HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/29/1983 TENTATIVE AGENDA
ADJ .REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA JUNE 29 , 1983
Mayor Reinke presiding
1] Roll Call at 7:00 P.M.
2] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers
3] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS
41 Reports from Staff: (Bring memos from 6/21 agenda)
a] 1983/84 Liquor & Beer Applications - tabled earlier
b] Tractor-Trailer Parking 11d
c] Storm Sewer Catch Basin 11f
d] 16th Avenue and 90th Street 11g
e] 1983 Pavement Preservation & Rehabilitation Program 11i
f] Valley Industrial Blvd. So. - Pouliot Wall ilk
g] Storm Drainage Design Criteria 111
h] Capital Equipment List - discussion only aim
i] Timber Trails Developers Agreement 110
j ] Delinquent Park Dedication Fees 1.1p
k] Petsch Driveway Maintenance
1 ] Quotes for Architectural Services
m] Joint Use of City Bulk Gasoline by School District
5] Other Business:
a] :�% /72. aJ o 91 ///70
ID]
c]
6] Adjourn.
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
2/12',
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk
RE: Liquor License Renewals for 1983/84
DATE: June 29 , ,1983
The following applications for liquor licenses were tabled
June 21st and were tabled. They are all in order and have
been reviewed by the City Attorney and are all insured by
surplus line carriers :
Veterans of Foreign Wars - Club and Sunday
132 East First Avenue
XX Corp. and Wittles , Inc . - On Sale , Off Sale and Sunday
1561 East 1st Avenue
Clair' s Bar , Inc . - On Sale and Off Sale
124 South Holmes
The Friendly Folks Club, Inc . - On Sale , Off Sale , and Sunday
122 East First Avenue
RiversideLiquors , Inc . - Off Sale
507 East First Avenue
Dennis P. Bruesehoff and Thomas J. Cox, A Partnership - Off Sale
1104 Minnesota Valley Mall at Highway 169 So.
Off Sale , Club and Wine Licenses were sent to the Liquor Control
Commission on June 23 , approved, and returned to us . They were
post dated for Council action on June 29th. John Muer, of the
Liquor Control Division was very understanding and helpful in
rushing the applications through for us and doing so prior to
actual approval by the Council . Applicants will be able to
pick up their licenses tomorrow in time for the July 1st new
year.
JSC/jms
MEMORANDUM
I
TO John K. Anderson
City Administrator
FROM H. R. Spurrier
City Engineer
SUBJECT: 1983 Pavement Preservation & Rehabilitation Program
DATE June 21, 1983
Introduction
In a memorandum dated June 3, 1983, City Council postponed action on the 1983
Pavement Preservation & Rehabilitation Program until policy could be established
for assessing cost for major maintenance and until the City had adopted Design
Criteria for Drainage.
Background
Pavement Preservation and Rehabilitation, as used herein, are intended to imply
two different functions, even though the resulting project would be similar, if
not identical.
Pavement Preservation is intended to include routine activities or treatment.
Examples of work that would be considered preservation work include patching,
seal coat, crack-sealing, leveling, overlay and milling. All of these treatments
are surface or ride-related treatments and have no bearing on the structural
capacity of the road.
Rehabilitation, on the other hand, is meant to imply deficient structure where
those deficiency exists below the pavement surface and cannot be corrected by
altering the payment surface except by overlay.
Examples of rehabilitation would be complete or partial reconstruction, or a
structural overlay.
A distinction is made between preservation and rehabilitation because preservation
items listed above consist of maintenance performed on an adequate structure.
Rehabilitation items listed above are maintenance items performed on inadequate
structure.
The 1982 overlay work performed on Harrison Street, is an example of preservation
because the overlay removed rutting and corrected isolated weaknesses. The work
performed on Blue Heron Trail is an example of rehabilitation because the subcut
and reconstruction was necessary because the existing structure was inadequate.
All of the rural subdivisions, with inadequate structure, were paved by the
City of Shakopee in special improvement districts. The pavement structure was
not designed for the type of sub-grade material that exists in those subdivisions.
Consequently, the road is unable to support reasonable loading.
The pavement analysis that would be performed by Midwest Paving Management, Inc.
will determine how much structure must be added before the roadway can take
reasonable loading, such as school buses and garbage trucks.
q( , # g. '41'1
1' h v,1ra p illy 11;' trPMETIMIlumrtmortmymmtrint.
John K. Anderson June 21, 1983
1983 Pavement Program Page -2-
Map 1, illustrates the streets that need preservation work. Map 2, illustrates
the streets that need rehabilitation work. The estimated cost for preservation
is $70,000. The estimated cost for rehabilitation is $1,908,000.00 which
includes $520,000.00 for structural overlay and $1,388.00.00 for reconstruction.
The combined preservation and rehabilitation cost is an estimated $1,978,000.00.
In other terms, 9.31 miles of City street need preservation and rehabilitation.
That is approximately 16.7 percent of the City street system. The preservation
and rehabilitation work is shown on Map 1 and Map 2.
How fast the street system in Shakopee is deteriorating cannot be quantified
because record keeping starting in 1982 and insufficient time has lapsed
to make that determination. For this report a theoretical amount of work was
determined based on the structural ranking determined in the 1982 pavement
evaluation. 6.26 miles identified in that evaluation were included in the
1993 needs. Those needs amount to $1,308,000. The largest portion of this
includes an estimated 2.73 miles of reconstruction. Optimistically, some of
that estimated mileage maybe rehabilitated with structural overlay.
In another 5 years and additional record for the pavement evaluation a more
reliable estimate of long range needs can be prepared.
Funding
If all of the Preservation and Rehabilitation work was scheduled in a 20 year program
it would cost the taxpayers 3.35 mils per year for the next 20 years. Rehabili-
tation costs are $164,300 per year and Preservation costs are $70,000 per year.
The City now uses 1 mil for preservation and rehabilitation. Any expansion of
this program would mean additional levy or assessment to benefited property.
Based on the experience of other cities, reconstruction would not be undertaken
unless the majority of the benefited area supported the project.
The major part of rehabilitation cost is the cost of reconstruction. The cost
of structural overlay amounts to about .66 mils or $46,200 per year.
There is sufficient Preservation and Rehabilitation work outside the Holmes
Street Basin to utilitize the budgeted funds. The problem in doing so is
that it sets a precendence in funding rehabilitation work out of ad valorem
revenue.
There are several combinations of funding and the best way to represent those
combinations is in the following table. That table has 12 empty blanks. Until
there is some discussion by Council of what type of program and what funding
level would be supported the balance of the table cannot be completed.
r i i
John K. Anderson June 21, 1983Page -3-
1983 Pavement Program
Funding Alternatives
Mils/ Ad Valorem % of Cost
Type of Work Year $/Year Tax Assessment Assessed
Preservation
Overlay 1.00* $ 70,000
Rehabilitation
Structural Overlay 0.66 46,200
Reconstruction 1.69 118,100
Total 3.35 $234,300
* Amount now funded by Ad Valorem revenue
Below listed are some of the advantages and disadvantages of ad valorem costs or
special assessment.
Preservation
Ad Valorem
-Advantages-
1. This work is often considered routine maintenance.
2. This work protects the street and surfacing.
3. This work reduces other forms of street maintenance.
-Disadvantages-
1. Apparent local benefit is given property owners in one area.
2. Subjective decisions are often made between what is structural
overlay and what is Preservation.
Assessment
-Advantages-
1. Expands "User Fee" philosophy so that one area is not taxed to
support another.
2. Gives the City more flexibility and margin between levy and levy
limit.
-Disadvantages-
1. Protecting the City's investment will depend on the test of benefit.
2. Preservation program streets deteriorate because the streets must
pass benefit test.
John K. Anderson June 21, 1983
1983 Pavement Program Page -4-
3. Paving becomes discontinuous because streets fail to pass benefit
test.
Rehabilitation
Structural Overlay
Ad Valorem
-Advantages-
1. Program may be planned into the future as County road programs are
without assessment problems.
2. Avoids problems with subjective decisions made on whether the over-
lay is Preservation of Rehabilitation.
-Disadvantages-
1. City at large pays for enhancing local benefit.
2. Forces City to use funds controlled by the levy limit.
Assessed
•
See Preservation Overlay above.
Reconstruction
Ad Valorem
See Structural Overlay above.
Assessment
-Advantages-
See Preservation assessed above.
-Disadvantages-
1. Property Owners will not perceive a difference between streets
overlayed and streets reconstructed causing public relations
problem.
2. Convenience to other citizens depends on the test of local benefit.
3. Public Works Department equipment may be damaged by the poor
street conditions.
These are just a few of the advantages and disadvantages to be considered in
evaluating the proposed Preservation and Rehabilitation Program. The principal
decision that must be made is the decision that completes the Funding Alterna-
tives table above. Just to make the decision more complicated, the impact
of the Holmes Street Basin Study removes so many Preservation streets that the
funds are over budgeted because the money exceeds the available work.
John K. Anderson June 21, 1983
1983 Pavement Program Page -5
Also attached is a memorandum from Fulton Schleisman which compares assessment
policies used by other municipalities. Although many cities have a tough policy
on reconstruction, few have ever applied the policy.
Alternatives
Specifications are ready for an overlay program. Both Preservation and Rehabili-
tation overlay work could be performed under that contract. The problem is
that there is insufficient time to consider and adopt policy for Pavement
Preservation Rehabilitation and then initiate a special improvement district
to pay for Preservation or Rehabilitation. Finally the adoption process for
storm drainage criteria is not complete and the recommendations of the Holmes
Street Basin Laterial Report have not been acted upon. These recommendations
impact a large number of streets included in the Preservation and Rehabilitation
Program.
Given the constraints listed above the City has the following alternatives:
1. Recognize current work maybe contrary to future policy and proceed with an
overlay program that includes both Preservation and Rehabilitation funded
100% by ad valorem revenue.
2. Overlay the streets that are Preservation and are outside the Holmes Street
Basin laterals.
3. Overlay streets that are Preservation without regard to their location.
4. Postpone all Preservation and Rehabilitation work until funding policy
is established.
Alternative No. 1 would result in disgruntled citizens that missed the 1983
program. At the same time, alternative No. 1 would have the advantages and
disadvantages of the structural overlay funded by ad valorem revenue.
Alternative No. 2 would have all of the advantages and disadvantages of preser-
vation funded by ad valorem revenue.
