Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/02/1983 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items DATE: July 28 , 1983 1 . Just a reminder that I will be on vacation from July 31 - August 8 and Judy will be acting administrator during that period. 2 . If you have not caught the headlines in the Valley News the Scott County Board unanimously approved alternative No. 5 for the County Road 18 bridge which is the alternative supported by Shakopee . The unanimous vote was a surprise to me as was the discussion at the meeting . All five commissioners seemed to support the westerly route. 3 . Tom Brownell has been talking to both the County and Hospital regarding the parking lot development and how it will impact on street parking restrictions . Because of the uncertainty of the parking lot configuration and the number of stalls created, Tom has asked that his report outlining a proposed on-street parking plan be postponed until the August 16th meeting. 4. Our sidewalk program has been going well . We had estimated a minimum of $10,000 worth of work and have completed $14,000 of work to date for 20 property owners . If we can get this kind of response each year for a number of years we could do a lot to improve the sidewalks in Shakopee. 5 . Attached is a letter from the Watershed District Engineer regarding their plans to open the outlet channel to increase the outlet flows . Don Benson, the Wetershed District Manager , said that they are currently at 27 c . f. s . and plan to begin opening the outlet by a few inches per day on Tuesday, August 2nd. Don said they will increase the flow gradually so that they can watch the outlet to insure that it is handling the additional flow. If they determine that the outlet can only handle 35 or 40 c . f. s . they will stop at that point rather than increasing the flow to the full 50 c . f. s . which is their goal . 6 . Attached is the annual invitation to the League of Minnesota Cities regional meeting. As you can see from the first sheet we have received our normal invitation from the City of Montgomery this year. The second sheet also indicates that the Metropolitan area regional meeting will be held in Bloomington on September 29th. I have asked the League about which of the two meetings we should plan to attend and they have indicE.ted that we can attend either meeting. Please contact Judy by August 9th so that she can make the proper reservations 7 . Councilmember Lebens handed me the attached flyer announcing a seminar for elected officials on micro-computers . I have Non-Agenda Informational Items Page Two July 28 , 1983 discussed the seminar with Mrs . Lebens and with Bill Bigot , our current intern working on the computer. He is willing to take 1 to 2 hours to work with Councilmembers individually who would like some first hand information about micro-computers and who would like to get some hands-on experience . Please call Bill and set up an appointment if you are interested. 8 . Attached is a memo from Gregg Voxland regarding joint purchasing with Scott County. If you have any questions regarding Gregg ' s conclusions please contact him. 9 . Attached is Jack Coller ' s quarterly report for the second quarter of 1983 . 10. Attached is the weekly count of cable subscriber connections from Z-U. 11 . Attached are the tentative agendas for the August 4 , 1983 Board of Adjustment and Appeals and Planning Commission meetings . 12 . Attached are the minutes of the July 7 , 1983 Planning Commission meeting. 13 . Attached are the minutes of the July 7 , 1983 Board of Adjust- ment and Appeals meeting. 14. Attached are the minutes of the July 11 , 1983 meeting of the Shakopee Cable Communications Advisory Commission. 15 . Attached are the minutes of the June 30 , 1983 meeting of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 16 . Attached is the monthly calendar for August . 17 . Attached is a letter from Mary Smith, Z-U , regarding driveway improvements , studio and office completion. 18 . Sixteenth Avenue and 90th Street have been paved. The "benefited" property owners have been pleased with the ride. Judging from the number of houses that have been "cleaned up" since the work started, it looks like the project has done more than benefit the road. 19 . Attached is a memo from George Muenchow in response to Councilmember Lebens ' question re : summer playground program. J PRIOR LAKE-SPRING LAKE WATERSHED DISTRICT Don 0. Benson Scott-Rice Telephone Bldg. Staff Coordinator 4690 Colorado St. S.E. jow/le (612) 447-4166 Prior Lake, MN 55372 July 18,1983 O kb V To: City of Shakopee & Prior Lake Attn: City Administrator & City Engineer Re: Notice of Intent to increase flow rates in Lake Outlet channel Gentlemen: The Board of Managers intends to make certain improvements along the lake outlet channel preparatory to increasing the outlet flow rates from Prior Lake within the next several weeks. These improvements consist of both permanent and temporary erosion-retarding structures and devices consisting of four gabion-type check dams (three along the channel between Dean' s Lake Road and the Railroad, and one in the channel upstream from Jeffer' s ponds) ana four filter-fabric silt-fences (one upstream from Ck 42; une each on either side of CR 16; and one upstream from the railroad bridge in the Shiely channel ) . The check-dams have been designed to decrease channel velocities to slightly over one fps at 50 cfs under bare-earth conditions. Backwater effects at Dean Lake Road are negligible and water-surface profiles along the channel at those flow rates present no great problem. These structures will be a permanent part of the project. The silt-fences are intended as a temporary measure and are most likely to experience periodic failure when loaded with surge flows. Placement will be at locations selected as the most likely to be experiencing sediment in the flow. Due to their inherent flow-retarding effect, these structures will also tend to act somewhat as check-dams. In addition to the above work, some additional diking, culvert installation, and flow-rate regulation is planned. A portion of the work will start immed- iately with volunteer labor and the remainder which is to be done by the Contractor is anticipated to be completed in 2-4 weeks. Flow-rates will not be increased to a maximum rate of flow until all work is done. Sincerely, Bruce A. Paterson ,;w District Engineer % '4' • • N.*254 .4 cc/ Don Benson Bryce Huemoller Cleve Mickley CITY OF MONTGOMERY ; �•7Ei'V r Incorporated 1902 LE SUEUR COUNTY,MINNESOTA JUI 1 9 1983 ELEPHONE 201 ASH AVENUE WEST r'� "� ''TEleE64=8888 MONTGOMERY,MINN.56069 July 13, 1983 To the Mayor, Councilmembers, All other City Officials, and their Spouses I wish to extend to you a cordial invitation to attend the Regional Meeting of the League of Minnesota Cities to be held at the Municipal Building and the American Legion Club in Montgomery, Minnesota, on September 28, 1983. Beginning at 2:30 P.M. , there will be a roundtable discussion for all Local Government Officials directed by Tom Thelen of the League Staff. This will take place in the Council Chambers in the Montgomery Municipal Building, 201 Ash Avenue West. The supper will be held at the American Legion Club, 102 Elm Avenue W. (One block from the Municipal Building) and will begin at 6:30 P.M. Tickets are $7.00 per person including gratuity. A traditional Czech dinner will be served including the following: Roast Turkey Roast Beef Dressing Mashed Potatoes and Gravy Cranberry Sauce • Home Made Dumplings Green Giant Corn Home Made Sauerkraut Cole Slaw Home Baked Rolls and Rye Bread Home Baked Kolackys Choice of Beverage A social hour will precede the supper at the American Legion Club from 5:30 P.M. to 6:30 P.M. I am enclosing a postcard for reservations to be returned by, September 9, 1953. You will note that if you make reservations for more persons than actually attend, you may be billed for those who do not come unless the City Office is notified at least one week before the meeting of any changes. After supper, there will be a panel discussion by League Staff and Board Members of questions of concern to attending cities. Legislators have been invited to attend as well as representatives from those state agencies who come into frequent contact with cities. Adjournment will be no later than 9:30 P.M. Sincerely yours, • George Dvorak Mayor, City of Montgomery .:' F .) *1983 LMC REGIONAL MEETINGS* rr . UL 1 . Y-:33 important Notice for City Clerks CI TY OF S F',KOPE2. Please note: We have a very special program planned for the afternoon portion (2:30 - 5:00 p.m.) of each of the regional meetings this year. We would like to encourage all city clerks to attend these meetings and have an opportunity to share with one another some of your own success stories in the area of economic develop- ment. Keep these ideas and subjects in mind over the next 6 weeks and bring some facts and personal reflec- tions on local efforts in your city. . Downtown commercial business promotional activities Programs to aid local small businesses . Employment retention and/or expansion efforts . Downtown improvements/business-government cooperation . Programs to encourage city residents to bequeath a share of their estate to the city . Local approaches to downtown revitalization . Inexpensive ways to improve your business district Be sure you're concentrating on some basic factual information about your city in preparation for this meeting. To give you a hint - . What is the population of your city? . What is your city's annual budget? . What is (are) the mill rate(s) of the school district(s) in your city? . What unusual items does your city budget for? . And more. We hope to see you there! Please note the list of meeting dates and locations below. Date City Place Monday, August 29 Worthington The Coliseum Ballroom, Hwy. 59 Tuesday, August 30 Morgan V.F.W. Hall Wednesday, August 31 Dawson V.F.W. Club Thursday, September 1 Litchfield Farmer's Daughter Supper Club, Hwy. 12 Tuesday, September 6 Millerville Community Center & Fire Hall Wednesday, September 7 Ada V.F.W. Hall Thursday,September 8 Thief River Falls Best Western Motel, Hwy. 32 Monday, September 12 Mora American Legion Hall Wednesday, September 14 Albert Lea Albert Lea Inn (Best Western) Thursday,September 15 Chatfield Chosen Valley Golf Club, Hwy. 52 Tuesday, September 20 Hibbing Kahler Motel Wednesday, September 21 Park Rapids American Legion Hall Thursday, Se tem er 22 _____ Brainerd__ Brainerd American Legion Hall Wednesday, September 28 Montgomery AmericanTegi6n Hall Thursday, September 29 Bloomington location to be arranged \\,\01.\$-„,/.. 7 }-1 N CUPRYASSOC 1�J -- A DIVISION OF LTD (\i/ IV . INFORMATION MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS July 1, 1983 Dear Councilmember: In January, Time magazine declared a computer the Man of the Year! A machine? What's going on here? As America re-tools to improve productivity, the tech- nological revolution is touching all of our lives. At the League of Cities convention, many of you told us how much you need basic information about com- puters tailored specifically to the concerns of elected officials. Here's what some of you said: "I feel embarrassed to admit how little I know." "I don' t even know what the right questions are." "We've got clerks dictating policy -- we've lost control, because we're not computer literate." "Our data processing staff makes me feel powerless." "I need training but not in a group of 50 where I can' t get my questions answered." "I know computers are here to stay, but I 'm part of the lost generation -- where do I go for help?" We have designed a SEMINAR ESPECIALLY FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS to help you deal with the important policy questions not being addressed by any other training program. You can' t afford to leave it to the experts. The decisions are yours! And they are not simple. We will come to your city and lead your council in a small group, policy work session to help you sort it all out. Our approach is practical and down-to- earth. No technical razzle-dazzle. As former elected officials ourselves, we know your problems. Give us a call if we can help at 612-425-0132. Sincerely, '224‘4•4....sc.....-. 4447-- Principal Director of Marketing SUITE 215, 7200 HEMLOCK LANE, MAPLE GROVE, MN 55369 (612) 425-0132 3 Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director Re: Joint Purchasing with Scott County (Information) Date: July 15, 1983 One of the MBO items you had listed for me was to investigate joint purchasing with Scott County. I have discussed this on two occasions with Jim Slavik of Central Services. Scott County does not have a "list" of items to be purchased centrally nor a schedule of when certain items will be bid. Purchasing is basically handled on a "upon request" basis. Aside from items that are or can be purchased from the Hennepin County Group, there does not appear to be any items that are of any significance to coordinate with Scott County above present levels. If there are large items (i.e. cars) that miss the Hennepin County cycle, staff could contact Scott County to see if they have any plans for a similar purchase. A list of Hennepin County contracts has been disseminated previously. GV:mmr q iuiius A.(k)LLER, IT JU LIUS A.COLLER '1TroRNI,} AT LAW 612-445-1244 1859-1940 2 1 1 WEST FIRSTAVENUE -II AKOPEE, 'MINN I;-()T.A 45:53ZO July 25, 1983 CITY ATTORNEY'S LOG To: Members of the Shakopee City Council John K. Anderson, City Administrator Judith S. Cox, City Clerk Herewith is my report for the period of April 1 thru June 30, 1983, in conformance with the Joint Goals and Objectives Workshop conference. This report of course does not include any of the multitudinous matters handled by Mr. Krass and his associates, nor was any attempt made to log Council Meetings, miscellaneous correspondence and like matters, nor were telephone calls recorded, these calls came from department heads and from attorneys representing various defendants in City prosecutions. These calls can run as high as 15 a day and last 2 or 3 minutes to an occasional 10 minute conference. With the foregoing in mind, herewith is my time log for the period in question: April 4 2 hour First appearance - Sorenson 6 111 hours State v Plessel trial 6 2 hour Tax abatement conference with County 7 112 hours Preparepark dedication suit vs Wiggin - filing and serving papers 15 2 hours Court trials 21 1 hour State vs Costello 25 12 hours Pre-trials 2 hours Pre- trials 27 1 hour Court cases 29 1 hour State vs Hanson May 2 12 hours three omnibus hearings 2 hours Two omnibus hearings 1 hour Preparing for criminal trial 3 2 hour Appearing before County Board - tax matter 2 hour Trial 2 hours Preparing & dictating criminal complaints 4 11 hours Trials 1 hour Trials 3 1 hour viewing license applications, checking contracts 9 1 hour Gross misdemeanor hearing 16 3 hours Pre trials 19 6 hours Trial State v Johnson 20 42 hrs. Trial State v Johnson 23 3/4 hr. Gross Misdemeanor hearing 25 12 hr. Trial Stata v Plonski 26 1 hr. Trial State v Curfrom 31 2 hr. Trial June 1-3 hr Conference - Codifiers - John - Judy 7 June 3 i hr. Pre trials 12 hr. Checking insurance & bonds - beer and Liquor 6 1 hr. checking insurance & bonds - beer and liquor 12 hr. court appearance 8 11 hr. checking insurance & bonds - beer and liquor 10 11 hrs. Two omnibus hearings 17 11 hrs. checking liquor insurance and bonds 20 112 hrs. checking liquor insurance & bonds 111 hrs. court trials 27 12 hrs. calendar call 12 hr. meeting City Hall - Anderson & Spurrier 28 12 hr. checking and reviewing liquor application & bonds In addition to my time I am also submitting a similar record for time devoted by my secretaries strictly to City work, the dates, hours as well as the nature of the work as follows: April 14 312 hrs. work on cases 18 1 hr. typing complaints and warrants 18 1 hr. cases 19 12 hr. cases 20 4 hr. cases 21 z hr. cases 22 2 hrs. cases 25 312 hrs. cases in court 26 1 hr. GM complaint 27 1 hr. typing complaints and warrants 28 2 hr. new cases May 2 a hr. new cases 3 2 hrs. cases and filing 4 2 hrs. typing complaints 5 2 hrs. typing warrants & filing 16 1 hr. cases in court (AM) 212 hrs. cases in court (PM) 18 2 hrs. typing warrants & complaints 24 1 hr. cases 26 4 hr. cases 27 1 hr. cases 31' 3Z hr. cases June 1 1 hr. typing complaints & warrants 2 2 hr. typing telephone call to Marshall (Kumerow) $4.33 12 hr. cases 3 4 hr. cases 9 12 hr. cases 14 1 hr. cases 22 z hr. typing 23 312 hr. typing warrants & complaints and filing same 24 3 hrs. typing 27 2 hrs. typing 29 1 hr. typing complaints and filing 30 1 hr. typing complaints and filing spec f submitted, ulius A. Coller, II JAC/nh City Attorney MONTt0k ,A,;,!-- SYSTEM U\izi l:.Q, , SUBSCRIBER COUNT DAILY / WEEKLY REPORT _ /0 TOTAT, (1- K3 t of ft �-f '�� I i'; 't �.��). { 1'c O WEEKLY GRAND �� �� � TO DATE MON TUES WED THURS FRI TOTAL TOTAL UNIVERSAL — Ch. 2-13 t 3 , r A 1 TIER I — Ch. 2-43 _ Econovision _fit,..! � . If. _ Econo/ 1 or more prem. 1;3I I 1 TIER II — Ch. 2-58 Basic 1 La LI Basic / 1 or more prem. ! �' I) ) "�'; PACKAGES (CHASKA ONLY) MINIVISION — 2 prem. MAXIVISION — 3 prem. TOTALVISION — 7 prem. PREMIUM y q HBO TMC n- 9 MAXII11 1' L i SHO 3 DISNEY BRA HTN A SPECTRUM ' 1 =3t . — j I ADDS (DAILY INSTALLS) { r„,:i'fZ: ' L\ 1 E-4.-- 409 CONNECTS :Act ct C r-:1 L( L,”J !_! +'I ._I odi DISCONNECTS (DAILY) • I TOTAL 2nd TV SETS _`}t s, ,moi , _ s 5 1/ TENTATIVE AGENDA SHAKOPEE PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Session Shakopee, Minnesota August 4, 1983 Chrmn. Schmitt presiding 1 ) Roll Call at 7 : 31 P.M. 2 ) Approval of July 7 , 1983 Meeting Minutes . 3 ) 7:33 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Amendment to Shakopee City Code Section 11 . 60 , Subd. 16C and Subd. 16D of the Zoning Ordinance, "Design Specifications for Driveways" . Applicant: City of Shakopee Action: Recommendation to City Council 4 ) 7:35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Amendment to Shakopee City Code Section 12 . 04 , Subd. 2C, Items No. 4 & 5, of the Subdivision Regulations, "Design Criteria and Standard Construction Specifications for Storm Sewer and Sanitary Sewer" . Applicant: City of Shakopee Action: Recommendation to City Council 5 ) Informational Items: a ) Wermerskirchen Fence Appeal b) Adoption of Ordinances No. 129 and No. 130, "Fences" c) d) 6 ) Other Business 7 ) Adjournment Don Steger City Planner 1/ TENTATIVE AGENDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS Regular Session Shakopee, Minnesota August 4, 1983 Chrmn. Schmitt presiding 1 ) Roll Call at 7 : 30 P.M. 2 ) Approval of July 7 , 1983 Meeting Minutes. 3 ) Other Business 4 ) Adjournment Don Steger City Planner 3 / 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JULY 7, 1983 Chrm. Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:41 P.M. with Comm. Rockne, Czaja and Koehnen present. Absent were Comm. Perusich, Stoltzman and Coller. Also present was Don Steger, City Planner. John K. Anderson, City Admr. , arrived later. The City Planner reported on the action taken by City Council regarding the Plan- ning Commission's request for a parking study in the vicinity of the courthouse and hospital. The City Police Chief and City Engineer were directed by the City Council to prepare a parking plan for the area during the summer. The City Planner informed the Commissioners that City Council unanimously voted down the recommended amendment to City Code that would allow set-up licenses in Class II restaurants. The City Admr. arrived and took his seat at 7:42 P.M. The City Planner reported the Public Works Dept. poured tar around the catch basin structure that Comm. Coller had reported was being tampered. with. PUBLIC HEARING - WERMERSKIRCHEN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Czaja/Koehnen moved to open the public hearing regarding the request by Steve Wermerskirchen, 1756 Montecito Drive, to exceed the height limitation for a fence. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner stated that for this particular location, even though the fence is proposed in the rear yard, the front yard requirements pertain due to frontage on CR16 and Montecito Drive. He said because the lot slopes upwards, the 72 feet height is needed for privacy. He said the framing for this fence has already been constructed, without a build- ing permit, and it is located 62 feet within the CR16 right-of-way. The County Highway Engineer has stated the fence will have to be removed from the right-of-way. He said the City Engineer is concerned with visibility at that intersection, and thinks the fence installation creates a dangerous intersection. The City Planner feels this situation is difficult to assess, but in view of the City Engineer's concerns, staff recommends denial of the Conditional Use Permit as proposed. Mr. Wermerskirchen passed around pictures of the area, and other intersections he feels are more dangerous. He said Montecito Drive is an addition road, with 13 houses on it, with only local traffic. He said he spoke with the County Highway Engineer, who stated he did not have a problem with the fence being moved just off the County right-of-way. He also talked with the Shakopee Deputy Police Chief, who agreed with this location just off the County right-of-way. He passed around a letter from the Deputy Police Chief relative to his statement. Mr. Wermerskirchen said he would like to hide some wood and a fishhouse behind this fence to clean up the view, and that is why he needs the 72 feet height. He added he thought the right-of-way was 33 feet instead of the 50 feet, and that is why he started the fence in that location. Considerable discussion ensued regarding alternatives for placing the fence and various opinions on the safety of the intersection. Shakopee Planning Commission July 7,1983 Page 2 Rockne/Czaja moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Koehnen/Rockne offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 343, a request to exceed the height requirement for a fence in a front yard setback by approxi- mately 4 feet 6 inches, with a condition that the fence have a 12 foot setback from the south property line, and moved its adoption. Motion carried with Comm. Czaja opposed. Chrm. Schmitt informed the applicant about the 7 day appeal period. SIX YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The City Admr. explained how to read the chart showing the Six Year Capital Im- provement Plan. He said this plan was revised in 1982 and has a bias towards finishing up old projects and providing for new development. He explained the reason some County, State or township projects are on the list is because of the impact on Shakopee and the City's need to bring these projects to the attention of the government in control of the area. The City Planner suggested adding the Shakopee By-pass and CR18 Bridge Crossing. Comm. Czaja asked if there could be a project added for the Dean's Lake outlet erosion control. Chrm. Schmitt asked for a traffic study to determine the best placement of a traffic control in the area of Valleyfair, CR83, Valley Industrial Blvd. , and CR18. This study should take into account the development of the By-pass and its affect on Hwy. 101 traffic. Chrm. Schmitt thought the street use survey should be completed before any grade crossings were improved or eliminated. The City Admr. pointed out other projects that are new to the list this year, and explained why old ones were taken off. He added staff would call the absent members of the Commission to get their input before passing it on to City Council. Czaja/Rockne moved to add to the Six Year Capital Improvement Plan the following: 1. By-Pass; 2. CR 18 Bridge; 3. Dean's Lake Outlet Control Structure; 4. CR83 Traffic Control Study; 5. Grade Crossing Improvements Incorporated into Overall Street Study, and recommend approval to City Council. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTES Koehnen/Rockne moved to amend the minutes of March 3, 1983 to change the spelling of the Biology Professor on page 2 to "Dr. McCollough", and have the tape of that meeting archived for annual review. Motion carried unanimously. Czaja/Rockne moved to approve the minutes of May 5, 1983 as kept. Motion carried with Comm. Rockne and Koehnen abstaining because of their absence at part or all of the meeting. Shakopee Planning Commission July 7, 1983 Page 3 Czaja/Koehnen moved to amend the minutes of June 9, 1983 on page 3 under Informa- tional Items, "Comm. Czaja stated. . .the outlet may be wearing. ", and moved to approve the minutes. Motion carried with Czaja and Rockne abstaining. Rockne/Czaja moved to approve the minutes of June 20, 1983 as kept. Motion carried with Czaja anc, Koehnen abstaining. Comm. Czaja asked about the City liability for ditch erosion from the Prior Lake/ Spring Lake Watershed District's outlets, as far as a possibility of anyone getting hurt along the banks of the ditches. The City Admr. said that according to the Joint Powers Agreement, the City is held harmless from liability, but he did take a note to check if signing for danger would be necessary. Rockne/Czaja moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:32 P.M. Don Steger City Planner Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary /3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JULY 7, 1983 Chrm. Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:34 P.M. with Comm. Rockne, Koehnen and Czaja present. Comm. Perusich, Stoltzman and Coller were absent. Also pre- sent was Don Steger, City Planner. Koehnen/Czaja moved to approve the minutes of June 9, 1983 as presented. Motion carried with Comm. Czaja and Rockne abstaining because of their absence at that meeting. SCHERER VARIANCE APPROVAL The City Planner said he was informed by the City Attorney that the condition of approval of the Scherer variance which required him to waive his right of appeal to a possible storm sewer assessment was not legal. The City Attorney therefore recommended an amendment to the variance resolution. Rockne/Czaja offered Amended Variance Resolution No. 338, which eliminates the condition set forth in Variance Resolution No. 338, adopted June 9, 1983, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Rockne/Czaja moved to accept the staff review of Variance Resolution No. 257 which permits the Renaissance Festival to use a temporary port-a-panel sign during the 1983 Festival. Motion carried unanimously. Koehnen/Czaja moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7:40 P.M. Don Steger City Planner Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary /Y PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE CABLE COMMUNICATIONS ADVISORY COMMISSION ADJ. REG. SESSION JULY 11, 1983 Chrm. Anderson called 'the meeting to order at 7:50 P.M. with Comm. Williams and Harrison present. Absent were Comm. Davis and Abeln. Also present was Jeanne Andre, Admin. Ass't. Harrison/Williams moved to approve the minutes of June 20, 1983 as kept. Motion carried unanimously. The Admin. Ass't relayed the comments offered by the City Administrator regarding the formation of the Board of Directors of the Community Access Corporation. He said he did not like the idea of some directors being appointed and some being elected. He would rather see them all taking office the same way, and he would be more in favor of them all being appointed. He also thought that having other bodies appoint directors, such as library board and education community, would be difficult and messy in a practical way. He would rather see that same kind of re- presentation being taken into consideration by City Council, and have Council make the appointments. The City Admr. gave the example of the local Development Corp. , which is a private corporation which has a semi-public purpose. He said it took awhile for City staff to track it down once they realized it existed, and due to its low level of activity the people involved are not well informed of its activity. He doesn't like to see the City losing control of a body the public would feel it should have some knowledge of. He suggested the Access Board have its minutes and records filed in the City Hall. Considerable discussion followed regarding the degree of control the City Council would have in that circumstance, and if that would be harmful to the Access Board. Comm. Williams suggested the Board could have a planned method of keeping in touch with the City and possibly even filing copies of its minutes, without actually being in the City's control. The Admin. Asst. pointed out that members of SPUC are appointed by City Council, but the Council does not really have any control over what they do. She also said the Library Board is county-wide, there is no separate Shakopee board. But the Director said she thought they would appoint a staff person who would be actively interested in cable to represent the Library's interests. She added she thought it would be awkward to have the educational com- munity appoint one representative, when there are two school boards involved. A review was made of the Boards of some of the other cities whose by-laws are being reviewed by this Commission. Several had a split of elected and appointed members. Comm. Williams said that after the initial Council appointments, she would like to see the Board become an on-going, self-sustaining board that functions independently, elected by its membership. The Admin. Ass't pointed out the current ordinance specifies that all members are are appointed, so changing that to have some elected is a change that will have to be justified to Council. She added she did not know if this language about appointments was of strong interest to Councilmembers, or if it was just in- cluded as a standard paragraph. She added Council can have a lot of control just by controlling any grant money it can give to the Access Corp. Discussion followed regarding the number of directors, which was felt should be an uneven number for voting, with ZU's representative to be ex-officio. Harrison/Anderson moved to approve a Inge in the ordinance under 8.14. Community Access Corporation to have the second .ntence include language that the City may Shakopee Cable Communications July 11, 1983 , ,1 Page 2 appoint no less than seven (7) persons with broad representation of the City's educational, cultural, social, community and business organizations; with subse- quent Board members to be elected by the voting membership, and the Grantee shall appoint one member as ex-officio. Motion carried unanimously. A review of the Shakopee Community Access Corporation, Inc. By-Laws commenced, covering the following concerns: Sec. I: O.K. as it is. Sec, II: 2.11 A Member in Good Standing Shall: 2.111 No change. 2.112 No change. 2.113 Payment of dues as established in these by-laws to be due no later than annual meeting. Discussion ensued regarding default language, but general consensus was that if the dues were not paid by the annual meeting, the member would not be in "Good Standing" and therefore could not vote. An administra- tive decision could be made independently regarding when the member would be off mailing lists, etc. 2.12 No change 2.13 Membership shall run from January 1st to December 31st of each year. 2.14 Remove 2.141 (Regular membership); 2.142 (Student membership) and 2.143 (Senior membership). 2.141 Regular voting membership: Available to all persons at an annual cost of $3.00 per year. 2.142 Family membership: Available to any family with a maximum of two (2) voting members, at an annual cost of $7.00 per year. 2.143 change the cost to "$60.00, which will be pro-rated for periods of less than one year." (Non-profit Organizational) 2.144 Sponsoring membership: No change 2.145 Sustaining membership: No change 2.146 Patron membership: No change 2.147 The Board of Directors will have discretion to offer other member- ship promotions. 2.15 Meetings 2.151 Annual meeting: The membership shall meet annually on the last Wednesday in January. . .with notice o± dues payable attached to notice. 2.152 Special meetings T be called by a tition signed by 300 of the voting membershi - 25 members, T -ver is less. Meeting date, Shakopee Cable Communications July 11, 1983 Page 3 time and location will be announced at least two weeks in advance to permit members time to schedule agenda items with the Chairperson. 2.153 No change 2.154 No change 2.155 No change 2.156 Quorum: Quorum shall be 25% of the total current membership, or 10 members, whichever is greater. 2.2 Add: The initial Board shall be appointed by City Council. 2.21 After first sentence add: The Grantee shall have one ex officio member of the Board. Discussion took place regarding whether or not to include language specifying the procedure for recall of any director. Comm. Harrison initiated discussion regarding the setting of age limits. He felt there should be a place on the Board reserved for someone under the age of 18 years to represent young people's views. He felt this could possibly be a non-voting member. Consensus was not to force a position, but if someone young is that interested, they would not be eliminated by any age limit. Chrm. Anderson wanted to add a provision under 2.24 Responsibilities: Attendance - Any director absent from three Board meetings during a calendar year shall be automatically reviewed by the Board and a written report showing each Board member's attendance shall be given prior to the election at the annual membership meeting. Because of the late time, it was decided to continue review of the By-laws at the next meeting. Comm. Harrison asked when they would be getting SPN and Minn. UPI. He feels they are not meeting the requirements of the ordinance without providing these channels. Williams/Harrison moved to request Mary Smith or Bill Leply to be present at the next regular meeting to give a progress report on the studio. Motion carried unanimously. Comm. Williams leaves at 10:43 P.M. Chrm. Anderson reported on his meeting with Bill Frenzel regarding S.F. 66. Harrison/Anderson moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 10:46 P.M. Jeanne Andre Admin. Ass't. Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary 1157 MINUTES OF THE SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (Regular Meeting) The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in regular session on June 30, 1983 at 4:00 P.M. in the Utilities meeting room. Commissioner Bishop offered a prayer for divine guidance in the deliberations of the Commission. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Bishop and Kirchmeier. Also Superintendent Leaveck and Secretary Menden. Commissioner Cook, Liaison Wampach and Manager Van Hout were absent. George Muenchow, Community Services director was present to obtain initial approval from the Utilities Commission to erect exercise stations on land owned by the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission located by Sweeney School. Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Bishop that the exercise stations to be erected on Utility property west of the water tower by Sweeney School receive initial approval with permission to go ahead with construction with a letter directed to Mr. Muenchow stating that the posts at the stations must be cemented and with the City crews to maintain mowing and trimming the complete piece of land. BILLS READ: City of Shakopee 20,032.00 American Business Industries, Inc. 153.18 Amsterdam Printing and Litho Corp. 81.67 Auto Central Supply 57.54 Burmeister Electric Supply 2,350.29 C & D Batteries 1,739.00 C & H Carpenter Lumber 11.38 Chanhassen Lawn and Sports 85.65 City of Shakopee 975.54 City of Shakopee 11,239.64 Clifton Metal Products, Inc. 1,494.56 Consolidated Container 323.40 Dyna Systems 286.65 Feed Rite Controls, Inc. 24.32 Graybar Electric Supply 4,352.47 HDR 246.41 H & C Electric Supply 4,012.35 H M Cragg Company 100.24 Harmons Hardware Hank 5.30 Hennens ICO 5.75 Krass Meyer and Kanning 2,027.00 Lakeville Motor Express 38.90 LaMarche Manufacturing Co. 1,101.00 Leef Bros. , Inc. 15.50 Lewis Systems 79.10 Malkerson Motors 2,623.28 Vince Marschall 94 43 t l Minnesota Environmental Quality Board 302.84 National Electric Inc. 30.00 Ted Neisen 524.00 North Star Service and Supply Co. , Inc. 30.17 Northern States Power Co. 896.53 Northern States Power Co. 293.26 Northern States Power Co. Olsen Chain and Cable Co. , Inc. 55.97 O'Connor and Hannon 25,498.33 P.I.E. 112.11 River Electric Association 920.00 Reynolds Welding Supply Co. 2.75 Schilz Ornamental Iron 95.00 Schoell and madson, Inc. 105.00 Scott Carver Economic Council 392.53 Serco 111.00 Servco 1,166.86 Shakopee Ford 13,631.58 Shakopee Public Utilities Commission 133.40 Siemens Allis 132.00 Dean Smith Trenching 349.00 Software Consultants, Inc. 50.00 Southwest Suburban Publishing, Inca 77.42 Starks Cleaning Service 17.30 John Suback 213.64 Suel Business Equipment 2,213.72 Total Tool Supply Co. 40.93 Water Products Company 2,450.95 Wesco 812.72 Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Bishop that the bills be allowed and ordered paid with the exception of O'Connor and Hannon to be held over to the adjourned regular meeting on July 13, 1983. Motion carried. A letter from John Anderson, City Administrator regarding a task force on competer needs was acknowledged and will be turned over to Manager Van Hout. Motion by Bishop, seconded by Kirchmeier that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried. 1 —)- 6 /.' / 1 ' CAJi_r; 1))(7iN^.20_‘" Barbara Menden, Secretary \.0 c� O r-i N N U) Ll N .--1 r-i N n H " a: c� � � � o 01 In .---i 7--1 •.-1 .0 N <4 G cd O Cil 13 O • 4J • .0 ,--i t` b0..--i E C co • O E >,-C L •1-+ o a >, aC- CU 0 _ f a0 uD C) C E-c E O ?.+ G O ` U .0 .0 cd E M CJ cd cn •,-a cn 4-1 '--1 0 •• i., •• .-4 Q) r-+ v.) aUr� W Hr� ------ '-4 rIN M 0 -.7 N c,-) 1 E E H ( n C 0. a 0 Ef? •r o 0 d 0 •• U •• ca, � F-+ Ill i _ t N O-, ,..0M 0 !Ft 1-1 1-i N M •0 U (-! E E (f) O • ,-1 • .1 Ua •,-+ a el >,O >, o •,4 •. .-4 o .. XUN� UUr• _ t_ cA u•1 N OP .-i N N • }a • JJ • . r, C) EQ) E C, E >, E 0 C!) • U • 1-4 • U 4) a aQ a O a C• ) .1-1 ••-1 • N U) -1 � 0 EO NO �-i •� O ,.0 •,-IM EO O ,Ll > M .1-) .. o •• • •• b P-4 ..,1 V ofS, co Ude .