Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01/07/1986
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items DATE: December 31 , 1985 1 . Scott County has notified us that they will reimburse the City for the $1,130 . 60 cost of the December 17th special election. The reimbursement for the election will be receipted for 1985. 2 . Attached is an editorial from the December 24 , 1985 Star and Tribune regarding the potential impact of the mega-mall on highway project funding in the Shakopee area. Everyone I have talked to sees the editorial as a positive sign that others are recognizing our transportation needs in Shakopee. 3. Attached is a copy of a letter received by Gary Laurent regarding the Bloomington Chamber of Commerce ' s interest in supporting our efforts in securing the CR 18 bridge. 4. Attached is a notice notifying the City that Chard Realty Inc. intends to re-open its lawsuit against the City over issues developing out of the Eastview plat. 5. Attached is a notice listing the insurance company awards for two recent lawsuits regarding sewer backups. If you have questions regarding these please contact me. 6. Attached is a formal notice from the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development regarding the approval of the $850 , 000 in IDBS for the Scottland project. 7. Attached is the list of Fire Department officers for 1986 . 8. Attached is the monthly calendar for the month of January. 9. Attached is a letter from Senator Boschwitz regarding tax reform legislation. 10 . Attached is the monthly newsletter from Ehlers and Associates. 11 . Attached are the minutes of the November 25, 1985 meeting of the Shakopee Cable Communications Advisory Commission. 12 . Attached are the minutes of the December 2 , 1985 meeting of the Planning Commission. 13. Attached are the minutes of the December 5, 1985 meeting of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. 1 14 . Attached are the minutes of the December 5 , 1985 meeting of the Planning Commission. 15. Attached are the minutes of the December 4 and December 11 , 1985 meetings of the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee. 16. Attached are the agendas for the December 9, 1985 meetings of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and Planning Commission. 17. Attached is the agenda for the December 8 , 1985 meeting of the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee. 18. We have checked on the number of local firms working on the Super 8 Motel project and found that no local help is working on the project. Two local mechanical contractors were allowed to bid on the project. They were not low bidders. 19. Attached is a memo from Barry Stock regarding the 1986-1987 Refuse Contract. 20 . Attached is a memo from Marilyn Remer regarding Employee' s Status on 1986 Pay Plan. JKA/jms metro work on the me Good me a-malt g In reviewing and approving the proposed Bloom- prodded Bloomington into scaling back office space ington mega-mall, the Metropolitan Council proved planned nearby. itself a trustworthy guardian of regional interests and an objective mediator of regional conflicts. The council also wisely recommended that existing The council clarified important parts of the public- sources of highway funds not be tapped to pay for policy puzzle that surrounds the mega-mall and road improvements in the mega-mall area. Instead, pointed the way to possible solutions. it said, the theLegislature should find new sources $o that mon , _would not be taken away from Council approval of the project does not mean previously scheduled projects — such as the $150 endorsement. It merely is a judgment that the million in roadand bridge improvements needed to mega-mall can be built without serious harm to the relieve congestion in the Shakopee area. region if the developer and Bloomington comply with council recommendations. One is that Bloom- In confirming its opposition to exempting the mega- ington revise its comprehensive plan while the mall from the fiscal-disparities law, the council is council adjusts its own plans for metropolitan sew- on equally firm ground. The mega-mall is the kind ers and highways. of commercial enterprise that should contribute its full share to the metropolitan tax-base-sharing pool. But the council also raised important concerns about basic regional policies. For example, it was Even with those qualifications, the mega-mall has instrumental in exerting pressure on Bloomington crossed a major hurdle. And the council has passed and the developer to drop a proposed convention a major test, proving again its value to the Twin center,which is more logically scheduled for down- Cities area. Thanks to the council's work, the ques- town Minneapolis. And to hold down the amount of tions for the Legislature are better defined — and highway improvements that would be needed to so are the possible answers. serve the mega-mall area, the council similarly mule � _.. .. �. _.. ..... . . .. .:., construction. testifies to yours. Available in amounts of $25 or more, they can be redeemed in any Brooks Brothers store. Now is the time to turn that last- minute impulse into a first class gift with our BANQUETS Gift Certificates. They're the present that will 1 1 always be welcomed, and never the wrong size. Use your Brooks Brothers card, American Express or Diners Club ESTABLISHED 1818 Montgomery Ward IMPORTANT NOTICE ;L-6THIN REGARDING YUrniShI1199 for"en, 'omen & oyS MONTGOMERY WARD ADVERTISEMENT Monday&,Thursday 9:30-8:00 THE IDS CRYSTAL COURT Tue�1. Friday, Wednesday, MINNEAPOLIS Our December 1 8th Friday,Saturday 9:30-6:00 ,MN 66402 sw,aay 12:00-5:00 338-6600 sale section offered -- -- $14.99 "Lladro" figu- rines. These figurines are not Lladro. These items are not avail- ; Erma Bombeck 1 able. We apologize for 1 any inconvenience to 1 _-- '"� "''""eap°hs— _ r writes about the funny q�,� 1 ���r n�iein.nrare. • C An -�f tieoia+r T F1AA�R.�TawL.AP C.T �. n ■r .� o� 1 i Clef Cfw- 11ber of Catntno-re December 13, 1985 ua. ry Laurent President Shakopee Chamber of Commerce Box 203 Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Gary: With a great deal of interest, I read the enclosed news article. The improvement of County Road 18 and the Ferry Bridge are also high on our priority list. We would welcome the opportunity to visit with you and the leaders of your coalition. Our two cities are now the entertainment and hospitality centers for the Twin Cities. The effective movement of tourists in our region will enhance the future of each of the cities. Let's get together soon after the 1st of the year. Sincerely, Donald L. Groen, CCE President and Chief Operating Officer DLG/mg cc: Bob Darr Enclosure Bloomington Chamber of Commerce 9801 Dupont Avenue South, Suite 440 Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 (612)888-8818 M Z•"1.,y "v£y:n p n n:m (7 7�` r"'. ' O•C/)Ln - 6«.. -•C'D cr ra`- u+ .r".cnwwo -,TcDa`cD w -tc N .� 121.O C r 4, _ r CD W_ vAi w ri"Cn CD „o`cD � cr c °.p,=� ►jro o � armia•� m iii ., ea N� oacDrocD APW Noaa� �HN � o_mc � p�� � o fita <rZ. Jo a o 0 crM 6 F CD 2° 1coDro°cODo".oc<DofD° nwc�ewoo "JL15atRM a DmcCCID I _0 r5 to c oAV CD A C O O m 'O �.a. ''�w .:p y a'w t� _A (D A - fir• .C,.1 0 � `t fo �' f(D ?A �a _ now .c.� ti .m tD I'D o�m Tn CSD CD d n `Ct.m W 0 N d a d y b r� CCD �o (�D 7 OC tv,m = _ CD CD CD oTc� rn � T.= a• eco ca 0 = A " g cNo , � o �CD m A n`ro X c cam, cay p �c� m m CD C6 CD c m o a - a y � vNi�ecSD ? c`DCl) c~D c�Dn.00 ccl)(1) At~,D o`�� QgCD � ^� �o amo o Tmy "' . m r � p oa "7N cD "=-ml '+ as o" m °' m = TmocD =" o ( CD CD '0 mfD� 0 Na a LyCD �fd coca aQop =+ ate '-aao .cna ao ' -pec -1 5 Pan cD �y F ci �c o$ cc ^m o rdcA o G . o o c 3 2 c c�D cc' a'< '- m m =a 0 0 -1 d io cDm rfl Qn° 10a [7 � c A U e m �'=7d�o �• -+m m � as w p a•n m o o D O C1 CD a A a•c A+ < ;< -9 Oa`69 v`G < q_ m w? C7cy_ O w m CD vci C A Eli'••.C „1 �. A N G (D r r :D Oto (D d a CD 0? a fD p CSD N ? m = O �' - �.o a o g d d 'C.m•. d.N a yyj �O' C O a ~ .. � lD 30 a CD � CD 3 r_D a o omo A A c� ('D o o P� y CD cQD cwi,� T =m ( a C N O D "O'i G.m CD POP O'D co CD E-2 aG onto ID p o Cl. CD tT co chi o..M �wc3 LAW OMCEs - CHARTERED Phillip R. Kra,, Dennis L. Monroe Marschall Road Business Center Barry K. Meyer 327 Marschall Road TrevorP.O. Box 216 lsten Shako ' Elivabeth B. McLaughlin pee. Minnesota 55379 Telephone 445-5080 Bryan Wm. Hubei Susan L. Estill Livery Building December 16, 1985 218 Pine Street P.O. Box 316 Chaska, Minnesota 55318 Mr. John Anderson Telephone 448.7666 City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: Chard Realty Inc. v. City of Shakopee, et al Dear John: „ - Enclosed please find a copy of the Statement of the Case prepared by Chard Realty, Inc. in the above matter. As Shakopee received a summary judgment in its favor yon allou aissueseinv invCity olving the City in the above matter. Recentl g between Chard Realty, Y, the issues remaining in that case settlement. Inc, and Richard Knutson, Inc. were resolved by issues between That if ng the and the City of hakase, Chard ealty, Inc. is now appealing the by summary judgment in favor of the City,Shakopee which were earlier resolved I expect to receive Chard's briefing of this matter in the very near future and shall put forth a full defense of the City in the Court of Appeals. I will keep you advised of the progress proceeds. Thank you. of this matter as it Very truly yours, K SS & MO RO E D Trevor R. alst n TRW:mj File No. 5-1373-144 Enclosure (APESIUS AGENCY, INC . P","5-192.2 Da/e 12-10-85 Skik.P» r Payment of s 2.100.00 has bon on&" to Harness True Value Hardware & attorney, Stuurr:ans Karan _ a in settlement of a claim saint your policy. We hope you like our service and if ws, can be of further assistance Please call on we at your sarlimw eonvenbnes. F City of Shakopee M Loss Date-8-7-84 129 E. 1st AVe. Sewage Back-up Shakopee, PAIN 55379 ?darner True Value L J CAPESIUS AGENCY, INC ® Ph.,@44s:f921 -. Skdk6P"'- I1W. Data 12-9-85 - Paym►ont of S 4000.00 . has teen aaaio to Harlan & Dolores Luebke and their attorney, Virginia Zeller„ In settlement of a claim apinst your Policy. We b"m you like our service and if we can be of further assistance Please call �! on us at your earliest convenience. — r � City of Shakopee RE: Loss Date-11-8-83 129 L. 1st Ave. Sewer Back-up Shakopee, 14N 55379 Harlan Luebke L J MINNESOTA Department of Energy and Economic Development Financial Management Division 900 American Center Energy Finance (612) 297-1332 150 East Kellogg Boulevard Business Finance (612) 297-3547 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 December 26, 1985 The Honorable Eldon A. Reinke State File No. M-2457 Mayor, City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379-1376 RE: $850,000 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS (SCOTTLAND, INC. PROJECT) Dear Mayor Reinke: The Department of Energy and Economic Development has examined the application and exhibits submitted by you relating to the proposal to offer revenue bonds as authorized by the Municipal Industrial Development Act, M.S. Chapter 474 . Based upon the information you submitted, approval of the project is hereby granted by the Department of Energy and Economic Development. Such approval shall not be deemed to be an approval by the Department or the State of Minnesota regarding the feasibility of the project or the terms of the revenue agreement to be executed or the bonds to be issued therefore, nor whether the project falls within regulations of Federal Law. This approval does not in any way constitute an approval of an allocation in excess of an entitlement award pursuant to Minn. Laws 1984, ch. 582 . Accordingly, it may be necessary for the issuer to seek an allocation under Minn. Laws 1984 ch. 582 . Included with this letter is a Project Closing/Notice of Issue report which must be completed and returned to this Department within five (5) days after the obligations are issued. Failure to file this report within the five day period will void the obligations if the obligations are subject to a federal limitation act. Also included in this letter is an Employment Report which must be returned to this Department annually by July 1, of each year through 1987 . AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER THE HONORABLE ELDON A. REINKE -2- DECEMBER 26, 1985 Your cooperation in the timely submission of these reports will be sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions about your project approval, or the reports, please call Richard Nadeau at 612/297-4398 . Sincerely, Edward J. Meyer, Jr. Deputy Commissioner Department of Energy and Economic Development EJM:dc Enclosures ccs AB. STEPHANIE N. GALEY, HOLAES & GRAVEN (bond counsel), NPLS AIN 55402 7 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, CIty Administrator FROM: Joseph P. Ries, Fire Chief RE: Election of Officers - Fire Department for 1986 DATE: December 19, 1985 The following people were elected to serve as Shakopee Fire Department officers for 1986 . Most were re-elected with two changes in captain positions. Officers are as follows: Chief - Joseph P. Ries 1st Asst. Chief - Charles Ries 2nd Asst. Chief - Frank Ries 1st Captain & Training Officer - Mark Huge 2nd Captain - Mary Athmann 34d Captain - Ed Siedow 4th Captain - Randy Weckman Treasurer - Mike Ryan Secretary - Terry Link Fire Marshal - Dave Judd Engineer - Bob Latzke 2nd Engineer - Mark Myers 3rd Engineer - Lino Baden JANUARY SUNDAY MOND.kY TUESDAY WEDUESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATMPA� i 1 2 3 4 i 5 Public 6 City 7 ICC 8 Planning 9 10 11 Utilities Council 5 : 00 p.m. Commission i 4 : 30 p.m. 7 : 00 p.m. 7 : 30 p.m. i i I 12 13 14 15 Energy & 16 17 18 Transportation 7 : 30 p.m. I 19 Comm. Serv. 20 City 21 22 23 24 25 7 : 30 p.m. Council Fire Dept. 7 : 00 p.m. 8 : 00 p.m. CITY HALL CLOS 'D 26 Cable 27 28 29 30 31 7 : 30 p.m. RUDY BOSCHWITZ COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS: (� MINNESOTA AGRICULTURE /` J BUDGET FOREIGN RELATIONS SMALL BUSINESS VETERANS AFFAIRS 'ACnrfea ,cifates Zenafe WASHINGTON,D.C. 20510 December 9, 1985 Mr . John Anderson 129 East First Avenue Shakopee , Minnesota 55379 Dear John : Thank you for getting in touch with me about proposals to repeal the tax exemption for certain state and local bonds. It was thoughtful of you to share your concerns with me . As you know, in November 1984 , the Treasury Department announced a major tax reform proposal for the President to consider . After reviewing Treasury ' s proposal, the President made a number of changes and proposed a separate, comprehensive package for tax reform. While the thrust of the President ' s proposals is to apply lower tax rates to a larger amount of taxable income , one of the provisions of the President ' s package would make interest on certain state or local government bonds taxable. Under current law, interest paid on certain bonds issued by state and local governments is exempt from tax. As a result , state and local governments have used tax-exempt bonds to finance a wide variety of government activities, quasi-government activities, and essentially private enterprise activities . Tax-exempt student loan bonds, mortgage subsidy bonds, veterans' mortgage bonds, and industrial developments bonds (IDBs) are a few examples of the types of bonds that have been used. The Treasury Department believes these are "private purpose bonds" because the money raised by issuing the bonds -- the proceeds -- is used by private citizens or businesses instead of by the issuer of the bonds -- the government . The President' s proposal would effectively eliminate all "private purpose bonds. " Bonds would generally not qualify as tax-exempt -- and interest earned on the bonds would be taxable -- if more than one percent of the bond used by a non-government plan. The Administration believes that "private purpose bonds" provide an indirect federal subsidy that erodes the tax base, lowers tax collections, and results in higher tax rates on non-exempt income. In addition, the Administraticn believes that the generally lower interest rate on tax-exempt bonds gives people who use the bonds an unfair or competitive advantage over those who cannot obtain tax-exempt bond financing. Advocates of retaining tax-exempt "private purpose bonds" maintain that they are a necessary source of affordable, long-term, fixed-rate financing. They also maintain that IDBs December 9, 1985 Page 2 are important tools for economic development and that tax-exempt bonds for student loans , mortgages, and other similar purposes are really an investment that benefits the public . These and other arguments were made last year in opposition to legislation that imposed a state-wide dollar limitation on tax-exempt bonds . Unfortunately, that limitation was included by the House of Representatives and was not voted on separately in the Senate before becoming law . Even so, last year ' s tax bill made me very aware of the extent to which tax-exempt bonds are used in Minnesota and the effect of the dollar limitation in the state. You can be sure I will keep this in mind. The Constitution requires that tax bills originate in the House of Representatives . In late September of this year , the House Ways and Means Committee began "marking up" the President ' s tax proposals. On November 23 , the committee agreed on a comprehensive tax bill that adopted many of the President ' s proposals, but also departed in many ways from his plan . Under the committee bill, governments could issue fewer types of tax-exempt private purpose and quasi-governmental bonds. Bonds used to build sports stadiums , contruction trade show and other facilities would no longer be exempt . These bond-financed activities would retain tax-exempt status: multifamily rental housing, airports , ports, transit , sewage, water and solid waste facilities, qualified mortgages and veterans ' mortgages , student loans , hospitals and other nonprofits and certain industrial-development projects . The dollar amount of certain types bonds that could be issued in a state each year would continue to be limited, with additional types of bonds included in counting the amount of the limitation used. The Ways and Means Committee bill will now be considered by the full House, where I expect that changes will again be proposed. If a bill is passed by the full House, it will come before the Senate Finance Committee and then go to the full Senate for final consideration. It ' s likely that the Finance Committee and the Senate will each make further changes to the bill . In short , tax reform is far from complete and all of the Ways and Means proposals are subject to change. I have not yet concentrated on many of the specific provisions contained in the Ways and Means Committee bill . . . recently my energies have been devoted primarily to agricultural and budget matters. Instead, I have chosen to focus on the broader issue of whether we should attempt tax reform at the present time. In October, I was invited to testify before the Senate Finance Committee to give my views on tax reform. As I pointed out to the committee, since 1981 , Congress has been enacting complex and significant changes to the tax ' code at a dizzying pace. As a result, taxpayers are reeling. The ability to December 9, 1985 Page 3 adequately plan is being taken away, creating uncertainty and disruption. In addition , I told the committee that I do not believe we adequately understand and appreciate the impact that recent tax legislation has had on our economy. Finally, I told the committee that I do not believe we have given sufficient study to what the consequences of the President ' s tax proposals (or any other proposals for tax reform) may be for our economy . For these reasons and others, I believe that now is not the time to attempt tax reform. Instead, I believe Congress would be prudent to give taxpayers a chance to catch their breath from tax law changes and analyze the impact of past and proposed tax changes on our economy. Also, Congress must , as a higher priority, devote its attention to reducing budget deficits. I do not mean to imply that our present tax system does not need to be improved. It does. We need to lower the marginal tax rates and simplify the tax code. Lower rates will promote compliance, saving, investing, and the incentive to work . Lower rates will encourage decision-making based on economic , not tax merits . Incidentally, I think President Reagan goes too far when he says the tax code is "un-American" (so did President Carter when he said our tax code was a "disgrace" ) . Compared to what? It ' s not perfect but compared to other countries' tax codes, it ' s not bad. When you look to see how the income tax burden is distributed it comes out surprisingly different than some would have you believe. If you divide the 100-odd million taxpayers into four income groups ( lowest to highest ) , here ' s the percentage of the total income taxes paid by each group: Taxpayers Divided by Income Lowest Lower-Middle Upper-Middle Highest Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter 6/10th of 1% 6% 20% 73% So the people in the highest brackets do indeed pay most of the taxes -- and they should. Do some people avoid taxes -- in whole or part? Sure . Should we fix that? Of course we should. But it ' s not as easily done as it sounds. Incidentally, I ' m enclosing a Wall Street Journal article about who pays the taxes. Note that the top 1 .4 percent of the taxpayers pay 22 percent of all the taxes. The taxes that are regressive and really penalize the working poor are Social Security and sales taxes. They go from dollar number one of income -- there are no personal exemptions or deductions like on the income tax. December 9, 1985 Page 4 We must particularly encoura e ng. During the last decade, saving in the United St es has en nearly the lowest percentage of any of the indu rialized na ions. Promoting saving is essential to provid the capital ool for future growth. Anyway , your comments w 11 be helpful to me as tax reform measures are considered down ere. Becau of the comprehensive nature of tax reform, I ' m sur we ' ll be touch in the future . Meanwhile , I 'm also enclosing a summary f my testimony before the Finance Committee . S c ely, Rud Boschwitz United States Senator RB/dss Enclosures THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 1984 The Redistributionist Tax Deduction By JAMm GWARTNEY eraged impact of incentives means that the payers were most directly affected by this capital gains associated with the stock And RICHARD STROUP size of the revenue reduction will be in. rate reduction.Al the lower rates,the lax- market boom that began In August 1982. Despite the appearance already of tell- versely related to the changes in taxable able income of the top 1.4% of returns Inspection of the data reveals that tills is a ing analyses of 1982 Internal Revenue Ser- income. If taxable Income is virtually un- grew sharply in 1982. In fact, It grew so "tail wags dog" theory. vice data, some observers have difficulty affected by the rate reductions,as is likely sharply that the tax revenues collected Capital gains are a small part of total understanding that a roughly proportional to be the case In the lowest marginal tax from this small group of high-income tax- Income. In 1981,net capital gains contrib- reduction In tax rates will shift the burden brackets, revenues will fall by approxi- payers increased to $60.5 billion In 1982 uted only 1.70/6 to total adjusted gross in- of the income tax toward the upper income mately the same percent as the rates. In from$58 billion in 1981.While revenue col come (AGI).Even for the top 1.4%of tax- brackets. Yet this is precisely what both these brackets,a 20%rate cut will lead to from from all other groups fell, the tax payers; the capital-gains component was economic theory and our experience with about a 20%reduction in tax revenues. In o only 9.6%of AGI.Given the size of capital major rate reductions indicate. The latest contrast, in the upper income (and mar- liability of the top 1.4%of income recipi- gains as a share of AGI, it would have cut is no exception,as we can show with a ginal tax) bi..ekcts where the incentive ef- ents increased. taken a huge expansion In capital-gains in- new perspective on the recently released feels on take-home pay are greater, in- Clearly, the share of taxes collected come to explain the observed pattern:of 1982 numbers. creases in the tax base will at least par- from the rich rose in 1982.The top 1.4%of Income growth across income groupings In Contrary to the assumption of many, tially offset the lower rates. In these taxpayers shouldered 21.8%of the tax bur- 1982.But the actual increase in net capital- taxable income is not Invariant to changes brackets, tax revenues will fall by less den in 1982,up from 20.4%in 1981.In con- gains income was rather modest-to $32 in tax rates. When tax rates decline, the than the 20% rate reduction.The result- trast, the share of total Income-tax reve- billion in 1982 from$29.3 billion in 1981,an take-home pay per dollar of additional an increase in the share of taxes collected nues contributed by the lower half of In- increase of only 9.2%.Of course,the major earnings increases.Taxpayers have more come recipients fell component of income is wages and sala- incentive to earn additional income and Effects of Reagan Tax Cut to 7% In 1982 from ries. This component grew substantially less incentive to engage in tax-sheltering on Rich and Others 7.6% in 1981. more rapidly in the upper tax brackets be- activities that now generate less tax-sav ing.As a result,lower tax rates lead to an Income Tax Liability (S billions) Unwilling to admit tween 1981 and 1982. Clearly, It provided expansion in the tax base. Income Grouping" 1981 1982%Change that incentives mat. the major impetus for the growth of taxa- ter.P 9" 9 ter, critics have of- ble income in the upper brackets. A Straightforward Answer Bottom 50 percent $ 21.7 $ 19.5 -10.1 fered two alternative Responsive Tax Base The incentive effects of an across-the- 50 to 75 percentile 59.0 55.6 - 5.8 explanations. Some The 1382 data indicate that the tax base board rate reduction will differ across tax 75 to 98.6 percentile 145.4 141.3 - 2.8 have argued that the is quite responsive to changes in tax rates, brackets. It will have a leveraged impact Top 1.4 percent 58.0 605 + 4.3 shift in the tax bur• particularly in the upper tax brackets.Gi- on the incentives of high-income tax 'The number of returns In each Income grouping was virtually Identical den toward the rich ven the economic environment,tiie respolt- payers.Perhaps some numbers will make in 1981 and 1982. was the result of the siveness is almost surprising.After all,Tile this point clear.Suppose tax rates are cut 1982 recession. Of rate reductions did little more than correct across the board by 20%. In the 10% front high-income taxpayers. course, a recession does reduce Incomes. for bracket creep and higher Social Seew bracket,the rate is cut to 8%a,while a 70% The distributional effects of a tax cut However,there is no reason to believe that rity taxes. In addition,the more rapid Be- rate declines to 56%. Now, consider how can best be observed by comparing the the income reductions are greater in lower preciation allowances provided by the 1981 this proportional rate reduction affects revenues collected across the income dis- tax brackets than in upper brackets. In legislation actually increased the attrac- take-home pay.People In the 10%bracket tribution before and after the rate reduc- fact,the instability of business and profes- tiveness of tax-shelter investments. Fi. take home 92 cents instead of 90 cents per tion. The accompanying table makes this sional income over the business cycle nilly,all the talk about higher future taxes dollar of additional earnings,a paltry 2.2% comparison for the 1981-1982 data.The bot- would suggest the opposite, that a reces- did little to discourage the tax-shelter in- increase.Clearly,this small increase is un- tom 50% of income recipients paid $19.5 sion is likely to retard income in lite upper dustry.Had it not been for the more rapid likely to exert a major impact on the in* billion in personal income taxes in 1982, brackets more severely. depreciation write-offs and constant threat centive of those taxpayers to earn more down from$21.7 billion in 1981,a 10.1"/a de- The most damaging evidence against of higher future tax rates, the tax base in taxable income. In contrast, look at what cline. Even though the rate reductions for the cyclical view is provided by the 1963-65 the upper brackets would surely have happens in the 70%bracket.Here the 20%. taxpayers in the 50th to 75th percentiles data.During this period of economic boom, grown by an even larger amount.Far from rate reduction boosts take-home pay to 44 and 751h to 98.6th percentiles were similar the distributional pattern emanating from suggesting that the marginal rales were cents per dollar of additional earnings to the rate cuts in the lower brackets, the an a(:ross-the-board rate reduction was cut lot)much,the data indicate the Ixuen- from 30 cents-a 47%increase.Taxpayers decline in lax revenues collected from identical to the pattern due to the 1981 tax tial of still lower marginal rates.Sens.Bill in this and other high income brackets are these groups was smaller, just as eco- cut.When the rates were reduced in 1964- Bradley and Robert Kasten, along with now permitted to keep a significantly nomic theory predicts. For the higher in- 65,the tax revenues collected from the top Reps.Jack Kemp and Richard Gephardt. larger proportion of an added dollar of in- come groups,an expansion in the taxable 5%of taxpayers rose 10.91/6,while the rev- should take note and push on with their come. Predictably, they will respond by income base partially offset revenue losses enues collected from the bottom 50%of in- plans for genuinely lower rates. earning more taxable incom• and engag- due to the lower rates.Thus,tax revenues come recipients fell 6.4%.As in 1981-82,the ing less intensely in tax-sheiicr activities. fell by smaller amounts in the upper in- 19G3-65 data indicate that a roughly propor- Messrs. Gwartney and Stroup arc evo- How does this incentive structure affect come brackets. tional rate reduction shifts the tax burden noetics professors at Florida Slate ahid the distribution of the tax burden across The imposition of the 50%rate ceiling in to the rich. Montana Slate universities, respecliuelil, income groupings? The answer is now 1982 reduced tax rates by as much as' Second, other critics have argued that and associates of the Political Economy straightforward. Since the rates were all 28,6%.. (to 50% from 7017.1 in the highest the increase in lite share of revenues col- Research Center of Borerrlan.Mont.,which reduced by the same percentage, the lev- income brackets. The top 1.4%., of tax- lected from the rich merely reflects rising sponsored much of their research. 10 OFFICE OF SENATOR RUDY BOSCHWITZ MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF SENATOR RUDY BOSCHWITZ ON TAX REFORM PROPOSALS BEFORE THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE October 10, 1985 Admittedly, our present tax system is complicated , and sometimes inequitable and inefficient. However, I believe that the President makes a mistake in calling the system unfair and un-American. There are many positive things which can be said about our present system: 1 . The system' s various incentives for capital formation and investment have benefited our economy as a whole -- in the past 10 years , 23 million new jobs have been created in the United States versus none ( 0 ! ) in the European Economic Community in that period. 2 . As intended , our system is progressive . Currently, the lowest quarter of all income earners pay only 6/10th of one percent of individual income taxes. The next lowest quarter pays 6 percent of individual income taxes , the upper middle quarter of income earners pays 20 percent of individual income taxes , and the highest quarter of income earners pays 73 percent of all individual income taxes collected. I am in favor of making the tax system more simple , lowering rates , providing incentives for capital formation , placing a premium and not a penalty on savings , and decreasing not increasing capital gains , perhaps by one-half . While I thus acknowledge that our present tax system can be improved , I do not believe that now is the proper time to attempt tax reform. Additionally, I have several specific concerns with the approach taken by the most frequently discussed reform proposals . With respect to whether now is the correct time for tax reform, I would point out to this Committee that, since 1981 , Congress has been enacting complex and significant changes to the tax code at a dizzying pace. In 1981 , we enacted the Economic Recovery Tax Act , which cut taxes. In 1982, we enacted the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, which raised taxes. In 1983 , we repealed part of the 1982 tax increase. In 1984 , we enacted the Tax Reform Act of 1984 , which increased taxes . Later in 1984, we revised the complex imputed interest rules added to the Code by the Tax Reform Act of 1984. In 1985, we have acted twice. First , we repealed the provisions of the Tax Reform Act of 1984 with respect to the requirement for automobile logs. Second, we made permanent the imputed interest rules of the Tax Reform Act of 1984 as modified by the subsequent 1984 enactment. In addition , since 1982 , Congress has also enacted the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 and made changes in laws for Chapter "S" corporations. As a result of these changes to the tax code , taxpayers are reeling. The ability to adequately plan is being taken away, creating uncertainty and disruption. In addition, I do not believe that we fully understand and appreciate the impact that the pace of tax legislation has had on our economy. For instance , it has been suggested that we have influenced consumers to spend more and save less . At a minimum, we have negatively impacted on the public' s perception and acceptance of our tax system. - 2 - It is with this in mind that we should analyze present proposals for tax reform. I believe that a number of hard questions must be asked about any proposal for tax reform -- what will be the impact of the proposal on our economy? on capital formation? on savings? While I support lower rates , it must be understood that as rates are lowered, the value of "tax preferred" assets as well as decisions and investments such as the purchase of real estate and charitable giving will decrease . What will be the impact on the economy? We must also consider the magnitude of the redistribution of capital which would be caused by the President' s proposal . For the period from Fiscal Year 1986 to Fiscal Year 1990 the President ' s proposal would , it is estimated , result in $486 billion of individual tax cuts and $354 billion in individual tax increases. On the corporate side , it is estimated that the President' s proposal would result in $195 billion of corporate tax cuts and $313 billion of tax increases. Put another way, a total of $1. 3 trillion is involved ( $486+$354+$195+$313 ) , over $800 billion on the individual side, $500 billion on the corporate side. In relative terms , this is 5 percent of our estimated Gross National Product for the same 5-year period, and 50 percent of estimated income tax collections over the same 5-year period. Finally, we must also ask ourselves how any new tax proposal will interact with the prior tax changes which we have enacted and with trade , farm, and other legislation now pending . Again, I am in favor of improving the tax system. However, I believe that improvement must come slowly. Appropriate questions must be answered in advance so that the economy is not disrupted. We must give taxpayers a chance to catch their breath. Finally, and most importantly, our efforts must be directed toward the deficit. In that regard, we must understand that as the deficit is reduced , economic activity will be dampened. If , in conjunction with reducing the deficit, we eliminate various deductions , credits and exclusions which provide incentives to our economy, we will further dampen economic activity. As to the current proposals for tax reform, I agree wholeheartedly with the concept that we need to lower marginal rates and simplify the tax code. Lower rates will promote compliance , saving , investing , and the incentive for working. Lower rates will also encourage decision-making based on economic merits , not tax merits. History has shown us that _ lowering rates will raise collections from high income earners. I am also in agreement with the concept contained in the President ' s proposal that we should not tax those who are at or below the poverty level . To do so forces a low income person into deciding between earning a few more dollars , paying some of the earnings to the federal government , and losing welfare benefits , or, not earning more money and being allowed to retain welfare benefits. We thus force low income earners to make the unhappy decision of choosing between the dignity and self-esteem of a paying job or accepting welfare benefits (which actually leaves them with more money) . However, the current proposals do not allow sufficient opportunity to plan and adjust for the changes they would impose. Immediate imposition of rate reductions and immediate loss of deductions , exclusions , and credits confiscates value , penalizes those who have relied upon prior provisions , and is disruptive. In that regard, I oppose any lengthening of depreciation periods and predict that indexing of asset values will not survive either the House or the Senate. - 3 - I would propose that , instead of an immediate reduction in tax rates and an immediate elimination of certain deductions , exclusions , and credits , we eliminate the indexing of brackets for inflation and, instead, phase in any new system by indexing tax rates downward by inflation or some other measure which would provide graduated rate reductions . For example, assume the following tax brackets and rates: Tax Bracket Rate $10 ,000-12,000 16% 12, 000-14 ,000 18% 14 ,000-16 ,000 20% 16 ,000-18 ,000 22% If the rate of inflation was 10 percent , then rates could be adjusted as follows : Tax Bracket Rate $10 , 000-12,000 15% 12 ,000-14 ,000 17% 14, 000-16 ,000 19% 16 ,000-18 ,000 21% This proposal would allow taxpayers to adjust to decreasing tax rates. In addition, to simplify our tax code and "pay for" lower rates , again in a manner which will give taxpayers time to adjust , I would propose that we phase out pre-selected tax preference items as the top marginal tax rate is reduced. For instance , as the top marginal tax rate was reduced to 44 percent , we could eliminate a pre-selected group of deductions , exclusions , and credits. Another pre-selected group of credits, exclusions and deductions would be eliminated when the top marginal rate was 38 percent , and so on. I have handed the Chairman and other members of the Committee two articles : "The Redistributionist Tax Reduction" and "Taxes , Inflation and the Rich. " I would also recommend to this Committee the article in the July 21 , 1985 edition of the New York Times regarding the "Tax-Standstill Act. " While perhaps written with tongue-in-cheek, the article ' s suggestion to limit changes to the tax code merits consideration. I want to emphasize that any new proposals should and must encourage capital formation. Studies have consistently shown that savings in the United States has been among , if not, the lowest of all industrialized nations. We must develop incentives in our tax code to encourage capital formation. We should consider removing all taxes on savings . In summary, I believe that , at the present time , the best proposal for tax reform is to do nothing. The less we do with the tax code , the better. Because, in the end Mr. Chairman, the country that taxes the least taxes the most fairly; the country that puts the greatest emphasis on capital formation will contribute the most to its economy. 998 November 1985 a F I LE: Financial Specialists: Ehlers and Associates, Inc. Please distribute to governing body members Christmas, 1985 NEWSLETTER Greetings from all of us after a most exciting and busy year. This is the time of the year to reflect. Especially now, for this should be a time to think about what we are, what we want to be, what we want our communities to be, to believe that we can do what we want to do, and to make the commitment. A number of books --- some new, some old, some very old -- say that we are not bound by our parentage, by our life experience or by our circumstances, but that we can improve ourselves and achieve our goals if we believe and if we try. If we want to build a better community, if we believe in ourselves, and if we dedicate ourselves to the task, it will happen. Make this season a time to make a new start, a time to cast off old limits, a time to make new commitments. A Merry and Joyful Holiday Season to each of you from each of us. Your Friends at Ehlers and Associates EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FINANCIAL SPECIALISTS FIRST NATIONAL-SOO LINE CONCOURSE 507 MARQUETTE AVE. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 339-8291 [AREA CODE 612) . S U M M A R Y O F A R E A B 0 N 0 S A L E S Bond Bond Net Buyer Met Buyer Municipality Date Type of Bonds Amount Maturity Rate Index Rating Municipality Date Type of Bonds Amount Maturity Rate Index Ratine IOWA: Town of White Bear 9/30/85 G.O. Improvement Bonds 600M 1988-2002 9.03% 9.38% Baa-1 Town of White Bear 9/30/85 G.O. Temporary Improvement Bonds 790M 1988 7.32% 9.38% Baa-1 Chariton 9/04/85 G.O. Refunding Bonds 1,400M 1987-2002 9.32% 9.09% Baa Detroit Lakes 10/01/85 G.O. Tax Increment Bonds 775M 1988-2005 9.12% 9.38% A Harlan 9/04/85 Electric Revenue Bonds 4,075M 1986-2002 9.13% 9.09% A-1 Glenwood 10/01/85 G.O. Temp.Construction Bonds 4,625M 1987 7.75% 9.38% Baa Sioux City CSD 9/05/85 G.O. Anticipatory Warrants 5,300M 1986 5.64% 9.09% NR long Prairie 10/07/85 G.O. Tax Increment Ikmds 48014 1988-2004 9.19% 9.33% Baa-1 Pleasant Valley CSD 9/10/85 G.O. School B1dg.Refunding Bonds 9,800M 1987-2002 9.02% 9.09% A Pierz 10/07/85 G.O. Improvement Bonds 175M 1987-1996 8.47% 9.33% NR Sioux City 9/23/85 Hospital Facility Revenue Bonds 16,50014 1989-1998 8.77% 9.35% MBIA Norman County 10/08/85 G.O. Drainage Ditch Bonds 855M 1987-2001 8.65% 9.33% A Mason City 10/08/85 G.O. Refunding Bonds 1,070M 1987-2005 8.645 9.33% Aa Minneapolis-St.Paul 10/10/85 G.O. Solid Waste Bonds 2,960M 1987-1996 7.71% 9.33% Aa/AAA Mason City 10/08/85 G.O. Improvement Bonds 860M 1987-2005 9.00% 9.33% Aa Metro Council Iowa City 10/08/85 Parking System Revenue Bonds 3,855M 1986-2003 9.78% 9.33% Baa Lino Lakes 10/15/85 G.O. Temp.Improvement Bonds 1,850M 1988 7.03% 9.25% A Iowa City 10/08/85 G.O. Improvement Bonds 4,70014 1987-1996 7.53% 9.33% Aaa Blue Earth County 10/15/85 G.O. Urainage Ditch Bonds 475M 1988-2006 8.73% 9.25% A-1 Cerro Gordo County 10/10/85 G.O. Anticipatory Warrants 2,200M 1986 6.69% 9.33% NR Blaine 10/15/85 G.O. Improvement Bonds 2,860M 1988-1997 7.68% 9.25% A Ares 10/22/85 Bond Anticipation Notes 10,600M 1986-1988 6.241 9.12% MR Roseville 10/16/85 G.O. Improvement Bonds 2,885M 1988-2002 8.16% 9.25% Aa-1/ Ares 10/22/85 Corporate Purpose Bonds 1,300M 1986-1997 7.40% 9.12% Aa-1/ AA- AA I.S.D.N832 (Mahtomedi) 10/21/85 G.O. Tax Antic.Certs.of Indebt. 815M 1986 5.94% 9.12% NR Clear Creek CSD 10/23/85 G.O. School Building Bonds 800M 1987-1998 8.741 9.12% NR St. Cloud 10/21/85 G.O. Refunding Bonds 7,340M 1987-2003 8.46% 9.12% A-1/AA- Scott County 10/28/85 G.O. County Refunding Bonds 3,76514 1986-2000 8.05% 8.95% Aa Shoreview 10/21/85 G.O. Improvement Bonds 225M 1986-2000 8.34% 9.12% A Mound 10/22/85 G.O. Tax Increment Redev.Bonds 1,800M 1988-2004 8.59% 9.12% A/A Lake Shore 10/28/85 G.O. Improvement Bonds 300M 1988-1994 7.81% 8.95% NR MICHIGAN: Fergus Falls 10/28/85 G.O. Bonds 985M 1987-2006 8.62% 8.95% A Luverne 10/28/85 G.O. Waste Treatment Fac.Bonds 1,755M 1988-2000 8.25% 8.95% A Marquette Board of 9/17/85 Electric Utility System Revenue 9,515M 1986-2003 8.791 9.26% Baa-1/ Golden valley 10/29/85 G.O. Tax Increment Bonds 5,900M 1988-2006 8.86% 8.95% Aa Light and Power Refunding Bonds AAA Blaine 10/30/85 G.O. Tax Increment Bonds 2,700M 1988-1999 8.00% 8.95% A Dassel 10/30/85 G.O. Refunding Bonds 1,27514 1986-2003 8.66% 8.95% Baa Henderson 10/30/85 G.O. Bonds 145M 1988-2001 8.56% 8.951 NR MINNESOTA: Medina 9/03/85 G.O. Improvement Bonds 415M 1981-1996 7.93% 9.09% A NORTH DAKOTA: Medina 9/03/85 G.O. Refunding Improvement Bonds 475M 198601992 7.45% 9.09% A Brainerd 9/03/85 G.O. State Aid Road Bonds 430M 1986-1993 7.78% 9.09% A Jamestown 9/03/85 Refunding Improvement Bonds 1,32514 1986-2000 7.75% 9.07% A Brainerd 9/03/85 G.O. Improvement Bonds 225M 1987-1996 8.04% 9.09% A Bismarck 9/10/85 G.O. Refunding Improvement Bonds 2,435M 1986-1999 8.18% 9.07% Aa Maple Grove 9/03/85 G.O. Improvement Bonds 4,200M 1988-1999 7.871 9.09% A Mandan 10/01/85 Refunding Improvement Bonds 5,150M 1986-2001 9.44% 9.38% Baa-1 Belle Plaine 9/05/85 G.O. Bonds 580M 1988-2002 9.03% 9.09% Baa Alexander 10/17/85 Refunding Improvement Bonds 28514 1986-1990 7.50% 9.25% NR I.S.D.N422 (Glencoe) 9/09/85 G.O. Aid Antic.Certs.of Indebt. 585M 1986 9.07% 9.07% NR Municipal Airport 10/28/85 Airport Refunding Bonds 2,SOOM 1987-2001 8.29% 8.95% A-1/AA Woodbury 9/09/85 G.O. Improvement Bonds 2,100M 1987-1994 7.52% 9.07% A Authority of Fargo Olivia 9/09/85 G.O. Bonds 940M 1987-2002 8.76% 9.07% A Columbia Heights 9/09/85 G.O. Tax Increment Bonds 1,loom 1986 ?002 8.90% 9.07% A-1 Columbia Heights 9/09/85 G.O. Refunding Bonds 2,460M 1986-1996 7.99% 9.07% A-1 WISCONSIN: Vadnais Heights 9/09/85 G.O. Improvement Bonds 385M 1988-2002 8.88% 9.07% Baa-1 Hackensack 9/10/85 G.O. Grant d Loan Antic.Bonds 965M 1988 8.10% 9.07% NR Stanley 9/03/85 Sewer Sys.Rev.Refunding Bonds 1,3100M 1989-2004 9.56% 9.09% NR I.S.D.N390 (Lake of the 9/11/85 G.O. Aid Antic.Certs.of Indebt. 800M 1986 5.70% 9.07% NR Ashwaubenon 9/03/85 G.O. Promissory Notes 11,340M 1986-1995 8.091 9.09% MBIA Woods-Baudette) Middleton-Cross Plains 9/09/85 G.O. School Building Bonds 2,62514 1987-2000 8.86% 9.07% A-1 I.S.D.N347 (Willmar) 9/11/85 G.O. Aid Antic.Certs.of Indebt. 1,385M 1986 5.72% 9.07% NR Area SO Arlington 9/16/85 G.O. Improvement Bonds 390M 1987-1996 8.29% 9.26% Baa-1 Clintonville 9/10/85 G.O. Promissory Notes 640M 1986-1995 8.42% 9.01% NR Fairmont 9/16/85 G.O. Improvement Bonds 1,080M 1988-2002 8.68% 9.26% A-1 Altoona 9/11/85 G.O. Refunding Bonds 2,18514 1988-1999 9.12% 9.01% NR Fairmont 9/16/85 Public Utility Revenue Bonds 2,900M 1967-2005 9.11% 9.26% A-1 Town of Brookfield 9/11/85 G.O. Promissory Notes 2,00014 1987-1995 8.74% 9.07% Baa-1 Carver 9/16/85 G.O. Temporary Improvement Bonds 725M 1988 7.31% 9.26% NR St.Croix Falls SO 9/16/85 G.O. School B1dg.Refunding Bonds 4,115M 1986-2000 8.84% 9.26% A Lakeville 9/16/85 G.O. Water Rev.Refunding Bonds 1,30014 1988-2002 8.67% 9.26% A Neenah 9/18/85 G.O. Promissory Notes 1,200M 1986-1995 7.86% 9.26% Aa I.S.D.0147 (Dilworth) 9/17/85 G.O. Aid Antic.Certs.of Indebt. 415M 1986 5.87% 9.26% MR Lone Rock 9/26/85 Water d Sewer System Mortgage 370M 1987-2000 9.81% 9.35% NR Minneapolis 9/17/85 G.O. Bonds 9,260M 1986-2005 8.01% 9.26% Aaa Palmyra-Eagle SO 9/26/85 G.O. Promissory Notes 1,350M 1986-1995 8.63% 9.35% Baa Oakdale 9/17/85 G.O. Improvement Bonds 3,100M 1987-1997 8.04% 9.26% A Janesville 9/30/85 G.O. Promissory Notes 1,50014 1986-1995 8.62% 9.38% A Oakdale 9/17/85 G.O. Tax Increment Bonds 1,235M 1988-1995 7.94% 9.26% A Madison 10/01/85 G.O. Promissory Notes 3,50014 1986-1995 7.51% 9.38% Aaa St. Paul 9/17/85 Water Revenue Bonds 5,375M 1987-1996 8.03% 9.26% Aa/AA Lodi 10/01/85 Special Assessment "B" Bonds 720M 1987-2001 10.32% 9.38% NR Kandiyohi 9/18/85 G.O. Drainage Ditch Bonds 395M 1987-1998 8.00% 9.26% A-1 Western Wisconsin VTAE 10/01/85 G.O. Promissory Notes 550M 1987-1995 7.97% 9.38% Aa I.S.D.A682 (Roseau) 9/18/85 G.O. Aid Antic.Certs.of Indebt. 1,06014 1986 6.07% 9.26% NR Prairie du Sac 10/08/85 G.O. Corporate Purpose Bonds 97514 1986-2000 9.06% 9.33% NR Western Lake Superior 9/23/85 G.O. Refunding Bonds 4,250M 1987-2000 8.88% 9.35% A/A« Edgar 10/08/85 G.O. Refunding Bonds 470M 1987-2000 9.43% 9.33% NR Sanitary District Edgar 10/08/85 Sewerage System Revenue Bonds 1,210M 1987-2005 9.89% 9.33% NR Fosston 9/23/85 G.O. Revenue Anticipation Notes 625M 1987 7.45% 9.35% MR Chippewa Falls I0/15/85 G.O. Promissory Notes 590M 1986-1995 8.02% 9.25% A Fosston 9/23/85 G.O. Grant Anticipation Notes 300M 1988 7.73% 9.35% MR Long Lake 10/15/85 G.O. Bonds 1,050M 1987-1998 8.21% 9.25% A Redwood Falls 9/24/85 G.O. Bonds 1,995M 1987-2007 9.07% 9.35% A Shawano 10/16/85 Utility Revenue Bonds 2,500M 1987-2000 8.79% 9.25% Baa-1/ Goodview 9/24/85 G.O. Refunding Improv.Bonds 620H 1987-1995 7.99% 9.351 A USFG insurance Bird Island 9/24/85 G.O. Water Revenue Bonds 330M 1988-2002 9.20% 9.35% NR West Allis 50 10/21/85 G.O. Promissory Notes 1,850M 1987-1992 7.52% 9.12% A Delano 9/30/85 G.O. Disposal System Bonds 1,195M 1986-2002 9.01% 9.38% Baa-1 River Falls SO 10/30/85 G.O. School Bonds 3,995M 1986-2005 8.43% 8.95% A-1 Proceedings of the Shakopee Cable Communications Advisory Commission Regular Session Shakopee, Minnesota November 25 , 1985 Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order at 7 : 45 p.m. with Commissioners Moonen and Harrison present. Commissioners Abeln and Davis were absent. Barry Stock, Administrative Intern and Dan Schaefer, Zylstra-United Chief Technician were also present. Harrison/Moonen moved to approve the minutes of August 26 , 1985 , September 23 , 1985 and October 28 , 1985 as kept. I•lotion carried unanimously. Cable Consultant ' s Final Report Mr. Stock reported to the Commission that the consulting firm of Cooper/Rutter had completed the financial analysis of the Shakopee/Chaska cable system. He went on to state that earlier in the day staff from Shakopee and Chaska had met to discuss the findings presented and the report. Staff members from each community were in agreement that the report was fairly basic in nature. Mr. Stock then commented that the report in his opinion did legitimize the fact that the cable company is in- deed in need of some kind of financial support. He further stated that the report did seem to indicate that the sale of the system was not an adequate alternative for the City of Shakopee to consider. Commissioner Moonen then expressed his concern that he was not in agreement with the consultant in regard to the sale of the system. He further stated that in his opinion the consultant glossed over many things . He did feel however that the claims of the company were legitimized. Commissioner Moonen then questioned the consultant ' s statement that the institutional network should be self sustaining. Commis- sioner Moonen further questioned whether or not the institutional network was set up to be self sustaining or if it could ever be self sustaining. Chairman Anderson stated that he believed the company' s involvement in the I-Net was limited to providing hook ups to each institution and modulators and demodulators to activate the various channels . Commissioner Harrison added that the maintenance of the line was also an obligation of the cable company. Mr. Stock then informed the Commissioners of the school ' s intentions in regard to the institutional network. He informed the committee that the school had received a grant to do interactive cable between the Shakopee schools and the Chaska schools as well as the Scott-Carver Cooperative Center. Eventually the schools also plan on being interactive with the Hennepin County Vo-Tech. Mr. Stock then informed the Commissioners that Ron Ward, Shakopee Schools Technology Coordinator was going to provide the City with a list of the equipment that he felt was necessary to activate r� the I-Net in a fashion which would meet their needs. Discussion then followed on what the company was obligated to do as far as the institutional network and their original proposal. Discussion then turned to what alternatives the City of Shakopee could realistically pursue in resolving Zylstra-United' s financial problems . Mr. Stock then informed the Commission members that in the earlier meeting that day with officials from Chaska, there seemed to be consensus that the number one issue to be discussed in these negotiations is the public access function. The primary reason behind this logic, was the fact that the majority of our existing franchise fee is being dedicated to access . At that point, there seemed to be consensus among the Commission members that the preservation of public access and a studio in Shakopee was very important for our community. Discussion then moved on to the subject of how the access studio could be staffed. Chairman Anderson then stated that he has always felt that access should be turned over to the Access Corporation and run by them. Discussion then centered around the various alternatives for staffing the studio. Alternatives discussed included, sharing one access manager between the cities of Chaska and Shakopee, sharing one access manager and hiring an intern for each individual community, entering into a contract arrangement with some individual or company who would provide access staffing in return for use of the studio or simply putting the Access Corporation in charge of all studio related responsibilities. Mr. Stock then added that at bear minimum the City of Shakopee should consider sharing joint play back operations with Chaska. There was consensus among the Committee members that there would be obvious cost savings by pursuing that alternative. Commission member Moonen expressed his concern over sharing a studio manager with Chaska. He felt that such an arrangement would eventually lead to a dog fight between the two communities. Chairman Anderson stated that he also had a concern with how the studio managers staff time would be allocated between the two communities . Discussion then moved to the area of studio financing. Several alternatives for financing were discussed including advertising on the public access or leased access channel, studio rental, the franchise fee, and a x . 