Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08/02/0988
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items DATE: July 20, 1988 1. The City of Shakopee sent a letter to the Metropolitan Council supporting Hennepin County's application for state bridge funds for the C.R. 18 bridge. I thought Council would be interested in knowing that the cities of Bloomington and Prior Lake were the only other communities sending letters of support. 2. Mr. Mike Luce appeared before Council under recognition of interested citizens 7/19/88 expressing several concerns, one of which related to traffic blocking Lewis and Fuller Streets at 101. John DuBois stated that he has spoken with Mr. Luce and that the department has contacted Mn/DOT to improve the "do not block intersection" signage so that it is more noticeable. In addition, the department is doing some random patrolling of the intersections. 3 . The Lions Club of Shakopee has applied for renewal of their gambling license. They meet the requirements of the City Code. 4. Attached is a memorandum from Howard Jones regarding our code enforcement program application to the Robert Sweeney property. 5. Attached is a memorandum from Dave Hutton regarding the Shakopee Water Management Organization. 6. Attached is a memorandum from Dave Hutton regarding the Downtown Streetscape Project. 7. Attached is a thank you letter from Larry Griffith for work done on the Sign Ordinance. 8. Attached is the monthly calendar for the month of August. 9. Attached is the Business Update from City Hall to go out with the Chamber monthly newsletter. 10. Attached are the agendas for the August 4, 1988 meetings of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and Planning Commission. 11. Attached are the minutes of the July 7, 1988 meetings of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and Planning Commission. 12. Attached are the minutes of the February 1, 1988 meeting of the Cable communication Advisory Commission. JKA/jms Y MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Howard C. Jones, Code Enforcement Officer DATE: July 13 , 1988 RE: Robert Sweeney Property, 711 Bluff Street, Shakopee Met with Mr. Sweeney at 1:30 pm, Wednesday, July 13, 1988. I went over the violations that are at this property. Vehicles that are inoperable or without current license will be attended to right away. The equipment and other refuse at this property is quite extensive and due to the fact it has never been taken care of before nor could be complied with in any short time, with the agreement of Mr. Sweeney we decided to be sure to have this cleaned up by 1989 which he agreed on. Much of the material he uses through out the year but still has agreed to accumulate it in one place. This cannot be done immediately but he promised that he will work at it continually. Due to the circumstances I believe this is agreeable to give this time as to meet compliance. Will be checking on this property periodically and will follow through the first of next years season to be sure that this compliance is made. It is my understanding that screening will be approached shortly or in the near future so we will be able to decide what to do as far as other screening if needed. If you have any further questions, please contact me. Jr MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: David Hutton, City Engineer�-� SUBJECT: Shakopee WMO 666��� DATE: July 28, 1988 Informational Item At the regular meeting of the Shakopee Water Management Organization on July 25, 1988 the WMO voted unanimously to sign the petition for the boundary changes that would extend the Shakopee WHO boundaries to the Minnesota River thereby eliminating the Lower Minnesota WMO from Shakopee. This petition will now be forwarded to Scott County to act on, along with similar petitions from the Prior Lake - Spring Lake WHO and Credit River WHO. MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer's� SUBJECT: Downtown Streetscape Project DATE: July 28, 1988 Information Item On July 27 , 1988 the mayor of Renville, MN called the Engineering Department to compliment the City of Shakopee on the Downtown Streetscape Project. He was very impressed with the overall look of the downtown. Renville is considering their own Downtown Revitalization Project and had heard about ours so he stopped by to look at the downtown on a recent trip to Minneapolis. DORSEY & WHITNEY 2200 FIRST BANE PLACE EAST e aew re NN exosa 100¢¢ MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 552 NR�a M-1 s axr xo xola¢Hea-cew 40 _ (612)340-2600 am QT°a LOBDOe aCav O i.6FOLIND tau'a 8BOEOa a6L106a NOlrtla6 a¢IOa laaa)¢a¢-aBW q �y_y.A.y tCIECOP[Q@(6,2)3.10-PBfiB _ NL➢iNG 1s We Pd08.RliCe a ]Hlw aTP m-p¢ 5a y9-O9 Op81x tdLts.MORSYfe ra 9a01 aao nest Nenoau,uxa Dvc,.amo G. LARRY GRI"ITH. P. A. IRECE if L.`r"¢' a2+a 1612)040-2747 p,peyi Pwai sf9Cei aocea¢ias Nvaceov aa9oa vewou,Noai.ae a¢aoe taD,��a a,aa July 21, 1988 JUL2 21988-1--- CITY C nDa.,,a.Na a ex e.aa enrw eoxsasslol F -, eizptj.xyvueo7 aaae 4ri..�zSsa:aa,o John K. Anderson City Administrator Douglas K. Wise Planning Director City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: Sign Ordinance Dear John & Doug: On behalf of Walt Wittmer and myself, personally, I want to thank both of you for the time, effort, and leadership which you gave to the process of adopting your new sign ordinance. Throughout the months of negotiation and deliberation, we were always treated courteously and respectfully by all of the City personnel. I would appreciate it if I could have a copy of the audio tape of Tuesday night' s meeting as it relates to the sign ordinance. Would you please let me know if there is a charge, and if so how much? I would be happy to send a check to obtain a copy. Thanks again for your help and cooperation. Very truly yours, G. Larry Griffith GLG/jw cc : Mayor Lebens Mr. Walt Wittmer August 1988 UPCOMING MEETINGS SUN MON .7 TUE WED ' 5 6 ' THU FRI SRT 4:30pm `7:00pm City :30pm Public Council Planning Utilities Commission 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 7:00pm 7:00pm City 7:00pm Community Council Energy & Recreation Transp. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 7:45am Downtown Committe 28 29 30 31 July September S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 1 2 3 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 4 5 6 7 8 910 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 BUSINESS UPDATE FROM CITY HALL Vol.2 No. 8 Dear Chamber Member: August J,1988 ADMINISTRATION Preparation of the 1989 City Budget will be a challenge this year with the Legislature having made so many changes affecting local taxes and State Aids to cities. BB usiny�csrs�th suggestions on changing the level of existing services we provide(e.g.sweeping downtown every Friday),adjusting fees for services or per- mits,or suggesting new services should contact me at 445-3650 or a City Councilmember during_Auguo -- — rather tbau w0ringforthe,formal public hearing September 20th. BEING Our new Housinv(not Building)Inspector.Newton Parker,is now on board and surveying ext_stinnsild- ings in the Central Business District prior to initial inspections. CIT1C CLERK The City Council has decided against vacating Apar Strut hetween 1st and 2nd Avenues at this time. The City needs additional electionjudges to work during the upcoming primary and general elections. If interested in qualifications and duties,call the City Clerk at 445-3650. COMMI INITV DEVELOPMENT The City has enacted certain codes, regarding the planting and maintaining of trees along public boulevards in multiple residential,business and industrial districtswhich applyto wdstingbusinesscs. City Code Section 11.60 Subd.7B lists Landscaping Requirements: A minimum of one major deciduous tree shall be planted and maintained every 50 feet along public boulevards. CMic,applies to esistina husinessesj. Fx,�ng uses in the Multiple the Multiple Residential_Business and Industrial Districts meet demonstrate an intent to comply with this standard within three.years of the effective date of this Subdivision (1131/85) and must perform complete camphanmvA hip five years of the effective date of this Subdivision, Intent shallmean that the major deciduous does not have to be 2-12 inches in diameter at time of planting. Compliance shall mean that the major deciduous mast be a minimum size of 2-12 inch diameter. Compliance must occur by January 31,L990. If a property does not meet the minimum requirements of the code,the responsible party will be notified and given a specific amount of time to bring the property into compliance. If you have any questions please contact the Community Development Department at 445-3650. COMMUNITY RFCRF ATION(SCR) SCR,in its desire that athleticprogramsare administered in a safe andpositive manner,has affiliated with the National Youth Sports Coaches Association and has arranged for the conducting of clinics for all volnnfeerryouth coaches in the SCR system. The result is safer and more positive experiences for our youth. ANCIINEFRINO DEPARTMENT An informational Mlefingto discuss interimLEI The 1011169 ilteraMiUlt MMS held da3�Juiy 2&h -the Council rle,inbc,q Alternatives discussed included closing Holmes Street except for right turns in and right turns out, prohibiting parking on Fust Avenue from Lewis to Fuller,restricting left turn movements into the alley behind City Hall and adding a full right turn lane by Brambillas. Input was received by many interested citizens. The City Council will decide on any improvements at a future meeting. Construction is proceeding on Part 2 of Phase I of the Downtown Streetscape Project. All underground Utilities on all streets have been completed. The fust lift of asphalt should be placed on Atwood,Fuller and the remainder of 2nd Avenue during the week of August 1st. The railroad is currently installing the rubber material on all three crossings. The rubberized rail crossing on C.R.17,Marschall Road,is a Scott County project. CmUaetcwm-warded fth f 11 mdng prql ct .V l' RD h�C r tyR '17 cagf Narth&le C=Lcuchnn of Rnoerc MrN-firh A �P/Ad Cf t C 'f r7 Sewrr fn h'nlcr Fx »ung of Pyr x _nt� WI{10th AMMIC Overlay to Mid=st Asphalt Corporation of Hopkins.MN, The Valley Industrial Park sanitary sewer extension from C.R. 17 to C.R.79 through the"Roberts Pit" has been completed FINANCE Work nn fiscal ycnr 1997 h h am„ 1 rr d 7ryi bsd t o fm 1282started ' buic. City o n al10 be workrkin0,on the b ode tr in SC12temb,r with a_ foMialgrn_ngonSeptember 29th, The City is preparing to issue$1,100,000 in general obligation improvement bonds to fund the Vierling Drive, Market Street, Marschall Road, Eleventh Avenue and Heritage projects. The Sixth Avenue sanitary sewer project will be paid out of the sewer fund /0 TENTATIVE AGENDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Regular Session Shakopee, MN August 4, 1988 Chairman Rockne Presiding 1. Roll Call at 7:30 P.M. 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of the June 9, 1988 & July 7, 1988 Meeting Minutes 4. 7:30 P.M. 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. Applicant: Valleyfair Action: Variance Resolution #535 5. 7:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider the request for variances to: 1) Permit 14 parking spaces instead of the required 17 and 2) To allow a 1' side yard setback for parking instead of the required 3' upon the property located at 1038 - 1st Ave. East. Applicant: Dirks Furniture Action: Variance Resolution #536 6. Other Business a. b. 7. Adjourn Douglas K. Wise City Planner IL) TENTATIVE AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Session Shakopee, MN August 4, 1988 Chairman Rockne Presiding 1. Roll Call at 7:30 P.M. 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of the June 9, 1988 & July 7, 1988 Meeting Minutes 4. 7:50 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: To consider the preliminary plat approval of Hentges First Addition located upon the property North and West of Highway 169 on both sides of Third Avenue. Applicant: Steve Hentges and Lon Carnahan Action: Recommendation to City Council 5. 8:00 P.M. 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. Applicant: Gene Brown (Viola & James Plekkenpol, Owners) Action: Recommendation to City Council 6. 8:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider the request for a conditional use permit for outdoor storage of transportation equipment and a truck maintenance garage upon the property located on C.R. 89 - approximately 600' South of 13th Avenue. Applicant: Prairie Line, Inc. Action: Conditional User Permit Resolution #533 - 7. 8.20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider the request for a conditional use permit to move-in a temporary sales office upon the property located at 8050 E. Hwy. 101. Applicant: Allstate Leasing, Corp. Action: Conditional Use Permit Resolution #534 8. 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 9. Comprehensive Plan Thoroughfare Map Amendment for Mini By- Pass. Action: Recommendation to City Council 10. Captial Improvement Program Approval 11. Discussion a. Extended occupancy in RV Parks. b. Use of plantings for screening C. Vetinary Clinics & Animal Hospitals in R-1 & Ag. d. How should the city conduct hearings on zoning subdivision, and other land use matters? from the League Magazine 12. Other Business a. Sidewalks along CR W17. b. 13. 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. PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MN JULY 7, 1988 Chairman Rockne called the meeting to order at 7: 37 P.M. with Comm. Czaja, Stafford, and Foudray present. Comm. Forbord and Allen were absent. Comm. Schmitt arrived at 9:17 P.M. Also present were Doug Wise, City Planner; John Anderson, City Administrator; Joe Zak, Council Liaison and Jon Glennie, Planning Intern. Stafford/Foudray moved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED - HENTGES VARIANCE REQUEST Czaja/Foudray moved to continue the public hearing on the request for a variance to allow a 10' rear yard setback instead of the required 30' setback for the property located on the proposed Lot 4, Block 1, Hentges 1st Addition (N of Hwy 169 and E of 3rd Ave. ) . City Planner gave background for the public hearing continuation and stated that the applicant has not yet submitted specific building plans for the lot in which the variance is being requested. There were no comments from the audience and the applicant was not present. Discussion took place about continuation of the public hearing. Foudray/Stafford moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Stafford/Czaja moved to deny Variance Resolution #523 for the following reasons: 1) The property in question can be put to reasonable use under the conditions allowed by the official controls; a hardship does not exist. 2) The applicant has not supplied sufficient plans proving a hardship to the applicant. and 3) Other remedies exist such as not creating a separate parcel of this size and configuration. Motion carried unanimously. Stafford/Czaja moved to adjourn the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7 :48 P.M. Jon Glennie Recording Secretary PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MN JULY 7, 1988 Chairman Rockne called the meeting to order at 7:50 P.M. with Comm. Foudray, Stafford and Czaja present. Absent were Comm. Allen and Forbord. Comm. Schmitt arrived at 9:17 P.M. Also present were City Planner, Doug Wise; City Administrator, John Anderson; Council Liaison, Joe Zak and Planning Intern, Jon Glennie. Czaja/Stafford moved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED - PRELIMINARY PLAT/HENTGES 1ST ADDN Stafford/Foudray moved to continue the public hearing on the preliminary plat 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 gave background and follow-up on Hentges Preliminary Plat and stated the issues raised at the last meeting are still unresolved, but the applicant has been actively pursuing a solution. The Planner stated he has forwarded the plat to the railroad but no response has been received as of yet. There were no comments from the audience. Czaja/Foudray moved to continue the public hearing until August 4, 1988. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED - AMENDING THE SHAKOPEE 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 RIGHT-OF-WAY Czaja/Foudray moved to continue the public hearing on the amendment to the Shakopee City Code. Motion carried unanimously. At this time Comm. Czaja removed himself from voting on this subject since he is personally involved. Because Comm. Czaja's removal there was no longer a quorum present, the Comm, debated on whether to take public testimony now or wait until Comm. Schmitt arrived so that final action could be taken. Stafford/Foudray moved to continue the public hearing until 8:45 P.M. or later. Motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission July 7, 1988 Page -2- PUBLIC HEARING - RAHR MALTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Stafford/Foudray moved to open the public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit to construct a tower addition in excess of 45' in height upon the property located at 800 West First Avenue (Rahr Malting Company) . Motion carried unanimously. City Planner gave introduction to the request, he stated that the structure will be 202' high and made of steel sheeting. Staff stated that existing buildings are higher than the proposed structure. Staff stated that it is standard to make the applicant meet existing code requirements for screening and landscaping in the process of issuing a conditional use permit. Chairman Rockne opened up the public hearing to take public discussion. Kevin O'Brian, 1024 South Fuller Street of Danny's Construction, stated that the siding will be bone white and will have a 20 year fading factor and will be very compatible to the existing surrounding facility. Foudray/Stafford moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Foudray/Czaja moved to approve Conditional Use Permit request Resolution #531 and move for it's adoption with the following condition: 1. The applicant shall submit to the City Planner a landscaping plan indicating existing and proposed vegetation and screening features necessary to bring the property into compliance with the current City Code requirements prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. All landscaping and screening improvements must be made within two years. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 720 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST Foudray/Czaja moved to open the public hearing to consider a conditional use permit to move in a principle building to be used as a classroom upon the property located at the corner of County Road 15 and Tenth Avenue (Sweeney School) . Motion carried unanimously. City Planner gave background on the request for the portable classroom, he stated that this facility will not have bathroom facilities as stated in the application. The Commissioners Planning Commission / I July 7, 1988 Page -3- opened up the hearing for public comment. Virgil Mears, of 1813 Shakopee Ave. - Assistant School Superintendent, I.S.D. 720, stated that SSD 720 will construct an enclosed walkway to the main school building in order for the children to use the existing bathroom facilities. Foudray/Stafford moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Foudray/Czaja offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution #532 and moved for it's approval with the following staff conditions: 1. The structure must meet all building and fire code requirements before occupancy by students. 2. The building must be compatable with existing homes and structures in the area. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED - N.W. ASPHALT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Foudray/Czaja moved to reopen the public hearing on the conditional use permit request by N.W. Asphalt. Motion carried unanimously. City Planner gave background and stated issues involved, discussed changes in drainage and location of materials as per first plan. Staff discussed noise level of crushing machine and stated that it will have to meet City noise ordinance standards. Comm. Stafford asked when the crushing will be done. Staff replied when the piles reach there maximum heights. Comm. Rockne opened the public hearing to comments from the public. Jeff Schoenbauer, of Brauer and Associates made some statements, he said the owner is concerned with noise in that he owns the back stretch R.V. Park. Mr. Schoenbauer stated that the crusher will be operated once or twice per year. Comm. Czaja commented on the noise levels allowed by the City Ordinance. Mr. Schoenbauer stated that the MPCA has heard of no problems with the noise levels from this type of crusher. John Anderson, City Administrator reiterated that the Commissioners should address the noise level with a condition by which the City will monitor the noise level to insure compliance with the code. Foudray/Stafford moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission July 7, 1988 Page -4- Foudray/Czaja moved to approve Conditional Use Permit #530 with the following conditions: 1. The operation shall strictly abide by the operating plan submitted including the 20' height limitation for piles, changes shall be approved by the City. 2. The berming and planting shall be constructed prior to the stock piling of any materials on the site. The berm shall be seeded as soon as practicle following construction. Until vegetation is established adequate erosion control measures (i.e. silt fence) will be installed to prevent loss of soil due to run off. 3 . The hours of crushing shall take place between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday - Friday, and shall be limited to 4 weeks per year. 4. The permit shall be reviewed after one year. 5. The CUP shall apply only to the existing owner and/or occupant. 6. The applicant shall treat all roads so as to control dust on the site. 7. An assurance bond shall be provided to the City of Shakopee in the amount of $60,000, the estimated cost for the City to remove any stock piled materials. 8. The lowest level of asphalt storage shall be at least (5) feet above the seasonal high water mark. 9. An easement for access to the site shall be provided through the Northwest Asphalt property to County Road 89. Said easement agreement shall be recorded with both parcels of property. 10. The City will monitor sound levels of the crusher to insure code compliance. Applicant shall notify the City when they intend to utilize the crushing machine. Motion carried unanimously. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR ANNEXATION AREA City Planner gave an overview of previous discussions by the Planning Commission and City Council on this item. He stated that the City has received final word from the Courts that the annexation is officially approved. The City Planner discussed It Planning Commission July 7, 1988 Page -5- the new alternative being recommended by staff which entails the trade of 150 acres located North of the Minnesota River in exchange for inclusion in the MUSA of the area being annexed to the City. Foudray/Czaja moved to recommend to the City Council submission of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan Council providing a trade of the approximate 150 acres of land located North of the Minnesota River within the City of Shakopee in exchange for inclusion within the MUSA of the 150 acres of residential land being annexed to the City. Motion carried unanimously. Foudray/Stafford moved to recess until 9:10. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION - APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISIONS CONTAINING FLAG LOTS City Planner gave background on the issue of the flag lots, he stated that if the City does not feel comfortable with approving these lots they should state in the code that these lots will be prohibited. Comm. Czaja made a statement about back to back flag lots concerning the spacing of driveways. Foudray/Stafford moved to direct staff to do further research on this subject and to list examples of existing flag lots in Shakopee and other cities. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED - AMENDING THE SHAKOPEE CITY CODE SECTION 11.03 . SUED. 7 I - THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WILL ALLOW THE CITY TO ISSUE BUILDING PERMITS TO PROPERTY THAT DOES NOT ABUT A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY Foudray/Stafford moved to reopen the public hearing on the amendment to the Shakopee City Code Section 11.03, Subd. 7 I. Motion carried unanimously. City Planner reviewed previous discussion and issues. He also informed Commission members of the results of meetings with the industrial and residential property owners. City Planner reviewed new alternative to deal with private roadways. Joe Zak, 5371 Eagle Creek Blvd. , talked about the establishment of the Dean's Lake Homeowners Assoc. and submitted documents to be reviewed by the City Attorney. Dave Cjaza, 5263 Eagle Creek Blvd. , discussed why he felt the ordinance relating to private roadways should be changed. Planning Commission July 7, 1988 Page -6- Linda Schutz, J.L. Shiely Co. , commented on her companies stand on the issue of private roadways. She stated that the City Engineer looked at their access road and found it to be adequate for the purposes. Dwight Olson, Valley Rich Co. , made a comment referring to his property off of 13th Avenue. The City Planner said that he could get a building permit because his r-o-w was dedicated. Glen Zacharias, 1448 S. 89th St. , stated that if he could dedicate his r-o-w he would be in to get a permit tomorrow. Randy Quiring, Q Carriers, stated his position that they should dedicate the roadway. t Schmitt/Stafford moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Foudray/Schmitt moved to direct staff to further define the alternatives and bring back to next meeting. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION - EXTENDED OCCUPANCY IN RV PARRS City Planner reviewed the issue involved with extended occupancy in RV Parks. He stated that people who come to Shakopee for the racing season live in their RV's for the duration of the season. Comm. Czaja asked why the code only allows a three month stay. The City Planner stated so that it does not become similar to a mobile home park which has permanent occupancy. Jack VanRemortel, owner of the Backstretch RV, addressed the issue and recommended the Planning Commission change the ordinance to extend the time RV's are allowed to stay. Tom Brock, Canterbury Downs Operations Manager, also gave comment and stated his concerns. Schmitt/Foudray moved to refer to staff to determine the background of the original ordinance and to bring to the next meeting previous discussion on the adoption of this ordinance. Stafford/Schmitt moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:50 P.M. Recording Secretary Jon Glennie Douglas Wise City Planner l � PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE CABLE COMMUNICATION ADVISORY COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 1, 1988 Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with Commissioners Anderson, Moonen, Abeln and Harrison present. Commissioner Davis was absent. Barry Stock, Administrative Assistant; Steve Stolen, United Cable Manager; and Bill Lepley, Public Access Studio Manager were also present. Harrison/Abeln moved to approve the minutes of the April 2, 1987 meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously. 1987 ANNUAL REPORT Mr. Stock briefly reviewed the 1987 annual report for the commissioners. Commissioner Harrison questioned whether or not the Shakopee School District has requested funding for the character generator that was approved in 1987 . Mr. Stock reported that the School District has purchased a character generator but to the best of his knowledge has not yet submitted any receipts to the Access Corporation for reimbursement. Moonen/Harrison moved to recommend to City Council approval of the 1987 Cable Annual Report. PUBLIC ACCESS STUDIO CONTRACT Mr. Stock reported that last year the Shakopee Cable Commission moved to recommend to the Shakopee Public Access Corporation that the public access studio agreement be extended for one (1) year with an amendment providing for a 3% compensation increase in the additional one year extension clause. The current contract with New Frontier Production expires on April 15, 1988. Mr. Stock noted that the Access corporation holds the contract with New Frontier Productions not the City of Shakopee. He also reported that in his opinion New Frontier Productions has been operating the Public Access Studio in a very effective manner. Mr. Stock then reported that New Frontier has provided the Cable Commission with a year to date report of the Public Access Studio activities that have taken place in 1987. New Frontier Productions will be required to submit a complete annual report on April 15, 1988 outlining the entire years operation. Mr. Stock stated that he is recommending that the Cable Commission recommend to the Public Access Corporation that the existing contract with New Frontier Productions be extended for an additional year and that in 1988 the Access Corporation advertise for request for proposals for the operation of the Cable Studio. Mr. Stock noted that it is normal City practice to rebid services at least every three years. Chairman Anderson questioned whether or not there was any data Cable Communication Advisory Commission February 1, 1988 Page 2 available on how much revenues New Frontier has produced for the Access Corporation. Mr. Lepley stated that this information has been included in their monthly reports that have been provided to the City of Shakopee. He went on to state that New Frontier Productions is not actively promoting the business end of their agreement. Mr. Lepley stated that he felt that they had reached a fine medium between how much business they were doing on behalf of their company and the services that they have been providing for public access. Mr. Lepley stated that in their final end of the year report they will include a complete month by month breakdown of revenues generated for public access and revenues generated for New Frontier Productions. He stated that he would also breakdown the programing hours by month in the annual report. Commission Abeln questioned what the Winnebago was used for that was purchased by New Frontier Productions. Mr. Lepley stated that in 1987 New Frontier Productions purchased a Winnebago that they modified to be used a remote studio. It allows New Frontiers to provide live broadcasts from locations other than the public access studio. Chairman Anderson stated that he saw the Winnebago in use this past summer and thought it was a tremendous asset for public access. Harrison/Abeln moved to recommend to the Shakopee Public Access Corporation that the contract with New Frontier Productions be extended for an additional year. Motion carried unanimously. REQUEST TO ELIMINATE UNIVERSAL SERVICE Mr. Stock reported that the cable company is requesting that the City of Shakopee amend the cable franchise ordinance to eliminate the universal service tier. Mr. Stock noted at the present time there are 81 subscribers in Shakopee who receive universal service. There is no cost for universal service with the exception of a one time $35.00 installation fee. The cable company contends that universal service is costing the system approximately $9,000.00 per year in operating costs. There were several other key issues that the cable company would like to present to the Commission for their consideration in the granting of their request. Mr. Steve Stolen, United Cable Manager, gave a brief overview of the systems operation in the last year. He noted that system Picture quality has improved significantly in the last year. He also noted that the cable company has began operation of their pay per view service. Mr. Stolen stated that there were five key issues that he considered prior to requesting the elimination of the universal tier. The first involved financial impact of providing universal service on the cable system. He noted that Cable communication Advisory commission ' y February 1, 1988 Page 3 81 subscribers or approximately 6% of the total homes serviced by cable in Shakopee were universal subscribers. in addition to approximately $9,000.00 in operating costs that is being provided for the universal service, the cable company is losing approximately $30.00 everytime a person requests universal service. He noted that the cost to the cable company for providing underground cable to a residence is $65.00. The installation fee that is past on to the subscriber is $35.00. Additionally, Shakopee cable subscribers are not charged for service calls. Everytime a universal subscriber requests a service call it is costing the cable company approximately $35.00. Secondly, Mr. Stolen stated that if universal service was eliminated, persons who had HRC compatible TV sets (Cable ready) could eliminate the need for a converter box. Mr. Stolen stated he has received many calls from subscribers who are wondering why they cannot use there cable ready TV set and eliminate the converter box. Mr. Stolen stated that cable converter boxes are needed because this is the device that prevents universal subscribers from receiving all the cable channels. Through the elimination of universal service the cable company could ------ - - -eliminate the scramblers on the basic channels. This would then provide for the elimination of cable converters for persons with cable ready TV sets. Mr. Stolen did note that if subscribers wanted access to pay per view events and pay channels they would always need a converter box regardless of whether or not there TV is cable ready. By eliminating the scramblers in the head ends on all the basic channels, Mr. Stolen estimated that 5% of the head end related equipment failures could be eliminated. This ultimately reflects a 5% reduction in field related service calls. This would allow the cable company to spend approximately 5% more time on line maintenance in the field which ultimately effects picture quality to all subscribers. The elimination of universal service would also give the cable company the ability to realign some of their channels. Example: ESPN, a highly viewed cable channel could be moved to the lower service tier ie: channel 6, 7 or B. Mr. Stolen stated that from an operation stand-point this move would enhance not only the cable operation but it would allow the cable company to put local off air channels 23, 29 and 41 back on their proper channel designation. Thus eliminating much confusion for those people who have cable and are wondering where these channels are. Finally, Mr. Stolen stated that 1987 there were approximately 49 service calls to universal subscribers in Shakopee. At a cost of approximately $35.00 per service call to the cable company this Cable Communication Advisory Commission February 1, 1988 Page 4 amounted to approximately $1,900.00 in 1987. The cost for these service calls are being past on to other basic cable subscribers through increase rates. In other words, basic cable subscribers are subsidizing universal subscribers. Mr. Harrison questioned whether or not the cable company had a contract with a company to install service to persons who request it. Mr. Stolen stated that when the system was originally franchised they had a large contract with one contractor to install service. However, now that the majority of the homes in Shakopee have been wired for cable, he simply has an agreement with a contractor to do installs in Shakopee one day per week. Chairman Anderson questioned whether most of the cable drops were underground or overhead. Mr. Stolen stated that approximately 80% of the cable drops in Shakopee were underground. Chairman Anderson questioned whether or not the cable company had any data on how many cable converters could be eliminated if universal service was eliminated. Mr. Stolen stated that anywhere between 200-700 cable convertors could be eliminated if the universal tier is eliminated. Mr. Stolen also stated that at the present time there were 111 econovision subscribers and approximately 1,200 basic subscribers in Shakopee. He noted that- on March 1st, the econovison tier would be eliminated and rolled into basic service. Mr. Stock noted that the 1984 Cable Communications Act gave cable companies the authority to take this course of action. Chairman Anderson stated that in his opinion, the cable companies request was not unreasonable. He did however state that he felt there should be some type of equity deal for those persons that are currently subscribed to universal service. Mr. Stock stated that he was recommending that the universal tier service be eliminated providing that the cable company would provide free basic service to existing universal subscribers for 6 months. Mr Stock noted that in a survey of existing cable companies in the Metro area, only 2 systems have universal service. They are Shakopee/Chaska cable system, and Rogers Southwest (Hopkins, Minnetonka, Eden Prairie, Richfield and Edina) . A number of years ago, there were many other systems that had universal service but since the passage of the 1984 Cable Communications Act, they have been eliminated. In fact, Mr. Stock stated that ? from the law firm of Herbst and Thus advise that the City would have an uphill legal fight if they deny the cable companies request to eliminate the universal service. Mr. Stolen stated that it was not his desire to pursue this issue in court. He felt that equitable arrangement such as the one proposed by Mr. Stock would be acceptable to the cable company. In fact Mr. Stolen stated that he would be willing to give a free Cable Communication Advisory Commission February 1, 1988 Page 5 remote control to all universal subscribers during the 6 months of free basic service. Mr. Anderson questioned if the cable company had any data on how long the current universal subscribers have been on universal. Mr. Stolen stated that the cable company could get that information if it was important to the Committee. Mr. Harrison questioned whether or not the real issue here was the realignment of the cable channels. Mr. Stolen stated that yes, he did feel it was important for the cable company to bring some of the more higher viewed cable channels down onto the lower tier. But at the same time, the elimination of the universal service would save the cable company money which would eventually benefit the cable subscribers in the long run. Mr. Stolen stated that he had no intention of moving cable channel 3 from its current position. Mr. Stock noted that in the Metro area the trend has been to move local public access channels up to channel 33 and to maintain regional channel 6 at its current location. Mr. Stock stated that in his opinion it was important to maintain regional channel 6 at its current location. He felt that in the future this channel may play an active role in keeping residents informed in the Metropolitan area. Since the trend was to keep channel 6 at its current position he felt that the City of Shakopee should keep channel 6 at its present location. Mr. Stock also noted that the 1984 Cable Communications Act did give Cities the authority to maintain at least one access channel on the lower tier (channels 2-13) . Mr. Stolen stated that he is currently working on getting some of the FHA restricted channels activated. This would free up some of the channels in the 12-15 spectrum. Thus allowing the cable company to move some of their more highly viewed channels closer to the lower tier. Chairman Anderson and Commissioner MOonen stated that they agreed regional channel 6 could at some time be a very important channel for the Metropolitan area. Mr. Harrison stated that he is currently a universal subscriber and that he felt that Mr. Stock's proposal was an equitable solution to this problem. commissioner Abeln concurred with Commissioner Harrison's statements. Commissioner Moonen stated that while he did not like the idea of eliminating the universal service, given the legal position of the City he felt that the 6 months of free basic service to current universal subscribers was a good compromise. Chairman Anderson concurred with Mr. Moonen. Moonen/Harrison moved to recommend to City Council that Shakopee Cable franchise ordinance be amended to eliminate the Universal Service tier providing that the cable company would provide 6 months of free basic service and a remote control to all the Cable Communication Advisory Commission February 1, 1988 Page 6 current universal subscribers. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock noted that since this is a cable franchise amendment, a public hearing will have to be held at the City Council level and that a 2/3 vote of the City Council in favor of the amendment would be necessary for it to be passed. Chairman Anderson stated that he felt the cable company should send a copy of the public hearing notice to all the universal subscribers. Mr. Stolen stated that he would be happy to make sure all the current universal subscribers receive a copy of the public hearing notice. Mr. Lepley stated that he was pleased with the working arrangement between the cable company and the public access studio. He felt the cable company was doing an excellent job of providing cable service to Shakopee residents. He went on to state that in the last year, the cable system and the working arrangement between the studio and the cable company has improved dramatically. Chairman Anderson stated that he was somewhat disappointed in that the proposal for the City Hall did not include the provision of a cable ready Council Chambers. He noted that in his opinion, if a new City Hall is built, it should be fully equipped with remote control cameras to more effectively broadcast City Council meetings. He suggested that at the Cable Commissions next meeting they discuss this issue in greater detail. It was the consensus of the Committee that if any plans are drawn for another new City Hall, the Council Chambers should be equipped for broadcasting purposes. Commissioner Moonen stated that a very nice cable package could be purchased for the City Council Chambers for approximately $6,000.00 Harrison/Abeln moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Barry A. Stock Administrative Assistant CABLE2/1 TENTATIVE AGENDA REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 2, 1988 Mayor Dolores Lebens presiding 11 Roll Call at 7: 00 P.M. 2] Recess for H.R.A. Meeting 3] Re-convene 4] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 51 ARECOC�NITTIOONN BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS 6] Approval of7 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] Communications: *a] Robert Vierling re: Deliberate and intentional uttering of false statements by Tom Brownell and LeRoy Houser *b3 Julius Coller re: Hotel/Motel Tax c] Pat Schroers re: Meadows Addition Dust Problem 8] Board and Commissions: Downtown Committee: a] Downtown Mini By-Pass Cable Communications Advisory Commission: *b] United Cable Television and Ownership Transfer *c] City Council Chambers Video System 9] Reports From Staff: (Council will take a 10 minute break around 9: 00 p.m. ) a] Earl Dressen Property b] 1987-5 Upper Valley Drainage - Scherber/Clark Acquisition - Memo on table *c] 1987-5 Upper Valley Drainage - Status Update d] Hwy 101 Southerly By-Pass e3 Comprehensive Plan Task Force Appointment f] Smoking/Non-Smoking Policy *g] Surplus Property *h] Deferred Compensation Plan Adoption i] Approval of the Bills in the Amount of $769,516.86 *j] Request from League of Women Voters of Shakopee *k] Appointment to Community Development Commission 1] St. Francis Regional Medical Center Ambulance Subsidy aO4pa4STUTmpy AgTO uosaapuy •g Ugor 'M'd 00:L gp 88 1971 gsnbny 'Appsanl oq uano Cpy [ZT 17 fo [E :ssaursng zagg0 [TT ADTTOd 4Uamgs9nUl Up bUTgdopy Pup suolgopsuEaj guamgsanul bUTZTsoggny 'VC6Z *ON -sag [o sgaazgS p40�[p0 PUP pgosaUuTN uaamgeq anaaAV ggTT 90 UOT4PDPA bUTgpTgTUl '8Z6Z 'ON 'sag [q* gOaCOad zanas v 04S Pup anuany ggTT '9-886T 409COad 'spTB 209 Py buTzapao 'soads pup supTd buTAoaddv ' f E6Z -ON -sad (px :saOUVUTPa0 pup suOTgnTosag (OT 886T 'Z lSn`JnV OMS, fi9Yd ` CNaDV 2AIIVIN3S TENTATIVE AGENDA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting August 2 , 1988 Chairman Steven Clay presiding 1. Roll Call at 7:00 P.M. 2. Approve the July 26, 1988 Meeting Minutes 3 . Resolution Approving SCHRA Joint Powers Agreement for the Acquisition of the Former Women's Prison Site 4. Shakopee Valley Square (Bakken) T.I.F. Project 5. Purchase of Fairest Made Foods Building 6. Bergquist Company Development Package 7. Other Business a. b. 8. Adjourn Dennis R. Kraft Executive Director PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Adj . Reg. Session Shakopee, Minnesota July 26, 1988 Chairman Clay called the meeting to order at 7: 05 P.M. with Commissioners Wampach, Zak and Vierling present. Absent: Commissioner Scott. Also present: Mayor Lebens, John Anderson, City Admin. ; , Dave Hutton, City Eng. ; Dennis Kraft, Executive Director and Julius A. Coller, II, City Attorney. Wampach/Zak moved to approve the meeting minutes of July 19, 1988. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Zak moved to table the Resolution Approving a Joint Powers Agreement Between the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority (per the request of Scott County) . Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Vierling moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7:10 P.M. Jane VanMaldeghem Recording Secretary �3 MEMO TO: Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Executive Director RE: Resolution Approving Joint Powers Agreement Between Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (SCHRA) and the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) DATE: July 28, 1988 INTRODUCTION• The Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority is requesting that the HRA enter into a Joint Powers Agreement to allow the purchase of the former Women's Correctional Facility in Shakopee by the SCHRA. BACKGROUND: At the HRA meeting of July 19, 1988 the above subject was discussed at some length with representatives of the SCHRA and Scott County Government. At that time it was not possible to reach resolution on certain items in the Joint Powers Agreement. Specifically the HRA wanted Section 3 of the contract to be amended which clarified the rights of the HRA and the City with respect to property within the City of Shakopee. This issue has been addressed by the amended resolution attached. Another area of concern was that of a public hearing being held before the purchase of the property. The amended agreement does not contain a provision requiring a public hearing. The third area of concern expressed by the HRA related to certain transportation issues including the possible paving of Adams Street and the possible connection of Adams St. with Fourth Avenue. This agreement does not contain a Section relating to the aforementioned transportation issues. Also attached please find a copy of a letter from Clifford J. McCann, Deputy County Administrator on this subject and a copy of a newspaper article which appeared in this week's Shakopee Valley News relative to this subject. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Approve the amended Joint Powers Agreement as submitted. 2 . Do not approve the resolution. 3. Amend the resolution and attempt to negotiate a mutually acceptable version and then adopt the resolution. RECOMMENDATION• The HRA should discuss the matter carefully and decide what course of action it desires to take on this resolution. ACTION REOUESTED• Move to (a. ) approve or (b. ) not approve Resolution # 88-1 approving a Joint Powers Agreement Between the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority permitting the purchase of the former Minnesota Correctional Facility for Women by the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority. 3 OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR SCOTT COUNTY COURTHOUSE 110 k. SHAKOPEE, MN.55379-1382 (612)937-6100 JOSEPH F.RIES Administrator CLIFFORD IS.McCANN Deputy Administrator BARBARA NESS Executive Asst. July 27, 1988 Mr. Dennis Kraft Community Development Director City of Shakopee 129 East First Street Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Joint Powers Agreement Between City of Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority Dear Mr. Kraft: Enclosed please find a copy of the proposed Joint Powers Agreement between the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (County HRA) and the City of Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority (Shakopee HRA) to be considered at the August 2, 1988 meeting of the Shakopee HRA. Please note that Stefanie Galey, counsel for the County HRA, has amended Section 3 of the Joint Powers Agreeement to clarify the respective rights and interests of the Shakopee HRA, the County HRA and the City of Shakopee. This form of the Joint Powers Agreement is what will be presented to the Shakopee HRA on August 2, 1988. If you have any questions or would like further information, please feel free to contact either Bill Jaffa or me. Very truly yours, m 4dClifG. McCann unty Administrator CGM:jm Enclosure cc: Joseph F. Ries, County Administrator William I. Jaffa, Executive Director, Scott County NRA Stefanie N. Galey, Holmes 8 Graven An Equal Opportunity Employer Joint Powers Agreement This Agreement made and entered into as of the day of 1988, between the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority "County HRA") and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Shakopee ("Shakopee HRA"); WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the County HRA and the Shakopee HRA are each authorized to exercise the powers of a housing and redevelopment authority under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, within their respective jurisdictions; WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59 authorizes two governmental units to jointly or cooperatively exercise common or similar powers, including those which are the same except for the territorial limits within which they may be exercised; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties hereto, hereby agree as follows: Section 1. In order to further redevelopment including the elimination of blighted conditions within the City of Shakopee and Scott County, the Shakopee HRA authorizes the County HRA to acquire the land described on Exhibit A hereto, and to prepare the site for development. Section 2. All expenses incurred in connection with this Agreement or the project authorized hereby shall be the sole responsibility of the County HRA, and the Shakopee HRA shall have no liability with respect to payment of such expenses. Section 3. The Shakopee HRA shall have no rights with any respect to property acquired by the County HRA as authorized hereby solely by virtue of this Agreement, but the Shakopee HRA and the City of Shakopee shall have all of the rights which they normally have with respect to privately owned property within their jurisdictions. Such property shall be held and managed exclusively by the Countv HRA, with such rights with respect thereto as are normally incidental to ownership of property. years. Section 4. This Agreement shall remain in effect for a term of thirty (30) 1 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date and year first above written. SCOTT COUNTY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY By HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE By By 2 Purchase of prison hanging "ity county must reach agreement , . 13y Ano Schwartz $100,000 in financing for the 10- acro with Fourth Avenue through part of Special Correspondent .site: Qty TURA Anernbers said on the prison pmerty. County officials The Scott County Board will take : July 19 that they want it in the questioned the:proposed alignment one.more stab, at acquiring the ' agreement that a public hearing of the connection and how it would . former Minnesota Correctional -would be held to gauge the reactions- affect building plans an the site.Qty . Institute for:Women in Shakopee ai; " of .those. who - reside near the HRA officials said they did not En- a possible site for a criminal justice- 'property, which is across Sixth tend to block the-construction of i Center;but Will abandon the project. Avenue from the new state women's buildings, but wanted it in- an if--the.--city's - Homing and : correctional facility. agreement with the county so the Redevelopment Authority (RRA) -.- The requirement of the hearing is city would not be denied access to a :dries to approve'.a joint powers'". "a ._ - :. _:....... -' principle-"concern -from the nght of way. agreement. _ ..: : county-perspective in the joint ' The city HRA must be involved in dheSwtt County HRA will makes_ powers agreement, Cliff McCann, .the joint powers situation because ' Omsemafi n behalf of the county..:deputy- countyadministrator; the county HRA would purchase the at the City of Shakopee 'HRA reported Friday. property, which is in the city's I meeting Aug.2. Even without the agreement, a territory. Had the county itself - Despite county administrator Joe public hearing would be required forpurchased the land ratherthan.the, ides' recommendation toabort the a justice center at the site because' HRA; the joint. powers agreement project,the county board decided at the land 'is zened multifamily would not be necessary. � - - ' Tuesdays meeting not to abandon- _residential and a -conditlonal-use There a a possibledilemma for: :he site-just Yet, after:taking steps permitwould be needed. .: , -.::the county. if-- the,:joint -powers .he last several months to acquire.it. . Some city HRA members would agreement is approved. The por- Ries encouraged the board to wait like there to be an additional public chase agreement'...between- the :or a . recommendation from .a- hearing to stop the-project-if there county and state stipulates that ff -itizars' urlminsi justice:advisory was strong opposition to locating a the county.cmobtain HRA furan- .ommittee.:.which -is`studying "jail in the neighborhood: A-county crag;-it must close on -the- deal. aussible sites for a criminal justice jail 'typically houses -male- and Securing the financing and dosing .enter. .Thecommittee is'newlyn femaleoffenderssentencedwayear the deal,. however,-does 'not :ormed and has not met.yet, ar- or less. - - guarantee city approvalofthe cording[o Ries. y"h Qty HRAmembers alsoaskedcounty's-proposed jail facility and However,if the:wkmty=does not county officials- at the-July 19 government center. If the city does. . :seats option to hrtylhe property by. meeting-if tbey'.wouid--agree- to not approve the plans, the county`, . '.ug. 3. the.xfate-may.6nd anotherparficipate m the paving of a portion must still proceed with purchase of.. oyer n _i_, % : of Adams Street; and 'coenTy:of- the property and demolition of the. barrios to the}.county's' - 5cials agreed that that -was- not buildings eventhough it could not ._quisitioh of the property.rncudes:.�-._likely to beaproblem the HRA also use the site-for a'jail and govern-'' �ettuhgthe:Scott Comty and Qty of: -asked that the county ar�owledge menteenter. �nakapee- HRA:to racily.--a iomt . that the-sty meY be hhterested in - 'The county has already inamed.... ,o-�I'SuaKRemeOt,:.t4.., uarantee ._someday'.connecting,Adam.�Street. PALSON to page to - - Page 10 Shakopee Valley News July 28;1988 - Prisoncontinued from page 1 $8,500 in expenses from the removal telephone interview. "The state will of a 5,000 gallon underground fuel cwt be taking a position on the use of tank from the site. The county, the facility—though we would like it removed the tank before the final to be a public facility.If we can't sell purchase agreement was made,said .. the property for public use, we will. McCann, because it needed a offer the property for sale to the guarantee, before purchasing it, generalpublic." that the site wmrnI contaminated.if The state,which has been anxious the deal a not dosed, the county to unload the property since it was may have no way of recouping the vacated nearly two years ago, has $8.500. cooperated with the county by ex- "We are very supportive of selling tending the dosing date from July 22 the property to Scott Counry — we to Aug.3. have no objection to their intended Editor patrick Mmdi conutbuted to ase of the site," said Steve this story. MacKenthun of the state depart-- ' - ment of administrationin a - �y MEMO TO: Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Executive Director RE: Shakopee Valley Square (Bakken) T.Z.F. Project DATE: July 28, 1988 INTRODUCTION• On July 19, 1988 the HRA discussed the possibility of amending the Bakken Redevelopment contract (TIF Project $6) . This item is appearing on the August 2nd agenda as requested by the HRA at the July 19th meeting. BACKGROUND• At the July 19th meeting the HRA instructed the Executive Director to determine the financial status of the Shakopee Valley Square (Bakken) Project and also meet with Mr. Bakken and his attorney in an attempt to arrive at a mutually satisfactory amendment to the redevelopment contract. The Executive Director has met with the HRA's Financial Consultant and the financial parameters of the project are known at this time. As of the date of writing of this memo the meeting with Mr. Bakken and his attorney has not yet been held. It is anticipated that the meeting will occur some time between the date of this memo and the HRA meeting on August 2nd. The HRA should anticipate a verbal report on the Shakopee Valley Square Project at the August 2nd meeting. �s MEMO TO: Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Executive Director RE: Purchase of Fairest Made Foods Building DATE: July 28, 1988 INTRODUCTION• Mr. Bill Jongquist, owner of Fairest Made Foods has given the City/HRA the first opportunity to purchase his building in Shakopee. If the HRA is interested in this action it should be taken in the near future. BACKGROUND: For the past 12-18 months the City has been either negotiating with or dealing with Mr. Jongquist on a variety of zoning and possible redevelopment - related issues. Initially the property was rezoned from B-1 - Highway Commercial to Urban Redevelopment District Zoning. Subsequent to that the property was once again rezoned back to B-1 Highway Commercial. During this time the City also attempted to work with Mr. Jongquist on the possible relocation of his business elsewhere in the City of Shakopee. At that time Mr. Jongquist was also looking at other locations in the immediate area. Mr. Jongquist recently announced that he is in the final stages of purchasing a creamery building in the State of Wisconsin. It is his intent to close on that deal in the very near future and to move Fairest Made Foods to Wisconsin. Mr. Jongquist has indicated that certain members of the City Council/HRA have talked to him about the Fairest Made property. He has indicated that he would be willing to give the City the first opportunity to buy the Fairest Made Foods property. The methodology he suggests is one whereby he has an appraisal of the property, the City obtains an appraisal of the property, the difference between the two is then determined and the City buys the property for that amount. In considering whether to attempt to purchase this property the HRA should also look at the potential reuse of this property. From a redevelopment perspective the property would be of greater value to the City if the five properties located immediately North of the subject property (along the South side of First Avenue between Main and Fillmore Streets) , would also be obtained and cleared for redevelopment. A full block of property located on First Avenue would have some redevelopment potential. A half block of property (that owned by Fairest Made Foods) between the railroad tracks and alley one half block of First Avenue has much less redevelopment potential. Purchase of the property and removal of the structures would be of esthetic benefit to the City but the economic benefit does not appear to be readily apparent without additional property being purchased. In fairness to Mr. Jongquist the HRA should attempt to determine whether there is interest to purchase the property at this time. If not Mr. Jongquist needs to be so informed so that he can put the property on the market. Mr. Jongquist has indicated that he will attempt to sell the property to the City first and then to other potential purchasers. He does not have any interest in retaining ownership of properties he owns in the City of Shakopee. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Indicate a desire to purchase the property from Mr. Jongquist, order the Executive Director to obtain an appraisal of the property and start negotiations for it's purchase. 2 . Indicate that the HRA is not interested in purchasing this property. RECOMMENDATION• The HRA should discuss this item and determine if there is interest in purchasing the property. At this time the Executive Director is of the opinion that the property has very limited reuse capability unless substantial frontage can be provided for on First Avenue and the properties on First Avenue are cleared of the structures that are presently located there. ACTION REODESTED• Move to instruct the Executive Director to (1) indicate an interest to Mr. Jongquist on the purchase of the property or (2) indicate to Mr. Jongquist that the HRA is not interested in purchasing the Fairest Made Foods property. If interest exists by the HRA to purchase the property an appraisal should be ordered. MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Executive Director FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant RE: Bergquist Company Development Package DATE: July 28, 1988 INTRODUCTION• On July 27, 1988 staff met with three representatives from the Bergquist Company who are interested in constructing a facility in Shakopee. They have questioned whether or not the City will provide them with any development incentives to locate in our community. BACKGROUND: The Bergquist Company currently has a warehouse/ distribution/office facility in Edina. They also have an assembly plant in Cannon Falls. The current site in Edina does not provide for expansion possibilities. Therefore, they are investigating the relocation of their Edina facility to another location in the Metropolitan area. Bergquist officials are interested in acquiring the Kawasaki site in Shakopee (48.5 acres) . (see attachment #1) They are also considering constructing a 70, 000 - 100, 000 sq. ft. building. The plant would manufacture electronic switches. They are looking to initiate construction of the facility later this year. The facility would employ between 75 and 100 employees immediately. Given the nature of the firms business, there may be the possibility for expansion and the creation of additional jobs in the future. The estimated cost to construct the facility proposed by Bergquist including land costs is between $3, 000, 000 and $4,000, 000. Officials from Bergquist have inquired whether the City will assist them in locating their facility to our community. They have questioned whether tax increment financing or industrial revenue bonds would be available. They are also interested in hearing any other type of development incentive that the City would be willing to offer. Officials from Bergquist have stated that they would like a City response to their inquiry within 10-15 days. I would therefore recommend that a sub-committee (contact team) be created immediately to discuss the possibility of a development incentive package for Bergquist Companies. I would like to suggest that the contact team be comprised of the following: Community Development Director, one BRA member, one City Council member, and one representative from the Community Development Commission. If the HRA and/or City Council concur with staff's recommendation, I would like to establish a tentative meeting date for the contact team to discuss the possibility of a development incentive package in greater detail so that we can respond to the Bergquist Company in a timely manner. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Designate a representative from the HRA and the City Council to sit on the development team and establish a contact team meeting date. 2. Inform the Bergquist Company that the City of Shakopee is not interested in offering any development incentives at this time. 3. Make some type of financial commitment to the Bergquist Companies at this time and inform them accordingly. 4. Determine whether the HRA will seriously consider providing Tax Increment (TIF) and Industrial Revenue Bond (IDRB) financing assistance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternatives 41 and #4. ACTION REODESTED: Appoint an individual from the HRA and the City Council to sit on the contact team and set a meeting date to discuss the possibility of a development package for the Bergquist Companies. VALLEY FAIR AMUSEMENT PARK \S VALLEY'hOV8lRyr 8 [VtEY1NO NOgiH z 3 r r 1 r a [e'poo z 'aouiR � 5 z KAWAS4Kr STTE 9s.sa�. -- - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - ---T- - - -- - - - - - S MEMO TO: John R. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Ice Facility DATE: August 1, 1988 I have been advised by Councilman Scott that a number of residents would like to address the Council regarding a new idea for an ice facility. Since the agenda has already been printed, I suggested that they address the Council under Item 5 "Recognition of Citizens" and limit their presentation to five (5) minutes or so. JSC/tiv CONSENT Mr. Robert F. Vierling ,wLl 8M 7/17/88 221 East 4th Avenue Shakopee, Mn. 55379 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Mayor and City Council Members Re: Deliberate and intent- 129 East 1st Avenue - ional uttering of false Shakopee, Mn. 55379 statements by Tom Brownell and LeRoy Hauser. Dear Council Members and Mayor: Please reread my last letters to you and give me the courtesy of a reply directly from and signed by the Mayor and all the members of the City Council. If I receive a reply to enquiries from other than the above mentioned, I will consider it further harrassment and evasiveness on the City's part. If I had wanted an answer to my letters from John Anderson, I would have written to John Anderson! In my estimation, John Anderson is not trustworthy since he pas lied to me in the past, of which I have written proof. As to Chief Brownell refusing my gun permit, he has continued to lie about me, and the requirements necessary for a permit. First, Mr. Brownell stated that I must have a P.I. license; the State statutes (copy of statutes previously sent to the Council) state otherwise. Secondly, he then denied the permit on the basis that the carrying of money, stocks, bonds, etc., was my occupation, and therefore I needed a State license. He kncvIingly lied about this, as he knows full well that this is not my occupation. I do this only on a personal basis, not for hire. The statutes specifically state that for one's .personal use, a State license is not needed. In his last memo to the City Council, Brownell has set up a third denial in advance by stating in writing that I "have a special bodyguard". What garbage! This is apparently part of a vendetta, and he seems to be trying to protect his macho image as the all-encompassing Chief of Police of Shakopee. By doing this, he is denying my rights under the 1st and 4th amendments to the Constitution. He cannot set himself above State law[ As to our Mr. Hauser, he is deliberately lying regarding tanks on m' corner lot. He also states that Assistant Chief of Police, John Dubois, claims he saw fill pipes there. We all know the reason Dubois is backing Hauser in this; be- cause of the moonlighting project Dubois has on the side. As for S.M. Hentges stating he saw fill pipes there, what elswoould some- one like him say when he has already done his best to destroy my property, pipes, water pipes (which he calls fill pipes) when he is trying to ease out of his responsibility to make reparations? Mr. Hentges' credibility in this matter, and in many past ventures, is a big 0, and I'm sure the City is well aware of this through past dealings and reparations on Hentges' part. As for the so-called tanks in the ground, he's knowingly using this supposed issue to cover up for the City of Shakopee and Hentges. He mentioned elderly re- sidents who had supposedly confirmed these fill pipes. Isn't it odd that older people in the neighborhood that I spoke with recognized the sewer and water hook- ups for exactly what it is! (z) Letter of July 17, 1988 continued Also, for your information, none of the neighbors I spoke with showed signs of fearing "verbal abuse" from me, as Mr. Hauser states. We all had a good laugh over that one! I have conferred with Ms. JoAnn Henry and with Tom Clark, who are legal representatives for the Environmental and Pollution Control Unit for the State of Minnesota, and they have informed me as to my rights in this ridiculous situation. What my rights boil down to is this; feel free to dig up By property at your own expense, but (on their advice) be assured that I will be present when you also dig up all the other locations in the area who's sites I am more than willing to list for you[ I've informed the Environmental and Pollution Control Agency that the two above named members may come to my property and look for themselves at anytime in the future that they wish. But, as for the City of Shakopee, they will have to have my permission or a Court Order from now on before they ever again set one foot on my property! The exception being that you may, at your expense, mow the incredible weed patch of thistle, wild morning glories, Indian tobacco, crab grass, nut grass, etc.. (along with a newly sprung crop of marijuana) that S. M. Hentges and the City of Shakopee donated when they "rehabilitated" my corner lot. What a nice donation to my property and the community) Expecting to hear from you (in writing) very shortly, I remain, Sincerely yours, Robert F. Vierling Action Requested Move to receive and file. . 9r TO: Mayor, Councilmembers FROM: Tom Brownell, Chief of Police . RE: Robert Vierling Correspondence DATE: March 29, 1988 Mister Vierling made application for the renewal of his petmit to carry a handgun in public which I had 9 previously issued and requires annual renewal. (Mister stification for the permit is hisorting monies, stocks and bonds, and This is justification for the issuance of apermit, however it was brought to my attention that this occupation requires a license by the State of Minnesota. On two occasions I have written Mister Vierling requesting R\ a copy of the State license and received responses not relevant to the permit process. - >1 This matter has been reviewed with the city 's legal counsel who concurs with the requirement. x CONSENT 7b cJumus A. COLLEE, R JULIUS A.couea t=oa AT Lew ossa-.am w E s. ... ... SHAROPEE,MIN SOTA ' 68329 July 28, 19884�C� ,„Yt..'^ 3UL2 91988 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Shakopee City Council Shakopee City Hall Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Gentlemen: As the result of the change in law, the Attorney General has ruled that the Minnesota Statutes 447,018 does- not-now authorize collection of a tax against 'tourist courts'; It is my understanding that Valley Pair has paid the tax - this should be refunded. exev truly yours, J ins A, Colley, II akopee City Attorney JAC/bpm Sfi Memo To: Mayor & City Council From: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director Backstretch Campground has not paid any lodging tax to the City. Valley Fair has paid $1,799.33. Action Recuested Move to refund $1,799.33 to Valley Fair for lodging tax erroneously collected. 7c City Council July 29, 1988 City of Shakopee Ladies and Gentlemen: This has been the summer of our discontent. Hot, dry, DUSTY, No rain ever and an insouciant developer who seems to not notice our travail. I am referring to the Meadows Addition and to the developer, a Mr. Fleck. The winds are from the south and drive the dust at a great force through every tiny crack in o ur houses. For thse of us without air conditioning it is even wor as, as we have to keep our homes Lightly shut in 100 degree heat. Itis damaging our property inside and out. Household furnishings, carpeting, exterior paint shrubbery and ,just about everything else, is dev alued because of this relentless condition. We propose a wall of water along 11th Ave in the form of one of those large sprinklers used by farmers on their large fields. Because the field drops down behind 11th St this system could easily provide a stop ga p situation if only to prevent the,,worst- of it. It would also provide a Pscycological advantage to the many people suffering from allergies and asthma. I haven't even mentioned all the arduous hours of scrubbing, vacuuming, dusting two or thr ee times a day, even if the houses are tightly closed. We Feel that our city council should offer us some kind of protection from this deplorable condition which we are convinced will be plauging us for many years to come. Thank You for listening. The committee for settling the dust Pat Schroers Chairman MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Meadows Addition Dust Problem DATE: August 2, 1988 I received a call from Mr. Patrikus this morning who lives at 1042 South Prairie Street. He is unable to attend the meeting tonight, but wanted to respond to a letter he found in his mail box inviting him to attend the meeting tonight regarding the dust problem in his area. He said that he is not having any problems with the dust and that what he has experienced is no more of a problem than he has experienced in prior years. JSC/t1V 3CII MEMO TO: John E. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer and Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant RE: Mini By-Pass DATE: July 28, 1988 INTRODUCTION• On June 13, 1988 a meeting was held between City staff and the engineering consultant for the mini by-pass, Howard Needles, Tammen and Bergendoff (HNTB) . At that meeting several concerns were raised that needed to be addressed before proceeding any further with the design. On June 22, 1988 staff presented the concerns to the Downtown Committee for their review and comment. At that time, the Downtown Committee directed staff to investigate several questions before making a final recommendation to City Council. Upon further investigation, the Committee 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. BACKGROUND: On June 22, 1988 staff presented several concerns regarding the Downtown Mini By-Pass to the Downtown Committee for their review. The primary concern related to the elevation of Levee Drive and the height of the new bridge. The staff memo that was sent to the Downtown Committee addressing this concern and the alternatives for dealing with the problem are shown in exhibit ml. At the June 22, 1988 meeting the Downtown Committee directed staff to investigate several other issues as they related to the design of the bridge. Shown in exhibit $2 is the memo that was sent to the Downtown Committee for the Committee's subsequent meeting held on July 6, 1988 meeting. At that time, it was the consensus of the Committee to proceed with the original mini by- pass plan that did not provide for the extension of Levee Drive to the East. The Committee did feel that it was important to design the mini by-pass in such a fashion that Levee Drive could be extended in the future should it be deemed necessary. However, the Committee felt that at this time the need for the extension of Levee Drive to the East was not a high priority. The Committee felt that the potential for a one year delay in the project as a result of further investigation of the possible Easterly extension of Levee Drive was not in the best interest of the community at this time. (Potential delay due to Historical Society review) The Committee therefore moved to recommend to City Council that Levee Drive not be extended under the new bridge at this time but that the bridge be designed to allow for it's future extension should it be necessary. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Move to direct the design engineers to proceed with finalizing the plans for the mini by-pass including the provision of an 8' high pedestrian underpass and the construction of the bridge in such a fashion to allow for the future extension of Levee Drive. 2. Select one of the other alternatives as shown in attachment #1 which would provide for the extension of Levee Drive at this time. 3 . Table this issue pending further information from staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 41. ACTION REODESTED: Move to direct the design engineers to finalize the plans for the mini by-pass including the provision for an 8' high pedestrian underpass in the construction of the bridge in such a fashion to allow for the future extension of Levee Drive. Exhibit #1 MEMO TO: Downtown Committee ,}.-�� Q/ FROM: David Hutton, City Engineer �,� SUBJECT: Mini-Bypass �" DATE: June 15, 1988 INTRODUCTION: Preliminary design is proceeding on the downtown & minibypass and Highway 169 Bridge. Before proceeding any further with the design, several important concerns need to be resolved. BACKGROUND: On June 13, 1988 a meeting was held between City staff and the engineering consultant for the minibypass, Howard, Needles , Tammen, and Bergendoff (HNTB) . At that meeting several concerns were raised that need to be addressed before proceeding any further with the design. Representatives of HNTB and City staff will be attending the next Downtown Committee meeting to review the preliminary design plans and to discuss these concerns. Review and comments from the Downtown Committee is a normal step before these design issues are discussed by City Council. The parameters used in preparing the preliminary design plans of the minibypass are as follows: 1 . Levee Drive will be extended to the east in the future. 2 . The minimum clearance allowed by Mn/DOT for Levee Drive going under the bridge is 14 ' 6" . 3. The bridge is aligned up with Lewis Street, even though no access will be provided to the bridge from Lewis Street. 4. An alley would be constructed along the minibypass to provide rear access to properties located along 1st Avenue. 5 . Existing building elevations dictate the elevation of the alley because of drainage considerations. MAJOR CONCERN: Using the preliminary design parameters, the elevation of Levee Drive will need to be lowered by approximately 9 feet directly under the new bridge to provide adequate vertical clearance for vehicles. This will result in a retaining wall along the north side of Levee Drive approximately 21 feet high and a retaining wall between the alley and the minibypass of approximately 4 feet high (see attachment $1 ) . The elevation of the new bridge would then be approximately 6 feet lower than the existing bridge. Minibypass June 15 , 1988 Page 2 For comparison purposes, the existing retaining wall along Levee Drive at the Hwy. 169 bridge is 8 1/2 ft. high. The concern is, will the project meet the Committee and the City Council goals of "tying together" the Minnesota River, the Trail system and Downtown Business if there is a 21 foot high retaining wall between Levee Drive and the new minibypass for almost two blocks (from Holmes to Sommerville)? Or, as an alternative, the 4 foot high retaining wall between the alley and the minibypass could be designed higher, thereby reducing the wall along Levee Drive which would still maintain Levee Drive through the new bridge. The main questions that need to be addressed in discussing these concerns are as follows: 1 . What role will Levee Drive play in the future? Should it be extended through the bridge or not? If not, the property east of the bridge as well as the public boat access would need to be served by another road possibly Bluff Avenue extended. 