Alternative No. 3 would have the advantages and disadvantages of preservation
funded by ad valorem revenue but the additional disadvantage of potential waste
of preservation funds because the work would be performed on streets that
might later be a pipe location for the Holmes Street Basin Laterals.
The disadvantage of alternative No. 4 is that the 1983 preservation and rehabili-
tation needs have been identified. The longer the City postpones rehabilitation
work the more likely it is that structural overlay streets become reconstruction
streets because of the damage to the street subgrade as a result of additional
traffic and weathering.
Summary
The primary objective of the 1983 Pavement Preservation and Rehabilitation
Program is to utilize $90,000 to improve the street system. The improvements
were proposed in order to reduce Street Department workload.
Closer inspection of the problem expose several policy questions that should
be answered before much more pavement preservation and rehabilitation work is
performed.
John K. Anderson June 21, 1983
1983 Pavement Program Page -6-
Cities have policy addressing Preservation and Rehabilitation work. When they
do, it has seldom been tested our used.
The city's ability the fund Preservation and Rehabilitation is controlled by
the levy limit. Some assessment could exempt the city from those controls.
As a property owner, I would have a preference toward funding all work with
ad valorem revenue. As City staff, I would have a preference toward assess-
ment or user fees because it gives the City maximum flexibility in generating
revenue, even though the generated revenue would not be for the Pavement
Preservation and Rehabilitation Program.
It is necessary to perform the Pavement Preservation and Rehabilitation work.
Any extended delay could result in the deterioration of streets scheduled for
structural overlay to a point where those streets would have to be reconstructed.
That would increase the cost of rehabilitation by a factor of 3.8.
If City Council desires public input for the 1983 Pavement Preservation and
Rehabilitation Program, then the Program should be postponed because work
should be completed by September 1, and there would be insufficient time if
a public hearing or public meeing was held.
Action Requested
1. City Council should make recommendations for funding the following:
A. Preservation
B. Rehabilitation
(1) Structural Overlay
(2) Reconstruction
2. City Council should select an alternative for the 1983 Pavement Preservation
and Rehabilitation Program.
A. If necessary, authorize advertising for bid for the 1983 Pavement
Preservation and Rehabilitation Program.
B. If necessary, advertise a public hearing for Pavement Preservation
and Rehabilitation Policy.
HRS/jms
, . ,! 4•i , 1E .. = i ,4 wt4iud,4 .A4 (, It;44,44,1f 4 P ti[ftWilii ' 4a
. .
. .
, . •
,
^ ,
, 0
0 1
0
o
co
_,. „,
' 1 _ z Tr
co
CD (i)
, r ,
F- F-
44 , <1. 0
, ..
/
• .. > 0
Cr
_ .AY•. liipt ' 1..) 11 27 ,-
' 0000
I
.
,
., -- , • 1 , .
_ ,
t -
' r•rg 1 ' uo
\-\\ . •., ...0. :._ ,i -I. ,, , =
\- \ 1111 -- ;I i -; i 1 • $ a. 1--
t,4
,,.. . ,,r.:.. t si 1 I ,.- 1 .-. •
-.7i' --i' 1 "' - '• - .,,, ,.,, ' -- - -, LU
\ .I,....s., ir IV\ ,- 1 . '1 ir ' ' 1 41 , ft • —.. (4
' ,; ' • , 4 ,,,,,..
1 2 $ $ • . ,
" ' '., 1 -'( 1 i''
, y y i .. ' t.-' Ls'mre • ,,,i,„.. _ ..
•„,
,,./1 / • 4 k , • .4
* '
. .. ' i
\I--$ . ,, • - , • 4. • V•
-r - qvi ' , h,1-3‘ 1 ' 1 k1,% .,
..1 • . V.31t- I- ,,s o.%
1-y ,..‘ rft • 1 ii.
-,- , 1 f., ' ',r
,
o ,"..i‘ 1 I 1 -' ,. .4'-',
• \i,g*""7. - I x 4 li,, • • ' • ,, ,
..---4.r; ' •
1 \ )C.,11.1. t- ' 1., , .. •• " ' i.4) ...' .
\ War'I ' . r ' 1 t e .0c, IA ,
1 . • ) ' t ' 4
1 •'\ ,1 - , ` ,
1,1314 0 ,
t trot' , l_
: \ ' ' '\ :`' ' '; 1'
•
1 I JIM ,
4 a
.- I , ,
; .
; , , „ , __ ., i .....,- - : , ....:[ 4
1 .-•
,.. 4 4 .*--7'.--7.1
1 ' ( , f 4 1 10 . ' '-.• ‘. i
•' ' ' 011 .. " ,. , . ' . * t t... ,. - : ' .. r • -
7,,,,
..., . * , . vi ,.\v, ,, . ,i; 4r;,.'' tote te— , , I
•4 . 1, * ' • , '., ,V;" 4
', '
si . ..„,:, k,,,,.,•1 . r 11
I •1 `,,,, ' '4 ' • -. , . 4 ..i,'. - it ''. : I T
if
\ .... . •, ] ,. ......4. 1,• .
r, II r
• - I
---, i _ ..
\ „, , .
. .(4 ... .....,
et,-,---,,\ 1
•
, 7., , 1.. • ., 1 . _. , ,....... . .
,,,,c\ ..
\\ , . . . , , ... .._. i f
. , ..
\, \ . .
s
• . - :,....i ., _ _
. ,...,.., ,,„),„. • ,
• . _ .. _- . .
, ! .
, N. _ .. . ...._
,,
\ l N. -• '
/
rn
...
' ....‘„ %
• 4.,r, t.\
a - I
, 4
1
..t..1,........1", "
/ .,'' \, 1 /7 IL--../i 1 I ' I I I / l'f\
,..-
f f /
11 ..._./7I, I I
/ , ;/
i I '
•,,... 1 (J)
i 0 0 0
0
. / .., 0 t. , '`....
1 ' 0
0 0 00 OD ----4
.. CO 0
0 N 111:' 121111 Li .
cy) 0)
r Il..., %_4 •
C\1 - -
I, 2 in ,- ,-
r--- 0— 0 0
'.-- • x , ':.-:
• ":' ' 1C-): L: 1
d
i
''1 , t
• 1---
• I ' '
,
.. .
CV H-,.
• ,:ii
1"-":" ,
,
Oco I I
,
a. : < -.
---1
,:,.... i/--,,,'
CO >-
,i \
, 0 o ,
1 --,-'
) ' ., ' 2 ••••r< . , 1 -7 ,
,
''' ' r III ' • •
II
i /,'"4 '
' LIT ; ,,,, CC
›- _I
4 < ,
, , ..
i
, tr-j
.
. -- .. ' -I ----1 -,
Lu ,-, ,
> 0
a
Z ...j U
. / I
' I r /
0 <
— CC
..,,,, H. ----.---t--I.-----.---....-1
/ a.
-11 ---- 1
I / — I— (I)
• , ,. „ .. i ,....„ Cr 0 Z
/,--”'
C) D 0 ..
I L
(/) cc 0
L
...„...
, -16.-/:•--------,t1 ,'' l'1,
/ i'
, • f : ; -, ,,,
l' 1 ./ :2
11'1
l' ', ' .5.1•"" '1 ( I] I
,..--.. .......... .
4'i
.......a.....„[
I ' .. .
- • - •
‘4,M,=,1 II I I;, '-`,, :
L-%
/ - Ir."'
/ " ' '1 1 ' . . ..- ,
1, ./
-I , .
I \
I \ii ..-')k-1 1 -' •
'"--. - '-''''" 4 -' '- i /-
..,,,,,,,,, ,/........, __,,,.,\5„,\ \ . .
.,
II.1IN ' --. r ..0.. "w-- . '-F, ,
jN '"'•• ..- „,/ ' --tau" '`, -
\ ,;.: * 'l'y—c ,-..., •Ina-.-, -4
' I ' k1z,
•
' • \ ? . . x
`0' t•
....(
•..,
,
,
I k tig Ilk lik I "I'l r 11,'1
i
i iI
•...,,4 ti% _V WI', - V- .: '
, • \1, `44,::•: -..N.., y. )111,1,... a l'll I
•
„,'..,--4 Sy...• 4 •.,1
12,1
. , , ,, ..•
,P11 los 6.111 •••.--c•.,
,i i --':
)
C..i.) j:
.i.
• 1 __,, k..i 1:`,
• \,,,...H, a
L._ ' L..%-.."' ,` ' — il I `
..\ '4'-' '''') -41'' '' '"i
\ 1 " ',"" --, •••,-.,A nig , 11 1
\ , "- •-'1--itm•-•,, 1 I •
1\-\• =
i t
1 ' 1
, I ,
, • \,..,_....... ,,:' ,- ,' .
\ .
• 1• 1
. -\'' N•
.,,,,,.. •,\ • . .••,. '1 1
4 ,;‘, •,.
',- \,\,,,,„,,11 \ \•^‘-•
--4.'•, , I 4 1 11 ,
I /
7 \,...4:4 ' i
' • ', , '1 "
a
z
LTC 11111111111111111111111111
4?.
s l' i
0 1
OC• 1.111111111 S
S co
OD
--... 0
GI. '
DOV :13AVE
99-Z 111111111111111111.1
ul
lito,.
CL.3 :.1A0E1V
a
, • 2.
69.0 gl
•':::. -..., , ...,-44 ..,-
gV.C1111111111111111111111111
...I \ '-4,•-' '.".
''lf.7.•
0 ••fe"
(5 09.0
Z M /4
; 0
W \
0C-3
< so-Mill i
s <
cr D
t• I.
LL1 <
,.
1
CC
D 90'1. ill 1
0 9 1.•L
D Ictoi—i F>j i I-- 1
F.- LU
(/) 39'M 2 w
6 : l . UJ
i >
09•1111 0 si <
it 0
.. .
6Z-11 i so a. ..
