The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/19/1988 ' MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items DATE: July 14, 1988 1. Councilmember Vierling asked about the Tony's Pizza bill in the amount of $354. 30 on the 7/5/88 bill list. The pizza is for sale to the public at the swimming pool concession stand. 2. The Shakopee Area Catholic Schools have applied for their quarterly exemption from the State Board for their raffle. They meet the requirements of the City Code. 3. The gravel alley behind Domino' s Pizza just east of City Hall was paved by our Street Foreman using City crews with left over street patching bituminous mix. After inspecting the alley the Public Works Superintendent, City Engineer and I agreed that the left over street patching mix was not properly applied and could cause drainage problems. In addition, this well intended effort to solve alley maintenance problems on a high use alley is in conflict with our 1008 alley assessment policy. We removed the asphalt and gave the Street Foreman a verbal reprimand for acting, j without authorization, outside established City policy. 4. On July 12th the Scott County Board approved a supplemental agreement for consulting services for preliminary engineering on the CSAH 18/Bloomington Ferry Bridge Project with the Feds paying 80% of the design costs. At the same meeting the County approved a cooperative agreement with Hennepin County for the preliminary engineering phase on the CSAH 18/Bloomington Ferry Bridge Project. 5. The County has formally requested of Mn/DOT that they conduct a speed zone study on segments on County Highway No. 16. 6. St. Mark' s Church will be closing off 3rd Avenue between Atwood and Scott for their Julifest between July 28th and August lst, 1988. 7. Attached is a letter of resignation from our recording secretary, Jakki Snyder. The July 19th Council meeting will be her last meeting. 8. Attached is a memo from Judy Cox itemizing the expenses incurred by the City for the June 28th Special Election. 9. Attached is a memorandum from George Muenchow updating Councilmembers on an accident that occurred in Tahpah Park. The driver of the vehicle was cited by the Shakopee Police Department. 10. Attached is a memo from the Scott County Attorney' s Office to Joe Ries responding to my question about the County charging a 25 cents admission tax at the Scott County fair. The County Attorney has ruled that the County Fair will not meet the requirements of a "major amusement facility" and therefore they do not plan to charge an admissions fee. If any Councilmembers have specific information that would indicate that the County' s "interpretation" is incorrect I would appreciate receiving it. The 25 cents admissions tax is used for the local County share of the Bloomington Ferry Bridge Proiect. 11. Attached is a memorandum from Gregg Voxland indicating that the County Auditor' s office has now corrected their property tax oversettlement. 12. Attached is a memorandum from Bill Crawford, District 5 Engineer, restating and clarifying Mn/DOT's understanding that the $1.9 the City has committed to the downtown bridge and by-pass project is a maximum contribution. This item is attached because there has been some recent concern about the language in the revised Memorandum of Understanding dated April 27, 1987. 13. Attached is the Tax Increment Financing Forecasts update i from Springsted. We requested an update so we would have more current information to use in our discussions with the School Board. Please look at page 3 carefully and note that "Schedule D" assumes no payment of taxes by Canterbury Downs in 1989 and beyond. The other significant change is that the cumulative surplus for Schedule A, B and C have all increased significantly. The earlier forecast showed a $7 to $10 million cumulative surplus. This good news must be tempered by a recent League of Minnesota Cities report to Finance Directors that the League anticipates that TIF revenues will be down for 1989r and that the taxing picture is extremely confusing for 1989 and beyond. 14. Attached is a copy of an article from the League magazine dealing with insurance claims on sidewalks. Given last week' s discussion I thought this information would be of interest to Council. 15. Attached is a memo from Rod Krass to County Administrators indicating actions taken by the Scott County Court Administrator' s Office. 16. Attached is the bi-monthly newletter from Ehlers and Associates, Inc. 17. Attached are the monthly Revenue and Expenditure Reports for the month ending June 30th. 18. Attached are the Program Costs by Department for the second quarter ending June 30th. 19. Attached is a memo from the AMM notifying cities that they have voted to join the constitutional challenge to the 1988 tax bill. Please read this carefully because it is the position the City took 7/5/88. 20. Attached is the Building Activity Report for the month ending June 30th. 21. Attached is the agenda for the July 20, 1988 meeting of the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee. 22. Attached are the minutes of the July 6, 1988 meeting of the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee. 23. Attached are the minutes of the June 6, 1988 meeting of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 24. Attached are the minutes of the July 1, 1988 meeting of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 25. Attached is the quarterly billing summary from Krass & Monroe the the period ending April 30, 1988 26. Attached is our new handout for citizens based on our revised insurance claim policy. It has been reviewed by the Capacius Agency and they suggested item No. 4 to insure that one person is on top of all claims at City Hall. This Policy will eliminate the need for a claims committee. Of course, citizens can still appear before the Council under "Interested Citizen" or write a letter to the Council. Call me if you have a problem with this 27. Attached is a copy of a claim that has been forwarded to our insurance company per standard City policy. TKA/jms 7 July 12, 1988 Ms. Judy Cox 129 1st Ave E Shakopee MN 55379 Per our contract between myself and the City of Shakopee, this is my notice to the City of Shakopee that I will be giving up my position as the Recording Secretary for the City Council and Planning Commission. I will return the equipment to you at the end of these two weeks. The one problem that I will have is if there is a meeting the night of July 26, 1988 I will not be able to attend. I have appreciated the opportunity to get back into one form of City Government. I will get the minutes for the City Council and the Planning Commission to y7oouC as soon as possible. 7rely, J i R. Snyder 5250 Redwing Ave New Prague MN 56071 cc: City Councilmembers Planning Commissioners q� J41G 1 3 Oc ., aFF g SPECIAL ELECTION COSTS June 28, 1988 Election Judges @ $4.00/hr ($4.50 Chrm. ) $1, 365.55 Ballots for optical Scanner: a] stock 356.50 b] printing 539.90 c] programming 303. 17 Publication costs: (est) 75.00 $2640 . 12 Full time employees: a] public works 315.97 b] city clerk's office 642.24 $958.21 TOTAL ALL COSTS $3598.33 04akaprr Tnmmundu $rrrrattnn 129 Levee Drive Shakopee, MN 55379 Phone: 612445-2742 Memo To: John Anderson. City Administrator From George Muenchow, Community Recreation Director Subject: Injury - Mrs. Gerry Schmitz Date . July 6, 1988 I thought that you would be interested in knowing about the injury that occured to Mrs. Gerry Schmitz last Thursday evening in Tahpah Park. She is the older lady who together with her husband pick up the many cans and glasses that accumulate in our park areas and other gathering places. She was making her rounds in the Tahpah Park Parking Lot around midnight last Thursday, June 30, when she was struck by a car driven by a young man who later was tagged for careless driving by the Shakopee Police. She has two broken legs and will be layed up for at least six weeks. Our community is a loser from this unfortunate happening because when she stoops down to pick up the litter that brings her money she also picks up the other rubbish that is there and has no monetary value. These thoughtfull actions are of great helps to our park maintenance personnel who, therefore, don't have to spend as much time picking up litter. Her husband will continue this task, but he, admittedly is not as aggressive in this way as she is. Mark and I visited her yesterday and left a vase of flowers. The park crew is talking about sending a basket of fruit. Last Friday the Park Crew informed us that the Tahpah Park Parking Lot was the worst that it has been this year. At the time we didn't know that this was so because Gerry had not been able to complete her rounds the previous evening. A COOPERATIVE EFFORT OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AND SCHOOL DISTRICT 720 SINCE 1954 DATE: July 6, 1988 /l TO: Joseph F. Ries, County Administrator 16) y. . FROM: Clifford G. McCann, Deputy Administrator SCOTT COUNTY SUBJECT: SCOTT COUNTY ADMISSIONS TAX •;;I�a ED MEMORANDUM JULI 11988 With regard to the question of Mr. John Anderson, Shakopee City- hTY OF SHAKOPt4: Administrator, regarding whether the Scott County Fair is subject to the Admissions Tax, it should be noted that the term "major amusement - facility" is defined to mean a place of amusement that has been constructed with a capacity of 10,000 persons or more or that was the site of an event that had a paid attendance of 10,000 persons or more on any day during the preceding 12-month period. Although I am unfamilar with the actual attendance figures and capacity of the Scott County Fair, I understand that it does not meet either of the tests which would subject it to the admissions tax. It may have been the legislative intent to only subject larger capacity or more highly attended events to the tax so as to provide greater assurance that those outside the Scott County jurisdiction would be principally subject to the tax. CGM:jm l/ Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director Re: Return of 12/87 Property Tax Oversettlement (Informational) Date: July 12, 1988 Several months ago, it was determined that the County Auditor had sent the City too much money for the December settlement for tax increment district number one. The County Auditor has now agreed that there was an error. We set up a "due to the county" in the annual financial report for 1987 in the amount of $478,077. The County billed the City $463,569.01 for the return of the oversettlement and we have returned the amount. The County Auditor has also notified us that he is researching a possible oversettlement of $140,000 for 1986. ,\,04ESc�Tq Minnesota /07 Department of Transportation District 5 2055 No. Lilac Drive OF Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 (612)593- 8403 July 12, 1988 RECElt'E6 Mr. John Anderson, Administrator City of Shakopee x()1_1 1988 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Cfl y OF SrtAY.CPEE Re: S.P.7009 (T.H. 169) At Jct. T.H. 101 8 Sr. No. 4175 - - - Memorandums of Understanding Dear Mr. Anderson: The original Memorandum of Understanding dated November 4, 1985 stated that the city of Shakopee is willing to contribute up to $1.9 million for expenditures for acquisition of necessary rights- of-way and construction embellishments for the proposed roadway rerouting of traffic in the downtown area. The revised Memorandum of Understanding dated April 27, 1987 has apparently raised some concerns regarding Shakopee's $1.9 million contribution to the project. The $1.9 million is a maximum con- tribution by the city of Shakopee towards the project implementa- tion. Mn/DOT will be responsible for funding any possible project costs above the funding available through the bridge replacement program and Shakopee's contribution of $1.9 million as a cap. John, I hope this letter clarifies the concerns over Shakopee's contribution to the project. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, � M. Crawford, P.E. District Engineer An Equal Opportunity Employer „ SPRINGSTED J PUSUC FINANCE ADVISORS 85 East Seventh Place,Suite 100 Saint Paul,Minnesota 551012143 612 223 300D Fax:612 223 30"2 �`S.�;1,.r•, JUt1 July II, 1988 f:/;Y��StigKDrn _ �t Mr. John Anderson, Administrator Shakopee City Hall 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Tax Increment Financing Forecasts Dear Mr. Anderson: This forecast updates the financial estimates for the City's K-Mart and Canterbury Downs Tax Increment Financing Districts. The original report, dated March, 1986, has been periodically updated as new revenue and expenditure information has become available. The new information for this update is the actual increment revenues to be received by the City in 1988. These new revenue figures are incorporated into the last previous update, dated December, 1987, to provide a new forecast of the anticipated financial positions of these districts. In reviewing this report it should be noted the forecast is a composite of factual information and estimates of future conditions. Behind each estimate is a number of assumptions. The accuracy of the forecast is dependent on the likelihood of the assumptions actually occurring. An understanding of this forecast is enhanced by a thorough knowledge of the assumptions. These assumptions have been periodically revised and restated in earlier updates. Rather than include them again in this update, those individuals who are interested in the assumptions can obtain a copy of an earlier report from either the City or Springsted. The 1988 increment revenues were supplied to the City by Scott County. These income figures by district are as follows: Table I: 1988 Actual Increment Income K-Mart District (011) K-Mart $ 910,000 Canterbury Downs 1 ,047, 194 Canterbury Inn 408,000 Other 53,708 $2,418,902 Canterbury Downs District (#4) 1327 844 Total Both Districts L 746 796 Indiana Office: Wisconsin Office: 251 North Illinois Street.Suite 1510 500 Elm Grove Road,Suite 101 Indianapolis.Indiana 462041942 Elm Grove,Wisconsin 531220037 3112373636 414282.8222 Fax:31723/3639 Fax 4142822904 Mr. John Anderson, Administrator July 11, 1988 Page 2 The City is using the increment revenues to fund debt service for financing several projects within its Redevelopment District. Thus for, besides the projects necessary for the two principal developments, the City has financed a downtown streetscape project, the Holmes Street Storm Sewer improvements, and the first half of the Upper Volley Storm Sewer project. The City has plans to complete the Upper Valley project and to construct a bridge and bypass project over the Minnesota River. The projects have estimated total costs of 51,600,000 for the completion of the Upper Valley project and $2,900,000 for the bridge and bypass project. The City anticipates financing these projects in early 1989. We have prepared four schedules to estimate the financial positions of these districts given the new income information. Schedule A shows the situation whereby this new income is only available in 1988, with the original estimated income received for the duration of the district's terms. Our original estimates have been revised to include the Canterbury Downs parcels which are in the K-M art District. This change increases the revenues available to the City to $1,725,890 from $800,000 for the period of time after the termination of Canterbury Downs District, levy year 1994 through 2004. The new estimate is calculated by a proration of the 1988 actual total payments made by Canterbury Downs for all of its properties. This proration figure is then applied to the original total estimate of taxes paid by the Racetrack. The calculation is as follows: Racetrack Actual 1988 Payments K-Mart District $1 ,047, 194 Canterbury Downs District 1 ,327,844 Total $2,375,038 Percentage in K-Mart District 44.09% Percentage in Canterbury Downs District 55.91% Revised Original Estimate of K-Mart District Canterbury Downs Total Payments $2, 100,000 Share in K-Mart District 44.09% Payments for K-Mart District $ 925,890 K-Mart Payment 800,000 Total Estimate $1 ,725,B90 Schedule B assumes the new income amounts will continue to be received for the balance of the terms of the districts. Schedule C illustrates the situation if the 1988 income, which resulted in part from a total mill rate of 120 mills, is reduced in future years by a decline in the total mill rate to 115 mills. Mr. John Anderson, Administrator July 11, 1988 Page 3 Schedule D examines the scenario of Canterbury Downs ceasing to pay its property taxes in o11 years after 1988. Each of these schedules is designed to estimate the annual and total income surplus. Each schedule lists beginning cash balances, increment income, existing and anticipated future debt service, and the annual and cumulative surpluses. In all schedules the debt service amounts remain constant, with the estimated revenues and resulting surpluses (deficits) fluctuating in accordance with the four projections of increment income. Following is a table summarizing the main distinctions between the schedules. Table 2: Comparison of Alternative Reserve Conditions on Districts' Surplus TDehcrts) Schedule A B C D Scenario Original 1988 Income 1988 Income Canterbury Estimate Continues at 115 mills Downs Stops Tax Payments 1988 Income Existing TIF (Col 2) $ 3,338,796 $ 3,338,796 $ 3,338,796 $ 3,338,796 Canterbury Inn (Col 3) 408,000 408,000 408,000 408,000 1989 Income Existing TIF 2,952, 142 3,338,796 3, 198,567 963,700 Canterbury Inn 342, 186 408,000 390,864 408,000 1995 Income Existing TIF 1,725,890 2,010,902 1 ,926,444 936,700 Canterbury Inn 342, 186 408,000 390,864 408,000 Cumulative Surplus $17,592,872 $24, 194,256 $22, 132,532 $ ( 1 ,575,542) (Deficit) at end of term (Col 9) It is obvious from Table 2 that if conditions were to remain unchanged with Canterbury Downs paying its property taxes, the districts would generate substantial surpluses. However, changes are already underway. The 1988 State Legislature significantly changed many of the fundamental processes by which property taxes are determined. At this time there is not enough information available to determine how the new law will affect these two districts. Therefore, we recommend the City continue to monitor the districts to update their estimated future financing positions as more information becomes available. Mr. John Anderson, Administrator July It, 1988 Page 4 Please feel free to contact us if we can be of any further assistance. Respectf Ily, �� David N. MacGillivray Vice President tkf Attachments SCFEDULE A � 3 o a n m a . o - - a m mnmmn m .n o c a - � d 0 a c - - c uW m n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W m _ e SCHEDULE B m Q a e e r ry m LL � dW - m u .ter r tv w w w tV ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry — w Y < Q m m m ry u m u u ry ry ry ry a m _ a S w w ? 3 w m m m v w m ua O = ¢ 6 m m a a( w m m m m m m m m - - - - - - m - — - - -69 U m u C u 0 N am - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m u u aV ry y a h m m m w u - - u u ry m Q w _ Q Y O SCFEDVLE C �s - mm ora m - - m m = a s > m d _ -. - NNN � .m. NNNNNNNN � _ _ U m ewmn � mnmm .o n ..� m nnmmn � F � V m - - - - - - - - - - - a o a m •� - N O a O a m m m m - - u - Q Y W SCHEDULE D - - - m � ' e _ o m m d - - z w ry ry tV n a ua m ^ = m � a m wW 3 a W o z m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m it e v 6 Y 3 i o m 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ w It is a winter day and his Smith is /y walling downtown to do some shop- ping. Suddenly she steps on slippery spot and falls. In another area of the city, Fred Jones is out on his daily walk. Suddenly, he stubs his toe on a m Keeping sidewalks ark in the s and fthey were injured ass a a result these of thesea falls, t '�ln� Q there is a good chance that Mrs. Smith ��®C.liJl�v 1` _e�, and city Jones men bring claims against 1�iY the rity for payment of their damages. When is a city legally responsible for damages when someone falls on the Ellen A. Longfellow, LMCIT Staff Attorney sidewalk? Is there anything that a city can do to reduce the risks of such falls or to reduce the possibility that the city will be responsible for those damages? Is the adjacent property owner ever responsible for the condition of the sidewalk? Minnesota law Under Minnesota law, the city has the duty to exercise reasonable care to _ keep its sidewalks in a safe condition. �. The sidewalks are in the city street rightonsi y and are the city's primary c responsbility.The city is not an insurer -j of its sidewalks, however,which means that someone who sues the city must Il♦ prove that the city did something wrong or was negligent. In order to do this one most show that: there was a "defect" in the sidewalk; that the city had actual or constructive notice of the e - j defect; that after receiving such notice, .. i. the city failed to remedy the defect ' —" within a reasonable time; and that the ,�- - - failure caused the person's injury. The defect There is no law, rule, or case that has defined what constitutes a "defect" in a sidewalk. In one case, Bntnan v. City of Minneapolis, the ._ court said a icity is not liable for every " m mere inequality or irregularity the surface of the way." Courts have looked at such factors as the size of - the difference, its location, and if it is fair in a heavily traveled area in determining if there was defect. Similarly, in regard to ire and snow, there is a rule that says that a city is not responsible if a sidewalk is "merely slippery." There must be evidence that the snow and ice was uneven or rough or that there was a dangerous accumulation. Another consideration j' Trees m sidewalks can cause prob- lems unless a city uses a treatment such as the one at left. Photos by Brenda Mars. 6 Minnesota Cities for,liability for ice and snow is whether it was the result of natural or aru6oal conditions. A city may be more likelyto he found responsible it it was created y artificial conditions rather than b 5.:: — natural weather conditions- Notice Notice Actual notice exists when someone told the city about the particular prob- lem before the fall. Constructive notice - __- --- exists if the city would have known about the problem if it had done reason- - - able inspections. Failure to remedy the defect As in the use of the defect, there is no set figure as what constitutes "reasonable time." In a recent case 1 - concerning ice and snow, Niemann v. _ Northwestern College, the court held _that a reasonable time can begin after a snowstorm ends. The cause of the injuries Cracks around manhole covers and eroded areas in sidewalks could cause an Even if there was a defect and the accident and lead to suits against the city. city had notice of it and faded to correct it, the person still must show that the the sidewalk or shovel the snow, the 1. Determine what the city's cri- defect or the city's actions were the city will do it and charge back the cost teria are for repair and replace- cause of the injuries. on the owners property taxes. These ment of sidewalks. ordinances we very helpful in creating a method for cities to pay for sidewalk Immunity maintenance. They do not, however, 2. Develop a sidewalk inspection In 1986, the Minnesota Legsislature remove the city's responsibility for the program' passed an amendment to the Minnesota primary nantemance of the sidewalk. The inspection program would Municipal Tort Liability Act which The city has a duty to the public at involve city workers and officials states that cities will not be liable for huge to provide safe sidewalks and it actually walking the sidewalks and not- "any claim based on snow or ice con. Arnot delegate that duty to the adja- m8 my problems that they see. If the ditions on any . . . public sidewalk that cent property owner. city has a limited number of personnel, does not abut a publicly-owned budding Adjacent property owners do have a it may want to focus first on well- or Publicly-owned parking lot, except duty not to obstruct or create problems traveled areas such as downtown dis- when the condition is affirmatively in the public sidewalks. They may be tracts. In addition to formal inspections, caused b the negligentresponsible in some claim if they cre- the city should tram employees who municipality.-acts of the y ated the dangerous condition or if the are in a position to observe the side- This while o instrument that created the rendition performing other duties to responsThis does not take away the city's note any problems with the sidewalks me i for exercising reasonable was there for their altbenefit. For exam- and to report them to the appropriate care torr all sidewalks but does provide pile, claims have resulted when some- a basis for a dismissal of some snow one has tripped over a water valve peraonnul' and ice claims.The focus in these cases cover on the sidewalk.The water valve may be whether the city "affirmatively was serving the adjacent property 3. Keep inspection records. mused"the condition.In a case mvoly- owner so thew owner would be respon- City employees should date and sign kng snow on a street a court deter- sble for that, at the same time as the all inspection records. It is important mined that the mmnmity did not apply city was responsible for the sidewalk. that the city has records because by because the city created the condition In some ice and snow cases, the con- the time someone makes a clakn, the by plowing the snow into a pile. (Robin- dktion is the result of water dripping employees may not be with the city son v. Hollatz) from spouts or awnings on adjacent my longer or may not remember. The property owners buildings. This too records should also indicate what area could result in lability for the property of the city the employee inspected, any Adjacent property owner. problems he/she discovered, and what owners the city will do or did about the Many cities have ordinances which RednCing risks problem. require adjacent property owners to To reduce the risks of injury on construct and m i ntain the public side- sidewalks and at the same time reduce 4. Remedy any problems. walks. Such ordinances usually say that the possibility of successful claims, the The city could repair the problem if the property owner does not repair city should follow these steps. itself or send a notice to the adjacent May 1988 7 14 - property owner telling him/her to Design and important to know who they were and repair it and stating that if the owner Con issues what the specific contract said. As with falls to do so within a certain time, the other contracts, the city should ensure city will correct the problem and charge Trees in sidewalks that there are hold harmless or indem- the property owner for the cost of the There have been many claims nify clauses in the sidewalk contracts. repair. If a condition presents an imine- against cities for falls related to grates, It is difficult for a city to have perfect diate danger to people, the city should curbs, and uneven areas around trees sidewalks and the law does not impose put a warning device over it. Employ- in sidewalks. Marry options are avail- a standard of perfection. A city must ees should keep records of all repairs. able for the sidewalk areas surrounding exercise reasonable care. Implement- trees and the city should examine them ing sidewalk inspection and repair pro- S. Develop a complaint policy. carefully before deciding on which to grams shows that the city is concerned The city should develop a policy on use. The city council should document and that it is making an effort to how to respond to complaints about that it did consider different options maintain its sidewalks. sidewalk problems. This polity should and what factors were important in If anyone would Eke further informs- include making a record of the com- making its final decision. Such factors tion about what cities can do to reduce plaint and a procedure that the city will could be cost, maintenance, and advice their risks of liability for sidewalk falls, follow after receiving the complaint. from professionals such as landscape concoct: The records should indicate who testi- architects. North Star Risk Services, fled the city of the problem, the date, Loss Control Division what the person said was the problem, Suite 550 Water valve covers and what the city did in response to 1401 West 76th Street Mother design issue that is the the complaint. The city should inspect Minneapolis, Minnesota 55423 the problem area and decide d under focus of many claims against cities is (612)861-8600 the city's criteria, the decidesidewif would the placement of water valve covers in need any repairs. The record should sidewalks. The adjacent property League of Minnesota Cities include a note as to whether there is a owner a�be held responsible for such Insurance Trust problem, and if repairs were neves- falls due to the covers or at least share the 183 University Avenue East sary, or if the city put a warning device responsblity with the city. If the St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 over it. city knows of specific problems or (612) 227-5600 reoccurring problems,it should attempt to remedy them as soon as possible. The city could also pass an ordinance S B�g cases Minneapolis 250 or resolution stating that the adjacent Minn 376, 84 N.W. 646(1957) Property owner is responsible for the Hall v. Citi' of Anoka, 256 Minn. maintenance of the valve cover. 1314, 97 N.W.2d 380(1959) EXPERTS IN WATER Robinson v. . 1985) TANK a , 374 N.W. 2d Contracts and designs 300(Minn.App. 1985) PAINTING 8, The should keep records of all Niemann v. Northwestern College, REPAIR design andd construction contracts for 389 N.W. 2d 260 (Minn. App. 1986) videotaped sidewalk projects. In some cases, the Robinson v. Hallam 374 N.W. 2d Inspections sidewalk problem may be the responsi- 300 (Mian. App. 1985) In Color bility of the engineer, architect, con- Stenvtzke v. Donohue Jewelers, 249 tractor, or landscape architect and it is Minn. 514, 83 N.W. 2d 96 (1957) ■ .eo"eea rale A.m ms.nn •AW WA ANmOxs •per gpen e[Pornn[e •Men,enenp Lonrnnl •(nwnnlros on EPory •seen aenNq eM c.mrmp 7EPRESENTATION PERIENCED LEGAL TO CITIES HEIR MUNICIPAL ICE TERRITORIES. Box88007 gemaker Law Office Sioux i=ails, SD 57105 106 South Ninth Street TELEPHONE: Olivia, Minnesota 56277 (605)338{506 or(605)361.0137 Telephone: 612-523-2161 8 Minnesota Cities LAW OFFICES -RECEIVED 15 KRASS & MONROE JUL-CHARTERED 619M CITY OF sHMa s he fR old Business curter Phillip R. Kress Denny L. Monroe 327 Marschall Road Barry K.Meyer Trevor R. WalsYen P.O. Boz 2t6 Jay D.Goldberg Shakopee,Minrwsota 55379 Diane M. Carlson July 5, 1988 Tekphone(612)4455080 Robert J. Walter FAX(612)4457640 Lachlan B. Muir James B.Croft Colleen M.Trende Kent A. Cadson,CPA Mr. John Anderson Mr. Mark McNeill City Administrator City Adminstrator City of Shakopee City of Savage 129 First Avenue East 6000 McColl Drive Shakopee, MN 55379 Savage, MN 55378 Ms. Cindy Dressen Ms. Mary Ellen Flicek City Administrator Clerk Treasurer City of Belle Plaine City of Elko 420 East Main Street Box 62 Belle Plaine, MN 56011 Elko, MN 55020 RE: Presence of Municipal Prosecutors at Arraignments Dear City Administrators: Enclosed please find a copy of a letter which I received from Janice Vohnoutka from the Court Administrator's office in Scott County. You will note that they have now requested that we discontinue our attendance at arraignment hearings on behalf of the municipalities. This means that no prosecutor will be present for the very first time the defendant appears in court to plead guilty or not guilty. I do not know why this change of policy has taken place except that I can surmise that the court administrator and the judges felt that the presence of a prosecutor at these hearings did not resolve enough cases at arraignment to justify their continued presence. It is my feeling that the impact on the time which it takes to prose— cute will not be substantially changed, although obviously we will not have to spend the time at the arraignment. I feel that if the prosecutors are not required to be at the arraignments any longer, it will mean that the cases set on for pre—trial will be more evenly distributed throughout the month. This will mean that we may have a better chance to give advance warning to the police officers who will be witnesses. I am hopeful that this will result in some small amount of savings to the municipalities. Pa$e _p_ July 5, 1988 I will keep you advised as to the ramifications of this most recent change in the administration of the courts. Very truly yours, BRASS S MONROE CHARTERED "'b ' Y Lachlan B. Muir City Attorneys for Savage, Belle Plaine, Elko and Assistant City Attorneys for Shakopee LBM:srr Enclosure SCOTT COUNTY OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR / - COURT HOUSE 212 SHAKOPEE, MN 55379-13T7 (612)445-7750, Ext 200 JUNE 30, 1988 To: All Scott County Prosecutors Re: Prosecutor Attendance at Arraignments This letter is to inform you that your appearance at arraignments is no longer requested. We are doing away with having prosecutors appearing at arraignments to enable me to have a more variety of prosecutors for each Pre-Trial setting. This should help eliminate any prosecutor from having twenty Pre-Trials set for one morning/afternoon session with trial dates being set that same week. If you have any questions regarding this change, please call me. ` 07 �61i a ce Vo noutka " urt Administration Scott County An Equa( Opponunity Employer Ehlers and Associates, LEADERS IN PUBLI F [ NANCE NEWSLETTER 1 1 OFFICES IN MINNEAPOLIS AND WAUKESHA - 507 Marquette Avenue - Minneapolis, MN 554021255 - 612-3398291 VOLUME 33. NUMBER 3 FILE: Financial Specialists: Ehlers and Associates, Inc. Please distribute to governing body members JULY, 1988 U.S. TREASURY YIELDS U.S. Treasury yields continue to average 40 to 50 basis paints higher than one year ago. There are two main reasons: 1) concern over future inflation; and 2) the Federal Reserve Board's desire to maintain slow, modest growth in the economy. Tax-exempt yields on a AA credit, however, are about the same as AA tax-exempt yields of a year ago when the 20-year BBI was 90.3% of 20-year U.S. Treasury Bond yields. Today the 20-year BBI is 86% of 20-year U.S. Treasury Bond yields. The decrease in supply of tax-exempt bonds has helped tax-exempt rates. TAX REFORWTAX EXEMPTION With the Supreme Court's ruling on South Carolina vs. Baker, Congress now knows it has the ability to dictate how tax-exempt bonds may be used. Congress most likely won't do anything this year, but �... look out for 1989. In 1989 the new President and Congress will be forced to examine all sources of potential tax revenue, including further curtailment of tax-exempt bonds. Who knows what will be in store for public purpose tax-exempt bonds? "VARIATIONS ON CAPITAL FINANCING" The financial community is constantly creating innovative methods of financing that supposedly reduce borrower's costs, but when other costs and risks to the borrower are analyzed, they are not that beneficial. Remember, underwriters also seek rewarding financial instruments for investors. You might be interested in the enclosed article entitled "Variations on Capital Financing" from American City and State which is a valuable publication for public officials. BUILDING BETTER COMMUNITIES THROUGH LEASING In the public sector leasing means something less than borrowing or bonding, but can be an effective way to build better communities. When a local government pledges its full faith and credit to long term lease payments, the interest rate can be as low as more conventional financings. Competitive bidding on the borrowing for these lease payments further reduces the interest rates to the community. Even when lease payments are subject to annual appropriation, public offerings greatly reduce interest costs. The public body should solicit an independent fiscal advisor's analysis of the various leasing options vs. standard kinds of financings. -, FmHA DISCOUNT PROGRAM Over the last two months Ehlers and Associates has helped several of our clients take advantage of the FmHA Discount Program by refinancing at substantial savings. Future Future Issuer Value Savings Issuer Value Savings Buffalo Lake, MN $ 422,202 Menahga, MN $605,379 Fosston, MN 393,326 Warroad, MN 245,220 Lincoln County, MN 310,233 Altoona, IA 647,683 St. Francis, MN 215,771 West Bend, IA 444,891 Staples School District, MN 1,054,399 Mondovi, WI 203,338 Mahnomen School District, MN 1,091,271 Other clients who realized substantial savings from the FmHA Discount Program include the following: Bertha School District, MN; Clarkf laid. MN; Mahnomen County, MN and Durand, WI. COMPANY NOTES Steven Aofelbacher has been elected President, and Bill Fahey continues as Chief Executive Officer. Jana Ristamaki. in charge of internal operations, continues as Secretary/Treasurer. Seeaar Swanson, Chairman of the Board, headquarters in Waukesha heading up Wisconsin operations. Carolyn Drude, Senior Vice President, 18 years with Ehlers and Associates, has been elected to our Board of Directors. Have a delightful summer! Robert L. Ehlers Founder Steven F. Apfelba ebfi r President �ry �frsz�:�333 �g<� 33g33a3� 3 'z 3<.3<aa« .� 3Ia<3e<g333< g� =� 555565rEEE ecce rce�559m 5 S 95m5�:5�5 �� 5555555555i# �-' Szxx s5er rx�5 exxzek3E � xs�as��r 35 r55x555�5�@� R R 4 R ----FBF€- -- a Fiassi F gF G iiaa a x asi £i 11 MUMMA S 3sax 4p x 5 § 3 x 3 s 3 € E § -gx $EIH 3 �FFg C[ ax x .,.,. i a t a aess�a;; 3 400 e4so ;' $ t� gxar JIM 3ez_jig 144 a5i__-s gg?_,. 23ax geg3z99a3`z s e eee��aeE c�ee �r��c�� e��eeegr r� ��SSS55lx�ee HUH-0 xx_ � ac's�soex eves sas's s o sss'ao'x-'x a's e's Jax's'xa�o��aa a a a €� o al � g s3i3«<g.3z B< a gia33 €« x s3<gx333 <3 3« a ��,� 5 6 treess"44555 �: 5 5566 6$6 6 ----e555 55 555 a I� 4 5 55wffi5545EE5 5r � rxgKs 544 4 54x5xffi64 xe xe� 8 R nxx nes n Btla° .ga m ¢ aa 11 X99 ..� . - F g• i 6x . .c x 33 & a 3 ' §ise z c88e a33Fa3 a g�� o „F. ; � e as 666 al e ? @E �$ss!!5S ee g $ eee ;SS 9 l�454SSa �� eee � � ax�xeeoa3s� oe a saa� ��3 3 aso333�a 33 baa 11 £aaS9a5g6g5mGffig95W!911his 555155 g 9 gg�gxgm°SAgaggm^5gggaa�xsgeK r�gege g e g `a "sg� L ani45s'€ig"m�§$Asea€�a�a s aI 3 � 30a'' IH " Ilia lvgg�AIg�o,.ee 8e eetteeesea i "elfswell"I'@ g HIM s�3�vo��e's's 13 Sig soe�'x s � . x ^?$ HAM 51 <aJ1a�s'�'a hill e.aSm...�.�a.3:i FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT_ 16 Variations on Capital Financing By Robert L. Ehlers battle of financial Flavors is bring waged: plain vanilla, •Lessors may offer supposed advantages such as off-book the traditional bond offerings, vs.tutu frutti, the newly accounting, eliminating elections and reasonable net interest- developed approaches. With excess zeal and ingenuity, rate factors. Again, the borrower should weigh these "advm- the tax.exempt bond trade has produced a wide variety of bor- tages" against the total price, not just the interest rate. The rowing methods that can boggle the mind. lessce must ask about other costs, including underwriter fees, They include: advance and crossover refunding,credit en- lessor's initiation fees, service costs, legal fees and investment hmmments, bond insurance, capital-appreciation bonds, of participation certificates,or bond proceeds during and after CATs, GICs, stripped coupon bonds, term bonds, tax-exempt acquisition. money market funds,partial defeasance,variable-race demand 0Offsetting debt-service savings,if my, are borrowers risks bonds, zero-coupon bonds, letters of credit, pooled bonds, associated with each form of financing. For example,variable- lease-participation certificates and privatization financing. rate demand loans, by definition, state that holders (lenders) The practitioner as well as the government finance officer are entitled to their money on demand or within seven days, a often is overwhelmed,hard put to appraise the merits of exotic month or a year. For any number of reasons,or for no reason, financings, invented and advanced so eagerly by various un- a borrower may be faced with a huge,unexpected demand for derwriters and advisers. While it would take a book to examine funds, which perhaps can be obtained only at very high inter. each variety, some funda- est rates. mentals might help judge How does a financial of- "creative" financings. titer know what to look All capital borrowings GFOA Disclosure Guidelines for? How do plain vanilla involve a promise to repay For Securities Available bond issues, with a straight a loan, with interest. All promise to repay, compare kinds of security arrange- ftesponding to changes in the design and marketing of with more exotic varieties? ments and definitions of 1W municipal securities, the Government Finance Officers Financial officers should how debt will be repaid can 1111LAssociation (GFOA) has published its "Disclosure look at exotic financings be found, but all these Guidelines for State and Local Govemmmt Securities." First with a certain amount of really say is the debt must published in 1975, the revised guidelines provide authorita- skepticism — search for be repaid on time. Often tive insistence in designing official statements, supplying cur- negatives. Insist on quanti- different financing at- new information on a continuing basis, and implementing fication of incidental ex- rangements, which appear processes to keep existing or potential investors informed. penses, including under- to make the price better, Disruptive conditions in the tax-exempt securities market— writing, consulting and le- obscure the price and the major interest-rate swings, fluctuating volumes,increased in- gal fees, insurance risks. The following are in- novation and some notable financial reversals — have gen- premiums or other credit- stances of creative finmc- crated a greater emphasis on disclosure. The guide is de- enhancement fees, and reg- ings that ignore the actual signed to help governments meet these increased disclosure istrar/paying-agent inilia- cost and risks to which the demands. tion costs. Municipal bor- issuer is exposed: The 94-page disclosure guide is available from the Publi- rowers must be sure all •If an interest rate cations Department, GFOA, 180 N. Michigan Ave., Suite these incidental costs are seems unusually low, the Still,Chicago, Ill.60601, (312)977-9700. ❑ included in the capitaliza- borrower must look at the tion to be repaid. transaction's structure. Finally,the risks must be Cases exist where the nominal interest rate appeared extremely understood thoroughly. An issuer may assume a certain fi. low.On closer examination,however,the lender was offsetting mincing is secure, not realizing credit enhancements protect an extremely high rate by appropriating the investment yield— investors and credit enhancers will look to the issuer for in- money the borrower could have owned alone. Bond pools and demnity. Thus, a bank issuing a letter of credit to secure a de- their sponsors are financed by appropriating earnings that can- mand loan has a right to payment from the issuer, or to an ex- stituent borrowers could have had. Bond banks often require traordinary interest rate if the issuer cannot pay. borrowed proceeds be left for investment at lower than market When comparing traditional offerings with newer, exotic fi. rates. nancings, local governments must inquire carefully about all *Sponsors of variable-rate demand bonds frequently fail to the cons involved—not just the interest rate. consider the ongoing costs of letters of credit,remarketing fees, Another key is finding out who gets the investment yield and or extraordinary underwriting, legal and amounting fees that how this adds to the real cost. The total transaction must be must be added to the low nominal rate.They often fail to fully analyzed,not just the borrowing side. state the risk associated with any demand loan,since the letter Communities may consider hiring an independent fiduciary of credit protects the lender,not the borrower. When these are who has the experience and computer capabilities to ask the taken into account, the cost approaches the interest rates on right questions and who will analyze all the options. more simple, long-term bonds. The issuer must examine total After close examination of the total cost and risks, the plain debt-service costs,not just the nominal interest rate. vanilla approach may cast less, have fewer surprises and taste •Promoters of economic-development bond pools and better than the more exotic mtti frutti offerings. ❑ guaranteed investment contracts (GICs) often do not define how proceeds are to be invested at a higher yield by buying "junk" bonds. The borrower sometimes does not know about the "breakage" fens if the city ever actually uses the proceeds Robert L.Ehlers¢founder and prendem¢merlons of Ehlers for economic development. and Associates,Minneapotir. Reprinted from AMERICAN CITY AND COUNTY,April 1Wil © 1988 by Communiealion Channels,Inc., Atlanta,GA.,U.S.A. YU YY YUW4Y YY YY YYYW Y-U YVVYN4Y YYU VYYU44 �� Y �� + � UU NUNeeaO 4YYY4YYUYY _ _ _ O ^C ' ' eaou unnnnn weuuuuua u-- - -- e u-.ue m- z m aun - vaa Jw a - Jnaun - e • - aJwua unuaun - a • un- ov m + aa +n n.. a < .. aanxw + + xrw � zv zwnacx + v + nvvrJ m um -� r + o c o j ' ar u > vnozr -a a � cvarrnns n was per c . an � naa � mm x � pz J - y Iw a zazm a YTyrnonwrm z w- vJ aoa ao ox .� iii-iilnn < n�' o u ; + mxnn . . . m znw ~ a inns Dnw = aa 'r rr nr'm am 'm nnaanJ > < o � aacJaaoa w oncvn nv � nra yv < nz ' op -� anzc as z i axas -� y w w- naznz w pm > u .tea x zn nnw x � -zona - y mn s a nn rxnnn CU + + m a ^wn w.p a Ca + w + nw racer vnzx 'm m a' c oonm >z < xvnnwv < y xw m m azna nxa- nrup - m wm n o II '.anannM1on '.. n yza v' ana nn - nm m mm - + azr az so d w .. p: 'a z »+ nzz 'wm 'x xx +m z m Iyn Fvn r Mv I r + n uuzun m mm - a .z m l I y a n J a p ysay u z v Ipil i 1 I p w I '. I 1 I I I it T I I I I me i A Jnof - a JUa Ywo T T nZ T a OJ m a ! UI UoeUw P -1 J J < q N eooe oeeoeooee oo m -wl 'om c.J m a e 'oua 'u o 000e : nx z e z I I I s m S O m nu. m i - o vro Jm'.e y ary IiaWno a u�f n as - un e.W n - n aloe ie uuee a u N n,Ow uu oaaNu e < a w Y evie m e... .. . .. .. eo e _l le eeeece toe e.0 owI eaw m'J; � oro I ec u la Irn - a w ae m lu u J e•I sn nu un - ?'., n N' Je' y 0 1!a a n a -Ja QO� aaJ U O�wu T e N n'J m laane own I' cle m eoln . el le el uolm co m euo ea'o mee, n Oe al eOwuuae awo le �m e w ele e _w u I a m r: nu_e � a1ne u ae-J I. m e �ne V eo Yev Ion m - J Um M1m m Y IN m lu iu-a� a a uaa'.--Inoequ n w .I - <m nee'oe uu� w oun� uaoa yl _!""omauwe ue.'ex eHem m. a`ea a a eev .Ni a on 'euee orae + uJo nea u - n euv lue �i + e:m -. ee vnJ + w se u z + e.. a . . . . . . . . . . e I l e i I I I I. we ie ad �I a won oo .'. adm a Im WNU am m O U 'I o NOONeryw O - w.WW x - m w o u r m n a n r n I N M W PYYOMM1 f N i O A _ P d n •, ' 6 V SO11 ONo m P 1 11 I .<. ooeo� eeu nl-�� ol-u - oo o. n eon n on P o i reeW Ptl_ w � n� a e - F e N 6 7 YNNAMM OMh ONO _ • P P N 0 o n 06 00 0_ON ee N o0 00 o N 6 Yn < N N N - U 0 n pi a .q a o w ua o e e e Y n n u d m w ! I o ewe ewo w po eNe Otl r OYMN o;N + F.. OM n d IY +YMNI< n F d �d W O 0 KP o P n Y ti M1 DI i I I I z LL s w o e1pe ee ... oeneon P. e • � A A � zea I mime nneh .m a, n n ' tl I N I j w - Y I mW j I i i I I j I jI I I I I x I j i i II I II I W � ntl Y o i M1 ' i I j FO U O U 'W I 6 W J2 K OY ��M1 ItlJ20J C � � O LLO W C..WC OWLR M1On2h W n' W J h 1 ii '.wJn -u ` WU •.a W.\ n �6 6 6Ym6VgI YyIY m m h O O n Z =W WLL > C.YIZZwnpp Uq JJ'W LL W + W. W C � � � WC OOI3YCOJW.J + + Z D� S ^ U Z. Z W W LL i ZV LLO L31CC00WJJM1 = OD 0 6" Z ' LL VN WY O LL6n SL' W LL LL \ J' J WO W O W V2C=1FVq V 2W + � � < JJb Y + UUZw Yn + L Vp Q C WWM1V ZU Z 1 h �h JFDgUF +CCZtlJ6M1gLrnL oZ WZD+ D + 0 + 6YD3nW V JD LLY L�Ltl LULL.\ Jn6 qLC V g6LL rn 1- I ZU +Y Y'YUYY AMAMPPPPm a0 O _ '. J6 NNM nNnnnnnNMM:MMn.O 0000 '. ',. '. Y M'Mn A'MMRMMMMMTAMMN • n • TnAM • MM a • as aaaaaa u u aaaaaa + aaaa araaaaa � a v - J a uN aauuuuuuuuuuuuunnnnnro Dc Ja o Peene - - - auon - uu ua aaae pz m J - u . o e - JPe nn nue a ro-e u n- e noe o m l 0 A J t o on m an3anacn l.JJllr ltlna2pae 1 ccralllp om c w CACOpJ2Ai AOAnAnOC Oce' m zoAAA.mm. > yo z = „ x A Y iT S � A ^ a22 -wnarpon O.a cnya ATA> zzzarAr `- J .J. m i .2 A ✓ s a l rcz< mJlalr � rola m xsrwFvsaAs s J m U .D J AJ '.m A2 np- Ayn 1DOrA oAD - O 93J P = A O i Z Z H T Z D AD « ryDP JD �fZnJ UO Z rmS000 n D a T r r T r 2 n 22 A. . .OZ . lA Am 9 02 ZZz. ASm T 1 m T '.Z Z 91 b .D Op2 An0'OZ On . DDOC r Km UU4 4Tm n2 Z Z A 0J T p ACr.CO UA A ZrO -1w n3 3 I' Aa b O 'm 9 4ppA PIP wn2nZ3uD m A f.211 I1T Z ( < m J OC OAmp C zD'Z y = A y0 cc 9> > C 1p Orap 3 'o An Yrr yr A D Z A9 T tlp P C.tl pyw0 < A ^ AD ; rlr O.1 a Z = 32 A 3 pn Atl O m Am_ < D 1p rtl AA A rD , JJ Zc T 1 J y A Mn A Cr A � �+ ZO m i A A CCA mm ' m IPr zln � n a � as I I � I Z , y y m m w nm w+ un10 I m yl r mnru uru T m .i 'ro r'o u u a �a d4 Ju vy N im nay z ro eml m + u u � + u ua euwm n l e I e n Pro l e d JuuNeaee Na A o o N a3 0 l I Z C I DI T z. A I 4 t I I mnI m I II II II I I I I II 4 I ' 1 I o y r V V J ryr OI wYY b. Y pJ -m alN 9 O m p N N J O - + nUOIpPp p O,V OiUVmm - u', J In NmaJ n- 9 I00 N - N � - OdJ JJ p-I enJ NO meNop-IJ 9 n m Paaa ~ UJOUO eea O N eVNVON OI J of OO e O I e e ee I lo I � m I J J m 0 m I - nP I •_. J - ro! � N VN6 - D VI N N N nJ J U PPpunwuUV - of OaYm m� roa OUC' w m{ ro O r r U � uu jn -IJ PJ a n pM1OPW = m � w a 1.1 n p J OJ IP mV - JJPBJ YO a PmJn � �J 4 wmN O~ I a \ T n JpUpJ Yp6a0 JVUAN MY - P CO T m O m w i O aea- V-- aW04�-e- a- YaV J N OPY4N P r0 > eJ W - J - pVV - - O U-An� p J VOV M1m T m V a � ry JY OIJ AYp PUwapn m V OpN� � m MO J � N P VM1W M1J YP an POIoYVJJ J O O- JNN D I m O aro o pUU O -1 Va V adJm a N YnPT A N N N N O - On 'U V PYtley W .NV JIro D O .N mm ON e J JJa. V Oa a JJ P ea b.J Z T meamOVJJe eJ ONJ W N O � dYY OIa � N m N nnU UODUNp Y PwYnm a aap ua T' N N Y 4YP0 Jn n J N 1 N A J J N Ji O UYw U,J OPYJ O; Ua P: I N JYnYM y - ._T ' ::: T� : _ T '.I, i_.a__ �_ nn n� I . .� I '�. I ' I I � � s e i I I I I I � W W I I � I � I � a u e i i i I � i ill 6 = 1'1 m ? n m W OI OJ � ' N I i LL � O Ou b f t 6 _ I '� a P a � I W I • >5 � � I I 6 b I � I r � I a m `o ¢ i a a i � i I � I II � ; j I o d , I I � � w � i i i ' � � I j � � I � a iii � j � �'� III � �' ' ' I � � I _: � I .. z'� ' I I � 'I I � I I _ a � ��N �^ � � i I I i � � I I i z a �m 'i i i I a w,. j ( I I i � I I I i � �, it w �'' itl i j i � � j I uo :a � ',. I I i I i I ' o ' I �� a '. i � w i' '. '. ', �� I w LL:z o ', i ~ � ', '. � I i s'. z � a u a i. ', ' ', I d w.N I. i� o uw o '.. '. ', � j e u o 0 0 00 0 Zu P p< LL - m c z o m m m T m = m m a m 0 x m 9 i s y 9 y K m a C r Z A D A Z n y n D y y -i O y A y 2 K 30 m m m z m m a r a � I m y T 2 A C m z z v y bmNNNNNNN bWYYYY4 bOroNro b0 + -� VP mWro- OmPNaWN- Yp-yNEYp- Oro+Duro+ 00- O 90 09Dm39D0 OnOrmO OmOD 03a m AA ymWC�+Dnm mOTrrA yC00 K 2 02 SAmOWK02 <CTOAZ 20C3 SK m mm M .M. mzmm02w AO AA OWA CA r.-OZ... pAnt K AA D D ZW 1ZD O.�+mFD y-�+ r Cf 9Z3r1r 9rD�Or 9 rm 9tr sAm m rzz a a z .K.r Krz i3 Atr mm3 < wn Kn o a om y mDm o s a o n Z 2m W Z DO Z Dy C A a ms m r maii m ii 2 2 m 2 mom 3 o r 2 A Z 2Ny 2 W K < y m W K 9 Z A m y O 9 m a A S ro xW _ m ro e - rvro m u o0 -uJb yb bbPm -u -uy +- aym- ym J y az -io ry mWJby 00rooYmV OINPorobNNN peNy Ybb N 'N ND Ky N eo0 yroYONOJ00Y-btl -OOOeEONeN aoeNOUNN aooe W Tm mK < 2 DO xm am o9 ro ro u -- om 9a roNNwyytl mrom- mromNN--roro - tlrorom-a- --P rn m - -NromPmJPN-romm yroPmymy-mP oNNPeeyy vmuN 90 z ro--abwJuremNN- uurorouwJ matlNm my my i N bJJNe-OlbJJ4N NPP4P- -00 roY yoWaboNO m 1 ro eo0 NmNN-+ 00JlwyN YMOlPIo N roNYb-eV- -PPb n0 V lro N+ m yreay O ro0 E l m N Oy W2 mY yN -�l- ro b tl P a N9 N roero omro NO OPOtlwtlP - oEY 4 NNW NooeeeANo NP E... ..... . E000eeol NOON '1 NmP NNroPmV- UNoa eNNmN-+WJN -Ororo00-AW --J Om0 -NpiP - NpVatl bpo JONj o - 0W0 m poN WONroPP W YWpNOY �NNltlNe EYmW Wr + NE NOPJNe-roobo- VN PaP p PNWtltleb+ N NroW NN-- NyV- W- JJm P e0o -oVN PPP! ro -1 W Ptl - e 0 N N a0 I l oo-ro1 P Nly-N4- pY00-OW A >JO p p A aay- ryu roetlu m m a o oe m oNUNNo N NN oN 0 oee O000000000000 o0o0oa0000 OeO00000 e000 9 O 0 ooe oo000eooa0000 eeeeoo0eoe eoeooeo0 0000 Z m M a !mN 0 PN � roW NNE N roN N A "1` mpo 4mroONP W AmJ m - + JeP mooeeobNJPtlmd �eeemrooProm ueeoes>u uooJ y iqN-e_eooe000 M1netleoeP rmAvneeNanNeeoeoor N u nw.o e.o.o '- tl wenoN�N N ae -p n as enadn Nm"0� .P p - n O u Oe a OONo ee O O o p 00 N ep JnJe NNeOo ONOO eN < O¢ JnrAq qpm nnrN oo b0Jp�0 ONe 0 d area_ _ �oNm m aP me=gin wee n ro- f6 - N PFMN r n -P -o� oOAbpbO eoopAN-m 0D vFlppFPr0PNo0NP0- Nr O O-J- a00PJgA OmF- AO A FWNNNn--r gNotlF FD poApgpPo - P A oPPF Nb P ' W NNo-On- omNhNAtl ♦ Nn JFnapNonbbpppbOtlPw 00 - AWNA-ONNNO- - w FV FNrOA_-_ tl eF apNNFl A 00nNM1m0 Ja0 _OPOp o - N NN OnNNtlw _ NFlNNNnvo PN n N N OpONO Om �oOw rp PNO OnpNo q OFo P wFr 0_ Op WF epee wo Na 0MN0 en-NP P FO - J eJNN P P0� nnJbO J A OV N Nn -P n N J as m - P �-v -Nvventivtln ePFa-r F F 0-JJJb00PJPr O �- 00NgrpFONOOD0P0_NW A Z y p -n0 FF NFlONNNaoneOVNwWPJN FW W ¢ PNpFNeJo_gJA - FlMOPpNJP PaJbwJFl PNNA00W O< AOAgPmNryO-mn0 -N bPAbN - 0p- aN0 0 PPbOJpN N W VJ NnJNNrONNNO qp NFl � NNS pp NP0Jr00 P N0.-0P00 <d WO FNM1ON N aN ONw ApNJP ANNNAOn M 06 S > TO D W W WO poFONONONONNO nrooOwop eNOeNNPOrO0e0ob 7Op N JW OF 2J rAnaOaP pPWbe J0 N -n0N - DP-rb0 � � � � � � � ' V� 00_ N�-N- 0 NA NNJbo -- OnpNNbO O bOJp el'1 J LU ¢ n - Ne -FWnp N AgANNJ W rc V O 'V d V Z> 2 3r Z W 6F W S W¢ ¢ O W V V W W W 6 V < < < O J V UOU� V YU Z Z r VU0 O O .+ V¢T J WW VW 2604 < LLWUZ FW6 d W>^¢ UWd QTVF J J rJFJF¢ZOW6 > J JWVW J < WOZO TWW T<JV ¢ < OmZFOGZ J6¢ F ¢ 0m62UVCi =mV W W¢WW¢OZ�W�+LW Z W JJOVWOF VJWD W VW <2JOU¢�0�2f Z VDLL J�+¢SO 4 6�nVmULLVV<O V U anPNJOgm- Nnm _Nnp-NFl -NAVNbrOq__0_NAD- FrrM1FM1rgPPPP 000DpP a -NbDPPPwFl - --- PP a nAnMAnAnMAnPwPPPt A O LL Z W m J O £ D < J O - W m p VW J J J F t W 06 F z F O F V F Z O V p U W O OW O d LL ¢ o D N u o C_ z rom z mro a v p m m s y 9 y T y p y Ao m aO O y - y 3 za o s mzmp r z r n I yz m m r v I m r m T r C 2 Z m O NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNaallOdOdoaae 'CUYU4YYW tlbPPPPwPNNNNNaUNN-oO-- -- 0 0 0o NbJJ0Y4UY4WY OMPdY-otlOJIroPMN-JwOtlO- OtlOJPNIro - mYN- 00JPdYro- O-w2<-SOAC---dSC9<09TOp003m9yOq p90<1m90 m-ODOD WPOy099ryD - mO- y- -D A�+ r yD-Df Crm Sym9my9C-Pyb-2r9-Tmpr $ 3KDmy<Dy0 SOyr3 rD2 mSAr93bz 3m0 m- m3Ky0Km-KO mbKrmr2D 9 fyf OyAI m-DmAAm9yz mm 32 9y mp0 D-D-DSOO DA2<N D 90Dy3 rmm'+99 9mK' -AD T<Zp2<> CDm<rym <r2-D rmD >rOZZmm LDCT Zmf Km.mpm r ZOD.Om m>F-3p 9ryCyVpA Db-> A -10900r SImAOryr6K9F 3m00ZZ 03 KRr- -3 O rOD9 D0 m09 9- OAS-mD p OArA<9-i9 Imrrm<90 Crm Oy J2L2 9 D mO90m0403DKmK< nP 3mm z m D D 3_ 10-A mNmACyOy A Zm 3 n m m 3 mmlDDywm m(S10 mLarm 30 o A9 3 S m0 2K .Z9by2 DDOc mD O O< O O Uy m 10 D Mm00 0yr-Cm 29 y YD O 9- Z C ADm y0 002 A y0 r my m0 y y m 39 OZ f A Dm m p m y0 2 ym O 9 A m s x W ro- I" _ YPam ry oo = p -_NNmJ-_�_-a ro--1-1 ua -Nro aNmtle -m cz yp -roro-Pm-mPmro-- JaumPWJam-Pi= -NP- uU1maJ Aa Km N000NeNOJOo0oo0000000OPONNooeoeN uPNON00000NOro ro mr 00 m T m m A 0K < S DO vm ov _ N ro Om 7a _ ro- u N roro In JUJUI u r ma PumW-tl-J ro Jroma um rory m' m-JJ- em tlNume ro Jm rn my ProNJd • maeaamJ N -NmuromrowmP 111 sp 3 NNPObdWN�aNaWPW - NJNJ00 JNoaJOmOwPONN A0 m 2 P0JJ0rolNlJ-aaJ PrvNNroroJrvJ-J-w - ly+o+a-JabO m 4 VNaoPW0NYY0VNOe-J-VPtlNmP- UWVJb-N JONweONOUYaJ! W 00 ro m_ N ro py N N mS 0 W W ym N ro 09 P00 000 ee00000eoPeeoeoP000eeo -ePe ooe JeeoeeeoeePOH a ePO Pe Po 0 00 P Jmoo P oPm0000 _ ro- u N rvro ro a J_ mJm PWmW-tl-J ro Jroma ua rororvN -JJ- Jmume ro m oo JOPVodP N04NbNwmOwJ 0y 00aWN--NaWwYl4mlc �NJrvJO ONeaJeOe JOrodNaJ-IdJNPOPwrvroNYNMrvJJ NwaJ-o- a Wr brolowW0NWW0JNOe-J-JwVNtlP UW -VO-N aONPOeNOWYIJ- J 1 DK 9y 4 W ro bP-- J TO roP Y J ! ro- roYNYNY - N d NNOV J ' rom N -N-Vwdw J0 1 0 N m 2 0000peoo00o000e00oeo00oo0o00o0e0 00000e0oe0000 o O Nro 00N WNJJ Wm W J NNONJPY- VU - roJOd m W Peoeem>ou00000eeeeeJoeJnu -J-uu-1m aomomeoeewraw P z i y \ W bFNP - PNo oW pFN00n OF -nnnFlN00 p N n=0 _nnF _np o qP - pPbdNO � nd \mfFlF W n NnNannnN n n -PnN- N 6 _O VO Ooo00ooee o a o0 000 a o00o e o 6 60 F ONngaNPYy,n eno 0o NmP PYen 00 NOPOOFOO FrPprNaN PNn Od P \YFl�oONu'P a m oPNPNNnP Fl O PF_ m dnNNe Yn_gq _PFNdFPONbNbq Yr - OY- Ooe00r0 PPN„Fn J% nNPYN NNnnOno_YnPPNnNOOO NPdNOooeoobF � fm PnNPn mNOFmnP- PF_nFPP _mp YNPgPPb0N0Gmn oOnOP_ _ 00 grONP -dFpnPNgN�PDPNnan \ pPNNnW NP _ FdPnnOPh FU -_ V _! 'N ♦Nn_O - bn -N M1nmm� �P nib. - a OPOPN .