Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/20/1986 MEMO TO: Mayor and Council FROM: John K. Anderson RE: Non-agenda Non-informational Items DATE: May 14 , 1986 1. Anchor Glass has uncovered what appears to be a small hazardous waste dump site adjacent to the Anchor Glass plant in Shakopee. Anchor discovered the site when doing test borings for a warehouse expansion. John Westlake and Al Freschette from Scott County have been informed and have in turn informed me. Rod Krass is reviewing it from the city' s prospective . There has been no public announcement yet while we await further analysis of the site by Anchor Glass engineers and Scott County. At the present time it looks like the site is limited in size and was used by Midland Glass prior to present environmental regulations . Staff will keep you up to date prior to any formal public -press release on this recent discovery. 2 . St. Mark' s Church has applied to the State Gambling Board for a lawful gambling exemption for July 26 , and July 27 , 1986 . A new law allows exemption from a license when the number of activities and proceeds are minimal and fall under certain criteria. The City still has the option to deny the exemption and permitted activities . St.Mark' s meets the requirements of the Shakopee City code relating to gambling. Unless a Council member raises a concern we will approve the license. 3 . Attached is a memorandum from Tom Brownell regarding an up-coming Civil Defense exercise. 4 . Attached is a thank you letter from the Scott County Transportation Coalition thanking the City for its $10 , 500 contribution. 5 . Attached is a letter that I sent to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) because the City was concerned that the high bidder, a Nevada corporation, might be working on a proposal with the Mdewakanton Sioux whose forty acre reservation parcel abuts this former Scottland property now being sold by the MWCC. The City and Scottland were concerned that the parcel could be annexed to the reservation and then be completely outside any state, regional, county and city regulations and become a six hundred acre parcel wide open for any type of develop- ment. Since the sending of this letter, we have learned that the Nevada corporation and Scottland, which was the only other formal bidder, are seriously discussing a joint venture that would keep the property in private ownership and hence subject to all regulations . Judi Simac is attending the May 14 meeting and may have an update for Council on May 20th. 6 . Attached is the Springsted Newsletter outlining the status of tax reform and its impact on tax reform bonds. 7 . Attached is the Building Activity Report for the month ending April 30 , 1986 . 8 . Attached are the minutes of the April 10 and March 31, 1986 meetings of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 9. Attached are the minutes of the March 20 , 1986 meeting of the Shakopee Energy and Transportation Committee. 10. Attached is a memo from Barry Stock regarding an informational ' update on the Scott County Solid Waste Advisory Committee. 11 . Attached are the minutes of the April 23 , 1986 meeting of the Industrial Commercial Commission. 12 . Attached are the minutes of the April 29 , 1986 meeting of the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee. 13 . Attached is the agenda for the May 21 , 1986 meeting of the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee. 14 . The City has received a letter from Sandra Gardebring advising that on May 8 , 1986 , Met Council approved the amendment to Shakopee ' s comprehensive plan which was on the consent list. 15 . The City has received a letter from Senator Boschwitz in response to our concerns about tax proposals which would have the effect of restricting the use of tax-exempt financing in Minnesota. 16 . Attached is a copy of a letter from the Scott County Administra- tor to MWCC regarding consideration of bids for the Scottland property. 17 . Attached is a copy of a letter from BRuce Malkerson to the Commissioners on the MWCC regarding the sale of the Scottland property. 18 . Attached is a copy of a letter from Rod Krass to NSP regarding the pole relocation. He is explaining the relationship between the City and SPUC as it relates to the City reimbursing SPUC for relocation of their poles . E.= 19. Attached is an informational memo from Gregg Voxland regarding the projected bond issues for 1986 - G.O. Improvement and T. I .F. 20. Attached is the Revenue and Expenditure Report as of 4/30/86 . 21 . Attached are the minutes of the April 24, 1986 meeting of the Planning Commission. 22. Attached is the agenda for the May 22 , 1986 meeting of the Planning Commission. 3 MEMO TO: Mayor, Councilmembers FROM: Tom Brownell, Chief of Police RE: Evacuation Training Exercise DATE: May 15 , 1986 INTRODUCTION• A training exercise will be conducted Wednesday, May 21, 1986 , 6 : 30 - 9 : 30 p.m. , at the Courthouse Emergency Services Room. The purpose of the exercise is to effect the evacuation of the City in the event of a disaster. BACKGROUND: Due to the large number of highway/rail vehicles and local industries which could produce a hazardous environment, it could become necessary to evacuate the City and surrounding communities. The Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers are requested to attend so that they become familiar with their responsibilities such as declaring an emergency, requesting the National Guard, etc. TB:cah Scott bounty Transportation Coalition P.O. BON 153 SHAKOPEE, AIN 55379 MFMBFRS OI THF(UAi LI I()', L- Scott Couni-Board of Commissioners 'ITY OF &+ l Cute,of: April 25 , 1986 '- Belle Plaine Elko Mayor Eldon Reinke - Jordan New Markel City of Shakopee New Prague 129 East First Avenue Prior Lake Saxage Shakopee , MN 55379 Shakopee Townships of: Dear Mayor Reinke ; Belie Plaine Blakelee (' Rkc CrereditduRicer On behalf of the Scott County Transportation Coalition Helena I want to thank you , members of the City Council and Jackson Louis,;lle your staff for the support given to the Coalition. Ne" „arkrt St.Lawrence Your check for $10 , 500 has been received and is greatly Sand Creek appreciated . Spring Lake Chambers of Commerce: We feel that this organization has already had impact Prior Lake Sa,age In calling attention to the needs of better roads to , Shakopee from and through Scott County . We intend to keep Industrial(ommissions: pursuing our goals and with your continued help we Prior Lake believe we will reach them. Shakopee Attraction`s Again our thanks to you all . Canterburx Downs Race Track .11urphy's Landing Sincerely , Little Six Bingo Renaissance Fe,ti,-al N allecfair Famitx Amusement Park Fx-ofttcto Members: Minnesota Department of Mark Stromwal l Transportation Chairman Hennepin('ounn Highwa% Department Metropolitan Council MS/mh cc ;John Anderson Ken Ashfeld CITY O SHAKOPEE 4r INCORPORATED 1870 129 EAST FIRST AVENUE. SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 �,,�.� . May 12 , 1986 !y✓ �: `'' Mr. George Kaczor Metropolitan Waste Control Commission 350 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 55101 Re: Consideration of Bids - Scottland Property Dear Mr. Koczor: The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) Budget and Administration Section agenda for May 14 , 1986 lists "Consid- eration of Bids - Scottland Property" under business item 86-131 . The City of Shakopee has been following the sale of this property for many years and commends the MWCC for working hard to put the property back in private hands and formally on the tax rolls . Since I initially contacted you regarding this item on Wednesday' s agenda, I have discussed the item with our City Planner and we feel that it is necessary for the City to better understand the potential impact of the sale of this property on the long-term development of Shakopee. For this reason the City is asking that the MWCC hold the bids received until June 30 , 1986 which we understand was provided for in the bid specs. During the period that the bids are put on hold the City would like more information including, but not limited to, answers to the following questions : 1 . Is this the best way for the MWCC to sell the property and realize a profit through strong competitive bids from the marketplace? By selling the property as one 590 acre parcel it appears that the MWCC has only received two formal bids and per your bid specifications . 2 . A 590 acre parcel constitutes a hugh development potential in the City of Shakopee. The City would like to know more about who the bidders are , what their experience is, what their track record is in dealing with local government through local zoning reviews, etc. 3 . The City would like to know the long term development plans of each developer. The Heart of Progress Valley i Mr. George Kaczor j Page Two May 12, 1986 4 . City staff has received admittedly second hand information about the potential for developing the 590 acres outside of standard Metropolitan Council, County and City regulations on development. We would like to know on a first hand basis if there is anything behind what we have heard. The City of Shakopee, as a public entity, has millions of dollars of public investment tied up in our industrial park, Canterbury Downs and the related commercial development that has resulted from the racetrack. MWCC staff and others are probably stunned that the City of Shakopee should be taking a "go slow" approach this late in the sale of the property. Believe me , the City would not be making this request if we felt this was a traditional sale of land for the agricultural purposes for which the City has zoned the property. Any assistance you can provide us in obtaining answers to our four questions will be deeply appreciated. Sincerely, John K. Anderson City Administrator JKA/jms cc: Eldon Reinke, Mayor Judi Simac, City Planner Joe Ries, County Administrator Gayden Carruth, Superintendent of Schools Mike McQuire, Prior Lake City Manager Mark McNeil, Savage City Administrator SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED MN Municipality Public Finance Advisors Volume 3, Issue 2 Spring, 1986 Y/) • n �t, gd 1 ,mer STATUS OF TAX REFORM - IMPACT ON TAX-EXEMPT BONDS Our last "Letter" was devoted entirely to the impact of HR 3838, the U.S. House of Representatives Tax Reform Act of 1985. Since that time several developments have occurred which have direct influence on HR 3838's impact on tax-exempt bonds. The most significant development was delay of certain provisions of HR 3838 from January I, 1986 to September I, 1986, or such earlier date as tax reform legislation is actually enacted. On March 14, leaders of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees, with the concurrence of Secretary of the Treasury, James Baker, endorsed the postponement. Bond counsel are treating this endorsement as an effective roll back of the effective date. With respect to tax-exempt bonding, the postponement is applicable only to essential purpose bonds (those obligations generally considered to be traditional public purpose bonds). The postponement is permitting governmental units to proceed with issuing essential purpose bonds under the some rules as existed prior to January I of this year. This means: I. it will not be necessary to expend at least 5% of net bond proceeds within 30 days of issuance; 2, it will not be necessary to make an annual report to the IRS of arbitrage profits; 3. developers of tax increment projects will not be limited to a maximum 5% "loan" or 10% "use" test, but instead may proceed under the pre-January I, 1986 25% interest test; and 4. bondholders will not be exposed to the risk of retroactive loss of tax exemption in the event bonds are determined to be arbitrage bonds subsequent to issuance. The second major development was the start of deliberation by the Senate Finance Committee of its tax reform program. Tax-exempt bonds are scheduled for for different treatment under the Senate bill than under the House of Representatives proposal, thanks in part to an aggressive position taken by Senator Durenberger to protect a number of bond purposes. Senator Packwood, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, joined Senator Durenberger in a compromise measure on tax-exempts which has survived several early tests in Committee, and appears headed for inclusion in the final Senate bill. It appears certain that if the Senate passes any Tax Reform Act, a House-Senate Conference Committee will have to resolve significant differences between the respective pieces of legislation. Based on these developments, it seems clear that if you need to issue bonds in 1986 you should proceed as quickly as possible, certainly so as to permit settlement before September I, 1986, or earlier in the event a final Tax Bill is enacted before that date. In addition to avoiding some of the more onerous provisions of HR 3838, your early action should permit you to enjoy the benefit of the lowest interest rates we have experienced in the past eight years. PACKAGING MULTI-YEAR BOND PROGRAMS You may have been approached by people urging you to package up to three years of anticipated bond requirements into a single issue to be sold before tax reform becomes effective. The general pitch is to (i) negotiate the bonds as variable rate obligations, (ii) place the proceeds in an invested escrow account until needed, and (iii) reissue the bonds as new variable or fixed rate obligations in issues sized to meet periodic construction requirements. 85 East Seventh Place,Suite 100 250 North Sunnyslope Road Saint Paul,Minnesota 55101.2143 Brookfield,Wisconsin 53005.6218 612.223.3000 414.782.8222 There may be merit in this concept in some cases. However, you should be aware of several potential pitfalls: I. The long-term fixed rate market is so good at present that short-term variables would not have to increase much over the next year or so to reduce substantially any real interest savings. 2. As you know, with interest rates at their current level, reinvestment opportunities also are limited to the lowest rates experienced in nearly a decade. Therefore, available arbitrage profits may not be enough to offset your double issuance costs, since the escrow bonds would have to be marketed a second time when the proceeds are needed. 3. There is no guarantee the bonds, once initially sold and escrowed, can be remarketed and retain their tax exemption or exemption from need of an IDB allocation under future federal law. In the event someone approaches you with this concept, we advise you ask who they are proposing to serve as bond counsel. You should then ask that bond counsel if his firm will give you a written guarantee it will give you a future opinion on the tax exemption of the remarketed bonds. If the firm will not, you will be at risk that the remarketed bonds will not be tax-exempt. We urge you to contact us to review any proposal you receive of this kind, if you think it has merit. Any proposal which will work to your benefit should receive careful scrutiny, particularly during this uncertain time. STATE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES The 1986 legislature passed less legislation affecting municipalities than has been the norm in recent years. However, two pieces of legislation which were passed may impact your community. One of those changes eliminated the current maximum rate of interest on bonds issued after April I, 1986 and before July I, 1987. This elimination of a maximum rate of interest has been overdue for some time, and we hope the change becomes permanent next session. Cities are facing enough uncertainties in the area of public finance without being concerned about whether they will be able to refund debt in the future because of peaks and valleys in the maximum permitted interest rate. The legislature also authorized cities to establish a Infrastucture Replacement Reserve Fund, with authority to levy a special property tax within the meaning of MSA 275.50, subdivision 5, for support of the fund. Prior to levy of such a tax, the city must publish an initial resolution which is subject to a reverse referendum. The reserve fund may be used only for replacement of streets, bridges, curbs, gutters, and storm sewers. TAXABLE BONDS The elimination of maximum permitted interest rates may improve the feasibility of a taxable bond option for certain types of projects, particularly when you need a high level of comfort from developer guarantees. Taxables would eliminate the current 25% maximum guarantee limitation, any arbitrage restrictions on issuance size and reinvestment restrictions, and any restrictions on how quickly you must spend bond proceeds. It would also eliminate any need for an IDB allocation for any bonds which, after a Tax Reform Act is adopted, would require an allocation. We believe taxable bonds can be sold through competitive sale; indeed, we have received a number of calls in recent months from prospective purchasers inquiring about the possible use of taxables by our clients. These calls have included several foreign-based investment institutions. Competitive public sales still provide the greatest possible assurance that an issuer has received the best possible results on the day of sale. 7 CITY OF SHAKOPEE BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT PERMITS ISSUED April , 1986 Yr. to Date Previous Year Number Number Valuation Number Valuation Mo. Ytd. Single Fam-Sewered 5 12 939 , 174 5 12 900, 034 Single Fam-Septic 1 2 243 , 500 - 1 102 , 000 Multiple Dwellings 1 3 2 , 640 , 000 3 5 481 , 600 ( # Units ) (YTD Units ) ( 2 ) ( 96 ) - ( 6 ) ( 10 ) - Dwelling Additions 13 15 98 , 600 5 7 26 , 010 Other - - - 1 3 41 , 075 Comm New Bldgs 2 4 8 , 500 , 000 - 4 1 , 939 ,781 Comm Bldg. Addns - 3 887 , 267 2 7 91140 , 010 Industrial-Sewered - - - - - Ind-Sewered Addns 1 1 3 , 600 , 000 - - - Industrial-Septic - - - Ind-Septic Addns - - - - - Accessory/Garages 3 6 27 , 200 6 7 52 , 668 Signs & Fences 9 20 31 , 940 11 14 13 , 895 Fireplaces/Wood Stove - 1 1 , 500 2 4 9 , 980 Grading/Foundation - 5 316 , 000 - 1 11 , 000 Remodeling (Res ) 2 7 25 ,700 1 5 36 , 050 Remodeling ( Inst) - - - - - Remodeling ( Comm/Ind) 9 19 3 , 696 , 090 7 14 1 , 395 ,701 TOTAL TAXABLE 46 98 21 , 006 , 971 46 89 14 , 149 , 804 TOTAL INSTITUTIONAL - - - - GRAND TOTAL 46 98 21 , 006 , 971 46 89 14 , 149 , 804 No. Ytd. No. Ytd. Variances 4 6 3 5 Conditional Use 10 16 3 10 Rezoning - 1 1 1 1 2 Moving - Electric 31 84 21 72 Plbg & Htg 49 105 25 76 Razing Permits _ _ Residential Commercial - - Total dwelling units in City after completion of all construction permitted to date. . . . . . . 3 , 939 Cora Hullander Bldg. Dept. Secretary 7 CITY OF SHAKOPEE BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED IN APRIL, 1986 7011 Laurent Builders 1284 Tyler St House $ 80 , 000 7012 Randall Boom 2077 Austin Circle House 105 , 000 6/ A.ee'-'s /.s-11 7013 John DuBois 1705 W. 3rd Ave. Alt. 5 , 000 7014 Jefferson Carpentry 731 Bluff Alt. 1 ,200 7015 Kent Busch 1007 Shumway Addn. 4 , 500 7016 Valley Fair Addn. 18 , 000 7017 Eagan Const. 8000 Hwy 101 Alt. 45 , 400 7018 Cecil Clay 2085 Austin Cricle House 48 , 000 0;V9�"5 .a/ 4,1C,01 C,1 S IS44 7019 Kraus-Anderson Racetrack Addn. 22 , 810 7020 Larry Pioske067 Orton Dr. House 98 , 000 .-r-5 /,J a�_4� 7021 Aagard Sign 8700 Hwy 13 Sign 1 ,000 7022 Cy Carlson 1042 Prairie St. Addn. 9 , 000 7023 Gilles Const. 1088 Tyler Addn. 3 , 000 7024 Sterling Fence 824 W. 4th Fence 900 7025 Donald Geis 735 W. 5th Ave. Addn. 1, 300 7026 Wes Hukriede 1119 Austin Circle House 76 , 000 7027 Bob Imker 5th & Sommervi_lle Alt. 30,000 7028 Anchor Fence 910 E. 7th Fence 1, 000 7029 Stanley Mach 1109 Jefferson Garage 3 ,000 7030 Stanley Pink 2426 Ha r Trail House 71,500 ;= 7031 MN Valley Mall Hwy 169 Temp Sign 50 7032 Adolfson & Peterson 1109 Co. Rd. 89 Whse 800 , 000 7033 Kraus-Anderson Racetrack Addn. 690 , 000 7034 Robert Stewart 9099 E. 13th Ave. Fence 1 , 200 7035 Void 7036 Pacific Pool & Patio 953 Clay St. Pool 10 , 000 7037 Donald Link 436 W. 6th Addn 25 , 500 7038 Christy Const. 1007 Apgar Addn 6 ,750 7039 Juri Sokolov 316 Naumkeag Fence 100 7040 Adolfson & Peterson 6957 E. Hwy 101 Addn. 3 , 600, 000 7041 S & H Const. 710 Jefferson Addn. 8 , 000 7042 Southside Const. 328 Lewis Addn. 800 7043 Mark Kleman 1012 E. 3rd Stg. Bldg 1 , 000 7044 Don Dahl 952 Shumway Patio 1 , 050 7045 Mn Valley Fence 1029 Naumkeag Fence 1 , 200 7046 Amcon 660 Valley Ind. Alt. 40, 000 7047 Warren Reed 604 W. 7th Garage 3 , 000 7048 Lon Carnahan 1725 W. 3rd Sign 100 7049 Kraus-Anderson Racetrack Addn 125 , 000 7050 James Hoppenstedt 2452 Hauer Trail House 72, 000 7051 Valley Fair Addn. 20 , 000 7052 Mark Teske 953 Clay St. Fence 1, 000 7053 Void 7054 Joe Kerber 924 Fuller Patio 3 , 500 7055 Peter VonBank 315 Lewis Pool 6 , 000 7056 Scott Builders 1244 Canterbury Rd Hotel 7, 000 , 000 7057 Spirit Wings Const. 2224 Valley View Rd Alt. 4, 800 7058 Gerard Neville 1214 Tyler Patio 700 $13 , 046 , 360 r MINUTES OF THE SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in regular session on March 31, 1986 at 4:30 P.M. in the Utilities meeting room. Commissioner Cook offered a prayer for divine guidance in the deliberations of the Commission. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Cook, Kirchmeier and Kephart. Also Liaison Wampach, Manager Van HOut and Secretary Menden. Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Kephart that the minutes of the March 3, 1986 Regular meeting, and the February 25, 1986 special meeting, and the March 19, 1986 special meeting be approved as kept. Motion carried. BILLS READ: City of Shakopee 20,032.00 A T and T Information Systems 24.00 A T and T Information Systems 274.57 American National Standards Institute 100.00 Badger State Chemical Co. 175.93 Battery Tire Warehouse Inc. 34.62 Border States Electric Supply Co. 69.54 Carlson Hardware Co. 13.69 Chapin Publishing Co. 75.48 City of Shakopee 93,390.76 City of Shakopee 20,946.94 City of Shakopee 713.12 Clay's Printing Service Inc. 47.35 Doster 2.38 Dressen Oil Co. 78.00 Feed Rite Controls, Inc. 23.30 Graybar Electric Company 3,067.61 HDR, Techserv, Inc. 1,327.72 Harmon Glass 76.36 Goodin Company 87.47 Mary Henderson 29.64 Ken's Steel Door Repair Service 117.27 Vincent Marschall 88.54 Layne Minnesota Comapny 37.24 Leef Bros. , Inc. 20.00 Minnesota Environmental Quality Board 224.44 Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association 460.00 Minnesota Plumbing and Heating 14.00 Minnesota Valley Testing Laboratories Inc. 55.50 Motor Parts Service Co. 80.80 North Star Waterworks Products 321.50 Northern Sanitary Supply Co. , Inc. 35.30 Northern States Power Co. 224,310.11 Northern States Power Co. 332. 32 Reynolds Welding Supply Co. 3.08 Ring Fire Extinguisher Co. 33.50 11 Emergency Management Office 33.25 Serco 64.00 Schoell and Madson, Inc. 70.87 Shakopee Valley Printing/Ken Theis 3,713.40 Southwest Suburban Publishing, Inc. 42.00 Starks Cleaning Service 49.40 Suel Business Equipment 44.05 T & R Service 260.00 Total Tool 145.49 Truck Utilities and Mfg Inc. 42.05 Twin City Testing 126.00 United Compucred Collections, Inc. 79.20 Louis Van Hout 51.28 Walker Roof, Inc. 22,336.00 Water Products Company 230.08 Wild Iris Inc. 30.00 Woodhill Buisness Products Inc. 448.80 Motion by Kephart, seconded by Kirchmeier that the bills be allowed and ordered paid with the stipulation that the bill for Walker Roof Company be paid only at the time a release is received from the architecht, KK Design, stating that the roof repair is complete. A communication from Shakopee Community Services regarding participating in the Shakopee showcase was acknowledged. The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission declined at the present time to participate. Liaison Wampach reported that Jean Andre will be leaving the City in April. Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer was present to int:-duce himself to the Commission. A brief discussion followed on road repair and procedures followed for repairing watermains and private water services during road repair. Manager VanHout reported that the construction of Well #7 was under way. The draft job descriptions were pursued. Language will be added to maintain management's right to determine compliance with the job requirements, and to maintain its rights regarding hiring practices. The resolution to be drafted regarding delegation of authority will be referred to the City Attorney before consideration. The accident on lst. and Lewis was discussed by the Commission. The commission was advised of the procedurefor replacing burnt out lights as they are reported to us by the Shakopee Police Department. We do not maintain any of the equipment beyond the lamp replacement. The flasher on Co. Rd. 15, Marystown Rbad, by the Swimming pool was discussed. The Commission advised Manager VanHout to locate a Company who is able to handle repairs other than lamp replacement and to forward the information to City Administrator Anderson so he can secure a maintenance agreement with them. Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Kephart to offer Resolution 4304 A Resolution Adopting the Amount of the Trunk Fater Charge for 'the •availability of Water to Hauers 3rd. Addition. Ayes: Commissioners Kephart, Cook and Kirchmeier. Nayes: None. Resolution passed. Motion carried. Motion by Kephart, seconded by Kirchmeier to offer Resolution #305, A Resolution Adopting the Amount of the Trunk Water Charge for the Availability of Water to Hauer's 2nd. Addition. Ayes: Commissioners Cook, Kephart and Kirchmeier. Nayes: none. Resolution passed. Motion carried. Motion by Cook, seconded by Kephart to offer Resolution #306 a Resolution Adopting the Amount of the Trunk Water Charge for the Availability of Water to Della's 1st. Addition. Ayes: Commissioners Kirchmeier, Kephart and Cook. Nayes: none. Resolution passed. Motion carried. Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Kephart to offer Resolution #307 A Resolution Setting Water Connection Charges. Ayes: Commissioners: Kephart, Kirchmeier and Cook. Nayes: none. Resolution passed. Motion carried. Motion by Kephart, seconded by Kirchmeier to offer Resolution #308 A Resolution Adjusting the Fees Under the Trunk Water Policy Resolution. Ayes: Commissioners Cook, Kephart and Kirchmeier. Nayes: none. Resolution passed. Motion carried. The status of the tank painting was reported. The tank will be drained in the near future for the painters. Jim Streefland and Jerome Jaspers were present to present the 1985 audit. A discussion followed. Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Kephart to accept the 1985 audit from Jaspers, Streefland and Company. Motion carried. Motion by Kephart, seconded by Kirchmeier to allow the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission Manager to pursue action on requesting joint use of Minnesota ValleyCoop lines on Co. Rd. 42 by adding another phase or use of a neutral. Motion carried. There will be a special meeting of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission at 4:30 P.M. on April 10, 1986, in the Utilities meeting room to award the bid for the pumphouse work. The five year plan will be retyped with the additional changes and presented at the April meeting. There were no new plats for March, 1986. There were 2 fire calls for a total of 3 hours and 40 minutes in man hours for the month of March, 1986. There were no lost time accidents for March, 1986. The next regular meeting of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission will be held on May 5, 1986 at 4:30 P.M. in the Utilities meeting room. Motion by Kephart, seconded by Kirchmeier that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried. MINUTES OF THE SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in special session on April 10, 1986 at 3:30 P.M. in the Utilities meeting room. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Cook and Kirchmeier. Liaison Wampach and Commissioner Kephart were unable to attend meeting. Also Manager Van Hout and Ken Adolf from Schoell and Madson were present. Ken Adolf presented a bid tabulation for electrical and mechanical construction for Well #7, SPUC project 86-2. Manager Van Hout reported that bidders were notified of the 4:30 bid award meeting. Manager Van Hout stated that he will remain until that time in case any bidders arrive. Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Cook to award the bid for electrical and mechanical work for Well #7 to ACG, Inc. in the amount of $64,625.00. Motion carried. Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Cook that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried. 2-4 Lou Van OOut, Manager i i s F s } i t i PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MARCH 20 , 1986 Chairman Ziegler called the meeting to order at 7 : 40 p.m. with Commissioners Allen, Spiotta, Schwartz , and Schmidt present. Barry Stock, Administrative Intern, and Mr. Ed Wisniewski , KARE KABS were also present. Commissioners Weeks and McNeil were absent. Mr. Stock introduced the two new members of the Energy and Trans- portation Committee. They are Mr. Todd Schwartz, an employee of Citizens State Bank in Shakopee, and Ms . Carol Schmidt, one of our van pool drivers. Spiotta/Allen moved to approve the minutes of the January 23 , 1986 and February 20 , 1986 meetings as kept. Motion carried unanimously. ELECTION OF NEW COMMITTEE OFFICERS Commissioner Allen nominated Mr. Bob Ziegler for the Chairperson position. There being no further nominations, Mr. Ziegler was unanimously elected as Chairperson for the Energy and Transportation Committee for 1986 . Commissioner Schwartz nominated Ms. Spiotta for the Vice Chairperson position. There being no further nomi- nations, Commissioner Spiotta was unanimously elected to serve as the Vice Chairperson for 1986 . Commissioner Allen nominated Mr. Todd Schwartz for the Secretary position. There being no further nominations, Mr. Schwartz was unanimously elected to serve as the Secretary for the Energy and Transportation Committee for 1986 . THE SELECTION OF VAN POOL PROVIDER Mr. Stock explained that one contractor submitted two proposals for Shakopee ' s Commuter Van Pool Program. The contractor submitting the two proposals was Van Pool Services, Inc. (VPSI ) . The first proposal submitted by VPSI provided everything that we had asked for in our request for proposal specifications. However, VPSI included support staff that would be located in Shakopee to manage the Van Pool Program. The cost for this on sight manager would be approximately an additional $60 , 000 . 00 per year. Mr. Stock stated that there was no need for an on sight manager to be located in Shakopee to manage the Van Pool Program. He further stated that the Van Pool budget could not endure the cost proposed by VPSI in their first proposal. Mr. Stock then commented that he had tried to negotiate an ar- rangement with VPSI whereby we would accept all the conditions of their first proposal minus the cost of an on sight manager. This would have provided our Van Pool Program with a 75 , 000 mile termination clause. Mr. Stock then reported that VPSI was not interested in this arrangement. Mr. Stock then stated that he tried to negotiate an alternative proposal in which we would keep our existing vans at our current cost until they attained a 75 , 000 odometer reading. Upon the attainment of the 75 , 000 miles, we would receive new vans at a higher monthly fixed cost. Mr. Stock informed the Com- mittee that VPSI was not interested in this alternative. Mr. Stock stated that VPSI had suggested an alternative in which our monthly fixed cost per van would be increased $40 . 00 per month immediately, and upon the attainment of an odometer reading of 75 , 000 miles we would receive new vans. At first glance this proposal seemed to be palatable. However, upon an analysis of the odometer readings on our existing van pools, Mr. Stock reported that at the earliest, one of our vans will attain a 75 , 000 mile odometer reading in 18 months. This being the case, Mr. Stock explained that we would be expending an additional $40 . 00 per month/per van for 18 more months before we would receive a new vehicle. In light of the fact that Eden Prairie, Chaska, and Chanhassen are opting out and planning on being operational this fall, staff felt that it would be premature to enter into an agreement where we unnecessarily expended dollars for something that we were going to receive 18 months down the road. Mr. Stock further stated that several other alternatives are being investigated by staff to offset the high monthly fix cost on our Van Pool Program. Chairman Ziegler questioned whether or not the City of Shakopee could purchase vehicles through the Opt Out Program. Mr. Stock stated that in light of the fact that the Regional Transit Board has taken over the Opt Out Programs , he felt anything was possible with a little lobbying effort on our part. Mr. Stock then stated that he was recommending that the City of Shakopee maintain the status quo in the Van Pool Program. He further suggested that the City enter into a one year contract with a second year renewable at the option of the City. Chairman Ziegler then questioned what our cost would be if we maintain the status quo. Mr. Stock stated that the monthly fixed cost for a 12 passenger van would be $415 . 00 per month and a 15 passenger van would cost $465 . 00 per month. He further stated that each year VPSI has an inflationary increase in their costs. Commissioner Spiotta then questioned as to the status of our attainment of mini-vans. Mr. Stock stated that VPSI was willing to provide the City of Shakopee with mini-vans with a monthly fixed cost of $415 . 00 plus a 2 month termination clause. Under the two month termination clause, we would be responsible for paying for an additional two months in the event that a mini-van would terminate. Mr. Stock stated that he felt this was an unreasonable cost figure in light of the fact that VPSI is proposing the same monthly fixed cost on a mini-van as compared to a 12 passenger van. C� Allen/Schwartz moved to recommend to City Council that Van Pool Services, Inc. be selected as a commuter van pool provider and that the City of Shakopee enter into a one year contract with a second year renewable at the option of the City. Motion carried unanimously. SELECTION OF VAN POOL PROVIDER Administrative Aide Stock informed the Committee that three bids were received for the Shakopee Dial-A-Ride Program. He further stated that each bidder was proposing to locate their office dispatching facilities in the city of Shakopee. The first bid submitted was from Morley Bus Company in the amount of $27 . 88/per hour/per vehicle. This provider was proposing to locate a handicapped vehicle onsight. The second bid submitted was from Van Pool Services , Inc. (VPSI ) in the amount of $24. 32/ per hour/per vehicle. Under the current Dial-A-Ride contract, VPSI is providing a service at an hourly rate of $19 . 25/per vehicle. The bid proposal submitted by VPSI does not offer any significant changes to our current program. The third bid, and the low bid submitted, was from KARE KABS in the amount of $17 . 90/per hour/per vehicle. KARE KABS is willing to provide a handicapped vehicle to our program with a 24 hour advance notice. Mr. Ed Wisniewski was present to answer questions from the Commission in regard to his proposal. Mr. Wisniewski stated that KARE KABS is a subsidiary of K A L Leasing. K A L Leasing operates several bus fleet operations in the Metropolitan Area including one in the Burnsville School District. Mr. Wisniewski stated that in the event of maintenance problems he could have a backup vehicle in Shakopee within one hour. He further stated that all maintenance would be done at their bus garage in Burnsville. Mr. Wisniewski continued by stating that KARE KABS primarily serves the elderly and handicapped. Finally, Mr. Wisniewski stated that the vehicles being proposed in the Shakopee program were 7 passenger Dodge Mini-vans. Mr. Stock then stated that he had suggestea to kARE KABS that they provide a backup vehicle for our Dial-A-Ride Program that could also be used as a backup to our Van Pool Program. Mr. Wisniewski stated that they would be willing to locate a 15 passenger van in Shakopee for an additional $600/per month. He further stated that KARE KABS would offer the same maintenance services that Van Pool Services is offering to the Van Pool drivers in Shakopee. Mr. Stock then stated that if the City were to pursue this option KARE KABS overall bid would still be well below the second lowest bidder. Commissioner Spiotta then questioned whether or not our existing Dial-A-Ride drivers would be considered for employment in the KARE KABS operation. Mr. Wisniewski stated that he would be very open to accepting applications from the exisitng Dial-A-Ride drivers and dispatchers. Mr. Stock then questioned Mr. Wisniewski as to whether or not the min-vans had running boards on them. Mr. Wisniewski stated that they were not planning on installing running boards, but would be willing to do so if the City of Shakopee were willing to pay the additional costs of the running boards . Commissioner Spiotta stated that she felt that it made a lot of sense to reduce the size of our existing vehicles because of the negative perception that the public is receiving when they see a 15 passenger van running around with only 3 riders . Commissioner Spiotta then questioned what qualifications that KARE KABS had for their drivers . Mr. Wisniewski stated that over the years KARE KABS had developed an extensive driver training program that included defensive driving courses and the certification of each driver in CPR and First Aid. Commissioner Schmidt questioned how big of a step it was to get into the mini-van. Mr. Wisniewski stated that he believed the step was approximately 13 to 14 inches. Mr. Stock then stated that if it became a problem for the elderly people to get into the min-van the City could purchase running boards for the mini-vans. Commissioner Schwartz then stated that he felt that the mini-vans were quite a bit easier to get into than a car. He also stated that the amount of room in a mini-van was unbelievable. Finally, he stated that in his opionion he felt that people would feel more secure in a min-van because of its similarity to a car. Schwartz/Schmidt moved to recommend to Council that the low bid offer by KARE KABS in the amount of $17 . 90/per vehicle/per hour be accepted and that the City of Shakopee request KARE KABS to locate a 15 passenger van in Shakopee to serve as a backup to both the Van Pool and Dial-A-Ride Programs at a cost not to exceed $600/per month. VAN POOL DRIVER SURVEY Mr. Stock presented the results of the Van Pool Backup Driver Survey to the Committee. The findings of the survey revealed that there were no clear incentives discovered that would attract additional backup drivers. Mr. Stock stated that just by surveying the riders and expressing our concern over the shortage of backup drivers, that two people have stepped forward to become backup drivers . Now only one of our vans is in need of a backup driver. Mr. Stock further stated that the results of the survey are misleading because the Van Pool riders on the St. Louis Park route are all willing to become backup drivers if we pay for the cost of their license. Given the fact that only one of our vans is in a need of a backup driver, and one of our vans has two backup drivers , staff felt that it would be a bit premature for us to offer any additional incentives to attract backup drivers . Mr. Stock reported that each month new people enter into our program and with a little prodding we can hopefully attract more backup drivers as we continue to build our ridership. Commissioner Schmidt then stated that in her efforts to attract more backup drivers, she had found that some people are simply not willing to drive no matter what you give them as an incentive. Mr. Stock then stated that while some people are willing to pay an additional fare increase to offset the cost of additional incentives for backup drivers , the St. Louis Park Van Pool indicated that they would all drop out of the Van Pool Program at even the slightest fare increase. Mr. Stock stated that this was understandable in light of the fact that that van pool only travels approximately 20 miles one way. Allen/Spiotta then moved to keep the status quo in terms of the incentives being offered to van pool backup drivers, and to monitor the situation as needed. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock then presented to the Committee the 1985 Annual Report which summarized all the major activites of the Commission during the proceeding year. He further stated that this was a good method of bringing new Committee members up to date on where we have been in the past. Mr. Stock presented the Community Energy Council Grant Final Report to the Committee for their review. Commissioner Spiotta then questioned when the recycling video was going to be shown in the schools . Mr. Stock stated that he would try to set up something this Spring. However, the long range plans for the program was to initiate an office paper recycling program in the schools at the beginning of the school year this Fall. Mr. Stock reported that he was trying to obtain funding for this type of program through one of the Metropolitan Council' s Grant Programs . Commissioner Spiotta then questioned the status of the activities of the Scott County Landfill Abatement Committee. Mr. Stock informed the Committee that the Scott County Landfill Abatement Committee was recommending to the County Board that the County pursue requests for proposals for the development of a waste reduction facility in Scott County that incorporated the elements of refuse derived fuel, source separation, and composting. The proposal would also include the designation of Carver County' s refuse for this facility. Mr. Stock further reported that in future agenda packets he would include the minutes from the Scott County Solid Waste Advisory Committee ' s Meetings. Mr. Stock then presented the Dial-A-Ride and Van Pool Report to the Committee for their review. A letter that staff submitted to the RTB in regard to transfer reciprocity was then reviewed by Mr. Stock with the Committee. Another letter to the RTB which eluded to Shakopee ' s dissatisfcation with the taxing sit- uation in the opt Out Program was also presented to the Committee for their review. Mr. Stock reported that he hoped to achieve new legislation which would more appropriately meet the needs of communities served with peak a.m. and p.m. service. Finally, Mr. Stock discussed a letter tht was sent to the RTB in terms of the funding available under the Section 18 Program. Mr. Stock stated that he was trying to ascertain whether or not the City of Shakopee was eligible to receive Section 18 funding. If we are eligible, Mr. Stock reported that we may be able to acquire vans for our program. This would allow us to set up an alternative program to our current contract for service arrangement. Schmidt/Schwartz moved to adjourn the meeting at 9 : 00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The next meeting will be held on April 17 , 1986 at 7 : 30 P.M. Barry Stock Administrative Aide Transit/Recycling Coordinator i MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Aide RE: Scott County Solid Waste Advisory Committee- Informational Update DATE: May 14 , 1986 Introduction and Background: On March 14 , 1985 the Metropolitan Council adopted the Solid Waste Management Development Guide/Policy Plan in response to the 1980 Waste Management Act requiring the Met Council to provide a long-range plan for managing solid waste in the seven county area. The guide proposes a regional system of coordinated waste management services and makes recommendations about specific facilities and service areas. It mandates that each county develop a county master plan delineating how it intends to comply with the directives of the guide. There are two major policies provisions within the guide/policy plan that will have a significant impact on residents within the Metropolitan Area. The first requires the termination of landfilling of mixed municipal solid waste after 1990 . Only the nonrecoverable residuals remaining from waste processing could be landfilled after that date. Processing would include recovering the recyclable, compostible and combustible waste. The second major policy requires Metropolitan Area generators of municipal solid waste after July 1, 1988 to separate recycables and compostible yard waste materials from the remaining waste if volunteering efforts on the part of cities, towns or counties have not achieved the Councils objectives. For the past year, the Scott County Solid Waste Advisory Committee has been investigating the alternatives available to ensure Scott County' s compliance with the guide/policy plan. There are several technologies which could be implemented to ensure the County' s compliance with the guide/policy plan. However, each of the technologies available have environmental risks associated with them. You may have read in local newspapers that Hennepin County is handling their waste problem by constructing a 500 ton per day mass burn facility in Minneapolis. Of the available technologies, the Scott County Solid Waste Advisory Committee felt that a mass burn facility presented the most unknowns in terms of environmental risk. At the most recent meeting of the Scott County Solid Waste Advisory Committee, several key resolutions were passed which outline the direction Scott County will be taking to handle the solid waste problem. (See attachment #1) Attachment #1 MINUTES Scott County Solid Waste Advisory Committee March 12, 1986 Members Present : Albert Zweber - Chairman Emil Flicek - City of New Prague Barry Stock - City of Shakopee Dave Unmacht - City of Prior Lake Stan Harger - Citizen of New Prague Dennis Fredrickson - Buckingham Disposal Jan Flesland - Solid Waste Planner, Scott County Allen Frechette - Scott County Environmental Health Members Absent : Margaret Maxa - Citizen of New Market Joe Pahl - Louisville Landfill Dick VanTassel - Village Sanitation Curt Brekke - City of Belle Plaine Ray Miller - City of Savage Bob Morgan - City of Jordan Ed Gregory - Waste Management Pat Skelly - Citizen of Belle Plaine Guests : Tom Caswell - Metropolitan Council Mike Lein - Carver County The meeting began at 3: 10 PM with Chairman Zweber calling for approval of the minutes . Motion for approval was made by Barry Stock and seconded by Dennis Fredrickson. The minutes were approved . At the request of Phil Parsons of Resource Conversion Co . /Swentec, Jan Flesland read a letter updating the committee on Swentec ' s negotiations with Dakota County and the possibility of a combined Scott/Carver/Dakota Counties project for the generation of electricity from RDF in combination with composting and recycling components . Discussion of the price which NSP might pay for electricity compared with what the electric cooperative or public utilities would pay followed . The committee then considered the lists of advantages and disadvantages for the various technologies which had been mailed to members prior to the meeting . The following additions were made to the list : Mass Burn--Disadvantages--The possibility of explosions in the fire box. Refuse Derived Fuel--Advantages--The responsibility and liability for ash disposal generally rests with the fuel purchaser . #3 Moved by David Unmacht , 2nd by Barry Stock Carver County shall be included in any proposal specifications . #4 Moved by Stan Harger, 2nd by Dennis Fredrickson The County should look closely at the prudence of allowing the disposal of incinerator ash at the Louisville Landfill . #5 Moved by Barry Stock, 2nd by Dave Unmacht Absent members of the committee shall be sent copies of the motions approved and shall be authorized to vote by mail on said motions . Dave Unmacht suggested that County staff meet with the city councils of the smaller communities in the County to inform them of the requirements for solid waste planning, the status of the planning process and the Solid Waste Advisory Committee 's efforts . Stan Harger suggested that staff prepare a letter explaining the basics of the planning effort which could be sent to Solid Waste Advisory Committee members . They could , in turn, submit it to their local papers as citizen participants in the planning process . It was also suggested that this might be an appropriate time in the planning process for press releases to local papers . The committee briefly discussed Richards Asphalt Company 's position in the master plan. Al Frechette suggested that Mike Lein invite Scott County staff to present a report to the Carver County Solid Waste Advisory Committee on the history and status of Scott County ' s planning efforts . Regarding Requests for Qualifications from consultants, Al Frechette stated that the Solid Waste Advisory Committee would have the opportunity to review the responses and make a recommendation to the County Board . On a motion by Stan Harger, 2nd by Barry Stock the meeting was adjourned at 4 : 39 PM. �G #j Moved by David Unmacht , 2nd by Barry Stock Carver County shall be included in any proposal specifications . #4 Moved by Stan Harger, 2nd by Dennis Fredrickson The County should look closely at the prudence of allowing the disposal of incinerator ash at the Louisville Landfill . #5 Moved by Barry Stock, 2nd by Dave Unmacht Absent members of the committee shall be sent copies of the motions approved and shall be authorized to vote by mail on said motions . Dave Unmacht suggested that County staff meet with the city councils of the smaller communities in the County to inform them of the requirements for solid waste planning, the status of the planning process and the Solid Waste Advisory Committee ' s efforts . Stan Harger suggested that staff prepare a letter explaining the basics of the planning effort which could be sent to Solid Waste Advisory Committee members . They could , in turn, submit it to their local papers as citizen participants in the planning process . It was also suggested that this might be an appropriate time in the planning process for press releases to local papers . The committee briefly discussed Richards Asphalt Company 's position in the master plan. Al Frechette suggested that Mike Lein invite Scott County staff to present a report to the Carver County Solid Waste Advisory Committee on the history and status of Scott County ' s planning efforts . Regarding Requests for Qualifications from consultants , Al Frechette stated that the Solid Waste Advisory Committee would have the opportunity to review the responses and make a recommendation to the County Board . On a motion by Stan Harger, 2nd by Barry Stock the meeting was ad,,corned at 4 : 39 PM. tr� MINUTES INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL COMMISSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APRIL 23 , 1986 MEMBERS PRESENT: Al Furrie, Chairman John Manahan Jim O'Neill Donald Koopmann MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Keane Jane DuBois Bud Berens CITY STAFF PRESENT: John K. Anderson, City Administrator Barry A. Stock, Administrative Aide Chairman Furrie called the meeting to order at 5 : 15 p.m. and roll call was noted. Community Development Staffing: The City Administrator informed the ICC that at its Work Session on April 16, 1986 the City Council tentatively agreed to a phased implementation of the staffing analysis plan developed from the result of the consultant' s staffing needs analysis. He outlined the suggested departmental structure which will be increased by one new planner position and the full-time Community Development support of a secretary. There was a review of the assigned duties of each position. Jim O'Neill suggested one of the positions also screen projects for project viability. The City Administrator indicated that this assignment could be added to either the Community Development or Economic Development position; also, a Developers Advocate assignment will be added to the Economic Development position. He advised that there will be some office relocations, and to contact him with any additional suggestions. Merchant' s Hotel Developer - Pow-Bel Construction: The City Administrator informed the ICC of the Community Development Block Grant application to renovate the Merchant' s Hotel. Renovation plans include first floor offices for the Scott-Carver Economic Council. There was brief general discussion of a major redevelopment of the Minnesota Valley Mall for an ice arena. ICC Goals & Objectives/Reorganization of ICC: John Manahan outlined the major points of the 5-Year Economic Development Plan noting the priority ranking of goals and objec- tives. The Star Cities Task Force developed the Plan, and after its development, the ICC was recommended to be reorganized. A memo from Jeanne Andre, former Community Development Director, was reviewed as it described the expanding subcommittee structure and component functions . There followed extensive discussion of the proposal, need for key staffing support, membership recruit- ment, proactive versus reactive roles, the remaining elements for the Star City Program: 1 year objectives program, labor survey, presentation and committee designated to be available to potential developers . Barry Stock will contact Jeanne Andre for the name and costs for a consultant to work with the staff to complete the Star Cities program. He will provide this infor- mation at the next ICC meeting. There continued lengthy discussion of recruitment for new members for the ICC and proposed subcommittees. It was considered for the ICC itself to name members to the subcommittees. John Manahan moved, seconded by Jim O'Neill, to adopt the 5 Year Economic Development Plan as set forth by the Tast Force, and incorporated by reference into the record. Motion carried unanimously. John Manahan moved, seconded by Jim O'Neill, to adopt the proposed reorganization plan for a 12 member ICC, with the additional understanding that the membership of the proposed 6 subcommittees, if approved, would be screened and appointed by the ICC and to direct staff to take the necessary steps to implement th,,� plan. Motion carried. It was stated that recruiting subcommittee members by the ICC would be a convenience for the City Council, due to probable, more frequent membership changes as subcommittees work increases/decreases. Barry stock was directed to contact the Chamber of Commerce to place a notice of the reorganization and call for new membership. John Manahan moved, seconded by Jim O'Neill, to recommend the staff recommendations on staffing for economic development and direct implementation of staffing changes to accomodate necessary economic development functions. Motion carried. Other Business: The Chairman introduced new member Donald Koopmann to the ICC and welcomed him. Barry Stock was requested to confer with Jeanne Andre on the progress to date on its development of a 1 year Economic Development Plan, in order to maintain continuity of thinking. On a motion by John Manahan, seconded by Jim O'Neill, the ICC was adjourned at 6 : 35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Glenda Spiotta Recording Secretary pro tem l � PROCEEDINGS OF THE DOWNTOWN AD HOC COMMITTEE Shakopee, Minnesota April 29 , 1986 Chrm. Laurent called the meeting to order at 7 : 40 a.m. with the following members present; Terry Forbord, Gary Laurent, Don Martin, Dan Steil and Tim Keane arrived later. Absent: Steve Clay, Mike Sortum, Jim Stillman, Joe Topic, Bill Wermerskirchen, Pete Sames and Liaison Jerry Wampach. Also present were Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer; John Anderson, City Administrator; Barry Stock, Administrative Aide and Tim Erkilla, Westwood Planning; Beth Moe, Shakopee Valley News and Mike Luce. Winnie Blewett, executor of Laura Huber ' s estate would like an answer from the City whether or not they are interested in purchasing the house at 210 S. Holmes at a prive of $48 , 000 . The City Administrator suggested the possibility of the house being moved to city owned property on 4th Avenue and Spencer. It was the consensus of the committee that this house is out of place at its present location and if the cost of moving and fixing it up isn' t exhorbitant they would like to see it moved. This would accomplish additional parking space and additional low cost housing. Mike Luce was present in regard to a petition for diagonal parking at 205 Lewis Street. Staff recommended denial of the request because: 1. There is a new parking lot across the street from the business in question. 2 . Only four new stalls would be created. 3 . This area is scheduled for streetscape in 1987 . 4 . Staff fears that a precedent will be set for additional parking requests. The committee concurred with staffs recommendation to deny the request. Tim Keane arrived at 8 : 20 a.m. Terry Forbord/Dan Steil moved to approve the minutes of the April 9 , 1986 meeting. Motion carried. Tim Erkilla was present to address the Second Avenue parking lot and lighting options for streetscape. A lengthy discussion was held on the type of material that should go into construction of the retaining wall on the parking lot. The cost of a wood wall would be approximately $5400 as opposed to a concrete wall at $24 , 000 . Don Martin & Dan Steil left at 8 : 30 a.m. Tim Keane recommended we tell the Council we prefer concrete to wood but with the difference in costs we are recommending the wood. The City Administrator said as far as cost is concerned the City has much more flexibility since the last report. Westwood will draw up final design for the wall and present it at the next Downtown meeting May 21st before it goes back to Council for approval. Tim Erikkla commented that from a communication he had received from Lou VanHout, his suggestions on lighting is definitely a turn around from committees previous decisions. He presented a comparison of lighting systems between the original proposal, VISCO and SPUC. Westwood stresses aesthetics and the Utilities Supt. stresses efficency of the system. It was suggested that Tim Erikkla and Lou VanHout meet with Barry and try to come up with a unified recommendation. There may be a possibility that some areas should be treated differently than others. An architect has been selected for a new city hall. Borman Architects was selected out of a list of 18 candidates. This company will present its findings on the three sites. Pow-Bel Construction is interested in developing Merchants Hotel under the previous project with Scott Carver Development Co. The meeting adjourned at 9 : 25 a.m. The next Downtown Ad Hoc meeting will be held May 21, 1986 at 7 : 30 a.m. Darleen Schesso Recording Secretary 13 TENTATIVE AGENDA Downtown Ad Hoc Committee City Hall Council Chambers May 21, 1986 7 : 30 A.M. Chrmn. Laurent presiding 1. Call to order at 7 : 30 A.M. 2 . Approval of Agenda 3 . Approval of the minutes of April 30 , 1986 4 . Landscaping for Downtown Parking Lot - Final Design Approval 5 . Streetscape Assessment Policy 6 . Updates: a. Huber House Acquisition b. Lighting Plan for the Downtown Project 7 . Other Business a. b. 8. Adjourn at 9 : 00 A.M. Barry A. Stock Administrative Aide CITY OF SHAKOPEE IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING, PLEASE CALL BARRY OR TONI TO LET THEM KNOW. �rtv�h 4./ .. .�.. - r, Cl � 3C0 Me' Sai.are P.UiIo :y Seventh� u ,, Rohe S' ee y, d St. Pau M nnesota i `T:..�+��i Teiecnone (512;2915359 May 12, 1986 Mr. John Anderson, Administrator City of Shakopee 129-1st Avenue East Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: City of Shakopee Comprehensive Plan Amendment Urban Sanitary Sewer Service Area Areas 10 and 11 Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 12159-2 Dear Mr. Anderson: At its meeting on May 8, 1986, the Metropolitan Council considered the amendment to Shakopee's comprehensive plan. This consideration was based on the following statement from the Consent List which was adopted by the Council: The City of Shakopee is proposing to provide sewer service to two areas previously under a moratorium, Area 11 and one-half of Area 10, both located south and east of the downtown area. The service is in accord with management of sewer flow between 1981-85 as proposed in the 1981 Shakopee Comprehensive Plan. The city has managed sewer flows and has an adequate margin within the city's 1990 allocated capacity to service the additional area. In addition, the city has reduced industrial flows. The area will relieve a shortage of land for residential development. The amendment is in conformity with metropolitan system plans, consistent with other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide and compatible with the plans of adjacent communities. Sincerely, Sandra S. Gardebring Chair SSG:ll cc: Judi Simac, City of Shakopee Ray Odde, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Paul Baltzersen, Metropolitan Council Staff 44unicipal File SA / n Eaual or;,n;h, Em clover PETE V.DOMENICI,NEW MEXICO,CHAIRMAN I 1 WILLIAM L.ARMSTRONG,COLORADO LAWTON CHILES,FLORIDA NANCY LANDON KASSEBAUM,KANSAS ERNEST F.HOLLINGS.SOUTH CAROLINA RUDY BOSCHWITZ.MINNESOTA J.BENNETT JOHNSTON,LOUISIANA ORRIN G.HATCH,UTAH JIM SASSER,TENNESSEE y S'rEV ANDREWS,NORTH DAKOTA GARY HART,COLORADO •�NA �A�N�y matt SEVEN D.SVMMS,IDAHO HOWARD M.ME7ZENBAUM,OHIO 1 CU �NJ cs yK� C CHARLES E GRASSLEY,IOWA DONALD W.RIEGLE,JR.,MICHIGAN ROBERT W.KASTEN,WISCONSIN DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN,NEW YORK DAN QUAYLE,INDIANA J.JAMES EXON,NEBRASKA COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET SLADE GORTON,WASHINGTON FRANK R.LAUTENBERG,NEW JERSEY JOHN C.DANFORTH,MISSOURI WASHINGTON, DC 20510 pY+ fpV STEPHEN BELL, TAFF DIRECTOR 1,01 '+i 1 5 196 RICHARD N.BRANDON'M INORITY STAFF DIRECTOR April 28, 1986 CITY OF SH:4K'OPEE I Dear Friend: Recently, you sent me a letter expressing your concerns about tax proposals which would have the effect of restricting the use of tax-exempt bond financing in Minnesota. The purpose of this letter is to give you an update on the situation as it stands today. As you know, the comprehensive tax bill (H.R. 3838) passed on December 17, 1985 by the House of Representatives would severely restrict the number and types of tax-exempt bonds which could be issued in our state . In addition, H.R. 3838 would add new rules which would have the effect of adding to the cost of issuing tax-exempt bonds . As if that were not enough, the provisions in H.R. 3838 would generally be effective as of January 1, 1986. As we both know, tax-exempt bonds have been a very important tool in promoting economic development in Minnesota and in helping our state and local governments to provide necessary services . So, since H.R. 3838 was passed last year, I have been doing all I can to help preserve the use of tax-exempt bonds in our state. Because I am not a member of the Senate Finance Committee -- the tax writing committee of the Senate -- the courses of action available to me have been limited. Nevertheless, I have taken several steps to see that this matter is ultimately resolved in our favor. In addition, I have been supportive of the efforts of Senator Durenberger, who is also working hard and effectively to represent the interests of Minnesotans on this issue (Senator Durenberger is a member of the Finance Committee) . The first problem which needed to be addressed was the effective date contained in H.R. 3838. We had to make it clear that these very restrictive changes to current law would not be effective on January 1, 1986 . Together with my colleague Senator Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and others I cosponsored Senate Concurrent Resolution 105 to express the sense of the Senate that any tax changes pertaining to tax-exempt bonds should not be effective until at least January 1, 1987 . Although our resolution was never brought up for a vote, I think that it contributed to two recent developments which have eased the problem presented by the January 1, 1986 effective date in H.R. 3838. On March 14, the Chairman of the Finance Committee April 25, 1986 Page Two (Bob Packwood, R-Oregon) , the Chairman of the House tax writing committee (Dan Rostenkowski, D-Illinois) and Secretary of the Treasury Baker issued a joint statement that no changes would be made in the law for many types of tax exempt bonds until later this year at the earliest. Not as far as we wanted them to go on the issue, but a start. Then, when Senator Packwood unveiled his tax overhaul proposals to the public in the middle of March, his proposals for tax-exempt bonds were generally effective on January 1, 1987. So, at this point here in the Senate, we have acheived the desired -- and fair -- result on effective dates . More recently, I sent the enclosed letter to Senator Packwood urging that no new restrictions be placed on the amount of tax increment bonds -- used in our state to eliminate blight and revitalize areas -- which can be issued. That ' s a lot of background, probably more than you might have wanted. But this is a very important issue to our state. Anyway, I 'm a businessman and like you, I prefer to get to the bottom line. So here it is . On April 17, the Finance Committee agreed to adopt a proposal presented by Senator Durenberger (which I cosponsored) in place of the proposals contained in H.R. 3838. The Durenberger proposals are much less restrictive than those contained in H.R. 3838, and should allow our state to continue to rely on the se of tax-exempt financing. Senator Durenberger sh ld complimented for his work on this issue . That ' s the update. The next tep will e in the full Senate, assuming the Finance Committee ag�ees on th rest of a comprehensive tax bill. I will c ntinue to do all I can to support the use of tax-exempt bon s in our tate. Sincerel , Rudy oschwitz RB:dsl JESSE HELMS.NORTH CAROLINA.CHAIRMAN BOB Db LE.KANSAS EDWARD ZORINSKY.NEBRASKA RICHARD G LUGAR INDIANA PATRICK J.LEAHY.VERMONT TRAD COCHRAN MISSISSIPPI JOHN MELCHER.MONTANA AUDY BOSCHWITZ MINNESOTA DAVID H PRYOR.ARKANSAS PAULA HAWKINS.FLORIDA DAVID L BOREN.OKLAHOMA MARK ANDREWS NORTH M TCH M CONNELL KENTUCKYTOM MARK N.IOWA OTA N015 . iter �Ratcs �5matt PETE WILSON CALIFORNIA NOWELL HEFLIN.ALABAMA COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION,AND FORESTRY WASHINGTON, DC 20510 April 11, 1986 Honorable Bob Packwood Chairman Committee on Finance United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Bob: I am writing this letter to request that the tax reform legislation being considered by the Finance Committee retain the current law treatment of tax increment bonds as governmental bonds . As you know, cities in Oregon, Minnesota and many other states have successfully used tax increment financing to eliminate conditions of blight and revitalize downtown areas . (In fact, Minnesota cities have used " TIFFL bonds more on a per capita basis than any other state) . Unlike IDBs, TIF bonds (1) are repaid by local taxes, not private revenues; (2) can only be used in blighted areas; ( 3 ) encourage development in areas that would not have occurred without public involvement and (4) are issued only after a public hearing on the redevelopment district. � Minnesota cities have come to rely on TIF bonds as a major tool to accomplish the governmental objective of urban renewal. Accordingly, I ask you not to classify TIF bonds as IDBs and to keep TIF bonds out from any volume limitation cap. I understand that Chuck Grassley and other Finance Committee . members will make an amendment to this effect during mark-up, and I hope that you will be amenable to this change. Sincerely, Rudy oschw' tz RB:dgs cc: Members of Senate Finance Committee 1142 OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR {` SCOTT COUNTY COURT HOUSE 110 Lx air t' e'> . SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379-1382 (612)937-6100 May 14, 1986 JOSEPH F.RIES Administrator F.BRANDT RICHARDSON Deputy Administrator BARBARA NESS Administrative Asst. Metropolitan Waste Control Commission 350 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 55101 Re: Consideration of Bids - Scottland Property Dear Commissioners: In your consideration of bids on the Scottland Property today, please be advised that the County of Scott supports the planned use of this 590 acre parcel of property for traditional private development in keeping with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Shakopee. Thank you for your consideration of Scott County' s position in this matter. Si cerely, Jos F. Ries dministrator cc: Mark Stromwall, Chairman of the Boar Ray Joachim, Metropolitan Council Jon Westlake, Planning Director John K. Anderson, Shakopee City Administrator File JFR:bn An Equal Opportunity Employer -7 irTHE -2 V SCOTTLAN COMPANIES6 or , May 12, 1986 Chairman Peter Meinstsma Commissioner Susan Kimberly Minnesota Waste Control Commission 911 Osceola Avenue 350 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 55105 St. Paul, MN 55101 Commissioner Judith Fletcher Commissioner Carol Kummer 2626 South Lawn Drive 4818 30th Avenue South Maplewood, MN 55109 Minneapolis, MN 55417 Commissioner Arthur Cunningham Commissioner Paul McCarron 8124 35th Avenue N. P . 0. Box 32610 Crystal, MN 55427 Fridley, MN 55432 Commissioner Mark Mahon Commissioner Jo Ellen Hurr 8435 Portland Avenue 930 Partenwood Road Bloomington, MN 55420 Long Lake, MN 55356 Commissioner Bruce Baumann 211 21st Avenue South South St. Paul, MN 55075 RE: Sale of the Scottland Land Dear Commissioners: Scottland Inc. , through its wholly owned subsidiary, Scott County Real Estate Development Inc. , ( "Scottland" ) , submitted a responsive bid on April 30 , 1986 for the 590 acres that the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) had purchased from Scottland Inc. several years ago. The only other bidder, Consolidated Management Corp. ( "Consolidated" ) submitted a bid in the amount of $1 , 257 , 500 .00 which was $ 17 , 857 more than Scottland' s bid. For the reasons stated hereinafter, we ask you to sell the property to Scottland. 5244 Valley Industrial Boulevard South Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 (612] 445-3242 May 12 , 1986 Page 2 In the MWCC ' s request for bids, the MWCC reserved to itself the complete discretion to sell the property to any bidder, whether the bidder be highest or lowest. In this case, there were only two bids with $17 , 857 difference or 1 . 4%. There are several reasons why the MWCC should sell the property to Scottland: 1 . Scottland had purchased the property in the early 1970 ' s for development related to its ownership and development of the contiguous 1 ,400 acre industrial park, north of the property owned by Scottland. Scottland developed plans for the property as part of this industrial park. Good planning supports the development of this parcel as part of the original park . In fact, through the years, the MWCC has continued to refer to the property as the Scottland Land. 2. The MWCC purchased the property from Scottland. When property is acquired by a public agency from a private party for a public purpose, public policy favors selling the property back to that same private party who assisted the public agency in the first place. (I believe that with some type of land acquisitions, state and federal law requires allowing the private party the opportunity to purchase back the property. ) If the $17 , 857 .difference in bids is deemed important by MWCC, the MWCC could offer to sell the property to Scottland for $18 ,000 more than Scottland bid and Scottland would agree to pay that amount. 3 . Scottland is a Minnesota company, owned by over 200 Minnesota shareholders, and is a responsible and experienced developer with a proven track record so the MWCC, Metropolitan Council, Scott County, the City of Shakopee, Lower Minnesota Watershed District, the PCA, DNR, EQB, and other state agencies would know that we would develop the property as a Minnesota taxpayer, and in a responsible way to the benefit of the public and not to the detriment of the State, State agencies, City of Shakopee, Scott County, adjacent residential and agricultural property owners, and adjacent recreational, commercial, and industrial projects. In conclusion, the interests of the public are best served by selling the property to Scottland. In the event the MWCC decides for some reason it cannot do so, we ask that the MWCC reject both bids and May 12, 1986 Page 3 readvertise the property for sale. In any event, no decision needs to be made by the MWCC for 60 days after the April 30 , 1986 bid opening, so we ask the MWCC not to act on the bids until just prior to the expiration of the 60 day time period, which is June 30 , 1986 . Very truly yours, SCOTTLAND INC. &""' (). nui—� Bruce D. Malkerson Executive Vice President BDM:ap C. C. Mr. Louis Breimhurst, Chief Administrator Mr. John Anderson, City of Shakopee LAW OFFICES 11 KRASS & MONROE CHARTERED ff Phillip R. Krass Dennis L. Monroe Marschall Road Business Center 327 Marschall Road Barry K. Meyer P.O. Box 216 Trevor R. Walsten Shakopee.Minnesota 55379 Elizabeth B. McLaughlin Telephone 445.5080 Bryan Wm. Huber Livery Building Susan L. Estill 218 Pine StreetP.O. Box 316 Diane M. Carlson Chaska, Minnesota 55318 May 9, 1986 Telephone 448.7666 Mr. Ralph S. Towler Northern States Power Company Law Department 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401 Re: Shakopee City V. NSP Declaratory Judgment Relocation Poles Our File No. 1-1373-188 Dear Mr. Towler: Thank you for your letter of May 7, 1986. You must understand that the relationship between the City of Shakopee and the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission is such that all monies the Utility Commission makes over and above its expenses and reserves are transmitted by the Utilities Commission to the City. Although the Commission has been set up as an independent operating entity, this Commission and its assets are owned by the public. Consequently, it is simply a question of taking funds from one pocket and putting it into another pocket and it is not analogous to our relationship with an independent entity such as NSP. The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission also operates the water system in the City. There may be funds transferred back and forth between the City and the Commission relative to water which fall into the same category. This is essentially a bookkeeping matter and I am not sure it would make any difference what- soever if the City decided not to reimburse the Commission and just had the Commission send that much less of its revenues to the City at the end of the year. Very truly yours, KRASS & MONROE CHARTERED Phillip R. Krass PRK:mj cc: LJafin Anderson Lou Van Hout ((II� Northern States Power Company Law Department Reymond A.Helk 414 Nicollet Mall Senior Vice President&General CounselSenior Attorneys Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Gene R.Sommers David G.McGennon Director—Law Telephone (612) 330-6600 Ralph S Towler Writer's Direct Dial Number Joseph D Bizzano,Jr.Stephen C.tapadat May 7, 1986 Harold J Bagley 330-6610 Jack F Stoholm.Jr. Robert W Groin Mr . Phillip R. Krass David A.Lawrence Gale K.Nordling Attorney at Law Gary R.Johnson Krass & Monroe , Chartered Attorneys JoAnn M.McGuire Marschall Road Business Center Joanne E.Hinderaker 327 Marschall Road David M.Sparby P.O. Box 216 Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: Shakopee City v. NSP Declaratory Judgment Relocation Poles Dear Mr . Krass: I have your letter of May 5, 1986, in which you enclose copies of correspondence between the City and the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC) . I note that in a memorandum dated September 27 , 1985 from Lou Van Hout to John Anderson, and an apparent understanding has been arrived at that the City will reimburse SPUC for it ' s costs in relocating utility poles which are located directly across from the NSP poles on the same roadway. I call your attention to paragraph VII in our Answer and invite your comments as to how you propose to justify the position of the City in requesting reimbursement from NSP for the cost of relocating the NSP poles when the City has apparently agreed to reimburse SPUC for its cost in relocating its poles. If you will also refer to my April 24 , 1986 letter, I have not yet received the map mentioned in item 3 on page 2 of that letter . I assume you will be sending me the map in the near future. With respect to item 4, I expect to be receiving within the next day or two information which I will forward to you when received. Yours very truly, A,- Ralpth PS . Towler RST/kmp / q TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Projected Bond Issues for 1986 (Informational) DATE: May 13, 1986 _Introduction and Background The City has several improvement projects underway that will require bonding soon. Staff has started working on the upcoming issues. Major factors on the timing of the issues are the need to have funds on hand to pay bills, not selling the bonds too far in advance of need, spending or committing 2.5% of the money within six months and the bulk within three years, and finally, settling the bonds before September due to changes in state and federal laws. The projects/issues are: G.O. Improvement Fourth Avenue, Timber Trails, Montecito Heights, Valley Park Drive North. T.I.F. Shakopee Valley Motel Downtown Parking Lot and Landscaping Holmes Street Basin Storm Sewer Other steps needed for the bonding process and that are in process are amending the TIF Redevelopment Plan, amending the project area to include all of the Holmes Street Basin, and amending the TIF Districts budgets. Council may note that the Holmes Street Basin is listed as TIF bonding rather than TIF/Utility revenue bonds. It is intended that the increment will be pledged to support the bonds and that the user fees will "reimburse" the TIF funds for the user fee portion of the financing formula for storm drainage projects. The purpose is to be able to issue a larger TIF bond issue for storm drainage purposes before September. If there are questions on this please call John or Gregg. w w u W w W' w W • W W w w u W u u v+ w • W W W w W W u+W W W_W W w_ w_u W • w W • w W T r N''� U: �' Ut U� U: ;,; U. UI • W w W w w w W W W W • r +r r 7- r r �+ w v o • L'O a C �U -+ r -+ro opo • A s`W U W NN NN N • w PUIL. w www w W rr►� -+r0 • u W • Nr n z OD T F u N -.o D Cc V T * r O V D+N i`u N r O • r O o CO ti P Ul A w N Ln F w N r IZ • N r • N r n 0 T T-PLn urg mr DG r+ X. nxr- Ln r xuxwmwc x -0O -0n S .wr -i w -V 44 --i -n0 C n •err nwrzzz OD 2 6700 r-i -10000 -1 rr - C --4 r, mmmr C 0 —— m-x T m D Hm Z o rnrwnc G103r 1 000 Cnrrxnn n 000xmcrnc -OCzmOa m zm X wz - r -i r --lmmz . •r . r+ r m .x z- -- - - MD -i m n n mn m r s x r r n G-) x c n n an m Zw w 7 xzm x m -irr mn m rm z . f. mz as o zC 0 0 1 ownc7mrn ►+ < c7 c� <m mm� w .. � x �zam r, ;o a -,n r mc7 0 xTx = xmcwT o a o = mc7cs m z nm .. e- m .. zzn--49 ►" T r <r m U7 T Tm mmnxm -1D C -rxsmC -+ U7ao x w 0mC00 Xr)0 C) -4 nrx OC nz mNoznp .+zs -+ m M 0 0 -tl z -soca zzv vn cxn rmc7mra a wa .,.< zm U, m00 -17Cmzcnz z nxm . an -1z a 1 v) mr n..r Tim aznz W (n v7 ,., z s zn 0M -1 x 1pmzx�-- -i H mm z 1ti rnm rx wmn w •-.w � -0 1 T n n 1 c wT1T ., m n 0 a0 Cwv ..vmw -0xxr ..mmzs m zm n -ir x CxmmmwC C z ace, m �-+�-+ rr m V7 rnzmm mxxr+ nr NN .. V) -,v, xn o n ma mmm0m -1 zZ O ;Q . xc7x x '-rr-inmti mV) N mw C 0 -n xzx xz n m -�a) w x -C xv x -i � mzz wm x ;D:r — x 1 -in cp T r x . o r 7•- -0 -+ m -. v7v7zv7c) m mm -, x zz rm*i nV7 x �-+ m ., -i .. -i m-+ x -+ w m z w z rl m U o m nTm o a w n wxwx co mwr -i -1-i W z w m m w M ►» x ., w u w m r7 Q i n ..� V) z C n N -i w Fy m Q rn w 1 i Aj m C m z C m n C x r r ~ w N W (A x r O • + r �O • . m P W Q+Lr j Ln W tr r -+ tN N D) FU)UI r W N N m OD+ .DN O U7 N N FFUI W N5 V Fr O O V V a z OO Fr U1N N N CO D�WUtN �OTo W .1 00 D, D, n C • i • • i • • • • Y • • • • . . • • • • • f . • . • • • • ► • • • ► • f ► • f . • f • • �1 --4O O W 0 0 0 V O o 0 O O O C0 O G O O 0 0 r o 0 W O C U7 0 D` AN o 0 0 o 0 o o O O o V G m 0 0 UI O O O Ul O o Li A o L-d G O o G.'J o 0 o r r o O W o 0 0 0 W O Ln O p 0 0 LID= o L7 p A O F a rx z o c z m cx A a x m D D z n o m z -i n H M+ m ID w r o ,+ IL Ul r t m IL W r T t U1 r �L N -i U7W NUI NO NN%D r A. Ut A0o r r .IW CGON F WO �D NN G O O 0 0 0 O O N O O O r F F O O O • C O O �'-7. G O O A F O o O N W o 0 0 OW r N �D N o O W G O 0 P.i N 0 0 0 Q o U1 x U: C !