6Z•1111
63-E 1
6L 0 1
0 " ttit.: :IP% ;•,oi.,
Q. 1
i
I
I
I
1
0
i*
CO 0 .q aD C\I CD 0 *I 0D (\I (1)
M (1) C\JC010 ,-- WdOr.... CO
Co CY) (;) CV CV
(SD111/1) AON1103EIJ
ESTIMATED 1983 NEEDS
Preservation
Description Quantity Unit Price Total
l2" Overlay 17,800 S.Y. $3.10 $55,180
10% Construction Contingency 5,520
Subtotal $60,700
Technical Services 9,300
Total $70,000
Rehabilitation
Description Quantity Unit Price Total
Reconstruction 19,790 L.F. $55.00 $1,088,450
10% Construction Contingency 108,850
Subtotal 1,197,300
Technical Services 190,700
Total $1,388,000
Description Quantity Unit Price Total
Structural Overlay
Urban Section 71,330 S.Y. $3.10 $221,123
aural Section 28,950 S.Y. $6.40 185,280
10% Construction Contingency 40,607
Subtotal 447,010
Technical Services 72,990
Total $520,000
Summary
Preservation
Overlay $ 70,000
Rehabilitation
Reconstruction 1,388,000
Structural Overlay 520,000
Total 1983 Needs $1,978,000
ESTIMATED 1993 NEEDS
Rehabilitation
Description Quantity Unit Price Total
Structural Overlay 87,050 S.Y. $ 3.10 $ 269,855
Reconstruction 14,400 L.F. 55.00 792,000
Subtotal 1,061,855
10% Construction Contingency 106,145
1,168,000
Technical Services 140,000
Total $1,308,000
Estimated 2003 Needs
Rehabilitation
Description Quantity Unit Price Total
Structural Overlay *0 S.Y. $ 3.10 _0_
Reconstruction *0 L.F. 55.00 _0_
Total _0_
*Structural Overlay required on State Aid System only. Preservation Program
of $70,000 meets all other needs.
/MEMO TO: H. R. Spurrier
City Engineer
FROM: Fulton Schleisman
Engineering Inspector
RE: City Participation in the Cost of Reconstructing
Public Improvements
DATE: June 23 , 1983
Introduction :
The attached report has been written in response to a request for
information regarding the City' s involvement in the financing of
extraordinary maintenance, rehabilitation, or reconstruction of
local improvements .
Background:
The Local Improvement Code (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 ) , does
provide the procedure for local improvements, but does not make
general policy decisions as to the extent various kinds of improve-
ments are to be financed from general funds .
Therefore, information has been collected which shows how other
municipalities are participating in the cost of local improvements .
The cities mentioned in the report seldom differentiate between
new construction and reconstruction when establishing assessment
criteria. Some, as does Shakopee, incorporate the issue of "life
expectancy" of improvements into their policies in some manner.
No effort was made to deal with the myriad of formulas used in
determining the apportionment of special assessments against
benefitted properties at this time. However, all the information
which mentions how cities contribute to the cost of local improve-
ments , has been included in the report .
Action Requested:
Review attached report and make comments, changes and recommendations
as necessary. No action required.
FS/jvm
Attachment
A SURVEY OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICIES
For the City of Shakopee
When an improvement project has been proposed and is before
the City Council, some basic questions must be decided. Will the
City pay a share of the project costs? If so, on what basis? How
should the cost be allocated among benefitted properties? When
the project involves replacement of existing but "worn out"
facilities, should the City adjust its contribution accordingly?
The following information was gathered from a Study by
David R. Hartley, 1977 , telephone conversations with municipal
staff members and copies of local improvement ordinances and policies .
Bloomington: (Population - 81 , 640 )
The City pays 50 percent of all storm sewer costs out of
General Obligation Funds .
In the case where an arterial street is installed with State
Aid Funds, the surfacing is not assessed if the street was previously
surfaced. If the surfacing is assessed, the rate for residential
surfacing is used. This rate does not include curb and gutter,
which is assessed on all City streets .
When a sidewalk is installed on an Arterial or State Aid Street,
or in an approved walkway system, the cost is covered by funds
other than assessments to property.
Brooklyn Center: ( Population - 31, 167 )
The City of Brooklyn Center has established a policy of
assessing 100 percent of the cost of public improvements to the
benefitting property in all cases .
Brooklyn Park: (Population - 43 , 264 )
The City of Brooklyn Park established set rates for sanitary
sewer and watermains . When these rates do not cover the cost of
the project, the additional cost is borne by Municipal Funds .
The additional cost of any street construction, which may
exceed a 32 foot wide street ( standard residential ) , in a
residentially zoned area is funded by Municipal Funds.
Burnsville: (Population - 35, 681 )
The City of Burnsville sets its assessment rates annually,
based on cost of projects . Each project type ( storm sewer, street,
etc. ) is lumped together to come up with a universal rate for all
properties . The Council may choose not to cover all costs by means
of special assessments, in which case the City will cover those
excess costs via General Funds .
Coon Rapids: (Population - 35 , 838 )
The City of Coon Rapids funds their sidewalk construction from
a bond issue.
There is no assessment for sidewalks .
For all other improvements , the City has a policy of assessing
100 percent of the cost of projects to the benefitting properties.
Crystal: ( Population - 25, 489 )
The City of Crystal has established a policy cf assessing
100 percent of the public improvements to the benefitting property.
The only exception is when State Aid Streets are upgraded and
sidewalks are required, 90 percent of the cost for sidewalks is
borne by the City' s State Aid Fund.
Eden Prairie: (Population - 16 , 259 )
The City of Eden Prairie has established a policy where 100
percent of the cost of public improvements is assessed against the
benefitting property.
Faribault: (Population - 16 , 240 )
The City of Faribault participates in the funding of public
improvements in the following ways:
1 . The cost of all water hydrants, valves and
looping is paid for by Municipal Funds.
2 . When street improvements are assessed, the
first 66 feet of front footage is paid by
the City from Municipal Funds .
Hoyt Lakes: (Population - 3 , 192 )
The cost of constructing utilities and streets is assessed
against the property benefitted by the improvement, except:
A clause saying, "General repairs , maintenance
and similar expenditures shall be financed without
special assessment" and to further specify, "any
improvement or replacement less than the length
of one full City block shall constitute repairs
and not be financed by special assessment" , is
included in several sections of the ordinance.
-2-
Inver Grove Heights: (Population - 17 . 154 )
The City of Inver Grove Heights has established a policy
such that 100 percent of the cost of public improvements is assessed
against the benefitting property. There are exceptions to this
policy:
1 . The standard residential street is 36 feet
wide. The cost of any oversizing is borne
by the City.
2 . The standard residential sanitary sewer is an
8 inch pipe. Any cost for oversizing is borne
by the City.
Mankato: ( Population - 28 , 668 )
The City of Mankato establishes a minimum street to be 36 feet
wide and have 6 inches of sub-base, 6 inches of base, 3 inches of
bituminous surface and curb and gutter. The City pays for one-
third of this minimum street, plus intersections and any additional
costs . Storm sewers are included in street construction so one-
third of their cost is borne by the City General Funds .
Besides paying for one-third of street construction costs
for residential streets , Mankato will pick up a portion of the cost
of any projects which are excessive or do not directly benefit any
specific property.
Standard sizes are established by the Engineer for watermains.
If there is need for oversizing to service another area, the cost
of that oversizing is borne by the City General Funds .
Minneapolis: (Population - 370, 091 )
The City of Minneapolis "Residential Paving Policy" , provides
that when streets are reconstructed, the City pays 75 percent from
tax base. This includes paving, curb, gutter and sidewalk.
All storm sewer costs are from City-wide tax base.
Properties are assessed 25 percent for the extension of
sewer or water laterals when the property has service connection
via an unorthodox method.
Minnetonka: (Population - 38 , 699 )
The City of Minnetonka has a policy of assessing 100 percent
of the cost of improvements to benefitting properties. This
holds true for all improvements except the trail system, (a sub-
stitute for sidewalks ) which is funded entirely by the City.
-3-
Monticello: (Population - 3 , 095 )
"All street improvements , including curb and gutter are
100 percent assessed against the abutting property, except that:
1 . In the event street replacement is necessary as
a result of underground utility construction,
the City may determine to assess 50 percent of the
street replacement cost.
2 . If the Council determines that the street, which
must be replaced as a result of the underground
utility construction was of such deteriorated
condition as to have been in need of replacement,
whether or not underground work was necessary,
then 100 percent of the street replacement cost
shall be assessed against the benefitted property
on a front footage basis . "
Northfield: (Population - 12, 559 )
The City of Northfield has a policy of assessing 100 percent
of the cost of public improvements to the benefitting property owners.
They do have an "Improvement Life" Section within their
ordinance. The life expectancies are similar to those in Shakopee' s
policy; i.e. , 20 years street, 30 years utilities, followed with:
"When the life expectancy of the improvement has
expired due to wear or sizing and the improvement
is judged inadequate by the City Engineer and the
City Council, a new improvement will be initiated
and assessed against the benefitted property. "
The cost of reconstruction of sidewalks when needed after the
normal 20 year life has elapsed will be shared by the City and
property owner. Before that time, the City shall pay 100 percent
of the cost of the improvement.
The cost of construction of new sidewalks in an established
area will be shared by the City and property owner. Commercial,
industrial and institutional areas are 100 percent responsible for
the sidewalk benefitting their areas.
Plymouth: (Population - 31 , 556 )
The City of Plymouth established a standard residential street
to be 32 feet wide and of 7-ton design. When costs are incurred
beyond these standards , the excess cost is funded from any of the
following or any combination: MSA, CSAH, FAU or Ad Valorem.
Storm sewers are normally assessed at 100 percent of the cost
of the project, based on lot area. The exception is the case of
MSA streets , where the entire cost for storm drainage ditches is
covered by the MSA Funds
-4-
•
Red Wing: (Population - 13 , 721 )
The City of Red Wing covers the entire cost of storm sewer
construction via Municipal Funds .
If oversizing is required to provide service for an area not
included in the current improvement project, the City will pay
the cost of that oversizing out of General Funds .
Rochester: (Population -54 , 287 )
The City of Rochester sets a policy of assessing 100 percent
of the cost of all projects to benefitting properties , with these
exceptions :
1 . The cost of oversizing watermains is borne
by the Water Department.
2 . The cost of oversizing streets in residential
areas only is borne by the City' s Municipal
Funds .
St. James: (Population - 4 , 323 )
The City of St. James has a policy of assessing 100 percent of the
cost of public improvements to the benefitting property owners.
They make an exception for reconstruction as follows:
"The life expectancy for street projects which
are new construction shall be 30 years . If
during the first 15 years after construction,
reconstruction is necessary, the improvement
cost shall become a City cost. Thereafter, any
reconstruction shall be assessable on a prorata
basis of the remaining 15 years" .
