HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/30/1986 TENTATIVE AGENDA
ADJ .REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JUNE 30, 1986
Mayor Reinke presiding
11 Roll Call at 7 : 00 P .M. - AT SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES MEETING ROOM
1030 East Fourth Avenue
21 Liquor License Renewals tabled 6/10 - memo on table
31 Canterbury Park 2nd Addition - Developers Agreement
41 Joint Meeting with Shakopee Public Utilities Commission - agenda
attached
51 Other Business :
6] Adjourn.
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk`--r--'
RE: Liquor License Renewals
DATE: June 30 , 1986
Introduction and Background
Applications for the following establishments were tabled because
they were not in order:
Weiss Company, Inc.
Valley Liquors, Inc.
Friendly Folks Club, Inc.
The application from Weiss Company, Inc. is now in order.
The application from Valley Liquors, Inc. is now in order.
The application from Friendly Folks Club, Inc. is in order, but
the premises are not in conformance with the City Code
requirements. I spoke with Arnie this morning and he hopes to be
in compliance within a week. He has been advised to close at
12 : 00 midnight, and the Police Department was also notified.
Action Requested
1. Remove from the table the applications of the Weiss Company,
Inc. and Valley Liquors, Inc.
2 . Approve the application and grant an Off Sale intoxicating
liquor license to Weiss Company, Inc. 8522 East Highway 101 .
3 . Approve the application and grant an Off Sale intoxicating
liquor license to Valley Liquors , Inc. 1102 Minnesota Valley
Mall.
JSC/jms
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Coc, City Clerk
RE: Canterbury Park 2nd Addition - Developers Agreement
DATE: June 25 , 1986
Introduction•
The Letter of Credit for the public improvements for Canterbury
Park 2nd Addition is expiring on July 1st. The developer is
requesting permission to provide a new letter of credit in a
lessor amount, as provided by the developers agreement.
Background:
All public improvements (except walkways ) have been constructed
and accepted by the City engineer. A performance/maintenance
bond has been placed on file guaranteeing the improvements for
one year. Upon partial completion of the Plan A improvements and
submission of a maintenance bond for a period of one year, the
City may release a portion of the letter of credit, per the
developers agreement.
The maintenance bond is from the contractor to the developer and
the City of Shakopee and has been approved by the City Attorney.
The City has been routinely reducing letters of credit when work
has been partially completed and guaranteed by a bond--especially
when sidewalks are involved ie - Gary Laurent ' s Minnesota valley
3rd Addition.
Because the cost of the work remaining is only $13 ,755 . 00 , the
developer will be depositing cash with the City rather than a
letter of credit (which is costly to obtain) . The developers
agreement provides for cash or a letter of credit.
Alternatives :
1) Require a new letter of credit for full amount -
$162 , 500 . 00.
2 ) Approve a reduced letter of credit equal to 125% of
cost of remaining improvements.
3 ) Accept cash in a reduced amount equal to 125% of cost
of remaining improvements.
Recommendation:
Alternative No. 3
Requested Action:
Authorize the reduction of the letter of credit to $18 , 912 . 00
Letter of Credit or cash deposit for Canterbury Park 2nd Addition
public improvements upon receipt of a maintenance bond
guaranteeing the work for one year.
AGENDA
Joint City Council/SPUC Meeting
Monday, June 30 , 1986
7 : 00 p.m.
SPUC Building
1 . Call to order.
2 . Additions to the agenda.
3 . Discussion items submitted by Lou and John in advance:
a. The need for a standardized agreement between SPUC and
the City for traffic signal maintenance. Discuss the
flashing amber lights at the pool and the traffic
signals on Hwy. 101. Shakopee contracts with Mn/DOT
(attachment 3a) and then informally drops the
maintenance in SPUC' s lap. We should have some kind of
standard agreement.
b. Implementation of the accounting changes discussed at
our last joint meeting that would provide the City with
a monthly bill. As stated at the last meeting this
should bring in another $7, 000 to $8 , 000 in local
government aid for the City. Once the City has the
inventory of poles and street lights it will also make
it clear which poles are the City' s responsibility when
it' s time to move utilities for street construction,
etc.
C. Draft Ordinance amending the City Code to allow the
City to place delinquent utility bills on the tax rolls
( attachment 3c) .
d. Schedule date for moving of SPUC pole yard.
e. Relocation of annual clean up program dumpster site
from between the SPUC building and the Police
Department to ?
f . City Hall relocation alternatives (attachment 3f) .
g. Review of utility relocation policy (attachment 3g) for
the following projects.
1 . Fourth Avenue East of Shenandoah Drive.
2 . Fourth Avenue from Filmore to Scott Street.
3 . Holmes Street storm sewer lateral project.
h. Review insurance claims from water tower painting
project-car spraying claim and accident claims.
i. Flag and banner installation procedures.
j . Review of Public Improvement Checklist (attachment 3j ) .
4 . Other business.
a. Discussion of utility billing for garbage only.
b.
C.
5 . Adjourn.
Jc,
ORDINANCE NO. , FOURTH SERIES
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE
CHAPTER 3 ENTITLED "MUNICIPAL AND PUBLIC UTILITIES - RULES AND
REGULATIONS, FRANCHISES AND RATES" BY ADDING A PROVISION RELATING TO
DELINQUENT UTILITY RATES AND CHARGES; AND, BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE,
SHAKOPEE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 3.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER
THINGS , CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS .
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS :
SECTION I. Shakopee City Code Chapter 3 is hereby amended by
adding a Section, to read:
SEC. 3. 04 . MUNICIPAL UTILITY SERVICES AND CHARGES A LIEN.
Subd. 1. Payment for all municipal utility (as that
term is defined in City Code, Section 3.01) service and charges
shall be the primary responsibility of the owner of the premises
served and shall be billed to him unless otherwise contracted for
and authorized' in writing by the owner and the tenant, as agent
for the owner , and consented to by the City of Shakopee ,
Minnesota. The City may collect the same in a civil action or,
in the alternative and at the option of the City, as otherwise
provided in this Subdivision.
Subd. 2. Each such account is hereby made a lien upon
the premises served. All such accounts which are more than
forty-five days past due may, when authorized by resolution of
the Council, be certified by the City Clerk of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota, to the County Auditor, and the City Clerk in
so certifying shall specify the amount thereof, the description
of the premises served, and the name of the owner thereof. The
amount so certified shall be extended by the Auditor on the tax
rolls against such premises in the same manner as other taxes,
and collected by the County Treasurer, and paid to the City along
with other taxes.
SECTION II. Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General
Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code
Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 3.99 entitled "Violation
a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as
though repeated verbatim herein.
