cont ' d
from MHFA to receive up to $100,000 in rental rehabilitation
loans for the East Second Avenue Neighborhood Revitalization
Project if the current FY 1983 Small Cities Community Develop-
ment Block Grant is' funded. The Scott County HRA has agreed to
administer this program on behalf of the City.
March 1983
3 . 04 - MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS FOR FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYERS
(City Issued)
Under the 1981 Ullman legislation which sunsets in 1983 ,
the authority of public agencies to issue tax-free bonds for
mortgage financing for individual homebuyers is severely limited.
Under a nationwide formula based largely on population, each
state is authorized to issue an established dollar value of
bonds each year, with the state to set the allocation of fund-
ing authority for its subdivisions . Minimum authority under the
formula is $200 million which is the annual amount Minnesota has
recently received and is likely to receive in the future if the
legislation is continued . In Minnesota the legislature has
determined that the Minnesota State Housing Finance Agency (MHFA)
will receive 72 . 5% of the allocation and cities will receive
27 . 5% on a competitive basis . The MHFA authority is used for
statewide programs such as the single family mortgage program
administered through banks and savings and loan associations ,
rollover housing demonstration program, medium density homeowner-
ship, etc . , ( see separate listings for details ) . For cities
to compete for authority to issue bonds , they must apply to
MHFA by January 2nd of any year, with MHFA to judge the applica-
tion by February 1st . On occasion there is also a fall competi-
tion for residual authority which has not been used by MHFA or
previously authorized municipalities . No city can apply for
more than $10 million in authority, and to cover fixed issuance
costs cities should issue at least $5-6 million. Two or more
cities can apply to issue cooperatively.
MHFA ranks the application based on three tie-breaking
criteria . The first factor used is the proportion of the pro-
posed issue reserved for not less than six months for households
with incomes below 80 percent of the permitted income limits ;
the second is the proportion of the proposed issue reserved
for not less than six months for households with incomes below
90 percent of the permitted income limits ; the third is the per-
centage of the proposed bond program that represents non-bond
proceeds such as developer contributions , entitlement Community
March 1983
3 .04 - MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS FOR FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYERS - cont 'd
(City Issued )
Development Block Grant (CDBG ) monies , tax revenued , foundation
grants or tax-increment financing.
Following the approval of a bond program by MHFA and sale of
revenue bonds , bond proceeds are placed with one or more local
lending institutions . The institutions then make home mortgages
to qualified applicants for homes priced within the purchase price
limits established by the program, consistent with state law.
These mortgages can be made only to first-time homebuyers , de-
fined as those who have not owned a home in the three previous
years . A household ' s adjusted gross income for program partici-
pation cannot exceed 110 percent of the Metropolitan Area ' s
median income , except for units in designated target areas where
by law there are no income limitations . Purchase price limits
for new units may not exceed three times the program' s income
limit .
Savage received authority under the 1983 competition to
issue up to $10 million in single family mortgage bonds .
Overall the Savage program includes a 10. 08% local contribution.
3 . 31% is in refundable commitment fees by developers and banks .
3 . 51% is a mortgage buy-down by developers , and 2 . 25% is a mort-
gage buy-down by the City with proceeds from tax-increment dis-
tricts created for newly constructed units . An additional 1Q'/
non-refundable commitment fee was required from developers prior
to submission of an application to MHFA. With the buy-down
contributions , interest rates to purchasers will be decreased
an additional 1-3% in the first five years .
March 1983
3.05 - MORTGAGE LOANS FOR FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYERS
(MHFA Issued)
Under the 1981 Ullman legislation the State as a whole is
given authority to issue up to $200 million each year in bonds
to provide mortgage, loans for first-time homebuyers . The
legislature has given MHFA authority to issue 72 . 5% of the
state allocation or $145 million each year . An on-going pro-
gram is administered by banks and savings and loan associations
throughout the state . The program criteria and terms vary with
each issue as interest rates change and the state or federal
legislature creates new rules .
The current program ( 1982 , series 1 and 2 ) sold $68 million
in bonds in May and July of 1982 . This phase has $30 million
remaining and the term has been extended to June 15 , 1983 .
The current phase has an interest rate of 12% for the first ten
years and 15 . 25% for the last 20 years . However the monthly
payment is increased at year 6 , to a rate midway between 12
and 15 . 25% in order to gradually move the payment up to the
15 . 25% rate in year 10. The increased payment in years 6 through
10 goes towards the loan equity, and allows the mortgage to be
paid off in 22 years rather than the established 30 year term.
The current program is both for new construction and exist-
ing housing. Maximum purchase price in the Seven County Metro-
politan Area is set at $70,000 for new construction and $60,000
for existing housing. The maximum annual adjusted household in-
come in the Seven County Metropolitan Area is $32 ,000 for new
construction and $27 ,000 for an existing home . Borrowers must
be Minnesota residents who have not had an ownership interest
in a principal residence within the past three years and must
occupy the home as a principal residence within 60 days of the
mortgage closing.
Loans under this program are not assumable , and the program
cannot be used to refinance existing debt . Homes must meet
applicable federal and state housing standards .
No Shakopee banks or savings and loan associations currently
participate in this program, so accessibility for local housing
finance is minimal . In July, 1982 , the City Administrator
arranged a meeting between MHFA staff and local financial repre-
sentatives , to encourage local involvement in the program.
March 1983
3 .06 - VETERANS ' DOWNPAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Under this program eligible applicants purchasing their
first home may qualify for an interest-free-loan of l07 of
the purchase price of the property up to a maximum of $4,000.
Loans are made in conjunction with VA first mortgages or certain
mortgage assumptions and contracts-for-deed .
Funded by a $3 million Legislative appropriation in 1981 ,
the assistance is in the form of a deferred , no-interest loan,
to be repaid in full when the veteran no longer occupies the
home , or after a period of 30 years . As of March, 1983 , no funds
are remaining, but MHFA has a waiting list in case mortgages in
process are not approved by the time the program runs out . A
bill to provide additional funding has been introduced into the
1983 state legislature but passage is not considered likely.
The program is available to veterans honorably discharged
after serving on active duty in any branch of the United States
Armed Forces for at least 181 consecutive days , at least some
of which -occurred between August 5, 1964 and May 7 , 1975 . A
veteran' s dependent , namely an unremarried surviving spouse,
would also be considered eligible . All applicants must be
first-time homebuyers .
Under the current program, qualifying veterans with incomes
that do not exceed the maximum MHFA limit may apply for assis-
tance . For the seven-county Twin Cities metropolitan area,
maximum income limits are $32 ,000 for new housing and $27 ,000
for existing.
To apply , veterans should bring a D.D. Form 214 and a
purchase agreement for the house to their local VSO, where
eligibility will be determined. The VSO determines the appli-
cant ' s eligibility based on his or her income and length of
service , making sure that the specific financing transaction is
allowable and that the house sales price meets MHFA guidelines ,
which for the seven county metropolitan area are $70,000 for new
construction and $60 ,000 for existing housing.
An eligible applicant may then receive a Downpayment
Authorization, which is taken to a local lender, where the ap-
plication for financing is made . Approval for MHFA assistance
does not , however, guarantee loan approval by the lender.
March 1983
3 .07 - ROLLOVER HOUSING DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
This demonstration program will provide reduced-interest
mortgage financing to homeowners living in underutilized housing
who wish to sell to first-time homebuyers . The initial pro-
gram has approximately $10 million (enough for 150 to 200 mort-
gages ) which will be available at a 10 7/8% interest rate .
Approximately 50% of the funds will be committed to
individual homeowners selling to first-time homebuyers . Eligible
sellers are defined as households of not more than two persons
were at least one of the persons is over age 45 .
MHFA has set aside $5 million for use by developers pro-
viding new (construction) housing targeted for sale or rental
to empty-nesters . Developers can allocate part of this set
aside to finance housing sold to first-time homebuyers by per-
sons moving into the developer' s units .
The maximum sales price for an eligible seller' s home may
not exceed $75 ,000 in the seven county metropolitan area and
the maximum adjusted gross income of an eligible first-time
homebuyer may not exceed $30,000 in the seven county metropolitan
area. All mortgage loans originated under the program are to
be coordinated by one mortgage lender designated by MHFA.
New housing to be promoted with this financing mechanism
must be constructed by June of 1983 . However subsequent phases
of the program may be offered if the demonstration is successful .
March 1983
3. 08 - MEDIUM DENSITY HOMEOWNERSHIP PROGRAM
The Medium Density Homeownership Program funds the new
construction or substantial rehabilitation of attached, for-sale
housing developments . The purpose of the program is to stimulate
the construction of• moderately priced , energy efficient , for-
sale housing . Federal statutes require that all units be sold
to moderate income , first-time home buyers .
Approximately $30 million in bonds were sold in 1982 to
provide funds for this program, all of which have been allocated.
MHFA will assess this summer whether this program will be offered
again, depending on the progress of this and other MHFA programs ,
bond rates , etc . Unless the sunset provisions of the Ullman
legislation are extended, MHFA will not have the bonding capacity
to offer this program in 1984.
Projects in cities throughout the state compete for funding
and can possibly be funded if a market can be demonstrated.
MHFA will provide a forward commitment agreement for end mortgage
loan financing for each unit selected and approved for construc-
tion. The minimum and maximum forward commitment for any one
development will be 12 and 40 units , respectively. The maximum
purchase price of any unit will be $70 ,000 statewide with the
maximum income requirement to be determined when bonds are sold
and the interest rate established. The mortgage interest rate
for the 1982 program was 10 7/8% with a 30-year term. Builders
also had the option to buy-down the interest rate an additional
point ( to 9 7/8%) .
Applicants are encouraged to work with city officials to
coordinate ways in which local regulations and ordinances can
be modified to reduce costs . All proposed development sites
must be zoned residential at time of application ( substantial
rehab proposals exempt ) .
MHFA strongly encourages applications from qualified
minority developers and development teams with meaningful minor-
ity involvement .
MHFA gave very short notice of the introduction of this
program in 1982 , but the Shakopee HRA Director called local
March 1983
3 . 08 - MEDIUM DENSITY HOMEOWNERSHIP PROGRAM - cont 'd
builders to inform them of the program. Mr. Wiggin chose to
submit a proposal for units in Shakopee (which the City Council
supported ), but his project was not selected . MHFA received 45
proposals and funded 20 in 1982 .
March 1983
3 . 09 - INNOVATIVE LOAN PROGRAM
This program, authorized by the 1977 legislature , provides
no-interest construction loans to non-profit organizations for
the purpose of encouraging innovative ideas in housing. Four
projects have been authorized under this program, including
a house recycling program in the St . Cloud area , an earth-
sheltered townhouse in Minneapolis , an earth-sheltered, fully
handicapped-accessible rental project in Coon Rapids , and a
housing rennovation and district heating project by Macalester
College in St . Paul .
MHFA accepts applications for the Innovative Loan Program
on an on-going basis and selects applications when funds are
available . Following the commitment of the Macalester loan,
$430,000 remains in the fund for additional commitments . Pro-
jects eligible for funding from the program must meet the
following general criteria :
1 . The developer must be a non-profit entity. This
includes HRA' s , churches , schools , community action
agencies and other non-profit corporations .
2 . The project must involve some kind of housing
construction, either new construction or rehabili-
tation. Non-construction projects , such as
housing counseling services , are not eligible .
3 . Since the innovative loan is for construction finan-
cing only , the developer must have a commitment for
take-out or permanent financing.
4. The project must be innovative . That is , it must
involve the use of equipment or materials , or a
method of design, construction, marketing or
financing which is not generally in use in the
housing industry.
5 . The project must be at least partially available
to low- or moderate-income households . The exact
requirement will vary according to the percentage
of the total financing provided by MHFA.
6 . Projects may propose the use of innovative loan
funds either as the sole funding source or in
tandem with conventional or other financing.
March 1983
3 . 09 - INNOVATIVE LOAN PROGRAM - cont 'd
7 . The term of the innovative loan may not exceed two
years .
The use of an innovative loan during construction can pro-
vide a very attractive subsidy for an innovative project . For
example, the interest on a $400,000 loan borrowed at 16% for
six months is $32 ,000. The innovative loan can also provide a
private lender with the added security of sharing the risk on a
project .
The Macalester project includes the commitment of a
$320,000 no-interest construction loan to the College for the
renovation of seven existing houses , including the creation of
a small district heating project . When finished, the project
will include 11 units , all of which will be heated with steam
or hot water provided from excess capacity of the College steam
plant. The MHFA loan represents approximately 45% of the total
construction cost . Macalester has agreed to market at least
three of the units to households meeting the agency' s definition
of moderate income .
March 1983
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MARCH 15, 1983
Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. with Cncl. Wampach, Leroux,
Vierling and Colligan present. Cncl. Lebens was absent. Also present were John
K. Anderson, City Admr. ; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Rod Krass, Ass't City Attorney
and Jim Karkanen, Public Works Director. Also present for the joint meeting with
the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC) were Lou VanHout, Manager, and
Commissioners Wally Bishop, Barry Kirchmeier and Jim Cook.
Discussion ensued regarding a new Coordination System of Public Improvement Projects
for public works projects. The City Admr. stated staff is still working on the
system, but at this time would welcome constructive criticism and helpful suggestions.
Discussion centered on which body is responsible for various portions of a project,
right-of-way concerns, administration of projects and method of charging.
Discussion was held regarding the possibilities of joint use and purchase of equip-
ment by the City and SPUC. The current sharing of equipment was talked about and
consensus was that there were no major problems with the joint uses that were taking
place.
Considerable discussion took place regarding a possible future purchase of a backhoe.
The needs of SPUC and the City were talked about relating to use of a backhoe and
the consideration of having an operator provided. Neither body seems to think they
had enough need to purchase one outright for themselves. They would check further
regarding how much it was used, cost of rental, with and without operator, and cost
of a new one. It was suggested a used one might be purchased for joint use just for
back-up on short, small jobs.
The possibility of a future joint use of a computor was discussed. Mayor Reinke stated
North St. Paul is developing a program for municipal electric billing for LOGIS,
which SPUC might want to check out. Further suggestions for joint use were just
the chipper and air compressor.
Cncl. Leroux stated he is philosophically opposed to joint ownership of equipment.
He believes one body should own it and then make arrangements for a shared use, if
possible.
Consensus was to have the City and SPUC exchange 5 year capital equipment purchase
lists and designate joint use items.
A brief discussion was held about other areas where joint use between SPUC and the
City might be explored, such as computors and engineers.
Leroux/Colligan moved for a five minute recess at 8:15 P.M. Motion carried
unanimously.
Leroux/Colligan moved to re-convene at 8:30 P.M. Motion carried unanimously.
Liaison reports were given by Councilmembers.
Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to address
the Council on any item not on the agenda.
Jerry Julkowski stated he is the President of Property Investment Center.
He stated the Shakopee Village Townhouses were planned and approved by FHA in 1972.
He stated his company became involved in this project in 1977. He stated his problem
is some requests the City is making before issuance of certificates of occupacy. He
stated that because the townhouse association is now in place, he no longer controls
the project, and he simply cannot comply with the City's request. He stated the
request is to issue easements to the City, and in order to do this people who have
owned the property in 1977 have to be contacted. He stated they have been working
on this since April, and their attorney tells them it will be another two months at
least until it is completed. He said he has buyers who are in compliance with FHA,
and FHA states they are in compliance and the people should be moved in now. He would
like to have the Council instruct the Building Inspector to issue the Certificate
of Occupancy and drop the criminal complaint that has been issued against him.
Shakopee City Council
March 15, 1983
Page 2
Considerable discussion ensued. The Ass't City Attorney stated he had no informa-
tion on this matter, as the City Attorney must have been involved in it.
Steve Anderson, President of the Shakopee Village Townhouse Assoc. , stated that they
have to have 90/ of the property owners contacted and have their signatures on these
documents. He stated.they feel they have enough signatures, there is just the matter
of clearing up some technicalities, which will take some time yet.
Mr. Jelkowski stated the City did issue Certificates of Occupancy for the previous
two occupants to move in, but now will not issue the third Certificate.
ColliganJWampach moved to adjourn to Monday, March 21, 1983 at 5:00 p.m. , when the
Council does so adjourn to consider this matter and to allow research to be done by
staff. Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Vierling moved to approve the minutes of March 1, 1983 as kept.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Leroux/Wampach moved to authorize staff to release $3,211.74, or whatever amount is
actual, to Ronald R. Scherer, so that he may collect interest on it. (The $3,211.74
was the balance due on assessments for the 81-2 Bluff Avenue utilities. )
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
The City Planner gave a status report on the actions of the Downtown Ad Hoc Commit-
tee in reviewing proposals by consulting firms for the redevelopment. He stated
that 5 consulting firms have been chosen to give presentations to the Downtown
Committee, after which it will finalize its consultant recommendation to City Council.
Dan Steil, Chairman of the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee, answered questions regarding
the survey taken of merchants and property owners in the downtown area regarding
redevelopment. Discussion followed. The City Planner stated that without a firm
redevelopment plan and no dollar amount for the cost, the results of the survey
were much as they expected.
Colligan/Vierling moved to appoint Steve Clay and Gary Laurent to the Ad Hoc Down-
town Committee as voting members, and to appoint Trevor Walsten as a non-voting
member.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried,
The City Planner gave some background regarding the proposed amendment for building
requirements for new single family detached residences: 1) 24 foot minimum width
requirement; and 2) permanent foundation requirement. Discussion ensued regarding
how the minimum width requirement would be interpreted in a house that was proposed
to have only portions of it that width. The City Planner stated the Building
Inspector would be making the interpretation, and it would be obvious if someone
was trying to circumvent the requirement.
Leroux/Vierling moved to request the City Attorney to draft various forms of an
ordinance which would amend the Zoning Ordinance as recommended by Planning Commis-
sion regarding a 24 foot minimum width and permanent foundation.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried,
Cncl. Leroux stated he thinks the slide presentation planned by the Industrial/
Commercial Commission (ICC) should include commercial and downtown redevelopment
in addition to industrial information. Discussion followed. The City Admr. was
directed to check with bond counsel to see if a presentation of this type could be
used to try to get a higher bond rating.
Leroux/Vierling moved to direct staff to include a budget amendment increasing the
1983 ICC budget by $4,150, pending their inclusion in the slide presentation of a
substantial portion which would present itself to commercial development and re-
development for Shakopee.
Roll Call: Ayes; Vierling, Leroux, Colligan, Reinke
Noes; Wampach
Motion carried.
The Ass't City Attorney stated that if the City participated in a financial pack-
age enabling the construction of an addition to the Senior High School for a cable
studio location, in his opinion the action would be legal. He stated it is important
:that the property will eventually end up in public hands, as that is a big considera-
tion in talking about "public purpose".
Virgil Mears stated that the school district at this time has no construction funds.
Shakopee City Council
March 15, 1983
Page 3
Mary Smith, representative of ZU, stated they have never considered withdrawing the
$10,000 grant committed for local access programming. She stated their commitment
to local access programming is really more like $200,000.
Discussion followed regarding any other possible sites for the cable TV studio. Mr.
Mears stated there is no other place in the schools that is big enough for the
studio.
Leroux/Colligan moved to direct staff to work with Zylstra United, Shakopee Public
Schools and First National Bank to put together the specifics of a financing pack-
age for a school owned cable TV studio for Zylstra United at the Senior High School,
and bring it back to City Council for final determination at its next regular meet-
ing.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Colligan/Leroux moved to authorize the Chief of Police to negotiate an agreement with
the Dakota County Training System to provide law enforcement training, and bring
back an agreement for Council consideration.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Leroux/Vierling moved to direct the appopriate City officials to amend the contract
with Suburban Engineering by replacing the 1982 Fee Schedule with the 1983 Fee
Schedule dated March 15, 1983.
Roll Call: Ayes; Vierling, Leroux, Colligan, Reinke
Noes; Wampach
Motion carried.
The City Engineer discussed the 1983 load restrictions in the City as an informational
item.
Discussion ensued regarding a walkway from Park Ridge Drive to 11th Avenue. The
biggest concern is that without the walkway, students would have to be bused from Park
Ridge Drive to the Junior High.
Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize staff to prepare the necessary resolution for
authorizing Condemnation Proceedings to acquire right-of-way for a walkway between
Park Ridge Drive and 11th Avenue. Motion carried with Mayor Reinke abstaining.
Colligan/Vierling moved to authorize the preparation, execution and recording of an
amendment to the developers agreement erasing the $250.00 park fee against Lot 1,
Block 4, East View 1st Addition.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Vierling/Leroux moved to direct staff to investigate any other workmen's compensa-
tion legislation besides H.F. 310, and investigate Wisconsin's system for workmens
compensation. Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Vierling moved to nominate Jim Cook to the Shakopee Public Utilities Com-
mission.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Colligan/Vierling moved to approve the request and grant permission to the Shakopee
V.F.W. to utilize 10th Avenue and Adams Street from the Senior High to Lions Park
on May 1, 1983, beginning at 1:00 P.M. in order to conduct a parade in celebration
of Loyalty Day; and that a certificate of insurance adding the City of Shakopee as
an additional insured for liability shall be filed with the City prior to May 1, 1983.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Colligan/Vierling moved to authorize and direct staff to refund to J. I. Case, Inc.
on March 30, 1983 the deposit guaranteeing the improvements to Case 1st Addition in
the amount of $2,500, plus interest in the amount of $357.86.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Colligan/Vierling moved to approve the transfer of $41,24.9.52 from Revenue Sharing
Fund to the General Fund.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Mr. George Muenchow requested approval of a Shakopee Farmers Market, and stated the
fee would probably be $1 per day or $5 per season.
Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize the Community Services Board to operate a Farmers
Market on the Silver Arrow Parking Lot on Levee Drive Saturdays from 10:00 A.M. to
2:00 P.M. during the months of June, July, August and September, on a fee basis.
Motion carried unanimously.
Shakopee City Council
March 15, 1983
Page 4
Mr. Muenchow addressed the Municipal Swimming Pool Program for 1983. He stated
he recommends one fee for a season ticket, no open pool during lessons over the
supper hour and a 100 gate increase.
Colligan/Vierling moved to establish summer hours and fees as recommended by Mr.
Muenchow in his memo for the 1983 Municipal Swimming Pool Program/Plan. Discussion
followed.
Leroux/Vierling moved to amend the motion that the fees be reduced for season tickets
purchased by May 16, 1983 to $28, and tickets purchased May 17 and thereafter be at
$32.
Discussion followed regarding establishing some type of fund to allow those who
cannot afford it to use the pool. Discussion centered on whether or not there was
a need for this, and if so, how people could be notified of its availability and
what criteria would be used to qualify. Mr. Muenchow was directed to use the media
to announce the availability of a pool program for season tickets and lessons at a
reduced or free basis for those who could not afford the pool fees. It was suggested
the same criteria for reduced fees free hot lunch program could be used for the
pool fee reduction. Mr. Muenchow stated he would do that and present a lump sum bill
at the end of the season for the City Council to handle in whatever manner it wishes.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Main motion as amended carried unanimously.
Collies n/Vierling moved that bills in the amount of $563,515.33 be allowed and
ordered paid.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize the Mayor and City Admr. to enter into a settle-
ment stipulation reducing the assessment to Air Products to $3,785, and give Air
Products credit for any assessment payments they have already made for 82-2 Valley
Invustrial Blvd. South. Discussion followed with the Ass't. City Attorney.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Cncl. Leroux stated that the proposed alternative #14 for the CR18 alignment is
ridiculous, and suggested the City not support that alignment.
Leroux/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2122, A Resolution Supporting A Permanent
Minnesota River Crossing At the West Corridor, and moved its adoption. Motion
carried unanimously.
Colligan/Vierling offered Ordinance No. .115, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee,
Minnesota, Amending Chapter 4 Section 4.03 of the City Code by Adopting Certain
Prohibitions and Limitations and Adopting by Reference City Code Chapter 1 and
Section 4.99, and moved its adoption. (Prohibiting construction on an easement. )
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Colligan/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2124, A Resolution Supporting Continued
Location of the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Shakopee, and moved its adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Colligan/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2121, A Resolution Designating the Shakopee
Industrial Commercial Commission as the Lead Organization in Promoting the Star City
Program, and moved its adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Colligan/Vierling moved to accept the resolution of the Shakopee Development Corp-
oration pledging its support of the Star Cities Program and offering its support
and cooperation to the ICC.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Colligan/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2125, A Resolution Apportioning Assessments
Among New Parcels Created as a Result of the Subdivision of Land, Parcel No. 27-
908027-0, Lying Within Sections 7 and 8-115-22, and moved its adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Leroux/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2123, A Resolution Approving Plans and Speci-
fications and Authorizing the Advertising for Bids for the 16th Avenue/90th Street
Roadway Improvement, Project No. 1982-6, and moved its adoption. Motion carried
unanimously.
Shakopee City Council
March 15, 1983
Page 5
Colligan/Wampach moved to authorize the purchase of four 100 foot lengths of 5
inch polyurethane lined large diameter hose for $690 per length for the Fire
Department, said funds to be transfered from the Capital Equipment Revolving Fund.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Mayor Reinke stated that the Shakopee City Engineer and Prior Lake City Engineer
inspected the outlet of the Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District, and it was
not to their approval. However, Saturday the Watershed District declared that an
emergency existed, and opened the gate without informing Shakopee.
The City Engineer stated he has drafted a notice to the Watershed District ad-
vising and reminding them of their obligations under the Joint Powers Agreement
and stating they have disregarded sections regarding the outlet and the care the
Watershed District should exercise before jeopardizing the health and safety of
Shakopee residents. The City Engineer is asking for authorization to have the City
Admr. inform the Watershed District that Shakopee expects it to abide by the terms
of the Joint Powers Agreement to gain proper permission before opening the outlet,
or the City of Shakopee will seek remedy through arbitration as authorized in the
Joint Powers Agreement.
The City Engineer explained other provisions and protections the Watershed District
is required to make, and stated that if the Watershed District fails to resolve these
matters in a timely manner, the City should seek recourse through arbitration. The
City Engineer stated he also believes the emergency was poorly called, and there was
no notice given Shakopee of the opening of the gate. Discussion followed.
Colligan/Wampach moved to direct staff to send to the Prior Lake/Spring Lake Water-
shed District a strongly worded letter as suggested by the City Engineer regarding
the unwarranted opening of the outlet and lack of notice thereof. Motion carried
unanimously.
Leroux/Wampach moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at
11:40 P.M.
