HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/16/1985 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items
DATE: July 11 , 1985
1. To clarify the timing of the suspension of Richard' s Pub' s
license we contacted Rod Krass ' office. The Court must
have a hearing before the City can begin the twenty day
suspension and we have no specific date yet as to that
hearing. Councilmembers should not expect Richard' s Pub
to be closed until notified.
2 . St. Mark' s has asked to block off Third Street for the
St. Mark' s Festival. According to administrative policy
No. 94 the request has been reviewed by the Chief of Police
who has no problems with the request. We have approved
the request for the weekend of July 26-29 .
3 . Attached is a interesting thank you letter from Dick Kinzel
that makes a statement about Valleyfair ' s capital improvement
plans for the next four years.
4 . Attached is the information we have filed with the Minnesota
Department of Energy and Economic Development to comply
with the issuance requirements for the Racetrack IDB ' s.
Please note the number of Shakopee and Scott County peo.pie
hired by the Racetrack on page two.
5 . Attached is a copy of the front page of the Chamber of
Commerce Newsletter. Please note the efforts by numerous
people that were behind the placement of the new tourist
information booth in Memorial Park. Also note our notice
to businessmen about illegal portable signs.
6. Attached is a memorandum that summarizes the June 12 , 1985
meeting between Shakopee City officials and Mn/DOT officials.
The letter summarizing the meeting accurately represents
the optimistic feelings all parties had. The City will
be meeting with Mn/DOT officials to finalize the proposed
time schedules attached on July 16 , 1985 .
7. Attached is a flyer from the Government Training Service
(GTS) listing several programs that might be of interest
to Councilmembers.
8 . Attached is a letter inviting us to list possible recipients
of the McKnight Foundation' s awards in human services.
If Councilmembers have any likely names I would appreciate
receiving them for possible consideration.
9. Attached is a letter from Bob Schmitz regarding one of
the less harolded but more significant laws passed by the
1985 Minnesota Legislature.
10. Attached are the summary billing reports from our Assistant
City Attorney' s Office.
11. Attached are the expenditure and revenue reports for the
period ending June 30 , 1985 . Note, I have had a few questions
from Councilmembers on these items and Gregg and I encourage
you to continue to ask questions. Some of the numbers
are hard to interpret because the revenue doesn' t flow
to the City in nice monthly payments.
12 . Attached are the program costs by department for Council
review. Council receives these reports quarterly.
13 . Attached is the building activity report for the month
ending June 30 , 1985 . Please note that our total valuation
for new building permits is more than double what it was
in 1985 after six months.
i4 . Attached are the minutes of the June 12 , 1985 meeting of
the Industrial Commercial Commission.
15. Attached are the minutes of the June 26 , 1985 meeting of
the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee.
16. Attached are the minutes of the June 20 , 1985 meeting of
the Shakopee Planning Commission.
17 . Attached are the minutes of the July 3 , 1985 meeting of
the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee.
18 . Attached are the minutes of the July 10 , 1985 meeting of
the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee.
19. Attached are the minutes of the April 18 , 1985 meeting
of the Energy and Transportation Committee.
20. Attached are the minutes of the May 16 , 1985 meeting of
the Energy and Transportation Committee.
21. Attached are the minutes of the June 20 , 1985 meeting of
the Energy and Transportation Committee.
22 . Attached is the agenda for the July 17 , 1985 Downtown Ad
Hoc Committee.
23 . Attached is the agenda for the July 18 , 1985 Energy and
'Transportation Committee.
JKA/jms
JUL 319 5
{TY OF cep
I
Family Amusement Pai*
One Valleyfair Drive, Shakopee, MN 55379
(612) 445-7600
July 1 , 1985
Commissioner Mark Dayton
Minnesota Department of Energy
and Economic Development
900 American Center
150 East Kellogg Boulevard
St. Paul , Minnesota 55101
Dear Commissioner Dayton:
Thank you for your interest in Valleyfair and your kind remarks
concerning our facility. We are very proud of our park and want to continue
to grow as tourism is developed in the state. I think you can realize our
frustration when we were told that all future development of the park had to
be stopped due to a change in law that truly had no effect on public safety
or on the environment.
Due to a concentrated effort by Senator Schmitz, Representative Dimler
and M.A.C. I. , legislation was amended this last legislative session that
exempts Valleyfair from these state regulations .
Next month we make a presentation to our general partners in which we
are asking for $7,950,000 in capital improvements over the next four years
to reinvest in our facilities. We want Valleyfair to be the finest enter-
tainment facility in the five state area .
As I mentioned before, we are extremely proud of the park. I have
enclosed complimentary tickets. Hopefully sometime this summer you can
visit us. I think you and your family will have an enjoyable day.
Please pass my thanks on to Governor Perpich. Again, thank you for
your interest and concern.
Sin ly
Richard L. Kinze
Vice President/General Manager
RLK:dw
enclosures
xc: Governor R. Perpich
y MINNESOTA
3 ' Department of Energy
and Economic Development
Office of the Commissioner 900 American Center
(612) 296-6424 June 14 , 1985 150 East Kellogg Boulevard
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Mr. Richard L. Kinzell
Vice President and General Manager
Valley Fair Family Amusement Park
One Valley Fair Drive
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Mr. Kinzell :
Governor Perpich has requested that I respond to your letter
concerning the problems you are having with state and federal
regulations on the elevation of the dike around your amusement
park. I am very familiar with the tremendous success you have
had in establishing your park as a major tourist attraction
for the state of Minnesota. As I travel around greater Minnesota,
I often meet people who mention Valley Fair as one of the reasons
for their trips to the Twin Cities . As a strong advocate of
developments such as yours , I would hate to see any unreasonable
law or regulation stand in the way of your planned expansions .
Your park has made a substantial contribution to Shakopee ' s
entire economy and I will do everything possible to assist you
with the resolution of this problem.
Since receiving ,your letter, I have learned that the problem
you are facing is very complex and will require a coordinated
effort by city, state, and federal officials if it is to be
satisfactorily resolved . I will begin working with Joe Alexander,
Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources, so that
we can work together on this issue and determine if anything
can be done on a state and/or federal level to exempt .you from
the current regulations on the elevation of your dike . The
high waters we experienced in 1965 were very unusual and I am
confident a dike of at least one foot above that ,year' s high
water level is more than adequate .
Again, Mr. Kinzell, thank you for contacting the Governor
with you concerns . I hope we are able to resolve this issue
quickly so that you can resume your expansion plans .
With best regards .
cere ,Y,
ark B. Dayton
Commissioner
MBD: l.tn
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
CA)v)rTw, PsuRr
D O W N S
June 27, 1985
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear John:
At your instruction, I discussed with Ed Meyer of the
Minnesota Department of Energy, our inability to provide accurate
information regarding employment data, etc. as of any recent date
due to our start up situation.. He said he understood our
situation and instructed we should provide estimates where
available and indicate that data is not available as applicable .
He said that the law does not provide clear instruction as to the
specific data being sought but provided some general direction as
to completing the attached.
If you have any questions on the enclosed, please give me a
call . Please direct any personnel questions to Dick Heiser,
personnel director .
Very truly yours,
Allan. Anderson
Vice President & Controller
AA/11
Canterbury Downs/5248 Valley Industrial Boulevard South/PO. Box 508/Shakopee, Minnesota 55379/(612)445-7223
a
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA ENERGY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minn. Stat. §474.01, Subd. 11 (1963 Supp.) (see attached)
(Please complete dates as appropriate)
EMPLOYMENT REPORT AS OF JUNE 30, 1985
FOR PROJECTS CLOSED SINCE JUNE 30, 198 y
(Due By July 1, Annually)
This report is required pursuant to Minn. Stat. §474.01, Subd. 11 (1983 Supp.) (see attached) for all
projects employing financing mechanisms authorized by Minn. Stat. ch. 474 or similar state laws un-
dertaken and closed from July 1, 198 to June 30, 198
NAME OF ISSUER:
s Zo.rwi//,oy
NAME OF PROJECT:
44 thh,
DATE PROJECT CLOSED:
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ISSUE: $ coo-'0
TOTAL COST OF PROJECT $
EMPLOYMENT:
Men Women, Women Total
A. Number of jobs created as date of report: G �C
B. Number of unemployed persons hired:
C. Number of economically disadvantaged persons '�✓J� ti�
hired: (see attached definition from P.L. 97-30)
D. Average hourly wage level of jobs created: $ $ 30 $
/��/ C*4 /.rce'/
PLEASE INCLUDE A COPY OF THE PROJECT CLOSING STATEMENT PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED:
THIS REPORT SUBMITTED BY: `
TITLE:
PHONE:
RETURN TO: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT 0 ENERGY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
BUSINESS FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
ROOM 900
150 EAST KELLOGG BOULEVARD
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
TEL. NO. 612/297-4398
SHA EE
r:
_ o
Date July 1985
President
Gary Laurentpresident's Column
Vice President WE'VE hit the big time now: In
Lee zet:nen by addition to our Chamber office, the
Shakopee Area Chamber of Commerce now
Past President has a highly visible free standing
Fran*< Reid ��\J\07 Tourist Information Center located in
Treasurer J Memorial Park just East of town.
Bob Blenkush
THE PROJECT was carried out in typical Shakopee style with a lot of vol-
utlteer effort, very little expenditure of Chamber money and a first class
result. Simply put, here's how it was done. Murphy's Landing donated a
Directors ticket building that it was no longer using. The City's Public Works
Industry: Department moved the building in place. Wally Bakken of Shakopee Valley
Bill Runge Motel donated his carpentry skills for some necessary repairs. Doc and
Pat Holloway Clara Muralt painted the structure both inside and out plus Clara made
Frank Reid curtains. (they did a beautiful job so if you need your house painted
Retail: give them a call! ) The Center is staffed by Rose Schoultz who came to us
Ruben Ruehle through the State financed Summer Youth Program. Rose also helped paint.
Tom Veglahn
Jim Dunning SIGN PERMITS were acquired and signs installed on the highway signs. Much
of the leg work was done by Frank Reid and further efforts and ideas were
Civic: put forth by others.
George Muenchow
ating local resources.
Bob Blenkush THE FIRST SATURDAY the Center was open it served thirty three tourists!
John Anderson It will be open from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Wednesday through Sunday. ThisI
Trades:
proect is a perfect example of what can be done by combining and coordin-
Tim Olson
Gary Laurent OUR OTHER Tourist Information sites have been selected along with approved
Wally Bakken standard signage. We can look forward to seeing the creative efforts of
At-Large: these businesses over the next few weeks. The sites include: Cy's Standard,
Linnea The Tole Bridge, Jim and Lucy's, Wild Iris, Dar's Hallmark/Treat Factory
Stromberg—Mise and Brooks Superette.
Dick Mertz
Todd Schwartz THE LAST General Membership meeting was again well attended with the final
Professional: count very near 100. Results of the survey taken at this meeting by feature
Brian Norris speaker, John Van Doorn, President of the Minnesota Retail Merchants Assoc.
Lee Hennen are printed in this bulletin. John Valetta of the J.C's announced its
Jim MCNiearney' promotion plan to keep the topic of tourist hospitality fresh in everyone's
mind. Many of the businesses are participating and winners will be
regularly announced.
Executive NOTICE-PORTABLE SIGNS ARE ILLEGAL! Any signs of a portable
Secretary nature must be cleared undtr the City Sign Ordinance.
Dr. A. Muralt Contact John Anderson 445-3650
Office Mgr.
Darleen Schesso
QUESTIONNAIRE
Shakopee Chamber of Commerce
Summer, 1985 005
In an effort to seek a broad sampling of public opinion on a variety
of issues , we request that you complete the following and return it to
your program chairman. No names are requested. Thank you.
YES NO
1. Do you favor raising the state' s drinking age
from 19 to 21? 56 15
2. Do you favor a state law mandating that auto
passengers must wear seat belts? 37 40
3. Do you favor passage of a law allowing grocery
stores to sell wine? 44 33
4. Do you favor passage of a law allowing 11th and 12th
graders to choose where they attend high school? 15 59
5. Do you favor passage of a law allowing casino
gambling in certain Minnesota towns? 43 31
6. Would you vote in favor of a state-run lottery? 57 15
7. Do you favor expanding the state sales tax to
cover clothing? 7 69
8. Do you favor reducing the state sales tax from
6% to 5%? 68 s
9. Do you favor a reduction in property taxes levied
against commercial and industrial property? 57 18
10. Do you favor reform of the state ' s unemployment
system by greatly reducing benefits? 56 19
11. Do you favor further reform of the state ' s workers'
compensation system for injured workers? 55 17
12. Do you favor passage of a law imposing a one-year
moratorium on farm mortgage foreclosures? 37 32
13. From what you know about the Reagan Tax Reform
Plan, do you favor its passage? 50 17
14. How do you think the 1985 session of the Minnesota Legislature
treated business?
(circle one ) poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent
11 19 34 7
15. How would you now rate Minnesota ' s business climate?
( circle one ) poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent
16 18 27 6 7
16. Do you regularly make financial contributions to political
candidates? 29 47
Yes No
MEET SOME OF OUR NEWER MEMBERS. . . .
(cont. )
THE TREAT FACTORY 445-9048
Karen Martin JIM AND LUCY'S RESTAURANT 445-9959
Minnesota Valley Mall Lucy Rein
201 W 1st Ave.
The Treat Factory opened August 11th,
1984 at the Minnesota Vlley Mall. It is Jim and Lucy's has been in business over
owned and operated by Karen Martin. The 12 years. They cater to families and
shop features home made premium ice cream serve all home cooking. All their creme
as well as soups, sandwiches, desserts and pies are homemade and she also sells
many novelty items. The colorful and them to go. If you've never stopped in
pleasant atmosphere adds the final touch please try it sometime. You're in for
to the Treat Factory. Karen has other a treat. "The race track is great for
talents besides making delicious ice business," says Lucy. Stop in and get
cream. She's an expert at the piano and your tips on the races. They are available
organ and has been asked to sing the "Star there.
Spangled Banner" at Canterbury Downs on
July 4th.
TOLE BRIDGE 445-2207
Pat, Wilbur & Patrick Schroers
STEMMER-WENDT FEED SUPPLY, INC. 445-4850 102 E 1st Ave.
Vi & Bill Stemmer
2080 Shoreline Blvd. The Tole Bridge was formerly a member
Prior Lake, Mn. of the Chamber. This family operated
shop has art supplies, a frame shop, art
The Stemmers and Marvin Wendt have formed gallery and classes are held there on
Stemmer-Wendt Feed Supply, Inc. They tole painting, etc. You will find
supply top quality hay, feed and straw to unique articles there or you might find
Canterbury Downs. Vi has taken a leave of a horse or wildlife print you like. The
absence from teaching. She loves horses Schroers are looking forward to a great
and says she feels like she's in "horse future.
heaven." The Stemmers live near Spring
Lake and Bill works at the family feed bus- PIZZA ,'N' PASTA 445-6112
iness in Shakopee. They are affiliated with 584 Marschall Road
Marvin Wendt who has been in this same type
of business for 19 years at Ak-Sar-Ben track Dan Pecha, together with his mom and dad,
in Nebraska. His expertise has been very manages the newest Pizza place in town.
helpful to Vi and Bill in this new venture. They also serve spaghetti, rigatoni,
lasagne, fettucine, canneloni, cacciatori,
soups, salads and sandwiches. Their
SHAKOPEE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC 445-7890
restaurant seats 75 people. The family
Dr. Ron Mash owns two other restaurants in Eden Prairie
1240 E 3rd Ave. Mall and Burnsville Mall. Dan is 21 years
old and must be one of our youngest
Both Dr. Ron Mash and wife, Tina are business men.
chiropractors. Dr. Ron has his office
in Shakopee and Dr. Tina has an office
in Jordan. They live in Apple Valley with
their two sons, Ezra 3 and Eli 8 months. The Chamber Office is busy, busy, busy.
Dr. Mash enjoys raquetball and baseball. In June there were 158 telephone calls
He opened up 'his practice in Shakopee in and 48 letters pertaining to tourism for
March, 1980 and has three employees. a total of 206 inquiries as compared to
143 for June last year.
JULY CALENDAR
July 1 Shakopee Public Utilities Commission, 4:30 p.m. , Utilities Building
2 County Board of Commissioners, 9:30 a.m. , Room 109 Courthouse
City Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. , Coticil Chambers
3 Downtown Ad Hoc Committee, 7:30 a.m. , Council Chambers
8 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 12 noon
9 County Board of Commissioners, 9: 30 a.m. , Room 109 Courthouse
City Council Meeting 7:00 p.m. , Minnesota Federal Meeting Room
10 Downtown Ad Hoc Committee 7: 30 a.m. , Council Chambers
ICC Meeting, 5:00 p.m. Council Chambers
11 Planning Commission Meeting, 7:30 p.m. , Minnesota Federal Meeting Room
16 County Board of Commissioners, 9:30 a.m. , Room 109 Courthouse
City Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
17 Downtown Ad Hoc Committee 7:30 a.m. Council Chambers
18 Planning Commission, 7:30 p.m. , Council Chambers
23 County Board of Commissioners, 9:30 a.m. , Room 109 Courthouse
City Hall Siting Committee 7:30 p.m. , Council Chambers
30 County Board of Commissioners, 9:30 a.m. , Room 109 Courthouse
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
July 3 Raceway Park - Pepsi Speed Sport Spectacular
4 Raceway Park - Coors 250 Enduro
Murphy's Landing - An Old Fashioned Fourth
4,5 Valleyfair - Janie Fricke - Spectacular Fireworks)
7 Raceway Park - Stock Car Races
14 Raceway Park - Stock Car Races
18, 19 Valleyfair - Gregg Allman
21 Raceway Park - Stock Car Races
28 Raccway Park - Stock Car Races
Aug. 4 Raceway Park - Stock Car Races
8,9, 10 SHAKO-VALLEY DAY'S SIDEWALK SALES
11 Raceway Park - Stock Car Races
17, 18 Murphy's Landing - Civil War Encampment
17, 18 Renaissance Festival opens
18 Raceway Park - Stock Car Races
24,25 Renaissance Festival
25 Raceway Park - Stock Car Races
31 Renaissance Festival
U.S. POSTAGI
Shakopee Area Chamber of Commerce P A 1 D
P.O. BOX 203 Shakopee,Minn.55379
John Anderson Administrator Permit No. 140
129'/2 E. 1st Ave.
Shakopee, MN 55379 City of Shakopee
612-445-1660 129 E 1st Ave.
Shakopee, Mn. 55379
i'
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
1610 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454 612-332-0421
MEMORANDUM TO: Senator Robert Schmitz
MnDOT Commissioner Richard Braun
MnDO gineer, William M. Crawford
Mayor Eldon Re'
John Anderson
Jeanne Andre
County Commissioner Bill Konierski
Brad Larson
FROM: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
DATE: July 3, 1985
SUBJECT: SHAKOPEE AREA TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT WORK PLAN
On June 12, 1985, a meeting was scheduled between the local area officials and MnDOT to
discuss the possibilities of including the TH 169/101 Shakopee downtown bypass (including
the Minnesota River Bridge) and the TH 101 outer bypass in MnDOT's construction
program.
As a result a commitment was made by MnDOT, subject to their Highway Program
Coordinating Committee approval, to schedule the TH 169/101 project. This was done
with the understanding that MnDOT would pay for the bridge with federal and state funds
and the balance of the work would be funded cooperatively with the city paying up to 50
percent of the project limited to $1.9 million. Another $1.0 million would be pledged for
design of the TH 101 bypass by the city.
A tentative letting date for the downtown work will be established within 60 days of the
meeting date of June 12, 1985.
Since much front end work remains to be done, including an alternative selection which is
critical to setting aside funding for the project, it is important that a work plan be
developed. Senator Schmitz also requested a schedule of activities for his personal use.
The Work Plan, which is attached, identifies the major tasks as outlined in MnDOT's
Project Development Process and is predicated on the MnDOT District 5 suggested "make
ready" date of October 28, 1988. MnDOT's input as to time required to complete each
task was initially obtained. With that information, a meeting was had with staff from the
City of Shakopee to seek ways to reduce the time schedule. At this meeting, the city
suggested that they could fund the initial consultant agreement and right-of-way
acquisition (from the $1.9 million which has been committed to the project by the City
Council) provided assurance could be made within the Cooperative Funding Agreement
that MnDOT would commit to funding over and above the $1.9 million within the time
schedule agreed to.
i
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
July 3, 1985
Page 2
With front end money from Shakopee for the consultant agreement, through Location and
Design Study Report, four months can be cut from the schedule. A minimum of one year
can be cut from R/W acquisition. These adjustments are indicatd on the attached
schedules. Without Shakopee leading these two items, the "make ready" date would be
Ocotober, 1989.
Although the TH 101 Shakopee bypass scheduling is subject to greater speculation due to
the larger statewide competition in the Fiscal Year 1990-91 Construction Work Program
update, the Commissioner stressed the need to continue project advancement activities in
order to have the project ready to go when the decision is finally made. A Work Plan will
also be prepared for this project under separate cover. Again, work plan schedules are
being based upon programming dates requested by the MnDOT district office and will be
changed as required when final dates are established.
It is important to note that MnDOT Commissioner Braun indicated at our June 12, 1985,
meeting that when the project receives program status he would support advancing the
contract letting date, if the city was willing to front end that cost of construction. The
method discussed for financing such an expenditure was bonding, on the strength that the
city pay the interest due at the time of retirement of those bonds. The principal amount
due would not be paid by the state until the date specified in MnDOT's approved program.
BLW:JCM:kro
i
D C13
r =
y m m
c I
r
m o
C) m -0 M
4
< r T F p — -1 .n v v p ;7,
' ''I :EZ D -+ o n n m
o v n —
m
00 ' G c`o
7 N T m m
m 3 D m � �
�
. r o.
Ir
O w w K D n m j y o m m o c' 'o 7C
U:) A n O O
o r D c 3 ;0 3 g
m O co m ma
N v m 'D o
o m N o D o
a c 3 o o
e m ' o
` a m 3
m
QID
3 ? p D
3 —I O
A 30 'O
vm
corn
0 3 mD
m „ co p m m �, m. Z
r N v a v m m m a
r� Zrr
Mu Om o
� D
ow
v -I
M M m
+w m no 4M 40 mm elM m Z "
I I>mr p Z
•.. m
3
� cop
Z N
I rn
1m N Z
0.MAMA "n rn
1>
MW
W31 g C
D C7 0
m
m -
I . 10
am
, I M
' Kw WA a.. -
VM
ma WE ma ant m
1a
p•
ma mm mig om
C .
I ufom AC:
IT
� ID
II �
CD
m I la
6 z ao
i
b p
SHAKOPEE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS TIME LINE GUIDE
rli 169/101 intersection (PER MnDOT MAJOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FLOW CHART)
RESPONSIBLE WORK ITEM TIME LINE 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
PARTY ro1IMNLETE 4 ,eA " I A Q _P ' E I-A ! A I Q E ` f A�� ° �
t_ITY STATE - ° E Ali J J A�O �D
Detail Design Consultant Agreement °a� n_
E
—
Soils 8/87
Foundations ilia?
Construction Limits 10/87
R/W Acquisition 6/88 s
Road Plans 6/88
Review Consult.Road Plans 6/88
Prelim.Bridge Plans. 10/87
Final Bridge Plans a/aa
' F
Review Consult.Br.Plans a/aa
Permits 7/88 rf —
Agreements 7/89 — — — _
P.S.&E. 9/88
Contract Letting 10/88 or 10/89 • _ T
AWdrl1 11/88 or tt/ea
(1) ASSUME 8 MO.TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT BY STATE(LONGER IF FED.AID INVOLVED)
®B•rton-A•chm•n AssocL.
t
CREATING EFFECTIVE TEAMS Tuesday, June 25 7
Effective teams are much more than simply collections of individuals--commitment to /
group goals and willingness to collaborate is a 3�ntial to their success. This workshop
will provide practical , timely techniques desi q�d to help you function most effectively
in team situations.
As a participant you will : �~
• Gain an understanding of..,'your owG�S rengths, weaknesses and style
preferences as team members
• Learn how to use styl,6 differ g�cs constructively in resolving
conflict r `L�
• Identify the importance ofI setting vs crisis management
• Develop an overy & of to ork between policy makers and staff
• Obtain necessarskills ✓become an effective member of a team
INSTRUCTOR: Barbara Arney dits the Organizational Services Division of the
Government Training Service. he has led goal setting and team building seminars
for City Councils and County Boards throughout the state of Minnesota.
DEALING WITH THE PUBLIC Tuesday, July 30
Dealing with the public is an integral responsibility of any elected official . This
workshop can provide you with the skills to insure that those dealings are constructive
for your purposes and for the public.
As a participant you will :
• Gain an understanding of how the public has changed and why
• Learn how to handle conflict situations (even when it's people you know)
• Obtain skills you need to respond in a variety of situations
• Learn how to handle yourself effectively in meetings
(and cope with hostile audiences! )
• Develop skills to create a positive public image
• Explore a variety of ways to get things done through others
(i .e. how to get volunteers to 'volunteer' )
• Learn how to say ' no' effectively
INSTRUCTOR: Kathryn Barrington is a communications consultant to government, business
and colleges throughout the United States, Canada and Central America. She is an active
and internationally-recognized public speaker, seminar leader and consultant.
NEGOTIATING FOR SUCCESS Thursday, August 22
Negotiation is the art of creating solutions that give each individual involved a
positive stake in the outcome. Whether you are dealing with a spouse, co-worker,
colleagues on your governing body or the general public, there are techniques and
strategies which can help you reach your objectives with a minimum of frustration.
This is especially important for elected officials trying to eliminate some of the
stress caused by competing demands, multiple roles and limited time.
This session will cover:
• Concepts of positive negotiation
• The variables to consider in successful negotiation
• Strategies
• Negotiation tactics to use and to avoid
INSTRUCTOR: Jack Flagler is Professor of Industrial Relations at the University of
Minnesota. He is an expert in the industrial relations field, having over 30 years
of experience.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
Carol Schoeneck
Government Training Service
202 Minnesota Building
46 East Fourth Street
St. Paul , Minnesota 55101
612/222-7409 or Minnesota
toll free 800/652-9719
ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE
The Government Training Service is a public, joint powers organization whose mission is
to meet the changing management and leadership needs of policymakers, staff and appointed
officials by providing innovative, comprehensive, practical training and consulting to
publicly-funded organizations in Minnesota. Its members include the League of MN Cities,
the Association of MN Counties, the MN Association of Townships, the MN Association of
Regional Commissions, the University of Minnesota, the State Department of Employee
Relations and the State Planning Agency.
REGISTRATION FORM
Name Title
Affiliation Phone ( )
Address
street city state zip
Please register me for the following workshop(s) :
❑ Complete Series ($75/pp) ❑ Creating Effective Teams/June 25 ($27/pp)
❑ Dealing with the Public/July 30 ($27/pp) ❑ Negotiating for Success/August 22 ($27/pp)
❑Enclosed is my check (payable to GTS) in the amount of $
❑ Please bill me. Note: A $2 billing charge will be added.
❑ I cannot participate in these sessions, but would like to explore the possibility of
co-hosting a session(s) . Please call me.
Return to Government Training Service, 202 Minnesota Building, 46 East Fourth Street,
St. Paul , Minnesota 55101 at least two weeks before the program.
GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE PRESENTS . . .
EVENING WORKSHOPS FOR
ELECTED OFFICIALS
JUNE — AUGUST, 1985
Twin Cities
Co-sponsored by Association of Minnesota Counties . Minnesota Association of Townships
League of Minnesota Cities
The Government Training Service (GTS) and its three co-sponsors are pleased
to announce a pilot program of evening workshops designed specifically for local
government elected officials in Minnesota.
In selecting topics and developing session formats , GTS was assisted by an
Advisory Committee composed of representatives of cities, counties, townships,
and school boards. In addition, an extensive survey was conducted of persons
attending several state-wide elected officials conferences. Results from both
indicated a desire for short, evening sessions in the metropolitan area.
While this initial series will be presented in the Twin Cities, GTS hopes
to schedule similar programs in other parts of the state. If your jurisdiction
is interested in hosting a session of this type, please indicate on the form
provided.
Based upon interest expressed thus far, GTS expects these workshops to fill
quickly, so early registration is encouraged. DON'T MISS THIS OPPORTUNITY TO
ENHANCE YOUR SKILLS AND EXCHANGE IDEAS WITH OTHERS FACING THE CHALLENGES OF
PUBLIC OFFICE'
LOCATION
All three workshops will be held in the White Bear Lake Public Library (4698
Clark Street, White Bear Lake) . Specific driving/parking directions will be
included in your workshop(s) confirmation.
REGISTRATION
Registration fee for the entire series of three workshops is $75/person. This
includes tuition, written materials , and coffee breaks. Registration for separate
workshops is also available at $27/person. Each program begins at 7:00 p.m. and
concludes at 9:00 p.m. All registrations should be received at least two weeks
prior to each program. INQUIRE ABOUT REDUCED RATES FOR ORGANIZATIONS REGISTERING
THREE OR MORE PERSONS.
CANCELLATION
Fees will be fully refunded for cancellations received seven (7) days prior to the
workshop. Substitutions for registered participants may be made at any time.
McKnight f= �
Awards In
Human Service
On June 1, 1985, the Directors of The McKnight Foundation approved the initiation of the
McKnight Awards In Human Service. The awards, to be given annually, are ten in number,
and provide a tax-free $5,000 cash prize to the individual recipient.
The purpose of the awards is to recognize those individuals throughout the State of Minnesota
who are making significant contributions in the human service areas by directly assisting
others to become productive and participating members of the communities in which they
reside. The goal of the program is to reward those persons who are doing the difficult jobs
and tasks with a minimum of public recognition and with a minimum of financial
remuneration.
Nominees to be considered for this award must be direct-care personnel who serve on a
voluntary or paid basis, either full-time or part-time, and who are working for a public
agency, a private non-profit or a profit-making agency. Nominations must be made through
an organization or by an individual other than the nominee.
Nominations for the awards will be evaluated by a Review Committee which will recommend
candidates to the Foundation's Board of Directors for the selection of awardees. The deadline
for the submission of nominations is October 1, 1985, with the awards being announced on
or before December 1, 1985.
Individuals or organizations wishing to nominate a candidate for one of these awards should
call or write The McKnight Foundation for further information and/or to request nominating
materials.
THE WKNIGHT FOUNDATION
410 PEAVEY BUILDING, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
(612-333-4220)
16185)
PLEASE POST
DUANE BENSON %
Senator, District 32
Rural Route 2, Box 3 Qty
Lanesboro, Minnesota 55949 JUL � v�+
and Senate
109 State Office Building
�� �
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 CITY OF S'
Phone: (612)296-3903 State of Minnesota
July 8 , 1985
Dear Mayor and Council Members :
The 1985 legislature has passe'" a law which may help you
control rising costs for your city.
In the future, almost all proposals for new state mandates
must be accompanied by an estimate of the costs to local
government.
Bills before the legislature and proposed executive orders
including orders , plans, requirements or rules issued by the
governor or state agencies must be accompanied by a cost
estimate or "fiscal note. " Such a "note" will (1) cite the
effect in dollar amounts; (2) cite the statutory provisions
affected; (3) estimate the increase or decrease in revenues or
expenditures; (4) include the costs which may be absorbed
without additional funds; and (5) specify the long range
implications , if any.
The importance of this new law to your efforts to control
costs is early warning. If a legislator proposes a new costly
mandate or if a state agency proposes an administrative rule
that carries new expenses for you, you' ll have the opportunity
to know about it before the mandate goes into effect. That
means you' ll have some chance of either defeating or modifying
the mandate.
I urge you to contact lobbyists for associations to which your
city belongs and your legislator. Ask them to let you know when
they learn of fiscal notes for new mandates .
As a state senator, I 've heard repeatedly from local officials
that they feel it is unfair for the state to impose a
continuing series of costly new mandates on local government.
They feel it ' s especially unfair when local rather than state
government must pay.
COMMITTEES • Economic Development& Commerce • Governmental Operations • Health&
Human Services • Taxes and Tax Laws
SERVING: Fillmore, Mower, Winona and Olmsted Counties
1
Page 2
July 8, 1985
I introduced my reform effort in 1983 as part of the Senate
Independent-Republican Caucus ' legislative program. The
Senate IR policy proposals placed a strong emphasis on the
value of leaving significant freedom and flexibility for local
elected officials to make judgments for their communities.
Where possible, they should be making local policy, not simply
implementing state mandates.
Although my proposal received little support in 1983 , the new
1985 Legislature treated this concern far more seriously and
enacted the enclosed law. Success is due in large part to
Rep. Virgil Johnson (IR-Caledonia) who shepherded the measure
through the House of Representatives and through the conference
committee process.
I do hope this law affords you a better opportunity to prevent
state government from imposing new mandates and new costs on
you without your knowing beforehand.
F
' rely,
Benson
State Senator
(IR-Lanesboro)
Enclosure
19 Sec. 34. (3.981] [DEFINITIONS. ] I
20 Subdivision 1. (SCOPE. ) The terms used in sections 3.981
-------------- --------=-----------------------
21 to 3.983 and 14.131 have the meanings given them in this section.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
22 Subd. 2. [COSTS MANDATED BY THE STATE. ] "Costs mandated by
-------- ------------------
23 the state" means increased costs that a local agency or a school
----------------------------------------------------------------
24 district is required to incur as a result of:
---------------------------------------------
25 (a) arlaw• enacted after June 30, 1985, which mandates a new
-----------------------------------------------------------
26 program or an increased level of service of an existing program;
----- -j--------------------------------------------------------
( i
27 b an executive order issued after June 30 1985 which
--------------------------------------------------------
28 mandates a new program;
-----------------------
29 (c) an executive order issued after June 30, 1985, which
--------------------------------------------------------
30 implements or interprets a state statute and, by this
-------------------------------
31 implementation or interpretation, increases program levels above
32 the levels required before July 1, 1985;
----- ------
33 d a statute enacted after June 30 1985 or executive
-------------------------------------------------------
34 order issued after June 30, 1985, which implements or interprets
----------------------------------------------------------------
35 a federal statute or regulation and, by this implementation or
--------------------------------------------------------------
36 interpretation, increases program or service levels above the
-------------------------------------------------------------
1 levels required by this federal statute or regulation;
------------------------------------------------------
2 (e)-a statute enacted after June 30, 1985, or executive
---------------------------------------------------
3 order issued after June 30, 1985, which implements or interprets
----------------------------------------------------------------
4 a statute or amendment adopted or enacted pursuant to the
---------------------------------------------------------
5 approval of a statewide ballot measure by the voters and, by
------------------------------------------------------------
6 this-implementation-or- -
interpretation_ increases-program-or
7 service levels above the levels required by the ballot measure;
---------------------------------------------------------------
8 (f) a statute enacted after June 30, 1985, or executive
-------------------------------------------------------
9 order issued after June 30, 1985, which removes an option
---------------------------------------------------------
10 previously available to local agencies and thus increases
11 program or service levels or prohibits a specific activity and
--------------------------------------------------------------
12 so forces local agencies to use a more costly alternative to
------------------------------------------------------------
13 provide a mandated program or service;
14 (g) a statute enacted after June 30, 1985, or executive
-------------------------------------------------------
15 order issued after June 30, 1985, which requires that an
--------------------------------------------------------
16 existing program or service be provided in a shorter time period
----------------------------------------------------------------
17 and thus increases the cost of the program or service;
------------------------------------------------------
18 (h) a statute enacted after June 30, 1985, or executive
-------------------------------------------------------
19 order issued after June 30, 1985, which adds new requirements to
----------------------------------------------------------------
20 an existing optional program or service and thus increases the
--------------------------------------------------------------
21 cost of the program or service as the local agencies have no
------------------------------------------------------------
22 reasonable alternatives other than torn,*, -:----------
t�
23 program_
24 (i) a statute enacted after June 30, 1985, or executive
-------------------------------------------------------
25 order issued after June 30, 1985, which creates new revenue i
-----------------------------------------------------------
26 losses stemming from new property or sales and use tax
------------------------------------------------------
27 exemptions; or
--------------
28 (j) a statute enacted after June 30, 1985, or executive
-------------------------------------------------------
29 order- - - - -
issuedafterJune30, 1985_ which- -
requires costs I
30 previously incurred at local option that have subsequently been
---------------------------------------------------------------
31 mandated by the state.
---------------
32 Subd. 3. [EXECUTIVE ORDER. ] "Executive order" means an
33 order_-plan_-requirement or �issued-by-the-governor_- an
34 official serving at the pleasure of the governor, or an agency,
---------------------------------------------------------------
35 department, board, or commission of state government.
-----------------------------------------------------
36 "Executive order" does not include an order, plan, requirement,
---------------------------------------------------------------
1 or rule issued by a regional water quality control board.
---------------------------------------------------------
2 Subd.-4. [LOCAL AGENCY. ] "Local agency" means a home rule
3 charter or statutory city, county, town, or special district.
---------------------
4 Subd.-5. [MANDATE. ] A "mandate" means a requirement which
5 applies to a local agency or school district and which, if not
-------------------------
6 complied with, results in civil liability, criminal penalty,
----------------
7 substantial economic sanction such as loss of funding, or severe
--------------------------
8 administrative sanctions such as closure or nonlicensure of a
--------------------------------------
---------------
9 facility or program. To mandate" means to impose such a
---------------------------------------------------------
10 requirement.
------------
11 Subd (. [REQUIRING AN INCREASED LEVEL OF
12 SERVICE. ] "Requiring an increased level of service" includes
-----------------------------------
---------- ----
13 requiring that an existing service be provided in a sho-rter time.
-------------------------------
-----------------------------
14 Subd. 7. [RULE. ] "Rule" means a rule, order, or standard
-------------
15 of general application adopted by a state agency to implement,
--------------------------------
-----------------------
16 interpret, or make specific the law it enforces or administers
-------------------------------------
---------------------
17 or to govern its procedure. "Rule includes an amendment to a
-------------------------------------
-------------------------
18 rule. "Rule" does not include rules that relate only to the
----------------------------------
-------------------------
19 internal-management-of-a-state-agency.
20 Subd.-8. (SAVINGS. ) "Savings" includes budget reductions
--------------------------------
1 and the freeing of staff or resources to be reassigned to a
-------------------------
22 local agency's or school district's other areas of concern.
----------------------------
23 Subd.-9. [SCHOOL DISTRICT. ] "School district" includes
--------------------------
24 school districts, community college districts, and county
---------------------------------------------
------------
25 superintendents of schools.
--------------------------
26 Sec. 35. (3.9821 (FISCAL NOTES FOR STA-E-MANDATED
27 ACTIONS. ]
28 When the state proposes to mandate that a local agency or
---------------------------------------------------------
29 school district take an action, and when reasonable compliance
--------------------------------------------------------------
30 with that action would force the local agency or school district
------- -----------------------
31 to incur costs mandated by the state, a fiscal note shall be
32 prepared as provided in section 3.98, subdivision 2 and shall be
----------------------------------------------------------------
33 made available to the public upon request. If the action is
34 among the exceptions listed in section 3.983, a fiscal note need
----------------------------------------------------------------
35 not be prepared.
----------------
36 When a bill proposing a mandate is introduced and referred
----------------------------------------------------------
1 to a standing committee, the chairman of the standing committee
i
------------------------------------------------
---------------
2 to which the bill is referred shall request the appropriate
-----------------------------------------------------------
3 state agency or department to prepare a fiscal note before the
--------------------------------------------------------------
4 bill is heard in the committee. Before a proposed mandate is
------------------
5 issued in an executive order, the governor or appropriate agency
------------------
6 head assigned by the governor shall prepare the fiscal note and
------------------------------------------------
7 make it available to the public.
--------------------------------
8 Sec. 36. [3.983] [EXCEPTIONS TO FISCAL NOTES. ]
9 Subdivision 1. (COSTS RESULTING FROM INFLATION. ] A fiscal
-
10 note need not be prepared for increases in the cost of providing
-------------------------------------------------
11 an existing service if the increases result directly from
----------------------------------------------------
12 inflation. Resulting directly from inflation" means
-----------------------------------------------------
13 attributable to maintaining an existing level of service rather
----------------------------------------------------------------
14 than increasing the level of service. A cost-of-living increase
------------------------------------------------------------
15 in welfare benefits is an example of a cost resulting directly
----------------------------------------------------------
16 from inflation.
-------•--------[
17 Subd. 2. COSTS NOT RESULT OF NEW PROGRAM OR INCREASED
18 SERVICE. ] A fiscal note need not be prepared for increased local
--------------------------------------------------
19 costs that do not result from a new program or an increased
-------------------------------------------------------
20 level of service.
-----------------
21 Subd. 3. (MISCELLANEOUS EXCEPTIONS. ) A fiscal note need
-------- ------------------
22 not be prepared for the cost of a mandated action if the law
------------------------------------------------------------
23 containing the mandate:
-----------------------
24 (a) accommodates a specific local request;
------------------------------------------
25 (b) results in no new local government.duties;
----------------------------------------------
26 (c) leads to revenue losses from exemptions to taxes other
----------------------------------------------------------
27 than sales, use, or property taxes;
-----------------------------------
28 (d) provides only clarifying or conforming, nonsubstantive
----------------------------------------------------------
29 changes on local government;
----------------------------
30 ( e ) imposes additional net local costs which are
------------------------------------------------------minor
31 ( less than $200 for any single local government if the mandate
--------------------------------------------------------------
- ------- --------- _ _ _
32 does not apply statewide or less than one-tenth of a mill
times
------- ------
--------------- -
33 -- ---------------
the entire value of taxable property in the state if the mandate
-------------------
--------------------
34
is-------------------- --------------------- ------ -- -----_ -
statewide) anddo_ _ - _
notcauseafinancial_burden_on_local
35 government;
36 ( f)-is- _
alegislative-mandate or executive order enacted
1 1 before_July 1, 1985, or a regulation initially 1 y implementing
---------------------------------
legislation-enacted_before-July-1_-1985_
3 (g) implements something other than a state
_ _ _ ate statute or
------------------------------------------------------
4 executive order, such as a federal, court, or voter-approved
5 mandate; -----------
(h)-appears_in-rules- _ -
thatarepermissive_or discretionary
7 in nature; --------------
----------
8 (i )_defines_ -
anew crime- -
orredefines-an existing crime or
-------------------
9 infraction;
10 (j ) provides, or falls within the
Purview -- existing,
------- -- - financing mechanisms;____
11 revenue sources-or-other ---or----------
----------=--------------
------------------------
12 (k) results in savings that eq--------------------------------------------------
ual or exceed costs .
KRASS. MEYER AND WALSTEN CHARTERED '
Marschall Read Business Center
327 South Marschall Road
Shakopee, Mn 55379
. .*445-5a8O•r•*
City of Shakooee BILLING DATE 04-26-Ei5
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, Mn 55379 S U M M A R Y
Account Number Client Name balance
RE Line
SHAII373002-1 City of Shakooee $246. 50
General
013/016 / ,'C
SHAII373157-1 City of Shakopee-Dev $0. 00
Racetrack Tax Increment District
SHA11373161-1 City ��f Shakooee $28. 00
Shakooee Recreation TIF
ol•�s/o •f6/f l�
SHA11373169-1 City of Shakooee $140. 00
Rahr Malting Tax Appeal
al 4316- /G/• /�
SHA11373174-1 City of Shakooee
Rezoning re: bed and Breakfast
Vf 3io lG/•16
SHA1373157A-1 City of Shakooee $173. 75
Racetrack Tax Increment-Condemnatio
SHA1373157b-1 City of Shakooee $182. 04)
01 13/0 Ica/ t to Racetrack Liouor License
SHA51373118-1 City of Shakopee *495. 00
Wanoerin (Bill to K Mart TID)
SHA51373134-1 City of Shakooee $202. 50
Fire Truck Problem
- ol•
SHA51373144-1 City of Shakopee $0. 00
Chard
SHA7137.3011-1 City of ShaKooee $1. 529. 25
Prosecutions
O/ �-i�/u- lG/• /G -
TOTAL $2. %7. 00
YOUR CALENDAR ! ! *********"****************
ESTATE PLANNING SEMINAR
Thursday, Mav 9. 1985. 7:30DM-First Nat 1 Bank. of Shakooee Community Room
-
' . {RASS. MEYER AiNT WAL5-: EN C�4:74RTERED
' MarsRo�sd Business Center
�27 Sou�� narscnaiI Roao
Shaxooee. ',In 055379 ~~4Tt
**445-5080**
City of Shakooee
129 East 1st Avenue BILLING D�TE
Shakooee. mn 55379
SUMMARY
A��ount �u��er Client Name
�alanc�
RE Line
'
SHA 11373002-1 City of Shax/ oee
�
GS. �
Genera ~ 0
c7/.z��/0.
SHA11373157-1 City of ShaKooee-z)ev
/�
Racetrac� Tax Increment Di t i � ^ 00
s r �
SHA11373169-1 city of Shawoee
$84 0�
' Rahr MaIting Tax A I ^
ooea
SHA 11373173-1 City of ' akooee
V. 4?Ic». 7/�, �� Duoois �Iaim � E. ���
� //
6HA11Z73175-1 City of ShaKooee
$35Q @0
S«oer 8 nocel Gon�s ~
SHA11373176-1 City of Bhaxooee
4; Richard's Pub Susoens�on �36. 00
SHA1373157A-1 City of Shavoo `e '
Racetrack Tax Incremen±-Concertina-cio $0^ 00
S��A137�157�-1 City of Snaxooee
et a��/o. /6/. R//� ac r cx Lzouor License ^
SHA51_2-73118-1 Ci tv of ShaRooee
� 0. Wanpe'zn (Pill �o K Mart TII}) $42' 00
'
Sm' A51373134- v 01F Snaxomee
------ Fi'e T'ucx Prob�em
Sj-�A513777144-� -i-:y o." 5na�ozee '
�y Ch2G:-z.00
� * ^ //3/0^ . 4/
Sir A5137315!3Cf ayo�ee
0 /' �/z/0' /� / /�
-ons - --��
.c'C�
�
KRASS. MEYER AND WALSTEN CHARTERED r
Marschall Road Business Center
327 South Marschall Road �'` ......• / �
Shakopee, Mn 55379
**445-5080•
City of Shakopee BILLING DATE 06-26-85
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, Mn 55379 S U M M A R Y
Account Number Client Name balance
RE Line
SHA11373002-1 City of Shakopee $890. 75
W_14 General
SHA11373157-1 City of Shakopee-Lev $0. 00
Racetrack Tax Increment District
SHAII373169-1 City of Shakopee $209. 50
Jb� �G Rahr Malting Tax Appeal
SHA11373173-1 City of Shakopee $0. 00
Dubois Claim
SHAII373175-1 City of Shakopee f,308. 00
l6� /6 Super 8 Motel Bonds
SHA11373176-1 City of Shakopee $92. 50
16111(1 Richard' s Pub Suspension
SHA13731578-1 City of Shakopee $0. 00
Racetrack Liquor License
SHA51373116-1 City of Shakopee $631. 25
Wangerin (Bill to K Mart TID)
SHA51373134-1 City of Shakopee $42. 00
Fire Truck Problem
SHA51373144-1 City of Shakopee $90. 00
S6• u3io- So� �(
Chard
SHA51373150-1 City of Shakopee $84. 00
Zylastra Cable TV Studio
SHAS1373011-1 City of Shakopee $1, 089. 64
Prosecutions
TOT /$3, 4:17, 64
**ESTATE PLANNING Video Tape**
Available For Your Use
CALL TO REQUEST-445-5080 �''
• AA . r r
Z. 4' R Arr rA rrAr�` AA•.A rA AArr AA rA i rrr� rrAA '(1
R .p.� ► V R ut VI • l:.A W W W W Li W W W W W W W w_W N N N N N N n:N R r r..+ ..+ r.+...� D C •t
i OO A i R r•' R d'• IO d d 0u-.40,ut W W N N.+ ...2 A W W W N�' R ut Vt A r.r IA r 0 n z M
i N C �• C R .d i d�'V'"�C G C G C W c-+ G d P C N A N G'N C N C C N O n O
O
7D +4►y -'-1 n Gn (A S!'i
MOM MCr• M--'1-4TMr- -Das NGP•1 M2(A N i 2 MM-MOO(A C n
m az M rn a -43. c M Qmmmmnca zo
2 X a M T T 'D N.AMmz z► 0 cartnO0o•r n►+G►+ --1A M v Mn x xrmr
V r z a n M Nr',tnr+ Cz ACm -4 aTnr�Mr OTM to 7crN(n a2-M \ .�
-rrn
m T 0 r rnr �O �Dr O A -rte O
a a .'+ r aocw z f`I'S pO rr►rM MQ, O
Y O m rn r +-(r m r --I= m "Z z 0 o m 0a n-c S 2 -Timm n z z Z rl S m U rl T
zI;o z 2 1 N D O(A z rn n n •X 2 O H,rr a to D 0) C (A r N.w M(A (n rl CA n z
n O N -1 rn v m z a c 0 O rn O rn Z r 0 0 -(-4- m 2 1 / / 1 .T m 0
M m x A O w m(AfnMM Oom N w-Zw"Mz 2 r-]o. N 'Ir TT 1 -TIT � = x
N c- OC Om rl(nN LC Z uc-2. 1D M-r m Ow wh cc 'On n
m M m ..r" a) C n TrnfD Or rno M rn S ST.T0 Trr -1r x
n a z 'rn L m (nn 9W C04/1 n =0.20. A t u ria. nrr H O
�1 2 O 2 Z S -r rti m -d" T N-• a -4 .-I M • .Z' o T T
(n - rl m c D T(A r 1 N r r rn ► x• r a n •+w -I-4-.4 Z r r.
T -1 .z Z •-( S -H n •-I T-4 m ;D z rl C r rl 2 2 ►.•r z m
M C -i 1 n 0 «r 2 to rn 0 L -4 -0 O W N (n V, -i M= U
S A (A rn m 00 Z z 1 •. • a ;D C C ►+rim
(A m 4A _(A z 0 H n m n +r rr ;a A - x
N N r z rn -4 r1 p.;-"O n n a rl
lA 47 n N a 2 Z -
- • n z nn
rn
j 1 i p x
J
N
I
J
!d
rNN+•W A .00 Vrn
'P APON� b
0 C.7 N A.0 N W N N V P V N 'V N P 0 d 7 W:r rn
W W .0 A N W V W u A V-•W W 10 V t-p P'A r W O➢N I V P V,W W VZ
A P'NW O�O O�O N P O V I W A P P N ut P N J N N n z
O C7 O O O VI tJ yi -+ O ut W.O V w O Vi In VI 00 r -C Li O t .M-• d-O M V P"'•O'H r d W d c O
:O O; V .V V W -O D O O,O O P u ut O vt+•V W 4/I 00.0 O�''W A W,N a
� z c
j !
a, M
fln
3
'r a
I A A 'OO N. �'. CN .N T
! W W P P %A -+-+N N W N f V I d P V I A N P G N U V I d O N O
00 Op. r �+ i00 .r N O%0 P O d W 'ut A W Mi r"•A A N�N d r r O VI N� S
• • • r • + • O
'A %.M W OD, V V :Go W%A V I A N N A d0 -+d N W N O V I V do O�0 A G W olSO N S
O G .✓t
%.n O O r G U QA O O N O A P N d P O V Q Q N O O C J-+ V .914, v t 6" O V 7 O
0 o v, vt o 0 0 000vlou,00vl vloo 00 oovl000vl o ovI 0000vl ►+
O O O O O O 0 0 -O 0 0 0.O O O O O O O O o O O o O O O o O o O O U O O O O O O C 0 0 -i
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 O.O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O MCC N
O
rn
N N N y VI a
r A N N co -•d A NNS N A rA NA W,+A
O O d N V V1 VLA ut V 00 rV P A ✓1 O P O.P P P O O A N V W P
• • .• • �• • + • • • + • • • • - s • • .• • a • • r
0D 0C N P O W A V d V P N vt O vl uta V W O d O-OO CO W d V W W %0 OD a
A A VI VI V dOo V A AdONVIA 00 �►W dNN�oN Vt V�+PA W A0 NP dW,A ate( (n
�.A N-P VI �1 m N r P O✓t VIN-�r O r v •�.••a d A C. n
' • • • ,. • • y • • • • • • • • • .• • • '• • • u • • • • • .• • • :• • :• • --• • • :• • • .• X1.0 O
W W O O O r N 'V m O VI VI W d
Cb 00O -O O A -00P 'N VI OOVPWd-0 Oc 0,NWW ut 0.000 A W m V 00 :d 0,'o Q0 vj m a
ro
a 71
W
-1 0
N cofT 1
'N • • ± • • .•A•N• • • rn
W W V W O dV Lq n
0 P
N • - u00
• • • • • • c -
OO ro O O d P P A •_ut O P W ut V W A A W•�A O A V d A r O d P v V P V A a
n V 1 O O N d-+ P V 1 0 N A V o A d V O V I W N N V N O r N O O W V W O A d 0 0
d d O O O W W N PO VIP Do:!5 V W d O N �+W ro O Vt+A ►'�
P P O O O �!I NOD N .r O V1 A P 0+�O O O OO V VI OO A 00 0 0 0 V P P d 00 00 -•Oo 000 0 P P O 2 '�
A I N OO O P M r O O V I co O W A V-+O N0 O O d W W v f O O O O P V I V W I 1 i P-+Cl 0 W W O O N t'Y D
j 1 1 j 1 1 1 j rn 0
r N f'1
A A O O A r W A VIN P A W W A A A N W A I V W r A A A A A W V I A
N N V I V I d d W 0 0 V V I V I O A�+V d L." N d W O d A f V N P �+O V ti P V u t
• • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -• • • • • • Z7
v V •r ..• 0 0 N N O ro v I A b W A N APO N ro V d�W V V � G N P O O A v I
H
• S-C p
• O n z OC
• �' n O V'
O
n n C n
O
z
K 1 \ K
2 z m 0 O
0 m N m �
m m nz
T z z A m N
C n n .•A =
e < s a
;K
ti O
'� G7 T T
O Z C r?