SECTION III. After the adoption, signing and attestation of this
Ordinance, it shall be published 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, he_ld this day of
19
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
approved as to form this
qday of 1996
1996
'7 -
�6 -
City At rn y
Published in the Shakopee Valley News this ________ day of
19
-2-
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Aide
RE: City Council Chambers Relocation
DATE: June 25, 1986
Introduction•
At the direction of City Council, staff has investigated the
cost of relocating the existing City Council chambers. Staff has
also investigated the projected cost of constructing offices in
the existing Council Chambers . At the joint meeting with
Shakopee Public Utilities (SPUC) , local officials should discuss
the possibility of relocating the Council Chambers to the SPUC
meeting room until such time that a new City Hall can be
constructed.
Background•
With the hiring of additional staff at City Hall, it has
become apparent that our current space is inadequate. It has
therefore become necessary for us to investigate office
relocation/remodeling alternatives utilizing existing space.
Cost estimates for remodeling the upstairs of City Hall range
from $10,000 to $18 , 000 . While this is a valid alternative,
there are several inherent problems such as: 1. Street noise
will be an annoyance no matter how much remodeling is done. 2 .
Access to existing city equipment will be a problem for the
department that is relocated, i.e. copy machine. 3 . Public
access to the relocated department will be difficult due to the
nature of having offices on the second floor ( Stairway) .
This being the case, the City Council suggested that staff
investigate alternative sites to hold Council meetings, with the
thought of putting offices in the existing Council Chambers.
Staff has been in contact with the following institutions or
agencies; Shakopee School District, Citizens State Bank, Shakopee
Public Utilities and First National Bank. The school district
has informed staff that at the present time their school board
meeting room is booked for three nights a week. While classroom
space may be available, they were hesitant to recommend such an
alternative due to the fact that one room could not be guaranteed
for our continued use.
Both the banks contacted do have adequate meeting room
space. However, First National Bank has their room reserved and
would be unable to accommodate our needs. Citizens State Bank
has indicated that their facility could be made available at a
annual cost of $6 , 000 . The City would also be responsible for
carrying liability insurance and property insurance on any
equipment left in the building. Our existing policy would
increase approximately $200 annually under this scenario.
The Shakopee Public Utilities building does have adequate
meeting room space. This building along with the others is
handicapped accessible. It is my understanding that in the past,
City Council meetings have been held in this facility. Mr. Lou
VanHout, Utilities Superintendent has been contacted with our
proposal of relocating the City Council meetings to this
facility. Mr. VanHout did identify one problem with using the
utilities meeting room. That is, at this time there is no
barrier that would discourage the public from roaming around the
utility offices prior to their entrance into the meeting room.
Staff believes this situation could be corrected at a minimal
cost using an expandable fence for example.
The Utilities building would also allow us to set up the
Council Chambers for a potential long term stay. Our new sound
system could be easily moved to the Utilities building. It is
also possible that we could set up the existing Council table in
the Utilities building. Finally, moving the Council Chambers to
the Utilities building would provide access to a copy machine
during meeting and access to storage space that we could use on a
continuing basis during our stay.
The City Building Inspector has estimated that remodeling
the existing Council Chambers into offices and completing some
additional work on the first floor could be easily accomplished
for approximately $7,600. (See attachment #1 Table One for
budget breakdown) . The upstairs of City Hall and the first floor
could be remodeled for under $10,000 . The remodeling plan would
include bare necessities. (See attachment #1 Table Two) With the
proposed improvements staff does not believe that the upstairs
would provide an effective work area. In fact, moving upstairs
would aggravate work conditions that are already undesirable for
most departments.
In light of the fact that the Utilities building is
Municipally owned and it does not appear that City meetings will
interfere with SPUC business, staff would recommend that we
utilize this structure for our Council Chambers until such time
that a new city hall can be completed.
Action Requested:
Discuss with SPUC the pros and cons of moving the City
Council Chambers to the SPUC meeting room and direct staff
accordingly.
Attachment #1
Table One
Remodeling Existing Council Chambers
1. Walls/tape/paint/doors - $5000
2. Electrical - $ 800
3 . Window - $ 800
4. Contingencies - $1000
Total $7 , 600
Table Two
Remodeling Upstairs of City Hall
1. Walls/tape/paint/doors - $3500
2. Wiring and lights - $3000
3 . Telephone/computer - $ 800
4. Drop Ceiling - $1800
S . Contingencies - $ 900
Total $10 , 000
39
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council and
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPDC)
FROM : John K. Anderson , City Administrator
RE: Draft Discussion Paper for Policy Allocating the Cost
of Relocating Utilities During Public Improvement
Projects
DATE : March 25 , 1985
Introduction
This memo is a by-product of a joint Council/SPUC subcommittee
meeting held at SPUC ' s office January 15 , 1985 . The purpose
of that meeting was to clarify comments in an engineering memorandum
dated January 4th regarding the expense of relocating SPUC utility
lines . At the conclusion of the subcommittee meeting the City
Engineer and I were encouraged to outline past utility relocation
examples that illustrated the potential need for a joint City/SPUC
policy clarifying who pays for utility relocations.
Policy Question
The policy question can be stated rather clearly and is , "Who
pays for utility relocations , the public improvement project
or the utility?"
Clarification of SPUC Status
All utility relocation question are effected by the "status"
SPUC has as a utility in the City of Shakopee . It seems as
though SPUC would fall under one of the following three categories :
1 . Statin as a city operated enterprise fund (e . g . sewer fund ) .
In this case, the utilities under the responsibility of
SPUC should be treated by the project as the City would
treat its sewer fund . The treatment should be similar
regardless of the funding sources so that any external
funding might be used to benefit the relocated utilities
equally . This also means that the contingency or reserve
fund philosophies of each of the three utility funds must
be similar so that each is prepared to pay its approriate
share for relocating service lines, etc.
2 . Status as a separate local governmental or quasi-governmental
unit . In this case , Shakopee is like numerous other Minnesota
communities with independent utility commissions . We have
not surveyed these cities but examples range from one extreme
(high city taxes subsidizing a utility) to the other extreme
(unreasonable high utility rates subsidizing normally tax
supported city services) . These distorations are usually
manifestations of a lack of proper cost accounting by the
city and utility involved .
Because SPUC has matched NSP ' s rates and the City ' s 18 . 1
mils is .2 mils from the metro average neither entities
is probably subsidizing the other through undoly high rates-
/taxes with the annual SPDC contribution roughly equivalent
to the rate of Shakopee citizen might expect on their investment
i Va public utility.
3 . Status similar to a large public utility. Like any city
one might choose to survey , Shakopee requires large public
utilities "using" City acquired right-of-way to move their
utilities at the utilities ' expense . We just confirmed
this with Fred Moore ( City of Plymouth) and Glenn Perdue
(attorney) who are drafting a new standard franchise ordinance
for suburban cities belonging to the Suburban Rate Authority
( SRA) for NSP. The draft policy will be similar to the
policy excerpt attached from the SRA' s Standard Minnegasco
Franchise Ordinance recently adopted by the City of Shakopee .
