Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/07/1988 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items DATE: June 2, 1988 1. Valleyfair has paid their annual service fee of $10, 000. 2. The Scott County Historical Society has dismissed their injunction (not to be confused with the remainder of the lawsuit which is still pending) that would prevent Minnesota Valley Restoration Inc. from operating Murphy's Landing this year. 3. Councilman Wampach mentioned that there was a dust problem at our O'Dowd Lake Park at the last Council meeting. Jim Karkanen and I inspected the site and the City had justed placed new gravel on the roadway. We both felt that the loose material would work down in the gravel and that the dust problem would be reduced in the future. We are not recommending a dust treatment at this time. 4. Gloria Vierling has been appointed to a two-year term on the Board of Directors of the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities. Congratulations Gloria! 5. The City Engineer and I met with Mn/DOT to again review traffic improvements for the intersection of 1st Avenue and Holmes Street. Mn/DOT hopes to have a report to us by June 17th so Council can review the traffic improvements at its June 21st meeting. 6. I will be trying to set up a meeting with a representative from the Capesius Agency and from GAB that handles all of our insurance claim investigations. Please bring your calendars to the June 7th meeting so that we can look at a time and place. 7. The Jaycees have applied for a pull-tab license to be operated at the Inside Track on Shenandoah Drive. They meet the requirements of the City Code. The owners of the Inside Track are members of the Jaycees. 8. St. Mary's Church has applied for a gambling license for their church festival on August 28, 1988. They meet the requirements of the City Code. 9. Attached is the calendar for the month of June. 10. Attached is a summary of the resolution of the final three appeals before the Board of Review. 11. Attached is the draft of the proposed Fact Sheet City staff has prepared for the community center special election. If you have comments about the Fact Sheet please contact Dennis Kraft. One suggestion has been to include a copy of the "sketch plan" of the proposed facility on the back side of the Fact Sheet. 12. Attached is a memo from LeRoy Houser regarding recent housing code enforcement steps taken regarding the Robert Vierling property at 221 East 4th Avenue. 13. Attached is a letter from Jack Collar and from Rod Kress' office describing the problems we are having with the Court's new scheduling system. The Chiefs of Police and Attorneys in nearly all Scott County cites are now lobbying hard to change this recent court scheduling '-mess". I will try to keep you posted on developments so that Council can be involved when and if an appropriate role for Council can be identified. Scott County government does not have any control over the court scheduling done by the court system out of the Dakota County Government Center. 14. Attached is page two summarizing the Judge's ruling regarding our condemnation procedures for the Upper Valley Drainage Project. 15. Attached is a letter from LeAnn Johnson the Management Information Intern that Judy Cox had hoped to employ this summer. 16. Attached is a letter I sent to the Chairman of the Regional Transit Board, Elliott Perovich, regarding a new reverse van pool program they are proposing for Shakopee and Eden Prairie. Mr. Perovich's response to my letter is also attached. 17. Attached is the summary page of the 1988 Legislative Acts of particular interest to Metropolitan area cities. Councilmembers wishing background on any of these items can contact us for more information. 18. Attached is an article regarding the trend in municipal golf course construction in the U.S. Councilmembers may find this interesting as it relates to economic development and our goals in approving the Stonebrook project. 19. Attached is a letter from Governor Rudy Perpich sent to transportation supporters. 20. Attached is a cover letter and page ii from Mn/DOT's plan to resurface Highway 169 from Shakopee south to Belle Plaine in 1989. 21. Attached is a copy of the June 1, 1988 issue of "Business Update from City Hall. 22. Attached is a copy of a seminar registration. Brian Lee is exceptional and this National Leadership Institute for Elected Officials is great. Please let Jeanette know by June 17th if you are interested. 23. Attached are the minutes of the May 3, 1988 meeting of the Shakopee Coalition. 24. Canterbury Downs has began holding a monthly dance after the races. Doug Wise has reviewed this use (memo attached) and he and Mr. Coller agree that it is permitted under their Commercial Recreation PUD approval. There is an old outdated 1923 State law requiring City governing bodies to issue permits for all such dancing. Shakopee and other cities have not been issuing dancing permits. We don't recommend starting. 25. Attached are the minutes of the April 4 and May 2, 1988 meetings of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 26. Attached are the agendas for the June 9, 1988 meetings of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and Planning Commission. 27. Attached are the minutes of the May 5, 1988 meetings of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and Planning Commission. 28. Attached is the agenda for the June 8, 1988 meeting of the Community Development Commission. 29. Attached are the minutes of the May 4, 1988 meeting of the Community Development Commission. 30. Attached is the agenda for the June 8, 1988 meeting of the Ad Hoc Downtown Committee. 31. Attached are the minutes of the May 11, 1988 meeting of the Ad Hoc Downtown Committee. JRA/jms June 1988 9 UPCOMING MEETINGS SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SRT 1 2 3 4 5 64:30pm 7:00pm City �7:45am 7 1 0 1 1 :30pm Public Council Downtown Planning Utilities Scott Co. Committe Commission 5:00pm CDC Courthouse Room 318 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 7::0upm En-rpy & Tramp. 19 20 2 06pm City 22 23 24 25 7;00pm Community Council Recreation 26 27 28 29 30 Derby Days Referendum 7:00pm City Council May July S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 none 05/27/1988 l0 DON D. MARTIN SCOTT COUNTY ASSESSOR RECEIVED or COURT HOUSE 112 SHAKOPEE, MN.55379-1381 (612)-4457750, Ext.115 AdgiwrL MAY 519" Deputy: LEROY ARNOLDI CITY OF SHAKOPE 1988 Shakopee Board of Review Summary of unfinished business for the 1988 board concerning the properties owned by: Glean and Betsy Graber 27 001 475 0 1 . 919 W. 5th Ave. I talked with Mr. Graber on May 19th and we have came to an agreement on the 1988 estimated market value . The value will be placed at $66 , 100. This is due in part to the correction of an arbitrary assessment which was conducted for the 1987 assessment. Mr. 6 Mrs. Graber are in agreement with the new value. The original 1988 value was $72 ,800 . Clarence and Stella Jacobs 2 . 27 035 002 0 1453 E. Shakopee Ave . Mr . 6 Mrs . Jacobs have a 1268 square foot rambler which was built in 1971 . The garage is attached and measures 24 x 24 . The basement is 40% finished with a 3/4 bath and family room. There is 1 fireplace, a walkout , central-air, an 8 'x 19 ' deck, and a concrete patio . The lot is 80' x 190' . The 1988 value was increased from $77 , 300 to $87 ,000 . This was a result of both the lot value being raised from $16,200 to $22 ,000 and the structure value increasing from $61 , 100 to $65 ,000. I have explained the reasons for the increase to the Jacobs and they agree the value is fair. Their concern is the large increase and what it may do to taxes . I share their con- cern, but unfortunately, I can do nothing to delay the result . The Jacobs purchased the property in 1983 for $89 ,500 . 3 Joseph R. Notermann 1235 W. 4th Ave. 27 003 014 0 Mr. Notermann owns a 4 Plex located at the address listed above . The property was part of the reassessment of all apartment pro- perties in the county this year. The value was increased from $94,600 to $103,800 based upon the income which the building will generate . This is the same method used for all apartments in the county. 4 plea sales 1001 - 1011 Bluff 11/87 27 004 115 0 No Garage $117 ,000 $29 ,250/Unit 1220 Polk Street 12/86 27 084 032 0 Garage $124 ,000 $31 ,000/Unit 2207 W. 12th Ave. 7/86 27 104 003 0 No Garage $135 ,000 $33,750/Unit 2020 W. 12th Ave. 12/86 27 104 005 0 No Garage $139,000 $34 ,750/Unit Mr. Notermann' s properties; are assessed at $23,650/Unit and $25 ,950/Unit . Not contested Conte(slt�ed-�Q-- An Equal Opportunity Employer FACT SHEET PROPOSED SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY CENTER WHAT:On Tuesday June 28, 1988 the properties will pay an average tax in- voters of the City of Shakopee will have the crease ranging from $6 per year opportunity to vote for or against the is- ($.50/month) for a house with an es- suance of up to $1,500,000 in General timated market value of$50,000 to an an- Obligation Bonds for the purpose of con- nual tax increase of$60 per year($5 per structing a community center. This com- month) for a house with a market value munity center will include gymnasium and of $150,000. The tax impact on the meeting room facilities as well as an ice average value house in Shakopee skating arena - ($70,000)would be $21 per year or$1.75 per month. Impacts on commercial and industrial WHERE:This facility is proposed to be property range from $25 per year on a constructed as a part of,and adjacent to the propertywith an estimated market value Minnesota Valley Mall in the western part of$50,000 to $98 per year for a property of Shakopee on Highway 169. with a value of$150,000. WHEN-.1f approved by the voters and the PROCESS:Once the referendum has Shakopee City Council the facility will be been held on this issue on June 28,1988, constructed in 1988-1989 according to cur- the Shakopee City Council will meet to rent schedules. canvas the votes (probably on June 29). If the referendum has passed the City Council can then decide to issue up to $1,500,000 in bonds for project financing. SIZE:The facility,as proposed,will include Final facility design and costs will be the 13,500 square feet in the existing shopping result of negotiations with the Essex Cor- center building which will be devoted to poration, the firm which is presently in community center space; a 43,400 square process of purchasing the Minnesota foot ice skating arenahvalldng-joggingtrack Valley Mall. structure and an 8400 square foot gym- nasium. MORE INFORMATTON:To obtain more information on this project contact COST:Estirnates by the City's financial either John Anderson or Dennis Kraft at consultant have projected an average mill the Shakopee City Hall at 129 East First rate increase to city taxpayers of 1.73 to 1.76 Avenue (phone: 445-3650). mills for a$1S million project. Residential o, MEMO TO: City Council FROM: LeRoy Houser, Building Official RE: Robert Vierling 221 East 4th Avenue DATE: May 17, 1988 Attached is all correspondence to date to and from Mr. Vierling. After numerous complaints over the past few years, I decided I must try to abate the condition that exists on this property. The substandard, decaying condition of this property is a blight on the neighborhood and the community as a whole. If you have any instructions or information referred to in Mr. Vierling's letter that would negate any effort or work orders that my department may issue, please inform me. LH:cah Attachments i INFORMATION ROBERT VIERLING RESIDENCE 221 4TH AVE. E. , SHAKOPEE REPORT DATE: TUESDAY. 4-19-88 THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION HAS BEEN COMPILED ON 221 4TH AVE. E. . SHAKOPEE. MINNESOTA. 1. THE WATER METER AND WATER DISTRIBUTION TO THE ABOVE RESIDENCE WAS TERMINATED ON NOV. 13TH. 1987, AT THE OWNERS REQUEST. THE METER WAS ALSO PULLED ON THAT DAY BY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES. 2. FROM MAY OF 1587 THROUGH DEC. OF 1967, THERE WERE NO KILOWATT USAGE RECORDED AT THAT RESIDENCE BY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES. 3. THE FOLLOWING IS A 4 MONTH USAGE LIST FOR 1968 OF KILOWATTS. IN JANUARY - 420 KILOWATTS WERE USED IN FEBRUARY - 450 K.ILOWATT. S USED � IN MARCH - 300 KILOWATTS USED IN APRIL - 60 KILOWATTS KEEP IN MIND. IN REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE KILOWATT USAGE. THAT ONE KILOWATT EQUALS TEN 100 KILOWATT LIGHT BULBS, BURNING FOR 1 HOUR. 4. ON MAY 31ST, 1963, GAS SERVICE WAS TERMINATED AT THE ABOVE RESIDENCE AT THE CUSTOMERS REQUEST AND THE METER WAS MOVED ALSO BY THE. GAS COMPANY ON THAT DAY. THERE HAS BEEN NO GAS SERVICE TO THE HOUSE SINCE MAY 31S-, 1983. CITY INCORPORATED 1870 129 EAST FIRST AVENUE, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379.1376 (612) 4153650 April 25, 1988 Mr. Robert Vierling 221 East 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 1 Dear Ms. Vierling: Due to numerous neighborhood and community complaints regarding the dilapidated, substandard and unattended condition of the exterior of your building located at 221 E. 4th Avenue, Shakopee, MN, we are requesting you provide us with an inspection date that is convenient to you so we may do a complete interior/exterior inspection of your building so as to identify any housing code deficiencies. Upon identification of the problem areas, we will issue work orders for code compliance and assist you in everyway possible in correcting them. Bob, your cooperation is respectfully requested. Sincerely, R ; ous, Building Official LH:cah The Heart of Progress Valley N W I NO om m = J T CITY OF INCORPORATED 1870 129 EAST FIRST AVENUE,SHAKOPEE. MINNESOTA 553191376 (612) 4453650 May 3 , 1988 Mr. Robert Vierling 221 East 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr. Vierling: This letter, Bob, is to again request an inspection date tc identify building/housing code deficiencies and make arrangements to correct same. We respectfully request an inspection date by no later than May 20, 1988 . Failure to comply with this request will result in the matter being referred to the City Attorney. Your cooperation is requested. sincerely, LeRO Houser Building Official LH:cah i I - i The Heart of Progress Valley Mr. Robert Vierling 221 E. Fourth Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Mr. LeRoy Houser City of Shakopee 129 E. First Avenue 5/16/88 Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Mr. Houseri Concerning your two letters of harrassment, I sug- gest that you confer with the City Council as to plans I sent them last Fall concerning the disposition of my house. Ebidently, there is a great lack of communication between the City Council and the City officials. Within the next few days, I will send a letter to the City - Council, in which I will be making certain demands. Some of these will concern you and your Office. I will be putting questions before the City Co cil - concerning you, your Office, and other City offices nc -" Personnel. I strongly suggest that it would be in your -- -_- own best interests to answer the Council's questions hon- -- estly. -- In the event that I must enter a lawsuit with the . - City of Shakopee, I ask you to keep two words in mind: PERJURY, and SUPERCEDE. Thank you. Sincerely, /{ ert ierling Rob yf CITY OF SHAKOPEE �t. INCORPORATED 1870 ,Jl 129 EAST FIRST AVENUE,SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 553791376 (612)4453650 May 17, 19887 Mr. Robert Vierling 221 E. 4th Avenue - Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr. Vierling: I am in receipt of your letter dated 5/16/88. I think a point of clarification is in order. I am not harassing you. I am merely carrying out the duties assigned to me through my position as building official for the Shakopee City Council. My office has received numerous telephone calls both from people in your area and outside your area concerning the general dilapidated appearance of the dwelling located on your property. It is their concern that the condition of the structure results in diminution to the value of the properties in the area. Their concerns in my opinion are well justified. It is my concern that due to apparent decay of the roof system and second floor exterior stairway, your safety and the safety of your guests may be in jeopardy. We have rehab programs through the State agencies with loan interests for rehab ranging from 0% to 9% depending on income levels. My department would be most happy to assist you in applying for rehab assistance to bring your unit into minimum code compliance (roof repair, exterior painting, etc. ) . I have also been informed that the possibility of two underground petroleum tanks exists on your corner lot. These tanks, if in fact exist, are required to be removed or filled with an inert, inorganic, nonshrink, noncorrosive material. Also, borings for possible soil contamination are required. Bob, all correspondence to you is done in the spirit : of cooperation, not harassment. Lets work tegether to resolve the problem. The Heart Of Progress Valley AN EOLAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER I a' As far as answering questions, yours, Councils or the courts, I have no intention but to answer honestly. Once again, Bob, I respectfully request your cooperation. Sincerely, LeRoy Houser Building Official LH:cah 3 JuLlus A. COLLEH.II ivs . AxzoaxEr Ax Lew sa-s u.. SnAEOPEE•MINNESOTA 553ZO May 12, 1988 MAY 1 %1388 Honorable George Hoey Chief Judge, First Judicial District ,a.tAKO)pEs Dakota County Government Center Hastings, Minnesota 55033 Dear Judge Hoey: - As City Attorney and prosecutor for the City of Shakopee, I am writing you to express the deep concerns of the City of Shakopee over the new policy recently implemented that requires all cases scheduled for pretrial on any given Monday but not finally resolved at this timeto,be.tried the following days of that week. This policy will have a devastating effect on the City. Usually, Shakopee has more misdemeanor cases in each pretrial calendar than all other jurisdictions including the county. The average can vary between 15 to 20. If one-half were resolved, there still would be 7 to 10 cases for trial the remaining part of the week, thus creating an impossible situation. At the same time the plea bargaining that was done under pressure undoubtedly would :be disadvantageous to the system. All 15 to 20 cases would have to be prepared for trial by Tuesday morning, witnesses notified and/or dismissed, officers including state, county and Shakopee police would have to be on call each day after Monday and remain on alert until their respective cases were tried. According to the Fair Labor Standards and Union rules, I am advised that these men would have to be paid overtime and Shakopee Chief of Police Thomas Brownell indicates that this would increase the expenses of his department $36,000 to $50,000 over a six-months' period. With the exception of the County Attorney's staff, all of the prosecutors are part time and their compensation set accordingly. Under the new procedure these prosecutors : would have to block out two weeks a month in order to be instantly available .during the pretrial weeks, thus creating havoc with their private practice and greatin increase the expenses of legal services for all concerned jurisdictions. By just listing these few considerations now, it is sincerely hoped and .earnestly requrested that this new policy be re-evaluated and terminated. The old system had its faults but it did work and was not too costly. - V truly yo s JAC/bpm J ms A. Coller, TT S kopee City Attorney cc: Hon. John M. Fitzgerald cc: Chief.: Th s Brownell Judy Schnickelberger Greg Ess, Courts Adm. Shakopee City Council ///��� Caryn F. Brenner d LAW OMCES MAY 2 i 1988 KRASS & MONROE CITY OF SHAK.G;-, - CHARTERED Phillip R. K. Dennis L.Mon. Marschall Road Business Center Barry K.Meyer 327 Marschall Road Treves R.Walsten P.O. Box 216 Jay D.Goldberg Shakopee,Minnesota 55379 FJbebeth B.McLaughlin Susan L.Exult Telephone 445-5080 Dune M.Capon FAX 445-7640 Lachlan B.Muir Robert J.Waller Kent A.Carlson,CPA May 26, 1988 City of Shakopee Attn: John Anderson 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: Criminal Prosecutions Dear Mr. Anderson: This letter is to advise you of certain changes which have occurred in the scheduling of criminal cases for trial. These changes were instituted by the judges of the first judicial district, of which Shakopee is a part. The changes which have been instituted will have an impact on the costs associated with criminal prosections. Commencing in May, 1988, all matters scheduled for jury trials will have a pre-trial conference held on the 3rd and 4th Mondays of each month. Any matter not resolved by a plea bargain, dismissal, or other disposition will be tried on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday of that same week. Formerly, there was a period of three to six weeks between the pre-trial conference and the trial. This means that each police officer who is asked to testify as a wit- ness in the criminal action must be informed that his case, if not settled at at the pre-trial, will be tried either Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday of that week. Since our office will not know the exact date of the trial until late afternoon on Monday, the officers have been asked to be on call for their trials until they are told otherwise. As I understand it, the officers are requesting that they be paid for the time during which they are on call. This raises substantial issues as to the costs involved in prosecuting these matters. If the officers are going to be paid for this on call time, it will substantially increase the cost to the city. If the officers are not going to be paid for this on call time, they may not be available to testify at the time of trial. The effect on each indi- vidual prosecution, therefore, may be that it will be dismissed if a continuance is not granted by the judge. The new scheduling system will also increase costs in another way. Under the prior system, the amount of work on each file necessary to prepare for Allows a one time opportunity for a city or HRA with the Fiscal Disparities Contribution being made from the city as a whole to have the contribution made from the TIF District . (One time option and cannot reverse the option to have the contribution come from the city as a whole) . • TOWNSHIPS Townships (Towns) may not undertake TIF projects if they are located outside the metro area or have a population of 5,000 or less. • TWO OR MORE COUNTY DISTRICTS Unless all county boards agree to waive the requirement, cities located in more than one county may not use the increment generated by a district located in one county for project costs incurred in another county. f DISTRIBUTION OF FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF TIF PLAN Along with county boards, school district boards must receive information on the fiscal and economic implications of a proposed TIF plan at least 30 days prior to the public hearing on the district. EFFECTIVE DATES There are various effective dates for the many provisions and sections of these articles. For specifics, please see Section 30 of Article 12 of Chap. 719 4. HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT FUNDING (HF 1749, LAWS 1988, CHAP. 603) A primary goal of the AMM after the 1987 session was to get the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) transfer from General Fund to - transportation back on track. Although many organizations had i adopted positions in support of the MVET transfer , only a few insisted that MVET be a key part of any package in order to obtain support. The final product drafted by the Legislative Transportation Funding Commission and supported strongly by the House in total and the Senate Transportation Committee Members included a balanced compromise of MVET transfer with gas tax increase to provide an additional $130 million dollars of transportation funding. MVET transfer increased from the 5% level in 1987 legislation to 30% with $71 ,600,000 being split 25% to transit and 75% to the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund. Beginning in 1992 the Highway Fund portion of MVET is scheduled to go directly to MNDOT for State Trunk Highways cutting out distribution to counties and cities. This provision is philosophically onerous but was delayed three years -14- which provides time to lobby for changes. The Legislation includes a 3 cent per gallon gasoline tax increase from 17 cents to 20 cents per gallon effective May 1 , 1988. This provides $63,300,000 increase that is constitutionally dedicated to the Highway User Tax Fund which is distributed 62% per state, 29% per counties, and 9% for cities. In addition, $12 million dollars was appropriated from the General Fund, only for fiscal year 1989, to be distributed 25% to Transit and 75% to the Highway Use Tax Fund in lieu of an additional 5% MVET transfer as proposed by the House and opposed by the Senate. Finally, the bill provides for a Transportation Study Board made up of 8 Legislators and 13 representatives from other organizations including local government to determine long time transit and transportation needs and formulate funding alternatives. This bill also included a repeal of the automatic 'trigger tax' which kicked in if state revenues fell below a certain level. 5. METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE (SF 2491 , LAWS 1988, CHAP. 675) This act makes some adjustments to the accountability aspects of certain internal operations of the Metropolitan Council. It also increases the allowable property tax levy for the metro highway right-of-way acquisition loan fund and modifies the Council's levy limits. CHANGES TO BUDGET FORMAT Sections 1 and 2 of the bill require the council to include more detail in its annual budget concerning how the money is to be spent. It also required the Met Council and the Regional Transit Board (RTB) to evaluate on an annual basis the effectiveness of each significant program of their respective agencies and provide quantitative information on the status, progress, costs and benefits of each program. (This is the type of information the AMM has been asking the Met Council to provide - - - now the Met Council and RTB have no choice) . METROPOLITAN AGENCIES' LEVY LIMITS AND HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY LOAN ACQUISITION FUND Based on the new property tax provisions in the Omnibus Tax Bill the mill rate levy limitations for the Metropolitan Council (8/30ths. ) Regional Transit Board (2) and Metropolitan Mosquito Control Commission (6/10ths. ) were changed to dollar limitations similar to Section 275.50 limitations for city and counties. With two exceptions pertaining to the Metropolitan Council the amount of levy allowed has not changed, just the method of calculation. For all three districts plus the Metropolitan Councils Loan Acquisition Fund -15- the Levy Limit for 1988 is calculated based on allowable mills times total assessed value adjusted by a modified homestead assessment ratio and personal property just as in the past. For 1989 the limitation increase is calculated by mutiplying the 1988 levy limitation times the percentage of market value growth from 1987 to 1988. For taxes payable in 1990 and subsequent years the levy limitation increase is calculated by multiplying the previous years levy limitation times the percent of market value growth from the previous assessment year to the current assessment year. Market value includes all taxable property within the taxing district without valuation adjustments for fiscal disparities, tax increment financing and high voltage transmission lines. The Commissioner of Revenue must determine annually by November 1 , to the extent practicable, that the levy certified for Mosquito Control, RTB, and Loan Acquisition is within the levy limitation provided by statutes. Levy for the Loan Acquisition Fund as in the past, is still limited to an amount sufficient to yield a balance of twice the levy limitation by year end after consideration of other receipts and loan distributions. However, the 1988 Legislation doubled the levy limitation amount of 5/100 mill in 1988 for the 1989 levy and beyond. Chapter 675 also provides that without exception, the Metropolitan Council levy increase for general purposes from one year to the next cannot exceed the Implicit Price Deflator (IPD) index as applied to the previous years actual levy commencing for the payable 1989 levy. Therefore, if the initial 'growth' limit calculation is less than the IPD index, the actual council levy increase is limited to the growth percentage, and if the 'growth' limit calculation is greater than the IPD, the actual council levy increase is limited to the IPD index which for 1989 is estimated to be about 4.55. This provision puts the council on a more equal footing with cities and counties in that the council has been able to increase its levy significantly in years of extreme growth. It also will probably prompt them to levy the maximum allowed since the increase is now limited to inflation based on previous actual levy not allowable levy. LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT REVIEW This act also requires the Regional Transit Board (RTB) and the Met Council to review and comment on the light rail transit plans and preliminary design plans of regional railroad authorities (Counties) . The review shall be conducted before the regional railroad authority prepares final design plans. The review comments must be transmitted to the Legislature. Neither the Council nor RIB have approval or veto power over the counties' plans. METROPOLITAN SIGNIFICANCE RULES This act also prohibits the Metro Council from implementing any -16- major amendments to the Metropolitan Significance Rules until 90 days have elapsed following the submittal of such rules to the Legislature. Such submittal can only be made during the month of January. EFFECTIVE DATE The act is effective on the day following final enactment. 6. WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING ACT (HF 2031 , LAWS 1988, CHAP. 685) What started out as a very 'minor ' bill became a rather comprehensive set of amendments to the statutes governing the state and Metro Area Waste Management Systems. The major provisions of this act are as follows: -Amends the Uniform Building code to require that suitable space for the separation, collection and temporary storage of recyclable materials within or adjacent to new or significantly remodeled structures that contain 1000 square feet or more be provided. Residential structures of less than 12 units are exempt. -Changes the definition of recyclable materials to allow for mechanical type separation of materials in addition to source separation. -Requires that county solid waste plans, that include incineration of mixed municipal solid waste must clearly state how the county plans to meet new established state goals of reducing the toxicity and quantity of incineration ash and other residual materials that require disposal . -Allows cities containing solid waste disposal facilities (landfills) to increase the fee it can charge from 25 cents per cubic yard of waste or its equivalent to 35 cents. Revenue produced by 25 cents of the fee can only be used for purposes of abatement or mitigation and compensation for the adverse effects of the facility. The other 10 cents can go to the general fund. -Prohibits the disposal of yard waste (grass clippings , leaves, etc. ) in landfills after January 1 , 1990. -Recognizes that landfill disposal of solid waste in the metropolitan area has become virtually a monopoly and sets up a temporary public fee regulation system, freezes disposal fees (excluding city and county fees) until June 1 , 1989 and sets up a study process to determine how fees will be regulated on a long term basis. The study must be completed by the end of .1988. -Requires the PCA to notify local governing bodies prior to issuing a permit to a solid waste facility. If the local governing body _17- requests, the agency must hold a public meeting within 30 days to allow alterations in permit conditions. -Bans the use of certain type of plastic cans, and nondegradable plastic material. -Appropriates money to the PCA, Waste Management Board and the Met Council for a variety of grant and loan programs and market feasibility studies. -Effective dates vary from April 29 to August 1 , 1988 for the different sections of the bill. 7. MISCELLANEOUS BILLS OF INTEREST A. COMPARABLE WORTH PENALTY (SF 1963, LAWS 1988, CHAP. 702) All local governments that employ 10 or more people and have not yet filed a report with the state must now do so by October 1 , 1988 and the plan of implementing any identified inequities must be completed by December 31 , 1991 , unless the report was filed before October 1 , 1987 or the commissioner approves. Plans need not contain market studies. If the report is not filed by October 1 , a special levy limit will apply, which is the 1988 levy, minus debt service and unfunded accrued pension liabilities, plus local government aid, adjusted to account for the percentage growth in population or homesteads, and multiplied by 103 percent and reduced by anticipated 1989 local government aid. In short, a three percent levy limit versus a four percent increase limit for reporting cities. In 1992, if the commissioner of employee relations finds, after notice and consultation with a local government, that it has failed to implement its equitable compensation plan by December 31 , 1991 or other approved later date, the 1992 local government aid will be reduced by five percent. The commissioner of employee relations may waive the penalty upon making a finding that the failure to implement was attributable to circumstances beyond the control of the government or to severe hardship. Effective August 1 , 1988, B. WORKERS' COMPENSATION CANCER PRESUMPTION (SF 1452, LAWS 1988, CHAP. 717) Enacts a presumption that active firefighters who contract a disabling cancer caused by heat, radiation, or carcinogen exposure have an occupational disease for workers' compensation benefits. The bill also provides that bomb disposal unit members who are certified by the commissioner of public safety, will be deemed state employees for liability, workers' compensation and other purposes when working outside of their employing jurisdiction. Effective _18_ August 1 , 1988. C. CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS - CHARTER CITIES (SF 1963, LAWS 1988, CHAP. 702) Charter cities may now issue Certificates of Indebtedness (Capital Notes) up to one percent of city assessed value per year , if not specifically prohibited by the charter. The amount remains at one-tenth of one percent if prohibited by the charter. The conditions are the same as for statutory cities. They are limited to up to 5 year issue and are subject to a reverse referendum only if in excess of 1 percent of assessed value. Addition of applicable charter cities is effective May 15, 1988. D. CERTIFICATION DATE CHANGE (HF 2590, LAWS 1988, CHAP. 719) The October 10 levy certification date has been changed to October 25. This change conforms all units of government to the same date. The first installment payment date for LGA and homestead credit has been changed from July 15 to July 20 E. SEAT BELT VIOLATION PENALTY (SF 121 , LAWS 1988, CHAP. 648) A penalty of $10 has been established for seat belt violations. Any person 15 years or older who is a driver or front seat passenger is subject to the fine. Any driver is subject to a fine if a front seat passenger or drivers chila under age 15 or any child age 3 to 11 is in violation. A citation may only be issued if the automobile is stopped for a moving violation other than vehicle equipment. Seat belt violations and fines will not be made part of the driving record . Effective May 1 , 1988. 8. FISCAL DISPARITIES (HF 1126, SF 1134, - did not pass) The AMM Fiscal Disparities bill as proposed did pass the Senate Tax Committee to the floor of the Senate but was not taken up due to the insistence in the House that the bill would not be acted upon there. The bill was bottled up in the House Metropolitan Affairs Committee by the Chairman, St. Paul Rep. Tom Osthoff. House Tax Committee Chair, Rep. Gordon Voss , Blaine, also indicated strong opposition to changes as proposed. Therefore, an end run around Metropolitan Affairs or through the omninbus tax bill would have been futile although for a while the Fiscal Disparities bill was tied into the Bonding Allocation bill. Major objection to the AMM position was lowering the contribution rate from 40% to 30%. Most legislators and other groups supported the rest of the provisions. However , the detractors did not buy the -19- argument that near future contribution increases by the major losers plus political redistricting would ultimately jeopardize the entire program. Only time will tell if the AMM compromise was correct. It is anticipated that because of the lack of reception for the AMM program that possibly Hennepin County along with some of the major losers might take a shot at repeal in the next year or two, but more likely the issue will be low key until 1993• . 9• CSO LOAN FORGIVENESS - A REGIONAL TRADE? (HF 2344, LAWS 1988, CHAP. 686) Minneapolis and St. Paul were required by a 1985 act to complete sewer separation of their storm and sanitary systems within ten ( 10) years. In return for this 'speeded up' construction the state agreed to finance a portion with an interest free loan that would be repaid in 10 equal installments beginning 10 years after enactment ( 1996) . The original financing was set up as 50% local and 50% state with half of the state amount to be repaid. Thus the total original cost split was 75% local 25% state. This matching grant arrangement is similar to the Federal/State Waste Water Construction Grant system used primarily for plant and interceptor construction. The third CSO City, South St. Paul, was given an out right grant of 50% with no pay back requirement. The grant money was funded by an increase in the cigarette tax. The 1988 legislation provided that if Minneapolis issued at least $3.5 million in bonds (the actual will be $5 million) to construct Great River Road Regional Facilities and that if St. Paul issued at least $10.5 million in bonds for Regional Facilities at Como Park, they would be forgiven the CSO payback commencing in 1996. The legislative rationale is that the two projects are regional in nature and should in fact be paid for from State funds, if not this year , then in the near future either through a direct appropriation or grant from the regional park funds. Part of the proposed facilities were in another bonding bill for a time as a direct grant. The amount of the required bond in current dollars is equal to the amount needed to pay the CSO loan. In other words, if $14 million dollars (3.5 & 10.5) were put in the bank today, the interest earned in the next 17 years plus principle would be enough to make the annual payments for 10 years starting in 1996 or the equivalent of about $32 million. EDITIORIAL COMMENT: Without making a judgement as to the merits of the regional projects or the process by which the financing took place, if in fact the projects would have been funded by the state in the next year or two then the trade may be fair based on the dollar values and not much different than sales of loans to third parties by lending institutions. However, if one believes that the Minneapolis and St. Paul projects would not have been funded by the state in the near future or are not really regional in nature than the result was a true forgiveness of a future debt. -20- municipal golf courses Municipal As%of courses in-state courses 1.California 147 19.9% Z Texas 132 19.7 3.Illinois 128 22.6 4.New York 100 13.7 S.Michigan 73 112 71 11A . . 7.Florida 69 9,4 8.Minnesota 68 19.3 9.Indiana 60 16-9 10.Wisconsin Sa 15.5 offers flock to greens Public courses drive economies By JOHN G.FALCIONI opment.- Estimates by the foundation show there are more than Local Bovernments are scrambling to develop public 20.2 million golfers in the United States, and 75% of golf Courses that will satisfy the growing demands of them play at municipal or daily fee courses. As of year- common folk who have joined the upper-class elite in end 1987, 1,926 of the nation's 12,407 golf courses were taking to the greens. public. Besides appeasing the men and women, youngsters Most city and county golf Courses nm on a break-even and senior; who are flocking to public courses in rec- basis, but they're usually profitable in terms of enhanc- ord numbers, the creation of a nine-hole or 18-hole ing local economic development and raising nearby course in a city or county also functions as an eco_ property valuer. noetic catalyst. In Eugene, Ore., city and county officials and private golf course can tum into a profitable venture;' developers are looking at six parcels of land as possible said Harry S. Frank, project director of the National locations for a golf Course. Golf Foundation. "It's not just golf,it's economic devel- Continued on Page 29 - 5" � m � s°^ m Eon, m Z a53'e n (]o � °' exMS 5 2M�° QQQQ mga' ro -A s.b Frm /��n/VM /��, pyy R '^c ^p'm5 0 °0 ora ^ op fia 9m&S B� aydE 3; a »fig 333ga o° 3Yx ��p�np6y ado °°w a 7£ooK „ Sw °nom '& ge m5w5 AEc ,^z i y"e °O 'm.o �o5ge .°.ga5 �qg ? VD V m� oS m M °0 9 a mbm.° a Pg; y, a S d m Ov1Em �qT POC %GS�� �� �a d � B `; � N�awamsEgg s FL 24 VO ^ pm , op go a F� �wS wpio F{W�m < m0 p�p9 Fdp£p'< 3 �adw �Gm 50 mGA.�. S q� 30 „C'- F y� G� �m �°' Sn ° FSmv ° Sc o:S o' 56 TEE' � �•c - fi.,<q° mnnp CS�.a � ege N�oS� � w Shy P�� P� 'R mnFm� o �,go7 S.^ g � y• �z02A p'@. ^ ~wEny R 'o`� Sq'm C.�n S'SpW'OP �• �za°O aPSpA a.Bo S �vA? s5 < ^ °m p° S'^ 3' �, � On" � aDr^ S p �' SgSm o r S. ayo. ^ S.00 � C'n ggO BA STATE OF MINNESO'T'A OMCE OF rOE GOV®iNOR ST. PAUL 55155 RUDY PERPICH GOVERNOR May 20, 1988 Dear Transportation Supporter: On April 23 I signed a major transportation funding bill that will provide $390 million for Minnesota's transportation needs over the next three years. In the first year alone, the bill is expected to create over 5,000 private sector jobs for the working men and women of this state. The transportation funding bill is a significant step in our ongoing effort to improve what is already one of the best transportation systems in the country. According to the most-recent statistics, Minnesota has the lowest fatality rate in the nation per vehicle miles traveled. Despite our inclement weather, our roads are the safest in the country. _ This bill will continue our aggressive emphasis on highway safety. It will increase road rehabilitation and surface improvements and create a Study Board to examine our surface transportation needs into the 21st Century. Another highlight of the bill is the attention it pays to our transit systems, particularly in Greater Minnesota. During the 1988-89 biennium, $18 million will go toward expanding and/or upgrading Minnesota's public transit systems, including 43 outstate Minnesota systems which collectively handle nearly 9 million passenger trips each year. The $390 million in funding will be shared by the state, counties, and cities to meet their own specific needs. The 5,000 jobs that will be directly created in the coming year only counts direct job development. Because transportation plays such a vital role in our economic growth, this bill will also indirectly stimulate the creation of hundreds of other jobs in Minnesota. This historic transportation bill took literally years to put together. Legislators (particularly those who served on the Transportation Finance Study Commission), individual citizens, and members of the transportation industry should all be proud of their work on behalf of this important piece of legislation. As Governor of Minnesota, I want to thank you for your efforts and hope that we can continue to work cooperatively to meet our transportation needs in the future. Sincerel RUDY ERPICCH Governor AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 5.'..]5 ,NNNESO � rq Minnesota Department of Transportation District 5 c 2055 No. Lilac Drive OF TaP Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 (612)593- x593 May 26, 1988 Hr. Dave Hutton City Engineer's office City of Shakopee 129 East 1st Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Mr. Hutton: For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the Project Memorandum for State Project 7007-19. This project involves surface repairs on Trunk Highway 169 within your city limits, and is scheduled to be let January 27, 1989. No detours are needed, but bypasses around the various work areas will be necessary. Project completion is anticipated in late fall 1989. If you have any questions about this project, feel free to call me at 593-8523. Sincerely, �'J' 0..i*, Rick Dalton Project Manager Enclosure An Equal Opportunity Employer PROJECT AREA SP 7007 - 19 & SP 7008 - 6804 Victoria an assen b� O 6359 I Z 1425 0/ 1002 - -� �J _________________ i A= " R ; V E R :' ali� z7 212 /� toll oAugusta Ol �'� . '------ --- CHASKA , S KOPEE ______________________ 3 9941 760 — 0 ----- 1013 -------------------/- ------' 1 Dahlgren / 212 169 ____ ______7005 __ Qj 4l logne Carvtt O �'7 545 642 �O v 4 ^ O � 1 / rystown ha East Union S.P. 7008-6804 SP 7007- 1911 zs2 /St. ;`` - S 1005 �' O Lawrence p% 209-1� 11 yIN01/ Js663n __�r--- 7011 ... I 1 - Lydia 7004 elle Og _ P1754` 1� Helena i O 25 1 0 13 21 0 o 1 N O St. Pa St. Benedict ii BUSINESS UPDATE FROM CITY HALL Vol.2 No.6 Dear Chamber Member: June 1,1988 ON On May 10th and 17th the City Council put on their Board of Equalization"hats"to review citizen appeals of the Scott County Assessors Office re-assessment for 1988. Some 1100 parcels were physically viewed mpartGfthe25%re-assessmentforl988. AbQutl2fflnot*wsofyalviat6 *le.d Ab t 42 oeoole=Lard the 'th a t_t r m and roughly 15 12aE015(9% of the total 17dl were brought beforr�Council, Major changes in 1988 include increasing the values of lots with homes on them and rg-ass=ing County, widr aparlment b 'd_ ¢s with for ounFtbaged 11pQn the me apo trach, The County Assessors Office will also be cooperating with the City in generating useful statistics for an- nually evaluating Shakopee assessments. BUILDING Berger Carpet Co.recently completed the replacement of carpet in the reception area and main hallway at City Hall. CITY CLERK A snecii l election has t f-Q1 htnQ 28. 1988 to sell$1,50.0M general oblintion bonds for pose of constructing caramumly=ttE in the Minnesota V 11 yhxall, Fact ShCCtS on the prttp apg I and its=to nropgrty owners will be available t City Hall, Cap Tami at 445-3650 and ask f The polls will be open from 7:00 A.M, until 8:00 PM.; and the polling places will be the same as for a general election. Absentee ballots will be available the week of June Lst at City Hall. City Hap will also be open for absentee voting on Saturday,June 25th from 1:00 P.M. to 3:00 P.M.and on Monday,June 27th from 5:00 P.M.to 7:00 P.M. A taxicab license has been issued to Town Taxi,2512 University Avenue S.E.,Minneapolis(331-8294). QQhDR1NTTV DFVET PMENT We have copies available of two recent reports that forecast Shakopee as a growth area. These include the Towle Remit 88 which reports on and projects real estate information for the Metro area and an ar- ticle in the Minnesota Real Estate J 1 which reports on findings of a comprehensive survey of real es- tate/development industry executives in 1987. Call Toni at 445-3650 for enpia. The City will be preparing an E&tutauujDeveloptrnent Cmd•as a part of the upcoming Shakopee m- prehensiee.Plan. Copies should be available late this year. A new industry,Heavy Duty A;r Inca is currentlyunder construction in CanterburyBusiness Park This 55,000 square foot production/distribution facility manufactures high-efficiency air filters for trucks,off- read equipment,stationary engines,turbines and clean rooms. ^\ 1 COME CRFATIDN(,SCR) Shakopee's Municipal Swimming Pool featuring a sand bottom and beach,diving area,concession stand and a 300 feet water slide opens for the season at 1:00 p.m on ,ne 11th, It is open daily,thereafter,until August 21st. Swimming lessons for children are scheduled weekday mornings and also during the supper hour. For further i,form,fio.contact SCR at 445-2742 F_NMNFFRING D PARTMENT The Valley Industrial Park Sanitary Sewer Project was awarded to Austin P.Keller of St.Paul,Mn. Con= structinn will Start r coil rune 1 1988. The Tahpah Park football field grading project was awarded to S.M.Hentges,Inc.of Shakopee,Mo.89th mnstuLl;ion in eadX 1=, This nroiect is being fundcd by the Sh knrte? r Construction continues on Part 2 of Phase I of the Downtown Streetscape project. The preliminary con- struction schedule calls for completing Holmes Street by June 24,1988. Construction has also begun on Atwood Street and 2nd Avenue. The Sin Line Railrn dh c rile t »fig t kth AM d 'S h-eSja{�agr=d to close Apgar from lct to 2nd Avenue. Rubberized railroad crossings will be installed on Holmes,Fuller and Atwood as part of this years construction. Thanks Hite to Ralor Malting f jhfdr ffeat tion in makine thic p_j et }ale POLICE DFPARTMENT The City funded clean-up campaign resulted in residents disposing of 2090 cubic yards of debris and 36 truck loads of brush- PUBLIC ITM='; 'There L a=Ming concern l •-dr,about lad in drinking water The EPA isrequiring all"ter sup- pliers to inform thea customers of this concern. Shaknnee'S MMtQr does not J= a 12toblem with lead hut = md1l be g th FEARnatice in the nOql-aner.'..d"UWIhLMMWgm_nth Some of the general information in the EPA notice may be of value. v G � • • O c aa . . � . . ►. 1- w > > � �cm ° n gom D �' g ° p1a �b� tTl -e;- D (J p Q, n n N a o - b' m v� c 3 � : � �: s p s < � » EL = F in wvv a cm3 m� � F Z ?y, ° amo ,°c 59 '�. m �, O, ov n --� Z.eFF El w ^ 3 n w °'�" oo, ^ a ° °, dam n r o o� nn n .d, Oma K3vA vdp0 � n ' 30 ym O �So m ° � °c • y � 0"+ ,'� o` � on2 m g. F .e $ M o5 '0 o = Tv � 0 + =.� � Eo U . � ocn (7 0 - � ° � :. S � RAgcw 3 °, n 6'w _ a ,< _ g " O .°. 3: o' R. w T�p^ Fw z R 2d9q a S m 6 91 p O 7. O Gd 2; m `C 4 T S� nd0 "� .., Sg `° gm "zl Tl- FF FF m o o m N F 4F 5, c-< _ 51 ----------------------- ------------- - -------r I a noo ❑ zN n� Doaz � > � "° ' n nl 7 1 d I I ;, '<`A', E zmy Lm 4 �O ,2 a``_ o0 a ° do C ri Cc > >. Ev 3 � 2e o0V g'm Sa S n s o me G o W spu � 0 E ' t ° O „ oo c � sr3 ° — 8 0 aU m F d 3 G V oAc > > tF Y2 t � 01 y c> c ' cft H� zo � 3ec = ouo8 �¢ o $ d vq `gfi �,W Q f`n m V v m t- S 2S c w a `o aym ° p O`•° Y V RO > ^ w � `E i .. ty3mC OOt-' Bo = va Gwz wc � i � iOmEO °—c' m$ vs°' � pa'. mgccE$" cq vs $' ' O$s O >OG E .G.. GL ayEx V ` Ad .^O8 UECRC Ayy� 0 ti-2 TLE Cqi �N m G.� � v °' TiG 3 G 0 -E.E E a Oa m �w" w d G p m G. � w ur w s m 2 d °: s o , .. > vm � U to � Nw E �- ovmS m o o m v F o m= W T 9 w c1Oi ° �E o ° ° s ' .t p p,W w y E a x a° ,—°_ E v �.E E >'= A " a c ' 7 s — G ° u E s c c ._ 6E -- �� cwwv ❑ a� mom - A Al 3m, ZenV .o > .m o o Q Wr o g s p mm 3 V c E y"c s _� o m m E o x w wu " snw � _ayr y GE yG: P. 0 x 5Oo � apmQm ° � ry o � � L' o° $ uEm E "° tsa ym50 w 0o � � 2' ow m A BEv Em " E � " E " EE 3aEcpm `o .�� °' .°. � .� .a os $ sd oaEi :� E $ cc � � � moy¢ � acaGici � v mS � zm � mms F :=• EamE � E0oS > � v �°. 3 m` U �' cc'nmmL) xm6, G, Government Training Service 32iNifiHesaU Building -�3 SHAKOPEE COALITION MEETING MINUTES - MAY 3, 1988 The meeting was called to order at 4:45 PM by Chairman Brian Norris in the Citizens State Bank Community Room. Members present: John K. Anderson (City Of Shakopee), Becky Kelso (Southern Valley Alliance For Battered Women), Mary Sullivan (Scott Carver Dakota Community Action Agency), Jean Sinell (Scott County Human Services), Tina Floyd (St. Francis Medical Center), Barry Stock (City Of Shakopee), Claude Kolb (Knights Of Columbus), Dennis Hron (Lions Club), Sister Esther Wagner (SACS School), Phyllis Hussong (Scott Carver Dakota Community Action Agency), and George Muenchow (Shakopee Community Recreation). Phyllis Hussong reported on the Food Shelf. Activity is now down and is anticipated to continue during the summer months as more work is available. Over 29,000 lbs were collected during the Food Share effort, a 6,000 lb. increase from the previous year. The Jaycees are sponsoring a softball tourney Derby Days weekend to provide funds. The Food Shelf had a very good response at the recent Shakopee Showcase where food was donated. Jean Sinell kicked off a good discussion on how to integrate usage of the Dial- A-Ride system for those that don't drive who need occasional transportation. Barry Stock will work up a pass system and contact appropriate agency leaders to make them aware of this opportunity. Jean further shared that Human Services has just hired a Volunteer Coordinator (Laura Matasek) . Barry Stock gave a progress report on the upcoming Shakopee "Derby Days". The date is June 25-26. Many fun activities are already set to go. The committee is looking for further volunteers (individuals and organizations) to get involved. John Anderson reported on community Economic Development: a. Pleased to report that the Legislature adopted a Pari-Mutual Tax Change and a good Transportation Bill. Both greatly affect this community in a positive way. b. A new plat is coming in across the street from the Jr High School. C. The Phase II portion of downtown re-development is under way. d. Vierling Drive (13th Avenue) will soon be built connecting Cry Rd $17 to Cty Rd i16, e. New home sales in the community are apparently going good. f. Wally Bakken is about to start construction of his Jellystone Campground behind his motel across from Perkins. g. The Community Cleanup Program is about to be held again soon. There is a problem of those that cheat by bringing in the wrong kind of materials. Because of this, this might be the last year of the program. Becky Kelso shared some of her legislative thoughts. She was not happy with the property tax bill nor that the Workmans Compensation Bill did not pass. Was happy about the passage of the two bills referred to by John Anderson. The meeting adjourned at 5:30 PM. Respectfully submitted, George Muenchow, Secty. 7--3 Note: Following the meeting, John Anderson shared with those that stayed information on various facets of the complicated tax bill pointing out real estate taxes being collected in 1989 will be affected by negative features of the 1987 tax bill together with what happens as a result of the current year legislation. ------------------- NOW HEAR THIS. .. ..The next meeting will be held Tuesday, June 7, from 4:30 -5:30 PM. Mark your calendar now! If you must miss a meeting, be sure to have someone else represent your organization in your place. �y MEMO TO: John K. , Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Dances at Canterbury Downs DATE: May 31, 1988 INTRODUCTION: At the request of the City Administrator, I have reviewed the issue of the proposed dances to be held at Canterbury Downs for conformance with the City's Zoning Code and the Planned Unit Development approved for Canterbury Downs. It is staffs conclusion that the proposed dances conform to both the Zoning Code and PUD approved for Canterbury Downs. - BACKGROUND• It was brought to the attention of the Planning Staff that Canterbury Downs is planning to hold dances following the races on a periodic basis. In discussing it with Canterbury Downs, I have found that they are planning approximately one (1) dance per month and the dance would be held immediately following the end of races for the day. No admission or additional ticket sales will be undertaken for the dances. The dances will feature live bands. No physical changes will be made to the racetrack facilities for the purpose of the dances. Canterbury Downs received approval of a Planned Unit Development which allows for a licensed Class A racetrack which includes customary accessory uses, activities and facilities as outlined in Section 11.36 of the City Code. One of the customary accessory uses, activities or facilities outlined by this Section of the Code is commercial recreation, it is staffs interpretation that a dance would qualify as a commercial recreation activity. Based upon the information outlined above, it is staffs determination that the dances to be conducted at Canterbury Downs fall within the approved PUD for Canterbury Downs and the Zoning Code requirements as outlined in Section 11.36 (Racetrack Zoning District) . DKW/tiv DANCES MINUTES OF THE SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in regular session on April 4, 1988 at 4:30 P.H. in the Utilities meeting room. