Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/03/1985 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items DATE: November 25 , 1985 1. As we did in 1984 , the City will plow Murphy' s Landing roads during the winter of 85-86 at the end of the City' s normal plow routes to help Murphy' s Landing. 2. The City has been named in a lawsuit by Scott County Lumber Company, Inc. and Bert Notermann because the City denied their conditional use permit for a gravel pit. The suit is being handled through normal channels. 3 . The City has received the attached notice of a lawsuit regarding the deaths that occurred at the water tower during the cleaning and painting this fall. While the water tower is managed and operated by SPUC, we share a common insurance package and therefore any affect on the insurance rates raising out of this suit will affect the City' s overall rates as well. This lawsuit is being handled through normal procedures. 4. The City has won a dismissal in the R. Hanover, Inc. lawsuit (notice attached) . 5. Attached are letters from Senator Dave Durenberger and Bill Frenzel regarding recent action on the Fair Labor Standards Act. 6. Attached is a letter from Arlan Stangeland regarding our concerns about the Clean Water Act for municipal separation of storm sewers. 7. Attached is the monthly calendar for the month of December. Please note the additional Council worksession on December 10th at the Courthouse. 8 . Attached are the agendas of the December 2 and December 5 meetings of the Planning Commission and the December 5 meeting of the Board of Adjust and Appeals. 9. Attached are the minutes of the November 14 , 1985 meeting of the Shakopee Coalition. 10. Attached are the minutes of the November 13 , 1985 meeting of the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee. 11. Attached are the minutes of the November 7 , 1985 meeting of the Board of Adjust and Appeals . 12 . Attached are the miuntes of the November 7 , 1985 meeting of the Planning Commission. 13 . Attached is a memo from Gregg Voxland regarding State Revenue Projections and State Aids. 14 . Attached are the financial reports as of October 31, 1985 for Murphy' s Landing. 15 . Attached is the agenda for the December 4 , 1985 meeting of the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee. 16 . Attached is an article regarding proper documentation of expenses by City officials. JKA/jms TELEPHONE: 463-7808 G. M. GORGOS , ATTORNEY AT LAW 427 THIRD STREET FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA ; 55024 October 23, 1985 City Administrator The City Of Shakopee Shakopee City Hall Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Re: Jeffrey Bruce Perry Dear Sir: We hereby put you on notice of a wrongful death claim on behalf of my clients, Orville F. Perry and Myrtle M. Perry, parents and sole surviving heirs of Jeffrey Bruce Perry who died as a result of an accident on October 11 , 1985 while working at a city facility described as a water tower in the City of Shakopee, Minnesota. Tris notice is provided to you pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. The purpose of this notice is to comply with the 6 month notice requirement to municipalities and government subdivisions. Sincerely, G.M. Gorgos GMG:ema I � Law Offices of KRASS, MEYER & WALSTEN Chartered Suite 300 " Marschall Road Business Center loc. Phillip R. Krass Paralegals 327 South Marschall Road sn`.F Barry K. Meyer Barbara J.Medstrom P.O. Box 216 `` `` Trevor R. Walsten Jolene R.Wagner Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 r•,(:,-Elizabeth B. McLaughlin Lori A.Lambrecht (612)445-5080 Susan L. Estill i.• ; Shelly T.Felsing r•" Of Counsel 011lcs Manager Dennis L. Monroe Wanda Brelmhorst November 12, 1985 Mayor Eldon Reinke Shakopee City Council Members 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: R. Hanover, Inc. vs. City of Shakopee Dear Mayor and Council Members: Enclosed please find a letter and Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice which the attorney for R. Hanover, Inc. requested and we agreed to. Needless to say, I did so and the suit is now Dismissed With Prejudice. This should conclude this file. Yours ve tful , KRAS & WALS N CHARTERED R. Krass PRK:ll Enclosure cc: Chief Brownell File No. 1-1373-176 r i MURPHY, BLANCHAR & ELLIOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW 7407 WAYZATA BOULEVARD MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55426 PHONE 612/546-4472 JAMES L. MURPHY JON W. BLANCHAR PATRICK H. ELLIOTT November 4 , 1985 Honorable James Rosenbaum United States Courthouse 110 South Fourth Street Minneapolis , Minnesota Re: R. Hanover Inc. vs . City of Shakopee Case No. 4-85-818 Dear Judge Rosenbaum: Pursuant to my previous correspondence I enclose herewith a fully executed original STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE in the above-captioned matter. By copy of this letter I am informing Attorney Krass. Yours truly, MURPHY, BLANCHAR & ELLIOTT David E. Albright DEA:tl Enclosure cc Phillip Krass UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA FOURTH DIVISION R. HANOVER, INC. , a Minnesota corporation and RICHARD HANOVER Case No. 4-85-818 individually and as a sole shareholder of R. HANOVER, INC. , Plaintiffs, VS. STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, a Minnesota municipal corporation, ELDON RAINKE, in his capacity as MAYOR OF SHAKOPEE, TOM BROWNELL, in his capacity as CHIEF OF POLICE OF SHAKOPEE, Defendants. The parties by the respective attorneys hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. That this matter should be dismissed with prejudice and upon the merits but without costs to either party. 2. The clerk is authorized to dismiss the matter without further notice to either party. Dated: Da id E. Albright, Atty. I.D. #165499 Ph Kress, Atty. I.D. #58051 Attorney for Plaintiffs At rney for Defendants 7407 Wayzata Boulevard Post Office Box 216 Minneapolis, MN 55426 Shakopee, MN 55379 Telephone: 546-4472 Telephone: 445-5080 DAVE DURENBERGER J� MINNESOTA J 'Unif eb 'States Zonate N OV 2 15 1985 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20510 November 21 , 1955 CITY OF SHAKOPEE John Anderson City Admin . - City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee , Minnesota 55379 Dear John : Thank you for taking the time to share your views about applying the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to state and local governments . I am happy to announce that legislation amending FLSA has now been passed by Congress , signed by the President , and endorsed by representatives of both state and local governments and their public employees. Thanks in large part to active support from you and many other public officials and employees , those of us in Congress who saw the need to modify FLSA' s coverage were able to make the legislative process work quickly, fairly, and effectively in this case . In my mind, there was never any question that federal policy needs to recognize the unique demands placed by many public services on local governments and their employees . That is why I was one of the original Senate sponsors of S. 1570 , which protects state and local governments from certain provisions of the FLSA. As enacted, this bill exempts certain part-time and temporary employees ( such as volunteer firefighters ) from coverage under the act , and it allows local governments to compensate their employees with comp time for overtime hours they have worked. Again , thank you for expressing your views on this important matter . Let ' s keep in touch. incerely, D ve Durenberger United States Senator DD/tjc MINNESOTA OFFICE; BILL FRENZEL MAYI3ETH CHRISTENSEN THIRD nI$TRICT,MINNESOTA ROOM 345 8120 PENN AVENUE SOUTH WASHINGTON OFFICE: BLOOMINGTON,MINNESOTA 55431 1026 LONGWORTH BUILDING 612-681-4600 202.225.26, congre5� of the aniteb �tate� jDouoe of RepreontatibeO Na binaton,O.C. 20515 November 14, 1985 1985 Mr. John K. Anderson Anderson City Administer C61..Y ,OF SHS. ",c�IEE City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear John: The House of Representatives passed the Conference Report on S. 1570 (H. R. 3530), the "Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1985", on Thurs- day, November 7 by voice vote. This bill is scheduled to be signed into law next week. The final form of this legislation is the same as the Housepassed H. R. 3530 except for minor Conference revisions which are outlined in the en- closed summary. My first choice would have been total repeal of the Garcia court decision. However, in light of the severity of the impact caused by reinstating the 1974 FLSA Amendments, this legislation will at least eliminate some of the problems and lighten the burden. Best regards, 101Z. Bill Frenzel Member of Congress BF:le enclosure THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE WITH RECYCLED FIBERS IJwJ STANGELAND OFFICES: 7TH DIS(?iCT,MINNESOTA 1628 LONGWO HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING - WASHINGTON.D.C.20616 (202)225-2185 COMMITTEES: �• AGRICULTURE �n ��� O^ ��� ����� �tat�� M-F BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS AND T j T 403 CENTER AVENUE TRANSPORTATION MOOflHE(218)2 3-8631NESOTA 68580 (218)233-8831 1AoUSE of RepremadDeo FEDERAL BUILDING 720 MALL GERMAIN ST.CLOUD.MINNESOTA 56301 WaShi0g=, B.C. 20515 (6121251-0740 TOLL FREE NUMBER (IN MINNESOTA) 1-800-432.3770 November 4, 1985 Mr. John K. Anderson City Administrator 129 E. First Avenue - �4 Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 ' Dear Mr. Anderson: Thank you for your recent communication expressing concern about permitting requirements under the Clean Water Act for municipal separate storm sewers. Let me assure you that this is a matter that I have been, and continue to be, concerned about as well. As I am sure you know, this problem has resulted from a series of administrative and judicial decisions under which stormwater discharges are treated as discharges of pollutants from a point source requiring permits under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. Over the past several years, the Environmental Protection Agency has been trying to develop regulations to implement what would be a massive permit program for stormwater discharges. In an effort to ease some of the regulatory burden, both the House and Senate have included provisions in Clean Water reauthorization legislation which would exempt certain stormwater discharges from having to obtain a permit. Although the House and Senate provisions differ somewhat, neither affords any specific relief to municipal separate storm sewers. Much of the reason for this fact is a study conducted for the Environmental Protection Agency in December, 1983, which concluded that urban runoff contains significant amounts of heavy metals, coliform, bacteria, and other pollutants which would adversely affect the quality of receiving waters (Report of the National Urban Runoff Program). This report was cited by opponents of a stormwater exemption as a basis for excluding municipal separate storm sewers from the provisions in both the House and Senate bills. I do not believe that the report provides adequate justification for an extensive regulatory program calling for monitoring and treatment with respect to all discharge points. As a member of the Conference Committee appointed to iron out the differences in the House and Senate bill, I intend to urge the Conferees to take another look at this issue. It is my hope that we can provide EPA with some direction to eliminate or greatly reduce burdensome permitting requirements for municipal separate storm sewers. I also appreciate your comments concerning the wastewater treatment construction grants formulas. As you know, construction grants are vital -- indeed crucial — to the Nation's clean water program. I can appreciate your concerns over the proposed formulas, and please be assured that I will do what I can in Conference to see that Minnesota Mr. John Anderson November 4, 1985 Page 2 receives its fair share. Thank you for contacting me and bringing this matter to my attention. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to let me know. Si rely, Arlan Stangeland Member of Congress DECEMBER 7 M SUNDAY LIONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY 1 Public 2 City 3 4 Planning 5 6 7 j Utilities Council Commission I 4 : 30 p.m. 7 :00 p.m. 7 : 30 p.m. Planning Commission 7:00 p.m. 8 Shakopee/ 9 City 10 ICC 11 12 13 14 Chaska Cable Council 5 : 00 p.m. 1 Communication 7:00 p.m. at j 7:00 p.m. Courthouse i i 15 Comm. Serv. 16 City 17 18 Energy & 19 20 21 7 : 30 p.m. Council Transportation Fire Dept. 8:00 D.n. 1 : 30 p.m. 8 : 00 P.M. 22 Cable 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 : 30 p.m. CHRISTMAS Citv Hall Closed 29 30 31 1 NEW YEARS City Hall Closed TENTATIVE AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION Special Session Shakopee, Minnesota December 2 , 1985 Chairman Czaja Presiding: 1. Roll Call at 7 : 00 P.M. 2 . Approval of Agenda 3 . 7 : 00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider an application for a Conditional Use Permit to construct 44 units of multi-family housing for senior citizens upon property located on Lot 8 and the east 38 feet of Lot 9 , Block 32 and lots 4 , 5 , 6 and 7 , Block 32 , City of Shakopee. Applicant: The Housing Alliance, Inc. Action: Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 439 4 . Other Business 5 . Adjournment Judi Simac City Planner CITY OF SHAKOPEE TENTATIVE AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Session Shakopee , Minnesota December 5 , 1985 Chairman Czaja Presiding: 1. Roll Call at 7 : 30 P.M. 2 . Approval of Agenda 3 . Approval of November 7 , 1985 Minutes 4 . 7 : 45 P.M PUBLIC HEARING: An application for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a shop/warehouse and conduct outside storage of equipment upon the property located on Lot 1, Block 1 , Superior Supply 1st Addition. Applicant: Cherne Contracting Corporation Action: Conditional Use Permit Resolution #440 5 . 8 : 00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: An application for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a horse boarding and training facility upon property located on the West 43 . 98 acres of the South 1/2 of Southwest Quarter of Section 31 , Township 115 , Range 22 . ( Intersection of CR 72 and 79 ) . Applicant: Gregory Kaasa Action: Conditional Use Permit Resolution #441 6 . Discussion: Final Plat Prairie House lst Addition Action: Recommendation to City Council 7 . Discussion: Proposed Forklift Repair and Sales in B-1 District 8 . Discussion: Landscape Ordinance 9 . Informational: a. Hohenstein - Annual Staff Review b. Bucholz/Vogel - Annual Staff Review C. 10 . other Business 11. Adjournment Judi Simac City Planner CITY OF SHAKOPEE TENTATIVE AGENDA Board of Adjustment and Appeals Regular Session Shakopee , Minnesota December 5 , 1985 Chairman Czaja Presiding: 1. Roll Call at 7 : 30 P.M. 2 . Approval of Agenda 3 . Approval of November 7 , 1985 Minutes 4 . 7 : 30 P.M. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: To consider an application for a variance of 40 feet from the front yard setback requirements and building materials , in order to construct new grandstand type seating for the Amphitheater, at Valleyfair. Applicant: Valleyfair Action: Variance Resolution #432 5 . Other Business 6 . Adjournment Judi Simac City Planner CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE COALITION / MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 14, 1985 11 The Meeting was called to order at 7:00 AM by Chiarman Jim Streefland in the Community Room of the Citizen State Bank. Members Present: Jim Streefland (Lions Club) , Jackie Kes (Scott/Carver Economic Council) , Sr. Jo Lambert (St. Francis Regional Medical Center), Joan Salter (Food Shelf) , Virgil Mears (I.S.D. #720), Eileen Moran (Scott County Human Services) , John K. Anderson (City Of Shakopee) , Marianne Kibler (Scott County Extension) , Jeanette Kleve (SACS School) , Todd Schwartz (Rotary) , Kathy Lewis (Shakopee Community Services) , Brian Norris (Citizen State Bank) , and George Muenchow (Shakopee Community Services) . Chairman Streefland announced that this was to be a Work Session focusing upon a review of previous goals and concerns with the intent of updating and adding whatever would be appropriate. Lists of suggested needs from August 1983 were discussed: 1. Volunteer Police Work. . . .John Anderson to investigate what implied. 2. Re-cycling Needed. . . .Process currently in place. 3. Health Care Support Services. . . .St. Francis started Crisis Center. 4. Food Shelf. . . .Excellent system in place. Need permanent facility. 5. Downtown Re-development. . . .Has started. 6. Utilization of Sr. Citizen Talent & Experience. . . .Eileen Moran to check out possibility of placement of Co-ordinator. 7. Volunteer Services Awareness. . . .Need a Co-ordinator. Perhaps could be emphasized through a specific column in newspaper such as done in Minneapolis Star & Tribune. 8. Need for volunteers in youth programs. . . .Ties in with all topics dealing with volunteers. 9. Lack of understanding of Womens Correctional Facility. . . .Need for volunteers and employment opportunities. Get speaker from that agency. 10. Method of locating and funneling volunteers. . . .Again ties in with other topics dealing with volunteers. 11. General Community-Wide communication. 12. Family Health: a. Chemical Abuse. . . .On going. b. Domestic Violence. . . .Battered Women. . . .Several agencies cooperating. C. Support for single parents. . . .A problem. d. Lack of Church Leadership in many family issues. . . .Suggested that a meeting be requested iwth local clergy organization. e. Lack of affordable housing. . . .A current major problem. 13. Coordinator for Business, Industry, and Government to attract new business. . . . Process is happening despite not having a Co-Ordinator. It was pointed out that a Brochure is needed to explain purpose and function of Coalition. Would be good to have feedback from organizations etc as to their ideas of problems, needs etc in the community. Next meeting is Thursday, December 5, at 7:00 AM. The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 AM. Respectfully submitted, George F. Muenchow, Acting Secty. IV PROCEEDINGS OF THE DOWNTOWN AD HOC COMMITTEE Shakopee, Minnesota November 13 , 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, Mike Sortum, Dan Steil, Joe Topic and Bill Wermerskirchen. Absent: Jim Stillman, Pete Sames, Tim Keane and Liaison Jerry Wampach. Also present: Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director, John Anderson, City Administrator, Timm Nelson, Intern and Will Schroers. Chrm. Laurent added item (h) , City Hall Siting Committee, to the agenda. Steve Clay/Joe Topic moved to accept the agenda as amended. Motion carried. Steve Clay/Terry Forbord moved to approve the minutes of the October 23 , 1985 meeting. Motion carried. The newly improved parking lot on Second Ave. was reviewed by the committee, with consensus that it is being used extensively and will facilitate more cars when parking stall lines have been added. A discussion was held as to how pedestrians would cross mid-block on 2nd Ave. from the parking lot to the Bank parking lot because of the steep incline. Staff reported on a meeting with Barton-Aschman on November 12th regarding T.H. 101/169 Bridge/Junction improvements. A Letter of Understanding has been received from Mn/DOT regarding their support of this project, so that the consultant can now go on to the next phase of implementation. Staff proposes to have the Engineers bring back a revised list of goals ( including Downtown Committee, MnDOT and other goals) in two weeks along with a proposed task force of city, county, and MnDOT personnal who would review the 10 alternatives against the goals list. Committee reaction to the goals and proposed procedures will be solicited. Ken Ashfeld, the new City Engineer was introduced. Barton Aschman recommended that the road be built based on the 1985 traffic flow plus 5% as they predict it will not be much heavier in the future. According to MnDOT this project should be completed in 1989 while the other Hwy 101 By-pass should be done by 1991 as a two lane highway. The Community Development Director reported that the City Council intends to proceed with the Housing Alliance project. Site control can occur before the bonds are sold. The Downtown Committee is invited to a neighborhood meeting November 19th at 7 p.m. The appraisals for the property came in lower than expected which put the project in jeopardy. The Assistant City Attorney believes the best way to obtain the property is through condemnation proceedings. There has been only one applicant for the Downtown Commercial Loan program plus several inquiries. The Community Development Director asked to be contacted about anyone who may be a candidate for the program. She will soon be soliciting ideas on the 1986 Small Cities Development Grant Proposal. In order to qualify for this grant the improvements must either eliminate slums or blight, provide low income housing or correct an immediate public health threat. The Community Development Director reported that the ICC has been working on qualifying Shakopee as a Star City under the Star City Program which is geared to motivate a city to better itself economically. Some of the steps have already been completed. The State has hired technical people who help cities such as ours , and look at who in the community can best help to make this occur. Gary Laurent will sit in on a meeting regarding this program on November 18th, on behalf of the Downtown Committee and the Chamber. The City Administrator reported that there has been no further progress on picking a site for the new City Hall. A memo of September 20 , 1985 regarding the Downtown Streetscape Assessments was reviewed along with a map which served as a basis for assessment calculations. Issues discussed included the scope of the improvements to be assessed, breakdown of footage on each parcel, various formulas for assessing residential property and parking lots and assessing private parking lots. Computerized data base is available for each lot in the District. The City Administrator suggesting using the most straight forward formula saying that assessment policies don' t give you perfect equity so they should come up with a formula they feel comfortable with before the next public hearing. Further discussion and comments will be solicited at the next meeting. Steve Clay/Dan Steil moved to adjourn at 9: 00 a.m. Motion carried. Darleen Schesso Recording Secretary PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 7, 1985 Chrm. Czaja called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m. with Comm. Pomerenke, Lane, Schmitt and Stoltzman present. Absent were Comm. VanMaldeghem and Rockne. Also present were Judi Simac, City Planner and Cncl. Lebens. Councilman Leroux addressed the Board regarding the proposed moratorium. He stated that Ordinance No. 184 initiating a moratorium on development did not pass City Council the previous night. He explained his position against the moratorium was based on his belief that it was unnecessary legislation, as most of the development pressure was concentrated outside of the proposed moratorium area. He believes the moratorium would have a very negative impact on the City by developers in the metro area. He added the ordinance is now a tabled item which can be brought forward at any time. The only problem that could arise is a building permit on a lot of record. He added the Council began addressing the sewer policy and will be applying for an increase of our limitation of sewer capacity to Met Council. Lane/Pomerenke moved to approve the agenda as printed. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Pomerenke moved to approve the minutes of October 3, 1985 as kept. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - VALLEYFAIR VARIANCE REQUEST Lane/Pomerenke moved to open the public hearing regarding the request by Valleyfair for a variance of 40 feet from the front yard setback requirements and building materials, to construct new grandstand type seating for the amphitheater at Valleyfair. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner gave the background and considerations of the request. She stated Mn/DOT has granted approval as long as nothing is placed in the right-of-way. The City Planner stated the building material variance is requested for the use of aluminum in a structure fronting the highway right-of-way. d around a picture of the construction Walt Wittmer, of Valleyfair, passe typical for this type of grandstand. Chrm. Czaja reported that his property is 12 miles south of this grand- stand, and he can hear very clearly every word of the performances. He also knows it can be heard even beyond him. Therefore, he would recom- mend screening for noise control. Mr. Wittmer responded they will submit a landscaping plan which calls for 15-20 foot evergreen trees, which should help contain the sound. Also, the over-all- sound system will be modified to better serve the audience. This proposal is also for solid decking instead of the open bleachers currently existing. Comm. Pomerenke agreed that 30 foot spruce trees would be a very effective sound barrier. Further discussion continued regarding various sound barrier solutions and location in relation to the highway right-of-way. Page 2 a Comm. Pomerenke suggested deciduous columnar tree which would have foilage on it during the time the amusement park is open. Schmitt/Stoltzman moved to table this variance request to the next regularly scheduled meeting, to allow for the submittal of a landscaping plan, sound barrier plan and a sketch of the building appearance in zel�riczn_ rn rh,P right-of-way. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC NEARING - FIS gNCK V4 R IANCE RZQLTEST Schmitt/Lane moved to open the public hearing regarding the request by William T. Franck for a variance to construct a pole barn without a principal building. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner went over the background and stated that staff's recommen- dation is for denial for various reasons, including that is contrary to the zoning ordinance and no hardship has been shown. Mr. Franck said he lives in Bloomington and would like to store a couple of cars on this property. He asked what is required for the special circum- stances. He believes that if a neighbor on either side owned the property they could build a pole barn. The City Planner replied that because the property has a separate legal description an accessory building cannot be built without a principal building. If an adjacent neighbor bought the property he would have to combine the legal descriptions before building on it. Mr. Franck said he didn't want to park his cars on the property without some sort of covering. The City Planner re9nnded that the ordinance doesn't allow the parking of cars on the property either. Chrm. Czaja asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to comment on this item, and there was no response. Schmitt/Stoltzman moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unani- mously. Schmitt/Stoltzman offered Variance Resolution No. 433 for the construction of a pole barn, and moved for its denial on the following grounds: 1. Exceptional circumstances are not evident. 2. To grant the variance would confer special privileges to the appli- cant that are denied to owners of other land in the same zoning district. 3. The variance would materially be detrimental to the purposes of the zoning ordinance. 4. There would be no legal control over the applicant constructing the building and then selling it off for other uses over which the City would have no control. Motion carried unanimously. Chrm. Czaja informed the applicant of the 7 day appeal period. PUBLIC HEARING - J.O.N. INVESTMENT CO. VARIANCE REQUEST Pomerenke/Schmitt moved to open the public hearing regarding the request by J.O.N. Investment Co. for a variance of 40 feet from the rear yard set- back requirements to construct a strip shopping center. Motion carried unanimously. Page 3 / The City Planner stated the developer is requesting this variance because he feels he can construct a better looking structure with the building set back further from the road. She pointed out that three sides of the lot have extraordinary setbacks, and because of this it is staff's re- commendation to approve the variance request. The City Planner said she received comment from Gary Janisch, of Tom Thumb, who stated he has no problem with the variance request and would much prefer a better looking center set further back from CR17. The City Planner said the developer can meet the parking requirements either way it is sited, and the square footage of the project doesn't change. Buzz Johanson, managing partner of the developer, said they think this will provide a better looking project, and the sideyard setbacks are met. Chrm. Czaja asked for comments from the audience, and there were none. Schmitt/Stoltzman moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Stoltzman offered Variance Resolution No. 434, allowing a 40 foot rear yard setback to construct a strip shopping center, and moved its adoption subject to the following condition: 1. A hold harmless agreement shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. Comm. Lane questioned whether the provision requiring a hardship could be met by this application. Comm. Schmitt maintained that greater safety for the public would be served by moving the building farther back from the street. The City Planner pointed out her belief that the hardship results from the exceptional setbacks on three sides of the property. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Lane moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting ad- journed at 8:54 p.m. Judi Simac City Planner Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 7, 1985 Chrm. Czaja called the meeting to order at 9:00 p.m. with Comm. Schmitt, Lane, Pomerenke and Stoltzman present. Comm. VanMaldeghem and Rockne were absent. Also present were Judi Simac, City Planner and Cncl. Lebens. Schmitt/Pomerenke moved to approve the agenda as printed. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Lane moved to approve the minutes of October 3, 1985 as kept. Motion carried unanimously. Lane/Schmitt moved to approve the minutes of October 22, 1985 as kept. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT MERIDEN ADDITION Lane/Schmitt moved to continue the public hearing on the Preliminary and Final Plat of Meriden Addition. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner advised the Commissioners that the applicant has requested this plat be continued until the results of the land use study are known. Chrm. Czaja asked if there were any comments from the audience, and there were none. Schmitt/Lane moved to continue the public hearing on the Preliminary and Final Plat of Meriden Addition to February 6, 1986. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PRAIRIE HOUSE ADDITION Lane/Schmitt moved to continue the public hearing regarding the Preliminary Plat of Prairie House Addition. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner informed the Commissioners that this matter came before the City Council last night for a determination of the location ofthe frontage road. The City Council opted to not institute eminent domain proceedings to force a connection to the signalized road at Valleyfair, and therefore the direct access to Hwy. 101 will be requested. Mn/DOT has accepted that direct access. The City Planner said the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Dept. is negotiating for the purchase of some land and would like to reserve an easement for trails. She suggested the easement could go along the sewer easement. Staff recommendation is for approval with conditions. Bill Brezinsky, engineer for the developer, explained that at this time they haven't completely formulated their plans for Lot 1, which is why it is sharing a road with Lot 2. At the time of the drawings they wanted to be flexible for a possible tie in with the Valleyfair road. Shakopee Planning Commission November 7, 1985 Page 2 Chrm. Czaja asked for comments from the audience. Tom Lions, of Bradford Associates, said the U.S. Fish b Wildlife Dept. is interested in a 70 foot easement, but it doesn't necessary have to be over the utility easement. They are interested in the back 35 acres, but have a problem with money. He pointed out these drawings are in response to Mn/DOT's concerns with access. Chrm. Czaja asked if there were any further comments from the audience, and there were none. Stoltzman/Schmitt moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Stoltzman moved to recommend to City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat of Prairie House Addition, subject to the following con- ditions: 1. Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney. 2. Plat name be changed to Prairie House lst Addition. 3. The City Engineer must receive and approve final plans and specifications for all public facilities including, but not limited to, roads, sanitary sewer system, storm sewer and grading. 4. The developer shall provide a recordable agreement which guarantees the looping of the water system when Outlot A is replatted. 5. A frontage road be constructed to serve all properties within the subdivision in a manner mutually agreeable to Mn/DOT and the City of Shakopee. 6. The developer shall provide a recordable Agreement which des- cribes the shared maintenance, by the lot owners, of the private lift station. 7. The developer shall provide a 70 foot recordable easement which allows for the continuation of the Minnesota River Valley Trail through the property. 8. The developer shall obtain the necessary permits from Mn/DOT. 9. 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 de- velopment. D. Park Dedication - in lieu of land dedication, cash payment should be made to the park fund at the time building permits are issued. E. Streets - and signs to be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. Motion carried unanimously. Shakopee Planning Commission November 7, 1985 Page 3 17� PUBLIC HEARING (CONT. ) - AMENDMENT OF CITY CODE (RV ORDINANCE) Lane/Stoltzman moved to continue the public hearing regarding the applica- tion by the City of Shakopee to consider the amendment of the City Code, Chapter 11, Land Use Regulation (Zoning) , to establish a recreational vehicle ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner went over some recommended changes to the prepared draft ordinance as follows; Page 2, VI. Change second sentence to read "The accessory uses shall not occupy more than 10% of the usable park area." Page 3, VII. 4. Add some language indicating that for one-way access drives the paved surface should be a minimum of 12 feet wide. This allows vehicles to pass, but reduces the amount of pavement and re- duces costs. The City Planner commented she would like to look case-by-case at the open space between the RV pads, because of different designs. She added the 8% open space requirement seems to be the common national average. Chrm. Czaja asked if there were any comments from the audience, and there were none. Pomerenke/Lane moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unani- mously. Lane/Stoltzman moved to recommend to City Council that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to include a Recreational Vehicle Ordinance as prepared by staff with amendments made tonight, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF CANTERBURY BUSINESS PARK Lane/Pomerenke moved to open the public hearing regarding the Preliminary and Final Plat of Canterbury Business Park. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner went over the background and considerations of this plat. She said one of the main issues is the 12th Ave. access, and the developer will be preparing a traffic study to address that concern. She updated the Commissioners on a few issues that have been resolved since the pre- paration of the staff report. Staff recommendation is for approval if the traffic and access concerns are adequately addressed tonight, to be con- tingent upon whether a by-pass r-o-w should be dedicated, to be determined by the City, Attorney. Bruce Malkerson, of Scottland, Inc. , went over some of the background of the zoning of this property. He said the national firm of Laventhal and Horowith did an analysis and confirmed their choice of this location for a "Holiday Inn" type hotel, called Canterbury Inn, which would contain a conference center and retail development in the future. He showed an ar- chitects rendering of the proposed hotel and further detailed the amenities of the hotel and surrounding area. They have situated the building out of the way of the future ramp of the by-pass. J licl t.L)4JCC -1Grliiiil� �,l)i:ll..i i5 i l%li November 7, 1985 Page 4 Mr. Malkerson said the City Attorney confirmed that the City has no right to require a developer to dedicate right-of-way for a State or County highway system in the platting process. However, when they lay out the development, it will be done so it doesn't get in the way of the right- of-way, because that just makes sense. They would like to rough in the road before freezing and work on construction throughout the winter. Cncl. Lebens left the meeting at 10:04 p.m. Bill Engelhardt, of Engelhardt & Assoc. , Chaska, engineer for the developer, addressed the drainage and easement issues. He also passed out the traffic report and addressed its conclusion that it is inadvisable to mix racetrack event traffic with traffic to the commercial development. He also suggested the street be re-named something other than 12th Avenue, as it creates prob- lems with not actually matching 12th Avenue at either end, and creating confusion regarding where the public streets ends and the private road begins. Comm. Lane suggested the outlot right-of-way be at 60 feet, rather than 40 feet. Mr. Malkerson had no objection to that. Chrm. Czaja asked if there were any comments from the audience, and there were none. Lane/ Pomerenke moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unani- mously. The City Planner said she is comfortable with the traffic study. She would agree to the re-naming of the street to something other than 12th Avenue. Comm. Schmitt suggested the use of some type of tram-feed to provide some sort of non-public vehicular transporation to the track. He believes the whole perimeter development should be looked at in terms of access to the track in an effort to keep that traffic from mixing with other event traffic. Schmitt/Lane moved to recommend to City Council approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat of Canterbury Business Park 1st Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Name of the plat be changed. . 2. Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney. 3. Submittal of a traffic study which indicates that the 12th Ave. intersection with CR83 is acceptable, and the name of 12th Ave. be changed to something else. 4. Approved highway entrance and utility construction permits to be issued by the County Engineer. 5. Dedication of 20 foot drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the outlots, with Outlot B to be expanded to a 60 foot width. 6. Determination by the City Council on what party will be respon- sible for the operation and maintenance of the lift station. 7. Determination by the City Council on a samitary sewer allocation policy. 8. Execution of a recordable agreement which permits storm water run-off from the racetrack site to flow south, across the plat, into the drainage outlet. Snakopee Planning Lommission November 7, 1985 Page 5 1 �� 9. All buildings shall be constructed at two feet above the flood level. 10. Determination by the City Attorney as to whether by-pass r-o-w should be dedicated in the plat. 11. Execution of a Developer's Agreement for the construction of the required improvements: A. Tram/Pedestrian Walkways - construction of a walkway on each lot which connects the lot with adjacent lots and/or Canter- bury Downs. B. Water system and electric - to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the SPUC Manager. C. Sanitary sewer and storm water system - to be installed in accordance with the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. D. Outlots - no building permits shall be issued for Outlots A, B and C until replatted. E. Assessments - the developer shall agree to the City Engineer's method of apportioning the installments remaining unpaid against the plat, and that the developer waives his right to appeal the apportionment. F. Park dedication - in lieu of land, a cash payment to be paid at the time of building permit issuance. 12. Should the lift station remain private, execution of a recordable agreement, binding to each lot, that states that the owners are responsible for operation and maintenance of the lift station. 13. The City Engineer must receive and approve final plans and speci- fications for all public facilities including, but not limited to, roads, sanitary sewer system, storm sewer and grading. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - SHUTROP CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION Lane/Stoltzman moved to open the public hearing regarding the application by Peter N. Shutrop for a conditional use permit to conduct a home occupa- tion of the sale of firewood from his property at 1424 Heron Court. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner read the conditions for satisfying the issuance of a home occupation. She added this property is also subject to the conditions of the Shoreland Zone, which is additionally restrictive. Another issue to be considered is the storage of wood as exterior storage. She said there are other home owners in this subdivision and all over town who store wood outside in their yards. Also, there are other homeowners in this subdivision who conduct home occupations without permits. It is staff's recommendation to approve the application, with conditions as listed with the possible addition of one regulating the hours for the use of a chain saw. Discussion ensued regarding the height of the woodpiles, use of the noise ordinance and enforcability of the off-site sales. Mr. Shutrop stated he doesn't have anyone come to his property for the wood. He said he basically only splits the wood at his property--it is cut else- where. This is done only part-time and he has been selling wood for 10 years. The last 4-5 years he has averaged between 20 and 30 cords per winter. �uur:opee �ar...�n lui. November 7, 1985 Page 6 Chrm. Czaja asked for comments from the audience. J. R. Sperling, 1432 Blue Heron Trail, said he lives next door to the appli- cant, and he objects to the permit on the grounds that a business such as this would diminish the value of his property and ofd all of Timber Trails. He added the condition that it be shielded from the road would also eli- minate his view of the road, which he feels would be detrimental to him. He said he has also seen other trucks loading wood at this property. Karen Farago, 1449 Wood Duck Trail, presented a petition signed by persons within 350 feet of this property, as well as others farther away and even outside the Timber Trails area. She said they are concerned that this is going to lead to other conditions that will cause detrimental traffic, nuisance and noise and encourage other home occupations. She said she is not aware of any other home occupations in the development. The City Planner responded she has a complaint of two other home occupations that haven't yet been followed up by the Code Enforcer. Lane/Schmitt moved to accept and file the petition opposing this applica- tion. Motion carried unanimously. Jim Larson, who lives across the street from the applicant, said he has lived there for 8 years and is not aware of any other home occupation. The City Planner replied that the Data Privacy Act prevents her from disclosing who made the complaint. She went over the procedural steps the City goes through after the receipt of a complaint. Marlene Larson stated that before Mr. Shutrop moved to his home he ad- vertised in the newspaper the sale of firewood. She said the Code En- forcer investigated it and said there was no evidence of it taking place. She added some background information regarding complaints and citations issued against Mr. Shutrop for debris on his property. She has ads from the Shakopee Valley News advertising firewood for sale by Mr. Shutrop on October 9, 14, 21 and 28, 1985. She spoke of a fire reported by Mr. Shutrop in the woodpile and damage to his wood splitter, neither of which she has any information about. But because of this she is fearful for her property. She also believes the 250 gallon gas drum is a safety hazard. She said the homeowners of Timber Trails just want to protect the value of their property, and they are interested in maintaining their development as a residential neighborhood. Dennis Furtney, 1471 Lakeview Drive, expressed his concern with additional traffic, when there is already problems with the roads. He is also afraid there will be animals living in the wood storage area, and he is concerned with the safety of the children in the area. Jim Larson stated the Building Official informed him he wouldn't be in favor of this situation because of the noise and possibility of rodents. He admitted there are many who have power saws to cut up a little wood, but running a saw from 8:00 to 6:00 is very different. He doesn't have knowledge of any other businesses in the area. He believes Mr. Shutrop has shown extreme disrespect to his neighbors. Chrm. Czaja asked if there were any other comments, and there was no reply. JiariKO�>eE Yicinn_L l l,(�Ii'iiiiissiori November 7, 1985 Page 7 Mr. Shutrop said the batteries were brought in for an auction. He didn't believe there was an ordinance limiting auctions. The City Planner clari- fied the interpretation that auctions are retail sales and therefore not allowable in residential areas, except for one-time estate auctions. Mr. Shutrop indicated he has a 3/4 ton pick-up and a 22,000 lb. single axle truck. He said the wood is loaded by hand. The pick-up holds one cord and the truck 3 cords of wood. Schmitt/Lane moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Pomerenke/Stoltzman offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 435, which allows a--home occupation for the sale of firewood, and moved its denial for the common good of the neighborhood. Comm. Schmitt stated that it is evident from the testimony that the appli- cant has not conducted his business in a manner conducive to a residential neighborhood. Comm. Lane added he was also concerned about the amount of wood stored. Motion carried unanimously. Chrm. Czaja informed the applicant of the 7 day appeal process. PUBLIC HEARING - MODEL STONE CO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Lane/Schmitt moved to open the public hearing regarding the application by William G. Pearson, of Model Stone Co. , for a conditional use permit to construct a concrete and ready mix plant on East Hwy. 101. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner went over the considerations of the request. She stated Elk River Concrete has commented that the trucks using the eastern access road drive over onto the Elk River property. Staff recommendation is to approve with conditions. William Pearson clarified that portion of road was built to serve the NSP building behind Shiely. They have a sewer and water easement on one side and there is a NSP easement on the other side. He thinks this area in question is the NSP easement. Chrm. Czaja asked for comments from the audience. Linda Schmitz, 1101 North Snelling Avenue, appearing on behalf of Shiely, said they are concerned with the condition recommending the closing of the access to the east. They occasionally supply fill sand to Mapco and use that access. She suggested language could be added to limit the access to that traffic approaching from the south. She said 380 feet was dedicated from the right-of-way to Cretex Ave. , with the idea that Cretex Avenue would be built.. Discussion followed regarding screening along the east and north property lines. 