HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/06/1988 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items
DATE: September 1, 1988
1. Rod Krass has contacted attorney Barry Anderson representing
the Scherber-Clark property owners. Mr. Anderson stated
that they will be using a planner at their September 23rd
condemnation hearing so the City will be utilizing Mr.
Hoisington's services.
2. City Council will be acting on a memo from Chief Tom
Brownell assigning Officer Lawrence to the position of
Detective. The assignment to Detective duties is not a
competitive promotional position covered by the union
contract or civil service. We under that the Police Union
may grieve this action which we have carefully reviewed with
Cy Smythe from Labor Relations Services.
3. The Shakopee Rotary Club has applied for a gambling license
to sell pull tabs at the Pullman Club. They meet the
requirements of the City Code.
4. R. Hanover, Inc. , better known as Richard's Pub, has filed
for Chapter 11 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in St. Paul.
Richard's has paid taxes due to date and still carries the
appropriate insurance.
5. The City Clerk apologizes to Council for the delay in
receiving the July 5th minutes. Jakki Menk returned the
computer and disk on August 8th when she resigned as
Recording Secretary. When our secretary went to print the
minutes, they had not been saved on the disk and for
whatever reason were lost so Judy had to reconstruct the
minutes from her notes and from listening to parts of the
tapes.
6. Attached is the calendar for upcoming meetings in September
of 1988.
7. Attached is the copy of the letter that Julius Coller sent
to the State Attorney General on the City's ability to
guarantee or insure a loan for the proposed Hockey
Association facility at the mall. The request has not been
drafted as a simple yes or no question because Jim O'Meara,
our bond counsel, and Jack Coller agreed that we would
probably get an automatic no unless we cited the specific
enabling legislation we believed was appropriate. It is for
that reason that the opinion requests approval for an BRA to
establish a reserve account under Section 469.152 to 469.165
of the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act.
8. When Dave Hutton was hired as City Engineer from West Bend,
Wisconsin he was registered in Wisconsin which had
reciprocity with Minnesota. Dave now has his Minnesota
registration (attached) .
9. Attached is a copy of the letter I received Grace Novak,
2061 Vierling Drive, expressing her interest in a retirement
home in Shakopee. Also attached is a copy of my response to
her.
10. Attached is a letter from Gerald L. Hart, President of St.
Francis Regional Medical Center comparing St. Francis fees
on selective illnesses with the cost of other facilities in
the Metropolitan area. St. Francis ranks extremely well.
11. Attached is a letter from the Chicago and Northwestern
Transportation Company to David Hutton regarding the
controversy over the 3rd Avenue railroad crossing that goes
to City Wide Insulation. We have informed City Wide and Mr.
Steve Hentges that if they wish to relocate the right-of-way
they should take the initial action to petition the
Minnesota Transportation Regulation Board and that will
support their petition.
12. Attached is a memo from Dennis Kraft regarding the status of
Murphy's Landing.
13 . Attached is a memo from Dennis Kraft regarding an additional
appointment to the Comprehensive Plan Task Force.
14. Attached is the September "Business Update From City Hall."
15. Attached are the minutes of the July 6, 1988 meeting of the
Downtown Ad Hoc Committee.
16. Attached are the minutes of the August 4, 1988 meetings of
the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and Planning Commission.
17. Attached are the minutes of the August 25, 1988 meeting of
the Planning Commission.
18. Attached are the agendas for the September 8, 1988 meetings
of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and Planning
Commission.
19. Attached are the minutes of the July 6, 1988 meeting of the
Community Development Commission.
20. Attached is the agenda for the September 7, 1988 meeting of
the Community Development Commission.
21. Attached is the Ehlers & Associates Inc. bi-monthly
newsletter.
JKA/jms
September 1988
UPCOMING MEETINGS
SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SRT
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Labor Day 7:00pm City 5:00pm CDC 7:30pm
City Hall Council Planning
Closed Commission
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
4:30pm 8:00pm City 7:45am 7:00pm
Public Council - Downtown Energy &
Utilities Bypass Map Committe Transp.
Hearing
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
7:00pm 7:00pm City 7:00pm City
Community Council Council -
Recreation Budget
UorKsessi-
on
25 25 27 28 29 30
7:00pm City
Council /
CDC /
Downtown
Committee
Hugust October
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 1
7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31
7
Julius A. COLLEH, R
a Axrc, NEY AT LAw
SH ROPES,MINNESOTA
55329 F:arr� PLZ
August 18, 1988
AUG- 21988
Mr. Hubert H. Humphrey III CiTY OF SHAKOPEE
Attorney General _
State of Minnesota
State Capitol
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Dear Sir:
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Shakopee,
Minnesota (the "HRA") is interested in assisting the redevelopment and
revitalization of an existing shopping mall in the City of Shakopee,
This shopping mall has throughout its history experienced significant
vacancy rates. Substantial portions of this mall have never been finished
and at the present time in excess of 50% of the available space remains
vacant.
The owner of the mall has proposed making a number of improvements to the
mall. One element of this proposed renovation involves the owner essen-
tially giving to the Shakopee Hockey Association (the "Association"), a
non-profit Section 501(C)(3) organization, a portion of the shopping center
property. The Association would then construct, own and operate an ice
skating facility (the "Project") on this property. The Project would
be attached to the mall and would generate additional traffic through the
=11 and, it-is believed, enhancecommercial viability and utilization.
In order to finance the Association's construction costs, it has been
proposed that bonds or similar obligations (the "Obligations") be issued
pursuant to the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act as now
codified in Minnesota States, Sections 469.152 to 469.165.
It has been further proposed, in order to enhance the credit of the Obliga-
tions andthereby to make the related financing to the Association cost
effective, that the BRA .establish and fund a debt service reserve account
(the "Account") which would secure the repayment of the principal of and
interest on the Obligations. The Account would not be a primary source of
payment of .the Obligations but would be used only in the event of default
by the Association, as. primary obligor under the Obligations.
The source of funding for the Account would be available tax increment gen-
erated from the HRA's existingpedevelopment-Project Area. We are aware
that the 1988 Legislature made certain amendments to the tax increment
financing law which would proscribe the use ofcertaintax increments for
such purposes, and no such: increments would be used to fund this Account.
Based upon the foregoing information, we request your opinion of the
following question:
M. Hubert H. Humphrey, III -2- August 18, 1988
:'QUESTION
Assuming that the HRA made the appropriate amendments to its existing
Redevelopment District and Redevelopment Plan, including the making of
necessary findings relating to the need and purpose of its assistance to'
the proposed Project, may the HRA, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
469.176, Subdivision 4, or other law, use legally available tax increments
to fund and maintain the Account for'.the above-described purposes?
It is imperative that the City have the answer to the above question_ as
early as possible as time is of the essence.
Thank you for your prompt consideration.
Very truly yours,
Julius A. Collar, II
Shakopee City Attorney
JAC/bpm
g
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: David Hutton, City Engineer-
SUBJECT:
ngineerSUBJECT: Minnesota Professional Engineer Status
DATE: August 15, 1988
I recently became registered as a Professional Engineer in the
State of Minnesota. Attached is a copy of my license for your
reference.
I believe this fulfills one of the conditions of my employment
with the City of Shakopee, namely that I become registered in
Minnesota within 6 months of my start date.
cc: Marilyn Remer
f
3fttfe of �innesuftt
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING LAND
SURVEYING AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
402 METRO SQUARE ST PAUL MN 55101
HAS ISSUED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE
COMPUTER NUMBER 1339628 LICENSE NUMBER 019133 3
T'a;DAVID E HUTTON
2005 VIERLING DRIVE
SHAKOPEE MN 55379
<s EFFECTIVE DATE ERPIDATIDN DATE
' 07-25-88 0000-0000 00-00-00 06-30-90
CITY OF SHAKOPEE o _.
INCORPORATED 1870
129 EAST FIRST AVENUE, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379-1376 (612)"5-3650
August 26, 1988
Ms. Grace Novak
2061 Vierling Drive -
Shakopee, MN 55379
Re: Interest in Retirement Home in Shakopee
Dear Ms. Novak:
Thank you for your letter of August 25th outlining your
interest in the City obtaining a retirement home for Shakopee
citizens. The Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
has been receptive to such a facility but has not aggressively
sought one out. Recently two separate developers contacted our
HRA to do some exploratory market analysis to determine if a
project would be feasible. Neither developer has responded, but
when they do, the key to bring a project to Shakopee may well be
the level of subsidy the City is willing to provide. This of
course will have to be debated by the HRA Commissioners (they are
also the City Councilmembers) to determine how much, if any,
subsidy they are comfortable in extending to a particular
development.
We will place your letter in the file and also provide HRA
Commissioners with a copy.
Sincerely,
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
JKA/jms
cc: Dennis Kraft, HRA Director
HRA Commissioners
The Heart Of Progress Valley
AN EOUAL OPPoNTUNII EMPLOYER
29
RECEIVED
AUG 2 61988
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
/o
t SOP THE
o A
� a AWi : 198
$T. FRANCIS 'LiTYA%1�,;? OPEE
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER 375 west Fifth Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
August 12, 1988
Mr. John Anderson, City Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 First Avenue East,
Shakopee, Mn. 55379
Dear Mr. Anderson;
As of January 1, 1988, health care costs comprised 11.5% of our gross national
product and are expected to continue climbing. This is not a pleasant
thought, but one that we all have to face as we make health care choices for
our employees and ourselves.
Over the years, St. Francis Regional Medical Center has been committed to
making superior health care both accessible and affordable for residents of
the Minnesota Valley. A large part of this commitment involves helping local
businesses meet the challenges of rising health care costs by implementing
aggressive cost containment measures. St. Francis continues to take a lead in
this crucial area as shown by the 1988 Voluntary Price Report (VPR) recently
released by the Council of Hospital Corporations. For 47 out of the 50
diagnosis-related groups listed in this report (based on 1987 hospital
prices), St. Francis charges were below the average Twin City hospital charge.
Direct charges are not paid by those enrolled in HMO and PPO arrangements, but
do have significance for those employees with indemnity insurance. The graph
below indicates St. Francis' price rankings as compared to Twin City averages
for several common diagnoses.
ST. FRANCIS/TWIN CITIES AVERAGE
HEART FAILURE S4,124.00
S ],x91.00
CALL BLADDER - - 13,490.00
ie4.
DIAGNOSIS APPENDECTOMY = $2,435A0 ST. EVARUS AVERAGE
1 331.00 U19 CITIES A'VERA6E
CSECTION S3,2m.00
52,90i.W
VAGINAL DELIVERY s3,wl �
5:,33fi.00
$0.00 $1000.00$2000.00$3000,00$4000,00$5000.00
AMOUNT
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
/d
Page Two
Our "cost consciousness" in these areas is due to the combined efforts of our
employees, medical staff, and clinic personnel who strive to achieve efficient
and effective case management.
Keep in mind that "affordable care" does not denote a "lower standard of care"
at St. Francis. To the contrary, the delivery of superior medical treatment
and service is as much a priority at our hospital as cost efficiency. To
fulfill our role as a full-service community Medical Center, we must continue
to provide the kind of care our local residents demand at a level that sets us
apart from other facilities.
I would be happy to discuss any questions or concerns you or your colleagues
may have regarding our recent price report, or other related health care
issues. In addition to myself, our team of financial , managed care, and
health education specialists can assist you in reviewing your employee health
program. Contact us at 445-2322 if we can be of service.
Sincerely,
Sjq� ceo �1W�
Gerald L. Hart
President
mec
I/
CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN '1RANSPORTATION COMPANY
2, 5 EAST FOURTH STREET, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
August 10, 1988
Shakopee, Minnesota
Mr. David E. Hutton
City Engineer
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55=79-1376
Dear Mr. Hutton
Please refer to your letter of July 7, 1988 regarding the
proposed and existing crossing of 3rd Avenue at Shakopee,
Minnesota.
As you probably know, we have had previous correspondence
with the party who desires this crossing to be relocated. Our
arqrument is that the e>,isting crossing is a private crossing
and is not a public street. In March of 1987, we did send to
City Wide Insulation , a proposed License Agreement to be
executed by them. We have not received the executed license
from City Wide as of this date.
If City Wide desires the crossing to be relocated onto
the dedicated street right-of-way, I believe the City of
Shakopee would have to petition the Minnesota Transportation
Regulation Board in order to receive the MTRB 's approval as
the C&NW does not rule on a public crossing, which this will
be. The MTRB will require a hearing in which the public and
various property owners can voice their approval or
objections. The C&NW will opposes all public crossings.
When and if the City receives approval by the MTRB the
cost of construction and relocation of other facilities will
be at thee City 's expense.
L. P. 'Vander Leest
Manager Maintenance Plannino
MEMO TO: Shakopee City Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Community Development Director
RE: Status Report on Murphy's Landing
DATE: August 31, 1988
The Council appointed Committee of Mayor Lebens and Council
members Scott and Wampach met with Mr. Ron Nelson the City's
consultant for Murphy's Landing on August 31st and discussed
various items relating to the report that Mr. Nelson prepared.
At this time several items were identified to be pursued at
greater length and Mr. Nelson is in the process of obtaining and
submitting additional written materials on this subject. Mr.
Nelson will also be submitting a detailed organization chart for
the staffing of Murphy's Landing along with detailed written
recommendations as to the potential composition of a Board of
Directors.
At this time no action is required. It is anticipated that
there will be an item on the September 20th City Council agenda
which will require City Council action.
Any Council member having questions on this item should
contact the Community Development Director.
/3
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Community Development Director
RE: Additional Appointment to Comprehensive Plan Task Force
DATE: August 30, 1988
Two members of the City Council have requested that an
additional person be appointed to the Comprehensive Plan Task
Force. Jane DuBois, a member of the Community Development
Commission expressed a very serious interest to be a member of
the Committee. Inasmuch as Council members have added one or two
additional members as a result of people being quite interested
Ms. DuBois has also been placed on the Comprehensive Plan Task
Force.
This is being sent to the City Council for information
purposes. No action is needed at this time.
/y
BUSINESS UPDATE FROM CITY HALL
Vol.2 No. 9
Dear Chamber Member: September 1,1988
ADMINISTRATION
The City of Shakopee has dropped off the Local Government Aid(LGA)formula established under the
1988 Legislature's tax reform provision. This means our 1989 LGA allocation will increase by the State
minimum of$11,024. City Council will be discussing alternative budget decision packages with 6%,9%
and 13%City tax increase alternatives for 1989 in September.
BUILDING
The Scenic Overlook funded by a LAWCON Grant is 60%complete.
CITY CLERK
City Council appointed Mark Miller to the Community Development Commission to fill an unexpired
term ending January 31,1988.
City Council appointed 41 election judges to work during the September 13, 1988 PRIMARY ELEC-
TION. GET OUT AND EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE!
COMAS 1NITY DEVELOPMENT
Work on updating the City's Comprehensive Plan has begun. The City Council appointed a task force
which met with the Qty's consultant for the project on August 29th. At their first meeting,the commit-
tee reviewed the work program and generated numerous ideas about the problems,character and future
of the City. The committee's next meeting will be in October.
COMMUNITY RECREATION
Shakopee Community Recreationjoins forceswith Shakopee Community Education to produce seasonal
program listing brochures. The current Fall issue was mailed to Shakopee postal patrons the 1st of Sep-
tember. If you mislaid your 0M.QE DUA anothe -2742,
F_NGINEERINGDEPARTMENT
City Council is continuing to discuss possible interim iMpTovemtals to Il ^ to th t ff on 1� r Ammit
near the 1011169 intersection. Mn/DOTenerse
engineers and CiN, Staff ,Ee gar, hering additional mman
foron for
Council t t tht Sotember 6 uE S„p b on Council mectin
Work is continuing on the Downtown Streetscape Project. Currently,construction consists of concrete
sidewalks,brick pavers and street lights. By the end of be completed except for
landscaping items. Thanks t thet business== d ,fie d4 ine this
pEat [.
The loth Avenue Overlay Project started in August. Currently,storm sewers arebeing installed to remove
the"dip"at Atwood Street. The project should be completed in approximately 6 weeks.
Vierling Drive from County Road 17 easterly to Hauer's 4th Subdivision is under contrucrion.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE
DOWNTOWN AD HOC COMMITTEE
Regular Session City Council Chambers July 6, 1988
Chairman Laurent called the meeting to order at 7:45 A.M. with
Commissioners Ruben Ruehle, Melanie Kahleck, Gary Laurent, Joe
Topic, Mary Keen, Shiela Carlson, Jim Stillman, Harry Koehler,
Bill Wermerskirchen and Jerry Wampach present. Absent were
Commissioners Terry Forbord and Ex-Officio member Tim Keane. Also
present were Barry Stock, Administrative Assistant, John
Anderson, City Administrator, Dave Hutton, City Engineer and Tim
Erikilla, representing Westwood Planning and Engineering.
Chairman Laurent asked if there were any additions to the agenda.
The Huber Park Trail Project was added to the agenda.
Wermerskirchen/Ruehle moved to approve the agenda as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
Wermerskirchen/Stillman moved to approve the minutes of the June
22, 1988 meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously.
_ M ___Stav - *� _on June 22, 1988 staff presented several
alternatives for dealing with Levee Drive as it relates to the
proposed mini by-pass. Rather than waiting until a land use
analysis for Blocks 3 & 4 in the downtown area and Huber Park
could be completed, staff is recommending that the engineers be
given the go ahead to design the bridge as it was originally
proposed and currently approved by MnDOT (8' pedestrian underpass
and footings to allow for the future extension of Levee Drive
should it be needed) . Mr. Stock noted that this alternative
recognized that the bridge head will be moved 151to the East to
avoid the trail restrooms.
Staff then reviewed the issues that the Downtown Committee
brought up at the last meeting. The first issue related to a
land use analysis of Blocks 3 & 4. Mr. Stock stated that it was
the consensus of staff that a decision can be made on the
elevations of the mini by-pass and Hwy. 169 bridge without
finalizing the status of Levee Drive or completing a thorough
analysis of the land use issues. Levee Drive could be extended
if traffic studies warrant it in the future. Future land uses
for Blocks 3 & 4 will have minimal impact on the bridge or mini
by-pass elevations. Additionally, underground parking could be
installed on Blocks 3 & 4 regardless of the elevation of the mini
by-pass. A more thorough land use analysis could take anywhere
from 3 - 4 months and require consultant assistance and Council
authorization for funding.
Mr. Stock -noted that at our last meeting the Downtown Committee
requested further investigation of the need for an alley on
Blocks 3 & 4 following the completion of the mini by-pass. Mr.
Stock noted that the alley would primarily provide a convenience
to those businesses currently receiving deliveries. If an alley
1
is constructed it could be eliminated at a later date if the
business needs change. A final decision on the alley can be
delayed for several years as it does not impact the bridge
design or highway elevation.
Mr. Stock noted that at our last meeting there seemed to be some
consensus among the Committee members that there was no immediate
need to have Levee Drive extended under the new bridge at this
time. Staff was therefore recommending that the downtown mini
by-pass be designed in such a fashion to allow for the future
extension of Levee Drive should it be necessary. Under this
alternative, an 8' pedestrian underpass would be immediately
installed under the new bridge. Bridge abutments and footings
would be constructed to allow for the future extension of Levee
Drive. Under this alternative, a normal highway retaining wall
of 2.5' would be constructed between the alley and the new by-
pass. The retaining wall along Levee Drive would initially be
81 . If Levee Drive is extended in the future the retaining wall
would be approximately 16' high.
Staff noted that the original mini by-pass plan did not provide
for the extension of Levee Drive to the East. Therefore, the
Historical Society did not review this - o inc u e he--
possible extension of Levee Drive to the East at this time as a
potential project in conjunction with the mini by-pass could
delay the project for quite some time. Mr. Hutton noted that
extending Levee Drive to the East could require excavation that
would interfere with the foundation remains already identified by
the Historical Society. For this reason, he felt that it would
be prudent for the City to proceed as originally proposed (8'
pedestrian underpass and footings for possible future extension) .
Mr. Stock then discussed the possible relocation of the boat
launch. He noted that in his conversations with the Department
of Natural Resources, it appears that the boat launch could be
relocated. In fact, Mr. Stock stated that he was surprised to
find out that the boat launch is the property of the City of
Shakopee. The Department of Natural Resources has stated a
willingness to assist in relocating the boat launch should the
City of Shakopee deem it appropriate. Mr. Anderson noted that if
the boat launch is relocated to the East there could be some
road access improvement costs associated with the relocation.
The approximate cost estimate for this improvement is between
$20,000 and $40,000 depending on the final site location. Comm.
Stillman questioned whether or not the boat launch could be
relocated to the North side of the river on the old ball park
site. Mr. Stock stated that he did not know if this would be
possible but that it would be an alternative for further
investigation when and if the boat launch relocation issue is
discussed.
Mr. Stock stated that at our last meeting the Committee felt it
would be helpful to reestablish the Mini By-Pass Advisory
Committee to review design elements and their potential impact on
2
0
the downtown. Mr. Stock noted that he concurred with the
Committee and was looking for at least one of the Downtown
Committee members to serve on the Committee.
In summary, Mr. Stock stated that proceeding with the proposed
alternative would not delay the project any further and would
provide for the future extension of Levee Drive.
Stillman/Ruehle moved to recommend to City Council that Levee
Drive not be extended under the new bridge and that the bridge be
designed to allow for it's future expansion should it be
necessary. Additionally the bridge design should include an 8'
high pedestrian trail underpass. Motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Laurent asked the Commissioners if anyone was interested
�-� in-sa ,3 on the Mini By-Pass Advisory Committee. He noted that
Terry Forbo -served on this Committee in the past and seemed
to express an interes our last meeting in continuing to serve
on the Committee. Mr. wermerskirchen stated that if Mr. Forbord
was not interested in serving on the Committee that he would be
willing to sit on the Committee_ However, he felt that Terry
Forbord was a logical candidate a he has served on the
Committee since it's creation.
Mr. Stock reported that at the last meeting it was the consensus
of the Committee that the following items should be high
priorities for the Downtown Committee: 1) Development of a
property inventory - centralized list of parcels and prices. 2)
Prioritized site identification. 3) Site package/deal assembly
- request for proposals specification development. 4) Formalize
merchant retail committee. 5) Development of an
acquisition/demolition and rehab plan. Mr. Stock noted that he
would like to have the Downtown Committee discuss in greater
-. -detail a specific- action plan for the Committee that will
encourage and promote development and redevelopment in Downtown
Shakopee. Mr. Stock hoped that the plan could then be presented
to Council at a later date at a joint meeting.
Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Stock to review the primary components of
the Main Street Program. Mr. Stock stated that the Main Street
Communities focus their efforts on the development of a market
analysis, development and promotion of a downtown theme and most
notably, a full time individual to promote the downtown and
coordinate it's activities. The Main Street Coordinator also
actively solicits new retail businesses to locate in the
community. The Coordinator also assists in developing deals to
assist in the financing of these new retail establishments and
also in the rehabilitation of facades and buildings.
Comm. Keen questioned whether the Main Street Program was a State
funded program or a locally funded program. Mr. Stock noted that
the program is a National program funded through the National
Main Street Center. The State of Minnesota has a contract with
the National Main Street Center. However, in order for a
3
community to participate in the program, it costs approximately
$40, 000 per year. This does include the financing of a Main
Street Coordinator.
Comm. Carlson questioned the success of communities that have
participated in the Main Street Program. Mr. Stock noted that
based on the communities that he is aware of, they have been very
successful. Comm. Kahleck stated that when she lived in Morris,
the community was a Main Street City. In that community, the
program was quite successful.
Comm. Kahleck stated that she knows the Main Street Coordinator
in Morris and thought that she would be willing to speak before
the Downtown Committee if they desired it. _
Mr. Anderson stated that he felt two things needed-t� �appen for
Downtown Shakopee to develop. First, ---the-- identification of
several parcels that can be shown to developers for development
purposes. Second, an individual must be available to go out and
attract retail businesses to the community. He noted that the
successful Main Street Commupi.ties had these two areas covered.
Tim Erikilla from Westwood Planning and Engineering stated that
the Downtown Committee is at the point where all communities are
once they have completed a Downtown Revitalization Plan. He
noted that the issues that the Committee is addressing at this
time are exactly what should be discussed.
Discussion ensued on what land uses are appropriate in the
downtown area. Chairman Laurent stated that upon the completion
of a parcel by parcel property inventory, it would become
apparent as to what land uses are appropriate in the different
areas of the downtown and what buildings should be targeted for
acquisition, demolition or rehabilitation.
Discussion then ensued as to whether or not buildings would be
rehabilitated or demolished. It was the consensus of the
Committee that regardless of whether or not the building were
demolished or rehabilitated, it should be done in such a fashion
to maintain the historic river town theme that the Committee is
trying to promote.
Mr. Erikilla stated that upon the completion of a parcel by
parcel property inventory it would become apparent which parcels
would be suitable for redevelopment. He suggested that each
parcel be looked at an individual basis and scored based on
several factors such as historical significance, building
condition and property value. It was the consensus of the
Committee that this approach should be used in evaluating the
parcels in the downtown area. The Committee then directed staff
to proceed with the parcel by parcel evaluation.
4
Mr. Stock stated that the Huber Park Trail Project was now
underway and that the Gazebo would be completed by September. He
also pointed out that the trees in front of the Gazebo would be
trimmed later this Fall.
Mr. Laurent stated that the next meeting would be held on July
20, 1988. Mr. Stock suggested that that meeting be devoted to
discussing an agenda of issues to be presented and discussed at
the joint City Council/Downtown Committee meeting. A date has
not been selected for the joint meeting at this time.
Comm. Rahleck stated that she would like to publicly thank Barry
Stock and the Derby Days Committee for a job well done on the
first Annual Derby Days Celebration.
Mr. Stock then reminded the Committee of the Board and Commission
picnic scheduled for July 11, 1988.
Stillman/Topic moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 A.M. Motion
carried unanimously.
Barry A. Stock
Recording Secretary
5
BOARD OF AJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
Reg. Session Shakopee, MN August 4 , 1988
Chrmn. Rockne called the meeting to order at 7 :30 P.M. , with
Comm. Forbord, Allen and Fourdray present. Comm. Schmitt and
Cncl. Zak arrived at 7:40 P.M. Absent: Comm. Czaja and
Stafford. Also present: Doug Wise, City Planner; Dennis Kraft,
Community Development Director.
Allen/Forbord moved to approve the agenda with the deletion of
approving the June 9, 1988 meeting minutes. Motion carried, with
Comm. Forbord abstaining due to his absence.
VALLEYFAIR VARIANCE REQUEST
Forbord/Foudray moved to approve the meeting minutes of July 7,
1988. Motion carried unanimously.
Foudray/Allen moved to open the public hearing to consider the
request for a variance to construct a roller coaster 15' north of
highway right-of-way instead of the required 70' setback upon the
property located at One Valleyfair Drive. Motion carried
uanimously.
Walt Wittmer, Vice President/General Manager Valleyfair, and John
Dickson, Barr Engineering were present to address the Board
Adjustments & Appeal.
Chrmn. Rockne asked for comments from the audience. There were
none.
Foudray/Forbord moved to close the public hearing. Motion
carried unanimously.
Foudray/Forbord offered variance Resolution No. 535, allowing a
roller coaster structure to be constructed 15 feet from the Hwy.
101 right-of-way on Valleyfair property and moved for its
adoption subject.to the following conditions: -
1. That Valleyfair receive approval from NSP for placement of
the structure within close proximity of the electrical lines and
provide the City with a hold harmless agreement.
2. Screening vegetation material at least 6 feet in height must
be planted between the structure and the highway right-of-way.
Motion carried unanimously.
Chrmn. Rockne informed the audience and the applicant of the 7-
day appeal period.
Shakopee Board of Adjustment August 4, 1988
and Appeals
Page -2-
DIRKS FURNITURE VARIANCE REQUEST
Schmitt/FOrbord moved to open the public hearing to consider the
request for variances to: 1) Permit 14 parking spaces instead of
the required 17; 2) To allow a 1 foot side yard setback for
parking instead of the required 3 feet upon the property located
at 1038 1st Avenue East. Motion carried unanimously.
Alan Dirk of Dirk's Furniture, stated he'd have no problem with a
3 foot side yard setback, if the parking could be designed to
meet this requirement. He would like to see some landscaping in
that 3 foot area. He also stated he would place the Handicap
parking in the front of the building.
Foudray/Forbord moved to close the public hearing. Motion
carried unanimously.
Schmitt/Forbord offered Variance Resolution No. 536, allowing for
14 parking stalls rather than the required 17, and moved for its
adoption based that compliance with the parking requirements is
impossible to meet given the size of the addition, the lot and
the setback requirements. Motion carried unanimosly.
Chrmn. Rockne informed the audience of the 7-day appeal period.
Foudray/Schmitt moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 8: 15 P.M.
Jane VanMaldehgem
Recording Secretary
/ 6
SHAKOPEE PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Session Shakopee, MN August 4, 1988
Chrmn. Rockne called the meeting to order at 8:15 P.M. , with
Comm. Forbord, Schmitt, Foudray and Allen present. Absent:
Comm. Czaja and Stafford. Also present': Cncl. Zak, Doug Wise,
City Planner; Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director and
Dave Hutton City Engineer.
Forbord/Schmitt moved to approve the agenda with the deletion of
approving June 9, 1988 meeting minutes and the addition of items
noted under Other Business. Motion carried unanimously.
Forbord/Schmitt moved to approve the meeting minutes of July 7,
1988. Motion carried unanimously, with Comm. Forbord abstaining
due to his absence.
PUBLIC HEARING - HENTGES IST ADDITION
Foudray/Schmitt moved to continue the public hearing to consider
the preliminary plat approval of Hentges 1st Addition located
upon the property north and west of Highway 169, on both sides of
Third Avenue. Motion carried unanimously.
City Planner stated that the City had received a response from
the railroad indicating that the railroad is not willing to
recognize the roadway through Hentges 1st Addition as a public
crossing.
Lon Carnahan, applicant, said he met with the City Attorney who
had stated the road has been there for 50 years and should be
considered a public crossing. The City Attorney further stated
that it would be the responsibility of the City to follow up with
the Railroad and not the developers.
Schmitt/Allen moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried
unanimously.
Forbord/Foudray moved to table action on Hentges 1st Addition
pending the resolution of the crossing with the railroad and
further direct staff to place the item back on the Planning
Commission agenda when the issue had been resolved. Motion
carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING
Schmitt/Foudray moved to open the public hearing to consider the
rezoning of the property located east of Adams Street and north
of Third Avenue from I-1 to I-2. Motion carried unanimously.
Jim Plekkenpol, applicant stated his mother is in a nursing home
and greatly desires to sell this property and cannot sell it
under the current zoning of I-1.
Planning Commission
August 4, 1988
Page -2-
Chrmn. Rockne asked for comments from the audience. There were
none.
Foudray/Forbord moved to close the public hearing. Motion
carried unanimously.
Schmitt/Foudray moved to recommend to the City Council the
rezoning of Lots 1-5, Block 3, Eoeper's 1st Addition from I-1 to
I-2, based on the following findings:
1. The potential for development in this area will improve if
rezoned to I-2.
2 . The proposed rezoning is consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
3. The rezoning is consistent with community goals and
development policies.
Motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PRAIRIE LINE
Foudray/Allen moved to open the public hearing to consider the
request for a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor storage of
transportation equipment and a truck maintenance garage upon
property located on County Road 89. Applicant, Prairie Line,
Inc. Motion carried unanimously.
Bob Hamel, 13660 Hershey Court, Apple Valley, represented Prairie
Line, Inc. , and was present to address the Planning Commission.
He stated their operation consists of no toxic or hazardous
wastes.
Chrmn. Rockne asked for comments from the audience. There were
none.
Foudray/Forbord moved to close the public hearing. Motion
carried unanimously.
Foudray/Allen offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 533
allowing for the construction of a truck maintenance facility and
allowing for the outdoor storage of such trucks and trailers and
moved for its adoption subject to the following conditions:
1. That plans for a storm water detention facility be submitted
and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of the
Building Permit.
l�
Planning commission
August 4, 1988
Page -3-
2 . An access permit to County Road 89 be secured from the County
Highway Department.
3 . Copies of permits for installation of the fuel tanks be put
on file at City Hall.
4. The developer shall limit removal of natural vegetation to as
little as possible and undertake adequate erosion control
measures to prevent loss of soil.
5. Easement Agreement for the shared access shall be executed
and recorded for both lots.
Motion carried unanimously.
Chrmn. Rockne informed the audience of the 7-day appeal period.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALLSTATE LEASING
Schmitt/Foudray moved to open the public hearing to consider the
request for a Conditional Use Permit to move in a temporary sales
office upon the property located at 8050 East Hwy. 101;
applicant, Allstate Leasing Corporation. Motion carried
unanimously.
City Planner stated the application is to allow for a temporary
sales office (trailer) , 8' x 20' , on their property (Lot 1, Block
1, Ziegler Addition) , which has already been moved in and
currently is in use.
Comm. Forbord questioned if the City had a policy regarding
temporary office structures. He proposed this be addressed by
the City in the near future.
Mann Abrams, representing Allstate Leasing Corp. , stated they
have investigated the possibility of a more permanent looking
structure but so far has not been able to find a suitable
substitute. They want to conform to the foundation requirements
and would place skirting around the structure and paint it a more
suitable color. He agreed that the office building could be
located elsewhere on the property.
Chrnm. Rockne asked for further comments from the audience.
There were none.
Foudray/Allen moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried
unanimously.
Schmitt/Foudray offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
534, allowing a temporary sales office on Lot 1, Block 1, Ziegler
Planning Commission
August 4, 1988
Page -4-
1st Addition and moved for its adoption, subject to the following
conditions:
1. One year temporary permit only and at the end of the year a
permanent structure be built in compliance with City Code.
2. The structure shall be moved to the rear of the parking lot
to prevent highway visibility.
Roll Call: Ayes - Rockne, Foudray
Noes - Schmitt, Allen, Forbord
Motion denied based that the use does not comply with City Code
requirements of:
1. Structure compatibility with adjacent structures; and
2. The use is not reasonably related to the overall needs of the
City and existing land uses in the vicinity.
Chrmn. Rockne informed the audience and the applicant of the 7-
day appeal period.
Schmitt/Forbord moved for a 10-minute recess at 9: 10 P.M. Motion
carried unanimously.
Schmitt/Forbord moved to reconvene at 9:20 P.M. Motion carried
unanimously.
AMENDMENT OF CITY CODE SECTION 11.03 , SUED 7 I
City Planner reviewed the action taken at the last meeting
regarding the amendment of Section 11.03 , Subd. 7I which
prohibits the issuance of building permits to property not
abutting a public street. Discussion followed on the proposed
wording.
Forbord/Schmitt moved that prior to consideration of amending
Shakopee City Code, Section 11.03 , Subd. 7I, Staff investigate
the minimum standard of traffic criteria, referencing MnDOT
Engineering standards (as amended) , which would have to be met
before requiring a roadway to be upgraded. Motion carried
unanimously.
AMENDMENT OF THOROUGHFARE MAP
City Planner stated staff is recommending the City initiate and
adopt an official map designating the proposed right-of-way for
the mini by-pass. This was prompted as a result of a building
permit application received from a property owner to construct
new apartments within the proposed mini by-pass right-o£-way.
14
Planning Commission
August 4, 1988
Page -5-
Once adopted, the City could withhold building permits within the
proposed right-of-way.
Schmitt/Forbord moved to recommend to the City Council that the
City's Thoroughfare Plan be amended to show the realignment of
the Highway 169/101 intersection bypassing, 1st Avenue from
Fuller to Spencer Streets & adopt an official map to reserve the
proposed right-of-way. Motion carried unanimously.
1989-1993 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
Forbord/Schmitt moved to recommend to the City Council approval
of the Capital Improvement Program for 1989-1993, with the
following changes:
1. Updatingtheprocedure of CIP reports and their delivery.
2. Roadway improvements on East 2nd Avenue be included.
3. Improvement of 5th/6th Avenue extending from Spencer to
Market Street be placed on the same time frame as the Market
Street lst to 7th Avenue improvement project.
Motion carried unanimously.
EXTENDED OCCUPANCY IN RV PARKS
Jack VanRemortal was present for discussion on extended occupancy
in RV Parks.
The following recommendations for Staff relative to amending
Section 11.05, Subd. 11 I.1 were offered by commission members:
1. No recreational vehicle shall be used as a permanent place of
abode, dwelling .or business or for an indefinite period of time.
Continuous occupancy extending beyond 7 months in any 12 month
period shall be presumed to be permanent occupancy. All seasonal
RV Parks shall be totally cleared of all vehicles for the months
between November and March.
2. All RV's within an approved RV Park shall be licensed to the
current calendar year within the state the vehicle is registered
or shall be in violation and towed at the owners expense.
3. All RV's in the RV Park be maintained.
4. Maximum density of seasonal rentals based on percentage be
further researched.
Planning Commission
August 4, 1988
Page -6-
Forbord/Schmitt moved to direct Staff to consider all testimony
and suggestions presented and return to the Planning Commission
before pursuing the amending of Section 11.05, Subd. 11I.1.
Motion carried unanimously.
SCREENING REQUIREMENTS FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE
Discussion was held on the use of plantings for screening and
amending the ordinance.
Comm. Schmitt moved that at the time of ordinance housekeeping,
the ordinance be amended to state that established screening be
plantings 6 feet in height when positioned and the units be
mature and up to 80 percent opaque. Motion died for lack of
second.
Foudray/Schmitt moved to amend the Shakopee City Code, Section
11.33, Subd. 3C to include the words "which shall occur no more
than 5 (five) years after plantings", after the words "at time of
maturity". Motion carried with Comm. Forbord voting in
opposition.
VETERINARY CLINICS IN AG & R-1 DISTRICTS
Schmitt/Forbord moved to table action to include veterinary
clinics and animal hospitals in R-1 and AG Zones until staff
could review potential conflicts relative to the current animal
ordinance in the R-1 zone. Motion carried unanimously.
Planning Commission reviewed an article from the League of Cities
magazine entitled "How should the city conduct hearings on
zoning, subdivision, and other land use matters?" The Commission
decided the article should be incorporated in the overall policy
administration of the City.
SIDEWALKS ALONG COUNTY ROAD 17
Schmitt/Foudray moved that staff advise City Council of the
sidewalk issue along County Road 17 as it relates to the Super 8
Motel and the action necessary to carry out the intent of the
plat and further moved that the installation of sidewalks between
4th Avenue and 10th Avenue along the East side of County Road 17
be included in the Capital Improvement Plan. Motion carried
unanimously.
City Planner informed the Planning Commission that the developer
for Meadows 1st Addition has file a vacation request for lith
Avenue between Minnesota and Dakota Streets.
/6
Planning commission
August 4, 1988
Page -7-
Foudray/Schmitt moved that lith Avenue between Minnesota and
Dakota Streets not be vacated. Motion carried unanimously.
Schmitt/Foudray moved to appoint all Planning Commissioners at-
large to the Comprehensive Plan Task Force and that at least two
members from the Planning Commission be in attendance at the Task
Force meetings. Motion carried unanimously.
Comm. Schmitt asked staff to research the realty company
designating South Gate Industrial Park Subdivision and advise the
developer of Shakopee City Codes.
Comm. Schmitt asked City Staff to check out the car sales lot now
occupying the old P.J. 's Ice Cream lot, to determine City Code. -
compliance.
Comm. Schmitt suggested that the ordinance on issuance of
building permits for remodeling be looked at once again.
Comm. Forbord questioned the decision of the City Council in not
favorably accepting the proposal for senior citizen housing which
was proposed to be located on County Road 16. He stated that
this developer went to the City of Champlin, is developing the
proposal he presented to Shakopee and has already received full
occupancy for the project. He added that if the City would be
amenable to a similar proposal, the developer is looking for
additional land space.
Cncl. Zak asked that City Staff pursue the Dean's lake Covenant.
Foudray/Schmitt moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 11:50 P.M.
Jane VanMaldehgem
Recording Secretary
SHAKOPEE PLANNING COMMISSION
Special Session Shakopee, Minnesota August 25, 1988
Vice Chrmn. Foudray called the meeting to order at 7:45 P.M. ,
with Comm. Schmitt, Forbord, Czaja and Stafford present. Chrmn.
Rockne arrived at 7 :50 P.M. Absent: Comm. Allen. Also
present: Doug Wise, City Planner and Dave Hutton, City Engineer.
Czaja/Schmitt moved to approve the agenda with an addition under
Other Business. Motion carried.
PRAIRIE ESTATES IST ADDITION:
City Planner stated the Special Session of the Planning
Commission has been called upon direction of the City Council.
The City Council has requested clarification as to the intent of
the lith Avenue right-of-way/easement through Prairie Estates lst
Addition, where the street is not being constructed. The need
for clarificationwasbrought to the City Council's attention by
Mr. Michael Stadther, 1077 Shawmut. Mr. Stadther is questioning
the setbacks in this subdivision.
City Planner questioned if it was the intent of the Planning
Commission to add additional right-of-way to the South side of
11th Avenue through this subdivision where the street is not to
be constructed.
City Planner played the tape recording of the June 9, 1988
Planning Commission meeting relative to discussion of and the
motion to approve Prairie Estates lst Addition.
Comm. Schmitt stated the intent of the motion made June 9, 1988
was to maintain 11th Avenue right-of-way as it pertains to
Prairie Estates 1st Addition.
Comm. Czaja stated his understanding of the motion was to
maintain a continued easement to allow for a sidewalk/trail going
directly through the middle of the street right-of-way width.
Chrmn. Rockne added that the sidewalk could be placed in any
portion of the 40 foot easement/right-of-way.
Comm. Forbord questioned if the easement, also known as 11th
Avenue right-of-way, through Meadows lst Addition was consistent
with the action taken on Prairie Estates 1st Addition. His
interpretation of the motion was to provide consistency to the
action taken in Meadows lst Addition.
City Planner stated there is a 40 foot right-of-way through
Meadows lst Addition which remains consistent with Prairie
Estates 1st Addition. He added this right-of-way is not wide
enough for a roadway; City Code requires 60 feet width for
roadways.
Shakopee Planning Commission August 25, 1988
Special Session Page -2-
Bill Engelhardt, Project Engineer, stated his recommendation is
to place the sidewalk on the south side of the 11th Avenue right-
of-way to allow for 15 foot sideyard setbacks for the northerly
lots in Prairie Estates 1st Addition.
Mr. & Mrs. Bob Waldridge, 1074 Legion Street, questioned the
objection to the 15 foot setback for existing parcels north of
11th Avenue right-of-way. He added that in the future if the
City elected to construct 11th Avenue to the west, there would be
added expenses such as condemnation. He suggested it would be
better to maintain a 60 foot right-of-way in preparation of
potential construction of 11th Avenue.
Gloria Vierling stated the public hearings were held, public
input received, discussions held and the final plat approved;
now to change the plat would be costly and create a financial
hardship.