2. What is the present and future development status of the property east of the bridge? Will it be all park lands (Huber Park) or will some development occur? How would extending or not extending Levee Drive or Bluff Avenue affect the future users of that area? 3. Due to the elevations of Levee Drive (9 feet lower) access to the existing Recreation Building needs to be addressed. If the Recreation Department is moved within the next 2 - 5 years, is existing access critical? 4. Is the public boat access ramp to the river permanent or can it be relocated elsewhere in Huber Park? 5 . What is the affect of the bridge on the new restroom along the DNR trail? 6 . Are retaining walls desired to separate the minibypass from the alley or downtown business? They may be necessary regardless; are the height, type and appearance important? 7 . Can the bridge over the Minnesota River be raised and what affect does that have on the overall aesthetics and the ability of the project to "tie-in" the River, DNR Trail System and Downtown Businesses. �0�- Minibypass June 15 , 1988 Page 3 The tradeoffs between extending Levee Drive east versus the overall height of the new bridge needs discussing. The issue of Levee Drive being extended impacts the following three interrelated items associated with this project: namely, ( 1 ) the height of the bridge, (2) the elevation of Levee Drive and (3) the elevations of any retaining walls along the bypass or alleys. The following alternatives illustrate how interrelated these items are: Alternative 11 Assumptions: Levee Drive will be extended and the underpass clearance required by Mn/DOT is 1416" . Impacts on Design: • Levee Drive will need to be lowered by 9 ft. at the bridge. (Lewis Street) • The height of the new bridge will be 6 ft. lower than the existing bridge. • The retaining wall between the alley and the minibypass will be 4 ft. high. • The retaining wall between Levee Drive and the minibypass will be 21 feet high. Summary: This alternative provides for thru traffic on Levee Drive but creates difficulty in providing access to the existing Recreation Building and requires a large retaining wall along Levee Drive. The key question is when will Levee Drive be improved to the east and for what purposes (uses)? Alternative #2 Same assumptions as Alternative # 1 , only Mn/DOT would be persuaded to allow a 10' clearance for a local street, such as Levee Drive. Impacts on Design: • Levee Drive will be lowered by 4 1/2 feet at the bridge. • The bridge will be 6 ' feet lower than the existing bridge. • The retaining wall between the alley and the minibypass will be 4 ft. high. Minibypass June 15 , 1988 Page 4 • The retaining wall between Levee Drive and the minibypass will be 16 1/2 ft. high. Summary: Same as Alternative 11 except the Levee Drive retaining walls will be 4 1/2 feet lower ( 16 1/2 feet high) . Alternative #3 Still assumes a 10 ' vertical clearance of Levee Drive, but raises the retaining wall along the alley 2 feet higher (to 6 feet high) to provide more of a visual separation of the bypass. Impacts on design: • Levee Drive would be lowered 2 1/2 feet at the bridge. • Bridge would be 6 feet lower than the existing bridge. • The retaining wall between the alley and the minibypass will be 6 feet high. • The retaining wall between Levee Drive and the new bypass will be 14 1/2 feet high. Summary: Same as Alternative #1 except the Levee Drive retaining wall will be 6 1/2 feet lower ( 14 1/2 feet) and the retaining wall between the alley and the minibypass is 2 feet higher (6 ft. high) . Alternative #4 Do not extend Levee Drive thru the bridge, but provide an 8 foot high pedestrian trail only. The elevations of Levee Drive, the retaining walls and the bridge discussed on Alternatives 1-3 could then be determined based on an 8 foot clearance versus the initial 14' 6" clearance in the preliminary plans. Summary: This alternative would result in additional costs in providing an access to the existing boat ramp from the east. The cost for a minimal access road (gravel) would range from $20 ,000 to $40 , 000 depending on the amount of grading needed to bring the road up to acceptable elevations, and might be offset by reducing the size of the Levee Drive retaining walls . It would also permanently end any proposed extension of Levee Drive to the east. Minibypass C�/ June 15 , 1988 Page 5 ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Discuss the major design concerns and make a recommendation to City Council. 2. Instruct staff to explore other alternatives not discussed above and bring any new information back to the Committee at the next meeting. 3 . Let City Council deal directly with these major design concerns. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 to discuss the overall concerns as it affects the downtown and make a formal recommendations to City Council. REQUESTED ACTION: Once all discussion has taken place and if the Downtown Committee has reached a consensus on all the issues , staff should be directed to make a formal recommendation to City Council for their discussion and action. DH/pmp BYPASS . I . . F ... V .. 6 . . . . . . . . - . . . .. ..... ..... .- . .. .. .. r . . . . : 1 . . . _._O ..._. ... -.... J _. . .... . . . . . . . - . . A' -'. . . . . . . . : : . : ......_ . ..... .. . . . . . . . . . . . ' -.� I . . - .:. - ..... j . : 1 - . : - . . . . . . . . ......................................... .: . .. - ' - r S _ . C` I at : - ; . . . j: r- . . i� i.:. . .. - 4 . . . . . . _ - . . . .: . . . . . _ - ...... ... ..... ... - . . . . . . .I •. . . . - ... ... _ . :.. l :� . . . . . . . . . . .. - a :.: j i . a 1 y.: � 4 ... < s. ti I . 4 [ � .. ... ... r + s . .. .: _ _ . _ . y � . _ . .... . . . . . . . . . . . 1 : . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . n . . . . . . _ —. . . . : . . . .. . . . . .. . n . 1 . . . . �' t - . .` t. G n y E . :..... : .. . I J !r' : . G 1 Z o..'... o 'w t 2 _ : . . . . . . . . . . : : . . . . . : : _ . . . .. . : . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . .. . . . i . . . . . . : _ : : : : . . . . . . . . _ . , . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . _ . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . _ . . : . . . . . . . � : : : : : : : : : : . . . . . . . . - . . . . _ . , . . . 1: : : : : .........:......................................:...................:...................:...................:.......................................:...................:...................:..... _ : . . _ . . . . . f . . .. . . . 1 l. . . . . . . . . . . , . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1: : : : :: :'' . ; , . . . . 1 n r . . . t. . . . . . . �f . . . . . . . �'. . "A y 1 . � k �x } ' I � ............ . .. .. . . . . . ... . j . . ' m .: , . t.: 1. �i II . . . . . . _ . ti . _ : . . . . . . . . . : ^I . . . . J . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . : j . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . : . . - . . . . . . : . �. . . : . : . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . : ` . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . { . . . . . . . . . . Nil < .[ . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - . . . . . ........................ .. La ..... ._.._ .._. .. . . ... ..... 4 �' r_F... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P. l ;,� .! . . . . .:.: u.. � E l . .: ..: _ . . : . . . . . . Exhibit *2 a.- MEMO /MEMO TO: Shakopee Downtown Ad Hoc Committee FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant and Dave Hutton, City Engineer RE: Mini By-Pass DATE: June 28, 1988 INTRODUCTION• On June 22, 1988 staff presentee 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 and 4 in the downtown area and Huber Park can 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) . This alternative also recognizes that the bridge head will be moved 15' to the East to avoid the trail restrooms. BACKGROUND: Several weeks ago staff reported that should the City desire to have Levee Drive extended under the new bridge at this time, potential negative design impacts could result. For example, should Levee Drive be extended with an underpass clearance of 141611, retaining walls between the alley and the mini by-pass (4') and a retaining wall between Levee Drive and the mini by- pass (211) would be needed. Increasing or decreasing any of the following three items would have an impact on the bridge design and it's esthetic quality as it relates to Downtown Shakopee: Namely, 1. The height of the bridge, 2. The elevation of Levee Drive and 3 . The elevation between the retaining walls along the by-pass or alleys. on June 22, 1988 the Downtown Committee directed staff to pursue the following: 1. Analyze the future land use for Blocks 3 & 4 and Huber Park. 2. Investigate the need for an alley on Block 3 and 4 . 3. Work with past consultants to complete a traffic analysis on the need for Levee Drive assuming the completion of all the downtown redevelopment elements. 4. Determine whether or not the boat launch could be relocated. 5. Re-establish Mini-Bypass Advisory Committee. 1. Block 3 & 4 Land Use Analysis Staff believes it is important to look at the future land use of Huber Park and Blocks 3 and 4 . However, staff believes 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. With the current design, Levee Drive could be extended if traffic studies warrant it in the future. The future land uses for Block 3 and 4 will have minimal impact on the bridge or mini by-pass elevations. At our last meeting, there was some concern about the ability to install underground parking on Blocks 3 & 4 should the by-pass be constructed. Staff believes that regardless of the elevation of the mini by-pass, underground parking could be installed. A more thorough analysis could take anywhere from 3-4 months and would require consultant assistance and Council authorization for funding. A representative from Westwood Planning and Engineering will be present to answer questions regarding future land use issues and the potential impacts of the proposed alternative. 2. Block 3 & 4 Alley At the present time an alley is being proposed on Blocks 3 & 4 to provide delivery access to the affected businesses. The alley would provide a convenience to those businesses currently receiving deliveries. If an alley 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 have any real impact on the bridge design. It is purely a convenience and aesthetic issue. 3. Levee Drive Extension 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. In an effort to move the project along, staff is recommending that the -Downtown Committee recommend to City Council 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, a 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 Dr. is extended in the future the retaining wall would be approximately 16' high. 0- Staff would also like to point out that the original mini by-pass plan reviewed by the Historical Society did not include the possible extension of Levee Drive to the East. To include the 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. Extending Levee Drive to the East could require excavation that would interfere with the foundation remains identified by the Historical Society. Therefore, it would be prudent for the City to proceed as originally proposed (8' pedestrian underpass and footings) . 4. Boat Launch If staffs recommendation is pursued, it is possible that the City would have to construct a road access to the existing boat ramp from the East. The approximate cost estimate for this improvement is between $20,000 and $40, 000. This of course assumes that the boat ramp would stay in it's present location. Based upon my conversations with the Department of Natural Resources, it appears that the boat launch could be relocated. 5. Mini By-Pass Advisory Committee Staff agrees that it would be helpful to re-establish the mini by-pass advisory committee to review design, elements and their potential impact on the Downtown. Staff would recommend that at least one of the Downtown Committee members be appointed to serve on the committee. Summary Staff fully intends to complete an analysis of the issues as directed by the Downtown Committee. However, in an attempt to keep the project moving ahead, staff is recommending the aforementioned alternative. The analysis of the long range planning issues presented by the Downtown Committee could take any where from 2 - 3 months and may be expensive if - outside consultants are needed for assistance. Proceeding with the proposed alternative will not delay the project any further and will provide for the future extension of Levee Drive. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Recommend to City Council that Levee Drive not be extended under the new bridge and that the bridge be designed to allow for its, future expansion should it be necessary. Additionally, the bridge design should include an 8' high pedestrian trail underpass. 2. Table this issue pending further staff investigation of the land use issues as discussed by the Committee at their last meeting. 3 . Do nothing and let City Council deal directly with the design concerns. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative kl. ACTION REOUESTED: Move to recommend to City Council that design engineers be given the go ahead to finalize the plans for the mini by-pass including the provision for an 8' high pedestrian underpass and the construction of the bridge in such a fashion to allow for the future extension of Levee Drive. BRIDGE CONSENT 1?b MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant RE: United Cable Television and ownership Transfer DATE: July 27, 1988 INTRODUCTION: Mr. Steve Stolen (United Cable Television Administrator) has informed the City in writing of a proposed ownership transfer of United Cable Television Corporation to United Artist Communications Inc. (See attachment #1) The proposed transaction requires City approval. BACKGROUND: On July 25th, the Shakopee Cable Commission met to review the proposed cable transaction. Section 14.02 of the Shakopee Cable Franchise ordinance outlines a procedure to be followed whenever the transfer of all or a majority of the grantees stock occurs. (See attachment #2) . The Committee felt that the proposal outlined by Mr. Stolen did constitute a transfer of stock (ownership) and therefore necessitates City Council approval. However, the Commission felt that the proposed transfer as outlined would not have an adverse effect on the cable system and/or cable subscribers in Shakopee. In fact, the Commission felt that the proposed transaction would solidify United Cable Televisions position in the cable industry and enhance the service being provided to our local subscribers and perhaps even reduce subscriber costs in several areas, such as pay per view movies. The Cable Commission therefore moved to recommend to City Council approval of resolution # 2952 as shown in attachment #3. Technically the proposed transfer is for only 1% of the organizations stock. The remaining 99% will continue to be held by the limited partners. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Move to approve Resolution # 2952, approving the transfer of ownership of United Cable Television to United Artist Communications Inc. 2. Direct the appropriate City officials to schedule a public hearing to hear comments from Shakopee residents regarding the proposed transaction between United Cable Television and United Artists Communications Inc. 3 . Table this issue pending further information from staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #1. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to offer Resolution # 2952, approving a change of ownership of United Cable Television Corporation to United Artist Communications Inc. Attachment #1 UNITED CABLE TELEVISION �J OF CARVERISCOTT COUNTY July 5, 1988 Barry Stock Administrative Assistant City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Barry: In March the news media announced the "merger" of United Cable Television Corporation ("United") and United Artists Communications, Inc. ("UACI"). While an agreement was reached at that time, the details of the transaction are just now being finalized. Therefore, we have been unable to provide you with adequate information concerning the transaction until now. Contrary to what nay have been reported in the media, neither the cable system in Shakopee nor the franchise granted by the City of Shakopee is being sold, transferred, merged or changed in any fashion. The system in Shakopee is owned by Zylstra-United Cable Television Limited Partnership, doing business as United Cable Television of Shakopee ("2ylstra-United"). Zylstra-United was formed with the investments of approximately 30 individual investors, as its limited partners, who own a substantial majority of the partnership interest and by Zylstra-United Cable Television Company. The two general partners of ("ZUCT") are wholly owned subsidaries of United, its general partner, holding a minority interest in ("ZUCT"). Zylstra-United will continue to own and operate the Shakopee system as in the past and the same general and limited partners will continue to own 2ylstra-United, subject of course, to the right of the limited partners to sell their interest to ZUCT, as contemplated by the original partnership offering. There will be no change in local management or operations as a result of this transaction. Although certain news reports indicated that United and UACI would be merged and cease their separate existences, such is not the case. United will continue as a separate, ongoing entity. Under the terms of the definitive agreement, through a series of steps made necessary by tax considerations, all of the out- standing capital stock of United ultimately will be owned by United Artists Holdings, Inc. rather than by its current public shareholders. The United Artists parent company, United Artists Entertainment Company, will be a public company whose stock is traded in the national over-the-counter market. Tele- communications, Inc., a company that presently owns 65% of UCAI and 42% of United, will own between 55 and 60% of the stock of the United Artists parent 1R7 C9ef 1e1 A ,ano w Cf,pbnnne \Atnneenf+ Mx"D • (C"A "g Alml Company. In addition to the ownership and management of cable television systems that will serve 2.3 million subscribers, the United Artists family of companies and operates a national chain of movie theaters and owns and develops real estate having a substantial value. Gene Schneider, the Chair- man of the Board of United, will be the Chairman of the Board of the United Artists parent company. Fred Vierra, the President and Chief Operating Officer of United, will be the Chief Operation Officer of the United Artists parent - company. To assist you in understanding the current structure of Zylstra-United and ZUCT, we have included with this letter a schematic drawing depicting the entities involved and theirrelationshipsboth before and after the conclusion of the proposed transaction. We believe that it is apparent from the above description of the proposed transaction that no transfer of the franchise will occur nor will there be a change in the ownership or control of Zylstra-United, the holder of the franchise. In these circumstances, we suggest that this is not a transaction of the type that requires a consent by the City of Shakopee. Nevertheless, it is important to all concerned that an amiable, straightforward and cooperative relationship be maintained among Zylstra-United, ZUCT, the City of Shakopee and our subscribers and accordingly, we consider it appropriate to request that the City Council be fully informed of what is to transpire and adopt an ordinance (or resolution, as appropriate) acknowledging notice of and approving the above described transaction. To assist in that effort, we have prepared the enclosed form of ordinance which we respectfully request be considered and adopted by appropriate Council action. Upon the adoption of the resolution, we would appreciate receiving a certified copy for our records. Should you have any questions concerning the proposed transaction, please contact me. Very truly yours, ZYLSTRA UNITED CABLE TELEVISION COMPANY zza Steven General hanager Enclosures SS;kh SHAEOPEE SYSTEM CURRENT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE < Pranchise Holder > Zylstra-United Cable Television Limited Partners dba United Cable Television of Shako ee b Limited Partners < General Partner > . 993 Zylstra-United Cable Television Company 1% <General Partner <General Partner> Carver-Scott United Cable County Cable, Inc. Television of 503 Chaska, Inc. 503 1 < Parent > 1003 United Cable Television Corporation SHAKOPEE SYSTEM NEW ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE < Franchise Holder > Zylstra-United Cable Television Limited Partners dba United Cable Television of Shako ee Limited Partners < General Partner > 99$ Zylstra-United Cable Television Company 1% <General Partner> <General Partner> Carver-Scott United Cable County Cable, Inc. Television of 50$ Chaska, Inc. 50$ < Parent > 100$ United Cable Television Cor oration < Parent > 100$ United Artists Holdings Inc.1 1 < Parent > 100$ United Artists Entertainment Com an 1 40-95$ 1 55-60$ Public Tele-Communi Stockholders cations, Inc. Attachment #2 SECTION 19 . MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 19.01 Compliance with Laws. Grantee shall comply with all the state laws and rules regarding cable communications not later than one year after they become effective , unless otherwise stated. Grantee shall comply with all federal laws and regulations regarding cable communications as they become effective. Grantee shall also comply with all City ordinances, resolutions, rules and regulations heretofore or hereafter adopted or established during the entire term of the Franchise. 19 . 02 Sale or Transfer of Franchise. A. Any cable communications franchise granted by City shall be a privilege held by Grantee for the bene- fit of the public. Except for any assignment or mortgage which accompanies the initial financing of the System, this Franchise shall not be sold, assigned or transferred, either in whole or in part, or leased, sublet or mortgaged in any manner, nor shall title thereto, either legal or equitable, or any right, interest or property therein, pass to or vest in any person without full compliance with the procedure set forth in this section. This section shall include sale or transfer of all or a majority of a corporation 's assets, merger (including any parent and its subsidiary corporation) , consolidation, creation of a subsidiary -96- corporation or sale or transfer of stock in a cor- potation so as to create a new controlling interest in the System. The term "controlling interest" as used herein is not limited to majority stock ownership, but includes actual working control in whatever manner exercised. 1 ) The parties to the sale or transfer of this Franchise shall make a written request to the City for its approval of a sale or transfer of this Franchise. 2 ) City shall reply in writing within thirty ( 30 ) days of the request and shall indicate appro- val of the request or its determination that a public hearing is necessary due to potential _ adverse effect on the company' s subscribers. 3 ) if a public hearing is deemed necessary pursuant to (2 ) above , such hearing shall be con- ducted within thirty (30 ) days of such deter- mination and notice of such public hearing shall be given pursuant to Board regulations. - 4 ) Within thirty (30 ) days after the public hearing, the City shall approve or deny in writing the sale or transfer request. 5 ) The City shall notify the Board of the transfer of any interest in the System Of this Franchise in accordance with the then applicable -97- rules, regulations or laws. The notification shall be accompanied by the written certification of the transferee that it meets all of the requirements with respect to technical ability and financial stabi- lity demanded of the original Grantee. 6 ) Grantee , upon transfer, shall within sixty (60 ) days thereafter file with the City a ' copy of the deed, agreement, mortgage, lease or other written instrument evidencing such sale, transfer of ownership or control or lease, cer- tified and sworn to as correct by the Grantee. B . In reviewing a request for sale or transfer pursuant to Section A above , the City may inquire into , the qualifications of the prospective controlling party i and Grantee scall assist the City in so inquiring. The City may condition said transfer upon such terms and conditions as it deems appropriate. In the absence of extraordinary circumstances , the City shall not approve any transfer or assignment of the Franchise prior to 1 substantial completion of construction of the System, as determined solely by the City. In no event shall a transfer or assignment of ownership or control be -- approved without the transferee becoming a signator to this Franchise. 14 .03 Expiration. Upon expiration of the initial term -98- Attachment e3 RESOLUTION NO. 2952 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE APPROVING A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OF UNITED CABLE TELEVISION CORPORATION, PARENT COMPANY OF UNITED CABLE TELEVISION OF CHASKA, INC. AND CARVER-SCOTT COUNTY CABLE, INC. , GENERAL PARTNERS OF ZYLSTRA-UNITED CABLE TELEVISION COMPANY, DBA UNITED CABLE TELEVISION OF CHASKA, THE CURRENT HOLDER OF A FRANCHISE AUTHORIZING THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM IN THE CITY. WHEREAS, Zylstra-United Cable Television Limited Partnership-Minneapolis Suburbs, a Minnesota limited partnership ("Grantee") is the duly authorized holder of a franchise (as amended to date, the "Franchise") authorizing the operation and maintenance of a cable television system and authorizing Grantee to serve the City of Shakopee (the "Grantor") with cable television services; and WHEREAS, Zylstra-United Cable Television Company, a Minnesota partnership ("Zylstra-United") is the general partner of Grantee; and WHEREAS, Carver-Scott County Cable, Inc. , a Minnesota corporation ("Carver-Scott") , and United Cable Television of Chaska, Inc. , a Colorado corporation ("UCT-Chaska") are the general partners of Zylstra-United; and WHEREAS, United Cable Television Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("United") is the sole stockholder of Carver-Scott and UCT-Chaska; and WHEREAS, Grantee has advised the Grantor that the outstanding capital stock of United is to be sold and after such sale is to be held by United Artists Holdings, Inc. ; and WHEREAS, the Grantor believes the above-described transaction does constitute a transfer of stock and ownership and therefore does require approval of the Grantor. NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, that: Section 1. To the extent that the consent of Grantor is required by the terms of the Franchise and applicable law, the Grantor to approve the change in the ownership of the stock of United that is described in the recitals hereto. Section 2 . The approval herein granted does not constitute and shall not be construed to constitute a waiver of any obligations of Grantee under the Franchise. Section 3. The Grantor hereby affirms that the Franchise is validly held in the name of the Grantee and is in full force and effect. Section 4 . This Resolution shall take effect and continue and remain in effect from and after the date of its passage, approval and adoption. Adopted in 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 as to form this day of , 1988. City Attorney CONSENT MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant RE: City Council Chambers Video System DATE: July 27, 1988 INTRODUCTION• In an effort to improve the cable casting of the Shakopee City Council and Planning Commission meetings, staff and the Cable Commission has investigated several alternatives. BACKGROUND• For the past- two years the Shakopee City Council in cooperation with the Shakopee Community Access Corporation have been broadcasting the City Council and Planning Commission meetings live. At this time, these meetings are the most highly viewed public access programs in the community. In the past we have received several complaints from residents regarding the poor picture quality of these meetings. Several weeks ago, I requested the Access Coordinator to investigate alternatives for resolving the problem. Approximately two years ago the City improved the sound system in the Council Chambers. This action did resolve the audio problems for persons viewing the Council meetings. Shown in attachment #1 is a memo from Mr. Bill Lepley outlining the current video system in place and an alternative to resolve the problem. Two years ago, the City of Shakopee agreed to a franchise amendment releasing the cable company of their responsibility to provide several character generators to institutional users in the community. In turn, the City's Access Corporation received $5, 000 in cash to acquire necessary cable equipment as requested by the institutional users. At this time, the Shakopee Access Corporation has approximately $3,000 remaining in the institutional user equipment fund. Note that the Shakopee School District did request $2,000 from the fund to acquire a character generator. This request was approved by the Access Corporation earlier this year. The Access Corporation is willing to commit the remaining funds in this account to improve the video system in the Council Chambers. Upon review of Mr. Lepley's proposal, the Cable Commission moved to recommend to City Council that the appropriate City officials be directed to contact the Access Corporation with a request to acquire the video equipment as outlined in Mr. Lepley's proposal. The Cable Commission felt that to acquire a more elaborate video system at this time would be foolish given the size of our current Council Chambers. The system proposed can be added on to at a later date and will be operated by remote from the Cable Studio by Public Access personnel. This system will be provided and operated by the Access Corporation at no cost to the City. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Move that the appropriate City officials be directed to request the Access Corporation to order the equipment necessary to improve the video system in the Council Chambers at no cost to the City. 2. Direct staff to investigate other alternatives for improving the video system in the Council Chambers. 3. Dc not improve the Council Chambers video system. 4 . Table this issue pending further information from staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #1. ACTION REOUESTED: Move that the appropriate City officials be directed to request the Shakopee Access Corporation to acquire the equipment necessary to improve the Council Chambers video system at no cost to the City. New Frontier Productions Inc. d BROADCAST - INDUSTRIAL - CONSUMER 137 E. First Ave., Suite B • Shakopee, MN 55379 VIDEO SPECIALISTS (612) 445-6152 M E M O R A N D U M To: Mr . Barry Stock City of Shakopee Re: City Council Cablecasting Date: June 13, 1988 I am enclosing the recommendations to improve the cablecasting of the Shakopee city council and the Shakopee planning commission meetings as you requested. The main problem consists of two major factors at this time, one being the quality of picture and the other being the production aspect. I would like to address these separately and then give an overall solution to both. 1. Quality of picture- Currently a Panasonic PK-802 camera is fixed in place in the council chambers on the rear wall. This camera was purchased a little more than 6 years ago by Zylstra-United cable company as required by their franchise agreement. This camera was intended for use as a 1/2" portable field production camera . The life expectancy of this camera was to beapprox. 4 years with occasional use. As with public access, this equipment has been used quite a bit more that the normal consumer would have used it and therefor its life expectancy has been considerably lower . The Panasonic PK-802 camera also incorporates a tube to pick up and record the images to be cablecast, this is now old technology. A new solid state "chip" has been developed for most of the cameras in todays market. The chip cameras have greatly improved a cameras life as well as reducing maintenance costs associated with tube cameras . The current camera because of its physical age is on its very last leg. It is not cost efficient to retube a camera of its current value and age, in fact parts are no longer available for that model . The "chip" cameras have many reasons for being todays choice in selecting new video equipment, they are excellent for low light situations, the pick up device cannot be burned by bright lights, their life expectancy is 7 to 10 years, low power consumption and they are very durable . It is my strongest recommendation that any new video equipment be of the chip variety. 2. Production aspect- Currently the existing camera is wall mounted to the back of the council chambers and is fixed on a wide shot of the council table. This is not very pleasing to the home viewer but because of space and personell costs it is unfesable to have a camera operator in the council chambers during city meetings . Therfore I would suggest using a remote control to operate the camera from the public access studio next door . The remote control would allow the public access studio person to zoom in and out, adjust focus, pan right and left, and tilt up and down the camera during meetings and presentations . If the camera were to be place approx. in the middle of the chambers and ceiling mounted, it would have the flexibility of not only covering the council members but also presentation materials . New Frontier Productions Inc. BROADCAST - INDUSTRIAL - CONSUMER 137 E. First Ave.. Suite B • Shakopee, MN 55379 VIDEO SPECIALISTS (612) 445-6152 I would like to recommend the following equipment for the city council chambers . I have included bid prices from South West Audio Visual for the complete system including installation. South West Audio Visual is an Authorized Panasonic CCTV dealer located in Shakopee . List South west price Panasonic WVCD110AKT Camera $1335.00 $1035.00 Panasonic WVLZ81/6 Lens 673.00 609 . 00 Panasonic WV7230 pan/tilt 690 .00 565.00 Panasonic WV7430 Cont. 161.00 131. 25 Panasonic WV 7060 ceiling mt. 46 . 00 30 . 00 Control cable 146.00 96.00 Installation 480.00 325. 00 CT 1380 13" mon/rec. 399 . 00 325.00 ________ ------- 3939 .00 3116.25 These prices will increase from Panasonic 48 to 8% effective Oct .lr 1988. This equipment can be moved and installed in a new city hall. This proposal will allow the public access person to operate the camera from our studio and add titles and information crawls across the screen. Sincere wbl cc : no qL?1 TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator OM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk(fir i RE: Earl Dressen Property DATE: July 28, 1988 INTRODUCTION: According to your 3 part memo dated July 26, 1988, City Council would like to review the Earl Dressen Industrial Park land sale. The parcel in question does not front on any public right-of-way. BACKGROUND: The City of Shakopee owned a 0.25 acre track of land lying just easterly of the old Kaufman and Broad facility just off the existing frontage road. The City leased this parcel to Mobil Oil Corporation for the storage of bulk oil being in 1951. In 1979, Mr. Earl Dressen on there behalf, asked the City to consider selling the property to them. On June 19, 1979, Council authorized the sale of the property for $7,500. On November 7 , 1979, proper City Officials executed a warranty deed to Earl F. Dressen. Subsequent to purchasing the property from the City, Mr. Dressen has approached the Council regarding the fact that his property does not abutt public right-of-way. There is a small strip of property owned by Viking Steel Products, Inc. which lies between Mr. Dressen's property and City right-of-way. Attached are copies of previously written memo's regarding this matter. At the time the property was sold to Mr. Dressen, the parcel in question was not surveyed. There had been access to the parcel since 1951 and no one questioned the fact that the parcel might not have access to public right-of-way. It is Mr. Coller's opinion that by virtue of using access all these years, Mr. Dressen's parcel does in fact have a right of access. At the time of the sale of the parcel by the City to Mr. Dressen the City cancelled a lease with Mobil Oil Corporation which lease provided for a $750.00 per year fee. Rather than purchase the parcel in 1979, had Mr. Dressen continued to rent the parcel from the City at the rate of $750.00 per year, Mr. Dressen would have paid to date $6,750. 00 in rent over this 9 year period and would still not own the property. After going through court proceedings, in 1985 the City and Viking Steel Products, Inc. signed a stipulation and agreement rendered by the 1st Judicial District Court stating in concept that there is a 24.5 foot road running along the Eastern most boundary of the Viking property. Mr. Dressen's property does not abutt the road; however, Mr. Dressen has obtained an easement from Viking Steel Products Inc. running from his property to the road. This easement must be renewed annually and costs Mr. Dressen $15.00 per year. ACCESS TO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF WAY: Pursuant to the current City Code, a parcel must abutt public right-of-way prior to issuance of a building permit. The provision of the City Code became effective on October 25, 1979. Sale of the parcel to Mr. Dressen actually took place on November 7, 1979, although Council action for the sale took place in June. Be that as it may, adherence to the current City Code is now required. The Planning Commission is currently considering amending this portion of the City Code. They have had a public hearing regarding the amendment. It is my understanding that the Planning Commission will be considering a recommendation to the City Council at their next meeting on August 4, 1988 regarding amending the City Code. For._further _information regarding- this matter please see attached memo from the City Planner dated July 11 1988._ If this section of the City Code went to be amended, it would still be necessary for Mr. Dressen to obtain a permanent driveway easement to his property prior to obtaining a building permit. Of course he could also offer to purchase the small portion of property between his property and the road from Viking Steel Products Inc. The City Code requires that when a parcel is divided the parcel be platted. According to subdivision regulations the City would not allow the creation of a lot which does not abutt right- of-way. If the public complies with the subdivision requirements, no new parcels will be created without their abutting right-of-way. The parcel Mr. Dressen owns was subdivided from a larger parcel long before the current code came into effect. I£ Mr. Dressen desires to build on the parcel, he will need to: a) acquire additional land so as to abut right-of-way or b) if the City Code is amended to allow for exceptions, he will need to acquire a permanent driveway easement. SUMMARY: Council has been discussing for some time the issue of the sale of City property to Mr. Dressen in 1979 which property did not and does not abutt public right-of-way. The City sold the property to Mr. Dressen in good faith with the City having clear understanding that there was access to the property. It has been clearly established through a court of law that there now exists a 24 1/2 foot roadway lying along the easterly boundary of the Viking Steel Products Inc. property. Mr. Dressen has obtained an easement from Viking Steel Products Inc. to his property which easement must be renewed annually. Effective January 1, 1989, Mr. Dressen's purchase of the property for $7,500.00 will equal the amount of rent he would have paid over the 10 years he has owned the property at the rate of $750.00 per year. Mr. Dressen has indicated to me that he has no desire to build on the 0.25 acre parcel at this time. ALTERNATIVES• I believe this is a separate issue and should not be intertwined with the Council action taken on July 5, 1988 requiring Mr. Dressen to discontinue parking oil trucks in a residential district. If Mr. Dressen should decide he would like to build on the parcel his alternatives are: 1) Purchase additional property from Viking Steel Products, Inc. 2) Obtain a permanent easement from Viking Steel Products, Inc. 3) Purchase property elsewhere to build upon. RECOMMENDATION• Move that the City sold the 0.25 acre parcel to Earl Dressen in good faith and that if Mr. Dressen desires to build that he must comply with the City Code at the time he takes out a building permit. MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Dedication of the Roadway East of Viking Steel as a Public Highway DATE: February 12, . 