St. Cloud: (Population - 42 , 527 )
The City of St. Cloud has a policy of assessing 100 percent of
the cost of improvements to benefitting properties . The exceptions
to this policy are as follows :
1 . When streets are built to an arterial or
collector design in a residentially zoned
area, the additional cost is borne by the
City.
2 . The cost for oversizing watermain and sanitary
sewer is borne by the City.
White Bear Lake: (Population - 22 , 561 )
The City of White Bear Lake has a policy of assessing 100
percent of the cost of all improvements except sidewalk. A special
fund is set up annually for sidewalk construction.
-5-
Conclusion
No single recommendation seems appropriate based on the
findings of this report, but some observations regarding the City' s
cost-sharing position will be made.
After considering past practice, equity, revenue productivity,
political acceptability and the relation to other parts of the
revenue system, some arguments can be made for increased City parti-
cipation in funding local improvements .
1 . The larger the portion of a project cost
that is not paid by property owners, the
less likely it is that any particular
assessment can be shown to exceed the
increase in the value of the property
attributable to the improvement. (Recent
court decisions have made cities more vulner-
able in this area) .
2 . Taxpayers can deduct their property taxes,
but not their special assessments when calcu-
lating income tax.
3 . Particularly with storm sewer, there is difficulty
finding a satisfactory formula for apportioning
the cost among benefitted property owners. The
League of Minnesota Cities suggests that: "some
cities, perhaps including a majority of
outstate cities, finance storm sewers entirely
from City-wide funds" , at least partly due to
this difficulty.
4 . What a city decides about the extent to which
General Funds or City Credit are used for public
improvements may seem to reflect their views
on encouraging or discouraging development.
-6-
A SURVEY OF
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICIES
FOR STREET CONSTRUCTION
Have Policy:
treat new Separate
No Policy . const. and Policy City
or re-const. for Participation
City Ordinance alike Reconst. by Percentage Other Cost Sharing
\noka Yes -0-
3loomington Yes Use State Aid if
previously surfaced
3rooklyn Center Yes City pays excess
wider than 32'
srooklyn Park Yes -0
aarnsville Yes -0
'hamplin Yes -0
'hanhassen Yes -0- "Are now considering
sharing cost'
oon Rapids Yes -0-
rystal Yes -0-
agan
Yes -0-
den Prairie Yes City pays excess
wider than 36'
Lysian
Yes (Life -0-
Expectancy
Section)
iribault Yes First 66' of frontage
paid by City
Dyt Lakes Yes (General -0-
Repairs
Section)
nver Grove Heights Yes City pays excess
wider than 36'
znkato Yes 33%+
Jrth Mankato Yes 15%
irshall Yes -0
a.ple Plain Yes (Life -0-
Expectancy
Section)
Lnneapolis Yes 75%
innetonka
Yes -0-
)nticello Yes City may pay
50% if utility
const. occured
Have Policy:
treat new Separate
No Policy const. and Policy City
Or re-const. for Participation
City Ordinance alike Beconst. by Percentage Other Cost Sharing
Mounds View Yes -0-
dorthf ield Yes (Life -0-
Expectancy
Section)
)watonna Yes -0-
'lymouth Yes City pays over
7 ton design
prior Lake Yes City pays excess
when cost exceeds
benefit
ted Wing Yes -0-
tochester Yes "Cost of oversizing
streets borne by
city"
St. Cloud Yes City pays excess
for arterial or
collector streets
St. James Yes (Life -0-
Expectancy
Section)
dhite Bear Lake Yes -0-
32 301 22 113
1This figure may be lower: did not have copies of policy for all cities in survey.
2This figure may be higher for reason above.
334+% of cities share cost in some way.
-2-
MEMORANDUM
TO : John K. Anderson
City Administrator
FROM : H. R. Spurrier
City Engineer
SUBJECT: Holmes Street Basin Late s
Storm Drainage Design Criteria
DATE : June 24, 1983
Introduction:
Pursuant to the recommendations of the Feasibility Report for the Holmes
Street Basin Laterals, staff presented the Design Criteria to the Industrial
Commercial Commission and the Shakopee Planning Commission.
Background:
Attached are copies of minutes from both Commissions. In both cases, the Design
Criteria was approved. In the case of the Shakopee Planning Commission, an
additional recommendation was made that would assist the City with an implementation
strategy.
The recommended strategy of the Planning Commission was to identify problem
areas, City-wide, based on the approved Design Criteria and the approved Recurrence
Years, then establish a program for dealing with these City-wide, rather than
Basin by Basin.
This approach is different than the approach taken in all previous storm drainage
projects. The Planning Commission's recommendation has merit and could be a
reasonable alternative in facilitating drainage improvements.
The action that City Council could take would be to adopt the proposed Design
Criteria, then direct staff to prepare an estimate of the cost of expanding the
study to a City-wide study, which would prioritize problems areas within the
community and discuss options for dealing with other problems.
Action Requested:
1. Direct Staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance amending Section 12.06,
of the Subdivision Regulations relating to storm drainage improvements.
2. Direct Staff to prepare a resolution adopting these Storm Drainage Design
Criteria.
3. Direct Staff to prepare an estimate of the cost of expanding the Feasibility
Report to a City-wide study which would prioritize drainage problems within
the community as defined by the Design Criteria and prioritize those problems
and determine the options available to deal with them.
HRS/jvm
Attachments
PROCEEDINGS OF THE
SHAKOPEE PLANNING COMMISSION
Special Session June 20, 1983
Vice Chrmn. Perusioh called the meeting to order with Comm. Coller,
Stoltzman, Czaja, and Rockne present. Also present : Don Steger,
City Planner; H. R. Spurrier, City Engineer; John Anderson, City
Admin. and Cncl . Vierling. Late: Chrmn. Schmitt.
Presentation was made of the Holmes Street Basin Lateral Feasibility
Report by the City Engineer. This report includes the proposed
Storm Drainage Design and Technical Criteria .
Discussion was held on the West Side Storm Sewer and County Road 17
Storm Sewer Systems as how they compare with the proposed Design
Criteria.
Chrmn. Schmitt arrived at 8 : 45 P.M.
Comm. Czaja left at 9 : 45 P.M.
Schmitt/Caller moved that the Planning Commission adopt the 2-year
Residential and 5-year Commercial and Industrial Design Criteria as
presented by the City Engineer. Motion carried unanimously.
Schmitt/Rockne moved that when a presentation is made to the City
Council and the community, it he made in such a manner as to define
the problem areas within the community as now established by the
criteria in order of priority and the options in dealing with these
problems . Motion carried unanimously.
Schmitt/Stoltzman moved that the City Engineer and City Staff be
directed to quantify and prioritize the advantages and disadvantages
of the alternative projects that exist within the target areas.
Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 10 : 15 P.M.
Don Steger
City Planner
Recording Secretary
MINUTES
IPDUSTRI +1L COMMERCIAL COMMISSION
Shakopee , MN June 15 , 1955
•
The Industrial Commercial Commission was called to order at
5: 10 p .m. by the Chairman Paul Wermerskirchen in the Council
Chambers in City Hall.
(`Members Present. : Pviu1 U r.mrlrakirrhen, Chairman
Al Furrie
Jane Du(3ois
John Manahan
Jim O 'Neill < <<
Bill Wermerskirchen, Sr. , Chamber Liaison '
I . ,°
"
Member bsent : Gary Eastlund
Guests Present : Dennis E. Palmer , Barr Engineering
John K. Anderson, City Administrator
Bo Spurrier, City Engineer
MINUTES
The Minutes of the ICC Meeting of clay 25, 1983, were approved
by a motion made by Al. Furrie , seconded by Jane DuBois .
STORM SEWER RECOMMENDATIONS
John K. Anderson introduced Dennis E. Palmer, Barr Engineering,
and commented on the review of the Feasibility Report for the
Holmes Street Basin Laterals , April, 1983 requested by the City
of Mr. Palmer. Dennis Palmer presented his opinions of the
Feasibility Report and design criteria contained in it. He
stated he ag7ee,_' with the general policies and commended the
City for its effort to specify design criteria. He pointed
out the policy question of level of service to property owners
or the level or risk of inconvenience,
•
•
pane 2
ICC
June 15 , 1983
The Chairman asked John (Manahan to report on his discussions
with Bo Spurrier pursuant to John Manahan offer at the May 25,
1983, meeting. John Manahan summarized two items : 1) the effort
is to establish criteria for storm sewers with City Council support,
and 2) this is a relatively new approach in municipalities . He
described his opinion of the runoff coefficients as the critical
element in the criteria , and that residential and commercial
properties could be desicn,ated differinn runoff coefficients ,
such as , residential at two years and commercial at 5 years .
He identified two tasks for the ICC to undertake : 1) accept
design criteria, and 2) recommend the two and five year plan
(residential and commercial , respectively) .
Al Furrie conveyed the questions and comments expressed by
Lary Eastlund who had to be absent this evening. There followed
eeneral discussion of the desinn and purpose of trickle channels
within open drainage channels in the industrial park.
There was considerable discussion of the status of the design
criteria once approved by the City Council, such as guidelines ,
codified rules , statutes , standards , etc. It was understood
that the design criteria would be policy guidelines for staff
to uti ' ize. Th ri ua concern expressed that these criteria
bo used to evaluated projects but that flexibility should still
be available. Co Spurrier explained that guidelines do not
guarantee exceptions but do allow flexibility if needed.
Bill Wermerskirchen, Sr. , inquired about changes in City
assessing policies for storm sewers and brief discussion
followed.
It was the generalconconsus of the ICC members that it is a
great advantage to the City to have a stated engineering design
criteria for storm sewer projects .
John Manahan moved, seconded by .Al Furrie , to recommend to the
City Council to adopt a resolution of the general design criteria
as set forth in the Feasibility fleport for the Holmes Street
Basin Laterals , April, 1933. to be used by the City Engineer as
guidelines for future storm sewer development in the City of
Shakopee. ['lotion carried. Jim O 'Neil..l. abstained.
John Manahan moved, seconded by Jane DuBois , to recommend to
the City Council to adopt a policy of the level of service for
storm sewers in the future to be designed at 2 year recurrence
frequepcy for residential properties and five year recurrence
frequency for commercial properties . Motion carried. Jim O'Neill
abstained.
-�' .a._.'�'�"fiN. ^.",*. f_ L �..'.,2,"a 2_,k, +t�"f:'�3CSmircu
mage 3
ICC
June 15, 1983
AWARD TO JIM O'NEILL
The Chairman presented an award plaque to Jim O'Neill, a six year
ICCmember and past Chairman of the ICC in appreciation of his
good service with the ICC and for the City of 5hakopee. The ICC
members and guests applauded.
