HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/20/1986 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Non-agenda Informational Items
DATE: March 14, 1986
1. Attached is a memo from Springsted Inc. outlining the total Tax Increment
Financing (T.I.F. ) Revenue available from existing T.I.F. districts. It
will be discussed at the 3/25/86 Council meeting when we again take up our
T.I.F. policy discussion.
2. Enclosed is the consultants final report on the costing of Municipal
Services and Staffing Needs Analysis. Department heads have worked
closely with Ernst & Whinney analyzing their own departments throughout
the report preparation. Department heads will be meeting with Ernst &
Whinney as a group on March 18, 1986 to discuss the completed report,
department by department. The report will be presented to Council at
the April 1, 1986 Council meeting and Ernst & Whinney will make a
presentation.
3. Attached is a memo I drafted for Council action in September of 1983
regarding departmental reorganization. Now that Jeanne is leaving us
(letter of resignation on 3/20/86 agenda) it is helpful to reread the
memo prior to making our next move.
JKA/j ms
SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED
Public Finance Advisors
85 East Seventh Place,Suite 100
Saint Paul,Minnesota 55101.2143
612-223-3000 � ? ` " e'.�;"�r`+i'.•_ , ...
13 March 1986
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 prepare an updated estimate of the bonding capacity
available from anticipated surplus tax increment revenues of the K-Mart and
Canterbury Downs Districts. This projection is complicated by the need to
estimate future tax increment revenues of existent and new development, and
the initiation of a three-year storm sewer improvement program, partially
funded by user fees, and partially funded from those some tax increment
revenues. The residual tax increment revenues after payment of existent tax
increment bonds and the storm sewer financings provide a basis for estimating
an additional debt capacity. The number of factors involved and the
uncertainty accompanying each step requires that the City view this estimate
as an approximate level of new debt capacity. The development of each step
in the process incorporates numerous assumptions, which should be reviewed
by the City and considered in its appraisal of this estimate. We have prepared
six exhibits in order to arrive at the debt capacity estimate you requested.
Exhibit I defines the available tax increment income after repayment of the
three outstanding tax increment issues and partial funding of the storm sewer
projects. Column I is the sum of debt service payments for all three existent
tax increment issues. Column 2 lists the expected increment income of the K-
Mart and Canterbury Downs Districts from existent development, and is taken
from the projections made at the time of the original three tax increment
issues. Column 3 is an estimate of new development now occurring in the two
Districts. This estimate is based on completion in 1986 of a $8.5 million
motel, a $1.5 million backstretch facility and a $2.0 million grandstand
addition. Column 4 indicates the annual surplus tax increment income
resulting after payment of present tax increment debt service.
The City is planning the construction of nine storm sewer projects over the
next three years at a total cost of $7,360,000. These projects will be financed
by a City-wide user fee, a special benefit user fee and surplus tax in
income. Column 5 of Exhibit I lists the estimated annual debt service
payments of three new storm sewer bond issues. Column 6 is a projection of
the total annual user fee revenues. These user fee amounts include three
separate charges: City-wide fee current, City-wide fee deferred, and Special
Mr. John Anderson
13 March 1986
Page 2
Benefit fee. Column 7 indicates the expected annual surplus or deficit of just
the storm sewer projects, and is determined by subtracting the total debt
service in Column 5 from the total user fee revenues in Column 6. This
projection shows that in all years of the storm sewer program, except the first
year, deficits exist. These deficits are funded by the surplus tax increment
income from Column 4.
Column 8 is the available tax increment income after deducting the increment
revenues used to eliminate the deficits in the storm sewer program. These
annual surpluses might be available to repay a new debt issue. Your request
was for us to estimate the size of such an issue, repaid wholly from these
surpluses.
Exhibit VI is a projection of a bond issue and cash flow repaid by the surplus
tax increment income from Column 8 of Exhibit I. The issue size is
$8,500,000. This issue is dated August I, 1986 and has on estimated interest
rate of 9%. This bond issue is estimated to generate a cumulative surplus
after its final debt service payment of $690,601. This surplus would fund the
two years of deficits, 1997-1998, in the storm sewer program. The projected
surplus after funding these deficits is $313,579. Excluded from the available
tax increment income are surpluses in years 1999 through 2005. The reason
for this exclusion is that given the deficits in 1997 and 1998 and the levels of
interest payments required if the bond term was extended to 2005, significant
additional interest would have to be paid in the initial years, with
corresponding reductions in principal. Our suggestion is that the City would
consider a second bond issue at some future date to be funded by the
remaining surplus increment income and user fees from the current and
deferred areas.
Exhibit II is a listing of the existent debt service obligations of the three
outstanding tax increment bond issues.
Exhibit III is a projection of the additional increment income from new
development in the two Districts. These three new developments are assumed
to be completed in 1986.
Exhibit IV lists the three estimated bond issues required to finance all nine
storm sewer improvement projects. We have not included capitalized interest
in any of these issues because we understand the City has already initiated
both its City-wide fee and its Special Benefit fee. Invoicing for these fees for
the first quarter of 1986 will occur around April 1. The project costs are
taken from information supplied by the City's Engineering Department.
Exhibit IVa-c are the individual bond structures and cash flows for each issue.
Exhibit V is a projection of the user fee income from each of the three types
of charges. We would ask the City pay particular attention to the assumptions
and calculations in this Exhibit. The amounts and timing of collection of the
City-wide fee-current were supplied by the City. A major assumption here is
that the City will experience no delinquent payments. This assumption is
offset in the next charge, City-wide fee-deferred, where it is assumed the
City will have no collections. The annual receipts of the Special Benefit fee
Mr. John Anderson
13 March 1986
Page 3
are calculated by taking 25°0 of the project costs in the year those projects
are to be constructed, and amortizing on an even payment basis, that amount
over ten years at 1.5% over the rate on the bonds financing those
improvements. Since the interest rate on the bonds is estimated at 9%, the
rate used here is 10.590. The City supplied the annual fees for the 1986
Projects. The City has stated that these Special Benefit fees will be collected
in the some manner and in the some time frame as the City-wide fees.
The projection of additional bond 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.
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
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 the City
Engineering Department in its initial planning.
5. That these projections include no provision for chances in the
Tax Increment Financing Law. The Legislature is presently
considering chances which would affect these projections.
6. That storm sewer revenues projected by the City will be equal in
value, and available upon the some schedule, as assumed herein.
7. That no additional new developments occur in these two
Districts other than those contained herein.
Recent and proposed changes in federal and State law could significantly
influence the financings contained in this report. We would like the
opportunity to discuss with you these legislative changes, how they affect this
report, and the possibilities they present for the City.
If you have any questions concerning this analysis, please feel free to contact
us at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
SPRINGSTED Incorporated
� f
N LO —0 NO O—\0 O \D \0 Nr- N r� r- r\N00 N
Q) CO -7 MM 0r- NOM Ln — Ln ?' \O O\ — 0\ O-- —
\D N O\\O O M O r\I O\ \O O Q M O M --r -7 --\D \O 0\
p X E r' 0\ N0\ 0\-- O\QO — M� N 7 r- O � 0\M M �
p N r- Nan Oen 0\ 00 r- \.00O � 00 SMMO\ O\ - 4)
X Mt \Or-r- r�0CC) —NNNNM� r*-00 0 O
> h
W
r O
G �
Q)
0 -z _-rQ\ r-_-rNONr- r\ 00QMOMMO y`
�-. n r- O\� O\0 r\N r-0 — O M \D .7 -- 0\ — O 0 1
� �. \0 M -0\ 00 --0\ Ln Or- Nr- N —— Ln
U to tf) —\O M0\ Lf -- O OM - 0 \D M0\ : M � CO
d , M O Q\ Zr Oan —r-N r —M 0\ -'rO U-) Lna-n — O
N N M M N N—— r"M- \0 \0 \0 to-t — (�
E Y r-
p M
w-
i!} iI} UO E Ln
U O O
W i N — � �- -� --- _ 00 0 a.. C 0 CN
{!}
\O \O \O\D \0\0 \0\D\0 \D cc — p Q) y h
d ? D
} C i7 N M M m M M M m rn 0-- a a 1 1 a a a 1 \D Q) p Q)
S�. C > N r-r\ r-r- r-r-r� r� --I-M Ln CT p C i O
h C:)
C C
00 3
►- c -0 o , O
`f' cn ° 0 0 o
XH O M LnLn0 0►n MOQ co Coco comoomMQ _-r D
W V U co m to— \O N 0�_7 r- O m \D -T — 0\— 0 — v=i Q) {f} O Q)
N Ln 0\D \0 r- r-0\0 — r�N N r- N —— an — rn O „p U
p O o 0) 0\ Q
7 O \O N 0 to N 0�n \o cYi m o — c) O o cu
LYOto M e v O Ln— \0 N r- M O 7a\ -rO Ln Ln Ln 1 1 Ln p > p U
C — \O O— O O \0\O 0 0 r\r- \0 \D \0 to .r — N _ Q) Ln
LL tM W O O p -=p W o\— ;� c —
� W O � c�
03 0 o o c °
W W E p }
Z
NZ � p X C a�N — LnO\ O\� NOMr- NN00000000 \0 O' O d �- u�
O -1Nr- OM -70N \0O\ 0 --- ----- -0 p
p W O h +� \D cr -Ln O d —M O\ - -0 \D \O \0 \D \O \O\0 \0 Q d " ? 6. M
W L�u N j U r- 0 �\0 N O _";O\O O \OO M M Mcr\ M M01\ M Mor\M co- (j C C
` LLQ �* OQO0000 � �� 00000000 anU > O O
Q)
— N N N N N N N N C -V C� �= C
Q t!} i p N ai
Ln 0 1-
~ -- -- - -- -- _ w U
OO OOOGO - -- -- - -- --- O � L O U
O W W O M M M M MM M — — N O 1 U Q)
k� \D\ \0 \O \O\O\O 0 \D \D D 0 \0 \o \D o\0 \ O
^ \ \ \ \ L.L
m O
Q Q) Q) 1 1 \D\0 \O \O \O\D\O 0\ Q\ 0\ O\ 0\ 0\ O\ Q\ Q\Q\ 0\ 0 s U y
(j W Z Ln Ln Ln`n Ln Ln Ln °\
U `n drr O oLn
a� h o E
Q W L c c o E
U O O i O
N
M � Q E U �
Ln0\ —NNr- LnMM00000000000 r- U C
Q X r14 NMO := Ln— N\O \000000000000 N Q) - N
Z p -0- H O\ 0\ \0— In 0 0\0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 �- p -J Y v >
U p 0\ -tMNpO \0�"* N00000000000 M 0) Ln � C Q)
Li + C \O Ln Ln v) Ln--r --r--r TO 0000000000 \0 Q) O 3 >1
Xj Lf) c\ 0\O\ O\ O\ D\0\ O\0 00000 00000 O> 0 .� Q N
W W Q) — N NN NN NN Nm •U h � i
J C M C;
•D LLI Q)
O MO \OMMMMMOMOO — } w-
U " 9\ 0 0\ 0\— —— t�4 --N M p Cp O
u NC\ -- OO T— r-ds � �n Z7 U C)
p a) .' Oas)M �� ^ o O N U h
~� OO- 000\0\ 0\ _-r<r 0 0 p O C
O �- ..Ln 1-1)Ln 1-1) 1-1
._) :._-r wr- rte.^ M C = Q)
�I — - -- � — � tta U 0 O CO
G tl} ih Q) p U U
i t uQ)
O O O —
v o an o V
rn ON\ U
D = c
p O Q) CT p ` O
\0 r- 00\ po— NM 7N \0r- O0\O — NM� �n > E
•i 0 00 co 0 Q\O\ 0\0\ 01\0\ 01\ 0\ 0\ O\ O O O O O O Q) h
L U O\ 0\ 0\O\ 0\O\ O\0\ O\0\ D\ 0\ 0\ 0\ O O O O O O U 4J X O
�� �Z�--����Z��------------�---- Q) , O p W
_ h
} O coco 0000 co ON\ 0M\a\\ OC\a\\ 0-\ 00\ Or\ 00000 O L U h
U 0\ O\ 0\0\ 0\ ON 0\0\ 0\0\ 0\0\ 0\0\ 0\ 0 0 0 0 0 O U f- c Q cn H
t14 r-4 r-4 CN C14
g(U
EXHIBIT it
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
(1) (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 ,503,013
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 446,878 296,565 743,443
1996 447,228 300, 190 747,418
1997 448,538 296, 190 744,728
Total $11 ,817,094 $3,570,437 $15,387,531
EXHIBIT 111
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
INCREMENT INCOME INCREASE FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT
K-Mart District
Motel Value as of 1-2-87 $8,500,000
Assessed Valuel $3,646,000
Backstretch Value as of 1-2-87 $1 ,500,000
Assessed Valuel $ 636,000
Total Increase Assessed Value $4,282,000
Mill Rate Assumed in Original District 110 Mills
Annual Increment income $ 471 ,020*
# Collectible 1988-2004
Canterbury Downs
Grandstand Value as of 1-2-87 $2,000,000
Assessed Value $ 851 ,000
Mill Rate (as above) 110 Mills
Annual Increment Income $ 93,610*
* Collectible 1988-111,194 3
I . Assessed Value based on commercial classification with no contribution to
fiscal disparities.
2. Mill rate of 110 mills was assumed in structuring original TIF revenue bond
issues.
3. Economic Development District.
EXHIBIT IV
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
STORM SEWER BOND ISSUE STRUCTURES
1986 Issue
Project 3
Project Cost $1 , 152, 186
Capitalized Interest -
Discount (1.5%) 17,550
Total $1 , 169,496
Bond Issue (Rounded) $1..2170.000
Matures: 2-1- 1987-2002
Interest Rate: 91/o
1987 Issue
Project 1, 2 & 5
Project Cost $4,023,499
Capitalized Interest -
Discount (1.5%) 61 1200
Total $4,084,699
Bond Issue (Rounded) $4,080,000
Matures: 2-1- 1988-2003
Interest Rate: 9%
1988 Issue
Projects 4, 6, 7, 8 & 9
Project Cost $2,082,674
Capitalized Interest -
Discount (1.500) 31 .650
Total $2, 114,324
Bond Issue (Rounded) SL.-LI 0,000
Matures: 2-1- 1989-2004
Interest Rate: 90/1,
EXHIBIT IVa
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA PREPARED MARCH 11 , 1986
$1 , 170 , 000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BY SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED
STORM SEWER BONDS , SERIES 1986A
DATED: 8/ 1/1986
MATURE: 2/ 1
9 . 000%
ANNUAL LEVY
LEVY MATURE PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL (105% )
(1) (2) (3 ) (4 ) (5) (6)
1985 1987 80 , 000 52 , 650 132 , 650 139 , 283
1986 1988 80 ,000 98 , 100 178 , 100 187 , 005
1987 1989 80 , 000 90 , 900 170 , 900 179 ,445
1988 1990 80 ,000 83 , 700 163 ,700 171 , 885
1989 1991 80 , 000 76 , 500 156 , 500 164 , 325
1990 1992 80 , 000 69 , 300 149 , 300 156 ,765
1991 1993 80 ,000 62 , 100 142 , 100 149 , 205
1992 1994 80 , 000 54 , 900 134 , 900 141 , 645
1993 1995 75 ,000 47 , 700 122 , 700 128 , 835
1994 1996 75 , 000 40 , 950 115 , 950 121 , 748
1995 1997 75 , 000 34, 200 109 , 200 114 , 660
1996 1998 75 , 000 27 , 450 102 , 450 107 , 573
1997 1999 60 , 000 20 , 700 80 ,700 84 ,735
1998 2000 60 , 000 15 , 300 75 , 300 79 , 065
1999 2001 60 , 000 91900 69 , 900 73 , 395
2000 2002 50 , 000 4 , 500 54 , 500 57 , 225
TOTALS : $1 , 170 , 000 $788 , 850 $1 , 958 , 850 $2 , 056 , 794
BOND YEARS : 8 ,765 ANNUAL INTEREST COST: $788 , 850
AVERAGE MATURITY : 7 . 49 DISCOUNT (PREMIUM) : 17 , 550
AVG . ANNUAL RATE: 9 . 200% TOTAL INTEREST COST: $806 ,400
AVERAGE ANNUAL LEVY REQUIRED $126 , 550
(COLUMN 7 , LEVY YEARS 1986 THRU 1999)
AVERAGE WITH 5% OVERLEVY $132 , 878
(COLUMN 8 , LEVY YEARS 1986 THRU 1999)
EXHIBIT IVb
Ln000mLn MOMmMm MOM 0M Ln
m Ln 0 dr m N r LD r O" O r 0 M r Cr m
Ln %D O MLD OMI NO Cr, M N qW -im 0)
> Ln CO . . . . - .
W O rmrLn () NoMN .- m (NMf) m -i Ln
a erorsrr-1 00Ln -+ mLn -4r -Wr+ rrn m
LD m r r r LD LD LD Ln Ln Ln aT ¢r w M N N
01
F O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
a m OLnOLn0 Ln0LnLnLnLn Ln0Ln0Ln O
r -4OmrLn -WN LnM -W - r- - M m
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
t0 F O LDO0ma) rnrncc, -:rLn ONrnLnr M
m Q F a r-Irc 0r r-Im Ln NM Ln NMLnr 'w
a a �Drrr �D GLDLn LnLn -w 4rvMP'MN m
CD 00
m O cc
• a V> %D N m
-4 O
�+ U r ri m
z M m
S ►-� 01 01
U F O O O o o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0
L" O Z F o0000o00 LnOLn Oo00 O N N
Q W W m -- -4mrLnm -IaNr- MNer rMO) Ln N G} U}
X: F Lo W 1.0 • • • • • • •
m0M %0MNCN LnMN 0LnM 'W %D
C7 a rr .D Lner --w MN .-100 mrtDLn N
c z a ra -4 -4 -1 -4 -4 r-I -1 m F
w � M -- F
Qa+ � Uf0
a to o V
W F �
am Wwcn
0000000000000000 o aaw
a 0Ln0Ln0Ln0Ln0Ln0LnOLn0Ln o w oaa
Q � ll NCC1M � 1LnLn1D %Dr rmm0� a% %0 &4
F Ln z F
O -- mrn �DMOr -ir -+ mLnN LY) %.DMor r 0-4 FZ
F MMrLne") OmLD me-1m1DQwNOr .-{ z l-1
erLnLnLnLnLner -WsrI-WMMMMMN O a O LD C> %D LD Ln 1-1
Q O a C) O m m O m
r O U Q r r+ LD rl O .4
Z M F -
Z O r -CO M k.0 r rn
Q � F %DOrm m 0 m 0
Ln O .-L M Ln O •-I rr
F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N N
atoms] to otnOLnO LnOLn OLno tnOLnOLn O
OQ W .. %DNMM -trerLnLn \DlDrrmmMM �c O O
0 :D= - a a
Oz W MQrr-Im Ln C,4 o) t.0 MOr CWr-ImtnN r-
. Z
• Z F mQ N01rLnNOml0Mr- m0 cIV N M F E-
m 4
mQ Z .-iM M N N N N N r-1 - m D
r0.4 r r
z m N 0000 am m da
O m Cl)- Rr o m m 0) F Ln
Q .. ra LD • CO S r•1 >+ m
E-• E-F - •m .-I O< > w s
OQ m N Wm w [npF
cn U w a M m a s a s .-1
W � 0-+ Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Q a Q F 3
Zaa a 0000000000000000 0 >+ w wwz --
z m w •-I .- 0000000000000000 0 > >+ > >+ W
«-+ O to U M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W F >+ O M >+
E r z -- Ln Ln v) Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln ] >I m > >+ W >
.� m ., Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln m > w W wo > a w
• Q C!1 01 a N N N NN N N NN N N N N N NNO a W O a Ln w 0+
Wao -4 a a
- �• w Qa
W w Z \ •� F F o F O S W D
C14 Z O r-1 ri t0- r-r Q z ►Z W F -O W
ow m as z wa 04 a
x C7 \\ S Q r cn ►-+ 3 coop
Q a mN w E. w in
.- ow a -. WM0 - NMV0 %Dr- MM0 4NM cnQQ wza01 Wzoa
Lo 3 ON m = m m m u1: l:w W
OW F `' z QO a Qo a
w - C!1 .. ,� -4 -4 -4 ,-1 -q .-a -1 r--I r-1 r-d r--1 .-1 N N N N .. W W Z a a m m a m
00 •• W m >+ UQ w &4 W 0ME-
co oa a Q > UWw > Uww
>+ O a W z >1 Wr- W Mo -INMCrLn %D rmON0 -4 Q 0 --a Z
F - O F F > F Z W C7
" E- o »
U V> M D a r4 r1 -1 r+ .-1 r+ -4 .-1 .-d r-1 r-1 .-1 -4 -4 N N F m rC Q
EXHIBIT IVc
Ln Ow Ln M O m co co co co M w M M co LD
Ln -i G 04 M -W qr r 0M �DMr -iM -40 m
� dJ� ^ co %.ClO rrOl0 -4rNNrN .-I .-1Ln N
> Ln O ► ► ► ` • ►
W O — -w O LD N m -w Ln N m Ln rl m LD M rn -w M
OLn .-1LDNrMOd' rne, oLnLnLn La
O .� O Omo, mmrrLDLDLOLn v r-4 -'
1-1 r r1 1-1 N
rl
E-
m
m O O Ln o Ln O Ln M Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln O
C] Ri W rINM Ln �.000 rnLnrlrMO MONr1 c0
W F 0 r ►
%D E O Ln co LD d1N0 MN •--Irncor rLDrr rn
W Oct F J mNr0 \ONO MrnLn 0 L -1 rNMI-W Lo
rn x J rn 0 o rn rn m co r r r L0 %.0 Ln Ln IV -4 co
-4 0 0 0
o Ln Ln
x r M
U N -4er
Z M M LD
Ln Ln
V F O O O O O O o O O O o O O O O O O ►
p Z E Ln o Ln O Ln o Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln O to O Ln O r1 1-1
-40oorLn -WNLnM -4 -W -4 r- arn r1 yr V>-
1 E m w .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
w p OOrn rnrnrn -0 -W -W Ln ON Mtnr r
(� a re' o rd' r1 COLnNrnLnN rntnr N ••
r r r LD L0 LD Ln Ln Ln •C WIRV M M N N E ••
aa co
RCa � VSO
G M M U
w F �
a >+ Cn E F
am wwcn
0000000000000000 o aaw
J ln0000000000tnotnotn o Wwa
rnNLn coy--IC r0M %Drnr LDV M .-I r E `-' W
E LnZ E
. . . . . . . . . . . .
