HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/22/1986 TENTATIVE AGENDA
ADJ .REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA JULY 22 , 1986
Mayor Reinke presiding
1] Roll Call at 7 : 00 P .M.
2] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers
3] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS
4] Approval of Consent Business - (All items listed with an asterick
are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be
enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of
these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event
the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered
in its normal sequence on the agenda. )
51 Communications: (Items noted for consent will be received and filed)
a] Mildred Unze re : sewer bills
*b] Ann Higgins, League of Mn. Cities re : local implications of
federal tax reform bond provisions
6] Public Hearings : None
7] Boards and Commissions : Planning Commission Recommendations :
a] Amending City Code regarding mobile homes in agricultural district
*b] Final Approval of Maplewood Townhouses 1st Addn. -Res. 2589
c] Racetrack District Study and Adoption of Plan
8] Reports from Staff: [Council will take a 10 minute break around 9 : 00 FM]
a] Hiring consultant for EAW and a focused land use analysis for
Wishing Well Conditional Use Permit
b] Update on Ccmprehensive Sanitary Sewer Service Plan Amendment
c] Status of City Hall siting - report from Boarman Architects verbal
d] Application for Temporary 3. 2 Beer Licenses by Shakopee Jaycees +
*e] Audit Services for 1986
f] Second Avenue Parking Lot Lighting Plan +
9] Resolutions and Ordinances :
*a] Res. No. 2592 Award Bid on Timber Trails St. Rehabilitation 96-5
*b] Res. No . 2593 Award Bid on Fourth Ave . Reconstruction 86-3
*c] Res. No . 2591 Apportioning Assessments for South Parkview 1st
*d] Res. No . 2588 Apportioning Assessments for Parcel 27-907005-0
10] Other Business : Scottland Hotels Inc . Liquor Licenses+
11] Recess for an Executive Session to discuss pending litigation
12] Reconvene
13] Adjourn ,
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
Memos coming
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items
DATE: July 17, 1986
1. The City Council sponsored picnic for board, committee and
commission members and their families was a whopping
success. Judy Cox said she had more than 90 RSVP' s and a
few more than that actually showed up. Special thanks go to
Gloria who cooked the brats and to other Councilmembers who
were able to attend the picnic and thank our volunteers and
their families.
2. Attached is a new standard operating procedure for the
Building Department that clarifies how, when and under what
circumstances our Electrical Inspector will provide monthly
or quarterly inspections.
3 . Attached is a letter from Senator Dave Durenberger to the
Mayor regarding the Department of Labor' s proposed
regulations for the application of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
4 . Attached are the minutes of the July 10, 1986 meeting of the
Shakopee Coalition.
5 . Attached are the minutes of the July 7, 1986 meeting of the
City Hall Siting Committee.
6. The City Hall tour which was planned for this Saturday, July
19th has been postponed until Saturday, August 9th. Mark
your calendars.
7 . Shakopee Ducks Unlimited will be holding a banquet at the KC
Hall on September 9 , 1986 . In conjunction with the banquet,
they will be raffling off donated prizes. Because of the
raffle they do need to obtain a lawful gambling exemption
from the State Gambling Board. They are eligible for an
exemption since their prizes are under the amount
established by the State Gambling Board for exemption.
Although the proceeds from this activity won' t stay in the
community, Shakopee Ducks Unlimited is an organization which
carries on its activities in and is located and based in the
City of Shakopee and meets the requirements of the City
Code.
JKA/jms
MEMO TO: LeRoy Houser, Building Official
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Standard Operating Procedures ( SOP) for Monthly/
Quarterly Electrical Inspections
DATE: July 14 , 1986
Introduction
The racetrack has asked for a procedure that would allow them to
do electrical work, record the work done, and then have the City
Electrical Inspector review the work done on a quarterly basis.
This procedure has been used by Roy Baker, our current Electrical
Inspector, with Certainteed for the last several years.
Standard Operating Procedures for Monthly/Quarterly Electrical
Inspections
1 . Any firm requesting regular monthly/quarterly inspections
for maintenance and/or new electrical work must have one
employee with a master electrical license.
2 . If a company does not have an employee with a master
electrical license, but only a maintenance license, all work
must be limited to maintenance items as prescribed by state
law.
3 . Companys on a regular maintenance program shall pay $50 . 00
per month, or $150 . 00 per quarter, which shall be submitted
with the master electrician' s list of work to be inspected
by the City Electrical Inspector.
4 . Any new electrical work (vs. maintenance electrical
work) must be accompanied by a new certificate for
inspection.
5 . The Electrical Inspector will inform the City Building
Inspector of any and all firms selecting the option of
monthly/quarterly inspection procedures.
NOTE: The only firm presently using this procedure is
Certainteed. It is expected that the racetrack will adopt this
procedure and Roy Baker has suggested that Anchor Glass should be
placed on a similar procedure along with Rahr Malting.
JKA/jms
BOB PACKWOOD,OREGON,CHAIRMAN
BOB DOLE,KANSAS RUSSELL B.LONG,LOUISIANA
WILLIAM V.ROTH,JR.,DELAWARE LLOYD BENTSEN,TEXAS
JOHN C.DANFORTH,MISSOURI SPARK M.MATSUNAGA,HAWAII
JOHN H.CHAFEE,RHODE ISLAND DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN,NEW YORK
JOHN HEINZ,PENNSYLVANIA MAX BAUCUS,MONTANAMALCOLM WALLOP,WYOMING DAVID L.BOREN,OKLAHOMA
/}�� N„ .�
WILLIAM L ARMSTRONG,COLORADO GEORGE J.MITCHELL,MAINE Unite. tatcs �5mate
DAVID DURENBERGER,MINNESOTA BILL BRADLEY,NEW JERSEY
STEVEN D.SYMMS,IDAHO DAVID PRYOR,ARKANSAS
CHARLES E.GRASSLEY,IOWA COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
WASHINGTON, DC 20510
WILLIAM DIEFENDERFER,CHIEF OF STAFF
MICHAEL STERN,MINORITY STAFF DIRECTOR
July 14, 1986
The Honorable Eldon Reinke CITY OF SHAKOPEt
Mayor of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee , Minnesota 55379
Dear Eldon:
Thank you for your letter regarding proposed changes in the
Fair Labor Standards Act. I am deeply sorry for the delay in
replying to you.
I understand your concern over the Department of Labor ' s
proposed regulations for the application of the Fair Labor
Standards Act to state and local governments . These proposed
changes were released by the Department of Labor for public
comment, and are now being redrafted. The final report should be
issued soon. I hope that the Department of Labor has addressed
your concerns in its final report. Please let me know if there
is anything I can do to be of further assistance in this matter .
Again, thank you for sh ring your concern. I hope you will
continue to stay in touch.
Si cere ,
Dav a er
Uni ed States Senator
DD: rjl v
MEETING MINUTES - July 10, 1986
The Meeting was called to order at 7:00 AM by Chairman Brian Norris in the basement
meeting area of Citizens State Bank.
Members Present: Lisa Walker (St. Francis Social Services) , Mary Sullivan (Scott/Carver
Economic Council), Don Mertz (Lions Club) , Brian Norris (Citizens State Bank),John K.
Anderson (City Of Shakopee) , Diane Johnson (Chamber Of Commerce) , Debbra Determan (Scott
County) , and George Muenchow (Shakopee Community Services) .
Chairman Norris reviewed the objectives of the organization. It was noted that two
more co-ordinators are needed: Family Needs and Community Needs.
In the absence of Joan Salter Chairman Norris reported on her behalf that in June the
Shakopee Food Shelf served:
a. 120 Scott County Families
75 Carver County Families
684 people served
4,095 meals served
40 families served in Shakopee alone (114 people)
Joan Salter is investigating the development of a "You Can Help" type column in the
newspaper.
John Anderson shared:
a. Transportation Coalition is very active and currently is focusing on Federal
Funding for the ##18 Bridge. They are also monitoring the downtown bridge
and bypass progress.
b. The Chamber Of Commerce has been very busy such as the erection of downtown
banners, a highway entrance sign, excellent participation at the Taste Of
Minnesota weekend. There currently is an effort to initiate a hotel/motel
tax to help promote tourism.
C. There currently is apparently a lot of illegal renting taking place in the
community. This not only is against the law, but providing some very serious
safety hazzards. People must be aware that you need two entrances/exits for
renters etc.
Nominations for Volunteer Of The Month are needed. See Brian Norris for any suggestions.
Scott County Human Services has become aware that the United Way is now interested in
providing more funds for Scott County. In the past they were gathering lots of
contributions from this area, but not funding agencies that provided significant
services in the county. It was felt that this would be a good future program.
Scott County Economic Council has been funded to the extent of $87,000.00 to support
programs for needy children. They still need funding for the cost of their general
expenses.
Chairman Norris asked for suggestions for future speakers.
The subject of meeting attendance was discussed. It was suggested that a telephone
campaign be utilized. It also was mentioned that people that are appointed should
not have to be prodded to attend or have representatives come when they can' t.
The next meeting will be August 7 at 7:00 A.M.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 AM.
Re ectfully submitted,
Georg uenchow, Acting Secty.
MINUTES
CITY HALL SITING COMMITTEE MEETING
JULY 7 , 1986
Chairman Leroux called the meeting to order at 7 : 01 p.m.
Committee members present included Dolores Lebens , Gloria
Vierling, Dave Czaja, Dave Rockne and John Leroux. Also present
were Terry Forbord representing the Downtown Committee, Jack
Boarman and John K. Anderson.