Judith S. Cox
City Clerk
Diane S. Beuch
Recording Secretary
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADJ .REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MARCH 21 , 1983
Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 5 :09 P.M. with Cncl .Wampach,
Vierling, Colligan and Leroux present . Cncl .Lebens was absent . Also
present were John K. Anderson, City Admr. ; Judith S . Cox, City Clerk,
Julius A. Coller, II , City Attorney, and Leroy Houser, Building Official .
The purpose of the meeting was to consider the requests of Jerry Julkowski,
of Property Investment Center, Inc . : 1] that the city issue certificates
of occupancy to townhouse units in Patricia' s 1st Add' n. , which are recently
completed, without the builder providing the necessary easements to the
townhouse association for maintenance of the utilities which are located
under the units, and 2] that the city dismiss the charges against Mr.
Julkowski for moving in occupants prior to obtaining a certificate of
occupancy.
Mr. Coller explained that he has been in touch with Mr. Ralph Budding
of F.H.A. , Mr. Kohlrusch and Mr. Manahan and that the easement agreement
for this building, as well as all other buildings in the development, has
been prepared, properly executed and will receive the townhouse association
acceptance on March 24th at which time it will be ready for recording.
Mr. Loren Gross spoke on behalf of Mr. Julkowski stating that in light
of this progress, the issuance of the occupancy permits could wait until
this easement agreement is ready. He also asked if the city would dismiss
the charges against Mr. Julkowski .
Mr. Julkowski stated that he was granted a building permit on April 15th
but was not informed that he must submit an easement prior to issuance of
a certificate of occupancy until June 2nd. Because of the structure of the
townhouse association, he only has one vote in 77 so therefore has no
control in providing the city with an easement agreement which provides for
access and maintenance of the utilities under all the units in the develop-
ment. F.H.A. told him that he could allow people to move into two of the
units, so he did, without city issuance of a certificate of occupancy. He
asked the city to dismiss the charges against him for occupying the units
without a certificate of occupancy.
Leroy Houser explained that the Council agreed to permit the utilities to
run under the units, if easements were provided and that Mr. Julkowski has
known since June of 1982 that the easements were necessary before the city
would issue certificatesof occupancy.
Discussion followed.
Colligan/Leroux moved to withhold all action until all easements are signed
and then grant the occupancy permits and to allow the pending court
proceedings to proceed to the end. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Coller advised that the Milwaukee Road has accepted the city' s offer
to purchase the property within Lots 3 & 4, Block 52, Shakopee City and
that he ' ll bring the matter to Council for formal action in April .
There was a brief discussion on chuck holes and street maintenance versus
street repairs. The City Adm. explained that the City Engineer is working
on a survey.
Colligan/Leroux moved to adjourn at 5 :47 P.M. Motion carried unanimously.
Judith S. Cox
City Clerk
Recording Secretary
7
*
W-1
Week in Review
Information in the Week In Review is organized under the same subject headings that are
used in the Summary of Major Bills.
*** ACTION ALERT ***
Finance and Revenue
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX
After two meetings, many amendments, and much controversy, the Economic
Development Division of the House Taxes Committee passed H.F. 680, which would
allow for a state-wide lodging tax. The League of Minnesota Cities opposes 1
the bill in its current form. With division amendments, the bill contains the
following provisions:
1. Cities which currently impose a lodging tax (Minneapolis, St. Paul,
Duluth, St. Cloud, Bloomington, and Rochester) must devote at least 30
percent. of the proceeds of their lodging tax "for the promotion of
tourism." The bill specifies that "promotion of tourism" would include
expenditure of funds for a civic or convention center or a parking
facility for the center. If a city does not currently devote 30 percent
of the tax revenues for tourism, a transition provision would apply so
that al] additional revenues the tax generates above a city's current
levels must go to tourism until the city satisfies the requirement that
the city devote 30 percent of the total tax proceeds to promote tourism.
The League opposes H.F. 680 because it mandates the six cities, which now
have a lodging tax, to devote a certain amount of funds to tourism,
regardless of unique local circumstances. These six cities view these
taxes as general revenue sources, which the city spends as the council
sees fit. In Bloomington, Minneapolis, and Rochester, the cities do not
currently devote 30 percent of the revenues from their lodging taxes for
promotion of tourism as the bill defines. Therefore, even with a
transition provision, each city would experience major state legislative
interference with its general revenues and the normal increase they might
expect in those revenues. And, for the cities of Duluth, St. Paul, and
St. Cloud, the bill would significantly impair their ability to reorder
their priorities in the future.
2. All other cities in the state, who do not currently have the power to
impose a lodging tax, could impose a hotel/motel tax of up to three
percent. However, the bill would significantly limit the city's ability
to make decisions concerning the use of the revenues. A city would have
to use 95 percent of the proceeds from any tax it imposes under this law
to support a local convention or tourism bureau. The tax division
amended the bill to remove language which would have allowed the city to
use proceeds "to otherwirc promote tourism." in addition, our reading of
the bill is such that a- city choosing to exercise this new authority
W-2
would be unable to spend the revenues for a civic or convention center or
parking facility. Therefore, although this bill would grant a new local
option to cities, the impact of it would be almost nil as far as any
general revenue raising ability of cities is concerned. Even with regard
to tourism promotion, the bill would have extremely limited impact. For
that reason, the League is likely to oppose the entire bill unless the
legislature removes all references to the six cities who currently impose
a hotel/motel tax. Even if such an amendment passes, the League may not
support the remainder of the bill, because it unreasonably limits cities
and creates an unfair distinction between cities which have previously
had this authority and those cities which will receive this authority.
Please contact your House members, especially those on the House Tax
Committee, and ask them to support an amendment deleting all references to the
six cities which currently impose a hotel/motel tax. In addition, ask them to
support an amendment to remove or at least reduce the current 95 percent
t4 restriction on the use of the proceeds from the tax. Finally, ask them to
support an amendment which allows cities to spend the proceeds from the tax
"to promote tourism." Make it clear that cities will actively oppose the bill
if these amendments are not successful.
This issue has become quite complex and controversial. The root of the
problem seems to be a basic philosophical difference in approach. On the one
hand, many city officials see a hotel/motel tax as a general revenue-raiser,
which they can use for property tax relief and for purposes other than simply
promoting tourism. On the other hand, a significant number of tax committee (7N
members seem to feel that such a tax should not be a general revenue source
for cities, and if the state gives cities power to impose such a tax, that it
should directly benefit the local hotel/motel industry. It does appear that
cities stand little chance of obtaining the authority to impose a hotel/motel
tax without significant restrictions on the use of revenues from the tax.
VIDEO GAM ARCADE FRANCHISE FEE
The Senate Regulated Industries Subcommittee heard S.F. 650 on Tuesday
afternoon, an. decided to lay the bi over. It is doubtf. l that the bill
will receive :nother hearing this se•sion. (See summary 'f the bill in
Legislative Bul' etin No. 10, page S-3. Representatives of he video game
industry present-. extensive testimony fo.using on the following points:
1) Cities curre ly have adequate au ority to regulate video game
businesses thro gh licensing and conditk nal use permits;
2) It is inappropria e for the state to allo anti-competitive pr. tices in
•
this industry (th- bill would have allow:d a municipality to ;rant an
exclusive franchise • and
3) The video game ind try is generally su fering serious fin:ncial
problems, and it woul. be unfair and econom'cally disastrous fo the
legislature to allow mun cipalities to impose f .nchise fees.
c)N6
W-7
STATE LICENSING OF CONTRACTORS
On Wednesday, March 23, the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection
passed S.F. 426 (Samuelson) which would establish a statewide system of
licensing builders and contractors. The bill would pre-empt cities from
enacting local licensing ordinances but would prohibit a city from issuing a
building permit to an unlicensed contractor.
The stated purpose of the bill is to encourage quality performance and
eliminate dual licensing and nonuniform classification. The League feels that
the bill fails to meet the specified goals.
Many cities currently license contractors. The bonding, insurance, and
other prerequisite to the granting of a license are set at levels the local
governing body deems sufficient. A statewide licensing system would not
adequately protect consumers in large metropolitan areas and would
unnecessarily restrict small builders and contractors in rural areas.
Uniformity_
Consumers who have a complaint could not go to the local licensing
authority but rather would have to look to a state agency for help. It is
unlikely that a state agency will be more responsive than the city a consumer
lives in. Further, effective licensing necessitates effective enforcement.
The proponents of the bill have not addressed this problem, other than to
state that. a city shall not issue a permit to an unlicensed builder.
ezt Therefore, unless the city issues a permit for a particular project, there
would be no protection for the consumer until after completion of the project
when the consumer discovers a defect. Perhaps more importantly, the local
building inspector will have to rely on the state agency to revoke the
builder's or contractor's license, and a city would not be able to finance the
inspection program other than through permit fees or general revenues. This
cost, which the consumer or taxpayer bears, would be in addition to the state
cost of establishing a licensing program. As a result, consumers may get half
the protection at twice the price.
The bill does not protect consumers, rather it serves the interests of
the builders association in locking out competition from individuals who do
part-time painting, cabinet work, or home remodeling. To require these
individuals to obtain a state license, bond, and insurance will result either
in higher prices to the consumer or widespread violations of the state
statute.
In regard to the claimed hardship of multiple licensing systems, it
should be pointed out that, even in the metropolitan area, the annual cost of
a license is rather minimal ($30 is about the average according to a 1981 AMM
survey).. Even more pertinent, perhaps, is that the Senate version of the bill
now excludes cities of the first class.
mvv In summary, the League feels that this legislation is not only
unnecessary, but may do more harm than good as far as protecting the citizens
of this state. Cities who presently license contractors should contact their
legislators and inform them as to how the current system works in the
different areas of the state. SHgiC-orFe. eof.S Nor rze . c_a. eav7r4C_ro►u 3yT-WE-
j1/}\( WHAT 7o TRK # i'oL1T.zv(t) Ta 4P 7711. 0,7`:20g D/AAf/,
W-5
4 Atta.hed Machinery Aids
"any change to attached machinery aids should be m..e gradually and
should .rotect those units of government for which these .ids are a large
componen of total revenue."
ACTIO \ ALERT
Ciourts
PROSECUTIONS--F' NE SPLIT
The Senate •udicial Administration s bcommittee met on Wednesday, March
23 and considered erger of (League support-d) Senator Bertram's S.F. 52, the
1/3, 1/3, 1/3 fin& split bill, with S.F. 60 (Luther) which would require
cities to prosecut all gross misdemeanors. The Bertram bill gave cities
prime responsibilit for prosecuting DWI Ind fleeing arrest-type gross
misdemeanors (traffic type offenses which fre.uently involve local po ice) .
The Luther bill would add all other gross mis emeanors which include r-peat
prostitution offenses and certain interfamilia sex offenses, among .cher
things. The Luther prc .osal would also extend application of the Bertram
bill, to Anoka County a ‘d some parts of the bi 1, but not the fine-sp' it
portions, -to Hennepin a'd Ramsey counties. T e Judicial Administration
subcommittee will consider both bills again on We. esday, /larch 30, at 8:10
a.m. in Room 237 , Capitol. Subcommittee members ar- Reichgott, Freeman, Deao
Johnson, Kamrath, Luther, an. Pogemiller. Please cal these members with you
comments.
* ACTION ALERT
GOOD SAMARITAN BILL
The League supported good Samaritan bill, H.F. 380 (Staten) , which would
protect from liability ambulance, rescue, fire and police volunteers and
uncompensated persons who in good faith render emergency care at the scene of
an accident or during transport to a medical facility will be before the House
Judicial Administration subcommittee again at 10:00 a.m. , March 30, in Room 22
of the State Office Building. We need testimony from city and nonprofit
ambulance, rescue, fire, and police volunteers. Call Stan Peskar at the
League, or show up at the hearing.
v,) Call or write your legislator to support the bill. Especially call the
� N�4following House Judiciar Committee members: Vanasek, Gustafson, Bishop, J.
VAQ
Clark, Cohen, Coleman, Dempsey, Ellingson, Forsythe, Halberg, Kelly, Long,
McKasy, Norton, Schaefer, Seaberg, and Staten.
w-6
*** ACTION ALERT ** *
Personnel Administration
On Thursday, March 24, the House Labor-Management Committee heard
testimony on H.F. 748 (Begich, Murphy, Beard, O'Connor) . The bill as
introduced would change the definition of public employee to include any
employees who hold positions of a basically temporary or seasonal character
for a period not in excess of 30 (currently 100) working days in any calendar
year. The effect of this provision would be to include most city seasonal
employees such as summer park workers in the collective bargaining agreements
of unions. Thus, cities may be faced with significant additional costs due to
the fact that most collective agreements provide for higher wages than a city
would normally pay to temporary employees.
The bill also would redefine supervisory employee to exclude employees
who effectively recommend hirings, transfers, suspensions, promotions,
discharges, assignments, rewards, or disciplines. The effect of this
provision of the bill would be to exclude, in most cities, all employees other
than the city manager from the definition of supervisory employee.
A third provision of the bill would not prohibit that nonessential public
employees who are not members of a bargaining unit which is engaged in an
authorized strike under the public employees labor relations act from crossing
a union picket line. This provision of the bill would allow any city
employee, regardless of whether he/she is a member of a union or not, to
refuse to cross a picket line.
The fourth and final provision of the bill would provide that an
arbitrator's decision could take precedence over any city charter provision,
ordinance, or resolution. This provision effectively authorizes a single
individual to rewrite the basic powers, duties, and responsibilities citizens
grant to the city or its council..
44 ,J The League of Minnesota Cities strongly opposes this legislation and
:keit,( requests city officials to contact their representatives on the
y` Lahor-Management Committee. Members of the committee, and their office phone
numbers follow: Begich 296-5063, F. Rodriguez 296-6456, Beard 296-3135, L.
Carlson 296-4255, Ellioff 296-0170, Heap 296-7026, Himle 296-7803, Ludeman
296-3825, Murphy 296-2676, O'Connor 296-7807, Reif 296-8858, Rice 296-4262,
St. Onge 296-4263, Seaberg 296-3533, Shaver 296-9934, Simoneau 296-4331,
Solberg 296-2365, Stadum 296-8874, and Zaffke 296-2451.
Although the committee has not scheduled a hearing on this bill, it is
very likely the committee will hear it the week of March 28 or April 4.
r
1/ )
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District ( PL-SLWD)
DATE: April 4 , 1983
Introduction
On March 15 , 1983 , Council directed me to write to PL-SLWD expressing
our concern over their opening of the lake outlet . On March 16 , 1983
the letter was mailed.
District Response
On April 4, 1983 the City received the attached response from the
District to our March 16 , 1983 letter. I have called Bryce Huemoeller
to outline what the City Engineer and I felt still needed to be
addressed when the District appears before Council April 5 , 1983 .
It is my hope that the District will be prepared to respond to the
following questions :
1 . Can and will the District continue to make the decision to open
the outlet without the City of Prior Lake and Shakopee being
properly notified? If Council is not satisfied with the
District ' s response perhaps we should get this clarified thru
the agreement ' s arbitration clause .
2 . The City disagrees with the District ' s conclusion that there
will be no damage to Shakopee citizen' s health, safety or
property. We are concerned about property damage.
3 . As a correlary of #2 we want assurances that all the easements
have been acquired. We have no written communication stating
that R-O-W acquisition has been finalized, and if it hasn' t
Shakopee and Prior Lake may have additional liability exposer
as parties to the Joint Powers Agreement .
4. Shakopee still does not have anything in writing indicating
that the District will take measures now to control erosion.
Shakopee still does not know when the project will be completed
because #2 in Mr. Huemoeller ' s letter is open-ended.
5 . The insurance has been provided.
Summary
It is my understanding that Mr. Cleve Mickley who will appear
Tuesday night would like to mend fences . I believe that mending
fences and securing satisfactory answers to our questions should
be the goal of Tuesday ' s meeting. If there is a total breakdown
we should initiate arbitration, if progress is made then perhaps
we can avoid a confrontation .
JKA/jms
I..
a
_-_ BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER
ATTORNEY AT LAW •
P.O. BOX 87
I,
18670 FRANKLIN TR. S.E.
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
4
(612)447.2131
;f1 PAUL H.THOMSEN
ASSOCIATE
= April l
P 1 , 1983
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
.a Shakopee, MN 55379
,z
Re: Prior Lake-Spring Lake
Watershed District
Outlet Project , No . WD
ake
76-4
Dear Mr. Anderson :
The following is submitted in response to your March 16
letter.
g 1 . The insurance required by the Joint Powers A r
eeme
has been in force since March 12, 1983, the date the outletnwas
opened. A copy of the certificate of insurance received from
the District ' s carrier is attached.
2. The construction contract for the Lake Outlet Project
specifies a completion date for the work within the City of Shakopee
of July 1 , 1983 . However, the contractor has informally advised
the District ' s engineer that he will be requesting an extension
of the completion date because of the unusual water conditions
this spring.
3 . The District ' s engineer has directed the contrac
for the Lake Outlet Project to install temporar for
devices in the drainage channel . Y erosion control
4. The Managers are advised that the data regarding channel
capacity requested by the City' s engineer has been provided.
5 . Damage to the drainage channel resulting from having
opened the outlet will be repaired as part of the contractor ' s
work to complete the project . The work is presently scheduled
to be completed by July 1 , 1983, although the date may be extended
if weather conditions so require.
Your letter contains numerous allegations, not all of which
are acknowledged by the District . In particular, the Managers
// 61,
John K. Anderson
Page Two
April 1 , 1983
were extremely concerned about the health, safety and property
of the citizens of 'Shakopee . The probable extent and nature
of damage to the portion of the drainage channel within Shakopee
was discussed in depth at the special meeting during which the
Board made the decision to open the outlet. If the data presented
the Board had shown jeopardy to the citizens of Shakopee , the
outlet would not have been opened .
It is my intent to respond specifically to the concerns
raised by your March 16 letter. However, if you need additional
data, information, etc . , prior to the April 5 council meeting,
please contact me with the specific information required. If
any part of the information that you require is of an engineering
or technical nature , contact the District engineer immediately
by telephone at 890-6510.
Sincerely yours ,
Bryce D. Huemoeller F' J
BDH :rad
cc : Donald 0. Benson, Staff Coordinator
Bruce A. Paterson, District Engineer
Bo Spurrier, Shakopee City Engineer
Ila}
MEMORANDA
TO : John K. Anderson
City Administrator
FROM : H. R. Spurrier
City Engineer ` "`
SUBJECT: Prior Lake-Spring Lake Wa ershed District, Outlet Project
DATE : March 31, 1983
Introduction
In a meeting March 15, 1983 City Council directed the City's representative
to prepare a letter to the Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District to
formally notify the district of its disregard for the Joint Powers Agreement
and to request the response of the Watershed District on four specific items.
Background
Attached is the letter mailed to Don 0. Benson, Staff Administrator for the
Watershed District. The letter has four specific requests. Those requests
are in the third through sixth paragraphs on the second page of the attached
letter.
At the present time, the City has received evidence of insurance, in accordance
with Section 7.03 of the Joint Powers Agreement. Also attached, is a copy
of an article that appeared in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune which states
that later this week crews will begin to install haybale dams, sandbags and
silt fences to minimize erosion in the downstream channels because of water
velocities. There has been no written assurance from the Watershed District
that such work would be performed and the Watershed District has been silent
in response to the remaining concerns listed in the letter dated March 16th
to Don 0. Benson.
Last week, City staff asked Mr. Benson for a response to the letter dated
March 16th and was advised that the response was being prepared. In any case,
Mr. Benson expected to have the answer by Council meeting April 5th.
Another concern not specified in the letter is the public's perception that the
City of Shakopee is responsible for closing the lake outlet. Again, the same
Tribune article clarifies the problem by noting the amount of downstream damage
that could occur as a result of erosion. Shakopee did not, and has not, ordered
the main outlet gate closed. Shakopee has simply requested that if the gate
is opened, the Watershed District should specify whether the health, safety
and property of residents, or property owners, in Shakopee is jeopardized and
further that City of Shakopee expected temporary erosion protection installed
in the downstream channel and expected a schedule that would specify completion
dates for the work in Shakopee.
John K. Anderson March 31, 1983
Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed Page -2-
These requests did not seem unreasonable, but City staff has had a most difficult
time getting the Watershed District to volunteer information, except for the
insurance form, status reports on the condition of the outlet have come from the
Star and Tribune and not from the Watershed District.
One improvement could be some mandated communication at a specified schedule
(weekly) , between the Watershed District and the cities affected by the Joint
Powers Agreement.
Staff makes no recommendation since the Watershed District has not submitted
additional information on which a recommendation could be based.
HRS/jvm
Attachments
4045S'
1111\
CITY OF - SHAKOPEE 90'
INCORPORATED 1870 ► 4101
129 E. First Ave., Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 (612) 445-3650 0 ;<< Y :4'
•. r :' f
March 16 , 1983 r,g
Mr. Don 0. Benson
Staff Administrator
Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District
4690 Colorado Street Southeast
Prior. Lake , MN 55372
Dear Mr. Benson:
This letter shal I const i t ut e Trot i ce pursuant to Section 12 .01
of the Joint Powers Agreement executed June 2 , 1981 , subsequently
amended March 16 , 1982 , between the City of Prior Lake , the City
of Shakopee and the Prior Lake--Spring Lake Watershed District .
In Section 1 . 01 of the above referenced Agreement the Water-
shed agreed to operate the Lake Outlet with the City of Shakopee
and with the City of Prior Lake because of the assistance rendered
to the Watershed by these municipalities . The operation of the
Lake Outlet was specified in the Agreement in very plain and precise
language. That language contained in Section 4.01 (b) of the Agree-
ment lists the steps that must he taken before the health , safety
or property of residents or property owners in Shakopee may be
jeopardized .
The provisions of Sction 4.01 ( b) of the Agreement specify a
joint inspection of the outlet by the engineers of the Watershed,
the City of Prior Lake and the City of Shakopee for the following
purpose :
1 . Determining depth and velocity of flow at various unspecified
locations .
2 . Verifying that the available capacity in the channel will
accommodate the maximum rate estimated by the Watershed' s
engineer.
Only after the available capacity has been established may the
Lake . Outlet be opened.
Engineers from the Watershed , the City of Prior Lake and the
City of Shakopee made a joint inspection March 11 , 1983 . During
that inspection, the Watershed ' s engineer was asked to submit the
computed capacity of the drainage channel at several critical loca-
tions . The Watershed ' s engineer was advised that the City of
Shakopee would ask the Watershed to outline the schedule by which
existing damage to the drainage channel would be repaired.
7' 17 0 Ii Ca r / of Pro g r Ct V (7 / 1 i' t/
An Equal Opportunity Employer
' - ' ' Mr. Don 0. Bensonp
Page Two
March 16 , 1983
In disregard for Shakopee property , the Watershed has failed
to enforce the requirements of the approved plans and specifications
by controlling erosion in the drainage channel . Further, in dis-
regard of the Joint Powers Agreement , the Watershed has not furnished
notice required by "Section 4. 02 ; has not established free flow through
the drainage channel required by Sec . 4.03 ; has failed to provide the
calculations of the available capacity in the drainage channel re-
quired by Sec . 4. 01 ; has not supplied all of the requested documen-
tation on Easement Acquisition as requested by City of Shakopee staff;
has improperly positioned the Dean ' s Lake diversion structure gate ;
has operated the Lake Outlet to divert water into Shakopee in viola-
tion of Sec . 4.01 .
- Individually or in aggregate , the disregard ex'hibitsa very
cavalier attitude about the Joint Powers Agreement which was executed
by the City of Shakopee in a good faith effort to help a neighboring
community . The actions of the Watershed have damaged the existing
relationship between the Watershed and the City o1 Shakopee .
The City of Shakopee understands the provisions or Article IV
of the Joint Powers Agreement to mean that the City of Shakopee must
determine that any discharge will not jeopardize the health, safety
and property of the residents or property owners of Shakopee . In
the event the Watershed disagrees with this understanding, the City
is prepared to resolve this dispute pursuant to Article VIII of the
Joint Powers Agreement .
The City of Shakopee expects the Watershed to install acceptable
erosion control in the drainage channel in Shakopee to reduce the
erosion until permanent repairs can be made .
The City of Shakopee must receive a schedule that specifies
the completion dates for the work in Shakopee .
The City of Shakopee must receive evidence of insurance in
accordance with Section 7 .03 .
The City of Shakopee expects the Prior Lake-Spring Lake Water-
shed District to immediately resolve the problems specified above.
In the event the Watershed fails to act on this request in a timely
manner , the City has no recourse but to resolve - this matter in
accordance with Article VIII .
Should you have any questions regarding this matter please con-
tact the undersigned or H. R. Spurrier at 445-3650.
Ver truly you s ,
dohn K. Anderson
City Administrator
JKA/jms
cc : . R. Spurrier
P. R. Krass
M. A. McGuire
' i ',o j 1•, R �t� 1 ]� a "r�X
�$ rr" Y�$ t ( y { !'MSA t 'I.- ,r
etas z_O I� 5. ° t 1 )7)`a,-,i. a' c 41:;F 4
r f ) r.
CO •
CO
0 O 4 £ t { 3 z � � ase °` p
T C
to
�S o , �E ' n .," m
■rte }'. of
8 } t.,%
4� 1 1,,!r�
la
'i b v.
a Js 'fit X14 } 7
gt
•
l • x v
'�, fin ,,
, .
. , 0 083011; ,.
{{ ti^ Y'
, .
. „
gcoi
�� M 3
co
k .k
i� o
f1 fir,., {v o
cii 6!),.
1 '„ 1 1 ! .r), ,may,
� � t t ab � / ` � ( 6. 43('•'14
' t e +p a �� ,!t,,,,,.,i +'a • fit, t•
(s,
, a) + Ffs �� ,.5.4}` �� +I N 1,' a ` t i fA
fid/ (
O
4 .y
'�� L/ ',<°r •ieit).,el,
' 1' +0g t, sp 1 '�,d 4 4, { k; 10 Ille !_{ y a;4 £ .,tNF' t y r� 44,',,,, �.,4k,";' yi'5 4.4 .t 4 +'�F i,R �& N ,.
0 NMI
.. �� . v xg * p r f t''' ..,"'''.i,,
''9,,1; S'il k;4'S,' i -' ?}� Abu w { *1,'v$, .id .8
Oof at i f:('4',„ i S,, t ,'�4 �!5 f:14.'t" f 'SP, �.y yi *,?i''f` ° �" + ii; ...