3ROCHURE
Jane DuBois reported on further photo acquisition problems ,
and anticipates a July 1st printing.
STAR CITIES POOLR,vN
John Manahan reported he has received a great deal of material
from the Shakopee Development Co: poration and expects to take
two months to review it. + 1 Furrie offerred to aid John Manahan
in the review of the materials.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion made by Jim O 'Neill, seconded by John Manahan ,
the ICC meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Glenda D. Spiotta
I ;ryj
f
j �
*mow w it< e ,£
' "! is .._..; !? a.8 � . 1 Aiiiitik44.61i -'" a + 4
g,os �- CITY OF SHAKOPEE
+1 11 -~-iL'; 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 ��
1
�' ,-.' a `,/aP
MEMO
John Anderson - Administrator
TO:
Jim Karkanen - Public Works
FROM:
C. Petsch driveway maintenance
SUBJECT:
June 20, 1983
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
This memo is intended to provide some background and history of maintenance
activities performed by the City of Shakopee and the Eagle Creek Town Board on the
Clarence Petsch driveway, east of the McKenna Road. '
BACKGROUND:
When the City of Shakopee consolidated with Eagle Creek Township in 1971, Bill
Schmokel, the Township Engineer, met with with our City Engineer, Mayor Ray Siebenaler,
and myself to offer as much background and information on their maintenance policies,
as possible. He pointed out the problem areas and informed us about the township's
intact ions for some of the rural roads by conducting two informational tours for our
benefit. At that time, the Petsch driveway was not included on these tours, so we were
. not aware of this R/W, or that Eagle Creek was maintaining this R/W. About 5 years ago,
Mr. Petsch informed us that his driveway was a dedicated road and demanded service. After
confirmation of this claim by Elmer Marschall, we began to include the driveway on the
rural plow route, and also began "minimum maintenance", such as occasional grading, when ,
needed, hauling gravel, mowing, and snow removal. Summer maintenance on this driveway
hasn't been too much of a problem, but snow removal is very difficult because the roadway
is- very narrow, and there is no turn-around at the end of the R/W and our bigger
equipment has to back out of the g- mile section or encroach on private property to
perform this manuever. We have had our equipment stuck in this driveway many times.
Mr. Schmokel has informed us that the private contractor who performed maintenance for
Eagle Creek, occasionally went to the end of his driveway at the farmhouse, and billed
Mr. Petsch for this service. This arrangement apparently was between the contractor and
Mr. Petsch. Mr. Petsch has asked us to maintain the private section of the driveway, but
we have refused this request.
It was during this period of time that Council developed policy regarding maintaining
substandard roads (such as Deans Lake Rd., and Maras Addition.) but we found ourselves
already committed on the Petsch driveway,(because of Eagle Creek's policy) and at this
point, we will probably need Council direction regarding maintenance policy- on this
driveway.
Petsch driveway page 2
A memo addressing the vacating of certain urban and rural roads, (Petsch, Mielke,
Breegeman, and W. 4th Ave. at Adams) has already been drafted, and will be presented; oto
Council pending review by the Administrator, Engineer and City Attorney. This memo will
recommend vacating this particular driveway, after building up the gravel base and leaving
the roadway in good condition. These recommendations are in response to the Council's
request to vacate unneeded or seldom used roadways as per GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, 1983 —
Section 3.17.("Reduce street maintenance costs/responsibilities by systematically
vacating unneeded streets")
In late February, Mr. Petsch complained about several waterholes in his driveway, so
we hauled in 20 tons of Class 2 crushed rock and leveled them with an underblade mounted
on one of our trucks. To my knowledge, there wasn't any further maintenance performed
on this driveway until Mr. Petsch appeared before the Council several weeks ago. We have
since bladed the R/W with the grader, and the driveway appears to be in good condition.
at the moment. (We did not haul in any more gravel.) If Council decides to eventually
vacate this R/W, we will probably be obligated to haul in more gravel in order to leave
it in good shape before cessation of maintenance. At any rate, it looks like we should
gravel the roadway unless Council doesn't want any maintenance performed at all.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Cease all maintenance
2. Continue to perform "minimum maintenance until "driveway memo" is presented:
A. Haul in more gravel
B. Do not haul more gravel.
3. Acquire property for a turn around area at end of driveway R/W. Possibly
acquire more property to make the R/W much wider to accomodate our equipment.
RECOMMENDATION:
2 — A. Continue "minimum maintenance" until driveway memo is presented to Council.
(This memo will recommend vacating the R/W.) I feel that we are
obligated to haul in more gravel because it is our responsibility
at the moment. If Council elects to vacate the R/W, we still will
be obligated to haul in more gravel before cessation of maintenance.
•*-
' 4.. • ••
. •.
: ' 4 - , tt-ille'i;1
. , • ...0,.,
. ..:-.,,,
GRDIat DSC LoRIX tfl DEDICATIC,'M Of
• TOTAISSITTP ROAD .. . ,
The Township PR3arri of Supt,-7.),..04...Yrs of Peale, Creek Tear-
ship, Scott County, Minnesota, halr,n„?; duly beforo it, t Patitien
for a Township Pear% or Cartway ., Ind avinobtalLed, istr0.1mants te
the properties hereinafter described,
11111103A8, tlis Township Poard of Supervisors duly having con- . ‘';',010
,,,..";..,.
4;4
eidered the :aatter, does hereby =Aka 1:1113 it Orr.
That the property described aeg
The South 1 Ro4 of the 371.2.- of the S'ii• of Section 15,
Tel-anship 1/5, Ran.L.7„e 22, ank.1
Tha Worth 181 Peet of tla V of the fl of Section 22, .'41$011
Township 115, Range 22, all in Scott County, Kinneeata.
.14. 4',4o
i* hereby deolared to be e. Public Road and dull designated for the
t id 1)ttrpo ce, mad
IT 15 FORTlizii ORDERED, that no damages shall be arse/ase!
by or on behalf o f any of the property owners of se id len/1., moesees
/
,-. *gill
Tr/ 7-113 BOARD
,
-. 11
................................._...........s.......1
t 2 Chin-Tian '
Attest i
. .
e.... -f---64---Q ,e1 ii-4-1,:t 1,...c. • .1.441
lt e Clerk ( ,
4441441
0111111 111 assivier of amp&}
P-
4-:;„,, ,... Vatio4 t.44ta i' dal of Oditeher, 1960. 4 A 1 • :"
I 411011,40100 the 411111011.1000101
us led as filbs bp ‘410
ikageLLe•a•• .
, -,:.golvig'il
A.O. wet. _. 1 • ' t. . 7..,. .. iiii
• " * 4 4.4
.. , * r ' it i'..l• i .-4•-•
. • , . i•
liv •
v•.. IOW, I
. . .
. _
4)(j?
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant
RE: Quotes for Architectural Services
DATE: June 24 , 1983
Introduction
The City has solicited and received two quotes for architectural
services needed to construct the public restroom facilities pro-
posed along Levee Drive in conjunction with trail improvements .
Authorization of services is now necessary.
Background
Quotes were solicited from Roberts Architects who have designed
most existing City park structures and Bonestroo, Rosene , Anderlik
and Associates , Inc . which is a consulting engineer company which
also does park improvements . Copies of the quotes are attached.
Quotes were requested to be in two phases , one for preliminary
plan and budget , and the second for final construction drawings .
Because of the way the two quotes were structured, they are diffi-
cult to compare. If the building costs $12 , 500 , the quotes would
be the same. However as the contractor' s (Sand Mechanical ) esti-
mate used for the grant application prepared in 1982 was $25 ,000 ,
it is likely that the Bonestroo quote is significantly lower.
Bonestroo did not visit the site , and so they are being contacted
to assure that they have not overlooked the difficulties of tying
into an existing building. Assuming they can live with the quote
given, it is recommended that Bonestroo be hired.
Recommended Action
Direct staff to prepare and execute contract for services of
Bonestroo, Rosene , Anderlik and Associates , Inc . , work to be
done in two phases with phase I not to exceed $500 and phase II
not to exceed $750 .
JA/jms
Roberts Architects
pe?,
4941 France Avenue South
Minneapolis,MN 55410
June 22, 1983
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379-1376
Attn: Jeanne Andre
Administrative Assistant
Dear Ms . Andre:
We are pleased to respond to your solicitation for quotes
for architectural services regarding the comfort station
you propose in Shakopee as follows:
Phase I :
Meetings with client to establish needs and budget.
Visit site to determine availability and location of
utilities.
Evaluation of existing building and site.
Preliminary design drawings and site plan to establish
configuration, size and orientation of proposed building
or addition.
Outline specification.
Estimate of probable construction cost.
Phase II :
Design development - refinement of preliminary design.
Construction documents - working drawings and specifications
for general construction, mechanical and electrical work.
Preparation of bid documents and assistance in obtaining
bids and award of contract.
Construction observation.
612/920-1024
. Ms. Jeanne Andre
June 22, 1983
Page 2
Fees For Professional Services :
Phase I $1, 250 . 00
Phase II 10% of construction cost less Phase I cost
The work would be done on an hourly basis not to exceed the above
amounts . Hourly rates are as follows :
Architect $45 .00
Designer $30 .00
Draftsman $22. 00
Typist $10 . 00
The cost of landscape design would be in addition to architectural
fees and would be billed at cost.
The cost of reproduction of drawings and specifications would be
additional and billed at cost.
Please let us know if this proposal is satisfactory to you. We
are prepared to start work upon execution of contract.
Sincerely
ROBERTS ARCHITECTS
•
Rey 'old M. Roberts
Architect
RMR/ce
/J cote 14443, ,`odzotte, Ayd _ & /fds�.1�4 - F /,0'(,(i Glenn R.Cook,P.E.
P/l/��//L 7�Z/ i_K-M¢A/�], J® . Keith A.Gordon,P.E.
Otto G.Bonestroo,P.E. Thomas E.Noyes,P.E.
ep Robert W.Rosene,P.E. Richard W.Foster,P.E.
', '/ �'� e� Joseph C.Anderlik,P.E. Robert G.Schunicht,P.E.
n
\.1.2335 1.. 14....4,01i 4..1 36 Bradford A.Lemberg,P.E. Marvin L.Sorvala,P.E.
Richard E. Turner,P.E. Donald C.Burgordt,P.E.