Michael Stadther stated the full 60 foot right-of-way width for
11th Avenue should be maintained. He added he would not like to
see 11th Avenue placed through this area, but wants the houses in
Prairie Estates 1st Addition and the easement placed as far from
his parcel as possible.
Comm. Schmitt stated that his interpretation of the Planning
commission motion made June 9, 1988 was to maintain 11th Avenue
right-of-way (601) and keep the trail easement as far from the
exiting parcels as possible.
Bill Engelhardt stated that the Developers Agreement had already
been executed. However, the plat has not yet been filed.
Forbord/Foudray moved to take no further action on Prairie
Estates 1st Addition. The final plat indicates a 40 foot right-
of-way and a 15 foot easement and shall remain as approved.
Roll Call: Ayes - Forbord, Rockne, Foudray, Stafford
Noes - Czaja, Schmitt Motion carried
Comm. Schmitt stated that the misunderstandings are due partly to
Building Permits being issued on the 11th Avenue right-of-way for
less than the required 30 foot setback.
City Engineer recommended that the sidewalk be placed 5 to 10
feet north of the south line of 11th Avenue right-of-way in order
to maintain the sanitary sewer system. This then places the
trail approximately 30 feet from the existing parcels to the
north.
Shakopee Planning Commission August 25, 1988
Special Session Page -3-
Schmitt/Stafford moved that the Planning Commission recognizes
that Prairie Estates 1st Addition, Outlot B exceeds the
requirements of Park Dedication for Phase One and that any excess
of the 10 percent dedicated in outlot B be credited to future
additions of Prairie Estates. Motion carried.
Schmitt/Czaja moved to adjourn. Motion carried. Meeting
adjourned at 9: 10 P.M.
Doug Wise
City Planner
Jane VanMaldeghem
Recording Secretary
19
TENTATIVE AGENDA
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
Regular Session Shakopee, MN September 8, 1988
Chairman Rockne Presiding
1. Roll Call at 7:30 P.M.
2 . Approval of Agenda
3 . Approval of the August 4th Meeting Minutes
4 . 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: An appeal of the interpretation
of the Sign Ordinance regarding 'placement of a temporary
real estate sign at the intersection of CR 16 & Vierling Dr.
Applicant: Dale F. Dahlke
Action: Appeal Resolution #539
5. 7:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: An appeal of the interpretation
of the Sign Ordinance that striping on the canopy fascia
whether lighted or not is considered by the City to be a
part of the signage based upon the City Code definition for
the property located at 1155 - 1st Avenue East.
Applicant: Super America
Action: Appeal Resolution #538
6. 7:50 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider variances in order to
construct a car wash at 612 East First Avenue.
Applicant: Clete Link
Action: Variance Resolution #537
7. Other Business
a.
b.
8. Adjourn
Douglas K. Wise
City Planner
TENTATIVE AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Session Shakopee, MN September 8, 1988
Chairman Rockne Presiding
1. Roll Call at 7: 30 P.M.
2 . Approval of Agenda
3 . Approval of the August 4th and August 25th Meeting Minutes
4. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider a request for a
conditional use permit to expand the Blue Lake Waste Water
Treatment Facility at 6957 TH 101.
Applicant: Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
Action: Conditional Use Permit Resolution # 542
5. 8:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider a request for a
Conditional Use Permit for outdoor storage upon the property
located at 8855 - 13th Ave. East.
Applicant: Backstretch R.V. Park
Action: Conditional Use Permit Resolution # 540
6. 8: 20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider a request for a
Conditional Use Permit to construct storage tanks in excess
of 45 feet in height upon the property located at 4571
Valley Industrial Blvd.
Applicant: Bush Lake Industries
Action: Conditional Use Permit Resolution # 541
7. Amendment of City Code, Section 11.03 , Subd. 7 I. The
proposed amendment will allow the City to issue building
permits to property that does not abut a public r-o-w.
Action: Recommendation to City Council
8 . Discussion
a. Extended occupancy in RV Parks.
b. Veterinary Clinics & Animal Hospitals in R-1 & Ag.
C.
9. Other Business
a.
b.
10. Adjourn
Douglas Wise
City Planner
NOTE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS•
1. If you have any questions or need additional information on
any of the above items, please call Doug Wise on the Monday
or Tuesday prior to the meeting.
2. If you are unable to attend the meeting, please call the
Planning Department prior to the meeting.
/9
Minutes of the
Community Development Commission
City Council Chambers
Shakopee, Mn
July 6, 1988
Vice Chairperson Joos called the meeting to order at 5: 10 P.M.
with the following members present: Terry Joos, Jane DuBois,
and Al Furrie. Commissioner Keane arrived at 5: 30 P.M.
Commissioner Koopman and Bud Berens (Ex-officio Member) were
absent. Also present were: Barry Stock, Administrative
Assistant, John Anderson, City Administrator and Jon Glennie,
Planning Assistant.
DuBois/Furrie moved to approve the minutes of the May 4 , 1988
meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Glennie reported that at the May 4th meeting Mr. Stock
presented the memo on the park dedication fees. At that time the
Committee had several questions that Mr. Stock could not answer.
Since that time, we have investigated those questions and are
prepared to discuss them at this time.
Mr. Glennie reviewed the park reserve fund budget summary and the
five year park improvement plan. He noted that the park reserve
budget summary outlined amounts collected from fees,
contributions and other sources. He also noted that the monies
received annually through park dedication are divided on a 60/40
basis for improvements and acquisition in that order. He also
noted that contributions from civic organizations were a major
source of funding for park improvements. In response to a
question raised at the May 4th meeting, he also noted that the
City does not pay for park acquisition or improvements from the
general fund.
In response to the question as to how other cities pay for their
park improvements, Mr. Glennie reported that many cities issue
bonds for park purposes. He also noted that these bonds require
a majority vote on a city wide referendum.
Mr. Glennie reported that as Shakopee grows so must the park
system. The park reserve fund will be running in a deficit
situation in 1988-1992. Alternative funding options such as
bonding and increases in the park dedication fees should be
considered to reverse this trend.
Mr. Glennie stated that staff is recommending an increase in the
park dedication fees at this time. Mr. - Glennie noted that
Shakopee's park dedication fees are generally lower than other
communities in the developing ring. He noted that no adjustments
1
have been made to our fee schedule
since the adoption of the
ordinance in 1981. Shakopee's present park dedication fee for a
single family unit is $150 per unit. Commissioner DuBois
questioned whether or not the fees were paid up front by the
developer. Mr. Glennie stated that the park dedication fees or
land in lieu of the fee had to paid prior to filing the final
plat with the County.
Mr. Glennie stated that he is recommending that the Community
Development Commission recommend to the Planning Commission that
a public hearing be scheduled to hear comments on the adoption of
a new park dedication fee schedule. Mr. Keane suggested that the
Committee also propose a new structure. Mr. Glennie stated that
if this is the desire of the Commission he would recommend the
fee schedule as outlined in attachment $3 . The fee schedule as
proposed is based on dwelling unit densities and the standard
costs to develop a ten acre neighborhood park per 1, 000 persons.
Mr. Keane questioned whether or not staff looked at standard
measures for park requirements. Mr. Glennie responded in the
affirmative and stated that the standard that he has selected is
10 acre neighborhood park per 1, 000 persons. Mr. Glennie noted
that this is the standard that has been adopted by the National
Park and Recreation Association.
Commissioner DuBois questioned if there was any park dedication
fee differential for properties that are in unsewered areas. Mr.
Glennie noted that the park dedication fee is simply based on
number of dwelling units and that there is no fee differential
given to properties in unsewered areas.
Commissioner DuBois questioned whether or not the ratio that is
being used for park acquisition and park development could be
changed since we seem to have more park space then what we need.
Mr. Anderson stated that at the present time the City maintains
12 parks encompassing a total of 237 acres. If the standard of
ten acres per 1,000 population were applied to Shakopee's current
population of approximately 12,000, we would only need 120 acres
of park land. Commissioner DuBois stated that this is why she
feels the ratio for setting aside park funds for acquisition and
development should be modified. Commissioner Keane stated that
it was his opinion that park dedication fees should be devoted
entirely to acquisition. He felt that the responsibility for
maintenance and development should be the City's general fund.
Joos/Furrie moved to recommend that a public hearing be scheduled
at the Planning Commission meeting to hear comments on the
adoption of a new park dedication fee schedule and that the park
dedication fees be increased based on the number of persons per
dwelling unit and the standard of a 10 acre neighborhood park per
1, 000 persons. Motion carried unanimously.
2
/ 9
It was the consensus of the Committee that park dedication fees
should be entirely devoted to park acquisition. The Committee
requested staff to investigate alternative forms for funding park
development and report back to the Committee at their next
meeting so that a recommendation can be forwarded to City
Council.
Mr. Stock stated that the Downtown Committee has requested that
the Community Development Commission investigate the formation of
a port authority and/or economic development authority. Mr.
Stock stated that it is his understanding that by creating one of
these two authorities, the City would be able to expand their
bonding opportunities. Commissioner Keane suggested that staff
investigate the possibility of creating one of these two
authorities. Mr. Keane also suggested that staff invite Jim
O'Meara to attend one of the meetings to speak on the issue.
Mr. Stock reported that communities on the Eastern edge of the
Metropolitan area have formed a development group. This group
has combined efforts in an attempt to market their area. The
Downtown Committee felt that this should be brought to the
Community Development Commissions attention. Commissioner Keane
stated that he was aware of this group and felt that their
efforts were noteworthy but that he did not feel it was an
effective way to promote development within a community. He went
on to state that developers decisions are based on numbers. The
majority of the large developers do their homework and base their
decisions on studies. Mr. Keane went on to state that developers
do look at communities that are organized and Star Cities serves
as an excellent program to identify those communities that have
their act together.
Mr. Stock stated that what he found most interesting about the
Metro-East development group was that many of the communities not
only belong to the development group but they also have internal
budgets within their city for marketing. Some of these budgets
are in excess of $50, 000.
Mr. Stock gave a brief update on the Minnesota Valley Mall. He
noted that the referendum failed and that he did not know what
position the City Council would take on the future use of the
mall or development of a community center.
Mr. Stock noted that the Shakopee Valley Motel project was in
jeopardy of losing their tax increment financing assistance.
Several of the project elements have not been completed per the
time frame set forth in the tax increment agreement. Mr. Stock
stated that he did not know whether or not the Shakopee Housing
and Redevelopment Authority would grant Mr. Bakken an extension
or call the bonds.
3
Mr. Stock reported that City Council agreed to place an
advertisement in the Minnesota Real Estate Journal.
Mr. Stock reviewed a draft copy of the Community Development
Commission Developers Newsletter that will be distributed later
this month.
Mr. Stock questioned whether or not the Commission had any ideas
for the next CDC Newsletter. Commissioner Joos suggested that
the issue discuss the park dedication fee structure. A section
could also be included on the City's linear Park Plan and the
investigation into the possible creation of a port authority or
economic development authority. Commissioner DuBois suggested
that the newsletter include a tear off section for persons to
list what they think are the community's needs in terms of park
development.
Mr. Stock then gave an update to the Committee on the status of
the Comp Plan. He reported that no meetings have been held on
the Comp Plan at this time. The City is waiting to see if
Metropolitan Council Loan Assistance can be obtained prior to
meeting on the elements to be addressed in the Comp Plan. Mr.
Stock noted that he has made the Community Development
Commission's interests known to the City Planner and Community
Development Director.
Mr. Anderson presented a swat team concept to the Commission for
their review. He stated that Councilmember Zak has suggested
that the City create small development teams (swat teams) to meet
with developers or commercial and industrial prospects interested
in locating in our community. It was also suggested by Mr. Zak
that these small development teams could go out and progressively
recruit new businesses and firms to locate in our community.
Mr. Furrie stated that several years ago the Committee heard from
Community Development Directors in other communities to determine
what was effective in attracting new businesses to their
community. None of the Community Development Directors at that
time discussed this type of concept. Mr. Furrie stated that if
in fact this concept was an effective tool in attracting
development, he thought other communities in the Metropolitan
area would be using it.
Commissioner Joos stated that he did not think it would very
effective for this group to go out cold and try to attract new
industrial and commercial prospects. Mr. Anderson stated that
the teams would not go out cold. Some contact with the firm
would have to be made prior to meeting with them. Discussion
ensued on whether or not swat teams were an effective method of
attracting businesses for our community.
4
/9
Chairman Keane stated that the swat team idea did have some merit
but that the request for proposal process was more effective in
attracting businesses to a community.
Chairman Keane suggested that City Council might want to consider
bringing in experts to evaluate the downtown and propose
recommendations on what can be done to improve it. Mr. Stock
noted that the Downtown Committee will be meeting with the City
Council at a joint meeting to discuss the future plans for the
downtown. It was the consensus of the Community Development
Commission to investigate whether or not the Community
Development Commission could be included in this joint meeting
since many of the issues that the Downtown Committee deals with
relate to the objectives and mission of the Community Development
Commission.
Joos/DuBois moved to direct staff to investigate whether or not a
joint meeting could be held between the Community Development
Commission, Downtown Committee and City Council. Motion carried
unanimously.
Furrie/Joos moved to adjourn the meeting at 7 : 05 P.M. Motion
carried unanimously.
Barry A. Stock
Recording Secretary
5
-2o
Note Meeting Time: 5:00 P.M.
TENTATIVE AGENDA
Community Development Commission
City Hall Council Chambers
September 7, 1988
Chrmn. Keane Presiding
1. Call to order at 5:00 P.M.
2 . Introduction of New Member - Mark Miller
3. Approval of the minutes - July 6, 1988
4 . Industrial Development Assistance Program
5. Joint City Council Meeting Agenda - 9-27-88
6. Economic Development Update: (Verbal)
a. Bergquist Company
b. Shakopee Valley Motel Project
C.
7 . Informational Items:
a. Real Estate Journal
b. Business Update from City Hall
C. Comp Plan Update (Verbal)
d. Port Authority/Econ. Dev. Authority -
Pro's/Cons's - Verbal
8. Other Business
a. Next Meeting - Wed. , October 5, 1988 - 5: 00 PM
b.
9. Adjourn
Barry A. Stock
Administrative Assistant
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Please call Barry or Toni at 445-3650
if you cannot make the meeting.
EhWs and ft ° ,'"`. NEWSLETTER
LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE
iii OFFICES IN MINNEAPOLIS AND WAUKESHA - 507 Marquetle Avenue • Minneapolis, MN 554021255 • 612-3398291
VOLUME 33, NUMBER 4
FILE: Financial Specialists: Ehlers and Associates, Inc.
Please distribute to governing body members
SEPTEMBER. 1988
BOND MARKET
While the BBI at 7.69% (20 year g.o. bonds) may seem high, it is much lower than the 13.44% of six
and a half years ago. An encouraging aspect is that the MOB spread (prices of Municipal bonds Over
taxable Treasury Bonds) has turned a point and a half positive.
A recent Credit Markets article attributes better tax-exempt prices to reduced supplies following the
1986 Tax Law changes, which is a point we made in the attached May 23 assay. Another writer
claimed that we shouldn't "trash" the tax-exempts by suggesting that they be limited to public
projects. But the MOB spread confirms the benefit of reduced supply. Now, if Treasury and Congress
could remove the uncertainties and complexities as to what is or is not tax-exempt . . .?
TAXING OF MUNICIPAL BOND INTEREST
The South Carolina case, which said that Concress could tax the interest on state (and local) bonds,
clears the way for future taxes on municipal interest. The Court made its decision acknowledging
that the burden of such taxes actually falls on state and local borrowers and taxpayers. It said
(paraphrasing): "Nevermind the added cost to the states and localities. We've already said that the
federal government can tax other state and local contracts such as leases of state land to private
persons, equipment purchases, and state employees' incomes, even though the burden falls on the
contracting state and local governments. We acknowledge that federal taxation will increase interest
rates by 35%".
We now have a clear judicial recognition that the income tax is passed on to local governments and to
the cost of the services they provide. If true for state and local governments, then it must also be
true for private producers of goods and services. The case thus provides a guide to a more intelligent
policy which recognizes that the income tax is embedded in the cost and prices of all goods and
services, - - - which the consumer pays.
BLIND POOLS
Blind pools of tax exempt bond issues are not a cheap way to finance local improvements.
Comparisons show that most local governments do better borrowing on their own. If you're
interested we'll be happy to send our analysis.
Blind pools invite localities to submit wish lists of possible projects to lock in present "favorable"
interest rates with the promise that, if the local government can find lower cost financing, it need
not borrow from the pool. The pool may not force you to barrow from it, but the IRS is apt to say
that once a project is financed tax-exempt, a community cannot finance it again tax-exempt. Thus,
cheaper tax exempt financing may not even be available. That is not addressed in blind pool
propositions.
Blind pool financing of projects that may never be financed is not something that state and local
governments should foster since it doubles up the supply of tax-exempt bonds and raises interest
rates for real projects.
What makes blind pool financing "feasible" is the fact that the proceeds are invested in Guaranteed
Investment Contracts (GIC) which makes the bonds rated "Aaa", a rating not likely to be retained if
localities actually do draw down the proceeds for actual projects.
MINNESOTA SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Minnesota School Districts are faced with a number of new election regulations including provisions
that limit the setting of fall special election dates. An unusual number of districts will be voting
October 18.
The new law prescribes that special elections be held not less than 20 days before or 30 days after the
Primary and General Elections. This limits the dates available for districts who wish to vote bonds
(or levy referendum) and certify a levy prior to October 25 to the following choices: September 13
(primary), October 14, October 17 or October 18, which is on Tuesday, a traditional voting date.
A special election on the November 8 general election date may allow time to certify the levy if the
District is successful in requesting a 15-day extension beyond the October 25 deadline. But if the
District misses the levy deadline for a bond election, it will be important to consider capitalizing
perhaps one year's interest in the bond issue.
A new Minnesota school facilities levy which is "equalized" can be attractive in that the State may
participate. The purpose is to provide monies for building repair and maintenance, for example,
without competing with educational equipment budgets. This levy may also be substituted for all or a
part of a debt service levy. We will be happy to explain how the formula works for your district.
EHLER/S AND ASSOCIATES. INC. /J
Robert L. Ehlers Carolyn Drude
Founder Director-Vice President
i
3a� erceecgCCs C C sxxxxxx�x�x��x�xre a eeeeeeeerr e r e e er
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"a3�3e93--- x - ---------3sa§3ffi 5 3 3x3F5ffi £ 9 . . ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
; NNIHii M
y yy 88 55 Q
y53{¢¢ y.[YA YoY § sit; g E f 9 $$ yfi3fr . € � 8 F 9 $
$35$$�sy3dS 3 F 3d38i ' a� a3aa § BaS Lff ell ls b 3 a S
Y3 @ale F $ psgFs-3d6 6 66 6666661.
€d $a-g-
w
al $ B E °__e=�€aaeeeeSlS 5 c�lScS ! e �$
BBgBBe0000 e e eeee°eeeeeeeeee e .......... e .
a
N s]8 8 • Y€a � a
z � 3 " �a�e=WxRRa a`8 -88K _= .8:�3"gg fff�fff -_ •S�
m aF £e� ' Fv'"e Re'e �?�d8-3-e�avae?.€E' e5l�� $qag
e bMzs..F A..-"_ _ att---d93aa�___--a<3:.,�:assa:
a
w
5£s�s��x�@�M�MKKgKexx$ee Emmmsee¢¢$�M��MMM���Mxarre
< =a� 3a!�i£Ea�ffi�3RiMJeeseS3x3 6FQ�53553��5'�k�a355�s����sk
-----€----$--- ---------------
--
�
ed 3 g {{
as53$a55 _5b @d addi
secc8 ii 3344 ?a3 a a3 .s 3`a X3353 e$Ss$aaa$3a
S S as zi�3°s6 £= 3 3l� a3 3- Cz e z i
FSFFF 33 eiFFaFFS�at g3Ae 7g�sag� 3 aeg�g$^3F§i3_g $
.� �a�a�eee���eeeS eeee� dee®SSS2la�� �� �� eee_eY9
'x B'x exe'x'x x'xxe 3g 91
ass 3aja33a sssa ee_ � :' _` a '='333 eaa a3 3W
ia3 i"`3$3i3's33g3a3aa ?3�iag $sat;
111A AM qg . . i-3as_a-
33`iA NN'
a
a
| .,.1..
!H qq9 R9RgRg2! ! Rggq
„_;„ _,l,-,_,_,,,,-
! qR5 -----
!} ! ! !
it } !! !{( !
Jp= , H[ 1, ! j\
|
666H
mm ! }_
,,,,,,
. • ! \� a
TENTATIVE AGENDA
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA September 6, 1988
Mayor Dolores Lebens presiding
1] Roll call at 7:00 P.M.
2] Recess for H.R.A. Meeting
3] Re-convene
4] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers
5] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS
6] Approval of Consent Business - (All items listed with an
asterisk 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. )
*7] Approval of Minutes of July 5, August 16, August 17, and
August 23 , 1988
8] Communications:
a] Weir Beckon, Heavy Duty Air re: certificate of occupancy
b] James Scheibel, League of Mn. Cities re: 1988 LMC
Regional Meetings/Issue Papers
c] Vern Peterson, Ass'n. Metro Municipalities re: AMM and
metropolitan area activities of note
9] Public Hearings:
a] 7 :45 P.M. - Appeal by Allstate Leasing Corp. from
Planning Commission denial of a conditional
use permit to move in a temporary sales
office at 8050 E. Hwy 101
b] 8: 00 P.M. - Vacation of lith Avenue Between Minnesota
and Dakota Streets (North of Meadows Add'n. )
10] Boards and Commissions:
Planning Commission:
a] 11th Avenue R-O-W Within Prairie Estates Subdivision
TENTATIVE AGENDA
September 6, 1988
Page -2-
10] Boards and Commissions continued:
Energy and Transportation Committee:
*b] Home Energy Check-Up Program
*c] Van Pool Fare Policy
11] Reports from Staff: (Council will take a 10 minute break
around 9:00 P.M. )
a] Interim Improvements to 101/169 Intersection and letter
from Merchants
*b] Downtown Railroad Corridor
c] Request to Place Garbage Dumpster on City Property
d] Evaluation of Downtown Committee
e] Performance of Part Time Temporary Zoning Code Enforce-
ment Officer
*f] Computer Software
g] Retention of Bond Counsel
h] Personnel Assignment
i] Merritt Court
j] Gopher State One Call System
k] Capital Improvements Projects for 1989
*1] TH-101 Shakopee Bypass Selection Committee
*m] Reduction of Letter of Credit for Heritage Development
*n] Vacation of Easements in Prairie House 1st Addition
o] Annual League of Cities Membership
*p] Smoking/No Smoking Policy
q] Approve Bills in Amount of $422 , 188 .61
r] Liquor Licenses for Bowling Alleys
12] Resolutions and Ordinances:
*a] Res. No. 2942, Adherence to Data Practices Act
*b] Res. No. 2943, Approving Agreement with Mn/DOT for Upper
Valley Drainage
*c] Res. No. 2944, Accepting Bid on 11th Avenue Project 88-5
*d] Res. No. 2945, Approving Plans & Ordering Ad for Bids
for Upper Valley Drainage Project 87-5
13] Other Business:
a]
b]
14] Adjourn to Tuesday, September 13 , 1988 at 8:00 P.M.
John K. Anderson,
City Administrator
MEMO TO: Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Executive Director #W'
RE: Shakopee Square Properties Letter of Credit
DATE: August 23, 1988
Today an amendment to the letter of credit for the Shakopee
Valley Square Properties was received in the HRA offices.
Amendment #1 to the letter of credit extends the expiration date
of the $50,000 letter of credit to September 1, 1989. This
action is consistent with what was requested from the developer,
therefore the letter of credit will not be drawn upon at this
time. The HRA continues to have $50,000 in security for the next
year for TIF Project #6.
TENTATIVE AGENDA
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting September 6, 1988
Chairman Steven Clay presiding
1. Roll Call at 7 : 00 P.M.
2 . Approve the August 17, 1988 Meeting Minutes
3 . other Business
a.
b.
4 . Adjourn to September 20, 1988
Dennis R. Kraft
Executive Director
Shakopee HRA
Regular Session August 17, 1988
Chairman Clay called the meeting to order with Comm. Vierling,
Zak, Scott, and Wampach present. Also present were John K.
Anderson, City Administrator; Dennis Kraft, Executive Director
and Mayor Lebens.
The Executive Director stated that if the Shakopee HRA would sign
the agreement that was presented then the County HRA would buy
the property. Chairman Clay reviewed what the County HRA is
proposing to do with the former womens prison property. They are
proposing to develop a criminal justice facility. There was no
one present from the Scott County HRA to address this issue.
Chairman Clay opened the meeting up to the public for their
input.
Glenn Graber, 191 W. 5th, submitted a petition with morethan100
signatures stating they are opposed to this sort of facility
being built at that site.
Zak/Scott moved to accept the petition submitted by Glenn Graber.
Motion carried unanimously.
Jan Wiese, 829 W. 6th Ave. , stated she has a concern on the
traffic that this sort of facility would generate and she stated
is against this development.
Bruce Wiese, 829, W. 6th Ave. , asked if the City could block
construction of this property by zoning. Chairman Clay said that
if the developer wants to develop anything other than what is
allowed in an R-3 district then they would have to apply for a
conditional use permit, or a rezoning.
Clint Hammer, 1308 W. 6th, stated his concern relative to the
impact of a criminal justice facility on the valuation of his
property.
Rolland Pistulka, 1371 W. 6th Ave. said he is opposed to a County
crinimal justice facility being developed at that site.
Clete Link stated that he thinks the property is highly
overpriced.
Discussion ensued relative to City liability for this type of
development.
I
Scott/Zak moved to direct staff to look into the environmental
impact of this situation and see if the State is liable to tear
it down and what we can do to explore the possibilities to have
them do that and get it back on the tax roles. Motion carried
unanimously.
Paul TenEyk, 903 W. 6th Ave. , asked why this area was zoned for
multi-family homes when the area is surrounded by all single
family homes and he stated he is against anything that would
generate a large amount of traffic.
Pat Schaefer, 1429 6th Ave. W. , said he would like to see the
buildings go and have something go in there but is against a
jail.
Chairman Clay asked if there were any other comments from the
audience. There was no further response.
Discussion ensued among the HRA members on the possibility of
rezoning this property to something more compatible to
surrounding land uses. The City Administrator said that in the
process of redoing the comprehensive plan that the issue of
rezoning this property could be evaluated as a part of this
process.
Wampach/Scott moved to have the City not sign the joint powers
agreement with Scott County HRA. Motion carried unanimously.
Persons in attendance and their addresses are as follows:
Bruce Wiese 829 W. 6th Ave.
Jan Wiese 829 W. 6th Ave.
Patrick Schafer 1429 W. 6th Ave.
Dorothy Clausen 804 W. 5th Ave.
Lauren Burgen 911 W. 5th Ave.
Paul TenEyk 903 W. 6th Ave.
Gene Lebens 1337 W. 6th Ave.
Gilbert Lebens 1337 W. 6th Ave.
Cindy Hath 820 W. 5th Ave.
Rod Robinson 914 W. 5th Ave.
Mr. & Mrs. Terry Nemity 921 W. 6th Ave.
Audrey Pistulka 1371 W. 6th Ave.
Rolland Pistulka 1371 W. 6th Ave.
Dora Harbeck 1305 W. 6th Ave.
Duane Marschall 1271 W. 6th Ave.
Zak/Vierling moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 8: 00 P.M.
Carol Schultz
Recording Secretary
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JULY 5, 1988
Mayor Lebens called the meeting to order at 7: 00 P.M. , with Cncl.
Wampach, Clay, Zak, Vierling and Scott present. Also present
were Rod Krass, Asst City Attorney, John K. Anderson, City
Administrator, Judith S. Cox, City Clerk, and Dave Hutton, City
Engineer.
Wampach/Clay moved to recess for a Housing and Redevelopment
Authority meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Wampach/Vierling moved to re-convene the Council meeting. Motion
carried unanimously.
__ - --- --- Liaison reports were given by Councilmembers.
Mayor Lebens asked if there was anyone present in the audience
who wished to speak on a matter which was not on the agenda.
Clint Hammer, 1308 West 6th Avenue, explained the relationship
between Shak-O-Valley Hockey Association and Valley Ice Arena.
He also stated that Valley Ice Arena is pursuing alternatives for
putting something over the present bubble. They have learned
that they can put up a shell for about $250,000.
Wampach/Vierling moved to approve the Consent Business.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Wampach/Clay moved to approve the Minutes of June 7, 1988.
Motion carried with Cncl.Vierling abstaining.
Clay/Zak moved to support the Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities in participating in a legal challenge to the
'disparity reduction aid' provided as part of the 1988 Omnibus
Tax Bill; and authorized Councilwoman Vierling to represent
Shakopee at the July 7th AMM board meeting. Motion carried
unanimously.
Wampach/Clay moved to receive and file the communication from
Barbara M. - Yanisch, Catholic Charities, regarding their rural
- - --- outreach program report. Motion carried unanimously.
Cncl.Clay stated that he would be willing to serve on the
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Housing and Economic
Development Policy Committee.
Wampach/Clay moved to receive and file the June 21, 1988
communication from Gary Bastian, Pres. of AMM, regarding
membership on AMM legislative policy committees. Motion carried
unanimously.
Proceedings of the City Council
July 5, 1988 Page -2-
Wampach/Vierling moved to submit an amendment request to the
Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) extending the
Community Energy Council Grant agreement one additional year and
authorized the appropriate City officials to enter into an
agreement with the Scott/Carver Community Action Agency for home
energy check-up auditor assistance. (Approved under Consent
Business)
Wampach/Vierling moved to approve Dial-A-Ride contract amendment
#7 extending the Saturday Dial-A-Ride Service hours through the
remainder of the contract period and eliminating the provision of
handicapped service. (Approved under Consent Business)
The City Engineer reported the estimated cost to provide calcium
chloride to unimproved rural roads, urban roads and alleys as
well as the estimated cost to improve rural roads with bituminous
surfacing and urban roads with curb, gutter and bituminous
surfacing and urban alleys with bituminous surfacing. He also
explained the city's policy on applying calcium chloride to
unimproved roads and alleys. Discussion followed.
The City Administrator reminded Council that the reason for
reconsidering the City's policy was because of Mr. Notermann's
request for treatment to Adams Street South of 6th Avenue. At
the previous meeting Mr. Notermann suggested waiting until after
the sewer project going in on Adams Street is completed. If the
Scott County HRA acquires the state property to the East of Adams
Street maybe they would be willing to share in the cost of some
calcium chloride treatment.
Vierling/Clay moved to bring the dust control request of Joe
Notermann back to Council in 60 days. (This would be after
completion of the 6th and Adams Street sanitary sewer
reconstruction project. ) Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion ensued on how Council wished to proceed following the
recent defeat of a referendum for a community center to be
located in the Minnesota Valley Mall. -
Wampach/Scott moved that the City Council take no action and thus
interpreting the results of the June 28th referendum to mean that
the voters are no longer interested in a community center
proposal. (Existing organizations who want to repackage the
proposal and bring it back to Council are encouraged to do so. )
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Wampach/Vierling moved to open the public hearing on the vacation
of Apgar Street from 1st Avenue to 2nd Avenue. Motion carried
unanimously.
Proceedings of the City Council
July 5, 1988 Page -3-
The City Engineer explained that several weeks ago the City
entered into an agreement with the Soo Line Railroad regarding
some spur line revisions in Apgar Street and part of the
agreement dealt with the possibility of vacating Apgar Street
between 1st and 2nd. He explained the concerns of abutting
property owners which he has become aware of which need to be
resolved. Shakopee Oil bulk plant has only one access which is
-- - - onto Apgar between the tracks. Staff is still researching whether
or not their property actually abuts Apgar or if they are
actually landlocked. Rahr also uses the same access through the
Shakopee Oil Co. driveway to exit their plant from the West onto
Apgar and then onto 1st Avenue. The Stemmer Feedmill also has a
driveway off Apgar North of the spur line. C. H. Carpenter
Lumber Co. also has a driveway off Apgar and they also have
another access off 1st Avenue. A retail building is located on
the corner of 1st and Apgar and their access is located farther
North of the tracks. The original intent was to vacate just
North of the tracks.
The City Engineer explained the community concerns regarding the
proposed vacation. Traffic from the South would have to be re-
routed one block to Scott and up to 1st Avenue. This is a better
point to enter 1st Avenue because of the traffic light.
Maintenance of the tracks is a major issue. The spur tracks have
been removed at Atwood and Scott. There is concern about the
traffic being routed past the hospital, school, church and fire
station, although it is actually better to have the main
collector street go past these types of institutions rather than
having emergency vehicles going through a residential
neighborhood.
The main benefits for closing Apgar from 1st to 2nd is the
reduced maintenance of the tracks which are being reduced in
number from 13 to two; improving safety by having one less
crossing for traffic; and the fact that Scott is a better place
to get onto lst Avenue because of the traffic signal. The City
Engineer also referred to a 1984 study which recommended that
Apgar Street be closed for the same reasons.
Mayor Lebens asked for comments from the audience.
Bob Friendshuh, Manager C. H. Carpenter, spoke in opposition to
the closing and presented Council with a petition signed by 250
people who are against the closing.
Robert Lockard, property owner to the East of Apgar, explained
that his tenant, Crown Auto, is concerned about losing clients.
Leroy Menke, Jackson Township, stated that he makes three to four
trips a day to the lumber company and if the street is closed it
will be more convenient to go to Walden Brothers out Hwy 169.
Proceedings of the City Council
July 5, 1988 Page -4-
Bill Stemmer, Feed Mill, stated that one-half of his 40 customers
come down Apgar Street and that he would like to street kept
open.
Jim Tracy, Shakopee Oil Co. , against closing.
Bob Pieper, out Apgar in Jackson Township, not in favor of
closing; sometimes only two cars can cross at Scott because of
the timing of the lights.
Dick Schmitz, 436 Apgar, opposed to the closing; hauls a lot of
grain with a semi and believes that 2nd Avenue is not wide enough
for him to make the turn at Apgar to Scott.
Discussion ensued among Councilmembers.
Mr. Krass, Asst. City Attorney, explained that we have an
established road and some established legal rights in the people
who use that road. Council's obligation in considering any
vacation is to have a public hearing and explore whether the
public is going to be best served by the vacation. In order to
approve a vacation, Council has to adopt a resolution making that
finding. From the public stand point there has been precious
little evidence submitted or comments submitted indicating the
public's going to benefit. we haven't heard any statistics about
health and safety problems at the crossing. He cautioned Council
to keep in mind their statutory obligation to make that finding.
He advised Council not to be concerned about commitments in the
agreement because he doesn't think that they are binding because
they attempt to make a commitment for something Council can't do.
They attempt to pre commit Council to a determination as to what
is going to occur after this public hearing and after you hear
the evidence and you can't do that legally.
Discussion continued.
Fred Marschall, 600 Hennes, stated that he uses Apgar Street
four times a day back and forth to work and that closing it would
be quite a hinderance. He believes that it is a terrible idea.
Mayor Lebens stated that some residents in the area have told her
that they would like the street closed because of the traffic.
Cncl.Vierling recommended closing the hearing and evaluating the
testimony heard to decide what to do.
Vierling/Zak moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried
unanimously.
Clay/Vierling moved to table the vacation of Apgar from 1st to
2nd until July 19th. Motion carried unanimously.
Proceedings of the City Council
July 5, 1988 Page -5-
Clay/Scott moved for a ten minute recess at 9: 05 P.M. Motion
carried unanimously.
Clay/Zak moved to re-convene. Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion ensued on whether or not Gate 5 at Canterbury Downs
can be opened for more than emergencies.
Mr. Tom Brock, Canterbury Downs, stated that it is their opinion
based on the language in the EAW (Environmental Assessment
Worksheet) , the Indirect Source Permit, and the conditional use
permit that they are within those limits of using Gate 5 for
peaking. In order to make it clear he suggested that a number be
put on what is a peak event.
Zak/Vierling moved to place a moratorium on the use of Gate 5 for
two weeks until the next council meeting giving Mr. Brock a
chance to meet with the City Engineer to study the alternatives.
Motion carried unanimously.
The Asst City Attorney, Mr. Krass, explained that Mr. Scherber
and Mr. Clark are requesting that the proposed route for the
upper valley drainage (which bisects their 40 acre parcel) be
moved to the South of their property. They are offering to sell
the easement for this Southerly route to the City for $100, 000.
Mr. Krass explained that the City has followed their standard
procedure for acquisition and does not recommend that the City
change the amount offered on the appraisal.
Vierling/Wampach moved to direct the appropriate City officials
to contact Mr. Carmichael who is representing Mr. Scherber and
Mr. Clark and indicate that the City Council is not interested in
their offer as outlined in Mr. Carmichael's letter of June 22,
3.988 to Mr. Philip R. Krass. (CC Doc #157) . Motion carried
unanimously.
Wampach/Vierling moved to direct the appropriate City officials
to select a planner for testimony before the condemnation hearing
on acquiring property for the Upper Valley Drainage and bring
back an agreement for said planner's services for Council action.
Motion carried unanimously.
Vierling/Clay moved to approve the bills in the amount of
$1,572,871.41.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried
Wampach/Vierling moved to authorize the City of Shakopee
Engineering Department to prepare Plans and Specifications for
the purpose of constructing a Lions Park Southern loop bituminous
trail extension including the preparation of a small pond and
bridge as a part of the project, funding to be provided by the
Shakopee Lions Club. (Approved under Consent Business)
Proceedings of the City Council
July 5, 1988 Page -6-
Wampach/Vierling moved to extend the Planning Internship of Jon
Glennie through August 31, 1988 and authorize the appropriate
City officials to advertise for the filling of the Planning
Intern position for a six month period starting no earlier than
September 1, 1988. (Approved under Consent Business)
Wampach/Vierling moved to authorize the appropriate City official
to file a civil suit against Don and Lorraine Parrott for
violation of the stipulation entered into between the Parrotts
and the City of Shakopee in October, 1987. (Approved under
Consent Business)
Wampach/Vierling moved to authorize the City Administrator to
execute an Understanding of Engagement with Jaspers, Streefland &
Company for audit services for FY 1988 in the amount of $8,200.
(Approved under Consent Business)
Wampach/Vierling moved to authorize staff to make a selection of
a Risk Manager for the bidding process of employee group
insurance and bring the matter back to Council for final
approval. (Approved under Consent Business)
Wampach/Vierling moved to approve the transfer: from Tax
Increment Trust to HRA for administration fees, $31, 000. 00; from
Tax Increment Trust to General Fund for administration fees,
$75,000.00; from Tax Increment Trust to Debt Service Fund 86A
Ref.TIF, $249, 000. 00; from Tax Increment Trust to Debt Service
Fund 86A TIF, $18,000.00; from Tax Increment Trust to Debt
Service Fund 86B TIF, $118,000.00; from Tax Increment Trust to
Debt Service Fund 87A TIF, $419, 000. 00; from Tax Increment Trust
to Debt Service Fund 87B TIF, $75,000.00; from General Fund to
Community Recreation, $48, 150.00; from General Fund to 85A Imp.
Debt Service, $6,396.00; from General Fund to 86A IMP. Debt
Service, $34,460.00; from General Fund to 86B Imp. Debt Service,
$29,096.00; from General Fund to 86A Ref. Imp. Debt Service,
$52,577.00; from General Fund to 87A Imp. Debt Service,
$4,473.00; and from Sewer Fund to Sewer Debt Service, $20,000.00.
(Approved under Consent Business)
Wampach/Vierling moved to receive the 1987 Annual Reports (from
City departments) . (Approved under Consent Business)
The City Administrator explained that Mr. Dressen, 1529 West 6th
Avenue, is parking fuel trucks in a residential area. He
explained that Mr. Dressen has had garages for his fuel trucks in
the residential area for many years and so this is new to him.
The problem is that the City is now aware of the fact that this
is not in compliance with the State Fire Code. Separate
questions that staff will follow up on are whether or not Mr.
Dressen can work on the fuel trucks at his residence and comply
with the code and if he can stop there over his lunch hour.
Proceedings of the City Council
July 5, 1988 Page -7-
Zak/Scott moved that the City give Mr. Dressen 30 days from July
5th to remove the vehicles (fuel trucks at his residence) ; and
that during this 30 day period any vehicles parked in the
residential area be empty to provide a minimum of safety and
welfare. Motion carried unanimously.
Wampach/Vierling moved to table agenda item 9m on the watermain
special assessment policy. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Engineer updated Council on recent discussions with
Mn/DOT regarding interim improvements to the Highway 101/169
intersection. The levels of improvements explored were: Level 1
- close Holmes St. permanently or allow right turns in and right
turns out of Holmes, but prohibit straight thru traffic, Level 2
- prohibit parking on lst Avenue for both sides of the street
from Lewis to Fuller, one block in each direction from Holmes,
Level 3 - add a full width right turn lane coming off of the I
bridge to permit additional traffic stacking for this movement,
Level 4 - restrict left turn movement off the bridge into the
alley behind City Hall or close the alley completely. Discussion
followed.
Vierling/Clay moved to hold a public meeting on July 26th at 7 :00
P.M. to discuss the impacts of closing Holmes Street and
eliminating parking on lst Avenue with the downtown businesses.
Motion carried unanimously.
Wampach/Vierling moved to authorize the appropriate City
officials to execute an extension agreement with Orr-Schelen-
Mayeron & Assoc. , Inc. for Market Street from 1st Avenue to Bluff
Avenue, Project No. 1988-6 in the amount of $3 ,500.00. (Approved
under Consent Business)
Wampach/Vierling moved to authorize City staff to install a
concrete pan along the curb line of Horizon Drive through the
cul-de-sac at an estimated cost of $2,500.00. (Approved under
Consent Business)
Wampach/Vierling moved to acknowledge receipt of a memo from the
City Engineer explaining standards for removing tree wrappings
from planted trees and explaining that the City will be removing
the wrappings from the trees planted last year as part of the
Downtown Streetscape Project. (Approved under Consent Business)
Clay/Vierling moved to table the request of Westwood Engineering
for a change order to their original contract for engineering
services for the Downtown Streetscape Project. Motion carried
unanimously.
Proceedings of the City Council
July 5, 1988 Page -8-
The City Engineer updated the Council on the status of the Upper
Valley Drainage Project. He explained an analysis of the
drainage ditch and the effect of not providing an outlet at 4th
Avenue which was completed by OSM.
Clay/Vierling authorized personnel to hire Mr. Newton Parker at
entry level one ($23,219) effective July 15, 1988, with a six
months service credit.
Roll Call: Ayes; Cncl.Scott, Clay, Vierling, Zak, and Wampach
Noes; Mayor Lebens Motion carried
Vierling/Zak moved to reaffirm Administrative Policy No. 50,
Procedures for Handling Damage Claims dated September 14, 1981.
Motion carried with Mayor Lebens opposed.