5naKopee t'ianning November 7, 1985 Page 7 Lane/Schmitt moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Lane/Stoltzman offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 436, and moved its adoption subject to the following conditions: 1. Annual renewal of the Conditional Use Permit. 2. All parking and loading to be done off-street. 3. The washing and cleaning of trucks will be done so as to avoid spillover into the pit. 4. Primary access to the site shall be from the northern frontage road. 5. In accordance with the performance standards for industrial property, a minimum of one major deciduous tree shall be planted and maintained every fifty feet along the north and east property line. This screening also to be in conformance with the require- ments of exterior storage as covered by the existing ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - SCOTTLAND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Lane/Pomerenke moved to open the public hearing regarding the application by Scottland, Inc. for a conditional use permit to construct a convenience type food store with self service gasoline upon the property located at CR83 and 12th Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner went over the considerations of this request. Mr. Malkerson said the placement is to allow room for expansion and leave open the sight lines at the corner. He added the County Engineer has approved their curb cuts. Keith Carlson, President of Brooks Superettes, answered concerns regarding the lighting, which he said would be under the canopy and slanted downward. Schmitt/Lane moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Lane/Stotlzman offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 437, for the construction of a motor fuel sales facility, and moved its adoption subject to the following conditions: 1. Tanks must be cathodic protected. 2. A detailed site plan indicating landscaping, screening, etc. , must be submitted with the building permit application. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - SUPERAMERICA STATIONS INC. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Lane/Stoltzman moved to open the public hearing regarding the application by SuperAmerica Stations, Inc. for a conditional use permit to construct a convenience type food store with self service gasoline at 1155 East First Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner went over the considerations of this request. She added that the result of a survey taken by the City indicated the area where cars are parked while getting gas is considered part of the parking spaces necessary to meet the requirement. She also recommended no outside storage. Snaxopee Pianning Commission November 7, 1985 Page 8 f �� Comm. Schmitt suggested the provision of the road at the rear to be up- graded to provide access to the controlled intersection at Marschall Road. Roman Mueller, 1240 West 98th Street, with the Engineering Dept. for SuperAmerica, said they would be happy to listen to any requests by the City, and they will try to work with them. He said they plan to strip the site, except the tanks, and install a station that will be the first in the U.S. for design. Discussion ensued regarding some landscaping to break up the blacktop and separate the shared parking with the adjacent property, and the possibility of the outside speaker noise being a nuisance to the adjoining motel. Mr. Mueller replied that the speakers are directed downwards, and not out to the street so the sound shouldn't carry ower to the motel. However, they could turn the volume down or off at night if the City so requires. Lane/Pomerenke moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Lane offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 438, to allow the construction of a motor fuel station, and moved its adoption subject to the following conditions: 1. A landscape plan must be submitted for approval by the City Planner prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Canopy lighting must be directed downward. 3. No exterior storage for retail sales. Mr. Mueller said they intend to begin some construction this fall, and finish in the spring. They might be closed for as much as 12 months during construction. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Stoltzman moved to direct staff to investigate with the City Engi- neer and applicant to determine the feasibility of a separate egress from SuperAmerica property to Bluff Street �o provide alternate access, pri- marily for trucks; and also direct the City Engineer to investigate the possible need for a right turn lane at the intersection of CR17 and Hwy. 101, with the possibility of involving Mn/DOT in this construction. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner confirmed this motion will not affect the issuance of a building permit. DISCUSSION - FINAL PLAT HENTGES 1ST ADDITION The City Planner informed the Commissioners that the developer has made no efforts to clean up his property as required, he has not designated the principal and accessory uses and has not validated existing easements. Schmitt/Stoltzman moved to table consideration of the Final Plat of Hentges 1st Addition to January 9, 1986, and to direct staff to inform the developer the plat has been tabled pending compliance with the conditions listed in the Preliminary Plat approval. Motion carried unanimously. �,naxopee rianninb lomnmission November 7, 1985 Page 9 Comm. Schmitt asked for a legal opinion as to whether or not the require- ment that the City act on an application within 60 days applies to cases like this. DISCUSSION - 1986 MEETING SCHEDULE Schmitt/Stoltzman moved to adopt the 1986 schedule of meetings as presented. Motion carried unanimously. Lane/Schmitt moved to direct staff to follow closely the scheduled dead- lines for developer's submittals. Motion carried unanimously. INFORMATIONAL The City Planner asked for consideration of a possible change in meeting date for December, possibly the 12th. She will let them know. The City Planner said the RFP for the land use study went out on Monday. Comm. Schmitt requested it be made clear that Owens-Illinois and Certain- teed are excluded from the study area. Comm. Pomerenke said he has some suggestions regarding the landscaping requirements and will be working with the City Planner on some proposed changes. Stoltzman/Lane moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:43 a.m. Judi Simac City Planner Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary 13 TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: State Revenue Projections and State Aids (informational) DATE: November 23, 1985 Introduction and Background Revenue projections for the State are looking somewhat bleak and officials are suggesting that local governments review their own situation with the possibility of cuts in state aid in mind. The next forcast from the State will be released in late January at which time the State may make some moves to cut the budget. I am not recommending any action at this time other than to watch to see what happens at the state level. Once we hear something from the State we can review our contingencies, fund balance and budget to see if we should take any further action. Murphy's Landing NOV Minnesota Vallev Restoration Inc. A village of 1840-1890 r- 7 y r; 2187 E. Highway 101 Shakop";e, Minnesota 55379 (612) 445 6900 November 25, 1985 Mr. John Anderson City of Shakopee 129 E. First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear John: Enclosed are the financial reports as of October 31, 1985 for Murphy's Landing. Sincerely, r� G rry 'as t Lund GE/ah enc. MINNESOTA VALLEY RESTORATION PROJECT, INC. Balance Sheet October 31, 1985 Accounts Totals ASSETS Oct. 31, 1985 Payable Oct. 31, 1985 Cash $ (4, 249. 92) $ $ (4, 249. 92) Savings Account 7, 146. 92 7, 146. 9Z Petty Cash 607. 00 607. 00 Gift Shop Inventory 7, 257. 08 837. 97 8, 095. 05 Fixtures - Gift Shop 4, 068. 09 4, 068. 09 Fixtures - Piant 3, 098. 00 3, 098. 00 Land, Bldgs. , Egpmt. 2, 047, 183. 18 2, 047. 183. 18 Total Assets $Z, 065, 110. 35 $837. 97 $Z, 065, 948. 32 LIABILITIES & EQUITY Accounts Payable -- $15, 602. 63 $15, 602. 63 Security Deposits $1, 399. 00 1, 399. 00 Payroll Tax Payable 3, 597. 75 3, 597. 75 Loan Payable Bank 22, 712. 61 22, 712. 61 Loan Payable HRA 7, 500. 00 7, 500. 00 Equity 1, 986, 737. 93 1, 986, 737. 93 Current Income 43, 163. 06 (14, 764. 66) 28, 398. 40 Total Liabilities & Equity $Z, 065, 110. 35 $837. 97 $2, 065. 948. 32 MINNESOTA VALLEY RESTORATION PROJECT, INC . Operating Statement , (, October 31, 1985 L �[ ..ccounts Oct. 31 , 1985 Pavable Oct. 31, 1985 Oct. 31, 1984 Income Gate $ 44, 463. 48 $ 44, 463. 48 $ 47, 804. 50 Tour 17, 979. 95 17, 979. 95 14, 897. 25 Gift Shop 12, 662. 49 12, 662. 49 16, 492. 16 General Store 6, 302. 80 6, 302. 80 7, 291. 24 Rent 29, 120. 31 29, 120. 31 29, 221. 50 Donations 93, 893. 42 93, 893. 42 76, 135. 68 Member ship 4, 177. 52 4, 177. 52 9, 979. 50 Restaurant 2, 748. 69 2, 748. 69 1, 668. 60 Washer & Dryer 542. 70 542. 70 486. 75 Miscellaneous 1, 481. 36 1, 481. 36 8, 273. 99 Boat 864. 12 864. 12 -- Print Shop 275. 50 275. 50 -- Blacksmith 108. 20 108. 20 -- Wagon 642. 23 642. 23 1, 668. 41 Interest 119. 91 119. 91 -- Halloween 4, 250. 00 4, 250. 00 5, 126. 00 Over 93. 56 93. 56 -- Total Income $ 219, 7Z6. 24 $ 219, 726. 24 $ 219, 045. 58 Expenses Cost of Sales $ 9, 159. 20 $ 9, 159. 20 $ 11, 891. 70 Salaries - Office 13, 731. 50 13, 731. 50 35, 434. 20 Salaries - Maintenance 26, 975. 78 26, 975. 78 35, 363. 03 Salaries - Program 63, 154. 60 63, 154. 60 92, 922. 04 Salaries - Gift Shop 5, 044. 73 5, 044. 73 3, 160. 00 Salaries - Restaurant 1, 046. 25 1, 046. 25 -- Insurance 4, 067. 82 $3, 991. 39 8, 059. 21 3, 959. 92 Program 8, 832. 76 8, 832. 76 12, 907. 55 Contract Labor 369. 25 369. 25 481. 00 Office 2, 097. 20 74. 29 2, 171. 49 2, 021. 45 Advertising 1, 758. 32 295. 82 2, 054. 14 9, 238. 08 Postage 1, 114. 05 1, 114. 05 2, 307. 59 Electricity 4, 215. 56 1, 012. 87 5, 228. 43 3, 236. 07 Heat 3, 928. 33 637. 50 4, 565. 83 4, 535. 28 Telephone 1, 902. 01 267. 32 2, 169. 33 'Z, 400. 18 Maintenance 3, 374. 05 4, 042. 59 7, 416. 64 24, 774. 95 Vehicles 1, 041. 54 42. 75 1, 084. 29 717. 02 Payroll Tax 8, 118. 55 8, 118. 55 1, 557. 53 Animal 564. 40 86. 85 651. 25 479. 10 Bank Charges 112. 12 112. 12 234. 34 Equipment & Facilities 1, 011. 80 1, 538. 98 2, 550. 78 1, 857. 50 Consulting 7, 825. 00 447. 50 8, 272. 50 -- Interest 1, Z69. 91 1, 269. 91 20. 81 (Continued on Next Page) MINNESOTA VALLEY RESTORATION PRC'ECT, INC. r Oper4,ting Statement October 31; 1985 ((( Page Two Accounts Oct. 31, 1985 Pavable Oct. 31, 1985 Oct. 31 , 1984 Expenses (Cont'd. ) Miscellaneous 814. 02 814. 02 5, 155. 55 Print Shop 597. 20 400. 27 997. 47 -- Trash Removal 575. 73 58. 21 633. 94 380. 00 Sales Tax 1, 059. 12 1, 059. 12 1, 505. 51 Halloween 1, 145. 50 222. 81 1, 368. 31 1, 879. 12 Restaurant 11 656. 88 384. 98 2, 041. 86 -- Artifacts 1, 260. 53 1, 260. 53 -- Total Expense $176, 563. 18 14,764 . 66 $ 191, 327. 84 $ 258. 409. 52 Net Income (Loss) $ 43, 163. 06 828, 398. 40 $ ( 39, 363. 94) TENTATIVE AGENDA Downtown Ad Hoc Committee City Hall Council Chambers December 4 , 1985 7 : 30 A.M. (Note this repeats 11/27/85 agenda) Chrmn. Laurent presiding 1. Call to order at 7 : 30 a.m. 2 . Approval of Agenda 3 . Approval of the Minutes of November 13 , 1985 (sent out with 11/27 agenda) 4 . Updates: a. Housing Alliance Project b. Small Cities Development Grant C. Star City Program d. Other 5. Downtown Streetscape Assessment Policy (bring September 20, 1985 memo) 6. T.H. 101/169 Bridge Junction Improvements (bring Barton-Aschman memos sent with 11/27 agenda) a. Alternatives for review Z. Objectives and measures C. Evaluation committee 7. Other Business 8 . Adjourn at 9: 00 a.m. to December 18 , 1985 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. , i/i i 12B Tues., Nov. 26, 1985 Minneapolis Star and Tribune i y Arae Carlson criticizes Dulupfth officials' travel expenses By Dave Anderson The audit covered the period from Staff Writer Jan. 1, 1984,to Aug.31 this year State Auditor Arne Carlson severely The audit recommended that Duluth criticized the way in which Duluth give more power to the city auditor city officials collect travel expenses, to withhold payment when proper citing a number of cases Monday in receipts and other paperwork sup- - 4fiich the city was double billed or porting expenses is not turned in. As in which receipts were not submit- it is now, the audit says, the auditor ted. may be reluctant to disapprove ex• penses approved by his superiors. 1n a letter to Mayor John Fedo,Carl- son- said his audit found evidence Auditors recommended that the city that city officials and members of discontinue its policy of having three the City Council were using the meal credit cards and giving some or all allowance as a "variable per diem of them to 17 different city officials. rate that may cover out of pocket expenses as well as meals." Carlson said in the letter that docu- ments suggested that Fedo was using city credit cards to cover meals for which he was paid a direct reim- bursement. That same finding led a ` Duluth newspaper to charge earlier this year that the mayor may have teen double billing the city for some expenses. Carlson, however, said Fedo pro- duced documents that showed he used the credit cards to pay for ; meals for others "and did not neces- -^rily include his own meals." r Y TENTATIVE AGENDA REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 3 , 1985 Mayor Reinke presiding 1] Roll Call at 7 : 00 p.m. 2] Recess for an H.R.A. Meeting 3 ] Reconvene 41 Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 51 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. ) '71 Approval of the Minutes of November 6 , 15 and 19 , 1985 8] Communications: a] Barbara Hauger re: Eaglewood Reconstruction b] Gary C. Janisch re: Additional Streetlights on Marschall Road c] David R. Bean re: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for 1984 d] William Schreiber re: Fiscal Disparities 9 ] Public Hearings: a] 7 : 30 p.m. - Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of a Conditional Use Permit for a home occupation for Peter Shutrop at 1424 Heron Court b] 8 : 00 p.m. - Multi Family Housing Program for the Elderly and the Issuance of $3 , 125, 000 Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds for Depot Place Associated Project (Housing Alliance) - Coming Monday c] 8 : 15 p.m. - Amendment of 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 ; Establishing Tax Increment Financing District No. 6 and Adopting the Tax Increment Financing Flan Therefor - Coming Monday Housing Alliance Property Acquisition 101 Boards and Commissions: None TENTATIVE AGENDA December 3 , 1985 Page -2- 111 Reports from Staff: a] Presentation on Shakopee Valley Square-TIF Proposal-Wally Bakken b] Prairie House lst Addition - Access Road c] Summary on Shakopee Brochure - bring item 10h. from 11/19 agenda d] Fourth Avenue East Traffic Control - bring item 10g from 11/19 agenda e] The City of Shakopee and Mn. Dep' t of Transpertation (Mn/DOT) Agreement for T.H. 101 and Bridge Replacement Improvements - bring item 10p from 11/19 agenda f] Traffic Control on Apgar Street - bring item lOw from 11/19 agenda *g] 1986-1988 Refuse Contract *h] Purchase of Squad Cars *i] Employee Health and Life Insurance, *j ] Storm Drainage Bills *k] Investment Policy 11 Payment of Bills in' the Amount of $72, 971 . 09 *m] Public Works Garage Door Bid *n] City Hall Hours Christmas Eve Day *o] Accepting Valley Park Dr. & 12th Avenue Project No. 1984-5 - Res. No. 2483 p] 9 : 00 p.m. - Scott County Historical Society *q] Accepting 5th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Project No. 1984-6 - Res. No. 2482 *r] Capital Equipment - Postage Machine s] Dual Left Turn Lane at TH 101 and CSAH 18 (Ea:st to North) t] Equipment Yard Screening - bring item 10f from 11/19 agenda *u] Carpet Purchase - Police Building v] Review of Request for Proposals (RFP) for an Organization Staffing and Municipal Services Costing Study 12 ] Resolutions and Ordinances: a] Res. No. 2480 , A Resolution of Appreciation to Paul Wermerskirchen *b] Res. No. 2481, Amending Personnel Policy with regard to Comp Time *c] Res. No. 2479 , Setting 1986 Fees 13 ] Other Business : a] Update on Legislative Action of Fiscal Disparities b] c] 14 ] Recess for Executive Session: a] 1985 Local 320 Public works b] 1986 Local 320 Police 15 ] Reconvene 16 ] Adjourn to Tuesday, December 10th at 7 : 00 p.m. in the Assembly Room at the Scott County Courthouse. John K. Anderson TENTATIVE AGENDA Housing Authority in and for the City of Shakopee, Minnesota Regular Session December 3 , 1985 Chairperson Vierling presiding 1. Roll Call at 7 : 00 P.M. 2. Approve the Minutes of November 19 , 1985 . 3 . Small Cities Development Grant - discussion of 1986 application (Memo on Monday) 4. Other Business a. b. 5 . Adjourn Jeanne Andre Executive Director Shakopee HRA PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SPECIAL SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 19, 1985 Chrm. Vierling called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. with Comm. Wampach, Lebens, Leroux and Colligan present. Also present were Jeanne Andre, HRA Director; John K. Anderson, City Admr. ; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Judi Simac, City Planner; Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer and Julius A. Coller, II, City Attorney and Rod Krass, Ass't City Attorney. Colligan/Leroux moved to accept the special call of the Chair. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Colligan moved to approve the minutes of October 1, 1985 as kept. Motion carried unanimously. Rosemary Dineen, of the Housing Alliance, showed some slides of various projects in various communities they have done, with and without subsidies. She showed examples of the type of architecture and styling they envision for Shakopee for their project of 44 rental units for seniors. She said they want a rural midwestern feel to the development, and they work with the whole community for input. Larry Smith, of the Housing Alliance, showed the location of the 4 parcels they wish to utilize for this project which would have 44 units with a restaurant and hair salon. He pointed out the various proposed amenities of porches, decks, underground parking, garden plots, security and public areas. They want the building to be compatible with the adjacent single family homes in the neighborhood. They feel it is an ideal location, close to a grocery store, drug store, churches and other retail establishments. He further went over the floor plan for the interior spaces. Ms. Dineen further outlined the program which would have 24 hour security, a live-in manager, an RN on call 24 hours and optional dining. They are negotiating with St. Francis an extra benefit package that could include linen exchange, etc. She went over the background of how they became in- volved in Shakopee 2 years ago when a need was seen for further senior hous- ing that would be affordable. The Federal programs and subsidies do not exist anymore, and a steering committee was established to further look into community support. Their purpose is to give seniors choices and help them be independent. Mr. Smith stated if they do not find a restaurateur willing to operate within the complex, they have the option of adding 8 units in that space. Cncl. Lebens stated she owns property on that block proposed for the develop- ment. She said an appraisal of Mr. Wampach's property in 1980 lists the property at $138,000, and there is a motion by Council to pay up to $250,000 for that property to write it down, so that it will be given to the Housing Alliance. She said that is 5 times what is on the tax rolls today. She asked if they know what it will do to the property in the rest of the block and neighbor- hood. The Housing Alliance is also asking for streetscapes and amenities, and have raised the bonding amount to $677,000. They also want storm sewer and paving done. This would amount to a handout of $677,000. Shakopee Hi: . November 19, 1985 Page 2 Cncl. Lebens said her husband had come to City Hall this afternoon to talk to the HRA Director, who told him he would be assessed for the amenities on the rest of the block. She related the HRA Director also told him "We don't make public policy on the basis of what it does to the neighbors." Cncl. Lebens said that the HRA Director lives in Minneapolis so she has no concern for the residents of this City and it doesn't make any dif- ference to her. She believes any employee who speaks to a taxpayer like that should be dismissed. Cncl. Lebens is waiting for another appraisal from Patchin Assoc. and she thinks the whole thing is unfair. She remem- bered at the first meeting with the Housing Alliance Ms. Dineen said they wouldn't ask the City for anything, and now they want a land write-down and lower mortgage payments. Cncl. Lebens :roved for the dismissal of the HRA Director. Chrm. Vierling called three times for a second to the motion, and it died for the lack of a second. The City Admr. clarified that there was an appraisal done by Wiley Appraisal Inc. on August 28, 1981 for the City which established the value for a number of parcels. The 4 lots being discussed here were valued at $168,068. On September 9, 1981 the City Assessor established the value at $164,000. He pointed out that none of these appraisals were done for acquisition or sale of the property, but were done for the purpose of determining whether or not the prcperty could bear an assessment for storm sewer. They haven't located the previous Patchin appraisal yet. Cncl. Lebens said she also had an appraisal in 1985 for $85,000, so she feels both the others are out of line, and what is on the tax rolls is more accurate. She said the whole block is appraised for about what Mr. Wampach would get for those 4 lDts. The City Admr. clarified that municipalities have to use a formal, legal procedure for acquisition of property in which the property value is set by certified public appraisers, not the County Assessor. And that certified value is what is used by a Judge to set the value, not the adjusted market values that t'.-ie Assessor uses. He added the appraisal the City got from Shenahan was on the low side and the City is getting that reviewed. Cncl. Leroux clarified that the motion of two weeks ago was to use the value set by the Patchin appraisal or $250,000, whichever was lower. He does have a problem witl:i the discrepancy of $85,000 in 1985 and $165,000 5 years ago. However, he does agree that the ripple effect will have to be considered as far as how it affects adjacent land. Cncl. Lebens ,reported that her husband called the State Dept. of Taxation which told him that when land values come in, the market value of property will go up at least 4 times what is on the land now, because of this sale. Cncl. Leroux countered that the various mitigating circumstances of this sale will be considered by the State. Because of the lack of Federal sub- sidies, the issue comes down to whether or not the City is willing to use its various powers and authorities to help put up a project to serve elderly people. Snar�oN,:� ti­ November 19, 1985 Page 3 y Cncl. Lebens said the Mayor previously indicated he did not want any small business to be driven out of town because of any new project, and a small business like her son's can't afford taxes 4 times what they are today. The City Admr. explained how the application of the sales ratio works. But he pointed out one sale doesn't change the rates, it has to be averaged out over all the sales in that classifcation for the year. The HRA Director reported on comments received from interested parties who couldn't attend this meeting, as follows: Sister Agnes Otting, St. Francis Hospital, who is in favor of the project, her letter to be placed on file. Leo and Anna McGovern, 218 West First, are in favor of the project and are anxious to get into a senior housing project; Leslie Braun, 628 Gorman Street, is in favor of the project; Ted Neisen, 238 West 5th, said he would like to see the unit put in that location and that is where he would like to go; Diane Heinz, who lives adjacent to the property, said she is in favor of the project and would especially like to see the second phase to acquire her property; Virgil Mears is in favor of the project. Leroux/Colligan moved to accept all the above comments and make them part of the record of this proceedings. Motion carried with Cncl. Wampach ab- staining. Chrm. Vierling opened the meeting to comments from those who had signed up to speak. Lorraine Ries, 20 West 3rd, lives across the street, and asked if this pro- ject was strictly for senior citizens; to which an affirmative reply was given. She is sure this will increase her taxes if the City is going to give all these things to the project. Her taxes increased $766 in the last two years. She said they can't hardly afford to live in their homes if the taxes are going to keep going up. The Ass't City Attorney explained the assistance being requested is tax increment financing, which is a method by which the increased taxes from the project itself will be used to support the bonds sold and create the money the City will use to buy and write down the cost of the land. No general tax money is involved in this project. The only issue is whether the value set on this property is going to increase the value of the sur- rounding property. He said the commercial property which Cncl. Lebens is concerned about should not be affected by an increase in residential value. The County Assessor's Office told him that if the City purchases the property at a value higher than assessed it is not viewed in the same manner as a mutual sale because of the condemnation or threat of condemnation. Sales Shakopee hik1= November 19, 1_985 Page 4 of this type are not considered normal and are not used in establishing the sales ratio. The same is true of sales between family members, because it is not bel:- eyed that true values are being reflected. He would suggest getting this policy in writing to protect the properties around this pro- ject. Cncl. Lebens also objected to the fact that with this tax increment pro- gram the taxer will not go to the County or School Board for 20 years, and many of these people will not be around to see the tax relief 20 years from now. She thinks they should put up their own building and go to a bank for a loan. Cncl. Lebens said she received a call from a Mr. Stokes who is against the project, especially if it will raise taxes. Emil Halden a;aked about building so close to the railroad tracks, when that was not allowed at the time of the building of the other senior high rise. Mr. Smith said that was not allowed because it was a subsidized Section 8 project under MHFA. They are not under the same guidelines at this time. Mayor Reinke clarified that the term of the bond is 12 years, not 20 years. Elizabeth Schultz said that when the last project was built they were asked where they wanted it located, but they built it against the wishes anyway. She still thinks something should be done about making a walkway across Hwy. 169. She is in favor of this site. Doug Spiotta ,said he is speaking as a member of the community and a member of St. John's Lutheran Church, which found in a study that a need existed for long term housing for the elderly, and this community would support a housing proje=t of this nature. As a housing professional he works with the Ebenezer Society, managing an independent housing facility in Golden Valley. He has seen first-hand how seniors living in a facility such as this rejuvenate themselves. In two years the residents have become a close knit active group. Independent housing fits the needs of those who are in between--who don't need nursing care but who can't continue to live in their single family homes. He explained some of the amenities of his building, which are similar to this proposal. As a resident of the community, a mem- ber of a local church and a housing professional, he supports an indepen- dent housing facility such as this. Dan Lebens said his concern is for the price of the property and how much his taxes will go up. He wants to know when they will get an answer to how much will be paid for the property. The City Admr. responded that an answer should be available by the next City Council meeting on December 3, 1985. In the meantime they would investigate whether this type of sale would affect the sales ratio. Mr. Lebens asked if the City could guarantee that his taxes wouldn't go up. The City Admr. replied they will get the answers as to how it will be handled. Mr. Lebens asked about the installation of the storm sewer. The City Admr. explained that the storm sewer project and schedule was proceeding inde- pendently of this proposed project. This project needed to know if and when storm sewer was to be installed, but it didn't cause the storm sewer to be scheduled for construction. JiicIKOU�� G:u-� November 19, 1985 Page 5 v Mr. Lebens said he will be paying for the laterals, and he asked if the Housing Alliance will be also. The City Admr. replied that the Housing Alliance will be paying on the same ratio. Cncl. Lebens asked about areas where the storm sewer is adequate. The City Admr. answered that each area will be determined separately accord- ing to need. Mr. Lebens asked if this project would be a catalyst to putting the storm sewer in Second Avenue. The City Admr. answered that it wouldn't be any more than any other facility, such as the hospital, as they are looking at serving the whole basin. Mr. Lebens asked if the streetscape and sidewalk program from the Downtown Redevelopment Committee be put in there, and would he be looking at that additional assessment. The City Admr. said the Downtown Committee hasn't yet finalized their selection of the location for the streetscapes, but the current plan is to start the streetscape around the parking lot just completed on Second Avenue. He added there would have to be a public hear- ing before any assessments for such a streetscape project, so that would be handled as a separate matter. The HRA Director added that once the Downtown Committee gets further more concrete information regarding costs and implementation, they will hold a public informational meeting to share that information in general. Mrs. Dan Lebens said she is not against senior housing, but what bothers he is the possibility of the increase in taxes. She would formally ask the City to find out that information. She asked about what would have to be re-paved and if the streetscape would go around the entire block or just by this project. The HRA Director replied that would be an independent decision by the Downtown Committee. Mrs. Lebens said she has a problem with all these assessments and taxes coming at once. She thinks that with the motion it would seem likely that $250,000 would be paid. If that is taken into consideration by the State, it will definitely affect their taxes and cause a problem. She said the housing is needed, but the neigh- bors are a concern also. Steve Clay, of the Downtown Committee, said they don't want assessments that would cause any business to fail. Their purpose is to strengthen the downtown. The Downtown Committee is in complete agreement with the concept of housing units. An integral part of the downtown plan was this area for multi-family housing, and there is a need for more senior housing. He believes the site is beneficial to the City and also the Downtown Rede- velopment plan, and therefore they strongly support it. Chrm. Vierling asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to speak. Mr. Ries asked about the storm sewer assessments. The City Admr. explained the storm sewer utility financing tool adopted by the City Council, in which 25% of the cost is paid by those neighborhoods directly benefiting from the pipe; 25% to be paid by major developments through tax increment fi- nancing and the final 50% to be paid City-wide. 5nahopee h_ November 19, 1985 Page 6 Mr. Halden asked what is meant by market housing- Mr. Smith explained that market rate means open to anyone interested in living there, as long as they are 55 or older. He said this is the whole intent of the subsidy re- quest, so affordable housing can be provided without the Federal subsidies that used to exist. In order to make this housing affordable, they have to have a means to bring the rent down. The rent will. be a set amount, but it will be a re:L-lection of how much subsidy they can get on the project. He explained that the difference between the taxes being paid now and what will be paid wi:h 44 units is the amount of the tax increment, and they are requesting a portion of that be used to bring the rents down, with the rest used for other -projects. Betty Pink asked for a rent figure. Mr. Smith replied $578 would be the average for 1 a:ad 2 bedrooms, and the service package would be additional, depending on what can be negotiated with St. Francis. The emergency on-call person and availability is also still being negotiated, but they have de- termined that it would be less expensive to use the hospital's personnel rather than provide a separate person at the project. Ms. Pink asked what will happen if they only fill half the units the first year. Mr. Smith replied they expect that may be the case the first year. They have to take into account the time it will take seniors to sell their homes. They have budgeted an amount to cover less than full units the first few years. Chrm. Vierling asked if the heated parking spaces were included in the rent, and Mr. Smith said they would be additional. He added the prices might seem high to those who have lived in their homes all their lives, but it is a very comparable price around the area. He clarified the rent includes heat and water, but not lights. Every unit will have a laundry facility. Lebens/Leroux moved to direct staff to check further with the County and State regarding tax increase possibilities as a result of this project. Motion carried with Cncl. Wampach abstaining. Leroux/Wampach moved for a five minute recess at 8:38 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Wampach moved to re-convene at 8:48 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The HRA Director went over the items that had been changed according to HRA direction in the proposed Resolution amending the tax increment district and financial plan. She clarified that they are not assuring that they will make all the expenditures listed and they could decrease the costs. However, they don't want to spend anything that is not listed, so a lot of costs are included. Leroux/Colligan offered Resolution No. 85-26, A Resolution Amending the Modi- fied Housing and Redevelopment Plan Relating to the Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1 Pursuant to the Provisions of Minne- sota Statutes, Section 462.411 to 462.716, Inclusive, As Amended; and Amend- ing the Tax Increment Financing Plan Relating to Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 2 Through No. 5 Within the Project Area and the Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 6 Within the Project Area and the Tax Increment Financing Plan Relating Thereto, Pursuant to the Provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.71 To 273.78, Inclusive, As Amended, and moved for its adoption. SnaK ogee HKA November 19, 1985 Page 7 Roll Call: Ayes; Leroux, Vierling, Colligan Noes; Lebens Abstain: Wampach Motion carried. Lebens/Leroux moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Jeanne Andre HRA Director Diane S. Eeuch Recording Secretary ti Ulk Services Since 1957 ENGINEERING TESTING MINNESOTA:Minneapolis,Hibbing.St.Cloud.Rochester,St.Paul P.H ANDERSON D LE R.ALLEN..PE Affiliated Offices C .KRUSE P.E JAMES J CRAIG.Jr..P.E. NORTH DAKOTA: Bismarck. Williston; MONTANA: Billings DR.HAUSLER PE. Reply To: P.O. Box 35108 Mpls . , MN 55435 ( 612 ) 941-5600 November '21 , 1985 City of Shakopee Attn: Mr. Ray Ruuska 129 East lst Street Shakopee, MN 55379 RE : 84-214 STREET RECONSTRUCTION Eaglewood Subdivision Shakopee, MN Mr. Ruuska : As authorized on August 20 , 1985 , we have recently completed our observations and testing for this year at the above referenced location . Our first observation was conducted on August 20 , 1985 . At the time of our observation, the contractor was sub- cutting between Eaglewood Lane and station 2+00 . The soils being removed were soft sandy clays and topsoil . The poor soils were removed to a depth of approximately 3 feet below existing grade or approximately 4 feet below final grade. During our first observation, we also recommended removal of the severely alligatored bituminous from station 4+50 Bridge Crossing to the centerlines of Bridge Crossing and Bridge Spur . This area had not been called out on the plans as being an area where the bituminous was to be removed. It was our opinion that, due to the poor condition of the existing bituminous , the overlay would not help strengthen the pavement cross-section. We also walked the existing bituminous from station 6+66 to sta- tion 15+18 on Bridge Crossing. We marked the areas where the bituminous was to be removed and replaced prior to the overlay. CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SOILS AND MATERIALS Affiliated Company for Chemical &Environmental Testing and Consulting—Braun Environmental Laboratories, Inc. R4-214 3 City of Shakopee -2- November 21 , 1985 During our second observation on August 21, 1985 , we observed the subcut being conducted on Eaglewood Lane from the centerlines of Eaglewood Circle and Eaglewood Lane east towards County Road 17 . Based on the construction drawings , the subcut was to end at sta- tion 2+00 Eaglewood Lane . We recommended that the roadway be subcut between approximately station 0+25 to station 2+00 due to the rutting of the existing subgrade. In areas that were not subcut, on Eaglewood Lane, Eaglewood Drive, Eaglewood Circle, and Bridge Crossing to station 6+50 , the existing bituminous was ripped and worked such that it was broken up adequately. Where there was little grade change, Class 5 was placed directly over the broken up bituminous then the geotextile construction fabric was placed. The remaining section of Class 5 was then placed over the fabric. In the areas where the grade was raised significantly, the bitu- minous was adequately broken up and select granular borrow was placed to the bottom of Class 5 grade. The geotextile fabric was then installed in the same manner as above. Due to the very wet late summer and fall , you elected not to pave the streets in the subdivision. This , in our opinion, is recommended. This will give the areas where the fill was placed over organics at depth and wet subgrades time to consolidate and drain. We recommend that, prior to paving next year, the streets be test rolled. If , at that time, there are areas which are rutting or pumping, steps could then be taken to correct the problem prior to paving. COMPACTION TESTING Compaction tests were taken in the select granular borrow placed and compacted on site. Tests indicate that the fill has been compacted to meet or exceed the recommended percent of standard Proctor density. Results of the compaction tests were reported under separate cover. We recommend that compaction tests be taken in the Class 5 prior to paving in 1986 to determine the densities of the aggregate base . BRA ,.. l 84-214 City of Shakopee -3- November 21 , 1985 GENERAL REMARKS Services performed by the geotechnical and material engineers for this project have been conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in this area . No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. It has been a pleasure to have been of service to you thus far on this project. If there are any questions or if further infor- mation or testing is required, please contact us at your convenience . Very truly yours , BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. James M. Samuelson Senior Engineering Assistant J es J. Cr ig , P.E. Senior Eng nee JMS/JJC:gec r In the absence of our prior written approval The content of this report and supporting documents are fort he exclusive use of the addressee, p PP we make no representation and assume no responsibility to any other parties regarding such content. OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 6, 1985 Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Cncl. Colligan, Vierling, Wampach and Lebens present. Cncl. Leroux arrived later. Also present were 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. 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. Don Hennen said about 2 months ago he had a car go through the intersec- tion and end up on his yard, about 10 feet from his house, at Apgar and 5th. That was the second time he had a car in his yard. He has seen at least a dozen close calls. He wants stops signs at all corners at Fifth and Apgar, or at least on Apgar. The situation was discussed further. Mayor Reinke answered that a traffic study has been proposed, and this will be referred to the Police Dept. and the City Engineer. George Breeggemann also complained of the traffic not stopping or yielding at that corner, and the presence of a lot of kids in the area. Vierling/Lebens moved to authorize staff, Police and Engineering Dept. to study the traffic in the area of 4th, 5th and 6th and Apgar and the adja- cent alley, and report back at the next meeting relative to the need for stop signs. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Lebens moved to approve the minutes of October 15, 1985 as kept. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Lebens/Colligan moved to approve the minutes of October 22, 1985 as kept. Wampach/Lebens moved to amend the minutes on page 6, second to last para- graph, to note that Cncl. Wampach abstained from the vote. Motion to amend carried unanimously. Main motion as amended carried unanimously. The City Clerk reported that it is not possible for the City's insurance to cover the Ice Arena as a rider, because the City does not own or have any control of the facility, as requested by Valley Ice Arena. LeRoy Worm, President of Valley Ice Arena, Inc. , stated they have four different brokers working to get insurance for the arena and they under- stand if it can be obtained, it may be at 4 times what they paid last year. The insurance terminates November 15. November 6, 1985 Page 2 The City Clerc stated she was informed there is a possible insurance carrier, but the carrier wouldn' t write the coverage until next week. Bruce Hebeisen, board member of Valley Ice Arena, said that all other communities nearby have taken over the operation of the ice arenas. They expect the insurance to be $12,000. They also haven't been able to get the MEAD employees they had in the past, so there will be increased employee costs also. They believe with the City taking over the facility, these costs can be reduced. The facility is currently co-owned by the Shakopee and Chaska Associations. Mr. Worm added they were almost at the point of running the facility without debt, until the increased insurance costs and employee costs. Discussion followed regarding how the ice arena differs from other facili- ties the City operates, the role of Community Services, increase in the City's insurance costs and probability of replacement costs for the bubble a few years from now. Mr. Worm said there is a strong possibility of a private organization putting up a permanent structure in the City soon. He stressed the benefits to the merchants of the City from the patrons of the arena. He added that the debt of the facility does not go with the buyer of the arena. Discussion continued. Colligan/Wampach moved to direct staff to investigate insurance rates for the arena if the City operated it and staff costs. Roy Ohlmann, Treasurer of Valley Ice Arena, said they should know by the end of the yE!ar if the private facility will be built. He thinks if this arena closes November 15 because of lack of insurance, the private facility probably will. not be built, which will make for a lot of losers. Motion carried unanimously. The City Clerk pointed out the informational item regarding the Metropoli- tan and AMM activities. Vierling/Wampach moved to direct a letter to be sent to Representative Frenzel expressing the City concern regarding the Federal tax reform issues, as suggested by the League of Minnesota Cities. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Wampach moved to open the public hearing regarding the applica- tion from the Toro Company for $3,500,000 I.R. Bonds. Motion carried unanimously. Steve Keating, Assistant Treasurer for Toro, went over the background of Toro's request for IRBs. They are asking for the adoption of a resolution giving preliminary approval after the public hearing, so they can maintain their construction schedule. Mr. Keating said there will be 200 factory and 50 office positions created, and he does not know how many from the Bloomington office will re-locate to Shakopee. He said they have received verbal approval from the State for the pooled funds. Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to comment on this item, and there was no response. November 6, 1985 Page 3 Colligan/Wampach moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2467, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Giving Preliminary Approval, Pursuant to the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Of an Industrial Project to be Constructed by the Toro Company in the City; Authorizing the Submission of an Application with Respect to the Project to the Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority; and Related Matters, and moved its adoption. The City Clerk summarized the resolu- tion. Roll Call: Ayes; Reinke, Colligan, Wampach, Vierling Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Vierling/Colligan moved that the Building Permit application for the Toro Company expansion and remodeling be in conformance with City Code require- ments for landscaping, building materials, screening, parking spaces, drainage utilities, etc. , prior to issuance of a building permit. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner showed the plat of Shakopee Valley Square lst Addition, and stated the developer will be using the PUD concept. The EAW has been prepared and submitted, but comments have not been received. She asked if City Council wants to maintain its easement for parkway in the form of a road or walkway for access to the public land. The Community Develop- ment Director recommends no vehicular traffic, and thinks the pedestrian trail is adequate. Wally Bakken, the developer, said the roadway was given to the farmer to get back to his land, but he doesn't use it and has put a log across it. The City Attorney commented that whether the easement is open to the public or not is a separate question, but the City should definitely keep the easement reserved and describe it. If it is not open to the public, the easement can be used for whatever the adjoining property is used. The developer could build a street on it for his development, as long as the City retained the easement and there is an agreement between the developer and the City. Lebens/Vierling moved to approve the Preliminary Plat of Shakopee Valley Square lst Addition, and moved its adoption, subject to the following conditions: 1. Name of the plat be changed to Shakopee Valley Square lst Addition. 2. Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney. 3 . Vacation of drainage and utility easements which were dedicated in Halo 2nd Addition. 4 . Submittal of an EAW to the EQB for review and comment, followed by ational development does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. 5 . The developer shall obtain the required permits from the Lower Minnesota Watershed District, the Dept. of Natural Resources, and the Mn Dept. of Health for construction in the floodplain. November 6, 1985 Page 4 6 . The developer shall obtain a permit from MnDOT for construction and alteration of curb cuts in the right of way. 7 . The City Engineer must receive and approve final plans and specifications for all public facilities including, but not limited to, roads , sanitary sewer system, storm sewer and grading. 8. The dE:veloper shall submit a recordable Association Agreement which describes the operation and maintenance of shared parking arrangement among lot owners. 