Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
12/16/1986
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items DATE: December 11, 1986 1. The street light has now been installed at the intersection of County Road 16 and County Road 83 . 2. We received a note from a cable TV viewer who indicated that locating paper and candy bags next to the microphones creates unnecessary noise. The viewer simply suggested we place the bags farther away from the microphones (possibly under the table) to solve the problem. 3 . The certificate of insurance for Superamerica did arrive on Wednesday, December 3rd, and was accepted by the City Attorney. Thus it was not necessary to pull the off-sale 3 . 2 beer license. 4 . Under the Scott County Senior Citizens Program, Hazel Ecklund has begun working 2-1/2 hours per day. She will be working on the purging and microfilming of records. 5 . The Shakopee VFW is applying for renewal of their gambling license. They meet the requirements of the City Code for qualifying for a license. 6 . Attached is a copy of a letter from Joe Ries, County Administrator, regarding the removal of the county garage on 4th Avenue. Please note the findings regarding soil contamination. If you receive calls from citizens on this please instruct them to call Joe Ries directly. 7 . Attached is a notice from Mark McNeill regarding a "Candidates Forum" for candidates for the Metropolitan Council. The forum is scheduled for 7 : 00 p.m. on December 23rd at the Scott County Courthouse room 111. 8 . Attached is a status report on on-sale liquor licenses from Judy Cox. 9. Attached is a memorandum from Gregg Voxland regarding workmens compensation insurance for 1987 . 10. Attached is a copy of a letter I received from John F. Hedin, Director of Court Services , regarding the City' s participation in the community service program through the Court Services. 11. Attached is the building activity report for the month ending November 30 , 1986 . 12. Attached are the minutes of the October 20, 1986 and November 3 , 1986 meetings of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 13 . Attached is the agenda for the December 17 , 1986 meeting of the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee. 14 . Attached is the agenda for the December 18, 1986 meeting of the Energy and Transportation Committee. 15 . Attached are the minutes of the December 3 , 1986 meeting of the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee. 16. Attached are the minutes of the October 23 , 1986 meeting of the Energy and Transportation Committee. 17 . Attached is an invitation to an Appreciation Dinner for Sandra Gardebring on Tuesday, December 30th. 18 . Attached is the Revenue and Expenditure report as of November 30, 1986 . 19 . Attached is a memo from Marilyn Remer regarding comparable worth appeal procedure. 20 . Attached is a memo from Gregg Voxland regarding tax increment budgets. 21 . The city has received notice that the Shakopee Youth Baseball-Softball Association is applying for a gambling license at Shakopee Bowl, 222 East lst Avenue. The Association meets the requirements of the city code for qualifying for a gambling license. 22 . Attached is a letter from Betty Sindt, Councilmember, City of Lakeville, regarding the meeting with candidates for Met Council District 14 Representative. JKA/jms OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR SCOTT COUNTY COURT HOUSE 110 a - SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379-1382 (612)937-6100 December 11, 1986 JOSEPH F.RIES Administrator F.BRANDT RICHARDSON Deputy Administrator BARBARA NESS Administrative Asst. Mr. John K. Anderson Shakopee City Administrator 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: Scott County Highway Garage at 333 Shumway St. , Shakopee; Groundwater Assessment Dear John: Pursuant to our telephone conversations last Thursday and again this morning, I am forwarding by courier, copies of the Investigation Report of Al Frechette, Scott County Environmental Health Specialist, and the Ground- water Assessment Work Plan which were reviewed with the Building Committee on Tuesday, December 9, 1986. Phase I of the Groundwater Assessment Work Plan was authorized for immediate commencement by the firm of Bruce A. Liesch Associates, Inc. As I mentioned on the phone, it is my intent to keep you advised on a regular basis on the progress of our assessment efforts as well as the remedial measures the county will be taking. In the interim however, I would appreciate that any inquiries the city may get on this matter be directed to Al Frechette, Jon Westlake or my personal attention as I believe this arrangement will best serve our mutual interests. Thank you for your cooperation. Sinc e y, os F. Ries Ad inistrator cc: (Letter only) County Commissioners Al Frechette Jon Westlake Cliff McCann Brad Larson JFR:bn An Equal Opportunity Employer G^ SCOTT COUNTY r THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COURT HOUSE A102 hcEndG OF — SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379-1393 (612)-445-7750, Ext.354 '��3�1'Z" `t INVESTIGATION REPORT OLD SCOTT COUNTY HIGHWAY GARAGE ON FOURTH AND SHUMWAY On December 2 , 1986 I was contacted by LeRoy Heitz , ( Scott County Building Official , in our office) who had recieved a call from Joe Kane from the Scott County Highway Department to inspect the excavation of two underground fuel storage tanks, (one gasoline and one fuel oil ) . The two tanks had been removed on November 28 , and the hole was left open for observation. On December 3 , 1986 I investigated the open tank excavation. I noted the presence of gasoline in the soil under the area where the gasoline tank had been. I did not note any evidence of fuel contamination immediatly beneath the fuel oil tank . I dug down a few feet with a hand shovel and noted gasoline evidence as far as I dug. Upon return to the office I contacted Joe Kane to report my findings . I also notified Jon Westlake and Joe Ries . It was decided , after further discussions with Cliff McCann and Brad Larson to excavate as far as necessary to remove all gasoline contaminated soil . On December 4 , 1986 I visited Determan Welding in Fridley to view the tanks that had been removed . The tanks had been numbered 651 and 652. The fuel oil tank looked to be in fairly good shape . Most of the creosote wrapping was still in place . I did not see any evidence that it had been leaking. The gasoline tank looked to be much older and there was very little creosote coating remaining. I noted a numoer of holes 7 — 10 and took some photographs . Upon returning to Shakopee , I went to the garage site where Highway Department employees were in the process of excavating the contaminated soil . I had conferred with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff to arrange for disposition of the contaminated soil at the county gravel pit in Belle Plaine . The soil ( about 80 cubic yards) was hauled to the pit and thin spread . Jeff Peterson ( Environmentalist I) and I watched the excavation progress. I directed the removal of as much soil as I thought to be contaminated . The backhoe operator noted that he could not dig any deeper than 12 feet without side wall support or terracing, so we stopped at this depth. I asked that the side walls be sloped for safety and that the hole be fenced again. I reported our findings to Joe Ries , Brad Larson, Jon Westlake and Cliff McCann. It was agreed that we should contact the MPCA to verify that we had removed all of the contaminated soil , and also to contact Bruce A. Liesch Assoc. (BAL ) for an estimate of investigatory costs . . Subsequently , I contacted Kevin Faus of the MPCA and arranged a joint inspection the following day . An Equal Opportunity Employer On December 5 , 1986 Kevin Faus and I went to the site and using a pick and hand shovel , checked for additional evidence of gasoline contamination. We did not detect any contaminated soil laterally at the 8 - 10 foot depth except adjacent to where the tank had been under the building footings . Using a hand soil auger, we bored a hole approximately 5 feet deep. At 4 feet or approximately 15 feet from the original soil surface , we struck water . We noted evidence of gasoline in the soil the entire depth and on the surface of the water . Samples were taken to demonstrate the amount of gasoline present on the water table . This hole was about three feet north west of where the gasoline tank had set . Kevin stated that an investigation plan would have to be prepared and soil borings and monitoring wells installed to determine the extent of contamination. I returned to the Courthouse to confer with Jon Westlake and Joe Ries . It was decided that I should contact Bruce A. Liesch Assoc . to prepare a proposal for a site investigation. I invited Liesh to observe the site , and Jim DeLambert (BAL) arrived within two hours . After viewing the site , we met again in Joe Ries ' office to determine a course of action. It was decided best from a public safety standpoint to fill the hole with clean material that had been delivered the previous day by the County Highway Dept . Jim DeLambert from B. A. Liesch Assoc had come prepared with a stainless steel monitoring well which we felt would be expedient to place in the hole we had augered and backfill around it . We stayed to observe the hole being filled , and checked the well upon completion. BAL was asked to submit a proposal by Monday December 8 , 1986 . December 8 , 1986 I replaced a coffee can which we had placed over the monitoring well (lacking anythine better on-site on Friday) with a cap that could be better secured , we also affixed warning labels "Flammable Liquid" . Jeff Peterson viewed the Belle Plaine gravel pit site and took pictures of the area used to thin spread the contaminated soil . He reported that it had been spread over a large area to a depth of about six inches . CITY OF SAVAGE MEMORANDUM TO: See Distribution DATE: December 5, 1986 FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Metro Council Candidates Please be advised that the "Candidates Forum" has had a change in location. It will now be held in the Assembly Room (Room 111) of the Scott County Courthouse. The courthouse is located at 428 South Holmes in Shakopee. The intent of the forum is to give all potential candidates for the Metropolitan Council District 14 representative vacancy an opportunity to present their qualifications and respond to questions from the audience. Cities, counties, Chambers of Commerce, and state legislative people from the District are being specifically invited to attend. However, you should contact your local news media with a press release with this information so that other interested people, as well as any potential candidates who are as of yet unannounced, may have an opportunity to attend. Candidates should be advised that they will have an oppor- tunity to make a brief oral presentation, distribute any written materials that they might have, and have an oppor- tunity to respond to questions from the audience. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Mark McNeill City Administrator MM/rjl Distribution: J. Anderson - Shakopee D. Ashworth - Chanhassen L. Barton - Burnsville G. Mangold - Carver County P. McGarvey - Lakeville M. McGuire - Prior Lake D. Pokorney - Chaska J. Ries - Scott County DECD C11,Y 0,1-- SHAKOPEF- U MEMO TO : John K. Anderson , City Administrator FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk RE: Status Report on On-Sale Liquor Licenses DATE: November 26 , 1986 This is an update on the number of on-sale liquor licenses issued and unissued in Shakopee . The number of on-sale licenses available is 12 plus one for the racetrack . They are apportioned as follows : Class A-6 establishments under 4 , 000 sq . ft . Class B-3 establishments over 4 , 000 sq . ft . Class C-3 hotel/motel restaurant/lounge Licenses Issued To Date Class A Class B Class C Pullman Shakopee House Scottland Hotels Rock Spring Clair ' s Bar R. Hanover Friendly Folks Granny' s Note : The Class B license no longer requires that 50% of the gross receipts be from the sale of food . JSC/pss TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Workmens Compensation Insurance for 1987 (Informational) DATE: December 11, 1986 Introduction The current workmens compensation insurance policy expires December 31, 1986. Background The City has been a member of the self insurance group of the League of Cities for several years. I have not received the premium quotation for 1987 yet but am proceeding with renewal with the League program. Once we joined the League program, Council has not shown any interest in leaving it and I recommend that we stay in the League program. Also, three years has not elasped since we looked elsewhere in the market. SCOTT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COURT SERVICES ►=" COURT HOUSE 207 SHAKOPEE, MN 55379-1397 (612) 937-6260 December 4, 1986 John Anderson, City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 1st Avenue East Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Community Service Dear Mr. Anderson: I would like to take this opportunity to personally thank you for your agreement to serve as a community service Work Site Supervisor. Through your participation, you have reflected the support essential for this program and offender accountability. Enclosed I am forwarding an EXAMPLE LETTER. After each community service site has been arranged, the original will be sent to the offender with a copy to the Work Site Supervisor. Please pay special note to the fact that offenders are instructed to contact the Work Site Supervisor directly by a specified date to make work arrangements. Please also note that the work will be time limited and the due date specified in the letter. At the completion of the community service, the offender will be asking the Work Site Supervisor to sign the lower section of the letter for verification. It is the offender' s responsibility to return this verification to Court Services. Since the support of community service sites is absolutely essential in maintaining a strong and healthy program, we encourage you to contact our department directly if you have any questions or concerns. For specific questions regarding the status of any offender performing community service, I recommend you contact the staff member who has signed the community service letter. Again - THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT ! ! ! ! Sincerely, In F. Hedin Director - Court Services JFH/bhc cc: file enc: EXAMPLE LETTER An Equal Opportunity Employer SCOTT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COURT SERVICES COURT HOUSE 207 do SHAKOPEE, MN 55379-1397 (612) 937-6260 July 16, 1986 Tom Hanson File #MN0352 106 Broadway RE: Community Service Jordan, MN 55352 Dear Tom, As set in Court Order dated 07/10/86, you have been assigned 50 hours of community service. Your community service work site has been arranged. Please contact Robert Morgan (Work Site Supervisor) of the City of Jordan located at 210 1st Street no later than 07/25/86 at 492-2535 for scheduling plans. As community service is time limited note that verification of successful completion must be received in Court Services by 09/03/86. Please submit this letter to your Work Site Supervisor for signature. It is your responsibility to return this letter to Court Services at the address listed above. Failure to appear at any scheduled appointment or complete this action within the time period designated will result in review of this matter by the Court. Sincerely, Denny Miller Court Services Agent DDM/wm cc: Work Site Supervisor, File . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (DO NOT DETACH) COMMUNITY SERVICE VERIFICATION By my signature I verify that 50 hours of community service has been completed by Tom Hanson. Special comments include: Date: Work Site Supervisor An Equal Opportunity Employer CITY OF SHAKOPEE BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT PERMITS ISSUED November, 1986 Yr. to Date Previous Year Number Number Valuation Number Valuation Mo. Ytd. Single Fam-Sewered - 42 3, 329, 474 1 30 2, 132, 947 Single Fam-Septic 2 21 1, 955, 650 - 18 1, 343, 944 Multiple Dwellings 1 5 2, 992, 200 1 14 1, 770, 100 (# Units) (YTD Units) (2) (102) - (2) (42) - Dwelling Additions 1 47 304 , 034 1 41 190, 088 Other 3 10 1, 155, 300 - 11 141, 722 Comm New Bldgs 1 8 9, 692, 000 - 7 3 , 123, 341 Comm Bldg. Addns - 4 942, 267 2 15 9, 962, 510 Industrial-Sewered - - - - - - Ind-Sewered Addns - 3 4, 420 , 000 - 1 5, 475 Industrial-Septic - - - - - - Ind-Septic Addns - - - - - - Accessory/Garages 3 28 149 , 050 2 42 273, 976 Signs & Fences 4 83 151 , 465 3 66 66, 484 Fireplaces/Wood Stove - 7 13, 777 1 14 30, 130 Grading/Foundation - 13 439, 800 3 15 207, 500 Remodeling (Res) 2 28 78, 573 2 32 102, 109 Remodeling (Inst) - - - - 1 1, 093, 000 Remodeling (Comm/Ind) 3 45 5, 671, 215 7 39 2, 104, 608 TOTAL TAXABLE 20 344 31, 294, 805 24 373 21, 454, 934 TOTAL INSTITUTIONAL - - - - 1 1, 093, 000 GRAND TOTAL 20 344 31, 294 , 805 24 374 22, 547, 934 No. Ytd. No. Ytd. Variances - 12 - 14 Conditional Use 4 29 2 34 Rezoning - 2 - 5 Moving - 2 - 6 Electric 35 307 23 255 Plbg & Htg 14 295 26 244 Razing Permits Residential - - - 1 Commercial - - - - Total dwelling units in City after completion of all construction permitted to date. . . . . . . 3, 994 Cora Hullander Bldg. Dept. Secretary CITY OF SHAKOPEE BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED IN NOVEMBER, 1986 7296 Roger Beuch 916 Atwood Garage 6, 000 7297 E.L. Prahm 10th & Spencer Alt. 12, 000 Pump House #3 7298 E.L. Prahm 10th & Holmes Alt. 4, 000 Pump House #2 7299 Roger Bauer 2087 Eaglewood Lane House 105, 000 7300 Void '` �• 7301 Nordquist Sign 7950 Hwy 101 Sign 8, 000 7302 Valley Pools 8855 E. 13th Ave. Pool 18, 000 7303 David Huss 930 Dakota Garage 6, 000 7304 Eagle Creek Plaza 471 Marschall Rd. Sign 5, 000 7305 Dan LaTour 2112 Foo hill Traj-1 House 70 , 000 7306 Willard Paul 741 W. 7th• Addn. 1, 700 7307 Signs of Quality 581 Marschall Rd. Sign 300 7308 Fenc-Co Inc. 1803 Eagle Crk Blvd Fence 15, 800 7309 Bonnie Hennes 1165 Menke Circle Alt. 6, 048 7310 LeRoy Menke 1740 E. 4th Ave. Alt. 40, 000 7311 J.F. Sullivan 120 E. lst Ave. Alt. 25, 000 7312 David Sand 1184 Merritt Court Alt. 400 7313 Monnens Bros . 409 E. lst Ave. Alt. 10, 000 7314 Randall Quiring 8959 E. 13th Ave. Ofc. Bldg. 80, 000 7315 T.M. Kearney 1143, 1145 Merritt Ct. Duplex 102, 200 7316 Dennis Weckman 2013 Hi ld le Dr.' Garage 6, 000 MINUTES OF THE SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMT•SSION (Special Session) The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in special session. on October 20, 1986. at 5:00 PM in the Utilities meeting room. Commissioner Kirchmeier offered a prayer for divine guidance in the deliberations of the Commission. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Kirchmeier and Kephart. Also Manager Van Hout. Secretary Menden and Commissioner Cook were absent. The special session was called to open the bids for the renovation of the pumphouses. Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Kephart that the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission award the bid to E. L. Prahm Builder for the project #86-3 Pumphouse #2 roofing and related work in the amount of $5,400.00. Motion carried. Motion by Kephart, seconded by Kirchmeier that the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission award the bid to E. L. Prahm Builder for the project #86-5 Pumphouse #3 roofing, masonary and related work in the amount of $12,650.00. Motion carried. Motion by Kephart, seconded by Kirchmeier that the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission award the bid to Ken's Steel Door Repair Service for Project #86-4 in the amount of $5,488.10. Motion carried. Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Kephart that the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission award the bid to Ken's Steel Door Repair Service for Project #86-6 in the amount of $11,750.00 for Pumphouse #3 door repair and related work. Motion by Kephart, seconded by Kirchmeier that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried. Louis an Hout, Utilities Manager MINUTES OF THE SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in regular session on November 3, 1986 at 4:30 P.M. in the Utilities meeting room. Commissioner Kirchmeier offered a prayer for divine guidance in the deliberations of the Commission. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Kirchmeier, Cook and Kephart. Also Liaison Wampach, Manager Van Hout and Secretary Menden. Motion by Cook, seconded by Kephart that the minutes of the October 6, 1986 regular meeting be approved as kept. Motion carried. Employees of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission were present to present their 1987 wage requests. Mr. Gene Pass answered questions the Commission had regarding the wage requests. BILLS READ: City of Shakopee 20,032.00 American Public Power Association 747.01 A T and T Information Systems 18.57 Auto Central Supply 146.50 Auto Central Supply 78.74 Badger State Chemical Co. 220.91 Bentz Construction, Inc. 142.50 Border States Electric Supply Co. 21,325.67 Burmeister Electric Company 285.43 Burnsville Cluth and U Joint 42.90 C H Carpenter Lumber 176.86 Carlson Hardware Company 26.40 Champion Auto of Shakopee 41.88 Clay's Printing Service, Inc. 285.95 Julius A Coller II 50.00 Ditch Witch of Minn. , Inc. 34.96 Don's Electronic Shop 213.62 Dressen Oil Company 89.73 Excel Office Products 441.50 Feed Rite Controls, Inc. 1,261.92 Graybar Electric Company 1,374.03 H & C electric Supply 790.61 H D Electric Company 68.81 Hance Cable Testing 220.60 Henningson, Durham and Richardson 431.06 Krass and Monroe Chartered Law Office 137.50 KVA Electric Co. , Inc. 180.00 Merrill Lynch 100,000.00 Metro Sales Incorporated 130.05 Minneapolis Truck Center 65.63 Minn. Department of Natural Resources 30.00 t' Minn. Department of Public Safety 17.85 Minn. Environmental Quality Board 239.60 Neco, Inc. 40,202.00 Ted Neisen 254.00 North American Signal Company 13.63 Northern States Power Company 279,093.09 Northern States Power Company 993.25 .Northern States Power Company 332.32 Northland Electric Supply Company 57.69 Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 251.73 Otter Tail Power Company 282.47 Harold Pass 125.00 Schoell and Madson, Inc. 664.14 Scott County Recorder 125.25 Shakopee Public Utilities Comm. 173.35 Shakopee Services 22.00 Southwest Suburban Publishing, Inc. 136.59 Starks Cleaning Services 53.40 Dean Smith Trenching, Inc. 675.00 Suel Business Equipment 25.11 Truck Utilities and Mfg Co. 6.39 Twin City Testing Corp. 563.52 Utilities Telecommunications Council 55.00 Valley Industrial Propane, Inc. 10.88 Lou Van Hout 46.07 Voss Electric Supply Company 183.96 Water Products Company 606.45 Wesco 984.50 Woodhill Business Products, Inc. 586.07 Motion by Kephart, seconded by Cook that the bills be allowed and ordered paid. Motion carried. Letters from T.M.I. , Inc. as well as Schoell and Madson, Inc. and R.E. Mooney and Associates, Inc. regarding the painting of the steel water standpipe and the positions of the involved parties were discussed. Commissioner Kirchmeier directed the Manager to have our Attorney answer T.M.I. Inc. by letter that the position of the Commission is as follows: The Commission would like the tank painted to their satisfaction and they decline to enter arbitration because they feel it is inappropriate. A problem exists which T.M.I, Inc. must rectify and until that time we must retain the 10% and hold unto the bid bond. Secretary Menden left the meeting. Mr. Dave Gorres and Mr. Bill Theis from A.B.M. , Inc. arrived for the discussion on the digger derrick. A report regarding the new digger derrick truck was presented to the Commission from Manager Van Hout. The weight of the new truck was the main issue of the discussion with certain background items clarified. Motion by Cook, seconded by Kephart that the Commission charge the Manager with the decision to either move the axle back 18" at A.B.M. 's expense or to put a second axle on the truck to be used during the wet season with the cost being shared by the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission and A.B.M. and the latter I contributing the amount equal to the cost of moving the axle back 18". Motion I carried. s Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded b17 Kephart that. the Shakopee Public Utilities 1 3 s Commission approve a payment to A.B.M. , Inc. equal to 75% of the cost of the total bid price for the digger derrick truck, as soon as it can be assured that the truck meets a substantial part of the specifications. Motion carried. Liaison report given by Liaison Wampach, included the Downtown Committee report. Electric rates will be discussed at the next regular meeting of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission on Dec 1, 1986. A request had been received previously for water on Co. Rd. 17 South of the Junior High for an apartment complex. The City Engineer is doing a feasibility study and will be meeting with Manager Van Hout in the near future. The pumphouse remodel work is under way. There were 4 fire calls for the month of October, 1986 for a total man hours of 3. There were no lost time accidents for the month of October, 1986. The next regular meeting of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission will be held on December 1, 1986 at 4:30 P.M. in the Utilities meeting room. Motion by Cook, seconded by Kephart that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried. r IL Barbara Menden, Commiss on Secretary i i 77Jd f e3 TENTATIVE AGENDA Downtown Ad Hoc Committee City Hall Council Chambers December 17, 1986 Chrmn. Laurent Presiding 1. Call to order at 7: 30 A.M. 2 . Approval of Agenda 3 . Approval of the minutes - December 3 , 1986 4 . Starwood Presentation - Jeff Seigl, Scottland 5 . Downtown Redevelopment Public Hearing - Discussion 6. Informational Items: a. b. 7 . Other Business a. b. 9. Adjourn Barry A. Stock Administrative Assistant CITY OF SHAKOPEE IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING PLEASE CALL BARRY OR TONI TO LET THEM KNOW PROCEEDINGS OF THE DOWNTOWN AD HOC COMMITTEE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS DECEMBER 3 , 1986 Chm. Laurent called the meeting to order at 7 : 40 a .m. with the following members present : Terry Forbord , Gary Laurent , Melanie Kahleck , Jim Stillman , Bill Wermerskirchen and Liaison Jerry Wampach. Absent : Don Martin , Mike Sortum , Dan Steil , Joe Topic , Pete Sames and Tim Keane . Also present were John Anderson , City Administrator ; Dick Koppy , Westwood Engineering; Ken Ashfeld , City Engineer ; Barry Stock , Administrative Assistant and Beth Moe , Shakopee Valley News . Melanie Kahleck , new committee member was welcomed and introduced . Bill Wermerskirchen/Jim Stillman moved to approve the agenda with the addition of 7a bridge update and 8a letter of resignation from Dan Steil . Motion carried . Bill Wermerskirchen/Terry Forbord moved to approve the minutes of the October 29 and November 12 , 1986 meetings . Motion carried . Ken Ashfeld gave a report on the mini By-Pass design study . Mr . Ashfeld reported that the Environmental Assessment ( EA) for the T . H. 169 bridge has been completed and is now in its final draft and is being reviewed by the Federal Highway Administration . The E .A. studied three alternatives 1) no build alternative , 2) alternative 7A ( single bridge with 4 lanes , 3) alternative 13 ( two bridges with 2 lanes ) . He explained that CBD access on the east end would be identical for both alternatives . The recommended west CBD access provides access to Fuller Street and ingress only to the CBD. Under this alignment most of Brambilla ' s parking lot will be saved on the west end and on the east end the houses north of First Ave . between Spencer and Sommerville will be lost . Cost estimates of an under-pass were included in this design . When the design is finalized an over-pass or under-pass will have to be analized further . The Committee felt it was very important to have a good crossing for Senior Citizens , shoppers and those using the trail system and that it is also important to connect the City with the river rather than isolate it . Staff was requested to investigate the feasibility of using the old bridge for pedestrians , biking and snowmobiling . The City Engineer feels that if the Highway Department is somewhat passive about the design it may be up to City Council to decide . Jim Stillman/Bill Wermerskirchen moved that the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee recommend to City Council alternative 7A as the preferred bridge alignment which provides for one bridge as identified in the Environmental Assessment for T .H. 169 Minnesota River crossing . Motion carried . Bill Wermerskirchen/Melanie Kahleck moved to recommend to City Council that the City pursue the implementation of mini By-Pass alignment and geometric Alternative No . 2 as identified in the City Engineer ' s November 6 , 1986 memo to the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee . Motion carried . Jim Stillman suggested that Lewis Street become a low level entry to Levee Drive when elevations are determined . Economics will determine what additions can be made . A discussion was held on the format to be used at the public hearing on the downtown revitalization project to be held at Citizens State Bank on December 9 at 7 p .m. The Committee will propose doing Phase 1 of the project anticipating that there may be a reduction in size and scope of the project . Mr . Stock asked the Committee ' s opinion about eliminating improvements on Holmes or 3rd Ave . or doing the project in phases . It was the consensus that a lot of time had been spent on this project over the years and that cuts have already been made to lower the cost . They agreed that Holmes Street should be included but if necessary 3rd Ave . could be eliminated . Dick Koppy said it was his opinion that doing the project in phases would not add a great deal to the cost . He also quoted a cost cf $2 . 85 million for the original design which would include 3rd Ave . If 3rd Ave . were to be excluded the cost for Phase I street improvements including high level lighting and all pole bases would be $1 . 75 million. The Phase II streetscape , including low level lighting would cost $625 , 000 . The Committee concurred that doing the project in phases would require additional cost in staff time and public hearings . Chm. Laurent requested an estimate of staff time and soft costs if the project is done in phases . Dick Koppy suggested it might be beneficial to do Phase I by assessments and tax increment for the second phase . Bill Wermerskirchen would like some information as to how other cities finance their improvements . The next meeting will be held December 17 at 7 : 30 a .m. A letter of resignation from Dan Steil was acknowledged . . .Mr ., Steil is a long time member of the Committee but finds it necessary, to resign because he will now be working in Prior Lake . Terry Forbord/Bill Wermerskircehn moved to adjourn at 9 :15 a .m. Darleen Schesso Recording Secretary PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Regular Session Shakopee, Minnesota October 23 , 1986 In the absence of Chairman Ziegler and Vice Chairman Spiotta, Commission Secretary Schwartz called the meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m. with Commissioners Schmidt, Weeks and Allen present. Chairman Ziegler and Commissioner Spiotta were absent. Barry Stock, Administrative Assistant was also present. Schmidt/Weeks moved to approve the minutes of the August 21, 1986 meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously. The first order of business on the agenda was the addition of a dial-a-ride vehicle. Mr. Stock informed the committee that in light of recent ridership increases, he has been investigating the possibility of adding a third vehicle to the dial-a-ride program. On October 14, 1986 the dial-a-ride carried over 140 passengers. Mr. Stock informed the committee that this was likely that this was the maximum ridership we could achieve with our two existing vehicles. Additionally, we have had to turn away riders in the past few months because of the high demand that we are experiencing. Mr. Stock informed the committee that currently a back-up vehicle for the van pool program is being stored at the dial-a-ride office. It was Mr. Stock' s intention to negotiate a deal with the van pool provider so that this vehicle could also be used as a back-up to the dial-a-ride program. Mr. Stock received a letter agreeing to this type of agreement from the manager of Van Pool Services. Mr. Stock then contacted the manager of Kare Kabs to ascertain whether or not they would be in favor of this type of agreement. In the discussions with the Kare Kab manager it was pointed out that in the event of an accident using the van pool back-up vehicle in conjunction with the dial-a-ride program, the issue of liability would be unclear. For this reason, the dial-a-ride manager felt that it would be inappropriate to have his drivers utilizing a vehicle that is not owned and operated by his company. Understanding our need for an additional vehicle the Kare Kabs manager has proposed an alternative solution to our dilemma. Mr. Stock informed the committee that Kare Kabs has agreed to purchase a new full size 16-20 passenger vehicle for our dial-a- ride program. The charge for this vehicle would be based on an 8 hour day at the current bid price of $17. 90 per hour. Additionally, Kare Kabs would be willing to raise the passenger ridership threshold which currently stands at 2100 rides up to 2400. In light of the fact that our ridership increases during the school months, Kare Kabs is willing to make this third vehicle available to us for a 9 month period of time with the additional three months during the summer available at the City' s option. Finally, Kare Kabs would be requesting that the original contract be extended to the full three year term to help them recoup their additional vehicle investment cost. Commissioner Schmidt questioned whether the third year that is being requested for extension would be at the existing bid price of $17 . 90 per hour per vehicle. Mr. Stock responded in the affirmative. Mr. Stock then went through an analysis of the 1987 Dial-A-Ride Budget to show the committee the impact of adding an additional vehicle. The current dial-a-ride budget is for $124 , 449 . The cost of the two existing vehicles at the prestated bid price and assuming that the ridership threshold is not reached is approximately $92 , 059 . 20. This is well below the budgeted amount. Therefore if we add the cost of the third vehicle as proposed by Kare Kabs and stay below the ridership threshold the cost of the additional vehicle would be approximately $21,780 . When we add this amount to the cost of two existing vehicles we have a total of $113 , 839 . Still well below our budgeted amount. However, if we assume that the ridership threshold is met each month during the year the cost of our two existing vehicles is $101, 455 . Again, if we calculate the cost of the third vehicle assuming the ridership threshold is met during each month of that vehicles contract period ( 9 months) the additional cost is approximately $24,804. Adding the additional cost of the third vehicle to the cost of the two existing vehicles gives us a total expenditure of approximately $126,259. In this case which is a worse case scenario in terms of our budget we would exceed our budget by approximately $2,000 and leave nothing for administrative costs. Therefore, staff is recommending that the ridership threshold be eliminated from the contract so that we can not be put in to this type of situation. If Kare Kabs is unwilling to proceed with type of action, staff will try to raise the passenger threshold to 2800 passengers per month as compared to Kare Kabs 2400 passenger per month. Raising these thresholds to the 2800 passenger per month level would ensure that we would not be charged at the higher bid price each month during the contract period. Commissioner Weeks stated that the projections presented by staff were made using the absolute worst case scenario. Even if we did exceed the threshold for every month during the contract period we would only be approximately $2, 000 over our dial-a-ride budget amount. Mr. Stock stated that there was adequate funds in the van pool budget to cover this small over run, additionally if the situation did occur in which excess funds were not available from the van pool budget, it is likely that we could apply for an amendment to our contract with the regional transit board requesting additional funds. Weeks/Schmidt moved to recommend to City Council that the dial-a- ride contract be amended to add a third dial-a-ride vehicle as proposed by Kare Kabs with the following two exceptions: l� 1. That the size of the new vehicle may be reduced to either a 12 or 15 passenger van. 2 . That the ridership threshold be increased to at least 2800 rides per month. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock informed the committee that the Scott County Solid Waste Advisory Committee had not met in the past four months. He did however receive a correspondence from Jan Flesland, Scott County Environmental Planner which stated that the Scott and Carver County Boards had accepted an arrangement in which they would work jointly to locate a waste reduction facility in either Scott or Carver County. This facility would be shared between the two counties. A consultant was being hired by the two counties to help in the vendor selection process. Commissioner Allen questioned what the Energy and Transportation Committee ' s role was with the Scott County Solid Waste Advisory Committee. Mr. Stock informed the committee that this was purely informational for the committee. In the event that a waste reduction facility is located in Scott County, the Energy and Transportation Committee' s role might be to assist in working out public/private partnerships for processing recyclables at the waste reduction facility. Mr. Stock questioned whether or not the committee would like to hold a van pool party for the van pool riders around Christmas as was done last year. Commissioner Schmidt felt that the riders enjoyed the party and it was a nice gesture on behalf of the City. Consensus indicated that a party should be held again this year and a tentative date was selected for December 18th. Mr. Stock suggested that the Committee could then meet following the party at 7: 00 p.m. for their regularly scheduled meeting. Mr. Stock then went over the recycling report which indicated the amount of recyclables collected by the various city organizations since January of this year. Total materials collected so far this year amounted to approximately 156 tons. The City receives a $4 per ton for the material collected. This money is received from the Met Council. These dollars are used to help promote the recycling program via the newspaper. Mr. Stock then went over the dial-a-ride and van pool monthly reports. Mr. Stock noted that the van pool subsidy per passenger trip for the last two months has increased significantly. This is primarily due to the fact that the back-up vehicle was now being charged to the van pool program. Prior to this time it was being charged to the dial-a-ride program because it was used as a back-up to both programs. Mr. Stock then suggested that it might be appropriate at our next meeting to have a goals and objective session to help establish the direction of this committee in 1987. Mr. Stock felt that the committee was probably getting a little tired of monitoring the recycling and transit programs which are both running very smoothly. Commission Schwartz felt that this was a good idea and he would like to see the committee expand into more transportation issues. Mr. Stock informed the committee that many of the transportation issues in Shakopee were either being handled by the downtown committee or the Scott County Transportation Coalition. The consensus of the committee was that at the December meeting it would be appropriate to brain storm and establish some new policy direction for the Energy and Transportation Committee. Allen/Weeks moved to adjourn the meeting at 8 : 25 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Barry A. Stock Recording Secretary /7 �. � , "Power means two things: ; Opportunity to express your ideas and attempt to lead. It , also means you can make a difference—you're not 14 voiceless, you can influence events, influence people." 1 -- N til- v Sandra Gardebring , , ���, �, IT Metropolitan Council Chair J �'' May 1984-December 1986 0EC 1 110 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Appreciation Dinner for Sandra Gardebring Please join us in honoring Sandra Gardebring for the positive difference she has made in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area as Metropolitan Council Chair—and will make in the state as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services. Date: Tuesday, Dec. 30 Time: 6 p.m., Cash Bar, 7 p.m., Dinner and Program Place: Sheraton-Midway Hotel, 1-94 & Hamline Av., St. Paul Cost: $15 per person Please make checks payable to "Gardebring Dinner,"and mail to Rosemarie Johnson, 300 Metro Square Bldg., 7th and Robert Sts., St. Paul, MN 55101. Checks must be received by Dec. 21. For more information, call 291-6461. i � 1986 CITY OF SHAKOPEE R E V E N U E R E P O R T AS OF 11--30-86 PAGE 1 FUND 01 GENERAL FUND ___ C U_R R E-N T_- M 0 N_T H ._-_. �_-- Y E A .R ,_.T_0 _ D A.._T E______ ACCOUNT/DESCRIPTION -EST. REVENUE ACTUAL VARIANCE PCT EST. REVENUE ACTUAL VARIANCE PCT 3011 GEN. LEVY - CURRENT _ _378,000.00 _ 927,50S.00 823,384,71- ____..104, 120.29- 88.8%_-- }. �^ 3022 FISCAL DISPARITIES .00 92,000.00 57,311 .64 34,688.36- 62.3 is **«* TAXES 378,000.00 1 ,019,505.00 880,696,3S 138,808.65- 86.43031 SPECIAL __-__ '_'' �I ASSESSMENT 3032 PENALTYJ4INTEREST INT ---- ---- -- ---- .00 ttf �I ++i* SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS .00 .00 .00 .00 3109 TRACK FRANCHISE 7,342.30 150,000.00 129,669.10 20,330.90- 86.4 3111 LIQUOR LICENSES .00 43,000.00 55,291 .00 12,291 .00 128.6 3112 BEER LICENSES 00_______ ___ 4,000.004,503,OQ...-_-_�-_503.00 112.6_._ _.___-_1 3113 BINGO 4 GAMBLING LIC. .00 - 200.00 .00 200.00- L, 3114 CIGARETTE LICENSES 60.00 750.00 178.75 571 .25- 23.8 3115 POOL TABLE LICENSES .00 600.00___________,00_-_..__.__.600.00-__ _ 3132 BUILDING PERMITS - 4,991 .00 102,500.00 143,369.70 40,869.70 139.9 j 3133 PLUMBING PERMITS 2,514.85 21 ,000.00 27,017.82 6,017.82 128.7 3134 MECHANICAL PERMITS 219.75 _ 12,000.00 -_- _- _14,308.88 3135 WELL PERMITS 129.00 300.00 1 , 155.50 855.50 385.2 3136 SEWERWATER PERMITS 145.00 3,000.00 4,211 .00 1 ,211 .00 140.4 3137 ELECTRICAL PERMITS 1 ,227.50 10,000.00 21 ,494.50._____,11,494,50 P-14.9_ 3138 STREET OPENING PERMITS 255.00 1 ,200.00 1 ,530.00 330.00 127.5 3150 MISC. BUS. PERMITS .00 900.00 811 .50 88.50- 90.2 3160 DOG LICENSES 16.00 200.00 _-_1-as.00_ _15.00-_92_,x_-__ .� 3161 MISC. NON-BUS. LIC. 00 150.00 .00 150.00- 1 **** LICENSES 4 PERMITS 16,900.40 349,800.00 _ 403,725_75 53,925.75 115.4 _ 3320 STATE GRANTS 474.32 .00 2,258. 19 2,258.19 3321 LOCAL GOVT AIDS .00 490,000.00 2 _ 4S,1-14,_50__ _ 500- -3322 0. - 244,885.50-__50 3322 HOMESTEAD -- --- _..-_._ __.._ ...__.-.-_.._-. __-._.00__ -.._. _. ._ _-_- _ 180,000.00 119,790.42 60,209.58- 66.6 3323 POLICE STATE AID .00 44,000.00 47,753.55 3,753.55 108.5 3324 POLICE TRAINING 2,295.00 .00 _2,29500 2,295.00__.__..__ _ 3332 STATE HWY.MAINT. AID _ .00 15,495.00 13,945.50 1,549.50- 90.0 3336 CIVIL DEFENSE .00 450.00 .00 450.00- .. si 3337 MOBILE HOME -00 1 # 100,00 ___,00_-__-- - __1 , 100.00.-. 3340 COUNTY ROAD b BRIDGE AID .00 56,000.00 .00 56,000.00- 3341 AGGREGATE TAX .00 4,000.00 1 ,927. 15 2,072.85- 48.2 se, ***x INTERGOVENMENTAL - 2,769,32 --- 791 ,045.00 433,084.31 357,960.69- 54.7 3506 VALLEYFAIR .00 9,240.00 9j-240.00 .00 100.0__ 3507 ADMINISTRATIVE FEES .00 15,000.00 .00 15,000.00- 3508 IND.REVENUE BOND FEE .00 5,000.00 500.00 4,500.00- 10.0 3509 ENGINEERING SERVICES 00120,249.42 89,561 .50 _ 30,687.92- 74.5 351 0 ENG. GRADE FEE 75.00 2,000.00 2, 14S.00 145.00 107.3 I' 3511 PLAN CHECK FEE 699.20 39,000.00 48,790.00 9,790.00 125.1 , iy 3512 ASSESSMENT SEARCHES 114.0021000.00 3,685.00 1 ,685.00 184,3 3513 SALE OF DOCUMENTS - -- 419.84 31000.00 3,933. 17 933.17 131 .1 3514 PLATS-REZON-VAR-COND.USE 525.00 51000.00 6,326.00 1 ,326.00 126.5 3516 FILING FEE .00 .00 - -- 00 _- .00__--__--_� I I :I 1986 CITY OF SHAKOPEE R E V E N U E R E P O R T AS OF 11-30-86 PAGE 2 FUND 01 GENERAL FUND C_U_R._R_E_ N_T- M 0 -N_T H _ Y_E_A_R ACCOUNT/DESCRIPTION EST. REVENUE ACTUAL VARIANCE PCT EST. REVENUE ACTUAL VARIANCE PCT ' 3517 RETAINED FEES_.-. - - --- .00 ---- ---- _ _ 200-00 3520 SNOW REMOVAL .00 21000.00 137.24- 2,137.24- 6.9 3521 PUBLIC WORKS RENTALS 21 .00 .00 692.50 692.50 , 3522 WEED CUTTING CHARGES .00 _ ____,00_.�_____op.OQ .-.___,80.00--____.-- 3523 MISC.PB.WKS.SERVICES 1 ,601 .15 11000.00 7,761 .87 6,761 .87 776.2 e 3524 STREET REPAIR ,00 200.00 501 .25 701 .25-250.6 „ r• 3526 FIRING RANGE - - --- - _._�-.._ .00 --- - _ 500.00--- ---- 00 500...00 iJ 3527 CONCESSIONS-POOL .00 6,500.00 6,187.73 312.27- 95.2 3531 MISC. POLICE SERVICES .00 .00 .00 .00 3532 POUND FEES d FINES _ ____256.00 800.00 __1,101-,86 -_301 .86_137.7________ '. 3533 FIRE CALLS 6 STANDBY FEE 370.00 21 ,000.00 12,041 .50 8,958.50- 57.3 3539 WATER SLIDE .00 30,000.00 10,668.72 19,331 .28- 35.6 3540 SEASON TICKETS-POOL _ -__ _00 3541 ADMISSIONS-POOL .00 91500.00 11,255.42 1,755.42 118.5 3542 SWIMMING LESSONS .00 5,700.00 8,061 .00 2,361 .00 141 .4 3543 MISC. POOL INCOME .00 50.00 .00 50.00- ..-- - ----------- - -- - ----- _._ .._-:-•. 3650 REFUSE DISPOSAL 13,446.18 167,900.00 129,237.25 38,662.75- 77.0 ssss CHARGES FOR SERVICE 17,527.37 459,839.42 -711 --7-9-3 --9.3___ - - 3660 COURT FINES 4,689. 11 53,000.00 49,861 .83 3,138.17- 94.1 ssss COURT FINES 48689,11 53,000.00 49,861 .83 3,138.17- 94.1 3810 INTEREST --_�- - _ - - 00 _ 45,000.00 38,612_62 6,387,38-_85..8 3820 SALE OF CITY PROPERTY .00 .00 85.00 85.00 3821 RENT 640.00 6,500.00 4,660.00 1,840.00- 71 .7 3822 CONTRIBUTIONS 00 ,00 .00 3830 STATE SURCHARGE FEE .00 .00 .00 .00 41 3890 MISCELLANEOUS 1 ,312.62- 13,000.00 16,960.58 3,960.58 130.5 tss� MISCELLANEOUS 672.62 64,500.00 60,318.20 4,181 .80- 93.5 I 3900 TRANSFERS _ 00 452,400.00 .00 452,400.00- --- 3910 SPUC CONTRIBUTION - 20,032.00 274,384.00 200,320.00 74,064.00- 73.0 ssss TRANSFERS 201032.00 726,784.00 200,320.00 526,464,00- 27.6 li FUND TOTALS 439,245.58 3,464,473.42 2,392,800.98 1,_0711,672_44-69..1__._____ - i 74 Ile ]5 1986 CITY OF SHAKOPEE E X P E N D I T U R E R E P O R T AS OF 11-30-86 PAGE 1 FUND 01 GENERAL FUND______ C-U-R_R E-N -T--M-O N_T__H Y_E, A R_.T 0 D A_T-E -._ ____. ...___ 31 ACCOUNT/DESCRIPTION APPROPRIATION ACTUAL VARIANCE PCT APPROPRIATION ACTUAL VARIANCE PCT :l 4100 SALARIES-FULL TIME105,143.86 _ 1 ,275,765.00_-1,125, 129.92_--___150,635.-08--88.2 4112 OVERTIME-FULL TIME 2,665.11 46,295.00 29, 138.22 17, 156.78 62.9 4130 SALARIES - PART TIME 8,074.81 142,440.00 150,002.30 7,562.30-105.3 4140 PERA7+886,39 95,900,00 88,676.09 7.223.91-92.5-. 9 ----_.------- o 4141 PENSIONS-FICA 4,259.08 55,510.00 49, 188.46 6,321 .54 88.6 4143 PENSIONS-MEDICARE 71 .81 289.42 1 ,280.52 991 .10-442.4 4150 HEALTH 6 LIFE INSURANCE_ 7,560.02i __ -110,029.00 - 82,351-96 27,677.0474.8 .__ ! 4151 WORKMENS COMP. INSURANCE .00 51 ,045.00 45,004.00 6,041 .00 88.2 4152 UNEMPLOYMENT COMP. 47.55 .00 50.09 50.09- I _. ._--- ---_-- ------------.._.. ----- -._- - is st*s PERSONAL SERVICES 135,728.63- 1,777,273.42 1,570,821 .56 206,451 .86 88.4 4210 SUPPLIES 91346.22 70,965.00 -. 67,679-,..33 -3,285.67_-.95-.4 4215 SURFACE MATERIALS 2,533.26 28,305.00 26,861 .09 1 ,443.91 94.9 4222 MOTOR FUELS d LUBRICANTS 3,964.37 43,770.00 25,584.99 18,185.01 58.5 4230 BUILDING MAINT. _ 3,214.43 78,835.0055,266.3823,568.62 -70.. 1.-- ?^ ti 4232 EQUIP MAINT d REPAIR - -- - 7,736.99 67,875.00 68,236.52 361 .52-100.5 4234 UTIL.SYSTEM MAINT. & CON .00 .00 .00 .00 4242 SEAL COATING - -_ -_ .00_ - 181 ,000,00-66,497-05--114,572..95--36-T-- 4291 0661-4270'5- 114,572..95_-36-T.- 4291 INVALID OBJECT .00 .00 .00 .00 31J ,I 4310 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 23,300.50 232,180.00 229,994.61 2,185.39 99.1 31 4316 LEGAL FILING FEES-ETC. _ _ 10.00 1 300.00 206.50.-_,_1,093.50_-_-15,9 4319 PROMOTIONS 76.14 1,500.00 1,272.22 227.78 84.8 4320 POSTAGE 19.60- 5,075.00 4,174.82 900.18 82.3 , 4321 TELEPHONE 1,027.78 _ 17,340,00-12,336.96 5,003.04_71-, 4330 TRAVEL & SUBSISTENCE 393.37 6,475.00 4,095.22 2,379.78 63.2 4350 PRINTING d PUBLISHING 807.45 27,150.00 13,306.98 13,843.02 49.0 3 4360 INSURANCE .0079,300.00_106,999.70 , 27,699.70-134.9 4370 UTILITIES ---- ---- - ---- --- 16,514.65 - _ - - 274,700.00 195,896.66 78,803.34 71 .3 • 4380 RENTS 78.00 36,470.00 23,114.40 13,355.60 63.4 4390 CONFERENCES 3 SCHOOLS _ _ 1 ,073.00 21,930.00 __15,517_63_ -61!!112.37.-70-.8 I , 4391 DUES 6 SUBSCRIPTIONS 255.00 i - 10,970.00 10,255.49 714.51 93.5 4395 MERCHANDISE 00 21500.00 5,839.54 3,339.54-233.6 4411 CURRENT USE CHARGES 00 __1 ,500.00 1 ,500,00 .00100.0 4499 MISCELLANEOUS - 16.00 2,300.00 900.86 1,399.14 39.2 **** SUPPLIES & SERVICES 70,327.56 -----l.,.191 ,-440..00-.-935,466.95--255,973.05-78.5---. . 4511 CAPITAL-EQUIPMENT 552.27 439,570.00 268,396.79 171,173.21 61 .1 4519 OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 00 .00 ._00 .00 *ss* CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 552.27 439,570.00 268,396.79 171,173.21 61 .1 4710 PERMANENT TRANSFERS ---- .00 i 45,000.00 42,300.00 2,700.00 94.0 .,I **** TRANSFERS 00 45,000.00 42,300.00 2,700.00 94.0-_____- 4982 TAXES 1 ,561 .38- 1,500.00 2,558.54 1,058.54-170.6 *•s*_.REMITTANCES - - - ---- -- ------1,561 .38- - - - - _ - - 1,500.00 2,558.54 1 ,058.54-170.6 ,! 4991 CONTINGENCY .00 150,690.00 14,731 .65 135 958.35 9_8 1986 CITY OF SHAKOPEE E X P E N D I T U R E R E P O R T AS OF 11-30-86 PAGE $ FUND 01 GENERAL FUND _ _ __-___C.U_R .R E N T _M_0 N T_H__-__._.--___—_._ —_____--Y_.E A_R__T_0.--_D_A—T—E__.__—__— ACCOUNT/DESCRIPTION APPROPRIATION ACTUAL VARIANCE PCT APPROPRIATION ACTUAL VARIANCE PCI ii ss++ CONTINGENCY — .00 150,690.00 14,731 .65 135,958.35 9.8 i FUND TOTALS 205,047.08 3,605,473.42 2,834,275.49 771,197.93 78.6 I i I cI I Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Marilyn M. Remer, Personnel Coordinator Re: Comparable Worth Appeal Procedure (Informational) Date: December 12, 1986 It was the consensus of the department heads at the December 4, 1985 staff meeting to approve the attached Comparable Worth/Compensation Study Appeal Procedure. In the interim it was determined by staff that the procedure not be a part of the Personnel Policy but instead be put in the Administrative Policy manual. A copy is being provided to Council as an informational item and a copy will also be filed in the Administrative Policy Manual. COMPARABLE WORTH/COMPENSATION STUDY APPEAL PROCEDURE In accordance with the City's grievance policy as contained in Section 18 of the personnel Policy the following steps have been formulated to deal with appeals of employees relating to his or her individual time spent profile and its accompanying job description as a result of the Comparable Worth Com- pensation Study. If an employee feels that with tasks listed or the times associated with those tasks do not accurately reflect the employee's job duties, the employee has the right to appeal. If an individual feels that the methodology used in constructing the study, or some particular phase of the study should be questioned, this type of appeal will be heard ultimately by the MAMA Joint Appeals Committee. The following procedure should be followed: 1. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the job description/time spent profile, the employee shall notify his/her immediate supervisor/department head of a request for appeal. Within 20 working days of the receipt of the appeal, the supervisor/department head will discuss with the employee the areas of concern. (In departments where there is a supervisor/foreman and a department head, both will meet with the employee) . A written account of the discussion will be prepared by the supervisor within 3 working days of the discussion and signed by both the employee and the supervisor/department head. The signing of this account does not necessarily indicate that the employee agrees with the outcome of the discussion, but that the employee agrees to the account of the content of the discussion. A copy of the account will be given to the employee and the Administrative office (Personnel Dept. ) . If the employee's appeal is not resolved at this point, the employee may choose to take the appeal to the Appeals Committee (Step 2) . If the appeal is resolved, the resolution will be sent within 3 working days to the Appeals Committee for final approval. 2. An Appeals Committee will be established. The Appeals Committee will be composed of the individual's immediate supervisor, the individual's department head (these may be the same individual) , the Comparable Worth contact person, and the City Administrator. All documentation relative to the appeal, plus a written request for appeal before the Appeals Committee shall be forwarded to this committee. Within 30 working days of the receipt of the appeal by the Comparable Worth contact person, the Appeals Committee will hear the appeal. The employee may bring individuals to the hearing to support the appeal. The individuals who wish to speak for the individual will be given an opportunity to do so on an individual basis. No decision of the Appeals Committee will be given until all appeals are heard. Within 10 working days of the last appeal heard, all decisions will be released. The decision of the Appeals Committee will be the final level for appeal within the City. 3. If an appeal is not related to an individual time spent profile, but rather to the study itself, such an appeal will be forwarded to the MAMA Joint Study Appeals Committee. TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Tax Increment Budgets (Informational) DATE: December 11, 1986 Introduction The City has budgets for tax increment districts contained in the tax increment financing plan that meet legal requirements. The State has required that tax increment data be reported to the State Auditor in a format proscribed by him. The reporting required by the Auditor does not coincide with the requirements for the TIF Plan. Back round The budgets in the TIF Plan meet legal requirements but are not in a form or format that is traditionally prepared by accountants. The budgets are somewhat incomplete and hard to follow from an accounting standpoint. The State Auditor is requiring a traditional type budget be reported to him. Elaine Hansen of the State Auditor's office indicated that a budget prepared by staff based on the information in the TIF Plan would be acceptable. Accordingly, the attached budget document is basically the data that I will be using to make the report to the State Auditor's office. CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Printed 12-Dec-86 Tax Increment Budget Summary December 31, 1986 KMart HiRise Downtown Track Downtown Motel District #1 District #2 District #3 District #4 District #5 District #6 Total ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Sources of Funds Bond Proceeds $ 13,030,000 $ 370,000 $ 0 $ 4,200,000 $ 0 $ 500,000 $ 18,100,000 Tax Increments 25,933,705 560,934 386,492 16,599,901 0 1,723,825 45,204,857 Interest on Investments 1,909,242 347,524 0 189,903 0 22,000 2,468,669 Real Estates Sales 1,139,468 20,000 0 0 0 0 1,159,468 Other 0 State Hwy Aid 255,642 0 0 0 0 0 255,642 ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Total Sources 42,268,057 1,298,458 386,492 20,989,804 0 2,245,825 67,188,636 ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Uses of Funds Land Acquisition 1,139,468 126,550 0 3,300,000 0 125,000 4,691,018 Site Improvements 1,170,000 0 0 0 0 205,000 1,375,000 Public Improvements 12,400,215 187,484 0 190,390 0 84,000 12,862,089 ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Subtotal 14,709,683 314,034 0 3,490,390 0 414,000 18,928,107 ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Bond Payments Principal 14,680,000 370,000 0 4,200,000 0 500,000 19,750,000 Interest 11,504,171 269,574 0 2,818,067 0 376,275 14,968,087 Administrative Costs 759,727 36,000 0 412,500 0 48,650 1,256,877 ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Total Uses 41,653,581 989,608 0 10,920,957 0 1,338,925 54,903,071 ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Balance (Deficiency) $ 614,476 $ 308,850 $ 386,492 $ 10,068,847 $ 0 $ 906,900 $ 12,285,565 f� CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Printed 12-Dec-86 / Tax Increment Budget Detail December 31, 1985 KMart HiRise Downtown Track Downtown Motel District #1 District #2 District #3 District #4 District #5 District #6 Total ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Sources of Funds Bond Proceeds KMart 1979 $ 3,650,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ KMart Refunding 3,140,000 Track offsite 2.49 2,490,000 2.49 Refunding 2,105,000 1.645 '86B 1,645,000 HighRise 370,000 Track 4,200,000 Downtown #3 Downtown #5 Motel #6 500,000 ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Subtotal 13,030,000 370,000 0 4,200,000 0 500,000 18,100,000 ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Tax Increments KMart #1 25,933,705 HiRise #2 560,934 Downtown #3 386,492 Track #4 16,599,901 Downtown #5 0 Motel #6 1,723,825 ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Subtotal 25,933,705 560,934 386,492 16,599,901 0 1,723,825 45,204,857 ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Interest on Investments KMart #1 1,909,242 KMart Refunding KMart Track Offsite HiRise #2 347,524 Downtown #3 Track #4 189,903 Downtown #5 Motel #6 22,000 ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Subtotal 1,909,242 347,524 0 189,903 0 22,000 2,468,669 ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Real Estates Sales KMart 1,139,468 HiRise 20,000 Other State Hwy Aid Track Offsite 255,642 ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Total Sources 42,268,057 1,298,458 386,492 20,989,804 0 2,245,825 67,188,636 ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Uses of Funds Land Acquisition KMart 1,139,468 HiRise 126,550 Track 3,300,000 CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Printed 12-Dec-86 2- Tax Increment Budget Detail December 31, 1985 KMart HiRise Downtown Track Downtown Motel District #1 District #2 District #3 District #4 District #5 District #6 Total ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Motel 125,000 ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- subtotal 1,139,468 126,550 0 3,300,000 0 125,000 4,691,018 ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Site Improvement or KMart site 1,120,000 Motel 205,000 Downtown Renovation Loans 50,000 ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- subtotal 1,170,000 0 0 0 0 205,000 1,375,000 ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Public Improvements 6 KMart Offsite 2,105,000 Track Offsite 2,750,215 Storm - Holmes 1,256,000 Bridge EAW 167,500 2nd Ave Parking lot 221,500 Bridge 1,900,000 Bypass 1,000,000 Streetscape 3,000,000 Storm - Pro,j. 4,5,6 2,063,000 Storm - Pro,j. 5,7,8,9 2,020,000 Storm - Pro,j. 5,1,2 1,524,000 Storm - Pro,j. 5 500,000 Storm user fee credit (5,916,610) HiRise 187,484 Motel 84,000 ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Subtotal 12,400,215 187,484 0 190,390 0 84,000 12,862,089 ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Bond Payments Principal KMart 1979 5,300,000 KMart Refunding '84A 3,140,000 Track offsite 1984 2,490,000 Refunding '86A 2,105,000 '86B 1.645 storm/eaw/lot 1,645,000 HiRise 370,000 Track 4,200,000 Downtown #3 Downtown #5 Motel 500,000 ------------- ------------- ------------- ------- --- ------------- ------------- ------------- Subtotal 14,680,000 370,000 0 4,200,000 0 500,000 19,750,000 ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Interest KMart 1979 4,821,753 KMart Refunding '84A 2,774,825 Track offsite 1984 1,751,733 Refunding 86A 998,440 Storm - Holmes, pk lot, b 1,157,420 HiRise 269,574 CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Printed 12-Dec-86 Tax Increment Budget Detail December 31, 1985 KMart HiRise Downtown Track Downtown Motel District #1 District #2 District #3 District #4 District #5 District #6 Total ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Track 2,818,067 Downtown #3 Downtown #5 Motel 376,275 ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Subtotal 11,504,171 269,574 0 2,818,067 0 376,275 14,968,087 ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Administrative Costs Original bond issues 7,785,000 370,000 4,200,000 500,000 less cost of issue 10,000 75,000 13,500 5.3 mil 100,000 2.4 mil 36,135 1.6 mil 51,600 ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Subtotal 10% of net 759,727 36,000 0 412,500 0 48,650 1,256,877 ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Total Uses 41,653,581 989,608 0 10,920,957 0 1,338,925 54,903,071 ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Balance (Deficiency) $ 614,476 $ 308,850 $ 386,492 $ 10,068,847 $ 0 $ 906,900 $ 12,285,565 CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Printed 12-Dec-86 Tax Increment Revenue Projections KMart #1 KMart #1 HiRise #2 Downtown #3 Track #4 Track #4 Downtown #5 Motel #6 Original New Develop. Original Original Original New Develop. Original Original ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thru 1985 3,542,374 240,934 56,492 1986 861,969 40,000 22,000 1987 861,969 40,000 22,000 2,154,939 1988 861,969 353,760 40,000 22,000 2,153,601 21,825 1989 861,969 353,760 40,000 22,000 2,152,142 74,000 1990 861,969 353,760 40,000 22,000 2,150,552 74,000 1991 861,969 353,760 40,000 22,000 2,148,817 74,000 1992 861,969 353,760 40,000 22,000 2,146,925 74,000 1993 861,969 353,760 40,000 22,000 2,144,862 74,000 1994 861,969 353,760 22,000 1,548,063 74,000 1995 861,969 353,760 22,000 74,000 1996 861,969 353,760 22,000 74,000 1997 861,969 353,760 22,000 74,000 1998 861,969 353,760 22,000 74,000 1999 861,969 353,760 22,000 74,000 2000 861,969 353,760 22,000 74,000 2001 861,969 353,760 74,000 2002 861,969 353,760 74,000 2003 861,969 353,760 74,000 2004 861,969 353,760 74,000 2005 74,000 2006 74,000 2007 74,000 2008 74,000 2009 74,000 2010 74,000 2011 74,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 19,919,785 6,013,920 560,934 386,492 16,599,901 0 0 1,723,825 r "ubject : ;I'eetin�- .— th candidates for .:et Council District 14 Reuresentative To : City administrator/.anagers County ,dministrators/Coordinators Please copy the accompanyi.n,- letter and -provide copies to ,your elected officials . Also -provide them to anyone who ,you know may be interested in arplying for the o-ening. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, J BFtty Sindt CouncilmembFr, C _ty of Lakeville " I- DEC J 91986 December 8,1986 Subject: Met Council District 14 Representative Dear Local Official: The impending expiration of the term of the current Metro- politan .Council District 14 representative has generated considerable discussion about recommendations for appoint- ment or reappointment.Local officials from District 14 met on December 3rd to discuss the Metro Governance laws and to share information as to possible interested rarties for the District 14 seat . As a result of that meeting,this letter is an invitation to all city councils and county boards in District 14 to attend a meeting of local officials and the candidates for the Dist- rict 14 seat . This meeting will be held at the Scott County Court House,428 South Holmes Avenue , Shakopee at 7PM on Dec- ember ?3rd . It is hoped all governing bodies will either send a repre- sentative or better still, all-.attend - The purpose of this meeting is to give us all an opportunity to meet anyone interested in this seat and have a chance to get their views on issues of importance to our district If you knovr anyone interested in applying for this seat please tell them the application must be made before January 2nd and please invite them to this meeting on December _23rd. It is most important that we as cities and counties of District 14 take advanage of this opportunity to be part of this appointments process .' e all know Peet Council very much influences the governing process in ea:.h of our communities and this is our chance to be active in the choice of our representative . Remember - DFCEMBFR 23rd SCOTT COUNTY COURT HOUSE 7 PY Sincerely, Bett Sindt Councilmember,Lakeville TENTATIVE AGENDA. AD.T .REG. SESSION SHAKOPEEE , MINNESOTA DECEMBER 16, 1986 Mayor Reinke presiding 1] Roll Call at 7 : 00 P.M. 21 Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 31 RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS 41 Approval of Consent Business - (All items listed with an asterick are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal. sequence on the agenda. ) *51 Approval of Minutes of November 18th and 25th, 1986 61 Communications : (Items noted for consent will be received and filed) a] Becky Kelso has requested to be placed on the agenda to discuss upcoming legislative issues b] Marjorie R. Henderson re: request for financial contribution for Murphy' s Landing *c] Governor Rudy Perpich re : openings on the Metropolitan Council *d] Bruce Malkerson, Scottland re : Starwood Music Center e] Robert Vierling re : injury occurring at 221 E. 4th Avenue 71 Public Hearings: a] Continuation of public hearing on the request, for the vacation of a roadway easement in Eaglewood 3rd Addition(bring 9b from 12/2 agenda) 81 Boards & Commissions: Planning Commission Recommendations: a] Amendment to the City Code to Allow Limited Food Processing in the B-1 District 9] Reports from Staff: [Council will take a 10 minute break around 9 : 001 a] Downtown Redevelopment Project *b] Vacation Car-ry Over_. Request *c] Radio Purchases *d] Purchase of Squad Cars #e] 1987-1988 Towing Contract f] Pullman Club Gambling Violation. g] Response to Council Question on Patrol Coverage - memo on table h] TH 169 Bridge and ?'Mini-Bypass Project *i] Change Order No. 6, 1984-8 TH-101 Project *j ] Minnesota Valley Trail Cleanup Project k] Signals at TH-101 and CR-83 11 Upper Valley Drainage Report m] Railroad Corridor Improvement TENTATIVE AGENDA Page -2- December 16, 1986 9] Reports from Staff continued: delete n] Partial Estimate No . 1 for 1986 Curb , Gutter, Sidewalk Project 86-2 o] 1987 Pool Table Licenses p] 1987 Taxicab Licenses - memo on table *q] Contract with Municipal Ordinance Codifiers for Updating City Code *r] Assistant Building Inspector *s] Electrical Inspector Contract t] Bond Election for New City Hall ill Phase II Agreement with Boarman Architects v] Advettising_ for= the Planner I Position w] 1987 Small Cities Development Program (SCDP) Application x] Low Level Radioactive Waste Site Designation y] Approve Bills in Amount of $373, 294.79 101 Resolutions and Ordinances: a] Res. No. 2668, In Appreciation to Kenneth Hgnel *b] Res. No. 2669 , Authorizing Delivery of A Deed c] Res. No. 2661 , Adopting 1987 Fee Schedule *d] Res . No. 2663, Amending 1986 Budget *e] Res. No. 2670, Terminating Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 f] Res. No. 2655 , Adopting A Sanitary Sewer Plan for Land within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (bring item 12a from 12/2 agenda) Asst . City Attorney' s opinion on table *g] Res. No. 2666, Supporting Federal Legislation Regarding Pipelines Carrying Hazardous Substance h] Ord. No . 210, Amending Precinct Boundaries within the City of Shakopee i ] Res. No. 2665 , Adopting 1987 Pay Schedule for Officers and Non-Union Employees j ] Res . No. 2664, Establishing A Pay and Benefit Agreement for the Police -Sergeants for 1987 *k] Res. No. 2667 , Amending City Personnel Policy by Establishing An Appeal Committee for City Employees 11] Other Business : � b] , c] 12] Adjourn. JOHN K. ANDERSON CITY ADMINISTRATOR H A P P Y H O L I D A Y S ! ! Or FI^IAL PR-I EDIiv�;S OF iT17 SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. SPECIAL SESSION SHAKOPET, MI_NNESOTA NOVEMBER 18, 1986 Vice Chairman Wampach called the meeting to order at 7.00 p.m. with Cncl. Leroux, Lebens, and Vierling present. Also present were John K. Anderson, City Administrator; Judi Simac, City Planner; Kenneth Ashfeld, City Engineer; Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director; and Julius A. Coller II, City Attorney. Mayor Reinke arrived and took his seat at 7:15 p.m. Lebens/Vierling Offered Resolution No. 2649, A Resolution of Commendation to Joseph W. Notermann and moved for its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Lebens/Leroux Offered Resolution No. 26509 A Resolution of Commendation to Barry A. Stock and move for its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Liaison Reports were given by councilmembers. Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone from the audience who wished to address anything not on the agenda. There was no response. Leroux/Vierling moved to approve the minutes of November 4, 1986. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Leroux/Wampach moved to receive and place on file the letter from the League of Minnesota Cities regarding 1987 LMC Conference Planning: Request for Members for Conference Planning Committee for '87 Conference. Motion carried unanimously. The City Administrator reviewed the notice of vacancies in Multi—member State Agencies. Mr. Joachim is currently the representative on the Metropolitan Council. Leroux/Lebens moved to receive and place on file the letter from the State of Minnesota, Office of the Secretary of State seeking applicants for vacancies in state agencies. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Lebens moved to receive and place on file the letter from the Coalition of Outstate Cities in regards to a meeting to discuss property tax reform issues and update on the MACI research. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to receive and place on file the letter from Diane Henning requesting her name be added to the list of candidates for the vacancy on the City Council. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to receive and place on file the letter from Lon Carnahan requesting his name be added to the list of candidates for the vacancy on the City Council. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. City Council November 18, 1986 Page -2- Leroux/Wampach moved to receive and place on file the letter from Robert Ziegler requesting his name be removed from the list of candidates for the City Council vacancy. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion ensued on allowing food processing in the B-1 district. The City Planner said that Mr. Bill Jonquist, owner of Fairest Made Foods, Inc. has requested the City to amend the City Code to allow food processing operations in B-1. Mr. Jonquist said that his business has expanded and they need the additional room. He proposes a three phase expansion and improvement on the property. He would like to be sure that the City Code could be amended before he starts any construction. The consensus of the Council was to see Mr. Jonquist's business, Fairest Made Foods stay in Shakopee and to support the Planning Commission's decision. Leroux/Wampach moved that the Planning Commission work with Mr. Jonquist to try and retain the business within the City of Shakopee while at the same time protecting the citizens of Shakopee. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion ensued on Sanitary Sewer Plan within MUSA. The City Planner said the purpose of an internal sewer plan is to designate land within the MUSA that could trade its sewer allocation to land that may be annexed to the City. Leroux/Wampach moved to create an internal sewer plan that labels the areas #77, Y, and 66 for 305 total acres as tradeable land for sanitary sewer allocation. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to direct staff to prepare an amendment to the Developer's Agreement for Canterbury Park 2nd Addition which requires the construction of sidewalks, as per standard specifications, along the north side of Secretariat Drive. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: done Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize the proper city officials to sign the amended Developer's Agreement for Canterbury Park 2nd Addition. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to approve the reduction of the cash deposit of $,18,913.12, which the developer has submitted for the construction of sidewalks on both sides of Secretariat Drive to 19,456.56 and thereby authorize the refunding of ^49,456.56 of the cash deposit, folio-i.ng the execution of the amended Developer's Agreement. Roll Call: Ayesj Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to approve the application and grant an off sale liquor license to Spirits of Shakopee, Inc. 471 Marschall Road South effective February 1, 1987, and direct that the license shall not be issued until the applicant has fully complied with all of the requirements of the City Code. Motion carried unanimously. City r0uncll :November 18, 1986 Page -3- Discussion ensued on a INo increase for liquor and beer licenses. The City Clerk said that all beer and liquor licensees have been notified of the possible increase. Richard ?ianover, from Richards Pub, Shakopee, asked if the increase in fees is meant to be a money maker for the City or to just cover the cost of protection. Mayor Reinke said that the license process is designed to cover expenses that the City incurs, some license holders cause a larger amount of expense to the City than others. Vierling/Wampach moved to increase the liquor license fees 10°x. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Lebens moved to amend the motion that the increases be in keeping with the 10„ recommendation by staff as listed on the memo of Ms. Judy Cox, of November 12, 1986 (Doc. #CC-127). Motion carried unanimously. Discussion ensued on street conditions at the intersection of County Roads 83 and 16. Cncl. Leroux suggested that the intersection be realigned if at all possible. The hazards the Planning Commission reported were skidding-because of loose gravel, inadequate lighting, and uncontrolled traffice speeds. Leroux/Vierling moved to direct the City Engineer to draft a letter to the Scott County Highway Engineer which requests the Scott County Highway Department to conduct a speed limit study on CSAR 83 between CSAH 16 and T.H. 101 and to consider turning lanes and illumination. The City Engineer will address three items in his letter which is: speed limits, illumination, and turning lanes. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion ensued on the Downtown Feasibility Study, Final Report. Barry Stock, Administrative Assistant, said the Westwood Planning and Engineering has completed a final feasibility study report. Mr. Dick Poppy of Westwood Planning and Engineering addressed the Council saying the three specific elements of improvement are street rehabilitation which is approximately 60% of the cost, street scape elements which are approximately 20/o, and street lighting which are approximately 20%. The City Engineer said at this point the Environmental Assessment has been completed and is now at the Federal Highway Administration for review and comment. Mayor Reinke asked if there is a possibility of doing some of the work in stages of one or two blocks at a time to ease the burden of assessments. Vierling/Leroux moved to approve Resolution 4#2648, A Resolution ReceLving and Report and CallLng a Pub1Lc :fearing on Dozmtown Streetscape 1987-2 Improvement Project Phase I and move its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes: :%yor Reinke, Cncl. Vierling and Leroux Noes: Cncl. Wampach and Lebens 714ot i on carried. City Council November 18, 1986 Page -4- Leroux/Vierling moved for a 10 minute recess at 9:20 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. ITierling/Wampach moved to reconvene at 9:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The City aigineer said that staff had received a petition for street improvements to Market Street between 2nd Avenue and 4th Avenue. Both the City and the residents recognize the need for improvement to this street. Becky Youngman, 329 Market Street said that she is concerned with the dust, traffic and speeding problem. Kathy Gerlach, 637 4th, said that she is not totally against doing a feasibility study on the possibility of opening that section of Market Street all the way down to First, but they are not interested in increasing the traffic load. The City Engineer said that on Market Street there is an existing trunk storm sewer system that runs north and south and the need for the future will be to branch off of that. Leroux/Lebens moved to direct staff to prepare the resolution to set a public hearing and to accept the petition initiated by the homeowners to cover the feasibility of street improvement from 2nd Avenue to 4th Avenue on Market Street with an alternative for upgrading that section to municipal state aid standards for 9-ton road in the event that it is to be continued to 1st Avenue. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried Jack Boarman, Boarman Architects presented their findings on the project of the location of the new City Mall. The study of the library site is too small for what is proposed, because there is not enough room for parking they recommend that this site be expanded to include the two lots to the south for more parking. The library site is the lowest cost option. Block 47, 4th Avenue to the north towards Fuller will be a 2-story building. The building would have to be located on the corner of Fuller and 4th. This would be one of the highest cost options. Block 50, Sommerville and 3rd Avenue. The building would be a 2-story structure. It did extend a larger land mass area connecting retail into the main area. The Gorman Street Site, included initially lot 1 which represented a 147,000 sq. ft., Lot 2 represented another 100,000 sq. ft. There would be a balanced parking area, one story structure with a central lobby off the main road area. Future expansion space for senior center community office or any use deemed in the future. City Council tiovem.5er 18, 1986 Page -5— Block 50 Expansion, between Lewis and Sommerville, presents a very large identifiable harder surface plaza area for a municipal center. The consensus of Boarman Architects is Gorman and Block 50 :Expansion would be the most likely. Cncl. Leroux said that as the Chairman of the City Fall Siting Committee they were put -on record at their last meeting for the Gorman Site, the Block 50 expansion was not available to them at that time. There was another issue that it should be brought up to the voters with a secondary non-binding question for the voters so that the people can make the decision of the site. Mr. Butch Notermann said that he was not in favor of the Goran Site and it was his opinion that the City hall should be kept in the doomtown area. Mr. Dave Czaja said that he feels the Gorman site is located in the downtown of Shakopee. Shakopee is expanding to the east and County Road 17 is the downtown area. Bill Wermershkirchen, said that a survey was done with the residents and the majority of the residents said that the new city hall should be located by the courthouse, not on the Gorman Street site. Cncl. Lebens said that a vote was taken of the people through the mail and 60/ replied that the Gorman site was chosen at that time. Steve Clay, former_ member of__the Downtown Committee,_ said_ that__he thought that the City_ Hall could be placed somewhere _else_within the City rather than take open land. Open land on the Gorman Site could be used for redeveloament. They should be willing to reinvest in the downtown area and put the new City Hall doimtown. Tim Keene, 12244 Canterbury Road, said he strongly supports a downtown location. Leroux/vierling moved to direct the appropriate City staff and the architect to prepare the phase II contract in a manner that would place the bond issue on the ballot with a choice of two sites and present it to Council at their December 2, 1986, meeting. Those two sites being the Gorman and the Block 50 expanded site. Motion carried with Cncl. Wampach opposed. The City Administrator said that he received two calls, one from Mr.- Bill Wermerskircher. -Sz. stating that_ w he was supporting a new City Hall dontown, and the other from 4r. Gary Gustafson, Eastman Drug stating that he was interesting in keeping the City Hall dozmtown. City Council November 18, 1986 Page -6- Vierling/Leroux moved to accept the report from Boarman and Associates. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried Leroux/Lebens moved for a 5 minute recess. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Lebens moved to reconvene at 11:00 p.m. notion carried unanimously. At the request of Mayor Reinke and concurrence of councilmembers all parties interested in filling the unexpired term on the City Council were invited to attend tonights meeting. This would enable them to present their qualifications for serving on the Council and also give the present councilmembers an opportunity to meet them. All candidates were present except for Mr. Lon Carnahan who said he was unable to attend tonights meeting but would be present on November 25, meeting to answer any questions the council may have. The candidates were: Ray Siebenaler, Diane Henning, Al Bruer, Delores Rorke, Cliff Stafford, and Steve Clay, and Lon Carnahan. The questions from the council were: 1. How do you look upon the coming growth of Shakopee, where and how would you like to see it developed? 2. 'Mould they all be prepared to give the commitments and the time that is involved to being on the Council? 3. How would you handle a situation if your worst enemy was out in the audience - would you be able to show concern and be open minded? 4. How would you feel if everywhere you went people would stop and ask questions or complain about things they are unhappy with about the Council decisions? 5. How would you feel being criticized from people that may disagree with your decision? Mayor Reinke thanked all for coming this evening and giving up an opportunity to hear from each of them. Leroux/Lebens nominated Lon Carnahan for City Council. Motion carried unanimously. Lebens/!,Jampach nominated Ray Siebenaler for City Council. Notion carried unanimously. Vierling/Wampach nominated Steve Clay for City Council. Motion carried unanimously. City Council November 18, 1986 Page _7_ Wampach/Vierling nominated Al Bruer for City Council. Potinn carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling nominated Clifford Stafford for City Council. Motion carried unanimously. Lebens/Vierling nominated Delores Morke for City Council. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Lebens nominated Diane Henning for City Council. Motion carried unanimously. There will be a special call for voting on November 25, 1986, at 7:30 p.m. Leroux/Wampach moved that when Council adjourns, they adjourn to November 25, 1986, at 7:30 p.m. for the purposes of electing a new City Council member. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to terminate the probationary period of John DeLacey. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried Vierling/Lebens mcved to approve the bills in the amount of 3934,109.87. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize Officer Russell Lawrence to carry over into 1987, 242 hours of vacation time. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize staff to advertise for bids to enter into a contract for towing, impounding and storage of vehicles for the years 1987 and 1988. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to submit the name of Dr. Thomas E. Luth to Scott County as a candidate to assist the County Health Officer in meeting the County's public health needs. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize the closing of City Hall at noon on December 24, 1986 with the stipulation that employees use their vacation time, Comp time or other time. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize staff to terminate present contract with Process Dynamics and contract with Lifestyles of Minnesota. (Employee Assistants Program:._) Motion carried unanimously. City Council November 18,1986 Page -8- Leroux/''ierling moved to authorize Council member Vierling to vote in favor of the LMC 1987 T.egislative Policies, as mailed, at the LMC Policy Adoption Meeting on November 20, 1986. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Discussion ensued on purchasing Deerview Acres Right-of-Way from Scott County. The City Administrator said that the ..city can purchase this property at the minimum bid of $31000 plus '110. It was the overall consensus to not purchase the right-of-way, it would be of no value to the City. Leroux/Lebens moved to decline the purchase of the extension of Norton Drive (outlot-.A, Deerview Acres) the tax forfeited parcel from the County. Motion carried unanimously. Cncl. Lebens left at 11:35 p.m. Mr. Bruce Malkerson, from Scottland Companies, along with Tim Keene, Planner and Legal Counsel, Jeff Siegel, Project Manager, John Kopol, Vice President of the construction, Terry Forbord, Director of Residential Development, and Brian Becker, President of PACE Productions, reviewed their plans of Starwoods Music Center. The area where this outdoor Music Center is proposed to be built is a 150 acre site to the north of the proposed by-pass, east of Valley Park Drive and a little to the east of 12th Avenue. The users of the proposed facility will be musical, that is, classical orchestra, country western, jazz, and off broadway productions. The possible uses of graduation, town meetings and theatre and summer convention center. Jeff Siegel presented a slide showing some of the other Music Centers throughout the United States. Brian Becker, President of PACE Productions reviewed the background of PACE stating that it is aimed at developing and managing entertain- ment venues. Cncl. Wampach said that he has received phone calls from concerned citizens about what the rock concerts may attract, his concerns were narcotics, and police control. Dave Czaja, 5262 Eagle Creek Blvd., questioned the location of this Music Center, he said it is within the flight path of Flying Cloud Airport, they also have to contend with the noise of Raceway Park, Valley Fair concerts and Canterbury:Downs. Walt uinzeu, Eagle Creek Blvd., had the same concerns as Dave Czaja but also was wondering if Shakopee wanted to become the entertainment capital of Minnesota. This would generate more traffic through Shakopee which would mean more hours of heavy traffic. City Council November 18 , 1986 Page -9- Joe Zack, Eagle Creek Blvd. , is also concerned with noise, crimes, and drugs that may be generated by this kind of development. Bruce Malkerson said these issues will be addressed in writing so that others will also know how we propose to handle these situations. Vierling/Leroux moved to recess for the Executive Session at 12:25 p.m. to discuss labor negotiations, Teamster Local 320 - Public Works. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to re-convene. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Wampach moved to adjourn to November 25, 1986, at 7:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 1:00 a.m. Judith S. Cox City Clerk Carol L. Schultz Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. SPECIAL SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 25 , 1986 Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m. with Cncl. Leroux, Lebens, Vierling, and Wampach present. Also present were John K. Anderson, City Administrator, Gregg Voxland, Finance Director, and Judith S. Cox, City Clerk. Mayor Reinke thanked all individuals who submitted their names expressing a desire to be appointed to fill the vacancy on the City Council. Council proceeded with voting to fill the Council vacancy. Results of 1st ballot: Steve Clay - Cncl. Leroux and Vierling Diane Henning - Mayor Reinke Ray Siebenaler - Cncl. Lebens and Wampach Results of 2nd ballot: Steve Clay - Cncl. Leroux, Vierling and Mayor Reinke Ray Siebenaler - Cncl. Lebens and Wampach It was declared that Mr. Clay had received a majority vote from the Council. Vierling/Leroux offered Resolution No. 2653 , A Resolution Filling A Vacancy on the Shakopee City Council, and moved its adoption. The City Administrator read the resolution. Roll Call: Ayes; Cncl. Leroux, Vierling and Mayor Reinke Noes; Cncl. Lebens and Wampach Motion carried. Wampach/Lebens moved to nominate Melanie Kahleck to serve as a member of the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Wampach moved to suspend the rules and appoint Melanie Kahleck to the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee, this evening. Motion , carried unanimously. The City Administrator introduced discussion on the' state mandated comparable worth. The Finance Director explained the rational behind the comparable worth program that staff is putting together and touched on some of the highlights. The City signed up with the Control Data Study almost two years ago. Approximately 150 cities were involved in doing the evaluation of assigning points to the value of a job to the City. The point values from the study are called the job value. The City Council November 25 , 1986 Page Two study established bench marks for certain jobs that seemed to be pretty consistent across all the cities involved. Most of Shakopee ' s jobs came in close to these bench marks. The first decision Council needs to make is whether or not to adopt these bench marks for the City of Shakopee. The point prorata assigns a dollar value to the points so a common denominator can be established between the points and the market study. Using the Finance position, a dollar value was assigned to the points and the value seems to fit reasonably well in a good number of positions. The Stanton job number is a reference point for common job descriptions and job content in matching up our positions with what the market value data is. This is similar to what we are using now. The 1986 Stanton Metro average is used opposed to the Stanton Group V because it gives a broader base for comparison, its a bigger market and is more consistent with the broader range of cities participating in the study. The point value and market value are then blended. The blend proposed is 55% of point value and 45% market rate value. The law requires that the emphasis be on comparable worth study points. Leroux/Lebens moved to find that the Finance Director ' s pay was in error in the amount of $3 , 435 for the years 1984, 1985 and 1986 and that the pay plan be corrected to show that error and that Mr. Voxland be offered by the City that amount of dollars or comparable vacation time, at his discretion. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Consensus of Council was for staff to come back with additional information to aid in further discussion on how the City desires to implement comparable worth. 1) Comparison of the total of the bench mark points and of the total points of city employees in the bench mark positions, 2 ) what would be the cost to the city if salaries were brought to within 5%, 8% or 10% range of the proposed salary blend, 3 ) what is the salary blend using the Stanton Group V at 51% points and 49% market rate. Discussion ensued on comparable worth being retroactive to January 1, 1986, per the 1986 pay plan. Council understanding is that positions needing adjustment or new classification, which were deferred pending comparable worth, will be retroactive to January 1, 1986 . Consensus of Council was not to delay any lcnger, pending comparable worth, making salary adjustments for positions which have received new classification. Council clarified that this does not include the contract with the intern, the new contract already reflects the desired adjustment. City Council November 25 , 1986 Page 3 Cncl. Wampach left at 10: 00 P.M. Leroux/Vierling moved that a resolution be prepared for the December 2nd Council meeting as regards to the Tech III/MIS Coordinator, Planner II and Senior Accounting Clerk/Personnel Coordinator positions, incorporating the appropriate salary for the new classifications. Motion carried unanimously. Cncl. Leroux reported on the committee meeting which took place to discuss charitable gambling in Shakopee. He explained that it was decided that there is enough power in the state law to allow withholding a license when there is gambling violations and that it is not necessary to adopt a new ordinance. Leroux/Vierling moved to adjourn at 10: 12 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Judith S. Cox City Clerk Recording Secretary 4,6N, Murphy's Landing Minnesota Valley Restoration Inc. A village of 1840-1890 �'?? 2187 E. Highway 101 Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 (612) 445 6900 �1 `• w November 24 , 1986 The Honorable Eldon Reinke , Mayor City of Shakopee City Hall 129 East 1st Avenue Shakopee , MN 55379 Dear Mayor Reinke : Murphy ' s Landing has been fortunate in acquiring the Orono Village Hall as a gift from Catherine Cram of Orono . It is in mint condition and will be an exciting addition to the site . I have attached the history of the building as written by Avery Stubbs . The cost of moving the building and placing it on a foundation is approximately $16 , 000 . 00. To date we have raised $6 , 000. 00 , and the Board of the MVRP , Inc. respectfully requests a contri- bution from the City of Shakopee to accomplish this goal . Also , as you are aware , the Minnesota Valley Restoration Project , Inc . , by resolution has established a new fourteen member board , which would include representation from the City . We respectfully request that the City Council make this appoint- ment and advise . Attached is a notice of the meeting date for this newly formed board . Regards , lJ9 2 ,2L7�) Marj,a? e R . Henderson Chairman 7 M P,H t/C-�W'J iJ Encs . I SPRING PARK 9 MOUND ST.FRANCIS I, ~BETMEL 2 ORONO 10 ROBBINSDALE 3 MI NMETONKA BEACH 11 SPRING LAKE PARK 4 TONKA BAY 12 U.S.GOVT, LINWOOD 5 EXCELSIOR 13 HILLTOP 6 GR"MIND 0 14 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS BURNS 1 OpN GROVE EAST BETHEL 7 wO00LANO 15 LT,AFIT MONT 8 MEDICINE LAKE 16 LAUDERDALE ———— 17 FALCON HEIGHTS 25 GEM LAKE 9 '//%w/18 MENDOTA 26 BIRCMwOOD 19 LILY.AL 27 WHITE BEAR 20 GREY CLOUD 28 BAYPORT 21 LANDFALL 29 WILLERCO.HIE ANOKA 22 DELL w000 30 OAK PARK HEIGHTS COLUMBUS 23 PINE SPRINGS 31 LAKELAND SM ORES RAMSEY ANDOVER MAN LAKE 24 MAMTOMEDI 32 ST.MART'S POINT LFO.ESTLAKEI NEW SCANDIA FOREST LAKE AI K ANOA County Boundary A. ORONO DAYTON AM K LINO LAKES MA PIN Municipal Boundary HASsAN C.AMPLIN COON RAPIDS CAMDEN Township Boundary ER5 ELAINE TE RVILLE 8 I M Y HUGH HANOVER SSEO'O LEXINGTON IRCLE PINES WASHINGTON CO. - REENFIELD CORCORAN MAPLE GROVE 11 DUN Is SHOREVIEW �i VIEW NORTH 27 122 STILLW=TER Y BROOKLYN PARK 12 OAKS WHITE BEAR OC KFORD RIDLE L KE HENNE N CO. BROOKLYN GRANT �4 �� CENTER NEW VADNAIS 2 4 I I I AIIIVI^III RIG ON HEIGHTS 2 �L1L'1 Q ',❑LORETTO C STAL 19 r C13 •DENT 25 C29 SiLLWATER �H J elf 14 ILLS NEW IN ��MEDIVA PLYMOUTH OIE 10 51LA � �30 O I / NORTH ROSEVILLE ( ST.PAU '� MAPLE PLAIN C {/ 28 GOLDEN v ZI MAPLEWOOD LAKE BAY i'1WN 7 AKDALE ELMO VALLEY q --— LONG LAK 8 a GA NEST NEST �/W� ORONO WAY AT �0 �� RAMSEYJ CO. LAKELAND V ATE RTOWM . NMET RI STA MINNETONKA ST.LOUIS NT PAUL LAKELAND MI � 7 21 HOLLYWOOD I WATERTOWN 9 21 PARK III MEAPO IS 2 - "o„431 DEEPHAVEN tOPK 1I ,n-5 'S 31 I- ST.CR0IX BE 6 4 � 9 WSTT WOODBURY AFT ONIFACIUS ON3 G EDINA PAUL MAYER 18 SOUTH GERMANY f/// RICHFIELD 1'AIRPORT' ST. NE T U "HEIGHTS SUNFISH PAUL VICTORI QCHANHASSEM '12 HEIGHTS L KE CAMDEN NACONIA LAKET04N EDEN PRAIRIE �� ST. AUL WACONIA AN BLOOMINGTON 15, INVER GROVE CARVER CO. CHASKA EAGAN HEIGHTS COTTAGE GROVE DENMARK -----i------- ----- 120' M rouNc CHASKA DAKOTA CO. II��I AMERICA SHAKOPEE ORWOODCn- i C2 I CARVE AI BURNSVILLE COL OGRE, D-HLGREN L—� SAVAGE 1 JNG AM ERICP HINTON �— I Pt10R APPLE VALLEY ROSE MOUNT NINiNGER ——— I —J LOUISVILLE LAKE AM1 HASTINGS 1 RG —t--- OA ---r_ —1 HANCOCK SAN FRANCISCO 14VERMILLION IRAVENNA SAND CREEK I SPRING LAKE I CREDIT LAKEVILLE EMPIRE I ❑ MARS—N RIVER ABNIN6TON I VERMILLION ^M ST.LAWRENCE I JORDAN SCOTT CO. I 1 V BELLE PLAIXE --——I EW MARKET NDNEW TRIER BLAKELEY BELLE PLAINE HELENA I I HAMPTON CEDAR LAKE I EUREKA CASTLE ROCK I NEW MARKET I MIESVILL HAMPTON DC'-GL-S NE AGUEI ELKO i -----�------�—R>NDOL PH I IR�NDOLPM I MILES 5 10 15 20 25 GREENVALE (WATERFORD = IOTA January 1985 Publication No.08-85-030 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL OF THE TWIN CITIES AREA The Council members and their districts are as follows: Chair—Sandra S. Gardebring 1 - Liz Anderson, 5 - Leon F. Cook, 9 - Josephine D. Nunn, 13 - Dirk deVries, St. Paul Minneapolis Champlin Minnetonka 2 - Mike McLaughlin, 6 - Joan Campbell, 10 - Philip C. Carruthers, 14 - Raymond J. Joachim, St. Paul Minneapolis Brooklyn Park Jordan 3 - Charles William Wiger, 7 - Mary Hauser, 11 - Dottie Rietow, 15 - Mary K. Martin, North St. Paul Birchwood St. Louis Park West St. Paul 4 - Carol Flynn, 8 - Donald E. Stein, 12 - Gertrude Ulrich, 16 - Patrick J. (Pat) Scully, Minneapolis Coon Rapids Richfield Hastings Inc' STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR _. . ST. PAUL 55155 RUDY PERPICH GOVERNOR November 26, 1986 TO: Metropolitan Area Local Elected Officials On Jan. 1 , 1987, the terms for half of the Metropolitan Council members will expire. Prior to that time, and in accordance with the Metropolitan Governance law passed in 1986, a Nominations Committee I have appointed will be conducting an open appointments process designed to include input from local Officials. The terms for the following Council members are up for appointment: District 2 Mike McLaughlin City of St. Paul District 4 Carol Flynn South Minneapolis District 6 Joan Campbell North Minneapolis District 8 Don Stein Southern Anoka County District 10 Phil Carruthers Northwest Hennepin District 12 Gertrude Ulrich County District 14 Ra Joachim Bloomington, Richfield Ray Scott & Carver Counties District 16 Patrick Scully Southern Dakota County Following a 30-day application period, the Nominations Committee will conduct two public meetings. The first meeting will be held at 7 p.m., January 6, at the Brooklyn Center Civic Center This meeting is for applicants from Council Districts 4, 6, 8 and 10. The second meeting will be held at 7 ppm•, January 7, at the Bloomington Cit Hall Council Chambers This meeting is for Council Districts 2, 12, 14 and 16. The purpose of the public meetings is to hear statements from candidates for the Metropolitan Council and from those who wish to speak on their behalf. If you have any questions about the process, please contact Bill Lester of the Metropolitan Council staff (291-6630) . Sincerely, RUDY ERPICH Governor cc: Clerks, City & County Administrators Enclosure: Metropolitan Council District Map AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER G �1 Av THE ED �( SC OTTLAN D 1� , COMPANIES , , ;,Y�r^•1COF'�� December 9 , 1966 Mayor Eldon Reinke and Members of the City Council Chairperson David Czaja and Members of the Planning Commission City of Shakopee 129 E. First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Starwood Music Center Dear Mayor Reinke, Councilmembers and Commissioners: At our recent presentations to you, we stated that we would be receiving and forwarding to you letters of recommendations from other cities and non-profit organizations with whom our joint venture partner, PACE, have conducted business. To date, we have received the following enclosed letters: (a) Letter from the Chief of Police of the City of Nashville, Tennessee where Starwood Amphitheatre is located. (b) Letter from the Mud Island and Memphis Park Commission where PACE manages the Mud Island Amphitheatre on behalf of the City of Memphis, Tennessee. (c) Letter from the Dallas Symphony Association, Inc. with whom PACE is developing an outdoor music center. (d) Letter from AstroWorld/WaterWorld in Houston, Texas (part of the SIX FLAGS Corporation which owns family theme parks throughout the nation) where PACE manages the outdoor music center on behalf of the owners of the adjacent theme park (similar to Valleyfair) . (e) Letter from Governor Dunn of the State of Tennessee. P.O. Box 509 1244 Canterbury Road Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 [612] 445-3242 City of Shakopee December 9 , 1986 Page 2 (f) Letter from the Memphis Development Foundation which is a non-profit organization which works with the City of Memphis, on numerous city projects including the Music Center. We will forward additional letters to you as they arrive. Very truly yours, Bruce D. Malkerson Executive Vice President Jeffrey Siegel Project Manager BDM:ap Enclosure C. C. John Anderson Dennis Kraft Judi Simac Ken Ashfeld RICHARD FULTON, MAYOR �Yl METROPOLITAN GOVERN ^ 0 :-,NASHV E AND DAVIDSON COUNTY O METROPOLITAI=POLICE DEPARTMENT METROPOLI-AN JUSTICE CENTER 200 JAMES F. SERTSON PARKWAY NASHVILL_TENNESSEE 37201 % November 11, 1986 Mr . Stephen Moore Director of Operations Starwood Amphitheater Post Office Box 17205 Nashville , TN 37217 Dear Mr . Moore : We have had not had any law enforcement problems with the Starwood Amphitheater during its first season of operation in Nashville . The facility has been good for Nashville and has brought in some of the top entertainers . We are looking forward to many more successful seasons . j j n er ly,re D. Caseyief of Police JDC/r 1 w MUD ISLaMn EXECUTIVE OFFICE-125 NORTH FRONT STREET-MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE 38103.901/576-6574 December 3, 1986 Mr. Brian Becker Pace Productions, Inc. 4543 Post Oak Place Drive Suite 200 Houston, TX 77027 To Whom It May Concern: Let me take this opportunity to express to you my appreciation for providing the hlid-South with an outstanding concert series in the Mud Island Amphitheatre for the past three summers. As you are quite aware, Mud Island itself has been somewhat of a controversial project for the Memphis riverfront, but the annual concert series has always been the most popular and successful program presented here. According to many sources, Memphis is a great music town. Without a doubt, the best music/concert experience in Memphis is zat the Mud Island Amphitheatre - the setting, the facility, the management and the quality of performers make it a very difficult accomplishment to duplicate. On behalf of the staff and management of Mud Island and the Memphis Park Commission, thank you for your efforts. I am looking forward to the next three years of our agreement and many more great cincerts. Sincerely, Jimmy Ogle General Manager JO:ls DALLASSX�EtCEY AsSOCIA:ffb� INC. May 8, 1986 Mr. Allen J. Becker Partner PACE Management Corporation 4543 Post Oak Place Drive Suite 200 Houston, Texas 77027 Dear Allen: I would be remiss at this time following the successful conclusion of our negotiations to establish a long-term relationship between PACE and the Dallas Symphony Association, Inc. not to express our appreciation for the goodwill , sincerity and positive efforts made by you, Brian and the PACE organization in these matters. The fact that PACE, as a profit-motivated organization, has taken the time and the effort to concern itself about the Symphony tells me so much about the kind of organization we will be working with. Your efforts in this regard will be of great positive benefit to the Orchestra over the years, to the City of Dallas and, most of all , to those citizens who are the primary recipients of the Orchestra 's efforts. As the outdoor activities proceed from year to year in an ever-improving environment, we will all look back to the time when we all agreed to make this commitment and be grateful for our collective ability to stick with it until it was finally hammered out. Welcome to the Dallas Symphony Family! Sincere yours, eonard David Stone . Executive Director LOS:jg E+ccul.vc -, o Lbna(tarnanln,!