That standard states that the utility shall pay for all
relocation ( copy of the Minnegasco franchise attached ) .
Fred and Glenn also stated that when such a utility has
its own easement then the City pays for utility relocation .
Finally , they indicated that if a City requires relocation
of an overhead line and suggestes that the line be placed
underground ( Shakopee asked SPUC and NSP to estimate placing
lines underground on east Fourth Avenue ) the NSP policy
is to have the City pay the difference in the cost between
an overhead line vs . an underground line less the depreciated
value of the line being relocated.
Example Relocation Situations
The examples listed below deal with an improvement project ' s
impact on existing utilities and how the relocation of those
utilities were funded.
1 . Holmes Street Reconstruction ( 1980-81 )
a. Sanitary sewer relocation - $145 ,430 paid by the sewer
enterprise fund over 10 years through a rate increase.
b. Waterline relocation on 8th Avenue - $ 10 ,460 paid
for by the project ' s ad valorem tax levy.
C. City light poles maintained and operated by SPUC -
$1 ,982 . 30 paid for by the project ' s ad valorem tax
levy . City lighting is provided by SPUC at no cost
and is made up of lights on both SPUC electrical poles
and free standing light poles with the latter being
deemed the property of the City. The Holmes Street
poles were City poles which further complicated who
was responsible for paying for the relocation.
2. Shenandoah Drive ( 1984)
a . Repair and relocation of two private water services
- $980 paid for by the project . This cost wasn ' t
included in the project bid because the services had
not been located by the utility and were not included
in the bid price .
b. Lowered watermain - $23 ,000 paid by the project.
3 . Valley Park Improvements ( 1984)
a. SPUC held pole on project - $130 .25 paid by the utility J�
SPUC which has billed the City . Reimbursement is
on hold until the policy questions are resolved.
When these project examples listed above a,re evaluated under
each of the three different utility status options , the options
provide guidelines in determining whether the utility or the
project should pay for the utility relocations. Before making
a decision on the proper status for SPDC the following discussion
should be studied closely.
Philosophical Arguments*
The arguments for the project paying the cost are: ( 1 ) the expenses
are incurred by the utility because of the project , and ( 2)
the people or government body benefiting by the project should
pay the expenses of moving the utility not the utilities or
its users.
The arguments for the utility paying for the costs are : ( 1 )
it is the utility that receives the benefit of the new poles ,
electrical lines , sewer or water mains, ( they will not always
be new) and thus it becomes an asset to the utility, ( 2) a utility
which is run as an enterprise should reflect its true cost of
doing business and provide for utility relocation in its contingency
or reserve fund , ( 3 ) a utility with status 1 , 2 or 3 above
benefits financially from the use of City R-O-W at no charge
and in turn reciprocate by bearing the financial expense of
relocating their utility when a City requests it for a roadway
project.
Practical Arguments
The arguments for the project paying the cost are : ( 1 ) SPUC
had been under funded because it made the $240 ,000 minimum payment
which exceeds what a private utility would pay a City thru taxes
or franchise fees while keeping rates competitive with NSP ,
( the level of taxes SPUC would pay has never been investigated ) ,
(2) SPUC must be able to compete with NSP particularly in the
industrial park and these costs just make it more difficult ,
( 3) SPUC is concerned about a process that has no financial
*Much of the balance of this memo is from a draft memo Lou ,
Bo and I were working on in December 1982 .
incentive requiring the City to plan public improvements with
an eye to keeping the relocation of utilities at a minimum ,
and (4) SPUC doesn ' t have the customer base like an NSP or Minnegasco
over which to spread the cost of a major relocation.
The arguments for the utility paying the cost are : ( 1 ) the City
is subject to a 5% levy limit (or the Implicit Price Deflator
Index whichever is greater ) and therefore it is important to
use as many financing tools as possible ( eg. enterprise funds ,
grants , and state aid) that are not limited by the 5% and (2)
it is common practice in nearly all cities to require private
utilities (eg. NSP , Bell Telephone, Minnesgasco , etc . to relocate
their utilities , so if Shakopee pays it will make the City less
competitive as a site for new industrial growth ( Scott County
cities have the highest rates in the seven county metro area) .
Common Elements
It can be argued that regardless of whether the City or SPUC
makes the payment it is our citizens who will pay . This is
true to a point, but the group of citizens who pay varies depending
upon whether they are paying thru their sewer bill , water bill ,
electric bill or general taxes. In any given improvement project
one can ask which of the above groups benefits the most from
a utility relocation and therefore should pay . The sewer system
serves the urban area of Shakopee and if a given utility relocation
results in a reconstructed or new line , who has benefited and
who should pay? Doesn ' t payment by sewer users ultimately fit
better than tax payers who may live in rural Shakopee and never
use the sewer? This example applies equally well to water users
and to a lesser degree to electrical users.
A second common element is the fact that SPUC ' s contribution
does not float based upon gross sales , profits , etc. , but rather
has a bottom limit of $240 ,000. This means that SPUC will have
to raise rates if more of a project ' s utility relocation costs
are paid by SPUC because the City will not receive less than
$240 ,000. The flip side of this second common element is that
the City ' s tax rate will be raised if utility relocation costs
are paid by the project. Both growth and replacement cost put
pressure on SPUC rates and City taxes . There is little the
City can do to encourage SPUC to keep its rates at the norm
( eg . water rates are perhaps low right now) to increase the
likelihood of SPUC transfers to the City exceeding the $240 ,000
minimum. Similarly , there is little SPUC can do to encourage
the City to tax at the norm to reduce the City reliance on an
ever growing SPUC transfer . If cost allocation-s are out of
line however, it could stop needed expansion/ replacement for
roadways or utilities in their tracks . A policy should seek
to insure one utility won ' t thrive at the expense of another .
A third common element is that the City and SPUC cannot , as
a practical matter , sue one another to resolve issues about
who should pay certain project costs , a possibility that exists
between say SPUC and Scott County or the City and Bell Telephone.
Alternatives
1 . Maintain the current practice which is to require the project
to finance the relocation of all City utility lines .
Pro - ( 1 ) This alternative minimizes the financial impact
on all City utilities (sewer, water , electric and perhaps
storm sewer in the near future) and keeps their rates low.
For water and electric this presumably means a larger transfer
annually to the general fund . ( 2) It fits a rationale
that says the project causes a change pays .
Con - ( 1 ) This places all project costs on the roadway
improvements and its related funding sources . Clearly
this could kill a much needed roadway project because of
utility relocation costs . (2) A utility can pick up new
assets at no expense for fully depreciated facilities and
for which a replacement reserve was created through a depre-
ciation allowance .