M/S/P Vierling/Czaja to approve the minutes of the June 9 , 1986
meeting.
Jack Boarman gave the committee a presentation on the three
alternative sites. On each site Jack had the same building
footprint based upon 15 ,578 square feet for gross space needs.
Jack also indicated that the site would require approximately one
parking stall per 200 square feet for 60 to 80 stalls.
Jack indicated that the committee had done a thorough job listing
and systematically reviewing each site based upon definitive site
evaluation criteria. Therefore he and his architectural team
focused on siting a building on each site thus dealing with the
more subjective siting issues.
Jack indicated that his team considered the two downtown sites to
be on the peripheral of what would be a future specialty retail
core area. He stated that placing a city hall on the periphera
of such' an area was acceptable, but that placing it in the center
of the core would be an inappropriate use of core specialty
retail space. Jack said that their experience indicates that
city halls do not generate traffic for retail, and therefore,
could only serve as an investment symbol in redeveloping part of
downtown. He stated that there are risks involved in this and
sited the example of the St. Paul Gateway Center project which
found that the extensive institutional development actually
became a detriment by walling off part of the retail center. He
also indicated that Minneapolis is now trying to focus specialty
retail, entertainment and hotels on the south end of the mall
because of the natural synergism among that group of activities.
Jack felt that the potential existed for Shakopee to create a
sense of place downtown much like 50th and France or Grand
Avenue, but that the downtown needed its own ambiance and
reputation as an "event place" . He stated that people already
identify Shakopee as a fun activity center and this would enhance
the possibility of creating a unique downtown activity center but
that it was a difficult job.
With regard to the specific sites Jack began with the Library
site. He stated that the site needed a parking deck to work at
all. He outlined a footprint of a city hall attached to the
existing Library with a parking deck located between the
Library/City Hall and the Topic and Bell Tel buildings. Jack
noted several places that had created parking decks such as 50th
and France and the Civic Center in downtown St. Paul.
The second site Jack discussed was Block 47 . Jack presented what
he called a minimum required acquisition to make the site work
for a city hall and the required parking. He showed the
committee a footprint that placed the city hall at the southeast
corner of the block with parking at the northeast corner of the
block. This footprint required acquisition of three lots along
Fourth Avenue and three lots along Third Avenue. Jack discussed
the pros and cons of placing the footprint solely on the south
half of the block, and asked the committee about its long term
intentions with regard to purchasing the whole block.
The third site discussed was the Gorman site. Jack noted that
the site fit the activity nodes in the community well,
fit the transportation system and the need for future space for
expansion. He indicated that the site was poorly situated with
regard to the Public Works yard which needed screening. He
stated that there was the potential for a campus affect like the
facilities in Brooklyn Center and Eagan. He stated it was the
simpliest site to deal with.
The committee then discussed with Jack the information needed for
the next meeting. It was agreed that the City Administrator
should contact the owners of the Gorman site to determine its
availability and the asking price for the site.
In concluding the meeting the committee discussed whether or not
to hold their next meeting before or after the scheduled July
19th tour of other city halls. It was agreed that the next
meeting would be set after the tour on Monday, July 21st at 7 : 00
p.m.
M/S/P Lebens/Czaja to adjourn at 8 : 15 p.m.
John K. Anderson
TENTATIVE AGENDA
Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the
City of Shakopee, Minnesota
Special Session July 22 , 1986
Chairman Wampach presiding:
1. Roll Call at 7 : 00 p.m.
2. Authorize Satisfaction of Mortgage Execution
3 . Other Business
4. Adjourn
Barry Stock
Administrative Aide
MEMO TO: Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Aide
RE: Authorize Satisfaction of Mortgage Execution
DATE: July 21, 1986
Introduction and Background:
The Shakopee HRA secured promissory notes on all properties
it sold as part of the Fourth and Minnesota Neighborhood
Revitalization Project. These notes are to be released when the
property owners have resided on the property for five years or
more.
Xaun Nguyen & Mai Pham property owners of Lot 1, Block 1,
Macey 2nd Addn. fulfilled the five year residency requirement on
June 25 , 1986 . Therefore, it would be appropriate at this time
for the HRA to authorize the appropriate officials to release the
promissory note on the aforementioned property with no repayment.
The property owners are in need of the HRA' s approval of the
release on July 22, 1986 as they have a closing date for the sale
of said property scheduled for July 24, 1986 .
Action Requested:
Move to authorize the appropriate HRA officials to execute
the release of the promissory note for Xaun Nguyen and Mai Pham.
SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That a certain Indenture of
Mortgage now owned by the undersigned, bearing date the 25th day
of June, 1981 , made and executed by Xuan V. Nguyen and Mai T.
Pham, as mortgagor( s) , to the City of Shakopee, a municipal
corporation, acting through its Housing and Redevelopment
Authority, aka The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for
the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, a corporation under and pursuant
to the laws of the State of Minnesota, Morgagee, and recorded in
the office of the Scott County Recorder on the 30th day of June,
1981, as Document # 22970 , Certificate # 14076 , is, with the
indebtedness thereby secured, fully satisfied and discharged in
accordance with the provisions of said mortgage, and the said
Scott County Recorder is hereby authorized and directed to
discharge the same upon the record thereof . according to the
statute in such case made and provided.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, The said mortgage has caused these
presents to be executed in its corporate name by its Chairman and
its Executive Director the day and year first above written.
THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
By
By
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) SS
COUNTY OF SCOTT )
On this day of 19 before me,
a notary public within and for said county, personally appeared
Jerome Wampach and Dennis Kraft, to me personally known, who,
being each by me duly sworn, they did say that they are
respective the Chairman and the Executive Director of the
corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that said
instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by
authority of its Commission and the said Jerome Wampach and
Dennis Kraft acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and
deed of said corporation.
Notary Public, Scott County, Minnesota
My Commission expires 19
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
Julius A. Coller, II
211 West First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
INCORPORATED 1870
" ,ST 'PST AVSNUS. SHAKO°5... h11NN�SOTA %9 1376 If 12 —45 3650 I' `
f� e
t .
July 15 ,
Mr. James Cook
1075 Miller
Shakopee , MN 55379
Dear Mr. Cook:
Please be advised, your fence being installed on the south
property line is nonconforming and will have to either be
lowered to a maximum height of 3 feet, placed 30 ' feet back
from the street surface maintaining a maximum height of
6 feet or removed altogether .
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact
Judi Simac at 445-3650.
your cooperation is requested.
Sincerely,
(� 4
LeRoy/Hou:ser -
Building Official
LH:cah
cc: Judi Simac
1 he .7-1 1 of p ;. 00 ,-2ss Talley
APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT- ;
MINNESOTA 55379
SHAKOPEE, �
612-445-3650 B P. No.
A PPL ICA NT TO COM PSE TE NUMBERED SPACES ONLY ,
1 PROJECT ADDRESS / ' L(�
2 OWNER OF LAND \ I � L- / \ �l/ w A (.Gf til
NAME ADDRESS
J DESCRIPTION OF LAND BY. LOT.
BLOCK. ADDITION: PARCEL NO:
METES AND BOUNDS. PLAT
4 APPLICANT: \ �QM�f � IL
V NAME ADDRESS
S CONTRACTOR
NAME ADDRESS -
r 6" CLASS OF WORK ED-ADDITION [D-ALTERATION ED-REPAIR 13-MOVE [D-RAZING ED-HOUSE ED-SIGN
[D-PATIO [D-PORCH [-STORAGE BLDG. [-TANK [-DRIVewAYN-FENCE [D-GARAGE
7. USE OF STRUCTURE / f
8. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT / L^. / It-1 -le 11116"N UE'.�1C-�'�_- S7,6 l'ti ZL-10''t / If/I�LC ly UCE
.hS I!�C61ti� /�I2!1i✓)A/tr
9. BLDG WIDTH BLDG LENGTH BLDG HEIGHT
10. ESTIMATED COST OR VALUE: S �uL�
SPACE BELOW FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
TYPE OF CONST I TOTAL SO FEET i FIRE ZONE .NO DWELLING UNITS OCCUPANCY GROUP NO. OF STORIES
i
USE ZONE DIVISION MAX OCC LOAD FIRE SPRINKLERS
OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES
IREO D ❑VES U NO COVERED (UNCOVERED
LIMITING CONDITIONS APPLICATION APPROVALS
Ordinance No . 115 -Easement
Restrictions - attached
- <' �,/� •�fJ/� CITONING ADMINISTRATOR - DATE
COMMENTS
{ CITY ENGINEER DATE
III <
CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL DMTE
APPLICATION FEES
NOTES PERMIT S
1. SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REOUIRED FOR
PLAN CHECK S
ELECTRICAL. PLUMBING. MECHANICAL. SEPTIC
TANK, SIGNS. AND WELL INSTALLATIONS. GRADE AND SURVEY CHECK S
2. THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK PARK AND LAND S
OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COM-
FIRE NUMBER S
MENCED WITHIN 120 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION IS
SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 120 WATER CONNECTION $
DAYS AT ANYTIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. SEWER CONNECTION S
'3. A COLORED PHOTOGRAPH MUST ACCOMPANY WELL AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM S
ALL RELOCATION PERMIT APPLICATIONS. PENALTY OR APPEAL S
4. TWO SETS OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS MUST -
ACCOMPANY EACH PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE STATE SURCHARGE /� ' S
FOLLOWING: �l T AL $
A. COMMERCIAL PROJECTS
B. INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS X !. /
C. RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS
OVER' � SIGNATOR_c
OF APPLICANT /
—A
PHONE NUMBER DATE
WHITE - INSPECTOR YELLO% -FILE PINK -APPLICANT
CRi
Mildred Unze
810 E. 4th Ave.
Shakopee, MN 55379
John Anderson, City Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 E. 1st Ave.