-e� omo Y n n NMW oW d0 oN otlO00e WF eN o ONnN�PbNemO Y p P P P F% a and c d 0 P Y % nwr�P _Fl_ OmnPbnNM1reabab_ oP_oM1_PeoPgrN enNNNdN z M1% PNnYNnPmNmw - NnNeo \ NaoPePeenrw oN-PPNrb w Fl POPP O 'ObYn _OnOP _OP M1 U6 PMNPO baFpNP �_ FOnOrtlP00tl P rn oN - 0P0PsnrynP NPNNen�N 0 0NP _bOnO ¢W J 0F0Ntl �--NmYPPN\ Nn_ P _ nnnN NrnnON PNP nNP WY O¢ S > ¢ W ¢ % %O oONbp NONNNNNOPFONOFlOnNM1 rNNOOoopoN bP_ oaW_- OF OO PNbnF NFlPnPdNONOOW nPPN - a Pon- nNPMYO n OnorPP Vr ^ _ NNNNPFl W-O nNNNbP Fr ONbP LV %i N P ad ¢ w 6 C C C W WYwr¢U Z 6Z6F F F <00F ¢ F W6 %WLY 0 Z %I6 ¢69 % Z W\n2}6U %WO E} ¢C ¢C ¢R t L V6 rWF2 Y WCrrrr,.,,� w QCT J 6 (CrU < M1¢6 ¢666 Z2WWWWWW __ <Dr >Ftl6 6W¢CCC¢¢ YyW JF2tOM1 £ Z%< 2bbobbo LO O%SZ � ¢ NVLFuq QU32¢ Jn "O%(J ( YOB p J<%0r62 % 6WLF % C 0_YYYY T_F ¢�2%QVF WWOrW7223020W VOW ¢ W.WF 2WL Z ¢r rr,r r,� WmVJJ2W WCWOFr¢2Z0<3OdF Z¢DZOO�F VFOW%06 %%g030 W66 ( Q6Q < WrW000« V6£L£EE £ VJJU¢6L3 -Nn0 e 0 - NnPPbFO-dnq _NnPNbFO Pw vvc �vPnnnnnbmPwpom. P<' \PP\PPPPPwP PPPppf PPPPPP OnbOnnmb O wzj Z 2 W Q 0 J L m C W - WJ ZY J O O VL F a J J Q Q 6 O f' W M1 M1 � < w L m ¢ ¢ ¢ M1 O % C 2 O p P m y M N Z D C_ O C O O O T O 9 m z 9 a D m o m a a o a T y a y a 9 m Y A m K- Y y r m f O f r f zm_ r m r Y m \ s m ^K r m O T Z Z O p NNYN tlbbbm44UWUNNNNNNNNN mUN-mAWN-obmJPNIWN- C m Of O�+ OYNa9999mKDD990 Z m Onm2 Dz-DDD' Om.YDD. D Z 232w 3m02DDD CZ22aD2 I m Tmm9 mmCFFS SrZrrSFm f D a Dm a \ m m-mm D n D 9D0 ra Ommm<mYY33D r m- rY 9'+m3mrOfD �-ODf D 20 - D33D9000A000 C�+ a 3 f1F30 Km O�+YO�000 ZS O M D mID2 <Z 9 CTTPKD O O CZ Z w9DKm3 SrDrr Z D D TDP �r\OD3DOKOOn D D 1011 PPmw 10Z-z +zK322�+Pm 3 A m sD Ioz9` zKsao >3ms oam3 cKw K\D�+L- Om Z � mz9 9\Ksm\N..z \z Nz 9 K SKr C =0002KYK K a yo a zozKA. o < z r zmzw 9 D m a s N r SW PW mPeJ-Y cPjN4NPro-UtlmoN P C2 Ym mNJb - mNN NNAbamNlNwJ N aw> oe o0 dOpNo NNWoyoNweo4NNOONbmNo J w Tw m w_K DO - zm om o9 ! a mro -ro-ro N - JN mNe- - ow my i P - m NtlaroeumNmma uroNNa u rro m wmop WK o o N a N b b m JVIPJ�NobN 90 S WPN4NONp J Nm Y -mN mw WWYPO tl oNOPNWNwIePtlP APaNa K J 00 00 P NmoaWeNbPJmNyP oy- - euu nm ➢ mm -_ ro ua �Y JJ NN b4oam m mD p �� ePN No eeooNblY J oeNo P m WU bW Poo o N0000 mio opo oJm m b >a - mm mp JW a➢ewa tlVroNby-IeNNO-ONNWamNNPOUtlNPNPJNYP➢ro PWtlmPaPNlo-b➢-!PpVy wf kilos oNOPNmNYmJP4PPaatl b N WW it N➢NW No oPOAWONWPN -NaP- o DK _ n Nm m 90 roN y Ny PNON oU NtlNM A _Nou- by4Y-ro-a NMmNU N0 OT > m 0 0o eo OaooO O O 0000eeo0oeooW A S e O 9 A. emm ➢o u-W1 mu- u =iouemummurum-roi➢-b O N N WW NN NJA - o o P I P ob O e O P W J N m J- Na ma N I B U L L E T I N as ociation of metropolitan ' M JUL1 419A July 12, 1988 TO: Mayors and Managers CITY Or SHAKOPF-5 RE: CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO 1988 OMNIBUS TAX ACT ANN BOARD ACTION The AMM Board of Directors voted at the July '7th. Board meeting to ' support the Municipal Legislative Commission (MLC) lawsuit' challenging the 'disparity aid' element of the 1988 tax act. The Board also voted to financially support the lawsuit up to $5,000. The Board will determine at a later date the form of this $5,000 expenditure. i.e. a direct contribution or to pay for an amicus curiae brief or a combination thereof. The $5,000 will be taken from reserve funds and will not have an impact on current programs or membership dues. BASIS FOR BOARD ACTION: The Board considered the 'pros and cons' of this issue very carefully including the political ramifications and in the final analysis determined that from a policy standpoint the ' disparity aid' element is not acceptable public tax policy and is unfair for the suburbs and that the Board has an obligation to support this lawsuit to represent the best interests of its member cities. The Board believes it is bad tax policy for several reasons including he following: 1 . The state 'buy down' to the equivalent of 128 mills has the perception of encouraging spending and equating high mill rates with need. 2. Equalizing tax rates on a statewide basis ignores the choices that local officials make in determining what services to provide and how they should be funded. 3. In the long run, would tend to reduce creativity and limit the choices of local officials in deciding what services and programs to provide its residents. The Board would like to thank the many city officials who responded . to the AMM Bulletin dated June 15th. pertaining to thi issue by providing input . The input was thoughtfull and while it tended to support AMM involvement it was not unanimous support and very good arguments were made on both sides of the question . The Board vote 183 university avenue east, st. paul, mirgnesota 55101 (612) 227-4008 was very strong in support of the lawsuit but it was not unanimous either . BACKGROUND: The "constitutional issue" which is raised by the lawsuit is quite complicated and somewhat technical . We attempted to explain the issue in the June 15th. bulletin but many questions have been raised since and the explanation which follows is a further attempt to clarify. 1 . The lawsuit will challenge the disparity aid element of the tax act and not the whole tax law. 2. The amount of aid being challenged is roughly 63.2 million dollars according to House Research Department estimates of which all but about five million dollars would go to taxing jurisdictions outside the seven county metropolitan area . 3. The lawsuit will be based on Minnesota Constitution Article X, _ Section I which reads in part: 'Taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects and shall be levied and collected for public purposes--' (emphasis added) . 4. Article 4, Section 26, Subd. 3 of the 1988 Omnibus Tax Bill establishes a "disparity reduction aid" which has the effect of "buying down" local government mill rates to approximately 128 mills. If the combined mill rate of schools, counties and cities exceeds 128 mills, the State will provide disparity aid to local units of government to be used to reduce the mill rate to 128. This policy is not in itself unconstitutional . However , the method the Legislature adopted to distribute disparity aid can create a nonuniform tax on the same class of subjects by the same taxing authority and therefore may be constitutionally flawed . 5. A nonuniform tax result can occur because disparity aid is distributed to local units of government but the aid cannot be used to lower the tax rate citywide or countywide or throughout the school district but rather it can be used only to lower the tax rate within a portion of a city, county or school district. 'For example , two taxpayers living in houses on different sides of a street with identical market values and receiving identical county services, could pay different county tax rates. This could happen because one house is in City A (where the combined total mill rate is over 128 mills) and one house is in City B (where the combined total mill rate is less than 128 mills) . The dispai :ty -2- / y reduction aid received by the county can only be used to reduce the county tax rate in city A in this example. As you see, the county tax rate would not be uniform on the same class of subjects and would seem to raise a constitutional question. 6. Only disparity aid is in question. The local government aid (LGA) and Homestead Credit sections of the tax bill remain unchallenged and should not be affected by the lawsuit. The aid distribution of the vast majority of cities in the metropolitan area will not be affected by the lawsuit. Also enclosed with this bulletin is a more detailed example of how this section of the law would work. This example was provided by the MLC. WHATS NEXT: We expect the actual legal challenge to be filed in the next few days an we will keep you updated from time to time. - Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have additional questions. Also feel free to contact Bob Renner , MLC Legislative Counsel at 893-6650 should your city. want to participate more directly in this matter. Sincerely, VeJ terson, Executive Director Association of Metropolitan Municipalities -3- ` HYPOTNEII EAI. ETAMPLx OF DISTRIBUTION AID rORIM.a City of Smith ' County of Jones / school District Hain school N Street District / E , $68,000 xOme 41 $68,000 He. 4 / Levy on Levy me DRm<tl Mass #2 City of Smith Levy 25 mills - 25 mills County of Jones Levy 38 mills 38 mills School District N Levy 65 mills School District E levy -- ]5_0111. 128 mills 138 mills Because Home 321s levye xceeds 128 mills, state paid disparity aid is used to -buy doun• 10 mill.. Lets astime the cast of this buydown is $200,000, $20D,000 of disperity aid in sent to local units of government located in School District E to reduce the total -Ill rate from 138 to 128. The lav requires that this buydovn be distributed to local unit- An proportion to the total levy. The City of Smith, which levies 181 of the total levy of 130 mills, would receive 18% of the disparity aid. _ 19% x $200,000 - $36,000 The County of Jones, which levies 271 of the total levy, would-receive 375 of the disparity aid. 27% x $2DO,000 - $54,000. School District E, which levies 55% of the total levy, would receive 553 of the disparity aid. 55% A $200,Doo - $110,000. _ If the City of Smith and the County of Jones were authorized by statute to spread this aid citywide and countywide, there would not he a constitutional quest£... But the law requires that tax aid be spread only I. the portion of the city and county where the mill rate exceeds 128 mills, i.e., within the honoraria. of School District E. After the distribution of disparity aid, the effective tat rates (and equivalent mill rates( would appear as illustrated below: Home s3 Romer Hill ETR xIll ETR Rate Rate City of Smith 25.0 .0020 23.2 .0018 County of Jones 38.0 .0030 15.3 .0027 School District E 60.5 .0055 School District R $5.}l -005Il -- -- Total 128.0 .0100 120.0 .0100 The resulting team. will be: He.. t10IDD_.2 City of Smith Tax $136.00 5132.40 - county of Janes Tax 204.00 103.60 School District E Tax - 374.00 School District N Tax 34D on -- Total Tea $68D.00 $680.00 The constitutional argument will be that a person residing in a $60,000 home In the City of Smith would pay A nonuniform tax for identical city servmes -- $136.00 vs. $122.40. The .... person would also pay a nonuniform county tax -- $204.00 vs. 5103.60 for identical county services. The same person would pay a —if— school tax, even though the am is e a different for thea me home. Since the taxpayer is In a erenr school district, they a n not considered within the me class ofsublects and therefore this portion Of the distribution would he constitutional. Municipal Legislative Commission June 9, 1988 CITY OF SHAKOPEE BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT PERMITS ISSUED June, 1988 Yr. to Date Previous Year Number Number Valuation Number Valuation Mo. Ytd. Single Pam-Sewered 12 36 2,486,050 5 14 1, 194,300 Single Fam-Septic 1 7 764,800 3 10 1,293,300 Multiple Dwellings - 2 216,800 - 7 645,500 (q Units) (YTD Units) (-) (4) - (-) (16) - Dwelling Additions 9 37 189,603 10 38 203,213 Other 1 2 27,500 2 10 79,600 Comm New Bldgs 1 1 90,000 1 4 1,045, Bldg. Addns - 7 563,000 1 1 152,000 Industrial-Sewered - 1 915,000 - 1 600,000 Ind-Sewered Addns - - - - - - Industrial-Septic - - - - - Ind-Septic Addns - - - 1 2 167,475 Accessory/Garages 2 9 91,686 5 17 118,478 Signs & Fences 5 26 38,274 7 30 62,160 Fireplaces/Wood Stove - 5 17,500 - 5 11, 600 Grading/Foundation - 1 500 - 3 5,900 Remodeling (Res) 4 14 53,600 5 17 131,355 Remodeling (Inst) - - - - - - Remodeling (Comm/Ind) 5 15 204,000 2 21 283 ,950 TOTAL TAXABLE 40 165 5,658,313 42 183 5,993,831 TOTAL INSTITUTIONAL - - - - - - GRAND TOTAL 40 165 5, 658,313 42 183 5,993,831 No. Ytd. No. Ytd. Variances - 5 2 8 Conditional Use 1 10 3 14 Rezoning - 1 - 1 Moving - 1 - - Electric 37 139 27 95 Plbg & Htg 38 150 34 132 Razing Permits Residential - 2 - commercial - - - - Total dwelling units in City after completion of all construction permitted to date. . . . . . .4,232 Cora Hullander Bldg. Dept. Secretary CITY OF SHAEOPEE BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED IN JUNE, 1988 7831 Edman Builders 260 S. Holmes St. Alt. $ 34,000 7832 Richard Sames 1234 Tyler St. Deck $ 750 7833 Q & E Homes 2501 Emerald Lane /+C.- House $ 59,700 -:(/ae/ . .+moi s/ 7834 G. F. Juergen 406 W. lst Ave. Alt. $ 10,000 7835 Gardner Brothers 2110 Heritage Driv House $ 51,600 7836 Gardner Brothers 2034Herit ge rivoe House $ 51,700 7837 Gardner Brothers 2122 Herit}ge Drive House $ 51,700 eY-,z¢ By Azo 7838 Valley Sign 8050 E. Hwy 10'r Sign $ 500 7839 Wallace Bakken 1251 E. 1st Ave. Addn. $ 90,000 7840 Peter Sames 812 Holmes St. Alt. $ 450 7841 Harold Johnson 1027 E. 2nd Ave. Deck $ 700 7842 Stephen Heller 531 E. 6th Ave. Garage $ 6,336 7843 S.M. Hentges 2461 Hauer Trail Deck $ 1,600 7844 Suburban Lighting 615 Marschall Rd. Sign $ 3 ,000 7845 David Ewert 436 E. 5th Ave. Alt. $ 10,000 7846 Gardner Brothers 2039 Heritage Drive House $ 50,900 �% BL � �� 7847 Meadow Wood Bldrs. 2280 On Dr1VeQ �House $ 91,800 ;d ysse.- 7848 Stan Pint 2621 Emerald Lane House $ 67, 100 7849 Turner Ex. 1570 Hwy 101 Alt. $ 1,500 7850 Amcon 670-680 Ind. Cir. Alt. $ 10,000 7851 Danny's Const. 800 W. lst Ave. Demo $ 25, 000 7852 Vern Busch 2111 Murphy Ave. Deck $ 750 7853 Gardner Brothers 2046 Herit MeDr. House $ 51,400 7854 Gardner Brothers 2057 Murp y Ave. House $ 60,000 7855 Gardner Brothers 2123 Murp./hyD House $ 60, 000 7856 Ron Schmitt 2514 Hauer Trail Addn $ 21,000 7857 Mark Tieben 628 Pierce St. Garage $ 6,850 7858 Dolphin Pool 2263 Horizon Circle Pool $ 10,000 7859 North Am. Logs, Inc. 8327 Horion Dri House $ 130,000 e'(f Bq 7860 Gardner Bros. 2058 Herita a Dr. House $ 51, 900 7861 Cancelled 7862 Ken Berg 222 E. 1st Alt. $ 16, 500 7863 Ken Berg 122 W. 6th Ave. Fence $ 800 7864 Dennie Griffith 3320 Marschall Rd. Addn. $ 1,800 7865 Signs of Quality 1415 Marschall Rd. Sign $ 100 7866 Randall Gregor 1038 Van Buren Addn. $ 1, 600 7867 Ken Schroers 605 W. 6th Ave. Alt. $ 500 7868 Garry Anderly 1709 Presidential Lane Alt. $ 3 ,500 7869 Spencer Carlson 1263 Polk St. Addn. $ 850 7870 Signs of Quality 312 E. 1st Ave. Sign $ 900 7871 David Schimek 2580 Emerald Lane House $ 80, 000 oCl Note Meeting Time: 7:45 A.M. _ TENTATIVE AGENDA Downtown Ad Hoc Committee City Hall Council Chambers July 20, 1988 Chrmn. Laurent Presiding 1. Call to Order at 7:45 A.M. 2. Approval of Agenda 3 . Approval of the Minutes - July 6, 1988 4. Downtown Railroad Corridor 5. Joint City Council/Downtown Committee/CDC Agenda 6. Informational Items: a. MnDOT Mini By-Pass Letter (Carl Hoffstedt) b. Mini By-Pass Funding Letter (Bill Crawford) C. Downtown Property Inventory Evaluation Form 7. Other Business a. Next Meeting: July 20, 1988 b. C. d. e. 8. Adjourn Barry A. Stock Administrative Assistant CITY OF SHAKOPEE IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING PLEASE CALL BARRY OR TONI AT 445-3650 TO LET THEM KNOW PROCEEDINGS OF THE DOWNTOWN AD HOC COMMITTEE Regular Session City Council Chambers July 6, 1988 Chairman Laurent called the meeting to order at 7 :45 A.M. with Commissioners Ruben Ruehle, Melanie Kahleck, Gary Laurent, Joe Topic, Mary Keen, Shiela Carlson, Jim Stillman, Harry Koehler, Bill Wermerskirchen and Jerry Wampach present. Absent were Commissioners Terry Forbord and Ex-Officio member Tim Keane. Also present were Barry Stock, Administrative Assistant, John Anderson, City Administrator, Dave Hutton, City Engineer and Tim Erikilla, representing Westwood Planning and Engineering. Chairman Laurent asked if there were any additions to the agenda. The Huber Park Trail Project was added to the agenda. Wermerskirchen/Ruehle moved to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Wermerskirchen/Stillman moved to approve the minutes of the June 22, 1988 meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock reported that on June 22, 1988 staff presented several alternatives for dealing with Levee Drive as it relates to the proposed mini by-pass. Rather than waiting until a land use analysis for Blocks 3 & 4 in the downtown area and Huber Park could be completed, staff is recommending that the engineers be given the go ahead to design the bridge as it was originally proposed and currently approved by MnDOT (8' pedestrian underpass and footings to allow for the future extension of Levee Drive should it be needed) . Mr. Stock noted that this alternative recognized that the bridge head will be moved 151to the East to avoid the trail restrooms. Staff then reviewed the issues that the Downtown Committee brought up at the last meeting. The first issue related to a land use analysis of Blocks-5 & 4 . Mr. Stock stated that it was the consensus of staff that a decision can be made on the elevations of-�the�mini by-pass and Hwy. 169 bridge without -- finalizing the status of Levee Drive or completing a thorough analysis of the land use issues. Levee Drive could be extended if traffic studies warrant it in the future. Future land uses for Blocks 3 & 4 will have minimal impact on the bridge or mini by-pass elevations. Additionally, underground parking could be installed on Blocks 3 & 4 regardless of the elevation of the mini by-pass. A more thorough land use analysis could take anywhere from 3 - 4 months and require consultant assistance and Council authorization for funding. Mr. Stock noted that at our last meeting the Downtown Committee requested further investigation of the need for an alley on Blocks 3 & 4 following the completion of the mini by-pass. Mr. Stock noted that the alley would primarily provide a convenience to those businesses currently receiving deliveries. If an alley 1 is constructed it could be eliminated at a later date if the business needs change. A final decision on the alley can be delayed for several years as it does not impact the bridge design or highway elevation. Mr. Stock noted that at our last meeting there seemed to be some consensus among the Committee members that there was no immediate need to have Levee Drive extended under the new bridge at this time. Staff was therefore recommending that the downtown mini by-pass be designed in such a fashion to allow for the future extension of Levee Drive should it be necessary. Under this alternative, an 8' pedestrian underpass would be immediately installed under the new bridge. Bridge abutments and footings would be constructed to allow for the future extension of Levee Drive. Under this alternative, a normal highway retaining wall of 2.5' would be constructed between the alley and the new by- pass. The retaining wall along Levee Drive would initially be 81 . If Levee Drive is extended in the future the retaining wall would be approximately 16' high. Staff noted that the original mini by-pass plan did not provide for the extension of Levee Drive to the East. Therefore, the Historical Society did not review this issue. 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. Mr. Hutton noted that extending Levee Drive to the East could require excavation that would interfere with the foundation remains already identified by the Historical Society. For this reason, he felt that it would be prudent for the City to proceed as originally proposed (8' pedestrian underpass and footings for possible future extension) . Mr. Stock then discussed the possible relocation of the boat launch. He noted that in his conversations with the Department of Natural Resources, it appears that the boat launch could be relocated. In fact, Mr. Stock stated that he was surprised to find out that the boat launch is the property of the City of Shakopee. The Department of Natural Resour9es has stated a willingness to assist in relocating the boat launch should--- the________ City of Shakopee deem it appropriate. Mr. Anderson noted that if the boat launch is relocated to the East there could be some road access improvement costs associated with the relocation. The approximate cost estimate for this improvement is between $20, 000 and $40,000 depending on the final site location. Comm. Stillman questioned whether or not the boat launch could be relocated to the North side of the river on the old ball park site. Mr. Stock stated that he did not know if this would be possible but that it would be an alternative for further investigation when and if the boat launch relocation issue is discussed. Mr. Stock stated that at our last meeting the Committee felt it would be helpful to reestablish the Mini By-Pass Advisory Committee to review .design elements and their potential impact on 2 A'a- the downtown. Mr. Stock noted that he concurred with the Committee and was looking for at least one of the Downtown Committee members to serve on the Committee. In summary, Mr. Stock stated that proceeding with the proposed alternative would not delay the project any further and would provide for the future extension of Levee Drive. Stillman/Ruehle moved to recommend to City Council that Levee Drive not be extended under the new bridge and that the bridge be designed to allow for it's future expansion should it be necessary. Additionally the bridge design should include an 8' high pedestrian trail underpass. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Laurent asked the Commissioners if anyone was interested in serving on the Mini By-Pass Advisory Committee. He noted that Terry Forbord had served on this Committee in the past and seemed to express an interest at our last meeting in continuing to serve on the Committee. Mr. Wermerskirchen stated that if Mr. Forbord was not interested in serving on the Committee that he would be willing to sit on the Committee. However, he felt that Terry Forbord was a logical candidate since he has served on the Committee since it's creation. Mr. Stock reported that at the last meeting it was the consensus of the Committee that the following items should be high priorities for the Downtown Committee: 1) Development of a property inventory - centralized list of parcels and prices. 2) Prioritized site identification. 3) Site package/deal assembly - request for proposals specification development. 4) Formalize merchant retail committee. 5) Development of an acquisition/demolition and rehab plan. Mr. Stock noted that he would like to have the Downtown Committee discuss in greater detail a specific action plan for the Committee that will encourage and promote development and redevelopment in Downtown Shakopee. Mr. Stock hoped that the plan could then be presented to Council at a later date at a joint meeting. Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Stock to review the primary components of the Main Street Program. Mr. Stock stated that the Main Street Communities focus their efforts on the development of a market analysis, development and promotion of a downtown theme and most notably, a full time individual to promote the downtown and coordinate it's activities. The Main Street Coordinator also actively solicits new retail businesses to locate in the community. The Coordinator also assists in developing deals to assist in the financing of these new retail establishments and also in the rehabilitation of facades and buildings. Comm. Keen questioned whether the Main Street Program was a State funded program or a locally funded program. Mr. Stock noted that the program is a National program funded through the National Main Street Center. The State of Minnesota has a contract with the National Main Street Center. However, in order for a 3 community to participate in the program, it costs approximately $40, 000 per year. This does include the financing of a Main Street Coordinator. Comm. Carlson questioned the success of communities that have participated in the Main Street Program. Mr. Stock noted that based on the communities that he is aware of, they have been very successful. Comm. Kahleck stated that when she lived in Morris, the community was a Main Street City. In that community, the program was quite successful. Comm. Kahleck stated that she knows the Main Street Coordinator in Morris and thought that she would be willing to speak before the Downtown Committee if they desired it. Mr. Anderson stated that he felt two things needed to happen for Downtown Shakopee to develop. First, the identification of several parcels that can be shown to developers for development purposes. Second, an individual must be available to go out and attract retail businesses to the community. He noted that the successful Main Street Communities had these two areas covered. Tim Erikilla from Westwood Planning and Engineering stated that the Downtown Committee is at the point where all communities are once they have completed a Downtown Revitalization Plan. He noted that the issues that the Committee is addressing at this time are exactly what should be discussed. Discussion ensued on what land uses are appropriate in the downtown area. Chairman Laurent stated that upon the completion of a parcel by parcel property inventory, it would become apparent as to what land uses are appropriate in the different areas of the downtown and what buildings should be targeted for acquisition, demolition or rehabilitation. Discussion then ensued as to whether or not buildings would be rehabilitated or demolished. It was the consensus of the Committee that regardless of whether or not the building were demolished or rehabilitated, it should be done in such a fashion to maintain the historic river town theme that the Committee is trying to promote. Mr. Erikilla stated that upon the completion of a parcel by parcel property inventory it would become apparent which parcels would be suitable for redevelopment. He suggested that each parcel be looked at an individual basis and scored based on several factors such as historical significance, building condition and property value. It was the consensus of the Committee that this approach should be used in evaluating the parcels in the downtown area. The Committee then directed staff to proceed with the parcel by parcel evaluation. 4 Mr. Stock stated that the Huber Park Trail Project was now underway and that the Gazebo would be completed by September. He also pointed out that the trees in front of the Gazebo would be trimmed later this Fall. Mr. Laurent stated that the next meeting would be held on July 20, 1988. Mr. Stock suggested that that meeting be devoted to discussing an agenda of issues to be presented and discussed at the joint City Council/Downtown Committee meeting. A date has not been selected for the joint meeting at this time. Comm. Kahleck stated that she would like to publicly thank Barry Stock and the Derby Days Committee for a job well done on the first Annual Derby Days Celebration. Mr. Stock then reminded the Committee of the Board and Commission picnic scheduled for July 11, 1988. Stillman/Topic moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 A.M. Motion carried unanimously. Barry A. Stock Recording Secretary 5 I - 13 MINUTES OF THE SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in regular session on June 6, 1988 at 4:30 P.M. in the Utilities meeting room. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Kephart, Kirchmeier and Cook. Also Liaison Wampach, Manager Van Rout and Secretary Menden. Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Kephart that the minutes of the May 9, 1988 regular meeting he approved as kept. Motion carried. BILLS READ: City of Shakopee 20,032.00 ABM Equipment and Supply, Inc. 25.34 A T & T Information Systems 18.57 American Freight System, Inc. 69.75 Lanae K Anderson 225.00 Auto Central Supply Co. 20.03 Braun Environmental Laboratories 1,310.18 Bryan Rock Products 21.99 Burmeister Electric Company 2,562.10 Business Outfitters, Inc. 99.53 C.L. Contracting, Inc. 150.00 Champion Auto of Shakopee 76.98 City of Shakopee 752.75 City of Shakopee 169.02 Conrady's Blacktop 250.00 Cy's Amoco 334.00 Ditch Witch of Minnesota, Inc. 190.03 Feed-Rite Controls, Inc. 1,864.01 G & E Supply 119.45 General Office Products Co. 181.53 Glenwood Inglewood 8.96 Graybar Electric Supply, Inc. 4,097.13 H & C Electric Supply 43.20 Hance Cable Testing 260.00 Hermans Hardware 20.50 Hennen's ICO 9.00 LaDorn Systems, Inc. 18.40 Landey's Camping Center 274.00 Leef Bros. ,Inc. 22.80 Locators and Supplies 194.90 State of Minnesota, Dept. of Commerce 52.00 Minnesota Municipal Utilities Assoc. 270.00 Minnesota Safety Council 75.00 Minnesota Valley Testing Laboratories, Inc. 27.20 Motor Parts Service Co. , Inc. 40.01 Ted Neisen 270.15 Northern Sanitary Supply Co. , Inc. 90.31 Northern States Power Co. 664.64 Northern States Power Co. 331,224.90 Northern states Power Co. 1,013.94 Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 238.96 I . O'Connor and Hannan 1,114.19 Pitney Bowes 320.00 Pitney Bowes 87.75 Plehal Blacktopping, Inc. 50.00 Reynolds Welding Supply Co. 50.35 Scientific Columbus, Inc. 971.69 Shakopee Services, Inc. 26.00 Tom Siebenaler 11.47 Spectrum Safety and Health Pd Consultants 420.00 Star Tribune 41.93 Starks Cleaning Services, Inc. 102.00 Stemmer farm and Garden Supply, INc. 89.00 Southwest Suburban Publishing, Inc. 268.97 Total Tool, Inc. 226.71 United Compucred Collections, Inc. 79.20 Water Products Co. 342.90 Valley Industrial Propane 12.74 Louis Van HOut 49.19 Voss Electric Supply Co. 729.72 Wesco 2,110.61 Yarusso's Hardware 149.15 Shakopee Public Utilities Commission 96.13 St. Paul Pioneer Press Dispatch 51.80 Motion by Kephart, seconded by Kirchmeier that the bills be allowed and ordered paid. Motion carried. Art Young attended the meeting for this discussion of water matters. Mr. Dave Hutton, City Engineer was present to discuss some problems which had arisen on Atwood Street due to the downtown street scape project. A discussion followed. Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Cook that the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission enter into a cost sharing agreement with the City of Shakopee on the Atwood Street project and in this agreement the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission agrees to pay the cost for materials only of a new watermain, from 1st to 2nd Avenue on Atwood Street, 6" or 8" depending upon the Recommendation of the Manager, and that we would also pay for the cost of looping should our Manager recommend so. Motion carried. Motion by Kephart, seconded by Kirchmeier to propose that if the City Council is willing to handle Atwood Avenue from 2nd to 3rd Avenue by the same cost sharing proposal whereby we do materials and they do installation, then the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission agrees to make the improvements of the water system. Motion carried. Mr. Ken Adolf, Schoell and Madson was present to present a Contract Amendment #1 on remodeling Pumphouse #2. Mr. Adolf informed the Commission that the original contrac- tor for the pumphouse work for Well #7 has gone out of business since starting the job and has defaulted on the contract. The bonding company has taken over at this point, and part of the change order on Pumphouse #2 contract is to complete the work for well V. The contract amendment was reviewed by the Commission. Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Kephart to approve Contract Amendment #1 on the remodeling of Pumphouse #2. Motion carried. The nest subject dealt with by Mr, Adolf was pay request #3 for the remodeling of Pumphouse #2. Payment was recommended to Northwest Mechanical for work done in the amount -of $8,484.49. Motion by Kephart, seconded by Cook to approve payment to Northwest Nechnical, Inc. in the amount of $8,464.49. Notion carried. The final pay request for the pumphouse work for well Y7 from the Bonding Company, Great American Insurance Co. in the amount of $5,015.90 was presented by Mr. Adolf. Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Kephart to approve payment to Great American Insurance Co. in the amount of $5,015.90. Motion carried. The possibility of a sprinkling ban for the City of Shakopee was discussed. If the dry weather continues we will have to impose a restriction on lawn and garden sprinkling due to the possibility of public safety being compromised due to lack of water reserves for fire fighting. Manager VanHout will update the Commission after reveiwing the results of some valving changes made today. The numbers for the oversizing on the Meadows Addition has not been finalized at the present, but will be in the near future. These numbers will be given to the City Council for finalizing an agreement with a financial agent representing the Meadows Addition. The Commission was informed of a transformer failure down at Murphy's Landing. A replacement transformer was installed and Murphy's Landing will be billed accordingly. Murphy's Landing does own and is responsible for their own tranformer. Manager Vanflout informed the Commission that we will be taking quotes on the balance of the networking system for the new computer. Some estimate prices were given for hardware and software along with training and warranties. A communication from the Chamber of Commerce regarding the placement and replacement of the welcome banners in the City was acknowledged. The Chamber will be informed that we are willing to help out on a yearly basis to place the banners up and take them down, but they will have to look into the problem of replacement and repairing the banners. Manager VanHout informed the Commission there will be a general notice placed in the newspaper regarding lead in drinking water as required of all suppliers by the Federal E.P.A. Our -aster does not have a problem with lead but it can come from a customers own plumbing. Cost proposals for flushing the watermains were presented by Manager v,,Rout. The program will be implemented over the simmer months. No new plats were presented for May. Three fire calls for a total an hours of three were reported. One lost time accident involving Roger Hensen was reported. He missed one work day due to flash injury to the eyes. The next regular meeting will be held on July 1 , 1988 in the Utilities meeting room at 5:00 P.M. for payment of bills. The meeting will be adjourned to July 11, 1988. Motion by Kephart, seconded by Cook that theMeting be adjourned. Motion carried. ")Mt. )M yenden� n s$lon Secretary �y MINUTES OF THE SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in regular session on July 1, 1988 at 5:00 P.M. in the Utilities meeting room. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Kephart and Cook. Also Manager Van HOut. Commissioner Kirchmeier arrived later. Secretary Menden was absent. BILLS HEAD: City of Shakopee 20,032.00 ABM Equipment and Supply, Inc. 44.03 American Freight System, Inc. 57.64 Amsterdam Printing and Litho Corp. 53.02 Athmann Industrial Medical Supplies, Inc. 73.95 Battery and Tire Warehouse, Inc. 46.03 Border States Eelectric Supply Co. 2,432.30 Boyer Truck Parts 340.78 Burmeister Electric Co. 413.13 Business OOtfitters, Inc. 1,815.36 City of Shakopee 654.48 City of Shakopee 1,327.59 City of Shakopee 3,641.67 Communication Auditors 24.00 Ditch Witch of Minn. , Inc. 99.32 Feed-Rite Controls, Inc. 1,655.96 Glenwood Inglewood 28.75 Graybar Electric Co. , Inc. 9,847.44 H 6 C Electric Supply 1,361.47 Hance Cable Testing 906.20 Hermons Hardware 14.07 Hotsy Corporation 2,380.18 Jaspers Streffland and Company 6,600.00 Kress and Monroe Chartered Law Office 1,138.94 Leef Bros. , Inc. 22.80 MVA Company 211.95 Vince Marschall 122.55 Midwest Utility Equipment, Inc. 1,314.30 Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association 154.50 Minnesota Valley Testing Laboratories, Inc. 27.20 Motor Parts Service Co. , Inc. 14.09 Munitech, Inc. 50.59 Ted Neisen 105.85 Nordic Fiberglass, Inc. 2,917.20 Northern States Power Co. 2,027.01 Northern States Power Co. 46B,917.55 Otter Tail Power Company 172.42 Hing Fire Extinguisher Co. 12.50 St. Paul Pioneer Press Dispatch 51.80 Schcell and Madson, Inc. 2,298.09 i Shakopee Public Utilities Commission 117.91 Tom Siebenaler 400.00 Dean Smith Trenching, Inc. 368.00 Starks Cleaning Services 68.00 Southwest Suburban Publishing, Inc. 71.92 United Compucred Collections, Inc. 79.20 Louis Van Mout 291.66 Louis Van HOut 52.73 Water Products Company 529.58 Westinghouse Electric Supply Co. 1,343.40 Wild Iris, Inc. 25.00 Davies Water Equipment Co. 216.80 Malkerson Motors 302.26 City of Shakopee -10,706.00 Border States Electric Supply Co. 7,012.00 Peterson Fire and Safety 78.02 Shakopee Ford, Inc. 49.40 Yarusso's Hardware Co. 88.10 Motion by Kephart, seconded by Kirchmeier that the bills be allowed and ordered paid. Motion carried. Motion by Kephart, seconded by Cook that the meeting be adjourned to July 11, 1988. Motion carried. Barbara Menden, Commrssren Secretary z � MINUTES OF THE SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in regular session on July 1, 1988 at 5:00 P.M. in the Utilities meeting room. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Kephart and Cook. Also Manager Van HOut. Commissioner Kirchmeier arrived later. Secretary Menden was absent. BILLS READ: City of Shakopee 20,032.00 ABH Equipment and Supply, Inc. 44.03 American Freight System, Inc. 57.64 Amsterdam Printing and Litho Corp. 53.02 Athmann Industrial Medical Supplies, Inc. 73.95 Battery and Tire Warehouse, Inc. 46.03 Border States Eelectric Supply Co. 2,432.30 Boyer Truck Parts 340'78 Burmeister Electric Co. 413.13 Business OUtfitters, Inc. 1,815.38 City of Shakopee 654'48 City of Shakopee 1,327.59 City of Shakopee 3,641.67 Communication Auditors 24.00 Ditch Witch of Minn. , Inc. 99'32 Feed-Rite Controls, Inc. 1,655.96 Glenwood Inglewood 28.75 9,897.49 Graybar Electric Co. , Inc. H 6 C Electric Supply 1,361.47 Hance Cable Testing 906.20 14.07 Sermons Hardware 2,380.18 Hotsy Corporation Jaspers Streffland and Company 6,600.00 Krass and Monroe Chartered Law Office 1,138.94 22.80 Leef Bros. , Inc. 211.95 MVA Company 122.55 Vince Marschall 1,314.30 Midwest Utility Equipment, Inc. 154.50 Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association 27.20 Minnesota Valley Testing Laboratories, Inc. 14.09 Motor Parts Service Co. , Inc. 50.59 - Munitech, Inc. 105.85 Ted Neisen 2,917.20 Nordic Fiberglass, Inc. - 2,027.01 Northern States Power Co. 468,917.55 Northern States Power Co. 172.42 Otter Tail Power Company 12.50 Ring Fire Extinguisher Co. 51.80 St. Paul Pioneer Press Dispatch 2,298.09 Schnell and Madson, Inc. y � Shakopee Public Utilities Commission 117.91 Tom Siebenaler 400.00 Dean Smith Trenching, Inc. 368.00 Starks Cleaning Services 68.00 Southwest Suburban Publishing, Inc. 71.92 United Compucred Collections, Inc. -79.20 Louis Van Bout 291.66 Louis Van HOut _ 52.73 Water Products Company 529.58 Westinghouse Electric Supply Co. - 1,343.40 Wild Iris, Inc. 25.00 Davies Water Equipment.Co. 216.80 Malkerson Motors 302.26 City of Shakopee X10,706.00 Border States Electric Supply Co. 7,012.00 Peterson Fire and Safety 78.02 Shakopee Ford, Inc. 49.40 Yarusso's Hardware Co. 88.10 Motion by Kephart, seconded by Kirchmeier that the bills be allowed and ordered paid. Motion carried. Motion by Kephart, seconded by Cook that the meeting be adjourned to July 11, 1988. Motion carried. ` l ;I V, V \ V, L Barbara Menden, CouxurE(slan Secretary RECEIVED KRASS & MONROE CHARTERED 327 South Marschall Road fMAY619B8 Shakopee, MN 55379 Z CITY OF SHAKOPEE City of Shakopee BILLING DATE 04-30-88 129 1st Ave. E. Shakopee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y Account Number RE Line(s) Previous New Payment Current Balance Billings Received Balance 18-11373002-1 General $1 , 100.44 $162.74 $263.44 $999.74 18-11373117-1 Prior Lake Spring Lk Watershed Dist $456.00 $30.00 $324.00 $162.00 18-11373158-1 Racetrack bond issue Bill Applicant $270.00 $0.00 $0.00 $270.00 18-11373200-1 Eminent Domain (Perry - BILL PROJECT) $1 .67 $51 .00 $0.00 $52.67 8-11373209-3 Stonebrook $47.30 $0.00 $47.30 $0.00 18-11373210-1 Storm Drainage Easements. Bill Project. $1 ,030.70 $1 ,370:93 $96.73 $2,304.90 *****PLEASE INCLUDE ACCOUNT NUMBER FOR PROPER CREDIT. ***** OAYMCNTG orrciVcn AITCP n.CTl 1M1.11 rDent-rn cvr ..n. n...*neo M•+••-� PAGE 2 City of Shakopee BILLING DATE 04-30-88 129 1st Ave. E. Shakopee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y Account Number RE Line(s ) Previous New Payment Current Balance Billings Received Balance -------- -------- ______- 18-11373211-1 DNR Sweeny Contract $192.44 $51 .00 $0.00 $243.44 18-11373212-1 Vierling Dangerous house 80.00 $30.00 $0.00 $30.00 18-1373177A-1 Scott Cty. Lumber $520.50 $0.00 $598.00 $77.50 CR� 18-1373177B-1 Shakopee Lumber Co. Appeal $725.00 $130.44 $725.00 $130.44 18-137321OA-1 Scherber Storm Drainage Easements Bill Project $120.00 $566.00 $0.00 $686.00 18-51373144-1 Chard $39.00 $0.00 $0.00 $39.00 18-51373201-1 Minnesota Valley Restoration Project $914.60 $47.00 $73.60 $888.00 19-81373011-1 Prosecutions _$9,416.40---_-_--$1 ,668. 12 $4,238.00 $6,846.52 ______ _________________________ TOTAL $14,834.05 $4, 107.23_____$6,366.07 $12,575.21 KRASS & MONROE CHARTERED / 327 South Marschall Road Shakopee, MN 55379 JUN 1 51988 C[TY CF City of Shakopee BILLING DATE 05-31-OB 129 E. 1st Ave. Shakopee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y Account Number RE Line(s) Previous New Payment Current Balance Billings Received Balance -------- -------- -------- ------- 19-11137311-1 Prosecutions $6,646.52 $6,319.40 50.00 $13, 165.92 18-11373002-1 General $999.74 513.00 $0.00 $1 ,012.74 18-11373117-1 Prior Lake Spring Lk Watershed Dist $162.00 $0.00 $0.00 $162.00 18-11373158-1 Racetrack bond issue Bill Applicant $270.00 $0.00 $0.00 $270.00 18-11373177-1 Mining CUP $0.00 s10.88 $0.00 $10.88 18-11373200-1 Eminent Domain (Perry - H1I I_ PROJECT) $52.67 $0.00 $0.00 $52.67 18-11373210-1 Storm Drainage Easements. Bill Project. $2,304.90 $806.42 $0.00 $3, 113.32 *****PLEASE INCLUDE ACCOUNT NUMBER FOR PROPER CREDIT. ***** PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER MAY 31TH CREDITED THE FOLLOWING MONTH. PAGE 2 City of Shakopee 011_LING DATE 05-31-BB 129 E. 1st Ave. Shakopee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y Account Number RE Line( 5) Previous New Payment Current Balance Billings Received Balance 18-11373211-1 DNR Sweeny Contract $243.44 $0.00 $0.00 $243.44 18-11373212-1 Vierling Dangerous house $30.00 $119.00 $0.00 $149.00 1B-1373177B-1 Shakopee Lumber Co. Appeal $130.44 $0.00 $77.50 $52.94 18-137321OA-1 Scherber Storm Drainage Easements Bill Project $686.00 $751 .60 $0.00 $1 ,437.60 1B-51373201-1 Minnesota Valley Restoration Project $BBB.00 $17.00 $0.00 $905.00 18-51373213-1 General Matters $0.00 $147 .00 $0.00 $147.00 ________________________________________ __________________ TOTAL $12,613.71 $6, 1B6.30 $77.50 $20,722.51 KRASS k MONROE CHARTERED 327 South Marschall Road JULj`41588 Shakopee, MN 55379 CITYO•r SkAKCpEE City of Shakopee BILLING DATE 06-30-88 129 E. 1st Ave. Shakopee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y Account Number RE Line( s) Previous New Payment Current Balance Billings Received Balance 19-11137311-1 Prosecutions $13, 165. 92 $9,616.62 $1 ,668. 12 $21 , 114.42 18-11373002-1 General 51 ,012. 74 %805.00 $162.74 $1 ,655.00 18-11373117-1 Prior Lake Spring Lk Watershed Dist 5162.00 $17.00 $30.00 $149.00 18-11373137-1 Downtown Redevelopment $0.00 %0.00 $0.00 $0.00 18-11373157-1 Racetrack Tax Increment District $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 18-11373156-1 Racetrack bond issue Bill Applicant $270.00 $0.00 $0.00 $270.00 18-11373161-1 Shakopee Recreation TIF $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 *****PLEASE INCLUDE ACCOUNT NUMBER FOR PROPER CREDIT. ***** PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER JUNE 30TH CREDITED THE FOLLOWING MONTH PAGE 2 City of Shakopee BILLING DATE 06-30-86 129 E. 1st Ave. Shakopee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y Account Number RE Line( s) Previous New Payment Current Balance Billings Received Balance -------- -------- -------- 18-11373164-1 101 Frontage Acquisition $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 IB-11373177-1 Mining CUP $10.86 $0.00 $0.00 $10.68 18-11373185-1 Alltech Engineering Corp. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 - $0.00 16-11373167-1 101 Bypass $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 18-11373192-1 Meyer Suit $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 18-11373195-1 City Hall Bonds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 18-11373196-1 Sewer Capacity Issues $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 LB-11373197-1 Annexation - Vierling $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 18-11373196-1 Downtown Redevelopment %0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 18-11373199-1 City Hall Bond Issue 50.00 50.00 $0.00 $0.00 18-11373200-1 Eminent Domain (Perry - BILL PROJECT) $52.67 -1 .67 $51 .00 $0.00 Z " PAGE 3 City of Shakopee BILLING DATE 06-30-88 129 E. 1st Ave.' Shakopee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y Account Number RE Line(s) Previous New Payment Current Balance Billings Received Balance -------- -------- -------- 1B-11373206-1 Ferguson Torrens $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 18-11373207-1 Fiscal Disparities Tax Increment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 B-11373209-3 Stonebrook $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 18-11373210-1 Storm Drainage Easements. Bill Project. $3, 113.32 $301 .66 $1 ,370.93 $2,044.05 18-11373211-1 DNR Sweeny Contract $243. 44 $0.00 $51 .00 $192.44 18-11373212-1 Vierling Dangerous house $149.00 $46.40 $30.00 $165.40 18-1373177A-1 - Scott Cty. Lumber $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 18-13731778-1 Shakopee Lumber Co. Appeal $52.94 $77.50 $130. 44 $0.00 18-137321OA-1 Scherber Storm Drainage Easements Bill Project $19437.60 $9. 12 $566.00 $880.72 PAGE 4 City of Shakopee 129 E. 1st Ave. BILLING DATE 06-30-88 Shakopee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y Account Number RE Line(s) Previous New Payment Balance Current -------- Billings Received Balance -------- -------- ------- 18-51373153-1 Hartlrives Suit $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 18-51373201-1 Minnesota Valley Restoration Project $905.00 $138.00 547.00 $995.00 18-51373213-1 General Matters $147.00 $0.00 $0.00 ____________ __________ $147.00 ___---_-107_2_ __ TOTAL $20,722.51 _ -------------- 811 ,009.63 $4, 107.23 $27,624. 91 66P OE 66F KRASS & MONROE CHARTERED 327 South Marschall Road Shakopee, MN 55379 - JUL 1 %1988 CITY Gc 3.1 tihGPcE .Shakopee 129 E. 1st St. BILLING DATE 06-30-88 Shakopee, MN 55379 ACCT NO. 18-PRK11373214-1C RE: HRA Correctional Institute PREVIOUS BALANCE INTEREST IS 1 .33 % OF PAST DUE BALANCE $0.00 $0.00 DATE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06-01-88 Telephone con+_ with Dennis Kraft_ Law research for Corp. TOTAL FOR THE ABOVE SERVICES $34.00 TOTAL $34.00 PAYMENT RECEIVED TOTAL PAYMENTS $0.00 AMOUNT DUE $34.00 *****PLEASE INCLUDE ACCOUNT NUMBER FOR PROPER CREDTT. ***** � 6 "Bodily Injury or Property Damage; Will the City Pay the Bill?" 7-5-88 The City of Shakopee like all businesses carries insurance to cover citizens who are injured or who own property which is damaged when the incident is the fault of the City. The City's insurance policy requires that the insurance company shall determine if the City is at fault. In order to conclude that the City is at fault, the insurance company/adjuster must determine that the City has been negligent. If you believe that you have been injured or have received property damage because of the negligence of the City, please follow these guidelines adopted by the City Council: 1) Contact your own insurance company - homeowners, car, or health, depending on the situation. 2) If you or your insurance company believe the City is at fault, contact the City's insurance company, Sue Sichmeller of Capesius Agency, 129 Holmes Street, 445- 1922. [If the injury/damage is a result of a construction project, the contractor's carrier should be contacted. Call the City Clerk to learn the name of the carrier. ] 3) If the issue is not resolved by the insurance company/adjuster to your satisfaction, you are "encouraged" to recontact Sue at 445-1922 and/or seek relief from the courts: District Court, or Small Claims Court (Small Claims Court has a $17.00 filing fee and prohibits use of an attorney. The amount of the claim must be under $2,000.00) . This is the procedure the Shakopee City Council wishes to use so that a disinterested third party can decide who should pay for the injury or damage. 4) City Council has designated the City Clerk as staff coordinator for citizens claims. Councilmembers thus do not individually get involved in claims. NO CITY EMPLOYEE HAS ANY AUTHORITY TO IMPLY TO YOU THAT THE CITY MIGHT PAY THE BILL OR THAT THE MATTER WILL GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR A DECISION. q7 Randall, Parmater Ic Neveaux, Vid ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW ROBERT K.RANDALL 1421 E.WAYZATA BOULEVARD,SUITE 210 PATRICK W.PARMATER WAYZATA,MINNESOTA 55391 JACK NEVEAUK PAUL R.RAMBOW 612/053401 July 12 , 1988 Administrative Offices City of Shakopee Police Department 476 South Gorman Street Shakopee MN 55379 RE: Scott R. Sheeley/Richard's Pub Incident Date: 4-3-88 Dear Sir or Madame: Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 466.05, this letter is to serve as notice to the City of Shakopee that the plaintiff, Scott R. Sheeley, is making a claim for damages resulting from the neg- ligent acts of Officers T. A. Doyle, Rale, Poole, and Scherer. These acts of negligence occurred on April 3, 1988, while the plaintiff was a patron at Richard's Pub in Shakopee at approxi- mately 12: 30AM. As a result of the negligence of the above-named officers and the city of Shakopee, plaintiff sustained cuts, contusion, bruises and a concussion and continues to suffer the effects of those injuries. Mr. Sheeley currently experiences blurred vision and headaches and will most likely continue to do so in the future. Further, Mr. Sheeley suffered embarrassment and injury to his reputation due to the nature of the negligent acts. Fi- nally, due to the nature and circumstances of the negligent acts and the egregious manner in which this matter was handled, Mr. Sheeley is entitled to punitive damages as well. In light of the foregoing damages and for the limited purpose of this Notice of Claim, Mr. Sheeley demands as compensation from the City of Shakopee Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15, 000) . 3,Yj� t� V-�(//�� p Patrick W. Parmater RECEIVED JUl 1 TENTATIVE AGENDA ADJ.REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JULY 19, 1988 Mayor Dolores Lebens presiding 11 Roll Call at 7:00 P.M. 21 Recess for H.R.A. Meeting 31 Re-convene 41 Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 5] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS 6] Approval of Consent Business - (All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. ) *7] Approval of Minutes of June 21, June 28, and June 29, 1988 8) Communications: *a] Recertification of Shakopee as a Star City b] 9] Public Hearings: 7: 30 p.m. - Alley Improvements in Block 55, O.S.P. (North of 5th Avenue and East of Lewis Street) - Res. No. 2926 10] Boards and Commissions - Planning Commission: *a] Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Proposed Annexation Area b] Revision of the City's Sign Ordinance - Ord. No. 248 11] Reports from Staff: (Council will take a 10 minute break around 9:00 p.m. ) a] Apgar Street between 1st & 2nd Avenues - Tabled 7/5 b] Canterbury Downs - Gate No. 5 c] Downtown Streetscape Project d] 10th Avenue Overlay Bidsemmo on tahle� *e] 10th Avenue Overlay Project f] Downtown Streetscape Project No. 1987-2 *g) Vierling Drive Street Improvement Project No. 1987-12 *h] oversized Watermains - Special Assessment Policy - Tabled 7/5 *i) Downtown Railroad Corridor j ] Downtown Streetscape Project-Westwood Engineering Services - Tabled 7/5 TENTATIVE AGENDA July 19, 1988 Page Two 11] Reports from Staff: (continued) k] Approval of the Bills in the Amount of $1,204, 168.32 1] Civic Group Participation by Employees m] Mayor Lebens requested a reconsideration of the Upper Valley Drainage Project Acquisition for the Scherber/ Clark property, Item 9d from the 7/5 agenda (attached with maps) n] Employment of a Planning Firm to Evaluate the Effects of R-O-W Taking for Storm Drainage Project *o] Application for Temporary 3.2 Beer License by Shakopee Jaycees *p] Completion of Probationary Period - Sherry Borchardt *q] Completion of Probationary Period - Gregory Tucci r] Procedure for Designating Official Maps s] Acquisition of R-O-W for Downtown Bridge and Mini t] Nominations to Community Development Commission memo on to 12] Resolutions and Ordinances: a] Ord. No. 247 - Gambling Regulations *b] Res. No. 2924 - Accepting Bids on 1988-2 Sixth Avenue Sanitary Sewer - Tabled 7/5 *C] Res. No. 2927 - Authorizing Disposal of Unclaimed and Surplus Pro erty d] No. - Providing for the Issuance and Sale of mprovement Bonds Series 1988A e] Res. No. 2930 - Amending the 1988 Budget 13] Other Business: a] Joint City Council/Downtown Committee/Community Development Commission Meeting - August 9, 1988 - 7: 00 p.m. b] 14] Adjourn to Tuesday, July 26, 1988 at 7:00 p.m. John K. Anderson City Administrator TENTATIVE AGENDA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY E TINAND FOR THE CITMNESOTA July 19 , 1988 Special Meeting Chairman Steven Clay presiding 1. Ro 1 Cal at 7:00 P.M. a en C 'tract - Review Contract Provisions/Performance ,q3. SCHRA Joint Powers Cont act for , theAcquisition of the - Former Women's Prison C 4. Other Business 0 a. b. 5. Adjourn Dennis R. Kraft Executive Director �+a MEMO TO: Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Executive Director RE: Shakopee Valley Square Tax Increment Project DATE: July 14, 1988 INTRODUCTION• The development agreement between the HRA and Shakopee Valley Square Properties stipulates that certain events occur within a specified time periods. All project schedules have not been adhered to as of time. BACKGROUND: Mr. Wallace Bakken and Shakopee Valley Square Properties have entered into a contract with the HRA for the development of a campground and motel addition for property located at the intersection of Marschall Road and Highway 101. This contract —was amended several times after it's original approval during July of 1986. The most recent amendment to the contract was dated December 23, 1987. The amended contract divides the project into two phases. Phase one is defined as the campground facility and phase two is defined as the motel expansion. Phase one was to be started no later than December 31, 1987. This was done in conjunction with the provisions of the contract. Phase one was to be completed by June 1, 1988. The campground facility (phase one) has not been completed within this time frame. Phase two of the project (the motel expansion) was to be started as of April 30, 1988 and completed on or before December 31, 1988. The developer has indicated that he was unable to obtain financing for phase two of the project up to this point therefore that has not been started. Section 3.4 of the aforementioned agreement entitled "Certificate of Completion" indicates that promptly after the completion of each phase of the minimum improvements and upon written request of the developer to the HRA the Authority will furnish the developer a certificate of completion of that phase. Section 3 .1 of the Development Agreement indicates that upon completion of the project, provided that no event of default has occurred, the HRA will pay the developer the sum of $330, 000. This section further indicates that if the first phase of the minimum improvements (campground facility) is completed and that no event of default has occurred, the HRA will pay to the developer $100,000 of the $330,000 amount. Based upon the schedule set up in the contract it is apparent that Shakopee Valley Square Properties has not performed in a manner consistent with the deadlines contained in the Agreement. Section 5.1 of the Agreement defines events of default as one or more of the following events; (a) Failure by the developer to acquire the development property and to commence and complete the minimum improvements pursuant to the terms of this agreement. (b) Failure by the developer to substantially observe or perform any material covenant, condition, obligation or agreement on it's part to be observed or performed under this agreement. The remedies for default that the BRA can take require that when an event of default has occurred, as is the case here whereby Shakopee Valley Square Properties has not completed the campground by June 1, 1988 and has not started phase two in conjunction with the provisions of the contract, the BRA maytake the following actions after giving 30 days written notice to the developer of the event of default. (a) The Authority may suspend it's performance under the agreement until it receives assurances from the developer, deemed adequate by the Authority, that the developer will cure it's default and continue it's performance under the agreement. (b) The Authority may cancel and rescind this agreement. (c) The Authority may take what ever action, including legal or administrative action, which may appear necessary or desirable to the Authority to collect any payments due under this agreement or to enforce any performance and observance of any obligation agreement or covenant of the developer under this agreement. Based upon the inability of the developer to perform according to the schedule contained in the agreement an event of default has occurred. Therefore, the BRA should direct that Shakopee Valley Square Properties be given thirty (30) days written notice to cure the default. If the default is not cured within the specified 30 days the BRA may then cancel or rescind the agreement or modify the agreement or take other actions it deems necessary in order to cure the default. Mr. Bakken indicated to the Executive Director on July 13, 1988 that work was proceeding on the campground but that it is not yet finished at this point. Mr. Bakken also questioned whether he would be able to receive the $100,000 amount as contained in the contract agreement. Mr. Bakken also indicated that he has not yet obtained financing on the motel part of the project but thought that he might be able to obtain it in the Y near future. Originally, work was to begin on this project in September of 1986. It has been approximately 1 year 9 months since the project was to begin. Obviously, the developer has had problems in obtaining financing for the project. The HRA needs to determine whether it wants to further amend the agreement at this point or take actions which will result in the events of default being remedied. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Amend the Development Agreement so as to give Mr. Bakken more time to complete phase one of the project and to obtain financing for phase two of the project. 2 . Direct the Executive Director to send written notice to Mr. Bakken indicating that an event of default, as defined by the contract has occurred and that the HRA expects the event of default to be cured within 30 days. 3 . Discuss this project with the developer and determine what the likelihood is of him being able to complete the project within a reasonable period of time. 4 . Direct the Executive Director to reevaluate the financial aspects of this project as a result of the delays in project completion as envisioned by the contract. 5. Do nothing on the project at this time. RECOMMENDATION• It is recommended that the HRA direct the Executive Director to send written notice to the developer indicating that an event of default has occurred and if the default is not cured within 30 days that the HRA will take one or more of the actions provided for in the Development Agreement and it is also recommended that the HRA discuss this project with Mr. Bakken in an attempt to take action which will be in the best interest of both the BRA and the developer.It is also recommended that the Executive Director be instructed to reevaluate the financial aspects of the project. ACTION REODESTED: Move to direct the Executive Director to send written notice to Shakopee Valley Square Properties indicating that an event of default of the contract has occurred and that the default must be cured within 30 days or other actions will be taken; discuss the lack of progress of the project with Mr. Bakken or other representatives of Shakopee Valley Square Properties;and instruct the Executive director -ro reevaluate the financial aspects of the project and report the findings oto the H -V3 MEMO TO: Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment FROM: Dennis RE: R. Rraft, Executive Authority Resolution ApprovingDirector the Scott Count o a Joint Powers Agreement Between (SCHRA) and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority Authority (HRA Shakopee DATE: Jul 14, ) ' Housing and Redevelopment Y 1988 INTRO- On June 2, 1988the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority requested that Authority enter into a the Shakopeeoint 4 and R Housing Purchase of the jpowers a edevelopment forme At this r HRA Womens Correc greement to allow for the Owers p agreement. SC is requesting appeal Of the actual joint Facility in Shakopee. BACK- The HRA Capproved, in concept, a between HRA and the Joint the former WOmens HRA for the Powers agreement Of this ac Correctional Facilitypurchase by the SCHRA of and penal facilities on lforO ultimately in Shakopee. The apparently Purpose the County of Scott. Y Pr°vide for court While the HRA approved the concept of 2, 1988 several concerns were raised. These include; reuse of the agreement on June (2 the site after the demolition Adams the existing buildings; Potential question o paving Avenue realignment in connection Street; and (3) The running through a part o °f Adams Street with Fourth f the site. While none of these questions Commissioners did express particular concern the site were resolved HRA might be in a manner inconsistent that the reuse of h the health, safet with the best interest Shakopee. Therefore, y and welfare of determine the HRA needs Persons in the City of ne whether they want a tO discuss this matter agreement at this time enter into and to wordingand whether the this joint powers to the agreement to Y want to add additional persons the in the Cit provide certain attached -to this memo Y of Shakopee. The protections for provides for a term of 30 agreement as ALTERN- years. 1• Approve the Joint Powers Agreement Resolution. 2• Do not approve time. the Joint Powers Agreement Resolution at this 3• Approve the resolution with certain conditions which relate to subsequent reuse of the sight or the surfacingmay Adams Street withFourPaving or th et and the possible connection of Avenue. RECO-N, The HRA should review the Joint Powers Agreement and determine whether the attached agreement is concerns of the HRAconsistent with , If these concerns should consider amending the resolution are not in s the guarantees desired for met the HRA this the ac such a way to provide property. 4uisition and potential reuse of ACTION REO-q,ND Move to approve or (amend) Resolution #88-3 Joint Powers Agreement between the Scott Count Approving a Redevelopment Authority and the Shakopee Redevelopment Authority y Housing and formerly y Permitting the p Housing and y occupied by the Minnesota Correpurc al Facility.ase heproperty JOINT Joint Powers Agreement ibis Agreement made and between entered of the Scott County Houss ng and Rede elopment Authority ('Count 1988, and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City Of S7 kopee ("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 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. "Nom iAgli#Kith any respect to property acquired by the County HRA as authorized hereby shall accrue to the Shakopee HRA solely by virtue of this Agreement." Such property shall be held and managed exclusively by the County HRA, with ch riaht s i resp thereto ps pre n_gtmell inciden o, ownership of proper qi„d_ ;�,4�/r' L y �' ^7/ PC- (30) 4. This Agreement shall remain in effect for a term of thirty (30) years. 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 1 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE By By 2 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AW. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JUNE 21, 1988 Mayor Lebens called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. with Cncl. Clay, Scott, Wampach and Zak present. Absent: Cncl. Vierling. Also present were John Anderson, City Administrator; Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director; Doug Wise, City Planner; Judith Cox, City Clerk and Barry Meyer, Assistant City Attorney. Mayor Lebens read the City's Non-Discrimination Policy. Clay/Wampach moved to recess for the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority Meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Scott moved to reconvene at 7:10 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Cncl. Wampach commented on the wrapping of trees and questions he has received regarding the procedure. Staff to do research. City Administrator announced a mailing received from the Metro Waste Control Commission regarding a breakfast for City officials to be held June 29th at 7:30 A.M. Mayor Lebens recognized interested citizens not on the agenda wishing to address the Council. Terry Forbord was present with promotional information from other cities. He suggested Shakopee do more in this area to remain competitive. He questioned why the City had not advertised in the Minnesota Real Estate Journal. City Engineer, Dave Hutton, arrived at 7 :15 P.M. and took his seat. Zak/Clay moved to approve the consent business. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried Zak/Clay moved to approve the City Council Meeting Minutes of May 17, 1988. Motion carried with Cncl. Wampach abstaining. Zak/Clay moved to accept the resignation of Jim Plekkenpol from the Community Development Commission, with regrets. (Approved under Consent Business) . Zak/Clay moved to direct the appropriate City officials to respond favorably in writing to the Met Council's June 13, 1988 request for comments from local units of government affected by the proposed County Road 18 Bridge Project - Met Council File #14525-1 (approved under Consent Business) . city Council June 21, 1988 Page -2- Discussion held on a letter received from Robert Vierling regarding gun permits. The City Administrator suggested this situation be resolved between Mr. Vierling and the State of Minnesota. Any further investigation on the part of the City is not recommended. Clay/Zak moved to receive and file Robert Vierling's letter dated June 15, 1988 (regarding gun permits) Motion carried unanimously. A second letter received from Mr. Robert Vierling relative to City Code violations cited for his property was summarized. Wampach/Zak moved to receive and file Robert Vierling's letter of June 12, 1988 (regarding City Code Violations) . Motion carried unanimously. Brief discussion on the issue of existing underground tanks on the Vierling property ensued. The City Administrator suggested Mr. Vierling do test spots and if underground tank(s) were not found, present the cost invoices to the City for reimbursement. City Council concurred. Wampach/Clay moved to open the 7:30 P.M. public hearing on the Improvements of Market Street from 1st Avenue to Bluff Avenue by street construction and storm sewer. Motion carried unanimously. City Engineer presented the feasibility study. The estimated project cost is $30,000. Assessments to be calculated on a front footage basis. Mayor Lebens asked for comments from the audience. Mary Keen, Pastor of Calvary Methodist questioned if the street, upon completion, would be wider than currently exists. She questioned the availability of parking on the east side. She also requested confirmation of the location of the sidewalk and questioned the deletion of diagonal parking. Parallel and diagonal parking designs from 1st Avenue to Bluff Street to be researched for cost and feasibility. Wampach/Zak moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Clay offered Resolution No. 2914, A Resolution Ordering an Improvement and the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Market Street from 1st Avenue to Bluff Avenue; Project 1988- 6, and moved for its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. City Council June 21, 1988 Page -3- Clay/Wampach moved to authorize staff to contact Orr-Schelen- Mayeron & Assoc. , Inc. to obtain a proposal for engineering services for the preparation of plans and specifications. Motion carried unanimously. City Planner presented the background of the Final Plat for Prairie Estates 1st Addition. Bill Engelhart, Project Engineer, raised concerns relative to the timing of sidewalks on County Road 17. He suggested money for the sidewalks be escrowed until County Road 17 was upgraded. He also questioned the sidewalk along lith Avenue from Legion to Naumkeag. Discussion on bituminous vs. concrete walkway held. Conclusion was that escrowing for County Road 17 sidewalks should be made a part of the Developers Agreement. Clay/Wampach moved to amend Resolution No. 2915, A Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Prairie Estates lst Addition, Item No. 6 to read: "The right-of-way for 11th Avenue between Naumkeag and Legion Street must be maintained and the developer shall construct a sidewalk of concrete or 8 foot bituminous based on approval of City Engineer, between the developed sections of the East/West streets". Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2915, as amended and moved for its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Scott/Zak moved to reconsider City Council action of June 7, 1988 on Variance Resolution No. CC-524, A Resolution Denying Mary Dixon a Variance to Construct a Garage. Motion carried unanimously. City Planner presented the background. He stated adjacent property owners had been notified that Council may reconsider their decision based on the ordinance that prohibits reapplication for six months. Mayor Lebens asked for comments from the audience. Mary Dixon reiterated her request for a 16' x 22' garage. Scott/Zak offered Variance Resolution No. CC-524 approving the variances necessary to construct a one car-garage in the front, no larger than 16' x 201 . Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Zak moved for a 10-minute recess at 8:20 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. City Council June 21, 1988 Page -4- Zak/Scott moved to reconvene at 8:30 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. City Administrator summarized the letter received from Joe Notermann requesting dust control along Adams Street. Mr. Notermann is recommending a change 6f City policy that would afford urban areas the same rights as rural areas in the use of Calcium Chloride on gravel roads. City Council directed City staff to research cost analysis, traffic, roads involved and feasibility for the use of Calcium Chloride as a means of dust control. Cncl. Wampach stated he had encouraged residents with questions relative to the proposed Shakopee Community Center to present their concerns to the City Council. Ken Oksendahl of the Valley Arena and Shakopee Hockey Association questioned the cost difference in the preliminary proposal vs. current proposal. He wanted affirmation that no funds would be diverted from the ice arena. Dick Curry, representative of the Essex Corp. , discussed the concerns. Conclusion of City Council is to handle all negotiations through a contract between the City and various associations. Clay/Zak moved that upon purchase prior to the June 29th City Council meeting of the Pullman Club by Bretbecca, Inc. , that Council will grant on-sale, Sunday on-sale, and off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses to Bretbecca, Inc. Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Zak moved to table the applications of Bretbecca, Inc. , 124 West lst Avenue and The Pullman Club Inc. , 124 West 1st Avenue, for on-sale, Sunday on-sale and off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses. Motion carried unanimously. Zak/Clay moved to direct the appropriate City officials to enter into a contract with BRW, Inc. (Bennett, Ringrise,Walsfeld, Jarvis, Gardner, Inc. ) , for the purpose of updating the Shakopee Comprehensive Plan at a cost not to exceed $76,260. (Approved under Consent Business) . Zak/Clay moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the letter dated June 16, 1988 to the Metropolitan Council regarding the proposed revisions to the Transportation Development Guide/Policy Plan and transmit it to the Metropolitan Council for the public hearing of June 23, 1988. (Approved under Consent Business. ) City Council June 21, 1988 Page -5- Zak/Clay moved to table extension of employment for Planning Intern. Motion carried unanimously. Scott/Zak moved to table the selection and to establish a committee to explore the hiring of Bond Counsel for the City of Shakopee. Motion carried unanimously. ' Mayor Lebens appointed Cncl. Scott and Clay to the committee. Zak/Clay moved to authorize the payment of Partial Estimate Voucher No. 4 in the amount of $115,820.61 to S. M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. , P. O. Box 212, Shakopee, MN 55379, for Project 1987- 12, Vierling Drive. (Approved under Consent Business. ) Wampach/Zak moved to authorize staff to contact SPDC to design additional street lighting on vierling Drive, based on accepted industry standards for minimum levels of lighting for pedestrian and vehicular safety. SPUC shall present Council with the proposed design, pole selection and cost estimates for the additional lights of which the City agrees to pay for the additional lights. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Zak moved to authorize staff to arrange a meeting between SPUC and REA to resolve any jurisdictional concerns regarding street lights through Hauer's 4th Addition. Motion carried unanimously. Zak/Clay moved to remove the application of the Shakopee Jaycees for a Temporary 3.2 Beer License from the table and to approve the application and grant a Temporary 3.2 Beer License to the Shakopee Jaycees for Lots 3 and 4 and the Easterly 1 foot of Lot 2, Block 24 (formerly Pelham Hotel site) for June 25, and 26, 1988. (Approved under Consent Business. ) Zak/Clay moved to approve the application and grant a 1988-89 License to Only Allow Consumption and Display of Intoxicating Liquor to Jim & Lucy's, Inc. , 201 West st Avenue. (Approved Under Consent Business) . - Zak/Clay moved to approve the application and grant a 1988-89 License to Only Allow Consumption and Display of Intoxicating Liquor to Damile, Inc. , 2400 East 4th Avenue. (Approved Under Consent Business) . Zak/Clay moved to approve the application and grant a 1988-89 License to Only Allow Consumption and Display of Intoxicating Liquor to Fraternal Order of Eagles, 220 West 2nd Avenue. (Approved Under Consent Business) . Zak/Clay moved to approve the application and grant a 1988-89 On Sale and Off Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to Jim & Lucy's Inc. , 201 West 4th Avenue. (Approved under Consent Business) . City Council June 21, 1988 Page 6 Zak/Clay moved to approve the application and grant a 1988-89 on Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to Damile, Inc. , 2400 East 4th Avenue. (Approved under Consent Business) . Zak/Clay moved to approve the application and grant a 1988-89 On Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Licgnse to Fraternal Order of Eagles, 220 West 2nd Avenue. (Approved under Consent Business) . Zak/Clay moved to approve the application and grant a 1988-89 On Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to Judy A. Berg, 222 East 1st Avenue. (Approved under Consent Business) . Zak/Clay moved to approve the application and grant a 1988-89 On Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to Cedar Fair Limited Partnership, One Valleyfair Drive. (Approved under Consent w Business) . Zak/Clay moved to approve the application and grant a 1988-89 on- Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to J.B.F. Inc. , 823 East 1st Avenue. (Approved Under Consent Business) . Zak/Clay moved to approve the application and grant a 1988-89 On- Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to Pizza Huts of the Northwest, 257 Marschall Road. (Approved Under Consent Business) . Zak/Clay moved to approve the application and grant a 1988-89 On- Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to Speedway Concessions, Inc. , One Checkered Flag Blvd. (Approved Under Consent Business) . Zak/Clay moved to approve the application and grant a 1988-89 On- Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to Paul E. Schwaesdahl, 230 Lewis Street. (Approved Under Consent Business) . Zak/Clay moved to approve the application and grant a 1988-89 Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to Art Berens & Sons, Inc. , 123 West 2nd Avenue. (Approved Under Consent Business) . Zak./Clay moved to approve the application and grant a 1988-89 Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to Superamerica Stations Inc. , 1155 East lst Avenue. (Approved Under Consent Business) . Zak/Clay moved to approve the application and grant a 1988-89 Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to Holiday Stationstores, 444 East 1st Avenue. (Approved Under Consent Business) . City Council June 21, 1988 Page 7 Zak/Clay moved to approve the application and grant a 1988-89 Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to Brooks Superette, Inc. , 615 Marschall Road. (Approved Under Consent Business) . Zak/Clay moved to approve the application and grant a 1988-89 Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to Tom Thumb Food Markets, 590 South Marschall Road. (Approved Under Consent Business) . Zak/Clay moved to approve the application and grant a 1988-89 Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to Brooks Superette, Inc. #42, 1147 Canterbury Road. (Approved Under Consent Business) . Zak/Clay moved to approve the application and grant a 1988-89 On- Sale Wine License to Cedar Fair Limited Partnership, One Valleyfair Drive (Approved under Consent Business. ) Zak/Clay moved to approve the application and grant a 1988-89 On- Sale Wine License to Damile, Inc. , 2400 East 4th Avenue. (Approved under Consent Business. ) Zak/Clay moved to approve the application and grant an Off-Sale, On-Sale, Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License to XX Corp. & Wittles Inc, 1561 East let Avenue. (Approved under Consent Business. ) Zak/Clay moved to approve the application and grant an Off-Sale, On-Sale, Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License to Clair's Bar, Inc. , 124 South Holmes. (Approved Under Consent Business) . Zak/Clay moved to approve the application and grant an Off-Sale, On-Sale, Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License to The Friendly Folks Club, Inc. , 122 East 1st Avenue. (Approved Under Consent Business) . Zak/Clay moved to approve the application and grant an Off-Sale, On-Sale, Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License to Minnesota Concessions, Inc. , 100 Canterbury Road. (Approved Under Consent Business) . Zak/Clay moved to approve application and grant an On-Sale, Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License to C.R.E. Restaurant Co. , 1583 East 1st Avenue. (Approved Under Consent Business) . Zak/Clay moved to approve application and grant an On-Sale, Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License to Scottland Hotels Inc. , 1244 Canterbury Road. (Approved Under Consent Business) . Zak/Clay moved to table application for an On-Sale, Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License to R. Hanover, inc. , 911 East lst Avenue. (Approved Under Consent Business) . City Council June 21, 1988 Page 8 Zak/Clay moved to approve application and grant Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License to Family Dining, 6268 Hwy 101. (Approved Under Consent Business) . Zak/Clay moved to approve application and grant Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License to Riverside Liquors, Inc. , 507 East 1st Avenue. (Approved Under Consent Business) . Zak/Clay moved to approve application and grant Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License to Valley Liquor, Inc. , 1104 Minnesota Valley Mall. (Approved Under Consent Business) . Zak/Clay moved to approve application and grant Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License to Spirits of Shakopee, Inc. , 471 Marschall Road. (Approved Under Consent Business) . Zak/Clay moved to approve application and grant an Club and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License to The American Legion Club, Post No. 2, 1266 East 1st Avenue. (Approved Under Consent Business) . Zak/Clay moved to approve application and grant an Club and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License to Veterans of Foreign wars, Post No. 4046, 132 East 1st Avenue. (Approved Under Consent Business) . Zak/Clay moved to approve application and grant a Club Intoxicating Liquor License to Knights of Columbus Home Assn. , Inc. , 1760 East 4th Avenue. (Approved Under Consent Business) . Clay/Zak moved payment of the bills totaling $462,191.92. Roll Call: Ayes - Unanimous Noes - None Motion Carried Zak/Clay moved to accept the low bid and authorize the purchase of 1500 3-part memos from Clay's Printing for $165.80. (Approved under Consent Business. ) Zak/Clay moved to authorize the appropriate City official to enter into a "Hold Harmless" agreement with Scott County for surplus and recovered property to be sold at auction while in the possession of Scott County. (Approved under Consent Business. ) Zak/Clay moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to pay the City of Shakopee's Suburban Rate Authority assessments for 1989 at $700. (Approved under Consent Business) . Two logo designs were submitted for the City of Shakopee's Logo Design Contest. Cncl. Scott recommended keeping with the Indian head logo but insuring the historical authenticity. City Council June 21, 1988 Page 9 Cncl. Wampach moved to retain the original logo of the Shakopee Indian. Motion died for lack of second. Clay/Zak moved to declare a tie for the two submitted logos and award each contestant $37.50; totaling the advertised award of $75. Roll Call: Ayes - Unanimous Noes - None Motion Carried Zak/Clay offered Resolution No. 2913, A Resolution Restricting Parking on Vierling Drive (MSAS 112) from C.S.A.H. 16 to C.S.A.H. 17 in the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, and moved for its adoption. (Approved under Consent Business. ) Clay/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2916, A Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for 10th Avenue from State Trunk Highway 300 to County Highway 17, Project No. 1987-3, and move for its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Lebens asked the Council to reconsider the awarding of Mrs. Nagel her glasses and nylon claims. Council concurred with the insurance company that the City was not at fault. Wampach/Zak moved to reconsider not placing a market ad of $700 into the Minnesota Real Estate Journal and authorized staff to place the ad. Roll Call: Ayes - Wampach, Zak, Clay Noes - Scott, Lebens Motion Carried Cncl. Zak stated he was running into conflicts serving as Planning Commission liaison. Cncl. Zak suggested the use of mile markers on the Memorial Park Trails. Cncl. Zak questioned the opening of Canterbury Gate V and asked staff to contact Canterbury to define "peak day crowds" whereby exit is permitted through Gate V. Scott/Wampach moved to adjourn to Tuesday, June 28, 1988 at 4 :00 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:25 P.M. �� 11�� Ubu � /� J d th S. Cox /l,///-{/-/� CfAJVy Clerk Jane VanMaldeghem Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ.REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JUNE 28, 1988 Mayor Lebens called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. with Councilmembers Wampach, Vierling, Scott and Clay present. Councilman Zak was absent. Also present were George Muenchow, Community Recreation; Dave Hutton, City Engineer; Tom Brownell, Chief of Police; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; and John K. Anderson, City Administrator. Also present were Lee Hennen and Sue Sichmeller from the Capesius Agency and two representatives from General Adjustments Bureau (GAB) . Councilmembers and the City's insurance adjusters discussed their procedures for processing claims. The discussion focused on the standard procedures. used by the adjusters in other League of Minnesota Cities policy holding cities and how they handled their smaller claims. Council discussed maintaining the City's current procedures but inviting the adjusters to participate in any cases reviewed by the Council. Staff was directed to prepare a summary of the discussion for the next regular meeting. Vierling/Clay moved to renew the general property/liability insurance with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) for $141,668, renew the Transamerica Public Officials- - Blanket Bond for $787, renew the Hartford steam boiler policy for $6,925, to add the pollution coverage at LMCIT for $2,788, purchase Public Officials Errors and Omissions coverage from LMCIT for $12,019 plus the extended reported period for $8,508 and adding the inverse condemnation endorsement for $1,991. Roll Call: Ayes; Cncl.Wampach, Vierling, Clay .and Mayor Lebens Noes; Cncl.Scott Motion carried Clay/Vierling moved to adjourn to Wednesday, June 29, 1988 at 7:00 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 5: 07 P.M. lh S. Cox y,qy Clerk John K. Anderson Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ.REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JUNE 29, 1988 Mayor Lebens called the meeting to order at 7: 00 P.M. with Cncl. Wampach, Vierling, Scott, Clay, and Mayor Lebens present. Cncl. Zak arrived at 7:05 P.M. Also present were John K. Anderson, City Administrator; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Leroy Houser, Building Official; and Rod Krass, Assistant City Attorney. Wampach/Vierling moved to remove from the table the applications of Bretbecca, Inc. , 124 West First Avenue, for On Sale, Sunday On Sale, and Off Sale intoxicating liquor licenses. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Wampach moved to approve the applications and grant On Sale, Sunday On Sale, and off Sale intoxicating liquor licenses to Bretbecca, Inc. , 124 West First Avenue effective July 1, 1988. Motion carried unanimously. _ Wampach/Vierling moved to remove from the table the applications from R. Hanover, Inc. for On Sale and Sunday On Sale intoxicating liquor licenses. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Clay moved to approve the applications and grant On Sale and Sunday on Sale intoxicating liquor licenses to R. Hanover, Inc. , 911 West lst Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Vierling moved to approve the application and grant an On Sale 3.2 beer license to Tieu Ky/Hong Khong DBA Family Chow Mein, 237 East 1st Avenue effective July 1, 1988. Motion carried unanimously. The City Clerk reported that there were 605 votes for and 784 votes against the proposition, "Shall the City of Shakopee issue and sell general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $1,500,000 for the purpose of constructing a community center in the Minnesota Valley Mall?" Vierling/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2918, A Resolution Canvassing Returns for the Special Election, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Councilman Zak arrived and took his seat at 7:05 P.M. The City Administrator explained that Mr. Brambilla has applied for a permit to put a second story addition on the building that houses the formal wear store and that the proposed improvement is in the bypass corridor. Council needs to decide if permits should be issued in the corridor area. Discussion followed. City Council June 29, 1988 Page -2- Mayor Lebens stated that she feels that the plans for the mini- bypass have not yet been approved by Council and that we need a firm commitment from the State as far as their financial support. The City Administrator showed the 'Council the right-of-way corridor as prepared by HNTB, the City's Consulting Engineers. It has not yet been approved by council, but is the first graphic corridor that we have had. He also explained that there is a legal procedure that the City would have to follow to adopt an official map delineating the right-of-way corridor. Adopting an official corridor would allow the city to acquire property when it is ready to be expanded and wait to acquire property not expanding until the project is ready to proceed. Mr. Krass, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the City can implement an official map. It puts restrictions on property owners to expand or it allows them to require the City to condemn their property. Mr. Brambilla has a right to a building permit with conditions. In response to a question from Cncl.Scott, the City Administrator explained that the city has pledged $1.9 million for the City's participation in the mini-bypass and it can be used for right-of- way acquisition, engineering fees, or whatever is needed. This is the maximum the City has committed. The State must absorb the remaining costs. The City has a memorandum of understanding with the State addressing their involvement. They can not make a commitment until the project goes out for bids. The State simply will not sign a commitment for a project five years up front. Wampach/vierling moved to bring information back for Council consideration at the next meeting regarding initiating action for future acquisition of property within the mini bypass corridor, in response to Mr. Brambilla's request for a building permit. Motion carried with Mayor Lebens opposed. Wampach/Vierling moved to grant Toni Warhol three days leave of absence without pay. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Dick Curry, Essex Corp. , thanked the Council and staff for treating him fairly with regard to the community center proposal at Minnesota valley Mall. He was disappointed in the outcome of the election. He has met with the people in Omaha and they are still considering purchasing the mall, although he himself has some reservations. City Council June 29, 1988 Page -3- Donna Hyatt, Chrm. , of the Referendum Committee and of the Hockey Association, thanked the Council and staff for their help. She asked Council how much money a committee would have to raise toward a community center for the Council to kick in. Discussion followed on whether or not to establish a committee to look into the needs and options for a community center and whether or not to have a second committee looking at the needs solely for the Hockey Association. Staff will bring back some alternatives for Council's consideration at their next meeting. Clay/Vierling moved to adjourn at 8:20 P.M. Motion carried unanimously.UL�' 9��/ ith SL )Ox01 i y Clerk cording Secretary CONSENT gw MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Community Development Director RE: Recertification of Shakopee as a Star City DATE: July 14, 1988 Attached please find a photo copy of a certificate recertifying Shakopee as a Minnesota Star City. This certificate acknowledges that the community has met all the requirements for recertification in 1988. Action Requested Receive and file. "alp WMISW all ,-w 6W APO Iwo cc Vj 9 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer-,;)CA SUBJECT: Alley in Block 55 DATE: July 11 , 1988 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 2926 Ordering an Improvement and the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the Alley in Block 55 . BACKGROUND: On June 7 , 1988 City Council accepted a petition and ordered a feasibility report for improvements to the alley in Block 55 , which is located between Lewis and Sommerville Streets and 4th and 5th Avenues. The feasibility report was distributed to Council on July 5 , 1988 and subsequently a public hearing was scheduled for July 19 , 1988. The proposed improvements consist of paving the alley with 2 inches of bituminous concrete placed on a 6 inch gravel base. At the conclusion of the public hearing if Council wishes to proceed with the project, Resolution No. 2926 is attached for consideration. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Determine that the project should proceed and order staff to prepare the plans and specifications. 2. Determine that the project is not in the best interest of the City and do not proceed any further with the project. RECOMMENDATION: Depending on the public testimony received , staff recommends Alternative No. 1 . ACTION REQUESTED: 1 . Offer Resolution No . 2926 , A Resolution Ordering an Improvement and the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the Alley in Block 55, Project No. 1988-7 and move its adoption. DH/pmp MEM2926 RESOLUTION NO. 2926 A Resolution Ordering An Improvement And The Preparation of Plans And Specifications For the Alley in Block 55 Project No. 1988-7 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2917 , adopted on July 5 , 1988, fixed a date for Council hearing on the proposed improvement of the Alley in Block 55; and WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice was given and the hearing was held on the 19th day of July 1988 , at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1 . That the improvement is ordered as hereinafter described: Adding Bituminous Pavement to the Alley in Block 55 Located between Lewis and Sommerville Streets and 4th and 5th Avenues 2. David Hutton, City Engineer is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. Be shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. 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 , 70_ City Attorney CONSENT /00 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Proposed Annexation Area DATE: July 14, 1988 INTRODUCTION• At their meeting on July 7, 1988 the Shakopee Planning Commission passed a motion recommending to the City Council submission of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan Council providing a trade of the approximately 150 acres of land located North of the Minnesota River within the City of Shakopee in exchange for inclusion within the Municipal Urban Service Area of the 150 acres ofresidentialland to be annexed. BACKGROUND: At their meeting on March 3, 1988 the Planning Commission approved a motion recommending to the City Council that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for sewer service to the proposed annexation area located South of the Senior High School and West of County Road 79 . At their meeting on April 5, 1988 the City Council discussed the recommendation of the Planning Commission and tabled action. The Council directed City staff to confer with the Metropolitan Council staff to determine their position on the proposed alternative. In the course of discussions with the Metropolitan Council staff a new alternative trading land located North of the Minnesota River in exchange for inclusion of the proposed annexation area within the MUSA boundary was discussed. At the City Council meeting on June 7, 1988 the Planning staff recommended to the Council that a new alternative be pursued. The city Council referred the matter back to the Planning Commission for their review of the new alternative and recommendation. The Planning Commission at their meeting on July 7th reviewed the new proposed alternative and passed a motion recommending to the City Council that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment utilizing this alternative be submitted to the Metropolitan Council. For further background on this item please see the attached memos dated March 31, 1988 and June 2 , 1988. ALTERNATIVES: Please refer to the attached memos for a listing of alternatives available to the Council on this item. ACTION REOUESTED: Offer and pass a motion directing staff to submit a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan Council providing a trade of approximately 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. E£MO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner R£: Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Proposed Annexation Area DATE: June 2 , 1988 17 RODDCTION: At their meeting on April 5, 1958 the City Council received a recommendation from the Planning Commission to submit a comnrehensive plan amendment to the Metropolitan Council for sever service to the proposed annexation area located South of the Senior Rich School and West of County Road 79. because City staff had not been able to receive a response from the Metropolitan Council of Governments regardine the alternative recommended by the Planning Commission, the City council tabled action on the submittal of the comprehensive Dlan amendment to the Metropolitan CO=Cil. The City Council directed staff to consult With the Metropolitan Council S aff to determine their position on this alternative. - - - BACKGROUND: For background on this item please refer to the attached memo dated March 31, 1965. Following tabling of this matter by the City C'xin _l at `heir A -J ) 5, 1988 meeting the Cit laming staff` m=_t with g y P MetroDOlitan Council staff to review the proposed alternative. F011owing the meeting-, staff has had several tei=_phone conversations with the Council staff and the PSetropolitzn council stat: has met by themselves to formulate alternative. The Maceapc -_=n their ne=_ition on the recommended _ Co=zC j s-aff, has indicated to the City stuff that a_ __.---- -__ consider the proposal a viable zlternativ and unders_an_ __- rational for our proposal, the Me-sopolita': Council sta_-recommend denial of the comvrehersive Pian amendment - Metropolitan Council because is not consi ✓ � stent with then= current policy of adjusting the MUSA boundary Dnly on the 'pasts of acreage. Throughout our discussions with the Metropolitan Coundl. the City staff has continued to discuss ether alternative approaches. The MetrcDOlitan COuncil staff in indicating their preference to trade land for the inclusion cf the new land indicated that other land other than the tradeable area could be traded for this extension of the MUSA 'line. Staff_ has idez if-ied anotber area of the City which could be traded out o`_ the MOSA in order to allow the annexation area to come in. This area is aDDroxis,ately the same size and is located North Of the ?Iihhesota Rive_ on both sides of Highway 169 . Thi s DroDe-v is primarily owned by the D.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and --he Dh The area would be difficult to develop because it is located in the fioo3 Dlzia, i_ 'r is zoned Acricultural, and the cost of extending sewer to the North side of the Minnesota River would be prohibitive. Although the Metropolitan Council staff would not give a firm position on this recommended trade, their indication was clearly that they would prefer this alternative to the one recommended by the Planning Commission. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The City Council can pass a motion directing staff to submit a Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Metropolitan Council adding the 150 acres to be annexed to the City to the ML'SA or retaining the entire 305 acres of tradable area within the MUSA boundary with the condition that the entire 455 acres will not exceed an average sewage flow of 305, 000 gallons per day. (planning Commission Recommendation) 2 . The City Council can pass a motion directing staff to submit a Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Metropolitan Council providing a trade of the approximately 150 acres of land located North of the Minnesota River within the City of Shakopee in exchange for inclusion of the 150 acres of residential land being annexed to the City. Because alternative ;2 was developed after Planning commission' s recommendation to the City Council, the City Council could send the proposed amendment back to the Planning Commission for further review and consideration of the new alternative. S-AFF RECOMXSNDATION: Staff recommends alternative ¢2. ACTION REOUI'ST Offer and pass a motion directing staff to submit a Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Memrepolitan Council providing a trade of the approximately 150 acres of land located North of the Minnesota River within the ..itv of Shakopee in , exchange for inclusion of the 150 acres cf residential land being annexed to the City upon approval of the City Planning Commission. I. _.=`:oT oc`.n :is-_=arra f Q 780t_; Dovclzs K. Wise, __y Planner corore.ne.^.sive Plan —nendnent _c= ?zc�osec k-.nexa-icn )-ea =he' - mectin7 en ?:arch 19 a E; _ie _i _v Fannin-_ C;. ..__sicn _ __ '.,e'_ a r -— reCD-SIEn Gin, -o the CDnc tha= - -rehens"ve Plan en Ln PD- i sn�-.:—eG -D tie PierrCDCI_cn CDZn=:1 ..r se'aer service tD -he J=coosea Enn CJ:a-]Cn area lora-eC Sol-_: D_ ^LnE Serdcr -1Cn SCh ODI and Res- D`_ CO KDED 79 . _ ._ __ mnesD-z ?:'�__ Jz1 has —'1eG _n =aver anlE>:E o=n T DC a 150 acre, 7a=cel D DrO7E=tV lDcaJeC sot:h C_ .SEn]Cr - S=hDcl and . 4es- o '..,,_a-v Rodd ?9 . The I-zci:sD 'Board Las aJnealed the z^lE>:a=-Ci tD _.S =- CD:�.. •- is anLi='Da n-, aC=1Dn _n Lne near =--.=e ' D1s- C- '`_CDa___ovin? a'.n£>.-a-1Dn. 'n C ^ider _.._ Developmen- -D ..D - eed on is marcel C: -DDE=Tv, the --v .as- a.s1 n __ ' s CDSJ_enEa=ivE^ 2l an t0 yDe-__ccy the =rcpcsed' --_ _se __r -.zs area analter =he ?+'_=.ic=x1 r' Saica -ea �D-�n9z _- n=luoe ___s area -Cc s_A__ sar'v"lc£. _ Sng -_E-t Dw'nE=5 anlevel Coe= C= he 150 acre na==el j - �_ _VA11d£v E1 DD -n- er, -?».ed _D _ne .._ _ __. ---ha S-- E- D= 190`. _ .. _ __ ' _. _ �+ __ _-_s e a _-arra-_ -Sa DeG ne__ -nC -Dn5_'. __ _ _-Z __ _ _ '5C acre -_- D__.._c c v can _-_s are= __._ -7-"s -n .._ ____.c_.__ - ..._ Dc __ EC D __.aw "CJDsE_ - ._ _E_ _ arra c_.c _..0 - _-'r _n. � _ .._ r__ _o_ _ 71 levelcora_ .5= =_c_ =`-r _ _ -_.e ._ can -..E ---eh=_ns_v __an =s- _^_ = rov=e_ .." ADV E.::m E'_. _. ?iE-=DJC ±DE_S _._S - 'ajCr D� a:D amen_- aar et-iE"' DEri DS __. r._Er r..r -DEm -D mane _ err 5'_C:. 2.986 the C-*-v ___ _ed _D _._ M__ CJ^___c_ -D=,...1 -cr E C____ehe^s_v_ _ _an FvenGmsm- znG vas Eve,-aa'__-.' �_ - - 2:^S= SD•a.:-- =o =he xe=3 =v 'ane c_ cne __DJCsed 101 BI—Pass. deszzna-_C-. C. 305 acres .._ceG -ire' 25-J EDC 0. - -_2dea-J' l1e a.=ea w-Ch Co_1d 1>e ax=ia.DEd _`Cr vfnsr =rcDe=- in __-____'r _.._ _ CDCSed -- _ 'LD =ne !,:,S iDlSl: th .ar1%� r�,CCi Er C- thee � - ..1 a=re rad EanSarea w e arra as _ _ area -_S- je^.____..__ D an ever2C_e sere_ LD:: `= 1, DDD "'_1C^s Der Ga_ -Der acre (See a--Z=heC resole--ion a_._ zaz) . ':`ile . Cit)+ SL2`_` net :_t, Che Y,e=ro°cl tan Council to c s `s< h them the oropcsed amendment to the Cit;-' s Cozmrener.s_ve ?_za to include the =ropcsed annexation area. Response c_ the 15EtrcDolitan Conn=.1 suer` was t..a= trade c` an area -n the tradeable area _Cr t.^.e -_crsed � annexation area would De considered _averz:ay. 7ne crlltzn count'_'_ sz_` -as ver}. _ice in their --at t,-= thev v0',1G net ccns`_der e>Gen,lon of the ?MS2, at --cis t-me . ane trade would nut be a one _cr one acre trade, b,, wou!d be based on sewer _lows arcs. the ^_reposed areas. Because the tradeable area is 1--m-ted to E sewer flow c_ _ , DOD capons per acre per day and the average sewer _low _cr residential dev elcc.me-.= s 700 .canons ner acre per dav, the City woul3 be reccired to =— _e zon_oxi,a=Ei)' 107 acres of tradeable �ncustrial _a.._ _or the 150 acres c_ resideatia_ land. on Febraar'.+ '_9E'c. the _tv staff meet with the rope—y owners who C -trcl .. 'land ' _t,_n t._ tradeable area %co discl_`ss the cc=ions zcailable t__ Cc=prehansive ?len Amendment. The meeting included reccese =a tives ro-. the Scottlznd Co=Marries, . J.' . Saiely Co=panv, and Rawasal-iCcrMoration. = this meEtinc the - trese.-.tativas or these ccmpanies z' if erre=_sed a r _n Chess to ?!low any c_ t _ _ d= .__ _ n ane *;USA bc•.uhda_c. - ^_ _ ___Ly to be removed _r close_ cony c_ let=Er to .the ?lar_i^.g Ce—issic-n _r..-. the Sccttlan3 s____nr their ocsitie,. rer'inc e.^_ - -. lard meeting another t=-nat ve was su d DDeSteas an --_c- -.is alte�hative wOHI.. E to _save tqe EY_' StinC --c7Er7c d__._. ____ _-adeam_, s area dz to --' ?dE'd:d_G ta, CD'`r___ --'t sewer `l GRS TD31 -ne tar —Ea __.c=__- - -- -- _ ` --_ D`' -- _' to the "05, 000 = ns per _-_= no;, __aces ca the tradeable ars_ -or sewer =_=cw. s-_____ed to the N.=_—cnelita_`h Cc`anci_ a aC_ ___ _._.. an ne}:zt+cn area 'cL.,;_" cnv C_ the __adea-- e arra Cr restric_- ng ade_ticna! se e "w r -1D , the C_tc V w _! lave to do a thD_DO CLI analysis _ t,e .. needs _ r ^C he 1.^S ane t to .. ma}:e the cane _he me__c_c�l--ta.'] ^C.^."^c - `e- the needs tD _._s __n_ __ ___ s ec d.._1._ e}._En- the time ___ce=_sary ___ ___ - an '___oval from . e ?9E__ ccclitan =rani a =wD to t_eE ......'aa --Er-o- _c _.___ to DE_i Cd. Ain e_=c� to e}. ..t__ rra _ ?.'Sc. w -csD xss_� -ly no-- be success a..- the --tc wduc __ -he end lave to Bach on the _..__ alterna=ive e`_ =rad'ng area. tD_.eYJand -he .2,U would delaav ane devel onme.-.t the -eros! co_ng _rto __._ __ _ - , is also _-_at_ the _rocess of u=da-=ng _ _ '__ehe" vE - at --his --me and✓Dver the Dox_ vear __ be 'i= -'any oEta=L-,a need fcr E - ..ling --- -he 2: 52. _•..v.dare I n. tme -_ ___e. --ter ._..=ole- ng the - ate ..`_ -,�e Co _ lve ?taw., _ D,-'' c` be_ t_._ C1_y s __ _lon to =._n _.`_C anti C, alts=Jting t0 ma$e chat yes to the ?F_T58 bon=a- ` -` [ _ i z._^-a.�cn.--mss : Ccnnc Ll can pass £ ncLicn Ci=ecLSnc s=e`_` Cor enenslve ?'_an AnE^G.=Enc LD =ne .`1E==CDC__ _Zn CD_nCL�, reCJeS-_DC an ex--ens-on C- -he .7:"Sr. =D _ncllloe =ne annexa=icn area . The C'_=v CD•,:nca can Dass a -D_icn c_=ec=cnc a com=rebensive P.an ?_nencae. =D ne =rDT'i Gi.^.❑ a __=a0e c_ =ne _ncus=C1a1 =rateable area in excnanoe .cr .n�i'=sicn c- =tee 150 acres c_ reside.n=ial land being annexed m -be C_=y . C The C_=v CDnr.cil can pa=_s a ac-icn cared-inc _o sur ca.Dreitensive -an Anendnen= -D na Me__ ^=__=an adding -he 2.50' acres =e be annexen =D =;'__ iia re=ziai ng -he En=_re 305 acres c_ =raneab) e area . ._in =be B.JSA bDttnd-ry , c`_ 3C5, DO iin -he condi=icn =n a= =ne L5,000 t5=5 acres will no-, exceed an average savage -1ca oaLlDns per Day. _`1e 2cLi Dn cn L.b _rcDosed -_==rang sive Pian ASlennrlEn= and andi=ional nC..u_-=ion in C_oc_ _..r a -Ore -_narc'_C= ,1 L1C nD- rake . aC=icn p. C_ j ��_.__ _ _ anencm_._ ^_5 __ --ooess =D '',. lOW cncl_sion C_ --he propose: ar-'BEY.eo -_c_ __..... ___ ON 7 Dacsen - ua__Ion o__`nsn`_ii n y n anz- Of '.1 acr =0 -Lne 177_' -se En=_r=_ - - _ es____ __a5eable -ea -_.. �`b�__. 9D.annarm, �_—. _ane _ n.,_ eaceean eve ra g= 3C5 , DDO c- ___..s Via_ ring a C_ er and ?ass a =c=ic- �___c __ _- �7cgciVc -1 an --men�IDanL- =D� �'1e_. *3E____-_�__ _ e- C_=v G ov Ernl2r.=5 a..' =ne 150 acres =D be aP_1oved =D arra area - - =Lle re-- n_ -be e___ OD Cres C_ =raoE= 1e -__ �: * c cbCrnna-�. �CnAmci tea- �__5 the Su _ ..i=. u._ C. _ acre=- _= nc- exceed an averacec se.aoe fl, 1v ..0 315 , ODD cadlcs Der nay (?—'=erna=ive :3) . _, �I y ��, 11 y� - .\!�,\ o � 111 ' I �/� l � � \\\ C i / � \\ / .� T - rte,, � \ � � L i � r -� � y ,_ _rs SN �l� C : --r Le�'�I� � � I �( S � - I €E `` �. � `� �� i I � � III � 1' --^� I i � ms on9smr¢ is '' � I�ri'`s rte—, �f 1 �.� n '.vim I I ...�c _may �,:LyJ i � '11yy1 I J� /s •f�Al ^ l 2 I i i �`I I1 �/ /��/I��SiIF/�� ' f I ' .ii 0(9110 :�� I/X � u If 1 r .om er oc u ; �1 ItiK �� T y��t�71� I i i� I / i, � ��f%//rte, , �:.� i v ��; i �! Ili I � w��: . � f� _�11 � r r ; _ .. I�.�_ I � f t f �,� � � 9'�J I� I -_i ' \�� I r r �r/ I � � � � I I �L/� I ..I. ' �/ �.�. �` ._ .,r; i I � � III ,'" I! � ) £� lob MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Revision of the City's Sign Ordinance DATE: July 14, 1988 INTRODUCTION• At their meeting on May 3, 1988 the City Council passed a motion directing the City Attorney to prepare an appropriate ordinance revising City Code Section 4.30 entitled "Signs- Construction, Maintenance and Permits". Attached is the Ordinance as prepared by the City Attorney. BACKGROUND: After receiving several requests for variances from the City's Sign Ordinance, the Planning Commission and City staff decided in the Spring of 1987 that the City's current Sign Ordinance was in need of revision. Staff researched sign ordinances from a number of other cities as well as analyzing the provisions of the City's current code and prepared a draft ordinance which was presented to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission discussed the draft ordinance for a period of several months, and on January 7, 1988 the Planning Commission opened a public hearing on the proposed ordinance. The public hearing on the draft sign ordinance was continued several months and closed at the meeting on April 21, 1988. The Planning Commission at that meeting passed a motion recommending the proposed changes to the City Council. At their meeting on May 3, 1988 the City Council discussed the proposed sign ordinance and passed a motion directing the City Attorney to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Attached is the ordinance as approved by the City Council. NEW ISSUES: The Planning Commission recognized that with a new ordinance of this type new issues would arise that may need to be addressed through appropriate amendments to the ordinance. Three issues have arisen since the last action of the City Council which are listed below. The Council may want to address these issues at this time before approving the final ordinance. 1. valleyfair has constructed a new sign at their facility on Hwy. 101. The sign constructed by valleyfair has the provision for movement or the illusion of movement within the sign. Subdivision 3 G. states "Illuminated flashing signs, motion signs, revolving signs, illuminated revolving beacons, zip flashers or similar devices shall not be permitted in any district". Valleyfair constructed the sign with the assumption that the variance granted for the sign included a variance from this section to allow movement. When staff informed Valleyfair that the variance they received was only for the size of the sign, Valleyfair requested that the new sign ordinance be changed to allow them to utilize the movement of their present sign. The Planning Commission discussed the signage requirements for commercial recreation facilities of a major magnitude at some length. The Planning Commission recommended not changing the current code which prohibits the use of movement on all signs. If the Council so chose to amend the ordinance to allow Valleyfair the use of movement in their sign Subdivision 4 A.9, B.9, and D.9 could be amended to include an item I. allowing up to a certain percentage of the sign to contain movement. This change would only affect commercial recreation facilities of a major magnitude of which currently there are only two in the City (Valleyfair and Canterbury Downs) . 2. The proposed City Code allows real estate signs not to exceed 8 square feet to be placed in the R-1 and R-2 zones advertising property which is for sale. The code also allows temporary area identification signs up to 32 square feet for proposed projects under construction. The City presently has several residential developments underway in the R-2 zoning district. Developers have requested the ability to put up a 32 square foot sign to advertise lots for sale. Currently the staff interpretation of the above provisions has been that a temporary identification sign identifying the name of the development and the developer can be constructed of the larger size and that information regarding purchase of lots can be placed on the same sign provided it is less than half of the area of the sign. Staff feels that this interpretation allows developers to construct signs giving recognition to their developments as well as information about the purchase of lots. The developers have requested that the City consider allowing real estate signs for new residential developments in the R- 1 and R-2 zoning districts to be up to the 32 square feet. 3. Subdivision 3 C.2 states "One address sign shall be required per building or facility in all districts". The City Community Development Department received a complaint that a property located in the City did not have a address sign displayed. The City's Code Enforcement Officer upon checking the property determined that the house did contain numbers on the front, however the numbers were painted the same color as the siding. staff recommends that Subd. 3 C.2 be changed to read "One address sign visible from the street shall be required per building or facility in each district". /0 6 ALTERNATIVES• 1. The City Council could approve Ordinance #248 as drafted. In a separate motion if the Council so desired they could refer the new issues listed above to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation regarding these items. The Planning Commission could then recommend whether or not to amend the new ordinance to incorporate any of these changes. 