�hes.oe" Cnallas R.Fvrquson,rrr._.ory Crc.,rrun a Ino 1.Vo u Gl:. r"S WLliom H. l'�' � Rrcna+a k HW-V-1:U n�•�,JcfL V.'+. .4YTcrll.Manan H.M $oa'y.Ch7JRKy1G Inc Ei.aa d�.11vCi ni[I S. wwson,v nc:.x nl rc..i,ry Goupu R.IruJl,v cu r+c._,_nl t.rbrcc Jom.,&k Huarw4..,,Cu Hcs,LxrIr l.t:.�or.onz.Roawl McCbnala.v,.:�nc...:..{.r r. ..�_..s+i...�r w awa4c4a Icaa �,.c ncs..;_-r'I Smynnow k.Inum.I�v..u. Mls.b.rl holson,�,.v dory.loonara Dar1a Slone.c....:,.i..�lni c�;u Porrwio A.Gunn.:.::,si:nt�ILJ:./.y,Evan O.Plumly. Eupanu bonulll,Mary MGGa(m l CGGS Mn.Eam6xa J.Kann,kayrnana D. F.uo$,Zry ccaa Mn.lo.anca S.bariune.Alan D.Fein.Rznoro A.Fluting.Crorg Hall,hO-ara Hallam.PnWp O'a MonlgomWy w, kwm G.Pios►on,nugn G.koa:nsan.Srei!un H.,.jnQ4.:ar oy Sanr.W.ryayua baa,:xm oy grout Executr.e Offices t A Member of the S3 r:.dG6 tamlty December 4, 1986 Mr. Brian Becker Pace Productions, Inc. 4543 Post Oak Place Drive, Suite 200 Houston, Texas 77027 Dear Brian: Just a short note to say thanks to everyone at Pace Productions for their professional guidance and assistance during the 1986 concert season. Despite the difficulties we encountered with the local Houston economy and the untimely rainy weather, Southern Star Amphitheatre still had a successful year. Looking forward to working with you and your staff in 1987. Happy Holidays! Sincerely/,, Del Holland Vice President u General ,Tanager DH:jgv 9001 Kirby • Houston,Texas 77054 • (713) 799-8404 CO L LLkDEMV FOR MNEM &I NN October 15 , 1986 Mr . Allen Becker , President Pace Management 4543 Post Oak Place, Suite 200 Houston, Texas 77027 Dear Allen: Just a brief note to thank you for all you did to make my Dunn Family Reunion such a tremendous success . Your assistance and that of all those associated with Starwood , was deeply appreciated. Nowhere in Tennessee could we have pulled off such an event and have the success that we. did at Starwood ! I 'm working hard to ensure that I will once again have the privilege of serving Tennessee as governor . I have many dreams for our children and grandchildren and I want to do all that is possible to make those dreams a reality. With all good wishes for continued succes/s , I am, Sincerely, 14W/ ,Iz�Winfld C. Dunn WCD/tkc P.0. Bar 12090 190;Acklen Aivnte Xashtille. Tonne&ee 3-212 615/386- Paid 15/ 86 Paid for be the Dunn for Governor Cumrruttee.Jim Haslam.Trrasurer. Memphis Development Foundation Pat Halloran December 3 , 1986 President OFFICERS Ann Dunavant Mr . Brian Becker Chairman Pace Productions Mason Granger 4543 Post Oak Place 1st Vice-Chairman Suite 200 W. W. Herenton, Ph.D. Houston , TX 77027 2nd Vice-Chairman Michael C. Williarns Secretary Dear Brian: HenryL. Brenner Treasurer This letter is meant to serve as a reference and recommendation on the outstanding experience that the rd Member-at-Large g Dr. Richas Orpheum Theatre has had with the Pace Organization. William R. Reed,Jr. The Memphis Community has benefited by the Past Chairman professionalism, intense commitment and integrity with which the Pace Organization has been involved in the BOARDOF local venues , the Mud Island Amphitheatre and the DIRECTORS Orpheum Theatre. Gary R. Belz It has been well known throughout the industry that Jack R. Blair Antonio R. Bolo ria Pace has always sought to g g provide the very best in Ronald S.Borod entertainment in a professional way and always becoming Henry L. Brenner a viable part of the community in which it presents its Lois Canale productions . Thomas R. Clifton Arlene Cowles I know personally that the same is true in Memphis ' Henry P. Doggreli sister city , Nashville , where Pace has made another Ann Dunavant significant contribution in the construction and Mason Granger management of Starwood Amphitheatre and the programming Linda Leenton, PM.D. at the Tennessee Performing Art Center . Sam M. Marks Martha Ellen Maxwell I wish Pace the very best in its continued pursuits Richard H. Nuber and trust that this letter will help provide a positive Dr. Richard Ranta reference where ever needed . William R. Reed,J'r. Jeff Sanford Pat Kerr Tigrett ' Richard A.Trippee'r,Jr. Ron Walter Michael C. Williar s A. W. Willis.Jr. Patrick Halloran Louise V. Willmott President PH/mvr 89 Beale Street • Memphis, Tennessee • 38103 • 901-525-7800 ,� V " Mr. Robert Vierling CA "" = ^c��rfR', ? mak injury due to 221 E. Fourth Avenue (� -ty ' s failure to Shakcpee , Minnesota 55379 complete landscaping from cur sidewalk, Shakopee City Council sidewalk yard. Shakopee City Manager 129 E. First Avenue Shakopee , Minnesota December 7 , 1986 Dear Sirs ; Complaint and demand for the name of the Insurance Company the City of Shakopee ' s liability. Due to the neglect and failure of the City of Shakopee to have the contractor complete their landscaping project between curb/sidewalk and sidewalk/yard, on Friday, Nov. 28, 1956, at approximately 9 p.m. , I fell , immediately in front of my house. This was due to the above unfinished project, which left large lumps of snow-covered frozen dirt, and un- seen dropoffs , both deplorable conditions , which are not visible at night due to the poor lighting of that area of the block. I received a probable additional injury to my spine, which was already, by Workman' s Comp . , previously judged to be 25% disabled. A man stopped to help me because I was unable to regain my footage alone . The seriousness of the injury will not be entirely known until I go to my Specialist to have him deter- mine by x-ray (compared to old x-rays ) , the further extent of spinal damage , due to the City' s neglect. Due to the above named circumstances , and by advice of legal counsel, I am again requesting the name of the City of Shakopee ' s insurance company at the earliest date. Prolong- ing this will only cause the City of Shakopee serious problems . 'ncerely , l Robert Vierling CC : City Council City N:anager PATRICIA 8. IJtEi�ar+rw NOTARY PUBLIC—t11NINE!0TA SCOTT COUI Tp`; Vic '" MY COMM. EXP,JAN, 19, 1VL f MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk C RE: Vacation of Temporary Road in the Eaglewood Addition DATE: December 12 , 1986 Introduction On December 2nd Council continued the public hearing on the vacation of a temporary roadway easement in the Eaglewood 3rd Addition. Background On December 2nd, Council conducted a public hearing on a request to vacate a roadway easement upon which a temporary road provides emergency access. Please refer to the November 25 , 1986 memo from the City Clerk. Council continued the hearing to December 16th so the City Engineer and Public Works Superintendent would have a chance to evaluate the status of the road and if it is serviceable or worth servicing, see reports attached. Considerations 1. Council must determine whether or not it is desirable to provide an emergency access to the Eaglewood developments. 2. If so, Council needs to determine the level of service desirable. Action Reauested Offer Resolution No. 2658, A Resolution Vacating Temporary Easements in Eaglewood 3rd Addition, and move its adoption. a) The resolution, as drafted, vacates both easements. b) Striking paragraph number three retains the easement needed for the temporary emergency access but vacates the easement across Lot 5 , Block 1, which is not needed or used for the existing temporary access. JSC/jms EMO TO : Judith S . Cox, City Clerk FROM: Jim Karkanen, Public Works Superintendent RE: Vacation of Temporary Roadway in Eaglewood 3rd Addition DATE: December 5 . 1986 I drove through the roadway with my company car before the snow fell . t has some heavy (deep )ruts, but is passable with a truck. It can be raded next spring, if necessary. HERO TO: Judy Cox , City Clerk FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer SUBJECT: Eaglewood Emergency Access Easement Vacation DATE: December 10 , 1986 ROADWAY ANALYSIS: Engineering has reviewed the condition of the existing emergency access road in the Eaglewood development . The access is essentially in an unimproved condition resulting in rutting and deterioration when used for purposes other than intended. We have considered various alternative improvements to the access road which would provide for better serviceability as an access road. The alternatives have varying degree of level of service. ALTERNATIVE 1 . This alternative provides for minimal improvements with no upgrading of the roadway ' s structural capabilities. Essentially the roadway would be bladed smooth and then barricaded to prevent public use. With proper drainage , the road should be able to accommodate emergency use. Barricade posts would be weakened at the ground line such that the barricade would collapse under force applied by an emergency vehicle . The cost of this alternative is estimated to be $1 , 000 . 00 . Relatively minor maintenance cost would be associated with this alternative if public traffic does not evade the barricades. ALTERNATIVE 2. This alternative would improve the drainage and provide for a gravel base with minimal cross section , i . e . , narrow road with shallow ditches. The estimated cost of this alternative is $3 , 600 . 00 . Future maintenance cost would be relatively high if the roadway would be open to the public. If an improved surface is desired but closed to public thoroughfare to minimize maintenance , barricades such as Alternative 1 could be installed at an estimated cost of $1 , 000.00 for a total estimated cost of $4, 600.00 . ALTERNATIVE 3. This alternative would provide for a bituminous paved surface providing serviceability to the public as well as emergency vehicles. The estimated cost of this alternative is $6 ,400 .00. Eaglewood Easement December 10, 1986 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Since the basic need for this road is for emergency vehicle access only, Alternative 1 is recommended. Although a different approach, another alternative may be for the City to maintain the easement but allow abutting property owners to make surface improvements to disguise the access route. This would eliminate unauthorized use of the route. Most importantly, the easement area would need to be graded to provide excellent drainage. The access area could then be allowed to go to turf. Points of access off C. R. 17 and at Eaglewood Lane could then be disguised by inexpensive shrubbery and plantings. Definite drawbacks of this alternative are : 1 . Making certain that all drivers of emergency vehicles know the location of the easement. 2. Abutting property owners , present and future, fully understand that plantings and turf would be disturbed at any time that access was needed. E A/pmp MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judi Simac, City Planner RE: Amendment to the Citv Code to Allow Limited Food Processing in the B-1 District DATE: December 10 , 1986 Introduction: At their December 4th meeting the Planning Commission approved a motion to recommend to the City Council that Section 11. 29 , Subd. 3 be amended to allow Limited Food Processing ` as a conditional use in the B-1 zoning district subject to certain conditions . Background: The recommended standards (to be included as part of the ordinance) include: 1. No slaughtering of meats, poultry or fish on the premises . 2. The operation must combine processing and wholesaling of a product. 3. Liquid waste must have primary separation. 4. Emissions shall be limited to gases. No liquid pollutants shall be released into the environment. Steam exhaust is acceptable. 5. The facility must have State and Federal Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A. ) certification approval. Mr. Bill Jonquist, owner of Fairest Made Foods Inc. , which is located at 134 S. Main St. , requested the City to consider the code amendment. If approved, the amendment would change Fairest Made Foods from a legal non-conforming use (which can not be expanded) to a conditional use in the B-1 Highway Business District. The amendment would allow Mr. Jonquist to proceed with plans to physically expand the Fairest Made Foods plant. Prior to making the recommendation to approve the amendment, the Planning Commission considered performance standards under which the food processing business would operate, the methods available for providing financial assistance to Fairest Made Foods to locate in a properly zoned area and the City Council ' s opinion on amending the code to keep an existing business. The City Council requested the Planning Commission to work with Mr. Jonquist to keep his business in the City and at the same time protect adjacent property owners . Recommendation of the Planning Commission: Amend the City Code to allow Limited Food Processing as a conditional use in the B-1 District subject to certain performance standards . Action Requested: Move to direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance which will amend Section 11. 29, Subd. 3 of the City Code to allow Limited Food Processing as a conditional use in the B-1 District subject to the following standards : 1. No slaughtering of meats, poultry or fish on the premises . 2. The operation must combine processing and wholesaling of a product. 3 . Liquid waste must have primary separation. 4. Emissions shall be limited to gases. No liquid pollutants shall be released into the environment. Steam exhaust is acceptable. 5. The facility must have State and Federal Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A. ) certification approval. Planning Commission December 4, 1986 Page -2- PUBLIC HEARING - Fairest Made Foods, Inc. - Amendment to allow food processing as a Conditional Use in the B-1 Zone. VanMaldeghem/Lane moved to open the public hearing to consider the amending of the Shakopee City Code, Section 11. 29 , Subd. 3 , to allow limited food processing operations as a conditional use in the B-1 zoning district, subject to certain performance standards. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner said the City Council discussed the proposal of Fairest Made Foods Inc. to enlarge the facility and was generally in favor of the owner expanding on existing lots 1-5 , Block 168 . Discussion ensued on allowing food processing as a conditional use in a B-1 district. Comm. Lane asked about including non- toxic gases as one of the conditions. The Community Development Director said that the use of public nuisance smells would be more definitive. Chairman Czaja asked if there was anyone from audience who wished to address this issue. Bev Koehnen, Canterbury Road asked for clarification from the applicant as to what his exact plans are. The City Planner summarized the history of the site and what the proposed expansion would involve. Discussion ensued on methods of potentially providing financial assistance to Fairest Made Foods including ( 1) tax increment financing, ( 2) economic recovery revolving loan from the Dept. of Energy and Economic Development and ( 3 ) the issuance of industrial revenue bonds for the relocation and expansion of the facility. At this time the applicant has requested no financial assistance. Bev Koehnen asked for clarification on food processing. Bill Jonquist, the owner of Fairest Made Foods replied that it is similar to a bakery whereby ingredients are value added to form a product. Chairman Czaja asked if there was anyone from audience who wished to address this issue. There was no response. Foudray/VanMaldeghem moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Foudray/VanMaldeghem offered a motion to recommend to City Council that Section 11. 29 Subd. 3 be amended to allow limited Food Processing as a conditional use subject to the following standards: Planning Commission December 4 , 1986 Page -3- 1. No slaughtering of meats, poultry or fish on the premises. 2. The operation must combine processing and wholesaling of a product. 3 . Liquid waste must have primary separation. 4. Emissions shall be limited to gases. No liquid pollutants shall be released into the environment. Steam exhaust is acceptable. 5 . Facility must have State and Federal Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A. ) Certification Approval. Roll Call: Ayes: Comm. VanMaldeghem, Foudray, Pomerenke and Chairman Czaja Noes: Comm. Schmitt and Lane Motion carried. MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant RE: Downtown Redevelopment Project DATE: December 12 , 1986 Introduction• The first public hearing on the Downtown Redevelopment Project was held on December 9 , 1986 . Many comments were heard in regard to the feasibility of the proposed project. In the following memo, staff has attempted to explain several alternatives that the Council may wish to consider prior to the next public hearing. Background- Project Phasing. Currently the Downtown Improvement Project is proposed to be constructed in two phases. Phase one includes street rehabilitation and streetscape improvements to the streets within the project area and south of First Avenue. Phase two of the project which will commence following the completion of the mini by-pass, includes streetscape and street rehabilitation to First Avenue between Atwood and Spencer. Project Assessments. Shown in attachment #1 are several proposed assessment alternatives. Alternative A is the project as currently proposed. Third Avenue rehabilitated with the assessment costs of the parking lots spread out over the properties within the redevelopment project area. Alternative B is the same as alternative A however, the parking lots are not being assessed to the property owners within the proposed project area. Alternative C deletes Third Avenue from the project area and includes the costs of the assessments attributed to the parking lots to be spread out over the property owners within the project area. Alternative D excludes Third Avenue from the project area and excludes assessing the property owners for the improvements to be made abutting City owned parking lots . The assessment formula utilized in the downtown project is based on a zonal method. The assessment categories are on the left hand side of attachment 41. In attachment #2 is a map which identifies the assessment property categories. For example, if the project as currently proposed is approved, the properties in assessment category #1 would be assessed $0 in connection with phase one of the project and $8 , 222 when phase two of the plan is completed. Properties in assessment category #2 would be assessed $4,111 in connection with phase one of the project and 1 $4 , 111 when phase two of the proposed plan is complete. Properties in assessment category #3 would be assessed $8, 222 in phase one of the project and $0 in connection with phase two. Properties in assessment category #4 would be assessed $8 , 222 in connection with phase one of the project and $0 when phase two of the project is completed. In assessment alternative B, the assessments for the parking lot has been taken out of the project cost. The-impact of this alternative is that the assessments for a typical lot are reduced by approximately $661. 00 . However the cost of the assessments attributed to the parking lots would have to be picked up by tax increment financing (approximately $80 , 225 ) . When Third Avenue is deleted from the project, the parking lots assessments are spread over the affected property owners in the project area, the impact is a reduction in the cost of the typical lot assessment by approximately $1, 430. 00 . Alternative D excludes Third Avenue from the project and takes out the cost of the parking lot assessments. In this alternative the cost assessed to a typical lot is reduced by over $2, 000 from what is currently being proposed. Third Avenue. Because of the number of residential properties along Third Avenue and the fact that the project as currently proposed only assesses the north side of Third Avenue, staff would recommend that Third Avenue be deleted from the project area. If Council concurs with staff ' s recommendation then the next issue to be discussed is whether or not the assessment costs of the parking lots should be spread out over the affected property owners within the development area or if the cost should be picked up by tax increment financing. Parking Lots. If the parking lot assessment costs are picked up by the property owners within the redevelopment area, the total cost of a typical lot would be approximately $6 , 792 . 00. (Assessment alternative C) If the costs of the parking lots are picked up by tax increment financing, ( assessment alternative D) the costs for a typical lot would be reduced to approximately $6, 131. 00. In keeping with the City street rehabilitation policy which assesses properties owned by the City of Shakopee, staff would recommend that the assessment cost of the parking lots be picked up by the City and paid for with tax increment funds. Street Rehab vs. Streetscape The improvement cost in connection with the downtown redevelopment project can be broken into two primary components, 2 street rehabilitation and streetscape. Currently approximately 59% of the project costs can be attributed to street rehabilitation and the remaining 41% can be attributed to streetscape. For example, when we take assessment alternative D which eliminates Third Avenue from the project area and have the assessment costs for the parking lots picked up by the tax increment financing, you will notice that the cost for a typical lot is $6,131. 00 . The street rehabilitation portion of this cost amounts to $3 , 617. 00 . ( 59%) The streetscape portion of this cost amounts to $2, 513 . 00 . ( 41%) City Council may wish to consider an assessment strategy which would separate street rehabilitation costs from streetscape costs. One alternative would be to assess 25% of the street rehabilitation costs ( $3 , 617 . 29 ) and assess 10% of the streetscape ( $1, 005 . 48 ) . Under this scenario the total assessment cost for a typical lot would be $4 , 622.77. A second alternative might be to assess 25% of the street rehabilitation costs ( $3617 . 00 ) and have the streetscape portion of the assessment picked up 100% by tax increment financing. A computer print out listing the projected assessments utilizing the first alternative discussed is shown in attachment #3 . A computer print out which utilizes an assessment formula that assesses 25% of the street rehabilitation costs and has the streetscape portion of the assessments picked up 100% by tax increment financing can be found in attachment #4. Alternatives: Project Area and City Parking Lots Council should give staff direction on the size of the proposed redevelopment area and whether or not the parking lots should be included in the assessments to the property owners or picked up by tax increment financing. Following are four alternatives: A. Third Avenue built with parking lots assessed. B. Third Avenue built without parking lots assessed. C. Third Avenue not built with parking lots assessed. D. Third Avenue not built without parking lots assessed. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends alternative D. Assessment Ratio. The next area that staff would like direction on is the 3 ratio of the assessments. Following are three alternatives for the Council' s consideration: 1. Assess 250 of the streetscape and street rehabilitation costs. 2 . Breakout the streetscape portion of the assessment and the street rehabilitation portion and assess 25% of the street rehab and 10% of the streetscape improvements. 3 . Breakout the streetscape and street rehabilitation portion of the assessments and assess 25% of the street rehabilitation and 0% of the streetscape. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends alternative #2 . Summary Because Council did not set a date to continue the public hearing, staff is recommending that the public hearing for the Downtown Redevelopment Project be continued and set for Tuesday, January 13 , 1986 . May I remind you to please bring your copy of the Downtown Feasibility Study Report to the Council meeting on December 16th. Action Requested: 1. Select alternative D as the improvement area and parking lot assessment alternative to be presented and discussed at the next public hearing. 2. Select alternative #2 as the assessment ratio to be presented at the next public hearing ( 25% of street rehabilitation assessed and 10% of the streetscape improvements assessed) . 3 . Move to continue the Downtown Public hearing to Tuesday, January 13 , 1986 . 4 Attachment #1 TYPICAL LOT Proposed Improvements and Parking Lot Assessment Alternatives ,�-,ANALYSIS 60 ' x 142 ' (A) (B) (C) (D) ASSESSMENT 3rd Ave. Built 3rd Ave. Built 3rd Ave. Not Built 3rd Ave. Not Bui PROPERTY W/parking Lots W/O Parking Lots W/Parking Lots W/O Parking Lot CATEGORY Assessed Assessed Assessed Assessed #1 Phase I Phase II Phase I Phase II Phase I Phase II Phase I Phase I � Properties with Phase II Frontage $0 $8, 222 $0 $7, 561 $0 $6,792 $0 $6,131 & Zonal Improvement Total $8 , 222 $7 , 561 $6,792 $6 , 131 #2 Properties with Phase II Frontage iw 4 , 111 $4 , 111 $3 ,781 $3 ,781 $3 ,681 $3 , 111 $3 ,323 $2,808 & Phase I Zonal Improvements Total $8 ,222 $7 , 561 $6,792 $6, 131 #3 Properties with Phase I Frontage 8 , 222 $0 $7 ,561 $0 $6,792 $0 $6,131 $0 Phase I Zonal Improvements Total''''' $8, 222 $7, 561 $6,792 $6 , 131 #4 • Properties with • • Phase I Zonal 8, 222 $0 $7 , 561 $0 & Frontage Imp. if•••• 3rd Ave. is Built �•.• #5 • Phase I Zonal .•.• Imp. Only if $3 ,681 $0 $3 , 323 $0 3rd Ave. is Not • Built Total $8 , 222 $7, 561 $3 , 681 $3, 323 a r i��i�iWIRM&N i�MValFA A61ra ♦iiia►♦ .. h��•vv �' � i�.♦ii►i�i�'�'�� iii�i�i�i�i�•' �• iiiiiiiii`►i� •• f Men �. m , ��I•I��Y s iiii& TIT ��, ���M$ i �� W :�;� a ,,, �ii♦ fir.. •• OWN W- UP14, Attachment #3 ^r;r-. --- -- -- - vv� `l1 __ __J�i•)s'Lr . \:VrGI vv_ _ .L{A�i f Lli L•.LLI`r.IILf�� yv .'v i'�iiiJ F?li `.rr. 4i 4rC(i i i 7..;` i`[TY `\M L1:. ii PRI . :�: i3t{�f f'?".CH :1-'+l ftu t � f5 ,r`.'C, 3 ft.,.;.__ Ci,:<i' 'iiiEs v och 11-UVIVZCi Cr ii.v4% 4u.:..VV rec. c he rG1 u5 i `+'ii �'� t r_ .•4. .. Liroc ucdi7-0QI(1v'C i1-`ii? ill-v i. G'L?.iii! ��3111.v! r£ t%-UCjv:'t 0 iv.v'v u:i1V. v _ ii: iP,- 0"77. r , TN7CGP ErazniliS i i'-VC'iv,_�-C% _ '.=+ii ui':i;i.Gi? CGP iouic 1 xCi +:{. .i itt.iM1iiJ ;ii.v`-V _ -H.00 '[ .J CufTi nai-iL;._�1 ; I4 +'ij= ',' ii-v(liv:.-0 ,i -1.iV' 'f5 .U-10 cam iailGfi£?i Gii iii � ii? n: 1 f(1 :•G. i b=iili 4 In" Coni F.WI-JriiirG 1'UC!2:JT-C? .i%V 'J'r.VCi Cuc'i k,W,' Cc 11111 1 i ' iV T.i.Ti TM1{iTL 4 55.00 9-5155.f)C' com ,",-_'Y. i i u Ei L125 Iii 1.� 1i 1'•- f:%i042-0 i 's`;.{%li cam .cS...t Y :V,, -'41.!iV CGP Iia t}ty.J.i ti}:iJ•i :!:li?44-1 c ..C•4i CV V`? CGP h£rCGtL ; i'v .fiC, 210.00 2S''40.(10 CGPi lav=r 1 Iv ti 4i 3.1M1�:�1 — �IiL�—vi _ .n:i inn r. 1 ..�'T.•1 ++ + n r, ,,,.. 4 :..4iV �ivi.6':: a lili 1 +'`v SiM1ii a•i..\.i iCGF ?SG_ £5%il-f i i_ }w1 —ii'i_ i L'i^—f it ^'1 ` f `iIi 7 I jIv .e\ {9' :vU i s L ��,_'v iV�r..:. COM `YGi)I.i+GLi:a iM1; G I , .y-'? _ i -`'i itt�e { `.- `i,�Lr,..n� ii-i:V V.?: � it+,.-. C . G' :Iar:J_c_ i v:, i'ii•_u # s .i t :.nn r. IV , `tV CGo iii_yy1C f L i i'_.—L 4 i?1.J4i _JL'L.VV CIL i_•1 LY G+I >jflab GF EE i +4i ili�;lu iill J Cut, v t15GCi vv �jo1iI;., =i1 (X CGQ iramb.i y 4 '' 1n -0 C 39.Uu 27,63-1.00 CGn, VC,ae1 i fiV 3'ifa 4 4:,?,5J4 ii-..l i:;�-_ V,VU !.VJ Cit __aie of MIN ?11t'v' :.` r,- ifs\ 3=�(, f S `„r y i•V $=r,L.•": Iri C7' ci-UC114,v� i. G ..V„ uJcv.4%� iE_ B.2i?5 f e : (1 . h1 tr6-D.00nJn .`\ t M1 e.1T i.00 G :.v.l?v ic. 7,`-0nner #,. St #I{uiJ 'rVI.Fi_{i ` ii i%+ •.•ii tC `' is +TM1ttZ �'T}ALJ I _ _ J 6 Gv.0C1 .'� O,ii1 CGE: Jai 1GrEI i v +'3.vCV IJ. u. -VV Cisi'C? - L - =ii.i?v u7v.CAD CGP vGi riSGrt 1 'iv .'}uC+ ,).u`i G Z:.,.is4? 2-00.00 _=:a Rein Jii w j ii ,.i.i'�.:v LGH: IlEli� 2 +'W' ta�!'v y _"'t:•y:-') ..iJi ._. 1.! r=v =:RrU£i11?r i +il z•4i�uV ^i-�_i J4i Li:'..•+. rE= �Giilil6i i yii F M1J`F:l i' #V WV il-%i%liL'�-U :V Gni.4iV 1v;:..Ci ae-, - 1?-t!i?1' l ' -i? c:. ?t` CGG.i ;f 5 ° anGef a i. LV Ti.VV "i• +` ,a j7i it vr.ii,:,V �J ✓'v.4,,. ii%�i?:.i: C4P tirri_rlCari J:; w, +.`.+ t•3._s' t'r qJ 1 -viii,:4-t% ii ._:j 1G�4. '? iGCt ii _ di �;c'ii)iaV _ +1.1 ?-!.? .::}:/1 ` LI lI S _ _ — I ., _ Jl �"1{- � � COM j-WKS _ -4%t%'i_u-. .,. V:t'ii :.4'4i C:r __L�` Gi � Lk:�ILi2R �'•t T:f :tl . I. VV i:`!_4' .; i11 _.Lr J ..a .._..___ -?Cli__ .. l .lC y i C+± moist:._.P£ $i) +•? ri Me C:i %.i ` U4l-O 21 6�.� �Ni5 I �^5� �,1�7 �,6� 27-0011 V 21 V $1`s-7 9 $1/56,S $3`46� 27-O0ll43-0, O 191170.0O co loo rvia/Noraar 2 �5,638 $4J64 27-V0|l44-� 22 l�2,V� 25560.O0 �os kerpn 3 $11`86V .86V 27-�O��45-0 22 60,O0 6I2V.N} cum 6ereo J $i,2{5 $V ��'2{5 27-OVl@6-V 22 32.VO 1920.V0 coe 8rnwn 3 �2,Ol9 �V 2�-vOl\47-V 22 20JV.00 $A`466 27-VOI 22 20.V0 240O.ON` coa Sheffer 3 +4`466 ,466 27-V0\14�-V 22 JV,VV �8W.V0 mm �ert�-Kar�ish J $1,8YJ �� 40.O0 2400.00 mm Dae>s 2/5N $V �2,524 27-�O�15�-V 22 20.00 6t1`l6O 27-���132-� 22 51.0O 7�20.V0 cos Goeuei 2 �2.B2 $!`353 $4,V45 43.6V 6V8�.40 cam Gustafson 2 $1,8�1 $L,53O 24H.60 coo "I LID Fio pee ance 2 $1`ViO � 0 22 60.00 8520.00 (3 m. 6ustaf�oo 2 $2,5O6 �2`�}7 $4.623 2�'���15c-0 22 67.V0 |434O.VV com Men! Einy 2 $3,24� 27-0Ol|57-0 22 75.VV 72VV.;V res Men�ing 2 $2,GN t2`J78 $5/192 27-00l15E-� 23 !42.00 2862O.VV cnm �st Nat. 8aok 3 �l2,J80 $V $�2,38V 27-�O�l59-O 23 90.00 900.VV com Wermersk�rckeo 3 $�,322 6`322 27-O01162-O 23 22.00 3720.O0 com " J $l,7F7 $V $l'797 27-001163-0lN]V.VV com Topic �1,l36 27-0O1l64-V 23 36.VO 20.00 cnm Shak. Post #4V46 2 �|,320 $i,\15 $2435 27-VOl|65-V 23 62.0V 465V.VV com Smith 2 $2,2O6 $1,864 $4,070 27-VVl166-0 2J 24.�O 168�.OV com Topic 2 $84J $712 z=5 2 01l67-Cl; 23 JO.00 33VO.V0 coo Darbershop 2 $|.�64 $984 27-001l66-� 2J 3V.VV 426O.OV coa 8ressen 27-V01169-0 2J 26.V0 3692.0O com Tnois 2 $�`O86 $9lO $2,O03 27-O01170-0 2J J9.VV 5538.0O cord Case Ciothing 2 �1,629 �1,J76 $3'VU5 27-V01171-V 23 25.VV 355V.VV cna Sarness 2 �\,V44 $882 $1,926 27-01.:172-0 02.010 com K`ng Solomon Ldge 2 $�,295 $1,094 $2'J89 27-0-01|73-0 23 38.5V 5467.V0 cum Latou/ 2 $l`6O8 27-O0�D4-� 23 21.50 3O53.00 cum coehly 2 $B98 $759 $L`b57 27-OO1175-0 24 O.OV 0,VV cip City of �hakopee 27'VO1176-V 24 V,V0 O.OV cip City of Shakopee $V $0 $0 27-00177-V 24 0.V0 V.VV cip City of Shakopee $V $0 $V 27-00�|7S-V 24 0.00 0.00 cip City of Shokopey $O $0 $V 27-V0lI79-O 24 I2O.VV I7UW.0Ocom Seibenaier 3 $9`2�6 27-00�!8V-0 24 60,V0 4650.O0 cum Hyers 3 $3`965 $V �3,965 27-V01181-0 24 6V.VA J87O.0O coo cGovern 3 $J,832 $O �3`832 L. VI 74 60.0� 852V.0V �oa Pear�on 2 $2`5�6 �2`1i7 $4,62J 27-O0ll�J-� 24 27,OV �957.0O cne Cioy 2 l39 �962 42.I0\ 27-0O1�B4-� 2� 33.Oer `J 1550 l, $2;522 27-VO��B5-O 24 0 852V.VO cos C�va���yh 2 5O6 $2'lD o4.623 27'OV118�-0 24 60.00 D5 2%"-.0V com nalur 2 5�6 $2,�|7 �4,62J 27-00�!88-O 24 26.00 l56V.VV com Heonen � $889 $75l $i,64� 27-0O�l89-V 24 2�.VO �26O.OV cum Perry 2 $7lG $6O7 $l,325 27-VV�l90-V 24 J5.45 2127.V0 con, Kopp $l`024 $2,2J7 27-0011Y�-V 24 com Zweber 2 $2,OJ7 $1`72l �3`757 27-O0,i92-0 25 1A2.OV 25560.VV cnm Post Office(8art lnc 3 sl1`B6V $0 $11`860 27-O01�95-O 25 60.V0 852V.VV com hovak 2 $2/5V6 ��`117 60,O0 852V.00 cos Nnvak 2 $2,5V6 �2'117 �4/623 27-�01�97-V 25 60.0rec Sawvel 2 $2`5O6 $2`117 $4,623 | 27-�V1lY8-0 25 60. 852V.0V com Monroe 2 $2 5O6 $2 117 $4 623 OO � ` ` ` � 27-OV�199-0 25 6�.V0 B��,C* com [ckart 2 $2,�� $2`117 $4`623 27�NO�8-V 28 88 9h.3V }V��.VV res ��}e �V S.� r SBahard 27�N�226-V 28 bV.�C! 705O.00 27-VVl227-V 28 O ��7O.SO mm Cu�hane 3 $1'546 27-VO�228-O 2Y �20.OV l7V4V.0V ci� Library 4 $5011 $0 $5`O1s 27-VV�229-� 29 O.VO 0'.0V cip City n' Supee I7-00\2J0-O 29 V.VV V,0V Ii City o{ Shakopee $0 $0 Iv 27-O012J1-; 29 �.VO 'V 0- rip City of 27-VN232-O 2Y 0.60 V.VO cip City oakOp. ee 0 $V $V 27-00\Z33-O29 \2.VV 1296.V0 com N� 8el| 3 �85� 27-0O1234-A 29 08.00 |4040.VO cos NW Be|} 27-O0�235-O 29 92.V0 l3064.O0 com NW Bell J �7.0S9 �0 �7'V89 27-VO1236'V 2Y 95.0; 14220.V0 com Topic/Minnegi:�co 3 $7,444 $0 $7'444 27-O0�238-V J0 7V.V0 8420.OV re= Strunkf"; 27-O01238-i 30 67.O0 804V.VO com )h 0onen 27-OV�2J9-O 30 oe /O7050.0V si 27-001240-0 J0 6V.0V S52O.VO cnm Brown 3 $4,62J $V $4`623 27-V0{24{ 60.00 O360.00 com Shak. lnv. One 3 $5`�5V �V 50 27-101242-0 30 60,VV 36VV.VV com Hoffman 3 $J`786 $0 $3`7:6 27-0V1243-V JV V.00 A.VV cin p City of Shakopee $0 $0 $0 27-VOl214-O 3O V.0V O.VO cip City nf Shakopep $V $V $O Z7-ON245-6 31 60.VO 852O .OV res Ryan 4 $2`5O6 $V $2'506 27-V0!246-0 31 6O.OV 852S.0V res Monreos 4 $2,5V6 27-�;1247-O 31 �5O.V@ 27000.OIV, cum lst Nat. Bank 4 $6`79V $V �6`79V 27-VO�248-V JL 58,5V W&. CH com Eastman Drug 3 $4,595 $V $4`595 27-ON249-O 3 V0 res Case J $�`87O $; $3,87V 27-VO�250-O 3� 6O.�0 6660.VV com Pastman Drug 3 �4`307 �O $4,307 27-O01251-0 3\ 6V.0V 8520.00 com Scott Cu. Hist Soc. 3 �4`62J $V $4,623 27-OOl252-O 31 6O.00 852V.OV com Stans Fuundation 3 �4`62J $O $4`623 27-0V�253-V 32 60.VV D52V,VV res Yahnke 4 �2`5O6 $V $2`5V6 27-00{254-032 60.VV 852O.0V res Meiwiod 4 $2,5O6 27-001255-O J2 60.0V 852V.OV res Heinz 4 $2,5V6 $V �2,5O6 27-N1256-V J2 �8O.00 2556V.O0 com Wampach 4 $7,517 �V $7`5l7 27-V0257-V 32 60.VV O520.O0 com Nampach 3 627 27-OO125B'V 32 98.O0 l39�6.V0 com �bein J �7,55l $V $7'55l 2/-001259-V 32 37.VO 5254.OV com �ampach J $2,85l $V +2 -51 27-V01260-V 32 45.00 639V.VO coo Lebeos 3 $3`467 $O $3`467 27-VV1263-V 33 5D.0O B374.OV com Reis 4 $2`435 $V 35 27-001264-6 33 42,00 080V.VO res Nuviizki 3 $4`059 $O $4,V59 7063.2V 940821.VV $3V5,344 $194,573 $4Y9`917 �B� FF -SQR �MBT COSTS ��TS Nith 3rd Avenue $949`V9O $94.O6 $0.3O26 W/O 3rd Ave. $784'OJV $77.7O $O.250V With 3rdAve./nu park. lots $872.825 $86.5V $O.2783 654 M/O 3rd AVE./PM park. Lots $533' $52.89 $V.l7V2 - Attachment ¥4 ASSESSA8LE PRD B3 COST� $417`58> /�� ------,��c` &Q�.�� DONNTDWN ASSESSM[NTS PID 8LK FF SQFT PR0PTYPE F��F�RTY F���� � P���� D TOTAL 0N[H � 00|V�� 2 �.� ��.� �r �ch | $0 �'61G ,618 ��Vl0 -0 2 �.VV ��.W r� ��y�\ds l $V �,618 $n`618 ; 27-0V10!3 0-0 2 60.V0 852O.OV rps Thibooeax 27-0103i-0 2 60.VV 8520.VO rys kokern � $0 $360 $3+60 27-O01O�2-0 2 6O.0V 852�1j.00 res Nilipr 1 $0 $J/6 60 27-VV|O��'V 3 7J.5V }V437.00- cum 27-001V��V 3 42.5O ��5.0O cam �op�c 1 $V ,562 $2,562 27-(N10J6-V J 26,00 J692.00 comUohooe/ l �O $|,568 N`568 | I7-O01".37-0 J52.7O 74B3.N0 cam Mahnney l $V $3`l77 $3/l77 27-V0|V38-O 3 9O.VO 7389,0} com Kwi-Sh!ng l �V �4,7V8 �4/70G 27-VVl039-0 J 52.VV 7592.VV ca; Kwi-Shing � $0 43,l63 $J`l6J 2'-O0104\-0 4 55.00 corn 81K Fir opert�es 27-O0lV42-0 4 4l.VO 2255.O� com " " 1 $V $1,997 v,997 27-V��0�J-1 4 20,VV 29ll.00 com $V $�'215 $�'215 27-V01V44-1 4 25.00 3-0,00 com her gott L 4v Y1 17 $1`5V7 I7-V0lO@-V 4 2O.OV 2840.0V com Momer 1 $V $�`2V6 $l'206 VV g2:0 4 3V,0� �2�0.O0 com Hi�l l $V $118V9 $1809 27-0O10�7-0 4 3\.V0 44O2.VO cam Hughes | $V $\,869 $l'869 27-OU1V4B-V 4 28.50 4O47.00 coa Vohnoutka � �V $�,718 $1`7118 27-V01049-V 4 30.VV 426V.VO c 4112 City no Shakupee .1,80Y 27- 50-V 4 40.0O 568V.OV cum Topic 1 $0 $2'412 $2,412 29O2.0V cit City of Sha�opee l $V $�'266 �1/266 27-0N059'V 5 l988 00 com n 1 $0 $8`524 $6,52A 27-O0106V-0 5 N1.0V 1711\.0V cnm Draobi}la 1 $V $6/458 �6/458 27-O0N�1-O 5 39,0O 276Y.N0 cu, Voge} 27-00�62-V 5 0.00 V.V0 cit State 27-V01V68'V 6 60,.001 8520.000 res Lebens ! $0 $3`61G $3,6\8 27-0OlV69-V 6 6V.VV 8520.N) res U'Cooner 1 $0 $3'60 $J,60 27-V0|070-� 6 6�.VV 80.VV res Du Bois 52 \ $0 $3/6l8 $3`60 27-VO1O71-V 6 6o.OV 42VV.VV com Hallgren l �V �3`042 $3,042 27-VV1�72-0 6 4�.0V 7890.0V com JOrin.Son 1 �0 $2`789 �2,739 27-VO07J-O 6 35.0V 2700.0O coa Reio � $V $l/OO8 $1'800 27-VO\074-0 6 25.00 225V.0V com Rn e� 1 $0 $1'J34 �1.334 27-0V|V85-V 7 71.O0 4260.VV re� Gerdenier � $� $3/5V6 $3,5V6 27-0;1V86-V 7 6V.�; 426V.0O res Fonnier \ �O �3'�5V $3,V5V $0 $V $V / 27-VVlO9-0 20 80 OV 7625 0V re� Gille� 3 $4 326 326 � ^ . ` , 27-001|29-{ 20 42.0v 5O4O.O0 com Cy's Scandard 27-00�lJ0-0 20 �0O.00 111 000.61f; cam American Oil Cu. 2 $3,|09 4.2,627 $5,736 27-VV1�34-V 2l J1.EJ 2864.7V com H & D Rai\way 3 $l`699 $O $�,699 27-VV� 75-0 21 |10.D 22695.3V mm Stnks 2 $4,09 $J'472 $7,58� 27-0N1D6-0 21 0.V0 V.V0 lip City of Shaknpep $O 27-V01l37-0 2{ O.00 V.V0 rp Ci�y nf Sha�opee $0 $O $V 27-�0�D8-V 2l V.0O O.V0 cip Ci�y of Snaknpee � 27-0O1lJ9-V 21, O.0V V.0O cip Ciiy uf Shakopee $0 $V $0 27-�01140-V 2� 6V.0O 8520,VV cam Laursnt Real Estate / 27-V0O 2l 6O.0� 852O.O0 res 8o�ns 2 $1,9b| 639In' .VV re� rbGoem 27�00! 430 21 l��.0� !9�7V.00 com hobil Ser ice/hcrmar 2 4{2 $J/728 v MtV.� c� B�en 3 $9,2� � �''u 2�VV1l�� u1�.� com ��n 7 $3,�8 � 3,298 27-V 1146-V 22 J2.00 0; Cm Brmm 3 $l.Z' � 27-V0l�47-0 22 20.�0 2�OO.00 com Topic 3 $�'07 $0 $�`i47 27-VV1�48'� 22 2JU.00 24VO.0V coe 27-VV1�49-O 22 J0.0; \0N.(W cos MertzOreish 27-01150-0 22 4V,VO 2�VO.VV coe 8an.ieis `975 27-�V{l5l-0 22 a 2 $�92 $416 $Y0D 27'OOlL52'0 22 51.00 792O,0V cum 27-00l\53-O 22 43.60 608|.I0 c0I Gustaf5oo 27-001154-0 22 27.4V 2438 � Sh .6V cuakopee Finance 7 668 $1`459 27-V0�|55-0 Z2 6t.�� 852V.V0 cnm Gustafson657 27-0,||56-O 22 �7.00 1434O.OV coc Uens11`1 g $2'144 �4`6O2 27-V0|l57-0 22 75.V0 72OO.00 res Men»ing 2 �2,2O2 $1,86� 27-0Ol158-� 2J I42.VV 2862O.AV com 454, Nat. Bank 3 $9,687 $V $9,6O7 27-VO1|5f-O 23 9O,00 900,VV com Wermerskirchen 3 $4`947 $0 �4'Y47 27-VO1}62-V 2J 22.V0 372O.OV com " 3 $1`406 $V $1'4O6 27-V0163-O 2J �R.O0 1V80,VV com Topic 3 $889 $V $889 27-OV1164-� 23 36.VV 312O.00 com Shak. Post Z-4(,,46 27-V01165-8 23 62,VV 4650.VV com Saith 2 $i`726 $1'459 $J`1O5 27-0V1l�6-O 2J 24.VO 16O0.O0 cam Topic 2 $660 $557 $1,2�7 27-V01167-V 23 3V.0V 33V0.VV com Barbershop 2 $Yl1 $770 $�/68I 30.V�I 4260.O0 �om Dressen 2 $980 $82O $1'OO9 27-VV1�69-V 23 26,OV 3692.00 com Theis 2 $850 $7 3 $1`568 27-0Vl�7V-V 2J 39.V0 553B.V0 com Case CioUing 2 T1`274 27-0O117�-V Gomess 27-V0��72-0 23 31.V0 4�02.O0 com King Soiomon Ldqe 2 ��/013 $856 $1`869 27-00 03 2J 38.5; 5467.VV com Latour 2 $�,258 $�`O63 $2/32l 2�.jO JO53.VV com Rnehie 2 o703 �5Y4 $1,296 27-00V.CN Cp City of Shakcpee $O 27-001176-0 24 V.VV O.O0 cip City of Shaknpee 27-0O\�77-0 24 0.OV V,0V cip Ciiy uf Shakoppe $V $0 $0 27-V0l178-V 24 0.OV V.00 cip Ciiy of 5hakopee 27-081l79-V 24 12O.00 l704V.VV com Seibena}er 3 $7`235 $O �7/235 27-0;��8V-V 24 6�.VO 4650.VV com Nyes 27-OV1\B\-V 24 W. mm McGovern 27-001l82-V 24 60.VO B�20.VV com Pear�oo 2 $1`96\ $�`657 �3`61G 27-VNl8J-O 24 27.Vh J957.VO com Clay 2 $�91 $753 $�.644 27-0V_07 j6J.O0 com Schrcader 2 $l'07O $9O4 $1.�73 27-VVlL85-V 24 6O.VV 8520.V0 cum Cavanaugh 2 �1,961 $\`657 $3'618 27-001186-0 24 6kV0 852O.0V com Sieo*na}cr 2 61 $1`657 27-001{88-0 24 26.VV 1560.V0 cum Heonen 2 $696 �588 $1`2B4 27-O01189-V 24 2�.VO 1260.00 cnm Perry 2 $562 $475 $1,037 27-VO)�90-0 24 J5.45 2127.V0 -am Kopp 2 $949 $8O2 27-0V1\9l-V 24 59.55 3573.O0 com Zweber 2 $l/5Y4 $�`347 $2`94O 27-VO1\Y2-O 25 �42.M 25560.VO com Post O�fice0ort Inc 3 $9,28O $0 $9,280 27-V01�95-V 25 60.V 852 V 0.O0 com Novak 2 �1961 $L`657 27-00|\96-O 25 60,VV 8520.O0 cum it,uvak 27-V0{�97-O 852O.00 rss Su�vel 2 $|,961 �1.657 �3,61B 27-��1198-O 25 6O,00 O52�.00 com Monroe 2 $1`9�1 $1,657 $3618 2�-OV1�Y�-V 25 60.VO O52C.0V com Eckart 2 $�.�6� $1'657 �3`618 27-V0|21D-0 2D 9V.3V 1OG36.O0 res Houle 4 $2`8O7 �O x2/8V7 - ° | . { 27-O0|2l�� 28 51.7O 62614.00, res 27-VV122b-V 28 �A.V� 7�Q.W $�,422 27�01�7-0 28 24.50 �47O.N� coo Cuinane 27-V0l�B-V 29 }2V.0h 170l LV.0V ci� Library 4 $3`�2� 27-0 �L V.V0 O.O0 cip City nf 6nakope» $0 27-VO\2J0-0 2� 0,O0 �.OV cip City of Shakooee $V $O *0 27-V0127�-V 2Y 0.O0 O,00 dp [ity c" 5hakop*e $0 �V $0 27-100l232-0 29 V.0V V.VO cip City of Shoxopee 27-V0!23J-V 1-c16.00 cus M� bell 3 $669 $0 �669 27-001234-0 29 i08.O� |�i4�.VV com N" D*ll 27- � 5�7O0 �el023 - i ,V50 27'VO UV cv� �c���/X�nnsgascn 3 $5,82� $O �5^825 27-0C\2J8-V 30 res [ 3 27-0V1238-1 30 67.O� B���.�� cor� ��csen 3 0,S4J �0 $3`843 l7-V�1240-O 30 27-OO�241-0 3V 60.0 z Inv. $41265 27�N1242-0 3O 6O.00 com ��/fmao 27-V01243-� 30 O.VV 0 27-�!V1244-V 3O 0.VV 00 Z7-OV1245-C 3� 6�.00 B5��.�� rps �yan 4 ${`96} $0 961 27-�|246-V J1 6�.OV 8�2�.�0 ns Moorens 4 $�,961 $0 $l`96i 27'V 01247-V 3l |5�.# ��W�.C� com lst Wat. Bank 4 $5`3D $V $5/3\3 mm Eastman Drug 3 $3,595 I7-CW124�-V J1 5i0O 7�00.�� res Caoe 3 s3`0Z8 27-V*125O-O 31 6V.0V 6660.�� CO Eastman D.rug 3 $3/J7O �0 $3`�� 27�NO�ZV.CN comScott Cu. Hist Soc. 3 $3,618 $V $3'618 27-;O1252-V J\ 6V.OV8520.0O cam Stans Fnundabnn 3 $J,60 27-0V1253-; 32 6V,V0 S52V,O0 res Yaknke c:6 If $11 $l,l6� 27-VOlIs 7-0 J2 6O.V101 852V.00 res Neiwind 27-O;1255-0 re� Heinz 4 $1,96� $0 $|'Y6l 27-VV�2��-V 32 00.VV 2556V.VV -am Wampach 4 $5,882 $V $5,�2 27-V0l257-V 32 60.VO 852V.0O com Wampach J $360 $O $3,618 27-V0 1258-V 32 98.OV 139l6.�V com Abeln J $5,9V9 $O $5909 27-O01259-0 J2 J7.V� 5254.V0 com �ampach J �2`23l $V $2`23l 27-�0�26V-V 32 �5,VV 6JYO,0V cnm L*bexs 3 $2/713 27-0�1263-0 33 58.OV 8J7i.O0 coM Reis 27-O0|264-0 33 42.OV NGOV.0O res �ovitzki �3`176 7V63.2V SI 01 $23B,93O $l52,252 $3Y1,02 COST CDSTS COS7S nith 3r� Avenue $949/O9V $94.V6 $V.3026 #/O Jrd Ave. 4?84,03O $77.7O $0.2500 �ith 3rd Ave./ou park, lot� $872.82� $86.50 $O,27S3 W/U 3rd Ave./no park. Lo-.S $417,581 $41.3E $V.lJ32 9 � MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant RE: Vacation Carry Over Request DATE: December 12 , 1986 Introduction and Background: Current city policy in regard to vacation allows a city employee to carry over as much vacation as he/she earns in a year. Therefore, I am allowed to carry over two weeks vacation. However, with the resignation of Jeanne Andre this past summer, I have been unable to take off as much time as I would have liked. Additionally, the Downtown Improvement Project which I consider a high priority, has been taking up a lot of my time. I don' t believe it would be prudent or possible for me to take off all the remaining days in December. I would therefore respectfully request to carry over 120 hours of accumulated vacation into 1987 with 40 hours to be taken prior to March 31, 1987 . Alternatives • 1. Grant Mr. Stock the authority to carry over 120 hours of accumulated vacation into 1987 with 40 hours to be taken prior to March 31, 1987 . 2. Do not grant Mr. Stock the authority to carry over 120 hours of accumulated vacation into 1987 . Action Requested: Move to authorize Mr. Stock to carry over 120 hours of accumulated vacation into 1987 with 40 hours to be taken prior to March 31, 1987 . TO: MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: TOM BROWNELL, CHIEF OF POLICE RE: PORTABLE RADIO PURCHASE DATE: DECEMBER 10, 1986 INTRODUCTION THE DEPARTMENT HAS A REQUIREMENT FOR THREE PORTABLE RADIOS FOR OFFICERS WHO LACK THE EQUIPMENT. BACKGROUND CANTERBURY DOWNS SECURITY PURCHASED THREE PORTABLE RADIOS ON OUR FREQUENCY AND FOUND THEY HAVE NO NEED FOR THE RADIOS. ONE NEW PORTABLE RADIO COSTS $1 , 200. THE DEPARTMENT CAN PURCHASE THE THREE RADIOS FROM CANTERBURY FOR $400 EACH. THIS PURCHASE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AND APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL EQUIPMENT COMMITTEE. RECOMMENDATION PURCHASE THREE MOTOROLA PORTABLE RADIOS FROM CANTERBURY DOWNS FOR A TOTAL COST OF $1 , 200, USING CAPITOL EQUIPMENT FUNDING. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED PURCHASE THREE MOTOROLA PORTABLE RADIOS FROM CANTERBURY DOWNS FOR A TOTAL COST OF $1 , 200 , USING CAPITOL EQUIPMENT FUNDING. 10: John K. Anderson, City Administrator r� FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Purchase of Squad Cars DATE: December 8, 1986 Introduction The 1987 budget provides for the purchase of four squad cars. The pruchase has been run through the equipment committee on the basis of buying cars similar to the last purchase. Back round The Hennepin County Purchasing Cooperative has awarded the contract for squad cars to Thane Hawkins Polar Chevrolet. The budget contains two cars for the annual purchase cycle, one car for the replacement of the car that was totaled and the dept. had planned to keep running and one car for the Chief to replace his car. The budgeted total for these cars is $49,000. The low bid under the contract is Thane Hawkins Polar Chev, which is priced at $11,346.00 each for the cars the City would order. The total purchase would be $45,449.00 including a set of service manuals. Alternatives 1. Purchase from Thane Hawkins for $45,449.00. 2. Purchase fewer cars from Thane Hawkins. 3. Go out for bids on our own. 4. Do not buy squad cars for 1987. Recommendation Alternative numnber one. Action Move to authorize the purchase of four squad cars from Thane Hawkins Polar Chevrolet in the amount of $45,449.00. MEMO TO: Mayor, Councilmembers FROM: Tom Brownell, Chief of Police RE: City Towing Contract DATE: December 10, 1986 Introduction Council directed staff to advertise for bids to obtain a vendor to tow and store vehicles as directed by city departments for a two year period commencing January 1, 1987. Background One bid was received from Shakopee Towing (Koehnen' s) and no others. The bid meets all required specifications. The agreement is identical to the 1986 agreement with two exceptions: 1) it is for two years, and 2) it includes unlocking vehicles. If any wishes to review the agreement it is on file in the City Clerk' s office. Recommendation Award the 1987/1988 city towing contract to Shakopee Towing Company. Council Action Required Award the 1987/1988 city towing contract to Shakopee Towing Company and authorize the proper city officials to execute a towing contract with Shakopee Towing Company for 1987 and 1988 . TOWING , IMPOUNDING , AND STOF:AGE OF *,OTOEIZED VEHICLES LID OPENING : December 9 , 1986 2 . 00 P .N. City hall , 129 Last 1st Shakopee , Minnesota 1 . Towing Charges : L� Type I �j -- Type Type III r7 C' C _ 2 . Towing of Large Vehicles : 2 3 . Storage Charges : F— First 24 hours or fraction thereof 1 Inside storage 2 Outside storage — b . Each additional 24 hours or fraction thereof 1 Inside storage 2 Outside storage 4 . Unlocking Vehicles : % ( o'✓� Signa ure T C spiny GPL Address / A TO: MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: TOM BROWNELL, CHIEF OF POLICE RE: PULLMAN CLUB GAMBLING VIOLATION DATE: DECEMBER 9 , 1986 INTRODUCTION Council is hereby advised a gambling violation has occurred at the Pullman Club, 124 West 1st Avenue, Shakopee. BACKGROUND On November 21 , 1986 , the department executed a search warrant at 124 West 1st Avenue, the Pullman Club, based on probable cause that pulltabs were being sold in violation of State Statutes. Licensee Daniel Colich has been charged with four gambling act violations by the county attorney. cJULIUS A. COLLEB II r JULIUS A.COLLER ATTORNEY AT LAW 18 59_1940 612-445-1244 2 1 1 W E S T F 1 R S T AVENUE SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 553Z9 December 4, 1986 DEC Q 5 ]�$6 ��) wC C;-;y 0=; SHA4e_ ._ Mr. Thomas G. Brownell Chief of Police of the City of Shakopee and Members of the Shakopee City Council Dear Mr. Brownell and Members of the Shakopee City Council: Chief Brownell stated certain facts to me and asked for my written opinion. The facts that he stated are that a certain establishment in the City of Shakopee licensed for on-sale liquor hadon the premises available to the frequenters thereof pull-tabs for legal gambling as defined by the Laws of the State of Minnesota and also has pull-tabs not associated with legal gambling but for the benefit of the establishment in question. His question is "What are his responsibilities and what are the responsi- bilities of the Council?" Gambling is prohibited by 340A.410 (5) of Minnesota Statutes . This sub- division provides that no retail establishment licensed to sell alcoholic beverages may keep, possess or operate or permit the keeping, possession or operation on the licensed premises of any dice or any gambling device as defined in Section 349.30:, or permit gambling therein except authorized under Chapter 349. A gambling device has been defined as a contrivance which for consideration affords the player an opportunity to obtain something of value, other than free plays, automatically from the machine or otherwise, the award of which is determined principally by chance. MSA 609.75 (4) . The intentional possession or willful keeping of a gambling device on a licensed premises is cause for the revocation of- any license under which. the licensed business- is- carried on upon the premises where the gambling device is. found, providing such possession is not authorized for legal gambling and this section goes. on to provide that all licenses under which any licensed business is permitted to be cared on upon the licensed premises shall be revoked if the intentional possession or willful keeping of any such gambling device upon the licensed premises is established. MSA 349.31 Subd 1 and 2. In addition to the foregoing State Law new provisions have recently been added to 5.02 Subd 4 F of the City Code, namely, that if the licensee violates the letter or spirit of the State Charitable Gambling Law such action shall be grounda for revocation or suspension of the license. Thomas Brownell and Shakopee City Council The City Code further provides that the Council may for any reasonable cause revoke or suspend for not more than 60 days any license granted under the provisions of Chapter 5 of the Code. However, if the above section of the State Law is violated .and such violation is established, the revocation is mandatory. Under the above law and the above facts, it is your duty to report the above facts to the Shakopee City Council and then it is their duty to set a time and place for a hearing and to consider whether the license shall be revoked. Respectfully submitted, Ju.ius A. Coller, II Shakopee City Attorney JAC/nh 9 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tom Brownell, Chief of Police RE: Burglaries DATE: December 12, 1986 INTRODUCTION: On December 2, 1986, Council requested a memorandum addressing the recent business burglaries and whether we could contract for an additional investigator or patrol officer. BACKGROUND: As of October 31, 1986 , the City has had 103 burglaries of homes, businesses, churches and schools compared to a total of 68 in 1985 . The majority of burglaries are not solved by investigation after the fact due to the lack of evidence and the mobility of persons committing the act. Most burglaries are solved by patrol officers apprehending persons actually committing the crime. The department has solved more than 80% of the burglaries . In response to the suggestion of contracting for an additional investigator, Officer Lawrence has been assigned to conduct investigations for several months and will continue until he can return to patrol duty. This assignment was in response to the 45% increase in Class I crimes during the first six months of 1986, and includes burglaries . One activity which hampers patrol in the business districts is enforcement of calender parking. Council has directed strict and consistent enforcement which requires the officer to be in the residential areas during the hours when most business burglaries occur. Since calender parking went into effect the department has issued more than 1000 citations per year. RECOMMENDATION• Hire an individual to enforce calender parking which would be similar to the code enforcement position. TB:cah 9 ' MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer/'_�_ SUBJECT: T.H. 169 Bridge and Mini-Bypass Project DATE: December 11 , 1986 INTRODUCTION: The Environmental Assessment (EA) for the T.H. 169 bridge and mini bypass project has been completed in its final draft and is being reviewed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) . The project has now advanced to the design study phase . With this particular project , there are three levels of plan layout development, being ; 1 . Bridge facility selection 2. Bypass geometrics 3. Local access and access improvements to individual properties Following is a discussion of plan design elements. BACKGROUND: Attached is a November 6 , 1986 memo to the Downtown Ad-Hoc Committee addressing bridge facility alternatives as a studied in the EA and alternative bypass geometrics that are acceptable to Mn/DOT. In the interest of avoiding repetition , I will not repeat the alternatives and associated advantages and disadvantages. At their December 3 , 1986 meeting, the Downtown Committee approved the Requested Action items 1 and 2 of the November 6 , 1986 memo . In addition , the Committee briefly discussed the merits of incorporating the existing bridge into the trail system crossing the river and also pedestrian under passes that would open the river front to pedestrian access from the CBD. As discussed in the memo, individual access to certain properties will be affected by any bypass alignment . It is the goal to develop intersection geometrics and CBD access points to minimize adverse affects to individual properties. Of particular interest is the block bounded by 1st Avenue , 2nd Avenue , Holmes Street, and Fuller Street. The reason this block is being looked at somewhat closely is due to the nature of the businesses located there. The City has committed $1 . 