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Please find enclosed a letter to the City Council. Could you please set
aside some time on the adjenda for them to review it at the next City
Council Meeting.
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
Mildred Unze
r
7
C.C./
Mildred Unze 7-9-86
810 E. 4th Ave.
Shakopee, MN 55379
Shakopee City Council Members
129 E. 1st Ave.
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear City Council Members:
A few months age, I noticed that my Utility bill was dropping in cost. After
I studied it, I realized that I was no longer being charged for sewage. I
notified the Public Utilities about this and they verified the fact that the
charges for sewer had been omitted. They assured me that they would not back
charge me because it was their oversight. I am grateful for that consideration.
However, upon receiving my next bill, I was surprised to find that I am being
charged $9.10 per month for sewer. When I contacted the city, they advised me
that because I didn't have a water bill due to the fact that I have my own well,
they have no way to calculate sewer usage. So they take an average of the
city sewer charges to calculate my bill. I am a one member, senior household
and in talking with friends in the same situation, I find that they are
paying about half of the amount of my charge. I was told by the Assistant
City Administrator that only the City Council and Mayor could adjust this
charge. This is why I am bringing this problem to you.
I want to thank you in advance for taking the time to review my problem and
I hope you can reduce my sewer charge to fall in line with other widow households.
Sincerely,
Mildred Unze
J
`
league of minnesota cities
MEMORANDUM July 10 , 1986
TO: Mayors, Managers, Clerks - Third District Cities
FROM: Ann Higgins , Federal Liaison/Program Development
SUBJECT: Information and analysis of local implications of federal
tax reform bond provisions
A meeting with Representative Frenzel was held today to continue
dialogue with the Congressman begun last summer on the subject of tax
reform issues of importance to cities. Representative Frenzel , a
member of the House Ways and Means Committee, where the House version
of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was drafted, has indicated his interest
in working with city officials to modify proposed federal restrictions
on cities' use of tax-exempt financing.
Enclosed please find a statement of concerns developed as a guide for
today' s discussion . It is based on LMC policy and positions aeveloped
by the National League of Cities in response to both House and Senate
versions of federal tax reform legislation.
It is important for cities in the Third Congressional District to
review the items listed there and provide specific information on the
actual and/or likely outcomes for projects, bond issues, infrastructure
needs, etc . if some or all of these provisions should become law.
Please review the statement and analyze local development , public
improvement, housing, and other public financing priorities for your
city to determine if any will be adversely affected by proposed
restrictions listed here . Please send me a copy of the information
your city develops.
Address your concerns and analysis to:
Representative William Frenzel
1026 Longworth House Office Builaing
Wasnington, D.C . 20515
Attention: Diane Oberhelman
Please send a copy of all correspondence and analyses to:
Representative William Frenzel
8120 Penn Avenue South, Suite 445
Bloomington, MN 55431
1 83 university avenue east, st. Paul, minnesota 551 01 (61 2) 227-5600
Attention: Maureen Shaver
It is important for Congressman Frenzel to have specific local
information about the extent of difficulties cities face if bonding
restrictions and related changes are made in the federal tax code .
While it appears certain that many of these changes will be approved,
the form in which they are enacted is of major interest , and
modification will be a serious objective in conference committee
deliberations .
The League will be developing suggested modifications to assist
cities to carry out their responsibilities and to eliminate
unreasonable and damaging restrictions on cities' autnority to use
tax-exempt financing tools.
enclosure
Action Requested:
Direct staff to mail a letter to Congressman Frenzel expressing
Shakopee ' s concerns regarding bond provisions of Federal tax reform
legislation.
e
Lill 1111
1111
league of minnesota cities
STATEMENT OF CONCERNS RE: BOND PROVISIONS OF FEDERAL TAX REFORM LEGISLATION
LMC policy on municipal bond restrictions opposes imposition of use
tests and restriction on the authority of cities to issue tax-exempt
bonds. As an affiliate of the 'National League of Cities and in
agreement with NLC policy on federal tax reform, the following
statement is provided. It outlines cities' concerns about federal tax
reform provisions that severely limit the authority of cities to use
tax-exempt financing for needed public improvements, redevelopment,
low and moderate income housing, or a variety of other purposes .
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
Both the Senate and House tax reform bills override current treatment
of TIF bonds as public purpose bonds backed by the full faith and
credit of the city and secured by local taxes . By treating TIF bonds
as private purpose IDRs and adding size and use restrictions, the
legislation has transformed this local public financing tool into a
private purpose bond subject to a state-wine volume limit.
Minnesota is unique in its legislative treatment of cities' authority
to issue TIF bonds, having created and encouraed public policymaking
at the local level to direct the use and involvement of the public
interest in the issuance of these tax-exempt bonds. Only in Minnesota
are such bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the city.
The following are special concerns of Minnesota cities for the future
use of TIF bonds:
1 . The redefinition of the security interest test to include both
direct and indirect payments by the developer to the city, whether or
not used to back the TIF bonds, would make nearly all TIF projects
subject to IDB restrictions and for the first time severely restrict
traditional public purpose authority of cities to use such financing
to eliminate blight. This means that the use of TIF for land
acquisition etc .would be limited to 25 percent of the bond proceeds
under IDB provisions .
2. The restriction on the size of a TIF district whether to one-
fourth mile in the House bill or 10 acres in the Senate bill )
arbitrarily assigns a limit that is actually larger in size than the
types of districts encouraged and widely established in smaller cities.
Recent legislative interest in modification of the Minnesota tax
increment financing statute actually supports smaller rather than
larger, districts.
Cities view the de2ision on the size of a TIF district as one strictly
determined by local conditions and public financing priorit,
83 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55 1 OT (61 2) 2 J-S6
attempt to impose either a statewide or national determination of the
appropriate limits is simply unresponsive to local needs .
3. Provisions of the House bill allow the sale of land acquired with
TIF bond proceeds at a very narrowly defined fair market rate While
the Senate bill improves on that language somewhat by allowing
consideration of covenants and restrictions on the land , both bills
seriously hamper the ability of cities to work in partnership with the
private sector to provide vital up-front financing of initial project
costs.
4. Failure to permit the use of TIF for low-income housing or housing
rehabilitation in the House bill severely limits the usefulness of
this widely used form of pu is support for housing needs that are
uniformly difficult to successfully provide through private
development . The House bill is particularly unresponsive in this
regard, while the Senate provisions do not eliminate this use
5 . The House limit on the aggregate assessed value of land within the
TIF districts of a city 10 percent would make impossible the
continued existence of projects in many cities, especially smaller
communities. The 25 percent restriction in the Senate bill is
preferable.
TREATMENT OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
1 . HR 3838 limits to 10 Percent or $10 million whichever is less the
use of G .O. or revenue bond proceeds by private interests or 5 percent
or 5 million of indirect "loans" to any person other than a state or
local government) would clearly eliminate many public/private partner-
ships for provision of public services and interfere with local
financial management decisions . We prefer the Senate language which
retains current law although tightening arbitrage and refunding .
2. Reporting requirements would extend to traditional public purpose
bonds the mandates for IDB bond reports . Senate bill provisions that
direct IRS to simplify reporting requirements for public purpose bonds
are strongly urged
3. House language requiring expenditure of 5 percent of bond proceeds
within 30 days of issuance is unworkable in a variety of public purpose
activities . The Senate bill eliminated this mandate; cities agree with
that change.
4 . Rebate requirements and threats of retroactive tax liability for
cities in the new arbitrage restrictions are a new and costly mandate
that is likely to cause considerable difficulty, especially for
smaller cities . Senate lan llowing an exception for issuers not
expecting to issue more than 5 million in bonds per year is a modest
improvement and should be continued.
EFFECTIVE DATE PROVISIONS
1 . The House bill eliminated sunset provisions for both single
family mortgage revenue bonds and small issue IDBs; the Senate bill
restorea both. Cities use and continue to need both forms of public
financing. The House provisions should prevail .
2. Retroactive taxation of tax-exempt bond interest earned by
individuals or corporations under provisions of the alternative
minimum tax for the first time imposes a federal tax on local
tax-exempt financing and violates the concept of reciprocal immunity .
3 . Retroactive elimination of bank interest deduction in the
House bill would raise the cost of short-term borrowing and make
bonding costs nigher, especially in smaller cities. Tne Senate bill
retains current law and is preferable.
HOUSING BOND AUTHORITY
1 . Inclusion of low income multifamily housing bonds under the per
capita volume cap for "nonessential bonds" in the House bill seriously
Farms the ability of cities to provide needed housing units for
families, the elderly, as well as low and moderate income persons.
Senate provisions that do not subject these bonds to volume limits
are preferred .
2. Depreciation of bond-financed -low income multi-family housing
Projects is substantially altered in both Senate ana :louse bills.
It is important to recognize the impact on investors from imposition
of new depreciation requirements on existing or planned projects.
In addition, new House targeting restrictions woulld not be workable
if the Senate provisions on depreciation and passive loss are approved .
3. Low income housing credit provisions were added to the Senate
bill and provide needed additional support for investment in
targeted housing. While the Mitchell amendment allowed the use of
the credit with certain federal funding sources , it is essential for
the credit to be used with tax-exempt bond proceeds. It would also
be preferable to exempt such investments from the passive loss tax
restrictions . Without the change regarding bona proceeds, the tax
credit is virtually useless .