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Cook and Kephart. Also Manager Van Hout, Liaison Wampach, and Secretary Menden. Commissioner Kirchmeier was absent as per his notification last month of conferences. Motion by Cook, seconded by Kephart that the minutes of the March 7, 1988 regular meeting be approved as kept. Motion carried. BILLS READ: City of Shakopee 20,032.00 ABM Equipment and Supply, Inc. 429.51 American Freight System, Inc. 50.40 Auto Central Supply 62.59 Border States Electric Supply Co. 12.50 Burmeister Electric Company 666.79 Business Outfitters 421.95 City of Shakopee 603.89 City of Shakopee 114.18 Dicks Conoco 4.00 Environmental Quality Board 295.94 Glenwood Inglewood 17.55 Graybar Electric Company, Inc. 1,354.41 H s C Electric Supply 2,738.56 Harmons Hardware 6.00 Hayden-Murphy Equipment Co. 303.20 Mary Henderson 30.78 S.M. Hentges and Sons, Inc. 594.64 Kress and Monroe Chartered 263.80 Landeys Camping Center, Inc. 17.87 Leef Bros. , Inc. 22.80 Vince Marschall 40.85 Metro Sales, Inc. 42.35 Minnesota Valley Testing Labs. i- 27.20 Motor Parts Service Co. , Inc. 12.86 Northern States Power Co. 295,805.03 Northern States Power Co. 1,030.59 Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 221.70 Otter Tail Power Co. 265.86 Reynolds Welding Supply Co. 6.38 Ring Fire Extinguisher Co. 82.50 Safety Test and Equipment Co. 147.95 Schilz Ornamental Iron 20.00 Schoell and Madson, Inc. 537.02 Scott Co.Sheriff Communications 439.60 Starks Cleaning Services 68.00 _ Total Tool 122.10 Truck Utilities and Mfg and Co. 74.26 Valley Industrial Propane Inc. 11.03 Water Products Company 610.19 Westinghouse Electric Supply Company 729.90 Wild Iris, Inc. 40.00 _ Louis Van Rout 44.89 Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association 315.00 Northern States Power Co. 332.32 Shakopee Public Utilities Commission 138.15 Shakopee Services 26.00 Southwest Suburban Publishing 194.04 woodhill Business Products 577.50 Yarusso Hardware 79.59 Motion by Kephart, seconded by Cook that the bills be allowed and ordered paid. Motion carried. Manager Van Rout read a communication from Barry Stock regarding the open house at Canterbury Downs on Sunday, April, 24. The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission will he represented at that open house. A communication from Gary Laurent regarding the Stonebrooke Water System was acknowledged. Motion by Cook, seconded by Kephart to acknowledge receipt of the letter dated March 23, 1988 regarding the Stonebrooke Water System and place it on file. Motion carried. Manager Van Rout informed the Commission of a verbal request for installation of a street light approximately 300 feet west of the intersection of Adams and Fourth Avenue. The reason for the request being the safety of the pedestrians of the four- plexs living in the area. It was the concensus of the Commission that the location of the request is not consistent with City/Shakopee Public Utilities Commission policy. Manager Van Bout will write a letter to that effect. Liaison Wampach updated the Commission on various matters before the City Council. Motion by Kephart, seconded by Cook to offer Resolution #329 A Resolution Made for the Purpose of Clarifying Previously Adopted Resolution #242. Ayes: Commissioners Kephart and Cook. Nayes: none. Resolution passed. Motion carried. Manager Van Bout gave a progress report on the Well and Pumphouse remodeling. A pay request was presented from Northwest Mechanical, Inc. in the amount of $24,588.85 for progress completed to date. I Motion by Cook, seconded by Kephart, to allow payment to Northwest Mechanical, Inc, in the amount of $24,588.85 for work done to date on the remodeling of Pumphouse #2. Motion carried. Motion by Kephart, seconded by Cook to approve payment to E.H. Renner and Sons in the amount of $8,168.71 for the Packer on Shakopee Deep Well #3 upon reviewal and approval of the Manager. Motion carried. Motion by Cook, seconded by Kephart to offer Resolution #328 a Resolution Adopting the Amount of the Trunk Water Charge for the Availability of Water to Lot 1 and 2 of Block 1, Prairie House 2nd Addition. Ayes: Commissioners Kephart and Cook. Mayes: none. Resolution passed. Motion carried. S There were no new plats for March, 1988. There were no fire calls for March, 1988. There were no lost time accidents for March, 1988. The next regular meeting of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission will be held on May 2, 1988 at 4:30 P.M. in the Utilities meeting roam. Motion by Cook, seconded by Kephart to adjourn to a special meeting to be held on Monday, April 11, 1988 in the Utilities meeting roam. Motion carried. Barbara Menden, Comm Sion Secretary R P5 IUNvtss OF 'ISH; SHAKOPEE PU3LIC UTILITIES COW18SICN The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in regular session on May 2, 1988 at 4:30 P.M. in the Utilities meeting xoom. M'A'RS PRESENT: Commissioners Kephart, Kircbmeier. Also Liaison Wampach and Manager Van Haut. Crnmissioner Cook was absent as per his notification last month. Also absent Secretary Menden. Meeting called to order by Commissioner Kephart. HILLS READ: City of Shakopee 20,032.00 American Freight Systems, Inc. 102.80 American Public Power Association 1,780.48 Auto Central Supply 55.67 Boardman, Suhr, Curry and Field 187.58 Border States Electric Supply Co. 19,742.11 Burmeister Electric Company 9,241.06 Business Outfitters 139.85 Citizens State Bank 555,799.13 City of Shakopee 215.34 City of Shakopee 787.29 City of Shakopee 191.94 Clay's Printing Service, Inc. 218.84 Control Design Supply, Inc. 126.52 Davies Water Equipment Co. 25.86 Dun's Electric Forklift Services, Inc. 110.96 EPL, Inc. 107.75 Feed-Rite Controls, Inc. 1,383.83 Glenwood Inglewood 17.56 Graybar 2,453.85 H F: C Electric Supply 749.49 Harmon Hardware _ 16.46 Hayden-Murphy Equipment Company 263.60 Krass and Monroe Chartered Law Office 120.00 Leef Bros. , Inc. 22.80 Minn. Valley Testing Labs. 27.20 R.E. Mooney and Associates, Inc. 35.57 Motor Parts Service Co. , Inc. 55.85 Wm. Mueller and Sons, Inc. 193.32 Nebraska Municipal Power Pool Support Center 1,200.00 Northern States Power Co. 839.56 j Northern States Paver Co. 276,709.70 Northwest Mechanical, Inc. 18,518.35 Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 20.00 Otter Tail Power Company 141.21 Plehal Bla.cktopping 1,500.00 Reynolds Welding Supply Co. 6.82 Schoell and Madson, Inc. 3,256.50 Shakopee Public Utilities Commission 197.02 Dean Stith Trenching, Inc. 104.00 Starks Cleaning Service 68.00 T & R Service 20.00 Twin Star Advertising Specialties, Inc. 1,295.38 United Compucred Collections, Inc. 79.20 Unitog Business Clothing 170.18 Valley Industrial Propane, Inc. 47.32 Louis Van Rout 36.01 Wesco 2,028.20 Wheeler Lundrer Operations 224.25 Woodhill Business Products 292.54 A T & T 18.57 Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 240.17 Shakopee Services 26.00 Sport-About 120.25 Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Kephart that the bills be allowed and ordered paid. Motion carried. Motion by Kirctmeier, seconded by Kephart that the meeting be adjourned to May 9, 1988 in the Utilities meeting room at 4:30 P.M. Motion carried. Barbara nden, Comm ion Secretary TENTATIVE AGENDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Regular Session Shakopee, MN June 9, 1988 Chairman Rockne Presiding 1. Roll Call at 7:30 P.M. 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of May 5, 1988 Meeting Minutes 4. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: To consider a variance request to allow a 10' rear yard setback instead of the required 30' setback for the property located on the proposed Lot 4, Block 1, Hentges 1st Addition (North of Hwy 169 & East of Third Ave. ) . Applicant: Steve Hentges Action: Variance Resolution #523 5. Other Business a. b. 6. Adjourn Douglas K. Wise City Planner NOTE TO THE B.O.A.A. MEMBERS: 1. If you have any questions or need additional information on any of the above items, please call Doug Wise on the Monday or Tuesday prior to the meeting. 2. If you are unable to attend the meeting, please call the Planning Department prior to the meeting. TENTATIVE AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Session Shakopee, MN June 9, 1988 Chairman Rockne Presiding 1. Roll Call at 7:30 P.M. 2. Approval of Agenda 3 . Approval of May 5, 1988 Meeting Minutes 4. 7:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: To consider the preliminary plat approval of Hentges First Addition located upon the property North and West of Highway 169 on both ` sides of Third Avenue. Applicant: Steve Hentges and Lon Carnahan Action: Recommendation to City Council 5. 7:50 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider the request for a conditional use permit for outdoor storage of rock and stone products upon the property located East of County Road 89 and South of 13th Ave. (E. 419.66' of Lot 1, Block 1, Patch 1st Addition) . Applicant: N.W. Asphalt Inc. Action: Conditional Use Permit Resolution #530 6. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider amending of the Shakopee City Code, Section 11.03, Subd. 7 I. The proposed amendment will allow the City to issue building permits to property that does not abut a public r-o-w. Action: Recommendation to City Council 7. Final Plat Approval - Prairie Estates Action: Recommendation to City Council 8. Vacation of Apgar Street 9. Discussion a. Approval of subdivisions containing flag lots. b. 10. Other Business a. Use of plantings for screening b. Speed limits on County Roads 15, 16 & 17 11. Adjourn Douglas Wise City Planner NOTE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS- 1. If you have any questions or need additional information on any of the above items, please call Doug Wise on the Monday or Tuesday prior to the meeting. 2. If you are unable to attend the meeting, please call the Planning Department prior to the meeting. PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MN MAY 5, 1988 Chairman Rockne called the meeting to order at 7:45 P.M. with Comm. Allen, Schmitt and Foudray present. Comm. Czaja and Stafford were absent. Comm. Forbord arrived at 7:55 P.M. Also present were Doug Wise, City Planner; John Anderson, City Administrator, Joe Zak, Council Liaison and Jon Glennie, Planning Intern. Allen/Foudray moved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously. Foudray/Schmitt moved to aprove the Board of Adjustments and Appeals April 7, 1988 meeting minutes with correction that the public hearing to consider a garage variance (applicant Mary Dixon) should be noted as "continued". Motion carried with Rockne abstaining due to his absence. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED - MARY DIXON VARIANCE Schmitt/Allen moved to continue the public hearing on the request for a varance-to allow a 5' side yard setback and a 7' front yard setback to construct an attached double garage upon property located at 314 East 8th Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. City Planner gave background for the public hearing continuation stating staff had been requested to review the variance to determine whether alternative locations could be considered. He stated staff's determined there was not adequate area for rear yard placement. He could see only two possibilities; the one as requested and a second location on the side of the house opposite where the current driveway exists. Comm. Forbord arrived and took his seat. Mary Dixon stated her disagreement with the recommendation of staff and said her request is as stated. City Planner further stated that the variance as requested would not comply with other setbacks in the area. Charles Lipke stated his concern with the proposed location being in the front yard. He suggested a 1 1/2 garage would be adequate. There were no further comments from the audience. Schmitt/Allen moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Foudray offered Variance Resolution No. 524 and moved for its denial based on the double car garage request. Motion carried unanimously. Applicant was not amenable to a lesser variance. She was then informed of the 7-day appeal process. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED - STEVE HENTGES VARIANCE Foudray/Schmitt moved to continue the public hearing for a variance request to allow a 10' rear yard setback for property located on proposed Lot 4, Block 1, Hentges 1st Addn. Motion carried unanimously. City Planner stated the Board had directed the applicant to submit specific building plans for the property prior to further discussion of the variance application. These plans have not yet been submitted. There were no comments from the audience. Foudray/Forbord moved to continue the public hearing to the June 9, 1988 meeting. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - RICHARD HENNES VARIANCE Schmitt/Allen moved to open the public hearing to consider a variance to allow a 22 1/2' front yard setback to construct a single family dwelling upon property located at 1175 Menke Circle. Motion carried unamimously. City Planner gave the status of a proposed code change for corner lots within the R-1 and R-2 zones. He stated the City Council has accepted the recommendation of the Board and directed the City Attorney to draft an ordinance with the proposed amendment. He further stated he believes a hardship does exist for these lots and the proposed code change is evidence of that belief. Richard Hennes stated that his request would blend in well with the other homes in the area. City Planner agreed that it would be compatible with most homes in the area except for the home immediately to the east which has a 30 foot setback. Comm. Forbord requested clarification of the proposed ordinance and how that would affect the applicant. City Planner replied that the request would conform to the proposed ordinance. There were no further comments from the audience. Foudray/Forbord moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. y � Foudray/Allen offered Variance Resolution No. 526 and moved for its adoption based on the fact it had been determined that front yard setback requirements for corner and double frontage lots place a hardship on the owners of these lots and limit their use of the property and a code amendment as proposed would bring this variance into conformance. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Rockne informed the public of the 7-day appeal process. There was no other business. Foudray/Schmitt moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:10 P.M. - Jane VanMaldeghem Recording Secretary PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MN MAY 5, 1988 Chairman Rockne called the meeting to order at 8:10 P.M. with Comm. Allen, Schmitt, Forbord and Foudray present. Absent were Comm. Stafford and Czaja. Also present were City Planner, Doug Wise; City Administrator, John Anderson; Council Liaison, Joe Zak and Planning Intern, Jon Glennie. Allen/Schmitt moved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Allen moved to approve the Planning Commission Meeting —.--Minutes of April 7, 1988. Motion carried with Chrmn. Rockne and Comm. Forbord abstaining due to their absence. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED - SMITH/HERMAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Foudray/Forbord moved to continue the public hearing on a request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a teen club upon property located at 8576 Highway 101. Motion carried unanimously. City Planner stated the applicants have withdrawn their application. Foudray/Allen moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED - PRELIMINARY PLAT/HENTGES 1ST ADDN. Schmitt/Forbord moved to continue the public hearing on the preliminary plat o£- Hentges 1st Addn. Motion carried unanimously. City Planner stated that at the April 7th meeting, there were a - number of issues needing to be resolved and therefore the public hearing had been continued. Staff has not received any of this information. The applicants have indicated that communications were made with railroad personnel and a meeting should be forthcoming between their representatives and staff. There were no comments from the audience. Schmitt/Allen moved to direct staff to notify the adjoining township of the possibility of roadway vacation with the platting of Hentges 1st Addn. Motion carried unanimously. Foudray/Forbord moved to continue the public hearing to June 9, 1988. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Allen moved for recess at 8:20 P.M. Motion carried. Chrmn. Rockne called the meeting back to order at 8:28 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT/HUKRIEDES IST ADDN Foudray/Allen moved to open the public hearing on the preliminary and final plat of Hukriedes 1st Addn. Motion carried unanimously. City Planner stated this plat will divide an existing 10 acre parcel of property into two lots; property is zoned R-1. He further stated that due to the configuration, resubdividing would be difficult if City services were made available. Based on his concerns he asked for legal opinion. Opinion of the City -- Attorney was the plat as proposed complies with City Code. _ Wes Hukriede distributed information illustrating existing parcels in the area and their similarities with his proposal. There were no further comments from the audience. Schmitt/Foudray moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Forbord moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary and final plat of Hukriedes let Addn. subject to: I. Approval of Title Opinion by the City Attorney. 2. Execution of a Developer's Agreement for construction of required improvements - a. Payment in lieu of land dedication for park purposes 3. Both lots must be served by the existing access. An access agreement providing for the use and maintenance of the common access shall be recorded with both lots. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - WEIKLE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Allen/Schmitt moved to open the public hearing on the request for a Conditional Use Permit for an underground storage tank on property located at 373 Canterbury Road. Motion carried unanimously. City Planner stated Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. wish to remove an existing coated steel underground diesel fuel storage tank (installed in 1974) and replace it with an upgraded double wall fiberglass tank. He also stated that based upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission to the City Council that bulk storage tanks be made a permitted use when approved by the State Fire Marshall and/or Dept. of Agriculture, the City Attorney is currently drafting an amended ordinance. Comm. Forbord questioned the reason for the request. Armand Roep, representative, stated that nation-wide upgrading is being implemented by Air Products at all their facilities. Foudray/Schmitt moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Forbord/Allen offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 527. and moved for its adoption with the condition that: 1. The placement of the tank shall comply with all the requirements of the State Fire Marshall and documents stating conformance shall be placed on file at City Hall. Motion carried unanimously. The audience was informed of the 7-day appeal process. PUBLIC HEARING - ROBERT MINTZ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Schmitt/Foudray moved to open the public hearing on the request for a Conditional Use Permit to move in a single family dwelling upon property located at 2000 Marschall Road. Motion carried unanimously. City Planner stated the Mintz's are having to relocate due to property acquisition for road right-of-way. The structure to be relocated is 1040 sq. £t. which is smaller than the existing homes in the proposed vicinity. He stated that according to the County Assessor, the estimated market value in 1988 for the structure is only $35,400 which is not comparable to the other homes in the area. Bonnie Mintz questioned the market value figure. She also stated theywere discussing an addition to the structure which would make the home larger and increase the market value. Bob Patterson, owner of 70 acres surrounding the property and previous owner of the parcel in question, stated he does not believe this structure would do the property justice. He presented the Commission with pictures of homes in the area and a petition in opposition. Schmitt/Forbord moved the pictures and petition, as presented, be entered into the record. Motion carried unanimously. Chrmn. Rockne read the petition into the record. There were no further comments from the audience. Forbord/Allen moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Forbord/Allen offered Conditional Use Permit No. 528 and moved for its denial based on: 1. The structure does not comply with all requirements of Sec. 11. 05, Subd. 9 of the City Code as follows: a. The dwelling unit must equal or exceed the value of adjacent homes. b. The dwelling unit must be compatible with adjacent homes. 2. City Code requires all 12 criteria be met for conditional use permit approval. It is concluded Criteria No. 1 has not been met. Motion carried unanimously. Comm. Forbord suggested that if the applicant has plans for an addition/alterations to the structure, these documents be submitted along with a new application for a conditional use permit which would show the structure to be compatible with City Code requirements and that any appraisals be also presented. Chrmn. Rockne notified the applicant and audience of the 7-day appeal process. PUBLIC HEARING - HARDEES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Foudray/Schmitt moved to open the public hearing on the request for a conditional use permit for Class II fast food restaurant, storage building and trash enclosure upon the property located at 1107 E. 1st Ave. Motion carried unanimously. City Planner gave a history stating that prior to 1983 the structure was occupied by Burger Chef, a Class I Restaurant which is permitted in the B-1 District. In 1983 the structure was converted to Hardee's, a Class II Restaurant which is conditional in the B-1 zone. This current conditional use permit would place the facility in compliance with City Code and allow for an accessory structure. Loren LeNare, representative of Hardee's, questioned the difference between a Burger Chef and Hardees relative to Class I and Class II Restaurants. City Planner explained that Class I is a sit-down restaurant and Class II is a fast food convenience/drive-thru facility. Discussion ensued regarding Class I vs. Class II distinctions. Bill Hauer questioned the setback for the accessory structure and the loss, as stated, of only one parking stall. He is of the belief more stalls would be eliminated. City Planner stated the setback for the accessory structure would be 5 feet, the minimum required by City Code for accessory structures. Schmitt/Foudray moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Forbord/Schmitt offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 529 and moved for its adoption based on the following condition: 1. If constructed of concrete block the accessory structure must be split-rock-face concrete block. Motion carried unanimously. The audience was notified of the 7-day appeal process. DISCUSSION - RETAIL IN I-1 ZONES City Planner gave background. He stated previous discussion had been on the possibility of Precision Auto Body and Refinishing being able to perform limited retail in the I-1 District. It is his belief that retail, not to exceed 15% of the floor area of a principle structure would be consistent with the purpose of the I-1 zone. Therefore, if the Planning Commission is comfortable with the recommendation of staff, its suggested that a public hearing be scheduled. The Commission decided not to change the code at this time and wait until the Comprehensive Plan update is completed. The Commission would then review the issue again in light of recommendations in the updated Comprehensive Plan. OTHER BUSINESS City Planner reported on the decision of the City Council to hire the BRW firm as consultant for the Comprehensive Plan. City Planner stated the Council had denied Canterbury's request to open Gate V. Discussion was held on the City Council Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 376, for mining operations - Scott County Lumber/Bert Noterman. Specific discussion was held on reclamation fees. City staff will do further research on the fee process. All-State Leasing will cease the use of the trailer. Commissioner Forbord questioned the letter received from Certainteed regarding the screening provision of their conditional use permit. He stated the City Code requirements should be more specific especially as it pertains to a time frame for implementation. Forbord/Schmitt moved to request City Staff to clarify the screening issues, specifically including a screening time frame as a part of the criteria; said report to be on the June 9, 1988 Planning Commission agenda. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Forbord questioned if the City could apply any pressure to the appropriate township for clean-up of the dump located on Highway 169. Commissioner Foudray questioned the enforcement of the speed limits on Marystown Road from 10th Avenue to Tahpah Park, County Road 16 and County Road 17. He stated perhaps a reduction in speed should be considered. Councilman Zak also questioned the signing on Highway 101 and County Road 83, warning traffic of an upcoming controlled intersection. Foudray/Schmitt moved to adjourn. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:40 P.M. Jane VanMaldeghem Recording Secretary �g Note Meeting Time: 5: 00 P.M. TENTATIVE AGENDA Community Development Commission City Hall Council Chambers June 8, 1988 - Chrmn. Keane Presiding 1. Call to order at 5:00 P.M. 2. Approval of the minutes - May 4 , 1988 3. Park Land Dedication Fees 4. Economic Development Update: (Verbal) a. Mn Valley Mall Project b. C. 5. Informational Items: a. Real Estate Journal (Verbal) b. CDC Developers Newsletter (To be handed out at the meeting) C. Business Update from City Hall d. CDC Newsletter (Verbal) 6. Other Business a. Next Meeting - Wednesday, July 6, 1988 - 5:00 PM b. 7. Adjourn Barry A. Stock Administrative Assistant CITY OF SHAKOPEE Please call Barry or Toni at 445-3650 if you cannot make the meeting. n�l Minutes of the Community Development Commission City Council Chambers Shakopee, Mn May 4 , 1988 Chairman Keane called the meeting to order at 5:05 P.M. with the following members present: Tim Keane, Terry Joos, Jane DuBois, Don Koopman and Jim Plekkenpol. Members absent: Al Furrie and Bud Berens (Ex-officio Member) . Also present was: Barry Stock, Administrative Assistant. Joos/Plekkenpol moved to approve the minutes of the April 6, 1988 meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock reported that in an effort to encourage redevelopment - -_ -- - in the downtown area the Downtown Committee recommended to City Council the approval of a revolving loan program. On March 22, 1988 staff presented the guidelines for the proposed revolving loan program to the Shakopee HRA for their review and comments. At that time the HRA decided that it would be more appropriate to establish a systematic code enforcement program in the downtown area. On May 3 , 1988 staff presented a summary of the code enforcement program that was proposed by City Council to them for their review and requested City Council to forward this issue back to the Community Development Commission and Downtown Committee for further review and comment. At that time, City Council decided to implement the code enforcement program as previously discussed prior to receiving any comments from the Community Development Commission or the Downtown Committee. City Council felt that between the time of their action and the hiring of the code enforcement officer there was adequate time for input from the Community Development Commission or Downtown Committee if they so desired. Commissioner Koopman questioned the estimated staff time to complete an inspection. He questioned whether or not this was an average for all types of property. Mr. Stock explained that the code enforcement program as proposed will only focus on multi- family residential and commercial structures in the downtown area at this time. If the program is expanded to residential areas the estimated staff time would be less than 10 hours as presented in the memo. Commissioner Joos questioned Council's rational for declining to .proceed with the revolving loan program. Mr. Stock stated that several members of the Council felt that the City has expended a great deal of money in the downtown area with the streetscape 1 improvements and that it was time to see a commitment from the property owners. Mr. Plekkenpol stated that if a downtown business person took the loan the City would have a commitment. He also stated that as far as the downtown is concerned, the property owners are being assessed for the normal street rehab improvements at a rate that is comparable to other improvement projects in the community. Mr. Stock noted that several of the Council members were concerned that the City would not be guaranteed receipt of their loans in the program. The City would be taking a second position on the mortgage. Mr. Plekkenpol suggested that the Committee recommend to City _ Council reconsideration of the code enforcement program or at least look. at alternative financing mechanisms that can be tied to the program to assist property owners who have unusually high improvement costs as a result of the enforcement program. Commissioner DuBois questioned whether or not the revolving loan program utilized tax increment proceeds. Mr. Stock stated that the funding source for the revolving loan program that was recommended by staff was the BRA reserve fund. This fund is generated by funds collected through an BRA mill levy. Commissioner DuBois then questioned the interest rate on the loans granted through the revolving loan program. Mr. Stock stated that the interest rate was based on the term of the loan period. Three percent for loans less than 5 years and five percent for loans greater than 5 years. Commissioner DuBois then questioned who would be eligible for the revolving loan program. Mr. Stock stated that in staff's original proposal it was property owners located within the B-3 zone. Commissioner DuBois stated her concerns regarding the revolving loan program in that it appeared as another handout to property owners who have only taken from the community and given nothing in return. She questioned what has the downtown business person done for the City of Shakopee. Commissioner DuBois suggested that the City investigate a matching grant program. Mr. Stock noted that the proposed revolving loan program provided only 50% of the total project cost. The other 50% had to be provided by the applicant. Commissioner Joos stated that he did not see the revolving loan program as a handout. While the interest rate was very low, he felt that the City needed to do something to encourage rehabilitation in the downtown area. The end result if property owners participate in the program will be an overall improvement in the physical appearance of the downtown and an increase in the tax base. Commissioner Plekkenpol concurred with Mr. Joos and added that if a financing alternative is not tied to the code enforcement program, it may force more vacancies in the downtown area. Chairman Keane stated that if it is Council's intent to proceed with the program without a financing alternative for small business owners, then that is their prerogative. He felt that 2 �9 once the full implications of the program is felt by the local businessmen they will be appearing before the City stating their distaste for the program. At that time, Council will be forced to look at alternative financing programs. Commissioner DuBois questioned whether or not loans given to property owners through the revolving loan program would have to be used for building improvements. Mr. Stock stated that there were many requirements and restrictions set forth in the ---- - revolving loan program and that the property owner had to bring his property up to code in order to receive revolving loan funds. Additionally, the revolving loan program only provided 502 of the total loan amount. The other 502 would have to be supplied by the property owner either by another loan from a local lending institution or cash from the business person. Loan funds .would be disbursed to the loan applicant on a construction loan basis. That is, funds distributed as improvements are made. Discussion then turned to whether or not the buildings in the downtown were worth salvaging. Commissioner Keane discussed some of the short falls of the buildings in the downtown area and the lack of it's ability to attract a critical mass. He stated that the City is going to have to take a comprehensive look at the downtown area and identify that block or blocks that they are willing to assemble, bulldoze and receive request for proposals from developers that are willing to develop the kind of space that the City and downtown needs. Mr. Keane stated that on the one hand he sees the value in a systematic code enforcement program and on the other he sees it as a band aid solution to the real problem which is obsolete space. It was the consensus of the Committee to take no formal action on the systematic code enforcement program as proposed by City Council. Mr. Stock reported that on April 5, 1988 the City Council requested the Community Development Commission and Planning Commission to review the proposed park dedication fee schedule and recommend a course of action to City Council. Mr. Stock reviewed the park dedication fees currently in place in the City of Shakopee and asurvey of other fees collected in communities in the Metropolitan Area. Mr. Stock noted that after preliminary analysis it would appear that our fee structure is on the low side when compared to other communities in the Metropolitan Area and is lacking the necessary rationale for charging the fees that it does. Commissioner Keane questioned how much the City annually collects in park land dedication fees. Commissioner DuBois questioned what the park land dedication fees are used for. She also 3 questioned if the City has a five year park improvement plan. Finally, she questioned how other cities in the Metropolitan Area handle the park reserve funds that they collect. Mr. Stock noted that he did not have the answers to all these questions and that it might be appropriate for the Committee to table any action on this issue until all the concerns and questions raised by the Committee can be answered. Commissioner Joos stated that the community organizations in _ Shakopee are contributing a significant amount of funds to the communities parks. He questioned where all the money was going and how much the City is actually paying for out of their general fund. Discussion ensued on the question of why Shakopee's park system is lacking when compared to cities like Burnsville, Eden Prairie and Prior Lake. Joos/Plekkenpol moved to table discussion of the park dedication fee schedule until our next meeting pending further information from staff. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock reported that the Minnesota Real Estate Journal was interested in doing an updated market focus on our community. Mr. Stock noted that the City of Shakopee was the first community to participate in the market focus section in 1985. The Minnesota Real Estate Journal is distributed to commercial, industrial and real estate developers throughout the Metropolitan Area and the State of Minnesota. He felt that this was an excellent opportunity for the City to gain some free advertising exposure. Mr. Stock noted that if the Community Development Commission is interested in pursuing the market focus update, a brainstorming meeting with the staff of the Minnesota Real Estate Journal would be in order. Commissioner DuBois questioned whether or not there was enough time to produce a July issue of the market focus. Mr. Stock noted that the staff from the Minnesota Real Estate Journal is responsible for doing all the work on the issue and that City involvement is minimal. They would like the City of Shakopee to commit to the July Market Focus. Koopman/Joos moved to recommend to City Council that the City of Shakopee inform the Minnesota Real Estate Journal that they are interested in proceeding with a market focus on the City of Shakopee to be distributed in the month of August. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock gave a brief update on the status of the Minnesota Valley Mall project. Mr. Stock noted that the City Council decided to forego participating in the Valley Mall development project at this time. Commissioner Keane reported that the City Council approved the selection of a consultant to complete an update of the 4 Comprehensive Plan. He stated that this was very encouraging to see and that it will better prepare the City for impending development that will occur within the next five years. Discussion ensued on the importance of the comprehensive plan. DuBois/Koopman moved to commend the Planning Commission and City Council for their commitment and quick action in dealing with an update to the comprehensive plan. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock reported that the City Council approved the City Sign Ordinance as proposed by the Planning Commission and Community Development Commission. However, the City Council decided to delete the five year amortization clause from the ordinance. Discussion then turned to the Community Development Commission Development Newsletter. Commissioner Keane stated that he has developed a short outline of the major activities occurring in our community. It was his hope that the development newsletter could be distributed in the first week of June. Mr. Stock stated that he felt that it would be possible to produce the newsletter and get it distributed in the first week of June. Several of the topics to be included in the newsletter include an update on the Downtown Redevelopment Project, an industrial update with endorsement testimony from several of the major employers in the industrial park, an update on the residential activity in Shakopee and several of the major residential plats, report on the tourism industry and the convention and visitors bureau and a status report on the major highway improvements proposed for Shakopee. Discussion ensued on the focus of several of these topics. Joos/Koopman moved to adjourn the meeting at 7 :00 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Barry A. Stock Recording Secretary 5 30 Note Meeting Time: 7:45 A.M. TENTATIVE AGENDA Downtown Ad Hoc Committee City Hall Council Chambers June 8, 1988 Chrmn. Laurent Presiding 1. Call to Order at 7:45 A.M. 2. Approval of Agenda 3 . Approval of the Minutes - May 11, 1988 4 . Downtown Redevelopment - Putting the Pieces Together 5. Informational Items: a. Request for Joint Council Meeting b. Downtown Sign - Verbal C. Downtown Redevelopment Project Update - Verbal d. Business Update from City Hall e. House of Hoy Lot Improvements - Verbal 6. Other Business a. Next Meeting: July 6, 1988 b. 7. 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 3/ PROCEEDINGS OF THE DOWNTOWN AD HOC COMMITTEE Regular Session City Council Chambers May 11, 1988 Chairman Laurent called the meeting to order at 7:50 A.M. with Commissioners Ruben Ruehle, Melanie Kahleck, Gary Laurent, Bill Wermerskirchen, Mary Keen, and Terry Forbord present. Absent were Commissioners Joe Topic, Shiela Carlson, Jim Stillman, Harry Koehler, Jerry Wampach and Ex-Officio member Tim Keane. Also present was Barry Stock, Administrative Assistant. Chairman Laurent asked if there were any additions to the agenda. The following items were added to the agenda. Downtown Derby Days, Minnesota Real Estate Journal and Goals and Objectives for the Committee. Wermerskirchen/Forbord moved to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Laurent asked if there were any changes to the minutes. Forbord noted that in the third to the last line on page one the word purposing should be changed to proposing. Ms. Keen also noted that her name was misspelled on page two of the minutes. Forbord/Wermerskirchen moved to approve the minutes of the April 13, 1988 meeting as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock reported that a couple weeks ago staff presented a revolving loan program to the Shakopee BRA for approval. At that time, the HRA decided that it would be more appropriate to establish a systematic code enforcement program in the downtown area. Mr. Stock reported that it was the consensus of City Council that before adopting a financial assistance program to assist property owners in improving their building interiors or exteriors it was important for the City to adopt a systematic code enforcement program to protect the health, life, safety and welfare of building occupants. Upon investigation of several code enforcement program alternatives, staff discovered that the City had the necessary codes in place to be used in establishing a code enforcement program. Mr. Stock noted that the City has already adopted the Uniform Housing Code and the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. Mr. Stock noted that these two codes have been in place for several years but have not been enforced on a regular basis. Mr. Stock informed the Committee that he proposed that the code enforcement program be enforced on a City wide basis. However, City Council felt that it was important to initiate the program in the B-3 zone and upon completion of the inspections in that area expand to other areas within the community. The program as proposed and adopted by City Council will focus on commercial buildings in the downtown area and multi-family rental units. 1 Single family detached units will be excluded from the code enforcement program at this time. Mr. Stock noted that the approximate cost to implement the code enforcement program in the B-3 zone will be approximately $25, 000. Mr. Stock noted that the City Building Inspector has estimated that there are approximately two buildings in the downtown area that cannot be brought up to code. He has also estimated that approximately 20% of the buildings to be inspected will cost in excess of $2500 to be brought up to code. On May 3, 1988 staff presented a summary of the code enforcement program to City Council for their review and requested City Council to forward this issue back to the Community Development Commission and Downtown Committee for further review and comment. At that time, City Council decided to implement the code enforcement program as previously discussed and solicit comments from the Community Development Commission or Downtown Committee during the two month hiring process. On May 4, 1988 the CDC reviewed the program and in light of Council's strong desire to proceed with the program, the CDC decided to make no comments at this time. Mr. Laurent stated that he concurred with the action taken by the CDC. He noted that these two codes have been on the books £or a long time and it was City Council's responsibility to enforce it on a City wide basis. However, if they wanted to just focus on the downtown area that is their prerogative. Mr. Laurent went on to state that the program that was proposed by the Downtown Committee focused on stimulating business owners to improve the exterior facades of their properties. The systematic code enforcement program proposed by City Council will not do anything to improve the appearance of downtown. He stated that it was the Downtown Committee's goal to improve the appearance of the buildings on the outside. Commissioner Forbord stated that he did not think it was appropriate for the Downtown Committee to remain silent on this issue. Mr. Forbord stated that code enforcement should be a basic everyday function of the City Inspection Department and that the program should be city wide. Commissioner Forbord also stated that he felt it was unfortunate that the code enforcement issue has been avoided for such a long time and that this issue was brought up in conjunction with the Downtown Committee's recommendation for a solution to improving the appearance of downtown Shakopee. Mr. Forbord went on to state that in his opinion it was ill advised of City Council to remove the financing vehicle that was proposed by the Downtown Committee, whether it be code enforcement or exterior facade improvements. 2 Mr. Forbord was concerned that the only thing the property owners will remember is that it was because of the Downtown Committee that the systematic code enforcement program happened. Mr. Forbord suggested that the Committee take some type of motion or pass a resolution going on record letting City Council know that the Downtown Committee did not propose the code enforcement program. Mr. Forbord stated that he agreed with City Council's decision to implement a code enforcement program but he does not think it is appropriate for the Downtown Committee to take undue criticism for the fact that the code enforcement program will go into effect in the very near future. Mr. Wermerskirchen suggested that the Committee recommend to City Council that they adopt the revolving loan program and that they simply go ahead with the code enforcement program since these ordinances have been on record for years. He went on to state that one of the major elements of the revolving loan program was that all applicants would have to bring their building up to code. Mr. Laurent stated that he thought City Council was proposing the code enforcement program to encourage absentee landlords to bring their properties up to code. Mr. Wermerskirchen stated that he hoped the new code enforcement program did not encourage more absentee ownership, due to fact that several of the businesses in town may not be able to afford the costs of the improvements as a result of the code enforcement program and may be forced to sell. Ms. Kahleck stated that in her opinion the one thing the code enforcement program would do is put a lot more properties on the market. Mr. Forbord stated that the adoption of the code enforcement program will not solve the major problem that we have in the downtown and that is the physical appearance of the properties. While the code enforcement program will help insure the safety of the building occupants, it will do little or nothing for building exteriors. He suggested that the Committee go back to City Council recommending adoption of the revolving loan program or interest write down program. Mr. Stock suggested that as an alternative it may be appropriate for the Downtown Committee and City Council to meet in a joint session to discuss not only the code enforcement program and a financial assistance program but also the direction of the downtown development opportunities. It was the consensus of the Committee to pursue Mr. Stock's suggestion. 3 Forbord/Wermerskirchen moved to notify the City Council by letter requesting the opportunity to meet with City Council to discuss and fully understand the ramifications of a systematic code enforcement program and discuss alternatives for funding improvements to the building exteriors in the downtown. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock informed the Committee that the City has received three proposals for the downtown sign. All three of the sign makers came up with a similar design. However, the proposal submitted by Signs of Quality was $600 less than the next lowest proposal. Therefore, staff is recommending that the proposal by Signs of Quality be selected for the downtown sign. Discussion ensued on the phrase on the downtown sign. It was the consensus of the Committee to maintain the phrase, "Shakopee Finding the New Remembering the Old". Mr. Stock reported on the Downtown Redevelopment Project. He stated that the City Council has taken the necessary steps to include Atwood Street in the project. Mr. Stock also noted that the railroad has agreed to remove the spur along Atwood Street. Mr. Stock noted that the downtown sign would be placed in the House of Hoy lot. He questioned whether or not the Committee felt that the area should have any other improvements such as black dirt and grass. Mr. Forbord stated that this area served as the major point of arrival into our community and that it would be nice if the City would consider doing some landscaping of the lot until such time that the mini by-pass is completed. He suggested that at a minimum some black dirt and seed be planted in this area. Trees that could be removed with a tree spade at a later date would also dress up the appearance of this area. Mr. Wermerskirchen stated that because the sign location is temporary in nature he did not think we should spend a lot of money improving the site but that it would look rather tacky with a nice sign on a poor looking piece of property. He suggested that some very minimum improvements be made such as black dirt fill and seeding. Wermerskirchen/Ruehle moved to direct staff to analyze various options and make a recommendation to City Council utilizing the most cost effective alternative. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock gave a brief update on the activities being planned for Derby Days. Mr. Stock stated that the Minnesota Real Estate Journal is interested in doing a market focus update on our community. The market focus is distributed through the Minnesota Real Estate Journal to developers and real estate professionals throughout 4 3 ( the Metropolitan Area. It does not cost anything for the City to participate in this endeavor. Commissioner Forbord stated that he hoped the market focus would include a section on the downtown redevelopment and our future plans. Mr. Stock noted the market focus would be distributed during the month of July. Mr. Stock noted the difficulty that he is having in directing potential business persons to various sites in the downtown area. Due to the rather high price of vacant land and the cost of improving or demolishing other sites in the downtown area, developers are shying away from the downtown area at this time. Mr. Stock noted that there was also a hesitancy on the part of developers to move in to a structure that is over 100 years old. Mr. Stock stated that the City needs to develop an inventory of the available property in the downtown area and also look at the possibility of assembling several sites into a larger parcel that would make it attractive to a larger developer. Mr. Forbord stated that he agreed with Mr. Stock and that the City should investigate the request for proposal process on several pieces of property in the downtown area. It was the consensus of the Committee to discuss this issue in greater detail at our next meeting and to place it on the agenda for the joint meeting between the Downtown Committee and the City Council. Forbord/Kahleck moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 A.M. Motion carried unanimously. Barry A. Stock Recording Secretary 5 TENTATIVE AGENDA REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA June 7, 1988 Mayor Dolores Lebens presiding 1] Roll call at 7:00 P.M. in Room 318 at the Scott County Courthouse 21 Recess for H.R.A. Meeting 3] Re-convene 4] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 5] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS 6] Approval of Consent Business - (All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. ) *71 Approval of Minutes of May 10, 1988 8] Communications: a] Scott County Transportation Coalition re: appreciation to City of Shakopee b] League of Mn. Cities re: proposed constitutional amendment LMC Dues Adjustment c] 91 Public Hearings: 7:30 P.M. - Improvements to 11th Avenue between CR-79 and Minnesota Street by street construction and storm sewers - Resolution No. 2905 8:00 P.M. - Appeal of Mary Dixon from Planning Commission's denial of a variance to construct an attached double garage at 314 East 8th Avenue 10] Boards and Commissions: Planning Commission: a] Comp Plan Amendment - Annexation Area Energy and Transportation Committee: *b] Enabling Resolution Amendment - Res. No. 2897 *c] Scott County Recycling Program Agreement aogea4STuTmpy AgTO 'uosaapuy •x u40f 'N'd 00:L ge 886T 'TZ aunt 'Aepsanl o4 nano Cpy [VT [O sasseTb s,TabeN 'SJW bucpaeba2 uoTsnTOuoO 8944T=00 aqg MaTAaa 04 aXTT PTnOm su8gerl aoAEN [q buTsuaOT'j gegTTnd ssnOSTP Og aXTT PTnOM 4400S uEmTTounoo [E :ssauTsnq 28440 [£T a3TTPTTM I MsTd 'S'0-s4u9mss9ssy buTu0Tg2oddy 1806Z 'ON •sag [ux Puz '}0f XaaaO aTbea-sguamssassy buTUOTg2oddy '6862 'ON 'sag [mx puZ 9 gsT uaaMgaH aebdy 3o uoTgEOEA buT;ET}TuI 'Z06Z 'ON 'sag [Tx AEd buTggBS 9 uOT43aT3 90 sabpnf buTguToddy '6682 'ON 'sag [Xx gsT SMopeaN :aa guamaaaby Moaosg buTAoaddy 'L06Z 'ON 'sag [ Cx •OuI saogoN uosaaXTeN Og Agaadoad 90 91ES '016Z 'ON 'sag [Tx PEOaTTeg 44TM guameaaby buTAoaddy 'V06Z 'ON 'sag [4x SPT} a0; asTgaaAPy I suETd buTAoaddy-aanaS Aav4TueS •any q49 Z-886T 'T06Z 'oN *sag [bx 14g5 9 q4t 9 9TTTAa9mm09 I sTMaZ u88M499 sguamanoadml AOTTV a0; gaodag buTsapao 9 uoTgTgad buT nTaOag '0062 'ON •sag [3x buT2Ea9 gaS gaodag 9ATaoag-04S 4OX2EN 9-8861 '906Z 'oK 'sag [ax spTg 209 asTgaeApy 9 sueld buTAoaddv 4SVa aqg 0-4LT-H3mo23 'a0 buTT2aTA T-8861 ' £06Z 'ON 'sag [P apOO uOTSTATpgnS Pae bUTUOZ 6uTPuamy '9VZ 'ON 'P20 [O S9SU90T,i dp gaS buTpaebag apo0 buTpuamy 'VVZ 'ON 'P20 (4 gabPng 8861 buTPuamy '6062 'ON 'sag [Ex :s93uEuTPaO We suOTgnTosag [ZI LS' £9T'ZVTS 3o gunomy UT sTTT9 anoaddy [b guamaaaby Apn4g-3faoM d2o0 ueg2n [dx goango sXaeN 'gS - asuaOTZ aaag Z'£ A2Eaodmal ao; uoTgEOTTddy [ox ssedAg TOT - g09[Oad abeurea0 AaTTEA aaddA S-L861 [u aseaaOuT 00'000'OTS - 8 'oN aapaO abuEgO [E aseaaouT GE'60T'6TS - L 'oN a9pa0 abuE4O [Z uOTsuagxs aanas gaaa4s PooMgy IT goa[oad 9deosga9a4S unoqu o0 Z-L86T [m guamaaaby guamasangmTag uoTgTPPy gsT enopeaN [Tx 4uaM99aby og guampuamy - gOaCoed abeuTEaO AaTTEA saddp S-L86T [X sgaaags PTY a4p4s [ C 2o4vaedo guamdrnba ggbTZ y ao; buTsTgaanpy 9zT2og4ny [Tx YSZd 29pun sn4P4S uoTgdmaxg 99AOTdmg [q guamasangmToU abeaTTN [bx gaodag Tenuuy 186T [3 SaBDAef - 9SU90TZ 2999 Z'£ A2EaOdmBy ao; uOTgeOTTddy [a sAEO Agaaa [p TT6Z •sag - m2O;4ETd uoigeAaasgo puE TTEal XaEd aagn9 [O PV TEuanOf 94P4sg Teag [q uOT490TTddy gueag NOJMVI 6861 [E ( 'N'd 00:6 puno2e Xea2q e4nuTM OT E 9XV4 TTTM TTOun00) :J;e4S moag sga0d9g [TT -Z- abed 886T 'L aunt Epuaby aATgEguay TENTATIVE AGENDA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting June 7, 1988 Chairman Steven Clay presiding 1. Roll Call at 7: 00 P.M. 2 . Approval of April 5, 1988 and May 3, 1988 Meeting Minutes 3 . Residential Rental Rehab Grant Program 4. Approval of Joint Powers Agreement w/Scott County BRA 5. Christian Broadcast Station Concept 6. Other Business 7. Adjourn Dennis R. Kraft Executive Director PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REGUJAN SSSS_TON SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APRIL 5, 1988 Chairman Clay called' the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m, with Comm. Wampach, Zak, Vierling and Scott present. Also present were Mayor Lebens; .John Anderson, City Administrator; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Julius Coller II, City Attorney; Douglas Wise, City Planner; James Hutton, City Engineer; and Dennis Kraft, Executive Director. Scott/Vierling approved the minutes of March 1, 1988. Motion carried unanimously. .Vierling/Wampach moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7:04 p.m. Dennis Kraft Executive Di�ec or Carol Schultz Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MAY 3, 1988 Chairman Steve Clay called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. with Commissioners Wampach, Vierling, and Scott present. Commissioner Zak was absent. Also present were Barry Stock, Administrative Assistant; Doug Wise, City Planner; John K. Anderson, City Administrator; Julius A. Collar II, City Attorney; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; and Dave Hutton, City Engineer. Mr. Stock explained that in 1985 the HRA had agreed to participate in a rental rehab grant program available through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agnecy (MHFA) . The Scott County BRA agreed to perform certain elements of the program. They are no longer interested in participating in the program. Mr. Stock asked the HRA to decide if they wished to continue with the program. Mr. Stock reviewed the rental rehab grant program with the HRA members and recommended that they continue with it for properties within the B-3 zone. Discussion followed. Vierling/Wampach moved to continue participating in the rental rehab grant program, that it would not be limited to the B-3 zone, that there would be no $200.00 application fee but that successful applicants shall be billed for actual administrative costs incurred by the City, and that staff is authorized to spend up to 200 hours or $3,000 on the program, whichever comes first. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Wampach moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Dennis Kraft Executive Director Judith S. Cox Recording Secretary �3 MEMO TO: Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant RE: Residential Rental Rehab Grant Program DATE: May 31, 1988 INTRODUCTION: On May 3, 1988 the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority moved to direct the appropriate City officials to inform the Minnesota Home Finance Agency (MHFA) that the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority is interested in participating in the Rental Rehab Grant Program. At that time, the BRA established several guidelines and program qualifications for potential applicants. The HRA also directed staff to prepare an outline of the program as discussed at the meeting and present it to them for final approval. BACKGROUND: Staff reported at the last meeting that the Rental Rehab Grant Program is a Federally funded program established to provide grants to rehabilitate privately owned residential rental property and to supply affordable, decent, safe and energy efficient housing for lower income families. Grant funds are disbursed to applicants in the form of a -' deferred payment interest free loan. Grants may not exceed 508 of the total rehabilitation costs and must be matched by the property owner. Shown in attachment #1 is an outline of the Rental Rehab Grant Program and the guidelines and procedures as proposed by the BRA at our last meeting. The outline includes the maximum financial participation on the part of the City in administering the program and application fees that may be required of successful applicants. If the HRA has no comments in regard to the proposed program outline, staff would recommend that the outline be approved as submitted by staff. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Move to approve the Rental Rehab Grant Program application summary as presented by staff. 2. Suggest changes to the Rental Rehab Grant Program summary and approve as amended. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #1. ACTION REOUESTED: Move to approve the Rental Rehab Grant Program summary as presented by staff. Attachment #1 RENTAL REHAB GRANT PROGRAM SUMMARY Scope The Minnesota Home Finance Agency (MHFA) Rental Rehab Grant Program shall provide grants to rehabilitate privately owned residential rental property. Grant funds for >ehabilitation are provided in the form of an assumable, deferred payment, interest free loan. 10% of the loan shall be forgiven each year for 10 years until the loan is totally forgiven. Grants may not exceed 50% of the total rehabilitation costs and must be matched by the property owner. Owners may receive a maximum of $5,000 per unit in grant dollars. The Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) shall provide technical assistance to potential program applicants in preparing grant applications. The HRA will also provide local administration of any approved applications. Program Service Area The Rental Rehabilitation Grant Program shall be made available to all eligible applicants owning property within the Shakopee City limits. Administration Fees Program applicants will be required to pay a $200 application fee to the Minnesota Home Finance Agency. City staff participation in the program shall be limited to the lessor of 200 hours or $3000. 00 annually. Potential applicants who are subsequently approved for funding by the MHFA will be required to reimburse the City for actual administrative costs incurred by the City during the application process. MHFA Program Oualifications 1. The property must be rental, for residential use and contain primarily two bedroom or larger units. 2 . The property must have one or more substandard conditions as defined by the local or state building code or not meet Section 8 Housing Quality Standards. 3. The property must be located in a neighborhood where the median income does not exceed 80% of the median income for the area. 4. Generally only buildings with five or more units are eligible. 5. Proposed improvements must meet State Code and be in compliance with the Minnesota Energy Efficiency Standards for rental residences. MEMO TO: Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Executive Director SUBJ: Resolution Approving Joint Powers Agreement Between The Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (SCHRA) and the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) . DATE: June 2, 1988 INTRODUCTION: The Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority is requesting that the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority enter into a joint powers agreement to allow the purchase of the former Women's Correctional Facility in Shakopee. BACKGROUND: The State of Minnesota completed the construction of a new Women's Correctional Facility in Shakopee approximately two (2) years ago. Subsequent to that the old prison site was declared surplus property and the land was made available to local governmental entities for purchase. After the offer was made the City of Shakopee originally expressed interest and obtained an option to purchase the land however the City later terminated that option without exercising its right to purchase. The State of Minnesota then once again made the land available to local governmental entities and the Scott County Board of Commissioners expressed interest in acquiring the land. The procedure which must be followed if the land is to be purchased requires that the HRA enter into an agreement with the SCHRA which will allow the purchase of the facility via a joint powers agreement. The SCHRA will purchase the facility on behalf of the Scott County Board of Commissioners. The facility is presently the target of periodic acts of vandalism. It will be a benefit to the City to have the site cleared of the existing buildings. Attached please find communications from both Joseph Ries, Scott County Administrator; and.William Jaffa, Executive Director of the SCHRA which provide further background on this subject as well as the proposed future use of the property. ALTERNATIVE• 1) Approve the joint powers agreement resolution. 2) Do not approve the resolution at this time. RECOMMENDATION- Alternative #1 above is recommended. ACTION REOUESTED: Move to approve Resolution No. 88-1 Approving a joint powers agreement between the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority permitting the purchase of the former Minnesota Correctional Facility. HRA DRK/tiv OFF?CE OF THE ADMINISTRATC* s SCOTT COUNTY COURT HOUSE 110 ti SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379-1382 (612)9376100 JOSEPH F.RIES Administrator F.BRANDT RICHARDSON Deputy Administrator BARBARA NESS Administrative Asst. May 25, 1988 Ms. Marjorie T. Henderson, Chairman Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority 16049 Franklin Trail S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Re: Acquisition of Former MC1W Facility in Shakopee Dear Chairman Henderson: Following on our joint meeting on May 19, 1988, county staff presented the alternatives discussed in my memorandum to the Committee of the Whole dated May 20, 1988, (copy attached) yesterday and strongly recommended the approval of Alternative 1 which provides for both the land acquisition and demolition and the subsequent long-term financing for development of the Criminal Justice Center through a lease with your agency. This recommendation was moved to the County Board by the Committee of the Whole yesterday and was duly adopted. Please consider this letter as the county's formal request of the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (SCHRA) to pursue the sale of a tax exempt note, coupled with a sale lease-back as well as long-term financing for site development. We understand that for you to proceed, you must first enter into a joint powers agreement with the City of Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority (CSHRA). We are encouraged and hopeful that the CSHRA will extend their full cooperation and assistance to further this much needed facility in light of Scott County's explosive growth over recent years. We can only expect the population growth to continue and increase as the construction of the new Bloomington Ferry Bridge draws nearer each year. Not only will the new Criminal Justice Center accomodate Scott County's growth, it will also eliminate what can only be viewed as an eyesore in-the county seat and which presently detracts from the City of An Equal Opportunity Employer SHAKOPEE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION 88-1 RESOLUTION APPROVING IN CONCEPT, A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SCOTT COUNTY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE SHAKOPEE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PERMITTING PURCHASE OF THE FORMER MINNESOTA WOMEN'S CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the former Women's Correctional Institute for Women is located within the municipal jurisdiction of the City of Shakopee; and WHEREAS, the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority desires to purchase the facility from the State of Minnesota for future redevelopment on behalf of Scott County; and WHEREAS, the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority intends acquisition, demolition and site preparation at no cost or obligation to the City of Shakopee; and WHEREAS, it is presently anticipated that the site will be developed for use as a multi-purpose County Criminal Justice Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority Board of Commissioners that a joint powers agreement is hereby authorized for the purposes set forth above and under terms and conditions to be approved by this board. Adopted this day of 1988. Executive Director Chairman SCOTT COUNTY USING & REDEVELOPMENT ` THORITY 16049 FRANKLIN TRAIL S.E.#104 ■ PRIOR LAKE,MINNESOTA 55372 ■ (612)44746875 May 27, 1988 REcelveo John Anderson WY2 ?1888 City Administrator Shakopee Shakopee,CMNy553791 C/TY OF SkAKOpEE Re: Packet Information as Reg ested for June 7, 1988 H.R.A. Meeting Dear Sir, Please find enclosed 10 copies of a summary presentation sheet and draft resolution offered for consideration at the scheduled Shakopee H.R.A. meeting to be held at 7:00 p.m. , Tuesday, June 7, 1988 in the Shakopee City Hall council chambers. Both Chairman Henderson and I will be present to answer any questions at that time. In closing, and on behalf of the Scott County Housing and Redevelop- ment Authority, we wish to extend our appreciation to the members of the Shakopee H.R.A. for their consideration in this matter. Sincerely, W' am I. Jaffa Executive Director WIJ/hgp cc: Dennis Kraft Economic Development Director MAYNARD HARMS,BELLE PLAINE,DISTRICT I MARIETTA SHARKEY,NEW PRAGUE,DISTRICT II MARJORIE HENDERSON,SHAKOPEE,DISTRICT III ED GREGORY,PRIOR LAKE,DISTRICT IV LI I SYLVESTER WACKER,SAVAGE,DISTRICT V Scow Co�o�r owm""coaT�o Equal Opportunity Employer Shakopee's endeavor to beautify this community. The deteriorated condition of the MCIW buildings has been greatly exacerbated by the incredible amount of vandalism since the state vacated the premises. The continuing risk and liability to the public health and safety of the site remaining unattended must be eliminated at the earliest practiable time. In the interest of expediting the acquisition and demolition phase of this project, we offer you our full assistance and cooperation. Kindly direct any requests of this nature to my personal attention. Sincerely, 4 JiF. Ries dmi istrator Encl. cc: Scott County Commissioners William Jaffa, Executive Director, Scott County HRA John Anderson, Shakopee City Administrator Dennis Kraft, Director, CSHRI Steve Mackenthun, Project Analyst, MN Dept. of Corrections James B. Zellmer, Director Institution Support Services Minnesota Dept. of Corrections James A. Terwedo, Scott County Attorney Jim Berg, Scott County Controller William Schmokel, Scott County Surveyor Bradley J. Larson, Scott County Highway Engineer Jon Westlake, Scott County Planning Director William Nevin, Scott County Sheriff Lt. Howard Halverson, Scott County Sheriff's Office Brian Colway, Corporate Risk Managers, Inc. JFR:bn SCOTT COUNTY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 16049 FRANKLIN TRAIL"St.#tOd ■ PRIOR LAKE,MINNESOTAN1 72 ■ (612)147-8875 SUMMARY I. OBJECTIVE The Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority desires to purchase the former Minnesota Correctional Institute for Women from the State of Minnesota on behalf of Scott County. I1. PURPOSE Acquisition of the subject premises and subsequent demolition of structures for future redevelopment. Current alternative under consideration is a multi-use Criminal Justice Center. III. METHOD OF FINANCING The most cost effective alternative is as follows: Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority would issue a tax- exempt note in the approximate amount of $400,000 to acquire the facility, demolish existing buildings and pay the costs of issuance. The note would be secured by an annual appropriation's lease from the County (lease payments made by the County would match the debt service on the note) . IV. REQUEST That both the Shakopee H.R.A. and Scott County H.R.A. enter into a mutually acceptable joint powers agreement permitting the Scott County H.R.A to purchase the former Minnesota Women's Corrections Institute for future County redevelopment activities. MAYNARD HARMS.BELLE PLAINE,DISTRICT I 0 MARIETTA SH E NEW PRAGUE,DISTRICT II MARJORIE HENDENDERSON,SHAKOPEE.DISTRICT III � ED GREGORY,PRIOR LAKE.DISTRICT IV Q I SYLVESTER WACKER.SAVAGE,DISTRICT V wu+.wusxrt aMRTUKIW S ou Cmmr Equal Opportunity Employer �S MEMO TO: Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Executive Director RE: Possible Location of Television Station KVBM TV-45 in the City of Shakopee DATE: June 2, 1988 INTRODUCTION• Television station KVBM - TV-45 is seeking a location for the construction of a TV transmitting tower and telecasting facility. BACKGROUND: HRA Chairman Steven Clay recently contacted Mr. Dan Peters, General Manager of KVBM - TV about the possibility of locating the proposed Channel 45 TV transmitting facilities in the City of Shakopee. The City of Oakdale recently turned down the Channel 45 request to construct their facilities in the City of Oakdale. Prior to the construction of such a facility a considerable amount of time and expense is experienced by the applicant. Federal regulatory approval must be given by both the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as well as the Minnesota Aviation Authority and probably both the Metropolitan Airports Commission and local zoning approval. As Mr. Peters indicates in his letter (see attachment) his organization does not want to pursue this matter further in less the City and HRA will give this concept serious consideration. It is not uncommon for citizens to become heavily involved in issues relating to the construction of tall towers. Mr. Peters indicated to me by telephone that he thought the tower in Shakopee would have to have a minimum elevation above the ground of 8001 . Subsequent contact with the Federal Aviation Administration indicated that any tower over 200' in height would have to be preceded by the filing certain FAA forms which would initiate the consideration of this process. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the concept of possibly locating a television station and transmitting tower in the City of Shakopee pending necessary approvals and hearings by various applicable agencies. 2. Indicate that there is not interest in having such a facility located in the City of Shakopee at this time. RECOMMENDATION• It is recommended that the HRA (and City Council if applicable) discuss this matter and direct the Executive Director/Community Development Director to either pursue the subject further ' or to discontinue any further action on this at this time except for a letter to Mr. Peters indicating that the City of Shakopee is not interested in this facility at this time. ACTION REODESTED: Move to direct the Executive Director/Community Development Director to either pursue the subject further or to indicate no further action should be taken at this time. May 4, 1988 Dennis Kraft Housing & Development Director City of Shakopee City Hall Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr. Kraft, Steve Clay, council member (445-2443), recently suggested to me to send you information regarding TV-45. KVBM must be on the air by July 1989. The enclosed materials will explain our programming ideas. We were turned down by Oakdale to erect a 500' tower for our facility. Shakopee's proximity to Flying Cloud may present a problem to us for since Shakopee is quite low in comparison to the rest of the metro area, our tower would need to be at least 800' tall. We believe we could be a great asset to a city. There are only 6 com- mercial stations in the Twin Cities. Our local community orientation would make us a good neighbor. If you think the staff and council would give this serious considera- tion, please let me know. Necessary FCC and FAA approval would be expensive and futile to pursue unless local authorities issue TV-45 an invitation. n Thaour consideration. S Dan Peters General Manager KVBM-TV-45 Box 9222 St. Paul, MN 55109 612-770-8114 - - 7 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADT. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MAY 10, 1988 Mayor Lebens called the meeting to order at 7: 15 p.m. with Councilmembers Wampach, Scott, Zak, and Vierling present. Councilman Clay was absent. Also present were John K. Anderson, City Administrator; Julius Collier, city Attorney; Judith S. Cox, City clerk; and David Hutton; City Engineer. Mayor Lebens recognized the interested citizens in the audience. Mr. Robert Schmidt, Property Assessor for the County of Scott gave a summary of the 1988 Assessments for the City of Shakopee. He stated that approximately 1100 parcels were physically viewed and reassessed as part of the 25% re-assessment for 1988. Residential lot values were also increased for properties with structures located upon them. He then viewed a sales study that was done with the city. There was a general discussion by Council and Staff regarding the sales study. The Council then reviewed each parcel that was being appealed. Property owner: Clete Link Property address: 622 E lst Ave. Parcel #27 004 012 0 The value was increased for 1988 to bring this property in line with other commercial property on 1st Avenue after the increase from the State. Lot value was figured at $3.50 per square feet (9000 sq ft) , total estimated market value is $31,500. Property owner: Clete Link Property address: Marshall Road Parcel #27 118 003 0 The value was increased in 1988 to bring all property along Marshall Road of similar characteristics into the same value pattern. The 1987 value was $94 ,000 - 1988 value $156,600. Lot value was figured at .79 per square feet (4.54 acres) . Property owner: Clete Link Property address: Marshall Road Parcel #27 120 002 0 This property is a vacant commercial lot. The value of this property was figured at 2.70 per sq ft (62,257 sq ft) . Total estimated market value of this property is $168,100. Property owner: Clete Link Property address: 581 Marshall Road Parcel #27 120 003 0 This property is also a vacant commercial lot. The value of this property was figured at $2.70 per sq ft (50,093 sq ft) . Total estimated market value of this property is $135,300. City Council May 10, 1988 Page 2 Mr. Link was present to make his appeal. He felt that because most of this was undeveloped property that the increase because of platting should not be placed on the parcel until it was improved. He also commented on a parcel of land (James 1st Addition) in Prior Lake. He felt that this parcel was comparable to his property located on County Road 17. He stated that the assessed market value for James 1st Addition, Lot 1, Block 2, 1988 was $73,500, the property sold for $180,000. For Lot 2, Block 2 the assessed market value was $45,000, Lot 3 Block 2 is vacant and has an assessed market value of $10, 000. The owner of the property is only paying $546.00 for taxes on the vacant lots. There was a general discussion by Council, Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Link. The City Administrator stated that staff was instructed to find somebody that has the skills to come in from outside the County and review the County wide assessing practices. The reasoning behind Shakopee contracting with the County is to achieve uniformity throughout the County. He asked that Bob Schmidt get together with the other assessors to find a systematic treatment of vacant commercial lots. Vierling/Wampach moved that the County Assessor pull some comparable (vacant commercial property) from Savage, Prior Lake and Shakopee and look those over and get back to this Board of Review in a timely manner. Motion carried unanimously. Property owner: Dennis Norland Property address: 799 Prairie St Parcel #27 092 018 1 This parcel was purchased in 1983 for $61, 050. the 1988 changes were for the addition of the finished basement, extra bath, and upgrading of value as part of the 25% reassessments. Also the lot value was increased from $11, 700 to $13,500. The total change was $58,400 to $67,700. Mr. Norland was present to comment. He stated that he was contesting the 1988 market value, its the percentage of the increase which is to high. He further stated that the value should be based on the entire dwelling instead of just his half of the structure, the people on the other half do not take care of their half. The County Assessor stated that when he spoke with Mr. Norland that he was concerned that the other people would not be assessed accordingly. Vierling/Zak moved to reduce Mr. Norland's increase by 50% to an estimated market value of $63,050. Motion carried unanimously. City Council May 10, 1988 Page 3 Property owner: Michael Nothom Property address: 1010 Eastview Circle. Parcel #27 092 015 1 This is half of a twinhome, built in 1982. Part of the 25% reassessment, new construction of $1900 for a porch, lot increased from $11,700 to $13,500, building value increased from $52,700 to $60,700. Total value increased from $64,400 to $74,200. This property was purchased in 1983 for $65,300. It was also stated that central air was installed. Mr. Nothom stated that there is no central air in his half. He also stated that he knew that there would be some kind of increase but not as large as it was. The County Assessor stated that the increase was to get this parcel in line with the other twinhome/duplex's within the City. He stated that a study is done every year. Vierling/Wampach moved to make the adjustment for not having central air and that this parcel appeal be continued to May 17, 1988 at which time more information would be available. Motion carried unanimously. Property owner: Lloyd Johnson Property Address: 1098 Van Buren Parcel #27 029 011 0 The County Assessor stated that Mr. Johnson called him earlier and he stated that he thought that this was his homestead card. He withdrew his appeal at this time. Property owner: Cliff Stafford Property Address: 2328 Eagle Creek Blvd. Parcel #27 908 016 0 This is a split entry home of 1150 square feet built in 1967. The lot value was increased from $14,400 to $16, 600 with the structure value remained at $57,900. Mr. Stafford was present to comment. He stated that the house was built in 1965 instead of 1967 and that there has been no increase in taxes since 1983 until this time. He also complained about how Mr. Beslind (County Assessor) had handled the situation when he had gone in to question the increase. He further commented to the board. Mrs. Stafford also commented on the increase and the attitude of Mr. Beslind. City Council May 10, 1988 Page 4 Vierling/Scott moved to concur with the assessor's estimated market value of parcel #27-908016-0 since there had already been and adjustment. Motion carried unanimously. Property owner: Gerald Schmidt Property address: 1041 S Legion St Parcel $27 041 081 0 This a 1 story home built in 1982. This property was part of the 258 reassessment for 1988 and additions of $1700 that were made to the previous structure value for the finished basement and central air. The lot value was increased from $16,200 to $22,100 for equalization purposes. The County Appraiser also stated that he believed that the main argument is the building of a duplex behind Mr. Schmidt's property. Mr. Schmidt was present to comment. He asked the County Assessor what constituted the increases. He also stated that the duplex that is being built behind him would end up being more of a decrease in his property value than an increase. There was a general discussion by Council, Staff and Mr. Schmidt. Zak/Vierling moved to bring back for consideration comparable structures to review Mr. Schmidt's property. Motion carried. Prop owner: Furrie Corp Property address: 1251 4th Ave East Parcel $27 087 009 0 This parcel is Lot 5 Block 2 Furries 2nd. it is a vacant lot of 50, 640 square feet. This land will be used for commercial Purposes when sold. The lot has been valued at $26,200 for the past several years, but due to inequities along County Road 17, the values have gone up approximately 903 of market value to equalize them with other property of this type in Shakopee. This is a similar situation to Clete Link's. Al Furrie was present to comment to the Council regarding this parcel. Mr. Jerry Hennen commented to the Council regarding the property located at 572 Marshall. He was comparing the taxes on this location vs the Mall. Mrs. Eileen Hopster commented to the Council regarding the attitude of Mr. Beslind, the County Assessor, when answering her questions. Zak/Vierling moved to continue the Board of Review to Tuesday, May 17, 1988 at 8:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. City Council May 10, 1988 Page 5 Scott/Zak moved to recess at 9:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Zak/Vierling moved to reconvene at 9:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The City Administrator commented on the Minnesota Real Estate Journal Market focus. This would be for advertising the City of Shakopee. - Vierling/Zak moved to participate in the Minnesota Real Estate Journal Market focus and look into purchasing an ad, what the options would be for the size on an ad, and that Staff get back to Council with the options (monetary) . Roll Call: Ayes: Wampach, Zak, and Vierling. Noes: Scott and Lebens. Motion carried. The City Engineer then commented on the Upper Valley Drainage Project 87-5. He gave a status report on this item. There was some concern by the DNR and PCA regarding the discharging into the Mill Pond which they designated as a trout stream based on a 1981 trout survey. It was the consensus of the Council to do nothing on this item at this time. Vierling/Wampach moved to appoint the City Clerk to serve as Acting Administrator for May 11th thru 15th during the State Manager's Conference. Motion carried unanimously. Under other business, a discussion was brought up regarding the Community Center/Ice Arena at the Minnesota Valley Mall. There was a debate on whether or not this should go on a referendum before the community to let them decide. The City Administrator stated that if it was to go on as a referendum, the soonest would be the last Tuesday of June. This would have to pass tonight in order for the resolution calling for a special election to be prepared for the next meeting; all other requirements could be met within this time frame. Mayor Lebens stated that we do not have a full Council this evening and that it should be held off until next week. Cncl. Wampach stated that he would not be present next week. Scott/Zak moved to gather the information and material so that if the information is acceptable we will be prepared to make a decision on the referendum issue at the next scheduled meeting. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. City Council May 10, 1988 Page 6 There was then a brief discussion regarding the possibility of an Armory locating in Shakopee. Vierling/Zak moved to adjourn to Tuesday, May 17, 1988 at 8:00 p.m.(�,j'M.oltAion �1 c rried unanimously. dth-S: _CifX C t Clerk Jakki K. Menk Recording Secretary Z �IV w, N lo mt 11-1204-! ON—M a zy�� At Me V I to <" > `---- n rl ! •! `f IZ O a..w �� M f��4 UIHM � A'ti 6a~s •� M� 51iu� 'ti' � �y , i•: 183 University Ave.East St.Paul,MN 55101.2526 League of Minnesota Cities (612)227.5600(FAX:221.0986) DATE: May 20, 1988 TO: Mayors, Managers and Clerks LV FROM: Donald A. Slater, Executive D SUBJECT: Proposed Constitutional Amendment LMC Dues Adjustment The Constitution of the League of Minnesota (Article IV, Section 9) requires that the LMC President appoint a committee on Dues and Services every three years. This Committee is charged with reviewing the services of the League and proposing a dues structure to raise sufficient revenue to finance League services. In February of 1988 Mayor Hazama, LMC President, appointed Mayor Joanell Dyrstad, Mayor, Red Wing and Mr. James F. Miller, City Manager of Minnetonka as co-chairs of the Dues and Services Committee. Mayor Hazama also selected a broadly based committee of 42 city officials representing cities of all sizes and municipal occupations. The committee reviewed all current League services and supporting budgetary information. The committee also conducted an extensive membership survey which focused on LMC member evaluation of current and proposed service programs. Based on its review of all relevant materials, the committee decided to recommend a dues adjustment program for a three-year period. The three year time sequence was selected, as it has been in the past, as the minimum time necessary for orderly fiscal planning. The committee also concluded that it would be best to set upper limits for potential dues adjustments of 5 percent for 1989-90, 6 percent for 1990-91 and 7 percent for 1991-92 . The committee, however, did not wish to vote these increases as the fixed dues for the three year period. Rather, the committee proposed a constitutional amendment which allows dues increases NOT TO EXCEED 5 percent, 6 percent and 7 percent in the respective years but required the League's Board of Directors to make the final decision on the dues for the three year period. The committee concluded that setting limits but holding the Board accountable would establish a potential for more conservative budgeting practices by the League with the prospect that the full authorized percent limits might not be required in the future. In this event, the Board would be free to set dues below the maximum percentages. This matter will be considered at the June LMC Conference and acted on as a proposed amendment to the LMC constitution. Under this proposal, the maximum percent increases would be included in the constitution with accompanying language authorizing the Board of Directors to make the final determination. A copy of the proposed constitution amendment is enclosed for your consideration. I encourage you and your council to review this matter before the LMC Conference and be prepared to cast your city's vote at the St. Paul meeting on June 9 at the Radisson Hotel at 3 :45 p.m. b i e DAiZTc%�, CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTFOR DUES ARTICLE III FEES AND DUES The annual dues for each municipality shall be based set by the League Board of Directors not to exceed the amounts established in- on the schedule or schedules set out as appendices to this constitution, which shall be adopted or amended in the same manner as other parts of this constitution. If no new dues schedule is adopted for a given year, the dues schedule in effect for the most recent prior year shall remain in effect. (OVER) 5.3 APPENDIX A `/H7.. 00 /011' for 87Ag' Dues Schedule Effeetive-Baring-}985-86 maximum for 1988/89 1988/89 DUES SCHEDULE BASED ON MAXIMUM 5% INCREASE POPULATION BASE 249 OR LESS $194 250-4,999 i9*'6 cznsu5 _ 99� $66 PLUS 51.24 CENTS PER CAPITA 5,000-9,999 $536 PLUS 41.85 CENTS PER CAPITA Z?4.3/ 10,000-19,999 $1, 157 PLUS 35.64 CENTS PER CAPITA 20,000-49,999 $3,955 PLUS 21.65 CENTS PER CAPITA 50,000-299,999 $11,711 PLUS 6.14 CENTS PER CAPITA 300,000 AND OVER $19,740 PLUS 3.47 CENTS PER CAPITA Dues Schedule Effeetive-Buring-1986-84 maximum for 1989/90 1989/90 DUES SCHEDULE EASED ON MAXIMUM 6$ INCREASE POPULATION BASE 249 OR LESS $206 250-4,999 $70 PLUS 54.31 CENTS PER CAPITA 5,000-9,999 $568 PLUS 44.36 CENTS PER CAPITA ?718.3 10,000-19,999 $1,227 PLUS 37.78 CENTS PER CAPITA 20, 000-49,999 $4,193 PLUS 22.95 CENTS PER CAPITA 50,000-299,999 $12,413 PLUS 6.51 CENTS PER CAPITA 300,000 AND OVER $20,924 PLUS 3.68 CENTS PER CAPITA Dues Schedule effeetive-Baring--1984-88 maximum for 1990/91 1990/91 DUES SCHEDULE BASED ON MAXIMUM 7% INCREASE POPULATION BASE 249 OR LESS $220 250-4,999 $75 PLUS 58. 12 CENTS PER CAPITA 5,000-9,999 $607 PLUS 47.47 CENTS PER CAPITA 005. 10,000-19,999 $1,312 PLUS 40.42 CENTS PER CAPITA 20, 000-49,999 $4,486 PLUS 24.56 CENTS PER CAPITA 50,000-299,999 $13,282 PLUS 6.97 CENTS PER CAPITA 300,000 AND OVER $22, 389 PLUS 3.94 CENTS PER CAPITA MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: David Hutton, City Engineer be-- SUBJECT: 11th Avenue - C.R. 79 to Minnesota Street DATE: June 1 , 1988 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 2905 for Council consideration which orders plans and specifications for 11th Avenue from County Road 79 to Minnesota Street. BACKGROUND: A public hearing is scheduled for June 7 , 1988 for the purpose of considering a public improvement of 11th Avenue from County Road 79 to Minnesota Street. The proposed improvements consist of pavement, curb and gutter and storm sewers. A feasibility report was ordered by Council on April 19, 1988 by Resolution No. 2881 . The feasibility report was distributed to Council on May 17 , 1988 and subsequently a public hearing scheduled for June 7, 1988. The feasibility report discussed several alternative methods of computing the assessments for this project. Staff will discuss the proposed costs and assessment methods at the public hearing to assist all participants in understanding the process. After the public hearing has concluded, if Council wishes to proceed with this project, attached is Resolution No. 2905 ordering the plans and specifications for this project. The consultant for the developer of the Meadows 1st Addition, Pioneer Engineering, has submitted a proposed fee of $5 ,300 .00 to staff to complete the plans and specifications and provide construction staking for this project . This particular consultant has already completed much of the work necessary to design the storm sewer and street for 11th Avenue during the course of designing the sanitary and watermain in 11th Avenue as part of the developer's contract. In addition, they will have survey crews on site staking the sewer and watermains and they could stake the street and storm sewers at the same time. Due to staff limitations, it is recommended that a consultant be retained to design the plans and specifications for 11th Avenue. It seems logical to utilize Pioneer Engineering to complete the plans and specifications for this project. ALTERNATIVES: Depending on the public testimony received at the public hearing, Council can then decide to proceed with this project. The following alternatives are available. 11th Avenue June 1 , 1988 Page 2 1 . Determine the project is not in the best interests of the City and do not proceed any further with the project. 2. Determine that the project should proceed and order the plans and specifications prepared . Staff should be authorized to have the proper City officials enter into an agreement with Pioneer Engineering, 2422 Enterprise Drive, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 for the design of 11th Avenue at a cost not to exceed $5,300 .00. 3. Determine the project should proceed but authorize staff to solicit quotes from other consultants to prepare the plans and specifications. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends Alternative No. 2 , to proceed with the project and order plans and specifications prepared by Pioneer Engineering of Mendota Heights, Minnesota. REQUESTED ACTION: If Council wishes to proceed with this project, the following actions should be taken: 1 . Offer Resolution No . 2905 , A Resolution Ordering an Improvement and the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for 11th Avenue from County Road 79 to Minnesota Street, Project No. 1988-5 and move its adoption. 2. Move to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an agreement with Pioneer Engineering for the design of 11th Avenue at a cost not to exceed $5,300.00. DH/pmp MEM2905 q � RESOLUTION NO. 2905 A Resolution Ordering An Improvement And The Preparation of Plana And Specifications For 11th Avenue From County Road 79 to Minnesota Street Project No. 1988-5 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2892, adopted on May 17, 1988 fixed a date for Council hearing on the proposed improvement of 11th Avenue from County Road 79 to Minnesota Street; 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 7th day of June 1988 , at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BI THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1 . That the improvement is ordered as hereinafter described: 11th Avenue from County Road 79 to Minnesota Street; Storm Sewer and Street Improvements 2. David Hutton, City Engineer is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. He 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 19_• City Attorney 96 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Mary Dixon Appeal of Variance denied by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals DATE: May 31, 1988 INTRODUCTION: At there meeting on May 5, 1988 the Board of Adjustment and Appeals denied a variance to May Dixon for a 5 foot side yard setback and 7 foot front yard setback to construct an attached double garage upon the property located at 314 East 8th Avenue. Mary Dixon has appealed the variance denial to the City Council. BACKGROUND: The attached information provides the background for the appeal, included are: 1) Letter of appeal from Mary Dixon 2) Staff reports to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals 3) Site plan for the property 4) Minutes of the April 7, 1988 and May 5, 1988 Board of Adjustment and Appeals meetings ALTERNATIVES• 1) The City Council may concur with the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and move to deny Variance Resolution No. 524. 2) The City Council could override the decision of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and move to grant Variance Resolution No. 524 allowing a 5 foot side yard setback and a 7 foot front yard setback as requested by the applicant. 3) The City Council could override the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and move to grant Variance Resolution No. 524 allowing a setback variance for the Side and front yard less than requested by the applicant. ACTION REOUESTED: Offer Variance Resolution of the City Council CC-524 and move for approval or denial as outlined in Alternatives 1, 2 or 3 above. DKW/tiv DIXON May 11, 1988 I am appealing the decision of the Board of Adjustments and Ap- peals which denied me a variance to construct a variance two car garage. Two memos from the staff of the City Planners Office, one dated March 24, 1988 and one dated April 28, 1988 have recommended granting resolution #524 allowing a 5 foot side yard setback and a 7 foot front yard setback. A memo from the City Planners Office dated April 28, 1986 addressed two alternatives. Alternative #1 is to build in the requested location but would limit the garage to 16 feet by 20 feet. This would not be in the best interest of the present homeowner, future homeowners, or the neighborhood, for the fol- lowing reasons: 1. Using concrete block construction the inside usable space is automatically cut to 14 feet x 19 feet. 2. Access to the house for convenience and security will be through the basement of the existing house. With the 19 foot depth measurement, when exiting the car from the drivers side, it would be extremely difficult to go behind or in front of the car to gain entrance to the house. 3. Limiting the property to a one car garage would limit its resale value. 4. If a second car is to be used from the property one car would have to be parked on the street causing problems for street maintenance and possibly a traffic hazard. 5. In this age of two car families I do not think a single car garage is adequate. Alternate #2 is to locate the garage on the side of the house op- posite the current driveway. This is not workable for the fol- lowing reasons: 1. Sewer, water and gas services enter the house from this side. 2. Because of the layout of the kitchen a person would have to exit the garage to the outdoors and enter the kitchen from the back of the house. 3. A young tree planted to replace a mature tree of ques- tionable health would have to be removed. � b I believe I should be granted Variance Resolution #524 for the following reasons: 1. The attachment to the house is proportionate and of good design. 2. The location is right for the house and lot. 3. The usable driveway from garage to hard surfaced city street is 25 feet which is more than adequate. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Mary Dixon 314 East 8th Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 2 MEMO TO: Shakopee Board of Adjustment and Appeals FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Mary Dixon Variance Request DATE: March 24, 1988 INTRODUCTION• Mary Dixon is requesting a 23' front yard and a 5' side yard variance in order to construct a garage in the front yard of her residence at 314 E. 8th Avenue. Existing zoning is R-2 Urban Residential. APPLICABLE CODE PROVISIONS• Section 11.03 Subd. 6E & Section 11.26 Subd. 5B CONSIDERATIONS• 1. According to City records the subject lot is 70' wide x 82' deep (5740 sq. ft. ) . A normal lot in this part of town is 60' x 142' or 8520 sq. ft. 2. Staff discussed the size of the garage with the Building Inspection Department and the conclusion was that in order to efficiently enter and leave both car and garage, a 20' x 22' structure is the minimum size needed. 3. The residence at 807 South Sommerville (next door) has a similar lot with a garage in the same location as the applicant is requesting. The structure at 807 South Sommerville was constructed prior to the provision in the code requiring the 301setback. 4. The applicant purchased property as is. The lot was subdivided prior to enactment of the current code requirements. 5. This section of street at 8th Avenue has a roadway of 45' and a right-of-way of 801 , so the property line is located about 18' from the back of the curb. This results in the proposed garage location being setback only 7 feet from the right of way. 6. There is not sufficient space on either the side or rear of the house to locate a garage, moving the garage over 5' to allow for the required 10' side yard setback would result in the garage being placed in front of the front door. 9b FINDINGS• Criteria #1 Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result form lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of this Chapter have had no control. Finding #1 The applicants property contains only 5740 sq. ft. Normal lots in this area contain 8520 sq. ft. The applicant purchased the property as is. Criteria #2 The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Chapter would deprive the applicant of right commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Chapter. Finding #2 The literal interpretation would deny the applicant of the right to construct a garage on this site. Criteria #3 That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Finding #3 The lot was divided prior to the applicant's purchasing of the property. The lot was subdivided prior to enactment of the current code requirements. Criteria #4 That granting of the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Chapter to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Finding #4 Granting of the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege, but will allow her to utilize the property in the same manner as other owners in this district. Criteria #5 The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Finding #5 The variance requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship. Criteria #6 The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Chapter, or to the property in the same zone. Finding #6 The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Chapter, or to other property in the same zone but will uphold the purpose of the R-2 District. STAFF RBCONNRNDATION: Staff recommends approval of Variance Resolution #524 which will allow a 7' front yard setback and a 5' side yard setback based on the following: 1. A hardship exists as defined in the City Code. Because of the size and configuration of the subject property. 2. Alternative locations for the proposed garage are not available on the site. MEMO TO: Shakopee Board of Adjustment and Appeals FROM: Douglas E. Wise, City Planner RE: Mary Dixon Variance Request DATE: April 28, 1988 INTRODUCTION• _ Mary Dixon is requesting a 23' front yard and a 5' side yard variance in order to construct a garage in the front yard of her residence at 314 E. 8th Avenue. At the April 7, 1988 Board of Adjustment and Appeals meeting the Board passed a motion continuing the public hearing on this request until the May 5, 1988 meeting. The Board also requested staff to review the request and determine whether an alternative location exists on the lot for a garage. APPLICABLE CODE PROVISIONS: Section 11.03, Subd. 6 E and Section 11.26, Subd. 5 B CONSIDERATION: 1. Please find enclosed a site plan for the entire parcel of property. In reviewing the parcel of property, staff has determined that there is not adequate area in the rear yard to locate a garage unless a tree were removed or the garage were located in such a manner that it would result in the severing of a trees root system. The tree located behind the house on the side where the present driveway is located is an extremely large tree with a trunk diameter of approximately 3 feet. In reviewing the site the staff has determined two possible locations for a garage. One location is the requested location from the applicant. Given the Board of Adjustment and Appeals discussion at the last meeting a 16'x 20' garage would require a 9' side yard setback and a 9' front yard setback. The second alternative identified by staff is to locate the garage on the side of the house opposite where the current driveway exists. This side of the house is located 21' from the property line. A garage 16' x 20' in size could be located in this position. Such a location would require a 5' side yard setback and no variance from the street if an existing tree of approximately a foot diameter were removed. If the Board of Adjustment and Appeals felt it should allow the tree to remain, the garage would have to be placed closer to the street requiring a 10' front yard variance. For additional considerations please refer to the staff memo dated March 24, 1988 contained in the packet for the April 7, 1988 meeting. (Agenda Item #6) STAFF RBCOM MigpATION If the Board of Adjustment and Appeals decides that a 16' x 20' garage is of adequate size, staff recommends that the alternative two location on the site plan. The staff recommends that the existing tree be allowed to stay and that variance resolultion #524 be granted allowing a 5' side yard setback and a 20' front yard setback for the garage. If the Board of Adjustment and Appeals should determine that reasonable use of the property grants the applicant the right to construct a two car garage, then alternative one is the only location available on the site. In this case, staff recommends granting resolution #524 allowing a 5' side yard setback and a 9' front yard setback. 76 Z' � Sl-o wlf+ IZE1�1.J I J r W A.,i 3' r2Ee Z'rrsrE � I ? J I'r7Z f -'- C%ISfI'.Ib NNL[ AL .z l 1 I � I I r-rnwss x c��nct ten' 160" 7 r�crczeo IhAw_'I 17%On� ,iq 9Di A� I6 - - _ _ _ __ - - - � - __ -_ .t. Ptltl_'f1 . �—� �y _/ � WEST ELEVATiC� .,,,,�,„•.,.o. �� m.o i I •; I � x•>�- o � ° � _.-_.__ � aJ 4/.Y(af iae'l 31' i i I _ld! -o i u.e �._ _ E] _ r-. F-'. - r , j it 9Y PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MN MAY 5, 1988 Chairman Rockne called the meeting to order at 7:45 P.M. with Comm. Allen, Schmitt and Foudray present. Comm. Czaja and Stafford were absent. Comm. Forbord arrived at 7 : 55 P.M. Also present were Doug wise, City Planner; John Anderson, City Administrator, Joe Zak, Council Liaison and Jon Glennie, Planning Intern. Allen/Foudray moved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously. Foudray/Schmitt moved to aprove the Board of Adjustments and Appeals April 7, 1988 meeting minutes with correction that the public hearing to consider a garage variance (applicant Mary Dixon) should be noted as "continued". Motion carried with Rockne abstaining due to his absence. PUBLIC HEARING NT MARY DIXON VARIANCE Schmitt/Allen moved to continue the public hearing on the request for a varance to allow a 5' side yard setback and a 7' front yard setback to construct an attached double garage upon property located at 314 East 8th Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. City Planner gave background for the public hearing continuation stating staff had been requested to review the variance to determine whether alternative locations could be considered. He stated staff's determined there was not adequate area for rear yard placement. He could see only two possibilities; the one as requested and a second location on the side of the house opposite where the current driveway exists. Comm. Forbord arrived and took his seat. Mary Dixon stated her disagreement with the recommendation of staff and said her request is as stated. City Planner further stated that the variance as requested would not comply with other setbacks in the area. Charles Lipka stated his concern with the proposed location being in the front yard. He suggested a 1 1/2 garage would be adequate. There were no further comments from the audience. Schmitt/Allen moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Foudray offered Variance Resolution No. 524 and moved for its denial based on the double car garage request. Motion carried unanimously. Applicant was not amenable to a lesser variance. She was then informed of the 7-day appeal process. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED - ST VE H NTG c VARIANCE Foudray/Schmitt moved to continue the public hearing for a variance request to allow a lo' rear yard setback for property located on proposed Lot 4, Block 1, Hentges 1st Addn. Motion carried unanimously. City Planner stated the Board had directed the applicant to submit specific building plans for the property prior to further discussion of the variance application. These plans have not yet been submitted. There were no comments from the audience. Foudray/Forbord moved to continue the public hearing to the June 9, 1988 meeting. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - RICHARD HFNNES VARIANCE Schmitt/Allen moved to open the public hearing to consider a variance to allow a 22 1/2' front yard setback to construct a single family dwelling upon property located at 1175 Menke Circle. Motion carried unamimously. City Planner gave the status of a proposed code change for corner lots within the R-1 and R-2 zones. He stated the City Council has accepted the recommendation of the Board and directed the City Attorney to draft an ordinance with the proposed amendment. He further stated he believes a hardship does exist for these lots and the proposed code change is evidence of that belief. Richard Hennes stated that his request would blend in well with the other homes in the area. City Planner agreed that it would be compatible with most homes in the area except for the home immediately to the east which has a 30 foot setback. Comm. Forbord requested clarification of the proposed ordinance and how that would affect the applicant. City Planner replied that the request would conform to the proposed ordinance. There were no further comments from the audience. Foudray/Forbord moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. 7b Foudray/Allen offered Variance Resolution No. 526 and moved for its adoption based on the fact it had been determined that front yard setback requirements for corner and double frontage lots place a hardship on the owners of these lots and limit their use of the property and a code amendment as proposed would bring this variance into conformance. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Rockne informed the public of the 7-day appeal process. There was no other business. Foudray/Schmitt moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 6: 10 P.M. Jane VanMaldeghem Recording Secretary yb PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APRIL 7, 1988 Acting Chairman Foudray called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. with Comm. Allen, Stafford, Schmitt and Czaja present. Comm. Forbord and Rockne were absent. Also present were Douglas Wise, City Planner; John K. Anderson, City Administrator; Joe Zak, Council Liaison and Jon Glennie, Planning Intern. Schmitt/Czaja moved to approve the agenda as written. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Czaja moved to approve the minutes of February 4, 1988 as presented. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Stafford moved to approve the minutes of March 3, 1988 as presented. Czaja abstained. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - ROBERT SCHILZ JR VARIANCE Allen/Czaja moved to open the public hearing to consider a variance request to permit 16 parking spaces instead of the required 25, to allow a 3' front yard setback for parking instead of the required 151 , to allow a 2' rear yard set back for parking instead of the required 31 , and to allow the use of metal siding to match the existing structure for the property located at 931 Bluff Avenue. The City Planner went over the consideration of the variance request and staff's recommendation of approval. Mr. Schilz was present for comments. Schmitt/Czaja moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Czaja/Allen moved to approve Variance Resolution #525 allowing for the following variances: 1. A variance allowing 16 parking spaces instead of the required 25. 