D G
r
N
s
v
z
0
v
z
D
ti
M
O
z n
C
a X
r � �
'o
m
v r i m
a z
r s •-+
O �
cs m
' a
z
rr
a z
z
I o
v
n ;ID
w
a
P r A .T
O
'O
V N N •r
• • • a
0
2 K
ri
w a
0
a
N N N a
VI s K N
• • •
-40
O
N N Nf C T
L4 G O D
ro
oa
s �
w
-� o
en �
0 0 o v,
c
w
woo 00 .n s
m 7f
V Vi yf Z T
v v o n s
m cl
r
m
N N
n
-�1 N
1985 CITY OF SHAIQOPEE R E V E N U E R E P O R T AS OF 6-30-85 PAGE 1
FUND 01 GENERAL FUND C U R R E N T M O N T H Y E A R T O D A T E
ACCOUNT/DESCRIPTION EST. REVENUE RCTUAL VARIANCE PCT EST. REVENUE ACTUAL VARIANCE PCT
3011 GEN, LEVY - CURRENT 8001000:00 _ 9339000.00 946,406.90 13,406.90 101.42
3622 FISCAL CISPARITIES .00 40,000.00 .00 40,00C.00-
•+•+ TAXES 800,000.00 973,000.00 946,406.90 26,593.10- 97.3
3109 TRACK FRANCHISE .00 70,000.00 .00 70,000.00-
3119 CABLE FRANCHISE __ __ _ .._. .. •�0 _ .00 .00 .00
3111 LIQUOR LICENSES 219227.00 509100.00 279527.00 22 ,573.00- 54.9
3112 BEER LICENSES 3,396.33 4,000.00 3,414.00 586.00- 85.4
3113 BINGO d GAMBLING LIC. .00 _ 400,00 85.00 315.00- 21.3
3114 CIGARETTE LICENSES .00 600.00 143.75 456.25- 24.0
3115 POOL TABLE LICENSES .00 1,000.00 .00 19000.00-
3132 BUILDING PERMITS _ 8,166,80 38,600.00 57,115.80 181515.80 148.0
3133 ALUMBING PERMITS 1,965.50 359500.00 14,181.50 21 ,318.50- 39.9
3134 MECHANICAL FERMITS 927.30 40400.00 17,370.21 129970.21 39408
3135 WELL PERMITS 43.00 250.00 172.00 78.00- 68.8
3136 SE WZR & WATER PERMITS 313.50 1 ,500.00 978.50 521.50- 65.2
3137 ELECTRICAL PERMITS 1,220.(10 4,400.00 109660.25 6,260.25 242.3
3138 STREET OPENING FERMITS 210.00 1 ,000.00 570.00 430.00- 57.0
3150 MISC- BUS. PERMITS 439.50 830.00 921.58 121.58 115.2
3160 DOG LICENSES 15.U0 300.00 36.00 264.00- 12.0
3161 MISC. NON-BUS. LIC. 4.00 100.00 4.00 96.00- 4.0
•rrr LICENSES 9IFERMITS 43,930.30 212,950.00 133,179.59 199770.41- 62.5
332U STATE GRANTS30 437,978.00 30,000.00- 467,978.00- 6.8
3322 HOMESTEAD .00 145,000.00 .00 145,000.00-
3323 POLICE STATE AiD .00 42,_000.00 .00 429000.00-
3332 STATE HYY.MAIN1. AID . ,
00 15,495.OD 7 747.50 7,747.50- 50.0
3333 STATE HWY. GCNST. AID .DD .00 .00 .00
3536 CIVIL DEFENSE _ _ _ _ 000 _ ___. ___.. 400.00 _ 656.57 256.57 164.1
3537 MOBILE HOME .00 1,000.00 .00 1 ,000.00-
334U COUNTY ROAD 8 BRIDGE AID .JD 65,000.00 78,473.23 13,473.23 120.7
3341 AGGREGATE TAX 000 4,000.00 2,131.67 1 ,862.33- 53.4
+••• INTEAGOVENMENTAL .DO 710,873.00 590014.97 651 ,858.03- 8.3
3506 VALLEYFAIR .03 9,240.00 9,240.00 .00 100.0
3507 ADMINISTRATIVE FEES .00 6,000.00 .00 6,000.00-
3508 IND.REVENUE BOND FE_ 03 5,000.00 2,000.00 3,000.00- 40.0
3509 ENGINEERING SERVICES .f10 105000.00 100.00 104990G.OG- .1
3510 ENG. GRADE FEE 225.00 2,000.00 1,065.00 935.00- 53.3
3511 PLAN CHECK FEE 3,163.90 10,000.00 261624.00 161624.00 266.2
3512 ASSESSMENT SEARCHES 22.1).3U 2,000.00 865.00 1 ,135.00- 43.3
3513 SALE OF L)OCUMEATS 239.35 2,800.00 1,021.66- 39821.66- 36.5
3514 PLATS-REZON-VAS-COND.USE 2,195.00 39000.00 6,141.23 3,141.23 204.7
3516 FILING FEE 5.00 .00 5000 5.00
3517 RETAINED FEES .DO 200.00 .00 200.00-
35ZU SNOW REMOVAL _-.---- .-- $00 _.-- --._ ._- _-- -.-- 900.00 1,472.28 572.28 163.6
3521 PUBLIC WORKS RENTALS .00 .00 .00 .00
3522 WEED CUTTING CFARGES 334.00 .00 89.00- 89.00-
3523 MISC.PB.WKS.SERYICES 285.65 1 ,000.00 92.67 907.33- 9.3
1985 CITY OF SHAKOPCE R E V E N U E R E P O R T AS OF 6-30-85 PAGE 2
FU NO 01 GENERAL FUND C U R R E N T M 0 y T H Y E A R T O D A T E
ACCJUNT/DESCRIPTION EST. REVENUE ACTUAL VARIANCE PCT EST. REVENUE ACTUAL VARIANCE PCT
3524 STREET REPAIR 297924 _ _ 200.00 553.24 353.24 276.6
3526 FIRING RANGE .00 .00 .00 .00
3527 CONCESSIONS-POOL 1,477.81 5,030.00 1,477.81 3,522.19- 29.6
3531 MISC. POLICE SERVICES .00 .00 50.00 50.00
3532 POUND FEES i FINES •00 900.00 308.75 591.25- 34.3
3533 FIRE CALLS & STANDBY FEE 1,715,00 209500.00 6,755.50 13,744.50- 33.0
3539 YATEI SLIDE 447.13 .00 447.00 447.OG
354J SEASON TICKETS-POOL S, 868.00 12,500.00 12,930.OG 430.00 103.4
4541 A0MI4SIC14S-PO0L 19292.70 5,830.00 1,292.70 49507.3G- 22.3
3542 SWIMMING LESSONS 1,716.JJ 59500.00 5,698.00 198.00 103.6
3543 MISC. POOL INCOME .0rl 50.00 .00 50.00-
3650 REFUSE DISPOSAL 13,877.61 1609000.00 80,829.72 79,17C.28- 50.5
++++ CHARGES FOR SEFVICE 33,378.36 357,590.00 156037.24 200,752.76- 43.9
3661) COURT FINES 2,761.68 45,000.00 249246.82 20,753.18- 53.9
++++ COURT FINES 2,761.68 459000.00 24,246.82 20,753.18- 53.9
3810 INTEREST .00 55,000.00 120.00 54,880.00- .2
3821 RENT 365.00 49400.00 2,625.00 1 ,775.00- 59.7
3830 STATE SURCHARGE FEE .00 .00 .00 .00
3890 MISCELLANEOUS 129.66 l0,OJO.00 9,704.47 295.53- 97.0
•.�+ MISCELLAKECUS 494.66 69,400.00 129449.47 56,950.53- 17.9
3900 TRANSFERS .00 697,784.00 .00 697,784.00-
3910 SPUC CONTRIBUTION 20,032.3U .00 120,192.00 1209192.00
++�+ TRANSFERS 20,032. 0 697,784.00 1209192.00 5779592.00- 17.2
FUND TCTALS 900,59-7.00 3,066,597.00 19452,326.99 1 ,414,270.01- 47.4
RUN DATE: 01/10/85 PROGIAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE NO 1
CITY OF SHAKOFEE
01 GENERAL FUND PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTO
ON DEPARTMENT PROGRAMHOURS DOLLARS COSTS COSTS . APPROP PERCENT
00 GENERAL FUND
DEPT T01AL .0 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0
11 MAYOR 6 COUNCIL
111 MAYOR 9 COUNCIL .0 1109.69 4839.75 5949.44 43670.00 13.6
990 .0 - -- 10617.22 - .00 10617.22 .00 .0
DEPT TOTAL .0 11726.91 4839.75 16566.66 43670.00 37.9
12 CITY ADMINISTRATOR
121 ADMINISTRATION 1624.0 29435.85 5092.47 34528.32 52780.00 65.4
122 COUNCIL i AGENDAS 112.0 2978.16 .00 2978.16 7315.00 40.7
123 BUDGET _ - 6.5 - -- 173.68 .00 173.68 3730.00 4.6
124 RACETRACK 20.5 54T.78 .00 547.78 3480.00 15.7
125 OTMER 26.5 708.12 .00 708.12 6765.00 10.4
988 OTHER PAY .0 338.13 .00 338913 .00 .0
991 2.0 22.54 .00 22.54 .00 .0
992 56.2 892.73 .00 892.73 .00 .0
993 18.0 274.63 .00 274.63 .00 .0
DEPT TOTAL 1865.7 35371.62 5092.47 40464.09 74070.00 54.6
13 CITY CLERK
131 GENERAL MANAGEMENT 1186.1 15263.49 11029.85 26293.34 64435.00 40.8
132 ELECTIONS 2.0 _ 18.49 23.25 41.74 3810.00 1.0
133 LICENSING 64.0 868057 33.00 901.57 1015.00 88.8
134 OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS 2.5 36.33 17.50 53.83 .00 .0
135 COUNCIL B AGENDAS 85.9 1046.72 .00 1046.72 .00 .0
136 I R BONDS 12,0 174040 .00 174.40 .00 .0
137 DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT 2.0 72.69 .00 72.69 .00 .0
986 OTHER PAY .0 46.66 .DO 46.66 .00 .0
991 31.5 379.69 .00 379.69 .00 .0
992 32.0 382.00 .00 382.00 .00 .0
DEPT TOTAL 1418.6 18289.04 11103.60 29392.64 69260.00 42.4
15 FINANCE
151 GENERAL MANAGEMENT 468.7 8682.353973.94 12656.29 59385.00 21.3
152 ACCOUNTING -1290.1 -- 16245.06 9542.17 25787.23 50965.00 50.5
153 PAYROLL 207.5 2059.46 908.91 2968.37 6610.00 44.9
154 FIXED ASSETS_ 44.5 800.48 878.98 1679.46 3200.00 52.4
155 BUDGET 71.5 1102.98 .00 1102.98 7265.00 15.1
156 ASSESSMENTS 117.9 1641.44 .00 1641.48 7265.00 22.5
158 PERSONNEL 144.3 1452.75 153.01 1605.76 650.00 247.0
980 OTHER PAY .0 --- - - 527.20 .00 527.20 .00 .0
991 56.0 857.51 .00 857.51 .CO .0
992 84.0 932.60 .00 932.60 .00 .0
993 37.8 362.78 .00 362.78 .00 .0
998 9.0 71.05 .00 71.05 .00 .0
DEPT TOTAL _ 2531.3 34735.70 15457.01 50192.71 1 =594[.00 36.9
16 LEGAL COUNSEL
161 GENERAL LEGAL SERYIC .0 770.05 22331.43 23101.48 40100.00 56.7
RUN DATE: 07/10/85 PROGRAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE NC 2
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
01 GENERAL FUND PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTC
ON DEPARTMENT PROGRAM 40URS -_ _- DOLLARS - COSTS COSTS APPROP PERCENT
DEPT TOTAL .0 770.05 22331.43 23101.48 40700.00 56.7
17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN
171 GENERAL MANAGEMENT 213.0 3680.93 5902.14 9583.07 16025.00 59.8
172 CODE ENFORCEMENT 143.0 1773.72 .00 1773.72 5980.00 29.6
173 SUBDIVISION REVIEW 98.0 1238.20 .00 1238.20 2210.00 56.0
174 PLANNING COMM. MTG. 987.4 11082.65 92.07 11174.72 17430.00 64.1
175 LONG RANGE PLANNING 92.8 1286.01 .OD 1286.01 3060.00 42.0
176 RA-'ETRACK 18.0 223.47 .00 223.47 530.00 42.1
177 PARKS 72.5 606.10 13.58 619.68 3610.00 17.1
178 SPECIAL PROJECTS 199.0 1710.43 2229.77 3940.20 3655.00 107.8
988 OTHER PAY .0 453.37 .00 453.37 .00 .0
991 18.5 153.59 .00 153.59 .00 .0
992 104.0 838.69 .00 838.69 .00 .0
993 83.0 689.23 .00 689.23 .00 .0
998 133.2 1206.26 .00 1206.26 .00 .0
DEPT TOTAL 2162.4 24942.65 8237.56 33180.21 52500.00 63.2
18 GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS
181 CITY HALL 551.0 4848.77 6547.82 11396.59 21475.00 53.0
182 LIBRARY 390.5 3737.76 5151.83 8889.59 13390.00 66.3
183 EAGLE CREEK TOWN HAL .0 411.00 150.75- 260.25 450.00 57.8
184 SR•CITIZEN CENTEI 200!5 1522.36 1238.20 2760.56 10025.00 27.5
988 OTHER PAY .0 16.69 .00 16.69 .00 .0
991 73.0 495.03 .00 495.03 .00 .0
992 58.0 398.18 .00 398.13 .00 .0
993 30.0 220.05 .00 220.05 .00 .0
DEPT TOTAL 1303.0 11649.84 12787.10 24436.94 45340.CO 53.8
22 INOU-;TAIAL/CCMMERCIA
221 GENERAL MANAGEMENT 40.0 441.83 285.30 727.13 6000.00 12.1
DEPT TOTAL 40.0 441.83 285.30 727.13 6000.00 12.1
23 CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
DEPT TOTAL 57.5 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0
31 POLICE
311 GENERAL MANAGEMENT 4958.6 87380.93 35281.40 122662.33 170445.CC 71.9
312 PATROL 9222.2 161232.70 4820.58 166053.28 480500.00 34.5
313 INVESTIGATION 862.0 15260.42 489.52 15749.94 76150.00 20.6
_ 314 JUVENILES _. 749.0 _ _ 12574.83 523.01 13097.84 50145.00 26.1
_ _
315 COURT TIME 137.6 3303.43 .00 3303.43 .00 .0
316 SCHOOL LIAISON 185.0 3396.89 .00 3396.89 .00 .0
318 FIRM RANGE .0 .00 280.22 280.22 500.00 56.0
988 OTHER PAY .0 1066.64 .00 1066.64 .00 .0
991 433.6 6228.48 .00 6228.48 .00 .0
992 _ _- _ - _ 694 i0_ -___ 9817.37 .00 9817.37 .00 .0
993 262.2 3369.15 .00 3369.15 .00 .0
997 15.0 124.53 .00 124.53 .00 .0
998 141.6 1929.72 .00 1929.72 .00 .0
RUN DATE: 07/10485 PIOGIAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE AC 3
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
01 GENERAL FUND PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTO
ON DEPARTMENT _-__PROGRAM _HOURS_.---__,__-,DOLLARS-__ __- -.._ COSTS COSTS APPROP PERCENT
DEPT TOTAL 17661.0 305685.09 41394.73 347079.82 777740.00 44.6
j 32 FIRE
321 GENERAL MANAGEMENT 2023.9 17736.18 107994.32 125730.50 4C6605.00 30.9
DEPT TOTAL 2C23.9 17736.18 107994.32 125730.50 406605.00 30.9
33 INSPECTION-SLOG-PLMB
331 GENERAL MANAGEMENT 976.4 11060.87 4885.20 15946.07 15755.00 101.2
332 PLAN REVIEW 62.7 931.79 .00 931079 6045.00 15.4
333 BUILDING INSPECTIONS 509.9 8970.25 8383.37 17353.62 52460.00 33.0
334 PLMBG. a HTG.IN_SPiECT 2C$.1 3679.20 .DO 3679.20 34310.00 10.7
336 VALLEYFAIR 32.
2 - -610.19 .00 610.19 4190.00 14.5
337 CITY BUILDING MGT. 10.0 197.11 .00 197.11 .00 .0
338 RACETRACK 713.3 10.488.88 139.00 10597.88 .CO .0
988 OTHER PAY .0 420008 .00 420.08 .00 .0
991 29.5 481.80 .00 481.80 .00 .0
992 112.0 1.383.74 .00 1383.74 .GO .0
993 43.0 407.73 .00 407.73 .00 .0
998 41.9 500.90 .00 500.90 .00 .0
DEFT TOTAL 2739.0 39132.54 13377.57 52510.11 116680.00 45.0
35 CIVIL DEFENSE
351 GENERAL MANAGEMENT .0 .00 740.03 740.03 2775.00 26.6
DEPT TOTAL .0 .00 740.03 740.03 2775.00 26.6
36 ANIMAL CONTROL
361 GENERAL MANAGEMENT .0
00 2163.10 2163.10 6770.00 31.9
DEPT TOTAL .0 .DO 2163.10 2163.10 6770.00 31.9
41 ENGINEERING
401 BLDG.PERMITS/BLDG.IN 76.0 1111.64 .DO 1111.64 4500.00 24.7
402 CITY RECORDS 3.0 33.39 .DO 33.39 2500.00 1.3
403 DESIGN CRITERIA B ST 47.2 418.41 .00 418.41 250C.00 16.7
404 TRAINING 110.0 1998.09 80.08 2078.17 6370.00 32.6
405 PAVEMENT PRES_ERV4TIO 145.8_ 2383.71 .00 2383.71 11300.00 21.0
406 CITY__COUNCIL PROJECT 215,5 4304,63 .00 4304.63 8000.00 53.8
407 MISCELLANEOUS 249.0 3627.66 .00 3627.66 8180.00 44.3
408 STATE AID (MN/DOT) 19.5 383.75 .00 383.75 4000.00 9.5
409 CITY MAPS 129.0 1860.37 .00 1860.37 7500.00 24.8
410 COMMITTEES 9 BOARDS 5.0 111.31 .00 111.31 900.CO 12.3
411 GENERAL MANAGEMENT 6200 11111.46 5411.33 16582.79 75985.00 21.8
412 INSPECTIONS 43.0 888.21 .00 888.21 500.00 177.6
414 PLAT REVIEW 56.0 1080.08 .00 1080.08 2000.00 54.0
415 SPUC RELATED 23.0 512.07 .00 512.07 .CO .0
418 FILING 63.6 579098 .00 579.98 .00 .0
419 RACETRACK 70.5 1517.06 10.58 1527.64 .00 .0
517 PRIOR LK.OVERFLOW 5.0 111.32 .00 111.32 .00 .0
518 CR.83 WIDENING 34.0 515.91 .00 515.91 .00 .0
521 UPPER VALLEY DRAINAG 7.5 166.98 .00 166.98 10000.00 1.6
522 HOLMES ST.LATERALS 520.6 9248.28 796.95 10045.23 5000.00 200.9
RUN DATE. 07/10/85 PROGRAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE N0 4
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
01 GEAERAI FUND 3ERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTO
DN DEP4RTMENI PROGRAM HOURS._ _-_.-._-_ DOLLARS_- COSTS COSTS APPROP PERCENT
523 101 SERVICE ROAD 2.0 33.05 .00 33.05 1000.00 3.3
528 AD-HDC COMM 5.5 122.46 .00 122.46 .00 .0
529 ABANDOMEO CMSPP R/R 29.5 423.43 .00 423.43 .00 .0
533 TAHPAH SEWER & WATER 11.0 150.19 .00 150.19 .00 .0
534 STDEVALK CONSTRUCTIO 104.4 1224.65 _ . 2783.06 4007.71 .00 .0
535 FREE RIGHT FOR N8 10 33.5 745.86 .00 745.86 .00 .0
543 SHENANDOAH 52.0 717.97 235.00 952.97 4635.00 20.5
544 VALLEY PARK OR/12TH 20.3 316.86 .00 316.86 .00 .0
545 T.M. 101 BY-PASS ROW 216.5 2932.04 9442.90- 6510.86- .00 .0
546 101 INTERSECTIONS 231.5 3654.98 9.14 3664.12 .00 .0
547 CR 83/CURB/WIDENING 310.0 4570.46 .00 4570.46 .00 .0
548 4TH AVE/CR 83/SHENAN 135.2 2372.27 50.00 2422.27 .00 .0
549 EAGLEWOOD REHAB. 375.9 5611.82 17.50 5629.32 .00 .0
550 TIMBER TRAILS 23.7 312.00 .00 372.00 .00 .0
988 OTHER PAY .0 766.92 .00 766.92 .00 .0
991 168.5 2138.99 .00 2138.99 .00 .0
992 144.0 1878.26 .00 1878.26 .00 .0
993 126.9 1641.96 .00 1641.96 .00 .0
998 28.2 348.55 .00 348.55 .00 .0
DEPT TOTAL 4462.1 72047.03 •49.26- 71997.77 168355.00 42.7
42 STRZET & ALLEY MAINT
421 GENERAL MANAGEMENT 682.8 21357.45 17255.88 38E13.33 190630.00 20.2
422 TREE 9 LIMB P/UR 35.5 467.72 122.73 590.45 4955.00 11.9
424 WE-D CUTTING & SPRAY 57.0 732.33 .00 732.33 4830.00 15.1
426 EQUIPMENT MAINTEVANC 865.1 11160.53 7717.30 18877.83 61495.00 30.6
427 STREET & ALLEY MAINT 366.3 4852.69 4643.68 9496.37 25985.00 36.5
428 SWEEPING & CLEANING 553.8 7193.88 .00 7193.88 12175.00 59.0
429 BITUMINOUS STREET RiE 7.19.1 9396.04 2669.12 12065.16 118595.00 10.1
430 PAINT STRIPING 31.0 424.24 .00 424.24 3555.00 11.9
431 SIGNS 302.5 4112.31 5056.12 9168.43 4800.CO 191.0
432 SNOW REMOVAL 1057.5 1.4455.17 3899.20 18354.37 3221C.00 56.9
433 SANDING STREETS 260.5 3420.50 406.92 3827.42 4955.00 77.2
988 OTHER PAY .0 932.78 .00 832.78 .00 .0
991 _ 419,7 4915!91 .00 4975.91 .CO .0
992 224.0 2644.01 .00 2644.01 .00 .0
993 142.0 1638.33 .00 1638.33 .00 .0
997 49.7 832.72 .00 832.72 .00 .0
998 143.5 1581.97 .00 1581.97 .00 .0
DEPT TOTAL 5910.6 90078.58 41770.95 131849.53 464185.00 28.4
44 SHOP
441 GENERAL MANAGEMENT 38.0 1396.08 4448.10 5844.18 E3245.CC 9.2
442 PARTS INVENTORY .0 .00 6.51 6.51 .00 .0
443 MAINT. & REPAIR-STRE 794.8 10025.67 22.22 10047,89 7815.00 128.5
444 MAINT. & REPAIR-PARK 55.0 642.01 6.84 648.85 775.00 83.7
445 MAINT@ & REPAIR-POLI 77.0 997.66 .00 997.66 1205.00 82.7
446 MAINT. & REPAIR-ADMI 28.5 356.81 .00 356.81 280.00 127.4
448 MAINT. & REPAIR-SRUC 29.5 376.88 .00 376.88 85.00 443.3
988 OTHER 'AY .0 24.12 .00 24.12 .00 .0
RUN DALE: 07/10/x5 PROGR4M COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE NO 5
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
U1 GENERAL FUND PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTO
ON DEPARTMENT PROGRAM_ HOURS._ ._ _ DOLLARS_ _ _ COSTS COSTS APF40P PERCENT
992 32.0 337.76 .00 337.76 .00 .0
DEPT TOTAL 1054.8 14156.99 4483.67 18640.66 73695.00 25.2
45 STORM SEWER
451 MAINTENANCE 159,2---_-.___._.__2603o27 159.51 2762.78 6610.00 41.7
452 CONSTRUCTION 62.0 827.55
00 827.55 00 .0
DEPT TOTAL 221.2 3430.82 159.51 3590.33 6610.00 54.3
46 WEED CONTROL
461 WEED INSPECTION 52.5 461.29 19.50 480.79 1150.00 41.8
DEPT TOTAL - .-__-_-- - _ -- 52.5..---.----___--461.29 19.50 480.79 11 50.00 41.8
61 SWIMMING PULL
611 GENERAL MANAGEMENT 258.0 1493.40 116901.83 118395.23 10375.00 141.1
612 LIFEGUARDS 322.1 1407.29 .00 1407.29 8610.00 16.3
613 LESSONS 70.2 308.82 .00 308.82 4150.00 7.4
614 LESSONS/AIDS 89.8 297.78 .00 297.78 3940.00 7.5
615 POOL AIDS 292.3 932.73 .00 932.73 1950.00 47.8
616 POOL CASHIERS 64.0 224.00 .00 224.00 975.00 22.9
617 MAINTENANCE 409.1 4417.16 2175.88 6593.04 13215.00 49.8
618 WATER SLIDE 68. 5 274.47 1103.81 1378.28 .00 .0
DEPT TOTAL 1574.0 9355.65 120181.52 129537.17 43215.00 299.7
62 PARKS
621 GENERAL MANAGEMENT 344.4 11315.81 11616.26 22932.07 102850.00 22.2
622 PARK MAINT._ 9 C04ST. 318.8 36k8.59 2446.82 6135.41 9275.00 66.1
623 PARK MOM i TRIM 251.5 2270.02 .00 2270.02 3370.00 67.3
624 ATHLETIC FLO MAINTA,C 482.1 6086.81 761.06 6847.87 5970.00 114.7
625 ATHLETIC FLO MOW/TRI 82.5 _ 977.58 .00 977.58 2405.00 40.6
626 TENNIS COURT MAI4T. 16.0 213.12 215.20 428.32 6160.00 6.9
627 BOULEVARD/LOT PAINT 11.5 121 .43 .00 121.43 1445.00 8.4
628 P.W. BLDG MAINT/CONS 154.8 1953.09 468.56 2421.65 5770.00 41.9
629 PARK EQUIP.;MAINT/CON 524,1 6192.15 307.62 6499.77 9270.00 70.1
630 PARK BLDG MAINT/CONS 399.1 5157.70 357.46 5515.16 13135.00 41.9
631 PARK DEPT EQUIP MAIN 131.3 1562.21 861.98 2424.19 7970.00 30.4
632 RINKS MAIN MONST 533.5 6218.71 .00 6218.71 9375.00 66.3
633 SNOW REMOVAL LOT/NAL 100.5 1247.40 .00 1247.40 2650.00 47.0
634 TR=E/LIMB PICK-UP 11.5 119.07 .00 119.07 1205.00 9.8
988 OTHER PAY 00 386.10 .00 386.10 CO. .0
991 119.0 1302.88 .00 1302.88 .00 .0
992 _._..__ _ _ _. _ _ 120.0 12 79.68 .00 1279.68 .00 .0
993 55.6 596.07 .00 596.07 .00 .0
998 123.1 1328.00 .00 1328.00 .00 .0
DEPT TOTAL 3779.3 52016.42 17034.96 69051.38 180850.00 38.1
65 FORESTRY
651 GENERAL MANAGEMENT 54. 5 886.21 6.99 893.20 11080.00 8..0
653 LIMB PICK-UP 9 REMOV 210.6 2800.94 .00 2800.94 3610.00 77.5
654 CONFERENCES 9 EDUCAT 40.0 506.17 .00 506.17 125.00 404.9
655 TRIMMING 9.0 115.64 .00 115.64 600.00 19.2
RUN DATE: U7/10/85 PROGRAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE NO 6
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
01 GENERAL FUND PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTD
ON OEP;RTMENT _ _.._... PROGRAM HOURS OQLLARS . . COSTS COSTS APFROP PERCENT
DEPT TJTAL 314.1 4308.96 6.99 4315.95 24000.00 17.9
72 GARBAGE COLLECTION
721 GENERAL MANAGEMENT .0 .00 69346.07 69346.07 160000.00 43.3
DEFT TOTAL _ 00 .00 _ 69346.07 69346.07 160000.00 43.3
91 UNALLOCATEO
911 UNALLOCATEO .0 .00 61146.16 61146.16 216487.00 28.2
DEPT TOTAL .0 .00 61146.16 61146.16 216487.00 28.2
FUND TOTAL 49171.0 _ _ _.746337.19 5599D4.04 1306241.23 3116597.00 41.9
RUN DATE: C7/10/4o5 PROGRAM COSTS 8Y DEPARTMENT PAGE NO 7
CITY OF S HA KOPEE
11 COMMUNITY SERVICES 'ERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL VIC
ON DEFARTPENT PROGRAM HOURS DOLLARS COSTS COSTS APPROP PERCENT
81 RECREATION ADMIN.
811 GENERAL MANAGEMENT 2355.3 33762.30 18247.11 52009.41 35600.00 146.0
812 PARK ADMINISTRATION 18.0 382.74 .00 382.74 7119.00 5.3
815 RECREATION ADMINLSTR 1862.5 13314.94 .00 13314.94 56960.00 23.3
816 EDUCATION_ AOMINISTRA 276.5 2580.27 .00 2580.27 28480.00 9.0
817 SWIMMING ADMINISTRAT 134.5 1389.04 .00 1389.04 14241.00 9.7
988 OTHER PAY .0 1224.86 .00 1224.86 .00 .0
991 98.5 820.04 .00 820.04 .00 .0
992 119.5 1244.10 .00 1244.10 .00 .0
993 23.7 176.40 .00 176.40 .00 .0
DEPT TOTAL 4848.5 _ 54894.69 18247.11 73141.80 142400.CO 51.3
91 LNALLOCATED
DEPT TOTAL .0 .00 .00 .00 .00 0
FUND TOTAL 4888.5 54894.69 18247.11 73141.80 142400.CO 51.3
RUN DATE: 07/1U/65 PROGRAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE NO 8
CITY OF SHAKOFEE
12 FED. REVENUE SHARING 21ERSONAL SERVICES CCSTS OTHER TOTAL YTO
ON DEPARTMENT PROGRAM "OUR$ _ OOLLjkRS COSTS COSTS APPROP PERCENT
UO GENERAL FUND
DEPT TOTAL .0 .00 .00 .DO 301700.00 .0
FUND TOTAL .0 .00 .00 .00 3C1700.00 .0
RUN DATE: t,1/10/85 PROGRAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE NO 9
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
13 PARK RESERVE FUND PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTO
ON DEPARTMENT _.: PROGRAM_ ___ HOURS_-__.___DOLLARS COSTS _ _ COSTS APPROP PERCENT
00 GENERAL FUND
DEPT TUTAL .0 .00 .00 .00 17000.00 .0
19 NRA
1.98 HU_B_EI PARK T_RA_IL 1.0 14.49 .00 14.49 .00 .0
DEPT TOTAL 1.0 14.49 .00 14.49 .00 .0
41 ENGINEEFING 00 3654.61 3654.61
533 TAHPAH SEWER i W4 TER .D 00 .0
DEFT TOTAL .0 .00 3654.61 3654.61 .GO .0
62 BARKS
DEPT TOTAL .0 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0
FUND TOTAL 1.0 14.49 3654.61 3669.10 17000.00 21.5
ti
RUN DATE: 07/10/b5 PROGiAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE NC 10
CITY OF SMAKOPEE
14 TRANSIT 2ERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTG
ON DEPARTMENT PROGRAM 4OURSDOLLARS . _ COSTS COSTS AFFROP PERCENT
14 TRANSIT
141 TRANSIT 7.0 187.05 .00 187.05 .00 .0
142 DIAL-A-RIDE 166.8 1347.36 49958.79 51306.15 165005.CO 31.0
143 VAN 'OOL 194.2 1558.42 12778.79 14337.21 62475.00 22.9
DEPT TOTAL 368.0 31392.83 62737.58 65830.41 2i7480.CO 28.9
23 CABLE COMMUAICATIJNS
DEPT TOTAL .0 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0
91 UNALLOCATED
DEPT TuTAL .0 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0
FUND TOTAL 368.0 3092.83 62737.58 65830.41 227480.CO 28.9
RUN DATE: 67/10/n5 PROGRAM COSTS By DEPARTMENT PAGE NO 11
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
15 HRA PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTO
DN DEPARTMENT ._ PROGRAM _-_-- _ _ HOURS DOLLARS COSTS COSTS APPROP PERCENT
19 HRA
191 GENERAL MANAGEMENT 556.0 8817.77 2134.62 10952.39 24545.00 44.6
196 4TH B MINNESOTA 14.5 349.76 9.65 359,41 .00 .0
19T DOWNTOWN TAX INC.-9A .0 .00 18.85 18.85 .00 .0
199 RACETRACK 12.5 194.44 .00 194.44 .00 .0
988 OTHER PAY -- .0 - ------ 80.98 .00 80.98 .00 .0
991 80.5 1064.21 .00 1064.21 .00 .0
992 24.0 320.58 .00 320.58 .00 .0
993 2.0 26,44 .00 26.44 .00 .0
DEPT TGTAL 689.5 10854.18 2163.12 13017.30 24545.00 53.0
FUND TOTAL 689.5 10854.18 2163.12 13017,30 24545.00 53.0
L
RUN DATE: u7/10/85 PROGRAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE AC 12
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
16 CABLE PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTC
ON DEPARTMENT PROGRAM HOURS 001-L ARS ._ COSTS COSTS APPROP PERCENT
23 CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
231 GEN=4AL MANAGEMENT 333.0 3209.70 9065.22 12274.92 15375.00 79.8
DEPT TOTAL 333.0 3209.70 9065.22 12274.92 15375.00 79.8
91 LNALLOCATEO
DEPT TGTAL .0 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0
FUND TOTAL 333.0 3209.70 9065.22 12274.92 15375.00 79.8
RUN DATE: 07/10/85 PROGRAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE hO 13
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
17 CAF.EQUIP•REVOLVING PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTO
ON DEPARTMENT _ PROGRAM HOURS _ DOLLARS COSTS COSTS APFROP PERCENT
GQ GENERAL FUND
DEPT TOTAL .0 .00 .00 .00 166400.00 .0
41 ENGINEERING
DEPT TOTAL .0 .00 .00 .00 .CO .0
FUND TOTAL .0 .00 .00 .00 166400.00 .0
RUN DATE- U7/10/85 PROGRAM COSTS B7 DEPARTMENT PAGE NO 14
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
21 CAPITAL IMPROV: . FUN PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTO
DN DEPARTMENT _. _ PROGRAM HOURS _.._ .. DOLLARS . _ COSTS COSTS APPROP PERCENT
00 GENERAL FUND
000 GENERAL FUND .0 .00 21J34.75 21034.75 111000.00 18.9
DEPT TOTAL .0 .00 21034.75 21034.75 111000.00 18.9
41 ENGINEERING
529 ABANDOMED CMSPP R/R .0 .00 98.78 98.78 .00 .0
DEPT TOTAL .0 .00 98.78 98.78 .00 .0
FUND TOTAL .0 .00 21133.53 21133.53 111000.00 19.0
RUN DATE: 07/10/85 PROGiAP COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE KO 15
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
23 K-PART PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTD
ON DEPORTMENT _ _ ____ PROGRAM HOURS DOLLARS CCSTS COSTS APPROP PERCEKT
00 GENERAL FUND
000_ GENERAL FUND .0 .DO 2882.25 2882.25 .00 .0
DEPT TOTAL .0 .00 2882.25 2882,25 .00 .0
41 ENGINEERING
527 _ .O__._. _.__-_._-.----- 00 42.00 42.00 .00 .0
DEFT TOTAL .0 .00 42.00 42.00 .00 .0
FUND TOTAL .0 .00 2924.25 . 2924.25 .00 .0
RUN DATE: 07/10/85 PROGRAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE NO 16
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
26 00NNTOWN RE)EVELONEN PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL Y70
ON DEPARTMENT __- PROGRAM 14 CURS _ DOLLARS CCSTS COSTS APPROP PERCENT
00 GENERAL FUpO
DEPT TJTAL .0 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0
19 hRA
196 4TH 6 MINNESOTA .0 .00 3.59 3.59 .00 .0
197 DOWNTOWN TAX INC.-1A 515.0 6820.48 322.13 7142.61 195478.00 3.6
DEPT TOTAL 515.0 6820.48 325.72 7146.20 155478.00 3.6
FUND TOTAL 515.0 6820.48 325.72 7146.20 195478.00 3.6
RUN DATE: 07/10/85 PROGRAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE NO 17
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
27 RACETRACK PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL Y70
DN DEF4RTMENT _ PROGRAM MOURS _DOLLARS _ COSTS COSTS APPROP PERCENT
DO GENERAL FUND
000 GENERAL FUND .0 .00 1704.00 1704.00 .00 .0
DEPT TOTAL .0 .00 1704.00 1704.00 .00 .0
41 ENG INEERING
543 SH=NANDOAM .0 .00 9966.15 9966.15 591565.00 1.6
544 VALLEY PARK DR/12TM .0 .00 91819.45 91819.45 323193.00 28.4
546 101 INTERSECTIONS .0 .00 149020.84 149020.84 300761.00 49.5
547 CR 83/CURB/WIDENING .0 .00 162461.37 162461.37 128200.00 126.7
548 4TH AYE✓CR 83/SHENAN .0 .00 15487.68 15487.68 4E7113.00 3.3
DEPT TOTAL .0 .00 428755.49 428755.49 1810832.00 23.6
FUND TOTAL .0 .00 430459.49 430459.49 1810832.00 23.7
RUN DATE 07/10/05 PROGRAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE NO 18
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
28 BYFASS PERSONAL SERVICES CCSTS OTHER TOTAL YTD
DN DEPARTMENT __ __ ____. PROGRAM MCUR$___.__ .__DOLLARS COSTS COSTS APFROP PERCENT
41 EhGIyEERING
545 T.H. III BY-PASS ROW .0 .00 3305.16 3305.16 .00 .0
DEPT TOTAL .0 .00 3305.16 3305.16 .00 .0
FUND TOTAL _ ,0__ __ .00 _ 3305.16 3305,16 .00 .0
RUN DATE: 07/10/85 PROGRAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE NO 19
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
31 PB.SERV.BLDG. BONDS ;PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTD
ON DEPARTMENT _.._, PROGRAM HCURS ._ ._ DOLLARS COSTS COSTS APPROP PERCENT
00 SENERAL FUND
001 GENERAL FUND .0 .00 88235.25 88235.25 99200.00 88.9
DEPT TOTAL .0 .00 88235.25 88235.25 99200.00 88.9
FUND TOTAL .0 .00 88235.25 88235.25 99200.00 88.9
RUN DSTE: 07/10/aS PROGRAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE AO 20
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
36 SR.HI-RISE DEBT SERV PERSONAL SERYICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTO
ON DEPARTMENT PROGRAM HOURS __ DOLLARS _ COSTS COSTS APPROP PERCENT
00 GENERAL BUND
000 GENERAL FUND .0 .00 21788.80 21788.80 33255.00 65.5
DEP! TOTAL .0 .00 21188.80 21788.80 33255.00 65.5
FUND TOTAL _ _ .0 .00 21788.80 21788.80 33255.00 65.5
RUN DALE: 07/10/!i5 PROGRAM COSTS 8T DEPARTMENT PAGE AO 21
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
37 G.O. JUDGEMENT BONDS PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL >rT0
ON DEF4RTMEAT _ PROGRAM HOURS _____`__ DOLLARS _ COSTS COSTS APPROP PERCENT
7Q ;ENERAL FUND
000 GENERAL FUND .0 .00 57431.50 57431.50 65213.00 88.0
DEPT TOTAL .0 .00 57431.50 57431.50 65213.00 88.0
FUND TJTAL .0 .00 57431.50 57431.50 65213.00 88.0
RUN DATE: 07/10/415 PROGRAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE NO 22
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
38 RACETRACK BONDS PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTD
ON DEF,4RTYENT PROGRAM HOURS DOLLARS- _ COSTS COSTS AFFROP PERCENT
00 3ENERAL FUND
000 GENERAL FUND .0 .00 344644.97 344644.97 563400.00 61.1
DEFT T-JTAL .0 .00 344644.97 344644.97 563400.00 61.1
FUND TJTAL '0 .00 344644.97 344644.97 563400.00 61.1
1
RUN DATE: U//10/85 PROGIAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE NO 23
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
39 1985 SEWER 3ONDS PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTO
ON DEPARTMENT _ PROGRAM It OURS. DOLLARS _ COSTS COSTS APFROP PERCENT
U4 GENERAL FUND
00.0 GENERAL FUND .0 .00 400.00 400.00 .00 .0
DEFT TOTAL .0 .00 400.00 400.00 .00 .0
FUND TOTAL .0 .00 400.00 400.00 .00 .0
RUN D.1E: 07/10/85 PROGRAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE N0 24
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
45 72 IMPROVEMENT FUND PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTD
PN DLP;RTMENT PROGRAM MOURS DOLLARS COSTS COSTS APPROP PERCENT
DQ ;ENLi'AL FUND
000 GENERAL FUND .0 .00 3502.50 3502.50 6338.00 55.2
DEPI TOTAL .0 .00 3502.50 3502.50 6338.00 55.2
FUhO TOTAL .0 .00 3502.50 3502.50 6338.00 55.2
J U L 1 51985
RIDER, BENNETT, EGAN & ARUNDEOTYnF SHAKOPFf-
WILLIAM T. EGAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW KEVIN C. DOOLEY
EDWARD M. ARUNDEL MICHAEL D.TEWKSBURY
DONALD R. BACKSTROM 2500 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST JEANNE H. UNGER
DAVID F. FITZGERALD JOHN D. SAUNDERS
LARRY R. HENNEMAN MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 DAVID R. STRAND
JOHN P. FLATEN FRANK B. BENNETT
DAYTON E. SOB KEITH J. KERFELD
DAVID J. BYRON (612) 340-7951 BRIAN A.WOOD
RICHARD J. NYGAARD MATTHEW J. VALITCHKA
JOHN C. UNTHANK ANNB. BURNS
ALFRED SEDG WICK BARRY F. CLEGG
RITA E. LUKES DAVID M. BOLT
STEVEN J. KLUZ (gyp KAREN LEE PARK
RICHARD H. KROCHOCK July 12 , 1985 JEREMIAH P.BR ALLIVAN
G ENE C. OLSON
ROGER R. ROE, JR. PAUL R. HAIK
TIMOTHY R.THORNTON WRITERS DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
MARTHA M. SIMONETT
SCOTT K.GOLDSMITH
EDGAR H. REX,JR.
GREGORY M.WEYANDT
.ERIC J. MN
RONALD BB. 340-7922 GENE F. BENNETT
B. LALAHNER
JOHN B. LUNSETH II (1926-1983)
JOAN S. MORROW OF COUNSEL
GENE H. HENNIG STUART W. RIDER, JR.
LEWIS A. REMELE, JR. KENNETH R. JOHNSON
Mr. Eldon Reinke
Mayor of Shakopee
City Hall
129 E. First Avenue
Shakopee , Minnesota 55379
Re: Scott County Lumber and Bert Notermann
Application for Conditional Use Pit
Permit and Gravel Extraction Permit
Dear Mayor Reinke:
Thank you again for providing my clients with the opportunity to
make a presentation before the Shakopee City Council on July 9 ,
1985. We hope that the information presented to you will assist
in the decision that the City Council will make.
Since the hearing, however, something disturbing has come to our
attention. In reviewing a Petition in Opposition to the Gravel
Extraction Permit, we found that Rod Krass , 1257 27th Street
signed the Petition. Thus the Assistant City Attorney who is now
giving advice to the City Council regarding this application is
on record in opposition to the gravel operation. We believe this
presents a conflict of interest, and will impair Mr. Krass '
ability to provide objective legal advice to the City.
We call this to your attention, and request the City secure legal
counsel who has not already taken a position regarding action on
this gravel permit.
Sin ,
TRT/ks / �imothy �R. hornton
cc: City Council✓
R. Krass
P.S. For your information, I enclose a copy of the page of the
petition signed by Krass and apparently his wife and daughter.
We hereby object to the location of a gravel pit on 11j ,11mAy 83 nk-,tr L.hu S-OuLh
corner of its junction with County Road 16 within thcl City of Shal-'-)pee and request
.and petition that no waiver be issued to CilIOW USC Of tl-,(-' 1,111d 1-1!-: (Jravul. (-n- sand
operation of any nature .
PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE :AGE I .110ME ADDRESS j COM14ENTS
73- e-drac
Tz' PIs �� _ _ _ _.____ _ ,� . -_ _. __ �"� __ ��?��� . _ __. _____.__
Iv k
t 1� � �« J b �7 f�1 I�C4 1
Vicitt.; -77
'd
.. ........
C J A&C-Q
Law Offices of ,N
KRASS, MEYER & WALSTEN
Chartered N r
Suite 300
Marschall Road Business Center Phillip R. Krass Paralegals
327 South Marschall Road Barry K. Meyer Barbara J.Hedstrom
P.O Box 216 Trevor R. Walsten Jolene R.Wagner
Shakopee. Minnesota 55379 Elizabeth B. McLaughlin Lori A.Wermerakirchen
(612)445-5080 Susan L. Estill Shelly T.Felsing
Of Counsel Office Manager
Dennis L. Monroe Wanda Breimhorst
July 16, 1985
Mr. Timothy R. Thornton
Attorney at Law
2500 First Bank Place West
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Re: Scott County Lumber and Bert Notermann
Application for Conditional Use Permit
Permit and Gravel Extraction Permit
Dear Mr. Thornton:
Thank you for your letter of July 12, 1985 with reference to the
above-noted Conditional Use Permit.
Several months ago a neighbor did in fact bring the petition you
refer to to our home with a request that we sign it. I personally did not
speak with the neighbor and the petition was left with my wife. As you can
see, I did in fact sign it.
I had in fact forgotten the petition until the day before the public
hearing when reviewing Judi Simac's most recent memorandum I saw that it
included a reference to that petition and remembered I had signed it. I
immediately contacted the City Administrator and talked to him and to the
Mayor about the situation. They in turn contacted the League of Minnesota
Cities and talked to its Chief Attorney Stanley Peskar. Mr. Peskar's advise
was that my signature presented no conflict to the City. The Mayor asked me
if I felt capable of advising the City in a professional manner and I informed
him that I could do so and further informed him that I had discussed this
application with no person outside of City staff.
The advise I give the City will be based exclusively on my knowledge
and understanding of the law and facts in this case and in accordance with the
directions the Mayor and Council give me.
Very truly yours,
KRASS, MEYER & WALSTEN CHARTERED
Phillip R. Krass
PRK:mj
File No. 1-1373-177
cc : Mr. John Anderson
Mayor and City Council
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judi Simac, City Planner
RE: Preliminary Plat Approval of Notermann' s 2nd Addition
DATE: July 12 , 1985
Introduction•
At their July 11, 1985 meeting the Planning Commission
approved a motion to recommend to the City Council that the
Preliminary Plat of Notermann' s 2nd Addition be approved subject
to conditions.
Background•
Please find attached a copy of the staff report and the
proposed plat. (The plat is a replat of lots 1-12 , B 8 , Koeper
Addition) . The applicant has stated that the park dedication
(Riverview Park) has already been made for the land included
in the plat. Staff research indicates that the Riverview Park
dedication was made in the plat of Husman Addn. ; therefore park
dedication fees should be paid at time of building permit issuance.
Recommendation:
Approval of 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 futher 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 recommended action.
Attachment
cc: Joe Notermann
Bill Engelhardt
tw
MEMO TO: Shakopee Planning Commission D
FROM: Judi Simac , City Planner
DATE: July 5 , 1985
APPLICANT: Joe Notermann
LOCATION: Lots 1-12 , Block 8 Koeper Addition
(4th Avenue and Adams St )
ZONING: R-3 Mid Density Residential
LAND USE: Vacant
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Chapter 12 Subdvision Regs ;
Section 11 . 27
FINDINGS REQUIRED: Section 12.04, Section 12 . 07 ;
Section 12.01 , Subd. 4
PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting preliminary plat
approval of Notermann' s 2nd Addition, which is a
replat of Lots 1-12 , Block 8 Koeper Addn.
SURROUNDING LAND USES: North - multiple residential
East - public
South - urban residential
West - public
PUBLIC UTILITIES: Water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer are
available
CONSIDERATIONS:
1 . The plat consists of four lots approximately 22 ,00 sq. ft .
in area which are proposed to be developed with four unit
townhouses . The minimum lot width is 100 feet therefore
a variance from this requirement is being requested.
2. The alley in Block 8 of Koeper ' s Addn. has been vacated.
3 . The proposed plat is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Plan.
4. All drainage and utility easements must be ten- feet in
width-.
5 . Lot 4, as a corner lot, may be difficult to develop a
four unit structure upon because of the 35 foot front
yard setback from Adams and .Fourth. The applicant should
indicate how that particular lot can be developed. -
6 . Special assessments on the parcel must be reapportioned to
the lots .
7 . A park dedication fee was never collected from the previous
plat; therefore payment should be made at time of building
permit application.
8 . Because of the multi-family development and the existing
. public park to the West , sidewalks should be installed
along Fourth Avenue.
9 . The Fire Chief has reviewed and approved the plat.
10. Road construction is required where the plat abuts 4th Ave.
The City Engineer has indicated that the developer is
responsible for placing objectional fill in Fourth Avenue .
The subgrade correction will increase road construction
costs , of which the developer should be responsible .
Construction of Adams Street cannot be required in light
of the City Street rehabilitation policy which provides
for side lot lines not to be assessed when there is
existing platted property.
11 . The area is within West Side Storm Sewer District and was
assessed for laterial benefit
Joe Notermann
July 5 , 1985
Page -2-
12 . All services to the lots must be installed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of 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.
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 SPDC 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 recommend to the City Council , Preliminary Plat
approval of Notermann' s 2nd Addition subject to conditions .
JS : cah
cc : Joe Notermann
Bill Engelhardt
IJ
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judi Simac, City Planner
RE: Preliminary and Final Plat Approval of Palace 1st
Addition
DATE: July 12 , 1985
Introduction-
At their July 11, 1985 meeting, the Planning Commission
approved a motion to recommend to the City Council preliminary
and final plat approval of Palace 1st Addition, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney.
2 . The plat name be changed to Palace 1st Addition.
3 . Execution of a Developer ' s agreement to provide for:
a) Park Dedication - payment to the park fund at
time of . building permit issuance, in lieu of
land dedication.
b) Assessments - the developer shall agree to the
City Engineer ' s method of apportioning the install-
ments remaining unpaid against the plat and the
developer waives his right to appealing the appor-
tionment.
c ) Drainage —approval of the final drainage plan
of Lot 1 by the City Engineer.
d) Easements - dedication of twenty foot utility
and drainage easements around the perimeter of
each lot.
4 . Outlot - Lot 2 shall be an undevelopable outlot which
-must be replatted before a building permit will be
issued.
Background:
Please find attached a copy of the proposed plat, staff
report, and Resolution of Approval. A significant item of consid-
eration, which is not fully addressed in the report, is the
fact that the City Engineer has only approved the final drainage
report for Lot 1 and recommends that the conditions of approval
identify Lot 2 as undevelopable at this time. Therefore Lot
2 should be shown as an Outlot which will have to be replatted
before a building permit will be issued.
Action Reauested:
1) Offer a motion to approve the preliminary plat of Palace
1st Addition and move for its adoption.
2 ) Offer Resolution No. 2417 , A Resolution Approving the final
plat of Palace 1st Addition, and move for its adoption.