�r
P,1'",� Sr4, r, P , g ,,.
itli (-) i t 0) .041r.,c5,:',,,,,N"' ',Ift9'.',f',1..ie ,
(n n r; i ya + 4 su fsb ''''1.",*'''',1' "` p 1•Q, 4 i • s Uj J
135 r to 1 ' , F ,';•,1:*';s 1' B e it i t.-0� 4 } j
9.
�a�= a ��' n '..1,,, � � ,;••••;,-; { a s ��y ',,4;0',4- s • `'�^ 4 �"�i� � � awe � N � r:�
fir{ • 0 .,''';,..,,-,' Y. { „,,,,,,t,,,'4„, K„
* 'p� '„ „� i i t; y� 7zi, '.s .fy+ i t� s - k, i . 94'', • `1, 414 '� yi ,iz.. 6
31 �` 2} }+c �r f ,*1.%.1" °' ^� 1�F, t ���,,, � t' 91 � � � � 1'°r O ..� •-
1 , 'S eF h ” '' i C } y, 1-,,v', .),.. = 7'u 3 '- , �,11 �. _ o 6
rr,1 ` t ,ii-,F) l t�
t ' g 4i �§, ii -1'64 9 kb q J f �p.}_ g`c 1: d-
1',17 h kid2. ,,} ;# Ill i'''',i,f-'it,''','",1
!tii . 0 +1' r 4S ,� >si 1 w 9k ' ,'I ,4; r'd t n. U Oi Y m .. O*;, � Sa 1' t ! °ik �� i 1 t in m O
I
a{ o a 13
co y
oat , rr M c"v r, E 3 a c —�.a 1)T°: q Y E 0 ca
1 r .,4"a.)
v c u� ri o m • 4, v.0 " > .1.) E y n o 3 'r
,,rr�� C: G C y id C y C1
�E �eY OD [ R C aC'a O 0 Rf 2Y} O O 0 W N ; y 6y1•_ C GO
Vi-,7--;:g1:4'1,1';::„;:.'",,,
D,a C1 Gl M_. lam'. O N y rh t"3 ...1.I." v y y IA,CI' 5 y'� (,j.— a
Vi : 4 v,q ,,, ' C 0. ^J d O 4. co.t. `d y �D U4:::;-)
y y U i �` C
e hi x c p xA °� 3 v a •�Q 3 °
I in
ono Nc ' E oa..2a3 c cti car` o 6)c c�� ` cH y
It«" ' be ,a t,...; c `; � v fn `' �'� Ev `°-,� -� nyy o
c v c"' v o oc v v '� � :-- E nor, ro camo. c
02-7-17711( '' c°. ,(4*', � - o-''� v E rx l'O � nvi y `:,, c moo.'cA c;
v [c ° p
w.t1 s Z i -El.!! o _ o5ncI�0• Ccj Ear— .ctcov X32 c o
•p 'O C y P 41 c0 54' O C v v O C_.
����� �� e � y .:� r,c a � = 0 e o'e cx y o �°' o'n � o-o onv � E °� `x'
iEi \\\\I y CO r,:.
`v avi V u 3 n :' y Z7 C y cJ LO C cv J' Q c d o ev
f l.. ` L y i'7 c y Q.On . V rJ' V p ami L ••C fOn - '''a .1-
• E•.:_', (.1'7.'
}! tom,. U y.f„,0 N 4. 41 C,-U c C'y;, ac, O ti y y b'O y O �' C T- O a
A' 3ya�, E � E �`" o �•+l•n. yoov 3 OEC �> ❑�s `
' i 4 .0 1., wo c:-1 OC y ca C1 " .0 O O a y O C O.
03,./) ¢ ..3w. . ,i':,'.,. �' c vcnC�<na a s E a _� � ooa
teed i
it
Canada
Prior Lake Continued from page 1B
Yesterday the lake stood at 903.64 roadways have decreased :the
B feet. Tuesday it was measured at amount of water that can be ab-
ars worth of and Minnesota903.63 feet. It has been rising at sorbed into the ground,he said.
oaabout 0.13 feet a week for the past
fits three weeks,according to engineers. Later this week, crews will begin
d labor were installing hay bale dams, sandbags
•
If the sandbags at the mouth of and silt fences to minimize the ero-
Elbow Lake Spring Lake Creek can be kept In sion that is expected to begin as
wended ® place and rainfall is normal, Pater- water velocities increase along the
'rincipal Carl Twin . Wisconsin son predicted the lake would rise to ditch.
i It''''
Cities
.;ales to make atittle above 904 feet in late May or
iel
l and �� early June. Prior Lake usually Paterson said that the water.is not
voolved gaveearly
its highest level in June. yet moving through the drainage sys-
tem at full speed because some of it
Kent Lokkesmoe, a Department of is being held back by small ponds
I hate IIIIII Natural Resources hydrologist for along its route. But in a few days
,a1_-.und our the Twin Cities area, suggested that those ponds will fill up and the water
:•d to such homeowners in affected areas buy will reach velocities that will cause
including wooden gridssolder students had cut Gunderson. saw"—wouldmounted on federal flood insurance now.lie said erosion,he said.
n
e doubted,to and assembled. the policies become effective within • •'
Live days of application and can he Not only would a higher lake level i.-.
ge,become bou ght through most Insurance bro- damage a number of homes around
,ve and eager "One special rule,"said one kers. Prior Lake,said Paterson,but it also
warding and works sectionmsi has have onewould damage streets, sewer drains
working musical instrument in it.
The kids make it." The problem this year, according to and utility lines.
Paterson, is that snow has melted
;,ow Lake last
town and the A kt coffeemaker, old mail early isdlos nglymuchn less hwater build the partial dike acrosspossible inlet
d it and wants box,disk fromua harrow,mower
teeth were useful.And a motorcycle through evaporation than it usually to Spring Lake Creek until yesterday 1 1,•
muffler,part of a bumper jack and does in the warmer months of late because of high water problems on
unman the hose from a hair dryer became spring. Spring Lake.
flag as the ...a Mufflerphone! In addition, a water outlet and cul Prior Lake is the last lake in a chain
;tam see so open vert system designed to drain off that drains a 43-square-mile area
can op right It thought of.A visitor listened and Yabove the level of-
ifr m the are coveg goss a snow- feet will notxcess rbe completed until prob- okke.moewest
and oP'terson Twin
saay Cities.
that
t from the covered prairie at midnight.hIt lifted
the hairs on the back of his neck. ably August. Watershed district offi- with a fluctuation of 24 feet between
;y is so e drop out of dais are limited in how much water its highest and lowest recorded ley-
i
ne
f
;here else." "In one hour flat,"said Maye,"we're they can drain from the lake until els,the
the metlake is ro area.
aver
most"vola- �M~
going to create a piece of music." the system is completed.
ever the door of Paterson sacci that a pump or si Eventually the watershed district ;ia e
a,"it read.room. Upstairs in Gun wereerson'sfi art room, Dons, which would drain the water plans to build small dams and hold
ler;'it seventh-graders finishing a P dads throughout the watershed
mural of the seasons.Sonja Aune at a faster rate, could not be set up leg P
red to crs of the this spring without exceeding the ca- for further control of flooding. And
ad to create and Lynda Kozial were painting the P g
ground areas for"Fail." It had been pacifies of the number of culverts as of a few years ago the city of
fun,they said,the whole project. that are part of the drainage system Prior Lake began refusing to allow
that runs between Prior Lake and houses to be built around the lake
.,t a"rolling g youyou the Minnesota River. below the 909 toot level.
xpialned. "Thins didn't notice, do
ctions will be now,"Aune said. -
He also said that additional runoff Hundreds of houses and summer
could
soil
on as it
sses
ns have
n threatened by Min-
aces
sed pushed gathered by in his t a en o good-bye,Miller through neer neighboring Shakopeeaand nesoi a lakes inerece t years,ac ord-
.;� noju — thought a moment and summed up: g g of frig
"Gee,I'm glad we did this." that a ecause the lakes ,
building third ysttem would goc tof re- are tstill making abcomeback from
accord-
.:i1110 junk I ever
place the lost soil. the great drought of the 1930s.
The problem has worsened in recent In recent decades,many homes have
,awed from page iB years because of intensified develop- been built on lakebeds or below nor- j...
,,sites for candi- it, disagreed in interviews later with ment of the far-south suburbs. The mal high water levels. The DNR is
captain or above, Dziedzic's statement that the council increased number of homes, corn- faced with the problem of whether a
, el 18 candidates wanted Personnel Decisions to inter- merciai buildings, parking lots and tolematevelsthe lokesereturn
them artificially
to their nor-
:r_. service in the view all 1$candidates. ow to protect the homes.
aid.
The resumes and responses to the Craig In the Carnelian chain of lakes north
cads to know how questions had been returned to the 0 oftSi ttwate l he said, an emergency
saying the press- councildbeforeastare firm was hired Continued from page IR pump and drainage pipe system is
rds to know how and "itwas apparent that therenwas pumping hundreds of thousands of
an easy cut to make,"fKaplan said. gallons of water to prevent damage
Rockenstein said the firm was told to Durint; his tenure, he said, the coati to houses. t
ac!zed Personnel make the first cut based on the infor- tion has Frown from a budget of just
muting 11 of the mation already on hand and then to under $lii0,,)00, mostly from corpo- _ _ .;.,i • ':'
proceed with testing and interviews" rate contributions, to more than $3 (�i;
reading their re- E
1 Both said the council decided it
's�onses to four million from a variety of sources.
//b
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant
RE: Facility for Cable Communications Studio at High School
DATE: March 30 , 1983
Introduction
City staff in conjunction with Virgil Mears , Assistant Superinten-
dent of Schools and Mary Smith, Regional Manager of Zylstra-United
Cable Television Company, has worked to further define the possi-
bility of City financial assistance for the construction of an
addition to the Shakopee Senior High School to house a cable studio.
An update of this process follows with a request for City Council
concurrence on the process followed to date.
Background
The plan is to construct a 28 x 33 foot addition to the high school ,
North of the cafateria and East of the front foyer. The addition
would include studio space approximately 28 ' x 23 ' constructed as
a shell ( to be finished by Zylstra-United) , a control room and edit-
ing room approximately 10 x 18 and 10 x 10 respectively. Mr. Mears
has secured two quotes for this addition from local contractors ,
requesting conformity with existing brick, etc. The quotes were
from Gene Juergens ( $43 ,400 for 896 sq. ft . or $48.44 per sq. ft. )
and Laurent Builders ( $60,000 for 1008 sq. ft . or $59 . 52 per sq. ft . -
this would be $53 ,330 for 896 sq. ft . ) . Mechanical systems cur-
rently run adjacent to the proposed system and connection to heat-
ing, cooling and electricity should not be a problem. Water and
sewer connections are not anticipated.
In previous lease negotiations between the school and Zylstra-United
the schools had agreed to provide space at no charge with limited
janitorial functions , heat , air conditioning and electricity pro-
vided free of charge. The schools preferred the facility at the
senior high school because greater school use of the facility is
anticipated at the upper grades . However as no senior high space
was available , part of the junior high industrial arts facility
was proposed as an alternative. This space would not be ideal
(due to noise , dust , security, lack of near-by restrooms ) and would
be expense to remodel . The schools determined that they did not
have resources for this remodeling and Zylstra-United indicated
that its $10 ,000 remodeling budget is largely expended with the
installation of track lighting and curtains . At this point City
staff got involved and suggested the high school addition as an
alternative .
Preliminary estimates of a $45 ,000 loan at 9% for a 15 year term
provided monthly payments in the neighborhood of $450. Mary Smith
of Zylstra-United (ZU) agreed that this was a reasonable cost if
the business office could also be housed with the studio. The ZU
proposal provides $500 a month for rent for both the studio and
office, and Ms . Smith determined that payment for the studio would
preclude rental of a separate business office. This situation led
1) 6,
Facility for Cable Communications Studio at High School
Page Two
March 30, 1983
to a new zoning problem. The City Planner judged that the studio
would be a permitted use in the schools because its function is
largely a community education function with little leased usage
anticipated. However the office is a business usage not permitted
in an R-2 residential zone . Zylstra-United is scheduled to dis-
cuss this interpretation with the Planning Commission to see if
the business office can be considered a subsidiary use of the
main educational ( studio) use. Any further action on this issue
is dependent on the outcome of the Planning Commission meeting.
After the initial City Council decision to proceed with negotiations
to provide the addition, a private placement of bonds with First
National Bank of Shakopee was anticipated, with the City lending
tax-exempt status . However discussion with two different bond
counsels determined that sale of such bonds would not be allowed
under new restrictions on the sale of IR bonds for entertainment
purposes , which went into effect January 1 , 1983 . The City is then
faced with participating in a direct loan. The City Administrator
has suggested the HRA general fund, with a balance of $120,000
(year end 1982 ) as the best source. The HRA Director suggests
that either the interest rate be floating to assure earnings in
line with current investments (company has gain or loss with change
in rates ) or the City bolsters any loss in earnings with payment
from franchise revenues (City guarantees against loss ) . The
Finance Director indicates that City investments currently are
earning between 8 and 10-1/2%, depending on the type of investment.
Taking an average of the two figures for a 896 sq. ft. space
which is $48 , 315 , adding $2 ,000 for the cost of an office space
adjacent to the main high school entrance , and $1 ,500 for the
cost of detailed plans and specifications required for construc-
tion, the estimated cost if $51 ,815 . Although a 15 year lease
was originally discussed, 14 years may be more approprite to
coincide with the franchise term ending October 26 , 1997 . Some
sample monthly amortization rates for a 14 year terra (compounded
monthly) follow:
$45 ,000 $50,000 $55 ,000 Loan Amount
% Rat e
8% $446 $496 $545
9% $472 $524 $577
10% $498 $554 $610
t Monthly Payment-i'
No escalator over time has been discussed. However Zylstra has
indicated some flexibility in establishing monthly lease rates .
It is understood that the cost of taxes due for private use of
public land and the cost of rent insurance or other guarantee
would also be born by Zylstra-United.
The Assistant City Attorney has suggested the scenario for lease
arrangements as follows :
1 . The school would enter a long-term lease with the City for
construction of the building and a lease with ZU to provide
lFacility for Cable Communications Studio at High School
i-
Page Three
March 30 , 1983
utilities , janitorial services and restrooms . In exchange the
school would get special use priviledges , including two hours
of dedicated school use and special staff training.
2 . The City would design the space in cooperation with ZU and the
schools , take bids , build the addition and enter a long term
lease with ZU at an interest rate and monthly charge to be
established.
3 . ZU would enter a long term lease , secured by rent insurance or
a letter of credit . Mr. :brass suggested an option to continue
the lease beyond the initial 14-15 year period. It is unclear
what the amount of the monthly rent would be at that time , if
any could be directed to the City or if all fees would go to
the schools to offset utility costs .
Requested Action
The City Council should discuss the negotiations to date and deter-
mine if the staff should continue to work toward resolution of the
studio question. Some areas on which the Council might offer
suggestions include :
1 . The maximum loan amount which would be considered. Staff
recommends a maximum loan of $55 ,000 .
2 . The minimum interest rate and whether escalators over time
should be included. Staff recommends a minimum of 9%.
3 . The most appropriate source of funds .
4. Any special terms which City officials desire to be included
in the lease.
5 . Whether the City desires to negotiate an option for the continued
availability of the studio and the desired terms of such option.
6 . Whether the City Council wishes to have prior involvement in
the zoning question to be considered by the Planning Commission.
JA/jms
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator I I G
FROM: Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant
RE: Deadline for Provision of Cable Studio Facility
DATE: March 29 , 1983
Introduction
The City expects the cable studio facilities to be on line when
cable service is instituted. However due to lengthy negotiations
on constructing a facility at the high school it is unlikely the
studio will be available on .schedule . The City Council should
warn Zylstra-United if it plans to enforce the schedule and
penalty provisions of the ordinance or whether any leeway will be
provided.
Background
Zylstra-United originally proposed to have the studio operational
by September , 1982 , with certain access equipment available 90
days prior. (See attached page 2 of Form K. ) This date was
obviously provided without regard to the date the franchise would
be awarded. As the effective date of franchise was not until
October 26 , 1982 , I think the City should work from that date
as we have for system activation, which is now to occur by April
26 , 1983. The question then is whether access studio should be
available by April 26th with penalties for non-compliance , or
whether a delay should be permitted.
Since the City has encouraged continued consideration of a studio
located in the schools, which has contributed to the delays , I
favor waiver of strict interpretation of the April 26th deadline
at this time. However to assure studio facilities will be pro-
vided as soon as possible, a revised deadline should be established
with penalties for non-compliance .
Recommended Action
Given that Planning Commission determination of zoning issues
related to the studio/office will occur on April 7 , 1983 , I
recommend the following:
1 . If the Planning Commission rejects the Zylstra-United zoning
interpretation a studio facility shall be leased, remodeled
and fully operational in a downtown building within two months
or no later than June 7 , 1983 .
2 . If the Planning Commission accepts the Zylstra-United zoning
interpretation a studio facility shall be constructed at the
high school and fully operational within four months , or no
later than August 7 , 1983 .
3 . Non-compliance with the revised deadline will invoke a penalty
in the amount of $100 per day for each day of non-compliance
for failure to provide services , equipment and facilities for
the public as provided in Ordinance No. 100, Section 9 .03 , G.
JA/jms
o-
Form K Page 2 of 4
ACCESS PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES
Please describe local origination facilities and list
equipment if any, that will be available to access channel users on
an exclusive or priority basis. Do not include local origination
equipment listed on Form K, page 1.
1 . Access Studios:
a . Locations (approximate) : Senior High School (or
the Zylstra-United main office)
b. Size (approximate) : 800 sql ft.
c . When will studio be available for community use?
Zylstra-United proposes to have the studio facility
operational by September , 1982 . However , portable
production equipment and an editing facility will be
available for local programming 90 days before the system
is activated. Our Director of Community Television will
begin production workshops and access outreach at that
time to ensure the activation of local programming at the
date the system is completed and in operation in the
service territory.
2 . List access equipment that will be made available to access
channels users on an exclusive or priority basis (provide make and
model number and your cost for equipment to be provided at each
facility) . * Include equipment to be used exclusively for
cablecasting access programs.
PLEASE SEE PAGES 2a-21 of 4
3 . Explain equipment maintenance policies that will be available
to access channel users.
PLEASE SEE PAGES 2m-2n of 4
*It will be presumed that equipment described or its equivalent
will be provided. As an alternative, applicant may provide
detailed specifications for such equipment. •
• / Ic-jN
Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
From: Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant
RE: Proposed National Cable Legislation (Goldwater Bill )
Date : March 23 , '1983
Introduction
Once again Senator Barry Goldwater (R. Ariz. ) has introduced
legislation in the U . S . Senate which would take regulatory
authority regarding cable communications from local governments .
The federal government would assume new regulatory authority,
in most cases allowing greater autonomy to cable companies and
removing provisions now required by local governments . The City
Council should establish a local position on this legislation and
inform appropriate legislators of the City position.
Background
The outlined legislation is contained in Senate File 66 introduced
in the 98th Congress . It is similar to legislation offered
(and not passed) in previous years , although this year pressure to
adopt the legislation seems greater than ever. In fact the
National-League of Cities (NLC) has been pressured to work with
the National Cable Television Association (NCTA) to propose
compromise legislation which includes provisions most important
to both. The firm of Adrian Herbst has prepared the attached
summary of major provisions of the existing Goldwater bill
( S.F. 66 ) and the proposed compromise between the NLC and the
NCTA. The Goldwater bill and even the compromise bill are not
favorable to cities . Please read the Herbst summary and then
note how its provisions would relate to the current Shakopee
franchise.
1 . Iviuncipal Ownership The Shakopee franchise provides for payment
of the fair market value excluding goodwill . In the case of cable ,
goodwill is generally the authority granted by the Cityto the
franchise. Under S .F. 66 and the NLC Compromise the City would
need to buy this authority back from the cable operator.
2 . Access Channels As now required by state law, the City has 5
access channels. Under S .F. 66 the number of access channels
could potentially be aecreased to zero. The NLC compromise would
allow the negotiated agreement but would most likely remove State
requirements requiring five access channels and thereby limit
future negotiating power.
/( eL
Page Two
3 . Rate Regulation The City now has complete authority to
regulate rates for all but the pay services (HBO, Showtime ,
etc . ). Basic service in Shakopee as defined by S .F. 66 is the
universal tier,, which costs nothing. Other cities have
found rate regulation to be the only means to assure
reasonable service . Both S.F. 66 and the compromise remove
this tool from cities .
4. Regulation of Services In Shakopee programming and services
were negotiated when the franchise was awarded. S .F. 66 takes
away this power while the compromise leaves this opportunity
intact .
5 . Franchise Fees Currently the FCC controls franchise fees and
has a 37 ceiling. Many cities are petitioning to increase
the ceiling if the increased revenue is dedicated to costs
related to the franchise . Shakopee is petitioning to have a
5% franchise fee . S .F. 66 would continue the current practice
while the NLC compromise would increase the ceiling to 5%.
6 . Franchise Renewals The City currently has complete control
over renewal and can choose to renew the existing franchise
or take new proposals .
7 . Exclusive Jurisdiction It appears the federal government
would have a much greater role in regulating cable communi-
cations under both S.F. 66 and the NLC compromise.
8 . Effective Date The City would benefit if any existing fran-
chise would be grandfathered rather than having only 90 days
to comply with new federal legislation.
A copy of :he hill rni: cn it an -r ry i? _:y3 . and M2 aL:
the CRrible Television .._%fo:n.:ia : _ocn Center is available to interested parties
Reques .ei;
Direct staff to write national legislators who represent
Minnesota or are actively involved in this legislation and
lobby against both Senate File 66 and the National League of
Cities compromise legislation. Specifically state the city is
against 1 ) municipal payment for goodwill ; 2) limitation of
access channels provided; 3) automatic rate increases or limi-
tation of municipal authority to regulate rates ; 4) limitation
of cities authority to regulate rates or services ; and 5) auto-
matic franchise renewal ; and is in favor of 1 ) increasing, the
franchise fee to 57 ; and 2 ) grandfathering existing franchises
from any new legislation until they are renewed.
11cL
HERBST & TRUE, LTD.
COMPARISON OF PROVISIONS OF GOLDWATER BILL AND PROPOSED COMPROMISE
BETWEEN NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES AND NATIONAL CABLE TELEVISION
ASSOCIATION
Major Aspects of Goldwater Bill Proposed Compromise
1. Municipal Ownership. A munici- Proposed compromise. Municipal
pality may acquire such ownership ownership provisions appear to be
or interest at not less than fair similar.
market value based upon the ongoing
_business value of the system, in-
cluding goodwill. The municipality
may not directly or indirectly con-
trol the content of any programming
on the system.
2. Access Channels. Each cable The compromise would remove restric-
system having twenty (20) or more tions from the Goldwater Bill and
television channels shall dedicate the access channels would be based
access channels for use by public, upon the negotiated agreement between
educational or governmental pro- the parties. +
grammers. Systems are required to
dedicate ten percent (10%) of the
available channels for access use.
"Available channels" is defined as
channels actually and technically
available and not subject to other
use requirements (i.e. , "must
carry" requirements) . No require-
ment is made for leased access
channels.
3. Rate Regulation. A municipality The authority of a local unit of
is authorized to regulate rates government to regulate rates would
charged for basic service and access be altered. There would be de-
programming. Basic service is de- re3ulation completely five years
fined as that broadcast programming) after enactment or one-half the
carried by the cable system. The remainder of the life of a franchise
FCC may terminate that authority, or from the date of a Request for
however, upon a finding that there Proposal. Additionally, beginning
are reasonably available alter- with enactment, the cable operator
natives to basic service program- could increase its rates on an annual
ming in the geographic area. basis five percent (5%J or the Con-
A municipality is prohibited from sumer Price Index, whichever is
regulating rates for any other greater. These restrictions would
service. not be applicable to certain rural
areas.
( /
Major Aspects of Goldwater Bill Proposed Compromise
4. Regulation of Services. A The proposed compromise would give
municipality may not regulate or the parties the opportunity to ne-
restrict the_ provision of or nature _gotiate programming and services
of any cable service. Consequently, and, therefore, they would not be
a municipality may not require a restricted in the same manner as
cable system to carry specific pro- under the Goldwater Bill. However,
gramming or to provide specific there would be restrictions on
services. authority to regulate the content
of_programming.
5. Franchise Fees. The FCC is There would not be any restriction on
authorized to establish a reason- on the franchise fee except for a
able ceilin• for franchise fees. maximum amount of five percent (5%) .
The FCC is directed to establish Furthermore, the 5% franchise fee
such a ceiling as to permit only would be indicated on the statement
the recovery of the reasonable cost to the individual subscribers as an
of regulation. Under present prac- add-on charge. Otherwise, this would
tice, a porElon of the franchise improve current FCC restrictions that
fee may be used to support access limit the franchise fee to three
programming. A municipality may percent (3%) or at five percent (5%)
petition for a fee in excess of only if the full amount is used for
that ceiling and, in doing so, must cable related purposes.
demonstrate the need for the addi-
tional revenue.
6 . Franchise Renewals. The bill The franchise renewal section under
requires that a municipality grant the proposed compromise would be
a franchise renewal if it finds that similar to the Goldwater Bill except
the cable operator has substantially that there would be certain renewal
complied with the material terms of __tests that would permit the community
the franchise and applicable law; to not renew based upon a certain
there has been no material change reviewal process. The basis for
in the legal , technical or financial denial would be basically where there
qualifications of the cable operator has been a material change, a failure
that would substantially impair ser- to comply with law, or that the signal
vice; and the services and facili- quality does not meet with the FCC' s
ties are reasonable in light of the standards.
size, nature, needs, and interests
of the community.
7. Exclusive Jurisdiction. Except The same.
as specifically provided, the
federal government shall have ex-
clusive jurisdiction over cable
communications.
-2-
iib
Major Aspects of Goldwater Bill Proposed Compromise
8. Effective Date. The bill pro- Would be approximately the same.
vides that its provisions shall
take effect on the date of its
enactment, except that, in the
case of any existing franchise
agreement, the parties shall have
a ninety (90) days period to bring
the agreement into compliance. S.66
will not affect access channel
commitments in franchises awarded
prior to January 26, 1983, until
such time as that franchise is ex-
tended or renegotiated.