2. A variance allowing a 3 foot front yard setback for the parking lot. 3. A variance allowing a 2 foot rear yard setback for the parking lot. 4 . Limit the variance to the present owner, occupancy and use. Motion carried unanimously. Page two Planning Commission April 7, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING STEVE HENTGES VARIANCE The City Planner went over the variance request and the staff's recommendation. The recommendation was that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals take public comment and pass a motion continuing the public hearing until final action has been taken on the proposed plat. Dennis Barry, a representing Steve Hentges was present and commented to the board regarding the request. Schmitt/Allen to table/continue the public hearing until May 5, 1988 pending the receipt of the plans and specifications. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - MARY DIXON VARIANCE Schmitt/Czaja moved to open the public hearing to consider a variance request to allow a 5' side yard set back and a 7' front yard set back to construct an attached double garage upon the property located at 314 E. 8th Avenue. The City Planner reviewed the request. Ms. Mary Dixon commented on her request. Charles Lipke commented against the building of the garage in front of the house. Steve Schmitz also stated that there was not enough room for the garage to be placed in the front yard. Val Pink also made comments against the building of the double garage in the front of the house. Allen/Stafford moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Czaja moved to table action on the request until May 5, 1988 and directed staff to work with the applicant on a accurate site plan and the different alternatives on the placement of the garage. Motion carried unanimously. Czaja/Stafford moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Douglas Wise City Planner Jakki K. Menk Recording Secretary MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Proposed Annexation Area DATE: June 2, 1988 INTRODUCTION• At their meeting on April 5, 1988 the City Council received a recommendation from the Planning Commission to submit a comprehensive plan amendment 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. Because City staff had not been able to receive a response from the Metropolitan Council of Governments regarding the alternative recommended by the Planning Commission, the City Council tabled action on the submittal of the comprehensive plan amendment to the Metropolitan Council. The City Council directed staff to consult with the Metropolitan Council staff to determine their position on this alternative. BACKGROUND: For background on this item please refer to the attached memo dated March 31, 1988. Following tabling of this matter by the City Council at their April 5, 1988 meeting the City Planning staff met with Metropolitan Council staff to review the proposed alternative. Following the meeting, staff has had several telephone conversations with the Metropolitan Council staff and the Metropolitan council staff has met by themselves to formulate their position on the recommended alternative. The Metropolitan Council staff has indicated to the City staff that although they consider the proposal a viable alternative, and understand the rational for our proposal, the Metropolitan Council staff would recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Metropolitan Council because it is not consistent with their current policy of adjusting the MUSA boundary only on the basis of acreage. Throughout our discussions with the Metropolitan Council the City staff has continued to discuss other alternative approaches. The Metropolitan Council staff in indicating their preference to trade land for the inclusion of the new land indicated that other land other than the tradeable area could be traded for this extension of the MUSA line. Staff has identified another area of the City which could be traded out of the MUSA in order to allow the annexation area to come in. This area is approximately the same size and is located North of the Minnesota River on both sides of Highway 169. This property is primarily owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the DNR. The area would be difficult to develop because it is located in the flood plain, it is zoned Agricultural, 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 MUSA 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. 3. 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #2. ACTION REODESTED: Offer and 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 upon approval of the City Planning Commission. MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Proposed Annexation Area DATE: March 31, 1988 INTRODUCTION: At their meeting on March 3, 1988 the City 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. BACKGROUND: The Minnesota Municipal Board has ruled in favor of annexation of a 150 acre parcel of property located South of the Senior High School and . West of County Road 79 . The Jackson Township Board has appealed the annexation to District Court and the City is anticipating action in the near future from the District Court approving annexation. In order for development to proceed on this parcel of property, the City must amend it's Comprehensive Plan to identify the proposed land use for this area and alter the Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary to include this area for sewer service. The current owners and developer of the 150 acre parcel being annexed to the City would like to proceed with development of the parcel in the summer of 1988. The property owner has currently engaged an engineering consultant to prepare a preliminary plat for the 150 acre parcel. Before the City can approve any plat for this area the City's Comprehensive Plan must be amended to show proposed land use for this area and alter the MUSA boundary to include this parcel. After this action the developer must apply for rezoning of the parcel and can then proceed with platting of the parcel. The amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must be approved by the Metropolitan Council of Governments. The Metropolitan Council of Governments considers this a major plan amendment and can require up to a 90 day review period in order for them to make their decision. In 1986 the City applied to the Metropolitan Council for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and was eventually successful in extending the MUSA boundary to the North right-of-way line of the proposed Hwy. 101 By-Pass. A condition of this approval _was the designation of 305 acres located in the East end of the industrial park as a tradeable area which could be exchanged for inclusion of other property, .in particular the proposed annexation area, into the MUSA boundary. . Another condition of the 305 acre tradeable area was that the area must be limited to an average sewer flow of 1, 000 gallons per day per acre (see attached resolution and map) . ,� The City staff met with the Metropolitan Council to discus ` - with them the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plap to include the proposed annexation area. Response of the Metropolitan Council staff was that a trade of an area within the tradeable area for the proposed annexation area would be considered favorably. The Metropolitan Council staff was very firm in their indication that they would not consider extension of the MUSA at this time. The trade would not be a one for one acre trade, but would be based on sewer flows from the proposed areas. Because the tradeable area is limited to a sewer flow of 1, 000 gallons per acre per day and the average sewer flow for residential development is 700 .gallons per acre per day, the City would be recuired to trade approximately 107 acres of tradeable industrial land for the 150 acres of residential land. On February 23 , 1988 the City staff net with the property owners who control land within the tradeable area to discuss the options available for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The meeting included representatives from the Scottland Companies, J.L. Shiely Company, and Kawasaki Corporation. At this meeting the representatives of these companies all expressed a unwillingness to allow any of their property to be removed from within the MUSA boundary. Enclosed is a copy of a letter provided to the Planning Commission from the Scottland Companies stating their position. During the February 23rd meeting another alternative was suggested as an option. This alternative would be to leave the existing property within the tradeable area inside the MUSA line and add the new property to the MUSA guaranteeing to the Metropolitan Council that sewer flows from the total area including both parcels would be limited to the 305, 000 gallons per day limit now placed on the tradeable area for sewer flow. If the City submitted to the Metropolitan Council a Comprehensive Plan Amendmen to add the new annexation area without removing any of the tradeable area or restricting additional sewer flow, the City would have to do a thorough analysis of the needs for extension of the MUSA line and try to make the case to the Metropolitan Council for the need to extend this line at this time. This effort would extend the time necessary for getting an approval from the Metropolitan Council - - from a two to three month period to probably a three to six month period. An effort to expand the current MUSA would also quite possibly not be successful and the City would in the end have to _ = fall back on the previous alternative of trading area. - An attempt to .expand the MUSA would delay the development plans for the parcel coming into the City. The City is also initiating the process of updating it's Comprehensive Plan at this time and over _- _- the next year will be analyzing in detail the need for extending the MUSA boundary in the future. After completing the update of the Comprehensive Plan, it would be the City's intention to - utilize this information in attempting to make changes to the - - MUSA boundary. Li O' s ALTERNATIVES' 1. TheCity Council can pass a motion directing staff to submit h a Compreensive Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan Council requesting an extension of the MUSA to include the annexation area. 2 . The City Council can pass a motion directing staff to submit a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan Council providing a trade of 107 acres within the industrial tradeable area in exchange for inclusion of the 150 acres of residential land being annexed to the City. 3 . 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 MUSA while retaining the entire 305 acres of tradeable areawitin -h . the dition that 455h acrese wifllAnotundary exceedwanh average sewage e entire sewage flow of 305, 000 gallons per day. 4 . The City Council could table action on the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and direct staff to provide additional information in order for a more thorough analysis of the options to take place. 5. The City Council could not take action on the Comprehensive Plan amendment at this time, thereby not initiating a process to allow inclusion of the proposed annexed area into the MUSA. PLANNING COy_IISSION RECOMMENDATION: At their meeting on March 3 , 1988 the Planning Commission passed a motion recommending to the City Council that they direct staff to submit a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Metropolitan Council of Governments adding the 150 acres to be annexed to the City to the MUSA while retaining the entire 305 acres of tradeable 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. ACTION REQUESTED: - offer and pass a motion directing staff to submit a --Amendment-- to the - Metropolitan Council of Comprehensive Plan Governments adding the 150 acres to be annexed to `h adea le oarea MUSH while retaining the entire 305 acres of tr_ within the MUSA boundary with the condition that the entire 455 acres will not exceed an average sewage £low of 305, 000 gallons per day (Alternative r3) . - ti r9 iE�� -------------- I TT M 1[IS7 _ V4 Yd �I y I c Ill All ZL - , Ia ; •_. •�5 ` sr I I I tld0.11]l 11 CONSENT MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant RE: Enabling Resolution Amendment DATE: May 17, 1988 INTRODUCTION• In light of the solid waste management problem that continues to grow in the Metropolitan Area and the need for alternatives to land filling, the Energy and Transportation Committee is requesting that the Committee's Enabling Resolution giving the Energy and Transportation Committee the responsibility for reporting and recommending policies to City Council relating to solid waste management issues affecting the City. BACKGRODND• In March of 1985 the Metropolitan Council adopted the Solid Waste Management Development Guide/Policy Plan. This plan required counties in the Metropolitan Area to develop a solid waste disposal abatement plan that is in accordance with the objectives established by the Met Council in their Solid Waste Management Development Guide/Policy Plan. Inst April, the Scott County Board adopted a Solid Waste Master Plan for Scott County. The Master Plan sets forth policies, objectives and strategies for reducing the amount of solid waste generated in our area and our dependence on sanitary landfills. The Metropolitan Council's Solid Waste Plan and Scott County's Plan prohibit the disposal of unprocessed mixed municipal waste in landfills by 1990. The Plan also places great emphasis on waste reduction and recycling. In light of the growing concern for disposing of solid waste in area landfills and the goals and objectives set forth by the Metropolitan Council and Scott County mandating that communities within their jurisdiction abide by the policies and plans as set forth; The Energy and Transportation Committee felt that it would be prudent for the City to delegate the responsibility of monitoring solid waste management issues to advisory committee. The Energy and Transportation Committee is therefore recommending that their Enabling Resolution be amended giving the Energy and Transportation Committee the responsibility for making recommendations to City Council on the programs, procedures and/or activities that may be undertaken by the City relating to solid waste management. Shown in attachment M1 is the proposed resolution setting forth the changes to the Committee's original enabling resolution. If City Council concurs with staff, it would be appropriate at this time to approve the enabling resolution as proposed. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Move to approve Resolution M 2897 amending the Energy and Transportation Committee's Enabling Resolution expanding the responsibilities of the Energy and Transportation Committee to include issues that may affect the community that relate to solid waste management. 2. Do not approve amending the Energy and Transportation Committee's Enabling Resolution at this time. 3. Suggest additional areas for broadening the Energy and Transportation Committee's responsibilities and make a recommendation accordingly. STAFF RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends alternative N1. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to approve Resolution 1 2897 amending the Energy and Transportation Committee's Enabling Resolution to expand the responsibilities of the Energy and Transportation Committee to include solid waste management. Resolution #2897 A Resolution Amending the Energy and Transportation Committee's Enabling Resolution Expanding the Responsibilities of the Energy and Transportation Committee to Include Solid Waste Management WHEREAS, the Energy and Transportation Committee was established by the City Council of the City of Shakopee on March 2, 1982; an WHEREAS, the Energy and Transportation Committee has been actively involved in recommending policies that promote improved energy efficiency, energy conservation and transportation systems; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council and Scott County have adopted Solid Waste Management Master Plans establishing objectives and strategies for the elimination of the disposal of unprocessed solid waste in landfills; and WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee may be required to abide by the objectives and strategies set forth by the Metropolitan Council and Scott County for the disposal of solid waste; and WHEREAS, the Energy and Transportation Committee is responsible for monitoring and implementing programs relating to energy conservation; and WHEREAS, the Energy and Transportation Committee has been kept apprised of the process followed by the Metropolitan Council and Scott County in formulating solid waste management plans and as it would be desirous for the City Council to have a committee responsible for making recommendations regarding solid waste management issues that have an affect on the community. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, MN that: 1. Resolution #1982, be amended expanding the responsibility of the Energy and Transportation Committee to include monitoring programs relating to solid waste management including recycling, waste reduction, waste abatement, source separation, centralized processing and refuse collection. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, MN held this day of , 1988. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTESTED: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 1988. City Attorney CONSENT /°c MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant RE: Scott County Recycling Program Agreement DATE: May 17, 1988 INTRODUCTION• In the past the City of Shakopee has received funding from the Met Council through their Household Rebate Program and Tonnage Grant Program to finance operational and promotional costs associated with our Curbside Recycling Program. last year, the Metropolitan Council decided to discontinue the Household Rebate Program and Tonnage Grant Program. In 1988 Metropolitan Council Funds will be distributed to counties through the Metropolitan Council Local Recycling Development Grant Program. BACKGROUND: Last fall I informed Scott County officials that the City of Shakopee was interested in applying for funds through the Metropolitan Council Local Recycling Development Grant Program. At that time, I informed Scott County of the recycling program that we currently have operating in our community and the annual cost incurred by the City to sponsor the program. County officials then applied for and received funds for the continued operation of our recycling program. (Retroactive funding for 1987 and 1988 funding.) In order for the City to receive the funds from the County to continue the operation of our recycling program it becomes necessary for the City to enter into an agreement between Scott County and the City of Shakopee for the disbursement of the grant funds to the City of Shakopee. Shown in attachment #1 is a recycling program agreement between Scott County and the City of Shakopee which establishes the mechanism for distribution of the funds received by the County to the City of Shakopee. Note that the agreement provides total funding in the amount of $5,000 for recycling related expenses incurred by the City in 1987 and 1988. The attached agreement has been reviewed and approved as to form by both the Scott County and City Attorney. The Energy and Transportation Committee has reviewed and approved the proposed recycling agreement and is recommending to City Council that the appropriate City officials be authorized to enter into the recycling program agreement between the City of Shakopee and Scott County for recycling related expenses incurred by the City in 1987 and 1988. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Move the appropriate City officials be authorized to enter into the recycling program agreement between the City of Shakopee and Scott County. 2 . Do not enter into the recycling program agreement between the City of Shakopee and Scott County. STAFF RECO)MNDATION• Staff recommends alternative #1. ACTION REOUEETED: Move that the appropriate City officials be authorized to enter into the recycling program agreement between the City of Shakopee and Scott County funding City costs associated with the operation and administration of the City's recycling program. cl- RECYCLING PROGRAM AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into on this 26th day of April, 1988, between the COUNTY OF SCOTT, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as COUNTY by and through the Scott County Board of Commissioners, and the CITY OF Shakopee, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as CITY, by and through the Shakopee City Council. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, The Metropolitan Council has granted monies to Scott County for the purposes of establishing, continuing and/or improving solid waste recycling programs within Scott County, and; WHEREAS, The Metropolitan Council Local Recycling Development Grant guidelines require Scott County to continue financial support for effective municipal recycling programs, and; WHEREAS, Shakopee has developed an effective public/private recycling program which has been supported by the Metropolitan Council for the previous two years. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and Agreements contained within this Agreement, the COUNTY and CITY hereby agree as follows: I. PURPOSE This Agreement shall establish a mechanism for distribution of funds received by the COUNTY, pursuant to the Local Recycling Development Grant Program, to implement recycling consistent with the COUNTY Solid Waste Master Plan as approved by the Metropolitan Council. 2. TERM The term of this Agreement is from the date of effectuation through December 31, 1988. 3. GRANT REQUEST The CITY shall perform recycling activities as set forth in the Exhibit which is attached and made a part of this Agreement. 4. GRANT PAYMENT The COUNTY shall pass through to the CITY $5,000 for recycling activities. The CITY shall use these funds only for those recycling activities set forth in the Exhibit. 1 5. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, the maximum amount of grant payment that will be available to the CITY in 1988 shall be as specified above. Funding availability for future years is up to the discretion of the COUNTY and will be dependent on the effectiveness of the CITY recycling program, the existence of and interaction of a COUNTY recycling program. 6. RECORDS The CITY shall maintain strict accountability of all funds and maintain records of all receipts and disbursements. Such records and accounts shall he maintained in a form which will permit the tracing of funds and program income to final expenditure. The CITY shall maintain records sufficient to reflect that all funds received under this Agreement were expended in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. All records and accounts shall be retained as provided by law, but in no event for a period of less than three years from the receipt of payment pursuant to this Agreement. 7. REPORTING TO COUNTY The City shall submit reports to the COUNTY on August 1, 1988, November 15, 1988 and January 31, 1989 identifying: a. Fund Expenditures to date (including equipment purchased, staff hours, publicity expenses, and any other disbursements, costs or purchases) . b. Volumes and types of materials recycled in Shakopee by sponsored programs. C. Educational and promotional activities sponsored by the City with these funds. The City agrees to furnish such other reports as may be requested by the COUNTY for financial evaluation and program management purposes. 8. AUDIT The City shall allow the COUNTY, its designees, and the Metropolitan Council or the State Auditor, access to its records at reasonable hours, including all books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices relevant to the subject matter of the Agreement, for purposes of audit. In addition, the COUNTY shall have access to the project site(s) , if any, at reasonable hours. 9. UNEXPENDED FUNDS Any grant payments provided to the City under this Agreement shall be returned to the COUNTY if the grant payment was not used according to the requirements of this Agreement. 2 p Ci 10. COMPLIANCE WITH REOUIREMENTS OF THE LAW In performing the provisions of this Agreement, both parties agree to comply with all applicable federal, state or local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations or standards established by any agency or special governmental unit which are now or hereafter promulgated insofar as they relate to performance of the provisions of this Agreement. 11. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION No person shall illegally, on the grounds of race, creed, color, religion, sex, marital status, public assistance status, sexual preference, handicap, age or national origin, be excluded from full employment rights in, participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to unlawful discrimination under any program, service or activity hereunder. 12. INDEMNIFICATION The CITY shall indemnify and hold the COUNTY harmless from all claims, demands, and causes of action of any kind or character, including the cost of defense thereof, resulting from the acts or omissions of the CITY or organizations respective council members, officers, agents and employees and/or individuals receiving benefit from these funds relating to activities conducted under this Agreement. 13. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBCONTRACTING The CITY shall be responsible for the performance of all subcontracts and shall ensure that the subcontractors perform fully the terms of the subcontract. The Agreement between the CITY and a subcontractor shall obligate the subcontractor to comply fully with the terms of this Agreement. 14. ENTIRE AGREEMENT It is understood and agreed that this Agreement and the attached Exhibits constitute the entire Agreement of the parties, in reference to the activities set forth in the Exhibit, and that this Agreement supersedes all oral and written agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. 15. AMENDMENTS Any amendments, alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of this Agreement shall be valid only when they have been reduced to writing and duly signed by the parties. 3 16. TERMINATION This Agreement shall terminate under the following circumstances: a. By mutual written Agreement of the parties; b. By either party, with or without cause, giving not less than thirty (30) days written notice, delivered by mail or in person to the other party, specifying the date of termination; C. This Agreement shall automatically terminate without notice on December 31, 1988. 17. PROPERTY DISTRIBUTION Assets acquired in whole or in part with grant payments provided under this Agreement shall be the property of the CITY so long as said assets are used by the CITY for the purpose of a recycling program approved by the COUNTY. In the event the CITY discontinues use of the assets for recycling purposes said assets shall, at the COUNTY's discretion, either be returned to the COUNTY or sold, and the net proceeds of the liquidation returned to the COUNTY. 