25 per month subscriber fee. Discussion followed on the ramifications of combining the two tiers of basic service. There was consensus among the Committee members present that it would be up to the cable company if they wanted to combine the two tiers of basic service and that the Committee members did not really have a problem with that proposal . Mr. Stock then informed the Committee that a special meeting with the Chaska Cable Commission has been set for December 9 , 1985 at 7 : 00 p.m. in the Chaska Middle School. The purpose of the meeting is to try to establish a common set of modifications for the two communities and also to review the cable consultants report. At that meeting a member of Cooper-Rutter Association will be present to answer questions in regard to the report. cl Commissioner Harrison then proposed an alternative for moving the existing character generator to Community Services and purchasing a portable modulator rather than another character generator. Discussion ensued. Mr. Stock then presented the public access monthly report, the cable television monthly report and the cable television service report for August, September and October. The Commissioners reviewed the reports. Harrison/Moonen moved to adjourn the meeting_ at 9 : 10 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The next will be held on December 9, 1985, at 7 : 00 p.m. in the Chaska Middle School. PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 2, 1985 Chrm. Czaja called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Comm. Schmitt, Lane and Stoltzman present. Comm. VanMaldeghem, Pomerenke and Rockne were absent. Also present were Jeanne Andre, Community Development Dir- ector; John K. Anderson, City Admr. and Cncl. Lebens. Lane/Stoltzman moved to approve the agenda as printed. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSING ALLIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Schmitt/Lane moved to open the public hearing regarding the request by the Housing Alliance, Inc. to consider a conditional use permit to con- struct 44 units of multi-family housing for senior citizens. Motion car- ried unanimously. The Comm. Develop. Dir, stated this conditional use permit application will be appealed to City Council and heard tomorrow night, no matter what the decision is by the Planning Commission. Because the planning issues need to be resolved before the consideration of the tax increment finan- cing by the City Council, this will be heard tomorrow night rather than waiting the 7 days for an appeal. Rosemary Dineen, of the Housing Alliance, showed some slides depicting various other projects they have been involved in in other communities, some for seniors and some subsidized. She showed the style of building they are proposing for Shakopee. Mr. Larry Smith, of the Housing Alliance, showed on a slide the location of the proposed project and pointed out the architecture proposed which is a combination farmhouse, with Victorian detailing, which they feel will fit into this City and neighborhood. He showed the landscape plan with plenty of buffering planned and pointed out the location of the proposed restaurant, hair dresser shop and accesses. He highlighted the amenities such as garden plots, patios and porches, at-grade and under-ground park- ing, and proximity to retail areas, churches and hospital. The Comm. Develop. Dir, went over the staff recommendation for approval with four conditions. Because the proposal is on previously platted land, no park dedication fee is required. Chrm. Czaja asked for comments from the audience in favor of this proposal. Sister Agnes Otting, Executive Director of St. Francis Medical Center, stated she is in favor of this project because she believes this community needs a facility of this type--for those seniors who do not need nursing Jaid i�.0 IJCc i.�c.lail ilC ,a.u:�.ibJlUi December 2, 1985 Page 2 home care, but who can't live in their own homes any longer. The applicant has demonstrated to her this is possible in this kind of building they are proposing. Negotiations are under way for St. Francis to provide ser- vices to the seniors such as counseling, 24-hour R.N. inf_,rmation line, exercise programs, social programs, wellness programs, etc. , on a contract basis. She passed out a possible list of services with the approximate costs. She thinks this type of program will maintain the independency of seniors as long as possible. They will have available a general service package and a customized package for those who need more help. She com- mented that some may think the cost is high, but it is a lot less than full nursing home care. Doris Dunlap, 620 Bluff Avenue, addressed the petition she circulated which showed interest in senior citizen housing. She said she got a great variety of names and occupations who signed the petition, agreeing there is a great need for this project. She feels strongly that their signatures are just as good as them personally attending this hearing in support. Lane/Stoltzman moved to enter into the record the petition circulated by Doris Dunlap in support of senior citizen housing in Shakopee, attached and made a part hereof. Motion carried unanimously. Chrm. Czaja asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak in opposition to this project. Mel Lebens, 538 West 4th Avenue, said he believes his wife, Cncl. Lebens, made their position clear at the last City Council meeting, which was sub- sequently reported in the Shakopee Valley News. He said he is concerned with the procedure used, and asked who had signed the application for the permit. The Comm. Develop. Dir. responded that Larry Smith, Vice-President of Housing Alliance, signed it. Mr. Lebens read the definition of a conditional use from the City Code and quoted from Local and Environmental Planning in Minnesota, by Gunner Isberg stating that conditional uses must be compatible with the uses generally already allowed in the district, and that conditional uses may lead to spot zoning if issued indiscriminately without sufficient standards. He also read his definition of spot zoning. Mr. Lebens thinks a conditional use is skirting the issue of rezoning. Mr. Lebens said he was on the City Council in 1953 when he established the Planning Commission. He also served on the Metropolitan Planning Commis- sion for 6 years and served on the Shakopee Planning Commission. Chrm. Czaja asked if Mr. Lebens had seen the listed criteria for issuing a con- ditional use permit. Mr. Lebens responded that he is familiar with them, but those are only general and he wants to deal with the specific zone. Mr. Lebens read the City Code which lists Multiple Dwelling Structures as a conditional use in a Central Business District (CBD), but does not list any standards. Mr. Isberg's book states a conditional use must list the standards. Mr. Lebens said a unit of this size should be put on 176,000 square feet, which is a block and a half according to the requirements for multiple dwelling units. He thinks it should be rezoned to R-4 to allow it in this space. He added the front yard setback also doesn't .i1GL.v F'�-• _ ivaa aai ab v�......i C.v r..„ December 2, 1985 Page 3 meet code. He is concerned with putting possibly 88 people in that unit without anything to do or any place to go. He thinks the codifiers over- looked this listing of multiple dwelling structures because it is not defined and is an inconsistency. He said this was adopted when he was City Admr. and allowed because of the second story dwellings in the down- town area, and only when in conjunction with a business. A multiple dwelling structure is not the same as a multi-family unit. Mr. Lebens said the Code specifies the developer must provide proof of ownership of the property. Therefore, Mr. Smith cannot make application on Mr. Wampach and Mr. Gestach's property. He believes this is an illegal action which is out of order and he will take it to court. The Comm. Develop. Dir. stated the existing senior highrise was in a B-3 zone and was considered under this same Code for multi-family housing. She added it was the opinion of the Ass't City Attorney that because the property was in a redevelopment area and the City Council has expressed a willingness to look at condemnation so the applicant could acquire the property, it was acceptable for the applicant to make the application. Chrm. Czaja asked for opinions around the table regarding the procedure. Comm. Lane said he is in favor of the project as it conforms to the Comp Plan of the City and would serve as an excellent buffer between the resi- dential and businesses. Mr. Lebens said he is in favor of the project too, but only if zoned pro- perly. He said it would be beautiful in the right place and under the right circumstances. He added the other highrise didn't concern him so he didn't speak up, but this one concerns his pocketbook so it is a dif- ferent story. Comm. Lane added he is comfortable with the procedure used. Comm. Schmitt, Stoltzman and Chrm. Czaja all expressed they are comfortable with the hold- ing of this public hearing. Mr. Lebens agreed it was reasonable to lean on the City Council's motion to consider condemnation for the property. He read from information that was included in the City Council agenda packet which states this project is a draft copy only and developer reserves the right to change and modify as they deem necessary. Then this must be just a trial balloon, and why hold a hearing. Mr. Lebens asked about the costs listed for streetscape improvements and the extent of the improvements. The Comm. Develop. Dir. responded that issue is not before the Planning Commission, but she explained that in the development process the applicant proposes to the City the improvements they would like and the estimated costs, which have been included in the development district. However, negotiations are under way and have not been finalized. The costs are an estimate provided by herself based on the concept plan with 25% assessment to the property owners, estimated at $10,000 per lot. This does not mean the streetscape improvements would ✓a♦c'.i��JYCC 11Giiia il+b \.Vl.....l Ju.i.Vl: December 2, 1985 Page 4 occur at any specific time. There is a separate process involved for the streetscapes with public hearings before any assessments would be levied. She further clarified this hearing tonight is only for the planning and zoning issues of whether or not a conditional use permit should be granted. Chrm. Czaja explained tonight's hearing was a special call primarily be- cause of the need of the applicant to meet bonding deadlines and other issues to be dealt with by City Council following the resolution of the planning issues. Mr. Lebens read the motion from the minutes of the City Council, November 6, 1985 to pay up to $250,000 for the property for this proposal. That would amount to $7.40 per square foot for the land. He said in 1980 in a Court action of adjacent properties the land was valued at $1.75 for his property and $1.25 for the larger parcels. According to State law property value must be based on sales ratio in the area. He was told if there were no other sales in the area in 2 years, this sale would af- fect their property materially. The difference in land value from $1.372 average to $7.40 is 5 times. If his property value goes up even 3 times it would cost over $1,000 per year. He clarified he and his wife are the fee title owners, with their sons having a contract for the property. Mr.. Lebens thinks the business that is there is a real asset to the com- munity, but it is not a high profit operation. In addition to this is the Housing Alliance's demand to do something about the storm sewer, which will be another assessment. He stated there hasn't been any prob- lem with the storm water. Mr. Lebens continued there is also the streetscape issue, which he is sure is going to go in all around the block, and which will be $70 a foot and doesn't belong around a humble upholstery shop. He doesn't think he will even be able to sell the business if the taxes go so high. When taxes go up, the value of the property goes down. Mr. Lebens continued speak- ing regarding the country's lack of honesty and obsession with greed. Schmitt/Stoltzman moved to limit this presentation to 5 more minutes. Chrm. Czaja said he wanted to give everyone a chance to speak to the issue of the conditional use permit. Mr. Lebens objected to his freedom of speech being limited. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Lebens stated this is an illegal motion and can't be done in a pub- lic hearing and the Commissioners were leaving themselves open to risk. Schmitt/Lane moved for a five minute recess at 8:14 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chrm. Czaja called the meeting back to order at 8:20 p.m. Chrm. Czaja asked if there were any other comments in opposition to the project. Lorraine Ries, 220 West 3rd, stated she is not against the project, but she would like it done according to City codes and laws. She has pro- perty across the street and on Atwood. She was told the taxes wouldn't go up, but she knows better. She thinks the property naturally will go up if a new expensive building goes in. All the people in the block across from there are older retired people who can't afford to go into this building because of the high rent. She said they can't even sell Shakopee Planning Commission December 2, 1985 Page 5 their homes because they are old homes with high taxes. She doesn't be- lieve the City should buy the property and give it to the developers-- no one gave her a lot to build on. Joan Wagner, of Minnetonka, is representing her mother who lives on the block. She believes the taxes on her mother's home would increase once this big building is built. The Commission's response is they didn't know that--this hearing is just for the planning issue and they have no background in the tax and financing for the project. The Comm. Develop. Dir. further explained that the streetscape project is planned for all of downtown whether or not this project goes in. She will potentially be dealing with that in the future. The new sewer sys- tem is for the whole City also. However, the City Engineer advised them it would not be prudent to build without the construction of the sewer system. The applicant did not come in and request this sewer system. She is afraid with increased taxes they will not be able to sell her mother's house. She located the house for the Commissioners. Comm. Schmitt referenced the memo received from the Scott County Assessor's office dated November 25, 1985 which states a sale of this nature would not be considered in the sales ratio. He added that from his knowledge in working with the school referendum, the property across the street from this proposal is in a different zone, and therefore would not be affected by this project in the CBD. The house would only be affected by sales in its own zone. He would suggest a more definitive answer from legal counsel and the assessor. Ms. Wagner asked who is going to manage this building. Mr. Smith replied they are negotiating the terms of a management contract with St. Francis Medical Center so if that is successfully completed, it would be the manager. Cncl. Lebens said Mr. Wampach made it clear what he wanted for his pro- perty, and the City Council motion was to seek another appraisal, as the one appraisal did not please Mr. Wampach. The motion is to use the up- coming Peter Patchin appraisal or $250,000, whichever is lower. She said the only way she would try to convince the City Council to proceed would be through condemnation proceedings, where the Court would set the cost. She thinks the Commissioners are not following the laws. Karen Lebens, 207 Atwood, which is above 205 Atwood, said she is not aware of the criteria for issuing a conditional use permit, so doesn't feel she can address it. She said she is not against senior housing, but she does have a few objections. She does know it is illegal to limit public com- ment at a public hearing. She is a Court Reporter for Hennepin County and has sat in meetings for hours to allow everyone to have their say. Chrm. Czaja gave her a copy of the criteria and said he would come back to her for comments later in the evening. Ms. Wagner asked if there would be another public hearing if this project goes though and the developer wants to do Phase 2. Comm. Schmitt responded that would require a conditional use permit and another public hearing. She said Phase 2 contemplates condemning and taking her mother's home. She said that is her home and she has lived on that block only for her en- tire life. This whole process is creating quite a turmoil. December 2, 1985 Page 6 The Comm. Develop. Dir, recalled that several months ago when she talked with Ms. Wagner's mother, she was in favor of selling her property and would like to go into the home. She added the staff report and criteria are contained in the public file for the information of the aidience. Ms. Karen Lebens addressed criteria no. 1 which has to find the proposed use is not injurious and will not impair the property value in the imme- diate vicinity. She differs with the memo from the County Assessor. She understands the land is not yet condemned and it is possible to come to a mutually agreed upon sale price before condemnation takes place. This would be different than what is addressed in the memo from the County Assessor and that sale would be taken into consideration in establishing the sales ratio. Ms. Lebens said they were first told the streetscapes will not necessarily go in, but the Downtown Committee does hope these streetscapes will go in with the project, which means the assessment throughout the block. Even if the sewer project was planned before, if this project wasn't going in the sewer might not go in for some time. She -said these taxes are her main concern, which are injurious to their property, so it has to be looked at in conjunction with the conditional use permit. If it injures them so much they have to leave and can't sell, or have to take a loss, what good does that do the City? Chrm. Czaja asked if there was anyone else who wanted to speak for the project. Virgil Mears stated he has served on the committee to work with the Hous- ing Alliance when they were making the study. At that time they asked for input from the public and they had many meetings to which people didn't come. Overall, as a community the City needs to be advancing and meeting the changing needs of the people. This is an item whose time has come, and its a project the City needs. The location is desirable because of the proximity of amenities within walking distance. The pluses have to be weighed against the minuses and he thinks from that standpoint it would be a good project that the City needs and wants. Chrm. Czaja asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to speak to this issue, and there was no response. Comm. Schmitt suggested the criteria be dealt with as part of the public hearing. He said the City is dealing with a conditional use permit for multiple family housing under a environment for which the City has already set precedent; and therefore, the issue is primarily whether or not the conditional use itself, not the sale of property, will be injurious to . the use and enjoyment of other property owners or impair property values. He said he has heard nothing from the audience that tells him this use will injure this property or the adjoining property. He asked if anyone disagreed with that. Mel Lebens said that up to 88 older persons will be housed in that unit. He doesn't know why the size of the land changes from R-4 when it is placed downtown. He thinks the old men with nothing to do will come over and pester his sons working in the business. Therefore the use of that pro- perty will create a nuisance in the neighborhood. He asked again why it December 2, 1985 Page 7 Y requires less land area when it is put downtown than the ordiance requires out in the country in R-4. The ordinance requires 176,000 square feet for that structure. Comm. Schmitt responded it is the same basis for approv- ing the Levee Drive highrise. Mr. Lebens doesn't think anyone is happy at Levee Drive either. The Comm. Develop. Dir. clarified that there is no density requirement in the B-3 zone. Doris Dunlap said she knows a lot of people who live at Levee Drive and they have learned the best way to cross the street and no one has been hurt and they are very happy there. Comm. Schmitt clarified that this application is for 44 units, and if the restaurant didn't go and they wanted to convert that area to housing, it would have to come back for an amendment. Chrm. Czaja asked if there were any other comments. Karen Lebens asked about emergency procedures in case of fire. Chrm. Czaja pointed out the review and approval of the fire chief, with condi- tions. Anthony Berens, 911 Lewis, asked about the size of the restaurant and the adequacy of the parking. He said when the St. Paul House existed they had a parking problem and most of the customers parked in his lot. He also asked if there would be a change in parking to parallel on Fuller. He asked if they would be issued a liquor license. He stated he is for the project, but he just has these questions. Mr. Smith responded they have employed Barton-Aschman to do a traffic and parking study, which he passed around to the Commissioners. This summar- izes the adequacy of the parking. They asked for the parking lot to accomo- date the restaurant. Schmitt/Stoltzman moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Stoltzman offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 439 for the construction of 44 units of multi-family housing for seniors, named Depot Place Apartments, and moved it be forwarded to City Council for reconsideration without comment on the part of the Planning Commission. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Stoltzman moved that the Planning Commission finds that a project of this nature is not in conflict with the Comp Plan. Motion carried unanimously. The Comm. Develop. Dir. informed the audience this issue will be taken up by City Council tomorrow night at 8:00 p.m. December 2, 1985 Page 8 OTHER BUSINESS Comm. Schmitt showed a newspaper ad for a retail business being conducted in a building recently rezoned to industrial. Schmitt/Lane moved to direct staff to begin an immediate investigation of the retail business being conducted in the Bankers Life building in an I-1 zone, in violation of the ordinance. He would recommend both the current renter and Bankers Life be notified. Motion carried unani- mously. Lane/Schmitt moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting ad- journed at 9:17 p.m. Jeanne Andre Community Development Director Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 5,1985 Chrm. Czaja called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. with Comm. Lane, VanMaldeghem and Schmitt present. Comm. Pomerenke, Rockne and Stoltz- man were absent. Also present were Judi Simac, City Planner and Cncl. Lebens. Lane/Schmitt moved to approve the agenda as printed. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Lane moved to approve the minutes of November 7, 1985 as kept. Motion carried with Comm. VanMaldeghem abstaining because of her ab- 4, Bence. . Comm. VanMaldeghem informed the Commissioners that she may have to leave early because of her lack of physical strength at this point. PUBLIC HEARING - VALLEYFAIR VARIANCE REQUEST . Lane/Schmitt moved to open the public hearing regarding the request by Valleyfair for a variance of 40 feet from front-yard setback re- quirements and building materials, to construct new grandstand-type seating for the Amphitheater. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner said she has received no submittals from the applicant. Walt Wittmer, Vice-President of Valleyfair, gave some background on the request and the concerns expressed at the last meeting. Bob Oswood, for Valleyfair, explained in detail the proposed sound system for the amphitheater, which will be directed more towards the audience, rather than just straight out from the stage as it is cur- rently. Also, with a back on the seats, that will prevent noise from going out to other areas. The low frequency system will be located underneath the stage. He said in the future they will not allow bands to use their own equipment; they will have to go through Valleyfair's sound system. They have added a compressor eliminator, which sets the maximum loudness the system will produce. He said they don't want the sound level higher for the audience than is safe, they don't want excess sound to carry to other parts of the park, and they don't want it to disturb other areas outside the park. Mr. Wittmer went over the landscape plan as shown on an architectural rendering. They will put in at least 7, and up to 12, evergreens at least 15 feet high, along with re-locating the 5 evergreens now there, placing them closer to the back of the bleachers. A berm will also be constructed behind the bleachers, to a height of 8 feet. The bleachers are called closed face bleachers, in the natural aluminum color, The berm will be just within the fence line. December 5, 1985 Page 2 Mr. Wittmer said there is a fence all along the property line, so there will not be any access underneath the bleachers. They also have security personnel during concerts. The fence will not extend over the property line. Chrm. Czaja asked if there was anvone in the audience who wished to address this item, and there was no response. Discussion followed regarding applying the noise ordinance at this lo- cation. The City Planner read the language from the ordinance, giving the limitation of 75-80 dba, which is based on the time of day, as heard from adjacent buildings of 50 feet distant from the site. Schmitt/Lane moved to close the public hearing. . Motion carried unani- mously. The City Planner suggested the two conditions recommended at the last meeting regarding the hold harmless agreement and submittal of land- scape plans, with no plantings in the right-of-way. She added she is comfortable with the landscape plan submitted tonight. Schmitt/Lane offered Variance Resolution No. 432, allowing a variance of 40 feet from the front yard setback requirements and building mat- erials for Valleyfair, and moved its adoption subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall record an agreement to hold the city harm- less from granting the variance, prior to issuance of a build- ing permit. 2. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan with the proposed planting schedule of evergreens, to screen the grandstand, to be approved by the City Planner prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicant shall plant the evergreens within the 10 foot setback and not in Mn/DOT right-of-way. 3. The applicant shall install a directional sound system which will satisfy the rules and regulations established by the Shakopee noise ordinance, to be measured at a distance of approximately 50 feet, or the highway right-of-way. 4. Natural screening to be maintained at a 12 foot minimum height. Motion carried unanimously. Comm. Schmitt requested the City Planner to inform applicants that if necessary information is not submitted prior to the mailing of the agenda package, testimony will be taken at the meeting, but no action will be moved on the request. The City Planner suggested adding this requirement to the formal policy adopted last year. She will bring back the entire policy for review and amendment at the next meeting. Lane/Schmitt moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting ad- journed at 8:00 p.m. Judi Simac City Planner Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary r PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 5,1985 Chrm. Czaja called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. with Comm. Lane, VanMaldeghem and Schmitt present. Comm. Stoltzman arrived later, and Comm. Rockne and Pomerenke were absent. Also present were Judi Simac, City Planner, John K. Anderson, City Admr. and Cncl. Lebens. Lane/VanMaldeghem moved to approve the agenda with additions of items c through e to the Informational Items. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Lane moved to approve the minutes of November 7, 1985. Motion carried with Comm. VanMaldeghem abstaining because of her absence. PUBLIC HEARING - CHERNE CONTRACTING CORP. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Schmitt/VanMaldeghem moved to open the public hearing regarding the re- quest by Cherne Contracting Corp. for a conditional use permit to con- struct a shop/warehouse and conduct outside storage of equipment. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner went over the background and considerations of this application. Staff recommendation is for approval with conditions. Dan Johnson, Vice-President of Cherne Contracting Corp. , said they are in agreement with the conditions as outlined by staff, with the possible exception of the required screening along the north property line. He said they are also very sensitive to the aesthetics of their proposal. Mr. Johnson said they have increased the size of the area required for holding ponds along CR89, leaving the area natural, which has created a very dense woods for screening. They will submit a berming plan with the required plantings on the south side. Mr. Johnson showed sketch plans of the building and explained the changes they have made to the building to give it more depth and interest, and to break up the length. The planned berming will also cover up some of the long wall. Mr. Johnson said they would be willing to bring the plantings around the northwest corner to screen the railroad building. The area they are objecting to is the plantings along the rest of the north boundary line. He said their property is 2-5 feet below the elevation of the railroad bed and across that is just the back yards of other industries, which are not screened and are not offensive to them. The plantings as proposed by staff in this location would greatly cut back on their storage space for van trailers and other equipment. Because of the NSP easement there is a large area that can only be used for storage. ✓. c...I.YL'� _ .amu....i._b �.J.u...a.JJi.... December 5, 1985 Page 2 The City Planner explained that this lot is a little less than 20 acres, but it was platted before the current ordinance was in effect. Discussion continued regarding the water and septic system. Mr. Johnson said he would like to put in City water, but it is an economic factor that has to be looked at. He said the drainfield area is 5 times what is required. He pointed out the low areas, but said there are no actual wetlands on the property. The City Planner said if the applicant is willing to come around the northwest corner with his plantings, across from the railroad building, that would be satisfactory as long as it was supported with additional landscape submittals. Mr. Johnson identified the items to be stored outside as being van trailers, rough terrain cranes, pettibones, crawler cranes, job site mobile home trailers and some equipment such as scaffolding. He said the cranes are not assemembled in the yard. He said there might be some garage solvents for normal garage maintenance and possibly a 50 gallon drum of oil. Chrm. Czaja asked if there were any other comments, and there were none. VanMaldeghem/Lane moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Lane offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 440, allow- ing the construction of a shop-warehouse with outside storage, and moved its adoption subject to the following conditions: 1. Equipment in the storage area shall not exceed the 45 foot height limitation of the I-1 district, without Planning Com- mission approval. 2. The applicant shall submit an 82 x 11 inch building plan which indicates the electric and gas shut off, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 3. A fire lane must be constructed around the entire building in accordance with the fire code. 4. The Building Official must approve the type and location of the underground fuel tanks. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape plan must be submitted for approval. The plan shall indicate: a. Screening of outdoor refuse area; b. One major deciduous tree planted every fifty feet along CR89; c. Additional screening of fenced storage area northwest of the building. 6. Exterior storage be limited to that equipment and normal materials associated with this business conducted by the appli- cant. Motion carried unanimously. Shakopee Planning Commission December 5, 1985 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING - KAASA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT VanMaldeghem/Lane moved to open the public hearing regarding the request by Gregory Kaasa for a conditional use permit to construct a horse boarding and training facility. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner passed out pictures and plans of the structure and indoor layout, along with awards won by the applicant. She went over the background and considerations of this request. Staff recommenda- tion is for approval with conditions. Greg Kaasa, currently living at 3104 Humboldt Avenue South, said he will be moving to this property. He said they will be building this struc- ture to house 50 horses, because he feels this will be a cost savings in the future if the ordinance is changed to allow that many horses on the property. He plans to plant evergreens to screen the parking and dumpster areas. Comm. Stoltzman arrived and took his seat at 8:40 p.m. Mr. Kaasa pointed out these horses are show horses, not racing horses. He also said they have changed the plans and will be constructing an all-steel structure, which will decrease the height to probably 20-25 feet. Chrm. Czaja asked if there were any comments from the audience, and there were none. Lane/VanMaldeghem moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried with Stoltzman abstaining because of arriving late. Lane/Schmitt offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 441, allow- ing the construction of a horse boarding and training facility, and moved its adoption subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must obtain a Building Permit to construct the stable and riding arena. 2. The applicant shall keep no more than 35 horses. 3. A copy of the Minnesota Pollution Control Feedlot Permit must be submitted prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 4. The applicant must identify and detail the plant material which will be used to screen the parking, trailer storage and dumpster from the right-of-way. 5. A fire lane will be provided around the structure and posted "No Parking". An 82" x 11" site plan and final building plan showing electric and gas shut off shall be submitted prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 6. Applicant must obtain a driveway entrance permit from the County Engineer. Motion carried with Comm. Stoltzman abstaining. Chrm. Czaja informed the applicant of the 7 day appeal period. December 5, 1.985 Page 4 DISCUSSION - PRAIRIE HOUSE 1ST ADDITION FINAL PLAT The City Planner informed the Commissioners of the City Council's actions regarding condemnation proceedings for an access to Vallevfair Drive for this development. She also added the recommendation by the City Engineer that Outlot B also be dedicated as right-of-way, in the event it is needed for the access. Comm. Schmitt expressed his belief that Outlot B should be included in the condemnation proceedings because that is what is rendering that area unbuildable. He thinks Outlot A and B should be one piece. Comm. Lane thinks the condemnation proceedings will include that unusable remnant of land as a natural consequence. The City Planner clarified that this land is not subject to condemnation--only the Valleyfair property that abuts it. Tom Lyons, for the developer, said this was drawn up in response to the City Engineer's request. It doesn't matter to them if it is one or two lots. The City Admr. suggested a separate motion to City Council if the Planning Commission wants to see one outlot. Chrm. Czaja asked if there were any comments from the audience and there were none. Lane/Stoltzman moved to recommend to City Council final plat approval of Prairie House lst Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney. 2. The City Engineer must receive and approve final plans and specifications for all public facilities including, but not limited to, roads, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and grading. 3. The developer shall provide a recordable agreement which guar- antees the looping of the water system when Outlot A is re- platted. 4. The developer shall provide a recordable agreement which des- cribes the shared maintenance, by the lot owners, of the private lift station. 5. The developer shall provide a recordable easement which allows for the continuation of the Minnesota River Valley Trail through the property. 6. The developer shall obtain the necessary permits from the Minnesota Dept. of Transportation. 7. Execution of a Developer's Agreement for the construction of the required improvements: A. Water- installation of a water system in accordance with the requirements of the SPUC Manager. _ B. Sanitary Sewer and Storm Water System - to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. C. Outlot - Outlot A must be replatted prior to any further development. The City Engineer is requested to inform City Council as to why a separate legal identity is required for Outlots A and B. D. Park Dedication - in lieu of land dedication, cash payment should be made to the park fund at the time building per- mits are issued. v1u 1V� CJC i lGLl:..+-.ice lJV1:i1.11��1V:- December 5, 1985 Page 5 1 E. Streets and Street Signs - to be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. Motion carried with Comm. VanMaldeghem abstaining. DISCUSSION - PROPOSED FORKLIFT REPAIR AND SALES IN B-1 DISTRICT The City Planner said she initially felt confused about this request and was looking for direction. However, she is now of the feeling that the majority of the business is sales and service, with the exterior storage being under a conditional use. She originally was wondering if it was more industrially-oriented. Don Reed, 1833 10th Avenue East, said he wants to find out if his busi- ness would be allowed at Naumkeag and Bluff before he purchases the property. He said the outside storage would be very minimal. The City Planner said Bluff Avenue at this location is unimproved, but even if it is improved, it wouldn't affect this property size. Comm. Schmitt suggested screening for the exterior storage because of the adjacent residential with a conditional use permit. The City Planner said she has worked with two other parties trying to fit a building onto that parcel, but because of it being a corner lot, and the front yard setbacks required, it is difficult. She suggested trying to situate a building on the lot meeting the setbacks before he purchases the property. Schmitt/VanMaldeghem moved to accept the staff interpretation of this business as retail, with a conditional use permit being required for the exterior storage. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION - LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE The City Planner said that Comm. Pomerenke has submitted to her a pro- posed landscape plan check-list and examples of landscape ordinances from some other communities, in an effort to require more detailed submittals from developers. The City Admr. has suggested getting con- cerns from the ICC before drafting a more restrictive landscape ordi- nance, especially since the present one isn't more than a year old. Comm. Schmitt commented the check-list just requires further documenta- tion by a developer, rather than increased landscaping requirements. The City Planner said the current language is rather vague, and she thinks it would be helpful to have something like this that would be easier to administer. Comm. Pomerenke has volunteered to participate in some type of landscape requirement review. She suggests drawing up something that involves more documentation but doesn't increase the landscape requirements. She also suggested having Comm. Pomerenke ap- pear at the ICC meeting to present this. Comm. Stoltzman suggested some type of requirement about maintaining the plantings. The City Admr. thought if the landscape plantings and maintenance were part of the conditional use permit, then not maintain- ing them would be a violation of the permit and would affect renewal. A one-year warranty could also be explored. Stiaxopee Planninb Commission December 5, 1985 Page 6 Schmitt/Lane moved to direct staff to draw up a draft ordinance requiring more detailing and submittal information to meet the land- scape requirements of the ordinance and seek ICC comments. *lotion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Lane moved for a five minute recess at 9:25 p.m. Motion carried unanimousiv. Comm. VanMaldeghem left the meeting. Chrm. Czaja called the meeting back to order at 9: 35 p.m. INFORMATIONAL - HOHENSTEIN REVIEW Lane/Schmitt moved to approve the annual staff review of Conditional Use Permit No. 384, to allow the construction of stables and a riding arena to raise and breed horses. Motion carried unanimously. BUCHOLZ/VOGEL REVIEW Schmitt/Lane moved to approve the annual staff review of Conditional Use Permit No. 383, to keep horses on the property. Motion carried unanimously. SUPERAMERICA ACCESS The City Planner presented the memo from the City Engineer regarding the request for an egress route from Bluff Avenue, in which he states it would take a lot of fill to improve Bluff at this location, and the right turn lane would be very costly. The City Planner informed Commissioners of the City Council's actions to request research into the improvement of Bluff Avenue as a part of a possible tax increment district incorporating the Shakopee Valley Motel development. The City Engineer will look at costs and construc- tion feasibility for Bluff Avenue. Comm. Schmitt explained his intention was not to construct Bluff Avenue to the back of SuperAmerica, but merely to encourage the developer to do whatever grading is necessary to to provide a usable surface for the trucks to get to the signalized intersection. He wants the developer to encourage trucks to use that intersection. RECONSIDERATION OF HOUSING ALLIANCE PROPOSAL The City Planner explained this item is back on the agenda because the code requires the Planning Commission to make a recommendation within 60 days of a request. She said there is no language requiring a public hearing upon appeal, but it has been standard practice to re-advertise for another public hearing to the City Council and send out notices to the affected property owners. The City Council did establish December 18, 1985 as a appeal public hearing. To follow the rules, action should be taken by the Planning Commission. The public hearing is closed and no more public testimony needs to be heard. Shakopee Planning Commission December 5, 1985 Page 7 tq Comm. Schmitt said it appeared from the public- hearing that the use of the property is not the issue, and the key issue is taxes and protection of the surrounding property from the impact of the sale of the land. He refers to the first criteria for the granting of a conditional use permit in which the use should not substantially diminish or impair property values. He thinks consideration should be given to the build- ings with commercial and residential uses in them. If the tax issue can be resolved to the property owners' satisfaction, he would have no problem with the project. The City Admr. reported on the City Council's actions of requesting further information regarding a negotiated sale vs. a full condemnation sale and information from the state as to what constitutes an "arms length" sale. He passed out a letter received from the State of Minne- sota Property Equalization Division, which states that'a sale that is not an "arms length" sale would not be considered in the sales ratio study. He said he talked to 3 people in this department, and they all gave him this same answer. This letter also states that sales to governmental units would not be considered in the sales- ratio study, and it would not make a difference if the sale was the result of con- demnation or under the threat of condemnation. The City Admr. said he explained at length that the property was for a redevelopment pro- ject for re-sale. The City Admr. said one of the criteria for rejecting sales would be if it is out-of-line, so that would be an additional factor for not considering this sale. Discussion continued. The City Admr. said the City will also be signing a binding contract with the developer in which the developer will agree to the assessed value. Chrm. Czaja said it is his understanding that dealing with money issues is outside the criteria for granting conditional use permits, either taxes or property valuations. He would like a legal opinion about whether or not the Planning Commission should even be considering this type of issue. Cncl. Lebens stated her husband, Mel, feels that assurances from the State are not enough, and to really rule out consideration of this sale, you have to go to the Legislature. The City Admr. said staff could be directed to formally go to the State and request this sale be rejected from sales ratio consideration. Larry Smith of the Housing Alliance stated it is his belief that all the work with the Downtown Committee is to bring in business and increase the value of the downtown and increase the tax base of the City. In- creased value will increase buying and borrowing powers also. If this is rejected you will be sending a message to developers that you don't want anything downtown that will increase values. Mr. Smith continued that this area is designated for multi-family hous- ing, and the existing homes in that district are non-conforming uses and the only way they exist is by grandfather rights. No one could Sh-lKopee Planrino Com::ission December 5,1985 Page 8 build a new single family home in that district. According to the Comp Plan this is a conforming use and an established need. He thinks the chances of taxes going up because of this building are slim to nil. Comm. Stoltzman said the Downtown Committee has spent nears looking for just this very type of development. Comm. Schmitt expressed his problems with the City Council motion setting the upper limits of the price to be paid for the land. The City Admr. said that condemnation proceedings have been started, but it is still possible to negotiate a price before condemnation is completed. He suggested the Planning Commission can act on the plan- ning issues and make a separate motion, if it desires, regarding its feelings about condemnation vs. a negotiated price. Cncl. Lebens explained that the project is going forward and the bonds are being written. However, the bids will not be opened until an answer is received regarding the property values. The City Council still has the authority to not open the bids or not close the issue. They can also go to Court and get an injunction to stop theseproceed- ings. They plan to make an appearance on the 18th, and if everything is satisfactory, the project will go ahead. She added if the $85,000 value had remained, they wouldn't have argued at all. The City Planner explained the public hearing on the 18th can't be legally set until the Planning Commission has taken action and there is something to appeal. Lane/Stoltzman moved that since they don't believe taxes are an issue to be dealt with by the Planning Commission, moved to offer Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 439, for the construction of 44 units of multi-family housing for seniors in a B-3 zone, subject to the follow- ing conditions, and moved its adoption: 1. Vacation of the portion of the alley which lies beneath the structure, prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. If required, relocation of any utility easements located in the existing alley. 3. Approval of the Building plans by the Building Official and the Fire Chief. 4. Any changes to landscape or site plan to be submitted for review by the Planning Commission. Motion carried with Comm. Schmitt opposed. Schmitt/Lane moved to request that City Council take steps to indemnify adjoining property owners within Block 32 from the tax impact of the sale of Lots 1 through 5 only, within Block 32. Motion carried unani- mously. Lane/Stoltzman moved to direct staff to seek a legal opinion on whether or not financial impacts can be considered in granting a conditional use permit. Motion carried unanimously. December 5, 1985 Page 9 MEETING CHANGE Consensus was to change the February meeting to February 13, 1985 be- cause of the vacation of the City Planner. OTHER BUSINESS Comm. Lane requested an opinion from legal staff regarding the ability to restrict testimony of the public at a public hearing in order to expedite meetings. Comm. Stoltzman said the Ass't City Attorney wrote a letter detailing how testimony could be restricted, which was read at the public hearing for the application of a gravel pit. The City Planner reported that apparently a sale was in progress at the Banker's Life building, and it was stopped as of yesterday. The City Planner informed the Commissioners that the Recording Secretary has submitted her resignation, and this is her last meeting with the Planning Commission. Schmitt/Lane moved to direct staff to prepare a letter of commendation to the Recording Secretary, specifically addressing her patience in dealing with the long and tedius meetings, for the Chairman's signature. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Lane moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting ad- journed at 10:44 p.m. Judi Simac City Planner Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary December 5, 1985 Page 9 MEETING CHANGE Consensus was to change the February meeting to February 13, 1985 be- cLuse of the vacation of the City Planner. OTHER BUSINESS Comm. Lane requested an opinion from legal staff regarding the ability to restrict testimony of the public at a public hearing in order to expedite meetings. Comm. Stoltzman said the Ass't City Attorney wrote a letter detailing how testimony could be restricted, which was read at the public hearing for the application of a gravel pit. The City Planner reported that apparently a sale was in progress at the Banker's Life building, and it was stopped as of yesterday. The City Planner informed the Commissioners that the Recording Secretary has submitted her resignation, and this is her last meeting with the Planning Commission. Schmitt/Lane moved to direct staff to prepare a letter of commendation to the Recording Secretary, specifically addressing her patience in dealing with the long and tedius meetings, for the Chairman's signature. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Lane moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting ad- journed at 10:44 p.m. Judi Simac City Planner Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary The House Transportation Committee came to Shakopee several weeks ago and held a hearing at the Courthouse on the 169 Bridge Junction and Southerly By-Pass . They seemed to be favorably impressed and as a result the Senate Transportation Committee will be at the KC Hall on December 9th at 7 : 30 for a similar meeting. A large delegation is encouraged to attend. The ICC has been working toward having Shakopee designated as Star City. The purpose is to organize and gear up on economic development. The Committee will be working with the State to develop a one year and a five year program for economic development. Dan Steil left at 8 : 30 a.m. Exhibit A of a memo dated Sept. 20 , 1985 , a map of the proposed Downtown Streetscape Assessment District, was studied and discussed. The District outlined on this exhibit includes all parcels bounded by Atwood on the West, Third Avenue on the South, Sommerville on the East and Levee Drive on the North, plus parcels on the West side of Atwood and the East side of Sommerville that have front footage on those streets. Variations in the boundary lines were discussed. Steve Clay moved for the purpose of establishing financial and statistical information necessory for streetscape assessment policy, that we adopt the boundaries on Exhibit A and revise it to move the North boundary South one-half block and the Eastern boundary to Spencer as far North as the alleys on Block 26 . Motion died for lack of a second. Chrm. Laurent requested that staff draw up a map using Fuller Street as the East boundary and also indicating where businesses and residences are located on the fringe of the proposed district especially along Atwood. Jim Stillman/Don Martin moved to adjourn at 9 : 15 a.m. Motion carried. Darleen Schesso Recording Secretary l � PROCEEDINGS OF THE DOWNTOWN AD HOC COMMITTEE Shakopee, Minnesota . December 4 , 1985 Chrm. Laurent called the meeting to order at 7: 40 a.m. with the following voting members present: Steve Clay, Terry Forbord, Gary Laurent, Don Martin, Dan Steil, Jim Stillman, Joe Topic, Bill Wermerskirchen, Pete Sames, Tim Keane and Liaison Jerry Wampach. Absent: Mike Sortum. Also present Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director. John Anderson, City Administrator, Timm Nelson, Intern and Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer arrived later. Tim Keane/Dan Steil moved to accept the agenda as presented. Motion carried. Jim Stillman/Tim Keane moved to approve the minutes of the November 13 , 1985 meeting. Motion carried. Jeanne Andre reported on the progress of the Housing Alliance project. She indicated that Delores Lebens feels they weren' t properly heard at the Planning Commission meeting on December 2nd regarding the Housing Alliance project. It is a complicated issue involving rezoning and a conditional use permit. Council has decided to hold a special meeting December 18th on the con- ditional use permit; meanwhile they are proceeding with a number of other phases of the project. If the conditional use permit does not go through it will be stopped at that time. If it does go through they will be ready to go on. Attorneys are drafting an agreement between the City and the developer. There are differing opinions if condemnation procedings are necessary, nevertheless Council has directed staff to draw up a resolution of condemnation. They want to be in a position to sell bonds before January lst because of changing tax laws. A tentative meeting has been set up for Dec. 23rd at 6 : 30 a.m. to open bids for bond sale. The Housing Alliance will pay for their own streetscape and storm sewer. John Anderson explained how the city might recoup some of what they put into the project when it is sold. Chrm. Laurent thanked Steve Clay and Dan Steil for attending recent meetings regarding this issue. The Community Development Director reported that an application for a Small Cities Grant is due at the end of January. A public hearing will be required in January on this project and staff is gearing up toward that. A card survey was sent out with the utility bills in connection with this grant and downtown bridge street improvements received the greatest response followed by downtown redevelopment. Several groups are interested in fixing up the Merchants Hotel either as office space or housing. The Community Development Director asked everyone to be aware of any businesses who might want to make use of the loan program to expand. 