The proposed compromise includes some
additional provisions beyond what
are contained in the Goldwater Bill
that may be of importance to com-
munities. One is that relating to
access. There is a current problem
of requiring access to multiple
dwelling buildings. The MCCB has
adopted a rule setting forth a
procedure to require access but the
Hearing Examiner for the State has
ruled that that was invalid. For
that reason, it may well be that
federal legislation would be important.
Some of the larger communities have
a substantial part of their housing
in multiple development and, without
access, would not have the ability
to distribute programming to a large
number of potential users.
-3-
/(1
MEMO TO: JOHN K. ANDERSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: GREGG VOXLAND, FINANCE DIRECTOR
RE: PROBATION TERMINATION
DATE: MARCH 11, 1983
Introduction and Background
Marilyn Remer, Senior Accounting Clerk, has completed the required six month' s
probation period. I recommend that her probationary status be terminated
effective March 9, 1983.
Alternatives
1 . Continue Probation
2. Terminate Employee
3. Terminate Probation
Recommendation
Alternative No. 3.
Action Requested
Move to terminate the probationary status of Marilyn Remer effective March 9, 1983.
GMV:mmr
• / i(Lip
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Request for Leave of Absence
DATE: March 28 , 1983
Introduction
We have received the attached request from Jerry Neisen for a 90
day leave of absence as permitted under Section 13 of our Personnel
Policy.
Background
Jerry ' s letter clearly states his reason for requesting the leave
of absence . Should his business venture work he would not return
to the City at the end of the 90 day leave .
Section 13 Leaves Without Pay reads as follows :
The City Council may grant any permanent employee a leave of absence
without pay for a period not exceeding 90 days except that it may
extend such leaves to a maximum period of one year in case the
employee is disabled or where extraordinary circumstances , in its
judgment; warrant such extension. No vacation or sick leave bene-
fits shall accrue during a leave of absence without pay.
Jn 1982 the City placed Jerry on a half time basis to assist him in
his efforts to launch his business and to allow him to get in enough
time to meet the 10 year vesting requirement for PERA. I believe
that helping Jerry in this manner for two summers is probably as far
as the City can and should go.
Alternatives
1 . Approve the request for a 90 day leave of absence without pay.
2 . Disapprove the requested leave of absence .
3 . Other
Recommendation
I recommend alternative No. 1 , but that it be clear that Jerry must
make a final decision on July 6 , 1983 about whether he will remain
an employee of the City.
Action Requested
Pass a motion authorizing a 90 day leave of absence without pay for
Jerry Neisen from April 6 , 1983 to July 6 , 1983 .
JKA/jms
, /I (
March 13, 1983
John Anderson, City Administrator
City of Shakopee
•
City Council Members
City of Shakopee
Dear City Council Members;
I Jerome Neisen, a Park Maintenance Worker for the City of
Shakopee for 10 plus years request an unpaid leave of
absence.
The time involved will be from April 6, 1933 to July 6, 1983 .
The purpose of this leave of absence is to develop my part-time
lawn service business . My business is at the crossroads, and
it is imperative to devote additional time and effort to insure
itis success .
The city- will benefit from this leave of absence as I will
be obtaining new information and techniques concerning lawn
care, fertilization, weed control, and landscaping. This
can be applied to my position with the Parks Department if
I return at the end of 90 days .
Yours Truly,
Jerome Neisen
I i P/\
Administrator
ti—
��,EMO TO: John K. Anderson, City '
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk f
RE: Appointment to S.P.U.C. uU
DATE: March 17 , 1983
Introduction
On March 15th Council nominated Jim Cook to serve on the Shakopee
Public Utilities Commission.
Action Requested
Appoint Jim Cook to a three year term on the Shakopee Public
Utilities Commission.
JKA/jms
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
11k
FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk 9f--'
RE : Easement to City from Shakopee Village Homes Association, Inc .
DATE: March 31 , 1983
Introduction
The Shakopee Village Homes Association, Inc. , has provided the City
an easement for maintenance of sewer and water lines in Patricia' s
First Addition. The easement encompasses all the areas in common.
Background
The City Engineer has advised me that the City has been maintaining
these lines and that he does have on file a schematic of the utilities .
Both the City Engineer and the SPUC Manager believe it is desireable
to have an easement from the association permitting our maintenance
of the utilities .
The City Engineer, SPUC Manager and City Attorney have all been pro-
vided copies of the easement and if they have no problems with the
document as drafted and express them to me by Tuesday, Council may receive.
the easement and authorize proper City officials to execute the
easement .
Action Requested
Authorize proper City officials to execute an easement for construc-
tion, repair, and maintenance of sewer and water lines in Patricia' s
First Addition.
JSC/jms
l '
11 h
EASEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR AND
MAINTENANCE OF SEWER AND WATER
LINES IN PATRICIA' S FIRST ADDITION
THIS INDENTURE, made and entered into this
day of March , 1983 , by and between the SHAKOPEE VILLAGE
HOMES ASSOCIATION, INC. , a Minnesota non-profit corporation, Grantor,
and the CITY OF SHAKOPEE , a Municipal Corporation, Grantee.
WHEREAS , Grantor is an Association of all homeowners
owning the property located within Patricia' s First Addition to
Shakopee according to the plat thereof on file and of record in
the office of the Scott County Recorder , Scott County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS , Grantor was created pursuant to the terms and
provisions of that certain "Declaration of Conditions , Covenants ,
Restrictions and Easements regarding Shakopee Village Homes" dated
October 4 , 1972 , and filed for record in the office of the Scott
County Recorder on October 27 , 1972 , as Document No. 133218
(hereinafter referred to as the "Declaration" ) ; and
WHEREAS , said Declaration was amended pursuant to the terms
and conditions of that certain instrument dated the 21ra
day of March , 19 83 and filed for record in the
office of the Scott County Recorder on the 73rd day of March
1983 , as Document No. 191846 ; and
WHEREAS Article X of said Declaration , as amended,
authorizes Grantor to grant such easements for sewer and water
service as it deems necessary to the City of Shakopee or other
governmental agencies ; and
WHEREAS , Grantor desires to convey appropriate ease-
ments to Grantee for purposes of constructing, maintaining, and
C
repairing all sewer and water lines located in the common areas of
the above described property; and
WHEREAS, Grantee desires to accept said easements in con-
sideration for its' being allowed to construct, repair and maintain
said sewer and water lines and to assess the appropriate property
owners for the costs therefore;
NOW, THEREFORE , in consideration of the mutual covenants
and promises contained herein , and for other good and valuable
consideration , receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties
hereto agree as follows:
I .
Grantor does hereby convey to Grantee the right to install,
repair, maintain, alter and operate sewers , storm drains , and water
mains , in, into, upon , over , across , and under the following
described tracts of land in the County of Scott, State of Minnesota,
to-wit:
Lot 1, Block 9 ; Lot 1, Block 10 , and Lot 1 ,
Block 16 , Patricia' s First Addition to Shakopee ,
according to the plat thereof on file and of record
in the office of the Scott County Recorder (said
property being also known as the "Common Areas"
of said plat) .
II .
In consideration for the granting of said easement,
Grantee does hereby agree to install, repair , maintain, alter , and
operate sewers , storm drains , and water mains in , into, upon, over ,
across , and under said property described above, as they are now
and hereafter located, upon the condition that Grantee shall per-
form said services in accordance with its usual policies relative
to sewer and water mains , and subject further to the condition
that the costs for providing said services be assessed to property
owners in accordance with the ordinances and statutes in such cases
-2-
I
made and provided.
III .
Nothing herein shall be construed as requiring the
City of Shakopee to install sewers , storm drains , and water mains
if such a requirement is inconsistent with agreements heretofore
or hereafter made between the Grantee and individual property
owners .
IV.
The parties hereto specifically agree and understand
that the services to be provided by the City shall be limited
to sewers , storm drains , and water mains located in the common areas
and shall not include services for lines not located in the common
areas , or the private service lines that connect the buildings to
the City sewer and water mains .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their
hands on the day and year first above written.
The Shakopee Village Homes Assoc. , Inc.
By: �
President
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
By:
Mayor
By:
City Clerk
-3-
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
(ss
COUNTY OF SCOTT
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
24th day of March, 1983 by Steven J. Anderson, President of
Shakopee Village Homes Association , Inc. , on behalf of the
corporation.
'w��•t� NANCY LEE BROWN
410 NOTARY PUfit iC•MINNESOTA
S�7 SCO 1 COUNTY
My Cummiss,on x.rures Jan.28.1985
♦iNw.a.
c:71.
, c -.7 Ln 40 0. CO O\ 0 --4 y a
C O', --1 --1 .--i /-.4 ,-1 .-1 N N 1 A¢ N K N N
Z U1 \-0 '..O '-D '.D VD D'. '.D '.0 '.0 �D •a •y vD mD 4)
,--! •-1 .-1 --1 H .-1 .-1 .-1 .-1 ,-1 ,-/ yak .-1 -•1 H
U
4 O O O N O 00 .7 0 Ln M 'O 0 0 O N '7•
r- -t O C 00 00 '.o N. U1 n c0 O O 0 1- "'1
•
• u'1 VO
F-/ '--1 0 Ul 0 CO M 00 a1 .-1 r, r- r\ M In M M ^ M 00 .-1
-4 co M co O M N c0 '.0 VO u') v1 --1 N M M 0
<4 N r- r- N N n O N- �T Ul CO rft - O\ N-
w . .
L) M M V) N. .-1 ,C N N. O O VI Co00
7
VT N N 0
W • a) M r
v 0 a) a) 0 CO .
tf�
•
a U 0 a N 0 la
14 O. 0 0 0 M 4-1 a)
a) 0 .. • a) .- U 0 1-4
1-+ 0 cd Cl) > co a) 0 •4-1 0
a) C.) C 0 C 4 0 w H cd Z Cl)
.0 CO H 04 Cl) 0 0 H $4 1-1 Z cd
U • I I c) •4-1 a a) cd H a) co
V) 4a • a) 4-4 • - ci) 0 co 4) 4-1 I-i
x a) 4-1 0 4.1 CC H co ca Cl) • 0 H �+
A .,:jA cd -H CO oA --1 = _ _ >`.1 U 0 H
Z Z a) a) ala) • a) a)
w H a H cd Z 0 0 m as x • cn a) 4..+ � H
0 U 0 H H > et 1d --1 3
0 Cl) u) A 0 n w 0 3 ca • a. 0 .0 .0 0 0
P4 A •-1 H U --/ P- Z 1-4 Z = = = W 4--) z C.7 cn Cl) 1.1 1-1
>, U `
CC co
P•4 w 1
I I i
•
CC 0o CO
co
a)
w cn a)
Cr) co
4 • 0 cn wH 4J
•
P. Cl) a a a a
r•1 GO •1.1 4-1 .0
W cd 0 C O +U A Cl) 1-1 CC
o4 •H-4 0 4-1 U N 1.1 U 0 P•1
U Z 0 a) a) m U
a) ea • <4 . 0 x •4-1 .0 .10 tv 01 -t
a. 444 cn w H H w' co •4-1 a) 0 4-i 0 U H h.
Ci) a) v H H W ai C 0 cd CC 0) CO H • •
A r-1 A Cl) W QI •-1 0 0 0.l O to- 0 W co --4
ro H 1J P. *21 r-+ ' •H+ N •-1
= C 4) 4..) 41 0 iu 4) U 4
H 4-1 0. 4.1 a) 0 1 ON N
C..) 0 •-1 14 -H H 4.1 H H •ri v = = = 4-4 A co 0 - C •4-1 ..
H 4-i 6 T 5 9 8 8 •-+ 0 4-1 E C) ,0 •� 5 --1 M
d a) a) cd a) a) a) CJ .i-' a) a) a) H 0 U a)
A R+' 04 01 (:4 04 04 R J P4 H W 4-4 A cn Pa a4
•1' O C CD N O CO N O1 co u1 O C O O 111 0 0 0 M '.D O O O (NI
H r• ,1 O O Co c0 'C0. X77 0- c0 N 00 O, u-.) --1 -i -4 .-1 n CO O O O �7 '4
n •'-1 C Lr) C CO M co N CO N O, '.0 01 01 .--1 .1" --1 .-1 .-1 h n M M 01 N cn
0 - CO M Co O\ M N co --1 u'1 .--1 \-0 0\ - 'C M --1 .-1 --1 u1 in -/ N M M 0 4)
N
Q+ cam- N N O .-/ 00 M -1 --+ -7 u1 co 4 CC
M M Li) N- \-D N I� 0 5
4 •0 a)
cf)--0 C 9
O 0 O
O 4-4 1-4
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 0 0000 O O 0 0 0 0 1-`+ rya�y
-1 .-1 .-.
.-i 1 --1 .-1 - .-
-1 1 -i .-i -4 ,-1 .--1 H .--1 .-4 .-1 .- .
4 .-d - H -
/ - .-1
I --1 •- P
1 H
H O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 CC H
U H --1 .-1 -4 .-i .-1 --1 .-1 H H 1-4 .-i -H H H --I .-/ --1 .-i H .-.1 rl ,A .-1 --1 .0 1-I
N r,) • • • • • • • a) Q.
1 'C Co •--/ --1 ,-1 .-1 -4 .--1 1-1 r1 4-A H -i 1-1 , i .-1 .-1 --1 ,-1 ..4 ,--1 ,T .-1 H 1.--1 -d cn C I
a) Ul CO 00 00 00 00 00 0000000 00 0000 CO CO O O O 00 H C) ""1
ro C 00
cd U
R.4 41 I I
1 O --+ 00
O O O O O O O N N 00 N 00 N •-/ 0 --1 M N rn 0. CD N N M O H O u'1
M O O 0 0 O 0 O ..o M --4 '.0 - -1- 041 0 Mc•-) -7' M 0 O -1 -4 M O
CO • . . . . . . . • . . • . • •
01 0 0 O O 0 O O N H --1 N N H -4 O .-1 --1 H --1 0 0 --+ - •-41 O
--/ 0 0 0 0 0 O O MN00N00N •-1 O •-/ MNuI O O N N M 0
O O O O O O 0 '.0 M --1 'o ,--1 - M 0 M cn 4 M O O - '--H M 0
.0 • • • • . . . . . . . • . • . •
U H 0 n --1 N- H O M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -.7' --1 H --1 --1 U1 0 ,--1 0 0 N
1.1
o N- N M N N N N n I n n n f- N. N N N N N N 0 01 01 U1 N
al 0 H 01 01 01 01 01 01 cn r1 M c'1 M M cn 01 M M M M 01 M M cn t'7 0\
Z 4--1 -4 •,C � � � - - -C � N
H W -1 ,-I ....I ...A --1 --1 .--1 --1 --1 1-1 --1 --1 .- -
1 1 ---4 .- -
1 -1 .--1 --I .-d .-1 H -'1
u1 00 00 00 00 c0 co 0000000 co 0000 co co 0 0 0 Co
W
A
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator / 1C:(E)—
FROM:
Joseph P. Ries , Fire Chief
RE: Purchase 5 Multiple Channel Radios
DATE: March 31 , 1983
Introduction
The radio system the Fire Department currently uses consists of three
channels . One county main, one statewide mutual aid, and a portable
channel with a second county channel to be added later this year.
The county' s main channel now serves both Scott and Carver County
Fire Departments and is quite busy. The new second channel will
handle the over load when more than one department is out on a fire
call . Thus a need for all of our trucks to have multiple channels
exists . The Fire Department now has three trucks and four portable
radios equiped with multiple channels and need to upgrade five trucks
with multiple channel radios .
Background
The Fire Department budgeted for five multiple channel radios under
capital equipment improvements and received a budget of $12 , 500.00.
We received a bid from Motorola Radio Inc . of $11 ,047. 25 under a
piggyback- bid of Brooklyn Center bid - P.O. #53549 which was a
competitive bid and met all state law requirements . This bid is
good until April 8, 1983 . After that we would have to release bids
on our own. Also they would not give us a trade-in price on our
old radios because they are outdated, and we could possibly sell
them at a better price anyway.
Alternatives
1 . Buy five multiple channel radios from Motorola Radio Inc . for
$11 ,047 . 25 under Brooklyn Center bid.
2 . Have Shakopee draw up specs and receive bids on our own.
Recommendation/Action Requested
Alternative No. 1 , buy five multiple channel radios from Motorola
Radio Inc. for $11 ,047 . 25 .
JPR/jms
I /k
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Recommendations for Officers/Directors for 1983-1984 AMM
DATE: March 31 , 1983
Introduction
The attached bulletin from the Association of Metropolitan Munici-
palities includes two items of Council interest . The first is the
annual meeting set for Thursday evening, May 26 , 1983 . Please
note this date on your calendar so that you can attend the meeting.
The second item requests recommendations for officers/directors for
1983-1984. I have been in contact with Hank Sinda , City Administra-
tor of Savage , regarding this latter item.
Recommendations for Officers/Directors for 1983-1984
As you will note from reading the bulletin, Hank Sinda has been
appointed to the nominating committee . Hank was informed by the
AMM staff that there needed to he an appointment to the board
from either Washington County and/or Scott County to maintain
balance on the AMM board. Hank contacted me regarding this matter
and we felt that Mayor. Reinke would be an excellent recommendation
for appointment to the board.
I have reviewed the meeting requirements of the AMM Board of Directors
with Mayor Reinke and he said he would be willing to serve if City
Council concurred .
The Mayor' s primary concern was that he would be able to find
Councilmembers willing to assist with other local duties if he
accepted this additional responsibility. This can be discussed
by Council at Tuesday night ' s meeting.
The AMM staff also suggested that 3 to 4 letters of support from
Scott County Mayors would be appropriate if Shakopee decides to
nominate Mayor Reinke or anyone else for the Board of Directors
position.
Alternatives
1 . Nominate Mayor Reinke for appointment to the AMM Board of
Directors for 1983-1984.
2 . Nominate some other Shakopee official for this same position.
3 . Submit no nominations from Shakopee for this AMM position.
Recommendation
It is my recommendation that Council support alternative No. 1 and
submit Mayor Reinke ' s name to the AMM nominating committee . Scott
County has not had a representative on the AMM board since Council-
man Hullander served in that position several years ago. I believe
Recommendations for Officers/Directors for. 1983-1984 AMM /J (
Page Two
March 31 , 1983
that it is important that Scott County have a strong representative
on the AMM board. Mayor Reinke has established good rapport with
other mayors in the County, the County Board and the township
officials in the County in his capacity as Chairman of the Scott
County Mayors and Administrators group.
Action Requested
Direct the appropriate staff to send a letter to the AMM nominating
committee offering the name of Mayor Reinke for appointment to the
Board of Directors for 1983-1984 , and to obtain 3 or 4 letters of
support from other Scott County mayors .
JKA/jms
cems..
association of
metropolitanptri
r
municipalities t� .w.: - ' .* : .,
NIA;-? 1 7 1983
TO: AMM Member Cities CITY (J1; -
(Mayors and Managers/Administrators)
FROM: AMM Staff
We would like to bring several items to your attention:
I/ ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY EVENING, MAY 26, 1983
The 1983 AMM Annual Meeting for the major purpose of electing officers and board
members has been set for Thursday evening, May 26, 1983. The location has not been
selected as yet but it will be a dinner meeting. A meeting notice with the complete
details and agenda will be mailed in early May but we wanted to inform you of the
date now so you can plan accordingly.
'RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OFFICERS/DIRECTORS FOR 1983-84
A Nominating Committee was appointed by the Board of Directors at the March 3rd.
Board Meeting as required by the AMM By-Laws. The offices of President, Vice-
President and eight Board Directors are to be filled. If you have nominations/
recommendations for these positions, please submit them to any Nominating Committee
membez or to the AMM office, attention: Vern Peterson by no later than Friday,
April 8, 1983. The Committee members are Jim Krautkremer, Brooklyn Park Mayor,
Chairman; Patti Armstrong, Cottage Grove Councilmember; Marlis Overgard, Apple Valley
Mayor; Hank Sinda, Savage Administrator; Jackie Slater, Minneapolis Councilmember,
and Mary Schweiger, St. Paul Mayor's Office.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID - CURRENT ACTIVITY
The AMM Board of Directors is continuing to monitor various issues and events
concerning the topic of Local Government Aid. Because of the complexity of aid
formulas and questons related to the purpose LGA should serve as well as the diverse
membership opinions, the AMM has not adopted a distributions formula policy. The
organization does support LGA funding tied as a percentage to general state revenue
or sales tax revenue and the Board has adopted a policy urging an in depth long
term legislatively supported study to develop a formula that is understandable,
practical, and equitable. However, the Bo'xd would like to be in a position of
reacting if appropriate to various current proposals including the most recent
Governors Budget formula. Staff has been directed to gather better data on various
proposals and seek clarification of projected results as depicted in computer runs
supplied by the state or proposing agency. As an example, the February 18, 1983
(No. 6) LMC Legislative Bulletin published a list supplied by the state of aid that
cities would receive in 1984 using the Governors proposed distribution. In reviewing
183 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227-5600
-2-
the results it appeared that some cities would receive either more or less aid
inconsistant with the perceived ability or need factors being used. Also, it was
noted that 1981 assessed value and sales ratio data was used and that current year
information would create differences. The Board has indicated that current and correct
information should be available before taking any additional possible policy action.
The Tax Committees will be holding hearings in the next several weeks and as
part of those proceedings will at times be discussing LGA proposals.
BOARD REQUEST FOR MEMBER INPUT
In conjunction with the staff activity the Board would, also, like input from member
cities indicating individual city opinions or anticipated activities in regards to
LGA distribution proposals to help them in consideration of any possible additional
action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON LGA PROPOSALS
- AMM Newsletter, January 1983, issue No. 19 (general discussion)
- LMC Legislative Bulletin, February 18, 1983, issue No. 6 (contains the Governor's
formula on page W"3 and W-4)
- LMC Magazine, March, 1983, issue Vol. 68 - No. 3 (general discussion)
SUPER-FUND BILL (HF 76 - SF 220) PROBLEM
As reported in the LMC Legislative Bulletin, March 4, 1983 issue, this bill is moving
through the Committee Process. One of the key provisions's of thia bill from the
standpoint of local government, is the provision which would retain the liability
limits for cities and other political subdivision. Unfortunately, on a close vote
in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the limits on political subdivison liability were
removed. It is very important that these limits be reinstated and we would urge
• you to contact your Senator (s) and discuss this matter as soon as possible. At the
appropriate time, an amendment will be offered to reinstate the limits on political
subdivision liability. Please ask your Senator to support this amendment.
cc: AMM Board of Directors
///.
M E M O R A N D A
TO John K. Anderson
City Administrator
FROM H. R. Spurrier f f -�
City Engineer
SUBJECT: Levee Drive Extension
Public Improvement Project o. 1982-3
DATE April 4, 1983
Introduction
Attached is a bid tabulation for Levee Drive Extension Project No. 1982-3
with a recommendation to award the contract to the apparent low bidder.
Background
Attached also is a memoranda dated September 21, 1982 after receipt of bids
for the same project. At that time, there was one bidder and it was
recommended that the lone bid be rejected.
The attached tabulation shows that there were three bidders below the 1982
estimate. It is the recommendation of City staff that the contract be awarded
to the low bidder, F. F. Jedlicki , Inc. , 14203 West 62nd Street, Eden Prairie,
MN 55344 in the amount of $59,923.00.
Action Requested
Motion to direct the appropriate City officials to enter into a contract
with F. F. Jedlicki Inc. , 14203 West 62nd Street, Eden Priaire, MN 55344
for the construction of Levee Drive Extension, Project No. 1982-3.
HRS/jvm
Attachments
BID TABULATIONS (1
Levee Drive Extension Project No. 1982-3
Shakopee, Minnesota
Bid Opening: April 4, 1983
10:30 A.M.
CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT BID BOND
F. F. Jedlicki , Inc.
14203 West 62nd Street $59,923.00 Yes
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Valley Paving, Inc.*
12494 Wyoming Avenue South $62,685.25 Yes
Savage, MN 55378
*Qualified Bid
Moser Construction Company
4050 Emerson Avenue North $63,416.35 Yes
Minneapolis, MN 55312
Plehal Blacktopping, Inc.
3460 West 1j0th Street $68,662.50 Yes
Shakopee, MN 55379
Hardrives, Inc.
7200 Hemlock Lane North $69,909.45 Yes
Maple Grove, MN 55368
West Suburban Utility Construction, Inc.
1451 County Road 89 $70,631.50 Yes
Shakopee, MN 55379
Lundgren Excavating
5609 35th Avenue South $71,160.64 Yes
Minneapolis, MN 55417
Asphalt Paving Materials, Inc.
12924 June Terrace $72,775.46 Yes
Minnetonka, MN 55343
Alexander Construction Co.
14561 Johnny Cake Ridge Road $73,139.80 Yes
Apple Valley, MN 55124
Wm. Mueller & Sons, Inc.
831 Park Avenue $76,276.60 Yes
Hamburg, MN 55339
Barber Construction Company, Inc,
5400 Rowland Road $77 ,370.20 Yes
Minnetonka, MN 55343
Munn Blacktop, Inc.
3601 48th Avenue North $78,357.30 Yes
Brooklyn Center, MN 55429
ot, 6 I-
MEMO TO : John K . Anderson
City Administrator
'11�FROM : H. R. Spurrier .111��
City Engineer Ilk fr.
RE: Levee Drive Extension
Project No. 1982-3
DATE : September 21, 1982
Introduction :
City of Shakopee opened bids for the above referenced project September 13,
1982 at 10: 30 A.M. Project consisted of roadway construction and lateral
storm sewer construction.
Background :
As the attached Abstract of Bids shows, the bid price was $89, 735.00. The
Engineer's estimate was $65,000. 00. The unit prices for the storm sewer pipe
contained in this project are unacceptable.
The City has two alternatives. The City may reject the bids and rebid in
January or February, or the City may award the bid which is approximately
$24,000 above the Engineer's estimate.
It is the recommendation of City staff that the single bid of Hardrives, Inc.
be rejected and that City staff be directed to readvertise the project in
January or February.
There was initially some concern about arbitrage and not being able to
utilize the proceeds of the Tax Increment Bonds issued for the Elderly Highrise
Project.
Attached is a letter addressed to Mr. Gregg Voxland from Thomas S. Hay
of Dorsey & Whitney, noting that the 3-year period will not apply to the
funds encumbered for the construction of Levee Drive Extension.
Action Requested :
Reject the bid of Hardrives, Inc. , 7200 Hemlock Lane North, Maple Grove, MN
55369 for Levee Drive Extension, Project No. 1982-3 and direct City staff to
readvertise the project in January or February.