14 . Elimination of the sunset for single-family mortgage revenue
bonds is important to retain a successful program encouraging state-
wide loan programs for home improvements and energy-conservation.
New House targeting restrictions do not make sense if the program will
end in 18 months . Such bonding is also an important counter-cylical
tool for aiding the resurgence of local economies.
DEDUCTIBILITY OF STATE AND LOCAL TAXES
House language retains full deductibility of all state and
local taxes , recognizing the authority of cities and states to
determine how to raise revenues . The limitation of the sales
tax deauction in the Senate bill fails in this regard .
July 10, 1956
Page 3
PUBLIC HE ."IN' - CODE A_NEND`1_1"7 TO ALLOWNON-FA*'ILS' RESIDENTS BTL"
HMES IN AC ZONES
Pomerenke/Rockne moved to open the public hearing regarding the considera-
tion of anamendment to Citi Code to allow non-:ami1}� Farm :orb;ers to 1i��e
in mo 11C :1oT:CS on ;le Tarim onClt' ,JtlOn Carl"led linanimOLSl` .
The Cite Planner stated this recommendation was prepared because of direc-
tion from the Planning Commission and City Council.
Chrm. Czaja asked if there were any comments from the audience regarding
this proposed amendment, and there was no response.
Discussion ensued regarding language to include the immediate family of an
employee, identified as spouse and dependents. The City Planner stated
her intention of requiring a notarized affidavit by the farmer as proof
that the resident is a full-time employee of the farm.
Considerable discussion occurred regarding the reasons for considering
this amendment, including the changing nature of farming today and the
possibility of opening up the rural area to rental units. It was also
considered malting an exception for dairy farming only, which seems to have
a greater requirement for on-site help.
Comm. Schmitt expressed his concern that if the non-family employee leaves
the position, the farmer is then faced with the problem of getting rid of
the mobile home on the farm, or renting it to someone else. He added that
it would be a difficult situation to police.
The City Admr. said that in more than five years that he has been here, this
need has only come up 2-3 times. He thinks it is a mistake to consider this
situation a hardship, because there are a lot of farmers out there that have
not complained or ;made a request to change the Code. He believes it is
lust a convenience to have a hired 'nand live in a mobile home on the farm-
stead, but it has never been claimed that it is a hardship or the farm
would go out of business if the employee did not live on the farmstead.
This proposed amendment might open the door to allowing one mobile home per
40 acre farmstead.
Foudray/Schmitt moved to close the public hearing. notion carried unanimously.
Lane/Schmitt moved to recommend to City Council that City Code, Section 11.05,
Subd. 8C remain as is, for the following reasons:
1. No hardship is found;
2. We do not wish to allow mobile homes as autonomous rental
units in the AG zone;
3. In the past 6 years there have been only 1-2 applications
received for either of the alternatives allowed in the Code
now, and therefore there is not a significant demand for
this proposed amendment.
Comm. Foudray spoke against this motion because even though he didn't think
it 1s a hardship presently, there may be more mobile homes out there that
the City doesn't know about, that can't even be seen from a road. He sug-
gested making the approval subject to yearly renewal.
7oi
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judi Simac, City Planner
RE: Amendment to City Code Section 11. 05, Subd. 8C
DATE: July 15 , 1986
Introd uction•
At their July 10 , 1986 meeting the Planning Commission held
a public hearing to consider an amendment to the City Code
( Section 11. 05 , Subd. 8C) which would allow persons unrelated to
the farm operator to live in a mobile home on a farm if they are
employed by that farm.
Background:
Both the Planning Commission and City Council had previously
directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment which would
change the existing code to not require that the person living in
the mobile home be related to the farm operator. Staff prepared
the following language for the Planning Commission to consider as
an amendment:
"Section 11. 05 , Subd. 81 C. Persons living in the
mobile home must work on the farm as a full time
employee, and must certify that fact prior to the
granting of the conditional use permit. "
The Scott County Zoning Ordinance requires a condition similar to
the one above in regard to residents of mobile homes on farms.
The Planning Commission conducted a lengthy discussion on
the proposed amendment. There were two motions offered; one to
keep the existing language as written, one to amend the code to
allow the mobile homes with unrelated workers. Both motions
failed. Recognizing the fact that a consensus could not be
reached the Planning Commission approved a motion to inform the
City Council that the "Planning Commission approached this issue
prom both the positive and negative basis, and both motions
failed for lack of majority. " It was directed that a transcript
of the discussions regarding this issue be provided to the City
Council without a Planning Commission recommendation (See
attached minutes) .
A copy of the existing code language is attached for
reference.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Section 11. 05 , Subd. 8, C of the City
Code not be amended to allow persons unrelated to the farm
operator to reside in mobile homes on the farmstead.
Action Reauested:
Offer a motion to adopt the staff recommendation.
Enclosures
T'�1
,lint' 10, 19-S 6
Page 4
Comm. Schmitt inquired about the City's interpretation of all the horse
ranches in the area, and whether or not they would aualif, as farmsteads
which would be allowed mobile homes. The City Planner replied that she
is concerned about the ranch uses and feedlots. �,-ith this lan<�ua_e, t;,E,_,-
1_,I'd nrobablv fit the quciification and i,e allowed a �,��nile i,o �e for an
cmployce, where there is a principal residence on site. However. she
feels the horse operations are more commercial in nature, and Oet awa\,
from the intent of the ordinance, which is to help the family farm survive.
Comm. Rockne advised changing the Code because of the lack of availability
of housing in the area with all the recent growth.
Motion failed with Comm. Schmitt, Czaja and Lane in favor and Comm. Rockne,
Foudray and Pomerenke opposed.
Schmitt/Rockne moved for a five minute recess at 8:48 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously.
Chrm. Czaja called the meeting back to order at 8:57 p.m.
Schmitt/Foudray moved to recommend to City Council approval of an amendment
to City Code, Section 11.05, Subd. 8C as follows: to provide for a Condi-
tional Use Permit for a mobile home to be occupied by spouse, dependents
and full-time employee of the farmstead; which employment must be certified
to prior to the granting of the permit.
Comm. Pomerenke didn't think the public would be hurt by the rental of
mobile homes on farmsteads. Chrm. Czaja thought the issue would be the
proliferation of such mobile homes.
jrnen asked about her recommendation, the City Planner replied that she
wouldn't want to recommend the ordinance be amended at all. This lanzuaRe
change was simply prepared at the recommendation of City Council and Planning
Commission.
Motion failed with Comm. Rockne, Pomerenke and Foudray in favor and Co=.
Lane, Czaja and Schmitt opposed.
Schmitt/Rockne moved that City Council be informed that Planning Commission
approached this issue from both the positive and negative basis, and both
motions failed for a lack of majority; and directed a transcript of the
discussions regarding this issue be provided to City Council without re-
commendation. Motion carried unanimously.
1. Within a period of three (3) months after
the termination of a mining operation, or within three (3) months
after abandonment of such operation for a period of six months, or
within three (3) months after expiration of a mining permit,
all
buildings, structures and plants incidental to such operation shall
be dismantled and removed by , and at the expense o_` , the mining
operator last operating such buildings, structures and r)lants. A
conditional use permit may be granted for those buildings, struc-
tures, machinery and plants required to process previously mined
materials stored on the site. Such permit may apply for only one
(1) year , after which said buildings , structures, machinery and
plants shall be removed.
2. The peaks and depressions of the area shall
be graded and backfilled to 'a surface which will result in gently
rolling topography in substantial conformity to the land area imme-
diately surrounding, and which will minimize erosion due to rain-
fall. No finished slope shall exceed eighteen percent (18%) in
grade.
3. Reclaimed areas shall be sodded or surfaced
with soil of a quality at least equal to the topsoil of land areas
immediately surrounding , and to a depth of at least three (3)
inches. Such required topsoil shall be planted with legumes and
grasses. Trees and shrubs may also be planted, but not as a sub
stitute for legumes and grasses. Such planting shall adequately
retard soil erosion. Excavations completed to a water producing
depth need not be backfilled if the water depth is at least ten
(10) feet and if banks shall be sloped to a water line at a slope
no greater than three (3) feet horizontal to one (1) fcot vertical.
The finished arade shall be such that it will not adversely affect
the surrounding land or future development of the sit upon which
mining operations have been conducted. The finished plan shall
restore the mining site to a condition whereby it can be utilized
for the type of land use proposed to occupy the site after mining
operatiors cease.
Subd. B. Mobile Homes. Mobile homes shall be regulated
by Section 4.60 of the City Code, except that mobile homes shall be
a conditional use in the "A-1" rr 1 " j�istric`s for agricultural
and Z-_
purposes if they meet the following standards:
A. Property must be being used as an agricultural
use.
H. Mobile home may not b-: the only occupied resi-
dential structure on the property.
C. The persons living in the mobile home must be
related to the farm operator and must work on that farm.
Source : Ordinance No. 31, 4th Series
Effective Date . 10-2-5-79
D. The mobile home may be placed on the Aror)ert_v
for one 5 year term and the permit may be reissued for additional
Year term or terms at the discretion of the Planning Co=,jssICn.
Source : Ordinance No. 93 , 4th Series
Effective Date . 5-27-;.2
-297- (11-1-82)
� b
_MMF.MD T-O: John K. Anderson., City Administrator
FROM: Judi 8imac, City Planner
RE: Final Plat of Maplewood Townhouses lst Addn.