2 . Change to a practice that has the utility paying for relocation
costs.
Pro - ( 1 ) This alternative minimizes the financial impact
on street projects and keeps direct service taxing lower.
(2) It ignors the concept that the project causing need
for relocation should pay .
Con - ( 1 ) This could result in a roadway project disrupting
the capital financing of a utility conveivably causing
large politically unacceptable rates increases . ( 2 ) This
may assume that a City utility ( sewer , water , electric )
could spread its relocation expenses over a larger geographic
group of rate payers than those located in the City which
is not the case.
3 . Change to a practice that has the utility paying for the
portion of any relocation costs that result in upgrading
its assets .
Pro - ( 1 ) Alternative No . 3 cannot stand alone because
it assumes alternative No. 1 is the practice and modifies
that practice to recognize Con #2 under alternative No . 1 .
( 2) It is a rationale that can be widely understood and
accepted.
Con - ( 1 ) This could require fairly detailed and difficult
computation unless the assets upgraded are computed on
pre-established criteria tied to "aging" , testing or some
other material measures.
4 . Change to a practice that has the project paying for the
cost of relocating utilities when the financing for the
project is not thru ad valorem taxes or assessments, but
grants . T. I.F. , State aid , etc .
Pro - ( 1 ) This alternative simply acknowledges that if
funding from sources outside of the cities utility rate
or taxing base can be secured all City utilities should
benefit equally.
Con - ( 1 ) This alternative taken by itself doesn ' t address
the cons listed in alternative No . 1 above .
5 . Arrive at a mutually agreed upon sharing of utility relocation
costs.
Pro - ( 1 ) This alternative assumes that consensus can be
reached that may or may not reflect a resolution of the
question of SPUC status ( 1 , 2 or 3 above ) that would provide
the consistant philosophical under for a consistant
policy on allocating the relocation cost for utilities.
Con - ( 1 ) This alternative could result in an agreement
without a firm philosophical approach that will be insufficient
to provide ready policy answers to yet undiscovered issues
(examples) regarding utility relocation. That is , it could
turn out to be a bandaid type of policy.
Suggested Alternative
An approach that seems to have possibilities is a combination
of alternatives 2 and 5 with both the City and SPUC reviewing
all project drawings to insure utility relocations are minimized .
Under #2 the utility would always pay for relocation up to an
agreed upon amount normally covered by contingencies or reserves
$25 ,000-$1001000 . Any project requiring more than the agreed
upon $25 ,0004100 ,000 would require a funding agreement between
the Council and SPUC. Finally , anytime the City has non-tax
financing the non-tax financing would be equally shared by all
utilities to the extent permitted under law.
JKA/jms ���
� �- W N �--' F'• c'1 a• '
n !7-1
rDa0 Crw cr w
oaro . . .
r+ wMco c+ wr* ro
ooao (D
M a K a C+
n H. n CIS H• CO H• ro Cn n c+ ,- + c
oHCnnH. (!) rD W N . n (D H r) � C-) En rD H• c+ 'i roc+ roc+ c0+ � c+ w 'D (D i �r
O M ro H• CH.+ ro C O (D M G w b O c* (D c+ H• (D H• _ H• r. H•
u r_ c+ c+ C H. _ I✓ C i c+ 0 C w n cG O N N n 0 n 0 H. x � r+ () r+
p c+ n c< cC n H. d d O c+ co �i H. O M O c+ O (D rD c+ rD
O w H• (D Fi n H• ro w O r,. r) M w N £ c W 0 0 H.'0 n O cn cr
w (D m 0) rn Cn :3 � •1 :5a H• = C :3 ::5 (D H• 23O fD o n
K N (D N N a (D << N F (J4 n (D w c F- c+ lD n O w n O 11 "Y O (D G O cr t
O lD !D lD N M n c+'0 a H• a m O a F, n rD F' 'i n M n � r7 C
H• H• n Q n 0 O (D 1-i (D CD O M w •1 n w F" w O a H• w (D H• 'i ro H. r• Cf) r) o
::5 En '
(n c+ c+ c+ c+m m m n r w G c+ (D n ::5 E a(D 'i o c+ 0 r_ laD 1_3' 3
c+ In O c+ H• P. M• m O a P. CD P. r c+ P. r c+ N•cG
w w c+ m a (D 3 c+ "i c+ c+ c
N O. o (D (D (D � (D (D (D li 10
O n r) o n m n M H. H. (D H' z CL :3, m r) :3c w +'0 N -1 £ F � � w cn �
0 0 0 0 C W
+ x• M O cr rn a 0 CC/) O O H. m
74 n z 5 5 5 F ::s H• c+ 10 � G ''J F- c (D n c+ (D
o (b
mm m +I F c+ w c= - c+ rD O H•
£ O $_; G r_ w O O P. O c+ n n c+ w M w O< C+ r) c+ N. r- O ((D D
ti n N F-' N F-' � O c+ O £ co O C3 H. O H
CD N '-i c< E � v`i w H. H Cn � a a (D< S w (aD N
C c+ c+ c+ c+ c+ E3 0 a
ro li w w w w O ::r n (D c+ O• M ro N .i z EEn (3D ((D C N O H• c'
r^ -t � � =S ::sC+ w aa = H. G .o (D F. r- c+ w c+ a Ul c+
n w r i M O
c+ c+ c+ c+ O H• " (D 0 -1 G K H C!) (] N C) �+ w
() R° R° < c< 10 O "i w c+ rr w w 3 O m w H
(D i (D cn 'i c+ w O i cG n c+ 5 H. � ry C N H. n
n co (D Ly c+ H• (D p (D
• n Kn c+ a
H• H• ro xn 'i O d x>
ci- n H �(D Pc+ '7 .S < Is C
n ( c< � O10 () b O
n (D I Oc+ W < 3 O
n (D O c+ O C C c< CD Fl (D d
c+ (n w O (D y N (D
O z z ((D c+ (<D I `m
i n n 10 B N W N CD c�+ n N• ::s
a En CD z K o CD �' :3 cn �+ C
• N CD c+ c+ (D Z 2 O E CA
aC+ :5
nn
X x b X C+ ro
X c< n C 0
N H d
D
H
x-- n r Cn Cn O
a x v as x x x X � HC+ r= n
� (D �) 00
3
H n
CA H
Iv W Z RO pi b H
a X a 9 X F W. cil �
c+ ci+ x
P. ra
n o
ro
H 1
Fo •1ron tiro
N n w c W.
n a
�ot✓ mac+ O
c< H• F- < d
X X X X X +~.. n 3
c+ C�
F'• -�
CD a
En
ro
� -
� ron
owcIl.