Attachments
cc: Rosenberg/Brandi
tw
RESOLUTION NO. 2417
A Resolution approving the Final Plat of
Palace 1st Addition
WHEREAS , the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did
approve the preliminary and final plat of Palace lst Addition on
July 11 , 1985 ; and
WHEREAS , all notices of hearing have been duly sent and posted
and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given an oppor-
tunity to be heard thereon; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has been fully advised in all things.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA,
that the final plat of Palace 1st Addition, described as follows:
The West 900 . 00 feet of the Southwest Quarter of Section 2 ,
Township 115 , Range 22 , lying Southerly of the Southerly right-
of-way line of State Highway No. 101, and lying Northerly of the
Northerly right-of-way of the Chicago, St. Paul , Minneapolis , and
Omaha Railroad. . Excepting therefrom the West 600 . 00 feet thereof ;
be and the same hereby is approved and adopted with the requirements
that:
1. Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney.
2 . The plat name be changed to Palace 1st Addition.
3 . Execution of a Developer ' s Agreement to provide for:
a) Park Dedication - payment to the park fund at time
of building permit issuance, in lieu of land dedication.
b) Assessments - the developer shall agree to the City
Engineer ' s method of apportioning the installments
remaining unpaid against the plat and the developer
waives his right to appealing the apportionment.
c ) Drainage approval of the final drainage .plan of
- Lot 1 by the City Engineer.
d) Easements - dedication of twenty foot utility and
drainage easements around the perimeter of each lot .
4 ) outlot - Lot 2 shall be an undevelopable outlot
which must be replatted before a building permit
will be issued.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk be and
the same are hereby authorized and directed to execute said
approval Plat and Developer ' s Agreement.
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 1985
City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 2417
A Resolution approving the Final Plat of
Palace 1st Addition
WHEREAS , the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did
approve the preliminary and final plat of Palace 1st Addition on
July 11 , 1985 ; and
WHEREAS , all notices of hearing have been duly sent and posted
and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given an oppor-
tunity to be heard thereon; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has been fully advised in all things.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. BY THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA,
that the final plat of Palace 1st Addition, described as follows:
The West 900 . 00 feet of the Southwest Quarter of Section 2 ,
Township 115, Range 22 , lying Southerly of the Southerly right-
of-way line of State Highway No. 101, and lying Northerly of the
Northerly right-of-way of the Chicago , St. Paul , Minneapolis , and
Omaha Railroad. Excepting therefrom the West 600 . 00 feet thereof;
be and the same hereby is approved and adopted with the requirements
that:
1. Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney.
2. The plat name be changed to Palace 1st Addition.
3 . Execution of a Developer ' s Agreement to provide for:
a ) Park Dedication - payment to the park fund at time
of building permit issuance, in lieu of land dedication.
b) Assessments - the developer shall agree to the City
Engineer' s method of apportioning the installments
remaining unpaid against the plat and the developer
waives his right to appealing the apportionment.
c ) Drainage - approval of the final drainage plan of
Lot 1 by the City- Engineer .
d) Easements - dedication of twenty foot utility and
drainage easements around the perimeter of each lot.
4 ) Out-lot - Lot 2 shall be an undevelopable outlot
which must be repiatted before a building permit
W' 11 be issued.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk be and
the same are hereby authorized and directed to execute said
approval Plat and Developer ' s Agreement.
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 1985
City Attorney
7 . The Finance Department indicates that there are special
assessment balances of $2 , 106 .85 against the parcel .
8 . The Fire Chief and Police Chief have recommended approval
of the plat.
9 . The drainage report has preliminary approval and is being
reviewed .
Recommendation
Staff recommends preliminary and final plat approval subject
to the following conditions :
1 . Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney .
2 . The plat named be changed to Palace 1st Addition .
3 . Execution of a Developer ' s Agreement to provide for :
A) Park Dedication - payment to park fund a time of building
permit application, in lieu of land dedication.
B) Assessments the developer shall agree to the City
Engineers method of apportioning the installments
remaining unpaid against the plat and the developer
waives his right to appealing the apportionment.
C) Drainage - Approval of final drainage plan by the
City Engineerl
D) Easements - dedication of twenty foot utility and
drainage easements around the perimeter of each lot.
Action Requested:
Motion to recommend to the City Council preliminary and
final plat approval of Palace 1st Addn. , subject to conditions.
-cc : Rosenberg/Brandt
Sikich-Suburban Eng. Inc.
tw
MEMO TO: Shakopee Planning Commission
FROM: Judi Simac , City Planner
DATE: July 9 , 1985
APPLICANT: Sandra Rosenberg/Richard Brandl
LOCATION : SW 1 /4 of Section 2 , TWP 115 , R 22 ; S of Hwy 101
and East of J. I. Case
ZONING : B-1 Highway Business
LAND USE : Existing - Vacant ; Proposed - Class II Restaurant
and Nightclub
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 12 Subdivision Regulations
FINDINGS REQUIRED: Section 12 .01 , Subd . 4 ; Section 12 . 04 thru
12.07
PROPOSAL : The applicant is requesting preliminary and final
plat approval of Palace 1st Addition
SURROUNDING LAND USES: North : State Highway 101 and vacant
Ag Land
East: Raceway Park
South: Chicago & NW RR and vacant industrial
West: J. I. Case Co.
PUBLIC UTILITIES: Sanitary Sewer and Water Available
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Land Use Plan indicates Heavy Industrial
Use of the land
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The applicants are requesting preliminary and final plat
approval in order to develop Lot 1 of the proposed addition
as a restaurant/nightclub facility.
2. The proposed two lots meet the lot requirements of the
B-1 District, however Lot 2 is a flag lot which increases
the potential need for the construction of road and utilities
to the southern portion of the plat. The future development
of lot 2 is uncertain at this time , however the parcel
could be replatted in the future by providing 60 ' of R-O-W
through the center to the southern portion. This should
be taken into consideration with the siting of a building
on Lot 2.
3 . Twenty foot utility and drainage easements are required
around the perimeter of each lot.
4 . The property is served by the State Hwy 101 frontage road.
The Mn Dept. of Transportation has been requested to review
the plat, but have not yet responded. When the Case Addn.
was platted the state required entrance -permit approvals.
5 . Two existing twenty five foot utility and drainage easements
are located along the northern portion of the plat, where
the existing utilities are located.
6 . In lieu of land dedication , a contribution to the park
fund , to be made at bolding permit issuance, shall meet
the Public Sites and Open Spaces requirements.
C/ �l
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judi Simac , City Planner
RE: Application for Zoning Amendment by Baron Development
Corp.
DATE: July 12 , 1985
Introduction:
At their July 11, 1985 meeting the Planning Commission
approved a motion to recommend to the City Council that the
request for rezoning, from I-2 to B-2 , by the Baron Development
Corporation, be denied for the reason that it is a request for
spot zoning.
Background:
Please find attached the following items which are pertinent
to the rezoning request:
1.. City Planner'-s memo to the Planning Commission dated 7-5-85.
2. City Administrator' s memo dated 6-27-85 re: Sewer Allocation
(Note: the Planning Commission took no . action, as requested
for the reason that the policy issues require a separate
public hearing)
3 . Asst City Attorney' s opinion re: zoning decisions
4 . Memo to the Planning Commission from Walter Rockenstein
II , counsel for the applicant.
5 . Response to transportation issues by R. Wolsteld, P.E. ,
BRW
6 . Letter to the Planning Commission dated 7-11-85 from Scottland
Inc.
7 . Submitted site development plan.
(Due to time restraints, the minutes of the meeting are
not yet available. )
Recommendation
Staff recommends that when the Council adopts a motion,
whether for approval or denial, that they include in the motion
findings upon which. the decision is being made. For example,
the code specifically states in Section 11. 04 , Subd. 7 , I decisions on
amendments shall be based on criteria or findings including
but not limited to:
i ) The original zoning ordinance is in error.
2 ) Significant changes in community goals and policies
have taken place.
3 ) Significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood devel-
opment patterns have occurred.
4) Implementing the Comprehensive Plan' s growth management
program.
Other findings related to the protection and promotion of the
public health, safety and general welfare; including transportation
systems , public utilities, protection of real property values
and compatiblity of land uses can be determined.
Action Requested:
Offer a motion to approve or deny the request for a zoning
amendment by the Baron Development Corp. , and move for its adoption.
Attachments
cc: R.M. Behringer
Walter Rockenstein II
Richard A. Heise, AIA
tw
r. .
MEMO TO: Shakopee Planning Commission
FROM: Judi Simac, City Planner G
RE: Request for Rezoning by Baron Development Corp.
DATE: July 5 , 1985
Introduction
At the June 6 , 1985 meeting the applicant requested a continuation
of the public hearing in order that several of the issues raised
could be addressed. At that meeting the Planning Commission
also directed staff to research legal issues, comprehensive
sewer allocations, ownership of adjacent parcels of property,
etc. Please find attached the following:
i. Response to sewer allocation by the City Administrator.
1. Response to the zoning/land use questions by Baron Development
Corp.
s . Map of property owners between Hwy 101 and CR 16 .
4. Response to Zoning Amendments by Scottland, Inc.
A response by the Asst. City Attorney to the legal questions
raised by the Planning Commission has already been distributed.
Background
Staff has received letters from representatives of the following
companies, all of which are in opposition of rezoning in the
industrial park: Certainteed, K-mart, Pouliot Designs , Anchor
Glass, Ashland Chemical, and Fremont.
In regard to the question of whether an application for Planned
Unit Development -was required at the time of rezoning, the answer
is no. City Code only requires rezoning and subdivision requests
to be considered concurrently. The applicant is not required
to plat in order to develop, however because the development
includes more than one building on a lot, a conditional use
for a planned unit development will be required.
Previously the Planning Commission and Council have consideree
alternatives that would address the development impact of the
Racetrack. The consensus of a joint discussion was to consider
rezoning requests on a case by case basis. It became obvious
that most requests would involve the issue of spot zoning.
The opinion of the Asst. City Attorney does not indicate that
there is any clear cut case which defines spot zoning.
. If the Planning Commission -and City Council have any desire
to consider another zoning district other than industrial, in
the area of the Racetrack, then it is the recommendation of
the Asst. City Attorney, Rod Krass and myself that you consider
the designation of a Racetrack Development Zone.
The purpose of creating a Racetrack Development Zone would be
to identify uses that would be compatible with both Canterbury
Downs and the neighboring industrial uses. This district, which
could only be developed through the P.U.D. process would address
buffering between conflicting uses, developments complementary
to the Racetrack, density, public facilities, performance standards
and developer agreements. The designation of such a district
also provides a means for not having to deal with the spot zoning
issue.
Should the Planning Commission and City Council choose to pursue
this alternative, it would be a valid reason to deny the existing
rezoning applications. Staff estimates that it would take approxi-
mately 30 to 45 days to establish a new district. Once the
district is adopted, those interested in development in the
area could pursue rezoning through this classification.
Recommendation
The recommendation of staff has not changed in concept; that
the proposal is a compatible land use, there has been a significant
change in the community and there are no physical or technical
reasons why the development wouldn ' t work. However to avoid
spot zoning issue and address the .developmental impact of the
Racetrack, staff recommends that consideration be given to the
concept of a Racetrack Development Zone.
Action Requested
Motion to recommend approval or denial to the City Council.
]s
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
Planning Commission `6
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Sanitary Sewer Allocation Under the Comp Plan
DATE: June 27 , 1985
Introduction
At the May 9 , 1985 Planning Commission meeting, Planning Commission
requested that the City Engineer outline the policies , and procedures
the City uses in reallocating the 2 , 000 gallons per day per
acre sewer allocation for commercial industrial property from
one parcel to another. This request was a result of the rezoning
application by Baron Development Corporation which proposed
a commercial use of land formally zoned industrial with a sanitary
sewer allocation of 2,000 gallons per day per acre.
Background
The City of Shakopee, in obtaining approval of its comprehensive
plan in early 1981 , developed a relatively unique agreement
with the Met Council regarding sewer allocations. The City
of Shakopee was able to enlarge the total number of acres zoned
industrial by agreeing with the Met Council to regulate the
"average" sewer flow per acre to 1 ,000 per day. This agreement
was based upon the City' s development history which indicated
that slightly less than 1, 000 gallons per day per acre was consumed
by the industries that now reside in the Industrial Park.
Since the approval of the Comprehensive Plan in 1981 the City
has monitored the sanitary sewer flow requirements through the
building permit process. Each building permit applicant is
required to compute the anticipated sewer flow and incorporate
those statistics in its building permit application. These
computations are known to most citizens as SAC charges ( sewer
availability charges ) . Based upon the building permits taken
out since 1981 the City has maintained its earlier history of
having new development that requires less than 1 , 000 gallons
per day- per acre. A recent example of an extreme case was Canterbury-
Downs. The project included approximately 390 acres and will
use less than 630 .gallons per day per acre. on the land originally
in the urban service area ( 233 of the 390 acre total) .
Policy Questions
Several questions have arisen because of the Canterbury Downs
development and the fact that the owner owns significant amounts
of other land in the industrial park. These questions have
been informally discussed by staff members but have not been
put forward to Planning Commission or Council before now.
Policy Question 1 . Does a property owner own the sewer allocation?
Scottland Corporation has suggested it has the first right to
the excess capacity, the additional 370 gallons. per acre for
233 acres to shift to other Scottland properties not yet developed.
Policy Question 2. Does the City have a pool of sewer allocation( s )
to use at its discretion? The more recently policy question
generated by the Baron Development rezoning application is ,
does the City have a pool of unused sewer allocation from earlier
developments that could be somehow credited to the sewer demands
from a commercial development after a rezoning; when the sewer
demand would far exceed at 3000 gallon per day per acre the
planned industrial allocation of 1 , 000 gallons per day per acre
(note the 1, 000 figure is the City of Shakopee figure while
the 2, 000 figure is the Met Council norm) .
Policy Question 3 . Must a City limit development by keeping
sewer flow at or below the "planned" Comprehensive Plans ' s per
acre rate on a project by project basis? Or, can the City permit
a development like the Baron Development which consumes more
than the City' s planned 1, 000 gallons per acre per day if it
means reducing the allocation on other existing land in Shakopee?
I have checked with numerous cities in the metropolitan area
that are experiencing growth and none of those cities keep a
balance sheet on sewer flow as development occurs. This means
that they do not systematically consider each development to
insure that their net sewer flow is at a specified level approved
in their comprehensive plan. I also checked with the Metropolitan
Council and learned that this practice is the norm. Shakopee ' s
plan calls for 1 , 000 gallons per day per acre and we, on our
own, made that commitment firmer than is normally required to
include more industrial property in our comprehensive plan.
Other than normal five year plan adjustments or amendments ,
the Metropolitan Council does not expect us to keep a running
tabulation of each development as it occurs so that we are netting
a maximum of 1 , 000 gallons per day per acre in sewer flow for
our industrial park. What does this mean?
It means that the City can take a longer term approach in its
administration of sewer allocations. It need not take each
development as it comes and obtain a net of 1 , 000 gallons in
sewer flow per acre per day. Thus, as long as the -City is com-
fortable being substantially below the 1 , 000 gallons per day
per acre allocation based upon development history over the
past five years it can absorb one or two project that consume
more than 1 , 000 gallons per day per acre. This can happen on
a first come first serve basis or the City can work out some
allocation formula.
An allocation formula might credit all development below the
1 , 000 gallons per day per acre to a ledger controlled by the
City. Such a policy would address the Scottland question directly
by denying that "planned" sewer capacity is privately owned.
it can officially note alternative No. 1 and also require that
the developer do as much conservation as possible under alternative
No. 3 .
Action Requested
I. Pass a motion that would establish a policy that the City
will manage all "planned" per acre sewer allocations in
the Comprehensive Plan, and that "planned" allocation is
not owned by private property owners.
Z. Pass a motion including a statement in the Commission' s
recorded deliberation of the Baron Development rezoning
proposal that the development does not create a sewer alloca-
tion problem based upon the Comprehensive Plan' s "planned"
per acre allocation.
JKA/jms
C�
That is , the City could take the excess capacity generated by
the Canterbury Downs development and use it for other development
or it could credit other parcels owned by Scottland Corporation
with the additional sewer flow as it deems in the best interest
of the City. If the City allowed private ownership of "planned"
allocation then any development on Scottland parcels exceeding
the 1, 000 gallons per day per acre would have to be subtracted
from all remaining Scottland parcels. In fact, we would probably
have to require Scottland to identify those parcels which would
lose sewer allocation. If a policy like this were adopted it
would work to the benefit of large land owners controlling several
parcels and to the disadvantage of smaller land owners who would
have to rely on a City pool of excess sanitary sewer capacity.
Alternatives for the Immediate Issue Presented by the Proposed
Baron Development
1. List the specific parcel what would loose its sewer allocation,
or parcels with reduced sewer allocation, to compensate
for the Baron development. Staff calculated the acreage
from Baron and the cemetary adjacent to the K.C. Hall which
will never develop a sewer flow. They are both 10 acres
(rounded to nearest acre) so the City can "allocate" the
cemetary' s 10 acres x 2000 gallons per day to the Baron' s
10 acres to obtain their needed 3000 gallon per day per
acre.
2. The City can keep its own City wide development list with
a net sewer flowage and okey the Baron development based
upon the net which is below 1000 gallons per acre. Based
upon historical usage this "should" create no problem.
It would be similar to the City okey a wet industry that
consumed more than 1000 gallons/acre/day.
3 . Require the developer to reduce the project ' s projected
flow through water conservation methods. This is used.
by some cities when- circumstances dictate (e.g. they don' t
have the physical pipe capacity) .
4. Deny the rezoning request based upon the Developer ' s proposed
use of three times the "planned" sewer allocation. This
would be a first for Shakopee and would create a precedent
that I feel most land owners will find very restrictive.
It might also send the wrong message to potential developers
that we have sewer allocation "problems" .
3. Some combination of 1-4 above.
Recommendation
I recommend alternative No. 2 for the reasons listed above.
If Planning Commission feels they would like more assurance
it can officially note alternative No. 1 and also require that
the developer do as much conservation as possible under alternative
Law Offices of
KRASS, MEYER & WALSTEN k
Chartered _ "r
Suite 300
Marschall Road Business Center
327 South Marscnall Road ' "'- ~' —�- Phillip R. Krass Paraiapalebara J.heostrom
Barry K. Meyer Bar
P.O. Box sot Trevor R. Walsten
Snakopee. Minnesota 55379 Jolene R.Wapner
(612)445-50800 Elizabeth B. McLaughlin Lori A.Wermerskirchen
Susan L. Estill
- Shelly T.Felsmg
Of Counsel Office Manager
Dennis L. Monroe Wanaa Breimhorai
June 24, 1985
Ms. Judy Simac
City Planner
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Judy:
Enclosed please find the answers to your questions regarding zoning.
Question No. 1: What is spot zoning and can a specific number of
acres be determined to be acceptable as not a spot zone? (ex. over 40 acres
okay, under not).
Ordinarily, the term "spot zoning" is used to denote an amendment to
a municipal zoning law reclassifying one or more lots or parcels of land for
use out of harmony with the classification of the surrounding areas and
without regard to the public welfare. McQuillan Minn. Corp. 3 ed. The
Minnesota Supreme Court defined "spot zoning" in the case of State, by
Rochester Association, Etc. v. The Citv of Rochester, 268 N.W.2d 885 (Minn.
1978):
"Spot zoning" is a label applied to certain zoning amendments
invalidated as legislative acts unsupported by any rational basis
related to promoting public welfare. The term applies to zoning
changes, typically limited to small plats of land, .which establish a
.use classification inconsistent with surrounding uses and create an
island of nonconforming use within a larger zoned district, and which
dramatically reduce the value for uses specified in the zoning
ordinance of either the rezoning plat or abutting property.
Rochester at 891.
While the term "spot zoning" may not necessarily be confined to small
areas or lots, the cases in which the courts have struck down rezoning
ordinances as spot zoning have involved single lots or small areas. Singling
out one lot or small area for different treatment from that accorded to
similar surrounding land indistinguishable from it in character, for the
economic benefit of the owner of that lot or to his economic detriment, would
constitute invalid spot zoning. However, where the city council or other
legislative body based their rezoning on a rational basis designed to further
the general welfare of the public, i.e. where the rezoning bears substantial
relation to the public safety, health, morals, welfare or other object within
the police power, the zoning regulation would not be illegal as spot zoning,
regardless of the size of the lot,
Ms. Judy Simac
Page Two
June 24, 1985
Question Number 2: The city code requires a planning commission to
make a written recommendation on the rezoning request within 60 days of
receipt of the application, unless the applicant requests an extension of
time. However, there is no specific time requirement on the decision when an
extension is requested. What is an acceptable time period for continuation?
Answer: A review of the case law and statutes reveals that an
acceptable .time period for continuation is a "reasonable" time. Although the
term "reasonable" is vague, in this instance to be reasonable the extension
would probably have to be less than an additional 60 days. At the time the
extension is requested the applicant and the planning commission should decide
on the length of the extension, limiting it to a maximum of 60 days.
Question Number 3: City code's section 11.32 and 11.33 list as
conditional uses, motels and tourist accomodations, automotive service
stations, restaurants and supper clubs, drive-in establishments and open sales
lots, when abutting a state highway. The question is if the railroad
right-of-way or local street right-of-way exists between a subject parcel and
a state highway, can subject parcel owner claim that he is abutting the state
highway?
Answer: Probably not, no case law could be found which discusses the
use of the term "abutting" in a zoning ordinance. However, cases involving
public improvement assessment do provide some guidance. The term "abut"
literally means an actual coming together. The term "abutting" implies a
closer proximity than the term "adjacent". "Abutting property" implies that
there is no intervening land between the parcels of property in question. A
railroad right-of-way or a local street right-of-way would be intervening land
between the subject parcel and the state highway, therefore, the subject
parcel would not be abutting property and thus, not eligible for a conditional
use permit.
Question No. 4: If one so called "spot rezoning" is granted, does
this prevent the city from denying any other rezoning request which is also a
spot zoning?
Answer: As mentioned earlier, any spot zoning is invalid. However,
the city would be able to rezone one lot or area of property and deny rezoning
for another lot, as long as the legislative bodies' reasoning was rationally
related to the general welfare of the public.
Question No. 5: The planning commission is interested in options
which would guarantee that if a property was rezoned for a specific proposal,
that is what the city would get. For example, could the applicant record an
agreement if it states zoning could be reversed if it failed to develop a
project that they had presented to the planning commission and council. Also,
could the agreement be specific on time, such as within 6 months or one year?
Ms. Judy Simac
Page Three
June 24, 1985
Answer: One option which gives a planning commission tighter rein
over what is developed on a particular parcel of land is called a "Planned
Development" designation. Planned Development is a form of zoning. It gives
the council or commission the power to review and approve all plans in a
certain development. As to whether Planned Development is appropriate for any
given rezoning request depends on the circumstances of that particular case.
A full discussion of Planned Development zoning is beyond the scope of this
memo. I will be happy to provide further information on Planned Development
zoning and answer any further questions you may have at your request.
I hope this rather brief discussion of your questions is helpful. If
I can be of further assistance, please contact me.
Yours very truly,
BUSS, K= & WALSTEN CHARTERED
Phi lip R. Krass
PRK/ln/eg
FAEGRE & BENSON � e"
GEORGE D.MCCLINTOCK THOMAS L..-ER JAMES A.OWN EAL JEFF M. j.K„ANO
RO DGER L NOROBYE W05EPH PRICE ELIZABETH L.TAY LOR DOUGLAS J. EFFERNAN
GEORGE E.HAROING SMITH SNAP PE.JR. SALLY A H.
RHNSON MEGNAN H KI NT2ING T
JOHN S.HOLTEN P ILIP S.GABON 2300 MULTIFOODS TOWER ALTER H OCKENSTEIN II JENNIFER R.NEWALDT
RG.
ALAN Cu....G.A. JOHN F.BEUKEMA BORBERT L.COLLINS DAVID UN
III
w.OEA L LKE W;MTLR J.DUFFY.JR. UCE M.LNGLER THOR MAS P.SCH NETTLER
ES P.STEFFY.J . SUSAN L JACOB SON A Y ERRDZI NO
JAMES GERALDAT HFLOM REI. CAP BON 33 SOUTH SIXTH STREET WALTER i..PI MKHAROT MARY
c.w
CHARLES L HORN A.DAVID KELLY DONAL. C.5 EPARD ANDERSON
JACK D.GL6E JOHN K.SK
FFEN wENDY J wILO UN. ..Y M.BACK MAN
PETER W.AN SON JOHN B.GOROON SCOTT W.J SON RK 0... B4O
JAMES .A.S URICE THO HAs M.MAYERLE MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-3694 MEs ..o'coN NOR MELISSA WL ECLENAHAN
GOUNG
ADON G.BUs DICKER OMAS G.MORGAN MAR TRIP T.0 PATRICK C.I E
JOHN D.FRENCH EDWARD G HEILMAN DIANE O.STOC E WN JA
RONALD B.HEH3TAD JOHN H INDERAKER EL,
CORE ELLVANG BRUCE C WINE
NORMAN R.CARPENTER PC-- L.SCHNELL.JR. 612/371-5300 ",C AEL S.FROST SCOTT P.RO RAWE
MAWTENCE C.BROWN RIRC HARD A NELSON J ES L.VO LU . CAROEL.AL
.ENRICH
BURKE - IAN B.O'NEI LL RICHARD K.BAUMAN KAREN H HLARN
JOHN EIN. RR13 BHOMAS J MOORE• TELEX 425131 SNELLEY A B TZ wIAURICE FEN MOEFFLER
PAULRK ELAND MICHAEL E.MURPHY SUSAN K STEVEN L.SEVERSON
DAVIDTMBB EAOIE _JOHN O.RSHIVELv GERARD MFU OLTING Av 1
DAVID R BRENNAN WILLIAM .BU3CH.JR. M CHAEL ,.3TE WART CALRVINAL LiTSE.G
RICHARD C.SCHMOK ERR BENRYC F�FRISC MNG
DAVID M NEER HA DAVID —MOREHOUSE
H DOW AS M CROSBY,J IMOTHY J LL IAMSAR LI NN _I RUSCH
G B.GARTNER,JR. N n.LEBEDOFF- PETER J W HIOFF CY IA NATTIN
JA;ES SL LOKEN NTIROF A.ROCKWELL - MARIAN BRA
L .00TCN I CKNM ,..,ROCKWELL
;EVEN NR AN OREW5O3 NANCVCG.AETZwILER AN
D UAN ERw KR...KE JOHN S.UAGIE LA _ ISTIN A.SIEG ESM U NO HAZEN GRAVES
GEORGE w FLYNN STEVEN C.SCHROER HOWARD J.BERGMAN MARv A.HE CK
MES A.DF EHOLM JOHN BORDER - ROBERT w ULTON IC NAEN KA VOU KJIAN
ORCIER HEIDI M.HO„RD SUSAN GOO DU ICHR DOUGLAS P.LONG
JwM ESTMV SAMPLES R CHARD A ELDE - JENNINER LE CHRISTINE O. ERRIMAN
ALE E.'B^EIHOFFER STEVE W..ASKIN3 TIMOTHY
ROBERT C.HENTG ES SCHUPP DIANA YOUNG MORRISS EY
GALL W.SNIDER SATEVEN R.ANDERSON 3380 REPUBLIC PLAZA CHARLES E�LNDERBRINK ARRI K ARD
NDRIK DE JONG O.CHRIST IANSEN DANIEL G. I CZEK V LEpIE M WELCH
F TE PH EN aosHOLT THA aLEs s—MILLER 370 SEVENTEENTH STREET CHARLES
AMY B. ROM AH KS,JR.
K B.BUTLER VID B. LL - DAN
J AMEN
CORDON B.coNN,JR. JDAMES E.HIICH OLSON DENVER, COLORADO 8 02 0 2-40 04 KARI L.AHao ERSON
BRUCE A.ACKER.AN REBECCA L.ROM ANTHONY .BATTLES
MICHAEL N.HARPER,JR. MARK F.ENGEBRETSON 303/592-54590
•RESIDENT IN DENVER
July 5 , 1985
Mr. Chairman,
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Shakopee
Shakopee, MN 55379
RE: Baron Development' s Proposal To Rezone
Property For The Fountain Bridge Development
Ladies and Gentlemen:
At the Planning Commission meeting on June 6 ,
1985 , questions were raised concerning Baron Development's
proposal to rezone 10 acres .of land along County Road 83
from I-2 to B-2 to permit the development of Fountain
Bridge, a hotel, restaurant and retail project. Since these
questions concerned the compatibility of the Fountain Bridge
with other nearby uses and the legality of the rezoning,
Mr. Robert Behringer, President of Baron Development, asked
Heise, Vanney & Associates and Faegre & Benson to respond on
- behalf of Baron Development. Enclosed please find a letter
from Richard A. Heise, President of Heise, Vanney & Associates ,
and a memorandum from Faegre & Benson which address these
questions.
Sincerely yours ,
Walter H. Rockenstein II
WHR/11
Enclosures
North Fourth Street, Suite 201, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 339-2722
3 July 1985
Mr. Chairman,
Members of the Planning Commission,
and Staff
City of Shakopee
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Heise Vanney and Associates are proud to be a part of Baron Development's
team for the proposed development on their ten acre site in Shakopee.
Based on our experience, Baron's proposal makes emminently good sense for
the following land planning reasons and the new set of exciting
circumstances created by Canterbury Downs:
* Unexpected new use of adjacent property
* Immediate sewer and water access
* A sense of responsibility to promote, enhance and protect the
integrity of Canterbury Downs and it's immediate community
by proper land use.
* Non industrial "type" neighbors at every quadrant, at the north, a
racquetball facility, at the south, racetrack related out buildings and
dormitories, at the west, Canterbury Downs, and at the east, a
"modern" office complex.
This parcel and the 30 acres around it are insulated and isolated from
the Shakopee "industrial park" geographically, topographically and
visually from the heavy tree line that will remain almost in its
entirety.
* A marked increase of pressure placed on local motels and restaurants
past the point of accommodation.
x Our proximity to two of the major entrances to Canterbury Downs.
* Good highway access
It is our commitment along with Baron Development's entire team to work
with you and your community and set a high precedent to be followed as
"spin off" development from the racetrack begins to occur.
We urge you to act positively on our proposal based on merits, facts and
your community's immediate demands.
nitects interior Designers Space Pianners
RUN O TE: 67/10/85 PROGRAM COSTS 8Y DEPARTMENT PAGE NO 25
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
46 74 IMPROVEMENT FUND PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTO
DN DEPaRTMENT PROGRAM MOORS DOLLARS COSTS COSTS APPROP PERCENT
04 GENE3AL FUND
000 GENERAL FUND .0 .00 5171.50 5171.50 5200.00 99.4
DEPT TOTAL .0 .DO 5171.50 5171.50 5200.00 99.4
FUND TOTAL .0 .00 5171.50 5171.50 5200.00 99.4
RUN DATE_ UI/10/x5 PROGRAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE NO 26
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
49 75 IMPROVEMENT FUND PERSONAL SERYICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTO
ON DEFARTMENT PROGRAM NCURS DOLLARS COSTS COSTS AFFROP PERCENT
04 GENEHAL rUND
000 GENERAL FUND .0 .00 1378.35 1378.35 2325.00 59.2
DEPT TOTAL .0 .00 1318.35 1378.35 2325.00 59.2
FUND TOTAL .0 .00 1378.35 1378.35 2325.00 59.2
I
RUN DATE: U//10/85 PROGRAM COSTS BY OEPARTPENT PAGE NO 27
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
51 1976 IPPROYEMENT ?ERSONAL SERYTCES COSTS OTHER TOTAL Y70
ON DEPARTMENT PROGRAM HOURS DOLLARS COSTS COSTS APPROP PERCENT
00 GENERAL FUNO
000 GENERAL FUND .0 .00 8545.50 8545.50 14830.00 57.6
aEP1 TOTAL .0 .00 8545.50 8545.50 14830.00 51.6
FUND TUTAI .0 .00 8545.50 8545.50 14830.00 57.6
RUN DATE: 07/10/85 PROGRAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE NO 28
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
52 77-B 6S STORM SEWER PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTD
ON DEPARTMENT PROGRAM "OURS DOLL#RS COSTS COSTS AFFROP PERCENT
00 GENERAL FUND
000 GENERAL FUND .0 .00 13866.00 13866.00 25060.00 55.3
DEFT TOTAL .0 .00 13066.00 13866.00 25060.00 55.3
FUND TOTAL .0 .00 13866.00 13866.00 25060.00 55.3
RUN DATE: D7/1U/85 PROGRAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE NO 29
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
53 17-A FIRST AVE. WATE PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTO
ON DEFARTMEhT _ PROGRAM HOURS _ DOLLARS _ COSTS COSTS APFROP PERCENT
DO GENERAL FUND
000 GENERAL FUND .0 .00 1097.00 1097.00 1827.00 60.0
DEPT TJTAL .0 000 1097.00 1097.00 1827.00 60.0
FUND TOTAL _ .0 .00 1097.00 1097.00 1827.00 60.0
i
RUN DATE: 01/10/85 PROGRAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE NO 30
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
54 77-C ST. IMPROVEMENT 'ERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTD
ON DEFARTMENT _. PROGRAM HCUR$._ DOLLARS COSTS COSTS APPROP PERCEAT
00 GENERAL FUND
000 GENERAL FUND .0 .00 8989.65 8989.65 15547.00 57.8
DEI-1 TOTAL .0 .00 8989.65 8989.65 15547.00 51.8
FUND TOTAL .0 .00 8989.65 8989.65 15547.00 57.8
RUN DATE: 07/10/85 PROGRAM COSTS 8Y DEPARTMENT PAGE NO 31
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
55 79-A IPRROYEMENTS 3ERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTO
ON DEPiRTMENT PROGRAM HOURS _ _ DOLLARS COSTS COSTS APPROP PERCENT
i
00 GENERAL FUND
000GENERAL FUND .0 .DO 3937.50 3937.50 7153.00 55.0
DEPT TOTAL .0 000 3937.50 3937.50 7153.00 55.0
FUND TUTAL _ .0 .OD , 3937.50 3937.50 7153.00 55.0
i
RUN U+.TE: .1/10./E5 PROGRAM COSTS BY DEFARTPENT PAGE NO 32
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
56 86-A IMPROVEMENTS PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTD
DN D4PARTMEhT PROGRAM HOURS DOLLARS COSTS COSTS APPROP PERCENT
J11 GENFAAL FUND
000 GENERAL FUND .0 .00 72827.25 72827.25 138633.00 52.5
DEPT TOTAL .0 .00 72827.25 72827.25 138633.00 52.5
41 ENGINEERING
504 EASTVIEW .0 .00 498.50 498.50 .00 .0
OEFf TOTAL .0 .00 498.50 498.50 .00 .0
FUND TOTAL .0 .00 73325.75 73325.75 138633.00 52.8
RUN DATE: C7/10/85 PROGRAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE NO 33
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
58 81-A IMPROVEMENTS PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTD
DN DEPARTMENT _ _. PROGRAM HOURS COLLARS COSTS COSTS APPROP PERCENT
JQ GENERAL FUND
000 GENERAL FUND .0 .00 35655.50 35655.50 67110.00 53.1
DEPT TOTAL 00 .01) 35655.50 35655.50 67110.00 53.1
FUND TOTAL .0 .00 35655.50 35655.50 67110.00 53.1
RUN D� TF: 07/lU/d5 PROGRAM COSTS 8Y DEPARTMENT PAGE NO 34
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
59 82—A IMPROVEMENTS PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTO
DN DEFARTMEhT PROGRAM HOUR$ DOLLARS COSTS COSTS APFROP PERCENT
UO GENERAL FUND
000 GENERAL FUND .0 .00 8515.25 8515.25 16326.00 52.1
DErf TOTAL •0 .00 8515.25 8515.25 16326.00 52.1
41 ENGINEERING
OEPf TOTAL .0 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0
=UND TOTAL .0 .00 8515.25 8515.25 16326.00 52.1
RUN DATE: 01/10/65 PROGRAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE NO 35
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
60 1984 IMPROV_. 'ERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL Yip
ON OEFARTPENT PROGRAM HOURS DOLLARS .. COSTS COSTS APFROP PERCENT
00 GENERAL FUND
000 GENERAL FUND .0 .DO 2146.46 2146.46 24100.00 8.9
DEPT TOTAL .0 .00 2146.46 2146.46 24100.00 8.9
41 ENGINEERING
DEPT TOTAL .0 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0
FUND TOTAL .0 .00 2146.46 2146.46 24100.00 8.9
RUN DATE: 07/10/85 PROGIAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE A0 36
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
61 1985 IMRROVE. '£RSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTD
DN DEPARTMENT PROGRAM HOURS DOLLARS COSTS COSTS APPROP PERCENT
00 GENERAL FUAD
DEP! TJTAL .0 .00 .00 .00 738000.00 .0
41 ENGINEERING
549 EAGLE4000 REHAB. t0 .00 52.28 52.28 .00 .0
DEPT TOTAL .0 .00 52.28 52.28 .00 .0
FUND TJTAL .0 .00 52.28 52.28 7'_8000.00 .0
RUN DATE: 01/10/85 PROGRAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE NO 31
CITY OF SHAKUPEE
71 SE6ER FUND PERSONAL SERVICES CCSTS OTHER TOTAL YTO
ON Ot:PARTrEhT PROGRAM HOURS.__. .._ _ DOLLARS COSTS COSTS APPROP PERCENT
71 SANITARY SEWER
711 GENERAL MANAGEMENT 178.3 4272.72 296300.04 300572.76 928920.00 32.3
712 SEWER RODDING/FLUSHI 705.4 8712.40 1179.75 9892.15 .00 .0
713 SEWER MATNTENANC: 49.1 641.53 .00 641.53 .00 .0
714 SEWER EQUIP. MAINT._ 10.0 128.47 490.34 618.81 .00 .0
DEFT TOTAL 942.8 13755.12 297970.13 311725.25 928920.00 33.5
FUND TJTAL 942.8 13755.12 297970.13 311725.25 928920.00 33.5
1
RUN DATL: 1.7/10/85 PROGRAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE NO 38
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
61 PAYROLL TRUST PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTC
ON DLP. RTMENT PROGRAM HOURS DOLLARS COSTS COSTS APPROP PERCENT
UQ GEIAEnAL FUND
000 GENERAL FUND .0 .00 362244.66 362244.66 .00 .0
DEPT TGTAL .0 .00 362244.66 362244.66 .00 .0
FUND TOTAL .0 •00 362244.66 362244.66 .00 .0
RUN DATE: 01/10/85 PROGRAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE NO 60
CITY OF SHA KOPEE
99 PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTO
ON OEF+RTMENT PROGRAM HOURS DOLLARS COSTS COSTS APFROP PERCENT
13 CITY CLERK
OEr( TOTAL 3.0 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0
41 ENG INEERI NG
DEPT TOTAL 2.0 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0
FUND TOTAL 5.0 .OD .00 .00 .00 .0
RUN DATE: 07/10/65 PROGRAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE AO 39
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
83 UTILITY TRUST PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTD
ON DEPARTMENT PROGRAM HOURS DOLLARS COSTS COSTS APPROP PERCENT
04 GENERAL FUND
000 GENERAL FUND .0 .00 3334.00 3334.00 .00 .0
DEPir TOTAL .0 .00 3334.00 3334.00 .00 .0
FUND TOTAL .0 .00 3334.00 3334.00 .00 .0
I
RUN DATE: u7/10/$5 PROGRAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE NO 41
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
99 PERSONAL SERVICES CCSTS OTHER TOTAL YTD
ON DE P4 RT PE AT PROGRAM HOURS DOLLARS COSTS COSTS APFROP PERCENT
41 ENGINEERING
CITY T07AL 56913.8 838978.68 2456152.38 3295131.06 8881244.00 37.1
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT
PERMITS ISSUED June , 1985
6703 - 6738 Yr. to Date Total Previous Year
Number Number Valuation Number Valuation
Mo. Ytd.
Single Fam-Sewered 3 19 $ 1 , 362 ,260 4 19 1 ,183 ,000
Single Fam-Septic 1 3 239 ,843 - 5 465 ,000
Multiple Dwellings 1 7 917 ,600 1 8 694,500
(No.Units ) (YTD Units ) (4) ( 18) ( 2 ) ( 18) -
Dwelling Additions 6 23 81 ,538 12 36 283 ,661
Other 5 103 ,222 - - -
Comm. New Bldgs . 5 25090 ,341 2 5 1 ,198 ,875
Comm. Bldg. Addns . 3 10 9 ,646 ,010 - - -
Industrial-Sewered - - - - - -
Ind.-Sewered Addns . 1 1 5 ,475 - - -
Industrial-Septic - - - - - -
Ind.-Septic Addns . - - - -
Accessory/Garages 4 19 131 ,418 7 27 219 ,800
Signs & Fences 4 31 25 ,188 6 21 23 ,810
Fireplaces/Wood Stove 1 5 11 , 380 - 5 175900
Grading Foundation 2 5 511000 2 5 1 , 775 ,500
Remodeling(Res . ) 2 10 45 ,095 - 21 87 ,600
Remodeling( Inst. ) 1 1 1 ,093 ,000 - - -
Remodeling(�omm)or 2 19 13512 ,178 5 25 374,009
nc.TOTAL TAXABLE 33 173 16 ,222,548 40 187 6 ,323 ,655
TOTAL INSTITUTIONAL 1 1 1 ,093,000 - - -
GRAND TOTAL 34 174 173315 ,548 40 187 6 ,323 , 655
Mo. Ytd. Mo. Ytd.
Variances 2 10 1 5
Conditional Use 3 18 - 4
Re-Zoning 1 4 - 1
Moving - 2 - 1
Electric Permits 25 132 - 25 132
Plbg. & Hts . Permits 20 119 23 118
Razing Permits
Residential - - 1 1
Commercial - -
Total dwelling units in- City after completion of all construction permitted
to date. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ,778
Cora Hullander
Bldg. Dept. Secretary
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED IN JUNE, 1985
6703 David VanEyll 1975 Hilldale Dr. Fireplace $ 1 ,400
6704 Void
6705 Kraus-Anderson Racetrack Addn. 425 ,000
6706 Void
6707 Martin Homes 14 7 Tyrone D House 79 ,000
4f '6z
6708 Laurent Bldrs . 1 64 Har son House 65 ,000
i 7'1272 �W ,L.
6709 James Pierce 11767 W. 6t 1 unit 52 ,500
�Z 4;, < 4-plex
6710 James Pierce 1761 W. 1 unit 51 ,500
�y 46L oo��c„ �� 4-p 1 ex
6711 James Pierce 175�W. th 1 unit 51 ,500
B2 �}d', �'•�t.r..1 4-p l ex
6712 James Pierce 174VW. 6th 1 unit 52 ,500
o}��.Gg,Zo �� y-�c.c.✓ PL& 4-plex
6713 Logeais Homes 1060 Eastview Cr. House 523000
6714 Jefferson Carpentry :3 W. 7th Addn. 25400
6715 C.H. Carlson 887 Valley Pk Dr. Addn. 5 ,475
6716 Tackworld 5276 Valley Ind. B. Sign 500
6717 E.L. Prahm 1561 E. 1st Addn. 35 ,000
6718 E.L. Prahm 2400 E. 4th Sign 100
6719 Adolfson & Peterson 1010 W. 6th Addn. 1 ,093 ,000
6720 Ron VonBank 408 W. 6th Addn. 25000
6721 Randy Weckman 907 Scott Garage 5 ,800
6722 John Bjorklund CR 17 & 3rd Ave. Temp. -
Sign
6723 Cambridge Const. 227 Marschall Rd. Alta 325027
- 6724 Michael Menke 8160M�CGHouse 75 ,226
6725 David Haggbloom 407 S . Lewis �Garage 125000
6726 David Krohn 1147 Tyler Stg. Bldg. 23925
67.27 Laurent Bldrs . 4700 Valley Ind. B. Alt. 350
6728 Mike Luce 1234 Harrison Addn. 23500
6729 Les ters Inc. 2088 Marschall Stg. Bldg. 15 ,000
6730 David Rutt 630 E. 4th Addn. 25000
6731 NSP 6957 E. Hwy. 101 Addn. 463000
6732 Wiggin, Inc . 2020 W. 12th Foundation 10 ,000
6733 Wiggin, Inc. 1210 Pol ' Foundation 109000
6734 Lee Augustine 1147 Ha ison Fence 658
6735 C & L Const . 437 E. 3rd Ave. Alt. 625
6736 Jefferson Carpentry 706 Holmes Alt . 2 ,000
6737 Allen Olsen 870 Prairie Addn. 320
6738 Daniel Siedow 727 S . Spencer Addn. 6 ,000
$2 ,192 ,306
MINUTES
INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL COMMISSION
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JUNE 12, 1985
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bud Berens, Shakopee Development Corporation Liaison
Jane DuBois
Al Furrie
Tim Keane
John Manahan
Jim O'Neill
Paul Wermerskirchen, Chairman
GUESTS PRESENT: Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director
Pat Baudette, Student Intern
Gary Laurent
Bo Spurrier, City Engineer
MEMBERS ABSENT: John K. Anderson, Chamber of Commerce Liaison
Chairman Wermerskirchen called the meeting to order at 5: 12 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers at City Hall.
STAR CITY PROGRAM
Chairman Wermerskirchen introduced Mr. Pat Baudette, a student intern who is
working for the City of Shakopee for the summer. Mr. Baudette explained that
one of his projects is the Star City program which encourages cities to become
involved in their economic planning and development. He noted that the program
will cost under $1 ,000. In order to receive the Star City designation, eleven
tasks must be completed. Mr. Baudette is working on the Labor Survey gathering
labor market data. When this is complete, the requirements for the other ten
tasks will be pulled together and a presentation will be made to the Department
of Economic Development.
MINUTES
On a motion by Jim O'Neill, seconded by Tim Keane, the minutes of May 8, 1985,
were approved.
INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL DAY REVIEW
Tim Keane reported that the City Council has approved the revised budget of
$10,500 as requested by the ICC. He also submitted a letter from Mr. Bill Klein
who resigned as Food and Beverage Chairman due to a change in employment. Mr.
Keane asked for suggestions for a new chairman, noting that a fair amount of
work needs to be done in working with the vendors. Al Furrie volunteered to
contact Mr. Lee Hennan and will work with him on the committee should Mr. Hennan
agree to accept the chairmanship.
Industrial Commercial Commission
June 12, 1985
Page 2
Jim O'Neill had several questions about the display area at the race track.
Tim Keane will meet Jim at the track in the near future to inspect the display
area.
Several ICC members voiced concern about the quality of the video which is being
produced. Tim Keane explained the backgrounds of the people working on the video.
He noted that the Commissioners will each be interviewed in the near future.
Tim added that they will be attending the next meeting and should hopefully have
a rough draft for the Commissioners to review at that time.
An Industrial Commercial Day Subcommittee Meeting will be held on June 24, 1985,
at the Shakopee House at 11 :30 a.m.
STORM DRAINAGE POLICIES
Mr. Bc Spurrier, City Engineer, was present to continue the discussion of new
policies on storm drainage. Jane DuBois asked if vacant land would be charged
for storm sewer. Mr. Spurrier explained that vacant land is not assessed until
a building permit is taken. At that time, the fees would begin to run the same
number of years and in the same proportion that the other property owners had
paid.
{ John Manahan moved to support the new storm sewer drainage policies not only in
concept but also in specifics. Tim Keane seconded the motion. Discussion .
followed. Motion carried unanimously.
ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL DAY COMMENTS
Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director, reported that the Engineering
Department will be working on a display for the City for Industrial Commercial
Day. She also noted that the League of Women Voters is working on the brochures.
In response to the Chamber letter, about 20 people have called her so far to
be listed. In addition, Jeanne distributed the Minnesota Real Estate Journal
to each Commissioner so they could review the material concerning Industrial
Commercial Day.
Gary Laurent and Paul Wermerskirchen stated that they are working on the
invitations, and all Commissioners should turn in their invitation lists as
soon as possible.
NEW GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The Commissioners discussed the Shakopee Development Corporation and the various
ways they felt it should be utilized. Discussion turned to the idea of hiring
an Economic Development Director for the City of Shakopee, where the funding
could be found for this position, and what might be included in the job descrip-
tion.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion by Jane DuBois, seconded by Al Furrie, the Industrial Commercial
Commission was adjourned at 7:04 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Judy Hughes
Recording Secretary
✓ J
PROCEEDINGS OF THE
DOWNTOWN AD HOC COMMITEE
Shakopee, Minnesota
June 26 , 1985
Chairman Laurent called the meeting to order at 7 : 35 a.m. with the
following voting members present: Terry Forbord, Gary Laurent, Mike
Sortum, Jim Stillman, Joe Topic , Jerry Wampach and Bill Wermerskirchen.
Tim Keane arrived later. Absent: Steve Clay, Don Martin, Dan Steil ,
Dick Stokes and Pete Sames. Also present: Jeanne Andre , Community
Development Director and John Anderson, City Administrator.
Forbord/Topic moved to approve the agenda as presented. Chairman
Laurent asked that Item #6 be considered after Item #4 . Motion carried.
Forbord/Sortum moved to approve minutes of the June 12 meeting. Jerry
Wampach abstained. because of his absence at the meeting. Motion carried.
The Committee proceeded to review the proposals of the landscape arch-
itectural students.
The plan for Huber Park included dividing it into three zones , one
with natural flood-plain vegetation, the second a transitional zone
and the -third a manicured park area at a raised elevation, promotion
of a dual snowmobile/biking-ski/hiking trail system, pedestrian over-
pass over the highway, pedestrian access across the river and parking
for .trailers. The Committee did not give this park project high
priority but would like to see the river bank cleaned up from the
high-rise to Huber Park,and would like these ideas to be considered
when parkland is developed. The Community Development Director
informed them a grant has been approved and this area will be cleaned
up this summer. They also expressed concern that the sliding hill
be retained,if possible at Huber Park. A pedestrian access over the
highway should be located near the high-rise. They felt that more
than ten parking spaces are needed for vehicles and trailers at the
site.
Jim Stillman would like to see the old depot moved closer to the high-
way and used for a Chamber of Commerce . office and information center
but definitely not moved in a parking lot. They favored installing
arches and some type of point of entrance to the downtown district.
A suggestion was made that the overpass could be combined with the
entrance point.
Bill Wermerskirchen left at 8 a.m.
Tim Keane arrived at 8 :00 a.m.
If Holmes Street is used as a Greenway a lot of parkin .space could be
lost although they might like to see this concept used on a different
street. Gary Laurent would be interested in Westwood Engineering' s
opinion on this. The Committee liked the idea of a walkway through
Page 2
Downtown minutes
the middle of Block 23 . Some land may have to be acquired to
accomplish this. Utilities will be buried underground as alleys
are improved. They would like to see what street amenities Westwood
will suggest. They liked the concept of using brick for decorative
use and use of wind shelters at bus stops. The idea for the major
and minor auto malls was rejected because it wouid not leave enough
room for parking.
The City Council has reacted favorably towards hiring Westwood
Engineering for the streetscape program. In order to expedite this
project the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee will meet on Wednesday July 3rd
and Wednesday, July 17th. The City was not successful in obtaining
a grant for downtown development this year but an application can
be submitted again next year.
The Community Development Director reported on a meeting that was
held with Commissioner Braun of Minn. Dot. Commissioner Braun sees
no reason components of 101 bypass already scheduled for 1988-89
would be changed. He forsees no problem with federal funding for the
169 bridge but the major problem is determining the location of the
bridge and he feels $8 million is too expensive. The State can
participate in an EAW to establish the cost and location of the project
if it is on the bridge project list, and the District Engineer will
seek to have the project added by August 12th.
The Minnesota Division of Natural Resources is now bidding the con-
struction of the Minnesota Valley Trail from Chaska to downtown
Shakopee.
The Huber house will be for sale and might be a wise acquisition for
the City.
It was the consensus that the HRA should set aside $10 ,000 to, get ideas
for design standards for downtown facades from consultants. Incentive
could be given to businesses to match the cost of hiring a consultant,
up to $500. An inventory of downtown buildings was formerly completed
by the City Building Inspector but cannot be located at this time.
A questionnaire is being sent out to SPUC customers regarding their
preference as to the location of a new City hall. These results will
be in about July 15th.
The Downtown Ad Hoc Committee will meet July 10th at 7 :30 a.m. to
continue the streetscape assessment plans.
Jerry Wampach left at 8 : 45 a.m.
A letter from the Assistant City Attorney assured the City Administ-
rator that a special assessment can be collected- after the underlying
l �
Page 3
Downtown minutes
improvement bonds have been paid. The Community Development Director
explained how the existing street rehabilitation policy works:
25% Tier 1 - Direct front foot assessment
2 - Spread assessment (asssessed to whole District )
75% City ad valorem
The City Administrator explained that the spread on zone is a new
. method to handle corner lot problems. If street improvements are
implemented downtown zone charges would go to the district in which
it falls. Irregular lots have a special formula. Melvin Lebens
has volunteered information as to how previous assessments were
calculated on parking lots. They were based on distance from
parking lot, need for parking spaces , assessed valuation and square
footage of parcel.
Terry Forbord/Jim Stillman moved to adjourn at 9 : 05 a.m.
