Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/03/1985 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items DATE: August 29 , 1985 1. On Thursday, August 22nd I contacted Pastor John Fraser of the Shakopee Baptist Church on T.H. 300 ( 10th Avenue) . Pastor Fraser indicated that he was not aware of anyone from the church contacting the City with a request for sidewalk. He said that unless he called back they were not interested in pursuing it. I passed this along to Councilmember Wampach and he indicated that some of the interest had come from employees at the mall. Unless we hear from the church I am recommending we drop this item. Please contact me if you have questions. 2. Local 320 , our Public Works Union, wants to exclude the foreman from the Union. This is a benefit to the City so we plan to accomodate the Union. It will take 30 to 60 days to accomplish this unless the Union changes their mind. There are only two small changes in the foreman' s benefit package. Number one, he won' t have a minimum of two hours on a call back, but he will still be paid at time and one half. Number two, in two years he would have been entitled to five weeks of vacation after twenty years of service with the City. As a non-union member he will only be entitled to four weeks. 3 . A number of our employees have indicated an interest in having the. City get competitive bids for health insurance. Gregg and I have contacted Dwight Tange and asked him to prepare specs for bidding our health insurance, life insurance and long term disability. We are obligated to bid health insurance every four years and this is the third year. The cost for Mr. Tange ' s services are budgeted because bidding this insurance was included in our initial contract. 4. Attached is a thank you letter from Joan Lill, President, Explorer Post#342, thanking Officer Doyle for instruction time on Thursday, August 22nd. 5. Attached is a thank you letter from Akiko McVarish, President, Bellefonte, Inc. , thanking Officer Russ Lawrence for extra help in recovering lost items. 6. Attached isa thank you letter from LaVina Busacker, Shakopee Senior Citizen Director, for moving the pianos into the Senior Citizens Center. 7. Attached is a letter from me responding to a second letter from LaVina Busacker, regarding the traffic signals at T.H. 101. Please note that LaVina' s letter to which I am responding is on the back side of my letter. 8 . Attached is the monthly calendar for the month of September. 9 . Scott County held one of several public hearings on their proposed Ordinance No. 9 , regulating the surface use of water within Scott County at the Shakopee City Hall on August 21st. Tom Brownell attended representing the City and indicated that several O'Dowd Lake citizens were in attendance and spoke against the 15 mph speed limit on that lake. Tom said that it is likely that the Ordinance will pass as proposed but with a change in the speed limit. I checked with Joe Ries, County Administrator, and he confirmed what Tom had said, namely, that the Ordinance will probably pass after two more public hearings and that it will have a maximum speed limit of 40 mph. Thole Lake will probably have a 15 mph speed limit. Any Councilmember interested in reviewing -the full Ordinance can get it from Judy Cox.----- 10 . ox. -__10 . Attached are three pages from intern Pat Beaudette ' s analysis of our use of propane vs. gasoline. Pat ' s report was excellent and Finance, Police and Public Works each have a complete copy of the full report. The pages provided for Council information indicate what the break even point is , the net savings the City obtained from the period 5/14/84 to 5/13/85 for Polic and Public Works which exceeded $11 , 000 and finally a projected break even pricing table _( table 7 on page 8 ) . This is the only true analysis we have had since we instituted the propane program. 11. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) intends to adopt, without a public- hearing, rules establishing fees for air quality and water quality permits. The agency has mailed over 4 , 000 notices to governmental agencies and permit holders. This will affect both businesses and local governments. The AMM is planning no action in response to the notice and the League of Minnesota Cities has sent out an Action Alert. I contacted the AMM and asked them what the cost impact would be on the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) air and water permits since this would end up in our fees paid to the MWCC. Roger Peterson, after contacting the MWCC, contacted me and said they had carefully computed the impact and estimated the average cost -to be $35 , 000 per year for the agency as a whole based on eight large treatment plants , six small treatment plants , and two CSO applications. Shakopee ' s share of this $35 , 000 will be so small that I do not believe it is worth our pursuing the issue. Councilmembers interested in more information can contact me. Gloria Vierling sits on two committees that might be dealing with this information and I have forwarded my notes to her. 12 . Attached is the table of contents for the Metropolitan Council ' s proposed 1986 Work Program ( 1986 Budget) . The budget is being reviewed by the AMM Metro Agencies Committee which will make recommendations to the Met Council. Gloria sits on this committee and will be able to provide a liaison report to Council as the committee finishes its work. The total budget is down $350 , 000 from 1985 or approximately 30. We have a copy of the budget on file for anyone interested, but I thought you would be interested in the table of contents which provides an excellent summary of the Metropolitan Council' s proposed priorities for 1986. The Met Council ' s new budget format is the result of constructive suggestions submitted by the AMM over the last couple of years. The public hearing on the budget will be held on September 12 , 1985 . 13 . Attached is a transit update from Barry Stock. Please note the budget figures listed at the bottom of page 2 of attachment No. 1. 14. Attached is a recycling update and forecast from Barry --Stock. 15 . Attached are the minutes of the August 14 , 1485 Industrial Commercial Commission meeting. . 16 . Attached are the minutes of the July 22 , 1985 Shakopee Cable Communications Advisory Commission meeting. 17. Attached are the minutes of the August 8 , 1985 Planning Commission meeting. 18. Attached are the minutes of the August 8 , 1985 Board of Adjustment and Appeals meeting. 19 . Attached are the minutes of the August 7 and August 14, 1985 Ad Hoc Downtown Committee meetings. 20. Attached are the agendas for the September 5 , 1985 Board of Adjustment and Appeals and Planning Commission meetings. 21 . Attached is the agenda for the September 4 , 1985 Ad Hoc Downtown Committee meeting. 22. In finalizing their IDB financing the Bemidji Super 8 package came in at $1 . 5 rather than $1 . 8 million. This means there will be enough IDB entitlement to cover the entire Scottland request plus an additional $200 , 000 to 250 , 000 in Shakopee IDB entitlement money available. 23 . Bob Frigaard, our OSM Engineer, helped Fremont Industries solve a water consumption problem by detecting a faulty- valve. It cut their consumption in half . This is great P.R. for the City. Fremont may now ask for a refund if the water didn' t go down the sewer. 24 . Attached is a letter from John Mullan regarding our State commitment to 4th Avenue. JKA/jms JORDAN POLICE DEPARTMENT z 210 East First Street o Jordan, Minnesota 55352 o Alvin F. Erickson, Chief of Police 492-2009 Office EMERGENCY 445-1411 Dispatcher DIAL 911 August 26, 1985 Officer Terry Doyle patrolman - Shakopee Police Department Shakopee, NJI`; 55379 Dear Officer Doyle: This letter is to express our appreciation for your time spent with us on Thursday August 22, 1985, instructing us on the use of handguns, shotguns, the use of deadly force and other firearms procedures and safety practices. We all learned a great deal and were very impressed by your profession- alism and dedication. It's refreshing to know that there are officers of your caliber, who take the time and interest in showing young adults in our ccnuunity different aspects in law enforcement. We all are looking forward to meeting with you in the near future to review this interesting area of police work and to do a little more target shooting. Thanks again for your assistance. Sincerely, Joan1 President, Explorer Post #342 cc:✓Chief Thcmas Brownell-Shakopee Police Department Chief Alvin F. Erickson- Jordan Police Department Norrin lorer Post Advisor Officer Larry g- Exp �t .� Y' .......... ......,1.t11!l:.l ...._ f Y Af dtk� , Bellefonte, Inc. 6 POST OFFICE BOX 24316 TWX $10-476-8878 UD LEXINGTON, KY.40524-3416 (606) 273-4347 August 20 , 1985 Tom Brownell Chief of Police Shakopee Police Station 476 Gorman Street Shakopee , Minnesota 55379 Dear Chief Brownell: You have probably heard of our "incident" from Officer Russel Lawrence. Actually, I did not know what to do. I really did not expect the Police to help us to the extent you did. We received the package, which we were afraid we had lost , safely - thanks to Officer Lawrence and the personnel in your Station. I was very impressed with the way the matter was handled and the care exercised by the people in your office . I am in the horse business and some day I will be at Canterbury Downs and might be able to talk with you in person. Again, thank you and your staff very much. Sincerely, A 0o McVarish President BELLEFONTE, INC. AM:eab _ _ lJ AUG 2 61985 CIN OF SHAKOF_r i AUG 2 619a5 CITY OF Sy4KOPEE aJW/ .� 0 CITY OF SHAKOPEE INCORPORATED 1870 129 EAST FIRST AVENUE, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 August 26 , 1985 ; Ms. LaVina Busacker Shakopee Senior Citizens Director RR 2 , Box 243D Jordan, MN 55352 Re: Request for Traffic Lights at Jim & Lucy' s Dear Ms. Busacker: In your letter of August 23rd, you asked why the City hadn' t moved forward with traffic signals at the intersection of Highway 101 and Fuller Street (Jim & Lucy' s corner) . The City has been working on downtown redevelopment plans which will realign major through traffic on Highway 101 and probably change the intersection between Highway 101 and 169 in some manner. Because the final decisions for roadway alignment have not been made the City is not ready to invest money in the crosswalk as you suggested. The downtown plans included traffic lights at Fuller, and they may well be in place when the final plan is adopted. In addition, the downtown plans tentatively call for an underpass or overpass that would help the senior citizens as well. We anticipate that final roadway alignments can be completed in nine months and then the City can again look at solving the problem senior citizens have crossing 101. Sincerely, John K. Anderson City Administrator JKA/jms cc: Jeanne Andre City Council The Heart of Progress Valley AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER SEPTEMBER 1985 SU't1DAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY 1 LABOR DAY 2 City 3 Downtown 4 Planning 5 6 7 City Hall Council 7 : 30 a.m. Commission Closed 7 : 00 p.m. Public 7 : 30 p.m. Utiiities 4 : 30 p.m. 8 9 City 10 ICC Day 11 12 13 14 Council 1-7 : 00 p.m. Worksession 7 : 00 p.m. (Filings Open) 15 Comm. Serv. 16 City 17 18 Planning 19 20 21 7 : 30 p.m. Council Commission Fire Dept . 7 : 00 p.m. 7 : 30 p.m., 8 : 00 P.M. Energy & Tran p. 7 : 30 p.m. 22 Cable 23 City 24 25 26 27 28 7 : 30 p.m. Council Worksession 7 : 00 p.m. (Filings Close 29 30 Oct. 1 2 3 4 5 City Planning Council Commission 7 : 00 p.m. 7 : 30 p.m. Anderson/Beaudette Propane Cost/Benefit August 5 , 1985 Page -4- and propane cars in relation to acceleration and cold weather starting power if the engine is properly tuned for propane usage. B eak Even Pont. Below are the calculations I used to determine a ough es ate of car usage ( in gallons ) that would be needed to ma e­aconversion cost effective. My calculations are based on police vehicle data. I did not include tank expense, because total tank expense will remain the same, regardless of the number of cars using the tank. Maintenance costs are also not included in the calculations. Propane: . 38 X Annual Vehicle + 392. 60 (Current price Propane consumption (Installation of propane) in Gallons Expense per year) + 200 . 00 = Annual car expense using propane (Expected resale loss expense) Unleaded Gasoline: 1. 01 X Annual Vehicle = Annual car expense- (Current price Gasoline consumption using gasoline of unlead gas ) in gallons Annual vehicle X . 9 = Annual vehicle propane consumption gasoline consumption in gallons in gallons (Note: This equation compensates for the 10% greater MPG assoc- iated with gasoline usage] Solving the equations simultaneously. . . . 38P + 392 . 60 + 200 . 00 = . 9P X 1 . 01 Where P=gallons of propane . 38P + 592 . 60 = . 909P P=1120 . 23 or approximately 1120 gallons. Thus in order for a squad car conversion to be cost effective , the vehicle must consume roughly 1120 gallons of propane a year or G= . 9 X P= . 9 X 1120 = 1008 gallons of unleaded gasoline. r6l) Anderson/Beaudette Propane Cost/Benefit August 5 , 1985 Page -5- Table four below shows the propane consumption in gallons for each of the four propane vehicles in the police fleet. The table also shows the yearly savings realized by using propane instead of unleaded gasoline based on current prices. Table Four Gallons Consumed 5-14-84 to Break Even Car Number 5-13-85 Point Difference Savings 841 4 ,109 . 5 1 ,120 2 , 690 $ 1,695 . 05 842 2 , 509. 0 1, 120 1 , 250 $ 787. 56 843 2 , 979. 3 1,120 1 , 673 $ 1 ,054. 22 840 4, 212. 1 1 , 120 2 ,782 $ 53 . 22 Total 13 , 809. 9 4 ,480 8 ,396 5 , 290 . 05 Note: 1.Difference=(Gallons Consumed -Break Even Point) 2.Savings=(Unleaded Gas price - Propane Price) X Gallons consumed over break even point; Or 1. 01 - . 38= . 63 X Gallons consumed over break even point. The city saves over $5 , 000 dollars a year by using propane to fuel police cars in place of unleaded gas. Street Vehicles on Propane. Table five lists characteristics of street vehicles using propane. Table Five Estimated Installation useful Expense Break Even 1984 Car# Life (eul) Per Year Point Gal. used Diff. Savings 102 10 years $117 . 78 223 Gal. 2 , 624 2 ,160 $1 , 360. 80 106 10 years $117.78 223 Gal. 2,214 1,792 $1, 128. 96 101 6 years $196. 30 371 Gal. 622 251 $ 142. 38 108 10 years $117. 78 223 Gal. 1 ,774 1 , 396 $ 879 . 48 109 11 years $107 . 07 204 Gal. 2, 014 1, 629 $1, 026 . 27 110 10 years $117.78 223 Gal. 1,293 963 $ 606. 69 111 10 years $117. 78 223 Gal. 856 570 $ 379 . 10 112 10 Years $117 .78 223 Gal. 1 , 163 846 $ 2 . 98 Total 1 , 913 Gal. 12 ,560 9 ,5826 , 036 . 8 1 � Anderson/Beaudette Propane Cost/Benefit August 5 , 1985 Page -8- The equation literally says: "in order for propane usage to be cost effective, the unleaded gasoline price must be at least 11% plus 0. 048 cents greater than propane prices. " The equation works out the way it does for the following reasons: the 11% coefficient factor compensates for the loo greater MPG associated with gas usage (the 1% difference is negligible) and the constant factor of 0. 048 cents makes up the fixed costs associated with propane usage ( 12428 X 0. 048=596. 54 is almost equal to the actual figure of 596 . 60 ) . Based on the above function, table seven lists the corresponding price of gas for several propane price levels. In order for propane usage to be cost effective, the actual price of unleaded gasoline must be greater than the calculated price for the given propane price level. Table seven also calculates the price differentials which you will note get larger as the prices get larger. This occurs (as stated previously above) because the price of gas must be 11% greater than propane (to compensate for mpg difference) plus 0 . 048 cents (to make up fixed costs based on 13809 gallons of propane, or equivalently 12428 gallons of unleaded gas, used annually) Table Seven Propane Unleaded Ga Price f(P)= 1. 11P + 0 . 048 = Price, G D' f .= G-P $0 , * f( . 39 )= 1 . 11( . 39 ) +0 . 048 $0 . 48 $ . 09 $0 50 f( . 50 )= 1. 11( . 50 ) +0 . 048 $0 . 60 $0 . 0 $ . 00 f( 1. 00 )= 1. 11 ( 1. 00 )+0 . 048 $1 . 16 $0 . 1 $1. 50 f( 1. 50 )= 1. 11 ( 1. 50)+0 . 048 $1. 71 $0 . 2 $2. 00 f( 2. 00 )= 1.11( 2. 00 )+0 . 048 $2. 27 $0. *Curr t Price level Here is how read the table: When propan selling at . 39 per gallon, Baso i eater than the calculated price in the corresponding gas column ( . 48 in this example) in order for propane usage to be cost effective. Plugging the numbers back into the break even equations will help prove the validity of the previous calculations: Car Expense Using Propane = . 39 X 13809 . 90 + 592. 6 = 5978. 11 � f 40 ar /'l iso 46 ig �eGer�z_ moi}( "3'r S � �,•ty�:�� fes-' — ? /}t,�a-,�..��su�% — G'y'--i.lp �z. � ..�.�i�'��a-.e..�-� � �p.�t�. ��+t'" let- 6 :;L So e - / PF 6, �-3e Fsb �� s �i,i�,�; �,',,,� ` �;_•tet..�;.•.;; �r;r << CONTENTS Paae BUDGET MESSAGE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 1 I . 1986 WORK PROGRAM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 WORK PROGRAM PRIORITIES TOP-PRIORITY PROJECTS BUDGET DETAIL . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 . Solid Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. Metropolitan Governance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Regional Data Center . . . . . . . . . . . 8 J4. Government Service and Finance Trends. . . . . . . . 9 5. Regional Transit Studies . . . . . . . . . . . » . 10 6. Long-'term Care System. . . . . . . .. . . . . . » 11 SECOND-PRIORITY PROJECTS BUDGET DETAIL. 13 1 . Regional Economic Research and Planning. . . . . . . 13 2. Water Supply and Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3. Sewage Treatment Policy Plan evision . . . . . . . 15 4. Internal Program Evaluation. . . .. . . . . . . . . . 16 5. Target Population Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 MANDATORY PROJECTS BUDGET DETAIL. . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 1 . Aging Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2. Arts Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3. Comprehensive Planning . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4. Health Planning and Developmental Disabilities . . . 22 5. Housing Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6. Metropolitan Housing and Redevelopment Authority . . 24 7. Natural Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 8. Parks and Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 9. Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 10. Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . 28 OTHER PLANNING ACTIVITIES BUDGET DETAIL . . . . . . . 30 SUPPORT PROJECTS BUDGET DETAIL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 1 . . Administrative Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2.. Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3. Finance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35 4. Information Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 5• -Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 6. Internal Audi t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • 38 7. Office of the Chair. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 8. Office of the Executive Director . . . . . . . . . . 40 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Aide RE: Transit Update DATE: August 20 , 1985 We have just completed the tenth operating month of our opt- out contract . To date our transit system has made over 7 ,600 dial-a-ride passenger trips and 21 ,000 vanpool passenger trips . Our actual program evaluation period began on January 1, 1985 and will end on December 31, 1985. Listed below is a chart showing ridership statistics from the onset of our evaluation period to date. I have also listed the ridership projections and subsidy levels established prior to the implementation of our project and what is likely to actually occur this year. Original Original Actual Projected Proforma Proforma Sub- Ridership Subsidy Pass/Trips sidy Pass/Trip Pass/Trips Pass/Trip Jan-Dec 85 ' Jan-Dec 85 ' Jan-July 85 ' Jan-Dec 85 ' Van Pool 253816 $ 1. 10 15 ,015 $ • 65 It Dial-a-Ride 26 ,822 $ 5. 17 6 ,562 $11. 22 Projected Projected Ridership Subsidy Pass/Trips Pass/Trip Jan-Dec 85 ' Jan-Dec 85 ' Van Pool 25 ,808 $ . 74 Dial-a-Ride 11,812 $12. 68 A financial summary analysis of how our transit budget is doing through the first six months of the current evaluation period is shown in attachment #1. When projecting 1985 expenses , I played the devils advocate and assumed we were going to spend much more than what was needed. Upon completion of our evaluation period the City of Shakopee must submit all financial and ridership data to Mn/DOT by January 20, 1986. Mn/DOT will then conduct an independent evaluation of our transit program. The dial-a-ride and van- pool programs will be evaluated separately. Anderson/Stock Transit Update August 20 , 1985 The Mn/DOT evaluation section should be able to complete their report by February 20, 1986 . The report will indicate the economic feasibility of continuing the vanpool and/or dial-a- ride programs . If the evaluation results show that it would not be advisable to continue with the vanpool , we will have to propose a new transit alternative to Mn/DOT or go back to the MTC. At this point it is highly unlikely that Mn/DOT could show that our vanpool program is not operating at a higher efficiency level than the previous MTC service. If the dial-a-ride program is determined to be unsuccessful , there are several options that we could pursue . We could pro- pose modifications to our existing program, offer a new pro- posal or drop the dial-a-ride portion of our project entirely. Because the dial-a-ride portion of our project is transit service in addition to our replacement service (vanpools ) we are not obligated to continue it. In October of this year, staff and project manager Ray Olson will perform an interim evaluation of our program. The results of this evaluation will be used to modify our existing Mn/DOT contract and establish a time schedule for our next Mn/DOT contract. We will also begin investigating additional transit alternatives for our dial-a-ride and vanpool program if they are determined to be unsuccessful. Financing for the continued operation of our transit program in 1986 will be available through the 1 . 25 MTC transit mill levy. In accordance with opt-out legislation we will again be eligible for 90% of the MTC levied dollars . In 1986 this should amount to approximately $151,000 . Attachment #2 is a copy of the proposed 1986 transit fund budget which was developed assuming the continued operation of our existing transit program. In addition to our MTC tax dollars , Ray Olson has informed me that Shakopee may be eligible for money from several other sources . Researching his claims , I have discovered that according to MS 473 . 388 subdivision 5 , "An applicant which has exhausted its available local transit funds may use any other local subsidy funds to complete their required local share. " Required local share is any money spent over and above the eligible MTC levied dollars . The definition of "any other local funds" can be left open to one ' s own interpretation. In my opinion this means dollars levied to the general fund which are set aside for transit . In essence this could be construed by some as a special levy. However, in the pure sense of the term "special levy" , there is no such authority granted to Minnesota cities . -2- Attachment #1 Dial - A - Ride 1985 Summary Analysis 1985 1985 1985 OBJECT DESCRIPTION Budget YTD ( 6/30/85 ) Projected 4100 SALARIES 5208 1266 3000 4140 PERA 221 54 128 4141 FICA 365 89 210 4151 HEALTH & LIFE 700 113 267 Total Personal Services 6494 1522 3605 4210 SUPPLIES 1 ,000 230 700 4310 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 9 , 000 276 9000 4319 PROMOTIONS 6 ,000 1206 4000 4330 TRAVEL & SUBSISTENCE 330 10 330 4380 RENTS 3 ,400 -0- 3400 4370 PURCHASE OF SERVICE 138 ,112 69927 138112 4390 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 340 -0- 340 4391 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 330 55 330 4499 MISC. -0- -0- -0- Total Supplies/Services 158 , 512 71 , 704 156 , 212 DIVISION TOTAL 165 , 006 73 , 226 159 ,817 Anticipated Revenue 29 , 688 5 ,502 10 ,000 s Total Operational Deficit ( 135 ,318 ) ( 67 , 724 ) ( 149 ,817 ) Anderson/Stock Transit Update �3 August 20, 1985 Under MS 174. 24, Public Transit Subsidy Program, legislatively established cities and counties outside the metropolitan area are eligible for a percentage of their transit operating costs . The local share for this program is derived from tax levies , revenues and/or contributions from public funds . Because Shakopee is in the metro area, we are not eligible for this program. Currently Scott County is receiving Section 18 federal funding for their transit program. Ray Olson is investigating whether or not this avenue of funding is available to Shakopee. BAS :cah Attachments -3- Attachment #1 Cont. Van Pool 1985 Summary Analysis 1985 1985 1985 OBJECT DESCRIPTION Budget YTD ( 6/30/85 ) Projected 4100 SALARIES 2500 1290 2500 4140 PERA 107 55 107 4141 FICA 175 90 175 4150 HEALTH& LIFE 368 115 . 368 Total Personal Services 3150 1550 3150 4210 SUPPLIES =0- .80 100 4310 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES -0- -0- -0- 4319 PROMOTIONS 2150 24 1000 4330 TRAVEL & SUBSISTENCE -0- 5 25 4380 RENTS -0- -0- -0- 4370 PURCHASE OF SERVICE 53190 15112 30000 4390 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS -0- -0- -0- 4391 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS -0- -0 -0- 4491 MISC. 4064 10 1000 Total Supplies/Services 59 ,318 15 ,231. 32 , 125 DIVISION TOTAL 62 , 468 16 ,781 35 ,275 Anticipated Revenue 32 , 347 7 , 985 .16 , 000 Total Operational Deficit (30,121 ) ( 8,795 ) ( 19 ,275 ) Dial-A-Ride VanPool Total Operational Deficit 1984 34 ,547 6 , 671 Total Operational Deficit 1985 (Projected) 149 ,817 19 ,275 Total Operational Deficit for this MnDOT Contract Period 184 ,364 25 , 946 Combined Program Deficit 210 ,310 Money Available Pursuant to MnDOT Contract . 255 ,377 Money in Excess of MnDOT Contract 45 ,067* *Could possibly be carried over into 1986 contract. Attachment #2 1985 CITY OF SHAROPEE PROGRAM BUDGET WORKSHEET -6M 14 TRANSIT FUND V OBJECT DESCRIPTION TOTAL PROGRAM PROGRAM 142 143 DIAL-A-R VAN POOL 4100 SALARIES FT SP7 p $ MCC 4140 PERA X&7 0 1 A q- /}3 4141 FICA p 4150 HEALTH & LIFE 4145 0 34 e-61 17 4151 WORRCOMP 15 D 0 80 70 _ **TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES r7$01' 0 4;oq 0 35y17 0 4210 SUPPLIES / ODD 0 ,�50 X50 4310 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES x4vo 0 4319 PROMOTIONS - 4kov 0 "o0 [4330 TRAVEL & SUBSISTENCE .330 0 4350 PRINTING & REPRO 350 0 apo 150 4370 SERVICES 17�r4y¢' o �s-�Ra'4 �opoo 4380 RENTS 3 400 0 3400 _ 4390 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 3.�p 0 � 4391 DUES & SUBSCR. 330 0 3.3� 4499 MISCELLANEOUS SIOdD 0 43y{ I-rAer orw +o0 **TOTAL SUPPLIES/SERVICES n87143t 0 /33,rpq. 0 rJ�1 0 4511 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 0 **TOTAL CAPITAL 0 0 0 ' ****DIVISION TOTAL $ !Q5 {0 $ 137)3.7e' OBJECT DESCRIPTION TOTAL PROGRAM PROGRAM 142 143 DIAL -R VAN POOL **TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES $ Iso( 0 $ .,4,;Lp4, 0 $ B90M 0 °*TOTAL SUPPLIES/SERVICES 1$7,' 34'0 0 0 **TOTAL CAPITAL p 1-3717+0 �iwp ****DIVISION TOTAL S 1g5i*. 0 $ 137, 3*0 $ 57,550 too,,Sof t a.�378 all q;3 l30lb5 DIAL-A-RIDE OPERATIONS REPORT Pass . Miles Free Revenue Month #Pass . #Sr. #St . #GP #HC Miles Actual Rides Collected October 71 15 20 36 0 138 341 . 1 0 $ 65 .05 November 378 34 211 133 0 13299 . 7 15418 . 9 37 256 . 36 December 613 57 316 240 0 1 ,834. 8 23294. 28 295 313 . 96 January 794 113 407 272 2 2 ,765 . 7 3 ,148. 2 0 765 . 33 February 1 ,116 212 593 311 0 33834. 8 35729 . 8 0 970. 70 March 846 151 415 280 0 23962 . 3 3 ,640 . 5 0 728. 70 April 817 179 350 288 0 23688 . 2 3 ,895 . 7 0 693 . 10 May 783 179 316 288 0 2 ,596 . 5 3 ,328.4 0 589 . 30 June 13113 205 651 257 0 45909 . 5 43726 . 8 134 823 . 95 July 15093 218 661 214 0 5 ,607 . 1 5 ,081 .0 32 931 . 25 TOTALS 7 ,624 1 ,363 33940 2 ,319 2 26 ,562 .45 323106 . 65 498 $ 6 ,137 . 70 Evaluation Period to Date 6 ,562 13257 3 , 393 13910 2 25 ,364. 10 28 ,050.40 166 $ 5 ,502 . 33 l� .�1 DIAL-A-RIDE Ave. Subsidy Ave . Subsidy Ave. Subsidy Purchase of Total Per Pass Per Pass Per Pass Service Costs Adm. Costs Costs Trip Mile Mile Month July $ 0.00 $ 828 . 14 $ 828 . 14 NA NA NA August 0.00 620. 75 620 . 75 NA NA NA September 3 ,352 . 23 989 .40 4,314. 63 NA NA NA October 5 , 706 . 75 3 ,229 . 28 83936 . 03 127 . 66 64. 75 26 .04 November 9 , 115 . 61 652 . 16 9 ,767 . 77 25 . 84 7 . 94 6 . 88 December 9 ,106 . 30 964.47 103080 .08 16 .44 5 .49 4. 39 January 9 ,170. 30 1 ,186 . 98 10,357 . 28 13 . 04 3 . 74 3 . 29 February 10 ,217 . 64 311 . 16 10,528 .80 9 .43 2 . 75 2 . 82 March 9 ,295 . 81 401 . 73 9 ,697 . 54 11 .46 3 . 27 2 . 66 April 9 ,930. 63 662 . 72 10,593 . 35 12. 96 3 . 94 2 . 72 May 93855 . 29 312 . 86 10 ,168. 15 12. 98 3 . 92 2 . 66 June 11 ,525 . 91 405 .08 11 ,930 . 99 10. 72 2 .43 2 . 52 July 9 ,932 . 14 398 . 58 10,330. 72 9 .45 1 . 84 42 . 03 TOTALS $98,802. 38 $10 ,963 . 31 $108 ,171 . 92 $14. 19 $ 4. 07 $ 3 . 37 Evaluation Period to Date $69. 927 . 72 $ 3 ,679 . 11 $ 73 ,606 . 83 $11 . 22 $ 2 . 90 $ 2 . 29 VAN POOL OPERATIONS REPORT Van Pool Vehicle # of Subsidy Admin. Rental Revenue Net Income Pass per Month Expense Expense Collected (Loss ) Trips Pass Trips Sept- Oct 781. 36 2982 . 40 1454.61 2309 . 15 2553 . 90 Nov. 468 . 28 2410.78 1239. 67 1639 . 39 2152 . 76 Dec. 1243 . 80 2460 . 01 981 .77 2722. 04 1899 1. 44 Jan. 257. 11 2524. 08 1436. 84 1344 . 35 2385 . 56 Feb. 243 . 79 2592 . 67 1263 . 35 1573 . 11 2111 . 75 Mar. 270 . 53 2518. 60 1534 .60 1254. 53 2068 . 61 Apr. 311. 35 2490 . 81 1612. 63 1189 . 53 2425 . 49 May 220 . 41 2572 . 36 1315 . 77 1477. 00 2206 . 67 June 373 . 67 2413 . 97 821. 98 1965. 66 1709 1. 15 July 185 . 69 2145. 51 1171 . 42 1159 .78 2111 . 55 Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. TOTALS 4355 . 99 25 , 111. 19 12 ,832. 96 16 ,634 . 54 21 , 609 .76 Eval. Period to Date 1862 . 55 17 ,258 9 , 156 . 91 9 ,963 . 96 15 ,015 . 66 J MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Intern RE: Recycling Update and Forecast DATE: August 14 , 1985 Introduction and Background At the better than half-way point of our demonstration recycling project, we are finding that the participation rates in target areas No. 1 and 2 are leveling off at fairly respectable levels. (see attachment No. 1 ) Target area No. 1 continues to have the highest overall participation rates, but target area No. 3 is showing an increasing level of participation. This is encouraging because target area No. 3 did not receive anything to store their recycle- ables in and therefore is the best representation of what is occuring on a city-wide basis. After close inspection of our recycling project I have noticed several problems that we are experiencing in target area No. 1. From my observations it is apparent that the majority of the residents who had received bins were not using them. Residents who were recycling in this area stored their materials in boxes or bags just as they had done in the past. I also noticed that those residents who were using the bins were using them improperly. This created additional problems for our recycling groups who were responsible for picking up: materials. For example, residents put their cans and glass directly in the bins which was contrary to their directions. When the groups collected the materials they had no choice except to dump the recyclables into a truck or trailer. This was not possible in the case of glass because it had to remain unbroken and separated. In addition, cans that were dumped into a trailer or truck would often fly out of the vehicle when it started moving. Keeping these facts in mind and looking closer at the participation rates , at this point in time I do not believe that the bins are having any signifi- cant impact on residents recycling tendencies when _ compared to the target area that received bags. Since bags only cost 50¢ each as compared to the bins which are $15. 00 for a set of three , in the future I would recommend that bags be purchased and distributed on a city-wide basis in stages. After talking with the recyclying collection groups , they seemed to feel that the bags are also the most effective way for residents to store their recyclables. The bags also create the least amount of confusion for the residents and the recycling groups . Before any additional bags are purchased I would recommend that we invest- igate the possibility of buying bags that are color coded. ( a diff- erent colored bag for each recyclable collected) In the average month we are collecting 25 tons of recyclable materials. I have determined that this amount equals an approximate Pagel (Recycling Update and Forecast ) l 2. 93% monthly reduction in Shakopee ' s mixed municipal waste that is being taken to area land fills. By 1990 the Metropolitan Council would like to see a 16% reduction in mixed municipal waste through source separation activities. In order for Shakopee to meet the Metropolitan Council ' s source separation waste reduction goal, we must increase our participation levels five-fold or encourage additional waste abatement activities. Since increasing our recycling participation levels by five times seems unlikely I am currently investigating the possibility of implementing office paper recycling and yard waste composting in 1986. It is my hope that a city-wide office paper recycling project could capture a 1% monthly reduction in Shakopee ' s mixed municipal waste. Since 17% of the solid waste stream is comprised of yard waste , a compost program would be our best bet in significantly reducing Shakopee ' s mixed municipal waste. I believe between 10 and 12% of Shakopee ' s yard waste could be collected through a comprehen- sive city-wide compost program. It should be noted that the separation of identified recyclable materials and compostable yard waste is a responsibility of the waste generator. If by January 1, 1988 , voluntary efforts on the part of cities, towns or counties have not achieved the objectives for waste reduction and source-separation- as previously stated, the generators of mixed municipal ,solid waste will be required to separate identified recyclables and compost yard waste materials from other mixed waste. I believe Shakopee is well on their way in meeting a 16% reduction in Shakopee ' s mixed municipal waste. However , I am not sure what will happen to us if our county does not meet the 16% reduction level on a county-wide basis. The financing for Shakopee ' s future recycling activities will be made possible through several sources. In January of 1986 Shakopee will be eligible for a 500 per household annual subsidy. This program will generate approximately $1700for the 1986 recycling budget. Shakopee will also be eligible to receive a $4 . 00 per ton subsidy for each ton of recyclable material collectea. As mentioned earlier we are currently collecting approximately 25 tons of recyclables per month. This equates into an additional $100 per month of funding in 1986 assuming our current participation levels remain constant. Finally, in 1986 both public and private agencies who are promoting resource recovery projects will be eligible to receive grants and/or loans through the Metropolitan Landfill Abatement program. How much money we can hope to gain through this program is unknown at this time. Listed below are several objectives that I would like to see accomplished in regard to recycling and the City of Shakopee. 1. Implement a city-wide or county-wide office paper recycling paper program by 6/1/86 . 2 . Implement a city-wide or county-wide yard waste compost program by 6/1/86. Adopt a city scavanger ordinance by 12/1/85 . Page 3 (Recycling Update and Forecast ) C � 4. Request proposals in the 1986 garbage contract to include a city-wide curb-side recycling pick up by the garbage contractor for the collection of paper, glass, aluminium and yard waste. 5. Pursue the development of one common recycling center in Shakopee that would have the capability of having a 24 hour a day drop off. 6. Have a 16% reduction in Shakopee ' s mixed municipal waste through resource recovery activities by 12/31/86 . Attachment Number One SCRAP TARGET AREA PARTICIPATION RATES 5/11/85 6/8/85 7/13/85 8/10/85 9/14/85 10/12/85 Target Area #1 130 Households PAPER . . . . 45% 450 420 280 GLASS . . . . 31% 32% 28% 30% ALUMINUM/STEEL BEVERAGE CANS 22% 140 14% 220 Target Area #2 168 Households PAPER . . . . 27% 33% 27% 250 GLASS . . . . 33% 18% 18% 18% ALUMINUM/STEEL BEVERAGE CANS 10% 17% 30% 16% Target Area #3 200 Households PAPER . . . . 9% 14% 22% 23% GLASS . . . . 7% 10% 8% 13% ALUMINUM/STEEL BEVERAGE CANS 5% 6% 15% 13% Amount of Materials Collected in the City-Wide Recycling Program (in lbs) PAPER . . . . 45,000 27 ,100 GLASS . . . . 8 , 260 7 , 870 8 ,700 6 , 370 ALUMINUM/STEEL BEVERAGE CANS 3 ,203 1, 573 1,929 NA *Paper broker unable to pick up paper Industrial Commercial Commission August 14, 1985 Page 2 pharmacy, travel agency, insurance outlet, and library. Mr. Guenette explained that through the planning of his firm, the downtown area became a service oriented district which complemented the shopping center nearby. Mr. Guenette distributed a proposal listing objectives for Shakopee. They included the following: 1 . Implementation of the downtown redevelopment program (which included implementation and financial consulting on the new bridge). 2. Design and implementation of marketing strategy. 3. Implementation of financing programs. In connection with the discussion on the downtown area, Gary Laurent gave an update on the Downtown Ad-Hoc Commission noting that public sector developments are on line with private sector developments coming along nicely. John Anderson added to the report that the City Council had hired an engineer for the bridge and within three years the bridge will be built. Chairman Wermerskirchen asked how many man hours Mr. Guenette's firm had available to give to the City of Shakopee. Mr. Guenette replied that he and three other people were available and would commit the amount of time necessary to get the job done. Al Furrie asked how Mr. Guenette arrived at the $20,000 fee for Shakopee. Mr. Guenette explained that his firm requires an initial $5,000 -retainer to do the initial legwork. The $20,000 would be billed in increments as the program develops and fees are adjusted based on projects that develop. Jeanne Andre suggested the Commissioners give parameters and set specific objectives, then look for a consultant who could best meet the objectives based on his area , of expertise. The consultant could then be required to present monthly updates on progress to the Commission. John Anderson asked Mr. Guenette if his firm would work with the City for a $5,000 retainer fee for an unlimited number of years and get involved as needs arise. Mr. Guenette explained that his firm has an arrangement similar to that with St. Paul and when a project need arises, they outline what must be done and what their fee would be. He noted for St. Paul their retainer fee is $8,000 per year. The Commissioners discussed hiring a full-time Economic Development Director for the City versus hiring a consulting firm. Concensus was-that a full-time Economic Development Director would be the most desirable. On a motion by Tim Keane, seconded by Jim O'Neill, the Industrial Commercial Commission moved to recommend to the City Council that they hire an in-house Economic Development Director and budget appropriately for 1986. In the alterna- tive, the City Council should budget professional services in the amount of $25,000 to retain consulting services for fiscal 1986. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTES INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL COMMISSION SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA AUGUST 14 , 1985 MEMBERS PRESENT : John Anderson , Chamber of Commerce Liaison Al Furrie Tim Keane John Manahan Jim O ' Neill Paul Wermerskirchen , Chairman GUESTS PRESENT: Jeanne Andre , Community Development Di.rector Gary Laurent MEMBERS ABSENT : Anthony Berens , Shakopee Development Corp . Liaison Jane DuBois John Manahan Chairman Wermerskirchen called the meeting to order at 5:06 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at City Hall. - MINUTES On a motion by Al Furrie, seconded by Tim Keane, the minutes of the June 12, 1985, meeting were approved. Chairman Wermerskirchen noted that the notes from the July 10, 1985, meeting were informational only and did not require approval. GUEST SPEAKER Chairman Wermerskirchen introduced Mr. Roger Guenette, a financial consultant from the Professional Planning and Development Company. Mr. Guenette noted that his firm was established in 1976 and is based in Mankato. He explained that they are involved in the following areas: -Housing Development. His firm is involved in about 20 different housing developments throughout Minnesota. -Architectural Services. This branch complements their housing development plus includes commercial and industrial services. -Financial Consulting. This facet of his firm includes preparation of tax increment financing, packaging of grants both public and private, assisting in loans including HUD and SMBA, industrial revenue bond placements, negotiating conventional loans, marketing, and many other projects. Mr. Guenette gave an example of how his firm helped the city of Big Lake whose downtown was becoming run down but had a shopping center starting nearby. He explained that they worked out financing programs so two of the downtown businesses moved to the shopping center. Then six of the nine downtown buildings were demolished and replaced with one building which came to include a clinic, Industrial Commercial Commission August 14, 1985 Page 3 In an update on Star Cities, Chairman Wermerskirchen reported that Pat Baudette did the Phase 1 census and prepared the Phase 2 census for this Fall. However, Pat was just a summer student intern so someone else will need to actually follow through with the census this Fall. Chairman Wermerskirchen also reported that Barry Stock will have the computer demonstration available for ICC Day. Discussion then turned to the details remaining for ICC Day. Tim Keane noted that the subcommittee will meet on Tuesday, August 19, 1985, at 1: 15 p.m. at the racetrack to take care of additional details with Shannon Riley. Tim Keane reported that a section of 300 seats are set aside in the second floor reserved section with a contingency of up to 100 tickets for guests. The program will include Bruce Malkerson as Master of Ceremony with welcomes by Mayor Reinke, Gary Laurent on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, John Anderson as City Admini- strator, and Paul Wermerskirchen as Chairman of the ICC. Mark Dayton will be the keynote speaker followed by the video program and tours and exhibits. Chairman Wermerskirchen noted that invitations will be sent around August 22nd. He added that the invitation list has been pared down and targeted with excellent results. ADJOURNMENT On a motion by Al Furrie, seconded by Tim Keane, the Industrial Commercial Commission was adjourned at 7 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Judy Hughes Recording Secretary PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE CABLE COMMUNICATIONS ADVISORY COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JULY 22, 1985 Vice-Chairperson Abeln called the meeting to order at 7:27 p.m. with Commissioners Davis and Harrison present. Commissioner Moonen arrived at 7:34 p.m. , and Commissioner Anderson arrived at 7:52 p.m. Barry Stock, Administrative Intern, was also present at the meeting as were Bill Lepley, Access Studio Manager, and Dan Schieffer, Zylstra-United Chief Technician. Harrison/Davis moved to approve the minutes of May 20, 1985, and June 24, 1985, as kept. Motion carried unanimously. Barry Stock distributed the Public Access Monthly Reports for May and June along with the Cable Television Monthly Reports for May and June and the Cable - Television Service Reports for May and June. The Commissioners reviewed these reports. COUNCIL CHAMBERS SOUND SYSTEM Mr. Stock recalled that on April 22, 1985, the Cable Communications Advisory Commission recommended improvements for the Council Chambers sound system which included the acquisition of seven new microphones, rewiring the existing system, moving the existing speakers to a more suitable location, and purchasing a four channel mixer to match the existing mixer. Mr. Stock asked the Commission to reconsider their previous action in light of several new developments. He explained that on a number of occasions recently, the City has exhibited the need for a portable sound system. He noted that with the City of Shakopee growing rather quickly in both residential and commercial terms, the need has arisen to move meetings attracting more than forty people from the Council Chambers to a larger facility which does not have the necessary equipment to adequately amplify the audio for the audience. A local resident has been allowing the City to rent a sound system at a cost of $30 per time, excluding set up or take down time which usually requires between one and .two hours of City staff time. Mr. Stock reported that -a portable sound system including seven new microphones, a six channel mixer, and two speakers would range between $2,600 and $3,000. In addition, there is also a need for a podium for people making presentations from the audience. Cost for a combination podium/overhead stand is approximately $400. Staff presented several alternatives to the Commissioners. Discussion followed on the number of mixers necessary, if additional cable would also need to be purchased, and about the microphones. Harrison/Davis moved to recommend to City Council that the City purchase a portable system at a cost not to exceed $3,000 that includes seven new micro- phones, two speakers with cords, and an eight to ten channel mixer option. In addition, the Commission recommends the City_ purchase a combination podium/ overhead stand at a cost not to exceed $400. Motion carried unanimously. Shakopee Cable Commission July 22, 1985 Page 2 CHARACTER GENERATOR DEADLINE Barry Stock explained that on July 18, 1985, he received a letter from Zylstra- United Acting General Manager, Steven Schippers, which indicates that Zylstra- United will not be able to meet the character generator deadline due to refinancing of the system, which as of yet has not been approved. Staff believes that ZU was aware of their financial condition when they agreed to the July 30, 1985, deadline and therefore has no excuse for not fulfilling their obligation. Mr. Stock noted that no formal request for extension of the deadline has been received. On that basis, Staff recommended that ZU be fined $25 per day for each day that the character generator is not operational after the July 30, 1985, deadline. The Commissioners pointed out that Mr. Jim Clark, ZU Division Manager, had been involved in the character generator process and signed off in agreement to the assumptions made by the City. They also noted that City Staff had bent over backwards to notify ZU of the impending character generator deadline. Discussion followed on ZU's refinancing. Bill Lepley stated that the only thing holding up the character generator is the financing. Commissioner Davis suggested they wait until the August meeting to see what has been done, and then fine ZU retroactively if the character generator deadline is not met. Bill Lepley asked if the Commissioners wou ld grant an extension based on his informal request. Concensus was that they would not be in favor of doing so. Commissioner Davis asked ZU's Chief technician, Dan Schieffer, how long it would take to get the system up and running once the equipment had been received. He replied it would take six to eight weeks. Anderson/Harrison moved to recommend to City Council that Zylstra-United be fined $25 per day for each day that the character generator system is not operational after the July 30, 1985, deadline. Barry Stock noted that ZU has a $10,000 security fund which would be the source of the fine money. If the fund falls below $10,000 (and it has approximately $11,000 at present due to accruing interest), ZU must replenish the fund. Commissioner Anderson recalled that when ZU asked for concessions from the Commission such as rate increases, the Commission went along with their request. Therefore, he felt ZU should honor their promises concerning the character generator. Additional discussion followed. Commissioner Anderson called the question. Voting went as follows: AYES: Anderson, Harrison, Moonen, Abeln NAYES: Davis Motion carried. The Commissioners noted that Barry Stock, at his discretion, could call a . special meeting if ZU presented to him definite timetables for the installation of the character generator and requested a formal extension. Shakopee Cable Commission July 22, 1985 J Page 3 Barry Stock informed the Commission that a task group, comprised of several members from various institutions in the area, have established an Institutional Network Task Group whose goal is to get the Institutional Network operational. He distributed minutes from their meeting of June 20, 1985, which outlined the planned stages for implementation and noted that Stage One, involving a two-way interactive hook-up between the Shakopee Senior High School and the Womens Correctional Facility, is expected to be operational by August 26, 1985. Mr. Stock distributed to the Commission a letter from Robert Mayer, School Superintendent, which stated that the school is interested in receiving assistance and cooperation in investigating the possibility of relocating the access studio to a school-owned facility. The Shakopee Community Access Corporation would like to provide a representative from their group to sit on a joint committee that should be established to investigate the possibility of moving the access studio. Mr. Stock noted a formal request was sent to ZU detailing why such a move is necessary and what benefits could be derived from a change in the studio location, however, no formal response had been received from ZU to date. The Commissioners discussed relocation pros and cons as far as accessibility as well as Chaska's access studio which is located in their school and has many inherent problems. Mr. Stock will keep the Commission updated on this subject. Commissioner Harrison informed the other Commissioners that the Shakopee Access Corporation is experiencing a problem with non-Access Corporation people using their equipment to produce shows, but then the Access Corporation must pay for the maintenance and repair of the equipment. In that light, the Access Corpora- tion has decided to limit the usage of their equipment to Access Corporation people only, which will require a variance from the ordinance. However, non- Access Corporation people will be able to use the equiment by paying off hours to the Access Corporation. Discussion followed. Concensus seemed to be that the Access Corporation's equipment should be available to the public as the ordinance states. Instead, efforts should be made to sign these people up as members of the Access Corpora- tion. The Shakopee Access Corporation would also like to know if their equipment could be covered by the City of Shakopee's insurance to obtain better rates. Barry Stock will check into this. Harrison/Anderson moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:02 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The next meeting will be held on August 26, 1985, at 7:30 p.m. 13arry Stock Judy Hughes Administrative Intern Recording Secretary LIP PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 8, 1985 Chrm. Czaja called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. with Comm. Lane, VanMaldeghem and Rockne present. Comm. Schmitt arrived later and Comm. Pomerenke and Stoltzman were absent. Also present were Judi Simac, City Planner; Jeanne Andre, Community Develop. Director and Cncl. Lebens. VanMaldeghem/Lane moved to approve the agenda as printed. Motion carried unanimously. VanMaldeghem/Lane moved to approve the minutes of July 11, 1985 as kept. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING (CONT.) - BRAMBILLA APPEAL FROM PLANNER'S DECISION VanMaldeghem/Rockne moved to continue the public hearing regarding the decision of the City Planner that appellant- may not construct a second floor apartment addition to the existing legal non-conforming use car lot at 114 North Holmes, located in a B-3 District. Motion carried unani- mously. The City Planner stated that in view of the Ass't City Attorney's legal opinion on this application, staff still recommends denial because the Brambilla business is a legal non-conforming use in the B-3 District, and the proposed addition will have an enlarging effect on the non-conforming use. Mr. Craig Mertz, attorney for the appellant, directed attention to the Ass't City Attorney's statement "If the Board determines that the proposed addition will, in some way, extend the duration of the existing non- conforming use, then the building permit can be denied." Mr. Mertz doesn't think that is saying the application has to be denied. He pointed out the distinctions between the lawsuit cited and this proposed application. Comm. Schmitt arrived and took his seat at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Mertz read that the purpose of the Central Business District is to encourage an urban mix of downtown land uses. He notices other real estate offices in the downtown, and thinks there are real estate management acti- vities taking place in the downtown. He doesn't believe the addition of a real estate management office .in the downtown will encourage the dura- tion of his auto sales lot, and he doesn't think there is any evidence that a housing unit will tend to extend the use of the sales lot. He also stated that if the City plans to condemn that property as part of the . downtown revitalization, it has no right to not issue a building permit until that condemnation proceeding has commenced. Mr. Brambilla anticipates two office workers and probably 2 to 3 cars to be added by the addition of the office. BOAA August 8, 1985 Page 2 Mr. Mertz added the business will be primarily answering phone calls relative to signs placed on property for rent and answering letters and billing rents. This real estate management is the permitted use they are proposing to go in with the residential addition. Comm. Schmitt countered that he would think there will be quite a bit more traffic generated by that real estate office. Mr. Mertz disclaimed that the amount of traffic is the test of the addition. Comm. Lane commented that he thinks this issue is similar to that dealt with previously regarding the addition of bulk to a non-conforming use, and he thinks this is an enlargement of the non-conforming use. Chrm. Czaja agreed. Chrm. Czaja asked if there were any comments from the audience, and there was no response. VanMaldeghem/Lane moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Lane/Stoltzman offered Appeal Resolution No. 418, a resolution which affirms the decision of the City Planner, that said appellant may not con- struct a second floor apartment addition to the existing legal non- conforming used car sales lot for the following reasons: 1. The proposed addition will have an enlarging effect on a non-conforming use; and 2. Expansion of a non-conforming use would violate the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code of the City of Shakopee. . Discussion followed regarding the requirement that the residential unit is only allowed in a B-3 District in connection with a permitted use. Mr. Mertz argued that the code doesn't state the residential unit has to be in conjunction with an existing permitted use. However, if it has to be done serially, they could construct the office first and then come back and apply for the apartments. Financially, they would prefer to do both at one time. Discussion continued regarding the City's desires for that corner in the traffic pattern changes sought, together with its inability to do anything until the actual alignment of that intersection is completed. The Comm. Develop. Dir. added her opinion that she -doesn't believe the appellant can add a permitted office use to a non-conforming car sales lot. He would be allowed to change the sales lot to an office and then add the apartments. Mr. Brambilla saidhedid have an office now with the sales lot, with two girls working there who are also working the real estate business. Motion failed with Comm. Lane and Chrm. Czaja in favor of denial, Comm. VanMaldeghem and Rockne opposed, and Comm. Schmitt abstaining because he didn't hear all of the testimony. Discussion followed regarding the legal step to take next. BOAA August 8, 1985 Page 3 VanMaldeghem/Lane moved to continue consideration of this item after Other Business to allow a consultation with the City Attorney regarding proce- dure. Motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS The City Planner informed Commissioners of the City Council action regard- ing the Indemnification Agreement regarding variances. Schmitt/VanMaldegehem moved for a five minute recess at 8:16 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. BRAMBILLA APPEAL Chrm. Czaja called the meeting back to- order at 8:26 p.m. The Comm. Develop. Director explained that the Asst City Attorney indicated the action taken does nothing, and the City Planner's decision still stands. He suggested an alternative would be to offer a motion to over-turn the Planner's decision or table the item for additional information or members. Schmitt/Rockne moved to reconsider the previous motion offering Appeal Resolution No. 418. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner gave some further information from the Code regarding non-conforming uses and normal maintenance. She explained again that her interpretation is that the existing use is non-conforming and therefore cannot be added to for any reason, and also that a dwelling unit can only be constructed in a B-3 District in conjunction with a permitted use which the existing sales lot is not. She clarified that this is not an applica- tion for anything, just an appeal of an interpretation of the code, and therefore any motion would affirm or over-turn her interpretation. Motion failed with Chrm. Czaja and Comm. Lane in favor, Comm. Rockne and VanMaldeghem opposed and Comm. Schmitt abstaining. Schmitt/Rockne moved to over-turn the City Planner's interpretation with the condition that none of the non-conforming use be allowed to expand on the property to be constructed. Motion carried with Comm. Lane and Chrm. Czaja opposed. Chrm. Czaja informed the audience of the 7 day appeal period. Schmitt/Lane moved to adjourn at 8:44 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Judi Simac City Planner Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary lg PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 8, 1985 Chrm. Czaja called the meeting to order at 8:44 p.m. with Comm. VanMaldeghem, Lane, Rockne and Schmitt present. Comm. Stoltzman arrived later and Comm. Pomerenke was absent. Also present were Judi Simac, City Planner; Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director and Cncl. Lebens. Schmitt/VanMaldeghem moved to defer consideration of the minutes until the end of the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. VanMaldeghem/Rockne moved to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING (CONT.) - CANTERBURY VILLAGE PRELIMINARY PLAT VanMaldeghem/Rockne moved to open the public hearing regarding the Prelimi- nary Plat of Canterbury Village. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner went over the background of the plat and recommended approval with conditions. She elaborated on the condition of placing funds for the sidewalk along CR16 in an escrow account pending the improve- ment of CR16 by Scott County. Gary Laurent, developer, agreed to the possibility of working out some way to handle the sidewalk construction by an escrow account or a method simi- lar to the park fund. He agreed that would eliminate a lot of potential problems in the future. He suggested it could be done at building permit time, to allow the developer some breathing time from development costs. Mr. Laurent discussed the bituminous pathway requirement, which will be shown on the Final Plat. Chrm. Czaja asked if there were any comments from the audience, and there was no response. VanMaldeghem/Lane moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Rockne moved to recommend to City Council approval of the Pre- liminary Plat of Canterbury Village lst Addition, subject to the follow- ing conditions: 1. The plat name be changed to Canterbury Village ist Addn. 2. Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney. 3 . Execution of a Developer's Agreement for the construction of the required improvements : A. . A sidewalk be constructed where the plat abuts CSAH 16 in accordance with the Design Criteria and .DucL&c)pee rldtiiune, �cuunlsslon August 8, 1985 Page 2 Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. Because construction should not occur until CSAH 16 is upgraded, the developer should agree to accept future assessments , waiving all rights to a hearing on the improvements and assessments , such agreement to run with the land and be binding on all heirs -- - and assigns of the applicant ; or place the estimated cost of the sidewalk construction in an interest earning escrow account to be used specifically for that purpose. B. Installation of the water system in accordance with the requirements of the SPUC Manager. C. Installation of street lighting in accordance with i the requirements of the SPUC Manager. D. 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. E. Streets and street signs shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. F. 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. G. In lieu of land dedication, a cash payment should be made to the park fund at the time building permits are issued.. H. Construction of bij--uminous pedestrian walkway from the west end of Roundhouse Court, along the southern lot line -of Lot 2 and Lot 1 , to CSAH 17. I . Installation of a screen planting along the north lot line of Lots 8, 9 and 10, where they abut CSAH 16 . 4. The City Engineer must receive and approve all final plans and specifications for all public facilities , in- cluding but not limited to, roads , sanitary sewer system, storm sewer, drainage, over-lot grading, etc. 5 . The Developer' shall submit plans for review and approval by the County Engineer, for work in the CSAH 16 drainage ditch. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/VanMaldeghem moved to direct staff to recommend to City Council the establishment of an administrative policy which would allow the establish- ment of an escrow account for sidewalk construction to be performed in the future after planned improvements are completed to adjacent roadways, as per the Capital Improvement Plan. Motion carried unanimously. 5ahkopee Pianning Commission August 8, 1985 Page 3 �( PUBLIC HEARING (CONT.) - PUD PRELIMINARY PLAT OF VALLEY SQUARE 1ST ADDITION VanMaldeghem/Rockne moved to continue the public hearing regarding the Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plat of Shakopee Valley Square 1st Addition Motion carried unanimously, The City Planner requested this- item be continued because the review of the revised plat has not been completed by the consulting engineer and all the responses from other cities have not been received regarding criteria for permits. Chrm. Czaja asked if there were any comments from the audience. Wallace Bakken, developer, inquired relative to the length of continuation and what questions remain unanswered. He understands the only issue is ___ regarding the campsites, which were approved before, and to which he is just adding hook-ups to sewer and water. He said he already went before the Board of the Corps of Engineer and they had no objections. The City Planner said she reviewed the file for this property and there have been three separate issues: 1) rezoning request in 1980 to bring the AG property into the B-1 District; 2) variance request to build the exist- ing motel and 3) conditional use permit to bring fill into a floodplain area. She has no record of any other hearings or permits. The City has been given the power and responsibility of review in the floodplain, and if there were any permits given they would have been in 1980 and not valid at this time. She further went over the various items and agencies that need to be considered for this application.and an estimated time schedule. Warren Israelson, Prior Lake, engineer for Mr. Bakken, pointed out the waterproofed manhole cover planned and said the pipes are already water- proof. He said the only item they are aware is left is completion of the EAW. He suggested the plat could be approved subject to approval of the EAW. Chrm. Czaja asked if there were any other comments from the audience, and there was no response. Consensus of the Commissioners was to not deal further with this applica- tion at this time due to lack of required information. Schmitt/VanMaldeghem moved to continue this hearing to September 5, 1985. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - CITY .OF SHAKOPEE.REZONING REQUEST Schmitt/Rockne moved to open the public hearing regarding the request by the City .of Shakopee to rezone the NEI-4 of the S% of Section 12, Township 115, Range 22 from I-1 Light Industrial to R-1 Rural Residential. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner went over the background of the request .and recommended approval to City Council. Shakopee Planning Commission August 8, 1985 Page 4 Perry Cheever, 9040 13th Ave. , said the average lot size was about 100' x 150' . Comm. Lane considered the designation of multi-family to be more appropriate to serve as a buffer between the industrial and residential uses. Discussion followed. The City Planner said there is a structure on each lot, there are no vacant lots included in the rezoning request. Chrm. Czaja asked if there were any comments from the audience, and there were none. VanMaldeghem/Lane moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. VanMaldeghem/Lane moved to recommend to City Council approval of the pro- posed zoning amendment which would change the following parcels from I-1 to R-1: 27-043002-0 27-043008-0 27-043003-0 27-043009-0 27-043004-0 27-043010-0 27-043005-0 27-043011-0 27-043006-0 27-043016-0 27-043007-0 for the following reasons: 1) Exceptional circumstances do apply to the properties which do not generally apply to properties in the same zoning district or vicinity and these circumstances are of a nature that the pro- perty owners have had no control; and 2) The proposed properties for R-1 zoning are adjacent to existing residential zoning land uses to the east, in the City of Savage. Motion carried unanimously. Chrm. Czaja informed the audi.encr- that this is a recommendation to City Council, which will be heard by them August 20. An agenda and memo will be sent to the affected property owners. PUBLIC HEARING - CANTERBURY PARK 1ST ADDITION PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT Lane/Schmitt moved to open the public hearing regarding the Preliminary and Final Plat Approval of Canterbury Park 1st Addition. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner explained this is a re-plat of Valley Park 1st Addition, a 32 acre parcel. She went over the considerations and the changes that were made in the original plat. John Gockle stated he will be joining Scottland, Inc. , the developer, in a few days as Vice-President. He explained they wanted as much flexibility as possible in the design of the plat, but have changed it now to conform to the minimum lot widths as recommended by the City Planner. He pointed out the changes made and said it is their preference to prepare a Final Plat on the entire subdivision incorporating these changes. Comm. Stoltzman arrived and took his seat at 9:44 p.m. Mr. Gockle said they would like to encourage rehabilitation of Valley In- dustrial Blvd. north in accordance with the City's policies. He said they plan to only develop the easterly half initially. Shakopee Planning Commission August 8, 1985 Page 5 The City Planner pointed out that all the utilities have to be constructed even if the development is only partial, unless specifically addressed in the Developer's Agreement. Discussion followed regarding the drainage plans, which were not complete. Tim Johnson, the developer's engineer, elaborated on the detention area and related storm sewer plans. Consensus was there are substantial last-minute changes made in the plat which no one has adequately been able to review, and there is missing in- formation for which Scottland, Inc. should be knowledgable; and therefore, it should be tabled. Chrm. Czaja asked' if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to comment on this item. Fred Hoodeman, Twin City Tile and Marble, said his property adjoins this application and he is concerned about the construction of the road that has .been discussed. He wondered if he will be assessed because the appli- cant is platting. Comm. VanMaldeghem answered that the developer is responsible for the con- struction of the street. Comm. Schmitt added that Valley Industrial Blvd. North was never constructed according to City specifications and he would think if would be improved by the City at some time. At that time there could be an assessment if the majority property owners are in favor. He added this question could be researched before the next meeting. Chrm. Czaja asked if there were,any other comments from the audience. Mr. Gockle said they have filed the name for this parcel of land, and are in the process of researching whether the use of that name by others is a violation of their rights. Discussion followed regarding the background of this concept for the plat. Schmitt/VanMaldeghem moved to continue this public hearing to September 5, 1985. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Rockne moved to recommend to staff to incorporate street rehabili- tation into the administrative policy to be developed similar to sidewalk construction., to be considered by City Council. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - LANDSCAPE JUNCTION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Schmitt/Lane moved to open the public hearing regarding the conditional use permit request by Landscape Junction to conduct a retail sales in the principal building in 15% or less of floor area upon property located on Lot 1, Canterbury Park 1st Addition. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner said this is a development of Lot 1 of the previous plat. The Conditional Use Permit is being sought to sell John Deere equipment. Shakopee Planning Commission August 8, 1985 Page 6 Discussion followed regarding whether or not landscaping was a permitted use in the I-2 zone, or only allowed in I-1. Dave Fellon, applicant, explained that his major market is the railroad for the switches and metal components-he removes from the ties. The ties can be used by landscaping companies. He ships quite of bit by rail, so this is the perfect spot for him with the railroad spur. He is more geared to the commercial end of the business and he doesn't even want to pursue the retail part. He just wants to protect himself and be sure he has taken the correct steps with the City in case someone just stops in to purchase something. He mainly buys and sells to the railroad lines. The John Deere line levels out the highs and lows in the market. Mr. Fellon said he designed the building with the thought of having some office space available for rent, and he would really like someone who in- stalls railroad lines in there. But he thought it would be advantageous to rent to other businesses that are complimentary to the landscaping industry, to maintain a theme to the building. However, if that is a problem, the offices don't have to relate to landscaping. The City Planner read the ordinance definition of landscaping. Her inter- pretation is that landscaping would be actual grading, contouring land and the planting of trees and grass and such. Comm. Schmitt believes it would also include the storage of landscaping materials such as rock, sod and timbers. Mr. Fellon said he doesn't plan to store anything that can die -- just rock, ties and timbers, so there won't be that nursery image. The rock will be brought be rialroad carq and there will be a conveyor and hopper. He doesn't know where else in Shakopee he can get good railroad access. He explained that he has another facility in Savage on 67 acres which he will use for storage of the inventory. He will bring into this location only what is needed. Schmitt/Rockne moved to continue this hearing to September 5, 1985 to allow further research on the definitions of landscaping and what is allowed in the I-2, and allow the applicant to further define his business under the perameters of the ordinance. Chrm. Czaja asked if there were any comments from the audience, and there was no response. Motion carried unanimously. Cncl. Lebens leaves at 10:30 p.m. Schmitt/VanMaldeghem moved for a five minute recess at 10:31 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. VanMaldeghem/Lane moved to re-convene at 10:38 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Shakopee Planning Commission August 8, 1985 Page 7 1 g PUBLIC HEARING - LUND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT VanMaldeghem/Lane moved to open the public hearing regarding the request by Linda Mary Lund for a conditional use permit to operate as a color consultant out of her home located at 673 Monroe Street So. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner gave some background on this business and recommended approval with conditions. Discussion followed regarding the amount of off-street parking. Ms. Lund responded that she anticipates only one, or possibly two, people at one time and usually if there are more than one they will ride together. She has a double garage with driveway and the business will operate by appointment only. She elaborated a little on the nature of the business. Dolores Reed, 674 Monroe, said she lives across the street and she is wondering if the granting of this application will open up the door to other small businesses in the neighborhood. She specifically wondered about someone opening up a fix-it shop in their garage or having bobcats and lowboys parked in someone's yard. The Home Occupation ordinance was explained to her. Chrm. Czaja asked if there were other comments from the audience, and there were none. VanNaldeghem/Lane moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. VanMaldeghem/Stoltzman moved to approve Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 422, to allow a home occupation, subject to the following conditions: 1. Off street parking must be provided to accomodate at least one car. 2. Signage be limited to two square feet with homeowner's name and address only. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - IND. SCHOOL DISTRICT #720 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT VanNaldeghem/Rockne moved to open the public hearing regarding the request by Independent School District #720 for a conditional use permit to move in a principal building to be used as a classroom upon the property lo- cated in the NW1-�j of Section 12, Township 115, Range 23. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner went over the background on the request and recommended approval with conditions. Chrm. Czaja said he received pictures of the building from Virgil Mears, but he forgot them at home. It looks like a house, and is presently lo- cated at the vocational center in Chaska. Comm. Stoltzman said it is identical to the former City Engineer's house. Mr. Mears explained there will be concrete piers into the ground. He said if enrollment continues as it has been, they will have to add onto one of the school structures. It is not intended to be a permanent struc- ture, but it could possibly be used from 2 to 5 years. Shakopee _01anning Commission August 8, 1985 Page 8 Chrm. Czaja asked for comments from the audience. Susan Watsmaster spoke in support of the building because it will keep the special ed kids with the school. VanMaldeghem/Lane moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. VanMaldeghem/Stoltzman moved to approve Conditional Use Permit Resolu- tion No. 423, to move in a classroom structure at Sweeney School, sub- ject to the following conditions: 1. All requirements of the building and fire code must be met. 2. The structure must be compatible with adjacent homes and structures. Motion carried unanimously. Chrm. Czaja informed the applicant of the 7 day appeal period. PUBLIC HEARING - AMERICAN LEGION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Lane/Rockne moved to open the public hearing regarding the request by the American Legion for a conditional use permit to construct a building addition in a B-1 District upon property located at 1266 E. 1st Ave. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner went over the background and said the biggest issue is sufficient parking spaces. Presently cars are parked on the street right-of-way and a neighboring property when the parking lot over-flows. She thinks the code requirement for parking is unrealistically low for this type of use. Their revised parking plan still shows parking taking place in the front yard setback in violation of the Performance Standards. Discussion followed regarding the parking situation, with a suggestion of a shared parking arrangement with the neighboring property owner. Doug Olson, on behalf of the American Legion, confirmed there would be additional seating in the addition, but the main reason it is proposed is to make it handicap accessible and more aesthetically pleasing. He said there is overflow parking in the Malkerson lot now. Discussion continued regarding parking. A question was asked about the peddlers on the American Legion property. Mr. Olson replied that the Legion gave its permission for the use of the property, and the City Planner said they have a peddler's license. Con- sensus was they create a traffic hazard. Comm. Schmitt suggested the ap- plicant check with its insurance carrier regarding their liability hazard. VanMaldeghem/Rockne moved to close the public hearing. Motioncarried unanimously. Schmitt/Lane moved to approve Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 424, to allow the construction of an addition in a B-1 zone, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant will be required to comply with all applicable site performance standards cited in the City Code. 2. The applicant must submit a revised site plan which shows the amount of parking that can be provided on site by Code. Shakopee Planning Commission 1 August 8, 1985 Page 9 3. In order to satisfy the additional parking required using the formula of 2.2 ratio of spaces per person, applicant is required to supply an agreement with another property owner to furnish additional parking, with the applicant being responsible for policing the additional parking site. Motion carried unanimously. Chrm. Czaja informed the applicant of the 7 day appeal period. DISCUSSION - FINAL PLAT OF HAUER 3RD ADDITION The City Planner said the items at issue have been resolved and staff recommends approval of the final plat subject to conditions. She said the whole plat has Preliminary Plat approval, but the final platting is being done in phases. The City has received a letter from Scottland, Inc. agreeing to the drainage plans. Comm. Schmitt suggested the sidewalk responsibility be covered in the Developer's Agreement, based on development of Outlot A. The City Planner explained the Developer's Agreement goes with the land, so if it is sold in the future, the next developer buys those conditions and responsibilities. The alternative of putting funds in an escrow account for future sidewalk construction was explained further. Discussion ensued regarding not considering variances for any of these lots. All lots are certified as being buildable according to the the terms of the zoning ordinance, and no variances should be needed. VanMaldeghem/Lane moved to recomiRend to City Council approval of the Final Plat of Hauer's 3rd Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney 2. Execution of a Developer's Agreement for the construction of the required improvements: A. A sidewalk to be constructed along the North side of 13th Ave. when Outlots A, D and E are replatted or 13th Ave. is constructed, in accordance with the Design Cri- teria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. -B. Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the SPUC Manager. C. Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the SPUC Manager. r. D. Sanitary sewer and storm sewer to be installed in accor- dance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. E. Streets and street signs shall be constructed in accor- dance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. Con- struction of the sourthern end of Limestone Drive shall end in a temporary hammerhead turnaround. The turnaround shall be replaced with a temporary cul de sac if the balance of road construction is not completed within one year. z>naKopee fianning Commission August 8, 1985 - page 10 F. 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. G. In lieu of land dedication, a cash payment should be made to the park fund at the time building permits are issued. H. Curb cuts onto 13th Avenue shall not be permitted except to provide access to lots 2 and 3 , Block 5. 3 . Outlots A,B,C,D, and E must be replatted prior to any devel- opment. 4 .- Outlots B and C shall be dedicated as Onyx Drive right of way. 5. The developer shall submit to the County Engineer construction plans for access to CSAH 16 and obtain the necessary permits when Outlots A,B,C,D and E are developed. 6. The developer shall provide a recordable agreement stating that not more than 100 of the plat will be developed into twin homes. 7 . The developer shall be responsible for the construction of 13th -Avenue when the remaining Outlots are replatted. Funding for the oversizing sof. 13th Avenue and condemnation of property for the R-O-W which is not controlled by the developer will be provided by the City of Shakopee. 8. A separate recordable agreement shall be provided for the construction of the extra . depth and oversize of the sewer line in Limestone Drive pursuant to the provisions of M.S.A. 429 with the cost of oversizing to be assumed by the City of Shakopee. 9 . The Developer shall provide a recordable agreement between himself and property owner Steven Stepanek in which Mr. Stepanek agrees to sell the necessary portion of L26 B3 to the developer; or the developer agrees to purchase from the City, the portion of L26 , .B3 which is acquired through R-O-W acquisition, at the same price per sq. ft. that the City paid. In either case L26 B3 shall be deemed undevelopable until said portion is acquired .by the developer. . 10 . A recordable drainage easement must be obtained -from Scottland Inc. which allows storm water to flow onto their property. 11. All lots are deemed buildable according to the Zoning Ordinance as of the date of this plat approval, and no variances will be considered. Shakopee Planning Commission August 8, 1985 Page 11 Discussion ensued regarding whether or not variances would be considered for accessory structures, and consensus was the zoning ordinance is known at the time of the platting and there should be no need. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION - J. DUBOIS DEVELOPMENT REQUEST The City Planner went over the information she received and recommended the proposed mini-storage not be allowed in the B-1 District. Gehl Tucker, attorney for Mr. DuBois, stated he believes this use of mini- storage is consistent with the zoning district under service establish- ment, because it provides a service to the general public. He doesn't think it should be in the industrial zone with semis and large loads and warehouses. He also checked with some other cities and found the zoning to be a grey area. He said Burnsville allows it with highway usage; Eden Prairie has it in an industrial zone, but abuting other zones; Eagan con- sidered it under general storage; Anoka thought it would be appropriate for B-l. He emphasized it is a situation that can go both ways. He asked for consideration of this land with its extreme difficulties in development, and he thinks this is a practical solution to a difficult problem. The City Planner said her main problem with that parcel is with the poor accessability. She pointed out the precedent this could set in B-1. She agrees it is a grey area that the Commissioners have to interpret. Mr. Tucker said he didn't want this land considered with the other parcels that had been sold nearby. He thinks this use would be an improvement to the other situations. It is se-tviced by a public road and any access would have to be approved by the City Engineer. If no development is allowed, the value of the land is taken away from the property owner with no way to recoup. Comm. Schmitt asserted that maybe the best use of the land is the three dwellings that are presently on it. He doesn't think there is an econo- mic hardship for the development of the property. Mr. DuBois bought the property as residential and homesteaded it. Then he platted the property - and subdivided the land to get the dry storage shed. If there is an economic hardship, he thinks Mr. DuBois created it himself. He said that even though the zoning changed, the residence is still allowed. Mr. Tucker said that because of the zoning change he can't get a secondary mortgage on the property.. Discussion continued. Schmitt/VanMaldeghem moved to accept the staff recommendation to determine a mini-storage facility is not a permitted or conditional use in the B-1 zon- ing district, because the industrial zoning districts adequately address the proposed type of use. Motion carried with Comm. Stoltzman opposed. Chrm. Czaja informed Mr. Tucker this decision can be appealed to City Council. bnakopee Eianning commission August 8, 1985 Page 12 DISCUSSION - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Discussion followed regarding various projects to be considered in the Capital Improvement Plan. Chrm. Czaja suggested some sort of pedestrian pathway along CR16. He was told the design is being done by the County, and he should talk to them about his concerns. Lane/Schmitt moved to recommend to City Council inclusion of the following projects in the Capital Improvement Plan: 1. Dean's Lake Outlet control to be done soon. 2. Valley Industrial Blvd. North _ 3. Construction of a frontage road from Howe Chemical to Cretex Drive. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION - CORRESPONDENCE IN RECORD Consensus was to attach correspondence, reports, petitions, etc. only to the original minutes and not to the copies sent out to Commissioners and other parties. INFORMATIONAL It was decided no meeting was necessary August 22, 1985. MINUTES Lane/Schmitt moved to approve the minutes of July 11, 1985 as kept. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Lane moved that the tape and minutes of July 11, 1985 be archived for two years. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Lane moved that the minute of July 18, 1985 be approved as kept, with the tape and minutes being archived for two years, with a correction being made on page 9 identifying the person as Mr. Boe. Motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS The Community Develop. Dir. informed the Commissioners of the boat trip planned by the City Admr. , and said she will get more information to those P interested. Discussion followed regarding the incompleteness of many applications and lack of review time for some items. The City Planner said there is a request being prepared to City Council for increased staff personnel for the planning department. Discussion followed. Schmitt/VanMaldeghem moved to recommend to City Council the consideration of the addition of a full-time staff person to assist the City Planner in dealing with the substantial increase in workload that has been evidenced in the last year. Motion carried unanimously. Shakopee Planning Commission August 8, 1985 Page 13 Comm. Schmitt commented he doesn't think what was built onto the Pass residence was what was in the building permit. Comm. Schmitt asked for consideration of a development zone around the racetrack, and also the possibility of considering the industrial park as a development zone. A development zone can use PUD rules and control what goes in there. There might also be uses for a development zone of commercial at CR83 and CR16 and CR17 and the by-pass. He thinks it should be considered at the worksession on September 19, 1985. Schmitt/VanMaldeghem moved to place on the agenda for September 19, 1985 the consideration of various development zones in commercial and industrial areas. Motion carried unanimously. VanMaldeghem/Schmitt moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meet- ing adjourned at 1:00 a.m. Judi Simac City Planner Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary PROCEEDINGS OF THE DOWNTOWN AD HOC COMMITTEE SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA August 7 , 1985 Chrm. Laurent called the meeting to order at 7: 30 A.M. with the following voting members present: Terry Forbord, Gary Laurent, Don Martin, Dan Steil, Jim Stillman, Joe Topic, Jerry Wampach, Bill Wermerskirchen Jr. and Pete Sames. Absent: Steve Clay, Mike Sortum, Dick Stoks and Tim Keanne. Also present: Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director, John Anderson, City Admin- istrator, Lee Stoltzman, Liaison to the Planning Commission, Howard Voigt, Valley News and Will Schroers. Jim Stillman/Joe Topic moved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried. Bill Wermerskirchen/Terry Forbord moved to approve the minutes of the July 31, 1985 meeting as kept. Motion carried. The Community Development Director gave an update on the action of the City Hall Siting Committee. Recommendations were received by the Council on August 6 , but due to the length of the agenda they will not address this item until August 20th. It was recom- mended that Committee members and other supporters of the Downtown Site attend this meeting. Regarding the Parking Lot'Project, the Engineering Dept. pointed out that there is a large storm sewer pipe that will be installed in that area. Although the Council is reluctant to have two Engineering firms working on the storm sewer they agreed to go along with it. It will be bid by Westwood in conjunction with another project on Fourth Ave. Bids will be opened Sept. 3rd. The Engineers recommended meeting with all affected property owners in the near future. John Anderson arrived at 7 : 45 A.M. Jeanne Andre explained the progress to date on establishing possible assessment policies combining lot square footage and front footage. Plot Plans for each block have been drawn in order to determine the lot areas and front footage. Streetscape assessments will be figured with frontage to be construed as the shortest distance along the property. This information will be fed into the computer based on a certain percentage scheme possibly 50o front footage plus 50o sq. footage. This data could then be applied to individual businesses to determine if adjustments in the formula need to be made. Assessment of non-conforming residential uses was discussed. Jim Stillman/Dan Stiel moved that the assessment for streetscape of non-conforming residential uses be deferred until the parcels are eventually converted to commercial use. Motion carried. City staff will research payment of deferred assessments to determine if the deferred assessments would be spread to existing commercial parcels or could be picked up by tax increment as will occur in the storm sewer policy. The Community Development Director informed the Committee that SPUC has no provision for providing underground electrical work for this project since project is -- turned back to the City each year and they have no fund to cover it. NSP ' s policy is to establish a value for the existing service based on the depreciation and figure the salvage value. The depreciated value and salvage value are usually very low in redevelopment areas. Dan Steil/Bill Wermerskirchen left at 8: 30 A.M. Terry Forbord questioned assessing just property owners when the entire area is benefitted. The Community Development Director has written SPUC asking them to share costs and has not received a reply. The Committee should meet with SPUC and try to get a committment from them. Jerry Wampach will contact Lou VanHout to get an idea of costs for underground electrical work. The Downtown Committee will meet on August 14th at 7 : 30 A.M. on the streetscape project and also on August 21st at 7 : 30 A.M. I Jerry Wampach/Pete Same moved to adjourn at 9 : 10 A.M. Motion Carried. Darlene Schesso Recording Secretary PROCEEDINGS OF THE DOWNTOWN AD HOC COMMITTEE SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA August 14, 1985 Chrm. Laurent called the meeting to order at 7 : 35 a.m. with the following voting members present: Terry Forbord, Gary Laurent, Jim Stillman, Joe Topic, Jerry Wampach and Bill Wermerskirchen Jr. Absent: Steve Clay, Don Martin, Mike Sortum, Dan Steil, Dick Stoks, Pete Sames and Tim Keane. Also present: Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director, Lee Stoltzman, Liaison to Planning Commission, Tim Erkkila and Dick Koppy of Westwood Engineering. Dick Koppy informed the Committee that they had met with property owners in Block 30 to acquaint them with the project. He presented a revised plan for the parking lot as the entrance alignments had to be changed. There will be a small sidewalk along the buildings. The storm sewer will be in place before the parking lot is finished. To expedite the project trees , shrubs and lighting fixtures will be installed at a later date, however underground conduit will be installed now. These deletions will bring the cost down from approximately $100 , 000 to approximately $70 , 000. He suggested temporarily moving several of the trees on the site and saving them for re-planting. Since part of the streetscape project will not be completed until later the pressure to make decisions will not be as great, however, Tim Erkkila pointed out four areas that need consideration: 1) fine tune corner designs , 2 ) resolve street widths , and amount of on-street parking, 3 ) decide on fixtures and amenities and 4 ) make decision on continuing project on 2nd Ave. The Community Development Director suggested making selections of the amenities and then come up with block by block costs. It is the intention of the Housing Alliance to meet the plans for the streetscape in their upcoming project. The Shakopee Public Utility Co. discussed the parking lot project at their August meeting and concluded that when there are minor relocations they will use funds from a $5 ,000 a year set-aside program. Anything above that will be taken on a project by project basis . Much work will have to be done to see what it would cost to underground all lines downtown. Undergrounding has many repercussions to the property owner since their services would also have to be changed. The Community Development Director reported that HRA had met August 13th to consider the Housing Alliance ' s revised proposal for Block 32. They are planning 44 rental units with restaurant space and beauty parlor at 2nd and Fuller, with underground parking. A hearing should be held to establish a new tax increment. Bill wermerskirchen left at 8 : 20 a.m. Progress is being made on the new bridge. The City has hired Barton Aschman Engineering, and bid letting has been set for July, 1989 . The heavy traffic flow during the tourist season was discussed. A letter has been written to MnDOT to see what can be done to alleviate the problem. The Community Development Director passed out a rough copy of new brochure pertaining to the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee and asked for suggestions. The next meeting of the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee will be held August 28 , 1985 at 7 : 30 a.m. in the Council Chambers. Darlene Schesso Recording Secretary s TENTATIVE AGENDA Board of Adjustment and Appeals Regular Session Shakopee , Minnesota September 5 , 1985 Chairman Czaja Presiding: 1 ) Roll Call at 7 : 30 P.M. 2 ) Approval of Agenda 3 ) Approval of August 8 , 1985 Minutes 4 ) 7 : 30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider an application for a 19 ' variance from minor arterial front setback requirement of 50 ' which would place building 31 ' from street surface , in order to construct a solarium on the property located on the E 15 ' of Lot 4 and all of Lot 5 , Block 9 , East Shakopee Plat. Applicant: Kentucky Fried Chicken Action: Variance Resolution No. 425 5 ) Discussion:Variance to Bed and Breakfast requirement on age of house. 6 ) Other Business 7 ) Adjournment Judi Simac City Planner CITY OF SHAKOPEE an TENTATIVE AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION Special Session Shakopee, Minnesota September 5 , 1985 Chairman Czaja Presiding: 1. Roll Call at 7: 30 P.M. 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of August 8, 1985 Minutes 4. 8 : 00 P.M. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: To consider the Preliminary and Final Plat Approval of Canterbury Park 1st Addition lying _ on Lot 2, Block 3 , Valley Park First Addition. Applicant: Scottland Inc. Action: Recommendation to City Council 5. 8: 15 P.M. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: To consider an application for a Conditional Use Permit to conduct retail sales in the principal building in 15% or less of floor area upon the property located on Lot 1, Canterbury Park 1st Addition. Applicant: Landscape Junction, Inc. Action: Conditional Use Permit Resolution 421 6. 8 : 30 P.M. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: To consider the Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plat of Shakopee Valley Square 1st Addition, which is a replat of Halo 2nd Addition and a 28 acre parcel lying North, located on the Northeast corner of the intersection of Highway 101 and County Road 17. Applicant: Wallace Bakken Action: Recommendation to City Council 7. 8:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider an application for a Conditional Use Permit to construct 62 units of residential rental on - a single lot upon the property located on Lot 2 , Block 1, Canterbury Village 1st Addition. Applicant: INCA Development Action: Conditional Use Permit Resolution 426 8. 9 : 00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider an application for a Conditional Use Permit to move-in a single family dwelling upon the property located on Lot 2, Block 4 , Killarney Hills Addn. Applicant: Jim Hauer Action: Conditional Use Permit Resolution 427 9. 9 : 15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider an application for a Conditional Use Permit to move-in a single family dwelling upon the property located on Lot 3 , Block 4 , Killarney Hills Addn. Applicant: Jim Hauer Action: Conditional Use Permit Resolution 428 10. 9: 30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider an application for Preliminary and Final Plat approval of Meriden Addition a replat of Outlot A, Prahmcoll Addition and an application for rezoning this property from I-1, Light Industrial to B-2 , Community Business. Applicant: Meriden Corporation Action: Recommendation to City Council 11. Discussion: Proposed.Auction in an I-1 District 12. Discussion: Proposed Recreational Vehicle Ordinance 13 . Informational: a) Review of Angelrock C.U.P. b) Review of Tom Thumb C.U.P. c) Correspondence Twin City Tile and Marble d) Proposed agenda for September 19th workshop 14. Other Business F 15. Adjourn - Judi Simac City Planner CITY OF SHAKOPEE TENTATIVE AGENDA Downtown Ad Hoc Committee City Hall Council Chambers September 4 , 1985 7: 30 A.M. Chrmn. Laurent presiding 1. Call to Order at 7: 30 A.M. 2 . Approval of the Agenda 3. Approval of the minutes of August 7 , 1985 and August 14, 1985. 4. Updates: a. City Hall Siting b. Parking Lot Project C. 101-By-Pass Project 5. Discussion of Streetscape Improvements a. Comparison of Second Avenue design with "typical" street b. Analysis of R-O-W on typical street 1) Options for street and sidewalk width 2 ) On-street parking capacity of options C. Nodal design concept 6. Other Business 7. Adjourn at 9: 00 A.M. to September 25 , 1985 at 7 : 30 A.M. Jeanne Andre Community Development Director CITY OF SHAKOPEE IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING, PLEASE CALL JEANNE OR TONI TO LET THEM KNOW Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 1610 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454 612-332-0421 August 29, 1985 -f Mr. John Anderson City Administrator AUG s° $,83 City of Shakopee 129 East 1st Avenue CITYOF :"f,= ,OPI:P Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear John: Yesterday Ray Ruuska and myself met with the Unencumbered Construction Fund Subcommittee concerning the status of Shakopee's construction fund balance. The purpose of this meeting was to explain the reason for Shakopee's large balance. Members of the committee pointed out that if this money is not encumbered as of June 30th there is a possibility that the city could lose part of the funding. They explained that the intent of the fund is to provide annual street construction and if the money is not spent the state as well as the city will receive criticisms for not upgrading streets. In addition they stated that if the fund grows substantially (currently there is approximately $35 million in the total state-wide fund) that the legislators will decrease the allotment or use the funds for other purposes. Ray and I explained that Shakopee's funds have been set aside for the 4th Avenue project which is to be bid on September 3rd at 10:00 A.M. The engineer's estimate is approximately $303,000 and additional funds will be needed for right-of-way and engineering. In essence some $400,000 is committed for the 4th Avenue project. Members of the subcommittee then asked about future projects. At this time we mentioned the 4th Avenue project in urban Shakopee, the 13th Avenue project between CR 16 and CR 17 and other projects. Assuming that the bids are satisfactory on September 3rd and city council and MnDOT State Aid approve the contract, there should be no problem with losing funds. The subcommittee members told us that they will recommend no changes to Shakopee's unencumbered construction funds contingent on award of the 4th Avenue project. After the 4th Avenue project has been awarded, we will follow up with a letter to the screening committee (George Ouickstad and Roy Hanson) informing them of the award. They did not see any difficulties. The full screening committee does not meet until late October. No difficulty should be encountered in protecting Shakopee's construction fund balance. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely ouyours, o n C. Mullan, P.E. Vice President JCM:kr0 TENTATIVE AGENDA REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 3, 1985 Mayor Reinke presiding 11 Roll Call at 7 :00 P.M. 21 Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 31 RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS 4] 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. ) *51 Approval of Minutes of August 13th, 20th, and 27th, 1985 61 Communications: a] League of Mn. Cities re : Fair Labor Standards Act b] Ron Carlson re : legalizing bow hunting on certain properties <7 �� of 71 Public Hearings: a] 7 :45 P.M. - Appeal by John DuBois of the Planning Commission decision that mini-storage facilities are not a permitted use in the B-.1 zoning district b] 8:00 P.M. - Proposed use of Revenue Sharing funds -for 1986 81 Boards and Commissions: Cable Communications Advisory Commission: a] Cable Company Proposed Concessions Planning Commission: b]- Request for A Zoning Amendment by -Baron Development -Corp. -- Res. 2429 c] Rezoning 11 parcels on 13th Ave. East of CR-89 - Ord. 184 d] Reconsideration of Preliminary Plat of Notermann 2nd Addition 9] Reports -from Staff: a] Handicapped Accessabi:lity Compliance (Informational ) b] Street Lights Along Boiling Springs Lane Naming of CR-83 f`d] ' Awarding of Bids for 85-1 Fourth Ave. Reconstruction and 85-4 Second Avenue Parking Lot - memo on table fie]„ o.using Mortgage Revenue Bond Policy - Res. 2431 p f] Application for Housing Mortgage Revenue Bonds *g] Huber Park Warming House - *h] Housing Advisory Appeals Board Appointment *i] Agreement with Scott County for Building Inspection Servi-ces TENTATIVE AGENDA September 3 , 1985'. Page -2- 91 Reports from Staff continued: *j ] Contract Agreement - LeRoy Heitz *k] November 5 , 1985 Municipal Election 11 1985 Risk Management Services *m] Deferred V.I .P . Interceptor Special Assessments *n] Capital Improvement Plan for 1986 *o] Interfund Transfers PI Bills in Amount of $128, 892. 17 q] Response To Triple Five Development Proposal for Bloomington 10] Resolutions and Ordinances : *a] Res. -No. 2412, Vacating Part of Shakopee Avenue West of Adams Street 11] Other Business: a] Briefing by Asst. City Attorney on conducting license suspension and revocation hearings N -1 c] d] 12] Adjourn to Tuesday, September 10th at 7:30 P .M . , for a budget worksession John K. Anderson City Administrator OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 13, 1985 Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. with Cncl. Colligan, Leroux, Lebens, Wampach and Vierling present. Also present were John K. Anderson, City Admr.; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director; Judi Simac, City Planner and Julius A. Coller, II, City Attorney. Wampach/Vierling moved to recess for an HRA meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Leroux moved to re-convene at 7:31 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Liaison reports were given by Councilmembers. Cncl. Lebens reported on the Planning Commission's request for consideration of a sidewalk escrow policy to insure the construction of sidewalks in new developments where a road is to be upgraded. The City Admr. will direct research and bring the item back on the agenda in the future. Cncl. Wampach reported the request by SPUC to have the insurance agent who analyzed .the City's coverage contact them for further information. Mayor Reinke asked if there was -anyone present who wished to address the Council on any item not on the agenda, and there was no response. The City Admr. commented in response to the notice from the .Chamber of Commerce requesting the City to take some action to alleviate traffic prob- lems. He will contact various State and local agencies and research what can be done, and bring it back. Colligan/Wampach moved to direct staff to do a traffic study and bring back alternatives for alleviating traffic problems on Hwy. 101 & 169. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner gave some background on the alternatives suggested for dealing with the construction of Third Ave. as it relates to the Hentges Preliminary Plat. Vierling/Wampach moved to remove from the table the Preliminary Plat of Hentges 1st Addition. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Wampach moved to approve the Preliminary Plat of Hentges 1st Addi- tion, subject to the following conditions: 1.- The applicant must designate the principal and accessory use on Lot 1, Block 1. 2. The on-site systems must conform to City Code. Shakopee City Council August 13, 1985 Page 2 3. The developer shall record an agreement to accept future assess- ments when the Third Avenue improvements are ordered, with no right to appeal. 4. Before the final plat is recorded, the developer must bring Block 1 to compliance with code standards regarding exterior storage. 5. Existing easement must be validated. 6. Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney. 7. Park Dedication in the form of cash contribution shall be made in lieu of land dedication. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. The City Admr. gave some background and clarified the procedure to be used for the Fare Policy Poll for Van Pools and the Van Pool Holiday Policy Amendment. Colligan/Lebens moved to recommend to City Council that the second para- graph of Van Pool Policy X613 be amended to read: "During the week or month in which the van pool holidays specified above fall, there shall be a reduction in fares for van pool riders." Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Wampach moved to direct staff to implement a poll of the van pool riders on two alternatives: 1) Maintain the-monthly fare of $47.50 and increase the one-way fare to $1.50 for a three month trial period; 2) Pre- serve the status quo; and to report the findings back to City Council. Motion carried unanimously. The City Admr. suggested that after the meeting that was held this week with the cable system, consideration of a fine regarding the character generator deadline should be tabled. He thought this could be dealt with more appropriately in a package negotiation. Colligan/Leroux moved to table consideration of the character generator deadline and related fines. Motion carried unanimously. Cncl. Colligan declared that he would be opposed to purchasing a temporary portable sound system for the Council Chambers, in light of the plans for a new City Hall. He would think that the new Chambers would have a built in sound system. The Comm. Develop. Dir. explained that the City has already spent hundreds of dollars to rent and place portable equipment for the public hearings held .out of City Hall, which is all coming from the Planning budget. She understands there will not be a new City Hall for at least 2-3 years, dur- ing which time there will certainly be more instances where a portable sys- tem is needed. She is also concerned with the legal ramifications of not having an adequate recording system for important public -hearings. Con- siderable discussion ensued regarding the pros and cons and need for a new system. Leroux/Vierling moved to direct staff to further check costs and alternatives and bring back at budget time consideration of a new sound system for City Council Chambers. Motion carried unanimously. Shaxopee City Council August 13, 1985 Page 3 Mr. Lawrence Samstad asked the Council for reconsideration of his previous request for a curb cut on 10th Avenue, as he said there are some issues that were not covered. He said he brought his request to Mn/DOT, which stipulated that the maximum width of the drive-way should not exceed 22 feet in order to not jeopardize State Aid funds on the street. Mr. Samstad's previous request was for 24 feet, but he would be willing to go with 22 feet as stipulated. He also submitted a letter from the Police Chief who addressed safety considerations. Mr. Samstad believes this turn-around driveway is a mitigation of the problems discussed at the last hearing. Mr. Samstad said the legal opinion from Mr. Krass was used out of context and from another source, and each case is different. He thinks the best legal argument is that this is probably the last curb cut request that will be made for 10th Avenue, because there are no new homes now being built on that street or any lots left at this time. Mr. Samstad further stated there was no caveat or covenent in the abstract prohibiting curb cuts on 10th Avenue. The plat was filed before the adop- tion of the Comp Plan, and therefore he thinks the City Council has a legitimate right to grant a curb cut. He doesn't think the Council had the total picture at the last hearing, and therefore he would like recon- sideration of this request as a new item. The City Attorney gave his opinion that this is the same item that was dis- cussed before, with additional information presented at this time, which would be grounds for reconsideration. Wampach/Leroux moved to reconsider the Council's previous motion denying a curb cut on 10th Avenue for Lawrence Samstad. Roll Call: Ayes; Wampach, Vierling, Colligan Noes; Leroux, Lebens, Reinke Motion failed. Colligan/Wampach moved to direct staff to prepare the proper resolution vacating Shakopee Avenue West of Adams Street to the alley retaining a 25 foot easement along the easterly 25 feet, upon receipt of authorization from Minnegasco to vacate the north half of the street free from retaining an easement. Roll Call: Ayes-; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Colligan moved to amend the 1985 Community Development budget to include the 1985 recycling program expenses in the amount of $8,985.00, and direct staff to prepare appropriate resolution. Cncl. Lebens asked for a summary of whether or not the program is working. The City Admr. replied that so far there have been mixed results. At the end of the program it will be evaluated. Roll. Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Colligan/Leroux moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution increasing Building Inspections budget .by $800.00 for 1985 for the installation cost of a new telephone system for Community Services. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Shakopee City council August 13, 1985 Page 4 The City Admr. explained the location and reasons for the request for ad- ditional fire hydrants on the Kmart Distribution Center property. H. R. Spurrier, Former City Engineer, explained that at the time of development, Kmart paid for a certain amount of improvements, but because the bids came in below estimates the City did not spend that entire amount agreed to. Cncl. Leroux argued that the City agreed to do a certain amount of work, which it did, and even put up a water tower additionally, not to spend a certain amount of money. He has a problem with taking public money after there is an operational building and putting it back on this private pro- perty. The City Admr. further explained that theKmarequest tt, and wfor additioeaout fire hydrants was made by the Fire Dept. , notof general funds if .there wasn't a tax increment district. Colligan/Vierling moved to authorize an agreement with S. M. Hentges & Sons Excavating to perform installation of additional hydrants on the Kmart Distribution Center property in the amount of $11,705.80 to be paid from the Kmart Tax Increment Project. Colligan, Vierling, Reinke Roll Call: Ayes; Wampach, Leroux, Noes; Lebens Motion carried. H. R. Spurrier, former City Engineer, reported as part of the Consulting Engineer Selection Committee. He said they received 22 proposals. They are recommending Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. because of their strength in the environmental review process, their knowledge of State and Federal regulations and processes and their ability to work with Federal, State _ and local officials and the firm's knowledge of this specific project. Cncl. Leroux said he was bothered by the large cost over-run on CR831 which was handled by Barton-Asctiman. Mr. Spurrier responded that there was not a severe over-run if you discount the County items which were added after the project was accepted and construction had begun. Mr. John Mullan, of Barton-Aschman, stated they are well aware of the City's concern, and added he never likes to over-run. He explained further the County's changes which added significantly to the cost over-run. Another representative from Barton-Aschman stated he is familiar with the negotiation for Federal Aid, and it is a pass-through from Federal to State. to local. They will be obtaining a written agreement stating the _bridge will be funded 80% with Federal aid. Colligan/Leroux moved to authorize proper City officials to enter into an agreement with Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. for professional services for Location Studies and Environmental Assessment .for T.H. 169 Minnesota River Crossing/Downtown Approach Improvements at a cost not to exceed $141,771.00. Roll Call: Ayes; Reinke, Wampach, Colligan, Leroux, Vierling Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Leroux/Colligan moved to approve payment of additional survey fees (not to exceed $8,000.00) necessary to complete all Racetrack off-site improve- ments, to Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Roll Call: Ayes; Vierling, Wampach, Leroux, Colligan, Reinke Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Shakopee City Council August 13, 1985 Page 5 Leroux/Colligan offered Resolution No. 2423, A Resolution of Special Commendation to Kenneth Hanel, and moved its adoption. The City Admr. read the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. Lebens/Vierling offered Ordinance No. 177, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending the Shakopee City Code, Chapter 1 Entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" by Changing the Provision Relating to Penalty for a Misdemeanor, and Making this Ordinance Applicable to every Chapter, Section or other Provision of the Shakopee City Code, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Leroux offered Ordinance No. 178, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending the Shakopee City Code, Chapter 2 Entitled "Administration and General Government" by Adding -a Provision Relating to Establishment of a Housing Advisory and Appeals Board; and by Adopting by Reference, Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Section 2.99 Which, Among other Things, Contain Penalty Provisions, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Leroux offered Ordinance No. 179, Fourth Series, An Ordinance _ of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending the Shakopee City Code, Chapter 5 Entitled "Liquor, Beer and Wine Licensing and Regulation" by Adding Provisions Relating to Requirement of Water and Sewer Connection Requirements by Licensees, Financial Responsibility of Licensees, and Employment of Minor by On-Sale Wine Licensees; By Changing Provisions Relating to Insurance Requirements, Beer License Restrictions and Regula- tions and Unlawful Acts; by Repealing Provisions Relating to Water and Sewer Connections; and by Adopting by Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Section 5.99 Which, Among Other Things, Contain Penalty Provisions, and moved its adoption.' Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Colligan offered Ordinance No. 180, Fourth Series, An .Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending the Shakopee City Code, Chapter 6 Entitled "Other Business Regulation and Licensing" by Repeal- ing Provisions Relating to Bingo and Gambling; and. by Adopting by Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Section 6.99 Which, Among Other Things, Contain Penalty Provisions, and moved its adoption. Mayor Reinke clarified that Bingo and other gambling licensing will be controlled by the State now. The City Clerk mentioned the prohibitions listed in Ordinance No. 182 regarding gambling devices. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Wampach offered Ordinance No. 181, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending the Shakopee City Code, Chapter Entitled "Traffic Regulations" by Changing the Provision Relat- ing to Adoption of Certain Statues by Reference; and by Adopting by Ref- erence Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and .Section 8..99 Which, Among Other Things, Contain Penalty Provisions, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Snakopee City Code August 13, 1985 Page 6 Vierling/Leroux offered Ordinance No. 182, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending the Shakopee City Code, Chapter 10 Entitled "Public Protection, Crimes and Offenses" by Adding a Provision Relating to Dangerous Weapons, and a Provision as to Gambling; and by Adopting by Reference Shakopee City .Code, Chapter 1 and Section 10.99 Which, Among Other Things, Contain Penalty Provisions, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling offered Ordinance No. 183, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending the Shakopee City Code, Chapter 11 Entitled "Land Use Regulation" by Adding a Section Relating to Foundations; and by Adopting by Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Section 11.99 Which, Among Other Things, Contain Penalty Provisions, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Reinke acknowledged Councilmembers receipt of the Petition submitted by Baron Development in support of their rezoning request, and said it will become a part of the record. - -- - ----- -,---- - --- Cncl. Leroux pointed out a comment by Mr. Shardlow from the transcript of the public hearing regarding the application by Scott County Lumber Co. and Bert Notermann for a conditional use permit for a mining operation, wherein Mr. Shardlow said that if findings exist that substantiate a denial of the conditional use permit, then the use is inconsistent with the Comp Plan. Therefore, Cncl. Leroux suggested that if the Council will be adopting a resolution substantiating findings for denial, then Criteria No. 8 of the resolution should be changed to find that it is in conflict with the Comp Plan. The City Admr. will review that suggestion with the Ass't City Attorney. „ The City Admr. reminded the Council that because Cncl. Colligan is abstain- ing from the vote regarding the application for rezoning by Baron Develop- ment, it will take five of the City Council Members to make a decision, as it requires a 4/5 Council. The City Admr. reported on the Police arbitration proceedings wherein two items will be taken off the list of issues., if approved. The police re- quest for a change in holiday pay will be removed and the City's request for provision of uniforms will be removed if approved, and the City pays $400 for a uniform allowance for 1985. Leroux/Vierling moved to agree that the 1985 uniform allowance for police be $400.00. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. The City Admr, mentioned that the League's Labor Specialist is available for preliminary negotiations at no extra cost, and he would recommend using him in that capacity in the future, if needed. Leroux/Vierling moved to adjourn to 7:00 p.m. August 20, 1985. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Judith S. Cox City Clerk Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 20, 1985 Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Cncl. Colligan, Leroux, Vierling, Wampach and Lebens present. Also present were John K. Anderson, City Admr.; Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director; Judi Simac, City Planner and Rad Krass, Asst City Attorney Wampach/Lebens moved to recess for an HRA meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to re-convene at 7:10 p.m. Motion carried unani- mously. Liaison reports were given by Councilmembers. Mayor Reinke asked for discussion relative to the entertainment proposal in .Bloomington and the special concessions being sought. Discussion ensued, with consensus being to direct the City Admr. to research the latest in- formation and bring the item back September 3, 1985. 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/Vierling moved to approve the minutes of August 6, 1985 as kept. Rolf. Call: Ayes; Wampach, Vierling, Colligan, Leroux, Reinke Noes; None Abstain: Lebens Motion carried. Leroux/Lebens moved to -receive and place on file the letter from Scottland, Inc. , dated August 12, 1985 regarding intention to apply for housing reve- nue bond financing for multi-family housing. -Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Vierling moved to open the public hearing regarding the appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 413 which grants approval to Don McKush to move in a single family dwelling.at CR17 and CR81. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner gave the background of the approval by Planning Commission of this conditional use permit with conditions. Mayor Reinke asked for comments from the audience. Roger Bauer, 3693 Marschall Road, said this proposed property started as a ravine which the applicant filled in without a permit. He said there was a wash-out after the rain and he could see a big piece of wood near the Mead property, and he doesn't- think the fill- is fit for .a house. Also, - he explained he has a drive-way which has been used and kept up by his property which comes out on the applicant's land, but has been used by his property for 16 years. The applicant wants to tear out this drive-way and put his own in 8 feet from there. He thinks he will have a problem with Shakopee City Council August 20, 1985 Page 2 snow drifting in there, with no place to put the snow. He asked about some kind of grandfather clause that would allow him to keep this drive-way that has been used for 16 years. The Ass't City Attorney explained that if land is claimed and utililized for a period of at least 15 years, it is possible to go to Court in a lawsuit and assert that right. If it is determined you meet the require- ments, you may be granted that land. It has to be proved that you are asserting that claim in a manner adverse to the property and that you are claiming ownership, not just the use of it. It is not an automatic right; it must be claimed in a lawsuit with a Court determination. Mr. Bauer responded that he may pursue that. He added that he didn't think 8 feet is very far apart for drive-ways, especially on CR17, which is very busy. Mayor Reinke replied that would have to be checked with the County Engineer, as the County makes the determination for access onto a county road. Jean Shipton, 15201 Howard Lake Road NW, said her husband, Frank Mead, is out of town and unable to attend tonight. She questioned the safety of moving a house into that location because of the sharpness of the curve and snow problems at that corner. There have been motorcycles and cars in the Bauer yard because people missed the curve, and she would think it would be a safety hazard to put a house there. Her husband wanted to point out that everyone else in the area has a minimum of 2 acres of land. They realize the applicant can put a house on this small property because of a grandfathered provision, but they wonder what it will do to their property values surrounding it. She added they didn't even know the property was for sale or they would have bought it themselves. Discussion followed regarding setbacks, with the City Planner clarifying that the setback is 75 feet from the centerline of a county road. The pro- posed location meets the setback requirements of the City and County road. The County Engineer reviewed the application and recommended approval of it and required an entrance permit for the driveway and a moving permit. Rick Massee said this is a very dangerous intersection, and he has witnessed several cars in the ditch. He wouldn't advise letting anyone play out in the front yard. If a house is put there, there will be a lot of cars in the yard. Donna Battcher, 15251 Howard Lake Rd. NW, stated her concern with the small property size compared to the neighbors and well below what the minimum re- quirement is now. Charlie Timmerman, 15231 Howard Lake Rd. NW, explained that at the Planning Commission meeting he asked about the changing of the watershed, not the waterways. He is wondering how this is going to affect his property. He said the applicant took out the trees and eliminated the gentle flow of the land. He said if the Council can guarantee it won't affect his land, he will live with the application. Shakopee City Council August 20, 1985 Page 3 �7 The City Planner further explained that the first staff review of the original application was for denial. The applicant worked with the former City Engineer, the County, the DNR and City staff and has made the neces- sary changes and met the requirements. Mayor Reinke read the recommended condition regarding drainage. Mr. Timmerman said they are trying to keep the water on top of the hill, but when the freeze is over, it always ends up at the bottom of the hill. Mr. Bauer showed pictures of the washout and the wood piece sticking out, and pictures of the garbage that was buried. He said he can only see it as lowering their property values, especially if the house sinks. Don McKush, applicant, stated that Bill Boe, a structural engineer, super- vised the work of Bohnsack and Hennen who put in the fill. He thinks it was all done in a professional manner. He said he has been working with the City for some time trying to meet all the requirements. He is amazed that so many people are so concerned that he is placing himself in jeopardy. Mr. McKush stated they own a small golf course nearby and have been wanting to move into the community for some time to eliminate the commuting. He doesn't mean to upset the neighbors, but just want to move in a house. He said the property was surveyed by Valley Engineering. Discussion fol- lowed regarding compaction tests. The City Planner added that the permit for the fill was from the Building Official's office, and she was not sure about how it was administered. Mr. McKush pointed out the letter from Wm. Boe certifying to a compaction effort of more than 90%. He also made some recommendations that they intend to follow. He pointed out that he has a great stake in following these recommendations and doing it right. He added that the photo showing the wash-out is from a location well beyond the perimeter of the house location. The Asst City Attorney declared that assuming the relevant codes and ordi- nances are adhered to, granting a building permit does not subject the City to any liability because the contractor failed to follow good prac- tices; the City is not warranting construction by the issuance of a building permit. Cncl. Leroux indicated that we are not dealing with building here, but only with a conditional use permit to allow a house to be moved in. The appli- cant will have to comply with all building codes. He expressed his concern regarding the -sewage treatment facility and the draining of the land in order to avoid draining into swamp land. Mr. McKush explained that a mound type drainage system was recommneded to be 372 x 10 by the State. He is planning to exceed that requirement and make it 50 x 10, just to have an extra safety consideration. He said the property generally slopes to the southeast. Cncl. Vierling asked about the valuation of the proposed house in comparison to the homes in the area. The City Planner said it is a new house built -at the Hennepin Technical Center and quite comparable to the homes in the area. Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak, and there was no answer. Shakopee City Council August 20, 1985 Page 5 Mayor Reinke asked about the dedication of an additional 10 feet of right- of-way along CR17 for sidewalk and setback. The City Planner said there is a 50 foot setback because of the arterial designation of CR17. However, she hadn't required the additional setback because this is residential property, not commercial. The County Engineer states that the need for a turn lane would arise if something was developed that would generate traffic above accepted levels at peak times. She isn't sure that R-4 would bring that kind of traffic at peak times. That question would be addressed at the time an entrance permit is applied for onto CR17. Mayor Reinke asked if there were any comments from the audience, and there were none. Lebens/Vierling moved to approve the Preliminary Plat of Canterbury Village 1st Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat name be changed to Canterbury Village 1st Addition. 2. Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney. 3. Execution of a Developer's Agreement for the construction of the required improvements: A. A sidewalk be constructed where the plat abuts CSAH 16 and CSAH 17, in accordance with the Design Critera and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. Because construc- tion should not occur until CSAH 16 is upgraded, the de- veloper should agree to accept future assessments, waiving all rights to a hearing on the improvements and assessments, such agreement to run with the land and be binding on all heirs and assigns of the applicant. B. Installation of the water system in accordance with the requirements of the SPUC Manager. C. Installation of street lighting in accordance with the requirements of the SPUC Manager. D. 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. E. Streets and street signs shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. F. 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. G. In lieu of land dedication, a cash payment should be made to the park fund at the time building permits are issued. H. Construction of bituminous pedestrian walkway from the west end of Roundhouse Cour-t, along the southern lot line of Lot 2 and Lot 1, to CSAH 17. I. Installation of a screenplanting along the north lot line of lots $, 9 and 10, where they abut CSAH 16. 4. The City Engineer must receive and approve all final plans and specifications -for all public facilities, including but not limited to, roads, sanitary sewer system, storm sewer, drainage, over-lot grading, etc. Shakopee City Council August 20, 1985 Page 4 / Colligan/Leroux moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Lebens moved to approve Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 413, which grants approval to Don McKush to move in a single family dwelling, and moved its adoption subject to the following conditions: 1. The house must have a manufactured house seal and state inspection certificates. - 2. Entrance Permit and Moving Permit is issued by Scott County Highway Engineer. 3. The Building Official approves on site disposal system and well location and design. Well may not be placed in ROW. 4. Certification from a Geotechnical Engineer .that the foundation and subgrade are acceptable for anticipated loads. Receipt of six soil borings; four at each house corner and two within the lot. Subgrade must be acceptable. Proper compaction tests be made prior to installation of foundation. 5. The basement floor must be a minimum of 3 -feet above the highest known water level. 6. All required building setbacks must be met. 7. Must take out a permit for placing existing fill and any addi- tional to be brought in. 8. Power line easement identified and recorded. 9. Determination by the City Engineer that drainage has not been disturbed. If determined to be disturbed, then drainage easements are required. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Wampach/Lebens moved to implement the majority decision of the vanpool riders which preserves the existing fare policy. Motion carried unanimously. - The City Planner went over the background of the request for final plat approval of Hauer's 3rd Addition. Cncl. Leroux asked if the developer was negotiating for Mr. Stepanek's property. Gene Hauer, developer, replied that he has talked to Mr. Stepanek who is not interested in selling at this time. Cncl. Leroux expressed his concern that 13th Avenue will have to be built very soon because of the development occuring which will put traffic pressure on it. The City Planner said their research found that St-. Mark's Cemetery was not registered, and there are no graves in the area of the proposed 13th Avenue, and therefore the City can acquire the property. She will check where the City is in its negotiations with St. -Mark's church. Colligan/Lebens offered Resolution No. 2426, A Resolution Approving the -Final Plat of Hauer's Third Addition, and moved its adoption. Roll Call:- Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. The City Planner went over the background of the preliminary plat of Can- terbury Village 1st Addition. She explained this is a replat of the large outlot A of Eagle Creek Junction lst Addition. She explained further the concept plan and proposed planned unit development, for which a conditional use permit will be applied. She recommended that because CR16 is to be upgraded in the future, the developer should execute an agreement accept- ing assessments for sidewalk along CR16 when construction is appropriate. Shakopee City Council August 20, 1985 Page 6 5. The Developer shall submit plans for review and approval by the County Engineer, for work in the CSAH 16 drainage ditch. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner stated the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the rezoning of 11 parcels along 13th Avenue East. She explained the problem the homeowners are having in selling their homes in an industrial zone. Cncl. Leroux stated he has no problem with the rezoning because it abuts another residential area, it isn't spot zoning, it is reverting back to a previous zoning and back to an actual land use. Leroux/Vierling moved to direct staff to prepare an Ordinance which amends the zoning map by removing the following parcels of land from the I-1 Light Industrial District and placing them in an R-1 Rural Residential District, and moved its adoption: 27-043002-0 27-043008-0 27-043003-0 27-043009-0 27-043004-0 27-043010-0 27-043005-0 27-043011-0. 27-043006-0 27-043116-0 27-043007-0 Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Reinke explained that this action directed the preparation of an Ordinance, which will come back to the City Council for action before the rezoning can take place. Wampach/Lebens moved to accept the Planning Commission recommendations to the proposed Capital Improvement Program as follows: 1. Construction of Valley Industrial Blvd. North. 2. Move up the Deans Lake Outlet Control. 3. Construction of a frontage road from Howe Chemical to Cretex Drive. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Lebens moved to direct staff to interpret Thirteenth Avenue as a proposed collector street and administer all code language which refers to a collector street to any application for a land use permit. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved for a five minute recess at 8:36 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Colligan moved to reconvene at 8:46 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Lebens moved to remove from the table consideration of the appeal by Scott County Lumber Co. and Bert Notermann of the Planning Commission's denial of a conditional use permit to remove sand and gravel aggregate in the southwest corner of the intersection of CR16 and CR83. Motion carried unanimously. Shakopee City Council August 20, 1985 Page 7 The Ass't City Attorney stated that he has prepared a draft resolution based on his interpretation of the City Council's consensus of the last consideration of this appeal. He added that a copy of this draft reso- lution has been sent to interested parties, and comments have been received from various parties, along with the transcript of the hearing. He sug- gested the resolution be moved as drafted, and then adjustments and changes can be made. Leroux/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2427, A Resolution Denying An Application for a Conditional Use Permit by Scott County Lumber Co, Inc. and Bert Notermann for the Removal of Sand and Gravel, and moved its adoption. Leroux/Lebens moved to amend Resolution No. 2427 to change No. 8 to read: "The City Council determines the applicant has not met this criteria based upon comments made by Mr. Shardlow, who prepared the Environmental Assessment Worksheet, and the fact that other items in the resolution state that the proposed extraction is not in conformance with surrounding land uses and therefore not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan." Cncl. Leroux continued to quote from the transcript of Mr. Shardlow's testimony, in which he states that if findings exist which substantiate denial of the conditional use permit, then it is inconsistent with the Comp Plan. Motion to amend Resolution No. 2427 carried unanimously. The Ass'.t City Attorney acknowledged an error in Criteria No. 1 (a) . He said that in addition to the written appraisal given by the applicant's expert which dealt with Killarney Hills, he also gave his opinion indicat- ing he believed other properties immediately surrounding this property would not go down in value and, in fact, he thought they would go up in value. He suggested if City Council agreed, opinion should be changed to "appraisal" in that first sentence. Colligan/Vierling moved to amend Resolution No. 2427 to- change Criteria No.- 1 (a) as follows: "(a) No appraisal was presented by the applicant. . ." Motion to amend carried unanimously. The Ass't City Attorney recited that the Supreme Court has said that the City Council is unique and can make a determination concerning property values because of its knowledge of the community, tax base and annual valuation, which gives it a special insight,. with or without expert testi- mony. Resolution No. 2427 as amended: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Vierling/Colligan moved to remove from the table the- rezoning request from I-2 to B-2 for a 10 acre parcel lying within the NE 4 of -the SE 4 of Sec. 4-115-22, by Baron Development Corp. and Cecil Behringer. Motion carried unanimously. Shakopee City Council August 20, 1985 Page 8 The Ass't City Attorney explained the procedure for consideration of this request. He would like to go over the 4 criteria set forth in the zoning ordinance for rezoning, discuss the facts and come to a consensus on each one. Cncl. Colligan will be abstaining from all discussions and consensus opinions and the vote. Therefore, it will take a vote of 5 out of 5 to approve a rezoning request. He went over the criteria as follows: No. 1: "The original zoning ordinance is in error." Cncl. Leroux stated his belief that the original zoning was not in error and that the indica- tions for industrial use in that area were appropriate at the time they were made. He continued that Shakopee has areas where the zoning is mixed and there are problems there. He said the industries that came into this zoning knew that it was industrial and would remain so. Consensus was to agree the original zoning is still appropriate. No. 2: "Significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place." The Asst City Attorney said this is more of a philosophical opinion. Cncl. Vierling stated she believes this City Council has always been very progressive and lookedat what will promote growth in the City, and acted ip that manner. Cncl. Leroux added that one year ago it was decided the City didn't want to change any of its basic goals in connection with the moratorium. Mayor Reinke added that during that moratorium period, outside consultants looked at the Comp Plan and gave an opportunity to look at goals and objectives and make changes if desired. Consensus was that significant changes have not occurred, after due contem- plation during the moratorium period after the siting of the racetrack. No. 3: "Significant changes in city-wide or neighborhood development pat- terns have occurred." Cncl. Vierling admitted there -were some planned development changes made overall. Consensus was that overall development patterns remained fairly stable in the particular area along CR83. Cncl. Leroux refuted the claim that the racetrack itself caused a development change, because the I-2 has always carried a commercial recreational facility as a conditional use. No. 4: "Implementing the comprehensive plans, growth and management pro- grams. Cncl. Vierling declared the Comp Plan does not need this rezoning to help implement its growth. Cncl. Leroux agreed that what was done a year ago was a reconsideration which substantiated the Comp Plan and strengthened it. Mayor Reinke added that during that reconsideration with outside consultants, it was determined there were adequate areas- for every zone available for adequate development. Consensus was that the changing of large parcels is not necessary to im- plement the Comp Plan. The Ass't City Attorney pointed out that those 4 items are the required criteria for rezoning, but other issues can be considered. He brought Shakopee City Council August 20, 1985 Page 9 5 up the recommendation of the Planning Commission that this request be denied because it constitutes spot zoning. Cncl. Vierling recalled the joint meeting between City Council and Planning Commission this spring in which everyone agreed they were opposed to spot zoning, and she believes this would be spot zoning. Cncl. Leroux stated his belief that the use constitutes spot zoning, not the size of the parcel, and he doesn't think these uses should be mixed. Mayor Reinke asked if there were any other questions, and there was no response. Leroux/Lebens moved to direct the Ass't City Attorney to prepare the pro- per resolution denying this rezoning request. Motion carried with Cncl. Colligan abstaining. Cncl. Leroux, Chairman of the City Hall Siting Committee, gave background on the procedures and various sites considered. Cncl. Lebens responded to the request for a City Hall site downtown, that the committee ruled out buying another old building and trying to remodel it like was done with this present City Hall building. She thinks that would be very costly, and they would prefer open land. Discussion ensued regarding the stimulus to downtown which might be given by locating City Hall downtown. Cncl. Leroux went over the survey made of outgoing and incoming visits to City Hall in connection with other downtown stops. He said the Library site was .looked at because the City already owns it, but it didn't come out high in the weighting process. The recommended site on Gorman Street was defended- as an area of growth in the City which is vacant land and room to expand. Cncl. Leroux thought putting the City Hall downtown would be largely symbolic. Gary Laurent, Chairman of Downtown Committee, said he would like to repre- sent the feelings of many people downtown, not just the Downtown Committee, who hope the City Hall is sited downtown. He said the Committee's request for a site downtown would be additional to that one recommended, not instead of it, for further research. The site they put forth, the vacant Minnegasco building, shouldn't be equated with the present City Hall. They feel it would be very cost effective to remodel and add onto it; it has a good lo- cation for accessibility and is relatively new. That building was designed to accomodate a second story and there is parking in place around it. They believe this will be a viable choice after the future changes take place downtown, at half the cost of a new site. He understands the Committee set aside costs because this is too preliminary, but he- knows the people of Shakopee are very cost conscious. Mr. Laurent acknowledged that the Gorman Street site got the most votes on the survey, but it was listed first -and statistics have shown that the choice listed first gets most of the votes. He added that the location of the present site has a lot to do with the fact that City Hall visits are not tied into other downtown stops, as it is so difficult to get to other parts of downtown from here. Mr. Laurent said the Downtown Committee is asking for consideration of some other items and if a preliminary site evaluation is going to be done, to include a site downtown and apply some cost considerations to it. Shakopee City Council August 20, 1985 Page 10 Bill Wermerskirchen, member of Downtown Committee, said according to the weighting factor, no site downtown would rate high because a building would have to be removed. Other developments have been done to remove blighted buildings. He pointed out the building they prefer is close to the post office and courthouse, has developed parking lots on three sides, can accomodate another story and is a new brick building. He has seen Downtown Committees in past years fail because they didn't have the sup- port of the City Council. This time there is a real support by City Council, but it would be a real disappointment if the City Hall was re- moved from downtown after it had been here for so many years. He feels downtown was a real close second choice that should be considered. He added that 19 out of 156 people who said they made other downtown stops isn't too bad, considering this location. Terry Forbord, Downtown Committee member and citizen of Shakopee, wondered how the number of people at City Hall making other downtown stops compared to the percentage of response to the survey. He stated he appreciates the support of the City Council for the downtown and he feels good strides are being made rapidly. He believes that numbers, statistics and weighting factors can be construed in different ways. He would like to see a site in downtown considered in the final selection process. He can think of many delapidated warehouse buildings in .Minneapolis that have been renovated beautifully. Whether or not a City Hall downtown is a symbol, it is still needed. Tim Keane, Downtown Committee member, said there are good reasons why the site criteria and questionaire should not be considered the last word on the City Hall site. City Council should seriously consider the message to merchants and businesses if Vhey turn their backs on the downtown. Downtown does have its problems, but it is also a unique charm among many cities that do not have a downtown. He believes the City must take the lead in preserving the vitality of downtown. Bill Wermerskirchen pointed out there is no one in attendance to speak for the other sites. He really feels the way the town is being developed, with the mall at one end, then downtown, and CR17 quickly building up that the City will grow in a "U" shape with the houses in the middle, which he doesn't think will work very.well. He doesn't think -the City Hall will fit in any- where else as well as downtown. The City Admr. suggested that when a firm is brought in to analyze one site, it probably won't cost a lot more to analyze a second, in the even- tuality that you will need that information. If the original site goes down in a vote, there will be more cost involved later to reanalyze. Cncl. Lebens agreed with that idea, but felt the more appropriate site would be City-owned property where the Library is located. Cncl. Leroux recommended the re-formation of the City Hall Siting Committee to consider an additional downtown site for acquisition and potential construction costs, and to request the Downtown Committee attend the meetings. Wampach/Vierling moved to direct the City Hall Siting Committee to con- sider an additional site downtown and recommend a professional firm to analyze the sites for acquisition, construction costs and impact. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried_ Shakopee City Council August 20, 1985 Page 11 The City Admr, gave background regarding the request by Scottland, Inc. for $850,000 IRB's. This is greater than the entitlement Shakopee has, and an additional $52,000 would have to be sought from other cities. Bruce Malkerson, attorney for Scottland, stated that if the additional IRB's cannot be found they will just scale back the planned office improvements, and still proceed with the project. Leroux/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2428, A Resolution Establishing the Date for a Public Hearing on a Proposal to Undertake and Finance a Project Under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, and moved its adoption. Cncl. Leroux pointed out an error in the .application that they are in an I-1 rather than an I-2 zone. In any case, the zoning is correct for the use. Motion carried unanimously. The Community Develop. Dir. went over the draft policy for the use of mortgage revenue bonds, now that there is an application for them. The bond counsel has prepared a schedule which requires the setting of a hearing on September 3. She would like to proceed with that schedule to adopt the policy .before the hearing to consider the use of the bonds. She has already explained to Scottland the criteria addressed by City Council, and the only thing she would like a clarification on is the issue of owner equity. The draft policy now has no owner equity require- ment. The bond attorney said it would not be desireable to have that requirement because of the small margin on a lot of projects, which would tend to only push up the rents. -, Mr. Malkerson said they are doing a project in Burnsville now where there is no rgquirement of owner equity. He -added the banking institution looks at the over-all project and comes up with a percentage. The Ass't City Attorney .said his recommendation is the same as the bond . counsel--which is to not require owner equity, and in that way the City does not in any manner appear- to warranty the project. Cncl. Leroux countered that the requirement with IDB's is not to .insure this project, but to insure that the participant is participating. Mr. Malkerson added that with housing revenue bonds, 20% of the units must be held for low income rental, which is what the City -is getting back. Leroux/Vierling moved to not require owner equity in the mortgage revenue bond application. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Lebens moved to direct City- officials to execute a proposal-with Braun -Engineering and Testing for on-site soils and materials inspection for the 1985-2 Eaglewood Street Reconstruction at a cost not to exceed - $4,500.00. - Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize the Public Works Dept. to purchase a Miller wire feed welder from Warren Clay, 1912 Eagle Creek Blvd., Shakopee, -for .the amount of $1250.00. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Shakopee City Council August 20, 1985 Page 12 Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize the purchase of telephone equipment in the amount of $535.80 and charge to appropriate departments. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize proper City officials to execute an agreement with Kawasaki Corporation authorizing the City to maintain the Civil Defense warning siren on their property. Motion carried. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None The City Admr. gave additional information relative the traffic problem and said the State is seeking some funding that would allow some overtime work on the detour area. Discussion of the traffic problems continued. Canterbury Downs and Renaissance Festival are both advising patrons to not use Hwy. 169. Wampach/Lebens moved to provide police officers for traffic control at intersection of Hwy. 169/101 from 3:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. from Wednesday through Sunday. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Colligan/Lebens moved that bills in the amount of $290,715.05 be allowed and ordered paid. Roll Call: Ayes;Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. The City Admr. pointed out various figures in the 1986 proposed budget that Council should review prior to the budget worksession August 27, 1985. Leroux/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2425, A Resolution Accepting Work on the Tahpah Park Sewer and Water service, No. 84-3. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. The City Admr. asked for consideration of his request to take all his vacation time at one time, along with the ICMA Conference he will be attending, from roughly October 16th to November 9th. The Mayor asked Councilmembers concerned about the length of the vacation to contact the City Administrator. Lebens/Vierling moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m. Judith S. Cox City Clerk Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE ADJ.REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA August 27, 1985 The Mayor called the budget work session to order at 7: 06 p.m. on August 27 , 1985 and asked the clerk to call the roll. Present Wampach, Vierling, Leroux, Colligan and Mayor Reinke. Absent Lebens. The Mayor asked if there were any interested citizens in the - audience wishing to speak on any item- not on the agenda. There were none. The City Administrator asked to briefly discuss the selection process for filling the vacancy of City Engineer. He asked if Council had a selection committee when the previous Engineer was hired and/or whether the Council was interested in inviting one or two professionals to sit in on the screening and interview process. The City Administrator offered two names and those were Fred Moore, Public Works Director of the City of Plymouth, and Chuck Weichsel- baum of Mn/Dat. After some discussion John Leroux and Dean Colligan volunteered to serve on the screening committe and it was the consensus of City Council that the two professionals should be invited to participate in the process. It was further decided that staff, along with the professionals, should do the first round of screening. Jerry Wampach indicated he might sit in to view the process as an observer tince he had not done this in the past. The Mayor introduced Paul Wermerskirchen who was present on behalf of the Industrial Commercial Commission (ICC) . Paul summarized the ICC ' s recommendation to the City Council to hire a full time Economic Development Director for 1986 . Paul beiefly outlined the reasons the ICC was making the recommendation and thanked the Council for allowing them to make the presentation during the budget work session. Jim O'Neill, ICC member, also spoke about the ICC' s request in an effort to clarify precisely what it was that the Committee _hoped an Economic Development Director would do for. the City of Shakopee. Jim suggested that the ideal candidate for such a position would be a person like the Economic Development Director hired by the City of Maple Grove. - - After considerable discussion, Mayor Reinke asked what the position might- cost and Jim O'Neill replied that the salary for such a position would be $30 , 000 to $35 ,000 to obtain the right person. John Leroux commented that in addition to this salary request there would be fringe benefit costs and overhead costs. John Leroux asked if it would be possible to utilize an existing City employee in the position at a lesser expense. Jim O'Neill, Dean Colligan and John Anderson all responded that for the position Shakopee City Council August 27 , 1985 Page 2 to be successful it took a unique personality that combined strength in sales, building, promotions and financial packaging. Jerry Wampach asked Jim O'Neill if there would be any groups in Shakopee that might object to such a position. Jim said that, on the contrary, real estate development normally really appreciate such a position and the help such a position can provide them. Greg Voxland, Finance Director , introduced Dwight Tange who was present to respond to his proposal for risk management services . Greg reviewed his earlier memo to Council regarding the services offered by Mr. Tange and indicated that Council had wished to speak with Mr Tange about certain aspects of the proposal. Gloria Vierling and Jerry Wampach asked a number of questions regarding the proposed list of services. The City Administrator asked what the minimum acceptable contract fee would be, and Mr. Tange replied that $200 a month would be the minimum. The Finance Director indicated that the proposed 1986 budget included $3 ,000 for such services. The City Administrator then reviewed the process by which each department head would briefly explain their 1986 budget requests to City Council for questions and answers. He stated that the departments would be considered in the order listed on page 4 of the preliminary 1986 budget. The first presentation was regarding administration and the City Administrator explained the purpose for the additional $3 , 000 included for training and the additional $2 , 700 included for personnel expenses. The second presentation was on the City Clerk ' s budget. Judy Cox explained the reason for the requested increase of $9 , 000 in equip- ment, $4 ,200 in elections , $3 , 000 in printing, $1 , 600 in postage and $2 , 000 in fees for recording documents at Scott County. Council members asked several questions about the potential for the City increasing its fees to compensate for additional postage and filing fees. The third presentation covered the Finance budget. Gregg Voxland explained the purpose for the additional $5 , 000 in equipment, $1,000 in conferences and $3 , 000 for risk manager services. The fourth division budget discussed was the legal division. John Anderson indicated that the estimated increase of $10 ,000 for '86 was based on actual expenditures in 184 and expected expenditures in 185 based on the first seven months of expenditures . City Attorney Julius Coller outlined the increase in his work load and presented Council with a memo covering his request for an increase in his retainer. Mr. Coller also pointed out that he performs a number of services for the City that normally would carry fairly Shakopee City Council August 27 , 1985 - - Page 3 lar e service charges such as abstracting. After considerable g discussion Gloria Vierling moved sendJall abstractstoCity the motion to have the Citcantbill other funds, project or developers Hall so that the_ -City passed.as appropriate. Motion p The fifth division budget discussed was the Community Development rt ime Jeanne And explained her regallocation whichawastdue est for a nev division. personnel clerk typist and the increased p shifting of time allocations from neealso1addedlthat the Planning visions her to sh J planner employees charge their time eq an additional City out the Commission passed a motion requesting the increased work load and commented fEconomicbDeveiop- j because of est as the least ' Industrial commerce O eJeanne�characterized her re department which is ment Director. her expensive way to provide some relief to Council members asked under an increasingly heavy work load. questions and it was the consensus to thetlongnterm needs st several qu roach ees find probably represented a bandaid app of her employ of her department. Jeanne commented many read so thin it frustrating at times because has staff oardsis pand committees things cannot- be done as quickly in final budget The Mayor commented that if , roach might like. Council decides to proceed with a bandthe app appropriations, it recognized the long it probably should go on re fordbetternsolutions; term needs and was looking a mechanism Mayor Reinke also- discussed his pctor re for finding r. The ll for the Economic Developmeno iD1Development1Drvice that to bill an Eco the City considered hiring believe , made the point that he feltashonetm. htainitially Ce Mayor as much did not -benefit the onlyltY tax- dollar because the City receives fifteen clocated. inof cShakopee. nts b generated if new industry an Economic that might be g provided by _ Furthermore, i said that the service ent Director would be targeted to benefit the develop- like ! Developm like merry Staff t and for that reason felt that, ment community there ought to be a service charg planning services, number -of other communities that have was asked to check with a numb have any charges Economic Development Directors to see if they ' for services. toor - sixth division budget reviewed was government buildings. LeRoy The si t Houser was present to discuss the ssand atetheePublacdWo works replacement program at the fire station garage. Initial discussion focused on the. increased hours or g the buildings and then shifted to the 3 custodial work in cleaning Council members asked if there was door replacement program. Administrator ' s budget recommendation some logic behind the City statio City i to delete the door replacement hat the fire cn Y logic behindnthe request was Administrator indicate d that- � to - spread read out the cost of the door replacement program over two p Shakopee City Council August 27 , 1985 Page 4 years. Joe Ries , Fire Chief , and LeRoy Houser discussed with Council the practicality of replacing one or two panels on damaged or defective doors rather than completely replacing the doors. Both indicated that this was possible but not necessarily desireable. The seventh divisional budget discussed was the inspection division. LeRoy Houser was present to explain why the proposed' 86 budget was actually less than the 1985 budget. LeRoy and the City Admin- istrator discussed the proposed $10 ,000 cut in professional services for specialized technical review and how it could be handled through a budged amendment if it were actually necessary. LeRoy also in- dicated that staff had not reflected the new 1985 building code fee structure in-_ the -revenue estimates for 1986 Be provided -an illus- tratin of the new fee structure and indicated that it might mean close to a 30 increase in revenues. The eight division budget discussed was the police division. Tom Brownell was present to review the reason for the increases in his 1986 budget. He indicated that approximately 3800_hours, roughly equivalent to one and one-half officers , was lost through vacation, holidays, sick time, etc. For this reason and others he said he was unable to make the present schedule using the four day ten hour per day shift provide coverage with at least two officers on duty twenty four hours a day. He said in the past that normally the early morning shift had one officer on and that it had make some sense because this was the period with the least amount of activity. He indicated that,the number of summer calls in ' 85 had increased dramatically compared to 184, and that projecting the numbers could mean as many as 13 ,000 more calls in 1986 . He also indicated that more of these calls were occurring during the early morning shift thus making him less comfortable with the present schedule -having one man on duty. Council questioned the number of police calls created by Canterbury Downs and Valley- fair. Tom responded to the question, and then the City -Admin- istrator discussed Valleyfair ' s request for a change under its 1981 contract for services from $9 ,240 to $8 ,000 per year. Council members discussed the Valleyfair request at length. In addition, there was considerable .discussion about Tom' s request for two additional policemen and how they would resolve the present scheduling problems- and relieve some of the work load caused by the increase in anticipated calls in 186. The ninth division budget discussed was Engineering. Ray Ruuska was present to go over the changes in the Engineering division budget which focused primarily on new capital equipment. Ray listed the new equipment the department had requested and why it was requested. John Leroux asked about the traffic counters and the adviseability of getting new traffic counters when they are frequently damaged or vandalized. Ray replied that the current traffic counters were literally falling apart and that they had been purch- ased used from the State. He also indicated that the City could reduce the cost of traffic counters by purchasing used counters again and that used counters would provide the basic data the department had been collecting at a cheaper cost. Shakopee City Council August 27, 1985 Page 5 The tenth division budget presentation covered the Streets and Alleys. Harry Pass was present to discuss some of the changes listed in the 1986 budget focusing primarily on a memo prepared by Jim Karkanen justifying one additional street person for 1986. There were a number of questions from Council Members which Harry answered. Harry indicated that the department was not accomplishing all that it knew it should accomplish and that the frustration that this caused was reflected in the morale of the men who were unable to get some tasks done now that they had been accomplishing in previous years. The eleventh division budget discussed was the Park Division. Howie Heller was present to discuss the proposed increases in the Park division budget. Many of the increases were mandated because of the changes in FLSA, insurance increases, . etc. Howie also indicated that the ,Park Department was in desperate need of one additional person because it had lost the assistance it formally had through Federal Job Training programs such as CETA. He explained that the crew, during the spring, normally got behind and could not catch up during the balance of the summer season. Councilmember Leroux said he was aware of some of the problems like the crew not being ablut to cut weeds under the Tahpah Park bleachers. Howie indicated that the crew simply had to focus on the priority projects and could not get other things done what were less important simply because they didn't have the manpower. Howie also responded to a few_ questions Council had regarding the Forestry division which is staffed by the Park Department. y The Council closed out its discussion of divisional budgets with a discussion of the Council division budget. The Mayor indicated that there was a slight decrease in the total division budget request and that. he felt that it was probably time for Council to have one of the existing secretaries designated as the Council ' s shared secretary and that time for the secretary be reflected in the Council division budget. He stated that this would facilitate people calling in to City Hall because one secretary would be the Council contact point. He also mentioned several other small benefits tnat this would provide the Council , staff and public. The City Administrator briefly reviewed the total personnel requests which, including the ICC and Planning Commission ' s - - requests , amount to seven additional personnel. He indicated that -the preliminary budget as presented only included one and one half additional positions and that it looked as though- it would be difficult to finance those positions. Council acknowledged that they had their -work cut out for them . Under other business the Mayor requested that staff look into catering an Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) breakfast for 15 to 20 people. He said this was a regional breakfast that the AMM rotated from community to community and that the breakfast was used to recruit new AMM members. Staff was assigned the task of putting together a breakfast location and contacting the AMM for specifics. Shakopee City Council August 27 , 1985 Page 6 Also under other business the City Administrator reviewed the Scottland Development Corporation application for mortgage revenue bonds. He indicated that the City was in a period of flux as it tried to adopt a final mortgage revenue bond applica- tion policy, and that this created an awkward situation for Scottland' s application which required an application fee. He said that Jeanne Andre and he had discussed the possibility of allowing the application fee to be refunded up until the City adopts a formai policy. After the policy is adopted, any application fee , like other application fees , would be non- refundable. It was the consensus of Council that this would be a reasonable interim approach. Colligan/Vierling moved to adjourn. _ Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11 : 37 p.m. Judith S. Cox John K. Anderson City Clerk Acting Recording Secretary s t lO&,7 action alert Rn league of minnesota citieSAU,, 2 CONGRESSIONAL ACTION ON FLSA NEEDS SUPPORT FROM CITIES Legislation introduced in the U .S . Senate to provide exemption from Federal Fair Labor Standards overtime pay requirements for cities (and states) needs bipartisan support . All members of the Minnesota Congressional Delegation must hear immediately from local officials urging action to deal with both the problems of overtime compensation and volunteers . If cities do not generate significant momentum in Congress in the next month (September ) for changes or exemptions , city lobbying efforts are not likely !:o successfully overcome serious Opposition by labor organizations . Resolutions from city councils are needed to urge Congressmen and Senator Boschwitz to support S. 1570 , a bill �proposed by Senator Don Nickles (R-Okla. ) . Senator Durenberger is one of the co-sponsors of this bill The bill would permit an exemption from FLSA overtime pay requirements for state and local employees, permitting the use of compensatory time off in lieu of overtime compensation; grant exempt status (from FLSA) for individuals who volunteer services for state and local government; and eliminate the retroactive application of Federal Fair Labor Standards to state and local government . There is no legislation comparable to S. 1570 in the U .S . House of Representatives . To date, response from House members has not been encouraging. Most proposals under corisideration would only assist public safety employee work shifts to permit law enforcement and firefighter personnel to take compen:,atory time off in place of overtime pay if such an arrangement IS made part of a contract or collective bargaining agreement . While several Minnesota Congressmen admit the impact of FLSA requirements is much broader than that addressed in current House proposals , to-date none have agreed to support more comprehensive exemption; for city employees . Without increased pressure from local officials, it is possible that the only changes cities will get will be to provide some adjustment of pay requirements for public safety employees ( but even that may be limited, as noted above . ) The National League of Cities , along with other state and local government associations , supports S. 1570 , which incorporates changes requested by NLC in a July 22 letter to President Reagan. Strong support by cities on this matter is essential if Congressional action is to be forthcoming. Many members of Congress are simply not 1 80 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 551 01 C612) 227-5600 hearing that the impact of Garcia v. San Antonio (U .S. Supreme Court decision of Feb. 19 , 1985 mandating application of FLSA to state and local government) is causing problems for cities . Liability questions for cities as well as the immediate high cost of volunteer services make FLSA one of the most significant challenges facing city officials. With a 2-3 year possible liability exposure to employee lawsuits and a 3 year limit for willful violation, cities stand to risk harsh and punitive actions resulting from FLSA enforcement scheduled to begin October 15 , with retroactive liability to last April 151 Some of the most damaging results will hamper volunteer firefighter services in many small cities where city employees holding regular city personnel positions also act as volunteer firefighters . According to FLSA regulations , such employees who earn $2.50 or more per fire call are considered non-exempt and must be accorded all overtime compensation under FLSA requirements . Average hourly pay for both regular employment and volunteer firefighter duty is the generally applied method of computation to determine the base rate which is then multiplied by 1/2 times the number of hours over 40 to calculate the overtime pay due . Emphasize the difficulties and com,)lications that result for your city in applying the cumbersome FLSA regulations to city operations and personnel management . Be specific about increased costs and the harm resulting to the carrying out of basic city services. Please send a copy of City Council Resolutions and/or correspondence W o the LMC Office. Much depends on your response in this matter. We need to make our Congressional Delegation aware that this is not a partisan issue, but rather an essential issue of directly affecting the ability of cities to deliver basic service at a reasonable cost . r TO: CITY OF SHA.KOPFE I oould li!�e to a,!.H.ress the city council at the Seotember 3, 1.985 meeting cnncerninn �itv Ordinance Chapter 10, Section 10.20, Dangerous Weapons and Articles. I would like the council to consider leaalizinq how huntina, on the property owned by Peavey, as well as Valleyfair. Any person interested in how hunting in this area would be required to first gain written permission from Valleyfair or Peavey. These properties are located on the "forth side of Countv Road 16, which according to City Ordinance Chapter 10, Section 1.0.20, Subd. 4 - R - 5, makes them off limits. Roth properties are over the required 4n acres, tieing large tracks of wooded land that stop at the Minnesnta River. Row hunting in this area is not in violation of County or State Laws, onlY SIlakonee City Ordinance. Ron Carlson Safety SEC . 10.20. DANGEROUS WEAPONS AND ARTICLES . Subd. 1 . Acts Prohibited. It is unlawful for any per- son to; A. Recklessly handle or use a gun or other dan- gerous weapon or explosive so as to endanger the safety of another, or B. Intentionally point a gun of any kind, capable of injuring or killing a human being and whether loaded or un- loaded, at or toward another; or C. Manufacture or sell for any unlawful purpose any weapon known as a slung-shot or sand club; or D. Manufacture, transfer or possess metal knuckles or a switch blade knife opening automatically; or E. Possess any other dangerous article or sub- stance for the purpose of being used unlawfully as a weapon against another; or F. Sell or have in his possession any device de- signed to silence or muffle the discharge of a firearm; or G. Permit, as a parent or guardian, any child un- der fourteen years of age to handle or use , outside of the par- ent's or guardian's presence , a firearm or air gun of any kind, or any ammunition or explosive; or H. Furnish a minor under eighteen years of age with a firearm, air gun, ammunition, or explosive without the written consent of his parent or guardian or of the Police De- partment. Subd. 2. Exception. Nothing in Subdivision 1 of this Section shall prohibit the possession of the articles therein mentioned if the purpose of such possession is for public exhibi- tion by museums or collectors of art. Subd. 3. Discharge of Firearms and Explosives . It is unlawful for any person to fire or discharge any cannon, gun, pistol or other firearm, firecracker, sky rocket or other fire- works , air gun, air rifle , or other similar device commonly re- ferred to as a B-B gun. Subd. 4. Exceptions . A. Nothing in Subdivision 3 of this Section shall apply to a display of fireworks by an organization or group of organizations authorized in writing by the Council, or to a po- lice officer in the discharge of his duty, or to a person in the lawful defense of his person or family. This Section shall not apply to the discharge of firearms in a range authorized in writ- ing by the Council. B. Nothing in Subdivision 3 of this Section shall apply to hunting or target shooting if the following provisions ' are observed. 1. That only B-B guns , shot guns with shot shells , or bows and arrows are used. 4-1-78 -232- eft 2. That shooting is done on contiguous tracts of at least forty acres . 3. That the person shooting either owns or has the written permission of the owner of the tract. 