v & n
H• F c< y
x X X F H' v,
X X C+
O
U)
ORO w b H
w H• F"
n X 9 9 a x X x X N (D r• n
�O Y c+
H•
(D
H y
o w :3 w
:3C+ nx
x a > a X X x X (D 'S
M
N �
�O (D
7
r+
J 0 co �1 0� H• C.*1 Y
w £ a N A. n CY w c+ m tad ^ b CD w C) A C7 w cr O a b w A C) N =r N
�+ iD =' +'7 N m C(�4 b ° a, °c M b H. m w w °
N N c+ r c... H n Cf) c+ 'S o W. n m m �
£ c+ c+ lD 3 2 CI) C7 C7 U) A w F C7 �D ((D � :
H. .S (D O 'G H. H. "d " m � n H. O n O O b "5 O 'S c+ H• �• A w x t
r• A (D c+ c+ C (D (D A H• "S H. H. G r• G < 'S Q' cr H.
n Q9 "i 'C3 c.+ cC c< C') w ^(D m " P• H' : n n =S w c+ 'S 'S H• H• N
H. O m 3 i �• � (D c+ O A T' F' O (D (D F F' D c+ D
p• O z m m m m H• w O N £ +S w :� H• F' ::s H. H• w
c+ (D +S t 00 n (D (D (D A Cr cG H• C w w H• O. 5 I N £ O N w c+ c+ c+ (7, cr a t
H• c+ H• Z F F� H F' H. m F "S c+ :3 O (D A w O c+ H cC cG O (D
e £ :� n £ 'i (D (D (D (D t✓ Cr a H• (D Q4 '0 (D O c+ H• (D cG 10
(D N O \'S n A n n H. (D m :3 11 c+ c` 3 (D +h O CO ^i "i c+ A D
m c+ �5' (n w k+ c+ c+ c+ c+ r o oa w Cn H• n 'S (D V m m m to
:� (D "C) m m m m cG c+ ;' m G w c+ `'G ^U b .3 a z
c n 'D O i Q4 i n Cl) c+ O O O U w
li
CD O 'wi (� (D (D (D (D (D m (D n b A C (D "i H• O CD i
£ T7
H. CS :33 c+ �' S H m w (D w O c+ H• c+ C+ m r
+. r H•n n Q4 CA G n (D (D P• I' O O z "i H• 0 :3, c+ O
N C) w Q4 H• H• H• H• p. O o. m H• F t3 n Gq N O (D cG H• F c =
h� x
c-11 (DO n G (D A H G H• m n
A (D (D (D (D .�m c+ � Z c+ '� c+ 'S m c+ 3,
O H• (D lD N (D G O c+ H• i y r• O c. N O c'
(D p, H• +y `i 'i S 'i F tS N O O G w H•
E O c+ O H- It w I A :3 '1 F £ M n �l
A C7 b 0 7 R° R° (D ~'"d r• 'S ((D w a b O +h o
cA+ C o d a 0 Cl) c+b £ O :5 (D C'• w o 's w < i
O < H• b w w m Oq A O O It w � (D
i n (D n c+ r £ 'S c+ lD (D m K cG c+ co n R R O x
g
H. R O cG n � (D (D a ^ H• H.
F U) w +�'
H• H' (D � O O S a < 8 CT O w N
.�w o H• r• G C) H• b O
(D :C a o o b a c+ (D a c. a oa
R• H. m 'i :1 ::s 'i w 'd H.OU w 11 �)
F•-'- .� ¢1 A A (D =SO A ''S O m w (D 'i w
O ~ w c,. IS K w 10 m < fD N c+ P• H• G m m N
N (D cl <
(7 A O m m 'S R° (D c+"0 O H w Fl-
�h N
rn o fD a (D � �- �
� H• O c+ z c* . � a o 0a
a IV
c s X m x x :1 F 0
ax
`.� (n c
a x x x a x x x x "0 � �
3
H n
c+ r: O
r• t✓ H• (D C) .O
-1
9 X X x a X X x X F✓ P. c+ i b
r• n < r- C-)
H• C n
(D -1 ;r,
cn 7 O
< C
X X X X X X r A 3
c.+
H. ti
(D
m
1 ';t C)
J w H• [�
A c+ n
H•
+D
0)
O w C H
:3 :c A Cr
a X a x x X N((DD +~•• n
�O S c+
H•
(D
m
Z E H �-3
o w :5 w ^
X a x X
m
N �
`p (D
fi
r
C\ \-n W ti
a
n w m (D an vw a o 0, w w "0 C+ H• w 10 CYw w a
ro N . . . . . o F✓ O cF ro N o a C) C w m ? ((D `� 'q
�o m
E Hn (n 0 o z (nnncn I £ HMW a 04 K ° ro Hdorn a ° GO O "d Id O En
H• M O '-0 m N H• H• � h'< O<< m O O O m K M C< `< ro c+ h C7 d O (D O ,
F. r C+ C+ c.. C+ < H• H ,4 O K H•(D H• O K N
o � r r n w n (D �3' o n CD (D R° o w m w n O n Cn (D O w K a w ci
p n H• C+ O n O O "d K n C+ a o (D a O 'd m (D o (D n C
Cn H• a O o m m m m C+ Cl) a C C m (D a (D (D G = w r•n O K CD c+ u
d r w � a C) (D (D CD (D b � � n m 10C+ m cr a o n K O cr C+ C+ O
c+ a f--' F- F-' F•-' D r n n H- (D O C< m O n * w ItH• H.
n
+ w n K (D CD (D (D a n O r• C+ 10 C+ K H• C+ K O a
N
Fl. (D K CD
0 ca K o n A C .:
:TO E w C+ C+ C+ C+ H• C) � O H• n C+ * O C+ma K C+ (D'O O ro \ m m m m =S r OG C C+ C+ m h am * K C<'1:1 CD O Cn O "
G KK K C+ co Ca H. C+ o � C< N CD (D (D K < yV roO
v O w K o (D w O m K C) (D m
m N a ra R. a 10 G H• H. m K O O(D C+ H. B KN
H. n H• 3 3 K o ro o N K c+ (D w C+ F 'o H. S (D Cn I C+ C,
o w z K K K K w C) K 7' w (7 =r 'o a O < ro o (D (D
M QC 10C+ (D O O O h K O N F c+K (D K c+ C+ i
(D ro o O < £ K E M N < K w H•C+ O ID 1
w K R P K _- (D w n (D O m < a.
a O O a C+ Cn w a m o w(D C+ (D w C+
< < o n m H. F-j .. (D 1-d " z H. o ::s w a ::5 H•
H
(D H• K H. b m a. K r w a < (D w O a"t (D a O
K :3 C+ r= n C) (D m o K " o �
N C+oa a << n (n N n H• Cn a a aro m C+ro
H. (D o h b- �5 (D K K
C_.. m ro A C) F c w H• C=' O m -10 C+ O [1)
N N :3, K o o (D O K C+ n c+ 10F.0 O n
O H. B w O o o n H. O4 H. (D CD o(D (D >b
(D t✓ n C) c+ o (D (D m < C) n OR(D B N
C a m a G m C+ m C+ H. o m a o a
a `+ w w m a a y � �m a C+ b
`+ oa oR w � ~' a oar o
�_..