Wampach/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2919, A Resolution
Determining the Necessity for and Authorizing the Acquisition of
Certain Property by Proceeding in Eminent Domain for Purposes of
Construction the Upper Valley Drainage, Project No. 1987-5, and
moved its adoption. (Approved under Consent Business)
Wampach/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2920, A Resolution
Determining the Necessity for and Authorizing the Acquisition of
Certain Property by Proceeding in Eminent Domain for Purposes of
Construction Vierling Drive from County Road 17 Easterly for ±
3200 Feet, Project No. 1988-1, and moved its adoption. (Approved
under Consent Business)
Wampach/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2921, A Resolution
Amending the City of Shakopee Personnel Policy Adopted by
Resolution No. 1571, and moved its adoption. (Approved under
Consent Business)
Wampach/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2922 , A Resolution
Amending Resolution 2817 Adopting the 1988 Budget, and moved its
adoption. (Approved under Consent Business)
Vierling/Zak offered Resolution No. 2923, A Resolution Approving
Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids 1988
Pavement Preservation Program - Overlays, Project No. 1988-8, and
moved its adoption; and authorized transfer of an additional
$100, 000 from the 1987 year end fund balance for this project.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried
Vierling/Zak moved to table Resolution No. 2924, A Resolution
Accepting Bid on 6th Avenue Sanitary Sewer, Project No. 1988-2.
Motion carried unanimously.
Vierling/Clay offered Resolution No. 2925, A Resolution Accepting
Bid on Vierling Drive from County Road 17 to the East, Project
No. 1988-1, and moved its adoption.
Proceedings of the City Council
July 5, 1988 Page -9-
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried
Wampach/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2917, A Resolution
Receiving A Report and Calling A Hearing on Improvement to the
Alley in Block 55, and moved its adoption. (Approved under
Consent Business)
Vierling/Zak moved to accept the 1988 Budget Calendar, as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
Vierling/Zak moved to adjourn to Tuesday, July 19, 1988 at 7:00
P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:03
P.M.
CCth S. Cox
Y Clerk
R cording Secretary
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL
Adj . Reg. Session Shakopee, Minnesota August 16, 1988
Mayor Lebens called the meeting to order at 7: 05 P.M. , with Cncl.
Zak, Scott, Wampach, Clay and Vierling present. Also present:
John Anderson, City Admin. ; Judith Cox, City Clerk; Dave Hutton,
City Eng. ; Dennis Kraft, Comm. Development Director and Julius A.
_ - - -Coller, - II, City Atty.
Clay/Vierling moved to recess for the Shakopee Housing and
Redevelopment Authority meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Wampach/Zak moved to reconvene at 7:55 P.M. Motion carried
unanimously.
Wampach/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2935, A Resolution
Providing for the Issuance and Sale of $1, 100,000 - General
Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1988A, and Levying a Tax for
the Payment Thereof, and moved for its adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes - Unanimous
Noes - None Motion Carried
Mayor Lebens recognized anyone in the audience not on the agenda,
who wished to address the City Council. There was no response.
Clay/Vierling moved to approve the Consent Business.
Roll Call: Ayes - Unanimous
Noes - None Motion Carried
Clay/Vierling moved to approve the City Council meeting minutes
of July 19, 1988 and July 26, 1988. (Motion carried under
-- - --- Consent Business) .
Clay/Wampach moved to approve the City Council meeting minutes of
August 2, 1988. Motion carried with Cncl. Vierling abstaining
due to absence.
Clay/Vierling moved to authorize the appropriate City Staff to
investigate the neighbors request for elimination of the cul-de-
sac island in Merritt Court. (Motion carried under Consent
Business) .
Clay/Wampach moved to submit Cncl. Vierling's name as a
candidate to the Transportation Advisory Board. Motion carried
unanimously.
Mike Stadther, 1077 Shawmut, spoke to the City Council requesting
clarification of 11th Avenue right-of-way through Prairie Estates
1st Addition.
Shakpoee City Council August 16, 1988
Adj . Reg. Session Page -2-
Rick Fox, 1064 Marschall Road, stated he received no public
hearing notice relative to Prairie Estates 1st Addition and the
construction of 11th Avenue. He stated his rights had been
violated by this omission.
Bob Waldridge requested that the sidewalk along 11th Avenue be
placed on the south side of the street.
Lawrence Vierling stated that for safety reasons the sidewalk
should be placed on the north side of 11th Avenue, thereby
eliminating icy walkway conditions during winter months.
Tim Dressen stated that 11th Avenue should not be constructed and
would like the project halted.
Zak/Wampach moved to table further discussion relative to 11th
Avenue and request the Planning Commission clarify the easement
situation through Prairie Estates lst Addition. Motion carried
with Cncl. Vierling abstaining.
A special meeting of the Planning Commission was suggested.
Scott/Clay moved for a 10-minutes recess at 9: 10 P.M. Motion
carried unanimously.
Zak/Vierling moved to reconvene at 9:20 P.M. Motion carried
unanimously.
Clay/Vierling moved to concur with the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and direct the City Attorney to prepare the
necessary ordinance to rezone from I-1 to I-2, Lots 1-5, Block 3 ,
Koeper's 1st addition and the area immediately to the East of Lot
5, extending to the western line of Lot 1, Block 175, Original
Plat. (Motion carried under Consent Business) .
Clay/Vierling moved to direct City Staff to inform the developers
of the Super 8 Motel property that if a sidewalk along the East
side of County Road 17 is not installed by the end of 1988, the
City will install the sidewalk during the spring of 1989 and
utilize the Letter of Credit the City now holds for the cost of
construction. (Motion carried under Consent Business) .
Clay/Vierling moved to direct City Staff to send a petition to
the developers of Brooks Superette, reminding them of the
condition for approval of the project requiring their signing of
a petition initiating the sidewalk improvements along County Road
17. (Motion carried under Consent Business) .
Shakopee city Council August 16, 1988
Adj . Reg. Session Page -3-
Clay/Vierling moved to approve the Quit Claim Deed for the
"existing easement" for Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District
Drainageway within the Meadowbrook Run Subdivision and accepting
the new easement, directing the appropriate City Official to
execute these documents. (Motion carried under Consent
Business) .
Clay/Vierling moved to authorize the appropriate City Officials
to amend the final plat of Meadowbrook Run 1st Addition to show
the revised easement. (Motion carried under Consent Business) .
Police Chief Brownell stated that 1st Avenue is not condusive to
traffic enforcement. He suggested that for safety reasons,
parking along 1st Avenue be eliminated.
Vierling/Zak moved that staff pursue a compromise of prohibiting
parking on 1st Avenue but allow for partial parking on weekdays
and Saturdays but eliminating parking on Sunday; along with the
possibility of prohibiting left hand turns by the westerly moving
traffic on Highway 169 at the intersections of Lewis, Holmes,
-- Fuller and Atwood Streets. Motion carried with Cncl. Wampach and
Clay opposed.
Clay/Wampach moved to approve the 1989-1993 Capital Improvements
Program as recommended by the Planning Commission. Motion
carried with Mayor Lebens opposed.
Clay/Vierling moved to set a public hearing for September 13,
1968 at 8 P.M. , in the City Council Chambers, on the adoption of
the amendment to the City's Thoroughfare Plan for the T.H.
169/101 Bridge and Interchange (Mini By-Pass) and the adoption of
an official map ordinance. Motion carried unanimously.
Clay/Vierling moved to direct the City Attorney to draft the
ordinance adopting the official map. Motion carried unanimously.
City Council recommended pursuing a lease agreement arrangement
for individuals wishing to encroach with landscaping on City
property and directed staff to explore possibilities to permit
individuals to encroach with landscaping on City property such as
sell, lease, hold harmless agreements, etc.
Vierling/Wampach moved to not refund the Certificate of Occupancy
fee to Heavy Duty Air due to their occupying the building prior
to final inspection. Motion carried unanimously.
Vierling/Clay moved to receive and file the letter from Robert
Vierling, dated August 8, 1988. Motion carried unanimously.
Shakopee City Council August 16, 1988
Adj . Reg. Session Page -4-
Clay/Zak moved to authorize the City Engineer to continue to
monitor the dust control efforts in the Meadows lst Addition and
at his discretion as a means of dust control, restrict travel on
11th Avenue, providing the area residents concur. Motion carried
unanimously.
Clay/Zak moved to direct City Staff to revise the erosion control
ordinance to include dust control measures and to have the
ordinance approved before the next construction season. Motion
carried unanimously.
Wampach/Vierling moved to authorize the appropriate City Staff to
notify Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Assoc. , Inc. , that their proposal to
perform drainage design work for the Shakopee Bypass at a cost of
$31,500.00 is acceptable and to execute a formal extension
agreement for same.
Roll Call: Ayes - Unanimous
Noes - None Motion Carried
Wampach/Clay moved to remove from the table the Scherber/Clark
Acquisition. Motion carried unanimously.
Scott/Vierling moved to direct staff to proceed with construction
of the Upper Valley Drainage system as originally designed and
directed Mr. Scherber to pay the $368 cost for the soil borings
test. Motion carried unanimously.
Clay/Vierling moved to authorize the payment of Partial Estimate
Voucher No. 2, in the amount of $5,818.78 to Job Erection &
Engineering, Inc. , P. 0. Box 316, Shakopee, MN 55379 for the
Huber Trail Park Project No. 1987-15.
Roll call: Ayes - Wampach, Zak, Vierling, Clay
Noes - Lebens, Scott Motion Carried
Clay/Vierling moved to authorize the payment of Partial Estimate
Voucher No. 6, in the amount of $2, 004 .39 to S.M. Hentges & Sons,
Inc. , P. 0. Box 212, Shakopee, MN 55379 for the 13th Avenue
(Vierling Drive) Project No. 1987-12. (Motion carried under
Consent Business) .
Vierling/Wampach moved to authorize the payment of Partial
Estimate Voucher No. 9, in the amount of $206, 900.12 to
Hardrives, Inc. , 7200 Hemlock Lane North, Maple Grove, MN 55369,
for the Downtown Streetscape Project No. 1987-2.
Roll Call: Ayes - Unanimous
Noes - None Motion Carried
Shakopee City Council August 16, 1988
Adj . Reg. Session Page -5-
Clay/Vierling moved to authorize payment of Partial Estimate
Voucher No. 2, in the amount of $2,280.00 to S.M. Hentges &
Sons. , Inc. , P. O. Box 212, Shakopee, MN 55379, for the Tahpah
Football Field Project NO. 1988-4. (Motion carried under Consent
Business) .
Wampach/Clay moved to retain Corporate Risk Managers, Inc. , for
the rebidding of the group health, life, long term disability and
AD&D at a cost not to exceed $1,931.25.
Roll Call: Ayes - Unanimous
Noes - None Motion Carried
Clay/Vierling moved to approve the payment of the bills totaling
$181,279.94.
Roll Call: Ayes - Unanimous
Noes - None Motion Carried
Clay/Vierling moved to approve the application and grant an On-
Sale 3.2 beer license to St. Mary's Catholic Church, 535 Lewis
Street, for August 28, 1988. (Motion carried under Consent
Business) .
Clay/Vierling moved to authorize the appropriate City officials
to: 1) Purchase from Minnesota Conway Fire & Safety, 1 Style
MTFT-R 2 1/2" NST at $495.00; 1 Style HTFT-VPG 2 1/2" NST at
$449.00; 1 Style HTFT-VPGI 1 1/2" NST at $449. 00. 2) Purchase
from Smeal Fire Equipment, 1 #8297 Stinger Monitor at $1,201.00.
(Motion carried under Consent Business) .
Clay/Vierling moved to direct the preparation of a formal City
policy which addresses the conduct of City employees and
officials and establishes administrative procedures which are
consistent with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act as
relates to the handling of Property Complaint Data and to further
insure that City employees and officials receive a copy of said
policy. Motion carried with Cncl. Wampach opposed.
Clay/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2939, A Resolution
Appointing Judges of Election and Establishing Compensation and
moved for its adoption. (Motion carried under Consent Business) .
Clay/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2937, A Resolution Declaring
Adequacy of Petition and Ordering Preparation of a Report for
Sewer and Water Improvements to 3rd Avenue, between 6th Avenue
and 3rd Avenue and moved for its adoption. (Motion carried under
Consent Business) .
Shakopee City Council August 16, 1988
Adj . Reg. Session Page -6-
Clay/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2938, A Resolution Accepting
Bids on the Pavement Preservation Project No. 1988-8, to
Hardrives, Inc. , 7200 Hemlock Lane North, Maple Grove, MN 55369,
and moved for its adoption. (Motion carried under Consent
Business) .
Clay/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2936, A Resolution Ordering
Advertisement for Bids on Market Street Project No. 1988-6, and
moved for its adoption. (Motion carried under Consent Business) .
Vierling/Zak offered Ordinance No. 247, An Ordinance Annexing to
the City of Shakopee the Unincorporated Property Hereinafter
Described and which abuts the City of Shakopee, and moved for its
adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes - Unanimous
Noes - None Motion Carried
Vierling/Clay offered Ordinance No. 251, An Ordinance Relating to
official Maps and Their Effect and Providing Procedures in
Connection Therewith and moved for its adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes - Unanimous
Noes - None Motion Carried
Clay/Vierling moved to adjourn to August 17, 1988 at 6: 30 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:00 a.m.
udlith Cox"
City Clerk
L
Jane VanMaldeghem
Recording Secretary
SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL
AAT. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 17, 1988
Mayor Lebens called the meeting to order at 6: 30 p.m. with Cncl.
Clay, Vierling, Wampach, Zak and Scott present. Also present was
John K. Anderson, City Administrator.
The City Administrator introduced Joel Michael, House Research,
and Gene Ranieri, Director of Governmental Affairs. Joel
addressed the Council and explained why the State amended the Tax
Increment Law regarding school referendums and why the provision
requires the School and City to figure out how to divide the
monies up. Cncl. Scott had a concern about using the Tax
Increment Funding. Cncl. Zak had a concern about the legislature
-- --bainganti-amity and pro-school. Gene Ranieri said that one of
the options for the School District Association is to go back to
the legislature asking for the permissive negotiations to become
mandatory.
Wampach/Vierling moved to recess for HRA meeting. Motion carried
unanimously.
Zak/Vierling moved to reconvene to City council at 8: 00 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
- - --- ---Dennis --Kraft., - Community _ Development Director reviewed the
Murphy's Landing - Consultant Report that was submitted by Mr.
Ronald Nelson. Cncl. Scott said the report should be more
detailed and some specifics be put down in the report and the
artifacts should be catalogued. Cool. Clay suggested that Mayor
Lebens, Cncl. Scott and Cool. Wampach meet with Mr. Nelson and
draw up some sort of agreement and also discuss the cost and get
some estimates. Dennis Kraft agreed to meet with the Committee
so he can relay to Mr. Nelson what is really needed in the
report.
Dr. Pistulka said the audit is more than just a City venture and
that someone from the outside should do the audit, and that the
City find a .qualified person to run it preferably someone who has
experience in the situation.
Clay/Scott moved -that staff contact Mr. Nelson and set up a
meeting with the Committee to delineate in more detailed aspects
of the report and direct staff to seek out an individual for an
audit and to get started on the physical inventory. Motion
carried unanimously.
Cncl. Scott had a concern on a number of up coming budget items,
one being the cost of the Assistant City Attorney's services and
the possibility of maybe putting a cap on the cost. Discussion
ensued on bidding out the position at a certain cost. Mayor
Lebens said she would like to explore the possibility of paying
just a yearly fee instead of an hourly fee.
City Council
August 17, 1988
Page -2-
Discussion ensued on the Downtown Committee and the fact that
their functions have been fulfilled. The City Administrator said
that the City staff will prepare some background information on
the Downtown Committee and mail it to the members of Council for
review and evaluation.
Zak/Vierling moved to table the discussion on the Downtown
Committee and their function until further information was
received from Staff. Motion carried unanimously.
Cncl. Vierling had a concern on the present schooY.-ATistrict and
said she feels some concessions should be made now rather than
risk the loss of everything, she does not feel that the City
should take any money out of the Racetrack Tax Increment
Financing District, but would support the possibility of taking
money out of the other Districts and rolling it over to the
School District. Consensus was to get the bottom line of what
the School Board financial needs were in 1988-89 to avoid
statutory debt.
Clay/Vierling moved to adjourn to Tuesday, August _2,_ 1988_ at _
7:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at
9:35 p.m.
JiAh S. Cox
Cty) Clerk
Carol Schultz
Recording Secretary
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADJ.REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 23, 1988
Mayor Lebens called the meeting to order at 7 :00 P.M. with Cncl.
Clay, Wampach, Zak, Vierling, and Scott present. Also present
were John K. Anderson, City Administrator; Judith S. Cox, City
Clerk; Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director; and Newton
Parker, Housing Inspector. Leroy Houser, Building official
arrived late.
Wampach/Clay offered Resolution No. 2940, A Resolution Declaring
the Cost to be Assessed and Ordering the Preparation of Proposed
Assessments for The Valley Industrial Park Interceptor Sewer
Project from County Road 17 to County Road 79, Project No. 1987-
13 , and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously.
Vierling/Wampach moved to approve the Community Development
Director's recommended number of persons to serve on the
Comprehensive Plan Task Force and appointed the following:
Staff: John Anderson, Dave Hutton, Dennis Kraft and Douglas Wise;
City Council: Gary Scott, Joe Zak and Gloria Vierling; Planning
Commission: John Schmitt and Terry Forbord; Community
Development Commission: Tim Keane; Shakopee Public Utilities
Commission: Lou VanHout; Shakopee Community Services Commission:
Dean Roper; Industrial Representatives: Noreen Rachor;
Development Community: Clete Link, and Zack Johnson;
Entertainment Industry: Pat Dawson and Linnea Stromberg-Wise;
Shakopee Chamber of Commerce: Theresa Roehrich; Downtown
Business Community: Dave Brown and Patrick Schroers; Community
Residents: Mitchel Dubois, Dave Czaja, Bruce Wiese and Glenda
Spiotta. Motion carried unanimously.
Vierling/Clay moved to remove from the table the hiring of a
planning firm to evaluate the effects of a right-of-way taking
from Scherber/Clark property for storm drainage system. Motion
carried unanimously.
Vierling/Zak moved to direct appropriate City officials to enter
into an agreement with Hoisington Group Inc. to provide an
analysis and prepare a report for the storm drainage right-of-way
taking from Scherber/Clark for the Upper Valley Drainage Project
at an estimated rate not to exceed $4, 000.00, and to provide
expert testimony (including meetings, etc. ) at $80.00 per hour;
said hiring to be based upon demonstrated need.
Roll Call: Ayes; Wampach, Zak, Vierling, Scott and Clay
Noes; Mayor Lebens Motion carried
Zak/Vierling moved to waive the 60 day disapproval period that
the City has prior to the State Gambling Board issuing a gambling
exemption to Shakopee Ducks Unlimited for a raffle to be
conducted on September 13, 1988. Motion carried unanimously.
Proceedings of the City Council
August 23, 1988 Page -2-
Mr. Houser, Building Official, addressed the Council regarding
the new Housing Inspection Program. Pursuant to Council
direction, inspections will be made to non-homestead rental units
in the B-1, B-2 and B-3 districts. He explained that this is not
a program to address aesthetic problems but rather to address
life, safety, and health problems.
Mr. Parker, Housing Inspector, addressed the Council regarding a
proposal for a more comprehensive approach for a Housing
Maintenance Program that more fully addresses the problems. In
addition to non-homestead rental units, this program includes
homestead properties. Homestead properties would be inspected
only when they are being sold. With this inspection the
purchaser can expect that the property will be up to standards.
This approach does not touch upon commercial or industrial
properties unless adjacent to another property being inspected
and it appears that there is a problem.
Mr. Houser stated that first of all inspections would be made in
the commercial area and when done then Council can think about
what Mr. Parker has proposed.
Consensus of Council was that they were concerned with life,
health and safety and that the more comprehensive approach should
be implemented.
Zak/Wampach moved to endorse the Housing Maintenance Program as
proposed and directed the appropriate City officials to schedule
a public hearing on September 20th concerning the ordinance
amendments. Motion carried unanimously. (Doc. No. CC-158)
Zak/Vierling moved that administration seek to provide
administrative support to the building inspection program via
clerical assistance at least in the early days, perhaps beyond,
and to support this effort and keep it moving along at an even
pace. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Bob Tomczik, Hockey Association, addressed the Council
regarding obtaining a pull-tab license at the Pullman. He
explained the circumstances surrounding the Hockey Association's
abandoning their license at the Pullman in the past. He also
indicated that if the Hockey Association were to receive a
license at the Pullman, that it would be in addition to the
license they now have at Canterbury. Consensus of Council was
that if the owner of the Pullman would give them a lease, that
Council would have no objections to their obtaining a license.
Zak/Scott moved for a recess at 8:48 P.M. Motion carried
unanimously.
Proceedings of the city council
August 23, 1988 Page -3-
Zak/Vierling moved to reconvene at 8:56 P.M. Motion carried
unanimously.
Clay/Vierling moved to direct staff to contact the Minnesota
Department of Transportation requesting a stop light at the
intersection of 1st Avenue and Minnesota Street. Motion carried
unanimously.
Clay/Wampach moved to recess to an executive session to discuss
1988/89 Police labor negotiations. Motion carried unanimously.
Vierling Zak moved to re-convene at 9:33 P.M. Motion carried
unanimously.
Vierling/Clay moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 9:33 P.M.
�th S. Cox
cit} Clerk
Recording Secretary
�n�R® gCU
P.O. Box 359 • 4500 Valley Industrial Boulevard • Shakopee, MN 55379
612-4963227 • Fax 612-496-2239
'RECE!'JED
September 2, 1988 SEP- 21988
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
John Anderson
Shakopee City Council
129 E. First Ave.
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear John,
Heavy Duty Air was unaware of us being on the August 16, 1988
agenda.
Heavy Duty Air would like to address the Council in person, if
possible, on September 6, 1988.
Thank you in advance for your help.
Yours very truly,
HEAVY DUTY AIR
`0�
Weir Beckon
President and CEO
lob
K a�
MEMO TO: City Council
FROM: LeRoy Houser, Building Official
RE: Heavy Duty Air
DATE: August 8, 1988
INTRODUCTION
Attached is the background information on Heavy Duty Air, which
lead to our Departments decision not to refund their certificate
of occupancy fee.
BACKGROUND
It is the owners contention his people were in the building
setting up equipment the night we conducted the suprise
inspection. It is our position this constitutes occupying a
building prior to obtaining a temporary certificate of occupancy.
The intent of the ordinance is to insure that all life safety
items are complete before anyone occupies a building. The life
safety and sanitation items were not complete at the time Heavy
Duty Air was working in the building and again, we say working in
the building constitutes occupying the building.
The owner was in my office on 8/8/88 and apprised me that I
should not be shocked when he goes to the Council. He also
indicated that the inspection department broke into his building
for the inspection. Section 202 (c) of the State Code
specifically authorized right of entry for the duly appointed
inspectors .
Council has to decide whether or not the certificate of occupancy
fee should be refunded. The Inspection Department has
recommended no refund. Council should realize that this is the
second time they were working in the building after being
informed that they were in violation.
ALTERNATIVE
1. Keep all of the certificate of occupancy fee.
2. Refund a portion of the certificate of occupancy fee.
3. Refund all of the certificate of occupancy fee.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend we keep the entire certificate of occupancy fee.
ACTION REQUESTED
Have Council move not to refund the certificate of occupancy fee
for Heavy Duty Air due to their occupying the building prior to
final inspection.
LH:cah
Attachments
i,
Council action of August 16, 1988:
Vierling/Wampach moved to not refund the Certificate of Occupancy
fee to Heavy Duty Air due to their occupying the building prior to
final inspection. Motion carried unanimously.
YEMO TO: John P;. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: LeRoy Houser, Building Official
R=: Certificate Of Occupancy Fee for Heavv
Duty Air - 4500 Valley Industrial Blvd.
DA=: June 29 , 1958
At 9: 00 P.M. June 28 , 1988 , Fulton and = conducted a surprise
inspection of the Heavv Duty Air facility. We suspected they
were occupying and manufacturing in the building ::ith ovt fist
ebtzirina final inspections and the certificate c`
The inspection confirmed this, occupancy.
The owner was advised of the penalty two weeks aao (loss of to=_
C. D. fee of $4 ,575 . 00) when he allowed his lersee in the buildinghe
with their eguinmert- He chose to ignore -mv instructions.
He has been officially notified as of this date to vacate the
-remises until the certificate of occupancy
Also, he has been neti = ' has been issued.
-ied he has lost .is certificate
occupancy deposit. o`
ZF: cah
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
INCORPORATED 1870
129 EAST FIRST AVENUE,SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379-1376 (612)445-36M
r..�+
June 29, 1988
Mr. David Dnistran
Geo. Grant Const. Co.
831 Como Ave.
St. Paul, MN :5103
Re: Permit No. 7790
Heavy Duty Air
Dear Mr. Dnistran:
We regret to inform you that you have forfeited your certificate
o_` occupancy fee for the above permit. You have permitted
occupancy of the Heavy Duty Air building and manufacturing in
same without benefit o_ final inspection and temporary certificate
Of occupancy.
You were instructed by me t--ee weeks ago that you would be
Derm-t7ed _O occugv the ____ding as SSoon as the f a_ was cone or.
-he - "=:Dn ;c system, elec __ ____ ___ _ suD_Dressi--
.- these _- ` safety _ _= ..
_-ed we w _=c __sue a
termorary certificate of occ=ancv .
You were also informed you occas_ied or perms_ted anvone to
occupv this build-nu you would lose vo-u- ce-ti=date e' occupancy
fee.
z-v c ' the certificate c= occuDancv ordinance
sa = c __r being turned over to the City ADtorney
for o-osectuion.
=f you have any questions, co not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
LeRoy Houser
Building Official
LH:cah
The Heart Of Progress Valley
Building Permit No.
Certificate of Occupancv Fee
Purpose
The Shakopee City Council has enacted the Certificate of
Occupancy charge to 1) assure the completion of all construc-
tion work within the City within a reasonable time frame (6
months) ; and 2) facilitate completion of all required inspections
prior to the building being occupied.
C.O. Charce
The following C.O. charges have been adopted by the Shakopee
City Council .
Commercial/Industrial . 005 times the value of the
project, or $500. 00, which-
ever is greater.
Residentia'_ . 005 times the value of the
proiect with a $500 . 00
maximum.
(90% o'_ the fee shall be re'-untied when a final certificate of
occupancy is issued. )
Penalty: The tota_ C.C. fee will not be refunded in the event
the be-!diad _s occupied without benef t of a final
Certificate of Occupancy or a temporary Certificate
or Occunancc.
3 portion cf the Certificate of Occupancv may be
c:.arged against 'reinspection fees" at the rate
of s=-x . 00 per reinspection.
I the under_icnec, acknowledge and agree to the conditions
stated for the C_rt_icate o_` Occupancy charge. -
Applican � � -_
Dater %-�.
0 K�
183 University Ave.East
St.Paul,MN 55101-2526
League of Minnesota Cities (612)227.5600(FAX:221.0986)
August 23, 1988 UG 2 =1Stlf7
To: Mayors, Managers, and Clerks CITY OF Si iAKOPEE
FROM: James Scheibel, President, League of Minnesota Cities
Council President, City of St. Paul
RE: 1988 LMC Regional Meetings/Issue Papers
Each year the League of Minnesota Cities conducts a series of regional
meetings to provide an informal occasion for local officials to join in
shaping the LMC agenda for the next legislative session. The regional
meetings provide a special avenue for the League's board, officers, and
staff to receive direction from local officials on the priorities of
municipalities throughout the state.
The regional meetings are important to appropriate policy formation.
The meetings are atime to discuss our commonalities and our
diversities as Minnesota municipalities, and to identify the strengths
and needs on which we want to act. The regional meetings are also a
time for us to share as local elected officials.
The focus of the afternoon program, which begins at 2:30 pm, is
personnel issues such as how to employ, terminate, discipline, and
develop an affirmative action plan. There also will be two separate
roundtables to discuss Minnesota-'s new property tax system and how your
city is progressing with its -comparable worth plan.
The evening's agenda--will deal with important legislative issues.
Attached are- issue papers on truth in taxation requirements, the
homestead credit program, land use legislation, the local government
pay equity act, PERA pension benefits, the development of an ethical
code for elected officials, and the tax-exempt status of municipal
bonds. At each regional meeting, participants will be asked to
complete a ballot sheet indicating their positions on these issues.
Please review these issue papers with your council so your city is
prepared to complete the ballot.
This year, the League is adding a new dimension to our regional
meetings. We will present a special slide show for city officials and
legislators on the 'State of the Cities.- The slide show details the
latest information about the financial status of Minnesota's cities.
PLEASE PERSONALLY INVITE YOUR LEGISLATORS TO THE REGIONAL MEETING YOUR
CITY WILL BE ATTENDING. This will give you an opportunity to discuss
these critical issues with your own legislators.
OVER
Mayors, Managers, and Clerks
Page 2
August 23 , 1988
I sincerely hope you will be able to attend the regional meeting in
your area. Your participation is welcomed. Each city will receive an
invitation from the host city in your area. However, if for some
reason you do not, please call the contact person listed for the
regional meeting your city would like to attend to make reservations.
League of Minnesota Cities 1988 Regional Meetings
Agenda
Afternoon Session -- 2: 30 - 5:00 pm
1. Personnel Issues -- How to hire, fire, discipline, deal with
(2: 30 - 3 : 30 pm) veteran preference hearings, and develop
an affirmative action program
2. Break -- 3 :30 - 3: 45 pm
3 . Round Table Discussions -- Comparable Worth Plans and
Implementation Schedules
Minnesota's New Property Tax System
State of the Cities Briefing -- 5: 00 - 5.30 pm
A special slide show presentation, for city officials and legislators,
concerning the ^State of the Cities.^ The slide show will highlight the
financial status of cities -- trends in city spending, property taxes,
state aids, and public employment.
Evening Session -- 5: 30 - 9: 30 pm
1. Social Hour -- 5: 30 - 6:15 pm
2 . Dinner -- 6: 30 pm
3. Welcome by Host City
4 . Welcome by LMC President, James Scheibel
S. Presentation of Issue Papers and Discussion
6. Comments by Legislators and Legislative Candidates
w
183 University Ave.East
St.Paul,MN 55101.2526
L. ague of Minnesota Cities (612)227.5600(FAX:221-0986)
League of Minnesota Cities 1988 Regional Meetings
Date City Location/Contact Person
Tues. , September 6 Bemidji Holiday Inn
Dorothy Boe, City Clerk
(218) 751-5610
Wed. , September 7 Floodwood Floodwood Community Center
Mary Larva, City Clerk
(218) 476-2751
Thurs. , September 8 Hoyt Lakes Hoyt Lakes Arena
Rick Bradford, Administrator
(218) 225-2344
Mon. , September 12 New Brighton Robert Lee's Restaurant
Pat Lindquist
(612) 633-1533
Wed. , September 14 Plummer Afternoon: Plummer City Hall
Evening: Plummer School
Deb Duchamp, City Clerk
(218) 465-4239
Thurs. , September 15 Henning Henning Community Center
Wilma Morse, Clerk-Treasurer
(218) 583-2402
Mon. , September 19 Tracy Tracy Servicmen's Center
David Spencer, Finance Director
(507) 629-4020
Tues. , September 20 Kerkhoven Kerkhoven Civic Center
Mona Doering, Clerk-Treasurer
(507) 264-2581
Wed. , September 21 cold Spring Blue Heron
Verena Weber, Clerk-Treasurer
(612) 685-3653
Thurs. , September 22 Pine City Community Room, Munc. Bldg.
Dan Kieselhorst, Clk-Treas.
(612) 629-2988
Mon. , September 26 Plainview Afternoon: American Legion
Evening: Clayt's Supper Club
Don Koverman, Administrator
(507) 534-2229
League of Minnesota Cities 1988 Regional Meetings
(continued)
Date City Location/Contact Person
Tues. , September 27 Austin Austin Country Club
Darrell Stacy, Administrator
(507) 437-7671
Wed. , September 28 St. James St. James VFW Club
David Osberg, City Manager
(507) 375-3241
Thurs. , September 29 New Prague New Prague Golf Club
Jerome Sohnsack, Admin.-Clerk
(612) 758-4401
Truth in Taxation
Question
Should the League support the new Truth in Taxation
process with amendments to make it workable?
Background
For payable 1990, all cities (except those under 2,500 population), counties, school
districts, and certain special districts must comply with a new "Truth in Taxation"
process. That process will require:
• adopting a budget and certifying a levy to the county auditor by August 15
of every year;
• mailing by September 15 of an individual notice to each taxpayer indicating
the effect of the proposed tax increase on the taxpayer's property tax bill
(the increases separately for each local unit);
• publishing a one-quarter page advertisement in a newspaper of general
paid circulation notifying citizens of a public hearing to discuss proposed
tax increases; and
• holding a public budget hearing by October 25 at which time the council
(board) must finalize the budget which cannot exceed the original budget
proposed on August 15.
Current League Position
The League has taken no position yet, because this is a new provision.
Arguments
Should the League support the new Truth in Taxation
process with amendments to make it workable?
Yes No
• It would be politically naive and per- • With tight levy limits (Payable 1990
ceived as unreasonable for the levy limit v;ail be only three percent),
League to oppose Truth in Taxation. Truth in Taxation is redundant and
League opposition would make it ap- overly restrictive of cities' budget
pear that cities fear having to face the making abilities.
public and disclose facts about their
budgets and levies.
- over -
issue Paper--1999 R•n���a� Moan^^�—n^^^
Question
Should the League support the new Truth in Taxation
process with amendments to make it workable?
Arguments (continued)
Yes No
• League opposition would be fruitless • Truth in Taxation will be a very costly
because the Legislature is committed process: cities must share (with
to keeping Truth in Taxation. Legis- counties and schools) in the cost of
lators believe that such a process will generating individual notices
help make local units more (estimated to cost $2 per notice) and
"accountable" to the public for their the quarter-page newspaper ad can
levy and budget decisions. In addi- cost as much as $2,000 in some
tion, legislators believe Truth in newspapers.
Taxation will make local taxpayers
better understand how local . The August 15 levy certification date
governments--not the state--set is far too early for cities to be able to
property tax levels. make realistic budget projections for
• s could be the coming year. This early date--
Truth in Taxation hearings combined with the requirement that
useful to cities in helping them the final adopted budget not exceed
demonstrate to local taxpayers the the original August 15 proposed
cost of state mandates (like com- budget--will put cities in a financial
parable worth, for example). Truth in strait jacket.
Taxation hearings could also help
make taxpayers understand 'now state . The method for calculating the
aids can have a major impact on tax- proposed property tax increases
payer bills. It will also indicate cities' which will appear on taxpayer state-
portion of tax bill relative to other lo- ments will be misleading and inac-
cal units. curate. The proposed property tax in-
he League's general support for creases will likely overstate the
put cities in Impact of budget increases on [ax
Truth in Taxation would
p bills and likely to alarm taxpayers.
a better position to successfully seek
amendments that will make the
process more workable and less
onerous for cities. Only if the League
is cooperative can we hope to im-
prove the new law.
• With the existence of Truth in Taxa-
tion, the League could make a better
case for loosening or eliminating levy
limits. For example, the League
could recommend that the state re-
quire Truth in Taxation only if a local
unit needs to exceed its levy limit; if
the local unit stays within the levy
limit then no Truth in Taxation
would be required. Issue Paper--1998 p 1988 Regional Meetings—Page 2
II"faL4iL�
Homestead Credit Q V
Question
Should the League support the change to eliminate the
Homestead Credit and convert it into an aid program,
called Transition Aid beginning with taxes payable
1990?
Background
A law that the Senate Taxes Committee drafted, has scheduled elimination of
Homestead Credit in Payable 1990 to be replaced by "Transition Aid."
For the homeowner, the benefit of the Homestead Credit will become part of the
new classification structure. The tax capacity percentage (or assessment rate) for
homes under $68,000 will decrease from 2.17 percent to 1.00 percent in 1990.
Property tax statements will continue to show a"synthetic" Homestead Credit even
though the credit is discontinued in 1990. In the first year, this "synthetic" Home-
stead Credit will reflect approximately the same amount of tax relief that each
homestead received through the past Homestead Credit. However, if the property
value of the homestead increases or if the local tax capacity rate (mill rate) in-
creases, this "synthetic" Homestead Credit amount shown to the homeowner will
automatically increase even though the Transition Aid that the local unit receives
may decline or remain the same.
For local governments, Transition Aid payments will replace the Homestead
Credit. In the first year (1990), Transition Aid payments will approximately reim-
burse each local government for the tax base it will lose by lowering the tax
capacity percentage on lower-valued homes from 2.17 to 1.00 percent. Thus,
Transition Aid payments in 1990 will be roughly similar to what the local unit
received from the Homestead Credit reimbursement in 1989.
In future years, however, the formula for allocating Transition Aid could change.
Senate authors of the Transition Aid program have stated that Transition Aid
funding could gradually decrease in the future while the funding for other aid
programs increases. For example, Senate authors have suggested that the portion
of Transition Aid going to schools could be redirected through the school aid
formula. Similarly the portion of Transition Aid going to cities could be redirected
through the Local Government Aid (LGA) formula.
Current Position
The League's policy does not specifically support or oppose the elimination of
the Homestead Credit.
- over -
Issue Paper--1988 Regional Meetings--Page 3
Arguments
Should the League support the change to eliminate the
Homestead Credit and convert it into an aid program,
called Transition Aid beginning with taxes payable
1990?
Yes No
• Converting the Homestead Credit to • Cuts in the new Transition Aid
an aid program will free up roughly program would be easier for the
$700 million in property tax relief Legislature to make because there
funds and would allow the Legisla- would no longer be a direct link be-
ture to allocate those funds dif- tween the Homestead Credit that
ferently from the way they are cur- shows up on homeowners' tax state-
rently allocated. For example, more ments and the aid the state pays to
aid could go to communities with local governments.
greater needs and lower wealth.
(Under the current Homestead . Unlike the LGA program, taxpayers
Credit program, legislators have less understand the Homestead Credit
discretion over redirecting funds.) program. It is a popular program for
• The state could fund LGA for cities Which the Legislature has maintained
funding. Taxpayers are not likely t
at a higher level. In the ast, most in-
P understand or support funding for
creases in tax relief dollars the new Transition Aid program.
went to thehe growing
owing Homestead
Credit program. Converting the • The new Transition Aid program is
Credit program into an aid program an "aid" program, like LGA. Annual
would give the Legislature more con- battles over formula changes and
trol over spending for that program manipulation
and allow them to channel more dol- P iron of the formula are
lars to LGA. more likely.
• The Legislature has misperceived the 0 The lower-wealth communities that
may receive more aid under the new
Homestead Credit program as a
strong incentive to local governments Transition Aid program (than they
did under Homestead Credit) will
to spend and levy more, makinglocal
become less self-reliant and more
governments less "accountable" to dependent upon state aid, making
taxpayers. Eliminating the Home-
stead Credit will eliminate that them more vulnerable to the state's
misperception, potential financial problems and
potentially more subject to state dic-
• Stale spending for the Transition Aid tates about how the city finances its
services and what it provides.
program will be more predictable and
stable than state spending for the • The disparities in homestead tax bur-
Homestead Credit has been, since dens between communities could
the new aid program will not neces- widen.
sarily be linked to local property tax
levels.
Issue Paper--1988 Regional Meetings--Page 4
IIaL
Local Government Pay Equity Act
Question
Should the League support the following changes to the Local
Government Pay Equity Act....
• Review of pay equity plans by state agencies?
• Arbitration review of city plans?
• A clarification of the definition of implementation?
• A definition stating that a city has accomplished im-
plementation when the trend line for female classes and
the trend line for male classes of employees are. substan-
tially equal?
Background--General
The Legislature in 1984 mandated that every local government conduct a comparable
worth study, report the results of its study to the state by October 1, 1985, and imple-
ment its plan for establishing equitable compensation relationships among female,
male, and balanced classes of employees by October 1, 1987. The bill did not set
penalties for non-compliance.
By early 1988, over 80 percent of cities had filed their reports and many had imple-
mented their plans to make the compensation adjustments that their studies indicated.
The Legislature acted in 1988 to compel compliance for non-reporting jurisdictions by
imposing a stricter levy limit on those communities which have not reported by October
1, 1988. The law also set a penalty for cities and other local governments which do not
complete implementation by December 31, 1991. Their local government aid will
decrease by five percent for each year they have not implemented their plan.
Both the Department of Human Rights and the Department of Employee Relations
(DOER) sought additional changes to the law, which the League and other local govern-
ment representatives were able to successfully delay. These issues and others are likely
to be presented to the 1989 Legislature.
- over -
Issue Paper-4988 Regional Meetings--Page 5
Pay Equity--Review of plans
Some proponents of comparable worth have alleged that some studies that local govern-
ments have done are defective either because the methodology used was flawed or be-
cause the study was done in bad faith. The law allows challenges through the Human
Rights Department or the courts, but the Human Rights Department wants legislation
that would provide a mechanism by which that department may decide that a particular
system is defective. The department has suggested one option where the commissioners
of human rights and DOER would consult and decide whether a study is defective.
Regardless of which review mechanism is preferred, unless the Legislature establishes
standards and criteria by which to conduct a review there is no "safe harbor" for cities
and other local units of government: every study would be open to challenge.
Current League Position:
None.
Arguments
Should the League support...
• DOER review of city plans?
• Human Rights Department review of city plans?
• Both departments review of city plans?
Yes No
• Designating the commissioners as the • If review of some type is necessary, it
review mechanism would be simple is imperative that the reviewing body
and efficient. The Department of is as neutral as possible. Neither of
Employee Relations has the most ex- these departments is neutral. They
perience with the law since it helped are advocates of certain con-
draft and lobby the 1984 bill. stituencies and interests, and should
not have authority to judge the merits
of a particular study.
Arguments
Should the League support...
• Arbitration review of city plans?
Yes No
• Setting up a panel similar to a . The current system of allowing chal-
veterans' preference panel where lenges through the Department of
employees select a representative, Human Rights or the courts is suffi-
the employer selects a representa- cient.
tive, and those two designees select
a third, neutral representative would
more likely result in unbiased deci-
sions.
Issue Paper--1988 Regional Meetings—Page 6
Pay Equity--Definition of Implementation
Both the original law and the 1988 penalty law require implementation, yet many people
believe that term is not satisfactorily defined. Some local governments have used com-
pensation corridors which some view as institutionalizing pay disparities. These corridors
work as follows: the local government draws an all class or employee trend line and states
that it will implement the law to bring all classes of employees to within 10 percent (or
other percentagey-of-tbr,line. Because most male classes would be along the top of the
corridor and most female cTasseswould be along the bottom of the corridor comparable
worth proponents argue that this approach institutionalizes a 20 percent disparity in com-
pensation between women and men, the very thing comparable worth was intended to
eliminate.