2. The City Council could approve ordinance #248 making any or all of the above suggested changes to the ordinance at this time. 3 . The City Council could table action on Ordinance #248 and request staff to draft proposed changes or bring back additional information. _-4_- aLhe--City-Council could vote not to approve Ordinance #248 and retain the present sign ordinance. _ -- - ACTION REODESTED: �— _L---oar and approve Ordinance #248 entitled "Signs- ' .-- Construction, Maintenance and Permits" making the minor wording change for address signs. 2. Offer and pass a motion referring the issues of movement on Valleyfair's sign and real estate signs for residential developments to the Planning Commission for their review and a recommendation. Ordinance No. 248 Fourth Series 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 and 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 of 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 communicatidr';-aad 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, assuring unsafe, disorderly, indiscriminate or unnecessary use of such communicative facilities. Subd. 2 . Definitions. For the purpose of this section, the following terms, as used herein, shall have the meanings stated: A. "Address Sign". A sign for postal identification numbers only, whether written or in number form. B. "Advertising Sign". A sign advertising a business, commodity, or service which is not located or performed on the premises on which the sign is situated. C. "Area Identification Sign". A freestanding sign, located at the entrance to or within the identified premises, subdivision, a multiple residential complex, a shopping center or area, an industrial area, an office complex, planned unit develop- ment or any combination of the above and does not advertise any business within the area. D. "Awning and Canopy". A structure made of cloth, metal or other material affixed to a building in such a manner that the structure may be fixed, raised, or retracted to a position against the building. 1. fo b E. "Banners and Pennants". Any attention-getting devices which resemble flags and are printed or displayed upon paper, cloth or plastic-like material with or without frames. F. "Business Sian" . A sign which identifies a business or profession, commodity or service sold or offered upon the premises where such a sign is located. G. "Canopy and Awning". A structure projecting over the entrance to a building made of cloth, metal, or other material affixed to a building in such a manner that the structure may be fixed, raised, or retracted to a position against the building. H. "Commercial Recreation Directional Sian" . Signing constructed by a governmental entity or upon the direct order of a governmental entity which transmits a directional message toward a Commercial Recreational Facility. I. "Commercial Recreation Facility of a Major Magnitude". A building, structure or open space designed, constructed and operated by private enterprise for recreational purposes serving more than 200,000 customers per year. J. "Complex Center". A building in which two or more businesses are sharing the same principal building space. K. "Directional Sign". A sign erected on private property for the purpose of directing vehicular and pedestrian traffic to public facilities or functions. L. "Display Item". An article designed to catch the eye. M. "District" . A specific zoning district as defined in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. N. "Flashing Sign". An illuminated sign on which such illumination is not kept constant in intensity or color at all times when such sign is in use. 0. "Free Standing Sign: . A sign which is placed in the ground and not affixed to any part of any structure. 1. Free-Standing Pylon Sign: Sign erected on free- standing shafts, posts or walls which are solidly affixed to the ground, and which projects more than 7 feet above ground level. 2 2. Free-Standing Ground Sign: A sign erected on free- standing shafts, posts or walls which are solidly affixed to the ground, and which projects 7 feet or less above ground level. 3. Sandwich Board Sign: A sign which has two single face areas that are attached at one end but not at the other so to create a triangular stance which is not permanently affixed to the ground. P. "Government Sign". A sign which is erected by or upon the order of a governmental unit. Q. "Graphic Design Sian". Means any mural or pictorial scene painted on the side of a wall or building or painted on a sign board affixed to a wall, and which mural or scene has as its purpose artistic effect. A "graphic design" shall be considered a "sign", for the purpose of this ordinance. R. "Group Sign". A combination of two or more signs contained in a single sign area. S. "Illuminated Sign". A sign which has an artificial light source directed upon it or one which has an interior light source. T. "Institutional Sign". A sign or bulletin board which identifies the name and other characteristics of a public or private institution on the site where the sign is located. U. "Marquee" . A permanent roof-like structure extending from part of the wall of a building but not supported by the ground, and constructed of durable material such as metal or glass. V. "Motion Sign" . A sign which revolves, rotates or moves in any way by mechanical means or gives the illusion of movement. W. "Nameplates". Signs indicating the names of buildings, building occupants, developments, projects, or signs whichserveas a directory. X. "Non-Conforming Sign". Signs and their structures which do not comply with the provisions of this Section. Y. "Portable Sian". A sign so designed as to be movable from one location to another and is not permanently attached to the ground or any structure. Z. "Projecting Sian". A sign, any portion of which, projects from a building wall or a structure. 3 /bh AA. "Public Information Sian. " A sign designating time and/or temperature and/or similar non advertising public information. BB. "Public Recreation Facility". That which is shared and/or accessible by all members of the community and is under the ownership or control of a unit of government. CC. "Removal Letter Sian". A sign on which different messages can be displayed by the use of removable letters. DD. "Roof Sian". Any sign erected upon or projecting above the roof line of a structure to which it is affixed. EE. "Sian". Any letter, work, symbol, device, poster, picture, statuary, reading matter or representation in the nature of an advertisement, announcement, message or visual communication whether painted, pasted, printed, affixed or constructed which is displayed outdoors for informational or communicative purpose. FF. "Sion Area". The following computations shall be used to determine the area of any sign as defined herein: 1. Where the sign is a separate panel, structure or other material forming a single display face, the area of the display face shall constitute the area of the sign. Where the sign is double faced, the sign area shall be the maximum area visible from any one direction. 2. Where the sign consists of any combination of individual letters, panels, numbers, figures or illustrations or of a line or lines, to form a display or sign, the area of the sign shall be computed using the outside dimensions of the various words, figures, numbers or illustrations composing the entire sign. 3. The supports, uprights or structures on which any sign is supported shall not be part of the sign area unless such supports, uprights or structures are an integral part of the display or sign. GG. "Special Event" . An occurrence designed for a particular purpose which does not occur on a regular basis. HH. "Street Frontage" . That portion of a parcel of land abutting a street. II. "Temporary sign". Any sign, banner, pennant, valance or advertising display intended to be displayed for a limited period of time only. 4 JJ. "Wall Sian". Any sign which is painted, attached or affixed to the wall of any building. KK. "Window Sian". A sign attached to, placed upon, or painted on a window or door of a building which is intended for viewing from the exterior of such building. Subd. 3. General Provisions Applicable To All Districts The following shall pertain to all districts unless specifically prohibited within the districts. A. Free-standing Signs 1) Off-site free-standing advertising signs are prohibited in all districts. 2) No free-standing sign shall encroach upon or project over public right-of-way. 3) No free-standing sign lower than 10 ft. to the bottom of the sign shall be located within 10 ft. of the front lot line abutting public r-o-w. B. Temporary Signs 1) Temporary banners and pennants employed for grand openings of business establishments, special events and holidays shall be permitted upon issuance of a temporary sign permit. Business establishments and organizations will be allowed to have any number of temporary banner and pennant permits so long as the aggregate time period for displaying said banners or pennants does not exceed 30 days during any one calendar year. No organization or establishment will be permitted more than one temporary banner or pennant permit at a time. The total sign area for a temporary banner or pennant shall not exceed 32 square feet. 2) One temporary identification sign setting forth the name of the project, architect, engineers, contractors and financing agencies may be installed at a construction site in any district for the period of construction only. Temporary identification signs shall not exceed 32 square feet in area. Such signs shall be removed within seven (7) days following issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 5 3) Temporary real estate signs may be placed in any district for the purpose of advertising the lease or sale of property upon which it is placed.' Only one such sign is permitted per street frontage. The maximum size of such sign shall be 8 sq. ft. in the R1, R2, and the Shoreland Districts and 32 sq. ft. in all other districts. Such sign shall be removed within seven (7) days following the closing of the lease or sale transaction. Signs greater than 8 square feet shall be removed within seven (7) days of lease or sale or within one (1) year, whichever is sooner. _ �portable sign used for the purpose of directing - -- the public may be permitted upon issuance of a temporary sign permit under the following conditions. a) Said sign is coincidental to, or used in conjunction with, traffic control. b) The period of use of said sign shall not exceed fourteen (14) days. c) The sign shall be no larger than 32 square feet. 5) Temporary directional signs for special events, garage sales, auctions or similar functions shall be removed within seven (7) days after termination of the event or function. 6) Campaign signs posted by bona fide candidates for political office or by a person or group promoting a political issue or a candidate may be placed in any zoning-district-.— Signs-must be no larger than 20 sq. ft. nor higher than 5 ft. and may be posted for a period not to exceed 60 days and shall be removed within seven (7) days following the date of the election. Signs must be erected at least 2 ft. back from the curb line of any street and at least 30 ft. away from any street corner and should not in any way obstruct traffic. Signs placed on private residential property or on the right-of-way in front of any private property, must have the approval of the property owner. Campaign signs may not be placed on any other publicly- owned property. Signs located in conflict with this section shall be removed by the City at the expense of the candidate or property owner. 7) Temporary signs shall conform to setback requirements in Subd. 3a and any other requirements applying to the specific zoning district. 6 C. Directional Signs 1) one directional sign for each separately owned tract of land is permitted in all districts. (Except for commercial recreation facilities of a major magnitude and complex centers which shall be allowed one directional sign for each public access) . Directional signs shall bear no advertising and shall not exceed 4 sq. ft. in area. 2) One address sign shall be required-per _building or facility in all districts. -- D. Awnings, Canopies and marquees shall be considered an integral part of the structure to which they are attached. One sign may be permitted on each side and front of a marquee or canopy but such structure shall not be considered as part of the wall area and thus shall not warrant additional sign area. When 1-3 tenants are sharing a common awning, canopy, or marquee each tenant is allowed one side of the awning, canopy or marquee to place their individual sign or a creation of a group sign of the tenants to be placed on the front and sides of the awnings, canopy, or marquee following the conditions of a single tenant. If more than three tenants, an arrangement of group signs are allowed following the size limit of a single tenant. E. No signs shall be erected or placed within or over a public right-of-way with the exception of government signs, temporary signs complying with Subd. 3T and signs complying with Subd. 4C. F. No sign shall contain any indecent or offensive -` material. G. Illuminated flashing signs, motion signs, revolving signs, illuminated revolving beacons, zip flashers or similar devices shall not be permitted in any district. H. All illuminated signs shall have a shielded light source to prevent glare onto dwellings and public right-of-way. 7 /6 .b I. Signs shall not be painted, attached, or in any manner affixed to trees, rocks, or similar natural surfaces, nor shall signs of any type be painted directly on the wall or roof of a building with the exception of graphic design signs as allowed in the B-3 zone. J. Signs which interfere with the vision of vehicle operators or pedestrians to see traffic signs, or signals, or traffic are prohibited. K. Roof signs shall not be permitted. L. Signs shall not obstruct any windows, doors, fire escapes or openings intended to provide ingress or egress to any structure or buildings. M. Signs which identify, advertise, provide direction to a use, business, industry or service which has ceased existence or moved from the premises shall be removed within 60 days. N. Exemptions. The following are exceptions from one or more of the requirements of this ordinance: 1) Signs facing the interior of a building are exempt from the provisions of this section. All signs located within a commercial recreation facility, designed for internal viewing, and not readily visible to the general or passing public, shall be exempt from the provisions of this ordinance. - - 2) Nope rm-it shall be required for temporary real est to signs not exceeding 8 sq. ft. , temporary ` - political signs, and signs having an area of less than 2 sq. ft. 3) Signs erected by a governmental unit, public or parochial school, or church, and regulatory signs, shall not be charged a permit fee. 4) Municipal Christmas decorations, national flags and flags of political subdivisions shall be exempt from the provisions of this ordinance. 5) All signs existing pursuant to a variance on the effective date of this ordinance. 8 0. Public Information Signs - Signs which provide accurate time, temperature or stock market data or public service message shall constitute as part of the allowable signage provided within the various districts. P. Commercial Recreation Directional Signs - Signs which contain information about public facilities or commercial recreation of a major magnitude. Commercial recreation directional signs shall not exceed 12 square feet. Said signs are allowed in the AG, B-1, I-1, I-2, RTD districts. Q. Governmental signs necessary for public safety or the carrying out of Government business, such as traffic control signs or street signs, shall be permitted in all zoning districts (except B-3) upon the direction of the City Council. Signs identifying government buildings shall comply with the provisions of this Chapter. R. Window signs shall not exceed 25% of the window area or exceed 32 square feet of said window, which ever is less, except as allowed in the B-3 zone. S. No sign shall be attached to or hang from a building until all necessary wall and/or roof attachments have been approved by the building official. T. The Planning Commission may grant a conditional use permit to locate signs or decorations on or within the right of way for a _.specified period of time not to exceed 180 days. Subd. 4. District Regulations. ---._` In addition to those signs permitted in all districts, signs herein designated shall be permitted in each specified district and shall conform as to size, location and character according to the requirements herein set forth: A. The following shall be permitted in the AG, Rl, R2, R3, R4, and Shoreland zoning districts. 9 lbb 1) Nameplate Sign: One sign not to exceed 2 sq. ft. in area for each dwelling unit, indicating only name and address. One nameplate sign for each dwelling group of 6 to 12 dwelling units which shall not exceed 6 sq. ft. in area per surface. One nameplate sign for each dwelling group of 8 or more dwelling units shall not exceed 12 sq. ft. in area per surface, and no sign shall have more than two display surfaces. Said signs may indicate the names of the buildings, project, or be serves as a directory. 2) Area Identification Signs: One sign, not to exceed 24 sq. ft. in area, for each development district or project entrance. 3) Free-standing Signs: Free-standing pylon signs as defined in Subd. 2-0 shall not be permitted (exception for commercial recreation of a major magnitude) . 4) Governmental, Institutional, and Recreational Signs: One sign or message board per entrance up to a maximum of four per structure for a church, public building, institution or recreational facility. Such sign or message board shall not exceed 50 sq. ft. in area and shall not be placed closer than 10 ft. to any street right-of-way. 5) Temporary and Directional Signs: Temporary and directional signs complying with Subd. 3 B and C shall _- - be permitted. 6) Advertising Signs: Advertising signs within a public recreational facility may be permitted under the following conditions: a) No individual sign shall exceed 40 square feet. b) Such signs will only be allowed for specific sports seasons. C) Signs must be attached to a permanent structure (wall or fence) and cannot exceed 508 of the surface area of the structure. d) Scoreboard advertising signs shall be permitted when the advertising area does not exceed 25%. of the sign area. e) All signage must face toward the interior of the facility. 10 7) Home occupation business signs shall be no larger than two square feet. 8) Commercial recreation directional signs as allowed by Section 4.30, Subd. 3.P. 9) Commercial recreation of a major magnitude shall be allowed one free standing sign per facility or street frontage up to 350 square feet and 30 feet in height from the existing grade when the following requirements have been met: a) Signs less than 20 feet in height shall include a landscaped area at the base of the sign at least 10 feet in width at the narrowest point and extending at least 5 feet beyond the end of the sign. Signs greater than 20 feet in height shall increase the area to be landscaped by an additional one foot in both length and width for each 2 feet of height in excess of 20 feet. b) The bottom of the message portion of the sign shall be not more than 10 feet above the top of the landscaping. c) The pilons or support structure of the sign shall be screened with evergreen trees. or shrubs. d) Other durable plantings at least 2 feet in height shall be designed to occupy a minimum of 50% of the required landscape area. e) The required landscape area shall not encroach on the public right of way. f) The sign and landscape area shall be maintained in a neat, clean and orderly manor. g) The facility shall have at least 2 feet of street frontage for each square foot of signage. h) The signage shall not create a health or safety hazard. B. The following shall be permitted in the B-1 and B-2 zoning district. 1) Wall Signs: Wall mounted business signs shall be permitted subject to the following conditions: 11 /o-b a) Signage permitted on the front of a building shall not exceed two square feet for each linear foot of the building surface on which the sign is mounted up to a maximum of 200 square feet (except complex centers) . Complex centers shall be allowed 2 square feet for each linear foot of the building surface on which the sign is mounted up to a maximum of 200 square feet per tenant. Other building surfaces facing a public right-of-way or serving as a building entrance may have 1 square foot for each linear foot of the building surface on which the sign is mounted up to a maximum of 100 square feet (except complex centers) . Complex centers shall be allowed 1 square foot per linear foot of building surface on which the sign is mounted up to a maximum of 100 square feet per tenant. In the case of corner lots, the building surface facing the least length of street frontage shall be the front of the building for purposes of this subdivision. b) Such signs shall not project out from the building more than 36" and shall not project over public property. 2) Free-standing Signs: Free-standing business or complex center signs shall be permitted subject to the following conditions: a) Such signs shall not exceed 1 sq. ft. per linear foot of street frontage, not to exceed 150 sq. ft. in area. b) No free-standing sign shall exceed 20 ft. in height. c) Setback requirements shall confirm to Subd. 3- A. d) One sign structure per street frontage shall be permitted. e) Commercial recreation of a major magnitude shall be allowed additional size and height subject to provision 9) below. 12 3) Nameplate: One sign per occupant, not to exceed 2 sq. ft. , indicating only name and address. One name plate sign for each building containing multiple tenants not to exceed 12 sq. ft. in area per surface, and no sign shall have more than 2 display surfaces. Said sign may indicate the name of the buildings, project, or serve as a directory. 4) Area Identification Sign: One sign per development not to exceed 50 sq. ft. in area for each development or at each project entrance. 5) Public Information Sign: One wall or free- standing sign showing weather time, temperature, and similar public service announcements for each building may be granted. Such sign shall be operated automatically and shall furnish accurate and current information which shall occupy not less than 25% of the sign area. 6) Complex Center: Multiple occupancy commercial buildings shall submit a sign plan conforming with this section which will coordinate signage for the entire project. Said sign plan will show the proposed location and size of all signs for the project as a whole and for each occupant. 7) Temporary and Directional Signs: Complying with Subd. 3, B and C shall be permitted. 8) Commercial recreation directional signs as allowed by Section 4 .30, Subd. 3.P. 9) Commercial recreation of a major magnitude shall be allowed one free standing sign per facility or street frontage up to 350 square feet and 30 feet in height from the existing grade when the following requirements have been met: a) Signs less than 20 feet in height shall include a landscaped area at the base of the sign at least 10 feet in width at the narrowest point and extending at least 5 feet beyond the end of the sign. Signs greater than 20 feet in height shall increase the area to be landscaped by an additional one foot in both length and width for each 2 feet of height in excess of 20 feet. b) The bottom of the message portion of the sign shall be not more than 10 feet above the top of the landscaping. 13 C) The pilons or support structure of the sign shall be screened with evergreen trees or shrubs. d) Other durable plantings at least 2 feet in height shall be designed to occupy a minimum of 50% of the required landscape area. e) The required landscape area shall not encroach on the public right of way. f) The sign and landscape area shall be maintained in a neat, clean and orderly manor. g) The facility shall have at least 2 feet of street frontage for each square foot of signage. h) The signage shall not create a health or safety hazard. 10) Governmental, Institutional, and Recreational Signs: One sign or message board per Street frontage entrance up to a maximum of four per structure for a church, public building, institution or recreational facility. Such sign or message board shall not exceed 50 sq. ft. in area and shall not be placed closer than 10 ft. to any street right-of-way. line. C. The following shall be permitted in the B-3 zoning district. 1) Wall Signs: Wall mounted business signs shall be permitted subject to the following conditions: a) Signage permitted on the front of a building shall not exceed 1.5 square feet for each linear foot of the building surface on which the sign is mounted up to a maximum of 150 square feet (except complex centers) . Complex centers shall be allowed 1.5 square feet for each linear foot of the building surface on which the sign is mounted up to a maximum of 150 square feet per tenant. Other building surfaces facing a public right-of- way or serving as a building entrance may have 1 square foot for each linear foot of the building surface on which the sign is mounted up to a maximum of 100 square feet (except complex centers) . Complex centers shall be allowed 1 square foot per linear foot of building surface on which the sign is mounted up to a maximum of 100 square feet per tenant. In the case of corner lots, the building surface facing the least length 14 of street frontage shall be the front of the building per purposes of this subdivision. b) A projecting sign shall be hung at right angles from a building face and shall not project out from the building face more than 36". The bottom of the sign shall allow 8 feet pedestrian clearance. The top of the sign shall not be higher than the lowest point of the roof or parapet of a one-story building. Any one face of the sign shall not exceed 12 square feet. Only one projecting sign shall be allowed per building face. C. The total area of a three dimensional sign shall be determined by enclosing the largest cross section of the sign in an easily recognizable geometric shape and computing it's area which shall not exceed 9 square feet. d. Removable letter signs shall be permitted in the B-3 district and shall not exceed a total area of 24 square feet per sign face. 2. No individual sign shall exceed 150 square feet of area per surface. 3 . Free-Standing Signs: Free-standing business signs and portable signs shall be prohibited in the B-3 Zone, with the exceptions of sandwich board signs which do not exceed 12 square feet per sign face. Sandwich board signs will be allowed to be placed on the sidewalk directly in front of the establishment during hours of operation only. 4) Nameplate: One sign per occupant, not to exceed 2 sq, ft. , indicating only name and address. One nameplate sign for each building containing multiple tenants not to exceed 12 sq. ft. in area per surface, and no sign shall have more than 2 display surfaces. Said signs may indicate the name of the buildings, project, or serve as a directory. 5) Area Identification Sign: One sign per development not to exceed 50 sq. ft. in area for each development or at each project entrance. 6) Public Information Sign: Shall not be permitted. 7) Complex Center: Multiple occupancy commercial buildings shall submit a sign plan conforming with this section which will coordinate signage for the entire 15 MA project. Said sign plan will show the proposed location and size of all signs for the project as a whole and for each occupant. 8) Temporary and Directional Signs: Complying with Subd. 3, B and C shall be permitted. 9) Awnings shall be allowed in the B-3 District. All portions of any awning sign shall be at least 8 feet above any public walkway. The valance attached to jan awning shall be permitted to extend 12" below the roof of the awning at the point of the attachment, but in no case shall any portion of a valance be less than ' in height above a public walkway. Awnings may extend over public property not more than 7' from the face of a supporting building, but no portion shall extend nearer than 2' to the face of the nearest curb line measured horizontally or interfere with public placements in the right-of-way (trees, benches, planters, etc. ) . In no cafe shall the awning extend over public property greater than 2/3 of the distance from the property line to the nearest curb in front of the building site. Awning supports shall not be permitted to extend down into public property. Signage placed on an awning shall apply to the total allowable building signage allocation. 10) Painting or applying letters on building windows shall be permitted. These letters shall be considered as part of the window signage and shall be subject to the regulations of this section. Painted or applied letter signs located on building windows shall not occupy more than 50% or the available window area. All other permanent signs located on or within building windows shall not occupy more than 10% of the available window area. Temporary signs located on or within building windows shall be allowed for a period not to exceed 3 months. Total signage within any window shall not be greater than 50% of the available window area. Said signs shall be considered the same as wall signs and count toward the total square footage allowed under Section 4.30 Subd. 4 C.1 above. 11) Internally lighted signs shall be permitted in the B-3 District. Signs shall also be allowed to be illuminated with an indirect light source. Said signs shall not shine directly on roadways or walkways or cause glare as regulated by Section 11.60 Subd. 8. 12) For shops or businesses sharing the same facade, the same or a similar method of signing must be used for all parties desiring to place a sign on said 16 facade. 13) No more than ten display and/or line items per sign. A display item is a symbol, a syllable in a word, or any other item of display that transmits a message. 14) Graphic Design Signs and neon signs may be permitted when granted a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. Permit application shall be filed in compliance with city Code Section 11. 04, Subdivision 6. This permit will be granted in the event that design is found not to be detrimental to property values in the neighborhood or otherwise constitute a private or public nuisance. 15) No single business shall be allowed more than two permanent exterior signs per building face excluding nameplate -signs and signage on building door glass indicating the operating hours of the business. 16) A sign shall not obscure architectural features of a building to which the sign is attached. 17) A sign shall not extend above the lowest point of the roof nor beyond the ends of the wall to which it is attached. D. The following shall be allowed in the I-1 (light industry) , I-2 (heavy industrial) , URD and RSD (Racetrack District) zoning districts. 1) Wall Signs: Wall mounted business signs shall be Permitted subject to the following conditions: a) Such signs shall not exceed 2 sq. ft. for each linear foot of the building surface on which the sign is mounted, not to exceed 200 sq. ft. , for the front of a building. Other building surfaces facing a public right-of-way or serving as a building entrance may have one sign per building surface or entrance, not to exceed 1 sq. ft. per linear foot or 100 sq, ft. whichever is less. In the case of corner lots, the building surface facing the least length of street frontage shall be the front of the building for purposes of this subdivision. b) Such signs shall not project out from the building more than 36" and shall not project over Public property. 17 /6 ,b 2) Free-Standing Signs: Free-standing business signs shall be permitted subject to the following conditions: a) Said sign shall not exceed 1 sq. ft. per linear foot of the street frontage, not to exceed 150 sq. ft. b) No free-standing sign shall exceed 20 ft. in height. c) Setback requirements shall conform to subd. 3- A. d) One sign per street frontage shall be permitted. e) Commercial recreation of a major magnitude shall be allowed additional size and height subject to provision 9) below. 3) Nameplate: One sign per occupant, not to exceed 2 ft. , indicating only name and address. One nameplate sign for each building containing multiple tenants, not to exceed 12 sq. ft. in area per surface, and no sign shall have more than two display surfaces. Said sign may indicate the name of the buildings, project, or serve as a directory. 4) Area Identification Sign: One sign not to exceed 50 sq. ft. in area for each development or at each project entrance. 5) Public Informational Sign: One wall or free- standing sign showing time, temperature and similar public service announcements for each building shall be granted. Such sign shall be operated automatically and shall furnish accurate and current information which shall occupy not less than 25% of the sign area. 6) Complex Center: Multiple occupancy commercial/industrial buildings shall submit a sign plan conforming with this section which coordinates signage for the entire project. Said sign plan will show the proposed location and size of all signs for the project as a whole and each occupant. 7) Temporary and Directional Signs: Complying with Subd. 3 , B and C shall be permitted. 8) Commercial recreation directional signs as followed by Section 4.30, Subd. 3.P. 18 9) Commercial recreation of a major magnitude shall be allowed one free standing sign per facility or street frontage up to 350 square feet and 30 feet in height from the existing grade when the following requirements have been met: a) Signs less than 20 feet in height shall include a landscaped area at the base of the sign at least 10 feet in width at the narrowest point and extending at least 5 feet beyond the end of the sign. Signs greater than 20 feet in height shall increase the area to be landscaped by an additional one foot in both length and width for each 2 feet of height in excess of 20 feet. b) The bottom of the message portion of the sign shall be not more than 10 feet above the top of the landscaping. C) The pilons or support structure of the sign shall be screened with evergreen trees or shrubs. d) Other durable plantings at least 2 feet in height shall be designed to occupy a minimum of 50$ of the required landscape area. e) The required landscape area shall not encroach on the public right of way. f) The sign and landscape area shall be maintained in a neat, clean and orderly manor. g) The facility shall have at least 2 feet of street frontage for each square foot of signage. h) The signage shall not create a health or safety hazard. 10) Governmental, Institutional, and Recreational Signs: one sign or message- board per Street frontage entrance up to a maximum of four per structure for a church, public building, institution or recreational facility. Such sign or message board shall not exceed 50 sq. ft. in area and shall not be placed closer than 10 ft. to any street right-of-way, line. 19 Subd. 5. Administration and Enforcement A. Permit Required. Except as herein exempted in Subd. 3N, it is unlawful for any person to maintain, install, erect, relocate or modify any sign without first obtaining a permit. B. Application and Fee Applications for Sign Permits shall be made in writing upon forms furnished by the City. each application for a permit shall set forth the correct legal description of the tract of land upon which the sign presently exists or is proposed to be located, the location of the sign on said tract of the land, the manner of construction, dimensions, and materials used in the sign, a complete description and sketch of the sign or photograph. At the time of application, the applicant shall pay a fee based on the size of the sign; such fees to be set by resolution. If construction or installation of the sign has not commenced within 120 days from date of issuance of the permit, said permit shall become void. No fee shall be refunded. C. Maintenance. All signs shall be constructed in such a manner and of such material as to be safe and substantial. The exposed backs of all signs and sign structures shall be painted a neutral color. Signs determined by the Building Official to be in a state of disrepair shall be restored to good repair by the sign owner, or property owner on which the sign is situated, within thirty (30) days after the mailing of written notice to repair from the Building Official. In the event of non- compliance with said notice, the City shall be authorized to remove said sign at the expense of the sign or property owner. E. Exemptions. For exemptions see Subd. 3N. F. variance. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may grant a variance from the requirements of this section as to specific signs where it is shown that by reason of topography or other conditions strict compliance with the requirements of this section would cause a hardship. The variance application shall be filed and processed in compliance with City Code Section 11.04, Subd. 5. Subd. 6. Existing Non-Conforming Signs. Any sign existing at the time of the adoption of this section, excluding those authorized by variance, which does not conform to the provisions hereof shall not be replaced or repaired if damaged beyond 50 percent of its value. 20 Subd. 7. Repeal Previous Section 4.30 entitled"Signs, Construction, Maintenance and Permits" is hereby repealed in its entirety. Subd 8. When in Force and Effect After the adoption and attestation of this Ordinance it shall be published once in the offical newspaper of the City of Shakopee and shall be in full force and effect on and after the date 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 13th day of July, 1988. City Attorney MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dave Mutton, City Engineer SUBJECT: Apgar Street Between 1st and 2nd Avenues DATE: July 14 , 1988 INTRODUCTION: On July 5 , 1988 a public hearing was held on the vacation of Apgar Street between 1st and 2nd Avenues. At the conclusion of all public testimony , the hearing was closed . City Council tabled any action on this matter until the July 19 , 1988 Council meeting. Staff has reviewed all of the concerns raised at the public hearing with the Assistant City Attorney and we have attached a copy of the Soo Line Agreement. ALTERNATIVES: Based on discussions with the Assistant City Attorney the following options are available to the City Council. Alternative No. 1 and No. 2 , according to the Assistant City Attorney, apply whether this is a formal street vacation or a simple closing of the street at 2nd Avenue without vacating the Right-of-Way. 1 . Do not vacate Apgar Street. a. Based on the testimony received last meeting , Council could decide that this portion of Apgar Street still serves the public and therefore should not be vacated. b. In addition , the Assistant City Attorney has advised staff that because of the agreement signed between the railroad and Rahr Malting , if the street were vacated and the City was challenged , it would be difficult to show that the City approached the public hearings with an unbiased opinion. C. Rahr Malting Company originally wanted to close Apgar Street to achieve more track storage of grain cars, but due to the fact that their trucks would still be allowed to exit thru Apgar Street, they would not gain much additional track storage they wanted by vacating the street. d. Not vacating may mean that the City would pay Rahr an additional $10 ,800 .00 (240 lineal feet @ $45 .00 .00 per foot) for lost rail siding as per our agreement (Article 4 in the agreement) . Apgar Street July 14 , 1988 Page 2 e. The Soo Line had agreed to sell a triangular parcel of lots 1 , 2, and 3 of Block No . 21 for $3 ,500 .00 , but may reconsider if Apgar is not closed. We are currently constructing 2nd Avenue on this Parcel (Article 3 in the agreement) . 2 . Vacate Apgar Street. a. Determine that there is a community wide benefit to closing the street and vacate it. This benefit would be the increased safety that would result from closing the Apgar crossing and routing vehicles through the signalized intersection of Scott Street and Hwy. #169• b. This alternative may have a negative affect on several businesses served by both Hwy. # 169 and Apgar due to customer inconvenience of traveling out on Hwy. #169 . Some residents also testified that Apgar was more convenient for them than Scott. 3 . Reschedule a public hearing to receive further testimony. a. Concerns were raised at the public hearing regarding traffic flow for Stemmer Feed Mill and C.H. Carpenter Lumber. There may be alternatives to providing vehicular access to these buildings without going onto 1st Avenue. These alternatives would result in additional negotiations with adjoining properties and may take some time. b. The Soo Line Railroad would like to reschedule another public hearing to try and resolve some of these specific concerns and hear from residents that may favor the closing of Apgar. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 for the reasons discussed above. If Council wishes to pursue vacating the street, all other conditions of the Soo Line agreement should be met thereby nullifying the agreement according to the Assistant City Attorney. Then, after one or more years, the issue of vacating Apgar Street could be brought up again after developments such as the Mini By-Pass are more certain. IM, Apgar Street July 14 , 1988 Page 3 ACTION REQUESTED: 1 . Move to remove vacation of Apgar Street from the table. 2. Move to deny vacating Apgar Street from 1st to 2nd because it is apparent that Council cannot determine that the vacation is in the public interest at this time. DH/pmp VACATE CITY OF SHAKOPEE INCORPORATED 1670 ' 129 EAST FIRST AVENUE, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 553791376 (612) 44536K C 1 May 19, 1988 Mr. J . A. Pinkepank ASS start Vice President Operations Analysis Soo L_ne Railroad Company Soo Line building Room 31C Box 530 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 Dear Mr. PinkeparI Enclosed is the signed agreement between Rahn Malting Co. , the City of Shakopee and Soo which you discussed with Fir. Dave Hutton, City Engineer, for the removal of your trackage from Atwood and Scott Streets in return for the closing o: Apgar Street. 1 unders and that ycc,: :ave discussed the timing of the vacation Of Apgar v:.`:-: be Y-: ?ng' neer and the City Attorney. as it is not posy'_'___ -c. _ __ _ ,. __- the June 15th date in the agreement. understanL t-a. 7..e_ s an amended agreement forthcoming. sincerely, Juc th S. Cox 6� Clerk CC : Dave. Hutton, City Engineer Julius k. Coller, City Attorney The Heart of Pro.aress Valley TRACK REMOVAL AND CROSSING CLOSING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, dated May 16, 1988, is between Soo Line Railroad Company, a Minnesota Corporation (hereinafter called SOO) , Rahr Malting Co. , a Delaware Corporation (hereinafter called RAHR) , and the municipality of Shakopee, an incorporated City of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter called CITY. Soo, RAHR, and CITY are sometimes hereinafter collectively referred to as the Parties. RECITALS WHEREAS, CITY desires to remove tracks of SOO from Scott and Atwood Streets and east of Atwood Street to promote public safety, permit street improvements , and avoid unnecessary street maintenance, and WHEREAS, SOO and RAHR desire to have Apgar Street closed to promote public safety, reduce maintenance costs , and simplify switching, and to partially replace the track room which would be lost east of Scott Street, and WHEREAS RAHR desires to cooperate in acheiving these ends, �' but must protect its present available track room for holding rail cars in order to assure the future needs of its business, and WHEREAS, the Parties have mutually arrived at a plan by which all of these objectives can be served, NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties, in consideration O` the promises herein given and received, do agree among themselves 1 as follows: 1 . SOO, at its own expense , shall remove its track eastward from the west line of Scott Street to the end of track east of Atwood Street, not later than June 15, 1988 . This track removal shall be coordinated with CITY so that CITY can arrange barricades, traffic re-routing, and opening of the street to traffic after the track removal is completed. 2. CITY, at its own expense, shall coordinate with SOO to permit rmit timely track removal under this Agreement, and shall ar- range barricades, traffic re-routing, and the opening of the street to traffic after track removal is complete. CITY shall, at its own expense, provide whatever labor, fill and paving is required for this purpose. 3 . CITY agrees that on the day following the day the work described in paragraph 1, above, is completed, CITY shall per- manently barricade Apgar Street between First and Second Streets, and shall vacate same, and convey to SOO all such por- tions of the vacated street as are occupied by tracks of SOO to a distance of 20 feet from the center of the outermost -racks, for $1. 00. S . CITY agrees that upon request by RAHR, CITY shall pay to RAHR the sum of $16,200 at such time as RAHR has determined what track it desires to construct in lieu of a net loss of 360 track feet of car storage room resulting -from these removals. CITY shall not be obligated to pay these funds until RAHR presents a copy of a fully-executed construction contract for the replacement trackage in question. RAHR shall retain the right to obtain these funds for a period of five years from the 2 date of this Agreement. 5. SOO agrees to sell and CITY agrees to buy whatever in- terest SOO can convey by Quit Claim Deed in the triangular par- cel of land held by SOO in lots 1, 2 , and 3 of Block 21, Original Town, for the sum of $3 ,500. This real estate transac- tion is to close on or before August 1, 1988 . THE PARTIES hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly ex- ecuted on the dates and at the places indicated, and agree that the laws of the State of Minnesota shall apply to its inter- pretation. SOO LINE RAILROAD COMPANY Date C b SCC "),' w��%��A Executive Vice✓�esident Operations RAHR MALTING /CO. Date //G by_ - G u;,�� / // r✓7�.�� /(T/ilde) CI-TY OF SHAKOPEE Date , by (Title) Mavor v Date / by ( � - e) ty CiAdmin/i^sttrrator Date S �/ //p by _, Ilrw/'h c_ /.1 �Y / (Title) (,i 6' P ) i tv Clerx MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer SUBJECT: Canterbury Downs - Gate No. 5 DATE: July 12, 1988 INTRODUCTION: At the July 5 , 1988 meeting, Council directed staff to meet with Canterbury Downs officials to discuss the use of Gate No. 5 and the impacts of the increased traffic on the residents along County Road 16. BACKGROUND: The use of Gate No. 5 has been brought before City Council by Canterbury Downs officials at several meetings. At the last meeting, they had asked that the permitted use of Gate No. 5 be clarified to provide either "peak" use or "emergency" use of the gate . If the Council chose to allow a "peak" use then the definition of peak should be specific and based on a certain crowd size ( 13,000 or some other number) and a maximum number of openings per year. Gate No. 1 Versus Gate No. 5 The main reason that Canterbury Downs is requesting the use of Gate No. 5 is to relieve the traffic congestion at Gate No. 1 and get the traffic out of the parking lots quicker. Gate No. 1 is currently marked for three lanes of traffic to exit. Two lanes are directed straight ahead onto 12th Avenue and eventually Valley Park Drive and one lane is directed to turn right onto southbound C.R. 83• This right turn lane backs up all the way into the race track parking lot during large crowd days. The traffic congestion created by this situation essentially blocks off the Gate 5 access for emergency vehicles. By opening Gate No. 5 , this congestion is relieved, traffic gets out of the parking lot faster and the emergency access route into the track is kept open. In meeting with Tom Brock of Canterbury, he indicated that if they could relieve the traffic congestion at Gate No . 1 , the occasional use of Gate No. 5 would no longer be necessary. Proposed Improvement to Gate No. 1 Staff along with Canterbury officials, have determined that a fourth exiting lane could be added to Gate No. 1 . The existing pavement is about 44 feet wide, which would enable 4 - 11 foot lanes to be created. 12 foot lanes are normal for highways, but Canterbury Downs/Gate No. 5 July 12 , 1988 Page 2 11 foot lanes are certainly acceptable for slow moving automobile lanes. Canterbury is proposing to channel the traffic into 4 lanes during busy days using traffic cones. On slow days, 3 lanes would still be used. The additional lane would permit a double right turn onto County Road 83. To adequately permit this, additional traffic striping would be needed and also a transition lane would be necessary to merge the traffic into a single lane prior to getting near the 83/16 intersection. The paved shoulder may possibly need to be widened slightly. Traffic control officers would continue to direct traffic leaving this gate. These improvements to C. R . 83 would be temporary until the highway is improved to a 4-lane road at the time the bypass is constructed. The County Engineer has been contacted and has indicated that the proposed temporary improvements would be acceptable. Canterbury Downs would be required to go thru the normal county permit process and comply with all requirements set forth in the permit. Canterbury Downs has indicated that they will pay for all costs associated with the temporary improvements. If these improvements are implemented, the use of Gate No. 5 will no longer be pursued by Canterbury Downs. Alternatives• 1 . Accept the proposed improvement by using Gate No. 1 2. Reject the proposal. 3• Postpone the decision until further information can be obtained. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 , to accept the proposed improvements to Gate No. 1 as requested by Canterbury Downs. Staff also feels that if the use of Gate No. 5 on an occasional basis is going to be pursued, additional traffic studies should be doneto determine the impacts of that traffic on County Road 16 and adjoining residents. Canterbury Downs/Gate No. 5 July 12, 1988 Page 3 ACTION REQUESTED: Pass a motion indicating that Canterbury Downs use of Gate No. 5 will be restricted to "emergency purposes" only, not peak crowd periods and that if Canterbury Downs cannot obtain the necessary permits to improve Gate No. 1 and County Road 83 , an in-depth traffic analysis of Gate No. 5 and County Road 16 , along with surrounding areas and residents should be done and submitted to the City prior to any further use of Gate No. 5. DH/pmp GATES MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: David Hutton, City Engineer'�(CA SUBJECT: Downtown Streetscape Project DATE: July 11 , 1988 INTRODUCTION: Attached is a letter from the Chicago and Northwestern Transportation Company indicating that the cost to relocate two poles for the Downtown Streetscape project is $1 ,000.00. BACKGROUND: As part of the Downtown Streetscape Project, the City signed an agreement with the Chicago and Northwestern Transportation Company to relocate the railroad crossing signals at Fuller and Scott streets. The City agreed to pay for the costs associated with relocating these signals, which was estimated at $24,244.00 in the agreement. During the installation of the sanitary sewer in 2nd Avenue, between Fuller and Atwood, it was discovered that two railroad communication poles were located directly over the sewer line. One pole provides power to the signals at Scott and the other pole is at the end of the line and serves as a "guy" . City staff, along with railroad representatives, determined that the power pole could be relocated to the east side of Fuller and the "guy" pole could be eliminated by using a "guy" wire instead. The relocation of these two poles was not covered in the original agreement . Attached is a letter from the Chicago and Northwestern Transportation Company indicating that the estimated cost for completing this work is $1 ,000 .00. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Approve of the work and authorize staff to pay the railroad an estimated amount of $1 ,000 .00. 2. Deny the request. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 . ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize staff to reimburse the railroad for the actual costs associated with relocating the two poles . ( Estimated at $1 ,000.00. ) DH/pmp POLES CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN IRANSPORI'ATION COMPANY 275 E(4S) FOURTH STREET, Si. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 July 1 , 1988 Shakopee, Mn. Mr. David Hutton Citv Engineer City of Shakopee 129 East 1st Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55779 Dear Mr. Hutton: Re: Relocation of crossino_ sio_nals at Fuller and Holmes Streets. In reference to your recent on the site meeting with Mr. J.J. Hofbauer of the C&NW concerning additional signal wort: required to accommodate the City 's street programs. The cost to preform this work is estimated at %1 ,000.00 and it is my understanding the C&NW forces will complete pole line relocation and bill the City under the terms of the agreement between the City and the C&NW. T. J . Roy Mgr. Mtce. Operations cc: !`tr. :i. J. Hofbauer MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer`>a,� SUBJECT: 10th Avenue Overlay Project No. 1987-3 DATE: July 19 , 1988 INTRODUCTION: On June 21 , 1988 , the Shakopee City Council passed Resolution No. 2916 ordering the advertisement for bids for the 10th Avenue Overlay Project No. 1987-3 • Attached is Resolution No. 2931 , accepting bids on this project. BACKGROUND: On July 18 , 1988 at 10:00 A.M. , bids were received and publicly opened for Project No. 1987-3 , 10th Avenue Overlay. A total of 5 bids were received and summarized in the attached resolution. The three low bids are tabulated below: Contractor Citv Total Bid Midwest Asphalt Corp. Hopkins, MN $257 ,687 .12 Hardrives, Inc. Maple Grove, MN $272,840 .06 Wm. Mueller & Sons Hamburg, MN $279,908.25 The Engineering Department has reviewed all bids that were received . We have also reviewed the qualifications of Midwest Asphalt Corp. , the apparent low bidder, and find that they are able to perform the work as described by the plans and specifications for the project. The engineer ' s estimate for this project was approximately $315 ,000 .00 . Since this is a Federal Aid Urban project, the City Clerk must submit a certificate to Mn/DOT outlining the City Council ' s recommendation for awarding the contract. Attached is a standard Mn/DOT certificate for Council action. Also, attached is Resolution No. 2931 , accepting bids on the project for Council action. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Accept the low bid and adopt Resolution No. 2931 , as well as approve of the Clerk' s Certificate. 2. Reject the low bid and award the contract to the 2nd low bidder or another bidder. lid 10th Ave. Overlay Project July 19 , 1988 Page 2 3 . Reject all bids and rebid. RECOMMENDATION: Since there is no basis for Alternatives 2 and 3 , staff recommends Alternative No. 1 , to accept the low bid. REQUESTED ACTION: 1 . Offer Resolution 2931 , A Resolution Accepting Bid on 10th Avenue Overlay Project No. 1987-3 , State Aid Project No. 166-105-10 to Midwest Asphalt Corp. , P.O. Box 338, Hopkins, MN 55343 and move its adoption. 