9 million to this project for right-of- way acquisition and bypass construction. A point that needs to be considered is that all costs associated with damage claims for change of access be included in the $1 .9 million. Another point Mini-Bypass December 11 , 1986 Page 2 to consider is the overall benefit of including, in the bypass project, access improvements that not only minimize damage claims but also maintain property values on affected properties for the overall vitality of the downtown area. Various alternatives for access improvements have been developed and will be presented to Council at their December 16 , 1986 meeting. Since this project is relatively short in length with large impacts to the public, the location & design study is in somewhat more detail than normal prior to the public hearing process. This will assist in answering questions at the public hearing . What is being requested of Council at this point is to review the alternatives and provide to staff their comments . This will assist staff, not only in fine tuning of the remaining two build alternatives, but also provide for the proposed geometrics of the proposed build alternative at the public hearing. Upon receiving testimony at the hearing, Council should then select the proposed bridge alternative and geometrics alternative to be included in the Location & Design Study Report. This report will then be reviewed by Mn/DOT and FHWA. If all goes well , the following schedule should result : December 16 , 1986 Council review of the alternatives and provide comments to staff. January 8 , 1986 Presentation to the Senior Citizen groups followed by a question and answer session. Late January , Public hearing on the project. 1987 Early February, Council selection of design layout ( bridge 1987 facility & geometrics) . Spring, 1987 Completion of Location & Design Study Report and sent to Mn/D0T & FHWA for review. REQUESTED ACTION: Comments concerning alternatives and direction to staff if revisions are desired. Formal action as to an approved plan layout should follow the public hearing process. KA/pmp MINIBYPASS MEMO TO: Downtown Ad-Hoc Committee FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineerf� SUBJECT: Mini-Bypass Design Study // DATE: November 6 , 1986 INTRODUCTION: The Environmental Assessment for the T.H. 169 bridge and mini- bypass project has been completed in its final draft and is being reviewed by the Federal Highway Administration. The project has now advanced to the design study phase. BACKGROUND: The design study will identify roadway alignments and intersection geometries. Prior to public hearings on a proposed alignment , it is necessary to have Mn/DOT staff approve the alignment. Attached are three alternative geometric & alignment designs provided in rough sketches. Mn/DOT staff has indicated that either of the three alternatives appear to be acceptable. Recall that the environmental assessment analyzed two different build alternatives, a single , four-lane bridge, and a double, two lane facility utilizing the existing structure ( sketches attached ) . Also attached are alternatives that depict intersection geometries with the single bridge alternative only. With either bridge alternative, the mini-bypass geometries are essentially the same. Referring to geometric Alternative 2 , with the double bridge alternative it doesn ' t appear that there would be enough length to provide a left turn lane from westbound T.H. 169 to the west CBD access. Staff is requesting the Downtown Committee to review the alternatives relative to CBD access, intersection control and traffic circulation in the CBD area . The Committee should recommend to Council a desired mini-bypass alignment and a desired bridge facility. CBD ACCESS (EAST) In reviewing the alternatives note the geometries on the east end are identical for all alternatives. This geometric layout seems to be the only solution for providing direct access to downtown as well as providing access to Spencer Street for commuter traffic . A signal would not be proposed for the Spencer intersection, therefore, this intersection would seek its own level of operation depending on gaps in the traffic provided by the signals at the CBD access point. The three alternatives identify access at the west end of the CBD. The following is my critique of each alternative : Mini-Bypass November 6 , 1986 Page 2 CBD ACCESS (WEST) ALTERNATIVE 1 . This alternative provides for a relatively clean intersection without the need for a signal system . The disadvantages are : a. Without signals , there is not a controlled, at grade pedestrian crossing in this area. b. There is no CBD access for westbound T . H . 169 traffic. C. There is no access to Fuller Street. d. Eliminates developable property in southeast corner of Block 5 and adjacent vacated streets. e. Block 22 looses direct access off T.H. 169 ( 1st Avenue) resulting in potential loss of business for which we would pay damages. ALTERNATIVE 2. This alternative provides access to Fuller Street and ingress only to the CBD . The disadvantages of this alternative are : a. It eliminates developable property in the southeast corner of Block 5 and adjacent vacated streets. b. No direct access from westbound T.H. 169 requiring access by Fuller Street. ALTERNATIVE 3. This alternative provides for access to Fuller Street and would provide a developable space in the southeast corner of Block 5 and adjacent vacated streets. The disadvantages of this alternative are : a. No direct access to the CBD. b. Would require a circuitous route to the CBD when accessing by Fuller. C. Unless developed properly , a structure in this vicinity could block the view to the developed downtown to eastbound T.H. 169 traffic. Mini-Bypass November 6 , 1986 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: The environmental assessment ( EA ) studied the following alternatives No Build Alternative Alternative 7A ( single bridge , 4 lane facility) Alternative 13 (two bridge facility) The EA did not reveal any clear and profound advantages of one alternative over the other with the exception that the no build alternative would provide no improvement to the existing traffic problems. Although slightly more costly to the state, it is my understanding that Mn/DOT favors Alternative 7A. From the perspective of a cleaner riverfront and less turning movement conflicts created by one bridge head versus two, Staff recommends Alternative 7A. Regarding the mini bypass alignment and geometrics , Staff recommends Alternative 2 . As with any of the CBD access alternatives, access to certain properties will be affected. I have met with the affected property owners to discuss alternative access proposals. In conjunction with the bypass design, access improvements can be designed to eliminate or minimize damages to affected businesses. REQUESTED ACTION: 1 . Recommend to City Council that the City pursue the implementation of Alternative 7A, as identified in the Environmental Assessment, for the T.H. 169 Minnesota River Crossing. 2. Recommend to City Council that the City pursue the implementation of mini-bypass alignment and geometric Alternative 2 as identified in the City Engineer' s November 6 , 1986 memo to the Downtown Ad-Hoc Committee. KA/pmp BYPASS y � . ll� 1 - YNHf VFR ,J + y L[ ! D• i� h/�1• +. _ J.O v -I11 0 71 ��`a6f9\\•� •�1f9 I /�I � it us K9 r.157 AVE. ` J E IST-L 13Dt— Ir 1 50 - ZYu ` r �- -- _ -- ALTERNATIV--F'7 A YOIF. .�•�9w—w M•Y,—a ws•. CT (•� RNERSIDE PARK s I YM1fS0 /VER 1 t _ � t7- F EYEL --11.- _�.�`- -.�-, I •�\cam" ,��...�,�ena ^i�,� � ,�M. r-�D M6 K9 �• r.IST _ E IS,AWL MN o I :A. 10 MD L` /C.TRD N C15�"'l� gQ ALTERNATIVE 13 Yew—��w TY.r•wv "VE RS DE 1 ARK G�� T L OT 1 - AMNII ,,= PAF-JI� RECD - - -�- -- F' ' DRI V9 NUBER P ARK CITY U _ U. / t o VLP 4 LP Ln �: �r gr 6c If OST A �� �FFIC�'' - +� �i _L 11311ARY O O 6) O Ql O S n 1 l� VER S E. _ - GOVT 1111 LA nQ� t.._ - � � 1C SOL—.l_1 .a•..���J �..--- -- - -- - - -- - _ - PA r k R CC . [� I i �t� 1 JC G. Orr�V L•. ��+U . a— .6'` HUB ER P \ RIC Lc I CITY Lyl G o p n Y �It L �—sem •�� .. .,. - / - POST Ln Ln1 LA .;OFFICE -lIDRgA1?Y _ t� S } D P coy ' - - _ _ }� T - --_ - — tra - S _ N � - - - - - - MINLAIA _- — - — - - ,— gor -./� N, ► L ( !U 5'1._1_ i_.. 2a PARECO I I � 1i1tTt F D rfv ' I-1UB-E R P \ R K . CITY tv) ri ,I AJL tgro ~1 0% o P ► 1 t r,�, N R L ► _ rAlOST r • � ; f P �: � D . f � 1 LP A U . I !C'End F F I C _L IDf ARY _ o o Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. � 1610 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454 612-332-0421 MEMORANDUM TO: File FROM: Bruce Warzala COPIES TO: Ken Ashfeld, Shakopee ✓ John Anderson, Shakopee John Mullan, Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Dan Iutenegger, Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Dave Warzala, Barton-Aschman DATE: December 8, 1986 SUBJECT: SHAKOPEE DOWNTOWN BYPASS On December 5, 1986, I called Carl Hoffstedt, MnDOT Transportation Planning Engineer, to get an update on the EA/PPR approval schedule and to let the state }mow that the city, through its Downtown Committee, expressed interest in using the in-place bridge for pedestrian-recreational use if the single four-lane bridge alternate is approved. Carl thought the Downtown Committee proposal had merit and will pursue the idea further within MnDOT. Nothing can be formally decided, however, until the final alternate is selected. Such a proposal should be worked into the geometrics of the layout now in for approval. The EA/PPR has been forwarded to FHWA for final approval. The state expects their approval by the end of December. After the FHWA approval is received, we can assume it will take approximately one week to revise and update the document and another few days to circulate it to the involved agencies. By mind ,Taniiary we should be in a nosi tion to beain our two week advertisina_ period for a late January or early February public hearing. slw MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer's Y 7 SUBJECT: Change Order No. 6 , 1984-8 Project DATE: December 11 , 1986 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Change Order No. 6 to the 1984-8 Trunk Highway 101 Project that included traffic signals and turn lane improvements at the intersections of County Road 89 and Valley Park Drive . BACKGROUND: During final inspection of this project , the City ' s transportation consultant, Barton-Aschman Associates , requested minor changes to the system which resulted in some additions and deletions to the contract amount . The changes involved electrical hand holes and lighting heads. The amount of the additions is $1 , 996 . 00 and the amount of the deletions is $1 , 314 .00 for a net increased construction cost of $682 .00 . RECOMMENDATION: Based upon Barton-Aschman ' s recommendation, I recommend Council approval of this change order. REQUESTED ACTION: Move to approve Change Order No. 6 to the 1984-8 Trunk Highway 101 Improvement in the amount of $682.00 to be taken from the racetrack off-site improvement fund. KA/pmp CHORDER �netrua vxLrec Change Order No.: 6 Project Name: State Trunk Highway 101 Improvements Date: November 18, 1986 Contract No.: 1984-8 - Original Contract Amount $ 358.830.16 Change Orders) No. 1 thru No. 5 $ 21,938.51 Total Funds Encumbered Prior to Change Order $ 380,768.67 Description of 'Work to be Added: Additions/Deletions to Signal Systems "A" and "B" as per attachments. The above described work shall be incorporated in the Contract, referenced above, under the same conditions specified in the original Contract as amended unless otherwise specified herein. Any work not so specified shall be performed in accordance with the Standard Specifications adopted by the City of Shakopee, Minnesota. The amount of the Contract shall be increased by $ 682.00 The number of working days for completion shall be increased by 0 Original Contract Amount $ 358,830.16 Change Order(s) No. 1 thru 6 $ 22,620.51 Total Funds Encumbered $ 381,450.67 Completion Date: Project Complete The undersigned Contractor hereby agrees to perform the work specified in this Change Order in accordance with the specifications, conditions and prices specified herein Contractor: / r r'� � s By: Title Date: APP 0 AND RECOMMENDED: City ngin,0er Date APPROVED:/ City of Shakopee By: Approved as to form this Mayor Date day of 19 City Administrator Date City Attorney City Clerk Date EGA/V MCKA YELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS,INC. Niff'ELEPHONE 7100 MEDICINE LAKE ROAD • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55427 544-4131 • AREA CODE 612 February 5 , 1986 �,��'��21281011 ��� EM-11284VQ LO C. S. McCrossan Construction, Inc. 7865 County Road 19 North Box 247 Maple Grove , MN 55369 Re : Project No. 84-8 , TH101 Gentlemen: Ken Anderson of Barton-Aschman Associates has requested the following changes. System "A" Add - (2) 3 section heads $ 1 , 054 . 00 System "B" Add - (1) L. D. Cover 414 . 00 Add - Railroad preempt modification 529. 00 (See enclosed invoice) $ 1 , 996 . 00 Net result would be an add of $682 . 00 to our original contract. Sincerely, ELAN-McK/AY ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS , INC . Donald P. Swanson DPS : ss C� . One contract providing complete Mechanical-Electrical Services for commercial and industrial construction K T Riddle Control Products Inc. 13, 1428 Excelsior Avenue West OUR ADDRESS HAS CHANGED Hopkins, MN 55343 AS FOLLOWS. RIDDLE CONTROL PRODUCTS INC. /C- �- ,77 1428 MAINSTPEE, HOPKINS,MN 55343 s Egan McKay , Inc . s L '7100 Medicine Lake Road H. Same D Minneapolis , Minnesota 55427 T T O O CUSTOMER'S ORDER SALESMAN DATE SHIPPED IT ERMS SHIPPED VIA F.O.B. DATE 2324-3048 PCH 6/14/85 et 30 day Local Truck Minneapol ' s 10/14/8: ADD-ON: 1 1 Railroad Preempt System Modification ----- --- $350 00 '14 1 1 Additional wiring for manual control ----- --- 148 004 .i Total Price ------ --- $498 00 Sales Tax ----- --- 29 88 Total Price including tax ----- --- $527 881 9 j 3 j .t .L .tet J it 1 Thank you. rEDIFORM 75747 carban/e�s POLY PAK (50 SFTS) 7P747 J 19G_0 9 .� EGAN MCKA YELECTR/CAL CDNTRACTDRS, INC.55-4277100 MEDICINE LAKE ROAD a MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA S427 TELEPHONE 54.4-4131 t AREA CODE 812 January 22, 1985 EN-10563 ' C. S. McCrossan Constructions Inc. 7865 Co. Rd. 18 North Box 247 Maple Grove, MN 55369 Re: Project No. 84-8 , TH 101 Gentlemen: Ren Anderson of Barton-Asclhman Associates has requested the following changes. System OA' Add - 1 handhole between HH10 and controller cabinet $ 337 .00 Add - 1 handhole between HH1' and controller cabinet 337 .00 Add - 80 ' 1 1/4" PVC in median for loops D1-1 & D5-1 300 .00 Total $ 974 .00 System "B" Add - 1 handhole (#6) $ 337 .00 Add - 2 - 6 x 6 loops (D4-4) 540 .00 Auu - l35 ' l 1/4" PVC betwee _n handhold 5Ps « handhold 6i Add - for P100 foundation pole #2 506 . 00 836 . 00 Total $2,269 .00 System "B" Delete - signal head 4-8 $ 171 ,00 Delete - signal head 2-2 171 .00 Delete - signal bead 2-1 171 .00 Delete - signal head 1-2 206 .00 Delete - signal head 5-2 206 .00 Delete - signal pole A30-D40-9 3 .632 . 00 Total $4 ,557 .00 EonnDna corwact Prp✓lding complett "OcAanicai-£lactrica/Sarvicet for commercial and industrial construction Page 2 C. S. McCrossan Construction, Inc. January 22 , 1985 EM-10563 Net result would be a deduct of $1 ,314 .00 from our original contract. :sincerely, EGAN-MORAY ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. Donald P. Swanson DPS :lob MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ray Ruuska, Engineering Coordinator ! SUBJECT: Minnesota Valley Trail Cleanup Project DATE: December 10, 1986 INTRODUCTION: Work on the above referenced project is now complete . BACKGROUND: In March of 1986 , City Council authorized a clean-up effort of the area bordering the recently completed Minnesota Valley Trail from the Community Services Building to the west corporate limits of the City. A contractor was selected based on lowest submitted hourly rates for labor and equipment. In addition, debris was to be taken to the Louisville Landfill to be dumped with the City to pay the landfill cubic yard rate. All costs were to be paid by the City General Fund. Due to high water during the summer months work was only recently completed. Final costs are as follows : F.F. Jedlicki $2,788.50 Louisville Landill $ 1 .50 Total $3,302.00 Of this total cost, the D.N. R. has contributed $2,650 .00 and Rahr Malting Co. $835.00 for a contribution total of $3 ,1485.00. ACTION REQUESTED: Council authorization to pay F.F. Jedlicki , 114203 W. 62nd Street, Eden Prairie MN 55344 in the amount of $2,788 .50 and Louisville Landfill , Inc. 3331 Akers Lane, Jordan MN 55352 in the amount of $513 . 50. Above payments to be made from the City of Shakopee General Fund. RR/pmp TRAIL cc: Ken Ashfeld, City Engr. �K MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer SUBJECT: Signals at T.H. 101 & C. R. 83 DATE: December 11 , 1986 INTRODUCTION: Council ordered a traffic signal warrants study for the intersection of Trunk Highway (TH) 101 with County Road (C.R. ) 83 and Shenandoah Drive and upon satisfaction of warrants , to proceed with plans and specifications . Plans for the C . R . 83 signalization project are now completed. BACKGROUND: When the Racetrack was built, an Indirect Source Permit (ISP) , as administered by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPGA) was required due to projected traffic and area of parking. Certain public improvements were required by the permit on roadways adjacent to the track. All improvements have been completed to date with the exception of traffic signals on T.H . 101 at C. R. 83 and Shenandoah Drive. Cost of such improvements have been funded by a combination of special assessments , state aid , and tax increment financing. Warrant studies have been completed at C. R. 83 and Shenandoah Drive . Study results at C . R . 83 indicate that a signal is warranted and should now be installed to satisfy ISP requirements . The study also indicated signals were not warranted on Shenandoah Drive. Unless warrants are met, Mn/DOT, will not allow signals to be installed. Staff has notified MPCA that the City cannot comply with the ISP requirements at Shenandoah at this time. Plans and Specifications for the signal system at C. R. 83 are on file in my office for review by City Council . The engineer ' s estimate on the project is $108 ,400.00 . If approved by Council , this project is proposed to be funded by tax increment financing. Since it is advisable to have the signal in operation by the opening of the 1987 racing season, bids should be let as soon as possible so that equipment can be ordered. Mn/DOT review has not been completed at this point. In the event that Mn/DOT would require a change, this can be reflected in an addendum to plan holders. Signals December 10 , 1986 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Approving the plans and specifications and setting a bid opening date and a time at which Council will review the bids . The Finance Director has indicated that there is ample funds remaining in the Track Off-Site Improvement Fund , therefore , a bond sale is not needed. REQUESTED ACTION: Move to approve the plans and specifications for the Trunk Highway 101/County Road 83 Signalization, Project No. 1987-1 , and setting a bid opening for 10 : 00 A. M. , January 22, 1987 , such bids to be reviewed by Council on February 3 , 1987 • KA/pmp SIGNALS L I/ MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer44— SUBJECT: Upper Valley Drainage Report DATE: December 11 , 1986 INTRODUCTION: At their August 19 , 1986 meeting Council authorized the drainage study for the Upper Valley drainage basin . The City ' s civil engineering consultant, OSM, has now completed that study. BACKGROUND: Attached is the Upper Valley drainage report which reflects the findings of the study. Since it is a relatively lengthy report, I had hoped to distribute the report to Council with their December 16 , 1986 agenda packet for discussion at their January 6 , 1987 meeting. During the interim, Engineering will continue to formulate the list of properties that would receive a special benefit from the propose drainage project. As per the City ' s funding policy for storm drainage improvements , those special benefitted properties will receive a special benefit charge added to the existing City-wide storm drainage utility. I have marked various sections of the report that contain key elements of the study and specific recommendations. If Council has any questions that would assist them in the review of this report, I will try to answer those questions at the December 16 , 1986 meeting. Otherwise , they can call me anytime individually as questions arise . Other than reviewing the report, no specific Council action is being requested by this memo. KA/pmp REPORT CITY OF SHAKOPE E INCORPORATED 1870 129 EAST FIRST AVENUE, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379.1376 (612)445-3650 November 4 , 1986 9 6 � • Bill Crawford District Engineer Mn/DOT 2055 N. Lilac Drive Golden Valley, MN RE: T.H. 101 Bypass Drainage Dear Bill : The City or- Shakopee is conducting a drainage study of an area that includes the T.H. 101 Bypass alignment from C. R. 83 to T.H. 169 on the west side of the City. Due to development pressure in the area , the City may be constructing storm drainage facilities in this area in 1987. It has become apparent that the facility proposed by the City can be designed to handle peak flows from the drainage area including peak flows from the bypass right-of-way. It is the intent of the City to request a Cooperative Agreement between the City and Mn/DOT to finance the project. It is unknown at this time what the estimated participation on the part of Mn/DOT will be . We should have that information available soon and I will forward a copy of the report to you along with a formal request. I believe a cooperative project of this nature will save money for both Mn/DOT and the City as well as having a facility in place when Mn/DOT' s need is there. Hopefully, that need will be soon as the bypass project progresses. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Ken Ashf ld City Engineer KA/pmp DRAINAGE cc : John K. Anderson, City Admin. Keith Shannon, OSM Chuck Weichselbaum, DSAE Tim Johnson, Mn.DOT The Heart of Progress Valley AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER l UPPER VALLEY - DRAINAGEWAY AND OUTFALL STUDY FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE ORR•SCHELEN MAYERON 8z ASSOCIATES,INC. Oim CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2021 EAST HE NNE PIN AVE • SUITE 238 LAND SURVEYORS MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55413 X612)331 8660 l UPPER VALLEY DRAINAGE WAY AND OUTFALL STUDY FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE NO. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I . INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 II . HYDROLOGY DETERMINATION OF RUNOFF RATES. . . . . . . . 2 A. Drainage to Shakopee (County Road 79) . . . . . . 3 1. Model 1 - Existing Conditions. . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Model 2 - Existing Conditions. . . . . . . . . . 4 Less Culvert Crossings 3. Model 3 - Jackson Township. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Comprehensive Drainage Plan 4. Summary of Drainage to Shakopee. . . . . . . . 5 B. Drainage in Shakopee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1. Model 4 - Design Reach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Existing Conditions - 2. Model 5 - Design Reach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Developed Conditions 3. Summary of Drainage in Shakopee. . . . . . . . 6 III . DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS - UPPER VALLEY. . . . . . . . . . . 7 DRAINAGE WAY AND OUTFALL CORRIDORS A. Alignment 1 - C.S.A.H. 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 to Memorial Park B. Alignment 2 - C.S.A.H. 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 to Memorial Park C. Alignment 3 - C.R. 77 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 to Blue Lake or Memorial Park IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 APPENDIX EXECUTIVE SUMMARY q l The expansion of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area into the Upper Valley Drainage Way has stimulated development in the area. The Upper Valley Drainage Way receives surface runoff from the entire Mill Pond Drainage Basin consisting of 8,437 acres. As development of the drainage basin proceeds into the future, the need to provide a drainage system plan becomes critical . Implementation of a drainage system plan will safeguard against flooding of future urban develop- ments. A thorough investigation of the Upper Valley Drainage Way watershed and its associated topography, has led to the development of a system to drain the area. The drainage system referred to herein as Alternate 3 incorporates open channel drainage with a low flow storm sewer. The low flow storm sewer has been included in the plan for the drainage system to prevent marsh-like conditions from developing on the channel bottom. Alternate 3 parallels the Upper Valley Drainage Way floor from C.S.A.H. 15 extending easterly, downstream to Hauer Trail , then to C.S.A.H. 16 and then northwesterly to Memorial Park and the Minnesota River (see Exhibit E, Align- ment 1) . Total project cost including legal , administrative and engineering fees, and construction is estimated to be $3.6 million. Right-of-way would be acquired during the platting process. No right-of-way costs are included in the cost estimate. -1- I. INTRODUCTION The extension of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) into the Upper Valley Drainage Way has begun to stimulate development. As this area develops, the City of Shakopee recognizes the need for a planned storm drainage system to facilitate organized growth. This study provides a storm water management plan for the Upper Valley Drainage Way. Analysis of storm water runoff rates, various conveyance structures, such as storm sewers, ditches, or swales, and several alternate alignments or drainage corridors are included in this study. The area under study is shown on Exhibits A and B. Since the study area is within the Shakopee Water Management Organization (WMO) and the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District (LMRWD) , any storm water management plan must receive concurrence of the WMO and LMRWD. A storm water plan for the Upper Valley Drainage Way should be included in the WMO plan currently being prepared to meet state laws (Chapter 509) . Among other issues, storm water runoff flow rates will be incorporated into the Shakopee WMO plan. This study investigates the existing runoff rates as well as the flow rates associ- ated with a developed watershed. The affect on runoff rates of detention storage has been considered where appropriate. Several alternative routings of drainage corridors are studied for the Upper Valley Drainage Way. In general , these routes follow existing drainage ways. This is due to the increased cost of construction normally associated with realigning an existing drainage course. For each route, various types of drainage improvements are considered. The cost of each is estimated, so the relative costs and benefits can be compared. II . HYDROLOGY - DETERMINATION OF RUNOFF RATES The modeling of rainfall events in this study is based on "Hydrology Guide for Minnesota" developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conserva- tion Service (SCS) . The hydrology methods and techniques are a result of a hydrology study conducted in Minnesota by the Soil Conservation Service in the fall of 1975. The SCS' s basic hydrology concepts such as the rainfall-runoff -2- Project Scope . � a��%£ \ \ Z �� �� �� �" � s�:;ice::•::_; ti 0 i 3 M C } 4 •�� 1^rte :;:ti�i J 9 .•ivir:v?::i:r.�' sl P : .t Mp k S r P D I zw[R ■a z a r Dorw -� _ • •1.• VALLEY r POR I U f IF T - E1 {I t J �� �. - �{ L.1 r-�, I fie. .. � �•. •1 •�1•'','..'IM1M1I Q r� ..:: 11 SnAKC)P'C E _. ... :,: Lv{ '•"-art}:- I {tine!"•.......� ...... _ 1 ........... I . ..... . .. .. . .c.<:�< ::� :::•::�• �� � ter. � •:2'>��:%;<: ............. .1.L..ADO V ` HILI{ DOM ! } -- -- 1 :IPJ^ i Of �J. t ► Proposed r a _ T.H. 1 101__ -- jj - - - - -- �— - �\ •oer �-- By-Pas-s r IPA I \ Cc a- •E _ \ SCALE: 1"=2000' C R 77 ` zEl Drainagew ys §tudied Cy9? • r EXHIBIT A I _� Models 4 & 5 (Mill end Watershed \ — To Memorial Park '^ � Models 1 , 2 & 3 - BLUE To To Co. Rd. 79 j .y�.a��-�.� . ;y LAKE {,. �ESOl A - HA I' I i ..... •-• . �- I 5-2 t 2 H-11 3 - I-- I 3 I•\ 1•-- A. J. -_ i ..•. 8 ��. I - 111 `h( [ / I WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB-WATERSHED BOUNDARY CITY OF SHAKOPEE NORTH ADDITIONAL S.W.B. FOR MODELS 3, 4 & 5 SCALE: Vw4000' ••,•,�.,.,,. WATER FLOW LINE EXHIBIT B .- G� EXHIBIT B SUMARY OF SUB-WATERSHED AREAS AREA N0. ACREAGE A-1 676 A-2 1,386 A-3 401 A-4 267 B-1 72 B-2 272 C-1 61 D-2 47 D-3 48 E-1 130 F-1 233 G-1 131 G-2 157 G-3 390 H-1 329 H-2-1 481 H-2-2 274 H-3-1 173 H-3-2 85 H-4 197 H-5-1 191 H-5-2 387 H-6 128 H-7 372 H-8-1 349 H-8-2 321 H-9 689 H-10 188 1 k relationship and peak discharge equation are used. This is a method which is _ widely used by hydrologists in the State of Minnesota. Since the WMO' s consultant is the Soil Conservation Service, use of the SCS methods in this study will ensure that the method used to determine flow rates herein will be comparable to those adopted by the WMO. The rainfall event utilized in this study is the 100 year storm (1% chance of occurring in any given year) . The 100 year storm is 6 inches of rain in 24 hours. The 100 year storm is used to determine protection of property and life from storm water. Additionally, the 1 year storm, 2.4 inches of rain in 24 hours, has _ been utilized on a limited basis. A 1 year storm in this plan is used to provide low flow drainage for maintenance and aesthetic purposes. Based on the SCS Guide, a series of computer models of the Upper Valley Water- shed have been prepared. The first three were used to determine the flow rates entering the City of Shakopee from Jackson Township. Of the three, one was viewed as superior. This model , which incorporates the Jackson Township Comprehensive Drainage Plan, determined the flow rate entering the City of Shakopee at C. R. 79. This model has been used as the basis of design for the drainage structures conveying surface runoff through and out of the watershed. 4. Summary of Drainage to Shakopee The results of Model 1 through 3 demonstrate the impact of various modeling assumptions on runoff rate. Since large areas were flooded utilizing Model 1, Model 2 was developed to simulate the effect of correcting that condition. However, by solving one problem, another was created. The flow rate at C. R. 79 increased from Model 1 to 2 by 464% to 487 cfs. This rate would require massive drainage improvements downstream which would be extremely expensive. Considering the disadvantages of either approach, Model 3 was developed using the Jackson Township storm water plan. This plan was based on the concept of ponding storm water after development such that pre-developed runoff rates are maintained. This is a common practice in Minnesota and other parts of the country. Model 3 will be used to determine drainage requirements downstream of C. R. 79. The following is a more detailed description of Models 1, 2 and 3. -3- A. Drainage to Shakopee (County Road 79) q l 1. Model 1 - Existing Conditions Existing conditions in the watershed were assumed as the basis of the first hydrologic model . The existing conditions incorporated into the model include soil types, land use, and drainage structures such as culverts and weirs. A detailed tabulation of the relevant input can be found in Table 1. The runoff rates from the design storm generated from the model are located on Table 1 as well . Exhibit 6 shows the sub-watershed areas used for Models 1, 2 and 3. At C. R. 79, the flow rate is 105 cubic feet per second for Model 1. A review of the results indicates that a great deal of surface water storage takes place at county road culvert crossings. These severe drainage restrictions at roadway crossings would result in ponding at _ culvert crossings and cause flooding of existing agricultural land in the valley for the design storm. This situation would not be acceptable for developed conditions. 2. Model 2 - Existing Conditions Less Culvert Crossings This model is essentially the same as "Model 1," however, the culvert crossing at C. R. 69, C.S.A.H. 15, and C.R. 77 have been assumed to allow the peak flow from the watershed to pass uninterrupted without ponding. _ This would reflect a situation which might arise if the flooding associated with ponding at these culvert crossings became undesirable for developed conditions. In Vodel 1, the flooded areas are currently agricultural . If a more intensive use became desirable, ponding might be reduced by installing a larger culvert. The resulting 100 year flow rates generated by this model depicts an extreme condition since all three culverts are assumed to be improved. The input and results are tabulated in Table 2. At. C. R. 79, the flow rate is 487 cubic feet per second. -4- TABLE 1 MODEL 1 WATERSHED PONDING AND DRAINAGE SUMMARY 24 HOUR 24 HOUR WATERBODY EXISTING DIRECT INDIRECT NORMAL 100 YEAR 100 YEAR SUB SCS SIZE AT OUTLET DRAINAGE DRAINAGE WATER WATER DETENTION PEAK WATERSHED CURVE N.W. ELEV. SIZE AREA AREA ELEVATION ELEVATION STORAGE DISCHARGE DESIGNATION NUMBER (ACRES) (INCHES) (ACRES) (ACRES) (MSL) (MSL) (ACRE-FT) (CFS) A-1 90 293 24 676 1386 944 944.8 398.9 1 A-2 77 550 18 1386 -0- 944 944.5 274.5 2 A-3 68 155 30' Weir 401 2062 939 939.4 65.5 23 A-4 61 1.4 24 267 2807 903 910.8 18.9 41 B-1 61 N/A N/A 72 -0- N/A N/A N/A 63 B-2 61 11.4 18 344 -0- 915 917.7 49.0 11 C-1 61 N/A N/A 61 -0- N/A N/A N/A 53 D-2 61 N/A N/A 47 -0- N/A N/A N/A 43 D-3 61 N/A N/A 95 -0- N/A N/A N/A 42 E-1 61 2.1 18 130 -0- 897.5 900.4 9.9 11 F-1 61 8.8 5' Weir 233 -0- 902 903.0 8.8 49 G-1 61 N/A N/A 131 -0- N/A N/A N/A 58 G-2 61 1.3 30 288 -0- 832.5 835.1 24,3 22 G-3 61 -0- 24 390 651 829 835.5 98.8 33 H-1 61 -0- 45" Arch 329 -O- 796 797.1 45.9 9 H-2 61 40 24 755 329 795 797.2 117.9 14 H-3 61 N/A N/A 319 4158 N/A N/A N/A 181 H-4 61 2.7 42 516 4158 791 795.5 79.6 66 H-5 61 -0- 48 673 5715 790.7 796.4 92.4 105 f , TABLE 2 MODEL 2 WATERSHED PONDING AND DRAINAGE SUMMARY 24 HOUR 24 HOUR WATERBODY EXISTING DIRECT INDIRECT NORMAL 100 YEAR 100 YEAR SUB SCS SIZE AT OUTLET DRAINAGE DRAINAGE WATER WATER DETENTION PEAK WATERSHED CURVE N.W. ELEV. SIZE AREA AREA ELEVATION ELEVATION STORAGE DISCHARGE DESIGNATION NUMBER (ACRES) (INCHES) (ACRES) (ACRES) (MSL) (MSL) (ACRE-FT) (CFS) A-1 90 293 24 676 1386 944 944.8 398.9 1 A-2 77 550 18 1386 -0- 944 944.5 274.5 2 A-3 68 155 30' Weir 401 2062 939 939.4 65.5 23 A-4 61 1.4 24 267 2807 903 910.8 18.9 41 B-1 61 N/A N/A 72 -0- N/A N/A N/A 63 B-2 61 11.4 18 344 -0- 915 917.7 49.0 11 C-1 61 N/A N/A 61 -0- N/A N/A N/A 53 D-2 61 N/A N/A 47 -0- N/A N/A N/A 43 D-3 61 N/A N/A 95 -0- N/A N/A N/A 42 E-1 61 2.1 18 130 -0- 897.5 900.4 9.9 11 F-1 61 8.8 5' Weir 233 -0- 902 903.0 8.8 49 G-1 61 N/A N/A 131 -0- N/A N/A N/A 58 G-2 61 1.3 30 288 -0- 832.5 835.1 24.3 22 G-3 61 -0- 24 390 651 829 835.5 98.8 33 H-1 61 -0- 45" Arch 329 -0- N/A N/A N/A 83 H-2 61 N/A N/A 1084 -0- N/A N/A N/A 254 H-3 61 N/A N/A 1403 3074 N/A N/A N/A 337 H-4 61 N/A N/A 1600 3074 N/A N/A N/A 367 H-5 61 N/A N/A 2273 4115 N/A N/A N/A 487 3. Model 3 - Jackson Township Comprehensive Drainage Plan Jackson Township has a Comprehensive Drainage Plan which identifies storage volumes and discharge rates in the Township for a developed condition. Model 3 simulates the effect of the Jackson Township plan (Exhibit C) on flow rates. Hydrologic input and the associated 100 year flow rates can be found in Table 3. Model 3 results in a flow rate at C. R. 79 of 199 cubic feet per second (cfs) . When the township' s plan was formulated, this flow rate was deter- mined to be 303 cfs. The reason for the variation is modeling methodology. The 303 cfs result was arrived at by addition of hydrograph peak flow rates. Sub-watersheds draining to C. R. 79 were assumed to peak at the same time. This assumption is not at all realistic since much of the runoff draining to C. R. 79 is ponded. The peak flow from the ponded areas will be delayed relative to the area drainaing directly. Thus, the direct peak flow will have passed the county road before the peak from the indi- rect area arrives. The analysis performed herein, takes this staggering effect into account. B. Drainage in Shakopee 3. Summary of Drainage in Shakopee The flow rate from Jackson Township entering the City at C.R. 79 was determined by Model 3, and incorporated into both Models 4 and 5. These models have been generated for comparison purposes. The consequence of utilizing one or the other will be reflected in the cost estimates associ- ated with the drainage improvements designed under either the with or without ponding options. The following is a more detailed description of Models 4 and 5. 1. Model 4 - Design Reach, Existinq Conditions This model is an enlargement of Model 3 to include all of the watershed tributary to the Upper Valley Drainage Way and its outfall to the Minnesota -5- i p7 \ : ..........za.Zz" Comprehensive Storm Water Plan Jackson Township SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA Is ..sit ( IV-A A �I .. wwn1/- ,C, I I�. �' l Ills j I-B 71 Ilk'Ac n kellsl IFE ACK&I C 11-A Imam (314 ACKS1 A 1.40 ID '0- + 11-D am.cels. It Ij 45 i IC 11 I ,444 Ictis) Ills"a t Drainage DistrictsI------- Isaac _ Ilei 111-A EXHIBIT C TABLE 3 MODEL 3 WATERSHED PONDING AND DRAINAGE SUMMARY 24 HOUR WATERBODY PROPOSED DIRECT INDIRECT 100 YEAR SUB SCS SIZE AT OUTLET DRAINAGE DRAINAGE HEAD ON DETENTION PEAK WATERSHED CURVE N.W. ELEV. SIZE AREA AREA OUTLET STORAGE DISCHARGE DESIGNATION NUMBER (ACRES) (INCHES) (ACRES) (ACRES) (FT.) (ACRE-FT) (CFS) A-1 87 293 24 676 1386 0.75 332 1 A-2 70 550 18 1386 -0- 0.38 255 2 A-3 75 77.5 36 401 2062 1.29 99 11 A-4 65 N/A' N/A 267 2807 N/A N/A 161 B-1 65 20 12 72 -0- 0.67 13 1 B-2 65 11.4 24 272 72 3.02 34 20 C-1 65 N/A N/A 61 -0- N/A N/A 66 D-2 65 N/A N/A 47 -0- N/A N/A 54 D-3 65 2 18 95 -0- 3.43 7 13 E-1 65 2.1 18 130 -0- 0.79 12 13 F-1 65 8.8 5' Weir 233 -0- 1.15 10 71 G-1 65 N/A N/A 131 -0- N/A N/A 74 G-2 61 1.3 30 288 -0- 2.65 27 23 G-3 61 -0- 24 390 651 6.77 108 34 H-1 61 9 30 329 -0- 3.15 26 29 H-2-1 61 31.7 27 481 329 2.88 91 22 H-2-2 61 N/A N/A 274 810 N/A N/A 89 H-3-1 61 15.4 30 501 2807 5.61 78 50 H-3-2 61 N/A N/A 359 4118 N/A N/A 133 H-4 61 8 54 556 4118 6.04 33 139 H-5-1 61 19.3 27 191 1136 3.90 74 29 H-5-2 61 N/A N/A 387 6001 N/A N/A 199 61 1 River. Model 4 has been developed to generate flow rates for use in design calculations for the Upper Valley Drainage Way and outfall . Parameters associated with existing soil conditions and land uses have been incorpo- rated into the model . Flow rates generated from this model assume an undeveloped watershed. Any storm sewers or channels designed with these rates as a basis will require that development of the watershed does not increase runoff rates. For this study, a number of storm drain designs are based upon the flow rates derived from Model 4. These designs are grouped together under the heading "With Ponding Options." The implication of this grouping is that detention storage ponding will need to be employed in conjunction with or prior to development throughout the watershed, if any of these options are implemented. Table 4 contains a tabulation of input data and resultant 100 year flow rates for Model 4. Exhibit B shows the sub-watershed areas modeled. - 2. Model 5 - Design Reach, Developed Conditions Model 5 simulates developed conditions in the watershed with no ponding in sub-watersheds H-5-2 through H-10 shown on Exhibit D. The extent of future development was estimated based upon the findings of an investigation of zoning maps and regulations, as well as input from City staff. The model parameter controlling the extent of surface water infiltration (curve number) has been adjusted to reflect the reduction of permeable surface area associated with paving and building construction. For this study, storm drainage improvement options utilizing the flow rates generated by Model 5 have been grouped under the heading "Without Ponding. " These options have been formulated under the assumption that as development of the watershed progresses, and permeable surface area is reduced, storage of the increased runoff will not be required downstream of C. R. 79. How- ever, ponding will be required in upstream areas of Shakopee and Jackson Township. A summary of storage requirements and structures for each -6- Mill Pond Watershed Pondi Rem gai(eents for Fullve7o edonns r .� y �.. ` .> r y + •.tet BLUE L A K E 77_•_1tV.- .� A�, _ � R- _ / /.\ RNs . - -- --_�� 1 . i' E AN " ;. I+F _ r `1 - — - - -- - — — — –. - - - - ------------_. --- - i 1 r r 1 � i rte'._ •�\ � }":';' 1. t{r r-- }M- I ~-" WATERSHED BOUNDARY SCALE 1 « 4000' SUB-WATERSHED BOUNDARY CITY OF SHAKOPEE ADDITIONAL S. W. B. FOR MODELS 3, 4 & 5 ������ PONDING REQUIRED IN CONJUNCTION WITH DEVELOPMENT EXHIBIT D TABLE 4 MODEL 4 WATERSHED PONDING AND DRAINAGE SUMMARY 24 HOUR DIRECT INDIRECT 100 YEAR SUB SCS DRAINAGE DRAINAGE DETENTION PEAK WATERSHED CURVE AREA AREA STORAGE DISCHARGE DESIGNATION NUMBER (ACRES) (ACRES) (ACRE-FT) (CFS) SEE TABLE 3 FOR SUBWATERSHEDS A-1 THROUGH H-5-2 H-7 61 887 6,001 115 256 H-8-1 61 1,236 6,001 -0- 306 V H-8-2 61 1,557 6,001 27 382 H-9 61 2,246 6,001 96 352 H-10 61 2,434 6,001 -0- 552 upstream sub-watershed is shown in Table 3. This summary is similar to the Jackson Township drainage plan. A tabulation of input, and the calculated flow rates for a 100 year storm simulated by Model 5 can be found in Table 5. III . DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS - UPPER VALLEY DRAINAGE WAY AND OUTFALL CORRIDORS As the Upper Valley Drainage area develops, the need to provide a planned drainage system has become critical . Property must be systematically reserved to maintain a drainage corridor. The long term right-of-way and drainage improvement requirements for the drainage way are discussed in detail in this section. Only with the implementation of a planned drainage system can safety from flooding of future developments and neighborhoods be assured. Three different alignments for the drainage way and outfall have been consid- ered in this report. The three alignments are described specifically as the following (see Exhibit E. ) : Alignment 1 - From C.S.A.H. 15 easterly, downstream to Hauer Trail , thence to C.S.A.H. 16, thence northwesterly to Memorial Park and the Minnesota River. Alignment 2 - Following Alignment 1 to C.S.A.H. 16, thence easterly to the Dean Lake outlet channel , thence following the outlet channel northerly to Blue Lake. Alignment 3 - From C. R. 77 easterly paralleling the proposed T.H. 101 bypass alignment to C.S.A.H. 16, thence either to Blue Lake by way of the Dean Lake outlet or northerly to Memorial Park. Typically, a designer has two basic choices of conveyance structures to utilize in storm drainage design. These are open channel and closed conduit. Each has advantages and disadvantages. The primary disadvantage to closed conduit or storm sewer is cost. Storm sewer may cost as much as ten times more than an -7- '1 Alignment Alternatives " 47 cSrF ufr n1Rl ❑ 5r n - _`� � I Y �� RR F _ v5 'e ��� 5 - REACH 1 pP O M +•T DOD \ � � � /� �� _. I/VI: �t a C.r T[RMJ11♦OOMN>t - arN . m TNpI.t " - - L JJ rfNNn SHAKOPEE a � CH C2 ALIG REACH B I _ ''• pp11TT.E RN � �. I rU �— - SEA H ----;-- I _ _ _B_;_, `\J 1 :ILL nu .00'r - - --- - - PROPOE�'=� =--;=ice --- 11 \ \ -- 7m nP,7n .lFr I 1 I C__CC�IIIJl/111 It AAWN u j IFI m \ I t S CO RD 'R j�crr t ..(. 1 V +�ta 1 .I PD 78 D L . u _ CO R 7' 1 — N� ORTH%* - I SCALE: l'--2000' I -� -- ��� EXHIBIT E TABLE 5 MODEL 5 WATERSHED PONDING AND DRAINAGE SUMMARY 24 HOUR DIRECT INDIRECT 100 YEAR SUB SCS DRAINAGE DRAINAGE DETENTION PEAK WATERSHED CURVE AREA AREA STORAGE DISCHARGE - DESIGNATION NUMBER (ACRES) (ACRES) (ACRE-FT) (CFS) SEE TABLE 3 FOR SUBWATERSHEDS A-1 THROUGH H-5-2 H-7 72 887 6,001 -0- 351 H-8-1 72 1,236 6,001 -0- 474 H-8-2 72 1,557 6,001 -0- 588 - H-9 72 2,246 6,001 -0- 843 H-10 72 2,436 6,001 -0- 893 open channel designed to carry the equivalent flow rate. Although open channel is often less expensive than storm sewer, the disadvantages associated with it are many. Open channels usually take up more right-of-way or easement, require more long term maintenance and are considered more unsightly than storm sewer. Nevertheless, either can be an effective and efficient method of storm water conveyance when utilized under the appropriate conditions. One or more structural options have been studied for each of the three align- ments. For each option which appears feasible, a preliminary design has been prepared. Generally, both a "with ponding" (Model 4 Flow Rates) and "without ponding" (Model 5 Flow rates) ponding alternate has been devised for the purpose of comparison. A. Alignment 1 - C.S.A.H. 15 to Memorial Park Alignment 1 has been divided into three sections: Reaches "A" , "B" , and "Cl" . (See Exhibit E. ) This breakdown corresponds roughly to the relative magnitude of the slope of each reach. Reach "A" is very flat, with an average grade of less than 0.05%. Reach "B" is considerably steeper, with an average grade of about 0.51/0. The grade through Reach "Cl" is about 0.2%. Since, along with the flow rate, slope has one of the most significant influences on the design of storm drainage improvements , the optimum improvement type may vary from Reach "A" to "B" , etc. At 0.05% grade, Reach "A" is extremely flat. Designers generally prefer to design channels at no less than 0.5%. This reflects the difficulty associated with constructing a channel on a grade flatter than 0.5%. Normally, a contrac- tor will not be able to construct a channel at less than 0.5% or less without creating areas of ponding or "bird baths" on the channel bottom. Often, this ponding will lead to unsightly, marsh-like conditions along the channel bottom. _ It is not considered feasible from construction and maintenance aspects to use a channel grade of 0.05% for major drainage ways. Bird baths are not a problem with storm sewers on flat grades. However, for any given pipe size, runoff flows are slower on flat grades than on steep ones. -8- l Thus, flat grades will necessitate the use of much larger pipes than would be required on sharper inclines. The impact of flat grades on both open channel and storm sewer design suggests that neither are well suited for application on extremely mild slopes. Since large pipe sizes are required on mild slopes, costs will be high. Open chan- nels alone are not feasible on such flat grades. However, a third option, capitalizing on the advantages of both can be utilized effectively. Fortunately, with the addition of a small storm sewer, placed beneath the bottom of an open channel , these disadvantages can be minimized. The rela- tively inexpensive open channel can be designed to carry the large storm water flows, and the small storm sewer can drain low flows and the channel bottom, preventing "bird baths" and unsightly marsh-like conditions. Additionally, there is an attractive side-effect to eliminating the "bird baths" and marshes. The channel itself can be used as open space for recreation or other purposes if side slopes are mild. For Alignment 1, Reach "A," given the aforementioned reasons, an open channel (ditch) was considered inappropriate. However, an open channel with a low flow storm sewer has been investigated in detail . The side slopes of the channel have been set at a mild 10: 1. The relatively flat side slopes will enhance the channels suitability for use as an open space for recreation and other activi- ties. Approximately one foot of free board has been assumed as a safety factor, with a 100 year design flow rate. Preliminary design of the low flow pipe is based upon a 1 year frequency storm. Both with and without ponding alternates have been prepared. For comparison purposes, a completely closed conduit option, assuming no off channel ponding has been investigated. Typical cross sections and cost estimates for these alternates can be found on Exhibit F and Table 6 respectively. The open channel with low flow storm sewer, and completely closed conduit options detailed for Alignment 1 , Reach "A" , have been similarly pre-designed for Reach "B." Additionally, since Reach "B" is on an acceptable slope, an open channel option without a low-flow storm sewer has been considered. This -9- REACH 'A' 1 72. WITH PONDING 90" Pipe Option 49' — 54' 22' 5'-10' 1 22' o Open 5.5' Channel 4 100' 40' bj 20' 40' Swale 4' with L._ 1 Q ' 10 Pipe 033" WITHOUT PONDING - 49' — 64' 22' 1 5'-20' j22' o Open 5.5' Channel /-44 100' — 120' 40'-50' 20' 40'-50' Swale 1� 1 4'-5' with ,Q Pipe O 33" — 36" NOT TO SCALE EXHIBIT F g� l TABLE 6 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES FOR SHAKOPEE UPPER VALLEY DRAINAGE WAY AND OUTFALL REACH OPTION WITH PONDING WITHOUT PONDING(1) A Pipe $3,654,627 N/A Open Channel N/A N/A Swale/Pipe 2,078,052 $1,661,350(2) B Pipe 1,551,548 N/A Open Channel 934,598 877 ,855 Swale/Pipe 880,548 857,650(2) C1 Pipe 2,632,150 N/A Open Channel 1,130,650 1 ,077,570(2) Swale/Pipe 1,907,350 2,592,360 C2 Open Channel 2,532,396 2,452,550 (1) Refers to no ponding downstream of C. R. 79, See Exhibit D. (2) Recommended option. NOTE: For detailed preliminary cost estimates, see Tables 7 through 15 for estimates with ponding options, and Tables 16 through 21 for estimates without ponding. Cost estimates do not include cost of right-of-way acquisition. I - option is investigated with and without ponding. Although it would seem that the open channel without low flow pipe would be less costly, it should be noted that this is not the case. Due to low flows preventing channel bottom from vegetating, rip-rap has been included in the cost estimate to prevent the erosion of the channel bottom. Typical cross sections and cost estimates for these alternates can be found on Exhibit G and Table 6 respectively. The average slope of Reach "Cl" , Alignment 1 falls between those of Reach "A" and Reach "B." All alternates detailed for Reach "B" have similarly been done for Reach "Cl. " Since the slope of Reach "Cl" is a relatively flat .2%, rip- rap has not been included in the cost estimate of the open channel option. Typical cross sections are on Exhibit H and cost estimates are summarized on Table 6. B. Alignment 2 - C.S.A.H. 15 to Mlemorial Park Alignment 2 follows Alignment 1 from C.S.A.H. 15 to C.S.A.H. 16. In other words, Reach "A" and Reach "B." However, at C.S.A.H. 16, Alignment 2 heads eastwardly ultimately to Blue Lake. This latter reach is referred to herein as "C2." Although Alignment 2 is longer than Alignment 1 , it was suspected that it might be a less costly alternate. This view was based on the prospect of encountering loose, inexpensive to excavate, material along Alignment 2, as opposed to expensive rock excavation along Alignment 1. However, review of the Scott County Soil Conservation Service Soils Survey indicated that some rock and loose material is present along both alignments, thus a detailed pre-design cost estimate has been prepared for Peach C2 to determine the lower cost route. The cost of Reach C2 can be compared to that of Reach C1 on Table 6. Since the cost of Alignment 2 (Reach C2) is approximately $1.4 million more than the cost of Alignment 1 (Reach Cl) , for either the with or without ponding options, Alignment 2 is viewed as unfeasible. Typical cross sections are on Exhibit I . C. Alignment 3 - C. R. 77 to Blue Lake or Memorial Park Since the design of the storm water imrovements for T.H. 101 bypass will -10- q.,L REACH 'B' 78" WITH PONDING Pipe Option 100' 40' s 8' 6' 40' Open Channel 0 ,L ''� 4' 10 10 1.5' i:Z*,** 4:1 4:1 100, 40' 20' 40' Swale 4' with ,L J1 o ,0 Pipe O 33" WITHOUT PONDING 120' 50' ' 8' 61 50' Open 1 1 ° Channel L 4' 1 • ,o o� 1.5' 4:1 4:1 120' 50' 20' S0' Swale 15.50 1with 1 ,o Pipe O 36" NOT TO SCALE EXHIBIT G 90 REACH "Cl ' 84" WITH PONDING Pipe Option 59'-64' 22' 15'-20' 22' o Open 5.5' Channel 4 4 100, 40' 20' 40' Swale 0 L,o:: :::I:oJ , 4' with Pipe O 36" WITHOUT PONDING 74'-84' 22' 30'-40' 22' o Open Channel 5.5 A 4 4 120' 50' J. 20P-1450' Swale D 5' with Pipe O 33"-48" NOT TO SCALE EXHIBIT H l� REACH "C2" WITH PONDING 39'-88' 14'-22 5'-60' 14'-22 Open ° Channel -• ::::::::::: :::: : : : : :` :•':: I� 3.5'-5.5' 4 WITHOUT PONDING 54'-108' 4'-2 10'-80' -114'-2i] ° Open 3.5'-5.5' Channel I1 4 NOT TO SCALE EXHIBIT I C"� l commence soon, the potential for a joint improvement project with the City of Shakopee and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has been investigated. However, several factors indicate that this is an undesirable alternate. The proposed T.H. 101 bypass is parallel to and approximately two thousand feet south of the Upper Valley Drainage Way. This suggests that as runoff flows north from the Upper Valley Watershed, that it could be intercepted at T.H. 101. The intercepted flow could be carried to C.S.A.H. 16, then from there carried to the Minnesota River or Blue Lake over routes similar to Reach "Cl" or C2" respectively. However, the proposed finish grade for the trunk highway is 15 to 20 feet higher than the existing grade of the Upper Valley Drainage Way (see Exhibit J) . This would necessitate that drainage improvements still be made along the Upper Valley Dra lage Way. These improvements would be similar to those required for Reaches "A" and "B" under Alignment 1 or Alignment 2. The similarity results from the fact that most of the design peak flow comes from runoff originating between T.H. 101 and the drainage way. Nevertheless, once improvements have been made along Alignment 1, for instance, participation from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) may be possible. Since Mn/DOT will be draining much of T.H. 101 to C.S.A.H. 16, they would likely tie into Reach "Cl. " At that point, the City could expect a Mn/DOT contribution to cover a portion of Reach "Cl" improvement costs. In effect, the City would design Reach "Cl" to accommodate flow rates from this bypass resulting in an incremental cost increase already calculated in the estimated cost of $1,077,570. The City would request Mn/DOT to share costs based upon an expected percentage use. IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The three potential alignments for the Upper Valley Drainage Way and outfall have been investigated in this study (see Exhibit E) . At the outset of this study, each appeared to have some merit. Alignment 3, parallelling the T. H. 101 bypass right-of-way, seemed a good choice since the potential exists for a joint City of Shakopee - Mn/DOT project. However, it was found that the -11- Profile Comparison Drainageway & T.H. 101 SCALE: A VERT: .5• 0 NORZ.;�'s1000 EXisting ♦��r- : .Ground-Line. :.:.: �•,,� '815 _ _ •` 815 T.ii. :10'f By Pass. �� Approximate Fin ish : : . . . : . . . : : : ���� �, .m ed- Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . : ' . '` 7:H. 10 9 :By :PassT . �! 