1� PROCEEDINGS OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE Shakopee, Minnesota December 11, 1985 Chrm. Laurent called the meeting to order at 7 : 40 a.m. with the following voting members present: Steve Clay, Terry Forbord, Gary Laurent, Don Martin, Dan Stiel, Jim Stillman, Joe Topic, Bill Wermerskirchen, and Pete Sames. Absent: Mike Sortum, Tim Keane and Council Liaison, Jerry Wampach. Also present: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer and Beth Moe, Valley News. John Anderson, City Administrator arrived later. Steve Clay/Terry Forbord moved to accept the agenda as mailed. Motion carried. Terry Forbord/Steve Clay moved to approve the minutes of the Nov. 27 , 1985 meeting as kept. Motion carried. The Committee reviewed a recommendation from Barton-Aschman that a task force be created to evaluate the twelve alternatives for T.H. 169/101 bridge junction improvements. The Engineers recommend that by process of evaluation the task force eliminate those that are not acceptable. It was agreed that the Downtown Committee recommend to the Council that the seven member task force consist of: Mayor, Council - Jerry Wampach Downtown Committee - Terry Forbord City Engineer - Ken Ashfeld Community Development Director - Jeanne Andre Scott Co. Engineer - Brad Larson Mn/DOT - Carl Hoffstead Met Council - No recommended appointee Several of the members expressed concern that the Downtown Committee would not have enough involvement in the decisions of the task force. John Anderson arrived at 8 : 00 a.m. The Committee was assured that by the structure of the Committee their best interests would be considered and it would be unfair not to expect Mn/DOT to have some input when they are spending possibly $8 million on this project. Both parties have goals that could be met, now the best compromise proposal must be picked. Barton-Aschman are working for the city so they would want the best alternative chosen. The task force would meet twice in the early stages and then the Engineer would get the data in. After this the task force would have additional meetings. The Downtown Committee could still call in Westwood for advice or second opinions. Jim Stillman/Pete Sames moved that we follow recommendations for the seven member committee as listed. Nay Steve Clay. Motion carried. Terry Forbord/Bill Wermerskirchen moved that Jerry Wampach be selected to sit on the Evaluation Committee. Motion carried. Jim Stillman/Bill Wermerskirchen moved to recommend Carl Hoffstead from Mn/DOT for the Evaluation Committee. Motion carried. Steve Clay/Jim Stillman moved to recommend Terry Forbord as a representative of the Downtown Committee for the Evaluation Committee. Motion carried. Further discussion was held on the twelve alternatives submitted by Barton-Aschman. Bill Wermerskirchen/Terry Forbord moved that we consider one more alternative, alternative 13 , by including condemnation plans between Fuller & Holmes and between Lewis & Sommerville with two bridges. (This option would remove buildings on South half of blocks 4 and 5 , create parking lot in vacated First Avenue and build new highway where buildings are currently located) . Motion carried. Jim Stillman/Bill Wermerskirchen moved to add alternative 14 , that plan #7 be amended so there is no through traffic on Lewis Street. Motion carried. Bill Wermerskirchen left at 8 : 50 a.m. Don Martin/Terry Forbord moved to add alternative #15 , as suggested by City Administrator, and amend alternative #10 by increasing the radius using park land and saving both parking lots. Motion carried. The Committee discussed objectives and weighting criteria to be used by the task force. Jim Stillman/Joe Topic moved we accept the recommendation of staff on the weighting and list of criteria. Chrm. Laurent abstained. Motion carried. Steve Clay/Joe Topic recommended a time frame of three months for the task force to complete the project. Motion carried. The next meeting will be held December 18th at 8 a.m. to discuss downtown streetscape policy. Joe Topic/Steve Clay moved to adjourn at 9 : 15 a.m. Motion carried. Darlene Schesso Recording Secretary PROCEEDINGS OF THE DOWNTOWN AD HOC COMMITTEE Shakopee, Minnesota December 18 , 1985 Acting Chrm. Steve Clay called the meeting to order at 7 : 35 a.m. with the following voting members present: Steve Clay, Terry Forbord, Mike Sortum, Dan Steil, Jim Stillman, Joe Topic , Don Martin and Pete Sames. Also present: Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director, John Anderson, City Administrator, Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer and Timm Nelson, Intern. Terry Forbord/Bill Wermerskirchen moved to accept the agenda of Dec. 18 , 1985 as presented. Motion carried. Discussion was held on what parcels should constitute the initial downtown streetscape assessment district which would serve as the basis for subsequent calculations. It was the consensus that the district should include all parcels bounded by Atwood (both sides of street) on the West, the North side of 3rd Ave. on the South, Sommerville on the East including the Northeast corner of Spencer on the East and the alley alignment between First Avenue and Levee Drive on the North. In addition it includes parcels on the West side of Atwood and East side of Sommerville that have front footage on those streets. Jim Stillman/Dan Steil moved that the above boundaries be established as the assessment district. Motion carried. The next step to be considered was how to assess each parcel by square footage or by the shortest front footage. The Community Development Director recommended: 1) emphasizing front footage ( 700 ) in the formula, 2 ) taking the average distance along the street to determine front footage; and 3 ) where there is more than one parcel next to each other owned by one business entity to treat it as one parcel. Charts of sample assessments were studied to try to determine the fairest solution using 50/500 and 70/30% formula front footage combinations. The Committee also had to consider whether or not to assess non-profit entities such as parking lots, churches , schools and residences. Timm Nelson presented a print out as to what assessments would be if residences were removed from data basis. Bill Wermerskirchen left at 8 : 30 a.m. Terry Forbord/Jim Stillman moved to affirm that the assessment policy should use the shortest distance along a street as the front footage, that each parcel should receive a separate assessment, and that city use and other parcels owned by non-profit entities will be considered as commercial for assessment purpose. (Consistent with other city assessment practices. ) Motion carried. Jim Stillman moved to use a 40/60 formula. Motion died. Terry Forbord/Tim Keane moved to request staff to bring back some comparisons, using Beren' s parcels for example, showing various formulas beginning with 40/60 front foot/square foot formula and changing formula in 5% increments up to 60/40 . Motion carried. Jim Stillman/Joe Topic moved to adjourn at 9 : 05 a.m. Motion carried. The next meeting will be held Jan. 8th at 7 : 30 a.m. Darleen Schesso Recording Secretary TENTATIVE AGENDA Board of Adjustment and Appeals Regular Session Shakopee, Minnesota January 9 , 1986 Chairman Czaja Presiding: 1. Roll Call at 7 : 30 P.M. 2 . Approval of Agenda 3 . Approval of December 5 , 1985 Minutes 4 . Other Business 5. Adjournment Judi Simac City Planner CITY OF SHAKOPEE TENTATIVE AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Session Shakopee, Minnesota January 9 , 1986 Chairman Czaja Presiding: 1. Roll Call at 7 : 30 P.M. 2 . Approval of Agenda 3 . Approval of December 2, 1985 and December 5 , 1985 Minutes 4 . 7: 30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider the amending of Shakopee City Code, Chapter 11 entitled "Land Use Regulation ( Zoning) " , Section 11. 32 , Subd. 3 J. Action: Recommendation to City Council 5 . 7 : 45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: An application for Preliminary and Final Plat of L.P.V. First Addition and a conditional use permit to construct a recreational vehicle park and campground upon the property located on the S 1/2 , NE 1/4, Sec. 12, 115 N, Range 22 . (NE corner of the intersection of County Road 89 and 13th Avenue) . Applicant: Mr. Jack Van Remortel Action: Recommendation to City Council and Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 442 6 . 8 : 15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Plat approval of Gardenvilla 1st Addition, a replat of Lot 7 , Nehl ' s Addition and abandoned railroad property. There are six apartment buildings now existing on the property. Applicant: Lavista Land Development Inc. Action: Recommendation to City Council 7. Discussion: Final Plat Shakopee Valley Square Action: Recommendation to City Council 8. Discussion: Final Plat Notermann' s 2nd Addition Action: Recommendation to City Council 9 . Discussion: Hentges ist Addition Action: Recommendation to City Council 10. Discussion: Concept Plan of Eagle Bluff P.U.D. 11. Discussion: J.L. Shiely Mining Permit Review 12 . Discussion: Amendment to Planning Commission Rules & Regu- lations 13 . Informaticnal: a. Fischer C.U.P. - annual staff review b. Barlow C.U.P. - annual staff review c. 14 . Other Business 15 . Adjournment Judi Simac City Planner CITY OF SHAKOPEE 17 TENTATIVE AGENDA Downtown Ad Hoc Committee City Hall Council Chambers January 8 , 1986 7 : 30 A.M. Chrmn. Laurent presiding 1. Call to order at 7 : 30 a.m. 2 . Approval of Agenda 3 . Approval of the Minutes of December 4th, 11th and 18th, 1985 4 . Downtown Streetscape Asessment Policy (bring September 20 , 1985 memo) 5 . Streetscape Planning Summary - Tim Erkkila, Westwood Planning & Eng. (bring draft Westwood report distributed with Dec. 18 , 1985 agenda) 6 . Other Business 7 . Adjourn at 9 : 00 a.m. to January 29 , 1986 at 7 : 30 a.m. Jeanne Andre Community Development Director IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING PLEASE CALL JEANNE OR TONI TO LET THEM KNOW MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Intern RE: 1986-1987 Refuse Contract Update ( Informational) DATE: January 2 , 1986 Introduction and Background On December 3 , 1985 the Shakopee City Council authorized the appropriate City officials to execute a contract with Waste Management - Savage for garbage collection services for 1986 and 1987 . Two modifications to the 1984-85 contract language were proposed and accepted by the City of Shakopee for inclusion in the 1986-1987 refuse contract. The first change involved recylcing and the appropriate level of insurance coverage to be carried by the civic organizations affected by the contractors proposal. The contractor has requested that liability insurance amounts be carried in a form satisfactory to both the City and the contractor rather than just the City as originally proposed. The second modification requested by the contractor refers to a landfill rate increase protection clause. The 1984-1985 refuse agreement contains such a clause and the contractor once again has requested its inclusion in the 1986-1987 agreement. The clause reads as follows: Should landfill tipping rates be increased by more than 25% from their current $3 . 00 per cubic yard, the parties agree to reopen the contract at any six month interval from the effective date of the contract. Landfill rates are not expected to increase in 1986 . However, in 1987 a tipping fee increase appears likely. The landfill rate increase protection clause assures the contractor that they will not be subject to unforeseeable increases that they have no control over. The final signing of the 1986-1987 contract is expected to occur prior to the expiration of our existing contract (January 15 , 1986 ) . If you have a problem with these two changes please contact me. BAS/jms rl a Memo To: Mayor & City Council Members From: Marilyn M. Remer, Sr. Acct'g. Clerk Re: Employee's Status on 1986 Pay Plans (Informational) Date: January 3, 1986 Attached are the 1986 Technician & Clerical Pay Plan and the 1986 Department Head/Staff Pay Plan with each employee' s status circled as was requested. Two employees are contracted employees and as such are not on either of the pay plans. Barry Stock, Adm. Intern is currently @ $6.31/hr. and LeRoy Houser, Inspector @ $11.313/hr. which is 4.5% over the 1985 rates. �2 Z:� co - 1 m c a o v n n ny n T —� - c a o 1 rD Q, O R r .-. G r r➢ rer .n.. O nR, v O � rr I a cu rdD w CL 1=2 rD , V rr n-rt Q rD R ro .-r R - R Q CT 1 w w 17 2 :T ..< 'D fD m O .- -< I In � LU W :<. , n rD -� T.7 Q R In 3 n' ... •,• 1 R _ 171 R a In 'o ain �• n rD m n n I J Ce. Bf D `< a ,]' IM a C m .P.. � rD r n t In L I X O ro n O In n .r n, O �r -s < rn o Y to ,�• � �S i an, c •'• •w"" •�•� , M ID r0 .-. T R R .3t 7 S T. '� Z N N i% 1 '+ •OT'D S `•wG n N '0 In In ran �' rD O IM fD o fD T ;+ fD In tP i p ru S u1 o fD "' rD rD O O -' • C Ln .+ ,- m w 7 O w C n C. -S 7C' CT c Q R In a P S d ." R _O c,'J 1 7 `< CL rD 1 N In oPr r ren n c c c enr n r. w rl? r��D I R C ID n .'S. d w t7 w < o w C) O ue 1� I w rD � T T rn rD �.+ ' R C O G T"G T ...5 ..�. �. T R w o w o _ R m w R In in 'fl n 9 z faD T � � fy9 1 S '0 d "5 O In In CL '-C d w O rD w i r rr fD r'l ro -G -< CL I w rD I R N In ou R 3 O f0 In In ..FLn R C R (D 3 ro G'] �• .fir R I M I'D ,� j ewt rD G d C n w 0, 3 c O O R� 1 Z5 .- O R _ ti. .t no In rl tr Ln Ct J 9 Z rD m o r •-+ N T r w o 0 cn C 1 1077 7 W O 1 .-+ n mO w In I ,) :=1 in T 9 o 3 rO7 •"' O .n. I IT rD O O -< (DO v. n S O ..- Ioil a rt t O O In f�9 m tD y 3 Cly �' T Acu J Io rD < r 'D j In T R w 'O Wo N m w In rD ,0.r R a a I--• O rD n I Cly m .-- G ro r:y R In �'• ® 1-3 .10 O N N n3 w w N rU W m rD �• w rD c rn rn G7 rD �' �. .< d ru +J m c9 w �J1 u] r m I X Z 'o n ,< In In Lrl ... w r G T in .. .. .. .. .. �.] 6 U1 I c 3 .+ P F R = ID m � Ln O v m .n r m 1 R D+ R O N 9 w I-• m CJI IT O ID ro O f O ,j n Q l•L ID �+. Z R S a .- 'D a w �. - C a uI C - I 4 a 3 s O •o ro Ia T ro In -5 ,.. T 3 CL Q R w = C y. ro I C, R m r^ ISD In a < n _ T .< ,�.. rD R O N N fI? �,1 W N � w N I Cn 'S w r'n C1 a n W W r �, Ln -1 1 m 3 fD rD •-. R ricr ,n ., .-- rD a In m rD .. _ .. .. .. I x n r� CL VI .+ 0 = d r -1 -,, Ln r ® r Cn I to U7 o - n I� 1n „o. .-' .+ c v w r > w m �, -J -J 1 N c � -0 '�-' in 17 1 .�_. T. n Zo r m m f`7, m � uJ 1 In rD R O .+ O �+ rD D t .+ In w -- f° ? Cl. m o 1 - � l< U� rD C Gy 1 Cr'1 rD = R I D a "s C 'S rU M w w w N w w fu I v r R n e r S ID .� er t] to C 7 r u y N Ln m N m 9 i V] N ID T tD rD rD r m .J -1 ti .io Z `< � In Iv < IM Cn d ID =2e m m N u7 CP W 9 v -J 1 UI W w ID ry [1 = •. m S G R ro n .r'' a, m N N W7 UI m N •-' -5 O, Z ... p cr D v w w 1 N a' y -S rD 1n rD ,n r o In �< O'� 1 .� u7 Q � �. 0 Y •T) - n In• r = rD R D w R �• -0 6, w r� R n a a r+k rU C.., w LW w N W W l'V I CO w In rn a m` Ln rt, w w m W7 X y vo O '� rD as uI '3• n• ro ^ ro rD w © �+ N IT N m I '} -+ N ID eT w I^ CL C T In W 5 lY W r 6 w r, m 1 Ul .F cT n r = = T m R p R W W m v m w V N F N p a rD Ia O Ia rD -'s w O n rD In ID „nT _ O In n) r i w cn 1n 0 �' f9 In m m r„1 w w r.J w w w r, R CY C7 'O 1n R R r+• = _m rl, C., Ln _m _9_r u]_9 i [v ro O rn ,,._. rn O O N w (i? N nS Lr, ru m m ,-0in Ln I T _ ... r In S w .+ C-n W -1 CD n v m rJ Lll 1 to CJI 'fl Iv Y O ti r�D' Iv Y O u7 -J y N v M �1 N in In 1 :� O OIM 0 n Di in rD I ; a R c <+ R CJm r'Z I7; i m ru M D,O I Z n• O = u � .. 1 :i Y "O c� MC, .-• jN r Ln m W r;, s 5 I , L x -~+•i ct _ C. G a 0 m r r R, CT r w +, r 1 in m _ O Y O r O �L Ln -J Cn /- WO P N .In Ln d ID C1 'M .R. d I- 'U I U3 rr w T f� ID :�-r w X N W f-n w r W/Wl r W I uy m '0 - n 3 w D fy r n •� rV I� r'-? W v rD to 1-3 r o ... O W1 .-. 1+ m w T m UJ N rV D C1 ICI _T •^ .- x m u` ID _ - 1 m 3 �� ti n = y z a i .1 n r 9 '� T _ N W f_.Jr w fir W 1 u? a O w T] .- x rD u? r 0 v R O M _ C'I C11 �, N UI r r..n � rD Q N rJl -.1 W I In P n S s w m U u] r'Q r rL �� R ID 0 rD 9Ln J fD .. rfl w '? 1 f1] r0 n �� f,) W r-i �� W CJ .0 W 1 -1 � In •-•. , fD t11 ul T X�3 ± ._+'Zr1•+w _T u? y n CJI I -J N rD j R O K < D ID - 2 w �' T n JJ m � N LJ Ln -, N W I r J Jn Wl ,.' ... ui rn rD ,., m R _lu V F •mi u 1-_ In 6"i w --j 1 O LO R .T 3 1 71 co rD -" U1 111 < ID � ID It] 1 m I v `� roD a n in -'V Y 1 -• Q In -Oq rD CL 7 rD w 9 -, •-• CJI Iy Is r ro - 1 ry <0 4G 0 m= ,r ^ •� Ln W j C3 m ...- I L ^rC 'T ID rr w Y y IP rD _ j - a O 3 n ul W b Ri b C•, r „ W Wl ID L' T IT S c-r inTV ID 11I R IO z 4, ti .D n •Dcr tin A ro o l G GJ f+? r Tt 1 t r C•J C•t Ln ni • i i CD Qt LG W I ti Cr Cf m (s Cn L� C•J 1 [ . . I co I m Din (D m Lr) n :3 r � < mm i nCn i Lo (n Lo C7 Ln M f!J D y y R (D (D (D y f N (D fD Cl : + (D r _5 N M n :5 et r '_5 = n y N D n T h 1 y y n L y Z r• O ct N N r• r• SL ct •+. r- O I N _5 7 C CL r• n r `G r, - .. 0 fi Ci (iI n ' O (D n ; GJ� � I N G � UI t n y (D (D 3 -h r. n cr = y ►-' � rD r- T y -, _s cr er C r r 1 -'ti _5 n N r n N CO n En I CC c* W n D �`• t !. y ('J tD I n � ct 0 r (J � CL < < 1 n En y n y a � � t fi n (D `G y m n to Gt T rD (D I y 57 z • �i r ct ct (D C1 r pi r <D t 1 T n (D O CL X, n O + I r• < )o Ut ( ct s N `G ID K O •t _i r W -� � 1 I C, (D y N N - d y —I R (D (D I (D (D I `G n rr (D CL er g N K n D 77 N I cr O Cl y W. rD r Lo T O r. I r• y r• er i, e'r =r, n c* I-) 'S Nn n I n O n r• r y r• I y ct EL Cn O (D r y y I �- h' Cn ij < R Dt N D 1 3 G 3 n X "' et et N rt Cl r.y r• 1 •... a CL a 1 r --o CT SU : M r O W W ID :� cr1 N UI M -0 n K I v C ' rD a '• rD _ i O (D C+ C "' - 1 in Z r O y r 'y 1 O et M n 8 Ln S S 6 Ri r r• r r r Ri 9 S 1 r O < =r x lT1 i 5 r Ci a a M (D I N S y (D CL _5 LO r' I O I Cn-t m K `< 0 h• tD (D 1 CfJ r• i (C ID r x O 1 m eWr < � � I y n GN N "• n I e* cr.D 3 C+ L•J - F S uJ S rA CG C� fV I r •� S+ ru --_j +s ru r =1= Ln L•J u, I ru r N 4CDr - L � t J JSmu] CT1S n et N r r• y = j µ Vii= cr O N O I LR N I -C CD cT r• r i+ r r M1 ••- +-� r r r r I S r• W ro is iz ig J r u? 9 v CD >* µ Qi uD = c 1 ui f0 y \ _t -P, W W 4-1 (P W �J r 6 r Co W S I y r' i rV cr f (D I G7 r R N M n E Q r• Di e* L•l Ln CD S S r') Ln n C•J Ln Ln I Ul W 1 r• LD w En u] LD Lo S til -4Cn S 1 LO M N I L•t c• �r i { . ii �•+• rr-�ni ro (D Jt C•J r!i L•7 un I L.J s -' .t 1 3 r S n i L•ti Ln I u� � m o� n_ 1 ui ., .rDN f f]l u7 C•J rij't ft7 u7� Cn C� S L GD �+ ` Ul (D 1 y ri 6� L4 w (n C- >D C W K i G y rt '" ... r rt r• r• �. `C (D 3 r w (D O er, D O QCi (n CL =1 O r• G x (D �5 �sulw ~, L' (D n (D (D R m �t r�r y C R O r N .J• R r. O C1] Z W N n (y O �t O ,.' O � � Q r Q " W Ort W O O R ri D � N TENTATIVE AGENDA REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JANUARY 7, 1986 Mayor Reinke presiding Oath of Office by re-elected officials 1] Roll Call at 7:00 P.M. 2] Recess for a Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting 3] Reconvene 41 Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 5] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS 61 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. ) *6.5]Approval of Minutes of December 3, 10, 17, 18, and 23, 1985 7] Communications: a] Brent Richardson, Scott County re: Scott County Jail b] Robert F. Vierling 81 Public Hearing 7:30 P.M. - 1986 Small Cities Development Grant Proposal 9] Boards and Commissions: Energy and Transportation: *a] Household Rebate Fund Allocation b] Transit Fusibility Study - Final Report Approval 101 Reports from Staff: a] Country Village Apartments/Shakopee - presentation b] Professional Services for Huber Park Trail Grant c] Physical Reorganization of City Hall Offices #d] Secretarial'Help for Community Development Department #e] 1986 Towing Contract . f] Taylor Street Assessments g] Holmes Street Basin Storm Sewer Engineering Consultant Services 1986-1 h] County State Aid Highway 17 Project VIP Interceptor Extension i] County Road 83 Widening, Contract No. 1984-9 j] Intersection of CSAH 17 (Marschall Road) and CSAH 16 (4th Avenue) k] 4th Avenue Street Reconstruction 11 Employee Assistance Program m] Bills in amount of $239,060.85 #n] 1986 Cigarette Licenses #o] Official Newspaper #p] Postage Meter Rental Agreement #q] Special Municipal Parking Lot Permits r] Nominations to Committees s] 1986 Liaison Appointments t] Association of Metro Municipalities 1985-1986 Legislative Proposals and Amendments to By-Laws u] Council Meeting Procedures TENTATIVE AGENDA January 7, 1986 Page -2- 11] Resolutions and Ordinances: *a] Res. No. 2492, Adopting 1986 Pay Plan #b] Res. No. 2479, Adopting 1986 Fee Schedule #c] Res. No. 2504, Designating 1986 Official Depositcries #d] Res. No. 2501, Amending Personnel Policy, relative to Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday #e] Res. No. 2497,- Designating Director and Alternate to Suburban Rate Authority #f] Res. No. 2503, Initiating Vacation of Easements in Halo 2nd Addition g] Ord. No. 184, Imposing An Interim Moratorium - tabled 11/6/85 h] Res. No. 2502, Adopting Special Benefit Storm Water Utility for Holmes St. Ba 121 Other -Business: a] MWCC will be holding a public meeting in Shakopee Council Chambers on Jan. 9th from 1:30 to 3:30 to receive comments on a request for bids on the sale of property in Scott County (old sludge farm site) b] Set dates for 1986 Goals and Ob.lectives �ssipn d] e] 131 Adjourn to Tuesday, January 21, 1986 John K. Anderson City Administrato_^ TENTATIVE AGENDA Housing Authority in and for the City of Shakopee , Minnesota Annual Meeting January 7 , 1986 Chairman Vierling presiding 1. Roll Call at 7 : 00 P.M. 2 . Oath of office 3 . Approval of minutes of December 3rd, 10th & 17th, 1985 meetings . 4 . Election of Officers 5 . Reporting of Real Estate Interests 6 . Other Business 7 . Adjourn Jeanne Andre Executive Director PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 3, 1985 Chrm. Vierling called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. with Comm. Lebens, Wampach, Colligan and Leroux present. Also present were John K. Anderson, City Admr. ; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk, Jeanne Andre, HRA Director; Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer; Judi Simac, City Planner and Julius A. Coller, II, City Attorney. Colligan/Leroux moved to approve the minutes of November 19, 1985 as kept. Motion carried unanimously. Chrm. Vierling informed the Commissioners of comments she had received regarding unequal taxes on commercial properties, and would like it inves- tigated. Colligan/Wampach moved to direct staff to bring back the investigation of unequal taxation on commercial properties at the May Board of Equali- zation hearings. Motion carried unanimously. The HRA Director said she is looking for some direction regarding the ap- plication for the Small Cities Development Grant for 1986. The survey which went out with the utilities bill will be tabulated and provided to the Commissioners in advance of the public hearing. She went over the various uses to which the grant can be put and asked for suggestions for projects. She is proposing consideration of downtown redevelopment, ac- quisition of highway and bridge alignment at Hwy. 169/101. She said there are two parties pursuing redevelopment of the Merchants Hotel. She would like some type of loan program for downtown businesses who are looking at expanding. She wouldn't advise including the highway project unless a firmer commitment will be made by Mn/DOT, in light of last year's comments. She is not looking for a firm commitment from the Council at this time for any project, but just an expression of interest and any suggestion of pro- jects or businesses that might be interested. This type of grant is given to the City 100%, with no matching commitment by the City. Cncl. Lebens suggested the depot and Chrm. Vierling asked about the Pelham Hotel. Consensus was to work further on the projects mentioned, and come back with the tabulated results of the survey and more definite costs and ideas. Colligan/Wampach moved to adjourn to December 17, 1985. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Jeanne Andre HRA Director Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SPECIAL SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 10, 1985 Chrm. Vierling called the meeting to order at 7:21 p.m. with Comm. Lebens, Wampach, Leroux and Colligan present. Also present were John K. Anderson, City Admr. ; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk and Julius A. Coller, II, City Attorney, with Mayor Reinke arriving later. Lebens/Wampach moved to accept the special call. Motion carried unani- mously. The City Admr. said Mayor Reinke wanted to be present for the next agenda item, and would be arriving shortly. Wampach/Lebens moved for a five minute recess at 7:24 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Reinke arrived and took his seat. Wampach/Leroux moved to re-convene at 7:30 p.m. Motion carried unani- mously. Comm. Lebens asked what was meant by the language in Resolution No. 85- 27 which refers to the City Attorney and other HRA officials taking whatever action is necessary to carry out the purposes of this resolu- tion. It is her belief this resolution dictates the condemnation pro- cedure will be followed all the way. The City Admr. responded it is his interpretation this language refers to the necessary legal steps to be followed and documents to be filed with the Court. Comm. Lebens stated she didn't want this to mean there will be negotiation on the Courthouse steps for more than the condemnation award. The City Admr. further clarified the intent of submitting the City's appraisal and the City Attorney's need for direction from the City. Comm. Leroux mentioned the motion that was earlier made for an attempt at friendly condemnation proceedings based on a price of $250,000 or the appraisal of Peter Patchin, whichever is less. Upon advise of two legal counsels, the City should not proceed along those lines. In or- der to avoid conflict of interest, the condemnation proceedings must be completed. Wampach/Lebens moved to table this item until he has a chance to consult with his legal counsel, to be brought back on the agenda December 17, 1985. Comm. Wampach commented that he has his price for the sale of his pro- perty, and he doesn't want to be thrown at the mercy of the Court. Motion carried unanimously. Shakopee HRA December 10, 1985 Page 2 Comm. Leroux discussed whether a motion to table an item to a specific date was really a tabling or a postponing of an action, which is de- batable. He then decided to research it further on his own and bring it back another time. Lebens/Wampach moved to adjourn to December 17, 1985. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. i iJeanne Andre HRA Director I i Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary December 17, 1985 Page 2 Comm. Leroux commented that all of his actions up to this point were based on the assumption that Comm. Wampach was a willing seller at a reasonable price. He is concerned with sending out the signal to developers that the City is not willing to stand behind its support for downtown develop- ment. He said the only reason condemnation is considered is because the owner of the property involved is a member of HRA and City Council, and they want no charges of impropriety which might be invited if a negotiated sale was achieved. Now it appears Comm. Wampach is being penalized because he cannot negotiate a sale price. Cncl. Lebens feels this project is completely different from the Levee Drive housing because the buyer won't be managing the property, and there is no provision for low and moderate housing. She believes there has to be provision for low and moderate income housing to pass the HRA guide- lines. Therefore, she would still have a problem with this project, even if the owner was not on the HRA. Comm. Leroux stated that 4 vacant lots in the middle of downtown could be considered a blight, which is another use for HRA eminent domain pro- ceedings. Comm. Wampach said he made it clear at the meeting last week that he did not want to sell his property. Discussion followed. Cncl. Colligan stated the only reason he agreed to go with condemnation was because of the large price spread in the appraisals, and he wanted the establishment of a fair price. The City Attorney said if the resolution is never offered, that will stop the City's participation in the project in this manner. This doesn't prevent the owner and developer from continuing any negotiations. Dis- cussion followed regarding the possibility of the developer negotiating a price and purchasing the property, and then coming to the City with a request for a land write-down. Leroux/Lebens moved for a five minute recess at 8:45 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Lebens moved to re-convene at 8:52 p.m. Motion carried unani- mously. The HRA Director discussed her memo regarding possible options for an ap- plication for a 1986 Small Cities Development Grant. At this time there is talk of several different developers and uses for the Merchant's Hotel, but the one group most actively pursuing a project is the Scott-Carver Economic Council. Paul Onkka, member of the Scott-Carver Economic Council (SCEC) Board, explained this is not an authorized SCEC proposal, but the SCEC did adopt a resolution supporting further research into this idea. He proposes using the main floor of the Merchant's Hotel for SCEC offices and as much of the other related programs, such as the food shelf and headstart pro- gram, as can be accomodated. The upper floors would be renovated into temporary housing for the homeless and short time emergency housing. PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ADJ. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 17, 1985 Chrm. Vierling called the meeting to order at 8:02 p.m. with Comm. Lebens, Wampach, Colligan and Leroux present. Also present were John K. Anderson, City Admr. ; Jeanne Andre, HRA Director; Kenneth Ashfeld, City Engineer and Mayor Reinke. Chrm. Vierling asked if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to comment on the proposed Resolution No. 85-27, a resolution determining the need for eminent domain proceedings for the purpose of constructing multi-family housing for seniors, as proposed by the Housing Alliance. Loren Gross, 8608 Lyndale Avenue, representing Comm. Wampach, stated he concurs with the City Attorney that Comm. Wampach should not vote on this issue. However, he wants to make clear Comm. Wampach's position. He put forth his belief that the City's right to condemn is limited by statute, and he also doesn't believe that providing multi-family housing for seniors is a public purpose, especially when it doesn't provide for low to moderate rents. He pointed out that for a large amount of time private enterprise was proceeding with this project, so he doesn't think the need was there for the City to step in to develop this area. He doesn't know how the building of this apartment building is any different that any other apart- ment building, and no public purpose exists. Mr. Gross stated at this time Comm. Wampach does not want to sell his property at all, as he doesn't believe it is good for him or the City, and no public purpose is being served. He therefore asks the resolution to be denied. John Schol, attorney for Housing Alliance, stated they obviously support the City's efforts in seeking condemnation for this project. He maintains that condemnation is clearly authorized. However, he realizes this is a political matter as far as whether or not to undertake that condemnation proceeding. He believes the development of senior housing is a valid public purpose, and senior housing is exempt from the low and moderate housing requirements. He recommends the Commissioners adhere to the ad- vise of the City Attorney. He said the Housing Alliance has spent a lot of time, energy and money on this project and they are willing to put it to the political test. Comm. Lebens said her husband, Mel, contacted the Attorney General's office and was told Comm. Wampach is considered a member of the HRA, so even though he abstains from the vote, it would be considered as a "no" vote. She suggests getting this opinion in writing from the Attorney General's office. The City Admr. stated he had checked with the City Attorney and the Ass't City Attorney on that question, and they both advised him that an abstention would not be counted as a "no" vote. He suggested further checking on that issue. Shakopee HRA December 17, 1985 22 Page 3 1 Mr. Onkka proposed using the grant money, if successful, for the rehabili- tation of the interior of the hotel. He would suggest SCEC would become the owner of the building, with a long term lease arrangement for manage- ment. They feel this location would be closer to the recipients of these programs than the present Carver location. The HRA Director commented the actual ownership and management of .the building needs to be refined. Comm. Vierling inquired as to the Downtown Committee's feelings towards this proposal. Gary Laurent, of the Downtown Committee, said the general concept of renovation of the Merchant's Hotel is heartily approved by the Downtown Committee. However, they haven't specifically addressed this particular proposal. Consensus was to approve staff's continued work with the SCEC on this proposal for inclusion in the application for a grant, along with a loan program for downtown businesses to expand or improve their operations. Consensus was to not include right-of-way acquisition for bridge/junction improvements as it might make the entire application weak. Leroux/Colligan moved to authorize the hiring of Timm Nelson as a student intern at $6 per hour for a 7 week period. Roll Call: Ayes; Lebens, Leroux, Vierling, Colligan Noes; None Abstain: Wampach Motion carried. Chrm. Vierling asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to com- ment on the possible use of eminent domain for development as proposed by the Housing Alliance for senior housing. Mr. Schol, attorney for the Housing Alliance, said it appears its only alternative would be to acquire the property privately and come back to the HRA for a land write-down. He said that was looked at originally, but it seemed to them to be a disguise. Because the owner has expressed that he doesn't want to sell the property, it appears they have reached the end as far as that property is concerned, if the resolution is not passed. Leroux/Colligan moved to recommend to City Council that regarding any action on agenda items 2, 3, 4 and 5 relating to the Housing Alliance pro- ject, the City not proceed with eminent domain for the purposes of con- structing multi-family housing for seniors at this time. Motion carried with Comm. Wampach abstaining. Colligan/Lebens moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m. Jeanne Andre HRA Director Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 3, 1985 Vice Chair Vierling called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. with Cncl. Leroux, Colligan, Wampach and Lebens present. Mayor Reinke arrived later. Also present were John K. Anderson, City Admr. ; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director; Judi Simac, City Planner; Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer and Julius A. Coller, II, City Attorney. Lebens/Wampach moved to recess for an HRA meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Colligan moved to re-convene at 7:20 p.m. Motion carried unani- mously. Liaison reports were given by Councilmembers. Cncl. Lebens reported she was very disappointed in the Planning Commis- sion meeting held last night, which was a public hearing regarding the issuance of a conditional use permit to the Housing Alliance for a 44 unit senior citizens housing structure. Her husband, Mel Lebens, had spoken for 15-20 minutes when he was cut off by the Chairman and given only 5 more minutes to speak. She couldn't understand why the Planning Commission was in such a hurry. The motion at the end of the meeting was made by Comm. Schmitt to forward to the City Council for reconsidera- tion without comment on the part of the Planning Commission. Cncl. Lebens pointed out the City Code which states that now the Planning Commission must bring in its comments within 60 days, and City Council can carry forth within 30 days after that. She would like to now register her 7 day appeal because she doesn't feel she was heard and she doesn't feel like she is ready now to make her appeal. The City Admr. clarified that because of the tight timing of this project to get the bonds sold before the end of the year, the Asst City Attorney was consulted and it was his opinion that it could be announced at the public hearing that the City would automatically appeal the item to this City Council meeting to avoid having someone register an appeal later and stretch out the time and kill the project. He felt that all those interested pro and con would be present at the Planning Commission hearing, and would receive notice to bring their comments to this meeting. Cncl. Lebens complained that she didn't feel they had a proper hearing, and there were other people at the hearing that were limited to 5 minutes of comment. The City Admr. explained the meeting started at 7:00 and adjourned at 9:15 p.m. , with this single item on the agenda. Proponents and opponents spoke and no one except Mr. Lebens was cut off, and he was given an additional 5 minutes after he had spoken for some time. The Plan- ning Commission repeated several times that the purpose of the hearing was for the conditional use, but other concerns kept surfacing. 5nakopee Uizy �,ounLll December 3, 1985 Page 2 Cncl. Lebens stressed her desire for the full 7 day appeal period as there are many questions unanswered. She believes different attorneys give dif- ferent opinions. She also stated the Code requires the applicant give proof of ownership of the property. This developer intends to build the building and set up a different corporation to run it, saying St. Francis Medical Center will manage it. She spoke to Sister Agnes Otting of the hospital who said nothing has been settled yet on that. Cncl. Lebens also doesn't think this application should be for a conditional use in a B-3 zone. She thinks it should be rezoned to R-4, but that isn't being done because that would also take longer and jeopardize the bonds. That amount of housing units should be put on at least 3 acres, but because it is downtown, it will be put on one acre. The residents only have the porch, they don't have any place to go. Discussion followed regarding whether or not there was anything before the City Council to consider. The City Attorney stated it appears Plan- ning Commission just forwarded it to pass the buck, and he doesn't think the City Council has anything. Mayor Reinke arrived and took his seat at 7:32 p.m. Cncl. Leroux stated he is a proponent of the project, but only with proper procedure. The City Planner clarified there is no requirement in the Code that a public hearing needs to be held for an appeal of a conditional use permit, but that has been the normal procedure. The City Admr. stated this is not the normal procedure, but the normal procedure is not dictated in the code, so it is not a deviation from the code. The City Attorney said that anytime you establish a normal course of business and deviate from that, you are running the risk of question and inviting problems. However, he didn't know if the City would actually be held liable. The Comm. Develop. Dir. informed Councilmembers that agenda item 9b, the public hearing regarding housing revenue bonds for the Housing Alliance project, is being deleted and it is staff's suggestion that the public hearing regarding the conditional use permit be substituted here. Colligan/Leroux moved to consider discussion of the conditional use permit for the Housing Alliance under 9b on the agenda tonight. Motion carried with Cncl. Wampach abstaining. Further liaison reports were given by Councilmembers. The gavel was passed to Mayor Reinke. Leroux/Lebens moved to approve the minutes of November 6, 1985 as kept. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to approve the minutes of November 15, 1985 as kept. Motion carried with Cncl. Wampach and Lebens abstaining. Colligan/Vierling moved to approve the minutes of November 19, 1985 as kept. Motion carried unanimously. Shakopee City Council December 3, 1985 Page 3 Leroux/Vierling moved to place on file the letter dated November 18, 1985 from Barbara Hauger regarding her dissatisfaction with the Eaglewood Ad- dition road improvement project, along with the response from the City Admr, dated November 20, 1985. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion followed regarding the written request by Gary C. Janisch for additional street lighting near his shopping center on Marschall Road. Consensus was that SPUC specifications for spacing is acceptable. Leroux/Colligan moved to place on file the letter from Gary C. Janisch dated November 20, 1985 regarding street lighting. Motion carried unani- mously. Clarification was made that the City doesn't want to be involved and the applicant can speak to SPUC about it. The City Admr. explained the background on the award given to the City's Finance Director .for Financial Reporting Achievement by the Government Finance Officers Association. Mayor Reinke presented the award to Gregg Voxland, the Finance Director, and expressed the City's thanks. Wampach/Vierling moved to receive and place on file the letter from Wm. Schreiber, State Legislator, dated November 15 ,1985 regarding the Mayor's testimony before the House Tax Committee regarding fiscal disparities. Motion carried unanimously. The City Admr. explained the action requested by the League of Minn. Cities would give more time for municipalities to work with Congress to get a form of the municipal bond bill that is more palatable. Leroux/Vierling moved to take the action as recommended by the League of Minnesota Cities to contact Congress and Senators urging immediate action to remove the January 1, 1986 effective date in the proposals under con- sideration in the House Ways and Means Committee. Motion carried with Cncl Lebens opposed. The City Engineer informed the Councilmembers of of a bus tour, recep- tion and public hearing to be held by the Senate Transportation Commitee in Shakopee December 9, 1985 beginning at 3:30 p.m. The City plans to make a presentation similar to the one given in October. Leroux/Lebens offered Resolution No. 2480, a Resolution of Appreciation to Paul Wermerskirchen, and moved its adoption. Mayor Reinke read the resolution and presented it to Mr. Wermerskirchen with the City's thanks. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Vierling moved to open the public hearing regarding the appeal of the Planning Commission' s denial of a conditional use permit for a home occupation for Peter Shutrop at 1424 Heron Court. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner went over some of the background and passed around the pictures that were submitted at the hearing. Shakopee City Council December 3, 1985 Page 4 Mr. John Manahan, representing Mr. Shutrup, said Mr. Shutrop is a life- long resident of Shakopee an:' worked as his own contractor to build his new house in 1984 and 1985. He and his wife work full-time and the busi- ness they want to conduct would be on a part-time basis. It is not their intention to in any way interfere with the rights or their neighbors. They have attempted to modify their application to narrow it down and be more specific in what they want, as set out in the memo attached to the application. The chain saw noise was one issue at the Planning Commis- sion hearing, and they don't have to use it at all on the premises. Mayor Reinke referred to the letter from Dean Nyquist regarding the res- trictive convenants which prohibit any use other than residential. Mr. Manahan responded that he hasn't seen the letter, but that conflicts with the opinion of staff. In any event, it is not the City's responsibility to interpret and protect the protective covenants. Remedies are provided in the covenants themselves, which would be pursued differently. Mayor Reinke asked for comments from the audience. Catherine Rader, 1400 Blue Heron Trail, stated the petition submitted was signed by all but one household in Timber Trails, who wasn't home, and was also signed by nearby property owners on Marschall Road. Marlene Larson, 1440 _Blue Heron Trail, said that prior to moving into his home, Mr. Shutrop advertised in the newspaper for the firewood business. She and her husband asked Mr. Shutrop about it and he admitted he had been doing that. Mr. Shutrop was issued a zoning violation because of debris remaining from an auction, of which she showed pictures and listed the items. She and her husband asked him twice about removing the debris. The Code Enforcement Officer sent her a letter stating there was no evi- dence of firewood being sold. Following this, the applicant advertised in the Shakopee Valley News of October 9, 14, 21 and 28 for firewood being sold from his house. She also received an inquiry about a fire on Mr. Shutrop's property, which had been set in his woodpile and bed of his truck, and the log splitter was also damaged sometime that summer. She knew nothing of these actions. But previous to that fire a neighbor saw Mr. Shutrop burning in his back yard. She is now fearful of her property because of the fire. Mr. Shutrop has added to his property a 200 gallon drum which she presumes will be used to store gasoline, which is also a safety hazard. She said all the neighbors want to do is have the appli- cant abide by the rulesand regulations of the community, and they are at- tempting to protect the value of their property. Based on Mr. Shutrup's past experience, she would question wha would supervise the operation. They don't want to play police in their neighborhood, and she doesn't think this would be in the best interest of the neighborhood if granted. Mr. Manahan replied that these items were mentioned at the Planning Com- mission hearing and the memo submitted addressed most of them. The adver- tising was checked with the City and that was approved. The debris was from the auction, and was gotten rid of within two weeks. The application has been approved by the Fire Chief and he intends to comply with the con- ditions. Mr. Shutrop would have the same concerns as his neighbors regard- ing property value, as he made a large investment in his home also. Roger Sperling, 1432 Blue Heron Court, said he lives next door to the applicant, and showed some photographs taken yesterday of Mr. Shutrop's property, showing woodpiles, truck, saw, tractor, tires and lawnmower. He doesn't think a tall woodpile would be conducive to a nice neighborhood. Shakopee City Council December 3,1985 Page 5 Jim Larson, 1440 Blue Heron Trail, said he moved into his home in 1977 and with the zoning being residential he thought it was one of the most beautiful developments in Shakopee, and now there is a potential problem. He said he personally paid $1,873 in taxes last year; Mr. Sperling paid $2356 in taxes. Mr. Shutrop's property is valued at $69,300 and will next year pay approximately $970.00. He asked if this is something that will enhance the value of his property. Also, this is a cul-de-sac area, so the back yard has more effect on the neighbors. He said that before Mr. Shutrop moved out there he knew the restrictive covenants and there- fore he questions his intentions. Then he put the fuel barrel in front of his home, directly across from the window of Mr. Sperling, rather than putting it back in the woods. Mr. Shutrop removed everything from the auction, but only after cited and on the very last day allowed. The truck shown in the picture has a gross weight of 23,000 pounds, and whenever it goes out it is full. He went over relative weights of different kinds of wood by the cord. The streets in Timber Trail are broken up right now and that repair gets assessed back to the homeowner. He doesn't feel there is any way this particular conditional use permit should be approved. Mr. Manahan pointed out the modification to the application, in which Mr. Shutrop agreed to any screening mutually agreed upon by the City and Mr. Sperling. He also agreed that the weight carried in the truck would not exceed the load limits the streets are constructed for. Mr. Sperling said he is not in favor of any screening that would also block his view of the road. He also showed pictures of his house from which the earlier pictures were taken. Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak, and there was no response. Leroux/Wampach moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unani- mously. Cncl. Leroux expressed his belief that this type of home occupation can- not be readily contained and imposes itself on others in the neighborhood. He thinks this is too much commerce in a residential area. Leroux/Wampach moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution for denial of Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. CC-435 for a home occupation to sell firewood at 1424 Heron Court, Shakopee, based on the fact that it is too much commerce in a residential neighborhood, and would impose itself on others. The resolution should also note that Planning Commission voted unanimously for denial. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved for a five minute recess at 8:44 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Wampach moved to re-convene at 8:53 p.m. Motion carried unani- mously. Shakopee City Council December 3, 1985 Page 6 The Community Develop. Dir. apologized for the lateness of some of the material received regarding the Housing Alliance application for 44 units of multi-family housing for seniors in the B-3 zoning district. However, this project has been around for quite some time and the City Council has had the perameters of the project for about 12 years, although the final details are just coming together now. When the Council was asked in November for its opinion to go or not go, it was warned there would be a lot of work to be done to fast-track this project before the end of the year. The Comm. Develop. Dir. continued that the Housing Alliance was interested in applying for Housing Revenue Bonds, but found the cost of issuance out-stripped any benefit, and therefore the public hearing that was scheduled for tonight is not necessary. In place of that program, an interest reduction package was proposed. However, the urgency is still here, as no one knows if the tax increment bonds will be available in 1986. Planning Commission had a special meeting last night, but if the full 7 days for an appeal were waited, the bonding would be in jeopardy. Therefore, it was the opinion of the Ass't City Attorney that an announce- ment could be made at the public hearing at the Planning Commission meet- ing last night that whatever decision was made would be appealled to City Council tonight. Cncl. Lebens said there is 7 days to appeal the Planning Commission ac- tion, and she also pointed out the City Council is not the final authority but the Court is. S,ie said at the public meeting where a motion was made by Cncl. Leroux, seconded by Cncl. Vierling that the land be taken by P minent domain, that is the only way it should be done to protect the other property owners. When one of the property owners is a Councilmember, that would be the only fair way. She still has many questions. She re- ported that the Planning Commission tried to stop the hearing last night. 