2. Offer the Clerk' s Certificate making a formal recommendation to Mn/DOT and move its adoption. DH.pmp MEM2931 C L E R K A D M I N I S T R A T O R ' S C E R T I F I CATE lid URBAN PROJECT STATE OF MINNESOTA ) REFERENCE (S.P 166-105-10 (CRP 00 City of Shakopee ) 1 Judith S. Cox the duly appointed, qualified and acting City Clerk/Administrator of the City of Shakopee and State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Shakopee held on the 19th day of July 19_gD the following named contractors Midwest Asphalt Corp Alexander ranctriirtinn Co Hardrives, Inc. Valley Paving, Inc. Wm. Mueller E Sons submitted bids for the furnishing of all labor, toois, materials and equipment necessary for the construction of the work provided for under plans and specifi- cations for that Improvement on 10Th Avenue Overlay : otherwise known as S.P. No, 166-105-10 MEAS 105 10th Avenue , located between' T.H. ion and CSAR 17 in Shakopee. being approximately 2.181 miles in length. The bid of Midwest Asphalt Corn. In the amount of 5 257.687. 12 appeared to be the lowest bid received, subject to final audit, and on motion by .'Councllman and seconded by Councilman it was voted by said City Council to recommend to the Commissioner of Highways, as Agent for said City, that: (said contract be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder) or (Xp�dXad)iX4(bQ,4RX7Fat9lgC4F1• Attest: City Clerk/Administrator Chairman, City Council IN TESTIMONY t:HEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal this 18th day of July 1988 . Cl ty Clerk/Acministrator Recormmondatlons Award to lowest responsible bidder. nistrict Strafe Ald Enolneor IId RESOLUTION NO. 2931 A Resolution Accepting Bid On 10th Avenue Overlay Project S.A.P. 166-105-10, Project No. 1987-3 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the 10th Avenue Overlay Project, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: Midwest Asphalt Corp. $257 ,687 . 12 Hardrives, Inc . $272 ,840 .06 Wm. Mueller & Sons $279 ,908.25 Alexander Const. Co. $310 ,315.81 Valley Paving, Inc. $322,493 .61 AND WHEREAS, it appears that Midwest Asphalt Corp. , P.O. Box 338 , Hopkins, MN 55343 is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1 . The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Midwest Asphalt Corp. , in the name of the City of Shakopee for the improvement of 10th Avenue by bituminous concrete overlay, according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 19_. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 19_. City Attorney CONSENT MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer —Plvs" SUBJECT: 10th Avenue Overlay Project DATE: July 12, 1988 INTRODUCTION: Staff is requesting additional inspection assistance for the 10th Avenue Overlay Project. BACKGROUND: Currently, the Engineering Department is inspecting the following construction projects and private subdivisions: Downtown Streetscape Project Tahpah Park Football Field Meadows 1st Addition Heritage Subdivision - Phase II Bauer' s 4th Subdivision Vierling Drive West C.R. 16 Horizon Heights 4th Addition In addition , the following projects will soon be under construction and will also require Engineering Department inspection: Vierling Drive from C.R. 17 East 6th Avenue Sanitary Sewer 1988 Pavement Preservation Program Prairie Estates Subdivision Upper Valley Drainage Project - Phase I Market Street 11th Avenue It is quite apparent that the current Engineering staff (3 full time inspectors and one Engineering Coordinator) will not be able to adequately handle the construction inspection workloads created by the above projects. In addition, the 10th Avenue Overlay Project is a Federal Aid Urban (FAU) project. FAU projects require a full time inspector at all times as well as a tremendous amount of paperwork and exact procedures that need to be followed. Any deviations from those procedures may result in the loss of any federal participation in the project. It is my opinion that the Engineering Department will need some assistance on this project. Staff has attached a letter from Orr-Schelen-Mayeron indicating that they will be able to furnish an inspector for this project and provide the service on an 10th Avenue Overlay July 12, 1988 Page 2 hourly rate based on their fee schedule (also attached) . The Engineering Department will closely monitor the inspector to ensure all FAU procedures are followed . The specifications indicate that the work must be completed within 30 days. If an 8-hour work day is assumed, the estimated cost for using OSM to inspect the project would be around $12 ,000 .00 . All Engineering costs will be billed back to the state up to a maximum of 10% of the construction costs. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Approve staff' s request for utilizing OSM to inspect the 10th Avenue overlay project. 2 . Deny the request. 3. Instruct staff to solicit additional proposals from other engineering consultants. 4. Hire additional engineering staff. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 . ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the appropriate City staff to utilize Orr-Schelen- Mayeron & Assoc. , Inc. to provide inspection service for the 10th Avenue Overlay Project based on their 1988 fee schedule. DH/pmp INSPECTION OFT ASdiden hic 2021 East Hennepin Avenue Minneapolis.MN 55413 612-331-8660 FAX 331-3806 Engineers surcevo. Planners July 6, 1988 City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 ATTN: - Mr. David Hutton, P.E. City Engineer RE: 10th Avenue Overlay Dear Mr. Hutton: As per your request, we can furnish you with an inspector for your above mentioned project. As we discussed, the billing for this service would be on an hourly basis as per the present OSM billing rates (schedule enclosed). We understand that bids will be taken on this project on July 18, 1988, with construction to commence around August 1, 1988. If we can be of additional service, please let us know. Very truly yours, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATS, INC. al4 Robert D. Frigaard, P.E. Associate RDF:k Im Enclosure N.averonB A550oa1a,lrK 2021 Fast Hennepin Avenue Minneepoas.MN 55413 612-331-8660 FAX 331-3806 Engineers 5urvev04 1988 FEE SCHEDULE PWn rs Schedule of direct personnel costs to be multiplied by 2.25 to determine hourly fee. Principal $38.25 Senior Project Manager 32.00 Project Manager 27.50 acili0r Project riagineC., Su'r'v&yOr' Plauaer Project Engineer, Surveyor, Planner 21.50 Engineer, Surveyor, Planner 17.75 Senior Designer 25.25 Designer 20.00 Senior Technician 17.50 Technician (2) 14.50 Technician (1) 11.00 Schedule of direct personnel cost to be multiplied by 2.15 to determine hourly fee_ • IK Construction Observer $22.00 - an Survey Crew 42.75 2-Man Survey Crew 34.00 Schedule of computer cost per hour: Intergraph CADD Workstation $35.00 Prime 2655 Mainframe Terminal 15.00 Microcomputer 5.00 Microcomputer CAD Workstation 15.00 'Direct personnel cost" is defined as salaries plus payroll burden and fringe benefits. All personnel assigned to the project will be billed at the rates shown above based on their respective classification multiplied by the appropriate multiplier. All other costs, such as vehicle mileage, survey equipment and vehicles, word processing, clerical , printing and reproduction costs are included in the hourly fee. u � IJ MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: John H. DeLacey, Engineering Tech. III SUBJECT: Downtown Streetscape Project No. 1987-2 DATE: July 15 , 1988 INTRODUCTION A BACKGROUND: Attached is the Partial Estimate Voucher No. 8 for the above referenced project. ACTION REQUESTED: Council authorization to pay Partial Estimate Voucher No. 8 in the amount of $323,362 .67 to Hardrives, Inc. , 7200 Hemlock Lane N. , Maple Grove, MN 55369 for the Downtown Streetscape Project No. 1987-2. JHD/pmp PARTIAL ESTIMATE VOUCHER Contract No. 1987-2 Partial Estimate Voucher No. 8 Period Ending: June 30, 1988 TO: Contractor Hardrives, Inc. Address 7200 Hemlock Lane N. Haag Grove, HN 55369 Project Description Downtown Streetscane 1. Original Contract Amount $ 2.186.457.65 2. Change Order No. 1 Thru No. 8 $ 50.868.70 3. Total Funds Encumbered $ 2.237.326.35 4. Value of Work Completed $_1 ,578.041.74 Value of York Remaining 5. 5 Percent Retainage $ 78.902.09 $ 659.284.61 6. Previous Payments $_1,175.776.98 Percent Complete 7. Deductions or Charges $ -0- 70% 8. Total $ 1 .254.679.07 Payment Due (Line 4 - 8) $ 323.362.67 CERTIFICATE OF PAYMENT (I, Ye) hereby agree that the quantity and value of work show herein is a fair estimate of the work completed to date. CONTRACTOR c BYriy.-P . TITLE Ir APPROVED? - CI ��GF EE 7 Proj t Date -7 1 City Admin strator Date i IDn - nmzl 0 mm Im le 00000 oee i000e ° eeee e _ Do �e ie W w iLL wW 1; � W ,e m �' e . - ee = _ I - _ _ . _ _ coda i, I= Iz Devoe ° 9 9 m _ w o 0 o a o o 000e ° o 0o iseo ° o 0 Iee - omoea � 1 0 � m Ioa � m - , dN _ a ,oe „ dda a . . . .V a i 1= o I - - 7 f. . . . . . . -Nw �e o e { Iem m e mmm ie _ _ e m m 1. . . . . . . o . . . � . . - - - � . . . i � e W > ve a De Iev000ev000 Amo ,. � _ e I` °' nm w �e _ o I� voS s000 m �ooevee F a ° o = eo ;c; C; W , eoomeee 1oe ° oso ode ° 0000 e ; . - - iO . . . . .- . . . . . bled . . dmm . 'emdmm . 0000 ° m � nsee m enoo e �. . . . . . 00mm ,pomn = m g n I= n m io - - m - - - - . - � ;amm mamba . . to . . . . . . . . I ee Io . oo ° eo !me a � _ e o ia � - - mm e m � mem � �a � m � mmem !m . mem . eem m ;m !m ic� ° e ° o ° o '90 ooeooe ° oe ne : ° oe ° oo mW W WwW , W � LL� _ IIII - www = . W . w w It I A _ 01m _ -lo I It It � m m � m � mmm �n � . eeNm � iII . I . . . . I I im r Id Nand F W oaevooeee 'doe e o a i d � eem eemm �em d e 1` d I 377 : ' : . fm I . . I to o �o e love ° loo �eO ` - leoeem Ieee to oeee 000 ^ io ie1 e ieoo ° e loo9 9leve 0 e e a ° 000 eoA ie ;a " " " " " , p I. . W "xl loo , 1-0 �a mo l e le o 0 ci o v o Iem - ol e N p N ao _ 0000e �01 _ m oe - W U� E[ il m m o ie e !1 0 9 . - mem mmm �eeeem m i- _ ee e o o Io oom Ie . e . 1. � e = !e - o W �e m = D 0It loosae . . . . . . o � = e II ° oe l = = =o =0oe m =. . . . oe � . ° aogee = = ooP � vo � � e II _ e eee ° e ° 000ln _ W !yo = a ; ea m . . m I. IN !o � - - - = - - LLLLiLLLL Vim = I If !e- - - - Im lo . mw mi s . . = aa H = = m _ a _ Nand �nd � nnd _ d d � aIP mm m mmmmmm iemmmmmmmm iommmmmm m mmmmmmm mmmmmm m m ;. mmmmmm mm m mmmmmm �emmmmmmm iommmmmm m i. . m F mm m mmmmmm i° ommmmmmm . . . . . . . m mm m mmmmmm i� emmmmmmm o . . . . . . m m m m mmmmmm � mmmmmmm ,mmmmmmm m mm m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m o _ mm �d . . mmm _ jm . _ mmm _ m � , mm w wmw � mm im � mmmwwm i wmw � m w , m .. nc _e _ ermu rc �N e. _ oz uzw i- m - -- m m _ ___ i V m < mr - w mn m uwmuwm Im m m m w m mm I. mw w m wm m 9 m 9 e o ee9 9 ole 9 e = = o oe . d e . e . . . !e lo 11 1 Boa 1 o e 41 - = - � mxe eNm = w 0 e m e e o W F 0 O W W a U J Q 0 O F- CONSENT ill MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ray Ruuska, Engineering Coordinator SUBJECT: Vierling Vierling Drive Street Improvements Project No. 1987-12 DATE: July 15, 1988 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND: Attached is the Partial Estimate Voucher No. 5 for the above referenced project. ACTION REQUESTED: Council authorization to pay Partial Estimate Voucher No. 5 in the amount of $185 ,841 .77 to S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. , P.O. Box 212 , Shakopee, MN 55379 for Vierling Drive Street Improvements, Project No. 1987-12. RR/pmp ESTIMATE VOUCHER Contract No. 1981-12 Partial Estimate Voucher No. _5 Period Ending: June 30, 1988 TO: Contractor S.H. Henates & Sons. Inc. Address P.O. Box 212 Shakopee, MN 55379 Project Description nth Avenue (Vierlin¢ Drive) Street Improvements 1. Original Contract Amount $ 527,758.56 2. Change Order No. 1 Thru No. --- $ 131 ,000.00 3• Total Funds Encumbered $ 658,758.56 4. Value of Work Completed $ 571 ,783.83 Value of Work 5. _ r Percent Retainage $ 28,589.19 Remaining $ s7,00c.00 6. Previous Payments $ 353,352.87 7. Deductions or (urges $ 4,000.00 Percent Complete 87`E 8. Tom $_385,94-06 Payment Due (Line 4 - 8) $ 185,841 .77 CERTIFICATE OF PAYMENT (I, We) hereby agree that the quantity and value of work show herein is a fair estimate of the work co�t9pleted'to date. CONTRA BY f TITLE ^APPROVED - CITY OF SW(AK PEE �/ eer D to Cita Admiz�st ator _ 1 - = I I. A . . a i e e 000m ae ooee I' ao v . . e o . m . oe ° o 6 t,i . . ooee . . . . . . e . mem _ 11 p Nvm _ a 0 o a ooee � ee evoe ee ee ° o e o e 1.e eeee ee ° oao i ° e evoe e . eo 0 o i e e e eeee . . . . . . . . . . e ° e - a� a� .i . _ . eee ° aavm� - e _ m . va e . m . m . mi . m0000eevmeQaaep, o . wm . mom � _ . eemm _ _ aH6 _ _ - 6 6 61 _ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .l . . . o Deoe ° oNm . . . _ . . . . . . moe . e ° ooem _ eemmmolmeoe . moe ooee ° ee a ° eoevseevo 61 1. L 6a _ o _ . Ne ma me _ Ir oaoII ve 1 o ° e . , . . . . . . . m . _ m e o ° veva vo i 000 . Hmeeamoma . mo a .. _ - 66 6 s o e evooe ° o i o . v e a ee o va vo I ee v e e v o v o a a ae � . m a a ve I ee e m Nd o a e e e o . . me mom i m, _ � eeeeume, me . o e ° o � oee . mom . . . o; m o eovooei66661e ° o ! 66 a o e o mpi moo o mi m m . voo o . mo . v . e oeoee ooee �� ee el e e ° oe v . mo e p . a v o e meo o e� 6 6 6 16 66 v . Ne me . m 0 6 6 mi a ! I - v d m v _ a = � N oa � m - mmm r o e s a oaeae omeo - m . m . e . . . . . ae j . emee _ . i ° oeaoe . m s - , oae CONSENT A MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: David Hutton, City Engineer SUBJECT: Oversized Watermains - Special Assessment Policy DATE: July 11 , 1988 INTRODUCTION: A memo regarding this subject was on the agenda for the July 5 , 1988 City Council meeting but it was tabled at the request of staff. This memo supercedes the previous one. BACKGROUND: The previous memo prepared by staff dealt with two issues: 1 ) the general special assessment policy on oversized watermains as it compares to the SPUC policy on oversizing and 2) the specific agreements for handling this situation that were drafted for the Meadows Subdivision. Due to a miscommunication between City staff and the Utilities Manager regarding Item 62 above , staff requested that the original memo be tabled at the July 5 , 1988 Council meeting. Staff has had further discussions with the Utilities Manager regarding the Meadows Subdivision. Due to the urgency in signing the reimbursement agreement with the developer, the Utilities Manager indicated that they would consider the oversized watermain reimbursement for the Meadows at the next Utilities Commission meeting. In regards to the overall special assessment policy on oversized watermains as it compares to the SPUC policy on oversizing, the Utilities Manager has indicated that the SPUC policy as set forth in Resolution No. 222 may need revising to clarify their definition of an "oversized" watermain. The Utilities Manager will be revising the language in Resolution No. 222 and taking it before the Commission for approval. Staff feels that it would be beneficial to wait on revising the City' s special assessment policy until after the SPUC policy has been revised. - - ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Wait until the SPUC policy has been revised, then revise the special assessment policy. 2. Revise the special assessment policy now to state that standard sized watermains will be determined by SPUC. Oversized Watermain July 11 , 1988 - Page 2 3. Do nothing , thereby leaving the standard City ' s sized watermains as 6 inch for residential and 8 inch for commercial and industrial , as stated in the special assessment policy, which is not consistent with the current SPUC policy. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 , to wait for the revised SPUC policy before revising the special assessment policy. ACTION REQUESTED: I . Move to remove the Watermain Special Assessment Policy from the table. 2. Direct the appropriate City staff to revise the special assessment policy regarding oversized watermains to conform to the SPUC policy after SPUC revises their policy. Staff will wait until the SPUC policy is revised before bringing this item back to Council. DH/pmp POLICY MEMO T0: John K. Anderson, City Administrator /A FROM: David Hutton, City Engineer7R! '' SUBJECT: Oversized Watermains - Special Assessment Policy DATE: June 22 , 1988 INTRODUCTION: This memo addresses the oversizing of watermains and specifically how the current City special assessment policy relates to the SPUC policy on funding for costs associated with installing oversized watermains. BACKGROUND: At the June 7 , 1988 meeting , City Council directed staff to review the current City special assessment policy regarding overgized watermains and if necessary , to revise it to conform with the SPUC policy on their definition of oversized watermains. The issue came up when the developer for the Meadows 1st Addition subdivision requested that the City or SPUC reimburse him for the additional costs associated with installing 8 and 12 inch watermains , versus the standard 6 inch main outlined in the special assessment policy . At the June 7 , 1988 meeting City Council authorized staff to enter into a reimbursement agreement with the developer to compensate him for the installation of oversized mains. For this particular development, the utility manager indicated that the current SPUC policy allows 8 and 12 inch mains to be used as standard sizes and that they would not automatically reimburse the oversized costs for this subdivision simply because the watermain was greater than 6 inch. The general discussion by Council and staff was that the two policies should agree and staff was directed to review the special assessment policy and make any recommendations necessary to make it conform to the SPUC policy. In reviewing the SPUC policy on Trunk Watermain Assessments (refer to paragraph 5 , on page 2 of the attached SPUC policy , Resolution 0222) , instates that standard sized watermains shall be as follows: 6 inch for R-1 , R-2 , and R-3 residential areas. 8 inch for commercial, business, schools, and high density residential (R-4) areas. 12 inch for industrial areas. City Council also adopted this SPUC policy by Resolution No. 1791 (attached) Watermains June 22 , 1988 Page 2 Staff has attached a copy of Page 16 of the current special assessment policy, which states that watermain assessments will be based on 6 inch mains for residential areas and 8 inch mains for commercial and industrial areas . This policy is somewhat similar to the SPUC policy , but clearly there are some differences, most notably regarding the high density residential areas (R-4 ) and the industrial areas. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Revise the special assessment policy to state that standard sized watermains will be determined by SPUC. 2. Revise the special assessment policy to include the specific language of the SPUC policy defining standard sized watermains as: 6 inch for R-1 , R-2 , R-3 residential areas. 8 inch for commercial, business, schools, and R-4 areas. 12 inch for industrial areas. 3. Do nothing, thereby leaving the standard sized watermains as 6 inch for residential areas and 8 inch for commercial and industrial areas. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends Alternative No . 2 , to revise the special assessment policy to include the same language as outlined in the SPUC policy defining standard sized watermains for specific zoning. Staff feels that both policies should be consistent, but also that some consideration should be given to raising the standard size watermains in residential areas to 8 inch. Most communities are not using 6 inch mains anymore except for dead-end cul-de- sacs and are using 8 inch mains as the norm. SPUC has also requested 8 inch mains on residential areas for some recent subdivisions. In addition staff would like to point out that the costs associated with the 8 and 12 inch mains for the Meadows should be reimbursed for by SPUC rather than the City, as it appears the mains would be considered oversized based on the current SPUC policy Watermains June 22, 1988 Page 3 The SPUC policy indicates that prior to paying for any oversized watermains, the plans should be submitted to the Commission for review and approval prior to the construction . The Utility Manager did review, approve and sign off on the watermain design for the Meadows 1st Addition prior to any construction starting and since the manager acts on SPUC '.s behalf , the oversized watermain costs should be absorbed by SPUC. ACTION REQUESTED: 1 . Authorize the appropriate staff to revise the current special assessment policy to include specific language regarding standard size watermains for specific zoning such that it conforms to the SPUC policy. A formal resolution need not be done as Resolution No. 1791 previously approved would seem to suffice. If SPUC raises the standard size watermain for residential areas to 8 inch, the City should also revise the special assessment policy. 2. Authorize the appropriate staff to officially notify SPUC that the City feels the additional costs for the 8 and 12 inch mains being installed in the Meadows 1st Addition are "oversized" based on current SPUC policy. Since the plans were approved by the Utility Manager, the costs should be born by SPUC. DH/pmp MAINS IX. Continued TS Y• Assessment$ for wconstruccion of nd n 6_inchs and r g-inch mains shall be upon sed n respectively , which is the smalleAsse s smencsnow a for water lly l and led in :hod . a residential area of the City . , sewer in commercial and industrial areas will be based upon 8-inch mains . approvedy the conk Ci[y ,sa pubLi cnUtili[yg benefits Commissiont,a ae portion of the cost of completing said work will be paid by said utility - completing for Costs due to larger mains and appurtenances may be paid and by a combination of availability charges , user charg _ion general obligation funds . Services installed to individual properties shall be fully assessed to the benefiting property. IIIre as follows: rents The various methods of assessments a A, Adjusted Front 0 Footage Method (Water and Sanitary Sewer) Y) . When assessment is to be determined by the adjusted front montagas method , each parcel shall be assessed for imnrove- fter sta tion L . Rectangular Interior Lois ments. lines . The rectangular lot is defined as having no more than 2 .0 feet diff ereoncef ootagenisn the eractual front footage The adjusted r lots whose frontage is of the lot . For rectangula greater than its depth, the " method as odd shaped lot' explained below she be .used. _y Sri 2 . Odd Shaped Lots (Unit Bases) For odd shaped lots , such as exist on cul-de-sacs , curved streets , etc . ; and where there is more than 2.0 feet of difference between the front and back lot lines , the "odd shaped lot" method of determining the adjusted front foot- shaped shall be used . The adjusted front foocageOsOoa Co be at computed by dividing the area of FhfronL lot by units land determine the equivalent number o_ 60 feet in the parcel . The number of units multiplied by the e . The ssmenCS willcomputedeto a maximum front depthof o 1508 feet only - shall be oth (16) yam _ RESOLUTION N0 . :2191 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A. TR11N.1' WATER ASSESSMENT POLICY PURSU.kNT TO POLIC-] ES ADOPTED IiY TIIL SHAKOPEE PUBLIC ' ' - UTI.LITIES COMMISSION WHEREAS , the Shakopee Pcblic Utilities Commission did on the 2nd day of February , 1951 : adopt its Resolution No . 222 , seting forth its policy for trunk water assessments , a copy of which is attached 'hereto, mndc a part hereof and incorporated herein by reference ; and WHEREAS , it is the intent and desire of the Cicy of Shakopee cc adopt the trunk water assessment policies of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission for use in any and all assessments for trunk - water lines as well as for connection :lees for any trunk water lines not publicly financed through Chapter 429 ; NOW , THEREFORE , BE tT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF T?.E Cs T1' 0r SHAKOPE:, MINNESOTA , as follows : 1 . That the trunk water assessment policies as set fOrth in the attached Resolution of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission are hereby adopted , together with any and all chanaes , amendments or modifications thereto, .hien SPUC shall transm:ic to the City within can days after adoption by SPUC . 2 . That all City of Shakopee trunk water assessments , or connection fees in lieu thereof , shall be made in accordance with the policies contained in said Resolution . Adopted this 3rd day of February , :901 , in regular session of the Shakopee City Council . Mayo= of the City c_ Shakopee .f RESOLUTION f 222 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A TRUNK WATER POLICY, SETTING FEES, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION F 217 Be it resolved by the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission as follows: WHEREAS, there are trunk charges incurred in the construction and operation of a municipal water system which are in addition to those costs of installing lateral service to abutting property; and WHEREAS, those costs have been, and are expected to be, borne by the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission, and the present water connection charges are deemed to be insufficient to fully fund these trunk expenses; and WHEREAS, an eneineering study has been conducted to determine a fair and reasonable charge reouired to provide for water system trunk construction made necessary by system growth; and MiEREA.S, the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission on the 6th day of September, 1980, adopted Resol=ion ?:217 which the Commission now finds to be inconsistent with newly developed informatics and studies; NOW =REFORE, be It resolved by the Shakopee Public Uti lilies Commiis=_ion as follows. .. There is hereby created a trunk fund to accumulate funds collected by trunk water assessments or connection fees in lieu thereof, which funds shall be uti"zed to pay costs incurred by the construction of trunk water facilities. That in all areas of the City of Shakopee in which water service is newly made available by the City of Shakopee, the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission, or private development, there shall be charged a trunk assessment in the amour, of S 435.00 per acre; of_n the - --' alternative, if no such trunk assessment is leviedm a connection fee in r� h •existing watt main and extending a distance of 150 feet in depth back from the watermain into this property, provided that, the watermain extends ' the full distance across or along the edge of the property in question. Also construed to have water service presently available is all land which has previously paid a trunk water assessment and which has lateral water-main extended. to within 150 feet to the Point of use of the water. Such lateral extensions shall be in accordance with existing City of Shakopee desien criteria and specifications. 4. The land area against which said trunk water assessment shall be charged, shall be at a minimum, all the property abutting a proposed new watermai:7 and extending a distance of up to one- half the difference between the Proposed watermian, and the next parallel anticipated watermain, unless a di`-ferent configuration is determined by the Commission to be appropriate due to a land terrain or other locical Barierier.. j 5 J The trunk costs paid from the trunk fund shall include but not be limited to the cost of overs'-zing material, and the costs of construction labor due to oversizing as determined by the Commission. In addition to such construction costs, there shall be paid from the trunk fund an allowance for engineering, fiscal, legal and inspection costs. Expenditures iIfor oversizing, for Pruposes of this pzracraph, most be authorized and t be by the CMnission .after the Commission is notified in writing of any planned installations cf watermains within the 'City of Shakooee. iThe Commission in its exclusive discretion may then find it to be in the best interests of the water system that larger size mains than those proposed be installed and the Commission elects to require the larger size mains and pay the difference as provided in this paragraph. Standard size atermains, for purposes of this paragraph , shall be a six inch atermain in 3-1 and r-2 and k-3 residential areas; eight inch w' erma ins for co, 'm or businees-zones, schools, shopping cencers, and h.?h al areas. The density residential (.-4) ; and twelve inch watermains for industri CONSENT MEMO TO: John K. Anderson and Downtown Committee FROM: David Hutton, City Engineerh' SUBJECT: Downtown Railroad Corridor DATE: July 11 , 1988 INTRODUCTION: This memo addresses the downtown railroad corridor along 2nd Avenue. BACKGROUND: Several seeks ago, we met with representatives of the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad to again pursue improvements to the downtown railroad corridor. The improvements discussed consisted of removing the inplace overhead communication lines, replacing those lines with motion sensing devices and installing a crossing signal at Scott Street. These improvements were pursued last year by the City, but Mn/DOT would not participate in the federal funding for the project unless the City closed four crossings downtown, which was unacceptable to City Council. The cost of the total corridor improvements was estimated by the previous City Engineer at $400 ,000 - $500 ,000. At our meeting last week , the railroad representatives again suggested that the City pursue federal funding for this project thru Mn/DOT. Staff contacted Mn/DOT and their position has not changed. They would still be looking for a number of crossings to be closed before they would participate in the project. Staff also requested that if the City were to close the Apgar Street crossing , would Mn/—DOT participate in the costs of a crossing signal at Scott Street. Mn/DOT indicated that the City could certainly make a formal application in regards to that proposal, but that they did not feel that the closing of only one crossing would be enough to justify participation in the project. In other words , we could apply for the federal funds but we probably wouldn ' t get any. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Instruct staff to continue to pursue obtaining federal funds to improve the Downtown Railroad Corridor thru Mn/DOT. 2. Instruct staff to pursue the improvements directly with the railroad and pay for the improvements with City funds. 3 . Do nothing and do not pursue this idea any further. Railroad Corridor July 11 , 1988 Page 2 RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends Alternative No. 3 • It is apparent that Mn/DOT will not participate in the funding and therefore the City should not pursue this course anymore. Also, due to the costs involved staff does not feel the City could justify the expenditure. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to concur with staff that unless Mn/DOT changes their position on closing numerous crossings downtown, the City will not pursue this project any further. DH/pmp CORRIDOR MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer_,�;14.2/ SUBJECT; Downtown Streetscape Project Westwood Engineering Services DATE; July 13 , 1988 INTRODUCTION: At staff' s request, this item was tabled at the July 51 1988 City Council meeting. Attached is the original staff memo dated June 30, 1988 regarding this subject. BACKGROUND: As outlined in the original memo, there were 3 items discussed regarding the Westwood Engineering Company contract for engineering services, as follows: 1 . A change order to the design services totalling $10,915.19 was requested by Westwood. 2 . The construction staking costs will overrun the estimates in the original contract, although the contract states that these costs will be paid on an hourly rate. (estimated at $15 ,000.00 in my original memo) 3 • The engineering costs may not have been adequately covered by the contract. These costs total $17 ,668 .35• (This total increased slightly from the amount in my original memo of $16 ,448 .25) Staff requested that this subject be tabled at the July 5 , 1988 meeting in order to discuss all of these items with Westwood one last time. Basically , Westwood and City staff are in total agreement with the recommendations for resolving Items 1 and 3 above as discussed in the original memo. There are some differences of opinion regarding Item No . 2 which resulted in further negotiations between staff and Westwood. Basically, the contract clearly states that all construction staking will be paid at an hourly rate and the $55,000 .00 listed in the contract was simply an estimate. The City Attorney agrees with this. Westwood has indicated that these costs may "overrun" the estimate by as much as $20 ,000 .00 by the end of the project, not $15 ,000 .00 per the original memo . Staff feels that design omissions on the plans resulted in additional surveying being done to "design in the field" and therefore created the overruns. Westwood feels that the fast track method of preparing the plans last fall, at the City' s request to get the project out for bids, Westwood Engineering Services July 13 , 1988 Page 2 indirectly caused the surveying costs to come in higher than what was anticipated. In addition, there were many other changes to the plans brought out at the City' s request or public request that contributed to the overall engineering services being higher than estimated. There is some basis for both arguments and then the question comes down to what percent of the overruns can be attributed to any one particular cause. Staff, in meeting with Westwood, feels that maybe a compromise on this item is in order. Westwood and City staff have agreed that they will bill the City for construction staking up to June 30, 1988. All staking after that date until the completion of the project will be at Westwood' s expense and at no cost to the City. Attached is an invoice from Westwood indicating that the final construction staking bill is $70 ,486 .50 , or $15,486 .50 over the $55,000 .00 estimated in the contract. There are approximately 2 months of construction left which will result in approximately $10,000.00 in additional construction staking costs. Westwood also has agreed to provide all remaining engineering assistance on the project at no additional cost to the City for the duration of the project. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Approve of all requested additional fees. 2. Deny all requested additional fees. 3 • Discuss each item separately and decide which alternatives are justified. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends Alternative No. 3 , to discuss all items and decide which are justified. Based on the two memos prepared by staff, staff recommends the following action: 1 . Approve of Item A in the Change Order Request totalling $5, 182 .80, but deny all remaining items requested in the change order. r I ( � Westwood Engineering Services July 13 , 1988 Page 3 2. Approve of all surveying expenditures up to June 30, 1988 totalling $15 ,486 . 50 over the original estimate . Any additional surveying to complete the project will be at Westwood' s expense. 3 . Approve of the engineering assistance fees totalling $17 ,668 .35 up to June 30 , 1988. The grand total of all 3 items is $38,337.65 . This will be the final payment to Westwood for their services. ACTION REQUESTED: - Authorize the appropriate City staff to reimburse Westwood Engineering Company a total of $38 , 337 .65 representing their final payment for engineering services for the Downtown Streetscape Project No. 1987-2. DH/pmp WESTWOOD "' WESTWOOD PLANNING & ENGINEERING COMPANY INVOICE JULY 11 , 1988 CLIENT: City of Shakopee ADDRESS: 129 East let Avenue, Shakopee, Mn. 55379 ATTENTION: Dave Hutton INVOICE PERIOD: May 23 thru June 30 , 1988 PROJECT: Shakopee streetscape design project -- Phase II For miscellaneous professional services rendered on the City of Shakopee Street- scape design -- Phase I and II , the following charges through June 30 are listec in accordance with the meeting between the City of Shakopee and Westwood Planning and Engineering Company on July 8, 1988. STREETSCAPE CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE SERVICES--PHASE I 6 PHASE II Principal Engineer 5.00 65.00 325.00 Project Engineer 2.30 52.00 119.60 Engineering Technician 3.00 35.00 105.00 Planner 7.50 32.00 240 .00 Senior Constuction Coordinator 8.00 46.00 368.00 Engineering Aide 2.50 25.00 62.50 Subtotal 1220 . 10 Westwood Survey Company 16949.50 TOTAL INVOICE $$ 18169.60 SUMMARY OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS THROUGH JUNE 30 , 1988 Design Costs Contractual Value $$ 184500 .00 Railroad Administration/Engineering Change Order 5182.80X Subtotal 189682.80 Construction Staking Hourly Estimate $ 55,000 Staking costs thru May 21 , 1988 $$ 53537.00 Staking costs from May 23 to June 30 16949.50Y Subtotal 70486.50 Construction Assistance Hourly, No Estimate Assistance costs thru May 21 , 1988 $$ 16448.25 Assistance costs from May 23 to June 30 1220. 10 Subtotal 17668.35 X Project Total thru June 30 , 1988 $$ 277837.65 Re: Shakopee Streetscape Project (#4-1090) 1640-f axP.wf d3�srA.cn Invoice No. 7120 pq�4 f+ Fqe 8525 EME BNOON CROSSING,BROOKLYN PARK.MINNESOTA 55 316121624.11-GIN 7415 WAYZATA BOULEVARD ST.LOUIS PARK,MINNESOTA 5562616121 N6O155 /T a L -LRN Ie 39 , MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: David Hutton, City Engineer LZJ SUBJECT: Downtown Streetscape Project Westwood Engineering Services DATE: June 30, 1988 INTRODUCTION: Westwood Engineering Company has requested a change order to their original contract for engineering services for the Downtown Streetscape Project. In addition, staff would like to update Council on two other items featured in the original contract. BACKGROUND: - On May 8 , 1987 the City of Shakopee signed a contract with Westwood Engineering to provide engineering services for the design and construction of the Downtown Streetscape Project. The scope of services included surveying, design, landscape design , construction staking and inspection/engineering assistance. In short, the professional services fee as outlined in the contract are as follows: Total Design Fee $ 184,500.00 Construction Staking 55 .000.00 Total Fees $ 239,500 .00 I have attached copies of pages 5 and 6 of the contract outlining specific language covering the compensation for these services. It should be noted that the last line on page 6 indicates that the total amount of $239 ,500 shall not be exceeded without written authorization of the City. Westwood Engineering has submitted a request for a change order to the total design fee. The amount requested by Westwood is $10,915. 19. (Copy of their request is attached) . Westwood has also indicated that two other features of our contract will result in additional monies being expended by the City above and beyond the cap of $239 ,500.00. Staff would like to address all three of these items separately. Change Order to the Design Fees As outlined by the letter from Westwood there are 4 separate items that they feel were added to the overall scope of services and resulted in overruns in their design fees and surveying associated with that design. Westwood Engr. Services June 30 , 1988 Page 2 Item A: Railroad Spurline Revisions. The original scope of services outlined in the contract indicated that Westwood would coordinate all railroad activities and contacts pertaining to the design of 2nd Avenue . In talking with the previous City Engineer, Ken Ashfeld , this item was intended to cover all Chicago & Northwestern R.R. negotiations. The revisions being requested by Westwood pertain to all discussions and meetings with the Soo Line Railroad and other -design revisions relating to the removal of the spur tracks. These discussions were being handled by Mr. Ashfeld until his departure and then Westwood assumed those duties. The total requested change order for this item is $5 , 182 .80. Staff feels there is justification for this item. Item B: Parking Lot Revisions, 2nd and Fuller The requested change order for this item is $530.00. The scope of services oultined in the contract clearly states that all design work associated with City parking lots , alleys , etc . will be part of the contract. This design work was estimated at $24,600 .00 as outlined on page 6 of the contract. Staff feels that this item is covered by the fees in the contract and therefore the requested change order is not needed. Item C: Retaining Wall While it is true that a retaining wall was not anticipated at the time the contract was drafted and therefore not specifically listed under scope of services, staff feels that this item should be part of the overall design services . Once a design is in progress, many items come up that were not anticipated but must be addressed in order for all the street grades, curb and gutter, etc, to match into existing properties and driveways. P. retaining wall by the bank became evident early on in the design process. Very little design was needed for this particular wall since the same wall that exists at the 2nd Avenue parking lot will be utilized. No detailed design plans were ever drawn up for the retaining wall by Westwood. Westwood Engr. Services June 30 , 1988 Page 3 The total requested change order for this item is $1 ,331 .00. Staff feels that this is covered by the design services of the contract and therefore not justified . Item D: Miscellaneous Plan Revisions. The total requested change order for this item is $ 4 , 353 . 00 . Upon contacting Westwood regarding specifics for this item, they indicated that items such as the retaining wall, alley work, reversing parking layouts, etc. result in many more plan revisions than anticipated. Several of these items were addressed previously above and without any further documentation and specific breakdowns, staff does not feel this item is justified. Summary of Change Order : Staff feels that only Item A , consisting of $5, 182 .80 , is justified. !� As indicated previously there are two other features of the contract that were brought up by Westwood and need to be addressed at this item, namely the construction staking and inspection/engineering assistance portions of the contract. Construction Staking According to Westwood, the construction staking portion of the contract was intended to be strictly an estimate, but that their fee for this service would be paid for on an hourly basis. The estimated fee for this service was approximately $55 ,000 . 00 . (Again refer to the attached pages 5 and 6 of the contract) . The charge for construction staking as of May 21 , 1988 totals $53 , 537 .00 . Westwood has estimated that by the end of the project, this total will be approximately $70 , 000 . 00 . In essence, the amount estimated in the contract will be exceeded by $15 ,000 .00. Westwood feels that the language in the contract adequately covers this overrun and that no change order is needed. The Assistant City Attorney has reviewed the contract and agrees with Westwood. Staff has attached a letter from the Assistant City Attorney on his interpretation of the overall contract. The previous City Engineer also feels that this was the intent of the contract. Westwood Engr. Services June 30 , 1988 Page 4 Engineering staff feels that the surveying performed by Westwood was extremely inefficient and therefore resulted in more time spent on the job. Staff also feels that the final plans prepared by Westwood resulted in numerous field adjustments which directly increased the surveying costs. In addition, Westwood indicated to staff on numerous occasions that there was a "not-to-exceed" cap on the surveying fee, therefore staff did not monitor the surveying time as closely as possible. In short , staff feels that any additional surveying fees in excess of $55 ,000 .00 are not justified but refusing to pay those fees may result in legal action based on the language in the contract. Inspection/Engineering Assistance Westwood is indicating that this item was to be billed on an hourly rate and is in addition to the $239 ,500 .00 "not-to-exceed- figure outlined in the contract. The contract language on page 5 indicates the City will be billed on an hourly basis for additional inspection as requested . There is no mention of engineering assistance. Westwood has done no inspection for this project. The amount of time being billed as engineering assistance is $16 , 448 .25 to date . This figure should not increase substantially as Westwood' s involvement in the project is basically over, except for staking. The Assistant City Attorney has reviewed the contact and has indicated that language relating to this item is ambiguous and possibly unenforceable. The previous City Engineer has indicated that the intent of the contract was to pay for this fee on an hourly basis. Staff recognizes that engineering assistance by the design engineers is necessary on a project of this magnitude and that the submitted fee of $16,448.25 is probably justifiable. Due to the inadequate language in the contract though, if the City refused to pay this item Westwood may not be able to dispute it. Westwood Engr. Services June 30 , 1988 Page 5 Summary of All Additions to the Contract Fees Change Order as Requested by Westwood $10 , 195. 19 (Total) Total Estimated Surveying Fee over Contract $15,000.00 Engineering Assistance $16 .448.25 Total Additions to contract Outlined by Westwood $41 ,643 .44 Westwood Engr. Services June 30 , 1988 Page 5 Adding this to the "not-to exceed" figure of $239 ,500.00 brings the total fees for Westwood' s services to $281 ,000.00. A good rule-of-thumb for a project is that all engineering costs (design, surveying, staking, etc. ) should be around 20-25% of the total construction costs . Adding in staff time of approximately $100 ,000 .00 to date brings the total engineering costs to $381 ,000.00 or about 16 .5% of the $2 ,300,000 .00 project. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Approve of all requested additional fees. 2. Deny all requested additional fees. 3. -Discuss each item separately and decide which additions are justified. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends Alternate No. 3 to discuss all of the additional fees associated with Westwood for the Downtown Streetscape Project and decide which additions are justified. Due to the fact that I am relatively new in Shakopee and did not have personal knowledge of the methods employed by Westwood in designing and surveying this project, numerous discussions and research was done to determine how to address the overruns requested by Westwood . Meetings were held with engineering staff, Westwood staff, the previous City Engineer, Assistant City Attorney, and City Administrator. Westwood Engr. Services June 30 , 1988 Page 6 Staff recommends that Item A listed in the change order request of $5 , 182 .80 be approved but that the remainder of the change order be denied. Staff also recommends that the additional staking costs of approximately $15 , 000 . 00 be denied and that the engineering assistance costs of $16,448.25 be approved, contingent on legal Counsel. ACTION REQUESTED: Depending on the overall discussion by Council, staff should be authorized to pay Westwood Engineering Company whatever additional engineering fees are felt justifiable. DH/pmp WESTWOOD WESTWOOD PLANNING & ENGINEERING COMPANY June 20 , 1988 Mr . John Anderson City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 East Ist Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: Change Order request for Professional Services on the Downtown Shakopee Streetscape Project Dear Mr. Anderson: As a result of our meeting on June 15, 1988 and In accordance with the Westwood Planning & Engineering change order letter dated March 22, 1988, I have compiled additional data to explain the overrun on the Streetscape Project . The Westwood staff feel confident that the project would have been completed on budget without the significant number of revisions made to the plans during the winter of 1987/88 and Mr. Ashfeld's departure . The March 22 letter requested authorization for a change order of $10 , 195. 19. The data listed below indicates additional work totalling $14,423.40 beyond the original contract Items. In theory, without the revisions and extras, Westwood could have completed the design work for Phases 1 and 2 for an amount $4,228.21 under the contract amount of $184,500 . Item A: Railroad Spurline design revisions, meetings with the Railroad and miscellaneous reports to the City. Randy Goertzen 16 hours 9 $30 .00 per hr IS 480 .00 Engineering Techs 44.75 hr 9 32.000 per hr 1 ,432.00 Chuck Poppler 6.75 hr 9 42.00 per hr 283.50 Chuck Plowe 13 hr 9 50 .00 per hr 650.00 Keith Nelson/Koppy 37. 1 hr 9 63.00 per hr 2,337.30 Total for Item A: $5, 182.80 Item B: Parking lot Landscaping and Revisions, 2nd Avenue and Fuller Street: Randy Goertzen 4 hours 9 $30 .00 per hr $ 120 .00 Engineering Techs. 11 .5 hrs 9 32.00 per hr 368.00 Chuck Poppler 1 hour 9 42.00 per hr 42.00 8525 EOINBROOK CROSSING.BROOKLYN PARK,MINNESOTA SSC<i8F118861161nInoe g1e1 B: $ 530 .00 1415 WAYLTA SOUuNARB,ST.LOUIS PARK.MINNESOTA SS 2,IE}y} �OI,:V6U LL 11` III Item C: Retaining Wall by the Bank on Holmes Street as a result of the movement of parking from the east to the west side: Randy Goertzen 13.5 hours 9 $30 .00 per hr $ 405.00 Engineering Techs 25 hours a 32.00 per hr 800 .00 Chuck Poppler 3 hours a 82.00 per hr 126.00 Total for Item C: $ 1 ,331 .00 Item D: Revlsions to the plans at the direction of the City based upon neighborhood meetings, design discussions, and design committee re-direction : Randy Goertzen 12 hours a $30.00 per hr $ 360 .00 Engineering Techs 100 .75 hrs a 32.00 per hr 3,224.00 Chuck Poppler 7 hours a 42.00 per hr 294.00 Chuck Plowe 9.5 hours a 50 .00 per hr 475.00 Total for Item D: $ 4,353.00 Additional Survey time for detailed design: Westwood Survey Crew-time 11/22/87 thru 12/19 $ 386.00 12/21 thru 1/22/88 656.60 1/25 thru 3/19 1 ,304.00 3/20 thru 4/23 680 .00 Total of Survey Time : $ 3,026.60 In addition to the foregoing material please remember the two distinguishing features of the contract signed by the City Administrator on 5/6/87: 1 ) The construction staking costs were estimated in the originalcontractand were to be billed on an hourly basis _ in accordance with the attached fee schedule. 2) The inspection and construction assistance provided by the consultant was to be provided on a request basis at the discretion of the City Engineer. The City Intended to do the project inspection with their own personnel . This time was to be billed on an hourly basis. No estimate in the contract was given for this work Mr . Anderson, I hope this additional material has assisted you in the process of gaining approval of the change order request . Since the request is approximately 3 months old, Westwood requests your immediate attention to this item. We will do whatever you request to provide additional materials for Justification purposes. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation on this endeavor. Sincerely, WESTWOODD,PLANNING 8 ENGINEERING COMPANY ��/ --- Richard L. Ko y , .E. Vice-President RLK=dk LAW OFFK S KRASS & MONROE CHARTERED Phillip R. Kra. Manctmll Road Basins Center Dennis L Monroe Barry K.Meyer 327 Marschall Road Trevor R. Wulhaen P.O. Box 216 Jay D.Goldberg Shakopee,Minnesota 55379 Diane M. Carlson Telephone(612)4455080 Robert J.Walter FAX(612)445-7640 Lachlan B.Muir James B. Croft - Colleen M.Treble Kent A.Carlson, CPA July 1, 1988 Mr. David Button City Engineer City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, !Ili 55379 Re: Westwood Contract Our File No. 1-1373-216 Dear Mr. Hutton: After our meeting on June 28, 1988, I have reviewed the April 7, 1987 agreement between the City of Shakopee and Westwood relative to providing certain engineering and surveying services for the downtown redevelopment project. In particular, you have asked me to comment on three invoices or potential invoices which have or will be submitted by Westwood to the City which you questioned. Those three bills and my comments regarding them are as follows: 1. Westwood has submitted a change order for an increase from the total design service fee from the $184,500.00 in the contract to an amount now designated by Westwood at $194,054.21. I believe the design service fee as set forth in the contract is, in fact, a set fee, and since the contract specifically indicates that fee will not be exceeded without written authorization from the City, I do not believe the City is obligated to enter into a change order for the requested increase. I see nothing in the design service portion of the contract which would indicate an expectation on the part of either party for such An increase without prior authorization from the City. Although you were not certain it was your belief that the contract document itself was prepared by Westwood. If that is true, the City's position would even be stronger since any ambiguity in the contract would be resolved against the party drafting the contract. Likewise, if it turns out the City drafted the contract, our position would be somewhat weaker. Nonetheless, and in either case, my opinion is that we are under no obligation to pay the additional $9,500.00 under this first claim. 2. Westwood estimated in the contract that construction staking would be $55,000.00. That estimate appears on page 6 of the contract. The second paragraph on page 5 of the contract states in the second sentence thereof, "the fee for this service (construction surveying) shall be hourly as per the attached Mr. David Hutton Page Two July 1, 1988 fee schedule. " The contract does indicate that the total fee for the contract, including the construction staking, will not be exceeded without written authorization from the City. That language seems inconsistent with what appears to me to be an agreement that construction staking will be paid for on an hourly basis. All-in-all I would interpret the contract'as requiring the City to pay for actual surveying work required to be performed by Westwood. You estimate that final figure may reach $70,000.00, an increase of $15,000.00 over the estimate. I do not believe that increase requires a change order and I do believe the City will be obligated to pay that increase provided Westwood can show the time was both needed and expended. You have informed me that some of your staff have questioned the need for some of the staking work done by Westwood, and that some of that staking time may have resulted in engineering errors made by Westwood. Those are fact issues which must be dealt with and may leave room for argument over some of that additional $15,000.00. Absent our ability to show that unneeded staking work constitutes a portion of the time submitted by Westwood for construction staking, it is my opinion that the City is obligated to pay the additional amounts requested. 3. Westwood has also submitted a bill through May 21, which includes additional engineering in the amount of $16,448.25. You indicated that final bill may be slightly higher. Westwood's rationale for the additional engineering costs so billed are contained in paragraph 3 of page 5 of the contract which states as follows: "Addirional inspection as requested by the City as aid for city staff will be billed on hourly rates. " You have informed me that the City reouested no additional inspection. Westwood's June 20, 1988 letter to John Anderson indicates in the bottom paragraph of nage 2 that Westwood believes the "construction assistance" it claims to have provided this project falls under the category of "additional inspection" as set forth in the third paragraph of page 5 of the contract. I believe Westwood's reading to be very strained indeed. It appears that the additional engineering work can hardly be categorized as "inspection* but rather was simply engineering related to the changes in the field staking. You have indicated many of those changes were as a result of initial errors made by Westwood in its design plan. It appears to me that this third claim is really part of the first claim, and would require a change order and prior written authority from the City. While this third claim is not as clear cut as the first, my opinion is that the City has no obligation to pay this claim. As I indicated in my response to the first claim, assuming Westwood actually drafted this contract, any ambiguity with respect to this third claim would tend to be resolved against them as drafter. Likewise, if we drafted the contract, that same rule of lav would make the City's position more difficult. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. We tul H/ARTERED Brass PRR:mly i COMPBNSA?IDN t I� We would propose to furnish the work activities described above, based on a fee expressed as a percentage of actual Construction cost. For this improvement project, there will be a fixed f e of 6.7 percent based upon the curve shown on the attached figure labelled as "Curve A, Median Compensation for Basic Services. . .". Below, an estimate of cost for professional services is outlined. Included in the cost estimate are all of the basic services included in the Scope of Services section of the contracts. Construction survevino will be performed by gestwood Surveying, Inc. , and under our supervision. The fee for this service shall be hourly as per the attached I ee schedule. Additional inspection as requested by the City as aid for City staff will be billed on hourly rates. All work will be billed monthly, based on the amount of work performed during the previous month. All invoices are due and payable 30 days from data of invoice. All invoices outstanding 60 days or more from date of invoice will be charged a finance (interest) charge at the rate of l.ti percent per month. Any special reports , studies or other work ordered by the Owner shall be performed on a per diem basis in accordance with the attached fee schedule. Construction Cost Estimate of Project--30 Block =aces Based upon info Talion contained in the "Downtown Revitalization Project Engineering Feasiblity Report"_ dated November 7 , 1986. 1997 Phase 1 Construc_ion Area (see figure 1): Los_ -c xk ___ Nc. o` Block Face'- iptals Design S 85.402 i s 604.8i? — Desion 2 S 8-x.006 6 S 416.030 Design 3 S 68,821 _ S 68,821 1.3 2,078,6H 6 1988 Phase 2 ConstrUCItgn Area (see figure 1) : Cost per Block Face No. of Block Faces Totals Desion 1 S 86 ,402 5 S 518.412 Design 2 S 63,006 9 S 7=7 .054 Desion 3 S 58,821 2 S 1171642 29 51 ,383,108 Total Estimate of Phase 1 d Phase 2 Cons_ruc,jon: 52,461 ,773 Desion Documents and Construction Assistance: Compensation from curve for Desion services: 6.7; Desicn Services Estimated Fee: 16G •900 Minus-cost of the Feasibility Report: S (=.000) Addition--cost of engineering work on private property and in alley ways, City parking lots, etc. 1.0: 24,60D Total Desion Service Fee for work defined in proposal : S 184 ,500 Survey Work Preliminary survey data collection fees are included in the "Total Desion Service Fee" �- Construcicn Staking•-Estimat=_ ictal Professional 5a. vi ces F__ Est ima_=_ S s3o 50p� *This fee shall net be exceeded without the written authorization of the City. The a-ached "Fee Scheoule for Professional Services" dazed May 1 1987 , shall be used as a basis for p=_riocic billing on the project. 6 Ilk O oo N o o NN NNN NO No N NNo oN No NNN m m � NN l P V Jtl PPPPc N e0 n • YW a J i N • i e ! a ♦a ♦ • aaA F = Z J O K O O T J +IJ J J `J oJJJJ \ \ \ JM JJJ y Y YY Y u 4 44 4WWVW W UUYW 44Y F m mm m m 0 0m 0000m 000m 000 9 0 0 m 0 0mm0 mom m D 3 m J O am -a c z ro ro roro-- ♦ ro -- - ry -n rvroNro y N b NN - JNP PUmNJ� AJNYtl -+ �+ N -0N WW NN NN Pm0 NNN01a A -oaV NNNN PN Nro VV NNe -J e0! YY ONOON tl N!0 NN NN NNe tlJNeoo YY roNOOJ NNNN a ♦ a i a i i i i 1 mm D 4 N mm DDDDD D DDDD DDD c mm x o ccccc v xxxx o00 mm y i � 99 yyyy"� mmmm saa 3x3 www m m wN 'mA F ii nnnnn a nnnn w o x oo mmmmm z aria 999 z w a m 9m zzzzz n zzzz mmm o x a n a yyyy m .. o p 2 2 mw AAA99 Z2Z2 yyy A y 00 DDDDD yyyD p 9 n ZZ fffff p J 00_O_ m 0 Z wmmww < • . Z p y O 9 PP 9CLCC mm.m F 9 m 99999 9 0o rrrrr ssss nnn mo p Z nn KKKKK n it y m a mw w y m .w mmmm. v cc c 9 vv ppopc o i'a ii a y y ;:9 Y Kyy pOo m 99 9 mrmm TTT 3 r rr r m n rr 9999. 9 mfZlmm ww v r x u mm m P n mm SSSxm x m ww mmm m mm a >Da. D y�yy <G< n y zzzz y ro myyyy -1 y m o y m z � Oe � a 1 110 e111 1 111 111 n as ♦ ? as alaa♦ a moa.ww uuu T12c 1'o roro ro o rorororororo ro _ z mmmme m -m-- oee Z. i i; i l ei li aiiui w 1111 uaa z m m-_ 1n ro m Pu uarorou y oo _ __ o N- 1 m 1 I 1l Paa4> P 110 PP+ + ri m- m ro m roro roarororo - eooe z m x w s - m w m Y Y Y Y Y Y V V U W I I 1 1 1 u w < W n i m s m n o � d r .. -nnii%P- Fl nn r i illllllll i I i II I 1 ii 2 nnPPiP- n N AA - P - � eo0 OOo O 1 e o 1 el III � a m ee a � �aaaaaaaa m � = P nPn a n a Nn O PPiPPPP♦ M P P P P Pi U 111 IIIIP 1 1 F II 1 I 1 II 6 OOOOooeO- O o O N oe O o O Oo O F 6 > W F O 00 F j Z ¢ OO Z q U v m WW%%mmWW% O ��rruu�� u ii W W rJ 66JJJJJJJ J 6 FF J p JY F666666664 = 6 7 F 6 O J 6 077»7007 J O ¢¢ J 6 O OL ¢ W F m %WmmWOW%% W W ¢¢L¢¢¢¢¢ ¢ WwWWWWWW W q O W LLLL¢LLLLLLdnLL i w O F„ W J 10- V FF1-PPPPPP m Z O V p0D000J000 F = J Z hF p V 6 XX 000000000 F ' Q ZZ 6 F UU O Wq%mmWq%q 7 O Z F F W WWW u_W_WWWWWV 3 ¢¢ O W O 2Z IZZ mWW%%WWW% > y Q d 66 L J C pD mJJJJJJJD O O V J O n Q JJ DD00DDDm D 0 U UU V U qq NFPPnnMeOA FN • PP <Y PON f • Oo Pn- nrOPoaiaNN F rr NP aN M �-FPOgmF nn DD Dq rF PNP NN NN aN AFO = N Na N a An � wa O L 6 W W o wgwowOmmD D m D q mm q m m Oq 6 Ogm q 01 mq Y MAnnnMFlAn n n nn M A Fln S W \\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ hh h Fh % < e0000e0oo 0 0 0 0 0o e O e Q o0 O O h Z V u PPPPPPP n N NNe0ooe0o p NW - aD - U NPPPNPPPa • - T P f - • P - - • p • a i P PP ' N N N NNNNN NN UUUUN NN N N NN m m �- yo + yYY Vn a m • N • - f JlaJa ♦ e f yy f • ♦ N +a JC Z y O t D T J J `yyyy `tel NHHy�1 Oy N J JJ -1 .... . �... . � . . . .. m i u u u uuuuu uu uuWuu uu u u Ww x . . . ..... . .. .. . . . . . . . oro m m m mmmmm mm mmmmm mm m m mm m m mmmmm mm mmmmm mm m m mm m a x 0 u N i NN NN Uw� NN- oum V- N YN JY yJ WNm y oNWJPm NrYroP- mbV HN YJ N ^10 -bbby�l 4Y00 mm Jror+ . J o0 0o Je-b J mP JroN NW NmJ mm +IV mmo o w x Sxxxx rr mmmmm oCC0 Do n nn < DDDDD �+ DDDDD 00 2 Z AA9A9 9A mmmm mm „ x xx xx3sx mm =� yyyy mm xx o x m o000o y zxxsx mm m _ m m zzzzz ss_s_ s_a_ aA m n m mmmmm p9 Z mN � � 0C Z C y 0= O y e r 22222 CC m0000 .p O N n .2c ym AA99D Z O M. y ccccc r oo i z mmmmnmmm z c m o- n s mm m x m i A m m o m m z o m mmmmm v.. mmmmm mm 3 m mm .. 9 y o rrccc az ccccc cc mm o oc -1 a x Y �O1TV =y V99VS 9T c c9 m < m msAv m A roaa a m v yr z m A a rrr z9 wrrrr z sammm m mmmmm mm a am m .. z s iimmm ay mmmmm � n y y y 9 m < y T M. i y m O O O eoo NN OOo00 00 o O oo D e e Nro 11111 11 I la II A a i i> eai aaaa+ as a ++ o u 1n ro rororororo Jm roN_rororo roro � u roro i e m e4l1oo m- a eee oe N ro roe I o mnloz.m >uuW� wm w WW z id I'-1 In luy oe > P 11 s ' lipa 01 iuuu=. w1 ro =1uu z 9 1 O W m m 3 m a m D s m m m m m m m m m V U Y V V U U V W I 1 1 I W 6 V m • • i • • a i R 6 m 6 = n O 1 d F 2 PN fr OMa n_- N N OA_AnnnMrA O 1 b q 11- 11 1111111 tl � � -nnnnnPn e F etl n etl eO 1111111 1 1 P e e eNWWaawaae e e Z N _ a Fln hh annAnFlnn- _ m � n rn n nn nn muaauuNWWFl a a O P P P PP FlP<10rPPfP P P U I 1 11 'P 111111 111 1 I { e ee a ee -- eeeeeeeooe o o m z YN m am, w 0 u mm YYFYY $ mm w====z.z..z. m <b > W N W D r V W Z d Q WW ^^ Cp666666m J Jd F _ W F » YM VO^r^^rrrLL 6 6m m 6t¢ =Y »J000>O ¢ JO d0 YY 00000000¢ m j W ^ d mi YY 7J LLWWWWWWW6 m ¢ ¢ W Y m W 000000000G V W Q< a < 66a6a666 J W » omDDaoDDmD n � V zzzzzzzzzz Y m ¢aaasaaaa{ .z. � ¢¢ ww w mm }Y e ^ oo mm mDtltlmmDmmm c y. D » v Z mm <6 $ W 0 WW YY U ..... ._ W W__WW_ » O m 7 > mm 00 Zz__Z____WW WS _ _ 6a ¢¢ WWWaWWWWW a 2 y ^ 'i4 2 UU yy 0000000000 r YYYYYYYYYY J J J i Fh PP i o R ONNe ODo OMNI Fh • • aw aM NN - bb nNu 00 NNO pFl POMMNnnPw_o OO P NNN PO•DI _ N -P� P' PP nA Z Fh � Paim c nn z 6 W w m mm m mm mm mmmmmmmmmm m m 6 D mA \ 00 mm DDm000ODDD D { - AA MM nMnFlnnnFlFlA M m w o ho O \ \ \ \ \\ \ \\\\ \ \ Fo oOhhooe00o 0 LL G o O e0 00 O e 0 } p Y Z U Y P PP N Mb b .FFhh.F.. P P PN N wD NN NNNN..NWW. w N n - • _ a _- _ a NP a PP = PPPP ' PPP' • - a P i P i -------- ---- - - - - -- - -- - NNNNNNNNNNNNN NNN NN N UWNN N S 0 YVUWUYYYYWYW 4 U4 4 4YYV 0 m00000m000000 N 4J JyJJJJJJyJJJJ . ry . _ . PPP . a! . a . mmmm + y s o z -moi o y 0 O T J JMJJMJJy JJM` o -1 ;J J y W VVWUVVYVWWUVW W 4W V4 4 JVYW W F 00000000mm00m m w0m 00 0 m00m 0 9 000mmm000000m m 0 0m 0 m D_ O C_ -aP-UN�-aeM mm ,'NObW - NPOJ yN Pia -a PP y PNaaNIYMmoNPP MJ MO- WW J 40 OPm-IWbJPaaPro JN yoO Ne bro 00- leooONPOJOJO NN bN yo ONN WW Y00 Y o0 Zzzmzzzzzzxzzx c zxx x3 xxxx r Ccccccc... .CC z 3 000 zz DD> D o yyy m rrrr w mmmmmmmmmmmmm m 900 « r FFFz mmmmmmmmmmmmm 3 as as a mmmm W m rrrrrrrrrrrrr c rr z aaaa m rrrrrrrrrrrrr r m 999 rr o mmww z c aas mm 0000 r o a m yyy < ( a zzzz m z a a wNw r r 0 0000 r i m nn n �7 . z n m y T F 0 o r o m yyyyyyyyyyyyy y W mmm CC S OOmm C ^ a mmmmmmmmmmmmm m s o0r 0 sro X00 y rrrrrrrrrrrrr r crm r� w I^ 9mmmmmmmmmmmm T O rr m ^^ „ x _9__99_9_9_9_9_9_9_9_9_9 D 19 yy99 DO_00_O_O_O_00_o_O_O_O_ O m 23D rr33 ^ m 2 Z Z DD mm » m N mmmmmmmmmmmmm m 3Z b0 mm^^ 0 D IZy OmZZ yy CCyy 99 y D NOOOOOveeo000 0 Oso 00 a Oeeo O O alllll 111111 1 i > 1 i> 1 >ii> a o aaaaaaaaaaaa uuuuuuuwuuuuu 'W m roro'm uu 'ue Nmroro w c rororororororo Z roro roro roro m N roroo o N -- roro y 11.allllllllll 1 1 IIP 11 P P 11 1 mro-Nuro-mJNuro- m n 'w-1 JI-" a �==m l0 0 laalll 11111 1 IIP 11 i 1 I bro_+Yro-OJNYro_ N b db_ ro_ - roroo- b � Y o 9 1 O V 0 3 0 m 9 F F F F F T N N W W W N N N 0 m N N q N Y Y Y Y Y Y V W 1 1 I 1 Y W 6 6 0 6 W_ 0 f 0 A O 1 6 O i wy o 0000 000 _ o P _ b pAw 1 Ilo I011lllolllol OII I 1 1 1 111 r - o O w oee O P PPPPPPPPPPPP ♦ P P P P PPP V I II11111111111 1 11 1 1 I 1 II V _aAAPPOOdaPP N 6 - nAnMMMnMA0000 O Nm a Z W W WW W W W O W W W W W W 4 LL LL LL LL LL LL F F 0 ¢ W W W W W W m Z FQFF6FOF6F6FQ ¢ F6 ¢ LL W O 0 q0 0 0 0 0 m m m U Y +u m 2 WVWWUWUWVWVWV Wm2V 6 ¢Z¢ ¢Z¢26Z¢ZmZ Q JFJ W- LL N W LL 6Z6 F J F}Ff}F}F }F}F } O } O q ¢ r6 Y w6ww62626Z626 n W m V m JJ U VVV __ _ ....... .. _ _ www Y _ _Z_.. ...... _ __ __ p 0 V W L L LL O \ \ m }FF V ¢op zzzYY YYYYYY m ZmZ 1zzzzzzzz m qV 0J V J Waw aaz aammmmaamama nnn z. . 2-2 FF ..FFFFFFFF F ^„ - s z V ¢ W J WWg000mmg000 Z O = W rr > W WWWWWW W_W_W_W_ W O \V x q W Oqm 0 9.H . pz ¢ \ q 2 YYY ¢ 66¢ ¢¢¢ ¢6¢¢6 ¢ z FF m 6 6 O ¢ ¢¢ 3 O_O_O_O__O O_O_ 00__..._ O _ 6_Q W 666 2 O m m 16 oN eNNN000eO OF000 t • ' • P e0N as emadOooen 000 WN NN OWFl Odn-oeeNFNelnN10 nq NP dd as dN FF PANo F_ OWOaP dNP a_A fC pOja O M n N F W M FF L _ Q W w m mmmmmmmmmmmmm m mm m m m m mmm LL mmm mmmmmmommm m m m Nm a nnnnnAFln_nnnn A N a. ooeee000eevoo o ee o LL p o o O o00 O } O F Z V Y F 00mm0g00m0000 d PPm N O _ n 0D0 n�n0m O 0 W n AnnnnAAn AFl A AA P P Y P m V P NPP=� NPPPmm • � • pn • P . � _ • P . _ Nc a rrrr rr -- r uu rr n NNNNNNNWNNN NUNNNNUN N UN jj N N UN 2 0 NNNNNNWNNNN p000oo00 0 00 + a NN A 0 JJJJyJJJJJJ • uuuu00m0 m • nro . Y�1 • a . - • z z o < 0 O T D JJMJyJJJJMJ MyyJJJJJ ;J \ \ \\ m 2 WWWWWYYYWWY WYYYWWYY ` WW LIY W ; " 9 \\\\ \\\\\\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \ \ \ m00000mmm0w 0mmmmmOm m m0 Om P m 00 mmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmm m wm Pm m m mm m a x 0 c r z JmIN111m11-NNNo fOw NLlm roron nro m . Nam bun eo PIY fq y J JJaJUNma-o roewwmuww m mNu uu 111 o>u--vee�lme ec eve amu "' woo ww wo 0 JroNm ro rose ewwwe wo ew - m 'n'^ m WWmWWmwPwW mPPPWwmm w m An n m mm 99999999 222x222. 0 ZS CCCCCCCCCCC > DDDDDDD C DD 00 O 00 nnnn00nnnn0 FSSSFFFS y FS yy y 2 T„ 00000000 2 99 yy y mm m m9997999 C O rr 2 mmmmmmm m mm nn mmmmmmmm y mm -�� c m om mo w mmmwmmPc mm A mmmmmm P ao y m rr mm SAAaFA c Aa mP y An m « «M^<ti m 00 x2 yy n ^ nnn0 A AA CO � AA S mmmmmmmm m -^ mwWmmwWm i wa y "" n A ^ W M A ccccccccc.. CCCCCCCC 7 mm mm yyyyyyyyyJ� yy_yly y_yy rAr cC CC C 9 OOmW M. �w� wrriw.9 rr+rr+Mrrr y 97 97 f r m w wryly m.mr� mWmmmmmmm2a mmmmmmmm NOWWWNmWWNPmWWWWm 9 y ^ Z m yy yy y 9 O Z D c�++a+aaaaaa +++aaa uuwuWuuWWro wuuWwYuu u roro roro ro ro eo z .........Jw "Io o,eoeJ o mN io 1Wn e y PPPalllllll P11 . P+MW..r a � a WW Y A !e +YYW--Y + n- w m00 O P mrNNNrormmN N-roN-_:Nm N dr r PIIP 1111111111 Ipllll 1 i jj WW 1 �o auwW--u +uu--- ror u a me z roN-roro-ro-mm- w-roro-mmm ro +- < mN mro s ro- w 7 i O W 0 p! 0 x m 7 m a a m • • ` i m m V U Y V V V W I I 1 1 u v m ¢ w L m s m n o T n ^ aoo _a _ �_ o =w mmnv n.Nome nna neo nn i ii i 1 - � IF- a nd rlllllll 111' i I z nn b Mn .w mmnva.aomP nna - h �� O0 I 11 0l oeeeeoel oo e �Fl � FFFFhhFF mNN J ADO AP P PP m Pn nnAAnnnA n u Pnn n e pePPfePP PPP d n V AMM I I II I II 11111111 111 6 ODD oo a oe O 00 0.00000. OOo 0 0 Z Y m � W F 6 VW m W ¢ W m JJJ p O ` % J= JW Frh.Y��rhihr aaV ^ J x =WW LLLL m 6J Y 46 •Ji��rw�� FZ� 6 > W Op ¢ r has W �o �¢ }}hhF}hh oni m JJ3 a6 Z %W L DF JOJJJJJJ F ¢ W W W 00 ¢ WW Y L ¢ WWWWWWWw V VV 6444664 V CS W VV 00000000 % _ YYYYYYYY ___ WWW Q =W N r - p VU tlQ66_66_6_ 6 4 JJJ O J Z ZI Wd LL ff mmmmmWm% mmm K ^ Q6 O mp O . O . . ODLL4D > ¢¢ W 'w JJJ LLLL } WW Z KC }y}Y}YYY 6 F O JJ ¢ ¢ FF=YFFFF Q< 6 J %W% %m } % m D mm uuvuuuuu mmm > u NOop • • • O k FOPO nPn • dDe AaPPOM1NDa NrN-PN NF FP APm NN FmA bdPanbmePryeo e0 D FPPN Mon ddOPOo _ _Fltl rya x w w Dmm mm m DD m mD mmmmmmDm mmm m m Yf 4m mmnm m mn D Dm mmmDmmmm qp;n M n n \ \\ \ \ \\ \ nmm n \ _ n n nnnnnnnn nn n LL O O O 00 o Oo o00ome0o 00o e O O } O F Z U Y 'Fr mm b FF o Mn U % NN N Nm tlbbnnMnn Im�ImN p P V mPP Pm ♦ P = P • P • PP ♦ NNPPPwPP • aPP ♦ p • N + +JJJJ + J + • n NN N N W W pT P pppapOPP P aoP • T O e m P m nA W N o ♦ NN o • YYJJYYYM • O • YYY • F Z K O K O O 9 D J \ ` J M YY Y JJJYYJYJ ` YYJ K m W WW W W W Y " W WYWUUWYW Y YYY F \ 00 m m m 0 mm 0 WmmPm0P0 m mPm 9 m m m m m mm m mmmmmmmm m mmm Mm > _ 2 0 mYA 1PA KJ y mW 0 AA ++ Wn JtlW 00 �1+ p+A++W NJ Y�O N YU JNro NN 0m OJaYY+UN mmm0 NN o0o b0 mJ aP oe0 +U+KpPPN WW PppN O mm oo Wm NN JJ o0 PmmPKpOUo WY 1 O 'y T = m D NN N KKKKKKKK L LLL 9 9 9 2 DD + DDDDDDDD D mAm m 99 m 9 O nn m 99999999 y GG m mm T m Z � SS m CCCCCCCC '� K Z Ky L -i Z mW D mWOPGGwW m w^w m C D T ti m 9 GWWmGWww O 99 K {2] p O K 0G0G00w0W000 S 000 Z GmGG Z AAm O O CGC 'T + 22222225 D TAT 9 W y Z 2 OOOOOOVO n 000 r Y~ O T Z W LLLLLCLC T CCC m n z Gnnnannn m vi n n � n o000000o y _ x o m n m m -.. T m W W Gw n mmdWWbG3 c AAm y 9 r zz o c v c vv i orcccc c.. .K. voo m m K m v ^vAAvvvw c'.L. x n mm W a v Av .. navvvAn � i9v 2 mm P 222 m s Wm x m m mm r 2DmmAmA = y-• D � m bb T _ZWmWWW TG M>D G K 2 m O 2-1 KKy A T y D o w� e e e eavePeee a e_e n i - il _ 1 1 1 0 a 111 / 1111 1 ill n 1AAAAY A A O N aP N tl N N N mNNpmNN� y YWW 2 __ N _ poo0o000 NpA K 1 II W 1 1 01 Pel i 111111 PPPAAAWO J iAA Z a e r p W Y NP p NAm+Ye N NN O N m GJ YJmP++Yo +NN ' I 011 1 1 W I IP 1 PPPAPAYO J AAA + m ee I+ N + W b+ N ++NNprYO N Apm � W i e m v � 0 o u m s m 2 m v W > b n a m JC F F F N b W m W m m _ X V W 1 V W N 6 m 6 W_ 0 0 I'1 O i a d r � o s N Fl 1 i i i a n n n i i z _ N a Fl n Fl r 1 w w 1 1 le i 'r i J P N a N VI Fl n d n W r 2 V W W p V b O ¢ J > mlm@pmW ¢ UaLL COOIpp p LL h2¢ W 3mm2FF Z Z J ZO mWF1-W 2Z H F W J < W0W WWWLE FOmZZLWW m r m YUY_ 4 M L C m2 6 O W m J UU W UVJ WOLEL>WW > > m 0 O V OW 6 >YZW LLpmCWWO» rc a o J m o z> a E J..F ¢ 2 N S »> J¢ Y 6J O Fw¢F006 ¢¢ m £ 6 ^ OV} y N m m WWW LLm Y60XL aWW¢ ¢L66 wYx Q o-� LLLLn„ L o �- L w mbm Jwh uQn>FMwY¢waii F C n C ! J J �+ tl pCr 6C ¢ Im3nnQ x w p1 4 ¢¢¢ a w^F<w< FFm- w ¢ > > Y. www wYz wFm@ FxNm«mu0J 41 Z x J S Z 6 6 Z Jw3 Z¢QQm6V0@60m 011 00 ¢ h O F V C K pl V WWW V66C6C6P0PaYP¢PFPNPPP O W O r WW0 6hSVpC-6 -00-0�Fh0--� W F m U U 2 W Z K r Y x ¢ V U y W J JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ 6M1f6000666<6666Q6666t6< V r p CC ¢ FFhFFFrFFFrYFFFFhrF V LL W F W @ 2 WFF ODOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Q J m Y W 6 F fhFFhrFF F1-FFFhrFrhFFr O W ~ p Y 0 C J J Jm JJ Fl <NtlNM1O_anrNmPdNPo_N W 2 w ¢ p O a > J m0 O_ ___ddPllq m nl'INRNNNNOO > m ¢ i z w ¢ m mWm pppmppp m_pp_o_m_m__pp pm mppp f J 666 2 Z Z Z Z 0 ♦ m p ¢ QW W LOL JJJJJJJJOJJJJJJJJJOJJ U "/ Q L V V ¢ . FFf LL4LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLwLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL4 « NN FF i P hF 00 Y « FNnOOPPONNNehOo@OOONo rF m0 00 NN @F mdFrfOddON@NFlYmodo NN -� PP dP NN PP NN 00 da NNNN w- <P.YfhdwN_oppryPo_N- N Nd NN 00 pp - - - FlI'1 NN -_ _o Z _O�� obNOPm0o0PtlF� � �'� NNN dOONp< D_ nhd0 p �� FlFl NPON h IIFl -00POQI1-NFlOo 6 W 0 0 @ @ W m a @ @ @m0 p m m m n @ m @ m m m Y Fl R M p n 1'1 R n 1'I n ~ o \ o o ` o .00 6 O O o LL p o o O O f O P Z V @ d I'1 NNN 0 W 0 0 0 m W @ a 000 i m m m n z o z � O K O O T > Y w m 2 D F O Tm m N 2 - o W N C o Z W Ny y K y bu u bNW JNby e eooN Y O TTTT y z z CC D 2222 < r o00o m z OOyP O KYYY A O 0000 2 DDD > O rrrr x A m P K m A CTw- - KDmb Y �nmc i WOAD Kr I O KrTw m C+ m KYZ AAOA cc m wN T YY C Y Z r O O \ 2 m O Z 1 W D O O O C_ O Z i o T � O W i 0 3 m T w a a m w m m 0000oo m 0000410oo m mmm m m m m m o m o 3 W PPPPPP F WWWW N FFP' F FFt X F F F WF W F W W F ? p W 0 1 H o' O 0 000 0 0 W Nm N O N FN-' -Nl w Y Y Z O Y N Y 00000 O O WO�Y FWD O 0000 O YYY O 000 O O O O 0� O O O O F > O N r m N r N O 0000 O -.I-1 X 0 000 0 0 0 0 0r 0 0 0 0 F n Or Y Y r Y N O 0000 O F N Y 0 000 O O O O 0r O O O o Y n 4 O W �Y *F W � O O O O O O r r Y 0 '00—0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 F R Y O N Y m N Y N 0 0000 O � 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 . m 000000 m 0000 m 0 0 0 m mmm m m m m Y Y m Wm o m 0 0 Yr Y Y Y Y r Y Y Y r r Y Y Y Y Y Y r Y Y Y Y r Y Y Y r Y r Y 0 000000 O 0000 O 000 O 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Yr Y r Y r Y Y Y Y Y Y r r Y r Y r r Y Y Y r r r r r Y r r n y 0 000000 0 0000 0 000 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n m R OC N Ir F N m N mw N ut r Y N VINO N �O N VI Y W Y D\ W m y W� Y F �I WW m N O F' VI W W VI W W O 0 W O Y O\ VI b y O ivy m�OmN OI �M1 OXY N O— mvI N r O FF vI mb m F > WVI VI�p F+ O � NmmFO 000 m O N ON N ODM, OV , �rw000O0Q V0I 0O w0 C: O C c5 n = c S > M £ n h = : M 9 R N a m W O �+ OI N N m N N N N N 9 L r' ? ry K O I- µ 3 m 3 r 3 3 r 3 3 3 3 3. n K O W m O C > t- m m n m r r t+ r m w Y R m O K N O K R t� R c' ['t R ['f tt p m n c* m ❑ m m ✓ 5 O n n �. Y M m 0 m 0 N `0 m '] '•J y N d CJ UC R 5 U1 5 3 m ,� M O r O m w m N m M N N 09 C PI m > a n H IG H M M C K f•' > r > H m N (N 0 OH N Y O O 5 OK9 i� Y I O w 3 3 00 m w 0r G 9 m M O In' N N N N N N N N p N�p N�p N� N N NNN N N NNNNN NN NNN N N NNN N Y Y Y Y r Y r Y r Y r Y r O I I vI"N V I F W W W W N Y Y Y O 0 O �O 0 o a 4 w a = Y Y n w Y a 3 d [➢ V W S < O K > > 3 c0* a n m w •d W n N R W 0 £ H < b y z V < n p m P. ( A o w m c0. K K m Y N O O O K O m m m N l➢ n z F N m ut w N m N W F N Ol N VI ,1 w W O VIO W m ' N �1 O ut O N 1 O W p m N ,1 Y O NN 0 W -J 0 0 I-' 0 0 0 OM O 0 N M N cl N M O Y O 0 U � Y m G E N y m U Y O 4 m L m O NN MMMM Z N N N N N N N U N N N N N N NN ml �Iti C L-' U InO Om D\H O'1ON C C I�Inm Y�N N M m W N ~ InN Nm�mf�Q� D\HNMD\�m�O b N y 00 Inm In t—�O N M O L G'J F U 0 o O 0800 N U m y O N u M Q Y E G C N > 7 3 z O O N m N WWs+ cEE O .i E E N r N y 3 0 N SOi F 00 J E Gm3 T+v V m A V 00 O 0000 OWMSTgiymE L V NN N N .iNrl FUHH4J LL O W Y Q 00 O 0000 L MN n .iNM H .i M1�O U ADM 0 O 0 000000 0 WOM�mmm > 00 N mmmN � OO M .-INHM h u O O N N H x H u00 N mmmN G 99 M N N H M L J .i H 0 0000 N MMMM NNNN �o �i xx x xxxx mt— 00 0 0 0 w M 0 0 0 0 0 Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Marilyn M. Remer, Personnel Coordinator Re: Civic Group Participation by Employees Date: July 15, 1988 Information Pursuant to discussions during the 1987-88 Council Goals 5 Objectives sessions, staff was directed to draft a policy regarding civic group participation by employees. Background The issue of employee participation in civic groups and other professional/joint powers/cooperative venture organizations was on the agenda of the Department Head Staff meetings of June 22nd and July 13th. The pros and cons were discussed at great length. Membership and participation in various professional-type groups were deemed to have a substantial relationship to the job duties and beneficial to the City, therefore consensus was that those types of activities were not relative and should be excluded from this policy. Staff -felt that the advantages to the City included community representation and promotion, generating community spirit and goodwill, generating community support for projects, networking, etc. Staff recommended that two criteria be considered in allowing city approved participation. The employee's attendance at the civic organization function should be at the request of the City and deemed beneficial to the City. Secondly, participation be approved at the discretion of the appropriate Supervisor. The question of whether an employee should be allowed to attend these functions on city time or their own time was also discussed in terms of whether employees are classified as exempt or non-exempt as provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) . Exempt employees, often preferred to as salaried employees, are employed to get the job done and are not paid overtime for any overtime worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Whether these individuals attend these functions on the city's time or their own time, is irrelevant as long as they get their work done. Requiring them to strict documentation and possible deductions from an employee's salary could destroy the exemption. FLSA guidelines state that no deductions can be made for absences of less than one day for personal reasons or due to sickness. Recommendation Staff is recommending Council adopt the attached Civic Group Participation as Administrative Policy No. 172. Action Requested Move Council adopt Administrative Policy No. 172, Civic Group Participation by Employees. AADMINISTRATIVE POLICY NO 172 Subject: Civic Group Participation Date: July 15, 1988 Source of Authority: July 13, 1988 Department Head Staff Meeting July 19, 1988 Council Action Introduction Staff has been directed to draft an Administrative Policy regarding civic group participation by employees in response to Council's Goals 6 Objectives for 1988. The purpose of this policy is to allow the Supervisor discretion in authorizing attendance/participation in various community civic organizations. Civic Group Participation by Employees Employee participation in community civic organizations is encouraged. Whereas, such participation is deemed to benefit the City and has been approved at the discretion of the appropriate Supervisor, attendance by employees who are classified as non-exempt by FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) guidelines is hereby authorized during normal working hours. The cost of applicable dues, lunch and related expenses shall be paid by the City or reimburseable to both exempt and non-exempt employees with the required proper documentation. Time spent participating in civic organizations by exempt employees is not applicable as established by FLSA guidelines. MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Upper Valley Drainage Right-of-Way Acquisition DATE: July 1, 1988 Introduction The city of Shakopee is in the process of acquiring right-of-way for the Upper Valley Drainage Project. Mr. Scherber and Mr. Clark own a parcel of property that will be divided by the construction of the drainage way. They have contested the location of the drainage way in court and failed. Now they are again requesting that our attorney bring their request before City Council in the form of a proposed settlement for City Council's consideration. Background Mx. Carmichael,--the attorney for Mr. Scherber and Mr. Clark, has corresponded with Rod Kress who has represented the City throughout the acquisition process and in the courts. Mr. Kress has forwarded correspondence from Mr. Carmichael to Council. It is attached and dated June 22, 1988. In the correspondence Mr. Carmichael explains to Mr. Krass that he is "renewing the offer of Mr. Scherber and Mr. Clark to convey the southerly 100 feet, the easterly 100 feet of the southerly 660 feet (approximate) and a southwesterly 1 acre triange for the sum of $100, 000. 00. " Since he specifically requested that this offer be presented to City Council the Assistant City Attorney has forwarded it Council. Alternatives 1. The City can reject the offer as presented by Mr. Carmichael in his letter of June 22, 1988 to Mr. Philip R. Kress. The circumstances around the owner's original reauest have not changed since the matter was tried in court where the judge ruled for the City. The ruling was on. the City's right to acquire the right-of-way for a public purpose not on property value or damages. We do not feel that the property owner has established any condition which would suggest that the City vary from its original appraisal offer. 2. The City could accept the offer for acquisition of the right-of-way as presented above for the sum of $100, 000. 00. This $100, 000.00 offer is approximately $40, 000. 00 higher than our appraisal offer. The reason that the City might consider this offer would be because we concur with the owner's claims for severance damages as testified to by their engineer and planner. Recommendation The Assistant City Attorney and I recommend alternative No. 1. We also recommend that the City employ a professional planner so that we can have his testimony available at the condemnation hearing (a board made up of three people appointed with real estate experience) when land values and severance damages will be the subject of the hearing. Mr. Krass and I have discussed this and believe that the City should select a planning consultant not presently under contract with the City, but with some knowledge of the City and/or with some experience in testifying at a condemnation hearing. The three planners that we feel fit these criteria are Fred Hoisington, John Shardlow, and (name to be provided by Rod) . Action Requested - 1. Direct the appropriate City officials to contact Mr. Carmichael who is representing Mr. Scherber and Mr. Clark and indicate that the City Council is not interested in their offer as outlined in Mr. Carmichael's letter of June 22, 1988 to Mr. Philip R. Brass. 2. Direct the appropriate City officials to select a planner for testimony before the condemnation hearing and bring back an agreement for said planner's services for Council action. JKA/jms F=C TV p � 1 LAW OFFICES JUN 2 01999 (� KRASS & MONROE CHARTERED Phillip R. Kral Marschall Road Busmen Center Denms L Monroe 327 Marshall Road gamy K.Meyer P.O. Box 216 Trevor R. Walslen 55379 Jay D.Goldberg Shakopee.Minnesou Diane M. CaM1 Telephone(612)4555080 Roben J.Wafter FAX(612)4457640 Izchbn B.Muir James B.Croh Colben M.Trende Kern A. Cadson.CPA June 26, 1988 Mr. Join Anderson City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: City of Shakopee v. Batch, at al. Our File No. 1-1373-210 Dear John: Enclosed please find the most recent correspondence I have received from the attorney for hr. Scherber and Mr. Clark. by copies of this letter to all of our staff people, 1 am asking everyone to take a look at the letter, my response, and give me a reaction. I am wondering at this time if we ought to have a professional planner take a look at the parcels as they would be severed. by this ditch to. be able to testify that the lane as severed east and vest by the ditch and divided north and south by the zoning line is still developable in a reasonable manner. At tine court hearing, the property owners' planner, Rayne Tover, testified as to the difficulties of developing what will end un to be four euarterly parcels. think we better be prepared to deal with those issues. _`_ you agree, please suggest and put us in contact with a planmer as soon as possible. Very truly ours RiAES M CBARTEKED dip Rl Krass PRK:mly Enclosure cc: David Button, City Engineer Robert D. Frigaard, Project Engineer Peter Patc'rin DOwELL - .•-IDs.w+ovn 5681 L'"enwR RE RowD .Aus R.L.TXICR.Lv so.socrX pOCASA srAeer XICMPv H. L aAON MIl<N£wpOLI S.MINT-e50in SS916 pT]NCCTON.XIANibOin J]9T G.AT n. X�no.+Eu (e)2) 545-9000 imz�aec-Ye.. sTLVLN i p:DLT... MN 7o LL FREE 800-343-4545 G. M V iJ:DLR50N �O�➢nAR P4Ct SSP-¢A E. tlOG[ C<H L£ M('i]-A V(MINT'EApOLS Mti SCX IN Sp N.TINNCSOTa]]3]O L XwAi¢5 L Rw31 JA. rEi[LO PIER (B,Y 1],Y�]e>YSry LPpTLT-D n•- n. EOGLIMN).- osepn o.Nes Dru)I June 22 , 1988 Mr. Philip R. Krass (CRASS n MONROE 327 Marschall Road P.O. Box 216 Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Re: City of Shakopee v. Hatch, e- al. Your Pile No. 1-1373-210 CIdr File No. 2056-85-0005 District Court Pile No. 88-03217 Dear Mr . Kress: we have proceeded to employ an a-ora'se= 3earinc in recares 10 the above matter. n a-- -.. the ma��er u;i ih Our appraiser a d reviewing previous recce-s from cour_cla=ner , Wayne Tower and our enc-neer, 3111 Price, seems to me that the City 's most cost-effect' ve resolution o` thea=-er would be to relocate ditch across the Scherber/Clark parte_ as prop -csed my ecrresco_- dence to you o_` April 27 , 1988 . Messrs . Scherber and Clark wo, , 6 be willinc to convey the Southerly 100 feet, the Westerly 100 feet and a approrimete 1 acre t_-jangle in the Southwest cornertotal)ina apprc_.a- Ma.ely 5 . 25 acres for the s-.. of 5100, 000. 00. The City ' s a=-aisal seems to neglect the severance issues and icnores the potential inverse taking Of much Of the Scherber and Clark property adjoining the ditch. The City mus contemplate the cosi pf bridg�g :ina ditch. You may recall tha- Wayne Tower testified that the ditch will probably have be _r_deed in two places i; order to accommodate development of the crccer_,: . ^nese are recoverable expenses from the C- ' V. The City ' s engineer speculated that the dirt cost may be $40, 000. 00 greater to locate the di_c, alone the South line of the Scherber/Clank parcel. With the increased dirt cost of approximately $40, 000 . 00 and Mr . Philip R. Brass 11 June 22, 1988 Page 2 the set payment of 5100, 000. 00, the City is still money ahead on the project and the City may be able to reconvey the Southwesterly triangle of the Scherber/Clark property and recoup some of its acquisition cost. I am herewith renewing the offer of Mr. Scherber and Clark to convey the Southerly 100 fee`., the Easterly 100 feet cf the Southerly 660 feet (approximate) and a Southwesterly 1 acre triangle for the sum of $100,000 . 00. Please present the offer to the City Council and let me know whether we can resolve this matter without both sides incurring further costs and expenses . I will look forward to discussing the matter with you at your convenience very true yours , ARN ED > :..i C, rles . . Carmi haei C: r CC: Jerome P. Scherber I t T 1 I W 71 i / r I I EC i _ s i F Z F7 a � � Ila tiW cl Ic w O-SZoSo6 -�y - oosob p � J iAt 4� �O J � i QF � aTm p 1� Ole 0 _O ti 4a pO �o MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Employment of a Planning Firm to Evaluate the Effects of a R-O-W Taking from Scherber/Clark Property for Storm Drainage System DATE: July 14, 1988 Introduction The Shakopee City Council, at its regular July 5, 1988 meeting, authorized staff to obtain proposals from three planning firms to evaluate the effect of the proposed storm drainage/R-O-W taking from the Scherber/Clark property. Proposals We requested and received three proposals. One proposal is from the Dahlgren Shardlow and Uban firm. Mr. John Shardlow of that firm is familiar with this portion of Shakopee because he worked on the rezoning of the area after the awarding of the Racetrack. The second proposal is from Hoisington Group Inc. Mr. Fred Hoisington also has experience with this area because he firm did the second land use analysis of property around the Racetrack. The third proposal is from Yaggy Colby Associates. Yaggy Colby Associates have no recent experience in Shakopee, however, Mr. Ron Fiscus, their Planning Director, has made formal presentations in court and has performed well in that capacity according to Assistant City Attorney Rod Krass. The estimates for the work_gnd the hourly rates are similar for the report phase — The hourly rates for expert testimony are significantly Y g r for the Dahlgren Shardlow and Uban firm. Alternatives 1. Employ Fred Hoisington of the Hoisington Group Inc. because of his familiarity with the area, his familiarity with Shakopee and his lower hourly rate for expert testimony. 2. Employ the firm of Dahlgren Shardlow and Uban because they are familiar with Shakopee and have a larger firm and more experience in providing expert testimony in such cases. Recommendation I recommend alternative No. 1 for the reasons listed above. Action Requested Direct the appropriate City officials to enter into an agreement with Hoisington Group Inc. to provide an analysis and prepare a report for the storm drainage/R-O-W taking from Scherber/Clark for the Upper Valley Drainage Project at a estimated rate not to exceed $4,000.00, and to provide expert testimony (includes meetings, etc. ) at $80.00 per hour. T" /imo Hoisington Group Inc. Land Use Consultants July 11 , 1988 Mr . John Anderson R�c�►v�o City Administrator 1 21988 City of Shakopee JUL 129 East 1st Street Shakopee , MN 55379 CTy OF SHAKOPEE Re : Proposal To Evaluate Storm Drainage/R-O-W Taking From Scherber/Clark Property Dear Mr. Anderson: I submit this proposal as an indication of our interest in assisting the City of Shakopee in formulating its case for the condemnation of a portion of the Scherber/Clark property in the vicinity of Canterbury Downs. It is our understanding that it is the City ' s intent to use 100 feet of the Scherber/Clark property as right-of-way for a storm drainage ditch and that said ditch will divide the 40 acre subject property in a manner that is not acceptable to the owners. It is further our understanding that this matter will be heard by a Condemnation Commission and that the City wishes to hire a Land Planning Consultant to assist with the formulation of its case including the following services: ( 1 ) A study of the situation , (2) Report Preparation , and (3) Providing testimony during condemnation proceedings . If the decision of the Commission -i-s appealed, it is further our understanding that the Consultant will ---- -- testify in court on behalf of the City of Shakopee. The fees for the analysis and report preparation phases will be in the range of TWO THOUSAND TO FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2 ,000 to $4,000) . Once selected, we will meet with the City Attorney to clarify our role and define a lump sum fee that is appropriate to satisfy the level of services required . All services rendered after the report preparation phase , including testimony before a Condemnation Commission and subsequent litigation , will be on an hourly basis plus incidental expenses. My current hourly rate for testimony is $80 per hour. The following represents some of my experience with similar and related cases for your consideration: 1 . Calhoun Beach Apartments litigation including analysis, report preparation and pending court testimony ; Minneapolis, Minnesota . 7300 Metro Blvd. Suite 525 Edina.MN 55435 (612)835-9960 2 . Batzli Electric condemnation including analysis , report preparation and testimony ; Minneapolis , Minnesota. 3 . Halla Nursery condemnation testimony ; Edina , Minnesota. 4. Chanhassen properties condemnation related to Downtown Redevelopment (several) ; Chanhassen , Minnesota. 5. Flying Cloud Landfill litigation including analysis, report preparation and pending litigation for BFI Waste Systems; Eden Prairie , Minnesota. 6. Prior Lake and Monticello annexation proceedings including analysis, report preparation and testimony before the Minnesota Municipal Board . I want to thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal and look forward to the prospect of continuing to serve the City of Shakopee in a Land Use Consulting capacity. HOISINGTON GROUP INC. Fred KzA/ Tyr Hoisington Group Inc. land use consunents HOISINGTON GROUP INC. Hoisington Group Inc . (HCI) was established in 1982 to offer land analysis and planning services primarily to municipal , business and land development clients. The firm specializes in larger scale projects which require the employment of several professional disciplines, which projects often require the use of participation . techniques to build credibility with the public , landowners and others who might be affected by planning decisions . HGI recently added the landscape architectural discipline and now offers site planning and urban design services . Hoisington Group Inc. provides continuing planning services to most of its clients .- The following is a partial list of clients served by HGI over the past five and one—half years. St . Peter Revitalization , Inc . , St . Peter . MN City of Shakopee , MN City of Champlin , MN City of Chanhassen , MN City of Rosemount, MN City of Grand Rapids , MN City of St . Paul , MN City of Minnetonka , MN City of Long Lake, MN North Memorial Medical Center , Minneapolis , MN - Honeywell , Inc . , Minneapolis , MN H. B. Fuller Company, St. Paul , MN BMC Industries , Inc . , St. Paul , MN Wendy 's of Minnesota , Edina, MN Health Resources , Inc. , St. Paul , MN Methodist Hospital , St. Louis Park , MN The Health Central System, Brooklyn Park , MN Woodlake Sanitary Service , Inc . /BFI Waste Systems, Eden Prairie , MN Mark Z. Jones Associates, Edina , MN AIC Corporation , St. Paul , MN 16th Fairway Partnership , Madeline Island , WI Pierce Butler, St. Paul , MN Anderson ' s Garden Shoppe, Eden Prairie , MN Touch of Class Interiors , Eden Prairie , MN Lincoln Properties, Edina , MN Independent School District #272, Eden Prairie , MN Work for the above clients has primarily included feasibility/needs studies, conflict resolution , ordinance preparation and large scale land use and transportation studies. 7300 Metro Blvd, Suite 525 Edina.MN 55435 (612)835-9960 Hoisington Group Inc. l� ,vu Land use consultants FRED HOISINGTON - PRESIDENT HOISINGTON GROUP INC. EDUCATION M.S. Resource Development and Urban Planning , Michigan State University B.S. Urban Planning , Michigan State University MEMBERSHIPS AND AFFILIATIONS American Planning Association Minnesota Planning Association Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce., President 1988 Coalition For Sensible Land Use, Director Urban Land Institute Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition Edina Chamber of Commerce World Future Society PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE FRED HOISINGTON is a land planning consultant with 23 years of public and private experience in Minnesota, Colorado and Michigan . He specializes in land analysis and planning for business , municipal and land development clients. Prior to forming his own firm Mr . Hoisington served as Senior Vice President for Brauer & Associates, LTD. ; Director of Planning for Traverse City, Michigan ; President of Brauer & Associates Rocky Mountain , Inc . , Planning Director for Edina, Minnesota , and Assistant Planner , Tri-County Regional Planning Commission , Lansing , Michigan. While employed by Traverse City, he also served as Director for the Traverse City Housing Commission and as Acting Executive Director for the Downtown Development Authority. REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE - Honeywell, Inc. ; Feasibility Study , Preliminary Site Planning; Eden Prairie, Minnesota. - H. B. Fuller Company; Vadnais Heights, Minnesota; Resource Management and Water Resources Plans, PUD, EAW, DNR and PCA Permits , Project Administration ; Continuing Consulting Services . - Wendy ' s of Minnesota; Public Agency Approvals , Edina and Richfield Stores. - Cardinal Creek Village Multi-family PUD, EAW and Feasibility Analysis; MZJ/Chimo Development Corp . ; Eden Prairie, Minnesota . 7300 MettO Blvd. Suite 525 Edina,MN 55435 (612)835-9960 - Health Resources , Inc. ; Public Agency Approvals, Continuing Services; Hazel Ridge Seniors Housing Project ; Maplewood , Minnesota. - James Swanson ; 80 Acre Feasibility Analysis; Oakdale , Minnesota. - The Health Central System; Health Care Campus Programming . - Methodist Hospital ; Parking Problem Solving, St . Louis Park , Minnesota . - BMC Industries, Inc. ; Preliminary Master Site Plan , White Bear Lake , Minnesota. - City of St . Paul , Recreation Center Site Selection Process . - Boundary View Residential Community, Land Development Analysis, Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota . - 16th Fairway Partnership , Land Use Plan , Madeline Island, Wisconsin . - City of Grand Rapids, Minnesota; Zoning & Subdivision Control Ordinances. - City of Rosemount , Community Needs Study. - City of Rosemount , Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances . - Woodlake Sanitary Service , Landfill End-Use Planning, Eden Prairie , Minnesota. - Stratford Wood III Multi-family PUD and City Approvals Process , Mark Z. Jones II , Minnetonka , Minnesota . - City of Chanhassen , Minnesota, Downtown Redevelopment Concept Plan . - City of Champlin, MN; Old Town Redevelopment and TIF Plans. - City of Shakopee, MN; Canterbury Downs Race Track District Land Use and Transportation Study, Race Track District and PUD Ordinances. - St. Peter Revitalization , Inc . , St. Peter , MN; Downtown Economic Feasibility Study. - City of Chanhassen , MN; Broadened Study Area , Land Use and Transportation Plan. - City of Chanhassen, MN; Downtown Redevelopment/TIF Plans . - City of Grand Rapids, MN ; Community Needs Study. - Eden Prairie School District , MN; School Sites Selection . - City of Traverse City , MI ; Comprehensive Plan . - Metropolitan Stadium Site , Bloomington , MN; Development Concept Plan . - Touch of Class Interiors ; - Guide Plat. Amendmentand Rezoning , City of Eden Prairie, MN. - Anderson 's Garden Shoppe; - Guide Plan Amendment and Rezoning , City of Eden Prairie, MN. - City of Chanhassen, MN; Downtown Parking Study. - Yorktown Mall Shopping Center , Edina, MN; Parking Study. - Lincoln Properties; Bloomington Shoppes Mall, Bloomington , MN; Parking Study. - Lincoln Properties; Village Shoppes Mall , Wayzata , MN; Parking Study . - City of Grand Rapids, MN; Planning/Economic Development Needs Study. - City of Detroit Lakes , MN; Downtown Redevelopment Program. - City of Rosemount , MN; Fire Station Location Study . UA it \J�. N Sl to ( 1L� i� �; ANP TAN CONSULTING PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH SUITE 210 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55001 612 3393300 12 July 1988 John Anderson, City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Proposal to Assist the City in the Evaluation of Potential Severance Damages Related to the Extension of a Storm Water Drainage Facility in the Vicinity of Canterbury Downs, and to Provide Expert Testimony in the Condemnation Hearings, If Necessary Dear John: I am writing in response to your request for a proposal from our firm regarding he above referenced matter. The direct answer to the question is yes,we would welcome the opportunity to help the City of Shakopee in this matter. In the following paragraphs I will briefly outline how we would propose to approach this work, an estimate of the scope of our services and the costs associated with them and finally,I will provide you with some background regarding our experience in the area of expert testimony. Let me begin by stating that we want to approach this effort in the most cost effective fashion possible. We are not interested in doing any unnecessary work. On the other hand,we do not want to scale our involvement back so far that we cannot give you the service that you really need. I will attempt to outline an approach that will allow us to achieve the proper balance between these ends of the spectrum. This entire matter hinges on whether or not the construction of these storm drainage improvements across the subject property will result in severance damages to the remainder. To evaluate that question,we would need an accurate base map at a reasonable planning scale(say 1" = 100%with two foot contour intervals. Property boundary information should be at least as accurate as County Section Maps to begin with,but of course a boundary survey would be preferred. City of Shakopee, 12 July 1988 Page 2 When we have these materials and an accurate drawing showing the location and nature of the proposed drainage facility,we will need to prepare an analysis of the property's development potential both before and after the construction of the drainage system. I would suggest that we could keep this analysis in sketch form and quite schematic to begin with. The only qualification that I would offer is that we may need to refine the designs a bit more if we feel that there is an opportunity to mitigate damages through the design process. Without knowing the site and its unique characteristics and context it is impossible to judge at this time. The point is,we need to conduct an independent analysis to form our preliminary opinion about the subject of severance damages. When we have completed this analysis,we would then review the appraisal report,the land owners planner's report,or their official complaint,if one exists. We would then propose to meet with the City Attorney,yourself and other Staff members to discuss our findings.and to present our reaction to the arguments presented on behalf of the land owner. All of the above can be accomplished without a great deal of time or materials being spent and it is really the point at which we will be in a position to assist you in determining the best strategy for dealing with this matter. I am comfortable with giving you an estimate of the costs to get to this point,beyond this point it would be pure speculation. If we disagree with the conclusion that there are severance damages, the City Attorney will probably want us to prepare exhibits which demonstrate that fact and to review the appropriate plans and documents to prepare effective testimony. If our analysis identifies some severance damages,we wilt probably want to explore how they might be mitigated. Finally,if the severance damages exist and they cannot be mitigated, our involvement may be quite limited as you proceed further. The best course could then be to settle the dispute, but again, I am speculating at this point. COST OF SERVICES After reviewing this matter with my office manager,we agree that one of our experienced site planners should take approximately 16 man hours to analyze the land and to prepare the schematic"before and after"drawings. I would estimate 8 hours of my own time to supervise and review his work, read all of the pertinent reports and another 4 hours to prepare and meet with you to discuss it. Since experience teaches that things never proceed quite that smoothly,we would estimate that the above stated work could be completed for between$1,750.00 and$2,000.00. We would agree to provide these services on a time,plus materials basis,with this estimate. We will only undertake that work that is necessary to develop an expert opinion,and we will not begin any work beyond this stage without providing you with a detailed scope of services and gaining your prior approval. City of Shakopee, 12 July 1988 Page 3 BACKGROUND Although it has never been part of our professional practice that we have actively promoted,we have,nevertheless,been involved in the preparation and presentation of expert testimony in more than 100 cases in the past 10 years. The majority of these have been condemnation related,but we have also been involved in several other matters related to planning,zoning and governmental regulation. We were involved in virtually every disputed condemnation case along I-35E through Dakota County and we are currently under contract with several of the land owners along 1-394, to assist them in evaluating their positions and potentially testifying on their behalf. I am including a copy of our brochure. There are several law firms listed in our selected clients list and any of these firms could be contacted as a reference. I would be happy to provide you with examples of our work,or specific references if need be. In closing I want to thank you again for thinking about us. I have attempted to suggest an approach to this matter which will allow us to develop an expert opinion regarding the question of potential severance damages without any wasted effort Following that point in the process,we will be in a position to advise you regarding the planning implications of any of a number of alternative courses of action. Sincerely, DAHLGREN,SHARDLOW,AND UBAN,INC. ra %3 ss- to . Shar ow,Vice P ✓.�.la✓resident to D REN,SHARDLOW,AND UBAN,INC. CONDITIONS HEREIN AGREED TO: CITY OF SHAKOPEE John Anderson, City Administrator Date CITY OF SHAKOPEE Attachment: Standard Rate Schedule STANDARD RATE SCHEDULE DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW AND UBAN INC Staff Member Rate Principals $80.00 to $120.00 Senior Planner $40.00 to $50.00 Planner $40.00 to $50.00 Landscape Architect _ $30.00 to $50.00 I Urban Designer _ $25.00 to $50.00 Market/Research Analyst $25.00 to $50.00 Graphic Designer $25.00 to $40.00 Draftsman . $25.00 to $40.00 Secretary $25.00 to $35.00 Outside Consultants - Per Job Plus li% Supplies Cost Plus 15% Mileage $0.30 Per Mile Expert Testimony Two Times Hourly Rate (One-half Day Minimum) Past Due Accounts _ 1.5% Per Month JUL1 =1�& Y4GGY COLBY CITY CF I,,^KOPE� ASSOCIATES July 12, 1988 EN NEEAI� E<EDEC ARWy U� Mr. John Anderson City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 East 1st Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr. Anderson: Thank you for your recent request for a proposal regarding provision of expert witness services in the matter of the condemnation process in which the City of Shakopee is involved. Yaggy Colby Associates has acted in similar roles, previously, and pending further understanding of the issues involved in this case, would be pleased to provide similar assistance to the City on this project. In addition to engineering, land surveying and architectural services, Yaggy Colby Associates provides planning services to a variety of communities throughout the upper midwest. The firm presently employs six full-time, professional planners. The variety of planning activities in which the firm becomes involved include the following: 1. Comprehensive planning and zoning 2. Site planning 3. Recreation planning 4. Economic development planning 5. Community redevelopment planning 6. Grant application and administration 7. Tax increment financing activities. In these various roles, the impact of the community's decision making upon land use implications, is a topic that has been examined in detail . The firm has frequently been placed in the position of assisting communities through the land acquisition and condemnation procedures and fully understands the requirements of state and federal acquisition procedures in this regard. 2,5 PICP.TI A�-NN..CIv CTv 1p A- 50401�515-42 -63 ... pSCp E<GaN W[ 0. VE.S ITE 1S E4GP MihP ME 55'22 E12-EE+=S- Mr. John Anderson July 12, 1988 Page 2 Enclosed are resumes of three members of the planning staff who would be best equipped to provide assistance in this regard. We would appreciate an opportunity to discuss the issues involved in this condemnation case in more detail and can make ourselves available for such a meeting at your convenience. Thank you for your consideration. Yours t uly, YAGG OLBY CIATES onaId L Fiscus ` Director of Planning RLF:prs JA0712.ltr Enclosure RESUME - RONALD L. FISCUS, L.A. EXPERIENCE Professional Planner and Landscape Architect,Secretary/Treasurer Yaggy Colby Associates, February 1984 through Present Assistant Director Mason City Community Development Department,June 1976 through Jan. 1984 EDUCATION Bachelor of Science, Landscape Architecture Iowa State University,Ames, Iowa; 1976 Graduate, National Development Council Economic Development Series REGISTRATION Landscape Architect, Minnesota, 1986 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Society of Landscape Architects Member Minnesota Planning Association Member Minnesota Governor's Design Team Member Minnesota Industrial Development Association Member CIVIC ACTIVITIES IIIIIII Industrial/Commercial Development Bureau Rochester Chamber of Commerce Secretary Rochester Rotary It Club RocheSer Community Theatre Rochester Future Scan 2000 Rochester Leadership 2000 Rochester Chamber of Commerce Chairman,Building Expansion Committee Christ United Methodist Church RESUME - DARRELL L. LEWIS EXPERIENCE Professional Planner,Vice President Yaggy Colby Associates,June 1979 through Present Research Assistant Institute of Urban and Regional Research,September 1977 through May 1979 Professional Planner, Urban Designer Rochester Consolidated Planning Department,June 1975 through August 1977 EDUCATION Master of Arts, Urban and Regional Planning University of Iowa, Iowa Cay, Iowa; 1979 Bachelor of Urban and Regional Planning University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois; 1975 Urban and Regional Planning Coursework Iowa State University,Ames, Iowa; 1971 -1973 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Planning Association Member Society for Marketing Professional Services Member National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials Member CIVIC ACTIVITIES Past Board Member and Divisional Vice President Mason Cay Chamber of Commerce Chairperson,50th North Iowa Band Festival Chairman Nominations Committee, District Board Member Lakeland District, Boy Scouts of America Divisional Board Planning Committee Member St.Joseph Mercy Hospital Mason Cay Rivertront Commission Member 'IECOGNITION AND HONORS 1987 Selection-Iowa's 25"Up and Comers' Des Moines Register and Tribune 1987 Selection-Top Ten Community Leaders KGLO/KNIQ Radio RESUME - DAVID M. MARONEY EXPERIENCE Professional Planner Yaggy Colby Associates, May 1988 through Present Community Development Director Northfield Community Development Dept., February 1980 through April 1988 City Coordinator City of Wells, November 1978 through January 1980 Administrative Assistant City of Little Falls, May 1978 through November 1978 EDUCATION Master of Arts, Urban Studies Mankato State University, Mankato, Minnesota; 1984 Bachelor of Arts, Public Administration St Cloud State University, St Cloud, Minnesota; 1977 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Minnesota Industrial Development Association Member American Planning Association Member Minnesota Planning Association Member National Trust for Historic Preservation Member National Main Street Program Member CONSENT MEMO TO: John R. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Application for Temporary 3 .2 Beer License by Shakopee Jaycees DATE: July 14, 1988 Introduction and Background The Shakopee Jaycees have made application for a temporary 3.2 beer license for July 23 and 24, 1988 and August 19, 20 and 21, 1988 at Tahpah Park. The City Attorney has reviewed the application, surety bond and certificate of insurance and they are in order. Alternatives 1. Approve application. 