They, therefore, argue that a definition of implementation is necessary. Also, under current
law DOER must indicate which local government is to be penalized for failing to imple-
ment. DOER staff do not like corridors or the all-employee line to the extent that a public
employer indicates that it will use these permanently, so any use of corridors as part of a
city's implementation will likely be disallowed by DOER unless the Legislature specifically
authorizes cities to use corridors.
Current League Position
None.
Arguments
Should the League support...
• A clarification of the definition of implementation?
Yes No
• Without a satisfactory definition of • No definition of implementation is
implementation, DOER will be acceptable.
asked to enforce an ambiguous law,
perhaps to the disadvantage of local • In defining implementation, the
governments. Legislature will need to address the
issues of contracting out or terminat-
ing programs or services as a result
of comparable worth; joint powers
entities or other units which are al-
most exclusively female; main-
tenance or updating of plans; use of
market rates to justify departures
from the studies, and; arbitration
awards that substantially ignore the
findings of the studies.
- over -
Issue Paper--1988 Regional Meetings-.Page 7
Arguments
Should the League support...
A definition stating that a city has accomplished implementation
when the trend line for female classes and the trend line for male
classes of employees are substantially equal? _ —
Yes No
• Using this definition of implementa- . In order to use a trend line many
tion will eliminate many of the incon- employers will use corridors which
sistences and ambiguities, which result in most male classes being at
could likelyy result in fewer chal- the top of the corridor and most
lenges to local plans and more effi- female classes at the bottom result-
cient implementation, ing in a 20 percent disparity in com-
pensation between men and women.
Issue Paper--1988 Regional Meetings--Page 8
11E ,and Use 8 �
Question
Should the League support the passage of a recodified,
unified, and modified land use planning law?
Background
The League has been cooperating and participating in a review of the municipal
land use planning statutes. The Governor's Advisory Council on State-Local Rela-
tions is conducting that review. That effort has produced draft legislation which
---- - was initially before the 1988 Legislature.
The draft legislation makes many substantial changes to the current planning and
zoning statutes (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462). These changes would require
the creation of a separate board of adjustment (city councils would not be able
to issue variances, but could only review the action of the board of adjustment
on appeal); modify the definition of undue hardship required for issuance of
variances to a lower, easier to meet standard of undue difficulty, require the adop-
tion of a brief comprehensive plan as a prerequisite of adopting zoning or other
official controls, and; prohibit the practice of conditional zoning where a city
agrees to rezone a parcel.of property but only if the owner complies with certain
conditions. The legislation also authorizes cities to impose impact fees on develop-
ment in order to pay for infrastructure improvements.
Current League Position
The League supports selected amendments to the existing planning enabling
statutes and opposes proposals that restrict cities' current substantive and
procedural flexibility to address unique circumstances.
Argument
Should the League support the passage of a recodified,
unified, and modified land use planning law?
Yes No
The legislation would unify the local . The legislation would create as many
government planning statutes making uncertainties as it would resolve, as
land use control powers and well as restrict cities' flexibility in
procedures easier to teach and learn. adopting administrative procedures
It would clear up existing ambiguities and structures that meet unique local
in the law, provide additional author- needs. Further, opponents of the
ity to cities in some regards, and at- legislation argue that the current law
tempt to promote intergovernmental is not broken and there is no need for
cooperation among local units of substantial reform.
government.
Issue Paper--1988 Regional Meetings.-Page 9
PERA
Question
Should the League support the increases in PERA pen-
sion benefits, which could lead to removal of other
benefits from members, and increased costs to
employers?
Background
During the 1988 session, Senator Don Moe introduced legislation to provide a level
benefit formula for coordinated members of 1.5 percent of salary per year for all
years of service (now one percent for first 10 years and 1.5 percent thereafter); and
change the normal retirement age to 62 (now 65) as a substitute for the current three
percent per year reduction in benefits applicable to those retiring before age 65,which
would be replaced by the actuarial rate (approximately six percent per year under
age 65) By proposing benefit increases, be hoped to gain support for eliminating the
rule of 90 and the favorable early retirement reduction factor,both available to PERA
members but not to those in other statewide funds. Although the Senate passed this
proposal, the House leadership refused to accept the package, because it removes
benefits arguably contractually committed, at least as to vested members, and because
of its high long-term costs.
The proposed level formula benefit would phase in over five years and thus be rela-
tively inexpensive in the early years. However, over the next 22 years, it would cost
PERA employers and employees over $730 million each and require a contribution
increase of 0.75 percent of salary from each. Of greater significance is the impact on
the state treasury. Because the state pays the employer cost for state employee retire-
ment and indirectly for teachers, the proposal would take an additional amount in
excess of $2 billion from the state treasury over the same time. Obviously, this would
substantially reduce the amount of discretionary funds available for local government
aid, property tax relief, and many other programs in future years.
Legislators are sure to raise the issue again in the 1989 session. There will be strong
employee support for legislation providing all the proposed benefit increases without
the proposed benefit cuts. Thus, any 1989 legislation is likely to be even more expen-
sive than the 1988 proposal.
Current League Position
The League opposes the repeal of the rule of 90 and any other benefit which people
have relied on during their employment. Therefore, the League opposes the proposal.
- over -
Issue Paper-.19M Regional Meetings--Page 11
Arguments
Should the League support the increases in PERA pen-
sion benefits, which could lead to removal of other
benefits from members, and increased costs to
employers?
Yes No
• Coordinated PERA formula benefits • The long-term expense of this proposal
per year of service are low in com- would crowd out other needed programs
parison with retirement benefits like property tax relief and local govern-
provided to public employees in other ment aids.
states: Wisconsin 1.6 percent; North
Dakota 1.5 percent; South Dakota 1.2 • Coordinated PERA benefits are not low
percent; or 2.0 percent less Social when compared to average retirement
Security. benefits of all Minnesotans nor do they
typically provide a substandard retire-
The proposal would make teachers' and ment benefit to full career (30 years and
state employees' benefits more nearly longer) employees when Social Security
equal to PERA benefits. benefits are figured in (40 percent of
high five years average salary, plus So-
cial Security).
Issue Paper-4988 Regional Meetings--Page 12
13LYLL5
WNW
State-Mandated Voting Equipment
Question
Should the League support a state-mandated system of voting
equipment?
Background
During the 1987 session, legislators considered a proposal that would have barred first class
cities from using optical scan equipment unless they altered the equipment to meet certain
requirements. During the same session, other legislation would have required party row
balloting. Those requirements would have had serious impact on cities and required ex-
pensive equipment changes. (Party row balloting means that the candidates of each political
party are listed in a row on the ballot, similar in design to the ballot for lever voting
machines.) Party row balloting would require costly retrofitting of optical scan equipment.
During the 1987 mini session, legislators discussed a "color-coded" ballot. The Legislature
approved the requirement as an amendment to the secretary of state's housekeeping legis-
lation in the '88 session. The requirement mandates that paper ballot layout provide three
vertical columns and that each major political party have a separate column. Cities which
have punch card voting systems that cannot accommodate a party punch indicator may not
use the punch card system in a state partisan primary election.
Current League Position
The League currently supports state law permitting cities to select whichever state-
approved voting equipment the city prefers to best meet the needs of the community.
It is the League's policy that cities' investment in voting equipment must be protected. The
secretary of state's certification of equipment should be thorough and provide assurance
that the equipment will be usable and reliable over a long period of time.
Arguments
Should the League support a state-mandated system of voting
equipment?
Yes No
• For some time, lawmakers have been . The League opposes state-mandated
concerned about the extent to which changes in election laws that do not
some voting equipment fails to prevent benefit city elections; are difficult to
primary election voters from crossing administer; or make current city voting
over and voting for candidates of op- equipment obsolete or costly to retrofit.
posite political parties, thereby in-
validating their ballot. The party punch
indicator allows voters to indicate a
party preference at a partisan primary
and aids in accurate and efficient count-
ing of partisan primary election results.
Issue Paper--1988 Regional Meetings--Page 13
Code of Ethics for
Public Officials
Question
Should the League recommend a code of ethics for
elected officials which it could present to the Legis-
lature if that body proposes a state code of ethics for
public officials?
Background
Members of the 1987 Elections and Ethics Committee considered ethical
issues confronting city officials. The committee examined current statutes on
conflict of interest, and sought legal guidance on possible inconsistencies be-
tween laws on conflict of interest in contracts and Incompatibility of offices.
Members of the Metropolitan Area Managers Association and the Minnesota
Association of Urban Management Assistants have also been reviewing cur-
rent state law that regulates the public actions and behavior of local officials.
Tbeir work has led to the development of a proposed code of conduct for
appointed officials.
In early August, the Senate Governmental operations Committtee heard tes-
timony from the executive directors of the Massachusetts and Wisconsin Et-
hics Commissions on the regulation of ethical conduct of state and local of-
ficials. Senators expressed concern about how much authority such entities
should have to enforce ethical standards at the local level.
Current League Position
The League supports an in-depth study of state law as it relates to official
conduct of interest and incompatible offices in order to offer amendments to
the State Legislature.
City officials recognize the importance of avoiding conflict of interest and
work bard to maintain public trust and confidence. Because of the importance
of ethical issues, many city officials feel the League should offer recommenda-
tions to the Legislature.
- over -
Issue Paper--1988 Regional Meetings--Page 15
Arguments
Should the League recommend a code of ethics for
elected officials which it could present to the Legis-
lature if that body proposes a state code of ethics for
public officials?
Yes No
• While many cities have adopted offi- a Ethical judgments are intensely per-
cial codes of ethics, many officials are sonal and specific to actual cir-
unfamiliar with conflict of interest cumstances and actions and cannot
statutes and ethical principles that be adequately legislated or codified
apply to day-to-day city policymaking through state legislation. There may
or operations. The League has exten- be some problems and confusion that
sive experience in working with both result from inconsistencies in the
elected and appointed city officials. state law on conflict of interest and
LMC, through a committee of city of- incompatibility of offices. However,
ficials, is the appropriate forum for there is no evidence or indication
the development of recommendation that creation of a statewide code
to cities on the adoption of local would offer better outcomes or as-
codes of ethics. The League also sistance to local officials beyond that
needs to be prepared to make recom- already available through state
mendations to the Legislature con- statutes and court decisions and
cerning the adoption of a state code through the adoption of local codes
of ethics for public officials. of ethics that respond to local
cirumstances and needs.
• Further, since any code of ethics
codified in the statutes would affect
county, township, and school officials
as much as city officials, the League
should not expend the resources to
take the lead on this problem,
knowing in advance the tremendous
time demands needed to familiarize
and gain approval of local
governmental entities.
Issue Paper--1988 Regional Meetings--Page 16
Federal Tax Policy
Question
Should the League support federal legislation to re-
establish tax-exemption for municipal bonds?
Background
The LMC Federal Legislative Committee is considering a policy to support local au-
thority to raise revenues without federal intrusion. The policy would include support
for establishing tax-exempt municipal borrowing by means of federal legislation.
In April, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in South Carolina v. Baker that there is no
constitutional protection (under the theory of reciprocal immunity) providing immunity j
from taxation for municipal bonds. Therefore, cities must seek enactment of federal-
local fiscal policy which recognizes and maintains local authority to issue tax-exempt
bonds and refrains from interfering with traditional methods of local government
financing.
Current League Position
The League supports the tax-exempt status of municipal bond interest and urges
Congress to conduct a comprehensive review of restrictions on tax-exempt financing
under the 1986 Tax Reform Act. The League seeks restoration of cities' authority to
use tax-exempt municipal bonds, particularly for housing, local improvements, and
development designed to maintain and create lobs and to improve the local economy.
Arguments
Should the League support federal legislation to re-
establish tax-exemption for municipal bonds?
Yes No
• With the prospect of a long-term • The Supreme Court has consistently
struggle over a growing federal ruled against the doctrine of inter-
deficit, further challenges to tax- governental (reciprocal) tax im-
exempt financing appear inevitable munity and is simply applying that
unless legislative action reverses or legal viewpoint to municipal fmanc-
halts the trend. ing. There is no basis for distinquish-
ing between costs imposed on cities
• The 1988 Technical Corrections by a tax on municipal bond interest
(Tax) Act now pending in Congress from costs imposed on cities by a tax
threatens to add significant and on the income from any other con-
costly record-keeping and tax tract with the city, according to the
liability provisions that would authors of the recent Supreme Court
severely restrict the use of municipal decision. U.S. Treasury officials have
bonds for public purposes. Many long held that the federal govern-
cities want legislation to expand the ment had the authority to impose
exemption for smaller cities which such taxes.
- over - Issue Paper--1988 Regional Meetings.-Page 17
Question
Should the League support federal legislation to re-
establish tax-exemption for municipal bonds?
Arguments (continued)
Yes No
issue more than $S million in bonds • Legislative action will simply delay
in a year to a more realistic limit of the inevitable as Congress attempts
$10 million per year. Cities also need to assure that the federal tax system
tax-exempt financing for job crea- expands to raise revenues to reduce
tion; construction and rehabilitation the deficit.
of affordable low and moderate in-
come housing (single family
mortgage revenue bonds); and the
financing of low-income rental
housing.
• Without federal legislation, cities
(and states) face the inevitable loss
of what remains of their sovereign
powers to raise revenues without the
intrusion or intereference of the
federal government.
Issue Paper--1988 Regional Meetings--Page i8
Issue Papers - Ballot
Issue Yes No
Truth in Taxation /
Should the League support the new Truth in Taxation process J(
with amendments to make it workable?
Homestead Credit
Should the League support the change to eliminate the Home-
stead Credit and convert it into an aid program, called Transi-
tion Aid beginning with taxes payable 1990?
Pay Equity
Should the League support the following changes to the Local
Government Pay Equity Act....
• Review of pay equity plans by state agencies?
• Arbitration review of city plans?
• A clarification of the definition of implementation?
• A definition stating that a city has accomplished im-
plementation when the trend line for female classes and
the trend line for male classes of employees are substan-
tially equal?
Land Use
Should the League supp9rtshe passage of a recodified,
unified, and_madified land use planning law?
PERA
Should the League support the increases in PERA pension
benefits, which could lead to removal of other benefits from
members, and increased costs to employers?
State-Mandated Voting Equipment `
Should the League support a state-mandated system of voting \ ,
equipment?
Code of Ethics
Should the League recommend a code of ethics for elected
officials which it could present to the Legislature if that body
proposes a state code of ethics for public officials?
Federal Tax Policy
Should the League support federal legislation to re-establish X
tax-exemption for municipal bonds?
1988 Regional Meetings
BULLETIN
as ociation of
metropolitan
municipalities
August 19, 1988 AUG - -1988
TO: Mayors and Managers/Administrators
CITY Cr S'riAKOFcE i
FROM: Ver:�eterson, Executive Director
RE: AMM AND METROPOLITAN AREA ACTIVITIES OF NOTE
1. 2ND. ANNUAL AMM SHANK A TUMMY GOLF SOCIAL AND DINNER
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28TH. :
A detailed announcement and registration form will be mailed in
about 10 days but please reserve the afternoon and evening of
Wednesday, September 28th. for the 2nd. Annual AMM "Shank 8
Tummy" Golf Social. This year 's event is being hosted by the
City of Brooklyn Park and will be held at their Edinburgh USA
Golf Course. Tee times for 18 holes will start at about 12: 30
P.M. and for 9 holes about 3: 30 P.M. Dinner will be at about
6: 30 P.M. and a very interesting after dinner speaker has been
lined up. BLOCK OUT YOUR CALENDARS NOW!
2. MEETING OF THE LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION ON WASTE MANAGEMENT -
MONDAY, AUGUST 29, 1 :30 P.M. :
The above noted commission meeting will be in Room 5 of the
State Office Building and there are five items on the
preliminary agenda:
A. MERLA (superfund) : Discussion regarding municipal tort
claims.
B. Municipal Wastewater Treatment Program.
C. Organized Collection: Discussion of antitrust implications
for municipalities and private parties.
D. Capital Complex Recycling.
E. Metro Counties Landfill Surcharge: Discussion of recent
county actions regarding the removal of the cap on county fees.
There has been much interest in several cities recently with
respect to Items C and E and I thought you may want to know
about this meeting.
-1-
183 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227-0008
C"
3. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ,(TIF) SURVEY - LMC:
Recently your city (if your city has a TIF Project) received a
memo and questionnaire from Don Slater, LMC Executive Director
concerning the use of TIF in your city. The AMM will be working
closely with the LMC in preserving the use of TIF for cities
during the next session of the Legislature and the information
requested by Mr. Slater is vital to our joint lobbying efforts.
PLEASE, PLEASE HAVE SOMEONE IN YOUR CITY FILL OUT THE
QUESTIONNAIRE AND RETURN IT TO THE LMC OFFICE ASAP IF YOU HAVE
NOT ALREADY DONE SO1 .
4. AMM/LMC JOINT SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING STUDY:
We are very pleased by the number of volunteers who have signed
up to serve on the joint AMM/LMC Study Committee which will be
looking at solid waste issues in general and a specific
emphasis on volume based collection and billing practices.
There was a bill introduced in the last session which would have
mandated a volume based solid waste collection system
administered by each city. The bill is sure to be reintroduced
with major support next session and we need to be proactive
instead of reactive. The bill as introduced would have been
very expensive for cities to implement. Marilyn Corcoran, Solid
Waste/Recycling Coordinator for the City of Brooklyn Park will
chair this joint committee.
PLEASE CALL ME IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PARTICIPATE AND HAVE NOT
ALREADY VOLUNTEERED.
5. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE LOOK AT PROPERTY TAX AND
STATE AID SYSTEMS:
The City of Brooklyn Park recently adopted a resolution which.
expresses their frustration with the 1988 Omnibus Tax Bill as it
relates to property tax and local government aid. The
resolution calls for the Legislature to take a comprehensive
look at reforming the property tax and state aid system. The
city requested that copies by distributed to other cities in the
metro area and a copy is attached.
6. REMINDER ON TAB AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS NOMINATIONS:
The AMM Bulletin of August 5th. noted that the Board would be
making nominations for the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB)
in September and that there was also a vacancy on the AMM Board
to be filled.
-2-
5800 85th AVENUE NORTH / RHOOKLYN PARK,MN. 55443/812-424 8000
(i
RESOLUTION 11988- 183
utt 8F �,r
�11Y RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE LOOK AT
MINNESOTA'S PROPERTY TAX AND STATE AID SYSTEMS
WHEREAS, the 1988 Omnibus Tax Bill significantly changed the
mechanics of property tax administration and implemented new
formulas for the distribution of Local Government Aid (LGA) ; but,
did not resolve any existing property tax and LGA inequities, and
WHEREAS, the Tax Bill did not simplify the property tax
system administratively nor did it achieve any major goals of _
property tax relief, and
WHEREAS, the Act significantly aggravated the metro/outstate
shift of state aid dollars and dramatically reduced future
property tax relief targeting capabilities, and
WHEREAS, LGA and property tax provisions of the 1988 omnibus
Tax Bill continues to have a devisive effect on local
governmental units, pitting communities against one another, and
WHEREAS, the framework for the present LGA, property tax
system, and levy limitations was created by the 1971 Minnesota
Legislature as part of a major restructuring of state/local
fiscal relations, and
WHEREAS, this 1971 reform, The Minnesota Miracle, was
intended to make the state aids system more cognizant of the
differences in "need" among local governments, and
WHEREAS, the Legislature arbitrarily determined city and
townships payable 1971 tax levies and state aid amounts were to
be the foundation of the new property tax system, and
WHEREAS, gross inequities in tax levying capabilities and
high disparities in LGA amounts caused successive Legislatures to
increase LGA funding and to modify or implement new LGA
distribution formulas, and
WHEREAS, each consecutive LGA formula change included
provisions that grandfathered, established minimums and maximums,
and rachets thereby negating the impact of any real change and
perpetuating 1971 levy and aid distribution disparities, and
WHEREAS, property tax reform in the 1988 Omnibus Tax Bill
did not address system inequities, but rather overhauled the
. property tax structure to base taxes on fixed percentages of a
property's market value.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY:'COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK:
#1988-183
The Minnesota Legislature be requested to take a
comprehensive look at reforming the property tax and state aid
system to identify municipal fiscal need and fiscal capacity and
establish state aid distribution formulas which encourage
efficiency in the delivery of municipal services.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that municipal spending be a major
focus of this study.
The foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member Slack
and duly seconded by Council Member Marshall.
The following voted in favor of the resolution: Krautkremer,
Marshall, Slack, Engh, Pearson, Gustafson and Dix.
The following voted against: None.
The following were absent: None.
Whereupon the resolution was adopted.
A PTED: AUGUST 8, 1988
ES K UTKREMER, MAYOR
CERTIFICATE
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting
Clerk of the City of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, hereby certify
that the above resolution is a true and correct copy of the
resolution as adopted by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Park on August 8, 1988.
WITNESS my hand officially as such Clerk and the corporate
seal of the City this 9th day of August, 1988.
n >
MYA MAIKKULA, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
#1988-183
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner
RE: Allstate Leasing Conditional Use Permit Appeal
DATE: August 30, 1988
INTRODUCTION•
Allstate Leasing submitted an application for a conditional
use permit to move in a temporary sales office on their property
located at 8050 E. Hwy. 101. At their meeting on August 4, 1988
the Shakopee Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on
the request and voted to deny the conditional use permit.
Allstate LeAs-ing_-has- -appealed the decision of the Planning
-- Commission to the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
For background information regarding this item please refer
to the following attachments:
1) Letter of appeal from Allstate Sales.
2) Staff report to the Planning Commission dated July 25, 1988.
3) Site plan showing the location of the temporary office
structure and copies of photographs.
4) Minutes from the August 4, 1988 Planning Commission meeting.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. The City Council can concur with the action taken by the
Planning Commission and move to deny Conditional Use Permit
534.
2. The City Council can override the action of the Planning
Commission and move to approve Conditional Use Permit 534
with conditions.
RECOMMENDATION•
__ - - - -- The. Citystaff. has_ recommended denial of this permit (see
attached memo) . The Planning Commission at their meeting on
August 4, 1988 denied the conditional use permit.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer Conditional Use Permit CC-534 and move it's denial.
L9,j
5 � � � � k2
MEMO TO: Shakopee Planning Commission
FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner
RE: Allstate Leasing Conditional Use Permit Request
DATE: July 25, 1988
INTRODUCTION•
Allstate Leasing has submitted an application for a
conditional use permit to move-in a temporary sales office
(trailer) to their location at 8050 E. Hwy. 101, Lot 1, Block 1
Ziegler Addition. The structure will be placed in the parking
lot in front of the main building. The structure is 8' x 20' .
APPLICABLE PROVISIONS: Section 11.05, Subd. 9
CONSIDERATION•
1. The applicant has stated that they will use the structure
for a sales person to greet_ prospective customers looking to
lease rigs. The rigssmill be parked on the same lot as the
office.
2.- There is office space in the main building.
3 . The City Engineer has suggested that a culvert be placed in
the driveway off of the frontage road. Size to be
determined by the City Engineer.
4 . The sales office may have metal siding therefore it is not
permitted if it is visible from existing or planned right-
of-way.
5. If it is allowed to remain it should meet proper setbacks
and screening requirements.
6. The City Code requires structures moved onto property to
meet building code requirements within six months and a bond
is required in an amount sufficient to abate deficiencies.
7, City Code does not differentiate between moving in of
temporary structures vs. permanent structures. In the past
the City has placed a definite time limit on temporary
structures to prevent them from becoming . permanent
structures. If no time limit is placed on the removal of
the structure, it should be placed on a permanent
foundation.
8. City Code Section 11.05, Subd. 9 contains conditions that
must be met for moving in of structures. Subd. 9. F2 .
states that structures must "be compatible with adjacent
homes and structures. '- No other businesses in the immediate
vicinity of Allstate Leasing have similar structures to what
is proposed. Other structures in the area are larger
permanent structures.
FINDINGS-
Criteria #1 That the Conditional use will not be injurious to
the use and enjoyment of other property in the
immediate vicinity for the purposes already
permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair
property values within the immediate vicinity.
Finding #1 Staff has received no indication that the use will
be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity. Although no
clear evidence exists that property values in the
immediate vicinity will be impaired, the proposed
structure is not compatible with surrounding land
uses.
Criteria #2 That the establishment of the conditional use will
not impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of surrounding vacant property for
uses predominant-in-the area.
Finding #2 No evidence indicating use will impede the normal
and orderly development and improvement of
surrounding vacant property has been presented.
Criteria #3 That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage,
and other necessary facilities have been or are
being provided.
Finding #3 The applicant has not indicated that the structure
will have sewer or water services. Access roads
are existing and the City Engineer has suggested
improvements for drainage. This area is not
served by City services.
Criteria #4 That adequate measures have been or will be taken
to provide sufficient off-street parking and
loading space to serve the proposed use.
Finding #4 Adequate parking exists to handle the additional
structure.
Criteria #5 That adequate measures have been or will be taken
to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust,
noise and vibration, so that none of these will
constitute a nuisance, and to control lighted
signs and other lights in such a manner that no
disturbance to neighboring properties will result.
Finding #5 Not applicable.
Criteria #6 The use, in the opinion of the Council, is
reasonably related to the overall needs of the
City and to the existing land use.
q a/
Finding #6 It is the conclusion of staff that the use is not
needed for the operation of the business, office
space is available within the permanent structure.
The structure is not compatible with surrounding i
structures.
Criteria #7 The use is consistent with the purposes of the
zoning code and the purpose of the zoning district
in which the applicant intends to locate the
proposed use.
Finding #7 The use is not consistent with the Zoning Code
which requires structures being moved onto a site
to be compatible with surrounding structures. The
use does not comply with building materials
required by the Zoning Code.
Criteria #8 The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive
Plan of the City.
Finding #8 The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive
Plan of the City.
Criteria #9 The use will not cause traffic hazard or
congestion.
Finding #9 The use will not generate additional demand on the
transportation system. Existing employees will
man this office.
Criteria #10 Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely
affected because of curtailment of customer trade
brought about by intrusion of noise, glare or
general unsightliness.
Finding #10 Not applicable.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of Conditional Use Permit Resolution
# 534 allowing a temporary sales office to be moved onto this
property for the following reasons:
1. The use does not comply with the following requirements of
City Code.
A. The structure is not compatible with adjacent
structures.
B. The structure will be constructed of metal siding and
visible from planned or existing right-of-ways.
2. The use is not reasonably related to the overall needs of
the City and existing land uses in the vicinity.
Ciao
Planning Commission
August 4, 1988
Page -3-
2 . An access permit to County Road 89 be secured from the County
Highway Department.
3 . Copies of permits for installation of the fuel tanks be put
on file at City Hall.
4 . The developer shall limit removal of natural vegetation to as
little as possible and undertake adequate erosion control
measures to prevent loss of soil.
5. Easement Agreement for the shared access shall be executed
and recorded for both lots.
Motion carried unanimously.
Chrmn. Rockne informed the audience of the ?-day appeal period.
�BLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALLSTATE LEASING—�
Schmitt/Foudray moved to open the public hearing to consider the
request for a Conditional Use Permit to move in a temporary sales
office upon the property located at 8050 East Hwy. 101;
applicant, Allstate Leasing Corporation. Motion carried
unanimously.
City Planner stated the application is to allow for a temporary
sales office (trailer) , 8' x 20' , on their property (Lot 1, Block
1, Ziegler Addition) , which has already been moved in and
currently is in use.
Comm. Forbord questioned if the City had a policy regarding
temporary office structures. He proposed this be addressed by
the City in the near future.
Mann Abrams, representing Allstate Leasing Corp. , stated they
have investigated the possibility of a more permanent looking
structure but so far has not been able to find a suitable
substitute. They want to conform to the foundation requirements
and would place skirting around the structure and paint it a more
suitable color. He agreed that the office building could be
_ located else on--the property.
Chrnm. Rockne asked for further comments from the audience.
There were none.
Foudray/Allen moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried
unanimously.
Schmitt/Foudray offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
534 , allowing a temporary sales office on Lot 1, Block 1, Ziegler
Planning Commission
August 4 , 1988
Page -4-
1st Addition and moved for its adoption, subject to the following
conditions:
1. One year temporary permit only and at the end of the year a
permanent structure be built in compliance with City Code.
2 . The structure shall be moved to the rear of the parking lot
to prevent highway visibility.
Roll Call: Ayes - Rockne, Foudray
Noes - Schmitt, Allen, Forbord -
' Motion denied based that the use does not comply with City Code
requirements of:
1. Structure compatibility with adjacent structures; and
2 . The use is not reasonably related to the overall needs of the
City and existing land uses in the vicinity.
Chrmn. Rockne informed the audience and the applicant of the 7-
day appeal period.
Schmitt/Forbord moved for a 10-minute recess at 9: 10 P.M. Motion
carried unanimously.
1 Schmitt/Forbord moved to reconvene at 9: 20 P.M. Motion carried
unanimously.
AMENDMENT OF CITY CODE SECTION 11. 03 SUBD 7 I
City Planner reviewed the action taken at the last meeting
regarding the amendment of Section 11. 03, Subd. 7I which
prohibits the issuance of building permits to property not
abutting a public street. Discussion followed on the proposed
wording.
Forbord/Schmitt moved that prior to consideration of amending
Shakopee City Code, Section 11. 03, Subd. 7I, Staff investigate
the minimum standard of traffic criteria, referencing MnDOT
Engineering standards (as amended) , which would_ have to be met
before requiring a roadway to be upgraded. Motion carried -- - --
unanimously.
AMENDMENT OF THOROUGHFARE MAP
City Planner stated staff is recommending the City initiate and
adopt an Official map designating the proposed right-of-way for
the mini by-pass. This was prompted as a result of a building
permit application received from a property owner to construct
new apartments within the proposed mini by-pass right-of-way.
Rpy �.`
z3 Ro 4,
At
44.�' /^'\
/ � v
_ �E, i�'� ' 11 \ /f � / �x �/�.r I�• y ��,1 `-.i -o' _ _ f�� �\\\\ \
f I 1 �`NN,
It
I _j
; I ` cr t" �i.. � • \ t . �i�
it
WysI
t�
♦ T � i
t •t P Wv" txX sh�l�
1
AES:
JS
'I
y
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City ClerkC
RE: Vacation of 11th Avenue Between Minnesota and Dakota
Streets
DATE: August 29, 1988
INTRODUCTION:
A public hearing has been set for 8: 00 P.M. on September
6th, 1888 on the matter of vacating the public right-of-way on
filth Avenue between Minnesota and Dakota Streets within Eagle
Bluff 2nd Addition.
BACKGROUND:
One of the conditions of the final plat approval of Meadows
1st Addition was that the developer petition the city to vacate
11th Avenue between Minnesota and Dakota Streets. The developer
submitted the petition for the vacation and on August 2nd the
City Council set September 6th at 8: 00 P.M. for the public
hearing on the vacation.
Property owners abutting the street to be vacated have
received notice of the public hearing. The City Engineer, Chief
of Police, and Public Works Superintendent have indicated that
they have no objection to the vacation. Minnegasco Inc. has also
indicated that they have no objection to the vacation.
On August 4, 1988, the Planning Commission discussed, once
again, the vacation of 11th Avenue between Minnesota and Dakota
Street. After reconsidering their earlier recommendation that
the street be vacated, they went on record recommending that the
Council not vacate the existing lith Avenue right-of-way. This
reconsideration and recommendation is consistent with the plat of
Prairie Estates to the East where lith Avenue is being retained
West of Legion Street and North of Prairie Estates (although
11th Avenue was not platted within Prairie Estates) . See
attached memo from City Planner dated August 10, 1988.
Retaining the right-of-way between Minnesota and Dakota
Street will keep the option open if there is ever a desire to
have a sidewalk between Marschall Road and Spencer Street.
Prior to vacating public right-of-way, Council must decide
that the vacation is in the public interest.
ALTERNATIVES:
1] Vacate the street
2] Do not vacate the street
3] Request additional information and continue the hearing
Vacation of 11th Avenue
August 29, 1988
Page -2-
RECOM14ENDATION:
1] Conduct the public hearing
2] Determine if the vacation is in the public interest
a] If the vacation would be in the public interest
direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution for the next
council meeting.
b] If the vacation would not be in the public
interest make a motion finding that the vacation of 11th Avenue
between Minnesota and Dakota Streets is not in the public
interest at this time.
11THVAC
MEMO TO: Judy Cox, City Clerk
FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner
RE: Vacation of 11th Avenue Between Minnesota and Dakota
Streets
DATE: August 10, 1988
INTRODUCTION:
At their meeting on August 4 , 1988 the Shakopee Planning
Commission passed a motion recommending to the City Council that
the existing right-of-way for 11th Avenue between Minnesota and
Dakota Streets not be vacated.
BACKGROUND:
When the Planning Commission approved the plat for the
Meadows upon recommendation of the City staff a condition of
approval was included requiring the developer to petition for
vacation of the existing right-of-way for 11th Avenue between
Minnesota and Dakota Street. The reason for thisvacation was
that the street would not be constructed in this area and that
the right-of-way could be vacated with the City maintaining
easements for construction of drainage, utility and trail
improvements.
When the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the plat
for the Prairie Estates subdivision, the development located
immediately to the East, the Commission discussed at some length
whether the existing lith Avenue right-of-way should be vacated
in the areas where the streets are not to be constructed. The
staff made the same recommendation as was made for the Meadows
Subdivision, but the Planning Commission felt that because of the
need for a sidewalk through these areas the right-of-way should
be maintained by the City. This change in policy was appproved
by the City Council when they adopted the recommendation of the
Planning Commission in approving the Prairie Estates subdivision.
The Planning Commission has recommended that the existing right-
of-way for 11th Avenue between Minnesota and Dakota Street be
maintained in order to be consistent with the change in policy
approved with the adoption of Prairie Estates subdivision.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
At their meeting on August 4, 1988 the Planning Commission
passed a motion recommending that the City Council not vacate the
existing 11th Avenue right-of-way between Minnesota and Dakota
Streets.
t
��
.Gam'.'
6 _
S
K m o p
a
H m
d � H
J
F
-
Y O S I H Q J
E H
C � �
NIBS
71
ZE
Q O p
S OMMr
♦ I 6
W �
p
p E
sl
[a O W
H j
N 1 Vl E"
H
m - o
a
� m
rI y N H
3
WLQNN O
o
tO
Lm T- TT
H
Q
Q
1311 0 -
d ° w
t W
2
2
e �
N N
1 fV N
G
J P
zz a � a
3 - FI — — — — — •£Z — ea — — 6L . ON—
L ,
I i
I '
/00-.
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner
RE: llth Avenue R-O-W Within Prairie Estates Subdivision
DATE: August 30, 1988
INTRODUCTION•
At their meeting on August 25, 1988 the Shakopee Planning
Commission passed a motion reaffirming past action of the
Planning Commission and City Council regarding the Prairie
Estates Subdivision. The final plat as approved shows a 40'
right-of-way and 15' easement, providing a 55' buffer between any
existing properties and new houses in the Prairie Estates
Subdivision.
BACKGROUND:
At their meeting on June 9, 1988 the Shakopee Planning
Commission discussed and forwarded a recommendation to the City
Council regarding approval of the Prairie Estates Subdivision.
At their meeting on June 21, 1988 the City Council approved the
final plat for Prairie Estates Subdivision. On August 5, 1988
the City Engineer, David Hutton, received a letter from Michael
A. Shadther questioning action taken regarding the final plat by
the Planning Commission and City Council. The City Council at
their on August 16, 1988 discussed Mr. Shadther's letter and the
action taken regarding the final plat. The City Council passed
a motion referring the issue back to the Planning Commission for
their interpretation of the action taken.
At a special meeting on August 25, 1988 the Planning
Commission discussed the right-of-way for llth Avenue and passed
a motion by a 4 to 2 vote reaffirming the past action and
approval of the plat as now prepared showing the 40' right-of-way
and 15' easement.
For further background please refer to the attached memo and
letter.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. The City Council can pass a motion reaffirming the action
taken at it's meeting on June 21, 1988 regarding approval of
the Prairie Estates Subdivision. The final plat as approved
shows a 40' right-of-way and a 15' easement, providing a 55'
buffer between any existing properties and new houses in the
Prairie Estates Subdivision.
2 . The City Council can amend the final plat to require an
additional 30' of right-of-way be dedicated for the South
half of llth Avenue by the developer of Prairie Estates.
3 . The City Council could amend the final plat to require an
additional easement area along the North lot line of the
lots abutting 11th Avenue within the Prairie Estates
Subdivision be dedicated by the developer.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION•
The Planning Commission recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REODESTED•
Move to reaffirm Council's position on the Prairie Estates
Subdivision as approved at the June 21, 1988 meeting.
/ U 0-1
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Douglas K. wise, City Planner &
Dave Hutton, City Engineer
RE: 11th Ave. Right-of-way Within Prairie Estates
Subdivision
DATE: August 10, 1988
INTRODUCTION:
Attached is a letter from Michael A. Stadther, 1077 Shawmut
Street outlining his concerns regarding the approval of the
Prairie Estates Subdivision as it pertains to right-o£-way for
the portions of 11th Avenue where the street will not be
constructed. Staff is responding to Mr. Stadthers concerns based
upon the action at the Planning Commission and City Council
meetings approving the Prairie Estates Subdivision.
BACKGROUND:
At their meeting on June 9, 1988 the Planning Commission
discussed and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council
regarding approval of the Prairie Estates Subdivision. During
the course of the discussion at the Planning Commission the need
for a sidewalk connecting the developed sections of llth Avenue
was discussed. There was also discussion regarding whether or
not the City should vacate the existing dedicated right-of-way
for 11th Avenue in the portions where the street would not be
constructed. The staff had recommended vacation of the existing
right-of-way which is for the North half of the street only and
retension of easements for utility, drainage and trail
improvements. The staff ' s recommendation was based on the fact
that providing easements would enable the City to utilize this
property in the same manner as retaining the right-of-way while
not actually owning the property. The Planning Commission after
discussion decided that the right-of-way should be maintained and
not vacated. The discussion also occurred as to whether
additional easement area should be required along the North
property line of the lots immediately to the South of 11th Avenue
in this area to allow for a greater setback from the proposed
sidewalk. During the discussion it was suggested that a 30 '
easement could be required and the Engineer present at the
meeting indicated that the property owner was not opposed to
dedicating additional easement area along these property lines.
At the close of the discussion a motion was made to amend
the City staff' s recommended condition regarding vacation of the
street to require that the existing right-of-way be maintained
and that a sidewalk be constructed connecting the developed
portions of 11th Avenue. This amendment was approved by the
Planning Commission. Following approval of this amendment
another motion was offered approving the plat subject to
conditions recommended by staff and the above approved amendment.
This motion was also approved by the Planning Commission.
At the June 21, 1988 meeting the City Council received the
recommendation of the Planning Commission regarding the approval
of the Prairie Estates subdivision. The City Council approved
the subdivision with a change allowing for the sidewalk between
the developed portions of 11th Avenue to either be concrete or an
8 ' bituminous trail. No other changes were made by the City
Council.
I have confirmed the above recount of discussion and action
by the Planning Commission and City Council by listening to the
tape of the meeting. After receiving the letter from Mr.
Stadther I invited him to listen to the tape which he has done.
The final plat as approved shows a 15' easement along the
North property line of the lots abutting the undeveloped section
of 11th Avenue. The 15' easement together with the 40' existing
right-of-way provides a 55' buffer between the South property
line of the lots North of 11th Ave. and houses constructed in the
Prairie Estates subdivision.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. Do nothing, thereby leaving all action taken by the Planning
Commission and City Council as it stands. The final plat as
approved shows a 40 foot right-of-way and a 15 foot
easement, providing a 55 foot buffer between any existing
properties and new houses in the Prairie Estates
Subdivision.
2 . Request that the Planning Commission review this situation
and make a recommendation to Council.
3 . Amend the final plat to require 30 feet of additional right-
of-way be dedicated for the South half of 11th Ave. by the
developer of Prairie Estates.
STArr RECOMMENDATION•
Final action regarding this plat has been taken and staff
hopes this memo will clarify any misunderstandings that may
exist. Staff recommends no further action be taken regarding
this plat.
ACTION REOUESTED•
Move to reaffirm Council's position on the Prairie Estates
Subdivision as approved at the June 21, 1988 meeting.
August 5, '988
David Hutton
Shakopee City Offices
129 1st Ave . East
Shakopee , MN 55379
Dear Mr . Hutton:
As a concerned citizen of Shakopee and my fine neighborhood ,
I feel it ' s necessary to file an objection in regards to the
set backs of Prairie Estates; more specifically the area
between Legion Street and Naumkeag Street bordering the
Eagle Bluffs Edition.
I have attended all of the Shakopee City Council anC Planning
Commission meetings in regards to Prairie Estatesthe
last meeting of the Planning Commission regarding ?=eirie
Estates a decision was made not to put lit:c =-. --,-- ='sough
between Legion and Naumkeag, -which : tota'
lt was also my understanding that Prairie Esu-es set
aside land as though 11th Ave. were to be cons--r=--e= - --n
a walking pat down the center o' the
To confirm m, cnderstanding of the s-t_a--c .----_= you t--
_olloving day and went over these esac- --- _- -ed
:..-,at my understanding was indeed cor_ecc .
conversaticn - asked you to please infcrr.. ❑e cf - 7 -=,-nges ;
so , when an a_: ._-isement _n the Sahkcpee
to the contras- : was puzzeled .
on Friday Aucns- 5 , 1988 I wen= -c he cic+ c _c check
out the _ina'_ -� . A3'_ o_ _..- _ -cvee=
very helpful but a copy e_ -:_ =_a-_ _ __ _ cand;-iso ,
I was directed to the c-_ =--__-_ -- tno c a have
a copy of the final plat- . _.-- - - - s--cages had been
made and that land had not been aside or the ilth Avenue
corridor between Legion and Naumr.=_ac .
I feel very strongly that this will make the aesthetics of
the neighborhood unacceptable as did Mr . John Schmitt of the
Shakopee Planning Committee.
A request :__1 be made to have this topic placed on the agenda
o: the next City Council meeting . Please contact me as soon
as possible to discuss this discrepancy . My day time phone
number is 5_4. -1095 and in the evening 1 can be reached at
5995-6809 .
Sincerely ,
i
n "4r/
'lei
Michael A. Stadther
1077 Shawmct, Street
Shakopee , Mid 55,379
CC: Shakonee City Counc_l
CONSENT JoL
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant
RE: Home Energy Check-Up Program
DATE: August 23, 1988
INTRODUCTION•
The City has received correspondence from the Department of
Trade and Economic Development approving a one year extension of
our Community Energy Council grant. The Energy and
Transportation Committee is now recommending that the City of
Shakopee enter into an agreement with the Scott/Carver/Dakota
Community Action Agency for Home Energy Check-Up Program Auditor
Assistance.