K O a w n HF -•'C+ N r_U
o' K o C+w ? w
H• p K (D r"
X � x x X X C+ o � o nn
4=1
C)
o
r p
• H 2
H �]
OEcn cno
a xx D x a X X a XX > > a N � w ", 7~
M0 00
3
' H n
Cf) H
N) 9) c R' w �d 0 �
a XX D X a X X X a X X a a s nH. e n (D z 0
H. n '< r C7
C+ Cly
H' r D
(D H
p7 n o
b
N o w e H D
C+ 0
H• C)
C+
H• Z
(D a
m
z '-j 'v no
o w c H• C,
a cr cl+
H• �+C< n
tV C n
�O c+
(D
m
O w G 1
a XX a x a xx X a Xx D
N O H• !�
�O K C+
H•
(D
m
2 � H-4 3
a x a x a XX X a xx D aD 0 � x w
(D K
K (D
N a
�p
7
C+
f .J iv N N N
O OZ)
G P�
In 3 Cr w m LTJ +-+ V d aG z C] c+ y > p z Q W W o v O £ P)bto
O O (D m OGC
G G G K K a O H h K +-7 a K 0 E A p�
G w z E n m O (D 9 c+ c+ (D w c+ 9 (D c+ w
n R � 'd K G (D (D A - K A x cA+ K G 'b A c< `C a F- c< c< c< n M C/] a G c+ Jy
H. (D F c+ � m A A O (D O r• K (D r• G r• w b K (D (D G
F' cG c< n w (D c+ c+ G (D Ft K (D m (D n Cn G c+ Cr C) CO !- A (7 (D G
O G K H. m k c+ O - X c+'C1 O O 10 04 F'' O H. •b \r• (7 A (J
CY K (D cl o a C+ rn o K lD K w G +D c+ D ,
c< a m O z a K A A A w K G C] A : ?cG c Cn Id crcn C O
G m
(D C+ m 9 G G '0 (D O G c+ (D w A ' O +
'V K r• c+ K A c+ K x G c+ O a E H. G w m m n r• w (D t'
K m 9 K m CS c+ r• O (D c+ H. K W E✓ c+ a c+ c+ (D M a (D +
o w (D c+1< H. o A A K o " K K O w w m
(D K (D c+ K Cf) G (D c+ A K A c+ "� h v G �j .() 1
A (D 9 'TJ O a H. c+ O R c+ (D b w a N _3 `J •i
c+•b o m (D r• a K m 10 v w r
w -0 m CZ (D QO G x C r K cn F c+ ci
9 K w (D (D A r• a A lD (D K O r• (D (D m
a (D `< E O c* O < CY (D O A G (D K c+ < c+ t.
B a a (D G H. G (D '< N G G A r• (D D
K (D K G c+ G r• c+ c+ (D c+ K (D p A .f
W G E 04 K b C K r• w r O (D E C+
G c+ w w C+ K (D w O G < F-+ (D r• O
CL`-' m c+ A A O O K A G a r• C4 w a O G
w (D O c+ c (D c+ G O c+ 3
m C G K G m A (D a m c7 A 04 r• (D cr
G O r• a O A << O G m cG
CT G c+ G G c+ C+ CY :5 cr 04
3 A W C] A c< c+ O c< T1 c+ r• c+ C]
H- _V K r• c+ K a K K a c+ O P-
c+c+ (D C< �+ m �d w a 0 A o w m o C+ x
c+ K c< a K A 9 H. O c_.. A c+cC
(D m O c+ K c+ G (D c+ w ::31 0
a c_.. O << I A m G (D m `d
P) c< (D K c+ a r• c+ 171
c+ G A K w tTJ
O a C+ "C>
c
Iv
x x X x x X z0 :cW r
d C) n
N K C] r-• 0
I10 H C7
� z
H H
0 < co (n O
x X x X X X X X N G w
-4 (+ 0 0
rvw cR° w ro � �
X xx X X x x X x A ° C' ` 0 z0
r• H. C+ fD n "�j
r• A c< r cn
c+ CD x
r• C" a
N 'C
m "00
•n
N � w G �• .ti
Cr c+ D
c< r• F c<
?C X X X X X X x r, �.. � C7
r• A
C+ s
(D 3
En
ro
z '-d C)
O w G r•
G A c+
X X X X X X X X r• ~�
N W. A
c+
f,.
(D
m
ftj 13
0 n G� '1
X X x X X X X X X w r• FJ
t- c+ r-� r•
N (D r• A
�O K c+
Fl,
(D
m
z � r-iy
x X x X X x X x o w :3 -,
a c+ A x
F K (D
N B
\0 (D
Cr
O ANO 1 corCYN r• �d
n b b CA n c+ 'd n w a 0 a• > 'b O M 0 v w O n M cn 0 n m d
O C w b r• 'i 'i O � a + O r• 0 It M (D • • • £ ] w c+ O ?r (D (D •..
C °< C c+ C (D G Cl 0 0 9 0 O 3 w n w z w
N n << b O 'i r• t7 d w O c b r• 'i H tS r• M n .o N r.
0 r• (D x w 0 M c+ (D (D 'i 0 G c'+ (� �'•
r• n :5w n i r• (D r• N £ (D c+ n O M co w (D r. 'i (D (D lD '
F✓ c+ in, H £ w F cf 0 0 z n Cl) w c+TS w c+r_I. H. O e n C/) 0 c+ w 'i 5 d w
�:r O (D w c-+ c+ �:s F O r• ''d H. (D w O (D Z3 F O r• '0 r• O r• N (D O n c+
^fD Io 'i c+ c+ C < a c< 0 a 0 P) c+ r N 'i (D (D c+ (D
w c+ (D O r• n O (D I c< n (D 3 (D a c+ F (D I c< n r• a (n r• c+ a O to
It (n 'i � M Q4 M (� 'i O (D 9 0 & (D c+ F•-' (D
C r• a O C] (n 'i Z O 'i .0 (D a O n r• 'i c< 'i cr r
n O i t7 O E b 'i r• n Oc+ M C N r• ::sO (D (n b 'i N (D
C4 (D M w G N M C) C v to w c+ M 0 z (n 'i (D Cr (D
rD
r• m w c+ t7 N M O ^b M G � w r• -c< 'i Cf) N
O 1 w O F 0 0 1 0 0 �10 "i (D It 0 w m 0 w (D 3 O
< (D H 04 (n 'i H. N 'i 'i H. :5 O O W. w 'i i H. O 'S c+ n l) M F3 '
r• !- Z (D (n n C (D (D F✓ (D c_,. c+ c+ (D (D F' 2i c+ 0 r• N dv U w D
c+ a c+ (D N c+ : 'i a (D H. (D .'i- n 'i = c+ UI c+ r• Cn f✓ c+ n
(D r• m (D ::r r• n 0 w 0 (D n n O N O c< < (D (> T
a O O or N O (D O (D (D H.<< c+ Co ^ (D (D < c< c+ (D (+
O < 9 a w (n (n M (n (D ) 0 00 0, M �
M w w T7 ::5 O r• a O S w :5 w 0 (D c+ c+ w w c+
to b 'i c+ O �:s (D r- (D M a 10 w H. Fl c< �r M : H.