O a 0.tD M rt C.co E Z
E Nom mr- %D -' MN .-100 corLn -lw v Z0-4 I 1
NMN N N N NNNNNr1 rlrlr '-4 \D J M 1.4" 01D l0 CD
► O J Ln Ln rn LD Ln M
M M V Rl: N rl O Ln %D O
V} Z to E `
z - 0 ^O M v CO 'RV
�^ O F LD •-a r V? o --1 o V)-
0
}0 r co coo
V}0 V} V)- O V)-
Cho
?ew J En Lnoo 000 OOOOOLn oLno Ln O
O RC W ^ MN U-) M -Iar0MLDQ� r %D V' Mr1 r O O
o M a a a a
p00l0cM -irnM7 o -RrNONLD --TN N S S
• Z E r- ,o Ln -wrn porn mr- %.cC' MNr1 M F E
Oct rn Rr z r1 r-I rl rl ri rl rl Ln O
co H W co co
zm oro am co dw
O rn v} M o lD rn rn EE Ln
r+ .- 0 o M >4 m
F F O r-I CJ > W S
O Rt Ln
cn U w ,� r w cn r n o
r1 rn as Ja
w �-+ �-+ �c 0000000000000000 0 � aaE" 3
zJa a 0000000000000000 0 >+ W
.. .. 0000000000000000 0 > >+ > >+ w
� Ocwn VM w E- o to
0 z -- o000000000LnLnLnLnLnLn O J >+ m > >+ w �
►] co M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M rl W W d° > a W
cn rn a r1 -4 r-1 r1 -4 r1 r+ -4 - r1 ri .. .. J w G] J Ln W GL J
W a = .-1 GL >+ W J J
WwZ \ N EE O EO S DW
a z o 4 .-1 yr � z `z W E '0 a
as z wa
3 co co
CC N N W •• F J W M Ln
SO w a ^ NMCLnLDrOrn0 •-lNM -W to < w Z a C7 W z0 O1
O 3 MN Nrnrn rnrnrnrnrnrnrnrn00000 a M z G W W -4 W
ow F "' rnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrn00000 Oct z a0 a RCM a
Lr� Cn RZ r ri rl rl 1-1 — r-I r r ri -4 N N N N N W W Z a J [n a J m
00 •• W fn oWE+ W-OME
-4 oa J > Uww > Uww
>+ •-+ a wM >+ ^ rcoM0 -4NM -WLn �.cr- MM0 -4N 4 pa ,cZ RC --Jz
` 0 E F > E Z W C7
�- N E Rr R✓r w `-' rnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrn000 O O >>
U v} cn C] E J r1 .1 -4 r1 r- r1 -4 .-1 1-4 r1 -1 rf r N N N E m RC Rs
I— rn—� .a �D � �D �D\o� r� ►n �
U FNM MMMM MMM 0- \p
U ^ --r U-) Lr) Ln In n LY) IIn V7 r- - M
X Q LL N .7 t- tr t\ 1- r- r- r-r- --r M u7
L1J
\0\D\O O 0 - N
U 1- Lr)
0 U NO\0 0NO0mmM Ln CO M .a
U -N N N N N N N N N 0
CLC
LO ir} r1 O
O
G
M 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \0 L
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,
} 0 0 Ln LnLn V7Ln LnLnV') Ln ►n - > 00\
Z •- - O -
O ►. 0000000000 O a\
CJ? c Lr;
H W m — `r'O
N 00 0000 000 0 O ISN
00 00 00 000 0 > G C
N O U N N N N N N N N N N C i Lr) °
W - \0\O \D \O \O \D \0\D\O \D '_ �. O 0 O
i!}
Li
wZ It N a°)
> cr\ a)
a LLJ \.o U \D \0\0 \D \0 \D \C) \0\O\0 O N N
O\ O\ON C\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O\O\ = N —
Y . I 'O O\ O\O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O\O\ 1 1 i N O O i
Q Q s-. N NN N N N N N NN ° N °
C O N N N
E
O Q
{J� O c »=
H W C N U !
LL NU �C C U U U
U U e✓; O ,p
LU a� 0 UUUaN
0 >. O — G
y — ! 1 ! ! 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 ! •E L .O a
CU N E
U ? y
o NNOLL
v
coo ooOOCOO 0o o } � X061-
LL } 0o0000000000 0 ° � C o
U C 000000000000 0 y � O L EN\O O
jLrnc 0000000 Ln Ln O i U C G=
U
U o L` o C U U U 'a
U C
O E
F �0G � G U �Dt�O ._
U ° 000 0 � 0\ ON\ OM\a\\Or\ CN a\ H y 0000 =
o D\ D\ \ D\ D\ D\O\a\ D\ C\ o C� —Q CU Q 05°\0-\°\
rn rn om
0 } --- ---- --- - - — N
> > hNO N1OMOM- -Ln C\
Ln Oh 14r- M C\ Ln0 LnM r�
M C\r- C\ —N\0 N -r Ln
%�DM Ln M\0 C\ rl- C p N O M
_ p NOr- LnN - OOC\ �,CC\ —
lV m �7 Ln \p\C r-Ln m
W U
_ ^ r- Ln O N-r r- r- M co 0\0 \0 C\
h * Ln �\0 C\— Ln Ln \0--r Ln— Ln r\
v D .0 ONO LnO - NOM \000 Ln
C
C �� � �N O N M r-:,r- � C1 7 M
QNQ N r-r- r-hC\ OC\Or-\0co M
.L/}
N Ln— O N O o--\0 o\0 \0 Ln
U +- 0 _-rm t")0r- NOM Ln- Ln r-
C \0 NC\ \DOM ONO\ X00 O O
p x E r- C\N m C\ - 0' CO co -M 7 C\ >,
Lr` Ln O Ln C\ O r� %,oO 0 0
Z Ln N N -i-- --rM w\Or- r- r-OO — N co CO
W vv M
Q C -- -- - --- v — C
v
a
Q - U Ln OM OOM m m m �C
W U N O\0 M \0- N0M0 C\ h
1,0 0 0 0 N N r--Ln I"r U
L
O m dr-ILn
aJ U
w J N -::I- O C)U") OM Ln -Lno ON 4'
M\0 Ln\0 \O r�r-00 -!:T
Q
W a� 000000000 O
W U O O Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln x
ON Ln O Nr- M N N w w O •y
N
Y
N ` O _t O r- Ln fl- M�0— Ln
Q i
Q ? 0 M N Ln Ln Ln Ln \O \O w co
N U -- --- --- N 01
g -
000000000 0
p 0 0 o Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln
_ m 0 Ln ON rl MNNr- rl O C
V L ^ N LnN Ln O C\ O r-- N
LG u �N.. O \1ON 7\0 r- 0 \0� Ln
* .. M r-r- \C Ln -•t M N— M v
f- Q ; r-
W
O\
M
=0000000 O
o OooOoOOo O 3
V r Ln o 0 0 0 0 0 Ln O \0
v " co coma\- N�� Lo �
-
- --- Co
ifs id} —
y-
N
L D
v Q
� U
U t\ OO\ O- NM�Ln \0r- O C;
0\ C\ C\ C\ C\ C\ C\ C\ CrN
01\ C\C\ 01\ CN C\ C\ C\C\ 0\C\ C\
--- --- --- -- -
c
U C H
`v
>- v m
v o
y .
J
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Departmental Reorganization
DATE: September 16 , 1983
Introduction
The City Planner ' s resignation provides the City with the opportunity
to re-evaluate its current organizational structure . The focus of
this re-evaluation has been on the Planning and HRA departments .
Evaluation of Short and Long Range Goals
Short range goals :
1 . Obtain through reorganization of job descriptions and functions
assigned to existing positions someone who can spend more time
on community development activities .
2 . Implement an organizational structure that will be more compatible
with the proposed department head pay plan with minimum changes
in total dollar outlay.
3 . Reduce the number of department heads reporting to the City
Administrator from 9 to 8 thus improving the span of control .
4. Provide existing personnel with an opportunity to grow into
a challenging new position with specific performance benchmarks
established for 6 , 12 , and 18 months .
Long range goals :
1 . Create an organizational structure that will permit the City to
find a person who can regularly make contacts with commercial ,
industrial , real estate and financing people in the community
so that there is the potential for packaging economic develop-
ment deals and delivering on innovation financing for such deals .
2 . Create the organizational structure that will permit future
departmental consolidations when turn over in personnel permits
so that eventually all economic development related activities
can be housed in one department .
3 . Provide an organizational structure that better reflects the
City' s emphasis on economic development and places one person
in charge so that there is increased accountability, better
coordination and greater potential for initiative by the City.
Proposed Organizational Structure
I have spoken with the City' s of Mankato, Winona and Fridley regard-
ing their economic development activities and the organizational
structures they have employed. I have spoken at length with Don
.Steger , Jeanne Andre and LeRoy Houser regarding the best potential
Departmental Reorganization
Page Two
September 16 , 1983
organizational structure and have reviewed the proposal with the
Planning Commission Chairman who ' s Commission would be affected by
any proposed change .
John Schmitt , the Planning Commission Chairman, shared my feeling
that we have not been organized nor have we had the right personally
mix to do justice to the economic development goals the City and
Planning Commission have . The organizational structure proposed
below is not unique nor are the proposed position titles . Many
cities have Community Development Departments and LeRoy Houser
has stated that Scott County has a similar organizational setup
that has worked for them. LeRoy did emphasize that , as it related
to long term goals , the incorporation of the building inspection
functions in such a department would have to be carefully planned
because of the somewhat unique demands on a building inspector
who' s inspection time has been prepaid . LeRoy was also able to
discuss the current experience the County has had in hiring building
officials , and noted that both the County' s and the City' s starting
salaries were unrealistically low based on what the County will have to
pay to hire a qualified individual . This particular salary situation
could fit into a Community Development Department concept as proposed
for long range implementation.
The proposed structure by position title would be as follows :
Community Development Director (note attached Stanton Survey sheets
titled Senior Planner/Planning Director) , Building Official , and
Planner I (note Stanton Survey sheets titled Planner ) . Proposed
implementation would be staged so that the initial consolidation
would only involve the current City Planner' s position and HRA
Director/Administrative Assistant ' s position. The consolidation
of the Building Official ' s position would not occur until natural
turn over occurred in that position.
There are other alternatives that were considered by staff such as
the creation of a position titled Economic Development Coordinator,
the creation of a Planning Director ' s position and the status quo.
These alternatives were not pursued after discussing them with the
three cities mentioned above and considering the Council ' s and
Planning Commission' s efforts to better focus our attention on
community development activities . I would be glad to discuss these
alternatives in more detail either at the meeting or individually
if any Councilmember cares to contact me prior to the meeting.
In addition, alternative use of existing staff was considered in
implementing the proposed reorganization. These alternatives dealt
with the relative strength and weaknesses of the current staff and
the needs of the City both now and in the future. Again, I am
quite willing to discuss the specifics of this with Council at the
meeting or individually if Councilmembers care to contact me .
Financial Impact of Proposed Reorganization
The proposed reorganization would enable the City to better fit the
two positions into the proposed pay plan with minimum change in
financial impact on the City.
Departmental Reorganization
Page Three
September 16 , 1983
Proposed
Present Position Current Pay Plan
Description Salary Salary Range
City Building Official $31 , 336 $22 ,305 - $30 , 555
City Planner 223809 24, 724 - 33 ,869
HRA Director/Admin. Asst . 19 ,457 165152 22 , 126
Total less Building 0fficial$42 , 347
Proposed Position Proposed Proposed Salary
Classification Salary Range
Community Development Dir. $245724 $24 , 724 - $33 ,869
Planner I 185500 15 ,943 - 21 ,840
Total $43 , 224
Please note that the proposed reorganization takes two current
psitions that are underpaid according to the proposed salary range
and places them in classifications at the appropriate salary level .
This can be done at a cost of approximately $877 assuming that the
Planner I we hire can be hired at approximately $18 , 500. It would
mean a salary increase for Jeanne Andre , who currently serves as
HRA Director if placed in the Community Development Director' s posi-
tion at its entry level of $24, 724. Placing Jeanne in this position
would be followed by a specific job description and 18 month program
with performance reviews after each six month period. The City
would then recruit a Planner I in the range of $15 ,943 - $21 ,840
and would probably structure the recruitment so that the likely
candidate would be receiving around $18 , 500. This proposal provides
adjustments for two current employee ' s positions on the pay plan
at little increased cost to the City and in so doing significantly
reduces the cost of implementing the proposed pay plan for the balance
of the City' s department heads .
Recommendation
The proposal outlined above also creates the potential for the
shuffling of a number of secretarial duties and some committee
staffing duties . These changes should improve secretarial morale
and output , help us accomodate the pregnancy leave of Jeanette
Shaner and her return at 3/4 time , and remove some of the committee
duties that Jeanne Andre currently has so that she can properly
focus on the job of Community Development Director. I strongly
recommend Council approval of the proposed changes and authorization
to take applications for a new Planner I .
Action Requested
1 . Approve the replacement of the City Planner position and HRA
Director/Admin. Asst . position with a Planner I position and
a Community Development Director ' s position respectively, and
direct staff to draft the appropriate job descriptions for
Council approval .
Departmental Reorganization
Page Four
September 16 , 1983
2 . Authorize the appropriate City staff to advertise for a Planner I
in the salary range of $15 ,943 - $21 ,840 to fill the position
vacated by Don Steger ' s resignation.
JKA/jms
MEMO T0: Mayor and City Council -3
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Departmental Reorganization
DATE : September 30 , 1983
Introduction
City Council , at its regular September 20 , 1983 meeting , tabled the
discussion on the departmental reorganization and directed staff
to prepare job descriptions for Lhe next regular Council meeting.
Council indicated a desire to review the specific job descriptions ,
performance criteria established for the Community Development
Director and to have the additional time to think about the pro-
posed reorganization.
Job Descriptions
The job descriptions for the position of Community Development
Director and Planner II are attached for Council review. These
job descriptions include a section that has not been included in
previous City job descriptions entitled , "Examples of Performance
Criteria" . Later in this memo I have listed the specific 6th,
12th and 18th month criteria we would use in measuring the Community
Development Director ' s performance .
Please review the job descriptions carefully to determine whether
or not they accurately reflect the responsibilities I have indicated
would be performed by the Director of 111nnning and Community
Development and the Planner 11 . A close examination of the
experience and training required for the Director of Planning and
Community Development listed under "Qualifications" provide the
rationale for our starting Jeanne Andre at the entry level for
this position.
Specifically Proposed Performance Criteria
As stated in my memo of September 16 , 1983 , the Director of Planning
and Community Development position , if filled by Jeanne Andre , would
carry with it a specific list of performance criteria over an 18
month period beginning January 1 , 1.984 . Those criteria are listed
below for Council review and may be changed as deamed appropriate .
Six Month Review
I . Follow through on application for Main Street Program.
2 • Follow through on application for Mortgage Revenue Program.
3 . Complete CDBG grant application by February 1 , 1984.
4 . Staff the Downtown Committee and bring the consultants
report on the downtown plan to completion.
September 30 , 1983
12 Month Review /
1 . Coordinate to successful completion the Public Works
improvements , parking lot and green space , for the
downtown redevelopment project .
2 . Establish a vacate property list based on bare land
and vacate structures to be used in response to economic
development inquiries to come to City Hall .
3 . Successfully complete at least one commercial rehab loan
program loan as established under the downtown tax
increment financing district .
4. negotiate with at least five major businesses identified as
'having potential in the downtown marketing, analysis , and
-hat will bring a major redevelopment project ( s ) to Shakopee ' s
downtown.
18 Month Review
1 . Completion of second successful commercial rehab loan
program in the central business district under our tax
increment program.
2 . Secure funding for Community Development Block Grant .
There will have been two funding cycles during this
18 month period . Other criteria performance having been
met , this criteria will he extended to a 3rd funding
round (February ' 86 ) because of the lack of staff time
available for preparation of the ' 84 application.
3 . Successfully attract one new small retail businesses
to Shakopee ' s downtown with Choir arrival_ being primarily
the result of efforts by the Community Development
Department .
Summary and Recommendation
City Council has now embarked on an effort to develop the funding
for the full time personnel required as part of our Main Street
Program application. I would like to restate the program' s
criteria that this person work full time on the Main Street Project .
Any efforts by Shakopee to preplan combining a part of this indi-
vidual ' s functions with City Community Development or Planning
functions will likely result in the failure of our application
being funded. The Main Street people are very clear about the
necessity for the Main Street staff to give their undivided atten-
tion to the Main Street Program efforts .
The City has entered into a letter of agreement with Rob Chelseth
for planning services to backup Jeanne Andre while we are without
a Planner. This stop gap arrangement is satisfactory for the
short term but will hurt the City ' s efforts to put together a
good Main Street application, Mortgage Revenue Bond application
and Community Development Block Grant application during the next
few months . I would like to underscore the fact that the ICC
and Planning Commission both feel that we need a person on staff
to work on planning related duties . To the extent that Jeanne
Andre is moved over to fulfull some of these duties other
Community Development related activities will suffer such as those
mentioned above .
Departmental Reorganization
Page Three
September 30 , 1983
In looking for some examples for the position descriptions attached
to this memo we found two communities that have organizational
structures almost identical to the one I proposed in my September
16th memo. The job descriptions for the Director of Community
Development from both Plymouth and Brooklyn Park had even included
the building functions under the Communitv Development Department .
This indicates to me that our two step approach which would
create the department in 1983 and allow for the potential inclusion
of building functions sometime in the future as the City continues
to grow is on target .
1 recommend the action requested as outlined in my September 16 ,
1983 memo.
JKA/jms
TENTATIVE AGENDA
ADJ .REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA MARCH 20, 1986
- Thursday -
Mayor Reinke presiding
1] Roll Call at 7 : 00 P .M.
21 Approval of Minutes of February o'1,5 , 1986 and March 4, 1986
31 RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS
41 Cable Franchise Modifications
51 Receiving Report and Setting Public Hearing on 1986-3 Fourth Avenue
Improvement from Filmore Street to Scott Street - Res. No. 2533
- feasibility report coming Monday -
6] Letter of Resignation from Community Development Director
-
7] Approve Bills in Amount of $166, 197 .00
8] 7 : 30 P.M. - PUBLIC HEARING on Land Use Alternatives for the Racetrack
Area with Planning Commission Members in Attendance
BRING YOUR PLANS !
9] Communication from Planning Commission regarding Ackerberg rezoning
10] Other Business :
11] Adjourn to Tuesday, March 25 , 1986 at 7 :00 P .M.
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THJ CITY COUNCIL �
REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MARCH 4, 1986
Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Cncl. Wampach,
Colligan, Lebens, Leroux and Vierling present. Also present were John K.
Anderson, City Admr.; Kenneth Ashfeld, City Engineer, Julius A. Coller, II,
City Attorney and Judith S. Cox, City Clerk.
Liaison reports were given by Councilmembers.
Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone present who::wished to address the
Council on any item not on the agenda, there was no response.
The City Administrator gave a review of the tax increment finance (TIF)
bill H.F. 2476 drafted by Representative Schreiber which has a host of
changes to the current tax increment planning thats involved.
Leroux/Vierling moved to receive and place on file with a copy to be
discussed under Policy and Program Issues involving Shakopee Use of Tax
Increment Financing later on on the agenda. Motion carried unanimously.
George Muenchow, Community Services Director, gave a brief update on the
recommended 1986 pool/water slide program plan. He explained that it would
be the same as last year. Cncl. Wampach expressed concern over insurance
coverage to which Mr. Muenchow answered that if the pool was being operated
in the proper manner in his opinion there would be no problem.
Colligan/Vierling moved to continue pool operation for 1986 as done in the past.
Motion carried unanimously.