BACKGROUND:
In June I reported that the Community Energy Council Grant
would expire on December 31, 1988. The original grant agreement
called for the City of Shakopee to complete 175 home energy
check-ups. Due to the lack of staff time to committ to the
program we were unable to complete the number of check-ups as
specified in the grant agreement.
At this time, the City has a separate agreement with
Minnegasco to complete 150 home energy check-ups in 1989. On
June 21, 1988, City Council moved to request a one year extension
to the Community Energy Council Grant. On July 21, 1988 I
received a correspondence from the Department of Trade and
Economic Development approving the one year extension.
At this time, we do not have adequate staff to perform the
home energy check-ups. I therefore contacted the Scott-Carver-
Dakota Community Action Agency (SCDCA) to determine if they would
be interested in assisting the City of Shakopee in performing the
home energy check-ups. The SCDCA expressed an interest in the
program. On August 1, 1988 I met with officials from the SCDCA
to discuss the mechanics of the program and the possible job
sharing agreement.
The SCDCA is considering hiring a full time person to
perform the home energy check-ups for our program. The SCDCA
also operates the fuel assistance program and required to perform
home energy check-ups for that program. Therefore, the creation
of the position would fulfill the auditor needs of both our
program and the SCDCA's fuel assistance program.
Shown in attachment M1 is the proposed agreement between the
City of Shakopee and the SCDCA for home energy check-up program
auditor assistance. The agreement spells out the duties of the
SCDCA and the City of Shakopee. The City of Shakopee will
reimburse the SCDCA in the amount of $50. 00 per home energy
check-up and an additional $15. 00 for each completed follow-up
visit. The City of Shakopee will maintain management authority
and be responsible for marketing the program and providing the
energy conservation materials to be distributed by the SCDCA
auditor.
The Shakopee Assistant City Building Inspector is a
certified home energy auditor and will be able to perform home
energy check-up audits as time permits. However, I do not
believe we can rely on his services to conduct the majority of
the audits. On August 18, 1988 the Energy and Transportation
Committee reviewed this issue and is recommending to City Council
that the appropriate City officials be authorized to enter into
an agreement with the Scott Carver Dakota Community Action Agency
for home energy check-up program auditor assistance.
If you have any suggestions for improving the agreement or
have other alternatives in mind, please feel free to bring them
to my attention.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. Move that the appropriate City officials be authorized to
enter into the agreement with the Scott/Carver/Dakota
Community Action Agency and the City of Shakopee for home
energy check-up program auditor assistance.
2 . Do not enter into the agreement with the SCDCA and continue
to have our Assistant City Building Inspector complete the
home energy check-up audits.
3 . Inform the Department of Trade and Economic Development and
Minnegasco that the City is not interested in continuing the
home energy check-up program at this time and return the
grant funds. (Approx. $20, 000)
4. Table pending further information from staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REQUESTED:
r Move that the appropriate City officials be authorized to
enter into the agreement • between the Scott/Carver/Dakota
Community Action Agency and the City of Shakopee for home energy
check-up program auditor assistance.
/6
ATTACHMENT #1
SCOTT CARVER DAKOTA
COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY
AGREEMENT WITH THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
FOR
HOME ENERGY CHECK-UP PROGRAM
AUDITOR ASSISTANCE
THIS CONTRACT, entered into this _ day of
1988, is made between the Scott Carver Dakota Community Action
Agency (hereinafter referred to as "SCDCAA") and the City of
Shakopee (hereinafter referred to as the "City") .
WHEREAS, the City desires to utilize the services of the SCDCAA
in the operation of the City's Home Energy Check-up Program; and
WHEREAS, SCDCAA is willing to provide such services in accordance
with all of the terms, provisions, and conditions contained
herein; and
WHEREAS, the City agrees to reimburse SCDCAA for its services in
accordance with all the terms, provisions, and conditions,
contained herein; and
WHEREAS, the City shall maintain management authority in the
operation of the City's Home Energy Check-up Program; and
NOW THEREFORE, In consideration of these premises and of the
following terms and conditions, the parties agree as follows:
SECTION 1. DUTIES OF SCDCAA
The SCDCAA shall be responsible for implementation of the
following facets of the City's Home Energy Check-up Program.
1.1 Selection and Scheduling of Participants: The SCDCAA will
select participants for the Home Energy Check-up Program in
accordance with the City's selection criteria as shown in
Exhibit A. Payments hereunder shall only pertain to
Minnegasco and Shakopee Public Utility heating customers
residing within the Shakopee City limits.
1.2 Referral Assistance: The SCDCAA will inform all
Participants in the Home Energy Check-up Program of the
various assistance programs offered by the Energy Division
of the Minnesota Department of Public Services (MDPS) ,
Minnesota Department of Economic Security, the City of
Shakopee, and other local agencies. Upon request, the City
will assist any applicant or participant in seeking
assistance from these programs.
1.3 Customer Release Form: The SCDCAA will obtain signed
authorization from each participant in the Home Energy
Check-up Program allowing Minnegasco to release their
consumption data to the auditor. The SCDCAA will have these
authorization forms on file and will make them available to
the City upon request.
1.4 Home Energy Check-up Audit: The audit is described in
detail in Exhibit B and has been approved by the MDPS as a
Certified Minnesota Energy Conservation Service Audit. The
SCDCAA auditor will perform the audit as specified in
Exhibit B.
1.5 Quality Control : The SCDCAA is fully responsible for the
personnel selected to administer the SCDCAA portion of the
program including the Home Energy Check-up Program. The
SCDCAA auditor must be certified by the State of Minnesota
as a Energy Conservation Auditor.
1. 6 Monthly Progress Report: The SCDCAA will complete and
submit a monthly progress report to the City by the 10th day
of each month on the report form as shown in Exhibit C. The
monthly progress report shall serve as the invoice for work
performed by the SCDCAA.
1.7 Follow-up Duties: Between thirty and sixty days following a
Home Energy Check-up visit, the SCDCAA auditor will contact
each household to solicit feedback on the effectiveness of
the visit. The follow-up survey as shown in Exhibit D shall
be used for this evaluation and should be returned to the
City by the 10th day of each month.
SECTION 2. DUTIES OF THE CITY
2.1 Marketing: The City will promote the Home Energy Check-up
Program through advertising, mailings and other direct
communications.
2.2 Informational Publications, The City will provide
informational publications to the SCDCAA for the auditor to
provide to residents who participate in the program.
2.3 Audit and Reporting Forms: The City will provide SCDCAA
copies of all the audit and reporting forms to be used in
conjunction with the Home Energy Check-up Program.
2.4 Enerav Conservation Materials, The City will provide
funding for the energy conservation materials to be
distributed by the SCDCAA auditor to the program
participants. The City will be responsible for ordering the
energy conservation materials used in the program and may
delegate this responsibility to the SCDCAA.
�6
SECTION 3. COMPENSATION
3.1 Home Energy Check-UP Visits: The City will pay SCDCAA
$50. 00 per Home Energy Check-up completed and certified by
the SCDCAA. The City will pay SCDCAA an additional $15. 00
for each completed participant follow-up survey completed.
3.2 Invoicing: The SCDCAA will invoice the City by the 10th
working day of each month for work completed and certified
the previous month. Upon approval of the invoice, the City
will submit payment within 30 days of receipt of invoice.
The invoice must list the names, addresses and utility
account numbers of households included on the invoice, the
total number of visits being invbiced, and the total amount
of the invoice. A copy of the completed audit form and
follow-up survey for each participant listed on the invoice
must accompany the invoice.
3 .3 Limitations: For the duration of the Agreement, funding for
the Home Energy Check-up Program is limited to $13, 000 or a
Maximum of 200 Home ENergy Check-up visits and follow-up
visits.
SECTION 4 . INSURANCE
The SCDCAA shall have the following insurance: (1) General
Public Liability Insurance Policy (including owned and hired
vehicles) with a $1 million combined single limit policy which
includes protection against personal injury and property damage;
(2) Automobile Public Liability Insurance policy (including owned
and hired vehicles) with a $1 million combined single limit
policy which includes protection against personal injury and
property damage; and (3) Worker's Compensation Insurance
according to applicable statutory requirements. The SCDCAA will
provide certificates of insurance upon request.
SECTION 5. LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION
5.1 The SCDCAA shall indemnify and hold harmless the City
against any claim, loss, judgement, liability or expense for
damage to any property, or for death or injury to any person
caused by or arising from the negligent acts or omissions or
willful misconduct of the SCDCAA, its officers, agents,
employees, and volunteers during its performance of the
Agreement.
5.2 The City shall indemnify and hold harmless the SCDCAA
against any claim, loss, judgement, liability, or expense
caused by the negligent acts or omissions or willful
misconduct of the City, and its agents and employees,
regarding the City's duties under Section 2 0£ the
Agreement.
SECTION 6. COMPLETE AGREEMENT
This is the parties complete agreement and cannot be
modified except by a written addendum signed by both parties.
SECTION 7 . TERM
This Agreement is effective September 1, 1988 through
August 31, 1989.
SCOTT CARVER DAKOTA CITY OF SHAKOPEE
COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY
BY: BY:
Its' Mayor
DATED: BY:
Its' Administrator
BY:
It's City Clerk
DATED•
�b
EXHIBIT A
Priority list of participants which will serve as the
definition of low income for the City of Shakopee's Home Energy
Check-up Program:
1. Persons receiving fuel assistance.
2. Senior citizens and disabled persons.
3 . Renters.
4. Persons with a gross family income of less than
$20, 000.
5. Persons with a gross family income of less than
$30, 000.
6. Persons with a gross family income of less than
$40, 000.
CONSENT /Dc.
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant
RE: Van Pool Fare Policy
DATE: August 23, 1988
INTRODUCTION'
Recently a Shakopee resident made an inquiry regarding the
incentives offered to drivers on our Van Pool program. In my
review of the transit policies I discovered that we did not have
a Van Pool Fare Policy and Van Pool Driver Incentive Policy. The
Energy and Transportation Committee discussed this issue and
developed a van pool fare policy for Council's consideration.
BACKGROUND:
Since the Van Pool Program was initiated several years ago,
we have been operating with a fare structure that mirrored the
MTC fare structure for express service. That is to say, the van
pool passengers pay $1.25 per trip. We have simplified the fare
structure so that regular van pool riders simply pay $12. 50 per
week or $47.50 per month. Occasional riders (Van Pool Policy No.
12) pay $2.00 per passenger trip whether they ride a flex pool or
regular van. Occasional riders are defined as any one who does
not pay by the week or month. We have also been operating under
the same principles followed in the State Rideshare Program in
which Van Pool drivers ride free and receive 150 miles of
personal vehicle use.
Shown in attachment #1 is Policy 4.20 entitled Van Pool Fare
Structure. The policy specifies that van pool drivers ride free
and receive 150 free personal use miles per month (including free
gas) . The policy also establishes a $12.50 weekly fare for
persons riding the van pools and a $47.50 monthly fare for
regular van pool riders.
On August 18, 1988 the Energy and Transportation Committee
move to recommend to City Council that Shakopee Area Transit
Policy #20 be approved.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. Move to approve Shakopee Area Transit Policy #20.
2. Do nothing.
3. Direct staff to investigate whether or not the van pool
fares should be increased at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REOUESTED:
Move to approve Shakopee Area Transit Policy #20.
Attachment #1
Policy #20
Adopted:
Effective•
VAN POOL FARE STRUCTURE
The regular rider fare for persons using the Van Pool
Program shall be $12. 50 per week. Van pool riders also have the
option of paying by the month. In this case, the monthly fare
would be $47 . 50. Van pool drivers arenot responsible for paying
a weekly or a monthly fee. Van Pool drivers are also entitled to
150 miles per month of free personal use (including free gas) .
Mileage in excess of 150 per month will be charged to the driver
at a rate of $.21 per mile.
MEMO: John K. Anderson, City Administr for
FROM: Dave Hutton, City Enginee
SUBJECT: Interim Improvements to Hwy. 101/ 169 Intersection
DATE: September 1 , 1988
INTRODUCTION:
This memo is a follow up to several previous discussions by City
Council regarding proposed temporary improvements to the Hwy .
101/169 intersection.
BACKGROUND:
In May, City Council directed staff to explore possible temporary
improvements to the 101/ 169 intersection with Mn/DOT. Staff
informed Council of several proposed alternatives in a memo dated
June 27 , 1988. Council then set a public hearing for July 26 ,
1988 to receive public comments on the proposed alternatives.
Consequently, City Council discussed this issue again on August
16, with the Police Chief and Mn/DOT Traffic Engineers present.
Council then directed staff to explore two possibilities
• Prohibiting left turn movements from 1st Avenue to
southbound traffic on Sommerville, Lewis , Holmes
and Fuller Streets.
• Prohibiting parking on 1st Avenue during peak
times.
Staff would like to discuss each of these items as well as
summarize all of the discussions and public comments received to
date.
Prohibit Left Turns Onto Sommerville, Lewis. Holmes and Fuller
According to Mn/DOT, this will have a minimal impact on improving
the traffic flow, but can easily be implemented with signs .
Enforcement may be difficult due to current congestion in this
area.
Several people have suggested adding left turn arrows to Lewis
and Holmes. Mn/DOT has indicated that these cannot be added to
the current signals without major modifications and possibly
replacement. In addition, Mn/DOT has indicated that this would
worsen the situation at Holmes Street by taking away additional
"green time" from that intersection to allow a green arrow.
Mn/DOT is not willing to add the left turn arrows for those
reasons, but indicated that adding signs to prohibit left turns
could be done if the City desired.
101/169 Intersection
Sept. 1 , 1988
Page 2
Prohibiting Parking on 1st Avenue During "Peak Times
According to the Mn/DOT traffic counts, there are no clear cut
peak traffic times or the peak varies from day to day depending
on if the racetrack is open or not. In addition, it would be
extremely difficult to mark the lanes and add appropriate signing
to obtain a fifth traffic lane during certain periods of the day
and no extra lane during other periods.
Mn/DOT is unwilling to consider this alternative due to the
potential confusion to motorists and difficulty in delineating
traffic lanes during "parking" and "no parking" periods.
Summary of Proposed Improvements
1 . Completely eliminate parking on both sides of the street
from Lewis to Fuller.
There have been several comments and remarks regarding this
proposal that staff would like to summarize
• Improved Traffic Flow. Mn/DOT has indicated that
this would improve the traffic flow thru this
intersection by about 15% . Several people have
commented to staff that even though the
intersection will operate better , there would
still be congestion at the 2-lane bridge and also
at the points on 1st Avenue where the traffic has
to merge from 5 traffic lanes to 4.
This is true at the bridge. Enabling more traffic
to pass thru the intersection does not help the
congestion due to merging traffic at the bridge,
but if the traffic can at least get thru the light
and merge at their own pace, it will improve the
overall traffic flow through the intersection,.
The potential congestion due to merging traffic at
Fuller and Lewis caused by 5 lanes going to 4
lanes will not occur because there would still be
4 thru lanes at these intersections. The fifth
lane would be used for turning lanes only, at the
intersection, not thru traffic.
• Vehicular Safety. Mn/DOT has provided staff with
the accident report for 1st Avenue between Atwood
and Sommerville for the last 3 years. There have
been 8 accidents involving parked cars along this
lr �,
101/169 Intersection
Sept. 1 , 1988
Page 3
stretch with 5 of the accidents being between
Lewis and Holmes Street. The number of accidents
may be deceptively low because many motorists may
choose to not park on 1st Avenue due to the
congestion and potential for accidents.
i Pedestrian Safety. While it is true that parked
vehicles can act as a buffer to pedestrians, I
don' t believe a parked car will be able to stop a
loaded semi from climbing the sidewalk. It is
true that vehicles traveling next to the curb are
more dangerous to pedestrians than if they were 6-
8 feet away from the curbs. Conversely, parked
cars tend to "hide" pedestrians trying to cross
the street in midblock or trying to get to the
drivers side door.
• Noise and Air Pollution. Eliminating parking will
not increase the amount of air and noise pollution
that already is a problem downtown . The same
number of vehicles will be passing through the
downtown area in either case.
• Impact on Downtown Businesses. Eliminating the
parking will definitely impact on the businesses
fronting on 1st Avenue. The extent can only be
speculative at this point. Again, the problem has
existed for some years now and with the minibypass
scheduled for 1990 construction the Council must
decide if the net short term benefit to the
overall community outweighs the possible negative
impact to the downtown businesses.
2. Closing Holmes Street to through traffic (right turns in and
right turns out of Holmes)
This improvement will have the biggest impact on the
intersection improving the traffic flow by 18-208 . The main
reason is that more "green time" can be alloted to the other
three legs of the intersection thereby improving the overall
traffic flow . Mn/DOT continues to stress that this
improvement will provide the greatest benefit with the least
amount of negative impacts.
It has been stated by various people that closing Holmes
Street to through traffic willseriouslyoverload Lewis and
Fuller Street. Actual traffic counts taken by Mn/DOT during
the reconstruction of Holmes Street proved differently.
Lewis and Fuller did not increase at all during the
101/169 Intersection
Sept. 1 , 1988
Page 4
closing of Holmes Street . Motorists throughout Shakopee
found alternative routes to get to 1st Avenue, depending on
where they lived in town . With adequate publicity and
signing, Mn/DOT feels that closing Holmes Street is a very
workable alternative and a big improvement to the
intersection.
The businesses along Holmes Street may or may not be
impacted, but motorists would still have access to Holmes
Street and full parking rights would exist on both Holmes
and 1st Streets. Another alternative would be to allow
southbound traffic to go into Holmes , but prohibit
northbound traffic only.
3 • Restricting left turns off the bridge into the alley behind
City Hall would improve the traffic backup on the bridge,
though minimally, and is still a viable alternative.
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Eliminate parking completely on 1st Avenue from Fuller to
Lewis.
2. Retain all parking.
3• Eliminate parking on the north side of let only, from Fuller
to Lewis. This would enable a full right turn lane to be
created along this block, while the businesses on this side
of the street would still have some parking behind their
buildings.
4. Close Holmes to all through traffic.
5 . Close Holmes to northbound through traffic only.
6 . Prohibit left turns from 1st Avenue to Sommerville, Lewis,
Holmes & Fuller Streets. (or any combination)
7• Prohibit left turns from the bridge into the alley behind
City Hall.
8. Do Nothing.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends Alternatives 5 and 7 as a minimum to close
Holmes Street to northbound through traffic and to prohibit left
turns from the bridge into the alley behind City Hall. Staff
also feels that prohibiting left turns from 1st Avenue would help
alleviate traffic congestion (Alternate 6 ) , but rather than
prohibit it at all 4 intersections, it should be prohibited at
101/169 Intersection
Sept. 1 , 1988
Page 5
the two intersections with signals (Lewis and Holmes) .
Staff also feels that strictly from a traffic flow standpoint ,
parking should be eliminated on 1st Avenue from Lewis to Fuller
but Council must weigh all factors including the impact on
downtown businesses.
While there are certainly pros and cons to all of the proposed
temporary improvements, staff feels that the overall community
would benefit greatly to improving the downtown traffic
congestion. The traffic problem has been around for some time
now, but every year it gets worse as the communities south of the
river expand and develop.
The main question is does the City Council feel strongly enough
about improving the traffic downtown in the interim until the
mini-bypass is open (2 , 3 ,4 years down the road ) or are they
comfortable with the situation as it is for the next several
years.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Discuss the proposed improvements to improving the traffic flow
downtown and decide which improvements are justified based on all
pros and cons . Move to direct staff to implement- those
improvements that Council feels are justified or move to end this
issue once and for all, rather than consuming more of staff' s,
Mn/DOT' s and Downtown Business ' s time in exploring further
alternatives.
DH/pmp
INTERSECT
TO: THE CITY COUNCIL
& CITY STAFF J /�/ /✓ :( / /���/r
FROM: CONCERNED DOWNTOWN BUSINESS PEOPLE
(LIST ATTACHED)
DATE: AUGUST 25, 1988
RE: THE CURRENT PROPOSAL FOR TRAFFIC CHANGES TO FIRST AVENUE TRAFFIC
This is a unified position of concerned downtown business people on First
Avenue and adjoining streets. The attached represents the position of this
group concerning the proposals currently before the City Council .
This group recognizes that like many other communities Shakopee has traffic
problems, particularly along First Avenue. While we share the Council 's
concerns regarding traffic flow along First Avenue, it is our position
that the current proposals while they may or may not improve that traffic
flow, will cause severe and perhaps irreparable harm to Downtown and
Shakopee as a community.
We ask that we are all notified of the next City Council meeting regarding
this proposal .
PROHIBITING PARKING ON FIRST AVENUE DURING BUSY TRAFFIC HOURS ON MONDAY THRU
SATURDAY AND PROHIBITING PARKING ENTIRELY ON FIRST AVENUE ON SUNDAYS
(Sommerville to Atwood?) //6F-,
IMPROVED TRAFFIC FLOW:
A. Instead of having four lanes of congestion, there will be five lanes
of congestion and this hardly seems like an improvement.
B. No matter how many lanes there are trying to get vehicles out of town,
there is only a 2-lane bridge. You will be trying to funnel more traffic
than the bridge can handle. That fact is, there are far more cars passing
over these roads than they were ever meant to handle.
SAFETY:
A. Traffic will not be too close to cars, but too close to pedestrians and
buildings. Can you imagine the dangers to people and buildings that would be
created by a loaded grain truck travelling curbside (hopefully the speed limit) .
B. The debris that could be launched through the air could be much more
hazai dous than now _ -
C. The noise and pollution on First Avenue are bad enough now but add
another lane of traffic and bring traffic up to the curb, the situation
would be unbearable and possibly dangerous .
D. Rather than being a hazard, parked cars actually act as a buffer.
E. If crossing First Avenue is difficult now, adding another lane of
traffic can hardly make it easier. Instead of four lanes blocking inter-
sections, there will be five.
F. SPEED is a definite problem now. It's no secret that 40-45 mph is
common on First Avenue. If parking is eliminated and First Avenue is
opened up, it may well encourage speeding. Rather than solving the
problem it may make it worse.
IMPACT ON DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES:
With parking at such a premium in Shakopee, we don't believe we can afford
to eliminate any spots. The parking related accidents in recent years have
been very minimal . If people want to park on First Avenue, let them make
the choice. Let us as businesspeople make or break our business. Don't
legislate us out of business .
**Legal Action: How can Shakopee be negligent for allowing parked cars
where they have been for over 50 years . But if you change from the norm,
banning parking, encouraging speeding, bringing traffic curbside?????
NO LEFT TURNS FROM FIRST AVENUE ONTO THE FOLLOWING STREETS
SOMMERVILLE LEWIS HOLMES FULLER
THE DETRIhIENTAL AFFECT TO DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES by discouraging west-bound
tra is rom entering the downtown community is apparent.
TRAFFIC FLOW: With narrowing the choice of turning left to two or three
stree�n the center of our City, the current practice of turning when
there is an opening would be eliminated. This does not alleviate back-up.
It only places it.
SAFETY: This is a valid concern. Perhaps the consideration here should be
as l� turn arrow to help our citizens enter their own town safely. We
provide this convenience for all traffic but that wishing to enter the
City through the Downtown area.
WE BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING STEPS WOULD HELP MAKE THE TRAFFIC PROBLEM ON FIRST
AVENUE MORE MANAGEABLE:
1 . Strict and aggressive enforcement of the speed limits and traffic viola-
tions along First Avenue. Nothing discourages speeding more effectively than
getting or seeing someone get a citation. Posting signs informing the motorists
that our speed limits are strictly enforced would also be helpful .
2. Striping the parking lane to define it more clearly would create better
awareness of where the traffic belongs. This would make the parking safer.
3. Installation of left turn signals for west-bound traffic.
i
SUMMATION
I
There has been traffic congestion in the area for years, and may be for years
to come. It is simply a case of too many vehicles on roads that were never
designed to carry the existing traffic volume. Don't Penalize the citizens
of Shakopee for something they did not create.
We are convinced that elimination of parking on First Avenue, even on a
temporary or partial basis, would be devastating to businesses in the area.
Shopping is a habit. . . .once the habit is broken, it is difficult to get
people back into it. There are already vacant stores along First Avenue. . . .
Please don't add to that number by legislating even one of us and our
employees out of business.
C' D TAXIDERMY 212 East First
SHAKOPEE BOWL 222 East First
Sport STOP 101 South Lewis
VIDEO VISION 1147 Harrisson
BERENS 123 West 2nd
VALLEY SPORTS 102 First Ave W
THE COUNTRY COLLECTION 213 E First
ANTIQUES
EASTMAN DRUG 214 S Holmes
JIM & LUCY'S 201 W First
WAMPACHS 126 W. First
BRAMBILLAS - 114 N Holmes
RUEHLE JEWELERS 201 E. First
RIVERSIDE TV & APP. 125 E. First
FONDER CARPET 120 E First
PARKSIDE PRINTING, INC. 123 East First
JOHN PERRY AGENCY 120 East First
PERRY & ROG'S BARBER
SHOP 105 South Lewis
GAIL ANDERSON OWNDR OF VIDEO VISION BUILDING
THE TOLLBRIDGE 102 East First
GESSWEIN AUTO SALES 131 West First
GARY- LAURENT 128 South Fuller
EAGLE PET SHOP 126 East First
MARY'ANN'S QUILT SHOP 126 South Holmes
125-1/2
DR. JANU East First Avenue
TOM REIN 119 First Avenue East
TOM'S BARBER SHOP
SHAKOPEE BAKERY 114 East First
BILLS TOGGERY 138 South Lewis
FEARSON FLORISTS 112 South Somerville
CONSENT ,/b
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: David Hutton, City Engineer
RE: Downtown Railroad Corridor
DATE: September 1, 1988
INTRODUCTION:
For several months staff has been discussing improvements to
the downtown railroad corridor with representatives of the
Chicago Northwestern Railroad. The initial thrust was to install
signal at Scott Street as well as remove the overhead power lines
along the tracks. Upon review of the cost implications for
undergrounding the overhead lines, the Downtown Committee moved
to recommend to City Council that this issue be dropped at this
time.
BACKGROUND:
Attached is a letter and proposed agreement from the Chicago
and Northwestern Railroad regarding the removal of the overhead
power lines along the downtown corridor.
The railroad has suggested that the City pursue federal
funding for this project thru Mn/DoT. Mn/DOT has indicated that
unless numerous crossings downtown were closed (4 total) they
would not participate in the project unless it could be proved
that it was needed for increased safety. With eight or so
crossings downtown it would be hard pressed for the City to prove
that safety was the motivating factor in getting these
improvements.
Staff has contacted the railroad and they have stated that
they will remove the overhead poles if the City pays for the
installation of the electronic track circuits to replace the
poles. Basically, the overhead lines are power sources for the
signals, not communication poles.
The railroad will not simply bury the existing lines. They
have adopted a policy of replacing the overhead lines with the
newer electronic circuits rather than bury existing lines. The
electronic circuits are easier to maintain and much more reliable
for activating the signals than buried power sources.
The attached agreement basically covers removing the !
overhead lines from Fuller to Lewis (2 blocks) . The total
estimated cost for this project is $51,092.00 or about $25,500.00
per block. If the project were extended to Sommerville, the
total cost is estimated at $76, 000.00.
In reviewing this proposal, the Downtown Committee felt that
the high cost factor involved in removing the lines could not be
justified at this time if the City is expected to pick up the
entire cost. The Committee felt that it was likely that the
Railroad would pursue this issue on their own in the future to
reduce their maintenance costs. The Committee then recommended
to City Council that the City reject the Railroads proposal and
subsequent agreement to remove the Railroad power lines in
Downtown Shakopee.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. Move to reject the Railroads proposal and subsequent
agreement to remove the Railroad power lines in Downtown
Shakopee.
2. Move to authorize the appropriate City officials to enter
into an agreement with the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad
for the removal of the Railroad power lines in Downtown
Shakopee.
3 . Ask staff to explore other alternatives.
RECOMMENDATION-
Staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REOUESTED:
Move to reject the Railroads proposal and subsequent
agreement to remove the Railroad power lines in Downtown
Shakopee.
�c_� Mr . ti:.ttone
55
- - Mr. S. , `ic{bat r rd n,a theA d- w I.,_,.n e Pr c'2ect
F,-- used in tr:Pti__t . 5uote=t to nnna:-e.:.=nt aparov=.l , is
r.ose : - -
eemereriP the i _„_slat _ o
. ftracks
_ircuit ,-,d the moval of our Pc.le line zt Lewis_- Street,
- Street . ..,+,d r%ule•- Street.
{ -bc. ,_ .._et _th the Cit,- s _.
.. .•e
.-.J.; ti, es .s the tee;l ie:,ed1 r+ -.tL,
nr.-.
.er---+ trniy o_..
J. B. R„__dale
ngi-r.ser C.f tubi is
One r,',th Wmsterr Certa,-
_..: cath ,
i
AGREEMENT
_T ly C -.. �� . .I t,IfdF ..�.. .r ter _ rci .. "City.: ..
.=rta:r i_at __ ••Company.' ..
WITNESSETH:
THAT, WHEREAS, Lentis Street .. Holmes Street .:. anc Full -T,
Street _= presen—v In ted . r. the City r cF- k::uFF=, t4inn=seta; _-
_-cs=_ at grade the main line t-a._'- of the Cc.Tpanyg and the
a i-ng s, thue :caned are mro a.=ted ny - iasr:; og 1 =;ht _ _.._ .
a.rl
WHEREAS, the City _= th= _si=.t r: = pole L'_
Comps.' -emc d i. r __-ns
;_ no t:o i.n--tali eiecti [ c ..� .. �.i:'= f-E fcr L w^ = - H .. __
.ts Jr. r.- r tc. .. .e tr.: - -ie li
a-.,d
WHEREAS, _ ,.it. ;j _ .acit. ar.d the
_=id pub Lc =treete ..ill �e-_ . _ _.c_thetir .,�nefi t= fr, rhe
. emoyai of the prie time, _. - -it., is wjjj ; j-jg to ptEocb the
n. a _c =.c 11 ii,=tail el .. ]r.i t -Irl: _
the '-f the e-, e in=- and
WHEREAS.
NOW, THEREFORE. , .-. _:_ ,� s•r re:=r +;-:ci =
i
SECTION 1 . -,E I
- I :eGc l Eli -
-or Lew-i = - Hol:^=e a.nd Fi:ilc-r St:eet=_ , ane
i-h--� pole _ ..::e at the _.ale -_ _+ l::_
of the City. The placemen'- of the eiona.; circuits =11ali
in - �V'.-tla e W.1 L:`: -:r} ` l'; ! -f the A.- _._ C
Tra*fic ?ita-ol Dewire= {rlu- ==. Detailed plan=,
-eeci--icatians and the work to Lie done shall he =u6.iect tc,
the approval cf the ,.A.rtTe �`. T. -n r .;ei+icn of the
Fate Of . .,:,.,=s...
SECTION R. TL,e r-•a .. r er +,. �f= i:..t t•` - -ee - -::::
i ettG o t _ the .rent r _ _caG', "e;
fE s -al. - oc • c' _. eq. -.-n.1 c •-.e -:t
Cnt ,- - -,..h ard -u i s,_e . sic :-E-ed,
and =.I l... andgem , .'tis-r=_
ati ._ nc:nsenr=ted foci liti=s, c:inorit.v __si =_s
rhe enp=oyme, r r:f ---etei .- a. - -..aic&O Ped
_._ th,_-ct __u`i---r_ Driel P... l--:g
et z R -_ . 1'-; . 1 - 1 a r [ ic.::
_-. _ , ..0
a -
SECTION 3. me.
rid _ ._ _.0 r p F m E - ..r ,c;• lr• - 5.'•i , r �:e:. ..
_e n.t. +
- . men t r : -Po- xray h - _.'_� a-� t� d:- ic:•ir.
romper-r: -e=rr_nt=- wit' =.:_ici, -i- 5u1._'-I j y_d
rcl '<or! , and in i:t• the- :c_ccCan Le Witt: d=tai lsd t timate -_acl-_
__ hereto =und marked E;-:h,ioit .,
gF.-.Z s7,i_-c;5
mater _ _ , -.;_ .On
Other r?4_,.C"-
Add i
CAddi fives 1i - -,.
TOTAL _STIMATEr, CUE?'
RECTION_4_ , the is der ,=_.d +. _.
t: s t re;- i ,9 +ate _::,, to 5 'r-rc•rrmD the
C - -ec _ it ...I -th-'r-= - - -.civ r .
_ -m-
.ncl or. _,e o i.',r__ it: the chance.
_.:
the er:t it _ m t.,.rd t: he w r. ha=_
rrc.m the statement n1 well, to be t'-,e
h:-�t the t ' Mmt d r +_r,t ir, this eme ... less
3n The ,,;.,al zt_ cr c '. ,orm .h_= 1 . the
_SECTION C
_gjECIION_6Trs '1. .. . ee
t j i
-azar I T-cvt 3 T tlle
t T h
e, the
_hall be lg-eEd LEtweel the "Pel_ rd t�e ate
IrIOF tl --LJCrl CeMC-v al .
in the event th�,t 1,19t,,Iv wr mlLwE , IG-P,
,eCESEjt, be the at ==id SE31_cs - 11'e
_=.rtt,L,=e impr-_-veme.rt --Eu7e�_ -_=id zhargsn :tire
cc,st clblic8C, c, to t� � Ctl�
R-ECT10N 7. - ; t" 4a; l !
mp r = t-iqh+ o4 -,n
t, j,-: tc C,,:?i5h to -he
Fi--PM,-tV D-raqE totn =_—C FIEC2 ir, t:-e �Eo-1
-----------
IM-lt �e_
.1 J.
1 .
Ev:.dr-nCe of sa.d sha11 be rurni shad tc�
the .mpany- nor app-r.,'al , and ..c rs'r 4:: malt be perf._r^. .d .-io,
-hall the City' s contractor be permitted to I-jo,-t; 'within 12 ' of
the Company' s trect:: until inst,,nce _overarie has r__.-. app.-o..
by the Comoanv.
SECTION_8_ Flagging bills T_ r be presented by the C_ -,par•.y
to the City ' .. cont-ractcr on effi nth,i _ hast= . e.-._ final bill.
1='ill be _ e _.'ter _,,pietic, _ the bro •.a7- end th=.
em, i 3 11 .-_Ceiv=- Prompt naa.:- ,r, r - -
SECTION_9_ The C t ._, ;ig, e -. n-afi y 'he _ a '
n 3. ar. _ of t tire it ;oeats t: ,� ni --Ir - id -
end to _Ilow the Cr.mp,.-� a -e -.able time to __ pie,._ _ -= acr_ed
portion n: crtstructinn.
_GcCTION_1[I_ This
_a c -- - ,
-- . ._ _ . _ctive
e>!.-"_Iti b._ Lath �,.arti_ -sto scall bE bi-.o 7g ,i the
sties , their _xcessnrs c1_
/rte
IN WITNESS WHEREOF
r•^ = r ..ad `n � ;� : rc:,: t .��..i _ - [. .,-t,, .gip, - . � � :,._aiI �_.�,
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
6v: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City Administrator
ATTEST:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
Cit./ cl� -k
CHICAGO AND NORTH WESTERN
TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
ATTEST.
# .;n.
_ ___
ADf IP ''A1'S ilE Tfi TA._
mnve a- 1e Irl= ] C. ±2�n
Li E.DR SC'1TOTAL 7,L c,5
PLATER 1 A L
Ea. FMD uteO.S p5500
r;isc , r..re, taus. =yelets, etc . 1000
----
MATERIAL SL-'PTpTAL2-iO-iO
OTiiE-'
_>>0
ADDITTI, F._
13-:5 1033
M_ "eric of _= ..__ 1450
-. . _. .v c{' r"iat ' _ . ± 29nn,_• 290
tq L'a^ e? . ... sup 15 .,_
A.cc ' t. s-nd 6:. ._ inc_ 1% u{
cant i.noe,,c ies 10% c f 4.Sn3
___________.___ ______._ ' -_____________ _______________ _ `_
-.=LITIVE9 IJ
SPTOTAL
="AiiL TOTAL 251 ,::92
C-.HW 'lC lA'iCN C"
L
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant
RE: Request to Place Garbage Dumpster on City Property
DATE: August 31, 1988
INTRODUCTION•
The City has received a formal request from Ms. Sara Laurent
requesting permission from the City to locate the garbage
dumpster for the Laurent building on the City parking lot located
0 –r Street-.—
BACKGROUND:
treet.BACKGROUND•
On August 31, 1988 the City of Shakopee received a formal
request from Ms. Sara Laurent requesting permission from the City
to locate the garbage dumpster for the Laurent building (located
at 118 Fuller Street) on a City parking lot. (See attachment Wl)
In researching this issue, staff has discovered that the
building located at 118 Fuller Street was constructed up to the
property line on all four sides. (This is permitted under the
provisions of our Zoning Ordinance. ) Therefore, the property
does not have the area to locate a garbage dumpster.
It is my understanding that for several decades, the
property owner at 118 South Fuller Street has located the garbage
dumpster for their property on the parking lot just South of the
property in question. (The City's Blue Arrow Parking Lot) . To
the best of my knowledge the garbage dumpster has always been
located in such a fashion so as not to interfere with parking in
the lot. The dumpster has been occupying a corner space that
could not be used for a parking stall (dead space) .
In conjunction with phase I part II of the Downtown
Revitalization Project, the design of the Fuller Street lot has
been changed to include landscaping in the corner areas of the
parking lot. Since we have not completed the lot at this time,
it would be possible for the City to leave a portion of the
Northwest corner of the lot for the Laurent Buildings garbage
dumpster.
If City Council wishes to approve of Ms. Laurent's request,
staff would recommend that the agreement shown in attachment $2
between the Laurent building propertyownerand the City be
approved for the use of a portion of the Northwest corner of the
parking lot. The agreement is similar to the one between the
City and Jack Brambilla for the use of the Levee Drive (Black
Arrow) Parking Lot for his recreational vehicle storage. In
addition to the lease agreement which would set forth an annual
fee for the use of the City parking lot for the garbage dumpster,
staff would recommend that the property owner be responsible for
constructing and maintaining a 6' high fence to screen the
garbage dumpster. (This has been included in the agreement. )
Staff believes that the physical nature of the Laurent
property imposes a hardship on the property owner when it comes
to the removal of refuse. Staff would therefore recommend that
City Council direct the appropriate City officials to enter into
an agreement between the owners of the Laurent building and the
City of Shakopee for the use of the NW corner of the Blue Arrow
parking lot for the location of a garbage dumpster providing that
the property owner agrees to construct and maintain a 6' high
fence around the garbage dumpster and providing the-_ proparty —
owner pays the City an annual fee of $5. 00 for the aforementioned
use. Staff would also recommend that the length of the agreement
be for five years.
The fee being proposed by staff is comparable to the fee
currently being paid by Mr. Brambilla for the use of the Levee
Drive Lot. Mr. Brambilla currently pays the City $12 .00 per
t, stall per year.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Move to direct the appropriate City officials and enter into
an agreement between the City and the Laurent Building
property owners for the location of a garbage dumpster on
the NE corner of the Blue Arrow Parking Lot subsequent to
the construction and maintenance of a 6' high fence around
said garbage dumpster and the submittal of a fee in the
amount of $5. 00 per year.
2. Do not allow the Laurent Building property owners to locate
the garbage dumpster for his building on the Blue Arrow
Parking Lot.
3 . Simply permit the Laurent Building property owners to locate
the trash receptacle for his building on the NE corner of
the Blue Arrow Parking Lot without a formal agreement as has
been done in the past.
4 . Table this issue pending further information from staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative 41.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Move to authorize the appropriate City officials to enter
into a five year agreement with the Laurent Building property
owners for the location of a trash receptacle on the NE corner of
the Blue Arrow Parking Lot providing that the property owner
agrees to maintain and construct a 6' high fence around said
garbage dumpster subsequent to the payment of a fee in the amount
of $5. 00 per year.
Sara Laurent
128 S . Fuller Street
Shakopee , MN. 55:79
MEMO
To: John Anderson
City of Shakopee
Re : Dumpster
for
The Laurent Building
AUG
v!T`f V S: r..
The reconstruction of the Fuller Street parking lot just
South of our building brings with it the topic of dumpster
location. Because our building is built to the property
lines , the area for a trash dumpster on our property doesn ' t
exist . This has never really been a problem, however , in
that our building has had its dumpster located in a "dead"
section in the Northwest corner of the parking lot. The
footprint of our building has been as it is for several
decades ; so this situation has existed for quite sometime .
To our knowledge , there has never been a problem as a result
of this dumpster location.
At the titre we purchased the property (approx. 1980) , 1 was
reassured by City Staff that a dumpster located in the North-
west portion of the lot would not be a problem. The new park-
ing lot has a dead area in the same location. Although the
topic of Laurent Building garbage dumpster location may
have been discussed with City Council back in 1980 , I would
suggest that our agreement become of record with the current
review of dumpster location/design.
As you know, we are very excited about the new downtown ;
and would be open to any suggestions the City may have in
locating this dumpster in an aesthetically pleasing way .
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely ,
,\10.•L�
Sara Laurent
1988
Laurent Builder's
SPECIAL PERMIT
MUNICIPAL PARKING LOT
The City of Shakopee, Minnesota, the owner of a municipal
parking lot known as the Blue Arrow Parking Lot, hereby grants to
Laurent Builder's the right to locate one garbage dumpster on the
Northwest corner of said parking lot.
The grantee, Laurent Builders, shall pay to the City in
advance, the sum of five dollars and no cents ($5. 00) per year
for said space. The grantee hereby agrees to construct and
maintain a six foot high fence around the garbage dumpster.
Materials for said fence shall be approved the City.
This permission is for a five year period terminating on
December 31, 1992, and may be cancelled by either party on thirty
(30) days written notice to the other, in which case unearned
portions of the fee charged, if any, shall be refunded. If
permission is cancelled by the City for a violation of the terms
and conditions hereof by the grantee herein, there will be no
refund.
The permit granted hereby is for the sole exclusive use of
the grantee named herein and agents and employees of said grantee
and no other person.
The grantee shall keep the portion of said lot covered
hereby in a neat, clean, and safe condition at all times. The
grantee shall assume all risks incident to the use of the space
and shall indemnify the City against any loss, damage, or expense
resulting from personnel injury or damage to, or loss of,
property caused in any manner by the Lessee, and against any
loss, damage, or expense resulting from injury to the Lessee, to
the agents of the Lessee, to the employees of the Lessee and to
the general public.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, this instrument is executed this
day of 1988,
LAURENT BUILDER'S CITY OF SHAKOPEE
By By
Its Owner Its Mayor
By
Its Administrator
BY
Its Clerk
//d
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant
RE: Evaluation of Downtown Committee
DATE: August 29, 1988
INTRODUCTION•
The Shakopee City Council has directed staff to evaluate
whether or not there is a need to maintain the Downtown Committee
in its' present format.
BACKGROUND:
On several occasions discussion has taken place on the
merits of maintaining the Downtown Committee as an advisory body.