2. Deny application. Recommendation Alternative No. 1, approve application. Recommended Action Approve the application and grant an On Sale 3 .2 beer license to the Shakopee Jaycees at Tahpah Park for July 23 and 24, 1988 and August 19, 20 and 21, 1988 . JSC/jms City of Shakopee �PK0 °F POLICE DEPARTMENT Cp 476 South Gorman Street �. SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55179 p OLE`E Tel. 612/445-6666 �7fip ' �/NNESO�P�`L. CONCENT TO: Mayor, Councilmembers FROM: Tom Brownell , Chief of Police RE: Completion of Probationary Period DATE: July 5, 1988 Introduction Police employee, Sherry L. Borchardt, Part-time Clerk Typist I commenced employment January 11, 1988. Background Sherry L. Borchardt has successfully completed the required six month probationary period.. Recommendation Appoint Sherry L. Borchardt to the position of permanent Part-time Clerk Typist I. Council Action Requested Appoint Sherry L. Borchardt to the position of permanent Part-time Clerk Typist I. - City of Shakopee y� p KO oF` POLICE DEPARTMENT 476 South Gorman Street SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 P p LI Tel. 612/445-6666 1 NES O ; � Q {� SENT TO: Mayor, Councilmembers FROM: Tom Brownell , Chief of Police RE: Completion of Probationary Period DATE: July 5, 1988 Introduction Police employee Gregory J. Tucci , was appointed to the position of probationary Police Patrolman July 1, 1987. Background Gregory J. Tucci has. successfully completed the required one year probationary period. Recommendation Appoint Gregory J. Tucci to the permanent position of Police Patrol Officer. Council Action Requested Appoint Gregory J. Tucci to the permanent position of Police Patrol Officer. MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Procedures for Designating Official Maps DATE: July 15, 1988 Introduction The Shakopee City Council, at its June 29, 1988 meeting, directed staff to provide it with information regarding the formal procedures for use of official maps as outlined in State Statute and summarized in the League of Minnesota Cities information summarizing the State Statute. Council also asked for correspondence between the City and the State clarifying the City's financial commitment to the State for the T.H. 169 Bridge and Mini By-Pass Project and for project cost estimates. Leaoue of Minnesota Cities Outline of Procedures Attached is the League of Minnesota Cities informational memo entitled "The Use of Official Maps as a Planning Device - Notes and Forms" dated October, 1977. City staff along with the Assistant City Attorney met to review the League document and the procedures outlined therein. The procedures are listed on page two and three and include seven steps. After reviewing the procedures it was determined that rather than passing an ordinance for each such mapping the City should adopt the proposed ordinance establishing procedures for official maps for this and any future projects. The draft ordinance is found on page six through page nine in the League informational memo. Staff also recommends that the items listed in procedure number seven on page three, items 7a through d, be listed in the standardized ordinance. The staff then determined that to comply with step number one the Planning Commission needs to amend the present Comprehensive Plan (page 36 and accompanying map) to include the proposed T.H. 169 Bridge and Mini By-Pass Right-of-Way. Step two regarding preparation of the map has been completed in detail and will be provided to the Planning Commission when it considers amending the thoroughfare plan within the Comprehensive Plan. Step three calls for the Planning Commission to approve the finished map by motion or resolution and file the map with the City Council. City staff felt that the option for a Planning Commission public hearing should be foregone to reserve the hearing for City Council rather than conducting two separate public hearings. Planning Commission could act on step number three at there August 4th meeting. Step four could be accommodated by the City Council, at its August 16th meeting, setting a public hearing for September 6th or September 13th. Step five can be accomplished the night of the hearing or at a subsequent meeting. Step number six can follow step number five after the ordinance is published. Cost Estimates Attached is a memorandum dated December 30, 1986 from Ken Ash£eld outlining the T.H. 169 Bridge and Mini By-Pass project improvements and our partnership with Mn/DOT. Page number two of the memorandum lists the total project costs at $6, 640,000. Of that cost $170,000 is for initial planning, $1,280, 000 is for right-of-way acquisition, $130, 000 is for by-pass design, and $2, 100,000 is for by-pass construction, totalling $3, 680, 000. The difference is for the bridge design and construction. Also attached is correspondence outlining the City's financial agreement with Mn/DOT. In chronological order is the November 4, 1985 letter from Bill Crawford outlining the initial Memorandum of Understanding. It is followed by the April 27, 1987 letter from Bill Crawford restating the "Revised Memorandum of Understanding" . The third letter is dated July 12, 1988 and it is again from Bill Crawford (signed by his assistant James Povich because Mr. Crawford is on vacation) further restating that Mn/DOT concurs with the City's interpretation that the City has a maximum participation of $1.9 million. Construction Boundaries for the Official Mao Attached is a copy of the formal report dated February 25, 1987 which was the date of an informal open house and a formal public hearing for residents affected by the T.H. 169 Bridge and Mini By-Pass project. The cover page of the formal transcript taken of that hearing is also attached. Prior to the hearing many affected property owners were individually contacted by City Engineer Ken Ashfeld to discuss the project and talk about potential access questions/problems. Also attached is the map outlining the construction boundaries of the proposed project as presented in the final EAW. This map, as updated by HNTB's construction limits map, would be the map staff proposes the Council adopt for use as the official map for purposes of protecting right-of-way until the project is underway. Alternatives 1. Direct City staff to begin the steps to initial the official mapping process for the T.H. 169 Bridge and Mini By-Pass improvement right-of-way. This would include returning to Council with a standardized official mapping procedure ordinance based upon the one provided by the League, and setting a Planning Commission meeting to discuss amending the thoroughfare plan portion of the Comp Plan at their August 4th meeting. This alternative would set a time table to allow the official mapping process to proceed in an orderly process so that it can be completed by the time the City is ready to make the final deed transfers for acquisition of the Brambilla property. Carl Hofstedt, our Mn/DOT project representative, recommended adopting the map before the final purchase. 2. Take no action to start the official mapping process until the City receives further commitment from Mn/DOT for the financing of the T.H. 169 Bridge and Mini By-Pass project. This alternative can be approved regardless of action on the Brambilla request for building permit, but may mean the acquisition would not fall within our $1. 9 million project cap. Recommendation Staff recommends alternative No. 1 for the reasons discussed about. Action Requested 1. Direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance relating to official maps and their effects in providing procedures in connection therewith as outlined in the sample ordinance provided in the October, 1977 publication of the League of Minnesota Cities. 2 . Direct staff to prepare the necessary information for Planning Commission to consider an amendment to the major thoroughfare plan in the City's Comprehensive Plan at its regular August 4th meeting. JRA/jms league of minnesota cities III 300 nanover building. 4130 ceder sn.saint paul, mann. 55101 „I 1111 111 l U 0 Ifol r, for municipal officials 430c2.2 Rev: October, 1977 1 1 THE USE OF OFFICIAL MAPS AS A PLANNING DEVICE — NOTES AND FORMS CONTENTS Page The Use of Official Maps Legal Authority. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 SII Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Enforcement. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 li Minnesota Experience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Sample Forms for Use Under Official Map Law - Resolution of Planning Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Ordinance Providing for Official Maps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Resolution Ordering Preparation of Official Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Resolution Calling Hearing on Official Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Notice of Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Ordinance Adopting Official Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 THE USE OF OFFICIAL MAPS AS A PLANNING DEVICE - One of the tools to' carrying out a compre- Though the Minnesota act may be generally hensive plan is the official map The official map constitutional,.it may be invalid In its impact upon should not be confused with the comprehensive particular property owners. It is one thing, for plan or the zoning map. As the term is defined •.n example, for an official map to prevent the owner the Municipal Planning Act it means an officially of a farm from building a barn within a 50-foot adopted map showing existing streets, proposed strip marked out as a future street on the map future streets and the area needed for w.-den ng when he could still use that portion of his farm existing streets of the city. It may also show the for crops; putting the barn elsewhere would be location of existing and future public land and a relattvely minor inconvenience. It is another facilities within the city. (M.S. 462.352, Subd. 10-) thing when the land marked out as future street includes so much or such a central part of a lot The primary purpose of the official map is to that the owner is not able to build at all. In that forestall the construction of buildings and other case, denyng the owner a permit to build within private improvements on land designated as future the street lines is unconstitutional. (Roer Con- streets or the site of future parks or other public snucticn Corporation v. New Rochelle, 207 facilities. It is designed to save the public expense Misc. 46, 136 N.Y. S. 2d 414, 1954; Re Sanson of paying for buildings placed in such designated Street. 293 Pa. 483, 143 AV. 134, 1928.) The areas in the future. Adoption of the map does not unconstitutional application of official map create public ownership in the land or give the authority is most likely to occur, of course, where city any easement in the land. It does ensure that it is used to lay out future public areas requiring the land will be acquired at the market value of large amounts of land like parks. See Miller v. the land when needed by the city without pay. Beaver Falls, 368 Pa. 189, 82 A 2d 34 (1951), ment for the value of a building erected later where the court held invalid a general plan for within the limits of the area designated for streets parks which had the effect of freezing certain or other public purposes on the map. private land for three years. It is probably for this reason that in a state like Wisconsin where a Legal Authority study showed that at least 33 cities had official maps, none had used the map for parks or similar The Municipal Planning Act authorizes cities areas, which the law explicitly permitted, in add- and urban towns to adopt an official map after ition to streets. See Kucirek and Beuscher, "The a major thoroughfare plan and a community Wisconsin Official Map Law", 1957 Wis. Law facilities plan have been adopted. (M.S. 462.359.) Rev. 1176 at 1185. There has been no court decision in Minnesota on the validity of the provision, but the attorney To take care of cases of hardship and avoid general has ruled that, with the provisions it invalid application of the official map law, the contains for permits to take care of hardship Minnesota act provides for the granting of vari- cases, the statute is constitutional. (A.G. Op. antes from map requirements by the board of 59-A, LMC 430C2, April 17, 1958.) While some zoning appeals and adjustments on appeal by an early cases cast doubt on the validity of official aggrieved property owner. The wise administra- map laws, particularly when they contained no tion of this variance authority can avoid illegal provision for hardship cases, no case in the last 50 actions at the same time as it may minimize the years has invalidated such a statute as it applies city's later costs in acquiring a street easement to streets. See cases cited in the annotation, when opening the street becomes necessary. In "Eminent Domain: Validity of 'Freezing' Ordi- originally proposing an official map law, Bassett nance or Statute Preventing Prospective Con- and Williams, Model Laws for Planning Cities, demnee from Improving, or Otherwise Changing, Counties and States (VII Harvard Planning Studies, the Condition of His Property," 36 A.L.R. 3d 1935), suggested, for example, that a landowner 751-81.0. The courts of both New York and Wis. in an outlying district might be allowed to build tonin have sustained the constitutionality of of- a cellar-less one-story frame building which would ficial map laws with provisions much like Minne- be inexpensive to remove when the street was sofa's. (Headley v. Dry of Rochester, 272 N.Y. later opened. Similarly, a landowner who wished 197, 5 N.E. 2d 198, 1936; Stare ex rel Miller v to build a four-story stone building across the Manders, 2 Wis. 2d 365, 86 N.W. 2d 469, 1957.) mapped street might be allowed to construct - 1 ' an inexpensive onestory structure on the mapped There is a special provision in the law under street if he built the taller and more permanent which municipalities in the Twin Cities metro- structure back from the mapped land. politan area may use the official map as a stop-gap tool for environmental protection. For a maximum In particular cases the board, and the court five-year period, an official map of a metropoli- if the board's action is judicially attacked, must Mn city or urban town may designate the boun- balance the interests of the city in protecting the caries of areas reserved for purposes of soil con- official map against the possible hardship to the servation, water supply conservation, flood con- property owner and strike an app�opnate com- tiol and suitace water drainage and removal, promise if possible. Thus, in one case, the New including appropriate regulations protecting such York court held that where the setback created areas against encroachment by buildings, other by the official map greatly depreciated the market physical structures or facilities. (M.S. 462.352, value of commercial property and the owner needed Subd. 10.) Presumably, these regulations will be to expand to accommodate his growing business, included in the official map ordinance - the statu- the zoning board of appeals should grant a permit tory authority was added to the definition of the for a ground floor showroom limited to a single official map; however, natural resource areas of story projecting into the street;to insure minimum this type are sometimes protected under zoning condemnation expense •.n the future, the needed ordinances. The provision seems to have been upper stories could be required to conform to the little used as yet. Its validity seems somewhat setback line. (Vangellow, v. City of Rochester, 18 doubtful but it has not been challenged. Misc. 128, 71 N.Y.S. 2d Sup. Ct. 1947.) On the other hand, a variance from the official map re- Procedure quirements for a building was held unreasonable when it was issued on condition that the building Adoption of an official map involves the fol- be amortized over 10 years if later condemned; lowing procedural steps: in that case, the mapping restriction applied to 80 percent of the property and the life expec- 1. The planning agency (usually the planning tancy of the building was 50 years. (S.S Kresge commission) should prepare and adopt a Co. P. City of New York, 194 Misc. 645, 87 major thoroughfare plan and a community N.Y.S. 2d 313, Sup. Ct. 1948, 275 App. Div. facilities plan. The planning act makes 1036, 92 N.Y.S. 2d 414, 1949; see also Rand this a prerequisite to the preparation and P. City of New York, 3 Misc. 2d 769, 155 N.Y.S. adoption of the official map. (M.S.462.359, 2d 753, 1956.) Subd. 1.) The board is required to permit construction 2. The planning commission should prepare the which will add as little cost to the ultimate open. map with the use of such technical ascis- ing of the street as is practicable and cause as tante as it may need or may have available. little change in the official map as is consistent If the commission does not proceed to do with granting relief. (Anderson, American Law of this on its own motion, the council may Zoning, Sec. 20.16, p. 542.) Until a building adopt a resolution directing the planning permit is applied for and a variance has been commission to do so. The League's model denied or granted on unsatisfactory conditions, planning commission ordinance directs the the court is without jurisdiction to determine planning commission to prepare the map whether under the circumstances there has been with the assistance of the city engineer. a taking of property within the mapped street There may be more than one official map, without compensation. (SS. Kresge P. City of one for each of several parts of the city New York, supra) or forarticular p proposed streets. If there are two or more maps, they do not need The Minnesota law contains a provision under to be prepared at the same time. which the city has six months within which to commence proceedings for acquisition of the land The map must be prepared in sufficient or easement. While this provision means that there detail to permit the establishment of the is a delay in the owner's right to use his land future acquisition lines on the ground. In under the permit, the moratorium is probably unplatted areas, a minimum of a centerline valid- (See Almquisr v. Town ofMarshan,_.Minn. survey must be made prior to the prepara- -, 245 N.W. 2d 819, 1976.) tion of the final draft of the official map. - 2 - The accuracy of the future acquisition lines (d) The board of zoning appeals and adjust- shown on the official map must be attested ments or, if there is none, a special to be a registered land surveyor. (M.S. board of appeals created by the ord- 462.359,Subd- 2). trance may grant a permit under the circumstances outlined in M.S. 462359, 3. The planning commission should approve Subd. 4. See the discussion under the finished map by mot-on or resolution "Enforcement"below. and file the map with the council. The planning commission is not required to The first of these provisions Is not specifically in hold a public hearing before adopting the the planning law and needs to be included in an map but it may prefer to give notice and ordinance, though the obvious implication of the hold such a hearing. The council may, in statute is that building permits should not be the ordinance establishing the planning Issued when any part of the building is within .I commission or in an ordinance establishing mapped street lines. The other three provisions official map procedure, require such a are in effect by virtue of the statute without local hearing by the commission. ordinance provisions, but it seems desirable to include them in the ordinance to inform property 4. The council must hold a public hearing owners of the consequences of having any of after at least 10 days' published notice their land placed within the limits of mapped in the official newspaper. streets or public grounds. 5. After the public hearing, the council adopts Enforcement the official map by ordinance. Adoption must follow the procedure applicable to The building permit device is the principal other ordinances. In statutory cities, the method of securing compliance with official maps. ordinance must be approved by a majority The local zoning ordinance and the state building of all members of the council and published code should make it necessary for the prospective once in the official newspaper. (M.S.412.191, builder to furnish a building plan showing location Subd. 4.) Home rule cities generally are of his property with reference to the nearest subject to similar charter requirements. existing streets and any other public grounds Both the ordinance and map should be proposed on the official map. If the building plan published, discloses that any part of the building is to be erected within the boundaries of any such street 6. A copy of the map and the ordinance or public grounds, the application for the building adopting it must be filed with the county permit is then denied. recorder. (M.S. 462.359, Subd. 2, 462.36, Subd. 1.) The ordinance and map do not If the permit is denied, the law gives the appli- constitute encumbrances on real property. cant the right of appeal. (M.S. 362.359, Subd. 4.) The appeal is taken to the board of appeals and 7. In the ordinance adopting the official map adjustments or, if there is none, to a special board or in a separate ordinance the council should of appeals established for the purpose.The council, provide that: the planning commission, or a committee of the commission may be given this responsibility if (a) No permit will be issued for any strut- desired. (M.S. 462354, Subd. 2.) Presumably, ture on land located within the mapped when a city adopts an official map, this decision lines of a street (or on land reserved on will already have been made in the zoning ordi- the map for other public uses) as shown nance. The essential steps in the appeal procedure on the official map; are the following: (b) No public water, sewer, or other public 1. An appeal petition must be filed w.th the utility or service will be placed in or board by the owner of the land. Presumably along any street unless it is shown the board or the council may adopt reason- on the official map; able regulations specifying the information the appeal should contain. (c) No permit to build will be issued unless a street giving access to the proposed 2. A hearing should be,held by the board upon building is shown on the official map; notice served on the appellant and published - 3 - once in the official newspape, at least ten view, either the city administrative officials days before the date of the hearing. (M.S. or the property owner may appeal an ad- 462.359, Subd. 4.) Presumably, additional verse ruling to the council. notice may be required in the ordinance establishing the board. (M.S. 462.354, 5. Any person aggrieved by the order of the Subd. 2.) Any party may appear at the board for the council on appeal) may hearing in person or by agent or attorney. have the order reviewed by an appropriate Subject to such limitations as may be remedy in the district court. (M.S. 462.361, imposed by the council, the board may Subd. 1.) He may not resort to the court, adopt rules for the conduct of proceeding, however, without *i•st going through this before it, including provisions for the giv,ng admmistrative appeal procedure unless,under of oaths to witnesses and the filing of written the special circumstances of the case, he can briefs by the parties. The board must pro- convince the court that the administrative vide for a record of its proceedings. This appeal would serve no useful purpose. (M.S. record must include the minutes of its 462.361, Subd. 2.) proceedings, its findings, and the action taken on the appeal, including its final or- 6. If the board (or council on appeal to it) der. (M.S.462.354,Subd. 2.) orders issuance of the permit, the council or other board or commission having juris. 3. After the hearing, the board of appeals diction has six months within which to be- and adjustment must grant a building permit gin proceedings to acquire the land or if - but only if- it finds that: easement which is the subject of the order. If no proceedings are started within that (a) the entire property cannot yield a time, the officer responsible for issuing reasonable return to the owner unless building permits must issue the permit he is allowed to build,and when the application otherwise conforms to local ordinances. (b) balancing the interests of the city in the integrity of the official map and Minnesota Experience its comprehensive plan against the interest of the property owner in the use Despite the fact that authority for official of his property and in the benefits of maps has existed since the original municipal ownership, the board finds that granting planning law was adopted in 1937 and has been the permit is required by considerations in substantially its present form since 1965, only of justice and equity. a handful of cities in the state, far fewer than the number with zoning ordinances, have utilized the If the permit is granted, the board must law. The League's extensive ordinance collection specify the exact location, ground area, contains only the ordinances of St. Louis Park height and other details as to the extent (1959), Coon Rapids (1970), and Hopkins (1971). and character of the building in question. As indicated earlier, Wisconsin cities have had If the planning commission does not serve more extensive experience under a similar law. At as the board of appeals and adjustments, the time a study was made of the subject in 1957, the board may not decide the appeal until at least 33 Wisconsin cities had adopted official the planning commission or a representative maps of part or all of the city. It can be expected authorized by it has had a reasonable oppor. that with the adoption of legislation requiring tunity, not to exceed 60 days, to review the adoption of comprehensive plans and imple- and report to the board upon the appeal, menting ordinances by cities in the Twin Cities metropolitan area and with the adoption of a 4. If the council has not determined in the program providing state financial assistance for ordinance establishing the board of appeals planning throughout the state, the number of and adjustments that the decisions of the Minnesota cities utilizing the official map author- board are final subject to later judicial re. ity will increase substantially in the next few years. -4- r SAMPLE FORMS FOR USE UNDER OFFICIAL MAP LAW 1. Resolution of Planning Commission Adopted by the Planning Commission of the WHEREAS, the planning commission of the City of on , 19 — City of has prepared and adopted a major Chairman thoroughfare plan and a community facilities plan, AND WHEREAS, the Minnesota Municipal Secretary Planning Act, Minnesota Statutes,Section 462.359 Comment: provides that after such plans have been adopted The official map law provides that after the planning agency has adopted a major thorough- by the commission, the planning commission may fare plan and a community facilities plan, it may, for the purpose of carrying out the poli- prepare an official map of any part or all of the city cies expressed in those plans, prepare and re- commend to the council a proposed official map showing existing streets and proposed streets and covering the entire municipality or any portion thereof. The form set out above assumes that other public grounds,and the planning commission the official map originates in this way. Instead, some cities have adopted an ordinance like has with the assistance of (title of official Form No. 2 providing for official maps as the first step in the proceedings. If that procedure or name of consultant) prepared such a plan for is to be followed, the initial map of all or part -.� of the city will not be prepared by the planning (all of the city, part of the city as des- commission on its own initiative. Instead, the first form used following adoption of the gen- cribed), eral ordinance is likely to be one like Form No. 3 directing the city engineer, the planning com- NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the mission with such help as is provided, or some other official to prepare a proposed map and Planning Commission of the City of stating what the map is to include. The map will then likely cover only one or two streets or a 1. The attached map is approved by the Plan- limited area and the official map will eventually be a composite of a series of specific partial ning Commission of the City of and maps. is recommended to the city council for If Form No. 1 is used and it applies only to one or two streets or an easily defined area, the consideration and adoption pursuant to resolution may be adapted to state the streets or area covered by the map referred to. Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.359 as the 2. Ordinance Providing for Official Maps (an) official map of the City of Introductory Note 2. The secretary shall forthwith transmit a Although the Municipal Planning Act provides copy of this resolution and the attached for the adoption of official maps by ordinance, it does not require that a city utilizing the proposed official map to the clerk for official map authority adopt an ordinance prescribing procedure for adoption of an official presentation to the council of the city. map and stating its effect. Such an ordinance -5 - is Included in these sample forms, however, for what is to follow in the future and give for two reasons. In the first place, the concept notice of what it means to the public and to of an official map and its purpose and effect affected property owners. Minnesota cities is not well understood and an ordinance of this utilizing the official map provisions have usually kind will give the public at least a general idea adopted such ordinances as the first step in the of what is contemplated. Furthermore, the process. cities which have adopted official maps have done so in piecemeal fashion, proposing and It is important to remember in utilizing this adopting at one time a map designating only ordinance and the other forms that the Planning a particular proposed street or street widening Act makes adoption of a major thoroughfare or a particular proposed public facility rather plan and a community facilities plan a prere- than designating such streets or facilities com- quisite to the preparation and adoption of an prehensively for all parts of the city at once. official map. The following ordinance assumes The general ordinance then can set the stage that the necessary plans have already been adopted by the planning agency. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO OFFICIAL MAPS AND THEIR EFFECT AND PROVIDING PROCEDURES IN CONNECTION THEREWITH The City Council of Ordains: Sec. t. Purpose. Land that is needed for future Statutes, Sections 462.351 to 462.36. street purposes and as sites for other necessary Sec. 2. Official Map defined. "Official map"I public facilities and services is frequently diverted as used in this ordinance means a map adopted to non-public uses which could have been located in accordance with this ordinance showing exist- on other lands without hardship or inconvenience ing streets, proposed future streets and the area to the owners. When this happens, public uses needed for widening of existing streets of the of land may be denied or may be obtained only city. An official map may also show the location at prohibitive cost or at the expense of dislocating of existing and future land and facilities within the owners and occupants of the land. Identifi- the city. An official map may cover the entire cation on an official map of land needed for city or any portion of the city.2 future public uses permits both the public and Sec. 3. Initiation of proceedings. Proceedings private property owners to adjust their building for adoption, amendment, or repeal of an official plans equitably and conveniently before invest- map or any part thereof may be initiated by ments are made which will make such adjustments (1) a recommendation of the planning commission; difficult to accomplish. It is the purpose of this or (2) action by the city council on its own initia. ordinance to provide a uniform procedure for the tive, recommendation of an advisory commission, proper use of official maps as authorized by the request of an outside governmental body, or Minnesota Municipal Planning Act, Minnesota petition of the owners of — or more parcels of - 6 - affected property.3 Sec. 4. Sketch maps and reports. Every proposal mission without a recommendation from the or request for an official map or its amendment commission, the council may call a public hearing or repeal, however initiated, shall be accompan°ed on the proposal. A nonce of the time, place, and by a sketch map or plat showing the lands pro- purpose of the hearing and a description of pro- posed to be included and the public purpose to perty to be included in the mapped streets and be served. The council may request a report of public grounds shall be published in the official the city engineer as to the feasibility of any con- newspaper at least ten days prior to the date of struction involved 4 the hearing. At least ten days prior to the hearing Sec. 5. Reference to planning commission. the clerk shall also mail a copy of the notice Except when proceedings have been initiated by to each owner of land situated within or abutting recommendation of the planning commission, any street or other public ground shown on the every proposed official map or change in a map official map. For purposes of this notice the shall be referred to the planning commission for owners shall be determined by the records of advice and recommendation thereon, and such the county auditor and the notice shall be addressed -'� recommendation shall be submitted to the city to the last known address as shown by the audi- council within 60 days after reference to the tor's records. Failure to serve any such notice planning commission along with the report of the shall not invalidate the proceedings.6 commission on the effect of the proposal on the Sued. 2. Hearing. At the time and place speci- comprehensive plan of the city. If no recommenda- fied in the notice, the council shall hear evidence tion is received by the council from the planning and arguments concerning the proposal.The hearing commission within 60 days after reference of the may be continued from time to time not exceed- proposal to the commission by the council, the ing 60 days without further notice. A final vote on council may take such action as it may deem the proposal shall be taken by the council within proper upon the proposal without further action such 60-day period.7 by the planning commission 5 Sec. 7. Preparation and filing of maps. The Sec. 6.Notice and hearing. Subdivision 1. Notice. official map or maps shall be prepared in sufficient Upon receiving the recommendation of the plan- detail to permit the establishment of future ac- ning commission or after 60 days from thr sub- quisition lines on the ground. In unplatted areas a I mission of the proposal to the planning com- minimum of a centerline survey shall be made - 7 - prior to the preparation of the final draft of the give the city any right, title or interest in areas official map. The accuracy of the future acquisi- identified for public purposes thereon, but the tion lines shown on the official map shall be at- adoption of the map does authorize the city to tested to by a registered land surveyor. After acquire such interest without paying compensa- enactment of any ordinance adopting an official tion for buildings or structures erected in such map or amending or repealing a previous official areas without a permit or in violation of the map ordinance, a certified copy of the official conditions of a permit.70 map or section to which the ordinance relates Sec. 9. Appeals. Whenever a building permit is together with an attached copy of the ordinance denied pursuant to this ordinance, the board of shall be fled with the county recorder.$ appeals and adjustments I may, upon appeal filed Sec. 8. Effect After an official map has been with it by the ownerof the land, and after receiving adopted and filed, the issuance of building permits the advice and recommendations of the planning by the city shall be subject to the provisions of commission, grant a permit for building in an area this ordinance. The 9 shall deny designated on the official map for a street or other every application for a permit to construct a new public purpose in any case in which the board building or structure or expand an existing building finds, upon the evidence and the arguments pre- or structure within any area designated on the sented to it, (a) that the entire property of the official map for street or other public purposes. appellant of which the area designated for public Whenever any street or -highway is widened or purposes forms a part cannot yield a reasonable improved or any new street is opened, or any return to the owner unless such a permit is granted, interest in lands for other public purposes is and (b) that balancing the interest of the city in acquired by the city, the city is not required in preserving the integrity of the official map and of such proceedings to pay for any building or struc- the comprehensive city plan and the interest of the ture placed without a permit or in violation of property owner in the use of his property and in conditions of a permit within the limits of the the benefits of ownership, the grant of such permit mapped street or outside of any building line that is required by considerations of justice and equity. may have been established upon the existing street Failure of the planning commission to report on or within any area thus identified for public pur- the proposal within 60 days after referral poses. The adoption of an official map does not of the matter to it is deemed to be the recom- - 8 - mendations and advice of the planning commis- Mayor sion. The board of appeals and adjustments shall hold a public hearing upon the appeal after notice Clerk of the hearing has been published in the official Footnotes: newspaper once at least ten days before the hearing. 1 Except for the last sentence, this section is substantially the same as the statement of purpose If the board authorizes issuance of a permit, it in M.S.^462.359, Subdivision 1. It maybe omitted if desired. shall specify the exact location, ground area, 2The definition of official map is taken from the height, and other details as to the extent and statute. If the council wishes to confine the map to streets and not apply it to other potential public character of the building for which the permit is grounds like parks, it may wish to omit the second sentence of the definition. Actual ordinances granted. If the board authorizes issuance of a sometimes include definitions of other terms, such as "comprehensive plan", "community facilities permit, the council or other board or commission plan", and "capital improvement program", but these are probably not necessary unless other having jurisdiction shall have six months from the provisions are added to the model ordinance making a definition of these terms useful. date of the decision of the board to institute pro- 3This procedure for initiation is not prescribed ceedings to acquire such land or interest therein, by statute but some such section is typically included in local ordinances. Provisions for initia- and if no such proceedings are started within tion by petition of owners sometimes require both a minimum number of owners and a minimum that time, the - 9 shall issue the permit number of parcels to be represented by the pe- titioners. if the application otherwise conforms to local 4l'his section is not required by statute but ordinances.12 some such provision is usually included in Minne- sota ordinances and seems desirable. Sec. 9. Penalty. Any person violating any pro- SThe statute does not require reference to the vision of this ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor planning commission but the procedure seems desirable if the planning commission is to perform and upon conviction thereof shall be subject to its proper planning role. It seems consistent with the statutory requirement, embodied in section 9 a fine of not more than ;500 or imprisonment for of the ordinance, that the board of appeals and adjustments must secure the recommendations of a term not to exceed 90 days or both, plus, in the planning commission before acting. either case, the costs of prosecution. Each day 6The statute does not require mailed notice to property owners but in view of the effect the map that a violation is permitted to exist constitutes may have upon them,such a notice seems desirable and is usually included in local ordinances. The a separate offense. requirement for published notice is imposed by statute except that the statute does not require the Adopted by the council this day of notice to describe affected lands (M.S. 462.359, Subdivision 1). Some ordinances add an option for _ 19 — personally served notice in lieu of mailing. r r - 9 - i I 7I he 60-day provision is optional. There is no Subd. 4. The ordinance assumes that a board of statutory. requirement. Some ordinances provide a appeals and adjustments already exists. longer maximum time for council action. The Planning Act authorizes the council, in the gThe provisions of this section are all taken absence of a conflicting charter provision, to from the statute (M.S. 462359,Subd. 2). provide instead that the council, the planning commission, or a committee of the planning gThe title of officer responsible for issuing commission shall serve as the board of appeals and building permits should be inserted here. adjustments and it may provide an appropriate name for the board. If the council wishes to use 10name last two sentences and the first sentence one of these options, the ordinance provision on are taken from the statute (M.S. 462.359, Subd. appeals should be modified accordingly. In typical 3). Some ordinances qualify the second sentence to Minnesota official map ordinances the council authorize granting of a permit for an improvement assumes the role of the board. not exceeding a specified amount (e.g. $5,000). 12The provisions of this section are largely I tThe Planning Act provides for a board of taken from the statute (M.S. 462.352, Subd. 2, appeals and adjustments to serve in administering 462.359, Subd. 4). If the planning commission both the zoning ordinance and the official map serves as the board, the ordinance provisions for ordinance. (M.S. 462.354,Subd. 2.) Appeals to the recommendations of the planning commission board are specifically provided forby M.S. 462.359, should be omitted. 3. Resolution Ordering Preparation of Official Map RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF MAP FOR FUTURE STREETS OR OTHER PUBLIC USE WHEREAS, it is proposed to provide for de- use upon lands in the City of as follows: signating sites within the city for future laying Street: Proposed from the intersections of out, improvement, extension or widening of Street and Avenue in streets and for other public use, reserving lands a southerly direction and terminating at as hereinafter set forth, pursuant to Minnesota a point,etc. Statutes, Sections 471.26 through 27133 and Street: Proposed Street starting from Ordinance No. Avenue at a point, etc. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Park: Proposed with boundaries as follows: etc. city council of the City of Mayor The city engineer (or other appropriate official) is directed to prepare and file with the city council Clerk a map indicating proposed laying out, extending, Comment: improving, or widening of streets or other public This form assumes that proceedings have been initiated in accordance with Section 3 of the - 70 - 2 model ordinance. The resolution is authority Street: Proposed Street starting from and direction for the city engineer or other designated official to put the specific street Avenue at a point etc. etc. proposal in sufficiently precise form to meet the requirements of the official map statute Park: Proposed with boundaries as follows: etc. and the ordinance and thus provide the basis for the public hearing to be called when the 2. The city clerk is directed to give notice of report is received back from the engineer or other designated official. References to other such hearing by one publication of the notice in public uses should be deleted if only streets are to be proposed. the official newspaper at least ten days before 4. Resolution Calling Hearing on Official Map the hearing date and by mailing a copy of the WHEREAS, a proposed official map of future notice to each owner of land situated within or streets and other public uses has been prepared abutting any street or other public ground shown by the city engineer (planning commission or on the proposed official map. otherdesignated official)of the City of and - Mayor recommended to the city council, AND WHEREAS, the council proposes to con- Clerk sider adoption of such official map pursuant to Comment: '. Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.359, The published notice provided for is the minimum required by the planning law. The mailed notice NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the is that required under the model ordinance. It is not required by state law. This resolution city council of , Minnesota: need not be published in statutory cities and in other cities with charters not requiring publica- 1. A public hearing will be held by the council tion of resolutions. to consider the proposed attached official map at Some cities may prefer having the planning commission and the council hold a joint hearing a public hearing on 19—at—o'clock if the planning commission has not already considered the proposed map. There is no _. m. in the council chambers of the city hall. statutory requirement for a public hearing except one by the council. The map describes the following proposed future If the proposed official map covers all or a large streets or other public use of land in the city as part of the city, it will not be feasible to des- cribe particular proposed streets or other public follows: grounds. In that case the resolution should be revised accordingly. If the map includes only Street: Proposed from the intersection of proposed streets, references in the resolution to other public facilities should be omitted. Street and Avenue S. Notice of Hearing in a southerly direction and terminating Minnesota, , 79 _. at a point etc. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the council v - 11 - of the City of , Minnesota will meet in reserve and hereafter to acquire the lands included the council chambers of the city hall on within the boundaries of such streets and other 19 and conduct a public hearing to consider public lands shown on the map without compen- a proposed official map of proposed streets and sation for any build,ng hereafter erected without other public uses within the City of a perms or in violation of a permit within the The streets and other public uses proposed on this limits of any mapped street or outside of the map are as follows: established building lines in any existing street (Use the same description contained in the or within any area thus identified for public resolution calling the hearing.) purposes. The proposed official map is on file for public City Clerk inspection at my office. Any person desiring to Comment: be heard with reference to the proposed future This notice must be published once in the streets or other public lands or facilities will have official newspaper at least ten days before the date of the public hearing. (M.S. 462.59, an opportunity to be heard at this hearing. Subd. 2.) Any additional notice, such as a mailed notice to property owners depends Designation of such lands as streets or other on terms of the general map ordinance. If the proposed map is a comprehensive one, the public lands or facilities is made under authority description of particular streets or publicgrounds should be omitted. If it is confined to streets, of Minnesota Statutes, Section 46359 and other the references to other public lands and faci- lities should also be omitted. statutes to enable the City of now to 6. Ordinance Adopting Official Map AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AN OFFICIAL MAP OF FUTURE STREETS AND IDENTIFYING OTHER LAND FOR PUBLIC USES The city council of ordains: Section 1. Recital of Facts. After the planning Pursuant to due published notice, the council held commission had adopted a major thoroughfare a public hearing on such proposed official map on plan and a community facilities plan, the com- , 19 at o'clock — m. at mission prepared and submitted to the council which time all persons desiring to be heard were on , 19 _ with its recommendation given an opportunity to be heard. for adoption a proposed official map of the city Sec. 2- Adoption of Map.r The map entitled r pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.359. "Official Map of City of a copy of - 12 - which is hereto attached and made a part of _ 19 - this 19this ordinance by reference, showing existing Mayor streets, proposed future streets and the area needed for widening existing streets and the location Clerk of existing and future public lands and facilities Comment: within the city is hereby adopted and designated The •official map, and any amendment to the map, must be adopted by ordinance and pub- as the Official Map of the portion of the city lished with the ordinance in the same manner as other ordinances. If the ordinance is adopt- shown on the map. The proposed future streets ing a map covering all or a large part of the city, the description of particular streets and public and other future public lands and facilities des- grounds should be omitted. If this ordinance proposes an amendment to a more general cribed more particularly on such official map are official map, it may be preferable to recast the ordinance to adopt an amendment to the as follows: existing official map. (Use same description as in resolution calling The law requires a certified copy of the map adopted by the ordinance, together with the hearing.) adopting ordinance, to be filed with the county recorder. (M.S. 462.359, Subd. 2, 462.36, Sec. 3. The city clerk is hereby authorized Subd. 1.) The latter statute expressly provides that the map does not constitute an encum- '' and directed to publish this ordinance and map brance on real property. in accordance with law and to file a certified copy If the map was not proposed and recommended by the planning commission, the recital in of this ordinance and map in the office of the section 1 should be revised to conform to the facts. The recital is not legally necessary but recorder of County. may be useful in showing that the necessary requisites to adoption of the official map have Adopted by the council of the City of been met. CDW:rmk 4/60 r OCP:gIb 10177 13 - o, MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer -- SUBJECT: Mini-Bypass Bridge Project City/MnDOT Partnership DATE: December 30, 1986 INTRODUCTION: The Environmental Assessment (EA) and the Location/Design Study Report (LDSR) is progressing on the T.H. 169 bridge and mini- bypass project. After conducting public hearings in February, 1987, it is anticipated that the LDSR will be completed and approved in spring, 1987 • The next step of the project is preparation of final plans and specifications. The purpose of this memo is to address alternative actions that the City can take to enhance the probability that the project will remain on schedule or even possibly advance the schedule. BACKGROUND: Currently , the mini-bypass project is included in the Mn/DOT construction program for bid letting in December, 1989 with construction in 1990 . Mn/DOT has indicated that they propose to design the bridge in-house but that the bypass design will need to be done by a consultant . At the present, there are not sufficient funds in Mn/DOT's consultant budget for this project and will require legislative action to increase this budget. Assuming they were successful at increasing the consultant budget for late 1967 and considering the required consultant selection process that Mn/DOT must follow, it appears the earliest that a consultant would be working on final design would be middle to late 1988. This time frame would make it difficult, if not impossible , to keep this project on track with the Mn/DOT construction schedule. In a resolution passed December 11 , 1984 , the City committed to a - partnership with Mn/DOT for the development of the bypass project . That commitment consists of $ 1 . 9 million which represents approximately 50% of the bypass portion of the project . The City also agreed to be the lead agency in completing the EA, LDSR, and eventually obtaining the right-of- way for the project, cost of which to be part of the $1 . 9 million. Staff has discussed with Mn/DOT the possi:.ility of the City acting as lead agency for the development of plans and specs. On a preliminary basis, Mn/DOT feels this may be a method to continue the project in accordance with the projected time frame . Although Mn/DOT would want the City to conduct a consultant selection process for this project also, design could begin about a year sooner than if Mn/DOT contracted for the Bypass camber ecamber 24 , 1986 Page 2 The estimated cost of the project elements are as follows : EA & LDSR $ 170,000.00 Right-of-Way $1 ,280 ,000.00 Bypass Design $ 130,060.00 Bypass Construction $2, 100,000.00 Bridge Design $ 160,000.00 Bridge Construction $2,800,000.00 TOTAL $6,640,000.00 To date, the City has incurred the cost of the EA and LDSR Mn/DOT has verbally agreed that language could be drafted in a letter of understanding such that the cost of design would be considered part of the City 's $1 . 9 million cost. The risk to the City is investing another $130,000.00 into a project that is not absolutely assured . As with all major roadway projects , construction depends on state and federal funding. Mn/DOT cannot guarantee federal funding until the project has been approved for bid letting by the Federal Highway Administration. RECOMMENDATION: In an unofficial sense, Mn/DOT feels the project is assured. If Council feels comfortable enough with the Mn/DOT construction program to invest approximately $130,000.00 in the final design of the bypass portion of the project, I recommend that staff be directed to negotiate a draft letter of understanding with Mn/DOT to address: 1 . Shared Funding. 2. Project scope and design elements. 3• Possible advancement of the program schedule. REQUESTED ACTION: Move to direct staff to negotiate a letter of understanding with Mn/DOT for the advanced funding of final design for the Trunk Highway 169 Mini-Bypass Project and to return with specifics for Council consideration. KA/pmp FUNDING ,>,N"ESOrq Minnesota ;°�� Department of Transportation District 5 2055 No. Lilac Drive yl OF TWP Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 (6121593 8403 July 12, 1988 Mr. John Anderson, Administrator City of Shakopee JUL1 :1988 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 CITY OF � .4 t..y u ^ pkE Re: S.P.7009 (T.H. 169) At Jct. T.H. 101 & Br. No. 4175 -- Memorandums of Understanding Dear Mr. Anderson: The original Memorandum of Understanding dated November 4, 1985 stated that the city of Shakopee is willing to contribute up to $1.9 million for expenditures for acquisition of necessary rights- of-way and construction embellishments for the proposed roadway rerouting of traffic in the downtown area. The revised Memorandum of Understanding dated April 27, 1987 has apparently raised some concerns regarding Shakopee's $1.9 million contribution to the project. The $1.9 million is a maximum con- tribution by the city of Shakopee towards the project implementa- tion. Mn/DOT will be responsible for funding any possible project costs above the funding available through the bridge replacement program and Shakopee's contribution of $1.9 million as a cap. John, I hope this letter clarifies the concerns over Shakopee's contribution to the project. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, W. M. Crawford, P.E. District Engineer An Equal Opportunity Employer April 27, 1987 296-3051 Mr. John Anderson, Administrator City of Shakopee 129 E. First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379-1376 Re : C.S. 7009 (T. H_ 169) At Jct. T.H. 101 and Bridge No. 4175 "Revised Memorandum of Understanding" Dear Mr. Anderson: On November 4, 1985 a Memorandum of Understanding showing the Mn/DOT committment to the. above referenced project was signed and sent to the City of Shakopee. From that date up to the present , there have been changes and additions as to that originally agreed to by the involved parties. These changes and additions along with a brief summary of the original committments are as follows: 1. That the City has a committment of $1. 9 million to this project. 2. That the City has paid for the preliminary design of this project. 3. That the City will purchase the right of way for this project. a. That said right of way will include all lands necessary for this project south of the Minn. River within the limits as set forth by the Mn/DOT staff approved Layout No. S.P_ 7009 and that all R/W procedures .shall conform to FHWA Stds. 4. That the City will proceed with and fund the final roadway design for this project. - 5. That Mn/DoT accepts the responsibility to fund and design ' - the replacement of Bridge No. 4175 over the Minn. R. in relationship with this project to accommodate a Dec. 1989 bid letting. Mr. John Anderson April 27, 1967 Page 2 6. That the project designs be consistent with the approved layout, PPR/FA and LDSR for this project. 7. That the remaining city funds available from the $1.9 million nines items :2, 3 & 9 above be the city' s lump sum _ share for local construction costs. - This letter serves as Mn/DOT's committment to the City of Shakopee on this project. Sincerely, (Mn/DCT Committme ) City of Shakopee Committment Ll / ' \ W. M. Crawf6ro, P.E.' � John Anderson J/�9 �y District Engineer City Ad . nis ra r cc: L. Levine/D. Differt L. Korth/J. Weingartz J. Povich M. Christensen/C. Michalko D. Flemming E. Howe _ t l� rZ Z0 Minnesota I p_ Department of Transportation f��U •� =+ DisrnCt 5 2055 No. Lilac Y�yrOP TV; Golden Valley, Drive 55422 C: 161Cj�Bo6dr3ti[ 593-8403 November 4, 1985 Mr. John Anderson, Administrator City of Shakopee 129 E. First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379-1376 Re: C.S. 7009 ('1'.Fi. 109) At T.4. 