Vierling/Colligan moved to approve the Chamber of Commerce's program to
place banners in the existing Christmas tree decoration brackets on light
poles along First Avenue, and authorize the appropriate City officials
to purchase seven banners at 5600.00 that will be City of Shakopee banners.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes, None Motion carried
Mr. Cletus Link of Cletus Link Construction Company, expressed his concern
over the high rates being charged him for inspection fees on the South
Parkview Addition. The City Engineer replied that the previous engineer
spent time conducting independent drainage calculations which resulted in
elimination of portions of storm sewers as proposed in the preliminary plat
which had resulted in several thousand dollars in savings to the developer.
He explained the monthly engineering charges beginning with the preliminary
platting process. Discussion followed. Council took no action to adjust
the inspection fees.
Leroux/Vierling moved to receive and file correspondence of February 24,
1986 from Cletus Link Construction' Company regarding inspection fees for
South Parkview 1st Add'n.and review at annual fee schedule adoptions. Motion
carred unanimously.
Leroux/Lebens moved to authorize proper City officials to execute an
amendment--to the developers agreement which deletes requiring the installa—
tion of two lights at the NE and NW corners of Prahm—Coll 1st Addition.
Motion carried unanimously.
Shakopee City Council
March 4, 1986
Page -2-
Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize and direct staff to send a letter to
our legislators supporting the optical scan electronic voting equipment.
R611 Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried.
Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize the appropriate city officials to execute
the proposed appendex B for wages and benefits for Local 320 Public Works
as the wage and benefit element for the second year of the 1985-86 contract.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried.
Leroux/Vierling moved to approve Resolution No. 2529 amending the City of
Shakopee's Personnel Rules and Regulations clarifing Section 15, Subdivision
1 entitled Rest Periods.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried.
The City Engineer reviewed what was needed in regards to the Minnesota
Valley Trail Cleanup. Discussion ensued on what exactly is involved
and as to whether or not the DNR is responsible for cleanup since they
constructed it.
Colligan/Wampach moved Council authorization to enter into an agreement
with F. F. Jedlicki, Inc., Eden Prairie, MN to perform work at unit prices
per bid submitted on February 4, 1986. The total amount paid under this
agreement shall not exceed $15,000. Cost to be paid from General Fund,
C ontingency.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried.
Vierling/Wampach moved to pay landfill dumping fees as necessary at rate
of $3.00 per cubic yard, or $2.00 per cubic yard for "construction debris."
Fees to be paid from General Fund, Contingency.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes None Motion carried.
Wampach/Leroux moved to negotiate with land owners affected by the project
to obtain reimbursement proportional to the work required on their property.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried.
Leroux/Vierling moved to approve of the transfer of $8,796.43 in residual
equity from the G.C. Judgement Bond Fund to the Capital Improvement Fund.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried.
Leroux/Wampach moved to authorize the City Hall Siting Committee to screen,
interview and recommend to the City Council an architectural firm to provide
siting analysis for a new City Hall. Motion carried unanimously.
Lebens/Vierling moved to authorize payment of bills in the amount of
$579,239.95•
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Potion carried.
Wampach/Leroux moved to authorize the advertising to fill the vacancy of
Engineering Inspector. Motion carried unanimously.
1
Shakopee City Council
March 4, 1986 -2111-
Page -3-
Leroux/Vierling moved to adopt Resolution No. 2528, A Resolution Authorizing
the Minnesota Department of Transportation to Act on Behalf of the City of
Shakopee for the Improvements of 10th Avenue (FAU 5060) from CSAR 17 to
T.H. 300.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried.
Leroux/Vierling offered Ordinance No. 189, an Ordinance of the City
of Shakopee, Minnesota, amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 10 entitled
"Public Protection, Crimes and Offenses" by Repealing Subdivision 2,
Section 10.61 and Enacting a New Subdivision 2 as Herein Provided and by
Adopting by Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Section 10.99, which
among other things, contain penalty provisions, and move its adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Wampach, Vierling, Lebens, Leroux, Mayor Reinke
Noes: Cncl. Colligan Motion carried.
Vierling/Lebens offered Ordinance No. 190, an Ordinance of the
City of Shakopee, Minnesota, amending the Shakopee City Code Chapter 6
entitled "Other Business Regulation and Licensing" by Repealing Subd. 2
of Sec. 6.41 and by Enacting a New Subd. 2 Sec. 6.41 as Herein Contained
and Adopted by Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Sec. 6.99 which,
among other things, contain penalty provisions, and move its adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes: None Noes: Unanimous Motion fails.
Leroux/Wampach offered Ordinance No. 191, an Ordinance amending
Chapter 11 of the Shakopee City Code, the Land Use and Regulation (zoning)
Chapter and moved its adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Wampach, Coiligan, Leroux, Lebens, Vierling
Noes: Mayor Reinke Motion carried.
Leroux/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2530, A Resolution Apportioning
Assessments Among New Parcels Created as a Result of the Subdivision of Land
into Hauer Third Addition, and move its adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried.
Leroux/Vierling moved to recess for 1.01minutes at 8:30 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously.
Wampach�Colligan moved to reconvene at 8:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Vierling moved to remove from table Tax Increment Financing tabled
on February 25, 1986. Motion carried unanimously.
1
Discussion ensued on Policy and Program Issues Involving Shakopee's Use
of Tax Increment Financing. The City Administrator reviewed the six
policy questions and the corresponding tables, listed in his memo dated
February 17, 1986. He asked the Council to review each of the six questions
asked and that this be put back on the agenda for the March 25 meeting of
the Council.
Mayor Reinke read and presented to Mr. Lee Stoltzman a resolution adopted
February 25, 1986 thanking him for his 6 years of service on the Planning
Commission.
The City Administrator reminded the Council of the invitation, by St. Paul
Mayor George Latimer, to take part in the Taste of Minnesota Program. Mayor
Latimer will be at the Flying Cloud Airport at 7:15 a.m. on March 5, 1986
to extend the formal invitation.
Shakopee *City Council
March 4, 1986
Page —4—
Colligan/Wampach moved to recess for Executive Session to discrss Police
labor negotiations. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Wampach moved to reconvene City Council meeting. Potion carried
unanimously.
Leroux/Colligan moved to adjourn to March 20, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Judith S. Cox
City Clerk
Carol L. Schultz
Recording Secretary
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 25, 1986
Vice Mayor Wampach called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Cncl. Leroux,
Colligan, and Vierling present. Mayor Reinke arrived at 8:15 p.m. Cncl.
Lebens was absent. Also present were John K. Anderson, City Admr. ; Judith S.
Cox, City Clerk; Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer; Judi Simac, City Planner, and
Julius A. Coller, II, City Attorney.
Liaison reports were given by councilmembers.
Charles Campbell, President of MN Deer Hunters Association/MN Valley Chapter
gave his request to have a raffle at the Knights of Columbus Hall to raise funds
to help the deer and wildlife in this area.
Discussion ensued on proposed Ordinance 189 later on on the agenda which would
clarify existing gambling. The ordinance limits gambling activities to local
organizations.
Leroux/Vierling moved that proposed Ordinance 189 be amended to permit raffles to
be conducted by any fraternal, religious, veterans or other non-profit organiza-
tions, which does not carry on its activities in and is not located and based
in the City of Shakopee, when held in conjunction with a banquet or dance.
Motion carried with Cncl. Colligan opposed.
Vierling/Leroux moved to approve the minutes of February 4, 1986.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried
Colligan/Leroux moved to confirm nominations of Harold Gustafson and Marvin
Oldenburg for the appointments to Managers of the Prior Lake/Spring Lake
Watershed District. Motion carried unanimouslv.
Vierling/Colligan moved to receive and place on file the letter from Virgil S.
Mears of the Tourism Committe with regard to the official city logo and its
development. Motion carried unanimously.
John Anderson, City Administrator outlined the two proposals Representative
Bill Schreiber is considering to modify the fiscal disparities formula.
Colligan/Vierling moved to send a letter of opposition to Representative
Schreiber on the two proposals to modify the fiscal disparities formula.
Motion carried unanimously.
John Anderson discussed the action alert document on federal tax reform
restrictions.
Vierling/Leroux moved to receive and place on file the Action Alert document
from the League of Mn. Cities referencing federal tax reform restrictions.
Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Vierling moved to offer Resolution No. 2522, A Resolution of
Appreciation to Lee Stolzman, and moved its adoption. Motion carried
.unanimously.
Shakopee City Council
February 25, 1986
Page -2-
Vierling/Leroux moved to accept the 1985 Annual Report of the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals and Planning Commission
Roll Call: Ayes: unanimous Noes: None Motion carried.
The City Planner gave a brief description of the preliminary plat of
Gardenvilla 1st Addn. , which lies West of Marschall Road and South of the
abandoned railroad tracks, and the Planning Commission recommended conditions
of approval.
Colligan/Leroux moved to approve the preliminary plat of Gardenvilla 1st
Addn. subject to the six conditions recommended by the Planning Commission
February 13, 1986 and move for its adoption.
Colligan/Vierling moved to amend the motion by adding that a developers
agreement be entered into providing for widening the entrance onto Marschall
Road and the filing of a performance bond. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion carried unanimously on amended main motion.
~� Leroux/Vierling moved that an archaeological survey of the proposed campground
of Shakopee Valley Square 1st Addn. , not be required and directed the
developer to provide an on-site designation of the historical significance
of the site. Motion carried unanimously.
City Planner gave an update on the Racetrack District Land Use Study and
the upcoming meeting dates which will be open to the public on March 8, 1986,
March 17, 1986 and March 20, 1986.
Colligan;Vierling moved to receive and place on file the memo on the Racetrack
District Land Use Study. Motion carried unanimously.
Colligan/Leroux moved to direct the City Engineer to solicit temporary
inspection personnel for the 1986 construction season through the University
of Minnesota internship program and area trade schools.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried.
Mayor Reinke arrived and took his seat at 8: 15 p.m.
The City Planner gave a brief review of the request by Ackerberg Companies Ltd. ,
for rezoning a 6 acre parcel lying East of Marschall Road and South of Ken
Theis property from B-1 to R-4. Discussion ensued on how it might affect
the adjoining parcels and the future development status of them.
Cncl. Colligan stated that he supports the rezoning because there have been
changes in the community goals as well neighborhood development patterns.
He also stated that he does not believe this is spot zoning and that the
rezoning maybe in the best interest of the City if there is too much B zone.
Cncl. Leroux stated that he does not support rezoning the Theis property,
as it would then become non-conforming. He'd like to see the B zoning be
at least 300 feet deep from the bypass. He'd like to see the R-2 zone
buffered with a frontage road and R-4 property.
Mayor Reinke expressed concern about having multi-family in an area where
it shouldn't be. He suggested that the Planning Commission should take a
look at the whole area around the bypass.
Shakopee City_ Council
February 25, 1986
Page -3-
Cncl. Leroux stated that he'd like to see the Planner and Planning Commis-
sion come up with recommendations for this area, but the Ackerberg request
is a separate issue and he has no problem with rezoning their property
at this time. He would like to see the B-1 zone pushed South of 13th Avenue.
Cncl. Colligan stated that he believes the rezoning of the Ackerberg
property is good for the City. It will bring sewer and water to that area.
Cncl. Wampach stated that he likes to see development which is not looking
for government subsidy.
Leroux/Colligan moved that an ordinance of rezoning be drafted and presented
at our next Council meeting. Motion carried with Cncl. Vierling abstaining.
Leroux/Wampach moved that the staff be directed to study the B-1 zoning and
the R-2 zoning as it abuts the proposed bypass and the intersection with County
Road 17 and to meet with the Planning Commission to study that area as to how
it may be changed. Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion ensued on the placement of fuel storage tanks in the Ag and R-1
districts. The question arose as to if it would be practical to regulate
above ground storage tanks in some way.
Colligan/Wampach moved that based upon State Building, Pollution Control and
Fire Prevention Codes, both the Building Official and Council awree That there
will continue to be no placement of underground fuel storage tanks in the Ag
and R-1 districts. Motion carried unanimously.
Wampach/Colligan moved for a 10-minute recess 9:05 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously.
Colligan/Leroux moved to reconvene at 9: 15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Barry Stock, Administrative Aide gave a brief review of the Transit Joint
Power Agreement entered into by Chaska, Chanhassen and Eden Prairie.
Colligan/Leroux moved that Shakopee not become a party to the Chaska, Chanhassen,
Eden Prairie .transit powers agreement. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Wampach moved to authorize staff to proceed with advertising the Request
for Proposal notice for staffing of the Shakopee public access studio.
Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Wampach moved for the adoption of Resolution No. 2526, A Resolution
designating Mayor Reinke to serve as Commissioner and Cncl. Colligan to
serve as Alternate Commissioner to Shakopee Basin Watershed. Motion carried
unanimously.
Vierling/Leroux moved to reject all bids for employee dental insurance due
to insufficient interest by employees.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried.
Discussion ensued on the Scott County Transportation Coalition and the three
major projects to be implemented as T.H. 169/T.H. 101 intersection and bridge
improvements; T.H. 101 Shakopee By-pass; and C.R. 18 Bloomington-Ferry Bridge.
Shakopee City Council
February 25, 1986
Page -4-
Wampach/Colligan moved to contribute $10,500 to the Scott County Transportation
Coalition operating budget contingent upon some percentage of a $25,000 targer
amount committed by all Cities within Scott County.
Leroux/Colligan moved to amend motion to contribute $10,500 to the Scott County
Transportation Coalition operating budget. Motion carried unanimously.
Roll Call on main motion as amended: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried.
Vierling/Leroux moved to approve bills in the amount of $473,092.90.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried.
Leroux/Vierling moved to remove from the table the application of Yellow
Taxi Service Corp. for a taxicab license. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Wampach moved to approve the application and grant a 1986 taxicab
license to Yellow Taxi Service Corp. , 127 1st Avenue N.E. , Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55413. Motion carried unanimously.
�..
Leroux/Wampach moved to direct staff to prepare the proper ordinance exempting
nurses, licensed by the State of Minnesota, from Masseur and Masseuce Registration.
Motion carried unanimously.
Vierling/Wampach moved to direct staff to obtain a cost estimate from Minnesota
Valley Coop for the installation and operating costs for two street lights,
one at CR-16 and Foothill Trail and one at Muhlenhardt Road and Horizon Drive.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried.
Leroux/Vierling moved to offer Resolution No. 2527, A Resolution Requesting
That the State of Minnesota Sell the Old Minnesota Correctional Facility
in Shakopee to the City of Shakopee and move its adoption. Discussion ensued
on the advantages of purchasing this property with the buildings.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried.
Leroux/Vierling moved to table the Memo from John K. Anderson, City Administrator,
referencing Policy and Program Issues Involving Shakopee`s Use of Tax Increment
Financing. Motion carried unanimously.
Vierling/Colligan moved to authorize the police department to hire a temporary
employee at an hourly rate of $6.00, for sixty days using contingency funding
not to exceed $2,880.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried.
Leroux/Vierling moved to offer Resolution No. 2519, A Resolution Ordering the
Preparation of a Report on an Improvement, Monticeto Heights Street
Preservation , and moved its adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried.
Vierling/Colligan moved to offer Resolution No. 2520, A Resolution Ordering
the Preparation of a Rgport on an Improvement, Deerview Acres Street Preservation,
and moved its adoption. Discussion ensued on the wear and tear on the roads in
rural areas that garbage trucks and school buses cause.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried.
Shakopee City Council
February 25, 1986 1
Page -5- y
Vierling/Leroux moved to offer Resolution No. 2521, A Resolution Revising the
Shakopee Standard Specifications, and moved its adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried.
Vierling/Leroux moved to reconsider Resolution No. 2516, a Resolution Initiating
the Vacation of the Public Alley in Block 30, According to the Plat of East
Shakopee, and place it on the table.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried.
Vierling/Leroux moved to offer Resolution No. 2518, A Resolution Accepting Work
on 1985 Curb & Gutter, Sidewalk, and driveway Apron Replacement Program,
Contract No. 1985-3, and moved its adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried.
Vierling/Leroux moved to offer Resolution No. 2525, a Resolution Approving
the Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for the 1986 Curb &
Gutter Sidewalk, and Driveway Apron Replacement Program, Public Improvement
1986-2 , and moved its adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried.
Vierling/Leroux moved to offer Resolution No. 2524, a Resolution Requesting
Abatement of Special Assessments and Reclassification for Property Taxes of
Various Parcels , and moved its adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried.
Vierling/Leroux offered Resolution No. 2523, A Resolution Amending Resolution
No. 2479 Adopting the 1986 Fee Schedule , and moved its adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried.
Discussion on upcoming meeting dates for March and April ensued. Council will
meet on March 25th instead of March 18th when 1986 precinct caucuses in
Minnesota will be held.
John Anderson discussed the upcoming hearing on the Mega-Mall and the
exemption for fiscal disparaties.
John Anderson discussed the Taste of Minnesota Festival promotion of cities
that have been invited on March 5, at 7: 15 a.m.
Wampach/Vierling moved to recess for Executive Session at 10:30 p.m. to discuss
labor negotiations, the NSP pole relocation along 4th Avenue, and the condemnation
for R-O-W for Valley Park Drive North of Hwy.- 101. Motion carried unanimously.
Wampach/Vierling moved to reconvene at 11:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Wampach moved to direct Assistant City Attorney to take legal action
requiring NSP to relocate power poles along 4th Avenue.
Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Leroux, Wampach, Vierling and Mayor Reinke Noes: None
Abstain: Cncl. Colligan ✓Motion carried.
Leroux/Vierling moved to hire an appraiser for proceedings with the condemnation
of R-O-W from Valleyfair for the extension of Valley Park Drive North.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried.
Shakopee City Council
February 25, 1986
Page -6-
Leroux/Wampach moved to adjourn to Tuesday, March 4, 1986 at 7:00 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m.
Judith S. Cox
City Clerk
Carol Schultz
Recording Secretary-
TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Aide
RE: Cable Franchise Amendment
DATE: March 14 , 1986
Introduction
Pursuant to City Council action, staff has been working with
Mr. John Gibbs from the law firm of Herbst and Thue to draft
the appropriate cable franchise amending ordinance which incorporates
the franchise modifications as discussed at previous cable commission
and City Council meetings.
Background
On February 4 , 1986 a public hearing was held before the Shakopee
City Council to consider the cable franchise modifications proposed
by Zylstra-United. At that time the Shakopee City Council gave
preliminary approval to a set of cable franchise modifications
contingent upon staff ' s development of a staffing plan for the
public access studio. On March 4 , 1986 the Shakopee City Council
authorized staff to proceed with the advertising of requests
for proposals for the management of the public access studio.
The deadline for the submission of proposals is March 18 , 1986 .
In attachment No. 1 a memorandum from Mr. Gibbs briefly discusses
the sections of the cable franchise ordinance which are in need
of amendment. The formal amending ordinance (No. 192 ) which
legally incorporates the proposed franchise changes , is shown
in attachment No. 2 .
Federal law dictates that municipalities cannot receive money
from cable companies that would be in addition to their annual
5% franchise fee. It therefore becomes necessary for the Access
Corporation to be the recipient of the following funds :
1. Public access studio equipment not provided ( $5 , 000) .
2. Character generator equipment not provided ( $4 , 000 ) .
3 . Institutional network equipment not provided in Shakopee
and Chaska ( $8 , 000 ) .
4 . The monthly subscriber fee ( . 25 per subscriber per month) .
5 . Annual studio maintenance cost ( $2 , 000 ) .
Mr. Gibbs has drafted an agreement between the Shakopee Access
Corporation and Zylstra-United which would allow the aforementioned
payments. ( See attachment No. 3 ) . You will note that while
the City is not directly a party to the contract, any rules
adopted by the Access Corporation as they relate to public access
must be in a form acceptable to the City. One should further
note that the City of Shakopee may terminate the agreement at
any time by giving each party a thirty ( 30 ) day written notice.
Staff believes that the amending ordinance and the access agreement
between the Shakopee Public Access Corporation and Zylstra-United
effectively defines the responsibilities of all the effected
parties. I would also like to inform the Council that the modifi-
cations presented in the aforementioned attachments are all
five year deferrals with the exception of those issues that
have been resolved by cash payments . Finally, I would like
to add that the five year extension of the existing franchise
term will be contingent upon the replacement of those activities
which are being deferred.
Alternatives
1. Move to approve Ordinance No. 194 and request the Shakopee
Access Corporation to enter into an agreement with the
Cable Company as presented in attachment No. 3 .
2 . Suggest changes and/or additions to Ordinance No. 194 and
approve.
3 . Suggest changes to the public access support agreement
as shown in attachment No. 3 and request the Shakopee Access
Corporation to enter into said agreement.
4 . Do nothing.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends alternative No. 1 .
Action Requested
Move to approve Ordinance No. 194 and request the Shakopee Access
Corporation to enter into an agreement with Zylstra-United as
shown in attachment No. 3 .
BAS/jms
Attachment No. 1
HERBST THUE, LTD.