810 :. . .... . ...... ..i�� : : . _. _ i - - - s�o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i� . . . . . . : : :is . : . : . . : ' : : : I . . . . . . . : . . . . +i . . . . . . z . . . . . . . . vo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i _.. . ............................. v 806 805 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ui3 : . . : : : . . :...._ :. : :.. . ... _. . . ... . . :� . . . . . . . . . . . . . s00.o . .'. . .'.'. . .'.'. . o1z ..a. . 800 . . _r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : , - - - : ... . . . : . . . . . . . . .� " . V! Y . . . . NV : . Z : {j ass ....: :.:.:.:.:. .Ground :Line. :�� .u.: 7ss of. Drainageway. 790 _ 1.. 790 s s 78 785 0 p .p o o p o 0 o CD � C r EXHIBIT J ? L topography of the Upper Valley Drainage Way rendered this option undesirable. Alignment 2, outfalling to the Blue Lake by way of the Dean Lake outlet was initially viewed as a likely route, even though it is longer than Alignment 1. This view was based on the prospect of encountering loose, inexpensive to excavate, material along Alignment 2, as opposed to expensive rock excavation along Alignment 1. Nevertheless, a detailed investigation of the least costly structural improvement, the open channel , proved this assumption to be incor- rect. With Alignment 2 and 3 viewed as unfeasible, Alignment 1 has been studied in greater detail . Pre-designs and cost estimates of storm drainage improvements including storm sewer, open channel , and open channel with low flow pipe have been prepared for Alignment 1. For each of the three improvements types with ponding (detention storage) , and without ponding alternate was prepared where appropriate. For Reach "A" , Alignment 1, the open channel is not offered as a feasible alternative. The slope of the reach is 0.05%, much flatter than the 0.5% usually considered a minimum by designers. A channel at 0.05% will not drain completely, creating unsightly "bird baths" and marsh-like conditions. The storm sewer pipe with ponding option was pre-designed, and a cost estimate was made. Another alternative, an open channel with a low flow pipe, was pre- designed as well . Table 6 summarizes the cost estimate for Reach "A." Please note the high cost of pipe relative to the open channel with low flow option. Given the high cost of pipe, this option will not be discussed for the remaining reaches. However, a cost estimate for pipe in other reaches can be found in Table 6. Since Reaches "B" and "C" , Alignment 1, are relatively steep, an open channel alternate without low flow pipe has been pre-designed in addition to the open channel with the low flow pipe option. See Table 6 for a summary of the cost estimates for Reaches "B" and "C." Based on the cost estimates for improvements and Reaches "A" , "B" and "Cl" , -12- T,t three alternate drainage improvements for Alignment 1 have been prepared. These alternates are assembled as follows: Lower Watershed Estimated Ponding Reach A Reach B Reach C1 Project Alternate Option Option Option Option Cost 1 With Swale W/Low Swale W/Low Open $4,089,250 Ponding Flow Pipe Flow Pipe Channel 2 With Swale W/Low Swale W/Low Swale W/Low $4,865,950 Ponding Flow Pipe Flow Pipe Flow Pipe 3 Without Swale W/Low Swale W/Low Open $3,600 ,000 Ponding Flow Pipe Flow Pipe Channel Please note that both Alternate 1 and 3 are essentially the same, except Alternate 1 is with ponding, and Alternate 3 is without. The "with ponding" option, Alternate 1 is $492,680 more expensive than Alternate 3 without ponding. Ponding in the lower portion of this watershed is not a cost-effective means to reduce the cost of the storm water conveyance system. The following are some reasons this has occurred: 1. Close proximity to the receiving waters (Minnesota River) results in a short distance to convey storm water. 2. Due to the shape of the watershed, ponding in the lower end only adds to delayed peak flows from upstream ponds. 3. Virtually no natural wetlands or storm water detention facilities exist in this area of the watershed requiring construction of ponding sites. -13- 4. Construl4ion of drainage swales to convey storm water flows are relatively inexpensive. In addition to the greater construction cost of the with ponding option over the without ponding option, the with ponding options require more right-of-way or easement dedication than the without ponding options. Alternate 1 and 3, as mentioned previously, are essent ally the same, other than Alternate 1 is with ponding. Since Alternate 1 costs approximately $500,000 more than Alternate 3, it is considered less desirable. Alternate 2, however, without ponding is different than Alternate 3 in as much as Reach "Cl" incorporates the use of a low flow pipe with the open channel . The advantage of Alternate 2 over 3 is that although Reach "Cl" is moderately steep at 0.2% grade, it is still flatter than the normally minimum design grade of 0.5%. This indicates that the potential for "bird baths" and swampy conditions to develop during construction and afterwards is present. However the cost for Alternate 2 is $1.3 million more than Alternate 3. On a cost basis, the benefit of Alternate 2 over Alternate 3 does not seem worthwhile. Therefore, Alternate 3 should be utilized for draining the Upper Valley Drainage Way and outfall . A profile of this alternate can be found on Exhibit K. V. PROJECT STAGING The proposed alternate extends from C.S.A.H. 15 to the Mill Pond at an esti- mated project cost of $3.6 million. Due to the size and cost of the project relative to present needs in some areas the City of Shakopee may want to stage the project. Since most of the drainage way is currently inadequate, improve- ment at any location along the drainage way would require improvement from that point to the Mill Pond. The following table summarizes estimated costs from the Mill Pond to various locations: -14- Proposed Profile - Alternate 3 Soo SCALE: VERT.1'=10' 785 HORZ. 1'=2000' 'EXISTING GROUND.LINE790 ,.: : i:i;c <? ::•. >:. r:::•;:•::•::•:x :::;•::: NOTE• 785 POSITIVE DRAINAGE AN do'AROUND 780 LIONS.PARK & Swale . /, TA"PAH 'PARK 775 /. Proposed 770:0 Low Flo I; . 7 . X. .5 :: : Storm :O . . . . . Sewer Iz 760 Z . . C Pipe I� dQ . . . . . . . . . . . . _ 3 750 � � .:•' :.. ..•:. _JQI W r l :.. � � . W b :Q .W :. . 745 ....:•........ 2 pc a:O J 0 z _ .�O I� Zt r%:•:::::::•:::•:.: t- Q � YZ 4 410 740 V . N Y :Z V - REACH C 1 REACH B - _ 'REACH A -I ..730 O p p O O O O O O O O O O N OO N a m O :O : : . : : N et V :r r .N N N EXHIBIT K - 1- MILL POND TO PROJECT COSTS C.S.A.H. 16 $1 ,661,350 C.S.A.H. 17 $2,519,000 C.R. 79 $3,000,000 C.S.A.H. 15 $3,600,000 The current development pressures and need for storm water facililties is between C.S.A.H. 16 and C.R. 79. This would require a storm water project to at least C.S.A.H. 17 and possibly C.R. 79 depending on immediate needs. Construction of a storm water project to C.S.A.H. 15 extends beyond current Shakopee City limits. The storm water improvement from C.R. 79 to C.S.A.H. 15 facilitates a drainage outlet in the area of Lion 's and Tahpoh Parks. Presently flooding of park and agricultrual land is occurring due to a lack of a drainage outlet. The need for a storm water improvement from C.R. 79 to C.S.A.H. 15 may not be critical at this time. The City of Shakopee must assess the current storm water improvement needs in this area to determine how far the initial construction project must extend. In the process of making this staging determination, a factor which should be considered is that the best unit prices for construction will be received on large projects rather than many small projects. -15- - A P P E N D I X - e � 1 - TABLE 7 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR REACH A, WITH STORAGE, PIPE OPTION ITEM TOTAL COST 90" RCP $1,055,000 84" RCP 630,000 72" RCP 531,300 Seeding 70,500 $2,286,800 10% Contingency 228,700 $2,515,500 25% L E & A* 628,875 Total $3,144,375 *Legal , Engineering & Administrative TABLE 8 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR REACH A, WITH PONDING, SWALE/PIPE OPTION ITEM TOTAL COST 33" RCP $ 614,400 Manhole 52,000 72" Arch 36,000 60" Arch 18,000 72" Arch F.E. 7,800 60" Arch F.E. 3,600 Common Excavation 337 ,920 Seeding 70,500 $1,140,220 10% Contingency 114,030 $1 ,254,250 25% L E & A 313,550 Total $1 ,567 ,800 �j TABLE 9 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR REACH B, WITH PONDING, PIPE OPTION ITEM TOTAL COST 78" RCP $ 984,000 78" Tee 24,300 Seeding 33,000 $1,041,300 10% Contingency 104,100 $1,145,400 25% L E & A 386,350 Total $1 ,431,750 TABLE 10 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR REACH B, WITH PONDING, OPEN CHANNEL OPTION ITEM TOTAL COST 84" Arch $ 60,000 84" Arch F.E. 16,000 Common Excavation 149,250 Class III , Rip-Rap 306,600 Filter Fabric 26,250 Seeding 34,500 $ 592,600 10% Contingency 59,250 $ 651,850 25% L E & A 162,950 Total 814,800 Tk TABLE 11 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR REACH B, WITH PONDING, SHALE /PIPE OPTION ITEM TOTAL COST T 33" RCP $ 255,200 84" Arch 60,000 84" Arch F.E. 16,000 Manhole 20,000 Common Excavation 127 ,600 Seeding 34,500 $ 553,300 10% Contingency 55,300 $ 608,600 A 25% L E & A 152,150 Total 760,750 I TABLE 12 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR REACH C1, WITH PONDING, PIPE OPTION ITEM TOTAL COST 84" RCP $ 652,500 90" RCP 775,000 84" Tee 15,000 90" Tee 16,000 Seeding 30,000 $1,488,500 10% Contingency 148,850 $1,637,350 25% L E & A 409,350 Chicago & Northwestern RR 159,500 Crossing Total 12,206,200 C TABLE 13 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR REACH C1, NITH PONDING. OPENi CHA NiEL OPTION ITEM TOTAL COST Common Excavation $ 57,470 Rock Excavation (Channel ) 97,625 72" RCP 168,300 Rock Excavation (Pipe) 18,200 72" Tee 49,500 Seeding 5,400 $ 396,495 10% Contingency 39,650 $ 436,145 25% L E & A 109,055 $ 545,200 Chicago & Northwestern RR 159,500 Crossing Total 704,700 s IL TABLE 14 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR REACH C1, WITH PONDING, SWALE/PIPE OPTION ITEM TOTAL COST 33" RCP $ 422,500 33" Arch 49,200 Manhole 30,000 Rock Excavation (Pipe) 205,625 Common Excavation 102,190 Rock Excavation (Channel ) 106,875 Seeding 45,000 $ 961 ,390 E 10% Contingency 96,140 $1 ,057 ,530 25% L E & A 264,370 $1,321,900 Chicago & Northwestern RR 159,500 Crossing Total $1 ,481 ,400 X.- TABLE 16 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR REACH A, WITHOUT PONDING, SWALE/PIPE OPTION ITEM TOTAL COST 36" RCP $ 274,300 33" RCP 361,200 Manhole 52,000 72" Arch 36,000 60" Arch 18,000 72" Arch F.E. 7,800 60" Arch F.E. 3,600 Common Excavation 384,850 Seeding 70,500 $1,208,250 10% Contingency 120,825 $1,329,075 25% L E & A 332,275 Total $1 ,661 ,350 TABLE 17 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR REACH B, WITHOUT PONDING, OPEN CHANNEL OPTION ITEM TOTAL COST 84" Arch $ 60,000 84" Arch F.E. 16,000 Common Excavation 195,090 Class III Rip-Rap 306,600 Filter Fabric 26,250 Seeding 34,500 $ 638,440 10% Contingency 63,845 $ 702,285 25% L E & A 175,570 Total 877,855 TABLE 18 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR REAC.4 B, WITHOUT POINDING, OPER CHANNEL/PIPE OPTION ITEM TOTAL COST 36" RCP $ 319,800 Manhole 20,000 84" Arch 68,000 84" Arch F.E. 16,000 Common Excavation 173,440 Seeding 34,500 $ 623,740 10% Contingency 62,375 $ 686,115 25% L E & A 171,535 Total 857,650 — TABLE 19 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR REACH C1, WITHOUT PONDING, OPEN CHANNEL OPTION ITEM TOTAL COST Common Excavation $ 103,960 Rock Excavation (Channel ) 324,625 84" RCP 184,500 Rock Excavation ( Pipe) 21,000 84" Tee 3,000 Seeding 49,500 $ 667,685 10% Contingency 66,770 $ 734,455 25% L E & A 183,615 $ 918,070 Chicago & Northwestern RR 159,500 Crossing Total $1 ,077 ,570 N TABLE 20 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR REACH C1, WITHOUT PONDING, SWALE/PIPE OPTION ITEM TOTAL COST 48" RCP $ 275,500 42" RCP 264,000 33" RCP 144,000 Manhole 36,000 Rock Excavation (Pipe) 661 ,500 Common Excavation 161,860 Rock Excavation (Channel ) 154,125 Seeding 72,000 $1,768,985 10% Contingency 176,900 $1,945,885 25% L E & A 486,475 Total $2,592,360 TABLE 21 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR REACH C2, WITHOUT PONDING, OPEN CHANNEL OPTION ITEM TOTAL COST Common Excavation $ 760,920 Rock Excavation 836,750 Seeding 186,000 $1,783,670 10% Contingency 178,370 $1,962,040 25% L E & A 490,510 Total $2,452,550 f , Al MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City EngineerA� SUBJECT: Railroad Corridor Improvement DATE: December 12, 1986 INTRODUCTION: At their October 7 , 1986 regular meeting, Council directed staff to pursue a federally funded , railroad corridor improvement project . Preliminary meetings have been held with the railroad and Mn/DOT. BACKGROUND: A meeting with the railroad led to a discussion of the Apgar Street crossing . Mn/DOT had indicated that , with the large number of crossings in the downtown area , they would like to see some of them closed. Due to the number of tracks at Apgar, they would particularly like to see this crossing closed . A consultants study of street corridors within the City also identified the situation on Apgar Street. Attached are excerpts from the consultants report that discussed the Apgar Street corridor and proposed street and traffic control improvements. The opinion of closing various crossings in the downtown area to improve safety stems from the idea that the less crossings that exist, the better for traffic control . I agree that idea makes sense in most cases but not in Shakopee where 2nd Avenue runs immediately adjacent and parallels both sides of the track . Closing of crossings in the downtown area would increase east- west movements on 2nd Avenue and in turn , increase 90 degree turning movements across the tracks. These turning movements do not receive the full benefit of crossing protection devices due to the angle of approach to the crossing and sight distance along the track is directly over the shoulder. It is my opinion that this is an unsafe condition. In reviewing the consultants report for the Apgar Street corridor, they recommend traffic control that would increase movements along 2nd Avenue with Apgar Street closed . The resulting turning movements are not as bad in this case since both lanes of traffic are on the south side of the tracks . As stated in the report, the traffic volumes do not warrant the need for one way couplets other than to reduce the volume of traffic shifting from Apgar Street to Scott Street when proceeding in the northerly direction across the tracks with the Apgar crossing closed. Railroad Corridor Improvements December 12 , 1986 Page 2 If Apgar Street is closed between 1st and 2nd Avenues, a state aid route designation change is necessary . A state aid route must terminate at either another state aid route , County , or State facility. I sketched on the attached Apgar Street corridor map an alternative alignment of the state aid route . This alignment would eliminate the need for a shift in the route from Apgar to Scott . In comparing the two routes, Scott Street is very similar to Apgar Street relative to profile grade and driveway access needs. Properties abutting Scott Street is more institutional in nature between 2nd Avenue and 14th Avenue. This alignment would increase traffic adjacent to the St . Mark ' s School . RECOMMENDATION: No immediate decisions regarding state aid route changes are necessary . If the City wishes to pursue a federally funded corridor improvement project for 1987 , the railroad and Mn/DOT will want some indication soon on our position of closing crossings . I recommend no closings in the downtown area . If Council is receptive to closing Apgar , I recommend that this receptiveness be used as a bargaining tool to obtain other improvements. Other improvements could be the elimination of sidings on Scott Street by realigning the sidings west of Scott. Whether this can be done is unknown at this point. Staff has also been talking with Soo Line Railroad ( different company than Chicago Northwestern who owns the main line ) in pursuit of changing or eliminating the sidings on Atwood Street. What will result from these discussions are also unknown. REQUESTED ACTION: 1 . Indication to staff of Council ' s desire 'to close any particular railroad crossings in the downtown CBD area . 2. Indication to staff of Council ' s receptiveness of closing the railroad crossing at Apgar Street. KA/pmp RAILROAD yJ Mr . H.R. Spurrier April 23 , 1984 Page 14 APGAR STREET CORRIDOR North / south traffic movements in this corridor are dispersed between Shumway Street , Apgar Street and Scott Street. South of 10th Avenue, counts show only 440 trips per day. These volumes increase progressively as we traverse the residential area toward downtown Shakopee. Since Scott Street is signed as an access point to St . Francis Hospital , volumes on that street are slightly higher than on parellel roadways. Corridor volumes appear to be highest in the area between 6th Avenue and 3rd Avenue , with approximatly 4 ,000 daily trips divided between the three streets. New residential growth south of 10th Avenue is anticipated to produce an additional2 , 440 trips per day in the corridor. The bulk of this additional travel will continue to downtown Shakopee or to TH 169. Although Apgar Street is continuous to TH 169 , numerous track crossings between 1st and 2nd Avenues make this location less desirable than Scott Street for continuation of the corridor movement. Furthermore , Scott Street is aligned with Levy Drive to the north and is provided with a traffic signal to facilitate safe highway crossing manuevers . Creation of a one-way couplet using Scott Street northbound and Apgar Street southbound should be considered between 10th and 3rd Avenues. As the agricul- tural area south of 10th Avenue is developed, this one-way system could be continued south to the proposed new 13th Avenue alignment . The alternative , concentrating traffic movements on Apgar Street , will result in volumes of up to 4 , 000 trips per day on portions of this street, which can be accommodated on the existing two-lane street. Extension of Scott Street through to the 13th Avenue alignment would disperse some of the new growth area traffic... particularly trips with destinations in the vicinity of St. Francis Hospital. Use of Apgar Street in lieu of a one-way couplet would require either upgrading of the multiple track crossing at 2nd Avenue or some accommodation to improve traffic movement (either along 3rd or 2nd Avenues) between Apgar and Scott Streets. The city's downtown study included a recommendation that Atwood Street be closed east of St. Francis Hospital to create a "superblock" for hospital-related expansion. The Downtown Plan concentrates traffic on Fuller Street and ii Mr . H.R. Spurrier April 23 , 1984 Page 15 1� 'E diminishes the use of Atwood Street , except for circulation trips . Atwood presently carries approximately 600 cars per day and a portion of these trips would redistribute onto the Apgar Street corridor if Atwood is ? not available . '. Although creation of a one-way couplet in this corridor } has some advantages , out-of-direction travel would be required for traffic approaching St. Marks School and the emergency/outpatient entrance to St . Francis Hospital . ! ' With Atwood Street closed and the school pedestrian activities associated with an elementary school at 3rd Avenue and Scott Street, we recommend two-way operation on I Apgar Street with a jog to Scott Street along 2nd Avenue l at this time . The one-way street option remains viable for the future if traffic growth in this corridor requires II additional capacity as the city continues to grow. ! No changes in traffic control are indicated along either I, Apgar or Scott Streets south of 2nd Avenue. As traffic ilk increases on this corridor , it is recommended that 2nd Avenue be improved between Apgar and Scott Streets and P P g that STOP sign placement along 2nd Street be used to encourage use of 2nd Avenue for access to the traffic signal at Scott Street and TH 169 and to downtown Shakopee . I i{ • I i� I. i i Mali "� , �:l � l_ I_l L�u�7 J ��I.�_ I.' _ l:'�: l_L I_,f 11=� Illi l��ll� l el► [11-1 LIE U-1. LLl ill ! „ 1 ,t L I M HI M F j A -.4.1 rr ,,. r '1 Proposed 13[rH Avenue I j 60 cv) CO T. C)! 0 C", 01 cq 000 Current Traffic Counts l000l Future Traffic Growth 13TH Avenue Corridor 4 U2. U--� U= m us _ :r tty►At f S Nr I IN 41 � i +�t' - --' —', '"(l��S -- 9 'J� •_ {moi v o m 77- 3111 vd — — _ — — — — —PROPOSED STREET Cl 7 177 � s ' Illllllllllllllllllllilll11111I - - __ zp Ice �)— Pf - F y e = ' A A6 II • 1 v w Improved crossing Install signal OZ o Ull fj U) _ ' !; i ! u ! —► SCOTT STREET—► — I lCAS I I II�IQ 1 IINI 1 I J 7�']:•I , _ ,S• Lv3v!, 11 �� ,�Y is 000 Current Traffic Counts :•��1� 10001 Future Traffic Growth RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT A ar Street Corridor x...,11.., J .._.. . - ll APgar: r ,Y , MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk `1`J RE: 1987 Pool Table Licenses DATE: December 11, 1986 Introduction Applications have been received for pool table licenses for 1987. Background An application has been received from Jerry' s Pizza for one pool table. An application has been received from R. Hanover Inc. for four pool tables, which is the same number as last year. An application has been received from the Fraternal Order of Eagles for one pool table, which is the same number as last year. The Police Department has experienced no problems, at these locations, as a result of patrons playing pool. Alternatives 1. Approve 2. Deny Recommendation Alternative No. 1. Recommended Action 1. Approve the application and grant a pool table license for . 1987 to J.B.F. , Inc. , 823 East 1st Avenue. 2. Approve the application and grant a pool table license for 1987 to R. Hanover, Inc. , 911 East 1st Avenue. 3 . Approve the application and grant a pool table license for 1987 to Fraternal Order of Eagles Aerie #4120 , 220 West 2nd Avenue. JSC/jms V MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: 1987 Taxicab Licenses DATE: December 16, 1986 Introduction and Background: Applications for renewal of the current taxicab licenses are not in order. Current licenses are as follows and expire December 31, 1986: Town Taxi Co. , Inc. ; Yellow Taxi Service Corporation; and Suburban Taxi Corporation. Action Requested: 1) Open public hearing on renewal of taxicab licenses for 1987. 2) Continue public hearing on renewal of taxicab licenses to January 6, 1987. JSC/pss NOTE: The current taxicab insurance carrier is no longer writing insurance for taxicabs . The licenses are currently seeking insurance elsewhere . bm-21JI - MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator 9 FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Contract with Municipal Ordinance Codifiers for Upgrading City Code DATE: December 11, 1986 INTRODUCTION Our current contract with Municipal Ordinance Codifiers expires at the end of the year. Background Municipal Ordinance Codifiers prepared the current City Code and have been under annual contracts for updating and annual revision conferences ever since. The attached proposal for 1987 contains the same fees as were used for the past three years. The 1987 budget contains $1400 . 00 for updating and, based on previous years costs, we should be within this amount for 1987 also, provided the number of ordinances adopted remains consistent. Alternatives 1. Continue with annual updating with ordinances sent to the Codifier quarterly. 2. Regular updating every two years. 3 . Unstructured periodic updating. Recommended Action Authorize appropriate City officials to enter into a 1987 contract with Municipal Ordinance Codifiers, Inc. at $85 .00 per hour for counsel, $45. 00 per hour for Codifier, and $20. 00 per hour for typing revision pages for updating the Shakopee City Code. JSC/dbs 1987 MAINTENANCE PROPOSAL TO: THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA (City) FROM: MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE CODIFIERS, INC. (Revisor) 7400 Lyndale Avenue South Minneapolis , MN 55423 THE REVISOR HEREBY PROPOSES to revise, update and maintain the City Code of the City on a regular basis. Upon acceptance of this Proposal, the City and the Revisor agree, as follows: At a time agreeable to both the City and Revisor , the City shall forward to the Revisor all ordinances adopted during the preceding year. Thereafter , the City and Revisor shall hold a revision conference in the City for the purpose of reviewing City Code provisions affected by interim court decisions and legislative enactments. Revisor shall, as a result of such conference, prepare revision ordinances and submit them to the City for adoption. Copies of the revision ordinances, after adoption, shall be provided the Revisor and the Revisor shall prepare substitute Code pages ready for off-set printing by the City. The City shall provide Revisor with two copies of all substitute pages at no cost to Revisor. The City shall pay Revisor for such maintenance, billed semi- annually, at the following hourly rates: $85.00 - Counsel $45. 00 - Codifier $20 .00 - typing revision pages (No separate charge for typing ordinances prepared by Revisor) . This Maintenance Proposal encompasses the calendar year 1987. This Proposal expires forty-five (45) days after the date hereof unless previously accepted. MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE CODIFIERS , INC. Rodger E. Jensen, Date President and Counsel THE FOREGOING PROPOSAL is hereby accepted by the City this day of r 19 Ax MEMO TO: Finance/City Council FROM: LeRoy Houser, Building Official 9,V RE: Assist. Bldg. Inspector DATE: December 9 , 1986 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: The assistant full time inspector has been budgeted for and approved by Council. The tenative starting date was April 1, 1987 . Nothing official has been received by me or the County on this matter. The County has asked that this be made official so that they may advertise for a replacement for this position. The County advertises for 30 days, reviews and interviews applicants for two weeks and allowing the new hire to give two weeks notice where he is presently employed, all told, the process takes about two months . ALTERNATIVES : 1. Wait with the confirmation and hold everyone up. 2. Confirm the starting date and pass the information on to the County. RECOMMENDATION: Confirm the starting date. ACTION REQUESTED: Confirm the appointment February 1, 1987 for the full time asst. bldg. inspector beginning April 1, 1987 and pass the information to the County. LH: cah MEMO T0: City Council FROM: LeRoy Houser, Building Official 7 RE : Electrical Contract DATE: December 9, 1986 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: We currently have John Wagner under contract for our electrical inspections . His contract expires December 31 , 1986 . We have attached a new contract to be executed for 1987 with Mr. Wagner. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Renew the contract with John Wagner. 2. Do not renew the contract and seek another source for electrical inspections . RECOMMENDATION: I recommend we renew our electrical contract with Mr. Wagner. ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the appropriate city officials to execute an electrical contract with John Wagner for the 1987 operating year. LH:cah Attachment CONTRACT FOR ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS CITY OF SHAKOPEE John Wagner, 278 Lake Street, Excelsior, MN 55331, is hereby appointed an electrical inspector for the City of Shakopee to serve at the pleasure of the City Council. The City of Shakopee acknowledges receipt of his electrical inspector ' s bond in the amount of $1 , 000 payable to the City of Shakopee in case of default. As such inspector, he hereby agrees to enforce the Minnesota Electrical Act, the Rules and Regulations of the State Board of Electricity thereunder and the appropriate Ordinances of the City of Shakopee, as pertaining to the licensing of electricians and inspection of electrical installations . The rate of compensation for his services shall be 80% of the electrical inspection fees collected by the City of Shakopee. In addition to any other rules, regulations or directives promulgated or issued under authority of the City of Shakopee, he hereby agrees to comply with the following rules : 1. Report to this office when called upon. 2. Supply the City of Shakopee with a verification of automobile liability insurance on Form 1927 of the amounts of not less than $50, 000 for any one per- son, $100 , 000 for any one accident for personal injury and $10, 000 for property damage. 3. Supply a monthly report of inspection completed. (Payment shall not exceed percentage or work completed) . 4. Deposit with the City of Shakopee any inspection fees received in the field. 5. Delegate authority and responsibilities to no one except duly authorized representatives of this office upon request. 6. Keep a Journeyman or Master electrician ' s license in force at all times . By this appointment, the City of Shakopee places trust and authority upon John Wagner as an independent contractor qualified and certified as such to make electrical inspections in behalf of the City of Shakopee in the geographical area defined by the City' s corporate limits . This appointment shall be dated concurrent with said bond, which shall terminate on December 31, 1987 , unless amended or withdrawn previous to that date by the City of Shakopee or its duly authorized agents , or which shall terminate upon 30 days written notice by John Wagner requesting same. Approved by the Shakopee City Council this day of 1986 CITY OF SHAKOPEE John Wagner Mayor, Eldon A. Reinke A 7?' W. 'L0'& Present Address City Adm. , John K. Anderson X� 1 S 33/ City, State, Zip City Clerk, Judith S . Cox gT MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Bond Election for New City Hall DATE: December 11, 1986 Introduction The Shakopee City Council, at its November 18 , 1986 meeting, received the final report of the City Hall Siting Committee and Boarman Architects on the location for a new City Hall. City Council, based upon Siting Committee recommendations and the recommendations of the architect, directed legal staff to investigate the possibility of designing a ballot that would allow the citizens an opportunity to indicate their preference for one of the two final candidate sites. Bond Election Ballot The Assistant City Attorney, has researched the legal questions involved with placing a choice of sites on the ballot. It is his .recommendation that there are several legal ballot alternatives from which Council may choose. Once Council has elected a ballot alternative he recommends that Jim O'Meara from O' Connor and Hannan, our bond consultant, be directed to draft the actual ballot. In addition to the ballot format City Council must also determine when it wishes to hold the bond election. Since this subject has not been discussed Council may wish to ask that the Siting Committee review possible election dates or direct staff to prepare a memorandum for Council review that discusses possible dates. Ballot Alternatives 1 . A single ballot stating one site and the cost of the bond issue. 2. Two separate ballot issues with the amount of the bond issue listed for each of the two sites. 3 . A bond issue ballot listing the amount of the proposed bond issue, followed by an advisory ballot note indicated which one of two sites the voter prefers. Bond Issue Election Date Alternatives 1. Direct the Siting Committee to meet with the architect to select a date for the bond election. 2 . Direct the City staff to meet with the architect and prepare a memorandum recommending one or more appropriate bond election dates. Recommendation I recommend ballot format alternative No. 3 and bond election date alternative No. 2. Action Requested 1. Direct the City' s bond attorney, O' Connor and Hannan, to prepare a bond election ballot which states the amount of the proposed bond issue for the new City Hall and offers an advisory ballot which allows voters to indicate a preference for the Block 50 site or the Gorman Street site. 2. Direct the appropriate City staff to meet with Boarman Architects to select one or more alternative dates for the bond election. JKA/jms LAW OFFICES KRASS & MONROE CHARTERED Phillip R. Krass Dennis L. Monroe Marschall Road Business Center Barry K. Meyer 327 Marschall Road Trevor R. Walsten Elizabeth B. McLaughlin P.O. Box 216 Bryan Wm. Huber Shakopee,Minnesota 55379 Susan L. Estill Telephone 445.5080 Diane M. Carlson Kent A. Carlson, CPA December 11, 1986 CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Council City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: City Hall Bond Issue Our File No. 1-1373- Dear Mayor and Council Members: John Anderson has asked me to review the law relative to the preparation of a special election ballot authorizing bonds to be sold for the construction of a new city hall, which in some manner will allow the electorate to indicate its preference between two different sites for our city hall. My understanding is that the City Council would like to have this matter considered by the electorate without having proponents of one of the two basic potential sites lobbying against the bond issue for failure to have the site they preferred designated. I approached this task with some trepidation since the construction of a new city hall is a significant milestone in the life of any community, and the law in this area is anything but crystal clear. In an effort to attempt to give you advise which is well-grounded in the law (meaning we will win if a taxpayer challenges the results of the election in court), I have spoken to several attorneys having some background and experience in this area. My first call was to our own esteemed City Attorney Jack Coller, who has some serious reservations about any referendum which includes site selection. My second call was to the League Attorney Stan Peskar, who believes that a site referendum attached to a bond issue would be acceptable if it is made clear that the referendum is advisory only. I spoke to our bond counsel James O'Meara at O'Connor and Hannan, who is prepared to approve a bond issue which includes an advisory site referendum. I also spoke to Dennis Moriarty, former Scott County Attorney, who ten years ago had the misfortune of having a county-wide bond issue for the new courthouse overturned because of the manner in which the site selection question was handled on that ballot. Mayor and City Council Page -2- December 11, 1986 You may recall the ballot only allowed those who voted yes for the bonds to express an opinion as to where the courthouse should go. There is one basic premise which underlines the problems connected with an advisory referendum. Absent specific statutory authority requiring or authorizing a referendum on any particular topic, (and there is no authority for a site selection referendum) city councils are not authorized to delegate their authority to anyone, including the electorate. That is to say that since the city council is vested exclusively with the authority to determine where a city hall should be located, it is not legal to pass that responsibility on to the electorate. This, however, does not necessarily preclude a method of attempting to determine the electorate's preference, if that will help the council makes its decision. That brings us to a second general premise, that elections which are not authorized in some manner by law, cannot be funded by public monies. That is to say, you may not use public funds to pay for a purely advisory referendum. I have attempted to reconcile those two premises with my understanding of the City Council's desire to go to the electorate both for approval of the bonds needed for construction of a city hall, as well as some indication of the electorate's preference to the placement of that city hall. Our analysis leads us to the conclusion that there are three ways in which this bond issue can be handled. They are as follows: 1 . Set the election for the bond issue only, requesting authority from the electorate for the dollars needed to construct a city hall on either site with the understanding by the electorate that the city council alone will make the site determination at a later time. 2. Set forth a bond issue election with two questions, the first being authority by the electorate for the bonds needed to construct a city hall on Site No. 1, the second question asking for authority to sell bonds necessary to construct a city hall on Site No. 2. 3. Alternate 3 would be identical to Alternate 1, but would include on the same ballot an advisory question related to the two sites. The question would have to make clear the fact that it was advisory only and would not bind the city council. Putting it on the same ballot would mean the advisory portion of the election would not add any cost. ANALYSIS The Attorney General has ruled on several occasions that expenditures of public funds may not be used for advisory elections. The Supreme Court stated that attempts to redelegate city council authority to Mayor and City Council Page -3- December 11 , 1986 the electorate neither controls nor binds the council but is only advisory. I can find no case indicating that a non-binding advisory election will somehow taint a valid bond issue submitted concurrently with the advisory vote. I have come to the conclusion, therefore, that if the ballot makes clear that the site selection portion is advisory only and not binding on the council, and if the council makes clear that it will view the vote as merely advisory and will not commit itself to the selection a majority of voters choose, it would be legal to include an advisory portion attached to the bond issue. With that in mind, I will try and list the pros and cons of each of the three alternatives. 1 . Alternative No. 1 has no legal downside. It is clean and easy and certainly not subject to any valid challenge. It does, however, present the political problem of failing to give the electorate any input with respect to site selection. It may, therefore, encourage those opposed to the site they believe most likely to be chosen by the council to oppose the referendum. 2. This suggestion actually came from James O'Meara, our bond counsel. It has the advantage of not having any "advisory" element to the bond issue itself since it allows each voter to vote yes for one or both of the sites indicated. If both sites pass, the council can choose which bonds it desires to sell and choose the site accordingly. If the bonds for only one site are approved, your site has been selected. Either way the electorate has input. Downside risk is that those who wish to vote against any bond sale together with those opposing a particular site could cause the defeat of both issues. 3. The third alternative is to add an advisory question relating to site to one bond issue question. This has the advantage of marshalling all of the pro-bond votes while giving the electorate some input if not control over the site selection process. Of the three, this is the most likely to be challenged legally. It is my opinion that such a challenge would be unsuccessful, but could delay the project while the matter was litigated. RECOMMENDATION I have listed the three alternatives in the order of their legal safety. Actually, one and two are equally safe. I believe all three are legally supportable and it is my recommendation that you decide among the three alternatives on the basis of your political decision as to which is the preferrable, as I believe they will all stand up legally. Mayor and City Council Page -4- December 11, 1986 REQUIRED ACTION Choose the alternative you prefer and direct that the appropriate resolution and ballot, with other accompanying documents be prepared by O'Connor and Hannan, the City's bond counsel. Mr. O'Meara has indicated to John Anderson and I that if O'Connor and Hannan is going to pass on the bond issue, they would prefer to handle the drafting. Very truly y rs KRASS & CHARTERED i lip R. Krass PRK:mlw VU ,At DEC 1 ; 1986 ASSOCIATES CITY OF SHAKOPEE r 7 .1 c c K r_ N : c k .I C E . December 12, 1986 Agenda Item No. 9U John Anderson City of Shakopee 129 East 1st Ave Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Shakopee City Hall Study Architect's Workscope and Fee Dear Mr. Anderson: As per your request, I am writing to update you on our proposal to the city on the city hall study. At this juncture in the work we have completed the programming, community survey work and the site analysis submittal . Lying ahead would be the work for the following items: 1. The establishment of a citizen's adviscry group which would hopefully meet by mid-January and have three to five meetings over a six to eight week period. The council needs to identify 40-50 candidates from which we hope to have 25 or 30 who will volunteer. This group would be demographically balanced among the community. Be balanced with regard to age, gender, and geographic location. The essential criteria for the committee is to be a view into the community at large regarding the project and its facets. The function of the committee is to review the design of the project and the programatic needs that have been established to date. They also would help in organizing the referendum process and the respective community outreach function to present the issue to the public. 2. The next step in the study process is to do the preliminary design work for the building. 3. Once the design is done, there would be a cost estimate prepared and verified by an independent source. l 4. The council review approval or modification of the project as presented and critiqued by the citizen 's advisory committee. At this point the council would review the overall project, the task force input, and the respective cost and tax impact. The council would set a referendum date at this time. We would anticipate the earliest the referendum would be bid would be March 1987. 5. With the council approval , a public relations program would be established for use in the community. This would include slide shows, a model , and a referendum newsletter to be mailed and use as a handout. 6. If appropriate, a third and final survey would be done for the tax paying community. This would be the last information step on the project and would be done after the newsletter distribution in the community of the final project facts. At this point a survey primarily helps you in the understanding the weak points of your current communications program. This would facilitate using different forms or different methods to present the issue if there were concerns as illustrated in the survey. This overall program between now and a referendum should take approximately three months to properly inform the community and prepare the final products for the referendum. There has been a considerable amount of awareness of this project, I think that that makes it more compatible for a March referendum as opposed to additional time. In reviewing the work done to date and our original proposal , we need to present modifications that represent the additional work that we have done and a request for additional fee. In our original proposal you had requested us to fill out a form that illustrated the cost of our services. You based this on the number of sites to be studied and our proposal was broken down that each site varied by $3,000 in our final fee amount. Based on this the additional sites that we studied would increase our fee by $6,000. In our proposal we stated that there were a number of public relations and information gathering tools that could be used for understanding the communities concerns regarding various issues. A public survey over the phone is a technique that we have used a number of referendums. When we went into this project we were recommending a single residential survey that would give us the taxpayer point of view. Because of the historical controversy over the site, I think that it was a prudent step to survey, not only of downtown businesses but of the entire business community. This was done and we submit a $1,600 additional services request for this work. In looking at the two sites plus the additional survey work we would have a total fee increase of $7,600 which would make our fee maximum $22,600. As of this date we have billed a little over $11,000. The remaining $11,600 would be sufficient to finish out the balance of the proposed services in line with our original proposal . The entire fee amount is billed on an hourly basis not to exceed the fee maximum that we are presenting. We would request at this time that the council authorize our fee to be increased to this level and that the increase be based on the additional services that we have provided over and above our original proposal . On behalf of Boarman & Associates I appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Since ely, ' Boarman, AI President Boarman & Associates, Inc. J B: aew PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES NEW SHAKOPEE CITY HALL• 1986 NA?.E OF ARCHITECTURAL FIRI,1: Boarman Architects, Inc. ADDR?SS: 710 Chamber of Commerce, 15 S. 5th St. Mp1s. , MN 55402 PHONE: 612-339-3752 CONTACT PERSON: Jack 0. Boarman, President DATE OF COMPLETION OF .PHASE I Project Work @ 90 days (Site analysis and preparation of Project Wo Work @ 60 days Bond Referendum) : COST FOR PREPARATION OF PHASE I With one site: q•nno With two sites: 12,000 With three sites: 15,000 - Assuming the bond referendum is approved in November, complete the following portion of the proposal. Documents @ 4 months Bids @ 1 month DATE FOR COMPLETION OF PHASE II : Construction @ 7 months Hourly ' 2 of construction Gost. COST FOR PREPARATION OF PHASE !I : with 33%.credi t for Phase 1. (Please indicate if this amount 1 C i n ate. d ti cn ..o the amount =or Phase I ) SIGNATURE OF A.RCHITECTURAL FIRr REPRESENTATIVE: DATE OF PROPOSAL: March 7, 1986 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Phase II Agreement with Boarman Architects DATE: December 11, 1986 Introduction On April 24, 1986 the City of Shakopee entered into an agreement with Boarman Architects for Phase I services for a new City Hall facility. Phase I services included defining space needs, developing site options, illustrating image alternatives and preparing for a bond referendum. All the Phase I activities are completed except the last item. Phase II Agreement The initial Phase I contract is provided for Council review along with the proposed Phase II contract. Also attached is the architect' s RFP statement of services for the bond referendum yet to be completed under Phase I of the contract. The activities for the Phase II contract are also attached and listed as item 3A Final Design, 3B Construction Documents and 3D Construction Administration. Please note that the proposed architectural fees for Phase II activities are addressed on the last page of the contract for Phase I services. Alternatives 1. Approve the proposed Phase II contract for services with Boarman Architects. This could be accomplished now with a directive to Boarman Architects to begin no Phase II activities until the successful completion of the bond election. It is my belief that the architect will have a stronger reason to assit the City in the final Phase I step, the referendum, if they know that they have been selected as the architect for the construction of the project. 