Darleen Schesso
Recording Secretary
A--
PROCEEDINGS
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JUNE 20, 1985
Chrm. Czaja called the meeting to order at 7: 38 p.m. with Comm. Lane,
VanMaldeghem and Rockne present. Comm. Pomerenke and Stoltzman arrived
later, and Comm. Schmitt was absent. Also present were Judi Simac, City
Planner and Cncl. Lebens.
VanMaldeghem/Lane moved to approve the minutes of May 16, 1985 as kept.
Chrm. Czaja questioned page 6, last paragraph, second to last sentence,
which states the need for houses. The City Planner clarified that the
speaker was talking about a need for residential areas for housing.
Motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - SCOTT COUNTY LUMBER & BERT NOTERMAN CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT
Rockne/VanMaldeghem moved to continue the public hearing regarding the
request by Scott County Lumber and Bert Noterman for a conditional use
permit to remove sand and gravel aggregate. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner pointed out that the background for this request is con-
tained in a memo which is available for the public. She pointed out that
there are two permits involved in this process. The Planning Commission
makes the final decision regarding the conditional use permit, but if that
action is appealed, there will be a public hearing before the City Council.
The mining permit is also heard by the Planning Commission, who makes a
recommendation to City Council, and the City Council makes the decision
on that permit.
The City Planner stated staff recommends approval of both permits, subject
to 20 conditions, which she read and clarified further as she went through
them.
Chrm. Czaja asked the applicants to answer the questions submitted and
present any new information necessary.
Jim Merila, of Merila & Associates, Inc. , went over his memo dated June
14, 1985 to the City Council, Planning Commission and Concerned Citizens,
in which he addressed the questions of the Shakopee Environmental Protec-
tion Association, Beverly Koehnen and Jane VanMaldeghem, with appropriate
attachments- supporting responses;., a copy of said memo attached hereto
and made a part hereof. Mr. Merila displayed various maps and drawings
to illustrate his responses at the appropriate times.
Comm. Pomerenke arrived and took his seat at 8:38 p.m.
Chrm. Czaja asked .for questions of Mr. Merila.
Shakopee Planning Commission
June 20, 1985
Page 2
Ken Rutt, 1750 CR83, stated he is not satisfied with the response given
regarding drainage as it affects his property. He definitely believes he
will experience devaluation of his property. He believes he will be
flooded out by the creation of the berm. He doesn't understand how the
ponding on his property will hold the water.
Mr. Merila responded that they would be happy to work with Mr. Rutt to
come up with some alternate plan for screening, if he isn't satisfied
with the berms. The system they are proposing would not put any greater
ponding on his property than exists now. They have reviewed the system
with the City Engineer, who agrees it can be technically worked out that
no greater ponding would occur. They are providing outlets for the area.
They are allowed to have the water overflow into the pit area as long as
they provide ponding prior to run-off to allow the impurities to be ponded
out. It is their contention it would not be detrimental to the Rutt property.
Dennis Moriarity, attorney with offices at 206 Scott Street, asked if the
ponding is done prior to running out of the field or out of the pond. Mr.
Merila further explained that there is ponding in existence on the Rutt
property now and the gravel pit property. They propose to create a deeper
ponding area on their property, which would reduce the amount of drainage
that goes into the current ponding area by about 50%. By putting the berm
in, they are limiting the drainage to only that drainage that comes from
the Rutt property and the back side of the berm. The overflow would go
from the pond area to the pit area, which is permitted and considered a
good way to handle the drainage problem by the U.S. Geological Survey
people.
Harold Schneider, 3300 Valley View Road, disputed Mr. Merila's earlier
statement that prior to the abandonment of the railroad tracks the water
from the westerly area stayed on the west side of the tracks. He said
there were culverts under the tracks to carry the water.
Mr. Merila acknowledged that might be true, but the point is the same
the water had to build up and flow to the south. With the proposed plan,
the drainage can continue in the same direction it currently goes.
Chrm. Czaja asked if there was anyone for -the project who would like to
speak with any additional information, and there was no response.
Dennis Moriarty, attorney retained by the Rutts and Schneiders to represent_
their interests, stated he has reviewed all the pertinent information.
He said that merely because a gravel pit is a permitted use doesn't mean
that by fulfilling the criteria it must be granted. A permitted use means
it can be permitted under certain conditions. The first condition is that
it must fit the Comp Plan. It is his position that staff is incorrect
when it represents this application meets the Comp Plan. One of the plan-
ning objectives is to preserve agricultural areasin the City. He believes
this proposed use is diametrically opposed to the transportation plan to
maintain the rural character and prevent uncontrolled development. He
maintains this is not agricultrual use. He doesn't believe in our lifetime
we will see corn growing on this property if this conditional use permit
is granted.
Shakopee Planning Commission
June 20, 1985
Page 3
In Mr. Moriarty's opinion 8 out of the 12 criteria for granting a condi-
tional use permit are violated by the proposed conditional use permit.
He doesn't agree that the supporting letter by Geologist Bruce Olson is
an endorsement of this project. The remedies for his concerns are ade-
quate, but not sufficient. He doesn't believe the ground water is safe.
Mr. Moriarty stated there are several things in the Environmental Assess-
ment Worksheet (EAW) that are inaccurate and stated incorrectly. He states
this is an impairment of prime farm land, as it takes it out of farm
production. He said this is a significant project and we probably will
not see full reclamation in our lifetimes. There is also an inconsistency
with the stated length of the project .as 9 and 17 years. Because of this
proposal there will be a hindrance to development. Now the area is farm
land and is going to be developed in the near future according to the Comp
Plan. The Comp Plan viewsagricultural land as a valuable natural resource
which is earmarked to preserve future production. The Comp Plan is the
official source and guide for the Planning Commission, and people have an
absolute right to rely on it. The Comp Plan is in jeopardy with this pro-
posed development, according to Mr. Moriarty.
Mr. Moriarty cannot understand how anyone can say this proposal is not
detrimental to Mr. Rutt. He thinks Mr. Rutt's property will be made nearly
valueless, with properties in the surounding area adversely affected.
That the Rutt property will not be detrimentally affected is a violation
of common sense.
Mr. Moriarty presented a petition containing nearly 300 signatures in
opposition to this proposed use. He would like it entered into the record
with the right to withdraw it at the end of the evening to make copies.
after which it will be returned.
VanMaldeghem/Rockne moved to enter into the record the petition in opposi-
tion to the proposed conditional use permit. Motion carried unanimously.
Jim Pietrzak, 5411 Eagle Creek Blvd. , said he has been talking to a lot of
new people coming -to visit Shakopee from all over the U.S. They were
telling him that a lot of poople are intending to find places to live in
this area because of the future of the track and opportunity for growth.
He said people are desperate for land for residential and agricultural uses,
and they are talking about staying permanently.
Comm. Stoltzman arrived and took his seat at 9:15 p.m.
Mr. Pietrzak commented on the success of the Little 6 Bingo Palace, which
has shuttle buses running on CR83. He said their operation is changing
to 5:00-9:00 p.m. 7 days a week. In addition, the Eagle Creek Thrift Shop
is very successful. There is already heavy traffic on CR16, and Certain-
teed is expanding. He says the growth in the area will be very substan-
tial, and he asks the Planning Commission to consider the traffic in the
area with other people looking at Shakopee as a growing community.
Ray Fitch, who prefers to be called Bill Fitch, 1776 CR83, said he lives
on the property where all the wind blows from the proposed gravel pit.
He spoke about the strong winds experienced this week. He said there
will be sand blowing everyplace off this gravel pit. He said his 10 acres
has been horse land for over 100 years. Two years ago they got into the
horse business, and their daughter advised them the right mixture of dirt
Shakopee Planning Commission
June 20, 1985
Page 4
was in Shakopee. They came to Shakopee because it is good horse country
and beautiful. The name of their property is Seranna, named for "serene",
and his wife and daughter Ann. They bought some property that was in dis-
repair and have put a lot of work into it.
Mr. Fitch disputes the opinion that there will not be much development in
the area until 1990. He said the Planning Commission has heard that there
is a big demand for housing in the area. He thinks the best use for that
property would be a horse ranch.. He would like to address this issue on
the basis of aesthetics. He is concerned about the market value of his
land, which he believes will take a solid dive if they dig into the land.
He thinks the only way the 20 recommended criteria for the conditional use
permit will work is if there is a cop on the site 24 hours a day. The
berms are basically just piles of dirt with grass seed on them. It will
take a lot of water to make the grass grow. He doesn't know how they can
put that much dirt on the property and not expect it to blow over on his
property.
Mr. Fitch went up to Osseo and looked over the plant and talked to the
farmer who lives on the north side, who was adamant the gravel pit is not
a good neighbor. He prepared a video which he showed, pointing out the
dump on the property. He showed the dust produced by the trucks when it
had rained 4 hours earlier. He commented that the noise was not horrible,
but it is mental anguish to hear that "beeping" all the time. He said he
was not too impressed with the track record of this operation.
Mr. Fitch then showed various areas around the proposed site, and demon-
strated how the view would change with a 25 foot pile of gravel. He said
he would like to show the 10% of the racetrack people going by their place
something pretty to look at, not a hole in the ground. He cannot under-
stand putting a gravel pit in plain site of the racetrack grandstand. He
thinks he will be hurt a lot if the gravel pit goes in, and he thinks the
City will be hurt a lot. For 17 years he thinks Seranna farm ought to
remain serene.
Pomerenke/VanMaldeghem moved for a 5 minute recess at 9:45 p.m. Motion
carried unanimously.
Chrm. Czaja called the meeting back to order at 9:53 p.m.
Harold Schneider said that during all the years he farmed his land, he
needed only minimal services from Shakopee, and paid a lot of taxes. He
upgraded the land and the buildings. He believes if this special use is
permitted, it will be denying him and others full use and enjoyment of
their property. He is sure he would have to take substantially less for
his property if he had to sell it. Given a choice, people don't buy next
to a gravel pit.
Shirley Rutt said that people all over the State feel that Shakopee is
fortunate to have the racetrack, along with the other amenities. They are
appalled to hear of the consideration of a gravel pit near it. To take
this land out of production for 17 years at this point is dumb. If this
mining permit is granted, the foot is in the door and there is nothing to
stop others around them from doing the same. They are an exception, being
surrounded by the gravel pit, and their property is valueless.
Shakopee Pianning Commission
June 20, 1985
Page 5
John O'Loughlin said he has a 100 year farm. He asked why they have to
submit to developers coming in and devaluing their property. He said
many people in the area worked hard to get the racetrack, so why screw it
up now.
Roberta Schneider, spokesperson for the Shakopee Environmental Protec-
tion Association, passed around a book of pictures of the properties
in the area. She said she was really surprised when all the questions
they submitted were merely duplicated and submitted to Merila & Assoc.
for response. They felt that some of them should have had a response from
the City staff, or at least made some assurance that they have gone over
the information. They expected some further factual information rather
than just reiteration of previous responses.
Ms. Schneider commented on the responses made by Merila & Assoc. to their
questions. She pointed out that 1990 is only 5 years away. She would
still like some facts about how much water will be in the ponding areas.
They have heard nothing on the dewatering of the farm lands adjacent to
the gravel pit, when that water moves into the hole from the shelf of
ground water. She said when you take off one layer of topsoil, you take
off one layer of filtration for the water. She said with the road building
project in front of their place there is now water sitting in the ditch
where there never was water before. She stated that once that soil is
disturbed, it will never be agriculturally productive again.
Ms. Schneider quoted from the Aggregate Resource book, which states the
resources in Carver and Scott Counties appear adequate to meet their needs.
She would like more specific information on the need, how much is in the
area and its availability. She said the Met Council study indicated they
don't have the necessary inventory and was not as conclusive as the appli-
cant indicated. She would think a conditional use permit would be for
something temporary, not 17 years.
Ms. Schneider said the applicant speaks about the money the City and County
would be saving and making on the operation. She asked how far $25,000
would go to restoring a pit like Roberts Pit. Using their figures, she
pointed out that this sand and gravel is meant for areas outside of Shako-
pee and the only people who will get the savings will be the operators of
the pit. She asked about the valuation of the operation for tax purposes.
Ms. Schneider thinks the buffer around the area proposed is totally inade-
quate. She wouldn't think a .mile buffer around the pit would be too much.
They aren't more than z mile from services, so they aren't that rural of
an area.
Ms. Schneider addressed the end use/reclamation proposal. She asked who
would be responsibile for reclamation if the application is denied at any
time during the 17 years. She said the proposal for commercial/industrial
is totally out of conformance with the Comp Plan. She said that just
because the construction of the racetrack is almost done, that doesn't
mean there will be a decrease in traffic--there will still be a lot of
racetrack traffic with the horses and suppliers, besides the industrial
traffic on CR83.
Shakopee Planning Commission
June 20, 1985
Page 6
Bev Koehnen, 2036 CR83, stated she did not feel she had adequate time
to respond to the responses of the applicant. She believes this matter
will end up in Court, so she is reluctant to speak without full informa-
tion. She said common sense tells you this is not going to be a farm,
but a gravel pit, which will be in the way of development. She believes
the Planning Commission's job is to uphold the Comp Plan, not to look
at the cost or who will gain what. The question of scarcity of gravel
in the area should not be a consideration. Up to the year 2002 the
gravel pit will be -in the way of development. She went through the con-
ditions for granting a conditional use permit, and she .agrees with Mr.
Moriarty relative to the violations of the conditions. The most impor-
tant finding is that it will be injurious to others, and the Planning
Commission can make its findings based on one case.
Jim Hauer said he and his brother purchased their land 35 years ago, and
they are finally going to be able to realize a profit by developing some
lots. This proposal will hurt their development--they are only a quarter
mile across the field away.
Chrm. Czaja asked if there was anyone else in opposition who wished to
speak, and there was no answer.
Chrm. Czaja asked the applicants if they wanted to respond.
Jim Merila stated the video of the C. S. McCrossan gravel pit was of the
old pit area and bituminous area, and he agrees there is a lot of debris
accumulated over 35 years. He said the City has criteria to prevent
that from happening here. The proposed operation would have only the
crusher, loader, stacker and scale operation. The video was also of the
bituminous plant, for which they are not applying in Shakopee.
Mr. Merila said as far as the Comp Plan, they still maintain that the
conditional use permit for the mining extraction is a permitted condi-
tional use within the agricultural preservation zoned area. If it was
not comprehended as a use within the City, it would not be in the zoning
ordinance.
Mr. Merila again used his. graphics to point out the elevations to put the
profile in perspective. He said Shakopee is shown as a relatively small
area within this general area in the Aggregate Resources Report; it
doesn't encompass the entire area. It is their position it does satisfy
the criteria for granting a conditional use permit, and they ask for
favorable consideration.
Earl Johnson, of C.S. McCrossan, said they are talking about a 31-2 year
program for the first phase. If that is granted,.and the operation is not
in order they can't go any further. This trial phase would not put any
berms around Mr. Rutt's property, and they would like to show good faith.
He said they have a good track record with Shakopee, as they asked for a
temporary mixed asphalt plant at the track and have lived by the conditions.
Discussion ensued with Mr. O'Loughlin regarding the computations arriving
at how much gravel will be removed in the center of the hill. Various
elevations and amounts were pointed out. Mr. Johnson pointed out they
will still be 40 feet above the limestone shelf, so there will be plenty
of filter.
Shakopee Planning Commission /
• June 20, 1985 (P
Page 7
Ken Rutt said he went up by the C. S. McCrossan pit and talked to Mr. and
Mrs. Bye and asked them what they thought of the pit. They said the
crusher is running until 11:00-12:00 p.m. , there is a lot of noise and
the beauty is gone. They don't think their property is worth anything.
They think the only way to get rid of their property would be to sell it
to McCrossan for whatever amount they would pay. He has never seen any-
thing grow after a gravel pit is mined, and it is not zoned commercial.
Mr. Fitch complained about the responsibility falling to the neighbors
to complain if the operation is not run right. He thinks the City should
do that.
Mr. Moriarty urged the Commissioners not to base their decision on a 3 year
plan. If the permit is granted, it has to be because all the criteria are
met for the entire project.
Mr. Johnson reiterated his offer to show anyone their operation.
Chrm. Czaja asked about responsibility for site maintenance. Mr. Johnson
said the operation is so small there will be few people and little opera-
tion on the site at any time.
Chrm. Czaja asked what happens to the permit if the site is sold. The City
Planner said the permit runs with the property. Essentially, it is assumed
the new owner will abide by the conditions, but the code doesn't address
a new owner making an application for the permit. Mr. Johnson added that
if a new owner didn't want the operation, he could make the royalty (that
amount paid by the operator to the owner) so high it wouldn't be mined.
Comm. Pomerenke said he lives about 150 feet from Valley View Road and he
has dust everywhere. He wouldn't think this would make as much dust as
was present before CR83 was paved.
Kathleen Phillips, 969 Holmes, asked if the group is selling the land or
just the gravel. The City Planner explained there is a group that owns
the property, and C.S. McCrossan will be doing the mining operation.
VanMaldeghem/Rockne moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried
unanimously.
Comm. VanMaldeghem said she has been around enough to know that problems
happen, and she thinks the risks are much too great to accept this proposal:
She views the letter from Bruce Olson as being in opposition to the appli-
cation. She also has a hard time believing a letter written in 1981 is
relevant to 1985 property values. She added the 17 years scares her, con-
sidering the amount of change and development the City has gone through in
17 months. She feels the mining operation is very untimely and not compat-
ible with the surrounding land uses.
VanMaldeghem/Stoltzman offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 376
and movedits denial based on the following:
1. It will definitely deny property owners in the vicinity of
the use and enjoyment of their property, for which they are
entitled;
Shakopee Planning Commission
June 20, 1985
Page 8
2. It will adversely affect property values in the area imme-
diately surrounding the mining site;
3. The proposal will impede the normal and orderly development
of the surrounding property for the uses predominant in the
area.
4. There has been no showing that the use is reasonably related
to the over-all needs and benefits of the City and the exist-
ing land uses.
5. The use is not consistent with the purposes of the zoning code
and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant
intends to locate the proposed use;
6. The use is in direct conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of
the City.
Motion to deny carried with Comm. Rockne and Pomerenke opposed.
Chrm. Czaja informed the applicant of the 7 day appeal period.
VanMaldeghem/Lane moved to recommend to �the City Council denial of the
Mining Permit. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner said the Mining Permit will go before the City Council
on July 2. However, if there is an appeal of the conditional use permit,
it will have to be advertised for public hearing and will be on the City
Council agenda July 16. In that case, the Mining Permit will be heard
at that same time.
VanMaldeghem/Rockne moved to adjourn to July 11, 1985. Motion carried
unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
Judi Simac
City Planner
Diane S. Beuch
Recording Secretary
PROCEEDINGS OF THE
DOWNTOWN AD HOC COMMITTEE
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
July 3 , 1985
Chm. Laurent called the meeting to order at 7 :40 a.m. with the
following voting members present: Terry Forbord, Gary Laurent, Don
Martin, Dan Steil, Joe Topic, Jerry Wampach, Bill Wermerskirchen,Jr. ,
and Pete Sames. Steve Clay arrived late. Absent: Mike Sortum,
Jim Stillman, Dick Stoks and Tim Keane. Also present: Jeanne
Andre, Community Development Director , John Anderson, City Adminis-
trator, Lee Stoltzman, Liaison to Planning Commission, Tim Erkkila,
Westwood Engineering, Howard Voigt, Valley News and Will Schroers.
The agenda was approved as presented.
Tim Erkkila presented an aerial photo of a base map of the area to
be streetscaped. Survey crews are already working on the site.
Pictures of various types and materials in available fixtures were
discussed. Mr. Erkkila also showed a matrix chart listing site
amenities and materials in order from basic to optional facilities
.and from more ornate (old world) to low-maintenance in style. Some
cities choose to mix old world fixtures with other styles . The
frequency of improvements is what will create a theme. Utilities
will be buried wherever possible.
Steve Clay arrived at 8:10 a.m.
Sidewalks could be constructed of the more . inexpensive materials and
the more expensive material could be limited to key areas. Flowers
and shrubs could be planted, however, flowers would require the most
maintenance. Benches are available in steel, exposed aggregate,
fiber glass or pre-cast concrete and could be placed at special nodes.
The extent and type of signage will have to be considered. The tree
grates or guards are available in cast iron, wood or concrete.
Planters can be free standing or built-in of brick, wood or exposed
aggregate, fiber glass or concrete. Covered or lined trash containers ,
kiosks, bus shelters , bike racks , bollards and play equipment were
other facilities under consideration.
As long as a high level of lighting is maintained the Highway Dept.
will go along with fixtures the City chooses. John Anderson would
like to see provision made for banners and flags and possibly a
sculpture or statue included. He suggested picking up the design
on some fixtures from Canterbury Downs. Canopies on existing buildings
were discussed briefly. The planting of shrubs and trees near the
railroad tracks is discouraged by the railroad because of safety
reasons.
Don Martin left at 9 a.m.
The Committee would like to see a design used with fairly low main-
tenance but does not want to sacrifice the old world look, which
would add character, with a combination of funtionality and design.
Page 2
Downtown Minutes
They favor low maintenance for sidewalks with brick accents and
shrubbery instead of flowers for plantings. The Engineer will
proceed to apply the physical elements to these plans for present-
ation July 17th. He was also requested to check into the cost of
an automatic sprinkler system for landscape elements .
John Anderson reminded everyone to send in their City Hall site
questionnaire.
The Committee will meet July 10th at 7: 30 a.m. to discuss methods
of assessing of the streetscape project.
The meeting adjourned at 9: 20 a.m.
Darleen Schesso
Recording Secretary
PROCEEDINGS OF THE
DOWNTOWN AD HOC COMMITTEE
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
July 10 , 1985
Chm. Laurent called the meeting to order at 7: 30 A.M. with the
following voting members present: Gary Laurent, Mike Sortum,
Dan Steil, Jim Stillman, Joe Topic, Jerry Wampach, Pete Sames
and Tim Keane. Absent: Steve Clay, Terry Forbord, Don Martin,
Dick Stoks , Bill Wermerskirchen and Jeanne Andre, Community
Development Director. Also present: John Anderson, City Admin-
istrator, Bo Spurrier, City Engineer, Howard Voigt, Shakopee
Valley News and Will Schroers.
Jim Stillman/Joe Topic moved to approve the agenda as presented.
Motion carried.
Sentence 1, Paragraph 6 of the minutes of June 26 , 1985 were
corrected to read "but definitely not in this parking lot" .
Jerry Wampach/Dan Steil moved to approve the minutes as corrected.
Motion carried.
Tim Keane arrived at 7: 50 A.M.
The Committee first discussed the type of assessment they wished
to use. The Community Development Director, in her memo, recommended
developing a streetscape assessment policy that covers only
those areas not covered by other assessment policies in the
City. The formula for assessing can be very simple or it can
become very complex. The City Administrator stressed the importance
of members understanding the plan well enough so they can explain
how it was arrived at. The Committee agreed that most of the
policies already in place are consistent with this pian.
Mike Sortum/Jerry Wampach moved to stay with the existing assessement
policies and change only those that aren' t covered. Motion
carried.
The Community Development Director ' s memo recommended that parking
lot assessments be separate from streetscape assessments. Tim
Keane/Dan Steil moved to follow the recommendation and keep
parking lot assessments separate from streetscape assessments.
Motion carried.
A lengthy discussion was held on the basis for assessments.
Assessments could be calculated on front footage, square footage
or a combination of both. The question of corner lots and parking
lots also was discussed. The City Engineer recommended keeping
the assessment formula simple.
Tim Keane/Pete Sames moved to reverse the recommendation in
the Community Development Director ' s memo and give special credit
to corner lots and also eliminate the option of assessing on
Page two
Downtown Minutes 7/10/85
building square footage basis , but stay with parcel square footage.
Motion carried.
Tim Keane/Jerry Wampach moved to strike assessed valuation as
one of the alternatives in assessing streetscape. Motion carried.
Another issue to be discussed was the matter of assessment of
land in public ownership.
Jim Stillman/Joe Topic moved to assess public owned property
within the assessment district by assessing in the same manner
as other parcels. Motion carried.
Dan Steil left at 9 : 05 A.M.
Tim Keane pointed out that City Hall and the library benefit
all property owners while parking lots primarily benefit the
businesses.
Tim Keane/Jerry Wampach moved that staff report back to committee
laying out two alternative schemes with and without parking
lots included as public property for assessments. Motion carried.
The next Downtown Ad Hoc Committee will be held July 17th, 1985
at 7: 30 A.M.
Jim Stillman/Joe Topic moved to adjourn at 9 : 05 A.M.
Darleen Schesso
Recording Secretary
PROCEEDINGS Or THE SHAKOPEE ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APRIL 18, 1985
Chairman Ziegler called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. with Commissioners
Allen, Dunwell, Schwingler, Sorenson, and Weeks present. Barry Stock,
Administrative Intern, was also present. Commissioners McNeil and Spiotta
were absent.
Chairman Ziegler introduced Mr. Eugene Allen, a new member to the Commission,
and welcomed him to the Energy and Transportation Committee.
Dunwell/Sorenson moved to approve the minutes of the March 21 , 1985, meeting
as kept. Motion carried unanimously.
DIAL-A-RIDE CONTRACT - AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE
Mr. Stock explained that passengers who currently ride the Dial-A-Ride are
required to carry the exact change for their fare. This policy has led to
numerous requests for a punch card and/or monthly passes. He recalled that
at the March meeting, the Committee approved the punch card proposal which
established a punch card for each ridership category with the cost for each
card based on the number of rides offered and the lowest fare for that rider-
ship category.
Staff discovered that the current Dial-A-Ride contract specifies that Van
Pool Services, Inc. is responsible for receiving, collecting, and depositing
all revenues from the transit operations. Therefore, before the City can
pursue selling punch cards, an amendment to the contract is necessary.
Mr. Stock presented a proposed amendment which specified a procedure for fare
collections in regard to punch card and monthly pass sales. He indicated
that both Van Pool Services, Inc. and the MnDOT project manager have stated
that they are in favor of the proposed amendment.
Dunwell/Schwinoler moved to recommend to City. Council that Amendment Number
One to the Dial-A-Ride contract (which gives both the City of Shakopee and
Van Pool Services, Inc. the authority to collect, receipt, and deposit
revenues from the sale of Dial-A-Ride punch cards and monthly passes) be
_approved. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Spiotta arrived at 7:38 p.m.
Mr. Stock also presented several informational items for discussion. The
first item was the van pool survey results. Mr. Stock explained that a
survey was conducted of the van pools. Although he has not received all the
results, the Commissioners reviewed the survey with the results received to
date. Mr. Stock will have the final results completed for the May meeting.
He recommended that the Committee continue to monitor the total subsidy per
passenger trip until July 1 , 1985. In the interm, Mr. Stock will be sending
a separate letter to each van pool group addressing some of their concerns
and misconceptions as well as the Committee's position on the "pay-when-you-
Energy and Transpertation Commission
April 18, 1985
Page 2
don't ride"policy. In addition, Staff will try to develop some alternatives
that might be a good compromise 'for both the City and the riders in regard to
the riders main concerns. The Commissioners also urged that the riders also
receive the survey final results.
The second item discussed was the Recycling Monthly Report for March. Mr.
Stock reported the final results of the recycling survey. He noted there was
a 55% response rate, and of those responding, 72% stated they would be
willing to participate in the program. He stated the Boy Scouts have
delivered the bins, and the Cub Scouts have delivered the bags to the
appropriate target areas. In addition, Staff is proceeding with the marketing
concepts as authorized by the Commission. That includes: 1. Recycling
brochure to be mailed to every household in Shakopee with the May utility
billing. 2. Bumper Stickers. 3. Lawn Signs which will be posted one day
before the scheduled recycling pick-up dates. 4. Recycling Caps tape worn
by those groups responsible for picking up the recyclables. 5. Buttons.
6. Production of a recycling television show which will be aired on the local
public access channel. The Commissioners also discussed expanding the program
to include used oil, old batteries, and hazardous waste type materials in the
Fall if the program is successful.
The third item discussed was the Dial-A-Ride Monthly Report for March. Mr.
Stock distributed a new report which broke out the purchase of service costs,
administrative costs, total costs, average subsidy per passenger trip, average
subsidy per passenger mile, and actual subsidy per passenger mile from July of
1984 through March of 1985.
The fourth item discussed was the Van Pool Monthly Report for March. Mr.
Stock gave each Commissioner a new Shakopee Area Transit brochure which
contains information for both the Dial-A-Ride and Van Pool programs. The
Commissioners discussed advertising and how to relay this information to all
the City residents.
Schwincler/Sorenson moved to adjourn the meeting at 8: 11 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously. The next meeting will be held on May 16, 1985, at 7:30 p.m.
Barry Stock Judy Hughes
Administrative Intern Recording Secretary
Transit/Recycling Coordinator
TENTATIVE AGENDA
Downtown Ad Hoc Committee
City Hall Council Chambers
July 17, 1985
7 : 30 A.M.
Chrmn. Laurent presiding
1. Call to Order at 7 : 30 A.M.
2 . Approval of Agenda
3 . Approval of the minutes of July 3rd and 10th, 1985 .
4 . Proposed Parking Lot/Second Avenue Project - Tim Erikkla
a. Analysis of Parking Needs
b. Second Avenue Street Alignment
C. Overall concepts for project layout
d. Detailed application of design options
5 . Other Business
6 . Adjourn at 9 : 00 A.M. to July 23 , 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.
TENTATIVE AGENDA
Energy and Transportation Committee
Shakopee, Minnesota
July 18, 1985
Chrm. Ziegler presiding:
1. Roll Call at 7:3C P.M.
2. Approval of minutes - April 18, 1985, May 16, 1985 and
June 20, 1985
3. BRW Transit Feasibility Study Presentation
4. Action: Van Pool Holiday Policy Amendment
5. Informational Items
A. Van Pool Monthly Report - June
B. Dial-A-Ride Monthly Report - June
C. Recycling Monthly Report - June
6. Other Business
A.
B.
7. Adjournment
Barry A. Stock
Admin. Intern
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: LeRoy Houser, Building Official
RE: Pelham Hotel (River Place )
DATE: July 15 , 1985
Due to the dilapidated, unsanitary and unsafe condition of
the aforementioned facility, I have requested both the Health
Dept. and State Fire Marshal ' s Office to assist the City of
Shakopee in a team inspection of this facility.
The hotel is presently operating without a license . It also
was issued orders by the Health Dept. in January which have
not been complied with to date.
I have received a complaint from John DuBois on the overall
condition of- this facility. Since we are aware of the
dilapidated state of the building and the potential health
and safety problems , I have no recourse but to try to abate
them through rehab or condemnation.
TENTATIVE AGENDA
ADJ .REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA JULY 16, 1985
Mayor Reinke presiding
11 Roll Call at 7 : 00 P .M.
21 Liaison Reports from Councilmembers
3] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS
41 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. )
*5] Approval of the Minutes: July 2, 1985 Special Session, July 2 , 1985
Regular Session
61 Communications :
a] Lawrence E. Samstad re : request for curb cut on 10th Avenue
b] Assoc . of Metro Municipalities re : Membership on AMM Legislative
Policy Committee u-
cl
A7 ?ZZ
7.1 Public Hearings: (None
81 Boards and Commissions: Planning Commission:
a] Preliminary Plat of Notermann' s 2nd Add 'n. lying West of Adams
Street btwn 4th and 5th Aves. Replat of Lots 1-12 , B 8 , Koeper
Addition. Applicant , Joe Notermann
b] Preliminary and Final Plat of Palace 1st Addition lying South of
Hwy 101 and Northerly of the Northerly R-O-W of the Chicago,
St.Paul , Minneapolis & Omaha Railroad, in the SW 1/4 of
Sec . 2-115-2.2 . Applicant , Sandra Rosenberg/Richard Brandl .
c] Rezoning request from I-2 to B-2 for a 10 acre parcel lying within
the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Sec . 4-115-22 ( 700 CR-83) Applicant ,
Baron Development Corp . /Cecil Behringer
91 Reports from Staff:
a] Report on Remaining T. I .F. Debt. Capacity - Bob Pulscher
b] Macey Manor Sewer Billing
c] Amendment to Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan
d] Risk Management Services
#e] Ambulance Service Agreement
f] 8 : 30 P .M. - On-Sale Sunday Liquor License - Pullman Club , Inc.
g] Recognition Program for Non-Paid Board and Commission Members
h] City of Shakopee Employee Picnic
i] Approve Payment of Bills in Amount of $1 , 417, 529 .07
#j ] Refuse Disposal Contract
TENTATIVE AGENDA
July 16, 1985
Page -2-
9] Reports from Staff continued:
k] Audit Services for 1986
11 C .I .P. Follow-up (Informational )
m] 13th Avenue Roadway Surface (Informational )
;Clry),i1y Consultant Selection for Trunk Highway Work
Lpol Storm Water Drainage Utility
] Pedestrian Crossing Signals on First Avenue
q] Summary of Racetrack Off-Site Improvement Change Orders - info
r] Sixth Avenue Sewer Study
L y s] Contract Amendment with Barton-Aschman - Racetrack Off-Site Impr.
ryJCINAal t] K-Mart Fire Hydrants
*uJ 84-9 CR-83 Widening - Partial Estimate #3 for $24, 413 . 68
*v] 84-8 Hwy 101 Intersection - Partial Estimate #5 for $57, 544. 62;
and Change Order #5 for increase of $572.52
C0trl`t"I .-w] Consulting Services, City Engineer
10] Resolutions and Ordinances :
*a] Res. No. 2416, Amending the Personnel Policy
*b] Res . No. 2415, Apportioning Assessments for Della' s 1st Addition
c] Ord. No. 172, Prohibiting Trespassing Upon Land for Purposes of
Consumption of Alcohol or Controlled Substances
d] Res. No . 2418, Appreciation to H.R. (Bo) Spurrier - on table
111 Other Business :
a]
b]
c]
d]
12] Adjourn.
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JULY 2, 1985
Vice Mayor Vierling called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with Cncl. Leroux,
Colligan, Wampach and Lebens present. Mayor Reinke was absent. Also present
was Judith S. Cox, Citv Clerk.
Colligan/Lebens moved to accept the Call of the Mayor. Motion carried unanimously.
Lebens/Colligan moved to remove from the table the off-sale intoxicating liquor
license of The Weiss Company.
The City Clerk advised that the City had received a tax clearance certificate
from the Minnesota Department of Revenue and that the application is now in
order. Council was also advised that the Weiss Company has filed bankruptcy
under Chapter 11. Mr. Brad Weiss was present and answered questions of the
Council.
Leroux/Colligan moved to approve the application and grant an Off-Sale Intoxi-
cating Liquor License to The Weiss Company, 8522 East Highway 101, contingent
upon receipt of a certified check or cash, in lieu of a check now held by the
City for the license fee, from Mr. Weiss by noon, July 3, 1985. Motion carried
unanimously.
Leroux/Lebens moved to adjourn at 5:13 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
Recording Secretary
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JULY 2, 1985
Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. with Cncl. Wampach,
Vierling, Lebens, Colligan and Leroux present. Also present were John K.
Anderson, City Admr. ; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Julius A. Coller, II,
City Attorney; Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director; Judi Simac,
City Planner and H. R. Spurrier, City Engineer.
Wampach/Vierling moved to recess for an HRA meeting. Motion carried
unanimously.
Wampach/Lebens moved to re-convene at 7:14 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone present who wished to address the
Council on any item not on the agenda.
Fred Corrigan, on behalf of Canterbury Downs, expressed thanks to the City
for its part in the success of the opening of the racetrack and asked for
any comments. Various positive comments were made.
Colligan/Vierling moved to .approve the minutes of June ll, 1985 as kept.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Leroux/Wampach moved that because the rezoning request by Baron Develop-
ment has not yet come before the City Council, the letters from Anchor
Glass Container, CertainTeed, Fremont Industries and Ashland Chemical Co.
concerning that rezoning request be placed on file for reference until the
matter comes before City Council. Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion ensued regarding the reasoning for a proposed bucket machine
being funded by the sewer fund rather than capital equipment. The City
Admr. pointed out that the Sewer Fund is an enterprise fund, paid for by
a user fee, and therefore all actual expenses related to it need to be shown
in the sewer fund and paid for from it.
Leroux/Lebens moved- to authorize the Public Works Dept. to purchase a set
of used bucket machines .and extra buckets from Flexible Pipe Tool Co. for
a total of $4,500.00, to be paid for by the Sewer Fund Capital Equipment
budget.
Leroux/Lebens moved to amend the motion to add the purchase of extra buckets
for an additional $250.00. Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Roll. Call on main motion as amended: Ayes; Unanimous
Noes; None
Motion carried.
Leroux/Lebens moved to open the public hearing regarding the appeal by
Scott Gratz of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals decision to deny an 11
foot variance on Lot 5, Block 1, Hauer 2nd Addition. Motion carried unanimously.
Shakopee City Council
July 2, 1985
Page 2
The City Planner explained the background of the request. The City Admr.
added -that discussion by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals centered
on the fact that the lot was recently platted under the current zoning
ordinance, and therefore the developer was aware of the code and how the
topography affected that lot. The City Planner said that given the set-
backs., the lot still could accomodate an average sized single family home.
Mr. Gratz said he asked for access to his proposed house from the west,
but he could also put the driveway on the north side, if that would be
more agreeable. He said the lot is 1400 square feet, which should be big
enough to put a house on. But normally, with a corner lot a property owner
would be able to turn the house whichever way fit best, but he doesn't
have that option. He pointed out that none of the neighbors contested
the variance request. He added that the sale of the lot was not contingent
upon the variance being granted, so he does own the lot either way. But
he doesn't know if he can put the rambler he wants on it. He didn't think
any of the Commissioners visited the site, so he didn't think they under-
stood the hardship presented by the topography.
Discussion followed about sight lines with a ,car in the driveway.
The City Planner clarified that the comment she had made about the size
requirements of the code at the BORA meeting was in response to an over-
all discussion about the size of the proposed house relative to the size
of the lot.
Mayor Reinke asked if Mr. Gratz had considered another style of house that
would fit the shape of the lot better. Mr. Gratz replied that they have
two little girls and would not be willing to change the style of the house,
as he thinks a two-story house with the girls' bedrooms upstairs could be
a fire hazard. He added that the price of the lot included fill for a
walk-out style rambler.
Colligan/Leroux moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Colligan offered Variance Resolution No. CC-409, approving an 11 foot
variance for Lot 5, Block 1, Hauer's 2nd Addition, with the additional
stipulation that the driveway for the property be exited to the north to
Austin Court. Motion carried with Mayor Reinke opposed.
Leroux/Vierling moved to open the public hearing regarding the appeal by
Lon Carnahan to the decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals to
deny a permit to construct _a second principal building at 1725 West 3rd
Avenue. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner explained the background of the request and the denial.
Discussion followed regarding the placement of the NSP utility easement
and its affect on the development of the property_. The City Admr, pointed
out the option of removing the existing building and relocating and con-
structing a new building that would be a combination warehouse and office.
Shakopee City Council /
July 2, 1985
Page 3
Mr. Carnahan's attorney agreed that taking down the existing building is a
possibility, but since it is only 3 years old, it is not really a viable
option. He contends they have an unusual situation with the 125 foot NSP
easement which is so close to the existing building and prohibits them
from adding on to the building. That, coupled with the shape of the lot,
the bluff and the setback requirements gives them a hardship. He said
that in 1983 when Mr. Carnahan acquired the lot he asked about zoning for
an office and found that was allowed. However, at that time the problems
of making an office adjacent to the building were not known. He pointed
out that there were several instances in that area were people have built
more than one building on a lot, and some of the lots are smaller.
Mr. Carnahan's attorney clarified that this would not be an office build-
ing with tenants, but is intended to be a very small, 20' x 40' ; building
to serve only Mr. Carnahan's insulation business. There is no intention
to lease the space or allow anyone else to use it.
The City Planner further clarified the location of the property and the
existing building and the NSP easement. She said a decision had to be made
about whether or not service was to be provided to this area, as there is
another application for expansion in this urban service area which does
not have utilities. She pointed out that access from 3rd Ave. is not
constructed and it is bordered by the railroad tracks. She can understand
the applicant using this for his own purposes, but in the future there will
be a question of expansion on the lot, which doesn't really abut a public
right-of-way. She said access to the lot should be addressed, along with
parking facilities and a determination of services ,being provided.
Mr. Carnahan further clarified the location of the easement and why an
addition cannot be built to the existing building.
Mr. Carnahan's attorney expressed their willingness to add a requirement
that the office building stay the original size and be used only accessory
to the warehouse business. He thought a limited exception could be recorded
with the property. Discussion continued.
Vierling/Leroux moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Vierling/Leroux offered Variance Resolution No. CC-408, to construct a
second principal building at 1725 W. Third Avenue, and moved its denial.
Motion carried unanimously.
Vierling/Leroux moved to open the public hearing regarding the request by
Jerry Aronson and George Miller for the vacation of Shakopee Avenue west
of Adams Street. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Clerk explained that Mr. Miller and Mr. Aronson have submitted a
petition for vacation, with the intention of the construction of a structure
on the vacated property at some time in the future. She said the amount of
utility easement retained by the City as a matter of policy would create a
problem in the placement of a structure, and theretore .recommended that a
request be made to Minnegasco to try to reduce the size of the easement they
need to the smallest necessary size. Since that issue has not been finalized,
she would suggest tabling this request for vacation until a response is
received.
Shakopee City Council
July 2, 1985
Page 4
Discussion followed regarding the separation of the issues of the vacation
of the street and the vacation of the utilities. The City Admr. pointed out
that if the street is vacated, each of the property owners would receive
half of the vacated street, and it would have to be re-platted before any
construction could take place. One of the applicants acknowledged that
and said the property on both sides is torrens, so that procedure would
have to be followed through with the County. The City Attorney cautioned
that if the City is going to reserve any utility easements, they have to
be retained in the vacation proceedings.
One of the applicants stated that they would have no benefit from the vaca-
tion of the street unless the utility easement could be reduced. They have
no objection to an easement of a reasonable size. If they can't get the
easement smaller, they are not interested in the vacation of the street.
Wampach/Vierling moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Leroux moved to table consideration of the vacation request until
further information is received from Minnegasco regarding the easement.
Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Vierling moved to open the public hearing regarding the request by
Shakopee V.F.W. for the vacation of drainage and utility easements on Lots
2, 3 and 4, Block 1 of Furrie's 2nd Addition. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Clerk explained that utility easements would be retained along
the outside of the three lots, which would be considered as one lot.
Mayor Reinke asked if there were any comments from the audience.
Mr. Scheurer asked for clarification on the easements that were to be vacated.
The City Clerk explained those that would be vacated and those retained.
Wampach/Vierling moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unani-
mously.
Leroux/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2413, A Resolution Vacating Part
of a Drainage and Utility Easement in Lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 1, According
to the Plat of Furrie's 2nd Addition to the City of Shakopee, Scott County,
Minnesota, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner informed Councilmembers of the special City Council meet-
ing on July 9, 1985 to consider an appeal by Scott County Lumber Co. and
Bert Notermam from the decision by the Planning Commission to deny an
application for conditional use and mining permit. Based on the repre-
sentation of the applicant, she believes the application will be pursued
through the Court system, if necessary, and therefore requests this item
be assigned to the Assistant City Attorney.
Wampach/Leroux moved to assign the Assistant City Attorney to provide legal
counsel in regard to the application by Scott County Lumber Co. and Bert
Notermann for a conditional use permit and mining permit.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried..
Shakopee City Council
July 2, 1985 /
Page 5
The City Planner briefly explained some of the differences in this applica-
tion and the previous application a few years ago.
Wampach/Leroux moved to direct the Assistant City Attorney to attend the
July 9, 1985 public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Lebens moved to approve the application and grant a taxicab license
to Yellow Taxi Service Corporation, 127 1st Avenue N.E. , Minneapolis, Minne-
sota, 55413, beginning July 3, 1985. Motion carried unanimously.
Lebens/Leroux moved to table the application by Palace Properties, Inc.
for On Sale and Sunday, Class B, Intoxicating Liquor Licenses. Motion
carried unanimously.
The Community Develop. Dir, asked for direction from Council regarding the
use of Housing and Revenue Bonds and Notes for financing for multi-family
developments. She went over various restrictions which could be attached
to approval of the financing. She said developers are asking for this.
Discussion ensued regarding conformance with the designcriteria and a
possible requirement of maintenance free and energy efficient construction
materials.
Leroux/Vierling moved to direct staff to draw up an appropriate resolution
including policy, criteria and procedures for the review of Housing Revenue
Bonds as presented, with the additional criteria of using brick or equivalent
maintenance free exterior construction. Motion carried unanimously.
Considerable discussion took place regarding policy for the use of tax in-
crement for financing housing projects. The Community Develop. Dir. said
in the past this financing has been discussed for use where there is extreme
physical development difficulties, with specific mention of limestone de-
posits and Roberts Pit, although Robert's Pit is not in an R-4 zone.
Mayor Reinke suggested using mortgage revenue bonds to write down the land.
Further discussion ensued regarding hardship in installing utilities.
Consensus was to require a completed application from the developer request-
ing the City to initiate a project using tax increment funds to write down
the extraordinary utility construction cost of a proposed housing project.
Vierling/Colligan moved to authorize payment of $3,267.00 from General Fund
Contingencies, to Waste Management, Inc. for furnishing, hauling and dump-
ing 33-30 yard roll-off containers at $99.00 each, during the period June
8 through June 17, 1985, with appreciation being expressed .to Fulton
Schleisman for the idea and extra time helping with the clean-up effort,
and the recommendation for an annual clean-up day.
Mayor Reinke commented that this was a very visible demonstration of the
use by the City of the 10G ticket tax from the racetrack.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Shakopee City Council
July 2, 1985
Page 6
Lebens/Leroux moved that the bills in the amount of $783,045.81 be allowed
and ordered paid.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Colligan/Vierling moved to authorize the Police Department to purchase a
photo identification system at a cost of $1,495.00 from the General Bind-
ing Corp.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Colligan/Vierling moved to pay off all Comp time balances with the current
payroll period in order to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
The City Admr. urged Councilmembers to go to the meeting with the Scott
County Government Study Commission on August 7th. Consensus was to not go
on record in support of a County Management System at this time, without
all the pertinent information.
The City Admr. said the AMM has indicated that Federal Revenue Sharing
replacement is built into the Local Government Aid Formula as an automatic
base increase of the levy limit.
Leroux/Vierling moved to adopt the 1986-1990 Capital Equipment List dated
June 25, 1985. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Admr, said the Planning Commission has not yet reviewed the proposed
Capital Improvement Plan. Councilmembers reviewed the list, with specific
comments as follows:
#1; 169/101 Bridge: Mayor Reinke suggested the possibility of sell-
ing bonds for this improvement to get it started ahead of schedule, knowing
it will be reimbursed by MnDOT, as Bloomington did for the construction of
Cedar Avenue. The City would have to pay the cost of interest on the bonds
until reimbursement.
#9; Downtown Motel: Review and probably increase the amount.
413; The City Admr. explained this represents the City's level of partidi-
pation for the land write-down for the proposed Housing Alliance project.
X119; Prison Site Redevelopment: Mayor Reinke said there is a possibility of the
City acquiring that property for a token $1 in consideration of the services
provided for 60 years, along with the continuation of services for the new
site. The plan would be to put that 20 acres of property back on the tax
rolls with some type of HRA project.
X123; New City Hall: An update was given on the questionnaire sent out and the
public meeting scheduled for July 23, 1985 to take citizen input. There
are 8 sites on the list, within 3 general areas.
X128; CR17 Widening: The City Engineer suggested the County de-accelerate
that project around the by-pass, CR42 and the drainage area until the by-pass
plans are firm.
Shakopee City Council
July 2, 1985
Page 7
#31; CR16 Overpass: Mayor Reinke commented that with the increase in the
generation of traffic on CR16 in the last year, he would like to see this
project moved up on the County's schedule. The City Engineer added that
a decision has to be made about what section CR16 should be--urban or rural.
The City Admr. said the decision on CR21 in Prior Lake will influence who
pays for what on urban and rural sections.
4135; Holmes St. Laterals: The City Engineer said the decision for the Drain-
age Utility was to be made in 1985. He added he plans on giving Mr.
Pulscher this Capital Improvement Plan to use in analyzing the tax incre-
ment district and what it can produce.
4147; Highrise-Levee Water Extension: The City Admr. said this represents the
City's portion of water utilities for the possible construction on the three
lots of a senior highrise adjacent to the Levee Drive highrise. y
4149; 13th Avenue - CR 89 East: Mayor Reinke asked for additional main-
tenance, made necessary because of the heavy use as a way to avoid the rail-
road crossing. The City Admr. made a note to see about additional grading
and a heavier application of calcium chloride.
4155; Memorial Park: The City Admr. to check on what this is for; what
type of additional park improvements.
4157 & 4158; 13th Avenue-CR17-CR79 Sewer Extension: Working on a Comp Plan
amendment to request opening this area up for development, which was
supposed to occur in 1985. There will also be a request by Scottland to
amend the sewer service area.
4164; 3M Octagon System: The City Admr. to check on what this means.
#72; Bike Trail to O'Dowd: Cncl. Vierling said one of the local service
clubs might be interested in participating in this project.
Discussion ensued regarding blacktopping the trail from the Babtist Church
to the mall as a temporary measure. The City Engineer explained that trail
crosses .property of the ,church, Watson Develop. and the mall, and there
is no property between the church and the mall to develop. That is where
Polk Avenue will come through, so the sidewalk/trail would be temporary.
The City Engineer said this is a policy decision about whether or not sub-
standard sidewalks will be allowed for a temporary term. The City Admr.
will approach the property owners relative to the installation of a side-
walk and assessments for it.
The City Admr. said he would put this Capital Improvement Plan on agenda
for the next regular meeting with clarifications of the items questioned.
Consensus was that this draft of the Capital Improvement Plan was a suitable
document to give to Mr. Pulscher for his use in determining tax increment funds.
Colligan/Lebens offered Resolution No. 2414, A Resolution Approving Plans
and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids, Eaglewood Street
Rehabilitation, Project No. 1985-2, and moved its adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Shakopee City Council
July 2, 1985
Page 8
The City Engineer discussed his memo regarding traffic control for 4th
Avenue. Cncl. Leroux stated he thought a 30 m.p.h. speed limit was ridi-
culously slow. The City Engineer replied that they want the traffic to
go about 40 m.p.h. , and to do that they have to sign it at 30 m.p.h. ,
because if it is signed at 40 m.p.h. , the traffic will go 50 m.p.h.
Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize the Street Dept. to install 40 m.p.h.
speed limit signs on Fourth Avenue between CR17 and CR83, leaving it 30
m.p.h. where it is now, with funding of the cost of signs and installation
from the Racetrack fund. Motion carried with Cncl. Colligan and Lebens
opposed.
The City Admr. said the Police Dept. is working on shutting down the sale
of tip sheets on Hwy. 101 and the Bloomington Ferry Bridge.
The City Admr. explained the new Federal law regarding compensation for
volunteer firemen who work for municipalities as it relates to overtime
hours. He is checking out the ramifications further with other cities
and the League.
Leroux/Wampach moved for a five minute recess at 10:36 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously.
Colligan/Lebens moved to re-convene at 10:45 p.m. Motion carried unani-
mously.
Colligan/Lebens moved to recess for Executive Session. Motion carried
unanimously.
Leroux%Colligan moved to reconvene at 12:05 a.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Vierling moved to adjourn to July 9, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:05 a.m.
Judith S. Cox
City Clerk
Diane Beuch
Recording Secretary
y�" lli
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Lawrence E. Samstad Curb Cut Request
DATE: July 11 , 1985
Introduction
Attached is a letter and site plan from Mr. Lawrence E. Samstad,
regarding a home he proposes to build at 1342 East 10th Avenue
in Shakopee. Mr. Samstad is requesting a curb cut on 10th Avenue
which has been denied by the City Engineer.
Background
The City has severely limited driveway access on 10th Avenue
through the controlling of curb cut permits. Mr. Samstad would
like to have curb cuts on both Legion Street and 10th Avenue
as shown in his site plan. I reviewed this issue with the City
Engineer and he indicated that all driveway accesses in this
subdivision were intended to be on the north/south streets and
that the driveway access for this lot was intended to be on
Legion Street. Because the City Engineer is responsible for
the safety aspects of streets in Shakopee, he cannot recommend
approval of Mr. Samstad' s request.
When Mr. Samstad appears before Council, Council may wish to
discuss alternative garage configurations available to him that
would would permit a driveway on Legion Street.
Alternatives
1. Pass a motion supporting the City Engineer ' s denial of
Mr. Samstad' s request to have a second curb cut for a driveway
on 10th Avenue.
2 . Approve Mr. Samstad' s request for a second driveway cut
on 10th Avenue.