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City of Shakopee
FROM: John Gibbs
DATE: March 12, 1986
RE: Proposed Draft Ordinance Amendments and Access
Support Agreement
We have enclosed herewith a proposed draft Ordinance amending
the City of Shakopee Cable Communications Ordinance and a pro-
posed draft Access Support Agreement between the Shakopee
Community Access Corporation and Zylstra-United Cable Television
Company both of which, when combined, effectuate our
understanding of the Proposed Cable Franchise Modifications
agreed upon by Zylstra-United and the City of Shakopee which were
approved by the City Council in February.
Section 4. 05 of the Franchise would be amended to extend the
franchise term upon the accomplishment of refinancing of the
cable system and the determination, in the year 1991 , to continue
the deferrals set forth in Section 16 or a determination that,
upon the expiration of the deferrals , the cable company has met
all the original Franchise obligations .
Section 9. 01B would be amended to reflect the agreement
relating to quarterly payments of franchise fees.
Section 9. 02 would be amended to authorize the utilization of
a Letter of Credit as security rather than a Security Fund.
Section 9. 03 and Section 9. 05 would be amended to implement
the utilization of a Letter of Credit rather than the Security
Fund when imposing damages or penalties.
Section 16 would be added to the Franchise in order to imple-
ment the public access deferrals. The public access deferrals
are set forth in the Franchise. The obligations of the cable
company to support access are set forth in an Agreement between
the Shakopee Community Access Corporation and Zylstra-United in
order that the City can best protect itself against a challenge
that the access commitments during the deferral might be
construed as franchise fees and therefore subject to federal law
limitations .
Section 16 . 02 would be added to the Franchise to implement
the institutional network deferrals .
Section 16 . 03 would be added to the Franchise to implement
the pole rental payment deferrals.
-1-
Section 16 . 04 would be added to the Franchise to clarify the
deferral of any future capital expenditure commitments.
Section 17 would be added to the Franchise to establish a
deferral and modification of the character generator commitment
of the cable company.
Section 18 would be added to the Franchise to limit the cable
company's management fee paid to its parent.
Section 19 would be added to the Franchise to clarify the
enforceability of the amendments and provide that, in the event
that the amendments or Access Support Agreement result in a
challenge to the collectability of franchise fees and enfor-
ceability of the deferral agreements , the original commitment of
the cable company would automatically be reinstated and be
enforceable.
1
i
i
-2-
Attachment No. 2
ORDINANCE NO.
SERIES
An Ordinance to amend Shakopee City Code, Chapter 15 ,
entitled "Cable Communications , Franchise Ordinance" .
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
SECTION I: Section 4 . 05 is hereby amended as follows :
4 . 05 Franchise Term. This Franchise shall commence upon
acceptance by Grantee and shall expire fifteen (15 ) years
from such acceptance or, in the alternative, on
October 26 , 2002 if the Grantee accomplishes a refinancing
of the System in a form and manner approved by City no later
than December 31 , 1986 and the City determines , in the year
1991 to continue all of the deferrals set forth in Section
16 of this Franchise or if upon expiration of the deferrals
set forth in Section 16 , the City determines that Grantee
has met all of the original Franchise and offering commit-
ments which are the subject of those deferrals unless ter-
minated sooner as hereinafter provided.
SECTION II : Section 9. 01B is hereby amended as follows:
B . Payments due City under this provision shall
be computed at the end of each calendar year Quarter for
that calendar yeai, Quarter. Payments shall be due and
payable no later than thirty (30 ) days after the dates-
1
ates1st-eE3 �n t-he--prev -scoteiree the final day of each
-1-
calendar quarter. Each payment shall be accompanied by
a brief report showing the basis for the computation
and such other relevant facts as may be required by
City.
SECTION III : Section 9 . 02 is hereby amended as follows :
9 . 02 Seeut4ty FidnEl. Letter of Credit
A. At the time of acceptance of this Section ,
Grantee shall deliver to Citv an irrevocable and
unconditional letter of Credit, in form and substance
acceptable to City, from a lot-al national or state bank
approved by City, in the amount of $25 ,000 .
�-B. Wr i t-I:1 in---thirty ( �P ) days s a€er- the e f f t ;
date—ef the Fr-aTehise, GEantee--shall depesit irpte--
treeeunt,
The Letter of Credit shall pro-
vide that funds will be paid to City, upon written
demand of City , and in an amount solely determined by
City in payment for the faithful performance by it of
all the provisions of this Franchise, and compliance
with all orders , permits and directions of City, and the
payment by Grantee of any claim, liens and taxes due
City which arise by reason of the construction, opera-
tion or maintenance of the system. interest aeerteferft
-2-
.g. h az! rz�tizrrra i tit--t the depeBit f'r5 a d d� t j e n ft l
y L ,
in t , f the
or to fedtce the
L ef,
Provision shall be made to permit the
administrator designated in this Franchise to w
. drawn on the Letter of
Credit. Grantee shall net use- he-seeu-2ity fund �
,ether ptreeses and shall net assign,--pledge-e ethere ise
E
ti-._f
hasbeenw lthdrawn by City freaa-the
beliTen (A) e—t4is see
--en, Grantee ifft5ney sttf!ijejent
restore s�aeT-seeurri-ty fund te--the .-i-g-a nal anro -
C . If Grantee fails , after ten (10 ) days notice,
to pay to City any taxes due and unpaid; or, fails to
repay to City, within such ten (10 ) days, any damages,
costs or expenses which City shall be compelled to pay
by reason of any act or default of the Company in con-
nection with this Franchise; or fails, after thirty (30 )
days notice of such failure by City, to comply with any
provision of the Franchise which City reasonably deter-
mines can be remedied by an expenditure of the security,
City may immediately �= ��=- =ww draw the amount thereof,
-3-
with interest and any penalties, frem the 5eetrity fund.
upon the Letter of Credit. Upon such withdrew draw
City shall notify Grantee of the amount and date
thereof.
D. If said Letter of Credit or any subsequent
Letter of Credit delivered pursuant hereto expires prior
to 15 months after the expiration of the term of this
Franchise, it shall be renewed or replaced during the
term of this Franchise to provide that it will not
expire earlier than 15 months after the expiration of
this Franchise. The renewed or replaced Letter of
Credit shall be on the same form and with a bank
authorized herein and for the full amount stated in
paragraph A of this section.
E. If City draws upon the Letter of Credit, or
any subseauent Letter of Credit delivered pursuant
hereto, in whole or in part, Grantee shall replace the
same within three days and shall deliver to City a like
replacement Letter of Credit for the full amount stated
in Paragraph A of this section as a substitution of the
previous Letter of Credit.
F. If anv Letter of Credit is not so replaced,
City may draw on said Letter of Credit for the whole
amount thereof and hold the proceeds , without interest,
and use the proceeds to pay costs incurred by City in
-4-
performinq and paying for any or all of the obligations ,
duties and responsibilities of Grantee under this
Franchise that are not performed or paid for by Grantee
pursuant hereto, including attorneys ' fees incurred by
the Citv in so performing and paving. The failure to so
replace anv Letter of Credit may also, at the option of
City, be deemed a default by Grantee under this
Franchise. The drawing on the Letter of Credit by City,
and use of the money so obtained for payment or perfor-
mance of the obligations, duties and responsibilities of
Grantee which are in default, shall not be a waiver or
release of such default.
G. The collection by City ' cf any dama es , monies
or penalties from the Letter of Credit shall not affect
any other right or remedy available to City, nor shall
any act , or failure to act, by City pursuant to the
Letter of Credit, be deemed a waiver of any right of
City pursuant to this Franchise or otherwise
SECTION IV: Section 9. 03 is herebv amended as follows :
9 . 03 Liquidated Damages from Seettrity Letter of
Credit.
In addition to recovery of any monies owed by Grantee to
City or damages , or any other remedies, as a result of any
acts or omissions by Grantee pursuant to the Franchise, City
or its delegation may E- ee14:eet—€-rem—draw
-5-
upon the Letter of Credit the following
liquidated damages . . . .
SECTION V: Section 9 . 05 is hereby amended as follows :
9 . 05 Procedure. Whenever City finds that Grantee has
violated one or more terms , conditions or provisions of this
Franchise, a written notice shall be given to Grantee
informing it of such violation. At any time after three (3 )
days following notice , City may draw from the E�eeurity Fund
Letter of Credit all liquidated damages and other monies due
City. In the event that a liquidated damage has been
. assessed, Grantee may, within ten (10 ) days of notice ,
notify City that there is a dispute as to whether a viola-
tion or failure has , in fact, occurred. Such notice by
Grantee to City shall specify with particularity the matters
disputed by Grantee.
A. City shall hear Grantee 's dispute at its next
regularly scheduled meeting. City shall supplement the
decision with written findings of fact.
B . Upon a determination by City that no violation
has taken place, City shall refund to Grantee without
interest all monies drawn from the Letter
of Credit by reason of the alleged violation, less all
costs of Grantee 's appeal.
C . The Steri ty Fidnalepe i t-ed Letter of Credit
-6-
established pursuant to this section shall becci,�� t .
be drawn upon by City in the event that the
Franchise is cancelled by reason of the default of
Grantee or revoked for cause. Grtntee ,—} wevet, S�tftl-17
et
da-t e-, P- L=e,Li d e d that
efat�lt err-the-�--t eE G ray-ee.
D. The rights reserved to City with respect to
the Geeurity—F-uq+4 Letter of Credit are in addition to
all other rights of City, whether reserved by this
Franchise or authorized by law, . and no action, pro-
ceeding or exercise of a right with respect to such
Letter of Credit shall affect any other
right City may have.
E . City reserves the right, in its sole discre-
tion, to reward Grantee for prompt and good performance
in the construction of and maintenance and operation of
the System. anype`.
ently
us fftay
e�i-�r�a--=-:T
at any ,
-7-
SECTION VI : A New Section 16 entitled Deferrals is hereby
adopted.
SECTION 16 . DEFERRALS
16 . 01 Public Access Deferrals . In lieu of Grantee 's obliga-
tions to provide Dublic access and local programming equipment,
support , and funding as set forth in Section 5. 05 of this
Franchise and Form K of Grantee 's proposal and as fulfillment of
those obligations for a five year period of time commencing with
the effectiveness of this Section, between Grantee and the
Shakopee Communitv Access Corporation ( "SCAC " ) acceptable to
SCAC which acknowledges fulfillment of local access and other
local programming support to the satisfaction of SCAC on terms
and to the extent set forth in the Agreement. All obligations
in Section 5 . 05 of this Franchise and Form K of Grantee 's pro-
posal regarding access and local proQrammin support , to the
extent not required under any Agreement between the Grantee and
SCAC pursuant to this Section, are, upon receipt by the City of
a report from SCAC that a satisfactory Agreement, as authorized
herein, has been entered into, are herebv deferred until April
1 , 1991 unless, upon execution of an additional Agreement bet-
ween Grantee and SCAC , City determines to extend this deferral
until some later date. In the event the deferral set forth
herein is not extended by City, all oblications of Grantee set
forth in Section 5 . 05 of this Franchise and Form K of the
-8-
Grantee 's Proposal shall be in full force and effect and enfor-
ceable upon Grantee as of April 1 , 1991 . All deferrals set
forth in this Section 16 . 01 are expressl conditioned upon
Grantee providing Certificates of Insurance or other evidence
satisfactory to City that Grantee has insured SCAC and City for
broadcaster 's liability and other general liability related to
the public access commitments set forth in this Franchise and an
Agreement between SCAC and Grantee as well as replacement
insurance in a form and manner acceptable to City covering all
public access programming equipment and studios which are the
subject of this Franchise or any Agreement between SCAC and
Grantee.
Section 16 . 02 Institutional Network Deferrals. All unmet
obligations , as of April 1 , 1986 , set forth in Section 5. 03 of
this Franchise and Grantee 's Proposal reaardina institutional
network capacity and services , are hereby deferred until
April 1 , 1991 upon the payment of $8 ,000 - 00 to the City and the
City of Chaska to be placed into an equipment fund mutually
established by City and the City of Chaska to fund purchase of
equipment to activate the institutional network component of
both the Shakopee Cable System and Chaska Cable System. Grantee
shall be allowed, during the term of deferral set forth herein,
an annual maintenance fee of $936 . 00 per activated channel (up
and down ) pursuant to an Annual Lease entered into by the
affected institution and Grantee. The maintenance fee shall not
-9-
exceed $936 .00 per year during the five-year deferral set forth
herein.
Section 16 . 03 Pole Rental Deferrals. The City hereby defers
all annual pole rental fees and charges imposed upon Grantee
which are the subject of City control , commencing January 1 , 1986
and until January 1 , 1991 .
Section 16 .04 Capital Expenditure Deferrals. To the extent
not addressed by Franchise amendments adopted by City on
, 1986 , all unmet capital expenditure commit-
ments required by Franchise or Grantee 's Proposal, with the
exception of any new cable plant extensions, are hereby deferred
as obligations of Grantee until April 1 , 1991 .
SECTION VII: A New Section 17 entitled Community Character
Generator Equipment is hereby adopted.
SECTION 17. COMMUNITY CHARACTER GENERATOR EQUIPMENT
Notwithstanding any deferrals set forth in Section 16 above,
and in lieu of character generators originally proposed and set
forth in Section 5. 05 of this Franchise, upon payment to City of
Four Thousand Dollars ($4 ,000 . 00 ) no later than April 1 , 1986 ,
for unmet character generator equipment commitments plus
installation, at no charge, at a site designated by City, of
character qenerator equipment purchased by City and installation,
at no charge, c the necessary equipment to activate such
character generator equipment. All character generator equip-
-10-
mentas set forth in this Franchise unmet as of April 1 , 1986 ,
are hereby deemed met by fulfillment of the requirements set
forth in this Section and Grantee is relieved of any further
capital equipment regarding character generators.
SECTION VIII : A New Section' 18 entitled Grantee 's Management Fee
is hereby adopted.
SECTION 18 . GRANTEE ' S MANAGEMENT FEE
Grantee shall nay no management fee or similar fee to its
parent company or any subsidiary, related corporation, partner or
joint venture of Grantee, its parent or any of its subsidiaries
in excess of four percent (4% ) of the Grantee 's Gross Revenues.
SECTION IX: A New Section 19 entitled Enforceability, Franchise
Fees , and Tax Implications is hereby adopted.
SECTION 19. ENFORCEABILITY , FRANCHISE FEES , AND TAX IMPLICATIONS
19. 01 Enforceability of Amendments. The modifications from
Grantee ' s original Offering and deferrals from Grantee 's original
Offerina which are embodied in Sections 16 , 17 , and 18 of this
Franchise are enforceable under federal law, do not constitute
franchise fee payments, and will not negatively impact the tax
status of the Shakopee Community Access Corporation.
19. 02 Upon the effective date of Sections 16 , 17 and 18 of
this Franchise , Grantee shall provide City with an affirmative
written statement from Grantee that Grantee will not assert, and
will oppose anv insertions , that Sections 16 , 17 and 18 of this
-11-
Franchise or any Agreement between Grantee and the Shakopee
Community Access Corporation pursuant thereto, or any of the pro-
visions obtained therein, of the aaplicability of anv of the
above , are not enforceable under federal law or, if implemented,
would constitute franchise fee pavments under federal law.
19. 03 If Sections 16 , 17 , or 18 of this Franchise or any
Agreement between Grantee or the Shakopee Community Access
Corporation pursuant thereto are deemed unenforceable under
federal law or the implementation of the requirements therein are
deemed to constitute franchise fee payments under federal law,
then, to that extent, the deferrals and modifications embodied in
Sections 16 , 17 , and 18 of this Franchise and any Agreement
entered into between Grantee and Shakopee Community Access
Corporation pursuant thereto, and City 's option, will be of no
effect in the pertinent provisions of the Franchise as it existed
immediately prior to the enactment of Sections 16 , 17 and 18 are
automatically reconstituted and shall govern.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of
Shakopee , Minnesota, in Session held this
day of 19
ATTEST:
By By
City Clerk Mayor of the City of Shakopee
By
City Administrator
-12-
Attachment No. 3
ACCESS SUPPORT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY ACCESS CORPORATION ,
A MINNESOTA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION AND
ZYLSTRA-UNITED CABLE TELEVISION COMPANY
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this day of ,
1986 , by and between the SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY ACCESS CORPORATION,
A MINNESOTA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION (hereinafter referred to as
"SCAC" ) AND ZYLSTRA-UNITED CABLE TELEVISION COMPANY, a Minnesota
general partnership of Zylstra Communications Corporation, a
Minnesota corporation and United Cable Television Corporation, a
Delaware corporation (Zylstra-United Cable Television Company
hereinafter referred to as "Grantee" ) .
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS , Grantee is desirous of receiving relief in the form
of franchise modifications and deferrals from certain obligations
set forth in the City of Shakopee Cable Communications Ordinance
( "Franchise" ) granted by the City of Shakopee, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS , the City of Shakopee has indicated a willingness to
consider deferral of Grantee 's obligations to provide public
access and local programming equipment, support, and funding as
set forth in Section 5. 05 of the City of Shakopee Cable
Communications Ordinance ( "Franchise" ) and Form K of Grantee 's
Proposal in the event that Grantee enters into a written
Agreement between Grantee and SCAC which undertakes and
acknowledges fulfillment of local access and other local
programming support to the satisfaction of SLAC; and
-1-
WHEREAS , SCAC is desirous of assuming certain access and
local programming responsibilities related to the Shakopee Cable
Television System ( "System" ) ; and
IN CONSIDERATION of the covenants, conditions, undertakings
and promises contained herein the parties agree as follows:
SECTION I
SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY ACCESS CORPORATION RESPONSIBILITIES
Commencing April 1 , 1986 and continuing until the expiration
or terimination of this Agreement, ECAC hereby covenants and
agrees to the following:
1 . 01 SCAC shall assume all responsibilities for the operation
of the public access channel cablecast on the System and shall
assume responsibility for coordination of educational access
channel programming and governmental access channel programming
as it relates to the public access channel, public access staff,
public access studio availability and public access equipment to
the extent that such matters were, prior to the execution of this
Agreement, the responsibility of Grantee, and to the extent not
specifically established under this Agreement as a continuing
responsibility of the Grantee.
1 . 02 ECAC shall assume all responsibility for staffing the
public access studio, and any successor thereto, located in the
City of Shakopee for facilitation of access programming on the
System.
-2-
1 . 03 SCAC hereby leases and takes all right to the use of all
equipment owned by Grantee as of the date of execution of this
Agreement and being used as of that date for access programming
all of which equipment is set forth in the equipment list
attached hereto and made a part hereof as Attachment A. SCAC
shall pay Grantee the lease amount of one dollar ($1 . 00 ) per year
payable April 1 , 1986 and each April 1st thereafter until the
expiration or termination of this Agreement for the leasehold
rights set forth in this Section.
1 .04 SCAC, in conjunction with the City of Shakopee and in a
manner approved by the City of Shakopee, shall maintain all stu-
dio equipment set forth in Attachment A hereto for which Grantee
shall pay two thousand dollars ($2 ,000. 00 ) per year no later than
April 1 , 1986 and April 1st of each year thereafter until the
expiration or termination of this Agreement.
1 . 05 SCAC shall, at all times throughout the life of this
Agreement maintain in place rules governing the use of public
access channels on the System and provide public access and local
programming equipment for all public, educational and governmen-
tal access programming in a manner acceptable to and at all times
subject to direction by, the City of Shakopee.
SECTION II OBLIGATION
OBLIGATIONS OF ZYLSTRA-UNITED CABLE TELEVISION COMPANY
Commencing April 1 , 1986 and continuing until the expiration
or termination of this Agreement, Grantee hereby covenants and
-3-
agrees to the following:
2. 01 Grantee shall provide to SCAC all equipment owned and
being used by Grantee for access and other local programming for
the System as of the effective date of this Agreement all as set
forth in the equipment list attached hereto and made a part
hereof as Attachment A.
2. 02 Grantee shall provide to SCAC the System studio space
existing as of the date of the execution of this Agreement at its
existing location for use by SCAC, all public access users and
all designees of SCAC . The studio shall be provided at no charge
for rent or utilities. For the purposes of this Section, utili-
ties shall be defined to include telephone, heat, air con-
ditioning, electricity, snow plowing, and any other regular
studio operating costs being incurred by Grantee at the time of
the execution of this Agreement.
2 . 03 Commencing April 1 , 1986 , Grantee shall pay SCAC, or its
designee, two thousand dollars ($2 , 000 . 00 ) per year for studio
equipment maintenance on April 1st of each year until the expira-
tion or termination of this Agreement.
2 . 04 In lieu of studio equipment required under the Franchise
but not being provided as of the execution of this Agreement,
Grantee shall provide SCAC the sum of five thousand dollars
( $5, 000 . 00 ) no later than April 1 , 1986 for studio equipment.
2 . 05 Grantee shall provide and install all necessary equip-
ment to activate joint playback capability no later than
-4-
April 1 , 1986 in a manner acceptable to SCAC and the City of
Shakopee.