Debate has taken place on whether or not the Committee has
officially completed its, mission as set forth by City
Resolution.
In April of 1981 the Downtown Committee was created (by City
Council Resolution #1822) as a subcommittee of the Industrial
Commercial Commission. (Now Community Development Commission)
It's mission as set forth in Resolution #1822 was to prepare and
recommend a Downtown Economic Development strategy to the
Industrial Commercial Commission (ICC) and the City Council.
(See attachment #1)
In 1983 Resolution #2112 expanded the membership of the
Committee from 11 to 20 members. This was done to permit the
involvement of a greater number of people who would be directly
affected by the Downtown Redevelopment Project. (See attachment
#2)
In 1984 the Downtown Revitalization Concept Plan was
completed and adopted by City Council. At that time, Resolution
#2217 resolved that the Ad Hoc Downtown Committee be directed to
continue its' efforts towards the revitalization of the downtown
by seeking means to implement said concept plan. (See attachment
#3)
In order for us to determine if the Downtown Committee has
completed its' mission as set forth in Resolution #2217, we must
review the goals and objectives as set forth in the Downtown
Revitalization Concept Plan. (See attachment #4) In the left
hand column of attachment #4, staff has attempted to list the
status of each of the goals and objectives listed.
In our analysis of the goals and objectives, (Attachment #4)
we find that several of the goals and objectives have been met
including the following three major objectives:
1) Develop a Plan that accomodates thru traffic while not
detracting from the existing retail core and enhancing future
development opportunities.
2) Improve 2nd. Avenue as a retail street.
3) Develop an organized shared-parking concept in order to
minimize the land area used for parking and better utilize
existing street system.
In our review of attachment #4, we also find that many of
the objectives have not been met. Following are three objectives
that staff would classify as major items deserving of further
consideration:
1) Accomodate at least one 100 additional multi-family housing
unit development.
2) Capture tourist traffic.
3) Accomodate thru-traffic while not detracting from the
existing retail core and enhance development.
On March 3, 1988 the Shakopee City Council unanimously
approved the CDC One Year Work Plan. Staff would like to note
that the following items were listed in the one year work plan of
the City and delegated to the Downtown Committee:
1) Develop and secure Request for Proposals from developers
interested in the development of the Southern half of Block
#4 in Downtown Shakopee. (City Hall Block)
2) Initiate an analysis of Huber Park and the possibility of
converting it to commercial use as part of a larger river
front development.
3) Prepare a Request For Proposal Package that would attract
developers to Downtown. The proposal should be site specific
and should define the level of City assistance if any, to the
developer with the best proposal. The request for proposal
specifications should be formally approved by City Council.
4) Discuss securing the assistance of a consultant to prepare a
Market Analysis for Downtown Shakopee.
The complete One Year work Plan is shown in attachment #5
for Councils' information.
If the City Council feels that the remaining objectives can
be accomplished by a Committee other than the Downtown Committee,
following are several courses of action for Council's
consideration:
1) The membership size of the CDC could be expanded and the
remaining objectives could be delegated to this
Commission for further review and analysis.
2) Split the yet completed objectives between the HRA and
the Community Development Commission,
3) Have the remaining duties picked-up by an independent
merchants association that has no formal City tie.
4) If the City Council believes that the incomplete items
could best be accomplished by the Downtown Committee, the
Council could simply move to maintain the status quo
until such time that the remaining goals and objectives
have been completed.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. Transfer the remaining objectives to the Community
Development Commission and expand it's membership size from
six to nine members.
2. Split the remaining objectives between the Community
Development Commission and the HRA. -
3. Maintain the status quo.
4 . Have the remaining goals and objectives picked-up by an
independent merchants association with no formal ties to the
City.
5. Recommend that the CDC review this issue and make a
recommendation to City Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss the pro's and con's of this issue and make a
recommendation accordingly.
ACTION REODESTED:
Make a motion regarding the status of the Downtown
Committee.
RESOLUTION NO. :522 /(
A RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH THE AD HOC DOWNTOWN COMMITTEE, —
A SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE INDUSTRIAL-COMMERCIAL COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shakopee is the
official governing body Of the City of Shakopee empowered to
provide for the public health, safety and welfare of its citizens;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has established the Industrial-
Commercial Commission charged with the responsibility to consider
matters dealing with economic development within the City of
Shakopee and then making recommendations to the City Council, and
WHEREAS, the Industrial-Commercial Commission is attempting
to focus on economic development potential in the central business
district of Shakopee, and
WHEREAS, the Industrial-Commercial Commission seeks additional
representation from the downtown business people, the Chamber of
Comae-ce, the City staff, and the general public, and
WHE-REAS, the Industrial-Commercial Commission has requested
that an Ad Hoc Downtown Committee be established to assist in the
preparation of a downtown economic development strategy.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY Or SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that:
1. An Ad Hoc Dovmtown Committee is herebv established and
shall continue to ext=_= until a downtown economic development
st-ategv is prepared and recommended to the industrial-Comme-cial
Go.ti.,issian and the Cin• Councl .
2. The Committee shall consist of not less than nine nor more
than eleven members and four ex officio members (the ICC Chairman,
the City Planner, the Chamber of Commerce President and a member of
the Planning Coaoission). All members shall be recommended by the
Mayo- and the Council with approval cy the full Council. Members
shall serve without compensation and may be removed ---am office at
any time by the City Council, or upon two unexcused absences.
a. A C--'r-an sh '_: be elected by the Committee at its fr-.t
o-ganizaC on^ . meeting, and a brief set of by-laws will ce also
solution No. 1822 Page 2
ke
adopted .. A monthly meeting schedule shall be adopted for the next
6 months and filed with the City Clerk.
4. The Committee shall record the minutes of each meeting
which shall be filed with the City Clerk within one week following
a meeting. The minutes shall be delivered to the City Council , the
Planning Commission and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority.
5 . The responsibility of'the Committee is to propose an
economic development strategy that :
1 . identifies specific activities and locations
2 . Identifies costs and a finance schedule
Adopted in r-L,. session of the City Council of the
U U
City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this �'°-day of delap -- -- - -
1981 . v
i
r '-g, �
Mayor o ane City of Shakopee
Attest .
� p� j
Ci--y lerk
l
Approved as to form this it
day of �,J�.; i98i .
City Attorney y
I
RESOLUTION NO. 2112
A Resolution Expanding The Membership
On The
Downtown Ad Hoc Committee
And
Amending Resolution No. 1822
WHEREAS , the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee was established and
delegated the responsibility of preparing a downtown economic
development strategy ; and
WHEREAS , the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee has asked that their
membership on the Committee be expanded to twenty (20) ; and _
a
WHEREAS , the expansion of the number of members on the Committee
jwould permit the involvement of a greater number of people who
will be directly affected by the Downtown Redevelopment Project..
NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
jOF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA tbzr Resolution No. 1822 is hereby amended
by expanding the maximum number of members who can be appointed
to the Committee from eleven (11) to twenty (20) .
Adopted in a.f„'_ /?/,F - session of the City Council
of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota , held this /E7day of
%' Af.n✓.n 1983 .
Mayor of the CitZ�n pee
ATTEST:
I /
CY, cy Klerk
Imo/) N
Approved as o form this
day or 1 83 .
RESOLUTION N0. 2217
A Resolution Adopting a Downtown Concept Plan
(Alternate B-1, Revised) and Directing Its Implementation
WHEREAS, the Shakopee Area Chamber of Commerce on May 6, 1980,
completed its "1980 Central Business Study" in which it urged the
City Council to set goals and establish responsibility for downtown
revitalization efforts; and
WHEREAS, the City Council created the Ad Hoc Downtown Committee
as a sub-committee of the Industrial Commercial Commission by
Resolution No. 1822, on April 21, 1981; and
WHEREAS, the City Council requested the Ad Hoc Downtown
Committee to spearhead the City's efforts to develop a comprehensive
plan for economic revitalization of the Shakopee Downtown; and
WHEREAS, on May 3, 1983, the City Council Authorized the hiring
of Westwood Planning and Engineering to assist the Downtown Committee
in developing its comprehensive plan; and
WHEREAS, the Downtown Committee has worked with Westwood Planning
and Engineering to develop a comprehenssive pian for downtown revital-
ization which identifies a retail core and districts suitable fer
multi-family housing, public and institutional uses and ident'-`ies
major parking and roadway alterations ; and
WHEREAS, said plan has been presented as "Alternative B-1,
Revised" to the Indust-is! Commercial Co`ission and the Planning
CC'. 'ssi On and both Commissions have reco=ended the adoption of
said plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a join: meeting with the Down-
town Committee on December 27, 1983, for the presentation of the
plan and consideration of alternative components ;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: that the Downtown Concept Plan, Alternative
B-1, Revised, as presented in the map attached or
and made a
part hereof, is hereby adopted; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Ad Hoc Downtown Committee
is hereby directed to continue its efforts towards the revitalization
of the downtown by seeking means to imp 1ement said concept plan.
Adopted in _4 session of the City Council
of th`xe City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 1 day of
T <or 1988.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
fl
1 • ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Coal : Strengthen the economic we 11 -being of the downtown
core and the city by increasing retail , office and
residential activity , which will increase taxable
values and job opportunities.
7, Objectives :
NO"T 1-A: Accommodate at least 100 additional multi -family
0� eJ housing unit development.
• Promote owner-occupied housing.
• Promote housing which contributes to strengthening
the retail area.
• Relate new residential development to conveniences
of the Downtown Retail Core Area * as well as
creating a quality living environment.
• Develop a variety of housing opportunities for a
wide range of incomes.
• Insure that both elderly housing and nonelderiv
housing is designed to meet the needs of the
intended user.
1-E : Accommodate within the Retail Core Area the warranted
additional retail and of`_ice land uses , as follows:
• Approximately 94,000 s.f, of retail development or
rehabilitation of underutilized/vacant structures.
• Approximately 10,000 s.£. of new office development
or rehabilitation of underutilized / vacant
structures .
• Construction or rehabilitation of an existing
building for new city hall complex within the
Downtown Redevelopment area.
• Promote a balance of comparison shopper and
convenience goods which strengthen the shopping
environment and retail draw.
• Strengthen existing retail "draws " and key
merchants .
* Parr of the Redevelopment Project Area
57
• Create a "theme" shopping environment through
design guidelines which emphasize the downtown
historical nature.
• Identify and develop opportunities available
through existing historic buildings.
• Create accessible shopping by compacting the
retail core area and providing a balanced variety
of commercial businesses and services.
• Develop a business promotion program which:
- Promotes downtown development by addition of new
businessesandexpansion of existing businesses
- Promotes rehabilitation of existing structures
- Provides joint advertising
1-C: Accommodate most new office development in the
institutional area southwest of the Retail Core Area.
• Accommodate approximately 30,000 s.£. of new office
space
• Use new office space to provide a "design/economic
link" to establish a connection between the
hospital , county courthouse , institutional area
and the Retail Core Area
1-D: Create accessible shopping by compacting the Retail
jrp�Qi Core Area .
• Create a sense of arrival
• Limit expansion of retail core
i
h^ 1e 1-B: Capture tourist traffic .
2. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Goal : Create a largely self -sustaining Redevelopment
Program which wil 1 benef it the people of Shakopee.
Objectives :
2-A: Promote and assist development which will return
private investment and
J provide quality shopping ,
working and living environment .
58
/ OL
s
• Private investment should conform to the urban
design guidelines .
• Private retail and office development should
generate <_3 to $ 10 of private investment for each
dollar of public investment .
• Promote development which creates high employment ,
'y`��� major retail draw or high concentrations of
A44 it
4 � customers near the Retail Core .
a l
4
G `(i - 2�$; Assist development which can economically support tax
n �s increment financing .
AI�- Z-C : Promote and assist investment in small businesses .
1 P1r
• Use the rehabilitation program to promote strate-
gically strong business .
• Use the rehabilitation program to leverage (equity
financing) .
.` • Require loan recipients to make improvements which
increase retail activity .
2-D ; Promote and assist development of elderly and con-
elderly housing .
• Assist new housing which supports retail uses .
• Assist high density housing .
zc- • Assist housing which maximizes tax return .
• Use government programs to maximize development .
I° 2-i : Develop financing plan which limits the risk of public
funds for new development .
3 . TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING
Goal : To improve the transportation and parking system in a
way which will strengthen the retail aspects, multi-
family housing aspects and institutional /office
aspects of the downtown area.
Objectives :
Qfi4K( 3-A: Accommodate thru-traffic while not detracting from the
LbpL existing retail core and enhance development.
Av) Sa'mlWe L / 19 /-tT /,y ki!F ,Y/k4
59
Improve access co the retail center through the
Dote following :
• Create identifiable , convenient and safe entrances
Pe to downtown.
}l_�tp/ 6f,1' � • provide attractive pedestrian access from new and
F�0_ existing housing and within and between the Retail
S� Core Area and Office/ Institutional Area.
P,na+)4Ik/3-C: Develop a plan that accommodates the thru-traffic ,
�CbL while not detracting from the existing retail core and
enhancing future development opportunities .
P�aN �as Lx'eti
• Construct a bypass north of lsc Avenue, making 1st
J2
eJ. Avenue a parking/retail street.
tint tn+Pie,+v:,v-F
• Provide major traffic access to the community and
retail area at Fuller and Sommerville Streets.
• Designate Scott and Sommerville Streets for major
north/south access.
y 3-D: Reduce the amount of land area used for streets to
increase development potential , compact the shopping
ape- area and create office/institutional area. Possible
street vacations may include :
• Vacate Holmes Street at 1st Avenue for bypass
construction .
• Provide one-way access to 1st Avenue at Holmes from
west 1st Street .
• Vacate Lewis Street between 1st Avenue and the by-
pass to create land for potential development .
• Vacate Atwood Street between 5th and 3rd Avenue to
create land for institutional development .
• All street vacations are subject to petitions from
adjoining property owners, public hearing and city
council action .
pc,NE 3-E: Provide a comprehensive and interrelated circulation
system.
Pql� 3-Fe Provide pedestrian access to and within the downtown
P'NeY area .
awle ' • Reeduce pedestrian/vehicle traffic conflicts.
60
• Provide pedestrian access between the housing ,
institurional /office and retail core area.
• Provide at-grade access across let Avenue at Fuller
Scott and Sommmerville .
• Create safe , functional , attractive retail core
pedestrian s,vstem to enhance multi -stop shopping
trips .
3-G: Develop an organized shared-parking concept in order
W
11 to minimize the land area used for parking and better
utilize existing street system .
• Encourage a parking layout that minimizes the use
of land.
• Improve access between land uses to encourage more
multiple shopping trips.
• Create angle parking using parts of 1st , Holmes ,
Fuller and Lewis Streets.
• Improve existing municipal parking lot south of 1st
DStreet .
11CPIC 3-H : Improve 2nd Avenue as a retail street .
• Create boulevard effect with one-way streets on
each side of the existing rail system.
• Work with railway company to create safe pedestrian
crossing system along 2nd Avenue and remove
overhead communication lines.
Dd-'E� 3-1 : Provide urban design elements to improve the
r q7l'h environment along 2nd Avenue.
7"'Yi 1p- 3-H Extend Levee Drive eastward.
LC
lI fe: 77e gw. mss Jes�✓�£cv des' �, tie eases Pk/7(rs';cr.'br Lcbc D�
4. LAND USE uk'e j 15f,If 'keJ4E /11F.CC�SYcip i/• 1"4 cXKS /:Gtr P'e":Je 7oi�
fie �eti'S>oN 40 -fie egsf 44
Goal : To eliminate blight and blighting influences and develop
opportunities of historic character and riverfront.
Objectives :
4-A: Increase intensity of land use within the downtown
area .
hf,44-B: Encourage the development of under-utilized land and
Dpj;e/ redesign of over-utilized land .
61
4-C: Reduce the conflicts between incompatible land uses .
o" 4-D: Create developments which are compatible with adjacent
land uses .
4-E: Change some uses of the area fromwarehousing and
single family to integrated non-elderly residential ,
commercial land use and office land uses .
0
'5? I�L 4-F: Create strong urban design guidelines for transitional
AA land uses .
i 4-G : Renovate selected areas .
� 4-R: Keep City Halldowntown
i
4-1 : Create park trail system north of the proposed bypass
which will have lateral connections to the downtown .
kA ,� 4-T Develop paddleboat/canoe rental for river trip ,
concession and other river recreational activities
along the river near Lewis Street .
4-K Create a sense of arrival at Sommerville , Fuller and
169 bridge .
5 . PHYSICAL APPEARANCE AND LAYOUT
Goal : -o create a positive shopper image and living
environment by enhancing the distinctive qualities of
the downtown area ; enhancing the area's commercial
identity ; setting appropriate design standards for
future development .
Objectives :
_rpNe 5-A: Emphasize pedestrian conveniences and amenities .
�� id ltF 5-E: Rehabilitate existing strong commercial establishments
GONG within the area .
Develop a design framework for outside building
areas , building renovation and uniform signing.
��'{" • Improve the environmental relationship between new
1"%Nfi development , building backs and the bypass and
north approach residential areas .
Work for elimination of overhead electrical service
62
5-C: Coordinate the design framework for the pry vate land
IW& areas with a design for the public right-of-way .
rx' Integrate a public/private street lighting , signing
and street furniture program which carries the
shopping center theme throughout the area and
humanizes the area .
PcN
• Create selected pedestrian places and provide a
pleasant pedestrian-oriented shopping and living
environment in the area .
w`1 ��• Beautify riverfront and alley area .
5-D : Create a park trail system north of the proposed
.T' bypass which will have lateral connections to the
downtown .
P_trNc/, 5-E : Develop paddleboat/canoe rental for river trip ,
concession and other river recreational activities
along the river near Lewis Street .
C. TYPES OF REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
The objectives of this redevelopment plan will be
accomplished through the following actions :
• Clearance and redevelopment
• Rehabilitation of buildings to remain
• Vacation of right-of-ways
• New construction
• Public improvements , pedestrian ways , bus turnouts ,
entrances and pedestrian plazas
• Burying public utilities
D. LAND USE PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
In the areas identified on the Redevelopment Land Use Pian ,
which identifies property to be acquired or possibly acquired ,
all new and existing development will be subject to the follow-
ing uses and requirements :
• Uses permitted in areas designated for :
Residential - Any uses or conditional uses permitted by
planned unit development by the City of Shakopee zoning
63
Community Development Commission (CDC)
Shakopee Economic Development
1989 Fiscal Year Work Plan
(July 1, 1988- June 30, 1989)
Activity/objective: To investigate with the possibility of
implementing an ongoing economic development
program for the City of Shakopee stressing
job retention, job creation, downtown
redevelopment and the tourism industry.
Purpose: To create new jobs, increase the local tax base, retain
and assist existing business, attract new businesses
and capitalize on the existing area development
potentials.
i
Budget: CDC Budget $93,110 ($66,000 Convention and
Visitors Bureau)
Time Frame: ongoing from July 1988.
Projected Results: 58 Increase in local tax base.
2.53 Increase in population.
2.53 Increase in employment base.
103 Increase in the number of residential
building permits issued.
Attraction of at least one new
commercial business in the downtown.
Attraction of at least one new
industry into the industrial park.
Attraction of at least one elderly
residential development.
53 Increase in tourists at the recreational
facilities in Shakopee.
Committee/Organization Chairpersons:
Shakopee City Council - Mayor Dolores Lebens
Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority - Steven Clay
Convention and Visitors Bureau - Theresa Roehrich, Director
Shakopee Community Development Commission - Tim Keane
Shakopee Downtown Committee - Gary Laurent
Chamber of Commerce - George Muenchow, President
Tourism Committee - Marilyn Hagermann
Scott County Transportation Coalition - Fred Corrigan
Planning Commission -
City of Shakopee - Staff
City Administrator - John Anderson
Community Development Director - Dennis Kraft
Administrative Assistant - Barry Stock
City Planner - Douglas Wise
City Engineer - Dave Hutton
1989 Primary Work Task
Investigatewith the possibility of implementing activities,
policies and programs which will provide for increased economic
activity in the community and provide mechanisms that will
promote activities which will allow for the orderly development
of commercial, industrial, residential and recreational
activities in Shakopee.
Purpose
To improve the economic vitality, aesthetic quality and
image of the community and to increase the local tax base and
provide additional employment opportunities.
Budget
100% of CDC Budget - $93,110. 00
($66,000 Convention and Visitors Bureau)
Time Frame
1989 Fiscal Year
Strategv Assigned To Completion Date
1. Develop a quarterly news- CDC July 88
letter that will be dis- Barry Stock
tributed to the development
community hi-lighting the
economic activity occurring
in Shakopee.
2 . Develop and secure Request Downtown June 1989
for Proposals from developers Committee/HRA
interested in the development Gary Laurent
of the Southern half of Elk 4
in Downtown Shakopee.*
3 . Attempt to negotiate a deal City Council August 1988
with the National Guard for Dennis Kraft
the location of an Armory/
Community Center in the
community.
4 . Secure the assistance of a Planning June 1989
consultant and complete an Commission
update of the City's Doug Wise
Comprehensive Plan.
* Could be completed earlier pending final securement of State
funding and right-of-way.
5. Distribute and analyze the CDC October 1988
results of the business Tim Keane
retention survey.
6. Construct Phase I Part II City Staff November 1988
of the Downtown Redevelopment City Engineer
Project including street
reconstruction and streetscape.
7 . Assist the property owners of City Council/ August 1988
the Shakopee Valley Mall in HRA
their redevelopment efforts. Dennis Kraft
8. Attempt to secure 501-C CDC May 1989
designation for Shakopee's Jon Glennie/
Development Corporation and Dennis Kraft
restructure it's membership.
9. Initiate an analysis of Huber Downtown June 1989
Park and the possibility of Committee
converting it to commercial Gary Laurent
use as part of a larger
river-front development project.
10. Set up an on-going program CDC August 1988
that encourages monthly Tim Keane
breakfast meetings with
business persons in the
community.
11. Comprehensively amend the Planning June, 1989
Shakopee Zoning Ordinance Commission/
in order to facilitate City Council
sound economic development Doug Wise/
in a timely manner. Dennis Kraft
12. Prepare a Request for Downtown January 1989
Proposal Package that would Committee
attract developers to Down- Gary Laurent
town. The proposal should
be site specific and should
define the level of City
assistance if any available,
if any, to the developer with
the best proposal. The request
for proposal specifications
should be formally approved
by the Council.
13 . Prepare a Request for Proposal Community November 1988
that targets developers who Development
have experience in redevelop- Commission
ment. The proposal would Tim Keane
simply direct developers to
the prime areas for development
in Shakopee.
14 . Discuss securing the Downtown July 1988
assistance of a consultant Committee
to prepare a Market Analysis Gary Laurent
for Downtown Shakopee.
15. Attract an elderly housing City Council/ June 1989
project to the community BRA
utilizing little or no City Dennis Kraft
finanical assistance.
16. Investigate bringing a branch CDC April 1989
or extension facility of the Tim Keane
U of M or St. Thomas into
Shakopee for evening course
offerings.
17. Initiate a weekly question City Council July 1988
and answer series in the John Anderson
local newspaper to be
written by City Council
members and/or staff.
18 . Create new business develop- CDC Sept. 1988
ment teams that focus on Tim Keane
specific development interests
(industrial, commercial,
residential) comprised of
members of various City Boards
and Commissions to work with
potential developers and
development projects.
i
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Community Development Director
RE: Performance of Part Time Temporary Zoning Code
Enforcement Officer
DATE: September 1, 1988
INTRODUCTION•
The City Council directed a three month review of the
activities and performance of the recently hired zoning code
enforcement officer.
BACKGROUND:
Three months ago the City Council approved the hiring of
Rick Paulseth as a 1/2 time temporary zoning code enforcement
officer. The initial scope of the job was anticipated to be of
six months duration.
The principle duties of the position included the receiving
of and investigation of zoning and other land use ordinance
related complaints. Once the complaint is received the zoning
code enforcement officer investigates to determine if, in fact, a
violation of the ordinance has occurred. If a violation is
existing the next step is to attempt to work with the property
owner in remedying the ordinance violation. If negotiation and
discussion are unsuccessful the process then provides for the
zoning code enforcement officer to issue a citation in an attempt
to bring about ordinance compliance.
PERFORMANCE TO DATE:
As of this time 33 complaints have been received and - I
investigated. 27 of these complaints have been resolved in a
reasonably expeditious manner and 6 are as of yet unresolved. As
of this date, no citations have been issued.
The zoning code enforcement officer has also been reasonable
for the conduct of a City wide survey of non-conforming and
portable signs as well as the provisions of the Shakopee
Landscaping Ordinance.
LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE:
Mr. Paulseth's work has been performed in an acceptable
manner and at the level expected by someone who does not have
zoning ordinance experience and is being compensated at the rate
of $6. 00 per hour.
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Continue the zoning code enforcement officer's position for
an additional three months and review the performance at
that time.
2 . Terminate the position as of September 30, 1988.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the zoning code enforcement program
be continued for an additional three month period and be reviewed
at that time. In the case of zoning ordinance and other land use
regulations several months are required to begin to determine
program effectiveness.
ACTION REOUESTED:
Move to extend the zoning code enforcement officer position
for an additional three month period and direct that it be
reviewed as of November 30, 1988.
/1011
POSITION DESCRIPTION
POSITION: Zoning Compliance Inspector
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
ACCOUNTABLE TO: Director of Community Development
Primary Objective of Work'
This position is responsible for performing code enforcement activities.
The Zoning Compliance Inspector shall work cooperatively with both
commerical and residential property owners to achieve compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and adherence to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan
under the direction of the Community Development Director and the City
Planner.
Duties S Resnonsiblities'
Perform Code Enforcement Activities
Receive and investigate complaints and reports of noncompliance of
the Zoning Ordinance.
Prepare and send code violation notices.
Follow-up on code violations maintaining files and keeping records
of all cases or incidents.
Issue written citations requiring court appearances when voluntary
compliance is not achieved or violations require immediate remedy.
Insure that all land uses are in compliance with the codes.
Be familiar with the City's Sign Ordinance and Permitting process
and monitor compliance.
Patrol the community twice a year to spot check for noncompliance.
Performs other duties as assigned by Department supervisors.
Knowledge. Skills and Abilities'
Ability to work cooperatively and communicate effectively with the
public, city personnel and related outside agencies to achieve code
enforcement compliance.
Understanding of ordinance and legal procedures.
Requirements'
High School Dipolma
Previous zoning experience desirable.
Position Status-
Part-time Seasonal/Temporary position of six-months duration (April
- October) 20 hours per week.
Note: This is a newly created position which will be reviewed by
the City Council in July, 1988 to evaluate the effectiveness of the
program and determine whether to continue until October, 1988.
CONSENT
To: Mayor, Councilmembers
From: Tom Brownell, Chief of Police
Re: Computer Software
Date: August 31, 1988
INTRODUCTION
In February 1986, the department purchased IBM computer
equipment from Ameri-Data Systems, Inc. , the state contract
vendor. Ameri-Data also installed software at no cost to the
department as a test site. The department has been notified
that Ameri-Data is no longer providing software services,
which requires the department to purchase a law enforcement
system.
BACKGROUND
In 1986, Ameri-Data had developed a software system that was
compatible with our requirements and has functioned well with
minimal problems. Ameri-Data was also the company most
likely to achieve a communication link with the State of
Minnesota which would eliminate dual entry of statistical
data required by the state. One other company had a complete
software system that could communicate with the state,
however, the system would only function on Texas Instrument
hardware and cost $50,000.
The department has reviewed law enforcement software and
determined that Contract Programming Specialists Incorporated
(CPSI) , a Brooklyn Center Company, has a software program
that best meets our requirements. CPSI has achieved
communications with the state, is capable of maintaining the
system, "and provides employee training on site.
CPSI has software installed in forty Minnesota Law
Enforcement agencies. Stillwater and Lakeville, also
formerly with Ameri-Data, have purchased CPSI software.
CPSI software functions on IBM hardware, therefore the Only
additional requirement is an emulation board.
The cost of the software modules, training and system support
is $8,180 . The cost of emulation board is $650 . Total cost
$8,830.
On August 25, 1988, the computer committee met and approved
the purchase.
Memo pg. -2-
Re: Computer Software
The purchase agreement has been reviewed by the city
attorney.
The department is not funded for this purchase as
Ameri-Data ' s withdrawal from the market was not anticipated
when the current budget was prepared.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize staff to enter into a purchase agreement for
law-enforcement software programs to include installation,
training and prorated system maintenance with Contract
Programming Specialists, Incorporated, in the amount of
$8,830. , using contingency funding which now has a balance of $40,000 .
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Authorize staff to enter into a purchase agreement for law-
enforcement software programs to include installation,
training and prorated system maintenance with Contract
Programming Specialists, Incorporated, in the amount of
$8,830. , using contingency funding.
ll6�_
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Community Development Director
RE: Retention of Bond Counsel
DATE: September 1, 1988
INTRODUCTION:
During the past several months the City Council and staff
have been deliberating on the hiring of bond counsel. A decision
on this subject should be made in the near future.
BACKGROUND:
Earlier this year the City Council directed the staff to
prepare an RFP and send it out to qualified legal firms for the
purpose of providing legal counsel for bond issues. The City
Council established a committee composed of City staff members
John Anderson, Dennis Kraft, and Gregg Voxland along with the
Assistant City Attorney, Rod Krass and Mr. Bob Pulsher of
Springsted, Inc. the City's Financial Consultant. Four proposals
were received from Briggs—and--Morgan, Dorsey and Whitney, Holmes
_and--Graven, - and LeFevere and Lefler. After discussion and
deliberation the three members of the City staff favored Briggs
and Morgan because of the past positive working relationship with
Mr. James O'Meara when he was with O'Connor and Hannan. The
Assistant City Attorney, Mr. Krass favored Holmes and Graven and
Mr. Pulsher indicated that he thought that any of the four firms
that we had interviewed were competent and quite capable of doing
the job.
This recommendation was then submitted to the City Council
and the Council declined to make a decision. The City Council
instead appointed a committee composed of City Council members
including Mayor Lebens and Council members Clay and Scott. After
meeting and discussing this subject two committee members (Mayor
Lebens and Council member Scott) favored Dorsey and Whitney and
Council member Clay indicated that he thought both Dorsey and
Whitney and Briggs and Morgan were qualified to do the job and
that he was comfortable with whichever of those two firms the
staff favored.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. Hire the firm of Dorsey and Whitney as bond counsel for the
City of Shakopee.
2 . Retain the firms of Briggs and Morgan to perform bond
counsel services.
3. Hire Holmes and Graven to perform bond counsel services for
the City.
RECOMMENDATION•
It is recommended that the City Council discuss this issue
and then make a decision on one of the three above mentioned
firms.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Move to direct the staff to negotiate with the firm of
to serve as Shakopee Bond Counsel and to
submit a written proposal for subsequent City Council approval.
To: Mayor, Councilmembers
From: Tom Brownell, Chief of Police
Re: Personnel Assignment
Date: August 23, 1988
INTRODUCTION
Police Officer Russell Lawrence was involved in an automobile
accident while on duty May 3, 1986 , which resulted in injuries.
The injuries Lawrence received have prevented him from
returning to work in the capacity of Patrolman as prior to the
accident.
BACKGROUND
Due to injuries Russ Lawrence sustained from the May 3 , 1986
accident, he did not work from May 3 , 1986 to Sept. 4, 1986 ,
when he returned to work 1/2 days. On November 11, 1986, he
returned to work full-time light duty at the recommendation of
his physician. Since his return to work in Sept. 1986 ,
Lawrence has been assigned to investigative duty and his time
charged to program #313, Investigation.
In April, 1988, the City requested Dr. Richard Golden render a
final determination regarding the extent of the injuries. His
response was that Lawrence has reached his maximum degree of
recovery and cannot return to work as a patrolman. Based on
this, a 3 percent disability rating and $2,259 impairment
compensation was awarded to Lawrence June 3 , 1988, by EBA
(Employee Benefit Adm. ) .
Martha Wisenburger, EBA Claim Examiner, has been in telephone
contact in regard to the City's response to the future status
of Lawrence' s job classification. EBA is involved in a third
party claim against the person who caused the accident and are
concerned about their future liability should the City not keep
Lawrence in its employ.
Officer Lawrence has been employed by the department for
fourteen years. Working in the capacity of patrol officer and
during the past two years as an investigator he has done an
excellent job.
The investigative staff has not been increased since 1976.
During the period from 1976 todate the requirements for
obtaining criminal complaints have become complex and time
consuming. Between 1985 and 1987 , Part I crimes have increased
488, Part II crimes have increased 318 substantially increasing
the investigative staffs work load.
The Shakopee Police Civil Service rules provide the Chief of
Police with the authority to assign patrol officers to
investigative duties.
Memo Pg. -2-
Re: Personnel Assignment - Russ Lawrence
On August 17, 1988, the Civil Service Commission met and
reviewed the aforementioned data and affirmed my assignment of
Officer Lawrence to investigative duties.
The City of Shakopee has adopted a Comparable Worth Plan which
recognized that an officer performing the duties of an
investigator received additional monies above a patrol officer.
The 1987 Police Labor Agreement provides for an increase of
$100 per month above the patrol officers schedule for an
employee performing investigative duties. This is an annual
increase of $1200.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize an increase in pay of $100 per month for Officer
Russell Lawrence with future adjustments as required by the
Labor Agreement and Comparable Worth Plan.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Increase the pay of Officer Lawrence to $100, above the pay of
a patrol officer as compensation for performing investigative
duties.
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: David Hutton, City Engineervi
SUBJECT: Merritt Court
DATE: August 23, 1988
INTRODUCTION:
This memo addresses the "island" in the cul-de-sac on Merritt
Court.
BACKGROUND:
At the August 16 , 1988 meeting, City Council received a request
from the residents that live on Merritt Ct. to remove the island
that is in the middle of the cul-de-sac. Council then directed j
staff to investigate the situation and prepare a recommendation
for Council consideration.
Merritt Court terminates at a cul-de-sac. In the center of the
cul-de-sac, there is a grass island approximately 44 feet in
diameter, with surmountable curb and gutter around the perimeter .
In the center of the island is a street light.
The residents on Merritt Ct. have submitted a petition requesting
that the City remove the grass island and replace it with asphalt
at the City' s expense (copy of request attached) .
A cost estimate for completing this work has been attached. The
costs can be summarized into 3 areas:
1 . Removing Existing Island. {
This cost is estimated at around $500 - $600 based on
today ' s contract prices . The Public Works
Superintendent has also indicated that they could do
this portion of the work.
2 . Installing New Gravel Base and Asphalt.
This cost is estimated at $900 - $1 ,000 , based on
today ' s contract prices. It could be added on to the
current Pavement Preservation Project as a change
order.
3 . Relocating Light Pole
SPUC has estimated this cost at $255 .00 . The City
would have to reimburse SPUC for their work.
Pros and Cons
The advantages of removing this island are reduced maintenance
cost and increasing the aesthetics of the neighborhood . These
islands make it difficult and more time consuming to plow. In
addition, it is the City' s responsibility to mow the grass and
weeds unless a prior agreement was made with the neighborhood.
The Public Works Superintendent is in favor of removing the
island.
The disadvantages of removing this island are additional costs to
the City and the potential for other neighborhoods to make this
same request . According to the Public Works Superintendent,
there are approximately 5 or 6 of these in Shakopee, with 4 of
them in the same neighborhood (Merritt Ct. , Merrifield Ct. , Davis
Ct. and Austin Ct. ) . Once work is started on Merritt Ct. , other
neighborhoods may petition for the removal of these islands, on
their cul-de-sacs. Rather than wait for the requests to be
submitted , the City could remove all the islands at the same time
or at least the 4 in the same neighborhood) or direct City staff
to investigate whether other neighborhoods want them removed.
The costs of removing the islands cannot be assessed and
therefore will be a City expense.
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Approve of the request of the neighborhood and remove the
island in the cul-de-sac on Merritt Court.
2. Deny the request.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends Alternate No. 1 , to remove the island. Staff
also recommends that the Public Works Department be authorized to
remove the existing island , the Engineering Department be
authorized to add the gravel and asphalt to Merritt Ct. via a
change order to the existing Pavement Preservation Project
(Contract No. 1988-8) and that SPUC be authorized to relocate the
existing street light.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Move that the appropriate City staff take all measures necessary
to remove the existing island on Merritt Court including the
following steps:
a. Notify SPUC to relocate the light pole at the City' s
expense.
b. Notify Public Works to remove the existing island.
C. Execute a Change Order to contract 1988-8, Pavement
Preservation Project, with Hardrives , Inc . to gravel
and pave the area where the island was removed.
DH/pmp
r
l(Al
COST ESTIMATE
UNIT
ITEM QUANTITY PRICE TOTAL
Curb & Gutter 140 L. F. $2 . 50 $350.00
Removal
Common Excavation 120 C.Y. $2 . 00 $240. 00
SUBTOTAL * $590.00
Class 5 Gravel Base 56 Tons $6. 00 $340. 00
Asphalt 28 Tons $20. 00 $560. 00
SUBTOTAL $900. 00
Relocate Light Pole 1 Unit ** $255.00
TOTAL $1,745. 00
* Could be done by the City's Public Works Dept.
** Would be done by SPUC
:_MSENT g�
, � cc� C
/6i s ,12
s
�"�!�✓i'/J�" /!mss' mc,-.->a�C'�
Action Reauested -
Authorize-the appropriate City staffto. investigate..the neighbors
request for elimination of the cul—de—sac island in Merritt Court.
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: David Hutton, City Engineer°
SUBJECT: Gopher State One-Call System
DATE: August 24 , 1988
INTRODUCTION:
Attached is correspondence outlining instructions for the City of
Shakopee to follow to join the "Gopher State One-Call" System .
Any agency that operates underground facilities is required to
join the system as mandated by Minnesota State law.
BACKGROUND:
In 1987 , the Minnesota legislative passed a new law (Minn .
Statutes 216D) establishing a one-call notification center for
underground utilities and making it mandatory for all agencies
that operate underground facilities to join this system and
participate in the cost of the center.
This legislation was brought about by a serious pipeline accident
in July of 1986 .
Basically, the new system creates a communication center whereby
anyone performing underground excavation or digging can call and
request locations of all underground utilities in the area prior
to digging . The communication center then notifies all
appropriate utility companies of the proposed work and allows
them 48 hours to locate their utilities.
As it is now without this type of system , anybody that does
digging must call each individual utility separately and request
locates, resulting in many phone calls. The Gopher State One-
Call system will enable a person to make one phone call and get
all utilities in the field located within 48 hours.
Due to the sanitary sewers and storm sewers being under the City
of Shakopee ' s jurisdiction , the City must join this system.
Other utilities that are required to join include SPUC , gas ,
telephone and cable TV.
Attached are copies of information pertaining to the system and
instructions on how to join. Basically, the following summarizes
the steps necessary to join:
1 . An initial membership fee of $25.00 is required.
2 . The operator' s agreement must be signed.
3 . The system user sign up sheet must be completed .
Gopher One-Call System
August 24 , 1988
Page 2
I have also attached correspondence from the League of Minnesota
Cities that advises cities to not execute any proposed operator
agreements until several items in the standard agreements are
revised to conform to current Minnesota Law. The League does
recommend that cities complete the information form along with
the $25.00 initial start-up fee and include a letter indicating
our willingness to cooperate upon an acceptable agreement format
being developed.
The monthly cost for this service varies, but if the City does
not receive at least 30 requests per month , no additional
equipment is needed. They would notify the City of request to
locate utilities over the phone. The charge for this service
will be approximately $4.00 - $5.00 per call. If we receive more
than 30 calls per month, additional equipment will be needed. In
talking to Jim Karkanen , Public Works Superintendent, he has
indicated that they get very few calls per month to locate our
sewers. Public Works will be the department actually responsible
for administering this system.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the appropriate City staff to proceed with signing the
City up to the Gopher State One-Call System as recommended by the
League of Minnesota Cities. This includes submitting the
information form and initial start-up fee of $25 .00 , but not
executing any agreements at this time.
DH/pmp
SYSTEM
.:an,�..._"" `-""Y.`-� '".�'�iw * `��A ^�s�t rc- •--tea, stia C,i�-v...i i � , ��.s� },,, ,p.� �v,
/ c
nA
I Li
183 Enirersih Are. E., St. Paul, ;11.A 55101-'5 26 (612) 227-5600
if
August 4, 1988 CIAUGO B19B@
TY .;.- �.
TO: Mayors, Managers an/d////,��CClarks
FROM: Stanley G. Peska�7General Counsel
RE: One Call Excavation Notice System
The League has received numerous phone calls from cities regarding a
recent mailing from Gopher State One Call. The League staff has
obtained a copy and reviewed these materials and agree that several
issues need clarification. Until these matters are resolved, the
League advises that cities do not execute the proposed operator
agreement.
The One Call Excavation Notice System was created by 1987 legislation.
The law provides that all operators of any underground facility must
participate and share in the costs of the statewide notification
system. This would include all cities operating municipal water,
sewer, gas, electric, cable tv, etc. However, the law does not
require the execution of a particular agreement.
Several items in the operator agreement cause concern. Specifically,
clauses 1,2, 3, 4, 5a,5b,5c,5d,5£,7,8, 9, 13, 14,and 15, either create an
obligation on the part of cities which is not mandated by the law and
may not be in the city's interest or, seem unnecessary in this
agreement inasmuch as they are already clearly required by the statute.
Because these clauses comprise the majority of this proposed agreement,
which may not be advantageous to cities, the League would recommend to
Ici any city that they do not sign it in its present form, at least
+�G•,�'�1(\ without your attorney's view as to the advisability of signing.
/^•uN he League has initiated contact with One Call Concepts Inc. , the
company that will operate the notification sys em, to explore
deve opment of an agreement which will likey 5e acceptabYe—t.o all
paries c or cities which have a rea v siane Win.._ ped
greement, Tom Hoof—resident o --OiT�Call Concerts. Inc_-bas-
state that those cities will be a 7�� *n rnp3a— **< nId agreement
with a new agreement if one is developed.
e advise cities to complete and return the information required on
the form dealing with locations along with their initial fee of
t$�2 e5.00 ecoWe also suggsat cities er g_that
wg a
mandat their art i.�pation—in-the system
and a ey are wil ing to coo erate ful-ly in implementation and to
enter o eyei�t�cceF tablrte-alp parties should one e
developepe d.
Another area of concern has been the options contained in the
receiving equipment agreement. The Gopher State One Call Board has
indicated that any city which will receive less than thirty (30) calls
per month from the one call system is not required to lease or
purchase any receiving equipment but, may receive notification over
the telephone, thus paying only for calls received and eliminating the
added expense of leasing equipment.
I
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
MARKET HOUSE t "
289 EAST FIFTH STREET ROOM 130
ST PAUL. MINNESOTA 55101 �� �
TELEPHONE:16 RI 296.9636
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
DATE: JULY 27 , 1988
TO: All Underground Operators
FROM: William Barbeau, Director, OPS
SUBJECT: Gopher State One-Call, Inc.