Si. paw, Mi«...bta 55113 Jaynes C.Olson,P.E. Jerry A.Bourdon,P.E.
Mark A.Hanson,P.E.
pi.: 61.2-636-4600 Ted K.Field,P.E.
MN.*Alts 1-800-6.2.2-6573 •
Michael T.Raulmann,P.E.
Robert R.Pfefferle,P.E.
Charles A.Erickson
June 1 4, 1983 Leo M.Pawelsky
Harlan M.Olson
City of Shakopee
129 E. First Avenue
Shakopee, Mn. 55379-1376
Attn: Ms. Jeanne Andre
Administrative Assistant
Re: Proposal for Professional Services
Restroom Facilities Addition to
Community Services Building
City of Shakopee
Dear Ms. Andre:
Submitted herewith is our proposal for professional services to the City of
Shakopee for the Preliminary Study and Design Phases on the proposed Huber
Park Trail Restroom Facilities.
It is our understanding that the project is to be done in two phases:
PHASE I - Prepare needs assessment including:
A. Meeting with City Staff
B. Inspect, obtain necessary physical plant information, etc.
C. Prepare preliminary sketches of proposed addition
D. Prepare preliminary budget for carrying project to fruition
PHASE II - Prepare total construction bid documents including complete
plans, specifications and bid documents.
It is our understanding that the project may only proceed through Phase I if
funds are not available from the watershed district and that Phase II would
not be completed in that event.
Based on our understanding of the project as outlined above, we would propose
to work with your staff to do the project for the following "not to exceed"
amounts utilizing the hourly rates shown below:
PHASE I - Not to Exceed - $500.00
PHASE II - Not to Exceed - $750.00
(Printing to be extra "at cost" for number of sets
required by City)
Page 1.
5288b
City of Shakopee
Shakopee, Mn. 55379-1376
Re: Proposal for Professional Services
Restroom Facilities Addition to
Community Services Building
Hourly Rates:
Principal - Architect/Engineer $50.00/hour
Registered Architect/Engineer $42.50/hour
Technician $25.00/hour
Clerical $14.50/hour
Word Processor $20.00/hour
We wish to thank you for allowing us to submit this proposal and we look for-
ward to working with the staff on this project.
Respectfully submitted,
BO ESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK .SSOCIATES, INC.
7641111 4OPPP. i / /
Bradford A. Lemberg, P. .
BAL:11
Encl.
Page 2.
5288b
Outline for Quotes on Professional
Architectural Services
The City of Shakopee is soliciting quotes for architectural services
required for the construction of public restrooms in conjunction
with Huber Park Trail in Shakopee . The proposed facility would be
an addition to the existing Community Services/Power Station Build-
ing and would involve separate facilities for men and women. Exact
needs have not yet been determined, but two toilets and two wash
basins per restroom are anticipated . Plumbing would be tied in to
the existing services .
Quotes are requested to be divided into two phases , Phase I to
involve meetings on needs assessment and preliminary budget pro-
jections and Phase II to involve construction drawings and speci-
fications . The City anticipates undertaking this project with
assistance from the watershed district . Phase I information will
be used to prepare a final presentation with Phase II dependent on
receiving funds from the watershed district . Therefore these two
phases of your proposal should be independent in case funds are not
awarded and we are unable to undertake Phase II .
Please call Jeanne Andre at 445-3650 if you have any questions or
need further information to prepare your quote .
May 25 , 1983
MEMO TO: City Mayor and
y Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE : Joint Use of City Bulk Gasoline by School District
DATE: June 23 , 1983
Introduction
City Council , at its June 21 , 1983 meeting, considered allowing
the School District access to one of our key locks for bulk
gasoline . The School District would use this during the summer
for their driver ' s education program to determine if there is a
significant saving in gasoline price for the District . City
Council directed staff to put together the details of a coopera-
tive use of our bulk gasoline facilities with the School District .
Cooperative Procedures
The City will issue six separate key locks on one individual meter
for our unleaded gasoline pump at the City garage . The keys will
be issued to Dale Montgomery , who is in charge of driver ' s education,
and he will be instructed in the use of the key lock and the fuel
pump. He will be responsible for training the other driver' s educa-
tion instructors .
The City Public Works Department will read the school ' s meter once
a week along with the other City meters and turn in the statistics
to City Hall once a month as is the current practice. The Finance
Department will then bill the School District at the same time that
it breaks out the internal billings for the various City Departments .
We expect that our purchases of unleaded fuel will increase con-
siderably because fewer City vehicles are using unleaded gasoline
and at a lessor rate than the driver' s education program.
The school will be issued the six keys and will be charged the $7 .00
price for each key. The key lock number will be LK6734. At the
end of the summer driver ' s education program the City and the School
District will evaluate the cooperative effort and report to the
School Board and City Council our findings .
Alternatives
1 . Drop the idea of a cooperative use of the City' s bulk gasoline
facilities with the School District .
2 . Set up a cooperative procedure allowing the school the use the
City' s bulk gasoline facilities for the 1983 summer driver ' s
education program.
Recommendations
I recommend Alternative No. 2 . Council should also be aware
that the Public Works Director , who is willing to help set up the
cooperative trial period, did express concerns about long term
• - Joint Use of City Bulk Gasoline by School District
Page Two
June 23 , 1983
problems that might be created if there are gasoline shortages
and the City is put on an allocation program as has happened in
the past . I have also spoken briefly with the City Attorney and
our insurance agent and we agreed that we should require the
school to have the ,City named as an additional insured on the school ' s
insurance policy for use of self service gas pumps at the Public
Works Building on Gorman Street . Our insurance agent also handles
the School District ' s insurance and has already initiated action to
implement this requirement .
Action Requested
Direct the City Administrator to send School District No. 720 a
letter outlining the procedures under which the City will permit
the School District to use the City' s bulk gasoline facilities
for the 1983 summer driver' s education program, said letter to be
acknowledged by the School District and filed by the City.
JKA/jms
OFFICIAL PROCFEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPFF, MINNESOTA JUNE 14, 1983
Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 7:06 P.M. with Cncl. Wampach, Lebens,
Leroux, Vierling and Colligan present. Also present were John K. Anderson, City
Admr. ; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Don Martin, Scott County Assessor; Bob Schmitt,
Deputy Assessor and Trevor Walsten, Ass't City Attorney.
Colligan/Lebens moved to recess to continue the Board of Equalization meeting.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Schmitt reviewed the pertinent information on the Cecil Behringer property
which is a 9.92 acre parcel in Section 4. Mr. Behringer was not present.
Leroux/Vierling moved to remove the Behringer property from the table. Motion
carried unanimously.
Leroux/Wampach moved to concur with the Assessor's evaluation for the Cecil
Behringer property, Parcels 27-904-010-1 and 27-904-010-3, for a valuation
of $158,700 for land and $38,000 for buildings. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Schmitt reviewed the pertinent information on the George Augustinack property,
which is a vacant parcel of land comprising 4.91 acres.
Colligan/Leroux moved to remove the Augustinack property from the table. Motion
carried unanimously.
Colligan/Wampach moved to concur with the Assessor's evaluation for the George
Augustinack property, Parcel #27 913 005 1, for a total valuation in 1983 of
$16,400. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Vierling moved to remove the Bruce Garness property from the table. Motion
carried unanimously.
Cncl. Leroux said he thought this would be a good time to talk about the downtown
area in general as it relates to the heavy traffic and railroad tracks, and some
type of functional obsolescence factor. He said he feels that buildings that were
built 80-100 years ago were more dependent upon foot traffic, and they were built
in a certain style and manner, and do not lend themselves to today's shopping habits,
with extensive use of vehicles and grain trucks. He feels there should be some
stepping method in that the worse possible case would be a building fronting on
First Avenue with no immediate parking. The next case would be a building between
First Avenue and the railroad tracks at Second Avenue, which are another detriment
to commerce in the area. The third case would be a building in this area that has
its own parking area. In this way he feels some consideration is given to building
use today. He said this would apply only to the building valuation.
Cncl. Leroux is proposing that buildings on First Avenue with no parking and no
setbacks could have a 20/ obsolescence factor. The other two cases would have an
obsolescence factor of 15% and 10% respectively.
The Assessor was asked if he could accomplish this re-appraisal this year. Mr.
Schmitt agreed that some type of adjustment should be done downtown, and his office
could get it done. The County Assessor said he felt it is important to note that
in doing this year's appraisals, his office did what they were hired to do -- to
base the appraisals on sales in the area and try to equalize assessments in the
County. He said it is important for all to know that there are problems with tax-
ation in the downtown area. He said the State still has the final word, and after
his office ends up with a sales ratio, it can still end up in Court where a 60f
ratio is supported.
Cncl. Leroux likened this obsolescent factor to an appraisal for a special use
building and the difference between selling a building with and without a business
in it.
Mr. Schmitt said there is study being done right now on a new Certificate of Real
Estate Value which will take into consideration financing, interest rates and build-
ings sold with a business in an attempt to get a more accurate look at what the
property is really worth.
There was some discussion regarding residential properties subsidizing commercial.
Cncl. Vierling asked if there would be some corelation between the commercial valu-
ations and a lowering of residential assessments. The County Assessor explained
that when valuations go up, the mill rate should go down. But he said there are
so many different classifications that are at different rates, and things get more
complicated. He said throughout the State residential values are close to market
value because residential is easy to assess because there are so many sales.
Shakopee City Council
June 14, 1983
Page 2
Leroux/Vierling moved to establish an obsolescence factor affecting buildings
only in the Central Business District as follows:
20% Obsolescence Factor: buildings fronting on First Avenue with no
private parking lot attached;
15% Obsolescence Factor: buildings off of First Avenue between Levee
Drive and Third Avenue;
10% Obsolescence Factor: buildings that have their own private parking.
Cncl. Wampach asked about what affect this would have on residential valuations.
Mr. Schmitt explained that residential is in balance with similar properties;
but they will probably never be in balance with commercial/industrial.
Mr. Martin further explained the assessment on the mall, stating that is assessed
as one building. He said the sale of that building two years ago proved they
are at 85% of the value of that property. Because they are assessed by income,
the mall is actually at a higher rate than downtown businesses. He said the
Wermerskirchen building is a comparable because even though it houses several
businesses and apartments, it is assessed as one building.