2. 06 Grantee shall provide SCAC , or its designee, the dollar
amount equal to twenty-five cents ($0. 25 ) per_ subscriber to the
System per month commencing April 1 , 1986 . This financial sup-
port shall be increased by three percent (30 ) per year and shall
be paid to SCAC or its designee on September 15th of each year
for subscriber fees that are collected between the preceeding
April 1st through August 31st and April 15th of each year for
subscriber fees collected the preceeding September lst through
March 31st. Grantee shall be entitled to assess a subscriber fee
to fund this commitment. In the event a subscriber fee is
assessed, the City of Shakopee shall approve all language related
to such assessment on subscriber bills prior to the implemen-
tation of the assessment.
2 . 07 Grantee shall be responsible for keeping the public
access studio and all equipment set forth in Attachment A insured
against loss for their replacement value. All such insurance
shall be approved in advance by SCAC and the City of Shakopee.
Grantee shall furnish to the City of Shakopee and SCAC cer-
tificates evidencing such coverage to be in effect upon the
effective date of this Agreement and shall provide a copy of any
policies required by this Section when such policy becomes
available . In addition, Grantee shall maintain liability
insurance, including broadcasters liability insurance, as
-5-
required under Section 9. 09 of the Franchise and shall name the
City of Shakopee and SCAC and SCAC ' s agents or assigns of any of
SCAC ' s responsibilities under this Agreement as additional
insureds on all such liability policies. Grantee shall furnish
certificates evidencing such coverage to be in effect upon the
effectiveness of this Agreement and shall provide a copy of any
such policies to the City of Shakopee and SCAC when such policy
becomes available .
SECTION III
TERM AND TERMINATION
3 .01 The term of this Agreement shall commence upon the exe-
cution of this Agreement by both parties and shall be until
April 1 , 1991 unless extended by mutual agreement of the parties
or terminated earlier as provided for herein.
3 . 02 Both Parties hereby agree that the City of
Shakopee may terminate this Agreement, effective at any time, by
giving the each party at least thirty (30 ) days prior writ-
ten notice.
SECTION IV
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
4 .01 This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall innure to
the benefit of the parties hereto, their respective successors
and assigns.
4 . 02 This Agreement, and execution hereof, is subserviant to
all obligations of the Franchise to the extent inconsistent or
-6-
c.
contradictory to the operation of the Franchise. The City of
Shakopee shall construe this Agreement, on all matters in order
to coordinate its operations with the obligations set forth in
the Franchise.
This Agreement is accepted and we agree to be bound by all
its terms and conditions.
DATED: SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY ACCESS CORPORATION
By
Its
NOTARY
DATE: ZYLSTRA-UNITED CABLE TELEVISION COMPANY
By
Its
NOTARY
-7-
J
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer
SUBJECT: FOUrth Avenue Reconstruction lublic Hearing
Resor 1 Ut i on No. 22533
DATE: March 14, 198E
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND:
Council action is necessary accepting the feasibility study
for the reconstruct ion of FaLtrth Avenue from Fillmore Street
to Scott Street and establishing the t irne for the public hearing
on same. Resol ut ion No. 25373 provides for that action.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No. 22533.
REDUESTED ACTION:
Move f or the adoption of Resolution No. 2533, A Resolution Re-
ceiving a Report and Calling a Hearing on Improvement of Fourth
Avenue from Fillmore Street to Scott Street, Project No. 1986-3.
KA/pmp
MEM2533
RESOLUTION NO. 2533
A Resolution Receiving A Report
And Calling A Hearing On Improvement
Of Fourth Avenue Between Fillmore Street and Scott Street
Project No. 1986-3
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 2500, of the City Coun-
cil adopted January 7, 1986, a report has been prepared by Ken
Ashfeld, City Engineer, with reference to the improvements of
Fourth Avenue from Fillmore Street to Scott Street, and this
report was received by the Council on March 20, 1986.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1 . The Council will consider the improvement of Fourth
Avenue from Fillmore Strret to Scott Street, Project No. 1986-3
in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting
and benefitted property for all or a portion of the cost of
the improvements pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429
at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $368,365.25.
2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improve-
ments on the 8th day of April, 1986, at 7:00 P .M. , or thereafter,
in the Council Chambers of City Hall , at 129 East 1st Avenue
and the Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such
hearing and improvement as required by law.
3. The work of this project is hereby designated as part
of the 1986-3 Public Improvement Program.
Adopted in session of the City Council
of the City of Shakopee. Minnesota, held this day
of 19
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this day of
19
City Attorney
FEASIBILITY REPORT
IMPROVEMENT OF FOURTH AVENUE
BETWEEN FILLMORE STREET
- AND SCOTT-STREET
IN SECTION 1 , RANGE 23, TOWNSHIP 115
SCOTT COUNTY MINNESOTA
I hereby certify that this pian, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and
that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Date Registration No. 16186
MARCH 1986
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Description Page No.
Fesibility Report
Introduction 1
Background 1
Funding Sources 3
Conclusions and Recommendations 4
Roadway Map 5
Roadway Cost Estimates 6
Assessment Computations 7
Sanitary Sewer Map 8
Sanitary Sewer Cost Estimates 9
Storm Sewer Map 10
FEASIBILITY REPORT
IMPROVEMENT OF FOURTH AVENUE
BETWEEN FILLMORE STREET AND SCOTT STREET
IN THE ORIGINAL SHAKOPEE PLAT
IN SECTION 1 , RANGE 23 , TOWNSHIP 115
SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
INTRODUCTION
City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota ordered the
preparation of a Feasibility Report by Resolution No. 2500 on
January 7 , 1986 , for street improvement serving property in
the Original Shakopee Plat, between Fillmore and Scott Streets ,
on Fourth Avenue in Section 1 , Township 115 , Range 23 , Scott
County, Minnesota.
BACKGROUND
Fourth Avenue between Fillmore and Scott Streets is one of the
oldest streets in Shakopee. The existing street was constructed
in 1930 . Fourth Avenue from Fillmore to the East was reconstructed
in 1970 and Fourth Avenue from Scott to the West was reconstructed
in 1960 . Water and sanitary sewer mains were installed in about
1920 . Improvements to the street have since been limited to
some partial curb and gutter installations in the early to mid
1960 ' s and street patching and sealcoating. Due to the very
poor condition of this section of Fourth Avenue, it is included
in the City of Shakopee Capital Improvement Program with a target
date of 1986 for reconstruction.
ROADWAY
That part of Fourth Avenue from Scott Street to Fuller Street
is not classified a collector street but it does front and serve
the Scott County - St. Francis Regional Medical Center parking
lot and the Medical Center as well.
That part of Fourth Avenue from Fillmore Street to Fuller Street
is classified a collector street. The function of a collector
street is to feed neighborhood traffic onto arterial roadways.
The Engineering Department has collected traffic counts that
illustrates the fact that Fourth Avenue is functioning as a
collector street.
1
Counter Location on 4th Avenue Traffic Count in ADT*
Apgar - Scott 628
Holmes - Fuller 1 , 297
Lewis - Holmes 2 , 308
Fillmore - Spencer 3 , 604
*ADT - Average Daily Traffic
A street constructed in 1930 cannot be expected to carry traffic
loads this large without heavy maintenance. This report proposes
to completely reconstruct Fourth Avenue from Fillmore to Scott
Street according to the City of Shakopee Design Criteria. Recon-
struction would include a 9 ton fourty-four foot wide street
with B618 curb & gutter and new sidewalk on both sides of Fourth
Avenue. After reconstruction it is expected that traffic counts
will increase, thereby reducing traffic on adjacent residential
non-collector streets.
SANITARY SEWER
The existing sanitary sewer on Fourth Avenue, constructed in
about 1920 , is an 8" diameter sewer main. It is a clay sewer--
pipe that has been televised by the Public Works Department.
Televised inspection of the pipe has shown that it is in poor
condition. Due to its condition, the main has to be rodded
at least twice each year to prevent sewer backups. The Public
Works Department recommends replacement of the sewer. A number
of the manholes in the proposed project area have been reconstructed
in the past few years.
It is the recommendation of this report that all sanitary sewer
pipe in the project area be reconstructed in conjunction with
the street improvements. Following past procedures used on
the Holmes Street and Fifth Avenue projects, those sanitary
services found to need replacement would be replaced as well.
Those manholes that have not been reconstructed would be replaced.
2
Storm Sewer
It is anticipated that the Holmes Street Storm Sewer Laterals
Project will be under construction early in 1986 . A part of
that project will serve that part of Fourth Avenue being proposed
for reconstruction. Reconstruction of Fourth Avenue in 1986
will thereby minimize restoration costs otherwise expended for
the Storm Sewer Laterals Project on Fourth Avenue. Restoration
costs for Fourth Avenue are estimated to be about $15 ,000 . 00
Watermain
The watermain in Fourth Avenue was constructed in about 1915 .
From Fillmore to Lewis Street it is 6" diameter pipe and from
Lewis to Scott Street it is 8" diameter pipe. The watermain
E in Fourth Avenue has been found to have less than 7 . 5 feet of
cover in various locations. Reconstruction of the street will
reduce cover on the watermain through most of the proposed project
area. Due to reduced cover of the watermain as a result of
street reconstruction and the age of the watermain, it is the
recommendation of this report that all of the watermain on Fourth
Avenue from Fillmore Street to Scott Street be replaced as a
part of the reconstruction project. A cost estimate for watermain
reconstruction will be provided to City Council following dis-
cussions with the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission of the
scope of watermain work to be done.
FUNDING SOURCES
ROADWAY
City Council Resolution No. 2278, "A Resolution Establishing
the Policy for Funding the Rehabilitation of Streets in the
City of Shakopee, " establishes the funding mechanism to be used
to reconstruct Fourth Avenue. This policy provides for 25%
assessments to adjacent property owners, and a City-wide ad
valorem levy equalling 75% of the project cost.
That part of Fourth Avenue from Fillmore Street to Fuller Street
is a part of Shakopee ' s County, State Aid System and thereby
qualifies for State-Aid Funding. This report proposes to use
State-Aid Funds to reduce the amount of City-wide ad valorem
levy cost.
Assessments , anticipated County, State-Aid and ad valorem costs
are as shown in the appendix.
3
SANITARY SEWER
Reconstruction of the sanitary sewer in Fourth Avenue is recommended
in order to protect the proposed investment in a reconstucted
Fourth Avenue. Funding for this element of the project would
be from the Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund.
Sanitary sewer services found in poor condition would be replaced
with costs assessed to the property owner.
Sanitary sewer costs are shown in the appendix.
STORM SEWER
Storm sewer laterals benefitting the project area will be installed
and funded by the Holmes Street Storm Sewer Laterals Project.
Intersection catch basins and leads would be installed as a
part of this project and are expected to be funded by State
Aid in the area between Fillmore and Fuller Streets.
' This report recommends funding Fourth Avenue storm sewer costs
from the Storm Sewer Utility Fund and using State-Aid participation
in storm sewer costs to further reduce the total ad valorem
levy.
WATERMAIN
Watermain reconstruction is uncertain in scope at this time.
Funding sources would be subject to negotiation with the Shakopee
Public Utilities Commission.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Fourth Avenue (Fillmore to Scott Street) is worn out. The sanitary
sewer in Fourth Avenue needs extraordinary maintenance to keep
operational. This report recommends reconstruction of the sanitary
sewer, complete reconstruction of the street, including sidewalk,
curb & gutter, and surfacing.
Property owners would be assessed for 25% of street reconstruction
costs. The remaining 75% would be reduced by County, State-Aid
participation with remaining costs funded by ad valorem levy.
4
l
�wK94
•�t it I ` S '!
Eil-
JIMOVAI<Y r-7 t1 i jai 151 -
N/vM
—rte Q
N i
W � �•M� 111'i! +'
2 Q .
Yeo
---------------------
------
-' l I - .a I I fw
,'i '• M15
!-
/ ��r'
loser
O
V
¢
LLI
a _
0.0
pill JS
s •i 6
s s�o• Il
.iy
-J
ROADWAY
!-- I --------------I--TOTAL I -I COUNTY STATE! ! UNIT i ----�I COUNTY STATE AID I
IITEMI DESCRIPTION I QUANTITY IUNITIAID GMNTITYILI IT! PRICE I TOTAL I PARTICIPATION I
1 ! _ __ I _ _ f 1 __ ! __! I__ _ __ 1 _ __I
1 1. l Clearing-------�--! 13.02 IEa. 1 - 6.0et IEa. 1$200.00 1 $2,M.00 1_----$i,600.00 1
1 2. !Grubbing 1 14.00 IEa. 1 9.00 !Ea. 1$100.00 1 $1,4@0.00 1 $900.00 1
I 1 I I I ! ! I I !
1 3. !Remove Pipe Culvert 1 1130.00 IL.F.! 810.00 IL.F.! $5.00 ! $5,650.00 I $41050.00 I
I I I ! I I I ! I !
1 4. (Remove Catch basin 1 15.00 lEa. 1 11.00 IEa. 1$100.00 1 $1,500.00 1 $1,100.00 I
I I I I I I ! I I I
1 5. IRemove Manhole I 2.00 IEa. 1 1.00 IEa. 1$400.00 1 $800.00 ! $400.00 1
! I ! I ! I I I ! I
16. IRemove Curb 9 Gutter 1 4350.00 IL.F.1 2917.00 IL.F. I $1.50 1 $6,525.00 1 $4,375.50 1
1 7. (Remove Sidewalk ! 11550.00 IS.F.I 1132M.Oe IS.F. I $0.25 1 $41387.50 1 $3,386.25 1
I { I I I I ! I I I
! 8. !Remove Concrete Driveway 1 3240.00 IS.F.1 720.00 IS.F. 1 $0.45 1 $1,458.00 1 $324.00 1
1 I I I f 1 I 1 I
19. I Remove Pavement 1 15438.00 1 S.Y.1 110%.80 I S.Y. ! $0.50 1 $71719.00 1 $5,54-0.00 1
110. 1Common Excavation 1 13664.08 IC.Y.1 11643.00 IC.Y.I $2.25 I $30,744.00 1 $261196.75 1
! I I I I I I I I I
111. IA,aregate Base CI-5 1 6679.00 ITon 1 4798.00 !Ton 1 $6.50 1 $431413.50 1 $311187.00 1
I ! I ! I I I I I f
112. 12331 Base Course I 1658.00 ITon 1 1191.00 ITon 1 $22.00 1 $36,476.00 1 $26,202.00 I
_ I I I I I I I I 1 1
113. 12341 Wear Course ! 1658.00 ITon 1 1191.00 ITon 1 $24.00 1 $39,792.00 1 $28,584.00 1
I ! I ! I I 1 I I I
114. 12341 Bituc;inous Patching 1 77.00 ITon 1 55.00 ITon 1 $45.00 1 $3,465.00 1 $2,475.00 1
115. 14° Concrete Sidewalk 1 24740.00 1S.F. 1 0.00 IS.F.1 $1.50 1 $37,110.00 1 $0.00 1
116. 16° Concrete Driveway 1 2460.00 !S.F. 1 910.00 IS.F.1 $1.90 1 $4,674.00 1 $1,729.00 1
117. 18" Concrete Driveway I 2412.80 IS.F.1 207.02 IS.F.1 $2.50 1 $6,030.00 ! $517.50 1
I ! I ! ! I I I I I
118. IB618 Curb t Gutter 1 5693.00 IL.F. 1 2060.00 IL.F. I $6.00 1 $34,158.00 1 $12,360.00 1
E
SUBTOTALS $267,902.00 $150,852.00
10% CONSTRLCTDN
CONTINGENCIES $26,790.20 $15,085.20
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $294,692.20 $165,937.20
2:% TECHNICAL I
ADMIN. SERVICES $73,673.05 $41,484.30
TOTAL COST $368,365.25 $207,421.50
6
STREET RECONSTRUCTION
ASSESSMENT COMPUTATIONS
Assessment = Total Assessable Cost x 25% =
Total Front Footage
Adjusted Assessment per front foot
Assessment = $368 ,365. 25 = $91 . 13 x 250 =
4 , 042
$22 .78 per front foot
TYPICAL LOT = $22 .78 x 60 = $1, 366 . 80
CITY POLICY COMPUTATIONS
TOTAL PROJECT COST $368 ,365. 25
LESS ASSESSMENT ( CITY POLICY) $ 92 , 076 .76
CITY MATCHING COST $276 ,288. 49
LESS COUNTY STATE-AID $207 , 421. 50
AD VALOREM LEVY AMOUNT $ 68 , 866 . 99
ANNUAL AD VALOREM LEVY $ 11 , 800. 00
( 10 YEARS @ 10%)
VALUE OF ANNUAL AD VALOREM LEVY 0. 15 MIL
r
7
LJJ
f" o
1 S rw
All
1 LLJJ ;x.
LZz=
- 1 UPJ !�� '' �� i i .• ,
w 3• � � ' i
Now
--------------------
('
\ f-_- .�'� - �,, IL3 N/w�z .i til 15 •� I 3
-:t� '�} 7 '11 �• ( `� I ��^yy X111 f N/OM
•f •'W•: 1 .� •t'6 1 S �
� I
Y
. W i
ZQ • �v� • 1151 I XY•
• —
e � rYv�e
--------------
¢ �'Inlry _' 1 •_
7
�'• sco.. �cow.. •.' �.1 i � `
Cu•[c cow. • yy,1
C -
i
SANITARY SEWER
ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL
1. 4" EH Cast Iron Pipe 200 L.F. $ 20.00 $ 4,000.00
2. 6" EH Cast Iron Pipe 100 L.F. $ 21.00 $ 2,100.00
3. 4" Wye 43 Ea. $ 60.00 $ 2,580.00
4. 6" Wye 5 Ea. $ 70.00 $ 350.00
5. Conn. to Exist SVS. 48 Ea. $ 100.00 $ 4,800.00
6. 8" Sanitary Sewer 0-8 1,075 L.F. $ 17.00 $18,275. 0
7. 8" Sanitary Sewer 8-10 1,440 L.F. $ 19.00 $27,360.00
8. 8" Sanitary Sewer 10-12 25 L.F. $ 21.00 $ 525.00
9. Std. 4' Diameter Manhole 4 Ea . $1,300.00 $ 5,200.00
10. Additional Manhole Depth 2 L.F. $ 100.00 $ 200.00
11. Adj . Manhole Cast 6 Ea. $ 200.00 $ 1,200.00
SUBTOTAL $66,590.00
10% CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY $ 6,659.00
.- TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $73,249.00
25% TECHNICAL &
ADMIN. SERVICES $18,312.25
TOTAL COST $91,561.25
NOTE: Estimated sanitary sewer service replacement cost to property owners
is (4") $800.00 (6") $840.00. There would be no restoration costs
involved if done in conjunction with this project.
9
�\ � w .� ion •
1- R ! I �•
1 - -- 3• I ! •z o� � 1
try,;',► — r: ', � � � _ ,�
< s T s S, L.r-
E
WOO j l
\ ,•!. �• z !1 / L3 errw < ' .�.JJ ,I !
•�ess�f.'�••� 4 1 1 �� 1
IL
:;0'
_ O S �• I �1 ' S 43
--- Z�z ' --•e.
z i+b
14.
s I � frlr
s 4 � C1R11
-O
r aRt
�/� � p1��. —�' � � Vii,� .�, •, •; j �i. I•.
------------ ----- A I
_ d
1 41
1101 u
s 1 �•� `
10
CITY OF SHAKOPEE w
INCORPORATED 1870
129 EAST FIRST AVENUE, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379.1376 (612) 445-3650
:s
March 13 , 1986
Mr. John K. Anderson
City Administrator
129 E. First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Re: Resignation of Jeanne Andre
Dear John:
Today I was offered and agreed to accept the position of
HRA Coordinator/Administrative Assistant with the City of Golden
Valley. In keeping with the Shakopee policy on notice for department
heads, I informed Golden Valley I could start April 14, 1986 .
I therefore am submitting my resignation, effective April 13 ,
1986 to you and the City Council.
I have a warm place in my heart for Shakopee and many projects
I will try to bring to a reasonable completion before my departure.
In addition, the Golden Valley City Manager has agreed that
I can be available for special meetings which might be necessary
until my replacement is hired and a reasonable transition achieved.
I wish to thank you and the City Council for the opportunity
to work here. I 've learned a lot since starting here as Adminis-
trative Assistant/HRA Director and identify positively with
many of the projects on which I have worked. I also respect
the hard work of my co-workers and wish the Council and staff
well in the ongoing task of managing Shakopee through these
i rapid growth times.
Sincerely,
J_4� ez��
Jeanne Andre
Community Development Director
JA:tw
The Heart of Progress Valley
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
V)
Yu u
Y U U
W Q
6 i
0 to •
Q N
CL W
s ,
m
1
,4 • M d' co m co m m
c0 9 G m m
MM M M M
p si O N 'r 0
10 ao
117 N U7 P. ON
ZN NN N NN Q .O-1 M .Nr .y.- MM ST .4M - S .�.4— d —
C `0 M d0 1 1 1 1 1 t I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 1
t
• �0 .•.� �0 .+ N ? N kn P. .�M .4•- M•- N
O. N MMNNM ,r.4M
M cc O N e4 M M d Ot .4 M 1
Z p: 10 '0 M -w'o d I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 O O O O
f. N O O N N N O M M M M r1.�c3 cD O .N N .-1 Ow
M M M ^'1 M M N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N M N N N N N N N d
d d'dS adaS
O d �►d d S 1 ( I 1 t I 1 I 1 I �r^ 4.