9 . Submittal of a detailed landscape, lighting and signage plan prior to final plat approval. Any signage variances shall be considered in separate applications. ;0 . The city shall retain the easement 'I:c.- the parkway which e::tend.s across lot four. prior to final plat arproval the C1 Council shall _jeterminwhet -her wheher the easement shall remair..}-7�public or private and whether it should be constructed to standard design criteria. 11. Eyecution of a Developer ' s Agreement for the construction of thE! required improvements: a) �, sidewalk to be reconstructed along the north side of T.H. 101 in accordance with the Design Criteria end standard specifications of the City of Shakopee. b) water system and electric to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the SaUC Utilities Manager. c) The developer shall agree to the City Engineer' s method of apportioning the installments remaining unpaid against the plat and that the developer waives his right to appealing the apportionment. d) :Installation cf fire hydrants in accordance with the requirements of the Fire Chief and City Engineer. e ) Construction of Bluff Street, to serve lot four and all other street improvements to be made, in accordance with the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. f ) Sanitary sewer and storm water system. to be installed in accordance with the Design Criteria and Standard :specifications of the City of Shakopee. g) copy of the Rules and Regulations of the Shakopee 'Dalley Square Campground shall be made a part of the Developers Agreement to ensure that the operator of the campground has the authority to remove any occupants or equipment within twenty-four hours after the river .stage reaches a point of two feet below the lowest sanitary sewer. Snakopeu City Uounci.i November 6, 1985 Page 5 7 h) Park dedication fee to be paid for the existing lots 2 and 3 of Halo 2nd Addn. ( amount of 51736 . 00 for each lot) . The City Council shall determine whether a park dedication fee shall be paid for lots 4 and 5 of the plat, or that the existing public easement is satisfactory. No new construction of permanent buildings within the easements. 13 . The disposition of Lot 5 , via sale or construction of additional facilities subject to staff review of parking use and require- ment. Easements on Lot 5 to include the existing brick building until such time as prior constructed public facilities can be located. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. The City Clerk explained the recommendations of the Building Official re- garding the overhead door bids for the Fire Station and the Public Works Building. The Community Development Dir. advised that because the specs were not written to have matching doors on the Public Works building, all bids could be rejected. Vierling/Wampach moved to authorize staff to have Kens Steel Door furnish and install the overhead doors at the Fire Station for $5477.75. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Colligan/Vierling moved to reject all bids for the overhead door at the Public Works building and to re-bid specifying matching doors. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Lebens moved to authorize payment of $2,275.00 to Schilz Ornamen- tal Iron, one-half payment of beams for Memorial Park Footbridge Project. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Vierling/Lebens moved to authorize the purchase of the meat slicer for the congregate dining kitchen for $250.00 from the Contingency Fund. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Vierling/Lebens moved to purchase two 4.5 air packs and three spare bottles from Fisco-Fire Safety of Rochester, Minn. for a total of $4,189.00. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Veirling/Lebens moved to purchase rescue . air bags and accessory from Metropolitan Fire Equipment for a total of $4,937.00. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Vierling/Lebens moved to purchase one IBM PC AT and related components from Ameridata Systems, Inc. , at a cost of $5,480.00. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Vierling/Lebens moved to authorize staff to purchase one Diebold model 115-20 Security Window from Diebold Corp. at a cost of $2,282 for the Police Dept. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. 511 GLY.lI FJCt: v� \.V U:L'.,1- November 6, 1.985 Page 6 Vierling/Lebens moved to authorize staff to purchase modular office systems from Suel Business Equipment Co. at a cost of $5,932.00 for the Police Dept. Poll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Vierling/Lebens moved to authorize staff to purchase one microfilm reader/ printer, one reader/printer stand and one used document shredder at a cost of $5,030 from House of Micrographics, Inc. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Cncl. Lebens said she is not questioning the need for additional picnic tables, but she does question the care given to the existing ones. She believes their should be brought into storage before Halloween because of the damage they sustain after the picnic season. Mayor Reinke suggested waiting until spring to purchase them so the City doesn't have to store them. Cncl. Wampach suggested if that wouldn't work, they could look into having the Vo-Tech build them for next year. Wampach/Vier_Ling moved to authorize the Public Works Dept. to purchase 27 assembled picnic tables from Flanagan Sales Co. for the quoted price of $3,510.00;, with delivery to be in the spring. Roll Call: Ayes; Wampach, Vierling, Reinke, Colligan Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Cncl. Leroux arrived and took his seat at 8:35 p.m. The City Clerk explained that the Public Works and Parks capital purchases on the agenda were $600 over budget. However, there is a good chance that amount may be absorbed from other department items at the end of the year. If not, the iimount requested for the capital equipment purchases would come from Contingency. Vierling/Wampach moved to purchase a Frink Model 4711 Polymar hydraulic reversible truck plow for the new Ford truck #103 from MacQueen Equip. Co. for the quoted price of $5978.00. Roll Call: Ayes; Leroux, Colligan, Reinke, Vierling, Wampach Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Colligan/Leroux moved to purchase a Monroe Model MS966-S roll sander from MacQueen Equip. Co. for the quoted price of $1440.00. Roll Call: Ayes; Wampach, Vierling, Reinke, Colligan, Leroux Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Wampach/Colligan moved to purchase a propane conversion for the new Ford truck from Propane Carb & Turbo for the quoted price of $650.00. Roll Call: Ayes; Reinke, Vierling, Colligan, Wampach, Leroux Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Shakopee CiZY Counci-L Nevember 6, 1985 Page 7 7 Vierling/Wampach moved to purchase a hydraulic reversible broom Model AH from Long Lake Ford Tractor Co. for the quoted price of $3693.00. Roll Call: Ayes; Leroux, Wampach, Colligan, Vierling, Reinke Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Leroux/Lebens moved to authorize re-bidding of tennis court repairs in January for construction in May or June. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner explained that one of the major issues in the development of the Prairie House Addition is the location of the frontage road to serve the development. Staff and Mn/DOT have recommended a frontage road be con- structed to tie into the signalized intersection which enters Valleyfair. The developer is also in favor of this location. However, acquisition negotiations have failed with Valleyfair to purchase the necessary pro- perty to tie into that intersection. Therefore, staff recommends eminent domain proceedings for condemnation. Walt Wittmer, of Valleyfair, gave some background on this proposal. He said this issue at this time has nothing to do with property values--their biggest concern is traffic flow and safety. He said this process has been moving quite quickly and they haven't had a lot of time to respond and haven't had time to meet with their corporate attorneys to explore the possible ramifications. He invited anyone to view the site to futher under- stand their position. Mr. Wittmer pointed out that within 125 feet traffic from the west has to cross 3 lanes of traffic to enter the development, under this proposal. He said the marquee would have to be moved under this proposal, which would be extremely difficult and cost over $80,000 to erect. There is also a grade difference and if it is moved back it couldn't be so easily seen. According to this design anyone wanting to get out of the development would have to cross 4-5 lanes of traffic just to get back on Hwy. 101. This pro- posed road could also let people into their parking lot without charge. He pointed out the Bradford property is not landlocked and Mn/DOT will accept direct access onto Hwy. 101. Mr. Wittmer pointed out that at this time there is only one small restaurant on the property, but they are concerned about what will happen with the rest of the 50 acres and how that will affect Valleyfair's traffic. He said if this issue goes to condemnation Valleyfair will be damaged far beyond the land cost. He doesn't think enough thought and consideration have been given all the ramifications of this proposal. Tom Togus, attorney on behalf of Bradford, stated they support the recom- mendations of staff. He pointed out they have addressed all the concerns of staff and do not want a delay at this time. Dick Kinzel, of Valleyfair, pointed out that 85% of the traffic from Valley- fair comes from the east and is in the park by 2:00 p.m. Then between 4:00 and 8:30 p.m. the traffic starts to leave. There is never much of a slow time. Therefore, there is a tremendous safety factor involved. He said the marquee is 3 years old and cost $82,000. That logo and design has a tremendoes advertising impact. He pointed out the revenue loss if cars are allowed into the parking lot without paying the fee. Shakopee Cit) Council November 6, 1.985 Page 8 Mr. Kinzel recommended Alternate Plan No. 2, the direct access to Hwy. 101, which was accepted by the State. He would at least recommend deferring the condemnation proceedings until all the Council can go out and look at the property to better familiarize themselves with the problems that will occur in years to come. Bill Brezinski, engineer for Bradford, stated these are just preliminary plans and the access road coming into the intersection would have to be re-designed. If the City doesn't acquire that land to make the connection, they will have the access directly off Hwy. 101. The Communitv Develop. Dir. explained the reason staff pursued this connec- tion is because of the past problems with frontage roads and uncontrolled intersections. She thinks if direct access to Hwy. 101 is put in now, it would be at a different grade level so it couldn't be readily converted to the intersection in the future. She pointed out that the initiation of the condemnation proceedings starts the 90 day process, during which time the frontage road location can still be negotiated, and condemnation stopped if it proves unnecessary. The City Attorney expressed doubts about the City being able to prove pub- lic benefit in this taking of land. The Comm. Develop. Dir. said the street would be public and the benefit would be to provide access via a controlled intersection. The City Engineer stated the entire intersection north of the frontage road would have to be restructured, which could have tremendous costs. The con- demnation process is to start the time moving to resolve the issue, while further studies can take place. He cautioned that all possible uses of the remainder of the property be looked at, so the frontage road is not outgrown quickly. The City Pla:zner said that three-fourths of the property is in the flood- plain, which could not be developed without great cost by building a dike or a lot of fill. It was pointed out that Valleyfair built a dike for its development. Discussion continued regarding the pros and cons of the two locations of the frontage road with access to the controlled intersection or direct aczess to Hwy. 101 and the various safety factors involved. Leroux/Vierling moved to turn back to the developer the issue of access with either an acceptable plan for the intersection or temporary direct access to Hwy. 101, with the emphasis on temporary: The plan should in- clude alterations to the intersection and cost estimates. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Leroux moved for a five minute recess at 9:32 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Vierling moved to re-convene at 9:46 p.m. Motion carried unani- mously. Vierling/Lebens moved to terminate the probationary status of employee Agnes Unze and place her on permanent status. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Shakopee City Council November 6, 1985 Page 9 /J Vierling/Lebens moved to authorize staff to extend the Code Enforcement position for an additional 80 hours at a cost of $425.00. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. The Community Develop. Dir. gave a presentation regarding a proposed sanitary sewer allocation policy, which need has become more apparent with the development pressures around the racetrack. She went over various possible components and considerations of a policy. The over- all sewer allocation was given to Shakopee by the Met Council somewhat arbitrarily, and Shakopee has been trying to limit development to those industrial developments that use less than 1,000 gad. Discussion followed. The City Planner informed Council of public hearings being held by Met Council on the system management numbers, the closest of which is at Hopkins November 18, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. , with another one at Coon Rapids November 20, 1985 and the final at Met Council December 5. Leroux/Wampach moved to direct staff and invite City Council to attend the public hearing at Hopkins November 18, 1985 to state the City's con- cerns regarding the allocations, and to direct staff to prepare some information for Council to study before that hearing. Motion carried unanimously. The Comm. Develop. Dir asked for clarification for proposals with flow above 1000 gad that come in the meantime. Leroux/Vierling moved to inform developers at the time of platting of the recommended gallons per day sewer allocation and if there is a pos- sibility of exceeding that limit, the developer should talk further with the Planner and possibly City Council; such policy to come back in reso- lution form. Motion carried unanimously. The Comm. Develop. Dir. explained that the Housing Alliance believes it needs site control before proceeding further towards an accelerated pro- gram of selling the bonds for its senior project. Site control is needed by November 15 in order to have the bonds issued by December 31. Cncl. Lebens said that because of the large distance between the appraisal price and the asking price of the owners, she doesn't think a compromise can be reached. She is against any land write-down program for housing projects. She also believes with all the recent development of apartments, the need isn't as great for housing. Therefore, she thinks the City's involvement should be ended. Larry Smith of the Housing Alliance, stated they have spent considerable time and resources in Shakopee over the last year evaluating the needs for senior housing. All the housing helps for seniors have disappeared and they are still trying to make housing affordable. He said this project is designed for the elderly with its many design criteria. He read a letter from the City one year ago in which a commitment was made to the project. He said if the City doesn't participate to provide the land at no cost, they will have to forget this project, or find a more remote location where land costs are not so high, but the amenities will not be available for the seniors. They feel they have complied with all the requirements and are anxious to proceed. November 6, 1985 Page 10 Cncl. Leroux expressed his desire for an opinion from the Attorney General regarding thE' paymentcf more than the appraisal amount for the land, be- cause of the fact that one owner of the land is a Councilmember. Mr. Smith stated there is plenty of precedent for the taking of land to make it available for development that is pre-determined by the City for a particular use. He finds it difficult to understand how the City Council and Planning Commission can identify a redevelopment area, identi- fy it for housing, establish the redevelopment district, commit tax incre- ment money for it and then when a developer comes in who demonstrates a need, pull it: away because the only way is if the money is 2-3 times the amount. He said they have no additional profit margin in this project. He added that: the possible developer for a riverfront project is watching these actions to see if the City will see a project through. Brad Johnson, with the Housing Alliance, went over various land values. He said if the City really wants development downtown, it has to proceed or developer: will walk out. He thinks the land value is inflated and any downtown project will run into the same thing. Cncl. Wampach said he hasn't gone up on his property since 18 months ago. He said the --and was appraised in 1979 and he doesn't think he is that far out of 1=:ne. Mr. Smith suggested that the land value be negotiated independently of the issue of housing revenue bonds and tax increment funds. The City Attorney said he doesn't think the City has any right to condemn land for a private purpose, no matter how noble the intended use is. Rod Krass, Ass't City Attorney, disagreed and stated he believes there is legal support for a City condemning land and putting together a land package for the purpose of sale to someone who will contract to redevelop it. He thinks if the project meets certain criteria, there would be authority for that acquisiton. The Ass't Ci-:y Attorney also said he is aware of no restriction to the City paying more than the appraised value for property, and some people think you have to pay more than that to enter a negotiation. Cities can and do routinely pay more than the appraisal, which is a starting point for negotiations. Cncl. Wampach stated that Peter Patchin is in the process of re-evaluating his appraisal from 1979. He also had two appraisals done by Wiley in 1980. The problem compounding the issue now is the possible loss of the use of housing revenue bonds after 1985, and this is the cause for the need for speed now. Continued discussion ensued regarding this possibility and the ramifications. Leroux/Vierling moved to support the acquisition of property under eminent domain proceedings, using either the pending_ Peter Patchin appraisal or $250,000, whichever is less; and to make the property available to Housing Alliance for its project as previously stated under- tax increment financing. November 6, 1985 Page 11 Leroux/Vierling moved to amend the motion to add the stipulation that the land will be made available to Housing Alliance at no cost, the cost of the land to be paid for through tax increment financing. Mayor Reinke pointed out the City would not buy the property if the bonds are not sold. Leroux/Vierling moved to amend the motion again to add that the City will not purchase the land if the project is proven unfeasible. Motion to amend the amendment carried with Cncl. Wampach abstaining and Cncl. Lebens opposed. Motion on amendment as amended carried with Cncl. Wampach abstaining and Cncl. Lebens opposed. Main motion as amended Roll Call: Ayes; Colligan, Vierling, Leroux, Reinke Noes; Lebens Abstain: Wampach Motion carried. Leroux/Lebens moved that the bills in the amount of $153,445.72 be allowed and ordered paid. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Vierling/Lebens moved to submit the name of Dr. Thomas E. Luth to Scott County as a candidate to assist the County Health Officer in meeting the County's public health needs. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Vierling/Lebens moved to reconsider the motion of October 15, 1985 releas- ing Lot 3, Block 1, Dellas lst Addition from the Developer's Agreement. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Vierling/Lebens moved to amend the motion to authorize the release of Lot 3, Block 1, Dellas lst Addition from the Developer's Agreement, upon execution of a public declaration that when a Building Permit is taken out, it will be determined by the City Engineer whether or not a retaining wall is necessary. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Roll Call on Main Motion as Amended: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Lebens moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute a contractual agreement between Teamsters Local 320 and the City of Shakopee to establish the wage rates for the Police Dept. for 1985. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Lebens offered Resolution No. 2453, A Resolution Establishing Solid Waste Mangement Policy Direction for the City of Shakopee and Supporting Scott County's Efforts in Developing a Scott County Solid Waste Master Plan that is in Accordance with the Metropolitan Council's Solid Waste Manage- ment Development Guide/Policy Plan, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. November 6,1985 Page 12 There was some discussion regarding the variance procedure outlined in the proposed Ordinance No. 184, establishing a moratorium on develop- ment on certe.in land during the preparation of the racetrack district land use stuc.y. Cncl. Leroux stated he thinks a moratorium at this time is totally un- necessary. Ile was thinking of protecting the properties to the north and east of the racetrack, which are not covered by this proposed mora- torium area. This ordinance addresses a 3 month period in the winter, and he really doesn't believe there is any development to stop. The Ass' t City Attorney clarified that the moratorium addresses the issues of re-zoning, platting and building permits. He said if someone comes in with a proposed rezoning or new plat that looks like it will interfere with the results of the land use study, the moratorium can be quickly passed. The only real risk would be a request for a building permit for correctly zoned property. The concern voiced was for indus- trial use right next to the racetrack. This might be a very small risk considering the development pressures and the landowners in the area dur- ing this study time. Lebens/Wampac:h offered Ordinance No. 184, Fourth Series, An Interim Ordi- nance Imposing a Moratorium on the Development of Certain Land in the City of Shakopee During the Preparation of the Racetrack District Land Use Study, and moved its adoption. Bruce Malkerson, of Scottland, stated his belief that the way the ordi- nance is written, it excludes the area they plan to plat and all of Canter- bury Downs. The Ass't City Attorney disagreed, and said the intent was to include Canterbury Downs. Mr. Malkerson said they plan to expand the grandstand and stable area within the next 30 days. He disagrees with any need for a moratorium, and he doesn't think Canterbury Downs should be included. The Ass't City Attorney suggested adding the word "expansion" to Section 2 to clarify this, to allow the grandstand and stable work. Brooks Hause:r, of Scottland, asked the Council to consider not passing a moratorium, or if it is passed to consider it on land proposed for rezoning only. He went over some of the background of the racetrack. He said they plan to develop a hotel now. He thinks the last moratorium hurt Shakopee. He thinks a moratorium is unnecessary, as no industrial company will want to put up an industrial or warehouse facility next to the racetrack because of too many problems with ingress and egress. He also doesn't think any of the present property owners will sell their property for industrial use. Mr. Malkerson stated they have submitted a concept plan for a hotel pre- viously, and will be asking for preliminary and final plat approval before Planning Commission tomorrow night. They want to draw a building permit immediately, proceed with foundation work and build through the winter. Peter Beck, attorney with Koskovich, stated that if the moratorium is applied, it should be for everyone. The purpose of the study is to determine all the zoning in the area. To pre-decide the zoning in some cases is not equitable. He has no problem with the expansion of the grandstand and stables, but the purpose of t'ze study is to treat all new developments equally. Mr. Malkersoz stated if there is no moratorium, everyone is treated the same. Shakopee City Council November 6, 1985 Page 13 Lebens/Wampach moved to amend Ordinance No. 184 to include the following changes: Add to the end of the last sentence in Section 1, "excluding Canterbury Downs." Change Section 2 to read: "EXISTING BUILDINGS EXCLUDED. That nec- essary building permits for repairs, alterations and expansion to existing buildings in all zoning districts shall be excluded from the provisions of this moratorium." Roll Call on amendment: Ayes; Reinke, Wampach, Lebens Noes; Leroux, Vierling Abstain: Colligan Motion carried. Roll Call on Ordinance No. 184 as amended: Ayes; Lebens, Wampach, Reinke Noes; Leroux, Vierling Abstain: Colligan Motion failed. The Ass't City Attorney, pointed out that the Ordinance failed because it has to have an absolute majority to pass. Leroux/Vierling moved to reconsider Ordinance No. 184. Motion carried with Cncl. Colligan abstaining. Leroux/Vierling moved to table Ordinance No. 184 to the next meeting. Motion carried with Cncl. Colligan abstaining. Vierling/Lebens offered Resolution No. 2466, A Resolution Amending the City's Policy for City Vehicles, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Lebens/Leroux offered Resolution No. 2462, A Resolution Supporting the Recommendations of the Scott County Government Options Study Commission, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Lebens offered Resolution No. 2463, A Resolution Supporting Scott-Carver Economic Council's "Give Where You Live" Campaign, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Wampach/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2465, A Resolution Inviting Citizens to Light Porchlights, Candles or other Lights from Dusk to Dawn on Nov. 19 and 20, 1985, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2464 a Resolution Canvassing Returns for the Municipal Election, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unani- mously. Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize proper City officials to enter into an agreement with the developers of Hauer's 3rd Addition providing for the Saakopee ;,IzY November 6, 1985 Page 14 City's payment of the oversized sewer lines along Limestone Drive in the approximate amount of $27,644.80. Roll Call: Ayes; Colligan, Leroux, Lebens, Vierling, Reinke Noes; None Absent: Wampach Motion carried. Lebens/Leroux: moved to adjourn to November 19, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:38 p.m. Judith S. Cox City Clerk Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Special Session Shakopee, Minnesota November 15, 1985 Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. with Cncl. Vierling, Colligan and Leroux present. Cncl. Wampach and Lebens were absent. Also present were John K. Anderson, City Administrator and Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director. Leroux/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2477, A Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing on a Proposed Multi-Family Rental Program and the Issuance by the City of its Multi-Family Housing Revenue Bonds in an Aggregate Amount of up to $3,125,000, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved that the October 11, 1985, letter to Metropolitan Council Chair Sandra Gardebring from Mayor Reinke on population estimates for Shakopee be redirected to the November 18, 1985, Metropolitan Council meeting on the draft Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework. Motion carried unan- imously. Vierling/Leroux moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 6:14 p.m. Judith S. Cox City Clerk Jeanne Andre Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. SPECIAL SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 19, 1985 Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. with Cncl. Wampach, Colligan, Leroux, Vierling and Lebens present. 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; Julius A. Coller, II, City Attorney and Rod Krass, Ass't City Attorney. Colligan/Vierling moved to recess for an HRA meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to re-convene at 8:52 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Liaison reports were given by Councilmembers. Cncl. Lebens reported a concern of Larry Paul regarding an alley between 3rd & 4th, which is experiencing some problems because of the run-off from the county. Cncl. Wampach asked the City Admr. to inform tthe SPUC Manager what has to be done to move the utility poles to the water tower at CR83. 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. Leroux/Colligan moved to accept, with regrets, the resignation of Paul Wermerskirchen as Chairman and member of the Industrial/Commercial Com- mission, and to direct a resolution of appreciation be presented to Paul. Motion carried unanimously. The City Admr. informed the Council of an invitation for the Grand Opening of the Minnesota Valley Trail on November 26, 1985 at 2:00 p.m. at the Community Services Bldg. in Shakopee. Wampach/Vierling moved to direct staff to investigate and report back the clean-up needed and responsibility to be assigned along the trail route. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner said there has been a lot of interest in last 6-8 months in Recreational Vehicle (RV) parks and developments, and in reponse to that and at the recommendation of the Ass't City Attorney, a proposed RV ordi- nance was drafted. She went over some of the specifics of the ordinance in more detail. Cncl. Leroux suggested a clearer statement that the roadways are not to be considered part of the required open space. He also questioned the screening requirements. The City Planner responded the normal front yard screening would apply, and additional screening can be considered at the time of the hearing for the conditional use permit. -,nai: .1,......1 November 19, 1985 Page 2 Vierling/Leroux moved to direct staff to prepare an ordinance to amend the Zoning Chapter to include a Recreational Vehicle Ordinance as presented by staff with the addition of language prohibiting the use of roadways for the consideration of the minimum 8% open space, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner went over the issues and background of the Hwy. 101 access for the Prairie House 1st Addition plat. She said Planning Commission ap- proved Alternative No. 2, the direct access to Hwy. 101, and left open the option of continuing the frontage road to tie in with the signalized inter- section at Valleyfair, Alternative No. 1. The City Admr. explained that the point of his memo was to keep open the option of going with the access road either directly to Hwy. 101 or con- necting with the signalized entrance to Valleyfair. In this way the City can get involved in the cost estimates while the developer is still able to move ahead. The real question is whether the costs involved with Alterna- tive No. 1 are too great to make it viable. He further pointed out the traffic problems that would ensue because the direct access to Hwy. 101 does not cross over to the opposite lane, which encourages traffic to make U-turns at inappropriate places, creating dangerous traffic hazards. He wants to take the extra time to look at this problem now. Mayor Reinke discussed the changes that will occur at CR89 with the new CR18 crossing. Further discussion followed. Walt Wittmer, of Valleyfair, said that at the last meeting a motion was made to go for Alternative No. 2. He said all his concerns listed at the last meeting are still valid. He thinks it is a private matter between two private developers and he doesn't think the City should be involved in it. He remembered the City Attorney commented he wasn't even sure a condemna- tion would be legal. He said they have $300,000 tied up in that intersec- tion for the sole purpose of getting traffic in and out of Valleyfair very smoothly. It is a very serious matter to change it all. It will cost a lot of money to find any alternative. He thinks the developer should go ahead and if a large problem develops, the developer will have to solve it. He said they paid for that intersection, not the City, and this developer should do the same. The City Admr. replied that the City invested $106,000 in the traffic lights and the State invested the control lanes at the intersection. He would like to further investigate engineering information and cost estimates. If there is a large problem later from this development, the City and State will probably invest more to correct it. After the developer has access to the highway, he can't be assessed again. The Community Develop. Dir. fur- ther explained that with Alternative No. 2 the developer has to build acceleration and deacceleration lanes at a considerable cost, and if there is a large traffic problem he can't be assessed for another access. The City Admr. suggested giving the developer a temporary access at either location while this is being explored. This would go along with a tempo- rary agreement in lieu of the Developer's Agreement. Mayor Reinke objected to the issuance of a building permit without acess to a public street. Discussion continued. JlIc11LV t/C.L .i vv u. ...J.� November 19,1985 Page 3 7 Curt Bradford, developer, said he is concerned with the amount of damages being claimed by Valleyfair and who pays for them. He said Mn/DOT has indicated they can have temporary access for construction where the access is shown to be or at the existing field roads. He just wants access. Two and a half months ago he had this access to Hwy. 101. He fears a move to table this which would keep him from construction. At this point they still have time to get some work done this winter. He said they have done every- thing they can to comply with the City and work with Valleyfair. He thinks the City Admr's alternative is reasonable. He said access at either Alter- native is fine with him. However, if he is told he has to access through Valleyfair and it will cost $200,000, it will have to be explored further. He admits it is a complicated question at that intersection which can't be decided quickly. He can't wait even a month to begin. It is fine with him to have temporary access while discussion and negotiation takes place to work something out. The City Admr. pointed out that for Alternative No. 1 to work, there has to be a majority of Councilmembers willing to proceed towards condemnation, to make the connection to ,the intersection. Cncl. Lebens doesn't feel the City needs that connection and the developer should .pay whatever necessary for damages to Valleyfair if it goes that way. Considerable discussion ensued. Mr. Bradford said that two months ago he had access to Hwy. 101 and no one thought of using the Valleyfair entrance. It was 3-4 weeks later that City staff suggested connecting to the Valleyfair entrance. He then spent $5,000 on engineering drawings trying to work this out, up to and including giving Valleyfair land for $1. He has spent all the money and all the time he can to get that worked out. Now he is just asking for Alternative No. 2. The Ass't City Attorney said if the City tells the developer to get access through Valleyfair, it has to be committed to doing the condemnation if necessary to complete the access. Leroux/Vierling moved for preliminary plat approval of Prairie House lst Addition, based on access as stated in Alternative No. 1, through the Valleyfair entrance, subject to the recommended conditions as follows: 1 . Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney. i2. Plat name be changed to Prairie House 1st Addition. ( 3 . The City Engineer must receive and approve final plans and specifications for all public facilities including, but not limited to, roads , sanitary sewer system, storm sewer and grading. 4. The developer shall provide a recordable agreement which guarantees the looping of the water system when Outlot A is replatted. 5 . The frontage road shall be constructed to serve all properties in a manner mutually agreeable to the City and MnDOT. 16 . The developer shall provide a Recordable Agreement which describes the shared maintenance, by the lot owners , of the private lift station. 17 . The developer shall provide a 70 foot recordable ease- ment which allows for the continuation of the Minnesota River Valley Trail- through the property. November 19, :_985 Page 4 8 . The developer shall obtain the necessary permits from the MnDOT. 9 . Execution of a Developer ' s Agreement for the construction of the required improvements : a. t%ater - installation of a water system in accordance wit the requirements of the SPUC Manager. b. Sanitary Sewer and Storm Water System - to be in- stalied 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 urt er development . d. Park Dedication - in lieu of land dedication, cash payment should be made to the park fund at the time building permits are issued. e. Streets - and signs to be constructed in accordance wit t e requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee . Cncl. Leroux added his intent is that staff would work to gather engineering and cost data for Alternative No. 1. The assessment for access would have to be covered in the Developer's Agreement before Final Platting, relating who pays for what. Colligan/Vierling moved to amend the motion to add that cost assignments would be made in the Developer's Agreement before Final Plat approval. The City Admr. suggested thinking of this like a trunk facility, with the City paying the oversizing costs. Motion to amend carried with Cncl. Lebens and Wampach opposed. Roll Call: Ayes; Colligan, Reinke, Leroux, Vierling Noes; Wampach, Lebens Motion carried. The Community Develop. Dir. went over the background of the sewer allocation issue as it relates to Canterbury Park 2nd Addition. She listed several alternatives for dealing with the sewer allocation issue. Leroux/Vierling moved to advise Metropolitan Council that the City is allow- ing development that will generate a certain amount of gallons per day in the expanded sewer area. Bruce Malkerson, of Scottland, made a presentation regarding the background and zoning in the area of Canterbury Park 2nd Addition. He showed a con- cept plan of the hotel and other possible development in the area, went over the layout of the interior and addressed the issues of a lift station, sewer service, drainage and traffic. He went into more detail regarding why they believe they have plenty of sewer allocation based on the sewer limitation of the area and the actual use over a year. He calculates that using the most conservative estimate, there is still 52,000 gallons per day remaining unallocated. 511a&opet �Izi �,ouncii November 19, 1985 Page 5 7 Ron Krank of Korsunsky, Krank & Erickson, architects, gave some background on his firm. He said their purpose in designing the hotel is to make it look like and be a part of the entire racetrack area itself, and they have paid attention to the detail and image of the racetrack. They are empha- sizing quality design and service. Bill Yaeger, President of Kraus-Anderson, touched on the background of his company and listed some of the hotels in the area they have constructed. Bill Engelhardt, of Chaska, engineer for the project, spoke in more detail regarding the drainage system, traffic patterns and road system. He said the County will give them a access permit onto CR16 if it is approved by the City. He said the hotel, with the restaurant would produce about 1500 to 1800 gpd, but that would be averaged with the entire parcel to bring that number down. Cncl. Colligan said Scottland opposed the Baron Development and others be- cause of the sewer allocation, and asked how they reconcile that for this development. He said people are getting the impression that Scottland is running the City. Mr. Malkerson responded that they are also hearing that impression and they are concerned. He believes Scottland is doing things because they are will- ing to put themselves at risk. They are doing things because they are de- veloping according to the Comp Plan and the zoning ordinances and following staff's directions. He said they didn't, according to the ordinace, have to plat this property, but when staff requested it, they complied. They are putting a lot of money. on the line and taking risks to develop. Mr. Malkerson added that the Baron Development necessitated a re-zoning. They only questioned what was the sewer impact because of that development and what is being done about it in terms of policy. They just raised the question, and now it has been studied by staff, alternatives looked at and City Council has adopted a policy on it. Cncl. Leroux said his intention is to let this development pay its taxes and not put that money into tax increment. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner recommended that approval of this plat would constitute approval of the traffic study. She suggested an alignment of the street on future development across the street. More specific discussion followed regarding the lift station and its capacity and specifications. Leroux/Wampach moved to grant Preliminary Approval of Canterbury Park 2nd Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Name of the plat be changed to Canterbury Park 2nd Addition. 2. Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney. 3. Future development of Scottland, Inc. property located on the east side of CR83 will attempt to align with the existing street in Canterbury Park 2nd Addition. 4. Approved highway entrance and utility construction permits to be issued by the County Engineer. 5. Dedication of twenty foot drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the outlots. Outlot B shall be increased to 60 foot width. November 19, 1985 Page 6 6. The developer shall be responsible for the operation and mainte- nance of the lift station. In the future, when the outlots are rep=_atted, the City will consider taking over the lift station maintenance. 7. Execution of a recordable agreement which permits storm water run--off from the racetrack site to flow south, across the plat, into the drainage outlet. 8. All buildings shall be constructed at two feet above the flood level. 9. Execution of a Developer's Agreement for the construction of the required improvements: A. Tram/Pedestrian Walkways - construction of a walkway on each lot which connects the lot with adjacent lots and/or Canter- bury Downs. B. Water System and Electric - to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the SPUC Manager. C. Sanitary Sewer and Storm Water System - to be installed in accordance with the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. D. Outlots - no building permits shall be issued for Outlots A, B and C until they are replatted. E. Assessments - the developer shall agree to the City Engineer's method of apportioning the installments remaining unpaid against the plat and that the developer waives his right to appeal the apportionment. F. Park Dedication - in lieu of land, cash payment to be paid at time of building permit issuance. 11. Should the lift station remain private, execution of a recordable agreement, binding to each lot, that states that the owners are responsible for operation and maintenance of the lift station. 12. The City Engineer must receive and approve final plans and speci- fications for all public facilities including, but not limited to, roads, sanitary sewer system, storm sewer and grading. Motion carried with Cncl. Colligan abstaining. Vierling/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2474, A Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Canterbury Park 2nd Addition, and moved its adoption. Leroux/Vierling moved to amend Resolution No. 2474 to change the language of Condition No. 3 and No. 6 to that listed above in the Preliminary Plat approval motion, rather than that printed in the staff memo dated November 15, 1985. Motion to amend carried with Cncl. Colligan abstaining. Resolution No. 2474 as amended: Ayes; Lebens, Leroux, Vierling, Reinke, Wampach Noes; None Abstain: Colligan Motion carried. Dave MacGillivray, of Springsted, went over the background for the issuance of bonds for the Eaglewood street reconstruction project, which was 20% assessed, spread over 10 years, and will be a negotiated sale. November 19, 1985 Page 7 Leroux/Lebens offered Resolution No. 2472, A Resolution Providing for the Issuance and Sale of $255,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1986A, and moved its adoption, as amended with the correction of the City and State in the first "Be It Resolved. . .". Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. The Fire Chief was present for a discussion regarding the rescue truck bids and the increase over what was budgeted. Discussion followed regarding how the over budget amount could be handled. Leroux/Lebens moved to purchase a rescue truck for the Fire Dept. by award- ing the bid to Custom Fire Apparatus, Inc, in the total amount of $156,279.00, with chassis amount of $76,284.00 to be paid upon deliver of chassis to Custom Fire, Inc. and the balance upon delivery of completed rescue unit to Shakopee, MN. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to award the bid to Motorola, Inc. in the amount of $3,700.00 for one eight frequency mobile radio and accessories, for the Fire Dept. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2476, A Resolution Establishing a Sanitary Sewer Allocation Policy, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Wampach moved to approve the quotation of Fagen-Edman, Inc., for general construction work for the remodeling of the Police Dept. clerical area in the amount of $7,409.00. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Wampach moved to authorize Final Payment Estimate No. 5 to S. M. Hentges & Sons in the amount of $796.28 for 5th Avenue Sanitary Sewer, Project No. 1984-6. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Vierling/Wampach moved that the bills in the amount of $1,149,689.16 be allowed and ordered paid. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Cncl. Colligan stated his dissatisfaction with the project time line for the Racetrack area land use study, as he feels it should be done quicker. The City Planner explained the coordination and meetings with other commit- tees that has to be done. Leroux/Wampach moved to accept staff's interpretation of Council motions to proceed with Racetrack District Land Use Study and submitted progress report, and direct staff to expedite the study as much as possible. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Wampach moved to terminate the probationary status of employee Glen Heyda, and place him on permanent status effective November 8, 1985. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. na..cpe� .,_ L� -6U-. __L November 19, 1985 Page 8 Vierling/Leroux offered Resolution No. 2478, A Resolution Vacating Part of an Easement, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to direct the appropriate City official to pay a voluntary assessment for the special League of Minnesota Cities/NAHRO tax increment financing study and lobbying effort in the amount of $1,037.48. Roll Call: Ayes; Vierling, Wampach, Colligan, Reinke; Leroux Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to purchase 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/Wampach moved to authorize appropriate City officials to buy back 45 hours of e<<rned but unused holiday time from Sgt. Kenneth Hanel and 56 hours of earned but unused holiday time from Officer David Nelson. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2473, A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 2426 Approving the Final Plat of Hauer's Third Addition, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Wampach moved to authorize proper City officials to execute a quit claim deed releasing an easement, Document No. 155476, from Koskovich to the City of Shakopee. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Wampach. moved to accept a "Letter of Understanding" and a Letter of Credit from Shakopee 84 Partnership for improvements remaining to be con- structed in Century Plaza Square 2nd Addition instead of a Letter of Credit from the developer. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Wampach moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute farm leases for City property with Gene Hauer, Larry Theis and John Weidt. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Wampach moved to enter intoan agreement with S. M. Hentges & Sons (Tri-S) for contractual assistance under emergency conditions, as directed by City officials. Roll Call: .Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2471, A Resolution Appointing Judges of Election, and Establishing Compensation, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: .Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Wampach offered Resolution No. 24685 A Resolution Establishing a Pay and Benefit Agreement for Police Sergeants for 1985. Roll Call: ,Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. l City Council Shakopee SS Public November 19' 19 olution Calling nnesota Ya 9 2475' A Res gelating to M t of the olut NO• an dmen offered Res iRedevelopment p No. 1; The poet, NO. 2 of the t project Di No• 6 and LerouxlColligan Poe-ad edevelopn'en e-at Financing Hearing on the oo�ing ala ans for Tax ens Financing District nd moved its adoption Valley Rive In r n`ent Fina abl skiing Tax Iing Plan Therefor' Through N the Ta s Incre-ment usly Financ team to negotiate a draft Mot ori g ed unanimO negotiating carr' reed to serve °n Hous g Alliance• in Steel ling agreed with the regarding the Viking Cncl. Vier ent agreem t the suit reg clear- redevelOPm orrg reported n g tiated an the road is Meeting he City p,tt completely tion carried unanimously. T d has been Mo .Road ed to adj°urn• , ierling20 Moved. adJ°ugrned at 12. a.m. V Judith S. Cox City Clerk Diane S• $euch Secretary Recording `t i 1 I A�77' VI Slal,�,�, !fur. s�jT9 yes-�a�3 6;ul CITE' OF SHAKOPEE INCORPORATED 1870 rZ 129 EAST FIRST AVENUE, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 November 21 , 1985 'f � Ms. Barbara Hauger 3827 Eaglewood Drive Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: Eaglewood Addition Street Improvements Dear Ms. Hauger: I received your letter expressing concern and dissatisfaction with the incomplete status of the City' s Eaglewood Addition street improvements as winter approaches. Upon receipt of your letter I discussed the status of the project with the City Inspector on the job to review precisely why the City elected not to install the pavement this fall. Ray Ruuska, the inspector on the job, said that he and the contractor checked the site almost daily after the surface was ready for paving, but it was the judgement of both he and the contractor that the total project always had certain areas that had not sufficiently dried out and henced made surfacing inadvisable. The City planned to pave this fall but we simply did not have weather in September and October like we have had the past few years and so the final paving will have to wait until spring. The inspector stated that the new base even without the final pavement will provide a much better road next spring than you have been forced to deal with the previous two springs. Your concern about paying your first street assessment prior to the completion of the project next May was discussed at the public hearing. As I stated when responding to the question at the meeting, the May 15th assessment payment will be for 1/20th of the total project cost with the completion of the surfacing of the project finalized long before the second payment will be due on October 15 , 1986. While this is not an ideal condition, it is a less expensive alternative both for the City and residents than having deferred the first assessment for a full 12 months. The Heart of Progress Valley Ms. Barbara Hauger Page Two November 21 , 1985 Since your letter was addressed to the Mayor it will be placed on the City Council agenda for the December 3rd Council meeting which will begin at 7 : 00 p.m. Please give me a call if you would like to attend. Sincerely, John K. Anderson City Administrator JKA/jms cc: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer Ray Ruuska, Inspector 7b Shakopee 84 Partnership Rt. 1 Rol. 167 Delanc, nen; n w _ �,ovem ber r City of Shakopee �=~ 129 E. First Ave. Shakopee, MN 55379-1376 Attn: John Anderson Dear John: At our shopping center on Cty . Rd. 16 and Marschall Rd. I've received some complaints from the tenants and cus- tomers with regards to the lighting along the driveway and sidewalk._ There is only one streetlight at the intersection of Cty. Rd. 16 and Marschall Rd. and we feel there should be some additional ones along our property going to the north of this intersection. bre are receiving alot of people traffic along the sidewalk on Marschall Rd. along with people traffic on Cty Rd. 16 (Gorhan) to the west of our center. Would you please contact the necessary departments with- in the city for installation of some streetlights? I'd be happy to discuss this with you in detail if you 'd like to get together or call me by phone at my office (890-4444) . Very tr y s, y C. anisch Shako 84 Partnership /gb i November 6 , 11085 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION EXECUTIVE OFFICES. The Honorable Eldon Reinke SUITETE 880^BMICHIGAN AVENUE CKCAS00 v Mayor ..: � �' 312 977 9700NOIS 60601-7476 City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Mayor Reinke: We are pleased to notify you that your comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1984 qualifies for a Certi- ficate of Conformance in Financial Reporting . The Certificate of Conform- ance is the highest form of recognition in governmental accounting and financial reporting , and its attainment represents a significant accomp- lishment by a government and its management . When a Certificate of Conformance is awarded to a government an Award of Financial Reporting Achievement is also presented to the individual des- ignated by the government as primarily responsible for its having earned the certificate. Enclosed is an Award of Financial Reporting Achievement for: Gregg Voxland Finance Director The Certificate of Conformance plaque will be shipped under separate cover in about six weeks . We hope that you will arrange for a formal presenta- tion of the Certificate and Award of Financial Reporting Achievement, and that appropriate publicity will be given to this notable achievement . A sample news release is enclosed. We suggest that you provide copies of it to the local newspapers and radio and television stations . We hope that your example will encourage other government officials in their efforts to achieve and maintain an appropriate standard of excel- lence in financial reporting . If you have any questions regarding this matter, or if we may be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us . Sincerely, GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION David R. Bean Assistant Director/Governmental Accounting Programs DRB/pp Enclosures FORMET?LY THE MUNICIPAL FINANCE OFFICERS A SSOCb4TION GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION IE EWS RELEASE F-XECLIT80NORTH MFFCHEGANAVENUE SUtiE 800 CH.CAGO,ILLINOIS 60601-7476 312.977.9700 E: Certificate of Conformance in Financial Reporting he Certificate of Conformance in Financial Reporting has been awarded to: City of Shakopee y the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and anada (GFOA) for its comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) for the iscal year ended December 31, 1984. The Certificate of Conformance is he highest form of recognition in the area of governmental accounting and inancial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomp- ishment by a government and its management. y, being awarded a Certificate of Conformance, the CAFR of a government as been judged to substantially conform to the programs high standards of xcellence. Such standards encompass both generally accepted accounting rinciples and applicable legal requirements. o earn a Certificate of Conformance a government must demonstrate a con- tructive "spirit of full disclosure" effort to clearly communicate its inancial story, enhance understanding of the logic underlying the tradi- ional governmental financial reporting model, and motivate persons and roups in society to read and use the CAFR. ligible CAFRs are evaluated by an impartial Special Review Committee omposed of government finance officers, independent certified public ccountant, educators and others with particular expertise in governmental ccounting and financial reporting. hen a Certificate of Conformance is awarded to a government, an Award of inancial Reporting Achievement is also presented to the individual des- gnated by the government as primarily responsible for its having earned he certificate. An Award of Financial Reporting Achievement has been warded to: Gregg Voxland Finance Director OTE: Further information concerning the Certificate of Conformance in Financial Reporting Program is available upon request . FOWMY TW MUNICIPAL RNM1a OFPRs ASSOMDON PRESENTATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE PROGRAM AWARDS As an element of the ongoing objective for the improvement of the Certificate of Conformance in Financial Reporting Program, your Government Finance Officers Association state representative or his/her designee can be available to present the Certificate of Conformance and the Award of Financial Reporting Achievement at a local function. This allows the recipients to be formally recog- nized for these outstanding accomplishments. If you would like to receive your award through this form of presentation, please contact your state representative. Your representatives mailing address and phone number is listed below: Dallas L. Petersen Manager of Finance City of Minneapolis 301M City Hall Minneapolis, MN 55415 612/348-2026 The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada presents this AWARD OF FINANCIAL REPORTING ACHIEVEMENT to: GREGG VOXLAND FINANCE DIRECTOR CITY OF SHAKOPEE MINNESOTA The Award of Financial Reporting Achievement is presented by the Government Finence Officers Association to those individuals who have been instrumental in their govcnimewal unit achieving a Certificate of Conformance in Financial Rcporting. A Certificate of Conformance is presented to those governmental units whose annual financial reports are judged to substantially conform to program standards. r" Executive Director /e62u Date NOVEMBER G, 1985 Certificates, continued Hem�erson G-esham Las Vegas J2cKson County Mount Clemens Las Vegas Valley Water District Marion County School District 24J C� Mt. Pieasant North Las Vegas Medtcrd Muskegon County Reno Portland Ottawa County Sparks School District No. 1, Multnomah Port Huron Washoe County County Traverse City Springfield Wyoming NEW MEXICO Tigard Albuquerque V,'ashinbton County School District MINNESOTA No. 40 Albert Lea N---W YORK Anoka Hamburg PENNSYLVANIA Austin New York City Aliegheny County and Allegheny County Blaine Suffolk County Institution District Bloomington White Plains Allentown Brooklyn Center Chester County Brooklyn Park NORTH CAROLINA Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Public Champlin Asheville School Employee Retirement Coon Rapids Buncombe County Delaware County Duluth Catawba County Mount Lebanon Eagan Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Northampton County Fridley Durham Philadelphia Goodview Durham County Upper St. Clair Hennepin County Greensboro Maplewood Guilford County RHODE ISLAND Metropolitan Council of Twin Cities Area High Pointe Cranston Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Mecklenburg County Minneapolis New Hanover County SOUTH CAROLINA Minnesota Employee Retirement Fund Orange County Clemson Minnesota Public Employee Retirement Raleigh Georgetown Association Sanford North Augusta Minnetonka -- Transylvania County Orangeburg School District Moorhead Wilmington Richland County Plymouth Winston-Salem Sumter County Ramsey Ramsey County NORTH DAKOTA SOUTH DAKOTA Robbinsdale Minot Brookings Rochester Rapid City . . Roseville OHIO Sioux Falls Saint Paul Aurora Watertown St. Cloud _ Brunswick Yankton Winona Cincinnati Columbus TENNESSEE MISSISSIPPI Cuyahoga County Brentwood Jackson Dayton Gallatin Euclid Germantown MISSOURI Findlay Hamilton County Berkeley Franklin County Hendersonville Blue Springs Kettering Memphis Boone County - Lakewood Metropolitan Government of Nashville Bridgeton Public Employee Retirement System & Davidson County Columbia of Ohio Oak Ridge Columbia Public School District Toledo Paris Crestwood Westerville State of Tennessee Eldon Westlake Gladstone Wooster TEXAS Kansas City Xenia Addison Kirkwood :.:__._ Alice _ Lee's Summit OKLAHOMA Alvin Mid-America Regional Council : Muscogee Creek Nation Amarillo Missouri Local Government Employee ; , Oklahoma City Andrews Retirement System Stillwater Arlington Springfield Tulsa Arlington Independent School District St. Louis County Austin OREGON Bell County NEBRASKA _._,. .;- "" Administrative School District No. 1 Bexar County; Lincoln Deschutes County Bowie County_ Astoria Brownsville NEVADA - - Beaverton Capital Area Planning Council _ Clark County Eugene Carrollton Farmers Branch Colorado River Commission Grants Pass Independent School 28 • GOVERNMENTAL FINANCE • DECEMBER 1984 William H. Schreiber h1InnesQtca District 48B � of '3d Hennepin County House Committees: Representatives Taxes, Chairman Y »�} Budgeter: David M.Jennings,Speaker Local and Urban Affairs {'' _i II11 . y rti GO bT � November 15 , 1985 Eldon Reinke , Mayor 129 E . 1st Ave . Shakopee , MN 55379 Dear Eldon : I would like to thank you on behalf of the House Tax Committee for taking the time to appear before us on October 31 , 1985 and giving your views as they apply to the Fiscal Disparity issue. Several com- mittee members favorably commented on the thoughtful presentations . As you well know, this is an issue that certainly needs to be reexamined . It is encouraging to find that groups outside the legisla- ture have put much time and energy into doing research . Our subcom- mittee will take a look at all the suggestions . Hopefully , with your continued cooperation , we will be able to address this issue in a efficient manner . Once again , thank you for taking time to come and testify. Sincerely, -W'�' t�;Az� William H . Schreiber State Legislator Reply to: ❑543 State Office Building,St.Paul, Minnesota 55155 Office: (612)296-4128 Q 10001 Zane Avenue North, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55443 Home: (612)425-4317 lert action I league of minnesota cities A801ei vF� November 26 , 1985 0 TO: MAYORS, MANAGERS, CLERKS CITY 1985 FROM: Ann Higgins , Staff Associate ; , SUBJECT: TAX REFORM THREAT TO TAX-EXEMPT STATUS OF MUNICIPAL BONDS AUTHORITY TO ISSUE TAX-EXEMPT BONDS UNDER IMMEDIATE THREAT Chances are growing that Congress may impose severe restrictions on traditional uses of municipal bonds. Action by the House Ways and Means Committee this past weekend signals that House action can be anticipated soon. Please contact members of the Minnesota Congressional Delegation ( list attached ) immediately . Indicate your opposition to the proposed sweeping limits and restrictions on cities, authority to issue municipal bonds. SECRECY SURROUNDS DETAILS OF HOUSE COMMITTEE ACTION Because Congress is not subject to open meeting requirements , the currently proposed proposed limits on local tax-exempt financings are the result of closed committee sessions . Actual legislative language for these proposals is not yet available. Therefore , the information in the media or provided informally by committee staff or members serves as the basis for much of what can now be reported . USE AND LOAN TESTS MAY ELIMINATE TAX-EXEMPT STATUS OF MANY PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS AND LEAD TO MORE COSTS FOR CITIES It must be clearly understood that proposed federal tax reform legislation now contains provisions that seriously threaten the continued use of tax-exempt bonds for public improvements . According to the actions of the House Ways and Means Committee, bonds issued by state and local government are governmental - and therefore tax exempt -only if less than 10 percent of the bond proceeds (or $10 million, whichever is less) is used by a trade or business and no more than 5 percent (or $5 million, whichever is less) of the proceeds is loaned to a trade or business. It means that cities (as well as other state and local units of government) will be able to issue tax-exempt bonds only as long as these use limits or "tests" are not exceeded . I 83 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 551 01 (61 23 227-5300 1 BOND ISSUES FAILING THESE TESTS ARE TAXABLE AND TERMED NONGOVERNMENTAL UNLESS AN EXEMPTION APPLIES. The following categories of municipal bonds fit within the exemption provided: small issue IDBs , exempt facility I:DBs , owner occupied housing, and 501 (c) ( 3) organization bonds , BUT THE TAX EXEMPTION CURRENTLY ALLOWED FOR SOME TYPES OF FACILITIES, WHETHER PUBLICLY OR PRIVATELY OWNED, WOULD BE ENDED - SEE BELOW. THAT LIST INCLUDES INDUSTRIAL PARKS, GAS AND ELECTRIC UTILITIES, DISTRICT HEATING AND COOLING SYSTEMS , HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS , AIR AND WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES , SPORTS, AND CONVENTION AND TRADE CENTERS. This means that municipal G .O . and revenue bonds for such improvements would be considered taxable. "429" improvement bonds for curb, gutter , or road extensions to subdivision developments might also be nongovernmental under such a restriction if private developers stand to gain by as little as 10 percent of the proceeds of that bond issue. MORE RESTRICTIONS See page 2 of the attached memo for a list of other bond uses which would automatically be placed under a new per capita volume limit in which cities would compete to obtain authority to issue tax-exempt bonds. Note that sewer, solid waste , and municipal water facilities are on the list . What that means is that after January 1 , cities must await the decision of the Governor or the state legislature to find out whether they will be able to issue bonds for these purposes as well as for any of the other public purpose listed above that fail the 10 and 5 percent use and loan tests . LIMITS ON TAX INCREMENT FINANCING Hundreds of Minnesota cities have made effective use of tax increment financing to assist needed development , to redevelop downtown commercial and industrial sections , and to provide financing necessary to aid in housing development. Only a limited number of projects would remain eligible under the strict limits set by the federal tax reform proposals. No acquisition, land write-downs , financing of development costs , etc . would be considered tax-exempt activity within provisions being considered by the House Ways and Means Committee. Efforts have been made to try to gain an exemption for such activities at the local level , but to date there is no certainty that such changes will be added. (All 8 House members of the Minnesota Congressional Delegation have 2 q -0, sent a letter to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman, Representative Rostenkowski , urging him to permit exceptions to the proposed "tests" to permit the use of tax increment financing. ) To the extent that tax increment bonds are used to finance improvements such as streets , sidewalks , lighting, etc . , their tax- exempt status appears to have been sustained by actions of the Ways and Means Committee. But , such bonds issued for redevelopment could be subject to the new unified volume limits (referred to on page 2 of the technical information) if proceeds are used for land acquisition or relocation costs . EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1 DATE POSES CRITICAL DEADLINE FOR CITY BONDING AUTHORITY r When contacting your member of Congress and our U.S. Senators , urge immediate action to remove the January 1 , 1986 effective date now in the proposals under consideration by the House Ways and Means Committee. Without such action, the authority of all cities to issue tax-exempt bonds will be subject to major uncertainties and severe restrictions for the foreseeable future. 3 Senator Rudy Boschwitz Senator Dave Durenberger 506 Hart Building 375 Russell Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-5641 (202) 2.24-3244 Local Office Local Office 210 Bremer Bldg. 1020 Plymouth Bldg. 419 N. Robert Street 12 South 6th Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 221-0904 (612) 349-5111 Toll Free 800/652-9771 Toll Free 800/752-4226 Rep. Timothy J. Penny Rep. Bill Frenzel 501 Cannon Bldg. 1026 Longworth Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington, D.C. 20515 (202) 225-2472 (202) 225-2871 Local Office Local Office Blue Earth Government Center 812.0 Penn Avenue S. Box 3148 Suite 445 Mankato, MN 56001 Bloomington, MN 55431 (507) 625-6921 (612) 881-4600 Park Towers 22 N. Broadway Rochester, MN 55904 Rep. Bruce Vento (507) 281-6053 2433 Rayburn Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20515 Rep. Vin Weber (202) 225-6631 318 Cannon Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20515 Local Office (202) 225-2331 Rm 150 Mears Park Place Local Office 405 Sibley Street St. Paul, MN 55101 P.O.Box 1214 (612) 725-7724 Marshall, MN 56258 (507) 532-9611 Rep. Martin Sabo 436 Cannon Bldg. P. 0. Box 279 Washington, D.C. 20515 New Ulm, MN 56073 (202) 22.5-4755 (507) 354-6400 Local Office 919 - 1st Street Willmar, MN 56201 462 Federal Courts Bldg. (612) 235-6820 Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 349-5110 OVER Rep. Gerry Sikorski 414 Cannon Bldg. Washignton, D.C. 20515 (202) 225-2271 Local Office 8535 Central Avenue Blaine, MN 55434 (612) 780-5801 Rep. Arlan Stangeland 1526 Longfellow Bldg. Washingtin, MN 20515 (202) 225-2165 Local Office 4th F1. MF Center 403 Center Ave. Moorhead, MN 56560 (218) 233-8631 Toll Free 800/432-3770 Federal Bldg. 720 St. Germain St. Cloud, MN 56301 (612) 251-0740 Rep. James Oberstar 2351 Rayburn Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20515 (202) 225-6211 Local Office Brainerd City Hall Brainerd, MN 56401 (218) 828-4400 Chisholm City Hall Chisholm, MN 55719 (218) 254-5761 231 Federal Bldg. Duluth, MN 55802 (218) 727-7474 $11,1111 1111IN LJ league of minnesota cities MEMORANDUM November 26 , 1985 TO: Mayors , Managers, Clerks FROM: Ann Higgins , Staff Associate SUBJECT: TECHNICAL INFORMATION ON FEDERAL TAX REFORM PROPOSAL RESTRICTIONS ON TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING Actions taken by the House Ways and Means Committee increase the potential for major new restrictions on the authority of cities to issue traditional public purpose bonds . It is estimated that the following provisions , if adopted by Congress , would reduce the types of municipal bonds eligible for tax-exempt status by at least 40 percent and subject so-called "nongovernmental" bonds to a new state- by-state per capita volume limit . It is vital that cities contact both House and Senate members of the Minnesota Congressional Delegation to make clear how serious an impact these intrusions on city authority to issue bonds will have on the ability of the city to manage public improvements , deliver ublic services, and support economic development . Unless members of Congress can be persuaded to reverse or modify proposed bond restrictions , it is expected that they will become key provisions of federal tax reform legislation to be sent to the floor of the U .S. House of Representatives during the first week of December. Restrictions on Traditional Public Purpose Bonds Traditional general obligation, revenue, and tax increment bonds would be restricted by a new generic definition, effective January 1 , 1986. Bonds would be non-governmental if the lesser of 10 percent or $10 million of the bond proceeds is used to benefit, directly or indirectly, any person (trade or business) including 501(c) (3) organizations other than a governmental entity, and if less than 5 percent (or $5 million) of the proceeds is loaned to a trade or business . What does this mean to cities? It means that cities planning to issue such bonds after January 1 , must check with bond counsel to determine if those bonds meet the use test described above . Bonds termed non-governmental under terms of these new limits will be subject to much higher risk re: their tax- exempt status and therefore be more costly to issue (because bond 1 88 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 551 01 C81 21 227-5800 1 counsels are most likely to issue only qualified opionions as to their future tax-exempt status) . This follows from the reaction of bond counsel to the prospect of pending federal legislation (federal tax reform) that potentially will limit the definition of governmental bonds as noted above . Whether or not the Senate has acted on the measure by January 1 , bond counsel' s concern for liability on this issue will preclude the chances for "clean" opinions on bond issues Wnere the benefits to trade or business appear to exceed the 10 percent test . An example offered by the National League of Cities: if your city is planning to make improvements to a municipal parking facility financed with G .O. bonds, you will want to take special care to be certain that no business receives more than a 10 percent benefit through either exclusive access or use of a number of reserved parking places . A New Per Capita Volume Limit on "Non-Governmental" Bonds Some municipal G .O. and revenue bonds that fail the 10 percent test would be termed "non-governmental purpose" bonds and would be included in a new state-by-state volume cap along with small issue industrial development bonds (for which the House Ways and Means Committee has voted to eliminate the sunset provisions of Dec . 31 , 1987 ) . In addition to those in the above category (public purpose bonds for publicly owned and operated facililties that fail the 10 percent test) , the following uses would also be permitted , limited by a volume cap . The cap would place all tax-exempt non-governmental bonds , with the exception of certain airport and port facilities (excluding warehouses) under a state limit of $175 per capita - $25 per capita of which would have to be set aside for non-profit hospitals and universities, further reducing the volume of tax-exempt financing authority to $150 per capita for 1986 and 1987 . (In 1988 , the cap would decrease to $ 125 , with the sunset of mortgage revenue bonds. ) Of the remaining $150 per capita, $75 would have to be set aside for housing bonds unless the legislature determines othewise. multifamily rental housing * some airport and port facilities * sewage amd solid waste disposal facilities municipal water facilities * single family housing (until 1988 ) veterans' mortgage bonds * small issue IDBs (with sunset date eliminated ) student loan bonds non-profit university and hospital bonds Impact for Cities The proposed per capita volume cap would force cities , other units of local government including counties and school districts, as well as 2 refunding bonds to 30 days after issuance and for refunded bonds no later than the date of issuance of the refunding bond issue. Finally, bonds for the following non-governmental activities would no longer be eligible for advance refunding: * multi-family , single family and veterans' housing * governmentally owned airports ( including land , noise abatement and freight-handling facilities) * port facilities (not including storage warehouses) * mass commuting facilities sewage and solid waste disposal facilities * facilities for furnishing water * small issue IDBS (with all sunsets removed) * Section 501 (e) (3) organization bonds * student loan bonds (All the above , except housing , sewage and solid waste disposal facilities , would have to be publicly owned to qualify for tax-exempt financing. ) Private developments financed with tax-exempt bonds (except low-income housing) would have to be depreciated using the straight-line method. Provisions for multifamily housing more favorable Apparently , although such housing bonds would be covered by the per capita volume cap on non-governmental bond issues , tax-exempt eligibility would be retained for all such bond issues if either 25 percent (now 20%) or more of the units are rented to families whose income is 80 percent or less than the area median income or 20 percent or more of the units are rented to families whose income is 70 percent or less of area median income. The state volume cap , unless the legislature changed it , would be allocated ($75 per capita) one third to multifamily, one third to single family, and one third left to the discretion of the governor. CONCLUSIONS Minnesota cities would retain little authority available under any allocation system that would be designed to comply with the volume cap. The total allocation for all bonding authority under the proposal would be $725 million for the state . Of that , only $321 million would remain for both state and local government bonding authority in 1986. IDB authority in 1985 in Minnesota totaled $620 million, under the current volume cap. Add to that $600 million in multifamily housing bonds, at least $200 million in tax increment financing, and $200 million in owner-occupied housing bonds . An incomplete estimate of of the current level of bond activity would indicate that at least $1 . 6 billion of tax-exempt bonds were issued last year. That figure does not include either the tax-exempt bonds issued by 501(c) ( 3) organizations or the portion of governmental purpose bonds that may 4 state agencies to face the prospect of competing for limited bonding authority. Overall housing bond volume nationally would be expected to decline by at least 10 percent, compared with 1984 . Another very ominous prospect is the fact that. certain uses of tax- exempt financing that fail the 10 percent test. would not be eligible for tax-exempt financing, effective January 1 , 1986 . The following publicly owned and operated facilities would be ineligible for tax-exempt financing, under these provisions: sports facilities trade and convention centers parking facilities electric energy * gas furnishing facilities hydroelectric generating facilities # district heating and cooling facilities industrial parks * hazardous waste facilities pollution control facilities Even if municipally owned and operated , these facilities are considered sufficiently non-governmental in their purpose and operation that the House Ways and Means Committee has determined that they shall not retain eligibility for tax-exempt bond financing. Any non-governmental portion of a governmental issue in excess of $1 million would also be subject to the volume cap. (That would mean that in the instance where a governmental issue benefitted a trade or business by that amount , even though that is less than 10 percent of the bond proceeds (even as little as 1 percent or less) , the portion exceeds $1 million could not be issued under the sole authority of the city to determine but would have to be allocated under a statewide allocation system. FURTHER PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS ON REFINANCING Advance refunding of traditional public purpose bonds would continue to be allowed , but the cost of the new issue could not be recovered through arbitrage earned on the bond proceeds. Unless the present volume of interest savings was more than the cost of issuing the advance refunding bonds, the latter could not exceed 250 percent of the volume of the refunded bonds. Advance refunding bonds would also be subject to the same per capita volume limits of any new non-governmental bond issue (as noted above) . In addition, the call period for such issues would be limited to a period no earlier than the date they could be called at par or at a premium of 3 percent or less . No unlimited arbitrage could be earned as a result of a provision which would limit such a period for advance 3 t 9--- be subject to these new unified per capita volume limits Actions taken by the House Ways and Means Committee are far-reaching and intrude in major ways into the conduct of local improvement Tanning, service management , economic and redevelopment activities . The House Ways and Means Committee scheduled to report out tax reform legislation in early December. It is essential for cities to make their opposition to these sweeping restrictions known to members of Congress now. Illustrating the local impact of the proposed changes in tax-exempt status of bonds will underline the seriousness of the impact of these tax reform bond restrictions on city services, development, and capital improvement programs. r 5 NIENIO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROI:: Judi Simac , City Planner RE: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 435 DATE: November 22 , 1985 Intrcducticn: At their November 7th meeting the Planning Commission denied Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 435 . Peter Shutrop had applied for a conditional use permit to conduct a home occupation which involves the cutting, splitting and storage of wood on his property at 1424 Heron Court, Timber Trails Addition. Backaround• Mr. Shutrop has appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. The reason for the Planning Commission denial was that the home occupation is not conducive to the neighborhood. Please find attached copies of the staff report and a petition submitted at the public hearing. Please refer to the minutes , regarding this application, which can be found elsewhere in your agenda packet. Action Reauested: offer Conditional Use Permit Resolution of the City Council No. CC-435 and move for it' s approval or denial. Attachment tw f MEMO TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Judi Simac , City Planner DATE: November 4 , 1985 APPLICANT: Peter N. Shutrop LOCATION: 1. 24 heron Court , L3 E3 Timber Trails Ad-dn. ZONI?vG: Shoreland LAND USE. Rural residential single family home APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 11. 35 , Subd. 4A; Section 11. 03 , Subd. 10 FINDINGS REQUIRED: Section 11. 04 , Subd. 6 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to conduct a home occupation which consists of firewood preparation and sale. SURROUNDING LAND USES: Primarily rural residential single family homes and scattered farmsteads. PUBLIC UTILITIES: Sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer not available. CONSIDERATIONS: i. The applicant would like to conduct a home occupation which involves the preparation and sale of firewood. The operation would involve the cutting, splitting and storage of the wood on the property. All sales are delivered to the customer, there is no sale directly from the site. 2. Acording to Section 11. 05 , Subd. 10 of the City Code, the minimum conditions of a home occupation include: 1. Home Occupation must ,be conducted by a member of the family, with not more than one employee 'who is not a member of the family. 2 . The home occupation shall be carried on within the principal or accessory structure. 3 . Exterior displays , or signs , exterior storage of materials except in Ag or R-1 Districts , and exterior indication of a home occupation will not be permitted. 4 . No objectional traffic noise, vibration, smoke, etc. shall be produced. 5 . The home occupation shall not involve over the counter sales except in Ag or R-1 Districts . The business is to be run by the family only. Due to the Shoreland overiav district the property is subject to Shoreland zoning provisions (home occupations are a conditional use in Shoreland) , nowever it was platted and intended to be developed as R-1 . Approximately 500 of the Timber Trails Addition is af- fected ny this Shoreland/R-1 distinction. . C1 3 . The nature of the business , the preparation and storage of the wood on the prcpert,', can be considered as exterior storage , which is permitted in the Ag and R-1. �:aG:ever Section 11. 60 , Subd. 1 provides for the issuance of a con- ditional use peri-,,it , in any district, for exterior storage. Additionally, there is no ordinance which prohibits the storage of firewood on property. Many residents of Shakopee heat their entire home with wood burning stoves . 4 . The wood is to be stored along the southern property line of the 1. 8 acre site. A nine foot gravel drive extends from the paved driveway of the residence to the storage area, which is approx. 6 , 600 sq. ft. 5 . The Timber Trails Addn. does have deed restrictions , however there is no language which prohibits home occupations. 6 . Because the structure on Lot 4 , Block 3 is oriented to the east, the applicant should provide screening along the west property line as well as the south. A site visit indicates that there is no evidence of the operation from the street and existing vegetation screens the storage area form CSAR 17 . 7 . The wood storage area is 80 feet from the house. The Fire Chief has reviewed the application and recommends approval. Recommendation: This particular application involves some "gray areas" in regard to home occupation permits. The business can be separated into two actions; conducting the business via telephone, keeping business records etc. , (which can be conducted in the home) and exterior storage of firewood, (which is permitted in any district in Shakopee ) . Also, the Shoreland designation does not allow the standard Ag and R-1 provisions to apply to the property. Staff believes that the home occupation can be conducted at this site without diminishing property values in the vicinity, without impeding orderly development of the property in the area, without creating a nusiance and without conflicting with the intent and purposes of the city code. Action Requested: Offer C.U.P. Res. No. 435 and move for its adoption subject to the following conditions: i. The applicant shall provide evergreen screening along the western and southern property line. 2 . The wood storage area shall not exceed 6600 sq. ft. nor the height of eight feet. 3 . Signage shall be limited to two square feet with family name and address only. 4. All sales shall be delivered off-site. There shall be no direct sales or pick-up of wood at the site. 5. Annual staff review. tw / I , r i .. N : W� '.'l i -! /�Y !•I i S♦ I i ! .T..w�^�.��.rw..fr�� -_ G .w November 29 1985 0� We, the undersigned, do hereby object to the issuance of a conditional use permit for a home occupation for the sale of firewood by Peter N. Shutrop from his property located at 124 Blue Heron Court, Timber Trails, S iakopee. I V'i'e object because of the following: 1. Said home occupation does not meet the code requirements for an R-1 Rmr`: Residential Zone. 2. Said home occupation will substantially diminish and impair the property values in the immediate area. 3. Said home occupation will deter the future residential development and the resale of residences in the immediate area. 4. Said home occupation will create a potential safety hazard because of trucks traveling in and out of the area as they load and unload wood. 5. Said home occupation will also create an unsightly appearance in the neighborhood because of the piling and storing of wood as well as the storing of related equipment on said premises. 6. Said home occupation and the operation of related equipment will disturb the peace and tranquility homeowners desired when building their homes in the Timber Trails area. ell P 001 1,7 ���� I GL- i ! _ �f/ i-J 'ql"'�j�is�S/.��'/1�� ��t��!j.f"_ f"T 4�/� �v''.J{�J'/l�".17�/ri—✓y. ) /�� '��`tel�� ��� r / r �l�'� :( 111�` �.� �_��.� • i c. /��c���-9Lc.+L �� �.3 x-17•��t�.i-�I)U� t�. �� �)J/ L J Z _. 1 ''•� i,'r t j 'vl t f+ t . Top iron EL.104.07 ,i• / I V10 ♦ 0$� r.�� '�1�'.ja-v`at`O�/�� � \ 1 / f I //"11 :.'b r ` � ,. 10 Top Iron ._tY r1 - ,_,\ / ,•� , r I EL ICAt"�: '//�r it IO 1l+ It��•il� + ll�:i�a,e } 11 \Q/ ,% / r Ii rr r, , i • � rr a1,J 1ys1.I ,y+ �w;.,'1 104.1 `•iry MrGs;,Ploposad �0 2 } Do e 2 t 3{i r•, I,ne h�(U; • f•, LA0 v rr L/ ��N 15'u •- � ( 5£0 104.2 ////y I � �0/' PROPOS O 0, 10 4 S' :\Oqa S``` +til Vf y, –.3 ;_ � 2G t�� ♦ AO \ DP `N GpP tGE ` a G.tr Sl to Cl- 10S 54 _ i.'' IQ4.2.,�i lOq 3 z \O—Proposed': O –Proposed ; x – 104.0 Septic System 105.3 , I I: ` EYelfln�,.-O` Emstu,� Cf d / CT CA rt 1-4 1035 Q as I tl I 'k'PhC Tarrk l r� r t13 I n I ,' ' I✓caD' S�o r� C 19YL'Y �r �o 10u 16 ' Ott) NJYt 329 C __ •' ' 1 ' � t,' 25 /�,:s•.o./'c/a,�, S 89059 33"W 1 CITY OF SHAKOPEE CONDI'T'IONAL USE I'ERMIT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. CC-435 WHEREAS , Peter Shutrop having duly filed an application for a Conaitional Use Permit dated 10-21-8D under the rovisions of the Shakopee Zoning Ordinance , Section 11. 04 , Supd. 6 as follows : C.U.P. to conduct a home occupation which consists of firewood preparation and sale . in a Shoreland District zoned area ; and WHEREAS , the property upon which the request is being made is described as : 1424 Heron Court ; and WHEREAS , said proposed Conditional Use Permit request was Denied by the Shakopee Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota at their meeting held Nov. 7 , 1985 and said Conditional Use Permit decision is herewith being appealed to the City 198ouncil ; and held a WHEREAS , the Shakopee City Council on Dec. 3 , public hearing on the appeal from the decision of the Planning Commissior NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that upon hearing the advice and recommendations of the Shakopee Planning Commission and upon considering the suggestions made by the applicant and the suggestions and objections raised by the affected property owners , within a radius of 350 feet thereof , in public hearings duly held by the Shakopee Planning Commission and the Shakopee City Council , that the aforementioned Conditional Use Permit be and is hereby pursuant to the following: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to- Shakopee City Code , Sec. 11. 04 , Subd. 6C-12 , if an approved Conditional Use Permit is not utilized within one ityear shallfrom become nullherein andppoivded or by Dec. 3 , 19 8 Adopted in session of the City Council of t19 85ty ty of Shakopee , Minnesota held this 3rd day of December BERG, HENDERSON, HASS & NYQUIST, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW BROOKLYN LAW CENTER �F S �AKOr�EEZE 5637 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, SUITE 200 BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55429 TELE-HONE(C 12)533-7272 DEAN A. NYOUIST FREDERICK M.HASS CHAD E. HENDERSON November 22 , 1985 JEFFREY A. BERG City Council of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee , MN 55379 RE: Application of Peter N. Shutrop Dear Council Members: I am in receipt of the Notice of Public Hearing regarding the appeal by Peter N. Shutrop for the conditional use permit at 1424 Heron Court. While I do not live in the area I certainly have a very vital interest in the area as one of the principals in the development of the area. I would certainly oppose the conditional use permit. While I recognize that they are private covenants, we did impose covenants on the property which restricts the use of the property to residential only. The conditional use permit to allow sale of firewood would be in violation of those covenants and the intent and spirit of the area. We think it is an extremely nice residential area and should be maintained and protected as such. I am unable to be at the hearing on the 3rd of December but wanted to convey my concerns. Sincerely, Z Dean A. Nyquist DAN/lb CC : 1 04-77-1tenj MEMO cU TO: Judi Simac, City Planner FROM: Peter N. Shutrop, Applicant RE: Application for Conditional Use Permit (To Conduct a Home Occupation Consisting of Firewood Preparation and Sale) . In support of my appeal from the denial by the Planning Commission of my application, I submit the following information: 1. Neighborhood Concerns - at the time this application was considered by the Planning Commission, my wife and I were not prepared to respond to the various concerns expressed by our neighbors. It has always been our intention to be good neighbors and we feel that many of the questions raised at the Planning Commission are legitimate. Therefore, we would like to modify our application in an effort to demonstrate our good faith and to assure the City that our intended use will not unduly disrupt the neighborhood. 2. Noise - a. Chain Saw - it is not necessary that a chain saw be used on-site and we would agree with a condition prohibiting its use for business purposes. b. Wood Splitter - we would agree to limit the hours of operation and would suggest hours even more restrictive than those set forth in the "Noise Ordinance" (Sec. 10.60, Subd. 3 (b) ) . 1) Monday - Friday: 9:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m. (Ordinance allows 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.) 2) Saturday: 9:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. (Ordinance allows 9:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m.) 3) Sunday: NONE ( Ordinance allows 9:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m.) In addition, we would agree to position the splitter (either behind the wood pile or other appropriate "screen") in such a way that the noise broadcasts to the South/Southeast away from the rest of Timber Trails. c* Neighborhood Noise - Timber Trails is heavily wooded, and some residents use chain saws to prepare their own firewood. 3. Safety - the driveway to our home is located approximately 500 feet from Marschall Road. We would agree that the vehicle used to carry the wood be restricted to 15 m.p.h. We would also agree that we deliver all firewood (no custcmer pick-up) and that the loaded weight of the vehicle be restricted to the load limits of the street. (One of the neighbors indicated she once saw "other trucks loading wood". This occurred on one occasion when we had to borrow another vehicle when ours was inoperable) . 4. Rodents - a. DNR - we have checked with Kim Hennings of the DNR (Wildlife Division) who stated that our woodpile may not cause any increase in rodent population since the pile borders agricultural land and wild life area. In addition, many other residents also have wood piles and the area includes a lot of brush and numerous brush piles. (See photographs attached) . b. Rotation of the Wood Pile - Because our wood is being sold, it is expected that the pile would be rotated more quickly than wood stacked for private use. Such rotation naturally limits the rodent population. 5. Unsightly A earance - we would agree to any screening suggested by the Council and or adjoining landowners. (see photographs of our residence attached) . 6. Miscellaneous Concerns a. Fire The Fire Chief has reviewed our application and has recommended its approval. b. Debris on the property - All debris has been removed, the back yard was seeded this past summer, and the front lawn will be sodded in the Spring. We began building our home in October, 1984, and moved in January, 1985. We held a one-time auction in September , 1985, to sell the various items of personal property my wife and I had accumulated over the years and left-over items from construction. c. Previous Firewood Sales and Ads in Newspaper - We checked with the City and were advised this could be done pending action on our application for a Conditional Use Permit. All other conditions suggested by the City Planner to the Planning Commission are agreeable to us. In addition, any council member or staff member is welcome to view our property and walk the premises at any time prior to the Council Meeting even if we are not home. My wife and I both work full time at our regular jobs; sale of firewood is a side business. Thank you for your consideration. 