-I co N N n (.') 17 ra_ Zyistra—United Cable Television Co. Chaska Shakopee Northfield 123 West Third Street P.O. Box 146 Chaska, MN 55318 July 27, 1983 (612) 448-3831 . • � Mr. John K. Anderson f' City Administrator 129 E. First Avenue JUL 2 v 1983 Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 RE: DRIVEWAY IMPROVEMENTS, STUDIO AND OFFICEVEMENTS, STOr— iii EE Dear Mr. Anderson: Please excuse my delay in answering some of the questions that you have raised in your letters of July 6 and 18; however, with the recent problems that Z—U has ex— perienced, answering letters has not been one of my priorities. The problems that I am referring to are power surges caused by lightening strikes, theft of pole— climbing equipment and tools taken from locked trucks on two separate occassions. Strangely enough these problems always seem to occur before the weekend and have kept the technical staff, office staff, and myself working weekends including the Fourth of July weekend. With respect to the safety matter you referred to in your letter, that is the un— protected excavations, be advised that we require all of our contractors to meet all safety requirements. Because it is not possible to monitor our contractors twenty four hours a day, I appreciate your informing me of such violations by them . After I was notified of the first such contractor violation by Mr. Ruuska, the matter was resolved within fifteen munutes. On the second, and only other occasion that I am aware of, Mr. Ruuska apparently chose to notify the Shakopee Police Department_, who in turn notified me, which only prolonged the possible hazzard. While I agree that the work stoppage orders should be issued for violations, I would appreciate your cooperation in informing me directly so that such problems can be promptly resolved. As stated in my Cable Update to the Cable Commission, July 11, bids are being sought for upgrading the„headend road. However, please understand that any road work done will be very minimal because the road is intended to be for limited use only once the underground construction is complete. A culvert will be placed in the drainage ditch and covered to provide an adequate approach to County Road 16. The permit was obtained from the County Engineer today. A contractor has been retained to do the work. As stated in my June monthly report, dated July 14, the business office is scheduled to open August 1 and the Studio by the end of August or sooner. At the risk of being redundant (I did report this information to the Cable Commission at its July 25 meeting. ) installations were slowed down during the last three weeks due to the various problems sighted above. Now that the quality of cable service is satisfactory or better again, installations are going full scale. A professional cable marketing team started direct sales today. They will be doing the installation sched— uling as well. Hopefully they will complete the whole cable service territory in the next eight weeks. 17 With respect to your concern about my dropping off a report at Mr. Bill Anderson's home prior to the Cable Commission meeting on July 11, I will state that I certainly did not intend to violate your procedure of having all the cable information sub— mitted to Ms. Andre first. However, the information contained an explanation of the reason for the inturreption of service and how it was resolved. The information was not submitted to me by the .Jerrold engineer until late on the afternoon of July 11, too late to submit it to City Hall before the end of the business day. I felt that the information should be made available to the Cable Commission in a timely manner in that it did deal with the interruption of service. Under ordinary circumstances there is no problem complying with your procedure; however, at times the reporting may have to be done at the convenience of the company rather than the city. With the various written and verbal reports in the last two weeks, plus this letter I trust that I have brought you up to datefor the time being. Sincerely, Mary A. Smith, Manager CC: Ms. Jeanne Andre Mr. Ray Ruuska Mr. J.W. Abbott ako ee Tommuuit Etlitres /� � � � tr reo 129 Levee Drive Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Phone 445-2742 Community Education • Parks • Recreation • Adult Education George F. Muenchow, Dir. 7/27/83 John Anderson Background Info - Summer Playgroujid Program Years ago morning playground activities were held yal in three or four neighborhood locations with two leaders at each location plus a usual once a week Special Event activity on a combined basis at varied locations dependent upon the activity. As interest declined and attendance diminished (competition with swimming lessons, summer school, general youth boredom because of exposure to more exciting activities on TV etc ) plus cost concerns about eight years ago the program was changed to a Mini Playground Program. This format located this program on a once a week basis in four locations with a staff of four (Playground Supervisor Playground Aide, Arts & Crafts Supervisor, Arts & Crafts Aide ). The Playground people taught Tee League Baseball, Soccer, and other sports activities in the afternoons. The Arts & Crafts people taught that activity in a class room setting and prepared the puppet shows (given in the morning program) in the afternoons. Analysis of these programs in the last two or three years has shown again a general decline in participation. Prior to last year's budget preparation time it was thought that perhaps now(1983 )would be a good time to again change the format. Special events usually are popular so they would be emphasized. Arts & Crafts attendance was way down so this would be dropped. Cost considerations were in the forefront. The plan that evolved was to have a Special Event Day on Tuesday & Thursday mornings and these would be scheduled in two parts of the community (east and west ). The west location would be Lions Park & that activity would correlate with swimming & Tee League Baseball in that location. The east location would be at the Jr H.S. and that would correlate with soccer. Tee League Baseball and Soccer would change to a morning program on Mondays and Wednesdays. Staff wise two positions (aides ) were eliminated and the hours of the remaining two staff people were cut to just mornings. Locations that previously had Mini Playground Programs (once a week in the morning), but no longer do are Holmes Park, Hiawatha Park. The reasoning for this planned change was for cost considerations (the summer playground program was the only area where a meaningful) cut in costs could be made. ) and analysis of community interests. George F. Muenchow A COOPERATIVE EFFORT OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AND SCHOOL DISTRICT 720 SINCE 1954 TENTATIVE AGENDA REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA - AUGUST 2 , 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 July 19 and July 25 , 1983 8 ] Communications : a] _Letter of Resignation from Jerry Neisen b] Letter from George Muenchow re : Shakopee Area Possibility Conference c ] Action Alert from League of Cities re : Proportional Reduction of 1984 LGA - Alternative Methods 9 ] Public Hearings : 7 :45 _p.m. - Appeal from Planning Commission Granting a Variance for Fence Height 10 ] Boards & Commissions : a] Planning Commission: aa] Fence Ordinances , No. 129 and No. 130 , Eliminating the 6 inch Setback Requirement for Fences 11 ] Reports from Staff : a] 8 :00 p.m. - Application for Off Sale 3 . 2 Beer License by Pnd, Inc . - 409 East First Avenue b] Thrift Shop Expansion c ] Huber Park Trail. Improvements and Grant Applications d] JEJ Drainage of the Former CMSP & P R-O-W Bids August 1 , 1983 - memorandum on table *e ] Surplus Property *f ] Public Officials & Employee Liability Insurance g] Authorize payment of the bills in amount of $502 ,952 . 70 *h] Travel/Subsistence Reimbursement - Jeanne Andre i ] Dog Control Ordinance j ] Minnesota Statute Chapter 177 Regarding Prosecution of Gross Misdemeanors k] Street Rehabilitation Policy Alternatives - discussion only 1 ] Municipal Pool. Season Extension 12 ] Resolutions and Ordinances : a] Res . No. 2146 , CR-16 Utilities Improvement No. 1980-4 *b] Res . No. 2147 , Initiate Vacation of Alley in Block 9 , East Shakopee *e ] Ord. No; 122 , Amending Chapter 3 of the City Code on Municipal and Public Utilities 13 ] Other Business : a] b] c ] 14 ] Adjourn to Tuesday, August 16 , 1983 at 7 : 00 p.m. John K. Anderson, City Administrator OFFICIAL PROCERDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JULY 19, 1983 Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Cncl. Leroux, Lebens and Wampach present. .Cncl. Vierling arrived later. Cncl. Colligan was absent. Also present were John K. Anderson, City Admr. ; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk and Julius A. Coller, II, City Attorney. Liaison reports were given by Councilpersons. Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to address the Council on any item not on the agenda, and there was no response. Lebens/Wampach moved to approve the minutes of July 5, 1983 as kept. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. The City Admr. made a correction to the minutes of July 12, 1983, second paragraph of the first page, to make the second to the last sentence read: "Ms. Kincannon also mentioned the July 21, 1983 hearing to be held by the Metropolitan Council regarding appointment of MTC Commissioners for the new transit districts." Iz Lebens/Leroux moved to approve the minutes of July,Y, 1983 as corrected. Motion carried unanimously. Lebens/Wampach moved to authorize City Admr. , John Anderson, to execute and submit the Waiver Petition, dated July 19, 1983, to the Federal Communications Commission requesting that the City be allowed to increase its franchise fee from three to five percent, and place it as document No. 44 in the City Clerk's Official Record of Documents. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Cncl. Leroux asked if the City could hold up the bids if it did not acquire all the necessary easements relative to the JEJ drainage. The City Attorney said the City could hold the bids for a reasonable period of time, but not as long as it takes for condemnation. The City Engineer explained the position the City is in regarding the acquisition of easements. He said all of the property owners are willing to sign a waiver of rights. Leroux/Lebens moved to authorize invitation for bid for JEJ Drainage of former Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad right-of-way on August 1, 1983. Discussion ensued relative to the history of this project and the assessments in the area. Cncl. Lebens stated she did not approve of this project because the City is picking up the cost, which is not fair as every other place in the City the projects are assessed. She felt also that a full Council should be seated to order the project. The City Admr. stated if there is a possibility of the City not going ahead with this project, he would like to have the residents present when it is voted upon. Further discussion took place reg,rding the history of this project. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. There was discussion whether or not some of the restoration work on the Holmes Street Reconstruction Project (80-3) should be redone. The City Engineer explained that the City passed out an information sheet to property owners regarding the care of the new sod that was laid on the boulevard on the Holmes Street Reconstruction, Leroux/Lebens moved that the City not financially support the replacement of any sod on the boulevard along Holmes Street. Motion carried unanimously. Lebens/Wampach moved to authorize the payment of Partial Estimate Voucher No. 1, to Lundgren Excavating, 5609 35th Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55407, in the amount of $42,562.56 for the 16th Avenue and 90th Street Roadway Improvement Project No. 1982-6. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Lebens/Wampach moved to authorize the payment of Partial Estimate Voucher No. 3 to F. F. Jedlicki, Inc. , 14203 West 52nd Street, Eden Prairie, Mn. 55344, in the amount of $7,803.37 for the Levee Drive Extension Project No. 1982-3. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Shakopee City Council July 19, 1983 Page 2 Discussion ensued regarding the specifications for the selection of an auditor. Lebens/Wampach moved to use the specifications for auditing services as proposed by the Finance Director in his memo of July 6, 1983, with the following change in 6C to read "Applicants shall assign individuals with experience in cities over 10,000 to the project:" Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Lebens moved that the bills in the amount of $362,769.52 be allowed and ordered paid. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Discussion ensued regarding the qualifications of the County's Building Inspector and the City Building Official's responsibility in inspecting the third floor addition to the Courthouse. • Leroux/Wampach moved to allow the County, through its Building Official, to conduct all routine inspections throughout the third floor addition to the Courthouse, with the exceptions of the electrical and final inspections, and bill the City for these services accordingly, with the City's Building Inspector being responsible for final inspection and all sign-offs. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Lebens moved that no changes be made in the developers agreement at this time. Motion carried unanimously. Cncl. Lebens said that after checking the original and changed copies of previous minutes, she can see that the changes made are mostly adding names and additional information for clarification and minor wording changes which are beneficial for the minutes, and the intent is not changed. Therefore, she is happy with the cor- rections and sees no problem with continuing in the same way. Leroux/Lebens moved to continue the status quo for staff reviewing and correcting the Council minutes. Motion carried unanimously. Council reviewed the Six Year Capital Improvement Program, item by item, and commented on the following projects. No. 1: Block 57 storm sewer was noted to be brought back for discussion. Cncl. Lebens was concerned about drainage at the emergency entrance. She said water is ponding there and she is wondering if it will enter the building. The City Engineer explained the placement of drains in the area. There was also some discussion re- garding the advisibility of having ambulances enter a collector street. No. 3: Fifth Ave. sanitary sewer was noted to be brought back far further discussion. The City Admr. said this project is necessary for the new prison site. The City Engineer explained the logic behind putting the sanitary sewer in Fifth Avenue rather than 6th or 10th Ave. He said part of the reason is to keep capacity avail- able for possible Rahr expansion. The City Admr. said there is a possibility that private corporations will be allowed to bid on the construction of the new prison site, so there is a possibility of creating a tax increment district which could be used to help pay for the 5th Ave. sewer project. No. 6: Market Street improvements was noted to be brought back for further discussion. No. 10: The City Engineer said the service road in Huber Park is to be re-located to eliminate drive-throughs. No. 12: Railroad crossing signals at CR83 was to be brought back for discussion. No. 15: The City Admr. will check on the dates for construction of CR77 and CR 78 jog, which is on the County's five year plan. No. 16: Eaglewood road reconstruction is to be brought back for discussion. No. 17: Discussion took place regarding funding of 8th Avenue Sanitary Sewer - Spencer to Prairie. The City Admr. said he thought 90% of other cities are doing recon- struction of utilities out of the sewer fund, rather than assessing for reconstruc- tion. This is just considered part of the utility enterprise, which then keeps it up. Cncl. Vierling arrived and took her seat at 8:55 P.M. Shakopee City Council July 19, 1983 Page 3 No. 22: The City Engineer said he thought it would be tough to get the right- of-way for the Horizon Heights erosion control, because it cuts a building site in two. No. 23: Holmes Street laterals was noted to be brought back for discussion. No. 26: The City Engineer said there is a proposed alignment of 13th Avenue because of the drainage. Discussion followed regarding the pros and cons of the City establishing an alignment before development takes place. Consensus was to wait for the first developer in the area, and at that time finalize the alignment. Study 84 was deleted. No. 27: The City Admr. explained the possibility of a Hwy. 169 frontage road, T.H. 300 to 3rd, which would allow an area zoned commercial to have development potential. It was pointed out that part of the road is outside the City. No. 28: Valley Park drainage & watermain was noted to come back for discussion. The City Engineer explained the current status. It was decided to go to another agenda item, as the applicant was now present in the audience. Leroux/Wampach moved to approve the application and grant a pool table license to Gerald Smith d/b/a Extrah's, 101 East First Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Reinke said he was called to the area near Richard's Pub Saturday morning by a neighbor who wanted him to see debris, including broken glass, beer cans, mis- cellaneous litter and human waste and destruction of adjoining properties which came from Richard's Pub. He feels Council should give some direction to the establish- ment about the kind of business they are conducting. The neighbors complained there are people in the parking lot until 2:00-3:00 a.m. drinking and playing radios loudly. He said the business has been cited for overcrowding and noise, but the legal process takes about six months, and sometimes the fine is just paid and there is no change. Mayor Reinke suggested a 6 foot high chain link fence completely surrounding the property, the barricade replaced in the alley and patrolling in the parking lot to prevent drinking and destruction. He thinks staff should observe and document what is going on and inform the owner that if corrective measures are not taken, he will be summoned for a review of his liquor license. Discussion followed. Gerald Smith said he owns other 3.2 beer establishments in Minneapolis, and he works closely with the aldermen in those communities. He said he has a good record for cooperation. He suggested if one Councilperson or the Mayor were designated to work with this, he would be happy to cooperate. Cncl. Leroux stated the Build- ing Official and Chief of Police are the persons who work with the licenseholder. Further discussion followed. The City Attorney stated the Code specified that liquor can be sold and consumed only in the area described in the application for which the license is granted, which is the inside building. Therefore, any consumption outside the building is illegal. Leroux/Wampach moved to