1982 Introduction City Council , at its December 15, 1982 meeting, considered the above subject as it related to providing access to the Dressen Oil property which the City sold to Dressen Oil. Council tabled the item and directed staff to explore a more complete solution since the simple dedication of the north/south roadway East of Viking Steel still left the Dressen property without access to public right-of-way. Complicating the issue is the fact that the Shakopee Public Utili- ties Commission (SPUC) has a north/south power line adjacent to the north/south roadway on Viking Steel property. Ray Peterson of Viking Steel would like to see both problems resolved if a solution is going to be pursued. i� Alternatives Explored 1. Maintain the status quo. Pros : This alternative does not require the taking of any property from Viking Steel, it fits SPUC' s preference (SPUC does not own the right-of-way (R-O-W) over which its power lines run) which is to maintain the status quo until a future date when plans for the development of the area are more concrete, there is no current threat by Viking Steel to deny Dressen Oil access to their property, and the City could wait to acquire the appro- priate road R-O-W when the area is platted for develop- ment. Cons: This alternative leaves Dressen Oil ' s problem of proper access to public R-O-W unresolved, and the problem of roadway and utility lines on private property unresolved. 2. Dedicate the 24' wide roadway East of Viking Steel as a public highway and ask Dressen Cil to acquire the land between their property and the roadway from Viking Steel . (The City could acquire it as well) . Pros : This alternative enlarges Dressen Oil ' s property and provides them access to public R-O-W of the size that they apparently need for convenient loading and unload- ing of trucks (see map) , it does not require that the City purchase any R-O-W, Mr. Peterson of Viking Steel won't consider such a sale but it allows SPUC to main- tain the status quo. Cons : The alternative requires Dressen Oil to finance a per- manent solution to its access problem and requires that Mayor and City Council February 12, 1982 Page Two the City take property from Viking Steel for the road- way. It does not solve the problem of the SPUC power line on Viking Steel ' s property. 3 . Dedicate the 24 ' wide roadway East of Viking Steel as a public highway and have the City purchase a narrow 24'-30' wide strip of land from Viking Steel for Dressen between Dressen Oil and the roadway to create a "flag lot" that would front on public R-O-W. Pros: This alternative is the same as Alternative #2 above and recognizes the fact that the City sold a land locked piece of property and issued building permits for it. Cons: This alternative would require more expenses for the City, would require the taking of Viking Steel property, would not solve the SPUC power line on Viking Steel property, and would provide minimal access for Dressen Oil ' s vehicles. 4. Have the City attempt to obtain a private agreement with the railroad to provide access to Dressen oil over their R-O-W (see the map) . Pros : This alternative would probably cost very little and would be much like alternative #1. Cons : This alternative has the same drawbacks for Dressen Oil as alternative #1. 5. Have the City trade future park dedication from land owned by Viking Steel for the property between Dressen Oil and the roadway. Pros : This alternative would resolve the matter to Dressen Oil ' s satisfaction with or without the dedication of the roadway as public highway and would have the other benefits of Alternative #1. This alternative was suggested by Mr. Peterson. Cons : The City would be purchasing the land in question with future park dedication fees or land even though it is called a "trade" and requires no cash outlay by the City. Summary and Recommendation Earl Dressen, Dressen Oil, believes he purchased the property in question ( i.e. the property between that which he currently owns and the north/south roadway) in good faith. It was checked by lawyers who apparently only commented on the title and never looked at the access question. Without the access his belief is that the City could not have sold the parcel for the price it obtained. Mayor and City Council February 12, 1982 Page Three Ray Peterson, Viking Steel, would like to see the total problem addressed and resolved permanently. Finally, it is probably in the City' s and SPUC ' s best interest to maintain the status quo until development pressure requires platting at which time the City and SPUC could probably obtain the needed R-O-W without buying it. This might or might not solve the pro- blem of Dressen Oil ' s land locked parcel . The City cannot issue a building permit for land lock property that does not front on public R-O-W, under our present subdivision ordinance. Therefore, the Dressen Oil property is probably worth less than when it was purchased. The question for City Council is simply, does the City have an obligation to help resolve the j problem? If so, which alternative is the most appropriate? It must be remembered that the City cannot condemn the property because it will not be for a public use so this limits our alternatives. If Council decides that the City does have an obligation to help resolve the problem, then I recommend alternative #3 or #5. Action Requested Direct staff to pursue alternative #3 or #5. .TKA/jms Mo -41 Y�rI�v 4 atehlli 4405-,Mll IT / • - � . MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John R. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Dedication of the Road Way East of Viking Steel as a Public Highway DATE: May 27 , 1983 r Introduction City Council, at its regular February 16 , 1982 meeting, considered the attached staff report regarding the problem of providing access to the Dressen Oil property which the City sold to Dressen Oil. Council directed staff to pursue alternative 3 or 5 in that report. Following that directive there were a number of neetinfs held with Ray Peterson, Earl Dressen, Lou VanHout and myself. These meetings uncovered no common ground for a solution to the problem(s ) and I did not actively look for a solution until recently. Recent Discussions : New Alternatives Recent discussions with Ray Peterson regarding the problems involved in establishing proper access to the Dressen Oil property lead to the discovery of an even more critical problem. The City and Ray Peterson both have a liability exposurethat, goes far beyond the norm for a typical City street and a typical abutting property owner. If Ray Peterson is using his property to store pipe and a vehicle wonders off _he traveled roadway and plows into the pipe, who is negligent? Mr. Peterson or the City. Clearly, both parties would be drawn into a law suit and the Court would make a determination as to which party was negligent. Neither the property owner, Mr. Peterson, or the City staff members i have talked to believe that we should continue with the status quo given the potential liability exposure. Mr. Peterson has suggested that he close the road and staff agrees . This alternative, alternative No. 6 , does not address Earl Dressen' s access problem. However, it will allow Mr. Peterson full use of the property 'hat has been used for roadway and that he has paid taxes on. I have reviewed this alternative with the City Attorney and with Lee Hennen of Capesius Agency. They both believe that closing the road is a logical way to resolve the dual exposure that both parties have to law suits. The City Attorney has suggested that both ends of the road be closed and properly signed since the road has been used as a public street for so many years. Such a closure would allow Dressen Oil and Viking Steel access from the north but vehicles could not travel farther south that their driveway entrances. Recommendation I have discussed alternative No. 6 with Earl Dressen and Lou VanHout in addition to the people mentioned above. ASain, it does not solve Mr. Dressen' s problem of access which was the request that initiated this investigation 18 months ago. Council can review Dedication of the Road Way East of Viking Steel as a Public Highway Page Two May 27 , 1983 alternatives 1 through 5 in the staff memo attached. However, it is my recommendation that the City pursue alternative No. 6 . Action Requested Direct staff to cooperate with Mr. Ray Peterson to properly close the roadway east of Viking Steel to public access , and to sign the road so that the traveling public knows that it is officially closed. JXA/jms Q� MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council 9� FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator / RE: Viking Steel Road DATE: July 29, 1983 Introduction City Council, at its June 7, 1983 meeting, tabled a staff memo which recommended the closing of Viking Steel road. Council ' s action was based upon new information provided by Councilmember Lebens in the form of a map which seemed to indicate that the roadway had been dedicated at some time in the past. Findings TheCountyAuditor was contacted and we have determined that Ray Peterson has been paying taxes on that portion or Viking Steel road from Fourth Avenue to Highway 101 _hat has been maintained by the City. I have received written confirmation of this from Bob Schmidt of the Scott County Assessor' s office. Judy Cox has contacted Dave Moonen who has done a preliminary investigation of the existance of a road lying east of Viking Steel and Dressen Oil property. He checked the County Recorder ' s Office in the tract index for any described document delineating such a road and found no record describing the road. He also examined County naps and found no road indicated on the maps . For approximately $200.00 he will do a complete abstract trans- cript on the property in question if we want a more thorough investigation. We have also reviewed the resolution authorizing the sale and ransfer of the property in question dated August 3 , 1960. The resolution is attached and includes some awkward wording about excepting "any streets , alleys , drives or public land laid out and used by the City at date hereof". Neither the City Engineer or the City Attorney feel that this language provides the City with a strong case for claiming the roadway. The only sure thing the City has is the ability to acquire the road through adverse possession and the pros and cons of this have been outlined in earlier memos . Additional , I checked with the railroad and they have no record of a private crossing or a public crossing at this location. The railroad has indicated an interest in resolving the ownership of the crossing so that the responsibility for the maintenance of the crossing will be well defined. Possible Alternatives 1. If the City decides it wants to take the road through adverse possession it will also be required to clarify the ownership of the rail crossing with the railroad. Of course, the rail- road is seeking to eliminate as many public and private crossings as possible so they would be more amenable to a private crossing with limited use than a public crossing with heavy use. Viking Steel Road - Page Two July 29, 1983 2. It has been suggested that the City or Dressen Oft might be able to obtain an easement paralleling the railroad from the existing crossing running west to Dressen Oil ' s property. The railroad has stated that under no circumstances will they grant such an easement. 3. It has been suggested Dressen Oil might be able to obtain a private north/south crossing of the railroad track at their property. Again, the railroad will not grant such a private crossing. 4. With the City taking the lead, negotiate a private crossing in the name of Viking Steel and Dressen Oil at the present crossing location. The negotiations would include the City' s commitment to close the road and relinquish its claim to the road and, Viking Steel either granting a permanent easement to Dressen Oil or selling Dressen Oil a small parcel creating a flag lot that connects the current site with the jointly held agreement with the railroad for a private rail crossing. Finally, the negotiations would require that the railroad credit the City with the closing of one public rail crossing to provide the City with some additional flexibility as it plans collector street crossings between County Road 17 and Scott Street. This alternative has been discussed with Ray Peterson and John Zima and Virgil Stein of the railroad and they are willing to investigate the alternative further. I have not yet talked to Earl Dressen about this alternative. Recommendation The alternatives above are similar to alternatives discussed in two previous staff memos. Each memo has served to refine our thinking about the future status of the road and to expose additional facts regarding the current status of the roadway. I believe that alternative No. 4 has the most potential to reach a settlement that will address the concerns of all the parties involved. While giving up the roadway may seem like a radical act, the roadway was only used moderately before it was blocked off by Mr. Peterson and we have received no com- plains at City Hall since it was blocked off. Moreover, the `- City' s comprehensive plan does not call for any new roads or any collector street connecting Fourth Avenue with Highway 101 between County Road 17 and County Road 83. For these reasons I recommend that we continue to pursue alternative No. 4 and drop our efforts to establish proof that the City already owns the roadway. Action Requested Direct staff to continue negotiations with the railroad, and Viking Steel to find a mutually agreed upon resolution to Mr. Earl Dressen' s access problem. JKA/jms 41164 06� CITY OF SHAKOPEE INCORPORATED 1870 w 129 E. First Ave. - Shakopee, Minnesota 553791376 (612) 4453650 w August 17, 1983 Mr. Ray Peterson Viking Steel East Highway 101 Shakopee , MN 55379 Re: Closing of "Viking Steel Road" Dear Mr. Peterson : The Shakopee City Council , at its regular August 16, 1983 meeting, reviewed my memo of July 29 , 1983 regarding the status of "Viking Steel Road". After considerable discussion, Council chose not to pursue the alternative outlined in my memo and voted unanimously to direct the City Attorney to contact you to obtain the opening of the road. They further directed the City Attorney to take appropriate legal steps if you chose not to cooperate with the reopening of the road. I recognize that City staff , you and Mr. Dressen have worked for almost two years on a possible solution to the problems involving the three parties. Council simply decided that the problem could not be adequately resolved until further study and/or planning is done regarding traffic patterns in the area, and therefore decided to stay with the status quo. You will be receiving a formal contact from the City Attorney in the near future and if you have any questions regarding Council 's action please contact me. Sincerely, IJKhn K. Anderson City Administrator JKA/jms cc: Julius Collor, City Attorney The l l , o r l n l P r o g r e s s V a l l e y An Epu9l nefineO�+/v mp�nvo. -t*y a- MEMO TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Issuance of Building Permits to Property Not Abutting Public Right-of-Way DATE: July 1, 1988 INTRODUCTION: At their meeting on June 9, 1988 the Shakopee Planning Commission opened a public hearing on the amendment of Zoning Code Section 11. 03, Subd. 7 I. which states "No permit shall be issued for any lot or parcel which does not abut a dedicated public street". At the meeting on June 9, 1988 the Planning Commission heard comments from interested parties and continued the public hearing_ until July 7, 1988. The Planning Commission also directed City staff to meet with residential and industrial property owners on private roadways prior to the July 7, 1988 meeting. BACKGROUND: Zoning Code Section 11. 03, Subd. 7 I states "No building permit shall be issued for any lot or parcel which does not abut a dedicated public street" . Although this provision has been in the City Code since 1979, the City has not strictly enforced this provision until last fall. Since October of 1987, the City has not been issuing building permits to property which does not abut a public street. At their meeting on June 9, 1988 the Planning Commission opened a public hearing on a proposed amendment to this Section of the Code which reads as follows: I. No building permit shall be issued for any lot or parcel which does not abut a dedicated public street except under the following conditions: 1. Properties located within an approved Planned Unit Development where the streets are constructed and maintained by the Planned Unit Development Association. 2. Parcels of property being accessed by a private road or drive-way easement serving two or less parcels of property when the individual parcels being served were parcels of record either prior to enactment of this Chapter or prior to annexation by the City. At the June 9th meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to meet informally with both residential property owners and industrial property owners on private roadways. These meetings were held on June 28th and June 30th. Discussion at these meetings focused on the possibility of developing an additional alternative or exception which would allow property owners to receive building permits while their streets remained in private ownership and under private maintenance. At the same time the City must maintain it's responsibility of insuring a proper and safe access to the property. The Planning Commission at their June 9th meeting also directed staff to prepare alternative wording which would allow existing uses on private roadways to receive building permits to maintain their property similar to what is allowed for a non conforming use. At the June meeting it was brought to the attention of the Planning Commission that a permit was issued to property not on a public street. Attached is a copy of the permit, apparently this permit managed to slip through the review process. Staff is making adjustments to the review procedures to avoid having this happen again. For further background material please refer to previous memos on this subject dated February 25, 1988 and June 1, 1988. ALTERNATIVES• 1. The Planning Commission could pass a motion recommending to the City Council that Section 11.03, Subd. 7 I of the City Zoning Code be amended to read as proposed at the June 9, 1988 hearing. 2. The Planning Commission could pass a motion recommending to City Council that Section 11. 03, Subd. 7 I of the City Code be amended after changing the provision outlined at the June 9 , 1988 meeting to allow properties located on private roads serving more than two parcels to receive buiiding permits when certain conditions have been met. These conditions should guarantee the City's ability to maintain it's obligation of insuring proper and safe access to all properties. 3 . The Planning Commission could pass a motion to not change Section 11. 03, Subd. 7 I of the City Code thereby not allowing any building permits to property which does not abut public road. 4 . The Planning Commission could pass a motion recommending that Section 11. 03 , Subd. 7 I be deleted from the City Code. 5. The Planning Commission could continue the public hearing until it's next meeting and direct staff to draft further changes to the proposed amendment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative n2. T6LI The staff recommendation is based upon input at the June 9 meeting and the June 28 and June 30 meetings with individual property owners. Following these meetings Planning staff discussed options with the City Assistant Attorney and City Engineer and recommends that the proposed language for Subdivision 7 I be changed to allow the following: 1) Existing properties on private roadways should be allowed to receive building permits to maintain and improve their property. 2) The City could allow building permits to be issued to property abutting private roadways if an alternative mechanism for insuring that proper and safe access is provided to the property. Staff recommends that Section 11.03, Subd. 7 I be amended to read as follows: "I. No building permits for a new principle structure or addition to a principle structure shall be issued for any lot or parcel which does not abut a dedicated public street except under the following conditions: 1. - Properties located within an approved Planned Unit Development where the streets are constructed and maintained by the Planned Unit Development Association. 2. Parcels of property being accessed by a private road or drive-way easement within the individual parcels being served were parcels of record either prior to enactment of this Chapter or prior to annexation by the City. - Access drives and roads serving these parcels must comply with the requirements contained in Section 11. 60, Subd. 19 entitled Access Drives and Access. Existing private roadways serving two or more parcels of property shall be approved by the City Council (Section 11. 60, Subd. 19 A.S. ) • Private roadways serving two or more parcels of property must comply with the following requirements: (a) A property owners association or maintenance agreement for the road must be executed granting the responsible party for maintaining the road the right to assess all properties benefitting from the roadway for the costs of maintenance. The agreement shall also grant the City the right to enter and maintain the roadway when it deems nece costs of such maintainto safe ebackaccess to the charge the entity or property owners. (b) The Council shall require the roadway to be brought into compliance with city roadway standards within a five year period (c) The council may stipulate that the road must be dedicated to the City as a public street when a certain level of traffic volume This and/or leveo£devetralopment occurs on the roadway. fic and/or development shall be determined by the City Council upon recommendation of the City Engineer. amendrow y� MEMO TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Issuance of Building Permits to Property Not Abutting Public Right-of-Way DATE: June 1, 1988 INTRODUCTION: Zoning Code Section 11. 03 , Subd. 7 I states "No building permit shall be issued for any lot or parcel which does not abut a dedicated public street" . At their meeting on April 21, 1988 the Shakopee Planning Commission passed a motion setting a public hearing on an amendment to Section 11. 03, Subd. 7 I of the Zoning Code. With the proposed amendment to Section 11. 03, Subd. 7 I will read as follows: I. No building permit shall be issued for any lot or parcel which does not not abut a dedicated public street except under the following conditions: 1. Properties located within an approved Planned Unit Development where the streets are constructed and maintained by the Planned Unit Development Association. 2. Parcels of property being accessed by a private road or driveway easement serving two or less parcels of property when the individual parcels being served were parcels of record either prior to enactment of this Chapter or prior to an annexation by the City. BACKGROUND: For background please refer to the attached memo on this subject dated February 25, 1988. The City Planning staff sent copies of the hearing notice to property owners identified as owning property on private roadways which do not abut public right-of-way. The City Planner has received a number of phone calls from these property owners and has suggested that they attend the public hearing. CONSIDERATION: 1. There are currently several property owners who would like to receive building permits to construct improvements on their property which does not abut a public right-of-way. The proposed amendment to the code would not affect the majority of these property owners and they would still have to dedicate their roadway to the City prior to being able to receive a building permit. 2 . The proposed amendment to the code would only exempt parcels in an approved Planned Unit Development or which are located on a roadway or easement serving two or less parcels of property. Properties located on a private road which serves more than two parcels of property would be required to dedicate the road prior to being able to receive a building permit. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The Planning Commission could pass a motion recommending to the City Council that Section 11.03 Subd. 7 I of the City Zoning Code be amended to read as outlined above. 2. The Planning Commission could pass a motion recommending to the city Council that Section 11. 03 Subd. 7 I of the City Code be amended after changing the provision outlined above to allow properties located on private roads serving more than two parcels to be exempt. This could be accomplished by either striking the words "two or less" in the second exception or replacing the number two with a larger number. 3 . The Planning Commission could pass a motion to not change Section 11. 03 Subd. 7 I of the City Code thereby not allowing any building permits to property which does not abut public road. S . The Planning Commission could pass a motion recommending that Section 11. 03 Subd. 7 I be deleted from the city Code. 5. The Planning Commission could continue the public hearing until it's next meeting and direct staff to present the Planning commission with further information and/or change the wording of the proposed amendment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 41. Ta, MEMO TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Issuance of Building Permits to Property Not Abutting Public Right-of-Way DATE: February 25, 1988 INTRODUCTION• Zoning Code Section 11. 03, Subd. 7 I states: "No building permit shall be issued for any lot or parcel which not abut a dedicated public street. " There are a number of parcels in the City which receive access either through private roadways or private easements across other property and wish to receive building permits for improvements to their property. The City is presently prohibited from issuing permits to these properties until the City Code is amended to allow the issuance of the permits, or until the private roads and driveways are dedicated to the City. Over the last several months the Planning Commission has been discussing this issue and has continued the discussion to their March 3, 1988 meeting. BACKGROUND: At their meeting on October 8, 1987 the Board of Adjustment and Appeals passed a motion requesting the City Council to review and propose a course of action in dealing with private roadways within the City of Shakopee. The City Council at their meeting on October 20, 1987 passed a motion directing the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on an amendment to City Code Section 11. 03 , Subd. 7 I which would allow issuance of building permits on private roadways. Since that time the Planning Commission has been discussing various options of how to deal with the issuance of building permits for properties not abutting public roadways. Prior to October 8 , 1987 the City had not been strictly enforcing this provision of the City Code. At the October 8 , 1987 meeting the Board of Adjustment reviewed a variance request for Q-Carriers located on a private road. The Board of Adjustment passed the variance request. On October 13 , 1987, the City staff received a letter from the City Attorney indicating that no permit could be issued for property not abutting a public right-of-way and that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals could not legally grant a variance to allow issuing of a building permit for these situations. Since that time the City has not issued any building permits to property not abutting a public roadway. Currently there are several property owners who would like to construct buildings this spring and fall into this category of owning property that does not abut a public roadway. There are basically three separate types of situations which are affected by this provision o: the code: 1) Property within an approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) which fronts on a private roadway that is constructed within the PUD to City specifications and maintained by a PUD association; 2) Private roadways serving parcels of property that either were divided prior to enactment of the City's subdivision requirements or were divided prior to annexation into the City; and 3) Parcels of property that do not abut a public roadway and access across another parcel of property by way of a private driveway easement. These parcels are also parcels that were divided prior to enactment of the City's Subdivision Code or annexation to the City. Enclosed you will find a map showing private roadways located within the City. City staff will be prepared to discuss these private roads at the March 3rd meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Section 11. 03 , Subd. 7 I be amended to read as follows: - I. No building permit shall be issued for any lot or parcel which does not abut a dedicated public street except under the following conditions: 1) Properties located within an approved Planned Unit Development where the streets have been constructed to City specifications and are maintained by the Planned Unit Development Association. 2) Parcels of property being accessed by a private road or driveway easement serving two or less parcels of property when the individual parcels being served were parcels of record either prior to enactment of this Chapter or prior to annexation by the City. The staff recommendation would require properties now located on private roadways serving more than two parcels to dedicate the roadway to the City before a building permit can be issued. Once the roadway has been dedicated to the City it would be incumbent upon the City to improve the roadway to current City standards for local streets. - ALTERNATIVES- 1. Planning Commission can concur with the City staff's recommendation and direct the staff to set a public hearing on the proposed zoning code amendment for the April 7 , 1988 meeting. 9 � 2 . The Planning Commission can amend City staff's recommendation by either eliminating one or both of the exceptions recommended by City staff, or adding an additional third exception to account for roadways serving more than two parcels. The Planning Commission should then direct City staff to set a public hearing for the April 7, 1988 meeting. 3. The Planning Commission could pass a motion informing the City Council that the Planning Commission does not wish to change the code from the way it is presently worded and therefore does not wish to set a public hearing. If the Planning Commission chooses this course of action the City Council will then have the option to set a public hearing on the change itself, if it so desires, and take whatever action it deems appropriate. 4. The Planning Commission could decide to amend the City Code by eliminating provision I entirely from the Code thereby not placing any specific requirements for access on individual properties. If the Planning Commission selects this course of action it should direct staff to set a public hearing for the April 7 , 1988 meeting to amend the code in this manner. ACTION REODESTED: Pass a motion directing staff to proceed as outlined in the above alternative selected by the Planning Commission. II ;o�—K A- 1 x rl APPLICATILiN FOR gUILDING rERMIT 9 SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 612-445.3650 B.P. NO. l2wXT TO COXIRCiE X uBEwEO SPACES ONLv / P,DJELT ,DOPE$$ 23F'C' FO11/ F /7C I'D 5149609Lf a1 lr z DwNE4D1LAND --11 LF La ( 14 Pi%uo 1/7T/1 DESCRIPTION OF LANDRv, LOT.LOCA , .ETEl ADDITION. PA. ,A, NO: METES AND EOuxpS eLAi r) tiu N 73,//S�L7r . ...LILw NT ' �OI w U.+rans �,9Eu A'lj. , ME r 5 CONTRACTOR SRIti .-. AO DRESS SCRt .+v 'IOP G -L �DORFSAS _ I 6 CLASS OF WOpK Dsc` ADDITION ❑.ALTERATION aaEPAIR []-MOVE O-RAZING o7HOUSE -SIGN VL p�PATIO ®PORCH Q STORAGE BLDG Q TANK 0 DRIVEWAY F)-FENCE �1 ✓n �/ y1 ( / C)-GARAGET. USE OF STRUCTURE . eV1/ aeI'I/- K ^/SLE S/�- ( G &. / �,1Gn S. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT E �.-.0 /. /� �( 2�rA 1 [ 5'5 i � � X_ >( IiPfv Dcf-4 ATrAr htD Tn SrY?EEnJ �nIEG i-,n C 6rZ 9. DLOGWIDTN / BLDG LENGTH BLDG HEIGHT / 10. ESTIMATED COST DR VALUE: 5 A3 SPACE BELOW FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY -- C OF LO,.Si .DT wL SO FEET i,RE EDXE XD Ow FLUNG GX:TSIOCLUPw NCT CROUP NO OF St OIIIES VSE 30NF DIV ISIOX •a OCC LOAD TIRE SPRIXCLE PS Dec ST nE ET P ,NL SPACES IREOO GTES OCOVE9ED wVNLOV CAED� LIMITING CONDITIONS APPLICATION APPROVALS Ordinance No . 115 -Easement Restrictions - attached _ 4 ` )L /3/�Q CITY-$ONIXGONIXG ADw,IM15 t4ATTRATOR DATE j COMMENTS /�� U�7 E-N-/G,��Ej ER /f��/� DATE f It CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL DATE fle ! [� MANDLAND ICATION FEES N� S C% I, SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL. PLUMBING. MECHANICAL. SEPTIC C.O. S TANK,SIGNS,AND WELL INSTALLATIONS, 5 3.THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK HECK 5 OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COM __ S MENCED WITHIN 120 DAYS.OR IF CONSTRUCTION IS (13WInD3w H3HM 3H3H H3i3)IS myw 9ITl1sig �Y�l IF a 39Yl.VY No NO, "V11y uM OL11M00 36 TIM w1om f0 3l 1. Sd1 V.."N n00 53JNYMIpbO ONV SMYI yp ISNOISI13 IIV'3's b3N13NM V 3nLL 3B 01 JMVS 3N1 -MONN' ONV NOI1VJIta1Y SINL 03DNVY10 ON♦ -1J3bbOJ 0130 3n1X ivNl al LLC3J AB313N I SMObtlV w8 3JVN11tl0 031VM 3Jv,uns !O NOI1J3bIO ONIIVJIONI (SY31VM 3JVyb05 ONY 30YMM1bC lO 1VS0151p G350e Oba-9N1 "A '"l vc 03ryOSSV NY NOyO 02SYB 36 AYM SNO11 Vn313 NpOS 310n _ OVM YOOt! 30Vtl V0 ONv nOI1V ON00! y0 101 3Xt yO OBYn3l3 IS ONI !o "oFs-,1V 1Y SN fX011Yn3l3 wVm3nlb0 OXV Nm Ys ollw Oba It '03NSI1B V153 3m Ot sapl 31118 'S1SI%3 Bblp ON yi 310N - _ 030N31S3 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, city Administrator FROM: David Hutton, City EngineerSj1J RE: Upper Valley Drainage Project - Scherber/Clark Acquisition DATE: August 1, 1988 INTRODUCTION• At the July 19, 1988 City Council meeting representatives of the Scherber/Clark property gave a presentation to the City Council illustrating an alternative route for the Upper Valley Drainageway to go through their property. At the conclusion of the discussion, Council authorized staff to prepare a detailed cost estimate of each route based on taking soil borings to determine the actual depths of the bedrock. BACKGROUND- The current design of the Upper Valley Drainageway basically bisects the 40 acre Scherber/Clark parcel. The design is based on best engineering practices and basically follows the lower area through the upper valley. Without knowing what the development plans are for this large parcel, it was determined by our engineers that it would not be feasible to follow property lines for this parcel. Staff, in conformance with City standard property acquisition procedures, prepared appraisals for all easements using a qualified appraiser and made offers to all property owners. Those owners that refused our offers are taking the matter before a condemnation panel and they will determine the amount of damages due for the taking. This is the procedure staff follows for all projects involving property acquisitions. The Scherber/Clark parcel is currently going through the condemnation process as they have refused the city's offer for the easement. At the July 19, 1988 Council meeting, Mr. Scherber and his engineer, Bill Price, indicated that instead of bisecting their parcel, they would prefer that the drainageway be located along the southern boundary of the parcel. Their contention was that the construction costs for each alternative would basically be the same, the land acquisition costs may be slightly lower due to it being a shorter distance and they would give the city the small triangular remnant of land remaining in the southwest corner of their lot. They also felt that there would be added costs of up to $200, 000 to them to construct a bridge over the ditch for future development, as it is currently designed. At the conclusion of the discussion, Council authorized staff to spend up to $1,000.00 to take - additional soil borings along the proposed southern route to determine the actual rock depths, in order to come up with a detailed cost estimate of this route. Soil borings had been taken along the current location of the ditch as part of our design process, so a fairly accurate determination of the rock along this route is known. Both the City and Mr. Scherber agreed to use Allied Testing to do the borings. Neither the City or Scherber representatives were present during the actual drilling. The soil borings have been completed. Attached is a copy of the soil report, along with the elevations of the existing ground and depth of rock of each boring locations. Staff will have drawings available at the meeting to illustrate the rock profile for each alternative. The results of our testing have two important conclusions. First, the rock along the southern route is extremely shallow. Three of the six borings showed rock less than 2 feet below the surface. Second, the existing ground is higher, along the southern route by as much as 5 feet in places. Therefore, to construct the ditch at the elevations needed to get drainage, it is quite apparent that the ditch will need to be much deeper than the existing ground at the southern route rather than at the current designed route through the low area. Our Engineer has prepared a cost estimate of both alternatives, based on these borings and the original borings. The cost estimate for each are as follows: A. Current design locations Dirt Excavation = 24,600 cubic yds @ $1.60/yd = $ 39, 360 Rock Excavation = 4,333 cubic yds @ $18/yd = $ 77 .790 Total $117 .300 B. Alternate Route (along southern lot line) Dirt Excavation = 19,800 cubic yds @ $1. 60/yd = $ 31,680 Rock Excavation = 17,800 cubic yds @ $18/yd = $320.400 Total $352, 080 The difference between the two alternatives is $234,780, with the southern route being the more expensive. The question of land acquisition costs was discussed. The current design route does require more acres, (4.179 acres) than the proposed southern route (3.788 acres) . At the appraised value of approximately $14 ,800.00 per acre, the southern route has a net savings to the City Of $5800. 00 in land acquisition costs. Mr. Price also indicated that Mr. Scherber would need to construct a bridge over this drainageway for future development at an approximate cost of $200, 000. Without knowing what Mr. Scherber's development plans are, he may not need any crossing to serve both sides of the ditch (separate road from each direction) or if he does need a crossing it can be done by box culverts, rather than a bridge. The cost estimate for the box culverts may run around $20,000 to $30, 000 depending on the specifics of the design. 