Cncl. Colligan questioned what kind of impact that reduction in values in the
downtown area will have over-all in Shakopee. He said the Patchin proposal is
suggesting more reductions in land value. He wants to know what these figures
are before approving such a reduction. Cncl. Leroux said there will still be an
increase in valuations, but the increase will not be as much as originally pro-
posed.
Mr. Schmitt asked for a clarification of the area of the Central Business District.
Consensus was everything zoned B3, which is about 70 buildings.
Leroux/Colligan moved to amend the motion to direct the County Assessor to ascer-
tain the impact of these percentages of reduction for Obsolescence Factors, and
bring the figures back next week.
The Assessor asked for clarification of private parking lots. Examples of Eastman
Drug, Berens, Wampach's and the First Nat'l Bank were given.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Main motion as amended carried with Cncl. Colligan opposed.
Leroux/Lebens moved to direct the County Assessor to include the proposal for re-
duction of land value in the downtown area by the Patchin Appraisal (dated Sept. 29,
1981) when it brings back the re-appraisal figures next week.
Terry Hennen, of the Sports Stop, said he feels he has had to make a forced sale
to either buy his building or be evicted. After taking into consideration costs
involved to move and loss of business which could result from a move, he decided
to pay more for the building than it is worth because he can then stay downtown.
He also paid for interest rates. He said he is located right on the corner of
First Avenue, with only two parking spaces. His valuation has gone up 35%, which
doesn't sound like much of a revitalization for downtown Shakopee. He said his
building was built in 1857 and has all kinds of structural problems. He said you
have to go up 37 steps to get to the second floor, and it is hard to rent because
of the stop lights and the vibration from the semis. He said he is being assessed
for the size of his building, but his walls are 2 feet thick, giving him that much
less space to utilize. He said the third floor is not rentable. He said it just
doesn't seem fair that he would be assessed similar to a 50 year old building, when
his is 126 years old. He said he paid a lot of money for "Blue Sky" and not having
to move.
Mayor Reinke replied the location of his business would make it eligible for a 205
reduction if the obsolescence factor for building value is adopted.
Bud Berens asked what other communities in the County have been re-assessed lately.
Mr. Martin replied that Prior Lake was about 6-7 years ago; Jordan, 3-4 years ago;
New Prague was done on a division with LeSeuer County quite a few years ago; and
in Savage the local assessor has been going over the values. He said it is just a
matter of every four years the values are looked at.
Mr. Berens gave the Assessor figures for a very similarly constructed building to
his store which is assessed at 450 a square foot and Mr. Berens is 700 a square foot.
Mayor Reinke asked Mr. Berens to share that information with the Assessor.
Motion carried unanimously.
'Shakopee City Council
June 14, 1983
Page 3
Mr. Schmitt reviewed the parking lot property used by the Eastman Drug Store.
He said the value is identical to any similar piece of property in the City.
Mr. Eastman said it doesn't seem quite logical that the taxes on his parking
lot are higher than his residence.
Wally Kopisca said that after the Assessor's office was out there was a re-
duction in the increase to his property from 75% to 46% increase. He said his
building was built in 1898 and he has had a lot of problems from the traffic and
vibrations. He has also found out a lot of problems with the building, such as
the air conditioning does not work, back wall leaks, roof needs replacement and
the heating system is not good. He needs to replace the plumbing, and there is
no plaster or sheetrock upstairs in the apartments. He said he wouldn't be able
to make repairs for under $50,000. He thinks if there is a substantial increase
in valuation in a building like this, it will have to be passed onto the tenants,
and there will probably be vacancies. He said he paid a lot more for the building
than it was worth because he also bought a financing package which put him in the
building right away. He thinks 40% depreciation is not enough for old downtown
buildings. He said he is paying for having a basement, and he feels it is a lia-
bility.
Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone else who wished to address their property
downtown.
Richard Halver said his building is only 22 feet wide, located in the old livery
stable. He said there is no sewer, water or electricity and is useless. He said
when the packer went through for the blacktop bricks fell down from the wall. He
said the only repair for it is to tear it down. That building just came with the
other. He said he just rents it out to anyone he can to store things in it. And
yet the valuation went up on it. In 1980 the Assessor gave it a life expectancy
of 10 years.
Mr. Schmitt replied that building is classed as a garage. He said the land value
has not increased, but the building value did go up. It is valued at $5 a square
foot, with 50% depreciation.
Mr. Halver said there is a portion of the bigger building that is unusable. It has
a dirt floor and a crack through big enough to see outside. Mr. Schmitt said there
is a portion of that building that is valued less than the rest. He asked Mr.
Halver to call the office and arrange a time for someone from the Assessor's office
to go through the buildings.
Mr. Schmitt went over the information regarding the Bruce Garness property, which
is the Shakopee Bakery.
Mr. Schmitt reviewed the information regarding the Shakopee Hillside Estates apart-
ments. Mr. Brixius was not present, but Mr. Schmitt responded to his letter of
June 7, 1983. Discussion followed.
Vierling/Colligan moved to accept the 1983 valuation of the Hillside Estate Apart-
ments, Parcel #27 006 015 0, as $740,400. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Schmitt reviewed the information on the Horizon Heights 1st Addition. Mr.
Muhlenhardt was not present. Mr. Martin said Mr. Muhlenhardt did not get in touch
with his office last week. These values have remained the same for the last 3 years.
Colligan/Leroux moved to concur with the 1983 Assessment of the vacant lots in
Horizon Heights 1st Addition, Parcel Nos. 27 062 005 0 to 27 062 033 0. Motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. Schmitt summarized the information regarding the R. K. Ewert property. Mr.
Ewert was not present.
Leroux/Vierling moved to concur with the 1983 Assessment of $133,200 for Parcel
#27 094 001 0. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Schmitt reviewed the information regarding the Elmer Marschall/Daniel John
O'Connell property. He said this is an undeveloped HIS which is platted, but has
no development on it. He said the values haven't changed in 3 years. Mr. Martin
further explained that since this is farm land, it also received the automatic 15%
increase from the State.
Shakopee City Council
June 14, 1983
Page 4
Mr. Marschall said there is no development whatsoever on this property. He said
the taxes are ridiculous, and there is no way a man can hang on to property when
it is taxed like that. He passed around a copy of a listing of this property for
sale for $250,000, which he states also includes the realtor's fee. Discussion
followed.
Mr. Schmitt stated the land is classified as non-homestead agricultural property.
There was discussion about lake front foot values. Mr. Schmitt said that even
though there is a plat, that doesn't necessarily limit it to being classed AG. He
compared it to Harry Weinandt's property, which has some green acres.
Mr. Marschall said the land receives no benefits whatsoever. He said the listing
is for $250,000 and he doesn't even know if he can get that for it. He thought
it shouldn't be at more than 80g of that amount.
There was some discussion about the City's previous desires to purchase it as park
land.
Colligan/Wampach moved to reduce the 1983 assessed valuation of the total taxable
portions of RLS No. 47, Parcel Nos. 27 045 015 0, 27 045 016 0 to 27 045 030 0, as
$250,000. Motion carried unanimously.
Clete Link said he has a number of commercial properties around town, development
property, some not improved. He said one piece (in the Husman Addition) had taxes
of $500 3-4 years ago, and now the taxes are $2300 and it has no water or sewer
available. He said there just is no demand for commercial property around the
area. He said he is offering a 25% discount on any property he has in the area,
just to get rid of it. He said he is paying over $1,000 per lot, which is just
too much in this sluggish economy.
Mr. Schmitt asked Mr. Link to set up a time with the office to look at the properties.
Mayor Reinke stated the Council would now address any properties outside the Central
Business District that were tabled from last week.
Colligan/Lebens moved to remove the Thomas Phillip's property from the table.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Phillip said he doesn't deny the property was valued too low for some time,
but he said this increase is too much. That value is almost 4 times what it cost
to build 20 years ago.
Discussion ensued regarding a special purpose building. Mr. Schmitt said it is in
line with other mortuarys in the County. He said he is not looking at tax per
square foot, but in equalizing properties within the County. He said legally he
doesn't have the authority to spread out the increase over 3-4 years.
Discussion followed regarding checking figures on the other mortuary in Shakopee
to be sure one does not have a competitive edge over the other.
Colligan/Lebens moved to table the Thomas Phillip's property, Parcel #27 001 333 0,
until next week to allow the Assessor time to check figures. Motion carried
unanimously.
Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to protest
their property assessment, and there was no response.
Mr. Schmitt said that in regards to the Robert Marshall property, he checked some
properties across the street from Al's Landscaping. He said none of those people
had a problem with traffic, but he didn't think it had the volume of traffic that
Beta Seed has. He also said that was a little different because the drive-way is
across the street and it is paved. Further discussion followed regarding the ef-
fects of the Beta Seed operation on the Robert Marshall property.
Colllgan/Leroux moved to remove the Robert Marshall property from the table. Motion
carried unanimously.
Colligan/Vierling moved to concur with the 1983 valuation of the Robert Marshall
property, Parcel #27 918 012 0, as $49,300. Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Lebens moved to continue the Board of Equalization meeting to June 21, 1983.
Motion carried unanimously.
Shakopee City Council
June 14, 1983
Page 5
Vierling/Wampach moved to re-convene the City Council meeting. Motion carried
unanimously.
Leroux/Lebens moved to recess for a Building Code Board of Appeals meeting. Motion
carried unanimously.
LeRoy Houser, Building Official, explained the background in the Chuck Mensing
request for a waiver of an egress window requirement for a move-in house. He
said this house was in the City for 40 years. He said the cost for installation
is excessive to gain only 1.5 square foot of opening. He said there would be no
problem in getting out that window, and there are plenty of other windows in the
rooms also.
Wampach/Leroux moved to grant Mr. Mensing a waiver of the egress window require-
ment for an additional 1.5 square foot of window opening for the residence located
at 300 South Spencer. Motion carried unanimously.
Lebens/Leroux moved to re-convene City Council. Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to ad-
dress the Council on any item not on the agenda.
Mr. Tom Curley stated he is a representative from J. L. Shiely Co. He said they
have been following the progress of the frontage road, and are wondering about the
status of it because they had noted it had been tabled.
The City Admr. explained the City is in the process of checking out whether or not
the west end of the proposed frontage road near Shiely was a public road. Mr.
Curley said he believed that was deeded to the City. He just wanted to add that
they are in favor of the road and would like to see it built. The City Admr. said
the Shiely Co. would be added to the mailing list for notifications on the frontage
road.