E U) b O c+04 () :3 0 c+ b F- :5 w H. M a C)
w (D i (',• 'i H. N c+ (D (D w i c+ c+ n (D
c+cn 0 0 0 0 cr w H. 'i C O a 0 0 K w It
(D (n < () F (D c< 'K 3 'd c+ < (D B G :� (D
'i 3 r• c-F H F' (D c+ £ 7• (D c+ (D c+ = O a <
(D •s c+ n ::s (D 0 0 a (D (D O 0 £ H. x
n >^ O r•04 c+ O 'i 'i 'i c+ r• :3 CD (D D
c+ a r• c+ r• M X F'• t7 r• c+ N 'd E •x
N i 0 "a 00 Q4 Fw- (D W 04 r• n a 'U
cr cin w a `+ o ~ o
ra
F'- r• O b
N a
Q4 O
X X X 03 F� cw+ ti O
;D <) c
i 3 Ox
N H d
H "
- s
H
x X X X a X X x 9 x X x (U p) 'rl )
F✓ `+ r- O O
c< 'D n 77 "1
' H 7
cn til
IVN caw Cl)
trnr+ c zo
X x x X 9 X x a XX X wF+ r• (D n ,i
+1 CC x
r• H y
N H X
..d
H
N) :3 w G r b
X �C X X X X x F-' r• r''
(,• () t,)
c+ y
r• z
(D
CA
ro
O w c C+
IUr• n
cn
"0 c+
H.
(D
to
^_ R. '-7
O w C H
9 X x a XX X w r• F-
(D r• n
'i c+
F"
(D
N
a x x x a x X x z C+ x n
fD 'i v
-Cr"'i (D
N 3
C
z
C+
� w
* * d O w Q w 'C] 0 C'
0 H. cn O
a C+ m z
M c+ r• C: K 3 ccnn 0 y h I. .. .
w r• cn w M cn r• CD rD
n C cn c+ FJ + (D
O c+ m N (D �3 w D c+ iD
G M N c+ a O cn
b F 0 C w m 10 CTI
r• r N 3 c+ cn c+ (D 1
F-' C) a b cn cn '
N cn (D
r• w £ (D c+ cn O i
0 r3
H. c+ w cn (D 3 0
r• b c+ (D c+ 3 cn b b w -
c+ i �3' a rn (D O M
r O 3 O +' (D rn
(D t- c+ c+ It H. n
a << ro m 0 O �+ '
b M 0Y O c+ Fl O
y C4 c.. 0 cn
O F✓ (D £ lD
C-.. W 'U () b r• c+
0 y O O � H. Cn
C+ w .. > 10 x
(D a (D n f1�
11 0
x
ci-
w
-d
r
O O
& r-.. z0 � cn C.
(D (D X n S In .tl H
C) C)
r• c+ SD c)
cn i - O
0 W N H O
H
rn �5 H
P, O �j :t•
(D c+ 1
CL t� t1
10 �
�+ x x x x -P" Ocn rn
0 0 Qw � n
O N '< cD C7 O O
(D H C)
(aD a Cn H
R, �C to W -3
0 NCwCD
i O' cc-+ C �O
w (aD x X X x r• F' r (D C) z O
-p- '2 F✓ H. c+ "S
3 r• n �C cn
C+
r• H. W X
(D
O (0D En C7 O
c.. cn •U
0 C+ O 1-1
w N 0 w C H. '0 >
O \O F n rr c+ O
c+ X X x X F, r„ < d
cw+ H. 0 s
c+
N O �3
Gn (n
O
ofl) CH, `"
a 0 Q c+
x x r �' 13
F F r• Cl)
N W. 0
�p c*
r•
(D
N
o w c r+
0 :z 0
X X
r• F✓
N (D r• n
r•
(D
En
z � l-ia
x x � Q+ nx
m �s
~t rn
N 3
(D
AGRI-i NUTRITION SERVICES, INC.
1240 East Third Avenue,Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 ='
Phone:
(612)445-7001 Office
(612)445-2880 Home
June 10, 1986
Mayor Eldon Reinke
2569 Hauer Trl.
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Eldon:
RE: "Little Gopher" Baseball Invitational (7/3-4-5-6/86)
For the past 3 years the 13-14-15-16 year old boys baseball teams have co-hosted
with the Minnesota "Little Gophers" a baseball invitational at Tapha Park over the
July 4th weekend. In 1985 20 teams participated - 16 from other cities in Minnesota
2 from Shakopee and 2 from Canada -and played 110 games with approximately 300 boys.
At noon on July 4th we have opening ceremonies at the park introducing each team. The
mayor or- his representative has been an integral part of the ceremonies.
Can we count on you or your representative being at Tapha Park at 11:45 on July 4th
again this year to give the welcome?
Eldon, please let me know as soon as possible so we can make our plans. Call me at
445-7001 or 445-2880.
Thanks in advance for your participation.
Sincer'ely y rs
aihl
G
tZ`�NN�Tq
,� do Minnesota 3 a
a Department of Transportation
District 5
2055 No. Lilac Drive t
OF TaP Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
(612)Egg-2M61
593-8543
June 16, 1986
Mr. John K. Anderson, Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
n : n
. .
c 7005 (T.H. 101) Signal Agreements
l,
Dear Mr. Anderson:
I received your letter of June 13 relating to signal agreements with the city
of Shakopee. You state in your letter that signal agreements are with the
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission.
I am including with this letter, one of our signal agreements (Agreement No.
58651 — T.H. 101 at T.H. 169 in Shakopee) . This agreement (as well as all
others in Shakopee) , are quite clearly with the City of Shakopee. These agree—
ments specify that the "City of Shakopee" is responsible for "maintaining the
streetlight luminaire, lamp and ballast, and shall relamp, clean and paint the
signals at its cost and expense."