DATE: July 15 , 1986
Background:
At their July 11, 1986 meeting the Planning Commission approved
a motion to recommend to the City Council final plat approval of
Maplewood Townhouses lst Addn. subject to the condition of an approved
title opinion by the City Attorney. Attached is the proposed Resolution
approving the final plat for Council consideration.
Action Reauested:
Offer Resolution No. 2589 , A Resolution Approving the Final
Plat of Maplewood Townhouses lst Addn. , and move for its adoption.
tw
Resolution No. 2589
A Resolution Approving the Final Plat of
Maplewood Townhouses lst Addn.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City cf Shakopee did
approve the Final Plat of Maplewood Townhouses 1st Addn. on July
11 , 1986 and has recommended its adoption; and
WHEREAS, all notices of hearing have been duly sent and
posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given
an opportunity to be heard thereon; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has been fully advised in all
things.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the Final Plat of Maplewood
Townhouses 1st Addition, described as follows:
Outlot 1, Scenic Heights 1st Addition
be, and the same hereby is approved and adopted with the
requirements that:
1. Approved Title Opinion by the City Attorney
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mavor and City Clerk be and
the same are hereby authorized and directed to execute said
approved Plat.
Adopted in session of the City Council of
the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of
19
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judi Simac, City Planner
RE: Racetrack District Study and Adoption of Plan
DATE: July 18 , 1986
Introduction•
On June 17 , 1986 the City Council approved a motion to grant
preliminary approval of the proposed amendments to Sections
11. 36 , 11. 20, 11. 21, subject to the Mn. Dept. of Transportation
approval of the Racetrack District Concept Plan which proposed a
folded diamond design of the interchange of the T.H. 101 By-Pass
and County Road 83 .
Background:
Following public hearings on the Racetrack District Concept
Plan for land use and transportation systems, . the City Council
approved RTD Concept Plan #3 which illustrates a folded diamond
design of the CR 83 and T.H. 101 By-Pass intersection. The
implementation of the plan ( zoning changes) was subject to MnDOT
approval.
The Concept Plan #3 was submitted to MnDOT for review on May
8 , 1986 . In the meantime public hearings were held on zoning map
and zoning ordinance amendments which would implement concept
plan #3 . The creation of the Racetrack District (RTD) and other
zoning changes were directly related to the transportation system
proposed by connecting Shenandoah drive with Secretariat Drive
and creating the folded diamond interchange.
During the period that MnDOT was reviewing the Concept Plan
#3 layout staff found out through other sources that traffic
forecast data for this interchange had still not been prepared
(was proposed to be complete in Jan. 1986 ) , and that there was
District office concern over the: 1) Distance between 12th Avenue
and the westbound exit to CR 83 , 2) the loss of free right turns
for southbound 83 traffic going west on T.H. 101, and 3 ) the
possible blocking and congestion between Secretariat and 12th
Avenue resulting from north to west movements to the track.
On July 14 , 1986 MnDOT officially responded to the request
to review the proposed folded diamond interchange concept. They
feel that the following are problems associated with the folded
diamond concept:
1) The Canterbury Downs and 12th Avenue intersection is
too close to the ramp and loop terminal on County Road
83 . The distance is only 250 ' - 300 ' and is inadequate
to properly develop the westbound off-ramp left turn
movement into Canterbury Downs.
1
2 ) The folded diamond presents sixteen conflict points
with the street opposite the ramp and loop terminal on
County Road 83 . The diamond has only five conflict
points and is simplified because the ramps are one-way
traffic.
3 ) The folded diamond creates a very poor weave section
for the northbound County Road 83 traffic to eastbound
12th Avenue because of crossing with the bypass
westbound off-ramp free right turn.
4) The grades on the loop in the folded diamond may be
steeper than those on a diamond ramp for the same
traffic movement.
5 ) The southbound County Road 83 left turn movement
storage to westbound bypass would be limited.
In conclusion it was stated that they prefer the diamond
interchange and that changes at this time could delay the
construction implementation of the By-Pass.
Options
The following are options the City Council may wish to consider:
1. Option to separate consideration of the plan into two
categories : A. Land Use
B. Transportation
PROS CONS
A. Allows the zoning to be changed A. Changing the zoning
without resolving
B. Is a step toward implementing the transportation
the plan issues will be for
convenience, not
because it will
work.
B. Land use and
transportation work
together and must be
consistent.
C. Does not comply with
the adopted plan
objectives.
2
Should Council choose Option #1, separation of land use and
transportation, then a decision should be made as to whether the
folded diamond interchange should be further pursued. Both Fred
Hoisington and Dean Wenger (Barton-Aschman Transportation
Engineer) recommend the folded diamond interchange. They feel
that the traffic forecasts , availability of r-o-w in the
northeast quadrant and construction to four lanes on CR 83 will
support the construction of the folded diamond over the diamond
interchange. They will be attending the July 22 , 1986 Council
meeting to present this case.
Scottland, Inc. and the transportation co-ordinator of
Canterbury Downs, Fred Corrigan, have indicated that they will
support the folded diamond interchange if the City desires to
pursue that design. Scottland owns the property in both the
northwest and northeast quadrants of the intersection and have
agreed to transfer the necessary land for r-o-w needed in the NE
corner.
2 . Option to adopt a Racetrack District plan which includes the
diamond interchange.
PROS CONS
A. Resolves both the zoning and A. May require a public
transportation issues hearing because plan
has been changed
B. Completes the process ( legal staff will be
responding to this
C. Implements new zoning question) .
B. Creates "worst
possible" traffic
scenario which may
result in restricted
turn movements. No
left at Secretariat
for Northbound 83
traffic.
C. Full development of
the RTD may not
occur with diamond
interchange system
because of B above.
3 . Option to delay adoption of the Racetrack District Plan.
PROS CONS
A. Allows time to pursue changes A. Delays developers
or alternatives to the By-Pass
interchange
3
Council Action
Should the Council choose option #1 or 2 , action must first
be taken on the final adoption of the plan and then action can be
taken on the ordinances to implement changes. The only exception
would be if the City Attorney determines that a public hearing
must be held to deviate from the concept plan #3 .
The ordinance to change the zoning requires legal
descriptions for all of the affected properties. Staff has begun
work on the ordinances, however after checking with Mr. Coller
there is a good possibility that they won' t be prepared for the
July 22nd meeting. The following code sections must be amended
in the ordinances:
11. 20 Zoning Districts
11. 21 Zoning Map
11. 36 New Racetrack District
11. 40 New P.U.D. District
11. 02 #99 P.U.D. definitions
Recommendation
From the planning perspective, Option #3 is the best and is
recommended by staff. However staff recognizes that there are
property owners anxious for the creation of the RTD zoning
district. If, after discussing the interchange alternatives on
July 22nd, Council is comfortable with Option #1 or #2, they can
be implemented.
4
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judi Simac, City Planner
RE: Hiring a Consultant for preparation of an EAW and
focused land use analysis for Wishingwell Farm and
Training
DATE: July 18 , 1986
Introduction-
At the July 15, 1986 meeting the City Council directed staff
to prepare information on the hiring of a consultant planner to
prepare an EAW and focused land use analysis for the Wishingwell
Farm and Training Center Conditional Use Permit.
Background:
Staff has interpreted the task to include:
1. Preparation of the EAW
2. Land Use Analysis - review of a defined area surrounding the
site, determination of appropriate uses, recommendation on
possible future uses and comparison of similar situations
ie. compatibility of Ag uses with residential.
Since the public hearing has been set for September 23 , 1986
staff has defined the task completion date as August 29, 1986 .
Three firms that have done work in Shakopee recently have been
considered to perform the task:
1. Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban:
Performed mining permit EAW. Would charge $75 . 00/hr for
lead planner and support staff at $25 . 00 to $35. 00/hr.
Estimate of total project cost at $1500 . 00 to $3 , 000 . 00 .
Can perform by 8/29/86 .
2 . Planning & Development Services (Rob Chelseth) :
Assisted staff in review of mining permit as well as staff
review of planning commission cases on temporary basis.
Associate of the firm indicated they could perform the work,
but couldn' t quote cost. Rob will contact me Monday, 7/21.
In the past Rob has charged $35. 00/hr.
3 . Hoisington Group Inc. :
Fred Hoisington is out of town and could not respond. He
usually charges out at $70 . 00/hr. Not sure if he could
commit to the project.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Planning and Development Services be
hired to perform the task ( subject to no substantial increase in
fee) . In addition the Community Development professional
services budget will have to be amended to cover the expense.
Action Requested
1. Offer a motion to contract with Planning and Development
Services, Inc. to perform an EAW and land use analysis of
the Willingwell Farm and Training Center conditional use
permit application, to be completed by August 29 , 1986, at
an hourly rate of $ total cost not to exceed
2 . Offer a motion to amend the Community Development
professional services budget by $ from the
Unappropriated Fund balance.
2k
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judi Simac , City Planner
RE: Update on the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Service Plan
Amendment
DATE: July 18 , 1986
Introduction:
On June 17 , 1986 staff submitted a comprehensive sanitary
sewer service plan amendment to the Metropolitan Council for
review and approval. After preliminary review the Met Council
staff requested that I come to their offices to explain the
amendment.
Background:
On Wednesday July 16 , 1986 I met with Met Council staff
members Tori Flood, Paul Baltzersen (plan review) and Pat Pahl
(planning manager) to discuss the plan amendment. They were
concerned that the City was using a "Land Supply to 2000" figure
( 1, 902 acres ) as the "Demand with Overage 1980-2000" figure.