have the Mayor and City Admr. compose a letter to be sent to Richard's Pub regarding the violations mentioned by the Mayor, and to give the owner notice that if such conditions are not corrected, his liquor license will be in jeopardy. Motion carried unanimously. Review of the Six Year Capital Improvement Program continued, with the following comments. No. 29: There was some discussion about the City's current procedures regarding sidewalk construction. No. 30: High rise - Levee Drive was noted to be brought back for discussion. No. 32: The City Admr. said SPUC has indicated it does not want to participate In the underground portion of the Huber Park Trail. No. 34: Upper Valley Drainage was noted to be brought back for discussion. The City Engineer said itis very important for the City to be informed by the County as to how they expect to handle surface water. The City Admr. discussed the town- ships' perception of the management of the drainage problems. Shakopee City Council July 19, 1983 Page 4 No. 38: Alley in Block 106 - The City Engineer said this is a dead-end alley in a poor location. He does not recommend the City take it over for maintenance. The City Admr. said vacation is one possible alternative. No. 40: The City Engineer said acquisition for the Eastside Park is completed, and davelopment is being held pending plans for the Upper Valley Drainage. The funding for this should be Park Reserve Fund, not GO. No. 41: Fire station expansion was deleted. No. 43: Alley between 7th & 8th, east of Dakota was changed to indefinite. The City Admr. said the City proposed a compromise, and haven't heard back from the property owner. No. 45: Tahpah Park was noted to be brought back for discussion. No. 46: O'Dowd Park (road and access control) was noted to be brought back for discussion. No. 52: Signals at Scott & close Apgar was noted to be brought back for discussion. No. S3: Traffic and crossing study was noted to be brought back for discussion. No. 54: New City Hall, a date of 1985 was added. No action was taken on the Six Year Park Program. Wampach/Lebens moved to take no action to create a City wide lodging tax. Motion carried unanimously. Cncl. Leroux asked about Ordinance No. 128 referring to unclaimed animals being made available to an educational or scientific institution. The City Attorney said the State law supercedes the City Code regarding disposal of the unclaimed animals. However, he said if the owner requests it or if it is on the tag that the animal shall not be made available to an institution, that will be respected. Lero ux/Vierling moved to have the City imprint on the animal tags, that this animal shall not be used for research. Motion carried unanimously. Lebens/Leroux moved to have the City adppt an ordinance similar to Minneapolis regarding an animal owner being responsible for cleaning up after their pet on property not belonging to the owner and directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. Lebens/Wampach moved to authorize the appropriate City staff to receive bids at the office of the City Admr. under 11:00 a.m. CDST on Monday, August 8, 1983 at 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota for a new three wheel loader type sweeper for the Public Works Dept. Roll Call: Ayes ; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Vierling/Lebens offered Ordinance No. 120, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending the Shakopee City Code, Chapter 1, Entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty For Violation" By Adding Definitions Relating To Public and Private Property; and Making This Ordinance Applicable To Every Chapter, Section or Other Provision of the Shakopee City Code, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling offered Ordinance No. 121, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of The City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending the Shakopee City Code, Chapter 2, Entitled "Administration and General Government" By Changing Provisions Relating To Aban- doned Motor Vehicles; By Adding a Provision Relating to Deferred Payment of Special Assessments; And, By Adopting By Reference, Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 And Sec- tion 2.99 Which, Among Other Things, Contain Penalty Provisions, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Lebens/Leroux offered Ordinance No. 122, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending the Shakopee City Code, Chapter 3, Entitled. "Municipal and Public Utilities - Rules and Regulations, Franchises and Rates" By Adding A Provision Relating to Delinquent Municipal Utility Rates and Charges; By Removing the Electric and Gas Franchises From Section 3.30 and 3.40 and Listing Same in Chapter 25; And, By Adopting By Reference, Shakopee City Code, Chapter 1 and Section 3.99 Which, Among Other Things, Contain Penalty Provisions, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Shakopee City Council July 19, 1983 Page 5 Wampach/Lebens offered Ordinance No. 123, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending the Shakopee City Code, Chapter 4, Entitled "Con- struction Licensing, Permits and Regulations" By Changing Provisions Relating To the State Building Code and the Housing Code; By Repealing the Provision Relating to Fire Zones; And, By Adopting By Reference, Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Section 4.99 Which, Among Other Things, Contain Penalty Provisions, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Lebens offered Ordinance No. 124, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending the Shakopee City Code, Chapter 5, Entitled "Liquor, Beer and Wine Licensing and Regulation" By Changing Provisions Relating to Action on Licenses, Closing Regulations, Delinquent Taxes, Temporary Beer Licensee Insurance Requirements, Beer Sales To Intoxicated Persons, And Liquor Licensee Bond Requirements; By Adding Provisions Relating to Financial Responsi- bility of Licensees, Proof of Age, Insurance Requirements, and Licenses Relating to Consumption and Display and Temporary Liquor Licenses; By Repealing Ordinance No. 114, Fourth Series, And, By Adopting By Reference, Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Section 5.99 Which, Among Other Things, Contain Penalty Provisions, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling offered Ordinance No. 125, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending The Shakopee City Code, Chapter 6, Entitled "Other Business Regulation and Licensing" By Changing Provisions Relating to Taxicab License Requirements, Gambling and Bingo; By Adding A Provision Relating to Insurance Requirements; And, By Adopting By Reference, Shakopee City Code Chap- ter 1 and Section 6.99 Which, Among Other Things, Contain Penalty Provisions, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Lebens/Vierling offered Ordinance No. 126, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending The Shakopee City Code, Chapter 8, Entitled "Traffic Regulation s" by Changing A Provision Relating to Exhibition Driving; And By Adopting By Reference, Shakopee City Code Chapter l,and Section 8.99 Which, Among Other Things, Contain Penalty Provisions, and moved its adoption. Wampach/Leroux offered Ordinance No. 127, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of The City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending The Shakopee City Code, Chapter 9, Entitled "Parking Regulations" By Changing Provisions Relating to General Parking Prohibi- tions; By Adding A Provision Relating to Parking During Street Maintenance And Other Restrictions; And By Adopting By Reference, Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 And Chapter 9.99 Which, Among Other Things, Contain Penalty Provision, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Wampach offered Ordinance No. 128, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending the Shakopee City Code, Chapter 10, Entitled "Public Protection, Crimes and Offenses" By Changing Provisions Relating to Disposal of Unclaimed Dogs and Adoption of Fire Code; By Repealing Provision Relating to Board of Health; and By Adopting By Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Section 10.99 Which, Among Other Things, Contain Penalty Provisions, and moved its adoption. Motion carried with Cncl. Leroux opposed. Leroux/Lebens moved to reconsider Ordinance No. 122. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to table Ordinance No. 122. and directed staff to redraft it. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to appoint Judith S. Cox as Acting Administrator from July 30, 1983 through August 8, 1983. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to direct staff to put Mr. John Nelson's unpaid water and sewer bill on his taxes payable in 1984, and to apprise him of this situation, and inform Mr. Nelson he has until October 10, 1984 to pay it before it will be certi- fied to the County Assessor. Motion carried with Cncl. Lebens opposed. Leroux/Vierling moved to direct the proper City officials to accept the proposal of Frank J. Wicker for an amount not to exceed $6,000.00 for appraisal of Lot 1, Block 1, Cretex Industrial Park 1st Addition, and benefit analysis for six parcels. Roll Call: Ayes; Vierling, Leroux, Wampach, Reinke Noes,; Lebens Motion carried. Shakopee City Council July 19,1983 Page 6 Vierling/Leroux moved to accept the liquor liability insurance policy of Columbia Casualty Company for Gerald F. Smith, 101 East First Avenue and authorize staff to return the Guaranty National Insurance Company policy. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Lebens moved to accept the liquor liability insurance policy of the Home Insurance Company for R. Hanover Inc. , 911 East First Avenue and authorize staff to return the American Druggists' Insurance Company policy. Motion carried unanimously. Lebens/Leroux moved to give proper notification to the property owner at 4th and Adams to control his weeds. Motion carried unanimously. Cncl. Lebens suggested Council having an executive session to discuss the 1967 Public Improvement Program. She said Mel Lebens will attend and be available to answer questions and give any information he has relative to that program. She thought the auditors could be invited to attend. Leroux/Vierling moved that when Council adjourns, it adjourn to an Executive Session at 7:00 p.m. , Monday, July 25, 1983 for the purpose of discussing the 1967 Public Improvement Program and how it relates to the auditor employed by the City. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to adjourn at 11:07 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Judith S. Cox City Clerk Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary T., OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JULY 25, 1983 Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. with Cncl. Wampach, Leroux, Vierling, and Colligan present. Also present were Jerome Jaspers, Jim Streefland, Mel Lebens; former City Recorder, and John K. Anderson, City Admr. Mr. Lebens made a presentation regarding the history behind the 1967 Parking Lot Improvements and the 1967 Public Improvements. Councilmembers and others present participated in the discussion. Colligan/Vierling moved to adjourn at 8:44 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Judith S. Cox City Clerk John K. Anderson Recording Secretary • t ga, City of Shakopee July 27 , 1985 129 E. 1st. Ave. Shakopee , Mn . 55379 City Officials, This letter is to inform you that I will be terminating from the Shakopee Park Department to continue in my own business. At this time I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to take the 90 days leave of absence . This time gave me a chance to get my business off to a good start. • Thanks for everything, - erry Nelsen . b #tukniee Cinmt uatitUU #eruirES 129 Levee Drive Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Phone 445-2742 Community Education • Parks • Recreation • Adult Educ'aa"{oW' 7% July 15, 1983 CITY Or' 6i-iiiLKQPrZEi City Council & Industrial/Commercial Commission Ms. Judy Cox 129 E. 1st Avenue Shakopee, Mn 55379 Dear Judy: The Mayor has asked that we get community leaders together for the purpose of sharing community concerns and exploring new ways to improve conditions in our community. Everyone in the community has been affected in some way by government cutbacks and the shrinking economy. The VOLUNTEER FOR MINNESOTA Project is dedicated to the principal that we, in our local community, by putting our heads, our resources and the combined strength of our organizations together, can come up with some innovative ways to deal with local needs, those issues that directly affect you, me and all our neighbors. As leader of your organization, your perceptions will be of great value in the community. You are invited to attend the Shakopee Area Possibility Conference which will be held on Thursday evening, August 25, 1983 in the Community Room of the Citizens State Bank, 1100 E. 4th Avenue. The conference will begin at 7:30 p.m. and will be over by 9:30 p.m. We sincerely hope that you will be able to attend. If by chance you are not available, please be sure to be represented by some other knowledgeable person from your organization. We are striving for a cross section of community Leaders so an accurate picture of community concerns can be developed. Please let us know your response by calling this office before 5:00 on Friday, August 12. The phone number is 445-2742. Yours very truly, George F. Muenchow, Director Shakopee Community Services GFM:kml P.S. Each conference participant is being asked to being along one or two ideas regarding a current problem in the community. A COOPERATIVE EFFORT OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AND SCHOOL DISTRICT 720 SINCE 1954 .) al Illill 0 illi--,.51 pm-111-g gc... league of minnesota cities.j#u �= ? ?.983 MEMORANDUM July 26, 1983 7"- . r ,', .s ;t'y,: TO: LMC Member Cities FROM: Donald Slater, Executive Director Peggy Flicker, Legislative Counsel SUBJECT: PROPORTIONAL REDUCTION OF 1984 LGA - ALTERNATIVE METHODS The Department of Revenue will soon be making a decision concerning the interpretation of the LGA (Local Government Aid) statute for the distribution of LGA in 1984. (Some ciites have learned of this impending decision and assumed it would affect 1983 LGA distributiofi. It does not. ) Since the amount appropriated($246.2 million) will probably not be sufficient to "fully fund" the formula, some sort of proportional reduction will be necessary. The issue is: how will the proportional reductions be accomplished? Depending on how the reduction is done, some cities may get less of an increase than they might have otherwise received; other cities may get a greater decrease than they would have otherwise anticipated. Two major alternatives are now being considered by the Revenue Department: 1 . The first, advocated by cities of the first class, would reduce the "preliminary i aid factor" of each city. (The "preliminary aid factor" is the amount of LGA a city would receive if there were no maximum increase or decrease provisions. It is the "pure formula" amount. ) COMMENT: This alternative benefits cities whose preliminary aid amount exceeds the 6 percent maximum increase permitted by the statute. As a result, they will still receive the 6 percent LGA increase even if the proportional reduction of the "preliminary aid factor" takes place. (Note: a large number of cities, including Minneapolis, St. Paul , and Duluth probably fall into this category. ) The cities which would appear to bear the brunt of this method are: a) the 50 or so which receive LGA on the preliminary aid factor (i .e. , the maximum provisions do not constrain them - they are "on the formula") ; b) "borderline cities" which are not now on the "formula" , but which may be after the proportional cutbacks; and c) the cities which receive LGA on the basis of the "3/4 mill maximum decrease" provision. The $6.4 million allocated to that 3/4 mill provision would have to be spread more thinly. 2. The second alternative would determine each city's proportional share of any shortfall based on its preliminary aid factor. Then, that amount would be subtracted from each city' s final aid amount. (This is the traditional method used by the Department of Revenue in past years to calculate LGA distribution and is the one initially indicated by the Department for use in determining 1984 aid amounts. ) COMMEaT• .- T .i would result in a relatively small reduction for all cities. €3 - u ivSer� ��vpnue east�,gstJ.lRa��ltrmi -nesota 55101 161 2l 227-5600 The shore- wou a De s read amo LMC Member Cities 2 c' Page 2 July 26, 1983 WHEN AND HOW WILL A DECISION BE MADE? On July 15, representatives from the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul met with the Department of Revenue on this matter. Peggy Flicker, LMC Legislative Counsel , attended on behalf of the League. At. that time, Minneapolis representatives indicated that the matter of proportional reduction had been discussed during deliberations on LGA at the 1983 Legislature; that the legislature intended that Alternative I be used; and that this method is most consistent with the property tax relief purpose of LGA. Several key legislators are apparently writing letters to that effect to the Department of Revenue at this time. Cities informed and aware of the pending decision are contacting the department. If your city has a concern in this regard, please contact the office of the Commissioner of Revenue to express your city' s views. Contacting the League will also provide information for the LMC Board of Directors on the matter. The LMC Board of Directors will meet on Thursday, August 4, to discuss the questions raised by the current situation. Arthur Roemer, Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, has indicated that he is interested in proceeding to make a decision in the matter and may do so before actual data on the extent of the shortfall is available since it is the concern of the department that a process be in place to determine the calculations of LGA distribution for 1984. The Department of Revenue anticipates that all data necessary to determine the 1984 LGA distribution will be available by the end of July. Only then will the department know the extent of the shortfall and how each city would fare under each alternative. Time is of the essence. It is a matter that will be decided soon. *Note : John Anderson has already called our Legislators and the Metro Loser' s Group is working on this . MEMO TO: John K. Anderson City Administrator FROM: Don Steger City Planner RE: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Wermerskirchen Fence DATE: July 26, 1983 Introduction: The City Engineer is appealing the decision of the Planning Commission regarding the approval of a 71/2 foot high fence on Steve Wermerskirchen ' s property. Background: At the July 7 , 1983 meeting, the Planning Commission voted 3 to 1 to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a 71 foot high fence at 1756 Montecito Drive (corner of County Road 16 and Montecito Drive) . The approval was granted with the following condition: "The fence must be setback at least 11/2 feet from the south property line" . Because the City Engineer feels that a dangerous intersection will be created with the construction of the fence, he is appealing the Planning Commission' s decision (see attached memo) . Also attached are copies of the staff report to the Planning Commission, a map, a letter from Ery Prenevost (County Highway Engineer) and a letter from John DuBois (Deputy Police Chief ) . As I mentioned in the staff report to the Planning Commission, I feel that it is imperative to view the site prior to making any decision on this matter. The crux of the issue is to determine 'the setback of the fence so that a visible and safe intersection results. The staff, City Engineer and/or City Planner, would be willing to view the site with members of the City Council prior to the meeting so as to explain the matter more clearly, if desired. Alternatives: 1 . Approve the Conditional Use Permit for a 71 foot high fence with the condition that the fence be setback at least 11 feet from the south property line. John K. Anderson July 26, 1983 Wermerskirchen Fence Appeal Page -2- Cr' 2 . Approve the Conditional Use Permit for a 72 foot high fence with the condition that the fence be setback a desired distance from the south property line. 3 . Do not approve the Conditional Use Permit, based on the creation of a dangerous intersection (Sec. 11 . 