�C O O G Gi G O G U. G3 O G O O G O (*7 O o 0 0 0 0 O O p Ui O O o O N O O O O O O Q O 0 0 0 0 o O G 0 0 0 0 0 U1 O V• C G G O o 0 0 0 0 o G o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o G o 0 0 0 0 0 o O c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O C rn < rn r -• m N a rte+ r W r r+ O + N O + Ir + N IL y r NN D\ UI0 N0 W CD 10 A -. N O WUI rN -+00 UID` /+ r W O7 W y7 D W V D14 . cc •-' F rA A7- rm PLDrF O W O tr, rw D �1 Vi OAT W OO� O F .0 'S N V N F W WOQ� A P�DAUI r C O r NCa n • . • • ► . • . • • f • . . • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • . • . f • • • • • • • • • • • H O O O CxoUl CtDo 00 N rrorNoo 00 Ln A CD CD WOC71outi CC .Dr ONOo po O oo r F V C �1 mFOOO po00 N O 'DO Vo O000m Q1 m WO CD m Q pUloo Oo c CD N 0 N D rp r a 1 w -i 1 r V r 10 N t m ID o 1,,. O V 1 1�U'. A F m CO (P ID F r Fr .1 ro0 (.il o r r .1 o W N O N co L,W P � + C V V W Ln -•V Ul ON m �D K,►+ V GOON V H. r U7P r.l -+OD Ln CD OPQ, N Oo VO .!N W F IN W o o f T w A o W A c o o D+ W Ln W v1 0 r r W(r r U1 C F o -d O o D' T 0D U m m P z G7 U:'.0' W OWo op O L� CLO V V Oa ON U1 aV C" 1:1 w�LFA GO:' GG • • • • • • . • . • • f . • • . . • . a . • • • • • . • . • • . • • . • • . D o C r 0 U1 0 0 o O C a .D r O m Ln O O O O U7 UI O O m O UI O Nn co U1 ID C.1 0 0 0 0 O O O m T N 0 O O CJ r O o 0 G 10 O W O G .':O O O` f O O -Ni O G O O'.0 O O G L, O O G'O h p G O Ocr, n D 1 1 1 1 1 1 i t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m M PF m -141Nr r U1A ID f.n W wwF r .l utN V W tN W O woo N &C, ro r rONQ� TYiW UlN W W .1 V t Un W u Ll. :++G tv .+ C` T O N Ul -+Ut O r v'.Cr. r T Ull w -.v W r t n �N, RW W R W W w W W • • W W U W U W W W W W W W W W U W T r RCL LP R P R U` JI Ui Ui U'. UI J1 N U' Lr' UI N Ji U, a L .0 R ►' O R �O W IV N r R P R Ul A F F P U•W W W N N N N N IV r n Z A) R O o R O O N r O R O R O W N O �O W N r r m W N O V r7 O m O y (r, S x V) Ll A r C7 (7 r7 A = Ln a V) = T T x n T1 V) S = V)A C rl o In z o o x rn = oma .. o o..-i rel z rn z o .� a C D N 03. zz -4 C C D TL7 '+ SDyAC NzxAV) r z n r7 n "-+ yrn z x A C S ►' Nrn r C" nr) �-+ rn(") O= D \ '< v! N I'1 rn I.7 z A -� -� �. N • 3 N C x • r'7 z r`1 • r O T r7 T r r ►+ m m rn —N z r') J N 11-ti L r7 1. 2 rn O O I'1 0r•1 r r0Q N T T N -Vz — L") J> T '0N LA C rn In V)In T z z a acc -1 — OQOO-Irrmo►•zz • -aso c� z T V) " 0 z z z -1 z z T r' o .. rr rlroarn -+ o zrn N c z rn In0 rn rn c v, rrzr�oOw ..zzv = ►4<0T ..z x z '. O OSO N !/> .Z V In 1 Trn r) 0 C) 1. V. ZDrn 173 D O 31 C CD z GIn W PITT 1 r*. '+ • Orrn -fir 7C C N 0z V) N V) 2V) O -1 L z ( N r O y y O In ana 00 NT 10 In r) OT V O r*) z rOzr 1 -1 In z2 2C rn c c s Ln v a z z r c a z rn n z T .. m O z rl) G ., A L7 r m 0 O O N .; Cf G7 V) rn rn r a n rn rn m N N N T r'1 In In U) y A rn Z C I*1 n c z N W N N W r A F O O N N LJi H N W A 1'1 m O O W O W V V D\ %D Ln '" In A W W .O N P V V m T N a z F N N O N U7 ID r V m C71 o 0 C • ► • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • . • • • • • • • • • -1 y m o 0o v N 000P% V v W V 0ooQCD 0 0 0 000000 c In N o 0 o Ul r 0 0 0 F W �D w v v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O C7 0 L7 C7 a r s z o c z In -I c S A a z rn M a v z 0 0 rn z y ti! L7 W In N P N W F r V) in G N P F LI v W tr V V1 1. o O D, r+ N N ti W F ✓t O Vl o v O U1 \Gr w O O G m LJ 1/1 N O O N A N LTi m o G r� G o O O %C; O Ui r-O v 0 G C, O G G: L7 F P F O O o O v O o O 0 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • . trI O O O O O O O O co O O O G G GQ O O O G G O O o O C G o Z O G O O O o 0 0 0 0 o O O O O O O O O G O v O 0 0 0 0 0 v c rn -c In O m m N Ln W O 0 W r � N N W cJl V U1 A o r+ O " m W W N W N�+ W a r W D �D N N O• • D+ T ID O ry cr ID N � a -7 N OD � G W •m r)m O• F • • y O O N O o0 -4 r00GDP N N N W 00000 V10 oo0CD0om0 C T O oo v rOOOF o o r me Co 000 o G oo �n o a rc F a I N W T N r W N r I W N N N F W W •D + C r P N F 4. m T SD T Dl N LP V Ln O O 11 Dl N UI N D W U7 U o ID W \ 1D W W .D .D Ln0m = lm OOT zNmo .S o m 0 0 U Ln W O C•o o :1 .D N C O W an d V O — O N m O CD r..W m m -1 m G O O o 0 W 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 L 0 Z -0 t G G O L'1 lz m O z N G O U o G o 0 0 0 CD V O y'n rl Y 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i I I I 11 11 r, C� r N N m N F F N W W F P IJ Ir N N N V IL t 2 LJl S P fl -i N R r R f ► F R r f ► S S F f F f F F F l A F F A F A f F f F f F 4- I'll IV N N N N rJ N N ► -+r r r r r r D L �0 y -V q, UI W N rV r r r W F L I W W N r r ► Vt CP Ul F r u •"O n L W R R N ► CD 10 r L9 r O O O o 0 m r O z 0l o r N F NON Ll1 n ► N r O•+ C o N o n O D\ J T n Gn Cn x x0 nxc2 -0 --1--q T T r 'D rrNC m p3NN T C CS � TN G �� C n C O m D m D -ID C ►� CmCOm-12mAm0 .'9mzZm �OCOCC m ZOmmm DGD Zo �+ 2 2 3 X D .T T T 9 -0 L� .'O � mzZ.-.c - 3. rLncc CGDr+Cr+ ti77'9 z m .TDZmrmr " r 1 -I -I m Z 3 ►� m -. '0 nxC-) WT--IrCZ Cm "12D T Dr r �--r O Tm N m Aro DmD \ < 1�1m1 r! 0 .-, z� m-D nGr rmr • 'DASD r O Z S - — ?.7 -170 O 2 Z V T Z D D ►+ r 2DR JO -i D�Ir2G1"1 Cn tinN 2 nti z rmS O �"�� mG) O G'S G'7 D rl m r '+ r m r -IZ m I-+ " Omr TU) O0 -Cmz m D O Z 2 mm Nm T mm Z y z 3 1 Cn D 00Z mr7 1;1 9r DG DC C N r < � R (n (nmv nZ 2 2 n N -I m Tm ZCr c C.) m m Zr 001 --1 �- m S 1 I I xm (n n n m X y0 Q. mlA Vi .Tm Go to Cn ..Z r.m23rD CA mn r -1 1 TT r. z 2 < •� Vl 1 m OC Cmm00 C --I En m z0 -;� CC -0 D X m Gr. N c n Lm c) rmM ., m -, s n Drr -Ir x D z my m wn ZQ, C: V) n 2Wzrnp Z O 3 3 m 2 — O — T Cn 1 D -r H .� n • O T T rn .-� m m G D T N r N m m � . r D n O '� '� 1 Z C rTI T -1 zz .. z -� n � -+ mz zm cr r1 � zz ��-+ Z rn m C G -I S N N z z v1 m m co = z I — • D � • cc .-.mm ,n mW v> z O .� n m n .. ;u z m V) wr zm " F1 R ov n DD ri V) Gr nw a zz • n z n n CD y m m z to D O .p N .r a -i 0 z n c m X x I.. r r ►+ N � �0 A N r .-• •+ (JI CJI W ON A �D T W V W N CP rTt F F N W N IO N W N O N F" V N UI o t0 J F V m 0, N V N m o P 0, F OFOO -d V1T AO V -4L40 10N m Nr Fr WC0 a2 O O d I0WC11mN N V W FDN LnOHO W CJIom n Z O O O O O O F 0 A M O C O 10 S O CJ1 N CTI U. N O O o O O o Ln o UI N O O O m W w►' O m W U7 N m U N 0 U m V r P o O O 01 y F r m F O � z c H X C S m a z M a z z n m m v 0 n z H r � a r r r N W[7�V N r F m Q� W F N(7` N CIS O Ln L. .+ A -P 'D OD W F F o O N O �D+ W P N+ W LJt . N Ul . F f, 0� N -•NO r j-V f T PV+. O r :,-W WT N • . • • O • . . . . • + • • . . . . •M1. • • o A �+ A O'.Ci r .G O f W 'd O V V CTI CJI O O ILi 1.61 W Vi b'f CD .L O N W v. N u I0 C71 W 0, O ti W f CJI . F V"i Ul W O S r F O O O O O O O G y G O O r W N U O O 1I A ti O G.Ln r„I O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vr O CT 0 0 0 O L,,0 0 0 Ln0 V1 0 0 LI C Ul LA • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . • • • • • • s . . • • • . • • • • • • • • a p p O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O G o 0 0 0 0 0 0 G 0 d O O O G O 0 0 0 �1 O O O O O o O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 r0 m r N f W a r r W W N P m N N N 10 A N r rJ N F 0� 0� CP v1 + r F= u W F N • r • • • • • • • v • • • � y • O O W mrC), W �NNr J' Oy W mr w OUfF1Ovmm D N N Vy V mOF %D m •r FrPlyCID V CW 00� VVN D1 Cn N N o O ID F C71�L v1V T WAmFOo FNoyN 0� rN o�Dy0CJ1 n • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • . • • • • • • • O O 0l m O O O o J O V �0 0 0 o F O` W O O r m tD�C r O to o 0 0:0 p� m F ZD N r C+ C W CA O O O O W0 W V d 0 0 �D N iy � O v] O V V F O W O O O F r A P U7 .D O O N T P V H J r 0 A a 1 r W -1 0 r N N N ID 1 ►+ �+ •' '+N o N N U m F W N F N y G+0 LD W O m m T CT F t T O V U� r W br1 F 'D 0 W N m T V1 'oV�� 2 �• r r . • • + • . • . + + • . • • • r G F F rr Ln o O m CD T N UI CJI d -1 Lo (A%D ONJ W N-4 o Fr or) D W W O O O O O O N ON O O f m F r O N �D LA N O N W O L.Lw V F+-1 10 r N F N N F O O O O �D .D O 0' CSO F O F N O W • . • . . • . . . • • . . • • • • . • . . • • • . . • • • . • D Cwl W O O O O N O N O C O O CJI W m <L O m N 0 0 O rl 0 0 0 0 Q' F CTI r O OC C F A w�G W n D r O O G G r `7 V W O O O p+ m r W L4 m v m F r N r ►' N N �' N F r-' N CT W V W N m N N N N N F r f `'' P• y m W W N W Uf N tT r N P S m F CX+ m:9�D �D W • 'D V� m �u F CN N m C v♦UI w 0: v.CT TI r n L W n u c c c n C, .+ \ K U r*1 0 O N m T t"7 Z -n ;D m V. c .+; Z Z Y ➢ u -, r A �. o -f O T C) 2 C rn -i Z IT7 a o r n v 'n z 0 v a H O zn c rri w x a P � r� co r*I .O a 2 P A 2 v C O � A r O r 2 C C 2 M a z 2 n m ri .9 0 v n z -� H u a N v CD v o+ � 0 f V Tr ➢ A • D o ti O 2 K rTl W a 10 a z o a IG a V+ o r • -1 O O C, C �1 N a r a a f N W K o W 1 m M cc w T c r a N t� r • n � Z � m r^ N V -i N f f 1 -7:,7-T Chairman Czaja called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. with "ommissioners 1,ane, Pomerenke, Vans<"aldeg'riem, Rockne and `'oudray present. 'Commissioner )chmitt arrived at 7:45 Pm . '.lso present were .Tud-i 9imac, "ity Planner and John Anderson, City Administrator. Rockne/jranMaldeghem moved to approve the agenda as published. Motion carried unanimously. 'TanMaldeghem/Pomerenke moved to open the public hearing to consider a plan which establishes a Racetrack Development District for land use in the vicinity of Canterbury Downs. Motion carried unanimously. � Fred Hoisington, City 'Consultant for the racetrack development area, reviewed the background of what has been done .and the kinds of changes that have taken place as a result of the racetrack. The ultimate goal is to try and establish a reasonable relationship between uses that are already there and uses that are yet to come. The study area that is being looked at is bounded on the south by County Road 16, on the west by 'County Road 17, on the north by Hwy 101 and on the east by 'Talley Park Drive. Most all the land in the center is currently zoned light industrial. The future by—pass will be constructed south of the racetrack and will have an interchange at county road 83 which will carry 25,000 vehicles per day. Two alternative plans have been developed: 1 . To keep things the way they are right now. 2. To move the interchange at County Road 83 over to County Road 16, this would resrerse the traffic patterns as it exists today. When it was suggested to move interchange at County Road 83 to 16 MI1 DOT was concerned because it would disrupt the funding for the by—pass, as a result a plan had to be developed by blending the two plans and come up with a land use scheme that reflected the second alternative and a circula— tion system that did not reflect such a great change as to have funding delayed. Plan No. 3 has now been developed by blending the two alternatives. Concept Plan 3 attempts to create a racetrack district which will include all the racetrack itself and expands the racetrack district on the future Shenandoah Drive around the south end of the track and up to County Road 83. This plan would change the land north of the racetrack to light industrial in place of the heavy industrial currently zoned, all light industrial on both sides of Shenandoah Drive would remain the same, all heavy industrial that is north of 4th would remain the same, the areas along 4th avenue and south of 4th avenue currently zoned multi-family and industrial would become multi-family and area south of parkway would be mixed residential. 2G, ia� 'ase -2- "'he 2-The traffic flow as it now stands is Shenandoah Drive carries about 25 of all cars coming to the racetrack today which is now gate 4, gate 3 carries 5';;, gate 2..carries 25So and gate 1 carries 45'x;. Tn the future about 75 to 8C;I of traffic will be coming in from the southwest as opposed to the 45; to 5&/j now coming in. Commissioner Schmitt asked how much work had been done in defining these boundaries relative to property lines. Tv'_r. Foisington replied that an ordinance is now in the process of being developed which will define a precise boundary that deals with property _lines. Commission Foudray asked what effect the plan would have on the operations of the KC 'Hall. Mr. oisin-ton replied that the KC Hall is not incompatible to this area and that they are acceptable uses for this area. Don Parrott, Ragle Creek Blvd. , raised the question as to why put more residential along 16. , he would like to see his land stay zoned the same as it is now which is light industrial or commercial he does not want his land rezoned to multi-family. Carl Lindstrand, Bloomington, stated that there is quite a bit of rock in that area along 16 and to put single family homes in there the cost would be prohibited. Multi family would be more economical than single family homes. Mr. O'.Brien, owner of Danny's Construction asked how this rezoning would affect his property. The City Planner said that it could be considered a light industrial as light industrial is allowed within the racetrack district. Commission Schmitt stated that he strongly favors a PUD (Planned Unit Development) concept within_ this entire zone which allows a different set of rules and flexibility than what we presently have today to deal With. Tim ;Manning, Shakopee, asked how the intermixing of these particular uses within the racetrack area could be controlled. Mr. Hoisington replied that each proposal that comes to the city will be looked at on a case by case basis. ` Peter Beck, on behalf of Joe ?ioskovich, asked why Joe's property should be excluded from the racetrack district. Discussion ensued on moving the line placement to the other side of the trees, the light industrial zoning restriction is what is their concern now. Commissioner Pockne stated that it is not only the tree line but also there is a grade change. Splitting the property half and half might also be a solution. "oudray/=ockne moved for a 15-minute recess. 'otion carried unanimously. "hairman C z6ja called the meeting back to order at 9:15 p.m. Tim 'leen, 3cottland companies, 5244 `a'alley Industrial Blvd. thanked the 3ommittee and staff for their efforts in identifying the issues of concern. We also addressed a few concerns that Scottland !.ompany has on this race- track district zoning, one being actual district boundaries in regards to the property known as Canterbury Park 2nd ;lddition presently zoned B1 . )cottland Company asks that presently zoned B1 property remain zoned at B1 and not be down zoned. Discussion ensued on permitted uses within a B1 zone, and such uses being horse auction, horse racing, commercial recreation, printing publishing facilities for the track itself and parking and appropriate signage where necessary. VanYtaldeghem/Schmitt moved to close the public hearing. motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Pomerenke moved to recommend favorable adoption by the City Council that the concept plan 43 as presented to us by the study committee be accepted. Discussion ensued on the light industrial zone just north of the racetrack, south of 4th Avenue and west of County Road 83 that stands out. Commissioner Schmitt strongly supports the PUD concept for the entire area of Concept Plan 3 study area which is county road 17 on the west, county road 83 on the north, and county 16 on the south but nothing to the east of county road 83, nothing to the west of 17 and nothing to the south of 16. Foudray/Schmitt amended the motion that all property units south of 4th Street, north of County Road 16, 'East of 17, and ',,lest of 83 per concept plan 3 be put into the PUD action. blain motion carried with Comm. Pomerenke opposed. Amendment to the motion carried unanimously. 'TanNaldeghem/Schmitt moved that the Parrott property currently zoned light industrial remain in the racetrack district, and that the Parrott property not be divided. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/VanMaldeghem moved that the current Shakopee Zoning Ordinance Chapter 11 definition within the ordin-ance referring to. class 1 and class 2 restaurants be amended and appropriate ordinance references under zoning be amended to bring them into conformance with the city's current definitions for restaurants with liquor licenses and that they be put into separate definitions that are more appropriate. motion carried unanimously. Foudray/Schmitt moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:22 p.m. ;lotion carried unanimously. a� v� TENTATIVE AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION Special Session Shakopee, MN. May 22, 1986 Chairman Czaja Presiding: 1. Roll Call at 7 : 30 P.M. 2 . Approval of Agenda 3 . Approval of April 24 , 1986 Minutes 4. 7: 30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: To consider a Con- ditional Use Permit to operate a commercial recreational use; for helicopter ride business upon the property located East of Valley Fair Amusement Park on State Highway 101. Applicant: Edward Colmer Action: Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 450 5 . 7 : 45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: To consider a Con- ditional Use Permit for a heliport for amusement ride business and to run occasional air taxi service upon the property located South of State Highway 101 across from Valley Fair Amusement Park. Applicant: Quest Air Service, Inc. Action: Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 452 6 . 8 : 00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider amendments to the zoning map and zoning code by establishing a Racetrack District and Planned Unit Development Zone. Action: Receive public comment Direct staff to prepare final draft amendments 7 . Discussion: Consideration of Sign Plan for Canterbury Sq. . as per sign regulations. 8 . Other Business 9 . Adjournment Judi Simac City Planner CITY OF SHAKOPEE TENTATIVE AGENDA ADJ .REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MAY 20, 1986 Mayor Reinke presiding 1] Roll Call at 8:00 P.M. - After polls close for School Board Election 21 Recess for H.R.A. meeting 31 Reconvene 41 Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 5] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS 61 Approval of Consent Business - (All items listed with an asterick are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. ) *71 Approval of Minutes of May 6, 1986 81 Communications: a] League re: Regulations on Fair Labor Standards Act b] 9] Public Hearing on An Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for Minn. River Valley Redevelopment Project and Establishing a T.I .F. District No. 6 (Shakopee Valley Square) - Res. 2553 -- See H.R.A. item #3 -- 101 Boards and Commissions: Downtown Ad Hoc Committee: a] Petition for Diagonal Parking at 205 S. Lewis Street Planning Commission: b] Appeal by Super America of Board of Adjustment and Appeals decision on sign variance request c] Comprehensive Sewer Plan Amendment - CR83 and 12th Ave. - Res. 2557 d] Ord. No. 194, Amendment to Subdivision Ordinance to Provide for Home Owner' s Associations Building Code Board of Adjustment and Appeals: e] Larry Johnson request from egress window requirement - informational 111 Reports from Staff: [Council will take a 10 minute break around 9:30 PM] a] Petition Listing Pedestrial Concerns About Highway 101 Traffic Signals, Crosswalks, Enforcement, etc. b] Alley Improvements in Block 50, Shakopee City c] Purchase of Popcorn Machine for Swimming Pool d] Lease of Slush Machine for Swimming Pool e] Eagle Creek Junction 1st Addition - Sanitary Sewer and Watermain f] Accepting Bid on Holmes Street Storm Sewer Lateral Project 1986-1, Resolution No. 2556 J04U 4STUTwPV A4z0 uos,aapuv 'x uuor W' d 00: L `996T `GZ X-eW `X-ePsany o:. ujnOCpd [,VT [P [o 7 �� a5'J � Z( � (? O�j � aclo�lroYS [q puZ aunr ja43u PTau aq o4 2uT4GaW TTouno0/OndS 4uzof JOJ swa41 [u :ssauzsng j aggo [CT 4000OJd 4uawdoTanapaU XaTTPA JGATH 'uW s ,V'dH auk. 04 sa2usu0 UT-e4ja0 04 2UT4vTag 2UTJUaH P 2�uzTTu0 `8SSZ 'ON •saH [J ATuO TaTTuJud 04 4aa.z4S 44005 PUP -4S aaowTTT3 uaaM4a9 aAy q4v uo fUT)iJ2d 2uz40TJ4SGg ` SSSZ 'ON 'SGH [a* XP t uana4S 04 UOT4UToaj ddV Jo uoz�njosag y ` bSSZ 'oN •sag [p* PUUq UTU4Ja0 J0 4uawdoTanaa uo wnTjo4PjoW y 2?uzspdwl `V8T 'ON 'Pa0 [0 006`OOT$/000`OS$ 04 s4uawajTnbag aouujnsul A4TTTq-ez7 jonbTq 2?uz5npag `g6T *ON 'Pa0 [q 9/9 wOJJ 0ZT wa4T 2uijq - s4s00 uot4'e2T4Tq X420 JOJ sjagwaW TTouno0 j o 4uawasjngwzaE j of XozTod y 2�uzusiTgv4sg `BvSZ 'ON •saII [P :saouPuzpao pine suoi4nTosag [zT uoSTaN PTAPQ - 4uaw4uzoddV GGXOTdwg puawwooaH [.z* uozT-egozd S ,pTajgSV uax Jo U014PUTWJzas [b* Ppua2u 9/S wojj nTT wa4T 2uTaq - 2uzouUuz3 4uawajoul xel jo asn s , aadoxuuS OUTATOAuI sanssl w PJ2OJd PUP XOTTod [d Epua2u 9/S w0.z3 4TT wG4T fuijq - SGOTJJO X420 JO 2uz4PooTau [o 9/S wOJJ STT wa4T 2�u-iaq „saa-RoTdwg Az2zodwas„ SP 2uTJJUTS U014TPPV [u sasuaoz7 saag Z•g 2UTPjP2Gu a2uUgo aAT4PTsz2.a7 [w* GO'CW STZ$ 30 4unow-e ui sTTTq ano.zddy [T 4.i.odaH X4TTTgzs'eGJ (sa.z0V lAGTA.zaaQ) aATJG U04JON [N ADTTod 2uzpunj UOT4u4TTTq qag 4aaj4S [ P 4aT4n0 axu7 S ,uuaa I a?Pu'uJG AaTTPA saddn [T •djo0 TxPj uP4jngnS wojj asuaoTq q-eozxps JOJ uOT4u0TTddy [u* PpuG2P 9/9 w0JJ TTT WG4T 8uz,zq - uzsleg L104PO 40aCo,ad TuJG4Pq JGmGS wJO4S 4aa.z4S sawToH [2 :panuz4uoo JJV4S wosJ s4jodag [TT -Z- a2ud 986T `OZ XPW VGNHOX gAIZVZNHI TENTATIVE AGENDA Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Shakopee, Minnesota Adjourned Special Session May 20 , 1986 Chairman Wampach presiding: 1. Roll Call at 8 : 00 p.m. 2 . Approval of Minutes of May 6, 1986 3 . Shakopee Valley Square Tax Increment Project-Res . #86-1 4. Informational - Tom and Susan Johnson Promissory Note - Conciliation Court Hearing 5 . Other Business a. Res. #86-2 Requesting City Council to Call a Public Hearing on Certain Changes to the HRA' s Minn. River Valley Redevelopment Project 6. Adjourn to June 3 , 1986 Barry A. Stock Administrative Aide RrGTJT: ;1R S' USI'?i' ,SL AK:�PT , r'":I"1 v'^:3^m� itvi 6, 195 ^,hr.,. Wampach called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. with Comm. -ebens, T.eroux, C,olligan and :Tierling present. Also present were John K. Anderson, City 4dministrator; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Barry Stock, Administrative Aide; Ken Ashfeld, City �gineer; Judi Simac, City Planner; and Julius P�. Coller, II, City Attorney. T,ebens and Colligan moved to approve the minutes of April 8 and April 15, 1986. Notion carried unanimously. Discussion ensued on the acquisition of uuber House - 210 S. Holmes Street. The four alternatives open to the City are: 1 . Purchase the home at 210 S. Holmes, move it to a city owned lot and offer it for sale. 2. Purchase the home at 210 S. Holmes and receive bids from individuals interested in moving the structure. 3. Purchase the home at 210 S. Holmes and demolish it. 4. Respectfully inform Ms. Blewett that the City is not interested in the acquisition of the property at 210 S. Holmes. Discussion ensued on purchasing the house and having it moved and use the lot for additional parking spaces. T,eroux/Colligan moved to order an appraisal of the property at 210 S. Holmes at a cost not to exceed x',500 and inform Nis. Blewett that the City is interested in the acquisition of the property with the thought in mind of selling the structure to a potential mover and eventually reselling the property for commercial use. Discussion ensued on acquiring the property and rent it out so that we could set in the holding pattern. The property now is of non- conforming use and can not be resided in. Roll call; Ayes: Cncl. T:eroux, Colligan, Wampach Iioes: Cncl. Lebens, jrierling Motion carried. Barry Stock gave a verbal update on Shakopee Valley Square Tax _ncrement - Everything is ready for the May 20, 1986 public hearing. Colli-an/Leroux moved to deny r:s. Johnson's request to set up an escrow account to hold the outstanding balance of her promissory note. :Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to adjourn to May 20, 1986. Meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Barry Stock Administrative Aide Carol L. Schultz Recording Secretary MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Aide RE: Shakopee Valley Square Tax Increment Project DATE: May 13 , 1986 Introduction• A public hearing is scheduled for 8 : 00 P.M. to hear comments on the following matters; a) The amendment of the redevelopment plan relating to the authority' s Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project #1, b) The establishment by the Authority of Tax Increment District #6 , c) The adoption of the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan or the tax increment financing district, and d) The amendment of the tax increment financing plan for Tax Increment Districts #2 - #5. Prior to the hearing, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority should take action on Resolution #86-1, A Resolution Amending the Modified Housing and Redevelopment Plan Relating to the Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project #1, and amending the tax increment financing plan relating to Tax Increment Districts #2 - #5 within the project area and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District #6 within the project area of the Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto. (See attachment #1) Background• On April 15, 1986, the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) tabled the adoption of Resolution #86-1. The resolution was tabled because the developer failed to provide the necessary documentation supporting the project as a redevelopment district. Since that time, we have received an appraisal of the property ( see attachment #2 ) which in the opinion of staff and the City Attorney verifies that the increase in market value generated by the proposed campground improvement will not support the amount of improvements needed for the completion of the project. In other words, this project would not occur without the use of tax increment financing. Following are several other issues related to this project that should be of interest to the HRA and the City Council. 1. Fiscal Disparities - Fiscal disparities will be paid out of the tax increment district. 2. Security - Two letters of credit will be required by the developer. The first, $10, 000 ( supplied by Mr. Bakken on April 15, 1986 ) to cover administrative and legal costs incurred by the City in the event of default by the developer prior to the bond sale. The second, a $50, 000 letter of credit to be supplied by Mr. Bakken prior to the Council ' s authorization of the sale of the bonds. This letter is meant to cover all costs incurred by the City in the event z of the developers inability to complete the project. The reduction of this letter of credit has been discussed, once we can guarantee positive arbitrage. 3 . Timing of Payments - No dollars will be forwarded to the developer until the project is 100% complete. 4 . Debt Service Plan - (See Schedule B attachment #3 ) The bond issue term will be 15 years. The project will be assessed as 50% complete on January 1, 1987 and 100% complete on January 1, 1988 . You will note that a second year City contribution of $14 , 925 is needed in year two of the bond schedule. This contribution will be paid out of the proceeds from the K-Mart Tax-Increment. This contribution is fully recovered in the next two years of the bond schedule. 5 . Planning Commission Action - On May 8 , 1986 the Shakopee Planning Commission moved to inform the Shakopee City Council and HRA that the findings of the Planning Commission reveal that the Shakopee Valley Square Tax Increment Project is in conformance with the City' s Comprehensive Plan. 6. Comments from County and School District - Both the County and School District have been sent a copy of the Redevelopment Plan as it relates to the Shakopee Valley Square Project for their comments. Each body has stated that they have no objections to the tax increment program. (See attachment #4 and #5 ) However, the County has expressed several concerns in general to the use of Tax Increment Financing. It would now be appropriate for the HRA to approve resolution #86-1. Following the public hearing, it would be appropriate for the City Council to approve resolution #2553 (See attachment #6) which amends the Modified Housing and Redevelopment Plan by establishing Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project #1, Tax-Increment District #6 and the Tax-Increment Financing Plans related thereto. Action Requested: HRA: Move to approve resolution # 86-1, Amending the Modified Housing and Redevelopment Plan Relating to the Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project #1 and Amending the Tax-Increment Financing Plan Relating to Tax-Increment Districts #2 - #5 within the project area and the establishment of Tax-In- crement Financing District #6 within the project area and the Tax-Increment Financing Plan Relating thereto. City Council: Move to approve resolution #2553 , Amending the Modified Housing and Redevelopment Plan Relating to the Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project #1 and Amending the Tax-Increment Financing Plan Relating to Tax-Increment Districts #2 - #5 : Establishing Tax-Increment District #6 and Adopting Tax-Increment Financing Plan Related thereto. Attachment #1 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE COUNTY OF SCOTT STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 86-1 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE MODIFIED HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN RELATING TO MINNESOTA RIVER VALLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MINNNESOTA STATUTES, SECTIONS 462 . 411 TO 462 . 716 , IN- CLUSIVE, AS AMENDED; AND AMENDING THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS RELATING TO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NO. 2 THROUGH NO. 5 WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND THE ESTAB- LISHMENT OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 6 WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN RELATING THERETO, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTIONS 273 . 71 TO 273 . 78, INCLU- SIVE, AS AMENDED. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners ( the "Com- missioners" ) of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority ( the "Authority" ) in and for the City of Shakopee, Minnesota ( the "City" ) , as follows : Section 1 . Recitals . 1 . 01 . It has been proposed that the Authority amend the Modified Housing and RedeveloDment Pian ( the "Redevelcpunent Plan" ) relating to Minnesota River Valley Housing and Rede- velcnment Project No. 1 ( tile "Reaevelcoment- Project" ) estab- lished pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes , Section 462 . 411 to 462 .716 , inclusive, as amended, amend the Tax Increment Financing Plans relating to Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 2 through No. 5 to reflect increased project costs and activities within the Redevelopment Proj- ect, and establish Tax Increment Financing District No. 6 and adopt the Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto pur- suant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273 . 71 to 273.78, inclusive, as amended. 1 . 02 . This Authority has investigated the facts and has caused to be prepared with respect thereto, an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Project , setting forth the public improvements to be made within the Redevel- opment Project. This Authority has also caused to be pre- pared, and has investigated the facts with respect to the i. establishment of proposed Tax Increment Financing District No. 6 as stated in the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto. 1 . 03 . The Authority has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the amendment of the Rede- velopment Plan; the amendment of the Tax Increment Financing Plans relating to Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 2 through No. 5 ; the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 6 and the adoption of the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto; has requested the written opinion of the City ' s Planning Commission relating to the proposed amendment of the Redevelopment Plan and adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Pian relating to Tax Increment Financing District No. 6 ; and has requested that the City Council ( the "Council" ) of the City hold a public hearing relating to the above-stated matters . 1 . 04 . The Authority hereby determines that it is neces- sary and in the best interest of the Authority and the City at this time to approve the amendment of the Redevelopment Plan, approve the amendment of the Tax Increment Financing Plans relating to Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 2 through No. 5 , approve establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 6 and the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto. Section 2 . Approval of Amendment of Tax Increment Financinc Plans Relatlno tU Tax Increment Financinc Districts No. 2 throuch and No. 5 . Subject to the finding, determination and approval o` the amendn:ent of the Tax Increment Financing Plans relating to Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 2 through No. 5 by the Council , the proposed amendment of said Tax increment Financing Pians to reflect increased Droject activities and costs Costs within the Red eve looment :ro-ect , as described in the Redevelopment Plan approved in Section 4 hereof is hereby approved by the Com.-nissioners of the Authority. Section. 3 . A.Droyal of TaX Inc=emnen` -'i? c??C1^.Q D15` r i C` No . 6 - - Subject to the finding, determination, and approval of the establishment of Tax Incre:hent Financing District No. 6 by the Council, proposed Tax. Incre.-nent Financing District No . 6 within the Redevelopment Project No. 1 is hereby approved by the Commissioners of the Authority. The property included in said Tax Increment Financing District shall be the prop- erty described in the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto, as approved in Section 4 hereof . - 2 - Section 4 . ADDroval of Redevelopment Plan and Tax -Incre- ment. Financing Plan . The proposed amendment of the Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Project , and the adoption of the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 6 ( collectively referred to as the "Plans" ) , presented to the Authority on this date, are hereby approved and adopted by the Authority. Section 5 . Filing of Plans . The Authority shall cause the Plans, as finally approved and adopted, to be filed with the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development . Section 6 . Certification of Assessed Value . Upon approval of the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 6 and the adoption of the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto by the Council , the Authority shall request the County Auditor of Scott County ( the "County Auditor" ) to certify the original assessed value of the real property within Tax Increment Financing District No. 6 , as described in the Tax Increment Financing Plan re- lating thereto. Dated : May 20 , 1986 Chairman Attest : executive D'rector 3 - Attachment #2 r ALPHA APPRAISAL CO. 408 118TH AVENUE NORTHWEST ,_ c COON RAPIDS, MINNESOTA 55433 TELEPHONE: (612) 755-2585 May 6, 1986 Patrick W. Pelstring Vice President Business Development Services, Inc. Suite 130 Minneapolis, MN 55432 RE: Shakopee Valley Square Tax Increment Financing Proposal Dear Mr. Pelstring: Per your request, the Alpha Appraisal Company has reviewed the subject properties and comparable properties to determine whether the specific improvements proposed will increase the Market Value of the land after their installation. My opinion is as follows : Before - $545 , 050 After - $556, 050 This conclusion is based upon my personal inspection of the subject property on May 4, 1986 and the conditions that exist on this date. Respectfully submitted, Dennis Montague I Commerrial. Industrial& Residential Anoraisals CORRELATION AND FINAL ESTIMATES Commercial Lard Sales After carefully adjusting the above mentioned six sales , the indicated sale price per square foot both before and after any specific improvements is $3 . 00 per square foot . Calculations Lot 1 (Motel Site) , Lot 2 (Restaurant Site) , Lot 3 (Vacant) Before and After Value - 163, 350 sq. ft. @ $3 . 00 = $490, 050 Flood Plain or Conservancy District After carefully adjusting the above mentioned sales , it appears Sale No. 4 adjusted is the best indication as to the before the specific improvement value of the subject property $2,500 per acre. Although no sales were found to indicate the exact amount of increase for the specific improvements mentioned, it is this Appraiser ' s belief that the soils preparation and waterproofing of the extended utilities would have an effect of increasing the sale price of the subject property by not more than $500 per acre. Lot 4 (Campground) Before Value 22 acres @ $2, 500 = $55 , 000 Lot 4 (Campground) After Value 22 acres @ $3 , 000 = $66, 000 Value Before Lot 1 (Motel Site) , Lot 2 (Restaurant Site) , Lot 3 (Vacant) 163 , 350 sq. ft . @ $3 . 00 = $490, 050 Lot 4 (Campground) 22 acres @ $2, 500 = 55 , 000 Total Value Before $545,050 Value After Lot 1 (Motel Site) , Lot 2 ( Restaurant Site) , Lot 3 (Vacant ) 163, 350 sq. ft . @ $3 . 00 = $490, 050 Lot 4 (Campground) 22 acres @ $3, 000 = 66, 000 Total Value After $556,050 -12- SPRINGSTED,,., Attachment #3 '' err auta 5510' 2143 P. ® 6112-22_, 3000 28 April 1986 Mr. Barry Stock, Administrative Aide City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 Re: Valley Tax Increment Proposal Dear Mr. Stock: You have requested that we prepare two additional estimates of the necessary market value of development to retire a $500,000 general obligation tax increment bond issue. These estimates are in conjunction with those prepared in our letter of April 14, 1986, and are developed according to the conditions and assumptions contained therein. The major change from the previous projections is a different phasing of construction, with 50% completion as of January I, 1986 and 100% completion as of January I, 1988. These options differ from one another in that the first assumes the project is completely self-supporting with no City funding contribution, while the second assumes a moderate City share of funding in year two of the program. This City share is recovered in the following two years. Both estimates provide for a slight annual surplus in each year of the bond program. One assumption change from the prior estimates is the calculation of the fiscal disparities contribution. In the April 14, 1986 estimates the Miller & Schroeder figure for a fiscal disparities contribution of $18,000 in increment income was used. In these projections we have calculated the fiscal disparities assessed value contribution and deducted that contribution from the captured assessed value. The City has informed us the district is presently in a commercial use and is subject to a fiscal disparities contribution. These calculations assume a contribution ratio of 29.6%. Schedule A is an estimate of debt service and cash flow with no City contribution required. The increment income from the first phase of completion only covers interest due in year two of the program. At project completion in year three, the market value doubles, with the result being a greater than two-fold increase in increment income because of the impact of the assessed value classification ratio. This higher level of income permits the shortening of the term of the bonds from 15 years to 10. The calculation of increment income is as follows: Mr. Barry Stock, Administrative Aide 28 April 1986 Page 2 January 1 1987 January I , 1988 (50%) (100°1s) Market Value $2,000,000 $4,000,000 Assessed Value 841 ,000 1 ,711 ,000 Less: Original Assessed Value (366,219) (366,219) Captured Assessed Value $ 484,781 $1 ,344,781 Less: Fiscal Disparities (29.6%) ( 143,495.) (398,055) Net Captured Assessed Value $ :;41 ,286 $ 946,726 Times: Mill Pate . 1 1491 . 