With the revised forecasts Shakopee' s demand plus five year
overage figure is 1, 623 acres. Therefore they felt that we have
enough available land without further amendments. (With the
amendment the year 2000 supply will be 2, 017 acres) .
After much discussion and convincing they agreed to include
an additional 308 acres of land ( areas r15 , Y and #66) and to
place the remaining area in a Moratorium category which holds the
land from sewer service until the City demonstrates a need to
expand the sewer area (we fall below the five year land supply
figure) . The most important resolution is that they agreed to
allow the northern R-O-W line of the T.H. 101/169 By-Pass to
serve as the MUSA line.
Please refer to the attached map which illustrates what has
been negotiated with Met Council. The staff intends to place the
approval of the plan amendment by consent on the July 24th Met
Council agenda.
Once the plan amendment is approved, City Council may want
to consider managing the sewered area within the MUSA in order to
have a "reserved" area to allocate to other parts of the City or
to the area of Jackson Township which has been discussed for
annexation.
Alternatives:
Do not approve negotiated sewer plan amendment and request
its removal from Met Council agenda
2 ) Approve sewer plan amendment negotiated by staff with Met
Council staff.
3 ) Consider a City of Shakopee sewer plan for land within the
approved MUSA.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends alternative 2 and 3 .
Action Reauested:
1) Offer a motion to approve the comprehensive sanitary sewer
plan amendment as amended on 7-17-86 .
2 ) Direct staff to draft a sanitary sewer allocation plan for
land within the MUSA line for City Council consideration.
tw
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk�r___.'
RE: Application for Temporary 3 .2 Beer Licenses by
Shakopee Jaycees
DATE: July 17 , 1986
Introduction and Background
The Shakopee Jaycees have applied for an on-sale 3 . 2 beer license
for Tahpah Park for three separate weekends . This application will
require issuance of three separate temporary beer licenses.
The application is in order .
Action Requested
1 . Approve the application and grant a temporary on-sale beer
license to the Shakopee Jaycees at the Tahpah Park ball
fields for August 1 , 2 , and 3 , 1986 .
2 . Approve the application and grant a temporary on-sale beer
license to the Shakopee Javicees at the Tahpah Park ball
fields for August 8 , 9 , and 10 , 1986 .
3 . Approve the application and grant a temporary on-sale beer
license to the Shakopee Jaycees at the Tahpah Park ball
fields for August 15 , 16 , and 17, 1986 .
JSC/jms
Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator Ij
From: Gregg M. Voxland, Finance Director
Re: Audit Services for 1986
Date: July 11 , 1986
Introduction & Background
Jaspers, Streefland & Co. has submitted the attached proposal for 1986 audit
services. The cost is $7 ,900 compared to $7,800 for 1985 services. Staff has not
solicited any proposals for 1986 audit services.
Staff' s recommendation to change auditors has not changed from previous years.
However, in recognition of Council action and desires from prior years, the action
requested is written to enable this item to be handled under consent business.
Action Requested
Move to accept the proposal of Jaspers, Streefland & Company for 1986 audit
services in the estimated amount of $7 ,900.
GVM:mmr
JASPERS, STREEFLAND & COMPANY
JEROME JASPERS,CPA•JAMES STREEFLAND,Jr.CPA
MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
206 SCOTT STREET,SHAKOPEE MN 55379,(612)4454817
k
- i
June 24, 1986
Members of the City Council
City of Shakopee
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Members:
Enclosed is our engagement letter for the annual examination of the
financial statements of the City of Shakopee for the year ending
December 31, 1986 .
Our fee for audit services for 1986 is estimated to be $7, 900 .
Thank you for the opportunity of submitting our proposal.
Yours truly,
42
aspers, Streefland & Co.
Certified Public Accountants
JSC/ry
JASPERS, STREEFLAND & COMPANY
JEROME JASPERS,CPA•JAMES STREEFLAND,Jr.CPA
MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
206 SCOTT STREET,SHAKOPEE,MN 55379.(612)445-2817
June 24, 1986
Members of the City Council
City of Shakopee
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Understanding of Engagement
Dear Council Members :
We are confirming our understanding of the arrangements to make an
examination of the balance sheets of the various funds of the City
of Shakopee at December 31, 1986, and related statements of
changes in fund balance and revenues and expenditures for the year
then ended and such other supplementary information as required.
The examination will be made in accordance with generally accepted
auditing standards . Accordingly, we will test the accounting records
of the organization and perform other auditing procedures by methods
and to the extent we deem appropriate for the purpose of expressing
an opinion on the financial statements . We expect the city staff
will be available to prepare, under our direction, certain of the
detailed schedules necessary for the examination. An examination
directed to the expression of an opinion on the financial statements
is not primarily or specifically designed, and cannot be relied upon,
to disclose defalcations or other similar irregularities should any
exist, although their discovery may result.
At the conclusion of our examination, we will submit our report with
respect to the financial statements and will make separate recommend-
ations for strengthening internal accounting controls and improving
operating procedures to the extent that such matters come to our
attention.
Our charges will be made at regular per diem rates, plus direct expenses .
We will advise you promptly if we discover any indication of defalcations
or other irregularities, or if other circumstances develop that require
us to extend our work significantly (e.g. , internal control is found to
be ineffective, books are not effectively closed, accounts are out of
balance) .
Page 2
We are prepared to assist you with a wide range of financial and
management services . Please feel free to call on us for advice at
any time regarding any problems or matters which you feel we can
render assistance.
If the above understanding is acceptable to you, and the services
outlined are in accordance with your requirements, please sign the
copy of this letter in the space provided and kindly return to us .
We are looking forward to an enjoyable and continuing association
in service to you.
Yours. truly,
QAA
JASPERS, STREEFLAND & CO.
Certified Public Accountants
JSC/ry
Enclosures
The services described in the foregoing letter are in accordance
with our requirements . The understanding described in the letter
is acceptable to us and is hereby agreed to.
City Administrator
1
1
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Intern
RE: Second Ave. Parking Lot - Lighting Plan
DATE: July 22 , 1986
Introduction•
On July 16 , 1986 the Downtown Committee moved to recommend
to City Council that a lighting plan be incorporated into the
Second Ave. Landscaping Project.
Background:
On July 1, 1986 the Shakopee City Council moved to order the
Second Ave. Landscaping Project. The bid was awarded to Nobles
Nursery at a cost of $40 , 896 . 03 . It was the Downtown Committees
hope that this project would serve as a demonstration of the
pending streetscape improvements for the downtown area.
Recognizing the fact that approximately 200 of costs to be
incurred in the downtown plan is for lighting, the Committee felt
that the lighting elements being proposed for the downtown
project should be installed along Second Ave. between Holmes and
Lewis Streets and within the parking lot itself at this time.
This would allow prospective property owners who may be assessed
for future improvements to view the actual streetscape elements
prior to any public hearings.
In order to proceed with this concept, a supplemental
agreement to the Second Ave. Landscaping Project would have to be
approved and authorized by City Council. A plan of the Second
Ave. Project and the proposed light placements are shown in
attachment #1. The poles and fixtures proposed for the project
are shown in attachment #2. A cost breakdown for the lighting
improvements is shown in attachment #3 .
If the Council concurs with the Downtown Committees
recommendations, it would be appropriate at this time to approve
the Supplemental Agreement shown in attachment #4• Briefly, the
agreement authorizes the contractors to order the conduit and
install the conduit, poles and fixtures at a cost not to exceed
$ 5 ,880 . 00 To cutdown on costs it would also be
appropriate for the Council to authorize the appropriate City
officials to order the light poles and fixtures at a cost not to
exceed $10 ,200 .
Alternatives:
1. Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the
Supplemental Agreement to the Second Ave. Parking Lot and
authorize the appropriate City officials to order the light
poles at a cost not to exceed $ 5 ,880 . 00
2 . Do not include any lighting in the Second Ave. Parking Lot
at this time.
Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends alternative #1.
Action Requested:
1. Move to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute
the Supplemental Agreement to the Second Ave. Parking Lot.
2 . Move to authorize the appropriate City officials to order
the light poles for the Second Ave. Project at a cost not to
exceed $10 ,200 .
O 6 I l
O t x p I �s
N "
ti, I o
O
CL
co
Tt
C al
CD
3 T - ---- Sri 41
Sb
i
_ 1 W ■ ■
a
Cl F c
CL m r0 `t --- -- -
M - _
Attachment #2
7-1
• K ;I)
O � Q
"TfJ,
ri =
> _
o P�
r- , : =�;
� V �
18"
� O
—7
TTI
W O =
\ 0 �n
Attachment #3
Lighting Plan
Second Ave. Parking Lot
Cost Estimates
Note: Conduit and Installation Costs are included in the
following estimates.
2.�y Description Unit Cost Total Cost
2 15 'Historic Fixture/Conc Pole $2 ,400 $4 , 800
1 16 'Double Historic Fixture
with Concrete Pole $3 , 600 $3 ,600
2 35 ' Parkdale Fixture/Conc Pole $2, 800 $5 , 600
Contingency ( 150) $2 , 100
Total Project Cost - $16 , 100
Footnote:
Cost Breakdown Including 150
Materials - $10, 200
Labor - $ 5, 900
Attachment #4 Q
SUPPLEMENTAL CONTRACT
2ND AVENUE PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING
Supplemental Contract No. : 1 Project Name: 2nd Avenue Parkino Lot
Landscaping
Date: July c" 1986 Contract No. : 1986-7
Original Contract Amount $ 41, 896. 03
Change Order(s) No. 1 thru No. --
Total Funds Encumbered Prior to Change Order
Description of Work to be (Added/Deleted) : See Attached
The amount of the Contract shall be increased by $
The number of calendar days for completion shall be increased by 0
Original Contract Amount 40, 896. 03
Change Order(s) No. I thru --
Supplemental Contract No. 1 5. 860. 00
Total Funds Encumbered 5 46. 776.03
Completion Date: November 1, 1986
The undersigned Contractor hereby agrees to perform the work
specified in this Change Order or Supplemental Contract in accordance
with the specifications, conditions and prices specified herein.