Summary and Recommendation
City Council receives occasional requests from citizens regarding
exceptions to normal street cut policies that affect overall
roadway safety. Even though the City Engineer or Chief of Police
may render a professional "opinion" , it is an opinion from a
professional that would be acceptable in a court of law should
there ever be an accident and resultant legal case. According
to Rod Krass City Council may select other "reasonable alternatives"
which may or may not be as defensible as a professional "opinion"
once in court on an issue. To my knowledge, staff has not discussed
this peculiar decision making dilemma with Council before.
It only became clear to me after discussing the recent Council
decision on speed limits on 4th Avenue with Rod Krass , the City
Enginner and the Chief of Police. In short, factual recommendations
by professionals and "opinions" by professionals are acceptable
in court testimony if things go wrong, any reasonable decisions
by a City Council may be defensible. This dilemma is more comp-
licated the farther a Council decision gets from a professional ' s
recommendation( s) .
For the reasons discussed above I recommend alternative No. 1 .
Action Requested
Pass a motion supporting the City Engineer ' s recommendation
to deny Mr. Lawrence E. Samstad a curb cut for 1342 East 10th
Avenue.
JKA/j ms
C
315 E. 3rd Street
Chaska, MN 55318
July 11, 1985
City Council
City of Shakopee
129 First Ave. East
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Councilpersons:
I respectfully request that a curb cut be allowed as indicated on the
enclosed drawing, 1342 East 10th Avenue, Shakopee. The legal description
is Lot 1, Block 7, Eagle Bluff Second Addition.
The proposed house location is shown as is the turnaround driveway which
will eliminate the need for backing onto 10th Avenue. As you can see by
the drawing, the setbacks for this lot determines the orientation of the
house which is also shown on an enclosed drawing.
I feel that the proposed turnaround drive way eliminates a potentially
hazardous traffic entrance to 10th Avenue.
The proposed house is a rambler style, single family, first floor and
basement only.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
7..,-,z
L
e, a,;,,�
Lawrence E. Samstad
Encl: Proposed location map
Proposed house rendering
cc: Mr. Bo Spurrier, City Engineer
Proposed • . for •me at 1342 East 10th Avenue, Shakopee
RX
a' r
:r � � ..••. j:his�4 �,�"'1i
3
/O' 4,,e�vuc EAST-
o -
i � n
�o
�Sn
c✓iso c✓,- f `y
i
/92.7' -- - - --
3 K3T
1 O T✓RA/f40WuL pl
'7 Z*wz W*P,
� 30'
\n \
1
i O
W♦I
• 1 SOT LD�:K 7 IASL 1�<UFF .e n.wwM.TA�J
�, 1 CU2�3 CvT �EQvES ! 20 wsvlssc
1342
1 SEGONI� NDD/yio,\/
t
DAT. If,12 DMAWIMO MYM89M
i--/
95
too$#,
B U L L E
association of
metropolitan July 9 , 1985x . r
municipalities
TO: AMM Member City Officials
9Jr
FROM: Ji�?heibel, President CITY OF SHAKOPFF.
RE : Membership on AMM Legislative Policy Committee
THE AMM NEEDS YOUR HELP !
The Board of Directors will be making two year appointments to
the Policy Study Committees which are the backbone of developing
organizational goals, positions on issues, and determining the -
future role of cities in our Metropolitan Area. It is important
for your city to be represented on one or more of these
committees so that your views can be expressed in a positive and
forceful manner at the Legislature and Metropolitan Council.
Only through active participation by elected and appointed city
officials, such as yourself, can decisive and insightful
positions on the many critical problems facing our cities_ be
developed, put forth, and won.
Some of the critical issues facing our cities now are
implementation of initiatives for reduction and separation of
solid waste, development of a local aid formula since the
current formula was passed for one year only, reaction to a
legislative study commission looking at local government finance
and accountability, light rail transit, highway jurisdiction and
funding, Metropolitan Council initiatives for increased planning
such as aggregate preservation, ground water protection, and
many others.
We, as city officials, cannot afford to be silent. Please take
a few minutes to read the brief description of the five standing
committees and volunteer a small amount of your valuable time to
make an impact by filling in and returning the attached form.
The committees will meet in September and October approximately
four times each year. The- Board of Directors would like a clear
indication of all persons who are willing and able to give a
small part of their time and energy to serve on one or more of
these committees.
Mayors, Councilmembers, Managers, and Administrators will
receive this Bulletin individually. However, - if other city
employees such as finance directors, housing officers, planners,
etc. would like to serve, please submit their names.
The Board would also welcome any suggestions for specific issues
or concerns to be studied by the committees. If you have
questions, please contact either Roger Peterson or Vern Peterson
in the AMM Office (227-5600) .
(over)
183 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227-5600
COMMITTEE DESCRIPTIONS :
1 . Metropolitan Agencies Committee - The Chair of this
a Committee is Kevin Frazell , Mendota Heights Administrator .
Considers legislative issues and non-legislative issues
J related to the Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan
Commissions. The Committee looks at the structure and
relationship between these regional entities and local units
of government . Reviews amendments to Metropolitan
Development Guide Chapters and any new chapters developed .
In past years , the Committee has developed policy on land
use planning , metropolitan significance solid ase
management , Met Council selection process, etc .
2 . Municipal Revenues Committee - The Chair of this
ommittee is Walt Fehst , Robbinsdale Manager.
Considers any matter concerning revenues, taxes, and city
expenditures. Included are state aid formulas, state aid
dollars , levy limits , property tax assessments , tax
increment financing, fiscal disparities, and re-development
funding methods. The Committee will be looking very
carefully at the effects of the state aid formula and levy
limit modifications.
3 . Housing Committee - The Chair of this Committee is Leslie
Turner , Edina Cou:zcilmember.
Concerns itself with all issues related to housing including
subsidized housing, affordable housing, and activities of
the Metropolitan HRA . Reviews amendments to the Metropolitan
Council' s Housing Guide Chapter with particular emphasis on
low and moderate income housing concerns.
4 . General Legislative Committee - The Chair of this
Committee is Gary Bastian , Maplewood Councilmember.
Examines issues which have impact on metropolitan area
cities outside the scope of other AMM committees. In the
past , this Committee developed policy on municipal self
insurance , municipal consolidation , pensions, cable
communications , Pi:LREA Amendments , etc .
5 . Transportation Committee - The Chair of this Committee is
Bob Benke , New Brighton Councilmember.
1 Studies major issues related to transportation and transit
J at the metropolitan , state and federal levels. The ten ( 10 )
elected officials who represent the AMM on the
Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) and the eight (8 ) city
staff officials who represent the AMM on the Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC) are automatic members of this
Committee . Other city officials may also serve .
-2-
�C
Juty 8, 1985
j
Mayon A.Lv.in E. Reinke
l 2 4 Eazt F.i2bt Avenue
Shakopee, Minnebota 55379
Dean Mayon Reinke:
Az execut)Lix jot my mothen.'b "tate, thin iz to .in jonm
you that the pnopenty o f Laura Hubei. at 210 Hotmez Street
w.itZ be {on Bate.
It ho-6 been auggebted to me by a Jew neputabte c.it.izenz
o J Shakopee that the city may be .intetezted .in .the pi.-
chabe o6 thio Land becauze oa the de,&ixabte tocation to
the downtown area and i4ot the 6utune •Long-range develop-
ment ptLanz.
I would Zike to think th.ia pnopetty wou.Ld be 6o.Ld to aome-
one .interested .in ut.iZiz.ing it to enhance the ovenaZi a&ea
and not to a Aeti-.intenebt gkoup who may cauze a conitict
of .intetebt and .in the .Long nun have .it be dettimentat
to the City o6 Shakopee, I 'm aurae my pan.entz would not
Zike to Aee th.iz happen.
Pteaz e tet me know .i� you have any .intehest .in d.i z cu44 ins
th.i4 jutthen az I would tike very much to detetm.ine the
beat method o6 d.izpo4i.tion o6 .the pnopenty as noon az poz-
z ibte.
Very tnut y yo unz,
o �
NIE H. BLEWETT
4611 DEERWOOD DRIVE
MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55343
938-5653
cc: Mb. Jeanne Andre
Community Devetopment Dept.
C%
Mr. Chairman,
Members of the Planning Commission,
and Staff
City of Shakopee
Page 2
July 1985
Our proposal will fill a significant gap now developing with Shakopee's
increased public awareness as becoming a regional entertainment
community.
Our unabiding commitment will be to you and your community to provide a
"first class" facility that everyone involved can be proud of and will endure
well into the future as quality development.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
HEIS" 'ANNEI & ASSOCIATES
Richard A. Heise, A.I.A.
President
RAH:LS
MEMORANDUM
TO: SHAKOPEE PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: July 2, 1985
FROM: FAEGRE & BENSON
RE: BARON DEVELOPMENT' S PROPOSAL TO REZONE PROPERTY FOR THE
FOUNTAIN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT
I . INTRODUCTION
Baron Development ( "Baron" ) owns a 10 acre parcel of
land located one-half mile south of Highway 101 along the west
side of. County Road 83 and adjacent to the newly developed
Canterbury Downs Race Track in Shakopee, Minnesota (the "Site"
The Site is bounded on the north by a treeline and racquet club,
on the west by County Road 83 and on the south and west by a
narrow strip of agricultural land which abuts Canterbury Downs
also on both the south and west. The Site is located at the top
of a small rise and is clearly visible from Canterbury Downs.
Baron proposes to develop the Site as a first-class
quality hotel; restaurant and retail establishment to be called
Fountain Bridge (the "Project" ) . When completed, the Project
will -consist of a full-service eight-story hotel containing up to
150 guest rooms, including suites; a first-class restaurant and
bar/lounge; an indoor/outdoor swimming pool; meeting and banquet
facilities and other amenities. The retail facilities will be
located in an adjacent building and will be designed to serve
hotel guests and visitors and employees of the nearby race track.
The architectural design of the hotel and retail
buildings will complement the architectural design of the new
Canterbury Downs Race Track.. The Project is designed as a
"destination development" . The Project will serve visitors to
the race track and other area tourist attractions as well as
business conferences and meetings.
There are no other existing or immediately planned
developments of this type in the area. The existing hotels in
the area are primarily economy oriented lodging facilities. The
closest food and beverage facilities are 22 miles west of the
site. The closest retail facilities are 2 miles from the Site.
The Site is currently zoned I-2 : Heavy Industrial.
Hotel and retail development is not a permitted use in an I-2
district. . Thus, Baron has requested an amendment to the Shakopee
Zoning Code (the "Code" ) to rezone the Site to B-2 . Moreover,
since the Code defines hotels, and restaurants located within
hotels, as conditional uses in a B-2 district, Baron must apply
for a conditional use permit. In fact Baron intends to apply
under the Code' s planned unit development ( "PUD" ) conditional use
provisions.
Objections to Baron' s rezoning request have been
raised. These objections are based in part on the claim that the
proposed rezoning would constitute illegal spot zoning and is
inconsistent with the Shakopee Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan" )..
The purpose of this memo .is to address these concerns and ob-
jections.
-2-
II . ISSUES
1. Is the proposed rezoning prohibited as illegal
spot zoning?
2 . Is the proposed rezoning consistent with the
Shakopee Zoning Code?
3 . Is the proposed rezoning consistent with the
Shakopee Comprehensive Plan:'
III . CONCLUSIONS
1 . The proposed rezoning does not constitute illegal
spot zoning. Spot zoning is a term applied to zoning amendments
which arbitrarily reclassify one or more lots for use inconsis-
tent with adjacent property and without regard to the public
welfare. If a rezoning bears a substantial relationship to the
promotion of the health, safety or welfare of the community, it
will not be invalidated as spot zoning regardless of the size of
the lot rezoned. Rezoning the Site from I-2 to B-2 would promote
the public welfare by providing necessary hotel, dining and
shopping amenities and would be consistent with the development
and use of adjacent property.
2 . The proposed rezoning of the Site from I-2 to B-2
is consistent with the criteria and findings required in the
Shakopee Zoning Code. The Code prohibits the indiscriminate
issuance of amendments and requires findings based on the status
of the original ordinance, changes in community and neighborhood
goals and development patterns and the goals of the Comprehensive
Plan. Application of these criteria shows that there have been
-3-
significant changes in the goals of the City and in development
patterns around the Site since the original ordinance was passed
which justify reclassification of the Site.
3 . The proposed rezoning is consistent with the
Shakopee Comprehensive Plan given the recent change in develop-
ment patterns around the Site. The Plan did not and could not
anticipate the development of Canterbury Downs. Consequently,
the Project, which is designed to complement and reinforce the
adjoining race track both complies with and conflicts with the
Plan as adopted in 1981. The apparent conflicts disappear when
the actual development pattern around the Site is considered.
Further, the Code provides that a zoning change automatically
amends the Plan. A recent State law also reinforces the primacy
of zoning over a comprehensive plan when the two conflict.
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Cities Have Wide And Liberal Authority To Rezone.
Unger its police powers, a city may adopt zoning
amendments which regulate property development. Such amendments
may be enacted where necessary to promote the public welfare or
other legitimate object of the police power. McQuillan, Munici-
pal Corporations § 25 . 65 (3rd ed. ) . Zoning must be sufficiently
flexible to adjust for changed or changing conditions. Id.
The determination of when .the public interest requires
a change in the zoning ordinance is within the discretion of the
city council or other municipal agency having the authority to
amend the ordinance. Sun Oil Co. v. New Hope, 300 Minn. 326, 220
-4-
N.W.2d 256 (1974) . An amendment may be disapproved by the courts
only if it can be shown that the rezoning was arbitrary,
unreasonable and not arguably in the interest of the public
welfare. Anderson, American Law of Zoning § 4.26 (2d. ed. 1976) .
Amendments which reclassify one parcel or only a small number of
parcels may be vulnerable to attack as arbitrary or illegal spot
zoning.
B. Rezoning Of A Small Area Does Not Constitute Spot Zoning If
It Promotes The Public Welfare, Is Consistent With The
Development And Use Of Adjacent Property, Responds To
Changing Conditions Anti Does Not Substantially Diminish The
Value Of The Adjacent Owner ' s Land.
The term "spot zoning" refers to:
certain zoning amendments invalidated as
legislative acts unsupported by any rational
basis related to promoting public welfare
. the term applies to zoning changes
typically limited to small plots of land,
which establish a use classification incon-
sistent with surrounding uses and create an
island of nonconforming use within a larger
zone district, and which dramatically reduce
the value for uses specified in the zoning
ordinance of either the rezoned plat or
abutting property.
State v. City of Rochester.. 268 N.W.2d 885 (Minn. 1978) .
The courts examine several factors to determine whether
a. reclassification of a small_ parcel constitutes invalid spot
zoning. These factors include ( 1) the size of the parcel
rezoned, (2 ) the public interest to be served by the rezoning,
(3) the classification and development of the adjacent property,
(4) change of conditions after enactment of a zoning ordinance,
-5-
and (5) detriment to the adjacent land owners. Anderson,
American Law of Zoning § 5. 09 (2d ed. 1976) .
1 . Size is not the sole factor in determining spot
zoning.
Not every reclassification of a small parcel consti-
tutes illegal spot zoning. Small area changes have been
sustained where factors other than size seemed critical to the
courts. Anderson, American Law of Zoning § 5 . 11. For example,
such amendments have been upheld simply on the conclusion that
reclassification was consistent with the community plan. Id. In
Fifteen Fifty North State Building Corp. v. Chicago, 155 N.E.2d
97 ( Ill. 1958) , the Supreme Court of Illinois sustained the
rezoning of a small tract and observed:
While it is true that inconsistent zoning of
small parcels is not to be encouraged, this
does not mean that every reclassification of
a single tract is void ipso facto; rather, it
must be determined whether such change is in
harmony with a comprehensive plan for orderly
utilization of property in the locality; and
the size of the rezoned tract or area is
merely one factor to be considered.
Id. at 102 .
The Minnesota Supreme Court has also sustained the
rezoning of a small tract against a spot zoning charge. In State
v. City of Rochester the Court concluded that the rezoning of a
1. 18 acre tract did not constitute spot zoning when the rezoned
parcel was consistent with the development of adjacent property,
served an important public purpose and did not substantially
diminish the value of adjacent property. 268 N.W. 2d at 890-92 .
-6-
Another important factor in distinguishing a valid
zoning amendment from illegal spot zoning is the public interest
to be served.
2 . Amendments rezoning small parcels do not consti-
tute spot zoning if they promote the public
welfare.
The validity of rezoning a small parcel depends upon
more than the size of the "spot" or the fact that it is sur-
rounded by uses of another character than those for which the
"spot" is zoned. McQuillan, Municipal Corporations § 25. 84 (3rd
ed. ) . The relevant inctuiry is whether the rezoning is accom-
plished for the benefit of an individual owner or for the general
welfare of the community. Id. If the public interest is served
or protected by an amendment,, the mere fact that a particular
parcel of land or a particular individual owner may be affected
by the amendment either favorably or adversely is immaterial .
Id. at § 25. 67a.
The public interest: to be served by the rezoning can be
_ anything from the provision of necessary housing to the provision
of a needed motel complex. See e. g. State v. City of Rochester
268 N.W.2d 885 (rezoning of 1 . 18 acre tract was not arbitrary and
capricious when " [t]here was evidence of the need for more
high-density housing in the City of Rochester" ) . Tennison v.
Shomette, 379 A.2d 187 (Md. 1978) (rezoning of a small tract of
land to C-2 in a C-1 district was not spot zoning where there was
community need for a motel complex of the proposed type and such
a use was compatible with the other uses permitted in C-1) . The
-7-
police power requires only that the amendment have some .rational
basis designed to further the general welfare of the public.
McQuillan, Municipal Corporations § 25 . 67a.
3 . Rezoning must not form an island of nonconforming
use within a larger district and must be consis-
tent with the classification and development of
adjacent property.
Another factor courts will consider is the character of
the area surrounding the rezoned parcel . Anderson, American .Law
of Zoning § 5 . 12 . Spot zoning seems more likely where an amend-
ment creates an island of nonconforming use within a larger
district than when it merely extends an existing district. Id.
at § 5 . 11. In State v. City of Rochester for example, the court
upheld an amendment rezoning a 1. 18 acre parcel from single
family to high density residential. The court observed that the
rezoned property was within three blocks of the central business
district and was adjoined on two sides by high density and
institutional uses and therefore did not create an island of
nonconforming use. Rochester at 892 . See also Schubach v.
Silver, 336 A.2d 328 (Pa. 1975) (rezoning was not spot zoning
where the rezoned property functioned as a natural extension of
an adjoining commercial use) .
Regardless of whether an amendment creates an island,
the rezoning of a small parcel generally will be upheld if the
change is in harmony with the uses and classification of the
surrounding area. McQuillan, Municipal Corporations § 25 . 83
-8-
In Galanes V. Brattleboro, 388 A.2.d 406 (Vt. 1978) for
instance, the Vermont Supreme Court refused to find spot zoning
even through the rezoning maintained a small island of commercial
use in an otherwise residential area because the rezoning had the
legitimate purpose of preserving the neighborhood character of
the area.
Similarly, in Dent v. Kansas City, 519 P.2d 704 (Kan.
1974) the court concluded that a zoning amendment reclassifying
21 areas of land from residential single family to multiple
residence use was not spot zoning when ' the rezoned property was
surrounded by mixed uses and where the change did not injure
surrounding land values.
4. Amendments rezoning small parcels do not consti-
tute spot zoning if they respond to changing
conditions.
The "fundamental justification" for an amendment to a
zoning ordinance is a change of conditions making the amendment
reasonably necessary to protect the public interest. McQuillan,
Municipal Corporations § 25 . 676. (3rd ed. ) As to spot zoning and
changing conditions, the author goes on to note,
"Spot zoning" may constitute a valid
exercise of the zoning power when there is a
substantial change of conditions in an area
or where the original zoning was erroneous.
Id. § 25 . 84.
Several courts have observed that changing conditions
justify rezoning. In Gadsde v. Downs, 412 So. 2d 267 (Ala. 1982)
for example, the Supreme Court of Alabama upheld the rezoning of
-9-
c�
a single lot from a residential to business classification. The
court concluded that the rezoning was not arbitrary where the
character and use of property in the neighborhood was changing to
business and professional offices.
5. Substantial detriment to an adjoining landowner
should be considered but is not conclusive.
The courts will also consider the fact that a zoning
amendment may substantially diminish an adjacent landowners
property value. See e. g. State v. City of Rochester, 268 N.W.2d
885 (amendment upheld where adjacent property owners did not
establish substantial diminution in value of their property) . An
amendment of the zoning ordinance, however, is not objectionable
merely because it brings about a depreciation or diminution of
property values. McQuillan, Municipal Corporations § 25. 66. If
the amendment reasonably tends to promote the public welfare, it
will be upheld. Id.
C. The Proposed Rezoning Of The Site Satisfies Judicial Tests
For Proper Rezoning.
An amendment rezoning the Site from I-2 to B-2 does- not
constitute illegal spot zoning. Although the size of the Site is
relatively small, the Minnesota Supreme Court has sustained the
rezoning of a substantially smaller parcel . See State v. City of
Rochester, 268 N.W.2d 885 ( rezoning of 1. 18 acre tract upheld) .
Rezoning the Site to permit the development of a hotel,
restaurant and retail development promotes the public welfare.
The Project would benefit the community by providing otherwise
unavailable retail services and accommodations for individuals
-10-
and business clients and conventions. The Project would also
benefit the community and t:he many visitors to Shakopee' s growing
number of outdoor recreational opportunities by enhancing and
complementing these attractions. Canterbury Downs, Murphy' s
Landing, Valley Fair Amusement Park, the Renaissance Festival and
other attractions can benefit from nearby first class hotel
accommodations and quality retail services. The Project will
increase Shakopee ' s ability to draw tourists and business from
the entire five state area and Canada.
In addition, the development of the Site for hotel,
restaurant and retail purposes is consistent and compatible with
the development and use of adjacent property. The Site is
immediately adjacent to Canterbury Downs, a 390 acre commercial
recreational development. The property to the north of the Site
is developed and used as a tennis and racquet club. To the east
is County Highway 83 which acus as a natural buffer between the
Site and the industrial development on the other side of High-
way 83 .
The Project also is consistent with the changing land
use in the area. While zoned for heavy industry, the recently
developed Canterbury Downs Race Track adjoins the Site to the
west and south and now dominates land use west of County Road 83 .
The Site represents a natural and logical location for a track
related commercial development such as the Project.
The Project is not only consistent with the development
of the adjacent properties but would complement them. No
-11-
evidence has been submitted that the Project would depress the
values of adjacent lands. Rather, Baron submits the Project
would enhance the value and attraction of those properties as
Canterbury Downs has already done.
The proposed rezoning satisfies all the judicial tests
of proper rezoning. It promotes the public interest, is consis-
tent with the development and use of adjacent property, responds
to changing land use in the immediate vicinity and does not
substantially diminish the value of adjacent property.
D. Rezoning Of The Site Satisfies The Criteria Of The Shakopee
Zoning Code.
Section 11 . 04, Subd. 7I of the Shakopee Zoning Code
provides that amendments changing the boundaries of any district
or changing the regulations of any existing district shall not be
issued indiscriminately, but shall be based on certain findings
and criteria. Those findings and criteria include the following:
(1) that the original zoning ordinance is in error, (2 ) that
significant changes in community goals and policies have taken
place, (3 ) that significant changes in City-wide or- neighborhood
development patterns have occurred, (4) that the change
implements the Comprehensive Plan' s management -program. Id.
Application of these criteria will not prohibit the
rezoning of the Site from I-2 to B-2 .
(1) The original zoning ordinance did not contemplate
development of Canterbury Downs.
The original zoning ordinance designates the Site as
I-2 . There is no claim that this ordinance is in error. It was
-12.-
enacted, however, long before thoroughbred horse racing was a
legal activity in Minnesota,, and even longer before Shakopee
became the site of Minnesota' s first race track. It is clear
that the original zoning ordinance did not and could not con-
template that the Site would eventually adjoin a horse racing
track or that the Site would be better suited for track related
development than the heavy industrial use for which it is
presently zoned. Thus, although not technically in error, the
original zoning ordinance is not suited to the changed conditions
of the area surrounding the Site. In this regard, courts and
commentators have observed that zoning laws should be progressive
and sufficiently flexible to adjust public conveniences to the
complexities of modern conditions. McQuillan, Municipal Corpo-
rations § 25. 63 and cases cited there.
2 . Community goals and policies have expanded to
include outdoor recreational development in
addition to industrial development.
Since the original zoning ordinance was enacted in
1981; the development of outdoor recreational facilities and
attractions has become increasingly important and popular in
Shakopee. Valley Fair Amusement Park has continued its policy of .
adding at least one major new ride per year. Last year the
Renaissance Festival remained open for additional weekends to
accommodate the larger crowds. Murphy' s Landing, a nonprofit
enterprise of historical significance to the development of
Minnesota, has noted a big increase in visitors this season.
-13-
In addition to these existing attractions, new outdoor
attractions have recently opened in Shakopee. The most obvious
is Canterbury Downs which promises to be a popular attraction
based on opening week attendance figures. A venture called
Creative River Tours has also just begun an outdoor operation.
Creative River Tours provides pontoon boat rides from downtown
Shakopee to Murphy' s Landing and back.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the
U. S. Fish. and Wildlife Department continue their efforts to
implement the Comprehensive Plan for the Minnesota Valley Natural
Wildlife Refuge, Recreation area and State Trail. When completed
this plan will include a trail running from LeSeuer, Minnesota to
Fort Snelling and refuge and wilderness areas near Fisher and
Rice Lakes. The trail will run along the northern boundary of
Shakopee through the Minnesota River valley.
With the development of all of these attractions,
Shakopee is becoming known as Minnesota' s outdoor entertainment
center.- Shakopee has expanded . its development goals to promote
outdoor recreational development. Rezoning of the Site would be
in accord with Shakopee' s expanded development goals. An enter-
tainment center requires complementary services and amenities
such as a hotel, dining and shopping. Such services and
amenities enhance the viability and availability of the main
attractions. - Development of the Site as a hotel, restaurant and
retail project would provide all of these services and amenities
to Shakopee ' s growing outdoor recreational attractions.
-14-
3 . Nearby devel�ipment patterns have chanaed from
industrial to commercial recreational uses.
Although the Site is zoned as I-2, the strong areas of
industrial development in Shakopee have been .in the east end of
the Industrial Park and along County Highway 101. No industrial
developer has attempted to take advantage of the Site' s I-2
zoning as long as the current developer has owned it.
The development pattern of the areas neighboring the
Site have favored commercial development. The land immediately
to the north of the site is used as a tennis and racquet club.
Even more importantly, the land to the west and south of the Site
has been developed as Canterbury Downs. These developments are
best described as commercial recreational uses. The proposed
Project is consistent with this recent trend toward commercial
recreational land use.
A study by Lavanthal and Horwath, a highly respected
consultant in the hospitality industry, confirms the Site ' s
excellent location for development as a hotel and retail project.
The study concludes that the Project will attract visitors from
all ofthe surrounding recreational attractions and especially
Canterbury Downs. The study also observes that during the
off-season the Project will serve as a business convention and
conference center for Shakopee and the surrounding communities.
-15-
E. Given The Recent Change In Land Use Adjoining The Site, The
Proposed Rezoning Is Consistent With The Shakopee Comprehen-
sive Plan.
1. The Plan did not and could not anticipate the
development of Canterbury Downs.
During the development of the Plan and at the time of
its approval in 1981, no one anticipated the possibility of
locating a major racetrack in Shakopee. Indeed horse racing and
associated betting activities were prohibited by the Minnesota
Constitution. This fact is reflected in the assumptions built
into the Plan. On page 23 of the Plan in Table 13, future
commercial land use consumption is forecast at 20 acres per year
in the 1980' s. On page 38 in Table 19, this forecast is con-
verted into future acreage expansion needs by indicating future
commercial needs of 100 acres from 1980 to 1985 and an additional
100 acres from 1985 to 1990. In contrast, the Canterbury Downs
commercial recreational development encompasses 390 acres, almost
double the forecast commercial acreage growthforthe entire
decade of the 80s.
2 . The Project complies with most applicable pro-
visions of the Plan as originally adopted.
a. Industrial Base Land Use Policies. The
Project complies with the two applicable industrial base land use -
policies set forth on page 44 of the Plan. The first policy is
to "preserve industrial park area for present and future develop-
ment needs" . ' The Project does not interfere with preserving the
industrial park area for present and future development needs.
Map. 4 following page 31 shows that the major new industrial
-16-
developments between 1973 and 1977 occurred along Highway 101 and
in Valley Industrial Park to the east of County Road 83 and the
Site. The Plan anticipates that industrial growth will continue
in these two areas, not at the Site.
The second policy a:s to "make industrial area develop-
ment compatible with adjacent land uses. " Given that heavy
industrial uses are not desirable immediately adjacent to
Canterbury Downs, the Project: will serve as a buffer between the
industrial development to the east of County Highway 83 and the
race track.
b. Land Use Capability Policies. The Project
meets the two applicable lane( use capability policies set forth
on page 44. The first is to "maintain logical land use breaks as
streets and drainage ways. " The Project uses County Road 83 as a
logical break between the industrial areas to the east and the
commercial development of the race track and associated uses to
the west. The Project also makes use of the tree line and change
in elevation to the north as a logical break between adjacent
agricultural uses and the race track and associated commercial
uses.
The second po-licy is to "establish good site planning
standards. " Baron Development has sought to meet this policy by
applying for a rezoning to B-2 and through the PUD process which
will allow City participation in site planning. Baron could have
applied for a rezoning to B-1 which would permit a hotel without
-17-
a conditional use permit or a PUD, thus limiting City involvement
in site planning.
C. Future Urban Service Expansion Area. The
Project fits into two of the future urban service expansion area
policies enunciated on page 40. The first policy is to "expand
the urban service area in a consequential manner which is periph-
eral to the existing urban service area. " Map 9 following
page 37 shows that the Project would fall into the Existing Urban
Area and would be immediately adjacent to the Phase A 1980-1985
Urban Service Expansion Area. Indeed the Canterbury Downs Race
Track is largely located in this Phase A Area.
The second policy is to "discourage leapfrog develop-
ment patterns with urban services which increase utility costs
and sewer; road and water system construction and also place
greater burden on public services and private utilities. " Again
the Project is in the Existing Urban Area already served by
water, sewer - and highway. (See below. )
d. Land Use Compatibility Implementation. The
Project meets the two applicable land use compatibility implemen-
tation guidelines .set forth on page 131 of the Plan. The first
implementation guideline is to "encourage planned unit develop-
ments which use innovative site planning methods. " Baron has
specifically proposed to use the PUD process. Its mixed-use
proposal which includes a hotel, restaurants and commercial
facilities represents an innovative approach to site development.
-18-
The second implementation guideline is to use landscap-
ing, building spacing and orientation standards to promote
harmonious developments. Again Baron has chosen to use the PUD
approach which allows the City to consider building spacing.,
orientation and landscaping in developing the plan. Baron is
also preserving the tree line to the north and replanting
selected trees from that tree line to landscape the Project.
e. Sewer Plan. The Project complies with the
sanitary sewer portion of the Plan. Map 31 following page 92
indicates that the Site is within the area served by existing
sanitary sewer.
f. Service Water Drainage. The Project complies
with the surface water drainage portion of the Plan. The Site is
in the Mill Pond Drainage Bassin as indicated on map 29 following
page 83 of the Plan and will comply with all City drainage
standards.
g. Transportation Plan. The Project complies
with the transportation portion- of the Plan. Map 21 following
page 70 of the Plan indicates that County Road 83 will be a
collector. Page 62 indicates the collector streets will be
capable of carrying from 1, 000 to 15, 000 vehicles which provides
sufficient capacity for the Project. In fact, County Road 83 has
been significantly upgraded to provide access to Canterbury
Downs.
h. Environmentally Sensitive Areas Land Use
Policy. The Project complies with the policies regarding
-19-
C%
environmentally sensitive areas set forth on page 43 . The
Project does not destroy any environmentally sensitive area and
preserves the principal natural resource, the tree line to the
north.
3 . Two conflicts exist between the Project and the
Plan as originally adopted.
a. Heavy Industrial Land Use. The Urbanizing
Sector 1990 Land Use Plan, as reflected on map 12 following
page 46 of the Plan, indicates that the underlying land use for
the project site is H. I . - Heavy Industrial. The Project, which
is a commercialmixed-use development, conflicts with this
underlying land use designation.
b. New Commercial Centers. The commercial
opportunities policies found on page 45 state in part: "Plan for
two new business centers. One to service locally generated
office and shopping growth east of C.R. 17 and south of Fourth
Avenue. A second at the planned 101 Bypass C.R. 17 intersection
with a 160 acre highway oriented center. " The Project is not
located at either of the two locations called for as new business
centers.
4. The apparent conflicts with the Plan disappear
when the actual development pattern of immediately
adjacent property is considered.
a. Heavy Industrial Land Use: The dominant land
use immediately adjacent to the Site is the new Canterbury Downs
Race Track located to the west and south of the Site. This
390-acre commercial recreational development was built largely on
-20-
land designated by the Plan for heavy industrial development.
The opportunity to have Minnesota' s first horse racing track
caused a change in direction with respect to land use in the area
west of County Road 83 and south of Fourth Avenue. Given the
location of the Site, well south of Fourth Avenue, west of County
Road 83 and immediately adjacent Canterbury Downs to the south
and west, the heavy industrial designation is no longer an
appropriate land use guide. Commercial land use now dominates
this area. The Project is compatible with the dominant land use
and would buffer Canterbury :Downs from potentially incompatible
heavy industrial uses.
b. Two New Commercial Centers. Two major
changes have impacted the Plan' s policy calling for two new
commercial centers, one at the proposed intersection of the 101
Bypass and C.R. 17. First, :it is unlikely the bypass will be
constructed during the 1980s which is contrary to the assumption
when the Plan was developed. Second, the development of
Canterbury Downs, which houses some 700 people year round and
1,200 people during the peak of the racing season, has created a
new demand for commercial sex-vices. The development of one or
more commercial areas immediately adjacent to Canterbury Downs
would be appropriate given the actual development pattern which
has occurred. The Project would be a commercial development
immediately adjacent to Canterbury Downs capable of providing the
needed services.
-21-
Q C/
F. If The Rezoning Is Granted, The Comprehensive Plan Will Be
Automatically Amended To Conform To The Zoning.
Section 11. 03 , Subd. 5 of the Code provides:
Any significant change in zoning granted by the
Council shall automatically amend the Comprehen-
sive Plan in accordance with said zoning change.
Thus, even if the Project were inconsistent with the Plan,
granting the rezoning would eliminate the inconsistency.
G. A Recent Change In State Law Makes Clear The Primacy Of
Zoning Code Provisions Over A Comprehensive Plan When The
Two Conflict.
In 1976 the Minnesota State Legislature passed the
Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act, Minnesota Statutes
§§ 473 . 851-473 . 872 . This act required all communities in the
seven county metropolitan .area to develop comprehensive land use
plans and then to conform their zoning ordinances and other
controls to the land use plan. The requirement to conform local
zoning to the land use plan led to considerable confusion about
which controlled when a community' s zoning ordinance and plan
conflicted.
Laws of Minnesota 1985, Chapter 62 amends the Metro-
politan Land Use Planning Act to make. clear that if a city' s
comprehensive municipal plan is in conflict with its zoning
ordinance, the zoning ordinance supersedes the plan. Thus, even
. if rezoning the Site were inconsistent with the Plan, the Code
would control .
-22-
r• PLANNING UA
TRANSPORTATION
�till ENGINEERING
ARCHITECTURE
J LJ
BENNETT RwGROSE. WOLSFELD. JARv15. GARDNER INC. THRESHER SQUARE 700 THIROvSTREET YSOUTH MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55415 PHONE 612.170-0700
MEMORANDUM
July 10, 1985 1
4
T0: Richard A. Heise, AIA ,
Heise Vanney & Associates
119 North Fourth Street Suite 201
Minneapolis, MN 55402
FROM: Richard Wolsfeld, P.E.
Baron Development Corporation is proposing the development of a ten acre site in
Shakopee, on the west side of County Road 83, south of Valley Industrial
Boulevard South (see Figure 1 ) . The proposed development includes a hotel , spe-
cialty shops, and restaurants. The development is designed as a destination
resort area, catering to tourists and vacationers. Guests will be provided with
restaurants, shopping areas, and sports facilities within the development.
Shuttle buses will transport auests between the development and the neighboring
recreational areas of the Canterbury Downs Racetrack and Valley Fair Amusement
Park.
proposed
dum wosed
This memoranthe ro ,
1 ill discuss the trip generating characteristics of ,
1 development and its impact on the traffic flow of nearby roadways.
Existing and Future Roadway Network
The project site is within the study area defined for the Shakopee Racetrack
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) dazed February 17, 1984. Canterbury �
Downs Racetrack was officially opened in June, 1985. Many of the roadway impro-
vements recommended in the DEIS have recently been completed.
The project site is located on Scott County Road 83. In conjunction with j
' racetrack construction, this north-south road has been upgraded to a four lane
roadway with concrete curb and gutter from TH 101 to the northeast entrance to
Canterbury Downs. South of this entrance, County Road 83 reverts to a two lane
design with bituminous shoulders. County Road 83 provides direct access to the
development, racquetball club, and racetrack. County Road
adjacent industrial
e a collector street in 1990.
83 is planned to becom
101 approximately one half mile north of the pro-
County Road 83 connects to TH i
_ ject site. TH 101 is an east-west intermediate arterial at this location; it is
a four lane divided, rural-design roadway. TH 101 continues to the west through j
downtown Shakopee to its junction with TH 169. To the east TH 101 intersects 9
with County State Aid Highway 18 (CSAR 18) and continues to 1-35W.
1
MINNEAPOLIS
DENVER BRECKENRIDGE PHOENIX
Murphy's
— �o- n
Valle
Falr ,
- 1 - TH ro
4 r
Canterbury
/ Racetrack
1— `
1 1
_CFJ lit
v V
� 111
WEREWERNOWN CR 42�- c
! A \ Existing Transportation
� J PNINCI►AL AlITE11Ul
Q
INTEAYEOIATE AIIif111A1
p 5 �■1
-- YI,c ARTEIIIAL
^ r^ COLLECTOII
1
� d
1
CITY of SHAKOPEE Figure 1 - Project Location Q
u�1NE50TA - - .o,.,,
Map 16 fZr--t" .as
Mr. Richard Heise
July 10, 1985
Page 3
The intersection of County Road 83 and TH 101 is a two way stop controlled
intersection. The east and west approaches each consist of two through lanes
and right and left turn lanes. The south approach provides two through lanes
with a free right turn, while the north approach is limited to a single lane.
Signalized intersections on TH 101 are located at County Road 17 and at Valley
Park Drive.
To the south, County Road 83 intersects with County Road 16 and continues to the
south. County Road 16 is designated as a collector street between County
Road 17 and Shakopee's east boundary. The intersection of County Road 83 and
County Road 16 has two way stop control of the County Road 16 approaches. South
of County Road 16, County Road 83 intersects with County Road 42 and continues
through Prior Lake.
Several improvements to the existing highway system are planned. These include
construction of a TH 101 bypass south of Shakopee as a freeway facility,
upgrading of CSAH 18 and river crossing, construction of new TH 212 north of the
Minnesota River and upgrading of CSAH 42 to four lanes. Grade-separated
interchanges are planned as part of the Shakopee bypass at the intersection of
TH 101 with CSAH 18, County Road 83, and County Road 17. These improvements are
not expected to be made until after 1990, but they are expected to improve
access to Shakopee and particularly to the area under consideration.
Figure 2 shows the 1982 daily traffic volumes reported by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) . The Year 2000 daily volumes forecasted
in the CSAH 18 DEIS are also shown on the existing highway system and the future
CSAH 18 river crossing and TH 101 Shakopee bypass.
Trip Generation Comparisons
The development site is currently within the 1-2 zoning district. This- district
allows both light and heavy industrial uses. Some specific allowed uses include
office, warehouse, research, restaurants, commerciai-recreation and manufac-
Turing. The proposed land uses will require rezoning to B-1 Commercial to allow
retail and lodging development. The proposed land uses, typical trip generation
rates, and number of trips generated are shown in Table 1 . The trip generation
rates are drawn from the "Trip Generation" report prepared by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers. These trip generation rates assume that each use is a
free-standing, isolated development.
0 61 1.10
(6
00)
D,200
\
- TH ror �a
o � ,
1e to
Canterbury
i - — Downs
Racetrack _ ?�
-
p01
U U " tflfffffi{I{{11i�!! 41 I
� � Ili_ ■n■■.■ �
'rff
0
.■■■■■■■■■■
CR 42
200tfa
\J Existing T►anspo►tation
O o
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL
WT-DIAtt ARTERIAL
-, MINOR ARTERIAL
■■■f
COLLECTOR
11�1�11
T 000 1982 Daily Traffic Volume
a
- (000) Year 2000 Volume
`R --- Future Highway
CITY of SHAKOPEE Figure 2 - Daily Raffic Volumes m
MiNIfSOfA '.o.rn
Map 16 _
C�
Mr. Richard Heise
July 10, 1985
Page 5
TABLE 1
SITE TRIP GENERATION IF EACH USE WERE AN ISOLATED, FREE STANDING DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSED DAILY % in P.M. P.M. PEAK
LAND USE SIZE DAILY RATE TRIPS PEAK HOUR HOUR TRIPS
Resort Hotel 150 Rooms 10.5/Room 1 ,575 7.0 110
Specialty Retail 14,000 SF 40.7/1 ,000 SF 570 12.2 70
Quality Restaurant 10,000 SF 74.9/1 ,000 SF 749 8.2 61
Fast Food 4,000 SF 164.4/1 ,000 SF 658 6.4 42
Total 3,552 283
The Shakopee Racetrack DEIS identifies "spin off" development which would be
expected as a result of operation of the racetrack. The DEIS anticipated demand
for a gas station, a restaurant, a 100 to 200 room hotel , and three to four
horse—related businesses in addition to existing businesses in the Shakopee
area. The proposed land- uses (see Table 1 ) are very similar to those identified
in the DEIS and would be expected to satisfy this additional demand.
The Shakopee Racetrack DEIS assumed that only twenty percent of the trips from
spin off development are actually new trips, or trips induced only by the pro—
posed development. The remaining eighty percent are actually trips which were
previously accounted for in trips generated by the racetrack facilities. The
DEIS states that no change in intersection level of service due to spin off
development is expected. The proposed development is expected to exhibit this
same kind of trip pattern. If the trips between the hotel , restaurants, and
retail include significant walk trips and trips to/from the racetrack, then the
forecast of trips added to the roadways is projected to be 710 on a daily basis
and 57 during the peak hour, significantly less than the values shown in
Table 1 .
Another factor which could be considered in determining the number of trips
added to the roadways, is the use of buses. Shuttle buses will be provided for
access to the racetrack and Valley Fair. Tourist buses are also expected to
bring large groups of people from outstate to the hotel . The use of these buses
will reduce the added trips.
Mr. Richard Heise
July 10, 1985
Page 6
Different land uses have different trip generating characteristics. A com-
parison can be made between the number of trips generated by the proposed deve-
lopment, and the number of trips which might be generated if the site retained
its 1-2 zoning classification. Table 2 presents three alternative land uses
which might be expected under 1-2 zoning, the size of development suitable for
the ten acre site, and trip generation characteristics. A floor area ratio of
0.30 is assumed for warehouse and manufacturing and a .floor area ratio of 0.50
i s assumed for of f ice.
TABLE 2
ALTERNATIVE LAND USE TRIP GENERATION
PROPOSED DAILY in F.M. P.M. PEAK
LAND USE SIZE DAILY RATE TRIPS PEAK HOUR HOUR TRIPS
Warehouse 131 ,000 SF 4.88/1 ,000 SF 639 33.4 214
Manufacturing 131 ,000 SF 3.85/1 ,000 SF 504 19.4 98
Office 218,000 SF 14.3/1 ,000 SF 3, 117 14.2 443
Table 3 summarizes the comparison of the trip generation of the proposed mix of
land use with that of the alternative land uses. The CASE A for the proposed
development represents trip generation assuming each use is free-standing with
no transit use; CASE B assumes transit use and walk trips between the genera-
tors. As shown in Table 3, the proposed aevelopment generates the most trips on
a daily basis, but office development generates the most trips during the P.M.
peak hour.
TABLE 3
TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON BY LAND USE
CASE A CASE B
GENERATED PROPOSED PROPOSED
TRIPS DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT WAREHOUSE MANUFACTURING OFFICE
Daily 3,552 710 639 504 3, 117
P.M. Peak Hour 283 57 214 98 443
Mr. Richard Heise
July 10, 1985
Page 7
The hotel , restaurant and retail uses proposed do not generate large numbers of
trips during typical peak hours of traffic volume on the roadways, especially
when compared to a typical office development. This allows the additional trips
to make use of excess capacity during non-peak hours.
Traffic Assignment
The directional distribution of trips generated by the proposed development is
taken from the Shakopee Racetrack Draft Environmental Impact Study. This was
developed from the distribution of households projected in Year 2000 in the
metropolitan area. The distribution was then adjusted to represent a total of
15 percent outstate trips. The distribution shown in Figure 3 represents the
direction of approach for a design day event based on the existing highway
system.
The directional distribution applied to the proposed development trip generation
results in the daily traffic volume increases shown in Figure 4. The percent
increase over the existing (1982) traffic volumes is shown in parentheses or on
the table below:
PERCENT INCREASE IN 1982 TRAFFIC VOLUMES DUE TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1982 CASE A CASE B
TRAFFIC PROPOSED PROPOSED
LOCATION VOLUME DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT
TH 101 West of TH 41 18,600 1% 0.2%
TH 101 Between CR 17 and CR 83 18,800 8% 1 .5%
TH 101 Between CR 83 and CSAH 18 20,200 12% 2.4%
TH 101 East of CSAH 18 24,900 8% 1 .50%
TH 41 North of TH 101 8,300 1% 0.2%
TH 169 North of TH 101 15,500 2% 0.5%
CR 83 South of TH 101 410 112% 23.0%
CSAH 18 North of TH 101 .10,400 5% 1 .0%
A_ 0
oll
9ast
10�°l - oo1
- ► TH ro 15
R�r- fe`
- e � c�
DDow
-Racetrack 53%
Li w '"riff - ' 1°
3% U �.\ U Iffffffffffff{fJ It 141
� of
6% — 13% r---
CH 42
� \ Existing Transportation
►RINCIIAL AATl RIAL.,
- Q r
WT[RMEDIATE ARTERIAL
-- MINOR ARTIRIAL
_ ■■■i
COUECTOR
t
1
/
f
CITY of SHAKOPEE Figure 3 - Directional DistributionT L11
MRu+ESOTA
Design Event - Existing Highway System L_ �
Map 16 .o e
Amy
s
A 0ip!
f - TH
v 9 e
■■ _ Canterbury xr
Downs
acetrack �
x
X01 �
!
f h /lllll
�r _� r ""�ffl R 16
N
OC fffffm4mi ti 411
U `� U
0
■n■■■■
— N
N
tD
■■■■n■■■■■ CR 42
_ - \ Existing Transportation
f �\
Q U PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL
^' WTlRMEb1AT6 ARTERIAL
r WE1
PMINOR ARTERIAL
■■■i
COLLECTOR
` +000 . Dally Volume Increase
v! (00%) Percent Increase In
Existing Volume
CITY of SHAKOPEE Figure 4 Daily Trips Added By
unu+ESOTA
Proposed Development-� -
Map 16
Mr. Richard Heise
July 10, 1985
Page 10
Summary
The proposed development is expected to satisfy demands created by the
Canterbury Downs Racetrack as identified in the DEIS. The percentage of peak
hour trips generated by the proposed development is lower than some other
possible uses, allowing use of excess capacity during non-peak hours. Most of
the trips generated are also trips made to the racetrack. Analysis made for the
Shakopee Racetrack DEIS accounts for this and finds the additional trips accep-
table.
The proposed development will satisfy demands identified in the DEIS and will
generate trips which can be accommodated by the existing and future roadway
system.
C/
r
SCOTTLAND INC.
July 11 , 1985
Chairperson David Czaja and
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Shakopee
129 E. First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
RE: Proposed Zoning Amendment
from Industrial to
Commercial by Baron
Development Corporation
Dear Chairperson Czaja and
Members of the Planning -Commission:
The purpose of this letter is to set forth in outline form the
reasons the rezoning proposed by Baron Development Corporation
should be denied, which reasons could be incorporated into a
-recommendation of denial. We believe that there is ample
testimony in the record to support each point.
1 . The original industrial zoning is not in error.
See section 11 .04I.
2. Significant changes in community goals and policies
have not taken place. See Section 11 .041.
3. Significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood patterns
have not occurred. See Section 11 .041.
4 . The rezonings do not implement the Comprehensive Plan
growth management program. See Section 11 .04I.
5244 Valley Industrial Boulevard South, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379/612-445-3242
Shakopee Planning Commission
July 11 , 1985
Page 2
5 . The commercial uses proposed are incompatible with
adjacent and nearby existing and potential industrial
uses.
6 . The City needs to preserve the industrial park area for
present and future development needs as stated in the
Comprehensive Plan.
7 . The Comprehensive Plan seeks to preserve the large
centrally located industrial park. Placing of
commercial uses in the middle of the park is
contrary to that planning principle.
8 . The rezoning of the parceltocommercial in the
middle of the industrial park would be spot zoning.
9 . The rezoning is inconsistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
10 . There is more than enough vacant commercial
planned and zoned property, owned by several, different
entities, on the east side of the City to provide
a sound mix of industrial, commercial and residential
tax base in the City.
11 . The Comprehensive Plan allocates certain amounts of
sewer capacity for the property based upon its
historical industrial zone classification. .Commercial
development of the property would require the use of
more sewer capacity than has been allocated .for the
property. That sewer capacity would have to be taken -
away from the capacity allocated to others.
12. The rezoning would create an adverse precedent. If the City
rezoned this parcel, then other parcels adjacent thereto or
similarly situated would have a right to be rezoned upon
request.
13. The park is being developed for intensive industrial uses,
many of which are noisy, smelly and aesthetically
unattractive. If commercial uses are allowed adjacent to
those uses, the incompatability could result in constant
complaints to the City.
14 . The park is being developed for industrial uses, some of
which in the case of fire or explosion, could create a
Shakopee Planning Commission
July 11 , 1985
Page 3
hazard for adjacent commercial buildings and the people in
them. (The racetrack grandstand is different in that it is
separated by 112 to 1 mile from any such potential
industrial problem and the public is in the grandstand only
five hours each day) .
15 . Numerous adjacent property owners have objected to the
rezoning because of the adverse effects the rezoning would
have on their industrial land and businesses.
16 . The City' s zoning code has always listed "racetrack" as
a possible use in the industrial district. The
development of a racetrack was not unanticipated. Even
so, after the racetrack was located in the City, the
Comprehensive Plan and industrial zoning were re-examined by
the public, property owners, Plannning Commission and City
Council. It was found that the Plan should not be changed
and that industrial land should not be rezoned. There have
been no change in facts or circumstances to require a
reversal of that decision.
17 . Numerous existing commercially zoned properties have been
developed and millions of dollars invested therein in
reliance upon the present mix of industrial, commercial and
residential zoning in the City.
Very truly yours,
SCOTTLAND INC.
Bruce D. Malkerson
Executive Vice Present
Timothy J. Keane
Vice President
TJK:ap
Enclosure
C. C. Mayor and City Council
John Anderson
Bo Spurrier
Jeanne Andre
Judi Simac
SPRINGSTED
IN" ORPORATED
j PUBIL IC- FINArJI',--c
I/ ADVISORS
12 July 1985
Mr. John Anderson
City Administrator
City of Shakopee
City Hall
129 East I st Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Mr. Anderson:
You have asked us to examine your current and proposed debt service
requirements which are to be paid wholly or partially by tax increment, for the
purpose of developing a projection of future debt capacity which might be paid
from current increment revenues. Because of the uncertainty of the schedule
of future expenditures for storm sewer purposes to be paid partially by tax
increments, and because of the uncertainty as to the schedule of income from
storm sewer user charges, the development of a total new debt capacity is a
difficult one. We have attached four schedules which indicate the scope of the
analysis performed for the purpose you requested.
.Exhibit I attached represents a projection of the tax increment which may be
available to pay future debt service, after allowing for full payment of current
tax increment general obligation and revenue bonds, and for partial payment of
the general obligation bonds which will be required to fund the proposed
$7,258,000 storm sewer improvement program.
We have shown in column I of Exhibit I the total debt service which must be
paid solely from tax increment income. This includes the $3,100,000 K-Mart
Revenue Refunding Bonds of 1984, the $4,200,000 of Tax Increment Revenue
Bonds for Canterbury Downs and the City's $2,490,000 General Obligation Tax
Increment Bonds of 1984 which financed the City's off-site track improvements.
Column 2 represents the total projected tax increment revenues from current
development each year from 1986 through 2004. The total revenues include a
projected constant $800,000 tax increment from the K-Mart properties, with
the balance between 1987 and 1994 coming from the Canterbury Downs
property. Column 3 represents the annual projected surplus of tax increments
each year after full payment of debt service.