2 Other Resident'sPiles i� Nx lire , ' J i Other Resident's • i i . , Pictures of Shutr p Residence . g - a . . . . w 6 }a- � � MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Housing Alliance Property Acquisition DATE: November 26 , 1985 Introduction The Shakopee City Council, at its November 19 , 1985 meeting conducted a public meeting regarding the above mentioned project. At that meeting Councilmembers and individuals from the audience expressed their concern about the affect of City-initiated acquisi- tions on property taxes in the Central Business District. Findings The Assistant City Attorney noted at the meeting that it was his recollection that we had addressed this question earlier. Based on the Assistant City Attorney' s comments I reviewed our files and had the Scott County Assessor review his files. The Assessor located the attached letter dated November 30 , 1984 which clearly addresses how the State will handle the sale in computing the sales ratio. The attached cover letter from Robert N. Schmitt, the Shakopee Assessor in the Scott County Assessor' s Office, indicates that when a City makes an acquisition under the threath of condemnation an "arms-length" transaction does not exist and the Assessor does not use the property for establishing values of similar properties. Alternatives 1. Accept the two letters from the Scott County Assessor ' s Office and direct that they be filed. 2. Accept the two letters from the Scott County Assessor ' s Office and direct staff to obtain further assurances regarding the handling of the sale by the Assessor' s Office, to insure that the sale will not impact adjacent property values for property tax purposes. Recommendation I recommend alternative No. 1 because the determination of adjacent property values for tax purposes will be done at the Scott County level by the City Assessor Robert N. Schmitt. Action Requested Pass a motion accepting the letter of November 25 , 1985 from Robert N. Schmitt, Scott County Assessor, regarding the impact of the Housing Alliance sale on adjacent property values . JKA/jms DON D. MARTIN SCOTT COUNTY ASSESSOR G Cr COURT HOUSE 112 / SHAKOPEE, MN.55379-1381 (612)-445-7750, Ext.115 Deputy: LEROY ARNOLDI November-25, 1985 John Anderson City Administrator City of Shakopee Shakopee, MN. 55379 John, Sales which are condemnation sales are generally not used in a sales study. The reason for this is the lack of a "willing buyer and willing seller". The sale in question sounds to me that it would fall into this category, since Mr. Wampach does not appear to be a "willing seller" for the amount of money that the City of Shakopee is offering to pay for his property. The "arms—length" transaction status also appears to be missing in this transaction. If you have any other questions, dont hesitate to call. Ro ert N. Schmitt Scott County Assessor's Office An Equal Opportunity Employer DON D. MARTIN Pol SCOTT COUNTY ASSESSOR COURT HOUSE 112 . SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379 (612)-445-7750, Ext. 115 ' ARNOLDI November 30, 1c/84 John Anderson Shakopee City Administrator 129 lst Ave. East Shakopee, Minn. RE: Proposed sale of Jerry Wampach property Dear John: Let this letter serve as notice that I spoke to Tom Clark at the Department of Revenue, State of Minnesota, on the proposed sale of certain vacant lots, presently owned by Mr. Wampach, to the city of Shakopee. After giving Mr. Clark the background of this proposed sale, it was his con— tention that it would not be used in the sales sample study for this type of property. I am also in agreement with Mr. Clark that I would not use this sale at the County level as supporting documentation for appraisals done on this type of property. Sincerely, `-'! . jt�a- Leroy T. Arnoldi Deputy County Assessor Scott County An Equal Opportunity Employer Councilmember introduced the following resolution, the reading of which was dispensed with by unan- imous consent, and moved its adoption: CITY OF SHAKOPEE COUNTY OF SCOTT STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 9486 A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE AMENDMENT BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE OF MODIFIED HOUSING AND REDEVELOP- MENT PLAN RELATING TO MINNESOTA RIVER VALLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, THE AMEND- MENT 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 . BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council ( the "Council" ) of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota ( the "City" ) , as follows : Section 1. Recitals . 1 . 01 . It has been proposed and approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City ( the "Auth- ority" ) that the Authority amend the Modified Housing and Redevelopment Plan ( the "Redevelopment Plan" ) relating to Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1 ( the "Redevelopment Project" ) established pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 462.411 to 462 . 716, inclusive, as amended. It has been further pro- posed and approved by the Authority that the Authority amend the Tax Increment Financing Plans relating to Tax Increment Districts No. 2 through No. 5 within the Redevelopment Pro- ject to reflect increased project costs and activities, and establish Tax Increment District No. 6 and adopt the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto, all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sec- tions 273.71 to 273 .78, inclusive, as amended. T j . 1 . 02. The Authority has caused to be prepared, and this Council has investigated the facts with respect thereto, an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Project setting forth the public improvements to be made within the Redevelopment Project . The Authority has also caused to be prepared, and this Council has also investi- gated the facts with respect to the establishment of pro- posed Tax Increment District No. 6 as stated in the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto. 1 . 03 . The Authority and the City have performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the amend- ment of the Redevelopment Plan; the amendment of the Tax Increment Financing Plans relating to Tax Increment Dis- tricts No. 2 through No. 5; and the establishment of Tax Increment District No. 6 within the Redevelopment Project and adoption of the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto. 1. 04 . The Council hereby determines that it is neces- sary and in the best interest of the City at this time to amend the Redevelopment Plan, to amend the Tax Increment Financing Plans relating to Tax Increment Districts No. 2 through No. 5, to establish Tax Increment District No. 6 within the Redevelopment Project and to adopt the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto. Section 2. Findings for the Amendment of the Redevelop- ment Plan and the Establishment of Tax Increment District No. 6. 2.01 . The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that the proposed amendment of the Redevelopment Plan and establishment of proposed Tax Increment District No. 6 located within the Redevelopment Project is intended and, in the judgment of this Council, its effect will be, to further provide an impetus for commercial, industrial and housing development, increase employment and otherwise promote cer- tain public purposes and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the Redevelopment Plan and the Tax Increment Financing Plan (collectively referred to as the "Plans" ) . 2.02 The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that Tax Increment District No. 6 is a housing type of tax increment financing district which consists of a project , or a portion of a project, intended for occupancy, in part, by persons or families of low and moderate income, as defined in Minnesota Statutues, Chapter 462A, Title II of the National Housing Act of 1934, the National Housing Act of 1959, the United States Housing Act of 1937 , as amended, Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, any other similar present or future federal, state, or municipal - 2 - �l legislation, or the regulations promulgated under any of those acts . 2 . 03 . The Council finds, determines and declares that the proposed development and redevelopment, in the opinion of the Council, would not occur solely through private in- vestment within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary. 2. 04. The Council finds, determines and declares that the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan for said Tax In- crement District No. 6 conforms to the comprehensive plan of the City. 2.05. The Council finds, determines and declares that the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan will afford maxi- mum opportunity and be consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole for the development or redevelopment of the Redevelopment Project by private enterprise. 2.06 . The Council finds, determines and declares that fiscal disparities not be taken from within Tax Increment Financing District No. 6 and therefore does not elect the tax increment computation set forth in Section 273 . 76, Sub- division 3, Clause (b) . 2. 07 . The Council further finds, declares and deter- mines that the City make the above findings stated in Sec- tion 2 and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each determination in writing, attached hereto as Ex- hibit A. Section 3 . Findings for the Amendment of Tax Increment Financing Plans Relating to Tax Increment Districts No. 2 Through No. 5 . 3.01. The Council hereby finds that the amendment of the Tax Increment Financing Plans relating to Tax Increment Districts No. 2 through No. 5 is intended and, in the judgment of this Council, its effect will be, to reflect increased project activities and costs within the Redevelop- ment Project, as described in the Redevelopment Plan approved in Section 4 hereof and such amendment to said Tax Increment Financing Plans is hereby approved. Section 4 . Adoption of the Plans. 4.01 . The proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan and adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment District No. 6 presented to the Council on this date, are hereby approved and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the City Clerk. - 3 - Section 5. Implementation of the Plans . 5. 01 . The officers of the City, the City' s financial advisor and underwriter therefor, and the City ' s legal coun- sel and bond counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the Plans and for this purpose to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary for this purpose. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk . Dated: December 3, 1985 . Mayor Attest: City Clerk 4 - I, EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the establishment of Tax Increment District No. 6 and the approval and adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273 . 74, Subdivision 3 are as follows: 1. Finding that Tax Increment District No. 6 is a "housing district" as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 273 . 73, Subdivision 11 . 2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the Council, would not occur solely through private invest- ment within the reasonable foreseeable future and, there- fore, the use of tax increment financing is deemed neces- sary. 3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment District No. 6 will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development of the Redevelopment Project by private enterprise. 5. That the Council does not elect the method of tax incre- ment computation set forth in Section 273 .76, Subdivision 3, clause (b) and therefore will not be taking the fiscal dis- parities share from within Tax Increment District No. 6 . - 5 - Clerk ' s Certificate I , the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing resolution with the original thereof on file in my office and further certify that the same is a full, true and complete transcript therefrom, insofar as the same relates to the approval of an amendment of the Redevelopment Plan relating to Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1, the creation of Tax Increment District No. 6, the adoption of the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto, and the amendment of the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Districts No. 2 through No. 5. I further certify that said resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, at a duly called and regularly held regular or special meeting thereof. WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk this day of 1985. City Clerk Shakopee, Minnesota 6 - t — J V yr•ma v U Vs I.s! i c ` .� .{, �'r C�"� C i` (� Rt r,-.*v-C, N11 t'1�JtA$f v.r, r''.r ,�.s 'L i.�}yY,C!C� — �4, .J r 4� F � � F'►�� ..,I5SL,-A-u- ►- buf hrou jrt�o .�' R t'1� 1` w�5 de•le'rr.,�'ncc( tlht -61i 'cf' i oY 1,47 1 YIO Vt L� �1/'� hh vc !!� --- - i;ii ! l NtiCGd c. `� J� P-rp-c 'S$ 7"g t�Y�lC '� Li fhl'1 lnlCyt $ -- - - - _ (� (` .yam -'Fo r M# h o' -ff r"red A ✓i n r e t / /1/t C°v_Z r, ._ lost ---► n -- tre e.c_I 4"t r 11n rs T1 F New t -_ _ a r.'►, �� C LA P ryr A rn,' k 5,'4 '3_zan_tt R¢ Gr►-e �aP. _ 1G _2-,__f94�qA r;hW1 s ----- lih0 re Go h•►rnt-r• 'os� n1�' e. _ iIT�'Y '4 -- r �'1.1- -- --5� rt �=h,�� _—�n�-= ��'r.,,'_�a� ►��-��y►� 17��.¢" cap - -bc br-� �. 4► t` �"h he V- pin I� i� LnhG' kI'S 13�t3f PAG? ✓ ✓--- -- b. W41,11 L 3-t t. b 7y Oop �• S5^v,;4ikr1 Se-wW S� COO - . S4v r r,1 Lo h, 5 A1C - Pats- st' .'sem N� �o f, �, l-1'�-,.,S w� 1"� k`;_t. t���c=rst-.✓ ' C'1 Vfo 54-re cc c Sita rem st we r'_ 3 , 0c) 4) too, 00 t i�, rt»•�+ � n i � SD S ---------------------- to VOW— 1,h L rC-0 s r S o f e F_Y'e' C.1'�­ kii_I t Y1 e w I" W i lid 1'n_creoi-� rno_ra_ c a►^►�c�_,M1 f ' 1---- " _ 5�__ u/ pry v�her ! err r_ %,rte - off 14 yrs ----------- --- - -------- ------- -- �I - -- �-A, kVA Ot _l ` o ►'f rv �x�-� ill ►�a h 1'r I a sj, on t V tete r -- I -rG{ . -C1 (N� � � ©WY1 pRY�►� j�� //}� �7A1�� bAI- G 50 �.. )1 ar No. Ecco a n.� Pip, i rc -ry r 1)c c. i 1 f'' ►rc.e, ----- t r-CC }` �' r - �Q :,. } ~u.i., f` C r - i'�ci tc �r ✓t l.�C� II i i I !I� I . III 11 III {II III _ i I II u II I j i Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 1610 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454 612-332-0421 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Larry Smith Arvid Elness Architects FROM: Deane M. Wenger DATE: December 2, 1985 SUBJECT: HOUSING ALLIANCE SENIOR CITIZEN RESIDENTIAL PROPOSAL, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Senior citizen housing has both low trip generation (especially during peak hours) as well as low levels of demand for off-street parking. TRIP GENERATION On an average weekday a retirement community dwelling unit is expected to generate 3.3 trips in and out per day. The range of values was 2.8 to 4.9 trips per day for five samples. During the P.M. rush hour the typical rate is 0.4 trips per unit both in and outbound. This compares to 1.0 trips per single family housing or and 0.7 trips per apartment. The trip generation of this type of housing is lower than any other category of residential. The proposed development is expected to generate about 145 trips per day inbound and outbound combined. Similarly, during the evening peak hour the total trips number about 18 VPH. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. (. Mr. Larry Smith December 2, 1985 Page 2 PARKING REQUIREMENTS The trip generation data were taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Generation Trip manual. This is the best reference available for this type of housing. The ITE has recently published a companion Manual on Parking Generation for many classes of land use. From that manual, the following data were extracted: - Weekday average day parking need = 0.3 spaces/unit - Weekday range = 0.1 - 0.5 spaces/unit - Saturday average parking need = 0.3 spaces/unit - Sunday average parking need = 1.0 spaces/unit On Sunday one would expect other parking will be available so that value need not be used for design. On a weekday or Saturday a rate of 0.3 or 0.4 per unit should be adequate. The developer has proposed a higher parking ratio which can be used to assure the city that a parking equivalent can be demonstrated. After a trial period, however, we suggest some spaces could be diverted to other uses such as storage, a car washing area, etc. These uses can be temporary so that if more spaces are needed they could revert to parking. The suggestion is worth considering since the supply of parking proposed is more than double what we estimate will be needed. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Mr. Larry Smith December 2, 1985 Page 3 STREET SYSTEM The current study of TH 169 - TH 101 has been started but the CBD bypass options have not been evaluated. Some alternates would connect Fuller Street to the bypass and perhaps to a new bridge across the Minnesota River. Fuller Street south of First would not become a major arterial. It would attract some trips from Homes but not major volumes. The daily traffic should be in the range of 2,500 to 3,500 vehicles per day. This is a minor collector volume. It would serve as a useful route to the area of the courthouse and the hospital. The housing complex does not take access from Fuller and its entrance driveways can be held back from Fuller. Therefore the street should be compatible with the proposed development. Access to the complex via the alley seems to be desirable; especially if the city provides some extra parking west of the building. Special priority for plowing would be appropriate as at hospitals. This is common practice. The street volumes are low enough so that pedestrian crossings to the downtown could be made safe with only minimal extra treatment. In several instances in the metropolitan area we have been told that placing homes for the elderly in areas having some activity is very useful in deferring senility and isolation for � G Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Mr. Larry Smith December 2, 1985 Page 4 the tenants. It is also quite desirable to have such housing in the immediate vicinity of the CBD to encourage tenant activity, interest, and mobility. We see no conflict with the probable TH 169 solution whether or not Fuller is made part of the plan. kro/v STEERING COMMITTEE MAILING LIST SHAKOPEE Ms. Jean Andre Father Robert Hazel Community Development St. Mark's Catholic Church 129 East First Avenue 333 Fourth Avenue West Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee, MN 55379 Ms. Jane Dubois Ms. Marge Henderson 1705 Third Avenue West 905 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee, MN 55379 Pastor Ray Kruger First Presbyterian Church a Gary Laurent L 909 Marshall Road Laurent Builders Shakopee, MN 55379 118 Fuller Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Mr. Virgil Mears, Chairman 1813 Shakopee Avenue East Sister Agnes Otting St. Francis Regional Medical Center Shakopee, MN 55379 325 Fifth Avenue West Shakopee, MN 55379 Ms. Betty Pink Scott County Human Resources Mr. Jerry Regan 703 Lewis Street South 699 County Road 83 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee, NN 55379 Pastor Tom Reiner Mr. John J. Schmitt Christ Lutheran Church 1015 Main Street South 1053 Jefferson Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee, MN 55379 Dr. Anthony Spagnolo Shakopee Medical Center Mr. Joe Topic 1335 East 10th Avenue 405 East 11th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee, MN 55379 Mr. Todd Schwartz Citizens State Bank of Shakopee 1100 4th Avenue East Shakopee, MN 55379 PROPOSED SENIOR HOUSING BASE SERVICE PACKAGE SERVICES PROVIDED: • Social service counseling 0 Senior-Line 24 hour R.N. answered referral/information line 0 1 Hour senior exercise program classes 3 x week (2 sessions) • CPR training twice a year • Regularly scheduled social programs • Senior wellness screening session with nurse educator quarterly • Customized wellness program per senior • Monthly senior wellness program 0 Monthly 2 hour BP screening session • "Life-line" type emergency alert system • Free access to community education programs at St. Francis Regional Medical Center • If hospitalized, a private room with TV service provided at no additional charge COST: $70.00 per unit for single dweller 585.00 per unit for double dweller CUSTOMIZED SERVICE OPTIONS: • Towel and sheet service (weekly exchange) • Maid service • Home Health services - PT - OT - RN - Homemaker • On site laboratory draws • Catering • Grocery shopping/liquor store • Prescription delivery q c RESOLUTION NO. 2485 RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $ GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX-INCREMENT BONDS SERIES 1985-A BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Bond Authorization. It is hereby found and determined that it is necessary and expedient for the City to issue and sell its General Obligation Tax-Increment Bonds , Series 1985-A, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes , Chapters 273 and 475 , and to obtain the best bid for said bonds at public sale, in the principal amount of $ as contained in Tax-Increment District #6 . 2. Terms of Sale; Notice. The City Administrator is authorized and directed to cause the Notice of Sale to be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and once in the Finance and Commerce, a financial periodical published in Minne- apolis, at least ten days before the date of sale. 3 . Sale Date. This Council shall meet on Monday, December 23 , 1985 , at 19.M. , to receive, open and consider sealed bids for the purchase of the bonds, and to take such action thereon as is deemed in the best interests of the City. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 1985. City Attorney v� LED IIII I l � -_Li t 0 o o Lid v' gn s , `I Itu ---c�- n _ r1 t- ---• c3', I QI) - • N Z .'I51 �l IoZ - rt 4-cs — _ k__ I - a (il�b ��i-_i191 ,� ����, �i.,�a l M a ,I• ,a.% �` �„x',43 .5',B _ I -�I - - � c I 1 �A\ Al - el�ll 1- - -- - Na SHAKOPEE SENIOR HOUSTIG CASH FLOW PROFORMA-5900 CONCLUS IMS CONSTRUCTION INTEREST @ $141,489.55 10%+2%= 12% PROJECT DEY.COST ', $2,460,68839 (BEFORE PROFIT) NUESTOR PURCHASE PRICE $2,734,09821 TOTAL MORTGAGE '$1,917,153.00 (11.5% INTEREST) PAYMENT= $229,223.31 EQUITY REQUIRED $543,535.39 (BEFORE PROFIT) EQUITY AS%OF COST C Total thwnber of Units 44 Average Rent 1987 $598-D0 Rent trending Percent 6.0096 Operating Expense per $4.10 Net SF (35 to 40% of Gross Oper Income) Operating E,�p Trend% 5.00% Debt Service Coverage 1.15 (applied to the 4th Year) Total Mortgage Amount $1,917,153.00 Period 30 YEAR Interest Rate 105 Post Construction Rent-up Cost Year 1 $193,478.91 Year 2 $33,42729 Total Rent-up Cost $226,90620 11!28!85 PHASE 1 SHAKOPEE SENIOR FIOUSffNG(RENTAL-SELL) V COMPARATIVE COST PROFORMA-598 ASSU PT K)NS TOTALS NO OF UNITS 44 NET SF/UNIT 696 GROSS SF/PER UN IT 870 38,280 COMMON SPACE 2,135 40,415 RETAIL SPACE 4,825 45,240 CONST COST/GROSS SF(W/PRKG) $37.50 $1,696,500.00 CONST COST/UNIT $34,444.60 MARKET RATE CITY ASSISTANCE PERCENTAGE TOTAL DEVELOPMENT SELLNIG PRICE $3,558,695.30 $2,734,09821 PROJECT COSTS LAND&BUILDINGS $360,000.00 $0.00 0.00% DEMOLITION $6,000.00 $0.00 0.0096 SACIWAC&STORM SEWER $37,408.00 $3,000.00 0.1196 SITE IMPROV&STREETSCAPE $65,000.00 $55,000.00 2.01% CONSTRUCTION $1,696,500.00 $1,696,500.00 62.0596 ARCH&ENGIfIEER'G&LEGAL $118,755.00 $118,755.00 4.34% DEVELOPER OVERHEAD $177,934.77 $136,704.91 5.00% CONTIIGENCY 5%CONST COST $84,825.00 $84,825.00 3.10% RENTALISALES MARKETNG EXP. $142,347.81 $109,363.93 4.00% Subtotal $2,688,770.58 $2,204,148.84 80.62% FINANCING CONST.POINTS $33,930.00 $33,930.00 CONSTRUC. INTEREST $184,162.48 $141,489.58 PERM FIN./COMMIT.FEE . $64,056.52 $49,213.7? INTEREST ON W0RKING CAPITAL $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Subtotal $287,149.00 $229,633.35 8.40% POST CONSTRUCTION RENT UP MINI-PERM INTEREST $226,90620 $26,90620 0.98% TOTAL PHYSICAL VALUE OF PROPERTY $3,202,825.77 $2,460,688.39 90.00% DEVELOPER PROFIT $355,869.53 $273,409.82 10.00% TOTAL DEVELOPMENT SELLING PRICE $3,558,695.30 $2,734,09821 M y 100.00% DEVELOPMENT COST PER UNIT $65,031.92 $49,963.16 (W/0 PRO'IT) NOTE: THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE PAYS FOR THE FOLLOWGNG LGE ITEMS • SAC&WAC • ALL FEE'S ASSOCIATED WITH TAX W. • DEMOL IT ION OF EX IST ING BU ILD 11`1GS AND LAND PREP • CONSTRUCTION OF PARKING LOT •UT IL IT IES EXCEPT STORM SEWER • L MIND COST 11/28/85 SHAMFEE SENIOR HOUSUZ CASH FLOW PROFORMA-598 CA51II'MY ANALYSIS YEAR 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1393 1934 1995 1;96 7cl MUMSER OF UNITS *HOUS6NG* 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 %OCCUPIED 45.0095 85.0058 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.0096 95.00 a 95.003 95.0€12 95 0LT:3 UNITS OCCUPIED 19.8 37.4 41.8 41.8 41.8 41.8 41.8 412 41.8 41.8 AVG_RENT 598 634 672 712 755 BOO 848 899 953 1,x314 ADDITIONAL rCCME/UNIT 40 42 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 TOTAL IiCOM ArifT 638 675 715 757 802 849 899 952 1,008 1,1?5 7 GROSS RE'WHUE 336,864 356,653 377,613 399,813 423,327 448,232 474,612 502,5755 532,152 553,573 LESS:VACANCY 185,275 50,203 17,738 18,803 19,931 21,127 22,394 23,738 25,162 26,672 FLET REVEME 151,589 306,450 359,875 381,010 403,396 427,106 452,218 478,817 506,91'0 535,831 FURNITURE COST 10,000 OPERATM EXPENSE(NSF) 32,759 134,312 141,027 146,669 152,535 158,637 164,982 171,582 178,445 185,583 193,005 RESIDENTIAL IrJCOME 7,277 165,423 213,205 228,475 244,759 262,123 280,636 3CO,372 321,407 313,P25 RESTAURAFIT AREA *RETAIL* 4,200 4,200 4;700 4,200 4,200 4,200 4,200 4,200 4,200 4,---19, SALON AREA 625 625 625 625 625 625 625 625 625 625 AREA 4,825 4,825 4,325 4,825 4,825 4,825 4,825 4,825 4,825 4,`'2:3 GROSS REVENUE $10.00 48,250 51,145 5-4,214 57,467 60,915 64,569 68,444 72,550 76,903 81,517 OPERATM EXPENSE(N5F) 4,825 19,783 20,772 21,602 22,467 23,365 24,300 25,272 26,283 27,334 28,427 RETAIL MOM 28,468 30,373 32,611 35,000 37,549 40,270 43,172 46,267 49,569 53,0-9 ------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL(NON) 35,744 195,736 245,817 263,475 282,30$ 302,393 323,808 316,639 370,976 3336,915 DEBT SERVICE 229,223 229,223 224,223 229,223 229,223 229,223 229,Z23 229,223 229,223 2Z9,723 0/4 TAX CASH FLWY -193,479 -33,427 16,594 34,252 53,085 73,170 94,535 117,416 141,7530 167,63-2 INTEREST REDUCTION 0 -20,000 -20,000 -20,000 -20,000 -20,000 -20,000 -20,000 -20,000 -2UNU9 AFTER TAX CASH P-"ANALYSIS B/4 TAY,CASH FLOP -193,479 -13,427 365,594 54,252 73,085 93,170 114,585 137,416 161,753 18 7,6 ADD:PFMPAL 8,693 9,452 10,193 11,650 12,933 14,359 15,941 17,698 19,649 21,814 LESS:DEFRECIATION (30 YEAR) -91,137 -91,137 -91,137 -91,137 -91,137 -91,137 -91,137 -91,137 -91,137 -51,137 TAXIBLE INCOMEILOSS -275,923 -95,112 -44,049 -25,235 -5,118 16,392 39,389 63,977 90,265 118,369 w4COMETAX(50%MT) 137,961 47,556 22,025 12,617 2,559 -8,196 -19,695 -31,989 -45,133 -59,181 TAX SAYINGS -137,961 -47;556 -22;T25 -12,617 -2,5559 8,136 19,695 31,939 45,133 59,10-3 AFTER TAX CASH FLO)e -55,518 34,129 58,619 66,869 75,644 64,974 91,8:0 105,427 206,886 216,1376 i AfvA1AL CAP RATE Or REM-16/4 TAX 1.3153 7.1656 (8.9993 9.649'u 10.3396 11.6693 11.84 12.68 13.5793 14.5277, (NO I/PURCH ASE PRICE TO M) -- RETURN ON EQUITY(CASH 071 CASII) -1021 0 6.26-5 10.78% 12.3093 13.92% 15.6393 17AG'76 19.40°6 38.06% 45.4L 3 (After Tax CASH FLOW/EQUITY) 11/28185 c� STEERING COMMITTEE MAILING LIST SHAKOPEE Ms. Jean Andre Father Robert Hazel Community Development St. Mark's Catholic Church 129 East First Avenue 333 Fourth Avenue West Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee, MN 55379 Ms. Jane Dubois Ms. Marge Henderson 1705 Third Avenue West 905 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee, MN 55379 Pastor Ray Kruger Mr. Gary Laurent First Presbyterian Church Laurent Builders 909 Marshall Road 118 Fuller Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee, MN 55379 Mr. Virgil Mears, Chairman Sister Agnes Otting 1813 Shakopee Avenue East St. Francis Regional Medical Center Shakopee, MN 55379 325 Fifth Avenue West Shakopee, MN 55379 Ms. Betty Pink Mr. Jerry Regan Scott County Human Resources 703 Lewis Street :South 699 County Road 83 Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee, MN 55379 Pastor Tom Reiner Mr. John J. Schmitt Christ Lutheran Church 1015 Main Street South 1053 Jefferson Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee, MN 55379 Dr. .Anthony Spagnolo Mr. Joe Topic Shakopee Medical Center 405 East 11th Avenue 1335 East 10th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee, MN 55379 Mr. Todd Schwartz Citizens State Bank of Shakopee 1100 4th Avenue East Shakopee, MN 55379 f 1 � PROPOSED SENIOR HOUSING BASE SERVICE PACKAGE SERVICES PROVIDED: • Social service counseling • Senior-Line 24 hour R.N. answered referral/information line 0 1 Hour senior exercise program classes 3 x week (2 sessions) • CPR training twice a year • Regularly scheduled social programs • Senior wellness screening session with nurse educator quarterly • Customized wellness program per senior • Monthly senior wellness program Monthly 2 hour BP screening session • "Life-line" type emergency alert system • Free access to community education programs at St. Francis Regional Medical Center • If hospitalized, a private room with TV service provided at no additional charge COST: ' $70.00 per uni.t for single dweller $85.00 per unit for double dweller CUSTOMIZED SERVICE OPTIONS: • Towel and sheet service (weekly exchange) • Maid service • Home Health services - PT - OT RN - Homemaker • On site laboratory draws • Catering • Grocery shopping/liquor store • Prescription delivery Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 1610 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454 612-332-0421 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Larry Smith Arvid Elness Architects FROM: Deane M. Wenger DATE: December 2, 1985 SUBJECT: HOUSING ALLIANCE SENIOR CITIZEN RESIDENTIAL PROPOSAL, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Senior citizen housing has both low trip generation (especially during peak hours) as well as low levels of demand for off-street parking. TRIP GENERATION On an average weekday a retirement community dwelling unit is expected to generate 3.3 trips in and out per day. The range of values was 2.8 to 4.9 trips per day for five samples. During the P.M. rush hour the typical rate is 0.4 trips per unit both in and outbound. This compares to 1.0 trips per single family housing or and 0.7 trips per apartment. The trip generation of this type of housing is lower than any other category of residential. The proposed development is expected to generate about 145 trips per day inbound and outbound combined. Similarly, during the evening peak hour the total trips number about 18 VPH. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. CT Mr. Larry Smith December 2, 1985 Page 2 PARKING REQUIREMENTS The trip generation data were taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Generation Trip manual. This is the best reference available for this type of housing. The ITE has recently published a companion Manual on Parking Generation for many classes of land use. From that manual, the following data were extracted: - Weekday average day parking need = 0.3 spaces/unit - Weekday range = 0.1 - 0.5 spaces/unit - Saturday average parking need = 0.3 spaces/unit - Sunday average parking need = 1.0 spaces/unit On Sunday one would expect other parking will be available so that value need not be used for design. On a weekday or Saturday a rate of 0.3 or 0.4 per unit should be adequate. The developer has proposed a higher parking ratio which can be used to assure the city that a parking equivalent can be demonstrated. After a trial period, however, we suggest some spaces could be diverted to other uses such as storage, a car washing area, etc. These uses can be temporary so that if more spaces are needed they could revert to parking. The suggestion is worth considering since the supply of parking proposed is more than double what we estimate will be needed. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. "T C' Mr. Larry Smith December 2, 1985 Page 3 STREET SYSTEM The current study of TH 169 - TH 101 has been started but the CBD bypass options have not been evaluated. Some alternates would connect Fuller Street to the bypass and perhaps to a new bridge across the Minnesota River. Fuller Street south of First would not become a major arterial. It would attract some trips from Homes but not major volumes. The daily traffic should be in the range of 2,500 to 3,500 vehicles per day. This is a minor collector volume. It would serve as a useful route to the area of the courthouse and the hospital. The housing complex does not take access from Fuller and its entrance driveways can be held back from Fuller. Therefore the street should be compatible with the proposed development. Access to the complex via the alley seems to be desirable; especially if the city provides some extra parking west of the building. Special priority for plowing would be appropriate as at hospitals. This is common practice. The street volumes are low enough so that pedestrian crossings to the downtown could be made safe with only minimal extra treatment. In several instances in the metropolitan area we have been told that placing homes for the elderly in areas having some activity is very useful in deferring senility and isolation for Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Mr. Larry Smith December 2, 1985 Page 4 the tenants. It is also quite desirable to have such housing in the immediate vicinity of the CBD to encourage tenant activity, interest, and mobility. We see no conflict with the probable TH 169 solution whether or not Fuller is made part of the plan. kro/v �/ �.��� . ��`�� ���-��� , , , i �. _.� �� �____ a -�- � ��, � � _ ���� CE"T G t� �3� �� ���i�� ,_� �__�� �, -�-, 'z%� �� ��/ i i I PrPITION FOR A HIGHRISE BUILDING TO HQ70SE THE ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED, LOCATED IN SHDKOPEE, SCOTT COgTY, MINNESOTA JANUARY 1983 WE THE UNDERSIGNED PETITION HUD, TO CONSIDER AND DECLARE SHOKOPEs 1N AREA THAT HAS A GREAT NEED FOR A HIGHRUSE BUILDING TO HOUSE THE ELDERLY AND THE HANDICAPPED, NOW,WE FEEL THERE IS SUCH A DESPERATE NEED FOR THE TYPE OF HOUSING. AT THE PRESENT TIME THEME IS TWO UNITS F:?R THE ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED. ONE•IS VERY SMALL'ANp_ OLDER AND TIRE OTHER IS ONLY 66 UNITS, BOTH HAVE A VERY LONG WAITING LIST, AND YOST OF THE ELDERLY DON'T EVEN APPLY , THEY FEEL TRAY WOLDNT HAVE A CHANCE TO GET IN IF THEY DID, WITH SHOKOPEE BEING ONE OF THE OLDEST SETTLE14ENTS IN THE STATE, THE PEOPLE THAT . LIVE HERE ARE GOD FEARING,HARaIORKING, PROUD AND RESPECTABLE, MOST HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO MAKE A LARGE WAGE 0_? PROFIT IN THERE WORKIN LIFE, THIS AREA HAS POSSIBLEY x)00 OR MORE IN OR AROUND SHOKOPEE, MANY LIVE ON JUST SOCIAL SECURITY AND THAT SURE IS NOT MUCH, THEY SKRIP ON FOOD, MEDICAL NEEDS, AND OTHER NEEDS. IF THEY COULD LIVE IN A HIGHRISE THEY COULD AFFORD THE NESSASARY NEEDS, PLUS COMPANIONSHIP PROTECTION, AND SPEND THERE LIVES IN DIGNITY LIKE THEY SO RICHLY DESERVE. WE HAVE A SITE ON THE EAST SIDE OF SHOKOPEE THAT IS IDEAL, THIS IS WHERE THE GROWTH FOR BUSINESSES SEEM TO BE GOING, THIS SITE HAS SOME VERY OLD SUB-STANDARD HOME)PrHAT CAN BE REMOVED, IT IS WITHIN TWO BLOCKS OF ALL THE NEEDED SERVICES FOR THE ELDERLY, THEY CAN WALK TO ALL THE SHOPPING, A.^7D IT IS WITHIN THREE BLOCKS TO THE VERY HEART OF DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT OF S:i0OPEE. IT IS LOCATED ON BLUFF AVE. IT IS VERY QUIET, AND HAS A PANARAMIC VIEW OF THE laNNESOTA RIVER AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. IT IS ALSO RIGHT IN LINE WITH THE PRESENT HIGHRISE, ON THE WEST SIDE OF SHOKOPEE. ' E ARE PRAYING THAT YOU WILL HELP US GET FUNDING FOR THIS PROJECT, HERE ARE JUST A FF4 NAMES THAT VIE WANT TO JOIN IN WITH US IT COULD BE HUNDREDS OF NlU E3j**f px v' U ��/ � C�JGr-,cam-j ./�,� •.��.��'-.- '�r.r Iva �P— c Is f ss3> __..__ ��• ���-_. .:%3S/a�t:.,�,c;i s i�-�.��,..�YC1���<�-3�y2_ �9i O 0 !{o S /fc V-7—L (41 i 7,t . ..262 0 . z � .. r /SE'S 7 C-/,kidt An"C'.��tCJJ �! '"—'•��'' //�S� C/�c�.��-c:�t F3C.�c� 1.L`C-'s'J?�r '7 Yl�'�. _------ ,..•tip v., �a�..t�C�.�-cQ. �/� � ,,�, � � ����t�- •1't11 � . ' ��, i 1 J_r 1 ( AS /?- � c cv. OAZU46V d . - -- t, i, ` cr'Zoo -7,341 I-int N�.�%tJ �! /!. .�:/ .i.� .•f ✓��%-/-Y1.X..'r. ...'.! _ �i.. ..r. �r. ..^r"7A^ . �. /,eit� /•L[J i'w• •/� r ��N • �,G L.,�'/n_fir..�'a G:'s'i, .:i!i.. .. � r Il/ I / C~�fvtt CO Gni / �. - 1. --���-r''�1'�C%•tib/ Lf'�'"r..�f�'' '.fo'��rl'• ,.�,./'I � .,•.!' Ji���� f.;a, ,✓ IgLto oA. I -)HA4q-(', Wtv I loll ev Vow- ' 1. ..�..�'. ..�Lit,:..�-._... .. � �11.E (},�•ya��j • r-1 � t-y�If;i•'!�� �P i;�ls;}II�, 1��l i-•fie � �� � r• ���'�/S'�C C-,�/�0 )JAIV dtv'Ael 4-4�� / � �`'1-- /Gl-<< 4 /i1 •.----.----_.._..----..__.___ __.-------------.--.---._�'-.--_.._._ ill.-�---.._ _. . _ . �a lutn_. c Y1 s�e�,,1 �C,�,4 E. 4 CZ u h ja n� JR ,L4-r LUTNeiP r� lr�l Il L � ` `' .J.`.l_`./L<.. (C�>�N-'�••V`i'�/� V 1,,..��n.� I?l.. �1. ' ��- 1''.. .�i... Pt 7 ll '�t• � �-Q-rcZc.a�- 0^' r `� � �`-L.'�:`.d'�:i•(d.,I..�<. �7�,i rt ..'r.re^' .! J� I •� � �.�y,���It slap - /-•-� J ,J r i , cji U:ST--) f_ C( c.� 1,S_ --r1�"f��j�NJ. 1\ •/, V 7 :G 41v r '!I ' {SJ� t .1 l'1 L (��i}r'��i r� Yzrcz "JU I&- sz ( � y �� - - - c-"N�-i•-- ��'I Com. C�1��P � �!'L, 1� ,. .. c w. . . ......... ewy •---.�G�1�1� lam' c",,,� / Tt -�-o-,..� TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director RE: Shakopee Valley Square Tax Increment Proposal DATE: December 3 , 1985 Introduction• Wally Baaken is proposing new development adjacent to his existing motel in Shakopee. The City Council has reviewed this proposal through the preliminary plat process and is probably aware that the project is to include a 45 room expansion (with amenities ) to the motel, a restuarant estimated to seat 200 , and a campground with approximately 163 sites. A residence-type motel was initially proposed but has now been removed from the proposed, at least for the short-term. Mr. Baaken has commissioned a market feasibility study which indicates a need for this project. However, since the margins on the project components are so close to breakeven, tax-increment assistance has been requested to make the project work. Background: A letter from Mr. Baaken sent out with the agenda packet outlines his request to the city which includes requested tax increment in the amount of $330 ,500. This includes land write-down, public improvements : and site preparation, with approximately $95 , 000 in assistance for the motel, $90 , 000 for the restaurant and $145,500 for the campground. Mr. Bakken has stated that all three elements of the proposal work together and the feasibility of the project is based on the assumption that all three will be constructed. This request is in keeping with the City' s adopted procedure for consideration of requests for tax-increment assistance. The applicant has submitted a written request which has been provided to the City Planner, consulting Engineer, Utilities Director, Public Works Director, City Assessor and Finance Director for comment. A preliminary financial analysis has been performed by Springsted, Inc. On December 3rd the proposal will be presented by the developer to the City Council. This memo is to summarize the findings of Springsted and the staff regarding the feasibility of this project, for Council consideration. The following comments have been received regarding this project: 1) City Planner Planning and zoning issues regarding this project should generally be handled within the normal platting process. Due to the inclusion of flood plain property in this proposal an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) has been required. Although the Environmental Quality Board has not yet prepared a report of findings on the EAW, it appears that the issue of historical significance will need to be addressed. The Minnesota Historical Society has discovered that the proposed campground includes some Indian burial sites , and is the location of the original village of Chief Shakopee . 2 ) Finance Director - The Finance Director questions the public benefit of this project and the application of tax-increment financing. 3 ) City Engineer - The Engineer has judged that some costs of site development, such as flood proofing of the utility services to the campground, are extra- ordinary. 4 ) City Assessor - The City Assessor has estimated that the assessed market value for the existing motel and addition will be $2 , 850 , 000 , compared to an existing assessed market value for the motel and vacant parcels of about $732 , 600 . 5 ) Public Works Director - No comments received. 6 ) Public Utilities Manager - No comments received. The figures provided by the assessor regarding the anticipated increment were analyzed by Springsted to determine whether they would support the requested assistance. The analysis included two approaches, one with the district created under statutes as an economic development district and the second as a redevelopment district. Although City policy calls for the use of revenue bonds for either case, the higher rates necessary when revenue bonds are utilized were judged by Springsted to make the use of revenue bonds unfeasible. Therefore both cases utilize general obligation tax increment bonds. Economic Development District: This type of district is limited to a period of 8 years. While it appears that the gross tax revenues over an eight-year term are sufficient to cover the requested assistance, a recent amendment to the law requires the captured assessed value to be decreased annually over the term of the district by the increased valuation of the parcels ( inflation) in the five years prior to the creation of the district. This additional requirement decreases the tax-revenue each year and would require a supplemental city levy to support an economic development district for this project. Redevelopment District: This district is limited to a period of 25 years. However the requested assistance could be acheived with increments over an eight year period because there is no annual decrease in the captured assessed value as with economic development districts. Therefore this approach seems the most likely, assuming the city assessor and the city' s bond counsel agree that the project would qualify as a redevelopment district. Assuming the redevelopment approach could be used, the following are the criteria the city' s policy lists for consideration of such a project: 1) The benefit to the city as measured by: a. The absolute and percent increase in the tax base. b. The extent the project eliminates blight or supports a redevelopment plan that eliminates blight. C. The extent the project eliminates detrimental land use or buildings. d. The extent the project provides especially needed services or development. 2 ) The character of the improvement is such that there are extraordinary costs to: a. Acquire property, remove buildings and/or relocate occupants. b. Change the image of a declining area. C. Relocate or realign existing public utilities or streets. 3 ) Need is demonstrated at the requested amoung with no feasible alternatives. 4 ) That the increased market value provides a 10 : 1 ratio to the tax-increment assistance requested and that request is for the least $100 , 000. r_w TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne Andre , Community Development Director RE: Shakopee Valley Motel Tax Increment Proposal DATE: November 27 , 1985 Introduction• Attached is information provided by the applicant for pre- liminary City Council review to explore the possibility of using tax-increment financing assistance. The applicant is prepared to make a presentation to the Council at its December 3 , 1985 , meeting. Background• The applicant has provided plans , a narrative explanation, and a 50 page feasibility study on the project for Council review. All but the feasibility study are included, and the feasibility study can be provided on request. Staff review is underway and a memo will go out to Council on Monday. At this point the Council is only receiving an initial presentation on the project, and determining if it desires the applicant to submit a formal application. Attachment tw November 25 , 1985 Mr. John Anderson City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 East 1st Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr. Anderson: Please consider this letter a formal request to the City of Shakopee for $330 , 000 of Tax Increment Financing assistance with proposed improvements adjacent to the Shakopee Valley Motel. The overall development plan includes three major elements , sum- marized as follows: 1. Expansion of Shakopee Valley Motel to include a total of 102 rooms, pool area with whirlpool and sauna, and small gift/coffee shop. Estimated construction cost: $1, 550, 000. 2 . Construction of a restaurant adjacent to the Shakopee Valley Motel which would have seating of up to 280 people. Estimated construction cost: $890 , 000. 3 . Construction of a campground and recreational facilities which would include 71 campsites with utility hookups and 88 unserved campsites. Estimated construction cost: $525 , 000. A market and financial feasibility analysis has been prepared by Kurt Smith. This analysis provides the basis for the financial review indicating the financial need for TIF. The full report is available for review. The specific Tax Increment Financing request, based upon eligible costs, is as follows: Mr. John Anderson November 25 , 1985 Page 2 Motel/Restaurant Land acquisition for motel expansion $ 125 , 000 On site public improvements--curb cuts res- toration 10 , 000 Sewer fees, extension 20 , 000 Adjacent lot, fill , and recondition 30 , 000 Subtotal $ 185 , 000 Campground Lift station 25 , 000 Paved roadway 10 , 500 Utility costs, sewer 30 , 000 Site work 80 , 000 Subtotal 145 , 500 Total $ 330 , 500 Estimated Market Value Increase Motel expansion $1, 200 , 000 Restaurant 550 , 000 Campground 300 , 000 Total $2 , 050 , 000 Original assessed valuation (1/2/85 ) 373 ,713 Assessed valuation at completion ( 1/2/87) 1 , 255 , 213 Captured assessed value 881, 500 Less : Fiscal disparities contribution (29 . 6% ) (260 , 924 ) Net captured assessed value 620 , 576 Mill rate 117 . 793 Increment $ 73 ,100 Mr. John Anderson November 25 , 1985 Page 3 � ( Estimated Bond Issue--Summary Project costs $ 330 , 500 Professional services 25 , 000 Discount 5, 500 Capitalized interest 64 , 000 Total bond issue $ 425 , 000 Estimated bond term 11 Years (Presumes 9. 0%, two-years capitalized interest, stable mill rate, no inflationary increases. ) I anticipate that the project will be qualified as a redevelop- ment project. These net project costs will not, however, utilize all of the City ' s bonding capabilities based upon the projected future value of the project. City assistance for this project is required for several reasons. First, the cost of the overall land acquisition and improvements makes this project economically unfeasible without City assistance. Due to the special purpose nature of the planned improvements, the equity requirements by lenders are very substantial. The participation by the City through the use of Tax Increment Financing will assist in offsetting those equity requirements to facilitiate the project financing. We anticipate that the successful construction of both phases of this project will have a dramatic positive impact upon the City of Shakopee. In addition to the projected $2. 05 million increase of market valuation, the expansion of the motel, construction of the restaurant, and the campground will create a projected 80 new jobs in the Shakopee area. This project will also greatly enhance the recreational amenities adjacent to the downtown area and bring a substantial influx of new people into the downtown area. I have included the attachments as identified by the City Application for Tax Increment Financing. Your careful con- sideration and review of this request will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Wallace Bakken Attachments cc: Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority DISTRICT INFORMATION 1. See attached plans. 2. The project consists of approximately 35 acres . (See attached plans for details ) . 3 . Lot 1: To be used as a 102 unit motel containing: A. Coffee shop. B. Gift shop. C. Indoor recreation areas to include: 1. Swimming pool. 2. Sauna/spa. 3. Game area. D. Convention facilities. Lot 2 To be used as a family style restaurant with an estimated seating capacity of 200 to 280 . Lot 3 Site leveled only--potential future motel expansion. Lot 4 To be used as a campsite and recreation area. A. Eighty-eight campsites with electrical and water hookups . are planned for self-contained camping units. B. Seventy-one campsites with electrical and water hookups are planned for non-self contained camping units. C. A trail system is planned in conjunction with the State Trail System in that area. D. Development of a series of cross county ski trails. Estimated Market Value Increase C( 0. Motel expansion 1, 300 , 000 Restaurant 650 , 000 Campground 400 , 000 Total 2 , 350 , 000 Projected annual increment 106, 000 7 . A. New Jobs: 1. Lot 1--21. 