04 , Subd. 6 A-9 ) . Recommendation: The Planning Commission, by a vote of 3 to 1 , recommended that the Conditional Use Permit for a 71 foot high fence be approved with the following condition: "The fence must be setback at least 1k feet from the south property line" . Action Requested: Choose one of the alternatives . DS/jvm Attachments .Ir MEMORANDUM / f TO John K. Anderson • w City Administrator FROM H. R. Spurrier City Engineer �- -- --- SUBJECT: Height Variance for Fence at 1756 Montecito Drive DATE July .13 , 1983 Introduction Planning Commission received a request for the above-referenced variance in their. meeting July 7 , 1983 . Background When I reviewed this proposed action with the City Planner, we drove out to Monticito Heights and I drove through the intersection from Montecito Drive and through the intersection from County Road 16 . The fence, as proposed and as approved, obstructs vision so that vehicles approaching the intersection in County Road 16, at 55 m.p.h. have insufficient sight stopping distance. Sight stopping distance is the linear measure from the point at which an automobile would perceive a hazard and then react to that hazard and stop the automobile. For 55 m.p.h. , the sign limit, sight stopping distance is 550 feet. Several years ago, County Road 16 was speed zoned and the average speed was found to be more than 60 m.p.h. sight stopping distance for 60 m.p. h. is 650 feet . With poor conditions, an automobile traveling less than 8 m.p.h. could drive past the proposed fence and out to the center of County Road 16 in less than 5 seconds. During the same 5 seconds, a car on County Road 16 would travel approximately 200 feet before it could even begin to stop, then it would skid another 275 feet and still be going 30 m.p. h. when it met the first car at Montecito Drive. That 30 feet does not sound like much, but on County Road 16, it would give the second car 21 more seconds to stop, or 21 more seconds to avoid the first car. I am particularly concerned about corner obstructions . There seem to he a growing number of these obstructions cropping up around town in violation of City Code. John K. Anderson July 13, 1983 Height Variance Page _2_ It is my belief that the City is unnecessarily creating dangerous intersections in this community and will pay for it sometime in the future. I understand that 1 previously stated I would leave the matter in your hands . However, after analyzing this in detail, I believe I have no other choice hut to appeal the action of the Planning Commission. Therefore, I hereby appeal the height variance granted for 1756 Montecito Drive and recommend the fence be set back 30 feet from the property line or reduced in height to code requirements. IIRS/jvm • • ! h, : i' 1 .401(-16 _, DATE: July 7 , 1983 ITEM: Conditional Use Permit APPLICANT: Steve Wermerskirchen LOCATION: Corner of County Road 16 & Montecito Drive 1756 Montecito Drive Lot 1 , ,Block 1 , Montecito Heights 2nd Addition ZONING: R-1 (Rural Residential) LAND USE: Single Family Residential APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 11 . 04, Subd . 6 ; Section 11.05, Subd . 4 ; Section 4. 03 , Subd . lA FINDINGS REQUIRED: Section 11 .04 , Subd. 6A PUBLIC HEARING HELD CASE HEARD BY PLANNING COMMISSION APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL Proposal The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit in order to construct a privacy fence, 71 feet in height , within the front yard setback . Considerations 1 . The City Code requires a Conditional Use Permit for fences over 3 feet in height when located within the front yard setback . The applicant ' s lot is a triple frontage lot and , therefore , has three front yards in regards to setback require- ments . Even though the fence is proposed in the rear yard , the front yard requirements pertain due to frontage on County Road 16 and Montecito Drive . 2 . The privacy fence is proposed to be 71 feet in height in order to effectively screen the windows of the house from County Road 16 . Because the lot slopes upward from the county road to the house, a fence of this height is needed for privacy. 3 . The framing for the fence has already been constructed . This initial construction occured without a Building Permit, which was observed by City staff . When reviewed , it was determined that the fence frame is located 61 feet within the County Road 16 right-of-way. This situation will not be permitted by the County Highway Engineer (see letter attached) and the framing will have to be removed from the right-of-way. 4 . The City Engineer is concerned with the visibility at the intersection of County Road 16 and Montecito Drive. In reviewing this case , the City Engineer indicated that he cannot approve the fence installation because it creates a dangerous intersection . It is his opinion that this fence should Planning Commission July 7 , 1983 T- Wermerskirchen Cond . Use Permit Page -2- not be placed within the 30 foot front yard setback in order to maintain a visible intersection. The City Engineer is particu- larly concerned with cars making a "rolling" stop into County Road 16 and the inability for a westbound car to stop in time to avoid an accident . The County Highway Engineer does not have concern over inter- section visibility at this point and is comfortable with the fence as long as it ' s outside the county road right-of-way. 5 . If the proposed fence is approved by the Planning Commission, County Road 16 will be entirely visible from a car stopped at the intersection of County Road 16 and Montecito Drive (a stop sign on Montecito Drive currently exists) . However , a car approaching the stop sign on Montecito Drive will be within approximately 30 feet of the stop sign before a westbound car on County Road 16 will view it . The reaction time appears insufficient in order to avoid an accident if a complete stop is not made by the car entering the county road . 6 . Drivers in general and motorcycle riders in particular , have learned to drive defensively in order to avoid accidents . When a car approaches a highway from the side , the average driver on the highway tends to carefully view the approaching vehicle to ensure that he does not enter the highway immediately in front . When the approaching car is hidden from view until very close to the intersection , the highway driver may, in fact , react in a manner which is dangerous to himself , others following or others in the on-coming lane . Shielding the approaching car from the view of the highway driver is a major concern of the staff . 7 . This case is particularly difficult to assess . The staff feels that it is imperative for the Planning Commission to visit the site in order to make an informed decision. The City Engineer and City Planner would be very willing to accompany a Planning Commissioner , if desired . Please contact one of these staff members, if interested . If viewing the site alone, please remember that the existing fence frame is currently 61 feet inside the County Road 16 right-of-way. The Planning Commission needs to determine whether moving the fence 61 feet toward the house is sufficient . Staff Recommendation This case involves differing opinion as to the safety of the inter- section if the 71 foot fence is approved . With respect to the City Engineer ' s opinion , the City Planner ' s recommendation is denial of the Conditional Use Permit as proposed . However, approval of the Permit is recommended if the fence is setback 30 feet from the south property line . Planning Commission July 7 , 1983 I Wermerskirchen Cond . Use Permit Page -3- Action Requested Offer Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 343 , a request to exceed the height requirement for a fence in a front yard setback by approximately 4 feet 6 inches and move for its denial based on the creation of a dangerous intersection and a potential public safety hazard (11 . 04 , Subd . 6A) . DS/jvm Attachments : County Engineer ' s Letter Site Plan City Engineer ' s Staff Review • i- . .cam. • I i i i• • ........,... ... ................................74 ......,..f. 'a, , '''',..'S,t.,''. . . Y vil (s / i Om" M„9D ,'�'� / ií :� � .,� . ( . • In (...) I ( P PI G _ of of.�b r �' C' d N I\ P‘ U •k $. . 0 1 - :r O 0 M.9a,vLp 04P / , 1sz z Cly 1;�1r i.. , l i 111 ` t•• } may . ^y,: s osal/ 1 I \ V'K Vi +;; ' s4-..•.',..".4.v ,,.. T 0 10,v ,_ '71111%41. . "'AV. ,,c.................../..., '..._ � !ss • SCOTT COUNTY0 ifia ^►�� r HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 5C' , , COURT HOUSE A106 1 .; x„�' , r SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379-1396 (612)-445-7750, Ext.346 Highway Engineer: E.W.PRENEVOST June 23 , 1983 Mr . Steve Wermerskirchen 1756 Montecito Drive Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Re : Fence Setback CSAH 16 Dear Sir : You have inquired about the erection of a fence paralleling County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 16 in Montecito Heights , Second Addition in the City of Shakopee. The plat for Montecito Heights indicates that a 50 foot right of way has been dedicated North of the centerline of CSAH 16 . It will therefore be necessary for you to erect the fence beyond this 50 foot right of way . The County does not have jurisdiction beyond the right of way within the corporate limits . Because of the T intersection, stop sign condition and reduced visibility at other side roads in the immediate area , I do not object to the fence being placed at a point beyond the 50 ' right of way. Yours truly, ^ E. W. Prenevost County Highway Engineer EWP/sal liiii 0 1 i I , j P An Equal Op;wrrunity I;rnl,lo er -00.0 4 , ; City of Shakopee '� . `► 7 �,. �• -°F v``\\; POLICE DEPARTMENT - ou sU, i � I :ck' + 476 South Gorman Street i y• G. `� if j �t � SI1AKOPFI •, MINNESOTA 55379 •( > ` \``� rf > �'f ^t ` > \ '1 p • ' Tei. 445.6666 : \\' SSJ79 • •• i' ti 7_ � •' •,'; 0. • TO: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN FROM: DEPUTY CHIEF, JOHN J. DUBOIS SUBJECT: PRIVACY FENCE DATE: JULY 5, 1983 On July 5, 1983 at 10 : 30 a .m. , I inspected the intersection of Monticeto Hts . and Co. Rd. 16 at the request of Steve Wermerskirschen, 1756 Monticeto Dr, Shakopee, reference the proposed fence causing obstruction of view for traffic east of Monticeto Hts . on Co.Rd. 16 . It is my opinion that the fence, 6 foot back of Highway right of way, will cause no visual obstruction . r / John J. DuBois • e �o eS'ezvc Do cioleet C Uri JAI-_ 1�1 KQ Y i did CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. 343 WHEREAS , Steve Wermerskirchen • having duly filed an applic;3tion for a Conditional Use Permit cE<ttee June 22, 1983 under the provisions or the bhaI, opee Zoning, Ordinance , Section 11. 05, Subd. 4A , as 1o1lows : to exceed the height requirement for fences in a front yard setback by approximately 4 feet 6 inches __ — - _ ; and WHEREAS , the present :.onintr, Iut the parcel on which the Conditional Use Permit is being requested it desif;nnt: ed rte : R-1 _ �_--�; and WHEREAS , the property upon which the request is being made is described as : Lot 1, Block 1, Montecito Heights 2nd Addition ;' and WHEREAS , upon hearing the advice and recommendation of the City Planner and upon considering the suggestions and objections raised by the affected property owners within a radius of 350 feet thereof in a ' public hearing duly held thereon . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SHAKOPEE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA , that the aforementioned Conditional Use Permit application be and is hereby : APPROVED as follows : ! . Fence-must be setback at least 1i feet from the south property line. I 1 1 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, thatP ursuant to ShakopeeCity e Code, Section 11 . 04 , Subd . 6C-12 , if an approved Conditional Use Permit is not utilized within one year from date herein approved or by July 7, , ' 19 84 , it shall become null and void . Adopted in _Regular _ ____ session of the Shakopee Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota held this 7th day of July , 19 _83 9/ i ....../. ,„ Cha ' an o ,0 P anning Commission ;) * * * * * * STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF SCOTT ) ss OFFICE OF SHAKOPEE PLANNING AND ZONING CITY OF SHAKOPEE ) I, Don Steger, Planning Director for the City of Shakopee, Minnesota with and in for said City, do hereby certify that this is a true and exact copy of the Order. _T`airkA.�K a Conditional Use Permit with the original record thereof p serve�in my office. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my hand at Shakopee, Minnesota in the County of Scott on This 'I , day of �,I ______ ._..____, 19 S3 • Prepared by: Uon Steger City of Shakopee -_ 129 East ] st Avenue Shakopee Planninf> Director Shakopee, MN 55379 1/33 CITY OF SHAKOPEE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. CC- 343 WHEREAS , Steve Wermerskirchen having duly filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit dated June 22, 1983 under the provisions of the Shakopee Zoning Ordinance , Section 11. 05, Subd. 4A , as follows : to exceed the height limitation for fences in a front yard setback _by approximately 4 feet 6 inches in a R-1 ClIural Residential) zoned area ; and WHEREAS , the property upon which the request is being made is described as : Lot 1, Block 1, Montecito Heights 2nd Addition (Addressed as : 1756 Montecito Drive) ; and WHEREAS , said proposed Conditional Use Permit request was approved by the Shakopee Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota at their meeting held July 7, 1983 and said Conditional Use Permit decision is herewith being appealed to the City Council ; and WHEREAS , the Shakopee City Council on August 2, 1983 held a public hearing on the appeal from the decision of the Planning Commissio NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that upon hearing the advice and recommendations of the Shakopee Planning Commission and upon considering the suggestions made by the applicant and the suggestions and objections raised by the affected property owners , within a radius of 350 feet thereof , in public hearings duly held by the Shakopee Planning Commission and the Shakopee City Council , that the aforementioned Conditional Use Permit be and is hereby pursuant to the following: Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota held this day of , 19 Mayor of the City of Shakopee STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF SCOTT ) ss OFFICE OF SHAKOPEE CITY CLERK CITY OF SHAKOPEE ) I , Judith S. Cox, City Clerk for the City of Shakopee, Minnesota with and in for said City, do hereby certify that this is a true and exact copy of the original record preserved in my office of the City Council' s decision to the Order a Conditional Use Permit , as so described above. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my hand this day of. , 19 Shakopee City Clerk Drafted by: Approved as to form this day of. Don Steger , 19_ City of Shakopee 129 East 1st Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 City Attorney 1/83 r IOacz, MEMO TO: John K. Anderson City Administrator FROM: Don Steger City Planner RE: Fence Ordinances DATE: July 26, 1983 Introduction: Attached are two ordinances which were requested by the City Council a couple of weeks ago. Background: The City Council decided to eliminate the 6 inch setback requirement for fences. The two attached ordinances provide for this change and establish no setback for fences, unless abutting an alley. Action Requested: Motion to approve Ordinance No. 129 and Ordinance No. 130 . DS/jvm Attachments (6 6- ORDINANCE NO. 129 Fourth Series An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, amending the Shakopee City Code, Chapter 4, entitled "Construction Licensing, Permits and Regulations" by Repealing Subdivision 1 A of Subdivision 1 and Enacting a New Subdivision 1 A of Subdivision 1 and by Adopting by Reference Shakopee City Code, Chapter 1 Entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code including Penalty Provisions" and Chapter 4.99 Penalty Provisions THE CITY COUNCIL OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION I: • Repeal Subd 1-A (1) is hereby repealed. SECTION II: Section 4.03 Subdivision 1A,1 is hereby adopted. All fencing erected in the City may be constructed adjacent to the property lines. If a fence on the rear property line abutts a public alley there must be a three (3) foot setback. SECTION III: Penalty Provision Adopted Shakopee City Code, Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the entire City Code including Penalty Provisions" and Section 4.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeatedver'batim herein. SECTION IV: When i.t force This ordinance 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 of publication. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, this day of , 1983. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Prepared and approved as to form this 18th day of July, 1983. City Attorney t• :a A-C✓ /0 ORDINANCE NO. 130 Fourth Series An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, amending the Shakopee City Code Chapter 11, Entitled "Land Use Regulation(Zoning)" by Adding a New Provision to Section 11.05 Subdivision 4 entitled " Fences" and by Adopting by Reference Shakopee City Code, Chapter 1, Section 4.99 Which Among Other Things Contain Penalty Provisions and Section 11.99 Entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor". THE CITY COUNCIL OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION I: Setback Requirement Subdivision 4:Fences C. All fences:: erected in the City in all zones may be constructed adjacent to the property lines. If a fence on the rear property line abuts a public alley there must be a three (3) foot setback. SECTION II: Penalty Provisions Adopted Shakopee City Code, Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code including Penalty Provisions" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by referecne as though repeated verbatim herein. SECTION III: When in force This ordinance shall bepublished once in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee and shall be in full force and effect on and after the date of such publication. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, this day of , 1983. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Prepared and approved as to form this 18th day of July, 1983. City Attorney MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk RE: Application for 3 . 2 Beer License by Pnd, Inc . 409 East First Avenue DATE: July 25 ,1983 Introduction The City has received an application for an off sale non-intoxicating liquor license from Pathy Dharnipragada , owner, Pnd, Inc . 409 East First Avenue , for the period beginning August 3rd and ending June 30 , 1984. The application is in order. Action Recommended Approve the application and grant an off sale non-intoxicating malt liquor license to Pnd, Inc. , 409 East First Avenue , beginning August 3 , 1983 , upon surrender of the existing license. JSC/jms //b MEMO TO: John K. Anderson/City Administrator FROM: LeRoy Houser/Builaing Official RE: Thrift Shop Expansion DATE: July 26 , 1983 Introduction: The Thrift Shop is in need of expanding the Eagle Creek Townhall . Background: The Thrift Shop is a nonprofit organization providing services to the needy. Their program has been so successful they now find the Eagle Creek Townhall has become to small to operate efficiently out of . They are faced with two options . One , they can reduce the level of service they provide to the needy or two, expand the facility. Mrs . Schricker contacted me and requested I approach Council to see if they can put a 20 ' addition on the building to the North. They would foot the construction cost contingent upon them obtaining a long term lease from City Council ( 5 years ) with a prorate clause if we cancel the lease before lease term. I contacted the City Attorney and asked him if it could be done . He indicated it could. I also asked him if they have to follow the City bid policy and he stated no. However , we will insist upon final approval of the contract and approval of the building plans . I should also mention, Mrs . Schricker has requested I oversee the project in the construction phase . In making the decision, Council should consider the following: (A) The shortage of space at the Thrift Shop and the services they supply to the needy. (B) The physical expansion provided by Scott Carver Economic Council will eventually be used for some City function with no capital outlay on our part . (C) The Scott Carver Economic Council currently and will continue to maintain the property reducing tax pay- ers cost and staff time . Alternatives : 1 . Permit the expansion 2 . Don' t permit the expansion 3 . Encourage them to cut back on their program. Recommended Action: Allow them to expand the Thrift Shop 20 ' to the North. r r • Action Requested : Authorize the proper City officials to draw up the long term lease agreement and allow the Thrift Shop to expand 20' to the North. LH:cau 1k MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator - FROM: Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant RE: Huber Park Trail Improvements and Grant Applications DATE: July 29 , 1983 Introduction The City has long been working on promoting river front improvements adjacent to Levee Drive to enhance the downtown. Authorization to proceed with a final proposal to the Lower Minnesota Watershed District and to submit a preliminary application for fiscal year 1984 funding from LAWCON/LCMR for riverfront improvements is now requested. Background The City Council has already considered various portions of the pro- posed project , but an overview of project components , costs and sources of funding is now presented in a composite form. The undergrounding of electrical lines is not addressed because the Shakopee Public Utilities cannot contribute to this component at this time so this part of the project has been deferred. The remaining components include the trail , an observation platform, public restrooms , raised flowerbeds , and cleanup and landscaping adjacent to the trail and boat landing. It is proposed that the watershed district and matching park reserve funds be used for the restrooms , the Dept . of Natural Resources (DNR) pay for the trail and the remaining components be included in the LAWCON/LCMR appli- cation. The DNR has expressed a willingness to build the four-block segment of trail -when authorized acquisition and development bonds are sold and acquisition of trail easements from the West edge of Shakopee to the City-owned levee is completed. The bonds have now been sold and the acquisition process begun. It is hoped that this trail segment can be built in 1984. The trail is estimated to cost $7 ,000 with no contribution from the City other than a licensing agreement for use of the land to construct the trail . The Watershed District has tentatively agreed to provide $30,000 for waterfront improvements contingent upon provision of matching funds by the City and submission of a detailed cost breakdown. It is proposed to apply these funds to the public restrooms for two reasons : 1 ) LAWCON/LCMR funds would only pay for 12 . 5% of this expenditure while the district would pay 50/; and 2 ) the district was anxious to expend their funds in 1983 , and this facility is closest to implementation. The consultant ' s estimate provides a cost of $59 ,730 , including a 10/ contingency. It is recommended that the district be approached for the full $30 ,000 contribution with a budget of $54, 300 for the building and $5 , 700 ( 10. 57) for a contingency fund landscaping allowance and benches . The City share will be paid from park reserve , as budgeted in the proposed Six-Year Capital Improvement Program-Parks . Huber Park Trail Improvements and Grant Applications I / Page Two July 29 , 1983 The remaining projects include a swing-away pedestrian bridge/ observation platform using the existing south limestone pier in the river. This project will also require solving erosion problems caused by an existing storm sewer outlet which threatens the exist- ing sanitary sewer interceptor. A separate memo from the City Engineer detailing 'costs of these components is attached. Addition- ally, landscaping and clean-up along the trail and boat access are proposed. Cost of materials is estimated as follows : Rock for parking surface $ 575 Landscape timbers 1 ,700 Fill , mulch and fertilizer 250 Pump system for flowerbeds 2 ,225 Plant materials 3 , 375 Sod 15 ,840 Total T6-5 W(igpe CipuC'®A( Cost of labor will vary depending on whether work can be done in- house or by outside contractors . Labor costs will be discussed more completely on Tuesday. The seniors have greeted the initial request to tend the garden enthusiastically. Further discussion with the seniors is scheduled for August 3 , 1983 . It is recommended that all of these projects be included in the LAWCON/LCMR grant proposal for a total cost of $ . This funding would probably involve a 50/ share for the City , although if both federal and state funds are available the City share could be reduced to 25%. It is recommended that an additional $30 ,000 has been designated in the proposed 1983-88 Captial Improvement Parks for this project from the park reserve fund, and another $20 ,000 could be solicited from local donations . It has been informally suggested that the JayCees may be willing to contribute from their substantial fund balance after the Tahpah sewer and water project is completed. Requested Action Authorize appropriate City officials to prepare and submit proposals for funding to the Lower Minnesota Watershed District in the amount of $30 ,000 and the fiscal year 1984 Land and Water Conservation/ Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources Grant Program in the amount of $ 09 with local contributions of up to $80,00& from park reserve unns and/or local donations . 33ti,ys° Authorize appropriate City officials to solicit local donations to complete this project . JA/jms *Amounts will be filled in orally at Tuesday' s meeting. MEMORANDA TO: Jeanne Andre HRA Director • FROM H. R. Spurrier City Engineer SUBJECT: Minnesota River Overlook at the Extension of Lewis Street DATE: July 29, 1983 Introduction: I have analyzed the proposed overlook on the old bridge piers and I have prepared an estimate of the cost of constructing the overlook, including a list of some of the benefits of construction. Background: Engineering Department analyzed the proposed overlook and the scope of the work required for construction. There are storm sewer pipes which must be inter- cepted and extended beyond the proposed bridge abutment for a walkway to the southerly pier at the extension of Lewis Street. The storm sewer work is required for two reasons; one is to reduce potential for serious erosion damage to the proposed walkway bridge; the second, and the more serious from the City's standpoint, is to protect the Shakopee Interceptor from serious damage and from erosion as a result of the storm sewer outlet. The storm sewer pipes that outlet each side of the proposed walkway bridge to the overlook on the south pier, must be reconstructed in order to stabilize their overflow. At the present time, there is approximately 8 feet of erosion caused by the existing storm sewer outlet. The proposed work would consist of constructing a better outlet resembling the outlet used for the Levee Drive extension. If this work is not done as a part of this project, it should be done by itself. Because if the storm sewer outlets continue to erode, riprap placed on the slope will settle over the sanitary sewer interceptor, increasing the likeli- hood of structural damage to the interceptor. The estimated cost of this work is $38,400. The remaining construction consists of preparing and constructing an abutment and a bridge between the south bank of the river and the south pier. The estimated cost of the abutment and bridge is estimated to be $33,500. 1( Jeanne Andre July 29, 1983 Minnesota River Overlook Page -2- Construction of the overlook area would cost an estimated $16,000. The over- look would remain in place and so it would have to be constructed to resist 100-year flood elevation, along with the debris from the 100-year flood. The bridge would be a swing-away design so that it could move parallel to the flow during high water. The total estimated cost of the work is $87,900. The total estimated cost of the bridge and overlook alone is $49,500. Although the storm sewer work is of principal benefit to the sanitary sewer, that work is within the Holmes Street Basin and could be considered a part of the improvements to that basin; although, it has not been included in any estimated costs todate. Reiterating, if the bridge and overlook is not constructed, the storm sewer work ought to be performed in order to protect the sanitary sewer. This matter will have to be treated separately by City Council . HRS/jvm I 1 ( Summary of Proposed Huber Park Trail Expenditures Expenditures Amount & Source of Funds Totals Trail DNR $7 ,000 $ 7 ,000 Restrooms/benches Watershed Dist . - $30,000 $60 ,000 Park Reserve - $30 ,000 Landscaping, clean- LAWCON/LCMR - $13 ,500 $27 ,000 ing, flower beds Park Reserve - $13 ,500 Observation Plat- LAWCON/LCMR - $24 ,750 $49 , 500 form Park Reserve - $24,750 (donations ) Erosion/Sewer Prob. LAWCON/LCMR - $19 ,200 $38 ,400 Park Reserve - $19 ,200 (General Fund/ Holmes St . Basin) DNR - $ 7 ,000 $181 ,900 Watershed Dist . - $30 ,000 LAWCON/LCMR - $57 ,450 Park Reserve - $87 ,450 (possible other contributions to reserve include donations $24,750 and assessments $19 ,200) August 2 , 1983 MEMORANDUM /// 6t i TO: John K. Anderson/City Admini- ►` �. FROM: H.R. Spurrier/City Engine- SUBJECT: JEJ Addition Drainage of fo me� C ' ..ago, Milwa. .-e , St. Paul & Pacific Railroadrig t\-of way DATE: August 2 , 1983 Introduction The City of Shakopee received bids for the above referenced project August 1 , 1983 . Background Listed below are the three bids received for the above captioned project : Crossings , Inc. $44,964.00 F.F. Jedlicki , Inc . $54,072.00 D.J. ' s Excavating $65 ,091 .01 The amount of the bids and the bids cause two problems for the City. First , a technical problem has been discovered and that is the bid of Crossings , Inc . was not accompanied with the specified bid bond. The bid bond for Crossings , Inc . was 5% of the bid or a bid bond for $2 ,248. 20. The specifications specify that the bid bond must be for $5 ,000.00 or 5% of the bid whichever is greater . The estimated cost of this project and all of the bids were less than $100 ,000.00 so the required bid bond is $5 ,000.00. The purpose of a bid bond is to guarantee that the contractor enters A into a bonified contract with the City. In this case Crossings , Inc. has indicated a willingness to do so, but in reviewing the three bids the City Attorney has taken note of this problem and has recommended that the City disqualify this bidder or throw out all of the bids . This recommendation was based on past experience where the City took a similar action that resulted in two contractors for the same work. Therefore , the recommended action is to throw out the low bid of Crossings , Inc . and accept the bid of F.F. Jedlicki , Inc. That award is going to be a problem, it is the second problem that must be addressed. August 2 , 1983 Page -2- t ( The second problem is a problem of cost overrun. In 1981 the project was estimated to cost $33 ,644.00. Based on the Crossings , Inc. bid the estimated total cost of the project would be $60 ,240.00, nearly double the original estimate . Approximately 38% of the increase is due to additional quantities required once detailed survey informa- tion established the quantities . Based on the Crossings , Inc . bid , construction costs increase 57% over the estimated cost , easement acquisition added an additional 14% and the additional field work added approximately 8% for a total in- crease of 79%. The estimate below is based on the bid from Crossings , Inc. Crossings , Inc . Bid (Rejected Bid) $44 ,964 10% Construction Contingency 4,496 Subtotal $49 ,460 Easement 3 ,150 Survey 1 , 500 Technical Services 6 ,130 Total $60,240 * The bid F.F. Jedlicki , Inc . would add $10 ,019 to that estimated total cost . This total cost overruns the original estimate by $26,000 or $36 ,000 depending on which bid is used for comparison, this is significant impact . Based on budget recommendation this project would be funded out of the capital equipment revolving fund. Spending a total $60 ,240.00 means that the City would not have $60 ,240.00 to spend on other equipment . This is a major departure from the original understanding City Council had regarding this project. Therefore, it is perhaps the desire of City Council to discuss the present options and the feasibility of acquiring other outside funding before the City continues work on this project . Any action taken by Council should be made contingent upon receipt of all of the waivers because at this time the City has not received all of the waivers of the railroad agreement. Recommendation It is the recommendation of staff that City Council discuss possible options of funding this project determining whether it is the desire of City Council to take the additional funding from the capital equip- ment fund or whether any difference should be made up by specially assessing the properties in JEJ Addition. *The actual funds expended to date total $5 ,160 .00. August 2 , 1983 - Page -3- Action / Requested 1 . A motion to reject the bid of Crossings , Inc . as defective be- cause proper bid bond was not affixed to the proposal . 2 . A motion to table action on the bid of F.F. Jedlicki , Inc. until City Council can meet and consider potential funding for the JEJ Addition Drainage' of the former Chicago, Milwaukee , St . Paul & Pacific Railroad right-of-way. HRS : cau // Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director Re: Surplus Property Date: July 29, 1983 Introduction & Background The below listed property is not being used and staff recommends that it be declared surplus and sold at the Hennepin County Cooperative auction. 1 . 1976 Ford Granada 1I6W81L167313 2. 1974 International Scout 11IH4S8L0DGD33925 3. Air Compressor (10 gallon) 4. 7' x 9' Stake Body Alternatives 1 . Declare the above property surplus 2. Do not declare it surplus Recommendation Recommend alternative No.1 Action Requested Move to declare the property listed in the Finance Director's memo dated July 29, 1983 surplus and to be sold at auction. GV:mmr Ilf Coe Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director Re: Public Officials & Employee Liability Insurance Date: July 28, 1983 Background Quotations for coverage have been obtained from 5 companies and a summary (attached) has been prepared by Lee Hennen. Two things should be noted that apply to all the proposals. 1. They are all on a claims made basis which means that the policy covers claims first made during the policy period and claims first made prior to the policy period if we did not give notice to the prior carrier and officials and employees had no knowledge of any wrongful act, error or ommission likely to give rise to a claim. If we change carriers, this opens a "window" of exposure for claims that may have been threatened years ago but not filed til now and not reported to the current carrier because of oversight or not taking the "threat" seriously (i.e. waiting til a suit is filed) . 