2. Take no action on the proposed Phase II contract until the successful completion of the bond election. Should the Council wish to wait before signing a contract with the architect then this alternative would be preferable. Recommendation I have been satisfied with the performance of Boarman Architects through the Phase I contract. I believe that my comment under alternative No. 1 is valid and therefore I recommend alternative No. 1. Action Requested Direct the appropriate City staff to execute a standard architectural agreement between the City of Shakopee and Boarman Architects for Phase II services for the construction of a new City Hall, said services to commence upon the successful completion of a city hall bond issue. JKA/jms NOTE: If not included herein , please look for a letter from Boarman Architects coming by mail directly to your house . Judy Cox THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS i AIA Document 8727 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect For Special Services THIS DOCUMENT 15 FOR USE WHEN OTHER B-SERIES DOCUMENTS DO NOT APPLY THIS DOCUMENT HAS IMPORTANT LEGAL CONSEQUENCES; CONSULTATION WITH AN ATTORNEY IS ENCOURAGED WITH RESPECT TO ITS COMPLETION OR MODIFICATION AGREEMENT made this Twenty-Fourth day of April in the year of Nineteen Hundred and Eighty-,Six. BETWEEN the Owner City of Shakopee 129 East First Ave. Shakopee, HN 55379 and the Architect Boarman Architects, Inc. 710 Chamber of Commerce Bldg. 15 South 5th Street Mpls. , MN 55402 It is the intention of the Owner to Define a City Hall facility in a Phase I study that defines the space needs , develops site options, illustrates image alternatives and prepares for a bond referendum. . hereinafter referred to as the Project. The Owner and the Architect agree as set forth below. AIA DOCUMENT 6727• SPECIAL SERVICES AGREEMENT• OCTOBER 1972 EDITION • AIAO• 01972 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W.,WASHINGTON,D.C.20006 l I. THE ARCHITECT shall provide professional services for the Project in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of this Agreement. H. THE-OWNER shall compensate the Architect, in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of this Agreement, as follows: a. FOR THE ARCHITECT'S SERVICES, as described in Article 1.1, compensation computed on the following bases: 1. A maximum sum in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Dollars. dollars IS 15,000.00)• Billed on an hourly basis at rates 2.s follows: Principals' time at the fixed rate of Sixty dollars (S 60.00 ) per hour. For the purposes of this Agreement, the Principals are: Jack Boarman Staff maximum rates as follows: Project Manager $50.00 Project Architect $40.00 Project Engineer $55.00 Interior Designer $35.00 Clerical 525.00 Services of professional consultants at a multiple of one pt. Zero( 1.0 ) times the amount billed to the Architect for such services. The rates and multiples set forth in this Paragraph Ha(2) will be subject to renegotiation if the services covered by this Agreement have not been completed within Twelve ( 12 ) months of the date hereof. b. For archatect services on Phase II Implementation services (after funding approval ). The City and Architect shall enter .into a separate contract. The fee maximum will be at 711-2% to be billed on an hourly basis with 1/3 of Phase I credited to the total fee. b, AN INITIAL PAYMENT of Zero dollars (S -0 ) shall be made upon the execution of this Agreement and credited to the Owner's account. c. FOR THE ARCHITECT'S REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES,amounts expended as defined in Article 4. d. THE TIMES AND FURTHER CONDITIONS OF PAYMENT shall be as described in Article 5. AIA DOCUMENT 8727• SPECIAL SERVICES AGREEMENT • OCTOBER 1972 EDITION • AIA®• 01972 . 'EhE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W.,WASHINGTON,D.C.20006 2 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND ARCHITECT ARTICLE 1 ARCHITECT'S SERVICES (Here list those services to be provided by the Architect under the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Note under each service listed the method and means of compensation to be used if applicable.) A. Scope of Basic Services - Phase I The Architect will : 1. Review and analyze data and information to be provided by the City for evaluation of City Hall building and site development needs. 2. Inventory all existing facilities , including furniture, equipment, vehicles and communication systems and prepare program showing existing items. 3. Define the operational requirements and work flow efficiency of all staff work stations, and technical interaction and adjacency among staff and departments, and technical requirements for space, audio control , ventilation, access, communications, storage, etc. 4. Compare the facilities of other similar cities to determine Shakopee's projected needs at various population levels. Provide the City with a statement of present and future area and building needs to adequately house existing and projected staff, equipment vehicles, etc, 5. Prepare three (3) schematic image studies for the City Hall facility under consideration in this study, and provide the City with cost estimates for each alternative. 6. Prepare one (1) site plan each for development on the three (3) site alternatives for the City Hall site options. 7. Attend not more than seven (7) meetings of the Shakopee Community Facilities Task Force and five (5) meetings with representatives of the CityStaff., 8. Assist the City with the Bond Referendum Process utilizing the Architect's five point Bond Referendum Program presented as part of the • Architectural- Services Proposal . • B. Scope of Basic Services- 'Phase LI 1. The City agrees upon passage of the Bond Referendum and/or other attained funding to retain the architect for Phase II project implementation services. The City and architect will enter into a separate contract based .on fees as stated in Section IIb.. AIA DOCUMENT B727• SPECIAL SERVICES AGREEMENT• OCTOBER 1972 EDITION • AIA©• ©1972 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W.,WASHINGTON,D.C.20006 3 ARTICLE 2 ARTICLE 5 THE OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES PAYMENTS TO THE ARCHITECT 2.1 The owner shall provide full information regarding 5.1 Payments on account of the Architect's Services his requirements for the Project. and for Reimbursable Expenses as defined in Article 4 shall be made monthly upon presentation of the Archi- 2.2 The Owner shall designate, when necessary, a rep- tect's statement of services rendered or as hereinbefore resentative authorized to act in his behalf with respect.to provided. the Project. The owner or his representative shall exam- ine submissions made by the Architect and shall render 5.2 An initial payment as set forth in Paragraph IIb decisions pertaining thereto promptly, to avoid unreason- (Page 21 is the minimum payment under this Agreement. able delay in the progress of the Architect's work. 5.3 If the Project is suspended for more than three 2.3 The Owner shall furnis.� information required of months or abandoned in whole or in part, the Architect him as expeditiously as necessary for the orderly progress shall be paid his compensation for services performed of the Work and the Architect shall be entitled to rely prior to receipt of written notice from the Owner of such upon the accuracy and completeness tLereof. suspension or abandonment, together with Reimbursable Expenses then due and all terminal expenses resulting from such suspension or abandonment. If the Project is resumed after being suspended for more than three months, the Architect's Compensation shall be subject to ARTICLE 3 renegotiation. DIRECT PERSONNEL EXPENSE 5.4 Payments due the Architect under this Agreement shall bear interest at the legal rate commencing sixty days 3.1 Direct Personnel Expense of employees engaged on after the date of billing. the Project by the Architect applies to architects, engi- neers, designers, job captains, draftsmen, specification writers and typists, for consultation, research and design, ARTICLE 6 in producing any documents pertaining to the Project, and in services required at the site. ARCHITECT'S ACCOUNTING RECORDS 3.2 Direct Personnel Expense includes cost of salaries and of mandatory and customarybenefits such as statu- Records of the Architect's Direct Personnel, Consultant tory employee benefits, insurance, sick leave, holidays and Reimbursable Expenses pertaining to the Project and vacations, pensions and similar benefits. shall be kept on a generally recognized accounting basis and shall be available to the Owner or his authorized representative at mutually convenient times. ARTICLE 4 ARTICLE 7 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT 4.1 .Reimb-ursable Expenses are in addition to the Com- pensation for Services and include actual expenditures 7.1 This Agreement may be terminated by either party made by_the Architect, his employees, or his professional upon seven days' written notice should the other party consultants in the interest of the Project for the expenses fail substantially to perform in accordance with its terms listed in the following Subparagraphs: through no fault of the other. In the event of termination due to the fault of others than the Architect, the Architect 4.1.1 Expense of transportation and living when travel- shall be paid his compensation plus Reimbursable Ex- ing in connection with the Project; long distance calls penses for services performed to termination date and all and telegrams; and fees paid for securing approval of terminal expenses. authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. 7.2 Terminal Expenses are defined as Reimbursable Ex 4.1.2 Expense of reproductions, postage and handling of penses directly attributable to termination, plus a percent- Drawings and Specifications excluding duplicate sets at age computed as follows: the completion of each Phase for the Owner's review and approval. For Services provided on a Multiple of Direct Person- 4.1.3 If authorized in advance by the Owner, expense of nel Expense basis, 20% of the total incurred at the time overtime work requiring higher than regular rates and of termination; expense of renderings or models for the Owner's use. For Services provided on a Fixed Fee basis, 10% of the 4.1.4 Expense of computer time. Fixed Fee. AIA DOCUMENT 6727• SPECIAL SERVICES AGREEMENT• OCTOBER 1972 EDITION • AIA©• 01972 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W.,WASHINGTON,D.C.20006 4 I ARTICLE 8 be made within a reasonable time after the claim, dispute SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS or other matter in question has arisen. In no event shall the demand for arbitration be made after the date when of legal ble proceedings based on ution The Owner and the Architect each binds himself, his suchtclaim, dispute orrother;matter in question would be partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to barred by the applicable statute of limitations. the other party to this Agreement and to the partners, successors,assigns and legal representatives of such other 9.3 The award rendered by the arbitrators shall be final, party with respect to all covenants of this Agreement. and judgment may be entered upon it in accordance with Neither the Owner nor the Architect shall assign, sublet applicable law in any court having jurisdiction thereof. or transfer his interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other. ARTICLE 10 ARTICLE 9 EXTENT OF AGREEMENT This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agree- ARBITRATION ment between the Owner and the Architect and super- sed all prior 9.1 All claims, disputes and other matters in question eih esr written orgotiaoraltl onsThisrAgreement may agreements,epresentations rbe amended arising out of,or relating to, this Agreement or the breach only by written instrument signed by both Owner and thereof shall be decided by arbitration in accordance with Architect. the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the Ameri- can Arbitration Association then obtaining unless the parties mutually agree otherwise. This agreement to ARTICLE 11 arbitrate shall be specifically enforceable under the pre- vailing arbitration law. GOVERNING LAW 9.2� Notice of the demand for arbitration shall be filed Unless otherwise specified, this Agreement shall be gov- in writing with the other party to this Agreement and with erned by the lav of the principal place of business of the the American Arbitration Association. The demand shall Architect. This Agreement executed the day and year first written abov�. OWNER ARCHITECT R *eai b City of Shakopee y —Mayor Boa rman, Pre i dent Boarman Architects, Inc. tCity'A'/inistrator J./�/ ( - City Clerk AIA DOCUMENT B727• SPECIAL SERVICES AGREEMENT• OCTOBER 1972 EDITION • AIA®• 01972 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., NW, WASHINGTON DC 20006 CRC 275 BOARMAN ARCHITECTS INC. 710 Chamber of Commerce Building, 15 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402, 612 339-3752 April 28, 1986 John K. Anderson City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 East 1st Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Architect's Contract/Phase I Study Dear Mr. Anderson: Attached you will find two AIA contract forms for special services. This contract form is to provide preliminary design and study type of services which we are submitting at this time. Under the compensation and work scope, we have outlined what was presented in our service proposal and reviewed with the committee at our interview. If you have questions regarding the compensation of the work scope, please contact this office. This form of contract I feel is fair to both owners and architects. It covers all of the major issues that legal counsel for these situations have recommended. We have included a statement that clarifies that if we successfully perform our work and if the funding for this project is acquired, Boarman Architects has a committment from the city to be retained as the architect for Phase II inplementation services. As we stated in our proposal , we would be crediting a portion of our Phase I fee towards the total implementation fee maximum. We also state the fee percentage that would be used in that final contract. Even though wE: are writing a contract for the Phase I services, we are also making as a condition of this contract that the city is retaining our firm for the final project. According to the standard termination clause in the contract the city, upon our lack of performance, could terminate our efforts at any time. We feel that this gives the city the opportunity to control its destiny based on being satisfied with our work. For David Kroos, Cindy Rudko, and myself, we are excited about the opportunity to work with the City of Shakopee and we look forward to our J0Jfir t meeting. Please have the appropriate parties sign the two races and return one to our office. Sin erely - Ja Boarman, AIA President Boarman Architects, Inc. JOB:tjn I v PROPOSAL FOR ARCHTTyCTURAL SERVICES NEW SHAKOPEE CITY HALL '1986 NAME Or ARCHITECTURAL _ IRM: Boarman Architects , Inc. t:DDic-'SS: 710 Chamber of Commerce, 15 S. 5th St. Mpls. , MN 55402 PHONE: 612-339-3752 CONTACT PERSON: Jack 0. Boarman, President DATE OF COMPLETION OP .PHASE I Project Work @ 90 days (Site analysis and preparation of Bond Referendum) : Re.erendum Work @ 60 days COST FOR PFZPAR�-.TION OF PHASE I With one site: Conn With two sites: 12,000 Wi th three sites: 15-000 Ass=ling the bond referendum is approved in November' COmple`�e the following portion of the proposal, Documents @ 4 months Bids @ 1 month DATE '-'OR C01,2LETION OE _ ACy II Construction @ 7 months riour iy (d /2 oT construc'C jun cost. COST 70R PRZP;�—R=.TION 0=' PHASE II with s3°!.-credit for Phase 1. (Please _ndicate __ this amount .S .n :he a.,^.,^un: - .Cr Phase I ) S I GNA'=I R r O. A-t,r.IT:,TURA L EIr2 DATE OF PROPOSAL: March 7, 1986 t 2E. BOND REFERENDUM ASSISTANCE. _ committed terstandsservice thethat valuetofdtheeprojectSig Boarman Architects is We It is critical that the public and solutions for municipal take pride in our demonstrated ability to supply clients in design, construction and funding. Educating the public is a necessary first step in the infcrmed _ decision-making that will lead to approval of the project.It is not only the value but the perceived value by the community which impacts results at tie ballot box. Our five point Bond Referendum Program is based on a community outreach approach. 1. Reaching out to the public: Boarman Architects,Inc. ,works to involve the public in the earliest phases of the project. Their support is imperative, " their suggestions are important. We do not wait for a reaction, but move out into the community and illicit their participation. 2. Organizing: A well orchestrated plan is developed. Each element carefully timed and implemented. 3. Communicating: Communication between the inh'ta bondunreferendum. aBoarman public is essential in passing Architects can provide fliers, slide presentatL. ions, mailings; organize public meetings and cultivate local media to generate public support. i 4. Proven Cost Efficiency: The most important issue in municipal construction is demonstrating cost effectiveness.Boarman Architects has f developed criteria for illustrating project need. 3 e 1 5. Referendum Vote: Boarman Architects concentrates on organizing, facilitating t. and scheduling the effort to engage public support of your project. We maintain low public visibility while working closely with staff, citizen committee, and local officials. We are proud of our Bond Referendum Assistance Program which has been instrumental in the success of Eagan, Minnetonka, Maplewood, and Chanhassen to pass referendums. l' C� 3. PROJECT WORKSCOPE-PHASE II 3A.FINAL DESIGN Boarman Architects would provide complete architectural and engineering services.Outside consultants, Damon Farber Assoc. landscaping, and Nelson Rudie Assoc. for structural engineering. The team would meet with the city to review all aspects of the project to date.A schedule fo.r critical review of phase I work would begin the final process of design and program review for completion. The firm would provide a color rendering and a model of the proposed final design for review by the staff and council . A second cost estimate would be prep?.,-ed as a detailed statement of the probable construction cost. 3B.CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. Boarman Architects has a comprehensive staff which can produce a wide scope of services through a team approach. The firm is comprised of not only Architects and their support staff, but also in-house mechanical and electrical. engineering, interior and space planning. In 1984 Boarman aquired a CAD systems capability. The City of Shakopee will be in a position to utilize the time saving benefits and the flexibility of design options that a Computer Aid Drafting system can provide. Nelson Rudie & Associates will serve to provide any structural engineering documentation as they have done successfully with us on past projects,i.e.,Eagan Municipal Center,Chanhassen City Hall, Ramsey Municipal Center, and four others. The accuracy of our documents are maintained with two independent checks prepared at midpoint and at he conclusion of the working drawings. Svend Andersen, Technical Coordinator, will review the project for maintenance of technical quality and completion of documents for approval by the city. Since the majority of professional disciplines are' in-house, we can produce a comprehensive and coordinated final building set. Boarman Architects will establish a complete code review. The statement would include requirements for the handicapped, UBC, fire and life safty and OSHA code requirements.The documents would conform to standardized building documentation, which provides clear and concise specs. The specs are produced under CSI format. Boarman Architects has had minimal change orders, our records indicate the change order percentage equal to 1/2 of 1% which we view as a real test to the accuracy of our documents. T 3C. PROJECT BIDS. The Project Manager will manage all necessary bidding forms, conditions of contract and form of agreement between the City of Shakopee and construction contractors. Contracts will be coordinated with the city to illicit comprehensive contracts and bidding. 3D. CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION Boarman's construction coordination is done by Jon Rall , Construction Manager, his background is from the construction industry as a project supervisor. His field experience is extensive and he can work with contractors and identify on the behalf of the client critical areas. We are in the field every week during the construction phase. Twice a month we schedule an owner/design consultant/contractor meeting to review progress.The meetings are headed by the Construction Manager and attended by the Project Manager. Manager provides construction supervision and inspection. In the event that there is any question of design implementation, the Project Manager is immediately informed and a resolution provided. Post-construction, Boarman conducts two inspections. The: first after eleven months of occupancy relating to a one year guarantee compliance and notification of any remaing work to be done. The second, at the end of three years to determine the overall performance and acceptability of the design and ' itis functional or technical elements. E 1 "IV Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Marilyn M. Remer, Personnel Coordinator Re: Advertising for the Planner I Position Date: December 12, 1986 Introduction With the adoption of the 1987 Budget, Council has authorized the filling of the Planner I position effective March 1, 1987. Background In May 1986, staff did proceed to advertise, screen, interview and select a candidate, Todd Gerhardt for the new position of Planner I with a tentative starting date of Aug. 18th. Due to the unresolved status of comparable worth and its effect on the new position, the incompletion of the City Hall remodeling, and the candidates prior committment to the City of Chanhassesn, Council did postpone the starting date. Mr. Gerhardt was notified of the new starting date by John Anderson on Nov. 18, 1986. Staff has been informed by Todd that a new position is being created in Chanhassen which he is accepting. Therefore, Council is being asked to authorize staff to advertise to fill the Planner I position. The adoption of the 1987 Pay Plan with the comparable worth adjustments is pending. The range for Planner I would be $1,723- 2,298/mo. , with the starting salary advertised to $1,723/mo. Alternatives 1. Advertise to fill position of Planner I 2. Do not advertise. Action Requested Authorize staff to advertise for Planner I position with starting salary to be $1,723/mo. MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator / o FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Community Development Directorµ RE: The 1987 Small Cities Development Program (SCDP) Application DATE: December 11 , 1986 INTRODUCTION• Applications for SCDP funding are due in the State Department of Energy and Economic Development offices no later than January 30, 1987 . Based upon considerable amount of information I have obtained from the Department of Energy and Economic Development personnel it appears as though this next funding cycle is going to be very competitive. The cut backs in funding of other programs has resulted in the SCDP being even more attractive to many communities throughout the State. The Department of Energy and Economic Development (DEED) has devised an extensive review process for all SCDP applications. Most successful applications have been prepared over a period of months or even years, and reflect both an extensive amount of public participation and support, and close adherence to the CDGB program goals and objectives. While it would be possible for the City of Shakopee to submit an application which would be generally consistent with the Federal Regulations, I doubt that the application would be competitive. Also the preparation of an application would utilize a considerable amount of staff time and would result in less time available for other important programs. After a thorough review of the 1987 SCDP regulations and a meeting with two DEED staff members to review and critique the 1986 application submitted by the City, I have come to the conclusion that the submission of SCDP application by the City of Shakopee at this time would have a slight chance of being funded. I do think it is appropriate that we begin to think about submitting an application for the 1988 funding cycle in the near future. A successful application will require several months of preparation and a completely clearly devised program. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Direct the staff to not submit a SCDP application for 1987 . 2 . Direct the staff to prepare an application for the 1987 SCDP program. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the staff be directed to not prepare and submit an SCDP application for 1987. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To direct the City Administrator not to submit a 1987 Small Cities Development Program application to the Department of Energy and Economic Development. MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Community Development Director RE: Low Level Radioactive Waste Site Designation DATE: December 11 , 1986 INTRODUCTION: Communities in Minnesota and throughout the multi-state upper midwestern region have an opportunity to submit an application for purposes of being designated the host community for a low level radioactive waste depository. BACKGROUND: The Midwest Interstate Low Level Radioactive Waste Commission has prepared a number of materials which discuss the procedure that a community can go through in order to be potentially designated as a host community for the purposes of storing low level radioactive waste. This memo discusses some of the positive and negative attributes of seeking such a designation. Positive aspects: 1. Economic Possibilities - If Shakopee were to be successful in acquiring this designation it is possible that approximately 20 new jobs would be created, that there would be the possibility of spin off industries and the community would have the potential to attract a national technical center on low level radioactive waste research. 2 . The multi-state commission would provide funds to carefully study the physical suitability of the proposed site. 3 . Approximately $50 , 000 per year would be provided to the City' s local low level radioactive waste committee which would be responsible for monitoring the waste site. 4 . The local volume tax which would generate up to $800, 000 per year could be collected for the City. The negative aspects of this facility are as follows: 1. While there can be no doubt that the designation as the first seven-state low level radioactive waste depository would create an image for the community there is equally no doubt that this would not be a positive image for a community with the orientation that Shakopee has. While the materials that have been prepared by the Waste Commission on this subject appear to indicate that the facility would be physically safe I believe this would be largely irrelevant in terms of what it would do to the communities image as a mecca for tourists. 2. The City' s geographic proximity to the Minnesota River, the existence of high water tables in various parts of the community and other hydrologic factors are not conducive for the siting of a hazardous waste facility in Shakopee. 3 . The facility would be owned by the State of Minnesota and approximately 200 acres of land would be taken off the tax roles for over 100 years, and possibly forever. 4. To say the very least I think it is unlikely that public acceptance of such a facility would be over whelming. It is very possible that the City' s police department would be devoting a considerable amount of time policing the activities of anti-radioactive waste site demonstrators. 5 . It does not seem practical to locate such a facility anywhere in the seven county metro area because of the 2. 1 million persons residing here. 6. This facility would generate additional truck traffic to this area and this is something we do not particularly need. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Direct the City Administrator and staff to seek host city designation as an interstate low level radioactive waste site. 2. Direct the City Administrator and staff to not pursue this designation further at this time. RECOMMENDATION• Both Barry Stock and myself strongly recommend that the City choose alternative #2 and not further pursue the radio active waste designation at this time. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To direct the City Administrator to not pursue designation as the host city for the midwest interstate low level radioactive site depository. 1986 CITY OF SHAKOPEE CHECK REGISTER 12-11-86 PAGE 2 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE «««««« sw«—CKS 345088 12/11/86 12.80 CASE POWER d EQUIP EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 53738 12.80 s wws««« w««—CKS 345091 12/11/86 105.32 CARB d TURBO SY INC EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-312-31 105.32 « s«s««« w«s—CKS 345095 12/11/86 92.45 CLAYS PRINTING PRINT 6 PUB 01-4350-311-31 26986 92.45 « ««sww« s««—CKS 345106 12/11/86 2, 190.83 JULIUS A. COLLER II PROF SERV 01-4310-161-16 2, 190.83 « w««««w s«w—CKS 345112 12/11/86 7.49 JUDITH COX SUPPLIES 01-4210-111-11 7.49 « ««wwww ww«—CKS 345114 12/11/86 170.90 COMM. AUDITORS EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 861247 170.90 « 345115 12/11/86 5.60 C.H. CARP. LUMBER SUPPLIES 01-4210-331-33 345115 12/11/86 16.20 C.H. CARP. LUMBER BLDG MAINT 01-4230-321-32 21 .80 « «««sw« ««s—CKS 345130 12/11/86 12.59 DUNNINGS HDWE. SUPPLIES 01-4210-182-18 345130 12/11/86 2.88 DUNNINGS HDWE, SUPPLIES 01-4210-331-33 345130 12/11/86 7.28 DUNNINGS HDWE. SUPPLIES 01-4210-411-41 345130 12/11/86 4.29 DUNNINGS HDWE. SUPPLIES 01-4210-622-62 345130 12/11/86 5.74 DUNNINGS HDWE. EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-321-32 345130 12/11/86 8.40 DUNNINGS HDWE. EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 345130 12/11/86 .90 DUNNINGS HDWE. EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-631-62 42.08 w «s«««« «««—CKS 345147 12/11/86 5.58 EASTMAN DRUG SUPPLIES 01-4210-319-31 345147 12/11/86 8.42 EASTMAN DRUG SUPPLIES 01-4210-331-33 345147 12/11/86 10.58 EASTMAN DRUG SUPPLIES 15-4210-191-19 24.58 « sss««« sts—CKS 345211 12/11/86 18.20 HENNEN8 ICO EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 1986 CITY OF SHAKOPEE CHECK REGISTER 12-11-86 PAGE 1 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. M P.O. R MESSAGE 345025 12/11/86 145.00 ASTLEFORD INTER EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 32345 145.00 345026 12/11/86 16.42 AUTO CENTRAL SUPPLY SUPPLIES 01-4210-421-42 345026 12/11/86 59.46 AUTO CENTRAL SUPPLY SUPPLIES 01-4210-426-42 345026 12/11/86 33. 15 AUTO CENTRAL SUPPLY EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-312-31 345026 12/11/86 11 .36 AUTO CENTRAL SUPPLY EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-313-31 345026 12/11/86 59.99 AUTO CENTRAL SUPPLY EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-321-32 345026 12/11/86 49.77 AUTO CENTRAL SUPPLY EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-411-41 345026 12/11/86 457.00 AUTO CENTRAL SUPPLY EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 345026 12/11/86 9.29 AUTO CENTRAL SUPPLY EQUIP MAINT 71-4232-714-71 696.44 »»***s *s*-CKS 345029 12/11/86 826.66 E F ANDERSON d ASOC SUPPLIES 01-4210-426-42 67235 345029 12/11/86 244. 00 E F ANDERSON S ASOC SUPPLIES 01-4210-431-42 67235 1 , 070.66 ***-CKS 345035 12/11/86 421 .78 ASSOC/MEC/CONT/INC EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-331-33 8854 345035 12/11/86 49.53 ASSOC/MEC/CONT/INC EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 8873 471 .31 + sssss» ***-CKS 345053 12/11/86 3.62 BERENS SUPPLIES 01-4210-181-18 345053 12/11/86 3.64 BERENS SUPPLIES 01-4210-182-18 345053 12/11/86 3.64 BERENS SUPPLIES 01-4210-311-31 345053 12/11/86 3.64 BERENS SUPPLIES 01-4210-421-42 4.54..» **s*s ***-CKS 345061 12/11/86 76.87 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS SURFACE MAT 01-4215-427-42 8512 76.87 ***-CKS 345079 12/11/86 31515.33 BOARMAN d ASSOC PROF SERV 21-4310-212-21 1087 1 3,515.33 * 345080 12/11/86 2,226.00 BARTON-ASCHMAN PROF SERV 27-4310-546-41 38235 2,226.00 s **»»*s ***-CKS 345084 12/11/86 377.40 CARGILL SALT DIV SURFACE MAT 01-4215-433-42 827121 377.40 * 345065 12/11/86 2.59 CARLSON HARDWARE SUPPLIES 01-4210-421-42 345085 12/11/86 10.95 CARLSON HARDWARE SUPPLIES 01-4210-622-62 345085 12/11/86 2.70 CARLSON HARDWARE EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 16.24 1986 CITY OF SHAKOPEE CHECK REGISTER 12-11-86 PAGE 3 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 345211 12/11/86 19.00 HENNENS ICO EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-631-62 37.20 * •+»w++ ***-CKS 345215 12/11/86 44,988.21 S M HENTGES S SONS OTHER IMPROV 62-4519-537-41 345215 12/11/86 4,505.84 S M HENTGES d SONS OTHER IMPROV 73-4519-522-41 49,494. 05 * +»»»*» ***-CKS 345237 12/11/86 77. 12 INDUSTRIAL DOOR BLDG MAINT 01-4230-312-31 59927 77.12 * 345238 12/11/86 322.50- INST. TESTING INC PROF SERV 01-4310-405-41 345238 12/11/86 322.50 INST. TESTING INC PROF SERV 01-4310-405-41 345238 12/11/86 332.50 INST. TESTING INC PROF SERV 01-4310-405-41 345238 12/11/86 311 . 00 INST. TESTING INC PROF SERV 01-4310-411-41 345238 12/11/86 2,668.65 INST. TESTING INC PROF SERV 62-4310-537-41 3,312. 15 + ww»w*+ ***-CKS 345265 12/11/86 31 .94 KMART SUIPPLIES 01-4210-411-41 345265 12/11/86 69.02 KMART SUIPPLIES 01-4210-421-42 100.96 * 345266 12/11/86 16,239.35 KARE KABS UTILITIES 14-4370-142-14 16,239.35 * 345267 12/11/86 21 . 00 KOEHNENS STANDARD EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-121-12 345267 12/11/86 159.00 KOEHNENS STANDARD _ EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-312-31 345267 12/11/86 13.00 KOEHNENS STANDARD EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-331-33 345267 12/11/86 3.00 KOEHNENS STANDARD EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-411-41 345267 12/11/86 18. 18 KOEHNENS STANDARD TRAVEL 6 SUBSIST 14-4330-143-14 214. 18 ++*+++ ***-CKS 345270 12/11/86 2,887.50 KRASS b MONROE CHRTD PROF SERV 01-4310-161-16 345270 12/11/86 1 ,813.50 KRASS d MONROE CHRTD PROF SERV 01-4310-163-16 345270 12/11/86 1 ,744.36 KRASS d MONROE CHRTD PROF SERV 01-4310-165-16 345270 12/11/86 1 ,704.25 KRASS d MONROE CHRTD PROF SERV 15-4310-191-19 345270 12/11/86 31 .00 KRASS Q MONROE CHRTD PROF SERV 23-4310-000-00 345270 12/11/86 530.50 KRASS d MONROE CHRTD PROF SERV 27-4310-548-41 345270 12/11/86 613.25 KRASS d MONROE CHRTD PROF SERV 56-4310-504-41 9,324.36 * +»»»*» ***-CKS 345301 12/11/86 568.25 LOCAL UNION #320 REMIT UNION DUES 81-4924-000-00 568.25 + »»»*»* ***-CKS 345303 12/11/86 28.32 LINK PRINT SUPPLIES 01-4210-411-41 16593 1986 CITY OF SHAKOPEE CHECK REGISTER 12-11-86 PAGE 4 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. M P.O. 11 MESSAGE 28.32 * *ss*ws ***-CKS 345306 12/11/86 154.00 LONG LAKE FORD EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-631-62 44901 154.00 * 345307 12/11/86 513.50 LOUISVILLE LANDFILL UTILITIES 01-4370-622-62 sis.5o w ss**w* ***-CKS 345318 12/11/86 352.50 MALKERSON MOT. INC. EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 352.50 * »ww*** ***-CKS 345326 12/11/86 13, 166.50 C S MCCROSSAN OTHER IMPROV 27-4519-546-41 13, 166.50 * »***** ***-CKS 345345 12/11/86 143.00 METRO SALES INC PRINT Q PUB 01-4350-911-91 178203 143.00 * 345346 12/11/86 36.54 MOTOR PARTS EQUIP MAINT 01-4210-426-42 345346 12/11/86 43.79 MOTOR PARTS EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-411-41 345346 12/11/86 236.87 MOTOR PARTS EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 345346 12/11/86 65.62 MOTOR PARTS EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-631-62 345346 12/11/86 13.61 MOTOR PARTS PROMOTIONS 14-4319-142-14 345346 12/11/86 19.42 MOTOR PARTS EQUIP MAINT 71-4232-714-71 415.85 * *swsww ***-CKs 345349 12/11/86 401 . 12 ROBERT MCALLISTER PROF SERV 01-4310-361-36 401 . 12 * 345350 12/11/86 784.89 WM. MUELLER 6 SONS SURFACE MAT 01-4215-429-42 784.89 * r*»s»s ***-CKS 345352 12/11/86 54.43 MN CELLULAR TELE CO TELEPHONE 01-4321-321-32 54.43 * »s**»* ***-CKS 345359 12/11/86 140.68 MBA REMIT CANCER INS 81-4926-000-00 140.68 * w*r»»» ***—CKS 345366 12/11/86 268.80 MANPOWER INC PROF SERV 01-4310-121-12 345366 12/11/86 268.80 MANPOWER INC PROF SERV 01-4310-131-13 1986 CITY OF SHAKOPEE CHECK REGISTER 12-11-86 PAGE 5 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 537.60 t t*t*** ***—CKS 345387 12/11/86 33.94 NW BELL TELEPHONE 01-4321-111-11 345387 12/11/86 22.34 NW BELL TELEPHONE 01-4321-121-12 345387 12/11/86 33.94 NW BELL TELEPHONE 01-4321-131-13 345387 12/11/86 105.82 NW BELL TELEPHONE 01-4321-151-15 345387 12/11/86 33.94 NW BELL TELEPHONE 01-4321-171-17 345387 12/11/86 123.13 NW BELL TELEPHONE 01-4321-182-18 345387 12/11/86 347.81 NW BELL TELEPHONE 01-4321-311-31 345387 12/11/86 57.29 NW BELL TELEPHONE 01-4321-321-32 345387 12/11/86 33.94 NW BELL TELEPHONE 01-4321-331-33 345387 12/11/86 14. 10 NW BELL TELEPHONE 01-4321-351-35 345387 12/11/86 70.83 NW BELL TELEPHONE 01-4321-411-41 345387 12/11/86 88.90 NW BELL TELEPHONE 01-4321-421-42 345387 12/11/86 16.97 NW BELL TELEPHONE 15-4321-191-19 345387 12/11/86 16.97 NW BELL TELEPHONE 16-4321-231-23 999.92 + 345388 12/11/86 500.00 NORWEST BK MPLS PROF SERV 64-4310-000-00 500.00 + *tttt* ***—CKS 345412 12/11/86 51852.69 ORR—SCH—MAYR & AS PROF SERV 62-4310-537-41 345412 12/11/86 1 ,710.76 ORR—SCH—MAYR 3 AS PROF SERV 63-4310-554-41 7,563.45 t 345413 12/11/86 1 ,314. 09 0 CONNOR Q HANNAN PROF SERV 64-4310-000-00 1 ,314.09 t ttt*** ***—CKS 345415 12/11/86 70. 00 OFFICE PRODUCTS EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-411-41 151595 70.00 * ****** ***—CKS 345424 12/11/86 63.50 D C PETERSON DOOR CO EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-441-44 1812 63.50 + *tt*** ***—CKS 345430 12/11/86 18.00 PEARSON FLORISTS MISC 01-4499-111-11 18.00 t 1st*** ***—CKS 345432 12/11/86 21 . 10 PHOTO FINISH SUPPLIES 01-4210-313-31 345432 12/11/86 20.60 PHOTO FINISH PROF SERV 01-4310-321-32 41 .70 * t***** ***—CKS 345438 12/11/86 57.24 PRIOR LAKE AGG. SURFACE MAT 01-4215-433-42 1986 CITY OF SHAKOPEE CHECK REGISTER 12-11-86 PAGE 6 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. A P.O. M MESSAGE 57.24 * *»»»#* ***-CKS 345456 12/11/86 61 . 00 RACO OIL SUPPLIES 01-4210-426-42 31506 61 .00 * rr**rr ***-CKS 345461 12/11/86 25.82 REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLIES 01-4210-441-44 25.82 * rr###* ***-CKS 345465 12/11/86 905.75 ELDON REINKE TRAVEL 6 SUBSIST 01-4330-111-11 905.75 * »###** ***-CKS 345472 12/11/86 254.29 RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON CO EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-432-42 44204 254.29 * ***#»# ***-CKS 345490 12/11/86 75.00 CAROL SCHULTZ PROF SERV 01-4310-111-11 345490 12/11/86 3.00 CAROL SCHULTZ PROF SERV 15-4310-191-19 78.00 * *#r*#* ***-CKS 345498 12/11/86 40.00 SCOTT CTY COLLECT PROF SERV 26-4310-197-19 18751 40.00 * s**r*» ***-CKS 345502 12/11/86 198.89 SHAKOPEE FORD EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-312-31 345502 12/11/86 58.58 SHAKOPEE FORD EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 257.47 * *rr#s# ***-CKS 345508 12/11/86 87.84 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PROMOTIONS 01-4319-178-17 345508 12/11/86 473.82 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PRINT 8 PUB 01-4350-131-13 561 .66 345509 12/11/86 22. 00 SHAKOPEE SERVICES UTILITIES 01-4370-181-18 345509 12/11/86 8. 00 SHAKOPEE SERVICES UTILITIES 01-4370-184-18 345509 12/11/66 22.00 SHAKOPEE SERVICES UTILITIES 01-4370-311-31 345509 12/11/86 22.00 SHAKOPEE SERVICES UTILITIES 01-4370-321-32 345509 12/11/86 22.00 SHAKOPEE SERVICES UTILITIES 01-4370-421-42 345509 12/11/86 22.00 SHAKOPEE SERVICES UTILITIES 01-4370-621-62 118.00 ****►* ***-CKS 345517 12/11/86 353.62 SPUC UTILITIES 01-4370-181-18 1986 CITY OF SHAKOPEE CHECK REGISTER 12-11-86 PAGE 7 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. 11 P.O. M MESSAGE 345517 12/11/86 339.35 SPUC UTILITIES 01-4370-182-18 345517 12/11/86 6.31 SPUC UTILITIES 01-4370-311-31 345517 12/11/86 200.25 SPUC UTILITIES 01-4370-321-32 345517 12/11/86 19.50 SPUC UTILITIES 01-4370-351-35 345517 12/11/86 878.42 SPUC UTILITIES 01-4370-421-42 345517 12/11/86 137.96 SPUC UTILITIES 01-4370-427-42 345517 12/11/86 234.95 SPUC UTILITIES 01-4370-611-61 345517 12/11/86 46.35 SPUC UTILITIES 01-4370-622-62 345517 12/11/86 10.09 SPUC UTILITIES 01-4370-626-62 345517 12/11/86 196.67 SPUC UTILITIES 01-4370-628-62 345517 12/11/86 720.00 SPUC WATER CONNECTS 83-3831-000-00 345517 12/11/86 140.00 SPUC WATER METERS 83-3832-000-00 3,283.47 + w*tt«+ **w-CKS 345524 12/11/86 41 .90 STREICHERS SUPPLIES 01-4210-321-32 345524 12/11/86 65.35 STREICHERS EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-321-32 107.25 ***-CKS 345526 12/11/86 10.92 SUEL BUSINESS EQUIP. SUPPLIES 01-4210-121-12 345526 12/11/86 159. 15 SUEL BUSINESS EQUIP. SUPPLIES 01-4210-131-13 345526 12/11/86 10.39 SUEL BUSINESS EQUIP. SUPPLIES 01-4210-151-15 345526 12/11/86 28.93 SUEL BUSINESS EQUIP. SUPPLIES 01-4210-171-17 345526 12/11/86 92.96 SUEL BUSINESS EQUIP. SUPPLIES 01-4210-311-31 345526 12/11/86 9.78 SUEL BUSINESS EQUIP. SUPPLIES 01-4210-321-32 345526 12/11/86 47.44 SUEL BUSINESS EQUIP. SUPPLIES 01-4210-411-41 345526 12/11/86 86.32 SUEL BUSINESS EQUIP. SUPPLIES 01-4210-421-42 345526 12/11/86 33.42 SUEL BUSINESS EQUIP. SUPPLIES 01-4210-911-91 345526 12/11/86 7.50 SUEL BUSINESS EQUIP. EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-311-31 345526 12/11/86 1 ,397.45 SUEL BUSINESS EQUIP. CAPITAL EQUIP 01-4511-311-31 345526 12/11/86 5.69 SUEL BUSINESS EQUIP. SUPPLIES 14-4210-142-14 1 ,889.95 + ««wrs« ***-CKS 345533 12/11/86 ---26.00 BARRY STOCK - SUPPLIES - -~01-4210-131-13 26.00 * +***«« ***-CKS 345545 12/11/86 74.20 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORP SUPPLIES 01-4210-441-44 74.20 * ««+«+t ***-CKS 345547 12/11/86 29.22 JUDITH M. SIMAC TRAVEL d SUBSIST 01-4330-171-17 29.22 * t*w*«t ***-CKS 345563 12/11/86 159.76 TERRA CARE INC EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-631-62 159.76 * 1986 CITY OF SHAKOPEE CHECK REGISTER 12-11-86 PAGE 8 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. N MESSAGE s*ss** ***—CKS 345580 12/11/86 1 .91 UNITOG RENTAL SERV BLDG MAINT 01-4230-181-18 345580 12/11/86 1 .91 UNITOG RENTAL SERV BLDG MAINT 01-4230-182-18 345580 12/11/86 13.21 UNITOG RENTAL SERV BLDG MAINT 01-4230-311-31 345580 12/11/86 13.89 UNITOG RENTAL SERV BLDG MAINT 01-4230-421-42 30.92 * *ss**s *ss—CKS 345590 12/11/86 157.80 VALLEY GLASS INC EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-331-33 1044 157.80 * s***ss ***—CKS 345604 12/11/86 494.79 VALLEY PAVING INC OTHER IMPROV 13-4519-000-00 345604 12/11/86 296.87 VALLEY PAVING INC OTHER IMPROV 21-4519-553-41 345604 12/11/86 4, 156.20 VALLEY PAVING INC OTHER IMPROV 26-4519-539-41 4,947.86 * s***s* ***—CKS 345606 12/11/86 3,053.42 VAN POOL SERV INC UTILITIES 14-4370-143-14 3,053.42 * sss*** ***—CKS 345630 12/11/86 12,907.33 WASTE MANAGEMENT UTILITIES 01-4370-721-72 12,907.33 * *****s ***—CKS 345800 12/11/86 15. 00 A 0 S INC CONF d SCHOOLS 01-4390-654-65 15. 00 * 345801 12/11/86 50.00 JOHN ACKERMAN EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 1132 50.00 * 345802 12/11/86 21000.00 BBF CORP EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-618-61 3405 2,000.00 * 345803 12/11/86 172.37 CHURCHVILLE EQ CORP EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-321-32 128555 172.37 * 345804 12/11/86 420. 00 EAGAN TIRE d AUTO EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-312-31 52828 420. 00 * swss*s ***—CKS 345806 12/11/86 116. 19 MN BEARING CO EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-432-42 78331 116. 19 * sss**w w**—CKS 345809 12/11/86 39. 15 TRUCK PARTS d S INC EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 1167 1986 CITY OF SHAKOPEE CHECK REGISTER 12-11-86 PAGE 9 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. $ P.O. N MESSAGE 39.15 + 345810 12/11/86 �117,969.56� �KRA33 6 MONROE PURCHASE OF LAND 15-4507-191-19 117,969.56 * 345811 12/11/86 45. 00 TRAFFIC GUIDE EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-426-42 8486 45.00 * ««***« ***-CKS 40,502.49 FUND 01 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 494.79 FUND 13 TOTAL PARK RESERVE FUND 19,330.25 FUND 14 TOTAL TRANSIT 119,704.36 FUND 15 TOTAL HRA 16.97 FUND 16 TOTAL CABLE 3,812.20 FUND 21 TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FD 31 .00 FUND 23 TOTAL K-MART 4, 196.20 FUND 26 TOTAL DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT 15,923. 00 FUND 27 TOTAL RACETRACK 613.25 FUND 56 TOTAL 80-A IMPROVEMENTS 53,509.55 FUND 62 TOTAL 1986 IMPROVEMENT 1 ,710.76 FUND 63 TOTAL 1987 IMPROVEMENT FD 1 ,814.09 FUND 64 TOTAL 1986A-81 REFUNDING BONDS 28.71 FUND 71 TOTAL SEWER FUND 4,505.84 FUND 73 TOTAL STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY 708.93 FUND 81 TOTAL PAYROLL TRUST 860.00 FUND 83 TOTAL UTILITY TRUST 267,762.39 TOTAL Month December Page 1 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LEDGER 1986 Debit Acct. Cr. Acct. Amount Batch Remarks Ck. No. Vendor Ck. Amt. 01.4210.181.18 01.1010 1.89 Supplies 22426 City of Shakopee 01.4210.911.91 01.1010 30.61 Supplies 22426 " 01.4210.151.15 01.1010 22.42 Supplies 22426 " 01.4320.131.13 01.1010 1.83 Postage 22426 " 15.4320.191.19 15.1010 14.43 Postage 22426 ' 01.4320.319.31 01.1010 .51 Postage 22426 " 01.4511.321.32 01.1010 5.25 Capital Equip 22426 " o1.4499.111.11 01.1010 1.33 Misc 22426 78•,, 71.4411.711.71 71.1010 58,939.73 Current Use Chg. 22427 Metro Waste 71.3833.000.00 71.1010 2,727.45 SAC Chg 22427 " 61,667.1 o1.41oo.151.15 01.1010 2,458.43 Salaries -FT 22428 Gregg Voxland 2,458.11 ol.41oo.158.15 01.1010 1,966.74 1122429 Marilyn Remer 1,966.( ol.4loo.171.17 01.1010 4,062.31 of 22430 Judi Simac 4,062.; 01.4310.161.16 01.1010 680.76 Prof Sery 22431 Wishing Well Farm 680.7 01.4370.622.62 01.1010 91.83 Utilities 22432 Minnegasco ol.4370.311.31 01.1010 511.22 " 22432 " o1.4370.421.42 01.1010 1,022.44 " 22432 " ol.4370.181.18 01.1010 244.o8 22432 o1.4370.182.18 01.1010 41.58 " 22432 " ol.4370.321.32 01.1010 511.39 " 22432 " ol.4370.611.61 01.1010 173.16 " 22432 " 2,595.7 01.4320.131.13 01.1010 200.00 Postage 22433 U.S. Postmaster 200.0 81.4922.000.00 81.1010 6,688.12 Remit FICA 22434 D.O.E.R.S.S 6,688.1 81.4931.000.00 81.1olo 1,150.00 Remit Payroll Sav 22435 lst Natl -Shako 1,150.0 81.4928.000.00 81.1olo 35.90 Remit Medicare 22436 D.O.E.R.S.S 35.9 81.4932.000.00 81.1010 154.80 Remit Uniform Rent 22437 Unitog Rental 154.8 81.4921.000.00 81.1010 4,025.28 Remit SIT 22438 Comm of Revenue 4,025.2 81.4920.000.00 81.1olo 8,7o6.00 Remit FIT 22439 lst Natl - Shako 8,706.0, 81.4927.000.00 81.1olo 100.00 Remit Defer Comp 2244o IDS 100.0, 81.4927.000.00 81.1010 2,570.00 Remit Defer Comp 22441 PEBSCO 2,570.01 81.4923.000.00 81.1olo 8,392.91 Remit PERA 22442 PERA 8,392.9 $105,532.4o $105,532.ti Month December Page 2 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LEDGER 1986 Debit Acct. Cr. Acct. Amount Batch Remarks Ck. No. Vendor Ck. Amt. FUND TOTALS 01 - General Fund $ 12,027.78 15 - HRA 14.43 71 - Sewer Fund 61,667.18 81 - Payroll Trust 31,823.01 $105,532.4o /00' MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk Cr RE: Resolution of Appreciation to Kenneth Hanel DATE: December 12 , 1986 Introduction and Background Mr. Hanel will be retiring from his position of Police Sergeant on December 31, 1986 . Mr. Coller has prepared the attached resolution of appreciation to Mr. Hanel, for Council consideration. Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 2668 , In Appreciation to Kenneth Hanel for Outstanding Dedicated Service to the City of Shakopee, and move its adoption. JSC/jms i RESOLUTION #2668 In Appreciation to Kenneth Hanel for Outstanding Dedicated Service to the City of Shakopee WHEREAS, Kenneth Hanel entered Shakopee's employment as a part-time police officer on January 1, 1960 and on April 1 of the same year he was advanced to full time status with a job description of night watchman. In April, 1963 he was elevated to the position of sergeant; and WHEREAS, During all of the countless hours of efficient and effective service that have been of inestimable value to the City of Shakopee and its inhabitants, he faced danger often and courageously without fanfare or publicity. During his years, of service he has seen the Shakopee Police Department grow from a total of three officers including Chief R, G. Thiel-man to a complement of sixteen full-time Police offi:cers:, including Chief Thomas G. Brownell, together with a competent supporting s:taff-;of twenty; and WHEREAS, During the often lonely hours of patrol, Ken offered support, sympathy and understanding in domestic cases as well as in dealing with the teenagers, but at the same. time, he was a protector and a man of action, when action was called for.- In other words, a man who will be. missed when he retires. on January_ 1, 1987. THEREFORE, BE. IT 'RESOLVED That the. Shakopee City Council on behalf of all the citizens and residents of the City of Shakopee hereby publicly express their deep gratitude and appreciation of all to Sgt. Kenneth Hanel for his years of meritorious and dedicated service; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED' That this resolution of appreciation be spread upon and become a part of the permanent minutes of the Shakopee City Council and that a signed copy hereof be presented to Sgt. Kenneth Hanel as a small token of the City's deep. gratitude and appreciation for countless duties well done. Passed in session of the Shakopee City Council held this day of 1986. Mayor of the City of Shakopee\ ATTEST: City Clerk Prepared and approved as to form this 12th day of December, 1986. City Attorney MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk C( RE: Release of Eastment Across Lott/ 3 , Block 1, Doyle ' s and Pieper' s Addition DATE: December 12 , 1986 Introduction A Shakopee resident has requested the city to release or define a blanket easement across property they are planning on purchasing. Backgroud In 1933 a blanket easement to construct and maintain an electric transmission line was given to the city across Lot 3 , Block 1, Doyle ' s and Pieper ' s Addition. Prior to conveyance of this property to a new owner, the city is being requested to release or define the easement. Shakopee Public Utilities has inspected the subject property and has determined that no easement is required. Alternatives 1 . Release easement. 2 . Retain easement. Recommendation Alternative No. 1. Recommended Action Offer Resolution No. 2669 , A Resolution Authorizing Delivery of a Deed to Extinquish an Easement, and move its adoption. JSC/jms RESOLUTION NO. 2669 A Resolution Authorizing Delivery of a Deed to Extinquish an Easement WHEREAS, under date of October 11, 1933, an easement was executed by John Doyle and wife Anne Doyle running in favor of the City of Shakopee for the purpose o f constructing and maintaining an electric transmission line over and across Lot 3 of Block 1, of Doyle and Peiper's addition to Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota, and other lands, and said easement was filed for record in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Scott County, ?Minnesota on November 3, 1933 in Book 93 of Deeds page 616, and WHEREAS, the City no longer requires the above described easement and the same serves, no useful purpose and should be released and discharged of record. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE Shakopee City Council that the easement above described be and the same hereby is released and discharged. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a quit claim deed to discharge the same of record be made and signed by the proper city officials and delivered to the present owner of the above described property. Passed in session of the Shakopee City Council held this day of 198 ' Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Prepared and approved this 8th day of Decemb.er, 1986. City Attorney IMEMO TO:TO: John K. Anderson (� FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk Y RE: 1987 Fee Resolution DATE: December 11, 1987 Introduction- Attached is the resolution setting forth the fees for the City of Shakopee for 1987. Background: Changes from the 1986 fee resolution are as follows: 1) Liquor, wine, and beer fees are adjusted according to Council action on November 18th, per staff recommendation. 2) Planning fees are adjusted per the City planner ' s memo attached. Delete concept plan and add amendment to final development plan. Also added is a deposit which may be requested by the Administrator up to $1, 000 . 