2. Lot 2--50. 3 . Lot 3-- 0. 4. Lot 4-- 8. 5 . Due to the nature of this development, the value of these jobs is enhanced by the fact that the develop- ment is designed to creat year-round stable employment which is lacking in Shakopee' s present "summer-boom economy" . B. Increased valuation (See Number 6 ) . C. Assets accruing to the community: 1. Development of a winter recreation market increased. 2. Resources to meet summer demands in Shakopee as opposed to 494 strip. 3 . Convention center to attract smaller, stable conven- tions and groups year-round. 4. Use of heretofore undeveloped and undevelopable land which has unique negative attributes and would not otherwise contribute to the community' s economic or tax base. 5. Provide balance to the area' s economy which is pre- sently one dimensional and weighted almost entirely to summer recreation. 6. Provide an interrelated year-round resort development adjacent to the Shakopee business district. 7. Develop trail systems for summer and winter use by local residents. 8 . Create unique and increased retail opportunities for Shakopee citizens and guests (tourist) . 9 . Create a winter retreat weekend source for citizens in southwest Finnesota without traveling to the core metropolitan area. 8 . A. (Need a study) . B. (Need a study) . C. See attached plan. 9 . The amount of land required for this entire project is prohi- bitive for most investors in light of the topographical aspects. of the land the soil conditions. This land has very limited use which makes it a significantly higher risk for lenders and, therefore, limits the private financing available. Due to the nature of the land, such as the need for extensive site preparation and the difficulty encountered in providing utilities to these parcels due to soil conditions, assistance is needed in these areas. The limestone subsurface in this area makes the cost of providing utilities prohibitive. The cost of widening Highway 101 at this location, the cost of removing and replacing sidewalks , and the construction of other roadways and trails further add to the prohibitive cost. a- 4 . This development puts heretofore unusual , dormant land to use in a highly productive way. This land could be transformed from somewhat of an eyesore into an income producing tax producing community attraction. 5 . This development would provide the citizens of Shakoaee with increased recreational opportunities through its development of a multi-use, multi-seasonal trail system, increased access to the shoreline and usage of the river, and increased family entertainment opportunities. 6 . This development would provide year-round employment opportunities for Shakopee citizens . D. OTHER INFORMATION The applicant, Wallace Bakken, is a longstanding , contri- buting citizen in the City of Shakopee. Mr. Bakken has already made a considerable investment of his own time, money, and energy in the existing portion of this planned development. Mr. Bakken has a proven track record of pro- viding the City of Shakopee with an attractive, stable addi- tion to its commercial development. Mr. Bakken has always been cooperative in working with the City in his development endeavors. Mr. Bakken is not an unknown corporate entity-- rather he is a local citizen with roots in and a commitment to this community and its stable development. This particular development is extremely valuable to Shakopee, its citizens, and its well-rounded development for several reasons : 1 . This development will provide Shakopee with both summer and winter attractions. This is especially important to Shakopee due to the large summer tourist attractions which do not sustain quality year-round facilities and which provide only seasonal employment. Unless develop- ments such as planned by Mr. Bakken are constructed, Shakopee will be confronted with the negative consequen- ces of either a transitory work force with no real ties to the community, a work force that is unemployed for a significant part of the year, or an unhealthy combination of the two. Mr. Bakken' s development would not only pro- vide year-round employment for those directly involved but also have a spillover positive effect on the numerous tourist industries presently being developed to meet the summer needs. Simply stated, it would move Shakopee from being a one season, one dimensional tourist attraction, toward becoming a year-round recreation center with the stabilizing benefits that would accrue. Cross country skiing and snowmobiling are prime winter activities and having facilities for those activities in place, near the metropolitan area, and with quality support facilities and accommodations at hand would greatly enhance this community. 2. The development would also provide facilities for small conventions, group meetings, and retreats year round. This would be an added market which this City should and could derive many benefits. 3 . The development would provide a year-round family retreat or weekend away opportunity in Shakopee which is now only present in the downtown and 494 strip area. This would provide a place where families could come to enjoy indoor swimming and other recreational activities. SHAKOPEE VALLEY MOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING FINANCIAL REVIEW The basis for the review of the impact of the tax increment financing is a market analysis and financial feasibility study prepared by Mr. Kurt Smith. Revenue and expense projections have been prepared which recognize the unique, seasonal na- ture of the Shakopee area market. Debt service estimates are based upon current market conditions and annualized debt service does not recognize developer equity contribution. SHAKOPEE VALLEY MOTEL EXPANSION Assumptions Project Costs Land Acquisition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$150,000 (Pro-Rated Of Total ) Site Correction (Lot 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,000 Facility Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 ,550,000 Total ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . . .. . . . .. . $1 ,730,000 Allocated TIF Assistance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$95,000 Debt Service (Annual ) Est. @ 12.5%/20 Year Amortization Without TIF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $238,900 With TIF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225,800 Net Annual Savings.. . ....... . ... . . .. . ..... . . $13,100/Year Projected Revenue/Expenses Study 10% Variance Projected: Revenue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$916,400 $824,760 Expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 542,800 526,857 Gross Profit .. ...... . ......... ..... .... ...$373,600 $297,900 (Without Debt Service/Dep./Taxes) Net Profit After D/S Without TIF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$134,700 $59,000 With TIF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147,800 72,100 Restaurant Assumptions Project Costs Land Acquisition $ 107 , 000 Facility Construction 896 , 850 Total $1 ,003 , 850 Allocated TIF Assistance 90 , 000 Debt Service (Annual ) Est. @ 12. 5%/20-Year Amortization: Without TIF $138 , 627 With TIF 126 ,199 Net Annual Savings $ 12 , 428 Projected Revenue/Expenses 10% Study Variation Projected Revenue $1, 240 ,000 $1, 116 , 000 Expenses . 1, 070 ,600 1, 025 ,776 Gross Profit $ 169 ,400 $ 90 ,224 (Without Debt Service/Dep./Taxes) Net Profit After D/S Without TIF 30 , 773 ( 48 , 403 ) With TIF 43 ,201 (35 , 975 ) Camnaround 1� Project Costs Land Acquisition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 40,000 Site Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523,320 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$563,320 Allocated TIF Assistance. . . . . . . . . . .$145,500 Debt Service (Annual ) Est. @ 12.5%/10 Year Amortization Without TIF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$101 ,750 With TIF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75,470 Net Annual Savings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$26,280 Projected Revenue/Expenses Study 10% Variance Projected: Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$585,300 $526,770 Expenses 590,700 494,175 Gross Profit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $75,20Q $32,595 (Without Debt Service/ Dep/Taxes) Net Profit After D/S Without TIF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ($26,350) ($69,155) With TIF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ($70) ($42,875) SUMMARY 10% ( 0.-- Stuuv variance Projected: Revenue Motel Expansion $ 916 , 400 $ 824 , 760 Restaurant 1, 240 , 000 11116 , 000 Campground 585 , 300 526 , 700 $2,741,700 $2 , 467 , 460 Expenses Motel Expansion $ 542 , 800 $ 526 , 857 Restaurant 1, 070 , 600 1,025 ,776 Campground 509 , 700 494 , 175 $2,123 , 100 $2 , 046 , 808 Gross Profit $ 618 , 600 $ 420 , 652 Net Profit After D/S Without TIF 139 ,123 ( 58 ,155) With TIF 190 , 931 ( 6 , 750 ) * A 10% variation in sales represents only a minimal reduction in sales and should be an acceptable level of risk. 116 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Highway 101 Access for Prairie House First Addition DATE: November 27 , 1985 Introduction The City Council,at its regular November 19 , 1985 meeting, approved the preliminary plat of Prairie House First Addition with service road alignment alternative No.l which intersects with Valley Park Drive just north of the intersection of Valley Park Drive and Highway No. 101. Council then directed City staff to provide cost estimates for the implementation of access road alternative No. l. Cost Estimates The City Engineer has provided the attached memorandum dated November 25 outlining the costs for alternative No. 1. The City Engineer has outlined the costs for the construction of alternative No. 1 and addressed the requirements listed by Valley Fair in their letter of October 31st and costed out each of those items. LeRoy Houser has estimated that the value of the property in this general vicinity is approximately $28 ,000 per acre and computing the proposed taking for the intersection improvements (Engineering sketch plans attached) at about one-half acre the taking would include another $14,000 . I also asked the Assistant City Attorney, Rod Krass , to address the question of the City' s authority to use condemnation in the taking and to address the question of assessing the improvement cost to the developer of Prairie House First Addition. Rod has answered those questions in his letter dated November 26 , 1985 which is attached. Alternatives City Council can determine that it wishes to proceed with access alternative No. 1 for the Prairie House First Addition now that it has cost estimates. Council could either include the estimated cost of the improvements in the developers agreement for Prairie House First Addition or assess the improvement cost to Prairie House First Addition with the developer agreeing to the assessment in the developers agreement. Alternative No. 2 is the same as alternative No. 1 but would include formal assessment hearings and proceeding under a City ordered project if the developer did not agree to execute a developers agreement as noted in alternative No. 1. This means that City Council must determine now that they would move forward with this project as a City initiated project requiring a two-thirds majority vote to order the project. Alternative No. 3 the City Page 2 �y Highway 101 Access for Prairie House First Addition could decide that the cost of alternative No. 1 is too great and Council can direct staff to contact the Planning Commission for approval of access alternative No. 2 at their Planning Commission meeting on Dec. 5, 1985 . The pros and cons of this alternative were discussed at length at the November 19 Council meeting. Recommendation I recommend alternative No. 1 with alternative No. 2 being a fall- back should the City not reach an agreement with the developer for including the costs in the developers agreement. In addition, I recommend approval of the resolution determining the necessity for the authorization for the acquisition of certain property ( the parcel outlined in the sketch plan) by proceeding with eminent domain for the purpose of constructing a roadway. It is essential that this resolution be passed on December 3 so that the City can begin quick-take proceedings so that the developer can have access to the land for construction of the service road in April of 1986 . If Valleyfair negotiates a settlement then the proceedings can be stopped. Action Requested Offer Resolution 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 at the Intersection of Highway 101 and Valley Park Drive in Shakopee, Minnesota. dbs CSF_ :E3HAKCDPa INCORPORAT-7D 1870 ENGIt,?EERING DEPARTI!EhT 129 E. 1st Avenue - S7akooee, Finnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Adm i n i st rat or FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineei,'� SUBJECT: Prairie House Addition DATE: November, -25, 1985 INTRODUCTION: The preliminary plat for Prairie House Addition was submitted with two alternatives for access to the property. Alternative 1 consists of a frontage road connecting with Valley park Drive. Alternative 2 consists of a frontage road with access to Trunk Highway 101. This is an analysis of casts associated with modifications to Valley Park Drive and other requirements of Valley Fair as conditions of land acquisition for public right-of-way. BACKGROUND : The overall public improvements for the Prairie House Addition consists of sanitary sewer, water ut i 1 it ies, and a frontage road running parallel and adjacent to Trunk Highway 101. As stated previously, two alternatives have been proposed for- access to this frontage road. The proposed alignments of the sanitary sewer and water utili- ties are the same for both alternatives of the frontage. There- fore, the utility improvement costs are not an issue in this analysis. The estimated cost of the actual frontage road construction is as follows: Alternative 1 $160, 000. 00 Alternative 2 188, 000- 00 ( including t unn lanes) Prairie House Addition November ,_51 19ES or` the f*-cony,ap e road in Alternative 1 to connect t o Valley Park Drive, an easement must be obtained from Valleyfair. In a correspondence dated October 31, 1985 to Judi Sin-ac, Vall«yfziir indicated their willingness to grant an easement ; subject, but not limited tn, various conditions as following paraphrased and analysed. A. The existing island defining the right turn, lane from west bound T. H. 101 be modified to accommodate traffic and maintenance needs. . In concurrence with Barton-Aschman, I feel this is necessary to accommodate maintenance equipment, speci- fically snow plowing. The cast of this reconstruction is estimated to be 54, 000. 00. B. A new sign 'Co replace the existing marquee be con- structed on Valleyfair, property west of Valley Park Drive. In consulting with the Building Department, LeRoy Houser estimated the cost of relocating the existing marquee at $30, 000. 00. This does riot satisfy the condition stated in the Valleyfair correspondence which calls for a new sign to be constructed. If condemnation is necessary for right-of-way acquisi- tion, damages would be calculated. Valleyfair has been heard to say that they have $82, 000. 00 invested in the existing marquee. C. Fix the grade on the existing Valley Park Drive access road. The estimated cost of reconstructing the portion of Valley Park Drive to correct grade and sight dis- t ance problems is $5-15, 000. 00. D. Provide new secure closure Dates where the relocated entrance gate is shown on the preliminary plat. The estimated cost of installing traffic actuated gates to prevent unauthorized access to Valleyfair' s parking lot is $5, 000. 00. E. Replace any altered landscaping. The estimated cost of relocating and/or replacement of trees and landscaping is $3, 000. 00. Prairie House Addition r� zic .1 F. Convey a piece r-f property appy roximatel50 feet by 1, 01_; feet of the Dradford property to Val1evfair. LeRoy Houser- estimated the appraised value Of this Property t�� be $! 1 , 630. 00. Val leyfair does not stipu- late that additional bituminous surfacing be provided to substitute lost vehicle stacking area. This may become an issue if condemnation is necessary. G. A stop sign be placed for west bound traffic on the frontage road. The estimated cost for time and material of placing the stop sign is $2-00. 00, H. No roadway construction would occur during Valleyfair operations. This stipulation does not directly result in a cost but may be impossible from a practical standpoint. I. pay all consulting and legal fees. This cost cannot be estimated at this point. SUMMARY: The following is a siummary of the estimated costs associated with the conditions set forth in the Valleyfair correspondence. A. Island Modifications $ 4, 000. 00 B. Relocated Sign 30 000. 00 (New Sign $82, 000. 00 -f-) C. Valley park Drive Modifications 55, 000. 00 D. Closure Gates 5, 000. 00 E. Landscaping 3, 000. 00 G. property Conveyance 11, 630. 00 H. No Construction Disturbance ---- I. No Legal Fees ---- RECOMMENDATIONS : Based on council' s action of approving prairie House Addition Preliminary plat Alternate 1, staff must negotiate acquisition of the necessary right-of-way to implement Alternate 1 or pro- ceed with condemnation. KA/pmp PHA �p�wowaaw�wo xe,�r-ti s, r_ ,,, MH^'.+I�4u Tn,y,IwI{rw..v IrJ•Mwy „ �. '� s,.�.,4 Yvwo,• 1l}7t v Uf'i �ti c C° 0 °r��j pry Av s y r9lio isb �w Sca100 Gi 00 �.ion / N,l llre4= Z12 420, Sear>h9s shote are assumed 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, 190.00 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, 152.72 feet to its intersection with the said North-South Quarter line; thence South 0 degrees 48 minutes 00 seconds West, along said Quarter line, 124.80 feet to the point of beginning. I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. DATE 7 / ROBERT SIKICH, Land Surveyor Minnesota Registered No. 14891 Pu U,thad All RiOtt R-ed Law Offices of KRASS, MEYER & WALSTEN 1-3 H E Chartered Suite 300 Marschall Road Business Center Phillip R. Krass Paralegals 327 South Marschall Road Barry K. Meyer Barbara J.Hedstrom P.O. Box 216 Trevor R. Walsten Jolene R.Wagner Shakooee. Minnesota 55379 Elizabeth B. McLaughlin Lori A.Lambracht 1612)445-5080 Susan L. Estill Shelly T.Felsing Of Counsel Office Manager Dennis L. Monroe Wands Bralmhorst MEMORANDUM To: The Honorable Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator City of Shakopee From: Phillip R. Krass Assistant City Attorney Date: November 26, 1985 Re: Prairie House Plat Dear Mayor, Council Members, and City Administrator: I. have been asked to render a legal opinion relative to the City's position in the two alternatives available for access in the Prairie House plat, adjacent to an easterly of Valley Fair. My understanding of the facts related to this situation is as follows: BACKGROUND: The owner of the property easterly of Valley Fair and fronting on Highway 101 desires to plat this property to allow the construction of a restaurant and perhaps other uses authorized by the zoning. In order to meet the platting requirements of the City of Shakopee, access must of course be provided. Such access may be provided to this property in one of two ways, to- wit: Alternate number 1, which is to construct a frontage road westerly in order to meet and take advantage of the present access controlled by stop and go lights in front of Valley Fair's present entrance; and alternate number 2, construction of a frontage road along Highway 101 and uncontrolled access directly onto Highway 101 easterly of the present semaphore. I have been informed that the total cost estimated for alternate number 1 is $268,000.00 and the total cost for alternate number 2 is $188,000.00. Alternate number 1 would require condemnation of some property presently owned by Valley Fair and reloca- tion of the marquee entrance owned by Valley Fair. It is also possible that Valley Fair may contend that the required taking diminishes the value of their remaining property (an issue with respect to which I am unqualified to comment) and if such is the case, any such damages related to that diminution of value would be in addition to the $268,000.00 mentioned above. ISSUES: The legal issues presented to me are twofold: 1) Is the City empowered to use its authority under the laws of eminent domain to acquire pro- perty owned by Valley Fair to accommodate alternate number 1? 2) Is the City authorized under Chapter 429 to assess the cost of such acquisition including relocation costs of the marquee and damage to the remaining Valley Fair pro- perty, if any, against the property being platted, or other property determined to have been benefited? The Honorable Mayor, City Council and City Administrator Page Two November 26, 1985 DISCUSSION: It is my understanding that our City Engineering staff is of the opinion that alternate number 1 would provide a safer method of acceWhile not professing ssing the property east of Valley Fair than alternate number 2. to be an engineer or traffic expert, these arguments make sense to me and appear to me to be eminently reasonable. I believe the City Council could make a valid determination that the public health and safety (prime considerations of any municipal government) would best be served with alternate number 1. Should you make that determination, it is my opinion that you are well within your rights to utilize your powers of eminent domain to condemn property necessary to accomplish this safer method of accessing the property in question. You must keep in mind that under the law of eminent domain we are required to fully com- pensate the property owner whose land is being taken. That compensation would include not only the actual value of the land taken, but the cost of moving and/or replacing damaged buildings, structures, and plant life, and any diminution in value of the "severed" or remaining property. As always, any action in eminent domain commences with the City Council giving its approval by passing a resolution authorizing such condemnation. Upon service thereof and service of a notice of the City's intention to take the property under the "quick take" provisions of the statute, the City may not physically enter upon and take said property for a period of ninety (90) days, unless the property owner gives a written waiver. The answer to the second issue related to assessments is simple in concept, but somewhat more complicated in application. Clearly the City may under Chapter 429 assess to benefited property the cost of providing utilities to that property. Such utilities would include the frontage road in question. As I am sure you are aware, however, those assessments may not exceed the increase in market value to the assessed property created by the utilities the City provides. For instance, assuming the cost estimates of alternate number 1 are correct at $268,000.00, if we find that the increased market value of the benefited property is equal to or greater than $268,000.00, the entire amount may be assessed. If, however, the increased market value is only $250,000.00, alternate funding would have to be found for the remaining $18,000.00. I have no way of knowing how a qualified appraiser would value the property in question before and after access is provided under alternate number 1. I believe we all know enough about land values from our experience in the many takings our City has been involved with to conclude that particularly with highway property, access is a key factor in determining value. I personally would expect the market to reflect to some degree the value of a better and safer access to high- way property. A determination as to what portion of the costs of alternate number 1 may be assessed to benefited properties is complicated enough, however, so that I do not believe we can assume that all costs of alternate number 1 may be legally assessed to the benefited property. CONCLUSION: I believe you may condemn the property necessary to faci- litate alternate number 1 and further that you may assess the costs of that alternate to the benefited property to the extent the market value of that pro- perty increases as a result of the access provided as part of alternate number 1. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE NECESSITY FOR AND mH 7 T T THE T(''r1 T TION T C'E AL'.L ORI�lI�G L'r.� �-.��LISI��OIv OF ...� AIN PROPERTY BY PROCEEDING IN EMINENT DOI,ir.IN FOR PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCTING 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: the city of the following described :or the purpose of providing frontage ins 11julum llkt HUTCHINSON, MN 55350 :d subdivision of Prairie House Addition, PRAIRIE HOUSE,INC. )n the attached Exhibit A which is made RIVERSIDE PLACE yL� 126 N.FRANKLIN J'T ��� rated herein by reference �� HUTCHINSON,MN 55350 A HUTCHINSON:(612)587-4720 MINNEAPOLIS:546-4336 THOMAS W.LYONS PRESIDENT ey 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. Adopted by the City Council this day of 1985 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee RESOLUTION NO. = � I RESOLUTION DETEFMINING THE NECESSITY FOR AND TTim jjflT�T7TTTG TnE ACQUISITION OF ^"-'TAlN PRO_PROPERTY nul„ORIZl pE BY PROCEEDING IN Ej�7!NENT DOMAIN FOR PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCTING 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 Exhibit A which is 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. Adopted by the City Council this day of 1985 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee T77ST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of _ 1985 . City gAgtt�orAn Exhibit A 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, 190 . 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, 152 .72 feet to its intersection with the said North-South Quarter line; thence South 0 degrees 48 minutes 00 seconds West, along said Quarter line, 124 . 80 feet to the point of beginning. MEMORANDUM 1C � TO: WHOM IT MAY CONCERN FROM: Valleyfair RE: Fact Sheet - Proposed Alternatives on Access to Prairie House 1st Addition Valleyfair is on record as favoring the adoption of Alternative No. 2 to provide access to Prairie House 1st Addition. Alternative No. 2 would provide direct access to Highway 101 for the development which may occur on this property. Alternative No. 1 , not favored by Valleyfair, would involve the taking of property by eminent domain from Valleyfair to construct a frontage road to tie in with the signalized intersection at Valleyfair' s entrance. Valleyfair has previously stated the reasons for its opposition to Alternative No. 1 in a letter to the City Planner dated October 31 , 1985 and in testimony presented to the City Council at its meetings of November 6 and November 19 , 1985 . However , it may be helpful for Valleyfair through this fact sheet to summarize some of the pertinent points which it has previously made as follows : 1 . Alternative No. 1 would be extremely costly to the City of Shakopee and its taxpayers . At best, only a por- tion of these costs could be recovered from the deve- loper . See Attachment No. 1 and the Memorandum from the Assistant City Attorney dated November 26 , 1985 . -1- 2 . Selection of Alternative No. 1 favors a new private developer over a long established business in the City of Shakopee, which business has contributed greatly to the City' s image and economy. 3 . There is no valid public purpose justifying the tak- ing of the property by condemnation. As stated in the Council minutes of November 6 , 1985 "The City Attorney expressed doubts about the City being able to prove pub- lic benefit in this taking of land" . If , in fact, the City Attorney is correct, any attempt at condemnation may well be defeated through lengthy court proceedings . Even if the City is able to prove valid public purpose, the amount of damages to which Valleyfair would be entitled is much greater than previously estimated by staff in the City of Shakopee. See attachment 1 . 4 . No decided safety advantage has been proven by using Alternative No. 1 . In fact, just the opposite may be the case. Under Alternative No. 1 traffic generated by the developer would have to cross through traffic entering and exiting from Valleyfair, particularly traffic coming from or headed to the west. Some 10 , 000 vehicles , at the very minimum, entering or exiting from Valleyfair on weekends would be tremendously inconvenienced by adoption of Alternative No. 1 . 5 . The Minnesota Department of Transportation would approve either alternative. In fact, we have been -2- informed that the Department of Transportation has advised Mr . Anderson that it would permit Alternative No. 2 to be used at least on a temporary basis for at least one year . Valleyfair has for years attempted to work amicably with the City of Shakopee to resolve matters of mutual concern. In this endeavor, with understanding and patience on both sides , we have been successful in overcoming every obstacle which has arisen which could have caused ongoing problems between Valleyfair and the City of Shakopee. While Valleyfair is fully prepared to defend to the utmost any condemnation proceeding, we sincerely hope that the City Council will take a more pragmatic approach which would permit the development of Prairie House lst Addition without the need to resort to permanent changes mandated by the adoption of Alternative No. 1 . Adoption of Alternative No. 2 , even on a temporary basis , would go a long way toward providing necessary time to seek more creative solutions to address the concerns of the City of Shakopee and Valleyfair alike, without depriving the developer of the immediate opportunity to make use of his property. Valleyfair urges the Council at the least to adopt the attached Proposed Resolution directing staff to work with the Planning Commission to approve access Alternative No. 2 . -3- ATTACHMENT NO. 1 Elements of Damages in Eminent Domain Proceedings 1. Value of property taken. In his memorandum of November 27 , 1985 , John Anderson, City Administrator, notes that a value of approximately $28 , 000 per acre is the estimated value of the pro- perty. While no appraisal has been done to date, this value may be grossly understated. Without a doubt the property needed for the frontage road, which itself fronts on Highway 101 , would carry a considerably higher value on a square foot basis than the remainder of the property. 2 . The present marquee. Under Alternative No. 1 the present marquee would have to be moved or replaced. Movement of the marquee further into the Valleyfair property would not be feasi- ble because of the grade of the land. The marquee would simply not be visible as it presently is to the approximately 20 , 000 cars per day which pass Valleyfair. Actual costs of erecting the marquee in 1982 exceeded $82 , 000 . The value of the logo and identification of the marquee, viewed by virtually millions of people each year, carries significant value in and of itself which would be taken by the condemnation. A similar iden- tification unit in the form of an outdoor painted double-face billboard would cost in excess of $4 ,600 per month based on an estimate rendered to Valleyfair by an outdoor advertising com- pany. 3 . Modification of existing island defining the right turn lane from westbound Highway 101 . Cost of this item is unknown. 4 . Grade adjustments on the existing Valley Park Drive access road. The City Engineer has estimated this cost to be $55 , 000 . 5 . Secure closure gates to prevent unauthorized entry to Valleyfair . 6 . Replacement of altered landscaping. 7 . Consulting and legal fees_ incurred by Valleyfair in any con- demnation proceedings . 8 . Costs of legal and consulting fees incurred by the City of Shakopee in condemnation proceedings . 9 . Loss of value of remaining property by condemnation of front- age road property. The value of this loss would have to be fl established by expert testimony during any condemnation pro- ceeding. 10 . Loss of business related to the taking of the property. While at first blush loss of business due to this taking may be speculative, through surveys and other objective data it may well be possible for Valleyfair to prove that the value of its prop- erty is diminished by decreased revenue capacity attributable to the taking. For example, loss of the marquee exposure may lead to a lesser number of patrons attending Valleyfair. Frustration with the traffic situation by placement of the frontage road may also lead to loss of business . Valleyfair will pursue any legit- imate damages from loss of business through the condemnation pro- cedure if necessary. 11 . Any other damages that can be attributable to the taking of the property through theories yet to be adequately researched by attorneys representing Valleyfair . IL is apparent from the above listing that the costs of imple- menting Alternative No. 1 will vastly exceed the $200 , 000 to $300 , 000 figures which have been mentioned in some of the docu- ments provided to members of the City Council. To the extent that these costs cannot be passed on to the developer, the tax- payers of the City of Shakopee will be faced with having to pick up these costs . As noted in Philip R. Krass ' s memorandum of November 26 , 1985 , "you must keep in mind that under the law of eminent domain we are required to fully compensate the property owner whose land is being taken. That compensation would include not only the actual value of the land taken, but the costs of moving and/or replacing damaged buildings, structures, and plant life, and any diminution in value of the ' severed' or remaining property. " As noted by Mr . Krass in the same memorandum, assess- ments against the developer "may not exceed the increase in mar- ket ket value to the assessed property created by the utilities the City provides . " It is clear that the difference between what the City might have to pay through an eminent domain proceeding and what the City can recoup from the developer is potentially sub- stantial and staggering. PROPOSED RESOLUTION RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO CONTACT PLANNING COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL OF ACCESS ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 FOR PRAIRIE HOUSE FIRST ADDITION WHEREAS , the City Council has heretofore determined that the City of Shakopee should establish direct access from Highway 101 to Prairie House First Addition, a proposed subdivision near Valleyfair; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AS FOLLOWS : 1 . Acquisition by the City of property owned by Valleyfair for a proposed frontage road is too costly. 2 . The City may have to assess the damages for taking private property to the developer, Mr . Bradford, who has indi- cated those damage costs are prohibitive and would interfere with his proposed development. 3 . Substantial delays will occur if the City utilizes eminent domain condemnation procedures to acquire Access Alternative No. 1 , and such delays would prove costly to the developer . 4 . Access Alternative No. 2 is a safe and less costly method of providing access to the proposed property development to the east of Valleyfair . 5 . The City staff is authorized and directed on behalf of the City to work with the Planning Commission for approval of Access Alternative No. 2 at the Planning Commission meeting on December 5 , 1985 . Adopted by the City Council this day of 1985 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee MEMORANDUM TO: WHOM IT MAY CONCERN FROM: Valleyfair RE: Fact Sheet - Proposed Alternatives on Access to Prairie House 1st Addition Valleyfair is on record as favoring the adoption of Alternative No. 2 to provide access to Prairie House lst Addition. Alternative No. 2 would provide direct access to Highway 101 for the development which may occur on this property. Alternative No. 1 , not favored by Valleyfair , would involve the taking of property by eminent domain from Valleyfair to construct a frontage road to tie in with the signalized intersection at Valleyfair ' s entrance. Valleyfair has previously stated the reasons for its opposition to Alternative No. 1 in a letter to the City Planner dated October 31, 1985 and in testimony presented to the City Council at its meetings of November 6 and November 19 , 1985 . However , it may be helpful for Valleyfair through this fact sheet to summarize some of the pertinent points which it has previously made as follows : 1. Alternative No. 1 would be extremely costly to the City of Shakopee and its taxpayers . At best, only a por- tion of these costs could be recovered from the deve- loper . See Attachment No. 1 and the Memorandum from the Assistant City Attorney dated November 26 , 1985 . -1- 2 . Selection of Alternative No. 1 favors a new private developer over a long established business in the City of Shakopee, which business has contributed greatly to the City' s image and economy. 3 . There is no valid public purpose justifying the tak- ing of the property by condemnation. As stated in the Council minutes of November 6 , 1985 "The City Attorney expressed doubts about the City being able to prove pub- lic benefit in this taking of land" . If , in fact, the City Attorney is correct, any attempt at condemnation may well be defeated through lengthy court proceedings . Even if the City is able to prove valid public purpose, the amount of damages to which Valleyfair would be entitled is much greater than previously estimated by staff in the City of Shakopee . See attachment 1. 4 . No decided safety advantage has been proven by using Alternative No. 1 . In fact, just the opposite may be the case. Under Alternative No. 1 traffic generated by the developer would have to cross through traffic entering and exiting from Valleyfair, particularly traffic coming from or headed to the west. Some 10 , 000 vehicles , at the very minimum, entering or exiting from Valleyfair on weekends would be tremendously inconvenienced by adoption of Alternative No. 1 . 5 . The Minnesota Department of Transportation would approve either alternative. In fact, we have been -2- informed that the Department of Transportation has 1� f advised Mr . Anderson that it would permit Alternative No. 2 to be used at least on a temporary basis for at least one year . Valleyfair has for years attempted to work amicably with the City of Shakopee to resolve matters of mutual concern. In this endeavor, with understanding and patience on both sides , we have been successful in overcoming every obstacle which has arisen which could have caused ongoing problems between Valleyfair and the City of Shakopee. While Valleyfair is fully prepared to defend to the utmost any condemnation proceeding, we sincerely hope that the City Council will take a more pragmatic approach which would permit the development of Prairie House lst Addition without the need to resort to permanent changes mandated by the adoption of Alternative No. 1 . Adoption of Alternative No. 2 , even on a temporary basis, would go a long way toward providing necessary time to seek more creative solutions to address the concerns of the City of Shakopee and Valleyfair alike, without depriving the developer of the immediate opportunity to make use of his property. Valleyfair urges the Council at the least to adopt the attached Proposed Resolution directing staff to work with the Planning Commission to approve access Alternative No. 2 . -3- 1 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 i Elements of Damages in Eminent Domain Proceedings 1. Value of property taken. In his memorandum of November 27, 1985 , John Anderson, City Administrator, notes that a value of approximately $28 , 000 per acre is the estimated value of the pro- perty. While no appraisal has been done to date, this value may be grossly understated. Without a doubt the property needed for the frontage road, which itself fronts on Highway 101 , would carry a considerably higher value on a square foot basis than the remainder of the property. 2 . The present marquee. Under Alternative No. 1 the present marquee would have to be moved or replaced. Movement of the marquee further into the Valleyfair property would not be feasi- ble because of the grade of the land. The marquee would simply not be visible as it presently is to the approximately 20 , 000 cars per day which pass Valleyfair. Actual costs of erecting the marquee in 1982 exceeded $82 , 000 . The value of the logo and identification of the marquee, viewed by virtually millions of people each year, carries significant value in and of itself which would be taken by the condemnation. A similar iden- tification unit in the form of an outdoor painted double-face billboard would cost in excess of $4 ,600 per month based on an estimate rendered to Valleyfair by an outdoor advertising com- pany. 3 . Modification of existing island defining the right turn lane from westbound Highway 101 . Cost of this item is unknown. 4 . Grade adjustments on the existing Valley Park Drive access road. The City Engineer has estimated this cost to be $55 , 000 . 5 . Secure closure gates to prevent unauthorized entry to Valleyfair. 6 . Replacement of altered landscaping. 7 . Consulting and legal fees incurred by Valleyfair in any con- demnation proceedings . 8 . Costs of legal and consulting fees incurred by the City of Shakopee in condemnation proceedings. 9 . Loss of value of remaining property by condemnation of front- age road property. The value of this loss would have to be established by expert testimony during any condemnation pro- ceeding. 10 . Loss of business related to the taking of the property. While at first blush loss of business due to this taking may be speculative, through surveys and other objective data it may well be possible for Valleyfair to prove that the value of its prop- erty is diminished by decreased revenue capacity attributable to the taking. For example, loss of the marquee exposure may lead to a lesser number of patrons attending Valleyfair . Frustration with the traffic situation by placement of the frontage road may also lead to loss of business . Valleyfair will pursue any legit- imate damages from loss of business through the condemnation pro- cedure if necessary. 11 . Any other damages that can be attributable to the taking of the property through theories yet to be adequately researched by attorneys representing Valleyfair. It is apparent from the above listing that the costs of imple- menting Alternative No. 1 will vastly exceed the $200 , 000 to $300 , 000 figures which have been mentioned in some of the docu- ments provided to members of the City Council. To the extent that these costs cannot be passed on to the developer, the tax- payers of the City of Shakopee will be faced with having to pick up these costs . As noted in Philip R. Krass' s memorandum of November 26 , 1985 , "you must keep in mind that under the law of eminent domain we are required to fully compensate the property owner whose land is being taken. That compensation would include not only the actual value of the land taken, but the costs of moving and/or replacing damaged buildings, structures, and plant life, and any diminution in value of the ' severed' or remaining property. " As noted by Mr. Krass in the same memorandum, assess- ments against the developer "may not exceed the increase in mar- ket value to the assessed property created by the utilities the City provides . " It is clear that the difference between what the City might have to pay through an eminent domain proceeding and what the City can recoup from the developer is potentially sub- stantial and staggering. PROPOSED RESOLUTION RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO CONTACT PLANNING COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL OF ACCESS ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 FOR PRAIRIE HOUSE FIRST ADDITION WHEREAS , the City Council has heretofore determined that the City of Shakopee should establish direct access from Highway 101 to Prairie House First Addition, a proposed subdivision near Valleyfair; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AS FOLLOWS : 1 . Acquisition by the City of property owned by Valleyfair for a proposed frontage road is too costly. 2 . The City may have to assess the damages for taking private property to the developer , Mr. Bradford, who has indi- cated those damage costs are prohibitive and would interfere with his proposed development. 3 . Substantial delays will occur if the City utilizes eminent domain condemnation procedures to acquire Access Alternative No. 1 , and such delays would prove costly to the developer . 4 . Access Alternative No. 2 is a safe and less costly method of providing access to the proposed property development to the east of Valleyfair. 5 . The City staff is authorized and directed on behalf of the City to work with the Planning Commission for approval of Access Alternative No. 2 at the Planning Commission meeting on December 5 , 1985 . Adopted by the City Council this day of 1985 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator f� FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: 1986-8 Refuse Contract DATE: November 25, 1985 Introduction and Background The City has received quotations from four firms for refuse removal and recycling in the City of Shakopee for the coming year. The only firm the City has any contract experience with is Waste Management which bought out G & H. Waste Management and G & H have had the contract for the past six years. The City received notice last week that Louisville Landfill closed due to lack of insur- ance. There was no mention of a possible reopening date. The closing has forced the haulers to use more expensive landfills. The current contract rates with Waste Management are $5.67 for regular pick up and $3 .82 for Seniors. The quoted prices are: Admiral Aagard Quality Waste 1986 regular 7.24 6.67 6.75 5.05 1986 senior 6.50 4.34 5.00 3 .82 1987 regular 8.33 7.34 7.75 5.30 1987 senior 7 .48 4.77 5.50 4.01 1986 recycling 2.76 .21 0.00 0.00 1987 recycling 3 .18 .25 0.00 0.00 Total Est. 650,772.60 428,894.10 435,030.00 312,049.80 Aagards quotation is based on Louisville Landfill being open with somewhat equivalent prices. Aagard quoted a 12% per month addition if Louisville is closed. Waste Management also quoted on the basis of Louisville being open. They are quoting an additional $.60 for 1986 and $.70 for 1987 if Louisville is closed. The recycling effort proposed by Waste Management is basically what is in place now with the company furnishing containers, transportation and some administrative services. Waste Management is by far the lowest quotation. The City has had good experience with the firm and staff recommends awarding the contract to Waste Management. Action Requested Move to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute a contract with Waste Management-Savage for garbage collection services for 1986 and 1987. TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator / FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Purchase of Squad Cars DATE: November 13, 1985 Introduction and Background The police department has $26,500 budgeted for squad cars in 1986. Cars ordered now will arrive in 1986 and be charged to the 1986 budget. The Hennepin County contract for full sized squads is being awarded to Viking/Southdale Ford and orders are due in by December 20, 1985. The action requested below includes a set of manuals and a 36 month/ 36,000 mile warranty. Alternatives 1. Do not buy squads 2. Bid on our own 3. Delay purchase until later in the year 4. Order under the Hennepin County contract. Recommendation Alt. number 4. Action Requested Move to authorize purchase of two 1986 Ford LTD Crown Victoria squad cars from Viking/Southdale Ford in the amount of $22,736. Jl �� TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Employee Health & Life Insurance DATE: November 26, 1985 Introduction and Background The City has opened bids for employee group insurance. We received responses from thirteen companies. It was planned to have the award on the agenda for December 3 but due to the unexpected large response, it will take the risk manager longer to evaluate the bids. Accordingly, the award will be on the agenda for the 10th. The employees are very interested in the bids and asked if Mr. Tange could meet with them to explain the bids. Such a meeting would be in addition to our current agreement with him and would be billed at his rate of $60 per hour for as estimated three hours (travel and meeting). The City Administrator and I both feel that such a meeting would be worthwhile because the issue is of great concern to the employees and they could receive first hand an evaluation of the coverage provided them from an outside person knowledgable in the field. There is money within the Finance budget to cover the meeting. Alternatives 1. Authorize the hiring of Mr. Tange for an employee meeting. 