HRS/jvm
Attachment
011
DORSEY a WHITNEY ii X-
A Partnership Inciu'l.ng Professional Corporafons
•
220u FIRST BANK PLACE EAST
MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402
880 WEST•FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING (612) 340-2600 201 DAVIDSON BUILDING
ST PAUL.MINNESOTA 55101 8 THIRD STREET NORTH
t,5121 227-8017 T E.LEC EELER:29 0605
-dGf1 GREAT FALLS,MONTANA 59401
1406)727-3632
P 0 BOX 848
340 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING SUITE 675 NORTH
ROCHESTER.MINNESOTA 55903 1800 M STREET N.W.
(507)288•3156 • WASHINGTON,D.C.20036
• (202)296.2780
312 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING THOMAS S. HAY
WAY:AIA,MINN(1;c11A �,!�I'll 1(1 811E 1 A HOE III
4•1. 1'1'1 I I,I. III ."1(.'' /',0(111 PAW.,I HAII(.1.
ILL,111 501 '12 5U
September. 17 , 1982
Mr . Grog Voxland
Finance Director
129 E. First Avenue
City Hall
Shakopee , Minnesota 55379
Re: Investment of proceeds of Tax Increment
Bonds issued for elderly high rise project
Dear Greg:
This teller is to confirm my advice to you the
other day over the phone that the City will not be committing
"arbitrage" by continuing to invest at an unrestricted
yield, unexpended bond proceeds and interest earned thereon
to date after the end of the three year "temporary period"
which L'(11111111'ill'('d 1111 Ill( ` dal '. (If 1 ':':111' (If t lll' 1H11111': ,
I IUIIi1`I :;t ,11(11 , and this advice was based upon the
facts that : ( I ) these bond moneys are he inq he 1.d for.
expenditure o11 public improvements to be undertaken with
respect to the project ; (2) you expect these improvements
to be completed in the next twelve months , and (3) when the
bonds were issued the City reasonably expected , as staters
in the arbitrage certificate on the bonds , to complete and
use the bond proceeds to pay the cost of the improvements
within three years atter the bonds were issued .
If these facts are incorrect , please let me know;
otherwise , the advice is confirmed .
Very truly yours ,
Thomas S. H y
TSH/lb
•
N J
in
1
f
•.
p •
0 O
+- M
v 0 O O O r) 0 0 O C.) () C0 C0 C) C) U C) O O O O
C> O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
tr\ � -.1- -7- t- N N 0 N Cl 0 0 - - a) O . 0
C • 0 N QO w - N t'-• ap t-- N '.O N ON 0 0 N 0 N CO U,
-I 0a0 H \O M ce MH NO NO H O\ N � w a a a
H O H N e-I N
-14 49-
N 0
O
Cr)
4) tri
ri cn
[-
^C3 p CN
f-1 U Cp
•
cd •ri
x O O O O O LA O O O O O O O O O O O O O
p LA O LAA 0 - t- O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4
+3 LA -7 -7 CO N N N tom- 01 CO 0 0 0 0 N '.0 0
N �O 00 CO 0
H H
40-
a a
H H
H
0
CA H M
HH ZN
Q a W a0 - O
-t O O O O to O to CA 0 to Cr\ N 00 ON 0
NO O W 0 0 NON N- N O 1(1
N
+, tri i, COC1ON
cc9 - H H H tri H
HaEs
0
Es o
lel, IT. H
H 0 Q U
' ,
H W ��V •�I�r
0 > r-�� 'r4 ?) >1 >4 .11 O r.4_, tr-1 tri tll tri •
H U U U H C!) U) C-i H I-) H H H c.1 Ni 0 U (f] H U
r-{ H
N N N ¢ (1.) Q
Q) .....•
>,
O Cll U) t •'i H
Pi m Cl) \o �•'�, H
U) S-1 tit) H 0
Q Cm p O •� p P--I
a3 • H U 0 -4 H c0 H
w \ H 3y H
• a) 5. +3 -p O H p LiN N H
v7 co CU cd � Pr Cl) H N � 0
O +' 4 3 c0) H v p H
cd Cl)
0 71 p H • 4) S4 Pi
El CY. 0 N co coCn b c11 4)
H C: 0 C� 4 .� .4 � ,o OO Hal v cd !• Ri!f1 a I cd
+� •
•
O 0 �i El i� C 3 U U •r4 4 P4 H cd
0-4 IC r0 (1) (Y +) 'd 0 u
(xi as;-1 > as H •H-1 H W U CU p U
4-) a+ cd O co P7 Pa co > > cY, 0
cd •-) O HH
is CJ U Q3 d = - -.../' ;, t;; - 0 C---Ir - 0' ' 0 ,'Z.74Q
0 k +C f-, H --s, -Kw CO I N 0 H -� cd w 0 0
O W W CS O H H N Cc1 CC Cr N N CO I-a c4 0 CO CO C4
t~
+) 0 H N CO .4- u, '.O N- 00 ON O H N CO .� to NO N- CO ON
H �+ H H H H H H H H H H
/ 1
MEMORANDA ./(1!_.
TO : John K. Anderson
City Administrator
FROM : H. R. Spurrier i �•<
City Engineer `- ---"`
SUBJECT: Levee Drive extension
Project No. 1982-3
DATE : March 31, 1983
Introduction
City of Shakopee will open bids on the above-referenced project at 10:30 A.M.
April 4, 1983.
Background
At the present time, there are 12 planholders for this project, compared to
two planholders in 1982. We anticipate at least four bidders on this project.
The bid tabulation and recommendation will be on the table April 5, 1983.
HRS/jvm
MEMORANDA l/M11
TO : John K. Anderson
City Administrator
FROM H. R. Spurrier
Ci
City Engineers
SUBJECT: No Parking on the Servic- 'oad North of North Star Auto Auction
DATE : March 22, 1983
Introduction
Attached is a miscellaneous Report from the Shakopee Police Department regarding
parking on the service road north of North Star Auto Auction.
Background
The report prepared by Officer Ron Carlson clearly describes the problem caused
by cars and -trucks parking along the frontage road north of North Star Auto
Auction.
The problem could be simply corrected by signing no parking in the ditch or on
the shoulder of the frontage road. This would eliminate potential damage to
the edge of the bituminous roadway and would also eliminate the hazard caused
by improper parking along the frontage road.
It is the recommendation of the City Engineer that parking along the frontage
road and in the frontage road right-of-way be prohibited by appropriate signage.
Action Requested
Direct City staff to erect appropriate no parking signs along the service road
south of Trunk Highway 101 in Section 1, Township 115, Range 22.
HRS/jvm
Attachment
cc: Tom Brownell , Police Chief
James Karkanen, Street Superintendent
3-0652
83-0652
SHAKOPEE POLICE DEPARTMENT ti
MISCELLANEOUS REPORT
NO. 83-0652
TITLE Traffic
COMPLAINANT Pioneer Seed
ADDRESS 7800 East Hwy 101 , Shakopee PHONE 445-2606
DAY, DATE, TIME OF REPORT Thursday 02-17-83 1430 hours
Resume' : On 02-17-83 at approximately 1430 hours this officer was
dispatched to Pioneer Seed which is located adjacent to the North Star Auto
Auction. This officer talked with several secretaries in the main office as
well as Al Gross , the original complainant, as well as the vice-president
Clint Patterson.
After being advised by these people , there seems to be a traffic problem
that occurs on the frontage road which connects Hwy 101 eastbound with the
North Star Auto Auction as well as Pioneer Seed. The employees this officer
talked to from Pioneer Seed advised this officer that this is becoming their
busy time of year and that their trucks have been having a difficult time
exiting Pioneer Seed and traveling the frontage road getting on to Hwy 101 ,
due to the fact that on Thursdays, which is Auction day, that vehicles park
on both sides of this service road leaving very little space for Pioneer Seed
trucks to exit and enter their business.
On this occasion this Officer contacted North Star Auto Auction and
they did have the service road cleared. Officer feels that some type of
precaution should be taken to keep traffic flowing freely in and out of Pioneer
Seed. This officer also feels that signs prohibiting parking on one side of
the service road would stop any traffic problems that have previously occurred.
Officer would like a copy of this report sent to the City Engineer as well
as North Star Auto Auction and Pioneer Seed.
tvc Officer Ron Carlson
'Investigating Officer
MEMORANDA
TO : John K. Anderson
City Administrator
FROM : H. R. Spurrier
City Engineer
SUBJECT: Curb, Gutter and Sidewal Replacement Contract
DATE : March 31, 1983
Introduction
In an effort to respond to requests from builders, contractors and property
owners , the City has received bids for concrete replacement in the public
right-of-way.
Background
This contract is intended to cover the replacement of all or part of any concrete
work in the public right-of-way; that includes curb and gutter, driveway aprons,
sidewalk and service walk in the public right-of-way. The contract includes
bid prices for removal , replacement, patching and sodding required for the
complete installation. In the event sub-grade excavation and select backfill is
required, there are unit prices for those items as well .
The contract has two sets of unit prices; one set is for a minimal amount of
work, the second set is for an entire lot. I attach a memoranda from Ray Ruuska,
which estimates the total replacement cost for curb and gutter, sidewalk and
driveway aprons.
These costs are remarkably low because they are within 22 percent of the prices
bid on the Holmes Street Reconstruction Project in 1980.
The estimated quantities used for this contract were intended to result in a bid
price near $5,000.00. The bid of Siehndel Construction was approximately
15 percent below that estimate. The next bidder was approximately 21 percent
above that amount, and considering the fact that the contractor must be prepared
to work anywhere in the urban area , those bids were very reasonable.
The low bidder, Siehndel Construction, has successfully completed other city
projects and, therefore, it is my recommendation that the contract be awarded to
Siehndel Construction.
John K. Anderson March 31, 1983
Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk Program Page -2-
The second matter considered and perhaps the most unique, is the recommendation
that the City notify residents that there is a City-wide contract for concrete
replacement in the public right-of-way. Further, that the City would agree to
finance this improvement by assessing the property in ten equal payments of
principal and interest. '
The Finance Director recommends that this work be funded by the General Fund
and that the City charge 9.00 percent interest. That will be a bargain for
the City and the property owners.
The property owners would have to agree to waive notice of public hearing and
to waive right to appeal . Prior to waiving those rights, property owners
would be advised of the amount of the assessment before any work was undertaken.
In order to certify this assessment in a timely manner, all requests for work
must be received by August 1, 1983.
It is further recommended that notice be published monthly in the local paper
in order to remind citizens of this service.
Action Requested
1. Direct the proper City staff to prepare and issue the Notice of Award to
Siehndel Construction, 210 Elmwood, LeSueur, MN 56058 for the Curb and
Gutter, Sidewalk and Driveway Approach Replacement Program, Contract
No. 83-1 and direct the proper City officials to enter into said contract
for an amount not to exceed $10,000.00 in accordance with the Contract
Documents. All work shall be funded by the General Fund.
2. Direct City staff to prepare a notice and press release advising Shakopee
builders, contractors and property owners of the City-wide concrete
replacement program and place that notice monthly in the local paper
thru July , 1983 .
HRS/jvm
Attachments
11r1v
MEMO TO: H. R. Spurrier
City engineer
FROM: Ray Ruuska
Engineering Coordinator
RE: Curb and Gutter and Sidewalk Project
DATE: March 29, 1983
The following are estimated costs for a typical City lot (60 feet).
A. Remove and Replace all Curb and Gutter -
1. Remove 60 L. F. @ $1.00/L.F. $ 60.00
2. Replace 60 L. F. @ $5.60/L.F. 336.00
3. Patching 67 S.Y. @ $20.00/Ton 15.00
4. Sodding 13 S. Y. @ $3.00/S. Y. 40.00
$451.00
Plus Miscellaneous 25.00
$476.00
Plus 10% Administration 47.60
Plus 8% Engineering 38.08
Total $561.68
B. Remove and Replace all Sidewalk -
1. Remove 300 S.F. @ $0.25/S.F. $ 75.00
2. Replace 4" 240 S. F. @ $1.50/S. F. 360.00
3. Replace 6" 60 S. F. @ $2.25/S. F. 135.00
4. Sodding 27 S. Y. @ $3.00/S.Y. 81.00
$651.00
Plus 10% Administration 65. 10
Plus 8% Engineering 52.08
Total $768. 18
H. R. Spurrier March 29, 1983
Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk Project Page -2-
C. Remove and Replace Driveway Apron -
1. Remove 168 S. F. @ $0.25/S.F. $ 42.00
2. Replace 168 S.F. @ $2.25/S. F. 378.00
3. Sodding, 5 S. Y. @ $3.00/S. Y. 15.00
$435.00
Plus 10% Administration 43.50
Plus 8% Engineering 34.80
Total $513.30
Work may be paid for or it may be assessed in ten (10) equal payments of principal
and interest at the rate of 9 percent on the remaining balance.
RR/jvm
ri -"'
RI S-
CD CD 00 00 00 00 OCD CD CD 00 O CD O O O
in O � OO CDO OO OO OO CD v1 OO OO O CD CD O CD
• • •
CU CD s O Un O Ln N CD O Lf) d LO O N. N Ln 00 n CO O O O O
CI 0 d N d (V Ln LO d CO Lf) 0) M L) M N. L0 LO N L0 d C) N
CF- N LC) N in N Ln ri M Ln C) r-4 .-a .-1 N. Sr LCD N N Cr
rx 0r.
C ' 1 .-I
4.9
A U
CJ
•
CU
0 +' 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 O O O C) O
o t/) CU 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 CD Ln Lt) O O LC) in 0 o tl) O O O O O
0
AC +J U . •
(0 •,- CV C) rte) O CV in r-4 in d M d din d Ln in h. LO CV) .-I O O L17
(/') OCL VI
N '-r •-•1 ri .-•I
V) O O CD O O CD Ln O O O O in O O O O O O O O CD
V) r 00 00 00 N. LI CDCO ON CD LC) Olt) O C) O O O
C r0
O 4) 00 0 O in N O 00 d O N CO LO O CV 00 r4 Lf) if) CD CD CD
N ® CD CX) N ,r1 M Ln h. 1--1 M U) '-•I d CT N O O O N CO O 1.0
1--- ,-.4 N •-•1 M r-I M N M 1.0 CO •-4 Lt) N. 00 d U) U1
C
O
N
r---
s-
s- W 00 00 00 in in 00 CD v1 in 0 O in CD in C) CD O
(4 4-.) U OO OO OO NCn LnN Oh. h. Ln LnN O N O O O
E U ,r •r
SA•. _ S- � Co CD c � O N .-1 N N M N M M d d Ln .•-•I O Ln O
0) >. 40et N tV N
0
I-
o..CL.
}) •
C O
O U
E
•
CC) N C) O 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 it) O O O O
c0 0 r U CD O O N O O O t0 N COO CO Ln d LO N O O O O
.- C
C.1. 0 4-)
d O O 1 . to Ln Ol t\ 00 CON CO LD n LD 0 O cf
O C__) 0 d Ln d in Ln N. O N. 0) LO V in 00 N 0, M .-1 C) N N N
CC f '~ M ,4 M .-•-1 M 4-4N MLD M d M M .-1 .--1 N
C
0 V)
U V)
r0 C
0 (I)
1 = O 0 CD O O CD O CD O O O CD CD O O CD O U.) O O O O
C). 4-' U O O O O LO LO 0 U) M CO M CO r, in .--I N. N 1.0 O O O
O
Q 3 t- 1-4 O N O N CD (") N CO N CV) CV M CO d M N Lf) LO Co
r-1N r4 r-4 1-4
F- 40 k 4
J
CU
: >
CO
t-
F- CD
CD v
I-' C 00 CD CD OO u) O CD CO OO OCD OO O O CO O CD
CO b S.-• _N O O N O O O N. O O LD O Ln O O •7 Co O O O O O
Y ICS 00 LD 0, LD LO U) N U) N. 0, Lt) CO CO in N d .•A Ln O O .4-
I.-- U) 4-' N. 0) N. 0) 0) d in LD N d LO d N. O CT N d L0 N C) N
ro C 0 .--4 .-d CV ri CV N. d r1 Ln I ..--1 .-1 r4 N
0 I-
C) C-)
•C) V)
•r
V) C)
TJ
. C O 00 00 00 LC) CD Lf) h. 00 Ln0 in 0 0 U) 0 CD 0
S.. -C 4-' U U) L0 LO LD 00 LO in NO U0 00 NO co LO O N O O O
4-) N = UD M L0 Ln CO I\ .-4 .--1 N N N N M M CO M •-•i O Ul Ln 00
b9
CD
0
C
IV
L
C.) 4-)
h-) N u) N u) N in u) O N d c0 in ct in ct CO •-1 CD d O 00
Q C 4-4 co •-1M •-4M M115 � r4N OM NM N •-1 d L0 N N N
.-1 N N .-4 .-4 LO
CD O
O CY
0-4 • •
0,,,4 •r LL_ LL LL Li. LI- LL_ LL LL. Li LL LL Li Lt- LL- LL. LL LL LL >- >- C
C O
O J J J J J J N V) V) N V) (/) V) V) N (/•) ...J Cn V (,� I•-
rtl
I .
M
5
N >
QC) CU 0
- 4-' L • CU LL' •_ La. •
d r
E -
O • C • i • V) LL V) LL_ u Li i • Li. U • LL d-) CC C r0
(C) Li- CU LI- C) LL. • r0 • U V) • C N • O S-
N 4.) • 4-' • O Cl) O V) 0 V) C V) 0 V) •-- CU •r- Q)
o2S J i-) J +) J O O 5- O CD C...) O r- 4.) 4a
n O NO NO Cl O U00 OO 40 CU r0 c0
U .0 C) O O (C) O 1 0I O t1 O N O •t) N O ..i L > M
E L- ill n Ln in O N O N Q N '0 1 N 0) I N U r0
IS) +' CCll ) • C • C • C .X C _eC >,L,- C U CD c O c n7 O U vr)
X I-+ L.L. r0 .t] LL. r0 .t] LL rt .- N .- r0 RS • r0 C. >, r0 0 >, CO > V LL 1 rt3
0) • .0 S- • .0 S- • .0 rCS .0 IV C 3 V) .0 0 MI t 4- r0 C 0 CO
+ J +) DJ +' CJ +' 3 +) 3 +' v +' 4- 3 +) C y +) E rn
Q) 0 L) U C> CU C) > O C CU •r CU 4) C 'C) C Ln
C r0 0 O rN O CU O CU 'O CU "C3 O O U) r > CU CU > CI) CC •.- co
S- d-' U) S•. CO u) 1- d in S- •r i. •r S.. 1. N 1- CU •r L CC •r S.. •-' 5- CC V)
•r 4-' C I 0 •-1 I 0 N I 0 V) O V) 0 CO I 0 CC 1• 0 S- O JD Ln Cr) V)
C C DOX LOOS its CD X E E OE _ CD -- CD L .0 .4.-' r0
0 0 1 I _ _
CD0- U 00 on d LO LD CO U LLJ V) CL U
E
'v a •
•1- 4-' OI r4 N M d Ln LO h. CO Q) O r4 N M
CO .-. Z ri .-1 ri ri
L
C) V) O 0
0
•
(0 CV O
+-' CV O
(.7 O — Lf)
i F- O'
-o O
S- w
N
(_)
d'
• 0 C w
In O O1
V) • . +f}
v c'') O
� ,r O
N CD CD
CD CD
b
N 4-' p O
C
0 r--+ CD
O I— CV O
N ^ O
— C)
ob V)
n
o ct
O O
O CO
a
U •r- l/)
C L CV
>0C/)
O
c.)
+) N O
_ O O
C O O
O +� n LI)
C_) C
r7 LC)
C U) •
N O
C Ct
(U 0
O O ^
4-.) U O CD LSD
V) C s_ CV O
d N.
N O O
• r CD CD
s. co
+ Lf) O
N 0 CD CD
C F- •-1 •--• Cr)
O Cr)
U
E O
(U r LC)
S- a) N
CJ) -
O C CD CD et
i. C) CD CD *q
CL Q)
C 'r" M O
4--) (A = CV
C
Cl-
a)a)
L.)
r
❑.
C)
Ce >)
U � Lf) Lf)
0 C M
O
L
d d
a
.4-) .
>- C
> C • o
U) F-
C)
r
® ,C
f U)
r. b J
a a
r F-
O 3 N CCD
o G) 0 H
.C) E 0
C) C
•r-• 4
U) V) -i E
•
F- C) b
S-
CC) C:7 C - ct
O O Cr)
F— w U Cl) CJ
O CU •
co .-+ .--i
1'd
MEMORANDA
TO : John K. Anderson
City Administrator
000,
FROM H. R. Spurrier r
t
•
City Engineer
SUBJECT: Trunk Highway 101 Frontage 'o.i
County Road 89 to the West Lin- of Cretex Industrial Park 1st Addition
DATE : March 31, 1983
Introduction
Feasibility Report for the above-referenced project was prepared in April 1980,
later revised October 1981 and has been bogged down in right-of-way acquisition
since that time.
Background
The problem with right-of-way centers on the access of Minnesota Body and
Equipment Company onto Trunk Highway 101.
At the present time, there are three alternatives for this project. They are as
follows:
1. Condemn the access of Minnesota Body and Equipment Company
onto Trunk Highway 101 and construct the frontage road in
accordance with the Plans and Specifications;
2. Condemn, cr otherwise acquire, right-of-way across Lot 1 and
Lot 2 of Block 1, Cretex Industrial Park 1st Addition, which
would shift the alignment of the frontage road off Cretex
Avenue but leave one lot in Block 2 of Cretex Industrial Park
1st Addition without access unless the access is provided
along the right-of-way dedicated by Howe, Inc. ;
3. Do nothing.
According to the report prepared October 30, 1981 the benefit to the properties
could not be established because of a lack of activity in the real estate market.
Based on the City' s recent experience in the Industrial Park, there is a good
possibility that $20,000 of the assessment would not be supported.
(( C
John K. Anderson March 31, 1983
T.H. 101 Frontage Road Page -2-
At the present time, the City has invested more than $30,000 in the project.
To proceed would involve the exercise of $"minent Domain Powers in the acquisition
of additional right-of-way or in the condemnation of the Trunk Highway 101
access.
•
The question and the alternatives have been discussed at considerable length.
I attach copies of the correspondence relating to this matter since the resolution
ordering the project was offered and adopted.
Staff has been unsuccessful in finding an alternative that would meet the needs
of both Elk River Concrete Products and Minnesota Body and Equipment. Minnesota
Body and Equipment Company is probably entitled to some compensation for the
direct access they possess. On the other hand, that access could have the same
value that Elk River Concrete Products right-of-way would have; therefore, I am
looking for some direction in this matter, some criteria on which to base the
final recommendation.
If you believe it is appropriate to discuss this matter with Council , I would
make it an item for the April 5th agenda.
HRS/jvm
Attachments..
i - ' '�j 1. 1O 1 ( a
1.'., �i .1•. 1 �1,- C.\ '' 1.:\ N .\ r ; .\ :,\ \':II.I.IAM C.1\I:II IMA NS
t'.roeru: O. LIn.1'ur: III
I I♦G; 1 I _
Illus I: 1t11iI \'C t+>ItN 1:1' ,\f I. \'•` I:.•IOSEnK LAFAVE DI j
.I.♦M 11 1) 1)1.,.1
.1l) I-t 1 1 I�; ( I N 1 I.It PATRICK
ATHiURY B.
HENNESSY
IOIIu: D.SUI:LY-
I7IH:11.I1 tirl:N1 ):It
1:1uIrr `1.`�I(n I+1 (.IIIII}:rl):1: K SOLSO
I CIA v,uv Ii KIK W. III Y.Le
1�./111:1:I' .i
�l .Vuu\1�I�1� ''n• 1f I'1 !AIWA ti. I,Aliiat
1.L11V rI1 L'lF1' ,r
1t,IIlI'iiKI It Il:vrrn 'r:�
A LI.I:N I) 1(.11rN.1 H11
(11' r111;ti V2:L
1(,r un ltn :\ 1'r I I'USW,: ('r r.n II' l; ;NS Luxl:v
In. ',:li i) (..trlr.,lS c
I,cr)vnuu W Strrwr,T
I VA .'• \'.n.l.
•
VAN PI I I. •. .11;
.1 gar.. \ 11111: r ...1 ..
1:1,1111:1 .1 1'I1r., I 14 1982
K+,I,I ,I I. \\I 1 . I ,• October r (2+111 rIeI .1 I`1..+n':.(.Ah
Mr. John Anderson
City Manager
City of Shakopee
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Mr, Eldon Reinke
Mayor
City of Shakopee
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Mr. Rod Krass
City Attorney
City of Shakopee
211 West 1st Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
RE: Access of Minnesota Body & Equipment Co. onto TH No. 101
Gentlemen:
please find enclosed a correandndthecposition ofof the ttheeeffected Howe,for
Inc. which confirms our positionof I
landowners that the construction ofittlron rage road`3to the
e rearbonefit
my client' s property would serve y request that you consider'affected parcels. We res ectfull r - I
this correspondence along with
w1�ir..hlon and we wi.ltobringther mbeforelthen
Myour consideration of our recd
Council on November 2 , 1982.
iYour; very truly,
1 BEST & FTLANAGA'1
Jr
- 1y
RoSI I,I . Meller, r•
'� Y �
1 RLM/srg
(f encl .
L cc: Robert Rost
Ip
•
CA
JAMES H. RUSSELL, P.A.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
202 THOtQPE E3U!LDWN(i p i 6
0085 KAYZATA POULEVARD /
GOI DEN VALLEY. MINNESOTA 5g426
TELEPHONE owUCC C .t.MsEci.
(612) 5.3 'off] October 12 , 1982 w ,arr-E+ .+CSM°
• LCC W
O/ COVNOEL
•
Mr . R . C . Rost
Minnesota Body & Equipment Co .
7380 Highway 101
Shakopee , MN 55379
Dear Mr . Rost :
You have brought to our attention the proposed construction of
the frontage road south of T . H . 101 in Shakopee in a relocated position
at the rear of your property .
Our recently platted property east of your land includes a dedication
to the public of a street to connect Cretex Avenue with an existing
entrance to T . H. 101 . We were unaware prior to this time that a con-
troversy existed as to the location of the frontage road .
We do not request , at this time , that the frontage road be built .
Cretex Avenue is dedicated and provides access to the platted Cretex
lots . It appears to us that the present constructicn of a frontage
road would serve little purpose and would not benefit the affected
parcels .