4. That the gun is not discharged within 500 feet of a building or public road. 5 . That the area within which the shooting is done lies south of 13th Avenue extended easterly and County State Aid Highway 16 , and east of Spencer Street and County Road 79. C. Nothing in Subdivision 3 of this Section shall apply to the discharge of firearms in such areas , and under such conditions of supervision, as the Council may specifically per- mit. Subd. 5. Possession and Sale of Fireworks . It is un- lawful for any person to sell , possess , or have in possession for the purpose of sale , except as allowed in Subdivision 4 of this Section, any firecrackers , sky rockets or other fireworks . Subd. 6 . Exposure of Unused Container. It is unlawful for any person, being the owner or in possession or control thereof, to permit an unused refrigerator, ice box, or other con- tainer, sufficiently large to retain any child and with doors which fasten automatically when closed, to expose the same acces- sible to children, without removing the doors , lids , hinges , or latches . Subd. 7. Use of Bow and Arrow. Except as otherwise provided in this Section, it is unlawful for any person to shoot a bow and arrow except in the Physical Education Program in a school supervised by a member of its faculty, a community-wide supervised class or event specifically authorized by the Chief of Police , or a bow and arrow range authorized by the Council. Subd. 8. Model Rockets . It is unlawful for any person to fire or set off model rockets except under supervision and re- quired approval of the Council. Subd. 9. Fireworks Defined. For purposes of this Sec- tion, the term "fireworks" means any substance or combination of substances or article prepared for the purpose of producing a vi- sible or an audible effect by combustion, explosion, deflagration, or detonation, and includes blank cartridges , toy cannons , and toy canes in which explosives are used, the type of balloons which require fire underneath to propel them, firecrackers , tor- pedoes , skyrockets , Roman candles , daygo bombs , sparklers , or other fireworks of like construction, and any fireworks contain- ing any explosive or inflammable compound, or any tablet or other device containing any explosive substance and commonly used as fireworks . The term "fireworks" shall not include toy pistols , toy guns , in which paper caps containing 25 hundredths grains or less of explosive compound are used, and toy pistol caps which contain less than 20 hundredths grains of explosive mixture. -233- 4-1-78 e c American Red Cross Minneapolis Area Chapter 11 Dell Place at Groveland Ave. Minneapolis,Minnesota 55403 (612)871-7676 August 14, 1985 r The Scott County Chapter of the American Red Cross, in conjunction with the Mineapolis Chapter, has asked the United Way of Greater Minneapolis to allocate $37,000 specifically to Scott County human service needs. These dollars would be used for five different pro- grams--Disaster, Blood, Safety, Youth, and Service to Military Fami- lies. In the past, Red Cross has reached a minimum of q 000 County residents with these programs, but as our population grows, so do their needs. We need your help to secure this money for the Scott County Red Cross! Please express your support of this request to: James Colville, Executive Director United Way 404 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55404 Send a copy of the letter to: • Margaret James, Executive Director Minneapolis Area Chapter American Red Cross 11 Dell Place Minneapolis, MN 55403 If you have any questions, please call Margaret at 871-7676 or me at 445-7750. With your help, Scott County residents will receive increased human services. Thomas E. Muelken Chairman of the Board Scott County Chapter Anoka Northwest Hennepin South Hennepin Branch Office Branch Office Branch Office 2013 2nd Avenue N. 3915 AdairAvenue N. 7145 Harriet Avenue S. Anoka,MN 55303 Crystal.MN 55422 Richfield,MN 55423 Partner with United way (612)421-3398 (612)533-3048 (612)861-1888 WHEREAS the United Way of Minneapolis Area currently provides funding to thirteen agencies offering programs ranging from counseling victims of child abuse to disaster relief, which are physically located in the southern metropolitan area; and WHEREAS there are an additional 53 United Way participating agencies offering more than 150 programs which serve residents of Scott County and the southern metropoli- tan area; and WHEREAS the United Way Board of Directors has made a strong commitment to expanding services to the Scott County and the southern metropolitan area; and WHEREAS the efforts of thousands of community volunteers enable the United Way to maintain fundraising and administrative costs under 9¢ to every contributed dollar ; BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Council of Shakopee hereby support United Way Day, Wednesday, September 18 , 1985, in the Shakopee community and further encourage local business and their employees to participate in this event. MEMO TO:-w.--John K. Anderson; FROM: Judi Simac, City Plannernisrafor RE: Appeal of Planning Commission decision by John DuBois DATE: August 27 , 1985 Introduction• Mr. John DuBois has appealed the decision of the Planning Commission that mini-storage facilities are not a permitted use in the B-1 zoning district. Background: --- At the July 18► 1985 meeting the -Planning Commission discussed a proposal by John DuBois to construct a mini-storage facility on his property at 1705 W. Third Ave., (see attached_map-)-. -- The __ proposal includes the conversion of the- existing house on the - property to an office-, storage and security center and the con- struction of an accessory structure consisting of mini-storage cubicles. Staff had requested the Planning Commission to make a determination as to whether: 1) the proposed use was a permitted use in the B-1 district and 2 ) was the proposed storage building a permitted accessory structure? The Planning Commission directed staff to further research the discussion that took place when the Clay Addn. was proposed for a storage facility, and the background on the construction and ownership of existing buildirngs in the area. The information was received in the August 8 , 1985 agenda packet. The Shakopee Zoning Code allows storage facilities as a conditional use in the light industrial district and a permitted use in the heavy industrial district. A survey of Metro communities including Burnsville, Bloomington., Prior lake, Eden Prairie and St. .Louis Park indicated that the most common district for mini- warehouse facilities- was industrial. Only Prior Lake allowed them as a conditional use in the highway business district. In regard to Mr.. DuBois ' property, the characteristics of the parcel do create some hardships for developing B-1 type uses. These hardships would include the unavailability of urban services , no accessiblity to a major highway (nor actual frontage) and the existing non-conforming house. However, staff has been consistent in determining thatthe industrial districts are provided for storage facilities. This type of request has been very common in the last year, in fact last week a developer inquired as to whether the vacant lot north of the proposed VFW at CSAR 17 and 3rd Avenue could be developed for mini-storage facilities . - Action Requested: Offer Resolution No. 2430 , a Resolution Denying an Appeal from a Decision of the Shakopee Board of Adjustment and Appeals by John Dubois and move for its adoption. Attachment tw RESOLUTION NO. 2430 A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE SHAKOPEE PLANNING COMMISSION BY JOHN DUBOIS WHEREAS, John DuBois having first requested a zoning district land use determination of the Planning Commission dated June 28, 1985 , for a determination on the provisions of the Shakopee Zoning ordinance, Section 11. 29 , Subd. 2 to wit: permitted uses in the B-1 Highway Business zoning district; and WHEREAS, the property upon which the appeal is being made is described as RLS #99, Parcel B; 1705 W. Third Avenue; and WHEREAS, said appeal is for property presently zoned as B-1 Highway Business; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council on September 3 , 1985 held a public hearing on the appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT - RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL- OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that upon hearing the advice and recommendations of Planning Commission and the Shakopee City Council that the aforementioned appeal be and hereby denied, - . as follows: The decision of the Planning Commission that mini-storage facilities are not a permitted use in the B-1 zoning district is affirmed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to Shakopee City Code 11. 04 , Subd. 4-F. All decisions of the City Council are final. Adopted in session of the Shakopee City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 19 Mayor City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 1985. City Attorney Shakopee Planning Commission August 8, 1985 Page 11 CL Discussion ensued regarding whether or not variances would be considered for accessory structures, and consensus was the zoning ordinance is known at the time of the platting and there should be no need. Motion carried unanimously. MkUSSION =":J.. DUBOI9 DEVELOPMENT:.1LEQUEST The City Planner went over the information she received and recommended the proposed mini-storage not be allowed in the B-1 District. Gehl Tucker, attorney for Mr. DuBois, stated he believes this use of mini- storage is consistent with the zoning district under service establish- ment, because it provides a service to the general public. He doesn't think it should be in the industrial zone with semis and large loads and warehouses. He also checked with some other cities and found the zoning to be a grey area. He said Burnsville allows it with highway usage; Eden Prairie has it in an industrial zone, but abuting other zones; Eagan con- sidered it under general storage; Anoka thought it would be appropriate for B-1. He emphasized it is a situation that can go both ways. He asked for consideration of this land with its extreme difficulties in development, and he thinks this is a practical solution to a difficult problem. The City Planner said her main problem with that parcel is with the poor accessability. She pointed out the precedent this could set in B-1. She agrees it is a grey area that the Commissioners have to interpret. Mr. Tucker -said he didn't want this land considered with the other parcels that had been sold nearby. He thinks this use would be an improvement to the other situations. It is se-'viced by a public road and any access would have to be .approved by the City Engineer. If no development is allowed, the value of the land is taken away from the property owner with no way to recoup. Comm. Schmitt asserted that maybe the best use of the land is the three dwellings that are presently on it. He doesn't think there is an econo- mic hardship for the .development of the property. Mr. DuBois bought the property as residential and homesteaded it. Then he platted the property and subdivided the land to get the dry storage shed. If there is an economic hardship, he thinks Mr. DuBois created it himself. He said that even though the zoning changed, the residence is still allowed. Mr. Tucker said that because of the zoning-change he can't get a secondary mortgage on the property. Discussion continued. Schmitt/VarnMaldeghem moved to -accept the staff recommendation to determine a mini-storage facility is not a permitted or conditional use in the B-1 zon- ing district, because the industrial zoning districts adequately address the proposed type of use. Motion carried with Comm. Stoltzman opposed. Chrm. Czaja informed Mr. Tucker this decision can be appealed to City Council. J:LdriU��U �ldiL::i Llo �.CiL'::::iSSiUli August 8, 1985 Page 12 DISCUSSION - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Discussion followed regarding various projects to be considered in the Capital Improvement Plan. Chrm. Czaja suggested some sort of pedestrian pathway along CR16. He was told the design is being done by the County, and he should talk to them about his concerns. Lane/Schmitt moved to recommend to City Council inclusion of the following projects in the Capital Improvement Plan: 1. Dean's Lake Outlet control to be done soon. 2. Valley Industrial Blvd. North 3. Construction of a frontage road from Howe Chemical to Cretex Drive. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION - CORRESPONDENCE IN RECORD Consensus was to attach correspondence, reports, petitions, etc. only to the original minutes and not to the copies sent out to Commissioners and other parties. INFORMATIONAL It was decided no meeting was necessary August 22, 1985. MINUTES Lane/Schmitt moved to .approve the minutes of July 11, 1985 as kept. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Lane moved that -the tape and minutes of July ll, 1985 be archived for two years. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Lane moved that the minute of July 18, 1985 be approved -as kept, with the tape and minutes being archived for two years, with a correction being made on page 9 identifying the person as Mr. Boe. Motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS The Community Develop. Dir. informed the Commissioners of the boat trip planned by the City Admr., and said she will get more information to those interested. Discussion followed regarding the incompleteness of many applications and lack of review time for some items. The City Planner said there -is a request being prepared to City Council for increased staff personnel for the-planning department. Discussion-followed. Schmitt/VanMaldeghem moved to recommend to City Council the consideration of the addition of a full-time staff person to assist the City Planner in dealing with the substantial increase in workload that has been evidenced in the last year. Motion carried unanimously. DU.S3TRIA A1C A. _AIS C k � ,� ,!'�`' f 7. ? •+4•.'^'� �t"i..� � kms""...-r'�' �`w^""r�"'i yx 1w,�r'd �"M�;,..r•� i :r7:%-t r c'�. a `� � '• r .r✓ u�'�/ '"....� S" .�� �-,� ..•�"' i i w # '�" 'a d `, .i..• fix' .e+'"'�......, , i f i _ } � It R, / � 1 - .'i y,;-,,r." �,,,.,�, .r.. j ! ._•aF".�4 i ^i � �^" } 1 1.-: ��'•'_%'••� !": t '.y✓+ —'�'. Is ,c«. - .y,.v34> - ?. ,,,.: ? •;{ { ?ju;•?.i!'-i.:.r.i"'i.-< �i ? �r: .F,F /i � ,' .+�. 4lr.Nr:'!KA• ft �p�..✓.. "`- ,,.�-�, } ' �. +'.f- 'Y 1 �.i3 '".. 7-1 �747 1 t , / '.. � ,,'• - e.aF_ Sara. - � S ' r-- 3 �. < S ......._.._ 7777 - 5 r- ••,•¢ �-. .. �__. ECF .s rr < i �f r < [ _ r.. �f : t i R2 t .. .r. - 1 / •r f ! )'tr t� _ , , i••. , �,1 't �, , ' NA .# f , (�a f�;!',tJf 1� t., '1 ;� ,� .h ` r' ) • .' r Al w- .. �! ' Ir .� i�• {'` 'a 't Is','i 1, ' i••f'' ; i•4 V� S:St, ! �: r1,{ 1•�� �l,tA.', t�fl•bi ! r:�R +, I �it ) '�)�µ' II '1 ' .. , i '•'' 1{. q .., rr�, ti: t• / l,,..1, 7 't, .,t' i� f�•.ki �K '/ I{ ' t r•K '•�{ �+ to •r "i l , , 1 ♦ 7 !+�' ! 1 }` a'' 11?'.1 ,YlI, LIIL•�%1',a `•y ,/ • • f♦ � 1 P.i'1' � 1 y I{ 'r i,t ki {�i a 14a L � ,tis 1� r: '��� • • �'•� '' ;L,• :. i•S{ � i.+ e� [ ( Z' 777 .Irl�� r!,� "i ) � ) i; t - 1.• : i` a• ) t r!. '.! ' N ' y`�' ► !,f'it • I,. p.r '• • t, ' ,; J id i' ;). 1 :t, -i�'i f, r � � ', j�. i Y � ' ! t < _ [ 't7. " ',1 a} � 1 ! y•',' i 1 �1w �it, R+ itlj/ hr , .. ,I,t ♦ ?1 . I , ',d ' 4 ? + , I t � { ) 'Mr�, I• •1 Oji I•'t .1! �' +Y' •'�,' 1 ` '.t' ~1 •�Y � ~ f'p,1 �� It �', ��' !)j.� ) l ,{ '� 'I , 1 rl't 1 1••r r ' {e � •1 1! •y s I 1 �'. AA!• f d1•'t r t? [ ':�'Y' • 'r ,! tc ai!t f4�r �� •, I r. .31..i 1[Fti ' —�R.Aw ! S4�',,�.. t�'�(� ►)' :ti I , i' •( ?�'i ••ii! �N[{er' i ',!. ., (,'t i - /aNT •; [ f i,r ' ;,, lyt y ,r 1 j. '' � \`Q• �� 't;{Y1'' . if i�. ;.,, f,.'i+. }[ 'y 'i. ,;.� .. ) . r 1�- 1 71•' �4,���1{► ``Y ? 1 :I y; - 1 • , r • 'a a \ t r1Yl •. , J ,. 1 a (,, •a. I A ,r r,.,( • '� +y.t'�. t: F ' af. �, h f i,•i AA . t '�L�h ,r ;tKtlin+�'U 1• ., +., ,,� •. . ' 1y. a ft �^ ,- I jt �'f .•, � .' Kj � i '. I•' +J�V I,� I {. 1` `�L,• � 1' , .t• ., N . a' ,f �} ,a 1 ;,:[ 1! .r fr / 1 �' ; � r 4f i �Y•. �yY ! �y _A�Y'f.l I. � ' ,. `. ,. 1.� r ;s ! 1 !! g'r.L, a 1 �:��.� ' 1 •1. \pVi �,! r; �.' {��}` .d )L� ti, �Te At r I . i tKK� ,;• ,�a :r. .° t t :<[ Al1 i� . 'l..( Gi t to r' c ' i' rr' •..K i,; [�:�,., •.� 1 ' y' � ,+ }. �� 0 d , � r,�' 1 11. .I �,; ) ..i=�r`1I•r u'' r t f•` l � 2y ' ' ,a � i � � I !. j�i ,• , ,-, : '� K, .}�" , iii. , 10 , '} � � � } y ':! 1�r •, ��t\� � f,y y � •. 1 [ � ) .,' , rf'' Srr1t�y,r(t!K {It� 1 � y ,il t ! r•[ , .+ ,1• ��• t • fr LAI ' , 1 •)!, I�, ) If.' .St r k . •' .t. , �(, ir./• � � a• (I , '.li t ..L � , !. �..ft� + �'i• � � �;�'�!1 r� j,r S• Y: � a,. .! i [ j 1 1 •'F •(/ !i.'{"�r• "[ ' .f jt '1 itl At t +1 •, . x 1 � .. � a 11 ,i' I" r f• .� :i.+� t t lj. ti ' •i [ ' � ��'•I''Z. � t. ,1 u' 'rrr -)'• ; If t ' '1 ) ;! y ,,. 2,:1 ! I �`,• r ', r: 1 )i ' � K ' /r l' ; ' [•.a� A ,�1 b �,i 'i ! ,$. 1) :' :'::! •1 -t � '.i � r .� �0� � A 1' d •+!' '' ;; Q• ! yr: d � !a ' a' �.I� 1{ / ! � •+•..tj 1 / • �' 1 O a f'V 1 t. ( r ( � 1 \ ' r :r t; i S .ti f �.. a' .,�'rizi{. i• ') � ;�'• `k '�-!l. :�'.�{. :�+�:[�� I.j,. �;i .t [ '�' {. ` ,•�:.i• +�)' `` .� !•` ; + !•i f .ti•1; •1` ' ••t [ ' • r ��,• �'. 1 r .,;• ,- jl., I. +a , Ir,, + !.! .,41 t t f it S f ' �•.!• r � '[ •''�"A N I 1�,- I 'iia' [,l,1 +` SL ) !� .`al , +, � y4�- ' 1, �If,l `i K , ! •y 1 � + 1VF 5'7 rl: 41 •, y, •i1�. )7 ,� ' t1.1 1 7 ( t� �C'4. '� ',:Ltt L[,) Sift i,,• D �, 1, " � !r• t ly•. �l /, �..hr i>''--"r 'r'( {(!� 1# A',f a ! 1, i�•• 1 Kttlil• �, 3 . [ '�`y+ • ! I` Z f� - G�,• 1,�f Irt I,.L'r"! , { i•I �. Y •IyI) (!', (.1�' {f� +{��•'t�.'17 + .� /� t '[. •t•,t � ' ,Y ,�• ��.•R (t l��r�! �'' � y [ '•(11; �:z��,1„it �: � ti'+C,ri.1.15 ,! 4 f , '1 - ' : 1 + � f}• \ r r• ��,+ [I'�'.r 1 1 t]'., ',.!, i� I = �' (' I. i i •' i' � e • Ift y/ �; 'i.. - � - f • ` t� S a ,i � S[[ f 1 ! '!�C )f'tli,} < e�I y. i' i •� ,. /,.���. � ' .<,. 1, 'i '•if {r. J T.�'1 y •t N' 1 ,r�r ie. MfL I-r'w+`t�1� t �� Y '�J•� fr;S,•r• � ! . �}///r c r e 1 .I c ,(.• a..' �I• l! I:ir " Il�j ,, �N� ,,yit..) .' 'L �t ,.i{tf V6'` a1` ISS( J1„r i11,��ir` 1, 'J, +�'ht '., .{'•• 1 f I'st: "! ., +! '^. !' .t tc' ';,i ,t', `� 1 ,a, r,i.”' '� ��� �`� " %Y .1��;1 ,Li., 4'i t�f I,.:�5-. =1 il_! :.!if t.:,,11 r :1, ',OT, i t I :i:`�/1' x'. �_� \' .L•Y MINNE5oTf• RIVER 1 75 ---- T 3 RD � 6 7 s.9 le�1 ► I � I� I?� � WEA Zp 12 3 16 1:790 oav Ig HOUSE ��Srl 6 zo R/W �1 xIST,N oAD CPR�GE ------------------------- w �•.,:� ...;:, a =�...,.,- .. _...� '. _.., . .... ..... .. �� 5T`"kt 1 ����'�+�ti Y��� ....sc�.+t'^-rrr•I� �j.� ire. � ',- r �:a.,�F• 5 F Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director Re: Public Hearing for Revenue Sharing Date: August 23, 1985 There is a public hearing set for 8:00 P.M. Sept. 3, 1985. The hearing is required by Revenue Sharing regulations. The purpose is to receive comments from the public on the proposed use of Revenue Sharing funds for 1986. See attached notice. There is no action needed other than to hold the hearing. GV:mmr Budget Hearing on General Revenue Sharing The City of Shakopee will hold a public hearing at 6:00 P.M. on September 3, 1985, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota, for the purpose of hearing written and oral comment from the public concerning the proposed annual budget for fiscal year 1986 and the use of Revenue Sharing funds as contained in that proposed budget, summarized below. General Revenue Sharing (GRS) is a program of general fiscal support from the Federal government to State and local governments with only limited Federal requirements about how the money should be spent. Decisions on the use of these funds are made at the local level, by the government and people closest to local problems. The Revenue Sharing regulations require a hearing on the proposed use of these funds in relation to the overall budget before the budget is adopted each year. All interested citizens, groups, senior citizens and organizations representing the interest of senior citizens are encouraged to attend and to submit comments. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED 1986 BUDGET City of Shakopee General Fund Revenues Source Property Taxes $ 1,083 ,480 Licenses & Permits 279,300 Intergovernmental 791,045 Service Charges/User Fees 413,590 Fines and Penalties 48,000 Federal Revenue Sharing 151,400 Other Revenue 520,884 Total $ 3,287,699 Expenditures Activity GRS Funds Other Funds Total (if any) General Government $ 557,289 557,289 Public Safety 57 ,400 1,110,105 1,167,505 Public Works 66,000 1,044,810 1,110,810 Recreation 28,000 275,595 303,595 Miscellaneous 239,500 239,500 Total $151,400 $3,227 ,299 $3,378,699 A copy of this information, the entire proposed budget and additional background materials are available for public inspection from 8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.N.. weekdays at Shakopee City Hall, 129 East First Avenue. Dated this 16th day of August, 1985. John R. Anderson City Administrator City of Shakopee MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator __. �—---------- ---FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Aide RE: Cable Company Proposed Concessions DATE: August 27 , 1985 Introduction and Background On August 12, 1985 United Cable Television officials presented Shakopee staff with several financial reports and budget projections for Shakopee ' s cable system. At that time, United informally proposed several concessions to the City of Shakopee for our consideration.- The proposed- concessions= arm -as -fol-laws:-= - _-_ _-- 1. A reduction in the franchise fee from 5% to 3% effective October 1, 1985. 2. Elimination of company financial support for the cable access studio as soon as possible. 3. A temporary hold on any company financial support for the institutional network and character generator system. Because United' s proposed concessions were not in writing, staff is not sure whether this list is all inclusive. United' s reasons for the proposed concessions are simple, they contend that the system is on the verge of bankruptcy. In response to our meeting with United- officials, staff sent the letter shown in attachment No. 1 requesting additional infor- mation from the company. To date we have not received any further correspondence from Zylstra-United management in regard to our request. On Monday, August 26 , 1985 the Shakopee Cable Communications Advisory Commission . met to discuss - Zylstra-United' s informal concessions as proposed by United representatives on August 12 ,1985. The Commission felt that before they could give consider- ation to any concessions, they needed to known if Zylstra-United' s alleged financial condition is justifiable. The Commission also questioned whether or not a buyer could be found for our system and whether or not the system will ever be a profitable venture. In addition, - the Commission questioned Shakopee ' s position if Zylstra-United files for bankruptcy. Recognizing the endless merry-go-round of concessions that the City of Shakopee may experience if we haphazardly grant any concessions at this time and given the many variables that come into play in determining the reasonableness of Zylstra-United' s proposed concessions, the Commission moved to recommend to City Council that City staff be authorized to work with Chaska City officials in hiring an independent financial consultant familiar with the cable industry to review Zylstra-United' s proposed concessions and financial condition. The cost for the proposed study to be assumed by Zylstra-United pursuant to Section 8. 12 (d) of the Cable Franchise Ordinance. Since our last correspondence with Zylstra-United, staff has been in contact with the CTIC Association, a non-profit corporation that has extensive experience in the cable industry. In the past, CTIC has done work for Shakopee in regard to our cable system. Preliminary cost projections for a joint Shakopee/ Chaska financial study range between $4,000-$6 ,000. Alternatives 1. Authorize-staff to work with-Chaska-City-officials in-hiring an independent financial consultant familiar with the cable industry to review Zylstra-United' s proposed concessions and financial condition. The cost for - the proposed study to be assumed by Zylstra-United pursuant to Section 8.12 (d) of the Cable Franchise Ordinance. 2. Consider granting the proposed concessions when a formal request is submitted by Zylstra-United. 3. Do nothing. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends alternative -No. .1, the recommendation of the Cable Communications Advisory Commission. Action Reauested Upon receipt of a formal request for concessions from Zylstra-United, move to authorize staff to work with Chaska City officials in hiring an independent financial consultant familiar with the cable industry to review Zylstra-United' s proposed concessions and financial condition. The cost for the proposed study to be assumed by Zylstra-United pursuant to Section 8 . 12 (d) of the Cable Franchise Ordinance. Implementation of the proposed study to commence upon receipt of a certified check from Zylstra- United in an amount equal to the final project cost quotation. BAS/jms Attachment No. 1 CITY OF SHAKOPEE INCORPORATED 1870 129 EAST FIRST AVENUE, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 ' August 20 , 1985 ���•;`� � Mr. James R. Clark Division Manager -- Central Division United Cable Television Corp. 2 'Tollgate Road, suite D Mona Loa Office Park Elgin, IL 60120 .Dear Mr. Clark: On August 12, - 1985 United Cable Television officials pre- sented Shakopee staff with several financial reports and budget projections for Shakopee ' s cable system. Having no opportunity to review these statistics , your contentions in regard to the alleged financial condition of, the Shakopee cable system seemed plausible. However, an investigation of several cable systems in our area that have recently experienced proposed concessions and renegotiation hearings have prompted us ,to take the following course of action. Please be: advised that before any further consideration can be given to Zylstra-United' s proposed conces- sions -and the Shakopee cable system the following information is. -hereby requested. 1. Detailed explanation of proposed concessions and reasons for said concessions. 2. Annual audited financial report of United Cable Television Corporation for the past three years. 3. Annual audited financial report cf Zylstra Cable Television Corporation for the past three years. At this time, Shakopee is also considering an independent financial analysis of Zylstra-United' s alleged financial posi- tion. we have been in contact with the consulting firm of Touche Ross and Company who have had extensive experience in the area -cf cable television. Preliminary cost projections for a review.. of the reasonableness of Zylstra-United' s. financial -assumptions that would support your proposed concessions range between $15 , 000 and $20 , 000. In accordance . with Section 8. 12 .( d). of the cable franchise ordinance, Zylstra-United would be respon- sible for all aforementioned consulting fees., we are also in- vestigating the possibility of working- closely with the City of Chaska in developing a negotiation position that will b8 in the best interest of- our residents. The Heart of Progress Valley Mr. James R. Clark Paae Two August 20 , 1985 On August 13 , 1985 City Council action on the Shakopee Cable Communications Advisory Commission' s recommended character generator fine was tabled until further information is available in regard to Zylstra-United' s proposed concessions. If you should have any questions in regard to the information requested above, ,please call Barry Stock at 445-3650. Sincerely John R. Ande on City Administrator JKA/jms cc: Steven J. Schippers Dave Pokorney, . Chaska City Admr. Bill Anderson, Shakopee Cable Communication Advisory Committee Chairman MEMO TO:— Jo-hrn K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judi Simac, City Planner RE: Request for a Zoning Amendment by Baron Development Corp. DATE: August 27 , 1985 Background: At their August 20 , 1985 meeting the City Council directed the Assistant -City Attorney, Phillip R. Krass , to prepare a resolution which describes the evidence which was presented to Council for the Baron Development zoning map admendment request and how this evidence relates to the criteria of the Shakopee City Code respecting zoning amendments. Please find attached a copy of the resolution for consideration by the City Council. Action Requested: Offer Resolution No. 2429 , A Resolution Setting Forth the Reasons for Denying -a Rezoning Request, and move for its adoption. Attachment tw • RESOLUTION R- 2429 A RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH THE REASONS FOR DENYING A REZONING REQUEST WHEREAS, Baron Development Corporation/Cecil Behringer, applicant, requested a rezoning of a 10 acre parcel located on County Road 83 within the City of Shakopee, legally described on Appendix A, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof,, from I-1 to B-2; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission--of-- the City of Shakopee did hold public hearings on such a request on the 6th day of June, 1985 and again on the 11th day of July, 1985,- after which the Planning Commission did unanimously recommend denial of said rezoning; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shakopee did hold a public hearing on said rezoning on the 6th day of August, 1985, at which time evidence from the applicant as well as from other affected property owners was received and considered; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shakopee did on the 20th day of August, 1985, consider the criteria set forth in the City of Shakopee zoning ordinance with respect to rezoning and did discuss and consider evidence previously presented;- NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Shakopee does resolve as follows: 1. That it is determined that the present zoning of the property in question was proper and correct at the time it was made and remains appropriate, proper and correct. The City Council finds that industrial uses surround this proposed commercial/hotel use and there would be insufficient buffering between the property in question and the surrounding industrial uses, thereby making such industrial uses more difficult and . uncertain.- Therefore, the city finds that the original zoning ordinance with respect to this parcel is not in error. 2. The City Council has been extremely progressive in attempting to" accomodate and encourage growth within the City of Shakopee and its policies and probations so provide. That accomodation is unchanged. The City Council declared a moratorium for this and other property at the time the first class racing license was awarded to the group proposing a Shakopee site, and after extensive review, including the hiring of an outside planning consultant, and a report from that consultant determined that the goals and policies of the city were basically unchanged. Moreover, the planning consultant recommended no significant changes and in particular, no change in the zoning for this parcel, and further opined the city that the comprehensive plan was still valid and . unchanged. Therefore, the city finds that significant changes in community goals and policies have not taken place since the zoning on this parcel was established and since a�review of the zoning of this parcel took place in 1984. 3. City-wide and neighborhood development patterns have remained fundamentally unchanged, although the city recognized that development has occurred. The development which has occurred is in accordance with the comprehensive plan of the city and these zoning ordinances of the city and not in a manner inconsistent with those two documents. Therefore, the city determines that significant changes in city-wide or neighborhood development patterns have not occurred since the zoning of this property or since a review of the zoning of this parcel took place in 1984. 4. The city determines that the fulfillment of the comprehensive plan does not mandate or require the rezoning requested to fulfill its terms. The comprehensive plan was taken into consideration during the 1984 moratorium and study, which was a reconsideration of the 1979 comprehensive plan. The outside consultant retained by the city for said study indicated that the city had more than enough property zoned commercial to meet the needs of the city including any needs related to Canterbury Downs. Therefore, the city determines that the implementation of the comprehensive plan, as well as the implementation of the growth and management programs of the city do not require the rezoning requested. Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the City Council of the City __of- Shakopee further resolves as follows:-- That ollows:-That the requested rezoning should be and hereby is denied as failing to conform to the required findings and criteria which are a prerequisite to such a rezoning in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Shakopee City Code to-wit Section 11.04, Subd. 7 W. Adopted this 3rd day of September, 1985. Eldon Rienke, Mayor Al1ESTED BY: Judith Cog City Clerk APPENDIX A The Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 4 , Township 115 , Range 22 , Scott County, Minnesota. ecowoc o.«rc L.«Tocrt T«o«.f L .«(w FA E0 RE & BENSON w000cR Nowee Tc JoftR« w uw,cc otowoE c.«Aw D�wD w.s«,T« i«.wwc.Jw. sw zAf cT« L.TAr Low Douo of.. «Lrrcww.« JO«« f.MOLT[« R«IL,R S.GAwO« ll,A.„ONMf O« M[D«•N « ,«T2,N0[R 2300 MULTIFOODS TOWER LTL. .wocwc NsrnN a J[MM,rrw.a«cwAlD+ wOf[RT w.OLLKC J.M[SR J.DUrrv.JP. wOs[RT L.CO LLINS D•vID. U«n .M[f• w Lf r.ST[R«[NiON sw VC[ M.CNOL[R T«�«1E •. STREET is«N[TL(w ocwALD i�rio« wc,p c•wwon 33 SOUTH SIXTH STfuuiw L^I.cos..�woT . + Tcwz.wo c«.w Lcs L «ow« . owm wEa.L, w •.1 L'r:E c.w.wc- JAC• O.OAOC JO«« rt.bTt rr[N DONALD C.fN[wARp •N D[wfOM R:T[R w AMfON J. B.MO,R:O« w Aw♦ rt.�•C««.« cb �rtz«.uwlcc , o«.s cwLc MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 85402-3694 s:.o+c�o.ocor ow L rt o. wL Me aowooN:i sLl..C c. T«o«.E .:.o"" w rgsf• CLE-11 JO«N DC«C.• [D....G.«C NDCw•KCP •w R. R ,Cw C.LUNG wON.LD B «[MSTAC JO«« ,,,•,� ILN•N IANC O. Ell... yTOCwO`RE«WNCLLJA«[S M.w,N� MOw«•« R.CAww[NT[R ROf[w, L.SG«NELL.JR. MVA«O eAUC[ .—r.so. I—c.cE c.wwo wN R c..... .NCLso« 612/37,-5300 ow.wc fM,•« B..O«O L. DEL«Aw«R.L«RIC« J,�w[�w�ww,b O«•s OR[ TELEX X25131 Arc«:wow�i^uM.« FawoL «E•w« T.i.ww[L1«p ojo.. LL L C.«Uww«, «E «.■[NNIn .w[N LO[rrl[w.vip«.s[•D�C Jo« D.f«wn+• a« ILCr • «Tz«Auw.c[ JA Av DAVID w.iw[«MAN w, C R.sUECn.JR. SUfA« rt n 6T[VCN NL.6--o.w,C«AwD C.fC««OKCR •[NPrrN.r1[NING O[R•w0 « MOLTING TCREf•J •,L,N T«O«AS «.CAOisr, R rRlbCn «, lD R.NUV.-. D—D ."o"E,G woww s.c•wTN(a.jR. w•wo, «.Lu coorr D.v,p « A ocR «.1w D•v,D « owc«oust JA«cf w.Lnetc.. �ACM1«woo A,wOGbwLLL «o+«,' ,A«s '. Iwle L[, h^w[N J 1 w0%• NRE J.:YnsieNANIG DY r[Rw Kw0«NKE JO««g,JAO,EL• N T TrR[NC[ TZ IL 10.N ...CS I. IL•«« STEv[« C.fc«w0[R CM[DIOS �Tcv[«Nn Awpwcwb MA c, G.[Tzwu[w «C! A.o'C.CL. „O«N R.... soworR w,an« A.■I[O[f«YND «a[N Ow.v[b «�«cwT v. owu[w EID, « ROs[w+ w LTO« .....CL«[ w•VOUKJII« [E « in«►L[b ;111ERw w.«LLOC - f—A. .00.. TYw[ DOUG LAi R. OnNG Owl[ Ew.MC,«OrI[R ET[vE .O.f wlNb - J[ANNINEwI l[[ C«RIfT1NC O. [wRIMAN OALE LILUY RDe[RT PC,NENTO[b „MO,«, fCMVRR p• A TO SM6 MOwwlff[, Jcww. c«wisiw rwisiN 3000 REPUBLIC PLAZA c«1wLcsc E.`NDrwswlNw T[Rnr rt AwD iw[r'«c NDwlw O Jo«D o:vlof esw .....Ll 370 SEVENTEENTH STREET D.A+�.�eL iwo«s+wc i,«iLM wOSMOLT f.fUTL[R O«1wl[S RA Kf.Jw. a MDIeu«cweuw e.cD« JwMwiccc• DENVER, COLORADO x02 02-4004 wucE .c . L.ll101 - wDANAw «.„. .c., No ofwrtsoN 303/OD2-5680 TNN,I EoL:.JT«q1«cwE«s o« .s•Tr Les September 3 , 1985 -BY MESSENGER Mayor Eldon Rienke City of Shakopee Shakopee City Hall 129 East First Avenue . Shakopee, MN 55379-1376 .Dear Mayor Rienke: I have been authorized by Baron Development Corporation - to withdraw the request for a zoning amendment which appears as item 8a (Res. 2429) on the Tentative Agenda for the Shakopee City Council Meeting of September 3, 1985. This letter constitutes the official withdrawal of the application. Baron Development Corporation is disappointed by the apparent reluctance of the City Council to approve the Fountain Bridge development at this time. Nevertheless, we thank you for the many hours which City staff, the City Planning Commission and the City Council have spent on this issue. Sincerely yours, Walter H. Rockenstein II WHR,kg CC: Cecil Behringer Robert Behringer Heise Vanney & Associates U MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judi Simac, City Planner RE: Ordinance which amends the Zoning Map by removing eleven parcels on Thirteenth Avenue from I-1 District and placing them in the R-1 District. DATE: August 27 , 1985 Background: At the August 20 , 1985 meeting, the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance which amends the zoning map by removing certain parcels of land from the 1-1 Light Industrial District and places them in an R-1 Rural Residential District. Attached, for _ ___ consideration_by_the City__Council , is the proposed ordinance. The motion to have the ordinance prepared .also included reasons f.or _the_ zoning map amendment, which were, to be included in the ordinance. As a rule , ordinances do not include findings or a "whereas" therefore Council may wish to include the findings in the motion to adopt the ordinance. The findings which were included in the motion were: 1) the rezoning is not a spot zoning because of the residential zone to the east, in the City of Savage, 2 ) the rezoning is a return to a residential district, for the subject properties and 3 ) the residential zoning will conform with the existing land uses. Action Requested: Offer Ordinance No. . 184 An Ordinance which amends the Zoning Map of the City of Shakopee for the reasons that the map amendment is not a spot rezoning because of the residential zone to the east, in the City of Savage, the amendment is a return to a residential. district for the subject properties and the residential zoning will conform with the existing land uses ; and move for its adoption. tw C� ... ... .... ORDINANCE NO. 184 Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City, of Shakopee Amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 11 Entitled "Zoning!' by.., Removing .Certain Parcels- from the I--1 Light Industrial District and placing the .Same Parcels in an R--2 Rural Residential District and Changing the Zoning Map Accordingly- and by Adopting by Reference Shakopee City Code Ch4pter land Section 11.99 which Among other -Things Contain Penalty Provisions THE CITY p)F COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION_I; Background It has been made to appear to the'.Shakopee Planning Commission and to the Shakopee City-CouncYl that i`t would be'to the best -interests- Df'-all parties concerned to remove the pax.cels of land fxom th.e I-1 Light Industrial District and place them in an A-1 Rural 1�e$idential Dj^s:trict and accordingly the required Public Hearing of .the proposed rezoning havebeen held and all partiesinterested have been heard. .... SECTION II ' 'Removing the following se_ctions_of`land from the 1=l Light Industrial_ District A. The following parcels• of*land are hereby removed from I-1 Light Industrial District, to-w.it: . 27--043002-0 27�-043003-0 27�043004-0 27-,-043005-,0 27x043006-0 27-043007-0 27--043008--0 27�-043009-0 27,-043010-0 27 .43011-0 27043016-0 SECTION III: The following parcels- of land are hereby vlace in an R-1 Rural-Residential District; to:wit;. 27-043002--0 27-043003-0 2.7-043004•-0 2.7043005-0 27043006--0 27-,043007-0 27,043008-0 27-043009--0 27-043010-0 27-043011-0 27-043016-0 SECTION IV: Correcting_zoniU map_ The Zoning Map Section 11.21 will be updated immediately pursuant to this Ordinance. SECTION V: Penalty Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Def initions"shall be applicable to the entire City Code including Penalty provisions and Section 11.99 entitled "Violations a Misdemeanor" are -hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated_verbatim SECTION VI: When in Force and Effect . After the adopt-ion;signing and attestation of this Ordinance, it shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee and shall then be in full force and effect. Adopted in i_ session of the Shakopee City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _, 1985. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: — — — City Clerk Prepared and approved as to form this 26th ay of August, 1985. Cit Attorney of the City of Sh opee 64je Loife 46 I LUE LANE I 15hel i.OAV TREAT bi E N 1 3 PLANT 7N I LCRETE[ AYE- I'VE 7,E& "lx • "sp BLUE LANE R4L.S 2 MAR ADIY? peon .Lake ECITO • 14EIGHT9 1m 14 CS411 76 703C1IKE'S A 0 D'N HORIZON RIVERVIEW EIGHTS ESTATES 2ND AOUN HORIZ 1, HGHT'S 23 "Plxe LoA-e IN �Ro1CY,�b Lads Be ;zE4Uw b �f3�3 K3-ar! �t3•oaS _ — __._ _ _ . i s{3-0o2 7 �3y p I G V a- I;tK1fi JA3-.ODE 7-7 I � c _ I ER I � II Ij l � I _EY �_Rfci, ` f n N ADD` N ' t 0( MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judi Simac , City Planner RE: Preliminary Plat of Notermann' s 2nd Addn. DATE: August 30 , 1985 Introduction: At the July 17 , 1985 meeting the City Council approved a motion to refer the preliminary plat of Notermann' s 2nd Addition back to the Planning Commission to reconsider the 25 foot lot width variances_ for each lot__ in the -plat . _ The__City Council_-expres sed.____ -___ a desire to see a proposed plat which does not need variances for R-3 development. Background: Following the Council meeting, staff recommended to the developer that he prepare an alternative design for the plat and submit it to the Planning Commission for consideration. The developer has chosen an alternative which is actually one of the recommended conditions of plat approval . At the September 3 , 1985 City Council meeting the developer would like to present a color exhibit which shows how the lots would be developed with buildings , parking spaces and open space area. The developer maintains that the twenty-five foot lot width variances will not negatively impact the development of the site nor the adjacent properties . Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council reconsider the preliminary plat of Notermann' s 2nd Addition, subject to the following conditions : 1 . The approval of a 25 foot lot width variance for each of the four lots . 2. The applicant shall submit a plan which shows how each lot can be developed without further variances . 3 . Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney. 4. Park Dedication fees to be paid at time of building permit application, in lieu of land dedication. 5 . Dedication of ten foot drainage and utility easements . 6 . Execution of a Developer ' s Agreement to provide for the construction of the required improvements : a) A five foot sidewalk to be constructed along the south side of Fourth Avenue in accordance with the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. b) Construction of Fourth Avenue shall be in accordance with the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of - Shakopee. Soil borings shall be taken, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, which demonstrate the suitability of the road bed. c ) The developer shall agree to be responsible for the increased cost for subgrade correction of Fourth Avenue. d) 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. e) Approval of the overlot drainage plan by the City Engineer. f) Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the SPUC Utilities Manager. g) Sanitary sewer services to be installed in accordance with the Design Criteria and Standard__Specifications___ of the City of Shakopee. 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, drainage grading, etc. Action Requested: Motion to approve the preliminary plat of Notermann' s 2nd Addition subject to the recommended conditions . JS : cah a� I MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Aide RE: Handicapped Accessability Compliance (Informational) DATE: August 26, 1985 Introduction and Background This past June the Shakopee City Council approved Resolution No. 2411 which authorized the City Administrator to contact the Office of Revenue Sharing to formally request a three year extension of the handicapped structural compliance deadline for the Shakopee City -Hall. On August 9 ,1985 a formal response was received from the Office of Revenue Sharing in regard to our request. (See attachment No, 1. ) The Office of Revenue Sharing has advised us that they do not grant structural compliance extensions. They have suggested that we achieve program accessability in our City Hall by pursuing other alternatives, such as offering access to City Hall programs and activities at another facility that is accessable. I am therefore taking the necessary steps to notify the public that all City Hall services will be made available at the Shakopee Public Library to qualified handicapped individuals upon request. The handicapped person shall be defined pursuant to attachment No. 2. Shakopee residents -will be made aware of this policy by utilizing the following methods of contact: 1. Posted in all City buildings 2. Shakopee Valley News 3. Shakopee Cable TV 4. Direct mailing in the Shakopee utility bill 5. Read aloud at City CoeQuncil meetings on a quarterly basis BAS/Jms z OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY `v� ,...r: r. Attachment No. 1 AUG 2 1985 OFFICE OF REVENUE SHARING 2401 E STREET,N.W.COLUMBIA PLAZA H G RISE ��� 0` ��t�17°!��_re WASHINGTON.D.C. 20226 Dear Mr. Anderson: The Office of Revenue Sharing has received your letter dated July 15 , 1985 , in which the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, requests a three (3 ) year extension of the October 17 , 1986 deadline for making structural changes at the Shakopee City Hall to allow accessibility of City Hall and its programs and activities to the handicapped. You indicated in your letter that theextendedtime will allow for renovations to the existing facility or construction of a new City Hall. Please be advised that the Office of Revenue Sharing Regulations governing handicapped accessibility do not provide for granting such an extension. Thus, I am 'bound by the Regulations to request that if structural changes are the only method of achieving program accessibility for revenue sharing funded programs and activities, then, the City must complete these actions by the regulated deadline. Further, be advised that the Regulations provide for an alternative to structural changes in achieving program accessibility and a recipient government is not required to make structural changes when there are other methods as effective in achieving accessi- bility. However, priority is-given to those methods that offer full accessibility in programs and activities to handicapped persons in the most integrated setting appropriate. In light of the above., the City may elect to relocate or restructure the delivery of revenue sharing funded programs and activities as a temporary remedy until renovation of the existing city hall is completed. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Robert. W. Clark, Chief , Branch II , at (202) 634-2251. Sincerely, Helen E. Walsh Manager Civil Rights Division. Mr. John K. Anderson City Administration Shakopee City 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 Attachment No. 2 Who is a "handicapped" person? Section 504 protects handicapped persons from discrimination based on their handicap status. A person is "handicapped" within the meaning of section 504 (§85.3) if he or she: (1) has a mental or physical impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities; (2) has a record of such impairment; or (3) is regarded as having such an impairment. "Major life activities"include functions-such as caring for one's self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning and working. The judgment whether any given person is "substantially limited" depends upon the nature and severity of that person's handicapping condition. For example, a federal district court held that persons who suffer from "any pulmonary problem, however minor, or all people who are harmed or irritated by tobacco smoke"are not handicapped as defined by section 504 (see Appendix 1V:A:53 and 195). Temporary disabilities arguably are not "substantially" limiting within the meaning of the statute (see Grimard v. Carlston, Appendix IV:A:24, 26, 27, 83 and 244). And, in a policy memorandum issued by the then-Department of Health, Education and Welfare, that agency ruled that"pregnancy" was not considered a handicap for purposes of section 504 (see OSPR Memorandum of April 20, 1979, Appendix II1:C:3:ii). If an individual's handicap cannot be verified or its substantiality ascertained by ordinary observation, an employer may ask for medical'verification of the existence of a handicapping condition. Such information must be kept confidential and should be accorded the protections regarding the use of preemployment information under section 504 (see discussion at ¶660 and chart at Appendix VII). "Physical or mental impairments" that fall within discrimination prohibitions include: (1) any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological, musculoskeletal; special sense organs; respiratory, including speech organs; cardiovascular; reproductive; digestive; genitourinary; heroic and lymphatic; skin; and endocrine; or (2) any mental or psychological disorder, such as mental s retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities. The term "phsyical or mental impairment" indludes, but is not limited to, such diseases and conditions as orthopedic, visual, speech, and hearing impairments, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, mental retardation, emotional illness, and drug addiction and alcoholism. In 1977 the U.S. Attorney General issued an opinion which concluded that drug addition and alcoholism are also considered handicapping conditions protected by section 504 (see III:A:3, discussion at lIl:C:xi, and court cases at Appendix IV:A:26, 27, 83 and 244). (For a specific discussion of the employment of drug addicts and alcoholics, see $670.) y� CT 'rV OF. SHjPk1<OPF_F INCORPORATED 1870 +� ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 129 E. 1st Avenue - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator- FROM: dministratorFROM: Steve Hurley, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Street Lights Along boiling Springs Lane DATE: August 22, 1985 INTRODUCTION: The City has recently received requests from property owners for street lights on boiling Springs Lane. BACKGROUND: The area is served with electricity by Minnesota Valley Co- opevative. Costs cannot be determined exactly without an on-site survey but maximum cost would be approximately $3, 000. 00 plus $57. 50 per month. This would include installation of 5 poles and lights. The monthly fee covers power and maintenance. The locations of five lights are shown on the following diagram. 1 z 5 0 n G, a� r o'4' T_ O. Lights at locations 3 and 5 require no transformers or extra wiring and so there would be no installation fee. Locations 1, 2, and 3 require extra w i r i n g location, 1 may need -a transformer. Memorandum Street Lights Page 2 Scott County would pay for a light at location 1 if it met warrants (t ra f f i c volume) , however, it does not. 150 Watt high pressure sodium lights are recommended far loca- tions 2-5 and a 250 watt for location 1. If poles do not need to be installed and lights are installed as recommended the cost far lights would be approximately $1, 500. 00 and $46. 50/month. Alternatives: 1. Do not install lights. 2. Install 3 lights at Location 1, 3, and 5. This would pro- vide lighting at the two low cost positions plus one at the cr i t i ca 1 C. R. 89 intersection. 3. Install lights at all five locations. Lights would be approximately 750 feet apart. 4. Place lights at the standard City block spacing of 300 feet. To provide this spaci-ng would require nine (9) lights. Recommended Action: Select alternative No. 3 REQUESTED ACTION: Motion approving the expenditure of funds not to exceed $3, 000. 00 for five lights and installation plus an additional $57. 50 per month for power and maintenance or street lighting along Boiling Springs Lane, p,'o SH/pmp LIGHTS C__2 TY CD F- !Z-;K A K Q PES INCORPORATED 1870 +� ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 129 E. 1st Avenue - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Steve Hurley, Engineering Technician Ci SUBJECT: Naming of County Road 83 V DATE: August 20, 1985 INTRODUCTION: It has been requested that the City name County Road 83 Canter- bury Lane. BACKGROUND: The appropriate agencies have been contacted verbally asking for comments on the proposed name change. The Post Office, Scott County, and the City of Prior Lake could foresee no major problems. The name change for the City�of Shakopee would affect the stretch of County Road 83 from i t s intersection with T. H. 101 on the north to County Road 42 on the south. The portion of County Road 83 passing through Prior Lake is currently named Columbia Avenue. For continuity it has been requested of Prior Lake that Columbia Avenue also be renamed Canterbury Lane. The Prior Lake Planning Department had no objection and is consequently requesting approval from Prior Lake City Council. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the name Canterbury Lane be given County Road 83 from T. H. 101 to County Road 42. ACTION REQUESTED: A motion approving the name Canterbury Lane be given County Road 83 and directing staff to proceed with the necessary work. SH/pmp NAME / U C = TY CD F- SHPiKOF>a INCORPORATED 1870 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 129 E. 1st Avenue - Shakopee, Kinnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Fulton Schleisman, Engineering Inspector SUBJECT: 4th Avenue Reconstruction Shenandoah Drive to County Road 83, Project No. 1985-1 DATE: September 3, 1985 INTRODUCTION: A Resolution accepting bid is necessary to proceed with the Fourth Avenue Project. BACKGROUND: The City of Shakopee received bids on the final off-site Race- track project, 4th Avenue from Shenandoah Drive to County Road 83, on September 3, 1985. The low bid from Buesing Corporation, $243, 468. 35, is approxi- mat e 1 y $60, 000. 00 below the Engineer' s (Bart on-Aschman) estimate of $303, 480. 00. This firm is in the process of completing the Shenandoah Drive Project. The quality of work and cooperation on this project has been acceptable. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 2433, A Resolution Accepting B i d on 4th Avenue Reconstruction from Shenandoah Drive to County Road 83, A Resolution that awards the contract for 4th Avenue Recon- struction Project No. 85-1, State Aid Project No. 166-108-01 to Buesing Corporation, 2285 Daniels Street, Long Lake, MN, 55356. FS/pmp MEM2433 RESOLUTION NO. 2433 A RESODUTION ACCEPTING RID ON 4TH AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. 1985-1, S. A. P. NO. 166-10a-01 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the 4th Avenue Reconstruction, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement : - Ruesing Corporation $243, 46&. 35 Valley Paving, Inc. $251, 821. 25 AND WHEREAS, it appears that Ruesing Corporation, 2285 Daniels Street , Long Lake, MN, 55356 is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, RE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Rues i n g Corporation, in the name of the City of Shakopee for the improvement of 4th Avenue Reconstruction, Project No. 1585-1, S. A. P. No166-108-01 by street construction, according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk.. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been sinned. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day .f Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk. ADDro ved as to form this day of City Attorney '7 a p inc7l �vE CITY OF 15HAKO1='Ea 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: Ray Ruuska, Engineering Coordinator SUBJECT: 2nd Avenue Parking Lot Reconstruction and Storm Water Project, No. 1985-4 DATE: September 3, 1985 INTRODUCTION: A Resolution accepting bid is- necessary to proceed with the Parking Lot Project. BACKGROUND: The City of Shakopee veceiveb bids far the above referenced project on September 3, 1985. The low bid from Valley Paving, Inc. , $124, 185. 40, is approxi- mat e 1 y $4, 500- 00 below the Eng i neer' s (Westwood P1anning & Eng i neer i ng Company) estimate of $128, 847. 00. This firm has done other projects for the City of Shakopee in the past. The quality of work and cooperation on these projects has been acceptable. ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt Resolution No. 2432, A Resolution Accepting a B i d on 2nd Avenue Parking Lot Reconstruction and Storm Sewer, A Resolu- tion that awards the contract for the 2nd Avenue Parking Lot, Project No. 1985-4 to Valley Paving, Inc. , 8050-D Highway 101, Shakopee, MN, 55379. FS/pmp MEM2432 RESOLUTION NO. 843c A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID ON 22ND AVENUE PARKING LOT RECONSTRUCTION AND STORM SEWER PROJECT NO. 1985-4 WHEREAS, r)ursuant to art advertisement for bids for the 2nd Avenue Parking Lot Reconstruction and Storm Sewer tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received coniolying with the advertisement : Valley Paving, Inc. $124, 185. 40 Brown & Cris, Inc. $136, 799. 50 S. M. Hent ges & Sans, Inc. $140, 866- 90 GL Contract i ng $158, 240. 10 Buesing Corporation $153, 572. 45 AND WHEREAS, it appears that Valley Paving, Inc. , 8050-D Highway 101, Shakopee, MN, 55379 is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. The Mayer and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Valley Paving, Inc. , 8050-D Highway 101, Shakopee, MN, 55379, in the name of the City of Shakopee for the improvement of 2nd Avenue Parking Lot Reconstruction and Storm Sewer by Parking Lot Reconstruction, according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file ire the office of the City Clerk. c. The City Clerk. is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been sinned. 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 City Attorney MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ray Ruuska, Engineering Coordinator RE: 2nd Avenue Parking Lot Low Bid Project No. 1985-4 DATE: September 3 , 1985 Introduction An error was brought to our attention by the low bidder of this project. The error was in one of his unit prices bid for this project. Background Valley Paving, Inc. of Shakopee was the low bidder. The unit price bid for Rock Excavation was $13 .50 per cubic yard. His intended unit price was $113 .50. The higher unit price is more reasonable given the nature of the work. Rod Krass , the Assistant City Attorney, has informed me that the unit price can be renegotiated ,at a later date should rock be encountered during storm sewer construction. He also recommended that the contractor be informed of future renegotiation of the unit price based on actual verifiable cost of rock excavation. Other factors , such as the 2nd low bid would also be considered at that time. RR/jms 9 TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne Andre , Community Development Director RE: Mortgage Revenue Bond Policy DATE: August 30 , 1985 Introduction In July the City Council considered a draft policy on city backing of mortgage revenue bonds for multi-family housing. The council approved the general concept of the plan and directed staff to revise the draft policy to add a provision for the use of brick or other low- maintenance exterior construction materials and seek to make the policy and procedures parallel to the industrial revenue bond policies and procedures when possible. The attached policy has been revised for Council review and adoption. Background Most of the deviations from the previous draft are organizational or procedural in nature. The following is a highlight of the more noteworthy changes : 1. The type of building materials has been added to Section III , E, l. Exterior Construction Materials . 