2. Do not authorize the hiring of Mr. Tange for an employee meeting. Recommendation Alternative number 1 . Action Requested Move to retain Mr. Dwight Tange to dicuss the group health and life insurance bids with employees. mm 'T - City Clerk Approved as to form this day of e 1985 . City Attorn Exhibit A 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, 190 . 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, 152. 72 feet to its intersection with the said North-South Quarter line ; thence South 0 degrees 48 minutes 00 seconds West, along said Quarter line, 124 . 80 feet to the point of beginning. MEMORANDUM TO: WHOM IT MAY CONCERN FROM: Valleyfair RE: Fact Sheet - Proposed Alternatives on Access to Prairie House 1st Addition Valleyfair is on record as favoring the adoption of Alternative No. 2 to provide access to Prairie House 1st Addition. Alternative No. 2 would provide direct access to Highway 101 for the development which may occur on this property. Alternative No. 1 , not favored by Valleyfair, would involve the taking of property by eminent domain from Valleyfair to construct a frontage road to tie in with the signalized intersection at Valleyfair' s entrance. Valleyfair has previously stated the reasons for its opposition to Alternative No. 1 in a letter to the City Planner dated October 31, 1985 and in testimony presented to the City Council at its meetings of November 6 and November 19 , 1985 . However , it may be helpful for Valleyfair through this fact sheet to summarize some of the pertinent points which it has previously made as follows : 1 . Alternative No. 1 would be extremely costly to the City of Shakopee and its taxpayers . At best, only a por- tion of these costs could be recovered from the deve- loper . See Attachment No. 1 and the Memorandum from the Assistant City Attorney dated November 26 , 1985 . -1- � �ff � I 2 . Selection of Alternative No. 1 favors a new private developer over a long established business in the City of Shakopee, which business has contributed greatly to the City' s image and economy. 3 . There is no valid public purpose justifying the tak- ing of the property by condemnation. As stated in the Council minutes of November 6 , 1985 "The City Attorney expressed doubts about the City being able to prove pub- lic benefit in this taking of land" . If, in fact, the City Attorney is correct, any attempt at condemnation may well be defeated through lengthy court proceedings . Even if the City is able to prove valid public purpose, the amount of damages to which Valleyfair would be entitled is much greater than previously estimated by staff in the City of Shakopee. See attachment 1 . 4 . No decided safety advantage has been proven by using Alternative No. 1 . In fact, just the opposite may be the case. Under Alternative No. 1 traffic generated by the developer would have to cross through traffic entering and exiting from Valleyfair, particularly traffic coming from or headed to the west. Some 10 , 000 vehicles, at the very minimum, entering or exiting from Valleyfair on weekends would be tremendously inconvenienced by adoption of Alternative No. 1 . 5 . The Minnesota Department of Transportation would approve either alternative. In fact, we have been -2- informed that the Department of Transportation has advised Mr . Anderson that it would permit Alternative No. 2 to be used at least on a temporary basis for at least one year. Valleyfair has for years attempted to work amicably with the City of Shakopee to resolve matters of mutual concern. In this endeavor, with understanding and patience on both sides , we have been successful in overcoming every obstacle which has arisen which could have caused ongoing problems between Valleyfair and the City of Shakopee. While Valleyfair is fully prepared to defend to the utmost any condemnation proceeding, we sincerely hope that the City Council will take a more pragmatic approach which would permit the development of Prairie House 1st Addition without the need to resort to permanent changes mandated by the adoption of Alternative No. 1 . Adoption of Alternative No. 2 , even on a temporary basis, would go a long way toward providing necessary time to seek more creative solutions to address the concerns of the City of Shakopee and Valleyfair alike, without depriving the developer of the immediate opportunity to make use of his property. Valleyfair urges the Council at the least to adopt the attached Proposed Resolution directing staff to work with the Planning Commission to approve access Alternative No. 2 . -3- ATTACHMENT NO. 1 Elements of Damages in Eminent Domain Proceedings 1. Value of property taken. In his memorandum of November 27, 1985 , John Anderson, City Administrator, notes that a value of approximately $28 , 000 per acre is the estimated value of the pro- perty. While no appraisal has been done to date, this value may be grossly understated. Without a doubt the property needed for the frontage road, which itself fronts on Highway 101 , would carry a considerably higher value on a square foot basis than the remainder of the property. 2 . The present marquee. Under Alternative No. 1 the present marquee would have to be moved or replaced. Movement of the marquee further into the Valleyfair property would not be feasi- ble because of the grade of the land. The marquee would simply not be visible as it presently is to the approximately 20, 000 cars per day which pass Valleyfair. Actual costs of erecting the marquee in 1982 exceeded $82 , 000 . The value of the logo and identification of the marquee, viewed by virtually millions of people each year, carries significant value in and of itself which would be taken by the condemnation. A similar iden- tification unit in the form of an outdoor painted double-face billboard would cost in excess of $4 ,600 per month based on an estimate rendered to Valleyfair by an outdoor advertising com- pany. 3 . Modification of existing island defining the right turn lane from westbound Highway 101 . Cost of this item is unknown. 4 . Grade adjustments on the existing Valley Park Drive access road. The City Engineer has estimated this cost to be $55 , 000 . 5 . Secure closure gates to prevent unauthorized entry to Valleyfair. 6 . Replacement of altered landscaping. 7 . Consulting and legal fees incurred by Valleyfair in any con- demnation proceedings . 8 . Costs of legal and consulting fees incurred by the CiLy of Shakopee in condemnation proceedings. 9 . Loss of value of remaining property by condemnation of front- age road property. The value of this loss would have to be established by expert testimony during any condemnation pro- ceeding. 10 . Loss of business related to the taking of the property. While at first blush loss of business due to this taking may be speculative, through surveys and other objective data it may well be possible for Valleyfair to prove that the value of its prop- erty is diminished by decreased revenue capacity attributable to the taking. For example, loss of the marquee exposure may lead to a lesser number of patrons attending Valleyfair. Frustration with the traffic situation by placement of the frontage road may also lead to loss of business . Valleyfair will pursue any legit- imate damages from loss of business through the condemnation pro- cedure if necessary. 11 . Any other damages that can be attributable to the taking of the property through theories yet to be adequately researched by attorneys representing Valleyfair. It is apparent from the above listing that the costs of imple- menting Alternative No. 1 will vastly exceed the $200 , 000 to $300 , 000 figures which have been mentioned in some of the docu- ments provided to members of the City Council. To the extent that these costs cannot be passed on to the developer, the tax- payers of the City of Shakopee will be faced with having to pick up these costs . As noted in Philip R. Krass ' s memorandum of November 26 , 1985 , "you must keep in mind that under the law of eminent domain we are required to fully compensate the property owner whose land is being taken. That compensation would include not only the actual value of the land taken, but the costs of moving and/or replacing damaged buildings, structures, and plant life, and any diminution in value of the ' severed' or remaining property. " As noted by Mr. Krass in the same memorandum, assess- ments against the developer "may not exceed the increase in mar- ket value to the assessed property created by the utilities the City provides . " It is clear that the difference between what the City might have to pay through an eminent domain proceeding and what the City can recoup from the developer is potentially sub- stantial and staggering. PROPOSED RESOLUTION RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO CONTACT PLANNING COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL OF ACCESS ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 FOR PRAIRIE HOUSE FIRST ADDITION WHEREAS , the City Council has heretofore determined that the City of Shakopee should establish direct access from Highway lol to Prairie House First Addition, a proposed subdivision near Valleyfair; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AS FOLLOWS : 1 . Acquisition by the City of property owned by Valleyfair for a proposed frontage road is too costly. 2 . The City may have to assess the damages for taking private property to the developer, Mr. Bradford, who has indi- cated those damage costs are prohibitive and would interfere with his proposed development. 3 . Substantial delays will occur if the City utilizes eminent domain condemnation procedures to acquire Access Alternative No. 1 , and such delays would prove costly to the developer . 4 . Access Alternative No. 2 is a safe and less costly method of providing access to the proposed property development to the east of Valleyfair. 5 . The City staff is authorized and directed on behalf of the City to work with the Planning Commission for approval of Access Alternative No. 2 at the Planning Commission meeting on December 5 , 1985 . Adopted by the City Council this day of 1985 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee SEND WHITE h PINK COPIES INTACT. WHITE COPY WILL BE RETURNED WITH REPLY. FROM: TO: CITY OF SHAKOPEE 129 East First Ave., Shakopee, MN Zip 55379 Phone (612) 445.36 NAME. SUBJECT��.G t ® 491 lav; DATE /0/ 1/106 coz:). LCA � REPLY TO DATE�&-Z;� BY RETURN PART I TO SENDER WITH REPLY BY ^^• RMCC 847-3 //C TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Storm Drainage Bills DATE: November 20, 1985 Introduction and Background Council has established a Storm Drainage Utility. Staff is preparing to generate the first of the quarterly billings. The target date was January 1, 1986 but it appears increasingly unlikely that date will be met. One item has come up that staff has differing opinions on and Council may hear about it from the public. The issue is whether to stuff the bills in envelopes or to mail them as postcards. The attached exerpt from postal regula— tions is the Postmasters basis for supporting stuffing all the bills. The City Attorney reviewed the attached and his response was "I do not think we should go to billing by postcard. This involves a lot of possible problems". There are about 20 cities on Logis for utility billing. Of these 20 cities, one stuffs the bills and 19 mail them as postcards. Logis generates the bills as a postcard for all cities using a standard form. Some cities stuff the delinquent bills only. Some of the issues involved are: Cost of envelopes (5,000) $142.00 per qtr. Cost of staff time to stuff envelopes (8 hours) $65 .00 per qtr. Additional cost of postage ($.08) $400.00 per qtr. Work load on staff. SPUC stuffs their bills and the City Attorney has recommended stuffing the bills, especially those with a past due amount. One significant difference with the storm drainage billing is that within a district the bills will be the same for properties with the same residential equivalent flows . They do not vary with assessed value or consumption. Alternatives 1 . Stuff all bills. 2. Stuff delinquent bills and for special notices. 3. Do not stuff bills except for including special notices. Recommendation Alternative number 2 is recommended to save staff time and money but yet preserve confidentiality for delinquent accounts. Action Requested Move that Storm Drainage Utility bills be mailed as postcards except that delinquent accounts be stuffed into envelopes. n� Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) y V sent throe , . .nails,who considers the matter which it Ily color on the face of the solicitation. For the pu poses of r ...of€ers'-for-sale -to be -eroticallyhloltor}'uoraer to prevsexua rat this section the tette "color" includes black. h. Any solicitation which states that it has been yap- provocativen may seek a p on is non Other Prohibited Matter. The following are pro ved by the Postal Service or by the postmaster General receipt of any further mail from the sender (See 1 23. ). or that it conforms to any postal ►aw or re�u a nonmailable: mailable. a. Fictitious ,flatter (1S U.S.C. 1?4o)• Any matter ,42 Lottery Matter (18 U.S.C. 1302) addressed to a person using any fictitious name, title, whether or not' or address in conducting, Of the mail, any 42i Any scifica- heme or promotion, scheme or device in violation of vat if, after pos�tofrice lawful under the laws of any state, which, upon pay- tion, the addressee fails to appear meet of consideration, offers a prize dependent to zed be identified, or if the fictitious character of such whole or in part upon lot or chance, is a lottery. mail is established to the satisfaction of the Judicial ,422 The following matter is unlawful mail matter: Officer in consequence of a proceeding initiated pun- a, Any letter, package, postal card, or circular suant to 39 C.F.R. Part 953. which advertises, invites or otherwise permits or facil- b. Foreign Origin Alatter Imported in Violation of Copyright or Mask Work Laws itates participation in a lottery. Copyright Violations (17 U.S.C. 601-603). b. Any lottery ticket or part thereof or substitute. (1) Copyri� containing matter determined by a forte of payment for a lottery ticket or Mail of foreign origin laws c. Any court of competent jurisdiction to violate the copyright share. ublica- of the United States or any copyright convention or treaty to d. Any newspaper, circular, pamphlet, or p tion of any kind containing any advertising of a lot- which the United h a k Work tV'o Violations(17 U.S.C.901-914). tery or similar enterprise, or any list of prizes award- Mail of f foreign origin containing matter determined by a ed in such an enterpnse. fishing court of competentjunsdictionorbythe International Trade ,423 This section does not apply to any g Commission to violate the Semiconductor Chip Protection contest not conducted for profit, wherein prizes are Act of 1984. weight, or quality of C. Certain Foreign Communications. platter ad- awarded for the species, size, dressed to foreign countries posted in violation of law fish caught by contestants in any bona fide fishing or or treaty stipulation. recreational event(18 U.S.C. 1305). d Lewd or Filthy Matter (18 U.S.C. 1461, 1463). ,¢2¢ This section does not appy I to an advertise- Obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy publications or ment, list of prizes, or information concerning a lot- writings, or mail containing information concerning tery conducted by a State acting under the authority where, how, or from whom such matter may be ob- of its law contained in a newspaper published in that tained, and matter which is otherwise mailable but which has on its wrapper or envelope any indecent, State or in an adjacent State which conducts such a lottery, or to the mailing to addresses within a State lewd, lascivious, or obscene writing or printing. Any mail containing any filthy, vile, or indecent thing. of tickets or other material concerning a lottery con- e Matter Inciting to Violence (IS U.S.C. 1461, ducted by that State under the authority of its law (18 of a character tending to incite U.S.C. 1307). - 1717). Any matter .43 Advertising Matter arson, murder, assassination, treason, insurrection, or advertising, romotional, or sales matter forcible resistance to any law of the United States, or - .431 Any adve g, P article containing any threat to take the life of,- or to inflict which solicits or induces the mailing of any harm upon, the President of the United States. described in 124.3, 124.364, 124.37, 124.4,and 124.5 f Libelous Matter (18 'U.S.C. 1718). Any matter (harmful matter, radioactive material, controlled sub- ., otherwise mailable which has`on its outside wrapper or envelope or anv postal rd which bears on its stances, knives and sharp objects and odd shaped libelous, scurrilous, defamatory or threaten- liquor as well as pens, bottle caps and odd shaped face, any items in envelopes),.is likewise nonmailable, -except in language or dehneatiun- or is otherwise obviously g that such matter relating to articles described in 12 .31-55 intended to reflect injuriollsiy on the character or 124.364, 124.37, 124.44, 124.46, 124u4s7acrtdo and conduct of another. Ever letter, is mailable if it contains packaging Other Matter (18 U.S.C. 1717). Y writing,circular, postal card, picture, print, engraving, any other limitations on mailing which are in accord- g• er, pamphlet, book, or other - ante with such provisions of 124 (18 U.S.C. 1416). photograph, newspap p described in the statutes ,432 Advertisements for motor vehicle master publication, matter or thing, keys (see 124.45) are nonmailable (18 U.S.C. 1716 A, hereinafter referenced: 39 U.S.C.3002). (1) Forged or altered military or o racial passes .433 Any advertisement or other written represen- (18 U.S.C. 499). tation that any article, substance, or thing may or can (2) Matter bearing forged or altered seals of ortion is nonmailable,be used for producing abilable, except Government departments or agencies (18 U.S.C. 506). when the mailer has no commercial interest in any (3) Defense information (18 U.S.C. 793,794). such item(18 U.S.C. 1x61). (See 124.481.) (4) Documents obtained by persons falsely as- such for suming to be foreign dipts diplomats (18 Ug.C. 915)•foreign g 434 The statute making unsolicited adovern- leontracepti. ves nonmailable to consumers (39 U.S.C. meets(18 U.S.C.s atem954)eninfluencin 30ol(e)(2)) has been held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Any addressee of such an advertisement blue 19, 6-7-85 r _ Ilk TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Investment Policy DATE: November 26, 1985 Introduction and Background Attached is is a proposed investment policy for the City of Shakopee. A written policy is advised by several groups as one element of prudent investing and to help avoid some of the problems that have befallen other cities. The Council may want to discuss the term of investments as is covered in the third paragraph under guidelines. Under normal market conditions, the longer the term the higher the interest rate, but also the greater the risk due to fluctuation of the market. Alternatives 1. Adopt proposed policy 2. Adopt modified policy 3. Do not adopt a policy Recommendation Adopt policy after Council review. Action Requested Move to adopt the investment policy dated November 26, 1985 as proposed. ri K. CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA INVESTMEFT POLICY November 26, 1985 Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 118.005, the City Council shall designate as a depository of City funds such national, insured state banks or thrift institutions as defined in Section 51A.02, Subdivision 23, as it may deem proper. Any bank, trust company or thrift institution authorized to do business in this state, designated as a depository of City funds may, in lieu of a corporate or personal surety bond required to be furnished to receive the funds, assign to or deposit with the City Treasurer legally—authorized investments or security in collateral. The total in amount of the collateral computed at its market value shall be at least ten percent more than the amount of deposit, in excess of any insured portion which would be permitted if a corporate or personal surety bond were furnished. The depository may at its discretion furnish both a bond and collateral aggregating the required amount. The Treasurer shall not maintain a deposit in any depository against collateral in excess of 90 percent of the market value thereof. Pursuant to Section 471.56, Subdivision 1, any City funds not presently needed for other purposes may be deposited or invested in the manner and subject to the conditions provided in Section 475.66. INVESTMENT GUIDELINES Repurchase agreements may be entered into with a bank qualified as depository of money held in the City funds, or with any national or state bank in the United States which is a member of the Federal Reserve system and whose combined capital and surplus equals or exceeds $10,000,000, or a reporting dealer to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The City shall take physical possession of the security, or receive written confirmation of the purchase and a custodial or safekeeping receipt from a third party bank or other financial institution under a written bailment for hire contract identifying a specific security in its possession as owned by the City. Investments may be held in safekeeping with any federal reserve bank, any bank authorized under the laws of the United States or any state to exercise corporate trust powers, including but not limited to the bank from which the investment is purchased, or a reporting dealer to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, provided that the municipality's ownership of all securities in which the fund is invested is evidenced by written acknowledgements identifying the securities by the names of the issuers, maturity dates, interest rates, and serial numbers or other distinguishing marks. Investments shall mature and shall earn interest payable at times and in amounts which, in the judgment of the City Treasurer or other officer to which has been delegated investment decisions, provide the City adequate cash for operating purposes. To provide liquidity, a minimum of forty percent (40%) of the City's investment portfolio shall mature in one year or less. Investments maturing in ten years or more shall not exceed ten percent (10%) of the City's investment portfolio. All investments other than in direct obligations or agencies of the United States, secured by collateral, or repurchase agreements, shall not exceed thirty-five percent (35%) of the City's portfolio. This limitation is determined by type of investment. Example: commercial paper or bankers acceptance. Further, the City Treasurer shall not invest in excess of twenty percent (20%) of the City' s portfolio in any one corporation and the investment in any one corporation shall not exceed five (5%) of the corporation' s assets. Repurchase agreements shall be used for short term investments only and shall not exceed one hundred twenty (120) days in length. The City Treasurer or other officer to which has delegated investment decisions shall be prudent and at all times follow the guidelines of Safety, Liquidity and Meld. 1985 CITY OF SHAKOPEE :HECK REGISTER 12-01-85 PAGE 1 CHECK N3. DATE AMOUNT VE430t ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. 9 MESSAGE 330029 11/26/85 168.50 E F AY3ERSON L ASOC SUPPLIES 01-4210-431-42 330029 11/26/85 56.40 E F A43ERSDN 6 ASOC SUPPLIES 27-4210-548-41 204.90 ***-CKS 330035 11/26/85 320.76 ASS/MECH/:ONT/INC. BLDG MAINT 01-4230-441-44 330035 11/26/85 45.00 ASS/MECH/:DNF/INC. EQUIP NAINT 01-4232-182-18 330035 11/26/85 64.98 ASS/MECH/:DNT/INC. EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 430.74 • •*f.r. ***-CKS 330038 11/26/85 88.00 AM PL4VNI9G ASSN. DUES L SUBSCRIPT 01-4391-171-17 88.00 • ...... *.*-CKS 330048 11/26/85 .95 AT L T :04M TELEPHONE 01-4321-111-11 330048 11/26/85 19.31 AT L T C044 TELEPHONE 01-4321-121-12 330048 11/26/85 .51 AT 6 T C044 TELEPHONE 01-4321-151-15 330048 11/26/85 17.49 AT 6 T COIM TELEPHONE 01-4321-171-17 330048 11/26/85 44.10 AT L I C04H TELEPHONE 01-4321-311-31 330018 11/26/85 49.11 AT 6 T C04M, TELEPHONE 01-4321-321-32 330048 11/26/85 48.11 AT L T C044 TELEPHONE 01-4321-321-32 330048 11/26/85 49.11- AT L T C04.4 TELEPHONE 01-4321-321-32 330048 11/26/85 13.06 AT L T COIM TELEPHONE 01-4321-421-42 330043 11/26/85 .89 AT L i CO4M TELEPHONE 14-4321-142-14 330049 11/26/85 5.66 AT L T C04M TELEPHONE 15-4321-191-19 330048 11/26/85 40.59 AT L T C044 TELEPHONE 16-4321-231-23 330048 11/26/85 .93 AT L T C04M TELEPHONE 28-4321-545-41 191.60 • 330049 11/26/85 655.92 CARE L TUt30 Sr INC CAPITAL:EOUIP 01-4511-421-42 20738 655.92 • ***-CKS 330082 11/26/85 66.70 CAPESIJS 4GENCY INSURANCE 01-4360-181-18 330082 11/26/85 80.04 CAPESIUS AGENCY INSURANCE 01-4360-181-18 330082 11/26/85 66.70 CAPESIUS AGENCY INSURANCE 01-4360-182-18 330082 11/26/85 66.70 CAPESIUS AGENCY INSURANCE 01-4360-183-18 330082 11/26/85 86.71 CAPESIUS 4GENCT INSURANCE 01-4360-311-31 330082 11/26/85 120.06 CAPESIJS AGENCY INSURANCE 01-4360-321-32 330082 11/26/85 86.71 CAPESIUS 4"oENCY INSURANCE 01-4360-421-42 330082 11/26/85 66.70 CAPESIJS 4iENCY INSURANCE 01-4360-611-61 330082 11/26/85 26.68 CAPESIJS 4"oENCY INSURANCE 01-4360-911-91 667.00 • ..*... ***-CKS 330084 11/26/85 49111.31 CARGILL' StLT DIV SURFACE MAT 01-4215-433-42 49111.51 ...f.. ***-CKS 1985 CITY OF SHAKOPEE CHECK REGISTER 12-01-85 PAGE 2 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VE.VDOI ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 330102 11/26/85 30.65 COPY EQUIP. INC. SUPPLIES 01-4210-411-41 115965 30.65 • ...►.• aa.—CKS 330134 11/26/85 231.20 EARL =.DRESSEN MOTOR FUEL 01-6222-421-42 9164 231.20 • •...►► •••-CKS 330152 11/26/85 100.00 ESS BROTHELS UTIL SYS MAINT 71-4234-713-71 5803 100.00 • .•►.►• - - - .aa-CKS 330186 11/26/85 42.57 GOULDS EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-631-62 30210 42.57 • ►....• •••-CKS 330224 11/26/85 512.00 HENNE'IN TECH CNTR CONF i SCHOOLS 01-4390-321-32 8439 512.00 • ff.i.• afk—CKS 330238 11/26/85 378.85 INST. TESTING INC PROF SERV 01-4310-412-41 330238 11/26/85 759.90 INST. TESTING INC PROF.SERV 26-4310-539-41 1,138.75 • ...... •..-CKS 330243 11/26/85 46.52 114YEtS. DIESEL INC EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 46.62 • ...... fff-CKS 33D287 11/26/85 112.09 LAND EMUI2MENT SUPPLIES 01-4210-426-42 350287 11/26/8:i 3.75 LAND EOUI'MENT EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 115.83 • u.•.. .a.-CKS 330290 11/26/85 19037.48 LEAGJE OF 4N CITIES PROF SERV 01-4310-111-11 3473 1,037.48 • i..ff. f.a-CKS 330297 11/26/85 19083.00 LOGIS RENTS 01-4380-152-15 108525 330297 11/26/85 322.32 LOGIS RENTS 01-4380-153-15 108525 330297 11/26/85 120.17 LOGIS RENTS, 01-4380-154-15 108525 1,525.49 • .iff.. ...-CKS 339306 11/26/85 202.58 LONG LAKE FORD EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-631-62 27550 1395 CITY OF SHAKOPEE CHEC( REGISTER 12-01-85 PAGE 3 CiECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VE4)01 ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. k P.O. N MESSAGE 202.68 • u r•u ***-CKS 330311 11/26/85 50.96- MACOUEEN EQUIP. EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 330317 11/26/85 19440.00 MACQJEEN =]UIP. CAPITAL EQUIP 01-4511-421-42 3116 19389.04 • .....• *r*-CKS 330328 11/26/85 40.00 MILLER DA/IS SUPPLIES 01-4210-132-13 469051 40.00 • rrrrr **--CKS 330355 11/26/85 1,195.50 MIDWEST ASPHALT SURFACE MAT 01-4215-429-42 20998 1,195.50 * ...... *rr-CKS 330335 11/26/85 169.07 NSP UTILITIES 01-4370-427-42 169.01 * rr..ff •**-CKS 330412 11/26/85 437.06 ORR-SCi-MAYR R 4S PROF SERV 01-4310-411-41 330412 11/2G/8ti 578.35 ORR-SC4-M4YR K AS PROF.SERV 61-4310-549-41 1,015.41 rrrrr• r**-CKS 330429 11/26/85 12.76 HAROL3 PASS TRAVEL'L SUBSIST 01-4330-421-42 330429 11/26/85 180.00 HAROLD PASS RENTS. 01-4380-427-42 330429 11/26/85 60.00 HAROLD PASS RENTS 01-4380-622-62 330423 11/26/85 855.00. HAROLD PASS RENTS 01-4380-656-65 330429 11/26/85 120.00 HAROLD PASS OTHER IMPROV 13-4519-000-00 1.227.76 * fffrrr *rr-CKS 350454 11/26/85 285.90 JOE RIES CONF 6 SCHOOL 01-4390-321-32 285.30 * ••rfrr ***-CKS 330470 11/26/85 16.10 MARILYN R=HER TRAVEL 6 SUBSIST 01-4330-158-15 16.10 • rrrr•• •**-CKS 330518 11/26/85 31.90 ST FRAVCIS REG MED PROF SERV 01-4310-313-31 ^ 31.90 • r...•• ***-CNS 330523 11/26/8] 1,140.00 STEMMER F%IM L GAR- SURFACE MAT 01-4215-622-62 v 1)85 CITY OF SHAKOPEE CHECK REGIST--R 12-01-85 PAGE 4 :AECK N7. DATE AMOUNT VE4301 ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. N P.O. # MESSAGE 1,140.00 • ...f.. •••-CKS 330533 11/26/85 4.50 BARRY STO:( TRAVEL L SUBSIST 14-4330-142-14 330533 11/26/85 20.00 BARRY STO:( CONF.6 SCHOOLS 14-4390-142-14 330533 11/26/85 15.00 BARRY SIO:( CONF A SCHOOLS 16-4390-231-23 39.50 • •..i.f ••+-CKS 330545 11/26/85 16.43 SNAP-)9 T33LS CORP. SUPPLIES 01-4210-441-44 16.43 • 330546 11/26/85 19245.54 SWEE47-Y 8275. INC EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 18231 1,245.54 ..•••i •••-CKS 330591 11/26/85 151.50 VALLEY TEMP PROF SERV 01-4310-171-17 151.50 . ..f... iff-CKS 330596 11/26/85 29411.88 VIKING STEEL OTHER,IMPROV 13-4519-000-00 2,411.88 + ...f.f --CKS 330503 11/26/85 676.32 VALLEY TIi= SERVICE EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-312-31 676.32 • ...... fff-CKS 330606 11/26/85 29875.05 VAN PDDL SERV INC UTILITIES 14-4370-143-14 2.875.05 + iff.fl •••-CKS 33061) 11/26/85 174.50 WEST PUBLISHING PRINT L.PUS 01-4350-111-11 174.50 • fr.r.• •►•-CKS 330629 11/26/85 119709.00 WESTdOOD PLAN. IYC. OTHER IMPROV26-4519-539-41 11,709.00 • ...•.. i.r-CKS 330653 11/26/85 39.93 ZEP M=6 C) SUPPLIES 01-4210-421-42 330653 ll/26/85 134.77 ZEP M=i C) SUPPLIES O1-4210-630-62 174.70 • •ff.ff f1f-CKS 3308D0 11/26/85 295.00, HYDRAULIC COM INC EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 1985 CITY OF SHAKOPEE CHECK REGISTER 12-D1-85 PAGE 5 ZIEC( 99. DATE A40UNT VENJOI ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. 0 P.O. q MESSAGE 295.00 • 330801 11/26/85 175.50 HENN CTY : OF POL CONF,6 SCHOOLS 01-4390-312-31 175.50 • 33DB02 11/26/85 60.00 IN INST/MJ'II CLERKS DUES.6 SUBSCRIPT 01-4391-131-13 60.00 • 330803 11/26/81 55.00 JOYCE FAISTOL/RPELRA CONF B SCHOOLS 01-4390-151-15 55.00 • 335804 11/26/85 30.00 MEMO/ELSI= HUSOM DUES 6 SUBSCRIPT 16-4391-231-23 30.00 • 330805 11/26/85 1,260.DD PETEISON ;EEO CO INC SURFACE MAT 01-4215-622-62 1.260.00 • 330806 11/26/85 52.57 PIECISIDN 4ETAL FAB EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-1126-42 52.57 r 333807 11/26/85 1.000.00 SANDRA ROSENBERG LIG LICENSE 01-3111-000-00 1.000.00 • 330808 11/26/85 334.18 FRAN( TIES CDNF L SCHOOLS 01-4390-321-32 334.tB • 333809 11/26/85 15.00 SHAKOPEE SIDE REPAIR EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 15.00 • 330810 11/26/85 10.00 TECHNICAL AEP0 INC SUPPLIES D1-4210-411-41 10.00 • 330811 11/26/85 152.03 AGGIE JNZ= TRAVEL 6 SUBSIST 01-4330-311-31 152.03 • ....rr ***-CKS _ 22.029.17 FUN) 01 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 20531.88 FUN) 13 TOTAL PARK RESERVE FUND 22900.44 FUND 14 TOTAL TRANSIT. 5.66 FUND 15 TOTAL HRA 85.59 FUND 16 TOTAL CABLE 129468.90 FUND 26 TOTAL OOWNTOWN'.REOEVELOMENT 56.40 FUND 27 TOTAL. RACETRACK .93 FUND 28 TOTAL BYPASS . 578.35 FU43 61 TOTAL: 1985 IMPROVE. 100.00 FUND 71 TOTAL SEWER FUND 409757.32 TOTAL ,,tf, November Page 3 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LEDGER 1985 i)itAcct. Cr. Acct. Amount Batch Remarks CIC. No. Vendor Ck. Amt. 01.4991.911.91 01.1010 $ 250.00 Contingency 19254 Richard Dellwo $ 250.00 01.4320.131.13 01.1010 500.00 Postage 19275 U. S. Postmaster 500.00 71.4519.711.71 71.1010 796.28 Other Improv. 19276 S. M. Hentges 796.28 81.4926.000.00 81.1010 238.70 Remit Cancer Ins. 19277 Am Family Assurance 238.70 01.4390.151.15 01.1010 80.00 Conf. & Schools 19278 MN Soc. of CPA's 80.00 81.4922.000.00 81.1010 4,460.82 Remit FICA 19279 State Treasurer 4,460.82 81.4927.000.00 81.1010 100.00 Remit Defer. Comp. 1928o IDS 100.00 81.4931.000.00 81.1010 1,000.00 Remit Payroll Say. 19281 lst Nat'l Shakopee 1,000.00 81.4932.000.00 81.1010 98.40 Remit Uniform Rental 19282 Unitog Rental Sery 98.40 81.4927.000.00 81.1010 2,262.00 Remit defer. Comp. 19283 PEBSCO 2,262.00 81.4921.000.00 81.1010 3,628.35 Remit SIT 19284 Comm of Revenue 3,628.35 81_.4920.000.00 81.1010 8,309.70 Remit FIT 19285 1st Nat'l -Shakopee 8,309.70 81.4923.000.00 81.1010 10,489.52 Remit PERA 19286 State Treas. 10,489.52 $32,213.77 $32,213.77 FUND TOTALS O1 - General Fund $ 830.00 71 - Sewer Fund 796.28 81 - Payroll Trust 30,587.49 $32,213.77 MEMO TO: City Council FROM: LeRoy Houser, Building Official RE: Public works Garage Door Bid DATE: November 22 , 1985 Introduction: As you instructed, I have readvertised for bids for the over- head doors for Public Works . The result of the bid is as follows : Ken' s Steel Door $8 , 717 . 28 D.C. Peterson Door Co. $8 , 545 . 00 The low bid is from Peterson Door Co. Recommendation: I recommend awarding the bid to D.C. Peterson Door Co. for the sum of $8 ,545 . 00 . Action Requested: 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 . LH: cah MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: City Hall Hours Christmas Eve Day DATE: November 21 , 1985 Introduction and Background Last year Christmas fill on Tuesday and Council authorized the closing of City Hall at noon on December 24th with employees using their own vacation, comp or other time. This year Christmas falls on Wednesday and staff is asking that Council consider authorizing the same early closing. Alternatives a. Keep City Hall open regular hours. b. Close City Hall at noon December 24th (anyone wishing to work may do so) . c. Other Action Requested Authorize the closing of City Hall at noon on December 24 , 1985 with the stipulation that employees use their vacation time , comp time, or other time. JSC/kms MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator 1fO FROM: Ray G. Ruuska, Assistant Engineer RE: Valley Park Dr. & 12th Ave. Project No. 1984-5 DATE: Novemner 26 , 1985 Introduction• Attached is the Certificate of Completion and correspondence from Barton-Aschman Assoc. Inc. , pertaining to the above referenced project. Background: Work on this project has been inspected and approved by Barton-Aschman Assoc. Inc. Action Reguested: Adopt Resolution No. 2483 , A Resolution Accepting work on the Valley Park Drive from Hwy. 101 to 12th Avenue and 12th Avenue from Valley Park Drive to County Road 83 , Project No. 1984-3 . This Resolution directs the appropriate City officials to make final payment to Richard Knutson, Inc. , 201 Travelers Trail , Burnsville, MN, 35337 , in the amount of $100 . 00 . RR/tw RESOLUTION NO. 2483 A Resolution Accepting Work On The Valley Park Drive from Hwy. 141 to 12th Avenue and 12th Avenue from Valley Park Drive to County Road 83 Project No. 1984-5 WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract signed with the City of Shakopee on July Z1, 1984, Richard Knutson, Inc. , 201 Travelers Trail, Burnsville, MN. 55337 has satisfactorily completed they Valley !=park. Drive Q• 12th Avenue Road Construction Project, in accordance with such contract. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA that the work completed under~ said contract is hereby accepted and approved ; and RE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk. and Mayor are hereby d i vect ed to issue a proper order for the final payment on such contract in the amount of $ 100. 0 0, taking the contractor' s receipt in full. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk — Approved as to form this day of , 19 City Attorney a Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. r � 1610 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454 612-332-0421 November 7, 1985 Mr. Ray Ruuska Engineering Coordinator City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Re: City of Shakopee Project No. 1984-5 Valley Park Drive and 12th Avenue Dear Ray: Enclosed, please find a "Certificate of Completion" dated November 6, 1985, for the Valley Park Drive and 12th Avenue project. I have also enclosed the semi-final partial estimate voucher dated August 31, 1985. This estimate voucher was approved in September. We are recommending approval of the project and release of the $100 retainage to project contractor Richard Knutson, Inc. It is our opinion that the project has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications. Please let us know if this "Certificate of Completion" cannot be processed. Sincerely, James H. Unruh Associate ohn C. Mull , E. Vice Pre ' ent JHU/JCM:kro Enclosures cc: Tom Ryan U Richard Knutson, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION CONTRACT NO. : 1984-5 DATE : November 6 1985 PROJECT DESCRIPTION : Valley Park Drive and 12th Avenue Construction located within the city limits of Shakopee, Minnesota. CONTRACTOR: Richard Knutson, Inc. 201 Travelers Trail Burnsville, MN 55337 ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 755,156.50 QUANTITY CHANGE AMOUNT . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 0.00 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 THRU NO. 7 AMOUNT . . . $ 21,285.44 FINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 776,441.94 LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 761,274.59 FINAL PAYMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 100.00 I , hereby certify that the above described work was inspected under my direct supervision and that, to the best of my belief and knowledge, I find that the some has been fully completed in all respects according to the contract, together with any modifications approved by City Council . I, therefore, recommend above specified final payment be made to the above named Contractor. rof essiona ngineer John C. Mullan (Semi-Final } Contract No. 1984-5 Partial Estimate Voucher rk-). —8— _ F-rind Endin;: Au ust_31, 1985 TO: Contractor Richard Knutson, Inc. Address 201 Travelers Trail , Burnsville, HN 55337 Protect Description Valley Park Drive and 12th Avenue - Project 1984-5 1., Original Contract Amount 755,156.50 2. Change Order No. 1 'i1ru No. —7 _ 21,285.44 3. Total Funds Encu::ibereci 776,441.94 4. Value of Work Completed $; 761,374.59 _ _ — Value of work 5. Percent Retainage ;; 100.00 remaining 6. Previous Payments $ 753,463.61 Percent Complete 100 7. Deductions or Charges $ -0- — 8. Total $ 753,563.61 Payment Due (Line 4 - 'Line 8) $ _ 1 10-98 OF t',1'i:-1!:t:'1' (I, l-:e) hereby agree that the quantity anr3 �:ifu ..I' „r '•: ::i, ,:rr; h :rr:in i:, :, f:�ir e:;ti:::ate of the work co::,ulctcLI to date. CONTRACTOR: J;J:V1J•:WEI) L'y ('11AKOPEE PULLIC U'I'1I,TTTJ- C0I J.',T'STm I;Y. TITLE: (U1:?:) - C1Tt OF �r it y-(;q t y r;,, eel- Citi, el- City Administrator - Street Construction S Storm,:ater Drainage - Valley Park Drive From STH 101 8 roject: to 12th Ave. and Valley Park Drive to County Road 83 No.: Snakoaee. ".nneso:.a Pro,;ect .,o. 1984-5 er;od rk-:nd!nc,: AOU_�t 31, 1985 Con►ractor: Richard Knutson, IncNo. : ! of S Contract This Period Tot:.; To Date �o. I Contrct sten Un!t i Unit Price Quant,ty !Amount Quantity Amount I Qu,n;itl nrnoi !)TVISION 1 STREET CONS:, .01 Clear -and 6ruo Road•,.ays L.S . 30, 000 . 00 i 30 , 000 . I 'O'000.c I I . I .02IRemove Sidewalk 525 . I x ,511 14,311 .0 .03 I Remove Pavement S.Y. 1.00 i 3 , 000 I .3 ,000 . 4U , 160.c. i 200 . 155 50 I I 11,SSO.c� .04 , Remove Conc. Curb L.F. I 4 .00 I I iii I � i .OS i Salvage Culvert Pipe L.F. i 10 .00 100 1,000 . 1 215.! I I .06 Remove Catch Basin Each , 215 . 00 1 215. 1,20S 11,S1=.c ..07 Remove Sprinkler System L.F. 1. 50 j 900 1, 350 . r 1 I 430•(' I I .08 j Remove ;1.11. Top Section Each 430 .00 2 I 8G0 . ..09 ( Bituminous Patching M.ix Ton 40 .00 ; 10 I 400 . I i . .10 j Mixture for Joints b Crack CWT. 20 . 00 10 200. I .11 Joint & Crack Filler Lbs. . 20 1,000 200 . I ..12 Common Excavation C.Y. 1. 50 j 32 , 600 . 48 ,900 .' I 25,861 ;5, 791 .` j I I I I IS �� t .. 13 Core Excavation C.Y. I 1. 50 I 4 , 000 I 6 ,000 . I 5,397 . ,0. .,.. .13.'! Common 1►or•row - 1..1', C.1',. 2.00 5,000 I :O,O�C, i 'S,000 "0'000.(' .. 14. � Common Chamel DLvat .on C .Y. I 3 . 00 800 � 2 , !.00 . I I I SOU :2,1100.0 x,. 15 1 Break into Ex.i.st?n; ::.11. L.S. 650 .00 i G50 . 651 .c ! I I '_S 539.0 L. 16 110-Inch PVC Pipe L.F. � 19 .25 40 770 . , 1. 17 I Subgrade Prepari.tion Sta. I 60.00' I 87 5 , 220 . ' ' 87*00 5,2_0.c ( I r �3 nC!nJuly 1, 1985 Controctor: Tt� cnard Y.nu! -:on', Inc . Ccntract This 2cr,c� To;c'. 70 0aiC Unit t,nIt roc.. Con,ruc� , .cam ( h I . , � l�moun� � C�uan,;,y �,r,c•.:r: � Qu::n;',•i i,mo• i D^VISION 1, CONTINUED I 8 west Rolling Sta. 30 . 00 ; 87 1 2 , Gy0 , ` 9 , Agg. Base, X'odified C1.5 Ton 5 . 30 i 15 , 000 79 , 500 . { ' I , I i 14,042.48 74,425. 14 0 i Conc. Curb Guttcr I l ::odified Desi,crn 3 . 35 1 17 , 200 66 , 220 . I 17, 3,01 ' 66,6Uti ,`': 8-Inch Wit- Conc. Dr+�y. S .Y. ! 24 . 00 100 2 , 400 . i { 1•'�� ;�,;•,, 2 ; Sidewalk S .F 2 . 00 ; 300 ; 600 , 3 ! 233.1 Leveling Course �;;x I Ton21 1 ! { . 00 1 800 16 , 000 . 42-winch k*-- 71' 2331 3inC.= Ton 21. 00 1 4 ,2. { � n� 86 ,100 , ; i ! 5,J93.98 109,178.5: 5 B-4 t. Tac}c CoatGa_l ,• I I .� . 00 � 2 , 300 � 2 , 3002,020.00 2,620.0(..1 I G ; ;adjust .;anholes Eac11 j 200 .00 j 8 I 1, 600 . ! I ' 7 Adjust Gate Valves I Each 150 . 00 2 4 300 , 8 2341 Wearing Course Ton 2.1. 60 I 5 , 200 1112_ , 32.0 . I i 4,566.55 �9E1,637.4? 9 i Restore Seri-kjer Sys',:c� L.S . j 3 , 500 . 00 ! ! - , Soo . ' 3,500.0 i i ! i I i p i s ` Acre ! 800 . 00 8 1 6 , 400 . 000 lSoda g S .Y. I 0 l `ni 1. 80 3, 00 I 51400 . ! i ;,30,0 E, 0'! 2 ; SUBTOTAL-Div. l;y St. Const' 1 A I$487,940.0C + i 4)6,913.00, ruicct: Street Constructio^. S`.orr'.:?`.r?`^ 'Jr'r?'.nclnn '2-,tlmSZC No.. 8 ^r;od End!nccy: Ast 31, 1985 Controc.or: ^.ln.zr ] Ynu �.r.on', Inc . 01' 5 ugushc- . e.M I Ccntract T!i!; Per!ou I Toto; To Dztc CGi1ir:.Ci ','tc : I Unit i Unit nricej Quan,i;y Amount I Quantity ,:mount I Quz:n:it'/ Arra . 7:VISiO�i 2, STRi:r•.T D?ll^;,1C , 1 r 61 11' 01 x .61 Precast Po% C�_,1v. L.F. , 312 .00 84 26, 208. 1 I S: ?6,:0S.C, .02 110 ' x 6' Precast Bo% mnd Each 4 ,900 .00 I 2 9 , a00 . , 03 ' 72-Inch RCP Cl. 4 (?^'-121) IL.F. 179 . 00 I GG 1 1=, 814 . I i 6.1 11,456.01 I � : . 04 i 48-Inch RCP Cl. 4 (C'-^'` 75 .00 G30 /.7, 880 . i i 630 47,ssc.C! 105 it.B-Inch RCP C'_. 4 -10. I T.J. 77. 45 ! 330 ' 25,558.501 3 3a5 X5,945.7. .06 48-Inch. RC? Cl. 3 ('J'-3'; !L.?. l 75.00 i 0 -0- 1 R I 1 I ( ,07 142-Inch RCP C1. 4 (0'-8') L.F. 62 . 30 1 210 13, 083. 209 X3,020.7,. .08 X42-Inch RCP Cl.. t. (8'-10') L.F. 63 .75 214 13,642.50 � I . .09 i 30-Inch RCP Cl. 4 (J'-?') L.F. 34 . 80 ?.50 81700. . 10 ; 27-Inch RCP Cl. 4 (0'-2') lL.F. 31. 20 + 690 21, 942 . 6S9 41,910._: .11 27-Inch RCP Cl. 4 (8'-10') L.F. 34 .00 150 58100 . 14s is,03..c: ICl. _ ' , 1 8 °4 4o� I I 59 .13 27-Inch RCP C_. 3 (0 8 ) L.F. 1 28. 80 1 3. 1,0. . I , .14 l8-Inch RCP Cl. 5 (0'-3') L.F. j 21.65. 1 650 14 ,072.501 , i 670 L4,Soy S.a'. � I . .15 1, 118-Inch RQP Cl. 5 (2.'-1'J') , L.F. I 22 .45 1 80 1,796. I I so `1 ,796.0 .16 I Jacked 18-in. RCP C1. 5 Under Rail I L.F. i 129 .00 40 5, 160 . ! 1 I I i i I .17 ' Ext•end 18-in. C%? Culvert L.F. 1, 17 . 50 1 62 1,085. i � 62 ;1,OSS.C. i .18 48-in. 18-in. Cross Each 650 .00 1 650 . 1 1 650. . 19 172-Inch Manhole, Each 2,100 .00 3 6 , 300 . i 1 } ,3oO. ;vv �nu,nr : ._._s)1�1-J _ 1935_ Contractor : n 4, --�� G�nt�=��� Inc :i��t 1��•. oI' n i i ; Cc~tract I TPor:N' i To'a' ?•o ^a!e Con ri ci �"^_"� I Unit � Unit Prtcc i R!o ,n n'!aCl�' l� I � • , ;' n� -� _ Q u,7 !j D---VISwO\t 2 , CO\TT\G 7D 20 + 72-7nc`1 vanica D2 t-h L.I' . 3.75 . 00 I 2 . ? ; � ^� . j I ^p,^' 21 t Standard Yanhole Each i 925 . 00 , 70^ . 22 Std. �:.?'_. Extra Dent`s L.F. j r,?. . 00 1 2 . ° 7 ..��CI. t i r Catch 2' V t.t I r t 315, t t „; i Catch ..a S '1 u <.S _'1 �1 C�? , 205 . 00 i 2 2 7 , 7 . i I -• - r � -• •. - ' I ! •I S . 49-Inch, Conc. Anron I Each j ?, 750 . 00 .:. ,0. 25 27-Inch Conc. Anron ;.Each i 290 . 00 • - I I 1 ' 2G09 Conc. Anron i ch + G50 . �� 27 I°-Inch C�;�� 11�ron i Each , 212 . 90 1� I 2_? I ; t :• _.,,, - j ' I I 28 ' C.vard '_'once L.r. + G . 50 200 . I , 300 . 200 1 300,0„ 29 n c?rZ"y"'rL"1 T'.:.nr D S G–"lr 1 S .Y. 1 3 . 0 0 , 209 , SG C C S .Y. I 20 . 00 0 200 . 3' ! S';3T0T17, , D:v: 2, Stozn Dranac�e I i'2G7,21-O.SG' I I 263, 176. 1 ' I I I i I j •TOTAL D-v. �_ & D-- v. 2 I StY-'',: . ,IJ Cons r S Drl:n�crj ! � 75515r).501 , 740,0P'9. 1 Const.: u Storm , . i 1 roject: Street Construction and Stormwater Drainage - 12th Avenue & UPD Estimate No.- 8 eriod Ending: August 31, 1985 Contractor: Richard Knutson, Inc. Sheet No. :5 of 5 'em Contract This Period Total To Date No. Contract Item Unit Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount _Quantity Amount Change Order #3 Jacked 21" RCP CL. 4 in Steel Casing or Jacked 21" RCP 4,000 D Load L.F. 165.00 40 6,600.00 40 6,600.00 21" RCP CL. 4 (including insulation & traffic control ) L.F. 35. 10 248 8,704.80 232 8,143.20 21" Concrete Apron Each 1,035.00 1 1,035.00 1 1,035.00 Standard Manhole Each 925.00 1 925.00 1 925.00 Change Order #4 Gate Valve Replacement L.S. 354.75 354.75 354.75 Change Order #5 Extra Excavation L.S. 467.25 467.25 467.25 Hydrant Extension-extra depth Each 285.00 1 285.00 1 285.00 Gate Valve Extension - extra depth Each 175.00 1 175.00 1 175.00 Change Order #6 Sprinkler System Restoration L.S. 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 Change Order #7 -Culvert Crossings L.S. 300.24 300.24 300.24 300.24 Total Change Orders #347 300.24 11,285.44 Total Div. 1 & Div. :2 & Change Orders #3-#7 300.24 A 1,374.59 1 cJTTLIUS A. COLLEA, 11 JULIUS A.COLLER ATTORNEY AT LA 612-445-1244 1859-1940 2 1 1 WEST FIRST AVENUE SHAKOPEE. MINNTESOTA 55329 November 20, 1985 Mrs. Judith Cox Shakopee City Clerk Shakopee City Hall Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Judy: Sometime back the city wrote a letter to the Scott County Historical Society regarding certain alleged problems and requested the conveyance to the western portion of the Restoration site. A committee from the Scott County Historical Society would like to appear before the Council on December 3 and learn more about the alleged problems and for other reasons. So, would you kindly put the delegation on the December agenda for the meeting on December 3rd. They were scheduled to appear at the 19th meeting and did appear,but some- how the meeting feel through the cracks,and of course,the agenda for the 19th was overloaded. Very truly yours, Juliu oller, II JAC/nh CI , OF SHI�� KOPEE INCORPORATED � ". 1610 129 -AST FIRST AVENUE. SHAKOPEE, MANN-E � 55379- 3 53-S aiA 1 76 f612) 44, E ��1 • (( :� October 2 , 1985 Jacquelin Joslyn Scott County Historical Society 21760 Delmar Avenue Jordan, Minnesota 55352 Re: Road to River at Murphy ' s Landing Dear Ms Joslyn: The Shakopee City Council, at its regular October 1 , 1985 meeting passed a motion making a 615 , 000 one time contribution to Murphy' s Landing to support them in their operations for the balance of 1985 . The City Council also passed a motion directing City staff, to contact the Scott County Historical Society and other necessary parties to begin discussions regarding the deeding back to the City of Shakopee property that includes the roadway to the river and that land lying west of it. The City Council directed that we begin discussions on the later issue because of the continuing problem we are having with access to the river for the general public. Please contact me so we can set up a meeting to begin discussions on this later issue. Sincerely, (� // Jo// K. Anderson (amity Administrator JKA/dbs cc: Joe Ries, County Administrator Marge Henderson, Murphy' s Landing 'ire Heart Of PrOh ress l'G e v INCORPORATED 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: Fifth Avenue Sanitary Sewer Reconstruction DATE: November 27, 1985 INTRODUCTION: Council action is necessary to adapt a Resolution accepting work and making final payment on the Fifth Avenue Sewer Project. BACKGROUND : All of the work for this project has been completed in accord- ance with the contract documents. The Certificate of completion is attached. ACTION REG!UESTED: Adopt Resolution No. 2482, A Resolution Accepting Werk on the 5th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Reconstruction, Contract No. 1984-6. This Resolution directs the appropriate City officials to make final payment tc, S. M. Hentges & Sons, 1513 W. 3rd Avenue, Shako- pee, MN, 55.379, in the amount of $100. 