Contractor:
By:
Title
Date:
APPR VED ANDRECOMMENDED:
Z�
ity Engineer D e
APPROVED: City of Shakopee
By: Approved as to form this
Mayor Date
day of 19
City Administrator Date City Attorney
City Clerk Date
f c�L
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer
/1�9, —
SUBJECT: Timber Trails Bid Awardal
DATE: July 18, 1986
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND:
Bids have been received and publically opened for the Timber
Trails Rehabilitation Project and the overlay portion of the
1986 Pavement Preservation Program. The low bid was submitted
by Central Landscaping, Inc. of Forest Lake, Minnesota at
$185, 933. 00 which is approximately 14% below the engineer' s
estimate of $216, 356. 00.
' The majority of the difference between the bid price and the
engineer' s estimate is in the pavement preservation work. The
bid for the Timber Trails work is 0. 90% below the feasibility
estimate. Based upon bids received and the rapidly approaching
deadline for filing of assessments, Engineering is planning
to prepare the assessments for Timber Trails based upon the
bid amount.
RECOMMENDATION:
Central Landscaping, Inc. is a competent contractor responding
to the requirements of the request for bids, therefore, I recom-
mend awardal of the contract to Central Landscaping, Inc. in
the amount of $185, 933. 00.
REQUESTED ACTION:
Offer Resolution No. 2592, A Resolution Accepting Bid on Timber
Trails Street Rehabilitation, Project 1986-5 and move for its
adapt i on.
KA/pmp
MEM2592
RESOLUTION K0. 2592
A Resolution Accepting Bid On
Timber Trails Street Rehabilitation
Fro)ect No. 1986-5
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the
Timber Trails Street Rehabilitation, bids were received, opened
and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were
received complying with the advertisement:
Central Landscaping, Inc. 5185,933. 00
Valley Paving, Inc. 5201 ,611 .70
Hardrives, Inc. $219,090. 30
Alexander Const. Co. , Inc. 5220,372 . 50
Barber Const. Co. , Inc. 5260,778. 00
AND WHEREAS, it appears that Central Landscaping, Inc. ,
13655 Lake Drive, Forest Lake, MN 55025 is the lowest responsi-
ble 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 Central Landscaping,
Inc. in the name of the City of Shakopee for the improvement
of Timber Trails Street Rehabilitation, Project No. 1986-5 by
Street Reconstruction, 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
of 19 day
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this day of
19
City Attorney
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator,
FROM: Ker, Ashfeld, City Engineer /is
SUBJECT: 4th Avenue Reconstruction Bid Awardal
DATE: July 18, 1986
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND:
Bids have been received and publically opened for the Fourth
Avenue Reconstruction Project. The low bid was submitted by
S. M. Hentges and Sons, Inc. of Shakopee for $464, 820. 90 which
is approximately 4/ above the engineer' s estimate of $445, 500. 00.
The following is a breakdown of mayor project elements.
FUNDING FEASIBILITY
ELEMENT SOURCE ESTIMATE LOW BID
Street State-Aid $294, 692. 20 $313, 706. 04
County-Aid
Special Assessments
St orm State-Aid * $ 40, 082. 66
Sewer Storm Sewer fund
Sanitary Sanitary Sewer Fund $ 66, 590. 00 $ 55, 672. 20
Sewer
Water Main SPUC
City $ 55,_360- 00
TOTAL $464, 620- 99
* These items were riot included in Holmes Street Storm Sewer
Lateral Project and included in this project such that
these costs could become state aid eligible.
* Watermain costs were riot included in the feasibility study
because the scope of watermain improvements were not decided
until shortly before bid letting.
Based upon the bids received and the rapidly approaching deadline
for filing of assessments, Engineering is planning to prepare
the assessments for 4th Avenue based upon the bid amount.
RECOMMENDATION:
S. M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. is a competent contractor responding
to the requirements of the request for bids, therefore, I recom-
mend awardal of the contract in the amount of $464, 820. 99 to
S. M. Hentges & Sons, Inc.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer Resolution No. 2593, A Resolution Accepting the Bid on
the Fourth Avenue Reconstruction Project, S. A. P. 70-616-13,
Project No. 1986-3, and move for its adoption.
RESOLUTION NO. 2593
A Resolution Accepting Bid On
Fourth Avenue Reconstruction
S .A . P . 70-616-13
ProDect No. 1986-3
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the
Fourth Avenue Reconstruction, bids were received, opened and
tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received
complying with the advertisement:
S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. 5464,820.90
Hardrives, Inc. 5533,255. 15
Valley Paving, Inc. $7595,040. 99
N.W. Asphalt, Inc. $655,353. 05
AND WHEREAS, it appears that S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. ,
P.O. Box 142, 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, Inc. ,
in the name of the City of Shakopee for the improvement of Fourth
Avenue Reconstruction, S.A.P. 70-616-13, Project No. 1986-3
by Street & Utility 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
of 19 day
ATTEST: Mayor of the City of Shakopee
City Clerk
Approved as to form this day of
, 19
City Attorney
o i
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerks /G
I
RE: Apportionment of Assessments Among New Parcels
Within South Parkview 1st Addition
DATE: July 17 , 1986
Introduction and Background
As a result of the platting of South Parkview 1st Addition the
existing special assessments were apportioned among the new lots
and were spelled out in the developers agreement. Now that the
plat has been filed, it is appropriate to adopt the attached
resolution formally apportioning the special assessments . The
special assessments apportioned in the attached resolution are
reduced from those contained in the developers agreement by the
amount certified to the County in October, 1985 .
Alternatives
1. Don' t adopt Resolution No.
2. Do adopt Resolution No.
Action Recommended
Offer Resolution No. 2591.
JSC/jms
RESOLUTION NO. 2591
A RESOLUTION APPORTIONING ASSESSMENT AMONG NEW PARCELS
CREATED AS A RESULT OF THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND
INTO SOUTH PARKVIEW 1ST ADDITION
WHEREAS, on September 1 , 1977 Resolution No. 1124 adopted by
the City Council levied assessments against properties benefitted
by construction of the 1976-1 Improvement Project, and
WHEREAS, on August 29 , 1977 Resolution No. 1302 adopted by
the City Council levied assessments against properties benefitted
by construction of the 1976-2 West Side Storm Sewer Project, and
WHEREAS, a tract of land benefitted by the said
improvements , known as parcel number 27-911-017-0 has been
subdivided into the plat of South Parkview 1st Addition, and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to apportion
the installments remaining unpaid against said tract among the
newly created parcels within the plat of South Parkview 1st
Addition, and .
WHEREAS, the property owners involved have been notified of
this proposed action.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE:
1. That the 1986 payable remaining balance of assessments
to parcel 27-911-017-0 is $1 , 784. 00 for the 1976-1
Improvement Project and is 51, 062 . 78 for the 1976-2
West Side Storm Sewer Project and are hereby
apportioned as outlined in exhibit "A" attached hereto
and made a part hereof .
2. That all other parts of Resolution No. 1124 shall
continue in effect.
3 . That all other parts of Resolution No. 1302 shall
continue in effect.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of ,
1985 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of 1986 .