We do not, and will not, write signal agreements with city subdivisions such
as Utility Commissions or Road Departments, or with any non—city or county
government. If the City of Shakopee desires, by agreement or other means, to
have this work performed by an internal commission or outside party, it is
within your discretion to do so. However, as partner in the agreement, the
responsibility to see that such work is performed properly lies with the City
of Shakopee. For reason of legal clarity, future correspondence relating to
such agreements will continue to be sent to the "City of Shakopee" for action
as deemed proper by the city.
If you have any questions or comments, please call our office.
Sincerely,
Charles J. Hudrlik, P.E.
District Signal Engineer
Enclosure:
CJH:pn
cc: Ken Ashfeld — City of Shakopee
An Equal Opportunity Employer
HINIU;SOTA ,TRANSPOR'T'ATION DEPARTMENT i
TRAFFIC CO11TROL SIGIZAL
AGREE11ENT No. 58651
BETWEEN
THE STATE OF MIMMSOTA, DiEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND-
THE
ND-THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, J�IYI-MOTA
FOR
Revision of the Traffic Control Signal at the intersections of Trunk Highway
1 No. 169 and Trtuzk Hirhwav�No. 101 (Holmes and First Streets) and of Triuzk
Highway No. 101 (First Street) and Lewis Street.
S.P. 7009-42 (T.Ii.169) and
7oo5-43 (T.H.101)
Prepared by Traffic Engineering
IM)EX 1`I'i:M ALILT. F.Y. FUI'iD
ESTIRATED AMOUNT RECEIVABLE: ANOUN'T ENCUITTEIRED
City of Shakorce 416,430.00 None
Otherwise covered
THIS AGREEI•' NT made and entered into by and between the State of
Minnesota, Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the
"State", and the City of Shakopee; hereinafter referred to as the "City",
11ITI4ESSETII:
WHEREAS, it is considered mutually desirable to revise the existing
traffic control signal at the intersections of Trunk Highway No. 169 and Trunk
Highway No. 101 (Holmes and First Street) and of TrurJ-.. Highway No. 101 (First
Street) and Lewis Street in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City and State will participate in the cost, maintenance
and operation of said traffic control signal with street light revisions as
hereinafter set forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGRtED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The State shall prepare the necessary plans, specifications and
proposals and shall perform the engineering and inspectio: required to complete
the items of work hereinafter set forth. Such work as described immediately
above shall constitute "Engineering and Inspection" and shall be so referred
to hereinafter.
2. The contract cost of the work or, if the work is not contracted,
the cost of all labor, materials, and equipment rental required to complete
the work, except the cost of providing the power supply to the service pole,
shall constitute the actual "Construction .Cost" and shall be so referred to
hereinafter.
3. The State shall revise or cause the revision of the existing
traffic control signals in accordance with the plan and- specifications for State
Projects 7009-42 and 7005-43 as follows:
a. Trunk Highway 169 and 101 (Holmes and First Street) - Provide
control cabinet and equipment$changeable message and static signs, mast arm
58651
1 poles, signal indications, detection, interconnection and related work.
Estimated Construction Cost 850,000. State's share 75 percent. City's
share 25 percent.
b. Trunk Highway No. 101 and Lewis Street - Provide control
equipment, interconnect cable, detection and related work. Estimated
Construction Cost 86,000. State's shard 50 percent. City's share 50 percent.
4. The State shall install or cause the installation of overhead
sign panels and shall maintain said sign panels all at no cost to the City.
5. Upon completion of the work provided for in paragraph 3 hereof,
the City shall pay the State its share of the actual Construction Cost plus
six percent (6%) of such share as its share of the cost of Engineering and
Inspection. The State shall pay any remaining cost.
6. The City shall install or cause the installation of an adequate
electrical poorer supply to the service pads ot pales including any necessary
extensions of power lines, and upon completion of said traffic control signal
revisions and chzxngeable message and static signs installation shall provide
necessary electrical poorer for their operation at the cost and expense of
the City.
7. Upon completion of the work contemplated in paragraph 3 hereof,
the State shall maintain and keep in repair the street light pole with signal
indications, changeable message and static signs and the traffic signals except
for relamping, cleaning and painting; at its cost and expense; and the City shall
maintain the street light luminaire, lamp and ballast and shall relarip, clean
and paint the signals at its cost and expense.
8 Any and all persons engaged in the aforesaid work. to be performed
by the State shall not be considered employees of the City and any and all
claims that may or might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act of this State on
58651
-2-
behalf of said employees while so engaged, and any and all claims made by any
third party as a consequence- of any act or omission on the part of said
employees while so engaged on any of the work contemplated herein shall not
be the obligation and responsibility of the City. The State shall not be
responsible under the Worker's Compensation Act for any e:inloyees of. the City.
9. All timing of all traffic control signals provided for herein
shall be determined by the State, through its Commissioner of Transportation,
and no changes shall be made therein except math the approval of the State.
10. Upon execution by the City and State this agreement shall
supersede and terminate Agreement No. 55894 between the parties dated
September 8, 1968.
58651
_3_
RESOLUTION
BE IT Ri SOLVED that the City of Shakopee enter into ah agreement with
the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, for the following purposes,
to wit:
To revise the existing traffic control signal and street lights
at the intersections of Trunk Highway No. 169 and Trunk Highway
No. 101 (I.olmes and First Streets) and of Trunk Highway No. 101
(First Street) and Lewis Street in accordance with the terms and
conditions set forth and contained in Agreement No. 58651, a
copy of which was before the Council.
BE IT FURTHER PMOLVED that the proper City officers hereby are
authorized to execute such agreement, and thereby assume for and on behalf
of the City all of the contractual obligations contained therein.
CERTMICATIO t
Statb of I•,innesota
County of Scott
City of Shakopee
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct
copy of resolution presented to and adopted by the Council of the City of
Shakopee t a duly authorized meeting thereof. held on the 7 e
day of , a , 1977, as shown by the minutes of said meeting in lily
possession.� /
C' Clerl ltdministrator
(Seal)
CITY OF SHh.l;0p),E,
APPROVED AS TO FOZ.1:
By
1aMayor
ity Itctor' nCy (City Seal)) .
By
Clerl Administrator
C�W
STATE OF MINNMESOTA
DEPAPTMEN,T OF TRANSPORTATIOIN APPROVED:
DEPARTME1+T OF TRANSR�RTATION
RECOL4ENDED FOR APPROVAL:
,,t,Aistrict Engineer
Highway Division Dated
Traffi Engineer
Office of Design Services
APPROVED:
DEPAR'illEliT OF AD';11 STi:1:TION:
C- struction - Maintenance
Dated:
APPROVED AS TO FORD[ AIM EXECUTION:
Assistant Attorney General �
State of Minnesota -