1 1491 Increment Income $ 39.217 $ 108,788 Schedule B is our estimate of debt service and cash flows with a City contribution in year two. This City contribution allows a reduction in increment income at the 50% completion stage, and hence, a lowering of the projects required market value. This contribution is fully recovered over the next two years. The issue's term is 15 years. We recommend the City discuss the legality and mechanics of this City contribution with bond counsel. The calculation of increment income is as follows: January 1 1987 January 1, 1988 (50°0 (100%) Market Value $1 ,500,000 $3,000,000 Assessed Value 616,000 1 ,281 ,000 Less: Original Assessed Value (366,219) (366,219) Captured Assessed Value $ 269,781 $ 914,781 Less: Fiscal Disparities (29.6%) (79,855) (270,775) Net Captured Assessed Value $ 1801 ,0/26 $ 644,006 Times: Mill Pate -. 1 1491 . 1 1491 Increment Income $ 21 .925 $ 74,000 You have also requested that we provide an estimate of all costs of issuance and any premium required by an early prepayment option on the issue. All issuance costs including bond counsel, registrar and rating are estimated at $15,000. The premium for a mandatory call if certain development conditions are not met is usually 2% of the issue, or $10,000 in this situation. We recommend the City pursue options other than a mandatory early call to ensure timely completion of this project. We would be glad to discuss these options at the City's convenience. We trust this information fully responds to your requests. Please feel free to contact us if questions arise or you desire additional information. Respectful Insub itted, David N. MacGillivray Senior Finance Analyst /mgh Enclosures l y yip -3 r err rr .-- 3 ° atnn << O D� D D �� D [� Y > > Ln py Z -3 m m m m r C a s x O a A 0 q A O > L) K m 3 m n o C) zmm •• rrrrrrrrr Y' z S' o C 3 m m N C CT, Cn y y CA Q UtaW t) —0 �Dm � A T G7 ' ra •• [+] NJ m7 _ \\ Z z A A A a lT. 0 Ln o \DmJJ rnDlm r m ° O O OoLnouio0 Z m C3 wn � rr 00000 000 -- -" z C, OOOOOoo ro L) Z O o o O o 0 O o 0 o v m x m A aUn J . O W [7 0 a Nrn- U� Z7 Lr' . ". in m w r cW a% N to z 7 J m N W W W U1 a Z . Q) O a r J N 0� O In lT N Z O 7 _ _ P A C O N w ID 10 a,OD0 oll ['A 3y O r OOInN 000 Oh-• Vlr ow J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O J a C7 amz m r O S' to C r ,.., Zr � ��D W �DID WIn a m Z -3 ., O Q� rNNr0Ln Ln Ln 'jnO � a z _ _ _ _ _ _ m..-.3 N wID r m w 0 0 JP " 9' ,•p rfl m r O0 LnLn 0000r r M A A J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O J cn m m ra n C O3n Lr O y Cf) Li 07 ro a J r K A .. J o I.D IZ�D iD�D�D w v+ -- m P r rnD rn �cnmQ Ut r Cn ro _ rn.orm 0. r .C.JD1rLI)JJ.P — LnC '� q to r ID cn Ln m.a to to r d° {n {n m In U7CX)w 000 OJ z ° NN L) .P.0,A. m m 0 y y m ro 10 JN ° rn to r H .y m r r r r r r r z to 00000o0wLn zn z m mmmm mm m 1.0 In nA C) t) J 0 7 0 U' N.a 3 3 A- Lrl co 113 10 O m m m m W m m J J z O r * 7 m LT ZZ am xan m a cn ra mo rrrrF' P: A Z ra] r J N N N N W tD N .-. 'TJ ro Z O TJ9 m O, NOrQ 1�0 J lc w oaw ON Lo r -CO i--i N W w 0 Ln m J 0 v\ Ln <n < <nY r r c' n < Cn 3 .... m J m .P W N r C C r �riDJ ' ' N K- Ar _ �D ro 9 Orn C1 n� rDU+ 9,. -- ra �D rN �D MLnO M C ^' N lD mm U1 JO Cf1m --rz rrrz o< C -� K9 {n r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o q q m .3 rrr rrr :-err rrr rr L 30 a- C� < < O O 1o�oLD �D�o 'D .D �o�o �oLo .o LO LD m Yb b Ln •, G) mZ a �D LD 1D Lo Lo Lo LD �Q LD Lo m m mm r < as x 0a • m0 > LDmJ 01 Ln� WNrO �mJ01 K Cm OK > v L) o O z mm •• NNCD TJ Z > OO10 �DLD C 3m O O LD 10 lD�o LD Lo 10 w w�o m m NC y ym r0LD m JT Ln •PwNrm 3 G) 2 [' a •• m NJ m m > C \\ Z z X m m a m 0 y r r r m T as \ mqm mK v, •v orm .. .. Ln m LO z O O Ln Ln 0 In" W W w w WN m 00 O Ln lP In O O In Ln Ln tr O O Ln — Z m In C 3 t2 . L, - O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Z 0 000000000 000 T to L) z 0 00000000000000 x mam J r mam rLD- m Oa 01 LD J d+ P N r W Z S J m Ja r F�r N N N N W W W W Ln a Z • m OC) L.)--j Ln ODm\ c WLn Ln Ln ^ m O > , m C O O m JLn 01 J r 0l O r N O O .. A m y O r 000 Ln Ln O Ln O Ln Ln Ln O O r m [, dP J O O O O O O O O O O O O O J a ' a O > (� O r Z 2 avnz m > n a 0 r, 0 > In C Cr m r r z " 00101M01Q100101010101 WLn a m z m mt, 1m 0w m o0 - r W 0Lno ^ O a z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ln a I w m^a O mJ,, .0n , r010 rN00 , " 9 m Gm r Ln0- -to O Ln O Ln Ln Ln OOr [l m m m J 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O J m m m � a � C O 3 C) m-- o a •• cn to .. a m m _ m o •• 01 01 01 m J J 01 m 01 m 01 m w Ln K m J r0n o mr0 to b._j 01 W 01 Ln m 01 o m m PC 01 Jmm W ID r01N to O j — Ln< •O 7 Ln LD WJ 0JW 0M Ln Oro Ln r dA K m m lA lA r wlnmw-o wow m W O of Li w z 0 Ln{n 0. Q1 m m Er ab a7 o m 9 01 LnLn J O J in w r m J J J J J J J J J J J J N l n z C) Z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J O O Ln N o00000000000m � -- 33 m, C OOOOo COOOoONr V3 .1 N O O O O O O C O O o 0 0 L n J Z O r m Z z q m xac) am M, 3 m C •omv i cn aEn to 0C a ave J r r rr mm z �Tl J Nm.ia In Nw r Lo 01 LD Jr .+ n7 •D Z m0f�m > Zn Lmm [ C Orr110,1 ,JJLnOLD � (7C 9' 3 •D LD 001N LD N 01 LD N" LD co C) N •-+ Ul V, -J Ln N JN Ln NOJ NJO Ln C, a\ O Ln a 1 < Ln9 r� rt� mJm «<C 0 C fn 3 LOmJa,rnollnaw Nrr C C NON mN0 m-un mmr LD•0 > Ln wr O w w w", wln0 � r a r0NNO w" N Jm0 C 01LD.P. NLn W 000101 LDJOOO En < m m � a r m Z C < C LD _ LD N N Ln OOOOOOOOOOOOLnO I A tt:achment 1=4 3 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA Date Resolution No.. Motion by Commissioner Seconded by Commissioner RESOLUTION NO. CO'•MENTING ON THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE MODIFIED HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MINNESOTA RIVER VALLEY PROJECT NO. 1 AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR DISTRICT NO. 6. WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee has filed the Modified Housing and Redevelop- ment Plan for Minnesota River Valley Project No. 1 (the "Project") and Tax Incre- ment Financing Plan for District No. 6 (the "Plan") with the Office of the County Administrator for comment by the Scott County Board of Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the Project and the Plan have been revised by the Scott County Tax Increment Financing Review Team ("the Team"); and WHEREAS, the County Board has expressed concerns regarding the appropriate use of tax increment financing throughout the county. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners in and for the County of Scott, Minnesota, makes the following concerns and reservations on the Project and Plan, to-wit: 1. That the Board cannot make adequate determinations without the benefit of a comprehensive financial feasibility study supporting the Project and requests in the future the information submitted to the County regarding TIF projects include a copy of such financial feasibility studies. 2. That the financial feasibility study for this and any future TIF projects include a thorough and objective application of the "but for" test in that the Countv Board is concerned that the test has been too liberally interareted in other i:_snicipalities where projects have gone into receivership, numerous reorganizations and debt re- structuring. 3. That in addition to the concerns expressed above, the County Board questions the use of general obligation bonds selected to fund this and other TIF projects and is concerned about the potential burden on the taxpayers of the issuing entity and the entity' s credit rating should the projects fail. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA Date Resolution No._ Motion by Commissioner Seconded by Commissioner 4. That the significant increase of the term of the Project to 25 Years compounds the county' s earlier concerns over the period of subsidy and the number of years the Project will be off the tax rolls. 5. That the County Board is concerned that any excess tax increments generated by the District be applied to debt reduction in the interest of a. ) increasing the security of the outstanding bonds, b. ) reducing the likelihood that the city taxpayers would be burdened by increased taxes should the Project face financial difficulty, and c. ) providing the return of the captured value of the Project to the tax rolls results in the greatest benefit to all affected taxing jurisdictions. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Board is concerned over the rapid growth of captured assessed value in the City of Shakopee and is presently in the process of developing policy guidelines on the appropriate ratio of captured assessed values to total assessed value in a sponsoring jurisdiciton. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that upon the review of the Plan by the county, it appears that the Project is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and falls within the guidelines of the Shakopee Zoning Ordinance. YES NO Koniarski Worm Koniarski Mertz Worm Stromwall Mertz Casey Stromwall Casey State of Minnesota ss. County of Scott t,Joseph F.Ries,Duly appointed,qualified and acting County Administrator for the County of Scott,State of Minnesota,do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of a with the original minutes of the proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners,Scott County, Minnesota,at their session held on the office,and have found the same to be a true and correct Copy thereof. day of 19 now on file in my Witness my hand and official seal at Shakopee, Minnesota, this day of county Aaminulrhlor SCA Form 1 By Attachment #5 3 DISTRICT OFFICES INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 720 505 SOUTH HOLMES JAMES STILLMAN.Chairperson SCOTT COUNTY GAYDEN F.CARRUTH,Ph.D. JOAN LYNCH, Vice Chairperson SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 Superintendent of Schools GAIL REBECCA KELSO,Clerk TELEPHONE: 445-4884 VIRGIL S.MEARS JOHN GOIHL. Treasurer Assistant Superintendent JAMES SORENSEN.Director SUZANNE VANHOUT,Director JANET WENDT,Director R 4-30-86 Mr . Barry A. Stock Acting Director Housing and Redevelopment City of Shakopee 129 E. First Ave . Shakopee , MN 55379 Dear Mr . Stock : Independent School District #720 has been asked to comment on the plan to provide Tax Increment Financing for the "Modified Housing and Redevelopment Plan for Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No . 1" . The position the district has consistently taken is that we have no objection to the tax increment program. That is our current position as it relates to this proposal . If I may be of further help please contact me . Sincerely, i Vir ' I Mears M/d AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FA4P/nvFa Attachment #6 Councilmember introduced the following resolution, the reading of which was dispensed with by unan- imous consent, and moved its adoption: CITY OF SHAKOPEE COUNTY OF SCOTT STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2553 A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE AMENDMENT BY THE HOUS- ING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE OF MODIFIED HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN RELATING TO MINNESOTA RIVER VALLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 , THE AMENDMENT OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS RELATING TO TAX INCREMENT DISTRICTS NO. 2 THROUGH NO. 5 TO REFLECT INCREASED PROJECT COSTS WITHIN MINNESOTA RIVER VALLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NO. 6 LOCATED WITHIN MINNESOTA RIVER VALLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND THE ADOPTION AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE OF THE PROPOSED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NO. 6 . BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council ( the "Council" ) of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota ( the "City" ) , as follows : Section 1 . Recitals . 1 . 01 . It has been proposed and approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City ( the "Auth- ority" ) that the Authority amend the Modified Housing and Redevelopment Plan ( the "Redevelopment Plan" ) relating to Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1 ( the "Redevelopment Project" ) established pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes , Sections 462 . 411 to 462 .716 , inclusive, as amended. It has been further pro- posed and approved by the Authority that the Authority amend the Tax Increment Financing Plans relating to Tax Increment Districts No. 2 through No. 5 within the Redevelopment Pro- ject to reflect increased project costs and activities, and establish Tax Increment District No. 6 and adopt the pro- posed Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto, all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sec- tions 273 .71 to 273 . 78, inclusive, as amended. 1 . 02 . The Authority has caused to be prepared, and this Council has investigated the facts with respect thereto, an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Project setting forth the public improvements to be made within the Redevelopment Project . The Authority has also caused to be prepared, and this Council has also investi- gated the facts with respect to the establishment of pro- posed Tax Increment District No. 6 as stated in the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto. 1 . 03 . The Authority and the City have performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the amend- ment of the Redevelopment Plan; the amendment of the Tax Increment Financing Plans relating to Tax Increment Dis- tricts No. 2 through No. 5 ; and the establishment of Tax Increment District No. 6 within the Redevelopment Project and adoption of the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto. 1 . 04 . The Council hereby determines that it is neces- sary and in the best interest of the City at this time to amend the Redevelopment Plan, to amend the Tax Increment Financing Plans relating to Tax Increment Districts No. 2 through No. 5 , to establish Tax Increment District No. 6 within the Redevelopment Project and to adopt the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto. Section 2 . Findings for the Amendment of the Redevelop- ment Plan and the Establishment of Tax Increment District No. 6 . 2 . 01 . The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that the proposed amendment of the Redevelopment Plan and establishment of proposed Tax Increment District No. 6 located within the Redevelopment Project is intended and, in the judgment of this Council , its effect will be , to further provide an impetus for commercial , industrial and housing development , increase employment and otherwise promote cer- tain public purposes and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the Redevelopment Plan and the Tax Increment Financing Plan ( collectively referred to as the "Plans" ) . 2 . 02 The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that Tax Increment District No. 6 is a redevelopment type of tax increment financing district where, pursuant to Minne- sota Statutes, Section 273 . 73 , Subd. 10 (a ) ( 3 ) , "Less than 70 percent of the parcels in the district are occupied by buildings, streets , utilities or other improvements, but due to unusual terrain or soil deficiencies requiring substan- tial filling, grading or other physical preparation for use at least 80 percent of the total acreage of such land has a fair market value upon inclusion in the redevelopment dis- 2 - • l trict which, when added to the estimated cost of preparing that land for development , excluding costs directly related to roads as defined in section 160 . 01 and local improvements as described in section 429 . 021 , subdivision 1 , clauses 1 to 7 , 11 and 12, and section 430 . 01 , if any, exceeds its antic- ipated fair market value after completion of said prepara- tion; provided that no parcel shall be included within a redevelopment district pursuant to this paragraph ( 3 ) unless the authority has concluded an agreement or agreements for the development of at least 50 percent of the acreage having the unusual soil or terrain deficiencies, which agreement provides recourse for the authority should the development not be completed; " . 2 . 03 . The Council finds , determines and declares that the proposed development and redevelopment , in the opinion of the Council , would not occur solely through private in- vestment within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore , the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary . 2 . 04 . The Council finds , determines and declares that the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan for said Tax In- crement District No. 6 conforms to the comprehensive plan of the City. 2 . 05 . The Council finds , determines and declares that the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan will afford maxi- mum opportunity and be consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole for the development or redevelopment of the Redevelopment Project by private enterprise . 2 . 06 . The Council finds , determines and declares that fiscal disparities be taken from within Tax Increment Financing District No. 6 and therefore elects the tax increment computation set forth in Section 273 . 76 , Sub- division 3 , Clause (b) . 2 . 07 . The Council further finds , declares and deter- mines that the City make the above findings stated in Sec- tion 2 and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each determination in writing , attached hereto as Ex- hibit A. Section 3 . Findings for the Amendment of Tax Increment Financing Plans Relating to Tax Increment Districts No. 2 Through No. 5 . 3 . 01 . The Council hereby finds that the amendment of the Tax Increment Financing Plans relating to Tax Increment Districts No. 2 through No. 5 is intended and, in the judg- ment of this Council , its effect will be, to reflect 3 - increased project activities and costs within the Redevelop- ment Project , as described in the Redevelopment Plan approved in Section 4 hereof and such amendment to said Tax Increment Financing Plans is hereby approved . Section 4 . Adoption of the Plans . 4 . 01 . The proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan and adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment District No. 6 presented to the Council on this date, are hereby approved and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the City Clerk . Section 5 . Implementation of the Plans . 5 . 01 . The officers of the City, the City ' s financial advisor and underwriter therefor , and the City ' s legal coun- sel and bond counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the Plans and for this purpose to negotiate, draft , prepare and present to this Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions , documents and contracts necessary for this purpose . The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof : and the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk . Dated: May 20 , 1986 . Mayor Attest : City Clerk 4 - EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 2553 The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the establishment of Tax Increment District No. 6 and the approval and adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes , Section 273 . 74 , Subdivision 3 are as follows : 1 . Finding that Tax Increment District No . 6 is a "redevel- opment district" as defined in Minnesota Statutes , Section 273 . 73 , Subdivision 10 (a) ( 3 ) . 2 . Finding that the proposed development , in the opinion of the Council , would not occur solely through private invest- ment within the reasonable foreseeable future and, there- fore , the use of tax increment financing is deemed neces- sary. 3 . Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole . 4 . Findina that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment District No. 6 will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole , for the develcoment of the Redevelopment Project by private enterprise . 5 . That the Council elects the method of tax increment computation set forth in Section 273 .76 , Subdivision 3 , clause (b) and therefore will be taking the fiscal dis- parities share from within Tax Increment District No. 6 . - 5 - 4L' MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Aide RE: Tom and Susan Johnson - Promissory Note Conciliation Court Hearing DATE: May 12 , 1986 Introduction• On April 15, 1986, Ms. Susan Johnson formerly appeared before the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to request the City of Shakopee to release the promissory note on her property P y (Lot 2, Block 3, Masey Second Addition) . At that time, the HRA determined that Ms. Johnson' s promissory note would not be released until satisfaction for the amount due occured or completion of the mortgage term. On May 6 , 1986 Ms. Johnson requested the Shakopee HRA to set up an escrow account to hold the outstanding balance of her promissory note. At that time, the HRA unanimously denied Ms. Johnson' s request to set up an escrow account to hold the outstanding balance of her promissory note. On May 7, 1986 the City of Shakopee received notice from the Scott County Clerk of Courts that Ms. Johnson was pursuing a legal remedy to secure the release of her note without penalty. (See attachment #1) Because attorneys are not allowed to appear in conciliation court, staff will be appearing on behalf of the HRA to resolve this issue. The hearing date has been set for June 2, 1986 at 9 : 00 a.m. UCF-8B(12-81) Miller/Davis Company Statement of Claim and Summons Minneapolis,Minnesota 55411 State of Minnesota COUNTY OF i NAME AND ADDRESS NAME AND ADDR i 011" •"1,�It� C'�i \i .�'�I'�� -- -- -- -- PLAINTIFF -_. -- -1 - -_ -_ PLAINTIFF -- �e trt � .1�1 i`�yy.� S�.t r; \1. M2 �i lill\C �F� ZIP�� - vs. NAME AND ADDRESS NAME AND ADDRI DEFENDANT _V DEFENDANT p r r 3 -- - -. ZIP ' Name �,o n� Title STATEMENT being duly sworn says that he is the plaintiff above named; that the def OF defendant is not now in the Military Service; that the defendant is a resident c CLAIM and alleges that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in the ai filing fee, totalling $ ' OC, CO , plus disbursem F 2. L NOTARY STAMP OR CLERK'S SEAL SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN THE, 111 BEFORE ME ON: CORP I DATE SIGN --� TELE SIGNATURE THE STATE OF MINNESOTA TO THE ABOVE NAN You are hereby summoned to appear at the hearing of the above entitled case SUMMONS aa[ NOTICE OF DATE ' PLACE Attachment #1 STATE 0'r--' MINNESOTA IN COUNTY AND �J COUNTY OF SCOTT DISTRICT COURTS SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 612 445-7750 EXT. 200 N CASE NUMBER 66-04266 T0; CITY OF SHAKOPEE HO•JSING h REDEVELOPMENT PLAINTIFF - JOHNSON, TOM 129 IST AVENUE E. VS. SHAKOPEE MN Sci 9 DETENDANT - CITY OF SHAKOPEE HOUSING & REDEVE COUNT 1 GE'NEP.AL CIVIL ACTION 4-29-86 RE ADVISED THAT (A/AN) COURT TRIAL IN THE ABOVE NAMED CAUSE WILL BE HELD AT 9«00 A.M. ON JUNE 2, 1986 BEFORE THE HONORABEE (TO BE ASSIGNED) OR AS IMMEDIATELY T}�.�AFTER AS THE COURT IS AVAILABLE. MARK E. MAGGIO C RT ADMINISTRATOR I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS NOTICE WAS S94T TO THE COVE ADDRESS BY FIRST CLASS U.S. MAIL ON 86-05-06, DEPUTY CLERK �Tu_, O'CONNOR & HANNAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW "s aTow,D C 0"'CE 5,T p eoo iDfl ENNSTiVANA CNUC N w ASNGTON.D C 10006.3483 3800 IDS TOWER 12o2�BBQ- oo 80 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET DENVER OFFICE SUITE 4'00 _"EO sA OCCNTEA MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55402-2254 'D°NFO ER Co 80203 n•547 303 830-, 00 16121 341-3800 MADRID OFFICE vELAi0UE2.2I TELEX 29-0584 MADAiD5P - 431. 00 JAMES P. O'MEARA TFIE.23543 TELECOPIER 16121 341-3800 (2561 16121 343-1288 May 16 , 1986 HAND ,DELIVERED John Anderson Shakopee City Hall 129 East First Avenue Shakopee , MN 55379 Barry Stock Shakopee City Hall 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Re : Changes relating to the HRA' s Redevelopment Project Gentlemen: Please find enclosed in regard to the above-mentioned matter copies of the following three resolutions for the May 20 meetings of the HRA Board and the City Council: 1 . Resolution of mehtHhAreemeataforothelShakopeethe execution of the Develop g Motel project ; 2 . Resolution of the HRA asking that the City Council begin the public hearing process for the various changes we discussed recently for the storm sewer and related RA' s Redevelopment Project; improvements and the H 3 . A resolution of the City Council, in response to ( 2 ) above , calling that public hearing for the Council ' s June 3 meeting. are relatively self-explanatory. The I hope the enclosed the Development Agreement does give leeway resolution approving , order to finalize that Agreement. to make necessary modifications The resolution relating to the tax increment changes does that it would be beneficial for provide a preliminary finding the City and the HRA to cooperate in the making of these improve- O'CON NOR & HAN NAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW John Anderson Barry Stock May 16 , 1986 Page Two ments and that they are in fact desirable in order to further the HRA ' s redevelopment objectives . For example, the making of necessary storm sewer improvements would normally be done as a joint undertaking. I did receive copies of the revised map of the expanded redevelopment project area and I will have to await further numbers from Dave MacGillivray in order to complete the amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. I would hope that I can have these amended documents in your hands no later than the end of next week, which as you will notice is the day indicated in the notice of the public hearing on which the documents would be available for public inspection. I have also been reviewing the options involved in consolid- ating the various documentation into a single document. On a preliminary basis , it appears that much of this consolidation has in fact already taken place and that we should be able to make some additional improvements in that regard. Assuming that the HRA and the City Council adopt the resolutions on the tax increment changes , please arrange to have the notice of the public hearing published in the City ' s official newspaper no later than 10 days prior to the public hearing date, that is , on or before May 23 . If the enclosed actions are undertaken, I would appreciate receiving certified copies of the resolutions and a copy of the affidavit of publication of the notice . In the meantime, please let me know if you have comments or questions on the enclosed or these matters more generally. ou s very tr ly, aures P. 0 Meara JPO: jk Enclosures cc : Greg Voxland (w/encl. ) Ken Ashfeld (w/encl. ) Dave MacGillivray (w/encl. ) Judy Cox (w/encl. ) j C�- RESOLUTION NO. 86_2 Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the Shakopee HRA Requesting the City of Shakopee to Hold a Public Hearing on Certain Proposed Changes Relating to the HRA' s Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1 . IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners (the "Board" ) of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Shakopee, Minnesota (the "Authority" ) , as follows : 1 . Recitals . ( a ) The Authority has established its Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No . 1 ( the "Project" ) and has adopted a Redevelopment Plan therefor . ( b) Within the Project the Authority has duly established its Tax Increment Financing District Nos . 1 through 6 . ( c ) In connection with the proposed making of certain storm sewer, bridge, traffic and parking, and related public improvements ( collectively, the "Improvements" ) , the Authority is considering enlarging the area of the Project, modifying the Redevelopment Plan to reflect increased public improvement costs within the Project, and amending the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Authority' s Tax Increment Financing District Nos . 2 through 6 . 2 . Findings . The Board hereby finds and determines the following: (a ) The making of the Improvements would be consistent with and in furtherance of the objectives the Redevelopment Plan. (b) The Board believes that the making of certain of the Improvements ( including without limitation storm sewer improvements ) can best be done as a cooperative effort between the City and the Authority and hereby conveys to the City Council the Board ' s preliminary indication of its willingness to do so. ( c ) The Board hereby requests that the City Council conduct a public hearing on the proposed Improvements , as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 273 . 74 , Subdivision 3 . Adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, this 20th day of May, 1986 . Secretary ' s Certificate I , the undersigned , being the duly qualified and acting Secretary of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Shakopee, Minnesota , hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing resolution with the original thereof on file in my office and further certify that the same is a true and complete copy thereof , relating to certain proposed changes to the Authority ' s Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1 , as such resolution was duly adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the Authority at a duly called and regularly held meeting thereof on May 20 , 1986 . 1986 . WITNESS my hand as such Secretary this day of ' Secretary Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Shakopee, Minnesota y.^i,�T 7i�( �j Sj (`).r' �„a TTt :J'.v^`L R�jGL7,AR S7 7ICL,; SHAKOP , MINN7SOTA MAY o, 198.. Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Cncl. ?,eroux, ^olligan, Vierling, Lebens and Wampach present. Also present were John K. Anderson, City Admnr.; Judith S. Cox, City -lerk; Barry Stock, Administrative Aide, Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer, Judi Simac, City Planner; and Julius A. Coller, II, City Attorney. Leroux/wampach offered Resolution No. 2545, a Resolution of Appreciation to Roy Baker, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/vierling moved to recess for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting. motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Colligan moved to reconvene at 7:20 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Liaison reports were given by councilmembers. Leroux/Vierling moved to approve the minutes of April 8, 15, and 16, 1986. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Idampach moved to receive and place on file the letter from Lynda Valencour referencing First Avenue Crossing Problems. The City Administrator is collecting information to respond by the May 20, 1986 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Wampach moved to accept letter of resignation of Steven Clay from the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee with regrets and direct a resolution be drafted commending him for his service. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to receive and place on file the letter from Richard L. Kinzel, 'Vice President/General Manager of Valleyfair, regarding their interest in the City looking at extending the service road to the west from the inter- section of Valley Park Drive when the feasibility report is done, and direct the City Engineer to include it in the feasibility report. Discussion ensued on the cost of doing the feasibility report and if there are any turn back funds available from the state that might qualify. Colligan/Lebens moved to amend the main motion to include the questions of the council as to turnback funds that may be available from the state, and direct the City Engineer to bring back the' cost estimates to the next Council meeting on May 20. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Motion carried unanimously on amended main motion. Leroux/Wampach .moved to receive and place on file the letter from Northern States Power Company regarding their Safety Watch program and direct staff to send clarification to Northern States Power Company, Minnetonka Division, that Mr. Eldon Reinke is the honorable Mayor of the City of Shakopee at this time. Councilman Colligan stated that the matter was brought to the attention of the General Tanager of NSP, Minnetonka Division. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Wampach moved to receive and place on- file the letter from Betty McNulty, Redwood Falls Chamber of Commerce re: Minnesota Inventors Congress. Motion carried unanimously. a�onee ty .'oa ncil may 6 19,'?6 -'age _2_ Colligan/T,eroux moved to authorize the Mayor to cast a vote for those nominated by the Nominating Committee for the Board of Directors of the Assoc. of Metropolitan Municipalities at their next meeting to be held May 21, 1986. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Wampach moved to receive and place on file the letter from the Metropolitan Council approving a comprehensive development plan amendment by lifting of the moratorium on roughly 400 acres between the Junior and Senior High between CR 17 and CR 79. Motion carried unanimously. ^olligan/'Tierling moved to open the public hearing on an Appeal by Robert Novotny from Planning Commission denial of a conditional use permit to allow bulk storage in underground petroleum storage tanks for agricultural accessory use at 3374 S. Marschall Road. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner reviewed the background on Mr. Novotny's Conditional Use permit request stating that in May of 1984 the applicant was cited for having an underground storage tank on his property without a permit. In February of 1986 the City Council approved a motion that based upon State Building, Pollution Control and Fire Prevention Codes, both the Building Official and Council agree that there will continue to be no placement of underground fuel storage tanks in the Ag and R1 districts. Mr. Novotny was present and spoke in support of the conditional use permit. Leroux/vierling moved to close public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/vierling moved to determine that underground fuel storage is not a permitted or conditional use in the R-1 zoning district and that the mention of bulk storage tanks in the city code refers only to above ground tanks. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried Leroux/Colligan moved the request by Mr. Novotny in his letter dated April 28, 1986, if the presently installed storage tanks are not allowed, the pending conditional use permit application and fees paid would meet requirements for a subsequent conditional use permit application needed for above ground fuel storage with no additional fees required. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/wampach moved that staff be directed to prepare an ordinance clarifying the city code as regards to fuel storage tanks and the application of conditional use permits thereto. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/vierling moved to extend the final plat approval of the following plats for forty-five days or until ,Tune 20, 1986: Eagle Creek Junction 1st Addn. Canterbury Park 1st Addn. Fox Run 1st Addn. Canterbury Apartments 1st Addn. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None notion carried. .akopee its 7ouncil 1986 Page —3- The City Planner reviewed the Metropolitan Development and Tnvestment Framework (MDIF). The issues in the MDIF which affect the City of Shakopee is an increase in the population, household and employment forecasts for Shakopee; Status as a. Freestanding Growth Center which Shakopee will continue to have; Investment Priorities for the investment of funds in four systems such as: airports, parks, sewers and transportation; Regional Business Concentrations which are areas that are good locational choices for businesses and industries that do not wish to be in the metro area but still want regional highway access. Discussion ensued on the MDIF freestanding growth center and regional business concEntration issues. The City Administrator stated that if we go to the Met Council and get the service area extended to the northern edge of the by-pass everyone would be happy,but we may have to make some tradeoffs and must decide what our first priority would be, residential, Commercial or industrial. Colligan/Vierling moved to direct staff to prepare comments to be presented at the public hearing on behalf of the City of Shakopee to be held May 29, 1986. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion ensued on the Racetrack District Concept Plan #3 as proposed to the Planning Commission Public Hearing on April 24, 1986. The issues raised at the public hearing included: Transportation Systems; Use of P.U.D. Ordinance; Parrott Property; Koskovich Property; and concerns expressed by the Knights of Columbus; Scottland Inc. ; and Danny's Construction. Leroux/Vierling moved to accept the Planning Commission recommendations on the Racetrack District Concept Plan #3, as contained in the April 24, 1986 Planning Commission minutes. Motion carried with Cncl. Colligan abstaining. Leroux/vierling moved to offer Resolution No. 2550 A Resolution Authorizing the submittal of Racetrack District Concept Plan #3 to the Minnesota Dept. of Trans-oorf.ation for review and approval of the revised interchange at CR 83 and the Dy-Pass. Notion carried with Cncl. Colligan abstaining. Colligan/Leroux moved for a 10 minute recess. Motion carried unanimously. Lebens/Colligan moved to reconvene at 9:20:p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The City Administrator stated that there have been a number of parties that have contacted the City on the two hour parking limit problems--downtown. The City has not been enforcing the two hour limit as yet. Discussion ensued on any alternatives that could be taken, 3-hour parking limits instead of two hour, the back row of parking lot be designated 8 hour or leasing of parking spaces to employers. General consensus of the Council is to not enforce any parking as it now stands except two hour parking on the streets will be enforced, and that it will have to be monitored. I . Colligan/Wampach moved to direct staff to take into consideration the comments that were brought up along with alternatives discussed and bring back to the next council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. ^hakopee C;+;r Q l R!� a 'age -4- In response to a petition Council received at the last meeting asking that the City's dram shop insurance requirements be lowered, the City Clerk reported on what other cities are requiring for insurance. The City Attorney stated that direct liability on the part of the City is remote but. that two things should be considered: 1) the licensees do have a legitimate complaint about the high cost of insurance and 2) the idea of dram shop insurance is to protect the public. L:eroux/Vierling moved to direct staff to prepare an ordinance to lower the dram shop requirements within the City of Shakopee to be equivilent with those required by State statuate. Motion carried unanimously. An overview of the 1985 Audit Report by Jasper, Streefland & Company was given by Mr. Streefland. T;eroux/";ebens moved to receive and place on file the 1985 Audit Repart by :jasper, Streefland and Company. Motion carried unanimously. The City Clerk reviewed .the request for an application for On Sale and Sunday Liquor T.icenses by Scottland '_-Iotels Inc. Tim Keane, Scottland Companies, stating that lending institutions asked if they have assurance that a license will be issued before they commit themselves financially. It was the wish of Scottland Company that they have some consensus from the Council that under certain conditions being met the liqu6r license will be approved. The concern of policing these premises was brought up by Cncl. Wampach to which was answered they will have in-house security. Cncl. Leroux asked for a poll of the Council as to :whether or not they would agree to a license if all the required inspections were completed and all certificates properly made showing full code compliance and the necessary insurance and bonds filed, would the Council grant the applicant the requested license at this meeting. It was unanimous consensus that if everything was in order at this meeting Council would grant On Sale and Sunday liquor licenses to Scottland Hotels, Inc. , 1244 Canterbury Road. Leroux/Lebens moved to table the application for On Sale and Sunday Liquor Licenses by Scottland Hotels Inc. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to award the tennis court repairs at Stans & Lions Park as specified for X19,540.00 to C&H Construction Co. of Lonsdale, Minn. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous .does: None Motion carried Leroux/Vierling moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution amending the 1.986 budget to allow funding 14,240 for Stans tennis court resurfacing from the Park Reserve Fund, and .5,310 for Lions Park tennis court resurfacing from the General Fund. Motion carried unanimously. Lerou.x/Vierling moved to appoint to the sousing Advisory and Appeals Board the following individuals: Dale Dahlke, one year appointment expiring January 31, 1987. Robert .Jasper, Gene Juergens, two year appointment expiring January 31 , 1988. Randy j;aurent, Tarry Link, three year appointment expiring January 319 1989. Motion carried unanimously. i ;hakopee City "ounc4 "'ay 6, 1980" :Wage -5- T,eroux/T,ebens moved to nominate Dale Dahlke for a one year term, Robert Jasper, and Gene .Tuergens for a, two year term and Randy Laurent, and Larry -,ink for a three year term to the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/'Tierling moved to waive procedural policy on appointments to permit nominations, voting and appointment to the Building Code Board of adjustments and Appeals to occur at the same ^,ouncil meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Colligan moved to appoint to the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals: Dale Dahlke for a one year term expiring January 31 , 1987, Gene Juergens and Robert Jasper for two year terms expiring January 31 , 1988, and Randy Laurent and Tarry T;ink for three year terms expiring January 31 , 1989. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/vierling moved to refer the variance request by Larry A. Johnson to the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Leroux moved that the Council be _advised .of the recommendation by the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals on the variance request by Larry A. Johnson. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to appoint Don McNeil and Bill Harrison to the Shakopee Community Access Corporation Board of Directors for three year terms expiring January 31 , 1989. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Leroux/vierling moved to approve the application and authorize Susan Cieslowski of 438 Fast 3rd Avenue to practice therapeutic massages in the hometof her patients and direct staff to issue the proper registration. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the City of Shakopee Accessibility Summary for the 1986 Federal Primary and General Flections. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Moes: None Motion carried. Leroux/7Tierling moved to authorize the reduction of the letter of credit to 96,250.00 for the Hauer 3rd Addition public improvements upon receipt of an assignment of the performance bond by the developer to the City and upon receipt of a guarantee from the insurance company that the performance bond will become a one year maintenance bond when all improvements are complete. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous intoes: None "lotion carried. Leroux/vierling moved to adopt Resolution No. 2549, A Resolution Declaring Adequacy of Petition and Ordering Preparation of Report of Sewer, !-later, and Street Improvements to Market Street Adjacent to Lots 1 thru 5, Block 2, Shakopee City Plat. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Leroux moved to direct the City J.ngineer to draft a resolution ordering a feasibility study of street improvements to Market Street from 1st Avenue to 4th Avenue and to 2nd Avenue adjacent to Market Street. Motion carried unanimously. "hakopee '7ity ^oLL:cil ' ay:6, 1986 Page -6- 1'he City '�agineer gave a brief review of alternative 10/14 advantages and dis- advantages for T.H. 169 Bridge and South Approach. A few of the advantages are it opens the central business district to the river with no major traffic corridor as a barrier; E'ast bound 212 grain truck traffice crossing the river to east bound 101 will have less impact on the central business district. The disadvantage of alternative 10/14 is it costs approximately $2.7 million more than alternative *13 and approximately "3.5 million more than alternative 7A. Terry Forbord, a member of the CBD Alternative Evaluation Committee. addressed the Council on the different alternatives that could be taken. Wampach/Leroux moved to eliminate alternative 10/14 for the T.H. 169 Bridge and South approach alignment. Motion carried with Cncl. Lebens and Vierling opposed. Cncl. T;eroux opened the discussion on Eagle Creek Junction 1st Addition - Sanitary Sewer and 'Ratermain and asked if this was a service. l/estwood Planning and gineering Company representing T,aurent Builders is requesting the City to reimburse the developer for a sewer and water crossing of CSAR 16 from the trunk lines on the north side of CSAR 16. This crossing is one of four that was agreed to during the original construction of the trunk systems. Staff was directed to research how a similar situation was handled for a parcel owned by Howard Schmitt. Leroux/V%ierling moved to approve the bills in amount of "`693,352.21 . Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None :lotion carried. ?.eroux/9ierling moved to direct the appropriate City officials to contact the Planning Commission indicating that the City Council had decided to maintain the status quo with regard to traffic signing on the alley behind City Hall. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to advertise for the position of receptionist typist at the pay plan classification No. 43 with the initial range of step 1 or 2 depending upon experience. Moll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Leroux/vierling moved to adopt Resolution No. 2546, a Resolution Receiving a Report and Calling a Hearing on Improvement of Streets within Timber Trails Addition, Project No. 1986-5. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried Leroux/Vierling moved to adopt Resolution No. 2547, a Resolution Receiving a Report and Calling a rearing on Improvement of Streets Within Montecito Heights, Project No. 1986-6. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried Discussion ensued on the Storm Sewer Utility Policy Leroux/wampach moved to appoint the City Clerk acting Administrator from ',-.ay 14-18, 1986. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to direct City Administrator to advertise for the Planner I position based upon the job description shown in Attachment !,?o. 1 Position Description. notion carried unanimously. nhakopee 7ity Council ^ ;ay 6, 1906 T,aT -7— Wampach/Vierling moved to recess to Executive Session. :lotion carried unanimously. oroux/wampach moved to reconvene at 12:05 a.m. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to adjourn to May 20, 1956 at 8:00 P.M. Meeting adjourned at 12:05 a.m. Notion carried unanimously. Judith S. Cox City Clerk Carol L. Schultz Recording Secretary C i ¢ M _ u F. - utt ��EE�i league ©f minnenseve ci GFee Lll iE May 8 , 1980 To: Mayors , ;tanagers and Clerks From: Ann Higgins, Federal Liason Ann Houle, Research Assistant Re: Proposed Department of Labor Regulations on the Application of the Fair Labor Standards Act The Department of Labor (DOL) has proposed new regulations on the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA ) to employees of state and local governments . There are some problems with the regulations , which are discussed in the attached article from the Nation' s Cities Weekly . In particular, the regulations involving volunteers may create serious problems for volunteer fire departments and other volunteer programs . The regulations provide that individuals do not lose their volunteer status if they are provided "reasonable benefits" ; however, retirement benefits are not incluced in the list of permissible benefits . If the regulations are not amended to specifically include retirement benefits as permissible benefits , volunteer firefighters woula very likely have to be treated as employees under the FLSA , i .e . , receive minimum wage and overtime pay . The regulations also suggest that reasonable benefits may be provided only if they are also provided to regular city employees who perform the same services . If this is not changed , cities which have only volunteer fire departments would have to provide no benefits to the volunteers , or the volunteers may be treated as employees . R .: It is important that cities recognize the effects of the DOL regulations ana it is important that you communicate ` your concerns to the Departmemnt of Labor. Comments will be received until June 2 and may be sent to the address indicated in the attached article. Copies of the proposed regulations and more information may be obtained from Ann Houle at the League office . Ld•� _ fp, .� fb, r C 10Y t0, r_ fp', ^ p "� _ ,��, �. C C _y v .rJ`. S "�' ~ C v -1 _ � � s., — L• y - :� ._ R � r Q4 vs _G- r. � r r _ � v• � w � 7 S S C � ^ �. G. r„ •' t� , "_ rt� v v. m- -5 2. ••� 'J x, � ',�,�,�,�.-.`T' �' O, Civ G S rD tip ^7 �. -?- r ,rt O > -ys ' O 77 r^i < O ^ = C S LG y 17- r a. < = v y r n -p �, C 7 �'� tJi r O sn S f""' y .,G y C y v iD c y i fl C L U) O O O wdd_ G C _ X : n _ R T f c G p' C. r ^7 O a 0 O S lira", r r f < O . r a n O O r ti .nom r cS v r? X O G '- e' M�Gi 1t v C - O C rt y 3 G v G r 7 C c y ° O r r, .- 3 y a G �' -•1 ' p 7 C.. `/ ^. r v r ?"6 ^ C. u G O_ C G 7 y O O r = a + tC rt O '� v _I s 'v.V0-h — _. v: r C O T ^D T, ,1 TI ,� ? r �-`-< v, S v �- �' fl, T 0� �, y ;, ti• 1 t r 1:•t 4 ti v 3 y v v. ' =. r c. ro r = r o' y G `' 7- .a Q r O 0.^.G T p y S✓ s C rO O �C (n 00 > ^ n T p = 'C r r 7 C O O Ol rt < < 7 0i 7 v v y O 7 '� r �+�t� vt v. s i ?4 C C C to C C tJ -f O r Q •- O G ti Z L y C �.] SCi• 'T M +.�..,Aw G r v C G O O C 7 a r r C r. r r ... i „t CT -•. J W n' r y C- r. S W f.LF G y y C r G V v; r O i 7 C O rt r-- O r, p �' (� ^ rD rx fix•s -{ J r,- y 7 7 v"! �= G O v -r'i a <. N ^. n �' C'7 ti C QO M. G G ? F v 'M +w'�5"' Y.. c i v C G 'G rt y cn - > T v < u v, r O €t fit = r -, r c, '+ O T• r p S n S� .i.. (_"' v. ? n N v, O "O „r,, ^p .�'t',�",�ta.� , ,. "•v:: ? < r° r T r L S O. 3 O O r G r r O r ._. ? CD < rt �t t + , G s y p r _' S r - rt O y y Tl o ° G n r ' 7 r r i J p -• M C y S _rs IxD t?D 7�'II' `• st-+ 'L3 y 0 (r/� t/% ..G3 7 L�`< C 4. C `i ✓'t G _ O o v T• v O w ° G rt a R y O ° ? N fl _ y rt O O m ` O -p [" 3 r 1 y n a - C v O _ ri r tJ) r 7c r _ r .. w -, �. C -, lkCl- O rt fl C O O = = n� O , w 7 O O ty r rt w r �- y _ r -, -° T7 + OD r r z r v y y -, -, S . 7 �` k f v. T p 7 rt r _ r O O ID .7-J' " ^v ^3 v C G �� ? U E O O r -ri S rD v O S �. „ r`,' S, ~ O 7 ' '' N r tJ v ? tD v O v V, o =. _ O r n r r < O 7 r r s G S r «� r O t s n r to y C: C C O rp d 'r+ 3 3 S p O n M ? fl O a s'., G, Z= fl v O r r O r C y G = r r O r 'A G 'S 7 W 7 S O 0 r C C _ C C -s < C < r G Q ID 7r it z 5, to r "[} "+ n -. ? ? y C. V. cp _ ••, en ,�, V, n r, iAT ° t0, ti t0 T _ O G f+ 3 G L r n < y - G r � T y C O C G C ti y r 7 < 3 C G Cn OL -1 a O rIsal ala. S n 7 r n r� ? tD 7 pQ v rT > 'w O fa r s r r r r r O C r Lr, O �L p _ n �• = C_ U. II O. Q n `t Ci r ^� O C v' _O r� ,*� OT ° �"tdk an G � � :, ,- T O O• � L r 7 O •<EL > n Ln tr p vr'i T., In F y r .�. r < G y , O v T Lr- .� 3 o � �_ Asn = �°_° o eD t<o ° .� a � _ _ O C n =D v� E O ri n aSit rl ' < r O G ? �, r :, rL r -c y r C. n• 6• ? v. `< v. rD O r n •t} G S t a n 7 C• G ti v' y n G r �. G X O 7 Gn w J S v C Hp n0 n. v, ., tS. _ v, p, G ?: v, .., C. -•1 r a W kt�•,r xY `�R r r < O _ r G O,z a, rt r c S 'O O 0 v r 7 C r r n O -t [- G 7 y v C r a, n v T r 'C p O ° �. ti -• � p r •- � ^+ ��< -•, O. 7 ..O a, rt G n- <• " < `v �• r. `<< O r ° a _ r „ r c r r o -� 0 4v r NO v T tOi V tp71 7 < tT W t0, $ t0, = to S n O tD1 o y r "ID, : ' X r S ?M. r .t rt O r r O rt G C = r c ' i a p. C) v _ v r r G tD T M C UOQ n r p r 7 R O �< r "'.' r9 �' _ -• eD X CD O _T r ._ =� n 7 L N " ,? y's y C T• ��,, CS' vi v' ? .-. ti O• .:, C C, r r `< N w Gr, C r 0 C rte" ~O : ? 0 Z r <O C.0$ r r C n n T rt•QG�O rt % ��, _, �' n n G T ? a r w r T �' 9 v S O rt O C > C 7 .. v `} 7 S �e r,,• 3 ?'.� r rt ^' r C �- y n C. 'G ° n r TS ? r oho G. m S cn vv,, T 21ss +i: •r� Ln Lr, '� y n O '.^ ' r C < G. ? r ? v N O r ..�' Y ^ C n G < cam+ "^ y ^. p rD In �' y G r 7 = N'y L1" y A, C C• a r a C �• y J .y rr ,1.., Jy<xrr• ° v v 'C1 %D y d n r fi a. C rti _ y S, �G M M y _ G m r M ° eD .. c a 'C3 r a r X r i c o NO3 S o m � :- ° n o y °c x r � n 2 — .. L L L G r:� O O ✓ ._ N 11 Cly O .^J C a J E y t •.3 C 0� y r' �- F"" 6J •6! O :i i i' C 'C :/ �ILI a ��iII O G+ S y Y ` 6r L 'O ti Y C C Si .n C S L C 7 O v O 5 C O O L = L L y C- 4. .�• u O y y L Ci > ,I L O Villn O "s v C n rW > LL .2 C,., y Q. y i y G O y -rj ,•, .G v' .i i L y r CLi .r j S L y L n y p - p I C G L C u n G r s y vc v L d F+ _ L v C. . y y L 1^ T C y L �L..�v O r1 C. ;� �p ^d ._ O vl = 6� b0 v� S s _ 'y .c� .� i O v y y u y O v d L v V un L U-) ^ a O �oaoQ =+ nO yy C rp L C •.� .C+ r1 .n tf1 �. y'3 A O tz NL n O I O _ L L L _ G o rl _ = n '13 C. 'I i � � .. � � � � .� C .:: � � C v v �p � � � •C ^ is � � W nL -� � v ca c ° -y .. � �� L •+ O 0 � � O CA� r3 V7 L L v w � r1 .- rJ y G p` r.A C 0 H Pq C L L •C. G'^J _ G te r. �_ rC v� Z r " G O p G -G i th cu ' C rs Ou >... N cz i n=•-. _ � 'a �" ,yj. C � r.. v •... fiJ O y � � u i C� T _ J E. C y U C W ;r, /♦ f C n a 0 rJ LO L 7 O c y r :• I O a j ^L 3 3 r. C O J I rs O TJ r q _ ..0 '✓ _. rL TS ' � ;, ^.. "' _ _ ..:� L ` •gin :� C � r y -G = =' � O � i5 V U� C I III v 7 �~ _ .O O _v :r.. .J G '*S C f j s. J 1 I I 1 I li l � t� _�`C V a " r, -O_ ,C .J _ •+ � Q In L G � v cpm i � U-) od •y L •V y ` C r 3 C 1 ] _ _ '•T' :+ y r1 v In y "S O L y .T G > C r ,� �1J O 'r. r'. .� r3 t � F � r � \. H � � T .J.. L J � ,-~ 'i L � J ^ _ J J � •> � r f.. � � JI V/ • u �_ �' - LA11 i- co ,n Ln o rsCU I n`. �, ^ _ ` O _ V C = C _ r• L n ry ,n _ ^ – C J LL G! " L ra ' N b -1 4 O \ '.� �qq�� ^L/� i ,� L O 7 Z) ''j. i L• '� T 11 _ '1r f .L.. 1y/ 1.i f O� W a In a 72 — ! J ,ice 1 r• _ f " - O � � � S•' L O '� � y c0 � �Jv � E v � ?. . :. E C ' ^+ Z'^ T_ r v v v � ° `'7 v �•W .^J.r`C �.• C .1 y0 ^ C `� C 3 w0...s j .r •� .G 7 >> �, L TJ O .a O v v v v C ..J.. :, ,C z L ' =+ .r. '.n �• J �+ ,°^ �+ `O L V y C —� ..• C > 'a S y v0. w c'7 7 C ° '' D :0 C .n L C a'C •=' :. CJ E L V " E-•' ` •d w t: 7 C O. , C o C O -s .v .� ,>� ^ =s ? V •— o c f ." _ s " '� x a °' 7 v > :0 C✓ v T C C '40LU 7 •� v L v C L to 1 O 3 V E O v C. ' L �+ Y .y. L — L� , ^3 c oo T = O - L ° , —>' ` K �_ Z r 7 S �+ �„ .,7J O y .� y Lr, C y Oy ` E O E 1 C C .> n y C ° L L G_ T 7 O `p j 7 v C G C v F O . n n 1 �i C u E 1 n n _ O '� U C 7 'J y a 7 A >' 0 C ` '� O .� v1 'L 'J r3 ?'C ^! C E 'T ` v ^' p, S 6� ip L 7 R O 7 .. C C y ��j �' C O C L � Tn. -r- u = 5 ? 1 Q y y 'a O _ L •C '= Q• '�►.y O ^ v 1, 7 ? ` 'J .••' :,! L O L 'j C- ,n,; M CC O y y a n C C ,? C J '7 _ r, r .— O ° O C r •'p > L r7 �` v " G V O '� -- v i .0 - .0 >,'� Cr _r y 00 v n 2 v '� _ cn ✓� r 0. — C -p (.• __. � ^ CJ � � y O a Z �p — �^s ` O A n Z f_.. x 7 _ � :� ;J C 0 r! _ s ` " C+= :r '^ U U ! v _ V y > Z ^ L -J ^ v ^ J E :, r' n f• L a v �. n U 7 b w v v 'O ° a j C v o = > = C > .^ � a r' O C. � = � � `� 7 1 •� 3 0.L a � U 1. 0. v 0.^w+. u � � 2� L � ... 7 � % � � v � — n .`. Ln I L t,. •�p G � � •C � � I r`� �•y n C `� � � U O rv- n C 0 L G E y R G C O y R >, r. R O = �- �, E C L ° R •� O E G C LO L EO cJ Nvii O ca d Cr C ._ E v ;v :n 1. .^.Ci U u •y a r - p u ` v E n O _ R u ^ c L O :r. too� N G e y v' � U �' y L C w R v �n L O "O E H d �w O r J ;n � y C a_ a L v r r = o f L c+ t v ° s m cr m > - _ c = CL. � � G C o y cs �o o c fl,C) = M � v � � 0 1 3 ; c Y ' " s'. E o = f " �- ^ pp O- C .O cJ R ^ S O " E E 0 3 y y >_ y ..1 ' L- Nun v �� n ? - .� to .0 .' v C r U) O `p E Ci ^J > '' v: s O ^ J rs C 0 s .° J C C :r > R N En C. O y W U ..] 'n O CJ O E7 _ O G CUi n U U n R J 0. to R O '- ...7 O! d 3 -0 00 CJ O 'Y L C r3 L U `, .. r TJ J a o v E o ° c E C 0% c, s a 00 �;, - „ .• L R u. w G .^ - c - j o , C_ ^. cycs cc Lo .=n E) M c o. R E ° � � _ ° ' > � r o CC, L II rs '_ O O `n - >,O C U cCJ n y O � z O Er O p a v ? O L L v j :` G L L v C- U cr v v c Z. _ > J C 3 s R L 3 p a yJ '> '`^ i `� L y - V E c 'i E E ..] LLl s O O -J cc C ° yU, O . _ n KJ m R d vi O '> v C .° � L = 1 v :-0 ` GC R O C G Jt > U r _� O 7 y ci �D SS. �, ¢ '7 C_ > L v v •'7 ^ C n � L CC;_ _?. O CJ v '^ In w •G d `�•' w .a O LQ j 7 y O '' r, '� L O p G C R v :. n T : J -= n O LL .0 C y a u 3 O y O ^� a '� 3 E O ¢ `' rz c C ? �s = - Z oo o. ° E E oCi s �' GW. O rCs s E = ' .6 car 0°03 a � E 3 u °o ° E. a R ^, 0o o tow � c3a nsG v cG s_ v c^ '17 �� .�. 4, C .a > R Cl U L O G .- s C n y ^ y^ L Cn I C O rz v U d C 4! O .Q vtj O Cr G. y C L u C. c 7 n a E C 7 O L y rf E >ri C O �. v .> -a O) C.N .; N. ur _ .T O 7 O ^L R bj C C L z E'o ".^r. n p > L C r aN ? `°' � c ° °oS ` 9 = os c, -co ." " T ? I ° s 'fl.'� y �.T ;, '� o, n c ti � s C .^� > E ui L > G O O. u y ra �. 3 y :O G. to s -a s J E u r o .. ys c, c. � •-� � �cG J ° `- c g °-� E i � -- r o ; .= a y n °- c a ° .. R a d E c. c E 3 3 ts .. x 3 .' C w o o .L � = c o. N •p .° � Q •n � � 3uw � ° T`o � R '°r, �,"� a y� j o c � � •C � �•v ° •v � ^aa ,c, � :� > � " E E � E .G �o- cLow � .� o _`' = E , '> ca p G y f J C E n R C n 7 > ., x E o .. " .S y vn c ac, ", cs °o � a °�' ° �y R y a E c ° oda aC, _DT.>,LRn t �Z„,� ��v,' Oc aa 'y .•, °aE, i ��Y LJ�..tO,'.'�uQ. 00 a.. 9.c. y �}a o 3 y > ioa ' Gs Od. 7j —t, > d >7 ^ ' 2 �ucr] ..��EEc' cp as°L c > L s o c' y n �. ej p cJ v T3 C n ' fl C v v 1! G O L •E "3v y C O L n > ✓ Ci v > C C 3 y r r7 _ 7 rs u O a 0 y ° Oy A c0r j 3 0 30 .` =' r E O u - e0 3J 1 R n id r t, ad u tc w C u y L ° E w h vT'”' E-' C `� a'`- O .^ L C .�. t .- v s O CU ` Q...- y v y n A L G U Y rs r� y . J O L '^� L �^A L O r. A O C ^ G ^ C3 ] _ ui = i v _ C J v L 0� N O yy 7 v 'U ,c E E ,n r C -" y S U pp Ln d :f N L ••� L OM 'E O T > v a '*J `� v v U ,n O O :� '� `u C ^D L := J C `� L C .-. >` '�+ C C_ .r v 0.Q b :.0 r v ° J v v ��. G v y L ° .� v E L "C C U Cr > R ^-' v� 'C G� 7 E ,^ Z � � L '^ v s L 7 C� r'''3 r r U L C -r L i O E C G0 E R v v 'G 7 G `` I rl 'J O �,'-, Y C s id 5 'G ns 'os E � Ccs � � >•_ c c o L n _ E J > � — ^ c c ` � _ a j Ot V c}'i 3 R n ti 3 y � C :n a `° o E c ? u s > c a 3 v v w 3 '> G > >, _ C L �� >,L ', L L ' '° N y ^ L S, 7 G L L ;r ` RG W L C •} cuv T C O a O y O 3 O C E C L n a .5 O .n O ' v ? ^ L 7 d ry E > C '..t' 0 R O >,, •C v ., :! C .^ L `� ^ v C �' O G :� i, - '> G ^ C' C >ts .0 ',� - C O O `- G O v v L v E v 1 v 'J y v _ _ 7 .`3 'L J v '�7 „ 7 v.(-. {L G C •� v v O• .•C > > v +J C v Ci O 3 7 �• `uJ r 'n G � r5 � .^ 'n � y •''3 � � � Y O > J y C ..J.. .r., y L R L � :� .y N v :+ � �+ N •ri O 'c� GO y h ^ ',� O.;iGi C O O j .> -0 '6 •T n L -• " ^s O - u •�, y -+ 3 L L fl'L •Y L •J.0 C v ��' O -04 F 3 T C u E O G O GL 7� .0 O 7 yY+ y y _ y L y .'� u L C G u E 2 y R A c J O TS Uy r 'y f'`' r0 L ` ea O y +, ( v O C y E O E 03 C C j y O ^7 L G. 7 .^ T3 r. C L x 3 J Y C G C y ^ n O. >.- JL - E m `0� L 7 R y �, C ^ m 7 `� 0c0 3 7 y 'fl b L .G ra J �- b 'O r �C O L v O a O- >��• 0 3 7 O OC 0 i L O C L :Ca ^ O J u `• - :� L L C - L C 7 � >. CJ "•• E .. fr E J y O V �' J L ',' O ^ J r• J ' H '� y O C R "'3 L R �` Y u ♦a .� Q Q ''� -� C r ? J C > J C •- Y > C C O .0 _ -r ?, _ 3 V .r.'. y L 7 y ; "' O L V) L r ? n E O l i = lf1 Y ^Y + O R O ' `r 1 •> `n r^�i > .L.. CG `Jo ':= Z r 'Z! ` ^ .J. �7 " A ') n '7 F- x 7 E ^fi :Z ^ L C O �! c- a, 7 1 V 3 .G t.. !f r U" v •. y •, Y y -- n O n ^ L n J 1 G. t L :n _ ; �•S, CJ C y •!� ', •1.. N r .! '� U .� v '� 1 L TJ :! ._ E :e .... "S = C L a• y r Y M.r,� L L Q .r... V ? R �! J n C O L A ^ C Cfi.` Y o Z O 3 r t- J r ,'� O �• O O J r :l �_ U [._' .T' `' �, .u •� '� O L ..0 E fl.. :.. r n C O J- i w G - E Cy = C C O y n ro i,O eQ R R n G O ro 0 O ee' c C L L E y y " J >' O []. I N J J C x G - O O u �.w � es y 1 L v —' .y.. N ' L LL fA G V G V Q1 •^ ^i V S V "w y G1 N =— R n• R ... E 1 too i y O G N _ v 1 L C .y >y N _C w O - O ` = :o 7 :y R R a = cE r, r. p R u 7 u ry•d R C G u R y CLO .0 �" fs vi = C O.v c O O -• n co C _ ° c, R o E E O 3 s ,, .� E N E _ .,J L n y a rz •— Q < C 2 r n � C 7 u C C C 6r = G 6� 4; Q ev O C C C U W Ln O p y ' > ` E C J CJ :! � > � � 1, LL y .- Cl. ` y � .. Lr L y -0 0r CLn O r 7 CJ 3 B pp I y O j E O L to O .n y O R L C a W rs y y ea ey R Q W E C` O C ._^ C R �0 J J G a >, O C u n CJ O y E > L 7 O f r O o U J v C O L r j C C C G 3 1 1 1 C > J C 3 S h r y 3 Gn rL L y _ O R v y C L L G o=J oC '5 G 7 E 3 - E .., v n y x G y ri `� W -p O v : L O G C O L u �.u Ctj ` u C C E G cJ R y C; 0 0 y •= po �Qi F� S '7 O v > 'fl '�3 y : to •V y C y Z U c R n T cr.J _ y T n, ., t •o y 3 _ O ? v J r, `c O 1 j s O O L tz Ln u 7 u '7 C 7r r .v .r. W 3 V O ,'3 a m •L Er C W x E -.- �"J.. L >.(¢ ai `n 1C - r>j •C p n O O G. v, F- y iLn 'J 3 G r z o0 y C O E E aCi L pco W, O w r y N E '.� •r E '.�-� C L axi ao3a � E3uCG_ s � ° E ° � E '� 2" loo E3 :' Cy W G 3 M. ~ n L b C G '� � L l y rn p 1 GM 1 1 C Q > 1 R O y W > �+ G x 10 �L y vi C r L C y O %n W O eLs OCE�J• iC^ O m . N7 v> > j yO > oo y pOOy O Cl. > s Cb t-C % O RC O fl' E O r H O � •[ y � a, .0 O L C 'U `� C y >� W F� ` C E 73 'v a 7 y C +y >, V ^moi i -_ O L Id CY y 'a 'v G E > Id U W C w�C. T O '_ R C i y -i E II O C '� y C C •� 3 aCJ v s C 0 G vCd Gs c dr4 = ~ cn ? o �.'� c; > c 0' Into co n = E >, n nyoac ` z y n e: O W �+ Z G *- O �. u C >+ R R y 'r ` O C C n y .O 3 a.. L S v •C ea c,:, C .0 tLi to x 'J C •y 'v .J uyi vi �1 y 'v i 1 0 C C .~. y 1 0. n R y r3 2 > Q 3 O . y � E L °o � G L 3 7 x E O G^ e� C v 0 C u O t O c y C r O ya ,, G „ o ci �, — v G W W �" 'y r ty L G.� 7 C ti a 1) y E v zi O U 1> > V .C' i y .7 R O > c. � y >, 3 O = _ > > _n > ^Jrr_ y 7 a �. E L y .. L H _> N v - F- r1 C i G C R r C J 7 y y n O E E d- y u C Z O a .n. e y j F 0 (.. (�', r C r�rJ� O y > L cc7L O Ln L i E co 3 0 �0 % L G. -n ^_ J C u G z r t O I u > O Q A C '*y .`n. y tL1 i .r A LG i O ;J �ILI L O •LS C w .� E C r C •p u N u rs ai O O y 7 v y .. L 7 '� R O rCs n = y O r- .r O G R 1 v > T L: 1 R 7 T N V. N C - � > Z L ==' 'c R :y A pO O y O Q v 7 v j 3 O 3 ` C n R E .� O y y o 4 : O G C" r✓ H G �. M y E y H u u L T3 O. y C •n r6 E .[ .L 'y R >.'yR �"� O.v >. n ,y_, `�-`'_- CInL O C L O E Q'-v L ro pO G G CS. e4 C1 S v G R v y .n Ljp O L G. U -u Y R ��.. ri'�. r'yj y 1,-j J L T_1 O •C C > y '� TJ `_° L v `-+ C O E �+ •,� E ,n -- C : '^ L _ 1 y y •n .. .n •,.• Q L C1.O ro G-0 ^J O O J J L i y .O^ cctt�� L O n rj j ` CJ L G 1 G V R G n C h .G .n L ` rtt rL R y v v G Lt L v p E tCd o > . C 7 E OC H E L a y ro J n j 7 .. L u` u U v7 i CiG :� R u E 7 C p L E ro C G O EL �, > o L : PN > > C '� L vo j:—c oo LRo J c B E C o o y " > >. 0 > 7 C y y t G G O > 7 O .. Ci >, y r ` ,f, .. G :z j y ,s O u .1 R M Oo G n O .` ' O J E r L E rr G r„o- _ O C Ca C 3 j G y„ O 3 O C E L C R J O ,y J n n L 'j 'd n r O � C '� C .`�•+ '7 C '�J• 7 O O O = .`�_' a 1 y L C G �+ -'O E 1�J 'J J ,7 y v J .1 J J y ^J .� G y 'r L _ .�. G 7 'n L C y C Cl. W C C ,� �� %•f G 1 .� y i0. (n C J G. ^, n n n, I. '� 'L w y " .. L 'L '� - . O u 10 '10 �. F � O E ,� T.... C a� .0 " � xs ao � ¢ s � � �`aw JI a 2 y L O L y L '2 �0 O L '� O' O .6 O GO •.^� � � �. A Q! y :d � y a+ .G�L° E�v-war LC .L.v,.., Lri�' "?7" vva3,+ G3� yG3 VTCp REy LE 7oc^, LQs" Oov=❑� CQ�?3�`po °' E- LcEC°y a �o C=E '_ O ,b, e0.`c,LS'rov °y,'A .v�� .O[° S_dGo ❑ C - OL- A / O O S o C COGE � r' 00" p, 4 to A C Q'C eQ E y ro f Q p ;^ C ,�� G ° L u L ° ro — Y o , o � c n_ $ � °. a te - 0 3 �cl. Ina 3 o �_ � � 'c y � 'a " °: E Js ... � y � L a fl. ro1J° °G° lJo � L c ate, T ° "'. �p nL $ o roa ov ,c � T c ,J y a 3 >, p y a ,p O s a 3 C a aIntec ° yC'n.. ' � C?: r3E vN ZEJ oWrE 3 CL C A a, N O R _ro Zro O aE -0 za y L L 'n O G O p a ¢ 000 Lto' aC0 - O . LY Ld vi H .. GLS a G ` V y .h a y 7 '� v L n rL•s -C v a a c > ,- E ' LLJ iL c o -a > o . y j B , O fl j n ° u _•. 0 CL Ln n � E � C� � i 3L � x 7 C a O � n 3 ? E ' ro X E 3 •s L :^ = ° C a y •`�^ C acd ° ° a '_ ` .14 ro :n 7 w o _ s ,Oo ro 3 L " o „ _ c,, -� ro C ro a a '- L ,0 ? p o �, E '� ` a n 13 �"� C .ya. J a p ° G ro a p 0. y .. O O y 't7 �,' y 7 0. O ro o T._ y • wZEa ¢ acEx 'g `o 's ani = cOc n3LEa n > � � 'n J _= o > O x y1 o c 3 c ro y y o o o � '' y �� N = 7 3 0.v %� F a y _ a ' C] ro '3 c0 O ' 0. O ro �+ v ? O ro -0 y �, a 'o n L 0. 0 O G 0 7 y E ” C O. O '� a 0.'m '> G O 0.n E ro 9 O p a v a E TJ W O O a *� w x O 7 '73 a J a Gn p � Q ` 0. y a 3 M a _ F. OT ro v G a u v a C O O C T n ^� O B 4 Y a .� E ^ Q 0. o E CVi fl y a 'r_ ° ._1 0.O n L C a C N C L ^ j 7 ? a 3 Cy O 1] 'O � O L G ° '� 'in •� o a � ACd L .o o 4Q ~ atz '° °' � E o..n.; E a', ° .nsL R o,cL 3 ° •a' a6 E r a > 2 ' 4w 2 'v ° a � •� � a� '� C Cd O n Q O. E = y O p TS 'y an .� ,C> C C �. ro i a s a a y G ^ Ln c a) Y y .O O p ro 0 ro ro L '" y E L O F y y Cj h0 n O y U _ .0 v Z y, 3 .0 u p CV, i y 0.M 0.� L "n rp .'• 3 G G L 3 " ,n � a G O � - c o.� Q •E .c ;p•yro �s3a `vyv- aE ° _ '7 �' O j O 7rzZA Ld ;j a �- C G Z 0 ro O .r L j ro v O N L O y O .� y ^� 't 0 ~O a Q is y0 y0 cn rJ `^S ; NQt1i r ° 3 ` 4`- ', E G a v a a j y v a y w -� n a L 0 ``y. 1Cad J a C OT N _ ° a E .o r L y E v E 3 N X y y n, >, v z 0 7 C O : L L O a 7 G ro -y a ro O a a a y �' a O a, CA C. n 0. Ln ,n ro ro a y ?. '7 c_ G L ci a O n E a in ro = = G 5 E o ?, = a a J ca .. C ,, ` _ fl-v C _ s a b ro ti .. ° -7 O C- - >' >,-u a Z t- .Su.". 7 1 y r ,°o � L :4 '� R i ax = u � .5 a � v z y E = Er �' o.� F, ° o Ci E _ ^ L a s ro y 1 L y O a > b T O a o =� C C = 3 L O Y v 's m -L a O ^ p y •v �, 5,W IJ IJ `n ro p y ° 0. c = X a ro o .., 3 v a a 3 t y v [ L E ^7 c L a S of ro Y N O J a 'C a rya � C ° .a. � L C, ?, O'• 3 G � '" � V 3 's y ° � C .: G � u � •.� ` � E � 3ysy a y� 7c � .; x � ,= ° � vvS :. � o c -0° �- o '� L a 73 a , `o m vo � 'o v CD °' to ^,ao 0 0, ro a o ° 00 Cool C y •O = Ccu sq -c{ � o• ,, 4cc n OpoA u o j m oO' or `o7 C�Q •"a�o Ezi 0.7 ° L0 T• = T a. C47 C yA 7 7 7 O It O Crn = ° v 0 1 O C1Ln aGJ tu LGO MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator /Doi FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Aide RE: Petition for Diagonal Parking at 205 S. Lewis St. DATE: May 8 , 1986 INTRODUCTION• A petition requesting a conditional use permit for diagonal parking on the east side of Lewis Street, north of the Lewis Street entrance to the library, south of Second Avenue has been received from Michael Luce (See attachment #1) . The request primarily relates to the area in front of the old Minnegasco building. The Downtown Committee has reviewed Mr. Luce ' s request and has made a recommendation to City Council that said request be denied. BACKGROUND: On August 21, 1979, Council prohibited diagonal parking in Shakopee. On December 4, 1979, Council granted diagonal parking at four specific locations: 1) St. John' s Church at West 8th Ave. 2) Mt. Olive Church at 911 E. Shakopee Ave. 3 ) West side of Fuller St. at Jim & Lucy' s. 4 ) East side of Fuller at Video Vision. On February 4, 1985 the Shakopee City Council approved the request of Bud Berens for diagonal parking on the East side of Fuller St. , north of the Fuller St. entrance to Berens Market, to the alley between 1st and 2nd Avenues. The basis for granting said request at that time hinged on two key issues: 1) The curb in that area was set back 8 feet on both sides of the street. 2) The traffice volume on Fuller St. was fairly low ( 1, 075 ADT) as compared to Holmes ( 3 , 875 ADT) and Lewis ( 2, 650 ADT) Streets. Mr. Luce contends that the situation in front of the Minnegasco building is no different than that of the Berens case. Mr. Luce ' s main reason for requesting diagonal parking, stems from the fact that the Job Service is creating a significant amount of traffic and short term parking needs. In accordance with the Downtown Plan, the area in question is designated for diagonal parking on the east side of Lewis Street and parallel on the west side of Lewis Street between Second and Third Avenues. A blown up model of what the parking arrangement will look like in this area appears in attachment # 2 . The Downtown Committee moved to recommend to City Council that the request for diagonal parking in this area be denied. The Committee felt that in lieu of the increased traffic in this area, the approval of such a request would adversely affect l,�; a-,- traffic flow and create a hazardous situation for both pedestrians and motor vehicle occupants. Tom Brownell, Shakopee Chief of Police concurs with the downtown committee ' s finding in this case. The Committee used the following considerations as the basis for recommending denial of Mr. Luce ' s request: 1. There is a new parking lot across the street from the business in question with ample parking space. 2 . Only four additional stalls would be created if diagonal parking is approved pursuant to Mr. Luce ' s request. 3 . The area is scheduled for streetscape improvements in 1987 which will meet the request of Mr. Luce. 4 . Precedent could be set for additional diagonal parking requests prior to the implementation of the streetscape plan. 5 . The traffic levels on Lewis Street and the request for diagonal parking are not compatible without the appropriate street design elements to slow down traffic. (e.g. street jogs at mid-block) ALTERNATIVES• 1. Move to deny the request for conditional use permit for diagonal parking on the east side of Lewis Street, north of the Lewis Street entrance to the library and south of Second Ave. 2 . Direct staff to make an amendment to the ordinance to allow diagonal parking on the east side of Lewis Street, north of the Lewis Street entrance to the library and south of Second Ave. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends alternative #1. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to deny Mr. Luce' s request for a conditional use permit for diagonal parking on the east side of Lewis Street, north of the Lewis Street entrance to the library and south of Second Ave. tw D Cc� We, the undersigned, would like the City Council to grant a conditional use permit for diagonal parking at 205 South Lewis, Shakopee, W James '.,-,, �,v,,+,�Ir. y�• _..�', PETE TOUSIGNANT P.Q. BOX 299 SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 Job Serv{oe 205 S. Lewis `tepee, Mtn 55379 �n!n/ .. Av Fenske's School of Dance Classes specWirirW in •where Up,Ballet the Caring de ,jazz, Tumbling the student n the Women's Dance&Exercise first step." Ages(3&Up) 205 Lewis St. — - Sharon Penske, Director, 445-7959 !�tL(i' �iL�� C•� 7 y ��y IIi. a � SIV r- - I If .kk I -^ i MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judi Simac, City Planner RE: Appeal of decision by Board of Adjustment & Appeals: SuperAmerica Sign Variance DATE: May 15, 1986 Introduction- At the May 8 , 1986 meeting the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approved a motion to reconsider Variance Resolution No. 445 . Following a discussion of the revised signage plan which was submitted by SuperAmerica) A motion was offered to approve the variance from Section 4 . 30, Subd. 2T ( section defines signage) . The motion failed, therefore no variances were granted by the Board. Background: SuperAmerica appealed the original variance request to the City Council. When revised signage plans were submitted to Council, the Council referred the issue back to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. The revisions include the assumption that the striped panels are illuminated architectural features and will be placed on the corners of the canopies only. (No SA language on canopies ) . If the architectural striping is not considered in the signage computation, than the advertising signage is under the 393 sq. ft. - code limit. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals considers the architectural striping as sign area. Action Requested: Offer Variance Resolution No. CC-445 and move for its approval or denial. CITY OF SHAKOPEE VARIANCE RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. CC- 445 WHEREAS , Super America having first filed an application to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals dated 1-23-86 , for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of the Shakopee Zoning Ordinance , Section 4 . 30 , Subd. 2T to-wit : Sign Area requirements and WHEREAS , the property upon which the request is being made is described as : 1155 - 1st Avenue and WHEREAS , said proposed variance request was Denied by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals at their meeting ofb-8-86 and this decision has been appealed to the City Council ; and WHEREAS , the Shakopee City Council on May 20 , 1986 held a public hearing on the appeal from the decision of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that upon hearing the advice and recommenda- tions of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and upon considering the suggestions made by the applicant and suggestions and objections raised by the affected property owners , within a radius of 350 feet thereof , in public hearings duly held by the Shakopee Board of Adjustment and Appeals and the Shakopee City Council that the aforementioned variance be and is hereby : as follows : BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that pursuant to Shakopee City Code 11 . 04 , Subd . 5 B-5 , if an approved variance is not utilized within one year from date herein approved or by May 20 , 1987 it shall become null and void . Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota held this 20tbay of May 19 86 . MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judi Simac, City Planner RE: Amendment to the Comprehensive Sewer Plan DATE: May 15 , 1986 Introduction: At their May 8 , 1986 meeting the Planning Commission approved a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the Compre- hensive Sewer Plan Amendment which provides sanitary sewer to a 5 . 5 acre parcel east of CR 83 and North of 12th Avenue. Background: The proposed amendment would expand the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) line to include a 5 . 5 acre parcel upon which the Canterbury Square strip center is under construction. Scottland received a conditional use permit for the installation of underground fuel tanks, for the Brooks Superette, in November 1985 . At that time, use of an on-site septic system was approved, however it was concluded that connection to the sanitary sewer was prefer- able. The building permit was issued for a 38 acre lot of record, however the developed site is 5 . 5 acres. The amendment proposes an extension of the existing lateral in County Road 83 with a ten inch, insulated pipe, which will be four feet deep. The line will extend ten feet past the property ( as measured from the northwest corner) and include a manhole. Because of the shallow depth of the sewer at this location further extension of the lateral is unlikely. Usually when a sewer extension is made, it is run along the entire frontage of the property. If this is not done, City Policy requires the owner to waive any future assessments for sanitary sewer service. In the case of this plan amendment, Scottland will be required to agree to not contest future assessments for sanitary sewer. The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) has indicated that there is adequate capacity in the County Road 83 pipe for the strip center use and that they would approve the extension. The Metropolitan Council staff have indicated that although the property is presently not within the MUSA they would consider the amendment because there does not appear to be a substantial impact nor adverse effect on the metropolitan systems. Met Council staff clarified that the amendments would be for 5 . 5 acres only, not the entire 38 acre parcel. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan Amendment for the reasons that: 1. A sewer connection for the property is practical, given the location of the existing lateral, the availa- bility of other public utilities and the proposed use of the property. 2 . When existing sanitary sewer is available, on-site septic systems should be discouraged. 3 . The Metropolitan Council staff has indicated that the amendment will not create an adverse impact on Metropolitan systems , nor affect the approval of the residential plan amendment. 4 . Met Waste staff approve the plan amendment. Action Requested: 1. offer Resolution No. 2557 , A Resolution Authorizing the submittal of a Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan Council which will provide sanitary sewer service to a 5 . 5 acre parcel east of CR 83 and north of 12th Avenue, and move for its adoption. 2 . Direct staff to delay forwarding of the plan amendment until the agreement to not contest future assessments has been received and approved by the City Attorney. Attachment v � U RESOLUTION NO. 2557 A Resolution Authorizing the Submittal of a Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan Council Which Will Provide Sanitary Sewer Service to a 5 . 5 Acre Parcel Which Lies East of County Road 83 and North of 12th Avenue WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shakopee adopted a Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan in August, 1981, and; WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee proposes to amend the compre- hensive sanitary sewer plan by expanding the Metropolitan Urban Service Area to include a 5 . 5 acre parcel which lies east of County Road 83 and north of 12th Avenue, ( legal description in attached exhibit A) , and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee held a public hearing on the proposed amendment on May 8 , 1986 and recommends approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA that a Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan amendment be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for approval, which will provide sanitary sewer service to a 5 . 5 acre parcel which lies east of County Road 83 and north of 12th Avenue ( legal description in attached Exhibit A) . Adopted is session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 1986 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form the day of 1986 • City Attorney Exhibit A Legal Desciprtion of Sewer Plan Amendment Parcel The West 494 . 00 feet of that part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 9 , Township 115, Range 22 , Scott County, Minnesota, lying North of the centerline of 12th Avenue as described in Document No. 29522 in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Scott County, Minnesota. Excepting therefrom that part of said Northeast Quarter lying within the plat of Valley Park Third Addition. lig I � 1 r Ac AN �I (Al z ,I � I IIII ' C III CITY 0/„SYOCOOEE tj t! e., Cm OF+SUKOrEE i ------ CITY OF F1101 UM .— ./.. c � I I - I ---------- Hill S ��i !.- t + 1�• _ CITY Of SMO.EE --- — CITY 11 S.1191 -- _- MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judi Simac, City Planner RE: Amendment to Subdivision Ordinance - HomeOwner' s Associations DATE: May 15 , 1986 Introduction• The Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council that Section 12 . 11, Subd. lE of the City Code be amended to provide that Homeowner ' s Association agreements be established in accordance with City Policy set forth by resolution of the City Council. Background: Amendment Language: E. Homeowner' s Association. Council shall require a Homeowner ' s Association for any condominium, townhouse, or planned unit development which contains common areas or common facilities. Such association must be established in accordance with city policy as set forth by resolution of the Council. Attached is a copy of the resolution City Council has adopted in reference to Homeowner' s Associations. Action Reauested: Offer Ordinance No. 194 , An Ordinance Amending Section 12 . 11, Subd. 1 (E) , and move for its adoption. T RESOLUTION NO. 2535 A RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH CITY POLICY WITH RESPECT TO HONE-OWNER' S ASSOCIATIONS REQUIRED BY SHAKOPEE CITY CODE SECTION 12 . 11 , SUED. 1 ( E) WHEREAS, Section 12 . 