16lien this was brought to the City originally, she thought the City could help them and give a little guidance, but she feels the City has spent a lot of time promoting it and the project is being pushed through too quickly and too much money is involved. She would think it fine if the Housing Alliance was going to stay and operate it, but they are setting up a separate corporation to manage it. If it doesn't go and the bonds aren't paid, the taxpayers of the City will pay for it. The Comm. Develop. Dir. explained the Planning Commission was trying to deal with those factors that are normally involved in a conditional use permit, such as traffic, screening, adequacy of parking, etc. The Planning Commission doesn't get involved in how much the property costs and taxes. They wanted to keep the discussion germain to the conditional use issues. Cncl. Lebens commented that when John Ries, Jr. wanted to put in an apart- ment of top of his building he was refused because he couldn't provide 2 parking spaces. Now this project is only providing 1.4 spaces per unit, and she wants to know why it is different. There are only 24 outside park- ing spaces, and she doesn't think people will pay for the underground park- ing. sir. Berens is also concerned with where the parking will go. She said Mr. Ries could have provided 1.4 parking spaces, and he is across the street with seniors living there also. Shakopee City Councii December 3, 1985 Page 7 The Comm. Develop. Dir. said this project has always had a proposal for tax increment financing, but through negotiations there is now the new interest reduction proposal to be considered. She said the project has more than the 15% required developer equity. Cncl. Leroux expressed his opinion that he believes new public hearing notices should be issued in order to hear the conditional use permit issues. He mentioned the Levee Drive highrise which is a precedent for an apartment building in a B-3 with parking requirements and height limitation. The City Planner clarified that normal procedure for appeals is to allow a full 7 days after publication of the public hearing notice. Leroux/Vierling moved that the City Council hold a public hearing on the planning considerations for the conditional use permit for the Housing Alliance's 44 unit senior housing project on December 18, 1985, with publication of the notice on December 11, 1985. A representative from O'Connor and Hannon confirmed that the City can make the decision not to open the bids for the bond sale and not to close the bond issue, which is not planned to be closed until December 30. Up to that point the City retains the freedom to not go ahead with the issue. The City Admr. said there is a possibility of a meeting on December 23 to open the bids. That procedure can run concurrently with the published public hearing, and the planning issues will be heard before the time of the scheduled bid opening. Motion carried with Cncl. Wampach abstaining. Wampach/Vierling moved to open the public hearing regarding the amendment to the redevelopment plan relating to Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1; the amendment of the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 through No. 5; establish- ing Tax Increment Financing District No. 6 and adopting the Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor. Motion carried unanimously. Larry Smith, of the Housing Alliance, made a presentation of the Depot Place Apartments project. He showed slides indicating the location of the project with its proximity to the hospital, churches and downtown area. He showed a footprint of the project pointing out the restaurant, parking, accesses, garden plots, porches, patio, architecture to blend with the surrounding residential area, landscaping and mixture of one and two bedroom units. They have found that one parking space per unit is more than adequate for this type of housing and anticipate being able to convert some of the excess parking space to storage or a car wash. Mr. Smith pointed out this project is not subsidized and therefore is open to anyone. Extensive market studies have suggested the rents for this community. To make this affordable, they have a very tight project and are requesting some subsidization by the City. They have completely opened their books for examination by the City to be sure there are no excessive profits. These rents are not high for the type of package they will be offering which is being negotiated by St. Francis Medical Center. He passed out copies of what will probably be offered as a basic service Shakopee City Councii December 3, 1985 Page 8 plan. This program is designed to allow seniors to be independent longer to avoid nursing homes. They have worked closely with a 15-member panel, whose names he passed out, representing various aspects of the community, and he invites anyone from the audience to join that on-going committee. Mr. Smith passed out parking specifications and the traffic study done by Barton-Aschman. He also passed out the petition, conducted by Doris Dunlap, which originally brought them to Shakopee, which demonstrated a need for such a project in the City. Cncl. Lebens objected to the submission of the petition because it was circulated when the project was going to be put on Ms. Dunlap's property and was to be built for low-income people, and it has nothing to do with the site it is proposed for now. Mr. Smith answered he didn't mean to imply this petition was in support of this project. He stated it was circulated prior to the project to encourage them to come into Shakopee. They arrived as a result of the petition. He also understands it isn't a professional survey. They sub- sequently did a professional survey that was related to this site, indi- cating positive interest in this site, which was entered into the record earlier. Rosemary Dineen, of the Housing Alliance, pointed out that Ms. Dunlap has nothing to gain financially from the site that is now chosen. The site was chosen because it was designated in the downtown redevelopment map for this type of housing, and its location makes it an A44+ site. Cncl. Lebens also does not think this will be affordable housing--at $575 plus $40 for parking plus heat and phone. She found advertised housing in downtown Minneapolis for $350 per month, utilities included. Cncl. Lebens said she spoke with Sister Agnes Otting who said the agree- ments aren't finalized and no money has been discussed and she is not committing St. Francis at this time. Ms. Dineen further explained that they are not talking about older people who are able to stay in their own homes--but rather those who are be- ginning to have some health problems that require some additional ser- vices. Market studies have shown this community can support 100 units of housing for the elderly and can support rents of $500 and more. Cncl. Lebens complained there wasn't enough room for the people to move around. Ms. Dineen said most of these people are not involved in active recreation. Mr. Smith said there are no final documents between them- selves and St. Francis because they don't yet have a viable project with approval from the City. The negotiations with the City will affect the agreement with St. Francis. The Comm. Develop. Dir. reminded the Council that the Housing Alliance has demonstrated their need for tax increment financing in a pro forma submittal, and the HRA has recommended the City take on some additional expenses to work on the project at the staff level, with Cncl. Vierling involved with the negotiations. She went over the requests of the de- veloper and the possible expenses for various improvements. She listed the results of the negotiations for the removal of various improvements in the project. She further explained the details of an interest write- Shakopee City Council December 3, 1985 Page 9 down proposal, which would be based on demonstrated need--the higher the occupancy, the lower the subsidy. The advantage is that the City doesn't have to bond for this and the money can be provided as the taxes come in. The City can re-capture some of the money and use it for other downtown projects in the future to help other projects pro- ceed without selling bonds. John Schol, attorney for the Housing Alliance, said that more than likely a limited partnership would end up owning the property, with Housing Alliance as the general partner. The City can demand who is the original owner and examine the new owner. The City Admr. informed the Councilmembers that the tax increment pro- ject for the existing senior highrise which began in 1980 has a posi- tive balance of $200,000 for the obligation due in 1985. That project has been very successful and the bonds should be paid off without re- financing. This proposed project will be reviewed by our conservative bond counsel and fiscal consultant, just like the existing one. Cncl. Lebens thinks that the Federal government paying for a lot of seniors made that project different. She also pointed out the resolution does not specifically say it is for seniors. Mr. Smith replied it is for seniors and will be stated clearly in the resolution and the agree- ment. Cncl. Lebens wants the acquisition to be by eminent domain all the way, and let the Courts set the value. Cncl. Leroux said the intent of the motion was to get away from the adversarial condemnation. Cncl. Lebens said it only takes 100 signatures on a petition to bring in an examiner to find out where the money is going. Cncl. Leroux responded that all the proceedings have been in open meeting, on recorded tape, in front of live T.V. and if anyone wants to examine the proceedings, they are welcome. The City Admr. mentioned the letter from the County Assessor giving his opinion that this type of sale under threat of condemnation would not be used in reaching the sales ratio. Cncl. Lebens asked if the parties could agree to a price. The City Attorney replied he didn't think you could agree to a binding price, as the Court would appoint the appraisers who set the valuation. The City Admr. explained ghat frequently in fast-tracking projects, acquisition is started by con- demnation proceedings and negotiations proceed during that time. Then if an agreed price is reached, fine, but if not the time has been started. Mayor Reinke asked if there were any comments from the audience. Karen Lebens, 207 Atwood,addressed the letter from the County Assessor. She said if you come to an agreed upon price, that is not a regular condemnation and therefore it will be taken into consideration when setting the sales ratio and will affect her taxes. Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak, and there was no response. Vierling/Colligan moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Shakopee City Council December 3,1985 Page 10 The Comm. Develop. Dir. explained that the interest write-down pro- posal lessens the up-front costs and provides the assistance only as taxes are received. Discussion followed regarding including a limi- tation of the percentage of units occupied. The Comm. Develop. Dir. asked for consideration of Resolution No. 2486 which just establishes the upper perameter through the Developer's Agreement, which allows the City to spend within these limits if it does decide to go with the interest write-down proposal. Bond counsel further clarified that the City always has the authority to say no. There is no commitment to the developer to expend these amounts; these are just a listing of the allowable public costs, with no obligation to bond for those costs. The Redevelopment Contract is what creates the obligation. Leroux/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2486, A Resolution Relating to the Amendment by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Shakopee of Modified Housing and Redevelopment Plan Re- lating to Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1, the Amendment of the Tax Increment Financing Plans Relating to Tax Increment Districts No. 2 Through No. 5 to Reflect Increased Project Costs within Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1, the Establishment of Tax Increment District No. 6 Located Within Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Adoption and Approval by the City of Shakopee of the Proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment District No. 6, and moved its approval. The Comm. Develop. Dir. stated there are no fiscal disparities contri- butions taken from housing. Roll Call: Ayes; Colligan, Reinke, Vierling, Leroux Noes; Lebens Abstain: Wampach Motion carried. The Comm. Develop. Dir explained that bond counsel wants Resolution No. 2485 passed with the amount of the bonds left out, to allow him to do one more computer run, after which he will inform the City Clerk of the proper amount. Vierling/Leroux offered Resolution No. 2485, A Resolution Providing for the Issuance and Sale of General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1985-A, and moved its adoption. Discussion followed regarding the date for one more meeting on these bonds, which would allow the bonds to be closed before December 31, 1985. Leroux/Vierling moved to amend Resolution No. 2485 to insert at No. 3 the date of December 23, 1985 at 6: 30 a.m. , or a time established by the Mayor. Motion to amend carried with Cncl. Wampach abstaining. 5haxopee ulEy uouncii December 3, 1985 Page 11 Roll Call on Resolution No. 2485 as amended: Ayes; Leroux, Vierling, Colligan, Reinke Noes; Lebens Abstain: Wampach Motion carried. Vierling/Colligan moved to direct the City Clerk to set the amount of the bonds based on the recommendation of the City's financial advisor. Motion carried with Cncl. Lebens opposed and Cncl. Wampach abstaining. The Comm. Develop. Dir. suggested drafting a resolution of condemna- tion and seeking of a legal opinion about what approach needs to be taken to avoid the tax issue and conflict of interest, which should be available by December 17, 1985. Cncl. Lebens expressed her belief that their taxes would still go up even with the negotiated price of $85,000, so condemnation is the only way she would be in favor of it. Lebens/Colligan moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution for condemnation of this property for the Housing Alliance, to be brought back to the City Council meeting on December 10, 1985. Discussion continued about whether or not a negotiated sale would af- fect the sales ratio, to be further determined by staff. Motion carried with Cncl. Wampach abstaining. Leroux/Vierling moved to direct staff to contact the State Department of Revenue to answer the question as to what constitutes an arms-length sale and if a negotiated sale under threat of condemnation would be considered as part of the sales ratio. Motion carried with Cncl. Wampach abstaining. Leroux/Colligan moved for a two minute recess at 10:46 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Colligan moved to re-convene at 10:52 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. John Manahan highlighted the considerations for the tax increment request by the Shakopee Valley Motel. He pointed out this proposal is to integrate the entire river front area. This development is not eligible for any other type of financing help. The high water table and the bedrock doesn't really provide for any other type of develop- ment. The applicant estimates it will cost $575,000 to develop the campground and the assessor has estimated the value will be about $300,000. Therefore, it isn't feasible to just develop the campground, but it will work as an integrated project. He believes the benefits to Shakopee will be in increased year-around jobs and assist in the general commerce of Shakopee in the winter. The Comm. Develop. Dir. pointed out the real user of the tax increment financing would be the campground, but the real contributor would be the motel. 6naxopee city (.ouncii December 3, 1985 Page 12 The Comm. Develop. Dir, said most of the issues mentioned in the Preliminary Plat process are being resolved. The project also has to go through the EAW process which has not been completed. Tonight she is just looking for an expression of interest if the City Council is willing to have the staff work further with the developer on po- tential tax increment financing. Mayor Reinke stated he would like to see some direct benefit to the City in terms of projects completed for the City by the developer, such as the completion of Bluff Avenue. He wants to see a benefit to the taxpayers of the City who do not receive taxes for those number of of years of the project. The Comm. Develop. Dir. explained the developer is taking his chances with the tax increment laws--if this help is not available in 1986, the City will just not be able to provide it. Mr. Manahan spoke on behalf of Mr. Bakken, the developer, and said he has risked his own money and made a project that works. He has ex- plored various proposals with the underlying theme that he wanted to open up the river to him and the City. The only way to get that river front open appears to be to tie it in with the rest of the project. Perhaps something could be done with Bluff Street, but the costs would have to be looked at. Cncl. Lebens stated when this was presented at Planning Commission she was in favor of it, but she has never voted for any project which uses tax increment financing. Leroux/Vierling moved to direct staff to continue working with the developer on the Shakopee Valley Motel Tax Increment proposal, with the City looking into any projects which could be aided by this tax increment, including but not limited to Bluff Avenue. Cncl. Colligan asked about cutting back the size of the campground to cut some of the expenses. Warren Israelson, engineer, said that most of the expenses come from the construction of the indoor pool and the site that will have full hook-ups. If the campground is reduced to one-third the size, the costs are still the same. Motion carried with Cncl. Lebens opposed. The City Admr, reported he has talked with Mn/DOT and they have indi- cated if the City has a plan for a road to gain access to Valley Park Drive from the Prairie House First Addition, they will authorize a temporary access off Hwy. 101 for construction purposes. Discussion followed regarding the cost estimates provided by staff for damages to Valleyfair. Cncl. Lebens asked if the developer is willing to pay for the $100,000 costs to tie into Valley Park Drive. Tom Togas, attorney for the developer, said the City would have to assess the developer for the costs. Shakopee City Council December 3, 1985 Page 13 Cncl. Leroux thought perhaps this project could be accessed directly onto Hwy. 101, but when the outlot and property to the east is de- veloped, the traffic would be too much. And then, if this property was already assessed for the direct access, it couldn't be later assessed for a connection to the signalized intersection. Discussion continued regarding the costs and pros and cons of a direct access vs. the signalized access at Valleyfair. Leroux/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2484, A Resolution Determining the Necessity for and Authorizing the Acquisition of Certain Property by Proceeding in Eminent Domain for Purposes of Constructing a Roadway, and moved its adoption. Dick Kinzel, for Valleyfair, stated they are not opposing the condem- nation for value reasons, but only because of public health and safety grounds. He passed out a fact sheet regarding access to Prairie House lst Addition. They feel it is more dangerous to have the traffic cross Valleyfair traffic. He pointed out if the City proceeds with condem- nation, it will be responsible for all costs not assessed against the developer, and their estimate of the costs are much higher than those figures supplied by staff. The marquee, in particular, is a market- ing tool which supplies goodwill and has intrinsic value where it is. Mr. Kinzel asked if this condemnation serves a public purpose, or if it is just taking property from one private developer and giving it to another private developer. They are asking the City remove itself from this proposal. John Broker, attorney for Valleyfair, referred to the fact sheet and pointed out they are higher than those proposed by staff. These are all allowable expenses under condemnation. It is difficult for him to understand how this is a valid public purpose, which was even ex- pressed by the City Attorney. He also thinks there would be less of a safety hazard with the direct access to Hwy. 101. He also contacted someone at Mn/DOT who indicated they would give temporary access if a permanent one was being worked on through Alternative No. 1 (Valleyfair access) or Alternative No. 2 (direct access to Hwy. 101) . He would suggest a way to allow the developer to go forward with the develop- ment of his property without the added expense of condemnation, while a permanent solution is sought. Mr. Togas pointed out the Ass't City Attorney's opinion that public purpose could be satisfied in this condemnation proceeding. He said they get no response from Valleyfair in negotiation attempts, and he believes condemnation proceedings need to be started to get them to the bargaining table. Mr. Broker replied they have negotiated, but not successfully. He would suggest a timetable of 90 days for negotia- tions. Cncl. Wampach and Cncl. Lebens spoke in favor of Alternative No. 2. Shakopee Uity council December 3,1985 Page 14 The City Admr, pointed out the difficulty in getting approval from Mn/DOT for signals and cross traffic, so the assumption cannot be made that a signal can be approved in a few years when the traffic warrants it. Discussion followed regarding the chances of a service road and further development and traffic along Hwy. 101. Roll Call: Ayes; Vierling, Colligan, Leroux, Reinke Noes; Wampach, Lebens Motion carried. Dr. Pistulka stated he was present to represent the Scott County Historical Society to ask the City's intentions regarding the re- quest for the conveyance of land in the western portion of the restoration site to the City. Cncl. Lebens explained the suggestion was hers because she wanted to retain access to the river because of some problems fishermen were having in gaining access to the river at Murphy's Landing, with the gate sometimes being closed. However, since that time authorization has been given to begin construction of a pedestrian bridge in Mem- orial Park to gain access to the river. So at this time she doesn't think it is so important. Also in the last year or so there haven't been complaints from people not gaining access. Consensus was to leave the status quo. Leroux/Lebens moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute a contract with Waste Management-Savage for garbage collec- tion services for 1986 and 1987. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Lebens moved to authorize the purchase of two 1986 Ford LTD Crown Victoria squad cars from Viking/Southdale Ford in the amount of $22,736.00. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Lebens moved to retain Mr. Dwight Tange to discuss the group health and life insurance bids with employees. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Cncl. Vierling questioned the suggestion of stuffing storm drainage bills that are delinquent. She would think they could all be put on postcards. Vierling/Leroux moved that Storm Drainage Utility bills be mailed as postcards, except that delinquent accounts be stuffed into envelopes if required by law. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Colligan moved to adopt the investment policy dated November 26, 1985 as proposed and attached hereto and made a part hereof. (Doc No. cc-102) Motion carried unanimously. Shakopee City Councii December 3,1985 Page 15 . 10 Colligan/Leroux moved that the bills in the amount of $72,971.09 be allowed and paid. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Vierling/Colligan moved to direct staff to enter into a contract with D.C. Peterson Door Co. for the door installation project at Public Works for the sum of $8,545.00. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Lebens moved to authorize the closing of City Hall at noon on December 24, 1985 with the stipulation that employees use their va- cation time, comp time or other time. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Lebens offered Resolution No. 2483, A Resolution Accepting Work on Valley Park Drive from Hwy. 101 to 12th Avenue and 12th Ave- nue from Valley Park Drive to CR83, Project No. 1984-5, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes;Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Lebens offered Resolution No. 2482, a Resolution Accepting Work on the 5th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Reconstruction, Contract No. 1984-6, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Lebens moved to reconsider the motion of November 19, 1985 authorizing the purchase of a Pitney Bowes 5600 automatic feed mail- ing machine at a cost of $3,040.00. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Lebens moved to amend the motion to authorize the purchase of an IMS/Hastler 204AS automatic feed mailing machine at a cost of $2,965.00 with a 12 month extended warranty. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to direct the appropriate City officials to write to John Mullan of Barton-Aschman indicating the City is eager to proceed with the proposed dual left turn lanes at TH 101 and CSAH 18 (east to north) with the financing as outlined in his Nov- ember 21, 1985 letter. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Lebens moved to authorize staff to purchase 143 yards of car- peting to be installed from Fonder Carpet Service at a cost of $2002.00. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Wampach/Vierling moved to appoint Cncl. Vierling and Wampach as Council representatives to review 3 RFP's for the organizational and staffing municipal servicing costing study, and to make a written recommenda- tion at the December 17, 1985 meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Shakopee City Councii December 3, 1985 Page 16 Leroux/Lebens offered Resolution No. 2481, A Resolution Amending the Personnel Policy Adopted by Resolution No. 1571, and moved its adop- tion. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Lebens offered Resolution No. 2479, A Resolution Setting Fees for City Licenses, Permits, Services and Documents, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to adjourn to December 10,1985 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:42 a.m. Judith S. Cox City Clerk Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ.REG SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 10, 1985 Vice Mayor Vierling called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Scott County Assembly Room, with Cncl. Colligan, Leroux, Wampach and Lebens present. Mayor Reinke arrived later. Also present were John K. Anderson, City Admr. ; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Jeanne Andre, Com- munity Development Director; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer and Julius A. Coller, II, City Attorney. Discussion ensued with the Finance Director relative to the bids re- ceived for group health and life insurance, with the recommendation being to award the bid to Bankers Life, which had the best over-all package. Leroux/Lebens moved to award the bid for Employee Group Health and Life Insurance to Bankers Life. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. . The City Admr. explained the next action necessary to ratify the bond sale in the amount of $660,000 for Tax Increment District No. 6. He added these steps are necessary to keep the paperwork moving, but the City Council still has the ability to stop the bids up to the time they are opened. He said the City's financial consultant recommends setting the bonds at this limit, and if the total amount is not needed, the extra money can be used to retire the bonds or used on another project in the district. Leroux/Colligan moved to ratify the sale of $660,000 G.O. Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1985A for Tax Increment District No. 6, and authorize and direct the City Clerk to insert into Resolution No. 2485 the amount of $660,000 and be authorized to certify the same. Roll Call: Ayes; Leroux, Vierling, Reinke, Colligan Noes; Lebens Abstain: Wampach Motion carried. Colligan/Leroux moved to authorize the City Admr. or his designee to conduct the sale and award the bid for the $660,000 G.O. Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1985A at 12 noon on December 23, 1985, with the City Council to meet at 6:00 p.m. the same day to confirm the sale. Motion carried with Cncl. Lebens opposed and Cncl. Wampach abstaining. Leroux/Wampach moved to recess for an HRA meeting. Motion carried una- nimously. Meeting recessed at 7:21 p.m. Lebens/Vierling moved to re-convene as City Council at 7:45 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. �naxopee UILy uouncll December 10, 1985 Page 2 Larry Smith, of the Housing Alliance, questioned Comm. Wampach making a motion for tabling an action in which there is an obvious conflict of interest. Cncl. Wampach replied he has every right to defend himself. He wants the Housing Alliance to pack their bags and leave town. If they want to pay the price for his property, fine, but if not he doesn't want them on his property and he doesn't want to sell his property. Cncl. Leroux expressed his belief that Mr. Wampach as a sitting member of HRA had the right to table this action. Mayor Reinke said he could have made the motion on behalf of himself or anyone else. Lebens/Vierling moved to table Resolution No. 2488 until December 17, 1985. Motion carried unanimously. Lebens/Wampach moved to open the public meeting regarding the Holmes Street Storm Sewer Laterals. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Reinke stated this meeting is not required by State Statutes, but it is being held because it is the feeling of the City Council that they want to get as much input as possible for consideration. The City Engineer explained the purpose of the meeting is to discuss the storm sewer needs of the entire City, and the Holmes Street drain- age basin area in particular, the funding policy and the actual costs that will be incurred to the properties in the Holmes Street Basin area. Mr. Ashfeld pointed out the 9 drainage basins in the City and the var- ious needs of each, with the total storm sewer needs in excess of $7 million dollars. He pointed out the location of the in-place trunk and laterals. Mr. Ashfeld said the City implemented in 1985 an over-all storm sewer utility to take the place of special assessments and provide further for the maintenance and construction of new facilities in the future. Mr. Ashfeld compared the old and new funding policies for storm sewer. He explained that historically cities are moving away from flat fees and going to fees based on usage. He used charts and diagrams to ex- plain the comparison of properties by size and land use, to come up with a residential equivalent factor which is used to come up with the cost to each property based on a sensitivity to the amount of run-off generated by each parcel. He explained thatin this basin residential properties take up 73% of the area, but generate only 51.5% of the run- off. Mr. Ashfeld further broke down the total project costs for the Holmes Street Basin, including the benefit for the trunk assessment in 1980. The total residential special benefit would be $6.89/quarter, and with addition of the City wide user fee of $3.44/quarter, the total utility billing for storm sewer would be $10.33/quarter. Mr. Ashfeld explained that vacant land would have its assessments de- ferred until development occurs, at which time it would be assigned its equivalent factor for the use of the property. Shakopee City Council December 10, 1985 Page 3 Robert Wampach, 952 South Scott, asked how the water run-off from the vacant property is paid for. Mr. Ashfeld further explained that vacant parcels are generally grass-covered and don't generate very much run- off. The vacant parcel will be given an assumed residential equivalent factor (REF) based on its zoning, but at the time of development that REF will be assigned based on the actual use, and the property owner will begin paying his full share for 10 years at that point. There- fore, he will be paying his full share, but it just won't start until the property is developed. Ray Siebenaler, 119 West 4th Street, questioned the policy on the tax exempt properties. Mr. .Ashfeld referred to former assessment policy where tax exempt properties such as churches, schools and hospitals did not pay assessments for storm sewer facilities. Under the new utili- ty policy these properties will be paying their share, like everyone else. Mr. Siebenaler asked how long they would be paying this $10.33 fee. Mr. Ashfeld answered that amount is based on 10 years. Once the bonds are paid off, the special benefit cost will drop, but the City-wide fee will remain the same. Stan VonBokern, 933 South Scott Street, asked why the charges are ex- pressed as fees rather than taxes or assessments, which could be ap- plied as a credit on real estate taxes. In his particular case, the amount would be over $100 a year because of this change. The City Admr. explained the difficulty cities have been having in prov- ing benefit with assessments, and therefore storm sewer facilities were not being built. He explained it is only the ad valorem portion of the old assessment that is being lost as a tax benefit. Mr. VonBokern said he isn't disputing the need for storm sewer, or even the amount of it, just the expression of it as a fee rather than assess- ment. He thinks they really are taxes that are being disguised as a fee. His user fees will be 3 times his City taxes, as figured from his 1985 tax statement. Cncl. Leroux explained that expressing this cost as a fee makes it possible to include the tax exempt properties, which is a benefit to all the taxpayers, and which keeps down the total cost of the project. Mr. VonBokern said he is talking about all non-metered fees, such as garbage and this utility, which are 3 times the amount he is paying in taxes. And yet he cannot claim it on his tax statement. Mayor Reinke defended user fees as a way of making people aware of the costs involved. Items included as taxes affect the City's contri- bution to other agencies. It was City Council's consensus that picking up large tax exempt properties would balance any tax losses for citizens. Mayor Reinke said there isn't any problem trying to prove benefit to one parcel of residential or commercial property, but trying to pick up the additional costs from tax exempt properties is what made the old policy impractical. Shakopee City Council December 10, 1985 Page 4 Sister Agnes Otting, of St. Francis Regional Medical Center, stated she is not here to dispute the new policy, and they are willing to contribute their full share. However, she wants to comment that they provide more than a Half Million Dollars in community services that could easily be on the tax rolls. Because of this fee, they will maybe have to cut back on some of them. She mentioned the ambulance service as one service which is heavily subsidized. Mayor Reinke mentioned that service as one the City helps to pay for which is a benefit to the residents. Sister Agnes clarified that it is getting approximately $30,000 from the townships and cities, but the ambulance is actually subsidized almost $100,000. Mayor Reinke asked if there were any other questions from the audience, and there was no response. Mayor Reinke and several Councilmembers mentioned several areas of particular problem with respect to storm water drainage. The City Engineer said he would appreciate hearing from anyone relative to areas of problems and peculiarities before the project is begun. Russ Heltne, 961 South Shumway Street, asked if this project includes the refurbishing of the streets that get torn up, or are there more costs for that. The City Engineer said these costs include re-paving, but not other costs such as new curb, etc. There will be asphalt on the areas that are torn up. The City Admr. further clarified that the streets will just be patched at this time. The City is working on a street rehabilitation program that will come in the future, in conjunction with this project. Mayor Reinke asked if there were any other questions from the audience, and there was no response. Vierling/Leroux moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Cncl. Leroux went over the concerns of the school district as men- tioned in their letter regarding cable concessions. They state they have spent $5,000 for the institutional network and have a grant of $58,000 waiting for the installation, which must be spent within the next 30 days. Cncl. Vierling reported on a meeting she had attended with the Shakopee and Chaska Cable Advisory Committee, in which it was stated they don't want the subscribers to have to frontthe institutional network costs. They were looking into other funding. Leroux/Vierling moved to place on file the letter dated December 1985 from Mr. Stillman of the School District, relating to cable concessions. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved for a 5 minute recess at 8:51 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The City Attorney left the meeting. Council convened in executive session to discuss labor negotiations. Shakopee City Council December 10, 1985 Page 5 Leroux/Vierling moved to re-convene as City Council at 9:46 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The City Admr. explained there is no point in opening the bids for the Housing Alliance bond sale on December 23, 1985 if condemnation hasn't been started. Therefore, he asks Councilmembers to come to the meeting December 17, 1985 prepared to make a decision one way or the other. The City Admr, informed Councilmembers that some of the Industrial Development Bonds for Scottland and Toro may have to be considered at the December 23, 1985 meeting if they can't get ready by December 17, 1985. Mayor Reinke informed Councilmembers about the Senate Transportation meeting that was held in Shakopee last week. Leroux/Lebens moved to adjourn to December 17, 1985 at 8:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Judith S. Cox City Clerk Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 17, 1985 Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 8:02 p.m. with Cncl. Wampach, Colligan, Lebens, Leroux and Vierling present. Also present were John K. Anderson, City Admr. ; Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director; Judi Simac, City Planner, Kenneth Ashfeld, City Engineer and Julius A. Coller, II, City Attorney. Colligan/Vierling moved to recess for an HRA meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to re-convene at 9:18 p.m. Motion carried unani- mously. Liaison reports were given by Councilmembers. Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council on any item not on the agenda, and there was no response. The City Admr. highlighted the communication from AMM regarding the general meeting to be held January 9, 1985. Leroy Worm addressed the Council regarding the financial problems Valley Ice Arena is having, mostly as a consequence of a much greater insurance cost and the loss of low-cost MEED labor. He pointed out the memo in which the cost for providing open skating time is enumerated, showing a net loss, which they consider is their contribution to the City and the basis for requesting financial aid. The City Admr. informed Councilmembers that the Contingency Fund has a very healthy balance, and funding could be taken from it this year. Mr. Worm said they would appreciate receiving funding for their entire insurance costs for liability, as required by the City, but any amount would be greatly appreciated. He said he has tried to get some funding from Chaska, but since they are not requiring the insurance and the faci- lity is not located in their city, he has been unsuccessful. Leroux/Vierling moved to assist Valley Ice Arena, Inc., a non-profit agency, in the amount of $2776 to offset its loss due to the provision of open skating time to the public. Cncl. Leroux clarified this is a one-time offer. Mr. Worm discussed the possibility of a private indoor ice arena at the mall and the negotiations that have taken place so far. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Shakopee City Council December 17, 1985 Page 2 ' Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize the creation of a seven member task force to review alternative bridge and roadway alignments for Shakopee's downtown redevelopment project, setting the membership of the task force as proposed by the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee, accepting the fourteen bridge alignment/roadway alignment alternatives recommended by the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee and accepting the suggested objectives and measures to be used by the task force and selecting a final alternative. Motion carried unanimously. (cc Doc. No. 103) The City Planner went over the changes to the Prairie House 1st Addition plat, since preliminary approval. Cncl. Leroux suggested a provision for the method of payment for right- of-way acquisition outside the plat lines. The City Admr. suggested language used on other plats that requires the developer to submit a petition for the improvement, waiving his right to appeal the assess- ment. Cncl. Leroux wanted more control by the City. Mayor Reinke suggested language regarding the developer's responsibility for street lights. The City Planner stated the plat was reviewed by SPUC, which indicated no street lighting would be necessary. Discussion fol- lowed. Colligan/Leroux moved to table consideration of the final plat of Prairie House lst Addition to allow the developer and staff to meet and come back later in the meeting to present the negotiations regarding these two items. A representative from Springsted, Inc. passed out the bids received for the street reconstruction in Eaglewood. He said they received 6 bids, and the lowest bid from Novick is the lowest bid the City has received since 1980. The property tax levy that would result from this bond is- sue would be reduced. Leroux/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2495, A Resolution Awarding the Sale of $255,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1986A; Fixing Their Form and Specifications; Directing Their Execution and Delivery; and Providing for Their Payment, and moved for its adoption awarding the bid to M.H. Novick & Co. , Inc. , with a net interest cost of $121,462.71 at a rate of 7.336%. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2493, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Authorizing and Providing for the Issuance of its Industrial Development Revenue Bond, Series 1985 (the Toro Company Project) in the Aggregate Principal Amount of $3,500,000, for the Purpose of Making a Loan to the Toro Company to Pay a Portion of the Cost of Constructing and Equipping an Industrial Project to be Located in the City; Authorizing the City to Enter Into a Loan Agreement with the Toro Company; Authorizing the City to Pledge and Assign the Loan Agreement (Except for Certain Rights to Indemnification and Reimbursement for Expenses) to the First National Bank of Minneapolis, Pursuant to a Pledge Agreement; Authorizing the City to Enter Into a Disbursing Agreement with the Toro Company and the First National Bank of Minneapolis Relating to the Use of the Proceeds of the Bond; Making an Election under Section 103(b) (6) (D) of the Internal Re- venue Code of 1954, As Amended; and Authorizing Other Matters Relating to the Issuance of the Bond, and moved its adoption. Shakopee City Council December 17, 1985 Page 3 rr b Dave Swanson, bond counsel, stated the requested change by the First National Bank of Minneapolis in the timing of the payments from semi- annually to quarterly should not have any affect on the issue, except for accelerating it somewhat. Roll Call: Ayes; Wampach, Reinke, Colligan, Leroux, Vierling Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved that considering the recommendation by the HRA , this date, regarding the Housing Alliance project, City Council not proceed with acquistion of the property in question through condemnation proceedings. Motion carried with Cncl. Wampach abstaining. The Finance Director explained that dental insurance is already in the Police contract for 1985 and he would assume it would be in the 1986 contract also. This proposal by the employees for dental coverage would be subject to the City's medical cap. At this point the action is just to go out for bids to explore the costs. Colligan/Lebens moved to direct staff to solicit bids for the provision of employee dental insurance. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Leroux moved to authorize City officials to execute the applica- tion for coverage for the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust- Workmens Compensation insurance for 1986 and to deposit $57,692 for the premium for 1986. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to set the mileage reimbursement rate for the use of personal vehicles for City business at $.21 per mile, effective Janu- ary 1, 1986. Some discussion followed regarding the reduction in paper- work. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Leroux moved to direct staff to determine work quantities, soli- cit quotes from contractors, investigate landowner cost-sharing participa- tion and prepare cost estimates for a clean-up effort adjacent to the Minnesota Valley Trail. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Colligan/Vierling moved to direct City Engineer to prepare the plans and specifications for the Holmes Street Basin Lateral Project as presented in the Supplemental Feasibility Report dated February, 1985. Roll Call: Ayes; Vierling, Leroux, Colligan, Wampach, Reinke Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to direct the City Engineer to negotiate an extension agreement with Orr-Schelen-Mayeron and Assoc. to provide engineering ser- vices for the Holmes Street Basin Lateral Project for a not to exceed" fee of $49,750.00, and return with said agreement for final approval. Roll Call: Ayes; Wampach, Reinke, Colligan, Lerous, Vierling Noes; Lebens Motion carried. �tianvrcc ,��y "�uiiuli December 17, 1985 Page 4 Colligan/Lebens moved to approve the application and grant a pool table license for 1986 to R. Hanover Inc. dba Richards in Shakopee, 911 East lst Avenue and the Fraternal Order of Eagles Aerie #4120, 220 West 2nd Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to table the application of Yellow Taxi Service Corp. for a taxicab license. Motion carried unanimously. The Comm. Develop. Director commented on the quality product of the Shakopee brochure which was developedby staff in conjunction with the League of Women Voters. She requested acknowledgment of the League of Women Voters and Shakopee Jaycees for their contributions. Leroux/Colligan offered Resolution No. 2469, A Resolution of Apprecia- tion to the Shakopee League of Women Voters, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Lebens offered Resolution No. 2470, A Resolution of Apprecia- tion to the Shakopee Jaycees, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved that the new Shakopee brochure be provided to the Chamber of Commerce for distribution. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Wampach moved to direct staff to install speed limit signs as authorized by the Commissioner of Transportation on East Fourth Avenue in the following locations: 30 m.p.h from CSAH 17 to 850 feet east of CSAH 17, and 50 m.p.h. from 850 feet east of CSAH 17 to CR83, with stop signs on East Fourth Avenue at Shenandoah Drive; and also moved to request the State to come back and re-study the area after April 15, 1986 to get a better feel for the traffic conditions on that highway. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Lebens moved to accept the memorandum of understanding dated November 4, 1985 from W. M. Crawford, P.E. District 5 Engineer, Minnesota Dept. of Transportation for TH-101 and 169 Bridge Replacement Improvements. Motion carried unanimously. (cc Doc. No. 104) Cncl. Lebens commented the residents in the area are not happy about the signage suggested for the area of 5th and Apgar, but she understands nothing else will be done until the City's traffic study is completed. Leroux/Wampach moved to direct staff to place 10 m.p.h. speed limit signs in the alley west of the St. Francis Hospital between 4th and 5th Avenues. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to remove from the table discussion of the final plat of Prairie House 1st Addition. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner recommended the addition to the conditions of approval of 7f, that lights be installed in accordance with the requirements of the SPUC Manager. Shakopee City Council December 17, 1985 Page 5 The City Planner also recommended condition no. 8, that the developer would agree to petition for the construction of Valley Park Drive north to the point of intersection with the proposed frontage road, which is to be con- structed by the developer. The City Admr. added the intent is that the project would be a 429 project and the developer, along with anyone else, would be assessed accordingly. Considerable discussion ensued regarding possible assessments for Valley Park Drive. Cncl. Leroux pointed out that the B-1 zoning ends with this plat, and the rest of the frontage to the east is AG. Discussion followed regarding the possibility of the frontage road continuing west, tying in with the road in front of Peavey. The City Admr. advocated the regular assessment procedure in which benefit is definitely shown before a pro- perty is assessed. Leroux/Colligan offered Resolution No. 2494, A Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Prairie House 1st Addition, and moved its adoption with the following additions to the conditions for approval: 7f: Lights - be installed in accordance with the requirements of the SPUC Manager. 8. : The developer shall petition for intersection improvements and the extension of Valley Park Drive North to its intersection with the service road and waives right of appeal to the assessment, in accordance with Chapter 429, Public Improvements. Mr. Lions, attorney for the developer, said that if the intersection ends up like it has been shown, they would agree to the assessment. However, if it benefits some other property owner, he thinks that should be reflected in the cost. Mayor Reinke pointed out the developer waives his right to appeal the assessment. Roll Call: Ayes; Reinke, Vierling, Leroux, Colligan Noes; Wampach, Lebens Motion carried. Vierling/Leroux moved for a 5 minute recess at 10:45 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Vierling moved to re-convene at 10:51 p.m. Motion carried unani- mously. The City Planner reported that 6 proposals were received by planning con- sultants for the Racetrack Area Land Use Study. The selection committee reviewed the proposals, and also had them reviewed by the Scott County Planner. She discussed further some of the considerations and stated the selection committee recommended the hiring of Hoisington Group, Inc. Cncl. Wampach said his first choice was Northwest Assoc. , primarily for the traffic analysis. Further discussion ensued. Vierling/Wampach moved to authorize the hiring of Hoisington Group, Inc. to perform the Racetrack District Land Use Study for a cost not to exceed $37,325 for Phase IA, IB and IC and for a cost not to exceed $5,000 for Phase II. Roll Call: Ayes; Leroux, Vierling, Wampach, Reinke, Colligan Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Shakopee City Council December 17, 1985 Page 6 Vierling/Lebens moved to direct Public Works Dept. to screen the equipment yard in a manner that would comply with City Code. Motion carried unani- mously. Vierling/Leroux moved to allow Jeanette Shaner to carry over into 1986 a total of 82.06 hours of accumulated vacation with 19.7 hours to be used by April 1, 1986. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Colligan/Vierling moved that bills in the amount of $816,034.56 be allowed and ordered paid. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Vierling/Leroux moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute a Joint Powers Agreement establishing a watershed commission for the Sand Creek Watershed District. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. The City Admr, remarked that the selection of Ernst & Whinney was a unani- mous choice by the selection committee for a consultant to do an organiza- tional Staffing and Municipal Services Costing Study. Cncl. Wampach agreed that this firm was the best, but he doesn't agree there is a need for this study or the spending of this kind of money at this time. He feels it is up to the City Admr, to do this kind of study. Cncl. Vierling countered that the City has grown and there is a definite need for this study to determine where additional employees are needed, to improve efficiency and eliminate over-lapping responsibilities. Vierling/Leroux moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to enter into a contract for consulting services with Ernst & Whinney to provide an Organization Staffing and Municipal Services Costing Study at an amount not to exceed $27,000, plus 10% out-of-pocket expenses. Discussion_ continued. The City Admr. pointed out the costing of City services would provide a tool for a determination of whether or not the City should continue to provide some services and what to charge for them. He stressed that a impartial view is needed. Roll Call: Ayes; Colligan, Leroux, Reinke, Vierling Noes; Lebens, Wampach Motion carried. The City Admr. went over the proposed contract with Local #320 Public Works, with the two slight changes from what was proposed earlier. Dis- cussion followed. Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to enter into a contract with Local #320 Public Works for 1985-86 with the condi- tions listed in the December 13, 1985 memo incorporated in the contract. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Shakopee City Council December 17, 1985 Page 7 Vierling/Leroux moved to authorize proper City officials to execute a con- tract with Roy Baker for electrical inspection services for the City of Shakopee for 1986. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Vierling/Leroux offered Resolution No. CC-435, a Resolution Denying an Application for Conditional Use Permit by Peter Shutrop to Conduct a Home Occupation of the Sale of Firewood, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Colligan/Leroux offered Ordinance No. 185, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Shakopee City Code, Chapter 11 entitled "Land Use Regulation (Zoning)" by Adding a New Subd. 11.11 Entit- led "Recreational Vehicle and Recreational Park" Which Regulates and Governs the Same and by Adopting by Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Sec. 11.99, Which Among Other Things Contain Penalty Provisions, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Colligan/Leroux offered Resolution No. 2489, A Resolution of Appreciation to Diane Beuch, and moved its adoption. Mayor Reinke read the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Reinke made the presentation to Diane Beuch. Leroux/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2492, A Resolution Adopting the 1985 Pay Schedule for the Officers and Non-Union Employees of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, and moved its adoption. Cncl. Lebens asked for further information pointing out where all the employees are on the pay schedule. The City Admr. will bring back that information at the next meeting. Roll Call: Ayes; Wampach, Colligan, Vierling, Leroux, Reinke Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Vierling/Leroux offered Resolution No. 2490, A Resolution Amending Reso- lution No. 2340, Adopting the 1985 Budget, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Vierling/Leroux moved to reconsider Resolution No. 2479. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Vierling/Leroux moved to amend Resolution No. 2479 to include the 1986 Service Availability Charges set by Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Vierling/Leroux moved to adopt Resolution No. 2479, as amended. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Vierling/Leroux offered Resolution No. 2491, A Resolution Authorizing the City of Shakopee to Enter into a Service Contract with the Minnesota Dept. of Transportation to Provide Public Transportation Service in Shakopee, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Shakopee City Council December 17, 1985 Page 8 Vierling/Leroux moved to appoint the City Clerk as Acting Administrator from December 21st through December 26th, 1985. Motion carried unani- mously. Lebens/Wampach moved to authorize payment of special assessments against parcel numbers 27-931003-0 and 27-060012-0 for the Eaglewood road recon- struction project in the amount of $2,708.38 principal plus $57.95 interest, for a total of $2,766.33, to be paid from General Fund Contingencies. The City Admr. requested the action tabled to be re-worked. Leroux/Vierling moved to table the above payment of special assessments. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Colligan moved to adjourn to December 18, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. The City Clerk informed Councilmembers there is still a need for a meet- ing December 23, 1985 for the consideration of two bond issues. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:48 p.m. Judith S. Cox City Clerk Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCI', ADJ.REGULAR SESSTON SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 18, 1985 Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. with Cncl.Wampach, Colligan and Lebens present. Cncl.Leroux and Vierling were absent. Also present was John K. Anderson, City Administrator. Colligan/Lebens moved to acknowledge the request of the Housing Alliance to withdraw their application for a conditional use permit to construct 44 units of multi-family housing for senior citizens upon property located between 2nd and 3rd and West of Fuller Street. Motion curried with Cncl.Wampach abstaining. Lebens/Colligan offered Resolution No. 2496, A Resolution Rescinding Resolution No. 2485, Providing for the Issuance and Sale of $660,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1985A, and moved its adoption. Motion carried with Cncl. Wampach abstaining. Mayor Reinke made a statement for the audience that since the Council passed a motion last night not approving any condemnation proceedings for this particular site, the applicant has now withdrawn his application to build on this site and as of now the project is no longer a viable project at this time. He also added that this is why the public hearing appealing the Planning Commission's approval of the conditional use permit is not being held at this time. Mrs. Doris Dunlap addressed the Council regarding her petition and the problem of duplicate signatures on the petition. She also submitted a letter signed by Mr Robert Nieters. Mrs. Dunlap also stated that there is a need for additional housing for senior citizens in the community. Mayor Reinke acknowledged her comments and thanked her for her concern in the community. Lebens/Colligan moved to adjourn to Monday, December 23, 1985 at 6:00 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7:46 P.M. Judith S. Cox City Clerk John K. Anderson Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ.REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 23, 1985 Vice Mayor Vierling called the meeting to order at 6:04 P.M. with Cncl.Wampach, Colligan, and Lebens present. Mayor Reinke and Cncl.Leroux were absent. Also present were Judith S. Cox, City Clerk ; Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director; and Rod Krass, Ass't. City Attorney. Colligan/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2498, Authorizing the Issuance, Sale and Delivery of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (Scottland, Inc. Project) , which Bonds and the Interest and any Premium Thereon Shall be Payable Solely from the Revenues Derived from the Loan Agreement; Approving the . Form of and Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of the Indenture of Trust, the Loan Agreement, and the Bond Purchase Agreement; Approving Certain Other Documents and Authorizing Execution of Certain Documents; Approving the Form of and Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of the Bonds; and Providing for the Security, Rights and Remedies of the Holders of Said Bonds, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Cncl.Wampach, Colligan and Vice Mayor Vierling Noes; Cncl.Lebens Motion carried Wampach/Colligan offered Resolution No. 2499, Authorizing the Issuance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, $3,500,000 Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Riva Ridge Apartments Project) , Series 1985, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Cncl.Wampach, Colligan and Vice Mayor Vierling Noes/ Cncl.Lebens Motion carried Lebens/Wampach moved to adjourn at 6:07 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Judith S. Cox City Clerk Recording Secretary of .f*EIVED OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR SCOTT COUNTY COURT HOUSE 110 JAN 31-936 SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379-1382 (612)-445-7750, Ext.100;W;ITT E Ae.0.PE=a JOSEPH F. RIES Administrator F.BRANDT RICHARDSON Deputy Administrator BARBARA NESS Administrative Asst. January 3, 1986 Mr. John Anderson City Manager City of Shakopee Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear John: Several months ago the Scott County Board of Commissioners engaged a jail planning consultant to assess the need for and cost of additional county jail facilities through the year 2005. This action was recommended by the County's Criminal Justice Advisory Committee, and by a study made by the Shakopee League of Women Voters. Recently our consultant made an interim report on the first phase of work - the assessment of need. His conclusion is that the need for additional jail space is both urgent and substantial . Upon learning of this conclusion, the Board of Commissioners directed me to consult with the City of Shakopee in regard to further jail planning activities. would appreciate an opportunity to report on the consultant's progress to the Mayor and City Council , and to seek their input before the next phase of work begins. The two most important issues I would like to raise are: * Possibility of a joint City-County public safety building. Some individuals interviewed during the consultant's first phase of work suggested that a combined facility for the both the Shakopee City Police and the Scott County Sheriff's department shculd be considered. it would be helpful to learn as soon as possible whether or not this possibility has merit from the city's perspective. )Location of the bull". The consultant has concluded that it is essential that a jail be directly connected to the courts, in order to maximize security and minimize the labor cost of transporting prisoners. To accomplish this, a new building would have to be located on one of the blocks adjacent to the courthouse. Additionally, the closure of a street could be considered to increase the amount of available land and reduce disruption of existing land uses. An Equal Opportunity Employer January 3, 1986 City of Shakopee - page 2 The Mayor and Council 's input on these issues is essential before we proceed with the next phase of the study - that of estimating the capital and operating costs of a building on three alternative locations. On behalf of the Commissioners, I appreciate your consideration of this matter and look forward to discussing these issues at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, F. Brandt Richardson Deputy Administrator Mr. Robert F. Vierling Re: Second demand for re- 221 E. Fourth Avenue moval and complete dis- Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 missal of Julius Coller, City Attorney, for mal- Shakopee City Council feasance and ineptitude 129 E. First Street in Office . Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Mayor and Council Members: Following up my letter of Feb. 19 , 1985, I am making a second demand that the Council vote on the dismissal of Julius Coller, alleged City Attorney. I also demand in writing, the results of this vote, the count, the names, and which way the City Council members and Mayor voted. Because of the age and deterioration of Mr. Coller, it' s imperative that this vote not be shelved as it was, by Mr. Leroux in the past. I feel this is necessary because of the continuation of conditions stated in my previous letter. Conditions have wor- sened in that Mr. Coller no longer takes active interest or part in the growing and changing conditions of Shakopee , which makes him a welfare recipient of the taxpayers of the Community. I 've been informed by very reliable sources that signs for "Coller Drive" (Highway 17 ) were ordered and received by the City of Shakopee without the issue ever having been brought to Council . First of all , I wish to know why and by whom this was done; secondly, I wish to know what the cost was; thirdly, I want to know where these signs are stored at the present time ; fourthly, I wish to state that if the City of Shakopee ever in- tends to use these signs naming a street Coller Drive , that it will meet wuth the same opposition (and even moreso) as it did when they were to be used on Marschall Road. There are many people in this town that are much more de- serving than Coller ever was to have a street named after them, and who' s services were gratis and not paid for by the City taxpayers . My Father, Nicholas G. Vierling, was a volunteer fireman for 56 years, plus years that he was a Torch Boy with the Fire Department as a child. This is most likely an International re- cord; still , my Dad was never even given honorable mention in this town. Also, as a matter of fact, I have myself six in- structorships , working with the Red Cross, the DNR, Senior Citi- zens, and other groups. Adding them, in toto, I have over 100 years of service that was given gratis and at my own expense for equipment to this community, outlying areas, and the State of Minnesota. Between my Father and myself, we have over 150 years of continuous service to this community. This doesn' t even include the charities , other contributions , and time my sister, Mrs . Harriet Stein (Vierling) has contributed to this community. why not name a drive after my Father whom the City of Shakopee Qan d .truly be proud of? ! DE- ; 91985 --:-0 Robert F. Vierling CITY OF SHAKO1'EE Mr. Robert F. Vierling Re: Demand that you act on 221 E. Fourth Avenue flagrant and deliberate Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 lying by City Engineer, Bo Spurrier, City Attorney Shakopee City Council Jack Coller, and City Ad- 129 E. 1st Avenue ministrator, John Anderson Shakopee , Minnesota 55379 Mayor and Council Members: Dec . 9, 1985 In a letter received March 7 , 1985 from John K. Anderson, City Administrator, he deliberately stalled me on fixing the tarred alley in block 50. He said that there would be a meet- ing in the spring of all the neighbors abutting this alley. This meeting was never held. The alley in block 50 has been so poorly put in by the City of Shakopee that the water changes directions five dif- ferent times in the course of its' flowing through the alley. The alley was put in crookedly by the City Engineer, Bo Spur- rier, who told me (and for which I have letters of proof) that he "goes by line of sight only" . The alley is also graded too low on the East end by Som- merville Street, but our arrogant City Engineer told me that it was not too low. Still, the City tried to put in curb and gutter but was unable to do so because the road on the West side was to low. Consequently, Spurrier, who is an alleged Engineer, didn't know what he was talking about. The alleyway, as any stupid moron knows, should have been cambered concavely. In simple English, that means that the alley should have been lower in the center than on either side . Now, to make this very short, I am demanding full resti- tution for both myself and my sister, Mrs . Harriet Stein, of the money' s we've both paid, plus interest; and, I demand that the alley be straightened out because it infringes on our property line. Now, there 'll be no compromise on this issue whatsoever. I 've been stalled and lied to on this alley project. It does benefit for only two people who are on the Nest end of the alley. It' s of no service at all to the rest of us . You have only until your next Council meeting to give me your answer. After that time, it will be turned over to my Attorney for legal action which will eventually cost the City of Shakopee much more than the price of the alley. (continued) 7 �Y The Mayor, and at least one of the Council members , has seen this poor excuse for an alley, and I know for a fact that officials that have seen it have mentioned the fact that this alley should not have been put in the way that it was; or have been put in at all . I'm getting sick and tired of paying for errors by the City Engineer and others that are nothing but goof-offs . At least I'm giving you a warning of what is to happen. I don' t stab you in the back as has been done to me several times . There' s not going to be any refixing the alley; I want that money back. I don' t give a damn what you do with this al- ley. The City of Shakopee can' t be trusted, therefore we're going to do it my way. Thank you! ! Sincerely, r V Robert F. Vierling RFV/gd CEI DEC' 9 'ms CI�'Y OF &� ,`,,'`"�� �E IL '1111 league of minnesota cities IAN 1986 CITY CSP SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM December 20 , 1985 TO: Mayors, Managers, Clerks FROM: Ann Higgins , Staff Associate SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF 1986 CONFERENCE PLANNING COMMITTEE The League will soon begin the planning for the 1986 LIC Annual Conference. An important part of that process involves the work of city officials who serve as members of the Conference Planning Committee. If you or another official in your city is interested in assisting in the development of this year' s conference program, please contact me at the LMC Office . We welcome the participation of city officials from a wide range of member cities in order to represent a range of topics and learning opportunities of interest to all cities. I also encourage you to contact me to alert me to topics, resources , prospective faculty and speakers for both workshop and general session programs as well as to provide suggestions regarding the schedule of conference programs and activities . The first meeting of the 1986 Conference Planning Committee is scheduled for Friday, January 10, at 9: 00 a.m. A second meeting is tentatively set for Friday, January 31 , at 9: 00 a.m. 1 83 university avenue east, st. Paul, minnesota 551 01 (61 2) 227-5600 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Aide RE: Household Rebate Fund Allocation DATE: December 31, 1985 Background: In 1985 Shakopee was eligible to receive $1847 under the Landfill Abatement Cost Recovery Program (Household Rebate Program) . Starting in 1986 , these dollars are to be retroactively reimbursed on an annual basis to communties incurring costs as a result of their waste abatement programs. Problem: In 1985 Shakopee received a one-time grant from the Department of Energy and Economic Development (DEED) to fund a demonstration recycling project in our community. The total grant award including a loo city match amounted to $8985 . According to the Household Rebate Program eligibility criteria, cities cannot apply for reimbursement of expenses paid for with other appropriations (grants ) . Additionally, Shakopee could not request reimbursement of our loo DEED match ( $817 ) under the Household Rebate Program. When we add the DEED funds to the available Household Rebate Program funds you will note that we have $10 , 832 ( $1847 + $8985 ) available for recycling related expenses incurred in 1985. Recycling expenses incurred in 1985 are not expected to exceed $9900 . This leaves us with $932 excess dollars. Because staff has exhausted every eligible avenue for expending the available dollars, staff is proposing that council dedicate the remaining Household Rebate Program dollars to the three recycling groups participating in our program for services rendered under the following conditions: 1) that the money be used for recycling related purposes and 2 ) that each group be willing to assist in the distribution of marketing materials. I have been informed by Metropolitan Council staff that this would be an allowable use of the funds under the household rebate program guidelines. It is important to note that this would be a one-time payment as 1986 Household Rebate dollars are being budgeted for the ongoing marketing of the recycling program by the City of Shakopee. Requests for reimbursement under the Household Rebate Program must be made no later than January 15 , 1986 . Reimbursement payments are expected to be received no later than January 31, 1986 . Alternatives: 1. Authorize the City Administrator to request reimbursement in the amount of $915 from the Metropolitan Council for recycling expenses made in addition to Shakopee ' s available grant funds. (Approximately $915 ; DEED grant minus 1985 estimated recycling expenses. ) 2 . Authorize the City Administrator to request reimbursement in the amount of $1847 from the Metropolitan Council for $915 in recycling expenses incurred in addition to Shakopee ' s available grant funds; and for the balance of the $1847 , $932 to be dedicated to the three recycling groups for services rendered in 1985 . 3 . Do Nothing Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends alternative #2 . Action Requested: Move to authorize the City Administrator to request reim- bursement in the amount of $1847 from the Metropolitan Council for recycling expenses incurred in addition to Shakopee ' s available grant funds (approximately $915 ) and for approximately $932 to be dedicated to the three recycling groups for services rendered in 1985 . I�b MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Intern RE: Transit Feasibility Study Final Report Approval DATE: January 2 , 1986 Introduction: The consulting firm of Bennett, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Jarvis , Gardner, Inc. (BRW) has completed the transit feasibility study for the communities of Chaska, Chanhassen, Eden Prairie and Shakopee. These communities with the exception of Shakopee have approved the consultants recommendations for their communities and are interested in pursuing opt-out status. At this time, they are questioning Shakopee ' s position in regard to the study our future involvement in the project. Background: This past January the Energy and Transportation Committee recommended to City Council that the City of Shakopee become a participant in a transit feasibility study that was going to be conducted for the cities of Chaska, Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. The primary objective of the study from Shakopee ' s viewpoint was to identify more effective ways of providing transit for Shakopee residents. Shakopee ' s financial involvement in the study was not to exceed $7 , 500 . 00 . I was recently informed by our project manager (Mr. Ray Olson) that Chaska has agreed to waive Shakopee' s financial commitment to the study. Last month staff reported the results of the transit feasibility study to the Energy and Transportation Committee. The consultant recommended that Shakopee ' s transit system remain as is with the following three exceptions: 1) Expansion of the dial-a-ride service area to Eden Prairie Center; 2 ) Scale down the dial-a-ride vehicles to more efficient units ; and 3 ) change the name of the system to coincide with whatever name is selected for the larger system. Expanding the dial-a-ride service area would allow Shakopee residents who work in Eden Prairie, Chaska or Chanhassen to get to their worksite via the dial-a-ride and transfer at Eden Prairie Center. Moreover, Minneapolis occasional or regular riders could also use the dial-a-ride transfer system in Eden Prairie. This would allow us at some point in time to perhaps eliminate our flex pool program. Finally, this addition to our system would solve the problem we have when both the regular and backup driver take the same days off. Currently when this occurs riders are forced to carpool. Under the dial-a-ride transfer plan, another option would be available for these riders. Under the consultants proposal Shakopee would maintain complete operating and budgetary control of our transit system. The only interaction with the larger system would be in the shared name, transfer reciprocity agreements and/or joint powers agreement. While the benefits of becoming involved in the opt-out plans of Chaska, Chanhassen, Eden Prairie appear to be minimal at this time, in the long run Shakopee would hold on to the flexibility of becoming involved in an affordable and established transit option should our existing system become ineffective. Additionally, it might be beneficial for us to select one council- member (or designee) to serve in an ex-officio or voting capacity on any operating committees that are developed for the Chaska, Chanhassen and Eden Prairie system. This would afford us with the opportunity to have some input into the fare structure, routes and service levels developed in Chaska, Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. Keeping in mind that some day we may become more actively involved in the Chaska , Chanhassen, Eden Prairie System. On December 19 , 1985 the Energy and Transportation Committee moved to recommend to City Council the adoption of the consultants recommendations and Shakopee ' s continued involvement in the development of the Chaska, Chanhassen, Eden Prairie System. Alternatives : 1. Adopt the transit consultants recommendations to expand the dial-a-ride service area to Eden Prairie Center when the opt-out system becomes operational in Eden Prairie, Chaska and Chanhassen. Scale down the size of our dial-a-ride vehicles and change the name of our system t3 coincide %j: th t ie ria , selected for the Chaska, Chanhassen, Eden Prairie and Shakopee system. In addition, continue our involvement in the development of the Chaska, Chanhassen, Eden Prairie System. 2 . Adopt the transit consultants recommendations to improve Shakopee ' s transit system by scaling down the size of the Dial-A-Ride vehicles. 3 . Do not adopt any of the transit consultants recommendations and discontinue our involvement in the development of the Chaska, Chanhassen, Eden Prairie system. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. Action Reauested: Move to recommend to City Council that the transit consultants recommendation to expand the dial-a-ride service area to Eden Prairie Center when the opt-out system becomes operational in Eden Prairie , Chaska and Chanhassen; scale down the size of the dial-a-ride vehicles and change the name of our system to coincide with the name selected for the Chaska, Chanhassen, Eden Prairie and Shakopee System; be adopted. In addition, continue our involvement in the development of the Chaska, Chan- hassen, Eden Prairie System. tw TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director RE: Tax-Increment Proposal for Country Village Apartments DATE: January 3 , 1986 Introduction• The City has received a preliminary request for tax-increment assistance from the Ackerberg Companies , Inc. for a rental housing project known as Country Village Apartments . The developer has submitted information which has been reviewed at the staff level and undergone a preliminary financial analysis by Springsted. The developer plans to attend the January 8 , 1986 , Council meeting to give an overview of the proposal and hear comments from the Council. The Council is requested at this time to review the project at a concept level and determine whether staff should continue to work with the developer to initiate the formal tax-- increment procedures. Background: The developer initially applied for rezoning of approximately 6 . 4 acres of land he owns just south of the junior high school and the old Shakopee Valley Publishing building on CR 17 . The rezoning would be from the current B-1 district to an R-4 desig- nation, for the purpose of constructing 108 apartment units. The City Planner told the developer that she could not recommend this rezoning because it would create a spot zone of only 2 . 35 acres just to the north of the developer's parcel, separated from the bulk of B-1 property to the south. The Planning Commission reviewed this request as a discussion item at its April, 1985 , meeting and did not react positively due to the potential for a 2 . 35 acre spot zone or creation of a non-conforming use if Shakopee Valley Publishing were rezoned. The developer is now suggesting that he could acquire the Shakopee Valley Publishing building and expand his proposed project from 108 to 147 units. The current owner has agreed to sell the building to the developer under a 120 day option. If the City Council gives concept approval, the developer would go through a formal tax-increment process including platting and rezoning the three parcels involved. Comments have been received from the Finance Director, Planner, Engineer and Utilities Director. These comments include: 1) The Finance Director is generally opposed to additional use of tax-increment. 2 ) The Planner , Engineer and Utilities Director believe the project can work if the following concerns are addressed: a) need to extend water to this area b) need to confirm location of 13th Avenue, which may require dedication of right-of-way by the developer c) need to get county engineer approval for CR 17 access d) drainage plans need to be submitted and approved e) site plan must address emergency access to the building 3 ) The County Assessor has estimated that the Assessor ' s Market Value of this project on completion would be $3 . 8-4 million with an assessed valuation in the neigh- borhood of $1. 3 million. 4 ) Springsted has done an analysis (attached) assuming continuation of the current 125 mill rate and a $650 , 000 bond sale. This analysis suggests that the project could work with a bond term of 10 years or under. The project costs as proposed are conservative, and could possibly be reduced as details of the district are refined. The estimated costs are: Purchase of Building $450 , 000 Buy-out of existing leases 90 , 000 (relocation could substitute for this item) Prepayment penalty on mortgage 35 , 000 Demolition- and site development 50 , 000 City legal and administration 15 , 000 Bond discount, issuance cost and capitalized interest 110 , 000 Total Costs $750 , 000 Proceeds from sale to developer 100 , 000 Net Bond Sale $650 , 000 The existing city policy suggests the following policies be reviewed by Council when considering approval of tax-increment to the city ( see attached policy statement) : 1. Benefit to the City 2 . Character of the Program 3 . Demonstration of Need 4 . Size of the Project 5 . Project certainty/financial guarantees The Council has the option of rejecting the project now based on the preliminary information available to the Council or granting preliminary approval subject to satisfaction of the formal review and approval procedures for tax-increment ( such as planning approvals , neighborhood meeting, public hearing, county board review, etc. ) . If preliminary approval is granted, Council can chose at this time to set certain parameters such as: 1) Establish maximum TIF proceeds available to developer ( $525 , 000 currently requested) . 2 ) Establish desired proceeds from sale of land to developer ( $100 , 000 currently offered by the developer) 3 ) Set tax level necessary to support tax increment (Asses- sor ' s value established $160 , 000 whereas developer had estimated $100 , 000 ) . 4 ) Set maximum term of district to retire bonds (currently estimated at 10 years or less ) 5 ) Establish that the type of subsidy desired is land write-down and site preparation rather than an interest write-down. Requested Action; Respond to developer ' s request and grant preliminary approval for the County Village Apartments tax-increment proposal, subject to those parameters City Council deems necessary to make the project acceptable on a cost-benefit basis . SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED .' .;, .q� "r.� PUBLIC FINANCE ' ADVISORS , 2 198* 30 December 1985 CITY 0 F SH,AK0P E Ms. Jeanne Andre Community Development Director City Hall 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Ms. Andre: We have enclosed a possible debt service schedule for the proposed Country Village apartment project. If you have any questions about the schedule please contact me. We have projected the tax increment at $139,750, based on the assessed valuations you provided us and based on a continued tax rate of 125 mills. Total taxes paid on the assessed valuation you listed would be $161,500, again assuming 125 mills. That is $61,500 more than the taxes assumed by the developer in his pro forma financial statement. Taxes at that level would turn a positive cash flow of $33,134 into a $28,366 deficit. Our greatest concern for the taxes assumed by the developer is the assessment -,-n#ir it*-rrray-rVave usea. i ne 5 rb"J,JJJ tax level equates closely to a 20% assessment ratio, rather than the 34% ratio used by Mr. Schmitt. Since some apartment properties do qualify for a 20% ratio, we suggest you discuss this matter with the developer. At this writing there has been no definitive decision on the effective date of the new tax bill. Unless the effective date is extended it will not be possible to issue these bonds after January I, 1986 without an IDB allocation. We suggest you keep us informed as to the status of the project over the next several weeks so that we may keep you appraised as to your financing options. Very--sincerely yours, Robert D. Pulscher Enclosure /gf 800 Osborn Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 (612) 222-4241 250 North Sunnyslope Road, Brookfield, Wisconsin 53005 (414) 782-8222 THI: ACKERBERG COMPANIES, LTD 4201 Excelsior Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55416 (612)920-9020 l Request for Rezoning and Tax Increment Financing Assistance for Coin-� Shp',mpe. ViTTage Apartments�� 1267 Marschall Road W n Rp wtp Submitted by The Ackerberg Companies, Ltd. December 16, 1985 4 ..,3 C 1 8r CITY , e - CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA PREPARED DECEMBER 27, 1985 $650,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BY SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 1986A SCHEDULE A DATED: 4/ 1/1986 MATURE: 2/ 1 7.500$ ANNUAL ANNUAL LEVY INCREMENT SURPLUS/ CUMULATIVE ANNUAL LEVY MATURE PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL (105%) INCOME (-DEFICIT) SURPLUS LEVY (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) 1985 1987 0 40,625 40,625 40,625 40,625* 0 0 0 1986 1988 0 48,750 48,750 49,028 43,200* 5,828- 0 5,828 1987 1989 30,000 48,750 78,750 82,688 97,825 15,137 15,137 0 1988 1990 70,000 46,500 116,500 122,325 139,750 17,425 32,562 0 1989 1991 75,000 41,250 11.6,250 122,063 139,750 17,687 50,249 0 1990 1992 80,000 35,625 115,625 121,406 139,750 18,344 68,593 0 1991 1993 90,000 29,625 119,625 125,606 139,750 14,144 82,737 0 1992 1994 95,000 22,875 117,875 123,769 139,750 15,981 98,718 0 1993 1995 100,000 15,750 115,750 121,538 139,750 18,212 116,930 0 1994 1996 110,000 8,250 118,250 124,163 139,750 15,587 132,517 0 TOTALS: $650,000 $338,000 $988,000 $1 ,033,211 $1 ,159,900 $126,689 $5,828 BOND YEARS: 4,507 ANNUAL INTEREST COST: $338,000 *INCLUDES CAPITALIZED AVERAGE MATURITY: 6.93 DISCOUNT (PREMIUM) : $9,750 INTEREST OF $83,825 AVG. ANNUAL RATE: 7.716$ TOTAL INTEREST COST: $347,750 (EXEMPT FROM OVERLEVY) THE ACKERBERCi COMPANIES, LTD 4201 Excelsior Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55416 (612)920-9020 December Sixteenth 1985 Ms. Judy Simac City Planner City of Shakopee and Pts. Jeanne Andre Executive Director Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Re: Shakopee Village Apartments Dear Judy and Jeanne: We are pleased to submit to you with this letter the following items: 1 ) four (4) copies of the City of Shakopee Application, Tax Increment Financing Assistance Form, completed as requested; 2) four (4) copies of our drawing entitled, "Shakopee Village Apartments, 1267 Marschall Road (County Road 17) , Shakopee, Minnesota," Sheet 1 , Commission No. 85-11 , dated December 11 , 1985, which contains thereon the site plan, site location map, building section and statistical site information; 3) four (4) copies of a bound book which contains proposed floor plans for Shakopee Village Apartments, a schedule of apartment types, site information statistics and our preliminary pro forma statement for the subject project. By means of this letter, we are asking the City of Shakopee through your good offices to initiate the necessary steps required to create a tax increment district for the subject property which consists of our property having a P. I.D. Number of 27-907-009-0 and the property referred to as the old "Valley Publishing" property owned by Donna and Kenneth Theis and having P.I.D. Numbers of 27-907-0080 and 27-907-009-1 . (We have executed a purchase agreement to acquire the old "Valley Publishing" property. ) Please review the enclosed and attached material and advise us what additional information, procedures, applications or fees are required from us to obtain Ms. Judy Simac and Ms. Jeanne Andre December 16, 1985 Page 2 the formal approvals from the City in pursuance of this application. If we can provide you with any additional information or respond to any further quest* rding this matter, please advise me promptly. 7 J COS, Ile SMA:cs Enclosures The Ackerberg Companies, Ltd. Page 3 7. e. Other assets to accrue to the community. This apartment development will offer large quality orientated rental apartments at affordable market rates. They will add stability and growth to the surrounding area by hastening increased development in the adjacent B-1 zoning areas and by development of other vacant land. This development will require the complete removal of the unsightly "Valley Publishing Building" located adjacent to and immediately south of the Junior High School property. The proposed development will provide a graceful transition between the established R-2 "Urban Residential" neighborhood and the future development of the B-1 "Highway Business" area located at the proposed access from C.S.A.H. No. 17 (Marshall Road) onto the proposed Highway No. 101 bypass. As a result of this development, other additional benefits will accrue to' the immediate area such as the extension of water, sewer and other utility services to serve the property which, in turn, will provide immediate utility services to provide services to other properties located west and south of the development property. The requested approval of the rezoning application and Tax Incre- ment Financing Assistance Program will clarify and align an inconsistency created in the original comprehensive zoning boundaries caused by the existence of the old "Valley Publishing Building." This required an extension of the B-1 zoning category into the R-2 zoning area due to the need to include the "Valley Publishing Building: within the B-1 zoning district. 8. Traffic - to the extent feasible, identify: a. Projected vehicle counts caused by development of the district. Recent vehicle traffic forecasts indicate that the C.S.A.H. 17 roadway segment located adjacent to the proposed development carries approximately 5,000 vehicles daily. Based upon the nature of our anticipated renters attracted to our properties, we anticipate that the completed development will generate less than 500 trips daily with no more than 40 trips generated during the peak A.M. hour and no more than 60 trips generated during the peak P.M. hour. This forecast is based upon our proposed tenant mix and the demographics of the development which will increase the northerly flowing traffic volume on C.S.A.H. 17 by less than an estimated 2 to 3 percent and by less than a 1% increase to the traffic volume flowing south on C.S.A.H. 17 from the site. LOW & MODERATE INCOME CITY OF SHAKOPEE APPLICATION TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ASSISTANCE BACKGROUND INFORMATION Legal name of applicant: The Ackerberg Companies, Ltd. Address: 4201 Excelsior Boulevard, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 Telephone number: 612/920-9020 Name of contact person: S. M. Ackerberg or Alan Ackerberg DISTRICT INFORMATION Addendums shall be addached hereto addressing in detail : 1 . Location - include a location map with exact boundaries of projected develop- ment as proposed. Refer to Site Location Map on attached Drawing Sheet 1, entitled Shakopee Village Apartments, dated December 11, 1985, Commission No. 85-11. 2. Size - describe the size of the proposed project in terms of acres. Show parcel boundaries, if known. 8.88 acres (386,872.2 square feet) . Parcel boundaries are 601.2 feet in the east/west direction and 643.5 feet in the north/south direction. Refer to Site Plan drawing for parcel boundaries and site plan configuration. 3. Use - describe the proposed uses for the property, by parcel , if known. Construction, ownership, operation and management of a 147 unit rental apartment building with on-site parking facilities and related amenities. 4. Value - list the estimated market value to result from the project by year and by parcel , by building and other appropriate spatial subdivision. The estimated value of the completed rental apartment development, including land, will total approximately $5,000,000.00. 5. Timing - describe the timing of the development improvements. Construction of the development is scheduled to commence during March, 1986, and be fully completed by November 30, 1986. Partial occupancy of the building is anticipated by August, 1986. -1- The Ackerberg Companies, Ltd. 1 bCLI_ Page 2 6. Interest Rate Reduction Program - -identify the level of interest rate reduction proposed and how much of it will be financed by the developer and how much by the use of tax increment financing. We do not believe this interest rate reduction program is applicable to this proposed development. 7. Impact - to the extent feasible, identify: a. Temporary construction jobs to be created. Approximately 40 plus local tradespersons will-be employed for periods up to 12 months in the construction of this project. b. Valuation to be added. The anticipated market value of the completed development will be approximately $5,000,000. C. Impact on current housing market and local developer/builders. Previous and current rental market surveys confirm the existence of an extremely low vacancy rate in Shakopee and surrounding communities. This low vacancy rate, which has prevailed since late 1983, confirms a strong demand for rental housing in the local Shakopee rental market. Accordingly, the development of these apartments will fulfill an unmet housing need and establish a stronger housing base to satisfy the positive rental market demands resulting from the high ratio of employment as compared to the present population base. One can anticipate that other major commercial developments scheduled for Shakopee will continue to attract an increasing 12-month employment base which will require affordable and quality rental housing. d. Impact on the city's housing stock as it relates to the city's Housing Assistance Plan. This proposed development will not create any adverse impact on the City's current housing stock or Housing Assistance Plan since the proposed apartment development will be a market rate rental property and will not directly compete with the existing rental housing in the community. The rents proposed for this project will be higher than the existing apartment rents. The proposed building features, quality, size of the apartments, amenities and services offered by this development will attract another segment of the rental market. In fact, this proposed rental development will attract a resident who might not otherwise choose to reside in Shakopee for lack of rental housing which is appropriate to their lifestyle. The Ackerberg Companies, Ltd. Page 4 8, b. Impact on existing traffic arteries. The present design and designation of C.S.A.H. 17 as a minor arterial roadway will safely accommodate any increased traffic generated by this development. We anticipate no adverse impact to existing traffic arteries. C. Plan for traffic flow. The primary vehicle access to the parking and garage areas serving this development will be from the extended 13th Avenue which is scheduled to be located along the south border of the property. A secondary access serving the same parking and garage area will be provided from C.S.A.H. 17. A guest parking and passenger drop-off area will be served from C.S.A.H. 17 and will be restricted to short term visitor parking and pick-up and drop-off area located at the public entrance to the building. 9. Need - explain why -the improvement is not one that would normally be financed by the private developer and why the costs of the improvement cannot be paid by the applicant. The cost of acquiring and combining the old "Valley Publishing" property with the developer's property will be substantially more costly than acquiring undeveloped and unimproved land because the existing structure is presently leased and being used by three or more tenants. Therefore, the economic value of the improved property substantially exceeds its market value when utilized for-additional apartment units for the proposed rental apartment development. It becomes necessary, therefore, to "write-down" the current market value of the "Valley Publishing" property through the use of tax increment financing assistance to a value consistent with its use for a rental apartment building. 10. Pro Forma Refer to the attached Pro Forma prepared for this rental apartment development. C,_ S H A K 0 P E E V I L L A G E A P A R T M E N T S P R 0 F 0 R M A S T A T E M E N T Schedule of Proposed Income --------------------------- Number Size Monthly Annual of Units Type Sq Ft Rent Rent ---------------------------------------------------- 36 (A) 2BR 1250 $625 $270,000 ' Y 40 (B) IBR 825 -415 199200 24 (C) 1BR + Den 1055 530 152640 12 (D) IBR 950 475 68400 6 (E) 1BR 950 475 34200 10 (F) IBR 940 475 57000 4 (G) 3BR 1400 .700 33600 6 (H) 1BR + Den 1110 555 39960 6 (J) 1BR 900 450 32400 2 (K) 2BR + Den 1400 700 16800 1 (L) Studio 660 330 3960 147 $908,160 Laundry Income @ $72/unit/year $10,584 Garages, 120 @ $30/month x 12 $43,200 $961,944 100.0% Less 5% Vacancy Factor ($48,097) 5.0% Scheduled Gross Income $913,847 95.0% Schedule of Proposed Expenses ----------------------------- Advertising $1,200 Cleaning Supplies 1500 Electrical Energy and Heating. Costs 17000 Employer's Share of Payroll Taxes 3500 Insurance 22500 Interest on Security Deposits 1500 Lawn & Grounds Service & Maintenance 7350 Legal and Audit 5000 Office Supplies and Expense 2352 Painting and Decorating 1500 Real Estate Taxes 100.000- Repairs & General Building Materials 2000 Repairs, Air Conditioning 1100 Repairs, Appliance 1800 Repairs, Electrical 200 Repairs, Plumbing 1500 Resident Caretakers 29000 Rubbish Removal 4500 Snow Removal 2500 Telephone 300 . Water and Sewer 8000 Management Fee (5%) 45692 Total Gross Expenses ($259,994) 28.5% Net Income Before Debt Service $653,852 71.5% Debt Service, 12%, 30 Year Amortization ($620,718) 67.9% CASH FLOW $33,134 3.6% SITE INFORMATION CURRENT ZONING: B-1 REQUESTED ZONING: R-4 REQUIRED SETBACKS: ACTUAL SETBACKS: FRONT 50 FT. FRONT 80 FT. REAR 40 FT. REAR 275 FT. SIDE 15 FT. SIDE 87 FT. REQUIRED PARKING: 294 SPACES ACTUAL PARKING: 302 SPACES 147 apartments x 2 spaces per unit 294 REQUIRED HANDICAP PARKING: 6 SPACES ACTUAL HANDICAP PARKING: 6 SPACES 294 spaces = 6 50 spaces/handicap space MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT: 30 FEET ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT: 27 FEET MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIRED PER UNIT: ACTUAL LOT AREA/UNIT: TOTALS STUDIO/1 BEDROOM 2400 S.F. STUDIO 1 x 2400 = 2,400 2 BEDROOM 3000 S.F. 1 BEDROOM 104 x 2400 = 249,600 3 BEDROOM 4500 S.F. 2 BEDROOM 38 x 3000 = 114,000 3 BEDROOM 4 x 4500 = 27,000 384,000 AVAILABLE SITE AREA: 386,872 S.F. REQUIRED SITE AREA: 384,000 S.F. SITE COVERAGE: TOTAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT = 60,820 S.F. 60,829 S.F. = 15.7% SITE COVERAGE 386,872 S.F. TOTAL PARKING, DRIVEWAY AND GARAGE COVERAGE = 135,460 S.F. 135,460 S. F. = 35% SITE COVERAGE 386,872 S.F. Q � m U L) U o0 U W m 0 7177 41 m m i W Z ¢ LU W o f - Yam LL Q J Q = _' a ` m cn > a LL = o Y ilyw Q w c o y F zz Z Ii]w O O W O + + + _O Q d'C'd'C Kd'6'�d'd'O CL m m m m m m m m m m O N—r-----t7r-.—N V) Q 0 -� W O = W 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J Q[OVOLL C7 .J O W U N - Y Q LL Q Q f II nn {h.i' � '. a U,W m O va� • m V U U m � Q ��3onm.��o'nwo of iaasn ow u.w+>rw.w�n fwna3w�a n. �UIU U 10 I < O TU , m =F= 1 ��m m cn a LU Z W W ° o 3-3siA30 O UJ � C O - - J LL cc z f" Q OLLJ = _ a U - cn > Q 1— M-3sI0a3i3 = f7 N w _ a LL LL m ~ Z [ ! Z w w W D O O + + + O ¢ cccccccccco a mm�nmmmnnm� a ¢ ` N N L = O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3911001 J ¢nUOWL.L coZ•7 YJ O O T to Aai g n iii ro-'_I$' t• LL j mo m U U U m tllpliM At 3� •N�pl IJFR1 pM'I1n11Y0YY/iYl Md9N3wip ll• THE AC'KE:RBERG COMPANIES, LTD 4201 Excelsior Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55416 (612)920-9020 Ms Jeanne Andre Executive Director City of Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Diinnesota 55379 Re: Country Village Apartments/Shakopee Dear Ms Andre: As a further response to our initial submittal dated December 16, 1985, to you regarding the subject property, we submit to you the following additional information in reference to our proposed project. 1 ) As you already know, the name "Shakopee Village Apartments" was selected by us as a suitable name for our proposed development. We have recently learned that this name is already in use in the community. We, therefore, ask that you formally change the name of our proposed development on our Application and other documents to "Country Village Apartments/Shakopee." 2) The construction of our proposed development will consist of a three-story wood frame rental apartment building which will be divided into six or more fire divisions, each separated from each other by approved masonry fire walls. The interior surface wall and ceiling materials will be fire code gypsum drywall . All common apartment wall and ceiling areas, including corridors, will be separated with sound insulation materials. The exterior wall F surfaces of the building will be faced with a combination of masonry, cedar siding and shingle materials. Windows will be wood casement- type glazed with insulating glass. One enclosed and detached garage stall will be provided for each apartment. Additional surface park- ing will be available to serve the residents and their guests. 3) Other available building amenities and features include but are not limited to such items as air conditioning, wall to wall carpet- ing, a full kitchen appliance package, corridor ventilation, library and lounge areas, a large party room, physical fitness and exercise rooms, dual laundry rooms on each floor, a full building security system, fire alarm and smoke detection systems, on-site live-in caretakers and resident manager, large closets, a large variety of floor plans providing exceptionally large apartments, ceramic tile bathrooms, quality oak trim, millwork and doors , balconies and patio areas, well maintained, planted and groomed grounds with formal garden areas, drapery rods, quality hardware with security deadbolts for each apartment door, closed circuit TV security system, and an owner/management team having more than 30 years of continuous experience in constructing, owning and managing other similar properties. We also enclose an area map of the immediate project area which locates and identifies adjacent properties by the owner's name, tax identification number and zoning category. We have also indicated by a red line the common dividing property line located between our property and the recently acquired Kenneth Theis property which is being added to our property to further enhance our proposed development. Attached to this letter is a detailed schedule of construction costs prepared for this project. Our initial pro forma statement has been expanded to reflect the anticipated 10-year income and expense tabulations for this property commencing in 1987. The pro forma statement also reflects what effect the City's participation could have on our property by creating a Tax Increment Financing District for US. If tax exempt revenue bonds can be provided by the City of Shakopee for our proposed development, we wish to be considered in such a program for the financ- ing of this development. If tax exempt revenue bonds are made available to us, we estimate that our equity in the completed project will be $625,000.00. If there is any other or additional information required to prepare our proposal for presentation to the Shakopee City Council and Planning Commission, please advise. We will promptly provide you with any additional material required. Si cel , T E ACKERB G COt NI LTD. an s M Ack b g SMA:cs Enclosures cc SPS THE ACKERBERG COMPANIES, LTD 4201 Excelsior Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55416 (612)920-9020 December Thirtieth 1985 Ms Jeanne Andre Executive Director City of Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Re: Country Village Apartments/Shakopee Dear Ms Andre: Last Thursday, December 26, 1985, we submitted additional information regarding the development of the subject property. Attached to the December 26, 1985 sub- mittal was a detailed schedule of preliminary construction costs prepared for this development. Pursuant to your suggestion, we have reclassified these preliminary construction costs into the following categories: Land Acquisition $ 998,700 Building Construction 4,375,598 Contingency Allowance 327,063 Developers Profit 286,572 Financing, Construction 227,000 Financing, Permanent 125,000 Marketing 32,000 Professional Fees 187,700 Total Costs: 6,559,633 The Land Acquisition cost includes not only the purchase of the Theis property but also the demolition or relocation of the existing Theis building, preparation of the site for construction and other miscellaneous costs . Professional Fees in- clude architectural fees, engineering fees, legal fees, accounting fees and others. We hope that this reclassification of our preliminary costs is helpful to you. If you require any additional information or clarifications , please contact me directly. Sincerely, THE ACKERBERG COMPANIES, LTD. t / Lac/ Aon C. A4cklerg ACA/kml Fr, / 21 rj fil ' •' �• I ' 1 1 '-ti ' ! ,i �1 a,��. �fes. � I j � � J - �r . f • t 1 'I '' 'a --•�i ,__..1 ...t� i......•... rI .._ _. tr + � �i �• I ;��' °il ` �� ` �'r 1,, .�,��__.._..__1_-_..-.._.. ..._.------ SC►lool. DISTRICT _ .� r...r... . �,;�_,..r..• .��� ;u�E �;�<. ALPNONSE JUNIOR HIGH — / l \ I ?IT1I 1IY VIE Ku N6 - 2'1-90'100'7-00 _ tl A;C}{00 L 38a► Ac DIST4'12a K•THErS SPS s.. 17-90-1010 00._._ 1-7-gcr7ov9-o. y01 009-0 q.84lrc t Ileo !�� 6,42/► � ooq-i ScpTTLA N b f 1 C.- 0 1 G- •OIG- I 39 Ar- AG r- w i rtl - i 4� 1 I _ A► _.._. . ._ . ►. r Asommommowllllill MATCH LINE j ' I. w « I w « « o Ina N m � ` r ► m P ► a o0 0 -� 1 u-I ; N P I _a o w o v> m M o- ► N m �� m �M c � i � -ma '� � i QJ O -M C If> m O N — N m - m H P N P N O O M H I O O D M r` O m m M1 - 0 0 ► ► 1 O � IMO R ^ N m u> N -- r ... v�> ► m a vJ i _ I o- N N 1 .- v7 1 «J ^ I N w M I w l w b I ► 1 O ... C V> b � C e ry N a N Y7 N a d d i � ► a I M w N 1 N I w m w O N O N b O �' � '� C -0 O m f• O ^ I!Y � ► 1 ^ 00- I r-> .� r+ Y> N ... � N . �+ .. N 'V' ► N IOn.I 00 @ N � 1 O ► O m O O m In II'J m 0 V> I M O N � N ; O � m t w M M I w 1 `• eidi I!