O p o o p�•
0 0 0 0 0 0 00
¢ O 0 0 0 0 0 O
r
z 0
n+ r r�- • 1— N z
Uv 22� �"� Z tAyN tnN NN zz ¢ NtA tnN to
(n a •r"�¢ ` ""'� N W W W w W W W O O S' W W W W W
w JJJJJJJ 0_ C- ti J.JJJJ
CL CL a J Fr d f1, d a d i
ou. 0 aaao an a WW
F .4 c�`„" '"' a coo a aan. an. aa J.J 7 aaaaa
W. O 007 7 0 '� J.J J 7 » 77 7.7 W W O O» »
NN0 to fA (AN P1� W- y,NNNtA
1r W m m W W m N m m m r - :
r
fn u
v u
N YYY YT O • • • 2
W i.. JJ1JJ _ uO OOO
z u aan..aa !A .. uuuu
V U U
aaaao. Q z'zz z �.
1-!H `r O 0 C 0 0 0 0
V
O _ Ntny �y \\\ N 00000
W rl- r z O azzzz
= a J J J J J z z Z z w m a a a a d
uQaa .t ¢ c oioo u • • • • • • + z
5 J mYZ' CC c\c\ \ a zzzzLzz 7 U..IL U. L6.IA.
zzzZZ2Z ~' U'L"L I'LL
O O zz zzz W TSS G.000O
Uuu . i.»..... ...rw4w
a H wW ww W www Y FFFFFFF P-� °�
w UuUU U < F F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Y•WYXY
� Q 0000000 •aee m zzzzz
x 00000 v\iv\i\n i zzzzzzz z s.zzzz
CL 1...�f- w.r V- In fn fn O uu uu U u U
Qa ¢ aQQa Q4 u mmmmm
Q ' Qaa:aQ w aaa
i
IdM 7JN1170P-T cD c3 'ON .rN to�0
00 t0 c0 .•+ o co 9% LO LM
P.117N ¢ NN iff cOM MM .4•D M�0 .4�
O7 cl MND N U7 U1 m••� 4' • • •�'...
O O N N N O N +O • • • • • • + • • e
• • • • • • • G �.+� 17 In S.-1 O co m o In T M�O o N N M N cv M t
In N 1
o
r4 M 10 N T N M N J.-•N �0 M M d r+ .4 LnN '-1 VT
J d rl•-M O� .-I M O O N .4 Ln
F.. H N ":1 N N
O
a
Ww.nw •tlwww w `.p wID a In
w w'O
W O `O S co N co c0 m
2
D" T c0 wx Inm m O O m m m c0 \\ \ \ \ \\\
a W \\ \ \ \\ \ \\ \\ N t,t c•N N N N
N
O \ N n.N N 1 N
Y N N N N N N N '•'I^I ti.r r .-1
= w \ \\\\ \ \ M1'1MMMMM MM M
N H M M M M M M M M M M M O 0 0 0 0 0
¢ O
0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LL. 0
O
Y O
z y m o p o 0 0
u r �N 1f1 �0 i N N N N N N N i `0 `0 d, :yI N '.A tt7 to
U Y O i NcjNNMl i T i ac, n d • aM y
u i N N N N N y N i M M M M y O O i O O O O O O
i O C O O O i O i O O O O O C 0 0 0 � �� •,���
., .0 W O y .4.r ..1 • ...1 ..�.� .4.r.4 i .-+.4 ti P. rr tie+
"� x i �4 r .r..1 i w/ i �r f✓ Ir ti v ti Y P• 0 y O 0 0 0 O O
i M1 i 00 O'7 O 00 y 00
.4 O y 0,.:3 00 O i O Y 00 O O
ry
Q 1 i c� v v Y ' i
I I
w Q a. a # f * # * ; I i
Q N #� •' , it j # ,# - l • ..j # I
a L"10
m
1 ♦ , 1
M a d' T N
N N (�
MI O i
a a
• M M ti d w 1
Z .•�.� N to N
N N N N N N
O d d- M N N. N ry •1 N r.,y N ..�./.r.-•N ,•d
2 N In a �O' M M• N N a0
0 NNNN M
ri f •� ,I M'`� ,•y ;.r M
1•� _.. T T to1 I I I 1 I I
2. ; ti•,y. .r - .O.+.O.. r M• O :O O O.O O
,.r .� ,.+. �•V M ..r.r,.,.,y Z$
LO ul N NN NN N M N N N N +NNN NN N
U f 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 11 I 1 1 1 1 1 d
a N N - O OO' O O O ' O O M O O ;~
1 _. �O O O q O O '�
CL i n�
m
N = z rn N V1 W W W W a
W ►"„" W W W W L W W W W W W S
G - U �r•-• •w ;fr Ur wr.W 1.•
•+ , .N i Iti 1.•w S
W W i 16i. Jaa 1rai ' J __i J JJ JJJ JJ
LU i sx: t o: ad ao as " d e_a a. ao as
1- r-�• ! p i a dao :aa.a0.a i o
O t K 7 > 00 J ;7 »>O 1
N NN N W - N a , N NN D7 !N NNNN 1 .W a
U W w M i
' ceM
W W W .._...
U 2Z: O a Q NN W =1 DD =
W 4 4 O Y
•Z.r - W W w.W W W
J
U �3a373 N
5 U U a Q Q Q Q 1— U �„
• • • =ZS TS 'yN1
a as c aaa
ZZ Q ox
ze
N N N N N :O
La ZZ' J 00 NLOr d ' N Q UU U w de 49 W CDU' c9 C7 •
2 2 Z'2 Z U- j
Of K r K O:CC'- c 4d < i iJ =SS i2 Z Z Z Z .0 -
E 07 tfl' U UU: ! UU E {„1 1 F 1 V U • U I OCOGO a 1
U IQ 1 w
000 '> o InT V1 wV+ M OO MM 00 T.� 00 •T.ti r'DO NSD 00
O d d u� lf1 .rON 1+Tt► MM cc IT) OO FnM �M In I0 SAN ,�M OO
• • • • • • •
C NN 1cR M�QT MdCD NN 00 00 CDT M,•-I N1� MV\ Nd' co Co
In M m fn P- cc co rl.r N d d d J T T to 0 N P, T .r co O
M M - N N
O
a ' .
1
W
w .o w .o ID 10 lo 110
a m m co co co w �_n w In .a w •-D .11 w w Io w .o
O \\ \ \\ N.\. m m Q 1 co O m r D co r o rA co
Y N t\I N N N N N N \ \ \\ \ \\\\\ \
a ti �•,. �� �� N N N N .Ni N N crlN N N
M M
0 0 O O O O O q M M M M M M M M M M M
U. p O O O O O 00 0a Q p
O
Y ^J
H Z
V
U Y • O O a .f In tf1
U # m on i co m a m 2 # T # O # ,.., -- ,,,1 # O O O O O • J
W i O O a
In M M M M # M
O coO O # O O # O # N a r ti.� y Y .r .,,�.••.ti.• #
a w r V a V,.� a N a •V a .r ti.r V a ..,E ..1.ti.ti.q i ♦^
T A # ti A ti # A N • n a ti i A m c2 a /r � ti D
N # O O • O O O a O O # p # O # O q fj O i 0 0 0 O q # O
N N (n N {
C Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1
W U U U U U U 3
I i� 1 1 1 1 ! 1 I
C7 Vf •. + + r •• +. +. i. • {
at N
CL W
N O
1 a ,
M o ,
o xt o
f a '
2 r A N ...1 N_ e-1 N .-+N N.�. .a .O V7.p'O e�.�.- .r •
r• M M M7 M ('7 M M v7. �D M' M r.•.�w O Q' a J S
11 I I 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 I I I I M O i l t l
•. '- t0 O � N.� N.� O.ti N •.(M N O V1 P
Z .!.r f- O 41'1 In N tf1 `
►� O Q, N :O O' N N - O O" O N. N
Z. p. nq. M M7 r. N M M
N N N N N NN M h M M M7 I+1 M Mt
O �! - J P .t' a O C't► O'S C CCJ <' 4dJ 4
U 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 i i i 11 I 1 1 I I 1
Q 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O p N N N N Lr)
Z
O V7
r•. .] Fes. z H ,
F�2u LJ
2
CA U,M Q aa vf' 7 Q' Uf to �-•Q 4 z K K 6^ K ce w w
W W•.• S W U.S W W Q£ S W W W W W W W W
Hv 2 U)N 0:(A V) 0W (A
.-1 O. a ;W - J z a J J IL a
z ax .. tL o.. as (� .. ' as t 'aaatLLL
W a O -! '.Q a. H7 aa. Om m 0000 0000 1
/.. O � { O '.K O OO » -I tai 0 K� 0! 2' tL' K fr(Y {
I-t NIL W H 0 £L.J. 00. W W! W aaCL.aaLaaa
W
F-
tn1
00000 000 1
o � 1-r.r.f- tit-rr-
W 1 Y)e. YYd ZK n: 5KCCie .52
UU. 22. 0 .SS S.SS SSS
a >> Q a s u u u u u u u u
U y 2 - 1..r. O W W W W W W W W ,
W V7 • f 2 00000000 '
►- 37a 00- L.. 222222.2 2
U aY- 5 5 W Y �. Q 6 0 0 U U N O O o 0 0 0 0 O
O Ot7. U. ZS
0 _... Q :W N N (n •. N
d•d d d d d
W Q Q W w tL' (L'. 2 Z Z Z- W
£S -2 W W OO : W W Z tAo y'NN NN (n
J W S S S f, 2 Z. S N U1 N.N to N N N •.
V N �2>: K. - d d. w cr z Z. W '.4 4 Q:4 Q a a Q ,
QQ J .4 t+ 00 4Q W W - O Y tr� d' a' YCL fY 1
! WW { W !W - W OO. =S. __ Y YYYYYY-YY
:
41 A
O O •00 IPI N r1 0 '0 Lr)(n J O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O f>J �D f17 d (T T N O Il'! tM Z+ Ill tt7O NU7 O7OlA O OOO
• • • ♦ • • • • • 1 • ♦ • • • • ♦ • • f f • f
IllN
I. p747 co co M7M Tr (IO IO 117 aNA0 DIM N1O r1 N to N d CO
. �4 UY t!1 IP1 N N M Ln rl M IPI f M M 4 U7 tn1 d N N N w
LM UI to LO
Z
O
g
4
IaJ
w w w www wwwww
IJ `DO '.0 w w `D w w w
cc co 00 2 co In a) m co m c0 O O O m W O CA
O \\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \ \\ n I N N
+L N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
= W \\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \ \\\ \\\\ \
M1 ri1 M M M M M N7 M7 M M M rn N1 M Pn
Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Pm O O O p
U- 0
O
sO
u
U Y i P.A • y' + M r to r N 117 a b'o- + "('� + f• r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _
U + C J + N i A # A r S In i O O • .N.•( + �O + h ti A A A A A F.
ID W • �. + ,.+ + .y + .-( i .d•-t + NN + NN • N +ffj
NN NN N NNry
tT U Y A ti + • A i A • A A + A + A A + A + A A 1�.n C O O
C'-3 • o • o + o o + o c . o o + o + 0 m 0 0 0
N to to N y N in I
.
U U U U. i
WLD
� r
(, to , # # i # t. 1
a 0 s
s
co
1
1 o T) IA M
M M NNN 1 Om
co co tb m C •P O • M 0 - 1
• .� NN N r.r M MM
2 N In LF)In Mr N - cDm .tiN N NN 4.NA.ti NMrNN
!• 1' .t ..w.� .a ...1 d' .-1 .-/M M S 10 1D- M M- V'r .� M M'M S J 10
1 1 1 1 1 11 1 I l l l t l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '
s .y N - NMC r r : .� .r N.-�r r.ti N .� A N.-•r.b 10.4 I
O U'1 M LL'1NUl { M.� M mca.-+N NrN NN- 4. P- NMrNM i
Z in i r .rr.r ra 10 r.�MM 'r .`4MMM 4. 7'\
H O .N 000 .00 -.1, 0000000 0.1 _. ONNN N:NNNN
2 r i M co m m 1 to Ul M !�R/.ti-ti a+ H r.•1. • N M M M nM n M-M
7 M t N M M M M M N M M M M M M M N Ll N N N N N N N N N
O 0 I d Cr r Q' Co- -W 4.d •.v'a O ? 4. S :r-r a d a'C 4. P.4.
U 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
U N
Q 1D O 0 0 0 O O O o O O O O O o 0 0 M O O O 0 0 0 0 0 {
t i
V
CL
l M
o zazzZZZZ
CL a. 1.1 , NyN NNytA
Q W W W WW W W to N4QQQQQ dd
W W i 2 I .edea S i wrr w►r tr rr W J. ! W SSSSSSSS
� tY1 i i .i •. 1-Y- F�M�F..1.. r Q' i rr -
i (A N V1i F�r tL .r r w r F+Fr►y , J F. J a.CL O. CL O_IL d.a-
z Z �`+ JJJJJJJ CL D_ro-.•r.•..rrra rdr
W O i i0 0Z2 I :►+n+ 0.6..
it 1 'O 1 WLI W 1 !C tY 1 t0 I M�F�1-�� �1-� � C' ! m 0 0 a O0 as d 1
tr D_ 'W a' cra' Cl. CL 'W _! mmmm» m NU ; tAWW W W.WW W W
W - K _..
cc
2 .. :. .. .
be
U W O
K • •-
2 C W O U U
U Z S lr_ - 7 Z Vf tAHtANyN N N
O ti f.H 0000000 ►w�+ Y- -H �-�t-� �1-0
O S •r 22 W u UUUU V
O h M Y N N N N N 0 0 Q Q Q Q.6 Q ¢Q Q Q.Q
a b O ft Of i d Q % 4.l d .9 -C JJ tL IL.S a. tL.d d 1.M
W W .d2 J L9 LD LD L900 L^.- O0 �
3. Uf 0Vf fA � W W W W W W W KCY K2'K cc m:K W =Inc
N O rrr iYY . .V Z22ZZZ'Z OO . 000000000
22 1 2 Z'22Z2 22 t H h- ! F Fir-1•.1••H► �•Fa
C Q � � O M H O !•�Iti rn H `.1�•V ti � C p C Q Q O D O L✓ p
Y J JJJ JJ ! -J SS22.2SS. SS SS-SSSSSS:2.
00 V htb �ptT O0o MM ,r 1fld Cr 1DM .+ 1D C3 Q0--r wOt%m 1, 0N
M Q1 it Y' 0 d' .-1 OOO NN V9N� 2 m >J' tf'f 1L+ MOM O O'1D
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • e • • • • •
NN AOOM 4- IA D14- .-1 .ti Nf` 0to NN a. NON mN MIn ul•d' N
d N U7 to d .1 M m Mr-e-1 1D 1D re 4. O LO to 0 a CO I!7 M N r1 rl'- M.-1 C
H 1D W N N'r N cv .a.r 0• o CO N r N C-1l N M
2
O
Y
I1
'aJ 1D 1D 1D 10 W tD w '.a 1D tD 1D 1D I 'a`O tD 1D 1D-C W 1D
a m m m m m m on m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m cc
Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
d .ti .ti ...r .r .ti.r r-1 ....N.-�.r .r .r ..y .y .r r .�.� .�.•r ti.- .ti.r
S W \ \ \\\ \\ \ \\\\\\ \ \\ \ \\\\\\ \ \
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
Q O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O
U- M
O
Y O
1- 2
r•
M M # 1D i I. f` # 14 1D.G 10 1D 1D.p 1D 1D
U A # M # a, ON D1 # O O i O i M M M ?n # t o a d- a P 41 ma y'
1D W N i N r N N N a M M # M # M M M M M M M a M M # M M M M M M M M M
U N i (\ i 1►A A i A A a A a ti A A r 0 r. i ti ti i A^ti ti I
H O # ^> i O O O i O O a O r 00000 O O a O O # 00a m 0 0 0 ®'�.I O 0
N
U U
U4. .
E
m
1 ..
N O
1 d d
M Q.
o m p N N
• ` Ir s
r
N .r gyp. O .•N M 'n 1� 01yNM1l� .-+ NTM 4llM
r S "� M O r.-♦.r .ti
—7
I I ! 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 17 M r• �' M '+�
• .r .r .r- O .�.r..t .♦r N .-1.ti.�.- r ..r.. i 1 1 I I
O N M .+.� M 14.r
Z d M ?n O 1tiNMIn t�� .rNMt,, 1.1Nm 011 r M rN
1 1 1 O rr..�..rr� M MMM d S1�N NM
O O O cp NAj H N.y•� H .y rl� r 1.♦Nr T �
Z r ln. .r. N O r1 O O
N N N N N N N N NNN N N ..�7; 0♦ .-r M M
O N M M D` M M M M M M M MMM M M M N U 7 v
d' J d d dd ddddd�tddd�} N N N
U ( 1 I 1 d a s el•. d d
4 O O O m oOO OOpO o o^Joor OO �'1 O.
0 0
Z V)
V
v
a o a ►.,_:
> z wwwwwwwwwwwwww l _ z `
W. W ad' W Q Z2ZZZZ27Z-ZZT_ Z2 y
0 rr U 000000000^..] 0000 WJ W QQ
y.
—,.I u S S
lL0_ddd0_
CL M (iC. 0_ 0. d
J Q
= 1 Z � W W W W IJ W IJ Www W w w W d r .0 ' W O u,
W - a. - O' - _ .J J J J J J JJ JJJJJJ C.d y UL 00.
~ 0 a. �-a. W W W 1..J W W W W W W W W W w W O Q r p
y U = y an d
F
Y m W: , U u
F- y w r
u tr y y y f•. • Q.y.
1' J UU H V UU
U m J >> C ¢ W W.
0!
c):
Q q O J W W W..
O L) DL u - CC LL X
Q as -cc
_ as
J J J J J J J J J J J J..1 J -WW �O J JJ
W W N to J J -jr J J J J J J J J J J J W W
W W
K . lit W w w lil W W W W w W W U U
1 y W1 03. .m m m.m m o m m m LM m on �►r rr O W W
_: _ .... O =� 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3�3 3 3 3 3 U-U- .W W Li CL. )
�; zzzzzzzrzzzzaz oo a a
Ly
do r • t Y t' Y t
O O M M m m d N d 0 d N m 1-1 d p N M A M ;(1 O I!l O O o o d LM O`
LM Oo NN 014 0` x m d n 0\ .O MT T �D ^JO m OO Ln LO ANO
44 r1: N N OO M1\ 4 OO1�dN C;1; .ter Mm .*
It S ID O .r d d S M— M OMMm1-f N`D dN n 1�♦- OO CD IS O
z T O O ID
O r 1♦
S
a
W
`D W W '.D �D ID `0 `D b �p lD tiD �D
a x m x m mxmmxmmmmmxxm �r com m m cc
o \ \ \ \ \\\\ \\\ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
G
N N N N NNNN NNNNNNCJN N N N N N N N N
r r .y
= W \ \ \ \ \\\\ \\\ \\ \\\ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \
N ~ M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
Q p o p 0 00000000000000 C3 o 0 00
LL. o
o
� o
1-
U `1 f• m T Y T Y A A !►A A P. Ir A Ir A A i 111 lA • O # m i D, T i
u d d .t Y M Y m'1^ cc 10 x x m 2l m 'r co i r r t M Y M Y L'7 ''JI Y
�D w M M M i M Y MM M M MMM MMM M M NM Y S.1• r S Y d Y Sd i
m = •• r ..+ Y r r.r r .-• a .r.�.. r r.-t.r Y .y r Y r t w1 r r •
T U 1. •. �. Y 1� r '.�r► � � tir` ti� r+ � ti�ti t f.1• r n. ♦ !� t f•� •
"� O p Y O i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y 0 0 r O t O r 0 0 0
N N
Y Y U U U
w a
0. w.
m
NLn
.I a,
0. LO i J.
M M t71.
C
• d -
N
M M N N +�M-M d y'v < n7 m +N N N
2. N J O' .-• .+ .r ..y N d `?S .�P M ri.-1 r e� .a.•
"'• S d 11 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
1 I 1 1 ,.r .d .T M1 �D N O m .-•N M N M .-•+1m N
.r ri H P o.