11 Subd. 1 (E) of the Shakopee City code does require the creation of a Homeowner ' s Association for condominiums , townhouses and planned unit developments which contain or include common areas or facilities ; and WHEREAS, the public ' s health and welfare is a ^ri;<<ary charge of any municipal government; and WHEREAS, it is necessary that potable water be provided residences, sewage be removed therefrom, and access for fire, police and ambulance vehicles be obtained; and With respect to townhomes, condominiums and some planned unit developments, some of these ordinarily public facilities are privately owned by Homeowner ' s Association or developer; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Shakopee as follows: 1. That With respect to the establishment Of Homeowner ' s Associations required by Section !2.11, Subd. 1 (E) of the Shakopee City Code, such associations shall include provisions authorizing and requiring the association to repair and maintain sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer and resultant erosion, and Street facili ties privately owned Within such deVelOmment and eStabl' she ng a Zorimat to Obtain payment for such Thai me nce and rep= -'OIri the affected property oK*ners. -` -- 2 . That the association documents avant to the public an easement for any publicly owned facility located it above any corm.on area wi i e ooc on cr th n the development, or any area e individually w_rs__n the devel t. owned opener. 3 • That such documents authcriZe and require the associction or the developer to provide to the C_ ' accep-able engineering "as built pplans of both public and private saP_i r sewer, ta_y S.,W�_ , water, storm sewer or roadway facilities located within such development, and . tae -providing Of such "as bu' - -" mlans Will be a prerectuis_te to the cbtairing of or thecr �a_ any occupancy merm�t or permits recr ested Or granted in Such develoament. C� Adooted by th ^' tY Council of the City of $hakppee i-h-1s day of 1986 , at the Cizy Council meeting of the Cizy of Shakopee. J Wildon `A. Reinke, 'Nay _ ATTESTED TO BY: Judith , Cox, City Clerk p.P:c.ed bv: Kass & ?to.n-oe, Cha te=ed Ordinance No. 194 Fourth Series An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, amending the Shakopee City Code, Chapter 12 entitled "Subdivision Regulations (Platting) " by changing certain requirements for Homeowner ' s Associations; And by adopting by reference, Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Section 12 . 99 which, among other things, contain penalty provisions. The City Council of Shakopee, Minnesota, ordains: Section I . Shakopee City Code Section 12 . 11, Subd. 1 (E) is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following substituted therefore: "E. Homeowners ' s Association. Council shall require a Homeowner ' s Association for any condominium, townhouse, or planned unit development which contains common areas or common facilities. Such association must be established in accordance with city policy as set forth by resolution of the council. " Section II . Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 12 . 99 entitled "Violation a Petty Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim herein. Section III . After the adoption, signing and attestation of this ordinance it shall be r)ublished once in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee and shall be in full force and effect on and after the date following such publication. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 1986 . ATTEST: Mayor, City of Shakopee City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 1986 . City Attorney Published in the Shakopee Valley News: 1.986 l D.� MEMO TO: City Council FROM: LeRoy Houser, Building Official RE: Building Code Board of Adjustment and Appeals DATE: May 14 , 1986 INTRODUCTION: The Building Code Board of Adjustment and Appeals met in special session on May 7 , 1986 to hear the variance request of Mr. Larry Johnson. He had requested relief from the egress window requirement. BACKGROUND: Attached are the minutes of the meeting. The consensus is that any sleeping room expansion will require an egress window in each room. However, because it is not zoned for sleeping room expansion, they recommended the matter be referred to the Planning Commission before any work is done. LH:cah Attachment BUILDING CODE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS Shakopee, Minnesota May 7 , 1986 Meeting was called to order at 7 : 00 p.m. with members Dale Dahlke, Robert Jasper, Gene Juergens , Randy Laurent, Larry Link and LeRoy Houser present. Link/Laurent nominated Gene Juergens for Chairman. Roll Call : Ayes : Unanimous Noes : None Motion carried. Functions and Duties of the Board of Appeals . Pursuant to Section 204 of the Uniform Building Code and as amended by Section 1305 . 0500 of the State Building Code, in order to determine the suitability of alternate materials and methods of construction and to provide for reasonable interpretation of the building codes there shall be and is hereby created a Board of Appeals consisting of members who are qualified by experience and training to pass on matters pertaining to building construc- tion and who are not employees of this jurisdiction. The Building Official shall be an ex officio member of and shall act as Secretary to said Board. The Board of Appeals shall be appointed by the governing body and shall hold office at its pleasure. The Board shall adopt rules of procedure for conducting its business. The Board shall adopt reasonable rules and regulations for conducting its investigations and shall render all decisions and findings in writing to the Building Official with a duplicate copy to the appellant and to the State Building Inspector within 15 days of such decisions. The above indicates the primary function of the Board is to : 1 . Determine the suitability of alternate materials . 2. Determine the suitability of alternate methods of construciton. 3. Not to reduce the level of public or occupant safety below what is prescribed by code, however, the same level of safety may be obtained with alternate methods and materials in the Boards opinion. That- Js hatis the primary function of the Board of Appeals . The Boards primary duty is to: 1 . Meet on call to resolve building code issues . 2 . Provide the Building Official with a written determination relating to appeals of building code issues. Discussion ensued on variance request by Larry A. Johnson request- ing additional time for installation of smoke detectors which the Council ordered done in 1977 , and also requesting to expand the rooms in this unit which is not in conformance with zoning ordinance regulations. (303 East 1st Avenue) The Aooellant, Larry Johnson, stated that he feels the windows in the two rooms which will be used for sleeping rooms are big enough not to warrant egress windows . It was consensus of Board that June 1 , 1986 , is ample time to have hardwired smoke detectors installed in each sleeping room and common area; and that each sleeping room must have one egress window. The Appellant was informed he must appear before the Planning Commission to get a permit to continue any work. Link/Jasper moved to refer the matter to the Planning Commission Board. Roll Call : Ayes : Unanimous Noes : None Motion carried. Dahlke/Link moved to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 7 : 30 p.m. Notion carried unanimously. Carol Schultz Recording Secretary I, MEMO TO: Mayor and Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Petition Listing Pedestrian Concerns About Highway 101 Traffic Signals, Crosswalks, Enforcement, etc. DATE: May 13 , 1986 INTRODUCTION• City Council, at its April 15 , 1986 meeting, received a staff memo from me dated April 11 , 1986 , addressing six issues outlined in petitions received from citizens regarding the above mentioned traffic problems on Highway 101. Council ' s action was to direct the appropriate City officials to take action to provide temporary safety improvements for pedestrians crossing Highway 101 as outlined in Item #4 of that memorandum. TEMPORARY ADJUSTMENTS MADE FOR IMMEDIATE RESOLUTIONS: The following seven items were listed under #4 in my memorandum of April 11 . The seven items are listed below with an update on action taken to address each item: 1. Increase traffic enforcement by shifting Police priorities. The Police Department has continued the same level of patrolling of Highway 101 . The City has also been contacted by Captain Stephen of the Highway Patrol who indicated that he met with Linda Valencour and senior citizens to discuss the Highway Patrols enforcement procedures, etc. Captain Stephen reported that the meeting was well attended and that there was a good discussion. He also noted that he was unable to resolve all the problems to the satisfaction of those present. He has notified his officers to pay more attention to Shakopee. 2 . Work with Shakopee Public Utilities and Mn/DOT to improve signal maintenance. Attached is a memo from Lou VanHout that describes Shakopee Public Utility' s ( SPUC) current maintenance procedures . From the memorandum it is clear that SPUC is already doing part of what the petitioners requested, namely, they replace all lights in a quadrant when replacing one burnt out light. Mn/DOT has indicated that our current maintenance procedures are typical and that Mn/DOT is considering more systematic light replacement and maintenance ( see Bill Crawford' s letter of April 29 , 1986 ) . Lou VanHout and I have discussed this over the telephone and Lou would like specifics from Mn/DOT if SPUC is to change its maintenance procedures . Therefore, I am suggesting that the City formally request that Mn/DOT review SPUC practices comparing them to the maintenance practices in other jurisdictions and specifically recommend whatever changes they feel appropriate. With a specific directive in hand that explains the norm, minimum standards , and what Mn/DOT feels they practice should be in Shakopee, SPUC can respond to some- thing concrete. 3 . Institute twice a year pedestrian crosswalk painting on the three intersections downtown. This was accomplished shortly after Council ' s April 15th meeting. 4 . Bill Crawford, in his letter of April 29 , 1986 , indicated that the State was reviewing the need for stop bars and additional signing that would reduce the likeli- hood of vehicles encroaching on the crosswalk. When the State has completed this investigation the City will assist them in painting the stop bars and in- stalling additional signs as needed. 5. Council can assure that the signing that instructs pedestrians to use the pedestrian activated button is in good order and that the community is informed about the need to use the pedestrian activated buttons which provides sufficient time for a slow moving pedestrian to cross the street. The instructional signing is being reviewed by Mn/DOT. The corre- spondence from the State and the City to the petitioners indicated that pedestrians should use the button to get a sufficient crosswalk time. In addition, the newspaper has carried stories regarding the use of the crosswalks. 6 . The Council can join with the petitioners in formally requesting that the Highway Patrol provide more traffic enforcement inside the Shakopee corporate limits along Highway 101 and 169 . Staff has not followed up on this item because we were awaiting Captain Stephens meeting with the senior citizens. Council could choose to direct staff to write the Highway Department at this time. 7 . Council can investigate lower dial-a-ride return trip costs for senior citizens who make arrangements twenty-four hours in advance. This idea has been dropped because the petitioners have indicated in their letter of April 16 , 1986 , that it would not assist in solving the problem. Also attached for Council information and consideration are letters from Hubert H. Humphrey III , Attorney General, responding to the petition sent to him by Linda Valencour, Resolution No. 86030 from the Scott County Commissioners, and a letter that the City Engineer sent to Bill Crawford regarding potential traffic management improvements that would improve traffic flow at the intersection of Highway 169 and 101. A copy of the Engineer ' s letter was provided Council as an informational item at their May 6 , 1986 d meeting. An additional traffic improvement suggestion that might indirectly improve the overall safety for pedestrians was to eliminate all on-street parking from Sommerville to Atwood from May lst to September 1st. If Council wishes to seriously consider this alternative it may wish to refer it to the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee for a recommendation. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The City still has several items that can be followed up on. First there is the need to continue enforcement, second the need to complete the Mn/DOT survey investigating the need for stop bars , and third there is a need to provide a Mn/DOT review of SPUC relamping procedures. Council should also review our progress to date with Linda Valen- cour ' s letter of April 16 , 1986 , to determine if we are adequately interpretating their request and making progress in a reasonable fashion. Key items are enforcement discussed above, more traffic lights discussed in Bill Crawford ' s letter and more systematic checking of lights and maintenance of lights . Bill Crawford' s letter indicates that the other intersections along Highway 101 do not meet Mn/DOT warrents for traffic lights and that 4-way stops are not appropriate. In the past, when Council has received petitions for traffic lights (e.g. CR #17 and 4th Ave. ) , they were only installed after warrents were met. I have also attached a copy of the Highrise Tax Increment Fund which accounts for the maoney previously budgeted for a pedestrian overpass. ACTION REQUESTED: 1 . Direst staff to follow up on the completion of the Mn/DOT survey investigating the need for stop bars and to request Mn/DOT review and direction on light relamping procedures . 2 . Other items Council may wish to add after discussion. JKA:cah Attachments CITY OF SHAKOPEE INCORPORATED 1870 129 EAST FIRST AVENUE. SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379-1376 (612) 445.3650 I `t1 N, Anr i l Lam, 1985 r+ Bill Crawford District En_Aineer Mr{/DDT 0`75 No. Lila-- Dr^ive 6o 1 der{ Valley, MN 554 c RE: TH 1 E9/101 Interim Intersection I rnpravernent s Dear Bi11 : There has been much enthusiasm generated by the ,point partnership of the City of Shakopee and Mn/DDT to realign TH 101, TH 1E9 and rehabi Iitat ion of the TH IES river crc{ssinn to 4 lanes. It is the coal of the City to advance this prr_Je=t as much as possible b{_It realistically, it appears several years will pass before the improvements are completed. Knc�wir{g that the "wheels of progress" are in motion for permanent solutions to the traffic congestion at the TH 163/101 inter- sect i on, perhaps low cost i nt er i n1 sol{_It i c{ns cc{u 1 d be considered. The following are various sungesticros that have been talked abC,Ut, sc,rne of which have beer{ ❑1SC'U=_Sed Under cif f ereni condi- Cicins and r{lav be looked at d:"ferent ly based Lloon she CUrrer{t •^t prcie_ path. 1. West Bot-tnd 1011 /?Eq to Sn{_Ith Bound Holmes St-est i llrnlrig !rlciyernerl's. T h i s c Urn i nri movernenL USUa 1 1 V r^eSul S in a breakdown of the inside west bour{d 101 lane during peak periods. If this movement1 could be restricted during certain peak periods, capacity would be in- creased. E. South Bound 15S to East Bo{_Ind 101 Turning Movements. Current 1 y, t;lere i s rine 1 ane for this movement, or{e lane for so{_Ith bound Holmes Street and a free right turn far west bound TH 16S. This t carni n❑ rnovernent is critical during P. M. peak, particularly when C. R. 18 is closed. With rninc{r pavement strinir{g and signage, the south bound HolmesStreet lar{e could be {_Ised as a thr{_t lane arid ontior{al left turn lane. I suspect that with bauble left movements, parking would need 1 re -Aeari Of Pro EreSs t%alley TH lE9/101 intersection ADr i 1 ;=c, 198E Page c tc' be r-estr-icted for or, the sr,uth side. Parkisgrnesdi�yar,ce along 1st Avenue there fare g a Dremi urn downtown, parkin restrictions need tl at caret u 1 1 y. o be ooked Additic,naI Lane on TH 1E4 _ RridDe, Westwood Enpineerinq cornDletet d a sudy of the TH 1E9/101 intersection geo_ metrics and TH lE9 bridge 1 i eve you have a gearnet ri es, of wh i ch I be- cODY. S i rice that study, the entire maria-bypass coriceDt and bridat inge work somewhat is being looked different light. There is a portion Of that StUd Y that is still of interest vide interim solutions to ..hat may Drc,- A lame desinr, (� inadequate bridge caDacity. southbound and 1 nor discussed ith bound) was n that study whereby eliminatin t walkways from the deck g he ir,Dlace 10 foot lanes, and providing for three - to be rel ,c y The prc'posal called for the walkway armed below the deck. (excerpts of the report are attached) . Two DUestions come to mind : 1. Car, three lanes be provided on the existing deck neometr'Ically and structurally, and ; Zee Can the walkway be eliminated entirely orth coming design ar,d du. ing Of t h o I rn D i ement at i on period permanent improvements? T f the existing tstr�_�cure t e can handle y h overall caDacity of .he additional ioadinc a_though the individual i ne Drlcge may Increase with -� r,c,rth bound ane caDacity would . lanes w ,old be decrease. The sin„ ie think t^- the disadvantaged at the elirn_nation f comDonent. would ternpor^ary onl c the walkway mus-. a_so Y. be considered The Dreceedin- are various suggestions that perhaps our r could cansioer- These items Ss_ Y sta, f sIder'ing trot f1C CauaCi_ i ' 11, 2`"e fp)^ the rnOSt Dart `p sidered �Y ssues. Qther is r;- alsr_ those Deing user safety, sues should be con- thank you for your time and the tirne of your staff sidering these suggestions. "or Con- Sincerely, l Ke j F', n Ashf d City En_z neer. KA/Drr,p I IVT=aS_:T BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SCOTT COUNTY,MINNESOTA Date Avril 15, 1985 Resolution No.. 85n�n l I O/ Motion by Commissioner Mertz Seconded by Commissioner Worm RESOLUTION NO. 86030; ACKNOWLEDGING THE CONCERNS OF SHAKOPEE CITIZENS AND DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES OVER HIGHWAY SAFETY CONDITIONS AND SUPPORTING APPROPRIATE INTERIM MEASURES TO ALLEVIATE SAME. WHEREAS, the County Board is aware of reports in the media regarding safety concerns associated with crossings on First Avenue in the downtown area of the City of Shakopee; and WHEREAS, a petition dated March 29, 1986, expressing the concerns of the citizens and business owners, operators and employees of the City of Shakopee over higwway safety conditions relating to crossings on First Avenue in the downtown area was read before the County Board on April 8, 1986. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Commissioners in and for the County of Scott, Minnesota, goes on record acknowledging the concerns over highway safety conditions and supporting appropriate interim measures to alleviate the same. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Scott County offers its assistance to the responsible government agencies within the limits of the county's jurisdiction. YES NO Koniarski Koniarski Worm Worm Mertz X Mertz Stromwaii Strc..•,.=" Casey ' Casey State of Minnesota ss. County of Scott 1,Joseph F.Ales,Duly appointed,Qualified and acting County Administrator for the County of Scott.State of Minnesota,do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of a resolution with the original minutes of the proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners,Scott County,Minnesota,at their session held on the 1` Oayof AT)rl1 tg 85 now on file m my office,and have found the same to be a true and correct copy thereof. Witness my hand and official seal at Shakopee.Minnesota,this 15 day f :fpr it cau�n b�n.tr.ls KA Fane t April 22, 1986 Lynda J . Valencour Anartment Manacer 200 Levee Drive Apartments 200 Levee Drive Sha,kcpec i Minnesota 55-1178 Deur Ms . valencour : Thank you for the letter an4 petition describing the safety problems with the crosswalk, at First Avenue in Shakopee. I appreciate being informed of public concerns such as yours. As you probably know, the Attorney General ' s office is not authorized to implement the changes you suggest, such as installing new signal lights. That authority lies with the Comrr.issioner of Transportation. My staff has , however, contacted the ":innesota Department of Transportation (YInDOT) to further convey and discuss your concerns . It is my un5erstan3inc that 'InD^T receiv_:1 the same letter ani pet—ition thet I receive6 . They are presently reviewing and prcp_ Erina a response to your concerns . MnDDT has aaree3 to provive me with a copy of their response so that I can remain apprised of the situation. Thank you again for bringing this problem to my attention. I hope that MnD')T, the City and ti:e Highway Patrol are able tc successfully resolve the situation. Best regards, tHUBERT H. HUMPHREY, III Attorney General l MEMO TO: Jahn K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer SUBJECT: Block. 50 Alley DATE: May 12, 1986 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND: Complaints have been received from Mr. Robert Vierling concerning the condition of the Block 50 alley since it was constructed, the latest (May 7, 1986) of which is attached along with my response. Council had directed me to meet with Mr. Vierling to discuss corrective action of which I did on April 9, 1986. As I view the situation there are four basic alternatives to approach : 1. Completely reconstruct the alley with an inverted crown, obtaining all necessary easements to remove adjacent paved drive approaches to properly meet new design grades at an approximate cost of $4, 800. 00. 2. Provide minimal "skin" patching to assist with drain- age, seal coat and back slope the Vierling property to meet grades at an approximate cost of $500. 00. This work could be completed with the 1986 Pavement Preservation Project. 3. Rebate Mr. Vierling' s assessment as requested in his letter. 4. Do Nothing. RECOMMENDATION: I feel the condition of the alley does riot warrant a discarding of that investment. Rebating of Mr. Vier 1 i ng' s assessment would set a very damaging precedent as well as being unfair to others on the alley unless all assessments are rebated. Even without complaints concerning the alley grades, I would recommend seal coating this alley, therefore, my recommendation is Alternative No. ^c. ACTION REQUESTED: Direct the City Engineer to complete improvements to Block 50 alley as addressed in Alternative E of his May 18, 1986 memo. KA/pmp BLK50 Mr. Robert F. Vierling 221 E. Fourth Avenue Shakopee , Minnesota 55379 Mr. hen Ashfield Engineer-City of Shakopee 129 E. First avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 May 7 , 1986 Dear Mr. Ashfield: As per our conversation in April , about waiting un- til it rains to check on the alley to see what can be done to fix the mess it' s in; my God, we' ve hadrald a dozen deluges , and you still haven' t done anything! A week ago , I had a Street Engineer from Minneapolis come to check on -the alleyway to see what should be done . After looking at the alley, it took him twenty minutes to stop laughing! As he said , and I quote, "what in the hell does the city engineer think he ' s going to fix by seal-coating the alley?" He said the only way to fix the alley was to com- pletely dig it up and start over afresh. I 've been stalled and lied to concerning this alley for 2,years now. Now, within 30 days , you either re-do the al- ley completely, or I am placing a law suit and punitive damage suit against the City of Shakopee , which means a great cost for the City because they'll have to hire an Attorney. You certainly can' t use Coller because he ' s too gutless to appear against me anyway. Due to the City' s stalling, I was forced to hire a com- petent Engineer to assess the condition of the alley. That will be another $250 .00 that you can add to the cost . If the alley is left the way it is , and is just seal- coated, I will expect an immediate payment of my cost of the alley (also sister, Pairs . Harriet Stein's cost) plus in- terest. I will expect to hear from you not later than the next two or three days . I realize that the alley is not your re- sponsibility, but, as you are the Engineer now, it' s up to you to expedite this matter one way or another. Sincerely, Robert?. Vierling G CITY OF SHAKOPEE INCORPORATED 1870 = = 129 EAST FIRST AVENUE, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 May 12, 1986 Robert Vierling 221 E. Fourth Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Block 50 Alley Dear Mr. Vierling : Thank you for your letter of May 7, 198E expressing your opinion of the Block 50 Alley, as I left our April 9, 1986 site meeting with a different understanding of your position. As you know, this project was constructed with a combination of day labor forces and contract forces to minimize project cost. I do agree with you that the project could have been done somewhat differently as is the case with any design project but I also believe the project provided the intended product, a surfaced alley at an economical cost. I left our previous meeting with the understanding that I would approach the Council with the following suggestions and I under- stood you to agree: 1. Provide a minimal "skin" patch at the northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 50. 2. Seal coat the alley. 3. Slope back your lots adjacent to the alley. Items i and 2 is riot meant to adjust profile grades but to pro- vide a uniform appearance after the patch work and extend the life of the alley. Item 3 would require a temporary easement from you. As I indicated to you on April 9, I feel that the conditions of the alley do riot warrant the complete discarding of the in- place investment. I plan to bring that opinion and your corres- poridence to the Council on May 20, 1986 and I invite you to at t end. r Robert Vierling May lc, 198E Page c^ I also plan to present to the Council the option rebating your assessment cost as addressed in your letter of which I cannot recommend. Please call ahead for the approximate time that this itern will be on the agenda for your convenience. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Ken Ashfel City Engineer KA/prop BL50 T, / b .r . robert Vierl� •ng 221 ., r ourth Avenue Shakopee , i�innesota 55379 Kr . !,)',en Ashfield , City Engineer Re : eb attal , with demand City of Shakopee that copies go to City 129 . First Avenue Council . Shakopee , fvinnesota 55379 Ashfield & Council Members : First of all , let' s get this straight. There ' s no damn use in my coming to a council meeting because it ' s al- ways decided beforehand what' s going to occur , and it will happen anyway. So , my only recourse is in Court procedure . Mlaybe those are terms you can understand . Second of all , make sure that you have all of my last letters at the Council meeting (not just part) , so that the Council members can read them thoroughly. Thirdly, regarding Item 11 under Q that is on the Agenda for the next meeting: I 'm asking that the Council either guts you on another six months probation, or just plain fires you because you're worse than the last City Engineer we had em- ployed . Fourthly, before the alley was put in, I asked the last intelligent Engineer to survey the alley first, but he said stupidly, "I go by line of sight" , and, he certainly did and it sure looks like it. And every time the City goes through the alley, they dig it out on my bank, always on the South side, never on the worth. Fi fthlthis wi nter, the- left a 1a_r y' .� - g pile of dirt on my Property mot 5 . I want that moved immediately (and , YOU owe me for one lawn mower blade (88 .00) from a brand new mower which I can prove was just purchased . Sixthly, as for complaints on the alley, you have in- dicated that I am the only one that complains . The day that you met me and looked at the alley, Bucky Cavanaugh joined us and told you how bad the alley was and even stated facts to prove it. The only one in that whole block that I don ' t know about who hasn' t complained is the Rein at the end of the alley. All the other homeowners have complained loudly. The alley is already cracked, the rocks are showing th=ough, it ' s too far over on my property, and the water changes five different directions through the entirety of the alley. The alley already has skin patching, as you call it, so just how in hell do you expect a little seal coating to ever correct all the mistakes in the entire alley: 2 • 114-- The alley is also too low on the Last end , which I had already pointed out to our previous stupid Engineer , but he always insisted it wasn' t when physical evidence of the alley proves rim wrong, but then , his "line of sight" was screwedu-D . Yours mast be too . I agree with you that if you rebated my money, it would set a very damaging precedent for the City of Shakopee , due to the fact that for once they' d have to be honest about their mistakes and how could you expect that froma bunch of sancti- monious hippocrites , but I ' m sure the Court trial will have a little different aspect to it . As for your recommendations , I don' t see how you can qual- ify as any type of authority . I also want to remind you that in the coming Court procedure , the City of Shakopee will 'rave to pay for the Court, their Attorney, and an additional $250 . 00 for my Engineer , plus harrassment and punitive damages charges . &iay be this will stop the City of Shakopee from always be- ing right regardless of whether they have impugned someone or not . I realize that this is going to cost the City a consider- able amount of money but they need to be taught a lesson here to insure that the City is honest in its ' dealings with the taxpayers . I have much more , but that'll be bought up in the Court trial. D;aybe you should inform our gutless City Attorney, Cot- ler , that maybe he ' d better take another sabbatical as he ' s had to do before , and he'll know exactly what I mean, and so will some of the Council members . As for your qualifications , what City' s have you worked for; when did you get out of school , and just what are your job qualifications and description , and the name of your alma mater? As for using day labor forces and contract forces to mini- mize project costs , you must be joking. Cost overrun was way over the original estimate . Professional people would have been less costly both originally and in the long run, then perhaps you wouldn' t have this problem. Sincerely, 77 oo.ert Vierling , 1J . Ct hen ashfield, City engineer Tilay 11 , 1936 City of Sh.a-.opee ` 129 East First :avenue Shakopee , P.:innesota 55379 r. rishfie1d: Re: Pro-Dosed Sewer In- stallatn ion and stuidZty In receipt of your letter of May 5 , 1936, (which I did not receive until the 8th) I 'll answer it in as simple a language as I can, so you' ll understand . I do own lots 3 , 4, and the South half of 5. Rey sister, rs . Stein, owns the North half of Palot 5, block 50 , (which I 'm sure you already know) , and which, when I sell it, will go as three lots . I ' d like to know where in the hell and how in the hell , you came up with the assinine assumption that I don' t have sewer, water , and utilities to my house . �Vhat do you think I do , shit in a bucket, thxow it out the window, and go to the neighbors for water? There' s water and sewer not only to my house, but to the corner lot also! Now, I 've been harrassed by this stinking City of Shakopee X, the last time ! I have enough letters of stupidity from the City of Shakopee to write a book - which, I may do ! Let' s understand each other right now. I know damn well that you !_new those services were in on my property because you were up there when you looked at the screwed up alley. 3esides , according to Court records , that is a commercial lot , with no need for such facilities for every lot. If gutless Coller would have been in Court like he was supposed to have been when I served him a summons for that Court case, he would have known this . Don' t be too anxious to meet with me - you'll be meeting with me in Court soon enough on that screwed up alley. Now, if you want to declare the fact that I do not have utilities in that house and there were never any there , then I want a refund of all utility bills for the last 70 some odd years that my family and myself have owned that property! You're not going to stick me with another $3 ,000 or $4,000 . '9- 2 . // :.nother tliings , why do I have to have sidewalks on my Vlace . 7he big snos with all the new homes and bank accounts don' t have them - you have io walk on the street past their homes ! r.lso , I know people who have planted grass where their sidewalk was , and used railroad ties for a curb. Has anyone said anything to them? Every year going on three years now, I 've had to pay for something I can ' t use . First, it was the colossal stupid- ity on Holmes Street (storm drains ) by the last City Engineer, and of which the City Engineer Hnderson tried to steal $300 .00 from me by wanting to charge me just under $1400 .00 , but after some 20 odd phone calls , he admitted in writing he' d made a slight mistake of about 5300 .00 . Eut, according to everybody else ' s assessment in the area, I'm still paying way too much. The second, of course , you know about - my screwed up al- ley. I 'll bet that one would go down in the book of Guinness records ! Now, I 'm certainly not going to let you steal from me the third year in a row. Besides , if I wanted sewer and water put in the middle lot, I could put it in myself as I 'm a State licensed plumber , and I ' d have every right to do so. If the City of Shakopee wants to put sewer and water in that middle lot, they can buy the whole thing from me at my price and under my conditions . One other small matter. Don' t try to be so stupid as to conder=i my proper 7y so the City of Shakopee can steal it from me - that won' t work either! amen! Be sure to give a copy of this letter to each one of the Council members . I don' t want to have to waste my time and ef- fort doing that too yet ! Sincerely, IiLr. Robert F . Vierling l / _ Pissed Off Taxpayer P. S . Suggestion - why don' t you just name Shakopee Canter- bury Doves or Scottland, or both! They run the town anyway. Another sign that might help Shakopee is "we don' t have ordin- ances here , only variances - for brownnosers ! ht least, that would be honest ! CITY OF SHAKOPEE INCCRPORAT=D 1870 �i`-�'�- ,2g EAST ::!PS7 AVENUE. SHAKOPE_. MINNESOTA 55379-,376 (61.2i445-3650 >� ' �+� ►, V M'av 5. Robert Vier-1 ,-rim Fourth Avenue 1+1N ---T9 5"akoDee, p= : Sar,i t ary Sewer and Water Service Dear Mr. Vierl irtn : As you are aware, 4th AVer)Lte from 1l1njC,re StT^eet to Scott Street. is sctleduied f._,r^ Y'ecc,nstructicn in 1986. The DY'oiect area abuts your PY'c,DeY^ty, of which we have Y^ecorded as LC,ts .^'.+, 4, and -me South 1/2' of L_,t 5, Block 50, SmakoPee Plat. As indicated at the Dublic hearinn, it is DT,udent for the Clay to consicer infra.stru=ture T-eDaiY-s tC, all I_ltill� les and -.0 a5- e ie5 ave +j'T^ +Der t_� llsrVc i ?. c)L"-. CaT^i.alYl �.itai. all DY'C,DeT i. n �y recores SrIOW t at theT'e are ric, sery i=es 'C C' the a,coremen t :c,ned lot 5. i5 InY opinionti,av SeT-vi=L-5 sh=uld be D"oviced in aa- ConlUnCtlC+n with Tile 4th rlVenite -'rolect f:+r T.'lB sons: 1. -••vl^_s= woL"Id De r_D!,ireD IC'r OSVnl .+Drdar,t .f iiie :,7 S. and 1r:S.al .ed Yn_,w. Wo!ild f c,r i Ut1—WZ Sr'eei clime C,nenin'_,s in a new s�rB 11i Yt� i a.� rima r, , WC'u1d of irn nate tito �i•1 S_. � _ 5 f.W liDh cosi. C'i C, tna owner. �o 1nS.all t'nree se.-v1 "C,LiDS (Sable• £; i l _ - r ed =-5. rrj,_ir c5- lAiai.e 4i c.-„e•^) , C'Y,a tC, Ec.c1 C„ vile s�ai. .� � cC,st c, be P.Esessed tC, VC,Ltr DrC,DnT^.v in c onlLtri cln with L!1e5e imDrovernents is 1, 400. 00 Der lot. 1 aril anXiC'L!s t'_, ma=t With VC,L1 arid di ScL'.ss ' S iESLie and at vour wish eXecLlte the Prooer naDeT,w=,rk au.nor: Work. Paoe Ir I ❑o nc-t near 7t-Orn VC,u bV Mav 16, l'��t, I wl i l assume VOII at-e Yn in T avc,t- :.f the set-Vice l rnot-C,Veroent s. I w i l l t neri t aKe the roat-eE? t I C1tV CG1_lnC1I fOr ,`,melt- dlre=tlCin relatlVe a :ouncl 1 init fated assessment oro sect . Thank. yGU f ,r y�_-1_tr t irne •r, this matter arid I lc _.k. fr_,rward tc hearing from V-_-u. Sirlcet-elv. 14 i N.erl Asn4, -= City �nnlneer i KA/prep P' /I C' Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From George F. Muenchow, C.S. Director Date May 15, 1986 Subject: Purchase of Pop Corn Machine For Swimming Pool Introduction Concession Sales is an integral part of the operation of the Shakopee Municipal Swimming Pool. This not only is an income generator, but it also adds to the enjoyment of the public, the consumers of these products. Pop corn is an integral part of this operation and has been as long as this pool has been in existence. It not only tastes good, but it stimulates sales of other products. Background The current Pop Corn Machine at the pool has been used at that facility for 18 years. As with most anything it has worn out. Last year it was felt to have one more year of usage, but we now have been informed that it would be very questionable to rEpair zany more (heating unit) . It is a 12 oz Gold Medal machine (table model) . Recommendation Purchase Gold Medal 12 oz Pop Corn Machine from Midland Products Company of Minneapolis. They will take old machine in trade for a price to be determined after they see it. List Price. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 1009.00 Sale Price. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 899.00 Action Authorize Staff to purchase 12 oz Gold Medal Pop Corn Machine with money to come from Unallocated Fund Balance. 11d Merm To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From George F. Muenchow, C.S. Director Date May 15, 1986 Subject: Purchase Of Slush Machine For Swimming Pool Introduction Concession Sales is an important function at the Shakopee Municipal Swimming Pool. Revenue is generated and pleasure is provided to the consumers. A cool ice beverage is appropriate for a summertime facility. Background During the past 15 or so years the sale of Snow Cones has been a popular product sold at the swimming pool. Ingredients that go into a disposable cup are crushed ice and sweet syrup. An ice crushing table model machine is what is used to crush ice cubes to make the crushed ice. There is only one local distributor of ice cubes which are purchased in packages two or three times a week and stored in the freezer at the concession stand. Since last season because of problems with the State Health Department, this local wholesaler has gone out of the wholesale business. To purchase ice cubes from retailers makes this venture not very profitable. In past years staff has been looking at a Slush Machine and has checked with other communities that use this product. It is an excellent revenue producer that is popular with the public. This now seems to be the time to make the transition from Snow Cones to Slush Drinks. Taylor Sales offers two options for purchasers: 1. Outright purchase of Machine: List. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 4959.00 Sale Price. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3419.00 2. Lease arrangement with purchase option: This company will loan the machine and we will pay them 10� for every cup of product sold. Recommendation Staff recommends that a lease arrangement be made with Taylor Sales, Inc. with the option included of purchase in 1987. MEMO TO. John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer -4- SUBJECT: Eagle Creek Junction DATE: May 15, 1986 INTRODUCTION: At the May 6, 1986 Council meeting, the subject of sanitary sewer lateral improvements to the Eagle Creek Junction plat was discussed. The Council directed me to research information regarding service to the Howard Schmitt property. BACKGROUND: The attached sketch of Benefitted Areas indicate those properties receiving a trunk assessment and those that received a lateral assessment. Mr. Gary Laurent has requested that the City provide lateral crossings of Eagle Creek Boulevard (4 crossings in total but only one at this time to Eagle Creek Junction) since the Trunk is on the north side of the road and the properties on the south side of the road do riot have equal lateral access. As directed, we have researched the following information: 1. Lateral and trunk assessments, on a unit basis, were equal on the north and south side of the road. 2. In researching Council action relative to the Schmitt property, we found a general discussion of costs but no action. The property is riot currently served. Bo Spurrier indicated to me that Schrrtitt was riot re- quired to hook up to the sewer due to the financial hardship of the construction cost. Schmitt told me that he understood that the City would install the crossing of Eagle Creek Boulevard. Obviously, this issue is not resolved. 