Clarence Petsch asked about the street going through his farm. He said 2 loads of
gravel were put on it last year and nothing else was done to it. The City Admr. said
he would check with the Public Works Dept. and notify Mr. Petsch of the results.
Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize appropriate City officials to submit a proposal
for funding under the Prospective Parks and Recreational Area Development (PRAD)
Grant Program in accordance with the program conditions and assurances, in a total
amount not to exceed $54,820.00. Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Wampach moved to direct staff to seek a cooperative arrangement for the
ongoing maintenance of flower beds proposed to be constructed with PRAD funds
adjacent to Levee Drive and purchase necessary plants annually, while seeking an
organization to undertake planting, weeding and watering. Motion carried with
Cncl. Lebens opposed.
Colligan/Vierling moved to remove from the table applications for 1983/1984 liquor,
wine and beer licenses. Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Leroux moved to approve the applications and grant a Club and Sunday
intoxicating liquor license to American Legion Post No. 2, East First Avenue.
Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Vierling moved to accept the letter from Julius A. Coller, II, City
Attorney, dated June 13, 1983, regarding the Minnesota Surplus Lines Insurance
Policy, and place it on file. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Lebens moved to table the application for liquor license of Veterans of
Foreign Wars, and direct staff to inform them of the City Attorney's opinion on
their insurance. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Colligan moved to approve the application and grant a Club intoxicating
liquor license for 1983-84 to Shakopee Council 1685 Home Assn. Inc, East Fourth
Avenue. Motion carried unanimously.
Lebens/Vierling moved to table the application for liquor license of the XX Corp.
and Wittles,and direct staff to inform them of the City Attorney's opinion on
their insurance. Motion carried unanimously.
Shakopee City Council
June 14, 1983
Page 6
Lebens/Vierling moved to table the liquor license application for the Pullman
Club, Inc. Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Lebens moved to table the liquor license application for Clair's Bar,
Inc. , and direct staff to inform them of the City Attorney's opinion on the
surplus lines insurance. Motion carried unanimously.
Vierling/Leroux moved to approve the applications and grant an On Sale and Sunday
intoxicating liquor license for 1983-84 to C.R.E. Restaurant Co. , 1583 East First
Avenue. Motion carried unanimously.
Wampach/Colligan moved to approve the applications and grant an On Sale and Sun-
day intoxicating liquor license for 1983-84 to R. Hanover, Inc., 911 East First
Avenue. Motion carried unanimously.
Vierling/Leroux moved to table the liquor license application for Vertigo, Inc.
Motion carried unanimously.
Lebens/Colligan moved to table the liquor license application for the Friendly
Folks Club, Inc. , and direct staff to inform them of the City Attorney's opinion
on the surplus lines insurance. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Vierling moved to approve the application and grant an Off Sale intoxicating
liquor license for 1983-84 to Family Dining, Inc. , 6268 East Highway 101. Motion
carried unanimously.
Colligan/Wampach moved to table the liquor license application for Riverside
Liquors, Inc. , and direct staff to inform them of the City Attorney's opinion on
the surplus lines insurance. Motion carried unanimously.
Vierling/Leroux moved to table the liquor license application for Dennis P.
Bruesehoff and Thomas J. Cox, A Partnership. Motion carried unanimously.
Wampach/Colligan moved to table the liquor license application for the Weiss
Company, Inc. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Wampach moved to approve the application and grant a wine license for
1983-84 to Valleyfair, One Valleyfair Drive. Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Leroux moved to table the wine license application for Capone's Food
Shops, Inc. Motion carried unanimously.
Vierling/Colligan moved to approve the applications and grant an On/Off Sale
non-intoxicating malt liquor license for 1983-84 to Jim & Lucy's, Inc. , 210
West First Avenue. Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Wampach moved to approve the applications and grant an On/Off Sale
non-intoxicating malt liquor license for 1983-84 to Jackson E. Chilquist, 220
West Second Avenue. Motion carried unanimously.
Wampach/Leraux moved to approve the application and grant an Off Sale non-
intoxicating malt liquor license for 1983-84 to Friendly Folks Club, Inc. ,
123 East First Avenue. Motion carried unanimously.
Vierling/Leroux moved to approve the application and grant an On Sale non-intoxi-
cating malt liquor license for 1983-84 to Marlene Berg, 222 East First Avenue.
Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Wampach moved to table the non-intoxicating malt liquor license for
Richard Cleveland. Motion carried unanimously.
Lebens/Vierling moved to approve the application and grant an Off Sale non-
intoxicating malt liquor license for 1983-84 to Art Berens & Sons, Inc., 123
West Second Avenue. Motion carried unanimously.
Vierling/Colligan moved to table the non-intoxicating malt liquor license appli-
cation for Juba's Inc. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Colligan moved to table the non-intoxicating malt liquor license appli-
cation for Minnesota Valley Restoration Project. Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Leroux moved to approve the application and grant an Off Sale non-
intoxicating malt liquor license for 1983-84 to Superamerica Stations, Inc. ,
1155 East First Avenue. Motion carried unanimously.
Shakopee City Council
June 14, 1983
Page 7
Leroux/Vierling moved to approve the application and grant an On Sale non-
intoxicating malt liquor license for 1983-84 to Valleyfair, Inc. , One Valley-
fair Drive. Motion carried unanimously.
Vierling/Colligan moved to approve the application and grant an On Sale non-
intoxicating malt liquor license for 1983-84 to Jerome Franciscus, 823 East
First Avenue. Motion carried unanimously.
Lebens/Leroux moved to approve the application and grant an Off Sale non-
intoxicating malt liquor license for 1983-84 to Holiday Stationstores, Inc. ,
444 East First Avenue. Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Vierling moved to approve the application and grant an On Sale non-
intoxicating malt liquor license for 1983-84 to Pizza Huts of the Northwest,
Inc. , 257 Marschall Road. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Vierling moved to table the non-intoxicating malt liquor license applica-
tion of Valley Racquetball and Handball, Inc. Motion carried unanimously.
Wampach/Leroux moved to approve the application and grant an Off Sale non-
intoxicating malt liquor license for 1983-84 to Brooks Superette, Inc. , 615
Marschall Road. Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Vierling moved to table the non-intoxicating malt liquor license appli-
cation of Nothern Racing Corp. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Lebens moved to table the non-intoxicating malt liquor license application
of Capone 's Food Shops, Inc. Motion carried unanimously.
Wampach/Vierling moved to approve the application and grant an On Sale non-
intoxicating malt liquor license for 1983-84 to The Sub-Machine Shop, Inc. , 1350
East First Avenue. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Lebens moved to direct staff to write a letter to the Lower Minnesota River
Watershed District with a copy to the Water Resources Board, recommending that the
Board be expanded and that a Shakopee seat on the Board be created. Discussion
followed. Motion carried unanimously.
Vierling/Leroux moved to direct staff to contact the Shakopee residents now own-
ing property in the Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District to determine if they
are interested in petitioning for withdrawal from the Prior Lake/Spring Lake Water-
shed District as provided under M.S 112.85. Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion ensued with the City Engineer regarding the roads identified as having
unacceptable structure in Timber Trails and Deerview Acres. The City Engineer
said that the project in Deerview Acres was done before the present design criteria,
and no ditch work was done.
Leroux/Lebens moved to defer action on the 1983 Pavement Preservation and Rehabili-
tation Program until June 21, 1983. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Vierling moved to purchase two 4.5 air packs and two spare bottles from
Mid-Central Fire Inc. at a total cost of $3,248.00; purchase a high pressure steam
cleaner from Hotsy Equipment Company for $2,153.00; and purchase Model 60/12 Target
power saw from Minneapolis Equipment Co. for $820.00, all for the Fire Department.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Discussion ensued with the City Clerk regarding procedure presently followed for
reviewal of the codifier's revision pages.
Leroux/Vierling moved to direct the City Clerk to review revision pages from the
codifier, and if they are identical to the ordinance insert them in the Code book.
If there is any change, it should be put on the agenda for a Council meeting.
Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion ensued regarding the Task Force on Computer Needs Assessment and how
much involvement there should be with SPUC.
7
Shakopee City Council
June 14, 1983
Page 8
Leroux/Vierling moved to direct staff to send a letter to SPUC to inform them
that a staff person and member of City Council request time on their agenda of
July 11, 1983 for the purpose of presenting the Task Force on Computer Needs
Assessment and what the City is looking at for the future. Motion carried with
Cncl. Lebens opposed.
Vierling/Leroux moved to appoint Cncl. Leroux and Colligan as members to make
the presentation to SPUC on the Computer Needs Task Force. Motion carried
unanimously.
Leroux/Vierling moved to endorse Mayor Reinke 's appointment to the Major Tax
Study Commission recommended by the Citizens League, and Chaired by Mayor George
Latimer. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Colligan moved to adjourn the meeting to June 21, 1983 at 7:00 P.M. Motion
carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:04 P.M.
Judith S. Cox
City Clerk
Diane S. Beuch
Recording Secretary
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
Debt Service Funds
Schedule of Deferred Tax Levies U
December 31, 1982
Enterprise
Fund Debt Service Funds
Automobile
Disposal Public Service Parking Improve—
Year Plant Bonds Building Bonds Judgement Facilities ment bonds
of Levy of 1961 of 1975 Bonds Bonds of 1967 of 1967
1982 $ 27,300 $ 105,483 $ 67,568 $ 2,500 $ 10,750
1983 106,470 62,717 10,750
1984 106,995
1985 107,121
1986 106,838
1987 106,134
1988 I
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
$ 27,300 $ 639,041 $ 130,285 $ 2,500 $ 21,500
IP
92
Exhibit 0
Special Assessment Funds
1974 1975 1976 1977 Series 1977 Series 1980 1981
Improve- Improve- Improve- B Improve- C Improve- Improve- Improve-
meat Bonds meat Bonds ment Bonds meat Bonds meat Bonds meat Bonds meat Bonds
$ 17,642 $ 405 $ 6,153 $ 71,598 $ 23,733 $ 55,487 $
17,336 405 7,648 70,980 25,172 55,611
6,467 405 9,143 70,236 26,500 55,736 299
15,201 405 10,638 69,366 27,719 55,860 4,204
14,137 68,370 28,048 55,748 5,167
67,248 55,401 5,930
54,817 6,494
59,986 1,609
2,619 2,304
3,790
4,828
5,736
6,508
$ 56,646 $ 1,620 $ 47,719 $ 417,798 $ 131,172 $ 472,127_ $ 26,007
eM
93