> r O t O �• ^ m N O N N M Ci I � � � � � r� Ii J N -� O ... C+ ► N m � I O N � I s M I .... l - c I'- � • `w N o � pm _ c A C In m 1 V> m W Id N y d O d Va N d � ^� ' C I O ✓ = N ✓ S p d IJ d v V ✓ in A � � � C N � A d � I ✓ U COUNTRY V I L L A 6 E APARTMENT5ISHAK0PEE PRC FORMA STATEMENT -hedule of froposed Income Number Size Monthly Annual of Units Type Sq Ft Pent Pent 36 (A) 2ER 1250 1625 11270,000 40 IF 16;: 825 415 19920(1 24 (C) IDR 4 Den 1055 530 151640 12 ID) IDR 950 475 68400 6 (E) 1DR 950 475 34200 10 (F) 1DR 940 475 57000 , 4 (G) TBR l4^r 700 33600 6 IH) IBR 4 Den 1110 555 39960 6 (J) IDR 900 450 32400 1 (K) 2DR 4 Den 1400 700 16900 I I (L) Studio 660 330 3960 147 1908,160 Garages 147 Single 220 130 $52,920 Laundry Income: S 72 /unit/year 110,$94 1971,664 Less 5X vacancy factor ($48,583) 1 Scheduled Gross Income 5923,OE1 ; en Year income and Expense Projection 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 chedule of Proposed Income (Assumes an Annual 5% Income Increase) -------------------------- $923,081 1969,235 51,017,697 11,068,581 51,122,010 111,178,111 51,237,017 $1,299,867 $1,363,811 $1,432,001. schedule of Proposed Expenses (Assumes Operating Cost Increases Where Applicable; ---------------------------- ,6 ertising $1,200 $1,200 111,200 51,200 11,200 11,200 51,200 51,200 $1,200 11,200 leaning Supplies 1500 1539 1576 1615 1656 1697 1740 1793 1828 1813 ectrical Energy and Heating Costs 17000 17425 17661 18307 18765 19234 19715 20208 20713 21231 mployer's Share of Payroll Taxes 7.500 3589 3677 3769 3963 3960 4059 4160 4264 4371 nsurance 22500 21063 23639 24230 24636 25457 26093 26745 27414 28099 C+ CITY OF SHAKOPEE IDCLO " & MODERATE APPLICATION INCOME TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ASSISTANCE BACKGROUND INFORMATION Legal name of applicant : Address : Telephone number: Name of contact person: DISTRICT INFORMATION Addendums shall be attached hereto addressing in detail : 1 . Location - include a location map with exact boundaries of projected development as proposed. 2 . Size - describe the size of the proposed project in terms of acres . Show parcel boundaries , if known. ' 3. Use - describe the proposed uses for the property, by parcel , if known. 4 . Value - list the estimated market value to result from the project by year and by parcel , by building or other appropriate spatial subdivision. 5. Timing - describe the timing of the development improvements . 6 . Interest Rate Reduction Program - identify the level of interest rate reduction proposed and how much of it will be financed by the developer and how much by the use of tax increment financing. 7 . Impact - to the extent feasible, identify: a . Temporary construction jobs to be created. b. Valuation to be added. C . Impact on current housing market and local developer/builders d. Impact on the city' s housing stock as it relates to the city' s Housing Assistance Plan. e . Other assets to accrue to the community. 8 . Traffic - to the extent feasible , identify: a. Projected vehicle counts caused by development of the district . b. Impact on existing traffic arteries . C . Plan for traffic flow. 9 . Need - explain why the improvement is not one that would normally be financed by the private developer and why the costs of the improvement cannot be paid by the applicant. OTHER INFORMATION Provide any further information you feel may assist the City in assess- ing the merits of this proposal . COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT CITY OF SHAKOPEE Subject : Review of Tax Increment Low and Moderate Income Housing Projects There are three types of Tax increment Financing (TIF) Districts : Redevelopment , Low & Moderate Income Housing Interest Reduction Programs and Economic Development . Shakopee has elected to restrict TIF availability for any type of low and moderate income or conven- tional housing unless it meets Redevelopment Project Criteria out- lined in a separate Policy Statement ( i .e. TIF availability is restricted for housing on bare land) . TIF is available for Economic Development Projects and Redevelopment Projects under separate, but similar, Policy Statements . Minnesota statutes place the responsibility for low and moderate income interest reduction programs with housing and redevelopment authorities . Under Minnesota statutes , however, the interest reduction program and tax increment financing plans of the authority must be approved by the City Council . In addition, the financing of such projects requires the active involvement of the City. As a result , it is necessary that the City have a policy in regard to these projects . The purpose of this policy statement is to establish the City' s restrictions with respect to the processing of requests for, and the creation and implementation of, tax increment financing districts for low and moderate income housing. STATEMENT OF POLICY Applicability It is the policy of the City of Shakopee to provide interest rate reduction programs to assist the financing of the construction, rehabilitation, and purchasing of housing units which are primarily for occupancy by individuals of low or moderate income and related or subordinate facilities (MSA 462 .445 , Subd. 10 ) in order to pro- tect and increase property values and the tax base of the City. For those purposes , it may be necessary to create tax increment low and moderate income housing districts in selected portions of the City and to fund interest rate reduction programs for private developments within such districts . It is also the policy of the City of Shakopee to limit (restrict ) the use of TIF interest rate reduction programs to programs that provide home ownership on a scattered site basis with the TIF interest rate reduction provided to the homeowner rather than the builder/developer for quality homes compatible with the neighborhood. Creation of tax increment low and moderate income housing districts may come as the result of City initiative , Housing and Redevelopment Authority action, or a private proposal . It is in the public interest that the creation of tax increment districts and the financing of low and moderate income interest reduction programs with tax incre- ments be made only after the City has been fully informed concerning the proposal and its current and future prospects , and has been able to thoroughly investigate it . Where a company or individual is requesting creation of a tax increment district or the financing of interest rate reduction programs via tax increments , that company or individual will be required to furnish certain information needed for such investigation and will be required to assume the costs of the City' s efforts . It shall be the expressed intent of the City to expedite to the great- est extent feasible the processing of all requests for the approval of tax increment projects so that no undue delays are experienced by the applicant . However, nothing herein shall be construed as representing a commitment on the part of the City to create tax increment districts . Policy The following policies will be observed in the Council ' s considera- tion of the approval of tax increment projects : 1 . Benefit to the City: For purposes of determining benefit of a proposed tax increment district or project , both its estimated economic and other benefits shall be considered : ( 1 ) The economic benefit is the increased tax base that will result , not only in terms of the absolute increase in the tax base , but also with respect to how great an increase will be received from a given public investment ; ( 2 ) Equally important is the contribution the proposal makes in creating needed housing units in accordance with the City ' s adopted Housing Assistance Program; ( 3 ) The level of other public and private investment involved in the project ; (4 ) The overall risk or exposure to loss of City funds included in the project ; and ( 5 ) The degree to which competition in neighboring communities dictates use of such programs to create competitive housing markets in Shakopee . 2 . Character of Program: A viable program should typically include participation by botH the applicant( s ) and the City in reducing interest rates for low and moderate income individuals . Examples of such participation include : ( 1 ) A firm commitment by the applicant ( s ) to build a specified number of the program' s housing units or an equivalent commitment ; ( 2 ) A firm commitment by the applicant ( s ) to contribute a stated level of interest rate reduc- tion from non-increment sources ; ( 3 ) Participation by several experienced developer/builders to insure that the program' s success or failure does not depend upon on only one or two developer/builders ; and (4 ) The demonstrated quality of the units L proposed and their capability with housing units in the neighbor- hood. 3 . Demonstration of Need: A request for tax increment financing shall demonstrate that feasible alternative financing is not available and that the assistance applied for is needed in the amount requested. The developer( s ) will be asked to submit a proforma , an estimate of the costs and revenues of the project , the amount of private capital in the project , and other informa- -3- tion as deemed essential for analysis by the City. Such analysis will either be made by staff or through the City' s financial con- sultant when considered necessary. An applicant who is not willing to provide this information to the City should not make a formal request for tax increment financing assistance. 4. Size of the Project : Because of the time and cost involved in analyzing a request for tax increment financing, and because tax increment financing should only be used in those instances where the project will have a demonstrable positive impact on the community as a whole , requests for tax increment financing of less than $100 ,000 will not be considered as a general rule. A request of this minimum size would require a redevelop- ment to increase the market value of the property by $1 ,000,000 assuming the 10-to-1 ratio noted above. 5 . Project Certainty/Financial Guarantees : In addition to the other factors , favorable consi eration or tax increment financing will be based on ( 1 ) When the development is expected to occur; ( 2 ) The demonstrated capacity of the applicant ( s ) to successfully w< complete the development , and ( 3 ) The certainly that the tax increments will be received. Tax Increment Revenue Bonds or General Obligation Bonds will not be used to fund low and moderate income interest reduction pro- grams. Increments will be utilized directly to write down interest rates to insure maximum protection for the City. Appli- cants for tax increment financing for interest reduction pro- grams will be required to sign an acceptable written agreement setting forth the responsibilities of the applicant and the City with respect to the program. The performance of the appli- cant under such contract shall be supported by presentation of a financial guarantee in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit . Procedure The following procedures will be utilized in reviewing tax increment financing proposals : 1 . A written request shall be submitted concurrently to the City Administrator ' s office and to the Executive Director of the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority by the person or firm requesting the City and HRA to utilize the City' s tax increment financing capacity. The request shall contain, at a minimum, the information in the pre-application form. 2 . Upon submission, the request shall be reviewed by a committee chaired by the City Administrator and consisting of the Planner, City Engineer, Public Works Director, Utilities Director, County Assessor , Finance Director, and HRA Executive Director to determine , on a preliminary basis , whether the proposal appears to be feasible. 3 . The application and supporting financial data shall be submitted to the City' s Financial Consultant for review. -4- � C� 4. The preliminary proposal shall be placed on the next regularly scheduled agendas of the HRA and of a City Council Work Session for their preliminary review. At those times , the applicant( s ) may make a presentation, and staff will make preliminary comments concerning the perceived feasibility of the project . 5 . Based on the preliminary review, the applicant ( s ) may elect to file a formal application with the City, accompanied by a fee of $500. 6 . Upon the filing of a formal application, staff shall proceed to complete a tax increment financing analysis which shall examine in detail the proposal ' s financial viability (which may include a full appraisal by staff or M.A. I . ) , and benefit to the commu- nity as outlined in the policies above . 7 . The applicant ( s ) shall attend at least one ( 1 ) meeting with resi- dents and property owners in and within 500 feet of the proposed tax increment district conducted by the City Council and HRA. 8 . After the meeting noted in Step 7 and upon completion of the tax increment financing analysis , a recommendation will be made to the City Council and HRA. Based upon that recommendation, the Council and HRA may authorize the staff to commence negotia- tion of a low or moderate income interest reduction program. 9 . Negotiation of the interest reduction program contract prepared by the HRA occurs . 10. During the negotiation of the contract , a tax increment financing plan will be prepared by staff with notification being provided to Scott County and the School District , if such plans have not already been adopted. 11 . If a redevelopment plan is needed, such plan shall be transmitted to the Planning Commission for review and comment . 12 . The HRA will be asked to approve a contract and a tax increment financing plan and redevelopment plan in the event such plans are needed. 13 . The City Council will be asked to approve the redevelopment con- tract and, if necessary and after the appropriate public hearings (noticed via published notice and notice mailed to property owners in and within 500 feet of the proposed district ) , a tax increment financing plan and redevelopment plan. 14. The adopted plans will be filed with Scott County and the State of Minnesota. 15 . Tax increment bonds are issued. RESOLUTION NO. 2191 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND ADOPTING CERTAIN TAX INCREMENT POLICIES RELATED TO THE USE OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING FOR INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAMS FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME FAMILIES WHEREAS , the Shakopee City Council has spent considerable time considering the adoption of certain policies in connection with tax increment financing for interest rate reduction programs for low and moderate income families and has determined upon the adoption of certain .policies in dealing with such projects . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL that the tax increment policies set forth in the attached Exhibit A are hereby made a part hereof and adopted by the Shakopee City Council effective as of the date of this resolution. Adopted in v session of the City Cou it o the City of Shakopee, Mibeesota , held this day of , 1983 . c aayoof t e ity o a opee ATTEST: i it er Approved as to form this (. day of �(Q,�,� 1983 . City A Lorne ; --'"" i TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director RE: Professional Services for Huber Park Trail Grant DATE: January 3 , 1986 Introduction: Two years ago the City received authorization to expend LAWCON/LCMR grant funds for park improvements along the Huber Park Trail. Under grant regulations funds are to be expended by the end of 1986 . Plans and specifications need to be drawn up so the project can be bid and implemented in 1986 . Background• The City has delayed moving forward on these improvements until the DNR trail was constructed and the new bridge alignment is established. The former is now complete , but a committee has just been established to work on the bridge alignment. Ideally the City would wait to deal with the trail improvements until the road alignment is set. However at this point that delay could jeopordize receipt of grant funds . Therefore staff has recommended that a consultant be hired to do the plans and specifications, with a directive to keep informed of the progress on the road alignment, and propose landscaping which willavoid probable disruption due to road construction. The Engineering Department does not have staff time available now to assist with this project. Because Westwood Planning and Engineering is familiar with the downtown, and is just reaching a conclusion on the streetscape elements , . a proposal was obtained from that firm to do the work for the Huber Park Trail landscaping ( attached) . Reauested Action: Authorize Huber Park Landscape Architectural Services as outlined in the October 23 , 1985 , proposal from Westwood Planning and Enginering at a cost not to exceed $2000 to be part of the grant project expenses. Si �.T�F.Y 3axN4 fl '3: T:32 S v� tt'4 "HY eii4iK, ��.�.�� �,.� :�.�;: .,.,Taz��'�`��,`,rv�.'�x. <.i=�� s:.,x,. ...�� ��i��•e tea....,,a.:.n?�L:"?� ,m �. iia WETWOOD PLANNING & ENGINEERING COMPANY „�i October 23, 1985 Ms. Jeanne Andre, Director Community Development City Administrative Offices 129 East Ist Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 RE: Huber Park Landscape Architectural Services Dear Ms. Andre: I have reviewed the project mapping in the area of the Huber Park Trail in downtown Shakopee. As I understand the potential project; landscape improvements along the trail and at the boat launch are desired. I believe there are landscape architectural services we can provide relative to this desire. This letter is our proposal for Landscape Architectural Services on this project. Our services and our corresponding charges are as follows: 1. Field check existing trail plans against on site conditions. Prepare a site plan which approximates conditions based on observed (but not surveyed) information. Any improved site data provided by the City (as built trail plans, etc. ) will be used but not cross-verified by Westwood Planning & Engineering Company. 2. Provide a preliminary planting concept and cost estimate, working toward a total cost of $24,000.00. 3. Review plan with City personnel and revise plan to reflect recommen- dations of staff. 4. Provide plant materials list and installation and materials specifi- cations for use in bidding. 5. The cost for this work shall not exceed $2,000.00. This estimate is based on the understanding that the work described in the bid specifications shall not exceed $22,000.00 (using actual bids to verify costs). If incurred costs exceed this amount by more than 1OX because the City wishes to expand the project, additional fees shall be negotiated. Westwood Planning & Engineering Company has four (4) Registered Landscape Architects and a Park Planner. These professionals have worked on the Landscape plan for the Maple Grove and Brooklyn Center City Hall; landscape planning for the Shingle Creek Park Trail in Brooklyn Center; detailed trails, bollards, guardrails, and benches in many parks, in addition to designing the landscape work for the new Brainerd Public Library, and Cambridge Community College. 7415 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 65426 (612) 5460155 October 23, 1985 Jeanne Andre Page 2 We shall initiate work only upon instructions to proceed .and shall complete work for spring planting in 1986. We shall expect the City to provide us base data, mylar base maps, and any other support necessary to augment our services which are Landscape design oriented (surveying, redrafting, engineering services, final plan printing, and bidding shall be by the City Public Works Department). If this proposal is accepted, an authorizing signature should be placed on the bottom of this proposal or a brief letter referencing this proposal shall be an acceptable notation of our agreement on services and fees. We shall wait to hear if the Council chooses to undertake this project. Sincerely, WESTWOOD PLANNING & ENGINEERING COMPANY fir►' Tim Erkkea, SLA Vice President, Planning TWE/clm CONDITIONS ACCEPTED BY THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE: by: its: date: MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Physical Reorganization of City Hall Offices DATE: December 30 , 1985 Introduction The City has learned unofficially that the Job Service will be moving February 1st from the second floor of the City Hall building to offices in the newly remodeled Minnegasco building. Because this will open up additional office space in City Hall the Community Development Department has asked that I address the subject of physical office reorganization with Council. Background The Department of Community Development is one of the most severely handicapped departments because of the various physical locations of their staff and the lack of meeting space for meetings with developers. Because of this, the department has asked me to request that City Council consider the physical relocation of the department to provide for a more suitable work environment. Their plan involves moving the departmental secretary from the front reception area, with a request to occupy the Job Service area which is soon to be vacated. Based on the department ' s request we had a staff meeting on December 30 , 1985 with other effected departments. The point was made that the management consultant will be looking at possible increased staffing levels ( and therefore increased space needs ) as well as the efficiency of service delivery for various city departments. Therefore a change in space at this time may not account for all necessary factors which should be considered. Consensus was that no physical changes be made until the consultant' s report is submitted eight weeks from now, and that options including relocation of other departments will remain as possibilities. However because the Community Development Department feels an urgent need and does not want to miss the opportunity for improvement of their work environment, they have requested that the Council be brought in to preliminary discussion of the space needs now, in anticipation of possible changes in two months. Those issues that effect the Council include 1 ) agreeing to keep the second floor of City Hall vacant until the consultant ' s report is done and 2 ) preliminary consideration of moving Council Chambers out of City Hall until a new City Hall is constructed. This latter option is in response to the possible need to have office space more conveniently located adjacent to other departments, as well as the fact that the space is currently less than adequate for many public meetings due to its small size and lack of handi- capped accessible restrooms . The Council could meet at the County Courthouse assembly room, board meeting room, the fire station meeting room, or some other space now made available to the public at no charge if moving of Council Chambers is pursued. Staff is not suggesting that either of these requests would be final, only that Council consider them prior to the receipt of the consultant ' s staffing analysis. At that time the data from the staffing analysis would be combined with existing depart- mental needs and space available to provide a final set of recom- mendations for office reorganization. Alternatives 1. Agree to keep the second floor of City Hall vacant until the staffing study is completed in approximately eight weeks and give preliminary consideration to moving Council Chambers to another location. This alternative would provide r the maximum number of alternatives for final consideration by staff and Council in obtaining optimum office relocation for the various departments housed in City Hall. 2 . Agree to keep the second floor of City Hall vacant until the staffing study is completed in approximately eight weeks , but give no further consideration to the moving Of the Council Chambers. This alternative would limit the possibilities available under alternative No 1 . , but should be seriously considered by Council if Council does not want the Council meetings moved under any circumstances . 3 . Allow staff to consider any alternatives available without making any prior commitment to keep the second floor vacant until the staffing study is completed or without stating how Council feels about utilizing the present Council Chambers for offices and moving Council meetings . Recommendation The department heads currently housed in City Hall recommend alternative No. 1 for the reasons listed above. Action Reauested Pass a motion directing the appropriate City officials to keep the second floor of City Hall vacant after the Job Service moves out Feburary 1st until a final report is received on staffing needs from the consultant, and d4rect the appropriate City staff to analyze alternatives that might utilize the Council Chambers for office space by relocating City Council meetings . JKAjjms A`yi2e"L1 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne Andre , Community Development Director RE: Secretarial Help for Community Development DATE: January 3 , 1986 Introduction: Last summer when the Community Development Department was inundated with work the Council authorized additional part- time secretarial assistance to help. That authorization was through 1985 . As some clerical overload is still anticipated a request is hereby made to extend that assistance. Background: Donna Doege now works approximately 10 hours per week for the City through Valley Temporary Staffing. She works on an as needed basis , mostly for Community Development but helping out other departments as needed. She is a good worker and has become familiar with many City procedures . While work over- load has leveled off somewhat , it is not down to a slower pace sometimes encountered in the winter months . There will be heavy workload in January for the small cities grant and Administra- tion and Building will need assistance in February due to clerical vacations . It is therefore recommended that the City continue to utilize parttime temporary clerical assistance until the consulting report on staffing levels has been reviewed and acted upon by the Council . Requested Action: 1 . Authorize continued use of parttime temporary clerical assistance as needed until the Ernst and Whinney Service Mix and Staff Analysis has been accepted and acted upon by the City Council . 2. Amend the Community Development 1986 budget to provide an additional $700 from contingency for professional services . JA: cah j TO: Mayor, Council Members FROM: Tom Brownell, Chief of Police RE: 1986 Towing Contract DATE: January 2 , 1986 INTRODUCTION Staff has completed the required bid process for the 1986 towing and storage of vehicles for the city. BACKGROUND One bid was received from Shakopee Towing (Koehnen' s) and no others. The cost of towing and storage for 1986 remains the same as bid for 1985 . Heavy duty towing for vehicles such as semi trucks will also continue to be sublet, and the appropriate insurance coverage forms will be provided to the city clerk. RECOMMENDATION Award the 1986 city towing contract to Lester Koehnen (Shakopee Towing Co. ) COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED r Award the 1986 city towing contract to Lester Koehnen (Shakopee Towing Co. ) MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ray Ruuska, Assistant Engineer RE: Taylor Street Assessments DATE: December 30 , 1985 Introduction: As you requested, I have researched City Council minutes regarding the above mentioned project. The extension of Taylor Street has been to Council several times in the last few years and has recently been extended on a supplementary contract to the 2nd Ave. Parking Lot Project. Background• City Council minutes that dealt with Taylor Street were dated 8/17/82 , 9/6/83 and 10/15/85 . Those minutes with the corresponding t staff memos are attached and are chronologically labeled "A" , "B" and "C" . It is important to note that on 12/18/82 an escrow deposit of $5000 . 00 was made to the City by the developer, for the purpose of roadway construction and was subsequent to the 8/17/82 Council meeting where he was told that there would be no storm sewer assessment against Minnesota Valley 5th Addition properties . A copy of the developers agreement for this same subdivision is attached (Attachment "D" ) which does not require roadway or storm sewer improvements in Minnesota Valley 5th Addn. The minutes of 9/6/83 indicate that City Council attempted to provide a mechanism through a more "formal" escrow agreement with the developer which would have allowed him to sell the property in Minnesota Valley 5th Addition and fronting on Taylor St. However, that agreement could not be reached with the developer. On October 15 , 1985, City Council ordered the Taylor Street improvements be made under Supplemental Contract No. 1 to Project 85-4 with the storm sewer costs to be paid by the escrow account. All earlier Council minutes show that storm sewer costs were to be borne by the future Minnesota Valley 6th and 7th Additions . However, negotiations with the developers did not result in any agreements . Recommendations: As an alternative to charging the storm sewer costs against the escrow deposit, one-half of the total project cost of $11, 970 . 88 , less the cost of the storm sewer could be paid out of the escrow account. The remaining costs could be paid out of the Capital Improvement Fund. Action Requested: Move to authorize payment of storm sewer costs and one-half the cost of the street improvement out of the Capital Improvement Fund. The remaining cost to be paid out of the escrow account. Actual accounts to be based on final costs upon completion of the project in the spring of 1986 . Estimated Costs Escrow Account $3 , 345 . 44 Capital Improvement Fund $8 , 625. 44 Also move to direct City staff to record the storm sewer cost of this improvement for future assessment to the undeveloped area to the south according to the City' s assessment policy. C, MEMOTO: Mayor and Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Minnesota Valley Fifth Addition DATE: August 13 , 1982 Introduction Dick Wiggin appeared before the City Council on August 3 , 1982 to discuss two problems relating to his plat for Minnesota Valley Fifth Addition. The first problem related to the driveway loca- tion on the lot across from the Mall entrance on 12th Avenue . The second problem relates to storm sewer construction , its timing , and who should pay for it . Investigation The Mayor , City Engineer , Councilman Wampach and I met with Dick and Bill Sinn at the site on August_ 5 , 1982 . The concern about the driveway location was resolved . The City agreed that a drive- way could be constructed approximately 75 feet from the south curb line on 12th Avenue . The storm sewer involves 54 feet of storm sewer that needs to be installed before Mr. Wiggin can do the final paving of Taylor Street . It ways suggested that the cost be assessed to lands to be developed in the future and lying south of Minnesota Valley Fifth. Therefore , if Mr. Wiggin and Mr. Watson, the other landowner involved, were to agree in advance to the assessment , the City could build the storm sewer with PIR Funds , spread the assessments to repay the PIR Fund , and constuct the storm sewer so Mr. Wiggin could then complete Taylor Street over the storm sewer to comDlete his development requirements for Minnesota Valley Fifth. Mr. Wiggin agrees that the assessments will be spread now and that when Minnesota Valley 6th and 7th are developed he would pay the balance pursuant to present developers agreements . 1 contacL`ed r,ir. LYliael of Watson Construction, -he only other land- owner in the craina,e basin , and he a-greed to the assessment concept . Thei-cLore , the Council 'las two clear al_ernatives . Storm Sewer Alternatives 1 . Do nothing. In this case Mr. Wiggin could not complete Minnesota Valley Fifth, would be subject to a continued escrow, and would not be able to put in a second driveway for garages to his 4-plex. 2 . Construct the storm sewer. with PIR Funds and assess the cost by prior agreement to the "benefited" property owners . This would resolve all of the above problems and get the storm sewer extended 54 feet to the edge of the Minnesota Valley Fifth Addition plat where it should be. 3 . Other. Minnesota Valley Fifth Addition Page Two August 13 , 1982 Recommendation Staff recommends alternative #2 with the condition that we receive written assessment agreements from Watson Construction and Mr. Wiggin. This will allow Mr. Wiggin to properly complete the public improvements for Minnesota Valley Fifth . Action Requested 1 . Authorize staff to obtain storm sewer assessment waivers of hearings from Mr. Wiggin and Watson Construction accepting the cost of 54 feet of storm sewer estimated to cost $1860 said costs to be spread over properties they own in the drainage basin. JKA/jms QJ ME,N10 TO : John K . Anderson City Administrator �, ) 6 FROM : H . R. Spurrier l �� City Engineer 7 RE : Minnesota Valley 15th Ad tion Storm Sewer City of Shakopee Storm Sewer Policy DATE : July 19, 1982 Introduction : The City has policy for the extension of storm sewer. Application of the policy as it relates to laterals and trunks presents a problem. Background : A storm sewer is an element of public improvements required for the property south of Valley lvoll including Minnesota Valley 5th Addition. In an effort to establish funding responsibility for the storm sewer, it became clear that City policy was unclear in specifying that responsibility. The present policy assumes that somehow the definition of "lateral" and "trunk" exist. These definitions do not exist and the actual definition used by the City is a policy matter, not an Engineering definition. There are some Engineering facts that are necessary for the definition but these facts relate to oversizing required to accommodate increased runoff as a result of existing or proposed land disturbing activities. There are many approaches to establishing the definition of "laterals" and "trunks" . Listed below is a recommended criteria for each : 1 . Trunks a. Required pipe serves an area upstream and beyond the assessed or developed area. b. Required pipe size is larger than a specific minimum diameter, 36 inches (any diameter 18 inch and greater could be used) . c. Required pipe size would be smaller if the tributary basin was un- developed. John K . Anderson -2- July 19, 1982 Il . Laterals a. Required pipe size is sr,raller than 33 inches (any diameter greater than 18 inch could be :;pccificdl . b. Required pipe does not have to be extended beyond the development or assessed area. Listed below are four alternatives for specifying and assessing storm sewer laterals and trunk : Alternate I Present policy as administered: Laterals 18 inch/greater Trunks 18 inch/greater Developer is responsible for the entire cost of any pipe which serves the developed land. The City pays half the cost of any pipe which serves land outside the development. Alternate II : Present policy modified: Laterals 18 inch/36 inch Trunks 42 inch/greater Developer- is responsible for the entire cost of pipe 18 inch through 36 inch. City pays half the cost of 42 inch and larger. Alternate III : Specific pipe size: Laterals 18 inch/36 inch Trunks 42 inch/greater Developer is responsible for the entire cost of pipe 18 inch through 36 inch. City pays oversizing for pipe 42 inch and larger. Oversizing is the cost of the pipe construction less the cost of 36 inch pipe construction. Alternate IV : Historic Flow Developer is responsible for the entire cost of any 18 inch pipe and is responsible for the entire cost of any facilities or pipe required to convey the historic flow and any increased runoff from the developers land. The City may require the developer to provide additional capacity. Any oversizing required as a result of providing additional capacity, shall be paid by the City. , John K . Anderson -3- July 19, 1982 These alternatives presume that the definition of "laterals" and "trunks" has been established pursuant to the criteria specified above. Alternate I Pros Cons 1 . Preserves existing policy . 1 . Developer may pay an unfair percent of the cost in some cases. 2. Limits the cost to a developer. 2. The City may pay an unfair percent of the cost in some cases. 3. Policy penalizes larger developments. 4. City faces resistence in requiring additional oversizing. 5. City faces uncertain cost. Alternate 11 Pros Cons 1 . Limits the cost to a developer. 1. Developer may pay an unfair percent of the cost in some cases. 2. The City may pay an unfair percent of the cost in some cases. 3. City faces resistance in requiring additional oversizing. 4. City faces uncertain cost. Alternate III Pros Cons 1 . City exposure to cost is certain. 1. Developer may pay an unfair percent of the cost in some cases. 2. A larger share of project cost is paid by the developer. 3. The cost to a developer is limited. John K . Anderson -4- July 19, 1982 Alternate IV Pros Cons I. City exposure to cost is certain. 1. Developers in large drainage ways would not have resources to build 2. Developer's cost is related to use. necessary improvements. To reiterate, the question of what a lateral or trunk should be and what over- sizing should be is not an Engineering question, but a policy question. The alternatives range from Alternate I , which has the greatest cost assessed to the City to Alternate IV, which has a minimum exposure to cost for the City. The most appropriate alternative is perhaps somewhere between Alternate I and Alternate IV. As it is applied now, larger developments are penalized by present policy, where smaller subdivisions such as Minnesota Valley 5th Addition and Furrie 2nd Addition benefit because any facilities installed benefit land outside the subdivision and could be considered trunk facilities because they benefit off-site areas. Attached is the draft copy of proposed Storm Drainage Criteria. City staff proposes to meet with developers and consultants working in the City prior to recommending the adoption of the criteria. It would, therefore, be appropriate to consider a revision or modification of present lateral and trunk storm sewer assessment at the same time, regardless of what decision Council makes regarding the oversizing or trunk cost. A decision should be made soon on the definition for "trunk storm sewers" and "laterals storm sewers" . The problem of Mr. Wiggin's storm sewer still exists. Pursuant to present policy, the City would pay half the cost of the extension of his storm sewer because the storm- sewer serves tributary areas outside the development. In the case of Mr. Wiggin's storm sewer, it is the recommendation of City staff that one-half the cost of that storm sewer be paid by the City, pursuant to present policy. City staff is not aware of what Mr. Wiggin's specific request will be at the meeting, and therefore, this memoranda addresses only the question of lateral and trunk sewer costs. HRS/jiw Attachment expressing; our support to H.R. 6'296, the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act of 1982 and our opposition to any amendment prohibiting the use of the neer multifamily rental housing production program in communities with rent control ordinances or transfering the $1 .3 .billion provided for the new multifamily housing production program to the CDBG program. Mot ' n carried unanimously. Liaison reports were presented by Councilpersons. l° Leroux/Wampach moved to authorize the purchase of a hose washer for the Fire Department from Weber & `1'roseth Co. for $4,300 and directed the Finance Directcr, City Administrator and Police Chief to find a method for funding the unbudgeted $1 , 800. Roll Call : Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Mayor Reinke recognized Wally Stock, Mayor of Prior Lake and candidate for state representative. Mr. Stock expressed his concerns about issues he felt were of mutual concern. Mr. August Dellwo addressed the Council with comments on the west side storm sewer improvement. Leroux/Colligan moved to authorize staff to obtain storm sewer assessment i waivers of hearings from Mr. Wiggin and Watson Construction accepting the cost of 54 feet of storm sewer estimated to cost $1860 said costs to be spread over properties they own in the drainage basin. Cncl .Leroux asked if both parties understand that there will be additional assessments when Mn.Valley 6th and 7th Additions are developed. The City Engineer answered that they did. Cncl . Leroux asked if the $1860 coSt w;is a 100% nsse.ssment. The City Admr. answered that it was a 50% assessment which is pursuant to the City ' s current trunk assessment policy. Discussion followed. Leroux/Colligan moved to amend the motion by changing the cost amount to $3720 and tn__add another sentence that this storm sewer extension is to be classified as the original portion of the west side storm sewer, which at this time , we understand to be a lateral . [Point of clarification: storm sewer laterals are assessed 100%, storm sewer trunks are assessed 50%] Bill Sinn stated that the discussion on this extension at the last council meeting emphasized pipe because no body wanted to make a committment whether it was a lateral or main trunk line. The City Admr. stated that this proposed pipe extension within the Mn. Valley 5th Add' n. is being assessed against property lying South and West of the 5th Add 'n. , not against any properties lying within the Mn. Valley 5th Add ' n. ( Therefore Mr. Sinn ' s property within the 5th Add ' n. would not be assessed. ) I-lotion carried unanj.;;iuu.-_;iy ori nmetu$;ncnt to main motion. Motion carried unanimously on main mnotion as amended . 1 /� INCORPORATED 1670 C,.. 129 E. First Ave. - Shakopee, N innesola 55379-1376 (612) 445 -3550 ►(:r�El:♦ � V, A Mr . R i ehrl rel h'e i gc l kI:It. sull Collst1-LiCtLoll Col'-J)011y 252 South Plaza Building Ali nnc;lpol i s , IMN 55416 I � .Yk I RL' : St01-111 Sc•wcl- E:.tcilsioll for,"Mi1111CSOLZI Vill ley 5th Addition Uc:lr Mr. Wri �c1 The Shakopee City Council , at its regular August 17 , 1982 meeting , approved the plan to assess the cost of the additional 54 feet of storm sewer over benefited lands owned by Watson Con- struction and Mr. Wighin ' s ',linncsota Valley 6th and 7th Additions . In our discussion we talked about the price estimate being $1860 or 50`7 of: the cost . City Council was adamant About the definition of this 54 fcct of sewer heing th:lt cal led for in the ori (,inal. plans for the wcstside storm sewer and therefore it must be defined as lateral which does not have 50% City participation. The project would be as we discussed on the phone , but the rest W0111 d hr $'1720 r;l t. her L11.111 $ 1 'SOO. I w 1 I he con t:lct i ng you noxt wool. to ful low-up On this matter . Sincerely , John K . Anderson City Administrator JKA/jets S . F. 8/26/82 T It • 1I • .r r ( 1 1 i .t r • I ' .r ll ,• �, MAE'i9O TO: liayor and City Council / F i;Oii: Joan ::. Anderson , City Adminis_gator �E: Completion of Taylor Street in Minnesota Valley 5th Addition DATE: September 1 , 1983 Introduction Ci:_y s~r:ff has met with and discussed the completion of Taylor Street in t_he Minnesota Valley 51.h Addition with Bill Sinn anti Dick Wiggin several times over the lase two .peeks . They are extremely in,_eres,_ed in havin- *his small stretch of public street completed so _ha= FILA will approve financing for the sale of their 4-plex on LoL 5 abutting Zhe incompleted roadway. Background Two years ago Dick TJiggin was in the process of Dlat_tiny t innesota ` Valley 5th Addition and Minnesota Valley 6th Addition. The pla ting p_-ocess c�as handled simultaneously as the pla.s proceeded throu;h Planning Commission and City Council . Because 12th Street had already been constructed there was only a very small pot=ion of 1, innesota Valley 5th that did nog have all of the public facilities constructed and in place . This small portion abutts approximately 1/2 of Lot 5 in Minnesota Valley 5th. To accomodate the developer the City agreed that it made more sense to complete the construction of the public improver:.encs abutting Lor 5 when Taylor Street was extended for Minnesota Valley 6th Addition. This practical approach to the public i-mDrovement construction ran into a snag when rhe developer and he City did noagree upon the percen~age of the storm sewer in Taylor Street to be assessedto the abutting property owners . As a result the plat of Ninnesota Valley 5th Addition has not been executed by `_he 6eveloper. �n the meantime , the developer has been constructing 4-plexes on lots in Minnesota Valley 5--h and approached the City to construct a 4-plex on Lot 5 abutting Taylor Street . Because the roadway was not then complete and -_he City and _he developer were in disagreement over the percent_a-e of the storrm sewer to be assessed fo: Minnesota Valley 6th Addition, t5 ,000 ,aas nu'_ in escrow. The developers have now learned that FHA will not participate in financing the sale of :;he 4-plex unless the second driveway off cf the intomple_ed portion of Taylor Street is complete , and the completion of Taylor Street will not resul _ =_n additional assessments to Lor 5 . The problem -L-t,,en is how =o maintain our practical approach of no_ requiring construction of public inoprovements for a very small piece of roadwav and still overcoming "he road blocs: crewed by F.:A so that the 4-alex on Lot 5 can be sold. Completion of Taylor Street in Ninnesota Valley 5A AddiKon Page Two September 1 , 1983 Proposed Solution In discussions wish Bill Sinn, it appears that there is consensus among the parties involved that the following alternative would work to resolve the problem. 1 . The City would review the escrow to determine that the amount escrowed is adequate to complete the street and storm sewer construction abutting Lot 5 in Minnesota Valley 5th Addition. Honey would be escrowed equal to 100% of the cost of the construction of storm sewer, curb, gutter and scree_ surfacing. 2 . The CiLy would notify HFA that _he escrow existed and that Lot 5 would not be assessed for the completion of the improvements in Taylor Street . 3 . The City would agree to allow the developer to put in the temporary asphalt driveway on public right-of-way in Taylor Street that would connect with a driveway serving _he south side of the 4-plex. 4. The developer would agree to remove that private drive from the right-of-way at his expense when Taylor Street was constructed. Cost of the removal to be included in the escrow. 5 . The City would agree that the escrowing of 100% of the cost of the improvement set no precedent for the decisions to be made with regard to the level of financing required by the developer for improvements in Minnesota Valley 6th Addition. Recommendation Staff recommends that the agreement as outlined above be drafted by the approplia:e City staff, -reviewed by the developer and brought back to City Council for action at its September 20 1933 meeting. This recommendation would preserve the original plan which was to avoid expensive construction of a very small piece of roadway on Taylor Street , and would allow the developer to overcome his problem with FHA and. `:pus finance the sale of his 4-plex on Lot 5 . Staff does not believe that this procedure would create a precedent that would cause the City problems in the future. The agreement can be recorded to insure all parties are aware of its existance . Anion Requested Direct staff to prepare an agreement between the Cis -� the developers of Minnesota Valley 51h Addition which wouldnenable them to escrow money for the completion of Taylor Street , install a ,_emP orary driveway ct :heir expense , and thus be able�`o sell their 4-plea on Lot 5 , Minnesota Valley 5th Addition. .lKA% ims Fto._ .1s •l+��=: Ur��r:lr.au:. Not: Nonv. 11:0L10r1 cr.rri.-d. The City Ac gave the quotes for inz;t_llinG a new septic s-:s tcm for the Ea-le C_eek Town Hall. Leroux/i:ar:psch moved to accept the bid of $2, 000 from F & B Construction if that cost includes the replacement of the sewer pipe from iLne building. if it does not, J-he bid of $2,050 from 1tybak Dieing and Trenching Service will be accepted. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous hoes; hone Motion carried. LerouY/Wampach moved to direct City staff to work out he details to either con- struct or loan monies to construct a new addition to Eagle Creek To-,.n :all. Said arrangements are to be worked out with the Scott-Carver Economic Council and brought back to City Council at its next regular meeting. Mayor Reinke asked the City Admr. to check on a turnkey program, similar to that done for the library. Potion cared unanimously. 1 � 3 Colligan/t•,ampach moved to direct staff to prepare an agreement between the City and the developers Of I'�._^.nesota Valley 5th Addition, i;hich would enable them to escrow money for the completion of Taylor Street,. ins-tr>1 a ttemporary drivel.ay at their expense, and thus be able to sell their '+-plex on Lot 5, Block 2, tjinnesota Valley 5th Add'n. Motion carried with Cncl. Leroux opposed. Colligan/vierling moved to d—ect the appropriate City staff to draft an amendment to City Code Section 2.70, Sind. 3 adding !an_gua,_e that would, era-ble City to dispose of =excess proL`91-ty to other pu}'�i c agenci es without a competitive bidding 'DrocesS. lA gan moved t0 amend the notion to change City Code Section On 2.70, Su'od. 3 Leroux/Coll, to increase the amount at which a bid must ba taken or an auction ', eld, from $100 to V1,000.00. Motion to amerd. carried unanimously. I•ia'-n motion as anended carried with Cncl. Levens opposed. LsrouV i eri i na moved to auti?cri ze t.^.e City t0 Irl.:cipate in the _O,-juCt 1:'iforration. 0 Network Division's 120 trial period at no cost to the City, :_t:Z staff providing a report.on the usefulness Of the pro,am at the end Of the ,.pial period. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous hoes; Irene I•lotion ca~ied. Cncl. Colli-an suggest-ed. fiat more Cooperation Fdght be ob-ined from Jackson and Louisville To-hnships reg •'iarrig the creation Cf a Nater ra agement Cr2niCation if she t0..'nships had more inp::t in areas Of Zoning and development in an adviSOry capacity. Discussion followed. Coiligan/Leroux•moved to direct the appropriate City staff to set up a meeting nit.�1 1the tov-nsh p board officials of Jac Scn and Louisville toS•tmish ps to nal-e a fin?- deterzinatiOn as to whether Or not the townships wil �rticip Te •. 1 1 _ � =n a joint -Dowers a-eement. Motion carried una-nimously. 0b]-ligan/1-Leroux moved to d_ect staff to cook;i nate a meeting between Shako-Dee and Jackson To:.-ship t0 invest'�-a:.e he :os-srbilfty c--F' setting up CT TY OF- SHAKQ_TP _ 111t00RP0RA7F_D 1670 * EPruIP:EERiNu DEPAR7ME11T 129 E. to Avenue - Shakopee, Lnnezota 5537 -1376 (612) 4;5-3;50 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator F.-POM: Ray Ruuska, Engineering Coordinator SUBJECT : Taylor Street Extension DATE: October 11, 1985 INTRODUCTION : Since 1982 the City of Shakopee has held 55, 000. 00 in escrow for the completion of part of Taylor Street south of 12th Ave- nue. The property owner has requested that the City use the escrowed amount which now is $6, 400. 00 to construct Taylor Street as proposed. BACKGROUND: The construction of Taylor Street has been deferred because extension of a storm sewer lateral would have to be done prior to street construction. Due to the fact that this lateral would only have to be extended 64 linear feet , further deferral of this project seems inappropriate. The G4 feet of storm sewer does not benefit the lot in question and thus cannot meet the benefit test . The storm sewer cost can be added to future developments to the south. ACTION R_=U=TaD : The contractor performing the work on the 2nd Avenue Parking Lot Project could be used to construct Taylor Street. The work could be done under a Supplemental Contract to that pro- ject. He has submitted unit prices (See Attachment ) for this work. Total project cost is estimated to be 511 , S70. 88. Of this total, one-half, less the cost of the storm sewer, could be paid out of the escrow account . The remainder could be paid out of the Capitol Improvement Fund. The reason For only assessing half the cost against the property owner' s escrow is because standard assessment properties assess half of a project to each side of the road and K-Mart' s assessment doesn' t meet the benefit test . for Street ober 11, 1985 e 2 Escrow Account Cost $3, 34-5. 44 Capitol Improvement Fund Cost $8, 625. 44 ION REQUESTED: :otion by City Council to authorize proper, City officials execute Supplemental Contract No. 1 in the amount of 706. 10 to Valley Paving, In=. , 8050-D Hwy. 101, Shakopee, 55379 (Supplement to Project E5-4) . pmp LOR Leroux:/Vierling moved to direct staff to construct a wall»ry bctwec: I'ark Ridge Drive and 11th Avenue using 6 :oot wide concrete siaewair: with sod, for appr=im_ntely 52,400.00. b J,oll Call. t,, es; j':<mpacr., Vicrling, Colllg�n, Reinke, Leroux 'o Does; Lebe-is Motion carried. Cncl. Colligan questioned the computations comparing a two-lane and four- lane road for Shenandoah Drive. The City Admr. el:plained t,,,at tine ditch and shoulder is the same for both types of road, and there is actually only a 25% increase in road surface--from 36 feet to 48 feet. Discussion followed. Leroux/Vierling moved to give this explanation to those who opposed the assessments for Shenandoah Drive, and not change the assessment roll. Motion carried with Cncl. Colligan opposed. Lebens/Vierling moved to direct staff to respond to Mr. Greenwood's re- cuest for assistance in selling his property by providing the information set forth in the memo dated October 11, 1985 from the Engineering Inspec- tor. Motion carried unanimously. Cncl. Leroux recalled that the property owner opposite Kmart was informed at the time of platting that there would be an assessment against the property for storm sewer and for that purpose the escrow fund was set up. - - The City Admr. was directed to look up the minutes from that meeting as a basis for the assessment. Leroux/Lebens moved to authorize the proper City officials to execute Supplemental Contract No-' l in the amount of $8,.706.10 to Valley Paving, Inc. 8050-D, Hwy. 101, Shakopee, Minn. 55379 (Supplement to Project 85-4) , with the storm sewer assessment to be taken from the escrow account. (Improvement to Taylor Street) - - Motion carried. Roll Call: Aves; Unanimous Noes; None Several Councilmembers questioned the amount of the bid for paving the parking lot in Lions Park, as the Lions had a bid to do the work privately for less than that. The Engineering Coordinator responded that they did have three quotes from *'larch of this year, but when the companies were questioned, none of them would do the work for that amount at this time. Leroux/Colligan moved to authorize the proper City officials to execute Supplemental Contract No. 2 in the amount of $14,217.00 with Valley Paving, Inc. , 8050-D .Hwy. 101, Shakopee, Mn 55379; said agreement to be held until an agreement for payment of all costs can be reached with the Lions Club of Shakopee.. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Wampach/Vierling moved to authorize proper City officials to e:necute an agreement between the City of Shakopee and the Shakopee Lions Club for $14,467.00 for the paving of the parking lot in Lions Park. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; hone Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize the purchase of a Licrowave oven for the City Hall lunchroom at a cost not to exceed $70; to be allocated from the supply line items of the various division budgets. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. 7/81 F SHrK0_C,_EE �c !:,,3,(),1 A/ Minnesota Valley 5th Addition R ' S AGREE:• LNT Cash deposited with City r C-UU�d1Y FILE N0. ----- --4__-- -- , �} D A'1 . �k 1HIS 1AGRELMEN1 , Made and c ntc real i :;tu lhi s /2 day of 19S1 , by and between the City of Shakopee , a municipal ccrporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota , herein- after called "City" and ta_jt_son In 7estmenrs , Inc Sun t,Test . Inc . : and PQnles Savings & Loan Assn hereafter called "Devcic-:e_r" l,'ITNESSETH : WHEREAS , the Developer has made application to the City Council for approval of a plat of land within the: corporate limits of the City described as follows : Mi nnPsota Acid; -i c,n her. c of ter cal l cd the "Sub- division" ; arid WHERLAS , the City CUUT1Cil ,by rescl.ut.ion adopted May 19 , 1gR1 , has granted preliminary approval to the Subdivision on the condition that the DevEloper enter into this Agreement to provide for thr instal- lation of street , water, sewer and other improvements as desc---i cd herein. NOiJ , 11iEP.EFO::E, in considcraticn of the prcmiscs and of tiic mutual promises ai,d conditions hereinafter conLaiT,cd , it is hcreoy agreed as fnl 1 (Iws I . morovements In accordance with the policiEs and ordinances c.f the Cit. , the Following described impr.ovemEnts (hEreinaftcr collEc- tively called the "Improvements") shall be constructed and installed on the ttrnis and conditions herein set forth : (A) Strcet grading, graveling and stabilizing , and surfdcin;, including the construction of berms and Boulevards (here- inafter. called "Street ImprovemeT;ts") . (.3) Storm sewers , pursuant to 'Paragraph 5 , including all necessary catch basins , inlets and other appurtenances (hereinafter called "Storm Sewer Improvements") as re- quired . �C) Street name signs at all ncwl.y opEned intersECtior,s (hereinafter called "Traffic Signing ImprovemE-nts") . (n) StrE:et lighting including poles , crossarms , under-round wiring transformers , pedestals and any other necessary appurtenances , (hereinafter. called "Street Light Improve- ments ) Ii . i•iarranty of Developer The Devcinper hereby warrants and k represents to the City as inducement to the: C,ity ' s entering into this Ac regiment , that Developer' s interest in the Subdivision, is fee owner. Lc'i�T/incr b'�NOGF� ^No /�AGCTY�C"rE /�L't/'fc•rG:=��. III . DcsiVnation of Imnrovemcnts Improvements to be installed at Developer ' s expense by the Developer as provided herein are herein- after referred to as "Plan A Improvements . " Improvements which the Developer -has petitioned the City to install and finance on a cash and assessment basis are hereinafter referred to as "Plan B Improve- ments . " IV . Plan A Improvements The Developer will construct and install at Developer ' s expense the following imprc�vemc.nts under Plan A according Lo thc, following terms and conditions and the General and Special Con- ditions attached hereto and made part of this Contract . Description of Improvement Location of Improvement Sidewalk construction - West Mn. Valley 5th Addition side of Polk , Boulevard grading - Taylor arcorcli g ropy ns np_proved and 12th Ave , Street signs by the City Engineer Liehts Mn. Valley 5th Addition according to plans approved ljv rho ShaknneA_ Pu1 i r J Utilitition mm. anacer V. Plan B Improvements The Developer has p Ey for the Installation of Plan B . Improvements as listed . Description of Improvement Location of ImproyEmEr:t VI . Plan "A" Improvements (A) Construction Plan and Anoroval Thereof The Developer will engage , at Developer ' s expense , a duly registered professional civil engineer authorized to practice within the State of Minnesota to prepare detailed plansand specifications £c,r complete installation ,Y o L Lo r O co O t�` N .. \` R ILA �hrTy� Cri CD❑ 9 {.( r M O �z ❑ S. ICz ❑ 4A HL�(,� �1 _ •■ �ii 1 / �/•Oi T3 }tea- ❑ ;o Rl � H E .l.- Ln Z PL . ;-t> O V U • � Y ti lV n Ln 4 . U LL ❑ '. . L? C-ri C) rim r{ s L-iS4 U� V) L; O LLI U? :a) w0 r ` . C)4-) u F- W �I ¢•rirl co; o n i ` CHOI G � tea-•s�.�+�y�-.rte-.��.-�we.ne-g��t 1�1A I�'��"di71s�4t4=r�+ K a � � r v d- C7 S T Y C_F.S H_jA K_CD P_H _ INCOR?ORATED 1870 * ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 129 E. 1st Avenue - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-:376 (61.2) 445-3650 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Admin - rator FROM: Ken Ash fe1d, City Engineer SUBJECT : Holmes Street Basin Storm ewer Engineering Consultant Services DATE: January 3, 1986 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND : At their regular meeting of December 17, 1985, the City Council directed the City Engineer to negotiate an extension agreement with Orr-Schelen-Mayeron (OSM) to provide engineering services relative to the Holmes Street Basin Lateral Project. That agreement was to reflect a "not to exceed" arsiount of X49, 750. 00. Attached is such an extension agreement for final approval and execution. RECOMMENDATIONS : Enter into agreement with OSM for the Holmes Street Basin Lat- eral Project. REQUESTED ACTION : Offer a motion to authorize the appropriate City Officials to enter into agreement with OSM for the Holmes Street Basin Lateral Project. KA/pmp OSM ORR•SCHELEN•MAYERON &ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting. Engineers Land Surveyors December 19, 1985 Mr. Ken Ashfeld City Engineer City of Shakopee 129 East 1st Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: Contract Extension Agreement Holmes Street Storm Sewer Dear Mr. Ashfeld: As per our Agreement for Professional Services with the City of Shakopee, Section 1-A - 3-b (Major Projects), this extension agreement is for the Holmes Street Storm Sewer Project. Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates, Inc. agrees to accomplish the attached Scope of Services for a fee not to exceed $49,750.00. The City of Shakopee agrees to reimburse OSM for these services in accordance with Section IV of the Agreement for Professional Services. We look forward to working with you on this project. If this proposal meets with your approval , please sign below and return one copy to our office. Yours very truly, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON CITY OF SHAKOPEE & ASSOCIATES, INC. l^ Robert D. Frigaard, P.E. Associate ohn P. Badalich, P.E. ice President RDF:nlb %.n nnnn n !1,7in n.M^^+n �=i+••7 n .,n.e ^�r.r. ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR SHAKOPEE HOLMES STREET STORM SEWER SCOPE OF SERVICES A. Design Phase 1. Review and evaluation of the preliminary report prepared by the City 2. Necessary surveying work to prepare final construction plans (easement work will be extra) 4 3. Set up soil testing program and evaluate borings (testing to be paid for by the City) 4. Final project design 5. Preparation of design plans, specifications and bidding documents 6. Preparation of detailed construction cost estimate 7. Prepare and submit necessary permit applications to regulatory agencies 8. Assist the City in advertising for bids and provide recommendations for award of contract B. Construction Phase 1. Provide required construction engineering services as follows: a. Periodic observations of the work in progress (once a week - 4 Hrs.) b. Preparation of supplementary drawings to clarify working drawings c. Review of shop drawings to determine compliance with plans and specifications d. Review of necessary testing done by testing laboratories e. Final inspection and report of completed project f. Completion of as-built plans for City records C = TY OF- SHA, KQPT=-H INCORPORATED 1870 * ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 129 E. 1st Avenue - Shakopee, xinnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 MEMO TO: Jahn K. Anderson, City Admin " rator FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer - SUBJECT : County State Aid Highway 17 P'ro j ect VIP Interceptor Extension DATE: January 3, 1986 T_NTRODUCTION: Scott County plans t o construct roadway improvements to County State Aid Highway (CSAH) No. 17 between County Read 42 and the south line of the Junior High School property. This will serve as an informationl item as well as address alternative considerations far extending the VIP sanitary sewer interceptor from the east side of CSAH 17 to the west side. BACKGROUND : Scott County plans to completely reconstruct CSAH 17 from County Road 42 to the south right-of-way control line of the pro=posed Shakopee by-pass. The preliminary pians far the interchange of the Shakopee by-pass and CSAH 17 provide for a depressed section for the by-pass and a raised section for CSAH 17. Therefore, due to extensive grade changes, the County plans far a simple overlay and shoulder widening on CSAH 17 from the south right-of-way control line of the by-pass to the ex- wsting urban section at the south property line of the Junior High School. The project reconstruction consists of a rural section with two 12-foot driving lanes and 12-foot bituminous paved shoul- ders. The intersection of CSAH 17 and County Road 42 is de- sinned with free rimht turn lanes for traffic west bound to north bound and also north bound to east bound. A right turn and by-pass lane is designed for the north leg of the inter- section. Right turn and by-pass lanes are designed at the intersections of the following streets: Blue Heron Trail Woodduck Trail County Road 77 Hillside Drive Valley View Road State Aid Highway _ 7 January .7, 198E Rage L Other design details of inter-est is traffic volume capacity north of the proposed Shakopee by-pass, Mill Pend Basin drainage facilities and sanitary sewer interceptor service. Traffic Volume Capacity: The portion of CSAR 17 between the south right-of-way of the Shakopee by-pass and the south line of the Junior High School is planned for an overlay with widened gravel shoulders. When this portion is reconstructed with the by-pass improvements, the City will need to be directly involved with Mn/DOT during final design. To accommodate anticipated traffic volumes, an urban section and/or multi-lane facility may be required. Mill Pond Basin Drainage: Runoff from the westerly portion of the Mill Pond Basin tra- verses CSAH 17 to the easterly pont ion of the basin. Referring to the attached Comprehensive Drainage Plan, runoff within subarea II-D is conveyed to subarea II-r-4 by an in-place 4' x 4' box culvert . ( Incidentally, to keep terminology in perspective, the Upper Valley Drainage Basin referred to in the overall City' s Storm Sewer Needs Study comprises that por- tion of the Mill Pond Basin lying north of the Shakopee by- pass) . There are no plans for alterations to the existing box culvert other than extensions t--.D accommodate the embankment widening. Since the Mill Pond Basin is a part of the Shakopee Basin Water Management Organization (WMO) , the reconstruction of in-place drainage facilities will depend upon the drainage plan of the WMO. That plan is to be completed by the end of 1986. Coordi- nation of triose reconstruction efforts should be with the Shako- pee by-pass construction. SanitarY Sewer Interceptor Service : The VIP sanitary sewer interceptor currently ends on the east side of CSAH 17. At some point in time, the need will exist to extend the sewer to the west side of CSAH 17. This can be accomplished by one of the fallowing alternatives : 1 . Pursue the construction of the extension in coordination with the 1986 improvements to CSAH 17. The esti mated cost i s $5, 000. 00 ( 198F, d o l- Iars) _ State Aid Highway 17 January 3, 1585 PaEle 3 2. Monitor- Mn/DOT' s generation of final plans for- the orthe Shakopee by-pass and coordinate the construc- tion of the extension with CSAR 17 final improve- ment s. The estimated cost is $5, x 00. �!r ( '586 dollars) plus inflation. Take no action and eventually bore the extension under CSAH 17 in conjunction with the coatirued westerly extension when the need arises. The estimated cost is $15, 000. 00 ( 1986 do 1 1 ars) plus inflation. The advantages of Alternatives 1 and c is the lower cost (open cut installation) . The disadvantages of Alternatives 1 and 2 is the difficulty of establishing benefit and financing by special assessment at this time. The advantage of Alternative 3 is the established benefit and hence special assessment to benefited properties as the financing mechanism. The disad- vantage is the additional cost of boring. Recommendation: Staff recommends pursuing fore stated Alternative 1. In fol- lowing with the City' s Assessment Policies, the cost of this extension should be kept record and added to the future trunk sewer cast and assessed over the trunk sewer service area. Requested Action : Offer a motion to direct the City Engineer to pursue the exten- s i on of the V. I. F'. Sanitary Sewer Interceptor in conjunction with the 1986 roadway improvements to CSAR 17. KA/pmp SAH17 [ '_/, _ -Sw-� �� -1/rte _� `✓ .��` ---� Jit.. � �.3_�"- 1 �I 1 I• I I ut ,I t � Tf C Tam • ,ia i ;��� 1�` ��' �^_� � 1 __' - - UNTERBUR• DO*MS �_i Jj Ila IRw��Lrc[ ��—Ji,. l�rh I ;I� J—.VL ���� EI�U. �'_ _J•�'�J��iiia I•��?I^ �'�3/ \\ [ + I HGK NE NNCS --• fl- Zr l- j a� w CNrE �J; 12 x' C,� I r-----� 96 8 / I t`, _ I hORTHEFN �- GAS — — — ——.t I r —— — — - ♦ff f ff f f tII F O u 6 C, e 13 ( 18 17 CO RD 76 IGLEN _ N4[)$IOL ESRim: Ln r U A I ^n Pn 77 U �4 _ 20 1 d TM BE RAIL TIMBE RAIL S 1 �J ,moi `\\ AWN CO PO 42 _ I WERtMOT AME 'Dowd L oke n blp'�c4�t .am" £U, .,a - �IS}`#"'a a�.s '541 r �,.i. 'i1w' ` `.'.q ..�.•- si�...ti•�q 'e,��4R c;r'w*v5•FA F -'C��:'. "'k'"v�a � - }..w"• _�''�?-��rifi`=�yt��-';z's„-ai`4i`�+ v{ �kfs`'B s, ta.. -'- � � r_. -� �R�� 5 i� � ♦ -- w '� � � t f �, 3• yad•t ,+s�� '` ��r `.� �§ tea. �?`� , t - - •-. Sv "� T _., +. � ;i^ s'•'1 4M "kr4 ff .d° t .yam d•. 'i r' v' � _�-- _�-..'� �`y�,�T/� , 7"'. VA.�Ji� .i reN4y .d1 _ °.-w-:w .ark.. .`{ .' "a,.....«.w* ... u. "' 'm I� — ``� �• _- - :F ',f�- J .vti-A tom'""Z ` ` ,.Tom.. �. & cyfjA N•'y,•.a f+.°.. .R' ,rlr�a"•� _ ._ �¢ .� t�.(�= i � i !11t•/ �,�i�� s ,rz..: _. "�"�fi - res^?�—_ •.;,(740 AC.) IrA1 o D i i E--i-7-4 A S I K: tsuset i — I� sit I. a� .`.. iIr•+I.3 . . . (7471 RC.) rl•A 1 rss lcJ -- - i •O' l , i Ili•4 I \e•"�� 'ti � ••' r.'�`z-��=-.I �) ,-.y� _ u71 . , i I •`. 1 1, MIS All A�.) r E• ) 1'r II•� _ _ -� _ �{:j.� ! tni se.) 1: 1 "�,. I�� IY•i•1 (221 At_1I E 1• L �t P d (280 A k:) I N D 'B A S it N (us aJ t'w ms�u I%/ ..� yII/'t o —lilri:�. _=F a`\\ .) � w �� 111•E•3 it t"{-- � .••, Iz f i - h,;O f•1 >�. ua sL. 3 r/T: e y Il�f 1 II• 3 ,l IIf f ll•BJ / \ \ ) Ns A ) III6-0 \ ti At.) i 11 v till At. .- r. / `��� i ♦Ill \ 1 11151 }'� 3 y; ft— Ill$-4 (I 1 'Z X71 ,U• I� (790 PamN� . tt.) r% 1!• iY t ► ► l 7 r' ti1�II•E E i j (116 1L1! �•` ~,171 ti ti35 R- ,Music �� '•� z rhE•l0' ! ��_i( ° �I.r`. —IIHII ✓ 1/`\. �`u"i i, /i At —; a5 lAC•) \� At.) ;s z1Ao /� nl A 7 '( int` ' P I K E 2 i \c'vss r n•i?�CJUSA — )(111 At.) t �; � ' 1 1i uK u.) t< n1�2 \ ee t IIB 2 ! II•t 1 I r_ '— —�1 1112 // p ! �it �i �r • 6 Y 111 Ai 1 ,Is19C.) c i 1 tilt tt.) _ ✓/l 1f1i1t1 i III•A•{ O 15 lcj �l fiK ICJ ). i E— / �ai.•� S - ^1 (2000;Ac.)i I (1 III-A-5 - (375AL��' l i \, ?KL 4 (1715/ ';z.rsr'•��' ��`'1114-1 rKL a !j (13s At.) /O c III-A•3 Ii\ 122S At.) "V,- ».. III�•I =731 st.) %v ?XL 3 1 I,1.2 — (1I1 It.) -25 AC ru•A 3 _ z i /' a (218 AU L�µl ( — — r;rlu►. Iu A•t - s. rKL 1 �. flus ItJ J S AND C l f E K '•�s roJ / U (s21 set j (Ill (Ill a.t _ Will (1250 AC.) 1 YIII•A (1s ttJ 1� N fr\ SHAKOPEE r�--, COM PREIrENSIVE DRAINAGE P 0 R+0 9LL RET 1979 INCORPORATED H 14 Ii O_E''.E a.- 1870 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 129 E. 1st Avenue - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Adm i n i st rat or FROM: Fulton Schleisman, Engineering Inspector SUBJECT: County Road 83 Widening, Contract No. 1984-9 DATE: January 3, 1986 INTRODUCTION: The attached Par—tial Estimate Voucher- No. 5, the Semi-Final Estimate for- this py—oject, requires Council approval . BACKGROUND : The Contractor has agreed that the quantities on this Serpi-Final Estimate represent the final contract amounts. The amount retained, $1, 000. 00, wil1 be released as final pay- ment after adoption of a resol ut ion accepting work. ACTION REQUESTED : A motion to author-ize payment of Semi-Final Estimate No. 5 for County Road 83 Widening, in the amount of $9, 196. 07, to C. S. McCrossan Construct ion, Inc. , P. O. Box 247, Osseo, MN 55369. Approved f-oe Submittal Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer FS/pmp MEMNO5 t SEMI-FINAL PARTIAL ,EST Ii'ATE VOUCF ER Contract No. 1984-9 Partial Estimate Voucher No. 5 _ Period Ending: November 30, 1985 TO: Contractor C.S. McCrossan Construction, Inc. ---- Address R. D. Bar 247 Osseo MN 5536'3 �__ ----- Project Description Co unt y Road 83 Widen i ng 1. Original Contract Amount s162 713.75 2. Change Order No. _ 1 — Thru No. 2 $ 12, 155. 10 3. Total Funds Encumbered $ 174, 918-81 4. Value of Work Completed $ 203, 921.40 Value of Work. Remaining 5. L.S. Percent Retainage $_11_000- 6. _ 1,_000-6. Previous Payments $_193, 725.J3_____ Percent Complete 7. Deductions or Charges $ -0- — 100/ B. Total $_194, 725.33 Payment Due !Line 4 - 8) $ 9, 196.07 i-�-- CERTIFICATE OF P'AYMENi (I, Wel hereby agree that the quantity and value of work shown herein is a fair- estimate of the work completed to date. CONTRACTOR BY TITLE APPROVED - CITY OF SHAKOPEE City Engineer -- �^ Date City Administrator - Date^ SEMI-FINAL PROJECT:_ County Road 83 Iwprovements ESTIMATE NO. : 5 PERIOD ENDING: December 31, 1985 CONTRACTOR. C.S. !McCrossan Construction, Inc. SHEET NO.: 1 --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- Item 1 I I Unit Contract Current Period Tota! to Date No. I Contract Item I Unit i Price I Quantity 1 Amount I Quantity I Amount I Quantity i Amount ----------`__-_----------------------_----!---------------------I---------------1---------I------ -------!---------I---------------' 2104.503 IRemove Bituminous Island IS.F. 1 $5.50 1 525.00 1 $2,887.50 ! 0.00 1 $0.00 1 525.00 1 $2,887.50 2104.505 !Remove Bituminous Pavement 1S.Y. $1.50 ! 938,00 1 #1,407.00 0.00 1 $0.00 1 2100.00 1 $3,150.00 2104.521 15aivage G.M. Culvert Pzoe IL.F. 1 $7.00 ! 204.00 1 $1,428.00 : 0.00 l $0.00 1 288.00 1 $2,016.00 I f ! I I 2105.507 !Subgrade Excavation C.Y. $4.50 1 900.00 1 $3,600.00 0.00 $0.00 1 800.00 ! $3,600.00 2105.523 !Common Borrow 1C.Y. ! $4.00 1 2800.00 i 3111200.00 : 0.00 $0.00 1 4535.00 318.140.00 2105.535 !Salvage Topsoil 1C.Y. $3.00 1 1400.00 1 $4,200.00 i 0.00 ; $0.00 I 1400.00 I ¢4,200.00 2211.501 Aggregate Base C1.5 I i(100x Crushed) ITon $5.35 1 1545.00 1 $8,265.75 ! 0.00 I $0.00 1 2425.00 i $12,973.75 2331.504 !Bituminous {Material !For ?fixture ITon $185.00 ! 24.00 ! $4,440.00 ! 0.00 $0.00 1 75.27 $13,924.95 2331.510 !Binder Course Mixture !Ton 1 $9.90 ! 180.00 1 $1,782.00 f 0.00 : $0.00 ; 180.00 I $1,782.00 2331.512 ILeveling Course Fixture ITon I $9.90 ! 350.00 1 $3,465.00 1 0.00 ! $0.00 i 1388.00 i $13,741.20 I 1 ! ! { 2341.504 lBiturninous Material i [For Mixture kion $185.00 1 142.00 1 $26,270.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 159.26 1 $29,463.10 ! ! I ! l 1 I 2341.508 !Wearing Course Mixture ITon 1 $9.90 1 2335.00 i $23,116.50 i 0.00 : $0,00 1 2611.00 1 $25,848.90 2357.502 IBituminous Material, I i Ifor Tack Coat Ilial 1 $1.50 I 1020.00 i $1,530.00 1 0.00 : 30.00 ! 1020.00 : $1.530.00 2501.511 118" C.M. pipe Culvert iL.F. , $24.00 1 20.00 i $480.00 S 0.00 i $0.00 ! 26.00 ! $624.00, 2501.515 118" C.M. Pipe Aprons lEa. 1 $135.00 I 2.00 i $270.00 i 0.00 ! $0.00 1 4.00 1 $540.00 2503.511 112" R.C. Pipe Sewer (Class 5) IL.F. 1 $24.00 1 20.00 : $480.00 0.00 $0.00 ! 42.50 ! 31.020.00 I I 2503.573 !Install 12" R.C. Pipe Aprons lEa. 1 $160.@0 f 7.0+0 1 $1,120.00 0.00 ! $0.00 7.00 ; $1,120.00 250E.507 !Construct Catch I [Basins (Design "H") lEa. $625.00 1 7.00 1 $4,375.00 0.00 i $0.00 $4,375.00 2506.522 !Adjust Frame and I !Ring Castings lEa. $250.00 l 14.00 1 $3,~00.00 0.00 . $0.00 . 12.00 . $3,000.00 ! { ! I f I ! I 2511.501 !Random Rip Rap (Class A) 1C.Y. . $50.00 1 11.90 1 $595.00 i 0.00 i $0.00 1 12.00 i $600.00 2511.511 [Granular Filter 1C.Y. 1 $30.00 ! 6.30 : $189.00 1 0100 ! $0.l!0 i 6.30 $i89.00 ! l i 1 ----------i------------------------------!------ I----------!--------1---------------1----------4---------------;---------- --------------- t PROJECT: County Road 83 Improvements ESTIMATE NO.: 5 b PERIOD ENDING: December 31, 1985 CONTRACTOR: C.S. McCrossan Constructio SHEET+. NO,: 2 ---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Item I I I Unit ! Contract I Current Period i Total to Date No. 1 Contract Item I Unit I Price ! Quantity i Amount ! Quantity { flmount 1 Quantity ! Amount ----------!-----------------------------I-----!----------I----------!---------------I----------!---------------{----------{--------------' 2531.501 {Concrete Curb & Gutter { I I { I { I I(Desion B618) IL.F. I $5.00 1 6930.00 1 $34,650,00 0.@@ I $02.00 6699.00 1 #33,495.00 I I I I 22531.503 (Concrete Median IS.Y. 1 $11.50 1 27.00 ! $310.50 0.@@ 1 $0.00 i 50.00 ! $575,00 2531.507 18" Concrete Driveway Pavement !S.Y. 1 $24.50 ! 145.00 1 $3,552,50 @.@@ ! $0.00 { 0.@@ 1 30,00 2531.507 110" Concrete Driveway Pavement-IS.Y. i $30.00 1 98.00 i $2,940.00 ! 0.00 { $0.00 1 80.00 $2,400.00 I ! I ( ! 1 ! 2554,501 iTraffic Barrier ! E { ! ± 1 ! I(Design "A") 8307 IL.F. $10.50 ! 300.00 i $0.0@ 300.00 2554,521 !Anchorage Assemblies IEa. $5'90.00 2.00 { $1,18@.0@ ! 0.00 $0.00 i 2.00 2575.501 (Roadside Seeding IAC. ! $300.00 1 1.60 1 $480-30 s 0,00 $@.@0 1 1.60 1 $48@.000 I 2575.502 Seed !fixture K ILbs. 1 $2.5@ ! 80,@@ i $200,00 0.00 ! $0.00 i 80.00 $200.0@ ' 2575.505 [Goddinc IS.Y. $1.9 i 2220.00 ! $3,330,0@ ! 0.0@ 1 $@.00 { 2246.00 ! $3,369.00 I I 9 2575.511 !Mulch Material (Type 1) 1Tor. 1 $1 @.@0 1 3.20 ! $480.00 ; 0.00 ! $@.0@ 1 3.20 ': $480.00 I { I { { 2575.519 !Disc Anchorinc !Ac. 1 $75.00 1 1.60 1 $120,00 0.00 $0.00 f 1.60 ! $12@.00 2575.531 {Commercial rertilizer ITon i $375.00 1 0.32 1 $120.00 i @.@0 30.00 1 0.32 i $12@.00 504.602 IAd.ius" Gate Valve Ea. ! $20@.00 ! 13.@0 I $2,500.0@ ! @.00 $0.00 1 13.00 1 $2,_,00.00 504.602 [Adjust Rydrant I Ea. ! $750,00 1 4.00 ! $3.@@0.00 0.00 VIA10 i 4.0@ 1 $3,000.00 545.601 1Relocate Gate Actuator 1L.S. 1$2,@0@.@@ 1 1.0@ 1 $2,eW.0@ ! @.@0 ! $0,@@ ! 1.00 i $2,000.2!0 ----------{----------------------------I- i I ! I I ! ; I I Total i $162,7137.75 ! Total ! $0.@@ ; Total i $197,894.40 Chance Order No. 1 $0.0@ $0.00 (Included in Units Above Change Order No. 2 $5,777.00 $5,777.@@ (18"RCP & Manhole Castinns) Change 'Order No 3 $250.00 $250.00 (50@ L.F. Pe-Bar) TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS 36,027.0@ GRAND TOTAL $203,921,40 I Ell I Ell C = 'I' NI, C)F_ :E3 1-1 KC)PEE INCORPORATED 1870 * ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 129 E. 1st Avenue - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Admir trator FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Erigineer_'Ti�"' r SUBJECT : 4th Avenue Street Reconstruction DATE: December 23, 1085 INTRODUCTION : The Engineering Department proposes to reconstruct 4th Avenue from Fillmore Street to Scott Street during the 1985 construc- tion season. BACKGROUND : Fourth Avenue between Fillmore Street and Scott Street is in- cluded in the City' s Capital Improvement Program with a 1985 construction target date. That portion of 4th is also included in the street reconstruction program. The Holmes Street Fusin Lateral Project will also require restoration efforts on 4th Avenue between Spencer & Sommerville and Fuller & Scott if further improvements are not constructed. This section of 4th Avenue has various route desiA_nations which in turn results in various funding sources. 1. 4th Avenue between Fillmore and Fuller is a County State Aid Highway (CSAR 16) , financing of which will fall under Scott County' s policies fon c._,st participation. This policy is currently in "draft form"Abut should be adapted and applied to 4th Avenue in 1986. Essentially, the policy establishes a percentage rate participation ' between City and County on an individual construction item basis. 2. 4th Avenue between Fillmore and Holmes is a Federal -=;id Urban route (FAU 5063) , thereby creating a possible funding source for- the City' s cost partici pat ion. Sirice the City' s FAU fund balance is in excess of that allowed, funding is being lost and reapportioned. The option of pursuing the use of FAU funds on this project will be addressed in the feasibility report. +th Avenue Reconstruction �)ecernber :_.S, 1995 -'age 4th Avenue between Fuller and Scott is a local City street requiring local funding through the City' s special assessment policies and pavernent preservation program. attached is Resolution No. 2'500 ordering the preparation of re pc.rt or, an improvement to 4th Avenue from Fillmore Street o Scott Street. RECOMME NDAT I ON: adopt Resolution No. 2500, calling for a feasibility report =-n 4th Avenue and direct the City Engineer to pursue Federal did Urban funding of City cost . �EOUESTED ACTION: Offer Resolution No. 2500, A Resolution Ordering the Prep- zration of a Report on an Improvement to 4th Avenue from Fill- ;iore Street to Scc-tt Street within the City of Shakopee, Minne- sota and move for its adoption. Offer a motion to direct the City Engineer to pursue Federal aid Urban funding for the City cost on FAU 5063. :A/prep IE're,`500 RESOLUTION NO. 2500 A Resolution Ordering The Preparation Of A Report On An Improvement to 4th Avenue from Fillmore Street to Scott Street within the City of Shakopee, Minnesota WHEREAS, it is proposed to improve 4th Avenue between Fillmore and Scott Street by roadway reconstruction and to assess the benefitted property for all or a portion of the cost of the immr ovement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the proposed improvement be referred to the City Engineer for study and that he is instructed to report to the Council With all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is feasible and as to whether it should best be made as oro pi sed or in connection with some of her i mmrovement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended '_ in session of the City Council of Adopted _ the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clark r Approved as to i form this �...__.. day f 19 ILI) i TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Employee Assistance Program DATE: January 1, 1986 Introduction and Background The City has contracted with dor and associates, inc. for the past two years to provide an employee assistance program. The cost has been about $850 per year. dor is quoting a cost of $1,050 for 1986 . There has been relatively low participation in the program and we have experienced a instance of poor response by dor to a fairly serious problem that one of the employees had. Staff checked with the county to see what program they had. They use Process Dynamics and have used them for many years. Staff requested a proposal from Process Dynamics and the services are comparable to dor but Process Dynamics seems to want to be more intimately involved with the City and employees. Their offices are in Eden Prairie which is closer than dor. The cost is $55 per hour of service. The City would deposit a retainer based on number of employees and estimated usage. The deposit would be $868.86 based on 54 employees (4 Community Services) and a usage rate of 8%. Process Dynamics will adjust the bill on a dollar for dollar basis at the end of the year. The Council will be informed if usage approaches the estimate so that action can be taken to allocate further funding or terminate the program with Process Dynamics. Based on past usage, we should come in under the estimate. Process Dynamics proposal is available for Council review if desired. Alternatives 1. Discontinue the employee assistance program. 2. Contract with dor for $1 ,050. 3 . Contract with Process Dynamics with a deposit of $868.86. 4. Contract with Process Dynamics for a lower usage rate. 5. Seek other providers. Recommendation Staff recommends alternative number 3 . Based on past usage, the City will incur lower cost while still providing what appears to be at least similar assistance if not better assistance to the employees. There was no selection process involved with picking dor when the City started with them, they approached the City and we went with them. Due to the small dollar amount involved, a larger selection is not warranted. Action Requested Move to authorize City Officials to execute a contract with Process Dynamics for an employee assistance program for 1986 and deposit a retainer in the amount of $868.86 with Process Dynamics. /L 1 4 1735 CITY OF SHAKOPEE :HEC( REGISTER 12-31-85 PAGE 1 V ^.r1ECK NO. GATE A'10UNT VENDOR ITEM JE3CRIPTION 4CCOUNT NO. INV. b P.O. 4 MESSAGE 123135 12/31/85 351000.00 GOPHER STATE TRUCK 365417 01-3890-000-00 123185 12/31/95._._ 35x000.00- .._. . . _GOPHER STATE- TRUCK 365917 (11-3890-000-00 *rf rfk ■f*-CKS 315025 12/31/85 453.84 ASTL=FORD INTER EQUIP M41NT 01-4232-426-42 23746 453.84 * •rfrrr **r-CKS 355027 12/31/85 15.41 JEANVE ANDIE TRAVEL & SUBSIST 01-4330-171-17 365027 12/31/85 88.83 JEANVE ANDRE TRAVEL & SUBSIST 15-4330-191-19 355J27 12/31/85 7.98JEANIE_ ANDRE _.-. _.TRAVEL_& ..SUBSIST- _ ..... __.. _ .. .. _..__. 15-4330-196-.79 _ . 112.22 • rrrrrr ff+-CKS 355029 12/31/85 95.50 E F ANDERSON & ASOC SUPPLIES 01-4210-431-42 96.60 * rrr*rr r*r—CKS 353035 12/31/85 70.70 ASS/MECH/CONT/INC. EQUIP M4INT 01-4232-182-18 18006 70.70 * 3S5036 12/31/85 28.57 JOHN K. ANIERSON TRAVEL & SU3SIST 01-4330-121-12 29.57 • *r*rr* - ***—CKS 355044 12/31/85 ---.9.76-.---.__ __ ANCH3R- PAPER SUPDLIES _.._01-4210-171-17. 207129 355044 12/31/85 581.15 ANCHOR PAPER PRINT & PUB 01-4350-911-91 207129 590.91 **f—CKS 355049 12/31/85 35.01 CARB & TUR30 SY INC EQUIP MATNT 01-42.32-312-31 31504) 12/31/3:1 7.47 CARR & TUR30 SY INC EOUI3 MAINT 01-4232-426-42 42.48 rrr*r* ***-CKS 355057 12/31/85 201.15---.. ....._.BRAUN _ENG... .. . ..._ .--• -.-•-_•-_-P20F_.SEiV ............ ... .......61-4310-549-41, 29694 201.15 * *frr*r rt*—CKS 355075 12/31/85 950.00 CLUTCH/U-J-IINT/INC EQUIP 44INT 01-4232-4-26-42 79431 950.00 * fr►*rf ***—CKS 3S5122 12/31/85 420.00 0 A TANGE C0 PROF SERV 01-4310-151-15 420.00 1135 CITY OF SHAKJPE' CHEC< REGISTER 12-31-85 PAGE 2 CiEC< NO. DATE A40UNT VENDOR ITE4 DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. 4 P.O. 9 MESSAGE tftttt ii- ■ _. . .- _. _-..__ .. ._. ... . - _ .. .-•- - -- ----- - - __ CKS 3;5246 12/3L/8j 78.00 14TEI MAILING SYS R_NTS 01-4380-131-13 90 0760 78.00 • tfttft ...—CKS 3;5270 12/31/95 4,371.75 KRASS & M0.4fOE CHRTD PRO= SERV 01-4310-161-16 353270 12/31/85 98.00 KRASS & MO4RO7- CHi1TD PROF SERV 15-4310-191-19 315270 12/31/85 834.50 KRASS & MONROE CHRTD PRO= SERV 21-4310-000-00 3i5210 12/31/85 168.00 KRASS & MOYROE CHRTD PRO= SERV 27-4310-543-41 313270 12/31/85 616.25 KRASS & MONROE CHRTD PRO= SERV 27-4310-548-41 355270 12/31/85 213.25 KRASS & MOVRO= CHRTD PROF SEZV 56-4310-504-41 69301.75-. tttftt fff—CKS 355247 12/31/85 23.02 LANG EQUIPMENT EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-631-62 179679 23.02 + tftftt fff—CKS 3;5217 12/31/85 19045.89 LOGI3 RENTS 01-4380-152-15 118525 355217 12/31/85 191.86 LOGIS RcNTS 01-4380-153-15 118525 315297 12/31/85 145.99 LOG13 R--NTS 01-4380-154-15 118525 1,384.74 • _ . f •••—CKS 355303 12/31/85 9.00 LINK PRINT SUPPLIES 01-4210-321-32 12641 9.00 + fftffk •++—L'KS 315308 12/31/85 727.96 M.E.M. AO CO PRD4DTIONS 14-4319-142-14 355308 12/31/85 299.00 M.E.M. AO CO PROM31IDNS 14-4319-143-14 1,026.96 • ifftff ••+-CKS 353395 12/31/95 190.51 NSP UTILITIES 01-4370-427-42 190. 1 t f f t k f .tt—CKS 3;5'412 12/31/83 374.53 O1R-3CH—MAYR & AS PROF SEIV 73-4310-522-41 374.63 + tr f k f.f . sr*—CKS 3;5429 12/31/8] 11.00 HAROLD PASS TRAVEL & SU3SIST Ot-4330-421-42 11.00 + kfkfk• •++—CKS 1995 CITY OF SHAKOPFt CHEC< REGISTER 12-31-85 PAGE 3 :dLCK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. 9 P.O. It MESSAGE 355470 12/31/85 21.39 MARILYN R LER TRAV:L 3 SUBSIST 01-4330-151-1`.i 21 .39 rfrrrr ***-CKS 315416 12/31/85 122.50 ROB-31-0 IN:. E3UIP MAINT 01-4232-432-42 2501 .355476 12/31/85._, _______.____ ____.__.5.00., .__ ._.._ ROB-GLO IN .—EQUIP_ MAINT_-_......_..._ ._. ._..._01-423 -631-62.2003 127.50 + frrfr* a**-CKS 315502 12/31/85 80.79 SHAKDPEE FORD EoUI' MAIiVT 111-4232-312-31 365502 12/31/857.50 _SHAKOPEE.FDRD ._ EQUIP MAINT ._.._.__._ 01-4232-331-33. 355302 12/31/,95 27.31 SHAKDPEE FORD EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 115.60 • rr*f*r ..._. .. .. . . •**-CKS 353533 12/31/85 __,___.22.35_, ,BARRY _STOC( -TMEL & _SUBSIST.._ 355333 12/31/85 7.35 BARRY STOCK TRAV_L & SUBSIST 16-4330-231-23 29.70 * rrkff• _ ***-CKS 3»578 12/31/85 244.90 UJIF)RMS. UNLIMITED SUP?LIES__._.._.... _01-4210-312-31-33351 . 244.90 * r*r**r ***-CKS 355531 12/31/85 133.32 VALLEY TEMP PRD-- SERV 01-4310-171-17 —133.32..* r***** +**-CKS 3j>;00 12/3t/85 18.60 GREG3 VOXLAND PRO- SERV 01-4310-151-15 3»600 12/31/85 22.64 GRECS VOXLANO TRAV=L & SUBSIST 01-4330-151-15 41.24 * ..____.____...__Y....�_..._ ...._ .._...__ . .. . . r*r**f —-CKS 3-35506 12/31/85 21928.72 VAN POOL S---RV INC UTILITIES 14-4370-143-14 2,929.72 * •*rr*r ._ ._ _.- ***-CKS 3�3S21 12/31/33 1021.97 uESTd00D PLAN. INC. PRO= SE2V 15-4310-196-.19 5035 19321.07 * *ffrr* ***-CKS 355655 12/31/85 143.33 ZIEGLER IN'- EQJIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 3Sib35 12/31/85 914.88 ZIEGLER IN: EOUI' MAINZ _-. 01-4232-432-42 1!058.81 • rrerrf **k-CKS 173J CITY OF SHAKOPEE CHECK REGISTER 12-31-85 PAGE 4 CiEC< NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITE4 ]E3CRIPTI0N ACCOUNT N0. INV. 0 P.O. # MESSAGE 355801 12/31/85 .. ............ ...---.89.3# AMI -. -----._ EOUII MAINT _ _. _01-4232-321-32 11967 89.34 315802 12/31/85 35.00 EAGLE PET SHOP RENTS 01-4380-111-11 315902 I2/31/B5 50.00 EAGLE PET SHOP MISC 01-4499-111-11 85.00 • 355903 12/31/85 4.95 _..__. EK R=PORiS CORP SUPPLIEi- O1-#210-121-12 4.95 • 355804 12/31/85 9.90 EMP DATA FJRMS INC SUPILIES 01-4210-421-42 45163 9.90 3!)5a05 12/51/85 16.45 FIRE ENGINEERING DUES 3 SUHSCRIPT 01-4391-321-32 16.95 4 355306 12/31/85 20.00 HEN CTY CH/POLICE DUES 3 SUBSCRIPT 71-4311-311-31 20.00 355807 12/31/85 100.00 MPCA CONT 3 SCHOOLS 01-4390-421-42 100.00 • 355808 12/31/85 429.00 N HY]RAULICS INC EOJI:) MAINT 01-4232-b31-62 429.00 • 355809 12/31/85 1 011.60 P=RSONNAL JEC INC PRl SERV 01-4310-411-41 10736 11011.60 + 355810 12/31/85 195.00 SIGNS OF sIJALITY PROMOTIONS 14-4319-143-14 195.00 355811 12/31/85 150.00 CIT JF ST CAUL CONS K SCHOOLS 01-4390-314-31 150.00 355812 12/31/85 152.50 THOMPSON PUB GR PRI Vi !< PUB 01-4350-158-15 152.50 • 36581.3 12/31/8529.95 TECH TV EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-441-44 29.95 t 355814 12/31/85 39.60 R03I11 R MCCULLOUGH PR0MJTION3 14-4319-142-14 39.60 • 3SS815 12/31/£35 574.50 SHAKOPEE COUN 1685 T3AV=L Er SU3SIST 01-4330-111-11 574.50 3S5B16 12/31/85 8.68 DODGE OF 13JRNS EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-121-12 12158 8.68 • 3»917 12/31/85 35v000.00 THE TORO CO MISC 01-3890-000-00 35,000.00 + 355818 12/31/85 529.53 TERRY SALES SUPPLIES 01-4210-312-31 5810 529.53 + 0 l3t15 CITY OF SHAKJPEE CHECK REGISTER 12-31-BS PAGE 5 'icCt No. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. u P.D. 0 MESSAGE trrrr* **r-CKS 489691.09 FUND D1 TOTAL GENEIAL FUND 49212.63 FUND 14 TOTAL TRANSIT 19515.88 , - FUND 15 TOTAL _.-. NRA 7.35 FUND 16 TOTAL CABLE 834.50 FUND 23 TOTAL K-MART _---...._...784.25FUND 27 TOTAL... ..____. _..RACETRA^-K 213.25 FUND 56 TOTAL 80-4 IMPROVEMENTS 201.15 FUND 61 TOTAL 1385 IM3ROVE. 374.03 FUVD 73 TOTAL STORM DIAINAGE UTILITY 569834.73 TOTAL o ,uth December Pz1ge 2 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE T.l'MER 1985 bit Acct. Cr. Acct. Amount Batch Remarks Ck. No. Vendor. Ck. Amt. '/01.4320.171.17 01.1010 14.60 f��v9 Postage 19963 Midwest Delivery Inc $. 14.60 ✓81.4926.000.00 81.1010 238.70 Remit Cancer INS. 19976 Am Family Life Assurance 238.70 ✓71.4519.711.71 71.1010 100.00 Other Improv. 19977 S. M. Hentges & Sons 100.00 -/01.4321.421.42 01.1010 .20 Telephone 19978 AT & T Comm ./01.4321.321.32 01 . 1.010 1.27 19978 " ✓01.4321.121.12 01.1010 12.36 19978 it ✓ol.4321.151.15 01.1010 9.14 19978 " ✓16.4321.231.23 16.1010 20.51 19978 " +/ol.4321.311.31 01.1010 37.31 " 19978 " 80.79 ✓01.4991.911.91 01.1010 2,776.00 Contingency 19979 Valley .Ice Arena 2,776.00 -,,81.4920.000.00 81.1010 9,899.24 remit FIT 19980 1st Nat'l - Shakopee 9,899.24 ✓81.4921.000.00 81.1010 4,145.44 Remit SIT 19981 Comm of hevenue 4,145.44 -- 1-9982 Void 1/81.4931.000.00 81.1010 1,000.00 liemit Payroll Say. 19983 1st Nat'l - Shakopee* 1,000.00 `/81.4932.000.00 81.1010 85.20 Remit uniform hent 19984 unitog Mental Serv. ✓01.4210.441.44 01.1010 7.1)+ Supplies 19984 of92.34 ✓81.4927.000.00 81.1010 2,662.00 Remit Defer. Comp 19985 PEBSCO 2,662.00 ✓81.4927.000.00 81.1010 100.00 liemit Defer. Comp. 19986 IDs 100.00 81.4923.000.00 81.1010 8,383.82 remit Pera 19987 State Treasurer 8,383.82 81.4922.000.00 81.1010 7,003.48 liemit FICA 19988 State Treasurer 7,003.48 ✓01.4232.626.62 01.1010 227.28 Equip Maint 19989 Spue :/01.4232.427.42 01.1010 117.75 Equip Maint 19989 " 01.4230.630.62 01.1010 16.12 Bldg Maint 19989 " ./01.4232.351-•35 01.1010 1,263.00 Equip Maint 19989 " ✓01.4370.628.62 01.1010 225.03 utilities 19989 " ✓o1.4370.311.31 01.1010 5.94 1.9989 -✓ol.4370.182.18 01.1010 365.55 19989 to ✓ol.4370.611.61 01.1010 451.47 of19989of ✓ol.4370.626.62 01.1010 9.35 19989 " 11.4370.622.62 01.1010 344.94 " 19989 " 01.4370.427.42 01.1010 157.96 " 19989 " ✓01.4370.421.42 01.1010 755.43 19989 " ,i,tlt December Page 3 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LEDGER 1985 ML Acct. Cr. Acct. Amount Batch Remarks Ck. No. Vendor Ck. Amt. -X01.4370.321.32 01.1010 190.46 A/01 Utilities 19989 SPCIC ---'01.4370-351-35 01.1010 19.50 19989 it ✓ol.4370.181.18 01.1010 355.52 19989 4,505.30 ✓01.1310.000.00 01.1010 57,692.00 Prepaid Expense 19990 Lg of MN Cities 57,692.QO 01.4320.131.13 01.1010 .22 Postage 19991 Petty Cash x/01.4330.411.41 01.1010 2.25 Travel & Subsist 19991 of ✓01.4210.411.41 01.1010 .85 Supplies 19991 " ✓01.4320.319.31 01.1010 1.67 Postage 19991 " ,.01.4210.151.15 01.1010 1.37 Supplies 19991 6.36 $98,700.07 $98,700.07 FUND TOTALS 01 - General Fund $65,061.68 16 - Cable 20.51 71 - Sewer Fund 100.00 81 - Payroll Trust, 33 517.88 $98,700-07 ,i,t h --%nuary Page 1 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE, T.rl7CER ]986 Tit Acct. Cr. Acct. Amount Batch Remarks Ck. No. Vendor Ck. Amt. 01.4320.131.13 01.1010 $ 2,000.00 Postage 19992 U. S. Postmaster $ 2,000.00 01.4390.151.15 01.1010 210.00 Conference & School 19993 Gov Fin Off Assoc 210.00 01.4390.311.31 101.1010 54.00 19994 Henn Cty Ch of Police 01.4390.312.31 01.1010 337.50 19994 391.50 01.4390.411.41 01.1010 105.00 19995 University of MN 105.00 01.3890.000.00 01.1010 801819.55 Mise Bevenue 19996 SPDC 80,819.55 $83,52 .05 $83- ,52 .05 FUND TOTAL 01 - General Fund $83,526.05 AD MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City ClerkC�rl// RE: 1986 Cigarette Licenses �J DATE: December 20 , 1985 Introduction Although the City Code does not specifically state that the Council shall approve applications for a cigarette license , the City Attorney has advised me that it would be in order for the Council to authorize the City Clerk to issue cigarette licenses for 1986 . Background The applications are in order and there are no delinquent and unpaid taxes, when owner occupied. Recommended Action Authorize the City Clerk to issue cigarette licenses for 1986 . (No need to list. ) JSC/jms 1986 Tobacco Licenses 86-1 Shakopee Eagles Club 220 West 2nd Avenue 86-2 Valleyfair One Valleyfair Drive 86-3 Shakopee Bowl 222 East 1st Avenue 86-4 Koehnen' s Standard 804 East 1st Avenue 86-5 Riverside Liquors, Inc. 507 East lst Avenue 86-6 Northern Racing Corp. 6528 Highway 101 86-7 The Pullman Club 124 West lst Avenue 86-8 Holiday Stationstores, Inc. 444 East lst Avenue 86-9 Juba' s Super Valu 1100 Minnesota Valley Mall 86-10 Rock Suring 1561 East lst Avenue 86-11 Cleve' s Red Owl 828 East lst Avenue 86-12 Cys Amoco 312 West lst Avenue 86-13 Jim & Lucy' s Inc. 201 West lst Avenue 86-14 Super America 1155 East lst Avenue 86-15 V.F.W. 132 East 1st AVenue 86-16 Sport Stop 101 South Lewis 86-17 Mpls. Northstar Auto Auction 7700 Hwy. 101 86-18 R. Hanover, Inc. 911 East lst AVenue 86-19 American Legion 1266 East lst Avenue 86-20 Hennen' s ICO 807 East 1st Avenue 86-21 Clair ' s Bar 124 S. Holmes 86-22 Shakopee House 1583 East lst AVenue 86-23 Dick' s Conoco 936 East lst Avenue 86-24 Wampach' s Restaurant 126 West lst AVenue *86-25 lst Avenue Cleaners 401 WEst lst Avenue 86-26 Tom Thumb Food Markets 590 S. Marschall Road 86-27 Brooks Superette 615 Marschall Road 86-28 Q Superette 234 West lst AVenue 86-29 Budget Liquor 6268 Hwy 101 86-30 Art Berens & Sons 123 West 2nd Avenue 86-31 K-Mart Minnesota Valley Mall 86-32 Snyder Drug 1128 Minnesota Valley Mall 86-33 K-Mart Distribution Center 901 County Road 83 86-34 Friendly Folks Club 122 East First Avenue 86-35 Anchor Glass Container 4108 Valley Ind. Blvd. *86-36 Family Chow Meain 237 East 1st AVenue 86-37 Valley Liquor Minnesota Valley Mall 86-38 Happy Chef 1120 East 1st AVenue 86-39 Shenandoah Ballroom 2400 E. 4th Avenue *86-40 Shakopee Dairy Queen 835 W. lst Avenue 86-41 Roberts DRug 814 E. 1st Avenue *86-42 Perkins 1205 E. lst Avenue *86-43 Granny' s 1135 E. 1st Avenue *86-44 Certain-Teed 3304 E. 4th Avenue 86-45 Pizza n Pasta 584 Marschall Road 86-46 Eastman Drug 214 S. Holmes *86-47 Minnesota Concessions 5244 Valley Ind. Blvd. MEMO TO: John K. Anderson Cit y Administrator FROM: Juditn S. Cox, City Clerk__,,, , RE: Official Newspaper DATE: December 20, 1985 Introduction One of the actions which needs to be taken at the first Council meeting of the year is the designation of the official newspaper for the City of Shakopee. Recommended Action Move to designate the Shakopee Valley News as the official newspaper for the City of Shakopee for the year 1986 . JSC/jms Southwest Suburban Publishing, Inc. December 17, 1985 The Honorable Eldon Reinke Mayor, City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Your Honor, Please consider our request for appointment of The Shakopee Valle News as the official newspaper for the City of Shakopee during 1986. Enclosed you will find a guide outlining our procedures and rates, as well as a copy of the document from the office of the Secretary of State which certifies that we are qualified to carry your legal notices. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service in the past. We hope you will see fit to continue that relationship in the coming year. Sin re tan R lfsrud Publisher AKOPEE VALLEY NEWS •EDEN PRAIRIE NEWS • CARVER COUNTY HERALD • JORDAN INDEPENDENT • PRIOR LAKE AMERICAN 327 MARSCHALL ROAD,P.O.BOX 8, SHAKOPEE,MN 55379 0 (612)445-3333 INFORMATION FOR GOVERNMENTAL BODIES AND INDIVIDUALS USING THE LEGAL NOTICES SECTION OF THE SHAKOPEE VALLEY NEWS Deadlines: Notices to be published must be received in the office of the Shakopee Valley News by noon on the Friday preceding each Wednesday publication date. This deadline must be observed to ensure accurate and timely publication of im- portant notices. Affidavits: One sworn affidavit of publication will be provided, upon request, without charge for each legal notice. Additional af- fidavits are available at$3.50 each.Additional clippings are available for 75 cents each. Late Fee: Urgent legal notices which do not arrive at the Valley News office before the specified deadlines may be accepted, at the publisher's discretion,but will have a late fee or surcharge of 10 percent added for special handling. Publication Requirements: Most specifications for legal notice publication including the number of times a notice is to run, are set forth by statute. Interpretation of the statutes is the responsibility of the customer and its legal counsel, not the publisher. Guidelines for governmental bodies,prepared by the Minnesota Newspaper Association,are available on request. Format: Legal notices are set in 7 point type with 7.5 points of leading unless the customer specifies a larger type size.Column width is 13 picas. Kill Fee: Publication of scheduled notices may be stopped depending on how far the printing process has advanced. If a legal notice is killed before the publication date the customer may still be liable for a special typesetting fee, not to exceed 30 percent of the cost of the published notice.The customer must pay,on a pro rata basis, for that part of a series of publications that have been completed before interruption by the customer. Errors: Publisher assumes no responsibility for errors in typesetting or scheduling of legal notices.In all cases,the publisher's liability shall be limited to a"make good"of a defective legal if it can be demonstrated that the error was made by the publisher and that as a result of the error the legal notice was rendered invalid. Rates: Effective January 1, 1985,the Minnesota Legislature has authorized legal newspapers to charge for legal notices in the same manner they charge their best commercial display classified customers. That means legal notices will now be billed by the column inch,not by the"legal line".The law also restricts rate increases exceeding 10 percent per annum. SHAKOPEE VALLEY NEWS RATE INFORMATION " Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users. .. ... . . ......$6.50 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for legal notices.......... .......... ..... ....... . . ..........$4.94 per column inch Subsequent insertions................... ......... ..... ......... ............ ..........$3.94 per column inch Further information on determining the legal rate structure is available on request. APPLICATION FOR 1986 LEGAL NEWSPAPER STA'T'US NAME OF NMISPAPFR SHAKOPEE /ALLEY NEWS MAILING ADDRESS Post Office Box 8, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 ADDRESS OF KNOWN OFFICF, OF IssuF327 Marschall Road, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 COUNTY SCOtt PHONR (612) 445-3333 I have attached the following documents pursuant to M.S. 331A.02, Subd. 1, and certify that I meet all of the qualifications of a legal newspaper under the statute: I. X A published copv of the sworn U.S. Post office 2nd Class Statement of Ownership and circulation; OR, A published copv of the Statement of. Ownership and Circulation verified by a recognized independent circulation auditing agencv: AND 2. X Filing fee of S25, made payable to the Secretary of State. NOTE: You must comply with 1 and 2 of t e above. Lf, S ATJRF OF PUBLISHER AUTHORI7,ATION TO SERVF; AS A LEGAL NEWSPAPER IN MINNESOTA 1, Joan AnRerson Growe, Secretary of State do hereby certify that the above listed publication has met the filing requirements of a leqal newspaper for the year 1985, and may act as such as lonq as thev shall fulfill the requirements set forth in M.S. 331A.02 Subd. 1. );:�?AN ANDF.RSO*I GROPTF L' nn Q�''✓t/"I MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk Dp RE: Postage Meter Rental Agreement DATE: December 27 , 1985 Introduction & Background In conjunction with the purchase of a new postage machine, it is necessary to enter into a postage meter rental agreement with International Mailing Systems at a monthly rate of $26 . 00 . Postage meters cannot be purchased. We had a rental agreement with Pitney Bowes at a monthly rate of $21 . 00 , which is being cancelled. The new rental fee has been budgeted. Action Recommended Authorize proper City officials to execute a postage meter rental agreement with International Mailing Systems , at the monthly rate of $26. 00 . JSC/jms l� MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk / RE: Special Municipal Parking Lot Permits DATE: January 2, 1996 Introduction For a number of years, the City has been granting a special permit to park in the Black Arrow Municipal Parking Lot, without time limitations to Jack Brambilla and Bergstad Properties. Background Both parties are interested in renewing their permits with the City for 1986 , Bergstad Properties for 7 spaces and Jack Brambilla for 37 spaces . In both cases, this is the same as last year. Alternatives 1. Approve agreements for 1986 2 . Deny agreements for 1986 . Recommended Action Authorize the direct proper City officials to enter into an agreement with Jack Brambilla and also with Bergstad . Properties for a Municipal Parking Lot Permit for 1986 for the Black Arrow Parking Lot. JSC/jms 1986 /v SPECIAL PERMIT f MUNICIPAL PARKING LOT The City of Shakopee, Minnesota, the owner of a municipal parking lot known as the Black Arrow Parking Lot, hereby grants to Brambilla' s Autos the right to park vehicles in thirty-seven ( 37 ) spaces in said parkin lot without limitations of time, , and which spaces are to be appropriately marked where possible by the City, and shall be the eighteen ( 18 ) spaces in the middle of the lot east of the street light, seven ( 7 ) spaces in the northeast corner of the lot abutting Levee Drive, and the first twelve ( 12 ) spaces west of State Highway 169 abutting the alley, all in Block 5, Original Shakopee Plat, and the grantee shall pay to the City in advance, the sum amount of Ten Dollars and no cents ( $10. 00 ) per space per year. This permission is for a period terminating on December 31 , 1986 , and may be cancelled by either party on thirty ( 30 ) days written notice to the other, in which case unearned portions of the fee charged, if any, shall be refunded. If permission is cancelled by the City for a violation of the terms and conditions hereof by the grantee herein, there will be no refund. There shall be no sales of vehicles and no repairs or storage of vehicles incapable of being legally operated upon public streets pursuant to the terms hereof. Cars which will not start because of dead batteries shall be permitted. Cars which do not have current registration shall not be permitted. The permit granted hereby is for the sole and exclusive use of the grantee named herein and agents and employees of said grantee and no other person. The grantee shall keen the portion of said lot covered hereby in a neat, clean, and s=afe condition at all times and shall not permit or tolerate snow birds on any portion of the areas covered 'hereby, and the grantee assumes all risks incident to the use of the pre:~ises =or Narking space and shall indemnify the City against any loss , damage, or expense resulting from personnel injury or damage to, or loss of , property caused in any manner by the Lessee, and against any loss, damage, or expense resulting from injury to the Lessee, and against any loss , damage, or expense resulting from injury to the Lessee, to the agents of the Lessee, to the employees of the Lessee and to the general public. This agreement supercedes the agreements dated January 22 , 1985 and May 13 , 1985 by and between these same parties . IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, this instrument is executed this day of 19 BRAMBILLA' S AUTOS CITY OF SHAKOPEE By BY Its Owner Its Mayor By Its Administrator By Its Clerk 1986 SPECIAL PERMIT MUNICIPAL PARKING LCT The City of Shakopee, Minnesota, the owner of a municipal parking lot known as the Black Arrow Parking Lot, hereby grants to "Levee Drive Associates" , and their tenants, the right to park vehicles in seven (7 ) spaces in said parking lot without limitations of time , and which spaces are to be appropriately marked by the City, and shall be the first seven ( 7 ) spaces immediately east of Fuller Street and south of Levee Drive in Block 5 , Original Shakopee Plat, and the lessee shall pay to the City in advance, the sum amount of Ten Dollars and no cents ( 510 . 00 ) per space per year. This permission is for a period terminating on December 31, 1986 , and may be cancelled by either party on thirty ( 30) days written notice to the other, in which case unearned portions of the fee charged, if any, shall be refunded. If permission is cancelled by the City for a violation of ther terms and conditions hereof by the grantee herein, there will be no refund. The lessee hereby agrees to provide up to three parking spaces as needed, at the highrise site for handicapped congregate dining parking. There shall be no sales, repairs, or storage of vehicles and all vehicles must be currently licensed and operational. The permit granted hereby is for the sole and exclusive use of the lessee named herein and tenants of said lessee and no other person. The lessee spall keep the portion of said lot covered hereby in a neat, clean, and safe condition at all times and shall not permit or tolerate snow birds on any portion of the areas covered hereby, and the lessee assumes all risks incident to the use of the premises for park_ng space and shall indemnify the City against any loss, damage, or expense resulting from property personnel injury or damage to, or loss of , p_ Y caused in any manner by the Lessee, and against any loss , damage, or expense resulting from injury to the Lessee, to the tenants of the Lessee, and to the employees of the Lessee. The City shall continue providing snow removal services for the parking lot in the same manner as it provides services to all municipal parking lots. The lessee and his tenants shall cooperate with the City as needed to permit snow removal. This agreement supercedes the agreement dated January 22 , 1985 by and between the same parties. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, this instrument is executed this day of 19 LEVEE DRIVE ASSOCIATES CITY Or SHAKOPEE By By John B. Be:gstad Its Mayor Bergstad Properties Suite 257 By 33 South 10th Avenue By Administrator Hopkins, MN 55343 By Its Clerk MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator 10'ro FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk_<.- RE: Nominations to Committees DATE: January 2 , 1986 Introduction We have advertised for interested citizens to step forward and offer to serve on various boards and commissions of the City. We did not advertise to fill vacancies on commissions where incumbents desire to be reappointed. To date we have heard from only one resident. Mr. Todd Schwartz and he is willing to serve on either the Cable Commission or Energy and Transpor- tation. Barry Stock, staff for both commissions , recommends appointing Mr. Schwartz to Energy and Transportation. Action Requested Make nominations to fill expiring terms on the following boards and commissions. 1. Planning Commission - two terms expiring Dave Czaja, incumbent - interested in reappointment Dave Pomerenke, incumbent - interested in reappointment 2. Industrial Commercial Commission - two terms expiring, plus one vacancy Jane Dubois , incumbent - interested in reappointment Al Furrie, incumbent - interested in reappointment 3 . Police Civil Service Commission - one term expiring John Roepke, incumbent - interested in reappointment 4 . Shakopee Public Utilities Commission - in the past appointments have been made in April. Last April we missed making an appointment, so this appointment will be one for two years and one for three. 3 yrs. - Jim Cook, incumbent - interested in reappointment 2 yrs. - Barry Birchmeier , incumbent - interested in reappoint- ment 5. Shakopee Community Access Corporation - two terms expiring Names have not yet been submitted by the corporation for consideration, pursuant to their by-laws. 6. Energy & Transportation - three terms expiring No incumbents wish to be reappointed See resume of Todd Schwartz attached. 7. Cable Communication Advisory Commission - two terms expiring, both individuals are will to continue until successors are appointed. 8. Community Services - one term expiring and current member (Nancy Christensen) does not wish to be reappointed. Action Requested Make nominations to: a. Planning Commission - two b. ICC - two C. Police Civil Service Commission - one d. Shakopee Public Utilities - two e. Energy & Transportation - one JSC/jms PERSONAL RESUME Todd Raymond Schwartz 1178 Tyler Street Shakopee,Mn 55379 445-4942 Since 6/84 Height: 5'9" Weight: 185 Marital Status: Married, Wife, Kathleen Ann Dependants: Brandon, Holly, April Nearest Relative: Rodger M. and Marian L. Schwartz (Parents) 11317 Rich Circle Bloomington, Mn 55437 888-2410 Previous Address: :1019 East 3rd Ave Shakopee, Mn 55379 9/77 to 6/84 819 South Main Street Shakopee, Min 55379 8/77 to 9/78 640 Gorman Street Apt. 314 Shakopee, Mn 55379 8/76 to 8/77 EDUCATION American Institute of Banking Minneapolis, Mn 55420 Course of Study: Applied Banking 1985 to present Hennepin Technical Centers South Campus Eden Prairie, Mn Course of Study: Computer Studies 1984--to 1985 Hennepin Technical Centers South Campus Eden Prairie, Mn Course of Study: Fire Science, FireFighter I 1984 to 1985 EDUCATION CONT. Institute of Financial Education Chicago, Ill Course of Study: Teller Operations, Mortgage Lending 1978 to 1979 Normandale Community College Bloomington, Mn 55431 Course of Study: Accounting, Business Adminstration 1976 Thomas Jefferson Senior High School Bloomington, Mn 55431 1971--to 1974 I V WORK E',ITERIENCE Citizens State Bank of Shakopee 1100 East 4th Ave Shakopee, Mn 55379 445-8200 Position: Loan Officer, Security and Compliance Officer Supervisor: James A. Weeks, Operating Officer Employed: 3/85 to present Peoples Savings and Loan Assoication F.A. 327 South Marschall Road Shakopee, Mn 55379 445-1555 Position: Branch Manager/Loan Officer Supervisor: Robert W. Bruce, President Employed: 4/78 to 2/85 Radio Shack, Tandy Corporation Inc. Minnesota Valley Mall Shakopee, Mn 55379 445-6276 Position: Store/Sales Manager Supervisor: Raymond D. Durbin, District Director Employed: 8/76 to 4/78 Radio Shack, Tandy Corporation Inc. 98th Street Bloomington, Mn 55431 Position: Manager Trainee Supervisor: Richard Burnett, Store Manager Employed: 10/75 to 8/76 COMMLTNITY INVOLVEMENT Shakopee Rotary Club Purpose: Civic Involvement: Member 1980 Present Shakopee Chamber of Commerce Purpose: Business developement Involvement: Member Board Member 1982 - 1985 1977 - Present Shakopee Coalition Purpose: Support other Groups Involvement: Member representative 1985- Present Shakopee Housing Alliance Purpose: Look..into housing possibilities for community Involvement: Member 1985- Present Shakopee Fire Department Purpose: Fire protection Involvement: Fire :Fighter, Certified Emergency Medical 1st Responder 1984- Present Crime Prevention Committee Purpose: Safe community Involvement: Member representative 1983- Present Department of Natural Resources Certified Hunter Safety Instructor Purpose: Promote safe hunting to.young adults Involvement:Instructor 1980- Present Shakopee Jaycees Purpose: Individual development:--through Community development Involement: Past President, Past Vice President, Past Board Member 1977- 1985 Carol Schmidt 628 South Gorman St. #225 Shakopee, MN 55379 January 3 , 1986 Mr. Barry Stock Transit Coordinator City of Shakopee 129 First Avenue East Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Barry: This is to let you know that I would be interested and honored to serve on the Energy and Transportation Committee for the City of Shakopee. I have been a regular driver for Shakopee Area Transit since its beginning in September, 1984 . I thoroughly enjoy being of service to Shakopee Area Transit and the citizens of Shakopee who ride on the vans. Due to this fact, I feel that I would be able to give the committee insight into the needs and concerns of the van pool riders. If you need to contact me, you may reach me during the day at 371-5300 (ext. 5702) or in the evenings at 445-9138 . I would appreciate your forwarding this on to the Energy and Transportation Committee for their consideration. Very truly _yours, C� Carol Schmidt MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator ` O FROM: Judith S. Cox, City ClerkC�C. RE: 1986 Liaison Appointments DATE: December 31 , 1985 Introduction The attached lists the Council liaison appointments made in 1985 . Council should consider and make appointments for 1986. Action Requested 1 . Nominations and appointments to serve as acting Mayor during 1986. 2 . Make liaison appointments to: Shakopee Community Service Shakopee Public Utilities Commission Planning Commission Hazardous Water and Sewer Service Board Purchasing Committee Downtown Committee JSC/jms 1985 COUNCIL LIAISON APPOINTMENTS *Shakopee Community Services Cncl. Wampach *Public Utilities Commission Cncl. Wampach *Planning Commission Cncl. Lebens *Hazardous Waste & Sewer Services Board (delete for 1 year ) *Vice Mayor Cncl. Vierling *Purchasing Committee Cncl. Leroux and Cncl. Vierling Downtown Committee (Member) Cncl. Wampach MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, CIty Administrator RE: Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (pmm) 1985 - 1986 Legislative Proposals and Amendments to By-Laws DATE: December 27 , 1985 Introduction Councilmembers received copies of the proposed AMM By-Laws Amendments and 1985 - 1986 Legislative Proposals at their December 17 , 1985 meeting. City staff has reviewed the pro- posed Amendments to AMM By-Laws and Proposed 1985 - 1986 Legislative proposals. Alternatives 1 . Approve the proposed changes to the AMM By-Laws and the Proposed 1985 - 1986 Legislative Policies as mailed. 2 . Make amendments to either the proposed By-Laws Amendments or the proposed policies based upon Council discussion at the January 7th meeting. Recommendation The proposed 1985 - 1986 Legislative policies have been re- viewed by the appropriate department heads and they have suggested no changes. In addition, I have reviewed the policies as well as the proposed changes to the By-Laws and recommend no changes. There is a section of the AMM Revenue Committee Report that has not been included which I hope to obtain for Council review and action. Action Requested 1 . Pass a motion stating that the Shakopee City Council is in favor of the Proposed Amendments to the AMM By-Laws as mailed December 3 , 1985 . 2. Pass a motion stating that the Shakopee City Council is in favor of the proposed 1985 - 1986 Legislative Proposals as mailed for consideration by the association membership on January 9 , 1986 . JKA/jms MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator / u RE: Council Meeting Procedures DATE: December 31, 1985 Introduction Because of the light agenda January 7, 1986, I thought it would be a good time to review our 1985 worksession materials on Council procedures. What's your reaction looking back over the last 12 months? This is a good opportunity to take stock and fine tune the procedures from 1985 if you have good suggestions. Review of 1985 Procedures 1. How Councilmembers get items on the agenda. Call and ask staff to place a note about the item under Other Business on the upcoming agenda. After discussing the item with our members of Council, a motion can be made to take whatever action is appropriate. 2. Stopping time is 10:30 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. when there is a HRA agenda. 3. The Chairman will comment on issues last and try to facilitate discussion. 4. The Chairman will make an informal effort to "go around the table" for comments. 5. There should be a self imposed limit of two comments per item. 6. Councilmembers are urged to use "How to Aid Discussion by Asking the Right Questions" (attached and in plastic cover also at council table) (Also attached is a list of motions in order of precedence to move the discussion along to comply with #2 above. Council has also asked the City Administrator to use the same tools to help move discussion along. ) 7. Procedures for Public Hearing: a. Mayor announces and emphasizes public hearing rules: 1) Citizen give name and address before speaking. 2) Everyone speaks once before a second chance to speak is given. 3) Citizens speak to Chair or Council not other members of the audience (to avoid back and forth discussions). b. Council discusses issue before opening up to the audience. c. Open discussion up to the audience. 8. All items to be acted on should be on the agenda with completed staff work. 9. Staff's role and responsibilities for completing staff work for agenda items: a. What a good staff report should accomplish. 1) Introduction 2) State problem or issue 3) List alternatives with pros and cons 4) Make recommendation 5) State "Action Requested" b. The staff report process. All information on an agenda item should be presented to all Councilmembers in the staff report. (Problems arise when information is not in the agenda packets and therefore not available to all Councilmembers. ) C. Calls to City staff - the 20 minute rule of thumb means any requests to staff requiring more than 20 minutes to handle should be handled under No. 1 above. d. When to ask questions about agenda items - Monday or Tuesday before the meeting whenever possible. e. When to ask staff to follow-up on miscellaneous items - for example: potholes, junk cars, etc. , should be covered when first received by Councilmember, not "saved" for the Council meeting. This insures a quick response to the citizen's request. f. Responses to citizens' complaints about City staff handling of a problem, etc. Council's response should normally be, "I'll check into it and call you back". Avoid "taking sides" until all the facts are known. g. What to do when staff comes to Councilmembers about a problem or item on the agenda. Request that the staff persons take their concerns through the staff report process (see 9b). 10. Use of Council worksessions (i.e. committee meetings). Summary The ability of City Council to effectively make decisions at public Council meetings depends in large part on how Council conducts its meeting and how the information necessary to make those decisions is provided to all Council- members. The meeting procedures and the staff memo system outlined above will play a key role in determining the effectiveness of the Council. If you have questions about the material in this memo or would like to suggest changes please plan to do so Tuesday. Action Requested Pass a motion accepting the Council meeting procedures for 1986 as outlined in the Council memo regarding the subject dated December 31, 1985. JKA/jms HOW TO AID DISCUSSION B1' ASKING THE RIGHT C1Ut'S7'IOKS To De=ine Problems : 1 . As I understand it , the Problem is . . . . does anv(111c: have additional information on the i.ssuc'1 2 . Would anyone care to suhgest facts we need to better understand the issues involved? To Broaden farticinaticin : 1 . We ' ve heard from sumo of you. Would others who have not spoken like to add their ideas? 2 . How do the ideas presented so far sound to those of you who have been thinking about them? 3 . What other issues related to this problem should we discuss? to Limit Pa-rticiDation : 1 . (To a dominating participant ) We appreciate pp your ideas but perhaps we should hear from others . Would some of you who have not spoken care to add your ideas to those already expressed? 2 . You have -made several good comments and I wonderif some— one else might like to ask, a question or make a statement? - 3 . Since all of the group has not yet had an opportunity to speak, I wonder if you would hold your comments until a little later. . I ]'o Focus Discussion: 1 . Where are we in relation to the decision we need to make? 2 , Would you like to have me review my- understanding of what ' s been said and where we are? 3 . That ' s an interesting comment . However , I wonder if it relates exactly to the problem that ' s before us ? 4 . As I understaTd it , this is the problem. . . . Are there addi— tional comments before we come to a decision? Move The Meet i ne Al on 1 . I wonder if we 've spent enough time on this and are ready to move along to . . . . ? 2 . Have we -one into this aspect of the problem far enough so that we could shift our attention to . . . . ? 3 . In view of the remaining agenda items (or time We 've set to adjourn) would it be well. to go on to the next question before us? o }ie, 7 The C7ou7 Eva; ua~ e 'here It is : 1 . Do any of you have the feeling we arc at an impasse on this issue? Z . Should we look at our original objective for this discussion and see how close we are to it? 3 . Now that we are nearing the end of the meeting would anyone like to suggest how we might improve our next meeting? To Help Reach A Decision : 1 . Do I sense an agreement on these points . . . . ? 2 , We seem to be moving toward a decision that would . . . . (Chairperson describes decision) Should we consider what it will mean in terms of . . . . if we decide this way? 3 . What have we accomplished up to this point ? 4 . Would someone care to sum up our discussion on this issue? To Prc%,ide Continuitv: 1 . At our last meeting we discussed this issue . Would someone care to review what we covered then? 2 . Since we will not complete this discussion at this meeting , what are some of the issues we should take up at the next meeting? 3 . Would someone care to suggest additional information or issues we need to consider before our next meeting? Adapted from "Working with Groups" , Lizette Weiss . Director C Public Aairs , Association of Bay Area Governments , Berkeley , California . Du,��au r.= rnt�, trr :• rr,p� N,,;10,ts ` IN MDER OF PRLZDDENCE (Except for Incidental Motions. rrh{ch have no rank among thcMsc}ves) Fix ` time to Adjourn Adjourn PRIVILEGED Take Recess HOTIDiiS Question of Privileoe Call fc!- orders Of the Day , Division of Assembly , Division of a Question Filling Flanks , Objection -- Itti"IV 47AL Parliamentary Inquiry 1'GT J Otis ' Point of Inforration Point of Order Read Papers Suspend the Rules Withdraw a mo,6ion Lay on the Table The Previous Question (Close Debate) " -- - _ 1Limit or :.xtcnd Debate Postpone to a Definite Time SUBSIDIARY Refer to a Committee :mend the Amendment ' P.-iendw ent / Postpone Inde,`initciy or PRIN:IPAL ';3710'1 Miscelianco::s motions after a,7tion h,,s been taken on Main or Principal Motion: Take fors, TWe (undebatable) Fcscind (debatable) Reconsider (debatable) Rati`,-• (dch�-tahlnl 110'/ CI�n�lC TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Resolution No. 2492, Adopting the 1986 Pay Plan (Reconsideration) DATE: January 1, 1986 Introduction and Background Council adopted the 1986 pay plans as attachments to Resolution No. 2492. The figures on the first two columns of the clerical section are incorrect . The percentages for steps 1 and 2 should be based on step 4. The incorrect figures were based on step 3. Two employees are currently paid on steps 1 and 2. Attached is a corrected pay plan for technicians and clerical staff. The City Clerk has suggested that Resolution No. 2492 be reconsidered and amended by substituting the corrected pay plan for technicians and clerical staff. Action Requested 1. Move to reconsider Resolution No. 2492. 2. Move to amend Resolution No. 2492 by substituting the corrected technicial— clerical pay plan. 3. Offer Resolution No. 2492 as amended. F.�SOL�:IOt' t 0. 2492 A RESOLUT101" ADOPTING THE 1985 P��Y SCHEDULE FOP. TFE OFFICERS AND NON-UNION E?:PLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SHtd',OPEE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAF:OPEE, MINNESOTA, that the City Administrator hereby authorized to issue warrants upon the the City Treasury, from and after January 1, 1986 or other date as specified and payable to the duly elected, appointed, or hereby designated and appointed non-union employees of the City of Shakopee, in accordance with the attached 1986 pay schedule dated January 1, 1986 heretofore adopted, or hereinafter adjusted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all aforesaid disbursements shall be made subject to the prevailing conditions of employment and satisfactory performance of a1C detate Law, e andsResolutionslas adopted, ori amended and ssupplemented-Decified in Sfrom time lities as City Co dee time by the Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City contribution for health, life, long-term disability and dental insurance and/or an individualized health care account as may be provided by Council, shall be no more than $215 per month per employee, effective January 1, 1986- All employees shall receive this $10 per month increase over the benefit provided in 1985. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all Resolutions in conflict with this Resolution are hereby repealed and terminated, effective January 1, 1986. Adopted in �,�.� 110 ' session 0f the City Founcil of the City of Minnesota, 4eld'�his /yam day 0f ��� „,. � 1 , 19 Shakopee, IlneSOta, L Mayor of the City of Shakopee' ATTEST: A City Clerk Approved as to form this / 7 day of 19 City 4torney 1986 FI_" SCEEDUIE !! JAWAFT 1 , 1986 F G s i t l c n s Elected Officials Salary Luthoriz & ------------------ ------ ---------- haycr $4 , 200 /Yr 1 Councilpersons 3 , 600 /yr 5 City Employees — Permanent/Full Time ------------------------------------ City Administrator (per agreement 4/ 17 / £4 ) Pending /yr 1 See attached 1986 Department Read Pay Plan Community Services Director ( 1/ 10th ) 3 , 914 /yr 1 See Attached 1986 Technician Pay Plan See Attached 1986 Clerical Pay Plan ` Assistant Police Chief 1£0 /mo 1 City Employees — Permanent/Part Time ------------------------------------ City Attorney 26 , 290 /yr I Senior Custodian 7 . 82 /hr 1 Custodian 7 . 10 /hr 2 Fire Chief 2 , 000 /yr 1 Assistant Fire Chief ( 1st ) 1 , 000 /yr 1 Assistant Fire Chief ( 2nd ) 900 /yr 1 Fire Department Engineer 1 , 650 /yr 1 1st Asst Fire Dept . Engineer 1 , 350 /yr 1 2nd Asst Fire Dept . Engineer 700 /yr 1 Fire Training Officer 1 ,350 /yr 1 =ire Captain 500 /yr 2 Firemen 7 .35 /hr 35 City Employees — Temporary ------------------------------------ Hisc . Temporary Employees from 3 . 50 /hr fi/A to 9 . 98 Or 1986 Technician R Clerical Ray Flan Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Stanton Survey No. of 75% 801 90/ Stanton Mean Classifications Positions Start (`) 1 Years 2 Years 3 Years --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. Entry Level Technician ((lid I ) 0 0 0 0 0 14. Entry Level Technician (Aid II) 0 1, 296 1, 383 1,556 1, 728 15. Vac. Grad. +3-5 yrs. (Aid 111) 2 1,639 1,748 1,967 2, 185 16. lop Sub. Professional (Aid IV) 1 1, 866 1,991 2,239 2, 488 20. Inspector 1 0 0 0 0 56. Planner (3) 1 1, 557 1,661 1,869 2, 076 33. Accounting Clerk 1 1,047 1, 117 1,257 1,396 36. Senior Accounting Clerk 1 1, 184 1,263 1, 421 1,519 42. Senior Clerk Typist 22 1,014 I'v182 1,217 1,352 43. Switch Board/Receptionist 0 924 986 1, 109 1,232 45. Data Entry 0 1,007 1,074 1,209 1,343 46. Senior Steno 0 1,071 1, 143 19286 1, 429 47. Secretary 5 1, 128 1,203 1,353 1,504 48. Senior Secretary 0 1, 307 1,394 19568 1, 742 Footnotes: 1. Classification is accomplished by matching the City' s position descriptions with those in the Stanton Survey. 2. Employees hired without experience in the position start at 755 of tap - employees with experience may start where appropriate. 3. Clerical adjusted to Stanton based On even years. Technical adjusted to Stanton based on odd years. All adjustments to individual positions deferred pendinU comparable worth, adjustments at that point will be retroactive to 1/1/116. CIT Y _-CDF_ :E3 HP�_ KOPTZ7T INCORPORAT-ED 1870 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT � 129 5. 1st Avenue - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 MEMO TO: Jahn K_ Anderson, City Administrator- FROM: dministratorFROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer . SUBJECT : 1986 Fee Resolution DATE: December 19, 1985 INTRODUCTION : Resolution No. 8479 adopted on December .11, 1985 and amended December 17, 1985 established the 1986 Fee Schedule. This will serve to f urt her amend the fee -resolution to include the Storm Water Drainage Utility. BACKGROUND : The 1986 Fee Schedule as adopted under Resolution 8479 estab- lished a Storm Water Drainage Utility, the rate of which to be determined. Plans and specifications have been ordered for the 'Holmes Street Basin Latera'_ project . Based on the estimated project cost, the City-wide Storm Water Drainage Utility fee has been established at $10. 32/Quarter/REF-ACRE (REF refers to Residential Equivalent Factor) . Rather than adopting a resolution amending the fee resolution adopted on December 3, 1995 and amended December 17, 1985, staff recommends that Resolution No. 8479 be reconsidered and amended to include the fore stated Storm Water Drainage Utility rate. The attached excerpt from Resolution No. 8479 i nd i cat es the change. ALTERNATIVES : 1. Do not amend the 1986 fee resolution. 2. Amend the 1986 fee resolution to establish the Storm Water Drainage Utility rate at $10. 32/Quarter/REF-ACRE. 3. Amend the 1986 fee resolution to establish the Storm Water Drainage Utility at a rate other than fore stated. --986 Fee Schedule December- 19, 1085 -'age -=UESTED ACTION Reconsider Resolution No. 2475. Amend Resolution No. 2479 to est a b I i sh the Storm Water Drainage Utility rate at $10. 32/0uarter/REF-ACRE. 3. Adopt Resolution No. 2479 as amended. .A/pnip -e'ES 1c : Judith S. Cox -17- 3 . 1 / -3 . Recheck -at 1/2 the original fee Pian, Plat and Report Review 1. Review 30 . 00 2. Plus hourly rate 3 . Recheck at hourly rate Storm water Drainaae Utilitv City-wide special benefit fee 10 . 32/ (Payment due within 30 days - a penalty quarter/ of 5% per quarter added to past due amount) REF*-acre *Residential equivalent factor OTHER - hereby set as follows: 1. Application fee for variance from cr amendment to the cable franchise ordinance 25. 00 PLUS Costs of consultants hired to assist the City in considering variance applications will be billed to applicant based on actual cost to the City. Notification will be sent to applicant that consultants will be utilized when that determina- tion has been made. Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Gregg M. Voxland Finance Dir ector Re: Resolution No. 2504 Designating Official Depositories Date: January 3, 1986 Introduction & Backzround In accordance with State Statutes, Council needs to designate depositories for City funds. In the event Council fails to act, the Treasurer shall designate depositories. This resolution is a routine "housekeeping" item. Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 2504. GVM:mmr RESOLUTION NO.2504 A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES OF CITY FUNDS FOR 1986 WHEREAS, M.S. 427 .02 provides that the City Council designate depositories; and, WHEREAS , the State of Minnesota Statutes 118.005 and 475.66 provides that Cities may invest in time deposits. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SHAK OPEE, MINNESOTA, that the following institutions are designated as depositories with the respective dollar amounts as limits and as secured by insurance and/or collateral. First National Bank of Shakopee $500,000.00 Citizens State Bank of Shakopee 500,000.00 First National Bank of St. Paul 500,000.00 First National Bank of Minneapolis 500,000.00 Norwest National Bank 500,000.00 First Minnesota Savings & Loan 100,000.00 Marquette National Bank 500,000.00 Midland National Bank 500,000.00 California Federal Savings & Loan 100,000.00 All State Savings & Loan 100,000.00 Columbia Savings & Loan 100,000.00 First Federal Savings & Loan of Michigan 100,000.00 American Federal Savings & Loan 100,000.00 Far West Savings & Loan 100,000.00 Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of January, 1986 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of January, 1986 . City Attorney nj MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Implementation of Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday DATE: January 2 , 1985 Introduction As all City Councilmembers know the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr. has been designated a federal holiday. This means that the City must establish Martin Luther King Jr. ' s birthday as a formal holiday and close City offices. This also means that the City must determine how it will handle the holiday for City employees. Survey of Metro Area Cities The City of Shakopee currently provides its employees eleven paid holidays . Eleven paid holidays is the standard for the twin cities metropolitan area and those cities covered by the Stanton pay and benefit survey. As I explained in December when discussing labor negotiations, it appears that most metropolitan area cities° are not planning to create a 12th paid holiday. Cities have several choices in responding to the mandated new federal holiday and those choices are outlined in the attached letter from Labor Relations Associates, Inc. What we are recommending are alternatives A. l.c. and A. 3 . for non-union employees and alternative B. 1 . for union employees. Attached are the specific labor agreement articles dealing with holidays for police and public works. Note that public works does have a floater holiday and police have eleven un-named paid holidays. Alternatives The alternatives available to Council are outlined in the Labor Relations Associates , Inc. memo dated November 25 , 1985. To implement the alternative we are recommending Council would have to pass Resolution No. 2501 which is attached. Recommendation I recommend passage of Resolution No. 2501 effectively eliminating the City' s floating holiday for non-union employees and replacing it with a paid holiday on Martin Luther King Jr. ' s birthday which will be observed on the third Monday in January. The union agreements will not be changed at this time and the employees will receive an unpaid day off on Martin Luther King Jr. ' s birthday unless they individually use their floating holiday or one of their other holidays. This will mean that they will be affected the same as non-union employees. i Action Requested ` Approve Resolution No. 2501 , A Resolution Amending the Personnel Policy Adopted by Resolution No. 1571 , eliminating the current floating holiday and replacing it with a holiday on Martin Luther King Jr. ' s birthday. JKA/jms LABOR RELATIONS ASSOCIATES, INC. 7501 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 612/546-1470 November 25 , 1985 TO: William S. Joynes, Chairman MAMA Labor Relations Committee FROM: C. F. Smythe , Consultant SUBJECT: MARTIN LUTHER KING ' S BIRTHDAY AND "SNOW DAYS" MARTIN LUTHER KING'S BIRTHDAY Minnesota Statutes 645 .44 , subd. 5 - Holidays states : "Holiday" includes New Year' s Day , January 1 ; Martin Luther King ' s Birthday, the third Monday in January ; Washington ' s and Lincoln ' s Birthday, the third Monday in February; Memorial Day , the last Monday in May ; Independence Day , July 4 ; Labor Day, the first Monday in September; Christopher Columbus Day , the second Monday in October ; Veterans Day, November 11 ; Thanksgiving Day , the fourth Thursday in November; and Christmas Day , December 25 ; provided , when New Year ' s Day , January 1 ; or Independence Day, July 4; or Veterans Day, November 11 ; or Christmas Day, December 25 ; falls on Sunday , the following day shall be a holiday and , provided , when New Year' s Day, January 1 ; or Independence Day , July 4 ; or Veterans Day , November 11 ; or Christmas Day , December 25 ; falls on Saturday, the preceding day shall be a holiday. No public business shall be transacted on any holiday , except in cases of necessity and except in cases of public business transacted by the legislature , nor shall any civil process be served thereon . However , for the executive branch of the state of Minnesota , "holiday" also includes the Friday after Thanksgiving but does not include Christopher Columbus Day. Other branches of state government and political subdivisions shall have the option of determining whether Christopher Columbus Day and the Friday after Thanksgiving shall be holidays. Where it is determined that Columbus Day or the Friday after Thanksgiving is not a holiday, public business may be conducted thereon. Any agreement between a public employer and an employee organization citing Veterans Day as the fourth Monday in October shall be amended to cite Veterans Day as November 11 . Mr. William S. Joynes November 25 , 1985 Page Two 1 The Statute does not require that the designated holidays be paid days off for public employees who do not work due to the requirement that : "No public business shall be transacted . . . except in cases of necessity to If a city does not wish to increase the present number of paid holidays , and Martin Luther King ' s Birthday has not already been named by the city as a paid holiday , the options for the city appear to be : A. NON-UNION EMPLOYEES 1 . Non-management (non-exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act) employees whose work is not necessary. a. Allow employees to take an unpaid day off on Martin Luther King ' s Birthday . b. Allow employees to trade either Columbus Day , a "floating holiday , " or another day designated by the city as a holiday but not so designated by the law for Martin Luther King ' s Birthday. C . Provide by city ordinance that a present city-paid holiday will be rescinded as a paid holiday and that Martin Luther King ' s Birthday will be treated as a paid holiday in lieu of that day. 2. Non-management (non-exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act) employees whose work is "necessary. " Employees scheduled to work will work at straight time as they would any other day or "holiday. " 3. iManagement employees (exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act) . Provide by city ordinance that a present city-paid holiday will be rescinded as a paid holiday and that Martin Luther King ' s Birthday will be treated as a paid holiday in lieu of that day . Exempt employees cannot be given an unpaid day off without jeopardizing the employees ' exempt status under FLSA. Mr. William S. Joynes November 25 , 1985 Page Three B. UNION EMPLOYEES 1 . Non-management (non-exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act) whose work is not necessary. If the labor agreement stipulates the holidays by name, employees will receive an unpaid day off on Martin Luther King ' s Birthday unless the city and union agree to the trade of a designated holiday (Columbus Day , floating holiday or non-standard day) for Martin Luther King ' s Birthday. 2. Non-management (non-exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act) employees whose work is "necessary. " Employees scheduled to work will work at straight time as they would any other day or "holiday . " 3 . Management employees (exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act) . If the union does not agree to trade another holiday (Columbus Day, floating holiday or non-standard day) for Martin Luther King ' s Birthday the city could force the employees to take an unpaid day off . However , such action may jeopardize the employees ' exempt status under FLSA. SNOW DAYS (or equivalent) Some cities close some city offices when certain "acts of God" ( snow, flood , etc . ) indicate that such closure is necessary (desirable) . The closure forces some employees to leave their work while some others continued to work. Some of those employees who do continue to work have indicated that they should receive some special consideration if the city employees sent home are paid for time not worked . If some of the employees sent home are exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act they should be paid if their exempt status is not to be jeopardized . If they are unionized , non-exempt employees , the question of whether they must be paid will depend on their labor agreement . If non-union the city can unilaterally determine their pay status. Mr. William S. Joynes November 25 , 1985 C � Page Four If the non-exempt employees sent home are not paid there appears to be little justification for those non-exempt employees who worked to be given any "special consideration . " If , however , those sent home were paid for time not worked the case for an inequity could be made by those who worked . Cities wishing to "rectify" such alleged inequity could consider compensatory time as a remedy. This remedy would result in the closest equality between the groups. CFS : hfc 1 i ce HOLI ARTICLE XX.L- _DAYS and full-time probationary 21 . 1 All permanent employees aid holidays• employees shall be eligible for eleven ( 11) p 21 .2 Any employee required to work on any of the eleve (11) n a shall receive an additional one-half (1/2) paid holidays to the 3 s base pay rate times the employee in addition regular holiday time off . tion , buy back from at the EMPLOYER' S option 21.3 The EMPLOYER maYt by November 1st of the employee so requesting in writing ed holiday +ime off earned but not us each calendar year any calendar year . ' December 31st of any by the employee by i p ARTICLE XXII _ VACATIONS '! 2 2. 1 Employees shall earn vacation as follows : ' d 0 _ 5 years of service - 10 days per year ' year I _6 _ 10 years of service 15 days per Y One (1) additional day per over 10 yea Ovrs of service twenty (20) year not to exceed I days. vacation leave earned in a 22 .2 No more than the amount of into a calendar year can be carried beyond December 31st year except as determined by the City new calendar Se Separated for any reason Administrator . An employee who is for any accu mulated vacation leave , provided however , that should an employee resign without giving two shall be paid (2) weeks I� -17- W V ::ICLE ECLIDL.'S The yer will provide the following ten (1C) paid holidays: January I 1st honday in September 3rd tonday in February 2nd honday in October Fr idav before Easter Veteran' s Day, ?;ovemeber 11th Last Monday in tiay 4th Thursday in November July 4th December 25th Ia addition to the above 10 paid holidays, each employee may take one floating holiday to be taken at the request of the employee and approved by the Employer. Said floating holiday is to be taken as a holiday during the current year and cannot �. be carried over to the next year. (' AF,TICLE X2:I. VACATIONS f vacation leave shall be earned by the employee at the following rate: 0 — 5 years of employment 10 days 6 — 15 years of employment 15 days 16 — 20 years of employment 20 days 21 & over years of employment 1 additional day per year up to 25 days at 25 years is No more than the amount of vacation leave earned in a calendar year can be carried beyond December 31st into a new calendar year, except in emergencies and exceptional An employee who is separated for 1 cases to be determined by the City Administrator. that any reason shall be paid for any accumulated vacation leave, provided however, ! should an employee resign without giving two (2) weeks written notice, and except I'. for reasons of ill health, he shall forfeit his right to all accumulated vacation e� leave. ARTICLE %XIII. SICK LEAVE S day per month. Sic The employee shall accumulate sick leave at then ae=° a max h�' mum of 100 daysl. h , leave may accrue at the rate of twelve (12 day p year to Ove'. ARTICLE XXIII. SEVERANCE PAY lis;4 �� employee who was a full time employee of the City before January 1, 1980 or who an e` has completed five (5) full years of full time employment with the City of Shakopee prio and who is separated from his position be retirement, discharge, or resignation requ� shall receive a lump sum payment, an amount to equal one the value of all accumulated sick leave calculated on the basis of his current salary or wage scale, _Mp1c provided that should any employee resign without giving two weeks written notice, f i1,i� except for reasons of ill health, he shall forfeit this right to all accumulated sick -ontai+ leave. Jert� ARTICLE %XIV. INJURY ON DUTY fault of the employee, shall be paid the Employees injured on duty, through no difference between the employee' s regular rate of pay and any worker' s compensation benefits for a period not to exceed twenty—five (25) working days, in accordance with guidelines set forth in M.S. 176.021 Subd. 5. ARTICLE XXV. COVERALLS/UNIFORMS The City of Shakopee shall provide one (1) set of coveralls as needed for each Street and Park employee as determined by the City Administrator. R MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Appointments to Suburban Rate Authority for 1986 DATE: December 20 , 1985 Introduction It is necessary to designate the director and alternate director from our community to the Suburban Rate Authority for 1986 . The attached resolution designates Mayor Reinke as the director and John Anderson as the alternate director for 1986 . Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 2497 , designating Director and Alternate to Suburban Rate Authority, and move its adoption. JSC/jms RESOLUTION NO. 2497 A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DIRECTOR AND ALTERNATE DIRECTOR TO SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota, as follows : Eldon Reinke is hereby designated to serve as a director of the Suburban Rate Authority, and John Anderson is hereby designated to serve as alternate director of the Suburban Rate Authoritv for the year 1986 and until their successors are appointed. Adopted in session of the Citv Council of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota held this day of 1986 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 1985 . City Attorney MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk r �� i RE: Request for Vacation of Certain Easements Within the Plat of Halo 2nd Addition DATE: January 3 , 1986 Introduction In conjunction with the replatting of Halo 2nd Addition into Shakopee Valley Square, the developer has requested the vacation of certain easements. Background Some of the easements across the plat have been conveyed by deed and some by dedication on the plat of Halo 2nd. Those conveyed by deed can be deeded back upon authorization by Council through resolution. Those dedicated on the plat must go through the normal public hearing process. The resolution authorizing proper City officials to sign the deeds reconveying easements will be prepared for Council consider- ation after the public hearing on the dedicated easements when that resolution of vacation will also be prepared. Alternatives a. Vacate easements. b. Don' t vacate easements. Recommendation Set public hearing to consider vacating certain easements within the plat of Halo 2nd. Action Recommended Offer Resolution No. 2503 , A Resolution Initiating the Partial Vacation of Easements Within the Plat of Halo 2nd Addition, and move its adoption. JSC/jms uecember 23!, 1985 Judy Cox City of Shakopee 129 1st Ave. E. Shakopee, MN. 55379 RE: Easement Vacations Dear Judy; In conjunction with the proposed Shakopee Valley Square, I am requesting vacation of the attached easements. The vacation of these easements is necessay due to the reconfiguration of the lot lines. If you have any questions, feel free to call. Sigtcerely,, lk� Wallace D. Bakken LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS Y EASEMENTS TO BE VACATED A platted easement for public use for drainage and utility purposes over and across the easterly 10.00 feet of Lot 1,, and the easterly, westerly and northerly 10.00 feet of Lot 2!, and the westerly and northerly 10.00 feet of Lot 3,, and the northerly 99.56 feet-, together with the westerly 20.00 feet, together with the southerly 10.00 feet of Lot 4,, Block 1 , HALO SECOND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Scott County, Minnesota. RESOLUTION NO. 2503 l � A RESOLUTION INITIATING THE PARTIAL VACATION OF 1 EASEMENTS WITHIN THE PLAT OF HALO 2ND ADDITION WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee has been requested to approve the plat of Shakopee Valley Sauare which plat is the replatting of Lots 1 , 2 , 3 and 4 , Block 1 , Halo 2nd Addition; and WHEREAS, in conjunction with the platting of Shakopee Valley Square, the developer is requesting the vacation of certain easements within the plat of Halo 2nd Addition; and WHEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Shakopee City Council that the easements serve no public use or interest; and WHEREAS, a public hearing must be 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 4th day of February, 1986 at 7: 30 p.m. , or there- after, on the matter of vacating the following described easements lying within Halo 2nd Addition: A drainage and utility easements over and across the easterly 10 . 00 feet of Lot 1 , and the easterly, westerly and northerly 10 . 00 feet of Lot 2 , and the westerly and northerly 10. 00 feet of Lot 3 , and the northerly 99 . 56 feet, together with the westerly 20 . 00 feet, together with the southerly 10 . 00 feet of Lot 4 , Block 1 . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that two weeks ' published notice be given by publication in the SHAKOPEE VALLEY NEWS and posted notice be 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. Resolution No. 2503 Page Two Adopted in session of the Shakopee City Council, Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 1986. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 1986 . City Attorney INCORPORATED 1870 * ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 129 E. 1st Avenue - Shakopee, Minnesota 55:79-1376 (612) 445-3650 MEMO TO: Jahn K. Anderson, City Admi i trator FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer SUBJECT: Holmes Street Basin Speci 1 Benefit Utility DATE: January 3, 1965 INTRODUCTION : Resolution No. 2502 adapts the Storm Drainage Special Benefit Utility for the Holmes Street Drainage Basin. BACKGROUND : City Ordinance No. 17S established a "Storm Water Drainage Utility'' as a section of the "Municipal and Public Utilities Rules and Regulations, Franchises and Rates" . The utility charge is based upon two rates, the City-wide utility rate and the special benefit utility rate. The sum of the two rates comprises the utility charge. The City-wide rate is based upon storm drainage capital improvements within the City as a whole. The special benefit utility rate is based upon storm drainage capital improvements within a particular drainage basin. Based upon the estimated cost of initial storm drainage capital improvements, the City-wide utility rate is $10. 32/quarter/REF- acre. Therefore, the City-wide quarterly charge for a typical 1 & 2 family residence is $3. 44. This City-wide utility rate will become part of the City' s fee schedule. Based upon the estimated cost of the Holmes Street Basin Lateral Project, the special benefit utility rate is $220. 67/quarter/REF- acre. Therefore, the special benefit quarterly charge for a typical 1 & 2 family residence is $6. 89. This special bene- fit utility rate is being adopted by Resolution No. 2502. Attached to Resolution No. 2502 is the list of properties within the Holmes Street Basin subject to the special benefit storm drainage utility charge. -io 1 rnes St. Basin Special Berge f it Ut i 1 i t y Tanuary 3, 1985 ='age Resolution No. `502-* also establishes a 5:= per quarter penalty ,harpe for past due payments. This is consistent with proce- Jures of SPUC and other municipalities. 3ECOMMENDATION: -3onsider for adoption Resolution No. 2`502. 3EQUESTED ACTION : 3ffer Resolution No. A Resolution Adopting the Special 3enefit Storm Water Drainage Utility for Holmes Street Basin _ateral Project 1985-1 and move for its adoption. :A/pmp 3BU f t(1J RESOLUTION NO. 2502 A Resolution Adapting the Special Benefit Storm Water Drainage Utility for Holmes Street Basin Lateral Project 1986-1 WHEREAS, pursuant to Minn. Statutes Section 44i. 075, the municipal storm sewer system shall be operated as a public is utilitY_ from which revenues will be derives' by the Special Benefit Storrs Water Drainage Utility; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee Storm Water Drainage Utility Policy establishes that 25% of the project cost be derived from the drainage basin as a special benefit: drainage utility, and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 176 of the City of Shakopee established the method by which special benefit utility charges are assigned to individual properties based upon property size and land use, and WHEREAS, the project cost has been established by the Sup- plemental Feasibility Report for Holmes Street Basin Laterals dated February 15, 1585. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. The Special Benefit Storm Water Drainage Utility rate be set at 120. 67 per quarterly period per Residential Equivalent Factor-Acre and the utility charge together with any amendments thereof, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereat, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the Special. Benefit Storm Water Drainape Utility against the lands named nerein. 8. That such utility charges shall be due CO days from the billing date, that date being the first day of each quarterly period of the calendar and that a penalty at the rate of 51 per quarter shall be adder' to all past due payments. i 3. The SmeciaI Bens=it Storm Aater Drainage Utility for tne Holmes Street 8asir Laterals project s�al ! ue payable over a period of 10 years and tne initial Quarterly wiling snail be the first quarter of !9S6. Adopted in session of the City Council o= the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this oay o-F Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of City Attorney HOLMES STREET BASIN LATERAL 1986-1 PROJECT LIST OF STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY CHARGES FOR SPECIAL BENEFITED PROPERTIES 536 1 & 2 Family Residential 166 Non-Residential 10 Undeveloped Deferred (RESOLUTION NO. 2502) COMPLETE LIST ON FILE WITH CITY ENGINEER TO: John Anderson FROM: CITY OF SHAKOPEE 129 East First Ave., Shakopee, MN City Administrator Zip 55379 Phone (612) 445.3650 NAME: Judy Cox, 7ity Clerk SUBJECT: Eminent Domain for Valley Park Drive North DATE 1/7/86 Shelly from Rod 's office called regarding the above resolution authorizing condemnation proceedings. The resolution included only the property shaded in blue on attached drawing. The three legal descriptions she has received includes the three parcels on attached drawing shaded in blue, green and yellow. If it is desireous to acquire all three, she suggests that the council adopt the resolution attached including all three legal descriptions. Since council is meeting tonight, you may wish to do so tonight to get things going. For any additional information, I 'm sure that Ken can fill you in. DATE BY ul _ i r , - BY �� RMCC 8473 DETACH AND FILE FOR FOLLOW—UP '1 1 r T t l - VALLEY FAIR 1 i 64(,+ 750 1 20' DRAINAGE 8 ; EXISTING 1 1 j UTILITY EAS:N!ENT ' PARKING I I r LOT 1 i 14D 3LOCK + I 20' SETBACK 9 1 I _ DRAINAGE B - \1 :ASEMENT 111 � � 22 7 EXISTING EXIT 123 \ ��� ,200 S.F. / �� �� r '2.83 Ac. I ` 5.� n I RELOCATE. ENTRANCTq � GATE AND REMOVE .. ,, - 75' OF CENTER 24 GklCVERT I I r: IST I ISLAND U I L'-.,_FA o�D VAL _--- - - ENTR s uTICI M NFE DETAIL• - 7 ` 54172 4 .. � 1 INV.7; If 7 77 1. am 'IoD .JA'—KING 6 RESOLUTION NO. 2505 A RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE NECESSITY FOR AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY BY PROCEEDING IN EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCT- ING A ROADWAY WHEREAS, the City Council has heretofore determined that the City of Shakopee should establish frontage road access to Prairie House Addition, a proposed subdivision near Valley Fair. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Acquisition by the City of the following described property is necessary for the purpose of providing frontage road access to the proposed subdivision of Prairie House Addition, said property described on the attached Exhibits "A", "B", and "C" which are made a part hereof and incorporated herein by reference. 2. The City Attorney is authorized and directed on behalf of the City to acquire the real estate above described by the exercise of the power of eminent domain pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 117, and is specifically authorized to notify the owners of intent to take possession pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 117.042. The City Attorney is further authorized to take all actions necessary and desirable to carry out the purposes of this resolution. 3. This resolution supersedes resolution no. 2484. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of January, 1986. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of January, 1986. City Attorney r � PARCEL NO: "A" L OWNER: EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF EASEMENT: A permanent easement for roadway purposes over, under, and across that part of Section 3, Township 115, Range 22,Scott County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the northerly right-of- way line of State Trunk Highway No. 101 and the North-South Quarter line of said Section 3; thence on an assumed bearing of North 73 degrees 15 minutes 41 seconds West, along said northerly right-of-way line, 205.00 feet; thence North 16 degrees 44 minutes 19 seconds East, a distance of 125.00 feet; thence South 73 degrees 15 minutes 41 seconds East, parallel with said northerly right-of-way line, 169.30 feet to its intersection with the said North-South Quarter line; thence South 0 degrees 48 minutes 00 seconds West, along said Quarter line, 130.00 feet to the point of beginning. Said permanent easement contains 23,394 square feet more or less. PARCEL NO. : "B" OWNER: EXHIBIT "B" DESCRIPTION Or EASEMENT: A permanent easement for roadway purposes over, under, and across that part of Section 3, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows : Commencing at the intersection of the northerly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway No. 101 and the North-South Quarter line of said Section 3; thence North 0 degrees 48 minutes 00 seconds East, assumed bearing, along said North-South Quarter line 130.00 feet to the point of beginning of the easement to be described; thence North 73 degrees 15 minutes 41 seconds West, parallel with said northerly right-of-way line, 169.30 feet; thence North 16 degrees 44 minutes 19 seconds East, a distance of 592.82 feet to its intersection with said North-South Quarter line; thence South 0 degrees 48 minutes 00 seconds West along said North -South Quarter line a distance of 616.52 feet to the point of beginning. Said permanent easement contains 50,182 square feet more or less. 1 PARCEL NO. : "AA" OWNER: EXHIBIT "C" DESCRIPTION Or EASEMENT: A permanent easement for roadway purposes over, under, and across that part of Section 3, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the northerly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway No. 101 and the North-South Quarter line of said Section 3; thence North 0 degrees 48 minutes 00 seconds East, assumed bearing, along said North-South Quarter line 130.00 feet to the point of beginning of the easement to be described; thence North 73 degrees 15 minutes 41 seconds West, parallel with said northerly right-of-way line, 169.30 feet; thence North 16 degrees 44 minutes 19 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 73 degrees 15 minutes 41 seconds East a distance of 126.46 feet to its intersection with said North-South Quarter line; thence South 0 degrees 48 minutes 00 seconds West along said North -South Quarter line a distance of 156.00 feet to the point of beginning. Said temporary easement contains 22,182 square feet more or, less. J j