Columns 4, 5 and 6 represent the impact of the proposed $7,258,000 storm
sewer improvement program. Column I shows the annual projected debt
service from 1986 through 2002, while column 5 represents the total anticipated
revenues from special benefit and City-wide user fees from current
development. Column 6 represents the annual projected deficit between
payment of debt service for the storm sewer obligations and that revenue
stream. Column 7 represents the residual tax increment which is available for
the payment of additional obligations.
800 Osborn Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 (612) 222-4241
250 North Sunnyslope Road, Brookfield, Wisconsin 53005 (414) 782-8222
City of Shakopee, Minnesota
12 July 1985
Page 2
Exhibit II attached is a summary of the combined revenue and general
obligation debt service which has been included in column I of Exhibit I.
Exhibit III attached represents the summary of projected storm sewer user fees
as provided by Mr. Spurrier. This income stream represents only the user fees
from current properties which tonal 4,814 current units. The financing program
prepared by Mr. Spurrier had a projected total number of units upon full
development within the storm sewer drainage area of 7,409 units. It is
anticipated that upon full development, the additional future units would pay an
estimated $384,000 annually if all development came on line at the same time.
We have not assumed any income from those additional developed units, and
accordingly any such income would increase the debt capacity beyond the level
shown in this analysis.
Exhibit IV represents the projected level of additional debt which could be
incurred using the available tax increment as shown in Exhibit I from 1986
through 1994. We believe the Cite could issue an additional $3,500,000 of bonds
within this period. You will note in the cumulative surplus column a total
projected balance of $1,561,863 which would be available after the final debt
service payment on the proposed additional debt. That amount of money is
required to pay the potential projected deficit in 1995 through 1997 resulting
from the insufficiency of storm sewer revenues to pay storm sewer debt
service, which deficit is also shown in Exhibit I, column 7.
You will also note upon examination of Exhibit I that additional annual surpluses
exist and would be available to the City between 1998 and 2004, which would
support additional debt. We chose not to attempt a projection of that
additional debt capacity since it will depend in large part on whatever
additional user charges the City might be able to generate from new
development within the storm sevier improvement area. However, you should
be aware that any additional debt incurred between 1985 and 1994 beyond the
level forecast for the storm sewer improvements and the additional 3'h million
dollars, would require additional in,'erest payments which would have to be paid
from the some available tax increment income shown in column 7 of Exhibit I.
That would reduce the total principal which could be paid on new debt, and
might accelerate both the timing and size of the cumulative deficit which could
occur.
The projection of additional bonding capacity is subject to a number of
assumptions including but not limited to the following:
I. That the current tax increment from the K-Mart and Canterbury
Downs project will not fall below the forecast levels made at the
time bonds were issued last year.
2. The storm sewer improvement bonds will be structured over a 15-
year even principal payment term, at rates available under current
market conditions.
3. That the tax increment currently available can be combined and
utilized for both the storm sewer debt service payments and
C�
City of Shakopee, Minnesota
12 July 1985
Page 3
additional debt which might be incurred for furtherance of the
downtown redevelopment program.
4. The total level of bonds required for the storm sewer improvement
will not exceed the cost levels assumed by Mr. Spurrier in his initial
planning.
5. That storm sewer revenues projected by Mr. Spurrier will be equal in
value, and available upon the some schedule, as assumed herein.
6. That no new tax increment revenues beyond current projected levels
will be available. Any additional increment from the downtown
project or from other portions of the tax increment financing
districts would increase the debt capacity.
Because of some recent changes in Minneota law affecting the financing of
public improvements, the City_may have some unique opportunities available to
it in financing the storm sewer projects. We would like to discuss those
possibilities with you at an early date.
If you have any questions concerning this analysis please feel free to contact us
at your convenience.
P-spectful lyf�submitted
Robert D. Pulscher
CI I Y Of- SHAKO°LL-, MINW--50 I N
SCHEDULE DEFINING AVAILABLE TAX INCREMENT INCOME FROM EXISTENT PROJECTS
AFTER CONSIDERATION OF STORM SEWER PROJECTS
Tax Increment Storm Sewer Projects
Available
Year Total Total Surplus Total Total Surplus Tax
Levy/Collect-Pay Debt Service (a) Revenues (Deficit) Debt Service (a) Revenues (Deficit) Increment
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
1985/1986 $ 1 , 142,243 $ 1 ,569,925(d) $ 427,682 $ 400,247 $ 580,025(b)$ 179,778 $ 427,682
1986/1987 1 ,505,998 2,954,939 1 ,448,941 1 ,263,872 522,026 (741 ,846)(c) 886,873
1987/1988 1 ,504, 106 2,953,601 1 ,449,495 1 ,206,608 461 ,469 (745, 139) 704,356
1988/1989 1 ,510, 193 2,952, 142 1 ,441 ,949 1 ,218,420 501 ,919 (716,501) 725,448
1989/1990 1 ,503,093 2,950,552 1 ,447,459 1 , 168,808 501 ,919 (666,889) 780,570
1990/1991 1 ,503,013 2,948,817 1 ,445,804 1 , 124,445 501 ,919 (622,526) 823,218
1991/1992 1 ,497,413 2,946,925 1 ,449,512 1 ,079,610 501 ,919 (577,691) 871 ,821
1992/1993 1 ,490, 113 2,9441863 11,454.75n I _fn29 053 5 ►.
ni viv /C77 r1l 021,616o
1993/1994 1 ,495,770 2,942,063(e) 1 ,446,293 978,495 501 ,919 (476,576) 96°,717
1994/1995 743,443 800,000 56,557 927,938 501 ,919 (426,019) (369,462)
1995/1996 747,418 800,000 52,582 877,380 303,082 (574,298) (521 ,716)
1996/1997 744,728 800,000 55,272 832,073 179,893 (652, 180) (5`.'6,908)
1997/1998 800,000 800,000 781 ,043 40,450 (740,593) 59,407
1998/1999 800,000 800,000 730,013 (730,013) 69,987
1999/2000 800,000 800,000 678,983 (678,983) 121 ,017
2000/2001 800,000 800,000 627,953 (627,953) 172,047
2001/2002 800,000 800,000 120, 173 ( 120, 173) 679,827
2002/2003 800,000 800,000 800,000
2003/2004 800,000 800,000 800,000
Total , $15,387,531 $33, 163,827 $17,776,296 $15,045, 114 $5,600,378(6)$(9,444,736) $8,331 ,560
(a) Total debt service figures are converted as necessary from pay year to collect year by moving February I general obligation debt
service payments back one year.
(b) Includes capitalized interest of $381,188 in 1986 and $200,000 in 1987 for storm sewer bonds.
(c) Deficit in 1987 offset by 1986 surplus of $179,778.
(d) Includes capitalized interest of $769,925 from $4,200,000 Tax Increment Revenue Bonds of 1985 and $800,000 K mart increment. rn
(e) Assumes a full year collection of tax increment from Canterbury Downs Project of $2,142,063, rather than only the partial collection =
required to pay in full the $4,200,000 Tax Increment Revenue Bonds of 1984. pp
Prepared By: SPRINGSTED Incorporated --
12 July 1985
EXHIBIT III
a1 CL-,
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
USER FEE ANNUAL REVENUE PROJECTION
Collect Special Citywide
Year Benefit Revenue User Fee Total
(1) (2) (3)
1986 $ 46,802 $ 152,035 $ 198,837
1987 75,798 246,228 322,026
1988 108,620 352,849 461 ,469
1989 118, 141 383,778 501 ,910
1990 118, 141 383,778 501 ,919
1991 118, 141 383,778 501 ,919
1992 118, 141 383,778 501 ,91.9
1993 118, 141 383,778 501 ,919
1994 118, 141 383,778 501 ,919
1995 1181141 383,778 501 ,919
1996 71 ,339 231 ,743 303,082
1997 42,343 137,550 179,893
1998 9,521 30,929 40,400
1009 0 0 0
Total $1 , 18.1 ,410 $3,837,780 $5,019, 190
Prepared By: SPRINGSTED Incorporated
12 July 1985
EXHIBIT II
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
COMBINED DEBT SERVICE OF EXISTENT
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PROJECTS
$4,200,000 - 1985 G.O. TIF
Collect-Pay $3,100,000 - 1984 $2,490,000 Total
Year Combined Series 1984A Debt Service
(0 (2) (3)
1986 $ 848,620 $ 293,623 $ 1 , 142,243
1987 1 ,210, 145 295,853 1 ,505,998
1988 1 ,207, 108 296,998 1 ,504, 106
1989 1 ,213, 195 296,998 1 ,510, 193
1990 1 ,207,233 295,860 1 ,503,093
1991 1 ,204,478 298,535 1 ,403,013
1992 1 , 197,878 299,535 1 ,497,413
1993 1 , 191 ,328 298,785 1 ,490, 113
1994 1 , 194,465 301 ,305 1 ,495,770_
1995 44.6,878 296,565 743,443
1996 447,228 300, 190 747,418
1997 448,538 296, 190 744,728
Total $11 ,817,094 $3,570,437 $15,387,531
Prepared By: SPRINGSTED Incorporated
12 July 1985
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
PROJECTED BOND ISSUE USING AVAILABLE INCREMENT
Annual Cumulative
Pay Interest Total 105% Increment Surplus Surplus
Year Principal at 8.5% Debt Service Debt Service Income (Deficit) (Deficit)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
1986 $ 105,000 $ 297,500 $ 402,500 $ 422,625 $ 427,682 $ 5,057 $ 5,057 .
1987 370,000 288,575 658,575 691 ,504 886,873 195,369 200,426
1988 230,000 257, 125 487, 125 511 ,481 704,356 192,875 393,301
1989 290,000 237,575 527,575 553,954 725,448 171 ,494 5641795
1990 340,000 212,925 552,925 580,571 780,570 199,999 764,794
1991 415,000 184,025 599,025 628,976 823,278 194,302 959,096
1992 490,000 148,750 638,750 670,688 871 ,821 201 , 133 1 , 160,229
1993 585,000 107, 100 692, 100 726,705 927,616 200,911 1 ,361 , 140
1994 675,000 57,375 732,375 768,994 969,717 200,723 1 ,561 ,863
1995 (369,462) (369,462) 1 , 192,401
1996 (521 ,716) (521 ,716) 670,685
1997 (596,908) (596,908) 73,777
Total $3,500,000 $1 ,790,950 $5,290,950 $5,555,498 $5,629,275 $ 73,777
Prepared By: SPRINGSTED Incorporoled
12 July 1985
M
x
r
C < .
T0 : John K . Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxiand, Finance Director
RE : Macy Manor Sewer Billing
DATE : July 9 , 1985
Introduction & Background
Harold Schorers , representing Macy Manor , has contacted City
Hall to request that Macy Manor be treated as a residential
account for snaitary sewer billing in order to avoid paying
sewer charges on water used to water the lawn.
This same request came before Council about three years ago .
See attached memo dated 10/ 13/82 . Council stayed with the billing
policy which gives an account the options of installing a second
water meter for sprinkling with no sewer charged or to install
a sewer meter . A sewer meter would not be practical in this
case due to the cost .
This account is classified as commercial because it has more
than three units . Building with four or more units are considered
commercial .
Alternatives
1 . Standby current billing policies
2 . Make exception to policies
3 . Change policies
Recommendation
The situation has not changed since Council last addressed this
issue , therefore staff recommends that Council take the same
action.
Action
Move to standby current billing policies for the request of
Macy Manor for a sewer billing change .
MEMO TO: John. K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg M. Vosland, Finance Director
RE: Sewer Bill Complaints
DATE: Octobcr 13, 1982
Introduction
Two sewer utility customers have requested that I forward their complaint/
request for billing adjustment to City Council for consideration.
Background
The first case is Macey Manor represented by Harold Schroers. He is asking
for a rebate on the third quarter sewer bill which was higher because of lawn
watering. This involves two aspects of the City's billing policy.
1. Buildings containing or accounts covering four or more living units are
considered commercial accounts and thus, are billed for sewer based on
water used quarter by quarter.
2. Lawn sprinkling for commercial accounts was addressed last winter. (Dis-
cussion was initiated by James O'Neil) . The policy that was adopted is
that any sewer bill unpaid at the time of the complaint would be adjusted
if the customer installed a second water meter for lawn sprinkling and
thereby have a permanent solution by not charging sewer on the second meter.
Mr. Schroers was advised of the above. He related that it appeared to be
fairly difficult to install a second meter due to the finished lower level. He
was asked if he had a plumber's estimate of how costly the second meter would be.
Mr. Schroers declined to get an estimate but took his own guess of $500-1,000 to
install separate metering. If a 3/4" meter was installed for sprinkling, the
quarterly minimum would be $4 .00. - Therefore, his costs would go up $8-$12 per
year while the adjustment requested is $48.00. This also sets a precedent for
any ether commercial /industrial customer to request their summer sewer bill to
be adjusted without having to install another meter. Finally, this could be an
annually recurring situation.
The second case was brought forth by Mr. David Yarusso, who had just moved
into a townhouse on West 12th Ave. He moved in 9-1-82 and his meters were read
9-16-82. His water consumption for that period was 1,000 gal. The billing
policy is to charge the average residential bill to an-account for which there
is no past water consumption date (i.e new customer or private well) . The
current average bill is $8.70 per month, which Mr. Yarusso was billed.
Mr. Yarusso's point of view is that the City should bill him based on usage.
Also, he would like this considered as a "class action" complaint in addition to
his particular bill. From his point of view, he would be billed $4. 14.
-2-
This should be approached from a policy standpoint. To change the billing
policy in this direction would entail more staff work at City Hall and SPUC,
and staff would probably need more latitude in this area. When a customer
moves in during the summer season (lawn sprinkling) or between quarterly meter
reading, there still is no basis for determining "actual use".
For example, Mr. Yarusso moved in 9-1-82 and the water meter was read
on 9-16-82. His first bill was J0-J-82 so he had water consumption on that bill.
If he had moved in 8-1-82 or 7-1-82 or any time in between, there would have
been no water consumption and therefore, no basis for the City to determine
how much to bill him for sewer. Residential sewer billing is monthly. To
further compound the problem, any water consumption during the summer would
probably be compounded by lawn sprinkling. This does not appear to be the
case for Mr. Yarusso because the consumption is small and he lives in a town-
house.
The City's current policv is not inconsistent with other cities' policies.
Alternatives
1. Stand by current billing policies.
2. Make exception to policy.
3. Change policy.
Rve omme..n da t i on
Staff recommends alternative #1.
GMV:mr
TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne Andre , Community Development Director
RE: Amendment to Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan
DATE: July 12 , 1985
Introduction:
The City Council has previously discussed the possibility of
revising its Comprehensive Sewer Plan to open up more urban resi-
dential (R-2 ) land. Scottland has informally requested that the
City also consider including additional industrial and commercial
property in the urban sewer service area. This is a complex issue
that has involved extensive data collection by many departments.
A memo outlining this data will be provided to the Council members
prior to the July 16 , 1985 Council meeting. In the mean time , this
memo is to outline the major issues Council must consider when
reviewing possible changes to the comprehensive sewer plan.
Background:
The major issues to be discussed are as follows :
1 ) Does the City have an optimal amount of land available for
various types of land uses (eg. residential , commercial ,
industrial ) ? If not does the City Council wish to open new
urban sanitary sewer areas for land uses inadequately repre-
sented by use or does the Council wish to rezone land already
in the existing urban sanitary sewer area for the underrepre-
sented uses?
2 ) Does the Council wish to trade off land in the urban service
area which is not likely to develop for land that will develop
sooner?
3 ) Does the City wish to continue a mode of sanitary sewer
planning that involves controlling development by sewer
flow or to pursue policy that requests the Metropolitan
Waste Commission to provide greater sewer capacity as it ' s
needed?
Data to be provided on these issues includes : 1 ) amount of
vacant land in the urban service area which is currently available
for development (by type of use ) , 2 ) constraints on the development
of land now in the urban service area, 3 ) discussion of population
and employment projections and the land area needed to meet these
projections, 4 ) discussion of political and development ramifications
of various approaches , 5 ) review of how this issuse is handled in
some other communities .
tw
TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: Risk Management Services
DATE: July 10, 1985
Introduction & Background
Council requested that Dwight Tange 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. Tange 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.
Mr. Tange's price for the services listed as routine is $4,200 for 12 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 hours. $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 something that staff
has been doing for years. The agent is splitting the premium between the
City and SPUC 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 services. The City has
incurred costs of $2,220 to date, of which SPUC has been billed $1,110. Mr.
Tange'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 year. The cost could be reduced if SPUC elected to participate in the
cost. Their share would probably be one third.
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
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
$2,850.
D. A. Tange Company
INSURANCE CONSULTING SERVICES
DWIGHT A.TANGE,CIC
PRESIDENT
908 9th Street
Farmingtom, Mn. 55024
Date: July 11 , 1985 Ph. 612-460-6556
To: Members of the City Council
City of Shakpoee
City Hall
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376
From: Dwight A. Tange, CIC
President
D. A. Tange Company
Subject: Proposal for One ( 1 ) Year Contract for 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 include management of insurance
policies and exposures to loss for Property and Liability,
Workers ' Compensation. Additional services in insurance and/or
risk management can also be contracted from D. A. Tange Company
on an hourly fee schedule.
Following is a description of the Routine Services to be
provided.
ROUTINE SERVICES
1. QUARTERLY LOSS REPORTS AND SAFETY PROGRAM:
Obtaining and reviewing quarterly 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 program making changes and
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:
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.
Members of the City Council Page 2
City of Shakopee Proposed Contract
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 .
6 . 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:
Includes considering adjustments, based on loss experience,
insurance market changes, and changes in 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 .
10 . TELEPHONE ACCESS:
D. A. Tange Company will be available for telephone
consultation to answer questions and concerns as needed.
COST: ROUTINE SERVICES:
It is estimated that a minimum of 93 hours will be required
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 .
Members of the City Council Page 3
City of Shakopee Proposed Contract
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 Clients 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 .
TO : John K . Anderson, City Administrator
FROM : Gregg Voxland , Finance Director
RE : Ambulance Service Agreement
DATE : July 10 , 1985
Introduction & Background
Attached is the proposed ambulance service agreement with St .-
Francis . The agreement is virtually unchanged from the previous
one . One change the City requested is that the document reflect
higher insurance limits to match the City ' s coverage . The hospital
already has the insurance for those limits . The cost for 1985-86
is $1 .54 per capita which is a bill of about $ 17 , 000 for the
City of Shakopee .
Alternatives
1 . Approve
2 . Do not approve
3 . Approve with changes
Recommendation
Alternative number 1 .
Action
Move to authorize the proper City officials to execute the ambulance
service agreement with St . Francis Regional Medical Center for
the period July 1 , 1985 - June 30 , 1988
c IHS d
��1WW
ST. FRANCIS (612) 445-2322
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER 325 West Fifth Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
July 9 , 1985
Mr. John Anderson
Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Enclosed is a copy of the proposed ambulance agreement.
Please present this at your next City Council meeting. If
there are no suggested changes by the Council , please call and
let me know. If there Eire suggested changes please send them
to me as soon as possible.
St. Francis will take the responsibility of having the final
contract negotiated and a copy returned to you.
Also enclosed is ambulance activity sheets for your area for
the months of October, 1984 through June, 1985.
If you would like a representative of St. Francis to be
present at your meeting please call with the date and time of
the meeting.
I anticipate hearing from you on the ambulance contract
proposal.
Sincerely,
1
Dorolyn M. Sohner
Vice President of Patient Services
DMS :hme
SCOTT/FRANCIS
AMBULANCE SERVICE AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the Cities of Savage and Shakopee and the Townships of
Sand Creek, Louisville and Jackson, Scott County, Minnesota
(hereinafter referred to as Scott/Francis) are authorized under
Minnesota Statutes, Section 471. 476 to provide ambulance service
by contracting with any person, firm or other political
subdivision upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed
upon, and,
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, permits two or more
governmental units to jointly or cooperatively exercise any
power common to the governmental units (such as providing
ambulance service as above described) , and,
WHEREAS, St. Francis Regional Medical Center has submitted a
proposal dated June 27, 1985 for which ambulance service would
be provided for three years beginning July 1, 1985 and ending
June 30, 1988 , for a per capita per annum charge as indicated
in Section B.
WHEREAS, The Scott/Francis communities desire to jointly assure
that adequate ambulance service is available and recognize that
a public subsidy is necessary for the purpose of receiving
adequate ambulance service,
-2-
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and
agreements of the parties hereto, said parties hereby agree as
follows:
A. St. Francis Regional Med:.cal Center (hereinafter referred
to as St. Francis) agrees as follows:
1. That it will operate an ambulance service in a
professional and businesslike manner during the term
of this Agreement including, but not limited to, it ' s
other commitments herein contained.
2 . That it will, at all times, provide and have available
within the jurisdictions of the participating
communities two (2) properly equipped ambulances
meeting all current state licensing requirements. One
(1) of said ambulances (primary) shall be continuously
staffed twenty-four hours per day with two (2)
nationally registered paramedics. St. Francis will
attempt to staff the other said ambulance (backup) ,
when needed, with nationally registered paramedics
and/or EMTs. If staffing personnel is not available
for backup ambulance, Scott County dispatch will be
notified to call a BLf3 or ALS ambulance as necessary
utilizing existing mutual aid agreements. This shall
not be construed as an obligation of St. Francis to
have, at all times, two (2) ambulances in said area if
one or both leave sai&
area for the purpose of transporting to a medical
facility a patient load that originated within said
area.
3 . That it will, notwithstanding any other provision of
this Agreement, provide ambulance service in such a
manner that the response time in the City of Shakopee
and Jackson and Louisville Townships shall be a
maximum of ten (10) minutes ninety percent (90%) of
the time and to the City of Savage and Sand Creek
Township shall be a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes
ninety percent (90%) of the time.
4 . That the rate schedule described in Section B shall
remain in full force and effect for the term of this
Agreement.
5. That it will furnish on a quarterly basis, a report to
Scott/Francis Communities, itemizing, on a community
by community basis, data related to all responses
including, but not limited to, date, nature, point of
origin, destination and response time.
6 . That it will furnish annually to each Scott/Francis
community, financial information, itemized in
reasonable detail, on its ambulance operations.
Additionally it agrees to permit, at reasonable times,
-4-
the Chief Administrative official of each
Scott/Francis community or their designated
representative, to review and/or audit its financial
records.
7 . That it will hold harmless each Scott/Francis
community from any and all claims or legal action
resulting from opera,:ion of the ambulance service. St.
Francis shall file with Scott/Francis, upon execution
of this Agreement, a certificate of insurance naming
each Scott/Francis participant as an additional
insured under St. Francis ' insurance policy in the
following minimum amount: General Liability -
$300, 000 Single Limit: and $ 100, 000 Property Damage,
Auto Liability - $ 250, 000/500, 000 and $ 100, 000
Property Damage.
S . That it will coordinate basic first responder
education and provide on-going education for the
Shakopee and Savage Police Departments, and the Scott
County Sheriff Department. This is not to be
construed that St. Francis shall be responsible for
the training and/or skill levels of these first
responder units.
9 . That its Ambulance Service, upon a patient request,
will take the patient to the facility of his choice
-5-
within a forty (40) mile radius, unless it is in the
best interest of the patient to take him elsewhere as
determined by the ambulance personnel or monitoring
physician.
10. That it will call a meeting of representatives of the
Scott/Francis Communities and St. Francis at such
times that it feels changes in its Ambulance Program
are necessary, such as additional staffing, additional
services, purchase of additional major equipment,
etc. If the outcome of said meeting indicates lack of
support for the change by the Scott/Francis
communities, it is understood that St. Francis would
bear the total expense of the proposed change should
it be implemented.
11 . That it will call a meeting of representatives of the
Scott/Francis communities and St. Francis at such
times as principal parties to this agreement might be
added or deleted thereby changing the financial share
arrangement.
B. Scott/Francis Communities agree as follows:
1. To pay St. Francis, upon receipt of invoice, once
every three (3) months during the term of this
Agreement a designated per capita sum from each
-6-
Scott/Francis entity for ambulance services described
herein beginning 7/1/85 through 6/30/88 .
a. The amount shall be determined each year by using each
jursidictions ' current population as established
yearly by the Metropolitan Council on April 1,
multiplied by a per capita per annum amount, as
determined by the following procedure:
1) St. Francis shall prepare a projected operating
statement for the ambulance service for the
hospital fiscal year ended 9-30-86 (for 1st year of
Agreement) , for 9--30-87 (2nd year) , and for 9-30-88
(3rd year) . Components of this statement are
described below.
2) Gross revenues shall be based on the projected
activity level for said fiscal year and shall
approximate 60% of the Gross Direct Expenses.
3) Gross Revenues shall be reduced by actual bad
debts on ambulance! service revenues and third party
payor discounts to arrive at Net Revenues.
4) Gross Direct Expenses shall reflect expenses
directly related to the operation of the ambulance
service, such as salaries, employee benefits,
depreciation, supplies, repairs & maintenance, etc.
i
- i-
5) Gross Direct Expenses shall be reduced by the
salary costs for time worked in other areas of the
hospital by the ambulance personnel to arrive at Net
Direct Expenses.
6) Indirect Expenses for the ambulance service shall
not be taken into account.
7) The Net Direct Expenses shall be subtracted from
the Net Revenues to arrive at the Operating Profit or
(Loss) of the ambulance service.
8) If there is an Operating Profit there shall be no
per capita charge to the Scott/Francis communities.
If there is an Operating Loss the Scott/Francis
communities and St. Francis shall share equally in
covering this loss.
9) The per capita per annum amount shall be determined
by dividing the Scott/Francis communities ' share of
the Loss by the total population of the Scott/Francis
communities as established by the Metropolitan Council
on April 1 of each year.
b. Based on the above calculations, the per capita per
annum for the year July 1, 1985 through June 30, 1986,
is projected to be $ 1.54 . (This is based on April 1,
1984 census figures since the April 1, 1985 figures
are not yet available.
Adjustments will be made as soon. as 185 figures are
published. )
-8-
C. A meeting of representatives of the Scott/Francis
communities and St. Francis will be called in June of
1986 and June of 1967 to review and discuss the
operating statements and projections applicable to the
per capita amount for each upcoming contract year.
C. Agreement Term:
1. This Agreement shall become effective upon the
approval and execution of the Agreement by St. Francis
and all five (5) communities within Scott/Francis.
2 . The term of this agreement shall be July 1, 1985
through June 30, 19 8 F3.
D. Cancellation:
Either Scott/Francis or St. Francis have the right to
terminate this Agreement, with cause, by providing the
other party with ninety ( 90) days written notice by
Certified Mail.
-9-
E. Equal Opportunity Employer:
St. Francis recognizes that the Scott/Francis communities
are equal opportunity employers and hereby agrees to
adhere to a policy of non-descrimination and equal
employment opportunity.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Approved this day of 1985.
St. Francis Regional Medical Center by:
and
Sr. Agnes Otting, Pres. & CEO Sr. Johanna Metzen, Secretary
Approved by Scott/Francis Communities as follows: Date of
Approval
Shakopee by &
Mayor Administrator
Savage by &
Mayor Administrator
Sand Creek by &
Chairman Clerk
Louisville by &
Chairman Clerk
Jackson by &
Chairman Clerk
I
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
J
RE: Application for Sunday Liquor License for -the Pullman Club Inc.
DATE: July 9, 1985
Introduction and Background
The Pullman Club is desireous of obtaining an on-sale Sunday liquor license.
The application is in order. The Pullman did have a Sunday license last
year, for the first time, but due to an oversight, application was not made
this ,year when the on-sale application was made.
Alternatives
1. Approve application.
2. Deny application.
Recommended Action
Approve the application and grant a Sunday On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor
License to the Pullman Club Inc, 124 West First Avenue.
JSC/jms
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Recognition Program for Non-Paid Board and Commission
Members_
DATE: June 26 , 1985
Introduction
City Council has discussed putting on some type of thank you
dinner or recognition program for its non-paid appointed citizen
board and commission members. On March 5 , 1985 City Council
approved Resolution No. 2375 authorizing the Council to make
expenditures for a recognition dinner , or its equivalent, for
citizen board and commission members. Since that time City
staff members have discussed the best possible approach to such
a program.
Program Alternatives
There seems to be two major types of citizen recognition programs
that have received the most discussion. One is a picnic for
the board and commission members and the other is a formal dinner_
for board and commission members. The attached memo from Pat
Beaudette includes a list of recognition activities carried
on in other cities which might be considered by City Council.
Department heads tended to agree that a picnic format would
be less formal and would allow board and . commission members
to bring their whole family: The food might be served in buffet
style so people can mingle throughout the evening in an informal
atmosphere. The picnic could be similar to the employees picnic
with games for the committee members and kids. We thought that
one significant gift that the Council could provide would be
free use of the swimming pool and water slide between 5: 00 and
6 : 30 p.m. when the pool is normally closed to the public. The
idea of including family members and providing activities for
them recognizes that spouses and children have participated
indirectly because the committee member has been away from the
.family.
A buffet dinner, free use of the pool, water slide and regular
community services game box would provide something unique and
special. If these activities where coupled with a 15 minute
recognition program during which the Mayor presented volunteer
service awards of some sort it would make for an excellent evening.
Boards and Commissions to be Invited
It seems appropriate that the Council should be providing this
for non-paid board and commission members with the possible
inclusion of the City employees who staff the boards and commis-
sions . The list below provides Council with an idea of those
boards and commissions that would be included.
Board/Committee/Commission Number of Members
i. Ad Hoc Downtown Committee 12
4 Ex Officio
1. Cable Advisory Committee 5
3 . Community Services Board 7
4. Industrial Commercial Commission 6
2 Ex Officio
5. Planning Commission 7
6. Police Civil Service Commission 3
7. Energy & Transportation Commission 8
8. Cable Access Corporation 0*
9. Community Services Board 7
Total 61
*They are not an advisory body meeting once a month to carry
out City business.
City Council Members would add 6 more people . to this list and
if City staff members serving these boards and commissions were
added it would be another six people (George Muenchow, Jeanne
Andre, Barry Stock, Judi Simac, Tom Brownell, and John Anderson) .
Recording secretaries have not been included because they are
paid. City Council Members serving on these boards and commissions
are not paid for their time nor are the department heads. Barry
Stock and Judi Simac are paid because they are not department
heads. The grand total is 73 minus any duplication which occurs
because City Council Members are counted twice when they serve
on a board or commission.
Council should carefully review the proposed criteria for the
invitation list so that all of the appropriate people would
be invited. We would have to RSVP the invitation so we could
order the food.
Tentative Picnic Date
In discussing the picnic alternative with George Muenchow so
that the pool option could be included he recommended the earliest
possible date in August after swimming lessons end. That would
be Monday, August 12th. George has suggested that Wednesday,
August 14th might be a weekday evening when people would have
fewer evening conflicts.
Cost of Buffet
i received an estimate from Juba' s for a summer picnic buffet
for approximately 200 people ( 66 x 3 ) . The cost would be $5 . 00
per person for the following: plates , plastic ware and napkins ,
meat and cheese trays, hamburger buns , potato salad, cold slaw,
cookies and brownies , relish plates , chips. Canned pop would
be extra.
The cost of the pool would be $25 . 00 for one and one-half hours
of guard time from 5: 00 to 6: 30 p.m. This would allow us 30
minutes for the pool to clear out because their normal closing
time would be 4: 30. People arriving for the picnic would be
invited to swim first, then eat and after eating we would hold
the brief recognition ceremony. After that people could mingle
and use the community services equipment and break up into various
games , etc.
The cost of the certificates would be minimal. We would anticipate
only handing out certificates to those who have successfully
completed a term of office and/or were resigning from there
respective board or commission. Council may want to give some
consideration to how many and what kind of certificates they
wish to provide.
Summary
Council should discuss and make decisions on several items:
( 1 ) Council should decide upon whether or not a picnic is the
most appropriate form of recognition activity; ( 2 ) Council should
determine precisely which boards and commissions should be invited
and which staff members should be included; ( 3 ) Council should
determine whether or not the estimated cost is reasonable and
could be supported on an annual basis; ( 4 ) Council should determine
if free access to the pool for these volunteers and their families
is appropriate; and ( 5 ) Council should decide if the gold leaf
certificates are the type of recognition Council feels is both
adequate and appropriate.
JKA/jms
memo to: jonn K. Anoe~son, City Aominiszrator
From: Patrick C. Beaudette
Re : Volunteer Recognition Program
Date: July 2, 198S 7 �~
/ U
Introdu=tion
:
As an acknowledgment of the countless fine hours of community
service many resioents of Shakopee have devoted to boards, commi-
ssions, and other city activities, the city council has resolved
to establish a volunteer recognition program. In this effort
to develop our own program, we have contacted several other
cities in regard to their volunteer recognition programs, discussed
program possibilities during staff meetings, and also discussed
program financing options with finance director Greg Voxland.
Backnround :
Summarized below are the volunteer recognition programs of several
area cities:
Savage- Takes volunteers and their spouses to dinner at christmas.
Anoka- Puts on catered dinner at a rented hall. Mayor presents
certificate to each volunteer.
Edina- Wine and cheese gathering for volunteers at local country
club.
Bloomington- Each department responsible for recognizing those
volunteers who work within their sphere of authority.
Fridley- Sends post card out each April to all volunteers thanking
them for their service.
Minnesota Department of Volunteer Services- Can provide certificate
of volunteer service with governor' s signature.
Other staff suggestions include a picnic at one of the cities'
parks and/or a reserved evening of swimming at the city pool.
It is felt that a picnic would bring about greater interchange
among the guests than a sit-down dinner.
According to Finance Director VoxIand, there are two finance
options available to fund the program; the contingency fund
or the council budget with the later being preferred _
Ande-son/Beaudette
Volunteer Recognition
July 2, ME
Pape
(Note: In order to comply with resolution CC?C, I have limited
the alternatives t.� those that include a mea:.,
I. Catered dinner at a rented hall. The American Legion,
VFW, or some other like organization could perhaps be persuaded
to donate the needed space.
c. Picnic dinner at an area park., preferably Lion' s Park.
The Park Department could also reserve the pool and waterslide
for the evening.
3. Formal dinner at a supper club-, such as Shakopee House.
4. Any of the above alternatives combined with a certificate
of volunteer service signed be the mayor.
B. Finance
1. Council budget
2. Contingency fund
Recommended Acti , .
A. Site: Alternatives 2 and 4
R. Finance: Alternative 1
Rea nested Act i on:
Direct staff to set up a time and date for a picnic dinner At
Lion' s Park. Also direct Park. Department to reserve pool the
evening of the chosen data. Funding should come from council
budget.
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Employee Picnic
DATE: July 12 , 1985
Introduction
For the past several years the City has held an employee recognition
picnic during the summer months at Lions Park. This year it
has been suggested that the picnic be held at a time when employees
could use the new water slide that has been added to the swimming
pool.
Procedural Questions
There are two procedural questions that need to be finalized
by Council if the annual employee recognition picnic includes
use of the swimming pool.
1. Can the City Council waive the normal fee charged for keeping
the swimming pool open during the supper hour. The fee,
contrary to information I provided Council earlier, is
$45 . 00 or the normal charge per swimmer, whichever is greater.
The purpose of the fees are to cover the costs of the life
guards.
2. The City' s water slide is brand new and no fee structure
or policy has been established as to its use by groups
through the reservation process. The water slide generally
includes more guard personnel and has its own fee structure.
The reservation of the pool by City Council for an employee
recognition picnic would not preempt use of the swimming pool
by citizens because it is open for any group that makes a reservation
during the supper hour. The City Council could choose to waive
the minimum reservation fee of $25 . 00 or it could choose to
pay the normal fees to cover guard costs. If it does the latter
there would be no out of pocket costs to the City because personnel
costs for providing life guards would be covered. The water
slide remains in operation during the supper hour because it
is used both before and after the supper hour by the general
public.
Because we do not know today the specific number of employees
and their dependents who would attend the picnic it is difficult
to determine exactly what the pool pass fees would amount to.
Should Council, or department heads on a voluntary basis , wish
to contribute towards the cost of the pool they would be doing
so knowing that the minimum cost would be $25 . 00 if Council
chooses not to waive the fee.
If the water slide were made available at no charge there would
be no additional operating expense for the City beyond the cost
of the life guards . The procedural question that Council would
be dealing with is whether or not they are comfortable with
providing a "corporate" benefit of this sort on a one time annual
basis to the City' s employees and their dependents.
Finally, George Muenchow Community Services Director, has indicated
that he can make the pool available under whatever circumstances
City Council directs.
Alternatives
1. Waive the normal $25. 00 minimum admissions for entrance
to the pool under the normal group rental rate, and waive
the fee structure for the water slide for the same rental
period.
2. Pay the normal fee rental rates under the established pool
policy, but waive the fee for the water slide given there
has been no established policy for rental of the water
slide to date.
3 . Make the pool available by reserving it for the employee
recognition picnic without waiving either the normal pool
reservation fee or the normal charges for the use of the
water slide.
Recommendation
I recommend alternative No. 2 . I know that I for one and a
few other department heads are interested in assisting the City
Council for paying for the pool rental in keeping with existing
policy. This would mean that there would be no expense to the
City for the rental of the pool, and the only "privilege" employees
would be receiving would be the one hour use of the water slide
without paying the established fee. Since there is no precedent
to guide Council in this type of pool usage, Council could
re-evaluate this "corporate benefit" provided City employees
during their annual recognition picnic if Councilmembers hear
from citizens that they dislike the "privilege" extended to
City employees.
Action Requested
Pass a motion authorizing the Community Services Director, upon
proper reservation of the swimming pool under the Community
Services group rental policy, to include free use of the water
slide in the rental fees for the 1985 annual City employees
recognition picnic.
JKA/jms
1985 CITY OF SHAKOPEE CHECK REGISTER 07-10-85 PAGE 1
CHECK N0, DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION _ ACCOUNTNp. INV. 0 P-0. M MESSAGE
191014 U!/10/85 705.00 AMERICAN ,SAT. BANK INTEREST 53-4611-000-00
191014 ;17/1J/E5 50,10 AMERICAN NAit BANK PAVING AGENT FEE 53-4612-000-00
191L.14 07/10 /85 3#192.50 AMERICAN NAT. BANK PAYING AGENT FEE 55-4611-000-00
19 1f 14 j1/10/85 50.,10 AMERICAN NAT. BANK INTEREST 55-4612-000-00
3,997,50
urtr. •••-CKS
I 191024 01/10/85 19758.72 ASSOCIATED ASPHALT SURFACE PAT 01-4215-429-42
I 1 P758.72 r
Irtr.rr rrr.CKS
I 1
I
191f_[6 7/1U/65 120.96 ____AUTO CENTRAL SUPPLY SUPPLIES 01-4210-421-42
i i91O.26 .:7110/85 117.77 AUTO C=NTA AL SUPPLY EQUIP MA IAT 01-4232-312-31
191026 11/10/d5 10.98 AUTO CENTRAL SUPPLY EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-321-32
191026 u7/10/85 3.22 AUTO CENTIAL SUPPLY EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-411-41
191u26 o7/10105 136.93 AUTO CENTRAL SUPPLY EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42
191026 0//10/85 9.45 AUTO CENTRAL SUPPLY EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-631-62
191026 1f/11)/85 15.54 AUTO CENTRAL SUPPLY _ CAPITAL EQUIP 01-4511-618-61
191026 07/10/85 .31 AUTO CENTRAL SUPPLY EQUIP MAINT 71-4232-714-71
f415.66 •
i 191027 Li 7110/85 28.10 .IE ANNE ANDRE TRAVEL 8 SUBSIST 15-4330-191-19
If 28.10 •
! rrrrrr rrr-CK]
191'29 u7110 /85 461.60 EARL F. ANDERSON SUPPLIES 01-4210-431-42 55921
461 .60 •
i rrrrrr rrr-CK'i
191035 6,1/10 /85 590.J0 ASS/MECH/CONT/INC. EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-311-31 6309
191035 rl7/1Li/65 590.70 __ - ASS/MECH/CONT/INC. EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-421-42 6309
1
191036 07/10/65 121105 ___J011N K: ANDERSON _ _- _ _TRAVEL 9 SLBSIST 01-4330-121-12
191036 U7110/85 121 .05- JOHN K. ANDERSON TRAVEL B SLBSIST 01-4330-121-12
191 r,36 7/1C/65 12.15 JOHN K. ANDERSON TRAVEL 9 SLBSIST 01-4330-121-12
1916,36 J7/10/85 10.88 _ JOHN K. ANDERSON CONF 8 SCHCOLS 01-4390-121-12
22.23
rrrrrr rr.-CK3
j I 191042 07/10/85 17.28 ACRO-MTNN. SUPPLIES 01-4210-131-13 78540
4 1Y1J42 C1/10 /85 7.66 ACRO-MINN, -1 01-4210-151-15 01-4210-151-15 78540
I 191042 07/10/85 78.17 ACRO-MINN. SUPPLIES 01-4210-311-31 78540
191042 07/1018 115.24 ACRO-MINN. SUPPLIES 01-4210-911-91 78540
L
21$.35
......
rrrr. O r r-CKS
1•
I 191f-46 U7/10/65 5.30 AT 8 T TELEPHONE 01-4321-311-31
5.30 r
� I
1985 CITY OF SHAKIOP--E CHECK REGISTER 07-10-85 PAGE 2
CHECK N0, DATE AMOUNT _ VEN003 ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT N0. INV. 0 P.O. 9 MESSAGE
orf r+r •••-CKS
191250 ..7/10/85 608.00 BARRY OFFICE PROD BLOC MAINT 01-4230-181-18
'� r+.+r• •+•-CKS
1910611 �7/1C/85 308.92 BRYAN IGGREGATES SURFACE MAT 01-4215-427-42
308.92 +
rrrrrr --CKz;
1Y1G72 07/10/85 170.64 _.___.____DIAN_ S. BEUCH PROF SERV 01-4310-111-11
191 72 111/1C/85 114.38 DIANE S. dFUCH PROF SER V 01-4310-171-17
285.02 +
•tt.rr _ •r•—CKS
191080 07/10/85 535.Q0 _ BART04-ASCHM4N OTHER IMFRCV 27-4519-543-41
1VII J8n. 07/1('/85 3,833.64 HART3N-•ASCiMAN OTHER IMPROV 27-4519-544-41
1910 8(1 X1/10185 11 ,7511.96 RARTON-ASCHMAN OTHER IMFRCV 27-4519-546-41
191C8u ,7/10/65 1 .912.50 BAFTOn-ASCHMAN OTHER IMPRCV 27-4519-547-41
1y10p(1 u7/10/d5 920.00 BARTON-ASCHMAN OTHER IMFRCV 27-4519-548-41
18,952.10 +
1`71Q95 V7/1")/85 41 .59 CARLS 04 HARD'JARE SUPPLIES 01-4210-421-42
191)85 u7/10/85 2.15 CARLSON HARDWARE BLDG MAINT 01-4230-630-62
191D85 L-7/10/85 4.11 CARLSON HARDWARE EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-321-32
191^x5 """°` CAFLSON HARDWARE EOUIF MAIA1 01-4232-631-62
49.39 •
r�rr.r - •++-CK^
19189 L7/1G/85 5.95 CHAMPION AUTO STORE SUPPLIES 01-4210-312-31
5.95 ±
rrrrr• r+r-CKS
191395 67/10/85 191 .90 CLAYS PRINTING PRINT & PUB 01-4350-311-31
191695 u7/10/85 10.70 CLAYS PRINTING CONTINGENCY 01-4991-911-91
201 .90
r.rrrr •••—CKS
191101 L7/11'. /85 405.95 CONWAY FIRE & SFTY SUPPLIES 01-4210-321-32
191131 Zl/1C/85 662.00 CONWAY FIRE & SFTY EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-321-32
1 067.9 5 .
rrrr.r rtr-CK:,
1911 5 67/1U/85 22.50 CYS AMOCO MDSE 01-4395-611-61
22.50 +
1985 CITY OF SHAKCF--E CHECK REGISTER 07-10-85 PAGE 3
. I
CHECK N0. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEF,, DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO, INV. a P.O. 4 MESSAGE
1911 - 6 u7/10/85 21000!75 _ .____- JULIUS A, COLLER II PROF SERV 01-4310-161-16
I{I 2,000.75
&A*-CKS
191112 +,7/10/85 6.29 JUDITH COK SUPPLIES 01-4210-111-11
6.29 •
' ...... •....CKS
191114 1.7/10/85 11.87 COMM. AUDITORS EQUIP MALT 01-4232-321-32 85 441
191114 07/10/85 20.00 COMM. AUDITORS EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 85 732
_ 31 #87 ' -- - - -
191115 Cl/10/65 12.60 C.H. CARP. LUMBER SUPPLIES 01-4210-421-42
12.60 *
i
r*ttrt ***—CKS
191130 07/10/85 2.11 DUNNTNGS IOWE. SUPPLIES 01-4210-121-12
191130 :.!/10/85 13.25 DUNNINGS HDPE. SUPPLIES 01-4210-311-31
191130 07/10/85 2.11 DUNNINGS HOWE, SUPFLIE.S C1-4210-321-32
19113!1 J7/10/85 1 .(18 OUNNINGS HDWE. SUPPLIES 01-4210-411-41
191130 j7/10/85 30.77 DUNNINGS HUME. SUPPLIES 01-4210-421-42
191136 1.//10/85 21 ,44 ._ DUNNINGS HDPE: SUPPLIES 01-4210-617-61
191130 (17/10/85 5.13 CUNNINGS HDWE. SUPPLIES 01-4210-618-61
191130 Lit/10/85 20.50 DUNNINGS HOWE. SUPPLIES 01-4210-622-62
191130 0f/1G/85 35.75 OUNNTNGS HDWE. SUPPLIES 01r4210-630-62
191130 Uf/10/85 5.13 DUNNINGS HDWE. SUPPLIES 01-4210-911-91
191130 U7/10/85 84.53 DUNNINGS HDWE. BLOC MAINT 01-4230-617-61
1911 3q 07/10 /85 _ 87.60 . - _ OUNNINQS HDWE. _ BLDG MAINT 01-4230-630-62
191130 u7/10/85 54.91 DUNNINGS HOME. EQUIP MALT 01-4232-617-62
1911 36 X1/10/85 15.55 DUNNINGS HDWE. CAPITAL EGUIP 01-4511-618-61
379.76
*.r**• **...CKS
191155 07/10/85 1 ,036.]0 DUSTCOATTNG INC. SURFACE MAT 01-4215-427-42
1 ,036.30 •
191147 Uf/10/85 50.28 .:_____EASTMAN DRUG -_ SUPPLIES _ _ 01-4210-311-31
191147 ://1-/85 4.79 EASTMAN DRUG SUPPLIES 01-4210-422-41
55.0 7
r*r*** ***—CKS
19115a 07/10/85 32,75______._ELVIN .SAF_TY SUPPLY SUPPLIES _ 01-4210-617-61
191154 07/10/85 159.53 ELY14 SAFETY SUPPLY EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-321-32
i
191 .58
***—CKS
IV1148 u7/10185 858.88 ___ FEED RPTE CONTROLS SUPPLIES _ 01-4210-617-61
1945 CITY JF SHAK-uP_E CHECK REGISTER 07-10-85 PAGE 4
CHECK N:, DATE AMOUNT VENDO3 ITEM DESCRIPTION _ ACCOUNT NO, INV, q P,O. q MESSAGE
' I
I
858.88 +
rrrr.r •++-CKS
I' 1`1117 z u 1/1G/85 11 •160.Q0 _ .- FIRST NAT. ST. PAUL INTEREST 52-4611-000-00
191170 07/10/85 25,00 FIRST NAT. ST. PAUL PAYING AGENT FEE 52-4612-000-00
1911 in, 1/10/85 31 ,415.GO FIRST NAT. ST, PAUL INTEREST 58-4611-000-00
19117.'1 01/10/85 25.00 FIRST NAT. _STa PAUL PAYING AGENT FEE 58-4612-000-00
429625.00 +
rrrt• • +++-CKS
191117 J1/14D/85 97,636.25 FIRST BANK MPLS INTEREST 38-4611-000-00
1Y1171 G1/10/85 69448.77 _ FIRST BANK MPLS INTEREST 39-4611-000-00
191177 J7/10/85 5,611 .67 FIRST BANK MP LS INTEREST 60-4611-000-00
1099696.69 •
191118 . //10/85 34.76 FIRESTONE STORES ECUIP MAINT G1-4232-331-33
1911/2 J7/1C/85 66.74 FIRESTONE STORES EQUIF MAINT 01-4232-411-41
101 .52
•rr-CKS
1912Gi, 1;7/10/85 591.00 H R M V-ENDING MDSE 01-4395-611-61
591 .70 +
r.rr.r +++-CKS,
191 2L4 ://10/85 5.67 HARMDNS HDWE. HANK SUPPLIES 01-4210-311-31
191204 61/10/85 24.87 HARMDNS HOWE. HANK SUPPLIES 01-4210-321-32
191204 17/10/85 77.14 HARMONS HDWE. HANK SUPPLIES ni-427n-A11-61
19120"- -l/i0ia,5 1.84 _ HARMONS HDAE. HANK SUPPLIES 01-4210-617-61
19123'4 ;7/10/85 .50 HARMONS HDWE. HANK SUPPLIES 01-4210-621-62
191204 Cl/11}/85 4.65 HARMONS HOME. HANK EQUIP MAINT C1-4232-321-32
114.67 +
•r r..r +++-CKS
191225 ..7/10/85 28.00 JUDY HUGHES PROF SERV 01-4310-221-22
191225 7/10/85 35.00 JUDY HUGHES PROF SERV 14-4310-142-14
63„90
.rrrrr +++-CKS
191241 C1/1G/85 175.30 INTERS. CIESEL INC CONF 8 SCHOOLS 01-4390-441-44
175.,j0 •
r*.r•• r**-CKS
191261 J7/10/85 15.50 .__-.--KOEHyENS_STANDARD ___ . _ EQUIP MAINT _ 01-4232-312-31
191267 67/10 /85 6.70 KOEHNE NS STANDARD EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-331-33
191267 i7/10/E5 3.00 KOEHNENS STANDARD EGUIF MAINT C1-4232-411-41
24.5 0
•.r.rr rrr-CKS
V '
1985 CITY OF SMANOPEE CHECK REGISTER 07-10-85 PAGE S
CHECK NO. DATE AMOUyT „— VENOC3 ._..,.__ •____._, - ITEM DESCRjPTIOry _ ACCOUNT N0. IfJV. p P.O. 0 MES�AG=
I �
1912711 ul/10/85 2l632j39 xRPSSJMEYER"IWAL$TEN _ PROF SERV _ 01-4310-161-16
191271, .i 1/10/85 84.00 KRASS/MEYER/WALSTEN PROF SERV 16-4310-231-23
19127" i:7/1(1/E5 631.25 KRASS/METER/WALSTEN PROF SERV 23-4310-527-41
19127:; JJ 711C/85 90.50 KRASS/MEY_R/WALSTEN PROF- SERV 56-4310-504-41
i
3,437.64
•
1I
ttrrrr •••-CKS
191287 :.7/10 /85 6.00 LAAO EQUIPMENT EQUIP MA IAT 01-4232-631-62 172912
6.00 *
191288 u7/10f85 51.59 LATHiO? PAINT INC. CAPITAL EGUIP 01-4511-618-61
i' ------
51959 *---
i ,
trrrrr ***-CKS
1291 x //10/85
"4'981.60 LEAGUE -O--F—
IV MN CITIESDUES 6 SL8£CRIFT 01-4391-111-11
3 9981.00 +
I '
rtt-CK
lvl294 .7/1(3/85 21011.00LINK RLOG SUPPLY CAPITAL EQUIP . 01-4511-618-61
2011.00 .* _._..... _. _.
' rrrtr. •••-CKS
1913u1 G7/1G/85 486.75 LOCAL UNION 0320 REMIT UNTCN DUES 81-4924-000-00
486.75 +
ttrrtr ■••-CKS
191306 u7/10IE5 429.60 LONG LAKE FORD EQUIP HA INT 01-4232-426-42
191306 :7/10/85 45.00 LONG LAKE FORD EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-631-62
474!60 *
191307 j7/1.0/85 33.75 LOUISVILLE LANDFILL UTILITIES 01-4370-622-62
_ 33,75 : _._.
I _ -
......