Very truly yours ,
42'1 ---tel/
/ ries H . Russell
`� Attorney for Howe , Inc .
J H R : b h
<, ~"" 1r., Mi1111s(.)lcl
;L.) y ,, lI a 1.)l'I);1r(C11C'l 11 Of "1'rZ11 I- )OrIZIOO11 •
v kr J f- ITh-;11.1(.1 t--) /I
'i>, , L./. 20::).) No. L1LL1(' I )1 1\'(% / // -"
l
��TOFsTF� ' Go1CdC it `'i11Ic , i\Ii1111(:S()1<1 :i54•22
(612) 545-371;1
•
October 26, 1982
Mr. Robert L. Meller, Jr i ' �� Oil• '3itii\_
Best & Flanagan ,}•F"
4040 IDS Center \% �' i,... h ` 1. l ,
Minneapolis, MN 55402 l,•
/�
Re: C.S . 7005 (T.H. 101)
Dear Mr. Meller:
We have reviewed your letter of concerns on the proposed front-
age road construction in the area of 7380 Highway 101 in
Shakopee.
This project is a City of Shakopee project. The State may par-
ticipate in the construction of this project if the State
benefits from the project. Benefits to the State would include
detachments of the frontage road at the points of access to
Highway 101, the closing of cross-overs and the closing of direct
access to the highway.
The City has a plan which is acceptable to the State . However,
if the City has other proposals to accomplish the same things,
we would be happy to review it . Any change in plans of this
project would have to come from the City, however. If you have
any ideas that would benefit your client and would accomplish
the requirements of the project, they should be submitted to the
City for their review, and if they find them acceptable, would
submit to the State fof review.
The State has no plans on this project. if you want a copy of
the City ' s plans, you should contact the City. A copy of this
letter will be sent to the City to keep them informed of your
concerns .
Sin eiely-1 j%/
. " j/ ,//
( i' 7 i
W. Z
Crawford , P.L. \
District Engineer
cc: 13. Spurrier, City of Shakopee
,1n J iji rl Upp,',irnriry l:uiplycr
77 /(2/ mac,
tIw RLI'.•, C 1 . . sT �(�
\A tin II l..I.\t'1 j'j `, i H'I LLIAM C KUHLMAN::
CH+RI.ES
S. BELLOWS
BEST 1• tr` 1• Ji11.+\t.1�.1t1
r C;F.URiSF. O. LL'DC3iE IIl
Jo,+ - R CARROI.L ;\TTOIt`I Yl : nT LAT+' .lrv.r.t LAIwr. 711
.iw.n • I) C)i.•:o• IIi. .Ir, n �•t ,t It. 11r-4 i.•..r
:\Rt 11111A1.1/ `•)'r�t't II •1(1.1“ I7)`• ('L` I i ii
(•,i,C(tHr I) tinct.,.
Run. ler • h••wuc ��(�':I:AI'I)!.l'-,INNI' .':'.t)I :,•..it):' ( ,uu•.:r..
.
I 1•n7 A1111 M Ai t.t.TnT. (.1,' ):,"-7l 't
IC 1r:t'w ti.
'tow 111I: HAliUT 11 l.wrt.)r
N \\A17! n (:BAIT
At.,rN 1) I(ARSAI/11
Rtt ,TAun :\ PEtI ,«uN
.11,t)..tA, P ('A1r1..n. •
(iEowi F.
I 1(A,.It VOW. - ,
M.\12I.t', \\,VAN !'t TT1 .,•iti
.IA',I - I 111.•.'r
n1 .1 1'u.+1 T r
i;. n r.uT I M. tt.rir,.1,:.
I) 1::.1.1.1: September 30 , 1982 I<i,,,r.,<t .r , I.A!:Ar:A,
Mr. John Anderson
City Manager
City of Shakopee
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 ••,::,re.
Mr. Eldon Reinke
Mayor
)
City of Shakopee 1"3?
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 CITY OteAK
HtirE
Mr. Rod Kras.s.
City Attorney
City of Shakopee
211 West 1st Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
RE: Access of Minnesota Body & Equipment Co. onto TH No. 101
Gentlemen :
Please be advised that this office represents Minnesota Body &
Equipment Co. , Inc. , which owns premises located at 7380 Highway
101, Shakopee, Minnesota. This is to formally request an oppor-
tunity to appear before the City Council to again request that it
reconsider its decision to build a frontage road behind the Minnesota
Body & Equipment premises as opposed to. the previously planned and
logical location for the frontage road in front of Minnesota Body &
Equipment.
Please find enclosed a copy of the PETITION executed by various
affected landowners objecting to the location of the frontage road
behind the Minnesota Body premises. This PETITION speaks for it-
self, and we ask that you carefully take it into consideration in
reassessing your position as these individuals are most affected
and it is our hope that their opinions will carry substantial weight.
Because I presume that you are all aware of the history surrounding
the proposed closing of the present easement onto T.H. No. 101 bene-
fitting Minnesota Body & Equipment, I will not discuss it here.
Suffice to say that it is our position that the removal of the ex-
isting access and substitution of the rear frontage road will have a
/11)
Mr. John Anderson
Mr. Eldon Reinke
Mr. Rod Krass
September 30 , 1982
Page Two
•
remarkable adverse affect on Minnesota Body. If after you have heard
and considered our presentation and reviewed this petition you are
still unwilling to either leave the Minnesota Body access as is, or
put the frontage road in front of the premises as was done for all
the other businesses on 101, you will leave us in the obviously un-
fortunate position of having no choice but to initiate an action
against the City of Shakopee, among others. To briefly outline a few
of the counts in this action, you should be advised that it is the Law
in the State of Minnesota that reasonable, convenient and suitable
access to a main thoroughfare from abutting property is a right which
cannot be denied without just compensation. Hendrickson v. State,
127 N. W. 2d 165 (Minn. 1965) . See also the more recent case of Johnson
v. City of Plymouth, 263 N.W. 2d 603 (Minn. 1974) wherein the Court
clearly stated that the power to regulate does not include the power
to take without compensation, and if there is to be a denial of a
right of access it must be the result of a compensated taking under
condemnation and not an uncompensated one under the guise of police
regulation. The present frontage road denies reasonable access to
Minnesota May & Equipment and will result in extremely substantial
damages.
We recognize that- such a trial would entail a jury question with
regard to reasonable access and that this would be a lengthy and ex-
tremely expensive proceeding. Please note, however, that under Minnesota
law and recent Federal cases under 42 U. S.C. §§1983 and §1988 , including
Maine v. Thiboutot, 48 Law Week 4859 , Entertainment Concepts , Inc. ,
III v. Maciejewski , 7th Cir. 9/23/80 , Boldt v. State, 297 N.W. 2d 29
(Wisc. 1980) , etc. , Minnesota Body would be awarded its reasonable
attorneys ' fees from the City if it were to prevail.
I wish to stress that absolutely the last thing that my client
desires is litigation with the City of Shakopee, and it is our sincere
hope that you will conscientiously consider alternatives and either
build the frontage road as originally planned in front of the Minnesota
Body & Equipment premises, or leave the present direct access onto
101 unaffected.
Thank you for your cooperation and please contact me with a date when
we may appear before the Council.
Yours very truly,
BES & NAGAN
R'.•ert L. eller, Jr.
RLM/srg
encl.
cc: Robert Rost
l ; v
MEMO TO : John K . Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: H. R. Spurrier
City Engineer
RE : Trunk Highway 101 Frontage Road -
County Road 89 to the West Line of Cretex Industrial Park 1st
Addition
DATE : October 29, 1982
Introduction :
School Bus Sales is adjacent to the above-referenced project. In order to
complete the project, the drive entrance of School Bus Sales would have to
be closed and a new entrance constructed on the frontage road south of the
facility.
I have contacted Earl Howe, Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
and have been advised that in order to close an access, the City would have
to initiate`.condemnation procedure to acquire the access.
The City must have the access appraised and determine what the value and
damages would be for closing the access. That price, pursuant to City
policy, would be offered to the property owner at the same time the City
proceeded with condemnation. A Board of Commissioners would finally establish
the value of the closing based on appraisals submitted by the property owner
and the City.
Mr. Howe was unable to estimate what the value of a closing such as this
might be. Staff has not had sufficient opportunity to research the value of
similar closings, therefore, staff would not be prepared to make any recommenda-
tions regarding the course of action to follow at this point.
Since a representative from School Bus Sales intends to be present, it is the
recommendation of City staff that Council hear the request from the property
owner and proceed from that point.
HRS/jvm
I/O771 0)
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Rod
FROM: Joel
DATE: October 13,• 1982
RE: Access of Minnesota Body and Equipment Company
Onto Highway 101
FACTS
In this action, Minnesota Body and Equipment Company is challenging
the City of Shakopee 's proposed location of a frontage road to Highway No. 101.
The proposed frontage road is set back a substantial distance, presumably to
accommodate access interests of land owners located further away from 101. Once
the road is completed, direct access easements to Highway No. 101 will be terminated
requiring businesses in front of Highway 101 to utilize the frontage road. Minnesota
[body is dissatisfied with this location because unlike other businesses in the area,
the new road passes behind Minnesota Body's business premises. Claiming that removal
of the existing access and substitution of a rear frontage road will have an adverse
affect, Minnesota Body is demanding either: (1) reconsideration of the frontage
road planned so that it passes in front of the premises or (2) continued allowance
of the present direct access easement to Highway 101.
APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
The right of access to a highway by an abutting land owner has been
extensively litigated by Minnesota Courts. Traditional principals of eminent
domain are reflected in Minn. Const. , Article 1, Section 13, requiring that
"private property shall not be taken, destroyed or damaged for public use without
just compensation therefore." Acting pursuant to this mandate, Minnesota Statute
160.08 requires compensation to be a purchase or condemnation for damaged property
rights resulting from either limited access or no access to controlled-access
highways. Recke vs. State, 215 NW2d 786, 787 (Minn. 1974). Further interpretation
of the rule requires that property owners are entitled to reasonably convenient and
suitable access to the main thoroughfare. Johnson Bros. Grocery vs. State, 229 NW2d
504, 505 (Minn. 1975) . Deprivation of this property right requires compensation. Id.
Unfortunately Minnesota Case Law interpreting the above principals may
favor the position asserted by Minnesota Body. The leading case on point (in fact,
the case referred to in the Memorandum sent to you by Mr. Meller) is Hendrickson vs .
State, 127 NW2d 165 (Minn. 1964) . In Hendrickson, the highway which the Plaintiff
abutted was converted into a frontage road after construction of a new highway. This
new road was contolled-access highway meaning that entrance to the highway was
possible only in limited locations. Therefore, Plaintiff was disallowed direct
access to the new highway instead of being required to enter the highway from the
frontage road. Although the frontage road access to the highway was reasonably
close, Plaintiff's new access was circuitous in comparison to the direct access he
previously enjoyed. Despite the fact that Plaintiff still had reasonable access to
the highway, the Court held that where in the construction of a controlled-access
highway, an owner of abutting property is denied reasonably convenient and suitable
access to the main traveled portion of the highway, compensable damage may be
sustained notwithstanding the availability of a frontage road from which the
property has circuitous access to the main thoroughfare. Thus, although closing
the land owner's existing direct access is well within the power of the municipality,
the des truction of a direct access constitutes damage to a property right requiring
compensation.
Following Hendrickson, numerous cases have arisen concerning compensable
damages where a land owners direct access to a highway has been eliminated. See
Johnson Bros . Grocejy vs. State Department of Highways , 229 NW2d 504 (Minn. 1975 ,
State vs . Prows Motel , Inc. , 171 NW2d 83(Minn. 1969) . in these cases , direct
access was eliminated requiring circuitous entrance to a hinhway by way of a
frontaoe road. The Hendrickson decision was applied and followed indicating its
present vitality.
City liability is nonexistent only in situations where governmental
action is more an exercise of its inherent police powers rather than a compensable
taking. City action is seen as an exercise of its police powerswhen the city is
attempting to legislatively impose reasonable restrictions and regulations upon
how an owner may utilize the property. The intention of these restrictions is
to promote the public's general welfare or secure property rights lawfully entitled
to other individuals. In contrast, "when the legislature attempts to forbid an
owner from making use of his property which is not harmful to the public and does
not interfere with others property rights" the action is a compensable taking rather
than an exercise of police power. State ex rel Lachtman vs. Houghton, 158 NW 1017,
1019 (Minn. 1916) , cited in Johnson vs. City of Plymouth, 263 NW2d 603, 606-07 (Minn.
1978) . _-
Unquestionably, Shakopee can argue that the proposed placement of the
frontage road is in the interest of the public's general welfare, making such
action an exercise of their inherent police powers. Two considerations, however,
weaken this argument. First, prior case law has somewhat defined whattypes of
highway regulations will be construed as a noncompensable exercise of police powers.
Included in this category are establishment of: (1) one-way streets, (2) median
strips limiting crossovers from one lane of traffic to another and (3) restrictions
on left and right-hand turns , etc. Hendrickson vs. State, 127 NW2d 165, 170 (Minn.
1964) . Considering the above case law, -T doubt that courts will view the construction
of a frontage road and a subsequent closing of direct access as within the scope of
this power. Second, courts are hesitant to deny compensation for damages even
where the action is defined as an exercise of police power. The Hendrickson Court
specifically noted that, "the prohibiting of limited of access to a highway may well
be an exercise of police power in the sense that it is designed to promote traffic
safety, but at the same time it may cause compensable injury to an abutting owner. "
Id. at. 170 . In Johnson, the Supreme Court affirmed the disposition stating that
''the operative question is not whether the City of Plymouth exercised its police
powers in a reasonable fashion, but rather if the City's admittedly legitimate police
power action unduly restricted vehicular access to the subject property and thereby
deprived Appellants of their right of reasonableaccess." Johnson vs. City of Plymouth,
263 NW2d 603, 607 (Minn. 1978) . Thus, police power or not, -injury to a property
right can result in compensation to the injured land owner.
lib
Although past case law is detrimental to Shakopee's Position, they can certainly
assert that the inconvenience suffered by Minnesota Body was not severe enought to
merit compensation through condemnation proceedings. As mentioned earlier, abutting
land owners are only entitled to reasonably convenient and suitable access to the
main thoroughfare. Johnson Bros. Grocery_ vs . State, 229 NW2d 504, 505 (Minn. 1975) .
What is reasonable ingress and egress is a fact question. When considering
reasonableness , the jury must ask whether or not the new access substantially impairs
the land owner's right to reasonably convenient and suitable access to the main
thoroughfare. Hendrickson vs. State, 127 NW2d at 173. Not all inconveniences
will support a claim for damages. Rather, a landlord must demonstrate the requisite
threshhold of aggrevation. State vs. Kohler, 128 NW2d 90 , 93 (Minn. 1974) . Imposition
of even a substantial inconvenience has not been considered tandamount to the denial
of the right to reasonable access. Johnson, 229 NW2d at 607.
Should Minnesota Body be entitled to compensation, the measure of
damages is the difference between the market value of the property before and
after suitable access has been denied. Hendrickson, 127 NW2d at 173. Damages may
not include, however, compensation for diversion of traffic, loss of customer's
business , goodwill , income, or profits. Id. These figures depend upon considerations
other than simply the location of the business .
In conclusion, Minnesota Body's direct access to Highway No. 101 is a
valuable asset. Closing this access is likely to be construed as a compensable
taking rather than an exercise of police powers. Although afforded highway access
by construction of a frontage road, requiring a former direct access land owner to
utilize a certain circuitous access has been held by the Minnesota Supreme Court
to be a compensable taking. This is not to argue that Shakopee cannot build a
frontage road as they so desire. Rather, if they proceed with this proposal , the
City should expect to compensate land owners abutting Highway No. 101 for future
inconveniences resulting from their loss of a direct access. Although monetary
damages are likely, they are not absolute. Instead, they pivot upon satisfaction of
a requisite threshhold of reasonableness which ultimately is a jury question.
/co
PETITION
A PETITION TO THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AND THE MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION OF A
FRONTAGE ROAD ALONG T.H. 101.
WHEREAS, the original plan for construction of the
frontage road along T.H. 101 provided for the road to be
located within the right of way on the south side of T.H.
101 from J. L. Sheely Company Road east to Peterson Seed.
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee in its original resolution
requesting state aid for construction of the frontage road
described said road using this description.
WHEREAS, on or about May 16, 1978, for reasons unknown
to the petitioners the plan for the proposed frontage road
was altered.
WHEREAS, the revised plan will place the frontage road
behind Minnesota Body Equipment and deny it access to T.H. 101.
WHEREAS, the proposed frontage road as it is now planned
benefits only Cretex, Inc. by building a road to service
unsold platted lots owned by Cretex with taxpayer funds..
WHEREAS, the proposed frontage road represents a unique
and wholly unnecessary departure from the existing frontage
road system along T.H. 101, which in all other instances runs
in the T.H. 101 right of way in front of affected property owners.
WHEREAS , the revised plan for the frontage road will
adversely affect the business and property value of Minnesota
Body & Equipment, as well as adversely affecting the signatories
hereto, and is not in the public interest except Cretex.
THEREFORE, the undersigned petitioners being all property
owners affected by the proposed service road, hereby request
414
the City of Shakopee and the Minnesota Department of Trans-
portation to take the following action:
1. That the service road he repositioned in front
of the Minnesota Body & Equipment property within the
easement of T.11: .101.
2. That if the service road cannot be so repositioned,
it not be built.
3. That since the proposed frontage road as it now
stands benefits only Cretex, Inc. , if and when they desire
to market the unsold platted lots owned by them, it should
be their responsibility to install a road to service those
lots.
2):;1145T- 14451'/4
‘7
1z.7 2, ,17--Ve, eiS,/,"7„,
,e61. Ne"t".(' {.,�`/. �v - +�/eat
/C.4' i ✓ 4,4-Ala.(' J( •', ( L/ .
Ffr ._1 414if-`t�.._._-_•r�l1 U f./�._ 2/c/ / "7/
•
\
ZIEGLER INC. n. M ",luuin,x
901 WEST 94th STREET Vie Pr'c idiot
D. INyEt\r'C IS, MINN. 551?1C}� ' • Admin & Svcret:;ry,
- ,�-
WA sto 13 ].c1,')s (IIAULI:S C. Ill:Ftorrsr
( uwUI.ES c Iir't.t.r)W$ 1; I.. :•.'i I F T..A N A(%r\ N WI I.LIAAM C. l\I:/I1.MANN
0(.11N 12.CANI(o1.1. 0i.,ur:E U. 1.1;1).-HE111
\TTO1(\I:YK AT LAW
.lAMI' D.Oz.SoV I`. •Ir,SEPII LAFAvr. Ill
AuUII',A1.1) SII:Nel:rI •IO 1(1 II)': (')."'I1:14 1'Arim K IS. 1II:NNEssv
I,.111)'Ill ?l SI.Alli _ I.In.r.r,HY I). S ul.Si
I:un1:12T 1..( u. �nY ��1�\1'A1' I.I , ��I?CNI;`•U'L� :.7. I(IL ( 11u/srIK1. I( tiuLSo
I.F.ONAI1I) ?1 A1)nl\c:roNI,I:c• :1:1O-71x1 , 1.1411( W. 1nLLE
RoI)I UT R.L1AI17I1w. • . I:111CA S.1....0.:E/Ft
N.V1.\LTEB (.RA FY - I' • . ' .
A I.I.EN P. ISA I(NAUU ' .
RIC IIA 1211 A I'ETFIISUN
THOMAS 1). CAH1.Sc, . 1, r or [.o1'SSY7.
F DANE VOII. - .' . . (.Y.ou1;E MALONEY
?%AI1INVF \\ VAN PUTTS N. Ill. I.I:(,\Aun W. SIMO.NE'S
.lA.str.s C. DJt1ACL1:Si -
.lA�u'.S A.NuuNIo 1..::IV 0: .1"i S. ° ,�.',,.1 ' ...JAMES I. Iil:sr
liuul:ur .1. I'I;ATTE + S.'ti ...' 6:.i,::
I OLII:ItT I..?IrI.I.E1.Jit.
H•llrr D 1.:I.I.I:,t October 14 , 1.982 1(1)nl:,(r .1. Fl.At:n(:nN
I,,'l l.1•.,.1
Mr. John Anderson
City .Manager
City of Shakopee
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Mr. Eldon Reinke
Mayor
City of Shakopee
,/129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Mr. Rod Krass
City Attorney
City of Shakopee
211 West 1st Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
RE: Access of Minnesota Body & Equipment Co. onto TH No. 101
Gentlemen:
Please find enclosed a correspondence of the attorney for Howe,
Inc. which confirms our position and the position of the effected
landowners that the construction of a frontage road to the rear of
my client' s property would serve little purpose and would not benefit
the affected parcels. We respectfully request that you consider
this correspondence along with the Petition and other materials in
your consideration of our requests which we will bring before the
Council on November 2 , 1982.
Yours very truly,
BEST-4 FLANAGAN
• ,r ' �j 1'
r
ROdlit
rt L:, Mellex, r.
RLM/srg
encl.
cc : Robert Rost
4 A: Vit,;
ti
JAMES H. RUSSELL, P.A.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
202 THORPE BUILDING
0005 K'AY ZA'A BOULEVARD
GOLDEN VALLEY MINNESOTA 55426
094CC C 9_�i GLI
TE.EnONE
(C12) 5.4n 5653 October 12 , 1982 ./Cr,..t .w CLEOD
LEE W
Or COUNSEL
•
Mr . R. C . Rost
Minnesota Body & Equipment Co .
7380 Highway 101
:;h4( hopcc , MN 55379
Dear Mr . Rust :
You have brought to our attention the proposed construction of
the frontage road south of T . H . 101 in Shakopee in a relocated position
at the rear of your property .
Our recently platted property east of your land includes a dedication
to the public of a street to connect Cretex Avenue with an existing
entrance to T . H . 101 . We were unaware prior to this time that a con-
troversy existed as to the location of the frontage road .
We do not request , at this time , that the frontage road be built .
Cretex Avenue is dedicated and provides access to the platted Cretex
lots . It appears to us that the present construction of a frontage
road would serve little purpose and would not benefit the affected
parcels .
Very truly yours ,
e /7
„ey 7.-E-',///7/{
( r.(es H . Russell
Attorney for Howe , Inc .
JHR : bh
•
f i
MEMO TO : John K . Anderson
City Administrator
FROM : H. R . Spurrier
City Engineer
RE: Trunk Highway 101 Frontage Road -
County Road 89 to the West Line of Cretex Industrial Park 1st
Addition
DATE : October 29, 1982
Introduction :
School Bus Sales is adjacent to the above-referenced project. In order to
complete the project, the drive entrance of School Bus Sales would have to
be closed and a new entrance constructed on the frontage road south of the
facility.
I have contacted Earl Howe, Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
and have been advised that in order to close an access, the City would have
to initiate•condemnation procedure to acquire the access.
The City must have the access appraised and determine what the value and
damages would be for closing the access. That price, pursuant to City
policy, would be offered to the property owner at the same time the City
proceeded with condemnation. A Board of Commissioners would finally establish
the value of the closing based on appraisals submitted by the property owner
and the. City.
Mr. Howe was unable to estimate what the value of a closing such as this
might be. Staff has not had sufficient opportunity to research the value of
similar closings, therefore, staff would not be prepared to make any recommenda-
tions regarding the course of action to follow at this point.
Since a representative from School Bus Sales intends to be present, it is the
recommendation of City staff that Council hear the request from the property
owner and proceed from that point.
HRS/jvm
044
o
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Rod
FROM: Joel
DATE: October 13, •1982
RE: Access of Minnesota Body and Equipment Company
Onto Highway 101
FACTS
In this action, Minnesota Body and Equipment Company is challenging
the City of Shakopee's proposed location of a frontage road to Highway No. 101.
The proposed frontage road is set back a substantial distance, presumably to
accommodate access interests of land owners located further away from 101. Once
the road is completed, direct access easements to Highway No. 101 will be terminated
requiring businesses in front of Highway 101 to utilize the frontage road. Minnesota
Body is dissatisfied with this location because unlike other businesses in the area,
the new road passes behind Minnesota Body's business premises. Claiming that removal
of the existing access and substitution of a rear frontage road will have an adverse
affect, Minnesota Body is demanding either: (1) reconsideration of the frontage
road planne-d so that it passes in front of the premises or (2) continued allowance
of the present direct access easement to Highway 101.
APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
The right of access to a highway by an abutting land owner has been
extensively litigated by Minnesota Courts. Traditional principals of eminent
domain are reflected in Minn. Const. , Article 1, Section 13, requiring that
"private property shall not be taken, destroyed or damaged for public use without
just compensation therefore." Acting pursuant to this mandate, Minnesota Statute
160.08 requires compensation to be a purchase or condemnation for damaged property
rights resulting from either limited access or no access to controlled-access
highways. Recke vs. State, 215 NW2d 786, 787 (Minn. 1974) . Further interpretation
of the rule requires that property owners are entitled to reasonably convenient and
suitable access to the main thoroughfare. Johnson Bros. Grocery vs. State, 229 NW2d
504, 505 (Minn. 1975) . Deprivation of this property right requires compensation. Id.
Unfortunately Minnesota Case Law interpreting the above principals may
favor the position asserted by Minnesota Body. The leading case on point (in fact,
the case referred to in the Memorandum sent to you by Mr. Meller) is Hendrickson vs.
State, 127 NW2d 165 (Minn. 1964) . In Hendrickson, the highway which the T Tintiff
abutted was converted into a frontage road after construction of a new highway. This
new road was contolled-access highway meaning that entrance to the highway was
possible only in limited locations. Therefore, Plaintiff was disallowed direct
access to the new highway instead of being required to enter the highway from the
frontage road. Although the frontage road access to the highway was reasonably
close, Plaintiff's new access was circuitous in comparison to the direct access he
previously enjoyed. Despite the fact that Plaintiff still had reasonable access to
the highway, the Court held that where in the construction of a controlled-access
highway, an owner of abutting property is denied reasonably convenient and suitable
ell D
access to the main traveled portion of the highway, compensable damage may be
sustained notwithstanding the availability of a frontage road from which the
property has circuitous access to the main thoroughfare. Thus, although closing
the land owner's existing direct access is well within the power of the municipality,
the des truction of a direct access constitutes damage to a property right requiring
compensation.