101 and Replacement of Bridge #4175 Proposed Memorandum of Understanding Dear Mr. 4nderso`a i i As you know, Mn/ OT and the city of Shakopee have been working together on a memorandum of understanding for the proposed roadway rerouting of traffic in the Shakopee downtown area and the replacement of bridge #4175 over the Minnesota River. A draft proposal that was agreeable to the agency staffs was submitted to the Attorney General 's Office for an opinion. The opinion rendered by a special assistant to the attorney general was -that the memorandum of understanding with joint signatures on the same document in effect is a contractual agreement and; therefore, the proposal needed considerable work to constitute a decent agreement. Two items of significance - one was the need to identify dares for the proposed work and two was the need for specific costs to be shared by the two agencies. Since the project is just in the early project development stages, it is somewhat impossible to prepare specific cost estimates and splits at this Point in time. Given the present circumstances, Mn/DOT recognizes: THAT the City has by resolution passed December 11, 1984 approved the expenditure of 51.9 million to jointly finance said project; and THAT the City has requested and been granted authority to proceed with location studies and an environmental assessment of the combined con- struction proposal; and THAT the City is now requesting that the remaining financial and project management responsibilities be identified and tentatively agreed to; and An Eq=l Opportunity Employer Mr. John Anderson November 4, 1985 Page Two THAT the City is willing to acquire the necessary right-of-way and con- tribute the up to 51.9 million for expenditures for acquisition of neces- sary rights-of-way and construction embellishments on the proposed road- way rerouting of traffic in the downtown area; and THAT the Shakopee City Council at its regulal October 1, 1985 meeting reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding and had one change that has been noted in the above paragraph; and THAT the City continues to support, endorse and encourage construction of the T.H. 101 Shakopee Bypass at the earliest possible date and is willing to contribute $1.0 million to the T.H. 101 Bypass design costs. Therefore, it is Mn/DOT's intent: THAT the State enter into such a joint partnership as indicated by prior informal approvals and the authorization granted to the city to proceed with same location and environmental studies which include both the city and state elements of the proposed subject; and THAT the State prepare the detailed design plans for both the bridge replacement and the roadway rerouting of traffic in the downtown are,; and THAT the State pay for all construction associated with the replacement of bridge x4175 including associated approach work considered essential to link-uo said bridge with inplace T.H. 169 to the north and south. John, this letter of intent serves as Mn/DOT's committment to the city of Shakopee on the project development and cost sharing. I have dis- cussed this with Commissioner Braun and he is in agreement with the comaittments. Since. v F. M. Cra or I District Engineer y i t2- COMBINED COMBINED LOCATION/DESIGN HEARING HANDOUT FOR TRUNK HIGHWAYS 101 & 169 S.P. 7009-52 MN. PROJECT No. BRF005-2 T.H. 101 / 169 MINNESOTA RIVER CROSSING DOWNTOWN SHAKOPEE APPROACH li o - - h MN. RIVER - �i 1 LEVE-- F--7 VFa-_- Ir 7I THoii ii - II SII It TH � _ JI 169 "'I�"�-e'.,- . .f =N.�, •.��— L,~ 101 rl i . wll JII 2II mll UII wlt � I I I X11 �i l EI I ZI I "OPEN HOUSE", INFORMAL MEETING 4:00pm - 7:30pm FORMAL HEARING AT7:30pm February 25, 1987 At Scott County Court House Hearing Conducted_By_City oi__Shakopee - - - and Minnesota Depart-m_ ent of Tran-sportati-on -LL _ g 1 1 2 3 4 5 , 6 IN RE THE MATTER OF : 7 8 9 PUBLIC . HEARING ON..PROPOSED . ALTERNATIVES OF T .H . 10 101/169 AND MINNESOTA RIVER CROSSING - 11 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13 ..The above-entitled matter came on for public 14 hearing at . the . Scott County Courthouse , Room 318 15 on the 25th day of . February , 1987 commencing at 16 7 : 30 p .m. 17 THE HONORABLE ELDON REINKE , 18 Mayor of the City of Shakopee presiding . 19 + + + + < 20 21 22 23 24 -25 1 C' - - Mill mial 1 , FIGURE 3 ALTERNATIVE 7A 4. lls MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Acquisition of Right-of-Way for Downtown Bridge and Mini By-Pass Project DATE: July 15, 1988 Introduction The Shakopee City Council, at its June 28, 1988 meeting, reviewed and discussed Mr. Jack Brambilla's application for a building permit to construct a second story addition on the building the houses the formal wear store (E 1/3 of Lot 3 and all of Lot 4, Block 5, original Shakopee Plat - see photo highlighted in yellow) . After discussing the issues involved City Council directed staff to contact Mr. Brambilla stating the City's intention to acquire the property and to provide Council with a run down of the procedures for acquisition. Accuisition Procedures The City established and has been using the attached checklist entitled "Procedures for Right-of-Way Acquisition" since February 11, 1981. To initiate acquisition Council normally appoints an appraiser and initiates the formal process for condemnation. The action before Council Tuesday night focuses on steps one through four and the directing of City staff to seek an appraiser and surveyor for the exact legal discription. A question has been raised by City staff regarding whether the City must acquire all of Mr. Brambilla's property or only that being improved by the proposed permit. This question is addressed in the attached memo from Rod Krass dated July 13, 1988. Mr. Krass has stated that the fact that the Brambilla property is torrens property does not require the City's acquisition of all of Mr. Brambilla's property. Based upon this opinion the draft resolution attached is for the acquisition Of only that property included in the proposed building permit. A picture of the property in question has been attached and highlighted in yellow. Because it is torrens property the City will need a survey for the legal description for the resolution. A second question raised by Council was whether an early acquisition by the City could be included in the $1.9 million cap the City has committed for this project. According to our April 27, 1987 Revised Memorandum of Understanding with Mn/DOT, their July 12, 1988 restatement of that commitment and a recent conversation with the project coordinator Carl Hofstedt this acquisition can be included under the City's $1.9 million cap if it. occurs after adoption of the official map. A third question raised by Council was what happens to the parcel should the bridge and mini by-pass project not go forward. The City would then have the option of selling the parcel and would either make or lose money depending upon current market conditions. Such an acquisition would be similar to our acquisition of the House of Hoy, but the structure will not be removed increasing the likelihood that we can recoup our initial expenses. Alternatives 1. The City can move ahead with the acquisition of the Brambilla property included in the proposed building permit. Upon the completion of the official right-of-way map, the process covered in the preceeding memo on this agenda, the City can acquire parcels within the designated right-of-way as part of our agreement with Mn/DOT under the April 27, 1987 Revised Memorandum of Understand, paragraph 3a. The final acquisition and transfer of deed should be completed after the final approval of the official right-of-way map. 2. The City can, as discussed at the June 28th meeting, issue the building permits to Mr. Brambilla which would ultimately increase the acquisition costs of the right-of-way for the project. 3. The City could neither issue the building permit nor acquire the property from Mr. Brambilla in which case Mr. Brambilla would have to file an inverse condemnation action. Recommendation Staff recommends alternative No. 1 with the preferred timing being that of final acquisition just after the completion of the right-of-way mapping process. Action Requested 1. Authorize hiring a surveyor at a price not to exceed $750.00 to determine the legal description of the property the City wishes to acquire owned by Jack Brambilla lying within Block 5, Shakopee City. (Staff will bring back proper resolution initiating acquisition when the legal description has been determined - see draft attached. ) 2. Authorize the appropriate City officials to seek proposals for an appraisal for the Brambilla property to be acquired and return with a recommendation at the next Council meeting. JRA/jms DRAFT I S RESOLUTION NO. - A Resolution Determining the Necessity for and Authorizing the Acquisition of Certain Property By Proceeding in Eminent Domain for Purposes Of Constructing the Downtown Bridge and Mini By-Pass Improvements from Fuller Street to Spencer Street and for the Bridge Spanning the Minnesota River WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shakopee has determined that it would be to the best interests of the general public as well as the area involved to construct said Highway 169 Bridge and Mini By-Pass and for the purpose to secure the necessary easements. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Acquisition by the City of the real estate described as is necessary for the purpose of constructing the Highway 169 Bridge and Mini By-Pass. 2. The City Attorney is authorized and directed on behalf of the City to acquire the real estate interests in - by the exercise of the power of eminent domain pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 117, and is specifically authorized to notify the owners of intent to take possession pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 117. 042. The City Attorney is further authorized to take all actions necessary and desirable to carry out the purposes of this Resolution. 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 iu IT MY J t Y xe ,. t4 �(2 LAW OFFICES KRASS & MONROE CHARTERED Jul-' 419dd �� S Phillip R. Kress Center OrvI�k�d.9Lc;i Dennis L Monroe GI 1 Y ness Barry K.Meyer 327 Marschall Road Trevor R. Walsten P.O.Box 216 Jay D.Goldberg Shakopee,Minnesota 55379 Dane M. Carlson Telephone(612)4455080 Robert J.Walter FAX(612)4457640 Lachlan B.Muir James B.Croft Colleen M.Trende Kent A. Carlson,CPA MEMORANDUM DATE: July 13, 1988 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Brambilla Acquisition Our File No. 1-1373-202 Dear Mayor Lebens and Council Members: - John Anderson has asked me to address the issue that apparently has arisen relative to whether or not the City of Shakopee is obligated to condemn all of Jack Brambilla's property located on the comer of Holmes and First Avenue since Mr. Brambilla has apparently registered the property and owns it under one Certificate of Title. It is very rare that a city will condemn all of any particular parcel of property. We ordinarily condemn only that portion which we need and whether or not the property is registered (torrens) or not makes no difference. Registering property is simply a matter of perfecting title and receiving a Certificate of Title from the Scott County Registrar of Titles. Registered property can be divided by the owner selling off just a portion, as easily as it can be divided by a city condemnation just a portion. My advise to you, therefore, is that you have the right to condemn only a portion of the Brambilla property if that is the way you choose to do it. There is, of course, nothing under the law precluding you from condemning the entirety of the Brambilla parcel. It is my understanding that but for the building permit application on one portion of this parcel, we would not be proceeding at all. If you adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition of the Brambilla property by right of eminent domain, you should indicate by attaching the legal description to your resolution, whether you intend to acquire all of the property Mr. Brambilla owns on that corner, or just the portion covered by his building The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Page Two July 13, 1988 permit application. I will then proceed in the normal course to have an appraisal made of the property you desire to obtain, offer that appraised value, and if rejected, proceed with the eminent domain lawsuit in District Court. I understand this procedure conforms with the procedure established by the City Council in 1981. Please feel free to contact me should you have any specific questions. Very truly yours, BRASS 6 MONROE CHARTERED Phillip R. Brass PRR:mlw cc: ohn Anderson Julius A. Collar, II PROCEDURES FOR EIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION (Condemnation Process) February 11 , 1981 City Clerk shall coordinate and monitor. 1 . City Engineer provides City Clerk with specific easement description of property in question. 2. City Clerk forwards easement description to the City Attorney. 3. City Attorney prepares a resolution authorizing condemnation proceedings for Council consideration and forwards it to the City Clerk. 4 . Council adopts the resolution authorizing condemnation pro- ceedings. (See A-19) , 5. City Engineer, after adoption of above resolution, obtains one Owners and Encumbrances Search, for each parcel , from an abstract firm and forwards to City Clerk. 6. City Clerk forwards to City Attorney three certified copies of the resolution and Owners and Encumbrances Search. 7. An appraisal is prepared for each parcel by staff or Outside appraiser which is forwarded to the City Clerk who in turn forwards to the City Attorney . This is needed for the hearing and can be worked on simultaneously while the following steps (A-G) are being performed. 8. Upon receipt of the resolution authorizing condemnation, which includes the specific description of property to be acquired, and the Owners and Encumbrances Search, the City Attorney begins the legal process: a. -Prepares and records a "Notice of Lis Pendens: ; b. Gets a date for the hearing and notifies the City Clerk and City Engineer of said date; c. Prepares and files a petition for condemnation, after Petition d by City official ; d. Notice l isserved t don all interested parties. Must be a minimum of 20 day notice ; e. City Attorney notifies the City Clerk and City Engineer of the 30 day expiration. (If any one party cannot be located , a three week published notice must bemade with at least seven days after the last publication; ) f. Hearing is held in District Court; g. District Court grants the petition and appoints three commissioners. The City Attorney notifies the property owners and the City Clerk and City Engineer; Right-of-Way Acquisition Page 2 h. Commissioners take Oath of Office and set hearings - at which interested parties may appear with evidence as to values of properties and any damages they may wish to claim. The City also appears with its appraisers. All interested parties are so notified of date said hearings have been set; i . Commissioners will inspect the properties in question at sometime ; j . A hearing is held; k. Commissioners file their report with the Clerk of District Court within 90 days from their appointment unless the Court orders otherwise . The Court may extend the time ; 1 . City Attorney mails a copy of the report to all interested parties including City Clerk and City Engineer; M. Herein lies a 40 day appeal period during which a property owner may appeal ( value , or order allowing condemnation or a variety of grounds) ; n. Once the Commissioners have filed their report with the Clerk of District Court, the City may take possession one of two ways. 1 . If the interested parties waive their right to appeal , the City shall pay the award determined by the Commissioners. 2. I£ the interested parties do not waive their right of appeal , the City may deposit three-fourths of the award in Court. 0. Once the appeals have been settled and/or the awards paid by the City, the City Attorney shall file a final order showing that all awards have been paid and so notify the City Clerk and City Engineer so that work can begin . (Work after deposit is made can also begin) . 9. The City Attorney receives the "Filing of Final Order" where the Court gives the decree giving the City the easements. 10. The City Attorney will record the "Filing of Final Order: and then deliver same to City Clerk to place on record at City Hall. MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City A . istrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Vacancy on Community Develop ent Commission DATE: July 19, 1988 INTRODUCTION: The City has received the attached application from Mr. Mark Miller expressing his interest in serving on the Community Development Commission. BACKGROUND: On June 21, 1988, the City council accepted the resignation of Jim Plekkenpol from the Community Development Commission. Notice of the vacancy was printed in the June 30, 1988 issue of the Shakopee Valley News. In response to this notice the City has received the attached application as well as an additional application from an individual interested in serving on the Planning Commission. This second application will be placed on file until there is a vacancy on the Planning Commission. The applicant was so notified. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Nominate Mr. Mark Miller to the Community Development Commission 2. Nominate Mr. Mark Miller to the Community Development Commission and waive the procedural policy on appointments and appoint Mr. Mark Miller to the Community Development Commission 3. Table nominations to the Community Development Commission - (Allowing an additional two weeks for nominations to possibly be sent in) RECOMMENDATIONS• Alternative No. 1 - Nominate Mr. Mark Miller to the Community Development Commission. Under Council procedures the appointment of Mr. Mark Miller will take place at the next Council meeting. ACTION REOUESTED• Nominate Mr. Mark Miller to the Community Development Commission to fill the unexpired term ending January 31, 1990. APPLICATION FOR COUNCIL ADVISORY BOARDS AND/OR COMM.ISSIONS City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 We welcome you as a possible applicant for one of our City Boards and/or Commissions. What are the qualifications for serving on these advisory Boards and Commissions? You must be a resident of Shakopee, extent where non residency is permitted by Council resolution, and more importantly, you must have an interest in serving your community. The Boards and Commissions meet during the evening and typically have from one to two meetings per month, as follows: Planning Commission/Board of 1st Thursday after 1st Tuesdav Adjustments and Appeals at 7: 30 p.m. COMUnity Development commission 2nd Wednesday at 5: 00 p.m. Ererav & Transportation Committee 3rd Thursday at 7:00 p.m. - Ad HOC Downtown Committee - As Needed Wednesday at 7:30a.m. Cable Communication Commissions As Needed Monday at 7 : 30 p.m. Housing Advisory and Appeals Board As Needed Building Code Board of Adjustment As Needed & Appeals Shakopee Public Utilities Commission 1st Monday at 4: 30 p.m. Shakopee Community Recreation 33rd Monday at 7: 00 p.m. Police Civil Seexvice Commission - As Needed Name: 1-'e ALLc`1L Address: Zza-/ Phone: (H) y5'S- �FSS7 (B) Gi; Y-- 7Gop F �p How Long Have you Been A Resident of Shakopee? ��%-iuE VFP25 Occupation: nF llPBZa ioN L/AGGE/fT/f/� Does Your Work Require You To Travel? (check one) A Great Deal _ Periodically Very Little Not At All Do You Have Any Special Interests or Training Which You Feel A Particular Board or Commission Could Use? (Use separate sheet necessary) -` f 7oz F51�rT r �� a rte+ e+� res s�irsT iw�ccu� y.�.vu_ -�- .vT�R�S�l� �'v CO/YTiiUUF/� l�.su�Go�'��E•1AT cf 5 ffi%x'o?c`� Board or Commission In Which You Are interested? Please State Briefly Why You Are Interested In Serving On this Boar--d///Commission For Which YouAxeSubmitting An Application: Jr Hi9vir/G CiaFD /N Ji%1Ko✓�ir e� fi�lJ ✓A�� .ai9Si J I/LA,cS rF✓1 ✓ ✓.0 5 .v? %�J /OC/i �.T�P f /f� FuG � Cer._lic of interest is defined as the participation in any activity, recommended action_, or decision from which the individual has or could have the potential to receive personal gain, whether it be direct or indirect. in accordance with this definition, do you have any legal or equitable interest in any business , however organized, which could be construed as a conflict of interest? Yes No _� if Yes, please provide details a separate sheet o.£ gaper. k�.d In accordance with this definition, do you own any real property located in Scott County in which you have a legal or equitable interest which could be construed as a conflict of interest? Yes No If yes, please provide details on a separate sheet of paper. Please List Three References (Name, Address and Phone) : -•—&&;a: ��i i/.e9T '/ [/A.[,iL�/ii7jZ J TL i'S�.r 7La� 2 � — �ok) i?g 93-7 S ��r ysz a z5-%q 3 • lam'. aL-77-F- k� m �( 8/ IFS .So/J yyr 3o St/ I hereby certify that the facts within the foregoing application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature RETURN APPLICATION AND PLEDGE TO: City Clerk / City of Shakopee e 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 445-3650 D).=' RECEIVED: IIS 8P CITY OF SHAKOPEE ff BOARDS AND COM IISSIONS VOLUNTEER PARTICIPATION PLEDGE 1) i agree to attend an annual Board/Commission evening orientation held in January once during my first two years on the Board/Commission. YES _ NO 2) I agree to read the agenda material provided prior to the Board/Commission meetings so that i am prepared to participate in discussion. YES _ NO 3) I agree to read and use the attached "How To Aid Discussion By Asking The Right Questions" to enhance my performance as an active Board/Commission member. YES _,Y_ NO 4) I agree to offer discussion on the pros and cons of the Policy/issue being discussed and agree to refrain from personal criticism directed toward citizens, applicants, fellow Board/Commission members and staff. YES NO 5) 1 acknowledge the City' s requirements regarding attendance (Outlined in Section B, Subparagraph I) and understand that I can be removed from a Board/Commission because of Door attendance. YES _ NO 6) I acre=_ to call Citv Hall to notify the appropriate staff Derson when 1 cannot attend a regularly scheduled meeting. YES -- NO 7) 1 agree to refrain from voting on issues where I have a conflict of interest. YES NO �/ cLL�— � pplicant 7 /$� Date At this time I do not see my employment with Valleyfair or my residence to be a conflict of interest. If issues should come before the CDC that pose a conflict of interest I would refrain from voting on them. MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Gambling Regulations DATE: July 14, 1988 Introduction and Background Pursuant to Council direction on June 7th, the City Attorney has drafted the attached Ordinance for Council consideration. Under the ordinance the individual selling the pull-tabs must be an employee of the charitable gambling licensee and may not be an employee of the owner of the premises if the owner is different than the charitable gambling licensee. Alternatives 1. Adopted Ordinance No. 247 2. Amend Ordinance No. 247 as drafted. 3. Do nothing - and not change current code. Recommendation Discuss drafted ordinance and make any desired changes. JSC/jms ORDINANCE NO. 247 CV Fourth Series An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending the Shakopee City Code Chapter 10 entitled "Public Protection, Crimes and Offenses" by Adding Other Provisions to Section 10.61 entitled "Gambling" and by Adopting by Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Section 10.99 Which Among Other Things Contain Penalty Provisions THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION I: New Provision added to Section 10. 61 "Gambling" Subd. 2 B. It is unlawful for any organization licensed by the State Charitable Gambling Control Board to sell or offer to sell pull-tabs in any place and at any time unless such sale is completely and exclusively under the control at all times of a person authorized by said organization and employed by it and said employed person may not be employed directly or indirectly by the firm, organization, or person operating and controlling the premises on which the sale of pull-tabs is being conducted except when the premises are owned, operated, and controlled by the charitable gambling licensee. Subd. 2 C. A violation of the terms of Subd 2 B hereof in addition to any other penalty will be grounds for the cancellation of said organizations authorization to sell pull- tabs. SECTION II: Adopted by Reference The general provisions and definitions applicable to the entire City Code including the penalty provisions of Chapter 1 and Section 10.99 entitled "Violations a Petty Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim herein. SECTION III: When in Force and Effect After the adoption and attestation of this Ordinance it shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee and shall be in full force and effect on and after the date following such publication. Passed 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 Prepared and approved as to form this day of , 1988. City Attorney CONSENT MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: David Hutton, City Engineer SUBJECT: 6th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Project No. 1988-2 DATE: July 13 , 1988 INTRODUCTION: On June 7 , 1988 the Shakopee City Council passed Resolution No. 2901 ordering the advertisement for bids for the 6th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Project. BACKGROUND: On July 1 , 1988 at 10:00 A.M. , bids were received and publicly opened for Project No. 1988-2 , 6th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Project. A total of 13 bids were received and summarized in the attached resolution. The three low bids are tabulated below: - Contractor City Total Bid Holst Excavating Prescott, WI $76,918.50 S.M. Hentges 6 Sons Shakopee, MN $86 ,074.90 Austin P. Keller Co. St. Paul, MN $97 ,904.00 - Staff requested that this item be tabled at the July 5 , 1988 meeting in order to adequately complete the reference checks on the low bidder. The Engineering Department has completed the views ng the low qualifications of Holst Excavating, Inc . , bidder, and have determined that they are able to perform the describedwork as la on the referenced checks we made plans have specifications wed tall sbids ethat were received for completeness. The engineer ' s estimate for this project was approximately $98 ,000 .00. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Accept the low bid and adopt Resolution No. 2924. 2. Reject the low bidder and award the contract to another bidder, probably the 2nd low bidder. t r 3. Reject all bids and rebid. i I 6th Avenue Sanitary Sewer July 13 , 1988 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 , to accept the low bid and award the contract to Holst Excavating , Inc . of Prescott , Wisconsin. REQUESTED ACTION: 1 . Move to remove Resolution No. 2924 from the table. 2. Offer Resolution No. 2924 , A Resolution Accepting Bids on the 6th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Project No. 1988-2 to Holst Excavating , Inc. , P.O. Box 36 , Prescott, Wisconsin 54021 , and move its adoption. DH/pmp MEM2924 /x-'4 RESOLUTION N0. 2924 A Resolution Accepting Bid On 6th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Project No. 1988-2 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the 6th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Project, bids were received , opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: Holst Excavating $ 76 ,918.50 S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. $ 86 ,074 .90 Austin P. Keller Co. $ 97 ,904.00 0&P Contracting, Inc. $ 99, 159.27 B&D Underground $ 99,647 .00 J.P. Norex, Inc. $104 ,565.25 G.L. Contracting, Inc. $109,315.30 Orfei Cont. , Inc. $111 ,718,81 Barbarossa & Sons, INc. $114,229.00 Brown & Cris, Inc. $114,280.00 Albrecht Excavating $118 ,300.00 Northdale Const. $134,757 .90 F.F. Jedlicki $137 ,488.00 AND WHEREAS, it appears that Holst Excavating, Inc. , P. O. Box 36 , Prescott, WI 54021 is the lowest responsible. bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1 . The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Holst Excavating, Inc. , in the name of the City of Shakopee for the improvement of 6th Avenue Sanitary Sewer by Sanitary Sewer & Appurtenant Work , according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2 . The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed . Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 79_. day of Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of City Attorney l�/n City of Shakopee KOAF� POLICE DEPARTMENT #..476 South Gorman Street SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 LITel. 612/4456666 ��AWESOSP �� CONSENT TO: Mayor, Councilmembers FROM: Tom Brownell , Chief of Police RE: Abandoned/Surplus. Property DATE: July 6, 1988 Introduction The department has recovered 49 bicycles which have not been claimed or reported as stolen property. Background Council is required to declare property for disposal by City departments as surplus or abandoned prior to sale at auction. The Police department will be participating in a public auction with Scott County in August as we have done in the past. Council Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 2927 , A Resolution Authorizina the Disnosal of Unclaimed and Surplus Property, and move its adoption. I C.. I T RESOLUTION NO. 2927 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DISPOSAL OF UNCLAIMED AND SURPLUS PROPERTY WHEREAS, the Shakopee Police Department of the City of Shakopee has had property in its possession for more than sixty (60) days, which property remains unclaimed by the owner; and WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee desires to dispose of said property and additional items declared surplus property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, hereby declares the attached list of Unclaimed Property, dated July 19, 1988 describing certain property abandoned and/or surplus property and that the appropriate City officials are hereby authorized and directed to dispose of said property pursuant to Section 2.70, Subd. 2, of the Shakopee City Code. 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 - July 19 , 1988 jU KAFUE 1 10 SPEED Na-p c. SPEED U w N 0-1 A. 10 SPEED Fl UE I C:72467W WOODSTOCr., "RACEF 10 SPEED RED "VARSIT` 10 SPEED CREEN ESU', 12. "UMN-1 10" HUFF, 1 r. S=..=n HC-6715289 REF; 1C, SPEED BLUE H74P5476 ; 14. BR;DGE=NE `0011 — 1 ,- SPEED BLUE N45OR24 "SHADOWI! BLACK, — COLUM 10, SPEED ! - 02577 1.. MAGNA SPEED RED T4031416 17. Eja.i!PR 71;-.!, ._ S. EED UE F5-42V00764 16. FTREINZE �;-. SPEED RED 19. SrL,.w i pgq 20FREE SPIRIT IL I VEER 50-- ff HU�Fy Le3RANDE" 12 SPEED VAR.=Y SF= . I- — E-F BLUE 2Z. S-CHW I NN I SPEED 8!-u= 29786 HMFF� "SANTA FE10 SPEED BROWN H..Li :� TEAM MURRAY Bm-v 6:N�-LE '.09005 26. COAG. I-TI!S 1-1 12 SPEED GRA, HC71847B2 1 PRE, I.'TER HUFFY IZ SPEED i?LLIE 28— H'-:F FY 0-�-M I-N I n- SPEED BLUE H--634mL0 S rr.-N - I-IN 'p-, R -2�J 72 �Se HUFFY $:KIBLE 1606 VH :!19. "ABRikA' 10 �P==n R621054 40 HUFFY OLYMPIA 1c, HC-7654�7 Ljl'_�T i 0SPEED 43 AMF SCDRCHEF 10 ==En 44HLF�'-.' 10 SPEED BLUE 15. 46. L!UF=V =P=D I TE . ..'_.12061665 U F Y 1-77:�B4 1�q MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Resolution No. 2929 Providing for the Issuance and Sale of $1, 100, 000 GO Improvement Bonds Series 1988A DATE: July 15, 1988 Introduction The City needs to issue bonds to provide funding for serveral construction projects in 1987-88. Background - Bonds need to be issued to fund the Vierling Drive East and West, Heritage, Eleventh Avenue, Marschall Road and Market Street projects. The bonding should proceed expeditiously since substantial funds have already been expended for construction. Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 2929, A Resolution Providing for the Issuance and Sale of $1,100,000 GO Improvement Bonds Series 1988A, and move its adoption. (RESOLUTION ON TABLE) GV/jms RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA $1,100,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 1988A Study No. 3410 July 15, 1988 SPRINGSTED In porafed ■ SPRINGSTED PUBLIC FINANCE ADVISORS / 85 East Seventh Place.Suite 100 SaintReal Minnesota 55101 2143 6122233000 FAX 6122233002 July 15, 1988 Mayor Delores Lebens Members, City Council Mr. John Anderson, City Administrator Mr. Greg Voxland, Finance Director City Hall 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Recommendations for the Issuance of $1,100,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1988A We respectfully request your consideration of our recommendations for the issuance of these bonds. Proceeds of the bond issue will be used to finance the costs associated with six improvement projects currently under way within the City. Appendix I of these recommendations itemizes the projects involved. Construction bids on all of the projects have been awarded except Market Street (88- 6) and I Ith Avenue (88-5). Construction bids on the remaining two projects are to be received within the next 30 days. In two instances, the projects 87-4 and 87-14, the assessment rolls were filed last fall for first collection during 1988. Project 87-I2, Verling East, will be assessed this fall and the remaining three projects will be assessed in 1989. Those projects which will be assessed in 1989 require capitalized interest to pay the interest expense on the bonds until the assessment roll is filed and interest begins accumulating on those assessments. All of the project costs are assessed against benefited properties with the exception of Verling East of which only $277,000 of the $390,900 cost is assessed. The City will certify a tax levy to pay that portion of that project not assessed. All of the assessments are spread over ten years in equal principal installments with interest on the unpaid balance estimated at 8.5%. Appendix II is our projection of assessment income far each of the projects. Appendix III is our estimate of the cash flow for the bond issue. The assessment revenue as developed in Appendix II is applied as income in Appendix III, Column 10. The income being received in 1988 is coupled with the projections of income for 1989, to be used to pay the August 1, 1989 interest payment and the February I, 1990 principal and interest payment. Column 7 shows the capitalized interest associated with the three projects which will not be assessed until 1989. Indiana Of.ea Wisconsn Office. 251 North Illinois Street.Suite 1510 500 Elm Grave Road Sri(e 101 Indianapolis,Indiana 462041942 Elm Grove,wisemam 53122 0037 3172373636 4144828222 Fax 3114373639 Fax 414182 2904 • y� City of Shakopee, Minnesota f July 15, 1988 We have attempted to structure the principal repayment in line with projected assessment principal repayments, adding the City's share to also attempt to keep the tax levies relatively equal. Column I I of Appendix III is our projection of the annual required tax levy. The interest rates shown in Column 4 represent current market rates as of July 12 for an "A"-rated issue. Interest rates are affected by changing market conditions and the actual bids received may not reflect the interest rates shown in our projections. Adjustments will be made to the assessment income and tax levy requirements based upon what actual bids are received. We are recommending that bonds maturing in the years 1996 through 2000 representing $435,000 or 40% of the issue, be callable by the City as early as February I, 1995 without penalty. This will permit the City to prepay these bonds if substantial prepayments of assessments are received. A Moody's bond rating will again be required for this issue. The City is currently rated "A" by Moody's. The rating agency charges a fee of approximately $3,000 for this service which will be billed directly to the City. That fee is incorporated into our estimated costs of issuance and will be paid from bond proceeds. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 does affect these bonds. Most specifically, the Act requires that issuers of tax-exempt bonds provide a reporting and rebate mechanism for any arbitrage profits which may be gained from the investment of bond proceeds. There are some exemptions to the rebate and reporting requirements, one of those being the "small issuer" exemption. If the City reasonably anticipates issuing less than $5 million of tax-exempt bonds during 1988, then the City can designate itself as a small issuer, exempt from the reporting and rebate requirements. It is our understanding the City does not anticipate issuing more than $5 million of tax- exempt bonds during 1988 and therefore, will declare itself exempt. We are recommending bonds be offered for sale on Tuesday, August 16 with bids to be received in the offices of SPRINGSTED Incorporated at 11:00 A.M. At that time they will be opened and tabulated and then presented to the Council for action that evening at your regular meeting. Proceeds will be available to the City approximately 30 days later or in mid-September. A representative of our firm will attend the Council meeting to present the bids and make recommendations as to award. Respectfully submitted, SPRl�orporatedk � mgh Page 2 O OO j J L OU— APPENDIX I ACO c c UUU :E :E U� as ommrom© m m m m m m � 0000Mo M `cv 0000mo m om mmoomm m Q y M M m N O Q O O .. M O M O M O c000OJO M �nOm O N mmOO. mm rn S O Zf 0 MN ;) m O mM O W 0 Z Z o-�1 - m yy9 oMo M Z J O lc mo W n W :� W > g O O yl 00000 o� o n 0 O �1T OO�C) N V1 UT = U y N N Z O HY O O O O f-' V OO� m« N 0 0 0 — m ac N U J Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O W Uy 001000 N ui O min-mOm n U cU m-moN n N VT C 0 0 0 0 0 0 O U « OOv�000 �n 0 SOMmOS !� � O U N mS S aQ C v U ^ y � E C y v J y ayc NQ c a > COQ h O - y S � V >— n m Puge3 a `v mmmm�m 1-O QJ Z APPENDIX II Wb N . ve . MMmm � a � < � 2 $ 3 cli Ili o a m m o m M m — d m n T LL b b b b b b N N m N b = O O O E r a O O O Y O 8 i b N Q LL M m m m M m m m m m M C a b � Y � LL mMMMMmmmmM M < Page 4 T L T O a u g b N p a m tV r N p - - N m u 6 n n n n n w w n n w O LL n r ar( � p m m m m au w N aV w N E 2 n n O G m m 0 m 0 0 Os N 9 ✓ = Q 9 ✓ � r r r r .y r r �. r r — r r Page 5 APPENDIX III 6 U E d Q r r T 9 N m n 9 u 0 0 0 O O O o O O O O 0 r j u N N q O _ m O m b m m a a m N p y qp Z u u V r m m E E `n 1; O O T 0 m t S 6 ¢ U rf C 2 a r m ¢ C Z Page 6 OFFICIAL TERMS OF OFFERING I $1,100,000 - CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 19MA Sealed bids for the Bonds will be opened by the City on Tuesday, August 16, 1988, at 11:00 A.M., Central Time, at the offices of SPRINGSTED Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-2143. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:30 P.M., Central Time, of the some day. DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated September I, 1988, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on February I and August I of each year, commencing August 1, 1989. Interest will be computed upon the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months and will be rounded pursuant to rules of the MSRB. The Bonds will be issued in the denomination of $5,000 each, or in integral multiples thereof as requested by the Purchaser, and fully registered as to principal and interest. Principal will be payable at the main corporate office of the Registrar and interest on each Bond will be payable by check or draft of the Registrar mailed to the registered holder thereof at his address as it appears on the books of the Registrar as of the 15th day of the calendar month next preceding the interest payment. The Bonds will mature February I in the amounts and years as follows: $115,000 1990 $110,000 1991-1998 $65,000 1999 $40,000 2000 OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elect on February 1, 1995, and on any interest payment date thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 1996. Redemption may be in whole or in part of the Bonds subject to prepayment. If redemption is in part, those Bonds remaining unpaid which have the latest maturity date will be prepaid first. If only part of the Bonds having a common maturity date are called for prepayment the specific Bonds to be prepaid will be chosen by lot by the Registrar. All prepayments shall be at a price of par and accrued interest. - SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition the City will pledge special assessments against benefited property. The proceeds will be used to finance the costs of various improvements within the City. TYPE OF BID A sealed bid for not less than $1,083,500 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds shall be filed with the undersigned prior to the time set for the opening of bids. Also prior to the time set for bid opening, a certified or cashier's check in the amount of $11,000, payable to the order of the City, shall have been filed with the undersigned or SPRINGSTED Incorporated, the City's Financial Advisor. No bid will be considered for which said check has not been filed. The check of the Purchaser will be retained by the City as liquidated damages in the event the Purchaser fails to comply with the accepted bid. The City will deposit the check of the Purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement. No bid shall be withdrawn after the time set for opening bids unless Page 7 the meeting of the City scheduled for consideration of the bids is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates offered by Bidders shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. No rate specified for a maturity shall exceed the rate specified for any subsequent maturity. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded to the Bidder offering the lowest dollar interest cost to be determined by the deduction of the premium, if any, from, or the addition of any amount less than par, to the total dollar interest on the Bonds from their date to their final scheduled maturity. The City's computation of the total net dollar interest cost of each bid, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non-substantive informalities of any bid or of matters relating to the receipt of bids and award of the Bonds, 00 reject all bids without cause, and, (iii) reject any bid which the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. REGISTRAR The City will name the Registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the Registrar. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the Purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the Purchaser. SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the Purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and the Purchaser. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the Purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, which opinion will be printed on the Bonds, and of customary closing papers, including a no-litigation certificate. On the date of settlement payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds which shall be received at the offices of the City, or its designee, not later than 1:00 P.M., Central Time. Except as compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds shall have been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the Purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the Purchaser's non-compliance with said terms for payment. OFFICIAL STATEMENT Underwriters may obtain a copy of the Official Statement by request to the City's Financial Advisor prior to the bid opening. The Purchaser will be provided with 25 copies of the Official Statement. Dated July 19, 1988 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Judith Cox Clerk Page 8 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAYOPEE, MINNESOTA HELD: JULY 19 , 1988 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota, was duly called and held at the City Hall in said City on the 19th day of July, 1988, commencing at 7 : 30 P.M. , C.T. The following Councilmembers were present: and the following were absent: Councilmember introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. pgpq RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC SALE OF $1, 100, 000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 1968A BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, as follows: 1. It is hereby determined: (a) That the City has duly ordered the making of , and has undertaken or will undertake, the assessable public improvements listed in the attached Exhibit C (the "Improvements" ) within the City, pursuant to and in full conformity with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 . (b) That it is necessary and expedient to the sound financial management of the affairs of the City that the City issue its bonds pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 429 and 475, to provide financing for the Improvements . 2 . It is hereby found, determined and declared that this City should issue $11100,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1988A (the "Bonds" ) , to finance the costs of the Improvements, and $16,500 of such amount shall represent additional bonds issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475 .56, as additional interest required to market the Bonds at this time. 3 . This Council shall meet at the time and place specified in the form of notice hereinafter contained for the purpose of opening and considering sealed bids for, and award- ing the sale of, the Bonds. 4 . The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of the sale of the Bonds to be published in the official newspaper of the City and in Commercial West not less than ten days in advance of date of sale, as provided by law, which notice shall be in substantially the form set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. 5. The terms and conditions of the Bonds and the sale thereof are fully set forth in the "Official Terms of Offering" attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. Adopted this 19th day of July, 1988 . The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. -2- EXHIBIT LEXHIBIT A NOTICE OF BOND SALE $1, 100, 000 CITY OF SHAKOPEE SCOTT COUNTY MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 1988A Sealed bids for these Bonds will be opened by the City at the offices of SPRINGSTED- INCORPORATED, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-2143, on Tuesday, August 16, 1988, at 11:00 A.M. , Central Time. Consideration for award of the Bonds by the City Council will occur at a meeting of the Council beginning at 7 : 30 P.M. , Central Time, on the same day. The Bonds will have a date of original issue of September 1, 1988, and interest will be payable August 1, 1989, and semiannually thereafter. The Bonds will be general obligations of the Issuer for which its unlimited taxing powers will be pledged. The Bonds will mature on February 1 in the amounts and years as follows: Years Amounts Years Amounts 1990 $115, 000 1996 110,000 1991 110,000 1997 110, 000 1992 110,000 1998 110, 000 1993 110,000 1999 65,000 1994 110,000 2000 40, 000 1995 -110,000 All Bonds maturing after February 1, 1995, are subject to prior payment on said date and on any interest payment date thereafter at a price of par and accrued interest. Sealed bids for not less than $1, 083,500 and accrued interest on the principal sum Of $1, 100, 000 will be accepted. An approving legal opinion will be furnished by Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association, of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota. The proceeds will be used to finance the costs of assessable public improvements within the City. Bidders should be aware that the Official Terms of Offering to be published in the Official Statement for the Offering may contain additional bidding terms and information relative to the Issue. In the event of a variance between statements in this Notice of Bond Sale and said Official Terms of Offering the provisions of the latter shall be those to be complied with. Dated: July 19, 1988 . BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Judith Cox City Clerk Further information may be obtained from the Issuer' s Financial Advisor, SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED 85 East Seventh Place St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 (612) 223-3000 5 EXHIBIT B OFFICIAL TERMS OF OFFERING $1,100,000 CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 1988A Sealed bids for the Bonds will be opened by the City on Tuesday, August 16, 1988, at 11:00 A.M., Central Time, at the offices of SPRINGSTED Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-2143. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:30 P.M., Central Time, of the some day. DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated September 1, 1988, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on February I and August 1 of each year, commencing August I, 1989. Interest will be computed upon the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months and will be rounded pursuant to rules of the ,MSRB. The Bonds will be issued in the denomination of $5,000 each, or in integral multiples thereof as requested by the Purchaser, and fully registered as to principal and interest. Principal will be payable at the main corporate office of the Registrar and interest on each Bond will be payable by check or draft of the Registrar mailed to the registered holder thereof at his address as it appears on the books of the Registrar as of the 15th day of the calendar month next preceding the interest payment. The Bonds will mature February I in the amounts and years as follows: $115,000 1990 $110,000 1991-1998 $65,000 1999 $40,000 2000 OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elect on February 1, 1995, and on any interest payment date thereafter, to prepay . Bonds due on or after February I, 1996. Redemption may be in whole or in part of the Bonds subject to prepayment. If redemption is in part, those Bonds remaining unpaid which have the latest maturity date will be prepaid first. If only part of the Bonds having a common maturity date are called for prepayment the specific Bonds to be prepaid will be chosen by lot by the Registrar. All prepayments shall be at a price of par and accrued interest. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition the City will pledge special assessments against benefited property. The proceeds will be used to finance the costs of various improvements within the City. TYPE OF BID A sealed bid for not less than $1,083,500 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds shall be filed with the undersigned prior to the time set for the opening of bids. Also prior to the time set for bid opening, a certified or cashier's check in the amount of 511,000, payable to the order of the City, shall have been filed with the undersigned or SPRINGSTED Incorporated, the City's Financial Advisor. No bid will be considered for which said check has not been filed. The check of the Purchaser will be retained by the City as liquidated damages in the event the Purchaser fails to comply with the accepted bid. The City will deposit the check of the Purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement. No bid shall be withdrawn after the time set for opening bids unless /,2-� the meeting of the City scheduled for consideration of the b"ds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been mode. Rates offered by Bidders shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. No rate specified for a maturity shall exceed the rote specified for any subsequent maturity. Bonds of the some r-.aturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded to the Bidder offering the lowes' dollar interest cost to be determined by the deduction of the premium, if any, from, or the addition if any amount less than par, to the total dollar interest on the Bonds from their date to their final scheduled maturity. The City's computation of the total net dollar interest cost of each bi; in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non-substantia:e informalities of any bid or of matters relating to the receipt of bids and award of the Bonds, (ii. reject all bids without cause, and, (iii) reject any bid which the City determines to have failed to c:mply with the terms herein. REGISTRAR - The City will name the Registrar which shall be subject to e,plicoble SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the Registrar. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such -umbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond -or any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the Purchaser to a:cept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of-.CUSIP iderrification numbers shall be paid by the Purchaser. SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the dote of their award, the Borns will be delivered without cost to the Purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and --.e Purchaser. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the Purchaser of on approving leocl opinion of Br"i-gs and Morgan, Professional Association of Saint Poul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, which opinion. will be printed on the Bonds, and of customary closing papers, including a no-li;:gation certific-e. On the date of settlement payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, fund= Hhich shall be received at the offices of the City, or its designee, not later than 1: �() P.M., Centra Time. Except as compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds shall have `teen made impo-ible by action of the City, or its agents, the Purchaser shall be liable to the City for cny loss suffere- by the City by reason of the Purchaser's non-complionce with said terms for paymen-.. OFFICIAL STATEME,,T Underwriters may obtain a copy of the Offi:iol Statement D, request to the City's Financial Advisor prior to the bid opening. The Purchaser will be provided wit- 25 copies of the Official Statement. Dated July 19, 1988 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Judith Cox Clerk AO p < < Z UUU QQ r o. nnWma. d N N N N N N -O OOOOMOI M Ch OOOOWO W D\ WOO � b T Qh M��ONOn Q m m 0000Mo M on o 0000Wo W om o LLJ PD`OP � m D\ NS O Ito tM;; OMan G QOM 00 lul _ N N N R 0 Z Z Ono n V 0O— p Z m Zn 'v a Ci M Z W « j obp J O e g WWlJ. v 7 O 000000 O m a0 O u 00000 o� o T Yy „ CO NOiC O� ci N X iR Q U O y Z O O U W � H' V V J y N O O O S N - m O C N U J Q 000000 0 000000 0 W ` y O O N O O O N Zw O �O=1 OHO n U cU `D `Oory n N � Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 7 O ONO 0 0 N N dOM�00S n O N N N N O n N CU U ^ nv CJ E c y J W O N -C O > N N OI Y CQ C d O d - - O c a � _ `o> v _ ma o 1 N 7 m V W L m m m m m f < J Z MEMO TO: City Council FROM: LeRoy Houser, Building Official RE: Budget Amendment DATE: July 15, 1988 INTRODUCTION The new position of Housing Inspector will require a budget amendment. BACKGROUND The amount requested for the budget amendment is: 1. Inspector $12, 970 2. Supplies & services $ 1, 615 3. Capital $ 455 TOTAL: $15, 040 RECOMMENDATION Amend building dept. budget for $15,040 for the newly created position of Housing Inspector. ACTION REQUESTED 1. Amend the building dept. budget for $15,040. 2. Offer Resolution No. 2930, A Resolution Amending Resolution 2817 Adopting the 1988 Budget. RESOLUTION 2930 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 2817ADOPTING THE 19 68 BUDGET WHEREAS, the City Council base adopted a budget for the fiscal year, and WHEREAS, changing conditions and circumstances warrant amending the budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the appropriations are increased as follows: Fund Category Division Amount O1 Personnel Inspection $12, 970 01 Supplies s Inspection $ 1, 615 Services O1 Capital Inspection $ 455 and the increases are offset or funded by increases (decreases) in the following accounts: Fund Account/Category Division Amount O1 Contingency Unallocated $15, 040 Adopted is session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1986. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of , 1986. City Attorney