In response to a serious pipeline accident in July of 1986 ,
Governor Perpich created the Minnesota Commission on Pipeline Safety
to review and recommend federal and state law, and/or rule changes
that would enhance public safety. The Minnesota Legislature, in 1987 ,
mandated a Commission recommendation for a statewide one-call notifi-
cation center. Enclosed in this packet is introductory information
for your review.
As the state agency responsible for implementing this new law, I
wanted to make sure you understood the rationale for the act and are
fully aware of your responsibilities. The Commission on Pipeline
Safety learned that 40€ of all pipeline accidents are caused by third
party damage. The body of thought throughout the United States ina2-
cates tllat a s atewide one-call center enhances safety . Other states
with one-call centers operating have shown a decline in loss Of _' Le
e
and property loss because of the one-call system. It is clear onthe
legislative act that every underground :ac'-1ity operator must parc;_ci-
pate in and share in the cost of this center. Further, failure to
participate in the system can lead to s_-ious liability implications
for your operation. Finally, federal -egislation is presently moving
through Congress requiring states to r„anaate one-call notification
centers .
Your support of this program will go a long way toward saving lives,
protecting the environment, and lessening property loss, and pro-
tecting your liability.
WB:ps
AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Cf
GOPHER
ONE ", CALG A` ° �198
CITY �_
July" 1988
Dear Fellow Minnesota Utility Operator:
Enclosed please find the following:
I. A reprint of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 216D. the Minnesota One-Call Notification
Law;
2. Letter from the Director of Pipeline Safety, William Barbeau;
3. Correspondence from One Call Concepts, Inc.;
4. An Operator Contract;
5. System User Sign-up Form and Instructions:
6. Several other materials explaining your role in the Notification Center.
You will need to do several things upon receipt of this package:
I. Complete and sign the Operator Agreement.
2. Select your receiving equipment and complete and sign the Receiving Equipment
Agreement.
3. Complete and return the System User Sign-Up Form.
4. Complete Database Entry Forms as needed.
5. Return all documents to the indicated address.
As was discussed in one of our prior mailings, enclosed is our invoice for 525.00
for the first year's initiation fee. The purpose for this initiation fee is to help off-set
some of the start up costs incurred by the nonprofit Board on your behalf. Please make
your checks payable to "Gopher State One-Call, Inc." and return ,your check with
Your return package to the Notification Center.
As the law requires. an operator must participate in and share in the cost of the Notifi-
cation Center. In an attempt to be fair to the operators within the State of Minnesota,
a "per transmission" billing method has been established. Each month you will receive
an invoice from the Notification Center for the number of transmissions received by
you for that month. We believe that this will equitably allocate the costs of the Center
to operators within the state.
We appreciate your continued support in this project, and look forward to a new
and improved era of damage control in Minnesota.
If you have any questions regarding the operation of the One-Call Center, please
feel free to contact One Call Concepts, Inc. at 301-776-0202.
Very, truly yours,
Roger Kiffineyer
Chairman
wre
GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL, INC.
C/O One Call Concepts, Inc. Accouxr NUNeER
14504 Greenview Dr. Suite 300
LAUREL, MARYLAND 20708
(301) 776-0202
f- V
AMOUNT ENCLOSED$ `
RETURN THIS PORTON WRN PAY-EN' —
. . ' _AMOUNT__.-"
1 DATE _ _�,- CHARGES AND GREDRSI._ .
I
Pw nnsncau/w.
—1�i61U
GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL, INC. CCCJJJ
issue Panda for an activny involving excavation must canbnumiSly diSolay
MINNESOTA STATUTES an excavator's and operator's notice at the location where permits are ap
CHAPTER 2160. ONE CALL EXCAVATION NOTICE SYSTEM plied for and obtained.An excavator and operator's notice and a copy of sec-
tions 2160.03 To 2160.07 must be furnished to each person obtaining a permit
Section for excavation.
216D.07. Definitions. Subd.2. Poon.The notification center shall prescribe an excavator and
216DD2. Notice to excavators and underground facility operators. operator's notice. The nonce must inform excavators and operators of their
216D.03. Notification centeroblioation to comply with Sections 216D.03 to 216D.07.The center Shall fur-
216D.04. Excavation. nish 10 local governmental units:
2160.05. Precautions to avoid damage.
216DD6. Damage to facilities. (1)a copy of the nonce and sections 2760.03 to 2160.07 in a form swta-
216D.07. Effect on local ordinancesole for pno[oc0pying;
(2) a copy of the display and distribution requirements under subdivision
216D.01. Definitions 1: and
Subdivision 1. Applicability. The definitions in this section apply to (3) the telephone number and mailing address of the notification center.
sections 216D.01 10 216D.07.
Solid. 2 Damage. "Damage" means:
(1)the substantial weakening of structural or lateral support of an under-
ground facility; 2760.03. Notification canter
(2)penetration, impairment, or destruction of any underground protective
coating, housing, or other protective device; or Subdivision 1. Participation.An operator shall participate in and snare
(3) impact with or the partial or complete severance of an underground in the toss of one statewide notification center operated by a vendor select-
facility to the extent that the facility operator determines that repairs are re- ed under subdivision 2.
quired. Solid.2. Establishment of notification center.(a)The notification center
Solid. 3. Emergency. "Emergency" means a condition that poses a services must be provided by a nonprofit corporation approved in writing by
clear and immediate Danger io life or health.are significant loss of property. the commissioner.A group or nonprofit corporation that intends to seek ap-
Subd.4. Emergency responder. "Emergency responder"means a fire proval under this paragraph shall notify the commissioner by Septmeber 1,
department or company, a law enforcement official or officean ambulance 1887. of rite date,time and location of its first meeting. The commissioner
or other emergency rescue service, or the division of emergency services snail provide advance notice of the first organizationl meeting by publication
created by section 12.04, subdivision 1. in qualified legal newspapers and in appropriate trade journals and by written
Subd.5. Excavation. "Excavation"means an activity that movesre- notice to all appropriate trade associations.
moves, or otherwise disturbs the soil by use of a motor, engine, hydraulic The nonprofit corporation must be governed by a board of directors of up
or pneumatically-powered tool, or machine-powered equipment of any kind, To 20 members one of whom is the director of the office of pipeline safer.
or by explosives. Excavation does not include: The other opera members must represent and be elected by operators,ext_
(1) the repair or installation of agricultural drainage tile for which notice vators, and other persons eligible to participate in the center. By November
has been given as provided by section 1161.07, suboonslon 2; 1,1987,the board snail,with input from all interested parties,determine me
(2) me extraction of minerals: operating procedures and technology needed for a single statewide notBica-
(3) the opening of a gave in a cemetery; tion center and establish a notification process and competitive bidding proce-
(4) normal maintenance of mads and street it the maintenance does not ur=1o'elect a venoorto provide am notification serrce.In deciding to approve
chance the onoinal grade and does not involve the road ditch: or = nonproih coryoation, rite commissioner shall consider whether it meets_
(5)plowing, cultivating, planting, harvesting. and similar operations in con- rite requirements of this paragraph and whether it demonstrates that it has
nection with growing crops, unless any of these activities disturbs me soil thE ability 10 chntract for and implement the notificalion center service.
to a depth of 18 inches or more: or (b) If the commissioner has not approved a nonprofit corporation under
(6)landscaping or gardening,unless one of the activities disturbs the SOir to paragraph(a)by January 1, 1988, the commissioner shall inflow the proce-
a depth of 12 inches or more. dune in this pamgraph. The commissioner shall prepare a preliminary draft
Subd. 6. Excavator. "Excavator" means a person who conducts ex- of operating procedures and technology needed for a Statewide notification
Savetipn in me state, center and the memod for assessing the cost of the service among opera-
Solid. 7. Local governmental unit. "Local governmental unit" me- tom.After holding at least one public hearing on the preliminary draft follow.
ans a county, town, or salutary or name rate charter city inn notice liven in me manner required by paragraph(a),the commissioner
Solid. B. Notification center. "Notification center"means a center mat snail adopt final operating procedures,technology,and assessment methods.
The preliminary craft, public hearings, and final adoption are not subject to
receives notice from excavators of planned excavation and transmits this no- chapter 14. By June 1. 1988,the commissioner shall select a vendor to pro-
lice to participating OlmodOrS. viae the nolmcation center service.The commissioner shall advertise for bias
Solid. 9. Operator. "Operator" means a person who owns or oyer- as provided in section 168. 07. suodiveahn 3, and base the selection of a
ares an underground facility. A person is not considered an operator solely vendor on an iaentiication of the lowest responsible bidder as provided in
because the person is an owner or tenant of real property where underground section 16319, subdivision 1. The commissioner shall select and contract
facilities are located N the underground facilities are used exclusively t0 fur- with me vendor to provide me notification center Senate.but all costs of the
man services or commodities on that property. center must be paid by the operators. The commissioner may at any time
Build.10. Perron. "Person"means the state, a public agency,an in- appoint a ask force to advise on the renewal of the contract or any other
dividual, corporation, partnership, association, or other business or public matter involving the center's operations.
entity or a trustee, receiver, assignee, or personal representative of any o1 (c) The notification center must be in operation by October 1, 1988. An
them. operator may submit a bid and be selected 10 contact to provide the Path-
Solid. 11. Underground facility."Underground facility"means an on. cation center service under dominion(a)or(d).The commissioner shall an-
derpround line.facility,System,and is appurtenances used to produce,store, nually review the services provided by the nonprofit corporation approved
convoy,transmit,or distribute communications, data,electricity,power,heat, under paragraph (a) or the vendor selected under paragraph (b).
gas, oil, petroleum products, water including storm water. slum, sewage, Sued. 3. Cooperation with local government. In establishing operat-
and other similar substances. ing procedures and Technology for the statewide notification center,me board
of directors or the commissioner must work in cooperation with the league
of Minnesota cities,the association of Minnesota counties,and the township
2160.02. Notice to excavators and underground facility operators officers'association.The purpose of this cooperation is to maximize the par.
Snhdivicino 1. Dixolov and distribution.Local hovemmental units that hi ipation of local governmental units that issue permits for activities invoiv-
ing'excavation to assure mat excavators receive notice of and comply with 2160.06 Precautions Ig Mid damage
I f
the requirements of sections 216D.01 10 216D.07.
Suhd. 4. Notice to local governmental amts. Thnotcenter An excavator snail:
I hall provide local governmental units with a master lis of COaOry, cthe (1)plan the excavation 10 avoid damage to and minimize interference war
operators in the county who are participants in me notification center, and underground facilities in and near me construction area:
The
the telephone number and mailing address of the nobDents
center. (2) maintain a clearance between an underground facility and the cutting
edoe or point of any mechanized equipment. considering the known limn Of
comrol of the cutting edge or point to avoid damage to the facility,
216D.04. Excavation (3)Provide support for underground facilities in and near the construction
area, including during backfill operations, to protect the facilities; and
Subdivision 1. Notice of excavation required; contents. (a) Except (4) conduct the excavation in a careful and prurient manner.
in an emergency.an excavator shall contact the notification center and pro-
vide an excavation notice at least 46 hours before beginning any excavation.
excluding Saturdays, Sundays. and holidays.An excavation begins, for put- 216D.06. Damage to f rcmtles
poses of this requirement, the first time excavation occurs in an area mat
was not previously identified by the excavator in an excavation notice. Slily or its ro1.Notice;repairs.(a)If any tlamaoe occurs m an underground
facility or its protective covering, the excavator shall notify the operator as
(b) The excavation notice may be oral or written. and must contain the soon as reasonably possible. When the operator receives a damage notice,
following information: the operator Shall prompbv dispatch personnel to the damage area t0 inves-
(1) the name of the individual providing the excavation notice, ligate.If the damages endangers lifehealth.or property,the excavator repon-
(2) the precise location of the proposed area of excavation; sible for the work shall take immediate action to protect the public and property
(3)the name, address, and telephone number Of the excavator or the ex- and to minimize the hazard until arrival of the operator's personnel or until
cavator's company; emergency responders have arrived and taken charge of the damagetl area.
(4) the excavator's field telephone number, tt one is available; (b)An excavator shall delay backiiliing in the immediate area of the damaged
(5) the type and the extent of the Proposed excavation work; underground facilities Phil the damage has been investigated by me opera-
(6) whether or not the discharge of explosives is anticipated; and for. unless the operator authorizes otherwise. The repair of tlamaoe must be
Performed by the operator or by qualified personnel authorized by the omramr.
(7) the date and time when excavation is to commence. (c)An excavator who knowingly damages an underground facility,and who
Suhd.2. Dulles If notification center.The npfification center shall as- does not notify the operator as soon as reasonably possible or wno backfills
sign an inquiry identification number to each excavation notice and retain a in Violation of paragraph (b), is guilty of misdemeanor.
record of all exavalum notices received for at lees(six years.The center shall SuOtl.2.Cost reimbursement.(a)tt an excavator tlamages an untlergrountl
every operaately transmit the information d facility
in a excavation notice to facility,me excavator shall reimburse the operator for the cost of necessary
every operator that has an underground facility in the area m Inc proposed repairs, and for a pipeline the cost me product that was being carried in the
excavation. pipeline and was lost as a direct result of the damage.
Split. 3. Locating underground facilites(a)An operator shall,within (b)Reimbursement is not required n the damage to the underground facili-
46 tours after receiving an excavation notice from the center, excluding Satur- ty was caused by sole negligence of the operator or the operator failed to
days. Sundays,and holidays, unless otherwise agreed 10 between the exca- comply with section 216D.D4. Subdivision 3.
vator and operator, locale and mark or wherwise provide the approximate SUDtl.3 Prima facie evidence m negligence.It is prima facie evidence
horizontal location of the underground facilifies of the operator,wnnpm cast
10 the excavator. the excavator shall determine the precise locabpn of me of me excavators negligence in a oir.1 court action if damage to the under-
uncepround facility, without Outrage. before excavating within two het of ground facilities of an operator resulted from excavation, and the excavator
Me marked location of the underground facility, failed to Dive an excavation notice under section 216D.D4 or provide support
(b)For the purpose of this section, the approximate horizontal location of as required by section 216D.05,
the underorourtd facilities is a strip of land TWO teat on either side of the un-
deromund facilities.
(c)Markers used to designate the approximate location of underground taci- 2160.07 Effect on local ordinances
lites must follow me current calor code standard used by me American Pub-
lic Works Association. (a)Sections 216D.01 to 216.D07 ao not affect or impair local ordinances,
(d)If me operator cannot gxlmmete marking of the excavation area before charters, or other provisions of taw requiring pehnits to be obtained before
the excavation commencement time Stated in the excavation notice,the goer- excavating,
ator shall promptly contact me excavator.It the excavator postpones e o er- of A person whit a permit for excavabon from the state or public agency
cavabon commencement time stated in me excavation notice oy more than Is subject to sections 2160.01 ro 2160.07. The state that issued a permit
46 hours, or cancels the excavation,me excavator shalt nofify the notibca- for excavation is not liable for the actions of an excavator who fails to com-
tum center. ply with sections 216D.01 to 216.07.
e
® E } CALL
OPERATOR AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT, made this , day of 19_, by and between
ONE CALL CONCEPTS, INC. "OCC": and "Operator'.
AGREEMENT
Minnesota State Statute requires that anyone who intends to excavate provide at least two working days (except in an
emergency) notice of such intent to all operators of underground facilities in or near the area of the excavation and . . .
WHEREAS. GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL, INC., hereinafter to as GSOC, is a non-profit corporation which has con-
tracted with OCC to receive information from excavators and the general public, regarding their intent to excavate or
work near underground or overhead facilities and,
WHEREAS. Operator desires to receive such information from OCC:
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and sufficient consideration and the terms. provisions, and conditions hereinafter set forth,
the parties hereto agree as follows;
1. OCC agrees that Operator shall be accepted as a participating entity by GSOC.
2. Operator accepts and agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions as set forth by GSOC.
3. Operator desienates OCC as its representative for receipt of information from excavators and the general public regarding
their intent to excavate or work near underground facilities.
4. Operator agrees to pav all fees. which shall be determined in accordance with the schedule of rates established by
GSOC, which fees may be adjusted in accordance with anv revisions in the schedule of rates made by GSOC, gener-
ally once every calendar year, but which adjustment may be more frequent.
5. Operator further agrees that it shall also pay the incidental cost of the following:
a. Postage and printing/reproduction costs required for anv correspondence between the one-call center (OCC)
and the Operator.
b. The direct cost of travel (for OCC personnel) requested by the Operator.
c. The cost of creation of documents/repons/smdies at the direction of the Operator.
d. The cos of research, done at the request of the Operator. involving information not currently stored "on-line".
e. The cos[of receiving equipment, as supplied by OCC, and selected on the Receiving Equipment Agreement.
f. Two (2) percent per month on the outstanding balance of all charges over thirty days in arrears.
6. Operator agrees to provide the telecommunications facilities and space required for message receiving equipment
as specified by OCC to be compatible with the computerized call center.
7. Operator agrees that it will provide a dedicated telephone number or numbers at which to receive messages during
arty period in which its automatic message receiving equipment is inoperable. and further releases and agrees to
indemnify GSOC/OCC for any and all claims and liability resulting from Operators non-receipt of messages from OCC.
8. Operator shall secure and maintain in force during the term of this Operator Agreement, a comprehensive general
liability insurance policy, including contractural liability insurance, with minimum limits of S1,000.000 each occur-
IBJ
ante for the in or death of any person or persons resulting from the same occurrence. and property damage insur-
ance in the amount of 51.000.000 each occurrence. Such insurance policy shall be in the form and with such companies
as may be acceptable to OCC. A certificate evidencing such insurance policy shall be filed with OCC within fifteen
(15) days from the date hereof. Such certificate shall provide evidence that the policies of such insurance have been
endorsed so as to provide thirty (30) days notice of cancellation or change thereof to OCC at its corporaate address.
or
shall provide evidence of self insurance acceptable to OCC.
9. Operator agrees to accept messages from OCC. that it will conform to and abide by the policies. procedures, and
responsibilities set forth by GSOC: and further agrees to take appropriate action to protect the facilities it owns
or operates and only those facilities it owns or operates.
10. Operator shall list - - and/or
under its name in each telephone directory in which its name appears in the State of Minnesota as the number to
call prior to excavation in the area of its facilities.
11. Anv written notice directed to Operator shall be addressed as follows:
Name and/or Title:
Operator Name:
Address:
City, State, Zip:
12. This agreement shall be governed in all parts by the laws of the State of Minnesota.
13. If anv portion of this agreement shall be held to violate any law, regulation, or ordinance of the United States.
or any state or municipality, or any other governmental unit having jurisdiction with respect thereto, such provision
shall be deemed to be of no force and effect, and the balance of this agreement shall be enforced as if such provision
had not been included herein.
14. Failure of any parry to enforce any of the terms and conditions of this agreement shall not constitute a waiver of
the right, subsequently to enforce such provision.
15. The Operator hereby agrees to indemnify and hold OCC harmless from any and all costs. expenses, iudgments.
charges, liabilities (including reasonable attorney's fees) or assessments that accrue from, or resolve, any and all
actions, suits, claims, proceedings, or demands of any person or entity resulting from the performance of any act
or omission of the Operator which injures or damages another person or entity. If such action. suit, claim,proceed-
ing or demand is brought against OCC. OCC shall promptly notify the Operator in writing of the institution of
any such event and the Operator may, if it so elects, assume the defense including the employment of counsel,
settlement and payment of expenses.
16. Any notice required to be given pursuant to the terms and provisions hereof shall be in writing, and will be sent
by first class mail.. return receipt requested. postage prepaid, to the representative addresses of the parties hereto,
or as otherwise designated from time to time by the parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF. OCC and Operator have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized
officers as of the day and year first above written.
OPERATOR: ONE CALL CONCEPTS, INC.
SIGNATURE: BY:
NAME PRINTED: TITLE: President
-
T= ADDRESS: ONE CALL CONCEPTS. INC.
14504 GREENVIEW DRIVE, SUITE 300
LAUREL, MD 20708
301-776-0202
GaPHERX, STATE
CALL
SYSTEM USER SIGN-UP FORM INSTRUCTIONS
Please 1311 out the enclosed System User Sign-Up Form, using the following directions:
I. Con:pnnv Lrfamutrion: This section pertains only to your company and the individual respon-
sible for the program within your organization. The person responsible should be the one
who will verify and approve the database entry form.
2. Site Lzformation: This section is regarding the actual physical location of your receiving
equipment and the individual who is responsible for receiving notification of proposed ex-
cavation. `
3. Securin.Inforrncrion: Complete this section. only if you will be utilizing an interactive ter-
minal with the system. These initials are those of your staff who are authorized access to
the system.
"IT'S THE LAW,
Minnesota Statutes Lain. §216D
You must use the services of Gopher State One-Call, Inc. and the Gopher State One-
Call Center.
These forms, along with all other pertinent information. must be returned prior to
August 15, 1988 to insure your compliance with the required October 1, 1988 startup.
GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL SYSTEM
SYSTEM USER SIGN-UP FORM
Date Completed
Completed By
COMPANY INFORMATION
1. Company Name
2. Address (1)
3. Address (2)
4. City
5. State
6. Zip Code
7. Person to Contact
8. Telephone Number
SITE INFORMATION
1. Location
2. Office Hours
3. Person to Contact
4. Telephone Number
5. Emereency Telephone Number
6. Type of Terminal
7. Terminal Telephone Number
8. Baud Rate of Terminal
SECURITY INFORMATION
1. Initials 4. Initials
2. Initials 5. Initials
3. Initials 6. Initials
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer rn"
SUBJECT: Capital Improvements Projects for 1989
DATE: August 24, 1988
INTRODUCTION:
At the August 16, 1988 meeting, City Council passed a motion
approving the 5-year Capital Improvements Program for 1989-1993 .
Staff would like some direction in establishing priority projects
for 1989 and possibly establishing an annual Capital Projects
Budget. - _-- --_ -- - -
BACKGROUND:
Each year City staff prepares a draft 5-year Capital Improvements
Program which is then presented to the City Planning Commission
for their review and ultimately approved by the City. Council.
This 5-year plan is basically a long range planning tool. In
other words, any project that has ever been desired by City
staff, Planning Commission or City Council is listed and staff
then attempts to spread the construction of these projects over a
five year period in an attempt to balance the workload and costs.
In essence, a 5-year plan is generally viewed as a "wish list" by
most organizations.
Approval of a 5-year Capital Improvements Plan does not in itself
establish projects for City staff to work on. To initiate a
project either the City Council must initiate the project or it
must be petitioned for by the abutting property owners.
---- Therefore-, if a project is not petitioned for, it may never get
done. Conversely, if a project is listed on the 5-year plan
under the fifth year but gets petitioned, it could conceivably be
completed in the first year of the plan.
Therefore, even though the 5-year Capital Improvements Program
has been approved, staff would like some guidance on which
projects have the highest priority for 1989 . In order to have
plans and specifications ready for the 1989 construction season,
staff must start this fall on the process of gathering field
surveys, preparing feasibility reports, completing designs and
going through the legal process and resolutions, public hearings,
etc. necessary to comply with state law on public improvement
projects.
The projects on the 5-year Capital Improvements Program listed
under 1989 include the following:
Proiect Name/Description Estimated Proiect Cost
1. 3rd Ave. Reconstruction between $950, 000
Shumway and Spencer, including
the north-south streets between
3rd & 4th in this same section.
2. Annual Overlay Project $200, 000
3. Apgar Street Reconstruction $460,000
between 2nd Ave. & 10th Ave.
4. Jackson/Harrison streets $100,000
between 11th & 12th.
Investigate and solve frost ----- _
heave problem.
5. Sidewalk on C.R. 17 from $ 50, 000
4th to 10th (East Side)
6. Lewis Street Reconstruction $360, 000
from 4th to 10th
7. 4th Avenue Connection to $175, 000
Adams Street through prison site
8. West Side Storm Laterals $290, 000
9. 6th Ave. Sanitary Sewer $265, 000
Reconstruction from Webster
to Fuller.
10. Bluff Street from Naumkeg $ 64 ,000
to Marschall Road. -- - ---- -- - - -- --
TOTAL $2,914, 000
Obviously, it would be next to impossible to construct all these
projects in 1989, not counting additional projects that would
consume staff time as well, such as private subdivision work and
projects petitioned for.
Staff is requesting that Council review and discuss the above
list of projects and provide staff with the top priorities for
1989 construction. There may even be additional projects listed
in subsequent years that may deserve a higher priority.
From staff's viewpoint, the 3rd Avenue project is the top
priority. This street is in terrible condition and needs
reconstructing. Now that the downtown project is completed from
let to 3rd and 4th Avenue was done a year or so ago, if 3rd
Avenue were reconstructed the entire portion of the Downtown area
from 1st to 4th would be in fairly good shape.
11K
The annual overlay program is also very important to maintain the
existing streets.
Staff also feels that either Lewis Street or Apgar Street should
be done next year. Another possibility would be to reconstruct
Scott Street rather than Apgar Street (Scott Street is listed in
the 5-year plan as 1991) .
The Jackson/Harrison Street problem should also be give some
consideration for 1989. The West Side Laterals should be done in
the same time frame to resolve the overall drainage problems in
that area of the City.
The other projects listed would not be as high on staff's
priority list.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Discuss all of the potential projects and concur with
staff's perceived priorities. Staff could then begin the
process of obtaining specific authorization for each project
as time--permits. _
2. Instruct staff to not work on any projects unless they are
petitioned for.
3. Consider approving of an annual Capital Improvements Program
that would provide staff with an exact list of projects
every fall for the following year based on priorities and a
set budget.
4. Provide staff with some other direction on projects.
5. Do Nothing.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, to establish priorities for
projects to give staff guidance for working on this fall for the
1989 construction season. once Council has prioritized the
projects, staff would then bring each individual project back to
Council for authorization to proceed with the project and prepare
a feasibility report to determine if the project should be done.
Staff also would like to point out that as part of the
feasibility report, a preliminary design and cost estimate of
each project must be done. This may require some field surveys
to be completed. Due to current staff workloads, it would be
impossible to obtain any field work before winter, which will be
too late. Staff may be requesting permission to use our
consultant to obtain any field work, but if so, the request would
come back before Council with specific monetary estimates stated.
Staff also recommends Alternative No. 3 , that Council consider
approving an annual Capital Improvements Program every fall based
on a set amount for projects. In other words, an amount of $1 .0
million or $1 .5 million , whatever Council and the Finance
Director feels is a good number, could be designated for Capital
Projects every year and then a list of projects could be approved
based on that amount. This basically starts the fist step in
"Council ordered" projects and some amount should also be
anticipated for petitioned projects.
If Council wishes to try and implement this type of an approach
yet for 1989 projects, staff can bring back a recommendation.
Otherwise some thought should be give to initiating an annual
Capital Projects Budget for 1990 .
ACTION REQUESTED:
Move to concur with staff' s recommendation to set priorities for
all 1989 project as listed in the 5-year -Capital__ Improvements
Program and direct staff as to which projects have- the -highest - -
priorities.
DH/pmp
CONSENT1i I
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer
SUBJECT: T.H. 101 Shakopee Bypass
Selection Committee
DATE: August 29 , 1988
INTRODUCTION A BACKGROUND:
Several weeks ago, Mn/DOT requested that the City assist them in
the design of several cross roads associated with the Trunk
Highway 101 Shakopee Bypass . Subsequently , City Council
authorized RFP' s to be sent out to begin the selection process
for a consultant.
During the month of September, proposals will be submitted by the
various consultants and a selection will be made by October 1 ,
1 988 . In talking to Mike Christiansen , Assistant District
Engineer for Mn/DOT and project coordinator for this project, he
has recommended that the Selection Committee consist of himself,
the City Engineer of Shakopee , and also the County Highway
Engineer , Brad Larson. Due to the fact that all of the cross
roads being designed are County Highways, Mn/DOT would prefer to
involve the County Engineer in the selection process.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Move to concur with the Selection Committee for the Shakopee
Bypass (T.H. 101 ) consisting of Mike Christiansen, Mn/DOT ; Dave
Hutton, City Engineer; and Brad Larson, County Engineer.
DH/pmp
COTITIITTEE
CONSENT
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk;lc--.
RE: Reduction of Letter of Credit for Heritage Development,
Phase II
DATE: August 30, 1988
INTRODUCTION:
The developers of Heritage 1st Addition have requested that
the City reduce their letter of credit.
BACKGROUND:
The developers of Heritage 1st Addition are installing the
public improvements to the second phase of their development.
The City constructed the improvements to the first phase and
assessed them against benefitting properties. The utilities
within Phase II have been completed, accepted by the City, and a
maintenance bond, approved by the City Attorney, has been filed.
According to the terms of the developers agreement, Council may
reduce the letter of credit when improvements are completed and a
maintenance bond has been filed. (The balance of the letter of
credit will be retained until the street construction is
completed) .
ALTERNATIVES:
1] Reduce letter of credit
2] Do not reduce letter of credit
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative number 1, reduce the letter of
credit. There is no reason to deny the request.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Authorize proper city officials to reduce the $170, 940.00
letter of credit from Heritage Development, Inc. by $85,000.
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk '�
RE: Vacation of Easements in Prairie House 1st Addition
DATE: August 30, 1988
INTRODUCTION:
The attached resolution vacates the utility and drainage
easements around the perimeter of lots 1 and 2. Block 1 of
Prairie House 1st Addition.
BACKGROUND:
The developer of Prairie House lst Addition has replated the
Southerly one-half of the plat into Prairie House 2nd Addition.
The lot lines in the 2nd addition are different than the lot
lines in the 1st addition. Because of the change in the lot
lines, the developer is asking that the easements around the
perimeters of the old lots be vacated. He is dedicating utility
and drainage easements around the perimeter of the new lots.
The City Council held the required public hearing on the
proposed vacation on January 26, 1988. After closing the public
hearing, Council directed staff to prepare the appropriate
resolution for vacation and bring it back for Council
consideration when the 2nd Addition hardshells were prepared,
signed, and ready for recording. The reason that the resolution
of vacation was not adopted earlier is because the City did not
want to vacate the easements before there was assurance that the
new plat was going to be recorded. The developer has signed the
plat of the 2nd addition and has submitted it to the City for
execution.
The developer has a buyer for one of the lots. The sale of
the lot is set for September 7th. The developer would like to
file both the plat and the vacation resolution prior to filing
the deed for the sale.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) vacate easements
2] do not vacate easements (if the easements are not
vacated, the plat is unrecordable in its present form and no
building permit can be issued for a structure over the easements)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative number 1, vacate the easements
in Prairie House 1st Addition.
Vacation of Easements in Prairie House 1st
August 30, 1988
Page -2-
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Offer Resolution No. 2941, A Resolution Vacating Easements
in Prairie House lst Addition As Herein Described, and moved its
adoption.
RESOLUTION NO. 2941
A RESOLUTION VACATING EASEMENTS IN PRAIRIE
HOUSE 1ST ADDITION AS HEREIN DESCRIBED
WHEREAS, There exists a 20 foot drainage and utility easement
around the perimeter of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Prairie House 1st
Addition; and
WHEREAS, The property owner is replatting the Prairie House lst
Addition to Prairie House 2nd Addition; and
WHEREAS, The property owner has requested the vacation of the
drainage and utility easement around the perimeter of Lots 1 and
2 , Block 1, Prairie House 1st Addition; and
WHEREAS, It has been made to appear to the Council that it would
be to the best interests of the general public to vacate said
easements; and
WHEREAS, The Council has set a public hearing at which time to
consider said vacation and due notice of the hearing has been
given, as prescribed by law; and
WHEREAS, All persons desiring to be heard on the matter were
heard at the public hearing in the Council Chamber in the City of
Shakopee; and
WHEREAS, The Council has been fully advised in all things.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1. That it finds and determines that the vacation of the
easements hereinafter described is in the public interest
and serves no further public need as easements.
2 . That the easements around the perimeter of Lots 1 and 2,
Block 1, Prairie House 1st Addition are hereby vacated.
3 . After the adoption of the Resolution, the City Clerk shall
file certified copies hereof with the County Auditor and the
County Recorder of Scott County.
Adopted in Regular Session this 6th day of September, 1988 .
Mayor
City Administrator
Approved as to form this _ City Clerk
day of September, 1988.
City Attorney
W z .
I 3 p < o
c
ZI
N
Ld
LO
O
Ci
w I I i� •' Sy Z Z ? Z 3 r
rr
nN �• ¢ z z t Q o
c °
o
/ Z a I n
Le
z
u I`_ 1 f�bH�•
r V
N %
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk r�
f
RE: Annual League of Cities Membership
DATE: August 30, 1988
INTRODUCTION:
The City has received the annual bill for the dues to the
National League of Cities in the amount of $556. 00.
BACKGROUND:
Mayor Lebens asked that this item be placed on the Council
agenda for Council consideration as to whether or not to renew
membership.
The National League of Cities provides lobbying efforts for
its membership and publications. The City has been a member of
the League for a number of years -- some eight plus.
ALTERNATIVES:
1] Renew membership
2] Drop membership
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize payment of the annual membership dues to the
National League of Cities in the amount of $556. 00.
CONSENT
Memo To: John K. Andersson, City administrator
Mayor & City Councilmmbess
From: Personnel Coordinator
Re: Smoking/No Smoking Policy
Date: August 31, 1988
Information
At the August 2, 1988 Council meeting information was submitted to the
Council summarizing the employee smoking survey and other information
regarding establishing a smakirog policy for the City of Shakopee as mandated
by the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act.
Backorraund
The City Council directed staff to draft a smoking policy. The size
constraints of many of the work areas, conference rooms and
Lunchrooms makes it very difficult to accomodate both smokers and non-
smokers without extensive modeling. There is also insufficient
ventilation in some areas. The assistance of LeRoy Houser, Chief Bldg.
Inspector was requested in determining the estimated modifications which
would be required. His room of August 10, 1988 indicates it would not be
cost effective to make the necessary modifications within City Hall and that
Lunch rooms at the Police Dept. and Public Works Dept. have adequate
ventilation.
Staff did speak with Tom nnnrmrire, personnel Director of Scott County
inquiring of the County's Smoking Policy. Scott County is currently working
on Implementing a smoking policy. An employee smoking survey has been
conducted. Mr. Tmngnire stated he will be recommending a 2-year Program
working towards a total smoke-free environment. He is also recongen ding the
lunchroom as the only designated smoking area and private offices as
designated, with all ashtrays removed from other areas. Cessation programs
paid by the County on worktime may be offered by the County. It was
requested of Mr. Longmire to notify the City of Shakopee at such time the
cessation programs are offered in order that we nay consider a joint program
which could be offered to any interested City of Shakopee eurQployees.
The attached policy has been drafted for Council approval.
Alternatives
1. Approve Administrative Policy No. 176, A Smoking/No Stroking Policy
effective October 1, 1988.
2. Do not approve Smkirg/No smoking policy.
Recommendation
Staff recommends Council approval of Administrative Policy No. 176, A
Smokdng/No Smoking policy effective October 1, 1988.
AUC IISIRATIVE POLICY NO. 176
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
SMDKIW-1NO SMICM POLICY
Effective October 1, 1988
Policy Statement
In recognition of the facts that:
1. Smoking tobacco has been identified as the No. 1 health problem in the
United states and the leading cause of premature death, disease and
chronic disability in our country; anr3
2. Long-term to second-haul smoke may seriously threaten the health
of non-smokers; and
3. The City of Shakopee is dedicated to providing healthy, comfortable,
Public facilities for its citizens and visitors and a healthy,
comfortable, and productive work environment for its employees; therefore
Smoking will be regulated in the following manner in City of Shakopee
hako1
City Hall
No smoking will be Permitted except:
Smoking will be permitted in private enclosed offices if so designated by
oavparrt provided that smokeless ashtrays are used at all times
Police Department
No stroking will be permitted except:
Smoking will be permitted in pmvate enclosed office if so designated by
occupant provide that smokeless ashtrays are used at all times
Employee Iimch gown - Smoking permitted at designated times only.
Public works Department
No smokcirg will be permitted except:
Employee Lunch Roan - Stroking permitted at designated times only.
Fire Department
TheFire Dept. has a previously established sucking policy which is
incorporated into the Fire Dept.'s by-laws.
Community Recreation
No smoking permitted.
City vehicles
No smoking in City-vaned vehicle, unless there is no objection from any
occupants of the vehicle.
Intent
It IS the intent of the Shakopee City Council to accomodate the preference
of non-smokers and smokers within the confines of the Minnesota Clean Indoor
M
Air Act. This policy restricts smoking in many areas of city-oWned
buildings and facilities due to roan size constraints and inadequate
ventilation which necessary upgrading/remodeling has been determined not to
be a cost effective measure.
Employees will not be permitted to smoke in conference rooms, in common
areas such as the restroams, reception areas, shared work areas, file areas,
storage (vault) areas, hallways, copier & print moms, etc.
Portable ash trays are prohibited in no-smoking areas. Smokeless ash trays
will be provided to occupants of private offices where smoking is permitted.
Smoking is allowed in areas (private offices and certain lunchroom at
designated times only) where it does not endanger life or property, or cause
discomfort and unreasonable anrxVance to other employees.
Signs will be posted in all City buildings advising employee and visitors of
the above smoking/no smoking policy.
The City Council regards this policy as a step that will ultimately lead to
a smoke-free work environment and therefore, declares January 1, 1990 as the
target date for a total Smoke-Free workplace.
ETfforcement
Supexvisors and department heads should be alert to smoking Problems and
make reasonable efforts to minimize the effects of smoking on their
employees. It is the responsiblity of the supervisors and department heads
to see that the spirit and intent of this policy is complied with and to
enlist the cooperation of the employees in accomplishing this objective.
Nmplianxz with this policy by employees will be disciplined as provided
by Section 20 of the City of Shakopee Personnel Policy.
Fath employee is asked to approach any unresolved questions or problems with
tolerance, consideration, and oo mon sense in order to reach the desired
level of compliance to the policy without due hardship to anyone.
MEMO TO: City Council
John K. Anderson, City Administrator✓
Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
Marilyn Remer, Personnel Coor.
FROM: LeRoy Houser, Building Official
RE: No Smoking Policy
DATE: August 10, 1988
In view of the fact that there are only two people in City Hall
that smoke, I think that it is not cost effective to try to make
areas in this building comply with the ventilation regulations to
accommodate smokers .
In addition, I find that the installation of equipment to
increase the air changes in rooms, or part of the building, to be
counter productive to the energy saving measures we have
implemented over the past years .
Now that the smoking issue is settled, maybe the movers and
shakers of this program will direct their energy toward resolving
the inaccessibility for handicap people on this building
LH:cah
/r j7
Memo To: LeRoy Houser , Chief Inspector
From: Gregg VoxIand, Finance Director
Re: Building Modifications
Date : August 5, 1988
The assistance of the Building Dept. is requested for the
following items :
1 . What modifications would be needed and what is the
estimated cost of those modifications, to provide
ventilation in accordance with the building code
(see the attached law) for the below listed
locations If they are ultimately designated as
smoking permitted locations .
A. City Ball
1. Lunch room
2. interior private offices
B. Police Dept.
1. Lunch/break room
2. Interior private offices
C. Public Works lunch room
2. Wnat modification=_ are needed and the estimated
costs for m-kin4 City -all handicapped accessable.
(You may have this information from a few years
pack)
GV:=r
cc : John K. Anderson., City Adm.
IN
ro rvro ro roro ro ro roro ro ^� -
a x m
o +oi
m mm m mm m m mm w m mm m w m '
x
0
c
roro yy_ Wa ro- ' ro�� ' d.No of 'e
as mm y
N
me � oo aNN la PP mmo oe o0
mmo WW o00 Ww
< 00 D D> T
m zz v Aa z a an i
m 00 CCm D TT '9 O ZZ > @ A
C Z O Dy
O yO o rr O A 2 a m m
uu A vA0 -1
fa mm m S2 O O " 2 mm A S
O y
'M
oc o am' Da
a@ a v a a
�^ y
I �
mm z
0 o e N _ N
O va o ♦ 1 j ♦ a In O
� a 4N N N N NN
N No om N y N O
YW Pa b _
uu ro m ro In oe = -
- - ro ro - ro ro
m� N
m
= m
m
i � m
1 w
T` W Zq m m m
y m
b m Y i
Y
W �
0
e s m
O Plni_PNN N N _N P T .
2 nFln-NN n
mn0 _ N TNN
o waniaw N a -aaaaa nnn n -n nn
vT M T P Pec
a =oo_oi- o 0 0 oee000 oQl w oNe o
0
N%m
� rrrrrr w 'm
¢66<
0 JJ%JJJ J ££ LLL£ WWW %
aJJ7 O O
~ mm6mmm W W m 00JJ00 ffr 000 a
00 a 646 W
U
W=WW= y^^
WWW W
U 77»7J F V VVU[JiOu JJ u« m
000000 JJ mm �� W
0 m LL F jQa.Q» NNm 0
j _66666 % 4 ¢ 66 22W frf
F FFf r ~F 6 6
� Npmm rrr
...