2. Coverage is not made for employees/persons working on a retainer or contractual basis. The policy does not cover persons such as our attorneys, dog catcher or the people Community Services hires. There is only one good quote lower than our current carrier (International Surplus Lines) , but that company has a $5,000 deductable and switching opens the "window" of exposure covered above. Alternatives 1. Accept quote of Republic 2. Accept quote of International Surplus 3. Drop coverage Recommendation Alternative No. 2 of renewing our policy with International Surplus Lines is recommended with the policy being a 3-year prepaid policy to save on premuims. Action Requested Move to accept the quote of International Surplus Lines for Public Officials and Employee' s Liability Insurance for a 3-year prepaid policy in the amount of $6,798. GV:mmr I Ca I Capesius Agency, inc. YOUR INDEPENDENT INSURANCE AGENTS P.O. Box 97. First National Bank Bldg.. Shakopee. MN 55379 Tel. (612) 445-1922 July 27, 1983 Mr. John Anderson, City Administrator City of Shakopee • 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 RE: Public Officials and Employees Liability Insurance Dear John: As you requested, we have obtained premium proposals for the above coverage from several markets for your review and consideration. John, for this coverage, there isn't any "standard" insurance contract; therefore, you will note that the policy and coverage parts do vary by company. In addition to the premium proposals, we have included specimen policies and recommend that you review each contract before making your decision as to where to purchase this coverage. If you have any questions concerning this, please feel free to contact us. Since your present coverage expires August 15, 1983, we will appreciate receiving your decision in adequate time prior to that date to allow us to make arrangements for the placement-of this coverage. Thank you! Sincere, y, Lee . Hennen, Agent /ss • 101 Cupeslus Agency, Inc. YOUR INDEPENDENT INSURANCE AGENTS P.O. Box 97. First National Bank Bldg.. Shakopee, MN 55379 Tel. (612) 445.1922 PUBLIC OFFICIALS LIABILITY INSURANCE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA PROPOSAL OUTLINE 1) Company: Insurance Co. of North America Premium: $5,201.00 - 3 Year Prepaid Limit of Liability: $1,000,000/$1 ,000,000 Deductible: $1 ,000/$5,000 Note: INA will not provide coverage, except under separate Directors and Officers Liability Policies, for Shakopee Public Utilities Commission, Shakopee Housing & Redevelopment Authority and Shakopee Community Services Sample Policy Attached 2) Company: St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Co. Premium: $5,894.00 Annual Limit of Liability: $1 ,000,000/$1 ,000,000 Deductible: $1,000 Each Official/$2,500 Each Loss Note: Prior Acts Coverage for 3 Years only. Sample Policy Attached • 3) Company: Republic Insurance Co. - Through Unimark Special Risks Premium: $2, 148.00 Annual Limit of Liability: $1 ,000,000 Deductible: $5,000 Each Loss Note: Sample Policy Attached - Note Special Terms and Conditions 4) Company: Great Southwest Fire Insurance Co. - Through Markel Service, Inc. Premium: $ 2,700 Annual ffff Limit of Liability: $1,000,000 Deductible: $2,500 Each Loss Note: Sample Policy Attached 10 I Lapesius Agency, Inc YOUR INDEPENDENT INSURANCE AGENTS P.O. Box 97. First National Bank Bldg.. Shakopee. MN 55379 Tel. (612) 445-1922 5) Company: International Surplus Lines Insurance Co. Premium: $2,442.00 Annual + 3% Surplus Lines Tax $6,600.00 3 Year Prepaid + 3% Surplus Lines Tax Limit of Liability: $1,000,000 Deductible: $1,000 Each Loss Note: Sample Policy Attached 1 ) This is the current carrier for this coverage for the City of Shakopee 2) International is making changes in their present contract to provide broader coverage than previous policy. See notes in Specimen Policy attached. 3) Will write Optional Limits of Liability as Follows: Limit of Liability Annual Premium $2,000,000 $3,175.00 $5,000,000 $4,273.00 $10,000,000 $5, 129.00 $25,000,000 $6,349.00 4) This is a Licensed Surplus Lines Company OPTIONAL ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION: 1) "Claims Made';.Policy 2) Coverage is not, extended to any employee/person working on a retainer or contractual agreement 7-27-83 z N N N N N N 0 Cr, O ..-r N M 7 ul /p N N on. M M CO 00 CO 0 r.�� � 0 co CO 0 00 CO CO 0 ` CO CO CO CO CO 0 CO ,4 • • / --1 .-4 .-4 •--1 --r .--1 -4 .-4 --, .-4 ,4 --1 --1 .-1 .-1 •-'r --1 •-'r "r .-r .-, .-� .-4 .-I .-1 .--4 -1 -4 .-1 N. s.J0 O 7 M u1 0 7 u1 O -Zr "u1 0 01.0 0 0 0 0 ^O E-+ • • u•) 0 r- un c0 N. r- O 7 O N. >j M N O 0 .4 0 O C ul ul 7 '-0 0 7 0 '.0 u) 4.1-1 cq CO ul O 7 'C -1- M O in 'C 0 N M '0 N N 4D M .-4 0 7 N -4 '.0 M N. N 00 U7 N 10 '.0 u) .-r r) NO -Zr • u-1 a) e) a u G o C .r1 a) •r4 C) al C) H 1J a) S-i .L+ a G a 4J co 0 O) : G •.4 cd. .. U ...%d•b a) I al C O u k .G w al W 4-1 to Cil > Ca •r1 41 Cl) +J 0 •-1 .--1 al C Z .-1 I 0 U ....7 k : G -+ I 0:; W b C • OO u) 0 U 0 > v a) u •r1 --i M U) > .-4 : •r1 a) • w 1-) S-4 cb cc •-i 00 I.i ,...I 4 w u 0 00 7-. v : : : : 0 : : : a) 00 cb ct •,-4 O ca • b .-i cn C .. D0: > Z .a U 2 • G •H .,G-1 r3 NCG u U) CO 4,-J(s• .a "r cc Z 4: _4: 4: :: : f, MI `,r4, : W rn Q 41 O a -4 F-1 0+ --r U U) Cl)51 ++ -J 14 C 04 a) a) w E E •.+ u >• >00 w •� E E ot0 o o a) .0 - : : ch C m 0 0 C �+ ), U x - o .a U U •-1 U E E +-r > ..r) ._ cn u > • al H H G )•+ a) G •.1 0 E-H 4-4 4-4 U) H x a) a) C N cd u cz] 4 W a) H U .-.I .-+ E Cl) 0 ro : : : as cn •ri a c=+ ca Q cn HalG 4 - U •- .-i 1,, : r-1 co ul 0 0 u J m, a : :: - iJ 0 a) .J r-.r 4-I 4.) ,J 0 u 01 01 01 0 N. i 4r1 •r1 u W a) • ••4 0 > U •r1 •r1 •.•I •r1 1-+ .01 ro a. G cif : : _ E u -01 C) aEi aEi ai al ai O M CO O N o U 1--1 0.. H Z Ci 0H W 04oaw04orx OO .oOul ul0ulorn Mr. MOO N 7 N N O H 7 N. 0 0 0 0 u1 0 CO M u1 7 7 rn � M u1 01 0 0 0 0 CO O crr vfl 0 M ul O -Zr .-r ^' .-r -, .•, 777 n M .--I 77r` r- O7O 47,.0 • . . . . •• • . • • • • • • • • . z M N 0 CO -'r - '.0 -Zr •--r -+ -Zr 10 N u•1 rT u1 -Zr N O -Zr 0 '.0 u1 ul N Q O 1/40 O 10 -"4 n M •--4 N CO N M 7 Oh M �O 7 ul qD 00 N M /0 ul CO u1 O ^+ -1 4O N O 7 N --r V0 M O\ N,▪ N CO •0v0 v1 .-4 M N 7 N 0 7 ul N a) r1 1J H 10 U0 0 0 0 00000 0000 O 00 00000000 n" U •--r .-r -a .-4 -4 .-r .-r .-i .-r .-r .-r --r ,4 .-r --r --r ,4 ..-.4 -a -4 .-a ,A •.-r --r 0 G •r1 1+ G 6 O O O CD 00000 0000 0 00 0000 0000 4, x H $.+ .-4 -, -4 .-r .-r .•-r .-r .4 .-, -, •-4 .--, ,4 .4 --r --, .-4 .--r --r --r .-+ .--r .--/ .-1 Cs.. H 4-4 ' -r -•r .-r -r . , .- . 4 - 4 i .- ••-4 .-r .••r .-r .-1 .-r 6-1 .-4 . . -1 -4 .--1 .-1 .-•1 >,r-1 J U N 0 Co 0 -r- 0 0 -00CD 6..40 0000 CO 00 00000000 g0 1-1 �1,r 0 3.4 U u) G b D,Z - •-•I a) .-I M 1 •a .-., -+ 0 N NM -a 4.4 u1 coN •--4 N O ulUl rr1N000000 mCi wax . 7 -Zr O • r -Zr e'1 '.0 C`•1 e'l •.-1 M ,0 '0 0 -+ --I 01 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0070-x00 O Co O -"r --r '- ,A •-- - --+ ,4 ,4 N O --r e4 ,4 0 0 0 0 0 0 H O N 0 0 1 N M O N N M -+ -+ ul CO N •-a N O ul ul un N O CD 0 0 0 O p u1 ul 0 -'r Zr 01 00 M M --4 M 00 00 O - --4 01 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 • U O, c 0 0 •-+ •-• -4 -1 •-1 0 0 0 0 ul O O 0 O M 0 N- N. .- --r U .-1 .-4 01 -+ N N N N N N. N. N. r- N Ch Mr, N. N N N N M N 01 01 01 01 CA CA CA CA CA 1 6 7 7 2O 7 7 -Zr 7 7 -Zr 7 7 7 -Zr -7 7 -Zr 7 7 -Zr 7 7 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 CA -Zr 7 .1 E., • • . • . . . • n H -Zr .-+ t0 •-i --4 .-r ,4 .-• .-•r ,4 .-1 -i -4 -4 --i -4 _4 -4 _-r -, ,4 .4 --- ,4 N O CO O 00000 0000 CO 00 00000 0000 A MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: •Jia n n Ay)Lt RE: Travel/Subsistence Reimbursement DATE: t7 Z7' 11$3 • Introduction The staff member listed below is requesting Council approval for reimbursement of travel/subsistence expenses. Background Staff frequently has to use their own funds to pay for conference or travel expenses. The process for Council to approve reimbursement requests within the regular bill cycle can entail a wait of up to five weeks before the employee receives the money. In order to alleviate a possible hardship on the employee by expediting compensation for expenses incurred on City business, this request is forwarded out of the normal bill cycle. The employee and expenses are: Name: Sean "-e- A'`'`"1^" Amount: 1;13(...,Z. Purpose: p,1. ..eta„ „ At -4-wo wer1�£4,ors Alternatives 1. Approve payment 2. Defer to normal bill cycle 3. Deny-mall or part of request Recommendation Alternative Ill . Action Move to approve payment to jArkbtrG in the amount of $ °13,10 Z. for travel /subsistence reimbursement. JuLIus A.GOLLER, II JULIUS A.COLLER ATTORNEY AT LAW 612-445-1244 1859-1940 2 1 1 WEST FIRST AVENUE SIIAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55329 July 28, 1983 Mr. John Anderson , City Administrator Mrs. Judy Cox, City Clerk Shakopee City Hall Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Administrator and Clerk: Enclosed is a copy of the control ordinance of the City of Minneapolis with special reference to dogs. This ordinance seems to be narrower than the one that we were talking about in the Council the other evening and is restrictive to marked areas in parks and beaches. I suggest that a copy of this letter and a copy of the ordinance be given to the Council so that we can discuss it at Tuesday night's meeting. Very tr y yours, %T, J ius A. Coller, II City Attorney JAC/nh Enc. • l •� ORDINANCE NO. 83-103 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PB2-18 OF CHAPTER 2 OF THE PARK BOARD CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO DOGS AND OTHER DOMESTIC ANIMALS The Park and Recreation Board of the City of Minneapolis does ordain as follows: Section 1. That the Park Board Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by deleting therefrom in its present form and entirety PB2-18 of Chapter 2 thereof and by substituting in lieu of the same the following: "PB2-18. Dogs and domestic animals_ No person shall be permitted to take any dog or other domestic animal into any park where the area is clearly marked by signs hearing the words, "Domestic animals not permitted in this area," and in no case shall any person allow or bring any dog or other domestic animals owned or attended by such person upon any bathing area or into any bird or animal refuge or upon any skating rink or in any park building or into any park waters, whether the animal is leashed or otherwise; and where such animals are permitted, they shall be restricted at all times by suitable leash not exceeding eight (8) feet in length and under command of owner or custodian. Any person having the custody or control of any dog or domestic animal shall have the duty to immediately_remove any feces left by such animal on any park and to dispose of such teces in a sanitary manner. It shall furthermore be the duty of each person having custody or control of any dog or domestic animal on a park to have in such person's possession a device or equipment for theiclo_Liag up and removal of animal feces. The provisions of.this paragraph shall not y to a guide dog accompanying a blind person or to a dog when used in police or rescue activities by or with the permission of the Park and Recretion Board. Section 2. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the date of its publication. Passed and adopted this day of , 1983. { Patricia Hillmeyer, President Del Green, Secretary Approved: Donald M. Fraser, Mayor MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Minnesota Statute Chapter 177 Regarding Prosecution of Gross Misdemeanors DATE: July 22 , 1983 Introduction The 1983 Legislature passed a new state law, Chapter 177 , regarding the prosecution of gross misdemeanors . The law changes the formula by which proceeds from fines levied are distributed to City and County government . Background Historically, fines from petty misdemeanors , misdemeanors , and gross misdemeanors were split between the County and the City on a 50-50 basis . The fines received by the City of Shakopee have averaged about $22 ,000 over the last several years . The 1983 changes in the law established a formula for distributing the proceeds from fines that are levied. The new formula distributes 1/3 of the fine proceeds to the courts , 1/3 to the police agency involved and 1/3 to the prosecutor involved in the case. The dis- tribution of fines under this new formula will impact Shakopee ' s annual fine revenues , but it is virtually impossible to estimate what that impact will be. The reason that it will be impossible to estimate the revenues is because there are a number of variables involved and no track record or data which will forecast how the fines may be split up under the formula. There are two key variables involved in the new formula, the arresting police agency, over which we will have little or no control , and the prosecutor, over which the City has control . To better understand how these variables will work I have placed them in the matrix below. Police Agency Prosecutors Court Petty Misdemeanors City/County/State City County Misdemeanors City/County/State City County Gross Misdemeanors City/County/State City or County County From the table , it is clear that the County will always receive 1/3 of the fines for the work done by the court system. It is also clear that the City will always receive 1/3 of the fines for petty misdemeanors and misdemeanors and the City has a choice of whether or not to process gross misdemeanors . Currently the City Attorney prosecutes DWI gross misdemeanors only and has prosecuted 24 such cases through July 21 of this year. The County Attorney' s office prosecutes all other gross misdemeanors . Finally, the Minnesota Statute Chapter 177 Regarding Prosecution of Gross Misdemeanors II Page Two July 22 , 1983 police agency handling each case is an unknown and can vary from case to case , because it could be a sheriff deputy or a highway patrolman as well as a City policeman who picks up a DWI in the City limits of Shakopee . Alternatives The decision to be made by the City and Scott County is how we will handle gross misdemeanors in the future . Obviously the formula seems to indicate that if the City wants 2/3 of all of the fines from gross misdemeanors it should opt for the prosecution of all gross misdemeanors . Staff has roughly estimated that gross misdemeanors represent about 1/3 of the $22 ,000 in fines that we receive annually. Staff has also received an estimate from the Assistant City Attorney ' s office indicating that the prosecution costs for most gross misdemeanors will exceed the average revenue of $300 per fine . This compares to petty misdemeanors and mis- demeanors which are rarely contested, and for which the City will receive the 1/3 for prosecuting the case even if the defendent pleads guilty and simply mails in the fine without requiring our prosecutor' s presence when the case is heard. The City must make a choice about how it wishes to handle all gross misdemeanors and communicate that to the County Attorney' s office . At that point the City and the County will enter into an agreement for one or more years stipulating who shall be doing the prosecution on gross misdemeanors . The Assistant City Attor- ney' s office has contacted the County Attorney and the following alternatives are available : 1 . Continue with the status quo. This means that the City would continue to prosecute only DWI gross misdemeanors and the County would prosecute the balance. This alternative allows the City to have some control over the prosecutor in DWI cases since the City appoints the prosecutor. 2 . Have the City take over the prosecution of all gross misdemeanors . As indicated above , our Assistant City Attorney' s office does not believe that gross misdemeanors , nearly all of which are contested, will have fines levied sufficient to cover the Attorney ' s costs involved in prosecuting. 3 . Have Scott County prosecute all gross misdemeanors . This is a change from the status quo and would turn the control of the prosecutor in DWI cases over to the Scott County Attorney' s office. Recommendation Staff recommends alternative No. 3 . This recommendation is based on the uncertainly about how the fines and prosecution costs will actually shake out after one year under the new distribution formula. It also reflects the recommendation of the Chief of Police and City Attorney who believe that the complexity of the DWI gross misdemeanor cases , that their court established dead- lines , and the paperwork involved, make it more appropriate for Minnesota Statute Chapter 177 Regarding Prosecution %f J of Gross Misdemeanors Page Three July 22 , 1983 the County Attorney and her staff to prosecute them. If Council selects this alternative it is staff' s recommendation that we set up the mechanism to obtain the data we will need during 1984 so that a knowledgeable decision can be made for 1985 . Action Requested Direct the appropriate City staff to contact the Scott County Attorney ' s office and prepare a draft agreement between the City of Shakopee and Scott County outlining which jurisdiction will prosecute gross misdemeanors in 1984. JKA/jms //k MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator Bo Spurrier, City Engineer RE: Street Rehabilitation Policy Alternatives DATE: July 27 , '1983 Introduction On June 21st City Council received a memo from the City Engineer outlining the major policy questions that required action by Council to initiate a street rehabilitation program. Council discussed the memo at its June 29 , 1983 meeting for nearly an hour and arrived at some consensus regarding the policy questions posed by the City Engineer. Staff was directed to pull the key policy questions together in a memo for Council ' s review. Problem The City needs a comprehensive street rehabilitation program based on defensible policies that can withstand the public hearing pro- cess for assessments and fit into the City' s long range financing capabilities . The City does not have such a policy at the present time and has treated numerous projects over the last 2 or 3 years with little consistency. For example , only storm sewer was assessed for the Holmes Street reconstruction project along with a minor amount of curb and gutter, Valley Industrial Boulevard South was 100% assessed, there were no assessments for the County Road 83 widening and resurfacing, there were no assessments for the 1982 overlay program, there is 100% payment for sidewalk under this year's voluntary sidewalk replacement program, and we continue to patch streets that were never constructed to standards resulting in extremely high maintenance costs . Proposed Street Rehabilitation Policies The policies. outlined below represent the rough consensus Council obtained at the conclusion of is June 29 , 1983 discussion of the Engineer ' s memo on the subject . I . Definitions A. Street patching and seal coats shall be defined as maintenance and /or preservation work. B. Street overlays for ride or structure and reconstruction work shall all be defined as street rehabilitation. II . Depreciation and Assessment Table Proposed Present Assessment Assessment Improvement Age Policy Policy Curb & Gutter - Concrete 50 yrs . 40% 0% Driveway Aprons - Concrete 50 yrs . 100% ? Street Rehabilitation Policy Alternatives Ii Page Two July 27 , 1983 Proposed Present Assessment Assessment Improvement Age Policy Policy Storm Sewer - Concrete 50 yrs . 50% 50% Streets - Concrete 50 yrs . 40% 0% Utilities 50 yrs . 0% Utility Services N/A 100% 100% Street - Bituminous 20 yrs . 40% Bikeways - Bituminous 20 yrs . 100% Boulevard Trees N/A 0% 0% 1 . Reconstruction will value the existing system in place based upon age as listed above . The undepreciated value of the improvements in place will be subtracted from the total cost of the street improvement , before assessments are computed, on a straight line depreciation basis . In Eaglewood where some of the existing improvements have been in place 7 years and the estimated rehabilitation cost for those improvements is $100,000. 