9 � SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS: In short, it is quite clear that the original location of the drainageway is the most economical to the City and is the preferred location. Staff utilized professional engineers and appraisers in dealing with this situation and if Mr. Scherber feels that he is being unjustly compensated, the condemnation panel will make that determination. If Council chooses to bypass the normal condemnation process and negotiate a separate deal with Mr. Scherber, they may be setting a precedent for other properties currently in condemnation or that have already signed voluntarily. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Direct staff to proceed with the construction of the drainageway thru the Scherber/Clark property as currently designed. 2. Decide that the proposed southern route is in the overall best interest of the City and direct staff to redesign the drainageway. 3. Explore other alternatives. 4. Negotiate with Mr. Scherber and if he is willing to pay all additional construction costs associated with the southern route, direct staff to draw up an agreement to that effect and also redesign the ditch. RECOMMENDATIONS• Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. Staff also recommends that Mr. Scherber pay for the additional- soil borings needed to resolve this situation in the amount of $368.00. ACTION REOUESTED: 1. Direct staff to proceed with the proposal to construct the Upper Valley Drainageway thru the Scherber/Clark parcel as currently designed. 2. Authorize staff to submit an invoice to Mr. Scherber in the amount of $368. 00 to be paid directly to Allied Test Drilling Company for performing additional soil borings on his property. DN/tiv Schekn OIT` AfaveronS Associates,lnc. 2011 East Hennepin Avenut Mmneap0h,MN 55413 July 29, 1988 612331-8660 FAX 33138W Engineers 5unv plannners,s City of Shakopee 129 East 1st Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Attn: Mr. David Hutton, P.E. ` City Engineer Re: Upper Valley Drainage Project Scherber Easement Shakopee, Minnesota OSM Comm. No. 3845.10 Dear Mr. Hutton: As per Council direction, we .have re-evaluated the costs to move the easement on the Scherber property to an alternate location as proposed by Mr. Scherber. Eight additional borings were taken for the basis of our estimate. Six borings were taken along the alternate location and two more were taken along the origi- nal location. The earlier estimate which we gave the City was done by estimating the rock elevation. As you can see by the following cost estimate, the elevation of the rock, which has now been verified by borings, is considerably higher than we had anticipated. Original Route 24,600 Cu. Yds. Common Excavation @ S 1.60/C.Y. = S 39,360 4,330 Cu. Yds. Rock Excavation @ S18.00/C.Y. = 77,940 Estimated Excavation Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . = $117,300 Alternate Route 19,800 Cu. Yds. Common Excavation @ S 1 .60/C.Y. = S 31,680 17,800 Cu. Yds. Rock Excavation @ S18.00/C.Y. = 320.400 Estimated Excavation Cost . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . ... = $352,080 Comparison Alternate Route $352,080 Original Route 117.300 Additional Cost $234,780 Page Two Mr. David Hutton, P.E. July 29, 1988 The original property requested for permanent easement is 4.179 acres. The alternate would require permanent easement of approximately 3.788 acres. We are enclosing four copies of the profiles showing the two routes and the anticipated excavations. If you have any questions, please call . Sincerely, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 8 ASSOCIATES, INC\ 7 Robert D. Frigaard, P.E. l Associate ' RDF:mIj —(ni5r,. 4+'3I Enclosures Ort .SNt Mc eavem ASSOCNLCS.mG 2021 Ea St Hennepin Avenue Minneapdi5.MN 55413 612-331-8660 FAX 331-3806 surveyors Surveyors Planners July 27, 1988 Mr. Patrick J. Hines, P .E. Allied Test Drilling Company 4000 Beau D'Rue Drive Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Re: Shakopee Project 1987-5 OSM Comm. No. 3845.1 Dear Pat: Our field personnel have determined ground elevations for Borings IA through 8A as shown on the enclosed sketch. The elevations in feet and tenths of feet are: lA 749 .3 2A 748.3 3A 750.1 4A 751 .1 5A 753.9 6A 753.8 7A 751 .8 8A 750.7 I£ you have any questions or need additional information, please call . Very truly yours, ("ORIR-SCCREE�LEN-MAYE^/RO ASSOCIATES, INC. D. Edward Ames, L.S. enclosure DEA:bjf cc: -'have Hutton AT7LLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY 4000 BEAU D'RUE DRIVE EAGAN, MN 55122 Exploration - Evaluation - Foundation Engineering A (612) 4526913 28 July 1988 Mr Ray Ruska Assistant Engineer City of Shakopee c/o City Hall 129 First Avenue East Shakopee MN 55379 Re : Subsurface Soil Investigation Upper Valley Drainage Project Shakopee, Minnesota Your Project 1987-5 Project 88119 As per your request and authorization, we have performed power flight auger borings in the above referenced vicinity. Again owing to the simplicity of the project, please accept this letter as our report. Enclosed are logs of each of the borings . Location is as per the staking of OSM, who also determined the elevations noted on the logs. A description of the method of investigation, soil classification system, limitations of this investiga- tion, etc, are as per previous reports we have performed on this project last year. Note that we found mostly very fine sand to loamy sand on the site, consistent with earlier results . Topsoil is present, but we did not obtain much data as to thickness . Most of it _ was lost in the violence of hard drilling as we approached bedrock level . We did not save samples this time, so the des- criptions are as per the judgement of the field crews. I did riot verify soils . Most importantly, refusal to auger advancement, indicating bedrock level or just above, is encountered from 9" to 5 . 5" of depth. The field crews are quite certain that these refus- als are indicative of bedrock level as judged by feel of drilling equipment at refusal level, an identifiable pattern in the refusals, recovered soil samples , etc. Groundwater was not noted, but be reminded of our usual cau- tions regarding the capability of groundwater to appear and fluctuate at other times depending on various climatological Mr Ray Rusks 28 July 1988 Page 2 and meteorological factors . An invoice for our services is enclosed. kindly review and, if allowable , forward to the proper department together with Your recommendations as to payment. I hope this provides you the information you are seeking. I£ you or anyone else has any questions on this or any other matter, or if we can be of service in any additional capa- city, do not hesitate to contact us at your convenience. I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered Professional Engineer under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. Sincerely, ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY Patrick J Hines , PE President enclosures cc: OSM, Inc (w/ enclosures) - PH A D ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY 4000 BEAU D'RUE DRIVE EAGAN. MN 55122 Exploration - Evaluation - Foundation Engineering (612) 452.6913 I N V u I C E 28 July 1988 City of Shakopee c/o City Hall 129 First Avenue East Shakopee MN 55379 Re: Subsurface Soil Investigation Upper Valley Drainage Project Shakopee , Minnesota Your Project 1987-5 Project 88119 For Professional Services on the above referenced project, as authorized by the City Engineer, and in accordance with our standard unit prices applicable to the City of Shakopee: Unit Extended Item Quantity Price Price -------- ------- -------- Mobilization Lump Sum $ 125 . 00 $ 125. 00 Power Flight Auger Borings 28 if 6'. 00 168 . 00 Analysis and Report Lump Sum 75 . 00 75 . 00 Total Invoice $ 368 . 00 Terms: Net 30 days Respectfully submitted, ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY Patrick i s , PE President ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY PROJECT: 88119 - Upper Valley Drainage Project ( Alt Route) Shakopee , Min LOG OF BORING NO: 1A DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 799 . 3 SAMPLE LAS & OTMERTESTS IN GEOLOGY N WS FEET DESCRIPTIONAND CLASS!FICATI ON �j TYPE R W DEN LL P.L. Brown very Fine Loamy Sand FA 1- 2- 4 24 w( pebbles-cobbles 5 Bedrock Refusal - End of Boring 6 7 S I 8 10 11 I I ! 12 ! 13 74 15 I i 1& Bore hole backfilled with I 77 cuttings on 27 July 1988 18 I i 19 i 20 21 WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS DRILLING DATA D1TE TYE Sn LI BLED 451NG v,VENN DNI LLINL WATER ! DEVIM DE RN DE FIN MUD LE VC LEVEL C'..Cu'.t CD 26 Jul 5 ' 1 1 Night At,a,.r 27 July 2 : 10 0 ' * None Bmnp Corr•D DIaD 26 JuIv 1988 ,l with ! ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY PROJECT: 88119 - Upper Valley Drainage Proiect ( Alt Route) . Shakopee, minq LOG OF BORING NO: 2A DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 748 . 3 SAMPLE LAB 8 OTHER TESTS j IN GEOLOGY N W9 FEET DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION R TYPE R W DEN p.L. Brown very fine Loamy Sand PA 1 I 2- 3- with 3 with pebbles , cobbles , rocks 4 Refusal - End of Boring Bedrock 3 6 I 7- 15- 9- 10 b 9 10 - 11 i 12 13 I I 14 13 I 16 Bore hole backfilled with 17 cuttings on 27 July 1988 i 19- 20- 21- WATER 92021WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS DRILLING DATA GTE TIME "MPLED USING "AVE-IN DRILLING wATEN DERV " DEPTH DEPTH MUDLEVE LEVEL clew cn.el. CD 26 Julv 3 ' None M.Inee 4" Pow" PIIghr Iulger 27 Jul 2: 05 1 ' 9" None Bu �p[.mP�elra 26 July 1988 ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY PROJECT: 88119 - Upper Valley Drainage Project ( Alt Route) . Shakopee , Minn LOG OF BORING NO: 3A DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 750 .1 SAMPLE LAB H OTHER TESTS IN GEOLOGY N Ws FEET DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION i'f TYPE R W DENP.L.L.L. Gray-black Org S1 P1 Fine Sandy F ,loam to loam With vegetation 2 Refusal - End of Boring 3- 4 S Note: Two additional attempts e plus a test pit indicated bedrock 6" to 9" below surface 7 9 ,D 12 13- 14- 15- Bore 3 t415 Bore hole backfilled with 17 cuttings on 27 July 1988 i 18 1B 20- 21- WATER 021WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS DRILLING DATA "TE TIME I L.NPLED 4SING _. .E-.. DRuuNG WkTER DEVTN " DEPT. DEPEN MVP LEVE LEVEL cle.duet CD 26 July I I 9" I I None canoe 4" Power Plight AugL - 2. 00 9" None auinp Compmiea 26 July 1988 ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY PROJECT: 88119 - Upper Valley Drainage Project (Alt Route) _ Shakopee , Min.^ LOG OF BORING NO: 46 DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 751.1 SAMPLE LABS OTHER TESTS IN GEOLOGY N W8 FEET DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION IY TYPE R W DEN L.L. Brown very fine Sand FA 7 21' Bedrock 1 Refusal - End of Boring 3- 4- 5- 6 456 7 >3 ,D I ,1 12 13- 14- 15- is- 3141518 Bore hole backfilled with 17 cuttings on 27 July 1988 i 18 I j 19 20- 21- WATER 021WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS DRILLING DATA j /.SIH L "VE. N DRILLING WATER DATE TWLYPLED CE DE ITN Dn"t DE PTM MUDaVEL LEVEL clew ch'.1: CD 26 July - 1 3/4 ' None M.�noe 4_Powc_! iohr Au�or 27 Jul 2:00 16 None am �p Cam Die�ea 26 July 1988 ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY --------- PROJECT: PROJECT: 88119 - upper valley Drainage Project ( Alt Route) . Sha kooee , min LOG OF BORING NO: 5 A DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 753 .9 SAMPLE I LAB & OTNERTESTS IN GEOLOGY N WB FEET DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION # TYPE R W DENIp;�. Brown very fine Sand FA , 21" Bedrock Refusal - End of Boring 3- 4- 10 a,0 „ I ; I 72 13 14 ,B Bore hole backfilled with ,7 cuttings on 27 July 1988 ,B IS- 20- 21- WATER 02, WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS DRILLING DATA j DATE TIME "UPPED CASING -a%.. DRLLIING WATER DEPTH - DEPTH DEPTH YUD LE VE LE VEI Cre..CorerCD 26 Jul 1 3/41 None M.Inoe S" Power FJ iohT Auger 27 Jul 2 : 00 6m�p C.-w."a 26 Julv 1988 ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY PROJECT: 88119 - Upper valley Drainage Project ( Alt Route) . Shakopee , Mini LOG OF BORING NO: 6A DEPT" SURFACE ELEVATION: 753 .8 SAMPLE LAB & OTMERTESTS IN GEOLOGY N WE TYPE R W DEN LL FEET DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION # P.L. Brown very fine Loamy Sand r. 2 with cobbles , gravel FA 3- 4- Bedrock S Refusal - End of Boring 6 7 I I 12 i 13- 14- 15- is- 3 14 1518 Bore hole backfilled with 77 cuttings on 27 July 1988 ,g 19- 20- 211 92021 WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS DRILLING DATA &4MPLED CASING .AVE IN DRILLING WATER [f2w Lnli�. CD DATE TIMEYE DER. , DE". DE". VDD LEVEL LEVEL 26 Jul 41 None laa noD 9" Pow , Fl ,Qhr Aunc: C 27 Julv 2.00 30" None Bcnnp QlmW2�tC 26 July 1988 ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY PROJECT: 88119 — Upper Vallev Drainage Project (Alt Route) Shakopee , minr{ LOG OF BORING NO: 7 A DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 751.8 SAMPLE LAB & OTHERTESTS IN GEOLOGY N W9 FEET DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION /{ TYPE R W DENp:�_ Topsoil FA 7 2- Sand with grave FA g cobbles, small boulders 4 3 Bedrock B Refusal - End of Boring T 9 I ' 12 13 14 � is i 16 Bore hole backfilled with 17 cuttings on 27 July 1988 i iB 19- 20- 21- I 92021 WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS - DRILLING DATA DATE i TIME SAMPLED CASING -�VFIN DR] LING WATER 11 DEPTH ' DEPTH DE"M MUDLEVE LEVEL Cre.CoralCD 26 Jul 5 None M.moo 4" Pnver FA fight Auger 27 July 2 :00 412" None Rol,np CcmpialeD 26 July 1988 r ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY PROJECT: 88119 - upper Valley Drainage Project (Alt Route) Shakopee, Min LOG OF BORING NO: 8A DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 750 . 7 SAMPLE LABS OTMERTESTS IN GEOLOGY N We FEET DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION jY TYPE R W DEN p:�, Brown very fine loamy sand PA t dry 2- 3- w ebbles to cobbles Bedrock Refusal - End of Boring 4- 5- a- 7- 9- 12- 13- 14- 16- Bore 5a791214 15 Bore hole backfilled with 17 cuttings on 27 July 1988 I i to 19- 20- 21- - 92021 I WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS DRILLING DATA j SL YPLFD CASIRL -AVE-,. DRI LLDIL WATER "TE TIMEDEI K ' DE RTe DEV . YDDLEVE LEVEL Gew cMel_ CD 26 Jul None 4" Po.,, F'1 ignr Ti,- 27 i -27 Jul 2: 05 21 None BoI �O c,.m W..IrD 26 July 1988 J 58+36.08 68+08.12 (7pw 6Z• 63 _- .S6 N a 1 a 9 e ¢ < i, Oy n/ ga c � 71 +62. 34 °n N 72+80.81 Cn 4�H btw.y „ N - U N56.36'23E E 121.19' is N88. 55' 08"E _ 1290.00 »Q � c EQUATION 73+06.30 CQ /s 5 22.0436'W 83+28.04 II 9 81+97.38 fid, - I -•">5 0. 2522"E o, 372.00_ e' oa 561'3908W>_- '� e`i' 87+00.04 f` . 269.38 - "_ -� 2r-35'04"W$47'3 'S� W _ 157.7 11 .40 `. -rW 583° BSIYWV © �t •• 4 1.92 'a-100-44'21" ,�• 3' k_2 ; '. 88+57.76 ��•:�► I T=319.98' I 90+99.02 L°465 93 S t � 3+68.40 .32' _ - N 31. 37'40 W 00+704 - - - - - 46.52' 9+5309 94 +53.72 82.84 = 0.00 EQUATION 95+02.24 . 94+87. 16 Upper Valley Drainage July 29 , 1988 Page 2 Metropolitan Council They found the EAW incomplete. They would like information on the existing runoff volumes, a projection of the water quality that can be anticipated by our project and "what measures the City" intends to use to reduce nonpoint pollution ( i.e. a Storm Water Management Ordinance or something similar) . Department of Natural Resources They also need additional information on the impacts on the trout stream. In addition our proposal for mitigating the effects of our project on the trout stream are not detailed enough to review. Minnesota Department of Transportation No adverse comments. They will participate in any mitigation costs required. Army Corps of Engineers No adverse comments on the EAW. Basically, if we get permission to work in this protected water, they become involved with approving all construction. They have specific questions relating to our construction methods, but these can be addressed once we get the DNR and MPCA permits. Now that all of the agencies have responded to the EAW, it is the City ' s responsibility to determine if an Environmental Impact Statement is needed. The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board ( EDB) has indicated the EIS decision is needed within 15 days after the review period deadline for the EAW has expired. (July 13 , 1988 ) Staff has since contacted the EQB to request an extension of that deadline in order to submit additional information to the various agencies that requested it. Once they have then reviewed the new information and commented on the project, the City can determine if an E. I.S. is needed. The EQB has agreed to our request for additional time. Staff Concerns Up to this point, staff in conjunction with our consultant have been cooperating fully with the agencies and their procedures. There are some very legitimate concerns and some unanswered questions regarding the whole process, though. 1 . The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is requiring an NPDES permit. This is the permit they require for wastewater discharges into the river, not stormwater. To date, they CONSENT V(2- MEMO cMEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, City Enginee;� ,,,L SUBJECT: Upper Valley Drainage Project DATE: July 29, 1988 INTRODUCTION: Staff would like to update City Council on the Upper Valley Drainage Project and specifically the status of our permit applications with the various agencies to discharge storm water into the Mill Pond. BACKGROUND: Several weeks ago, staff informed Council that various permits would be needed in order to discharge the storm water from the Upper Valley Drainage system into the Mill Pond due to its trout stream designation. The three permits that are apparently required are, a DNR permit to discharge into a trout stream, an MPCA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) and an Army Corps of Engineer Permit. The first step in obtaining any of those permits is to submit an Environmental Assessment Worksheet to various agencies, who will review it and comment back to the City. Once the City receives all comments , it is our responsibility as the Regulatory Governmental Unit (RGU) to determine if an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is needed to construct this project. An E. I.S. is a very lengthy detailed process that could take up to one year to complete and cost thousands of dollars to prepare. Staff, along with our engineering consultant OSM, submitted the EAW to all agencies for their review and have recently received comments back from all of them. I have attached copies of all responses with this memo, but would like to briefly summarize them now: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPGA) Basically, they found the EAS incomplete due to inadequate information and they recommend an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared. Information that they requested include: • The effects of our a alterations of the Mill Pond • Provision for the non-degradation of surface waters • Effects on the ground water • Mitigation measures for the Mill Pond • Increased pollutants and effects on fish habitat Upper Valley Drainage July 29 , 1988 Page 3 have never required a municipality to obtain an NPDES permit for stormwater discharge. Ours would be the first. 2. No other communities along the Minnesota River have been subject to the permit requirements for storm sewer discharges as have we. Permits are not even required for storm sewers, unless construction is taking place in the floodplain. 3 • There is some question as to whether or not some of these agencies can even regulate us based on current statutes and accepted practices. 4. The DNR has investigated the Mill Pond and found no trout. They have found springs and areas of the Mill Pond where the water temperature and dissolved oxygen would support trout. These areas are quite limited and due to the sediments in the water there is some question as to whether or not trout would survive. The DNR has indicated we would have to make costly improvements to this area to improve the trout environment. Staff feels that our only obligation is to protect what is already there and if the DNR wants it improved, they should fund it. 5. Several agencies are requesting that the City adopt a Storm Water Management Ordinance before we can complete the project. This is being prepared by the Shakopee WMO, which is required to prepared such a plan by the 509 law. Once the plan is prepared , all cities in the WMO will need to adopt the plan and enforce it. Staff feels that since the legislatures established the WMO system of preparing these plans, other agencies do not have jurisdiction in requiring the City to prepare additional stormwater plans. 6. The MPCA is requiring our system to reduce pollutants by 40% because the EPA requires the MPCA to reduce the pollutants- to the same level at the Blue Lake Treatment plants. This is physically impossible using todays technology. T. The Upper Valley Drainage System is simply a conveyance system for stormwater. If the areas that drain into the system treat and store the stormwater before discharging into our system, there is no need to treat and discharge the water again before it reaches the river. 8. This outlet has been planned for many years and is actually shown in the Comprehensive Plan, which was prepared in 1979 . Therefore, why did it take so long for all of the various agencies to question the project location. Upper Valley Drainage July 29 , 1988 Page 4 Staff has met with the Assistant City Attorney to try and get many of these questions and concerns answered regarding the jurisdiction of the regulatory agencies. He will be researching the issues and responding back to staff. In the meantime , we are going to be providing all of the requested information to the various agencies and continue to receive comments on the EAW. Depending on the findings of the Assistant City Attorney, the City could then decide to continue to comply with all requests or involve the attorney/legislators. Phase I Construction As indicated previously, staff feels that the Phase I portion of this project can be bid yet this year and Phase II could go after all permits have been obtained . Staff would like to inform Council of the pros and cons for constructing Phase I: Pros: • Development is occurring today that needs a stormwater outlet. • Liability to the City if no outlet is provided due to flooding • Mn /DOT has approved the system and incorporated it into their bypass design. • So far the City has about $150 , 000 in engineering costs. • Easements have been purchased. • The drainageway is shown on the Comp. Plan • Storage is available in the ditch. • Hwy. 101 Bypass is waiting for this. • This is the only outlet for the system Cons : • Depending on the final permit requirements, a portion of the system may end up overdesigned. • The agencies may not give us the final permits. • Increased costs of Phase II to comply with tall permits. � c Upper Valley Drainage July 29 , 1988 Page 5 Due to the reasons listed above , staff feels that it is imperative to construct Phase I of the drainageway as soon as possible and attempt to get all concerns with the discharge outlet resolved using a three-pronged attack : Legally , legislatively and compliance with all permit requirements. ACTION REQUESTED: Direct staff to continue working on the permit applications for the Upper Valley Drainage Project as outlined in the City Engineer' s memo dated July 29, 1988• DH/pmp UPVALLEY MEMORANDUM TO: John Anderson, City of Shakopee David Hutton, City of Shakopee FROM: Robert D. Frigaard, DSM & Associates, Inc. • Peter R. Willenbring, OSM & Associates, Inc. SUBJECT: .Shakopee Upper Valley Drainage Project DSM Comm. No. 3845.10 DATE July 25, 1988 The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you with an update on the permit acquisition activity that has occurred to date, as well as outlining a recommended game plan that could be followed in dealing with the various governmental agencies having an interest in this project. Based on recent contact with the various agencies concerning this project, the following observations were made: - The Corps of Engineers will likely issue a permit for fishery habitat improvement without any major problem provided that the DNR's requirements in this area are met. At the present time the Corps of Engineers has little interest in the project as significant filling of navigable waters .at the present time is not being proposed. - The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources will likely require that all three ponds be separated from the storm water discharge so as to protect an area they feel may be suitable for trout habitat. A recent survey by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources indicated that water temperatures and dissolved oxygen in concentrations were suitable for trout habitat, however, no trout were found during an electro-shock survey which they completed last week. - - The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Metropolitan Council appear to be very adamant about the City of Shakopee providing a plan that will not increase the pollutant loading to the Minnesota River over that which exists today. Conversations with these agencies do however indicate that they feel it is probably not possible for such a plan to be developed and we envision that some best effort will be negotiated which will allow an increase in loading. However, they will be attempting to see that the City of Shakopee incorporate state-of-the-art non-point source pollution control technology throughout the watershed to treat stormwater before it is discharged into the Minnesota River. In order to respond to their information needs, a Comprehensive Water Quality Management Plan will need to be prepared outlining existing pollutant loadings as well as a management that will specifically outline how such treatment will be provided. - MTC and Met Council will also be requiring that a plan be developed that will specifically assure the agencies that the storm water management plan for the area will not affect groundwater recharge capabilities for the area. Specific information requirements toward this end have not yet been clearly defined by the agency, however, their information needs are estimated to range from that of obtaining existing hydrogeologic mapping information to drilling additional pizometer well nests to determine the specific vertical and horizontal flow gradients. - As it is preliminarily apparent that it will be very difficult to meet their requirements without some negotiation, it is suggested that the City utilize whatever political contacts and resources they may have available to them at the appropriate time in order to ensure the City's interests are adequately protected. - To date, City has developed formal plans and specifications for Phase I portion of the project which convey water down to 4th Street. This Phase I project does not require permits from any of the agencies; however, the project also does not include an outlet for the storm water discharged into this drainage system. It is likely that the agencies will attempt to reduce the capacity of the system to less than that which it is currently designed (1,000 cfs) . The options presently available to the City include bidding Phase I of the project as presently designed or deferring bidding until all of the agencies concerned can be fully addressed prior to construction. Given that construction of Phase II only will provide: 1. A capacity limited to approximately 600 cfs in the upstream portions; ` 2. that the approval process from MnDDT has been undertaken and is almost completed; 3. that an adequate outlet for storm water has not been provided for residents within the community in selected areas; and 4. that hydrologic analysis of the area indicates that under typical rainfall conditions, there is a limited possibility that flooding would occur. It is recommended that the Phase I portion of the project be bid and constructed prior to obtaining permits provided that the City is willing to accept the Possibility that the system may be designed for an event greater than a 100 year return frequency rainfall event. PRW:mlj t1d 517,70,277 ili7-,TW03T-,Tli-A-B.-r#7-,T;7oJW :o 300 Centennial Building•658 Cedar Streef•S(.Pau;,Minnesota 55155 F.Q-B 612-296-2603 July 14, 1988 Mr. David Hutton 129 First Avenue East Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Close of EAW Review Period for Upper Valley Drainage Storm Sewer Dear Mr. Hutton: The 30-day review and comment period for this EAW ended on July 13 , 1988. A decision on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be made within 15 working days of the expiration of the comment period unless the decision will be made by a body which meets only periodically, in which case the decision is to be made at the first meeting 10 or more days after the expiration date and in no case more than 30 calendar days afterwards. In making the EIS decision please note the following requirements (given at Minnesota Rules, part 4410.1700, page 16 of the rules) : 1. You must maintain a written record of some sort, including specific findings of fact, which supports your decision. The record must reflect the findings about the project with respect to the criteria of subuart 7 and should consider the information in the EAW itself and any timely comments reseived. 2. A notice of the decision is to be sent within five working days to the EQB, all persons on the EAW distribution list, all persons who commented, and anyone who makes a request (see B.4. ) . The EQB will publish notice of your decision in the BOB Monitor. 3 . If your decision is to prepare an EIS, your notice must also include your proposed scope of the EIS and the date, time and place of the scoping meeting. Please call me before scheduling a scoping meeting to assure that the meeting will fall between 10 working days and 20 calendar days after publication of the notice in the BOB Monitor. The scoping meeting must also be noticed by a press release. ✓Sincerely, ) Gregg M. Downing J Environmental Review Coordinator (612) 296-8253 Toll-free: 1-800-652-9747 ; ask for EQB, Environmental Review Program An East Opoortunrty Emdomr Minnesota Pollution Control Agency July 11, 1988 Mr. David Hutton City Engineer City of Shakopee 129 1't Avenue East Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Mr. Hutton: Re: Upper Valley Drainage Storm Sewer and Appurtenant Work The environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) on the referenced project has been reviewed by staff of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) . The staff wishes to make the following comments. 1. The PAW does not provide an adequate physical description of the proposal. This is particularly true with respect to the intended alteration of Mill Pond Creek. This has severely handicapped our ability to comment on the potential environmental effects of the project. 2. The possibility may exist that the proposed project will not comply with Minn. Rules Ch. 7050 in that the provision for nondegradation of the quality of surface waters (Mill Pond Creek) may be violated and water quality standards violations may occur. Despite this Possibility, the City of Shakopee has not provided the information and analysis necessary to demonstrate the extent to which the project may affect surface waters or the trout fishery present in the creek. The Project description also does not provide sufficient information on the elements of the project which will act to protect water quality. 3. It is believed that the potential may exist for adverse effect on the ground water which feeds springs discharpinc into Mill Pond Creek. Other' effects on the flows in the creek may-also occur due the expected dramatic increase in peak runoff rates in the creek as well as reductions in base flows. Information should be developed which will accurately assess the effects on the hvdrology of this watershed and lead to the identification of appropriate mitigation. 4. It is believed that other alternatives should be considered which will afford greater protection to Mill Pond Creek and its environs. Mitigation measures should be developed which will act to effectively control increased sediment and nutrient transport and ensure that hydrological conditions in the creek are not disrupted. Phone: 520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Regional Offices • Duluth/Brainerd/Detroit Lakes/Marshall/Rochester Equal OpPOnOnity Employer Mr. David Hutton Page Two 5. Other areas in which the potential for significant effects may exist could include impacts on historical resources in the Mill Pond area, undesirable physical alteration of fish habitat, and increased pollutant loadings to the Minnesota River. Given the project as proposed and the limited information in the EAW, it appears that the project has the potential for significant adverse environmental effects. It is believed that these issues meet the criteria in Minn. Rules Part 9910.1700 warranting further investigation through the preparation of an environmental impact statement. Thank you for the opportunity to review the EAP;. If you have any questions, please contact Craig N. Affeldt at 296-7796. Sincerely, C ford T. Anderson Director Office of Planning and Review CTA:mfl c: Gregg Downing, Environmental Quality Board METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park Ccnvc. 230 Fin FiJ,h S,. Phut, MX 35101 612 291-6359 July 15, 1988 John Anderson, Administrator City of Shakopee 129 - 1st Avenue East Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Environmental Assessment Worksheet (SAW) Upper Valley Drainage Storm Sewer and Appurtenant Work City of Shakopee Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 14531-1 Dear Mr. Anderson: At its meeting on July 14, 1988, the Metropolitan Council considered the EAW for the Upper Valley Drainage Storm Sewer and Appurtenant Work. This consideration was based on a report of the Environmental Resources Committee, Referral Report No. 88-45• A. copy of this report is attached. The Council approved the following recommendations contzined in the above report: 1. Find the Eien incomplete; 2. Ask the city Of ShakODee to submit the requested information in order Prat the Council can determine whether an impact on z metropolitan system is likely to occur. Sincerely,/ 5, /J Steve Keefe v Chair SF.:11 Attachment cc: Greg Downing, Environmental Review Coordinator, Environ. Rev. Sec. , BOB David Hutton, City of Shakopee Peter R. Willenbring, F.E., Manager, Water Resources Department Minnesota Pollution Control Agency James Riniker, MWCC Gary Oberts, Metropolitan Council Staff Metropolitan Council Meeting of July 14, 1988 Business Item: E-1 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Suite 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul , Minnesota 55101 291-6359 REPORT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE Referral Report No. 88-45 DATE: July 8, 1988 TO: Metropolitan Council SUBJECT: Upper Valley Drainage Storm Sewer EAW City of Shakopee Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 14531-1 Metropolitan Council District 14 BACKGROUND At its meeting of July 5, 1988, the Environmental Resources Committee considered the staff review of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Upper Valley Drainage Storm Sewer project in the City of Shakopee. ISSUES AND CONCERNS Committee members emphasized the need for an overall watershed surface water management framework to be in place before a large drainage project such as that proposed proceeds. The committee also encouraged the city to adopt a water quality control strategy related to the project so that allowable load levels would not be exceeded in the Minnesota River leading to more stringent treatment requirements at Seneca and Blue Lake. RECOMMENDATION That the Metropolitan Council : 1 . Find the Environmental Assessment Worksheet incomplete; and 2. Ask the City of Shakopee to submit the requested information in order that the Council can determine whether an impact on a metropolitan system is likely to occur. Respectfully submitted, Josephine Nunn, Chair METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MEARS PARK CENTRE, 230 E. 5TH ST. ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 DATE: June 28, 1988 TO: Environmental Resources Committee FROM: Gary Oberts, Natural Resources Division Subject: Upper Valley Drainage Storm Sewer EAW City of Shakopee, Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 14531-1, District No. 14 INTRODUCTION The city of Shakopee is proposing to construct a trunk surface drainagewater single Outlet. sThe edrainage m that osystem uld awould in 7 server the00 acestMill gPond watershed tributary to the Minnesota River at Shakopee (Figure 1) . The upper reaches of the system would be open channel flow, with the lower end of the system confined to a concrete pipe storm sewer until discharge near the river. The current path of discharge from this watershed is via a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources designated trout stream. The proposal by the city includes a partial hydraulic separation through the installation of sheet piling in a series of two ponds. Some modification of the ponds would be needed to improve the habitat for trout. TheShakopeeBasin Watershed Management Organization (SBWMO) is the designated WMO for the larger scale watershed in which the Mill Pond for lies. The SBWMO has not watershed plan, but the completed its in city plans to operate the proposed system conformance with the policies and regulations of the plan when it is adopted. The city of Shakopee is represented on the board of the SBWMO. AUTHORS Y FOR REVIEW An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) prepared under the Minnesota Environmental Review Program must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council and other agencies for review. The city of Shakopee submitted the drainage proposalas a discretionary EAW. Any recipient of an EAW or member of the public may make comments and recommendations to the responsible governmental unit (RGU) , which in this case is also the city of Shakopee. Comments are to address the accuracy and completeness of the EAW information, and Potential impacts that may warrant investigation and/or the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) . She Metropolitan 7 2 Council also reviews EAWs for impact on regional systems and for conformance with Council policies as contained in the Metropolitan Development Guide. ANALYSIS The EAW submitted by the city of Shakopee for the proposed drainage project contains a minimum amount of information about the nature of the work to be undertaken and the potential for impact on the Minnesota River. Supplemental information was requested from the city and received, but this information also contained no discussion of the impact of the project on the water cuality of the Minnesota River. The EAW for the Upper Valley Drainage Storm Sewer and Appurtenant Work is therefore _ -_--. - - - incomplete,_ given the potential--for impact on thequalityof the - - Minnesota River and the trout stream that currently drains the watershed. The proposed project would discharge stormwater at a 100-year frequency design rate of 893 cubic feet per second (cfs) ; the volume of additional discharge from the project is unspecified. Discharge from the project occurs into the Minnesota River which isthe subject of a major improvement effort by the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. The current rate of discharge to the Minnesota River from the Mill Pond subwatershed is unknown because of the lack of flow monitoring for the basin. Discussions with the engineer for the city indicate that approximately 100-150 cfs could discharge through the existing conveyance system at the subwatershed outlet before flooding and railroad track over-topping would occur. A flow simulation done for the city indicates that approximately 552 cfs would occur if development proceeded in the entire subwatershed under the assumption of no allowed increase in runoff rate, that is, ponding of runoff would be required throughout the entire basin. The scenario for development chosen by the city, however, precludes ponding in the lower portions of the basin, hence the additional 341 cfs under design conditions. Reasons for selection of the "no ponding" alternative include lack of existing detention locations, easy conveyance of runoff to the Minnesota River, timing of flow peaks and cost. The difference between a ponding and a no ponding alternative is $500, 000. The EAW contains no analysis of the methods proposed to separate a potentially large volume of runoff from the MDNR designated trout stream. The supplemental information does, however, include a schematic of the proposed sheet piling system. The major item of omission in the EAW from the Metropolitan Council 's viewpoint is the failure of the city to include an analysis of the water quality impacts that could be expected from a major discharge of the type proposed. First, there is no 3 statement of existing or expected discharge volumes, so we are not able to determine what the actual impact or change from present volumes is likely to be. This is critical because flow volume is required in order to do an analysis of nonpoint Pollution loading from the subwatershed. In order to assess the impact of this proposal on the Minnesota River, the EAW should contain information on the discharge volumes expected for average annual and 100-year frequency events, as well as the change that these figures represent from current conditions. The EAW should follow this flow analysis with an analysis of the water quality that will be discharged to the Mill Ponds. Specific interest in this analysis should be paid to solids, nitrogen and oxygen-demanding substances. The EAW should also include an indication of how the city proposes to reduce, in accordance with the discussion in the next paragraph, the high nonpoint source pollution loads that will be carried b surface waters draining a watershed of this magnitude and y discharging to the Minnesota River. This proposal has potential impact on one of the metropolitan systems that the Council is charged with maintaining. The MPCA issued permits for the MWCC-owned treatment facilities at Blue Lake and Seneca in December 1987. These permits established discharge limitations that are based on an expected nonpoint source pollution reduction of 40 percent for the Minnesota River basin. A failure to meet this expected reduction in pollution load by the next permit issuance in 1992 will likely result in stricter discharge limits for the two plants and, therefore, increases in capital expenditures and operating costs to meet the necessary treatment levels at the two plants. The reason for this is that a maximum allowable waste load has been determined for the plants based on the MPCA-determined nonpoint source Pollution reduction. Growth in the communities served by these plants and the resulting volumes of sewage to the that nonpoint pollutiplants mean on reductions must proceed as anticipated to keep below the maximum allowable loads determined by the MPCA. In order to determine if a metropolitan system impact will result fromthis proposal, the information noted previously on hydrology,- water cpsz�It , and load mitigation must be submitted. CONCLUSIONS 1 and AW submitted for the Upper Valley Drainage Storm Sewer Appurtenant Work by the city of Shakopee contains an insufficient amount of information for the Metropolitan Council to properly review its potential environmental impact. yG 4 2. In order for the Council to conduct a thorough review of the - EAW and to determine if an impact on a regional system is likely to occur, the city will need to provide information on the following items: - - a hydrologic analysis of the proposed discharge regime and an indication of how this varies from the current discharge conditions, including volumes for the average annual and 100- year frequencies; - a water quality analysis of the solids, nutrient and oxygen-demanding substances loading expected under the above conditions; and tle methods that the city intends to use to mitigate - - . ____ the impact of the high nonpoint source pollution loads normally occurring with this type of discharge from a large watershed--this in accord with the MPCA mandate to reduce existing nonpoint loads to the Minnesota River by 40 percent. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Metropolitan Council: 1. Find the EAW incomplete; and 2. Ask the city of Shakopee to submit the requested information in order that the Council can determine whether an imn_ act on a metropolitan system is likely to occur. / rkk)t I;� I �I I j I i-:—.I_• •� I / Lhm. All -T- AC.) o o t E`t __j Oil t,` PUMD AA SIN 14 IJi or i _ j t t fil114g DI' p �' iu `, a C7lp\m %.1..'! In W �H.p / I,,_`n.lu ' ``r ♦�� ' ! y � L ',1 ``�vH. ,'.• t: ur Y_-. ''li'm".-7si . r`�__ 'll f >i�•3C=,��,{-�.,`'•• � —411-A tm+� 151 F utLs' 975�e� ,n (2015 AC , SAND RIEK b u _ 11250 AL.1 CITYof =� SHAKOPEE \' Map 24 1IARLN 1979 =="" COMPRERENSIV tM STATE OFHIES. 04La DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 500 LAFAYETTE ROAD • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55155-40 DNR INFORMATION 1611) 2964157 -- July 13, 1988 Mr. David Hutton City of Shakopee 129 First Avenue East Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 RE: Upper Valley Drainage Storm Sewer Project Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Dear Mr. Hutton: The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the above—referenced document and we offer the following comments for your consideration. As you are aware, DNR staff have previously discussed the potential impacts of this project with you. Many of the comments expressed below are restatements of concerns expressed during those discussions. Basically, the EAW fails to accurately assess the expected impacts on the trout stream that will result from the discharge of up to 940 cfs of stromwater into its headwaters. Several responses to the EAW items are inadequate for a proper evaluation of the project's impacts. For example, our copy of the engineers' plan describes the project drainage area as 8,437 acres, much larger than the 5,700 acres reported in the EAW. The response to item 14 does not adequately identify the affected land cover types. Item 16 should have indicated that the project area includes steep slopes, shallow limestone formations, and artesian springs. The impact of these geologic hazards on the project, and vice versa, should have been evaluated in the EAW. The proposed separation of the stormwater channel and trout stream using sheet piling may, or may not, be allowed through DNR's permitting process. Additional design information is needed to prove that this method would work. Given the potential for extremely high volume flows there should be an evaluation of flow.abatement methods, such as upstream retention basins, in addition to the sheet piling proposed in the EAW. We think the EAW would be more accurate if item 28 indicated that ecologically sensitive resources (a trout stream) and unique resources (artesian springs) could be impaired by the proposed project. Also, for your information, item 18c is not correct. The project is not in a wild and scenic river district. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMOLOYco In view of the inaccuracies in the RAW, the lack of project design information, and the potential for adverse impacts on a sensitive natural resource, we recommend that you revise the EAW to more accurately evaluate the project. You could then resubmit the EAW for further review. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. If you have questions regarding these comments, please call Don Buckhout of my staff at 296-8212. Sincerely, Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor K.R. Planning and Review Services c: Kathleen Wallace Ron Lawrenz Laurel Reeves Gregg Downing-EQB Robert Welford-USFWS #880212 don2/DEANN CSC ' ✓off ��is�. - �j%� ?G tt'1NNESOT9 O y0 Minnesota Department of Transportation D h Transportation Building, St. Paul, MN 55155 Nr OF TfP July 11, 1988 296-1251 Phone Mr. David Hutton, City Engineer City of Shakopee 129 First Avenue East Shakopee , Minnesota 55379 Re : Upper Valley Drainage Storm Sewer and Appurtenant Work Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) District 5 (Shakopee , Scott County) Dear Mr. Hutton: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has completed a review of the above-referenced EAW and offers the following comments: As you know, since highway drainage of the future Shakopee bypass will outlet through the area , Mn/DOT is serving as a cooperating agency on this project. Mn/DOT will participate in storm sewer costs and in mitigation costs. Ellen Anderson, District Hydraulics Engineer, has been working closely with the city to protect resources and assist in developing mitigation. In addition, Greg Busacker , Aouatic Biologist from Mn/DOT' s Environmental Services Section, is available to provide assistance at (612)296-1651. If you require additional information from Mn/DOT, please contact Carl Hoffstedt, Transportation Planning Engineer at our District Office in Golden Valley, telephone number (612) 593-8540. Sincerely, ^1���/� � Patricia Bursaw Environmental Coordinator Environmental Services Section A. Epupl OppOfluniry Employer Asv� Ataveron& Ai50oa(g,mG 2021 Easl Hennepin Avenue MmnCapoliq MN 55413 612331-8660 July 14, 1988 FAX 331-3806 Engineers surveyors Planners Ms. Diary Marx Construction Operations Regulatory Functions Branch St. Paul District Corps of Engineers 1421 U.S. Post Office and Customhouse St. Paul , MN 55101-1479 - — Re: Regulatory Functions File NO. 88-868-30 - -- - - - _-.-_ Concerning Shakopee Mill Pond Project Dear Mary: Receipt is acknowledged for your letter received June 28, 1988 requesting additional information on the above referenced project. Based on the information requested in this letter and our telephone conversation on Thursday, July 11th during which some of this information was provided verbally, outlined below is a restatement of the information requested which was not provided in our telephone conversation along with the answers to those questions: 1. What is the total amount in cubic yards and the dimensions or acreages of the area to be dredged? Answer: No dredging is proposed to take place as part of this project at the present time. However, to facilitate construction of the trout stream, some minor grading will take place in ponds 1 and 2 to provide a more stream-like habitat for trout. 2. Provide a description of the proposed twin culverts between ponds 2 and 3 including the amount of fill material that will be placed to construct the structure. Answer: THe proposed twin 24 inch cmp's will have a length of approximately 100 feet. As these culverts will be placed through the existing berm, it is likely that virtually no additional fill will be necessary to be placed in this area. However, at a maximum we would not expect more than 50 cubic yards of material to be placed in this vicinity. 3. Provide a description including the location amount and dimensions of proposed bank stabilization. Answer: Bank stabilization will be provided along the east and west sides of ponds 1 and 2. This bank stabilization will consist Of filter fabric overlayed with grouted rip-rap. The total length of this stream channel is estimated at approximately 500 feet resulting in a total length of bank stabilization proposed at approximately 1000 feet. Page Two Ms. Mary Marks July 14, 1988 4. Please provide a description of the proposed work for each berm on pond 3. Include the amount of fill material that will be required for the berms and the dimensions of each proposed berm. Answer: At the present time, no berm is anticipated to be constructed in pond 3. However, the project may require a extension of the sheet Piling from the easterly bank of pond 2 northerly across pond 3. This sheet piling would be driven into the existing pond bottom and little if any fill material would be required as part of this construction ---- - .. _ effort. 5. What is the total lineal footage of sheet piling that would be installed in the waterbody? Answer: Approximately 600 lineal feet of sheet piling is estimated with the initial construction, and up to an additional 300 lineal feet could be constructed in pond 3 if this type of work effort is required by the MPCA and DNR. We hope this information will provide you with a clear picture of our project. Given this information and our previous telephone conversation, we request that a general permit be issued for this project as very little if any fill is going to be placed in navigable water. It should also be noted that work in public waters in principally to improve the trout habitat for the trout stream in the area. Should you have any questions concerning this information please do not hesitate to contact me ast 331-8660. Very truly yours, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 8 ASSOCIATES, INC. p 1 Peter R. Willenbring, P.E. Manager, Water Resources Department PRW:alr cc: Dave Hutton, City of Shakopee 9 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer � WAl SUBJECT: Hwy. 101 Southerly Bypass v DATE: July 28, 1988 INTRODUCTION: Attached is a letter from Bill Crawford, District Engineer for Mn/DOT formally requesting that the City of Shakopee hire consultants to assist them in the design of the Shakopee Bypass. (T.H. 101 ) BACKGROUND: Several weeks ago Mn/DOT officials contacted City staff regarding the schedule for constructing the Shakopee Bypass (T.H. 101 ) . At that time, Mn/DOT indicated that they were falling behind on the design of the bypass which could result in delaying the bid letting by 1-2 years. Attached is a letter from Bill Crawford, Mn/DOT District Engineer , formally requesting the City ' s assistance. The City of Shakopee previously made a commitment of 1 .0 million dollars maximum to this project. The State is now requesting that this money be spent up front to expedite the design and ensure the 1990 bid letting date is kept on schedule. The scope of the work that Mn/DOT is requesting includes the following: 1 . Design of the roadway for six cross roads, namely County Roads 15 , 77 , 79 , 17 , 16 and 83, including all of the right- of-way legwork (Mn/DOT to do all negotiations) . 2 . Design of the bridge structures for the same cross roads as listed above. 3. Design of the Drainage Plan for that portion of the Bypass from C.S.A.H. 16 to T.H. 169. Mn/DOT is proposing that the City send out RFP's for the roadway portion and hire the consultant directly. Mn/DOT would hire the consultant for the bridge design and the City would hire a consultant directly for the drainage plan. The total amount of City contributions for all three consultants would not exceed the one million dollars. I have attached a copy of a letter from Mike Christensen, Assistant District Engineer for Mn/DOT, outlining the proposed scope of services and timetable for completing the design. As indicated in his letter, for the roadway design portion, they are Hwy. 101 Bypass July 28 , 1988 Page 2 Proposing that a consultant be selected by October 1 , 1988 with the completed plan submitted to Mn/DOT by August 1 , 1989 . The bid letting is scheduled for January 26 , 1990 . As indicated , Mn/DOT will be selecting the bridge consultant directly. In regards to the drainage plans, staff is recommending that our existing consultant, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron, be used to prepare the drainage plans for the bypass due to their familiarity with the drainage area and much of the legwork has been completed as part of the Upper Valley Drainage Project. OSM will be preparing an estimated cost of their services and staff will bring this to Council on August 16 , 1988 as a separate item. Again, the maximum cost to the City of Shakopee for all 3 consultants is 1 .0 million dollars. Staff is requesting permission to send out RFP' s for the roadway design portion of the bypass, which specifically includes the design Of County Roads 15 , 77 , 79 , 17 , 16 , and 83. Staff is also requesting authorization to notify Mn/DOT that the City is willing to enter into an agreement to pay for the bridge consultant and drainage plan consultants with the understanding that the City' s contribution will not exceed 1 .0 million dollars total. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Authorize City staff to send out "Request For Proposalsn for hiring a consultant to design six cross roads associated with the bypass and also to notify Mn/DOT that the City is willing to enter into an agreement to spend up to 1 . 0 million dollars to assist in designing the bypass. 2. Deny Mn/DOT's request for providing design assistance. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 . ACTION REQUESTED: 1 . Authorize staff to send out Request For Proposals to select a consultant for designing the cross roads for the southerly bypass for County Roads 15, 77 , 79, 17, 16 , and 83 . 2. Authorize staff to notify Mn/DOT that the City is agreeable to spend the 1 .0 million dollar maximum at this time to assist in the design of the Shakopee Southerly Bypass. DH/pmp ��NNTq Minnesota yo Department of Transportation District 5 2055 No. Lilac Drive of VkO Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 (612)593- 8403 July 22, 1988 Mr. John Anderson City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 Re: SP 7005-42 (TH 101 ) Shakopee By-pass Dear Mr. Anderson: The City of Shakopee has shown continued support, endorsement and encouraged construction of the T.H. 101 Shakopee By-pass at the earliest possible date and has expressed its willingness to contribute 1 . 0 million dollars to the T.H. 101 by-pass Design costs. John, this letter is Mn/DOT' s formal request that the City of Shakopee hire consultants to provide Drainage and Roadway Design Expertise and enter into our agency agreement with Mn/DOT to hire Bridge Design Expertise. The total sum of the City of Shakopee ' s obligation is not to exceed 1 . 0 million dollars. Details of the proposal are outlined in a letter dated this date to Mr. Daniel Hutton, City Engineer, City of Shakopee. Sincly, it im awford E. District Engineer WMC:mjj cc: M.M. Christensen J.T. Povich Jim Weingartz, Room 612C, C.O. An Equal Opportunity Employer Minnesota Department of Transportation District 5 ¢ 2055 No. Lilac Drive OF Tar Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 (612)593- 8404 July 22, 1988 David E. Hutton City Engineer City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 Re: S.F. 7005-42 (TH 101 ) Shakopee By-pass Dear Dave: We have reviewed the rough draft of the "Scope of Services" , the proposed changes are noted on the enclosed copy. Also enclosed is a copy of a portion of the layout for the Shakopee By-pass, and depicted in yellow is the roadway work proposed in the "Scope of Services" document. The bridge work, shown in orange will be part of the construction package prepared for contract letting, but the consultant will be selected by Mn/DOT. The following is a list of consultants which we, at Mn/DOT, feel are qualified to the proposed roadway design. -Bennett Ringrose Walsfeld Jarves Gardner Inc. (BRW) -Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch Inc (SRF) -Edwards & Relcey (E&K) -Howard Needles Tammen & Beraendoff (HNTB) -Barton Aschman Associates, Inc. (BA) -Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. ( SEH ) -Barrientos & Association The following time frame is proposed: City Council Authorization August 2, 1988 Consultant Selected October 1 , 1988 Construction limits developed to begin R/W Appraisal process January 1 , 1989 An Equal Opportunity Employer Dave Hutton Page 2 July 22, 1988 R/W package prepared by Consultant submitted to Mn/DOT District 5 R/W May 1 , 1989 100% completed plan submitted to Mn/DOT District 5 Design for final review August 1 , 1989 (R/W processed/completed plans processed by Mn/DOT District 5 and Central Office) Letting January 26, 1990 This proposed time frame will accelerate the construction of these crossroads by one full construction season. Early coordination between Scott County, City of Shakopee and Jackson Township must occur. This coordination will identify any potential problems which might occur as a result of the proposed construction of these crossroads. Specifically are the proposed roadway X-section adequate to serve the Existing and anticipated traffic needs. The City of Shakopee has agreed to provide to Mn/DOT, up to I million dollars, for assistance in the Design of the Shakopee By-pass. It is proposed that the money, be utilized in the following manner. Shakopee hire Consultant for Development of Drainage Plan $x Shakopee hire consultant for Development of Roadway Construction Plan Mn/DOT hire Consultant for Development of Bridge Construction Plans $ z Although it is proposed that Mn/DOT hire the Consultants necessary to design the bridges, it is expected that the City of Shakopee enter into an agency agreement, agreeing to pay for the Bridge consultants. But it is also expected that the total contribution of the City of Shakopee of x + y + z dollars is not to exceed the 1 million dollars previously agreed upon. The agency agreement must address this fact, therefore careful bookkeeping procedures need to be developed to monitor all the Consultant expenditures. Dave Hutton Page 3 July 22, 1988 Shortly, I will be reviewing the statis of the Pre-design activities, District Soils, Bridge foundations, District Design, R/W, Surveys and Additional Design Mapping request to make sure that there schedules now reflect the currently proposed accelerated schedule. By separate letter directed to the Mr. John Anderson, City Administrator of Shakopee, Mn/DOT will officially request Shakopee' s assistance in the Design process. S ncere �- a Stensen, P.E. Assistant District Engineer Enclosure MMC:mjj cc: M.M. Christensen W.M. Crawford J.T. Povich R.W. Hathaway Jim Weingartz, C.O. Stan Michael, C.O. Loren Hegland, C.O. 9 � TRUNK HIGHWAY 101 PROJECT (S.P. 7005) SCOPE OF SERVICES TASK 1 .0 PROJECT COORDINATION Task Objective: The objective of the project coordination task will be to ensure that a constant flow of information on the project is maintained between the consultants, the City of Shakopee, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) . The primary purpose of this task will be to ensure that design plans for 6 of the Cross Roads for the Trunk Highway 101 (TH101 ) Bypass (S.P. 7005) are prepared within the schedule attached. Work Description and Level of Detail: The project coordination associated with the design of the TH101 project , S . P . 7005 is critical to adhering to a phased construction schedule which is being advanced from a previous letting date in November, 1990 to approximately January 26, 1990. Particular attention will be required in expediting the right-of- way acquisition process. The purpose of the project is to construct a number of cross roads at the numerous interchanges and a grade separating all located on the bypass along the south end of Shakopee. These cross roads include: CSAH 15 Co. Rd. 77 Co. Rd. 79 CSAR 17 CSAH 16 Co. Rd. 83 This work element will specifically provide for coordination between MnDOT, the City of Shakopee and the consultant to proceed through the state and federal process whereby a set of construction plans and supporting documents are prepared according to MnDOT standards. The unique feature of this project is that while the City of Shakopee is the contracting agency , MnDot is responsible for technical direction. Consequently , project coordination is somewhat more complex than normal. The schedule for the design of these cross roads along the 8 mile improvement has been set at approximately 10 months. In order to meet this schedule and provide the best possible design product within that time frame, coordination between the consultant and MnDOT will be necessary. It is proposed that for the preparation of the design documents there be bimonthly design team meetings with MnDOT who will assign a project liaison to assist in maintaining communication between consultant and MnDOT. In order to meet document submission dates, the bimonthly meetings will be a necessity. TASK 2.0 PROJECT INITIATION Task Objective: The objective of the project initiation task is to ensure the smooth transition of the project from the preliminary studies stage to the actual design and contract document preparation stage . This information is extremely important and must be conveyed to the consultant by MnDOT - District 5 personnel. 2.1 Initial Activity Under the umbrella of initial activities are four specific items that require close attention to guarantee the transition from the preliminary studies phase to contract document preparation. These are described in the following subtasks. 2.1 .1 Site Reconnaissance After the Notice to Proceed is issued, the consulting team will schedule a project visit with all governing agencies. The Purpose of this meeting will to be review the project area and discuss specific design features that will be incorporated. The consultant will see that all interested and vested parties, such as the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Scott County, Jackson Township, and the City of Shakopee are aware of the field review and will be invited to attend. This includes any utility companies which may be affected by the project. 2.1 .2 Surveying (By Mn/DOT) MnDOT will complete all necessary surveys for the project. 2.1 .3 Technical Reports (By Mn/DOT) As with the surveying, a detailed geotechnical investigation and subsequent report for the project will be prepared by the state. This work includes bridge foundation investigations, soil borings and necessary soils recommendations. 2.1 .4 Survey Base Mapping (By Mn/DOT) Survey base mapping prepared by Mn/DOT will be utilized to Prepare project design at a scale of 1 - = 50 ' which will clearly convey design intent and conform to all applicable standards. A common coordinate system will be established with MnDOT to ensure project compatibility. There are several areas where additional �k rase mapping s been s nece . equested. The consultantywillT prepare additional e theplan mapping la ga CADsystem compatible with, or translatable to, Mn/DOT' s CAD system TASK 3.0 PROJECT DESIGN Task Objective: The objective of this task is to prepare the contract documents for the final design of some of the cross roads of the TH101 project in Shakopee, Minnesota. This objective will be reached in three critical steps which represent various levels of completion for the documents. Those steps are: Preliminary Design 40 percent Final Design 1 80 percent Final Design 2 100 percent 3.1 Preliminary Design In the preliminary design phase, the project design parameters established during the special studies phase will be reviewed h ase finalized . The completion of the preliminary d s gnphase indicates that the plans will be approximately Pe complete . In order to bring the design to this level, those initial activities outlined in Task 2 .0 will need to be incorporated. Since this is ultimately a building process, in addition to those design items that have been started under the preliminary design phase , additional emphasis will be placed on designing or coordinating with the design of traffic signing and signals, traffic control, utility relocations, major structures, drainage plans and report, quantities and cost estimate. The majority of the level of effort to reach the preparation and submission of thepreliminary design will be contained in the design activities described in Task 3.7 • 3.2 Final Design 1 At this point the design documents will be submitted to the review agencies at an approximate 80 percent stage of completion. This is interpreted to mean that the design will be substantially complete with the exception of incorporating comments by the reviewing agencies . In addition, final quantity estimates, summaries and design calculations including final cost estimate will be submitted. As was the case with the preliminary design subissio , the level of form this n submittal uired majority been of estipulat d efforthat separate is a design activities. 3.2.1 Special Provisions - The consultant shall prepare special provisions for those items, details , designs and procedures for which the consultant is responsible. The first draft of these special provisions will begin during the Final Design I phase and will be made available with each of the subsequent submissions for Final Design 1 and Final Design 2. Specifications which will apply to this project are contained in the latest edition of the Minnesota Department of Transportation "Standard Specifications for Constructionn and all supplemental specifications thereto. 3.2.2 Cost Estimates Prepare a preliminary and final engineer construction cost estimate based on project design quantities and typical unit prices , including determination of cost splits for cooperative agreements and funding sources. 3.3 Agency Plan Review Submit duplicate copies of plans at previously described check points for review and approval by applicable agencies. This activity would include discussions as to design intent and plan interpretation. 3.4 Final Design 2 Following a final review by the regulating agencies, the complete set of contract documents sealed by a registered professional engineer in Minnesota will be submitted to the Minnesota Department of Transportation - District 5 office. This will include, in addition to the final construction plans, a complete set of final special provisions, final design computations and calculations as well as other pertinent design data. 3.5 Permits 1 . After the final design is complete , a field inspection involving the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Corps of Engineers, Water Management Organizations and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources will be conducted to make a final determination on permits required for the project. 2. Prepare and submit permit applications and secure federal and state approvals. cr oL 3.6 Pre-Bid Activities During project advertisement, plan interpretation will be provided to contractors as necessary in order to provide a comprehensive understanding of the project. 3.7 Design Activities Design activities is an overall grouping of the individual design areas required as a part of preparing the contract documents for the TH101 project. The design activities themselves will feed into each of the milestone events for the preparation of the contract documents. Those are the preliminary design , Final Design 1 and Final Design 2 phases. 3.7.1 Roadway and Signal Design A. Roadway Design The consultant will prepare the roadway design element for the construction documents. The roadway design elements will be conducted within all applicable MnDOT standards. An integral part of the roadway design will be the incorporation of CADD techniques to the project design. The roadway design element will include the preparation of the cover sheet, general layout, estimated quantities, typical roadway sections, details related to roadway design, plan and profiles and cross sections. The special provisions and cost estimates are covered in separate work elements of this proposal. B. Signal Design (Optional) The signal plans will be prepared to include a plan view of each intersection at a scale of 1" = 201 , construction details and wiring diagrams. All signal-mounted traffic signing will also be incorporated. These signal systems will be designed in accordance with current Mn/DOT practices and the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD) . Preliminary design of the signal will commence following completion and approval of a Signal Justification Report which will also be prepared by the consultant and since it is uncertain at this time which intersections may require signalization now or in the future it is necessary that the consultant prepare his proposal considering this task is optional. 3.7.2 Bridge Design A Mn/DOT selected consultant will provide detailed construction Plans for all proposed bridge structures. The consultant will be required to coordinate their activity closely with the bridge designer to assure timely completion of preliminary & detailed roadway & bridge construction plans. 3.7.3 Right-of-Way Plans/Acquisition The consultant will prepare a complete up-to-date right-of-way plan showing existing right-o£-way , property ownership and proposed right-of-way limits for the crossroads of the T. H. 101 project construction limits. This plan will also identify any construction easements necessary. With assistance from MnDOT, the proposed right-of- way will be described for the purpose of legal documentation and acquisition proceedings. A new right-of-way layout will be prepared and computed to the state coordinate system. Based on proposed construction limits and established right-of- way needs the consultant will conduct under subcontract to an independent appraiser approved by MnDOT all pre-offer acquisition duties such as title searches and property valuation . The appraiser ' s tasks will include updating of appraisals as necessary and testifying in condemnations hearings. This data will be forwarded to MnDOT's District Right-of-Way office for further acquisition proceedings. Relocation assistance will be provided by the State. 3.7.4 Drainage Plans Surface and subsurface drainage features will be designed in accordance with Highway Drainage Guidelines, AASHTO 1982, Chapter 8 of MnDOT Road Design Manual and current MnDOT practices. Temporary erosion control measures will be incorporated into this plan . Slope design , turf restoration and special control structures will be designed to provide permanent erosion control within the project limits. 3.7.5 Signing and Delineation The consultant will prepare a detailed signing and pavement marking plan as a part of the contract documents. Since there is existing signage in place today, a necessary step in this work element will be to conduct an inventory of those signs to determine removal and salvage quantities and prepare a new contract signing plan. 9 � 3.7.6 Traffic Control Plans The consultant will prepare a traffic control plan in conjunction with the Minnesota Department of Transportation to include or are identification of detours, any temporary signing , P pavement markings, temporary barriers or flagging requirements. 3.7.7 Construction Staging Plans The construction staging plans will be prepared at a scale of 1 " = 100 ' . This plan will be critical to reducing traffic congestion and maintaining a safe flow of traffic with minimal delays. Bypass plans needed will be prepared at a scale of 1n = 50' . 3 .7 .8 Utility Relocations Plans The utility relocation plans for Municipal Utilities will be prepared at a scale of 1" = 50' . TASK 4.0 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING The following services will commence after contract award: 4.1 Office Engineering Consultation with and advice to Mn/DOT during construction to resolve problems due to actual field conditions encountered TASK 5.0 MEETINGS The consultant will attend all proposed bimonthly and supplemental meetings pertinent to the timely completion of the project detail design phase. These would include meetings with MnDOT, the City of Shakopee, Jackson Township, DNR, FWS, WMO' s and affected utility companies. 5c, MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Community Development Director RE: Comprehensive Plan Task Force Appointment DATE: July 27, 1988 INTRODUCTION• A Task Force needs to be appointed as a part of the Comprehensive Plan update process. It is requested that the City Council review the attached list of appointees and formalize a task force membership list. BACKGROUND: Within the past month the City Council officially entered into a contract with BRW, Inc. for the purpose of preparing a comprehensive update for the Shakopee Development Plan. This process will take place during the next 12 months with completion anticipated in the summer of 1989. It is desireable to have a broad base of residents and community officials to guide the planning process and to respond to consultant reports and suggestions. It is requested that the City Council appoint two of it's members to the task force. The Planning Commission will be asked to do the same and the Community Development Commission will be requested to appoint one member. The attached list includes a list of organizations and other groups which should be represented on the Task Force. The number in parenthesis to the right of each group heading (underlined) represents the suggested number of persons to be appointed from that group. Council may wish to modify these numbers. In certain instances persons have been suggested for group membership while, in other instances, no one has been listed. The people on the list have not been contacted at this time, so some may not want to serve on the Task Force. It is expected that the task force will meet six to eight times during the plan update process. The first meeting will be held during the week of August 8th. RECOMMENDATION• It is recommended that the City Council officially appoint the Comprehensive Plan Task Force after review and determination of additional persons to serve on the committee. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to appoint the following persons as members of the Shakopee Comprehensive Plan Task Force. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TASK FORCE Staff: (4) John Anderson Dave Hutton Dennis Kraft Douglas Wise City Council , (2 members appointed by Council) 1) 2) Planning Commission: (2 members appointed by Planning Commission) 1) 2) Community Development Commission• (1 member appointed by CDC) 1) Shakopee Public Utilities Commission 1) Lou VanHout Shakopee Community Services Commission 1) George Munchow Industrial Representatives, (2) 1) Noreen Raucker 2) Stan Neimeyer Development Committee, (2) 1) Gary Laurent, Laurent Builders 2) Zack Johnson, Scottland Co. Entertainment Industry• (2) 1) Pat Dawson, Canterbury Downs 2) Linnea Stromberg-Wise, Valleyfair Shakopee Chamber of Commerce: (1) 1) Theresa Roehrich Shakopee School District: (1) 1) Virgil Mears Downtown Business Community: (2) 1) Dave Brown 2) Non-Profit/Governmental Representatives: (2) 1) 2) Financial Institutions: (1) 1) Hospitality Industry• (1) 1) Community Residents: (4) 1) Donna Hyatt 2) 3) 4) Senior Citizens: (2) 1) 2) C�L Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Marilyn Remer, Personnel Coordinator Re: Smoking/Non-smoking Policy Date: July 28, 1988 Information City hall employees meet annually for Employee Goals & Objectives sessions. Designating smoking and non-smoking areas as mandated by the Indoor Clean Act is an on-going employee goal and objective. Background The Minnesota Clean Indoor Act was first passed in 1975 and amended to become more specific in 1980. The law ensures that smoke-free areas must always be available in public places. It accomplishes this by prohibiting mokin eve here except in desianated areas and forbidding any public place except a bar to be designated as a smoking area in its entirety. The Minnesota Dept. of Health has determined the rules and criteria. In April, 1988, all city employees were asked to respond to a smoking/non-smoking survey. Approximately 708 responded. The results of the survey is attached. As part of the service the Mn. Dept. of Health provides, Mary Thompson of that agency toured City Hall and the Police Dept. The follow-up letter from Mary summarizing the measures the City of Shakopee must take in order to achieve compliance with the Act is attached. Some major points are: 1. Non-smokers have first priority and are accommodated with a minimum of 200 sq. ft. smoke-free area. 2. Smoking areas must be designated. All entrances must be posted. 