00. Approved f r Submittal Ken Ashfe d, City Engineer FS/pmp MEM2482 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION CONTRACT NO, : 1984-6 DATE : November 27, 1985 PROJECT DESCRIPTION : 5th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Reconstruction Project CONTRACTOR: S.M. xentges & Sons 1513 W. 3rd Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT , , , , , , , , , , , , $ 137,460.51 QUANTITY CHANGE AMOUNT , , , , , , $ 1,895. 34 CHANGE ORDER NO, 1 THRU N0 , 4 AMOUNT , , , $ 2,020.66 FINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT , , , , , , , , , , , , , , $ 141,376.51 LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS , , , , , , , , , , , , , $ 141,276.51 FINAL PAYMENT , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , $ 100.00 I, hereby certify that the above described work was inspected under my direct supervision and that, to the best of my belief and knowledge, I find that the same has been fully completed in all respects according to the contract, together with any modifications approved by City Council I, therefore, recommend above specified final payment be made to the above named Contractor, Professions Engineer ' U RESOLUTION NO. 2482 / A Resolution Acceoting Work On Fifth Avenue Sanitary Sewer Reconstruction Contract No. 1984-6 WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract signed with the City of Shakopee on August 29, 1984, S. M. Hentges & Sons, 1513 W. 3rd Avenue, Shakopee, MN, 55379 has satisfactorily completed the Fifth Avenue Sanitary Sewer Reconstruction, in accordance with such contract. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA that the work completed under said contract is hereby accepted and approved ; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk and Mayor are hereby directed to issue a proper order for the final payment on such contract in the amount of $ 100. 00, taking the contractor' s receipt in full. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 19 Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of , 19 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Capital Equipment - Postage Machine DATE: November 22, 1985 Introduction The equipment committee and staff would like Council to reconsider the motion of November 19th authorizing the purchase of a Pitney Bowes 5600 automatic feed mailing machine at a cost of $3 , 040 . 00 . Background Quotes were received for a Pitney Bowes and a Hastler mailing machine. The two machines will stamp 170/minute and are very comparable. Recommendation was made to purchase the Pitney Bowes because it is American made. It has been pointed out that the parts for the Hastler are Swiss made but the machine is assembled in the U.S. The Hastler mailing machine cost has been reduced from $3 ,295.00 to $2 ,965. 00 with a 12 month extended warrantee. The Hastler machine will also fit better into the City' s existing postage area. The equipment committee is recommending purchase of the Hastler mailing machine. Action Recommended 1 . Reconsider motion of November 19, 1985 authorizing the purchase of a Pitney Bowes 5600 automatic feed mailing machine at a cost of $3 , 040 . 00. 2. Amend motion to authorize the purchase of a IMS/Hastler 204AS automatic feed mailing machine at a cost of $2, 965 . 00 with a 12 month extended warrantee. 3 . Approve motion as amended. JSC/jms /45 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Dual Left Turn Lanes at TH 101 and CSAH 18 (East to North) DATE: November 26 , 1985 Introduction The attached letter is the result of a conversation I had with John Mullan from Barton-Aschman regarding the intersection that posed the greatest problem for traffic leaving Canterbury Downs during the 1985 season. The proposal is to construct a second left turn lane with costs shared among the City, Scott County, Mn/DOT and possibly Canterbury Downs. Background The City had an extensive traffic analysis done through the Environmental Impact Statement which was the basis for much of the roadway work done prior to the inaugural season of Canter- bury Downs. In the main, the roadway improvements worked as anticipated. One notable problem area was the need for additional left turn lane capacity (east to north) at the intersection of TH 101 and CSAH 18. During the season Canterbury Downs paid the State Highway Department to place highway patrolmen at the intersection to direct traffic. John Mullan, from Barton-Aschman, has learned that the state might pay the bulk of the improvement costs for an additional left turn lane which would address the problem of lack of left turn capacity at this intersection. As proposed in Mr. Mullan' s letter of November 21st, the maximum cost to the City of Shakopee will be $9 , 600 . According the Finance Director Gregg Voxland there is at least $100 , 000 remaining in the Racetrack Tax Increment District bond proceeds for off-site roadway improvements. According to Gregg these funds can be expended for this additional improvement. Alternatives The purpose of Mr. Mullan' s letter is to determine if the parties involved wish to proceed based upon the preliminary outline in his letter of November 21st. 1. The City can drop the idea and let the State make the necessary improvements when the project meets warrants for traffic safety funding. This alternative would not improve the left turn capacity of the intersection for the 1986 season. 2. The City can notify the other parties involved that it is willing to proceed under the proposed guidelines. This proposal for financing is superior to the financing for improvements made in 1985 because they were 100% financed by the City. This improvement would also benefit the general public using the left turn lane and other major attractions such as Renaissance Festival and Vallevfair. i 1 ,-5 3 . Notify the other jurisdictions that the City would like to proceed, but that the City is willing to spend something less than the $9, 600 for plans and staking. Then direct the City Administrator to contact Canterbury Downs to see if they will participate in this expenditure. Recommendation I recommend alternative No. 2 . Council should discuss alternative No. 3 and decide if this alternative would create a precedent requiring private participation in roadway improvements financing when the need for the improvements can be attributed ( subjectively or objectively) to a specific industry or industries . If Council selects alternative No. 2 it can still direct staff to work on alternative No. 3 prior to expenditure of the $9 , 600 . Action Requested Direct the appropriate City officials to write to John Mullan of Barton-Aschman indicating that the City of Shakopee 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 November 21, 1985 letter. JKA/jms Barton-bschman ,[associates, Inc. 1610 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454 _ t2�332-0421 MEMORANDUM TO: John Anderson, Shakopee City Administrator COPIES TO: Bruce Warzala Bred Larson FROM: /' ` John Mullan DATE: November 21, 1985 SUBJECT: DUAL LEFT TURN LANES AT TH 101 AND CSAH 18 (EAST TO NORTH) As a result of preliminary discussions with MnDOT, Brad Larson and yourself a tentative plan of action has been suggested as a means of accomplishing the early construction of dual left turn lanes from eastbound TH 101 to northbound CSAH 18 before the track opens next year. A letter must be written to District 5 MnDOT Engineer, William Crawford, indicating what our proposal involves, who the key players are and what each will be expected to contribute to make this improvement become a reality. Based on preliminary discussions with MnDOT, Scott County and yourself, we have learned the following: o Without someone else taking the lead MnDOT would not rate this project a high state priority. o The state does not have the available design capacity to prepare plans at this time. o Right-of-way appears tight on CSAH 18 for the addition of a reasonable merge lane (1,000-�. This issue will have to be resolved by Scott County. o Funding with Federal Safety funds must be justified on a accident cost/benefit basis (ratio must be 1+) which does not appear possible at this location. o We are negotiating with the state to have them assume the cost of the necessary work and accomplish it with district maintenance force. Scott County may be required to do the widening on CSAH 18. Construction cost for the additional lane and signal modification work if done by contract is estimated at between $55,000 and $65,000. o Bill Crawford should receive a letter of request (general or with specifics) for a meeting to discuss the proposed improvement from Scott County. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 11 -9 November 21, 1985 Page 2 o If all of the above can be satisfied the state could, with its maintenance forces, construct the improvement by next April. o Scott County (Brad Larson) has been approached on the CSAH 18 tight right-of-way issue and is confident that this problem can be resolved. o Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. can prepare detailed construction plans and specifications at a cost of $9,600 which includes $1,200 for construction staking. Sufficient survey information exists for design of plans. o Design costs could be shared by Scott County, the City of Shakopee and possibly Canterbury Downs. Because of the short time and the possibility that something may curtail the state's ability to construct the project with their maintenance forces, it is imperative that the project move forward as quickly as possible in order to provide sufficient time for a contract letting and award. Ideally the letter from Scott County should go out within the next week to ten days. Should contract work become necessary it would be handled by someone other than the state. If you have any further questions feel free to call either John Mullan or Bruce Warzala. kro/a TO: Mayor, council members FROM: Tom Brownell, Chief of Police RE: Carpet purchase - police building DATE: November 25, 1985 INTRODUCTION Council has authorized 1985 capital improvement funding to remodel the clerical area. BACKGROUND The remodeling involves relocating the existing conference room to the upper level and moving clerical employees into the present conference room. Both areas require carpeting, two quotations were attained. 1 . Fonder Carpet Service $2002 . 00 2 . Suel Business Equipment $2137. 85 RECOMMENDATION Purchase 143 yards of carpeting to be installed from Fonder Carpet Service at a cost of $2002 . 00 . COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Authorize staff to purchase 143 yards of carpeting to be installed from Fonder Carpet Service at a cost of $2002 . 00 . MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Review of Request for Proposals (RFP) for an Organization Staffing and Municipal Services Costing Study DATE: November 27 , 1985 Introduction The Shakopee City Council, at their regular October 1 , 1985 meeting, authorized the appropriate City officials to mail an RFP for the above mentioned consulting services to a list of a dozen firms. RFPs Received The City received six RFPs on November 22 , 1985 . The pricing of the RFPs is listed below for informational purposes ,because the City had no specific idea about what such a study might cost. Firm Phase I Phase II Total Ernst & Whinney $17, 000 7-$10 ,000 $27 ,000* Peat Marwick - - 20 , 181* Productive Design 20 ,000 20 , 000 40 ,000 Deloitte Haskins & Sells 16 ,000 3 , 500 19 , 500* Tom Watson & Assoc. ,Inc. 15, 000 5, 000 20 ,000* David M. Griffith & Assoc. ,LTD. 35,000 8 , 000 43 ,000 *plus "out-of-pocket" expenses which most firms have estimated at approximately 10% of the total cost. Selection Procedures With six proposals Council has two choices . Either all firms can be called in for an interview or the six can be screened down to a smaller number like two or three. I recommend that we screen the applicants down to two or three and that the screening committee consist of one or two City Council members , one employee , one department head and me. The initial review of RFPs can begin by handing out RFPs to committee members at the meeting on December 3rd and scheduling the first review session on the evening of December 5th. The remaining candidate firms then can be contacted for interviews probably on December 12 , staff can draft a memo to Council on December 13th and Council can make a final selection based on the screening commitee' s final recommendation at its regular December 17 , 1985 meeting. -Page- 2 Review of Request for Proposals Alternatives 1. Council can proceed by appointing a screening committee of four or five peole and direct the committee to return to the December 17th Council meeting with a recommended selection for the study. This procedure would be in keeping with the City' s normal practice in selecting consultants. The time table proposed would allow the consultants to complete the police staffing review in time for the City to be included in the February recruitment by the Suburban police Officers Recruitment group. Other aspects of the study could be completed after that but any delay might prevent us from having a timely decision on staffing for the police department. 2. Appoint a committee (with the same number or fewer) to interview all of the candidates beginning at the soonest possile date with the intent of having the selection for the December 17th meeting. Recommendation I recommend alternative No. 1 simply because it is the procedure we normally use for selecting consultants. We have sufficient proposals franeach consultant to provide one copy to each of a five member review committee thus allowing review to begin immediately. The cost of the study will be funded by 1985 surpluses and/or contingency money earmarked for salaries but not spent during the first few months of 1986 while the study is under way. Action Requested 1. Select - a committee to review the RFPs for the organizational staffing and municipal servicing costing study. 2 . Direct the committee to screen the RFPs and make a written recommendation to City Council at its December 17 , 1985 meeting. JKA/jms MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk ` RE: Resolution No. 2480 , A Resolution of Appreciation to Paul Wermerskirchen DATE: November 22 , 1985 Introduction and Background On November 19 , 1985 , Council directed staff to prepare a resolution of appreciation for Paul Wermerskirchen for his years of service on the I .C.C. Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 2480 , A Resolution of Appreciation to Paul Wermerskirchen, and move its adoption. JSC/jms RESOLUTION NO. 2480 P. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO PAliL WERMERSF.IRCHEN WHEREAS , Paul Wermerskirchen served on the Industrial and Commercial Development Commission of the City of Shakopee from July, 1981 to November, 1985 ; and WHEREAS, Paul Wermerskirchen served as Chairman of the Industrial and Commercial Development Commission from January, 1983 to November, 1985 ; and WHEREAS , Paul Wermerskirchen has unselfishly contributed many hours of service to the City of Shakopee during his four years on the Shakopee Industrial and Commercial Development Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Shakopee City Council , on behalf of the residents of Shakopee and on behalf of the Industrial and Commercial Development Commission, that the Shakopee City Council does hereby extend to Paul Wermerskirchen the deep appreciation of the City for his years of civic interest and dedicated service to the community. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota, held this day of 1985 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 1985 . City Attorney TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Personnel Policy Amendment for Comp Time DATE: November 27, 1985 Introduction and Background Earlier this year the Supreme Court decided that the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) applied to governments. Therefore, we amended the personnel policy to remove any references to comp time. The Congress has reacted to the local governments requests by amending the FLSA to provide for compensatory time for government employees. Basically what the attached resolution does is to reinstate what we had before for comp time. One adjustment is to permit the City Administrator to approve any accumulation over 40 hours due to heavy work load (i.e. snow plowing, grant preparation, police emergency, etc.) with the restriction that the employee reduces the balance back to 40 hours or less within 120 days. A second modifi- cation gives the employer the option to pay in cash or comp time instead of the employee having the choice. Also, the policy for emergency closing of city facilities is folded into the Personnel Policy with the option for employees to use comp time restored. Resolutions No. 2117 and 2410 are repealed because the Personnel Policy now covers the closing of facilities. Action Requested Adopt Resolution No. 2481 RESOLUTION NO. 2481 l L A Resolution Amending The Personnel Policy Adopted By Resolution No. 1571 WHEREAS, City Council has adopted Resolution No. 1571 adopting a personnel policy, and WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States has amended the Fair Labor Standards Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the City of Shakopee Personnel Policy adopted by Resolution 1571 is hereby amended to read as follows. Section 6. Subdivision 3. Temporary and Part-Time Employees Whenever an employee works for a period of less than the regularly established number of hours a day, days a week, or weeks a month, the amount paid shall be the same per hour worked as for a full-time position. Temporary employees, whether full-time or part-time, are not eligible for sick leave, vacation leave, holiday pay or compensatory time off; overtime is paid for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week according to regulations as set forth by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Section 6. Subdivision 4. Overtime Employees to whom the Fair Labor Standards Act applies shall be compensated for overtime at rates of one and one-half the regular rate of pay for work their supervisor requires them to undertake in excess of 40 hours per week. The compensation shall be in cash at time nad one-half or in comp time at time and one-half with the employee making the choice. The employer (City Adminstrator) has the option of overriding the employee ' s choice for overtime compensation in the form of cash and requiring compensatory time off. Section 6. Subdivision 5 . Accumulated Compensatory Time Accumulated compensatory time can be taken with the department head' s approval during the pay period or during a future pay period as compensatory time. A maximum of 40 hours of compensatory time can be accumulated. After a maximum of 40 hours, any hours the employee is required to work overtime must be paid in cash, unless additional comp time is approved by the City Administrator. The City Administrator has the authority to approve additional compensatory time accumulation when unusual work loads occur. The employee must reduce the comptime balance down to 40 hours or less within 120 days of earning the excess time. Accumulated compensatory time cannot be taken as cash at a later date except upon termination. Verification that the accumulated compensatory time recorded on the payroll check stub is correct is the responsibility of each employee. Any discrepancies are to be brought to the attention of the Senior Accounting Clerk within one week from the receipt of the pay check. The official compensatory time records will be the Finance Department's records. Unofficial records kept by department heads cannot be used to question the official records after the one week verification period. Section 7. Subdivision 1 . Work Hous Work schedules for personnel shall be established by the appropriate department head, with the approval of the City Administrator. The regular work week for employees is five eight—hour working days, in addition to a lunch period, Monday through Friday, except as otherwise established by the department head, in accordance with the needs of the department. Section 7. Subdivision 2. Emergency Closing of City Facilities Emergency is defined as circumstances which pose a threat to the safety of employees and public patrons or circumstances which prohibit the normal use of the City's facilities. The City Administrator, Mayor or Vice Mayor respectively may declare an emergency and direct the official closing of facilities. Source — for weather related emergencies, the National Weather Service is the primary source of information and shall be monitored by both the Sheriff' s Department Communications Division and the Office of Emergency Preparedness. For non—weather related emergencies, the City Administrator may use any verified information pertinent to the circumstances. Notification shall be by City Hall intercom, telephone contact with other facilities, and WCCO/KSMM (am radio). Employees released for safety related reasons or when City facilities are closed may record the time missed as vacation, accumulated comp time, future comp time (within the next 3 months), or they may chose to take the time without pay. Those employees required to work by virtue of the nature of their position shall not receive extra compensation, but shall be compensated in accordance with existing Union contracts or City pay plans. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Resolutions No. 2117 and 2410 are hereby repealed. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 1985. 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 RE: 1986 Fee Resolution DATE: November 25, 1985 Introduction The fee schedule for 1986 has been put together for Council consideration. Background The attached fee schedule is presented for Council consideration. Changes from the 1985 fee schedule are as follows: Page 1 - Gambling/bingo/raffle fees are deleted because they are now licensed through the State Gambling Board. - Investigation fee for a new wine license is added and is the same as for on or off sale liquor. This is consistent with other municipalities. Page 3 - Vacation requests are increased: street and alley from $25 to $75 , and easement from $25 to $50 . This is consistent with other municipalities. Page 6 - Building Permit fees are increased to be consistent with the State Building Code fees. - Other inspection charges are added - we 've been charging fees and are increasing them from $25 to $30 . Page 7 - Fire protection equipment fees are increased to equal cost. Page 10 - Garbage rates are being increased to equal the bid, plus office expense of $0 . 12 . Page 12 - SAC charge will be increased by the amount increased by MWCC. - Assessment searches are increased from $5 to $6 (which is still lower than average in other municipalities ) . Page 12 - City map fees are increased to more accurately reflect cost and be more in line with cost of zoning map. Page 13 - Equipment rental is increased by approximately 10% , same as our snow removal contract with the State. Our fees are same as Chaska. Page 14 - Conditional Use Permit applications increased by 500 . C-1 - Rezonings increased by 250 . - Mining Permits increased by 50%. These are all consistent with other municipalities ; plus the nature of the requests have increased in complexity and are requiring more staff time. Page 15 - Land Use Regulations ( Zoning Ord. ) increased from $5 to $10. - We are adding a provision for the costs of recording documents relating to planning applications to be borne by the applicant. In August of 1985 , the County began charging municipalities for recording documents , per State statute authorization. Page 16 - So as not to forget, we are adding a storm water drainage utility category, with the amount to be determined. Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 2479 , A Resolution Setting Fees for City Licenses, Permits , Services and Documents , and move its adoption. JSC/jms RESOLUTION NO. 2479 1 2 A RESOLUTION SETTING FEES FOR CITY LICENSES, PERMITS, SERVICES AND DOCUMENTS BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, that the attached Fee Schedule, dated January 1, 1986, is hereby approved and adopted by reference in its entirety as though repeated verbatim herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the attached Fee Schedule shall become effective on January 1, 1986, unless indicated otherwise therein, and Resolution No. 2354 shall be repealed effective January 1, 1986. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1985. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 1985. City Attorney Res . No. 2479 Adopted 12/3/8 5 a— F EE SCHEDULEQ'gakcpee , riinnesota January 1 , 19086 Fees are listed by department and are to be updated annually. CITY CLERK/Misc. Business Licenses FEES Movies and Theaters (Authorized by City Code 6 . 42 ) 1 . Annual fee for showing 16 mm films $ 25. 00 2. Annual fee for showing 35 mm films (or larger) 100. 00 3 . Annual fee for conducting theatrical play( s) 25 . 00 Scavengers (Dumping or discharge of waste) (Authorized by City Code 6 . 43 ) 1. From sources within the City of Shakopee 1. 19/ (measured to nearest 100 gallons ) 100 gallon 2 . From sources outside the City of Shakopee 5. 36/ (measured to nearest 100 gallons ) 100 gallon No permit nor fee shall be required for pumping and cleaning cesspools and/or septic tanks. Gambling/Bingo/Raffles Licensed through State Gambling Board, no City fees. License for the Sale of Beer, Liquor, Wine, Set-up License, Liquor License, Club License and Temporary Beer License (Authorized by City Code 5 . 06 ) 1. Annual fee for On Sale Beer License 312 . 00 2 . Annual fee for Off Sale Beer License 100. 00 3 . Temporary Beer License 13 . 00 4 . Annual fee for Set Up License 100 . 00 5 . Annual fee for On Sale Wine License 1/2 of On Sale Liquor or $2 , 000 whichever is less 6 . Annual fee for On Sale Club License 250 . 00 7. Annual fee for Sunday Liquor License 200 . 00 8. Annual fee for Off Sale Liquor License 150 . 00 9 . Application and Investigation fee for Off Sale Liquor License, On Sale Liquor License, or Wine License a) If investigation within Minn. 300 . 00 b) If investigation outside Minn. City expenses up to $10 , 000 with $1 , 000 deposit 10 . ;annual fee 'r vn Cele LiGU: License: Customer Used Floor �.rea Under J , 000 3 , 370 . 00 1 , 000 - 1 , 999 3 , 990 . 00 2 , 000 - 2 , 999 4 , 620 . 00 3 , 000 - 3 , 999 5 , 240 . 00 4 , 000 - 4 , 999 5 , 860 . 00 5 , 000 - 51999 6 , 490 . 00 6 , 000 - 6 , 999 7 , 108 . 00 7 , 000 - 7 , 999 7 , 738 . 00 8 , 000 - 8 , 999 8 , 358 . 00 9 , 000 - 9 , 999 8 , 978 . 00 Over 10 , 000 9 , 608 . 00 Other Business Regulations and Licenses (City Code - Chapter 6 - all applicants require a $5 . 00 application fee) Peddlers (Authorized by City Code 6 . 21 ) 1. Weekly License Fee 25 . 00 2 . Annual License Fee 150 . 00 3 . Six Month License Fee 100 . 00 Taxicabs and Drivers (Authorized by City Code 6. 22) 1. Annual fee 250. 00 2. Annual taxicab driver' s license fee 25 . 00 3 . Annual fee for each vehicle Tobacco (Authorized by City Code 6. 23 ) 1. Annual fee for Tobacco License 15. 00 Show, Non-Transient Theme Parks , Amusement Parks, etc. (Authorized by City Code 6 . 24) 1. Annual license fee equaling the number of rides x $45 . 00 45 . 00/ride 2. Show without rides 75 . 00 3 . Non-Transient Theme Parks As per agreement Billiards , Pool and Other Game Tables (Authorized by City Code 6 . 31) 1. Annual license fee for the first table 100. 00 2. Each additional table 50 . 00 Massage Parlors , Saunas , Steam Baths , Heat-Bathing Rooms (Authorized by City Code 6 . 40 ) 1. Annual License Fee 2 , 000 . 00 2 . Initial license requires one time investigation fee 500 . 00 Easseur an r aSSoi�co eC_s`rat?o r ep ) 7/C__ 1 . Annual reg' strd�lcn Lee1 . 00 Vv (Autncr_zed oy Resci�- on 1vc . 2.910 ) Rental of arena for a period not to exceed seven consecutive days: a. Non-profit organizations within corporate limits of City of Shakopee 0 . 00 b. Other non-profit organizations 200 . 00 or 150 of gross ticket sales whichever is greater C. Profit making organizations 200 . 00 or 15% of gross ticket sales whichever is greater Reauest Vacation of Street, Alley or Easement Hereby set as follows: 1. Request for vacation of street or alley 75 . 00 2 . Request for vacation of an easement 50 . 00 Service Charae for Returned Checks Hereby set as follows: 1. Service charge for each check returned 15 . 00 BUILDING INSPECTOR/ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR Electrical Inspection (Authorized by City Code 4. 05 ) 1. Payment of Fees: fees are due and payable to the City of Shakopee at or before commencement of the installation and shall be forwarded to the City of Shakopee. An additional 5 . 50 State Surcharge must accompany each permit plus $ . 50 for inspection forms. 2. Signs: shall be computed in accordance with State Schedule with a minimum fee of 8 . 00 3 . Swimming pool 13 . 00 per inspection 4. Minimum fee for each separate inspection of an installation, replacement, alteration or repair limited to one inspection onlv. 8 . 00 5. Services, change of services, temporary services, additions, alterations or repairs on either primary or secondary services shall be computed separately. a. 0 to and including 200 ampere capacity 10 . 00 b. For each additional 100 ampere or fraction thereof 4 . 00 6 . Circuit, installation c_f , ad14 -4cns , alteraticns or repairs c f each .,-_curt cr shall be computed separately including circuits fed from • -fee e- ^.cl d c e-�t s�. _ _s and a��ng she e_u_ m .� served. L _rCl s J V lLCCr -ess . a. 0 to and including 30amp e er capacity a�ac_ty .s . 00 b. 31 to and including 100 ampere capacity 4 . 00 C. For each additional 100 ampere capacity or fraction thereof 1 . 00 The maximum fee on a single family dwelling or farmstead which is limited to a 200 ampere capacity and limited to three ( 3 ) inspections shall be 40 . 00 with a minimum fee of 513 . 00 per inspection 201 to 400 A maximum fee limited to four ( 4 ) inspections 80 . 00 Additional inspections shall be at the minimum fee as per Section 6G. The maximum fee on an apartment building shall not exceed 18 . 00/dwelling unit for the first 20 units and per dwelling unit for the balance 14 . 00 A 2 unit dwelling (duplex) maximum fee per unit as per single family dwelling. For circuits over 250 volts double the fee for 250 volts or less. 6A. In addition to the above fees; a charge of $1 . 00 will be made for each street lighting standard. B. A charge of $2 . 00 will be made for each traffic signal head. C. In addition to the above fees, all transformers and generators for light, heat and power shall be computed separately at $3 . 00 per unit plus 20 cents per KVA up to and including 100 KGA, 101 KVA and over at 10 cents per KVA. The maximum fee for any transformer or generator in this category is $25 . 00 . D. In addition to the above fees, all transformers for signs and outline lighting shall be computed at $3 . 00 for the first 500 VA or fraction thereof per unit, plus 30 cents for each additional 100 VA or fraction thereof. E. In addition to the above fees, (Unless included in the maximum fee filed by the initial installer) , remote controls, signal circuits and circuits of less than 50 volts shall be computed at $3 . 00 per each ten openings or devices or each system plus $1. 00 for each additional ten or fraction thereof. F. For the review of plans and specifications of proposed installa- tions, there shall be a minimum fee of $100. 00 up to and including $30 , 000 to be paid by persons or firms requesting the review. G. Vilen relnSpreC:;G i is necessary ;.o Qe-�ierm.Jne whe he U.^.Safe ccndf.ions have been ccrrec-�e^ ^,� Suc:, ., nsare nct the subject of an appeal pending before the Board or any court, a reinspect_cn Tee of not to e=ee: the or nab un_y �e< , cr C8 . vJ w..lchever _s -less , may be assesSe^ in b- v the 7nstieCtC . y H. For inspection not covered herein, or for requested special inspections or services , the fees shall be $17 . 00 per man hour, including travel time plus 24 cents per mile traveled, plus the reasonable cost of equipment or material consumed. This section is also applicable to inspection of empty conduits and such other jobs as determined by the Inspector. 7 . For inspections of transient projects including but not limited to Carnivals and Circuses, the inspection fee shall be computed as follows: a. Power supply units - according to section 6C. A like fee will be required on power supply units at each engagement during the season, except that a fee of $17. 00 per hour will be charged for additional time spent by the Inspector if the power supply is not ready for inspection as required by law. b. Rides, Devices or Concessions - shall be inspected as their first appearance of the season and the inspection fee shall be $8 . 00 per unit. Plumbing Permits (Authorized by City Code 4 . 05 ) 1. Alterations and Repairs - Minimum Fee 12 . 00 + $ . 50 State Surcharge Tax 2. New Construction Residential - Minimum Fee 36 . 00 + $ . 50 State Surcharge Tax Commercial - Minimum Fee 60 . 00 + $ . 50 State Surcharge Tax :i . Residential Plumbing Permit Fees All fixtures listed below will be figured at 6 . 00/each Water Closet Water Softener Lavatory (Basin) Bathtub Floor Drain Laundry Tub Sink Shower Stall Disposal Dishwasher Water Heater (Gas or Electric) Clothes Washer-Standpipe Permit fees for rough-ins for future bathrooms will be $5 . 00 per fixture. 4. Replacements Only Water Heater - Gas 12 . 00 -M- Water So teners - New or replacement y_n other than homes under cc^struct; cn ( installer must be licensed by the State Bcard ofHealth12) . 00 5 . Ccmmerclal 11, Per..._ Fees v,'ater Closet, Lavatory (Basin) , Ur-nal , Individual Shower 6 . 00 Shower - Gang Type - Per Head 4 . 80 Drinking Fountain 6 . 00 Dental Unit 12 . 00 Sink - Service or Mop 6 . 00 Flat rim, bar, counter, laboratory 8 . 50 Pot or Skullery 8. 50 Clothes Washer - First five units or less 18 . 00 Each additional unit 3 . 60 Floor Drain - 2 inch 6 . 00 3 and 4 inch 7 . 50 Catch Basin 9 . 00 Sewage Ejector 12 . 00 Sumps and Receiving Tanks 12. 00 Water Softeners 18. 00 Water Heater - Gas - Replacement only 24. 00 Building Permit Fees (Authorized by City Code 4 . 05 ) Building Value Fees $1. 00 to 500. 00 $15 . 00 501 . 00 to 2 , 000. 00 $15 . 00 for the first 500. 00 plus 2 . 00 for each additional 100 . 00 or fraction thereof, including 2 , 000 . 00 2, 001 . 00 to 25 , 000 . 00 $45 . 00 for the first 2 , 000 . 00 plus 9 . 00 for each additional 1 , 000. 00 or fraction thereof, to and including 25, 000 . 00 25 ,001 . 00 to 50, 000 . 00 $252 . 00 for the first 25, 000 . 00 plus 6 . 50 for each additional 1, 000. 00 or fraction thereof, to and including 50, 000 . 00 50, 001 . 00 to 100, 000 . 00 $414. 50 for the first 50 , 000 . 00 plus 4 . 50 for each additional 1, 000 . 00 or fraction thereof, to and including 100 , 000. 00 100 , 001 . 00 to 500, 000. 00 $639. 00 for the first 100 , 000. 00 plus 3 . 50 for each additional 1, 000 . 00 or fraction thereof, to and including 500, 000 . 00 500 , 001. 00 to 1, 000, 000 . 00 $2 , 039 . 50 for the first 500 , 000 . 00 plus 3 . 00 for each additional 1 , 000. 00 or fraction thereof, to and including 1 , 000, 000 . 00 i and up 53 , ;39 . 50 for t e firs} 1 , 000 , 000 . 0^ plus 2 . 00 for each additional 1 , 000 . 00 or f1acticn thereof Inspections cu--side of normal business hours (minimum charge - two hours ) 30 . 00/hr. Yeinspection fees assessed under provisions of Section 305 ( 8) of the State Uniform Building Code 30 . 00/hr. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge - one-half hour) 30 . 00/hr. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans (minimum charge - one-half hour) 30 . 00/hr. State Surcharge: (These fees forwarded to the State Treasurer) Less than $1 , 000 $ . 50 61 , 000 , 000 or less . 0005 x valuation 51, 000 , 000 to $2, 000, 000 $ 500 + . 0004 x (Value - $1, 000, 000) $2, 000 , 000 to $3 , 000, 000 $ 900 + . 0003 x (Value - $2 , 000 , 000 ) $3 , 000 , 000 to $4, 000, 000 $1200 + . 0002 x (Value - $3 , 000 , 000 ) $4, 000 , 000 to $5 , 000 , 000 $1400 + . 0001 x (Value - $4, 000 , 000) Greater than $5, 000, 000 $1500 + . 00005 x (Value - $5 , 000, 000 ) Moving Permit 35 . 00 Fire Protection Equipment hereby set as follows: Stand pipes and hose cabinets shall be computed at to of the contract plus $ . 50 State Surcharge Tax. Sprinkler Systems shall be. computed at $10 . 00 for the first 10 heads and $3 . 50 for each additional 10 heads or part thereof , and $25 . 00 per hour fee for plan check plus State Surcharge Tax. Well and Individual Sewage Disposal Permits hereby set as follows: Residential: Well 5 . 50 Commercial: Well 5 . 50 Residential: Sewage Disposal 37 . 50 Commercial: Sewage Disposal 37 . 50 Heating, Air Conditioning, Refrigeration, and Ventilation Permits hereby set as follows: r Minimum Fee 9 . 00 State S rc'narge ax Single Family Res_uence 2" . 00 + S . 50 State Surc':lara_e Tar: --enl-ral at -e •.�me 6 . 00 of cons t-r uc-io: ) S . 50 S zat e Surcharge Ta:; `--••-..a..t A et Fees Refrige Systems P ar mi s 3 horsepower or less 9 . 00 over 3 to 15 horsepower 12 . 00 over 15 to 50 horsepower 60 . 00 Alterations and reaairs Minimum Fee Commercial fee shall be computed at 1. 250 of the contract plus State Surcharge Tax. Permits shall cover only single installations. Multiple furnaces , boilers , etc. shall be considered separate installations. Tank & Pioina Permits hereby set as follows: Underground fuel storage tanks and piping permit fee to be 1. 250 of contract plus State Surcharge Tax. Permit to Work in Public Right-of-Way fees set as follows: Permit to work in public right-of-way 15 . 00 When work in public right-of-way requires the submittal of plans and specifications , review of the plans shall be charged in accordance with the hourly fees approved for the Engineering Dept. Water Heaters - New ( Including Pool Heaters) hereby set as follows: for inputs not exceeding 100 ,000 BTU 9 . 00 100, 001 to 200, 000 BTU 12. 00 200 , 001 to 300,000 BTU 14. 50 300, 001 to 500, 000 BTU 15 . 00 500, 001 to 700 , 000 BTU 36. 00 700, 001 to 1, 000, 000 BTU 48 . 00 Any fixture not listed above 6 . 00 Rain water Leaders - all stacks 10 stories or less 12. 00 - all stacks over 10 stories Area Roof Drains (each) 7 . 50 Lawn Sprinkler Systems - Residential 18 . 00 .awn Sc_ rinkler -Systems Coercial (Th-' s f ee includes v:_.tcr ccnnec icn frcm, to v-ard side . _ sh c n breaker ) 30 . 00 ...c. er._.....1 - _,um-,ng tier..._ts tc.. . aurc.a whi n �.� . •• e sc.-iedu1e bu� at, he t_me the perm.it is :-c -be Is suc ...i:c ntrmi - ee w___ certif the vcn`� price Gn:. the =e_ x•:_11 be based on the above method cr the contract of 1 . 25°o c t y ^rice, :1nichever is greater. Gas Piping Permits hereby set as follows: Minimum Fee 3 . 60 + $ . 50 State Surcharge Tax Residential - Each fixture or applicance 2 . 50 + $ . 50 State Surcharge Tax Alterations and Repairs - Minimum Fee Where the gas piping is divided between two contractors such as the Heating Contractor installing the gas line, to the furnace and the Plumbing Contractor doing the balance of the gas piping, each contractor shall take. out a permit. Commercial For installation of piping up to and including two ( 2 ) inches in size, providing not over three ( 3 ) openings 11. 00 and for each additional opening 3 . 00 For installation of piping exceeding two ( 2 ) inches in size, providing not over three ( 3 ) openings 14 . 50 and for each additional opening 4 . 00 Enameling ovens, retorts and similar gas burning devices: Fees to be determined as for commercial water heaters. Steam Generators for process use (pressing, dry cleaning, etc. ) : Fees to be determined as per heating code. Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Storage Form (Report) Annual report processing 10 . 00 FINANCE - hereby set as follows: industrial/Mortgage Revenue Bond Fees 1. Application fee for Industrial/Mortgage 1/10th of to of Revenue Bonds application with a $1, 000 minimum and a $6 , 000 maximum 2. Legal expenses as billed Tax Increment Financina Fees Application fee for Tax Increment Financing 500 . 00 Garbaae Rates (Authorized by City Code 3 . 02 ) 1. Urban Residence 5 . 77/month 2 . Senior Citizen in urban residence 4 . 54/month 3 . Commercial and non-urban rates not set by the City If Louisville Landfill is open, rates will be reduced to 5 . 17/month and 3 . 94/month. Sewer Service Charaes (Authorized by City Code 3 . 02) (Effective on the 4/1/83 billing) 1. Quarterly service charge 9 . 00 2. For every 1 , 000 gallons or part thereof of metered flow or water usage 1 . 22 3 . For annalized flow in excess of one million gallons a service charge per million gallons or part thereof of metered flow or water usage 49 . 00/ mil.gal 4. Charge for unmetered residential water accounts or new accounts 9. 10/month Standard Service Availability Charge ( SAC) Units for Various Commercial , Public , and Institutional Facilities (Mandated by nWCC) (These fees forwarded to MWCC) Tvne of Facility Parameter SAC Units Arenas 110 seats 1 Automobile Service 2 service bays 1 Ballroom Facility without liquor service 825 sq. ft. 1 Facility with liquor service 590 sq. ft. 1 Banquet Room Food catered 2060 sq. ft. 1 Food catering with dishwashing 1180 sq. ft. 1 Food preparation and dishwashing 825 sq. ft. 1 Food preparation, dishwashing with 590 sq. ft. 1 liquor Barber Shop 4 chairs 1 Beauty Salon 4 stations 1 C�_ Boarding Nouse 5 beds 1 Bowling Alleys 3 alleys 1 Car Wash ( Selz-Service ) 1 stall 3 Car Wash ( Service Station) 6 Car Wash (Requires specification on equipment flow rate and cycle time) Churches 275 seats 1 Cocktail Lounge 23 seats 1 Fast Service Restaurant 22 seats 1 (minimal dishwashing) Example: Pizza Parlor , McDonald' s , etc. General Office Building 2400 sq. ft. floor space 1 Handball and Racquet Courts 1 court 2 Hospitals 1 bed 1 Laundromats (requires water volume for cycle time, 8 cycles per day) Motels and Hotels ( assume 2 persons/ room) 2 rooms 1 Nursing Home 3 beds 1 Restaurant (Drive-in) 9 parking spaces 1 Restaurant ( 18-24 hours service) 6 seats 1 Restaurant ( 12-18 hours service) 8 seats 1 Restaurant ( 12 hours service) 12 seats 1 Restaurant (with cocktail lounge) 10 seats 1 Retail Stores 3000 sq. ft. floor space 1 Rooming Houses 7 beds 1 Schools ( Sunday) 55 students 1 Schools (Elementary) 18 students 1 Schools (Secondary) 14 students 1 Service Station (gas pumping only) 1 Service Station (with service center) 2 -_2- Service Statyo (with SerV1Ce Center 8 and car wash) Swimming Pocls 900 sq. `_t. pool area l 1 court 2 Tennis Courts Theater 64 seats 1 Theater (drive-in) 55 parking spaces 1 Warehouses 14 employees 1 Speculative Warehouse 10 , 000 sq. ft. 1 ( to be adjusted based on employees when user is established) The SAC unit for a facility not included in the above list will be determined by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. A request for SAC unit determination should be made prior to the issuance of the Building Permit. Residential SAC Charge (Mandated by MWCC) (These fees forwarded to MWCC) Residential 425 . 00/unit Plus any increase set by IVIWCC Office Charges hereby set as follows: 1. Assessment Searches 6 . 00 2 . Copy fee General Public . 20 Other governmental/non-profit public service • 07 3. City Code 25. 00 4 . Comprehensive Plan ( see page 15 ) 25 . 00 5. City Map ( small) General Public 1. 00 Other governmental/non-profit public service • 25 City Map ( large) General Public 2 . 00 Other governmental/non-profit public service . 50 POLICE Accident Renort Conies hereby set as follows: 2 . 00 1. One page 3 . 00 2. Two pages -__ - C/ anc c les hereby set as fol-ows . Towing and i^-pound-ng is acne b-. a pr-vate contractor :lav-ng eJ Fees are Jet L..�.:1., ac 1 . Dog Licenses ( goo: for the life of the dog) 5 . 00 2 . Duplicate license 1 . 00 3 . First impoundment 10 . 00 4 . Second impoundment 20 . 00 5 . Third and successive impoundment within a 12-month period 30 . 00 6 . Amount charged per day when confined to the Pound 3 . 00 7 . In the case of an unlicensed dog or a dog fer whom proof of a current rabies vaccination cannot be shown, an additional penalty of $5 . 00 per paid. PliBLIC WORKS Equipment Rental hereby set as follows : Caterpiller Grader (private) 58 . 00/hour ( State snow removal) 46 . 60/hour Front end loader (Fiat-Allis ) private 80 . 00/hour ( State snow removal 2-1/2 yd. w/blower) 48 . 62/hour Front end loader ( Case) private 60 . 00/hour ( State snow removal 2-1/2 yd. w/o blower) 46 . 60/hour Elgin street sweeper 55 . 00/hour Littleford pull broom 15 . 00/hour 2-1/2 ton dump truck ( single) 33 . 00/hour 2-1/2 ton dump truck w/plow 45. 00/hour 5 ton dump truck ( tandem) 45 . 00/hour 3/4 ton pickups (w/plow add 10. 00 ) 28 . 00/hour 5 ton tandem truck 2 w/plow 60 . 00/hour Mower tractor (turf type) 32 . 00/hour Weed Mowing ( rough) 40 . 00/hour Asphalt roller ( 1-1/2 ton) 15 . 00/hour 4- Pull paver 15 . 00/hour Steamer (w/tender) 55 . 00/hour Huber maintainer 25 . 00/:our Wood Chipper 35 . 00/hour Post hole digger (tractor mounted) 35 . 00/hour (w/o tractor) 10. 00/hour Power auger (hand held) 10 . 00/hour Sign replacement/installation 60. 00/sign (w/o post less $10. 00) Sewer rodder 40 . 00/hour (or . 50 per foot) Video sewers (w/cassette add $20. 00/each) 40. 00/hour (or . 25 per foot) Sewer jet cleaning 40. 00/hour (or . 50 per foot) Barricades w/flashers 5 . 00/day Barricades w/o flashers 3 . 00/day Cones . 50/day PLANNING - hereby set as follows: Application for Conditional Use Permit Home Occupations 75 . 00 All others 150 . 00 Renewal (same as new) Application for Variances Single Family Residential 50 . 00 All others 100 . 00 Annlication for Plats , Divisions (incl. $45 . 00 for signing) Preliminary Plat 245 . 00 + $5/lot minimum 145 . 00 + $3/acre, whichever greater Preliminary & Final Plat Concurrently Preliminary fee plus final fee Final Plat ( $50. 00 City Attorney Title Examination) 100 . 00 Lot Split 35 . 00 Registered Land Survey 50 . 00 Lot Consolidation 50 . 00 A^clication fcr Rezcnincr ( incl. 545 . 00 fcr signing) i Acre or less 250 . 00 Over 1 Acre 250 . 00 `c 1 a7,nee f7 Un t Develc-men Concept Plan 100 . 00 Preliminary Plan 200 . 00 + 515 . 00/acre Final Plan 100 . 00 Application for Fill & Mining Permit 1 - 1000 yards 25 . 00 1000 - 20 , 000 yards 150. 00 ( C.U.P. Fee) Over 20 , 000 yards 150 . 00 ( C.U.P.. Fee) + all consultant fees 2500 . 00 cash deposit required Application for Sian Permit Permanent 20 . 00 + $ . 25/sq. ft. Temporary 5 . 00 Copy of Official Maps Zoning ( 22" x 34" ) 2 . 00 Special Printed Maps . 25/sq.ft. Topography Maps 50 . 00 + 5 . 00/acre Flood Plain Maps . 00 ( free) Developers Package Land Use Regulations ( Zoning) 10. 00 Subdivision Regulations 3 . 00 Sign Regulations 1. 00 Comprehensive Plan 25 . 00 Recording Fees FEES FOR THE RECORDING OF DOCUMENTS RELATED TO PLANNING APPLICATIONS MUST BE PAID BY THE APPLICANT. ENGINEERING - hereby set as follows: Department Fees (employees ) City Engineer 43 . 00/hour -16- Technician IV 28 . 50/hour Tec:.nician III 25 . 00/hour Technici-n lI 16 . 00/hour Secretary ift . 00/h3ur Salary multiplier 1 . 7600 used when an employee ' s rate is not specified above. Project Plans & Snec'fications Charged at 900 of the fees computed according to Curve B expressed as a percentage of construction costs for projects of average complexity from 1972 ASCE Manual No. 45. Permit Review 1 . Commercial 30 . 00 2. Residential 15 . 00 3 . Recheck at 1/2 the original fee Plan, Plat and Report Review 1. Review 30 . 00 2. Plus hourly rate 3 . Recheck at hourly rate Storm Water Drainage Utilitv To be determined OTHER - hereby set as follows: 1. Application fee for variance from or 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.