• ~ N ...1 n M M N.r N I r M M d d.T d m '+
p Na m. .•.. d MJ' .�P M .•r .-!r.� .+r M
I I t 1 1 1 1 I 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1
N O N N� lT Q;O D�Q�O O O O 0 0 0 O O•
HN e✓.•r N M M N wN,to eti 1A IIT M1 M1 P'/w M1 A lej.
z- ^'•'� r.f In wl M M N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M M N:
O N N N N
O C d P d d d d d
(„) I, 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1'
V. ..1 N 1•i rl rl ri �I cn.d P' c
r w��
Q O O
0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 .+.M r.`I 0 0 0 0 0
Z W W
O W W i
0. zz r-►- mm am
rr h� •+..t zZ c/)
JJ •r z5a. zz0.n. i to 0(n o too Z
U ' N 'n Q O O O ' W W W W w W ••
y VT(A Q W W ! -LL.LL. W Z L H e3 ea N M ea Id N nr tN►�•e H 4
W W W = w W y r �. r r t v•,..�.•-F-w.. Z
in •-•!-+
JJ - W J ! .JJ .J55: J-j J
_j H
X! 0.0 f• 5 IL LL. aQ 5wr►o Y2ZE = 2z JJ JJ c7
.L9 V 1 -570 Or•.r00•.rH I tr er:tiwrrw t0
Y K I -w W I 7 0 O' C Y Y C K m Y
r.r y(n W N ILS JJ ! (n W W 50.4 55.0.0. ; 77770:7 _.IIr
i
0 W W Z Z 2 z 2 z 2 -
W .p0 QRQ QQ -C -C toNycilNN
Y - Y Y m m m m m CO m w W W W W W
0 0 U U U U U U
• O O
U
Y ZZ UU 777 7777 —�.•-..r.- -
1 H +• NN W W C] mmm ???»
W O p
X CD F-!•-' KK YYY 7777777 Yd' Y� ��
w W I I w ? ' 000 NUIy rA cnyN w W W W W W
0.': Z • •
U.U-LL. NyNNNhw C3
.
O NN TUU :f-1- W WW Nrn(n (n cn NN W W W W WW
U U W W w Q W W W W W W W W W W lad W i
0. 0.0. axz = =sem a20.aa-a ;
a 00 Y JJ .F-l- 000 SSS 2222 000 000 U
YYY 1'�F-ti •"•-t"'� YY YYYY
z 2 L5 w ;:- 00 -F-l-Y Y .00
a a a 7 0 7 0 0 7 7 ! a a a a a a
WWr p -.Q4 -UU .522 0000000 r SSSS SS ! n-
0.^ U U `Vf y w (n N rA 0 0 0 N(A W � y N y NUJ In . Vf
!
41 41
O0Q 00 00 000 00 O J tm NJ MOO N NO%D M 000 0000 O
027m
LO Ln „q.'t cU7"ft 000 rIN t70N D 0000000 O
• • • • • • • • • •
LO N t17MM �D SDN 000 and Ntn mQ�ODIT �DN1f7 Nm N NNNm U7
.p N N IDS.-t r••%D N N N.-t 10 tL• .r IIT tIT M M M N N N N N.-1 N
N
z
7
O
Q
W �D v7 ID �D ID 'D'D �a ID 10 W l �a�D 'D W w�D STI V tD
a m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m 2` m
C2
\ \ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \\\\ \\\ \\\\ \\ \
Y N N N N N N N c V N N N N N N N N c V N N N N N N N N
•L .-�.w .r .r.r .r .•�..1 er.y.r ti .••N r .�!.-�.+r• ...1.r .1
= W \\ \ \ \\ \\ \\\ \\\ \\\\ \\\\\\ r
(n M M M M ✓I M M M M M M M M M M M M M - M M M M M M
Q o 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
U- O
O
r. O
H 2
U Y r.r + + m + OO + UT In r NNN + mmmmmmm ccs 0, mON a n
U d�D i �L+ a 'D T i cr, a 000 + 000 0000 OOQ O O0 a .+
1D W a d + a + d 0 UT U7 a v1 IIT�n UT to UT 177 In Ln U) N!n a III
# .r r.-e # r.�.. .�r.+� .r.••r r r.� a ..
T U M1 A + M1 • A • A M1 i M1 M1
It A M1 M1 • M1 M1 M1 M1 A AIA A M1 n M1 A A a M1
ad 0 0 # O • O # 0 0 a O O i 0 0 0 4 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y O
y Y Y Y
U U U U
LD N r r r
Q N
a W
Y.
co
1 •
N O
N •, w
1 a m
M M
O 3i N
O
0�
2`m.-! NtnNN,.4N NNN0000 NMN .� (T .+
MA
-P. a'
i-r � e.yM MMaT�.n O `Dw wo OOO M .ti.• r1MM S .•i..1 ..IM M
MdM .r M . d..
I l l l l l t l l t l l l l l l I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I
• N.`+.1 r+t`.+N N�D m O O O O M .� N d.-• N ti c l Lo N W) C\1.+ ON N d ••,
O N NEIN NN NO 000 .•1 '-0m m �N N mm tn�-1�N W) C\1 0�
Z r.•�M M M d d D�o ID w w o 0 0 0 M .•• .r M M S.•r.•1 ••••M M M M S M .•• M F 4'"
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I l l l l l l t 1 I 1
F.• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 o•�N N N O 0 0 I.0 0 0 0 0 .0 I.0 0 0 I. 0 I. O N O•
f•.'� A f�!�h 1�A I►M M M M '+ M M M M M M f�•� �..1 rr wa H�+M.M .•d M N"
M M M M M M M M M M M M m m m m M N N N N ry N M M N N N N N N N N N .N N'. -�
a d'S It a a a a a a a a d d d d r d'
U r
tP
0 0.D-CD 0— .r .w.N0 0 M. 0 M- O O 0•3 N 0 0 0..+.3 M
Q 0 O O O O O m m(ZS m O 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 O O O O .•+ - O 'P- O
tA
[J
a. Uto00
r• W cc m Y
tY 2 W W W
U N V) Z -0- I"' Z Z Z 2•Z Z Z Z Z '"'
In w W W W W W W W W'W W O W W W K `+•+ �"•�+r �+ N N 0 V} to Nlr&M to a N'
W rr w U S x S W Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q W W W W W W QW W S W
p HHh- 1.-F-r F.1•. F MN /. N S S Z.=S Z S ��••�1-+ rr+ -j err rr ►'�'
►•�•••►rwlr w►r�r•r• r•.I o-+K w tY a! JJJJJJ J J �a J:
2' JJJJJJJJJJJJ W W4i W IL CD0 C7 C9 CDC o0 aa. aa ft- a
w ►,.+........,.+...... ....., .�.�r- o ooc00000 as aan.aoa a M a
H H �• 1-1•-1•� F-f- i- F.1� 4 ¢ Q C K
�••� 0 0 ] 0 0 »0 0 » 0 3 3"3 3 a T In CJ m fD m m b - V)to to V7 V) W n] N VS.
W
cc
tn
wr
� aaaa 'Laaa
La
YW _ .» 707000 !L'
z: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O.
Y cD 0 0 0 0 CD 00 W W W W W W W W U
U O 1Z•----i rrN1••• to In N fn V7 V) In N
W W y
ZZZZZZ V)tn NVJ V)tnNN Q
¢ ¢QQ ¢ ¢Qa III UJ W W 4.1WUJ1il U o
wN L'W W W I,JW W W ZZ2'Z 2.... 2
p - U U U U U U U U U V)N to fn 0 V) N to W •W
2. Z O 0 m m » >m Z W 2:
lil 4 Oto 00000 In tT,9 .�`.
�. a• YYYYYYYY
U U U U U U U U.0 U U U U UU U W wcr a'21x a' cr JJJ"JJJJJ W •Y 2 I
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ` Q.Q ¢ <¢ Q Q Q W W W W W W W W I a
aaa as n. aaa a. a aaaa a 1- u-1- » » » » = _ Z'
V1 N to V)to V7 to V) 0 N :n 0 V7 0 N W to V1 V7.
1 1
dtT M ..••O In C3 m0In 000OM OO 00000 OOoO r•lP0 N V) m1` lT n- ID 10 MM O
IP 0� to M1170
A-`T h U1 CT OOd dN n'* T h 1: /PNM N % � -4. wlP10. N If71 m MM m
cc aM(710441D .a 10 d4d. QIP . - mInmwl.- MmM N O Nh MIP IP tr'I
W) CID
mw In In P.po S to..1a �D MM MN N- NIn M10 as .4 M .+ 14 1 T
i- M M �4 O N rti A.9 a .r m 'N N .+
Z
O
¢
yilj wwwwww w w w w w 10 'C2w � `D `Ow �Dww�Dww ww•O �D w .��Ow w cc m
CL m m m m x m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m x m m m m m \
C3 \\\ \\\\\ \ \\ \\\\ \ \ -11% \ \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
Y N N N N N N N CJ N'�: N N N N N N N
- - N N N N N N N N NN N N N N N N C, N N
¢ .-1 -r —..1 —r .-1 .•r.-1 P- - .-1 .d ...1.y .r.-1..n ,-•.N.•+ e-1.1� � .N .-1 r ...I "� \ \
Z W \\\ \\\\\ \ \\ \\\\ \ \ \\ \\ \ \\\ \\\\\\\In \
N F•- 1M M M In M M M M M1 M M W)`�]M M M M M M MMM M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O
W O
O
e
>. O
N Z
U Y AA A00000000 at Ij NN 10`O N
r rl r U1
Itr
U �� �„1 .•.ti�.�.y 'y•.. „y r..y•. ..r...1 r + N N N N N N N N r N N NNN N N NN N ; Ill
w W In v+ N s1 P v1 >n IP In,r cP N IP IP Ln In r A V7 11 l 7 V1 P P U1 r !) P v\ N n iP N LO N
to S .r .w .r .� .w .•.r w r .r.+.- -.1 r .+. .+.r r.•.r r r.w.. .r.r r r .� + .r r .w
T U A h A ti A h Iti- -h A IA A h h 1r Z + A A A !� Iti A A A i h C�h A A A A C3 A r h r A
.. O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + o O
_ - -- -
i
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
U U ( U U U
I 1 I 1
m
N O i
O a N Lry
•4
ON A
• .r 11'T
m
A
• .r .r �� .r .r N ti N � C .r .�
N
z Mf. :r O'. O O O O N O O Q
fn V :cm
U I 1 1 1 1
Q o 0 0 0 0
c
3 0 o c o o:
o y CL
� V
CL O :U
U ►y O 9 ? - 'Z - 1 1
y M C y K H y j re 3
Ll = W W h+ W. ' CAQ d^. CA V1E
W = LJ U LA
VY r w
J J i we
W. _:1 Q i - W d d
rY t O O
L7
CL U) 117
04
a
Y U 2 hr
U Q U J • W
W
W U V9
VI
R 1 W
O e < W J
W - i i U _ ~ U O _ O ae O In N
d WIV
J
.1 2 t 2 y CL !W - Z I• 2
:31 ? j s N 1 N CC3
# # # • # • #
O N N N N O O .•.• .+.•• N N .r.r O O 'M H1 O O I--A m
\ti
• • +O �0 OO ;: r ti N N MM
m 1� O O �O O N N ti \ti • • • • • • •
T M M M M N N .ti.r V. cc co II', V1 "I►.!�
O O .r..• N
~co PO`� O O N N a
m m m m o o ...r M
Z
O
a
Li
,.j O
CL m m co n .o .o w co io co
CIO °0 m m m m
Y N N N N N N \ \ \ \ \ \
N .� .�cli N N N
n M r M M .\j \ \ \ \ \ \ \
Q O O O M M H M O O O
LL In C7 O O O O O
O
� O
F- Z
U • �- # p • h i T • o i # O • M i Lo •
•T+ i I • ti t 1►p rM i• ^ i Ln i N # cm Il
m ] 05
U i tiO
tiWOy
O O O O1 4.
O
1
N i
W U I
W Q
CL W •
S
i
m
N O '
.r
O R m O co s CD
N to
M a pn
n .. m N. m
CY
LO
1 i I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I
O .r NC\jN � M .- r N M rl O
z n n n M
:O O O O D m
I I 1 1 1
N N N N M M M M N N M M
U
U
Q O O O O O O O O O p O O O
t
er
ON p Li Li N N
? (A 0
O O O C tl
r.• H K N N K N u U Z W Y C CY. z H F.. '
Li ¢ Q
w Q w w w ¢ N tl U d d O
0 = •" :x E .N e8 ep N .. x •a w J �- ¢ )-
J a c .•. I.m N..,
Z m a m m w N w w a m z N w z �.N c ..
W o a o 0 o w z o a o U.
m w z J ¢w a a:�c w m J
O tl .Z z .0 = -r u a •-m 7 a r•
m N m m a p u a 0 W o J w m m ¢ l a Of w¢
x ,
xocmm..� Na�
N
u z
W -
H N
z U 5
H 2 W a Uz
Y W .O C.1 ,
U N ~ 4 p r2r H
tl
S a Q m O J _= N ea F- t..1- - �ti•..w.._1- �1..t.
U S tl W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CC fm J C] J N W N
lL 2 ¢ H O W
O .w w O N P to 10 M w N N.a M
O Z
w 0 ~ 4 Z W -1 LL O 2 ea W o rl
in. O 2 }, py = N O m :W H Z 00000000'0007
O J
x S :Q •. O 1- Q S o-Wr = s S W w.w IL W LL IL IL-U. U.LL. U. O .�
Li W U- S 'S tl a Z a 7
m a, T NN 00 mm 00 00 00 00 OO 00 to In O O 00 .r N 0 0 Mm0 N
+ MM U�LH 00 MM 00 T� 00 00 �A 00 too m O0 m LM 4. 00 Mm Ina N
N Pd \D%D NN (A to V1111 NN to Lo OO hMM ONM OJ tn'
P MM M ?�f-- mm HIl- OO ti'+ F, P.- OO \G �o mQFI)r PMN.O V. CIP1 .-1
F� MM ..d.r .r•- mm Vd NN MM 1. O M 0l r-1M Q N N
z
p MMI . ..
O
E
to -• R
Q
L1
w O a p 10 10 14 �u W d W
a• m m m m m m m m m m m m m
N N N N N N N N N
M M M
Q 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O
U 0
O
>` c
u Y M P LO ID P. m cr, O
L) o o O o 0 0 o -
O w m m tl m m m m x m i
U '� A .r .r .r '.
A ti p• +
0 O O O O O O O O O O O O a
Ll- co \10 0 0 0 0 0 M O oloo
<` <` 0\ O O O H N co N O a1 I ti
Occ CC)O ON E (7\ Ip
N D\ (r\I
C T\ 10�
v FEf�
N
U ao
U U o E
U U > 0 0
0 o ¢ U U
0
0 E
o �
Q m x a� 0 zJ o
� 4� w W w cd
w w 3 x O
O Z cd O CJS OU 2 ri O z O F, >n
E w CI) r1 +•> O O U
cl cn O O Q W w = r-i O r
1 U r� H Pw rI LL Z) W _ H E
c _
z+ N M -� Lr-, \D lam- 00 C'N O r r I N M
N N N N .N N N N M MM M M
I r-1 r-i H � r-i r-i r-i r-1 r-♦
U O O O O O O O O O O O O O
C
>
C 04 Q, cd O
w
E co ^' (A pp
r-i E O U r-1
WO 0
00�4 4-1 U � H
N N (d W � J C!] O (n (r\Ic0
m f=, . (f) P-. r:) f::l a Pa Z, 06 -) � CZ L-- N o0 I ti
C r +) -N +-) +-� -P +) +) -P N t
U , l. O m I r�
C E E E E E E E E E S, U Z +- D\co c0 NO
�• U N N 0 0 O O O 0 O : O O
w w w w w w w w U U Cr) U M:
(n NIS
e� Imo}
z
c
U
U U
c7
N c0 \-D O O O � O O M O O O IC
01 O O O r-1 N cc t` U, O S 1N7
( � O O u1 O M \10 r4. D\ 60� ti I H +D
i t U-\ O O -::t- -zr <` u\ N M-::r L`- cc I03 b m
C CO O O\ ri \-O E a,\ rl 7 ol� NO C
r 1 �o co Ui
N \ � E
(�
d -69' -69-
CO Cd r-I
�-1 I S 4 O
O O O O O O O o O 0 0 O O OI N Q) (d
Q)H r I r-I r-1 ri H H r-1 -, H r1 H E I C7 U) a
0 o 0 0 0 o o o o 0 o 0 0
U r i r 1 r 1 ri -i r-i r-i r-i r-i -{ r-i -+ r 1 ✓ H r1 r-♦
O u co co cc co m co co m o N tom- O O F�I O L--00
r_ L, O O O O O O O O E rI O N
O O o o O O O O i L--O ( �
O O O o O O O
O o O O O O O O -1 r1 O M N
0 o O O O o O o rl [-O M
O H N N N r-1 M N O r4 M O N
N N N N N M N M d\ H M O\ Cil
O\ O\ a\ O\ a\ 0\ a\ a\ M -:t co M N
M
cd 1 r-i H r-I r-♦ r--I
z <I cc) CC) c0 Oo 00 co 00 CC) O N ti 0 O
O
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judi Simac, City Planner
RE: Racetrack District Land Use Study/Land Use
Alternative Plans
DATE: March 13 , 1986
Introduction
On Thursday, March 20 , 1986 the City Council will conduct
a public hearing, with Planning Commission members in attendance,
to consider land use alternatives for the racetrack area as
prepared by Hoisington Group, Inc.
Background
The Racetrack District Land Use Study Committee has been
working with Fred Hoisington through the study process to provide
input on the Needs Statement, the objectives of the plan, the
list of compatible uses for a racetrack district and the alternative
land use plans. Separate meetings were conducted with the area
landowners to gather their comments and concerns regarding the
study and to get their reaction to the Needs Statement.
Attached you will find a copy of the Plan Objectives and
List of Compatible Uses, which the Committee have found acceptable.
Also attached are reduced copies of two concept plans for land
use and transportation patterns in the study area.
The concept plans have been presented to the Committee
and will be presented to the landowners in the area on Monday,
March 17, 1986 at 7 : 30 P.M. at City Hall. The purpose of the
March 20th public hearing is to get public comment on the concept
plans presented.
Action Requested
No formal action on the concept plans will be requested
on the night of the public hearing.
Attachments
tw
3
PLAN OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the plan formulation process are :
1 . To encourage high quality development in the vicinity of
the race track .
2. To develop a high level of compatibility between heavy
industrial and race track uses with vegetation screens ,
land use transitions and the segregation of traffic
according to function and destination .
3. To establish commercial/light industrial uses that are
compatible with the race track environment and that
primarily satisfy the needs of the Canterbury Downs/
Valleyfair patrons and the employees of the race track
and the industrial park.
4 . To encourage commercial development at the race track
that compliments and does not detract from downtown
redevelopment efforts.
5. To protect important natural features (trees, slopes , etc . )
and sensitively integrate development with the natural
landscape .
6. To avoid stripped and scattered development patterns in
favor of development clusters.
7. To properly locate uses and space accesses to the Study Area
street system to maintain maximum traffic efficiency.
�7
LIST OF COMPATIBLE USES
Disregarding the present capability of the market to absorb such
development , the following uses appear to be highly compatible
with the race track setting without detracting from development in
other parts of the City and could be considered as Permitted Uses
in a Special Race Track District :
1 . A licensed Class A race track which includes the following
accessory uses and facilities--
a . Race track offices
b . Employee housing and dormitories
c . Horse barns
d . Paramutual wagering
e . Internalized eating and drinking concessions
f . Off—street parking
g . Recreation vehicle parking with full hookups
h . Horse training , exercise and grooming facilities
i . Maintenance facilities
j . Private clubs and lodges
2. Hotels , motels and conference centers .
3 . Eating and drinking establishments excluding fast food
or drive—up restaurants .
4 . Convenience retail sales and service establishments
which primarily serve the needs of race track patrons
and employees .
5 . Commercial recreation uses including golf courses ,
miniature golf courses, bowling alleys and similar uses .
6 . Athletic clubs for tennis , racquetball , aerobics ,
swimming , running and similar recreation activities .
% . Community park , recreation and open space uses which do
not conflict with race track operations but including
winter activities .
8. Business and corporate offices .
9 . Recreation vehicle parks with full hookups , recreational
facilities , etc .
10. Horse related land uses including boarding , training ,
showing, grooming and veterinary clinics .
(i(((U((I111111111p1111 llililllll 111111 1111(11(1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIHiIi�� w
� a
71
/ \ Z q W
Cc
a N
�. 0 M
2- F:
.� � • =( Iillilllll Ii1111111111 ',
— ������ � _ �11111111IIIIIP !III{IIINIII(f� i 'i IINIHIIIIUIIIflIlllil
r:....... =I' ch
(I IIE111. Acj
1111 ulU!ullLyllll �?�''!�ll�ll� a
IIIlIItNINNIHI��� �1--
1 1010-
%rNS
r
NJ
tj
El
I (1111111111111111111111(IIN1111111 _
�_ � � I � ... \ a •�^LL 111``1 � I i �
� ..1 \ is �\�'—'— - - -� �•� ��� F �''�'= ��I --_J �..
�� J � � .,.E?$ � .. .-�:asRr IIrnw,a\ �• > Y abi b � � i i
/l •eu isEf3 sE19 Y:.; %G'�"'�' U r0 � L �0 � �
- �tyv. rn ¢
a �'�' _
o , x x J,
LL ' JSra '�' w a °a I
Y 2 U I ¢ _ :i a O
IMMIE
IF
'� 1� ,� , ' � � � I l� l`•:[J� '" f� I mow- �n as_of i.a:�,,
I HillHlll II!Ill if
IF
R . 'E
k } yY
mU° =Ri I'�''+ ' '1
1
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
i
i
I
_� III(IIUI(li( (Illlli�lilll Ililalllll II fill Illlllilil IIIIIIIIIIIIIIiII(II INfINll11;
o
=1 Q
- N
tu
fS n =1 Z I
CL
a r U) p I .
g
It = F-
w o
Z _ y
i _ ~
O O
_ Z N
O Q
cn
w _
_ - -IIIlillili Illillllllllll � f
i. a — _ �s' = !il!i118lliili !IIIIINIIIIIIIIrU�i(� +�, !
i
+r
Iillll(IIII I IIIIiI II(I171i8' llllil Alii mi I Ililllllillllllllllillllllllllillllllllllll '` !! I(111P'I'' i �+?