J W uu� WF m M N W
WWWWW LL 444444 mmM 2 �M1�
-NONPa + + NN e + ONeF x Nrot
2 - _ 'na m NN rM1nv -
J
W %m000mq 0m00 00 mm0
p m\ m m0 0m0
i nFlnn
O 0 oaeooe o o e 000eoe ooe a aoo e
- V i NNNNNN N . N + N . NNNbNN x aNN . N . PP t w
rcuaN
i
m @ roro
x @
or p s +� a o + W + N W � eeooeo t N + N 3 S
Z
db@ m
W W W
m m @ w @ @ m @m@mmm m @ m
0
c
z
__ oN _ �
W mb ap IIUowN@ NN
P o _ pPo P
p pc NJ oe -- NN NN mea oom ma o0
x 3 r r O AD9A '<
x D m DD DDD
y O D < a = D
_ � � o r ww@@w@ -� c `m
� o i a v D @ Ppo- aao- x
z xxxxxx o z
.. o o s � y 22aazv @ x
c o � '000ao ^'
@ o � mmmmmm x
m
.z-. aax
4yy-io
00090
2 m � O A A 9 W
� �,. �. C D OOOTTT � 2
V _ T < T i T a m
r V r_ r @ �
m x'. w x a aimazm @ m m
y c
y c '.
z
Pnmeo o n
— o NaV11a � I n
a � pp p O
� lY 4 Y W el N y
m - n aoe' _
� 1 NN � e
_ W _ aN _ _
N WI 1
ro _ @ w @ '°
z m
i i i ' n m m
i o m � x x
w m m @ m m @ @ @ @ w
P N N x x x
Y Y Y Y Y
V V
1 1
6 =
O
OPPP n
tl - Ptlh� 1 P
x NNNN
n
N N onNp n �
veaiP i i
a o 0 0 .Noumuie o ooe o 0 0 o e
z
0
h �
o w x i wwwwww a m% w
NNmNma m x
h
W 4 n 0 LLLL LL 4 W h 4 J
000000 00 J 6 p
m W 0 ¢¢ r V 0
616666 6 u16 W j
¢ ¢¢»» V
tl1MNNNN wW
ti '. %WNNNq JJ
b WWWW m J ¢ y
> W 0 6 } MWNbN ¢ ¢ u W Z
WW �
WW
O_ Z 000000 V
0.£
- i NN i t t P i i i i
ma
mn aN na 'naFN noon NN
I NN - wFa_ nn
W am
40
- V N i N i N n NNNNNa • N a NaN • N • N • N • N N
ro ro ro n _
i m
z
om m
m m m a m w m m a m m
i
0
c
z
_ mW Nw
e am V b�
0o wN m eo eo bm d ^�
m ♦ � + : o ♦ s • • ♦ s
9 O
a m x <
i o z i z
OZ Z.
w m m z m m >
y = m > a W
= m > m v
D p y S
C W b Z
9 A
Z O 9 9 n O W
O
O O T y T < 9 T m T 3
c a m m a e
0
b w _
y
a y l O
N o P O
d m
s
s m
m
S b b w W W b N
tl m b b b m m m
V Y Y Y Y Y Y
W V V
6 • • a a i x a
0
> P
-
z Na- aNa -
-o_N�
Z NNNN a e0o o N e p o
3 nnnn nnn nnnnnn - - w w - �
e. Pe ve: eie �P my i : e a a
a oeoaa oeNoeeNNoeeN oe o o e e F e
z�
0
mmmmm m o
3033 m o
66666 2WbmbbOmWWWm >
<aVtl< %Po W N
m FF_ r FfFFr F F _W tl
W Z OYn��uJJJJJ ^ j J J
44666 m3JJ3pJJ33pp 66 = 0 r q �
m 0
4 00
mmP W 4.
0 LL O
S JJ3JJ a
b 0mb0N 4m � L �y
Nm 6 y -
O
Z WWWWW W � O O tlVi
3_3> 33 L 0
Z W O
fFrY ¢ t J b O
33J33 J3636n4J3j1> 4LL W W 4 � r
00bmm F m Z J
b mbNmbmObmbNN mm m vii m m 0 LL
.mo aem - „ Po _ _ a a o nn . • a
NN Fn
nca _nn nN N�OmoNn :l- m �oN oN mNa .
n
= NN�� _ ePnv NNP Na mN _ _ - nn 0m m'0
Np Fl P e I.
mm0000m m
om ooevo eoNooNoomooe ve o e o o e N
u i em m. . _ _
- " eaawea `a • m�u ea ew vea rvarvNary NN i N • N ry e ' .
f'u . a a Pa •
N N NN b N N N b
y� 0
O �
W _
6 0 6 00 0 m 0 0 m 0 mm[o m N
O
NN WW � WW a Y
aa0 ww d.Wo NN
w0 NN
N y Wooe
eo 0o as we0 Nw pp wN oo WW o0 o ee
P ww w f Y O b On I < Y
Z w O w
b f
r m s <
A m I P u
a fll 9 C Y ff9 C Y A
C CC Y A
V fr T y r 0 f
D Y4
Y
y
NN
W N ioo
N � W
O
2 w
w b
m
6 W
O
a a -
n
n a W N a N
¢ e o e o e _ e o o e e o e e r o e ti o
N
N W O
N W < ^ W W W W N W W S ¢ ^
W = L L LL W WW J J 6 N t
G J N tl N rt tl < F W "
6 W 6 = C J J Q
^ f W W 6 S M V U ¢ U V � V U W y
N W W
a ^ N O O W U
V C < W N W W < N Z m ¢ W N W W FO ¢ ¢
Z < U O J W ~ < U w Z W LL LL Z V > ¢
W Z J O Q 4 nu O W <
> y > O O f
3 p S Z Z F rVi W W y
OO N >
+ t x t t t + y t + x • t + t i i •
c NN NN o 0
WW mm
Nd -_ NN nn FI- b� nFl FF =N -- bm WN
-- mW nn bb NN vv
m m
W O m m o o e e c o o e o e e o e e o e p
2
N N d N N N a N N N N N N .. N N N N
ro
x
o
nT
i
m ro
mu i
oomJmYdNY
mJmOOJJJbmNOJ
e NOOJONm000N oe o0
m
D 0
O CC=C_C_C_ C_CCC_C_ C_C
00 ZO Z <
r 000000 ooeo 9 m
1Owmroo.-.' v s o
JOJ4YOJ a _
OO i1J� �YyyY4-I m
r rrlD'r rfrrrffr O F
m
n 3 1 9
' '. ecmcromia Dv maim c a z
',. 39mD3Ay2sm uD 9 = i
aci- ooi"r rr a m
D009mmA03 T
D A97.c�09A O ~
n mmzcm-o J
m m
za
2m < O
yyrr3 Z
112
r 00239)
9N1 zlT
O
ro N Z
S m
m m
OJ W W O O W m � O ojm W W m m WMA 0 0000000 Y N OHO
F F Y Y Y F Y W Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y F+ Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y W Ol 1 Y �
W W F W F W . FFF . . F F . FFF
W W W W W W W W N LL
0 0 Q\ O O Y D\ 000 w N N N Y WNO
H 00
O 0000 000
O O o 0 Y 0 0 N Y Y 0 0 0 0 0 000 W Y W O\w F D\Y Y F n >
0 0 0 0 �n O O w �n �n 0 0 0 0 0 000 Y M N Y Y N N m � �n 0 n G
0 0 0 0 O O Y w N 0 0 0 0 0 000
0 0 0 0 0 008-
O O O O �n O O W�n �n O O O O O 00 0 M N Y Y N N m �
OJ O O m W OO m m W m �M� 0 OOOOON O H � �OHH
la
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y Y Y Y
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0000000 O O 00 D
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n croi
r+ ma
m
w
N
O
3-
N 0 O
O N O
W O\ W Y F 70 �O 0 O N OJ O OJ �n w D`� 0 FN Y Y N 0 0 0
71 YF
N NNH N 0 N 0 �n �n�O lO N O N FNY OJ O F 0 I�
NO m W O O Fw 0 0 0 M J D O O D , , �I O
O O 00 0WW00NWDO 000DmYOn rt
O O
y
UJ
ro
mm O m m n m m m m m m N O
O O µ M a O 3 - a 3 3 3 3• 3, 3 3 3 m S a a
C M F [+ r Y <+ Y N W I9
C] CI � N F° O ct m cF [f a'f cf [i [f tY [� � � y 1•S
S S O S O ro 0 (R O b 9 ry ry m r Iw ��
W W W d U] W W [+1 m H m W m m 3
O m n D m m 0 D 0
N 'O o N y y o n o
y cOi Y y n0 Y m < j
H W m O O N I�
I�
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N mw 0
T D\ 0\ D\ O\ D\ M D m D\ T 0\ Ol T D\01 T Q\ 0 M O M m m m
.moo e m °w m m m°wmm m °im w o. oma.oy.Oy. oy.oy.oy.ajN jj y N�
N Y o
IO
O O 3 N D
Wy Z Cro mm D
O 9 OC OO OH 00 04 5m
m9Nn - x O U�
C
y r
N a y 9 O O W W
y 3 m O O
bJ C) Y W m
0 W M 3 M m I
m z m m m I n O 00
a a w u, w 0 H m
W mo a m K w W M n
o c m m m x x m
n a c o o y
r y ro v
m m
m m m
N
n
N la
N W 0 N F N N N Y W N
w 0\ W Y t �O O N w O w 0 O m
N O F w �n ,I N � N Y N O
N O OJ
0 O\0 0 0 VI W ,1 O O O w N N Y W
O O W A 0 0 0 T �1 N O O N O O
O T N ON � 0
C-
�
G � M
sl
N
L
O
Y >
S.
N W
L U)
W 7
n W C C
W
O c c 0
c v y v o
O
U N N N N N N N
CJI t'
C) G
¢ O L4 6 SE. 1N 0f�W Q`N
% O -1 HO0 �� MN
.Y Q) 0\O
C
LI U N .4 Y G Y .1 fH N M
vi o v � a b E a
U O M N O O O O •y
N N M O E N
G � � y
O I O M M N
4 > E N
W E
v� M 'O N •O > W m
> C J
rl W 3 E q .i
l315 ¢ O r 0 3
C N F SO.
m V 0 0 0 0 0 00 O W tl O O�Y N� w
G 0 0 0 0 0 00 F U W q .- Im W
U O 0 O 0 O N 0 W OrIN� tiQJ C)
O O O M N O
J
4 u O O N N N O
VI O O H M N OY
. .
M�
C N
0 0 0 0 N 0
I
i
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk ;
r
RE: Liquor Licenses for Bowling Alleys
DATE: August 30, 1988
INTRODUCTION:
During staffs annual conference with our codifiers to update
the City Code, we were informed that recent change in the state
law permits a municipality to issue an intoxicating liquor
license to a bowling alley.
BACKGROUND:
Recent legislation now permits a municipality to issue an
on-sale and a Sunday intoxicating liquor license to a bowling
alley. However, prior to doing so the City must adopt an
ordinance permiting the issuance.
-- __.$taff would_.like_ theCouncilto advise them whether or not
they wish -a bowling alley to be eligible for an intoxicating
liquor license and would therefore like that put into an
ordinance at this time.
The City of Shakopee can issue 12 licenses:
Class A - 6 for restaurants under 4 ,000 sq ft
Class B - 3 for restaurants over 4 ,000 sq ft
Class C - 3 for hotel/motel restaurant/lounge
For the benefit of the new Councilpersons, council
apportioned the licenses as outlined above so that all licenses
would not be issued to small establishments leaving none
available if a larger restaurant and lounge wished to locate in
Shakopee. If a bowling alley wished a license they would fall in
either the first or second category.
Current licenses issued are as follows:
Class A - 5
Class B - 1
Class C - i
ALTERNATIVES:
1] Amend the City Code to permit issuance a liquor licenses
to bowling alleys
2] Do not amend the City Code - do not allow issuance of a
liquor license to bowling alleys
Liquor Licenses for Bowling Alleys
August 30, 1988
Page -2-
3] Table discussion until there is an interest by a bowling
alley to obtain a license - the code will then not need to be
amended at this time
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Council discuss and decide whether or
not they wish to permit liquor in bowling alleys at this time,
rather than wait until there is a particular party interested in
a license.
CONSENT /21
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Community Development Director
RE: Adherence to the Provisions of the Minnesota Data
Practices Act
DATE: August 30, 1988
INTRODUCTION•
At the August 16, 1988 City Council meeting the subject of
the meaning and applicability of the Minnesota Data Practices Act
was discussed. The attached policy and resolution are being
submitted to the City Council for consideration as a result of
direction provided at the aforementioned meeting.
BACKGROUND•
Recently questions have arisen on two or three occasions
relating to the dissemination of information obtained relative to
the names of persons filing complaints concerning the violation
of ordinances pertaining to real property located within the City
of Shakopee. Section 13.44 of the Minnesota Statutes classify
this information as confidential data. Section 13 . 09 of the
Statutes state that a willful violation of the provision of this
section is a misdemeanor. This section also indicates that
public employees who willfully violate the provisions of this law
may be subject to suspension without pay or dismissal.
This subject was discussed with a number of individuals
including the City Attorney, Mr. Don Gemberling, the head of the
data privacy division for the State of Minnesota Department of
Administration and the Shakopee Chief of Police. It was the
general consensus of those persons that the only people who
should have access to confidential data are those who need access
in order to do their jobs.
There is a significant level of liability existing for both
the government of the City of Shakopee and officials and
employees of the City if they willfully expose confidential data
to unauthorized persons.
It is in the best interest of the City, it's officials and
employees that a policy be formulated and adopted so as to insure
compliance with the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data
Practices Act.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. Adopt the attached resolution.
2. Amend the attached resolution and adopt it.
3 . Take no action.
4 . Refer the matter to the staff and City Attorney for more
research and report back to the Council.
RECOMMENDATION•
Alternative #1 or 42 are recommended.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer Resolution No. 2942 , A Resolution Relating to the
Adherence by City Employees and Officials to the Provisions
of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, and move its
adoption.
i
I2 a'
RESOLUTION # 2942
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE ADHERENCE
BY CITY EMPLOYEES AND OFFICIALS TO
THE PROVISIONS OF THE MINNESOTA
GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES ACT
WHEREAS, Section 13 .44 of the Minnesota Statutes provides
that the identities of individuals who register complaints with
State Agencies or political subdivisions concerning violations of
local ordinances relating to the use of real property are
classified as confidential data, pursuant to Section 13 .2 , Subd.
3 of the Statutes, and
WHEREAS, Section 13. 09 of the Minnesota Statutes provides
that any person who willfully violates the provisions of the
Minnesota Government Data Practices Act is guilty of a
misdemeanor. and -
WHEREAS, Section 13. 09 of the Minnesota Statutes further
provides that willful violation of this Chapter by any public
employee constitutes just cause for suspension without pay or
dismissal of the public employee, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shakopee desires to
protect the privacy of individuals who register complaints with
the City of Shakopee relative to violations of local ordinances
concerning the use of real property, and
WHEREAS, City Council of the City of Shakopee desires to
protect City employees and cfficials Iron violating the
provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and
being subject to the penalties as provided by law.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Shakopee, Minnesota adopts the following policies.
1. No City employee or official shall disclose the name of any
person filing a complaint relative to the violation of any
ordinance relating to the use of real property to any other
individual except those City employees or officials who have
a need to know the identity of such complainant to perform
or carry out their job.
2. Written records containing the names of persons filing real
property complaints shall be safeguarded so as to prevent
their unwanted disclosure to persons not entitled to have
access to confidential data.
3. Employees or officials discussing real property complaints
shall insure that unauthorized persons shall not overhear
any of the information which would result in a violation of
the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices
Act.
4. If a question arises as to who may have access to
confidential data, the City Attorney, City Administrator or
appropriate Department Director shall be contacted for
clarification of the question.
Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City
of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of
1988.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk - .
Approved to form this day
of 1988.
City Attorney
CONSENT l
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Upper Valley Drainage Project No. 1987-5
DATE: September 1 , 1988
INTRODUCTION:
Attached is Resolution No. 2943 , Authorizing the City of Shakopee
to enter into an Agreement with the Minnesota Department of
Transportation for the Upper Valley Drainage Project.
BACKGROUND:
As part of the Upper Valley Drainage Project, Mn/DOT has agreed
to pay for 16 . 1$ of the construction costs associated with the
drainageway due to the Trunk Highway 101 ( Shakopee Bypass )
utilizing our system. The percentage was obtained based on the
amount of runoff being generated by the bypass versus the total
runoff reated by the drainage basin.
The 16 . 1 % is approximately $307 ,000 based on the Engineer' s
estimate for this project . Adding engineering costs and
contingency , the total amount that would be attributable to
Mn/DOT is approximately $347 ,000.00 .
Attached is a copy of Resoution No. 29yz and also the cooperative
Construction Agreement for Council consideration. The City
Attorney has reviewed these documents and find them generally
acceptable.
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Adopt Resolution No. 2993•
2 . Deny Resolution No. 29q'3 .
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 to adopt Resolution No. 2934
Authorizing the City of Shakopee officials to enter into an
agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation
regarding the construction of the Upper Valley Drainage Project.
ACTION REQUESTED:
1 . Offer Resolution No. 29y3 , Authorizing the City of Shakopee
to enter into an Agreement with the Minnesota Department of
Transportation for the Upper Valley Drainage Project No.
1987-5 and move its adoption.
2. Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the said
agreement.
AGREEMENT STATE OF MINNESOTA AGREEMENT NO.
SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SECTION COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION
AGREEMENT 64704
S.P. 7005-55 (T.H . 101=187 )
State Funds
Agreement between AMOUNT ENCUMBERED
The State of Minnesota
Department of Transoortation, and $346 , 845 . 50
The City of Shakopee
Re : State cost oarticioation of
storm sewer facilities and AMOUNT
drainage ditch construction by the RECEIVABLE
city adjacent to the proposed
T.H. 101 (Shakopee Bypass) from 41h Ave. (None)
to 1/4 of a mile west of Co. Rd. 17
in Shakopee
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the State of
Minnesota , Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as
the "State" and the City of Shakopee , Minnesota , acting by and
through its City Council , hereinafter referred to as the "City" .
54704
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS the City is about to award a contract for storm sewer
facilities and drainage ditch construction and other associated
construction to be performed adjacent to the future Trunk Highway
No. 101 (Shakopee Sypass) from Engineer Station 16+50 (Fourth
Avenue) to Engineer Station 148+51 . 21 (one quarter of a mile west
of County Road No. 17 ) within the corporate City limits in
accordance with City prepared plans, specifications and special
provisions therefor designated by the City as Upper valley Basin
Drainage Project No. 1987-5 and by the State as State Project No.
7005-55 (T-H. 101=187 ) ; and
WHEREAS the said storm sewer facilities and drainage ditch
construction and other associated construction will benefit the
state in the drainage of the proposed Trunk Highway NO. 101
( Shakopee Bypass) schedule for construction from 1989 to 1992; and
WHEREAS the City has requested participation by the .State in the
costs of said storm sewer facilities and drainage ditch
construction and other associated construction; and
WHEREAS the State is willing to participate in the costs of said
construction as hereinafter set forth; and
-2-
54704
WHEREAS Minnesota Statute 151 . 20 authorizes the Commissioner of
Transportation to make arrangements with and cooperate with any
governmental authority for the purposes of constructing ,
maintaining and improving the trunk highway system.
IT IS , THEREFORE, MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
ARTICLE I - CONSTRUCTION BY THE CITY
Section A. Contract Award and Construction
The City shall duly receive bids and award a construction contract
to the lowest responsible bidder, subject to concurrence in such
award by the State , in accordance with State approved City plans,
specifications and special provisions therefor designated by the
City as Uooer Valley Basin Drainage Project No. 1987-5 and by the
State as State Project No. 7005-55 (T.H. 101=187 ) . Said contract
construction shall be performed in accordance with said State
approved City plans, specifications and special provisions which
are on file in the of_`ice of the City' s Engineer at Shakopee ,
Minnesota , and in the office of the Commissioner of Transportation
at St. Paul , Minnesota , and are made a part hereof by reference
with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein .
-3-
IAV
54774
Section B. Documents to be Furnished to the State
The City shall , within 7 days of the opening of bids for said
construction contract, promptly submit to the State ' s municipal
.Agreements Engineer a certified copy of the low bid and an abstract
of all bids together with the City' s request for concurrence by the
State in the award of the construction contract. The City shall
not award the construction contract until the State advises the
City in writing of its concurrence therein.
Section C. Cancellation of Agreement
Each party to this agreement reserves the right to withdraw from
and cancel this agreement within 30 days after the opening of bids
in the event either party considers any or all bids unsatisfactory;
the withdrawal from or cancellation of the agreement shall be
accomplished by either party serving a written notice thereof upon
the other.
Section D. Direction , Su Dervision and Insoection of Construction
The contract construction shall be under the direction of the City,
and shall be under the supervision of a registered professional
engineer; however, the State cost participation construction
covered under this agreement shall be open to inspection by the
State' s District Engineer at Golden Valley or his authorized
representatives. In addition, the City shall give said District
-4-
64704
Engineer five days notice of its intention to start the contract
construction.
The responsibility for the control of materials for the State cost
participation construction covered under this agreement shall be on
the City and its contractor and shall be carried out in accordance
with Specifications No. 1601 through and including No. 1609 as set
forth in the State ' s "Standard Specifications for Construction" ,
1983 edition .
Section E Comoletion of Construction
The City shall cause said contract construction to be started and
completed in accordance with the time schedule set forth in the
special provisions for said construction contract. The completion
date for said contract construction may be extended by an exchange
of letters between the appropriate City official and the State ' s
District Engineer for unavoidable delays encountered in the
performance thereof.
Section P. Additional Construction,t uction, Plan Changes, c.,
The State shall not participate in the cost of any contract
construction that is in addition to the State cost participation
construction covered under this agreement unless the necessary
State funds have been requisitioned prior to the performance of
L
I
64704
such additional construction and the terms and conditions in the
following paragraph have been met.
Any and all changes in the plans , specifications and/or special
provisions for said State cost participation construction covered
under this agreement and all "Change Orders" and/or "Supplemental
Agreements" entered into by the City and its contractor for State
cost participation construction covered under this agreement must
be approved in writing by the State ' s District Engineer before
payment is made by the State therefor.
Section G . Compliance with Laws , Ordinances and Regulations
It is understood and agreed that the City shall , in connection with
the award and administration of the construction contract and the
performance of said contract construction , comply and cause its
contractor to comply with all Federal , State and Local laws
including Minnesota Statute , Section 169. 101 ( 1986 ) , together with
all ordinances and regulations applicable to the award and
administration of said construction contract and the contract
construction.
Section H . Right-of-Way, Easements and Permits
The City shall , without cost or expense to the State , obtain all
rights-of-way, easements, construction permits and/or any other
-6- yh
I
59709
permits and sanctions that may be required in connection with the
contract construction , and shall promptly furnish the State with
certified copies of the documents for all such rights-of-way,
easements, construction Dermits and/or other permits and sanctions .
ARTICLE II - BASIS OF PAYMENT BY THE STATE
Section A. Construction Costs
The State shall pay to the City, as the State ' s full and complete
share of the costs of the contract construction, the costs of the
"STATE COST PARTICIPATION CONSTRUCTION" described below.
Payment by the State shall be based on the final quantities of
State cost participation construction work items performed or the
final pavment quantity in the case of plan qu=antity items
multiplied by the appropriate unit prices contained in the
construction contract and/or construction contract "Change Orders"
or "Supplemental Agreements" approved by the State ' s District
Engineer.
A SCHEDULE "I" , which lists all of the anticipated State cost
participation construction and construction engineering items
covered under this agreement, is attached hereto and made a part
hereof by reference . A color coded EXHIBIT "A" , which shows and/or
describes the anticipated State cost participation construction
covered under this agreement, is attached hereto and made a part
hereof by reference.
-7
�L�
5,47 04
It is hereby understood and agreed that any and all liquidated
damages assessed the City' s contractor in connection with the
construction contract shall result in a credit shared by the City
and the State in the same proportion as their total contract
construction cost share is to the total contract construction cost
without any deduction for liquidated damages.
STAT. COST PARTICIPATION CONSTRUCTION
All of the following construction to be performed adjacent to the
future Trunk Highway No. 101 (Shakopee Bypass) from Engineer
Station 15+50 (Fourth Avenue) to Engineer Station 148+51 . 21 (one
quarter of a mile west of County Road No. 17 ) within the corporate
city limits under State Project No . 7005-55 (T_ . H. 101=137 ) .
15. 1 PERCENT shall be the State ' s rate of cost participation in all
of the storm sewer facilities and drainage ditch construction as
shown and/or described in "Orange" color on the attached EXHI3IT
"A" , including clear and grub, miscellaneous removals, common and
rock excavation , storm sewer facilities, bituminous roadway
restoration, turf establishment, transplant trees and other
associated construction necessary to construct said storm sewer
facilities and drainage ditch. Said construction includes but is
not limited to those construction items as described and tabulated
on Sheets No. 2 and 3 of the attached SCHEDULE "I" .
-8-
64704
Section B. Construction Engineering Costs
In addition, payment by the State shall also include an amount
equal to 8 percent of the total cost of the State oarticipation
construction covered under this agreement.
ARTICLE III - PAYMENT BY THE STATE
Section A. Estimate and Advancement of the State ' s Cost Share
It is estimated, for accounting purposes, that the State' s share of
the costs of the contract construction plus the 8 percent
construction engineering cost share and a $15, 000.00 contingency
amount is the sum of $346 , 846 . 50 as shown in the attached SCHEDULE
"I " . The attached SCHEDULE "I" form lists all of the anticipated
State cost participation construction work items and was prepared
using plan quantities and estimated unit prices. The State shall ,
when it has received and reviewed the construction contract bid
documents described in Article I , Section B. hereof, then decide
whether it will concur in the City' s award of the construction
contract and, if so, prepare a revised SCHEDULE "I" based on the
construction contract unit prices . The contingency amount is
provided to cover overruns of the plans estimated quantities of
State cost participation construction work items and/or items of
State approved additional construction including construction
engineering costs .
-g_
V
54704
The State shall advance to the City an amount equal to the State' s
total estimated cost share , less contingency amount, as shown in
said revised SCHEDULE "I" forthwith at such time as the following
conditions have been met:
1. Encumbrance by the State of an amount equal to the State' s
total estimated cost share , including contingency amount, as shown
in said revised SCHEDULE "I " .
2. Full and complete execution of this agreement and the State' s
transmittal of same to the City along with a copy of said revised
SCHEDULE "I" and a letter advising the City of the State' s
concurrence in the award of the construction contract.
3 . Receipt by the State of a written request from the City for
said advancement of funds. The request shall include certification
by the City that the construction contract has been executed by all
necessary oarties .
In the event it appears at any time that the amount to be paid by
the State to the City for the State cost participation construction
covered under this agreement is about to exceed the current amount
of encumbered State funds, the City shall notify the State ' s
District Engineer in writing prior to the performance of such
additional State cost participation construction. Said
notification shall include an estimate in the amount of additional
-10-
� h J�
I
54704
funds necessary to complete the State cost participation
construction including construction engineering costs and the
reason( s) why the current amount encumbered will be exceeded. The
State shall approve the additional State cost participation
construction and submit a request for encumbrance of such
additional funds as may be deemed necessary to the Minnesota
Department of rinance . That action will have the effect of
amending this agreement so as to include the State ' s share of the
costs of the additional construction.
Should the City cause the performance of contract construction
which would otherwise qualify for State cost participation but for
which the State has not previously encumbered funds to cover its
participation therein , the Citv agrees that any such contract
construction is done at its own risk. The City shall notify the
State' s District Engineer in writing of such additional State cost
participation construction. Said notification shall include an
estimate in the amount of additional funds necessary to cover all
of the additional State cost participation construction including
construction engineering costs and the reason( s) why the current
amount encumbered was exceeded . The State may approve the
additional State cost participation construction and , if so, then
submit the City' s claim for compensation therefor along with a
request for encumbrance of such additional funds as may be deemed
-11-
�1 l h
64704
i
necessary to the Commissioner of Finance for approval pursuant to
Minnesota Statute 16A. 151 but no guarantee is made that the claim
will be approved . Upon the Commissioner of Finance' s certification
of said claim for compensation and the request for encumbrance of
the necessary additional funds therefor, that action will have the
effect of amending this agreement so as to include the State ' s
share of the costs of the additional construction.
In the event the State determines that the submittal of a claim for
compensation is warranted and it is deemed legally necessary to
supplement this agreement, it is hereby agreed that, if said claim
is approved and a supplement to this agreement in connection with
said claim is prepared and processed, the first 'p3, 000.00 of the
claim will not be eligible for payment.
Section B. Records Keeping and Invoicing by the City
The City shall keep such records and accounts that enable the City,
before final payment is made by the State , to provide the State
with the following:
1. Quantities of State cost participation construction work items
performed and, if applicable , other State cost participation
contract items which have been paid for by the City and included in
the requested payment. Said quantities are to be entered on the
Modified SCHEDULE "I" form provided by the State .
_12_
l�
54704
2 . Copies of the City contractor' s invoice( s) covering the State
cost participation contract items.
3. Copies of the appropriate endorsed and cancelled City
warrant( s) or check( s) paying the contractor' s invoice( s) .
4. Copies of any and all contract change orders and/or
supplemental agreements covering the State cost participation
contract items .
5. Certification form ( provided by the State) signed by the
City' s Engineer in charge of said contract construction attesting
to the following :
_ . The satisfactory performance and completion, in accordance
with the State approved City glans , specifications and special
provisions made a part hereof by reference, of the contract
construction represented in the City' s invoice .
b. The acceptance and approval of all materials furnished for
said invoice construction relative to the compliance of such
materials to the State' s "Standard Specifications for
Construction" , 1983 edition.
C. The City having made payment in full to its contractor for the
contract construction represented in the City' s invoice.
-13-
� 1
64704
6 . When requested by the State , copies certified by the City' s
Engineer, of material sampling reports and of material testing
results for the materials furnished for the contract construction
represented in the City' s invoice.
7. A formal invoice (original and signed) in the amount of the
total cost of the State participation construction covered under
this agreement.
As provided by Minnesota Statute , Section 16B.06 Sub. 4 , the books ,
records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the
City relevant to this agreement are subject to examination by the
contracting department or agency, and either the legislative
auditor or the state auditor as appropriate.
Section C. Final Payment by the State
Final payment by the State to the City, of the total cost of the
State participation construction covered under this agreement less
the total amount of previous payments made by the State , shall be
made ( 1) upon the satisfactory completion of all of the State cost
participation construction covered under this agreement, acceptance
thereof by the State and invoicing the State by the City in
accordance with a written procedure furnished the City by the State
and ( 2) upon the completion of all of said contract construction.
If the total cost of the State participation construction covered
-14-
54704
under this agreement is less than the total amount of previous
payments made by the State , then , and in that event, the balance of
said previous payments shall be promptly returned to the State
without interest.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statute 15.415, the City waives claim for any
amounts less than 52.00 over the amount of State funds previously
received by the City, and the State waives claim for the return of
any amounts less than $2.00 of such funds previously paid by the
State .
ARTICLE IV - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section A. Replacement of Castings
In connection with the construction of inplace City owned
facilities to be performed by the City' s contractor under the
construction contract, the City hereby agrees to furnish its
contractor with new castings and/or parts therefor when
replacements are required, with no cost or expense to the State .
Section S. Maintenance by the City
. t is hereby understood and agreed that, upon the satisfactory
completion of the contract construction, the City shall thereafter
provide for the proper maintenance, without cost or expense to the
State , of the entire portions of roadways and all of the facilities
-15-
54704
a part thereof constructed within the corporate City limits under
said construction contract. Said maintenance shall include , but
not be limited to, snow and debris removal , resurfacing and/or seal
coating and any other maintenance activities necessary to
perpetuate said roadway portions in a safe and usable condition .
It is hereby understood and agreed that, upon the satisfactory
completion of the contract construction, the City shall thereafter
Provide for the proper maintenance , without cost or expense to the
State , of all of the storm sewer facilities , drainaae ditch and
City owned facilities constructed within the corporate City limits
under said construction contract and that neither party to this
agreement shall drain any additional drainage into said storm sewer
facilities and drainage ditch that is not included in the drainage
for which said storm sewer facilities and drainace ditch were
designed without first obtaining permission to do so from the other
party. The drainage areas served by the storm sewer facilities and
drainage ditch constructed under the construction contract are
shown in a drainage area map, EXHIBIT "Drainage Area" , which is on
file in the office of the State ' s District Hydraulics Engineer at
Golden Valley and is made a part hereof by reference with the same
force and effect as though fully set forth herein.
-15-
1
P
i
54704
It is hereby understood and agreed that, upon the satisfactory
completion of the contract construction , the City shall thereafter
provide for the proper maintenance , without cost or expense to the
State , of all of the bituminous trail constructed within the
corporate City limits under said construction contract. Said
maintenance shall include , but not be limited to , snow and debris
removal and any other maintenance activities necessary to
perpetuate said bituminous trail in a safe and usable condition.
Section C. Claims
The City indemnifies , saves and holds harmless the State and all of
its agents and employees of and from any and all claims , demands,
actions or causes of action of whatsoever nature or character
arising out of or by reason of the contract construction,
associated construction engineering and/or maintenance performed by
the City hereunder, and further agrees to defend at its own sole
cost and expense any action or proceeding commenced for the purpose
of asserting any claim of whatsoever character arising as a result
of said contract construction, associated construction engineering
and/or maintenance performed by the City hereunder.
It is hereby understood and agreed that any and all employees of
the City and all other persons employed by the City in the
performance of any contract construction, construction engineering
-17-
64704
and/or maintenance required or provided for hereunder by the City
shall not be considered employees of the State and that any and all
claims that may or might arise under the Worker' s Compensation Act
of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while --
engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a
consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees
while so engaged on any of the contract construction, construction
engineering and/or maintenance to be rendered herein by the City
shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the State .
Section D. Nondiscrimination
The provisions of Minnesota Statute 181 . 59 and of any applicable
ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination shall be
considered part of this agreement as if fully set forth herein .
Section E Agreement Approval
Before this agreement shell become binding and effective, it shall
be approved by resolution of the City Council of the City and shall
also receive the approval of such state officers as the law may
provide in addition to the Commissioner of Transportation or his
authorized representative .
�� U
64704
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF the parties have duly executed this agreement by their
duly authorized officers and caused their respective seals to be hereunto
affixed.
( city
Seal) CITY OF SHAKOPEE
By
Mavor
Date
By
City Administrator
Date
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATE OF MINNESOTA
Recommended for approval :
By
Deouty Commissioner
By .C , 8�/0/88 of Transportation
Cn Director - Agreement
1 Services Section Date
Date of �.g reemen t,
By
District Engineer
Approved:
Bp Department of Administration
Deputy Division Director
Technical Services Division
By
Approved as to form and execution: (Authorized Signature)
Date
By
Special Assistant Attorney General '
d
l�
Y
L
m N
C
9
J �
O
U
D
q
O
U
r
E
R
O
1
O
- o H
H 4 �
1 a L O
V O t E O Y q
y C
++ a
a
G �
O O
V Y
y U uI
a
o u y eI
0
a = H
3 _
a x+
� o
9 C O
t0 C O
q ~
O a C u y
C
4 q V U H a Y
O L N U I OC ? C U I O
L
W
V) N N U H f
D O p D O J p p ^J J D p p p p D J J J p p J J p D p J p
1 p p O p p D J D p p J J D D D D D p p D D p p J p p p p
D
C O O m n n P D p p C o p o ry o � �o J J D o 0 o m N n h ry N p D o
J
N r m N N 1
Y
H '� O •O O O O On v h O J S r N -+ O r .o m D -�
N
1 - 00 , h N n n
-� N J• O ^ O
Z r
a
p o J o O D o 0 0 0 opo 0 0 o p o 0 0
O O O N O O O h O . . . .
000 O O O N m n m m O O O O O
R O O C O C O O N 1 n O J
F U
�-: N n J1 N •J 1 S N N
Z C
� Y
E
y W W 9 9 9 C W W W W W r W W W
Y Y Y r
H w w
oO O Ow9 �C C C . U V V .Ciw w ..Ci Cw -Ci ..Ci U
Z > > O w q w e ¢ e O 6
N
N
O y�y 4�U
U
y P 4
L U U � .] w] .] ..] .] •� Y Y M C
C IJ oW e c 09 �J 0000p m V
V % X
>
0 4 V inln n n n nd
> > m S I P
y e > y V O U > > U• 9 y y y m y O O ml
V. 3 %
L X O d d d d d d d O X G C F
Uu O
11 ^ r u E E E E
++ w J• 1 4 J 'J m m S 1 > >
00 0
y 3
^ N 000
N h h r r r r H
Z Y1 h ul vl h � h N h vl vlJ r r Lu L 1 1 < � 1 W n n
h h Jl h Y1 vl J1 vl vl Jl
U r 1 1 • .y U r r U U V n n n n n U U n n
W fil O O O 'J O O r 1 1 1 X1 n d O D d u d . 00000 J11 d woo
d F N n1 n n n e•1 i'1 Y1 h h V1
y N N N N N N N N N N N ry p y N N y y y N N N N N N y y N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o _
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.p Q v O l0J S O O O P P S
J
m m
P
ci
^T O h O N
Z r
O
0 o O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O N
O
M M
Z C N
� d
O
C U
= I L y ,•
d Y W a m
U A W O
W O U
E ti C
L
A O V G
S ^ > C C
C U m u 3 C W C u C U
e e uu m 3 3 m v .0 o A o e
— O O X N b C 'O O O C .] U C O 4 M O
. O
> > > u U U u U U O u U V
v w u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W W v v o o a v v v u v v u v v
RESOLUTION NO. 2943
A Resolution Authorizing the City of Shakopee
To Enter Into An Agreement With The
Minnesota Department of Transportation
For The Upper Valley Drainage, Project No. 1987-5
Phase I, From 4th Avenue to County Road 79
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee will be constructing the Upper
Valley Drainage System , Project No . 1987-5 , Phase I from 4th
Avenue to County Road 79 ; and
WHEREAS, the drainageway is needed for the proper conveyance
of storm water and to ensure the safety of Shakopee residents ;
and
WHEREAS , the drainageway will benefit the Minnesota
Department of Transportation for the drainage of the proposed
S.H. 101 (Shakopee Bypass) scheduled for construction from 1989
to 1992 .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Shakopee
enter into Agreement No . 64704 with the State of Minnesota ,
Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to-wit:
to provide for payment by the State to the City of the State' s
share of the costs of the storm sewer facilities and drainage
ditch construction and other associated construction to be
Performed adjacent to the future Trunk Highway No. 101 (Shakopee
Bypass) from Engineer Station 16 + 50 (Fourth Avenue) to Engineer
Station 148 + 61 .21 ( one quarter of a mile west of County Road
17 ) within the corporate City limits under State Project No.
7005-55 (T.H. 101=187) .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Prober City Officers are hereby
authorized and directed to execute such agreement.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held tnis day of
19
Player c` the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of 19
City Attorney
CONSENT
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, City EngineerQ/
SUBJECT: 11th Avenue Project No. 1988-5
DATE: September 1 , 1988
INTRODUCTION:
Attached is Resolution No. 2944 , accepting bids on the 11th
Avenue Project No. 1988-5.
BACKGROUND:
On August 2 , 1988 the City Council passed Resolution No. 2933 ,
ordering the advertisement for bids for 11th Avenue, Project No.
1988-5-
On August 30 , 1988 at 10:00 A.M bids were received and publicly
opened for this project. A. total of 4 bids were received and
--- --- ---summarized -in the attached resolution.
The apparent low bidder was Hardrives, Inc. with a total base bid
of $69 .395.20 . The Engineering Department has reviewed all bids
for completeness and also the qualifications of Hardrives, Inc.
and have determined that they are able to perform the work as
described by the plans and specifications.
The Engineer ' s estimate for this project was approximately
$73 ,800 .00.
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Accept the low bid and adopt Resolution No. 2944.
2 . Reject the low bid and award the contract to the 2nd low
bidder or another bidder.
3 . Reject all bids and rebid.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 , to accept the low bid and
adopt Resolution No. 2944 , awarding the contract to Hardrives ,
Inc. of Maple Grove, MN.
REQUESTED ACTION:
Offer Resolution No. 2944, A Resolution Accepting Bids on 11th
Avenue Project No. 1988-5 to Hardrives, Inc. of Maple Grove, MN
55369 and move its adoption.
DH/pmp
MEM2944
RESOLUTION NO. 2944
A Resolution Accepting Bid On
11th Avenue Street & Storm Sewer Construction
Project No. 1988-5
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the 11th
Avenue Project No . 1988-5 , bids were received , opened and
tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received
complying with the advertisement :
Hardrives, Inc. $69 ,395 .20
Valley Paving, Inc . $72 , 120 .01
Midwest Asphalt $72 ,729. 10
Wm. Mueller & Sons $81 ,679 .25
AND WHEREAS, it appears that Hardrives, inc. , 7200 Hemlock
Lane, Maple Grove, MN 55369 is the lowest responsible bidder.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY _ THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1 . The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and
directed to enter into a contract with Hardrives, Inc. , in the
name of the City of Shakopee for the improvement of 11th Avenue
by Street and Storm Sewer improvements, according to the plans
and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on
file in the office of the City Clerk.
2 . The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their
bids , except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the
next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has beer,
signed .
Adopted in session of the City Council of
the City of Shakopee , Minnesota, held this day of
, 79 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this day of
t9_•
City Attorney
CONSEN►
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Upper Valley Drainage Project No. 1987-5
DATE: September 1 , 1988
INTRODUCTION:
Attached is Resolution No . 2945 , approving plans and
specifications and ordering the advertisement for bids for the
Upper Valley Drainage Project No. 1987-5 •
BACKGROUND:
On February 24, 1987 Council ordered plans and specifications for
the Upper Valley Drainage Project.
This project mainly consists of constructing a drainage ditch and
storm sewers from the Upper Valley region (between C. R. 17 and
C.R. 15 south of 10th Avenue) to the "Mill Pond" area near the
Minnesota River.
Over the past several months, staff has discussed with Council
the need to acquire various permits to discharge the storm water
into the Mill Pond and that process is still going on. Rather
than delay the entire project, staff requested and obtained
permission from Council to construct the project in stages, with
Phase I going from the Upper Valley to 4th Avenue and Phase II
from 4th Avenue to the Mill Pond.
Plans and specifications have now been completed for Phase I .
All easements have either been obtained or are currently going
thru the condemnation process.
Staff is now requesting authorization to advertise for bids on
this project. The scheduled bid opening, contingent on Council
approval, is September 30 , 1988.
Plans and specifications are available in the Engineering
Department for Council review.
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Approve Resolution No. 2945•
2. Deny Resolution No. 2945.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 .
i
� Upper Valley Drainage Project
September 1 , 1988
Page 2
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer Resolution No . 2945 , A Resolution Approving Plans and
Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for Upper
Valley Drainage Project - Phase I (from 4th Avenue to C. R. 79) ,
Project No. 1987-5 and move its adoption.
DH/pmp
MEM2945
I
i
i
i
i
RESOLUTION NO. 2945
A Resolution Approving Plans And Specifications
And Ordering Advertisement For Bids
for the Upper Valley Drainage Project
Phase I (from 4th Avenue to County Road 79
Project No. 1987-5
WHEREAS , City Council ordered plans and specifications on
February 29 , 1987 , Bob Frigaard , Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Assoc. ,
Inc. has prepared plans and specifications for the improvement of
Upper Valley Drainage Project - Phase I ( from 4th Avenue to
County Road 79 , Project No. 1987-5 and has presented such plans
and specifications to the Council for approval
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1 . Such plans and specifications, a cony of which is on
file and of record in the Office of the City Engineer, are hereby
approved.
2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in
the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertise-
ment for bids upon the making of such improvements unaer such
approved plans and specifications. The Advertisement for Bids
shall be published for three weeks, shall specify the work to be
done , shall state that bids will be received by the City Clerk
unt_1 10:30 1. M. , on September 30 , 1988, at which they will
be ^_ nlicly . =d in the Cpun Cil Chambers yheV �City Ha l `vy
the City Clerk and Engineer, or their designated party , will then
be tabulated , and will be considered by the Council at
7 : 00 P . M. , or thereafter on October 4 , 1988, in the Council
Chambers, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and
filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit,
cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the order
of the City of Shakopee for not less than five (5`n ) percent of
the amount of the Bid.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee, A:innesota, held this day of ,
19_•
Mayor of the City of Shakopee !
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 19_. j
1
City Attorney