2 . A new section III . E.4 - Method of Tax Exempt Financing has been added which is the same as a section in the IRB policy and provides some assurance as to the quality of the bonds if they are to be sold-. 3.. Further details on application submissions and procedures have been included (Section V,B, and C) which are in keeping with the IRB process . 4. The HRA has been removed as a reviewing and administrative agent in the Bloomington policy. In the case of Shakopee where the City Council and the HRA are basically the same persons, no additional insight is gained from HRA review, and -HRA involvement becomes a cumbersome extra step. 5 . As discussed at the August 20th Council meeting, questions of equity -involvement by the applicant will be left to banks and financing .institutions involved in the project. Scottland , Inc . has indicated an interest in submitting---a project for mortgage revenue financing which may even be submitted simultaneous to the September 3rd Council consideration of this policy . Scottland and its legal and underwriting representatives have some problems with the proposed Shakopee policy and would like to request Council consideratio- of some changes to the policy before it is adopted . A letter outlining some of the designed changes will be attached to this packet when the letter is received . The general comments of Scottland are that the City ' s policy should ad no restrictions in addition to the statutory requirements , in order to promote construction of multifamily housing. As currently drafted the City ' s policy puts a greater emphasis than required by statute on benefit to lower-income families , as opposed to providing housing for moderate-income families . Scottland also opposes requirements on exterior building materials . The Council should be aware that Congress is con- sidering additional statutory requirements to require benefits to low- income families , which are similar to these in the proposed Shakopee policy. These requirements may be instituted starting January 1 , 1986 . Representatives of Scottland plan to attend the September 3rd Council meeting to express their views . Kent Richy , the head bond attorney at O ' Conner and Hannon is also reviewing the policy. He plans to attend the Council meeting to provide professional guidance on the adoption of a policy that is appropriate to the City ' s needs . Alternative Actions 1 . Adopt attached Resolution No. 2431 and policy as attached . 2 . Amend policy based on request of Scottland and advise of the City ' s legal counsel and adopt Resolution No . 2431 with amended policy. 3 . Refer policy back to staff for further research and changes at Council direction. JA/mi RESOLUTION NO. 2431 A Resolution Adopting Policy, Criteria and Procedures For the Review Of Housing Revenue Bonds And Mortgage Subsidy Bonds WHEREAS, The City of Shakopee , under Minnesota Statutes , may develop and administer programs to : (1) Finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of single family homes by low-and moderate-income families ; and (2) finance multifamily housing developments or the rehabilitation of multifamily housing developments for low- and moderate income families ; and WHEREAS, The City Council also has found that there is a need for housing low-and moderate-income families and to assist in the rehabilitation and preservation of the City of Shakopee housing stock and neighborhoods ; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA that the followaing policies , as attached her to and made a part here of , identify the conditions and circumstances under which the administration and financing of housing programs should take place in the City of Shakopee. Adopted 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 City Attorney City of Shakopee, Minnesota POLICY, CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR THE REVIEW OF HOUSING REVENUE BONDS AND MORTGAGE SUBSIDY BONDS SECTION To General The City of Shakopee, under Minnesota Statutes, may develop and administer programs to : ( 1 ) Finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of single family homes by low-and moderate-income families ; and (2) finance multifamily housing developments or the rehabilitation of multifamily housing developments for low- and moderate-income families. The City Council also has found that there is a need for housing low-and moderate-income families and to assist in the rehabilitation and preservation of the City of Shakopee housing stock and neighborhoods. The following policies identify the conditions and circumstances under which the adminsitration and financing of multifamily housing programs should take place in the City of Shakopee. SECTION II • Definitions A. "CITY" Means the City Shakopee , Minnesota . B. "COMPREHENSIVE PLAN " Means the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Shakopee, adopted by the City Council on August 4 , 1981. C. "HOUSING PLAN" Means information required under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462C.03 . 1 D. "LOWER INCOME" Means a person or family whose income by family size does not exceed 80 percent of the median family income for the Metropolitan Area as determined by United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) . E. "TARGET AREA" Means a redevelopment project as defined under M.S.A. Chapter 1462.1421 , Subd. 13. or a housing development project as defined under M.S.A. Chapter 1462.1421 , Subd. 25. F. "VERY LOW INCOME" Means persons or family whose income by family size does not exceed 50 percent of the median income for the Metropolitan Area as determined by HUD. Section III • Policies and Criteria for the use of Tax-Exempt Financing for Mul .; fam; 1 y Rental Housing A. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE The City , as the issurer of tax-exempt housing revenue bonds, confers a significant benefit to the developers andfinanciers of multifamily rental housing. Therefore , the City has the right and, indeed, the obligation to be sure that a commensurate public benefit is realized. The City ' s policies and criteria governing the use of Housing Revenue Bonds goes beyond the minimum public benefit required by the United States Internal Revenue Service ( IRS) . B. NEW CONSTRUCTION For new proposed construction of multi-family houwing projects, one or more of the following City objectives must be met to be considered as suitable for publically subsidized housing financing. 1. The proposed project shall target 20 percent of the units to lower income families for 10 years from initial mortgage closing or 1/2 the term of the bonds, whichever is greater ; or 2 2 . The proposed project shall provide at'fordable housing to special population segments such as lower income elderly and handicaped ; or 3 . The proposed project shall provide housing within and consistent with the development objectives of designated target areas ; or C. EXISTING HOUSING 1. Buildings Eligible for Reconstruction An existing rental property must have more than four - - - -unites which-are- more than -three years-old-and--require - - substantial rehabilitation. A property will be considered substantially rehabilitated if the cost of the repairs shall exceed 15 percent of the cost of the acquisition of the building. 2. Objectives and Required Standards For the proposed rehabilitation of multi-family housing. projects all of the following city objectives and requirements must be met to be considered suitable for publically subsidized housing financing. a. The completed project shall meet the minimum standards for -rehabilitation set forth by the City ; b. The project shall not cause major dislocation of existing tenants ; C. The owner shall provide relocation assistance as required by State Statutes ; ? d. The completed project shall maintain a rent structure o affordable to current tenants; and e. The completed project shall target 20 percent of the units to lower income families. D. GENERAL CRITERIA REGARDING RENT LEVELS , RESTRICTIONS ON OCCUPANCY, CONVERSIONS, AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY REQUIREMENTS 1. Rent Levels _ =L a �j V The following parameters shall be followed in establishing rents : - 3 a . The City must approve any schedule of rents proposed by the owner for the units targeted to lower income families . A schedule submitted by an owner within the persmissible maximums will be deemed approved unless the City informs the owner within 60 days that it is disapproved. b. The maximum rent chargeable for the targeted lower income families is defined as gross rent less the cost for tenant-paid utilities. C. The maximum rent of the housing units targeted to lower income families shall not exceed 30 percent of the income limits established under these policies for each housing unit type : effi- ciency , one bedroom, two bedroom, or three bedroom. 2. Income Limits The income limits for trental units shall comply with the following guidelines : a. Efficiency or studio housing unit will be based on the income of a one person lower income household; b. One bedroom housing unit will be based on the income of a two person lower income household ; C. Two bedroom housing unit will be based on the income of a three person lower income household ; and d. Three bedroom housing unit will be based on the income of a five person lower income household. 3 . Unit Tvpe To the maximum extent it is economically feasible, , all of the lower income units must, in terms of size and bedroom mix, be responsive to special renter group needs as determined by the City . 4 4 . Over Income Tenants The owner must reexamine the income of tenants occupying .the units targeted to lower income families each year. If a tenant becomes over income, e-e�rnea3� t-h-e--t?na�t__-i..n—&... EoF& t inP1are • '1owe-vPr the owner must target the next vacant comparable unit as a lower income unit. 5 . Restrictions on Conversions The owner cannot , without City approval , convert the targeted units in the project to condominium or cooperative ownership -during the 10 year --perio-d #'rom- the- date -- ---- on which the units are available for occupancy or for a period of 1/2 the term of the bonds, whichever is greater. 6 . Equal Opportunity and Non-Discrimination Certifications The owner shall certify compliance with all laws and regulations affecting equal opportunity to minorities and the handicapped in their marketing efforts and rental procedures. -exc-ept ;-hose Ac„cl nnmentS s p _ fin __ �� •] r , tr or h a n d ..+.0.1 sha1.1 e_x_clud_e the renting_ or units--to famil-i-es with - ch,i lAr err: - E. OTHER CONDITIONS 1. Availability of Public Services Project must not be a burden on existing City services or utilities beyond that which can be reasonably and economically accommodated. 2. Exterior Construction Materials Projects financed under with these auspices will be s; mi , -1-aw n. -nan,ce exterior - constructed of �bri€�s—��r--�-��.• ma to r i al s v - �. n �-- 3. FJ nano Standing'-16f Appli ant The applicant must demonstrate a good financial standing or show a substantial net worth and demonstrate an acceptable earnings history or prof ormance. The applicant is to file with the City , a final statement of total 5 - costs and project equity , certified to by an authorized officer or partner, or the individual applicant, said statement to be filed at time of requesting the final resolution. 4 . Method of Tax Exempt Financing The method of the tax-exempt financing (eg. a mortgage versus bonds ) will be a consideration, and is to be related to the nature and feasibility of the project and to the overall financial ability of the applicant. The City will not entertain applications proposing to use tax-exempt denominational bonds (whether for sale to a limited group of so-called sophisticated investors or to -the general public)---as oppose-d---to--- -- be tax-exempt mortgages unless the bonds have an investment rating of A or better by a generally recognized rating agency. SECTION IV • Program Administration A. FEES A one time non-refundable fee will be required at the time of application . Fees are established in the City of Shakopee Fee Schedule which is revised annually . B. FIGHT TO DENY APPLICATIONS The City Council reserves the right to deny any application for financing at any stage of the procedings prior to adopting the final resolution authorizing issuance of the housing revenue bond financing. C. CITY HELD HARMLESS The City is to be reimbursed and held harmless for and from any out-of-pocket costs related to the actual or proposed issuance of the bonds. D. APPLICATION RETENTION AND DISCLOSURE All applications and supporting materials and documents shall remain the property of the City . Note that all such materials may be subject to disclosure and/or public review under applicable provisions of s t a t e law. 6 F. ANNUAL REPORT 1 . The staff shall , at least once a year , prepare a summary report containing information o n al l applications submitted for that year , as well as previously approved projects . Such report shall include : a. Total number of applications processed ; b. Total number and dollar volume of projects ; C. Amount of tax base provided; d. Number of new low income households provided for ; and e. Default information, if any. aECTION V • Procedures Q, A. COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION pp The applicant must not commence any part of the con- struction of the project until there has been preliminary approval by the authority of the applicant for financing. B. APPLICATION SUBMISSLON AND PROCESSING 1. Application The applicant shall make an application for financing on forms available from the City of Shakopee . The completed application is to be returned to the Director of Community Development, accompanied by the processing fee , whereupon the application - will be forwarded to the City Council for consid- eration at a public hearing. 2 . Additional Submissions The applicant shall furnish along with the appli- cation, a description of the project, site plan, rendering of proposed building, etc. , and a brief description of the applicant company , all in such form as shall be required at the time of application. 7 3 • Application for State Review The applicant shall concurrently complete the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency application for such financing and submit such completed form to the City , which will submit the form to appropriate state officials when City approval has been granted. 4 . Time of Submission Eight ( 8) copies of the fully completed application and supporting documentation and payment must be submitted at least one ( 1 ) week before the City Council will set a public hearing. C. PROCESSING 1 . Review of Application Prior to the established public hearing a review will be conducted to establish : a. Findings regarding the satisfaction of policy , criteria and other purposes of the act. b. Findings ,ega ding City Code and other require- ments ' �` to zoning provisions, building plans , platting, streets and utility services. 2 . Preliminary Approval The City Council may deny the project or request preparation of the appropriate resolution for preliminary approval for consideration at its next meeting following the public hearing. All code findings and requirements must be met prior to adoption of a resolution of preliminary approval . 3 . Final Resolution Approval of the final resolution will be considered by the City Council after the required criteria for firm approval have been met. The City Attorney shall review and approve all legal documentation as to form, including mortgage and trust indentures, prior to approval of the final resolution. 8 D. CONSISTENCY WITH LAND USE PLAN The application cannot be considered by the City Council unless the proposed project is consistent with the land-use designated in the Comprehensive Plan and current zoning. All i6bli6ations must include preliminary site and building plans of the proposed project. E. COMPLETION TIMETABLE The applicant shall submit a timetable for completion of the project as part of the application. Any apparent major deviation (12 months or more) from that timetable will automatically cause the application to be brought back to the City Council for review. F. USE OF INDEPENDENT BOND COUNCIL The City reserves the right to hire independent n d council to assist in application review at the expense of the developer. G. USE OF QUALIFIED FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS The applicant is to select qualified financial consultants and/or underwriters to prepare all necessary documents and materials . The City may rely on the opinion of such experts and the application shall be accompanied by a� inan ial analysis (Pro forma income statement, debt service coverage , mortgage terms, etc. ) by the underwriter as to the economic feasibility of the project and the underwriter ' s ability to market the . financing. Fina-ne- a-l- material submitted-- is to- a3�0 include most recent fiscal year-end, financial statements, prepared_by_--a -C-e-r tif­i ti H. MORTGAGE PLACEMENTS Further, in the case of the tax-exempt mortgage placements, the applicant will be required to furnish the City , before passage of the preliminary resolution, a comfort oK letter ( but not necessarily a letter of commitment) from the lending institution, to the effect that said lending institution has reviewed the economic feasibility of the - project, including the financial responsibility the guarantors and find that , in their professional judgement, it is an economically viable project. 9 Toll Free Minnesota(800)862-6002 Toll Free Other States(800)328-6122 Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. Northwestern Financial Center,7900 Xerxes Avenue South,Minneapolis,Minnesota 55431 • (612)831-1500 August 30, 1985 The Honorable Mayor Eldon Reinke and City Council Members City of Shakopee Shakopee , Minnesota Dear Mayor Reinke and Council Members: The City of .Shakopee has proposed to adopt a housing policy. We would like to express to the council some concerns about this particular policy. Because the City of Shakopee has close to a zero vacancy rate in its existing apartment facilities, there is a need to encourage the development of new units. Until now, there hasnJt been a great demand by developers wishing to construct multifamily projects in Shakopee. Therefore, we feel that a housing policy as restrictive as the one proposed would very definately discourage any development in Shakopee at all. Most of the cities in the metropolitan area do not have housing policies, or have housing policies with few restrictions. This is because they want to encourage development, rather than place so many restrictions on potential developers that they build their project in another , less restrictive, community. It has been our experience that communities having housing policies as specific and mandating as Shakopee ' s proposed housing policy are trying to discourage development. These are generally cities that feel their rental housing stock is adequate and do not want to encourage future development of rental housing. In consideration of the pending adoption of the housing policy, the City of Shakopee may just want to consider whether or not they desire development in the residential rental housing market. A policy such as the proposed one would encourage little , if any, development. Most of the restrictions included in the proposed policy are regarding the 200 lower income targeted units. Is the City' s intent to Headquarters:Minneapolis,Minnesota Branch Off ices:Downtown Minneapolis•Solana Beach,California,Santa Monica_California•Northbrook_Illinois-St.Paul.Minnesota•Naples.Florida•Tallahassee.Florida•Carson City,Nevada Page 2 regulate 20% of the units so closely that they jeopardize having the other 80%, non-targeted units at all? With every project that is built, 20% of the units are required , (by federal regulation) to be held for lower income tenants. However , along with these targeted units go 80% of the total units, which will serve the rest of the middle income_ population- seeking housing in Shakopee. In light of all that is being done in Shakopee, a housing policy that would encourage, not restrict, housing would make sense. A policy that merely reiterates the Internal Revenue Code regulations (discussed below) would promote development, and bring into Shakopee units to satisfy lower income families as well. as moderate income families. The proposed policy is so greatly restricting the lower income units that it is jeopardizing having any units. It is virtually a non- development policy. The experience of the City of Bloomington with a very similar policy has been to undertake no housing under the policy. We believe that having a' housing policy that is much more restrictive than the Internal Revenue Code mandates is not to Shakopee ' s advantage. The restrictions required by federal- law for the issuance of multifamily IDB' s are limiting enough, and insure the public purpose behind any developments. Perhaps you are not aware of the requirements relating to multifamily IDB' s in the Code. Basically, they encompass the following 1. Twenty percent (20%) of the units in a project -financed with tax-exempt obligations (15% if the project is - located in a federal or state designated targeted area) must be targeted to lower income households. Lower income is defined as 80% of the area median income. This limit for the SMSA in which Shakopee is located, is presently $26,250. The require- ment is that units be initially occupied by households with incomes not greater than this amount. Currently, there is no requirement to adjust this limit for family size - the income _ limit is. the same regardless of the size of the household. However , for all bonds issued after December 31, 1985 the income limits must be trended for family size as follows: 80% of the area median income fora family of four , 72% for a three person household, 64% for a two person household, and 56% for a single-person household. Page 3 2 . There is no requirement under applicable federal or state law to adjust the maximum rent charged to lower income households as a percentage of gross income. 3 . There is no requirement to disqualify the units in which the incomes of the tenants have risen above the qualifying level during their occupancy. 4 . For 10 years from the date units are occupied, or 1/2 the term of the bonds, whichever is greater, the owner must maintain the lower income units as described and cannot convert the project into condominiums. The policy which you have proposed would impose the following additional restrictions: 1. The maximum qualifying income limit would need to be adjusted to family size based on a schedule which_ is more restrictive than currently imposed under federal laws ; (i.e . , the proposed policy treats a two bedroom unit as if it will be occupied by a three person family) ; under the Section 8 program, for example a two bedroom unit is assumed to be available to a four person family. In addition, the policy would impose this requirement on projects for which bonds are issued before December 31, 1985, which is not a requirement of federal law. 2 . The proposed policy requires City approval of maximum rents in the 20% qualifying units. 3 . The proposed policy requires re-examination of tenant income annually and if the tenant' s income has increased in excess of the qualifying limit, suggests moving or increasing the rent for that tenant and requalifying the next vacant unit. We feel this could have an adverse effect on the financial feasibility of a project, because it increases probable vacancy periods, and inhibits the ability to accurately forecast project rental revenues. It also runs counter to the notion of tax-exempt financed projects as a market rate alternative -to subsidized housing. By requiring tenants to move when income -increases, -a stigma is attached to "low-income housing units" , which we think the City should consider . Page 4 We would like to recommend tht the City does not adopt this particular housing policy, or any housing policy. Let the federal regulations be restrictions enough in the City, so that development is encouraged to take place . Instead, we would recommend the City amend its IRB policy to include housing. In an amendment the City could put forth its administrative policies and application procedures, as well as any fees that will be charged. The City should also consider not adopting a housing policy at all, and instead keep the process more flexible and review each project on its own basis. In preparing this letter , we' ve consulted with Holmes & Graven, Chartered, a bond counsel firm experienced in financing multifamily rental housing projects. A representative of Miller & Schroeder and of Holmes & Graven will be attending your City Council meeting on September 3rd to answer any questions you might have. We look forward to seeing you there. MILLER & SCHROEDER MUNICIPALS, INC. L� SO�PTLAND INQ August 30 , -1985 -- -- Mr. John Anderson City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 E. First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: HRB Financing/Hotel Project Dear John: We are finalizing our application for HRB ' s for the apartment project. Since the City Council has not acted on the HRB policy and since, as- drafted, the HRB policy has a material adverse effect on our ability to do the project for the reasons noted in other correspondence to the City and in meetings with City staff, we hope that we can file our application after the September 3, 1985 meeting and have .the City Council call the - public hearing on the preliminary inducement resolution at its September 10 , 1985 special meeting. Similarly, we -will file next week our application for Industrial Revenue Bonds for a 120 room hotel complex to be located on property zoned commercial and adjacent to County Road 83, south of the .southerly access road to Canterbury Downs. We hope to commence construction on the hotel no later than November 1 , 1985 with completion on or about May 1 , 1986 . 5244 Valley Industrial Boulevard South, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379/612-445-3242 l City of Shakopee August 30 , 1985 Page 2 Hopefully, the City Council at its September 10 , 1985 meeting can call for the public meeting on the preliminary inducment resolution. If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, SCOTTLAND INC. Nad I v✓. Bruce D. Malkerson Executive Vice President BDM:ap c. c. Jeanne Andre Judi Simac r 9.0 SCOTTLAND INC August 30 , 1985 Mayor Eldon Reinke and Members of the City Council City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: HRB Policy Dear Mayor Reinke and Members of the City Council: The purpose of this letter is to address an item in the proposed Housing Revenue Bond (HRB) Policy statement. It was our understanding from the City Council discussion of August 20 , 1985 , that the Council favored the use of permanent, low-maintenance exterior materials on residential structures financed with housing revenue bonds. The proposed HRB Policy statement provided to our office on August 29 , 1985 , used the language "constructed of brick or similar low-maintenace exterior materials" . Our concern is that this language will limit the exterior materials to brick or brick equivalent. Based on estimates provided by our contractors, the requirement of brick will add approximately $3000 to the cost of each unit. Below are rough estimates of the cost of various permanent exterior materials. Material Cost/sq . ft. Cost/unit Cedar/Redwood $ 3 .00 $ 981 .00 Aluminum/Vinyl 3.25 1 ,062. 00 Stucco 14.00 1 , 320 .00 Brick 9 .00 2, 943.00 5244 Valley Industrial Boulevard South, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379/612-445-3242 City of Shakopee August 30 , 1985 Page 2 We support the City Council position that buildings financed with HRB ' s be high-quality facilities constructed with materials that do not become a burden to maintain or an eyesore in the City. However, based on our financial projections, it simply is not economically feasible to construct high-quality, moderate priced housing with brick materials. Moreover, you do not want every apartment building in town to look the same. Finally, whatever the face of the building is, it should have varied textures and lines, not just all brick, or aluminum. The policy should require at least 60% of the face of the building be permanent siding. We respectfully request that the HRB Policy statement not be adopted restricting exterior materials to brick or brick equivalent materials, but instead to include other well known permanent materials such as cedar, redwood, aluminum, vinyl and stucco. Other cities have found that these materials are "permanent exteriors" . Very truly yours, SCOTTLAND INC. Bruce D. Malkerson Executive Vice President Timothy J. Keane Vice President TJK:ap SUITE BOO O 'C O N N O R & H A N N A N WAS PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE N.W. WASHINGTON,D.G.20006-3183 (202)007-100 PATRICK J.OOONNOR DOUGLAS J.rRAN2EN ATT?R IV EYS AT LAW PATRICK J.OCONNOR THOMAS B.[VANS.JR.• JOC A.WA ITERS WILLIAM D.HULL EIDwAwD 0200nE MICHAEL E.VEVC THOM13 A.KELL[R 1 DAVID W.KCLLEY ROBERT HAL►CR JOSEPH E.PATTISO. MIC«ACL C...GU ORE STEVCN J.T, HER JOSEPH E.DILLON CMA PIES W.?172150-M. ROBERT J.CHRISTIANSON,JR. THOMAS O.CREIGHTON 3800 IDS TOWER THOMAS H.OU INN CHRISTINA w.ILEPS• RANK J.wALZ NICK DAVID R.MELINCOPr .GORDON LEE- AM[y R.DORSET ROB[PTAtN,yTR1YONN RICHARD G.MORGAN CHRI5TOPH[R D.COURSE.. J sH EA DAVID K TOR $O SOUTH EIGHTH STREET « L[s J.....0!.- nMor.Y M H1AnE• WILLIAM R ORA.. ARLIN ■.wAELTI .OPE 5.r05TER MICHAEL J.I[RRELL DOUGLAS`M.CARNIVAL RICHARD EVANS BRIAN P.PH N GCO... J.MANNI • KENT E. ICHEY KEVIN M.BUSCM THOM13 R.JOIIr C.ARNEY R....ST[1N• M[5 A."11C1 IN WOOD KID-EP MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 554 0 2-2254 M'.RRr .CUTLER• - DOUGLAS K,:LIMN• THOMAS R.y.ERAN VI GIN11 .LORD CHACL�.CONLON PETER .PARZION JOHN A.SURTO N,JR. JULE .—H-0.0 8 PETER C. IS SEL CNIL+ R. DIE[ ROBERT .BRUN- URE- R.LONCRGAN P TRICK E.OBD ONNELL• O.OE.2A ROBIN• RCO[RICK W MORRIS DANIEL L WILCS JOS[►H H.BLATC-000 ANDREW A.JA n1-OCBICKI M E.FLYNN LESLIE T.511 NER GO M.l. 3.ARMOUR- .I CHAEL J.?.1MES 16 12) 341-3800 JAM[3 P.O'MEARA MAPGARCT M.VAN VALK[NSURG TELEX 29-0564 o....... WI LL1AM T.HINMAN OF CO....I JOHN J.PLT.. rRED[.1CK w.TMOMAS SUITE 4700,ONE UNITED BANK CENTER JOS[.. F.CAET1[lL0• 1700 LINCOLN STREET DAVID C.TRE[.• PEDAL CD....L DENVER.COLORADO 80203 THEODORE K.r..00R (3031 630-1700 NOT......OI.......1.BAR MARTIN M.BEALIN[A• 0AV10 A.ZI3S[R VELAIDUE2,21 •AO.1TT[D IN VI.OI.1A o.Lr WILLIAM C.KELLY(1910-1070) ARNOLD. KAPLAH• Y O.GAll CQOS MADRID I,SPAIN TE.INCE r,BOT L[• JENCE L.T...AS 431-31-00 WILLIAM R,rI E..AN JAMES E.000_• TELEK 23513 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER ROBERT Wi[OA.O X- JAMES A.NATIONS• 343-1252 JOSEPM H.SCNMITT. DIANE BLIEEZNE2. LOCAL W.wIRGA 4 .OLA S.DYAI• PETE.E.OADK0W 1 iRANR J. .BEL DAVID■URLINOAM[ NOEL E.GUAROI September 3 , 1985 BY MESSENGER Jeanne Andre Community Development Director City of Shakopee4 City Hall 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Re: Housing Bond Policies Dear Jeanne: Set forth below are a few thoughts concerning the proposed housing bond policies. I have reviewed a "draft" of such policies , together with only parts of a revised portion of such draft . As you and I discussed, there are numerous policy decisions involved, - in addition to legal issues. Set forth below are certain of the overriding legal and policy considerations . Attached is a more detailed analysis of the proposals I have seen to date. LEGAL ISSUES 1. State and Federal Background. The issuance of revenue bonds to finance either rental or owner occupied housing is governed by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462C. Additionally, the tax exempt nature of interest is determined by compliance with Sections 103 and 103A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 , as amended. . These laws , with respect to rental housing, require that twenty percent of all units must be held for rent by "low and moderate income" tenants during the period which, generally, is not less than ten years after fifty percent occupancy or one-half of the longest maturity on the bonds. "Low and moderate income" tenants are, generally , those whose adjusted income does not exceed eighty percent of the median gross Jeanne Andre September 3, 1985 Page Two s2� income estimated by United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the standard metropolitan statistical area. Under the foregoing laws , low and moderate income conditions are determined as of the date of first occupancy . Further , once such a unit is vacated, it is deemed to be still occupied by a low and moderate individual until later rental . 2. Certain Additional Legal Issues. The foregoing summary addresses only certain state and federal conditions as to issuance of bonds. The City of Shakopee should also consider certain additional legal issues of more local concern. Many of these issues are already addressed in the proposals. A. The city should incur no liability or cost in connection with the issuance of the bonds.. Thus , there should be an undertaking from the developer to indemnify the city and reimburse it for all costs and expenses. B. The developer should be required to furnish sufficient detail as to 'the design, scope and size of the project so that the city can assure compliance with not only its housing policies , but requirements relating to zoning, planning, land use and building permits. C. Compliance with federal and state law requirements is typi- cally required by means of a "Regulatory Agreement" among the issuer , developer and trustee. There should be annual certificates to the city as to compliance with such agreement. D. Legally, the city can impose up to a 1/8% administration fee annually on outstanding bonds. This amount can be "present valued" for a lump sum payment at closing. Through a waiver of certain invest- ment privileges the city could legally change up to 1/20 . A few cities charge such fees. CERTAIN POLICY MATTERS 1. Type of Desired Housing. The above discussed state and federal legal requirements reflect certain state and federal policies. The question then arises as to what additional policies , if any , the city may wish to further. Basic to this inquiry must be a determina- tion as to what type of housing development is deemed desirable by the city. Various cities take different positions. Some cities desire stronger focus on low and moderate income families (or elderly and handicapped -persons) and impose additional requirements in such regard. Such cities may_ impose rental or income limitation. Other cities reflect more concern that housing be oriented to higher income levels (to the extent permitted by state and federal law) . Thus , such cities may impose requirements such as swimming pools and various amenities. Still other cities determine that all housing, depending upon the circumstances of each project, can be desirable . 2. Role of the City. The policies which I reviewed to date anticipate the HRA taking major responsibility within the city. While Jeanne Andre September 3 , 1985 Page Three this is done in certain cities , it is not the prevailing practice. l Also, to avoid any claims of city liability, it is generally desirable to keep the city ' s role at a minimum beyond that dis- cussed above or as is otherwise dictated by city policy. 3. Protection of Bond Holders. Under state law, the city is not liable for the debt incurred in connection with housing revenue bonds. Nevertheless, cases have arisen where a city is sued in case of a default, principally based on allegations of securities fraud. While there is no insurance against such suits , absent extraordinary circumstances, the city should generally not be found liable. Fur- ther, costs and expenses of the city are generally required to be -paid by the developer (or in some cases the underwriter) . Nevertheless , some cities make a distinction between bonds which are rated by a national rating . agency and those which are not. Bonds which are rated reflect independent credit analysis by a third party and presumably the risk of default is less. However, the investment rating reflects solely the level of risk related to such investment as determined by such rating agency. Absent a guaranty, letter of credit or similar device from a major financial institution or "blue chip" company (or highly secured by government obligations) , bonds will normally be unrated. - In the case of unrated bonds, the security of investment has been analyzed by the underwriter, in the case of publicy offered bonds , and by the purchaser of the bonds , �_n the case of a privately placed issue. Some cities impose restrictions or special consideration with respect to bonds which are not rated. Some cities have restricted the public sale of such bonds . Other cities , make no distinction whatsoever. The foregoing discusses certain overriding considerations . En- closed is a list of more detailed comments based on the proposals I - have seen to date. As always , if you have any questions- or comments please Let me know. Very truly yours , Kent E4. i chey KE R/lms Encl. cc: Mr. John Anderson Mr. Rod Krass Miscellaneous Comments Regarding Housing Policies Dated: September 3 , 1985 The following is based on the "draft" policy, except when otherwise noted. 1. Definition of "lower income" makes adjustments for family size (which will not be required until December 31 , 1985) . Further , the definition refers to "income" and not "adjusted gross income" . 2. The definition of "target area" refers only to a redevelop- ment project or housing development project as defined under the housing and redevelopment act. State bond law provides for a broader definition of targeted area, including development district and areas of chronic economic distress. Federal law also has a different defi- nition. The impact of a target area is that the twenty percent require- ment is reduced to fifteen percent in the case of federal law and eliminated, in the case of state law. 3. I am unsure as to the use of the definition of "very low income" . 4 . Section IIIb) needs some type of "lead in" statement. (For example, projects financed by bonds must meet one of the following requirements. ) Also, I am unsure as to the effect of alternative (3) . Presumably, if either alternative (2) or (3) are met, the twenty percent requirement is no longer in effect. Is this what is desired? Also, the twenty percent requirement is phrased in terms of a "target" rather than as an absolute requirement. 5. Section III (d) (1) requires city approval of any rent schedule. Would such requirement remain in effect for the duration of the bonds and would it be revised periodically? Certain developers or credit enhancers might be concerned about this broad discretion since there are no objective standards and the city might impose schedules which would later make the project unviable. Also , as we have discussed, there is a rental limit of thirty percent of the income limit with respect to units targeted for the lower income families . Not infre- quently, there is no distinction between units which are targeted for low and moderate income tenants and those which are not. In such case all units are made more or. less affordable by such persons , without discrimination in the quality or amenities of the various units. There is no direct rent limit under either federal or state law. Instead the market determines whether or not the rents are at a level which can be afforded by the low and moderate income tenant. If the rents are not, the developer cannot comply with the twenty percent restrictions and the bonds will become taxable. 6. Section III (d) (2) provides that income limits (presumably for determining the rent level) is determined on the basis of household size. As mentioned, until December 31, 1985 federal law will not distinguish between family size. Thereafter , to qualify as a low or moderate tenant, the following income limits will apply: 80% of the median income for a family of four or more; 72% for three person households ; 64% for two person households; and 56% for single person households. 7. Section III (d) (3) references a condition that units must be "responsible to special renter group needs as determined by the city" . I am not sure what this means . 8. Section III (d) (4) requires an annual evaluation of incomes. As discussed above, this condition is different from that of federal law. 9 . Section III (e) (2) requires certain exteriors. This is simply a policy decision. 10. Section III (e) (3) discusses the financial condition of the applicant and requires a "substantial net worth" . The financial abilities of the applicant may in fact be immaterial as to the marketing of bonds. A credit enhancer may well supply the substantial net worth. Further , substantial net worth may not in fact be required if the project is relatively small. 11. Section (f) (new draft) discusses the HRA' s responsibilities. I am unsure as to what "monitering negotiations" would entail. It may require more staff time than is desirable if attendance at all drafting sessions is required. 12. Section V (b) (1) prohibits construction prior to the preliminary resolution. As we discussed, this is not a legal requirement. Under federal law -, costs which are incurred prior to such time are "non- qualifying costs" . No more than ten percent of the bond proceeds may . be used for such nonqualifying costs . 2 - PRELIMINARY RESOLUTION PROVISIONS The adoption of this Resolution shall not be deemed to establish any legal obligation on the part of the City or its Council to issue or cause the issuance of the Bonds . The City retains the right in its sole discretion to withdraw from participation and accordingly not issue the Bonds, or issue the Bonds in an amount less than the amount referred to herein. If the final resolution for the Bonds does not occur prior to , 198 or any extension thereof, which may be approved by on behalf of the City, this Resolution shall expire and be of no further effect. CITY ATTORNEY LETTER Q' Rod Krass Krass, Meyer & Walsten Chartered 327 S. Marschall Road Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Sir: The undersigned is an applicant for housing bond financing of the City of Shakopee. I understand that you will be representing the City of Shakopee as legal counsel in connection with the attached application, including, among other things, review of the application, participation in drafting, review of appropriate documents, and closing of the transaction. The undersigned hereby agrees to pay the City' s legal fees incurred with respect to this application and the issuance of the bonds whether or not the project contemplated is approved by the proper state agency, whether or not the project is carried to completion; and whether or not the bonds are issued. Charges for legal fees will be paid when billed and all final charges will be paid prior to or at the closing. Applicant CITY COST LETTER Jeanne Andre Director of Community Development City of Shakopee Shakopee City Hall 129 East 1st Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Ms. Andre: The undersigned is an applicant for housing bond financing of the City of Shakopee. In connection with the application accompanying this letter, the applicant agrees to pay all costs incurred by the City (including fees and expenses of the City Attorney and independent bond counsel) in connection with this application and/or the issuance of bonds, whether or not the proposed project is approved by the proper state agency; whether or not the project is carried to completion; and whether or not the bonds are issued. Applicant MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: LeRoy Houser, Building Official RE: Huber Park Warming House DATE: August 19 , 1985 Introduction: The warming house building at Huber Park is in a state of dilapidation. Background: This building is no longer used. The roof is falling in, the gas line has been disconnected and the interior has been vandalized. The building is deemed a dilapidated, un- safe building as per Section 203 of the U.B.C. which Council has adopted. We have no choice but to repair or raze this building. Recommendation: The building is in the flood plain, no longer used and cannot qualify for rehabilitation due to its location in the flood plain. I recommend the building be razed. Action Requested: Direct the fire department to hold a drill on the warming house building at Huber Park and then direct public works to clean up the remainder. LH: cah MEMO TO: John Anderson, City Administrator FROM: LeRoy Houser, Building Official RE: Housing Advisory Appeals Board Appointment DATE: August 15 , 1985 Introduction: To comply with the Uniform Housing Code Appeals Section which the City has adopted, our codifier has prepared the ordinance establishing the Appeals Board. Background: It appears there are two ways to establish the Appeals Board; one is to appoint a five member board from the general public or five members from the construction and real estate field. The- League of Minnesota Cities indicates other jurisdictions do it wither way. Recommendation: I recommend the Council appoint a five member Appeals Board from the real estate and construction field providing for an appellant review and approval (Council ) of the boards actions . Action Requested: Direct staff to recruit five members for the Housing Appeals Board from the construction and real estate fields when' advertising in late 1985 to fill all boards and commission vacancies , and to draft a resolution establishing terms of office, rules of procedures , etc. LH: cah ORDINANCE N0. _7g , FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE SHAKOPEE CITY CODE, CHAPTER 2 ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT" BY ADDING A PROVISION RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF A HOUSING ADVISORY AND, BY A AND APPEALS BOARD; ADOPTING BY REFERENCE, SHAKOPEE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 2.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION I. Shakopee City Code Chapter 2 is hereby amended by adding a Section to read: SEC. 2.21. HOUSING ADVISORY AND APPEALS BOARD_ Subd. 1. Establishment and Composition. A Sousing f Advisory and Appeals Board, composed of five members who are not - employees of the City; and who-shall--serve staggered -three_ year terms., is hereby established. The .Building Official shall be an ex-officio member and shall act as Secretary of the Board. Subd. . 2. Powers and Duties. The Board shall have all of the powers and duties set forth in the Uniform Housing Code. SECTION II. Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 2.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim herein. SECTION III. After the adoption, signing and attestation of this ordinance it shall be published- onceand-official effect sonper andof the after City of Shakopee and shall be in full force the date following such publication. Adopted in session ofthe City Coun it of t e City of Shakopee, -Minneso ld this � day of 19 _ avor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: A � I Jerk _l_ D MEMO TO: John K. Anderson , City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox , City Clem RE: Agreement with Scott County for Building Inspection Services DATE: August 28 , 1985 Introduction and Background: On August 6th Council authorized execution of a 12 month contract with LeRoy Heitz in the amount of $10 . 826/hr plus benefits. Because-the City shares Mr.--Heitz with Scott County, - it Zs ziesireable -- to enter into a contract with the County. The attached contract is identical to the contract signed last year, except for an increase -in the hourly rate.. Alternatives: a) Enter into a contract with the County b) Do not enter into a contract with the County Action Recommended: Authorize proper city officials to execute a 12 month joint powers agreement between Scott County and the City of Shakopee for building inspection services. dbs JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEf? SCOTT COUNTY AND THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE FOR BUILDING TNSPECTIOI SERVICES This Joint Powers Agreement , dated this 20th day of August , 1985 , by and between the City of Shakopee , a Municipal Corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City" and the County of Scott , State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County" , by and through its Board of Commissioners. WITNESSETH: . WHEREAS, the parties to this agreement desire to share in the costs of the services of a building inspector; and a WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 471 . 59 authorizes governmental subdivisions, by agreement entered into through action of their governing bodies , to jointly and cooperatively exercise any power coming to the contracting parties ; and WHEREAS, each or the parties hereto desires to enter into such a joint powers agreement , and has through action of its governing body been authorized to enter into such an agreement . NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties do agree as follows : I. TERM The term of this Agreement shall be from July 1 , 1985 to July 1 , 1986 , the date of signature of the parties notwithstanding, unless earlier terminated or otherwise amended as provided herein understood by the parties that the hours of provision of services will be subject to change as agreed upon by the City ' s Building Inspector and the County ' s Planning Director. II. SERVICES The City agrees to retain the services of a building inspector duly qualified and willing to perform the duties and services set forth herein on behalf of the City and the County. At the time of execution of this agreement, the individual employed by the City for said purpose in LeRoy Heitz . The building inspector is to provide the building insepction services described below: , 1 . To enforce the Minnesota State Building Code Act, the rules and regulations of the City and the County and the appropriate ordinances of both political subdivisions pertaining to building codes , and any directives promulgated or issued under the authority of the City and the County. 2. To report to the office of the building inspector of the County or the City when called upon to provide services. 3. To supply daily reports of all inspections completed on designated official inspection forms of the County and City. 4 . To make building inspections on behalf of the City and County as directed in the geographical areas within the City ' s corporate limits and the other areas within the County of Scott for which the County has responsibility for building inspections. 5 . To assist in legal proceedings necessary to enforce provisions of the building codes as set forth herein. III. TIME FOR PERFORMANCE It is agreed by the parties that the building inspector will primarily provide services to the County the first half of the work week and will primarily provide services to the City the second half of the work week. It is agreed and understood by the parties that the hours of provision of services will be subject to change as agreed upon by the City ' s Building Inspector and the County' s Planning Director. IV. BILLING AND PAYMENT The County agrees to reimburse the City for the services of the building inspector at the rate of $13 . 626 per hour for the time the building inspector has actually provided services to the County. The reimbursement rate of $13 . 626 per hour is based on the sum of $ 10 . 826 per hour salary plus $2. 80 per hour for costs of benefits provided by the City. The City will submit an itemized billing statement to the County. The billing statement shall indicate the dates and hours worked by the building inspection in providing services to the County pursuant to this Agreement . i The County will make payment to the City as soon as practicable within thirty days after receipt of the billing statement . The billing statement will be paid after verification of items contained therein by the County' s Planning Director. It is understood and agreed by the parties that any claim of the building inspector for workers compensation will be the responsibility of the City and that costs of any claim for unemployment compensation by the building inspector shall be shared by the City and County based on a pro rata compilation of time worked for the City and for the County. V. TERMINATION This Agreement may be terminated by either party at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty ( 30) days written notice delivered by mail or in person. For purposes of early termination, notice may be sent to the City as follows : City Administrator, Shakopee City Hall , 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee , MN 55379 . Notice may be sent to the County as follows : County Administrator, Scott County Courthouse, 428 South Holmes , Shakopee, MN 55379 • VI. ASSIGNMENT Neither party to this contract shall assign the contract, nor any interest arising herein, without written consent of the other. VII. ENTIRE AGREEMENT It is understood and agreed that the entire agreement of the parties is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matters hereof as well as any previous agreements presently in effect between the City and the County relating to the subject matter hereof. VIII. REQUIREMENT OF A WRITING Any alterations, amendments, deletions or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only when reduced to writing and duly signed by the parties. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written. s CITY OF SHAKOPEE COUNTY OF SCOTT Mayor, City of Shakopee Chairman, Scott County Board Shakopee City Administrator Sc t County Administrator Shakopee City Clerk J MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Renewal of Employment Agreement with LeRoy Heitz DATE: August 30 , 1985 Introduction The Shakopee City Council, at its August 6 , 1985 meeting, directed staff to renew the-- contract with. LeRoy Heitz for a one year -- - period. We have now finalized the agreement with Scott County under which we share Mr. Heitz ' s services on a 50/50 basis; - ---- therefore, we can renew the contract—wth 'lr.—He- tz Contract Form The -contract form presented is the same form we used for our contract with Barry Stock as Administrative Intern. The only sections changed are 1 and 2 which relate to specific conditions of employment discussed with Scott County and Mr. Heitz. The purpose of the review 12/31/85 is to allow us the opportunity to switch Mr. Heitz to a permanent part-time employee shared with Scott County should both jurisdictions include that in their 1986 budgets. Alternatives 1. Approve the contract as presented. Scott County will also be continuing Mr. Heitz ' s services under contract until a decision is made about permanent employee status. 2. Approve the proposed agreement with changes. 3 . Do not approve the proposed agreement and discontinue the services of Mr. Heitz. Recommendation I recommend alternative No. 1. The joint partnership of the City and Scott County has worked well and Mr. Heitz has been very flexable in meeting the needs of the two governmental juris- dictions. In addition, LeRoy Houser pointed out at the recent August. 27th budget worksession that he sees no change in the building activity level for 1986.- Action Requested Direct the appropriate City officials to execute an agreement for building official services with Mr. LeRoy Heitz at a rate - of $10 . 826 per hour for a period of twelve months beginning July 8 , 1985 . EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT `a SECTION ONE Terms of Employment The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of twelve months beginning 7/8/85 , with a parttime permanent status review 1/1/86 . This Agreement is subject to review or termination on 1/1/86 . Employee shall be a shared Employee with Scott County. SECTION TWO Compensation of Employee Employer shall pay Employee, and Employee shall - accept from Employer, in full payment for Employee' s services hereunder, compensation at the rate of $10.826 per hour for services rendered for a normal 40 hour week, with overtime to be paid for work in excess of a 40 hour week when authorized in advance by the Employee ' s supervisor, with the County paying 50% of his cost and benefits . Annual percentage increases authorized for all other City Employees will be applied to the stated initial wage rate. SECTION THREE Employee Benefits Hospitalization Insurance and Long Term Disability: Employer shall provide to Employee such group hospitali- zation and long-term disability insurance as is provided to full-time Employees of the Employer, and on the same basis . 11 Life Insurance: Employer shall provide to Employee such group term life insurance as is provided to full-time Employees of the Employer , and on the same basis . Vacation, Holidays and Sick Leave: Employer shall provide to Employee such vacation, holiday and sick leave as is provided to full-time Employees of the Employer, and on the same basis . SECTION FOUR Other Terms —" If not otherwise established by this Agreement , all other terms of employment shall be established by the Shakopee Personnel Policy as adopted, March 5 , 1980, and periodically amended. SECTION FIVE Job Description A complete job description outlining the Employee' s duties is attached and made a part of this Agreement. SECTION SIX Execution In witness whereof , the parties have executed this Agreement at Shakopee , Minnesota on the day of 1985 . EMPLOYEE - EMPLOYER LeRoy Heitz Eldon A. Rein e, Mayor - Judith ox, City Clerk John K. Anderson, City Adm. MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: November 5 , 1985 Municipal Election DATE: August 27 , 1985 Introduction The 1985 Municipal Election day falls on a Council meeting date. The meeting could not begin before 8 : 00 p.m. Council must also meet within two days following the election to canvas the votes. Council may wish to hold their first meeting in November on Wednesday, November 6th, rather than Tuesday, November 5th. Planning Commission meets on Thursday, so that would not be an option for a regular meeting date. Alternatives 1. Meet November 5 ,1985 at 8: 00 p.m. , both the City Administrator and City Clerk would not be able to attend. 2 Meet November 6 , 1985 at 7: 00 p.m. , the City Administrator will be on vacation. Recommendation Alternative No. 2. ' Action Requested Direct staff to schedule a Council meeting for November 6 , 1985 at 7:00 p.m. JSC/jms �1 TO: John R. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: 1985 Risk Management services DATE: August 28, 1985 Introduction and Background Council has seen my memo dated July 10, 1985 at the July 16 meeting and the August 27 meeting. (see memo attached). The memo was designed to address risk management services for the balance of 1985. Council has not taken any action on the issue for 1985. The same issues are up for consideration for 1986 as part of the budget process and were discussed on August 27th. Request that Council make a decision as to the use of Mr. Tange for the balance of 1985 for property/liability and general insurance questions. Alternatives See July 10 memo. Recommendation A four month contract could be arranged, but perhaps Council would be more comfortable with just using Mr. Tange on a need basis without a contract for the rest of 1985, subject to the amount available in the 1985 budget for such services. Action Move that the D. A. Tange be used on an as needed basis for the rest of 1985 not to exceed $1,525. TO: John Y_ Anderson-,- Gity- AdMini_str-ator--- .