00 . 3 ) Public Works equipmental rental fees are adjusted upwards by 10% to help compensate for additional City costs in insurance, maintenance and replacement costs. 4) In the building inspection department, fees are added for: 1) grading plan review fees, and 2 ) grading permit fees. These are identical to the state fees which the City has been charging all along. 5 ) The garbage rates have been increased to reflect the garbage contract prices for 1987 . 6) Engineering Department fees (employees) are increased to reflect cost of living salary increases for the technicians and comparable worth adjustment for the secretary. NOTE: On March 4 , 1986 Council received a letter from Clete Link objecting to the engineering fees charged for services rendered to South Parkview Addition. Council decided at that time to review inspection fees when the annual fee resolution is considered. The City Engineer is not recommending reduction. Alternatives- 1. Adopt fee resolution as drafted. 2 . Amend fee resolution as drafted. 3 . Make no changes to 1986 fee resolution. Recommendation: Alternative No. 1. Action Requested: Offer Resolution No. 2661, A Resolution Setting Fees for City Licenses, Permits, Services and Documents, and move its adoption. JSC/jms MEMO TO: Judy Cox, City Clerk FROM: Judi Simac, City Planner RE : Planning Fees for 1987 DATE: December 2, 1986 Introduction: Every December staff is requested to review the fee schedule for charges related to their department. At this time I would recommend that the schedule for Planned Unit Development be revised in light of the PUD ordinance amendments which were approved in 1986 . Background: The present fee schedule lists fees for PUD as follows : Concept Plan $100 . 00 Preliminary Plan $200 . 00 + $15 . 00/acre Final Plan $100 . 00 The PUD ordinance provides for application for Preliminary Development Plan, Final Development Plan and Amended Final Development Plan. It also provides for, upon the request of the Administrator, a deposit up to $1, 000. 00 for planning, engineering, administrative and legal expenses incurred by the City for the review and processing of the application, any remainder to be refunded to the applicant. The ordinance does not contain any reference to a Concept Plan review, therefore that fee should be eliminated. Recommendation: I would recommend to the City Council that the fee schedule be amended for 1987 to include the following schedule for P.U.D. ' s : Application for Planned Unit Development Preliminary Development Plan $200 . 00 plus 15. 00/acre Final Development Plan $100 . 00 Preliminary and Final Development Plan Concurrently $300 . 00 plus 15 . 00/acre Amendment to Final Development Plan $100 . 00 Deposit - The Administrator may request the proponent to deposit up to $1, 000 . 00 for planning, engineering, administrative and legal expenses incurred by the City for the review and processing of the application, any remainder of which will be refunded to the applicant. CLETUS J.LINK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY X14DO4StasMt*CtAVOR x j6) C/ Shakop•a. Mlnn"ota 55379 / 445-2277 or 445-6262 12831 ;.ink Dr. • REALITY MATERIAL BUILDING EXCAVATION February 24, 1986 F 8 ij ins. ken Ashfeld nr c 129 E. 1st. Ave. V i�F o Shakopee , 14N 55379 g Dear I-ir. Ashfeld: This letter is in regard to the meeting you had with Mr.Joseph Noter�,.ann and myself to discuss the engineering bill dated January 3, 1986 , for services rendered to South Parkwiew Add. We as the developers feel the bill is too costly for the work that was done. You informed us the rates were set by a council resolution and suggested if we wanted a reduction of the bill we should work through your department to get on the council meeting agenda in order to discuss the Droblem with the council. We would very much appreciate your help in getting us on the next agenda so as to give us an opportunity to discuss our concerns with the city council . Sincerely, Cletus J. Link 12631 Link Dr. Shakopee , MN 55379 445-2277 1- -AC n1 i n //11 n/ n( r B 1 t7 PROC I?�as OF .� SESSION S:-iAKO , MINNESOTA MARCH 4, 1986 Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Cncl. Wampach, Colligan, Lebens, Leroux and Vierling present. Also present were John Y. Anderson, City Ad=.; Kenneth Ashfeld, City Engineer, Julius A. Ccller, II, City Attorney and Judith S. Cox, City Clerk. Liaison reports were given by Councilmembers. Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council on any item not on the agenda, there was no response. The City Administrator gave a review of the tax increment finance (T7F) bill H.F. 2476 drafted by Represent a:' Scr=eiber which has a host of changes to the current tax increment planning thats involved. Leroux/Vierling moved to receive and place on file with a copy to be discussed under Policy and Program issues involving Shakopee Use of Tax ' Increment Financing later on on the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. George Muenchow, Community Services Director, gave a brief update on the recommended 1986 pool/water slide program plan. fie explained that it would be the same as last year. Cncl. Wampach expressed concern over insurance coverage to which Mr. Muenchow answered that if the pool was being operated in the proper manner in his opinion there would be no problem. Colligan/Vierl i*ag moved to continue pool operation for 1986 as done in the past. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Colligan moved to approve the Chamber of Commerce's program to place banners in the existing Christmas tree decoration brackets on light poles along First Avenue, and a7athorize the appropriate City officials t0 purchase seven banners at 8600.00 that Will be City Of Shakopee banners. Poll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes, None Motion carried Mr. Cletus Link of Cletus Link Construction Company, expressed his concern over the high rates being charged him for inspection fees on the South Parkview Addition. The City Engineer replied that the previous engineer spent time conducting independent drainage calculations which resulted in elimination of portions of storm sewers as proposed in the preliminary plat which had resulted in several thousand dollars in savings to the developer. He explained the monthly engineering charges beginning with the preliminary latting process. Discussion followed. Council took no action to adjust he inspection fees. Leroux/Vierling moved to receive and file correspondence of ~ebrua-y 24, 1986 from Cletus Link Construction' Company regarding inspection fees for South Parkview lst Add-n.and review at annual fee schedule adoptions. Motion carred unanimously. Leroux/Lebens moved to authorize proper City officials to execute an amendment -to the developers agz—eement -.,,:Lich deletes recui=ing the installa— tion of two lights at the Iv^ and NW corners of Przhm.—Coli 1st. Addition. Motion c=ried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 2661 A RESOLUTION SETTING FEES FOR CITY LICENSES, PERMITS, SERVICES AND DOCUMENTS BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, that the attached Fee Schedule, dated January 1, 1987 , is hereby approved and adopted by reference in its entirety as though repeated verbatim herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the attached Fee Schedule shall become effective on January 1 , 1987, unless indicated other- wise therein, and Resolution No. 2479 shall be repealed effective January 1, 1987. 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 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CITY CLERK Moviesand Theaters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Scavengers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Gambling, Bingo, Raffles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 License for the sale and set-up of Liquor. . . . . . . . . 1-2 Peddlers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Taxicabsand Drivers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Tobacco. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Shows, Non-Transient Theme Parks, Amusement Parks, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Billiards, Pool and other Game Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Massage Parlors, Saunas, Steam Baths, Heat-Bathing Rooms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Masseur and Masseuse Registration Fee. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Rental of Pat Thielen Rodeo Arena. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Request Vacation of Street, Alley or Easement. . . . . 3 Service Charge for Returned Checks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 BUILDING INSPECTOR/ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR ElectricalInspection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5 PlumbingPermits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6 BuildingPermit Fees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7 Certificateof Occupancy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Fast Tracking Issuance of Building Permits. . . . . . . . 7 GradingPlan Review Fees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8 GradingPermit Fees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 MovingPermit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Fire Protection Equipment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Well and Individual Sewage Disposal Permits. . . . . . . 8 Heating, Air Conditioning, Refrigeration, and Ventilation Permits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-9 Tank and Piping Permit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Permit to Work in Public Right-of-Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 WaterHeaters - New. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Gas Piping Permits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Commercial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Storage Form (Report) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 FINANCE Industrial/Mortgage Revenue Bond Fees. . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 TaxIncrement Financing Fees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 GarbageRates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 SewerService Charges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Standard Service Availability Charge (SAC) units for various commercial, public, and institutional facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-13 Residential SAC Charge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 OfficeCharges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Page POLICE Accident Report Copies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Towing and Impounding of Vehicles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Dog Licenses, Impounding Fees, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-15 PUBLIC WORKS Equipment Rental. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-16 PLANNING Application for Conditional Use Permit. . . . . . . . . . . 16 Application for Variances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Application for Plats, Divisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Application for Rezoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Application for Planned Unit Development. . . . . . . . . 16-17 Application for Fill and Mining Permit. . . . . . . . . . . 17 Application for Sign Permits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Copy of Official Maps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 DevelopersPackage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 ComprehensivePlan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 RecordingFees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 ENGINEERING Department Fees (employees) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-18 Project Plans and Specifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 PermitReview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Plan, Plat and Report Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Storm Water Drainage Utility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 OTHER Application Fee for Variance from or Amendment to the Cable Franchise Ordinance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Res. No. 2661 Adopted 12/16/86 FEE SCHEDULE Shakopee, Minnesota January 1, 1987 Fees are listed by department and are to be updated annually. CITY CLERK/Misc. Business Licenses FEES Movies and Theaters (Authorized by City Code 6. 42 ) 1. Annual fee for showing 16 mm films $ 25. 00 2. Annual fee for showing 35 mm films (or larger) 100. 00 3 . Annual fee for conducting theatrical play( s) 25 . 00 Scavengers (Dumping or discharge of waste) (Authorized by City Code 6 . 43 ) $ . 98/1 , 000 gallons or any part thereof plus $5 . 00 per billing No permit nor fee shall be required for pumping and cleaning cesspools and/or septic tanks. Gambling/Bingo/Raffles Licensed through State Gambling Board, no City fees. License for the Sale of Beer, Liquor, Wine , Set-up License, Liquor License, Club License and Temporary Beer License (Authorized by City Code 5 . 06) 1. Annual fee for On Sale Beer License 312. 00 2. Annual fee for Off Sale Beer License 100. 00 3 . Temporary Beer License 15 . 00pp) 4 . Annual fee for Set Up License 125 . 00 iv0.00) 5 . Annual fee for On Sale Wine License 1/2 of On Sale Liquor or $2 , 000 whichever is less 6. Annual fee for On Sale Club License 300. 00 50.00) 7. Annual fee for Sunday Liquor License 200 . 00 8. Annual fee for Off Sale Liquor License 150 . 00 9 . Application and Investigation fee for Off Sale Liquor License, On Sale Liquor License, or Wine License a) If investigation within Minn. 330. 00 (300.00) b) If investigation outside Minn. City expenses up to $10 , 000 with $1, 100 deposit (//0 00) 10. Annual fee for On Sale Liquor License: Customer Used Floor Area Under 1 , 000 3 ,705. 00 (3370) 1 , 000 - 1, 999 4 ,390. 00 (3990) 2 , 000 - 2 , 999 5 , 080. 00 ( 3 , 000 - 3 , 999 5 ,765. 00 (aggo 4 , 000 - 4 , 999 6 , 445. 00 ,P&O) 5 , 000 - 5 , 999 7 ,140. 00 �&,V 9o) 6 , 000 - 6 , 999 7 , 820. 00is 7 , 000 - 7 , 999 8 , 510. 00 0738 8, 000 - 8 , 999 9 , 195. 00 0358) 9 , 000 - 9 , 999 9 , 875. 00 9978) Over 10 , 000 10 , 570. 00 Other Business Regulations and Licenses (City Code - Chapter 6 - all applicants require a $5 . 00 application fee) r Peddlers (Authorized by City Code 6. 21 ) 1. Weekly License Fee 25. 00 2. Annual License Fee 150. 00 3 . Six Month License Fee 100. 00 Taxicabs and Drivers (Authorized by City Code 6 . 22 ) 1. Annual fee 250. 00 2. Annual taxicab driver' s license fee 25. 00 3 . Annual fee for each vehicle 15. 00 Tobacco (Authorized by City Code 6 . 23 ) 1. Annual fee for Tobacco License 15. 00 Show, Non-Transient Theme Parks, Amusement Parks , etc. (Authorized by City Code 6 . 24) 1. Annual license fee equaling the number of rides x $45. 00 45 . 00/ride 2. Show without rides 75 . 00 3 . Non-Transient Theme Parks As per agreement Billiards , Pool and Other Game Tables (Authorized by City Code 6 . 31 ) 1. Annual license fee for the first table 100. 00 2. Each additional table 50 . 00 Massage parlors , Saunas , Steam Baths, Heat-Bathing Rooms (Authorized by City Code 6 . 40 ) 1. Annual License Fee 2, 000 . 00 2. Initial license requires one time investigation 500 . 00 fee Masseur and Masseuse Reqistration Fee (Authorized by City Code 6 . 41 ) 1. Annual registration fee 100 . 00 Rental of Pat Thielen Rodeo Arena (Authorized by Resolution No. 1910 ) Rental of arena for a period not to exceed seven consecutive days: a. Non-profit organizations within corporate limits of City of Shakopee 0. 00 b. Other non-profit organizations 200. 00 or 15% of gross ticket sales whichever is greater c. Profit making organizations 200. 00 or 150 of gross ticket sales whichever is greater Reauest Vacation of Street, Alley or Easement Hereby set as follows: 1. Request for vacation of street or alley 75. 00 2. Request for vacation of an easement 50 . 00 Service Charae for Returned Checks Hereby set as follows: 1. Service charge for each check returned 15 . 00 BUILDING INSPECTOR/ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR Electrical Inspection (Authorized by City Code 4 . 05 ) 1. Payment of Fees: fees are due and payable to the City of Shakopee at or before commencement of the installation and shall be forwarded to the City of Shakopee. An additional S . 50 State Surcharae must accompany each permit plus S . 50 for inspection forms.- 2. orms.2. Signs: shall be computed in accordance with State Schedule with a minimum fee of 8. 00 3 . Swimming pool 13 . 00 4. Minimum fee for each separate inspection of an per inspection installation, replacement, alteration or repair limited to one inspection only. 8 . 00 5 . Services, change of services, temporary services, additions, alterations or repairs on either primary or secondary services shall be computed separately. a. 0 to and including 200 ampere capacity 10. 00 b. For each additional 100 ampere or fraction thereof 4. 00 6. Circuit, installation of, additions, alterations or repairs of each circuit or sub-feeder shall be computed separately including circuits fed from sub-feeders and including the equipment served. Circuits of 250 volts or less. a. 0 to and including 30 ampere capacity 3 . 00 b. 31 to and including 100 ampere capacity 4 . 00 c. For each additional 100 ampere capacity or fraction thereof 1 . 00 The maximum fee on a single family dwelling or farmstead which is limited to a 200 ampere capacity and limited to three ( 3 ) inspections shall be 40 . 00 with a minimum fee of $13 . 00 per inspection 201 to 400 A maximum fee limited to four ( 4) inspections 80. 00 Additional inspections shall be at the minimum fee as per Section 6G. The maximum fee on an apartment building shall not exceed 18. 00/dwelling unit for the first 20 units and per dwelling unit for the balance 14. 00 A 2 unit dwelling (duplex) maximum fee per unit as per single family dwelling. For circuits over 250 volts double the fee for 250 volts or less. 6A. In addition to the above fees; a charge of $1. 00 will be made for each street lighting standard. B. A charge of $2. 00 will be made for each traffic signal head. C. In addition to the above fees, all transformers and generators for light, heat and power shall be computed separately at $3 . 00 per unit plus 20 cents per KVA up to and including 100 KGA, 101 KVA and over at 10 cents per KVA. The maximum fee for any transformer or generator in this category is $25 . 00 . D. In addition to the above fees, all transformers for signs and outline lighting shall be computed at $3 . 00 for the first 500 VA or fraction thereof per unit, plus 30 cents for each additional 100 VA or fraction thereof. E. In addition to the above fees, (Unless included in the maximum fee filed by the initial installer) , remote controls, signal circuits and circuits of less than 50 volts shall be computed at $3 . 00 per each ten openings or devices or each system plus $1. 00 for each additional ten or fraction thereof. F. For the review of plans and specifications of proposed installa- tions, there shall be a minimum fee of $100 . 00 up to and including $30 , 000 to be paid by persons or firms requesting the review. G. When reinspection is necessary to determine whether unsafe conditions have been corrected and such conditions are not the subject of an appeal pending before the Board or any court, a reinspection fee of not to exceed the original unit fee, or $8 . 00 whichever is less, may be assessed in writing by the Inspector. H. For inspection not covered herein, or for requested special inspections or services , the fees shall be $17 . 00 per man hour, including travel time plus 24 cents per mile traveled, plus the reasonable cost of equipment or material consumed. This section is also applicable to inspection of empty conduits and such other jobs as determined by the Inspector. 7 . For inspections of transient projects including but not limited to Carnivals and Circuses, the inspection fee shall be computed as follows: a. Power supply units - according to section 6C. A like fee will be required on power supply units at each engagement during the season, except that a fee of $17. 00 per hour will be charged for additional time spent by the Inspector if the power supply is not ready for inspection as required by law. b. Rides, Devices or Concessions - shall be inspected as their first appearance of the season and the inspection fee shall be $8. 00 per unit. Plumbing Permits (Authorized by City Code 4. 05 ) 1. Alterations and Repairs - Minimum Fee 12 . 00 + $ . 50 State Surcharge Tax 2. New Construction Residential - Minimum Fee 36 . 00 + $ . 50 State Surcharge Tax Commercial - Minimum Fee 60 . 00 + $ . 50 State Surcharge Tax 3 . Residential Plumbing Permit Fees All fixtures listed below will be figured at 6. 00/each Water Closet Water Softener Lavatory (Basin) Bathtub Floor Drain Laundry Tub Sink Shower Stall Disposal Dishwasher Water Heater (Gas or Electric) Clothes Washer-Standpipe Permit fees for rough-ins for future bathrooms will be $5. 00 per fixture. 4. Replacements Only Water Heater - Gas 12 . 00 1 '� C/ Water Softeners - New or replacement in other than homes under construction (installer must be licensed by the State Board of Health 12. 00 5 . Commercial Plumbing Permit Fees Water Closet, Lavatory (Basin) , Urinal, Individual Shower 6 . 00 Shower - Gang Type - Per Head 4 . 80 Drinking Fountain 6 . 00 Dental Unit 12. 00 Sink - Service or Mop 6 . 00 Flat rim, bar, counter, laboratory 8 . 50 Pot or Skullery 8. 50 Clothes Washer - First five units or less 18 . 00 Each additional unit 3 . 60 Floor Drain - 2 inch 6 . 00 3 and 4 inch 7 . 50 Catch Basin 9. 00 Sewage Ejector 12. 00 Sumps and Receiving Tanks 12. 00 Water Softeners 18. 00 Water Heater - Gas - Replacement Only 24. 00 Building Permit Fees (Authorized by City Code 4. 05 ) Buildinq Value Fees $1. 00 to 500 . 00 $15. 00 501. 00 to 2, 000. 00 $15. 00 for the first 500. 00 plus 2. 00 for each additional 100. 00 or fraction thereof, including 2 , 000. 00 2 , 001. 00 to 25 , 000. 00 $45. 00 for the first 2, 000. 00 plus 9 . 00 for each additional 1 , 000. 00 or fraction thereof, to and including 25 , 000 . 00 25 , 001. 00 to 50 , 000. 00 $252 . 00 for the first 25, 000. 00 plus 6 . 50 for each additional 1, 000. 00 or fraction thereof, to and including 50 , 000. 00 50 , 001. 00 to 100, 000 . 00 $414. 50 for the first 50, 000. 00 plus 4 . 50 for each additional 1, 000 . 00 or fraction thereof, to and including 100, 000. 00 100 , 001. 00 to 500 , 000. 00 $639 . 00 for the first 100 , 000 . 00 plus 3 . 50 for each additional 1, 000 . 00 or fraction thereof, to and including 500, 000. 00 500, 001. 00 to 1, 000 , 000. 00 $2, 039 . 50 for the first 500 , 000. 00 plus 3 . 00 for each additional 1, 000 . 00 or fraction thereof, to and including 1 , 000 , 000 . 00 1 , 000 , 001. 00 and up $3 , 539 . 50 for the first 1 , 000 , 000 . 00 plus 2. 00 for each additional 1, 000 . 00 or fraction thereof Other Inspections Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum charge - two hours ) 30 . 00/hr. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of Section 305 (8) of the State Uniform Building Code 30 . 00/hr. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge - one-half hour) 30 . 00/hr. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans (minimum charge - one-half hour) 30. 00/hr. State Surcharge: (These fees forwarded to the State Treasurer) Less than $1, 000 $ . 50 $1, 000 , 000 or less . 0005 x valuation $1, 000, 000 to $2 , 000 , 000 $ 500 + . 0004 x (Value - $1, 000 , 000) $2 , 000, 000 to $3 , 000 , 000 $ 900 + . 0003 x (Value - $2, 000, 000) $3 , 000 , 000 to $4, 000,000 $1200 + . 0002 x (Value - $3 , 000 , 000) $4 , 000 , 000 to $5 , 000, 000 $1400 + . 0001 x (Value - $4, 000 , 000 ) Greater than $5 , 000 , 000 $1500 + . 00005 x (Value - $5, 000 , 000) Certificate of Occupancy Commercial/Industrial - . 005 times the value of the project, or $500. 00, whichever is greater Residential - . 005 times the value of the project W4 th a $500 . 00 maximum Fast Tracking Issuance of Building Permits Fast tracking building permit process - City expenses up to 1000 of building permit fee with a 30o deposit Grading Plan Review Fees 50 cubic yards or less No fee 51 to 100 cubic yards 15. 00 101 to 1000 cubic yards 22. 50 1001 to 10, 000 cubic yards 30. 00 16 (!�'- 10 , 001 to 100 , 000 cubic yards - 30 . 00 for the first 10 , 000 cubic yards, plus 15 . 00 for each additional 10 , 000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 100 , 001 to 200 , 000 cubic yards - 165. 00 for the first 100, 000 cubic yards, plus 9 . 00 for each additional 10, 000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 200, 001 cubic yards or more - 255 . 00 for the first 200 , 000 cubic yards, plus 4. 50 for each additional 10 , 000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. Grading Permit Fees c� 50 cubic yards or less - 15. 00 51 to 100 cubic yards 22. 50 101 to 1000 cubic yards - 22. 50 for the first 100 cubic yards plus 10. 50 for each additional 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 1001 to 10 , 000 cubic yards - 117. 00 for the first 1, 000 cubic yards, plus 9. 00 for each additional 1, 000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 10, 001 to 100, 000 cubic yards - 198. 00 for the first 10, 000 cubic yards, plus 40 . 50 for each additional 10, 000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 100, 001 cubic yards or more - 562. 50 for the first 100 , 000 cubic yards, plus 22. 50 for each additional 10 , 000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. Mo ing Permit 35. 00 Fire Protection Equipment hereby set as follows; Stand pipes and hose cabinets shall be computed at 1% of the contract plus $ . 50 State Surcharge Tax. Sprinkler Systems shall be computed at $10 . 00 for the first 10 heads and $3 . 50 for each additional 10 heads or part thereof, and $25 . 00 per hour fee for plan check plus State Surcharge Tax. ' Well and Individual Sewaqe Disposal Permits hereby set as follows: Residential: Well 5.50 Commercial: Well 5. 50 Residential: Sewage Disposal 37 . 50 Commercial: Sewage Disposal 37 . 50 Heating, Air Conditioning, - Refriaeration, and Ventilation Permits hereby set as follows: Minimum Fee 9. 00 + $ . 50 State Surcharge Tax Single Family Residence 24 . 00 + $ . 50 State Surcharge Tax Central Air Conditioning ( at the time 6 . 00 of construction) + $ . 50 State Surcharge Tax Refrigerant Systems Permit Fees 3 horsepower or less 9 . 00 over 3 to 15 horsepower 12 . 00 over 15 to 50 horsepower 60. 00 Alterations and repairs Minimum Fee Commercial fee shall be computed at 1 . 250 of the contract plus State Surcharge Tax. Permits shall cover only single installations. Multiple furnaces, boilers, etc. shall be considered separate installations. Tank & Piping Permits hereby set as follows: Underground fuel storage tanks and piping permit fee to be 1.25% of contract plus State Surcharge Tax. Permit to Work in Public Right-of-Way fees set as follows: Permit to work in public right-of-way 15 . 00 When work in public right-of-way requires the submittal of plans and specifications, review of the plans shall be charged in accordance with the hourly fees approved for the Engineering Dept. Water Heaters - New ( Including Pool Heaters ) hereby set as follows: for inputs not exceeding 100 , 000 BTU 9. 00 100, 001 to 200, 000 BTU 12. 00 200 , 001 to 300, 000 BTU 14. 50 300, 001 to 500 , 000 BTU 15 . 00 500 , 001 to 700 , 000 BTU 36 . 00 700, 001 to 1, 000 , 000 BTU 48 . 00 Any fixture not listed above 6 . 00 Rain water Leaders - all stacks 10 stories or less 12 . 00 - all stacks over 10 stories Area Roof Drains (each) 7 . 50 Lawn Sprinkler Systems - Residential 18. 00 Lawn Sprinkler Systems - Commercial (This fee includes water connection from building piping to yard side of siphon breaker) 30 . 00 Commercial plumbing permits to be figured by the above fixture schedule but at the time the permit is to be issued, the .permitee will certify the contract price and the fee will be based on the above method or 1. 250 of the contract price, whichever is greater. Gas Pining Permits hereby set as follows: Minimum Fee 3 . 60 + $ . 50 State Surcharge Tax Residential - Each fixture or applicance 2 . 50 + $ . 50 State Surcharge Tax Alterations and Repairs - Minimum Fee Where the gas piping is divided between two contractors such as the Heating Contractor installing the gas line to the furnace and the Plumbing Contractor doing the balance of the gas piping, each contractor shall take out a permit. Commercial For installation of piping up to and including two ( 2 ) inches in size, providing not over three ( 3 ) openings 11. 00 and for each additional opening 3 . 00 For installation of piping exceeding two ( 2) inches in size, providing not over three ( 3 ) openings 14 . 50 and for each additional opening 4. 00 Enameling ovens, retorts and similar gas burning devices: Fees to be determined as for commercial water heaters. Steam Generators for process use (pressing, dry cleaning, etc. ) : Fees to be determined as per heating code. Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Storage Form (Report) Annual report processing 10. 00 FINANCE - hereby set as follows: Industrial/Mortgage Revenue Bond Fees 1 . Application fee for Industrial/Mortgage 1/10th of 1% of Revenue Bonds application with a $1 , 000 minimum and a $6 , 000 maximum 2. Legal expenses as billed Tax Increment Financing Fees Application fee for Tax Increment Financing 500 . 00 Garbage Rates (Authorized by City Code 3 . 02 ) 1. Urban Residence 5,17) 5. 42/month 2. Senior Citizen in urban residence `3.qy) 4. 13/month 3 . Commercial and non-urban rates not set by the City If Louisville Landfill is closed, rates will be increased by $0 . 70/month. Sewer Service Charges (Authorized by City Code 3 . 02 ) (Effective on the 4/1/83 billing) 1. Quarterly service charge 9 . 00 2 . For every 1 , 000 gallons or part thereof of metered flow or water usage 1. 22 3 . For annalized flow in excess of one million gallons a service charge per million gallons or part thereof of metered flow or water usage 49. 00/ mil-gal 4. Charge for unmetered residential water accounts or new accounts 9 . 10/month Standard Service Availability Charge (SAC) Units for Various Commercial , Public, and Institutional FacJl ties (Mandated by MWCC) (These fees forwarded to MWCC) TvDe of Facility Parameter SAC Units Arenas 110 seats 1 Auditoriums 110 seats 1 Automobile Service (Fast service less than 4 hrs. /car) 2 service bays 1 (Major service more than 4 hrs. /car) 14 employees 1 Ballroom Facility without liquor service 825 sq. ft. 1 Facility with liquor service 590 sq. ft. 1 Bank 2400 sq. ft. 1 Banquet Room Food catered 2060 sq. ft. 1 Food catering with dishwashing 1180 sq. ft. 1 Food preparation and dishwashing 825 sq. ft. 1 Food preparation, dishwashing with 590 sq. ft. 1 liquor Barber Shop 4 chairs 1 Beauty Salon 4 stations 1 Boarding House 5 beds 1 Body Shop (No vehicle washing) 14 employees 1 Bowling Alleys (Does not include 3 alleys 1 bar or dining area) Camps Children' s camps (central toilet 50 aal/occupant and bath) @ 274 gal. 1 Day camps (no meals) 10 gal/occupant @ 274 gal. 1 Labor/construction camps 50 gal/occupant @ 274 gal. 1 Resorts (housekeeping cabins) 60 gal/occupant @ 274 gal. 1 Travel trailer parks w/individual water & sewer hookup) 100 gal/site @ 274/gal. • 1 w/central toilet & showers 75 gal/site @ 274 gal. 1 sanitary dump ( sites w/o hookup) 10 gal/site @ 274 gal. Car Wash (Self-Service) 1 stall 3 Car Wash (Service Station) 6 Car Wash (Requires specification on equipment flow rate and cycle time) Contact MWCC for determination. Churches (For Sanctuary only) 275 seats 1 Remainder use other criteria Cocktail Lounge 23 seats 1 Daycare (Number of children licensed 14 children 1 for) Exercise Area/Gym 700 sq. ft. 1 Game Room 590 sq. ft. 1 General Office Building 2400 sq. ft. Net* floor space 1 Group Home 5 beds 1 Handball and Racquet Courts 1 court 2 *Net - square footage - deduct mechanical rooms, elevator shafts, stairwells, restroom and storage areas. Hospitals (Does not include 1 bed 1 out-patient clinic) Laundromats ( requires water volume for cycle time, 8 cycles per day) 274 gals. 1 Motels and Hotels (assume 2 persons/ room) 2 rooms 1 Nursing Home 3 beds 1 Restaurant (Drive-in) 9 parking spaces 1 Restaurant (Fast food) 22 seats 1 Restaurant 8 seats 1 Retail Stores 3000 sq. ft. net** floor space 1 Rooming Houses 7 beds 1 Schools (Sunday) 55 students 1 Schools (Elementary) 18 students 1 Schools (Nursery) - Number of students licensed for 14 students 1 Schools (Secondary) 14 students 1 Service Station (gas pumping only) 1 Service Station (with service center) 2 Service Station (with service center and car wash) 8 Swimming Pools (Public) 900 sq. ft. pool area 1 Tennis Courts (Public) 1 court 2 Theater 64 seats 1 Theater (drive-in) 55 parking spaces 1 Warehouses 7000 sq. ft. 1 The SAC unit for a facility not included in the above list will be determined by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. A request for SAC unit determination should be made prior to the issuance of the Building Permit. **Net - Deduct mechanical rooms , elevator shafts , stairwells, restrooms and unfinished storage areas. /,) C�- Residential SAC Charge (Mandated by MWCC) (These fees forwarded to MWCC) Residential 475. 00/unit Office Charaes hereby set as follows: 1. Assessment Searches 6 . 00 2. Copy fee General Public . 20 Other governmental/non-profit public service . 07 3 . City Code 25. 00 4. Comprehensive Plan ( see page 15) 25. 00 5 . City Map ( small) General Public 1. 00 Other governmental/non-profit public service . 25 City Map ( large) General Public 2. 00 Other governmental/non-profit public service . 50 POLICE Accident Report Copies hereby set as follows: 1. One page 2 . 00 2. Two pages 3 . 00 Towing and Impounding of Vehicles hereby set as follows: Towing and impounding is done by a private contractor having appropriate impounding facilities. Fees are set by contractor. Dog Licenses , Impounding Fees , etc. (Authorized by City Code 10 . 21 ) 1. Dog Licenses (good for the life of the dog) 5. 00 2. Duplicate license 1. 00 3 . First impoundment 10. 00 4. Second impoundment 20. 00 5 . Third and successive impoundment within a 12-month period 30. 00 6. Amount charged per day when confined to the Pound 3 . 00 7 . In the case of an unlicensed dog or a dog for whom proof of a current rabies vaccination cannot be shown, there shall be an additional penalty of $5 . 00 . PUBLIC WORKS Equipment Rental hereby set as follows: Caterpiller Grader (private) (�g,Do� 65 . 00/hour (State snow removal) ,�,o) 51. 25/hour Front end loader (Fiat-Allis ) private 80 . 00/hour ( State snow removal 2-1/2 yd. w/blowe ,, 53 . 50/hour A Front end loader ( Case) private (&0,00) 80 . 00/hour ( State snow removal 2-1/2 yd. w/o blower) CY6,60) 51. 25/hour Elgin street sweeper �6'.Sdo) 60. 00/hour Littleford pull broom 15. 00/hour 2-1/2 ton dump truck ( single) �33,00) 40 . 00/hour 2-1/2 ton dump truck w/plow (y5,00) 55. 00/hour 5 ton dump truck (tandem) Cy5,Co) 55 . 00/hour 3/4 ton pickups (w/plow add 10. 00 ) (?,,00) 30 . 00/hour 5 ton tandem truck 2 w/plow �&O,00) 65. 00/hour Mower tractor ( turf type) &; ,00) 35 . 00/hour Weed Mowing (rough) (zle,oo) 45 . 00/hour Asphalt roller ( 1-1/2 ton) 15 . 00/hour Pull paver 15 . 00/hour Steamer (w/tender) C55 00) 60 . 00/hour Huber maintainer 25 . 00/hour Wood Chipper C3�,00) 38 . 00/hour Post hole digger (tractor mounted) (3r.00) 38 . 00/hour (w/o tractor) Co,00) 15 . 00/hour Power auger (hand held) 10. 00/hour Sign replacement/installation (0100) 65 . 00/sign (w/o post less $10. 00) Sewer rodder CO3 00) 45. 00/hour (or 55 per foot) (5 0) /CG- Video sewers (w/cassette add $20. 00/each) 600) 45 . 00/hour (or 30 per foot) Sewer jet cleaning CO,Oo) 45. 00/hour (or 55 per foot) (, J�0) Barricades w/flashers 03,00) 7. 00/day Barricades w/o flashers C23,0o) 5. 00/day Cones (3O) 1. 00/day Butuminous Street Repair 1. 50/sq. ft. PLANNING - hereby set as follows: Application for Conditional Use Permit Home Occupations 75. 00 All others 150. 00 Renewal ( same as new) Application for Variances Single Family Residential 50. 00 All others 100. 00 Application for Plats , Divisions (incl. $45. 00 for signing) Preliminary Plat 245 . 00 + $5/lot minimum 145 . 00 + $3/acre, whichever greater Preliminary & Final Plat Concurrently Preliminary fee plus final fee Final Plat ( $50. 00 City Attorney Title Examination) 100. 00 Lot Split 35 . 00 Registered Land Survey 50 . 00 Lot Consolidation 50. 00 Application for Rezoning (incl. $45. 00 for signing) 1 Acre or less 250 . 00 Over 1 Acre 250. 00 Application for Planned Unit Development Preliminary Development Plan 200. 00 + 15. 00/acre Final Development Plan 100. 00 Preliminary and Final Development Plan Concurrently 300. 00 15 . 00/acre Amendment to Final Development Plan 100. 00 Deposit - The Administrator may request the proponent to deposit up to $1 , 000 . 00 for planning, engineering, administrative and legal expenses incurred by the City for the review and processing of the application, any remainder of which will be refunded to the applicant. Application for Fill & Mining Permit 1 - 1000 yards 25 . 00 1000 - 20 , 000 yards 150 . 00 ( C.U.P. Fee) Over 20 , 000 yards 150 . 00 ( C.U.P. Fee) + all consultant fees 2500 . 00 cash deposit required Application for Sian Permit Permanent 20 .00 + $ . 25/sq. ft. Temporary 5. 00 Copy of Official Maps Zoning ( 22" x 3411 ) 2. 00 Special Printed Maps . 25/sq.ft. Topography Maps 50. 00 + 5 . 00/acre Flood Plain Maps . 00 ( free) Developers Package Land Use Regulations ( Zoning) 10. 00 Subdivision Regulations 3 . 00 Sign Regulations 1. 00 Comprehensive Plan 25 . 00 Recording Fees FEES FOR THE RECORDING OF DOCUMENTS RELATED TO PLANNING APPLICATIONS MUST BE PAID BY THE APPLICANT. ENGINEERING - hereby set as follows: Denartment Fees (emnlovees) City Engineer 43 . 00/hour Technician IV C$ �D) 29 .50/hour Technician III (g-,CIO) 27 . 50/hour Technician II Lo� 22 . 50/hour Secretary (/y,00) 19 . 50/hour Salary multiplier 1. 7600 used when an employee ' s rate is not specified above. Project Plans & Specifications Charged at 900 of the fees computed according to Curve B expressed as a percentage of construction costs for projects of average complexity from 1972 ASCE Manual No. 45. Permit Review 1. Commercial 30 . 00 2. Residential 15 . 00 3 . Recheck at 1/2 the original fee Plan, Plat and Report Review 1. Review 30 . 00 2. Plus hourly rate 3 . Recheck at hourly rate Storm Water Drainage Utility City-wide special benefit fee 10.32/ (Payment due within 30 days - a penalty quarter/ of 5% per quarter added to past due amount) REF*-acre *Residential equivalent factor OTHER - hereby set as follows: - 1. Application fee for variance from or amendment to the cable franchise ordinance 25. 00 PLUS Costs of consultants hired to assist the City in considering variance applications will be billed to applicant based on actual cost to the City. Notification will be sent to applicant that consultants will be utilized when that determina- tion has been made. T0: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director f �) RE: 1986 Budget Amendment Resolution No. 2663 DATE: December 9, 1986 Introduction Council has taken action on or approved various actions that impact on the 1986 Budget. The attached Resolution implements those changes and other items as detailed below. Background The changes are; General Fund Finance Salaries -1986 adj 01-4100-151-15 6,185 Comm. Dev. Salaries -1986 adj 01-4100-171-17 5,675 Clerk Capital -microfilm 01-4511-131-13 5,180 Bldg Insp Services -Elect Insp 01-4310-331-33 12,000 Bldg Insp Capital -computer/typewriter 01-4511-331-33 600 Street Capital -flusher & blower 01-4511-421-42 (59,000) Street Capital -snow plow 01-4511-421-42 5,980 Street Supplies -fence screening 01-4210-421-42 3,000 Pool Capital -ref. & slush mach. 01-4511-611-61 1,120 Park Capital -mower 01-4511-621-62 (28,000) Fire Capital -tanker/comp. - (net) 01-4511-321-32 (75,000) Unallocated Contingency 01-4991-911-91 (25,210) Revenue Electric Permits 01-3137 12,000 Revenue Transfer 01-3900 (176,020) Cap. Equip Fund Transfer 17-4710-000-00 (95,000) (less tanker - 70,000, compressor - 40,000, voting equip - 20,000 plus overage for rescue truck - 35,000) Revenue Sharing Transfer 12-4710-000-00 (81,020) (less blower - 29,000, mower - 28,000 flusher - 30,000 plus plow from 1986 - 5,980) The items in the General Fund are funded by contingency, except for the Electrical Inspector which is offset by permit fees. The capital items for the microfilm equip. and the snow plow are carry over from the 1985 Budget. The salary, typewriter and pool items are from prior Council action. The tanker, flusher, blower, mower and voting equipment will not be delivered in 1986 and therefore will not come out of the 1986 budget. Resolution No. 2606 deleted appropriations in General Fund for voting equipment, this resolution adjusts transfers accordingly and reduces contingency to offset appropriation increases ($3,450) contained in Resolution No. 2606. Action Requested Adopt Resolution No. 2663 Resolution Number 2663 A Resolution amending Resolution Number 2457 'adopting the 1986 Budget. WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council did pass Resolution No. 2457 adopting the 1986 Budget, and WHEREAS, subsequent events and circumstances make it desirable to amend said budget, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, that the 1986 Budget is hereby amended as follows; General Fund Clerk Capital 5,180 Finance Salaries 6,185 Community Dev. Salaries 5,675 Fire Capital (75,000) Bldg Inspection Services 12,000 Bldg Inspection Capital 600 Street Capital (53,020) Street Supplies 3,000 Pool Capital 1,120 Park Capital (28,000) Unallocated Contingency (25,210) Revenue Electric Permits 12,000 Revenue Transfer (176,020) Capital Equip. Fund Transfer (95,000) Revenue Sharing Fund Transfer (81,020) 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 MEMO TO: Shakopee City Council � V FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Community Development Director RE: Termination and Decertification of Tax Increment Financing District Number 5 Within Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project Number 1 (Family Chow Mein Restaurant) DATE: December 9 , 1986 Introduction• The purpose of this resolution is to concur with the HRA' s action to decertify and terminate Tax Increment Financing District Number 5. Background: The HRA established Tax Increment Financing District Number 5 on August 7, 1984, and the City Council subsequently endorsed the HRA' s action. Since that date, Tax Increment District Number 5 has not generated any tax-increment income and it is not anticipated to do so in the foreseeable future. It is therefore, prudent, at this time for the HRA to take the necessary steps to terminate and decertify Tax Increment Financing District Number 5 . On October 7 , 1986 the HRA passed a resolution decertifying TIF District Number S. Alternatives: 1. Approve the attached resolution. 2. Do not approve the attached resolution. Recommendation: It is recommended that the attached resolution be adopted. Reauested Action: Move to adopt Resolution #2670 which will concur with the HRA action to terminate and decertify Tax Increment Financing District Number 5. RESOLUTION NO. 2670 Resolution Concurring with the HRA Action Terminating and Decertifying Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 Within Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1 IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Recitals. ( a) On August 7, 1984, the HRA' s Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 was approved and established within the HRA' s Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. l. (b) The HRA' s redevelopment objectives pursuant to which the HRA established Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 , as amended, have been met or amended. (c) Due to change in use of the property within Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 or other factors, Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 has to date generated no tax increment income and is not expected to in the future. (d) The City Council finds that it would be in the best interest of the City of concur with the HRA action to terminate and decertify Tax Increment District No. 5 . 2. Termination of Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 . Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273 .71 through 273 .78 , hereby concurring with the termination by the Shakopee HRA of Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 within the Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1, effective on this 16th day of December, 1986. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward a certified copy of this resolution to the Scott County Auditor. 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 n MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: LeRoy Houser, Building Official ' RE: Pipe Line Meeting DATE: December 2, 1986 INTRODUCTION: On November 25, 1986 , I attended the pipe line meeting at LMC as you requested. The purpose of the meeting was in response to the Mounds View gas line rupture and explosion in which two people were killed. BACKGROUND: The function of the meeting was to develop a coordinated effort of support for both federal and state legislation regulating the construction, maintenance and inspection of both new and existing petroleum and natural gas pipes, and regulate the location of habitable buildings in relation to the location of pipe lines . I have also drafted a resolution for the Council to pass in support of this . It should, I assume, be mailed to Dave Durenberger and Bruce Vento as soon as possible. In addition, I believe the Planning Dept. should be in contact with Northern Natural Gas and have them identify the type of material in the lines, check to see if the pipe line area is adequately marked and identified, what the testing procedures are and how often. Also, by resolution restrict habitable buildings to within 150 ' to 200 ' of the line. If Planning would like me to assist them, I will try to free up the time. RECOMMENDATION AND ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Offer Resolution No. 2666, A Resolution Supporting Federal Legislation Allowing More State Control of Safety Standards Concerning Pipelines Carrying Hazardous Substance, and move its adoption. 2. Direct the appropriate staff to review zoning restrictions establishing the setback from pipelines . LH:cah Attachment RESOLUTION NO. 2666 A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING FEDERAL LEGISLATION ALLOWING MORE STATE CONTROL OF SAFETY STANDARDS CONCERNING PIPELINES CARRYING HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE WHEREAS , the City of Shakopee, MN, is a city and member of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Communities bonded together for common interest; and WHEREAS , the recent Williams Pipeline Company disaster in Mounds View, Minnesota, has demonstrated the potential hazardous condition wherever pipelines exist; and WHEREAS , many metropolitan area cities have pipelines transporting hazardous substances within their surroundings ; and WHEREAS , current federal law preempts state and local authority in respect to pipeline safety standards; and WHEREAS , Senator Dave Durenberger and Congressman Bruce Vento have introduced federal legislation that in part strikes the federal preemption of state and local involvement in pipeline safety, establishes community right to know as to substance being transported through pipelines, and calls for construction methods in new and old pipelines that would detect leakage immediately causing automatic shut down. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Shakopee, MN, strongly supports federal legislation allowing more state control with local input of safety standards concerning pipelines carrying hazardous substance; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Shakopee, MN, urges the Federal Congress to act expediently on this legislation to prevent additional loss of life and property damage disasters through careless transportation of hazardous substances through underground pipelines . Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1986 . ATTEST Mayor of the City of Shakopee Approved as to form this day of 1986 . City Attorney MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator ' FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk`-'!/ RE: Precinct Boundaries V DATE: December 10 , 1986 Introduction• Precinct boundaries will be frozen by state law beginning January 1, 1987 and until January 1, 1992 . Background: State law prohibits changing ward precinct boundaries during a five year period surrounding the census years. Although I believe our precincts are nicely proportioned and see no need for any changes, the State Planning Agency is asking that minor changes be made to our precinct boundaries bringing them into conformance with state law. Precinct boundaries must follow physical features which are acceptable boundaries according to Minnesota state law. The attached ordinance complies with the reommendations of the State Planning Agency. The changes are minor and will not relocate any residents into a different precinct. The attached map shows the two changes being made in Shakopee ' s precinct boundaries. Alternatives: 1) Adopt Ordinance No. 210 changing Shakopee Precinct boundaries 2 ) Do not adopt Ordinance No. 210 Recommendation: Alternative No. 1 Action Requested: Offer Ordinance No. 210, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending- Shakopee City Code Chapter 2 entitled "Admin- istration and General Government" by Repealing Section 2. 20 and by Adopting a new Section 2. 20 and by Adopting by Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Section 2. 99, and move its adoption. JSC/dbs 16 ORDINANCE NO. 210 .Fourth Series An Ordinance. of the. City of Shakopee., Minnesota, Amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 2 entitled "Administration and General Government" by Repealing Section 2.20 and by Adopting a new Section 2.20 and by Adopting by Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Section 2.99. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE? MINNESOTA, ORDAINS-,: SECTION I: REPEAL Section 2.20 entitled "Ward (Precinct) Boundaries" is hereby repealed. SECTION II: A New Section 2.20 adopted as follows: Sec 2.20 Ward (Precinct) Boundaries. The Precincts shall be limited and bounded as. follows; The First Precinct shall be bounded on the South- by Tenth Avenue, on the West and North by the corporate city limits and on the East by Fuller Street to Levee Drive, thence East on Levee Drive to State Highway 169, thence North on Highway 169 to the corporate city limits. The Second Precinct shall be bounded on the south by 11th Avenue and 11th Avenue extended and the corporate city limits, on the West by Fuller Street to Levee Drive, thenceEast on Levee Drive to the State Highway 169, thence North along Highway 169 to the corporate city limits, thence East along the northerly corporate limits of the City of Shakopee to the East corporate limits, thence South along said east corporate limits to the Minnesota River, thence easterly if along the Minnesota River to where it intersects Market Street/extended North to the river, thence South-along Market Street extended and Market Street to 11th- Avenue. The Third Precinct shall be bounded on' the South by the City corporate limitss on the east by Marschall Road to the northerly terminus thereof and thence con- tinuing north: along the bed of the .meandering creekk. to the corporate city, limits along the centerline of the 2linnesota River, thence westerlyalong the city corporate limits to intersect with Market Street and Market Street extended, thence South on Market Street extended and Mari-et Street to 11th Avenue - thence westerly along 11th Avenue to CR-79 thence southerly along CR-79 to the corporate city limits. The Fourth- Precinct shall be bounded on the north, eas.t and south. b.y the corporate limits- of the City of Shakopee and on the west by Marschall Road to the northerly terminus thereof, thence continuing northerly along the bed of the meandering creek. to the northern corporate limits of the City of Shakopee along the centerline of the Minnesota River. The Fifth Precinct shall be bounded on the east by County Road 77 (Apgar Street) on the north by 10th- Avenue and on the West and South by the corporate City limits.. SECTION III: Adopted by reference The general provisions and defienitions applicable to the entire. City Code including the penalty provisions of Chapter l and Section 2. 