00, the assessed cost would be as follows : Ordinary Assessment - $100 ,000 x 40% assessed = $40,000 Adjusted Assessment $40 ,000 x 7 years (age of improvement ) 20 years ( life of improvement ) = $14,000 Note that in a case where the improvement must be replaced before half its life is used, the City faces funding prob- lems because the assessed amount is less than 20% of the total project cost. 2 . The City will assess 40% of a typical 36 foot local street with all oversizing paid for by the City and with 60% of ne typical 36 foot local street paid for by the.City. (A collector street is defined by a 44 foot wide street and an aertial street is defined as greater than 44 feet . The City will improve a minimum of five blocks when rehabilitating either of these types of streets . ) If the residents on a local street want a wider roadway that oversizing cost would be assessed 100%. 3 . The street rehabilitation assessment of 40% will be assessed on a front foot basis on the street upon which the house faces . This will establish a corner lot policy of not assessing side yards . The reason for the 40% assessment is to generate a minimum of a 20% net assessment for the total project cost . When side yards are not assessed, the City must still have a minimum of a 20% net project assessment to use special levies outside the levy limit . ( Based on the map attached to the City Engineer' s June 21 , 1983 memo there are roughly 20 blocks of east-west streets which would be largely unassessable because of this side yard policy. ) Street Rehabilitation Policy Alternatives j/ Page Three July 27 , 1983 4. Non-residential property will pay 40% on all sides and will receive no corner lot protection. The rational for this approach is that most non-residential properties do receive a benefit from a corner lot location. III . Decision to Begin Street Rehabilitation A. Normal street maintenance and preservation work will be replaced by rehabilitation based upon the criteria used to establish the City ' s street conditions map ( inventory) . When structural problems occur and are listed on the map ( inventory) the City will schedule rehabilitation work including reconstruction and overlay. 1 . The City will initiate rehabilitation projects without waiting for petitions from property owners even though 40% of the street section will be assessed. 2 . Streets that do not meet minimum standards and require repeated heavy maintenance will be included in the rehabilitation program and upgraded to minimum resi- dential street standards with curb and gutter, etc . Projects that fall into this category might be the curve leading to Hauer Trail , west Fourth Avenue, and the block of 7th Avenue between Lewis and Sommer- ville . 3. The City will begin its program with the area that cost the most to maintain at the present time . 4. The City will specify the minimum number of blocks to be improved to insure that an acceptable amount of work exists in the project . B. The program will be run somewhat like the City of Minnetonka' s street and utility program, the St . Louis Park program, and our current 1983 sidewalk curb and gutter program. That is , the City will obtain a total project cost on an annual basis for ' the rehabilitation work to be done and the per lineal foot costs for street improvements will be computed for the total project . The intent of this approach is to create an average annual cost for neighborhood street rehabilitation work. This amoroach will avoid having two residents on the same street under the rehabilitation pro- gram having to pay at significantly different levels of assessment because one only needs an overlay and the other needs reconstruction, curb work, sidewalk work, etc . IV. Problems Still Not Addressed A. The City has still not designated its collector streets . B . Council must realize that there is no consistent precedent to use as a guideline for establishing this rehabilitation program. As mentioned earlier, the Holmes Street Improvement , Street Rehabilitation Policy Alternatives // f'C Page Four July 27 , 1983 the Industrial Boulevard South Improvement , the 1983 Sidewalk, Curb and Cutter Program, the ' 82 Overlay Program, and the West Side Storm Sewer Improvements all have had differing rates of private property assessment . C . The City will have to inventory all streets in existance before the 100% assessment policy was established for new residential subdivision construction. This inventory will be used to establish a benchmark so that streets in the older part of town, although they paid no direct assessment , will be credited with having paid for their streets through ad valorem taxes thus making them eligible for the 40% assessment under the proposed street rehabili- tation program. V. Funding Needs A. As outlined in the City Engineer ' s memo on July 21 , 1983 , ' $234,000 per year will be needed for a ten year period to successfully implement this program. After the first five years of this program, Shakopee should to eliminate the streets in the worst condition. B. Revenues that will be included in the program are : general levy within the levy limit general levy outside the levy limit special assessments at a minimum net of 20% of the annual project costs state aid county aid revenue sharing C . No assessments will be reduced by other funding sources,. This way the City can maintain a consistent policy of assessing 40% for streets abutting the front of a residential lot . VI . Summary A. The City Council and City staff must convince the Shakopee residents that a consistently applied 10 year street rehabili- tation program is a necessity. We cannot continue to make makeshift repairs to streets that are constructed of little more than a double seal coat . The maintenance cost for not addressing this problem are easily accepted because we have been locked into this incremental approach to the problem. I believe the Shakopee citizens will be able to understand a program that explains , as an analogy, that neither a customer or a merchant would expect that a bargain suit of clothes would last forever; and that the merchant would be expected to take the suit in for repairs every other year year and continue to reinforce seams , replace buttons and patch- the tattered cloth year in and year out . Street Rehabilitation Policy Alternatives t ( Page Five July 27 , 1983 In addition, I believe that a 40% assessment equaling roughly $900-$1000 on a typical residential lot ( in older Shakopee) will be preceived as a bargain if the City as a whole receives new residential streets throughout the community over a 10 year period. This 40% assessment approach can be defended, because it demonstrates that the City Council believes there is a 60% benefit to the community at .large for the improvement of a street in front of a particular home . Alternative After the City Engineer and I prepared this summary outline one radical alternative came to mind that we felt Council might wish to consider. Rather than employing the complicated assessment breakdown outlined in II . above, the City would simply package each years annual street rehabilitation program at a cost of $200,000 to $300 ,000, and assess a minimum net of 20% of the pro- ject costs based on the 40% residential assessment for the street upon which the home faces . This assessment would cover curb and gutter , sidewalk, storm sewer, street , boulevard trees , etc . wherever they were required in the rehabilitation program for that given year. The rational for this . ype of approach is somewhat similar to the rational for the lineal foot assessment used by most cities . Most cities agree that the lineal foot approach is not always the most equitable ; however, most cities have learned that it is an approach that can be understood by residents and is deemed roughly equitable . This approach would place lateral storm sewers under the definition of street improvements . Since urban streets clearly serve the function of removing storm water this definition does have some merit . Recommendation Staff recommends that Council come prepared to discuss these alternatives at length. Councilmembers who have questions after reading the'material are urged to call me before Tuesday ' s meet- ing so that I can bring additional material to the meeting if it will facilitate our decision- making. After Council has thoroughly discussed the alternatives one approach or the other should be acted upon so that we can move forward with consistently applied street rehabilitation program. Action Requested Direct staff to prepare final draft of street rehabilitation pro- gram for Council action. JKA/jms //L MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: George Muenchow, Community Services Director RE: Extension Municipal Swimming Pool Season DATE: July 29 , 1983 According to previous plan the Shakopee municipal swimming pool is scheduled to close after Sunday, August 14 , 1983 , the same time of year as been followed the past several years . The unusual weather in 1983 has included an extremely warm month of July with the same to continue into August . It would seem that it would be appropriate to extend the open swimming season because of this reason. Staff, therefore , is recommending that permission be granted for this to happen with administrative staff authorized to make decisions appropriate to this matter. Based upon past experience in normal years rain, thunder storms , cooler weather, etc . occur at this time and interest in swimming diminishes . Once again this is not a normal year and this is why this recommendation is being made . Staff anticipates that the number of users will allow a cut-back in the number of staff required to operate the pool safety and this cost concern will be very closely watched. GM/jms Mk2II PE Tommunitg eruuiciII //f< f< 129 Levee Drive Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Phone 445-2742 Community Education • Parks • Recreation • Adult Education George F. Muenchow, Dir. August 2, 19$3 Memo To : Judy Cox, Acting City Administrator Subject : Background Information/Swimming Pool Personnel Expense In reference to the subject of extending swimming pool open swimming hours the following information is supplied pertaining to anticipated personnel expense : A. Pool Hours Daily 1 •00 - 4:30 & 6:30 - $:30 6 hrs B. Staff needed: 1 Manager 4. Guards 3 Aides 1 Cashier Daily personnel expense. . .$ 250.00 C. Anticipated Income Daily Gate Receipts $ 150.00 Concession Profit 25.00 Total $ 175.00 All of this, of course, is highly dependent upon the kind of weather that transpires. If it is extremely warm, then we probably would have to add one more guard to counteract the anticipated increased revenue generated. Staff will need the flexibility of maintaining a minimum staff while at the same time keeping the complex safel George F. Muenchow A COOPERATIVE EFFORT OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AND SCHOOL DISTRICT 720 SINCE 1954 1200 Law Offices of KRASS, MEYER, KANNING & WALSTEN lmr Chartered Suite 300 Marschall Road Business Center Phillip R. Krass Paralegals 327 South Marschall Road Barry K. Meyer Susan M.Brown P.O. Box 216 Philip T. Kanning Barbara J.Hedstrom Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Trevor R. Walsten (612)445-5080 August 2, 1983 PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: Lindstrand / Grayson Appeal Dear Mayor and Council Members: I have reviewed the resolution adopted by you at your last meeting relative to the abatement of a small amount of the Lindstrand/Grayson assess- ment. We have reviewed that document with our appraiser, Robert Strachota of Hshenehon & Associates, Inc. It is Mr. Strachota's recommendation that we approach the assessment appeal from a different direction and compute the bene- fit based on usage of the entirety of the Lindstrand/Grayson parcel utilizing a lift station to serve the north portion of the property. Consequently, the abatement will not be necessary and I am requesting, therefore, that the Council move to reconsider the resolution in question, and then table it. I apologize for the confusion this change of plans causes, but under the circumstances I think we must follow the recommendation of the appraiser. Thank you. Yours very truly, KRASS, M KANNING & WALSTEN CHARTAED, C? -----(--7""I' P,liillip R. Krass PRK:pk File No. 1-1373-149 /oC G?i MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk RE: CR-16 Utilities Improvement No. 1980-4 DATE: July 22 , 1983 Introduction After having a pre-trial conference with staff, the Assistant City Attorney, P. R. :crass , has recommended that Resolution No. 2146 , Abating Assessments Against A Certain Parcel , be reconsidered and defeated. Action Requested Reconsider Resolution No. 2146 , A Resolution Abating An Assessment Against A Certain Parcel for the County Road 16 Utilities Improve- ment No. 1980-4, and defeat it . JSC/jms RESOLUTION NO. 2146 A RESOLUTION ABATING AN ASSESSMENT AGAINST A CERTAIN PARCEL FOR THE COUNTY ROAD 16 UTILITIES IMPROVEMENT NO. 1980-4 WHEREAS , the Shakopee City Council did adopt Resolution No. 1925 levying special assessments for the County Road 16 Utilities Improvement No. 1980-4 , and WHEREAS , it was subsequently determined by City Council that a triangular track in the East 3/4 of the South half of the South- east quarter North of Shakopee and Credit River Road in Section 6 , Township 115 , Range 22 , Scott County, Minnesota except 3. 5 acres was assessed 19 . 66 acres for trunk sewer , and WHEREAS , it was subsequently determined by City Council that 10. 11 acres of said track had gravity sanitary sewer service and therefore had trunk benefit , and WHEREAS , the City Attorney has recommended that the City abate trunk assessment for property not benefited by the sanitary sewer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA that the trunk sanitary sewer assessment for 9 . 55 acres amounting to $549 . 81 of the remaining deferred balance of the assessment levied against parcel No. 27-906-5220-029-00, more particularly described as a triangular track in the East 3/4 of the South half of the Southeast quarter of Section 6 , Township 115 , Range 22 , Scott County , Minnesota North of Shakopee and Credit River Road except 3 . 5 acres is hereby abated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the $549 .81 shall become a part of project cost for the County Road 16 Utilities Improvement No. 1980-4. Adopted in session of the City Co. ' 1 .f the Cityof Shakopee , Mi n p � esc�a , held this /�7x day of� �_ 1983 . '7yor o t e- ity o a op-e ATTEST: 0.7)K,/ Ci , y I er Approved to form this/q day of , 1983. , 1� e . . . CO5e MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk RE: Petition for Vacation of Alley in Block 9 , E. S.P. - Alley Lying North of Kentucky Fried Chicken DATE: July 25 , J983 Introduction The City has received a petition for the vacation of the Alley in Block 9 , East Shakopee, signed by all property owners abutting the alley. Background The attached resolution sets the public hearing date to consider the vacation. A staff memo will be prepared for the hearing explaining staff ' s recommendation, as well as that of Planning Commission and SPUC. Alternatives 1 . Adopt resolution setting public hearing date. 2 . Deny petition and don' t hold a public hearing. Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 2147 , A Resolution to Initiate the Vacation of the Public Alley in Block 9 , According to the Plat of East Shakopee , Scott County, Minnesota , and move its adoption. jSC/jms PETITION FOR STREET OR ALLEY VACATION DATE " / We the undersigned, owners of the following described real property, abutting on the street or alley in question, hereby petition the City Council of the City of h.kopee to vacate the following ( Street) (Alley) : _l lyin between AK 4N ,) 6L1 St . /Ave . , and between /sti)cc ,/Lr_ St . /Ave . 'ETITIONER LOT BLOCK -C Eet.titr-50 c Ari ig z )4r • I hereby verify that I circulated the above petition and that the above signatures of the property wners and petitioners were affixed in my presence . •Ac\ittx-A,)!C_„.i Circ for /i Approved this day of , 19 • City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 2147 A RESOLUTION TO INITATE THE VACATION OF THE PUBLIC ALLEY IN BLOCK 9 , ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF EAST SHAKOPEE, SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA • WHEREAS , it has been made to appear to the Shakopee City Council that the alley in Block 9 , East Shakopee Plat serves no public use or interest ; and . WHEREAS , requests have been made to vacate the alley; and WHEREAS , a public hearing must he had before such action can be taken and two weeks published and posted notice thereof must be given. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA that a hearing be held in the Council Chambers on the 6th day of September, 1983 at 7 : 30 p.m. , or thereafter , on the matter of vacating the public alley in Block 9 , East Shakopee Plat , according to the plat thereof. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that two weeks published notice be given by publication in the SHAKOPEE VALLEY NEWS and posted notice he given by two weeks posting a copy of such notice on the bulletin board in the main floor of the Scott County Courthouse , on the bulletin board in the Shakopee City Hall and on the bulletin board in the Shakopee Public Utilities Building. Adopted in session of the Shakopee City Council held this day of August , 1983. Mayor 6f- the City of Shakopee ATTEST : City Clerk Approved as to form this day of August , 1983. City Attorney C)00Se /2 f l� MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk RE: Ordinance No. 122 , Amending Chapter 3 of the City Code on Municipal and Public Utilities DATE: July 22 , '1983 Introduction On July 19th this ordinance was tabled in order that it could be redrafted deleting the section which permitted delinquent utility bills of tenants to be assessed against the property owner. SPUC did not recommend this amendment be adopted at this time . Action Requested Remove Ordinance No. 122 , Amending Chapter 3 of the City Code on Municipal and Public Utilities , from the table . Adopt/Defeat . JSC/jms L e- ORDINANCE NO. 122 , FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE SHAKOPEE CITY CODE, CHAPTER 3 , ENTITLED "MUNICIPAL AND PUBLIC UTILITIES - RULES AND REGULATIONS , FRANCHISES AND RATES" BY REMOVING THE ELECTRIC AND GAS FRANCHISES FROM SECTIONS 3 . 30 AND 3.40 AND LISTING SAME IN CHAPTER 25 ; AND, BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE, SHAKOPEE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 3 . 99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS , CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS : SECTION I . Shakopee City Code , Chapter 3 , is hereby amended by removing Section 3 . 30 entitled "Electric Franchise" and Section 3 .40 entitled "Gas Franchise" and listing the same in Chapter 25 of the Shakopee City Code . SECTION II . Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 3. 99 entitled "Viola- tion a Misdemeanor" by hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. SECTION III . After the adoption, signing and attestation of this Ordinance , it shall be published once in the official news- paper 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. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of , 1983 . City Attorney