*••-CK>
191320 07/10 /85 35.00 MARS41A.LL 6 SWIFT CONF & SCHCOLS 01-4390-331-33
35.00
rrrtrr •**-CK2
j 191321 07/10/85 49,50 —._baRS1�.._HEAjING 4 AIR BLDG MAINT 01-4230-311-31
49.50 +
191 :24 jl/10/85 -. _64.90 y j,Cl,A.t�D PR Op UCTSCO. MDs E 01-4395-611-61 75718
64.90 t
.,... . .r._CK
1913'8 C7/10/8' 120.00 MILLER DAVIS SUPPLIES 01-4210-331-33 438495
19N5 CITY OF SHAKOPEE CHECK REGISTER C7-10-85 PAGE 6
CH_CK N:. GATE AMOUNT - _...._-___VEND03 _. ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. V P.O. A MESSAGE
120.00 +
••1.41 ktk-CKS
191531 �7/10/a5 147.68 MN BENEFIT ASSOC. R_MIT CANCER INS 81-4926-000-00
140.68 +
rkt•• r r••-CKS
19134 ..7/10/85 10.36 LOYOLA MARSHALL TRAVEL & SUBSIST 01-4330-181-18
10.36
•••►k. +o+-CKS
191346 07/1f)/85 34.79 POTOR PARTS SUPPLIES 01-4210-426-42
191346 07/10 /85 82.99 MOTOR PARTS SUPPLIES 01-4210-441-44
1$11346 „7/1f)/85 2.95 POTOR PAFTS MOT CR FUEL 01-4222-171-17
191346 J7/10/85 72.35 MOTOR PARTS EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-312-31
191546 07/10/85 35.80 MOTOR PARTS EGUIP MAINT 01-4232-313-31
191346 11/10/85 1.56 MOT03. PARTS EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-321- 32
191346 07/10/85 15.48 MOTOR PARTS EQUIP MAINZ 01-4232-411-41
191346 u7/10/85 36.19 MOTOR PARTS EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42
1N1346 u7/10/85 23.68 10.01OR PARTS EQUIP MAINT C1-4232-617-61
191346 07/10/85 158.54 MOTOR PARTS CAPITAL EGUIP 01-4511-618-61
469.33
191341 ;7/10/85 79.65 MOR-TEL-CO TELEPHONE 01-4321-111-11
79.65 +
.••kra _ •++^CKS
1915:: ur'i1G/35 88. 10 MYERS AUTOMOTIVE EGUIP MAINT 01-4232-321-32
88.00 +
.k•k• . .••-CKS
191161 07/10/85 38.50 MIO-CENTRAL FIRE SUPPLIES 01-4210-321-32
38.50
•k•rk• •r+-CK3
191361 J7/10/85 33.24 NW BELL TELEPHONE 01-4321-111-11
191307 u7/10/85 78.72 NW BELL TELEPHONE 01-4321-121-12
191 '___"7 C7/IU/85 7.17 __. .NW BELL-_ . . _ _ TELEPHONE 01-4321-124-12
ty1387 U71101ES 34.47 NW B-LL TELEPHONE C1-4321-131-13
191387 D7/1C/85 101 .82 NW BELL TELEPHONE 01-4321-151-15
191 3�7 07/10/85 42.53 NW BELL _.__ _ - . TELEPHONE C1-4321-171-17
1913~7 u I/1 C/8 5 126.53 NW BELL TELEPHONE 01-4321-182-18
1913Fi7 J7/10/c5 337.79 NW BELL TELEPHONE 01-4321-311-31
1913o/ U7110/85 61 .22 _NW B_LL_..___. __ _.____ __. _ _-_ TELEPHONE ._ - 01-4321-321-32
191367 uI/10/25 33.24 NW BELL TELEPHONE C1-4321-331-33
191387 �j7/1U/85 14.10 NW BELL TELEFHONE 01-4321-351-35
1913-/ 07/11/85 69.59 _ NW B_LL___ TELEPHONE 01-4321-411-41
191387 07/10/85 97.26 NW BELL TELEPHONE 01-4321-421-42
1913x7 01/10/85 140.80 NW BELL TELEPHONE 01-4321-611-61
1985 CITY OF 3hAKI,1F--E CHECK REGISTER 07-10-85 PAGE 7
CHECK ^1'1. CATE AMOUNT VEND03 _ _..__ ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT N09 INV. A P.O, 4 MESSAGE
191367 U7/1C•/85 18.25 NW BELL TELEPHONE 15-4321-191-19
1Y1 3rl 07/1G/85 21 X42 _ Nu O-LL __.__-_ _ _- LT DEP PHCNE 84-2300-000-00
1 921 8.1 5 +
191 3d ..7/10/65 109950.CO NORWEST BK MPLS INTEREST 31-4611-000-00
1Y1388 u7/10/E`. 10.SO NORWEST BK MFLS PAYING AGENT FEE 31-4612-000-CO .
1Y13,58 7/10/85 119450.00 NORW_ST BK MPLS INTEREST 36-4611-000-00
191318 07/10/85 10.50 __ NORWEST_ BK MPLSPAYING AGENT FEE 36-4612-000-00
191368 U7/10/b5 922.50 NORWEST BK MPLS INTEREST 49-4611-000-00
1Y1339 Cl/10/85 .90 NORWEST EK MPLS PAYING AGENT FEE 49-4612-000-00
239344.40 •
19130Y , 7/IG/85 343.59 NW SERV.ST.EQUIP. EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42
343.59 .
t..t. . ...-CK
1Y1394 U//1r1/85 7,800.00 AAT/CITY/BANK/4PLS.
� INTEREST 59-4611-000-00
1913Y4 Cl/1G/85 75.00 NAT/CITiY/BANK/MPLS. PAYING AGENT FEE 59-4612-000-00
71875.00 * -- ----- - --- ---
191395 //10/85 676.00 NSP OTHER IMPROV 27-4519-547-41 61499
676.00 •
..tt.. ■..-CKS
191429 :7/10/85 1V.?0 HAROLD PASS RENTS 01-4.380-421-42
1go.no •
•....• - ***-CK:;
191461 Gl/10/85 _ _140.70 _ .. REYNOLDS-WELDING _ SUPPLIES _ _ 01-4210-426-42
140.70 •
...... ...-CKS
191499 :..7/13/85 4.65 SCOTT CTY. TREASURER PRINT 8 PUB 15-4350-191-19
4.65 +
1915.)r ,:1/10/95 800.00 SHAKOPEIE FIRE DEPT. CONF & SCHOOLS 01-4390-321-32
800.00 +
.t.... - •�•-CKS
1915712 u7/10/95 82.23 SHAKOPEIE FORD EQUIP MA INT 01-4232-312-31
1Y151"'2 U7/10/E5 83.84 SHAKOPEE CORD EQUIP MA INT 01-4232-426-42
166,n7
CK S
1Y15'14 1/111/E5 19359.` 0 -- SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN FRIAT B PLO 01-4350-131-13
19151.0 07/1j/85 60.70- SOUTHuEST SUBURBAN PRINT 8 PUB 01-4350-131-13
1/1Sr,q ul/10/85 153914 _ _-. SOUTHWEST SU6URBAN _ PROMOTIONS 14-4319-142-14
1Y1508 Ol/1G/85 13.47 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PRINT B PUB 15-4350-191-19
1 9465.61 •
19✓_5 CITY CF iHAKJFiE CHECK REGISTER 07-10-85 FA,;E n
CHECK `1^. DATE AMOUNT VM03 ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INW. 4 P. J. A MESSAG7
1x15 ;9 r,7/tU/n5 2200 ____SHAK3PElE SERVICES_._ UTILITIES 01-4370-611-61
191 :'J C7/1L 185 66.00 SHAKOPEE SERVICES UTILITIES C1-4370-622-62
88.00 +
...-CKS
19151 ! U7/1T?/ES 373.40 ._SPUC _.._ ._.. ... UTILITIES 01-4370-181-18
191517 07/10/85 423.09 SPUC UTILITIES 01-4370-182-18
191 51 1 u1/141/85 5.29 SPUC UTILITIES G1-4370-311-31
19151 ! C7/1G/E5 120.50 SPUC UTILITIES 01-4370-321-32
191517 J7/1!o/85 19.50 SPUC UTILITIES 01-4370-351-35
191 51 1 i.1/10/a5 860.94 SPDC UTILITIES 01-4370-421-42
191517 :!/10/85 159.89 SPUC _ UTILITIES 01-4370-427-42
191517 1/101E5 393.01 SPUC UTILITIES 01-4370-611-61
191517 U//1C 195 517.33 SPUC UTILITIES 01-4370-622-62
191517 ^_7/10/E5 36.¢6 SRUC UTILITIES 01-4370-626-62
191517 11/16/85 338.44 SPUC UTILITIES 01-4370-628-62
191517 CI/tU/E5 1440958.00 SPUC UTILITIES 83-3831-000-00
191517 07/15/85 899.25 _ SPUC_ _ WATER METERS 83-3832-000-00
149f105.30 +
..+... CRS
1915211 u7/lfi/85 41.70 STARKS CLEANING BLDG MAINT 01-4230-181-18
19152.) J7/101E5 25.70 _._.STARKS CLEANING _ _ BLDG MAINT 01-4230-182-18
191520 x]7/10 /85 8.50 STARKS CLEANING BLDG MAINT 01-4230-184-18
19152. ]//10/85 25.70 STARKS CLEANING BLDG MAINT 01-4230-311-31
191520 ;1/10/85 22.20 .._ STARKS CLEANING BLOC MAIA1 01-4230-421-42
123.90 +
191521 v7/1G/$5 41153.13 STATE TREASURER REMIT SURCHARGE 83-4929-000-00
41,153.13
+.+.+. ••--CKS
191523 67/10/85 100.75 STEMMER FARM 8 GAR. SURFACE MAT 01-4215-622-62
100.75 ■
+.+... •••-CK3
191526 . 7/10/8'. .70 SUEL BUSIVESS EQUIP. SUPPLIES 01-4210•-171-17
191 52 6 )7/10/85 71 .38 SUEL BUSINESS EQUIP. SUPPLIES 01-4210-311-31
191)120 J //10/85 46.23 _ SUEL.BUSIIESS EQUIP. . SUPPLIES 01-4210-421-42
191526 17/10/85 2.37 SUEL BUSIVESS EQUIP . SUPPLIES 01-4210-611-61
19152o 67/16/85 6.15- SUEL BUSIVESS EQUIP. SUPPLIES 01-4210-911-91
115. 13 --
191527 07/10/65 10.56 SUPERAMERICA SUPPLIES 01-4210-313-31
191527 U7/10/8) H.79 __ SUPERAMERICA SU?PLIES 01-4210-331-33
19.35 •
,w.... - ..+-CKS
1Y154 _//16/85 27.30 SNAP-ON TOOLS SUPPLIES 01-4210-441-44
1905 CITY OF LtiA&GP:-E CHECK REGISTER 07-10-85 PAGE 9
CF LK tll. DATE AMOUNT VFNDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. IhV. h P.O. 4 MESSAGE
27.30 •
frf flk ffr--LKS
191513 v//1Q /85 576.']0 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED SUPPLIES 01-4210-312-31
576.00 •
frfff. tf►—CKrj
19103 7/1C/85 13,921 .78 WASTE MANAGEMENT UTILITIES 01-4370-721-72
19103 7/1016 5 31267.00 WAST. MANAGEMENT CONTINGENCY 01-4991-911-91
17,168.78
ffffw • •ff—CKS
191053 07/lb/85 116.10 ZEP MFG. SUPPLIES 01-4210-181-18
191053 i,f/10/85 160.60- ZEP MFG, SUPPLIES 01-4210-182-18
191553 d//1f,/85 160.60 ZEP MFG. SUPPLIES C1-4210-182-18
191555 07/iG/85 106.60 ZEP MFG. SUPPLIES 01-4210-182-18
191055 J711C /85 75,26 ZFP MFG! SUPPLIES 01-4210-184-18
191055 f,l/1G/85 91 .93 ZEP 4FG. SUPPLIES C1-4210-311-31
19lo53 17/lu/85 12.50 ZEP MFG. SUPPLIES O1-4210-421-42
191555 u1/10/E5 45.76 UP MFG. SUPPLIES 11-4210-811-81
448.25
frwfff wrf—CKS
19105E 7/1D /ES 13*00 ZIEGLER TIRE EGUIP MAINT 01-4232-631-62
1 3.00 •
frrrff •••- CK:.
191d 7/1C /85 32.70 AUTOMOTIVE W*OLS INC EQUIP MAIAT 01-4232-426-42
32.77 •
191c 1 07/10/85 39,331 .15 C & MW TRA NSP CO OTHER IMPRCV 27-4519-546-41
399331 .15
1910^2 7/10/E5 18.12 CASE POWER 8 EQUIP EQUIP MAIAT C1-4232-426-42 10197
18.12 •
191 '.'J3 )7/10/E5 400.00 DIAMOND CLEAN CTR CAPITAL EQUIP C1-4511-618-61 669
4CO.30 •
191 07/10/85 65,718.75 1ST NAIL HK CHICAGO INTEREST 56-4611-1700-00
1911~ 7/10 /85 59.25 IST 4ATL HK CHICAGO PAYING AGENT FEE 56-4612-000-00
65,778,60 :
19161'5 )1/10/0 20.[)0 GOV ACCT RES FOUN SUPPLIES 01-4210-152-15
20 0
191tio 1/10 /85 5,200.]0 S M HENTGES 8 SONS CAPITAL EQUIP 01-4511-618-61 850626
5,207.10 •
191L(',/ 7/lU/RS 484.00 HYCRAULIC COMP SERV EQUIP MAIAT 01-4232-426-42 E95E
1905 rITY GF SNAKCP£E CHECK REGISTER 07-10-85 PAGE 1J
CHF-�.:K h1. DATE AMOUNT VEND04 ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. A P.O. N MESSAGE
484.;,0 +
1Y1�L'. ..7/10/85 6,100.n0 JEROME JASPERS & CO PROF SERV 01-4310-152-15
191c:ld 7/x/85 703.70 JEROME JASPERS & CO PROF SERV 15-4310-191-19 063085
lvtct'F //1G/b5 7011.^,0 JFROME JASPERS & CO PROF SERV 71-4310-111-71
7,500.90 •
191dry J7/9U/E5 30.?0 BILL LE:PLEY PROF SERV 01-4310-174-17
�o.oa •
191 '1 7/10/95 155.24 COMM OF TRANSP PROF SERV 27-4310-546-41
155.24 +
191e11 i//10/9`. 135.00 _ MANNYS PIANO MOVING CONTINGENCY G1-4991-111-11
1 35.91 +
191-12 . //10/P5 5.50 COMM OF E?UCATION PRINT & FLED 01-4350-171-17
5.50 +
191113 j7/111/85 202.20 ?IDW=SP WIRE & STEEL SUPPLIES 01-4210-431-42
202.20 •
191c14 711C./E5 40.00 ?PTA DUES & SLESCRIPT 14-4391-142-14
40.00 +
191 i5 //10/85 6,798.62 _ ORR SCHEL-N MAY & AS PROF SERV 61-4310-549-41
6,798.62 •
191 1f 7/10/E5 22'7.35 OLYMPIC POOLS SUPPLIES 01-4210-611-61 1577
191 16 37/10/85 54.JO OLYM?IC POOLS SUPPLIES 01-4210-612-61 1575
191t, 1a ,i 7/1C/85 111.60 OLYMPIC POOLS SUPPLTFS 01-4210-614_61 1575
1ri,niu .7/1 '/8) 45.00 OLYMPIC POOLS SUPPLIES 01-4210-617-61 1621
430.95
1Y1.:11 i//10/P5 750.00 PAINTING UNLIMITED BLOC MAIM 01-4230-611-61
191ri11 07/10/95 285.70 PAINTIIG UNLIMITED CAPITAL EGUIP 01-4511-618-61
1 ,065.70 +
191. 11 -t/1('- 1P5 483.JO RYBAK 0 & T SERV RENTS 71-4380-711-71
480.00 +
lylo1 'i 47/111/95 25.34 Y RNER A SEVERSON TRAVEL & SLBSIST 01-4330-461-46
191,119 )7/16/85 25.34 VERNER A SEVERSON TRAVEL & SLESIST 01-4330-651-65
50.68 +
191 r.2'.' i 7/1C/85 1 ,060.10 0 A TANGE CO PROF SERV 01-4310•-151-1 5
1 ,08x.00 •
191621 j7/10lb5 15(!.91 TERRA CARE INC EQUIP MAINZ 01-4232-631-62
150.91
191 22 .7/10/85 111 .24 VIKING SOAP & CHEM SUPPLIES 01-4210-618-61
111 .24
191-23 '17/111/85 48.87 GLORIA VIERLING TRAVEL & SLBSIST 01-4330-111-11
1985 CITY OF SHAKGFE CHECK REGISTER G7-10-85 PAGE 11
CHECK A4, DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO, INVe N P,O. A MESSAGE
48.87 w
1Y1824 07/10/85 525.00 WATER PRODS CO CAPITAL EGUIP 01-4511-618-61
525.00 w
191825 07/10/85 3,057.27 MV GAS CO MOTCR FUEL 01-4222-426-42
3,057.27 w
191132E J7/1r35 30,868.35 RICH%RD KNUTSON INC OTHER IMPROV 27-4519-544-41
30,868.35 w
•wwwww _ - .w.—CKS
67,521.26 FUND 01 TOTAL GENERAL FUND
45.76 FUND 11 TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES
228.14 FUND 14 TOTAL TRANSIT
764.47 FUND 15 TOTAL HRA
84.30 FUND 16 TOTAL CABLE
631.25 FUND 23 TOTAL K-MART
89,982.84 FUND 27 TOTAL RACETRACK
10,960,50 _ _ FUND 31 TOTAL PB.SERV.ELCG. ECNOS
11,46(1.50 FUND 36 TOTAL SR.HI-RISE DEBT S-RVICE
97,636.25 FUND 3F TOTAL RACETRACK BONDS
6,44A.77 FUND 39 TOTAL 1985 SEWER BUNDS
923.40 FUND 49 TOTAL 75 IMPROVEMENT FUND
11 ,185.00 FUND 52 TOTAL 77-8 wS STCRM SEWER
755,00 _ FUND 53 TOTAL 77-A FIRST AVE, 4ATERMAI"
3,242.50 FUND 55 TOTAL 79-A IMPROVEMENTS
65,868..10 FU NO 56 TOTAL 60—A IMPRCVEMENTS
31 ,440.30 FUND 58 TOTAL 31-A IMPROVEMENTS
7,875.00 FUND 59 TOTAL 82—A IMPROVEMENTS
5,611 .67 FUND 60 TOTAL 1984 IMPRCVE.
6,798.62 FUND, 61. TOT AL 1985 IMPRCYE.
1 ,180.81 FUND 71 TOTAL SEWER FUNC
627.43 FUND 81 TOTAL PAYROLL TRUST
150,010.38 FUND 83 TOTAL UTILITY TRUST
21 .42 FUND 84 TOTAL ESCROW
571 ,302.97 _ TOTAL___
I
C
C�
lonth July Page 1 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LEDGER 1985
I)ch1t Acct. Cr. Acct. Amount Batch Remarks Ck. No. Vendor Ck. Amt.
(1.3833.000.00 71.1010 $171,245.25 SAC Charges 17569 Metro Waste Control
(1 .4411.711.71 71.1010 57,583.08 Current Use Charge 17569 11 $228,828.33
)1.4100.311.31 01.1.01.0 994.80 Salary 17570 Thomas Brownell 994.80
31.4922.000.00 81.1010 51195.64 Remit FICA 17571 State Treasurer 5.195.61
31.4925.000.00 81.lolo 9,104.60 Remit Banker's Life 17572 Trustee-Ind. Fund 9,104.60
31.4932.000.00 81.1010 98.40 Uniform Rental 17573 Unitog Rental
)1.4210.441.44 01.1010 6.78 Supplies 17573 " 105.18
31.4931.000.00 81.1010 1,000.00 Remit Payroll Sav 17574 1st Nat'l -Shakopee 1,000.00
31.4921.000.00 81.1010 4,961.06 Remit SIT 17575 Comm of Revenue 4,961.06
31.4920.000.00 81.1010 9,139.86 Remit FIT 17576 lst Nat'l -Shakopee 9.139.86
31.4927.000.00 81.1010 100.00 Remit Defer. Comp. 17577 IDS 100.00
31..4927.000.00 81.1olo 1,787.00 17578 PEBSCO 1,787.00
31.1+923.000.00 81.1010 7,139.97 Remit Pera 17579 State Treasurer 7,139.97
)1.4370.622.62 01.1010 8.04 Utilities 17580 Minnegasco
)1.4370.311.31 01.1010 20.72 if 1758o "
)1.4370.421.42 01.1010 41.45 " 1758o It
)1 .4370.611.61 01.1010 117.43 " 1758o If
)1.4370.321.32 01.1010 51.44 " 1758o It
)1.4370.181.18 01.1010 11.73 " 1758o " 250.81
)1.4210.158.15 01.1010 17.50 Supplies 17581 Prentice -Hall 17.50
)1.4360.911.91 01.1010 11,993.66 Insurance 17582 Capesius Agency 11,993.66
)1.4360.911.91 01.1010 134,622.00 Insurance 17583 League of MN Cities 134,622.00
36.2300.000.00 86.1010 430,985.69 Lt. Deposit 17584 1st Trust St. Paul 430,985.69
$84+65226.10 $8F+b,22b.10
FUND TOTALS
01 - General Fund $147,885.55
71 - Sewer Fund 228,828.33
81 - Payroll Trust 38,526.53
86 - KMart Trust 439,985_69
$846,226.lo
1
TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator n �
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: Refuse Disposal Contract
DATE: July 10, 1985
Introduction & Background
The City has had the garbage service contract with G & H for several years
and has had good service at a low price. Last year, Waste Management purchased
G & H and is completing the current contract under the same terms. Based
on calls to City Hall, the service to the customers has not changed and there
are very few complaints.
There is no requirement to bid this contract and the last renewal was negotiated.
Does Council wish to obtain bids, quotes or negoiate the next contract?
Alternatives
1. Obtain bids
2. Obtain quotes
3. Negotiate renweal
Recommendation
Alternative number 2.
Action
Move to direct staff to obtain quotations for the refuse collection contract
for 1986 - 1988.
S
gK
TO : John K . Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE : Audit Services for 1986
DATE : July 9 , 1985
Introduction & Background
It is an appropriate time to begin selection of audit services
for 1986 . The City has used Jaspers for about 25 years with
the exception of 1969 when the State Auditor was called in.
The same individual has been the main auditor on the job for
about 11 years .
Staff has recommended to Council for about four years to consider
changing auditors in order to have an auditor with more current
experience with a larger number of cities and to have one with
a fresh or new perspective of Shakopee ' s operation . There is
no negative reflection on Jaspers & Co . intended.
Council has solicited quotations in two of the last three years
and has continued to retained Jaspers and Co . Because of market
reaction , it is strongly recommemded that council not solicit
quotations unless it definately decides to change auditors .
Alternatives
1 . Ask Jaspers for a proposal
2 . Solicit other firms for proposals
Recommendation
Alternative number 2 .
Action
Move that the City change auditors in order to have a firm and
an auditor with a fresh perspective and a broader base of municipal
experience and that staff have ready for the next Council meeting
a proposal form and proposed list of firms to contact .
TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: C.I.P. Follow—up (Informational)
DATE: July 10, 1985
Introduction & Background
There were questions at the 7/2/85 Council meeting concerning items number
55 and 64 of the 1986 — 1990 Capital Imporovements Program. Item number 55
is Memorial Park. Improvements include electrical service to shelter #2,
new landscaping and developing lowland trail via fabcon bridge.
Item number 64 is the 3M Octagon system submitted by the Fire Department.
This system allows traffic lights to respond to emergency vehicles by turning
green to enable faster response times. Once the system is installed, the
state will pay for the cost of the equipment for any new traffic lights on
state roads. Cost is $10,000 to 12,000 per intersection and $1,000 to 1,200
per vehicle.
Planning Commission recieved the CIP is early June but has not discussed it
yet. It is suggested that Council resolve any questions it has on the CIP
now but defer formal adoption of the document until the Planning Commission
has discussed it. This will give staff reasonable direction to enable preparation
of the 1986 budget.
Attached is a new copy of the CIP. Bo Spurrier has made some changes to the
column for tax increment financing and has add related information on the
bottom of the schedule.
Action
Conclude discussion of the CIP pending Planning Commission review.
1
c�
Printed + + c 1986-1990 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM # # + 'CITY OF SHAI:OFEE, MINNESOTA c t # Page l
I0-Jul-a5
Sources of Funding
Frior. Fraject Dept. Project Const. Total General G.O. Special Sewer State , Grants lax Park Capital County Federal Donations
No. Status Rank Frior. Name Years Cost Fund Bonds Assess. Fund Aid Increment Reserve Improv. Aid Aid/Urban
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Funding Aor 65 70 CA-X HNY 169 Bridge (state) 87-89 18,000,000 $1,925,000 175,000 16,000,000
2 Funding Aar 85 10 CA-X HNY 101 Realignment+ 66-87 2,000,000 75,000 1,925,000
3 EIS Appro,al 85 64 PC CR 18 Bridge (County Project) B9-95 35,000,000 3,500,000 31,500,000
4 Co fund 86 64 E-6 4th Ave. (CSAH 16), Fillmore- 85-86 500,000 75,000 125,000 300,000
Scott*
5 FGW Acq. 85 62 PC Bypass 1169 to 1101 00-90 36,000,000 35,000,000 1,000,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Const 85. 62 E-1 4th Ave, Co 83-Shenandoah+ 84-85 635,000 635,000
7 Complete 59 E-t Valley Park Dr. 1 12th+ 84-85 1,046,000 1,046,000
a 59 E-25 Gorman Street+ 81 340,000 140,000 200,000
"v 59 HA-1 Motel Downtown 86-88 1,085,000 1,095,000
l0 59 CO-x Downtown Street Scape+ 86-89 4,000,000 1,000,000 3,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I1 Corplete 57 E-1 TH 101 Intersct.lmp.4 RR XiAgw 84-85 885,000 885,000
12 Feasability 66 56 E-9 Market Street+ 86-87 700,000 200,000 500,000
13 56 CD-X Housing Alliance Project-Acq 85-86 120,000 120,000
14 No Warrants 55 E-16 Semiphore at TH 101 1 C.R. Bac B6-87 120,000 60,000 60,000
16 Fend. Downtown 54 PA-4 Huber Park Road re:Downtowns B6-BB 32,000 16,000 16,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lo Study done 54 E-3 1965 Pavement prog/ rural :one 83-87 515,700 3B6,775 128,925
# FeasblLy done 41 E-3 Eaglewood Road Reconst.+ 84-85 14000001 320,000 80,000
# Feasibility 65 36 E-3 Norton Drivel 84-85 1270001 21,000
# Feasibility 95 44 E-3 Timber Trails, 84-85 1750001 56,250 18,750
# Feasibility 85 36 E-X Hontecito Drive* 84-85 1137001 10,275 ' 3,425
17 E-X Street Rehab needs 86-92 5,784,000 1,446,000 4,338,000
18 Design 1 Build 52 HA-x Downtown Parking Lot# 85-81 60,000 60,000
19 Acquire 66 46 HA-2 Prison Site Redevelopment 96-B7 860,000 860,000
(except road)+
20 Complete 47 E-1 CR 03 Widening, Track to 1019 84-85 243,000 243,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 Study Turnback 47 E-28 CR 77 (Not in City limits) 89 443,000 443,000
22 Intersect. a5 45 CA-X Street Lights at Track, 85-86 126,000 126,000
2 Siting 85 44 HA-x New City Hall+ 86-87 2,000,000 1,600,000 400,000
24 41 E-7 9th Ave San Sew E. of Spencer+ 86-87 168,000 168,000
25 39 E-X Market St. Laterals - Storm# 87-88 263,000 151,000 112,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26 39 E-X West Side laterals - Storm* 86-88 290,000 94,600 195,400
27 39 FA-9 Huber Pk. Tr. Bury Overhead, 81-88 165,000 50,000 115,000
28 Fr-gramed 85 39 E-I1 CR 17 Widening Ilth to 42 (Col 85-91 640,000 640,000
29 38 E-X Cretex Drainage, 80 120,000 69,000 51,000
30 36 E-19 6th Ave San. Sewer Reconstruct 09 265,800 265,800
Webster to Fuller,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31 ISF Downgrades 36 PC CR 16, CR 17 to CR 83 88-89 1,276,000 480,000 798,000
32 Folicy Dec. 85 36 E-18 Block 20 1 24 alley reconst.# 85-86 13,000 9,750 3,250
33 Complete 36 E-20 CR 83 116 to 421 (County) 84-85 1,000,000 1,000,000
34 ROW Acq. 84165 34 E-23 13th Ave to Mall# 66-87 195,000 97,500 97,500
'5 Folicy Dec. 85 33 E-10 Holmes Laterals (Block 571 82-86 1,152,190 521,090 631,100
Design 85 Revise Study+
mor. Froject Dept. Project Const. Total General G.O. Special Sewer State Grants Tax Park Capital County Federal Donations
No. Status Rank Prior. Name Years Cost Fund Bonds Assess. Fund Aid Inclement Reserve lapray. Aid Aid/Urban
36 31 PA-10 Hiawatha Pk-Upgrade Playgrndl 86 2,000 2,000
37 OSM 85 31 E-8 Inflow 6 Infiltration repairs* 95 36,000 36,000
38 Feasibility 85 31 E-24 Folk Street, 87-89 80,000 80,000
3i' 1 31 PC CR 15, 6th /Tahpah BB-89 550,000 205,000 345,000
40 Hearing 85 31 E-12 Signal at Scott G close Apgar; 85-86 140,000 14,000, 126,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
41 31 E71 Dean's Lake Basin 4-A Drain' 86-88 800,000 459,900 340,100
42 Const 85 31 CO-x Ca. Rd. 89 Overlay CNW-CSAH 16 85 55,000 55,000
43 Const BS 31 CO-x CSAH 16, T.H. 13-CSAH 21 B5 150,000 150,000
44 29 E-29 HWY 169 Frontage 300 to 3rd' 87-89 600,000 300,000 300,000
45 Study 85 29 E-13 Valley Park Drainage It Water* 85-86 450,000 258,100 191,300
----------------=---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
46 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.* 88-90 124,000 124,000
48 Folicy dec. 65 2B E-15 Coord. Sidewalks with schools* 87-88 300,000 300,000
49 Hold for bypass 28 FW-x 13th Ave CR 89 East (pave) 90 .94,000 94,000
50 27 FA-9 Huber Park Trail (Levee)* 84-86 114,900 71,195 43,705
51 26 E-K Prairie St. Laterals+ 89 234,000 134,500 99,500
52 Consider Delete 26 PW-x Public Works Cold Storage' 05 29,000 29,000
53 Fin. Study 85 26 E-5 Upper Valley Drainage* 86-90 3,500,000 1,137,100 2,362,900
54 Study a4 E-4 Westside(bth) San. Sewer' 86 150,000 150,000
Reconst, Adams-Jackson+
J5 26 FA-5 Memorial Fark * B5-68 38,500 20,000 18,500
56 26 PA-11 Holmes Pk-Upgrade Playground* 86 2,000 2,000
57 Camp plan amend 24 E-27 13th ave CR 17-CR7987-88 800,000 500,000 300,000
38 Comp plan amend 23 E-26 VIP Trunk Sewer Ext.CR17-CR79, 86-87 520,000 520,000
59 21 E-1 River Basin 7A273 Drainage* 87-88 450,000 258,100 191,300
60 Complete 21 E-I Shenandoah Drive* 84-85 377,000 371,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
61 Study 85 21 E-30 Alley Block 106 Paving' 2,025 2,025
62 Related to 153 21 PA-1 Eastside Park IDevelop)* 86-89 149,090 71,575 77,515
63 21 FR-1 Fire Station Expansion'. 8718 415,000 415,000
64 21 FR-1 314 Octagon System* 87 75,000 75,000
65 Not Complete 18 E-21 Friar Lake Overflow 84-86 6,000 6,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
66 Not Feasable IB E-22 Alley bet. 7 6 8 E of Dakota* 87 8,000 8,000
67 17 fA-8 Resurf.Ten.Crt.@StansPk* 85 17,000 15,000 2,000
68 16 PA-6 O'Dowd Park (Acess Control)' 87-88 23,500 21,500 2,000
69 16 FA-7 Upper Valley Trails 87-89 26,000 26,000
70 Complete 16 PA-1 Water Slide* B5 160,000 160,000
----------=---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
71 Lions Landscape 14 PA-3 Lion's Park-redo sliding hill* 86-88 2,000 2,000
72 County froi. 13 PA-x Bike Trail to O'Dowd 125,000 125,000
73 13 E-1 Memorial Park Bridge* 85 5,000 2,000 3,000
74 PA-2 Tahpah Imp.- parking,trail, 85-88 118,500 26,250 26,250 66,000
football fld., stadium
POST S11 YEAR
FS Ind Park fire Station
PC Deans Lake Outlet Control
------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Estimated Froject Costs 3111,571,205 $245,015 13,720,550 18,639,440 1619,000 138,874,000 1381,020 $19,853,600 $247,470 $516,000 17,116,000 $37,500,000 116,000
Estimated Revenues $114,599,835 1245,025 110,685,890 $8,029,700 1619,800 $38,874,000 $381,020 $10,000,000 $256,400 $516,000 $7,416,000 137,500,000 $16,000
Frier. Froject Dept. Project Const. Total General G.O. Special Sewer State Grants Tax Park Capital County Federal Donations
No. Status Rank Prior. flame Years Cost Fund Bonds Assess. Fund Aid Increment Reserve Improv. Aid Aid/Urban
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIF FUNDED PROJECTS (Listed by City Priority) Expenditure - year
TH 169/101 Junction and TH 101 Bypass $46,000,000 137,000,000 13,000,000 - 800,000 late '85 !6,000,(100
- 400,000 early '86
- 1,800,000 late '88
Stora Sewer Construction $1,259,190 13,084,590 $4,174,600 - 291,300 early '86
- 2,080,000 aid '86
- 1,297,300 aid '87
- 406,500 aid '88
- 99,500 aid '89
Street Reconstruction $5,784,000 11,446,000 14,338,000 - $723,000/year from mid '87 to•mid '92
Downtown Streetscape 14,000,000 11,000,000 13,000,000 -1 500,000 mid '86
- 1,000,000 mid '87
- 750,000 aid '08
- 750,000 aid '89
Total Cost of Priority TIF Projects $9,7B4,000 . $2,446,000 $7,338,000
flutes: 1) Some totals may he incorrect due to incomplete information.
21 State Hwy funds not City State Aid funds- project programmed but not funded. (See Prior. No. 1,2,5&401
31 An assessment of 59.9X will be applied to this project for the 12th Ave and new Valley Park Drive to reimburse TIF. (See Prior. No. 71
41 An assessment of 721 will be applied to this project for Shenandoah Drive to reimburse TIF. ISee Prior. No. 60)
51 Engineering cost reimbursed by Watershed District. (See Prior. No. 65)
61 All projects marked with an asterisk M are the responsibility of the City of Shakopee
q �. CITY OF SHAKOPEE
i� 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
r �115
MEMO
TO: John Anderson - Administrator
FROM: Jim Karkanen - Public Works
SUBJECT: 13t h Ave . roadway surf ace
DATE: July 5 , 1985
As a f of l owup to our conversation today , perhaps the following
information wi 1 1 help towards a decision to construct a temporary
bituminous surface on 13th Avenue . This roadway has presented us with
a continual maintenance problem, and many public complaints regarding
its ' surface and driving condition .
The majority of these complaints and continual maintenance problems
are because of :
1 . Sandy subbase which does not present a stable foundation for the
2 to 3" gravel base which we constantly try to maintain . About
every other year , we haul in a new 2" base of cruched rock or gravel ,
but it gets pounded down into the sand subbase after continual
grading , constant traffic , and wind erosion . This sandy subbase
and crushed rock base gives a "washboard" effect from the torque
of the drive wheels from the vehicles .
2, . Poor drai nage . There are no shoulders on the majority of the R/.W,
and there are no ditches for drainage except on the west end of
the roadway . Maintenance crews cut in "weephol es" on the edge of
the roadway so the road will drain as much as possible .
3 . Very heavy truck traffic from the industrial complex adjacent to
this roadway .
4. There is an unusual amount of traffic that uses this road because
it is a shortcut between Co . Rd . 89 and the Schroeders Acres
frontage road connecting to State Hwy 101 . By using this roadway ,
traffic isn' t delayed at the traffic 1 i ght at Hwy 101 near the
Stagecoach , nor are they subjected to constant delays at the
Chicago , Northwestern Valley Park Depot . The traffic which uses
this shortcutmoves very f ast .
5 . Dust cont rol i s a bi g probl em on t hi s road . The City pays to have
calcium chloride applied twice during the summer season , and this
is supplemented by several additional applications by a contractor
who st ores hi s equi pment i n t he vi ci ni t y . It is my estimate t hat
4 or 5 appl i cat i ons of cal ci um chl ori de have been appl i ed t o t he
roadway thus far this year . The cont ract or used t o appl y a I i ght
oil application , for dust control , but our Engineering department
has i ndi cat ed t hat t hey don' t want of 1 used f or dust cont rol .
The Ci t y of Shakopee has been advi sed by t he Mi nnesot a Pol 1 ut i on
Control Agency of t he dust compl ai nt i n t hat area . ( I et t er at t ached)
It i s our pol i cy t o rout i nel y grade t hi s road at I east of t er
every rai of al 1 , suppl ement ed by addi t i onal gradi ng operat i ons , as
required . Thi s roadway general 1 y recei ves at 1 east t wi ce as much
13th Ave . continued .
mai nt enance t han of her gravel roads i n t he area . To grade t hi s
road , requires about an hour of actual grading time , and about
an hour and a hal f of t ravel t i me t o and f rom t he garage area .
Because of the unusual traffic load , subgrade soil composition ,
heavy truck traffic , and close proximity of the residential houses
in the area , it is our recommendation that a 9 ton bituminous
surf ace be const ruct ed on t hi s roadway i n t he very near f ut ure .
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
g y
May 9 , 1985
Mr. James Karkenen
Street Superintendent
Shakopee City Hall
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee , Minnesota 55379
Dear Mr. Karkenen:
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) , Division of Air
Quality, has received a complaint from a citizen living on 13th
Avenue East, between County Road 89 an 101 within the City of
Shakopee . The citizen complaint concerns fugitive dust eminating
from local road travel . According to the information from the
complainant, the roadway in question is the responsibility of
City of Shakopee.
In an effort to be of some assistance in overcoming this
condition , the Agency suggests the following methods , considered
to be reasonable, which may be employed by the City of Shakopee
to prevent the fugitive dust from becoming air-borne:
1 ) Reducing the speed limit
f
2 ) Oiling the roadway
3 ) Watering periodically
4 ) Applying calcium chloride periodically
5 ) Paving the roadway
Please find enclosd a COPY of Minnesota Rules Part 7005. 0550,
[formerly APC 61 , "Preventing Particulate Matter from Becoming
Air-Borne. " The rule is self explanatory and should be
beneficial in making the maintenance decision.
Phone:
1935 West County Road B2, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-2785 I
Regional Offices • Duluth/Brainerd/Detroit Lakes/Marshall/Rochester
Equal Opportunity Employer
I r'v
Mr. James Karkenen
May 9 , 1985
Page Two
If the Agency can be of any further assistance, please call the
undersigned at ( 612 ) 296-7281 , between the hours of 7: 30 and 9:00
a.m.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Youngman
Enforcement Unit
Regulatory Compliance Section
Division of Air Quality
RCY:mpgl8:63
Enclosure
cc: James Anderson - City Administrator
CONTROL. OF FUGITIVE PARTICULATE MATTER
7005.0550 PREVENTING PARTICULATE MATTER FROM BECOMING
AIRBORNE.
No person shall cause or permit the handling, use, transporting, or storage
of any material in a manner which may allow avoidable amounts of particulate
matter to become airborne.
No person shall cause or permit a building or its appurtenances or a road,
or a driveway, or an open area to be constructed used, repaired, or demolished
without applying all such reasonable measures as may be required to prevent
particulate matter from becoming airborne. The director may require such
reasonable measures as may be necessary to prevent particulate matter from
becoming airborne including, but not limited to, paving or frequent clearing of
roads, driveways, and parking lots; application of dust-free surfaces; application
of water; and the planting and maintenance of vegetative ground cover.
Statutory Authority: , MS s 116.07 subd 4
1
�o
O = Z' OF SHAKOP��
INCORPORATED 1870
* ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
129 E. 1st Avenue - Shakopee, Kinnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administ or
FROM: H. R. Spurrier, City Engineer _
SUBJECT: Storm Water Drainage Utility
DATE: July 15, 1985
INTRODUCTION:
On June 4, 1985, City Council directed staff to prepare re-
sponses to issues raised during the Public Hearing on the Storm
Water Drainage Utility. The request included direction to
prepare a policy resolution and an ordinance that could create
a Storm Water Drainage Utility.
BACKGROUND:
The first area of concern were the issues raised at the Public
Hearing. They were as follows:
1. The City should specify how the deferred user fees
would be carried forward from existing property owners
to new property owners.
2. An appeals process should be specified in the ordinance
which would give the citizens the right to a hearing before
City Council for any dispute regarding Storm Sewer Utility
Fees.
3. The policy should specify whether maintenance costs
would be funded by the Storm Water Drainage Utility, and
if they are, which maintenance cost would be included.
4. The City should make available a comparison user fees
versus property tax costs for representative properties.
5. The City policy should specify whether the City is
planning to receive a return on its equity in the storm
sewer system as the City now receives for its equity in
the electric system and in the water system.
G. The City should advise the public if there are any
hidden street reconstruction costs included in the storm
sewer work.
Storm Water Drainage Utility
July 15, 1985
Page 2
I have attached Resolution No. 2419, A Resolution Establishing
Policy for the Storm Water Storm Water Drainage Utility.
The attached policy addresses the issues raised at the Public
Hearing and it establishes the method by which Residential
Equivalent Factors (REF) will be established and applied to
property within the City of Shakopee. The policy addresses
all of the items above, except how the City advises the public
if there are any hidden street reconstruction costs included
in the storm sewer work.
The latter issue was not addressed because street reconstruction
costs are plainly outlined in the City9s Capital Improvement
Program and should be known by all citizens.
I have attached a comparison of City Matching costs for repre-
sentative properties City-wide. The table compares user fees
to an estimated special levy cost. Also included in that at-
tachment is the revenue projection by drainage area through
1989.
The attachments answer the questions that have been raised
to this point and in the event there are no other questions
regarding a Storm Water Drainage Utility, the City would be
prepared to adopt Ordinance No. 176, An Ordinance of the City
of Shakopee Amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 3 entitled
"Municipal and Public Utilities Rules and Regulations, Fran-
chises and Rates" by adding a New Section 3. 42 thereto entitled
"Storm Water Drainage Utility", and then following the adoption
of the ordinance the City would be prepared to adopt Resolution
No. 2419, A Resolution Establishing Policy for the Storm Water
Drainage Utility, thereby creating a Storm Water Drainage Util-
ity.
ACTION REQUESTED:
1. A motion to adopt Ordinance No. 176, An Ordinance of the
City of Shakopee Amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 3 entitled
"Municipal and Public Utilities Rules and Regulations, Fran-
chises and Rates" by adding a New Section 3. 42 thereto entitled
"Storm Water Drainage Utility".
2. A motion to adopt Resolution No. 2419, A Resolution Es-
tablishing Policy for the Storm Water Drainage Utility
HRS/pmp
ADOPT
COMPARISON OF CITY MATCH COST ONLY (Annual Cost)
Assessed 'Value Reduced Area Maximum
By Fiscal Disparities Special Levy Estimated Lots (x.xx) Proposed Percent
Frooerty With Without 7.4533 mils User Fee Acres (x.xxx) REF User Fee Imperv.
Warner True Value 1401,610 1286,956 #2,138.18 15,579.70 14.520 2.50 12,893.47 49.2
Berens Super Market 198,242 169,152 $515.41 1531.40 3.72 5.00 1493.98 100.0
Dunninq s Hardware 17,644 15,381 #40.11 #69.01 0.52 5.00 #69.01 100.0
riarschall Road Frofe=_sional Building #334,755 #235,631 #1,756.24 #491.94 1.959 5.00 1780.49 63.0
0,asns.-Illinois 1850,928 #538,891 #4,463.14 111,596.95 29.400 1.25 12,877.11 30.3
K Mart Distribution Center (Existing) 16,9:8,6775 #4,884,092 #36,402.B4 $15,488.49 96.000 2.50 119,130.40 41.0
(Expanded) 111,795,782 #8,302,956 161,884.92 #24,637.94 96.000 5.00 #39,260.80 64.7-
$6,427,116
4.9#6,427,116 14,523,996 133,716.92 111,956.50 100.19 5.00 #13,310.12 65.0
Nigh School N/A N/A N/A #2,231.88 14.720 2.50 52,933.33 40.8
Junior High M/A N/A N/A 12,125.60 24.800 1.25 12,471.01 18.5
Sweeney ff/A NiA N/A #1,328.50 11,900 1.25 11,185.69 8.4
Central NIA N/A MIA #1,195.65 10.00 5.00 11,328.50 3 5.0
Pearson H/A M/A NIA 11,328.50 11.880 1.25 11,183.69 11.8
Total for Schools H/A H/A N/A #8,210.13 19,102.22
Sinale Family Residence; by Assessed #40,000 #40,(1)0 1298.13 126.57 1.00 1.00 126.51 20.0
165,001) 165,000 #404.47 #26.57 1.00 1.00 #26.57 2 5.0
190,000 190,000 1670.80 126.57 1.00 1.00 126.57 30.0
REVENUE FRDJECTIONS
Revenue By Drainage Area Revenue from Special Benefit User Fee
Project Frosct Spcl Bnft City Match Total Listed by Year
Cost User Fee User Fee User Fee 1996 1997 1999 11797
Frairis Street Lateral 1234,010.00 1;,521.00 112,373.00 121,894.00 10.00 10.00 10,00 19,521.(10
West Side Laterals & Inlets 289,48x.00 10.00 #15,306.00 115,306.00 10.00 #0.00 #0.00 t4.00
Plolipips Street Basin Laterals .1,152,186.00 123,984.00 160,921.00 184,805.00 118,723.00 119,923.00 123,8!;4.00 #23,854.00
Market Street Basin Laterals 262,674.00 110,697.00 #13,899.00 #24,516.00 10.00 110,681.00 110,691.00 110,6Bi.04
Upper V�Ilev Drainage System 13,540,000.00 10,(10 41851057.00 1185,059.00 #0.00 #0.00 10.00 10.00
Dean Lai-.e Basin IV-A 900,0011.00 132,549.00 142,299.00 #74,848.00 19,570.00 17,510.00 132,543.00 112,543.00
Valley 'r'ark Drainage 450,000.00 #18,3U9.00 123,793.00 142,102.00 #18,.309.00 318,.303.09 118,307.00 #18,3 3.40
Crete;: Indu3tri3l Park Drain 120,000.00 14,882.00 #6,345.00 #11,227.00 10.00 10.00 14,992.00 141992.0(1
River Basin VII-A-2 and 3 450000,40 #19,309.00 123,733.04 #42,102.00 10.00 119,309.00 #18,309.00 #18,343.(10
Total #1,259,359.00 lil 9,141.00 #383,779.00 1501,719.00
Tata! Speci=1 Benefit Revenue 146,802.00 175,178.00 t108,620.00 t118,141.^0
Total City Match Revenue 1152,035.00 #246,228.00 $)52,843.40 17F.3,7i9.00
Total Revenue 1198,837,00 #322,026.40 1951,469.00 #501,719.00
City Match as X of Maximum .39.6 64.2 91.9 100.9 --�
l
RESOLUTION NO. 8419
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICY
FOR THE STORM WATER DRAINAGE UTILITY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shakopee has est-
ablished a Storm Water Drainage Utility; and
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee desires to establish policy
that would govern the operation of the Storm Water Drainage
Utility.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: that the attached policy statement
is hereby adopted for the management of the Storm Water Drainage
Utility; and that changes to this policy shall be made from
time to time as needed by Resolution.
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, 1985.
City Attorney
`i
ORDINANCE NO. 176
An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee Amending Shakopee City
Code Chapter 3 entitled "Municipal and Public Utilities Rules
and Regulations, Franchises and Rates" by adding a New Section
3. 42 thereto entitled "Storm Water Drainage Utility"
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
SECTION I : A new section 3. 42 entitled "Storm Water Drainage
Utility" is hereby added to the present "Municipal and public
Utilities Rules and Regulations Franchises and Rates" provisions
in the City Code.
Subd. 1. Storm Water Drainage Utility Established. The
municipal storm sewer system shall be operated as a public utility
pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 444. 075 from which revenues
will be derived subject to the provisions of this Chapter and
Minnesota statutes. The storm water drainage utility will be
part of the engineering department and under the administration
of the city engineer.
Subd. 2. Definitions.
A. Residential eouivalent factor, (REF) - One ( 1 )
REF is defined as the ratio of the average volume
of runoff generated by one (1 ) acre of a given land
use to the average volume of runoff generated by one
( 1 ) acre of typical single family residential land,
during a standard one ( 1 ) year rainfall event.
Subd. 3. Storm Water Drainage Fees. Storm water drainage
fees for parcels of land shall be determined by multiplying
the REF - for a parcel ' s land use by the parcel' s acreage and
then multiplying the resulting product by the storm water drainage
rate. The REF values for various land uses are as follows:
CLASSIFICATION LAND USES REF
!. A. Residential, low density
( 1 and 2 family) less than
35% impervious 1. 00
1. 8. Residential, medium density
Q to 6 family)
36 to 60% impervious 2. 00
1. C. Residential, high density
Q or more family)
61% to 100% impervious 4. 00
r
Z. A. Commercial, Industrial
and Institutional, low density
less than 35% impervious 1. 25
L. E. Commercial, Industrial,
and Institutional, mediurn density
36% to 60% impervious 2. 50
2. C. Commercial, Industrial, and
institutional, high density
61% to 100% impervious 5. 00
3. Improved vacant and parks As Assigned
For the purpose of calculating storm water drainage fees, all
developed one family and duplex parcels and improved agricultural
parcels shall be considered to have an acreage of one-third
Q /3) acre and an REF of 1. 00.
Subd. 4. Credits. The Council may adopt policies recommended
by the City Engineer, by resolution, for adjustment of the storm
water drainage fee for parcels based upon hydrologic data to
be supplied by property owners, which data demonstrates a hydrologic
response substantially different from the standards.. Such adjust-
ments of storm water drainage fees shall not be made retroactively.
Subd. 5. Exemptions. The following land uses are exempt
from storm water drainage fees.
A. Public rights of way.
B. Vacant, unimproved land with ground cover, including
unimproved agricultural land with ground cover.
Subd. 6. payment of Fee. Statements for storm water drainage
fee shall be computed every three (3) months and invoiced by
the finance department for each account on or about the fifth
(5th) day of the month following the quarter. Such statement
shall be due on or before the last day of the month in which
the statement is mailed. Any prepayment or overpayment of charges
shall be retained by the City and applied against subsequent
quarterly fees.
Subd. 7. Recalculation of Fee. If a property owner or
person responsible for paying the storm water drainage fee questions
the correctness of an invoice for such charge, such person may
have the determination of the charge recomputed by written request
to the City Engineer made within twelve ( 12) months of mailing
of the invoice in question by the City. The property owner,
q 0
may appeal the decision of the City Engineer to City Council
by filins notice of said appeal with the City Administrator
within sixty (60) days of the City Engineer' s decision.
Subd. 8. Penalty for Late Payment. Each quarterly billing
for storm water drainage fees not paid when due shall incur
a penalty charge of ten percent ( 10%) of the amount past due.
Subd. 9. Certification of Past Due Fees on Taxes. Any
past due storm water drainage fees in excess of ninety (90)
days past due on October 1 of any year may be certified to the
County Auditor for collection with real estate taxes in the
following year pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 444. 075, Subdivision
3. In addition, the City shall also have the right to bring
a civil action or to take other legal remedies to collect unpaid
fees.
SECTION II : When in force and effect
After the adoption, signing and attestation of this ordinance
it shall be published once in the official newspaper for the
City of Shakopee and shall then be in full force and effect.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City
of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of ,
1985.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this day of
1985.
City Attorney of the City of Shakopee
STORM WATER DRAINAGE UTILITY POLICY
I. INTRODUCTION. The municipal storm water drainage utility utilizes a fee
structure based on the anticipated relative contribution of storm drainaoe
runoff volumes to the storm water drainage system. A parcels contribution
is determined by that parcels size and its land use, under the principal that
more intensively developed land uses typically have a larger percentage of
impervious surface and contribute a much greater volume of water arid/or sedi-
ment/nutrient loadings to the system.
It is recognized that some parcels, due either to their unique topographic,
vegetative, geologic and other characteristics, or the existance and maintenance
of onsite storm drainage control, detention, or retention facilities have
a. hydrologic and sediment/nutrient loading response substantially different
from that of similarly sized parcels of the same land use.
To provide for an equitable assessment of storm drainage fees, based on reasonably
expected contribution of flows and sediment/nutrients, provisions need to
be made to permit adjustments or credits to the storm drainage fees for those
parcels with unique or unusual characteristics.