3. Bo indicated that the lateral crossings were riot put in with the project due to litigation with the con- tractor and the uncertainty of lateral crossing loca- tions. oca- tions. Apparently, the crossings, at the time, were considered as part of the project, although riot in- itially part of the contract. 4. The project was assessed before completion of the project based upon estimated costs. The total amount assessed was $236, 500. 86. The costs incurred by this project, including all costs associated with the con- tractor Eagle Creek. Junction May 15, 1986 Page 2 litigation and assessment litigation, is approximately $20S, 000. 00. This total cost difference of approxi- mately pproxi- mate1y $28, 500. 00 compares to a construction and en- gineering cost difference of approximately $49, 500. 00. SUMMARY: Laurent is asking for 4 crossings of Eagle Creek Boulevard (sewer and water) . He has a firm bid price of $11 , 585. 77 for one cros- sing. If all four are the same price, the total cost of four crossings is $46, 343. 00. Since, if this request is granted, I would expect Schmitt to claim equal treatment. The Schmitt property has water available at the northeast corner of the property, therefore, sewer is all that is necessary in a crossing to provide access. I estimate the cost of a sewer crossing at approximately $3, 600. 00. ALTERNATIVES: 1. City agree to provide crossings as requested for Laur- ent. 2. City agree to provide crossings to the Laurent proper- ties and Schmitt properties. 3. City does not agree to provide any additional lateral crossings. 4. City agree to some form of compromise. RECOMMENDATION: It appears there is inequity of access between the properties on the north side and south side of Eagle Creek Boulevard, but seldom do assessments provide total equity among all properties. If it was deemed equitable that laterals should be installed, those laterals should have been constructed with the project and all cost assessed. If one looks at the project fund balance, there were funds avail- able for these crossings prior to litigation. Currently, there are no funds available for all the requested crossings. If Council agrees that litigation costs are project costs, I cannot recommend full financing of these crossings by the City since approximately $28, 500. 00 - ($4S, 343. 00 + $3, 600. 00) $21, 443. 00 would be required from General Funds. Eagle Creek Junction May 15, 198E Page 3 If Council agrees that litigation cast is beyond that of assessed project cost, then there is, theoretically, dollars assessed for these crossings. As a caveat , when analyzing the fund balance one must keep in mind that the fund is currently in debt due to delinquent pay— merits of assessments. REQUESTED ACTION : Direction from Cou nciI to staff as to the mariner in which to handle the request from Gary Laurent and perhaps subsequent requests from Howard Schmitt for lateral utility crossings of Eagle Creek Boulevard. KA/prop ECJ �r 0� w ZMA R, �7 ,r3 N S+vL } /�` "TI r N � K r J Rk n r _ ••�.•-� �r sem" �' ... E N� S ��r ■ `yr J I N ) l v G <S » M 11:4 0 _s 60 i ' ,. sa FFT 1, is r M Zoo FF z o p r m oZ D � � y � y r Cl) � m Dm � r l Q •g _I _ 6 - aF f 4 .._„ �... -. � as°• - __. _ ...... EAG LE r- ... .......... i v _ _ _ _ •� ��►,--SGT S o ►J a+r a..: r a»:.. �... ,,. .. ...:. • -._- _. ... � _.. tea^ , y ♦ a,� •.• - _ asp � z 1 aD' SK• a ap„ 1 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer/ A— SUBJECT: Holmes Street Basin Storm Sewer Laterals Project No. 1986-1 DATE: May 16, 1986 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 2556, A Resolution Accepting Bid on Holmes Street Basin Storm Sewer Laterals, Project 1986-1. BACKGROUND: The action taken by Council to accept the low bid must be in resolution farm to comply with the requirements of the City' s Standard Operating Procedures for Enterprise Fund Projects. The low bidder, S. M. Hentges & Sans, has performed acceptable work on previous projects for the City of Shakopee such as 5th Avenue Sanitary Sewer, JEJ Drainage, and the Valley Industrial Boulevard South Roadway. ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt Resolution No. 2556, A Resolution Accepting Bid on Holmes Street Basin Storm Sewer Laterals, Project 1986-1. KAlpmp MEM2556 l RESOLUTION NO. 2SS6 A Resolution Accepting Bid On Holmes Street Basin Storm Sewer Laterals Project No. 1986-1 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the Holmes Street Basin Storm Sewer Laterals Project, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the fol- lowing bids were received complying with the advertisement: S.M. Hentges & Sons 5 941 ,253. 82 Latour Construction S 948,584. 15 Minn-Kota Excavating, Inc. 0 991,296.90 Barbarossa & Sons, Inc . $1,024,932.71 Richard Knutson, Inc. $1,071,840 .75 Brown & Cris, Inc. $1, 115,090.35 Northdale Construction Co. 01,231,693.25 L & G Rehbein, Inc. $1, 161,023.50 Progressive Contractors, Inc . 01, 179.742.60 AND WHEREAS, it appears that S.M. Hentges & Sons, 1513 3rd Avenue W. / P .O . Box 212, Shakopee, MN 55379 is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1 . The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with S.M . Hentges & Sons, in the name of the City of Shakopee for the improvement of Holmes Street Basin Laterals, Project No. 1986-1 by Storm Sewer Improvements, according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. 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 J. 19 City Attorney &Vw�t MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator 11 FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Application for Taxicab License from Suburban Taxi Corp. DATE: May 15 , 1986 Introduction and Background Application has been received from Suburban Taxi Corp. of 9614 Humboldt Avenue South, Bloomington for a taxicab license. The application lists 55 vehicles which could potentially be licensed. The City has issued one other taxicab license to date to Yellow Taxi Service Corporation. Their application included up to six vehicles . Suburban Taxi Corp. was licensed in 1985 . The Chief of Police has okayed issuance of a new license. The certificate of insurance is on file and the application is in order for Council consideration. Alternatives 1 . Approve 2 . Deny Recommended Action Approve the application and grant a Taxicab License to Suburban Taxi Corporation, 9614 Humboldt Avenue South, Bloomington, MN 55431 . JSC/jms SL' 66HR �� Ts � E R �. T`� S . 75 � � Erst ! / E ( • ElELE 10 1.02ach. additions ! 1/11 $12 . 00 PesE€ r . Waitiug 'Fime tFept . Qi Consumer Services GO WETEE GREBE & TUTB f L J MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineeri� SUBJECT: Upper Valley Drainage & Dean' s Lake Outlet DATE: May 14 , 1986 INTRODUCTION: The Upper Valley Drainage Basin has been identified as a needed storm drainage improvement. The Shakopee Water Management Or- ganization (WMO) has been formed and will hopefully develop a management plan within the next year or less. With the extension of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) into the drainage way of the Upper Valley and current development adjacent to the drainage way, it behooves the City to begin planning for these improvements now. BACKGROUND: Various issues need to be resolved in relation to the Upper Valley Drainage. These issues need to be addressed in a sy- stematic, chronological order as well as some issues being ad- dressed concurrently. The following are the issues and a method of resolving them. FLOW RATES The aforementioned WMO management plan will most certainly ad- dress, among other things, storm water flow rates. For a given watershed, the flow rate for a given storm event will vary de- pending upon type and degree of development and volume of storm- water detention. Since the WMO includes three jurisdictions (Prior Lake, Louis- ville Township and Jackson Township) in addition to the City of Shakopee, the City must be concerned about the flow rates developed in the plan since the drainage way, for the most part, is in the City. The flow rates developed in the plan will, in turn, govern storm drainage facility design and hence faci- litaties cost. Many jurisdictions in this country, as a rule of thumb, require that each property retain storm water such that the post develop- ment peak does not exceed the predevelopment peak. This many times result in many randoming placed, man-made detention faci- lities requiring high maintenance cost. On the other end of the spectrum, individual 1980 drainage stud- ies were completed by Suburban Engineering for Jackson Township and the City of Shakopee assuming full development of the basin and utilizing natural depressions for detention. Although the Drainage System May 14 , 1986 Page 2 two studies have inconsistent flow rates differing as high as 103 cubic feet per second, the proposed flow rates for design are very high in both studies. Jackson and Louisville Townships are, for the most part, in a predevelopment state. Based upon that fact, the City of Shakopee could pursue the following policy statements: 1. Each jurisdiction, by means of individual, scattered detention facilities or a major facility, maintain peak flow at a predevelopment rate. This would allow each jurisdiction to decide to utilize natural depressions and construct into detention facilities or require each developer to construct detention within their own site. 2 . Each jurisdiction maintain their facilities. 3 . Each jurisdiction submits to the WMO development plans within that jurisdiction for review. Based upon these policies, the City of Shakopee should be able to avoid added facility or maintenance cost as a result from development within the Townships. The WMO will hire a consultant to determine flow rates based upon W-MO policy. It would behoove the City to have its civil consultant model the predevelopment flow rate such that the Shakopee Commissioner, Mayor Reinke, has a level of comfort when decisions relative to flow rates are made. DETENTION VOLUMES Upon determination of flow rates, the City can then study the important issue of detention volumes within the City. This issue really looks at the economic analysis; as detention increases, initial investment of storm sewer facilities decrease, but, as detention increases, lands that otherwise may be developable is used for detention. DRAINAGEWAY ALIGNMENT The drainage way alignment is, for all practical purposes, deter- mined by the natural drainage way. The width of the drainage way needs to be determined based upon flow rates. Drainage System May 14 , 1986 Page 3 UPPER VALLEY OUTLET The Comprehensive Drainage Plan (attached) indicates that the outlet for the Upper Valley Drainage way is via the Mill Pond (the area designated as Mill Pond Basin is what is referred to as the Upper Valley in this memo) with the course colored yellow. The actual drainage course follows the route colored pink. Both courses need to be studied to determine the most cost effective route. The route colored pink will be discussed further under 101 Bypass Drainage. 101 BYPASS DRAINAGE AND COMBINED FACILITIES One major factor that should affect the most cost effective drainage courses is the 101 Bypass drainage plans. It appears that a substantial portion of the Bypass will drain to the east to a point where the pink line intersects the Bypass route. A joint cooperative project between the City and Mn/DOT could perhaps save both parties a substantial amount of capital invest- ment. Mn/DOT should be working on their drainage plan at this time, therefore, I do not see our schedule overly jeopardized by their schedule. DEAN LAKE OUTLET If it becomes apparent, due to the previous discussion, that the Upper Valley Drainage should flow easterly to Dean Lake, then the Dean Lake Outlet Basin Project should also be studied at this time. Major issues to be analyzed with this portion of the study are as follows: 1. Upstream detention of Upper Valley Drainage. 2 . Upstream detention of Dean Lake Basin. 3 . Determination of a Normal Ordinary High Water Level (NOHWL) of Dean Lake that is acceptable to lake resi- dents and the DNR. Neighborhood meetings should pre- ceed formal meetings with the DNR. 4 . Design of the outlet control structure based on the NOHWL. 5 . Stabilization of the outlet channel by the Prior Lake/ Spring Lake Watershed District (colored blue in Comp Plan) . Drainage System May 14 , 1986 Page 4 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS : As can be imagined, the whole issue of the Upper Valley Drainage is quite complicated and controls essential land development. Therefore, I have developed what I see as a preliminary sequence of steps to complete the task of developing a storm drainage system. I . Council Authorize Consultant Cost (Spring, 1986) II. Flow Rate Determination (Summer, 1986) A. Concurrent Activities a. WMO Establishes Policies b. WMO Establishes Flow Rates C. Consultant Models Watershed B. WMO and City Agree on Plan Flow Rates III. Study of Drainage Corridors and Detention Facilities South of CSAH 16. (Summer, 1986) A. Concurrent Activities a. Upper Valley Drainage Corridor b. Upper Valley Stormwater Detention C. 101 Bypass Drainage (Mn/DOT) d. Dean Lake Basin Drainage IV. Study of Drainage Corridors and Detention Facilities North of CSAH 16. (Summer, 1986) A. Concurrent Activities a. Upper Valley Outlet Direction b. Mill Pond Outlet C. Dean Lake Outlet B. Neighborhood Meetings with Dean Lake Residents C. Determination Dean Lake NOHWL V. Coordination of City Drainage and 101 Bypass Drainage with Mr./DOT Plan (Fall 1986) VI. Predesign Study for Upper Valley (Fall, 1986) t Drainage System May 14 , 1986 Page 5 VII . Predesign Study for Dean Lake if Warranted for Cost Effec- tive Routing (Fall, 1986) VIII. Cooperative Agreements with Mn/DOT (Winter, 1987) IX. Design of Upper Valley Drainage (Winter, 1987) X. Design of Dean Lake Outlet if Warranted for Cost Effective Routing (Winter, 1987) XI. Construction of Upper Valley Drainage (Summer, 1987) XII. Construction of Dean Lake Outlet if Warranted for Cost Effective Routing (Summer, 1987) This time frame certainly depends upon actions of other juris- dictions. One would expect schedule changes and additions and/or deletions to the task list. REQUESTED ACTION: 1. An indication to staff of the Councils interpretation of the task and desired time schedule to complete the task. If Council agrees with the recommended actions, then; 2 . Move to direct the City Engineer to obtain engineering cost estimates to complete the categorized tasks as indicated in his May 14, 1986 memo regarding Upper Valley Drainage and Dean Lake Outlet. KA/Pmp UVP "'n"nn W f t NQw wF .6_= YpypNr� 1� •r !§ I f .. C3 cz Us 03 tl3—W 1w0 wS 3—tlOitld `f – SI f �1 / •.o i --. i ; / Ya +_i^/]i' YiF G:it- 11 .y�Pa i^ __- � r I I •�I ria ..,.:, ( � il 77 Mn — -••1�t- _ / YT�_49./Sr gel y Am 4a� IF uj UJ Ltil— i -./ s. I E z i rra s x un ��5 f��•��s#`� F� � / � rn / !__ / •_ lyl 't'.; -alu.sansn \ W.y ,�_../ - v,. _ e. ■ �- � £ IN Qom) I'71— U \L C E • z / IQ MEMO TO : John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM : Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer Tom' SUBJECT : Street Rehabilitation Funding Policy INTRODUCTION : In July , 1984 , Council adopted a street preservation and rehabili tation funding policy as attached. This memo will summarize the policies and provide various suggestions for implementing this policy in conjunction with the current Capital Improvements Program ( CIP) . BACKGROUND : The policy essentially provides the following : Defines preservation efforts as crack sealing , patching , gravelling, and sealcoating. Defines rehabilitation as reconstruction, addition of curb & gutter and overlays. Defines frontage assessments and zone assessments. Defines preservation funding as City-wide levy . Defines rehabilitation funding as ; 25% zone or frontage assessments. 75% City Cost as general obligation. Defines zones 1 through 5 . Defines credits. For the most part, the policy is straight forward and relatively easily implemented. As I interpret the policy , there are two points that I do not feel was the intent of the policy , those points being the singular definition of overlay and zone defi- nition. DEFINITION OF OVERLAY The policy states that all structural overlays will be considered rehabilitation and hence assessed. In all cases , a bituminous overlay is structural . In researching discussed memos regarding the policy, overlays were presented in two forms as normal maint- enance and rehabilitating such as in the Eaglewood Project . These two forms, or definitions were not carried through into the policy . If Rehabilitation Policy May 12 , 1986 Page 2 A "normal " life cycle for a bituminous pavement should roughly follow the following schedule : Year 0 New Construction Year 3-5 Seal Coat Year 15-20 Thin Overlay Year 20-25 Seal Coat Year 40 Pavement retired , recycled, or maintained to provide base for new structural pavement. From the day that a bituminous pavement is placed in its environ- ment , it begins to age from traffic loadings and a process of oxidation whereby the bituminous loses its flexibility charac- teristics and begins to crack under loadings and gradually loses strength. Seal coats is a maintenance procedure for slowing the oxidation process . Thin overlays is a maintenance procedure for restoring lost strength through its "normal " life cycle . Thick overlays provide any of the following intentions : Staged construction to upgrade roadway strength to meet traffic demands. Increase strength due to inadequate original construc- tion . Correct major profile and cross section problems re- sulting from embankment failure . DEFINITION OF ZONES The entire urban City is divided into five districts making for very wide spread zone assessments . Coupled with the policy definition of overlays and zone designations, a typical lot in District 3, for example , could receive the following assessments assuring a direct assessment one year and one zone street assessment per year on subsequent years . (See Attachment B) : 1986 Direct assessment for new construction 1987-1993 Zone assessment each year 2001 Direct assessment for thin overlay 2002-2008 Zone Assessment for thin overlay each year Rehabilitation Policy May 12 , 1986 Page 3 In a 20 year life cycle , a typical lot could receive 17 indi- vidual assessments. This can be quite cumbersome administra- tively and may be objectionable to the assessed property owners . The following alternatives are available for the implementation of the policy : OVERLAYMENTS 1 . Modify the policy to state that thin , single lift overlays are considered preservation efforts and that thick, multi- lift overlays providing structural strength beyond that of the original pavement be considered rehabilitation . 2 . Modify the policy to state that all overlays be considered preservation . 3 . Do not modify the policy . ZONES 1 . Modify the policy to create smaller zones such that indi- vidual zone assessments would increase but the number of zone assessments would decrease . 2 . Attempt to create larger projects within a zone such that the number of assessments would be less . This is a do nothing alternative . 3 . Modify the policy to define a zone as those properties lying within one block adjacent to a zone street improvement whereby each lot would receive one direct assessment for an abutting street and a maximum of two zone assessments for the two side streets adjacent to that block. RECOMMENDATIONS : OVERLAYS One intention for defining overlays in general as rehabilitation assessments was due to the fact that the preservation budget was not keeping up with overlayment demand and could not be substantially increased due to tax levy limits . I recommend overlayment implementation Alternative 1 for the following rea- sons : The existing policy interjects the need for convincing property owners that normal life cycle overlayments protect their investment better than other increased maintenance �c Rehabilitation Policy May 12 , 1986 Page 4 efforts , not only in the future but now in 1986 for proposed overlays . Property owners could argue that the City does not provide adequate normal maintenance , hence requiring overlays, irregardless of the efforts of the City . Since the policy calls for a 25% project cost assessment and 20% is the statuatory minimum, the difference can be used to bolster the preservation fund without violating levy limits . Based upon cost estimates, levy amounts could be increased legally to overlay approximately one block for each block of rehabilitation . Combined with the preser- vation budget, I believe an acceptable program can be imple- See. mented while at the same time , decreasing the number of A{}ackrW%en' assessment projects for overlays . " C ZONES The existing delineations of zones is quite specific although creating wide spread assessments and if a zone project is under- taken alone , a proof of benefit problem may arise . Although I do not present a strong recommendation , I believe that a zone assessment only for the side streets adjacent to a parcel of property would be fair. The resulting total amount to be as- sessed would be the same as in the current policy . REQUESTED ACTION : Direct the City Engineer to draft a resolution modifying the Pavement Preservation and Rehabilitation Funding Policy as per recommendations presented in his May 12, 1986 memo and bring same back to Council for consideration. KA/pmp POLICY r� RESOLUTION NO. 2278 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISING THE POLICY FOR FUNDING THE REHABILITATION OF STREETS IN THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE WHEREAS, advisory boards and commissions have reviewed the Pavement Preservation and Rehabilitation Policy; and WHEREAS, City Council has previously reviewed the Preserva- tion and Rehabilitation Policy for City streets. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, that: 1. The following definitions which relate to pavement preservation and rehabilitation will be as follows: f a. Frontage: The least dimension of a lot abutting a rehabilitation project; or the lot area divided by the average platted depth where the least dimension abutting right-of- way abuts a rehabilitation project, where the abutting frontage is irregular or where individual lots have been assembled mor develoament. b. Preservation: Routine -maintenance which does not improve stru'ctu'ral capacity of a roadway such as the addition of Class 5 gravel on gravel roadways , a sealcoat on an urban road- way, crack sealing on paved roadways, and Patching. C. Rehabilitation: Co7rplete or partial reconstruction, of roadway elements including an overiay for ride or structure and curb and gutter. d. District: A neighborhood subdivision or Si7 lar ceOgra7)hic area �ci:=idered r�ti�0 �i jIc for the elements of a prc,sect that e cOil- sidered 70 be Of a nei"RDOrhood or lc::aiized benei=. 11 ►! z t A,seg 7n_nt An tha- has Frontage abtit��,J,,,� reticr� tion work. Spreadf. Cost: The cost of work within zi District .. which work does not abutt Frontage. g. Zone Assessment: An assessment of the spread cost made at an equal rate to all Frontage t-ithin the District, witnin which the work was performed. 2. All of the cost of Preservation will be paid by City- wide levy or other revenue sources as designated by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota. 3. Rehabilitation cost shall be assessed in a three-tiered assessment. The first two tiers are the Direct Assess- ment and the Zone Assessment equaling 2"" of the project cost. The third tier is the City-wide ad valorem levy which equals 75% of the project cost. 4. The City shall apply a credit to the assessment for Rehabilitation when the existing improvements fail before they reach the design life of the improvement, so long as such improvements were built in accordance with the City of Shakopee Design Criteria adopted and 4n force at the time the improvement was constructed. The depreciation shall be straight-line depreciation of -five percent per year. r. The City will Lay one hundred percent of the additional cost: of width and structure where the addJ_:.JcnaI width and structure is required by functional class. G. Only the Fro-.zaCe as definedabove 1assessed a Direct Assessment 7. A Zone Assessment will be madie to the District in which non-assessable tests are incurred. The Zone will be based on the Frontage cf all lots within the District. E. The urban area of Shakopee will be divided into the Districts shown on the attached d -aw Each rural residential Matted property or PrOPert', which is s4m-'Izir in. dorsi*y -a! -csidcntial n, -,.PCrz\' 7,�, D i c �n r tv p1v tc co^imcrc_ai anc industri ;rc^crt 10. Additional roadwa% v�idth -:ct rcq;:`_rcc shall be assessed as specified in Article 3 above. / Adopted in �lrl�{1�s,21 session of the Shakopee City ' �U � Council held this day of 1984. i 0 �cr o= _ne iVA .inaxopee ATTEST: t I ' { iry Giem: Approved to form this 3 day cf 14aµ. i i 1 i — a =- _ s ,.. y l 4 Li C> -- I _ • — is 1 1'T1 Y ..ate—c li r"sl� f �� Fes' f�.�Q �� •� `S - 1.. •,I I l il-3LEVE-- J"�-""-" Y HAL -7rr! — f -. AVE o SSS v Y siAj ' it 0 o O u 0 ID n v p A v V S1 f MARKS f LP SCHOOL r cr o _ ar 5th' Q.. V. ' J CEM RAA- 46 CHURCH t o 4 SCHOOL Scr+ooL pVE - r7l CD N 1 f - r C M f } 5 H ` 1 ' — 1 s ' , I s 4 1 5 4 I 9 I T.P a 2 1�! "4 ,ti Z'• I 2i \ a 8wS+1 a I I 4 4Fa B i I l A M ti c c&,L- Lk-D l C-r Fio W- PA\J '—I 490, 000 TH 1 S c.4.k-.)No'T- Er-- gSTA'r 1 A L L-Y 0 AMow,3T tS MCI- 8 L OT81 L_tA.T► o J., 3 C t TYf o c..t c y 15 Set c-K i f-4 A,-r ZS Ifo o f FaSf JAM I a TAM 010 �'RoSE-STs ARC -f /�-rE L-A,,, �Ec�w�Es H 1 rJ ►M v- K EBF zoo,--' oI= QP.o SE<T Cos--r R C- ©V67R-L.Al( (�o�1$�w+ED f'?E t-{AS i u7A?10 avEeV-AY Co,i (OPAzc>x_) b} oao- 1 Oo co �k'�N�e r ��-1-n.-r�o� ss�ss►-► i = �o�o� X Zs% _ to O o0 IF Ov 4e2L-AY M e.,Q'T i s Goy s I oET SSEsSLGfl = ";` o f= T'oT^.c_ oS cT' As S E SSE'D MEMO TO: Jahn K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer SUBJECT: Norton Drive (Deerview Addition) Feasibility Report DATE: May 1.3, 1986 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND: City COUncil, by Resolution 2520, ordered a feasibility study of roadway improvements to Norton Drive in Deerview Acres. Attached is that feasibility report. If the Council concurs with the recommended alternative, this memo requests direction to proceed with implementing that alternative. REQUESTED ACTION: 1. Move to direct the City Engineer to prepare a change order to the supplemental agreement for the 1985-2 Eaglewood Project as recommended to implement Alternative 2 of the Feasibility Report for Roadway Improvements to Deerview Acres dated April, 1986. 2. Direct the City Engineer to include roadways within Deerview Acres in the 1986 Seal Coat Pavement Preservation Program. KA/pmp NORTON ll � FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR IMPROVEMENT OF ROADWAY SERVING LOTS OF RECORD IN DEERVIEW ACRES IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 115 SOUTH RANGE 22 WEST SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA I hereby certify that this plan, 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 — "S Registration No. 16185 APRIL 1986 TABLE OF CONTENTS Description Page No. Feasibility Report Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Scope 1 Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Alternative Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 Assessments 3 Financing Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4 Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . 4 Appendix Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6 FEASIBILITY REPORT IMPROVEMENT OF ROADWAY SERVING LOTS OF RECORD IN DEERVIEW ACRES IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 115 SOUTH RANGE 22 WEST SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA INTRODUCTION City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota ordered the preparation of a Feasibility Report by Resolution No. 2520 , February 25 , 1986 , for the improvement of roadways serving platted property in Deerview Acres, in Section 29 , Township 115 South, Range 22 West, Scott County, Minnesota . BACKGROUND The Roadway serving Deerview Acres was constructed as a rural section in 1979 • There has been some problem areas identified in the roadway structure such as poor pavement drainage , inadequate ditches and insufficient subgrade strength. During the course of the last years, various corrective efforts have been made to the pavement structure in addition to normal maintenance , . Those efforts have included : 19824 : Subsurface Drain Tile 1985 : Extensive Failure Repairs Our roadway analysis reveals that the high majority of corrective work, although extensive , has been completed in a single segment of roadway versus scattered areas throughout the subdivision . The remaining portions of the subdivision appears to be in fairly good condition. COP This report has investigated the feasibility of rehabilitating - the roadway in Deerview Acres . It included the analysis of the existing roadway structure , alternative recommendations for its rehabilitation or preservation, the estimated cost of rehabi- litation or preservation, the proposed assessments and conclusions about the feasibility of the recommendations. 1 1 ) K- ALTERNATIVES This report considers four alternatives . Alternative 1 would be to complete any and all pavement structural problems and drainage problems by extension of previous work contracts. Alternative 2 would be to essentially complete the same work in Alternative 1 and in addition, provide a seal coat over the street systems to a) maintain existing bituminous qualities ; and b) provide a continuous surface appearance . Alternative 3 would be to, in conjunction with previous work, provide a complete rehabilitation of the street system by a structural bituminous overlay . Alternative 4 is to do nothing. ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION ALTERNATIVE 1 In 1984 , a subsurface draintile system was installed to reduce the high concentration of water within the roadway embankment. This the system has been operating well and should be extended to complete its intent. In 1985 , a relatively extensive failed segment of pavement was repaired by a supplemental contract to the Eaglewood Project . There remains a portion of that work to be completed in 1986 . Although this work, for the most part , corrects structural deficiencies, there remains additional areas within the subdivision that should be corrected to hopefully achieve a long lasting repair. Other minor items that should be completed is additional ditch work and overall restoration. ALTERNATIVE 2 This Alternative would accomplish all the structural and drainage repairs addressed in Alternative 1 and in addition, add a bituminous seal coat. The seal coat would be consistent with seal coat 2 Jl practices used throughout the City . The seal coat, although not adding additional structural strength to the pavement , would clean up the patch work look and prolong existing pavement integrity . ALTERNATIVE 3 This Alternative is the only one that would provide a substantial extension to the life cycle of the existing pavement. With this Alternative, the same correction work as indicated for Alternative 1 would need to be completed prior to application of a bituminous overlay . This work would essentially extend the life expectancy approximately 10-15 years beyond that of the previous Alternatives assuming that a seal coat is applied within a normal time frame . ALTERNATIVE 4 Although a substantial portion of the roadway has been corrected and repaired by previous work, the Do Nothing Alternative would allow other areas to deteriorate and be a high maintenance problem. ESTIMATED ASSESSMENTS Alternatives 1 & 2 are considered maintenance repairs and procedures and hence , would not generate an assessment . Alternative 4 would obviously not generate an assessment. Alternative 3 is very similar to rehabilitation efforts at Eaglewood Addition and also proposed for the Timber Trails Addition. The assessments would be on a "per lot" basis. The City policy for rehabilitation projects provides for an assessment of 25% of the project cost with a 5% depreciation credit for each year that the project area does not sustain a 20 year life expectancy . Since the in-place improvements are considerably less than 20 years old and the credits would decrease the assessment below the 20% minimum required to avoid a referendum vote , the credits applied to the assessments must be modified such that 20% of the project cost is assessed. Therefore, the estimated assessments for Alternative 3 , as shown in the appendix, reflect that policy modification. FINANCING ALTERNATIVES Alternate 1 . Property owners pay a minimum of 20% of the project cost in assessments with the balance paid by General Obligation Bond sales that are funded by general levy . This financing alternative would be a method for financing improvement Alternative 3 . 3 Alternate 2. Call for a referendum vote to finance improvement Alternative 3 . Alternate 3. Since improvement Alternatives 1 & 2 do not improve the structural capability of roadway adjacent to all properties, these improvements should be considered maintenance efforts and financed by pavement preservation funds. Alternate 4 . Do Nothing. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The roadway within Deerview Acres exhibits an embankment construction ranging from a poorly drained condition to a properly drained condition. Unfortunately , the original design of the pavement appears to be adequate for one condition and not the other. Incidentally, the poorly drained areas are not scattered throughout the subdivision but are localized. The alternatives presented approach the problem with basically two different solutions. Structurally , Alternative 1 and 2 are the same . These Alternatives repair the failed areas in an attempt to provide a consistent pavement throughout the subdi- vision. Under this plan, the pavement would continue along a normal life cycle path and would expect to require a bituminous overlay in approximately 1995 . Alternative 3 essentially interrupts the normal life cycle and brings the pavement back to time zero or pushes it forward to a time when a overlay is normally expected depending on how you look at it . It should be noted that when a overlay is expected in a "normal " life cycle expectancy, rehabilitation efforts such as those presented are not normally necessary . Due to the isolated nature of failures , the relative infancy of the roadways, this report recommends the following course of action. 1 . Pursue Alternative 2 by executing a Change Order to the existing contract to expand the correction of failed areas such that a relative comfort level and structural integrity is achieved. Utilizing a cost effective approach, one is never 100% sure that all problem areas are corrected but the majority can be and then the entire project closely monitored. 2. Seal coat the entire subdivision to provide a uniform appearance and extend existing pavement integrity . 3. Finance these improvements with pavement preservation and seal coat budget funds. 4 f!f`l APPENDIX COST ESTIMATE — ALTERNATIVE Pavement Failure Correction $ 8 , 000 .00 Subsurface Drainage $ 3 , 000 .00 Ditch Repair Work $ 2 ,000 .00 Pavement Replacement $18 , 000 .00 Restoration $ 1 , 000 . 00 SUBTOTAL $32 , 000 .00 10% Construction Contingency $ x . 200 . 00 $35 , 200 .00 15% Engineering & Administration $ 5 , 300 .00 TOTAL COST $40 ,500 .00 COST ESTIMATE — ALTERNATIVE 2 Alternative 1 Cost $40 , 500 . 00 Seal Coat $ 5200 .00 TOTAL COST $45 ,700.00 COST ESTIMATE — ALTERNATIVE 3 Alternative 1 Cost $40 , 500 .00 Structural Overlay $ 1,000 .00 TOTAL COST $71 ,500 .00 5 1 ( t ASSESSMENT COMPUTATIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE-3 Assessment = Total Assessable Cost = $71, 500 .00 = Number of Lots 20 $ 3 , 575 -00 x 20% _ $715 -00 PER LOT Note that 20% is a statuatory minimum assessment without a referendum although the City policy states that the assessment for rehabilitation projects be 25% minus 5� credit per year for each year less than 20 year life . 6 R r r R r -.r r r -i r r r +r �`+ rt r R ►+r r -�r r r R r R r r r r r r • L• W ► W '.�.'W W W l,:U :i. W w H �. R W R L. 4-' f F F F • F F R F r F F F r F F F r F F R F R F F F R f R r f F r F F S G- R U G • G J n C) rl O t7 O G G O R G 4 O O O C] O C� O 4 C) R C) G O GJ G O r: c, . f F R w�.. W Cr. w W v, 4 'v.w C... ♦ Iv R N N N I`.. N r,: N R .J 4 N r r r r C7 U, Lr Lr V L' J J Ln v. , U'. R 10 4 1` L' J O, Z, L R f R G u. �, v. _. . IL 71 n r O -C C T 0 0 o C o o G c o O cn 0 o 0 o G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2• J; Qq Uf Ul U1 Vr UD V U. Vt U, U U. U! lP l9 G'U: LR (r UI Ln vi U1 L'r :.r) -1 V) \ \ \ \\\\\\ \\ \\ \ \ \\ \\\\ \ \ \ \\\ \\ r''• 2 rr F rf Fr rrr Frrr r .^ r 4-' 414- m cr, -mm m mm m:)31x me 10 m xmmmmmm m u ma) mLID oL � mm m an mo. o c� mmPmm. m a, ammm r, D. m m mcrn. mm r. r a 3 O 2 W r .+rr r N r r V-4 L4 r F W mm C r L4P W W W �N�D AF N DN W -0 �'O+ -1v vi Ul NN GUI -Io om Gt FF oNLn OD Co � mm OF W �n l.n r W W F .4 (71 17, F-0 N7 UI OD Ln �Dror • • • • • . . • . • • . . • • . • • • i • • • . • • • ♦ • • :1 . W mtr mm N VI�/ Fmrmcom of CD CD Oo -0UtO -0U. SNF NN Co -0ODF *. r -I r0 W W o00-0mrmmm Ooo OO DNF -0mUI IDV V V OO W NW Ui W o R R R R R R 4 R D D L D a a n a D a b a b D rl D D D DDD D a D D D D D b 1 G V) N0 VI V,N V) LI) NV)N Cc c cCcc N -9 -0 '0 -1; 'V 2 0Viw V> V) Ln N0 rA V)Lo -1-4-'1 V) Z DD D DD a• e' z \\\ \\\\ \\\\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o D n n n n n S S 3 3 3 5 3 3 2 5 3 D n S = S x= C m m M m m 11 r^, m m m z nn nnnn H rim mm rl m • nnnnnnnnnnn G rl m M f.M rl rl D z S xxS .-. 222222 r'1 zz2zzz2 - 'D T C - +-+ H --I H-iti m ba 7. 2. G z z z z z z a v ti z v 9 v 000000 oc o0o c aD DDDa> F919r rr,rri n m zzzzzzzzzzz z rrrrrrr a z = zxz x N m T nn n nn n 00000 A z z z z z z z z z z z z D a-0 v -0 'U 'V v a n n n n n n n n n n n V) > z 9 r- . • . . . . . • . . . O r r r r r r r -I ri c� H r. z -/-1 -� r�r+Immmvvx 0= 3� u) mmmr*lrlr�cA cn o v) 0 coLI) W m ri �) o o r r r r r r r m r C o o o o o o c c c c C c c C r r, r- a ccovoovoonc ccccccv m v � vvv r1 mm T ch vvvv v 3 vv m -0v x r v � vvv �r rrrrr Sx r 3zx3zx svr H R, a w �-•+-• •, rH o 00 2saD DD aD Driz M as33 :cXm n rlrlrmr m z z R+ a D ►y r H r.—H n"i .0 c) V) D D b D D D V) rl V) V) N (A V) N V> mm " " Zz zzzz z3 - - - - "'lam' c n G7 22� -1 -�M-„'I '� ►+� z 2 z z2 = a+ rl -y -1 -/ D (A H CL 1 n v V) H O H -1 z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D rr r rrrrrrrrrrr r err r �.+r r+ .-' .- rrr n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n F F -0 -0 -0 -0-0 -0 F -0 F -0 W W F F F O W u W N N N N N N N N IV r N rV N N N N N N N W N N N N N C IV N u W W W W W W W W W w rA r W W W W W W D r r r r r z rr+ O NNo000O0 o rC. O N N N N N N O U1 r O o 000 -1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 o o -0 1 1 I l l l l l t 1 I 1 1 1 1 W r r W r-0 W W r r r r r W N r m N N r m m mm 0 o W w N r N -+r N N N N r m m m O r0- r r a rrr rW Nr 00 OIDr rr -0Nr 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 W r r W +F W W -'r r r O O -0 P F -0 W w W rW N rm rl) cc mm Go N NNr NN N N Nrmmm z C r Ul Ul Ul UI N • O W W W W W Q o 0 0 0 O A o -I U1 UI Ul N Ul UI F W W L4 W W 'L 1 • r O -0 • m r LT. 3 Vl b ♦ 4 R R R • N C� rt rt I l I 1 rl 1 I r r R r ...r r r+ -+ 4 r r r � R r 4 r -+ ► r.. .r f•• rt r �'r rt r+ r �.. C+ U V 4 U Cn V R U l.