__-�- — -- --- - - FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Risk Management Services DATE: July 10, 1985 Introduction & Background Council requested that Dwight Mange submit a proposal for ongoing risk management services. Attached is the proposal for a range of services. This covers the property/casualty and workers compensation coverages. Staff recommends that Council consider retaining Mr.. Mange for some of- the -,: ,routine -services listed in the proposal. The services listed under the heading of Additional Services would be addressed separately if and when the ocassion arises. . _ �3i73�is+aiii B •' tiriu iiv3 :,Jf J li.7 axS�ulFiLQ i3 tttn-i _11. :•,�: it Mr. Mange's price for the services listed as routine is $4,200^ for 22 months Staff feels that with the way the City is currently operating, not all services need to be used. It is recommended that Council consider the following services': _ listed .according to what staff considers priorities. .-... _"- --- - 1. Telephone access Estimated 8 hours: $360 2. Client visits (4). Estimated 12 hours. - $540 3. Monitoring of policies. Est. 10 hours. $450 4. Contracts. Estimated 10 hours. $450 5. Premium allocation. Estimated 15 hours. $675 6. Review of audits. Estimated 8.,pours. $360 Numbers 1 and 2 (above) are self. explanitory. Number 3 is explained in the - proposal. Number 4 covers review of outside contracts for services, rentals, construction, etc., to see if the City is adequately covered and whether the risk can be transferred away from the City. Number 5 is somethingthat that staff has been doing for years. The agent is splitting the premium between the City and SPDC and the General Fund picks" up most of the City bill. There have not been complaints that one department is charged too much compared to other departments so apparently the- allocations are "sufficient.. The advantage to having the consultant do the allocation at least once is to enable selective deletion or -modification of coverages based on premium savings and exposure as is revealed when the premium is broken down by -type of coverage and depart- ment. Number.-6 is a review of- the premium audit done by the insurance company to check for errors. The above proposal comes- to $2,835 for` twelve months. -- Monthly billings would__-be about $236.25. Deleting the two lowest priority items would lower the cost to $1,800 or $150 per month. The costs are based on estimated hours at an hourly rate of $45. The 1985_ budget includes $4,000- for- risk_management--sere-ices..- The City- has = incurred-- costs--of--$2;220 to-- date;--of-which SFUC -has -been-billed -$1;110. "Mr.: Mange's proposal--for--bidding-the-group-health coverages --is- $1,365. Therfore _-- there is $1,525 left in the 1985 budget to cover an ongoing contract for the - remaining months- in 1985— The-1986 --budget would -cover the monthly cost _for next ver._. The cost could be reduced if SPDC elected to participate in the cost. Their snare woui4 probacjv be one trirc. it is recommended that Council start this service now instead of waiting for January to coincide with the 1986 budget. This will "keep the ball rolling" following the bidding process. Alternatives 1. Do not accept proposal 2. Approve entire proposal 3. Approve proposal for numbers 1-6 above 4. Approve proposal for numbers 1-4 above 5. Approve proposal for some other part of entire package. 6. Implement a proposal for 1986 7. Approve the use of Mr. Tange on an hourly basis not to exceed . $2,500 (or some other amount)—=--- Recommendation mount).-- --Recommendation _ Alternative number 3. If Council considers the cost too high then alternative number 4 is recommended. - - Action— Move to authorize staff to enter into an agreement with D. A. Tange Company for ongoing risk management services for one year in an amount not to exceed - -D, A. Tar)ge (_'omp3ny - --- - --- -- -- INSUkANCE CONSULTING SEWaS DWIGHT A.TANGS,CIC W+� iu�yngrtanjli� { PRESIDENTjSr�45�}; 908 9th Street Date• Jul 11 , 1985 Farmingtom, Mn. 55024 • Y Ph. 612-460-6556 To: Members of the City Council City of Shakpoee City Hall -- . - 129 all 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, .Minnesota 55379-1376 From: Dwight A. Tange., CIC President D. A-. Tange Company _ - - __ -_ Subject-- �soposal_for:-Dzie_:(la�Year_ Contractfar,Ongoing - -'�" Risk; Management--.Services --`- - � Insurance Risk.Management is becoming increasingly complex •and difficult for non-specialized individuals .to interpret_ and -_. _ _ __,_ control_ The. City. of Shakopee . has used' the services of D. A. . Tange Company for the recent public - bidding of - . property, casualty and workers.' compensation. insurance coverages. -D. A. Tange- Company proposes-. to. continue to provide, for -- all insurance policies and exposures to -loss, Routine Services- in insurance. These services 4clude management of insurance: _ policies and . exposures to loss for- Property,. and Liability,, __­ ­ Workers' Workers" Compensation - Additional -services in insurance- and/or-- risk management can also be contracted from D. A. Targe Company - on an hourly fee schedule. Following is a description of the .Routine Services to be provided. _ ROUTINE SERVICES 1. QUARTERLY ?�QSS. REPORTS AND SAFETY PROGRAM.: '- Obtaining- and ROGRAM:Obtaining and reviewing. cuarterly, loss -reports; -checking for trends . with resulting information to be used as a guide to a - good loss control program. Follow .up in this area would. include_review of -current safety pro-gram making changes T— adjustments as- .needed- It would also include monitoring the activities of -the loss. control and safety personnel 'of the _ Insurance - - Company- ----providers-�-_-and ; attendence --by---- a -. representativte of D. A. Tange . Company at quarterly-_ _.safety_.-____. _. meetings. - 2. CLAIMS -HANDLING: ._ _ry Reviewing claims,-a copy . of which would be -provided to me by _ your agent and/or- City staff , as well as .follow up on all: claims. Zbers of the Citi Council pace 2 -v of Shar.cnee-- 3 . PREMIUM ALLOCATION: Reviewing the agent 's calculations and/or the Insurance Company 's worksheets and preparing the premium allocation for the various departments, as needed. 4. CONTRACTS: This would include a review of current procedures regarding contracts for outside services, lease of premises, etc. and input, as needed, on individual contracts. 5. REVIEW OF AUDITS: Verifying the accuracy of premium audits on such policies as . Workers ' Compensation and General Liability as well as negotiation of any _ disputed items with the involved insurance company;- . Many- times-audits- - contain errors which, - unchecked, could needlessly cost the- Client - thousands ' of dollars. o. REVIEW OF SAFETY GROUP DIVIDENDS: Re: Policies secured from an -insurance company that has promised' to allow the Client to share in any divisible surplus -in: the form- of a Safety Group Dividend. Calculations are reviewed ' and verified to ensure that all refunds to which the Client is entitled are received.. 7 CONTINUAL MONITORING' OF POLICIES-c'- Includes OLICIESIncludes considering adjustments, based on loss experience, insurance market changes, and chancesin the nature of the Client"s: operations as well as continuing to look for more cost effective ways to handle exposure to loss, such as elimination of -coverage on .low valued iems of property and increasing deductibles where feasible.. 9. CLIENT VISITS: Setting appointments to meet at Client 's location at their request or as deemed necessary by D.- A: Tange- Company in consultation with the City Administration including planned visits for attendence at safety committee meetings. Eight (8 ) site visits of 2 hours each per contract year are included in the' Routine Services. �. TELEPHONE ACCESS D. A. -Tange - Company will be available for telephone . consultation to answer questions and concerns as needed. --OST: ROUTINE-SERVICES : - It is estimated that a minimum of 93 hours will be recuired to perform the .services - as described, in an effective and efficient manner. The monthly fee for the Routine Services is $350 per month, plus expenses , for a twelve (12 ) month period beginning August 1 , 1985 . Alembers cF the Citr Council Pace 3 ADDITIONAL SERVICES From time to time, the Client may desire the performance of additional duties that do not fall within the scope of the routine services listed. If additional services such as those listed below are desired by the Client, they would be billed on an hourly basis including travel time and expenses A. PREPARATION OF SPECIFICATIONS: Should the Client elect to Publicly Bid any or all coverages, D. A. Tange Company will contract to draft Specifications and provide printed copies along with Legal Notice of Bid placement, issuing. addendums to . answer bidder 's questions, etc. B. BID EVALUATION: If the Client elects to seek public bids or informal quotations, D. A. Tange will be available to evaluate- the bids . and quotations and make recommendations to the Client. C. NEGOTIATION OF- RENEWAL PREMIUMS: If the Client elects to negotiate with the Insurer for renewal premiums rather than seeking public bids or - informal quotations, D. A. Tange Company is available to assist the Client in this process to the extent deemed - necessary by the . Client. D. UPDATING SCHEDULES AND INSURABLE VALUES: Verifying the accuracy of the automobile schedule, scheduled property floaters, - statement of values , etc. on an annual basis. Whether the Client chooses to publicly bid, informally quote or negotiate for renewal premiums, D.. A. Tange Company will be available to the extent necessary as determined by the Client for -completion of insurance Company applications, gathering renewal data, etc. E. OTHER MEETINGS Meetings with Agents and/or Insurance Company Personel at locations other than Client '-s site. F_ OTHER: - Additional site visits and consultation beyond those provided under Routine Services as mutually agreed upon between the Client and D. -A. Tange Company. COST: Additional Services are available. to the Client and -can be contracted from D. A. Tange Company on an as needed basis. Cost- for these services is $60 . 00 per hour including travel time plus expenses. _ 1v� Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director Re: Deferred V.I.P. Interceptor Special Assessments Date: August 21, 1985 Introduction & Background The City has adopted deferred assessments for the V.I.P. Interceptor for the area west of Co. Rd. 17. The assessments and interest are payable over ten years starting in 1986. The Comprehensive Plan does not currently allow the extension of sewer into this area. The Community Development Director is working on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to permit the sewer extension into this area. It appears the City has the choice of proceeding to collect the assessents as orginally scheduled or to defer the collection. If the payment is deferred, the City could pursue the issue of whether maintain the same term (10 years) or to shorten the term to match the bonds. Attached is a copy of the Assistant City Attorney' s opinion that special assessments can be collected after the related bonds are paid. A one year extension of the deferment would make the last installment due in 1996. The bonds are due to be paid off on 2/1/96. Alternatives 1. Status Quo 2. Extend deferment one year 3. Extend deferment one year but shorten the term 4. Extend deferment until the comp. plan is changed Recommendation The recommendation of staff is to send a letter to the affected owners advising them of the situation and that Council is considering extending the deferrment for one year. Furthermore, request their response for their preference whether to continue with the orginal payment schedule or to extend the deferment (with interest) for one year in anticipation of the Comprehensive Plan being amended. Action Requested Move to direct staff to contact the owners of property affected by the deferred special assessments for the V.I.P Interceptor, advising them of the situation and requesting a response as to their preference in handling the payment of the assessments. GV:mmr Law Offices of ,j■IB,% � ; 1985 KRASS, MEYER & WALSTEN Chartered ✓( ! 'i �i t Suite 300 'Am Marschall Road Business center Phillip R. Krass Par. 327 South Marschall Road Blegal` Barry K. Meyer m Barbara J.hedstro P.O. Box Trevor R. Walston Shakopee. Minnesota 55379 Jo1ini R.Wagner Elizabeth B. McLaughlin Lori A.Wermerskirchen (612)445 5080 Rochelle M. Anderson Sn•ny T.F•Ising Of Counsel office Manager Dennis L. Monroe Wanda Bnimhorai June 17, 1985 Mr. John Anderson City Administrator City of Shakopee -129 East 1st Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear John: This letter is in response to your question regarding the city's ability to collect assessments after the underlying improvement bonds have been paid off. Although there appears to be no case law directly on point, it is clear that the city is able to collect assessments after the bonds are paid off. Minn. -Stat. 429.051 provides that "the cost of any improvement, or any part thereof., may be assessed upon property benefited by the improvement, based upon the benefits received. ..". Thus in Minnesota the amount that each land owner is assessed is based upon the amount the land owner benefits from the local. improvement. There is no indication that a city's ability to make a special assessment is tied to the amount owing on an underlying obligation such as an improvement bond. The only limitation on an assessment is that it not exceed the benefit the property received from the improvement. So long as the assessments do not exceed the amount of the benefit to the landowner, the city can continue to assess the property. Thus, a city has the ability to assess a land owner for the amount he benefited from a local improvement regardless of whether or not the underlying funding obligation has been paid. I hope this rather general response is sufficient to answer your question, John. If not, or if I can be of further assistance, please contact me. Very truly yours, KRASS, MEYER & WALSTEN' CHARTERED Fri llip R. Krass PRK/ln/eg A RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENTS 1981-1 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM V.I .P. INTERCEPTOR WHEREAS, a contract has been let for the installation of the V.I .P. Sanitary Sewer Interceptor beginning at a section of the r existing Shakopee interceptor lying between County Road 83 and County Road 17 thence proceeding southerly to County Road 16 thence westerly to Marschall Road and there terminating; and t WHEREAS, the total cost of the improvements will be $879,912.65; and WHEREAS, property outside the corporate limits of the City and other property will benefit in the amount of $112,661.90, and since the City chooses not to assess said property at this time, the City will pay the $112,66190 now and will be reimbursed by connecting to the interceptor at the time of construction of a lateral sanitary sewer; and WHEREAS, the City proposes to defer assessments in the amount of $63,333.13 for those properties lying between CR-17 and CR-79 who cannot now benefit from the construction of a lateral sanitary sewer to the interceptor because of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by F .. law, the City Council of the City of Shakopee met, heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment of the said V.I.P. Sanitary Sewer Interceptor. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: . 1. That such proposed assessments together with any amend- ments thereof, as listed on assessment Roll "A", is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein and each tract therein included is hereby found to be bene- i rovements in the amount of the assessments fitted by the proposed imp levied against it. ments extending over.a period of ten years, the first installment to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1982, and shall bear interest at the rate of 8 3/4 percent per annum from 1 I the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the f first installment shall be added the interest on the entire assess- ' ment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1982, and � to each subsequent installment when due shall be added the interest ' Y for one year on all unpaid installments. F 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior `to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution; he may there- after pay to the County Treasurer .the installment and interest in process of collection on the current tax list, and he may pay the remaining principal balance of the assessment to the City Treasurer. 4. The Clerk shall file the .-assessment rolls pertaining to this assessment as listed on Assessment Roll "A" in his office and shall certify annually to the County Auditor on or before October 10th of each .year, beginning in 1981, the total amount of installments and interest which are to become due . in the following year on the- assessment on each parcel of land included in the assessment roll. . A I' BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: 1. That such proposed assessments together with any amend- ments thereof, as listed on Assessment Roll "B" attached hereto, and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein and each tract therein included is hereby found to be benefitted by the proposed improvements in the amount of the assessments levied uM against it; ji 2. That such assessments are hereby deferred until Januar F y y t 1st, 1985, when sanitary sewer can be extended to the area in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. �tt. r 3. That such assessments shall be payable in equal annual Q 'k l ir,stallments_.ext.ending_ov-er.a_..ppri9d of tepyears, the first in- stallment to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1986 (or when sanitary sewer can be extended to the area in ac- cordance with the City' s Comprehensive Plan) and shall bear interest at the rate of 8 3/4 percent per annum from the date of the adoption j of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added the interest for the calendar year in which the first assess- ments are to be collected by the County Treasurer and to each sub- sequent installment when due shall be added -the interest for one year on all unpaid installments. - The interest which has accumulated i from the date of this resolution until the end of 1985 (or when sani- 9 tary. sewer can be extended to the area in accordance with the City' s.. Comprehensive Plan) shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over the same 10 year period as the principal, and shall be in addition to the_principal, but shall not be compounded. li 4. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time i prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay I � I the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued i to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no in- terest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty 1! (30) days from the adoption of this resolution; he may thereafter l' pay to the County Treasurer the installment and interest in process !I of collection on the current tax list, and he may pay the remaining 'I deferred principal balance of the assessment andAinterest to the City Treasurer. 5. The Clerk shall file the assessment rolls pertaining to 1 � this assessment as listed on Assessment Roll "B" in hisoffice and shall certify annually to the County Auditor on or before October 10th of each year the total amount of installments and interest 'i which are to become due in the following year on the assessment on each parcel of land included in the assessment roll. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: peak ~? 1. That an additionalAcapacity of 4.85 C.F.S. has et been provided in the interceptor for future use and the cost ofA f' providing this additional interceptor capacity is $112,661.90 ut1 .. which amount shall be recouped in the future for areas designated �H I,4 2. That when such areas are designated for a service and/or connection charge interest from the date of this resolution at the rate of 8 3/4 percent per annum, shall be added to the initial service and/or connection charge. After this point, no additional interest shall be charged. 3. That the time when areas are designated in the future as being benefited by the interceptor, service and/or connection charges shall be set by the City Council. I Adopted in ;, 4'n. session of the Shakopee City Council of Shakopee,)Minnesota, held this �flay of Iz�4"/ti I , 1981. Mayor of he City cShako ee P ATTEST: /City Clerk' I , ( I t Approved as to form this 1i day of � l l � t City Attorney 1 i I ISS Ao ASSESSmEnTS FOR SPECIAL. IMPROVEmEnT DISTRICT 81-1 + Prepared: 2/81 VIP SANITARY SEWER INTERCEPTOR Rechecked & Prepared: 7/81 Assessment Roll B (deferred) Adoot-erl: 8/25/81 OWNER DESCRIPTION Rna-sEA FOOtAGE ASSESSMENT TOTAL i LOT BIOCK ADDITION PARCEL NUMBER 7 Eldon Greenwood & Wife 7 115 22 40.00 Acres ' 16'74 Marschall Road SWyt SES Shakopee, 191 55379 27-907-5223-012-00 I 39.4680 I $ z,28q.11 $ 8,264.03 18 115 22 38.30 Acres 27-918-5210-001-00 I 5.2'(70 I $ 974.62 NWS NE4 Ex 1 Acre & Ex .51 Acres & Ex. .5 Acres I Eugene llauer 7 115 22 110.23 Acres 2088 Rauer Trail SEIy SEty Ex S 8' 27-907-5222-013-00 139.0817 I $ 7,218.06 $ 7,218.06 i Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee Sand & Gravel Co. 7 115 22 51.37 Acres I 7200 France Ave. So. Suite 134, S144 NW4 & N 30 Rds 27-907-5200-001-00 152.71.54 I $ 9,736.09 Bloomington, 1,1N 55435 of W 80 Rds of SW4 Gravel Pit $30,463.33 7 115 22 111.2 Acres SE4 NW4, N 55 A. of El SW4 & 16.22 A in I112.2262 1 $20,727.211 A SWI 27-907-5200-002-00 _ I ,I Alphonse Vierl Ing 7 115 22 19.20 Acres Route 2 Box 530 201 A in Sj SW4 Ex 1.3 A I20.5000 1 $ 3,786.18 $ 3,786.]8 _ 27-907-5230-003-00, Page 1 of 4B li 19 8o ASSESSmEnTS FOR SPECIAL IMPROVEmEnT DISTRICT sl-1 VIP SANITARY SEWER INTERCEPTOR Assessmehh Roll B (Deffcred) OWNER DESCRIPTION AREA FRONT ASSESSMENT TOTAL A,rpa FOOTAGE IAT BLOCK ADDITION PARCEL NUMBER Alphonse Vierling 7 115 22 77.79 Acres SJ NEI Ex S 1 Rd of SE4 NEI & Ex. .92 & Ex 20 A Ex 10.05 A & NWI SE4 Ex 1.1 A Ex. 8.3 A Ex 1.26 A Rd. 158.8862 i $10,875.79 f I 27-907-5200-005-00 1 _ $12,695.19 I 7 115 22 48.05 Acres I 9.8510 I $ 1,819.110 S 5/8 of S1 SW4 27-907-5230-014-00 Charles Bernhagan,& Wife 27-918-5211-008-00 1 4.9073 I $ 906.34 $ 906.34 14500 Northeast Shady Beach Trail 18 115 22 16.29 Prior Lake, MN 55372 NJ NEI NEI Ex. N 8' & Ex. S 330' of W 1150' 1 I 1'ge 2 of 4R TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator s �� FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: CIP Adoption DATE: August 29, 1985 Introduction and Background Council has accepted the Planning Commission recommendations and staff has incorporated those recommendations into the attached copy of the current CIP. Council has already reviewed and discussed the CIP but deferred adoption until the Planning Commission submitted its recommendations. The changes from the previous version of the CIP are; 1. Contruction of Valley Ind. Blvd. North. Shown as title and date only on the bottom of the list. Engineering will have to study it to determine costs and funding. The reason this is brought up now is because a replatting is in process that affects Valley Ind. Blvd. North. 2. Move up Deans Lake outlet control. Shown as title and future date only. Previously listed as post six year. Engineering will have to study it to supply costs and funding information. 3. Construction of frontage road from Howe Chemical to Cretex Drive. Shown as title and post six year due to the recent failure of Hwy. 101 frontage road project. Engineering will have to study it to supply cost and funding information. Action Move to adopt the Capital Improvement Plan for 1986 - 1990 and presented and dated August 29,1985. 24-Aug-85 Revised ► f t 1906-1990 CAPITAL IMFROVEHENT PROGRAM f f t CITY OF SHAK.OPEE, MINNESOTA I f f Page 1 29-Aug-B5 Printed Sources of Funding Frile. Oroject Dept. Project Const. Total General G.O. Special Sewer State Grants Tax Park Capital County federal Donations No. 6tatus Rank Prior. Name Years Cost Fund Pends Assess. Fund Aid Increment Reserve Improv. Aid Aid/Urban - -1---------- --------------------=----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'--- I Funding Aar P5 70 CA-X HNY 169 Bridge (state) 87-89 , 18,000,000 31,925,000 175,000 16,000,000 2 Funding Agr, 85 70 .CA-I HNY 101 Realignment{ Bb-B1 2,000,000 75,000, 1,925,000 3 115 Approval 85 64 PC CR 18 Bridge (County Project) 89-95 35,000,000 3,500,000 31,500,000 4 to fugd 86 64 E-6 4th Ave. ICSAH 161, Fillmore- 85-86 500,000 75,000 125,000 300,000 Scettf 5 ROw Acq. 85 62 PC Bypass 1169 to 1101 88-90 36,000,000 35,000,000 1,000,000 ------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=---'-----------------------------------------------------�- 6 Const 95 62 E-1 4th Ave, Co 93-Shenandoah{ 84-85 635,000 635,000 7 Complete 59 E-1 Valley Park Dr. 6 12th$ 84-85 1,046,000 1,046,000 8 59 E-25 Gorman Stmtf 87 340,000 140,000 200,000 9 59 'HA-1 Motel,Downiown 86.88 1,085,000 1,085,000 10 59 CD-x 'Downtown Street Stapp, 86-89 . 4,000,000 1,000,000 3,006,000 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- I1 COmolete 57 E-1 IN 101 lntersct.lmp.6 RA ling, 84-85 885,000 a 885,000 12 Feasability 86 . 56 E-9 Market Street$ , 86-81 700,000 200,000 500,000 13 56 CD-X Housing Alliance Project-Acq. 85-86 t20,000 120,000 14 No warrants 55 E-16 Semiphore at ill 101 1 C.R. 93+ 86-87 120,000 60,000 60,000 15 Fend. Downtown. 54 FA-4 Huber Park Road ri0cwntownl 86-88 32,000 16,000 16,000 --------------------=-------------------------p--9--------------------=-------'---------------------------- -- -----=----------------------------------- -=-------------------------------------------------------------------t - 16 Study done 54 E-3 1985 Pavement prog/ rural zone 83-87 515,700 386,715 128,925 ' Feasblty done 41 E-3 Eaglewood Road Reconst.1 84-95 14000001 320,000 80,000 w Feasibility 85 36 E-3 Norton Drive, 84-95 1270001 27,000 ' Feasibility 85 44 E-3 Timber Trails! 84-85 1750001 56,250 18,750 $ Feasibility 85 36 E-1 Montecito Drivel 84-85 1137001 10,275 3,425 17 E-1 Street Rehab needs 86-92 5,784,000 4,339,000 1,446,000 18 Design 5 Build 52 HA-x Downtown Parking Lot, 85-87 60,000 60,000 17 Acquire 96 48 HA-2 Frison Site Redevelopment 86-87 860,000 860,000 (except road){ 20 Complete 47 E-i CR 83 widening] Track to 1011 84-85 213,000 243,000 ---------------------------------------------------------7--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21 -------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------21 Study Turnback 47 E-29 CR 77 tNot in City limits) B9 443,000 443,000 22 Intersect. 95 45 CA-1 Street Lights at Track* 85-96 126,000 126,000 23 Siting 85 44 HA-x New City Hall, 86-87 2,000,000 1,600,000 400,000 24 41 E-7 8th Ave San Sew E. of Spencer,, 86-97 169,000 168,000 25 39 E-X Market St. Laterals - Storm, 263,000 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------r-- 26 39 •E-X W=st Side Laterals -Storm' 290,000 11 37 FA-9 Huber Fk. Tr. Fury Overhead' 87-88 165,000 50,000 115,000 28 F'rogra+ed 8; 39 E-17 CO 11 widening 11th to 42 ICo) 85-87 640,000 640,000 29 39 E-X tretex Drainage, 120,000 30 36 E-19 6th Ave San. Sewer Reconstruct 89 265,800 265,800, Webster to Fuller( ------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31 iSF'Downgrade* 36 PC CA 16, CA 17 to CA 83 88-87 1,276,000 480,000 798,000 32 Policy Dec. 85 36 E-I9 Block 20 1 24 alley reconst., 85-86 13,000 9,750 .3,250 j 33 Cenolste 36 E-20 CR 93 (I6 to 42) (County) 84-85 1,000,000 1,000,000. 34 ROW Acs. 84iB5 34 E-23 13th Ave to Mallf 86-87 195,000 97,500 97,500 35 Policy Dec. B5 33 E-10 Holmes laterals (Block 57) 92-96 1,152,190 576,095 576,095 { Design 95 Revise Study! 4. Friar. hoject Dept. Project Const. Total General G.O. Special Sewer State Grant% Tax Park Capital County Federal Donations No. Status Rank Prior. Name Years Cast Fund Bonds Assess, Fund Aid Inae%ent Reserve Improv. Aid AidiUrban --------------------------------------------•- --------Y9---------------------'------------------------ --------------------- - - ----------__»»»»�__--- 36 31 PA-10 Hiawatha Pk-Upgrade Pla rnd, 86 2,000 2,000 37 054 85 31 E-8 Inflow 6 Infiltration.repairs, 85 36,000 36,000 36 Feasibility 85 31 E-24 Polk Street, 87-89 80,000 80,000 39 31 PC CR 15, 6th ITahpah ,88-89 550,000 205,000 345,000 40 Hearing 85 31 E-12 Signal at Scott L close Apgars 85-86 140,000 14,000 126,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------•-------=-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41 31 E-1 Dean's lake Basin 4-A Draint 800,000 42 Canst 85 31 CO-x.Co: Rd. 89 Overlay CO-CSAR 16 85 55,000 55,000 43 Const 85 31 •CO-z CSAR 16, TA 13-CSAH 21 85 150,000 150,000 44 29 E-29 HNY 169 Frontage 300 to 3rd, 87-89 600,000 300,000 300,000 45 Study,85 29 E-13 Valley Park Drainage 6 Nater+ 85-86 450,000 450,000 -- ---------------------------------------------------------: 29 E-14 13th Ave. CR 17 to CR 16 86-87 800,000 500,000 300,000 47 28 HA-3 Highrise-Levee water ext., Be-90 114,000 124,000 48 Policy dec. 85 28 E-I5 Coord. Sidewalks with schools* 87-88 300,000 300,000 49 Hold For Bypass 28 FN-x 13th Ave CR 89 East (pave) 90 94,000 94,000 i S0 27 FA-9 Huber Park Trail (Levee),. 84-86 114,900 71,195 41,705 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------»»__»»»_ »----------------------------------------------------------- 51 16 E-1. Frairis St. Laterals,, 234,000 52 Consider Delete 26 FW-x Public Works Cold Storage, 85 29,000 29,000 53 Fin. Study 85, 26 E-5 Upper Valley Drainage' 86-90 3,500,000 2,051,245 1,448,755 54 Study 84 E-4 Westside(6th) San. Sewer' 86 150,000 150,000 Reconst. Adams-Jackson, 55 26 PA-5 Memorial Park 1 85-88 38,500 20,000 18,500 ---------------------------7------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 56 26 FA-11 Holmes Pk-Upgrade Playgrounds 86 2,000 2,000 57 Cato plan amend 24 E-27 Lith ave CR 17-CR79, 87-88 800,000 200,000 300,000 58 Como plan amend '23 E-26 VIP Trunk Sewer Ext.017-CR191 86-81. 520,000 520,000 59 21 E-1 River Basin 7A213 Drainage, 450,000 60 Comalete 21 E-1 Shenandoah Drive, 84-85 377,000 311,000 --------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 61 Study 85 21 E-30 Alley Block 106 Paving* 2,025 2,025 62 Related to 153 21 FA-1 Eastside Park (Oevelap), 86-99 147,090 71,575 77,515 63 21 FR-I Fire Station Expansion' 87-88 45,000 415,000 64 21 FR-1 3M Octagon System, 87 75,000 75,000 65 Hot Complete 18 E-21 Friar Lake Overflow 84-86 -6,000 6,000 --------------------------- -- -- ---- ----=--------------------=------------------------------------'----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 66 Hot Feasable 18 E-22 Alley bet. 7 6 8 E of iakota, 87 8,000 8,000 67 I1 'PA-8 Resurl.Ten.Crt,@StansPk, 85 17,000 15,000 2,000 68 16 FA-6 O Dowd Park IAcess Control), 87-88 23,500 21,500 2,000 69 16 FA-7 Upper Valley Trails 87-89 26,000 26,000 70 Camplets 16 FA-1 Water Slide' 85 160,000 160,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 71 Lions Landscape 14 FA-3 Lion's Park-redo sliding hill, 86-88 2,000 2,000 72 County Proj. 13 FA-x Bike Trail to O'Dowd 125,000 125,0!0 73 13 E-1 .Memorial Park Bridge, . 85 5,000 2,000 3,000 74 FA-2 Tahpah Imp.- parking,trail, 85-88 110,500 ,26,250 26,250 66,600 football f1d., stadium 75 PC Deans Late Outlet Control 76 PC Valley Ind. Blvd. North 86-87 FOST SIT YEAR FS Ind Park Fire Station FC Frontage Road, Howe-Cretez ----------------------------------------------------------------------------'----=---------------------------------------------------------------------+-- Total Estimated Project Casts 1117,511,205 1245,015 110,685,890 18,029,700 1619,800 138,874,000 3381,020 111,341,000 1247,470 1516,000 17,416,000 137,500,000 176,600 Estimated Revenues 1114,599,835 1245,025 110,685,890 18,029,700 1619,800. 138,874,000 1381,020 110,000,000 1256,400 1516,000 11,416,000 137,500,000 176,000 Notes: II Sege totals may be incorrect due to incomplete Information. I 21 Slate Hwy funds not City State Aid funds- project programmed but not funded. (See Prior. No. I,I,5k401 31 An assssseent of 5?.?1 will be applied to this project for the 12th Ave and new Valley Park Drive to reimburse TIF. ISee Prior: No. 71 4) An assessment of 721 will be applied to this project for Slienandoah Drive to reimburse TIF. fSee Prior..No. 601 51 Engineering cost reimbursed by Watershed District. (See Prior. No. 651 61 All projects marked with an asterist• (rl are the responsibility of the City of Shakopee r q � Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director Re: Interfund Transfer Date: August 22, 1985 Introduction & Background The city has expended money on the below listed projects. At the time, the expenditures were accounted for in a special assessment fund that was in the construction stage. The funds are now debt service funds and any costs not for projects that are financed by the related bond issue should be transferred. The 1981 Improvement Fund has costs of $5,841 .07 for North East Utilities Project carried in it. This cost could be charged to the General Fund or the Capital Improvement Fund. The project is not shown on the 1986-1990 Capital Improvement Plan for construction. The 1984 Improvement Fund has financed the following projects: Holmes Street Laterals $ 20.33 Valley Park Drainage $24,129.36 Upper Valley Drainage $31,676.89 $55,826.58 These projects are scheduled for 1986 in the Storm Drainage Fund. Therefore, it is appropriate for the Utility Fund to reimburse the 1980 Improvement Fund for $55,826.58. Included in the 1985 Budget is, a transfer of $22,000 from the Sanitary Sewer Fund to the 1980 Improvement for the sewer work done with the Holmes Street Reconstruction Project. Also included is the transfer of $25,000 from the Sanitary Sewer Fund operating cash to 1985 Sewer Debt Service. Also included in the budget is the transfer of funds for the purchase of various capital equipment as follows: Capital Equipment Fund .to General Fund Fire Dept. Radios Motorola $ 6,000.00 Hurst Tool Metro Fire 4,371.37 $ 10,371.37 Revenue Sharing to General Fund Community Development Computer Office Products $ 2,971.00 Typewriter " 905.00 $ 3 ,876.00 Memo To: John K. Anderson/Interfund Transfers Page 2 Police Copier Wagers $ 4,390 .00 Cars North Star Auction 6,550.00 to Deputy Registrar 21.50 Radios Motorola 14,470.33 Laminator GBC 1,507 .00 Typewriter Office Products 993 .00 $ 27,931.83 Park Mower Tractors Carlson Tractors $ 14,074.00 Tractor Long Lake Ford 9,646.00 $ 23,720.00 Fire Pumper Custom Fire Ap. $ 69,000.00 it Collins 5,915.87 it Fisco 4,460.00 of Clarey's 400.00 $ 79,775.87 Administration Typewriter Office Products $ 851 .00 $ 851.00 REVENUE SHARING TOTAL s $136,154.70 Action Requested Move to approve the following transfers: 1. Capital Improvement Fund to th 1981 Improvement Fund $5,841 .07 2. Storm Drainage Fund to the 1984 Improvement Funde $55,827.58 3. Sanitary Sewer Fund to the 1980 Improvement Fund $22,000.00 4. Sanitary Sewer Fund to 1985 Sewer Debt Service $25,000.00 5. Capital Equipment Fund to the General Fund $10,371.37 6. Revenue Sharing Fund to the General Fund $136,154.70 I GV:mmr 19b5 CITY OF SHAKJP�-E CHECK REGISTER 09-01-85 PAGE 1 CHECK NO, DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT N0. INV. # P.O. N MESSAGE 24UU21 J8/2d/85 5.5D ARNIES MARINE EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 4231 r t f f r t *•+-CKS 24OU29 (lb/2.d/85 642.05 E F ANDERSON 8 ASOC SUPPLIES 01-4210-431-42 642.15 • ttt•k+ .... ...-. +++-CKS 24UO57 06/28/85 678,45 BRAUV ENG, PROF SERY 01-4310-405-41 240057 Ub/28/85 11470.15 BRAU4 ENG. PROF SERV 01-4310-550-41 29148.60 • •rr-CKS 24U090 ,.6/28/85 4008,76 8ART ON-Jt S:HMA N PROF SERV 27-4310-543-41 24)1)80 66/28/85 18,68 BART3N-AS:IMAN PROF SERV 27-4310-544-41 24JU8L� ud128/85 171434.11 BARTON-ASCMMAN PROF SERV 27-4310-546-41 24UU80 ib/28/85 .19978.58 BARTON-AS�HMAN___.. _ PROF SERV 27-4310-547-41 24008U 06/28/85 20017.00 BARTON-ASCHMAN PROF SERV 27-4310-548-41 25 9757.1 3 + *++-CKS C4u111 C 312818 5 27.2Q _____.... CARLSON TRACTOR EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 24JIII 06/2d/85 53.42 CARLSON TRACTOR EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-631-62 80.62 + Rtfttt •••-CKS 240113 Cd/28/85 7.45 __-__-_____CHAN/LAMN/SPORTS _: _ EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 38231 7.45 + rRtrrt ffR-CKS 240154 Cd/28/85 86.32 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY EQUIP MAIAT 01-4232321-32 fR..t. +*•-CKS 24U168 08/2d/85 117.28 FEED RITE CONTROLS SUPPLIES 01-4210-617-61 117.28 • ttrftt +++-CKS 24J186 ;,6/28/85 13.17 .,,.. GOULDS SUPPLIES 01-4210-631-62 243186 iib/28/85 342.74 GOULDS EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-631-62 355.96 + Rff-CKS 24U4i 00/28/85 502.22 H 8 M VENDING MDSE 01-4395-611-61 502.22 • j .A•tk� ��a..t_...�'....r.a�.......__:....._....._. ...._.-........_ ..._.._.__•__.._- .. - .. R••—CKS 19tl5 CITY OF SHAKOPEE CHECK REGISTER '09-01-85 PAGE 2 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT __ VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT N0. INV- # P.O. N MESSAGE 24.1205 03/21i/85 8.79_ LEROY HOUSER SUPPLIES 01-4210-331-33 8.79 •rr•:r rrr-CKS 24:1269 0d/28/85 48.85 KOKESH ATILETIC SUPPLIES 01-4210-626-62 62796 48.85 rr•••r rrr—CKS 24U276 J8/28/85 96.92 KENS DOOR REPAIR BLDG MAINT 01-4230-181-18 96.Q2 • r.•••r --..�.,.__. _.._. rrr-CKS 240323 06/28/85 204.38 MARSH HEATING 8 AIR EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-311-31 1759 204.38 • tttttt ._.--. _.._._ .__�.....�4._.._._.... . rr•-CKS 240341 Uh/28/85 149.97 MOTOIULA INC. SUPPLIES 01-4210-312-31 149.91 + r•rr•r rrr-CKS 240354 6,1/26/85 59..9..5 MY.. .._... __...ERS._... 'A AUTOMOTIVE EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-312-31 240354 00/2d/85 53.50 MYERS AUT040TIVE EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-331-33 113.45 + •rrr•• *6*-CKS 240395 Ga/28/85 20093NSP UTILITIES 01-4370-427-42 20.39 r i rrrrr. rr--CKS 240415 76/28/85 271.50_..._._ OFFICE.PRODUCTS. . SUPPLIES 01-4210-121-12 130545 24]415 Gd/28/85 97.50 OFFICE PR03UCTS SUPPLIES 01-4210-411-41 130545 369.1-0 • rrrr•• rrr-CKS 241)429 -id/2d/85 11.61 .HAROLD PASS TRAVEL 9 SUBSIST 01-4330-421-42 11.61 •rr••r ----CKS 240468 06/24/85 56 51 ROBOTS DRUG MISC 01-3890-000-00 56.5 L• rrrrrr •+•-CKS 240477 1)8/28/85 24.60 RTES HEATING SUPPLIES 01-4210-321-32 24.60 + 1985 CITY OF SHAKJPtX CHECK REGISTER 09-01-85 PAGE 3 CHECK NO* CATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV, # P,O. 0 MESSAGE i fwtiif CKS 24J499 1.812411 5 15,800,30 SCOTT CTT. TREASURER PROF SERV 01-4310-151-15 W58050 151800.30 fwtrif CKS 243562 Ub/28/85 58.35 TRIO TREE SUFRACE MAT 01-4215-622-62 1055 58.35 ffiif i iii-C,KS 241591 Gd/2d/85 12/.20.__ _ ._ VALLEY- TEMP _.._.. PROF SERV _ 01-4310-171-17 121.20 i f.lfii CKS 240660 Od/28/85 19.20 GREGG VOXLAND TRAVEL S SUBSIST 01-4330-151-15 ifi-CKS 240606 Gd/28/85 2,582.91 VAN POOL SERV INC UTILITIES 14-4370-143-14 2,582.91 • lffiii ttf-CKS 24U619 U6/28/85 350,70 WERMERSKIRCHEN ABS, PROF SERV 28-4310-545-41 350.30 • *ete•e _ .._—._-_.:__.__... __ ----__.�_. ______......_ .. .__. ______. _ ++i-CKS 24363) 08/28/85 30.70 WASTE MANAGEMENT UTILITIES 01-4370-181-18 24U6Sj 0b/28/85 43,00 WASTE. MANAGEMENT UTILITIES 01-4370-184-18 24063) c8/219/85 30.10 WASTE MANAGEMENT UTILITIES 01-4370-321-32 243630 03/28/85 30.00 WASTE -MANAGEMENT UTILITIES 01-4370-621-62 /ff ff• +•+-CKS 240655 06/28/85 1,001,37 ZIEGLER INC EQUIP MAIRT 01-4232-426-42 IlUO1.37 • .if-CKS 20800 u8/28/85 310,'0 _.. .. .ALLIED TEST OR CO PROF SERV 26-4310-539-41 310.70 + 243801 U8/28/85 84.74 ALEXANDER MANU Co _ EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 84.24 i 24UbU2 yid/2d/35 132,46 . AUTO WHOL=SALERS INC EQUIP MA IhT 01-4232-171-17 132.46 • 240803 18/28/85 .__625.00W_:— L AM TEST CENTER __.__._ EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-321-32 8571 19E5 CITY OF SHAKOPEE CHECK REGISTER 09-01-85 PAGE 4 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VEND01 ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT N0. INV. 4 P.O. # MESSAGE 625.00 240 8J 4 09/2a/b5 220.00 COOKS AERIAL PHOTOS PRINTING B PUB 01-4350-171-17 C5243 220.00 * 24J 80 5 J8/28/b5 229.90 CROW4 A;UT3 MISC 14-4499-143-14 229.90 * 240806 Jo/28/85 19250.30 WARREN CLAY CAPITAL EQUIP 01-4511-441-44 1 .250.^0 * 240807 X6/28/85 65.00 FONDER CLEANING SYS BLDG MAINT 01-4230-321-32 Z4UBU7 06/244/85 65.00 FONDER CLEANING SYS BLDG MAINT 01-4230-321-62 240807 Jb/28/85 65.00%. ____...___FONDER CLEANING SYS BLDG MAINT 01-4230-321-62 65.00 * 240803 06/28/85 63.95 GBC SUPPLIES 01-4210-311-31 540954 63.95 * 240809 u6/28/85 83.90 . .,.._.__.__HAUENSTEIN 6 BRUM EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-611-61 83.00 * 240810 .16/28/85 1 .260.00 LINK BROS INC CONTINGENCY 01-4991-911-91 1io26J*00 * 24u.b11 U8128185 200.70. _.._...:. _. MURPdYS LANDING MISC 01-4499-111-11 200.70 * 24U812 .,6/28/85 44.41 STATE AG REVOLV FD PROF SERV 01-4310-151-15 44.41 * 240.813 Jb/28/85 650.00 . ..-_.______..STAT_ OF :YY NDC CONF & SCHOOLS 15-4 390-191-19 650.OD * 240814 16/28/95 45.00 NAIJRO DUES 9 SUESCRIPT 15-4391-191-19 45.00. * 240b15 tib/26/85 58.50._.-__-_ - PETER JIRIK EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 58.50 * 24J 81 6 .)6/28/85 23.00 ELDON REINKE MISC 01-4499-111-11 23.00 * 240.81 7 Ob/28/85 1 9450.10_. _.._ __:.._.._.SHENEHON B ASSOC _., PROF SERV 28-4310-545-41 1450.30 * 24U618 u6/26/85 39.48 VERNER SEVERSON TRAVEL K SUBSIST Pl-4330-651-65 39.48 * 24Ub19 Ub/2H/85 54.00_--. --- SAFETY-iKLEEN CORP, ______. EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-321►32 54.00 * 24U 821 06/23/85 480.30 WAGERS INC PROF SERV 01-4310-311r31 M02469 480.00 * 240821 06/28/85 _15.00_._._:.: .' y.:MACT41 . CONF 9 SCHOOLS 16-4390-231-23 1985 CITY OF SH.AKOPE-E CHECK REGISTER 09-01-85 PAGE 5 CHECK N0. DATE AMOUNT VEND04 ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. 9 MESSAGE 15.00 . 24JB22 98/23/85 140.00 NFLCM DUES S SL'BSCRIFT 16-4391-231-23 140.00 + •.�... a.+—CKS 269866.63 FUND 01 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 2 181 Z.81 .._. FUND 14 TOTAL, TRA NSIT 695.00 FUVD 15 TOTAL HRA 155.00 FU4D 16 TOTAL CABLE 310.00 FUND 26 TOTAL DOWNTOWN REDEVELOMENT 25,757.13 FUND 27 TOTAL RACETRACK 19800.00 FUND 28 TOTAL BYPASS 58,396.57 TOTAL I -Month ' August Page 3 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LEDGER 1985 i)eblt Acct. Cr. Acct. Amount Batch Remarks Ck. No. Vendor Ck. Amt. 27.4507.548.41 27.1010 $ 1,548.72 °� Purchase of Land 17651 H & R B, orklund $ 1,549.72 To1.4222.426.42 01.1010 3,817.56 Motor Fuel 18595 Comm. of Revenue J/01.4222.311.31 01.3010 2,866.17 Motor Fuel 18595 11 01.4222.621.62 01.1010 526.44 Motor Fuel 18595 7,210.17 J 81.4920.000.00 81.1010 6,212.67 Remit FIT 18596 lst Nat'l Shakopee 6,212.67 J 81.4921.000.00 81.1010 2,729.09 Remit SIT 18597 Comm. of Revenue 2,729.09 v/81.4926.000.00 81.1010 238.70 Remit Cancer Ins. 18598 Am Family Ins. 238.70 J81.4931.Oo0.0o 81.1010 1,000.00 Remit Payroll Say. 18599 1st Nat'l Shakopee 1,000.00 ,/81.4922.000.00 81.1010 4,445.24 Remit FICA . 18600 State Treasurer 4,445.24 ,/81.4927.000.00 81.1010 1,937.00 Remit Defer. Comp 19087 PEBSCO 1,937.00 u/81.4927.000.00 81.1010 100.00 Remit Defer. Comp 19088 IDS 100.00 81.4932.000.00 81.1010 98.40 Remit Uniform hental 19089 Unitog Rental Sery 98.40 ✓81.4923.000.00 81.1010 6,373.71 Remit PERA 19090 State Treasurer 6,373.71 ✓27.4507.548.41 27.1010 16,342.49 Purchase of�Land 19091 Owens-Illinois 16,342.49 ✓01.4210.622.62 01.1010 54.37 Supplies 19092 Lathrop Paint Supply -/01.4210.624.62 01.1010 68.01 Supplies 19092 ,/01.4210.632.62 01.1010 136.03 Supplies 19092 258.41 X01-3890.000.00 01.1010 22,000.00 Misc 19093 MN Dep't of Ener. & Eq. 22,000.00 $_70__,_4§_5_._6_O FUND TOTALS 01 - General Fund $29,468.58 27 - Racetrack 17,892.21 81 - Payroll Trust 23,134.81 $70,495.60 II L. MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council rROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Response to Triple Five Development Proposal for Bloomington DATE: August 23 , 1985 Introduction At two separate Council meeting Councilmembers have discussed the pros and cons of the proposed Triple Five Mega-Mall proposal in Bloomington. Council has specifically noted concerns about the proposals impact on Valleyfair and overall taxes based upon preliminary public subsidy schemes that have been floated for the project. At Council' s August 20th meeting it directed staff to compile some information on the project so Council could determine if it wished to take a formal position, pro or con. Triple Five Proposal The Triple Five Mega-Mall proposal has not yet been submittea to the Met Council for Metro significance review. I have spoken with John Harrington of the Metropolitan Council and he anticipates receiving the necessary data from Triple Five during the week of August 26th. In the absence of any formal application material available to interested parties, I secured two documents from the City of St. Paul through their lobbyist Maureen Warren. The first document is entitled "Tourism and Economic Impact of the Minnesota International Center" . It was prepared on behalf of the Triple Five Corporation by Nichols Applied Management, Economic and Management Consultants , Edmonton, Alberta and carried the date June , 1985 . Enclosed for Council reference is the table of contents and executive summary. It is this marketing analysis that skeptics have questioned and will be thoroughly analyzed by the Metropolitan Council upon receipt of the required review information. The second document is entitled "West Edmonton Mall Impact Study" prepared for the City of Edmonton Planning Department by Erbanics Consultant LTD. Vancouver, B. C. and datea July, 1983 . I have also attached the table of contents ana summary of findings from that report for Council review. Note the Met Council did not have either of these reports when I contacted them on Friday, August 23 , 1985 . Proposed Public Subsidies I contacted the City of Bloomington to see if there was any written summary of the proposed public subsidies for the Triple Five Mega-Mall project. Lyle Olson, Finance Director, indicated that there was no such summary. He did outline for me the five subsidy proposals currently under consideration. He broke the subsidies down into two categories : ( 1 ) Bloomington subsidies and ( 2 ) State subsidies . BLOOMINGTON SUBSIDIES 1 . Exemption from fiscal disparities for the entire airport south industrial park which is approximately 2300 acres . The Mega-Mall would be built on approximately 85 acres at the Met Stadium site and approximately 900 of the 2300 acres would be commercial or industrial property affected by fiscal disparities . 2 . Seek a three to five percent tax on all hotel and motel facilities in Bloomington (doesn' t include other cities ) . 3 . Seek a five percent tax on liquor by the drink for Bloomington (doesn' t include other cities ) . STATE SUBSIDIES 1. Seek State legislation that would allow the developer to create a $150 million replacement fund from sales tax generated by the Mega-Mall project. Lyle Olson said there was no precedent for this type of request. 2 . Seek exemption from the State sales tax on construction and construction material. Lyle Olson said that there was precedent for this proposal because it was included in the Saturn package. As an alternative to one or more of these financing mechanisms the City and/or developer may consider simply going to the State and seeking a loan guarantee which would back tax increment bonds floated by the City of Bloomington for the project should project revenues , hotel/motel tax revenues, and liquor tax revenues fail to cover needed cash flow to back the tax increment bonds . Politics The politics of the proposal focus on two areas . The first is the competition the Mega-Mall would provide the core cities of Minneapolis-St. Paul for convention business and for retail business. The second area deals with the subsidies being requested of the State legislature and the necessity for a special session prior to October 15 , 1985 . If the Bloomington proposal can be put together with no legislative special session then the politics surrounding the competition factors is out of anyone ' s hands unless the Met Council can find some way to rule that the project is not supportable by metro facilities. If those communities that are concerned about the Mega-Mall spend all of their time fighting the public subsidy issue and the developer and Bloomington solve that problem then there may be little chance to stop the project if that should be Council ' s desire. Therefore, Council should look at both political aspects. Council should do this in a manner that would minimize staff ' s and Councilmembers ' time in determining whether or not the City should support or oppose the project. In talking to the AMM it does not appear that either the LMC or AMM will get involved unless asked to do so by a large group of member cities . Therefore the action will take place at the Legislature and Met Council. Recommendation I feel we should wait for the Met Council' s findings before we take a position for or against the project itself. In the meantime we can take a clear position against any one (or more than one) of the five subsidies being considered. Since the AMM and LMC are not involved, we can ask for support for possible subsidies at the Municipal Caucus meeting in September if that is Council' s decision. Action Requested 1. Direct staff to write to our State Representatives and the Governor opposing the Bloomington Fiscal Disparities exemption for Triple Five Development. 2 . Direct staff to ask the Municipal Caucus to take a formal position against the Bloomington Fiscal Disparities exemption for Triple Five Development. JKA/jms TABLE OF _CONTENTS -_ - _ .. .. .. . •-- -- . _ - .Page = — - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . • . . . . : . . . . . :.. . . IV - - 1• INTRODUCTION . .."., : . ... : ....•.....,..:._. ..:��..`- 1 1.1 Purpose of the Study . . . . :-. . . . . :. . ......... • . .. . .. '[ 1.2 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. :,.. . . . . . . . .:... . . ... . . s. 1 1.3 Consultant Qualifications . . . . . . : . . . . . ... • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • •_ 2 1.4 Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . 3. ECONOMIC IMPACTS . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .. • . . 7 3.1 General Observations . . . . . . . • • • . ` . . . . . . • • •. . . . . . •.• • • • 7 3.2 Construction Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • • .• • • . • . . • " . . 7 • 3.2.1 Income impact . . :". : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . : . . . . . 8 3.2.2 Employment.impact . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.3 Operations Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . 4 . . . . .. . . ... 12 _ 3.3.1 income impact .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • • . . . . . . 12 3.3.2 Employment impact . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •• . . . . . . . . . 16 16 3.4 Other impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 3.4.1 Tourism Industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . • 16 3.4.2 Community Development . . . • • . • . . . . • . • . . . . . . . • • • •`_ 17 3.4.3 Economic Strategies and Objectives . . . . . . .. . . . .• .. . • 1B - 3.4.4 Government Revenues . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . .. •. . . • . . . . . . . 49 - ---: • 4, SUMMARY OF IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 21 ii _ ars.-.•,._._ _ ' - - - i- -.. 'tai. - __ _ .- _ - •_ - - �lM• Derr cr r - -.•.• _ — f - - LIST -OF TABLES 1. Income Impacts of Project Construction - Expenditures . . . . . . . . .::.. . . . ... .::.. ...... 9 2. _ Employment Impacts of Project Construction - Expenditures . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. ... .-....-... r: . : 11 ==-:- 3. Annual Income impact of-Minnesota International Center-Induced Tourism Expenditures . .. ..:. , 75 LIST OF MAPS 1. Proj ect Lo catl o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ... . . . . . . • iii - .-: -_ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Triple Five Corporation proposes to develop a major $1.2 billion world scale facility on the former site of the Metropolitan Stadium in Bloomington, Minnesota. The project, undoubtedly the largest of Its type anywhere, will encompass 10 million square feet of ertclosed area and include a trade-convention center, recreation and amusement facilities, retail shopping,- ' office buildings, and hotels. The scale and uniqueness of the----'— complex will establish it as a major visitor destination and _ activity center In North America. 2. The proposed Minnesota International Center will attract an estimated 10 million to 11 million tourists annually and these visitors will spend 16 million to 18 million additional visitor-days in Minnesota. The project will boost the total value of the ztate - - tourism Industry by 25% to 30%. _- 3. The project-induced visitor expenditures will convey a total ` incremental Income impact of $3.1 to $3.4 billion annually to Bloomington, and $2.3 to $2.6 billion to the state. The present value. of the future stream of income benefits to the state will amount to approximately $20 billion. 4. The development of the project will have a direct and positive Impact on the regional construction industry and, more generally, ,on business and household incomes. The total income Impact to Minnesota during the construction phase Is estimated to be $1.4 billion, of which $1.2 billion will accrue to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. 5. The employment implications of the project are significant. Roughly 19,000 man-years of employment will be generated in . Minnesota during the construction phase, and as many as 40,000 additional jobs will be created directly and indirectly during the on-going operational phases of the center. The latter figure is equivalent to about 3% of the cuCrent labor force In the state. The direct on-site employment of the project will amount to ! 23,000 to 25,000 full-time equlvalert workers, equal to more than - two-fifths of the total labor force in the City of Bloomington at the present time. iv -77 6. -.The proposed project will have a significant impact In terms of revitalizing, expanding, and diversifying the local and state - - - tourism Industry and will support government objectives In this_ regard. it will serve to: 1) reduce the state travel deficit; 2) expand the geographic draw of tourists; 3) reduce seasonal = _ fluctuations In Industry activity levels; 4) Increase the length stay and average expenditures of visitors; 5) provide a new major destination attraction In the state; 6) complement and reinforce" =��== other state activities and attractions; 7) expand the appeal of the state to a wider cross-section and profile of visitor types, origins, and age groups; and 8) provide new amusement opportunities during colder seasons and-inclement weather. 7. The scale and range of business services to be accommodated in the center will strengthen and diversify the commercial base of Bloomington. The new economic activity spawned by the project will serve as a "magnet" in terms of attracting other forms of residential, commercial, and Industrial development to the community. 8. Conceptualized as a unique, world-scale development, the Minnesota International Cerrter will serve to provide the City of Bloomington with a separate, distinct, and positive Identity as a major convention, tourism, hospitality, and recreation center. 9. The global market focus of the project, supported by the • proximity of the Minneapolis-St. Raul international Airport, will create an opportunity to significantly increase the International role and importance of the region. 10. The project will generate increased revenues to all levels of government. At full development the center is expected to directly provide new property and hotel taxes of about $14.6 , million to the City of Bloomington, and will stimulate other developments with Indirect tax benefits to the community, Another $5.6 million annually will be contributed by__the project to the tax base pool in the metropolitan area. The state government is expected to benefit through increased sales taxes and personal and corporate Income taxes which are likely to _ yield new revenues of $150-$200 million per year. Vir _ - - - - &BLE OF CONTENTS _ '� iv T. r._.. V0� --- -_ page fiber 3 SU,,MaY OF FINDINGS "{T 1.0 INTRODUCTION - 2.0 WEST EDMONTON HALL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM-'dE 3.0 SUPER-REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTRE SU$VEY z. 3 y of Selected American Metropolitan Areas b 3.1 Surve ian Metropolitan tineas 3.2 Survey of Selected Canad z- 4.0 WEST EDMONTON BALL MARKET SHARE •ANALYSIS 4.1 DSTM Potential: Edmonton Grp 4.2 11istoric, Current and Projected West Edmontonas 9 Mall Market Share ° ' 4.3 Comparative Market Share Analysis: 10 ` Selected Canadian Metropolitan Areas 13 5.0 DOWNTOWN SHOPPING CENTRE SURVEY Survey of Selected Canadian Metropolitan Areas 13 17 6.0 WEST EDMONTON HALL IMPACT ANALYSIS __ 17 6.1 Impact on Downtown Edmonton 18 { - 6.2 Impact on Suburban Shopping Centres 20 - - 1 `" 6.3 Impact on Outlying Municipalities _ - Un 1 • - • �_.. _:.- -`Y-r�3-fit- __ _ ri. - d - �� T.- SUKKARY OF FINDINGS AZ Urbanics Consultants Ltd. has been retained by the City of Edmonton h' - Plan'ing•Department to prepare an impact study for the proposed Phase _--->----= IIl expansion of the West Edmonton Mall. The purpose of this study is to provide the City of Edmonton Planning Department with an assess— ment of the implications of allowing the Phase 111. expansion of the .'.- West Edmonton Mall to proceed at this time. The principal findings of our report are summarized in point form below: _ 'Y 1) The results of a regression analysis suggest that the largest suburban shopping centre in a metropolitan area with a population of between 700,000 — 800,000 persons would typically have,.& gross leasable area of between 1,000,000 — 1,100,000 square feet. When the Phase II expansion comes onstream in August of 1983, the West Edmonton Mall will have a gross leasable _. area of 1,650,000 square feet, or between_ 550,000 — 650,000 square feet more than '.normal" for a metropolitan area the size :: ' of Edmonton. Expressed somewhat differently, the regression equation suggests that a 1,650,000 square foot suburban shopping centre would typically be found in a metropolitan area with a Population of between 4'SOG�OO�ersons. Assuming that the Phase III expansion comes onstream in 1987, the West Edmonton Mall will have a gross leasable area of 21450,000 square feet. The regression equation suggests that a 2,450,000 square foot suburban shopping centre would tvpically be found in a metropolitan area with a rS)pulation of between..5,500,000 9,000,000 persons.. In 1987, the population of the Edmonton CMA is expected to range between 750,000 — 770,000 persons . 2) The three largest suburban shopping centres in the Edmonton CMA are West Edmonton _S1,650,000 squarg�J_egt �ie-7 �._Ka. (794,000 square feet)i_ and__Southgate_ _(720 000 sou_are feet). Using West Edmonton as the reference point (relative size index equals 100.0), Heritage Mall and Southgate Mall have relative size indices of only 48.1 and 43.6 respectively. In other words, _----- - the second and third largest suburban shopping centres in the - -- Edmonton CMA are already less thar. one—half the size of the - largest suburban shopping, centre in_t_he_metro�olitan urea. If the Phase III I expansion of the West Edmonton Hall proceeds as presently planned, Heritage Fnd Southgate will be less than one— third the size of the largest suburban shopping centre in the Edmonton CMA. Such an overwhelming dominance in the marketplace by one suburban shoppin, centre is unparalleled in any major metropolitan area in Canada. _ .. 