3. Private enclosed offices are as designated. No lighted cigarettes are allowed beyond these offices or in hallways. 4. Shared work areas must have the 200 sq. ft. smoke-free area. 5. Facilities must have a non-smoking bathroom available to the Public. 6. Reception and file area must be smoke-free. 7. Council Chambers could be separated by barriers to accommodate smokers/non-smokers if so desired. The majority of work areas, restrooms, conference rooms and break rooms are too small to accommodate both smokers and non-smokers without extensive remodeling. The only area in which smoking could be allowed is in an individual's private enclosed office (not a shared office) , although inadequate ventilation may be a problem. Use of smoke-free ash trays would be recommended. An employee information session was held July 28th to discuss results of the survey and suggestions for implementing a fair policy. The major discussion focused on viable options for the designation of lunchrooms. Several employees expressed the fact that they were in favor of city owned vehicles being designated smoke-free. It will be acceptable to employees of the public works department to designate a smoking allowed time period for an individual smoker, with most stating they have no problems. The Police Department will hold a staff meeting to determine the best solution to designating time periods and at the same time accommodate their staff's schedules. The City Hall lunchroom facilities are also too small to accommodate both smoker and non-smoker sections. The alternatives are either designate the lunchroom as totally smoke-free or set up specific time periods allowing smoking. In order to effectively alternate time periods for use of the lunchroom facility, it is recommended that a minimal ventilating system be installed and smoke-free ash trays be used to keep as much smoke as possible from being recirculated in the building. 678 of the employees responding to the questionnaire were not in favor of designating time periods for smoking in the lunchrooms. They were very adamant that the lunchroom was for eating. Panel speakers at a seminar on Smoke-free Work Environments strongly urged that in order for any smoking policy to work, it has to have the support and enforcement of top management. As is evidenced by many publicized news articles on the subject, many major companies, schools and government buildings are going totally smoke-free. Before staff drafts any type of policy, it is requesting Council direction, suggestions and support on this somewhat controversial issue. Alternatives 1. Direct staff to draft a smoking policy as mandated by the Minnesota Clean Indoor Act, designating permitted smoking and non-smoking areas. 2. Direct staff to draft a Smoke-Free Policy for the City of Shakopee. 3. Other as directed by Council. Recommendation In order to accommodate both smokers and non-smokers within the confines of the law, staff is recommending alternative no. 1. It is also recommending the City declare its intent to become Smoke-Free in 1-2 years. This would allow for better employee acceptance and provide for educational materials and programs to be made available. R SMOKING/NONSMOKING SURVEY 39 employees responded 1. Indicate how you feel about each of the following: Agree Don't Disagree Care A. The City should achieve, over a suitable period and in an effective manner, 1) Nonsmoking on City premises (23) ( 5) (11) 2) Nonsmoking by City employees while primarily representing (17) (10) ( 8) the City. B. Smoking should be prohibited at all meetings within City premises (27) ( 3) ( 9) C. Smoking should be allowed only in smokers lounges. (i.e. lunchroom) (20) ( 2) (16) (Comment: Many employees noted that lunch rooms are for eating, not "smokers lounges", therefore disagreed. Some smokers disagreed for reason they felt they should not only be confined to one area.) D. Smoking should be prohibited in all City buildings. (21) ( 5) (13) E. The City should reduce smoking in their buildings as an example to other employers. (23) ( 7) ( 9) F. The right of a nonsmoker who wants smoke-free air should have priority over the right of a smoker who wants to smoke. (28) ( 1) ( 9) G. The City would achieve cost savings from decreased medical and sick leave expense and (to a lessor extent) diminished janitorial and cleaning costs if the City became a nonsmoking entity. (26) ( 3) (10) H. The occupant of a private office should not be allowed to smoke while meeting with a nonsmoking visitor. (28) ( 4) ( 9) 2. Should smoking be prohibited in these areas? Yes No (23) (13) private offices (31) (5) group offices if all occupants agree (25) (10) group offices even if not all occupants agree (26) (10) reception/waiting area (25) (11) hallways, corridors (24) (12) lunchroom (21) (14) restrooms (4) (23) nowhere (13) (15) everywhere SMOKING/NONSMOKING SURVEY Page 2 3. How often do you use the lunchroom? (21) about 4-5 times per week (8) about 2-3 times per week (2) about 1 time a week (5) less than once per week 4. Would you be in favor of designating specific time periods for smoking in the lunchroom? (8) yes (26) no comments: prohibit from 11.00-1,30 do not want to breathe ke while eating lunch have no ogher ea No smoking in lunchroom do not eniov meals when other are smokine the smell would always be there, 5. Would you eat in the lunchroom more or less often if the lunchroom were smoke free? (9) more (1) less (25) about the same 6. Do you now smoke cigarettes, cigars or pipes? (8) yes (30) no 7. Have you ever smoked on a regular basis, that is, more than 100 cigarettes in your lifetime? (16) yes (20) no 8. How many cigarettes do/did you usually smoke per day? 5-10/DAY, 10/DAY, 1 PK. , 3 PKS. 9. If you have quit or considered quitting, what are the reasons? (10) health reasons (3) social pressure ( ) regulations (1) cost (3) other (please specify) 10. What programs would you like to see made available to City employees? (9) group smoking cessation classes run by outside experts. (13) educational materials for those who want to quit on their own. (3) contests or awards for those who quit. (15) exercise programs. 11. If you currently smoke, would you take part in one of the programs listed above? ( ) yes (2) no 12. What three items do you think are most important to be included in our smoking policy (please list in order of importance)? 1. _Designate s oking/non k' e areas 2. 1008 Smokefree 3. No smoking in City Hall Others: No smoking in group offices. No smoking in restrooms. Strict Enforcement. Provide help to those desiring to quit. Conformance to MN. Indoor Clean Air Act. Implementation of regulations. Awareness of hazard to health. Fairness to non-smokers. What can 5 can't be enforced. Sign "NO SMOKING" areas. Rights of smokers. Rights of non-smokers. Constitutional rights of all - company persecution/discrimination. No-smoking hiring policy. Sufficient funding for cessation programs. Chewers clean up own mess/not use drinking fountain as spittoon. Emphasize "health" more than "rights". Do not force people to quit. No smoking in City owned vehicles. minnesota department of health 717s.e.oelawaresL p.O.box 9441 minneapolis55440 O 161216 -NXJ APR2 E1988 � :r April 27, 1988 Ms. Marilyn Remer City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue .Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Deat Ms. Renter: This is a follow-up to our meeting of April 20, 1988, concerning the designation of nonsmoking and smoking-permitted areas in buildings owned by the City of Shakopee. In order to achieve compliance with the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act (MCIAA), the following measures must be taken. -. 01. Common areas that are shared by all employees (e.g. break room, file area) must have nonsmoking areas designated. As we discussed, the nonsmoking area must be a minimum of 200 square feet and separated from the smoking-permitted area by one of the following: a) a physical barrier at least 56" in height; b) a four foot wide buffer zone; or- c) rc) a ventilation rate in the room of six complete air changes per hour_ 02. In the event that a room is too small to divide (e.g. break room), we will permit an alternation of nonsmoking and smoking-permitted time periods. 03. A shared work space (e.g. private office) that is occupied by smokers and nonsmokers must have a nonsmoking area provided if so desired by a nonsmoking employee_ 04. Main entrances should be posted with signs stating "Smoking is prohibited exceot in designated areas". As needed, nonsmoking and smoking-permitted areas should also be posted with the appropriate signs. 05. Individuals should not be permitted to carry lighted smoking materials into nonsmoking areas. an equal opportunity employer q� Ms. Marilyn Remer - 2 - April 27, 1988 06. Compliance with the MCIAA must be achieved in all buildings owned and operated by the City. Should you have any further questions or concerns regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at 623/5336. Sincerely yours, - -Mary J. Thompson Health Program Representative Environmental Field Services MJT:ec CONSENT qy Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director Re: Surplus Property Date: July 27, 1988 Introduction Council needs to declare two 1979 pickups surplus property so that they may be sold. Back round Public Works has received two 1988 pickups to replace two 1979 pickups. The old trucks need to be declared surplus so that they may be sold. Action Requested Move to declare two 1979 Ford pickups, serial numbers F25HLFC3204 and F25HPEJ9699 surplus property to be sold as provided by the City Code. GV:mmr CONSENT �h TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Deferred Compensation Plan Adoption DATE: July 19, 1988 Introduction The City need to adopt a revised deferred compensation plan pending IRS approval. Background The City has had a deferred compensation plan for many years but the plan was never approved by the IRS. We are participating with Eagan, SFUC and Chaska in having attorneys at Deloitte, Haskins and Sells revise, update and get the plan approved. IRS wants a document shows that the City has adopted the plan. Therefore, it is requested that Council authorize proper city officials to execute the document adopting the deferred compensation plan for the City of Shakopee pending IRS approval. Action Move to authorize proper City officials to execute the document adopting the deferred compensation plan for the City of Shakopee pending IRS approval. e N o e o N e e ooe1° e o ' m m N N W N J lA> l R e R O— O 8 i • > M 4 a J R u R O • W R MNNN M S = Z y O K O O T D M N N N y N yJbN N D m m m m m m m m mmmm m m m m s 0 c z p� uu om0 PP oe NN N Neo roro roro pro mm uu ae NJme ea =�=+ NN N roN ae NN oo NN41-ro o0 00 m m v n m m sass v a r z a a m a � aaaa c < < r = r < a o00o n p < z o T m o w i c xsxx m m z c zzzz a m o < a m 'c J zzzz T A m A m w m zv ` o m mmmm y r 00 sci 00 w w z m r Z A x 9 O m O m r m m w x Y m vx. wwww v v - A c v y m c c = n civv m o m T z 'vav T x T s m v r Ear E o- v z m T z m o- ymmm m m T i r y cm w z y A O H Z N P > u m ro ro ro N 'a m _roro% u u a o ro - m Je m w a e I P P 9 ml io o 'ro m s m x m v w s a m i i i i i n x F m w V Y Y Y Y Y Y Y W I I 1 I 1 V W 6 6 % 6 W_ m i 1 ' a o i n o x > _ e z mm -a n NeN _ nn Pn rrrh z n nr n n eeF uwi nn __Idil I 111 I eee o I �000 i en nen ne On en o e n NaNd n n uualw n nn WWWW O e eeer a ee reee u I i i P I 1 1 I I I I I 1 < o e eeeo o e eeo1- a oo ee�a o w w L d O m OV 20 m 0 b rZ.Z. O Y J ZZZZ y J WWWW m We 000M L 6 6 UVVVLL > 6666 LL LLN LLLL4LL W p000 2 { 6 p ZW p000 Y J ¢ JJJJ V ¢ J7JJ OJ ¢¢¢ b F 0000 1- % m% % 6 Vp 6666 W m V OppO J ¢C0N ¢¢¢ VtZIVV WWWW Y ¢ Z w i wwm{w % saaa wwww 0000 v vuuv i w mmmm ¢zzz z ¢ ¢¢¢ xzzc LLLLLLLL aitle > ¢ LL F F hF Y 0000 %NNm J %Q¢p ¢ 0000 0 Om mNNN W Q ^ V W 6{ { 6 Z U= ¢¢¢¢ LL W LLLLLL4 J 2SS2 2 � yyyy Mn 0m NhFhe • e ono e ± • e0o e F FF hopm o1-n <e nnnnN NN mm F � W. ocoO NN PP N FP NN Ntl - tltl r0m n�l'ri �P i r Nn r N-n no a w w m m mmmm m mmmm m mm mmmm p 0 6000 m Y F \\ \m \ ^ m \ \mm 0010, 10 FF \FF \0 { a a F N x m \ \ aa \\ (u N wales m Na aaaa m e o oee o Fo o \\ ho LL 0 0 o eeo Oo eoo O f O F 2 u wn PP _ tltltl nn W - hFF o0o nn �000 P U NNNN NN NNNN - i N • a ! Nddd i N • d dddN • N t ad a NddN t e Doses e o N o o e N e ee ` n x rorvmNN x P N + N « . o uW Y Z -1 O K O O T J JJJJ) J J N N J J NJ DT. 0 00mmm m m m 0 0 m 0 m mm m mmmmm m m m m m m m m mm m s 3 0 u -uaa z ONNO WP Nm NN as Wm woN J N AJPPPJ na NN NN N0A . uu _� nm- W NNmPbo WW NN NN JJ oo NN �� oo -0Y z om000 z zm m 3 o m s m 'mm � c wmwmw T a z � < n i w ii z z m o wm P PPP m o x a o z P D 9 O O y9 O D DDDDD m A T T y A yD 9 mwwwN 9 Jy n m n O A 9 noon K a m o n m K NaaTT y c - z 3 m m m m YK J 9 999 ^ 00 9 C CT O 99 m D 00000 v ^ 9 y 9 C « 3 < TTTTT Y ^ y m f r 1- 9 IMI m MN «A o « n mmmmm .m P m m a PP P < w m a m C y CC C 0 m0 m WN y N wN O w YY Z yPPWN _ O O _NNON O o O O O i 1 a a0 O a x 1 1 1 I IA 1 1 1 1 aaa u_nuuuw N W m � m r'o 1'n ro uu i 41 - J N o o N eo K W Nm PON n N W W ro �VO N JPWP- y I W N P II 1 Mala I i W u ro- - u as n a u ro _ roJ z ro m e s e eo a m N a 1 � m s m w 's m n n F F m F F F w N w N m w w N w P W N N N Y Y Y U W I 1 I I u w e n w z m s i a o i n 0 FF N o i F 0 N 0 0 F NN N Z N a N FnnnnP Tt I 1 r 11 1 1 IIIIIIIPPP _ —aNPmFm o m P m en umi a In tinnnnab b.o.. T7777 NiNN F e N O o Oooepee00 O P n P OPf n p n nPnnnT nnnn P\PPOPTP 1 I 11111 1 6 o O O e O o0000'dCnO Z F O_ W W � a000 m000 U K 2 w, W W O Z > 26666Z6666 W W 0 u` W Q W rO00o�i«e O W ^ J L W h Y Of FFFOFFYF L LL WN LL 66 6 > V LL 2222252222 ^ 6 S 6 NN W F 0 n ¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢06 6666666666 ¢ W W V _V ¢ ^ F ee6e6 ¢eee ¢ 0pp0m00000 Y V w W ¢¢¢ ¢¢¢¢ y0 O W J pOJJ7�ppJJ V V ¢ J 00000000m0 V W - UNV O mJD 0WWWOOJ0NmJJJJ 6 U VU J L W O N J W MWW XX 0 ¢ Q ~WW00WN U U W W W W W W w. > 2 r W 00 F Y 2 3_3_3_3_3_3_3_7_3_3_ J F F 6 ^ 00 0 ¢ W hFFFFFFFF W U JJJJJJOJJO n n ¢¢ O N NO%M%WTWWWO 6 ¢ L ¢ n ` NN • pNo mm PP oo NN NaP0oo-PPOeOwbAOI FF NN nn P n PP 00 PO NN NN o00mnPNONN n NN S nn L NN 6 W d � 0 m mm 0 0 m m Wm0m0000mm o mm m m m m mmmmmmWmmm as w a i F � N a aNamamwmaw N oe o o \ \ \ \\\\\ \\ \ LL O o o O o o e000e0evoo O } O h Z U V m - Fh N ooee.00000 N n NN qZ P NNNNNNNNNN U O O O e0 e p P PPpPPpPPPP maNNaNNe o e e o 1° 00 0 o N oe 1° � b oP NN N n N NN N e w - o t P i J if c t eo ! l 3 N e W + P • N0 t 0 .0 Z -� O O O T N N J ` M NN N y N y yN N m D J \ \ \ JJ J \ \ \ \ \ \ O m m m m m mm m m m m mm m m a s 0 YW C y Yl PP NN NNN PP -- MN PM PbW NJ ~ 0w PN MW WW N- N Po WW 00 0o Poo v0 NN mw eo 00o bo m D D D ZZ y Z > O yNY O Z 9 - Z r 9 9 a K -Ci = < � m 00 m K 99 S w N D w O 00 r O_ w D_D_ C m_ y 3 O y r w a i w - r as o o� o z z z mm m y O Iw - y oa o a w n w zz o IJ ww a i m a �� o or � D a9 c i w m < � w m� m � o r Z � a � F O 99 9 < mm D 9 9 00 Z � y w m y Pm y w 9 0 09 - 9 C a y C ^^ 00 D C 'D w ZO u m 9 < V - = 00 < 9 < m mT y 3 r m „ 9 m Y III r x y is r m r trm tr m N tr w D N ZZ w tr w9 9 w tr O< w Z yy w 2 C a C O 0 N y m w � y w y O Y y y Z J D i i � � i ++ c > a >i � o a a N W N N Y N m W N W � Y W N Z W W W - W N y 1 1 P W 1 I u y P I W N Z N � _ _ W 1 -W y .O W - W � W P W � > W u I - I Y W N N N > N- > b N- Z P = N N W � s P c P a � m o s m z m v w D w i a m i i i i � i � i i i m x x m x z x x s s x w w w w w w a m w N d y V W 1 V W Q V m f 6 0 6 W_ 0 Y m w o N I d N m F Fl N 0 n 0 O Y N N F n n m m - n Fl n n 1 i i i I i i i i I o a n n n In a N n Pa Z Fl n N n 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 F N N N Z Fl n Fl n N n J N a 'N a a a a a N N Fl N N 0 M O P P P P P n n U a e e e e e e e e a e e r o 0 0 0 z o m o m > 0 V O O O J F O 2 V LL Q m 6 m m m b Z • 6 W m 6 0 O J C 6 W J 6 J S Q J 3 J 0 F OJ O J J J J J J O W J O O W u W m W m m m 0 m 0 O F W m 0 W L V V Z W F m W C Z O F Y C Z V u O W J V Y J Y ^ } K U d I K J V O O W J = J O Q 6 W F 6 V F 0 6 F m W 6 } I W F x 6 O W 6 6 m F F F 0 O V J 0 O } 6 6 p m O O u Y W K O }0 m Z b C 2 Z LL O W > O F u O K S Q M1 2 m m 0 O > Q } > O W O Y Y L F LL W 2 Y 6 C K 0 m L > > 3 V • i t f t a t i 1 t i i • i i R R i P aN NN OP FM1 nn NN mPP PP -- ee 00 mF - - 00 0o p0 PP p p F F aN PP M am Fln tln oo bN -- PP Fln NN PP O Z O_ PO P Q W W m 0 m 0 0 m m m 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 m 0 \ \ 0 0 0 \ 0 0 m 0 m Q N a N N N a N a N d N N N a N a d Q o o e o 0 0 o e o 0 0 0 LL O o o e O o F F F r r F r F r r r r r r F O Y O F Z U Y N N 0 N n 0 0 S m 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 V o O o O O O o o O o O O O n u x W m m n z n_ 2 K O K O O T D y W m x x 0 m m a x - o wam aea u i in w-lm anuu - � a ummKrou--WJ roawrooJmmyy m rsmmemm�-m�e N Nmb- emmNmN O TTTTTTTTTT y CC_C_C C_C_C_C_C_C_ D Z Z < r oomomm0000 i ywwrorororo--- o -mPVPm-Pma OA yyyyyyyyyy n 0000000000 x yyyyKyKyyK A DDDDDDDDDD rrrrrrrrrr s m w y m A mtlbwOADDAA K mm-mib ia.-mDW x A saoasm o iaaozm m moAmAmi z <olmsT m<woTA T xmcm o K mxz<y< zmnmam o y y.yorm z IIZSAy 09 m0 T ZLT ym0 y D O C Z y Z Z < i oW O N m 6 m m T b D a m m A J N O 6. Imo m m 00 O 00000 N m OW m m m m m m m mmm F F FF' WW W W FF w tFFFF F G' tF F F F F F F' F FFC lJ W W D\D\ m V r Y W W I N N N N N7- r r V V w W W W r W W W W W r Y Y N N N N N N W O O N Y 0 , r Y 0 o 0 o N N N N N N �D �O OM N O\ D\ w —1 �1 Y Y Y V N O O O O O O O\�O O W * F r *n " F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > �n N O O O O O O N H O N w V Y— N m F O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 n �O V O O 00 0 0 H H O Y Y Y Y r O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 n C H N 0 0 0 0 O O N H O N w HF FF' H F 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 '< o " mo m m 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 N m O m m m m m m m m m m m n ! O\O\ WY F F YY Y rYYYY 01 V� YY V r Y V r Y Y rYY Y Y 0 Y r Y Y r Y Y Y 00000 r Y Y V Y Y r 0 Y r Y Y V Y Y V r r O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 a Y Y V r r Y Y r Y Y r Y r r Y Y Y Y V Y Y V r Y r Y r Y r n •O i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 n w c+ w m w r mm D O N N OY Ym O 0 m 0 00 m mmm 3 D\ O �n W 0 ,0 0 O 000 00 00 OO lN lN OV�1—] OO OO OO Nm� n O C 3 P ^J w a - n = N > _ C9 - O WW '�1. 'A M 'A M 'A M W 'A X > > H o w. o ry w m l0 N S 7 3 H N a o n b P < w m n µ m K o o m m a K K o o > n m 3 nn Y H O O N ry m n m m w b b < O N N N N mw N N F F' FF mm F F' FC F FFFFF C' W WW W w W w w W W 41Ww 2 D\D\ � F W w N Y Y Y Y V O �O m m �1 O\ V� F w N Y 000 O £ n = S O a m O O O O O m m = > 0 p > P 3 6 O n p dye N w H �G K H 5 w 3 O O W W O O ❑ d < N M Y Y P• < 5 C w H a m O 9 �' - Y 3 O O 7 ~ aG+ N a m w 3 ? 5 O H O O r+ m N (n m N b b P bGJ O < 7 H m N N � n W Y Y n m O a w y W Y 0\ D\ C O\ F w W w F O N O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 N W F 0 1O N O 7 M N O N O • T N 0 O c N ti O� Y U E E O N E U Y_ O O 6 2 U p j F E v 3 L v U 'CI a8 M W 'O y c U 9 m F N N F O o N 0 Z I0000000000 H .V N M .7 v�rn rn rn rn�N N in rn In in N rn in rn U N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N �I bl 0\00 - U OMNt`�.7 9 . C W NOH1� HMO m O O L L � 1�1 N.30 00� G v w d y O 0 0 4T M pp. F U U d y F O no O Mmo N O G Ud +.,y� E C N O O m m Y G v > > c a Fo. 0 ro E H N 3 E E A N i y (R W ONM r0Y 3 00 y 6 W C 6 0J F F N f0. d U 0000000000 000 O O Op y O O y y w H '-I . H .i .i .i . H H . I .-r .-I H F c> 0 NN .a m d , w 0000000000 000 0 0 0 U 0000000000 OO � O N N WONI�n�p tiN�NM� NN1-- NMHNNN .i NrnM .i O HH .iHHN .iNHN Nm.i H O O y H I�NIn MNNN N H rn VCM N O O O O - Q P O O O 'i H .i O+O�NNNNNNNN WOJ OJ N M m � y �Y MMMMMMMM MMM M ri .i �1.y1 ? .Y.Y1 .Y J.Y M M C 0000000000 OO � 0 o0 OJ CONSENT q� MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City A 'nistfator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Request from League of W,4 o Voters of Shakopee DATE: July 29, 1988 INTRODUCTION- The City has received a request from the League of Women Voters of Shakopee. The League is planning their 12th Anniversary party and is requesting a donation for their silent auction fund raiser. BACKGROUND: The League of Women Voters of Shakopee is requesting donations for their silent auction fund raiser. The donation is of our choice. Two years ago during their 10th Anniversary they made a similar request. At that time the City donated a Family Swimming Pass to the Shakopee pool to the League of Women Voters for it's silent auction. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Make no donation. 2. Donate a Family Swimming Pass. 3. Other. RECOMMENDATION• Alternative No. 2. Donate a Family Swimming Pass for the 1989 swimming season. ACTION REQUESTED: Move that the City donate a Family Swimming Pass to the Shakopee pool for the 1989 season to the League of Women Voters of Shakopee for their silent auction. JSC/tlV League of Women Voters of Shakopee P.O. Box 113. Shakopee, MN 55379 July 7, 1988 Dear Contributor: The League of Women Voters of Shakopee is in the process of planning our Twelfth Anniversary Party to be held September 15, 1988, at the Shakopee House. As part of our program, we will feature a Silent Auction fundraiser. Some of you generously helped its with donations for our Tenth Anniversary party, which was a huge success. For those of you who are not familiar with the League, we would like to tell you a little about our organization. The League of Women Voters of Shakopee, which was formed in 1976, is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with a membership of approximately forty individuals. Our League currently attracts members from a wide area, including the communities of Chaska, Jordan and Prior Lake, as well as Shakopee. As an organization, our members work to educate and advocate as well as to promote citizen action on local, state and national issues. To help us celebrate our Twelfth Anniversary, we depend on contributions of donated items or services for our Silent Auction. Any item of your choosing will be very much appreciated. This is an opportunity for you to advertise among hundreds of prominent local residents, as your name will appear on the donated item. At the same time, your donation will enable us to continue to accomplish worthwhile projects and activities throughout our community. Contributions to the League of Women Voters of Shakopee are not deductible as charitable contributions for tax purposes but may be deductible as an ordinary and necessary business expense. All items were well received by the bidders at our last anniversary celebration. We welcome first-time contributors and look forward to your generous donation. Within two weeks you will receive a follow-up phone call from a League member to discuss and confirm your donation. Thank you. Sincerely, Silent Auction Committee LWV of Shakopee CONSENT qk MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Appointment to Community Development Commission DATE: July 27, 1988 Introduction and Background On July 26, 1988 City Council nominated Mark Miller to the Community Development Commission to fill an unexpired term ending January 31, 1990. Under Council procedures the appointment of Mr. Miller can take place at the next Council meeting. Alternatives 1. Appoint Mark Miller to the Community Development Commission. 2 . Do not appoint Mark Miller to the Community Development Commission. 3 . Table appointment to the Community Development Commission. Recommendation Alternative No. 1. Action Requested Appoint Mr. Mark Miller to the Community Development Commission to fill an unexpired term ending January 31, 1990. JSC/jms 9i MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: St. Francis Regional Medical Center Ambulance Subsidy DATE: July 27, 1988 Introduction The cities of Shakopee and Savage along with the townships of Louisville, Jackson and Sand Creek have had an ambulance service agreement with St. Francis Regional Medical Center for several years. The contract has served the hospital's needs along with the needs of the residents in the five jurisdictions. Recently St. Francis added a new Advanced Life Support (ALS) 24-hour unit to service the Savage area to reduce the time required to service citizens in Savage. The cost of adding this additional 24-hour ALS coverage under the present agreement formula would increase Shakopee's annual subsidy from $16,344 in 1987 to an estimated $33 ,677 in 1989. Background St. Francis Regional Medical Center has prepared an analysis of the existing funding formula based upon the incorporation of the new 24-hour ALS coverage in Savage. That analysis is attached and dated July 14, 1988. There is also attached for Council review a new draft of the proposed agreement with St. Francis Regional Medical Center. Historically the agreement has resulted in a declining contribution by the City. In 1984 the City paid $19,864, in 1985 the City paid $18,448, in 1986 the City paid $16, 042 .50 and in 1987 the City paid $16,344. From pages one and three of the July 14th memo from St. Francis it is apparent that Shakopee is the primary user of the present ambulance service and would pay the largest subsidy for supporting the service under the proposed 1989 rate structure at $33,677. In addition to the five jurisdictions supporting the ambulance service St. Francis also supports the service by underwriting 508 of any net annual loss. I have spoken with the City Administrator in Savage and learned that the City of Savage is currently providing garage space at their Fire Station free of charge for the ALS service. Savage will also be providing a bay in their new Public Works facility free of charge for the ALS service. Their Administrator noted that they will be saving $20,000 per year in local Fire Department rescue runs which can now be made by St. Francis' ALS unit. Thus in analyzing the overall equity in the formula and the willingness of various jurisdictions to accept 50+8 increases in the annual rate Savage's position is unique. And they will likely support some form of subsidy of the new 24-hour ALS service placed by St. Francis in their community. Savage City Councilmembers can support such a position because they are obtaining a significant change in level of service. This differs from Shakopee which will see only a modest change in the level of service because the Savage ALS unit will take any runs in Savage that were covered by a Shakopee based vehicle in the past. This will make more vehicles available for a quicker response here in Shakopee. Alternatives The hospital has scheduled a second meeting on the proposed new contract with the five jurisdictions on Thursday, August 11th. Staff will need some direction from Council for those discussions. I believe Savage may be leaning towards a program to phase in the new increased subsidy. 1. The City could refuse to participate in the increased subsidy which is the result of the hospital's unilateral decision to provide a 24-hour ALS service based in Savage. The City could probably sustain this position by refusing to cooperate in any further negotiations. How this might affect ambulance service to Shakopee residents is not known. 2. The City could agree to a new ambulance service contract establishing a subsidy rate at $2.90 per capita for $33 , 677 in 1989 as proposed in the draft agreement from St. Francis Regional Medical Center. This agreement is based upon the same principles as the existing agreement, but simply reflects the increasing loses that naturally result from providing expensive 24-hour ALS service in a large geographic service area with low density. Only certain hospitals within the Twin Cities core can generate enough charges from frequent runs to break even. This alternative would require that the City budget an additional $17, 000 in in 1989 for its portion of the ambulance subsidy. 3. The City could agree to a two or three year phasing in of the proposed 1988 subsidy rate. This would require the hospital or other jurisdictions to absorb the operating deficit. or, force the hospital to re-evaluate its current staffing and distribution of AIS and HIS ambulance service. Shakopee is in an awkward position because we historically - have received the fastest service simply because of St. Francis' location. It may appear that we are back peddling now that a second community in the service area will receive service comparable to what we have received in the past. Recommendation I recommend alternative No. 3 for the reasons discussed above. Action Reouested Direct the appropriate city officials to participate in negotiations with the City of Savage, Sand Creek, Louisville and Jackson townships and St. Francis Regional Medical Center to phase in increased subsidies for the ambulance service reaching a per capita subsidy of $2.90 in 1991. JKA/jms 9 ( OP1HE A,' ST. FRANCIS (612) 445-2322 REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER 325 West Fifth Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 TO: John Anderson , City of Shakopee Mark McNeil , City of Savage William Dellwo, Louisville Township JIJ4 Norbert Theis , Jackson Township C Try Cyril Wolf , Sand Creek Township OFS FROM: Brian Weinreis, VP Finance H�kQ7'FF SUBJ: AMBULANCE SUBSIDY `�.. DATE: July 14, 1988 I enjoyed meeting with all of you last month regarding ambulance coverage for your respective areas . As discussed, I have put together some history of the last three years regarding the operation of our ambulance department and some statistics regarding ambulance runs by area . Below is a history of Ambulance Runs by Area : Average May May SUBSIDY AREAS: 1986 1987 1988(l) % 2 88(3) 88 %s Shakopee 471 551 532 44 % 86 54 % Savage 144 146 192 14 13 8 Sandcreek 33 36 50 3 5 3 Jackson 29 29 39 3 5 - 3 Louisville 22 16 9 1 1 1 TOTAL SUBSIDY 699 778 822 65 % 110 69 % Non-Subsidy Areas 363 388 480 35 % 49 31 % ( includes Jordan , New Prague, Prior _ Lake , Chaska, Chanhassen, and Eden Prairie ) TOTAL 1062 1166 1302 100 % 159 100 % (1) Projected based on 8 months actual data ( 2) Calculated based on 3 year subsidy area average (3) First month , two units with a unit in Savage AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER K13a Below is a summary of the financial data of the operation of the am- bulance department for the last three years : ( in thousands ) 1986 1987 1988 (1) Gross Revenue (Runs ) 247 281 344 Allowances (3 ) [Bad debts , HMO ' s , etc ] < 7> <12> <28> Net Revenues 240 269 316 Direct Expenses : Salaries 199 201 215 Employee Benefits 50 51 54 Drugs & Medical Supplies 7 4 6 Equipment Operations 25 33 34 Other 24 15 21 TOTAL DIRECT EXPENSES $305 $304 $330 LOSS PRIOR TO ALLOCATION OF INDIRECT EXPENSES (3) <65> <35> <14> (1) Eight months actual projected for 12 months . Excludes the addition of the second unit . (2) Hospital averages used for calculation . Actual experience would be higher for ambulance department due to the nature of this department . ( 3) Some indirect expenses include building depreciation , insurance , interest, administrative, data processing, plant , and laundry. Information is available per the Medicare cost reports , but is not included per section ( B) ( 1 ) ( a ) (6 ) of Subsidy Agreement . Below is a summary of the 1989 Ambulance Department Budget : Budget Year 1989 Gross Revenues $ 439 ,974 Allowances <39, 598> NET REVENUES $ 400, 376 Direct Expenses : Salaries 411 , 702 Employee Benefits 102 , 925 Materials & Supplies 14,868 Equipment Depreciation 46, 047 OTHER 29 , 139 $ 604 .681 LOSS-Prior to Allocation of Indirect Expenses < 204 . 305> K13a At the time (March ' 88) the Board of Directors was examining the financial feasibility of adding the second unit ( 24 hour ALS coverage ) , the annual loss for the Ambulance Department was estimated to be $182 ,000. Due to the response time problem and patient service area image, it was approved to add a second unit . SUBSIDY PROPOSAL Calculated based on the established formula) : Be owow is a a or c>'alculating the per capita per annum amount for the period beginning July 1 , 1988 through June 30, 1989 . Estimated Loss of Ambulance Department . . . . . . . . . . . $204 , 305 Per agreement , any loss in the Ambulance Department shall be shared 50/50 with Hospital and Scott County. Loss allocated to subsidy area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $102 , 152 Portion of time , ambulance serves subsidy area (pl ); . . . 65% 66 , 400 Population of census area ( 1987 estimate) . . . . . . . . . . 22 , 895 Per capita per annum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2. 90 1987 Estimated 1989 Population Per Capita Total Subsidy Shakopee 11 ,613 2. 90 $ 33 ,677 Savage 7 , 400 2. 90 21, 460 Sand Creek 1, 566 2. 90 4 , 541 Louisville 875 2. 90 2, 537 Jackson 1 ,441 2. 90 4 , 178 22 .895 $ 66 . 393 NOTE: At the meeting we can discuss other methods to calculate the subsidy if you think it is appropriate. CONCLUSION: I hope the above data provides a history of the Ambulance Departments revenue and expenses for the last three years , along with the pro- jection for the 1989 fiscal year . This data can be reviewed and discussed at a luncheon at the hospital , which we have scheduled for Thursday, Auqust 4th in the Administrative Conference Room ( same room) . Please RSVP to Kathy Allen , Ext . 302, if. you will be able to attend this luncheon. We can make any changes necessary to the Agreement at this meeting. Enclosed for your review is a draft of the Agreement . Please let me know if you have any questions cc : Rick Wagner Jerry Hart DRAFT SCOTT/FRANCIS AMBULANCE SERVICE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the Cities of Savage and Shakopee and the Townships of Sand Creek , Louisville and Jackson , Scott County, Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as Scott/Francis ) are authorized under Minnesota Statutes , Section 471 . 476 to provide ambulance service by contracting with any person , firm or other political sub- division upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon , and , WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes , Section 471 . 59 , permits two or more governmental units to jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the governmental units ( such as providing ambulance service as above described ) , and, WHEREAS, St . Francis Regional Medical Center has submitted a pro- posal dated July 12 , 1988 for which ambulance service would be provided for three years beginning July 1 , 1988 and ending June 30, 1991 , for a per capita per annum charge as indicated in Section B . WHEREAS, the Scott/Francis communities desire to jointly assure that adequate ambulance service is available and recognize that a public subsidy is necessary for the purpose of receiving adequate ambulance service, NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements of the parties hereto , said parties hereby agree as follows : A. St . Francis Regional Medical Center ( hereinafter referred to as St . Francis ) agrees as follows : 1 . That it will operate an ambulance service in apro- fessional and businesslike manner during the term of this K13a Page -2- ! l Agreement including, but not limited to , its other commitments herein contained. 2. That it will , at all times , provide and have available within the jurisdictions of the participating communities two ( 2) properly equipped ambulances meeting all current state licensing requirements . One (1 ) of said ambulances (primary) shall be continuously staffed twenty-four hours per day with two ( 2) nationally registered paramedics . St. Francis will attempt to staff the other said ambulance ( backup ) , when needed , with nationally re- gistered paramedics and/or EMTs . If staffing personnel is not available for backup ambulance, Scott County dis- patch will be notified to call a BLS or ALS ambulance as necessary utilizing existing mutual aid agreements . This shall not be construed as an obligation of St . Francis to have, at all times , two ( 2) ambulances in said area if one or both leave said area for the purpose of trans- porting to a medical facility a patient load that originated within said area . 3 . That it will , notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement , provide ambulance service in such a manner that the response time in the City of Shakopee and Jackson and Louisville Townships shall be a maximum of ten (10) minutes ninety percent ( 90%) of the time and to the City of Savage and Sand Creek Township shall be a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes ninety percent ( 90%) of the time . 4. That the rate schedule described in Section B shall re- main in full force and effect for the term of this Agreement . 5 . That it will furnish on a quarterly basis , a report to Scott/Francis Communities , itemizing, on a community by community basis , data related to all responses including , but not limited to , date , nature, paint of origin , de- stination and response time. K13a Page -3- 6. That it will furnish annually to each Scott/Francis community, financial information ,_ itemized in reasonable detail , on its ambulance operations . Additionally, it agrees to permit , at reasonable times , the Chief Ad- ministrative official of each Scott/Francis community or their designated representative , to review and/or audit its financial records . 7 . That it will hold harmless each Scott/Francis community from any and all claims or legal action resulting from operation of the ambulance service . St . Francis shall file with Scott/Francis , upon execution of this Agree- ment , a certificate of insurance naming each Scott/Francis participant as an additional insured under St. Francis ' insurance policy in the following minimum amount : General Liability - $300, 000 Single Limit and $1009000 Property Damage; Auto Liability - $250 ,000/ 500,000 and $100, 000 Property Damage . 8. That it will coordinate basic first responder education and provide on-going education for the Shakopee and Savage Police Departments , and the Scott County Sheriff Department . This is not to be construed that St . Francis shall be responsible for the training and/or skill levels of these first responder units . 9. That its Ambulance Service , upon a patient request, will take the patient to the facility of his choice within a forty ( 40) mile radius , unless it is in the best interest of the patient to take him elsewhere as determined by the ambulance personnel or monitoring physician . 10. That it will call a meeting of representatives of the Scott/Francis Communities and St . Francis at such times that it feels changes in its Ambulance Program are necessary, such as additional staffing, additional services , purchase of additional major equipment , etc . If the outcome of said meeting indicates lack of support for the change by the Scott/Francis communities , it is K13a Page -4- 71 understood that St . Francis would bear the total expense of the proposed change should it be implemented. 11. That it will call a meeting of representatives of the Scott/Francis communities and St. Francis at such times as principal parties to this agreement might be added or deleted thereby changing the financial share arrangement . B. Scott/Francis Communities agree as follows : 1. To pay St . Francis , upon receipt of invoice , once every three (3 ) months during the term of this Agreement a de- signated per capita sum from each Scott/Francis entity for ambulance services described herein beginning 7/1/88 through 6/30/91. a. The amount shall be determined each year by using each jursidictions ' current population as established yearly by the Metropolitan Council on April 1 , mul - tiplied by a per capita per annum amount , as deter- mined by the following procedure : 1 ) St . Francis shall prepare a projected operating statement for the ambulance service for the hospital fiscal year ended 6/30/89 (for first year of Agreement ) , for 6/30/90 ( second year) , and for 6/30/81 ( third year) . Components of this state- ment are described below. 