•
Following Hendrickson, numerous cases have arisen concerning compensable
damages where a land owner direct access to a highway has been eliminated. See
Johnson Bros . Grocery vs . State Department of Highwa s , 229 NW2d 504 (Minn. 1975 ,
------------- ---- ---- ------ --
State vs . Prows Motel , Inc. , 171 NW2d 83 (Minn. 1969 . In these cases , direct
access was eliminated requiring circuitous entrance to a highway by way of a
frontage road. The Hendrickson decision was applied and followed indicating its
present vitality. — -
City liability is nonexistent only in situations where governmental
action is more an exercise of its inherent police powers rather than a compensable
taking. City action is seen as an exercise of its police powers when the city is
attempting to legislatively impose reasonable restrictions and regulations upon
how an owner may utilize the property. The intention of these restrictions is
to promote the public's general welfare or secure property rights lawfully entitled
to other individuals. In contrast, "when the legislature attempts to forbid an
owner from making use of his property which is not harmful to the public and does
not interfere with others property rights" the action is a compensable taking rather
than an exercise of police power. State ex rel Lachtman vs. Houghton, 158 NW 1017,
1019 (Minn. 1916) , cited in Johnson vs. City of Plymouth, 263 NW2d 603, 606-07 (Minn.
1978) .
Unquestionably, Shakopee can argue that the proposed placement of the
frontage road is in the interest of the public's general welfare, making such
action an exercise of their inherent police powers. Two considerations, however,
weaken this argument. First, prior case law has somewhat defined whattypes of
highway regulations will be construed as a noncompensable exercise of police powers.
Included in this category are establishment of: (1) one-way streets , (2) median
strips limiting crossovers from one lane of traffic to another and (3) restrictions
on left and right-hand turns , etc. Hendrickson vs. State, 127 NW2d 165, 170 (Minn.
1964) . Considering the above case law, 1 doubt That courts will view the construction
of a frontage road and a subsequent closing of direct access as within the scope of
this power. Second, courts are hesitant to deny compensation for damages even
where the action is defined as an exercise of police power. The Hendrickson Court
specifically noted that, "the prohibiting of limited of access to a -Mghway may well
be an exercise of police power in the sense that it is designed to promote traffic
safety, but at the same time it may cause compensable injury to an abutting owner. "
Id. at 170. In Johnson, the Supreme Court affirmed the disposition stating that
'fhe operative question is not whether the City of Plymouth exercised its police
powers in a reasonable fashion,but rather if the City's admittedly legitimate police
power action unduly restricted vehicular access to the subject property and thereby
deprived Appellants of their right of reasonableaccess." Johnson vs. City of Plymouth,
263 NW2d 603, 607 (Minn. 1978) . Thus, police power or not, Tinj ry to a property
right can result in compensation to the injured land owner.
//v
Although past case law is detrimental to Shakopee's position, they can certainly
assert that the inconvenience suffered by Minnesota Body was not severe enought to
merit compensation through condemnation proceedings. As mentioned earlier, abutting
land owners are only entitled to reasonably convenient and suitable access to the
main thoroughfare. Johnson Bros. Grocery vs . State, 229 NW2d 504, 505 (Minn. 1975).
What is reasonable ingress and egress is a fact question. When considering
reasonableness , the jury must ask whether or not the new access substantially impairs
the land owner's right to reasonably convenient and suitable access to the main
thoroughfare. Hendrickson vs. State, 127 NW2d at 173. Not all inconveniences
will support a claim for damages_ Rather, a landlord must demonstrate the requisite
threshhold of aggrevation. State vs. Kohler,_ 128 NW2d 90, 93 (Minn. 1974) . Imposition
nienc
of even a substantial inconvenience has not been considered tandamount to the denial
of the right to reasonable access . Johnson, 229 NW2d at 607.
Should Minnesota Body be entitled to compensation , the measure of
daniages is the difference between the market value of the property before and
after suitable access has been denied. Hendrickson, 127 NW2d at 173. Damages may
not include, however, compensation for diversion of traffic, loss of customer's
business , goodwill , income, or profits. Id. These figures depend upon considerations
other than simply the location of the business .
In conclusion, Minnesota Body's direct access to Highway No. 101 is a
valuable asset. Closing this access is likely to be construed as a compensable
taking rather than an exercise of police powers. Although afforded highway access
by construction of a frontage road, requiring a former direct access land owner to
utilize a certain circuitous access has been held by the Minnesota Supreme Court
to be a compensable taking. This is not to argue that Shakopee cannot build a
frontage road as they so desire. Rather, if they proceed with this proposal , the
City should expect to compensate land owners abutting Highway No. 101 for future
in- conveniences resulting from their loss of a direct access. Although monetary
damages are likely, they are not absolute. Instead, they pivot upon satisfaction of
a requisite threshhold of reasonableness which ultimately is a jury question.
?' 1b
b:AHI) Li LE\r1SCHARLES C. I3EROtIST
( rIAH:.r.s S. T31.LLo.ry 13.1 s L� E I.A N A C,.\\ WII.LIA?I C hi:HLMA\N
k)IIs R C-+R1:01.1. ( i:oH.:: O. Li'UCxE HI
JA,IItD D. c)LsoS :�Z'Tr)IL\:;'S'ti AT I..AA1'
T;..fosr;nH i-AFA\L SII
_-11tC1IIIIALD SPENCER 7(1.10 II)S ( EN1'1-17 PATItICH B. 11ENNESSY
R<)nrizT �1 LEAH/. (•Hist:onv L SOCLE
RoH9IP1 1. C RO,HY -\11NNIIA1.01.1S. .\\1NX7:}•c11A ',.-, 1(), ('IrHrsTTNr: 3i.SOLso
..7-C)\..IR) Vit.ADDINGTON ERIK \ .InELF.
,.._ :S:1'._77-1
ROBERT R.F3AHTII ERICA S.LAUER
c.\'„,I.r1-.R 6HAI'r
ALI EN TI. 13A H-AIII,
RICHARD A Pr:Tr.I1?t)\
I:IH.I,\r: 1) ('AI:L „N
nr r,.• •:•.el.
THaN:: \'0C:1
(•r.C,IIC:E y1ALONEY
.•:AHI>:r)- AA- VAN PI'T"r::N.,,I;
I.hosnlu) 1`: tifnlovl:r
.1,,y.: : C. IJntn('L1.:
I-N ,\ IL,.:'.Ir. %JAMES I HEST
,.n. 11 .1 I'II A :I.
..,r.+::.,.. !. ,1..: 1.
September 2 , 1982 ,(,,:IRItI .1 11A.`:AC.A:<
-i f
Mr. John Anderson '',.', .1�FJ.- A? /�'\
Mr. Bo Spurrier ,'• /),,, '',1 \\
City of Shakopee `j� ,11,C• .. -`
291 East 1st Avenue --! rv,,cp •i
Shakopee, Minnesota 553799..)
RE: Minnesota Body & Equipment Co. !j
Gentlemen: �'.,., `'
As we have discussed on the telephone, this office is repre-
senting Minnesota Body & Equipment Co. with regard to the proposed
blockage of their access onto 101. I am meeting with Bob Rost of
Minnesota Body and Equipment at this office at 9 : 00 September 8 to
get background material. After that meeting, we will come to the
City offices to review the relevant files relating to the proposed
alignment of the new frontage road. We would also like to review
the files relating to Cretax and Elk River.
I would appreciate it if you would also segregate out any other
relevant files , and the minutes of the involved governmental bodies
such as planning commissions and city councils.
I am enclosing a copy of this letter to your City Attorney, Rod
Krass, so that he may be present at the time we review the documents
should he so desire. Also, I anticipate that if either of you are
present and wish to discuss this matter with me, I will feel free
to enter into open dialogue. I think we all realize that this matter
is , however, highly likely to end up in litigation, and if your
attorney has any objections to my discussing this matter with you,
I would be agreeable to obstaining from any such conversations.
I thank you in advance for your cooperation and look forward to
reviewing the documents.
Yours very truly,
BANAGAN /
ES F_
r ,,,„ 2
R••ert L. Meller , Jr.
RLM/srg
cc: Rod Krass
Bob Rost
0,4
944L,
/10
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson
City Administrator
RE: Trunk Highway. 101 Proposed Service Drive
DATE: January lir, 1982
Introduction
City Council, at its December 15, 1981 public hearing, heard from a Cretex
Representative stating that they were in favor of the proposed road alignment,
and a representative of School Bus Sales stating their concern about loss
of business, due to the proposed alignment. Council directed staff to
meet with W. M. Crawford, District Engineer, to see if there was any way that
School Bus Sales' driveway onto Trunk Highway 101 could be conditionally
retained after the new road was constructed.
Meeting
City staff met with Mr. Crawford after he had personally viewed the site.
While he said he could understand the request, there was no way that it could
be retained even if special conditions were established. Mr. Crawford's
attached-letter dated January 7, 1982 is provided as written confirmation
of Mn/DOT's position.
Purpose of the Project
The proposed Service Road was considered by Mn/DOT, after receiving a request
from the City of Shakopee, because it did constitute a priority safety improve'
ment. Thus, the project apparently had merit when first considered by the
City, and still has merit to Mn/DOT when all the safety improvements are
included. Without accomplishing all of the safety goals, the project looses
its priority with Mn/DOT and Mn/DOT will move the funding to the next project
on their priority list.
Looking at the broader view, Mn/DOT's participation represents more than
improved access and safety for those vehicles using the service drive, it
represents improved safety for all vehicles using Trunk Highway 101. Our
discussions have been more narrowly focused on the access to the service
road while Mn/DOT is looking at the safety of the TH 101 travelers.
•
Decision Questions for the City
The funding provided by Mn/DOT makes this project feasible. Without the funding ,
the project probably could not be built. If the City passes up the funding
at this time, will we be looking for alternatives in the future to build
Mayor and City Cour = 1 January 14, 1982
T.H. 101 Service De
Page• -2-
that portion of the road that serves Cretex or any other business proposed
to be served? Will the project, with a cost to the adjacent properties of
$3:68/F.F. be a long term benefit to the City? What, effect does the proposed
assessments, payable late this Fall or over 10 years, have in the present
economic climate? What level of commitment has already been made to the present
road alignment (eg. service to buildable lots, utility right-of-way, etc. )?
Is the proposed project a real detriment to any of the existing properties or
a hardship?
Summary
Staff believes that the answers to the above question;, on balance, argue
for approval oi' the project.
Action Requested
Offer Resolution No. 1970, A Resolution Approving Project And Ordering
The Preparation Of Plans and Specifications Trunk Iii ghway 101 Frontage Road County
Road 89 To The West Line Of Cretex Industrial. Park 1st Addition Public
Improvement Program No. 82-1 .
JKA/jiw
•
Attachment
•
•
. . I
� 1
bo y do MinneSola I!
l)cpot met i1 (>f "1'ransp(orlatiOl� JAN 1 1 1982
-+ f r '- District 5Lilac�• axa•' .?.:y:. o 2055 No. Lih n' l Drive r
�rTop TRF�'s Golden Valley, Minnesota i 422 �P p� �NAK�JP�E
(612i :145-3761
•
January 7 , 1982
Mr . John K. Anderson
City Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
RE: C.S . 7005 (T.H. 101 )
Proposed Service Drive in Shakopee
Dear Mr . Anderson:
As we discussed in our meeting at Shakopee yesterday afternoon
and in response to your December 18th letter , the Department
of Transportation would not be able to participate in the
cost -of the frontage road construction as you have outlined.
Our policy in participating in frontage road construction is
aimed at safety improvement for the trunk highway system.
Leaving an entrance inplace for school bus sales is in con-
flict with our policy. With state funds in such short supply,
I cannot in good conscience recommend our participating in this
project when there are so many more pressing needs for our
safety improvement dollar .
As I indicated to you yesterday, I would be willing to explain
our situation to the City Council if they feel that is necessary.
Sincgrely
)
W. N. Craweord, `P.E.
District Engineer
•
An Equal Opportunity Employer
(:n
•
RESOLUTION NO. 1970
A Resolution Ordering An Improvement
And The Preparation Of Plans And Specifications
for
Improvement Of Trunk Highway 101 Frontage Road
County Road 89 To The West Line Of Cretex Industrial Park 1st Addition
Improvement No. 82- 1
WHEREAS, a resolution of City Council adopted November Li, 1981 fixed
a date for a Council hearing on the proposed improvement of Trunk Highway 101
Frontage Road, County Road 89 to the West line of Cretex Industrial Park 1st
Addition, by roadway ; and
WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the hearing through two weekly
publications of the required notice was given and the hearing was held thereon
on December 15, 1981, at 8: 30 P.M. , at which all persons desiring to be heard
were given an opportunity to be heard thereon;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA :
1. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the report
received by Resolution No. 1932, adopted by City Council November Li, 1981.
2. Henry R. Spurrier, City Engineer for the City of Shakopee, Minnesota
is hereby designated as the engineer for the improvement. He shall prepare
Plans and Specifications for the making of such improvement.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of
Shakopee, held this day of ---- _ 1982.
Mayor of the City
ATTEST :
City Clerk
,r--:, if() 410A
ski aw.
CITY ® F SHAKEE 33)0. ��__`
INCORPORATED 1870 I ICalligMannIMUSIMIESCEMEMUNNOMMEMEINVIIIMMI ii
�v
129 E. First Ave. - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 �4 4. �� l
• March 3, 1982 .r 't,
r,t
Mr. C . E. Weichselbaum
District State Aid Engineer
Minnesota Department of Transportation
2055 North Lilac Drive
Golden Valley, MN 55422
RE : Trunk Highway 101 Frontage Road
West Line of Cretex Industrial Park 1st Addition to County Road 89
Dear Chuck :
Attached for review are two sets of the construction plans for the above-
referenced project.
I can schedule a review session with the consultant should you have
any questions regarding these plans.
Since I am unfamiliar with the procedure used by Mn/DOT for these
projects, you can expect a number of questions from me as we proceed.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
``
H. R. Spu ier
City Engineer
HRS/jiw
Enclosures
T 11 i I/ i ci r 1 ci 1 !' r ci t l r i 1' a / / i i/
An Equal Opportunity Employer
11 fp
MEMORANDA
TO John K. Anderson
City Administrator
___
FROM : H. R. Spurrier
i/ l
City Engineer - ------- --- -
SUBJECT: Drainage on Abandoned a ago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific
Railroad Right-Of-Way North of JEJ Addition
DATE April 4, 1983
Introduction
On October 9, 1981 City Council directed staff to prepare Plans and Specifications
for an underground storm sewer connecting the existing storm sewer outlets
in JEJ to points northerly of the former Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul , and
Pacific Railroad right-of-way. Staff was also directed to obtain necessary
easement descriptions for a storm sewer outlet across the Gilbertson parcel
so long as acquisition of that easement was made without any additional cost
to the City.
Background
During the past 17 months, City staff has talked to Mr. Gilbertson on several
occasions for the purpose of acquiring the right-of-way for the storm sewer
extension shown on the attached drawing.
Mr. Gilbertson, right-of-way agent for the telephone company, is aware of long-
term impacts in granting an easement and has been reluctant to dedicate the
easement because of the long-term impact of such dedication.
In the most recent conversation with Mr. Gilbertson, he suggested that the
City purchase easement rights and agree to extend the pipe to the northerly
boundary of his property once storm sewer was brought to County Road 16.
Future construction was requested because Mr. Gilbertson sought to eliminate
an open channel bisecting his property.
While I understand Mr. Gilbertson' s concern about dedicating an easement and
his concern about surface water run-off from JEJ, the proposed project does not
increase the existing run-off from JEJ and the former Milwaukee Railroad right-
of-way. The proposed project makes significant improvement to downstream
property because it includes a French drain, which will intercept most of the
ground water which now saturates embankment behind Mr. Gilbertson's house. The
project includes pipe that will carry this water and any additional run-off past
his dwelling.
j
John K. Anderson April 4, 1983
Drainage . . JEJ Addition Page -2-
The City could use its powers of Eminent Domain and acquire the pipe easement.
A cost of that acquisition is listed below:
Condemnation Cost
Survey $ 900
Attorney Fees 500
City' s Appraisal 1,000
Owner's Appraisal 800
Court Costs 500
Easement 2,000
Total Condemnation Costs $5,700
Condemning the right-of-way for the pipe, does not release the City from its
agreement to maintain a ditch along the railroad right-of-way, therefore, the
proposed construction would be useless in terms of releasing the City from a
long-term maintenance responsibility.
This is a case where a negotiated resolution of the problem would be the most
cost-effective for the City.
This negotiated settlement must be cost-effective compared to the maintenance
alternative -which has a much lower first cost and total cost but was not selected
because it was labor intensive.
Mr. Gilbertson was not advised that the City could abandon plans to pipe any of
the surface water along the railroad right-of-way because City policy does not
permit negotiated settlements of right-of-way acquisition.
There remain two alternatives from the original study, a copy of which is attached,
and the City should again select one of the alternatives. The recommendation is
modified to reflect recent developments.
It is my belief that the City' s best offer is to accept the dedication of a
underground drainage easement from Mr. Gilbertson with the stipulation that surface
discharge would be permitted until storm sewer facilities are brought to the
north side of County Road 16 and the east line of the Northwest Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 115, Range 22 and that Mr. Gilbertson
release the City from the agreement dated 27 May 1975 and in consideration of that
dedication and that release, the City would install the French drain specified
in the attached original report.
The offer specified above, would represent an additional cost of $3,150.00,
including the present $1,032.00 difference noted in the original report (see
attached) . The difference between Alternate 2 and Alternate 1 is then $4,182.00.
Any additional cost over and above the future $3,150.00 becomes difficult to
justify because it increases the difference between the original alternatives,
making the piped alternative, Alternative 2, less and less attractive.
/I
John K. Anderson April 4, 1983
Drainage . . . JEJ Addition Page -3-
Recommendation
It is my recommendation that staff be authorized to negotiate for the drainage
easement across the Gilbertson parcel and that the total consideration paid, or
otherwise made in consideration of the dedication, not exceed $3,150.00.
Action Requested
1. Direct City staff to prepare Plans and Specifications for an underground
storm sewer connecting the existing storm sewer outlets in JEJ Addition
to points northerly of the former Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific
Railroad right-of-way.
2. Authorize City staff to negotiate for the acquisition of a drainage easement
from the north line of JEJ Addition to County Road 16 and for the release
of an agreement between the City of Shakopee and the Chicago, Milwuakee,
St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company, dated May 27, 1975 and that in
consideration of this dedication and release, staff is authorized to offer
an amount not to exceed $3,150.00 in cash or future considerations.
HRS/jvm
Attachment
MEMO TO: John Anderson
City Administrator
H. R. Spurrier
City Engineer
RE: Drainage on Abandoned Chicag , Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad
Right-of-Way North of JEJ ddition and Scenic Heights Additions
DATE: October 9, 1981
Introduction:
On July 21, 1981 in a public meeting with property owners in Scenic Heights
and JEJ Addition, City Council directed City staff to prepare a preliminary
report on the permanent repairs which should be made and included in the
Capital Improvement Program.
Background:
The City is dealing with an old and recurring problem; $14,708.43 was spent
in 1976 to clean and improve the drainage along the Milwaukee right-of-way.
The City of Shakopee had performed that work pursuant to an agreement dated
May 27, 1975 between the City of Shakopee and the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul
& Pacific Railroad Company.
it was necessary for the City to enter into the agreement in order to facilitate
the development of JEJ Addition. Run-off developed in JEJ Addition had to
be discharged onto the railroad right-of-way at two points; one between
Lots7 & 8 in Block 5 and the second between Lots 13 & 14 in Block 5.
There were three alternatives analyzed in correcting this problem. Alternate
No. 1 is a maintenance alternative, whereby the City would continue to clean-
out and maintain the railroad right-of-way which includes major grading every
five years.
Alternate No. 2 provides an underground storm sewer and obliterates the present
channels so that the only run-off in the railroad right-of-way would be that
run-off in the storm sewer pipe. This alternative would be proposed only if
property owners agreed to release the City from the May 27, 1975 agreement.
In order to construct Alternate No. 2, it will be necessary to acquire easement
for the storm sewer across the Gilbertson parcel. Mr. Gilbertson has indicated
a willingness to dedicate this right-of-way provided the outfall was piped to
the point noted on the attached drawing. Should this dedication be made at no
cost, it is recommended that the pipe be installed. In the event that such
dedication is not made, it would be necessary to revert to Alternate No. 1.
John Anderson October 9, 1981
Abandoned Railroad Page -2-
Alternate No. 3, is to do nothing.
Cost estimates for the work detailed herein are contained in the Appendix,
together with schematics indicating the scope of the work proposed.
On the face of it, it appears Alternate No. 1 would be most effective because
it has the least cost now. Comparing Alternate No. 1 and No. 2 over 50 years,
the difference is reduced to only $1,032.42.
The risk taken in constructing Alternate No. 1 is that eventually the City
could be faced with building Alternate No. 2 and aiJ of the money spent on
Alternate No. 1 would be wasted.
The result of Alternate No. 2 is very clear. The most significant result is
that the City would be released from a very cumbersome agreement. There is a
possibility that the City would not receive waivers from all of the property
owners holding former railroad right-of-way. In that case, the only choice
would be between Alternate No. L and Alternate No. 3. No cost data was
prepared for Alternate No. 3 because it is presumed that the "do nothing"
alternative would result in litigation so no attempt was made to estimate those
costs.
Funding Alternatives:
Alternates No. 1 - Maintenance Alternative
A. Fund $13,584.00 from the General Fund Contingency Fund.
B. Fund $13,584.00 from Permanent Improvement Revolving (PIR) Fund.
Alternate No. 2 - Permanent Repairs
A. Create a Special Improvement District and assess the cost
of $39,485.00 to JEJ Addition at the rate of approximately
$745.15 per lot.
B. Fund $33,644.00 from PIR Fund.
Funding Alternative A for Alternate No. 1, is not recommended because that
amount would significantly deplete the General Fund Contingency Fund.
Funding Alternative B for Alternate No. 1, is recommended-because there are
presently budgeted funds in the PIR Fund to pay for work necessary to
correct problems along the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad
right-of-way.
Funding Alternative A for Alternate No. 2, is not feasible because property
value will not increase $745.00. According to Leroy Houser, Certified
Appraisor, it is most probable that there will be no increase in property
value whatsoever.
Funding Alternative B for Alternate No. 2, is recommended because $33,644.00
has been budgeted for 1982 in the FIR Fund.
John Anderson October 9, 1981 ( (1
Abandoned Railroad Page -3-
Recommendation:
The most certain course, and the recommended course of action to take, is to
approve Alternate No. 2, the installation of underground -facilities provided
the City of Shakopee receives release from the successors or assigns of the
former Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company property
adjacent to JEJ Addition and affected by the proposed project.
Action Requested:
It is the recommendation of City Staff that:
1. City Staff be directed to prepare Plans and Specifications
for n11 Il14'r'j;l'111UItl i L 1'111 i 'Wt'I' t'ttrlrlt't't i M the existing Storm
Sewer Outlets in JEJ Addition to po i rets northerly or the
former Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad right-
of-way.
2. Staff be directed to obtain conditional releases from the
agreement between the City of Shakopee and the Chicago, Milwaukee,
St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company dated May 27, 1975 on a
form approved by the City Attorney, which form will condition
the release on the construction of improvements specified in
No. 1 above.
3. City Staff be directed to obtain the necessary easement
descriptions for the Storm Sewer Outlet across the Gilbertson
parcel and proceed with the acquisition of the easement, so
long as the acquisition is dedicated without any cost to the
City.
HRS/i iw
Attachment: Cost Estimate
-
'IP
COST ESTIMATES
Alternate 1
item Description quail Lill, Unit Price Total
1 18" RCP 66 1,.E. $ 22.65 $ 1,517.55
2 Common Excavat-ioii 5000 C.Y. 1..25 6,250.00
3 Seed & Mulch 13,500 S.Y. 0.22 2,970.00
Subtotal $10,737.55
10 Percent Construction Continency 1,073.75
Subtotal $11,811.30
Technical Service 1.,772.70
TOTAL $13,584.00
Present worth of 50 years of Alternate 1 maintenance - $32,611.58
Alternate 2 - Not Assessed
Item Description Quantity Unit Price Total
a. 18" RCP 660 L.F. $ 22.65 $14,949.00
2 Manholes 3 Ea. 850.00 2,550.00
3 Frelrch Drain 100 L.F. 34.00 3,400.00
4 Common Excavation 2400 C.Y. 1.25 3,000.00
5 Sod 1000 S.Y. 1.50 1,500.00
6 Seed & Mulch 9300 S.Y. 0.22 2,046.00
Subtotal $27,445.00
10 Percent Construction Contingency 2,744.00
Subtotal $30,189.00
Technical Services 3,455.00
TOTAL $33,644.00
Alternate 2 - Assessed
Construction Subtotal $30,189.00
Technical Services 3,455.00
improvement District Cost 5,841.00
TOTAL $39,485.00
Assessment:
Total Assessable Cost = $39,485.00 = $745,00/Lot
Total Number of Lots 53 lots
is
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: Don Steger
City Planner
RE: Amendment to Zoning Ordinance
Building Standards
DATE: March 29, 1983
Introduction
The attached amendment to the Zoning Ordinance sets forth standards for all
new detached single family residences.
Background
At the March 15, 1983 meeting, the City Council requested the City Attorney
to prepare an ordinance which would establish building standards for new,
detached homes. This amendment to the ordinance was suggested as a response
to the 1982 State Legislation regarding manufactured housing.
After consultation with City staff and with other communities, it was felt
that it may be preferable to require a 24 foot minimum width for at least
80 percent of the length of the dwelling. This requirements should prevent
circumventing the regulations, while not burdening builders.
Alternatives
1. Adopt the ordinance.
2. Adopt the ordinance with changes.
3. Do not adopt the ordinance.
Action Requested
Motion to adopt Ordinance No. 116.
DS/jvm
Attachment
ORDINANCE NO. LA; ( '
Fourth Series
An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Shakopee City
Code, Chapter 11 entitled "Land Use Regulations (zoning)" by Repealing
Subdivision 8 of Section 11.03 and by Adopting a New Subdivision 8 of
Section 11.03 as Herein Setout and Adopting by Reference Shakopee City
Code, Chapter 1 and Section 11.99
The City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota ordains:
SECTION I: Repeal__
Subsection 8 of Section 11.03 of the Shakopee City Code is hereby repealed.
SECTION II: Shakopee City Code, Section 11.03 is hereby amended by adding the
following new Subsection 8.