99 entitled "Violations a Midemeanor" are hereby- adopted in their entirety by- reference as though repeated verbatim herein. SECTION IV: When in force and effect After the adoption, signing and attestation of this. Ordinance, it shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee and shall be in full force and effect on and after the date following such- publication. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this. day of 198 Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk- Prepared lerkPrepared and approved as, to form this 4.11 y of December. 19.86. City Attorney SNAXO PC e ` 'TT CO u NTY -Y�i I / n122w CARVER 'z % o�sco�R-�- Co_�z -i_==" J Yom_ /- (J1�\TI16N IDI TII6N V0� �� 35136 169 R23W 36� R22W 71 T115N /f- 7115NR23W /Troiler Court b- •ve. Mi4le) j - _ — ' - ' purr LL ",-AVG GhiCn90 —\� u16 t6 E a •Vf Y,I�EY � •vE f' � r 16 a aaa❑ �6�a❑a ❑ `~^ AVE • V _ `� A it ii ► TIn❑O�❑f �� OO© Da TIISN R23W •v! ' v O g�� ❑•vf T11504R22W rµ� 300 16OO aa�°❑0���~ 300 '" a IS STATE _5 w sn • Q. e. sn• w « t °Q�OO FOR 3 .� c ®DODO -+- IWOMEN s g OO ' O�aO�o® BOO \_ o 11MF ooOoa�ao o .. u n VI [. 3M 1I Ir-�j�-� • T t 15 l L Ll J-I E '-_I O G I S O G C•Yle CT. aoo = : s � wEnnE � >` � � i �•�t, �c zn • ` Ir — C ; g �y` � 3 r• g J•C.SON t! A i S� E\%,_ Oft $ N UN J P23W R22w 77 f B3 I6 > c,j f mun Ines zT y 14 13 23 21 T115NR23W Y TT //7)�� � TIISN P22w I � � I TO: Mayor and Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: 1987 Pay Plan for Non-Union Employees DATE: December 10, 1986 Introduction Attached is Resolution No. 2665 Adopting the 1987 Pay Plan for officers and non-union employees. Background The pay plan for 1987 has an adjustment of 3.0% built on the comparable worth data that Council has been reviewing for the past few meetings and reached consensus on at the December 2, 1986 meeting. The City Attorney has 3% added to the 1986 amount. Salaries for the Fire Department are unchanged, the firemens hourly rate was raised from $7.35 to $7.50 in mid 1986. The top end of the range for temporary employees was increased approximately 3%. The position of Assisstant Police Chief has been pulled into the pay plan. This position is significantly different than the Sergeants as shown by the comparable worth study and can be in a position to supervise the Sergeants. The position in the pay plan has a 3% increase over 1986. Council may want to discuss having the City Administrator on the pay plan as opposed to having his compensation set within a contract. My own recommendation is to have the Administrator on the pay plan and to have the contract reference the pay plan for the salary. The contract can still cover other terms of employment unique to that position as Council desires. The City contribution to health and life insurance (and dental if provided) is increased by $10 per month. Also attached for Council's information is the revised schedules for comparable worth used to develop the 1987 pay plan. They are based on the "B" schedule that Council directed staff to use at the 12/2/86 meeting. This information was presented to employees on 12/9/86. Alternatives 1. Approve pay plan as presented 2. Modify percentage increase for 1987 3. Delete Administrator position from pay plan 4. Make other modifications Recommendation Alternative 1. RESOLUTION NO. 2665 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1987 PAY SCHEDULE FOR THE OFFICERS AND NON-UNION EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the City Administrator hereby authorized to issue warrants upon the the City Treasury, from and after January 1, 1987 or other date as specified and payable to the duly elected, appointed, or hereby designated and appointed non-union employees of the City of Shakopee, in accordance with the attached 1987 pay schedule dated January 1, 1987 heretofore adopted, or hereinafter adjusted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all aforesaid disbursements shall be made subject to the prevailing conditions of employment and satisfactory performance of all the respective duties and responsibilities as specified in State Law, City Code and Resolutions as adopted, or amended and supplemented from time to time by the Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City contribution for health, life, long-term disability and dental insurance and/or an individualized health care account as may be provided by Council, shall be no more than $225 per month per employee, effective January 1, 1987. All employees shall receive this $10 per month increase over the benefit provided in 1986. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all Resolutions in conflict with this Resolution are hereby repealed and terminated, effective January 1, 1987. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 19 Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 19 City Attorney 1987 PAY SCHEDULE JANUARY 1, 1987 Positions Elected Officials Salary Authorized ------------------ ------ ---------- Mayor $4,200 /yr 1 Councilpersons 3,600 /yr 5 City Employees --------------- See attached 1987 Pay Plan City shall pay 1/10th of the amount shown on the pay plan as its share for the Community Services Director Fire Chief 2,000 /yr 1 Assistant Fire Chief (1st) 1,000 /yr 1 Assistant Fire Chief (2nd) 900 /yr 1 Fire Department Engineer 1,650 /yr 1 1st Ass't Fire Dept. Engineer 1,350 /yr 1 2nd Asst Fire Dept. Engineer 700 /yr 1 Fire Training Officer 1,350 /yr 1 Fire Captain 500 /yr 2 Firemen 7.50 /hr 35 Misc. Temporary Employees from 3.62 /hr N/A to 10.28 /hr City Attorney - Retainer 27,080 /yr 1 CITY OF SHAKOPEE 1987 Pay Plan Step Step Step Step Step Step #1-Start #2-lYr #3-2Yr #4-3Yr #5-4Yr #6-5Yr JOB TITLE 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- City Admin. (b 38,470 41,034 43,599 46,164 48,728 51,293 Fin. Director (-Z) 33,058 35,261 37,465 39,669 41,873 44,077 Police Chief Q 34,937 37,267 39,596 41,925 44,254 46,583 Comm Sery Dir 30,237 32,253 34,269 36,285 38,300 40,316 City Engineer 31,688 33,800 35,913 38,026 40,138 42,251 Comm. Develop. Dir 29,207 31,154 33,101 35,048 36,995 38,942 PW SUPT. 28,133 30,008 31,884 33,759 35,635 37,511 Inspector 27,511 29,345 31,179 33,013 34,847 36,681 City Clerk( 23,865 25,456 27.,047 28,638 30,229 31,820 ------------------------------------------------------ Step Step Step Step #1-Start #2-lYr #3-2Yr #4-3Yr 75% 80% 90% 100% ------------------------------------ Dep. Police Chief 29,437 31,399 35,324 39,249 Planner II 24,430 26,058 29,315 32,573 Eng. Coordinator 23,064 24,602 27,677 30,752 Ass't Bldg Inspect o 22,335 23,824 26,802 29,780 Program Supervisor 21,962 23,426 26,355 29,283 Admin. Asst. 21,626 23,068 25,951 28,835 Tech III/MIS Cord. 21,512 22,947 25,815 28,683 Sr.Act.Clk/Prsnl.Cord. 20,827 22,216 24,993 27,770 Planner I 20,680 22,059 24,817 27,574 Tech IIGO 17,593 18,766 21,112 23,458 Secretary 15,111 16,118 18,133 20,148 Acct1g Clerk 14,502 15,469 17,402 19,336 Clerk/Typist II 14,245 15,195 17,094 18,994 Clerk/Typist I 12,529 13,364 15,034 16,705 Receptionist 12,351 13,175 14,821 16,468 Custodian 12,553 13, 390 15,063 16,737 Footnotes: ®City Administrator - receives 3% increase 1/1/87 and moves up to top step on anniversary date. @Finance Director - receives 3% increase 1/1/87 and moves up to top step on anniversary date. 9 Police Chief - receives 3% increase 1/1/87 and moves up to top step on anniversary date. City Engineer - receives 3% increase 1/1/87 and moves up to next step on anniversary date. (g)City Clerk - receives 3% increase 1/1/87 and moves up to next step on anniversary date. © Asst Bldg Inspector - receives 3% increase 1/1/87 and no step increase until salary does not exceed relative step. ©Tech. II - receives 3% increase 1/1/87 and no step increase until salary does not exceed relative step. Employee Presentation Comparable Worth Implementation for 1987 December 9, 1986 I Background The law and Control Data Study II Time Spent Profiles and Points Appeal Process III Benchmarks and Dollars per Point IV Market Value V Blended Value VI Corridor VII 1986 Value VIII 1987 Pay Plan COMPARABLE WORTH/COMPENSATION STUDY APPEAL PROCEDURE In accordance with the City's grievance policy as contained in Section 18 of the personnel Policy the following steps have been formulated to deal with appeals of employees relating to his or her individual time spent profile and its accompanying job description as a result of the Comparable Worth Com- pensation Study. If an employee feels that with tasks listed or the times associated with those tasks do not accurately reflect the employee's job duties, the employee has the right to appeal. If an individual feels that the methodology used in constructing the study, or some particular phase of the study sghould be questioned, this type of appeal will be heard ultimately by the MAMA Joint Appeals Committee. The following procedure should be followed: 1. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the job description/time spent profile, the employee shall notify his/her immediate supervisor/department head of a request for appeal. Within 20 working days of the receipt of the appeal, the supervisor/department head will discuss with the employee the areas of concern. (In departments where there is a supervisor/foreman and a department head, both will meet with the employee) . A written account of the discussion will be prepared by the supervisor within 3 working days of the discussion and signed by both the employee and the supervisor/department head. The signing of this account does not necessarily indicate that the employee agrees with the outcome of the discussion, but that the employee agrees to the account of the content of the discussion. A copy of the account will be given to the employee and the Administrative office (Personnel Dept. ) . If the employee's appeal is not resolved at this point, the employee may choose to take the appeal to the Appeals Committee (Step 2) . If the appeal is resolved, the resolution will be sent within 3 working days to the Appeals Committee for final approval. 2. An Appeals Committee will be established. The Appeals Committee will be composed of the individual's immediate supervisor, the individual's department head (these may be the same individual) , the Comparable Worth contact person, and the City Administrator. All documentation relative to the appeal, plus a written request for appeal before the. Appeals Committee shall be forwarded to this committee. Within 30 working days of the receipt of the appeal by the Comparable Worth contact person, the Appeals Committee will hear the appeal. The employee may bring individuals to the hearing to support the appeal. The individuals who wish to speak for the individual will be given an opportunity to do so on an individual basis. No decision of the Appeals Committee will be given until all appeals are heard. Within 10 working days of the last appeal heard, all decisions will be released. The decision of the Appeals Committee will be the final level for appeal within the City. 3. If an appeal is not related to an individual time spent profile, but rather to the study itself, such an appeal will be forwarded to the MAMA Joint Study Appeals Committee. A JULY 22, 1986 CITY OF SHAKOPEE COMPARABLE WORTH VALUE TOTALS Points Points Based on Based on August 85 April 86 Points Unrevised Revised Benchmark EMPLOYEE JOB TITLE TSP TSP June 86 --------------------------------------------------------------------- John Anderson City Admin. 118 124 Gregg Voxland Fin. Director 106 107 Comm. Develop. Dir 103 Geo. Muenchow Comm Sery Dir 101 Tom Brownell Police Chief q8 98 Ken Ashfeld City Engineer 98 94 Jim Karkanen PW SUPT. 89 94 John DuBois Dep Chief 89 LeRoy Houser Inspector 84 Judi Simac Planner 83 87 Steven Hurley Eng. Tech III 82 Marilyn Remer Sr/Clerk/Personnel 82 Barry Stock Admin. Ass't. 81 Ron Carlson Patrolman 81 65 Mark McQuillan Program Supervisor 81 81 Ray Ruuska Eng. Coordinator 80 Don Bisek Detective 78 Heitz (Fulton) Ass't Bldg Inspect 78 78 Ken Hanel Sergeant 76 78 Judy Cox City Clerk 75 Earl Fleck Juvenille Off 75 Harry Pass St. Foreman 75 82 Dennis Anderson Police Srgt 74 78 David Nelson Patrolman 73 65 Gerald Poole Patrolman 73 65 T. Dovle Patrolman 72 65 Ron Scherer Patrolman 67 65 Firefighter 64 Gary Nosbusch Patrolman 64 65 Fulton (DeLacey) Tech III 64 65 John Flynn Patrolman 64 65 Joe Honermann LEO 63 53 Todd Brinkhaus LEO 63 53 Bill Doege HEO 60 57 Toni Warhol Secretary 59 Glenn Heyda Parkkeeper 57 53 Wally Lureen Parkkeeper 57 53 Park & Rec Dept. Sec. 56 Howard Heller Park Leadman 56 Pat Pennington Secretary 56 Pat Mohrbacher Secretary 56 T. VanCleve Clerk/Typist 55 Eileen Klimek Acct'g Clerk 55 55 Gerald Dircks HE Operator 55 57 Agnes Unze Clerk/Typist 54 Dick Cheever LE Operator 54 53 Michael Hullander Parkkeeper 53 Cora Hullander Secretary Jeanette Shaner Secretary 52 Laborer PW 51 Gene Jeurissen Mechanic 50 Gorman (Techam) Comm Sery Clerk 50 Clerk Typist 47 ' Receptionist 46 Kathy Lewis Clerk/Secretary 45 4.v Rose Mertz Custodian 37 Loy Marshall Custodian 37 Bernice Lebens Custodian 35 CITY OF SHAKOPEE COMPARABLE STUDY 09-Dec-86 1 2 3 4 5 6 ----------------------------------- - --------- Point Stanton 1986 11 -2%(H&L)^Y Blend 3 Emp. M Beh'ch JOB Prorata Job Stanton Market Adj. Col. 2 51% JOB TITLE Count F Mark VALUE 51% Number Group 5 49% Col. 5 49% ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ©Point Base Prorata = 408.00 City Admin. 1 M X 124 50,592 67 55,000 53,900 52,213 Fin. Director 1 M X 107 43,656 40 43,701 42,827 43,250 Police Chief 1 M X 98 39,984 32 47,000 46,060 42,961 Comm Sery Dir 1 M 101 41,208 56 41,496 40,666 40,942 City Engineer 1 M X 94 38,352 19 41,600 40,768 39,536 Comm. Develop. Dir 1 M 103 42,024 63 37,272 36,527 39,330 PW SUPT. 1 M X 94 38,352 11 35,160 34,457 36,443 Inspector 1 M 84 34,272 21 35,000 34,300 34,286 City Clerk ® 1 F 81 33,048 64 31,542 30,911 32,001 Planner II 1 F 90 36,720 62/63 30,042 29,441 33,153 Eng. Coordinator 1 M 80 32,640 16 30,060 29,459 31,081 Ass't Bldg Inspect 1 M X 78 31,824 20 29,376 28,788 30,337 Program Supervisor 1 M X 81 33,048 55 26,329 25,802 29,498 Admin. Asst. 1 M XX 81 33,048 65 25,836 25,319 29,261 Tech III/MIS 1 M 82 33,456 15/xx 25,190 24,686 29,159 Sr.Act.Clk/Prsnl.Cord.© 1 F 82 33,456 37/65 22,872 22,415 28,046 Planner I 1 M X 82 33,456 62 22,811 22,355 28,016 Tech II 1 M X 65 26,520 14 21,420 20,992 23,811 Secretary 5 F X 56 22,848 47 18,348 17,981 20,463 Acct'g Clerk 1 F 55 22,440 36 17,004 16,664 19,610 Clerk/Typist II 2 F 54 22,032 43 16,692 16,358 19,252 Clerk/Typist I 2 F X 47 19,176 42 14,892 14,594 16,931 Receptionist 2 F X 46 18,768 44 14,903 14,605 16,728 Custodian 2 F 37 15,096 1 19,344 18,957 16,988 St. Foreman ® 1 M 75 30,600 10 28,507 27,936 29,295 Park Leadman 1 M 56 22,848 10/5 29,744 29,149 25,936 HE Operator 2 M X 57 23,256 7 25,896 25,378 24,296 LE Operator 3 M X 53 21,624 3 24,336 23,849 22,714 Parkkeeper 3 M 53 21,624 5 24,253 23,768 22,675 Mechanic 1 M 50 20,400 9 25,688 25,174 22,739 Laborer - PW 0 M X 51 20,808 2 18,720 18,346 19,601 Dep Chief 1 M 89 36,312 31 42,552 41,701 38,953 Police Srgt 3 M X 78 31,824 29 36,899 36,161 33,949 Detective 1 M 78 31,824 28 33,769 33,094 32,446 Juvenille Off O 1 M 75 30,600 28 33,769 33,094 31,822 Patrolman 11 M X 65 26,520 27 30,840 30,223 28,335 2_ Footnotes: A) The City has adopted the use of bench marks where they exist, based on the recommendations of Control Data and the MAMA study committee. 1) Job matches job description from Stanton, bench mark is used. Bench marks based on Stanton job descriptions. 2) No bench mark or job does not match Stanton job description, actual TSP points used. Market value is from corresponding Stanton job or blend of similar jobs. B) Market for 1986 is defined as Stanton Group 5 averages which the pay plans have been based on for several years. C) City Clerk is average of 25 cities with just "City Clerk" title in the metro group. The Stanton average has positions with other duties assigned grouped with the Clerk. D) Planner II is average of entry planner and Senior Planner/Director E) Tech III/MIS Cord. is average market of Tech III (Stanton) and MIS Cord. as per Coon Rapids, Henn. Cty and LOGIS. Stanton had no job classification fitting MIS. F) Sr. Actg. Clerk/Personnel Coordinator is average of Sr. Clerk and Admin. Assistant. Stanton has no personnel classification, most cities classify as Admin. Asst. G) The 51X/49X blend of points versus market is used to meet requirement of law that points carry more weight than market. H) The dollar value per point is assigned based on the Finance Director benchmark which is best fit across the pay ranges that currently exist in the 1986 pay plan and that position is most consistent between the Stanton metro and Group 5 and the current pay plan. I) The 2X adjustment is to reduce market to reflect increased City contribution to health and life package in lieu of pay starting in 1984 . J) Leadman is 20/80X blend of market for Foreman and Parkkeeper. K) Foreman is 50150X blend of market for Foreman and HEO. L) Juvenile Officer's points and job descritpion are closer to Detective rather than to Patrol Officer, therefore the market for Detective is used. There is no Stanton position for Juvenile Officer M) Market definition for 1988 may be updated or changed as survey data from Henn. County and/or MAMA group is available. N) The longevity factor (steps to top) for dept. heads is reduced from ten steps (8.5 years) to six steps (5 years). Pay loses comparability when one group has a longer time frame for a step plan. Six steps is a compromise between previous ten steps and the rest of the employees at four steps. 0) The corridor for 1986 and 1987 is 5X. Any pay within 5% of the new pay plan is considered equitable and will not have an adjustment made. Plan evolution over the next couple of years will be studied with the goal of narrowing the corridor. P) There is no true bench mark for Admin. Ass't. but the CDC study indicated a range of 80 to 85 points as being comparable to a bench mark. Q) Police have a two year contract for 1986 and 1987. 1987 has a 4.5% increase. R) Public Works has not settled yet for 1987. Q CITY OF SHAKOPEE COMPARABLE STUDY 09-Dec-86 7 8 9 10 11 12 -------------------------------------- ------------------ 1986 Blended X change X Adj Q 86 Plan 87 Plan PAY PLAN Pay Rate Old Top 5% +/- +/- 5% 3% Adj. JOB TITLE Top Step Top Step New Top Margin Top Step + col 11 ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ City Admin. 48,279 52,213 8.15% 3.15% # 49,799 51,293 Fin. Director 42,793 43,250 1.07X # 42,793 44,077 Police Chief 45,303 42,961 -5.17% -0.17% # 45,226 46,583 Comm Sery Dir 39,142 40,942 4.60% # 39,142 40,316 City Engineer 41,020 39,536 -3.62% # 41,020 42,251 Comm. Develop. Dir 37,808 39,330 4.03% # 37,808 38,942 PW SUPT. 36,418 36,443 0.07X # 36,418 37,511 Inspector 35,613 34,286 -3.73X # 35,613 36,681 City Clerk 30,893 32,001 3.59% # 30,893 31,820 # # Planner II 30,588 33,153 8.39% 3.39% # 31,624 32,573 Eng. Coordinator 29,856 31,081 4.10% # 29,856 30,752 Ass't Bldg Inspect 28,474 30,337 6.54% 1.54% # 28,913 29,780 Program Supervisor 21,351 29,498 38.15% 33.15% # 28,430 29,283 Admin. Asst. 25,319 29,261 15.57% 10.57% # 27,995 28,835 Tech III/MIS 26,220 29,159 11.21% 6.21% # 27,848 28,683 Sr.Act.Clk/Prsnl.Cord. 21,697 28,046 29.26% 24.26% # 26,961 27,770 Planner I 24,912 28,016 12.46% 7.46% # 26,771 27,574 Tech II 20,736 23,811 14.83% 9.83% # 22,774 23,458 Secretary 18,048 20,463 13.38% 8.38% # 19,561 20,148 Acct'g Clerk 16,744 19,610 17.11% 12.11X # 18,773 19,336 Clerk/Typist II 16,224 19,252 18.66% 13.66% # 18,441 18,994 Clerk/Typist I 14,255 16,931 18.77% 13.77X # 16,218 16,705 Receptionist 14,789 16,728 13.11% 8.11% # 15,989 16,468 Custodian 14,768 16,988 15.03% 10.03% # 16,250 16,737 St. Foreman 26,957 29,295 8.67% 3.67X # 27,947 Park Leadman 25,418 25,936 2.04% # 25,418 HE Operator 25,376 24,296 -4.26% # 25,376 LE Operator 24,357 22,714 -6.74% -1.74X # 23,932 Parkkeeper 24,357 22,675 -6.91X -1.91%. # 23,892 Mechanic 25,854 22,739 -12.05% -7.05% # 24,032 Laborer - PW 19,968 19,601 -1.84% # 19,968 Dep Chief 38,106 38,953 2.22% # 38,106 Police Srgt 35,944 33,949 -5.55% -0.55% # 35,746 Detective 33,534 32,446 -3.24% # 33,534 Juvenille Off 32,333 31,822 -1.58% # 32,333 Patrolman 32,333 28,335 -12.37% -7.37% # 29,951 CITY OF SHAKOPEE COMPARABLE STUDY 05-Dec-86 CITY OF Shakopee 1987 Pay Plan ------------------------------------------------------ Step Step Step Step Step Step #1-Start #2-lYr #3-2Yr 14-3Yr #5-4Yr #6-5Yr JOB TITLE 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- City Admin. 38,470 41,034 43,599 46,164 48,728 51,293 Fin. Director 33,058 35,261 37,465 39,669 41,873 44,077 Police Chief 34,937 37,267 39,596 41,925 44,254 46,583 Comm Sery Dir 30,237 32,253 34,269 36,285 38,300 40,316 City Engineer 31,688 33,800 35,913 38,026 40,138 42,251 Comm. Develop. Dir 29,207 31,154 33,101 35,048 36,995 38,942 PW SUPT. 28,133 30,008 31,884 33,759 35,635 37,511 Inspector 27,511 29,345 31,179 33,013 34,847 36,681 City Clerk 23,865 25,456 27,047 28,638 30,229 31,820 ------------------------------------------------------ Step Step Step Step #1-Start #2-lYr #3-2Yr #4-3Yr 75% 80x. 90% 100x. ------------------------------------------------------ Planner II 24,430 26,058 29,315 32,573 Eng. Coordinator 23,064 24,602 27,677 30,752 Asst Bldg Inspect 22,335 23,824 26,802 29,780 Program Supervisor 21,962 23,426 26,355 29,283 Admin. Ass't. 21,626 23,068 25,951 28,835 Tech III/MIS 21,512 22,947 25,815 28,683 Sr.Act.Clk/Prsnl.Cord. 20,827 22,216 24,993 27,770 Planner I 20,680 22,059 24,817 27,574 Tech II 17,593 18,766 21,112 23,458 Secretary 15,111 16,118 18,133 20,148 Acct'g Clerk 14,502 15,469 17,402 19,336 Clerk/Typist II 14,245 15,195 17,094 18,994 Clerk/Typist I 12,529 13,364 15,034 16,705 Receptionist 12,351 13,175 14,821 16,468 Custodian 12,553 13,390 15,063 16,737 St. Foreman Park Leadman HE Operator LE Operator Parkkeeper Mechanic Laborer - PW Dep Chief Police Srgt Detective Juvenille Off Patrolman D s Footnotes: City Administrator - receives 3% increase 1/1/87 and moves up to top step on anniversary date. Finance Director - receives 3% increase 1/1/87 and moves up to top step on anniversary date. Police Chief - receives 3% increase 1/1/87 and moves up to top step on anniversary date. City Engineer - receives 37. increase 1/1/87 and moves up to next step on anniversary date. City Clerk - receives 3% increase 1/1/87 and moves up to next step on anniversary date. Ass't Bldg Inspector - receives 3% increase 1/1/87 and no step increase until salary does not exceed relative step. Tech. II - receives 3% increase 1/1/87 and no step increase until salary does not exceed relative step. o\ 7 /D4 o Scott County 1986 Salary Data per Stanton Position Actual Co. Ran es© City Ranges Administrator © 56,000 45,500-57,000 48,279© 36,353-49,793 Dep. Admin. 41,900 33,400-44,900 N/A N/A Sr. Planner/Director 39,696 29,532-39,696 27,600-37,808 27,600-37,808 Planner I 23,472 20,904-28,100 18,684-24,912 20,078-26,771 Attorney 48,700 N/A N/A N/A Secretary 16,500 15,168-20,388 12,180-18,048 14,671-19,561- Receptionist 15,036 11,568-15,552 11,088-14,784 11,991-15,989 Clerk Typist II 14,580 13,404-18,024 12,168-16,224 13,830-18,441 Clerk Typist I 11,736 11,004-14,796 10,946-14,594 12,164-16,218 Auditor/Treas/Controller 36,300 N/A 31,239-42,793 31,239-42,793 Sr. Acct'g. Clerk Pending 15,552-20,904 14,208-18,948 N/A Acct'g. Clerk 16,116 13,404-18,024 12,564-16,752 14,079-18,773 Sheriff (Chief) 41,700 N/A 33,071-45,303 33,075-45,221 Assist. Chief n Pending N/A 38,105 38,105�,, Sergeant Pending 22,656-32,340 33,656-35,945 31,400-35,7460 Patrol Officer Pending 20,592-29,400 22,667-32,333 22,463-29,951 Chief Inspector No Listing N/A 25,988-35,614 25,988-35,614 Assistant Inspector 29,100 25,464-34,236 21,360-28,476 21,685-28,913 County Eng. (Dir of P.W. ) 46,400 37,800-50,800 34,071-46,673 N/A City Engineer N/A N/A 29,945-41,020 29,945-41,020 Asst. Co. Engineer 39,288 29,532-39,696 N/A N/A Eng. Aide IV/Tech IV 30,372 25,464-33,252 22,392-29,856 22,392-29,856 Eng. Aide III 25,356 22,512-30,264 19,668-26,220 N/A Eng. Aide II 23,616 18,936-25,464 15,552-20,736 17,081-22,774 Eng. Aide I 15,852 15,552-20,904 12,828-17,100 N/A PW Superintendent N/A N/A 26,586-36,419 26,586-36,419 Street Foreman © Pending 20,604-27,696 26,957 27,947 Mechanic Pending 19,323-24,460 19,989-25,854 18,577-24,032 HEO Pending 18,012-22,776 24,710-25,376 24,716-25,376 Parkkeeper N/A N/A 18,533-24,357 17,919-23,892 LEO Pending 17,659-22,339 18,533-24,357 17,949-23,932 Custodian I 17,451 15,163-20,384 14,768-16,266 12,187-16,250 1. County has settled at +3% for 1987 plus 2% for merit increase which are normally spread to most employees. The County 1986 figures do not include comparable worth adjustments. They are working on their plan. 2. These are 1986 ranges before comparable worth adjustments. 3. These are 1986 ranges after comparable worth adjustments. 4. Position currently has no ranges. 5. Police Sergeant after comp worth - bottom of range is top of officer range plus 75% of difference of top officer and top sergeant including longevity = numbers are totals for information purposes only. COMPARABLE WORTH I . JOINT COMPENSATION STUDY APPLICATION FOR APPEAL HEARING DATE: December 16, 1986 EMPLOYEE JURISDICTION: City of Shakopee Name, address and phone number of contact person for appellants: John Anderson, City Administrator 129 East First Ave. Shakopee, MN. 55379 445-3650 List individuals and positions represented by appeal : Eugene Jeurissen, City Mechanic Specific nature of the appeal (attach extra sheets if necessary) : Position/job value of City Mechanic is considered to be too low in perspective of the City Mechanic ' s value and worth to the City operations. The skill and expertise is not reflected in the comparative survey & worth. Specific corrective action requested: Raise Job Values Name, address and phone number of Employer contact: Marilyn M. Remer, Personnel Coordinator City of Shakopee 129 East First Ave. Shakopee, MN. 55379 C11 f MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ray Ruuska , Engineering Coordinator SUBJECT: Position Reclassification DATE: December 12 , 1986 INTRODUCTION: I request reclassification of my position from Engineering Technician IV to Assistant City Engineer , beginning January 1 , 1987 • BACKGROUND: During my nearly eight-year tenure with the City of Shakopee , I have been paid as a Technician IV. My position description has always been "Engineering Coordinator/Assistant City Engineer" , (See Attachment W . My job duties are better compared to Job No. 18 of the Stanton Salary Survey ( See Attachment #2) . Therefore , because the Comparable Worth Study has no benchmark for my position , I would request that the formula used to comp]Lkte my salary ( 51% T.S . P. and 49% Stanton) incorporate the mean salary of Stanton Job No. 18 for the 49% portion of my salary . ACTION REQUESTED: Council authorization to reclassify my position and pay rate using the above formula . RR/pmp POSITION ?FRPU6,b re< S t� s? �-- l C � POSITION DESCRIPTION POSITION : Engineering Coordinator/Assistant City Engineer DEPARTMENT : Engineering RESPONSIBLE TO : City Engineer Primary Objective of Position : This position is responsible for preliminary design, design and construction administration of municipal public works projects, under the direction of the City Engineer. Examples of Work : Prepares preliminary and final designs for sanitary sewer, storm sewer, roadway and watermain construction under the direction of the City Engineer. Assists in the acquisition of right-of-way for public projects. Reviews plans and specifications submitted by developers or consultants for conformance with design criteria. Supervises design and construction survey work. Prepares estimates of construction cost. Conducts preconstruction conference along with necessary follow-up. Coordinates all inspection work by scheduling inspectors and monitoring the progress of projects under the direction of the City Engineer. Reviews pay estimates and negotiates any work or price changes for approval. Makes final inspection and recommends final acceptance. Approves and monitors Permits to Work in Public Right-Of-Way. Assumes certain responsibilities of the City Engineer in the absence of the City Engineer. Knowledge, Skills and Abilities : Have a thorough knowledge of municipal construction, including acceptable construction practice, construction equipment and contract administration. Position: Engineering Coordinator/Assistant City Engineer Page -2- Have the ability to supervise and train others. Have a knowledge of surveying including an understanding of descriptions and surveying calculations and the skill to operate surveying instruments. Have algebra and communication skills with the ability to deal with the public. Have the ability to work alone without supervision. Desirable Experience and Training : Two-year Technical school graduate and six years of practical experience in municipal engineering and/or surveying or a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering or related municipal engineering field. i ,p SURVEY JOB TITLE: CIVIL ENGINEER II JOB NO. l8 ti SKILL LEVEL VI - Experienced-level Professional civil engineering work, of moderate Typical Titles: CIVIL ENGINEER II to comr•le;: difficulty. ASSISTANT ENGINEER EXAMPLES OF DUTIES - Performs the more complex Professional civil engineering work in the designs construction or maintenance of engineering Projects. May supervise the work, of er.sineering aides and contract construction work. MINIMUM OUALIFICATIONS - Bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering or eauivalent Plus 3-5 nears' government engineering experience OR eauivalent. NOTE - In the smaller units of governments this Position is often the Assistant Engineer. $is$$Itit$Stili$$ttitltllitl!#tttttilitt►tt#tttt122ltt111#ttilttttt!lfttt/itlitftttllttlttlttittttttttlUtt#lltttllltl#ttlltl#Illi!#ttttttttltttttttittlttttil►ttktltttttttttttit#llttt#ittittlistit U RATE RANGE LONGEVITY SALARY FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION N EXCLUDING LONGEVITY IF APPLICABLE NO I 0 OF MEAN 0 / REG NO OF YRS TO NO YRS TO JURISDICTION EMPS SALARY 2200 2450 2700 2950 3200 3450 3700 N T -ENG TITLE MIN MAX SEEPS MAX MAX STEPS MAX it11tt11tttllttittll►tttttttlttilitt121/1#lit$$tittttit f►ttlilttll►ttttttititlit#ttitlitttttttittitilti#tlillitttlttttttlltittfi#tl#tittttt##flit►ttltillliltt►ttiilitltiltttktill$$titltiklk#t it tit STATE OF MINNESOTA 151 3023 1 21 37 20 72 Y N Y ENGINEER SR 2419 3264 9 12 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 4 2669 1 1 2 N N N SENIOR ENGINEER 5126 2292 3544 GROUP STATISTICS : 3019 at: 2808 Q2: 3142 03: 3264 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COM 22 3062 2 4 4 4 1 7 Y Y Y STAFF ENGINEER II AND 111 2121 3633 GROUP STATISTICS : 3062 01: 2672 02: 3119 03: 3629 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HENNEPIN COUNTY 8 3435 1 1 1 1 4 N N Y PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER 2493 3684 I1 15 3767 It 15 RAMSEY COUNTY (1986 ADJUSTMENT FENDING) N N Y ENGINEER 11 2558 3233 7 5 3566 2 15 MINNEAPOLIS 20 3713 1 1 18 Y N Y ENGINEER It 2691 3753 7 6 3797 4 24 ST. PAUL 6 3534 1 2 3 Y Y Y CIVIL ENGINEER 111 2769 3639 7 5 3857 2 IS GROUP STATISTICS : 3616 01: 3475 02: 3779 03: 3779 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ANOKA COUNTY 3 2710 3 N N N PROJECT SUPERVISOR 2023 2710 WASHINGTON COUNTY 1 2258 1 N N Y DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING 2010 2258 6 5 2308 2 12 SCOTT COUNTY 1 3274 1 N N N ASST COUNTY ENGINEER 2461 3308 13 GROUP STATISTICS : 2732 01: 2484 02: 2710 03: 2992 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BLOOMINGTON 5 3223 2 2 1 N N Y ENGINEER (VARIOUS) 2200 4225 BROOKLYN PARK 1 3585 1 N N Y TRAFFIC ENGINEER 2984 4031 COON RAPIDS 1 3192 l N Y N ASST. CITY ENGINEER 2680 3323 MINNETONKA 2 2927 1 1 N N N PROD ENGi ASST CTT ENG BURNSVILLE 1 3672 1 N N N ASST CITY ENGINEER 2876 3672 6 5 PLYMOUTH (1986 ADJUSTMENT PENDING) N N N ASSISTANT ENGINEER 2583 3583 AA or A A A M M A d'1 A A 0%, A n 01 4% .n r.• In, ,r. o" CIVIL ENGINEER II (Continued) JOB NO. 18 I$*It$$I It*It It t$#ltttttttl##$tit*$It$It$Itlttlit#t#It#tt##tt#1#lA##t#lilt#tt#AIItit# #t##tt#ttIttttt#####tett####tt#*ttIit#t*#1#tt*$it##*Itit tit tt#t##tiItit It tttlttl4till$##it####1*t#ktttttIAI tit U RATE RANGE LONGE':ITY SALARY FR'EGUENCY DISTRIBUTION N EXCLUDING LONGE':IT'f IF AFF'LICABLE NO 1 0 OF MEAN 0 / PIG HO OF YRS TO NO YPS TO JURISDICTION EMPS SALARY 2200 2450 2700 2950 3200 3450 3700 N T ENG TITLE MIN MAX STEPS MAY. MAX STEPS MAX to$to*$It*#ttt#t1#t#t$t#ttlltt#tillIt**####t#til#tit##t#t*til$lttttl$t$##A$tlt$$$It#1##l$tttt#$#l$###tit#*itttlltill*$$t##ll#$t#t#1#1#tttttt$It*t#t$1$1111#1#1ti1$#$41#$$*$it$$itItttttttt##I tit Itit ROSEVILLE 1 2681 1 N N N ASST CITY ENGINEER 2692 3775 EAGAN 1 2881 1 N N Y ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER FRIDLEY 1 3354 1 N N Y ASST PUBLIC WORKS DIR MAPLEWOOD 1 3000 1 Y N Y ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER 2772 3000 3 2 3356 4 16 MAPLE GROVE 1 3125 1 N N Y ASSISTANT CITY ENGR, EDEN PRAIRIE 1 2808 1 N Y Y CIVIL ENGINEER GOLDEN VALLEY 1 3376 1 N N N ASST CITY ENGINEER 3072 3376 4 2 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS (1986 ADJUSTMENT PENDING) N Y N ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER 2716 3086 5 3 HOPKINS 1 3025 1 N N N DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING WOODBURY 1 3041 1 N N Y ENGINEER HASTINGS 1 2523 1 N N Y ASSISTANT ENGINEER 2474 3015 10 ll 3106 3 15 GROUP STATISTICS 1 3116 011 2917 021 3105 031 3328 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 236 4 2 50 36 82 11 25 OVERALL SUMMARY STATISTICS SALARY DATA EMPL MEAN P10 01 02 03 P90 3111 2608 2008 3206 3264 3731 10 To: Mayor, Councilmembers Date: December 15, 1986 From: Police Department Sergeants Re : Objection to use of Comparable Worth to set 1987 Salaries On December 15, 1986 Sgt. Dennis Anderson of the Shakopee Police Department contacted the State of Minnesota, Department of Employee Relations in an attempt to clarify the use of a Comparable Worth Study in determining salaries for the Police Sergeants in 1987. Sgt . Anderson spoke with David Lutz, Comparable Worth Coordinator for the State of Minnesota Department. of Employee Relations. Below are the results of that conversation. Q. What was the intent of the Comparable Worth Act and was it intended for use as a means to devalue job classifications? A. The sole purpose of the Comparable Worth Act was to address sex based pay discrimination. Traditionally in the area of clerical staff and in areas of male dominated or female dominated classifications in which equal pay for equal work was at issue. Q. Was it ever the intent of the Comparable Worth Act to be used as a tool to restructure pay scales within the particular political subdivisions current salary structure? A. Definitely not. It was designed for the purpose of bringing salaries of underpaid employees into line with salaries of other employees within the classification doing the same work, with the same skill levels and knowledge. Q. Has Comparable Worth been implemented at the State Level and if so how was the transition received? A. Yes it has and it was received very well . There have been no objections to the implementation. Q. Did the State restructure salaries to achieve its goal? A. Yes, but only in those classifications where inequities existed. These were mainly clerical positions. Q. I called a representative of the City of Shakopee on Friday, December 12, 1986 in an attempt to get information on development of the program, how values It r were derived, etc. and was told that this information would not be understood by a person of average intelligence. Do you agree that this is true? A. No. If the development of a system to be used, the information used to initialize the program and the results are too complicated or too complex to be explained and understood by the average person, then the program itself is questionable . To get cooperation in any endeavor requires the total and complete understanding by those affected. The State of Minnesota spent approximately $50. 000 to complete the study and implement the program to the satisfaction of its 35, 000 employees. The Metropolitan Area Managers Association (MAMA) group, of which Shakopee is a member, spent considerably more money- for their study than did the State and have considerably less employees. Q. The City of Shakopee is trying to become the first city in the metropolitan area to implement the program. How does one compare their program to another City if no one else has implemented the program? A. You do not compare programs between one city and another. You only compare classifications within the program with the classifications of another program. How this is done is by market evaluation. The main point that should be the focus of comparability is " Is our pay structure comparable to a city of the same size, with approximately the same number of employees, employee classifications and environment that we could request applications for employment and receive applications from employees of those cities based on comparable pay?" Q. Historically, how do Police Departments rate as far as comparable worth? A. Police Departments usually do not have a problem because of the union contracts. Any sworn personnel hired by a police department comes under the purview of the union agreement and is given equal status, equal pay and benefits whether it is a male or female employee. Q. Based upon our discussion do we have a basis for objection to implementation of Comparable Worth? A. If you feel that the City is using the guise of Comparable Worth to devalue your present salary, you or anyone of the employees do not understand the Comparable Worth results and cannot be given an explanation of the program that can be understood by everyone, then yes, I would say you have valid grounds for objection. Based on the foregoing information we , the Sergeants of the Shakopee Police Department, object to any 1987 pay and benefit proposal based on the Comparable Worth study that has been presented to the employees of the City of Shakopee for the following reasons: 1) That the City of Shakopee is using the Comparable Worth study as a means to devalue certain positions within the City of Shakopee' s pay structure and in particular those of the Police Departments sworn personnel . 2) That the City of Shakopee is using the results of the Comparable Worth Study for purposes in which the Comparable Worth Act was not intended. 3) In as much as the City of Shakopee is attempting to become the first City to implement Comparable Worth, there is no way of determining if the salary structure is comparable to that of any other city. 4) The City of Shakopee has not presented the employees of the City with a satisfactory explanation of Comparable Worth, the results of the Comparable Worth Study or information used to determine Job value, point base prorata or any other aspect of this study. MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Enginee x*� SUBJECT: Reclassification of Technician III DATE: December 16 , 1986 The proposed 1987 pay plan indicates that John DeLacey is included in the pay plan as a Technician II. John was hired as a Tech III and has recently successfully completed his probation period performing all expected duties of a Tech III . I respectfully request a review of his proposed reclassification to Tech II as per the comparable worth analysis. KA/pmp J TO: Mayor and Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Sergeants Pay Resolution for 1987 DATE: December 12, 1986 Introduction The pay and benefits for the Police Sergeants needs to be determined for 1987. Background The Sergeants have historically had the same the pay and benefits of the union contract for Police Officers with additional pay for Sergeants. The resolution for 1987 continues that arrangement with two exceptions. One, the Sergeants additional pay is reduced to bring their total compensation into line with the comparable worth plan for 1987. Their net increase for 1987 is 2.43%, compared to the Officers 4.5%. The Sergeants are still about $3,030 higher per year than an Officer. Second, the Sergeant assigned as Assistant Chief of Police is kept with the same benefits but the pay is set by the pay plan of the City. His comparable Worth Time Spent Profile is significantly different than a Sergeants and is in a position to supervise a Sergeant. His current pay is within the comparable worth plan 5% range and by being on the pay plan would get a 3% raise for 1987. Council may want to discuss those two issues; one splitting the Sergeants from a blanket increase with the officer's union and two, putting the Assistant Chief on the pay plan for salary only. The Assistant Chief would in effect be grandfathered into the Sergeants group so as not to lose any benefits, or have any civil service complications by going on the pay plan. Alternatives 1. Adopt Resolution No. 2664 as drafted. 2. Amend Resolution to give Sergeants 4.5% increase on Sergeants pay. 3. Amend Resolution to keep Asst. Chief completely within Sergeants group and not on pay plan. This affects the adoption of 1987 Pay Plan where Asst Chief is included. 4. Combination of above. Recommendation Alternative no. 1. Action Offer Resolution No. 2664, A Resolution Establishing A Pay And Benefit Agreement For Ploice Sergeants For 1987 and move its adoption. RESOLUTION 2664 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PAY AND BENEFIT AGREEMENT FOR POLICE SERGEANTS FOR 1987 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shakopee wishes to establish a formal pay and benefit agreement for Police Sergeants in the City of Shakopee, and WHEREAS, said Police Sergeants wish to establish a formal pay and benefit agreement with the City of Shakopee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. That said 1987 pay and benefit agreement for the Police Sergeants who are not assigned or appointed as Assistant Chief of Police is inclusive of the pay and benefits in Local No. 320's labor agreement with Police Officers effective January 1, 1987 through December 31, 1987. 2. That Police Sergeants not assigned or appointed as Assistant Chief of Police be compensated at the rate of $152 per month over top patrolman for the first 12 months in grade and, thereafter $253 per month over top patrolman, effective January 1, 1987. 3. That Sergeant that is assigned or appointed as Assistant Chief of Police is to be paid based on the 1987 Pay Plan of the City of Shakopee and shall receive the benefits included is Local No. 320's Labor Agreement with Police Officers effective January 1, 1987 to December 31, 1987. 4. That said Police Sergeants understand and acknowledge their responsibilty to effectively evaluate those they supervise as directed by the Chief of Police. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Resolution No. 2509 be rescinded in it's entirety. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 1986. ATTEST: Mayor of the City of Shakopee City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 1986. City Attorney Det. Sgt. John J. DuBois Sgt. Kenneth F. Hanel Sgt. Richard R. Kaley Sgt. Dennis Anderson TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Personnel Policy Amendment DATE: December 11, 1986 Introduction Resolution Number 2667 amends the Personnel Policy to provide for an appeal panel for employees. Background The 1986 Goals and Objectives list item 1.22 as establishing a three member appeal committee to hear employee appeals of a judgement against them or a complaint by a citizen against an employee. The hearing to be in a closed setting. Resolution Number 2667 provides for that committee. Alternatives 1. Adopt Resolution No. 2667. 2. Do not adopt Resolution No. 2667. Recommendation Alternative number 1. Action Offer Resolution Number 2667. RESOLUTION NO. 2667 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE PERSONNEL POLICY ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 1571 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1571 was adopted by the City to provide reasonable and clear expectation of the conditions of employment for it's employees; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend certain sections of Resolution No. 1571 from time to time to maintain reasonable and clear conditions of employment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that SECTION 18, GRIEVANCE POLICY, of the City of Shakopee Personnel Policy is hereby amended by adding the following paragraph: The employee may request a hearing before an appeal committee. This Committee shall also hear cases where an employee is accused of wrong doing by a citizen. The committee shall be comprised of two Councilmembers and the City Attorney. Councilmember's names shall be drawn by lot on a case by case basis. The hearing shall be closed and not subject to the open meeting law. Appeals to this committee must be filed within 30 days of the judgement. The employee still has the right to appeal to the full City Council. 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 MEMO TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Tom Brownell, Chief of Police RE: Hiring Police Patrol Officer DATE: December 15, 1986 INTRODUCTION: Council authorized the hiring of one police patrol officer to replace a position created by a retirement effective January 1, 1987. BACKGROUND: The Shakopee Police Civil Service Commission has completed the required evaluation process . Bryan David Koch, a licensed police officer employed with the City of New Prague Police Department, placed first in the process . RECOMMENDATION: Appoint Bryan Koch to the position of probationary Police Patrol Officer at a starting salary of $23, 687 . 40, the first step of the 1987 contract effective January 12, 1987. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Appoint Bryan Koch to the position of probationary Police Patrol Officer at a starting salary of $23, 687. 40, the first step of the 1987 contract effective January 12, 1987 . TB:cah A MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Community Development Director RE: Acceptance of Resignation and Advertising for Planner II Position DATE: December 15 , 1986 Introduction: Judith Simac has resigned her position as Planner II with the city, effective January 6, 1987 ( see letter attached) . Background: The Planner II position is a permanent full-time position with a salary range of $24,430 to $32, 573 (according to the proposed 1987 pay plan to be considered by the City Council December 16th) . Alternatives: 1. Accept Ms. Simac' s resignation and advertise to fill the Planner II position. 2. Accept Ms. Simac ' s resignation and do not advertise to fill the Planner II position. Recommendation: Alternative number one above. Action Requested: Move to accept Judith Simac' s resignation and authorize the advertisement for the filling of the Planner II position. Judith M. Simac F.O. Box 114088 lien Prairie, It 5534 December 15, 1986 MT. John K. Anderson City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 Past First Avenue Shakopee, NN 55379 Dear John, I am resigning my position of City Planner effective January 6, 1987. My spouse has accepted a position in Charlotte, North Carolina and -e trill be leaving :snnesota on or about January 12, 1987. I would like to thank the City Council and the members of the staff for their support, encouragement and friendship. Ny best x0shes for the success of the County Road 18 bridge, do-n tawn redevelopment and residential growth. Yours truly, Th .�!m2C., Judith A Sima.c >IG MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Community Development Director RE: Meeting Notice Alteration DATE: December 16 , 1986 INTRODUCTION: It has been brought to the City' s attention that "forged" meeting notices for the December 9th public hearing on the Downtown Streetscape and Street Improvement Project were circulated prior to last Tuesday' s meeting. These notices conveyed false information about proposed project assessments. The Council should discuss possible courses of action to take as a result of this occurance. BACKGROUND: Prior to the public hearing on December 9, 1986 at the Citizens State Bank Building, the City published legal notice of this meeting. The notice included information on the time and place of the meeting, the general nature of the improvements, the area to be assessed and the estimated total costs of all improvements. Prior to the meeting of December 9th, unknown person or persons distributed information which included a copy of the City' s public meeting notice absent the signature of the City Clerk. At the bottom of the notice there was an additional paragraph which indicated what the assessment for the individual property would be along with the need for people to attend this meeting if they were opposed to the project and the specific assessment for their property. The purpose of the meeting was to make property owners aware of the general nature of the improvements and to set a total maximum value for project improvements. Of course, at this time the City Council has not determined the total magnitude of the project nor have they determined the formula to be used for assessing individual properties. The forged notice presents information in such a manner as to lead one to believe that the City has, in fact, established a firm amount to be assessed against individual properties. This is not true. The altered notices most likely did stimulate meeting attendance. I had an opportunity to discuss this matter with the City Attorney and he indicated that ( 1) the document is a forgery in that it purports to state what an assessment is going to be on an individual property, when in fact no determination has been made, and ( 2 ) the City should consider publishing a disclaimer notice so that the erroneous information conveyed by this altered notice can be properly dealt with. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Authorize the publication of a disclaimer statement on this bogus public notice. 2 . Do nothing on the subject at this time. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that alternative #1 be pursued. ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the staff to publish a disclaimer notice on the individual property assessment amounts for the Downtown Streetscape and Street Improvement Project. Notice of Disclaimer It has been brought to the attention of the City Council of the City of Shakopee that another party distributed unofficial notices prior to last Tuesdays (December 9, 1986 ) public hearing for the proposed Downtown Street and Streetscape Improvements. This notice outlined the general nature of the project as did the City' s official notice. It then erroneously included a specific assessment amount which was reported to be the assessment for individual properties. The Shakopee City Council is still discussing alternatives. It has not made any determination relative to what specific assessments will be nor has the City Council even determined the total magnitude of the project nor the assessment ratio formula to be utilized. The only determination that the Shakopee City Council has made on this subject at this time is that if the project goes forth the total estimated cost of the project will not exceed $2 , 849 ,355 . 00 . No specific property assessments have been made at this time. For further information please contact the Shakopee City Hall at 445-3650 . City Clerk