2) Gross revenues shall be based on the projected activity level for said fiscal year . 3 ) Gross Revenues shall be reduced by actual bad debts on ambulance service revenues and third party payor discounts to arrive at Net Revenues . 4) Gross Direct Expenses shall reflect expenses directly related to the operation of the ambulance service , such as salaries , employee benefits , de- preciation, supplies , repairs & maintenance, etc . 5 ) Gross Direct Expenses shall be reduced by the salary costs for time worked in other areas of the hospital by the ambulance personnel to arrive at Net Direct Expenses . Page -5- 6) Indirect Expenses for the ambulance service shall _ not be taken into account . 7) The Net Direct Expenses shall be subtracted from the Net Revenues to arrive at the Operating Profit or (Loss ) of the ambulance service . 8) If there is an Operating Profit , there shall be no per capital charge to the Scott /Francis commun- ities . If there is an Operating Loss, the Scott/Francis communities and St . Francis shall share equally in covering this loss . 9) The per capita per annum amount shall be deter- mined by dividing the Scott/Francis communities share of the Loss by the total population of the Scott/Francis communities as established by the Metropolitan Council on April 1 of each year. b. Based on the above calculations , the per capita per annum for the year July 1 , 1988 through June 30, 1989 , is projected to be $2. 90. (This is based on April 1 , 1987 census figures since the April 1 , 1988 figures are not yet available . Adjustments will be made as soon as ' 88 figures are published . ) c. A meeting of representatives of the Scott/Francis communities and St . Francis will be called in June of 1989 and June of 1990 to review and discuss the operating statements and projections applicable to the per capital amount for each upcoming contract year. C . Agreement Term: 1. This Agreement shall become effective upon the approval and execution of the Agreement by St. Francis and all five (5 ) communities within Scott/Francis . 2 . the term of this Agreement shall be July 1 , 1988 through June 30 , 1991 . K1Za Page -6- D . Cancellation : Either Scott/Francis or St . Francis have the right to terminate this Agreement , with cause, by providing the other party with ninety (90) days written notice by Certified Mail . E . Equal Opportunity Employer : St . Francis recognizes that the Scott/Francis communities are equal opportunity employers and hereby agrees to adhere to a policy of non-descrimination and equal employment opportu- nity. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Approved this day of 1988. ST. FRANCIS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER BY: Gerald L . Hart , President Approved by Scott/Francis Communities as follows : Shakopee by Mayor Administrator Date Savage by Mayor Administrator Date Sand Creek by Chairman Clerk Date - Louisville by Chairman Clerk Date Jackson by Chairman Clerk Date viol 00 - - ---�/3�/�s-- --- - - -------Vii,`- �a-boa - - ------- - _ - -- - -Z// CONSENT 10a' MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer SUBJECT: 11th Avenue - C.R. 79 to Minnesota Street DATE: July 28 , 1988 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No . 2933 , approving plans and specifications and ordering the advertisement for bids for 11th Avenue Street and Storm Sewer Project No. 1988-5. BACKGROUND: On June 7 , 1988 Council ordered plans and specifications for the 11th Avenue Street and Storm Sewer Project by Resolution No. 2905. This project consists of installing new storm sewers, street, and curb and gutter construction on 11th Avenue, from County Road 79 to Minnesota Street. Pioneer Engineering has now completed the plans and specifications for this project. Staff is now requesting authorization to advertise for bids. The scheduled bid opening, contingent on Council approval, is August 30 , 1988. Plans and specifications are available in the Engineering Department and will also be available at the Council meeting. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Approve Resolution No. 2933• 2 . Deny Resolution No. 2933. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 . REQUESTED ACTION: Offer Resolution No. 2933 , A Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids on 11th Avenue Street and Storm Sewer Project No. 1988-5 and move its adoption. DH/pmp MEM2933 RESOLUTION NO. 2933 A Resolution Approving Plans And Specifications And Ordering Advertisement For Bids 11th Avenue Street and Storm Sewer Project No. 1988-5 WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 2905 adopted by City Council on June 7 , 1988 , Joel Cooper, Pioneer Engineering has prepared plans and specifications for the improvement of 11th Avenue Street and Storm Sewer Project 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 copy 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 under 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 until 10:00 A.M. , on August 30, 1988, at which time they will be publicly opened in the Council Chambers of the City Hall by the City Clerk and Engineer, or their designated party, will then be tabulated, and will beconsidered by the Council at 7:00 P.M. , or thereafter on September 6 , 1988, in the Counci' 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 (5P ) percent of the amount of the Bid. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota , held this day of , 19_. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of , 10__ City Attorney CONSENT ► ob MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Admi trator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Vacation of lith Avenue from innesota Street to Dakota Street DATE: July 11, 1988 INTRODUCTION• The City has received a petition from Mr. Wayne Fleck, President, Gold Nugget Development, Inc. , requesting the vacation of 11th Avenue between Minnesota and Dakota Streets. This petition is in follow-up to one of the conditions of the final plat approval of Meadows 1st Addition. Both the Planning Commission and the City Council requested that the Developer petition for this vacation. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Adopt Resolution No. 2928, setting a date for the public hearing. 2. Do not adopt Resolution No. 2928. RECOMMENDATION• Alternative No. 1, adopt Resolution No. 2928. ACTION REOUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 2928, A Resolution Initiating the Vacation of 11th Avenue Between Minnesota and Dakota Streets, According to the Plat of Eagle Bluff Second Addition to the City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota, and move its adoption. JSC/tiv MEM02928 RESOLUTION NO. 2928 A RESOLUTION INITIATING THE VACATION OF 11TH AVENUE BETWEEN MINNESOTA AND DAKOTA STREET, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF EAGLE BLUFF SECOND ADDITION TO THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, a petition has been received by abutting property owners, requesting the vacation of 11th Avenue between Minnesota and Dakota Streets within the plat of Eagle Bluff Second Addition, and WHEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Shakopee City Council that the said street serves no public use or interest, and WHEREAS, a public hearing must be had before such action can be taken and two weeks published and posted notice thereof must be given. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that a hearing be held in the Council Chambers on the 6th of September, 1988 at 8:00 p.m. , or thereafter, on the matter of vacating the public right-of-way of 11th Avenue between Minnesota and Dakota Streets, Eagle Bluff Second Addition to the City of Shakopee, according to the plat thereof. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that two weeks published notice be given by publication in the Shakopee Valley News and posted notice be given by two weeks posting a copy of such notice on the bulletin board in the main floor of Scott County Courthouse, and on the bulletin board in the SHakopee City Hall. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 1988. ATTEST: Mayor of the City of Shakopee City Clerk Approved as to form this day of , 1988 City Attorney , /Oc Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director Re: Investment Management Services/Resolution No. 2934 Date: July 29, 1988 Introduction The City has been approached by two firms offering the services of investment managers. Background The City has been approached by Piper Capital Management and Shearson Lehman Hutton to utilize their investment management services. The programs are similar and the City would place $1,000,000 or more (minimum) in the program and their full time money manager would buy and sell authorized securities in response to market activities/opportunities. Advantages to the City are: 1. Frees up staff time because I could spend less time investing and dealing with brokers. 2. There would be a full time money manager monitoring the investments as opposed to my spending a small part of my time on investing. 3. Gain an increased level of service because their manager will monitor the market more closely than I do and will sell securities -- in response to market changes whereas I normally hold securities to maturity. 4. To the extent that these programs can generate a higher return to cover the cost of the program over our normal return, the City has more interest income. The only disadvantage is the cost of the program if it does not generate a higher return. The cost is between .003 and .006 times the amount in the account. Both programs fit within our existing investment policy with the possible exceptions of having more total dollars invested in various pieces of commercial paper at one time (if we decide to buy commercial paper) and liquidity cap (408 of portfolio maturing within one year) . I feel these are minor issues and the policy can be amended to cover these exceptions. The existing policy is the first one drafted two years ago. The resolution adopts a revised Investment Policy, defines explicitly who is authorized to do investment transactions (resolution requested by each broker/manager) and provides that the Finance Director may select investment advisors and brokers. Alternatives 1. Offer Resolution No. 2934. - 2. Amend and Offer Resolution No. 2934. Recommendation Discuss and offer Resolution No. 2934. Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 2934, A Resolution Authorizing Investment Transactions and Adopting an Investment Policy and move its adoption. GV:mmr /o G RESOLUTION NO 2934 A Resolution Authorizing Investment Transactions and Adopting an Investment Policy WHEREAS, from time to time it is necessary for City staff to make investments of funds on behalf of the City of Shakopee, and WHEREAS, various brokers and investment advisors deem it necessary to clearly define those officers of the City having authority to make such transactions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, that the Finance Director (primary) and the City Administrator and Senior Accounting Clerk (alternates) of the City of Shakopee be, and they hereby are, fully authorized and empowered to buy, transfer, convert, endorse, sell, assign, set over and deliver securities between the City of Shakopee and the various brokers or investment advisors/managers that the Finance Director is hereby authorized to select, that are either now or hereafter standing in the name of or owned by the City of Shakopee; and to make, execute and deliver, any and all agreements or written instruments of assignment and transfer necessary or proper to effectuate the authority hereby conferred. Also, the proper City officials are authorized to execute agreement or contracts for the use of investment advisors as provided above. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that whenever there shall be annexed to any instrument of assignment and transfer, executed pursuant to and in accordance with the foregoing resolution, a certificate of the City Clerk of the City of Shakopee setting forth the names of persons who are then the Finance Director, City Administrator and Senior Accounting Clerk as authorized officials above, then all persons to whom such instrument with the annexed certificate shall thereafter come, shall be entitled, without further inquiry or investigation and regardless of the date of such certificate, to assume and to act in reliance upon the assumption that the securities named in such instrument were theretofore duly and properly transferred, endorsed, sold, assigned, set over and delivered by the City of Shakopee, and that with respect to such securities, the authority of these resolutions and of such offices is still in full force and effect. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the attached Investment Policy is hereby adopted and all previously approved policies are superceded. Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 1988, ATTEST: Mayor of the City of Shakopee City Clerk Approved as to form this day of , 1988. City Attorney CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA INVESTMENT POLICY July 29, 1988 Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 118.005, the City Council authorizes the Finance Director to designate as a depository of City funds such national, insured state banks or thrift institutions as defined in Section 51A.02, Subdivision 23, as it may deem proper. The Finance Director shall inform Council whenever a change is made in the list of designated depositories. Any bank, trust company or thrift institution authorized to do business in this state, designated as a depository of City funds may, in lieu of a corporate or personal surety bond required to be furnished to receive the funds, assign to or deposit with the City Treasurer legally-authorized investments or security in collateral. The Finance Director is authorized by Council to approve of financial instutions for the safekeeping of collateral. The total amount of the collateral computed at its market value shall be at least ten percent more than the amount of deposit, in excess of any insured portion which would be permitted if a corporate or personal surety bond were furnished. The depository may at its discretion furnish both a bond and colateral aggregating the required amount. The City will not accept mortgages as collateral. The Treasurer shall not maintain a deposit in any depository against collateral in excess of 90 percent of the market value thereof. Pursuant to Section 471.56, Subdivision 1, any City funds not presently needed for other purposes may be deposited or invested in the manner and subject to the conditions provided in Section 475.66. INVESTMENT GUIDELINES Repurchase agreements may be entered into with a bank qualified as depository of money held in the City funds, or with any national or state bank in the United States which is a member of the Federal Reserve system and whose combined capital and surplus equals or exceeds $10,000,000, or a primary reporting dealer in U.S. government securities to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Investments may be held in safekeeping in accordance with the provisions of MSA 475.66 sub. 2. Investments shall mature and shall earn interest payable at times and in amounts which, in the judgment of the City Treasurer or other officer to which has been delegated investment decisions, provide the City adequate cash for operating purposes. Investment maturity shall not exceed five years. /p C� Investments shall be made in accordance with MSA 475.66 sub. 3. All investments other than in direct obligations or agencies of the United States, secured by collateral, or repurchase agreements, shall not exceed fifty percent (509) of the City's portfolio. This limitation is determined by type of investment. Example: commercial paper or bankers acceptance. Further, the City Treasurer shall not invest in excess of twenty percent (209) of the City's portfolio in any one corporation and the investment in any one corporation shall not exceed five (59) of the corporation's assets. Repurchase agreements shall be used for short term investments only and shall not exceed eighteen (18) days in length. The City Treasurer or other officer to which has delegated investment decisions shall be prudent and at all times follow the guidelines of Safety, Liquidity and Yield. /At, MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: David Hutton, City Engineer17, RE: Duane Ferguson Grading Permit— DATE: August 1, 1988 INTRODUCTION: Attached is a letter from the Scott County Environmental Health office to Mr. Duane Ferguson regarding his application for a demolition landfill license. The letter indicates that a license will not be issued until two conditions have been met, one of which is a letter or minutes from the Shakopee City Council recommending approval of the demolition landfill license. BACKGROUND: The City of Shakopee typically issues grading permits to - ------ people requesting them for placing clean fill on their property. If any solid waste materials, such as waste concrete or asphalt products are used, the County Environmental Health office must issue the permit. Scott County does not regulate clean fill permits. In November 1987, Mr. Ferguson received a grading permit from the City that allowed him to place clean fill on his property at 1573 County Road 89 with several limiting conditions (copy of permit and conditions attached) . One of those conditions was that he obtain a separate permit from Scott County for placing any waste asphalt or concrete products on his property. Scott County has never issued a landfill permit to Mr. Ferguson. One of their requirements has been to not place any waste material within 5 feet of the waste table. This requires a geotechnical report to determine the waste table and apparently this has never been forwarded to the County. Mr. Ferguson also deposited waste materials on this site last year without obtaining the County permit and they have asked him numerous times to remove the material and not place any more time until all permits have been obtained. Mr Ferguson also took out a grading permit from the City for 1988 (copy attached) . Again this permit was for clean fill only and had the same limiting conditions to it as were on the 1987 permit. Apparently, Mr. Ferguson has continued to deposit solid waste on his property without obtaining the County license to do SO. Scott County is now requesting a recommendation from the City Council on Mr. Ferguson's application for a demolition debris landfill. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend to Scott County that Mr. Ferguson's application for a demolition debris landfill be approved. 2 . Recommend to Scott County that Mr. Ferguson's request be denied. 3 . Notify Scott County that the City of Shakopee approves of the existing clean fill grading permit and make recommendation to the County contingent on satisfying all of the Environmental Health Department concerns. RECOMMENDATIONS• Staff recommends Alternative No. 3, for City Council to go- -on record as approving Mr. Ferguson's current clean fill grading permit and to recommend to Scott County that the solid waste landfill be approved contingent on satisfying all Environmental Health Department concerns. Due to the way this entire matter has been handled, City Council may find merit in going with Alternative no. 2, denying Mr. Ferguson's request. The County Board is basically throwing this back to the City and Council could decide to end the matter now and recommend denial of the application to the County. ACTION REQUESTED- After all discussion has taken place, Council should make a formal recommendation to the County and direct staff to send a letter or copy of the minutes to the Scott County Environmental Health Department outlining the City's position on this matter. DH/tiv SCOTT COUNTY Q� ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COURTHOUSE A102 C SHAKOPEE,MN.55379-1393 (612)937-6177 July, 26 , 1988 Mr. Duane Ferguson 201 W. 107th St. Bloomington, Mn. 55420 Dear Mr. Ferguson: On Tuesday July 26, 1988 the Scott County Board of Commissioners considered your application for a license for a demolition landfill. A decision on your license application was tabled pending receipt Of the following: A letter or written minutes from the Shakopee City Council recommending approval of your application for a demolition debris landfill on your property. A performance bond payable to Scott County in the amount of $5, 000. 00 guaranteeing compliance with Scott County' s Solid Waste Ordinance and the conditions on the license. I also checked your property this morning to see if any solid waste had come in since my last visit. You said in our phone conversation on Monday, July 23, that several loads of asphalt had come in. I noted the asphalt as well as a load of concrete rubble and some landscaping waste material. All had simply been dumped over the edge of the filled parking area. As you must know, no solid waste (asphalt or concrete) is to be within 5 feet of the water table. The material I observed appeared to simply have been dumped with little thought of the separations we have discussed. I have serious reservations about your ability to control the dumping unless the clean soil base is in place before any waste is accepted. Unless the above items are provided, it is unlikely a license will be granted. In that case, all solid waste (concrete, asphalt, wood waste) which has been disposed on your property since November 15, 1987 must be removed from your property. Additional solid waste has continued to come in, a few loads here and there, since that date. You had been advised prior to then not to allow any additional dumping on your property. In my November 6 , 1987 letter, I allowed the concrete and asphalt which had been placed along the North East side of your property to remain or be moved to a location between the existing building and the proposed building. This allowance remains effective, and it is my understanding that the material has already been moved. An Equal Opportunity Employer Page 2 Mr. Duane Ferguson July 26 , 1988 Since your current status is a violation of both Scott County's Solid Waste Ordinance and Shakopee ' s Clean Fill Permit conditions, I must require that this situation be resolved within 30 days. Either provide the two items noted above, or remove the solid waste noted, and prevent the dumping of waste in the future. I£ you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Allen Frechette Environmental Health Manager cc: Rick Paulseth, Code Enforcement, Shakopee Jennifer Volkman, MPCA CGICl\Pf Y�^j APPLICATION FOR "ERMIT SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55378 612-445-3650 B.P. No. LET ADD" AS S n.ss OF won. .Hi(.00rtYO.O.vbnATOx UNE•Alx O_MOVC D.RAEwv p.....a.... ❑-PATIO ❑POACH O STORAGE OO ❑T.HK gORWEW.AT&PENCE OGARAGE b. R.TIONOAPRCEm 77 aaTH 10 wE: SPACE BELOW FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY _ ... os [P,3. e... Sn rb3 nrt :e..3 .AE.unc v. ,Si Waco..nn. cno O er A.n M3 V.L EO.E LIMITING CONDITIONS APPLICATION APPROVALS .ev Ordinance No. 115 -Easement Restrictions - attached $1,ts I. 14.T - 5 iD SAnEF 1a A4, 4G Q.nt DErioAtS AS e. Pet IILG� i t 4JEF 7 COMMENTS CITT C....... ..T. ITryfaF fu✓� !h +nw.?,e�/ e !".i—IeA�I v.TE IYY' O tzai TSVI'"IN` APPLICATION FEES NOTES �S l.. .Je PERMIT 3 GO I. SEPARATE •[MINTS ARE R FOR ELECTRICAL. • Ix M AxIICAL, SEtt¢ C.O.CHARGE TANK.SPANE ANDWCLLOISTALUTION3. AIA.CHECK S 'gzO TNIS PERMIT INECONES" OVOIO IF WORK GRADE AND SURVEY CHECK SOR G Ox R +Ox AUT. R I NOT I.N. PARKANDLAND S ME CEDSWITHINIA DAYS- I•C.IIIHNNICTI..I SUSPENDED ..1.1.A•ERIOD OF VO FIRE NUMBER DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER VANANG O. WI RCORRECTION 3. A COLORED PAYOVDGRAl- MANY SEWER CONHECnOH MIT APPLICATIONS LAT-RELOCATION+ OFPLANS AND S•ECRCATHRIS MUET WE LL ANOSEWAGEMSIORKSYSTEM ACCOMPANY ACH PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE INVESTIGATION FEES S L WIN STAIE EORCHARGE S ro LCOMMERCIALPROSEC+S IT ATNIALRCAECTA 3 TOTAL $ C RE51DENTIAL G D-(OVER) p x SIGNATURE Ot�APPLICANT -XITE IxAAEC TELL= DxF. x ENI PILE PINK APPLICANT CITY OF SHAKOPEE INCORPORATED 1870 129 EAST FIRST AVENUE,SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 553791376 (612)"53650 April 27 , 1988 Mr. Duane Ferguson 201 W. 107th Street Bloomington, MN 55420 Dear Mr. Ferguson: This letter is in regards to your grading permit application for placing fill on your property at 1513 County Road 89 in Shakopee. I have reviewed your application and have the following comments. 1 . No filling shall take place until you have the signed permit as well as any appropriate permits required by Scott County Environmental Health Office. . 2 . All limiting conditions that were placed on last year' s grading permit (No. 7665) shall also be followed on this year' s permit. 3 . The drainage way located at the east end of your property must be maintained and no fill will be allowed to be placed in the drainage way . In addition , the grading plan submitted last year should be strictly adhered to. If not, a new grading plan should be submitted for approval prior to any filling. _. 4 . No solid waste products (asphalt or concrete) can be used in the fill without first obtaining approval from the Scott County Health Officer. A copy of their approval should be forwarded to our office prior to placing any fill. 5 . No solid waste products should be place in areas that will be under any future building foundations. The Heart of Progress Valley AN EOWL ORPoRTUNITY FM'LOYER One last item is that it was brought to my attention that filling operations may have already commenced , although the City of Shakopee inspectors cannot confirm that. I -hereby order you to stop and cease any filling until all appropriate permits and restrictions are in order . Filling without a permit is a misdemeanor and if we observe any filling without prior approval we will file a formal complaint with the County Attorney ' s office. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Sincerel ' Da ionL� City Engineer DH/pmp FILL cc: Allen Frechette, Scott Cty. Health Officer LeRoy Houser, Building Inspector � . Limiting Conditions ' The following limiting conditions shall be made part of Grading Permit No. 7665. 1. All geotechnical work and documentation, as per the attached October 26 , 1967 correspondence from Scott County Environmental Health, shall be completed and submitted to the County and City prior to commencing work. 2. The use of waste bituminous asphalt products or concrete products shall be prohibited except where allowed by Scott County Environmental Health. 3. Removal and/or placement of the on site bituminous and concrete products shall be completed as per the requirements of Scott County Environmental Health prior to commencing the placement of additional fill materials under this permit. 4. All site drainage shall be directed to the drainage way along the east side of the site or to the undisturbed grass area of the same property lying to the south. Since the drainageway is a manmade extension of a natural drainage course and this manmade facility was constructed by and across property owned by Al Roberg, permission to use this facility for runoff from the site must be obtained from Roberg. In lieu of use of this drainageway, the permittee can consider stormwater containment on the aforestated grassed area to the south. 5 . All disturbed areas shall be restored by use of paving materials (gravel, bituminous, concrete)-, building site, or turf. 6 . The east boundary of the fill site shall be protected aaainst erosion control by use of an approved premanufactured silt fence/or hay bale silt fence/. 7, 7�/Ga0anf B�f7�/J� iYl 97`I��/�v� 1*7,'e //l 74/Q SCOTT COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COURT HOUSE A102 SHAKOPEE, MN.55379-1393 (612)-445-7750, Ext.m November 6, 1987 Mr. Duane Ferguson 201 W. 107th St. Bloomington, Mo. 55420 Dear Mr. Ferguson: This letter serves as a follow-up to our discussion on Monday November 2, 1987 about your building site in Shakopee and relocation of the concrete and asphalt rubble on the property. You stated that you will not be continuing with your application to obtain a license for a demolition debris landfill from Scott County. You wanted to clarify my October 26, 1987 letter regarding relocation of the solid waste (concrete and asphalt) on your property. I stated that I had attempted to convey my acceptance with your proposal to move the above grade piles of concrete and asphalt located north of the proposed building site and north east of the existing building. I agreed that this material could be placed on those areas of your lot where filling had already occurred and the ground water was no closer than five feet to the proposed fill elevation. You most demonstrate by soil borings that this is the case before moving the fill material there. Please Provide me with copies of those borings before proceeding. I will not require a license to simply move the existing material on-site. You further indicated that You were attempting to obtain a grading permit from Shakopee to allow you to bring in clean fill to develop the building site and parking areas. I stated that Scott County does not regulate clean fill and would, therefore, not be involved in your activities. I emphasized the importance of ensuring that the fill soil you use be free from solid waste. This means no concrete asphalt or other solid waste materials! Since you are aware of our requirements, and have chosen not to pursue an application for a license for a solid waste disposal site, I indicated that I would not issue future warnings should we identify solid waste being disposed on your property. I indicated that further violations of Scott County os Solid Waste Ordinance would be immediately referred to the County Attorney's office. From our discussion however, I trust you intend to ensure that the soil used for future filling on your property is clean. . It is obviously in your own best interest to make sure that your parking areas are stable and that your eventual property values are not reduced. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 937-6353. Respectfully, IC AllenF ec t/fie, Environmental Health Manager cc: Ken Ashfeldt, Shakopee Howard Jones, Shakopee An.Equal Opponunit Employer AIMM SCOTT COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COURT HOUSE A102 SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379-1393 (612}445-7750. Ert.m _ October 26, 1987 i Mr. Duane Ferguson 201 W. 107th St. Bloomington, Mn. 55420 Dear Mr. Ferguson: This letter serves as a follow-up to our meeting on October 2, 1987 regarding the disposal of waste asphalt and concrete on property you own at 1513 County Road 89. As per our discussion, i noted that I would consider utilization of waste asphalt only under the following conditions: Access must be controlled to prevent unauthorized dumping, the waste must be limited to broken concrete and asphalt, the waste must not be placed closer than five feet to the water table. Since our meeting, you have submitted a proposed grading plan. Your plan did not identify the fill material and I have not yet seen copies of the drilling logs requested from soil borings or your's and neighboring wells. As I understand your proposal from our discussion, you wish to use waste crushed asphalt as fill under a parking area adjacent to a new building you are constructing. I have indicated that I would not object to use of this waste material providing you met the above noted conditions. I also will need the ground water information recuested above before a final decision is made. In addition to the concerns noted above, you should carefully evaluate the impact to surrounding land from your filling. This area is generally low and wet. Your filling could result in worse conditions for surrounding property. This should be explored prior to proceeding. You will also need written pe-mission from adjacent property owners as part of your application package. I do not want to become involved in a legal dispute over damage to neighboring property. The City of Shakopee as well as my previous letter has ordered the removal of the waste that has already been dumped on yo._ property. You have asked if this material could simply be moved and spread just east of the existing building. I have indicated that providing a license is approved, and the conditions noted above are met, that I would not object to this. In consideration of that, I would not oppose your attempts to seek court approval of a delay in the order to remove this waste pending a decision on your license application. I am assuming that you will continue to pursue, in a timely manner, approval of the necessary licenses and permits to utilize waste asphalt and concrete at this site. _ An Egae1 Opportaaim Employer 1"* 2 �1Q_ Duane Ferguson .- October 26, 1987 Please refer to my September 8, 1987 letter for a complete list of the application information needed. your completed application should be submitted by November 30. During the interim, no more waste is to be dumped on your property, and the waste already there must not be moved or buried on the site. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 937-6353. Respect-ffu^rll�yy��////[[��JJ r.. Allen £rechette Environmental Health Manager cc: Ken Ashfeldt, City Engineer, Shakopee Greg Halling, Rehder - Wenzel, Inc. - 1 06 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Summary of Sign Ordinance t! DATE: August 2, 1988 INTRODUCTION• Attached are copies of two ordinances prepared by the City Attorney for Council consideration. BACKGROUND: In order to save on publication costs, Council has adopted the practice of adopting summaries of long ordinances and printing the summary only. The attached ordinances, Ordinance #249 approves the summary of the sign ordinance and Ordinance #250 contains the actual summary. A copy of the full sign ordinance, as well as the summary, will be placed on file at the public library. Copies of the ordinance may also be obtained at City Hall during regular business hours. If Council feels comfortable with adopting these ordinances tonight they can be published on August 11th and become effective on August 12th. ALTERNATIVES- 1) Do not adopt summary ordinances and publish sign ordinance in its entirety (21 pages) . 2) Wait to adopt summary ordinances at next Council meeting. 3) Adopt summary ordinances tonight. RECOMMENDATION• Alternative No. 3 , adopt summary ordinances tonight. ACTION REOUESTED: 1) Offer Ordinance No. 249, and move its adoption. 2) Offer Ordinance No. 250, and move its adoption. JSC/tiv Ilk ORDINANCE NO. 249 Fourth Series An Ordinance of .the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Shakopee City Code Chaper 4 Entitled "Construction,Licensing, Permits and Regulations" by Adding thereto a Section Providing for the Approval of Summary of Said Ordinance, the Posting, Filing and Publication, and by Adopting by Reference Shakopee CityCode Chapter 1 and Section 4.99 which Among other Things Contain Penalty Provisions TUE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION 4.30 Signs, Construction, Maintenance and Permits Subd. 1 Summary Approved The Council hereby determines that the text of the Summary of this Ordinance marked "Official Summary of Ordinance of No. 248"and. this Ordinance, a copy of which is hereto attached, duly informs the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. The Council further determined that the publication of the title and such summary will clearly inform the public of the intent of the ordinance. Subd. 2. Posting and filing The City Clerk shall see that a copy of this Ordinance and the attached official Summary is filed in her office and in the public library which the Council hereby designates as the location at which a copy is available for inspection by any person during regular hours. Subd. 3. Publication The Clerk shall publish title of this ordinance and the official Summary in the official newspaper with notice that a printed copy of the complete Ordinance is available for inspection by any person during any regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and at the City Library. Subd. 4. Effective Date This Ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication of its title and the offical summary. /I Passed by the City Council of the City of Shakopee this day of 1988. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk - li Prepared and approved as to form this Isstt day of August, 1988. Ju us A. Coller, II, City Attorney lid ORDINANCE NO. 250 Fourth Series Official Summary of Ordinance No. 248 and Ordinance NO. .1 /9 Both Fourth Series and Entitled An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 4 entitled " Construction, Licensing, Permits and Regulations" by repealing existing Section 4.30 of Chapter 4 and by Enacting a new Section 4.30 by Adopting by Reference .Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Section 4.99 which among other things Contain Penalty Provisions THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION 4.30 Signs, Construction, Maintenance and permits Subd. 1. Purpose and Intent A. The purpose of this section is to protect and promote the general welfare, health, safety, and order through the establishment of a comprehensive series sof standards, regulations, and procedures governing the erection use and display of devices, signs and symbols serving as a visual communicative media to the general public. B. The provisions of this section are to encourage creativity, a reasonable degree of freedom of choice, an opportunity for effective communication, and a sense of concern for the visual amenities on the part of those designing, displaying or otherwise utilizing communicative media of the types regulated by this section, while at the same time preventingunsafe, disorderly, indiscriminate or unnecessary use of such communicative facilities. Subd 2. Definitions For the purpose of Section 4.30 the Ordinance contains definitions of terms used in said Ordinance which shall have the meaning as stated in the definitions. Subd 3. A. 1. Prohibits off-site Free Standing Advertising Signs i 2. Prohibits Free Standing Signs from encroaching on or projecting over public right-of-way. i .. 3. Regulates the heights and placement of free standing signs B. Governs and regulates temporary signs C. Governs and limits directional signs D. Regulates Awnings E. Regulates signs within or over the public rigbt-of-way F. Prohibits indescent and offensive signs G. Prohibits illuminated flashing, motion and revolving signs and beacons. Ft. Requires shields for certain illuminated signs I. Regulates the placing of painted signs J. Prohibits signs which interfere with the vision of vehicle operators or pedestrians. Traffic signs, roof signs and signs which obstruct windows, doors, fire escapes. K. Certain exemptions provided Subd. 4. Contains further regulations of the use and placement of signs in the various districts defined therein. Subd. 5. Provides for Administration and Enforcement A. Requires Permits B. Provides for making of application and payment of fees C. Requires maintenance D. Provides for certain exceptions and variances. Subd. 6. Governs certain existing and non-conforming signs. Subd. 7. Repeal Previous Section 4.30 entitled "Signs, Construction, Maintenance and Permits" is hereby repealed in its entirety, but this repealer does not affect any part of Ordinance 248, Fourth Series. Subd 8. When in force and effect After the adoption and attestation hereof this shall. be published once in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee and shall be in full force and Wt shall together with Ordinance 248, Fourth Series, be in full farce and effect on and after the day following such publication. Passed in 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 Prepared and approved as to form this 1st day of August, 1988. City Attorney