` W �n R ► (�. r. V; �,M („ rt F �.:r-0 r rt -0 F F O Cl O R G`U R G U U r.: h! .J N N • r r R O T C [F R cc (F.Q. i7 G Ca) T C J.�� Li r R tT R .� .. T v� i i J1 R G O U • G L T O U O Cl O O O G O C7 O O O O U L. O C U 6 O O O O � U cP Ut „9 Ul U: Lr LP U, V�U,U U� U.V� U: v+U1 U. U :Ji Ui U rr rrrr ai. rr -0 7 00 wCID a www wwxw :o w xw aCID w www w ro m m T O, O' m m m m P m m C m m m ❑l O.- m n S O N N W W C z 1+ N N r r r V w F N N y N P N W i- .+ N 1-+Uf U1 ut �!) �D UI -0 A N OD O N UI o O N N !T W V V 1+ W W r F -V O V V o 0 W V UI V�+ W R' O r V ON O A F • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • V r' N r UI c U Ui UI U1 w 0 W O S N w x -0 r C .d r v7 r -0 J W O Q` �Q. CO W ►' NNTNr PTN W W W W CD 'L C I olcoUI rUIO'O o0 R R R R * R R R 0 0 p p 0 0 p 0 n n n n n C n n n n n n C C p cc mrlmmmM. . • . o c sx 3. 3. aaa z z pOOC� 00 SiS2 x r an .rozroro zzz K z xzz0 xz . . . • .r x3 rrrr y-1 -� D MM mmmmmm • c -V -V wV)V)V) o 0o z c czz mmmmmm nnnn w .,.+ 000 m0 zzz cs aaaa a 00 zzzz 1 1 1 s z cntn popo0o zzzz c n Z Z.P. o 0 n a D a n n ro ro ro ro p Z = K K K K K K . . D D a D D D n n n CC y n CC .v x J09 = SZ n CL NNNfnfnto rrrr O O yy OUCO 333 ro = mm K -. -c -K -<K acct z r 0o tcet a as z m . cncncnv) cncn xx =s w r aaaa z z z o n :i. CRm m NN xzxz p x -►+ —— - «- mmmm z -4--1 mmmm c zzzzzz zzzz 00 n z n nnnn n .. z z y m • m m N C'+ Hr In -ti PI .Z7 NN fnNNcnLe) N mOow m ro m0 07N0U) rororo c c C a c c C c D r c c D :a O C r C c c .'v z x C y "O ro ro ro ro ro ro ro C O ro ro C ro c ro O ro ro ro 0 00 z m roro roro -u -9 -9 -9 .-1 C) roro - T til C rororo TT'71 rr rrrrrr v r-r- ro ror rrr a s r-+ y H-- tiHH = r-1H N �-. _ .. ...y cn en V) n O mm mmPlmmP1 xDrnm z m =m ammm m m m m m NN U) cn N N61) N D '+ (nN n x DN .+Pim RD AJ, 0 �+Z �-+ C ►. z 0 00 C C C = n Z z y D S ro y r+� O z O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O G O O 0 0 O G O ON N N O a N r r " r r - N ►+r+ r r r r ti N n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n A F Fr F F F .A N N N N Iv N N N N N NW N W N N N N N N W W W N C -- -- �r r - W W �- W r W r+ W r '+ N-r F+ z O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O O N O N O 0 0 0 0 O O O Ln y 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I rr+ FF WW . . TTPW W r W W -0rr L. LR U1 A UIN N1-' W.+ VN N W Nr N LN W W N O -041, F N O L^ oNO r r rN Or -.r tb VOA V .91 I i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 i l l l 1 1 1 W4i r.+ -0AF -0 UIN NW/-+ V N NN NNN N P+ N � NN NN O) 0+1..1- z N 2 A F 411-0. A -0 O7 co -0-0 r F F F U I WwwWwW U1 r = c UI UI N UI Uf A F r-0 F A U N N UI N ro 1 • r O F 7! T m ro * * rt rt R R R 0 G'j 1 R (7 zx x z x rt .- r rrF+ � t r R r R r R r rr�t•- r R r . - r- r -+.err -.ter• R+ T F F M F F r r R -0 R F R F R F r F r F R F ir r r F •` F F F r F -0 _ R N N R N N R �-' '•' R J O O �, R iA: R R R F r F F r L,. v. r.U wU' '.J:w ... f•7 R r!-' R F r -0 r R R G' R U • .L �' r R OM U 0 C, O O U C O O ;k C < • O O T I= C) o 0 o O U o O C� 0 0 o CU O C, o O O C o m v 0 0 0 D Ui LP U LP U, U: U, U. Ln U. l'1 UI U U1 L), lP Li U, Ln LP U. U, Ln Ji UU � V) r r )-- � F•+ r r �+ r r r r /� �•• �r r r -+r r �' r r r p c r r r r r F r F r r r F F r F r r F r r F F r F r x mm 00 Lu :c, m cc ;c w ma,mm m xammmrr wmmmmm ti mol rt. m m m ❑• m rt. 17, m m M IT m p, m. m f'I n 2 O r r c 2 NN F -0 Nr PP r -1 A W LA W W -0 -0 F+r N N ,D V N N N r UI WNr N� NJ WQ�Q, FF UI LP GO Q'• O .PNmNF mO UI -IN WDWN ,D o .D -4 10 mm 0` 0' Ul rs Gt7 �., W •+ON m0% ID NN UI W L. 4Y Fr WOW mOFmP Co .o-0 CD ca GO Q\ ID rLJI W NF -0 �Or FNm -1 mNr Ln CO R R R T R R R R ix xxx x o m m mm rlm c0000 00000000 M, r*1 D D D D O O a r D D D a C C C C C C C C C C C C c z ;1� ;u ;D = 'D C m 0V)Lo 0 zZzzzzzzzz zzz z 3333 x r r) -t zzzzzzzZzzzzz mrn OGOO m O -1 3335 2 n .. r-� I-. R1 r- -i -HRyH C z z z z z z a V1 7 .� D D a D z z z z z z z z z z z z m NN co 0U) V) z z z z v n0C: C) n C, 0O C: C,C) 0 z ..m zx = x H n o00o 0 nn ococci Av) zxz zz = zsa . s z O o 2-_ r_ z s z m c c c c o c G G o c G G o c c G c rnmrnm s clOc) c� sssssssesssss x • . • n c mmrnmmmmm6 rnmmm rn xxx = n �c aaaa O z z z z x ;xc71 ;Kz m c V) .y m z Cm mNN V) Cl) rn -ti L7 V) N V)N rnTNV) N V) V1NNV) V) V)N ti 0 0 cz C C C d ..c c � vv � c a v vvtiv cGv � v � vvv �va � m r.+ ♦rte IIV - C .r Z � �V .r0 r, r- r- r* 'A r-r- r- "D '9r 3 R•Iv vrrr r v m -i rrrr v rrrrrrrrrrr 1 NMN H r D R- ti r+M 3 H �+ F'+N r-� Mri r•:HM ry G Ry x 3 m m m m S r m m m m 3 D m m m m m m m m m m m m mD D L7 V) N fn D F V) LI) NV V) C ►� CL H M V) O -1 z 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O m 0 0 m L O C O o 0 0 0 D .+r .ter rr r r r r r ...rl-+ r . .- •.•� r-, r ..... r+r �.r n r F v F -P -0 -0 d F R F r o ? -0 F ? r F -0 ? r F R F 410 O W N N N N N N N W lJl N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C v W W W W �+ z O N N0 0 C3 O N O r O G O O N 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I l l l l l l l l f l l l P m Q'' C Q` w W W -0 W W N W r Q` P Q`• Q` R P W W rV LM N N N r W W r Ul v N O W N N N N =W" Lq m O O PN`+r -•rr -0Nr+ I I 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PtT t?OT W -0 m W w Fwwr G+ r Q, O,0, Q, r AW W r �r ►. NN NNNN N N N UI F+ .a h.. V NmNNNNN - L.4 Sa Z C co r T co N Ln at 0 W o r m a P S m -Q N a R R R R K R R N G R t 4 R R R R D rn R R R R K R R G1 1 I 1 I t 1 1 t7 A n 7c 7N S T. A 7 u: v) V. V, 1. w } -• r w I-+ rr • r R .+ «+ Ij w rr rr . r rr ► ► �H �+ r R r r ► In 'w W R l.: (+• (n R U R :�+ �+ U' R C.. C,+ (.+ i.- G.i.. l,. w R U to (n lr u w l.. CJ .L } W w W R W W W ► W R N N N F I`J IJ N N N N N N R N N N IJ IJ R N f' C, 2 r F �i +� \ v�/ �. V R G R 4 Q \ } U L.,, l„ R r + .Ci S O G Ci G -C • O C T C C O G O O Cr G L, C7 O C. 7 O n O 7 O O O CJ G U O D Ln ,77 L. Cil CI. L V,L, (il L V'.Lr U. l:• (Jl UI UI f,n U. L (n m x C- CC �?+ 0 w �+ 0- x 3. S X W y S O W CG LL CL.x -0 R• (T T m T T T M R, (7. P fJ T T M Cr, T T n, D, fn m M D Z O NN Nr Ln Ln W P N r Nr OO rr fi ID W W �N 00 0 rutF NF l mmLW P �D Q� F-0 O� (JIr wW 410. w FO W Ln WW r VIW V W NO .Dr OW W W old CD CD W ON vO Dl. CD Ln PO, (J11-1v'7 LCZ) 000 V1 •DCGOO FF OOO ID ID NUt OO OO 'D-1 Ox 000 000000 wCD G O W O V V w w R R r w w w R s x s r_r r r r r r x x x x x x x x x x x x x L xxxxxxzxC GOO "+ DD DnDDnn r; m mmm Y xx o xxx a xx `o (n(n (n(n Vi (n (n fn = = 222 mm C r x x o wow w w w w z z z o z 2 C xx m Uz- oo m r.mmmm a m (n c: m zxx C vz o 9GQo Q. elR, Q. mN z z z z z z 0o z R..».4 z c NcnInV,In n G zz z =P m x -easaxs x o m " -1 -+ o nD v oo0c000 C, L (ncn (: co x Zzzzzzzz N n 0o c z m xxxxxxxx Dnnan a x -,-I ►. az -+ -i z GQ c000c0 z z x z z r m • . W -1 mm M71Mmmm GOO GO m n .,.. o z nnnnnnno xzxxx n n • . x x x x x x x x o m ♦ i �1 �1 H -i - 1 J "i 00000000 ti N H m X filM m n-0 v> x TAW m mmmmm N ++ ,O0 O O AC m rC 0 xxxzxxx x 000 .00 C 00000000 C C C C C T m H '4 z m m m T T T 'Ti T—-.4 r- --Ir -1 r -Q Tv _Qvv r Z N S RN N N N w N N N w G 3 s S 0 ec m C D m x m m m m m m m m S S S S S m m D D b m In Z tiIn a xxx x x x nnDYD y N z -CG C C C C C C C rti nr +� •r H n z 2 z n C O `-1 2 2 Z Z Z x 'O O -1 M, O N 2 O O O O O G 00 O O O m L1 N N IJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O D rr r rrr r rr r ND� .,i. wr«rr rr -.rr r C', 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 n F i• d F F F F F t F F .L Al F F F F "o1> A F F d O N N N .D W N .D w N N w W w W (.,W W W N N N N N N C W W W to Lp,-+ N w r W W w W W CN r z N N N r 0 0 d O O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N O ti 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fr �a .DW W o Pp+ P Ui tT: tll tJlorrr .A W WwW � Z NV N ►" w W O rN N t.p F ,R OW O O+r m rrr O V N P rF 0'..W CD W•+ rr �,D Nr r I I 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I F r a .D W W o � ✓T r F F F F O��+ ►' d w W W W F ►+ N) -4 N L. O rN N rr r ro ?gym rw err N z _ C Q, p. W 0 O N N o R C A P N V W CD 1 cc • O t CD 2t P m � h n w • • • R rt ti c 1 1 1 1 1 1 I �� ✓, LS V. .. r rrrrr + R rr 4 r r F R F r F r R F F r F f F r F F f r W L F F • W U R W W W Cr: R U W W W W U W U U W W W W R W W R W W R N C-) Ll F 4 F r f L J .. 10 u•O Ci J-6;, a, J' j < • C: p T p C) O n O O p p O O O O n CD G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 yl V) L5 U, N U. L^ U1 VI U (: In v� u� S caU� v,u u, v, .nulu'. c^, �.nmrrU, r r �� r rFrF ri; rf - D F S. ,j. f t�r F f r r \\\\ \ \\ \\ \ c \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \\ m a x x x x x a w x x m ID ,Da xo. ::. xmwmx xcDxxxa% mmrnrr. mm o, ma, rnmrrmmmtrm ,a� mo,ma, s r� n 3 G c r z r r r r A r N r N N CD 0 W i-+ r F N F F F F N N W W F F co W V P -4 r NN FF rr N +1F F Uf V,L.f) UI ol WNN NFrp, 10 OD 0- V NLS• 00 Ut(11 NN N ,DW tiTN NNr W 41u W •C POMC,C, • • • • • • • i • 0p N-4 NN -4a, W To 0 C, O N W �O7 OD OD W •LI OpO � x NNS OO 0 CD 0 CD f F O 0 0 r W r ;r W m W C, N m ,D o a,0 o O W t F N F 11 R R R R R R R n = OD 33 23333333 SS 3323 HrNtiHr•+H zz t7 .n 2 G y -O OGC7 -40060 COOOGO C p . GD rr -1ti - -i -i -y -ti-i -1 r-1 -I -� z z z z z z z C� O a m yln o000000000000o zzzzzzzmmmmmmm as c c cc�csc� c, cc� r'r � m ti -Ni vvvvvtvSvv �� vv aaaaDaa mm z D r 3 aD DDDDaaDDDaDDaD VINNNNlnN - < N 0 r n = z zxzz z � � z �Dzzzz nt�nt� nc�` a -1 y -1 -1 -1 1 H-�-ti -I -+-i -1 "1 G O O G G O t9 m G> C7 N r Q• R N N V)V/N V, N !n N N V7 V) N V] r r m r m m C) m m r+H m p m G G S z z m c, N m z *� mmmmmmrnmmcnv,lnmm ccccccc cc v -ti C C ,-p ,� ODLJ �+ O DDODCCCOD MMrr ^rN •,y„n O m p G � ►y CCCCCCCCCrl- �t S T r,Z --r --- ryrr .r'O� � rF"i rr rr rrr r a -ti -i ti -1" --f-4 V) O HI nV) "q -M 1-� r H-H MM m m m m m mm pc 3 2 3 S S S 3 3 2 m m m S S m m N v, aaaaaaaanv vlv� aa mmmm C-)c�cn C � z M n 0 V, V, (n V, V,(n m a yC 2zz ^ Z227z2 .. � ��} `I"• H rl 1 H 1 -1 � � � H O z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a 0 0 0 oo .+ 000000000000o rrrrrr �,� "' n r r r rr rrr.• r r«+ rrr+ rrrr ^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 F F y. F i F F ,p i` F F F f' F F y F F F F F W W W c N N W' W W N N N N N IV N N N N N w N N W W W 1i1 1"' W 1i1 \ t+ z r r r U L f W W W W W W W W W r r• r r+ �!r +, v CD rI J C O O O o O O N N N N N N N N N o m 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 I l l t l l l l l l l l l I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 F W W z I 1 1 1 1 F W CM W C, F A F F C, C, F W W r►'' O r F W rr SIT O, O, r rNNr C70 N� N W r W W W N r Wr+ r U44F jW W NlrrrrNr r •a r r � r f,; f„ rrr„ r p,•..rNrrr rr N I I i l l l 1 1 1 C F F W W W m F t F F P O O N V+ N C N Ul r st o m In O � 1 W • r O F s 1 Cc 3 m v N a In C, R R * a m R R R 1 1 I C7 A L V R r r r R �• R r + W W W R w R W R W R r + '+ r r r r r M+ ...•r r r J r r r ..+ R H * * (.: L• W w L• L• w f.r.:w L. yr w W L. W W * L. R - R $ F $ R r R $ R F R $ R F F F r F -0 F r F F FA F F F A R + R W L.L. W W w w w W W W W WW W w R W Ul R -+ R C R N R r * w '2 Or x�Z. Ocx -S O.iF: x ;::. 3. xS ► L ,r, n `- • T n j O O O p • O {J. Lr. 0 O O O O O O U A Q C O O O O O O O GC T� \ \ Ul 0 L'I UI Vl Y \ \ \ \ (n U1 U1 Jl U' c7i U� V1 V Ui lP V, L, co xx nj W x \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \\\ \ \ \ \ c, m Olm m * cLxwwx x mwxwwaxww m mmm n c. 'nty, C, m rr mo mmrr, m � m nl r, n i .. o W W ` LA r N m x w w N N O►+r CO r t.+W rs A r r N W O W N W -0 -0 ~ WN F+ NN W W W(p NOS p+�p NF • • • • • • • • • T 6JN wP� vL'� O�W WNwNW o0 O O O W W O O y x a F F F • • • • • • • • • • s 0 0 0 �L �O 0 0 rV'L �o " U--Ip y V.0 IO CD ID 4 .Q M D m m 0 0 x x W W W r V O N o$V P V V VI A O$ OD r x x R R R R R R 1 R R x S m O Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 Z Z = zz r m D T = C CCLLLCLC = CLL tC IF Z Z O -( A O -n D O G'1 O Z O -I ry m M X W W W W W M W W W W W W W z o -n-n c m n m m m rl m m m rrl m co m rn rl m m i'l z�" m r o rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr m �' c r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r m m zL c o mm A m x x V) o m r 2 c n m • • Z O V n S m G� N 1 S Cn -/rti -y1ti �r�111rti -y-i x m m rl m m rm m rlr+r m rri mm ri m rl O O D C O -D m r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r 3 T r- m r r m m m m m m m m m m m m m m rmt .. �� vvv� vvvvv-0vvvv -y a nn m = mSs22 = O ~ to n S 2 2 Z Z Z Z 2 2 2 2 2 Z 2 Z Z Z a m z z Ln C ti f7 S to z M •r to -' � L O O p O rr O rr..0000aoC3C 0 0oy 1 1 i { I I I Pcnrrf+rrrrrrf+ .+rrr C� n $ -0 r-0 $ $ A$ r$ a W W W W W W w W W O O O p O N "' N N N N N N N IV N N N N N N N r-,) N Z 1 .I. I { o O r►+r r r►+ rr �.r r1+..r r1-, p, ►'r ,F F I { 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 { � W W Lo NNrr ..•►+ rr Z W►+ �. p.. C+ r W W �ONf+ V1W Nr wW W V V1W Nr o " 1 Nrrr it o • co co -+ F N N Nr -0F WW W W NNrr �.rrr p r. w'-o N r Vt W N►+ W L. Oo.I 6m L, to r+ O N ID \ C V CD Ln R O W rn • r • 1 x = T 3 + M M R . • ► R 0 n + , * • * R • R cn cc 1 I I + • R * R D m r) S r; x v, � � x rrrr -+ • r --r R R rrrr . �`� r • rrrrrr ► . rrrrr * ,.. r. ...rrr W W W R ,.. * W W W ;+. n `.: W O R F F F F F r r F r F F R r r F F R S F F F r r F r F F r F r cz U R C, Ln C.`'.L7, (: Cll C^UI Ul Ui U' V:U: R lT CU CI U C`) C; N O O p C C, R .J L O • �L: ! r r r r r r 0M 0 0 C7 V V V r-i R .. �'J �� x R O (F x R N fv!V R V1 R O • O G T m 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 n O [J L O O 0 0 0 0 A O O G O 0 0M 0 0 0 00 G O J1 U'�1� L" U� LI U1 Ji v.U: 0, Lr, U .. I U1 U. U: U U U Ui U� J+C° \r fTl r rr r rr -+r rrrrr- r rrr � r S r r r t r r F r F r r r r r r \ \\ \ \ U \ \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ a s - m JD 3J O 0 m m m O m co a 0 W W 2 m S Z 3, w W .L m a S a a' m. s m m m m rr. mmo,mmmc*mmmo.,m mmrr. mrr. m mc.mIT, m m0..m a D 3 O C r � NUr N Nrm ~ rW rNNNN N rNr CD CD r,) N NN Ln Ln N/"' WOFJ -4 D �rrZJ rN Ui WNO -+<P U1 U7 r- WF !lF CANNN • M1: wN !T U1 W WOo F r Ut PN U7 V1 : �0 P: r • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ♦ • • • • • • • • • • • • • O p O U o (71 'W r r r 0 J UI �G U. N vi O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O rF w 0 -i O -: LrlN r'p o Ln A Lq �n Ul 0 0 0 0 0 ',. m UI 07oJJ U7 AD VOrW Oo0o000 F W F f W 0 OWN ro OO R R R R * R N NCnNN��NNV) V)NVf V1N rn NNN rn Vi N V) 0 NN V7 V) V7 n D LYD ti Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 'D Z Z Z 9 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 S S S n C C G C C C C C C C C C C a D a D D D C c C c C D D D O O A Z = 0 0 0 0 0 0 S = `+ _= O O O m V) ZZZZZZ C = t 'OZZ mmmmmm mmmmm m m m m mmmmmm V) rnV) orn comm -� r)Clc)r) o -�� -4 -a K S x zT O r V) V)N V7 NN TTT • CCCC x m r r I r D m m m m W;D c N c c c 0 0 0 Z < A < � .'DS CCCCC '� 'T 'Z m NNNN m c c r C C C < C C c c c 0 0 0 n n z rrr►+ rr C CC 0 3, r� mm za � cc zcc x mmmrnmmcmeo � v> rnrnrnrcnnvV)i ann Da m m zzzzz � �, m m X 2 L C C C C C C C C C C C C C CCCC C Z Z Z Z Z m m mr z z z a -i r a D-1�-1 -� -1 -1-+-r - -�-I - -1-� -I-I ti T O A ^ •�D D m 0 -1-1rrrH�-+ r-irrir►�N r rrH ►+ r ryr3 ►. 3 C CC O GOOO ± r rrrrr � Z0zO +►� r D TTTT c� m m r r r r r r r r r r ^ r►, ., r .� -i-4 " " Z Z Z r D 3r7rrrrrrrrrr ►� rr-'r rr ►� KBO W O b Dn r Z .-p ovX N mcmmmmmmmmmmrl rmmmmmm z z 2 �2N V) V) V7NV)N V) V, V7 Vi NVi wo '9LN Z V) rrr - CCCC -� m 2 S Su. -4 -41 Z r en- T O M Z 0 0 0 O r 0 0 0 D O 3 m000 o O OOo 00 o Oo0 o OO m i-+O O F. U1 r-r C) r, W Wrrrr -+rrrr •' rrrrr NV1F F-' r- rr 1 1 1 1 1 C) ") 1 I l l l l l l l l l l t l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 F r r F O F W W .I* rrFFFrFrFF r.wFr rr FrFFF rrr F W W U W W W W W W W W N N N W W u W W C N m m r.+ w LA W W W W W W W W r r r r r Z W W W-r-I-r -I r -1 V J V v J v J-+v V J U7 C)r Ut r N N N O� 0 0 0 0 --I O NrO OOO O O O O C O C OOOO O O O OCG OHO 1 1 1 1 1 { 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r r w r r Z r o O rT ON CT FA L4 L4 LM P F W W t11 y oONNNrNNU1N " OS NA NCD rW Ch W 'Da L'4-4 N• '• W D jJr O r O OO as N►- V rrr rN r rr r r r J - W r m l T I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 `„ r w r �.• o oC� t1•. O� O� r .♦� W w W rte' PFw L. rrrrr. rr �D wJr 2 r w CD oONNNr NNU! N f' a: S NNN �' co I"' `OF WJ Nr C � O Z 1 • r O 4- co m A O (/; D R R R V! C R R R R * D m R R R R C R R 1 1 + 1 1 C7 C) T V, u; h+ R �' R •+ • -� R r' r r R r • f. r N r pa N r �+ + r r+r r+•+ 1-• W R W R tJ. k k R W R W W W W ~ Cn W • W W W w n F R F R A R t R F • F ■ F 1 i` F r A F F F t F F • F F F F F = L%: P• r Q� r Utr - r v" r U; 4 lP • U' LP Lr �.^.:.9 U' V. ^. �+ • Lr r r + W R N f.. N ti N N N N N f.: ♦ N N N N IV n N r Y-' e r . P • N r ► r ► .. O L� P T U L" t v O G O O 7C n ti G K • C 0 0 0z' -1 U1 U: Ut o C, O o o O G o O O O o 0 0 0 0o O Y U7 U, L. v1 L, Ln UI vt Lf Jl ••+ r� r T r a ;' F F rrr �^ r rscr r rrrFF � \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ O S fr, y OJ 7J ODW L7J W 5 :D x O S: Lp 'S S S CD coIp m m n, fr T Q. T C• T T Q LJ T f U m T R. T T h T D 2 O O O C N N r �•.+ F+�-. r -1 N N vi Cn 0 0 V r L4 L4 0 CD N NC11 WO, r+ W PN►'N N N P O W 11 W N A 11 W W 111 N V �. LP .D V V Lr Ln O O 0 0 F F N N O O r•F co C. ID lD m ,0 W W \I V N N O G h+r N N O O V 0 0 N co Ql ,D O W C W O W O W rt • R R . R R * • t G C C N N ✓) Ln NNNLn fn Nwo yNN LN Cn n n x Z S CC CCCCCCCC --I -I- -� r z r O C n a mm In m m m m m m m Daa lRa r r m Ln v Ar r r r r r r r r r m u, m -. I o 71 7c 7c 7c 7f c 2 •-• KS m O 9m cz WCO CL Q'i'.D U)N 00 LI) m Ll n m < m C C C C C C C C c C T. 7C ti I In 0000000000 n n n n n O m 2 c c z z z z z z z z z m m m m m z n i - O +-• r,In m r l in m m m i',m c a n n a n c a r r to LnNNNV) V) L/)C/Y V) zzzzz-n 0000000000 = rC z z z z z n z z n mmmrlmmmmmm 0G� = 0 0000000000 L` r+ rtiH� tiNti �•. rti ry m N m m ti'' n (/1 m NNNNtnyNNC/3H OOOCO ►� D 0 Xa m C o C CCCCCCCC C r rrr r -I C O O 00000 m c r � rrrrrrrrrr m mR .y "" """' "" ^ "'•r •'" n'�n"I 23223 0 m m x wmmmmmmmmmm nm 2 ; w a aaaa a c c n z .. z z z z z n ., Z 0 In y "'1 1-1-i-• ~ C x W -+ r �^ z m C? o o o r ►• 0000000a o0o 00 a ~ 1 1 y. ~ r+ w F r r «+r r r r+�+ r-+r- r-•r A A r, r 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t7 A FA F A F A O F A A F A A A F A A O N W W W N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Iv N C N ON �.+ W N f+ t+ F+ •+= r `r r+N W w W W W z O Ln O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A W w O F W V r+�D A A W W w/"� Fww N W w A N „N„ c � ~' W •+ r V Ln N N r 0 O O 1 1 I 1 I I N ►+N r r►+ 1- 'D r.+r -•+ .+AN A W I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N w V N O w•+ r V Lr.U N N m Ct CL z Z r O✓ A C N • W ~ O O N OD O Z C Q, Ln � I O A • Cb a D� In In • ► . Ln > * * w R '• • r • R • • N C I A i A n to x v. vL L7 4- T F F R r r w r F r r r r F r F F F M C' G j U O G O O C O • O O T U C O O U O O O O O Ul U1 (Il ull vl C^. S F r r \ \ \ \ r F F \\ \ \ \ \ \ w T \\ \ \ m 0 co ::w 07 S p Q" m m m R rl 1. r.� C, v S r r O N N C N N N • �r rr rr oo Ji v) rte. tiv Jr L4 Ln N N w w w u w FW tT U1 NN Ul Ln r -+ 111 Ul O VI Ln �D ID oo ww pp c v .NGID 10 ID � y ID.D CD .D �D �+i -4 W W OC 00 000 .D .D • . . . + • • • • • ♦ • a • • • • • • • • • • + • • • • O p CT OD r r O O V V IS W t"' r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V V O O � O O O O V V 0 0ID O O O O O O r F O O O O O C O N N O O O O O O O O } } } } } R } } R } R R } } R 7C 7C S S m H rl Z N ar D c 0 C .�, O n nOm") c c r 0 1 m M .r. ., r < a z r r c C D Z z N N (*I s x oz v z a rl o r. o m z C C Z t✓ D T C'i 2 N a a D O G C O O O r r Nc D rn c ., ., r1 C S S m m r) r D a N N T 2 z z r D s r Z r v o no V) x x c> T T r m '9 I'1 C D y S V) r o K r z s c a r m 0 o Ln V) o z n o )' a r- 3. - z T. C Go z n z H CN r rl z z z z V) H r O N C m0 C ►� n r*i Cl) rn rn O O A C C O D vc v v c m m OT T z c o o r x 'O Z r r O a �~ _ .q m w w «,M r*t s m r) r S r1 f*1 S m ti y N a r N y y v) o cn N a a z D to H C C Z !7 ti G Z Z m r c Z 'y y r N O 'fl � Z 1 � 0 o a 0 or r 0 o a o LA F N N N w C W .Wa N fl) W N W N w V Z Ln N N N N 1+'I �,. r �4 w r W p.. N O -� r w r r W r1+ r+ O O O N O O O O 1 I r N O O N 1 1 1 1 1 1 Z LW N N O w � � f.. r r W r N ''' W r)o O N 1 1 N N r H N N I I F,y w C N N W N a o r w o C UI p O %D N I Ln r Ut o • r o O r N • 1 tD a m M r to n R } R N R } R D rt 71 R rt R O 1 1 1 f r n c R F r i• �` t F - ; n r - K • G L T O c• c C o O 3- Lf: Lr ^ L* fs 1 U) M _ F r r r r r 7C :27 x x (F Co x m m o. s o- a, m In m A Cc Ql 3 W v : F W N G N c n os r .. NN Ln :;o W z rWN CDFNFa, FfJrNN NN W W OO rr a,a, v ~ O F i r U. UI O�D CC x .p N N O O UI UI W W UI J1 O O O L. .O O W w 0 F O V r F r (a O O p O O Vi N N O O O R R 4 • ♦ R R C 0 D -1 V) 7C 0 r c c m m O T T T T T T T T T T T T m O n f'f z -ti CCCCCCCCCCCC m a zzzzzzzzzzzz, r ,. m z Vr r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o c o m c m ;a C C -1 m Z CO Co V V O+ U1NNrrrO C z W r W r N rig Wcr, (n F r r — N O c m m r m x r- 000000000 000000000 z r m = r r r r r r r r r r r r o „•, � o z n x m c. M N �i m C -V0 V) ;10 7: f72 -1(75 m ti a a x ;D m O C C r z .y •"" KO = S 1 nSRaD2 C m M O O m rs � mc� amar 2m .+ N z TT = Z) i WJ tizm VIX y ti D C) -ti r .. ..r -� r D In c K rcTx3a -yr = Pam a m m V) X In C n z - r o c G C c z C C Z 1 y C 1 ~ ti m m S S V m m m -+ Z Z � C ti T O �1 V! z r K O o O O o p y r r r r r n i I I 1 I 1 n F F F F F r O N W W fJ N W C w In (n r („I 7 N r o cn o p r I 1 1 1 1 I N r N Irl Cn W Z N W W O N N N o L4 Ji I I 1 N r r N N w z C V r F fl a C W Ln y F T 1 C r Cc a P .Sn T R N D R N C) R D m 1 0 GC 00 CC) OD CC) po OJ OD o N o o O O H F H N W r �10 `O N F OD OD -P- O w W a N N N w N N W N O \,D W F- w F' N IV O W -1 -J F--' f✓ O N N O O W I--' O H O O n O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N �,D O O F- O N N N o O O O O O O 01 F--' O O F O H N N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O o O O o - H O O O -P' O O O o O O o N \,D O o N o co H OITJC co OD co co co co co O H O O O-� 'OY H W F \n F-' C H F-' N H N F-' H H \-n F� H N F- N H w I I I I I IUF H F' H N F H H FJ F- N N H N Fl F- 0 O o O O O O o O O 00 0000 a '-d CA CD x 013 N H H H H N F F F, f✓ H F✓ H F- F, H 0 P) c+ (D W (D O O O o O o 0 o O o O O o O O O O �G O E a � t-3 cn* N n It (D (D a O �g 11 11 r N W Cf) F• a cm+ a I 1 N f✓ W F' a e C O N O N � F w 01 F� ZO � \-n \10 & \n -;=- O OD \n O -4 \.n \n .P- 01 \-n W N W N r• Oo-,I O O O vi N 0\ �,o O O \0 � \-n W co C C_ N Ff o o O O ri 01 \,D \,D O N F✓ 01 c+ I�,O O o o F- W O w W N \n w O \n Oo N a � n c� C) b a :d Z1 co 3 > (D (D (D (D (D CD (D O W r• a P) O F F S @ a @ 8 @ R c+ F- m 0 'd m � H W N O r• r• r• r• r• r• r• O W n H. c+ p *7 01 c+ c+ c+ c+ c+ c+ c+ '-i It 0 (D (D c+ P) Is N 7 O TJ C7 C7 b CD It C It (rD R c+ cm+ I�- ((DD M, `n F N 4:_ CD t7 (D (D H H Z r_ m O �1 O O a ((D (D ll y y N Im m P)�.0 o N (IDI Ol C,\O ''i 11 O O i-3 (D m � P W N d\W O (] CD F� B 'd 'd W (D CD V' C 5 01 c+ N N N N N N N N N N N N IV N N N n F-I N f✓ N F F N F-' I- F-' F' F- -' h' F--' F-' I-' F N F- F' F- N F- f✓ F F- H N F-' F- F- w w W w w N N N N N N N N fv N N z � W N F- O \,D co D\ -P- -P- W w w w 0 d F-i n7 F- H C-4 CO t�J C7 L=J m O m Z 11 (D ''d (D H. (D �7 CD td c+ a c+ r• p P) C cF Com] Z O � z O 11 O G o cC+ FO-h cpuq+ O O O E 'Y F- F �d r• 9 m C11 Zl (D H P) z W N N PV 0 PV z x 10 (D (D 11 (D (D C F-' O n LI) x �n -J N f•-' w F•-' �n \.n � O Eo \_n O v~i � � O\ �10 � a OD O o O vi N O1 � O O •9:' N w .;z- �O O O o w o � Ncc) O t 1 1, j- // /Wj MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Adminsitrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk —"I RE: Legislative Change Regarding 3 . 2 Beer Licenses DATE: May 16 , 1986 Introduction Recent legislation provides that a liquor licensee need not obtain a separate beer license if a municipality adopts this language in their city code. Background As a result of the revision conference with the codifiers , an ordinance amending the liquor and beer section of our code is being prepared for Council consideration sometime in June. One policy decision Council will be asked to make is if Shakopee desires to continue licensing separately for the sale of beer and liquor. Arnie ' s Friendly Folks Club is the only business in Shakopee who currently licenses for both 3 . 2 beer and liquor. If Council could give some indication at this time if they concur requiring only one license instead of two, Mr. Theis could save the expense of the bond and license fee which are soon due for the 1986 renewals . The appropriate ordinance will have to be adopted prior to July 1st. Alternatives 1 . Permit sale of 3 . 2 beer under a liquor license. Other liquor licensees may or may not add 3 . 2 beer to their business . 2 . Require a separate license for both 3 . 2 beer sales and liquor sales . Current revenue being generated is $312 . 00/year . Recommendation Alternative No. 1 . Action Recommended Direct staff to prepare the proper ordinance to provide that a liquor licensee need not obtain a separate beer license. JSC/jms rV\� Memo To: Mayor & City Council Members / From: Marilyn M. Remer, Personnel Dept. Re: Termination of Ken Ashfeld's Probation Date: May 15, 1986 Background & Information Effective May 8, 1986 Kenneth Ashfeld, City Engineer, has successfully completed the required six-month probationary period. John Anderson, City Administrator has conducted the job evaluation, whereby Ken 's performance meets the required work standards. Therefore, John Anderson recommends terminating the probationary status of Ken Ashfeld, who shall then abtain status of permanent employee. Action Requested Move to approve terminating the probationary status of Kenneth Ashfeld and replace with permanent status. L 1 MEMO TO: Mayor, Councilmembers FROM: Tom Brownell, Chief of Police RE: Recommend Employee Appointment DATE: May 15 , 1986 INTRODUCTION: David L. Nelson was hired May 2, 1985 as a probationary police officer. BACKGROUND: David L. Nelson has successfully completed a one year probationary period. RECOMMENDATION: Appoint David L. Nelson a full time police officer as recommended by the Shakopee Police Civil Service Commission. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Appoint David L. Nelson a full time police officer as recommended by the Shakopee Police Civil Service Commission. TB:cah I � 6 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk RE: Ord. No. 193 , Reducing Liquor Liability Insurance Requirements to $50 , 000/Person and $100 , 000/Occurrence DATE: May 15 , 1986 Introduction and Background In response to Council request on May 6 , 1986 , the attached ordinance has been prepared by the City Attorney amending the city code by reducing the dram shop insurance requirements from $100/$300 to $50/$100 . �� T Action Reauested Offer Ordinance No. 193 , An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 5 Entitled Liquor, Beer and Wine Licensing and Regulations by Repealing Sub Paragraph A of Subd 1 of Sec 5 . 09 and by Adopting a New Sub Paragraph A of Subd 1 of Sec 5 . 09 and Adopting by Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Sec 5 . 99 , and move its adoption. JSC/jms I ' c. ORDINANCE NO. 193 Fourth Series An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 5 Entitled Liquor, Beer and Wine Licensing and Regulations By Repealing Sub Paragraph A of Subd 1 of Sec 5.09 and by Adopting a New Sub paragraph A of Subd 1 of Sec 5.09 and Adopting by Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Sec 5.99 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION I: Repeal Sub paragraph A of Subd 1 of Sec 5.09 is hereby repealed. SECTION II: New Sub Paragraph A of Subd 1 of Sec 5.09 Adopted as follows: A Evidence of financial responsibility as required by State Law is furnished by filing a liability insurance policy, a certificate of such insurance or a binder for such coverage in the form and in the amount and conditioned all as required by Minnesota Statutes Section 340A.409 Sub 1 (1) in force and effect at the time of filing the license application. SECTION III: Adopted by reference The general provisions and definitions applicable to the entire City Code including the penalty provisions of Chapter 1 and Section 5.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim herein. SECTION IV: When in Force and Effect After the adoption, signing and attestation of this Ordinance, it shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee and shall be in full force and effect on and after the date following such publication. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1986. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Prepared and approved as to form this 19th day-,of �May�_19 6- ci f-t, of q g1<oT)PP_. Minnesota k § 340A.409 INTOXICATING LIQUORS (1) a certificate that there is in effect for the license period an insurance policy or pool providing at least $50,000 of coverage because of bodily injury to any one person in any one occurrence, $100,000 because of bodily injury to two or more persons in any one occurrence, $10,000 because of injury to or destruction of property of others in any one occurrence, $50,000 for loss of means of support of any one person in any one occurrence, and $100,000 for loss of means of support of two or more persons in any one occurrence. An annual aggregate policy limit for dramshop liability of not 12ss than $300,000 per policy year may be included in the policy provisions; (2) a bond of a surety company with minimum coverages as provided in clause (1); (3) a certificate of the state treasurer that the licensee has deposited with the state treasurer$100,000 in cash or securities which may legally be purchased by savings banks or for trust funds having a market value of $100,000; (4) this subdivision does not prohibit an insurer from providing the coverage required by this subdivision in combination with other insurance coverage. Subd. 2. Market assistance.The commissioner of commerce shall advise licensees and municipalities subject to the financial responsibility requirements of subdivision 1 of those persons offering insurance coverage. The commissioner of commerce shall establish a program to assist licensees in obtaining insurance coverage. The program shall include a committee appointed by the commissioner of commerce that is representative of insurance committee members shall represent casualty insurers and carriers and producers, liquor vendors, and the public. No less than one-half of the surplus lines agents or brokers. 's designated representative shalle committee shall review and act The commissioner of commerce or the commissioner serve as an ex officio member of the committee. Th upon all properly executed applications. If the committee finds that it cannot assist in securing insurance coverage, it shall notify the applicant in writing with a full explanation and recommendation for enhancing its ability to secure insurance. The commissioner of commerce shall, if necessary, establish an assigned risk plan pursuant to subdivision 3. Subd. 3. Assigned risk plan. (a) The purpose of the assignedrisk plan is to provide coverage required by subdivision 1 to persons rejected under this subdivision. (b) An insurer who offers liquor liability insurance that refuses to write the coverage required by subdivision 1 shall furnish the applicant with a written notice of refusal. The rejected applicant shall file a copy of the notice of refusal with the commissioner of public safety at the time of application for coverage to the assigned risk plan and the et assistance program. market A written notice of refusal must beprovided to any applicant who has requested only F liquor liability insurance if the insurer chooses to only offer liquor liability insu combination with other types of insurance. rance in A written notice of refusal must be provided by an insurer to any applicant receives an offer of coverage from that insurer that is in excess of thwho e rate charged by the assigned risk plan for similar coverage and risk. A notice is not required if the rate for the coverage offered less is less than 20 percent in excess of the assigned rates, provided that the offered rate is the rate that the insurer has ed with planthe commissioner of commerce if the insurer is required to file its rates with the commission- er. If the insurer is not required to file its rates with the commissioner, the offered rate must be the rate generally charged by the insurer for similar coverage and risk. A notice of refusal is not required to be filed liability insurance in the state. if there is not an insurer offering liquor To be eligible to participate in the assigned risk plan an applicant must apply coverage through the market assistance program. Application to the market assistance program must be made no later than the time of application to the assignedpp y for the market assistance program is unable to secure coverage then verage may be extended by the assigned risk plan. 30 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator -� FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Resolution of Appreciation to Steven Clay DATE: May 15 , 1986 Introduction and Background On May 6 , 1986 Council directed staff to prepare a resolution of appreciation for Steven Clay who resigned from the Ad Hoc Downtown Committee. Recommended Action Offer Resolution No. 2554 , A Resolution of Appreciation to Steven Clay, and move its adoption. JSC/jms RESOLUTION NO. 2554 A RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO STEVEN CLAY WHEREAS , Steve Clay served on the Ad Hoc Downtown Committee, a Sub-Committee of the Industrial Commercial Commission, from March of 1983 until May of 1986 , and WHEREAS, the Ad Hoc Downtown Committee was established to prepare a downtown economic development strategy, and WHEREAS, Steve Clay has unselfishly contributed many hours of service to the City of Shakopee during his three years on the Ad Hoc Downtown Committee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Shakopee City Council on behalf of the residents of Shakopee and on behalf of the Ad Hoc Downtown Committee and the City staff, that the Shakopee City Council does hereby extend to Steven Clay the deep apprecia- tion of the City for his years of civic interest and dedicated service to the community. Adopted n adjourned regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 20th day of May, 1986 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 1986 . City Attorney MEMO TO: Jahn K. Anderson, City Administrator / FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer /' , SUBJECT: 4th Avenue Project DATE: May 14, 1986 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND: The attached Resolution No. 2555, A Resolution Restricting Park- ing on 4th Avenue Between Fillmore Street and Scott Street to Parallel Only must be adopted to expend State Aid Funds on the subject project. REQUESTED ACTION : Move for the adaption of Resolution No. 2555, A Resolution Re- stricting Parking on 4th Avenue Between Fillmore Street and Scott Street to Parallel Only. KA/pmp PARKING RESOLUTION NO. 2555 A Resolution Restricting Parking on Fourth Avenue Between Fillmore Street and Scott Street to Parallel Only WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee has submitted to the Commis- sioner of Transportation the plans and specifications for the improvement of Fourth Avenue from Fillmore Street to Scott Street in the City of Shakopee. WHEREAS, state-aid funds will be expended on the improve- ment of this street, and WHEREAS, the approved state-aid standards as applicable to this project limit and restrict all parking to that which is parallel with the curb . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that said City of Shakopee shall require that parking of all vehicles within the corporate limits on County State-Aid Highway, Fourth Avenue between Fill- more Street and Scott. Street, Project No. 1986-3 be parallel with the curb in accordance with the State-Aid Standards. 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 iS City Attorney f � Councilmember introduced the following resolution, the reading of which was dispensed with by unanimous consent , and moved its adoption: CITY OF SHAKOPEE COUNTY OF SCOTT STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2558 RESOLUTION CALLING PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN RELATING TO MINNESOTA RIVER VALLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 ; THE EXPANSION OF SAID REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA; AND THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NO. 2 THROUGH NO. 6 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council ( the "Council" ) of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota ( the "City" ) , as follows : Section 1 . Public Hearing . At the request of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Shakopee, Minnesota ( the "Authority" ) , this Council shall meet on Tuesday, June 3, 1986, at approximately 7 : 30 p.m. , to hold a public hearing on the following matters : (a) the amendment of the Redevelopment Plan relating to the Author- ity ' s Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Pro- ject No. 1 ( the "Project" ) , (b) the expansion of the area of the Project, and ( c) the amendment of the tax increment financing plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 2 through No. 6 , all pursuant to and in accordance with Minne- sota Statutes, Sections 462 . 411 to 462 . 716 , inclusive, as amended, Minnesota Statutes , Section 273 . 74 , subd. 4, as amended, and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273 . 71 to 273 . 78 , inclusive, as amended. Section 2 . Notice of Hearing ; Filing of Plans . The Clerk is authorized and directed to cause notice of the hearing, substantially in the form attached hereto as Ex- hibit A, to be given as required by law, to place a copy of the proposed amendments on file in the City Clerk ' s office and to make such plans available for inspection by the pub- lic, commencing no later than May 23 , 1986 . Adopted by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, on May 20 , 1986 . The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof : and the following voted against the same : whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk . Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Approved as to form this day of May, 1986. Ci�y Attorney 2 - EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF SHAKOPEE COUNTY OF SCOTT STATE OF MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council ( the "Coun- cil" ) of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, June 3 , 1986 , at a meeting of the Council commencing at approximately 7 : 30 o ' clock p.m. , to be held at the Shakopee City Hall , 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee , Minnesota, relating to the proposed amendment by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Shakopee , Minnesota ( the "Authority" ) , of its Redevelop- ment Plan relating to the Authority ' s Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1 ( the "Project" ) , the expansion of area of the Project, and the modification of the Authority ' s Tax Increment Financing Plans for its Tax Increment Financing District Nos . 2 through 6 within the Project, all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes , Sections 462 . 411 to 462 . 716 , inclusive, as amended, Minnesota Stat- utes, Section 273 . 74 , subd. 4 , as amended, and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273 .71 to 273. 78, inclusive, as amended. A - 1 13b MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk( ,` RE: Shakopee Youth Baseball - Softball Association Gambling License DATE: May 20, 1986 Introduction and Background The Shakopee Youth Baseball-Softball Association is applying to the Gambling Board for a gambling license. They have asked if Council would consider waiving the 30 day waiting period provided by law for municipalities to deny a gambling license. Since the Association complies with the city code requirement for gambling, Council may wish to consider approving the waiver. Alternatives 1. Waive 30 day waiting period. 2. Don't waive waiting period. Recommended Action Move to waive the 30 day waiting period for a gambling license from Minnesota Charitable Gambling Control Board for Shakopee Youth Baseball-Softball Association at 911 East First Avenue. JSC/jms