II. PURPOSE OF STORM WATER DRAINAGE. The storm water drainage utility has
been established for the purpose of managing and funding maintenance, construction
and reconstruction of the storm water drainage system in the City of Shakopee.
The City of Shakopee shall not expect nor receive any return or, investment
ir, the storm water drainage system,.
A. MAINTENANCE. Maintenance shall mean the direct and indirect personnel
costs as well as equipment replacement costs for repairs and cleaning which
include street sweeping, catch basin cleaning, ,letting pipes, thawing pipes,
and any other operation which assures the dependable operation of the drainage
syst em.
B. CONSTRUCTION. Construction shall mean improvements to the storm water
drainage system made in an area riot previously served with lateral or with
trunk. service.
C. RECONSTRUCTION. Reconstruction shall mean improvements made to the
storm water drainage system in a area previously served with lateral or
with trunk service.
III. CREDITS AND/OR SPECIAL BENEFIT USER FEES AND CITY MATCHING COST USER
FEES. The basis of the City of Shakopee' s storm water drainage fees is the
anticipated relative contribution of storm water volumes and sediment/nutrient
loadings to the storm drainage system from a give parcel. Where unique or
unusual conditions exist where the actual contributions of water volume and
sediment/nutrient loadings from a given parcel are substantially different
form those anticipated by the storm drainage fee structure, the City Engineer
or designate may adjust or credit the storm drainage fee for said parcel to
an appropriate 'Level in accordance with the guidelines specified herein.
i
A. PROCEDURE
1. Property Owner To Provide Detailed Information. It is the responsi-
bility of the property owner or his agent to present to the public
works director or his designate, sufficient information concerning
a parcels hydrologic characteristics to Permit an accurate assessment
of the conditions that exist. This information may include, but is
not limited to
a. Site plan showing locations of all buildings and other develop-
ment relative to lot lines.
b. The total lot area and area of impervious surfaces.
C. Site topography or contours of sufficient detail to ascertain
flow directions, rates and volumes.
d. Size, details and/or volumetric characteristics of any drainage
control facilities.
e. Hydraulic calculations specifying outflow volumes and rates
for various rainfall events.
c. Adjustments Where Parcel Runoff Is Significantly Different From
Land Use Standard. Where the unit runoff generated by a parcel differs
from the assigned amount for that land use category by more than SOY.,
the City Engineer may adjust the parcels storm water drainage fee
in accordance with the following procedure:
a. Calculation of unit runoff for the parcel shall be determined
by the methods outlined in the Soil Conservation Service
Technical Release No. 55, utilizing an Initial Storm and
Major Storm as specified in the City of Shakopee' s Design
Criteria and antecedent moisture condition II.
b. If calculated unit runoff is shown to differ from the assigned
amount for that land use category by 20% or more, the number
of assigned REU' s for that parcel shall be adjusted by multi-
plying by the ratio of the calculated unit runoff to the
standard unit runoff.
C. A parcels storm water drainage fee shall be subject to increases
as well as decreases by this procedure.
d. Because single family and duplex and improved agricultural
fees are not based upon actual parcel acreage, no adjustment
for unit runoff differences will be made for those land
uses.
2
I0
3. Procedure For Calculation Of Credits For Wet Ponds. A parcel
may be credited for up to fifty (50X) percent of the storm water drainage
fee for onsite measures which are owned and maintained by the applicant
which effectively reduce the outflow of sediment/nutrients from the
site. Credit percentage shall be based on one-half of the actual
percentage of sediment removal efficiency, as determined by the following
procedure, rounded to the nearest 5%; except that no credit will be
given for sediment removal efficiencies of less than 20%.
a. Determine total site acreage and percent of site that has
improved or impervious surface.
b. Calculate the annual depth of runoff from the following
equation:
Dr, = P(.75 I m=+. 15) —5.234 (.25-. 1875 I m).597
Where Dr = annual depth of runoff in inches.
Im = percent of site impervious area, expressed as a decimal.
P = annual depth of precipitation = 29 inches.
C. Calculate annual volume of runoff in acre-feet:
Vannual = acreage x Dr/12
d. Determine pond capacity below outlet elevation in acre-feet.
e. Calculate capacity inflow ratio (CIR), where: CIR = ponding
capacity /Vannual
f. Read sediment removal efficiency from following graph:
so�
z
_W
U
LL
W i i
•o L
J
O
SoL
W
D:
�o
W 30
a
W
20—
to
0rto L CAPACITY INFLOW RATIO , acre-"/acre-ft/yr
c
0.001 0.002. 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 -I.o 2.0 1.0 to
BRUNETS TRAP EFFICIENCY CURVE
3
t
g, Credit = / sediment removal efficiency/2 x storm drainage
fee.
4. Credits for Storm Water Detention. A parcel may be credited for
up to 25% of the storm water drainage fee for onsite measures which
limit storm water outflow rates from the site in accordance with the
following procedure:
a. Initial and major storm storm runoff calculated using procedure
specified in (2) a. above.
b. 10% credit for parcels which limit peak outflow rates during
a 5-year rainfall event to predevelopment rates.
C. Additional 15% credit for parcels which limit peak outflow
rates during a 100-year rainfall event to predevelopment
rates.
d. No detention credits will be given for parcels which do
not limit initial storm outflow rates to predevelopment
levels.
5. Cumulative Credit. Credit for sediment/nutrient control in Paragraph
above and credit for detention in paragraph 4. above may be cumulative.
6. Periodic Inspection and Credit Adjustments. The City Engineer
reserves the right to inspect periodically all storm drainage control
facilities to ascertain that they are operating properly. If such
a system, due to improper- maintenance or other reason, fails to detain
or cleanse storm water runoff in an effective manner, the City Engineer
may eliminate or reduce water quality or detention credits to an appro-
priate level. Argy such facility shall not be eligible to apply for
storm drainage fee adjustments for a period of 12 months following
any credit adjustment. Credit adjustments shall not be made retroactively.
The issuance of any building permit or other action which changes
or intensifies an existing land use shall be cause for ars adjustment
of storm, water drainage fees to ars appropriate level.
IV. STORM WATER DRAINAGE USER FEES. This section specifies the procedure
used to establish the Storm Water Drainage User Fees. The User Fees have
three components: Maintenance cost, Special Benefit cost, and City Matching
cc-tst. Except for exempt property, all property shall have a Maintenance cost
and City Matching cost component. Only property that is specially benefited
by storm water drainage system improvements shall have a Special Benefit Component.
A. MAINTENANCE COST. Maintenance cost shall be the budgeted division
costs and equipment depreciation arid/or replacement cost.
4
CI
B. SPECIAL BENEFIT COST. Special Benefit cost shall be 25% of the accumulated
total cost less any credit for cost specially assessed, prorated, based
or, existing and proposed REF units within the basin served.
C. CITY MATCHING COST. City Matching. Cost shall be 50 percent of all
approved storm water drainage costs, prorated, based on existing and proposed
REF units City-wide.
D. DEFERRED COSTS. The City recognizes that part of new systems serve
proposed improvements. In order to provide for orderly development which
does not penalize property that does not develop, the City will use Tax
Increment Financing to pay Special Benefit cost and City Matching cost
components until the proposed development occurs. Maintenance cost shall
not be charged nor accumulated. The City will collect the proportional
Special Benefit cost and City Matching cost at the rate and term at which
it was originally collected. Interest shall not accrue on unpaid Special
Benefit cost and City Matching cost.
V. AUTHORITY. Authority for the Storm Water Drainage Utility is in Section
?. 4C of the Shakopee City Code.
PUBLIC WORKS PROCEDURE
STORM DRAINAGE CREDITS
BACKGROUND
Jr, July of 1985, the Shakopee City Council adopted a storm drainage utility,
together with city policy allowing for adjustments or credits to storm drainage
fees. The following_ procedure shall be used to calculate these credits to
assure consistant application to all situations.
CREDITS
A. LAND USE INTENSITY CREDITS
1. Criteria: When unit runoff generated by a parcel differs from
the assigned amount by more than 20%, parcel drainage fee is to be
adjusted to reflect actual runoff.
^c. Required information by applicant:
a. Complete site plan.
b. Site area and percentage of "improved" surface.
Calculation Procedure:
a. Calculate unit runoff by SCSS method; using actual percent
improved surface, design rainfall for Initial and Major storm
(Initial storm, 2.21 inches for 2 year and 3.57 for 5 year recurrence
design; and 6. 00 for 100 year recurrence design) , Soil Group
"B", Anticedent Moisture Condition II.
b. Compare with "Standard" Unit Runoff.
Standard Unit Runoff
by Recurrence Year(inches)
Total
Classification Land Use c 5 100 Inches
RESIDENTIAL
1. A. Low Density
35% Impervious 0. 10 __- i.89 1.99
1. B. Medium Density
60X Impervious 0.47 --- 3.22 3.69
1. C. High Density 1.98 ___ 5.76 7.74
Standard Unit Runoff C�
by Recurrence Year(inches)
Total
Classification Land Use 2 5 100 Inches
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL
2.A. Low Density
35% Impervious __- 0.55 1.89 2.44
c.B. Medium Density
60% Impervious 1.31 3.22 4.53
2. C. High Density
100% Impervious 3.34 5.76 9. 10
C. If calculated unit runoff differs from standard by 20% or
more, adjust parcels REU value by ratio of actual unit runoff
to standard unit runoff.
4. Exceptions:
a. No ad.iustments to single family parcels or improved aq_ricul-
tural, as their fees do not depend on lot size or intensity.
b. For parcels with drainage easements, reduce parcel size to
non-easement area, then calculate unit runoff.
B. RATE OF DISCHARGE CREDITS
1. Criteria -- When peak runoff from site is limited to pre-
development levels by on-site facilities owned and maintained by property
owner, up to 25% reduction in drainage fee can be granted. Any re-
duction greater than 25% must be approved by City Council.
2. Required information by applicant:
a. Complete site plan.
b. Area of site draining to each outlet point.
c. Percent improved surface draining to each cutlet point.
d. Specific details about outlet facilities.
e. Calculation of peak outflow rate for initial and mayor storms
in accordance with City Design Criteria.
f. If peak 5-year outflow less than predevelopment=10" credit.
if peak 100-year outflow less than predevelopment--additional
15% credit.
4. Exceptions, Special Cases.
a. Off-Site water drains to outlet--owner has right to drain
this water through his site without detention. Grant credits
if hE provides sufficient control for his portion of the total
flow. (This will require applicant to provide information about
watershed beyond his parcel) .
b. Outlet facility owned by City or others--No Credits. (See
Criteria P-1) .
C. Shared ponding Situation: All ponds have an outlet. If
outlet is on another's 'Land, no credits (as in b above), except
if the pond level is normally below outlet, (requires historic
documentation). In this case, if no overflow occurs in a 5-year
event, parcel gets 10`/. credit. If no overflow occurs in 100-year
event, additional 15% credit.
C. WATER QUALITY CREDITS
1. Criteria: When a parcel provides on-site treatment facilities
which function to improve the quality of runoff exiting the site,
up to 50% of the drainage fee may be credited depending of treatment
effectiveness.
C. Required information by applicant:
a. When treatment facility is a "wet" pond.
1. Area of site draining to pond and percent impervious.
R. Volume of pond below outlet elevation.
b. When treatment facility not a pond, applicant to furnish
sUfficient documentation to ascertain the effectiveness of the
facility in removing suspended solids.
3. Calculation procedure for wet ponds:
a. Divide site into areas draining to each outlet or facility.
b. Calculate the average annual runoff for each area using the
following equations:
Dr=F' (. . Im + . 15) -5. 234 (. 25-. 1875 Im)
where Dr=annual runoff depth
F'=annual rainfall = 29 inches
improved, expressed as a decimal.
C. Calculate annual runoff volume (V annual) = Dr x area acreage.
qU
d. Calculate or verify pond volume in acre-feet below outlet
elevation.
e. Calculate, capacity-inflow ration (CIR)
CIR=pond volume/Vannual
f. Read sediment removal efficiency from Brune' s Trap Efficiency
Curve. (See policy) .
g. Calculate total site efficiency by proportioning the efficiency
of each area, and adding together.
h. Calculate credit:
Credit=site efficiency/2' x RGU value x current rate.
4. Exceptions and special cases.
a. Off-site water drains to treatment area--I_Qnore effects of
off-site water in calculating pond efficiency.
b. Parcel shares ponding facility. If parcel has water normally
ponded on site, calculate volume of pond on that site below outfall.
Then calculate credit per normal procedure.
D. Other Credits
Where, in the opinion of the staff, the above procedures do not result
in an appropriate storm drainage charge, the City Engineer has the
authority to make adjustments consistant with the intent of the storm
drainage utility.
AUTHORITY
Drainage, Section 3. 4-2, Storm Water Drainage Utility, adopted July, 1985.
City Policy, Credits and/or adjustments to municipal storm water drainage
fees-- adopted July, 1985.
C: T -ry OF SHAKOP�
INCORPORATED 1870
+� ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT +�
129 E. 1st Avenue - Shakopee, Einnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Ray Ruuska, Engineering Coordinator
SUBJECT: Racetrack Off-Site Improvements
DATE: July 12, 1985
INTRODUCTION:
A status report was requested of all Change Orders made on
the Racetrack Off-Site Improvement Projects.
BACKGROUND:
Attached is a summary listing of all the Change Orders by pro-
ject. Listed also is the percentage increase over the original
contract amounts. Copies of the Change Orders with related
correspondence are available in the Engineering Department.
SHENANDOAH DRIVE, PROJECT NO. 1984-4
Change Order No. 1 + $2, 492. 00
Change Order No. 2 + $980. 00
Change Order No. 3 + $850. 00
Change Order No. 4 + $1, 679. 00
Change Order No. 5 + $2. 920- oe
TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS $8, 920. 00
Original Contract Amount $237, 972_ 30
Change Orders = 3. 75% Increase
Racetrack Off-site improvements
July 12, 1985
Page 2
VALLEY PARK DRIVE - 12TH AVENUE PROJECT NO. 1984-5
Change Order No. 1 Not Done
Change Order No. 2 +$10, 000. Che
_�_ ��
Change Order No. 3 + 6+ `;` _j `'
Change Order No. 4 + $354. 75
Change Order No. 5 + $927. 25
Change Order No. 6 + $3, 000- 00
TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS
$20, 817. 95
original Contract Amount $755, 156. 50
Change Orders = 2. 76% Increase
T. H. 1101 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO. 1984-8
Change Order No. 1 $774. 18
Change Order No. 2 + $3, 298' 00
Change Order No. 3 + 13, 323. 81
Change Order No. 4 + $3, 970. 00-*
Change Order No. 5 + '$57-:. 52
TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS s21, 938. 51
Original Contract Amount $358, 830. 16
Change Orders = 6. 11% Increase
-*Note: Change Order No. 4 included a change in materials
and actually resulted in a s952-. 00 decrease in the con-
tract.
on-
tract.
C. R. 83 W I DEN I NG, PROJECT NO. 1984-9
Change Order No. 1 "} 6, 128. 10
Change Order No. 2 + 5, 777. 00
Change Order No. 3 + $300. 02.1t
TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS $12, 205. 10
Original Contract Amount 162, 71 3. 75
Change Orders = 7. 50% Increase
C = TY OF SHAKOPaa
INCORPORATED 1870
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT +�
129 E. 1st Avenue - Shakopee, Kinnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Admin i -tsri
FROM: H. R. Spurrier, City Engineer J
SUBJECT: Sixth Avenue Sewer Study
DATE: July 16, 1985
INTRODUCTION:
During the past three (3) years the Engineering Department
has collected a great deal of data the regarding the adequacy
of the sanitary sewer system between Fourth and Adams and Sixth
and Jackson. The result of that data collection was the identi-
fication of other related problems resulting from development
of property south of 12th Avenue and north of Tahpah park,
and resulting from the general operation of the municipal swim-
ming pool.
BACKGROUND:
Had I remained as City Engineer, it was my plan to complete
this study including an investigation of the corrective work
required along Sixth Avenue and Adams Street required to eli-
minate hydraulic problems with the West Side Sanitary Sewer
System. The data collection also identified a number of prob-
lems related to the operation of the filter at the municipal
swimming pool. The filter is not being operated as designed
because of problems with the chlorinator and the filter bed
has serious structural damage that should be corrected by 1986.
It is my recommendation that the City use its consulting engi-
neer, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates, Inc. (OSM) , to complete
the sanitary sewer study and further that the City have OSM
investigate necessary corrective work required for proper opera-
tion of the municipal swimming pool filter as well.
OSM is very well qualified to complete the sanitary sewer study
so that repair and reconstruction can be scheduled for 1986.
OSM is also well known for its expertise in water treatment
and would be the appropriate firm to use for an evaluation
of the municipal swimming pool filter.
Sixth Avenue Sewer Study
July 16, 1985
Page 2
It is my recommendation that the City secure estimates of the
cost of conducting these two studies from OSM and authorize
the firm to proceed with all speed to complete that work.
ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Motion authorizing Orr-Shelen-Mayeron & Associates, Inc.
to submit an estimate of the cost of completing the West Side
Sanitary Study and then authorize the firm to proceed with
all speed to complete that study.
2. A motion to direct Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates, Inc.
to prepare an estimate of the cost of evaluating the municipal
swimming pool filter for necessary repairs and modifications
in order to achieve design filter efficiency.
HRS/pmp
SIXTH
l
CSTY OF" S;HAKOPaE
INCORPORATED 1870
+� ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
129 E. 1st Avenue - Shakopee, linnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Fulton Schleisman, Engineering Inspector
SUBJECT: County Road 83 Widening, Project No. 1984-9
DATE: July 11, 1985
INTRODUCTION:
In accordance with the Change Order Administrative Procedure,
increases in the quantity of several contract items which exceed
the one percent guideline, require Council approval.
BACKGROUND:
To construct an urban street with curb and gutter while sal-
vaging the existing roadway, the use of leveling courses, Class
5 and bituminous materia1s, was anticipated.
However, closer examination of the existing roadway during
the construction period dictated that the curb and driveway
grades be raised to accomplish uniform street and drainage
patterns.
As a result of this adjustment, the use of the leveling mater-
ials increased substantially.
After deducting for quantity underuns and change orders, the
project cost overun caused by the increased use of leveling
materials is $22, 000. 00 or a 12 percent project increase.
ACTION REQUESTED: .
A motion to approve an increase in the quantities of Common
Borrow, Class 5, and Bituminous Materials resulting in a net
cost increase of approximately $22, 000. 00 or 12 percent project
overun for County Road 83 Widening, Project No. 1984-9.
A motion to authorize payment of Partial Estimate No. 3 for
County Road 83 Widening, Project No. 1984-9, in the amount
of $24, 413. 68 to C. S. McCrossan Cp t r t ion, Inc.
Appnov6d for Submittal
H. R. Spwnr ,i er, City Engineer
FS/pmp
MEM ESTI
PARTIAL ESTIMATE VOUCHER,
ontract No. 1984-9 Partial Estimate Voucher No. 3 Period Ending: June 30, 1985
0: Contractor C .S. McCrossan Construction—Inc.
Address P:O. Box 247 Osseo MN 55369
Project Description County Road 83 Widening
Original Contract Amount $-162,712,75
Change Order No. 1 Thru No. 3 . 12, 155. 10
Total Funds Encumbered $_ 174, 918. 85
Value of Work Completed $196, 348.50 Value of Work
5 Percent Retainage $ 9, 817.42 Remaining
Previous Payments $162, 117. 40 $_ 1, 000. 00
Deductions or Charges $ _0_ Percent Complete
Total $171, 934. 82 99$
ayment Due (Line 4 - $)
`•1 .`� S � �+ ti�'i l $-24. 413. 68
y
CERTIFICATE OF PAYMENT
(I, We) hereby aoree that the quantity and value of work shown herein is a fair
:timate of the work completed to date.
MTRACTOR
TLE , .
Y
PROV , CITY QF--SHAKOPEE
i
ty Engineer Date j
City Administrator Date
PROJECT: Lounty Road 83 Improvements ESTIMATE K. 3
PERIOD ENDING: June 3C, 1985 CON7WTOR: C.S. McCrossan Construction, Inc. SHEET NC.: 1
Item I I I Unit I Contract ! Lurrent Period I Total to Late
No. I Contract Itez I Unit I Price I Quantity I Amount I Quantity I Amount I Quantity I Amount
I I I I I I I I
8181.503 IRemove Bituzinous Island IS.F. I S5.50 I 525.00 1 $2,887.50 1 C.80 I $0.00 1 525.00 1 f2,887.Y
I I I I I I I
2164.505 (Remove Bituminous Pavement IS.Y. 1 $1.50 ! 938.00 1 $1,407.80 I 0.00 1 50.80 I 1692.00 ! $2,26.N
I i I I I I I I I
2184.521 15alvage C.M. Culvert Pipe IL.F. 1 $7.80 1 284.80 I $1,428.80 1 27.80 I 5189.80 I 244.80 I $1,788.BC
I I I I I I I
2105.507 ISubprade Excavation IC.Y. ! $4.50 1 860.00 1 $3,680.00 1 0.80 1 $0.00 1 880.80 1 $3,680.88
I I I I I I I - I I
2185.523 1Common Borrow IC:Y. 1 $4.80 1 2800.00 I $11,280.80 1 0.80 1 $0.80 1 3657.88 1 $14,628.80
I I I I I - I I 1 1
2105.535 ISalvage Topsoil IC.Y. 1 $3.88 1 1480.80 1 $4,280.80 1 0.80 1 $0.80 1 1400.80 1 $4,280.80
{ ! I I 1 1 I
2211.501 (Aggregate Base C1.5 1 I I I { ) ) !
I(180x Crushed) ITon 1 $5,35 1 1545.00 1 $8,265.75 1 42.00 1 $224.70 1 2412.00 1 $12,984.20
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - I !
2331.504 (Bituminous Material I I I I I I I I
(For Mixture ITon 1 $185.00 I 24.80 1 $4,440.60 1 12.42 1 $2,297.70 1 70.56 1 $13,053.60
I I I . I I I I I I !
2331.510 IBinder Course Mixture ITon 1 $9.9e I 180.00 i $1,782.80 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 180.00 1 $1,782.00 1
1 1 1 1 L I 1 1 1 . 1 1
23311.512 ILeveling Course Mixture ITon 1 $9.90 1 350.00 1 $3,465.60 1 276.00 ! $2,732.40 1 1388.80 1 $13,741.20 !
2341.504 (Bituminous Material I 1. I i I I
(For Mixture ITon I $1&`.00 1 142.00 1 $26,270.00 1 25.26 1 $4,673.10 1 159.26 I $29,463.10 I
I
2341.508 (Nearing Course Mixture ITon 1 $9.90 1 2335.80 1 $23,116.50 1 413.80 1 $4,888.70 1 2611.00 1 $25,848.90 1
2357.502 IBituminous Material
[for Tack Coat 16a1 I $1.50 1 1020.00 1 $1,530.00 1 0.00 1 $0.80 I 10e0.00 I $1,530.00 i
2501.511 118" L.M. Pipe Culvert IL.F. 1 $24.00 1 20.00 1 $480.80 I. 26.N 1 $624.00 1 26:80 1 $624.00 i
I I I ! I I 1 I I 1
2501.515 118" C.hl. Pipe Aprons IEa. 1 -$135.00 1 , 2.80 1 $270.00 1 2.00 1 $279.@@ 1 4.00 1 $540.80 1
2583.511 1120 R.C. Pipe Sewer (Class 5) IL.F. 1 $24.80 I 20.00 1 S48C.00 1 0.00 1 $0.80 I 42.50 1 $1,820.00 1
I I I I I I I I - 1 1
2503.573 IInstali 12' R.C. Pipe Aprons IEa. 1 $160.00 ! 7.00 1 $1,120.00 1 0.00 1 $0.80 1 7.80 I f1,12@.80 I
! 1 ! I ► I I I I I
°506.507 !Construct Catch I I 1 I I I I I I
!Basins (Design 'H°) [Ea. 1 $625.80 I 7.60 1 $4,375.00 1 0.80 1 $0.00 1 7.00 I $4.375.80 I
1 I I I I I I I I )
'_506.522 [Adjust Frame and
!Ring Castings IEa. I $250.00 I 14.00 I f3,580.80 1 0.00 1 $0.80 I 12.00 1 $3,880.00 I
I ! I II I I I I I
2511.501 (Random Rip Rap (Class A) 1C-Y- I 550.00 1 11.90 1 $595.00 1 0.00 I $0.ee- I 12.80 I $600.80 1
l I I I i I I I I i
2511.511 16ranular Filter 1C-Y- 1 $30.00 1 6.30 i $189.00 1 0.00 I $0.80 1 6.30 1 $189.80 I
! I I I I I +I 1 I !
LT: County Road 83 Imorovements ESTIMATE W. 3
-' ENOINZ: .iurw 3C, 1985 WRAZTOR: C.S. McLrossan Construction, 1n.. SSE? NO.: 2
at I I I Unit I Contract I Current Period ! Total to Date
I Contract Iter. I Unit I Price I Quantity I Amount I Quantity I Amount I Quantity I Amount
I I I ! I I
501 ILoncrete Curb & Gutter I I I I
I I I I
I(Desigr B618) lL.F. I $5.00 I 6930,00 I $34,650.80 I C.0@ I $C.80 1 6699.00 1 $331495.08
I I f I I I 1
503 (Concrete Median IS.Y. 1 $11.50 1 27.00 1 $310.50 I 0.00 I $0.00 I 50.00 1 $575.80
I I I I 1 I I 1 1
507 18° Concrete Driveway Pavement IS.Y. 1 $24.50 1 145.00 1 $3,552.50 1 0.80 I $0.60 1 0.80 I
I I I I I $L'.00
507 110" Concrete Driveway PavementlS.Y. I $30.00 1 98.00 1 $2 940.80 I 0.80 1
I 1
+ $0.80 I BC.80 I $2,480.00
1 1 I I 1 1
j01 ITraffic
Barrie-1 1 I 1 I I
I(Des i "A") 8307 L. I i
9r I F. I $10.58 1 380.80 1 f3,150.80 1 380.80 1 $3,150.80 1 380.80 1 $3,150.00
I I I I I I I
'_1 (Anchorage Assemblies IEa. I $590.88 1 2.00 1 $1,180.80 1 2.00 1 $1,188.80 1 2.80 I $1,180.80
I I I I I 1 I I I
91 (Roadside Seeding IAC. 1 $388.00 1 1.60 1 $480.80 1 1.60 1 $480.08 ! 1.60.1 $480.80
I I I 1 I I I 1 1
�02 ISeed Mixture #5 1Lbs. 1 $2.50 I 80.88 1 $286.80 1 80.80 1 $280.80 1 88.80 1 $280.80
I I I I I 1 I I 1
35 ISodding IS.Y. 1 $1.50 1 2220.00 1 $3,330.00 1 2246.00 ( $3,369,88 I .2246.88 I $3,369.80 1
I I I I 1 I I I
11 [Mulch Material (Type 1) Iron I $156.80 1 3.20 1 $480.88 1 3.20 1 $480.80 1 3.20 1 $488.80 1
I I I I I I I 1
19. IDisc Anchoring IAc. 1 $75.88 1 1.60 I $120.00 1 1.60 1 $120.80 I 1.60 I $128.88 1
I 1 I I 1 1 I I
1 ICommercial Fertilizer (Ton I $375.00 I 0.32 1 $120.88 ! 0.32 1 $120.00 1 0.32 1 $120.80 i
I I I I I 1 1
)Adjust bate Valve JEa. 1 $200.00 1 13.00 1 $2,690.00 1 0.08 I ,� i
IAdtust dram $750. I ( I
by IEa. 1 00 1 4.08 I $3,000.80 1 2.88 I $1,500.00 I 4.88 1 $3,880.80 i
I I I 1 I 1 1
[Relocate Bate Actuator IL.S. 1$2,080.80 1 1.80 i $2,000.00 6.00 1 I
I I I $0.00 1 1.88 I $2,8 ,80
_ I I I I
I I
I 1 ! Totai I $162,713.75 I .Total I $25,698.60 I Total I $190,321.50 I
Change Order No. 1 $0.80 $C.00
(Incluoed in Units Above
Change Order No. 2 $5,777.80 $5,777.00
(18"RCP 1-Manhole Castings)
Change Order No 3 $256. $250.88
(500 L.F, Re-Bar)
TOTAL DMBE ORDERS $6,927.00
GRAND TOTAL $196,348.50
�111/
JCS r'7'
CD F- SHAKOPF17=:
INCORPORATED 1870
+� ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT +�
129 E. 1st Avenue - Shakopee, Ainnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Ray Ruuska, Engineering Coordinator
SUBJECT: T. H. 101 Intersection Improvements, ProJect 1984-8
DATE: July 11, 1985
INTRODUCTION:
Attached is Partial Estimate No. 5 and Change Order No. 5 far
the above referenced Project.
Change Order items include special detour signing for Railroad
Crossings.
ACTION REQUESTED:
A motion to approve payment of Partial Estimate No. 5, includ-
ing Change Order No. 5, in the amount of $57, 544. 62 to C. S. Mc-
Crossan Construction, I nc. , P- 0. Box 247, Osseo, MN 55369.
RR/pmp
MEMEST5
PARTIAL ESTIMP.TE VOUCHER
�ntract No. 1984-8 Partial Estimate Voucher No. 5 Period Ending: June 30, 1985
j: Contractor C.S. McCrossan Construction Inc.
Address P.O. 247 Osseo MN 55369
Project Description State Trunk Highway 101 Improvements
Original Contract Amount $ 358. 830. 16
Change Order No. 1 Thru No. 5 $ 21 . 938. 51
Total Funds Encumbered ffi 375. 846. 67
Value of Work Completed s 339, 826. 61 Value of Work
Remaining
Percent Retainage $ 16. 991.33
36, 020. 00
Previous Payments $ 265. 290.66
Percent Complete
Deductions or Charges $ -0-
90%
Total $ 282.281. 99 -
,yment Due (Line 4 - 8) $ 57,544. 62
CERTIFICATE OF PAYMENT
(I, We) hereby agree that the quantity and value of work shown herein is .a fair
timate of the work completed to date.
NTRACT
TLE
DROVED - ,CITY F SHAKOPEE
Citi Engineer Da e
City Administrator Date
oROdECT: STATE TRU@!! HIGHWAY 101 IMPROVEMENTS ESTIMATE NO. 5
PERIOD ENDING: June 3C, 1985 COM7RR-'TOR: C.S. MCCROSSAN CONSTRUCTION IKC. SHEET Ku. ;
Item. I I I Unit I Contract I Current Period I Total to Date
No. I Contract Item I Unit I Price I Quantity I Amount I Quantity I Amount I Quantity I Amount
ZI01.513 (Clear and 6rub Right-of-way IL.S. 1 $1,500.00 1 1.00 1 $1,500.00 1 0.00 1 V.eel 1 1.00 1 $1,500.00
I I I I I I I I
2104.501 IRemove Wood Fence IL.F. 1 $2.00 1 80.00 1 $160.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 80.00 1 $160.00
I I I I I I I I I
2104.503 (Remove Concrete Median IS.F. I $2.50 1 560.00 1 $1,400.00 1 0.00 1 $0.K 1 480.00 1 $1,200.00
I I I I I I I 1 1
210;.505 IRemove Bituminous Pavement IS.Y. 1 $1.10 1 6850.00 1 $7,535.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 6676.00 1 $7,337.00
1 1 1 1 .I I I I 1
2104.509 (Remove Type 'C' IEa. 1 $60.00 1 9.00 1 $540.00 I 0.00 1 $0.00 1 2.00 1 $120.00
ISigns and Posts I I I I I I I I
I I 1 I 1 I 1
2104.509 IRemove Type 'D' I I I I i I I I
ISigns and Posts IEa. 1 $55.00 1 2.00 f $110.00 1 0.00 I . $0.80 1 0.00 1 $0.00
I
2104.521 (Salvage Culvert Pipe IL.F. 1 $15.00 f 47.00 1 $705.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00
I I I I I
2104.523 ISalvage Type 'C' Signs IEa. 1 $55.00 1 15.a 1 $825.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00
I I . I 1 I I I I I !
2104.534 (Salvage Type 'D' Signs IEa. 1 $55.80 1 3.00 1 $165.00 I 8.00 1 $0.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00 !
- I I I I i I 1 . 1 1
2105.501 ICommon Excavation IC.Y. I $5.50 1 500.00 1 $2,750.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1
I 1 I I I I I I I I
2105.507 ISubgrade Excavation IC.Y. 1 $4.50 1 3700.00 1 $16,650.00 1 0:00 1 $9.SO 1 1868.00 1 $8,406.00
I I I I I I I I I I
2105.522 ISelcet Granular Borrow (L.V. IC.Y. 1 $5.50 1 2000.00 1 $11,000.00 1 0.00 I $0.00 1 1545.00 1 $8,497.50 1
1 I I I I I I I I I
2105.523 ICommon Borrow (L.V. IC.Y. 1 $3.50 1 9375.00 1 $32,812.50 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 18495.00 l $36,732.50 1
I I I I ► I 1 I I I
2105.535 (Salvage Topsoil IC.Y. 1 $3.00 1 2800.00 1 $8,400.00 1 0.00 I $0.00 1 2600.00 1 $7,800.00 I
I
2211.501 IP.ggrenate Base I I I I I I ( I I
ICiass 5 (100% crushed) ITon 1 $6.85 1 5000.00 1 -$34,250.00 1 151.00 1 $1,034.35 1 5162.00 1 $35,359.70 I
2221.501 (Aggregate Shouldering Class 1 ITon 1 $12.00 1 120.00 1 $1,440.60 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1
I I I I I I I I I I
2331.504 IB:tuminous Material I I I I I I I I !
lfer Mixture ITon i_ $185.00 1 124.00 1 $22,940.00 1 11.70 1 $2,164.50 1 84.20 1 $15,577.00 1
I I I I I I I I I I
2331.514 (Base Course Mixture ITon 1 $12.50 1 22707.00 1 $33,837.50 f 234.60 1 $2,925.00 1 1729.40 1 $21,617.50 1
2331.521 (Irregular Width Paving IS.Y. 1 53.00 1 395.00 1 $1,185.00 1 0.00 1 $0.00 1 260.00 1 $608.00 I
I
2341.504 IBituminous Material I I I I I I I I !
Ifor Fixture ITon I $185.00 1 82.00 1 $15,170.00 1 26.90 1 $4,976.50 1 109.80 1 $20,313.00 I
1 I
2341.508 (Wearing Course I I ! I I I I I I
IMixture (modified) ITon 1 $13.50 1 1342.00 1 $18,117.00 1 448.00 1 $6,@48.00 1 1825.80 1 $24,648.30 1
STATE TRX(: HIGHWAY 1@1 IKPROVEV-NTS ESTIMATE K0.EIw IN%: Juns 3E, 1985 COA'TRACTOR: ;,.E. KCCROSSAt� CDNSTRL'-1% IML. SHE K. 2
Unit I Contract I Lu-rent Perioa I Total to Date
I Contract Iter I Unit I Price I Quantity I Amount I Quantity I Amount I Quantity I Amount
IDituminous Material I I I I I I I
Ifor Tack Coat 16al 1 i_.50 1 280.80 1 5580.80 1 60.80 I S15C.010 I 280.80 1 $560.80
I I I I I I I I
511 118' Cr, Pipe Culvert IL.F. 1 $25.80 1 52.80 1 $1,380.00 1 0.00 1 $0.80 1 32.88 I
24' CM Pi $880,80
I I I I I I I 1 I
511 1pe Culvert IL.F. 1 $30.00 1 10.08 1 $380.80 1 0.80 1 $0.80 1 10.80 1 $380.80
11 I I I I I 1 1
511 136' RC Pipe Culvert IL.F. I $40.80 1 14.00 1 $560.80 1 0.80 1 $0.00 1 32.00 1 si,288.80 '
I I I I I I I I I
511 148' RC Pipe Culvert IL.F. 1 $50.00 1 14.80 1 $780.88 1 0.80 I $0.80 1 32.00 1 $1,680.00
I
:21 123' Span RC Pipe-Arch Culvert IL.F. 1 $70.80 1 10.88 I $79e.* 1 6.00 I $0.80 I 10.80 I $78e.90I I I I I 1 1 I I
"71 141x6' RC Box Culvert IL.F. I $280.80 1 7.00 1 $1,480.80 I 0.80 I s0.80 I 13.80 I s2,680,80
I I I I I I I I I
)02 (Adjust Sate Valve IEa. I $150.88 1 1.80 1 $150.80 1 0.00 1 $0.60 I 1.80 I $158.80 I
I I I 1 1 1 I 1. I
i81 IConcrete Curb and 1 1 1 I I
I I 1 I
16utter, Design B624 IL.F. 1 $11.50 1 668.00 1 $71682.80 I -226.88 1 152,599.00)I 8.88 I 60.80 1
II 1 1 I I 1
31 IFurnish and Install I
1 1 1 I 1 1 I
ISign Panels, Type 'A" IS.F. 1 $36.80 1 ?.65.00 1 $9,540,00 1 239,88 I $8,684.80 I 239.80 I f8,684.00 l
I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1
30 IFurnish and Install I 1 1 1 I
1 1 1 I
ISign Panels, Type'C' IS.F. 1 $17.50 1 155.79 I Si,72b.33 I 130.08 I f2,275.00 I 148.88 88 I $2,450, I
I I I 1 I 1 I I I
30 IFurnish and Install I I 1 I 1
1I 1 I f
ISign Panels, Type 'D' IS.F. I s20.80 I 185.80 1 $2,180.80 1 95.60 I $1,980.80 1 95.80 1 $1,980.80 I
I I I 1 1 1 I I 1
31 IFurnish and Install I I 1 1
I I I 1 I
ISign Panels, Type "Overlays' IS.F. I $16.80 1 20.80 I $320.00 1 18.60 I $288.00 1 18.08 1 $288.00 1
I 1 1 1 1 I I I I
':1 (Delineators, Type l/B IEa. 1 $45.00 1 3.00 1 - - $135.00 1 3.80 1 $135.N 1 4.00 1 ' '$180.80 I
1
1 (Pavement Marking IL.S. 1 $5,080.80 1 1.80 1 $5,080.80 1 0.80 1 $4,080.80 1 0.92 1 $4,680,Be I
1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1
.1 (Full-Traffic-Actuated t 1 I
(Traffic Control Signal IS.S. I I I I I
1System 'A' I 1$87,500.80 1 1-001 $87,580.80 1 0.10 1 $8,750.80 1 0.90 1 $78,750.60 1
I I I I 1 I
.1 [Full-Traffic-Actuated I 1 I 1 I
1 1 1 I 1 1 I
(Traffic Control I I I I I I
(System 'B' IS.S. 1$18,500.80 I 1.80 1 $18,580.80 I 0.80 I 50.80 I 0.90 I $16,650.00 I
I ! I 1 I I
Ikoadside Seeding (Acre I $240.00 1 I 1 3.93 1 $943.20 1 3.54 1 $849.60 1 3.54 I $849.60 1
I I I I I I I
(Seed, Mixture #5 ILbs. 1 $2.15 1 196.46 I I I I
I $422.39 I 176.81 1 $380.14 I 176.81 I $380,14 I
i I I I 1 i I I
(Sodding IS.Y. I $1.36 1 4075.00 1 $5,542.80 1 3134.00 t $4,262.24 1 3134.80 1 $4,262.24 i
I I
PROMT: STATE TRLW, HIGHWAY lel IMPRDVDOUS V
PERIOD EN09E: 3unE X l9e5 ESTIMATE W. 5
MNTRZTDR: C.S. M:CROSSW CONSTRL TIOK IIS, %F i NO. 3
Item I i I Unit I Lontract I Lurrent Period I Total to Date
No. I Contract Iter I Unit I Price I Quantity I Amount i Quantity I Amount I Quantity I Amount
i I 1 I I I I I
257;.511 (Mulch Material Type I Iron i s TR-V 1 7.85 1 $943.28 1 7.88 1 $846.80 1 7.88 1 $840,88
i I I I I I I I I
2575.519 IDisc Anchoring (Acre I $28.88 1 3.93 1 $118.84 I 3.54 1 499.12 1 3.54 1 $99.12
i
2575.531 (Commercial Fertilizer I I I i I I I I
(Analysis 10-28-38 iron 1 $275.88 1 8.95 1 $264.88 1 6.86 1 SUL 58 1 8.86 I $236.50
I 1 I I I I I 1 I
I 1 I f I I I I I
I i I I I I I I I
1 I I Total 1 $358,830,15 1 Total 1 $47,316.95 1 Total 1 $317,888.18
Change Order No. 1 $774.18
Change Order No. 2. $3,298.80
Change Order No. 3 $13,323.81
Change Order No. 4 $3,970.88
Change Order No. 5 $572.52
TOTAL C1WGE ORDERS $21,938.51
CRAW TOTAL $339,826.61
�n:-T` P' I __ ec an�L r-unk Fiienway 10' intersection
Date: 1ul} Q 1985 Ccn,rac, Inc. . 1984-6 Improvements
Original Contract 358, 830. 16
Change Order(s) Ivo.
:_r Ivo. ,�
- 4 ')1 I F 5 Ag
Tctal 'Funds Lncumbered Uricr to Change Order 375. 274. 15
Description of Work to be (Added$�XXoeX ):
Special Detours Signing for Railroad Crossing Work.
The above described work shall be incorporated in the Contract, referenced above,
ander the same conditions specified in the original COL„-act as amended unless
:)thervise specified herein. Any work not so specified shall be performed in accordance
.,ith the Standard Specifications adopted by the City of Shakopee, Minnesota.
Tne amount of the Contract shall be (increased/- a) by
Tne number of calendar days for completion shall be (increased/decreased) by 0
riginal Contract Amount t 358, 830. 16
:hange Order(s) Iu o. 1 th_ru 5 21 , 938. 51
-otal Funds Encumbered ' X71; Rug �7
omnletion Date: June 28, 1985
:he undersigned Contractor hereby agrees to perform
;he work specified in this Change Order Jr accordance
-ith the specifications, conditions and prices
cecified herein. _
cntractor� S. �7 v� .
-tle:
ate: iz fSI
RO-v= AND Rs CONI MM:u
ty Engineer
DF--.e
RROZ : City of Shakopee
1,1aycr
Date
Approved as to few anis dater of
.,qty AC`T"_._istrator DatE , o
. �ty -,erk DstE
Citi' Attorney
Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
From: Marilyn M. Remer, Personnel
Re: Resolution No. 2416
Date: July 12, 1985
Introduction & Background
At the 7/9/85 meeting, Council directed staff to draft a resolution
establishing a 30-60 day notice of resignation. In checking with the
Research Dept. of the Minnesota League of Cities, it was determined that
a 30-day separation notice requirement for higher level staff and
personnel is a quite common occurrance. A 60-day notice would be more
unusual and somewhat unreasonable. Therefore, Resolution No. 2416 amends
the City Personnel Policy by establishing a 30-day resignation notice
period for all administrative/professional staff (department heads).
Action Requested
Adopt Resolution No. 2416, a Resolution amending the City of Shakopee
Personnel Policy adopted by Resolution No. 1571.
MMR/
RES OL^TIOF 2416
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE C17`1' OF SHAKOPEE
PERSONNEL POLICY ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO 1571
WHZREAS, Resolution No. 1571 was adopted by the City to provide reasonable
and clear expectation of the conditions of employment for it ' s employees ;
and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend certain sections of Resolution No. 1571
from time to time to maintain reasonable and clear conditions of employment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,
MINNESOTA, that Section 16, Subd 1 "Resignation: Procedure" of the City of
Shakopee Personnel Policy (Resolution No. 1571) is hereby amended to read
as follows:
Any City support or technical employee (non—department heads) wishing to
leave the City's service in good standing shall file with the City Adminis—
trator, at least fourteen (14) days before leaving, a written resignation
stating the effective date of the resignation and the reason for leaving.
All administrative/professional staff (department heads) shall give a 30
day separation notice. Failure to comply with this procedure may be cause
for denying such employees future employment by the City of Shakopee and
denying terminal leave benefits.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Section 17, "Severance Pay" is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Any permanent employee who is separated from his/her position by retirement,
discharge or resignation shall receive a lump sum payment to include compen—
sation for all accumulated unused vacation leave, plus an amount equal
to one—third of the value of all accumulated sick leave calculated on the
basis of his/her current salary or wage scale. Provided that should any
employee resign without giving the required two week or thirty day written
notice, except for reasons of ill—health, he shall forfeit his right to
all accumulated leave.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee,
Minnesota, held this day of 1985.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of 1985.
Cir.• Prrc-p-
/G I3
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith s. Cox, City Clerkk
RE: Apportionment of Special Assessments as a Result of the Platting of
Dellas 1st Addition
DATE: July 8, 1985
Introduction and Background
It is necessary to apportion the existing assessments against the resultant
-parcels as a result of the platting of Dellas 1st Addition. The assessments
apportioned have been agreed to by all parties and are contained in the
developers agreement. All parties have received a copy of this resolution.
Alternatives
1. Adopt Resolution No. 2415.
2. Do not adopt Resolution No. 2415.
Recommended Action
Offer Resolution No. 2415, A Resolution Apportioning Assessments Among New
Parcels Created As A Result of the Subdivision of Land Into Dellas 1st Addition,
and move its adotpion.
JSC/jms
RESOLUTION NO. 2415
A RESOLUTION APPORTIONING ASSESSMENTS AMONG NEW PARCELS CREATED AS A
RESULT OF THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND INTO DELLAS 1ST ADDITION
WHEREAS, on August 26, 1980 Resolution No. 1660 adopted by the City Council
levied assessments against properties benefitted by construction of the 1979-1
Park Ridge Drive Improvement Project, and
WHEREAS, on August 25, 1981 Resolution No. 1891 adopted by the City Council
levied assessments against properties benefitted by construction of the 1981-1
V.I.P. Interceptor, and
WHEREAS, part of a tract of land benefitted by the said improvements has
been subdivided into the plat of Dellas 1st Addition, and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to apportion the install-
ments remaining unpaid against the parcels resulting because of the platting
of Dellas 1st Addition; and
. WHEREAS, the property owners involved have been notified of this proposed
action.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHAKOPEE:
1. That the 1985 payable remaining balance of assessments to parcel
27-908029-0 is $712.04 for the 1981-1 VIP Sewer Interceptor; and that
the 1985 payable remaining balance of assessments to parcel 27-908007-1
is $229.02 for the 1981-1 VIP Sewer Interceptor and $4,331.63 for
the 1979-1 Park Ridge Drive Improvement and are hereby apportioned
as follows: -
Amount
Parcel No Name/Address Legal Description Code 52 (79-1) Code 55 (81-1)
27-908029-0 Darwin E. Gilbertson & W. 5.07 A. in NW1%4 .of --- $712.04
2078 Eagle Creek Blvd. 8-115-22
27-119-010-0 Cecil P. Clay & Della M. L 10, B 1 $4,331.63 229.02
1999 Park Ridge Drive Della's 1st Addition
2. That all other parts of Resolution No. 1660 shall continue in effect.
3. That all other parts of Resolution No. 1891 shall continue in effect.
4. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to release all
properties in Dellas 1st Addition, except Lot 10, Block 1, which are
subject to special assessments levied by the City of Shakopee as
project number 79-1 having a remaining balance .of $5,197.96 and as
project number 81-1 having a remaining balance of $267.19, as to
parcel number 27-908-007-0.
Resolution No. 2415
Page Two
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 1985.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this day of
1985.
City Attorney
JULIUS A. COLLEE,II
JULIUS A.COLLER ATTORNEY AL
T Aw-
612-445-1244
18 59-1940 2 1 1 WEST FIRST AVENUE
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
553T9
June 12, 1985
Members of the Shakopee City Council
City Hall
Shakopee, Minnesota
Gentlemen:
The Codifier was out here recently and called our attention to a new law prohibiting
trespassing that is now included in-MSA 471.985.
The law authorizes the City Council to enact an Ordinance torohibit
p persons from
entering uninvited onto the lands of another to consume alcohol orcontrolled substance
and further the Council may prohibit a person from bringing a motor cycle onto the
land of another without invitation to facilitate the consumption of alcohol or controlled
substance on the land. Any person who violates such ordinance is guilty of a misde-
meanor.
AS we get into fall this ordinance could be a useful tool in prosecuting some of the
beer parties that take place in secluded wooded areas within the City of .Shakopee
and I am requesting that the Council give favorable consideration to the enactment of
such ordinance.
If there is any sentiment on the Council to enact such ordinance I will be most happy
to prepare and submit a form.
Very truly yours.,
Julius A. Coller, II
City Attorney
JAC/nh
UPDATE
As a result of the above communication Shakopee City Council at its meeting on June 18,
1985, instructed me to prepare a suggested ordinance and accordingly, I have drafted
the Ordinance attached hereto.
Dated this 3rd day of July, 1985.
Ve v truly y urs,
Ju us A. Coller, . II
City Attorney
ORDINANCE NO. 172
Fourth Series
An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee Amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 10
entitled "Public Protection, Crime and Offenses" by Adding a New Section to
be numbered 10.61 and entitled "Trespass upon Land for Purposes of con-
sumption of alcohol or controlled substances" and by Adopting by Reference
Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Sec 10. 99 which among other things contain
penalty provisions.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
SECTION I: The Shakopee City Code Section 10 is amended by adding Subsection .61
entitled "Trespass upon land for purposes of consumption of alcohol or controlled
substances."
Subd 1: It shall be unlawful for any person to do any of the following:
A. Trespass by Individual. The uninvited entry on to land of another
for the purpose of consuming alcoholic beverages or using controlled substances.
B. Trespass by Motor Vehicles. The uninvited entry by motor vehicle on
the land of another to facilitate the consumption of alcoholic beverages or the use of
controlled substances.
C. Permitting Trespass by Motor Vehicle. As owner of a motor vehicle,
to allow the uninvited entry by motor vehicles on the land of another to facilitate the
consumption of alcoholic beverages or the use of controlled substances.
Subd 2: Uninvited entry defined
An entry is uninvited if the person on the land cannot produce written or
oral permission from the landowner or lessee for the entry, or if the landowner or lessee
is not present and consenting to the entry.
Subd 3: Determination of Purpose of Entry
A. To determine the purpose of an uninvited entry of a person or motor vehicle
onto the land of another, the factors to be considered include, without limitation, the
following:
(1) Time of day
(2) Presence of containers intended to contain or containing alcoholic beverages
(3)Presence of equipment used to dispense alcoholic beverages;
(4) Presence of paraphernalia containing identifiable residues of a
controlled substance;
(5) Noise level;
(6) Lighting;
(7) Identified physiological responses; and
(8) Conduct of persons in the presence of a peace officer.
Subd 4: Defenses
If the trier of fact finds that the landowner or lessee expressly consented,
endorsed or ratified the entry onto land, such a finding shall constitute an. absolute
defense to charges under this section.
Subd 5 : Owner - Lessee Liability
A landowner or lessee who expressly consents to, endorses, or ratifies an entry
be
-onto land is not presumed to/ in control of the persons gathered on the land, nor is the
landowner or lessee presumed to have knowledge or knowledge of an unlawful act merely
because of express consent, endorsement or ratification.
SECTION II: Penalty
Not withstanding any provision of Sec 10.79, any person violating this Ordinance
shall, upon conviction thereof, be subject to a fine of not to exceed $700.00 together
with the costs of prosecution.
SECTION III: When in force and effect
After the adopting, 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 session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee,
Minnesota, held this day of 1985.
2 -
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Prepared and approved as to from this
this 3rd day of July, 1985.
City Attorney fo e City of Shakopee
RESOLUTION NO. 2418
A RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO
H. R. (BO) SPURRIER
WHEREAS, H. R. (Bo) Spurrier has been employed by the City
of Shakopee as its City Engineer from November, 1978 until July,
1985 ; and
WHEREAS, during his tennure, the Engineering Department
has been expanded from one to five employees making it possible
for the City to perform more of its engineering functions as
opposed to contracting for professional services ; and
WHEREAS, Bo has served on the Technical Advisory Committee
of the Transportation Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Council,
has served as Chairman of the Municipal State Aid Screening
Committee and has served as a city engineer representative on
the Variance Committees for Minnesota Department of Transporta-
tion; and
WHEREAS, Bo presented to City Council policies establishing
standard design criteria for construction of City street and
storm sewer systems; and
WHEREAS, Bo has developed standard bid specifications for
street construction as well as a standard mapping system; and
WHEREAS, Bo conceived and presented to City Council a policy
for funding the rehabilitation of streets as well as a policy
for the establishment of a storm water drainage utility; and
WHEREAS, Bo has served the residents of Shakopee and his
fellow employees with conscientious and dedicated service during
his employment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE on behalf of the entire community hereby
extends to H. R. (Bo) Spurrier gratitude and appreciation for
his dedicated and professional service during the past six and
one-half years.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that good wishes of the grateful
people of Shakopee follow Bo in his future endeavors all the
days of his life.
Resolution No. 2418
Page Two
Adopted in adjourned regular session of the City Council
of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this 16th day of July,
1985.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of 1985 .
City Attorney