3) The results of a Market share analysis for Canada's six largest = `_ •metropolitan areas point out dramatically how much Edmonton will _ differ from the norm consequent to the opening of the Phase expansion of • the West Edmonton Hall. In Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Ottawa-Bull, the largest suburban shopping centre _ typically. ca2rures b ,S.xeen 5 -- 10 Per cent of the market. In Edmontonby contrast, the largest suburban shopping centre is expected to capture between 18 -21 per cent of the market in '= - 1983, and between 21 - 24 per cent of the market in 1988. 4) Edmonton Centre is the largest downtown shopping complex in Edmonton. Based on the criteria set out in section 5 of the . report the Edmonton Centre complex consists of Woodwards, the A Edmonton Centre Mall, Batons, the Continental Bank Building Mall, and the ManuLife Centre Mall. These five components of the Edmonton Centre complex have a combined shopping area of 905,000 square feet. When the Phase IT expansion of the West Edmonton Hall comes onstream in August of 1983, this suburban - shopping centre will have a gross leasable- area of 1,650,000 L square feet. As of next month, therefore, Edmonton will be in uniaue position: its largest suburban_ shopPing centre will be .o more than ate and a half_ times as big (68 percent bigger to be _ precise) as its largest downtown shopping-complex. As of 1988, _ 4► assuming that the Phase Iii e%—ansio.n of Lhe West Edmonton Mall proceeds 'aspresently planned and that no major efforts are made ' to expand retailing activities_ in the downtown areas_the.Iar-gest suburban shopping centre in Edmonton will be two and a half times gs big (149 percent bigger to be precise) as its lareest do,ntos:n shopping complex. C=--im atiffiea1t. to . imagine how CLOWntme dW=oaton_could retain-its .traditi—al rales ..t�.�tntril_:dzagi ¢ing .district for .the entire netropolitm zrsa -in r,,w �ac'te_ oaf &AC1 t V&X3&s_ 1:i_g compet,ri an :k==i* S) The downtown shopping district in Edmonton has a number of ` g drawbacks at the present time, of which the comparative lack of specialty retail stores and the physical separation of one major - - department store (The Bay on Jasper Avenue) from the "one stop s :shopping" offered by the Edmonton Centre complex are perhaps the _ -: two more .important ones. These two major drawbacks could be solved simultaneously by the development of a aajor, retail Com plex linking The Bay to Batons and the rest of the Edmonton Centre shopping complex. Such a development -- briefly described in section 5 of the report -- would, in our opinion, firmly re-established downtown Edmonton as the central shopping district for the entire Edmonton Metropolitan area. ' - 4 GG - 6) -- Under the best of conditions, such an ambitious development would require a considerable amount of time, money and effort :on the part of the City and the various affected parties in -the _ } + private sectot (land owners, department stores- smallretailers, etcetera). If Phase III of the West Edmonton Mall prodeeds 'as _ - presently proposed, however, an increasing number of 'these" `= . affected parties are likely to conclude that the future of = retailing in 'Edmonton liesnot in the downtown but =in ':the�`:`'- suburbs. In this case, it would be extremely difficult if�aot `= - - impossible -- to convince anyone to undertake the type of retail ~ development described above. In other words, * decision by -the Cit- to allow any further expansion of the West Edmonton Mall will. in our opinion have the affect of postponing a major expansion of •the Edmonton Centre complex (the Eaton Centre yroiect - and/or the "Bev conn rrnr" nr 1err ) indefir ;rely. Without a major expansion of the Edmonton Centre complex. retailing in the downtown core will stagnate (if not continue to d cline), and service functions (e.g. banks and trust companies, restaurants, airline ticket offices, travel agents, etcetera) will increasingly come to dominate the "shopping scene". - - { 7 1Lp � TOURISMAND ECONOMIC--IMPALP _;_.`. 0F:--THE 'M1, NNES0T- A ......- . -.- � � ��� ENTER. . NL . UNIMM INFORMATION LIBRARY 302 CITY HALL MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415- Prepared 54 .5Prepared On Behalf Of'. "Triple Five Corporation o Prepared By: Nichols Applied Management Economic and Management Consultants - Edmonton, Alberta June, 19$5 - MUNICIPAL INFORMATION LIBRA 302 CITY MALL - MINNEAPOLIS, MR 5541 TABLE OF -'CONTENTS - - - - - � L EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • • e • . . • a • • . . nne • • . w • @ . • . r ( @ . f@ • • • f . a I 1e INTRODUCTION . . A o e o . a e • . . @ w o w o e • . . o@ c F E . . . . .. o . @C 4 - 1.1 Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . .. . . • • oow . rr ( . E . . @4 . . . . . . 1 1.2 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A • . fFFE ( ( f @ ! f66 • • 4 • @ 1.3 Consultant Qualifications . • e . . . w . n m . . . . . . . F . ( C • . 4 i ( @ ( F . 2 1.4 Contents . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION. .. . . . . A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . .4 3. ECONOMIC IMPACTS . ee . ew . . . . . . . . . . aFr . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 7 i n . n . e . . . • F R F 6 • . . . 6 . f f . @ • 7 3.1 General/Observations . > a . P . . • . - 3.2 Construction Phase . e . . . A . • . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . 4 . . F@ • . • . • ( . @ • 7 3.2.1 income impact . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . • . . . • . . F . . trw . . . . @trw 8 3.2.2 Employment lmpact . . . . . e . A . . . . • . . . . . • . . 4 tr 4 f . . . . • . 10 3.3 Operatibris Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 12 , 3.11 Income Impact . . . . . . . . e a A . . . . . . — . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.3.2 Employment impact . . . . . . . A . . . . P . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 1(6 3.4 Other Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAAp . AneP . @E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.4.1 Tourism Industry. • . e . w . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .• 1 3.4.2 Community Development . . . . . . . . . . . ( . . . . . . . . . . . . ... • 177 3.4.3 Economic Strategies and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.4.4 Government Revenues . . ® , . . . . . . . . . . •. .. . . • . . . f . . . 19 . 21 4. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • ii 6. The proposed project will have a significant impact in terms of Y revitalizing, expanding, and diversifying the local and state tourism industry and will support government objectives In this z regard. It will serve to: 1) reduce the state travel deficit; -� 2) expand the geographic draw of tourists; 3) reduce seasonal -- - _ fluctuations in Industry activity levels; 4) increase the length-of stay and average expenditures of visitors; 5) provide a new major _ destination attraction In the state; 6) complement and reinforce other state actNities and attractions; 7) expand the appeal of the state to a wider cross-section and profile of visitor types, - - origins, and age group; and 8) provide new amusement y - opportunities during colder seasons and inclement weather. 7. The scale and range of business services to be accommodated in the center will strengthen and diversify the commercial base of Bloomington. The new econornic activity spawned by the project will serve as a "magnet" In terms of attracting other forms of residential, commercial, and industrial development to the community. 8. Conceptualized as a unique, world-scale development, the Minnesota International Center will serve to provide the City of Bloomington with a separate, distinct, and positive Identity as a major convention, tourism, hospitality, and recreation center. 9. The global market focus of the project, supported by the • proximity of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, will create an opportunity to significantly increase the international role and importance of the region. 10. The project will generate increased revenues to all levels of government. At full development the center is expected to directly provide new property and hotel taxes of about $14.6 , million to the City of Bloomington, and will stimulate other developments with Indirect tax benefits to the community. ` Another $5.6 million annually will be contributed by the project to the tax base pool in the metropolitan area. The state government is expected to benefit through increased sales taxes and personal and corporate Income taxes which are likely to yield new revenues of $150-$200 million per year. e - . s��+ 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Triple Five Corporation proposes to construct and operate -� - - major mixed-use project on an 85-acre site in Bloomington, _ Minnesota. Formerly the site of,the Metropolitan Stadium, the land Is located near the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and Is readily accessible by major arterial thoroughfares. The proposed project is expected to induce significant benefits to the local and regional economy In terms of income.and employment generation, community and regional development, and enhancement of the recreational, tourism, and convention sectors. The purpose of this study is to evaluate and to document the - economic Impacts of the proposed project during both Its construction and operational phases. 1.2 METHODOLOGY The study was carried out during June, 1985. Triple Five Corporation provided relevant background data pertaining both to the firm's existing West Edmonton Mall and Fantasyland complex in Edmonton and to the Bloomington project. Statistical data, Including attendance and other operating information, were derived for a number of major tourist attractions, mixed-use projects, theme and amusement parks, and convention facilities in North America. Information regarding local, regional, and state economic and tourism patterns was obtained from various sources In Minnesota. Subsequent to the data collection phase, the study team turned Its attention to the evaluation of the major economic and tourism impacts that would accompany the construction and operation of i = the proposed complex. The findings of the analysis are discussed In later sections of the report. - 1 _ 1.3 CONSULTANT QUALIFICATIONS Nichols Applied Management is a Canadian economic and 5 ` management consulting firm which has provided professional r services In economic, market, and financial analysis to public and private sector clients since 1973. In the recreational and tourism -- field, the firm has carried out previous studies related to the Xlth World Commonwealth fumes held in Edmonton in 1978, the 1988 - World University Games, and the Xi/th Winter Olympic Carnes to be hosted in Calgary in 1988. Other assignments have Included _ evaluations of proposed recreational complexes Including arenas, stadiums, and other sports facilities; hotels; tourism projects, Including the West Edmonton Mail Fantasyland development; visitor Interpretive centers; provincial parks facilities; and a wide range of commercial and industrial projects: Members of the firm- have also participated in marketing and operational studies of convention center facilities in Edmonton and Regina. f Although much of the firm's work is provided in a domestic context, more than a dozen overseas projects, with a combined value in excess of $4 billion, have been analyzed on behalf of the ' International Bank for Reconstruction a:�d Development (The Wori;f Bank), headquartered in Washington, D.C. The more notable projects have included the expansion of the Suez Canal and construction of a large-diameter crude oil pipeline across Saudi Arabia. Other assignments, pertaining to urban and regional development, energy, and transportation, have been completed in Pakistan, Tunisia Cyprus, Yugoslavia, Korea, and Indonesia. The consulting team has comprised the following professionals: P.C. Nichols, B.Comm., M.B.A., C.M.C., Partner D.B. Butler, B.Sc., M.Sc., Partner S.T.C. Adams, B.Comm., M.B.A., Senior Consultant E.M. Taylor, B.A., M.A., Consultant 1 5 l The members of the study team have participated in a considerable number of economic and market studies on earlier occasions. 2 �, Vic•:.- � r - 1.4 CONTENTS .- - 'The ONTENTS .'The report begins in Section 2 with a brief description of the the _ project propos®d by Triple Five Corporation. Section 3 discusses Income, employrnant- tourism other manor Impacts of the _ project during the construction and long-term operating phases. A :.summary of the significant benefits of the project is provided it Section 4. --: ._ � Ir 3 2. --PROJECT DESCRIPTION - .. - - tea-•.a-,-:.a- - :r- ' The project, as proposed, will comprise one of the largest, integrated, mixed-use facilities in the world. It will be designed zs an International recreation, entertainment, convention, and-retail- commercial complex. Encompassing ten million square feet of... .. enclosed area, the t1evelopment will cost in excess of $1.2 billion. : Construction of the project, tentatively known as the Minnesota International Center, is expected to commence in 1966 with major. _ completion achieved by 1966. Depending on prevailing market conditions, development of certain components of the overall project may extend to the early 1990's, a The project will contain the following major elements: Recroation, Amusement, and Tourism Facility • -one million square feet of indoor space, featuring a -:y- waterpark, submarine lake, space center, Ice arena, Fantasyworid pavilion, marineland, and roller rink. By itself, this componaset will rank as one of the largest amusement and recreational facilities in the world. Retail Shopping ® exceeding four million square feet, and including seven department stores, two major supermarkets, and several hundred specialty retail businesses. Convention and Trade Center , ® one million square feet, including exhibit halls, meeting rooms, and attendant facilities. The success of this center will be supported by the proximity of the Minneapolis-St... Paul international Airport qnd by the other components Qf the proposed project, which will offer world class retail, t entertainment, and amusement opportunities to convention attendees and their families. - 4 ,r V Office Buildings two towers with a total of two million square feet of Office- space. _ Hotels • two hotels, providing 2,000 rooms. _ The entire project will require a minimum of 16,060 parking stalls on-site. A fundamentally important aspect of the complex is thq fact that it will be an entirely indoor and climate-controlled "City within a . city`, attracting visitors from around the world on a year-round basis. The proposed development follows from, and expands upon, a concept successfully developed earlier by Triple Five in Edmonton. That complex Is of a lesser scale than the e ,Q$e pr had prIn oposed Impact but, in a period of four years, r can community, entertainment, and tourism development patterips over a wide region. The Minnesota International Center, located in a regional market of 20 million people, ad;acent to an international airport which serves almost 10 million passengers annually, and readily accessible to major regional and interstate highways, is in a unique pc,sition to become a major destination activity center in North America, The,location of the center in a local, regional, and international context Is shown in Figure 1. The multifaceted, mixed-use nature of the complex will, averali, ' serve to reinforce the success of each functional component.the combined elements will.be he . potential visitor drawing power of subatantlz'ai and of International proportions. The related economic report. impacts are quantified later in tis _ -- _ _ ..',:." .,.. ..v�_.�_. .__ ._- .. ..._ .ate... .._,...... '_ -♦ —+Y-r.....i.�—raw i.r.F ��1"!.`•.� INSERT FIGURE 1 • 1 1 i . f _ 6 _ . t . a � ,i �90 T,0.t l_ �. 3. ECQNOMIC IMPACTS / = " A,s. - p;: 3.1 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS The proposed project will convey diverse and significant economic benefits to the City of Bloomington, to the St. Paul- - - Minneapolis region more generally, and to the State-of Minnesota -- -_ These benefits are discussed in this section of the report. - _- -- Curing the construction phase of the project, the Targe requirement for manpower, materials, and equipment will generate r new jobs and Increase household and business Incomes. - In its operational phase, the proposed project will -increase materially the level of tourism activity in the local and state economies. The amusement, trade-convention, and retail facilities, by virtue of their size, quality, and uniqueness, will draw Increased visitors and visitor spending to the project area, and also reduce current outflows of resident expenditures to other regions. The Increased spending will generate higher levels of employment and - Income. The project will support government strategies to further strengthen and diversify the economic base of the region and will provide a highly positive and distinct Identity to Bloomington, the , host community, and to the State of Minnesota. The Induced economic activity associated with the project will serve to Increase significantly local, regional, and state revenues In terms of property taxes, sales and hotel taxes, and personal and corporate income taxes, 3.2 CONSTRUCTION PHASE Over the period 1986 to 1993, construction of the proposed - rnixed-use center will involve expenditures of in the order of $1.2 billion, measured In 1986 constant dollars. Up to eighty percent of the estimated costs will be incurred during the first phase of the development, scheduled from, 1986 to 1988. The proposed project represents a massive construction undertaking, and will perform an e . . i important role In generating new income and empioyment opportunities in the metro area. In the context of Bloomington alone PR 9 the scale of construction activity associated with the center far exceeds any commercial or industrial venture undertakers to date. In fact, the combined value of commercial and industrial building d permits for 1984, a peak year in development activlty.for the - municipality, represents about one-tenth of the capital expenditures for the project, _ - 3.2.1 Income Impact The construction of the Minnesota international Center will have a direct effect on the metro area construction labor force as well as a host of businesses which supply building materials, machinery, and equipment. A broad range of local contractors and sub. r contractors will be drawn upon for the project. Within the metro area alone, there are over one hundred materials suppliers and well over seven hundred building, concrete, drywall, electrical, equipment,- masonry, and painting contractors to choose from to provide services for the construction phase. The net construction expenditures for the center, exclusive of various financing, land, and administ.2,f;„e costs, are expected to exceed $1 billion. The income impacts associated with this level of spending are presented in Table 1. Allowing for the leakage of expenditures for goods and services unavailable in the metro area and the state, the direct income impact to the Twin Cities area and the State of ivlinnesota over the total construction phase amounts to approximately $673 million and $714 million, respectively. - Recognizing the multiplier effects, or the additional rounds of spending generated from the initial construction expenditures, the total direct and Indirect income effects will amount to $1.2 billion in the metro area and $1.4 billion in the state. The magnitude and timeliness of these income effects have particular implications to both the local and state jurisdictions In view of the moderation In 4 commercial and highway building activity that is anticipated over the next several years. 8 t k X".' ~4 TABLE I Income Impacts of Project Construction Expenditures 1066 millions) - METRO AREA MINNESOTA I r i Phase 1 Phase 2 Total Phase 1 Phase 2 'Total ; (1986-1988) (1989-1993) Project (1986.1988) (1989.1993) Project a � a , Net Construction Expenditures' $816.0 $204.0 $1,020.0 $' 818.0 $204.0 $1,020.0 C° Direct Income Impact' $538.6 $134.6 $ 873.2 $ 571.2 $142.8 $ 714.0 Indirect Income Impact' $430.8 $107.7 $ 538.6 $ 571.2 $142.8 $ 714.0 Total Income,41 Impact $969.4 $242.3 '$1,211.8 $1,142.4 $285.6 $1,428.0 . 1. Excludes land acquisition, financing,and design coals. 2 Based on tpe assumption that 40% o;not construction expenditures are allocated to labor and 60% to materials and equipment. Tim direct labor Is assumed to be provider entirely from Minnesota,with 8011/6 accruing from the metro area. It Is further estimated that JV°/C of materials and equlpment will be derived from the state,and all of that from the metro area, 3 Assumes an Indirect income multiplier of 0.8 for the metro Area and 1.0 for the state(i.e.every$1.00 of direct Income Oeherated by the project yields an additional$.80 and$1.00 of Indirect Income for the metro and state areas,respectively).: i 3.2.2 Employment Impact The proposed mixed-use center will have a significant Impact an - the local and regional construction sector prior to the commencement of operations. Table 2 provides estimates of the , direct and indirect employment expected.to be generated during the - construction phases of the project. Total direct employment is - estimated at 3,500 man-years in the metro area, and 9,444 man-years In the state. [luring the peak years of construction activity, the .project will require the direct use of.3,400 man-years of labor annually In the metro area, which represents more than 9% of current employment in the construction industry. Over and above the direct labor force that will be.requlred to construct the center, additional jobs will be indirectly created In various other sectors of the local, regional, and state economies. Applying employment multipliers to estimate the spin-off effect, the total direct and Indirect employment generated by the construction of the center will amount to roughly 15,000 man-years In the metro area and 19,000 roan-years Ire the state. . •t 10 Y • � TABLE 2 Employment Impacts of Project Construction Expenditures METRO AREA MINNESOTA Phase 1 Phase 2 Total Phase 1 Phase 2 Total (1986.1988) (1989-1993) Project (1986.1988) (1989-1993) Project Direct Labor $293.8 $73.4 $367.2 $326.4 $81.6 $408.0 Expenditures' million million million million million million Direct Man-Hours2 12.24 3,06 15,3 13.6 3.4 17.0 million ml�Jon million million million million Direct Man-Years3 6,800 1,700 8,500 7,555 11889 9,444 • Indirect Man-Years' 5,440 1,360 61800 7,555 1,889' 9,444 _ a Total Mart-Years 12,240 3,060 15,300 15,110 3,778 18,888 1. Amumes 40% of net construction expenditures are allocated tabor c?sts,with 90%of the construction force drawn from tho metro Wren(see Table 1). 2 Estimated by dlvldin®direct labor expenditures by a man-hour cost of$24.00. ' 3. Based on 1,800 man-hours per man-year. 4. Az3unm Indirect employment multipliers of o.8 and 1.0 for the metro area and the state,respectively, -- 3.3 OPERATIONS PHASE .--- The Minnesota International Center is conceptualized ag a world-scale recreation,recreation, entertainment, convention, and retail- commercial complex which will attract visitors and tourists from other parts of the U.S.A. and foreign locations. The largest economic `. _. :.. impacts of the project will be related to the on-going income and employment generated generated through visitor spending at the complex: - - These Impacts are evaluated below. 3.3.1 Income impact It Is expected that the project will have an Important effect on commercial and tourism activity flows in the Twin Cities area, specifically, and Minnesota, more generally. The factors supporting this conclusion are as follows: - - f ® the scale, uniqueness, and complementary nature of tho various facilities proposed will make the project a major destination point in North America. % o the range of amenities will appeal to a broad cross-section of the population, including convention and trade show attendees, business travellers, tourists, shoppers, recreationists, office work,-_r-z. and most importantly- to all members of the family. a the project will be self-contained, enclosed, and climate- controlled, and will serve as a "city within a city". m the potential visitor draw of the project will be reinforced by the proximity of a major international airport and various state and interstate highway connections. o the project will complement existing state tourism and recreational facilities, which are largely outdoor-oriented. a the marketing and promotional competence demonstrated by the development proponents In respect of earlier , i projects will be a key factorbin the success of the proposed project. 12 The income impacts of the project here been derived through estimates of. a rs attributable to various F the annual number of visito + components of the project; Comp t _ Q the geographic origin of visitors, . a the duration of stay of visitors; -: • expenditures per visitor day; e relevant income multipliers for the Sloorlington and state areas. The anticipated number of visitors to the center thave been es and estimated by reference to the attendances of relevant attractions In the local area and rarts of tand facil t�while lba at the same time recognizing unique locational _ attributes of the proposed project. . it is estimated that the origin of visitors to the amusement and retail facilities in the complex will be distributed approximately as follows: within 0 to 50 miles, 500/G; aC ;0 100 miles, 15%; 100 to 200 miles, 10%; and more than 200 miles, 25"/x. Overall, more that; 35% of the visitors are expected to be from out-of-state. Using the conventional definition of a to les ortreller an s spends being someone who travels more than 100 overnight stay away from horse, it is estimated that the pr sects 11 initially attract 10 million to 11 million R be related to the current level of about it should be noted that the lion tourists annually in Minnesota. For comparative purposes, two largest theme parks in North America,ated2 million and O isney World and Disneyland, annually attract an esti 4 visitors, respectively, although those figures encompass all attendees, including both focal to�Illnnesotat and to the s. Many of the - visitors to the center will be attracted Bloomington area specifically, solely because of the project; others will be encouraged to extend their stay to visit the new facilities. t Although it is difficult to attribute visitors to particular facility . 13 lVf a` !fief. , - ! • • ` - 4 a mixed-use environment, it is estimated that the components within - rr p main purpose will be approximately as distribution of visitors by d amusement follows, convention facilities, 10%; recreation an - facilities, 25% to 3o%; and retail, 60% to 651/o. more meaningful measure of the project's totai.tourism a to its effect on the number of visitor impact relates -days spent in MinneIn sota. It is estimated that the Minnesota international ether will generate 16 million to 18 million additional visitor y state. This Implies an increase of roughly 15% to 20% over current f state tourism levels. Recognizing that the average daily expenditures of the project-induced visitors will, because of the nature of the amenities offered, exceed current averages, the effect of the project ro or�ionately greater than the impact on tourism spending will be p P • on visitor-days. Based on an examination of the income effects shown later Ied this section of the report, and a Comparison of these with ®s current tourism expenditures in Minnesota of $4.4 billion annually, act Is expected to increase the value of the state tourism the pro j Industry by 251/o to 30' The income ncome effects related to the b -going operation of the project are shown in Table 3., The figures provided exclude ; tourism outlays which would, in the project' bsene, be ict Jurisdictions pent n alternative goods and services within therespective shown. That is, the impacts described are incremental ental t aexceedout Incomes for B s The induced in project" scenario. portion of the local expenditures those for Minnesota because a Ro represent only a transfer of spending from ocher parts f the t hetet and while.these are '"net" ts to the Ys - counted In terms of the state eco Homy. including the indirect or multiplier effects, the annual incatn� to Bloomington will range from $3.1 billion es® $ mpa3.4 ts�are and, Impact - for Minnesota, from $2.3 billion to $2,6 billion. way of ` significant In both absolute ora ersonal incomesrelative terms. Bin Bloomington and # comparison, total disposable p 41 billion, oto are in the order of $1 billicl�, and $ respective 14 lz� " `SABLE 3 1/ - Annual Income Impact of Minnesota International Center e Induced Tourism Expenditures = . Project Component Bloomington Minnesota •�•- -_.._..m$ Millions Trade and Convention Center 393.8' 393.8 Fletaii Facilities 1179.03 - . 425.4 4 Recreation/Entertainment/ Amusement Facilities 379.2- 588.8' 310.9. 466.45 -��?otai Direct income 1952.0-2141.6 1130.1-1285.6 - indirect incomes 1171.2-1288.0 1130.1-1285.6 1-3426.6.... _ .2260.2-2571.2 Total `'�'` - . 1, 75q,CCq delegates a 3.5 days ® 3150 per day. . 2. 1,000,001;delegates, Including 250,000 from existing Minnesota market 3.a days $160. Further assumes that 75°/® of spending accrues to Bloomington. 30 4 million sq.ft.a $3001sq.ft.,lass net sales drawn from existing Bloomington market j area. 4. in only the retail sates that accrue from visitors from outside Minnesota. 1 o 9 million visitors annually.Assumed origin of visitors: 5. Basad on range of 6 million t i (�50 miles,50% (of which 7% from Bloomington, all from Minnesota); 50-100 milds, ! 150/6 (three-quarters from Minnesota); 100.204 miles, 10% (one-third from Minnesota); more than 200 miles(one-quarter from Minnesota). Expenditures per day related to distances from center:$17,550,$75, and 560. respectively. Net Income benefits to 1 • Bloomington: 50% of Bloomington expenditures, 100% of all other. Net income benolit9 to Minnesota:20% of Bloomington sales, 300/9 of other Minnesota oxpen- f d1tureo,1000/0 of non-resident expenditures. 6. Income multiplier for Bloomington, 1.6; for Minnesota, 2.0. 15 f . r Extended over a project life of �0 years, the income benefits (undiscounted) of the project to Minnesota will total $45 billion to $51 billion. The present value of these income benefits at a 10% discount rate amounts to $19.2 billion to $21.8 billion. 3.3.2 Employment impact p At full development, the proposed project is expected to provide on-site employment for approximately 23,000 to 25,000 workers. That work force is equivalent to more than two-fifths of the total labor force In the City of Bloomington and is roughly equal to the number of local residents currently working in the retail and service Industries. At the state level, the number of new jobs directly and indirectly generated by the project will total about 40,000, or about 3% of the total current labor farce in Minnesota. 3.4 OTHER !MPACTS 3.4.1 Tourism industry The Minnesota International Center will have a significant impact in terms of revitalizing, expanding, and diversifying the local and state tourism industry. The income and employment effects described earlier in the report provide a quantitative measure of these impacts. In a more qualitative sense, however, the project will support the tourism and travel sectors by. e reducing, and possibly reversing, the state travel deficit; o expanding the geographic draw of tourists from weil beyond the upper mid-west states; - ® reducing the seasonal fluctuations presently experienced In the tourism industry; t - e encouraging rnore Minnesotans to spend their vacations at home; 16 1101 y IA increasing the average stay and level of expenditures of �i visitors to the state; ; diversifying the tourism sector beyond its current - orientation towards outdoor recreation activities and - cultural events; - providing a new destination point in the metro area; which will complement and reinforce other attractions In the vicinity; k ® appealing to a wider cross-section of visitor types and age-groups; and, f ® attracting a significantly greater share of forelgrY tourists, facilitated by the proximity of the International airport. In sura, the proposed mixed-use center will make ctoportar)f contribution toward strengthening the state tourism se - ` 3,4.2 Community Development The range and scale of business services that will be ec;t x-111 serve to considerably accommodated by the proposed pro j diversify and strengthen the cornmercial base of ew local services will sharply Bloomington. eld� i Yg �l� he availability of the n of household incomes to other parts of the region. Indeedhe effect of the project will be to significantly reverse those leakages. : substantial Inflow S of consumer Spirdi i��e will al ardea4vn to the . project site and to other businesses The economic activity that will be spawned by, that Minnesota attract a lnternationai Center Will, in turn, create a nagne host of other forms of residential, cAmmermulnd ate a massive industrial development. The proposed project will stl exansion and diverslflcation of the economic base of the local R economy. a be Relative to alternative types of development thl®htropQsed ; attracted to the stadium site, the mixed-use nature � P project will moderate peaking demands on the local and regional 17 { y"K^ transportation system. The heaviest demands on traffic to and from the center are expected to arise at times other than the weekday commuting peaks, which occur typically from 7 a.m. to g a.m. and from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. The center will widen the spectrum of entertainment, recreation, and leisure-time activities available to the local and regional t population on a year-round basis. A number of the facility components will offer uctique educational and interpretive opportunities to children and adults alike. The Minnesota international Center Is intended as a unique, world-scale project.-It will be promQted and marketed over a wide geographic area. By virtue of its size and range of amenities, the project will serve to provide the City of Bloomington with a separafe, f distinct, and posltive identity as a major convention, tourism, hospitality, and recreation center. . r 3.4.3 Economic Strategies and Objectives The project will support state economic objectives aimed at strengthening the comparatively weak tourism sector. e Oriented to a market audience extending far beyond the metropolitan area, the project will reinforce local and state objectives to expand International business and tourism linkages. The proximity of the center to the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport will create a synergistic opportunity to increase the international role of the region. The variety of convention, retail, amusement, and recreational facilities included in the project will further enhance the quality of ` life of residents in the area. This factor is an Important consideration in business location-decisions, particularly In respect of high-technology, "foot-loose" industries which are Important to the manufacturing and service sectors of the region. The continued # development of the high technology Industry will have an important Influence on the continued economic growth of the state economy. 18 r 3.4.4 Government Revenues Development of the Minnesota international Center will - generate a substantial Increase In revenues to all levels of government. - F Within the City of Bloomington, the major fiscal impacts of the project will be to increase hotel and property taxes. The 2,000 rooms of on-site hotel accommodation will produce room taxes of more _ than $1.3 million annually. At full development, the project will produce property taxes for the'city amounting to $13.3 million annually. Over a twenty-year period, the cumulative taxes paid will total more than $250 million. Based on similar experienbes elsewhere, it is also clear that, over and above these direct revenues the project will stimulate other residential,commercial, and - k Industrial developments off-site and increase property valu®s - generally in the surrounding region. This will generate further increases in the level of local tax revenues. To provide some perspective of the order-of-magnitude of property taxes generated by the proiect, It may be of Interest, to consider that: the project will increase the entire commercial and Industrial tax base of the City of Bloomington by 50%; o at completion, the Triple Five project will be the largest property taxpayer in the city: the annual tax levies paid to Bloomington will exceed the combined totals for the ten largest existing property owners in the city, o the annual property taxes paid by the project will amount to approximateiy $330 per household. in addition to the direct property taxes payable to Bloomington, another $5.6 million annually will accrue to the tax base pool in the _ metropolitan area. That amount, totalling more than $100 million over twenty years, does not include the tax effects which will stem from, or be Induced by, other project-related property developments in the area. 19 ' v _ The state government will benefit from the project through Increased sales taxes and personal and corporate income taxes. These additional revenues are expected to range from $150 million to $200 million per year. - P MUNICIPAL INFURMA I®N LIBRARY 302 CITY HALL MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415 e 20 . 4. SUMMARY OF INIOACTS i . The tourism and economic impacts of the proposed Minnesota International Center have been assessed by comparing "with project" and "without project" scenarios. It Is evident that the - success of the project will stem from the folio g factors: the-unprecedented size and scope of the mixed-use complex. the unlquen�ss of the convention, recreation, and . amusement facilities to be provided. * the mutually reinforcing, functional Inter-relationships that will exist among the offices, hotels, convention-trade - facilities, retail services, and amusement and recreation amenities that are to be included In the project. The f synergy inherent in the proposed mix of facilities will be very powerful. . o the ready accessibility of the canter to a regional market of more than twenty million people, and to other domestic and foreign visitors via the nearby international airport. * the enclosed, climate-controlled feature of the project. ' This will encourage the year-round use of the facility, .which wili complement the rnany outdoor but highly seasonal recreational opportunities in the region. f The proposed project represents a major construction undertaking in its own right and the actual development of the center will have major economic Impacts on the metro region and state. With a total cost of $1.2 billion, the project will generate roughly 19,000 man-years of employment in Minnesota, more than three-quarters of those employment effects will accrue to the metro area. The total income impact to the state is estimated to be $1.4 billion, of.which $1.2 billion will be absorbed by the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The most significant economic impacts will be derived from the on-going operation of the project, and particularly In relation to the visitor and tourism impacts of the center. it is estimated that - ° between 10. million and 11 million tourists per year will be drawn to ithe project site and these visitors will ppnerate 16 million to 16 21 million visitor-days to the state. The project will boost the total value of the Minnesota tourism industry by 25°x® to 30%. including the indirect or multiplier effects, it is estimated that the annual Income Impact to Bloomington of the project-induced visitor expenditures will total $3.1 billion to $3.4 billion, with a net, Impact of $2.3 billion to $2.6 billion to the state. The present value of a 20-year stream of income benefits to Minnesota will amount to about $20 billion. At full development, the project will provide on-site employment for about 23,000 to 25,000 workers, equivalent to two-fifths of the " total existing labor force in Bloomington. At the state level, the number of new jobs directly and indirectly created will.total . approximataly 40,000. - The Minnesota International Center will play a major role In terms of revitalizing, expanding, and diversifying the local and state tourism industry. It will serve to strengthen the commercial base of . ' Bloomington by providing new services which will attract visitors-- r and visitor spending—from other parts of the metro.area, the state, the region, and the world at large. The economic activity spawned by the center will attract to the city a host of other forms of residential, commercial, and industrial develop '. - The Minnesota international Center is. intended as a world-scale ° project, to be promoted and marketed in a global context. It will serve to provide' the City of Bloomington with a separate, distinct and positive identity as a major convention, tourism, hospitality, and recreation destination site. The project will reinforce local and state objectives to expand international business and tourism linkages. The center is expected to generate directly new property and hotel taxes of about $14.6 million annually to the City of Bloomington, and stimulate other local developments which will in turn produce additional municipal revenues. Another $5.6 million annually In property taxes will accrue directly from the project to the tax base pool In the metropolitan area. The state government will - benefit from the project through increased sales taxes, and personal _ and corporate Income taxes, which taken together are expected to range from $150 million to $200 million annually. 22 � i,: --°:.ti-- __- - � •:� ....�� -ter =� , M_P-NTC M IFORMATION L� RARY 302 CITY HALL MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 471 r s WEST EDMONTON HALL T3i�'ACT STUD �,►� a 'Y aZ ' Prepared for The City of Edaouton*planning Department July, 1983 MUNICIPAL" INFORMATION LIBRARYa ? LlS, MN 302 CITY MALL MINNEAPO 55_ 5 r 4I n b }_ - s URBANICS CONSULTANTS LTD. - - - 753_Cardero Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6G 2G3 - -- - /i sy.1 lic 2 1 r- r - TABLE ()F GONTEATS page t' - F SUMMARY OF FINDINGS i 1.0 INTRODUCTION t Fj 4' 2,0 WEST EDMONTON MALL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME 4 3.0 SUPER-REGIONAL SHOPPING CEbIRE SURVEY 3 3.1 Survey of Selected American Metropolitan ureas G . `' 3.2 Survey of Selected Canadian Metropolitan tineas 4.0 WEST EDMONTON PALL MARKET SILkRE ANALYSIS :j 4,1 DSTM Potentials Edmonton C.&&- 4.2 s A4.2 Historic, Current and Projected West EcLmonton 9 Mall Market Share 4.3 Comparative Market . Share Analysis: IO Selected Canadian Metropolitan Areas 13 f [. 5.0 DOWNTOWN SHOPPING CENTRE SURVEY 4 5.1 Survey of Selected Canadian Metropolitan tineas f, 17 6.0 WEST EDMONTON MALL IMPACT ANALYSIS - 17 6.1 Impact on Downtown Edmonton _ 1S -6.2 Impact on Suburban Shopping Centres _.__ 20 ;. 6.3 Impact on Outlying Municipalities _ _ _ 14 r, SUMKARY OF FINDINGS Urbanics Consultants Ltd. has been retained by the City of Edmonton - il-N ~ • Planning Department to prepare an impact study for the proposed Phase =�-- III• expansion of the West Edmonton Mall. The purpose of this study is:`.:= to provide the City of Edmonton Planning Department with an assess- _."- meat of the implications of allowing the Phase III expansion of the West Edmonton Mall to proceed at this time. The principal findings of our report are summarized in point form below :._ 1) The results of a regression analysis suggest that the largest suburban shopping centre iia a metropolitan area with a d population of between 700,000 - 800,000 persons would typically have a gross leasable area of between 1.,000,000 .r 1,100000 square feet. When the Phase II expansion comes onstream in ,August of 1983, the West Edmonton Mall will have a gross leasable -_ r== area of 1,650,000 square feet, or between, 550,000 - 650,000 - square feet more than "normal" for a metropolitan area the size-_ of Edmonton. Expressed somewhat differently, the regressioni�_ � equation suggests that a 1,650,000 square foot suburban shopping centre would typically be found in..a metropolitan_area_with a population of between_4�Gv:;, C0�--4s50Ga00ersons. pAssuming that the Phase III expansion comes onstream in 1987, the West Edmonton Mall will have a Zross leasable area of 2,450,000 square feet. The regression equation suggests that a 2,450,000 square square foot suburban shopping centre would t,yRically be found in fa metropolitan area with a Population, of_•between 8,500,000 - 9�000,000 Persons. In 1987, the population of the Edmonton YMA is expected to range between 750,000 -- 770,000 persons . �j The three lamest suburban shopping centres in _the Edmonton CMA are West Edmonton (1,650,000 sguarg_ eV.Y),,_Hei _�Iia� (794,000 square feet)s_ and_ Southgate _1720,000 square feet). Using West Edmonton as the reference point (relative size index equals 100.0), Heritage Mall and Southgate Mall, have relative :,., size indices of only 48.,1 and 43.6 respectively. In other words, r - the gecond and third largest suburban shopping centres in the Edmonton CMA are already less than one_-half -thersize—of_ the u� - : 1arAest suburban shopping, _centre in the_mefropolitan area.. If the Phase III expansion of the West^Edmonton Mall proceeds as 1 presently planned, Heritage Rod Southgate will be less than one- third the size of the largest suburban shopping centre in the 7 Edmonton CMA. Such an overwhelming dominance in the marketplace by one suburban shopping centre is _unparalleled in any major • metropolitan area in Canada. VR BANG i - = e I I' , I U The results of a market share analysis for Canada's six lamest _ ` = z2etropolitan areas point out dramatically how much Edmonton will } differ from the norm consequent to the opening of the Phase lI expansion of- the West Edmonton Mall. In Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Ottawa—Hull, the largest suburban shopping centre t rvRically canturesbetween 5 0_ppzI. cept of the market. In dmonton, by contrast, the largest suburban, shopping centre is - expected to capture between 18 —21 ver cent of the market in = " 1983. and between 21 — 24 ver cent of the market in 1988 4) Edmonton Centre is the largest downtown shopping complex in "- Edmonton. Edmonton.. Based on the criteria set out in section 5 of the report the Edmonton Centre complex consists of Woodwards, the Edmonton Centre Mall, Eatons, the Continental Bank Building Mall, and the ManuLife Centre Mall. These five components of the Edmonton Centre complex have a combined shopping area of «a 905,000 square feet. When the Phase IF expansion of the West Edmonton Mall comes onstream in August of 1983,. this suburban shopping centre will have h gross . leasable- area of 1*650 000 ., square feet. As of next month, therefore, Edmonton willbe in a _ unioue positions its largest suburban shoin centre will be .9 .Pl'_ -S.more than or[e and a half times as big^(68 percent bigger to be precise) as its largest downtown shopping complex. As of 19882 assuming that the Phase III e_i—, ansio.n of the West Edmonton Mall proceeds 'as presently planned and that no major efforts are made =fy to expand retailing activities in the downtown areas_the largest suburban shopping centre in Edmonton will be two and a half times as bi (149 percent bigger to be precise) as its lamest doumtown -V ghopping� comolex. afiffault. to . ima,gitke boys dovatnw didsoaton-could retain_its .1tradliti—al role_s.s..tb�ft.r-antral-sip- being .district for .the entire metropolitan .arca .in the ;tion -from ••&ss;ng"a suhs�ban a�n��i 5) The downtown shopping district in Edmonton has a number of drawbacks at the present time, of which the comparative lack of - : specialty retail stores and the physical separation of one major - ~= department store (The Bay on Jasper Avenue) from the "one stop shopping" offered by the Edmonton Centre complex are perhaps the two more .important ones. These two major drawbacks could be solved simultaneously by the development of a major, retail complex linking The Bay to Eatons and the rest of the Edmonton = ~+ ": Centre shopping complex. ,Such a development -- briefly described in section 5 of the report -- would, in our opinion, firmly re—established downtown Edmonton as the central shopping y.: district for the entire Edmonton Metropolitan area. !n n AT�1T('c• r mb Under the best of conditions, such an ambitious development ? T` �y would require a considerable amount of time, money and effort -on r� - the part of the City and the Various affected parties" sn `the -; private sectot (land owners, department stores- small .retaileis, -- _. etcetera). If Phase I.II of the West Edmonton Mall- prodeed9 as - presently proposed, however eia increasing number of these " " . affected parties are likely to conclude that the future .of retailing in -Edmonton lies not in the downtown but -in -:the suburbs. In this case, it would be extremely difficult if not 'a impossible -- to convince anyone to undertake the type of retail­- development described above. In other words, ` $ decis i-S—n by the ��= '- City to allow any further expansion of the West Edmonton Mall will, in our opinion. have the affectof postponing aiaajo expansion of 'the Edmonton Centre complex (the Eaton Ceat re irolect and/or the-- "Bav c9nne2torit rroiPrrl indefigjtely. Without a mayor expansion of the Edmonton Centre conplex. retailingin the downtown core gill stagnate (if not continue to d cline), and service ,functions (e.g. banks and trust companies, -= :- . restaurants, airline ticket offices, travel -agents, etcetera) a will increasingly come to dominate the "shopping scene". - -_ �i } R - Y •ti'RB '�'�IC• w. v u �s t ti� 17, INTRODUCTION Urbanics Consultants Ltd. has been retained by the City of Edmonton Planning Department to prepare an impact study for the proposed Phase III expansion of the West Edmonton Mall. The purpose of this study is e. to provide the City of Edmonton Planning Department with Moth a quan-� t titative and non-quantitative assessment of the implications of � , alloying the Phase III expansion of the West Edmonton Mall to proceed at this time. s With this objective in mind, Section 3 of the report presents the results of a survey of super regional shopping centres for selected e~} metropolitan areas in the United States and Canada.. Section G of the report determines the share of the Edmonton retail market that will be i "'captured" by the West Edmonton Mall consequent to the completion o the Phase III. expansions -and compares this West Edmonton Mall market share with the corresponding f figure. for the largest suburban shopping centre in several other metropolitan areas in Canada. Section S 'of { the report presents the :results of a survey of downtown shopping centre developments for selec:.e'd metropolitan areas in Canada, and compares the size of these dcw:.t-,�wn shopping centre developments to the size of the largest suburban shopping centres' in each market. y Finally, Section b of the report assesses the impact of the proposed x �. Phase III expansion of the West Edmonton Mall on downtown Edmonton" on the suburban shopping centres in the City of Edmonton, and on the outlying municipalities in the Edmonton region. The impact analysis presented in Section b of the report is largely non-quantitative. It is envisaged that the results of this study v'ill .. be supplemented at a later date by a detailed computer-based simu� lation analysis which will quantify the impact of the proposed ase III expansion of the West Edmonton Mall on the sales levels of retail "= facilities in downtown Edmonton, as well as on the major suburban shopping centres in the Edmonton region. - A�, _. � rn Tl ti 2.Q : WEST EWNTOIi MALL DEVELOP '2iI YBOGBhk r r - Table l which follows sets out the historic, current and projected building programme for the West Edmonton Mall. Phase I of the West Edmonton Mall, with a gross leasable area of 1,000,000 square feet, opened in September 1981. Based on a detailed tenant survey under- nrx taken by the consultant in .lune of 1983, the DSTM component of Phase I is estimated at 900,000 square feet GLA; note that the DSTM component excludes the supermarket, the specialty food outlets, as well as the business and personal services outlets (bank, trust company, beauty salon, barber shop, travel agent, insurance agent, etcetera). The Phase II expansion of the West Edmonton Mall is presently under construction and scheduled for completion in August of 1983. The ` 800,000 square foot- GBA Phase 11 expansion includes an NHL sized indoor skating rink, a 130,000 square foot community recreation ^ a"; centre, a 100,000 square foot Zellers department store, a 60,000 =a square foot automotive ' centre, a 52,000 square foot Hometown Name Improvement Centre, a 45,000 square foot indoor amusement park, and a . �• 40,000 square foot gourmet "marketplace". Based on information ..td., the grass leasable area and provided by Triple 5 Corporation DSTM components of the Phase II expansion are estimated at 650,000 � . square feet and 300,000 square feet GLA respectively. Consequent to �4 the completion of the Phase I1 expansion, therefore, the West �., Edmonton Mall will have a total grass leasable area of 1,650,00 square feet and a DSTM component of 1,200,000 square feet. Preliminary information submitted by Triple 5 Corporation Ltd. to the City of Edmonton Planning Department indicates that the proposed Phase ITT expansion of the West Edmonton Mall will have a gross 7 leasable area of 800,000 square feet. Assuming that the Phase IIT expansion will be anchored by a major department store, the DSTM component is estimated at 400,000 square feet. Consequent, to the �E _completio�a of the Phase ITR expansion, therefore, the West Edmonton -: Mall will have a total gross leasable area of 2,450,000 square feet a DSTM component of 1 ,600,000 square feet. Por the purposes of this analysis, it has been assumed tnat the Phase III expansion of the Edmonton Mall will come onstream in 1987. IMP • y Tf+ffiffin RAI Inn AN,�T(c. _. - - - -4►ria-___ - _ _ Table 1 _ MISTORIC. CURRENT AND PROJECTED BUILDING - :- PROGRAMME: WEST EDMONTON MALT, - �, ... ,-:max _ Complef�i oII Tat :DSTH 3 . r�+GLA Component - Phase 1 . 1981 11000,000 900o0o Phase 11 1983 650,000 300000 Phase 111 1987 800,000 400,000 _ t.yl i- , Total GLA after completion of Phase 11: 1,650,000 sq..ft. Total CLA after completion of Phase 111: 2,450,000 sq.ft. .► DSTM Component after completion of Phase I1: 1,200,000 sq.ft. DSTM Component after completion of Phase III: 1,600,000 sq.ft. 1, Phase I of the West Edmonton Mall opened in September of 1981; Phase 11 of the West Edmonton Mall is scheduled to open in August. of 1983• For the purposes.of this analysis, it has been assumed that Phase III : of the West Edmonton Mall will come on-stream in 1987. 2) . ...The* total CIA for Phase I of the West Edmonton Mall was provided by $ the City of Edmonton Planning Department. The total GLA for Phase II : of .the West Edmonton Mall was estimated by IIrbanics Consultants Ltd. - < based-on information provided."by Triple: Five"Corporation Ltd. _The total GLAfor-Phase III - of=the_West _Edmonton',Mall' comes=_from; the 1 95Proposed`=Amendment to the SummerI a- Neighbourhood Strucfure= Plan ____ _ (prepared on behalf of Triple Five Corporation in June, 1983). 3) The DSTM component for Phase I of the West Edmonton Mall was estimated-`- ''-- by Urbanics Consultants Ltd. based on a survey of tenants conducted in June, 1983. The DSTM component for Phase II of the West Edmonton ?call was, estimated by Urbanics Consultants Ltd. based on information provided by Triple Five Corporation Ltd. The DSTM component for Phase III of the WestEdmonton Mall was estimated by Urbanics Consultants Ltd. based 'oa _. the assumption that Phase III wilff- include a -.major.,- 'department major_department store. 21 = r- 3.0 Sl'F1PMB REclouL SHOPPING CENTRE SUR As indicated in the preceding section of the report, the West Edmonton Hall will have a gross leasa®le area of 1,650,000 square feet con �, �... t sequent. to the completion of the Phase II expansion in August of 1983. " When the Phase III expansion comes onstream in 1987, the total groes y . leasable area of the blest Edmonton Mall will increase to 2,450,000_= square feet. To put these numbers in some perspective, sections and 3.2 which follow present in turn the results of a survey of super _,- regional shopping centres for selected metropolitan areas in the United States and Canada. The results of this survey will provide t some indication of the extent to which the [lest Edmonton Mall is F;. "oversized" for the market it serves.. 3.1 SURM OF SELECTED AMERICAN METROPOLITAN AREAS _ _ suburban. _ . Table 2 which follows shows the largest shopping centres in t the thirty one American Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas :_ (SMSA's) which had a population of between 700,000 . 2,500,000 in 1980 (the date of the last U.S. Census). Cities with a population of less than 700,000 have been excluded from the survey; these cities are smaller than Edmontoa -°-• the population of the Edmonton.Census Metro- politan area in 1983 is estimated at 689,000 and are herefore of S no particular interest in this analysis. Cities with a population with more than 2,500,000 have also been excluded from the survey; ,:z, these cities are so much larger than Edmonton -® even the Edmonton of 20 years from now that they cannot be used as "comparables" in this }betweenanalysis. The thirty one SMSA's which had a population of 700,000 m 2,500,000 in 1980 are ranked in order of declining popu� lation, and range in size from 2,355,000 (St.. l-.ouis) to 734,000 (Hartford). Of the thirty one SMSA' s surveyed, Pittsburg had the largest suburban shopping centre (the 1,676,000 square foot Century III Mall) and ` `- Jacksonville the smallest (the 800,000 square foot Gateway Shopping_ Centre). The average size of the thirty one suburban shopping centre `- listed in Table 1 is 1,111,000 square feet. Only nine SMSA's do not a 1,0008000 square foot plus suburban shopping centre; these ~:nine SMSA's -�- namely, Salt Lake City, Louisville, Oklahoma City, Birmingham, Norfolk, Albany, Toledo and Jacksonville are all in the lower half of t, population ranking (Salt Lake City . is 17th, Louisville 20th, Nashville 21st, Oklahoma City 22nd, Birmingham 23rd, Norfolk 25th, Albany 26th, Toledo 27th, and Jacksonville 29th). NRBANIG a3 � _ ' Table 2 + LARCEST SUBMAN SHOPPING CENTRES TA SELECTED r METROPOLITAN AREAS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA 1983 lietro olitan Area Pgulationl Largest Suburban Shapging�entre2 Name size . 2 355,000 St. Clair Square 1,055.000 1. St. Louis r 1,676 000 ,. Pittsbur 2,243.000 Century ITT Mall M1 2 217 000 Security Square 1,017,000 '-' 3, Baltimore 19220,000 4. Atlanta 2,157,000 Lennox Square 5. Minneapolis-St. Paul 2,155,000 South Dale S.C. 1,102,000 2,003,000 Mission Valley S.C. I,157,OOa � •o. San Diego 1,350,000 S 7. Tampa-St. Petersburg 1,735,000 Countryside Ball 1,313,000 S. Denver- Boulder 1,733,000 Cinderella City S.C. 1,667,000 Metro Centre 1,341,000 •y y, Phoenix 1,367,000 SIO• Kansas City 1,348,000 Independence Centre ;i;' Y,. Portland 1,297,000 Washington Square 1,200,000 200,000 t<E� ' New Orleans 1,235,000 Plaza in Lake Forest � i? Buffalo 1,227,000 Elmwood Park Plaza 1,207,000 3• 1,075,000 ?.14. San Antonio 1,139,000 Ingram Park Mall fr Columbus X,109,000 Westland Shopping Centre Y,008,000 =• 1,148,000 Sacramento 1,087,000 Sunrise Mall, '.7. Salt Lake City-Odgen 1,017,000 Fashion Place 96?,OOa .