Subd. 8 Building Standards for Dwellings
A. All newly created dwellings, other than one family detached dwellings,
shall contain not less than 400 square feet of usable floor area for each dwelling
not having a separate bedroom, 720 square feet for each two bedroom dwelling and
an additional- 120 square feet for each bedroom above two bedrooms.
B. All new single family detached residences shall be a minimum of 24 feet
wide for at least 80 percent of their length and shall be placed on a permanent
foundation.
SECTION III: General provisions and definitions applicable to the entire City Code
including the penalty provisions of Chapter 1 and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation
a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated
verbatim herein.
SECTION IV: When in force and effect
After the adoption, signing and attestation of this Ordinance it shall be
published once in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee and shall be in
full force and effect on and after the date following such publication.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee,
Minnesota, held this day of , 1983.
ATTEST: Mayor of the City of Shakopee
City Clerk
MEMORANDA
TO : John K. Anderson
City Administrator
FROM : H. R. Spurrier 1 y .=-
City Engineer
SUBJECT: VIP Sanitary Sewer Intercepter
1981-1 Public Improvement Program
DATE : March 29, 1983
Introduction
Attached is Resolution No. 2129, the Certificate of Completion, a memoranda
from Ray Ruuska and a Semi-Final Partial Estimate Voucher.
Background
After a short delay, the City has received the last lien waiver from sub-
contractors on the above-referenced project.
The attached memoranda from Ray Ruuska details the quantity changes to the
contract.
Note that for the most part, quantities were at, or below, the contract amount.
In accordance with the contract, I have attached the Certificate of Completion
and Resolution No. 2129, accepting the work on the project.
Note that there is no retainage to pay because this contractor has deposited
funds in a local bank in the name of the City and the contractor, so that the
contractor can earn interest on the retainage. Therefore, Council should also
release the funds deposited in that bank.
Action Requested
Adopt Resolution No. 2129, A Resolution Accepting Work on the 1981-1 Public
Improvement Program - VIP Sanitary Sewer Interceptor.
HRS/jvm
RESOLUTION NO. 2129
A Resolution Accepting Work On The
1981-1 Public Improvement Program
VIP Sanitary Sewer Interceptor
WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract signed with the City of Shakopee
on March 9, 1981, Arcon Construction Company. , 903 East Forest Avenue, Mora,
Mn 55051 has satisfactorily completed the VIP Sanitary Sewer Interceptor -
beginning at a section of the existing Shakopee Interceptor lying between County
Road 83 and County Road 17 , thence proceeding southerly to County Road 16, thence
westerly to Marschall Road and there terminating, in accordance with such
contract.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the work completed under said contract is hereby
accepted and approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk and the Mayor are hereby
directed to issue proper order for the release of funds on deposit at the
Kanabec State Bank, Mora, Minnesota 55051, which have been security in lieu of
retainage on this contract.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City
of Shakopee, Minnesota held this day of , 1983.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1983.
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk -�
RE: Prescribing Requirements to aim Exemption from
Carrying Dram Shop Insurance Because Sales are
Under $10,000
DATE: March 31 , 1983
Introduction
On February 15 , 1983 , Council adopted an ordinance concurring with
the new state law which requires dram shop insurance for all
liquor, wine , and beer licensees , and exempting 3. 2 beer licensees
with sales under $10,000. This ordinance also requires the adoption
of a resolution stipulating what proof of entitlement to the exemp-
tion the City will accept from a 3. 2 beer license applicant , if
sales are under $10,000.
Background
In an attempt to aid Council in selecting what kind of proof of
entitlement to the exemption Shakopee might select , I checked with
some other cities to see what they are doing, see attached. As
you can see few cities polled have addressed this matter and of
the four that have there is little consistency.
Alternatives
*1 . Accountant/auditor certified statement of sales in two previous
licensing years .
2 . Certified statement from applicant
*a) indicating sales in two previous licensing years
*b) that applicant will cease sales when they reach $9 ,500
or will obtain insurance
c ) indicating how they will keep track of sales
d) giving permission to City to examine their records keeping
track of sales
3 . Submission of actual receipts of purchases of beer from vendors .
4. Certified list of vendors for City to check out .
Recommendation
The City Attorney has examined the attached forms from four other
cities showing how they intend to monitor sales . He is recommending
that the City of Shakopee require*:
1 . Statement from applicant that they estimate future sales to be
under $10 ,000 based on actual sales for two previous years ( 2a)
2 . Auditor/accountant statement indicating sales of two previous
years ( 1 ) .
Prescribing Requirements to Claim Exemption from
Carrying Dram Shop Insurance Because Sales are
Under $10,000
Page Two
March 31 , 1983
3 . Commitment from applicant that he will cease sales when they
reach $9 ,500 or will obtain proper insurance ( 2b) .
I concur with the City Attorney' s recommendation.
The League of Minnesota Cities has also indicated that evidence
like the written commitment and accountant ' s affidavit will be
accepted by the Liquor Control Division as sufficient to show
that sales are under $10 ,000 per year. They also recommend that
this evidence of sales volume be passed onto the Liquor Control
Division rather than the City itself making any certification of
sales volume , and I do intend to do so.
A copy of this has been sent to the three parties who did attend
earlier discussions on this matter, Bud Berens , Lucy Rein and
JoAnne Pauluk.
Action Requested
Offer Resolution No. 2130, A Resolution Prescribing Requirement to
Claim the Exemptions Referred to in Section II of Ordinance 114,
Fourth Series , and move its adoption.
JSC/jms
I
Cities (Not) Requiring Dram Shop Insurance for
3.2 Beer Businesses With Sales Under $10,000
Has Established Guidelines
If 3.2 Beer Sales Are Under $10,000/year for Monitoring Sales
Municipality Requires Ins. Doesn't Require Inc. Yes No
Wayzata X X
Burnsville X X
Eden Prairie X X
Plymouth(1 ) X X
White Bear Lake(2) X X
So. Saint Paul(3) X X
Savage X
Chanhassen X
Bloomington X X
Minneapolis(l ) X X
Richfield X (Ord. to be adopted)
Chaska X
II
Alternatives
(1) Plymouth - Must provide a notarized statement that sales are under
4 $10,000/year, plus listing suppliers and authorizing them to be
contacted for confirmation.
2b (2) White Bear Lake - Must provide a notarized certificate stating that
licensee will not sell more than $10,000 of 3.2 beer in license year;
2a what the sales were in previous years, that they will obtain insurance
if sales reach $10,000, and indemnifies the City from claims or
damages which may arise from false statements in lieu of requiring
proof of financial responsibility.
2b (3) So. St. Paul - Must provide a written commitment to cease sales when
2c they reach $9,950 and describing means of keeping separate account of
1 sales; and a affidavit from accountant that sales in preceeding year
did not exceed $10,000.
(Ii) Minneapolis - Must provide a notarized affidavit stating that they
are exempt from having insurance because sales are under $10,000/year
1 and a letter from accountant attesting to actual annual sales.
RESOLUTION # 2130 t a-e
A Resolution Prescribing Requirements to Claim the Exemptions Referred to in
Section II of Ordinance 114, Fourth Series
WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Shakopee has adopted Ordinance #114
Fourth Series, amending Shakopee City Code Chapter V by adding new provisions
thereto; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant thereto, the Shakopee City Council must provide by resolution
the manner that the applicant for a non-intoxicating malt liquor license may claim
the exemption to the new provisions of the said City Code and, incidentally, the
Dram Shop Law.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL As follows:
SECTION I: Any licensee desiring to claim exemption from the provisions of Section
5.02, Subd. 1; Section 5.32 Subd. 6; and Section 5.40, Subd. 3, must file in duplicate
with the license application the following:
A. A statement under oath that the applicant claims exemption from the require
ment of dram shop insurance provisions because it is estimated that sales of beer
for the upcoming license period will be less than $10,000, and this statement is
based on the fact that the total of such sales for the license period of each of the
last two previous years were $ and $
B. A statement under oath from the applicant's auditor or accountant that,
based on the applicant's records, the total sales of beer for each of the immediate
two previous years were $ and $
C. A written commitment of the applicant under oath that the applicant will
cease the sale of beer at such time in the license year when sales of beer reach
$9,500 and will immediately notify the City thereof. No further sale of beer shall
be made in that license period unless and until the applicant complies fully with
the Dram Shop Law and the provisions of Ordinance #114 Fourth Series.
SECTION II: When In Force
This resolution shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage,
approval and publication one time in the official legal newspaper of the City of
-
' ^
Shakopee.
Passed in session of the Shakopee City Council held this day of
, 1983.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk -----
Prepured and approved as to form
this 30th day of March, 1983
-. °�=~~=�
City Attorney
.
(2) The provisions of subdivision (1) of this section shall
not apply to non-intoxicating malt liquor licensees
with sales of less than $10,000 of non-intoxicating
malt liquor per year, nor to on-sale wine licensees
with sales of less than $10,000 of wine per year.
(a) At the time of filing an application for license,
or at such subsequent time as may be required by
state law, a licensee claiming an exclusion from
the requirements of subdivision (1) shall file
with the City Recorder-Treasurer for transmission
to the state Liquor Control Division, the following:
(i) The written commitment of the applicant to
cease the scale of beer or wine at that time
in the license year when sales of either
reach $9 ,950, and a description of the means
of keeping separate account of beer or wine
sales ; and
(ii) An affidavit from the applicant' s accountant
that sales of beer or wine in the preceding cal-
endar year did not exceed $10,000.
(3) Approval of Bond or Insurance. The surety bonds or
insurance policies required by Subdivision (1) of this
section shall be subject to the approval of the Council.
(4) Surety or Insurance Companies. The surety on such bond,
or the insurer on such liability insurance policy,
shall be a surety company or insurance company, as the
case may be, duly licensed to do business in the State ..
of Minnesota, and the bond and liability insurance
policy shall run to the City and be approved as to form
and execution by the City Attorney. All surety bonds
or liability insurance policies when approved by the
proper City or State officers , shall be deposited with
the Clerk.
(5) Terms of Bond. All such bonds shall be conditioned as
provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 340. 12, and
shall be for the benefit of those persons described in
said Statute.
Section II. That Chapter 701 of the Municipal Code is amended by
adding thereto Section 701. 22 to read as follows :
-ni 00 Y_. _
„L,1 c.)-( `
2/9/83
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION
DRAM SHOP INSURANCE EXEMPTION
I hereby certify under penality of perjury that I have applied for
a nc,n-intoxicating malt liquor/on sale wine license and that the
sals cf such beverages are less than $10,000 per year. In addition,
I certify that the attached list of my wholesale suppliers is true
and correct. If necessary, these suppliers may be contacted in
order to confirm this declaration. /.
/•
Signature
Date
Signature, Notary Public
Date
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
DEPARTMENT OF LICENSES AND CONSUMER SERVICES
IOTA City Hall 348-2080
AFFIDAVIT FOR DRAM SHOP COVERAGE
State of Minnesota
County of Hennepin
I , , doing busi ress as
at , having made application for a new or renewal
of an existing liquor, wine or beer license within the City of Minneapolis , do
hereby state that I have complied with the provisions of Section 340. 11 , Subdivision
21 of the Minnesota Statutes; by:
1 . Having attached a "Certificate of Insurance" for Dram
Shop Coverage with minimum coverages as provided by
Statute ($50,000/$100,000/$10,000; and $50,000/
$100,000 for loss of support)
2. Having attached a bond from a surety company with
minimum coverages as provided by Statute - same as
in #1 above.
3. Having attached a certificate of the State Treasurer
that the licensee has deposited with him $100,000
ill cash.
4. I am exempt from this requirement because I have an
on-sale wine license or 3.2 on or off-sale license
with sales of less than $10,000 per year.
If #4 is checked, this form must be notorized.
(Signature)
************************************************************************************
Subscribed and sworn before me by the said applicant this day of
198 .
Notary Public
Address
My Commission Expires
1-83 •
O _'O
LiL
DE�CR ..�` T SES ANC CNS ,tE 7
SEF'd!OES _
JOHN A. BERGQUIST, DIRECTOR I.
1J
LICENSE DIVISIUN 348-2080
LIQUOR LICENSES 348-2871 -r
CONSUMER SER`:ICES 348-4283
METER MONITORS TRAFFIC CONTROL 348-2166
,VEIGHTS -ND '.1E.ISURES 348-2080
TAXI CrB : . 2R 348-2882 1.• �7
January 31 , 1983 n�
IMPORTANT - - READ THOROUGHLY
TO ALL LIQUOR, WINE AND BEER LICENSEES
In accordance with recently enacted Minnesota Statute, Section 340. 11, Sub-
division 2, passed by the 1982 Legislature, each On or Off Sale Liquor, Wine or
Beer licensee is required to demonstrate proof of financial responsibility (via
Dram Shop or Liquor Liability Insurance) to the City of Minneapolis before any
license may be renewed.
This statute exempts only wine and 3.2 beer licensees whose gross annual
sales of alcoholic beverages is less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) . Should
you claim this exemption, you must submit:
1 ) A letter from your accountant attesting that the financial
records for the calendar year have been reviewed to satis-
faction, and stipulating the actual annual alcoholic
beverage sales in dollars ,
Plus
2) You must sign and have notorized the enclosed "Affidavit
For Dram Shop Coverage. "
All licensees not exempt must submit one of the following:
a. "Certificate of Insurance" - $50,000 per person; $100,000
more than one person; $10,000 property destruction; $50,000
and $100,000 for loss of means of support. The insurance
policy and the "Certificate of Insurance" must provide that
the coverage may not be cancelled for any cause either by
the insured or the insurance company without first giving
10-day notice to this office in writing of the intent to
cancel .
b. A bond from a surety company with minimum coverages as
provided in (a) above.
Continued -
W s SSL. ( Q-)
CERTIFICATE OF PROJECTED NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR
SALES OF LESS THAN $10, 000 PER YEAR
, licensee, hereby certifies
that the license business known as
will not sell more than $10, 000 of non-intoxicating malt' liquor in
license year
This certification is based upon non-intoxicating malt liquor
retail sales for the previous years as follows:
RETAIL SALES OF
YEAR NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR
and upon the licensee' s projected non-intoxicating malt liquor retail
sales for the current license year.
The licensee hereby promises to give the City immediate written
notice as soon as the licensee has knowledge or reason to know of
any facts whatsoever which could lead a reasonable person to conclude
that the licensee ' s retail sales may exceed $10 , 000 before the end of
the license year . The licensee acknowledges that, in such
case, the City may require the licensee , without further notice, to
demonstrate sufficient proof of financial responsibility as required
under Minn. Stat. § 340. 11 subdivision 21. The licensee further
agrees that in the event licensee is required to demonstrate such
proof of financial responsibility, the licensee shall immediately
provide such proof to the City and to the Commissioner of Public Safety.
The licensee acknowledges that based upon the representations
3ra�r I"i !$rest }tg` ntN7 4 �?:3 '"'a 'st•`g4, ¢,� ,^ ,,.�is�s is?i; ¢c sus a+ �; txcr'�It4 sa-;�P�n-+c � -�sr-+-}*-+,�,,
-i!:117, i $ea,' 'r pip r:i .n,ir,i r 1" 11' s „a t}e:d ;.qr•a} � �{{ €�l sI .1. LA: ` 77 s "`t
A:44..t: A h. 4h' ttia'3 : .''' 4 !ii_it*Pt, '„, rq.. iii 4'- la li`� M Hi ii1+'S.i E'sC iiia }a'°iiatit-- .1
i,_ tti , ii. ti„d,mua,,xaa,„..
made in this Certificate, the City is not requiring the licensee
to demonstrate proof of financial responsibility pursuant to Minn.
Stat. § 340. 11 subdivision 21 as a prerequisite to issuing or
renewing licensee' s license. The licensee further acknowledges that
the City is relying totally on the representations made in this
Certificate , and that the City will not conduct any independent
investigation of the business records of the licensee in order to
verify the representations contained in this Certificate. Consequently,
the licensee agrees to indemnify the City ill:' n )1d the City harmless
from any and all claims and causes of action for damages of any nature
whatsoever which may arise either from any false , fraudulent or
deceptive statements made by the licensee herein, or from the City ' s
acceptance of this Certificate in lieu of requiring proof of financial
responsibi lity.
The City reserves the right to reject the Certificate and to -
require the licensee to provide sufficient proof of financial
responsibility under Minn. Stat. § 340. 11 subdivision 21.
•
Date:
Licensee
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this day of , 1983 .
Notary Public
—2—
,a+ * �:�' 'F�{..3`Y T'�18 to !Hi$ .Rtfw F@t$�"r-"'1{ C.CM Aft � � '$S Z�4,•$t ' i�a � $ t,w # � S•,; i ,. `!,
t N6+ f°" � } t t :. ter r #3 ;#t s 3s ?.it `!it!,;„,i.
is; at 4i ti t ,• (�gaq'{rs { •a $ a+ tf i ,fir• sx`r �
a�f ��c. a}� '�. e �nw.#a. .fl) ! .}}y,'t .} `F+�'efL'4"#•i ##; ,�' t"H�'�+��.�c ��=$ �a 3}4�°�#�€E �s�° YE t�;�=sr;c. .�.r� �t
tZ
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk C J
RE: A Resolution Authorizing Condemnation Proceedings for
a Walkway from Park Ridge Drive to 11th Avenue
DATE: March 17 , 1983
Introduction
On March 16th, Council authorized staff to prepare the necessary
resolution for authorizing condemnation proceedings to acquire
right-of-way for a walkway between Park Ridge Drive and 11th Avenue .
Action Requested
Offer Resolution No. 2126 , A Resolution Authorizing Condemnation
Proceedings For A Walkway from Park Ridge Avenue to 11th Avenue ,
and move its adoption.
JSC/jms
RESOLUTION NO. 2126
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS
FOR A WALKWAY FROM PARK RIDGE DRIVE TO 11th AVENUE
WHEREAS , it Is necessary to provide a walkway from Park Ridge
Drive to 11th Avenue ; and
WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Shakopee has deter-
mined that it would be to the best interests of the general public
as well as the area involved to construct said walkway and for that
purpose to secure the necessary easement therefor; and
WHEREAS , the City has been unable through negotiations to
acquire the necessary easement to construct the said walkway.
THEREFORE, BE I'I' RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCII. OF THE CITY OF
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA , that :
1 . The obtaining of a permanent easement as aforesaid is for
a public purpose and within the powers of the City of Shakopee and
that condemnation proceedings is both appropriate , expedient and
necessary.
2 : That the proper City officials forthwith institute eminent
domain proceedings by the City of Shakopee for the purpose of
acquiring a permanent easement as set forth in Exhibit A over the
property as set forth in Exhibit A, which is hereto attached and
made a part hereof.
3 . The said condemnation proceedings are authorized by
Minnesota Statutes Annotated Chapter #117 and the said proceedings
should be instituted and concluded at the earliest possible time
and the proper City officials are hereby authorized , instructed
and directed to do all things necessary and proper to carry out
the terms and intentions of this resolution.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee , Minnesota , held this day of
1983 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1983.
EASEMENT DESCRIPTION
A perpetual walkway easement over and across the following described land:
That part of the fprmer Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific
Railroad right-of-way North of the Easterly extension of a line
38.00 feet measured at right angle, Southerly of and parallel
with the South line of Block 5, JEJ Addition, Scott County,
Minnesota and South of the Easterly extension of a line 58.00
feet measured at right angle, Southerly of and parallel with
said South line of Block 5;
And that part of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of
Section 8, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota,
lying Westerly of the West line of Lot 1, Block 1, Hauers 1st
Add 'n. , Scott County, Minnesota and lying Northeasterly of the
Northeasterly right-of-way line of the former Chicago, Milwaukee,
St. Paul and Pacific Railroad right-of-way and lying Southerly of the
Easterly extension of a line 38.00 feet measured at right angle,
Southerly of the and parallel with the South line of Block 5,
JEJ Addition, Scott County, Minnesota.
-..).'"..
0
Ot r) i r13Z
Qs
tO 4
q
t 0
T-
/
0 '11
C)
co
-... 2
I I —
//
Q- '' - -
4/../
..,'" ---•-.
co .'
I H. I
Z i
k
)!..
I LLI O '
I
I.--
, • '
i 2 \
/ 0(Z-
0
. . z..
Z
/
I 3 x
LU
/
< \\ \
(r) 8 8
,.,
...
---
(.0
,....
---.• \
<
._;7 •,,,,-
:...•
e
--.... ,,
LU
a
--,
0
>--
/
_ ..
ZH
cr
...--
<e.....-- —
1.11
I-
Y
//
2 w
_1
ILI lu
-1-• (5) Q. \
:- •:::•::::
<
*:ii..:1 ••••
or) 0
.•:. ••.:••••
< Y
. ........................
LU 1
. • • -
. . •
----..J /
tO
. . •
. • •
. . ..
. • •
• • •-
< •
.. •• - -
. • • •
..o
..;.‘•:.:::•:.i.::::•:.•:.:.
.,- .),,....."'"-"e'
i
. ..
/
....1
.
. . •
•. .
.
....;"....„./r".
.i,
i
.45
/
f•-•
11-1 z
•...i..• ..i.:.:
...-
0 Li.i
...
ce) ....:
•
• ,,.-4-'
,._ ,„•,,,, :. f
-7
ta• 11.1
•
0-1'.::',.:f%
< W
./.
X <
.......?.............
I. *I
0 in
lit '
-
o >-
.0.
z H
/ - /1----\---
_ -
-1.-
tig' 10i
1- -I
ntiy:
\
.•
it
>—< D
Li.1
\:\' . s
% 1
C C.‘
414? )
z 2
co
_ I--
\ \ \
- 7 ,
x <
___
w
z
0
....„ \
i
\
:—
km
a
\J)
\ aZ-t
\-- --)
0
...I
104 -ems
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
RE: A Resolution Supporting Mn D.O.T. Efforts in Planning
for the Construction of the Shakopee By-Pass
DATE: March 24; 1983
Introduction
Mayor Reinke advised me that he will be meeting with Governor Perpich,
after the 1983 legislative session to discuss items of importance to
Shakopee i . e . : local government aid, fiscal disparities , by-pass ,
correctional facility. Since it has been three years since Shakopee
adopted a resolution supporting the by-pass , Mr. Reinke asked if
another resolution could be prepared and adopted so that Mr. Perpich
could be provided with a more current resolution.
I have prepared the attached resolution supporting Mn D.O.T. efforts
in planning for the construction of the Shakopee By-Pass .
Action Requested
Offer Resolution No. 2128 , A Resolution Supporting Pin D.O.T. Efforts
in Planning for the Construction of the Shakopee By-Pass , and move
its adoption.
JSC/jms
r' y/
RESOLUTION NO. 2128
A Resolution Supporting Mn D.O.T. Efforts In Planning
For The Construction of the Shakopee By-Pass
WHEREAS , on 3anuary 2 , 1980 the Shakopee City Council adopted
Resolution No. 1542 requesting the Scott County Board of Commissioners
to adopt on behalf of the City of Shakopee , the Official Map (Official
Controls ) for the Shakopee By-Pass as was conveyed to Scott County
under a letter from William M. Crawford , P. E. , District V Engineer,
Minnesota Department of Transportation; and
WHEREAS , on December 30 , 1980 the Scott County Board of Commis-
sioners adopted Resolution No. 80113 adopting the Official Map
(Official. Controls ) for the Shakopee By--I'ass as was conveyed to
Scott County under letter from William Crawford, P. E. District V
Engineer , Minnesota Department of Transporation , dated September 7 ,
1979 ; and
WHEREAS , the Shakopee By-Pass is a very important transporta-
tion facility for the City of Shakopee because it will preserve
Shakopee by removing a great deal of existing traffic from City
streets , expecially in the downtown area , and it will allow these
streets to be used for the carrying of local traffic rather than
serving- as major traffic corridors for the metropolitan area ; and
WHEREAS , Scott County (wherein Shakopee is located) currently
has the highest unemployment rate in the metro area ; and
WHEREAS , the construction of the Shakopee By-Pass would create
numerous construction jobs .
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA strongly supports the efforts of the
Minnesota Department of Transportation in continuing to plan for
the construction of the Shakopee By-Pass .
Adopted in session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee , Minnesota , -Held this day of
1983 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1983
/ 2)
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
•
FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk -
RE: Subdivision of Property on hakopee Avenue and Main Street
DATE: March 24, 1983
Introduction
Three platted lots on Shakopee Avenue have been under one ownership
until recently. The three lots are now owned by two parties each
owning one platted lot plus part of the middle lot . Since there are
assessments against the original parcel number for the Holmes Street
improvements , it is necessary to apportion the remaining assessments
between the two new resultant parcels .
Action Requested
Offer Resolution No. 2127 , A Resolution Apportioning Assessments
Among New Parcels Created as a Result of the Subdivision of Land
Parcel No. 27-023008-0, Lots 4, 5 , and 6 , Block 2 of Cletus Link
Addition, and move its adoption.
JSC/jms
RESOLUTION NO. 2127
A RESOLUTION APPORTIONING ASSESSMENTS AMONG NEW PARCELS
CREATED AS A RESULT OF THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND
PARCEL NO. 27-023008-0, LOTS 4,5, AND 6, BLOCK 2 OF
CLETUS LINK ADDITION
WHEREAS,• on August 26, 1980, Resolution No. 1670 adopted by the City Council
levied assessments against properties benefitted by the construction of the 1980-3
Holmes Street Reconstruction Project, and
WHEREAS, a tract of land benefitted by the said improvements, known as
Parcel No. 27-023008-0, Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 2 of Cletus Link Addition has been
subdivided, and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to apportion the installments
remaining unpaid against said original tract among the current parcels within
the tract, and
WHEREAS, the properly owners involved have been notified of this proposed
action.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE:
1 . That the 1983 payable remaining balance of assessments to parcel no.
27-023008-0 is $352.00 and is hereby split as follows:
Assessment Assessment
Code Parcel No. Name/Address Legal/Description Balance
(51) 80-3 27-023008-0 Eugene Brown Lot 6 and the West $161.92
437 E. Shakopee 40 feet of Lot 5
Shakopee, Mn. Block 2
(51) 80-3 27-023008-1 Robert Brown Lot 4 and the East $190.08
437 E. Shakopee 20 feet of Lot 5
Shakopee, Mn. Block 2
2. That all other parts of Resolution No. 1670 shall continue in effect.
Adopted in session of the City Connell of Shakopee, Minnesota
held this day of _ 1983.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this