City Attorney
i_
EXHiEIT '�'
SOUTH RAPK ER 1ST A"'N
CODS 41 (76-1 IKDROVEY-:"kT PROJ7_'CT) Consists uaterr»ain, Sanitary Sewer,
S:nrr Sewer, ree:
Tne miamine glance is s:,7G;.K2
CZDE 45 (76-2 W:'17SIDc STDR►; =h=R)
Pao_e 6
The retaining balance is $I,BE2.78
I I WATERKRIN I SANITARY 5=tr"ER I STOW S"EiiER I STREETS I TOTRL I TOTAL I
I I COPE 41 ICODE 451CODEE 41 ICODE 45 1 CODE 41 1 COa 45 1CODE 41 ICODE 45 1 CODE 4! 1 CODE 45 1 I
I I I I I I I I i I i I 1
IO:JTLOT A l $89.53 1 1 $10.30 1 I I 5357.89 I$105.50 1 1 SM.33 I $ 7.89 I SE'I. I
I I
IQJTLOT B 1 $14.21 1 1 $.1.E3 I I 452.E5 I 555.80 1 $16.74 1 1 SE.23 1 $56.80 1SI42.C3 1
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
10JTLOT C 1 $33.80 1 1 $2.68 1 1 1 $135.10 1 $39.83 1 1 477.51 1 5135.10 1 $212.61 1
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I D'JTLOT D I :56.01 1 1 $6.44 1 1 1 $= 3.89 1 566.B0 1 1 $128.45 14=E3.89 1 5352.34 I
I I I I I i I I I I I I I
IOJTLOT E 1 $46.62 1 1 $5.36 1 1 1 1 $54.94 1 1 $106.S2 1 50.80 1 5106.92 I
I I I I I 1 I I l I I I I
ILI BLKI 1 $3.73 1 1 $0.43 1 1 1 1 $4.40 1 1 $8.56 1 $0.80 1 $6.56 1
I 1 I I I I i I I 1 I i 1
IL2 BLKI 1 $3.73 1 1 $0.43 I I 1 1 $4.40 1 1 $8.56 1 $C.00 I $8.56 1
i i I I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1
IL3 BLK1 1 $3.73 1 1 $0.43 1 1 1 1 $4.40 1 1 $8.56 1 50.60 1 $8.56 1
IL4 ELM 1 53.73 1 1 $6'.43 I I 1 1 $4.40 1 1 $6.56 1 $C.Be, I $c.56 1
I i i I 1 I I I I I I I I
1L5 ;.'Kl 1 $3.73 1 1 $0.43 I I $5x.66 1 $13.77 1 $4.40 1 1 SE .42 1 $13.77 1 $79.19 1
IL E PLKI I $3.73 I I $x.43 I I 1 $13.77 1 $4.40 1 1 $E.56 1 $13.77 1 52`.33 I
I I I i I I I I I I 1 I I
ILI BLUE' 1 $3.73 1 1 $0.43 I I $55.86 1 $13.77 1 $4.40 1 1 $E5.42 1 $13.77 1 $79.19 1
IL2 BLK2 I $3.73 I I $0.43 1 1 $56.66 1 $13.77 1 $4.40 I I $E5.42 1 $13.77 1 $79.19 1
IL3 BLK2 1 $3.73 1 1 $0.43 1 1 SE-E.86 1 $13.77 1 $4.40 1 1 SE5.42 1 $13.77 1 $79.19 1
I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I
IL4 BL.KP 1 $3.73 1 1 $0.43 I I S5?.66 1 413.77 1 $4.48 1 1 $E5.42 I 513.77 1 $79.19 1
i I 1 I I I I I I I I i I
IL5 BLUE 1 $3.73 1 1 $C.43 1 1 $56.86 1 $13.77 1 $4.40 1 1 $E5.42 1 $13.77 1 $79.19 1
i I I I I I I I I i l I I
EXHIBIT 'R'
SCUTH PARKVIEU 1ST C,;, D'N
COti 41 (76-1 IKPROVE!!Ehi PR,7?_-T) �on;is;s Gatermair„ 6ar:i:a^y Sewer,
B:OrL 6�er, Street
Tne recainin; nLlE ,:e ._ 5:,7 C3
45 {76-2 iE TEIL_ S73Rv, EE:;ERI
Panne 7
Tne recaininc balance is S1,0c3.76
I WATERM.AIN I SANITARY SEIdER I STOW. SEWER I STRUTS I TOT"
1 I COPE 41 ICOCE 451CODcc 41 ICODE 45 1 CODE Al I CODE 45 ICODE Al ICOD: 45 1 CODE 41 1 CODE 45 I TOTE I
I I I I
---
IL6 BL K2 I 53.73 1 I SC.43 I I1
I $13.77 I 54.48 I I SB.56 I513,77 I $2:,33 I
I 1 I i f I I I I i I I
1L7 BLK2 I 53.73 I I SC,43 I
1 $13.77 1 54.48 1 1 S°.56 1 513.77 1 522.33 1
I I I I I I I i I I
IL1 BLK3 I 53.73 I 1 Se.43 1 1 $56.86 f $13.77 1 44.48 1 1 565.42 1 S!3.77 1 $79,19 1
I I I i i I I I I 1 i
I-' ;' BLK3 1 53.73 1 I Se.43 II 1
I $55.86 I $13.77 I 54.48 I I 565.42 I $13.77 I 579,19 I
I I I I I I I I I I
IL3 BLK3 1 $3.73 1 I Se.43 1 I 556.86 I St3.77 1 $4.48 1 1 565.42 1 513.77 1 $79.19 1
I i I I I I I I l i I
ILA BLK3 1 $3.73 I I 58.43 1 I $56,86 1 $13.77 1 $4.48 1 1 $65.42 1 $13.77 f $79.19 1
I I I I I I I I I I 1
1 L 5 BLK3 t $3.73 I I SC.43 I � f 1
i 556.86 I 51,,.77 1 54.48 I I 565.42 1 $13.77 1 $79.19 1
I I I I I I I I I I
ILE BLK3 I 53.73 II I 1
I SC.43 I i 556.86 I 513.77 I $;.42 I I
! ► 1 565.42 1 $13,77 1 $79.19 1
I 1 1 I I I
IL7 K. I 53.73 1 1 se.43 Ii t i
I 156.86 I 513.77 I 54.48 I I 5E5.42 I 513.77 1 S?9.!9 I
ILI BLKA I 53.73 I I se.43 I , I i 1 I
1 I S.,,,,'7 1 $4.48 I I ScS,A2 I 513.7 1 S?9.19 I
1 I I I I I I I I
I13 BLK4 1 53.73 1 1 $e.43 1 1 $56.86 1 $13.77 1 $4.48 I 1 1
1 1 i I I I 1 i 565.42 I 513,77 1 $79.19 !
1 1 I i i
IL3 BLK4 I $3.73 I I $e.43 It I 550.66 1 S!3.'7 I 5;.48 1 I SES.
1 1 1 I 4_ I $.,,.77 1 $79.19 1 I
ILA B`1;4 1 53.73 1 1 Se.43 1 1 $56.86 1 513.77 1 44,4e I cr I
i 1 1 I I I 5. 42 1 S!3.77 1 $79.!9 1
I I 1 i 1 t I 1
IL5 BLK4 1 53.73 I 1 Se.43 1 1 1 $13.77 1 54.48 I I Q.56 1 $2.77 1 $22.33 1
I I I I I I I
I I I I 1 I l
I I I I I i I I
TOTAL 5333.AB I I I
536.36 ' Sl,C1S.27 12'02.E5 "53.3.e1 " 11,78A.66"Si,262.55 'S2,8Ac.91
Numbers Differ From Those In Text Due To Rounding.
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk K—
RE: Apportionment of Assessments for Parcel No. 27-907005-0
DATE: July 18 , 1986
Introduction & Background
Parcel 27-907005-0 , 77 . 79 acres , has been split into two parcels ;
27-907005-0 becomes 38 . 71 acres and the new parcel 27-907005-1 is
39 . 08 acres. As a result of this split, it is necessary to
apportion the existing special assessments for the VIP interceptor
against the two resultant parcels.
Action Recommended
Offer Resolution No. 2588 , A Resolution Apportioning Assessments
Among New Parcels Created as a Result of the Subdivision of Land
Parcel No. 27-907-005-0 , and move its adoption.
JSC/jms
RESOLUTION NO. 2588
A RESOLUTION APPORTIONING ASSESSMENTS AMONG NEW PARCELS
CREATED AS A RESULT OF THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND
PARCEL NO. 27-907-005-0
WHEREAS, on August 25, 1981 Resolution No. 1891 adopted by the City Council
levied assessments against properties benefited by construction of the 1981-1
V.I.P. Sewer Interceptor Improvement Project: and
WHEREAS, a tract of land benefited by the said improvements, known as
parcel number 907-005-0, has been subdivided so as to create two parcels.
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to apportion the installments
remaining unpaid against said tract between the two newly created parcels, and
WHEREAS, the property owners involved have been notified of this proposed
action.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE:
1. That the 1986 payable remaining balance of assessments to parcel
27-907-005-0 is $13,512.09 for the 1981-1 V.I.P. Sewer Interceptor
Improvement Project and are hereby apportioned as follows:
Amount
Parcel No. Name/Address Legal Description Code 55
907-005-0 Alphonse A. Vierling 38.71 ac. in NW 1/4 $6,723.91
1543 CR-79 SE 1/4 of Sec.
7-115-22, Ex. Road
907-005-1 Lawrence & Jerome 39.08 ac. in SW 1/4 6,788.18
Vierling NE 1/4 of Sec.
971 So. Scott 7-115-22, Ex. N 200'
of W 200'
2. That all other parts of Resolution No. 1891 shall continue in effect.
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
Approved as to form this
day of 1986
City Attorney
/U
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
r.
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk -�
RE: Application for Intoxicating Liquor Licenses - Scottland
Hotels Inc .
DATE: July 22 , 1986
Introduction & Background
Scottland Hotels Inc. is asking that Council take action on their
application for an on-sale and a Sunday liquor license.
On May 6th Council reviewed the application and consensus was that
if everything was in order at that time the licenses would be
granted. Since that time the hotel has been constructed and
inspected by the building inspector, electrical inspector and
fire marshal and meets codes. Also since that time Council
has adopted an ordinance which permits Council to grant a license
but direct that it not be issued until the applicant is in
compliance with the requirements of the city code in the case of
a new facility.
Scottland Hotels Inc. would like their license for August 2nd.
Since the bond and certificate of insurance have not been received
and reviewed by the City Attorney, I recommend that Council take
action as authorized in the new ordinance for a new facility.
Since the restaurant is not complete, the license should be
issued for the hotel only. When the restaurant is complete
and meets city code, staff can expand the license to include
the restaurant.
Alternatives
1 . Take action on application tonight.
2 . Hold a special session when bond and insurance are in order.
3 . Delay action until next regular meeting on August 5th.
Recommendation
Alternative No. 1 .
Action Requested
1 . Approve the applications and grant on-sale and Sunday liquor
licenses to Scottland Hotels Inc. , County Road 83 and
Secretariat Drive, hotel only; and direct that the licenses
shall not be issued until the applicant has fully complied
with all requirements of the city code.
2 . Authorize the expansion of the on-sale and Sunday liquor
licenses of Scottland Hotels Inc. to include the restaurant
when the restaurant is complete and meets all the requirements
of the city code.