\%%%%%SO%% M n.°° l
IE -'
Illlillfll►11111111111111111111111111= \� '
%%/%M%M%%///%%%\
1
NOR
MM
� . \
IRWN
LL
NOX
0goo:4L
fcc
li$M
W7 2
�o A —\ � i.• � � 17TaIIl1P- tMM1M� ¢
�..`�� •ir iasis laHl� x �"^—r� -'�'�� • /' _-.. 9� I U � C ,� '1 ..
I Q o a
W
_ as®o®® ti+t a
T
'� �+ � 1 i!III e' .y���J ►IVY_ 1�.��; � 1, „O^ r 1,
'� 1 VVV.. � :1.�e� �E•°b __/ .� ��� ������III71l...�Pf�''t11 •1',
SECRETARY City PZan-ni-n� Commission
SHAKOPEE MINNESOTA
March 8 , 1986
Mayor Reinke and City Council Members:
At the March 6 , 1986 meeting the Planning Commission
discussed the recent adoption of Ordinance 191, an ordinance
which rezoned the Ackerberg property from B-1 to R-4 . The
Planning Commission is concerned about the implications this
rezoning may have on other recently proposed and pending
rezonings. We also question the findings made by the City
Council to justify the rezoning.
The Planning Commission respectfully requests the City
Council to discuss this issue with us at the March 20 , 1986
meeting following the public hearing on the Racetrack District
Land Use Study.
Sincerely,
Dave Czaja, Chairman
DC:tw
Ia/4 Ila,
GREEN, MERRIGAN, JOHNSON & QUAYLE, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
KENNETH W.GREEN 800 TITLE INSURANCE BUILDING
400-2ND AVENUE SOUTH
L T(MIKE)MERRIGAN
MINNEAPOLIS.MINNESOTA 55401
LEE N.JOHNSON (612)339-9060
MICHAEL D.QUAYLE
DUDLEY R.YOUNKIN
March 20, 1986
Mayor and City Council
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379-1376
Planning Commission
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379-1376
Judi Simac
City Planner
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379-1376
Re: "Race Track District Land Use Study"
Responsive to an undated letter from the City Planner which was never sent to us or
to Standard Development Corp., owners of 30 acres in the Industrial Park adjacent to
Fremont Glass, we submit the following comments. By submitting these comments, we
do not acquiesce in any procedures lacking due process or otherwise illegal which have
taken place to date in regard to this study. Attached is a copy of a letter previously
delivered at City Hill in connection with the Monday, March 17, 1986, meeting. We
point out the following, among other comments, and reserve the right to make further
comments or objections after this hearing, and after a reasonable time to study the
matter, in this or in other forums.
Due Process — see attached letter.
Selection Process of Consultant — The selection process of the consultant is tainted
by the fact that the initial study area had been defined by the City prior to requesting
proposals from proposed consultants. After a consultant was selected, he then expanded
the study area beyond the initial charter which had been defined while he had been
competing with other consultants for the job. Applicable law regarding bidding
requirements renders this procedure questionable, to say the least. This defect is
particularly applicable to the rights of Standard Development which was never consulted
or communicated with in any way in the so-called "study", or at any time up to and
including the present.
Open Mindedness or Lack Thereof -- The consultant in the "Needs Statement" stated
that he had interviewed the primary landowners and representatives of the industrial
park. See attached letter. At the March 17, 1986, meeting, he admitted that he had
never contacted Standard Development, the owner of a 30 acre parcel. The City Planner
stated that Standard Development was not notified because it was not in the study
area. Yet, the study area had been expanded to included Standard Development's
property. Additionally, other owners who were in the admitted study area complained
at the March 17, 1986, meeting that they, too, had not been notified. In fact, the
consultant stated that he had interviewed Scottland, Certain Teed and others who were
known objectors to any commercial use of Standard Development's land because of the
June 1985 Planning Commission hearing at which they had registered formal and written
objections. In other words, the consultant interviewed those with closed minds on the
subject and did not consult the people whose lands themselves are still open for
development.
Commercial vs. Industrial — The so-called Number One and Number Two "Concepts"
evolved by the consultant err on the side of having too much industrial versus too much
commercial property if there is going to be any margin of error. This point was made
by speakers at the March 17, 1986, meeting. The future of Shakopee as an Entertainment
and Fun Center of unparalleled variety and attraction has been extolled since its
selection as the racetrack site and probably even before. Is this image (consider the
potential mega mall competition to the north) enhanced by limiting commercial
development for the one or few, and consigning large areas to the economic oblivion
of heavy industrial. To do so makes little if any sense, given recent economic history
and present and future prospects. The inventory of heavy industrial property in the
metropolitan area is staggeringly heavy and apparently adequate for centuries to come.
Tailoring — The concepts proposed to date are obviously tailored to the needs and
desires of the single and dominant developer and owner.
Fairness — If consideration of hotel or motel development was out of the question for
Mr. Behringer and Standard Development only last June, why has similar development
by Scottland been okay since? The Comprehensive Plan of the City was never amended,
altered or adjusted as it should have been in connection with the racetrack proposal
and construction. It still hasn't been changed. Behringer and Standard's proposals were
said by the City Planner to be in violation of the Comprehensive Plan and rejection
was recommended. Why were the same rigorous standards of consideration not applied
to the hotel and restaurant scheduled to open this summer?
101 By-Pass Uncertainties and Timing — Given present economic and federal, state and
municipal budgetary constraints, the blithe assumptions regarding the 101 By-Pass
fulfillment is unwarranted. The problems presented by the various By-Pass proposals
and hopes are not just financial — they are legal and will probably face strong test in
legal forums, as will other aspects of this so-called "study". Why (Point No. 25 of the
summary of the consultant) should consideration to the redesign of CR83 be deferred
in the manner there suggested? ("Once the By-Pass is in place, consideration will have
to be given to the redesign of CR8311.)
Open Meetings — The lack of communications with some and the proliferation of
communications with others have created an aura of suspicion that secret meetings have
been the possible order of the day.
Perceptions of Favoritism — The public perception that what one developer says goes,
while other owners' aspirations are summarily ignored is a simple fact that was voiced
at the March 17, 1986, meeting and should not be forgotten here.
The "Abutting" Question — Any change in the plans of the City or its zoning ordinances
should insure that no owners' logical or practical proposals should be rejected because
of an arbitrary, capricious requirement or definition of "abutting" a public highway;
particularly, when the course of selection of route of new highways in which the City
will play a part may itself thereby confer ,favored development status on lands not
presently possessing that status.
Projections — The projections of future requirements, traffic; aria occupancy made to
date are unwarranted, speculative, and of doubtful validity.
Moratorium Procedures — Actions to date in regard to proposed moratorium on
construction appear to be less than even handed.
Objection and Comments Already Enunciated — We incorporate by reference the
comments and objections made by us and by others at the March 17, 1986, hearing, but
have not stated all of these in writing, since recordings of that meeting are available.
GREEN, MERRIGAN, JOHNSON S QUAYLE, P.A.
ATTORNE YE, AT LAV`.
KENNETH W GREEN @C10 TITLE INSURANCE 910I1-DING
L T IMIKEI MERRIGAN 400 2ND AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55401
LEE N JOHNSON
IE-i 71 339 9060
MICHAEL D QUAYLE
DUDLEY R YOUNKIN
March 17, 1986
Mayor and City Council
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379-1376
Planning Commission
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379-1376
Judi Simac
City Planner
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379-1376
Re: "Race Track District Land Use Study"
We are writing you on behalf of the owners of Block 1, Lot 3, Valley Park First
Addition located south of Highway 101 across from Valley Fair. Please note, for the
record, our objection to the meeting scheduled for 7:30 p.m, on Monday, March 17,
1986, at the Shakopee City Hall and the public hearing scheduled for Thursday, March
20, 1986, at 7:30 p.m. in the City Hall.
There has been no proper notice and, in fact, no notice whatsoever to the owners of
the affected parcel in connection with either said meeting or said hearing. Though
the study, meeting, and hearing are obviously part of a procedure seriously affecting
the owners, the proceedings to date and contemplated by the meeting and hearing are
entirely lacking Due Process. The owners found out about the hearing only late last
week and have been afforded insufficient time to review the land use plans involved and
to prepare for hearing and comment adequately.
The "Need Statement" introduction claims that the study included "interviews with each
primary landowner in the vicinity of the racetrack" and with "representatives of the
industrial park", but the owners of the affected 30 acres described were never contacted
or interviewed by any City official or by any consultant. If representatives of
l
the "industrial park" were contacted, they too failed to notify or consult with in any
writ' the owners of the affected 30 acres and, indeed, they may have been in conflict
therewith.
It wt:-, apparent at a June 6, 1985, hearing relating to possible rezoning, on the one
hand by Baron Development Corp., and on the other hand by Standard Development
Corporation, that a process of discouragement and denial of hotel development by those
outside the Hauser-Malkerson-Scottland Axis was to be anticipated. Now recent news
articles show that they plan to open a 142-room hotel, plans for which were never
discussed or revealed at that meeting. Candor, as well as Due Process, seems to have
been lacking.
We will do our best to make some comments within the extremely limited time afforded
by the undated letter of the City Planner, which was never sent to or received by the
owners of the 30 acre parcel, but we strenuously object to the inadequacy of notice,
the conduct of the study to date, and the aura of — or potential for — favoritism
possibly to be inferred here.
Yours very truly,
lenneth W. Green
KWG:mkt
4rTHE
a V S C OTTLAN D
COMPANIES
March 17, 1986
Chairman David Czaja
Shakopee Racetrack District Land Use Study Committee
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
RE : Racetrack District
Land Use Study
Dear Chairman Czaja and Committee Members:
The purpose of this letter is to offer our response and comments
to the "Concept Plan 2" alternative to the Racetrack District
Land Use Study. This alternative was presented for the first
time to the Racetrack Study Committee at its March 8 , 1986
meeting.
The Scottland Companies is most appreciative of the efforts of
the Racetrack District Land Use Study Committee. We understand
that the Committee has dedicated significant contributions of
time and energy to the planning of land uses in the racetrack
area.
The "Concept Plan 2" proposes to relocate the TH101 Bypass
interchange from CR83 to CR16. Prior to serious consideration
of this alternative, we suggest that the following issues be
fully addressed:
1 . All existing and future industrial uses in the industrial
park have been planned on the assumption, given repeatedly
by the City, that the CR83 interchange would serve as access
to the TH101 Bypass.
(a) There are presently seven major industrial traffic
generators - Certainteed Corporation, Peavey Terminal,
Owens-Illinois, Anchor Glass, Beatrice Foods, K-Mart
Corporation and Racetrack service entrance - that rely
on immediate, direct access to the Bypass, especially
for semi-truck access. The relocation of the
interchange will require a circuitous, indirect access
for these major truck movements.
5244 Valley Industrial Boulevard South Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 [612] 445-3242
March 17 , 1986
Page 2
(b) The possible access at CR16 would require truck
traffic to these facilities to either:
1 . Travel an additional 1 /2 mile and make
additional turning movements or
2. Route these trucks through the commercial area
serving the racetrack development. _
2. The development of the TH101 Bypass could be significantly
delayed with a major change in the design of this facility.
Interchange locations are a fundamental element in the
development of controlled access highways. A relocation of
an interchange is a drastic change in facility design and
development. The Bypass is presently in the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Five Year Plan. The
present schedule is as follows:
July 1 , 1986 - Start design geometries.
Spring 1986 to Spring 1987 - Appraise property for
condemnation.
January 1987 to July 1988 - Commence taking of
right-of-way.
Fall 1988 - Let bids and construction contracts -
bridges and rough grading.
Spring 1989 - Start construction.
Fall 1990 - Open east link - CR83 to TH101 .
Fall 1991 - Complete construction entire facility.
The relocation proposed would likely require the following
major delays:
(a) A new or revised Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) . The original EIS took almost two
years to complete. A new or revised EIS could
conceivably set back the process an additional two
years.
(b) Metropolitan Council Approval. The interchange
relocation would require an amendment to the
Metropolitan Council' s Development Plan and a
Metropolitan Significance Review. This process would
require lengthy review and consideration of many
planning issues that have long since been resolved.
( c) Financing of Bypass. The Bypass is presently
scheduled to be funded in the MnDOT Five Year Capital
Improvement Plan. A -great deal of planning and hard
work has brought the Bypass to this important stage.
Additional costs and delays associated with a major
March 17, 1986
Page 3
facility change would likely pull the Bypass from this
funding cycle and result in its being replaced by
another MnDOT project. There is great competition for
limited transportation funding. There is no assurance
that a project that is delayed could ever be re-funded.
3. Potential litigation.
For over 20 years many property owners including single
family homeowners, farmers, and commercial building owners
adjacent to the proposed interchange have invested large
amounts of capital in reliance on the present land use and
transportation plans to build the intersection at CR83 which
would then not require condemnation of their properties. A
major departure from this plan that results in significant
damages to their properties would result in the condemnation
of their properties and could likely bring about protracted
litigation resulting in the delay of the construction of the
Bypass. The effect of this litigation could--be to stop the
planning and development process of public and private
projects commenced in reliance of the existing plans.
4. Immediate construction of the Bypass will positively affect
so much of the remainder of the City, including development
at the east end of the City, the intersection at CR17 and
property to the north and south thereof, and the
intersection at CR15. Any delay of the construction of the
Bypass will adversely affect the City, business and property
owners for years.
Thank you for this opportunity to offer these comments.
Very truly yours,
THE SCOTTLAND COMPANIES
Bruce D. Malkerson
Executive Vice President
Timothy J. e
Vice Presi
TJK:ap
`11-03
O
iv-s No.
CANTLWURY
D O W N S
March 17, 1986
Chairman David Czaja
Shakopee Racetrack District Land Use Study Committee
City of Shakopee
129 E. First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
RE: Racetrack Land Use Study
Dear Chairman Czaja and Committee Members:
Today I received the Concept Plan No. 1 which shows the
originally planned intersection for the Bypass and County Road
83 and Concept Plan No. 2 which shows a possible change in
location of that intersection.
As the representative of Canterbury Downs in charge of traffic
r movements in, out and adjacent to the racetrack, I am very
concerned about the impact Concept Plan No. 2 has on the future
of the racetrack.
Since I just received the Concept Plans, I have not had an
opportunity to review them with all of our in-house managers
affected who also have expertise in traffic patterns, our
racetrack traffic management experts in Santa Anita (with over
50 years experience in racetrack traffic patterns) and our
independent traffic management consultants who assisted us in
developing our original traffic plan, Environmental Impact
Statement, and Indirect Source Permit for the racetrack, all
which were predicated on the construction of the intersection
shown on Concept Plan No. 1 .
I understand that Concept Plan No. 2 was first presented March
8th as a possible alternative.
Because of the phenomenal impact that traffic access has on the
success or failure of Canterbury Downs which success or failure
will affect the existing and future commercial and other
businesses adjacent or near the racetrack, and because Concept
Plan No. 2 has just been suggested as a possibility, I ask you
to study any change very carefully for the reasons I will cover
Canterbury Downs/1100 County Road 83/P.O. Box 508/Shakopee, Minnesota 55379/(612) 445-7223
r
March 17 , 1986
Page 2
generally at this time, now, and more specifically after our
experts have had time to study Concept Plan No. 2 more
carefully.
We believe the change in the proposed intersection at County
oad 83 raises serious issues for the following reasons:
1 . The intersection has been planned for County Road 83 for 15
to 20 years.
2. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Indirect
Source Permit (ISP) for the racetrack , with hundreds of
detailed traffic runs, was predicated upon the location of
the intersection at County Road 83 . The Metropolitan
Council, the Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota
Department of Transportation, and the Minnesota Racing
Commission all approved the EIS and ISP predicated on the
traffic patterns proposed and tied directly to the
intersection at County Road 83 . (The development contract
between the City and the Pollution Control Agency may also
be so predicated or at least affected. )
3 . Metropolitan Council amended the City' s Comprehensive Plan
to allow the racetrack after a detailed discussion of the
EIS , traffic flows, and the intersection of the Bypass at
County Road 83.
4. Minnesota Racetrack, Inc. (MRI) built a $70 Million complex
which designed its parking lots and major access roads to
lead to County Road 83 so the patron' s cars could be stacked
on racetrack property (as now provided) and not on public
roads. Use of these established lengthy internal access
roads is required to handle the patrons and take tickets,
and provide a backup area for patrons when they leave.
5. If Concept Plan No. 2 is developed, MRI will have wasted
millions of dollars on construction of unnecessary roads.
Traffic will be backed up on public roadways, especially
along County Road 16 leading to the intersection, which will
cause problems for track patrons and the commuting public.
6. Additionally, we do not think it is beneficial for our
relationship with our residential neighbors to the south, to
move the intersection, with all of the racetrack patron
cars, industrial trucks, much closer to their homes.
7 . The City and County, the citizens, and owners of retail,
industrial and residential property in the City and the
I
March 17 , 1986
Page 3
County, including Canterbury Downs, have worked for years
and spent a great amount of money in order to get the Bypass
into the current Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT) Five Year. Plan. Under the current Five Year Plan,
the Bypass is scheduled for completion in 1990/1991 .
It would not make sense to take any action which would
endanger that recent inclusion in the plan. The movement of
the intersection or even serious possible discussion of the
move would create many planning problems that would be in
conflict with the City' s and Racetrack EIS, ISP , and
Comprehensive Plan. The relocated interchange could
require a new Bypass EIS. The Bypass could easily be
stricken from the Five Year Plan, and not be reconsidered
for years, until all of the EIS ' s, ISP , and plans are
changed.
8 . Finally, the racetrack ' s drainage plan and systems, and the
Mill Pond drainage system may be also adversely affected.
In conclusion, there are so many major ramifications from any
change in the location of long-established County Road 83 Bypass
intersection, we ask that the City confirm there will be
change. In the event a change is to be considered further,
there should be a review of all of the EIS ' s, permits , plans ,
and existing infrastructure to _determine the potential adverse
effect on the City, County, and property owners.
r
Additionally, if any change is to be considered further, the
racetrack (which will attract hopefully two million people a
year) , must have the time to study all effects on future traffic
patterns.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this very new and
totally surprising propsoal.
Very truly yours,
CANTER RY DOWNS
_,__' t -
red Co igan
FC:ap
GREEN, MERRIGAN, JOHNSON & QUAYL.E, P.A. �sr
(i
ATTORNEYS AT LAW {
KENNETH W.GREEN 800 TITLE INSURANCE BUILDING
L T(MIKE)MERRIGAN 400-2ND AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS.MINNESOTA 55401
LEE N.JOHNSON
1612)3399060
MICHAEL D.OUAYLE
DUDLEY R.YOUNKIN
March 17, 1986 € H.: ,. �`sV ��-
Mayor and City Council
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379-1376
Planning Commission
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379-1376
Judi Simac
City Planner
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379-1376
Re: "Race Track District Land Use Study"
We are writing you on behalf of the owners of Block 1, Lot 3, Valley Park First
Addition located south of Highway 101 across from Valley Fair. Please note, for the
record, our objection to the meeting scheduled for 7:30 p.m, on Monday, March 17,
1986, at the Shakopee City Hall and the public hearing scheduled for Thursday, March
20, 1986, at 7:30 p.m, in the City Hall.
There has been no proper notice and, in fact, no notice whatsoever to the owners of
the affected parcel in connection with either said meeting or said hearing. Though
the study, meeting, and hearing are obviously part of a procedure seriously affecting
the owners, the proceedings to date and contemplated by the meeting and hearing are
entirely lacking Due Process. The owners found out about the hearing only late last
week and have been afforded insufficient time to review the land use plans involved and
to prepare for hearing and comment adequately.
The "Need Statement" introduction claims that the studv included "interviews with each
primary landowner in the vicinity of the racetrack" and with "representatives of the
industrial park", but the owners of the affected 30 acres described were never contacted
or interviewed by any City official or by any consultant. If representatives of
the "industrial park" were contacted, they too failed to notify or consult with in any
way the owners of the affected 30 acres and, indeed, they may have been in conflict
therewith.
It was apparent at a June 6, 1985, hearing relating to possible rezoning, on the one
hand by Baron Development Corp., and on the other hand by Standard Development
Corporation, that a process of discouragement and denial of hotel development by those
outside the Hauser-Malkerson-Scottland Axis was to be anticipated. Now recent news
articles show that they plan to open a 142-room hotel, plans for which were never
discussed or revealed at that meeting. Candor, as well as Due Process, seems to have
been lacking.
We will do our best to make some comments within the extremely limited time afforded
by the undated letter of the City Planner, which was never sent to or received by the
owners of the 30 acre parcel, but we strenuously object to the inadequacy of notice,
the conduct of the study to date, and the aura of — or potential for e favoritism
possibly to be inferred here.
Yours very truly,
ehneth W. Green
KWG:mkt