� 981,000 Marketplace Plaza 1,100,000 = Rochester 981,000 x• =9. Memphis 937,000 Mall of Memphis 913,000 Dupont Village 819,000 1�. Louisville t, 900,000 ►:. Nashville-Davidson 882,00- Hickory Hollow hall- $?5,000 . _. Oaklahoma City 881 ,000 Quail Springs Mall $65,000 Eastwood Mall 875,000 j23. Birmingham 1,150,000 =. Greensboro-Winston-Salem 857,000 Friendly Centre Forum 860,000 „ , ,7, Horfolk-Vir inia Beach 832,000 Military Circle ` :. g 975,000 `Ico. Albany-Schenectady-Troy _799,000 Crossgates S."C:. 980,000 7. Toledo 797,000 Franklin Park Mall 1,200,000 l:onolulu 797,000 Pearlridge S.C. 200,000 782,000 Gateway S.C. Jacksonville 1,360,000 t.30• Orlando 782,000 Florida Mall 1,042,000 Hartford 734,000 ilestfarms S.C. 1,237,000 1. Toronto 3,060,000 Yorkdale S.C. 974,000 '.• Hontreal - 2,874,000 Galeries D Anjou 880,000 =• Vancouver 1,298,000 Park Royal S.C. 585,000 4. Ottawa-Hull 734,000 Bayshore S.C. 1,650,000 5- Edmonton - = 689,000 West Edmonton Mall :_ Urbanics Consultants Ltd. estimates (rounded to the nearest 1,000 persons) based on the r 1980 United States Census for the American Metropolitan Areas and the 1981 Census Of Canada for the Canadian Metropolitan Areas. and on Urbanics Consultants Ltd. based on the 1982-1983 Shopping Centre Director . centre managers and shopping centre information provided by city planners, shopping 8 leasing agents. _ Cs NJRB,��;l t�t _, Six of the SMSA's have a 1983 ovulation of between 700,200 c 800 000 persons, and are therefore similar into the vres��t day Edmonton `C The averaResize of the largp :est suburban shoplfl$ centre in these six SMSA's is 1,060,000tauare fee e_-T 1 360 000 s ware foot 'da all in . rlando s e suburban shopping centre in i _ this sub--sample of SMSA's which are the best current comparables - best in the sense of -having a similar population �- to the Edmonton CMA. Eight of u the SMSA's have a 1983 o lation of between 800 000 1 .00_ 01000 persons , and are therefore similar in size to the Edmonton Y &MA of 10 to 20 v A.hense� The �veraRe size of the largest suburban sou r eet. The shopping centre in these eight SMSA's is �,6Q, 00 --- 1,150,000 souare foot FriendlyCentre Forum in Greensboro is the iuburban shopping centre in this sub-sample of SMSA's which ^� are the best future comparables to the Edmonton CMA. The survey results set out in Table 2 suggest than the 'Population of a metropolitan area and the size of that metropolitan area' s last suburban shopping centre are positively correl�a�t dF In other wthose the largest suburban shopping centres tend to be located in thos metropolitan areas with the largest populations. While this conclu- Sion might seem to be trivially obvious, the survey results also show that some very large suburban shopping centre have been built in some . • relatively small metropolitan areas (e.g. Honolulu, Orlando) while at the same time, some very large metropolitan areas have relatively, small suburban shopping centres (e.g. St• Louis, Baltimore). More- .< out in Table 2 also reveals that the over, inspection of the dato _ size of the largest suburban shopping centres varies considerably less than the size of the metropolitan areas . In fact, the ratio of the largest metropolitan area population to the smallesL metropolitan area population is 3,2:1.0; the ratio of the largest suburban 2si �06 ping centre to •the smallest suburban shopping centre is only It is not entirely surprising, therefore, that a simple regression uburban shopping centre equation with the largest ssire as the dependent variable (i.e. the X variable) and metropolitan area popu- lation as the independent ariable (the X variable) has a rather low =` correlation coefficient (r 0.24)• And while the coefficient of the dependent variable is positive, indicating that the size of the with the largest suburban shopping centre does tend to increase olitan area, the value of this coefficient is population of _a metrop - quite low . (0.179), indicating that the largest suburban shopping - _ _ centre In much larger a big metropolitan area willentre eines usmallemetropolitan than the largest suburban shopping f �. area. The regression equation developed above suggests that the largest suburban shopping centre in a metropolitan area with a population of between 700,000 - 800,000 persons would typically have a gross leas- N'R13:'1ICS. 5 ` able area of between 1,000,000 1,100,000 square feet. When the - :Phase II expansion comes onstream in August of 1983, the West Edmonton - Ball will have a gross leasable area of 1,650,000 square feet, or _ between 550,000 650,000 square feet more than "normal" for a metro politan area the size of Edmonton. Expressed somewhat differently, -_ the regression equation suggests ' that a 1,650,000 square foot �-� suburban shopping centre would typically be found in a metropolitan - area with a population of between 4,000,000 a 4,500,000 persons. " . Assuming that the Phase III expansion Cowes onstream in 1987, the West Edmonton Mall will have a gross leasable area of 2,450,000 square feet. The regression equation developed above suggests that a ` 2,450,000 square foot suburban shopping centre would typically be a - found in a metropolitan area with a population of between 8,500,000 -- 9,000,000 persons. in 1987, the population of the Edmonton CMA is r; expected to range between 750,000 — 770,000 persons. �3 The statistical analysis set out above indicates very clearly► that a suburban shopPing centre the size of the West Edmonton Mall would not _ normally be found in a metropolitan area as small as Edmonton. does not necessarily follow, however, that a metropolitan area the - - ''"" size ;f Edmonton cannot support a suburban shopping centre as big as the West Edmonton Sall. It does suggest, however,. that the "cost" of . :-- ":--r supporting such a large suburban shopping centre in such a small metdopolitan area will be rather siighy in this particular instance, r, the Edmonton retail market _will have to be significantly "distorted" in order to support the West Edmonton Mall. This matter will. be discussed at some length in sections 4 and 5 of the report. dost metropolitan' areas are characterized by a well balanced aeo- glaph'c di§tribution of suburban shopping centres. In other words, most metropolitan areas have a number of shopping centres of a similar size scattered throughout the suoupbs. The St. Louis SMSA, for example, has St. Clair Square (1,055,000 square feet), Mid. Rivers Mall (1,035,000 square feet), Crestwood Plaza (980,000 square feet River Road Mall (845,000 square feet), and Clayton Centre (800,000 square. feet). The Portland SMSA has Washington Square (1,200:000 r' E square feet), Vancouver Mall (1,006,000 square feet), and Menlo Park µ _ Plaza (947,000 square feet). Tne Salt Lake City SMSA has Fashion - ' Place (9679000 square feet), Newgate Mall (949,000 square feet), = Cottonwood Mall (800,000 square feet), and the Ogden Mall (777,000 -- -`square feet). . :..� I - There are some quite viunific-nt planning and economic benefits ,4 associated with having a number of shopping centres of a similar size scattered throughout the suburbs of a metropolitan area , these include spreading the "sho in traffic load" over the entire metro- politan road network: minimizin average drivin times from residers-= tial areas to major r shopping facilities, _andyreservinQ the role of iD T2'AVICc- ... ...Table 3• !.� COMPARISON OF LARGEST SUBURBAN i SHOPPING CENTRES IN SEUCTED METROPOLITAN AREAS IN CANADA Largest Suburban 2nd Largest Suburban - 3rd Largest Suburbkn. • ``� ~Shopping Centre Shopping Centre -'Shopping Centre . Toronto " Shopping Centre Navae...__.. YorTcdale _ Scarborough T.C. Mississauga -Square One Shopping Centre Size 1,237,000 19087,000 966,000 Size Index 100.0 87.9 78.1 '` Montreal Shopping Centre Flame Galeries D'Anaou Promenades St. Bruno Carrefour Laval �JlShopping Centre Size 974,000 905,000 840,000 f Size Index 100.0 92.9 86.2 Vancouver ;;coping Centre Flame Park-Royal Guildford Coquitlam ;hopping Centre Size 880,000 825,000 748,000 Size Index 100.0 93.8 8.5.0. P Ottawa—Hull ;V7=� Snopping Centre game Bayshore St. Laurent Billings Bridge >hopping Centre Size 595,000 537,000 490,000 }, size Index 100.0 90.3 82.4. Edmonton M Shopping Centre Name Hest. Bd3,onton Heritage Southgate Shopping Centre Sizes 1,650,000 794,000 720,000 Size Index 100.0 48.1 43.6 � Calgary ' ppo Centre Dame Chinook : .Market Mall Sunridge `_ Silo ' ins Shopping Centre Size_,_.________l,020,000 _ 678,000 646,000 Size Index _ _ _ 1.00.0 - 66.5 - ___-- :__.... 63.3 _t R-31) Urbanics ConsultantsY Ltd. based on information provided by ^city planners and shopping centre managers. Shopping centre size is measured in square feet of gross leasable area, c.s y `IRB �3C�a 1 da ` the downtown as the snopping district in the region_. With _ these potential benefits in mind section 3.2 which follows examines in some detail the extent to which a well balanced geographic, distr2 --_ f ,'=' ,~bution of suburban shopping centres has developed to date in the major Canadian metropdlitGan areas. 3.2 SUBVET OF SELECTED CANADIAN METROPOLITAN ARRAS - Table 3 which follows provides an indication of the extentto-which regional shopping centres are evenly distributed throughout the : suburbs of Canada's six largest metropolitan areas: namely, Toronto*`�.� - Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa—Hull, Edmonton and Calgary. For the YApurposes of this analysis, evenness of distribution will be measured *by the relative size of the three largest suburban regional shopping centres in each metropolitan area. The three largest suburban shopping centres in the Toronto CMA are Yorkdale (1,237,000 square feet), Scarborough Toon Centre (1,087,000 square feet), and 'Mississauga Square One (966,000 square feet). •_�_ . Using Yorkdale as the reference point (relative size index equals'-_ 100.0), Scarborough Town Centre and Mississauga Square One have relative size indices of 87.9 and 78.1 respectively. In other words; ----- ^' :awl the second and third largest suburban shopping centres in the Toront�r CMA are only 12:1 per cent and 71_9 per cent respectively smaller than the largest suburban shopping centre in this metropolitan area. This, in turn, suggests that major shopping centre facilities are fairly evenly distributed throughout the suburbs of the Toronto CMA. ' The three largest suburban shopping centres in the Montreal CMA are ALI the Galeries D'Anjou (974,000 square feet), Les Promenades Se. Bruno (905,000 square feet), and Le Carrefour Laval (840,000 square feet). Using the Galeries D'Anjou as the reference point (relative size index equals 100.0), Promenades St. Bruno and Carrefour Laval have relative size indices of 92.9 and 86.2 respectively. In other words, the second and third largest suburban shopping centres in the NOMontreal CMA are only 7..1 per cent and 13.8 per cent respectively _ �.�..smaller than the largest suburban shopping centre in this market.. =aAgain, this suggests that major shopping centre facilities are fairly h "; evenly distributed throughout the suburbs of the Montreal CMA. _ - '= The three largest suburban shopping centres in the Vancouver CMA area =' Park Royal (880,000 square feet), Guildford Town Centre (825,000 ,.'square feet), and Coquitlam Town Centre (748,000 square feet). Using Park Royal as the reference point (relative size index equals* 100-0) , < . , Guildford Town Centre and Coquitlam Town Centre have relative size ` indices of 93.8 and 85.0 respectively. In other words, the second and third largest suburban shopping centres in the Vancouver CMA are only 6.2 per cent and 15.0 per cent smaller respectively than the largest r r �,RI3,-AICs 6 '..--"-�"' '�-•. --_- --.:��`�y.;:tom- - auburban shopping" centre in this market. Once again, this suggests that major shopping centre facilities are fairly evenly throughout the suburbs of the Vancouver CMA. x The three largest suburban shopping centres in the Ottawa-Hull are' Bayshore (595,000 square feet), St. Laurent (537,000 square -= feet), and Billings Bridge (490,000 square feet), Using Bayshore as. the reference point (relative size index equals 100.0), St. Laurent -: .. and Billings Bridge have relative size indices of 90.3 and 82.4 spectively. In other words, the second and third largest suburban-----.-. -shopping centres in the Ottawa-Hull CMA are only 9.7 per cent and 17.6 � per cent smaller respectively than the largest suburban shopping _s centre in this market. Again, this suggests that major shopping - centre facilities are fairly evenly distributed throughout the suburbs of the Ottawa-Hull CMA. The three largest suburban shopping centres in the Calgary CMA are Chinook (1,020,000 square feet), Market Mall (675,000 square feet) and Sunridge (646,000 square feet).. Using Chinook as the reference 3 point (relative size index equals 10000), Market Mall and Sunridge �r have relative size indices of 66.5 and 63.3 respectively. Compared to` Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Ottawa-Hull, Calgary is thus char acterized by a rather "lopsid c" ' stribution of suburban shopping u� centres at the present time It should be noted, however that there are plans to expand both Market Mall and Sunridge.. When the Market . Mall and Sunridge expansions (approximately 200,000 square feet in both cases) come on stream, the second and third largest suburban shopping centres in the Calgary CHA will be only 13.9 per cent and hoz 17.1 per cent smaller -respectively than Chinook. i The three largest suburban shopping centres in the Edmonton CMA are # 'Nest Edmonton (1,650,000 square feet), Heritage Mall (794,OOO- square fA feet), and Southgate (720,000 square feet). Using West Edmonton as the reference point (relative size index equals 100.0),. Heritage Mall and Southgate Mall have relative size indices of only 48.1 and 43.6 respectively. In other words, the second and third largest suburban shopping centres in the Edmonton CMA are already less than one-half he size of the largest suburban shopping centre in the metropolitan area. If the Phase III expansion of the West Edmonton Mall proceeds as presently planned, Heritage and Southgate will be less than one-third . the size of the largest suburban shopping centre in the Edmonton CMA; Such an overwhelming dominance in the marketplace by one suburban s,. shopping centre is unparalleled in any major metropolitan area in Canada. To demonstrate this point more conclusively, the next section of the report examines the share of the Edmonton market °'captured" by the West Edmonton Mall, and compares this single pro- - ject market share to the corresponding figures 'for the largest suburban shopping centres in other major metropolitan areas in Canada. Fes• - � "h. I�' N MALL MAR= $DARE ANALYSIS (` �•, 4.0 WE - .! - - - w For the purposes of this analysis, the West Edmonton Mall share of the_ . • Edmonton market is defined as the percentage of the total DSTM potent Y tial of Edmonton CMA residents which must be "allocated" to the DSTM - stores in the Wesi Edmonton Mall in order to provide these stores vitt F a satisfactory sales volume. With this definition in mind, section 4.1 which follow determines the DSTH potential of the Edmonton CMA for 1981, 1983, 1988 and 1993 { 4..1 . DSTH POTENTf. L: EDMOHTOR CK& .: r' The upper portion of Table 4 which follows shows the DSTM potential of _t the Edmonton CMA for 1981, 1983, 1988 and 1993. By definition, DS TM potential equals the product of population times per capita DSTM expenditures. In 1981, the population of the Edmonton CMA was ation o - 657,057; based on the 1983 Municipal Census Counts, the popul the Edmonton CMA is currently estimated at 689,000. : Based on .an - analysis of recent historic trends , as well as on population projec- tions provided by the City of Edmonton, the City of St. Albert, and the Town of Fort Saskatchewan, population of the Edmonton CMA is ' forecast to increase to between 764,000 - 784,000 by 1988, and to between 849,000 - 889,000 by 1993. These population projections imply a growth rate of between 2.1 - 2.6 per cent per annum over the { next 10 years. To place these figures in perspective, the population - of the Edmonton CMA increased by 2.9 per cent per annum between 1971 - and 1981: Based on retail sales data provided by Statistics Canada for the Province of Alberta, and on per capita income data provided by Statis� tics Canada and the Conference Board in Canada for the Province of Alberta and the Edmonton CHA, DSTM expenditures of Edmonton CMA residents are estimated at $2,010 per capita in 19$1 and $2,050 per that per capita DSTH expenditures capita in 1983. Assuming will `,. increase by 8.0 per cent per annum in nominal terms (2.0 per cert per =annum in real terms) during the 1983-1993 period, per capita DSTM . _..;.a.�.-.:_expenditures of Edmonton CMA residents will amount to $3:010 per. - capita in 1988 and to $4,430 per capita in 1993. Given these popu" lation and per capita DSTM projections, the DSTH potential of the Edmonton CMA amounts to $1.3207 billion in 1981, to $1.4125 billion in. 1983, to between $2.2996 - $2.3598 billion in 1988 and to between $3.7611 $3.9383 billion in 1993. rir �'R13A 'ICs • � - - (falls L :: - = lanatic. cmim Asp Pwicru lf:$r xxPe -co ),.,t - SULU Of toa®rrOM OU DSTN PM)MAL 1.1 _ - f983 19sb 1413 Kith f,ow Ma f ov Ytie Low r. law itl Latiuca Lae�i�att Eatiute rettmete Uttute Facauta Lsciutc Ratio, 1"onton CMA DM Potential Populatioal 197.OS7 `S7.OSJ 684.000 659,000 764,000 Tid,.000 A142.000 Sol. Put Capita DST/fi Expenditures2 i 2.010 $ 2.010 2.030 0,050 $ 3,010 $ 3.010 g 4.130 L 6. Edsontoe CMA DSTM Potential (Millions of $) $1,320.7 $1.320.8 1� 412.9 i 1.12.5 X99.6 S 2.359.8 $3.761.1 X7.9: l DS:x Potential lmquired to Support West Edmonton Mall Total DS:lt Sgac: (Sq.7t. CLA) 900,000 900.000 1,209.000 1.200.000 1.600.000 1.600,000 1,600,000 1.001 OSTM Potential loquired To Sapport Weft Edmonton MallL • - • - _. ! $180 - 220 per sq.ft. GLA L162.0 $ 198.0 4 $210 - 250 per sq.ft. GLA 252.0 300.0 $210 - 350 per sq.ft. CLA9b0.b $400 - 480 per sq.f:. MA r West Eamoncon Nall Snare of So■onton CMA DSTM Potential 12.3% 15.0% 17.82 21.25 20.8T 23.7: 17.51 TVs �1 iA 1) Statistics Canada 1981 Canoga of Csnada 1981; Urbanics Consultants estimates (rounded co the nearest 1,b06 persona) based on infotro+rips: pro b F, by 88 the laity of Edsontoe, the City of St. Albert and the Town of Port Saskatchewan for 1983; Urbahico Con:altants Ltd. eetimerea lrorndcd t ' nearest 1.000 persons) based on population projections prepared by the City of Sdsonton Plannint Department for 19and 1993. 2) Urlahics consultant& Ltd. estimates Crounded to the nearest $10.00) based on Statistics Can+aa, 3etail Trade. M+rcb 1982 far 145I! UAL eonaultanto Ltd, estimates (rounded to the Dearest $10.00) based on Statistics Canada, Retail Trade. March 1983 and the May 1983 confersnc" Sol Canada provincial forecast for 1983. Per capita Dm expendituresare forecast to increase by 1.0 per tens per Ono"" in oo:inal tars[ 02.0 Pal pet ahnum in real teras) nicer 1983 r 3) See Tae le 1. —A rj 4) Urbanite Consultants &ca estimates (rounded to the ®mare[[ 1300,000) refleettn$ the tenant mitt far Paaeae is 11 and 111 of the Vast Sea `IRB.'1;��ICS. i 4.2 MISTORIC, COBREAT AND PR=CTED WEST EDMONTON MALL MARKET SEAQ r<_ -The lower portion of Table 4 shows the amount of DSTM potential r quired to support the West Edmonton Mall. The. amount of DSTM potential required to support the West Edmonton Mall is determined,.". in turn, by multiplying the total amount of DST; space in the project $� times an average productivity level (sales per equare. foot). - - _ `115 According to the development programme set out in Table 1, Phase I of M`- the West Edmonton Mall has 900,000 square feet of DSTM space. The three major department stores -- The Bay, Eatons and Sears -- together account for approximately one-half of this figure. The Phase 11 and ; P Phase III expansions of the West Edmonton Mall will increase the total r.•r,t amount of DSTM space in the project by 300,000 square feet and 400,000 {:. square feet respectively. 1n 1983, consequent to the completion of the Phase 11 expansion, the West Edmonton Mall will therefore have 1,200,000 square feet of DSTM space. In 1988, consequent to the completion of the Phase III expansion, the West Edmonton Mall will ,mac have 1,600,000 square feet of DSTM space. The overall sales level required to support tire DSTM space in a ' - t shopping centre varies .somewhat from one project to another, and - determined primarily by the mix of tenants. Some DSTM tenants such as �+ : i discount department stores (e.g. Woolco, Zellers, K-Mart) can operate profitably on relatively lova sales volumes. Some other DSTN tenants " . such as major department stores (e.g. The Bay, ;ears, Batons , Wood- wards) and specialty retail shops (e.g. ladies wear, gifts, drugs) t require considerably higher sales volumes in order to operate at a profit. Given the merchandising mix in Phase I of the West Edmonton ?Sall an overall sales level of between 180 , $ - $220 per square foot GLA would have been sufficient to support the 900,000 square foot DSTM component of the West Edmonton. Mall in 1981. Given the merchandising mix in the Phase 11 expansion of the West Edmonton Mall, an overall - - sales level of between $210 - $250 per square foot GLA is required, in our opinion, to support the 1,200,000 square foot DSTM component of the,. West Edmonton Mall in 1983. Allowing for store volumes to in- crease by 7.0 per cent per annum in nominal terms (1.0 per tent per annum in real terms) over the 1983-1993 period, the overall sales x= level required to support the DSTM component of the West. Edmonton Mall W2'.11 increase to between $290 - $350 per square foot GLA in 1988, and = - to between $400 - $480 per square foot GLA in 1993. Ziultiplying the sales volumes cited in the preceding paragraph times the total amount of DSTM space in the project gives the DSTH potential required to support the West EdmOuto.n Mall. As the lover portion of j. Table 4 shows, the DSTM potential required to support the West . Edmonton Mall increases from between $162.0 - $198.0 million in 1981 to between $252.0 - $300.0 million in 1983, to between $478.5 - $560.0 ., million in 1988, and to between $660.0 - $792.0 million in 1993. NIRBANNIG - 9 - _ KY _ t DiIvidin& these fg i ures into the total DSTM potential of the Edmonton CMA provides a good indication as to the share of the total retail market in the Edmonton metropolitan area that must be captured by the West Edmonton Mall. As the bottom line of Table 4 shoes, the West Edmonton Mall share in 1981 amounted to between 12.3 - 15.0 yer®_ _ With the completion of the Phase 11 expansions the West Edmonton Mall share in 1983 rose dramatically to between 17.8 - .21.2 per cent Assuming that the Phase III expansion will proceed as -presently planned, the West Edmonton Mall share in 1988 will 1 rise further still to between 20.8 - 23.7 per cent P , the West .Edmonton Mall share of the Edmonton market will have dgclined to beCween 1715_- 20.1 per cent. = imp W_ it is hard to believe that a pi,ngle suburban shi.n� c�rxtre could capture e_sarlY n„t n z9ery fou12„ST�i doll�zs .�t.]lae_�etJcOpolitan �re�. Yet t`i��scss,1'►_ s�tyi.Ll.�a$ppeII7,f_Ph�se_iLl�othe West_$d�nt�i pr"P-gA, 3:- aresjm3)t3 y 'ata . To show just -how abnormal this degree of retail ing'concentration would be, section 4.3 which follows determines the share.of the DSTM market captured by the largest Subur- ban shopping centre in Canada's six largest metropolitan areas. - _ _ - 4.3 MMpABATIQE MARRET SBARE ANALYSIS: SELECTED CANADIAR METROPOLITAN AREAS _ i Table 5 which follows shows the current market share of the largest -j suburban shopping centre in the Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa- Hull and Calgary metropolitan areas. Current market share has been determined using the same methodology as that employed for the.West Edmonton Mall; in. other words, the sales volumes required to support t the DSTM � component of each shopping centre is expressed as a i percentage of that metropolitan area's DSTM potential. . With a 1983 population of 3,060,000 and 1983 DSTM expenditures of 3 $1,860 per capita, the DSTM potential of the Toronto .CMA is currently estimated at $5.691 billion. The largest suburban shopping centre in Toronto, Yorkdale, has a total gross leasable area of 1,237,000 square feet; the DSTM component of the Yorkdale Shopping Centre is �'. estimated at 1,130,000 square feet. Based on an average sales volume of. between $230 - $270 per square foot GLA, the DSTM potential required to support the Yorkdale Shopping Centre amounts to between _;A259.9 - $305.1 million. As the bottom line of Table 5 shows, the Yorkdale Shopping Centre thus captures between 4.5 - 5.4 per cent of • the Toronto CMA. DSTM market. With a 1983 population of 2,874,000 and 1983 DSTM expenditures of $1,500 per capita, the DSTM potential of the Montreal CMA is currently estimated at $4.311 billion. The largest suburban shopping centre in ff NIRBAI\ sAlw $ - • '. gtrttild /cAslOti $a= er tA=,T 3LIlsl C sulatlli ssorruC sects: lY 5=='O - _ -- )STtoTflLAI171 LIRAS 72 CJt�Aa4 - A. - y jI Ifty &-all _ G lerewCe —_ Vancouver ® - - ! pttwr Montreal l.ar=art =EilLRO$l�bNi�a �OTkdalt Cllarise D°AajoN Bart Royal DmloNso 16aet ydaatoa 1.650.000 Castle ),020.00rJ ssappinj 8E0,00@ $95,00@ a 1 9T4.OD0 1e23J.OD0 Total CLA $" ,DOD F. ye2C4.000 _ EEO,f� t 000 735.000 ,DOD 1.130.000 260• BS'T71 Compoabut2 '�t-f 3as:M :atsstiaF Ree uirad b1W 00-0 ''w'. to Support Shopping -entre 1]1].4 - 1]].0 els� i. a ft. CIA Jim..! }197 1369 ® — ! 1230 - $2)0 per rr,. -- P ! 1210 - 4250 ler se-ft• GtA 639.008 ty2e000 }utrooelitan Area 1sST" Potential 1,29E,000 13'4.000 5,060.000 2.E7A.000 1 2.226 8.056 yopulation41.90D1,150 1 1 y�g00 = per Cb apita 1•z DSTM peodisurer5 $ $.810 • 1.9716.1 r:' • 1 112.5 1 c� 2b 666 2 �` aid Mtropoliten Area DSI)l Potential & 41 s�691 6 (Millions of 1) -^ e 17.3 r� Current Farkas Share of )^arjeeL 4�y. - s,." �`-•<�t %xiatin, &'burAsn S"ppis.j Caatrm sig of the chapping eewxxo. 1) see Table 9. in erects. Consultants 1.td. metiwates (Teus4.4 to the interest b1Do.D00) bared on the strthasdisinj cit al the *hopping re 19E3 std the 9Wp 2! 2) Orbrsics Caoeuleasts Rtd. mrtie.ases (rounded to sba weareet 100 rquare fact C1.A) Meoc6 on the e.sreeand:asst 3) Drbanice Consul _ ' 4) sea Table 2. 5j Qrbanics Conrultaate l.td. arxp�ociel ftag orscuto the wnarert 110.00) based os Statistics Caeadr. satail 'za . Conference ;card in Cas+ds p CS r /!• _ r Montreal, the Galeries D'Anjou, has a total gross leasable area of i 974,000 square feet; the DSTM component of the Galeries D'Anjou is ..estimated at 860,000 square feet.. Based on an average sales volumes': _ of between. $230 ••• $270 per square foot GLA, the DSTM potential required to support the Galeries D'Anjou amounts to between $197.8 $232.2 million. As the bottom line. of Table 5 shows, the- Galeries D'Anjou thus captures between 4.6 - 5.4 per cent of the Montreal CMA' t DSTH market. # i With a 1983 population of 1,298,000 and 1983 DSTM expenditures of 1 900 per capita, the DSTM potential of the Vancouver CHA is current $ • P P ly estimated at $2.466 billion.. The largest suburban shopping centre rrm in Vancouver, Park Royal, has a total gross leasable area of 880,000 square feet; the DSTH component of the Park Royal Shopping Centre is estimated at 735,000 square feet. Based on an average sales volume of Vi" between $230 - $270 per square foot GLA, the DSTH potential required to support the Park Royal Shopping Centre amounts to between $161.1 - i $198.5 million. As the bottom line of Table 5 shows, the Park Royal ' Shopping Centre thus captures between 6.9 - 8.1 per cent of the f Vancouver CMA DSTH market. ' With a 1 983 o ulation of 734 000 and 1983 DSIX expenditures of $1,850 -P P e Pp per capita, the- DSTM potential of the Ottawa-Hull CRA is currently estimated at $1..357 billion.. The largest suburban shopping centre in Ottawa-Hull, Bayshore, ha . a total gross leasable area of 595,000 square feet, the ASTM component of the Bayshore Shopping; Centre is estimated at 540,000 square feet. Based on au average sales volume of between $210 - $250 per square foot GLA, the DSTM potential required to support the Bayshore Shopping Centre amounts to between $113.4 -- $135.0 million. As the bottom line of Table 5 shows, the Bayshore Shopping Centre thus captures between 8.4 - 9.9 per cent of the f. Ottawa-Hull, CHA DSTM*market. r� e With a 1983 population of 622,000 and 1983 DSTM expenditures of $2,210 per capita, the DSTM, potential of the Calgary CMA is currently f estimated at $1.374 billion. The largest suburban shopping centre in Calgary, Chinook, has a total gross leasable area of 1,020,000 square ..____. feet; the DSTM component of the Chinook Shopping Centre is estimated at $80,000 square feet. Based on an average sales volume of between _$230 e_ $270 per square foot GLA, the DSTM potential required to support the Chinook Shopping Centre amounts to between $202.4 m - $237.6 million. As the bottom line of Table 5 shows, the Chinook Shopping Centre thus captures between 14.7 - 17.3 per cent of the -Calgary CRA DSTM market. The results of the market share analysis for Canada's six largest metropolitan areas point out dramatically how auch - Edmonton will E• differ from the norm consequent to the opening of the Phase YZ expan • r 1 I 1NNI Cs, RB. r63 try'.`'r}w :- •` .r-^ ••sJv^w j slowof_the West_Edmonton rMal l. '..Ia Toronto_ , 2iontreal Vancouver and Ottava�Eull tbe''largest'subuxban-shopping centre typically captures^ -Edmonton by".contras the. - - between S:'�, 10 per,vent of the market. In , . t,,_ Target suburban shopping centre__i.s expected to capture--between 18 21 per cent of the market in 19839` and between 21 24.per cent of-the market in 1988. Such an unprecedented concentration .,Of retailing activity in one subuiban shopping centre uaturaTly -begs the question as to whether this suburban "tega centre'9 is about to usurp the =# traditional role of the downtown as the principal shopping district Y in the metropolitan area. The next :section of the- report provides some answers to this question. y � - Jy ...•w ,• _-.it -.... - . • 5- - _ 1 _ if�•t _ �•� DOWNTOWN SHOPPING STB$ SUIL 1, spa s - In most Canadian cities, the downtown has been and still is the -,A principal shopping district. Notwithstanding the development of - - large shovnine centres in the suburbs _during the past two decades in g ( particular. the downtown of most anathan cities still has Lhe .tom; gle largest concentration Q£ retail acdy-i iesr In recent years, the role of the- downtown as the "central shopping district" has been ,. strengthened in the large metropolitan areas by the construction of high capacity rapid transit systems; these high capacity rapid transit systems tend to reinforce the position of the downtown as the �,`. most accessible location to all residents of the metropolitan area. The ongoing development of the West Edmonton Mall treatens to destroy the traditionalrole of the downtown as the a central snoppiflg district k for the Edmonton metrQPQ1jan$re„a, To substantiate this �claim, section 5.1 which follows compares the size of the largest suburban shopping centre to the size of the largest downtown shopping centre ry--a for Canada's six biggest metropolitan areas. Tnis comparison - - z provides the best indication, in our opinion, as Co the relative strength of downtown and suburban shopping. While the core of every`'- large metropolitan area has ;nrAeerably more retail space than that Y contained in its largest downtown shopping complex, much of this space is dispersed over a relatively large geographic area and/or occupied by lower quality tenants (lower quality compared to those found in the big suburban shopping malls at leash. It should also be remembered that many of the big suburban shopping malls are also surrounded by large areas of "perimeter commercial" development (e.g. car dealerships and. auto accessories shops, furniture and home improvement stores, restaurants, cinemas and so ori). This "secondary retail space" has been excluded from the analysis in order- to obtain a - more accurate indication as to relative strength of downtown and suburban shopping. i S.I. SURVEY OF SELECTED CdMADIAN METROPOLITAN AREAS _ Table b which follows shows the size of the largest suburban shopping T. =.._centre and the size of the largest downtown shopping centre in the Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa-Hull, Edmonton and`- Calgary- "census metropolitan areas. For the purposes of this analysis, a mow. downtown shopping centre is defined as one or more buildings with a major retail component (note that retailing need not be the principal land use) which are either physically adjacent to one another or are linked via a pedestrian connection (e.g. +15 walkway, underground •��RB'1\IC• - 13 - -.. ?able 6 -. RATIO OF Y &RG$ST DOWNTMH SHOPPING CENTRE TO- - - �" . LARGEST SUBURBAN SHOPPxNG CENTRE FM SELXCTED METROPOLITAN AREAS IN CARLDA _ r =Ra�tio - -Largest Existing _ Largest: Existing Y Downtown Shopping Centre Suburban Sho . � � PPing Centre Name Sire Name Sire (Sq.ft. GLA) (Sq.ft. GLA) Toronto Eaton Centrel 29495,000 Yorkdale 112379000 2.02 flontreal McGill Stati.on2 1,833,000 Galeries D'Anjou 574,000 1.88 Vancouver Pacific Centre 1,305,000 Park. Royal 880,000 1.48 Ottawa Rideau Centre4 883,000 Bayshore 595,000 1.48 Edmonton Edmonton Cen.tre5 982,000 West Edmonton 1,65O,000i 0.60 ,. Calgary TD Square 6' 1,178,000 Chinook 1,020,000 1.15 t: f 7'. h4; 1) Eaton Centre'includes Eatons , the Eaton Centre Mall and Simpsons. 2) McGill. Statioa, includes Eatons, the Les Terraces Mall, the 2020 University Mall, the 2001 University mall,-and The Bay. _ _ i,.-- 3) Pacific�.Centre includes Eatons , the Pacific Centre Mall, the Vancouver Centre Mall _ . and 1 The_Bay:::4) Bidesu Ce'ntre_includes The Bay, Eatons , the Rideau Centre Mall and Ogilvy's. 5) Edmonton Centre includes Woodwards, the Edmonton Centre Mall, Eatons ,. the Continen— tal Bank Building Mall and the ManuLife Centre Mall. 6) TD Square includes The Bay, Scotia Centre, TD Square and Eatons. 0 tg mall)• ` This rather strict definition of a downtownshopping centre `- - has been selected in order to identify a highly integrated complejc in ' the downtown area *hose building fof a rm most cladef itiansely �lto es tthc�hat osix. suburban shopping centre. Applying this largest metropolitan areas in Canada invariabactivitly tiin the downtown complex that is truly the heart of retailing y �- area of each City- Eaton Centre is the largest downtown shopping complex in Toronto. the Eaton Based on the criteria set out above, Centre complex consists the Eaton Centre Mall, and Simpsons. These three COM_ of Batons, e a pp area of ponents of the Eaton Centre �� Pl�rxesty suburban combined centre in 2,495,000 square feet. T g y square 237,000 Toronto, Yorkdale, has a gross. leasable area f centxe9to the largest feet. The ratio of the largest downtown suburban shopping centre --• a 8 ood indicator of the relative strength .... - . 4 Q£ downtown retailing in the Toronto CMA is thus 2.02:1. -- _- The McGill Station complex is. the larg est downtownshoppingcomplex station . in Montreal. Based on the criteria sTe ra es Mall, hMcGill the 2020 11niver- .� complex, consists of Batons, the Les The Bay. These five Com- sity Mall, the 2001 University Mall, and area of ponents of the McGill Station colap} sa suburbanve a s shopping ned l centre in 5 1,833,000 square feet. aThe largest Toss leasable area of only Montreal, Les Galeries A Anjou, has a g downtown largest 974,000 square feet. The ratio hof ie cent a in Montreals?ispthus } - complex to the largest suburbans pp ng I 1PM8.1. r: in complex in Vancouver. pacific Centre is the largest downtown shopping _ Based on the criteria setflotCentresMall,the gthefVancouver Cic Centre etrexMall, sists of Batons, the Pacific lex have t and The Bay- These four components of the Pacific Cent feet. The largest a combined shopping area of 1,305,000 r has a gross-leas- suburban shopping centre in Vancouver, Park Royal: able area of only 880,000 square feet. The ratio ofithe ervi=�eSS n complex to the largest suburban shopping - Di _downtown shopping F the Vancouver CMA is thus 1.48:1a _ est downtown shopping complex in Ottawa -: Rideau Centre is the largest Hull. Based on the criteria set out above,Centre Mall,the Rideau Cand rOgilvyls. M the Rideau Ce consists of Batons , The Bay, omplex have a biped =r These four component6 of the Rideau Centre largest suburban shopping shopping area of 883,000 square feet• The larg Ba shore, has a gross leasable area of only centre in Ottawa-Hull, y ' 595,000 square feet. The aratio of the largest downtown shopping complex to the largest suburban shopping centre iIr n the Ottawa-Hull CMA is thus -.-- ` Scare is the largest downtown shopping complex in Calgary. Based TD q. on the criteria set out above, the TD Square complex consis®Hants Of Bap, Scotia Centre, TD Square, and Eatons. pping area of four _ the TD Square coziplex have a combined shopping - - square feet. The largest suburban shopping centre ill Calgary, r y 1,00000 sq'Uare f . Chinook, has a gross leasable area p ing P on complex fto the largesttsubure ratio of the largest downtown shopping centre in the Calgary CHA is thus I.ISQI. ban shopping, - ws<, _ Edmonton Centre is the largest downtown shopping Centre Edmonton. .- Based on the criteria set out above, the .consists of Woodwards, the Edmonton Centre Pull, Eatons, and ^ � tinental Bank Building Mall, and the ManuT�ife Centre Mall. ­UA components of the Edmonton Centre complex have a combined shopping area of 905,000 square feet. When the Phase 11 expansion of the West - Edmonton Mall comes onstream in August of 1983, this suburban shop- rban feet. ping centre will have a gross leasable area of 1,650,000 square As of next month, therefore, Edmonton will be in a unique p its largest suburban shopping centre will be more than one est downtown T er to be recise) as its larg ''Ug times as big (68 percent bigger P ar►sion N=1i shopping complex. As of 1988, assuming that the Phase III expansion- shopping xp - - of the West Edmonton Mall proceeds as presently planned and that no major efforts are made to expand. , ,- Centre own in Edmonton will be twoailing activities in the and area, the largest suburban shoppx�bigger to be precise) as its largest a half times as big (149 percent downtown shopping complex. It: is difficult to imagine 1 �.°`Ani : - �._® Edmonton could retain a tmetro dolitan larealein the faceofsuch000v� district for the antis ---- "—` whelmint camvetition from a single suburban sho vin centre develo ZIn t. i This concern would be largely academic,ed of or were gat the downtown least under '7*w Eaton Centre project had been comp ro ect, . s: b this time. The two components of this P j t construction y - namely w atop de artment store and the Eaton Centra Mall, ' would increase the size of the Edmonton Centre compleu r y feet was --- imately 500, 000 square feet. (The figure of 500,000 &q Eatons ' derived by subtracting the grosieasableleasable areaarea of the newexisting Eatons store store from the combined gross roceed ; and the Eaton Centre Pull•) In all liklihood, a decision top - - • _ r- with the Eaton Centre project multi-levelwould d shoppingtonne • second major retail complexton CentCOU d �-----�--- ink;n� the aav to Ea > baton Centre to The Bay• whiRtnuld i ,�,__.nton C _ _- -- "ncrease the size of the Elm ton Centre H llen mp lz the new Eatons ththe en consist of woodwards the ..—..-,- the Continental Bank Bu slding .Mall the ManuLJ14 Eaton Centre Hall, _ ' the "Bay connector" MalI and The,..Bay...�b�--8 Centre Hall, - .. y presently has a gross leasable 700,000 square feet note that The Ba p Y _ area of 376,000 square feet). 7 WIM RB VI - {°�; • fl• ` rs. ...2 rr{7. _•_ _ - - Wit-! w `' +_ . yX. 1MY ti'�T.f-J^FY J t'b ! K7+.. 1 '3 .�•LC r..�iIT Under the rather ambitious devel ent prggramme describe __;Ft the 1 size of the Ed o ton Centre "Ralex would increase ram I . : - s ;i re feet to 2.182.009 sauar, �g At that• point$ assuffiing that r • .�..�--R.. r - *;the-,Phase:,,,,- "d base III expansion ofWestEdmonton'Mall.does .not.proceed)`,the 1 -�atio� `©f the- largest"' do�rntown-` shopping complex to ,-"the-.•'laigest •:tom ,•X suburbanshopping .centre in the . Edmonton�CMEl� Id be ; patio comparable to that of the other five large metropolitan areas in Canada -- - - r - " i yy � n BANIG - t 0. 6.0 WEST gWtiTag M&U I)IpACT ANALYSIS F _ The three preceding sections of this report have alluded -to some of the mare obvious problems associated with the development of a subur bars shopping centre as-lar&e as theEdmonton n s metro- politan politan area as smallas Edmonton- Some of prablems such as . -- ' the possibility of "overloading" certain portions ti oosof ome Ice road location re as a result of attracting too many shoppers best dealt with by experts in the particular field o concern wh there.9- transportation engineering). Some oth p all residential areas of a city should have convenient access to a regional shopping centre or whether the downtown should be the central shopping district for a large metropolitan area cannot be properly addressed without having first set out (and agreed upon rin? certain fundamental economic, planning and/or philosophical p cipals. Still others -- such as whether the development of a very centre will reduce the sales levels large regional shopping of adjacent shopping centres to a point that will jeopardize their on - going viability are best dealt with using a sophisticated com� r puter--based mathematical impact model. Bearing these caveats in ' mind, the balance of this sectio+ of the report presents a non- quantitative analysis of the impact of the Nest Edmonton Mall on the " . retail "infrastructure" of the Edmonton metropolitan area. More Specifically, the three subsections which follow examine in turn the 1naaet SON �of rretailin in ., Downtown Edmon n uburban,,pbQ22 .ng_�entres b.pth XlS ln$ n �_-- _- -� _ .R proposed) in the itviof Edmonton and on phe�rospectsor. retai nton regio??• 6.1 IMPACT ON DOWNTOWN $ETRION The results of the downtown shopping centre analysis set out in Section of this report indicated that downtown Edmonton's role as µ' the central shopping district for the entire Edmonton metropolitan area was being jeopardized by the uncontrolled expansion of the West ..,,y _ • Edmonton Mall. of the six largest metropolitan areas in Canada, only Edmonton has a suburban shopping centre which is larger than its main _ downtown sho in com lex this imbalance in favour of the suburbs g PP P s will, of course, be exacerbated if Phase III expansion of the West _ Edmonton Mall proceeds as presently proposed. In dealing with the Phase III expansion of the West Edmonton Mall, the - y City must come to grips with a rather fundamental philosophical planning issue: namely, does it wish to preserve Downtown Edmonton as r �JB:1ICS• the pre--eminent shopping district for the entire Edmonton Retro- - - -politan area or, alternatively, it is prepared to see this function transfezed to a shopping centre in the suburbs. If the City prefers the "downtown option" -- as we strongI belieeve t should the een .two Complementar steps •should be taken forthwith: firstly, no further ..---- expansion urther _ expansion of the West Edmonton Mall should be permitted and. _ secondly,_a strategy for the exvansion and revitalization of retail :.-. facilities in the downtown core should be devel�o _A_ The first of _ these two recommendations needs no explanation; the second one, on the other hand, does require some further elaboration. The downtown shopping district has a number of drawbacks at the -- _ _ present time, of which the comparative lack of specialty retail stores and the physical separation of one major department store (The - Pay on ,Jasper Avenue) from the "one stop shopping" offered by the Edmonton Centre complex are perhaps the two more important ones. These two major drawbacks could be solved simultaneously by the development of a major retail complex linking The Bay to Eatons and the rest of the Edmonton Centre shopping complex. Such a development - briefly described i'n the preceding section of the.report --would, in our opinion, firmly reestablished downtown Edmonton as the central shopping district for the entire Edmonton Metropolitan area. tinder the best of conditions, such an ambitious development Mould require a considerable amount of money and effort on the part of the City and the various affected parties in the private sector (land owners, department stores, small retailers, etcetera). If Phase III of the West Edmonton Mall proceeds as presently proposed, however, an N increasing number of these affected parties are likely to conclude that the future of retailing in Edmonton lies not in the downtown but ss_ in"the suburbs. In this case, it would be extremely difficult if not impossible — to convince anyone to undertake the type of retail development described above® In other words, a decision by the City to allow anv further exvansion of the West Edmonton Mall will , in our opinionhav e $ - '_- y- ha o the e af�f ec �o .tpopinansion g a na�ar�ex� !' Edaonton Centre complex the Eaton Centre proiect and or the "Ba n c t1 jos pde_f �. Without a major expansion o,f the Edmonton Centre complex, retailing in the downtown core will stagnate not continue to decline), and service functions (e.g. banks and - trust companies, restaurants, airline ticket offices, travel agents, `~etcetera) will increasingly come to dominate the "shopping scene". 5.2 IMPACT ON SUBURBAN SHOPPING CSNMS The develo ent of a suburban shopping centre the size of West &dponton Mall will have impoa, t not just on downtown Edmonton but on virtually all of the suburban shopping centres in the City as well. centres located furthest from.. the Saes `Those subu ban sb�ip& -_ Edmonton Mall e. Heritages�L ndonderr _ should not be affected to s- . -ac r ficant de reAe; while the sales of these relatively distant r . competitive suburban shopping centres will certainly declane as each phase of the West Edmonton Mall comes onstream, the magnitude of this nor ;eovardize the i decline will be relatively small and. should viabilitJ of a Si ificant number of tenants. The same cannot be said, however, for those competitive suburban - centres located Mall. Given the d tloser to the West Edmont shopping immense size of this project, competing shopping centres as far away as SouehRate�and lain swa are 1 ly.__, o,�,experxencesbpnll;can r and Phase 1 of the West declines in overall sales as Phase Ic ,-._.._.�- --� centres For those suburban shopping Edmonton Mall come onstream. articular 1Qcated in close�r_oximi y to the West dm°nton„ 1211 in P ,.. -_ P. ,�....�.. a.._._.. Mea rlc��entennial`and GTes.tmount -- the im act will be even more dramatic- (Meadowlark and Centennial have already embarked on a r � ive remerchandising programme" in an atte "defensivmpt to minimize the s f the Edmonton Centre.) A significant number of impact Phase I o hopping centres will likely tenants in these competing setit�.onfrom the ever business in the face of the overwhelming comp i expanding West Edmonton Hall. • planning - hilum once again, thi1.s . raises a rather ah eC��yntiaven�nlobligation to protect sophical issue: namely, does t m _ jr. all fairness to the Triple 5 i the interests of existing businesses . Corporation Ltd. , it must be pointed out that the development Qf any • large regional shopping centre impact on the wall have an adverse sales revels and thus the profitability -- of existing competitive retail facilities. By the same token, the typical regional shopping centre normally captures between 5 -- 10 per cent of the DSTH market in s a large metropolitan areae • The West Edmonton Mall share of the DSeTX market in Edmontonnt , however,the Phasle II expansion, andUt to nto between l amOu21 - y after the completion of planned. lanned. per cent if the Phase III expansion proceeds as p y The consequence of a single Slofl� Acanpturing such disloeationaand/oraordinary hardship share of the market will be g for retailers and shopping centre owners presently located on the "oast aide" of the City. will have n im act The oin exansion of the West Edmontoncentre 91 but also onathe _5 = • •_ not only on existing suburban shopping _ n re developments Presence`{ ons hQp-p3� - and�o --�- Once again, ocatzdmo�A+ - 21an ie-d for a- numbe3 f.--�..� __ - ---pro ' 3.this impact will be smallest on r°po`'edall o pe ~illwoods°c Town furthest awa from the West Edmonton Centre and largest for ro osed shopping centres located closer �•� t e West EEcnton Mall le• Northwest Edmonton own en • - - VRI�AN s 19 - _- �- -- o allow a further ex ansion of the West Edmonton decision b the Cit t �- - Mall zn creases the likelihood that this project vUllt"�z�-e mat the tarket" for the foreseeable future. As a direct res • xi._....-- ill ho ©e rom or and• ore to e re "dent's nei hdo theirocomvarisonavoods �zavel greater and reater distances ,ta ho min This in re turn will have an increa a�o="ash p num is - notabl loadin more o. able sidtraffic e effects - ---$-- �� -�• onto a small onion of the City's road n�etwin thenzeside tia neigh- noise, ----.'�" con estio )he West ._._-- an Z. ire 1� area P_row msy-�e- -•--- �" �w_Ls._ -_- !-0 '- All of these fou"r oads ppediatel costaofnthe avexa�e shopp trgpNal - and.._..-._... _.__ . •- - L�.�.1.�.-�oulSE..�_s��Fflaed� Thi-is�.tereata._iaf�chi�� e .da.�tr'i�acat:ion_�f_licegioaal-3hQ.Pp� sere _balanced. -$toZraPb•rc 6.3 MALT Oil OUTLYING MUNICIPALITIES - f its size, the West Edmonton Mall will several ohave a f - if- Because o in centres located ., ` icant imgact on a number of shopping notably St• _: outlying municipalities in the Edmonton Region The significant r Of Spruce Grove and Stoney Plain. -n- Albert Albert, in the two major malls �Ck St. Albert (the St' art to be attributed n p Shopping Centre and Village Hall. aThiscsituation will certainly not Phase- I of the West Edman improve when the Phase II expansion of West Edmonton Mall comes on® stream in August of 1983• in of decision by the Cit to allow I _y fur tier expansic Pct Once again, s the - he West Edmonton Mall i; ncreaseoutl J- municipalities t 1 thernor n� will pre-em the market -n he _ While ' and west of .the Cs g _of Edmonton for the forecentres die a shopping, Che development of small community shopping anchored by a centres with between 50,000 -� 100,000 square feet GIA major supermarket such as Safeway of the Phase 111 expansion on as significant extent, the City's app plans for a - could conceivably Put an end to any p presently proposed a sho in centre anchored by - -:_: major shopping centre development Ci• ruce Grove, and Stony Plain for "a department store) in St. Albert, SP it-.. ears. While this claim may seem rather extreme tris the next 10 to 20 y evidence to suggest should be noted that there is strong gMall has already put a major �. Phase II expansion of West Elmo ed for Spruce Grove on "indefinite - shopping centre development propos j hold". arguments cited in the preced- t Many of the same planning and economic arg the shopping centre ing subsection of the report (e•8• spreading { 1. RB-NNNI G A MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator IDS FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk CJ RE: Vacation of Shakopee Avenue West of Adams Street to the Alley DATE: August 29 , 1985 Introduction On August 13 , 1985 staff was directed to prepare the proper resolution vacating Shakopee Avenue West of Adams Street to the alley retaining a 25 foot easement along the easterly 25 feet, upon receipt of authorization from Minnegasco to vacate the north half of the street free from retaining an easement. Background The City is in receipt of a letter from Minnegasco withdrawing their objection to the vacation provided a 25 foot easement is retained within the east 25 feet of the vacation. The attached resolution includes retaining the easement which is acceptable to the petitioners for the vacation. Alternatives 1. Vacate street. 2. Do not vacate street. Recommendation Alternative No. 1 Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 2412, A Resolution Vacating that Part of Shakopee Avenue Herein Described, and move its adoption. JSC/jms mionrmegas®® 7James H. Anderson, Administrator, MptpiutyspSfairs August 20, 1985 Mrs. Judith A."-.. Cox, Clerk _ r_-City of Shakopee - - - -- 129 East First Avenue s=4Shakopee� MN 55379= =. -- - — - RE:" Proposed Shakopee Avenue Vacation Dear Mrs. Cox: , _ Messrs Miller and Aronson, who reside at 706 and 614 Adams Street, respectively, have authorized reimbursement to Minnegasco for its cost to abandon, in place, the 2" distribution gas main in Shakopee Avenue West. Minnegasco withdraws objection to the proposed vacation provided easement rights covering its 4" transmission .pipeline are retained as follows: The east 25 feet of all that part of Shakopee Avenue West, vacated, lying west of Adams Street between Lot 6, Block 1 I and Lot 1, Block 3, Replat of Notermann Addition. I Thanks again for your consideration and cooperation. Please keep me advised of the status of this vacation. Sincerely, J mes H. Anderson JPa cc: Roger Henningsgaard 612-343-7004 .A Company of Diversified Energies, Inc. 700 West Linden Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 RESOLUTION NO. 2412 A RESOLUTION VACATING THAT PART OF SHAKOPEE AVENUE HEREIN DESCRIBED WHEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Shakopee City Council that all that part of Shakopee Avenue lying West of Adams Street between Lot 6, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 3, Replat of Notermann Addition no longer serves any public interest or use save and except for the maintenance of public utilities; and WHEREAS, a public hearing to consider said vacation was held in the Council Chambers of the CIty Hall in the City of Shakopee at 8:00 p.m. on the 2nd of July, 1985; and WHEREAS, two weeks' published notice has been given in the Shakopee Valley News and posted notice has been given by posting such notice on the bulletin board on the main floor of the Scott County Court House, on the bulletin board in the Shakopee City Hall and on the bulletin board at the Shakopee Public Utilities; and WHEREAS, all persons desiring to be heard on the matter were heard at the public hearing in the Council Chambers in the City of Shakopee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. That it finds and determines that the vacation hereinafter described is in the public interest and serves no further public need as a street, 2. That all that part of Shakopee Avenue lying West of Adams Street between Lot 6, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 3, Replat of Notermann Addition be, and the same hereby is vacated; 3. That the City reserves, however, to the City of Shakopee its licensees and franchise holders a perpetual easement on, under and over the said partial vacated street for utilities with the right to install, maintain, repair, lay and re-lay the utilities by the City, its licensees and franchise holders, described as follows: The east 25 feet of all that part of Shakopee Avenue West, vacated, lying west of Adams Street between Lot 6, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 3, Replat of Notermann Addition. 4. After the adoption of the Resolution, the City Clerk shall provide certified copies hereof to the two abutting property owners in order that they may petition the court to place the vacation on record. 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: Approved as to form this day of -City Clerk 1985. City Attorney p. 17 TCouncil • / G I T Y OF SAINT P.A U L File N 0. �I Ordinance Ordinance N0. , r:fferred To Committee: Date Out of Conj inittee By Date - An ordinance pertaining to the filling of vacancies on the city council and in the office of mayor; amending Section 2.05 of the Charter of the City of Saint Paul. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DOE; ORDAIN Section 1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes , Section. 410.1.2, Subdivision 7 , and upon recommendation of the Charter Commission of the City of Saint Paul, Section 2 .05 of the Charter of the City of. Saint Paul is amended to read as' follows . pec P 2®05 7 /FILLING VACANCIES- -A. JINTERIM APPOINTEE.? The council may within thirty. - . -•30) days of a council vacancy elect a qualified voter of the city to fill the vacancy as ars interim appointee until such time as a successor is elected as set forth below or for the remainder of the unex- r)ired term if the council vacancy occurs after the ._ast day for the fit i�:2 of affidavits of candidacy , for united States ,epresentative. If a tie tote u:curs ins. the filling of a vacancy in the office of c6uncilman, the mayor shall break the tie.. In the event that the council does not fill the vacancy within 30 days , .the mayor shall within. • 10 days thereafter appoint a qualified voter of the city to fill' the vacancy as an interim appointee until - such time as a successor is elected as set forth below or for the remainder of the unexpired term if the vacancy occurs after the last day for • the filing of affidavits of candidacy for United States Representative. COUNCILMEN Requested by Department of: . °eas Nays ?pw.w.,jSonnen: Drew In Favor Masanx Nicosia Against By Schelbel Tedesco Wilson Form Approved by City Attorney dopted by Council: Date =>rtified Passed by Council Secretary By Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council ;proved by __-- Rv t k, • f Page 7, If a vacancy occurs in the office of mayor, the council shall within 30 days elect a qualified vot- er of the city to fill the vacancy as an interim appointee until such time as a successor is elected as set forth below or for the remainder of the un- expired term 'if the vacancy occurs in the third year of the mayoral term after the last day for e z ing of arrzaavits of candidacy for United States Representative. B. /ELECTED SUCCESSOR.' If the a council vacancy oc- curs 'on or before the last day for t e filing of affidavits of candidacy to be a United States Rep- resentative, the vacancy shall be filled at the ; next state- aide general election, being the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November o€-even ntimbered-years unless the next general election occurs more than ays HFEF-r-THE vacancy is c r e n w - ated ihich case the council ma call a s ectal e ec zon tor the purpose oz HIIInge vacancy. e success u can z ate s term shall commence u one council ' s canvass o z e ec on 're urns and declaration of--election results an u on ex iration of 't e time to contest the election or, if notice of con es is z e , upon zna zsposz zon o e con _ is Te- If a vacanc in the office of mayor occurs before or duringthe t ird year o the mayoral term an on or a ore a as a zn that zra yearl- or t o z ing o a t avzts of candidacyor United a es erresen a zve, e vacancy s a e z ed, at the next general election being the first Tuesc3a of ter t e first Monda in November unless the next a s a er eneraa the vacancy ii7reated c case the council ma ,ca a s ecza a ectzon or a ur ose o illin the vacanc The success ul candidate' s term shall commence u on t e council s canvass of e ec zon resu s an u on ex lra zon o e �_me to contest the e ectzon or, if notice oT contest zs z e u n znal zs osz zon or the con es . Affidavits of candidacy for said vacancy shall be filed with the city clerk within 14 days of the last day for the filing of 'affidavits of candidacy for United States Representative. In the event that more than twopersons file for the vacancy, a primary election shall be held on the first Tuesday after the :second Mondayr in September