18. SEVERABILITY The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any paragraph, section, subdivision, sentence, clause or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held to be contrary to law, such decision shall not effect the remaining portions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed intending to be bound thereby. CITY OF SHAKOPEE CO UN O' SCOTT By: BY: - ¢r Delores M. Lebens, Mayor J In F. CaSIT, Chairman CITY OF SHAKOPEE SCOTT COUNVf Boa B/of Comnissippers By: ATTEST: �� By: r �. John K. Anderson, City Admin. Jos F. Mies, Co. Admin. By: D to Judith S. Cox, City Clerk Dated: APPROVED AS TO By: By: Julius A. Coller II, City Atty. J Te aed 4 Exhibit #1 /6 C,- CITY OF SHAKOPEE PLAN FOR METROPOLITAN LANDFILL ABATEMENT FUNDS INTRODUCTION• In 1985 and 1986 the City of Shakopee received Metropolitan Council Household Rebate and Tonnage Grant Funds to off-set costs incurred in the operation of the City's Curbside Recycling Program. In 1987 the City of Shakopee did not receive any funds from the Metropolitan Council. However, the City continued to operate the Curbside Recycling Program. The City of Shakopee is now requesting that Metropolitan Landfill Abatement Funds be appropriated to off-set a portion of the actual costs incurred by the City in operating the Curbside Recycling Program in 1987. The City of Shakopee is also proposing that the Metropolitan Landfill Abatement Funds be utilized to assist in off-setting the costs associated with the operation of our recycling program in 1988. PROPOSED EXPENDITURES: A. RECYCLING The City of Shakopee administers a monthly curbside recycling program. Curbside pick-up is available to Shakopee residents on the second Saturday of each month. A recycling drop-off site is also open on the second Saturday of each month. Volunteer organizations are responsible for collecting the recyclables. At this time paper, glass, aluminum and steel cans are being collected. Over 250 tons of recyclables are collected annually. Since 1985 the City of Shakopee has been responsible for marketing the Curbside Recycling Program. Annual advertising costs incurred by the City in 1987 exceeded $1,250. In 1988 the City of Shakopee is projecting that the marketing costs associated with the program will be approximately $1,250. B. ADMINISTRATION The City recycling coordinator is responsible for insuring that the recycling program is being marketed effectively. The recycling coordinator is also responsible for following - solid waste activities that may have an affect on the community. The recycling coordinator reports to the City's Energy and Transportation Committee advising them on the waste management issues that affect the community. The recycling coordinator also administers the office paper recycling program in City Hall. In 1987 actual administrative costs for the City's recycling program exceeded $2,000. The City is requesting that $1,250 of this amount be retroactively reimbursed to the City for costs incurred in 1987, In 1988 City's recycling prograthe City of Shakopee is projecting that the administrative costs for operating the SUMMARY- m will be approximately $1,250. Below is a summary of the expenses being reimbursement to the City in 1987 and projected annual associated with the 1 requested for current recycling program in 1988. expenses 1987 RECYCLING MAgKETING �'--- ADMINISTRATION $1,250 TOTAL 1988 $1,250 $1,250 $2,500 $1,250 $2,500 //a_,� MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant RE: 1989 LAWCON Grant Application DATE: May 20, 1988 INTRODUCTION• Preliminary applications for 1989 Outdoor Recreation Grant Programs are due by July 8, 1988. It would therefore be appropriate at this time for City Council to discuss whether or not we should proceed in submitting preliminary grant applications for funding in 1989. BACKGROUND: This year, as in the past three years, there will be two separate Outdoor Recreation Grant Programs: the Traditional Grant Program and the Athletic Facilities Grant Program. The Traditional Grant Program is funded with Federal LAWCON funds. Grant funds are provided to acquire and/or develop outdoor recreation areas that best meet the priorities established by the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) . These priorities focus on natural resource-based facilities, such as beaches, trails and boat launches. Athletic Facility Grants are funded with State funds. This program provides funding for the development of a variety of athletic facilities. The Athletic Facilities Program is more restrictive in terms of eligible items and grant maximums than the Traditional Program. The Traditional Grant Program and the Athletic Facility Grant Program require applicants to fund at least 50% of the total project cost. The local share can consist of cash, donations of materials, labor and equipment usage, local sponsored labor and equipment usage, or any combination thereof. For fiscal year 1989 there is $468,750 available for Traditional Grant projects in the Seven County Metropolitan Area. The Athletic Facilities Grant Program will provide grant program funding in the amount of $156,250 for projects in the Metropolitan Area for fiscal year 1989. Staff from the Community Service Department and Community Development Department have met and discussed potential projects for grant funding in 1989. Shown in attachment #1 is an abbreviated list of eligible park improvement projects that were considered by staff. The list was adopted from the City's Five Year Capital Improvement Park Plan. Shown in attachment #2 is a summary of the Traditional Grant Program and the eligible funding items and ineligible funding items. Shown in attachment #3 is a similar summary for the Athletic Facility Grant Program. After a review of the program guidelines, staff is recommending that we pursue both a Traditional and Athletic Grant application for improvement of Eastside Park. Due to the population growth in this area and a the need for a park in the East side, staff concurred that Eastside Park should be the City's #1 priority for application funding. Proposed improvements to the park include grading, sodding and seeding. Staff would also propose that an ice rink and basketball court be constructed. Funding would also be requested for the relocation of a tot lot and shelter from the Junior High to the Eastside Park location. Total estimated project costs for the aforementioned improvements is $55,000. If Council thinks that it would be premature to move ahead with the improvement of Eastside Park at this time, staff would recommend as a second choice for the grant application the improvement of O'Dowd Lake Park. With the approval of Stonebrooke and the construction of a trail along this development as required by the developers agreement, staff feels that it would be timely for the City to consider constructing a trail within O'Dowd Lake Park. The plan would also include preservation of the natural park like areas and construction of picnicking areas. Parking lot and road improvements into O'Dowd Lake Park may also be included as part of the grant application. The estimated project costs for the improvements to O'Dowd Lake Park as discussed are estimated to be approximately $50,000. Staff would recommend that City Council approve submitting a preliminary grant application to the Department of Trade and Economic Development for funding improvements to Eastside Park for calendar year 1989. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Direct the appropriate City officials to submit a preliminary Traditional and Athletic Grant application for LAWCON funding for park improvements to Eastside Park for calendar year 1989. 2. Direct the appropriate City officials to submit a preliminary Traditional Grant application for LAWCON funding for park improvements to O'Dowd Lake Park for calendar year 1989. 3. Suggest some other park improvements that meet the LAWCON eligibility guidelines and authorize the appropriate City officials to submit a preliminary application for calendar year 1989 funding. 4. Do not submit a preliminary application for LAWCON funding for calendar year 1989. STAPP RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends alternative #1. ACTION REODEETED• Move to direct the appropriate City officials to submit a preliminary Traditional and Athletic LAWCON application for improvements to Eastside Park for calendar year 1989. Attachment #1 IAWNM Park Imprmw*M List 1989 Park/Pro!ect Funding Source 1. Eastside Park (formerly JE7, Pa-1) • Grading, sodding, seeding, archery court, basketball cawt, slating rink $55,000 Park Reserve 2. O'Dowd Take Park • Trail development/Picnic area/ parking arra 50,000 Park Reserve 3. Huber Park Trail (Pa-9) • Extension bituminous trail to Murphy's larding ? State 4. Memorial Park (Pa-5) • Replace or upgrade roadway posts and expand parking 20,000 Park Reserve • Drove millpond area Park Reserve 5. Huber Park (Pa-4) • Develop Master Plan in coordination with dwntown development and iPlaoent 75,000 Park Reserve 6. Upper Valley Trail (Pa-7) Storm Sewer • Trail aagrisition and development Utili (along drainage way) 30,000 Reserve 7. Tshpah Park (Pa-2) • Extension of parking lot south/ upgrade playground equipment 30,000 Jaycees 8. Stars Park (Pa-8) • Cbratnnct sidewalk from 10th Avenue/ park Reserve/ park landscaping 12,000 Stans Exaudation 9. Riverview Park (Community Baseball Park) • Replace and expand fmn Wequipoent steed and fountains 20,000 Park Reserve 10. Athletic fields (youth softball diamonds) • Create three usable ag-lime softball Baseball Assn./ fields at Senior Hien 4,200 Lions Club • Upgrade backstops and benches at Baseball Assn./ Sweeney School 4,800 Lions Club Attachment k2 ' 6V Section I ' THE TRADITIONAL GRANT PROGRAM Eligible Applicants Eligible applicants include cities, counties, towns, recognized Indian Tribal governments and special park districts or elected park or recreation boards in cities of the first class. Eligible Projects: ° Acquisition of land for future development as an outdoor recreational facility. (Acquisition projects must be developed within 3 years of project closure.) ° Development of outdoor recreational facilities on land owned by the applicant. - Acquisition and development of outdoor recreation facilities. As a condition for receiving a LAWCON/State grant, the local applicant must agree to retain ownership and maintain the assisted parkland for public outdoor recreation uses into perpetuity. - Eligible Facilities The following items reflect SCORP priorities and when incorporated into a project proposal assist the project in ranking: ° Baseball/softball fields ° Basketball courts ° Boat launching sites (must be built according to DNR specifications) ° Campgrounds ° Fishing piers ° Football/soccer fields ° Hockey rinks ° Natural park-like areas ° Nature study centers ° Picnic grounds _ ° Public river accesses ° Skating rinks ° Swimming beaches ° Tennis courts ° Trails (hiking, biking, walking, horseback riding, cross-country skiing) - 7 - The following items are also eligible for funding but do not reflect SCORP priorities and hence do not assist the project in ranking: ° Central sewer, water, electric hook-up at campsites (individual campsite hookups are not eligible) ° Change houses ° Desion and engineering (up to 10% of total project cost) ° Docks ° Downhill ski areas (construction of runs, lighting, fencing, warming house/restrooms) ° Drinking fountains Fencing (athletic facility, safety fencing) ° Gazebos ° Landscaping (seeding, sodding, tree/shrub planting) ° Lighting (athletic facility, security lighting) ° Marinas (short-term docking facilities only, retaining wall construction, docks and wharfs) ° Observation platforms Park roads ° Parking areas ° Permanent interpretive displays ° Picnic shelters ° Restroom/shower buildings Sewage pumpout stations at campgrounds ° Sewer and water for park buildings ° Sians (informational , safety, funding acknowledgement) ° Site improvements (grading, filling, demolition, clearing) ° Sledding hi',!-- Storage i,l=Storage areas !only if minor part of recreational building facility such as a picnic shelter, warming house, change house, restroom) ° Visitor station/contact building ° Volleyball courts ° Walkways (e.g., short distance trails that direct park users from the parking lot to the recreation facilities) ° Warming houses 8 t- , Ineligible Facilities Ineligible facilities are those projects wh c cannot be funded with LAWCON/State assistance, nor can their costs a included as part of the local match requirement. Ineligible facilities include: ° Administrative expenses (meals, project accounting, etc.) ° Amphitheatres ° Archaeological sites ° Bandstands ° Benches and seats ° Concession-only buildings ° Cooking grills ° Decorative fountains, commemorative/memorial plaques, statues ° Development of historical sites - ° Dredging ° Dugouts for ballfields ° Employee residences ° Facilities intended primarily for interscholastic or semiprofessional play ° Game equipment ° Game refuges or fish production areas ° Golf courses - Historical buildings Individual sewer, water, and electric hook-ups at campgrounds or marinas ° Indoor ice arenas Indoor recreation facilities ° Lifeguard stands ° Lodges, motels, cabins ° Museums Picnic tables ° Playground areas or equipment ° Rifle ranges Skeet and trap ranges Ski jumping facilities ° Ski lift facilities and equipment ° Snowmobile trails ° Spectator seating of any kind ° Swi nosing pools ° Trash receptacles ° Underground watering or irrigation systems ° Vita courses ° Water impoundments/dams ° Zoos PREAPP/4-(30-12)CP - g - jAttachment # 31 / Section II THE ATHLETIC FACILITIES GRANT PROGRAM Eligible Applicants Eligible applicants include cities, counties, towns, recognized Indian Tribal governments and special park districts or elected park or recreation boards in cities of the first class. Eligible Projects: Development of eligible athletic facilities on land owned by the applicant. As a condition for receiving a State grant, the local applicant must agree to retain ownership and maintain the assisted parkland for public outdoor recreation uses into perpetuity. Eligible Facilities The following items reflect SCORP priorities and when incorporated into a project proposal assist the project in ranking: ° Baseball and/or softball fields ° Basketball courts ° Outdoor skating/hockey rinks ° Soccer and/or football fields ° Tennis courts The following items are also eligible for funding but do not reflect SCORP priorities and hence do not assist the project in ranking: ° Design and engineering (up to 10% of total project cost) ° Fencing (athletic, safety fencing) ° Goal posts ° Landscaping (seeding, sodding, tree/shrub planting) ° Lighting (athletic facilities, security lighting) ° Park roads ° Parking areas (gravel only) ° Restroom buildings ° Site improvement (grading, filling, demolition, clearing) ° Sians (informational , safety, funding acknowledgement) ° Volleyball courts ° Walkways (e.g. short distance trails that direct park users from the '- parking lot to the recreational facilities) Warming houses PREAPP/5-CP - 25 - MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant RE: Real Estate Journal Advertising DATE: June 2, 1988 INTRODUCTION• On May 17, 1988 the City Council directed the appropriate City officials to work with the staff from the Minnesota Real Estate Journal on a Market Focus Section for the City of Shakopee to be distributed to the development community during the month of July. At that time, it was brought to the City Council's attention that those communities that are featured in a Market Focus Section usually participate in the market focus with an advertisement on their community. Staff pointed out that the estimated cost for a one page four color ad in the Market Focus Section would be approximately $1400. At that time, the City Council suggested that staff investigate whether or not the Minnesota Real Estate Journal would be willing to reduce the price for an ad for the City of Shakopee. BACKGROUND: On May 19, 1988 a brainstorming session was held with staff from the Minnesota Real Estate Journal on potential topics for our Market Focus Section. At that time staff inquired whether or not the City could get a break on the cost of an ad. Representatives from the Real Estate Journal responded by stating that they have never given a community an advertising discount in the past and felt that it would be bad precedent for them to do so at this time. Staff then contacted the Shakopee Chamber of Commerce to see if they would be interested in jointly producing a one page advertisement in the Market Focus Section. The Chamber of Commerce was very receptive to this idea and has agreed to cover 50% of the cost of a one page ad. Staff has reserved the front page inside cover of the Market Focus Section should City Council decide to pursue placing an ad in the Market Focus Section. Assuming that City Council wishes to proceed with a four color one page ad, the estimated total cost of $1400 would be split equally between the City of Shakopee and the Chamber of Commerce. Thus, the total cost to the City would be approximately $700.00. There are adequate funds within the Community Development Commission budget to cover the City's share of the cost of a one page ad. Staff believes that by participating in an ad with the Chamber, the City of Shakopee would be sending a strong message to developers that the City is interested in attracting development and has a good partnership with the Chamber. Therefore, staff is recommending that City Council authorize the appropriate City officials to work with the Chamber of Commerce and the Minnesota Real Estate Journal in preparing a one page ad on the City of Shakopee for the Market Focus Section. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Authorize the appropriate City officials to work with the Chamber of Commerce in preparing a one page ad for the Market Focus Section of the Minnesota Real Estate Journal at a cost not to exceed $700. 2. Do not place an ad on the City of Shakopee in the Market Focus Section of the Minnesota Real Estate Journal. 3. Wholely sponsor a one page ad in the Minnesota Real Estate Journal without the Chamber of Commerce participation. 4. Authorize the appropriate City officials to work with the Chamber of Commerce in preparing an ad of a different size for the Market Focus Section of the Minnesota Real Estate Journal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative M1. ACTION REODESTED: Move to authorize the appropriate City officials to work with the Chamber of Commerce in preparing a one page ad for the Market Focus Section of the Minnesota Real Estate Journal. MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant RE: Huber Park Trail and Observation Platform Resolution No. 2911 DATE: June 3, 1988 INTRODUCTION• On June 3, 1988 bids were received and publicly opened for the Huber Park Trail and Observation Platform Project. BACKGROUND: On April 5, 1988 City Council authorized the appropriate City Officials to advertise for bids for the Huber Park Trail and Observation Platform Project. Due to an irregularity in the specifications, on May 3, 1988 City Council moved to reject all bids and directed the appropriate City Officials to re-bid the project and amend the plan specifications to eliminate the irregularity. On June 3, 1988 bids were received and publicly opened for said project. The following bids were received: 1. Job Erection and Engr. Inc. $107,729. 65 2. Kratochvil Construction 108,918.85 3 . Lakeland Nursery 110,968.00 4 . David Volkmann Construction 128,415.00 5. Dieseth Specialty Company 144,542.00 The City Engineer has reviewed the bids and they are in order. The low bid of $107,729. 65 of Job Erection and Engr. Inc. is slightly above the Engineer's estimate of $107, 108.00. Staff is therefore recommending that the bid of Job Erection and Engineering, Inc. be accepted. Shown in attachment #1 is Resolution No. 2911 accepting the bid of Job Erection and Engineering, Inc. and authorizing the appropriate City Officials to enter into a contract with Job Erection and Engr. Inc. for the Huber Park Trail and Observation Platform Project. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Move to offer and approve Resolution No. 2911. 2. Do not approve Resolution No. 2911. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative #1. ACTION REOUESTED: Move to offer Resolution No. 2911 accepting the bid on the Huber Park Trail and Observation Platform Project No. 1987-15 to Job Erection and Engineering, Inc. , P.O. Box 316, Shakopee, MN 55379 in the amount of $107,729. 65 and move its adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 2911 A Resolution Accepting Bid On Huber Park Trail & Observation Platform Project No. 1987-15 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the Huber Park Trail Project , bids were received , opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: Job Erection & Engr. , Inc. $107 ,729.65 Kratochvil Const. Co. $108 ,918.85 Lakeland Nursery $110 ,968.00 David N. Volkmann Const. $128,415.50 Dieseth Specialty Co. $144,542.00 AND WHEREAS, it appears that Job Erection & Engr. , Inc. , P.O. Box 316 , Shakopee , MN 55379 is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1 . The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Job Erection & Engr . , Inc. , in the name of the City of Shakopee for the improvement of Huber Park Trail & Observation Platform, 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 Ild MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant RE: Shakopee Derby Days DATE: May 31, 1988 INTRODUCTION• For the past three months I have been working with the Chamber of Commerce to coordinate a major community celebration scheduled for June 25th and 26th. The celebration is entitled "Derby Days". At this time, I would like to review the major activities and events planned for this celebration with City Council and request their consideration of several inkind contributions and use of City property for the event. BACKGROUND: The City of Shakopee currently does not have a community celebration. Several months ago I contacted several of the retailers in the downtown to see if we could put together a small event for Cities Week. Due to the great enthusiasm showed by the retail community, it was decided at that time to pursue a much larger community festival. Thus, the idea of Derby Days was born. The Shakopee Chamber of Commerce is coordinating the community celebration. However, I have been serving as Chairperson for the event. To date, the response from the retail community and interested individuals has been overwhelming. Several of the major events planned for Derby Days include an Arts and Crafts Festival, Family Fun Walk along the Minnesota Valley Trail, antique car parade, softball tournament, concerts and entertainment. Food and refreshments will also be available throughout the celebration. A beer garden staffed by the Shakopee Jaycee's is also being proposed for the celebration. The Derby Days Committee believes that a beer garden is a key attraction in summer festivals. Shown in attachment #1 is a calendar of events for the two day celebration. The Derby Days Committee has selected Downtown Shakopee as the focal point for the celebration. The Committee would like to request the City Council to approve blocking off Lewis Street in Downtown Shakopee between First and Third Avenues and Second Avenue between Holmes and Sommerville Street for the two day celebration. The Shakopee Police Chief has reviewed this request and is in support of it providing that the barricades are removed upon the conclusion of each day's activities. The Arts and Crafts Festival will be held on Lewis Street between First and Second Avenues. An entertainment stage will also be located in front of Bill's Toggery on Lewis Street. A 401x80' tent will be erected on the Gene Brown lot adjacent to Second Avenue. The tent will serve as a focal point for the food and refreshment sales. Section 7.08 of the Shakopee City Code allows for the sale of goods upon public property with City Council approval. I would therefore like to request City Council to approve the Derby Days Committee request for the sale of goods by the arts and crafts vendors and food and refreshment vendors on public property during the Derby Day celebration. A tent company has been contracted to erect the tent for the Derby Days celebration. However, we are in need of picnic tables to be used in the tent. I would therefore like to request the City Council to authorize the use of the City Park or Maintenance crews to assist in relocating picnic tables to the tent site for the Derby Day celebration. I would also like to request City Council to approve the use of City Park or Maintenance crews for assistance in clean-up following the Derby Day celebration. I do not anticipate refuse to be a major problem. Our local refuse contractor (Waste Management Inc. ) has agreed to provide us with refuse containers to be positioned throughout the downtown area during the celebration. our refuse contractor has also agreed to provide the City with four free port-a-lets for the celebration. We will be renting an additional four port-a-lets for the celebration. Because the event is scheduled for St. Paul Derby Weekend, I would like to request the City Council to approve the provision of a Shakopee Police Officer for traffic management in the downtown area during the two day celebration. I would also like the City Council to provide at least one police officer for the Gary and the Beachcombers Beach Party to be held at the Shakopee Municipal Pool on Sunday evening, June 26th. The Chief of Police has been contacted with this proposal and believes that staffing can be arranged. In terms of parking logistics, staff has developed a plan to deal with potential parking problems. Shown in attachment #2 is a summary of the parking plan that we will be utilizing to alleviate parking and traffic problems in the downtown area. Shown in attachment #3 is a map indicating various available parking lots and the proposed streets to be blocked off in the downtown area. One of the major attractions at this year's Derby Days Festival will be sky divers. The Sky Diving Organization that we have contacted is called Blue Sky Productions. The club has made many appearances in the Metropolitan Area including landing on the corner of 5th and Marquette in Downtown Minneapolis. The Chamber would like to commission Blue Sky Productions to do a similar jump in Downtown Shakopee. In order for Blue Sky Productions to make the jump in downtown Shakopee, the City Council must give them permission allowing them to jump on City property. We are proposing that the sky divers land on Lewis Street between Second and Third Avenues or the Second Avenue parking lot depending on wind conditions. Blue Sky Productions will obtain all the necessary FAA Clearances and will provide a $1 million liability policy which shall name the City of Shakopee as an additional insured. The Derby Days Committee believes that this event will attract a good audience and is requesting City Council permission allowing Blue Sky Productions to jump on City property providing that the appropriate FAA Clearances and $1 million liability policy is obtained. shown in attachment #4 is a copy of the Derby Days budget. Note that this portion of the budget excludes all marketing. There is a separate marketing budget which is in excess of $10,000. The Derby Days Committee is very enthused about the possibility of operating the first annual Derby Days at a break- even or small profit. We are also very pleased that we did not have to request any City financial assistance in this endeavor. (With the exception of inkind contributions) . SONMARY If City Council has any suggestions or comments regarding the Derby Days Festival, please feel free to bring them to my attention. The following is a list summarizing the areas in which City assistance is being requested. 1. Permission to block off Lewis Street between First and Third Avenues and Second Avenue between Lewis and Sommerville Streets from 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. on June 25th and 26th. 2. Permission for the sale of goods on public property. 3. Permission to utilize City Maintenance crews to assist in preparing for the celebration and to assist in clean-up following the event. 4. The provision of one police officer during the day on June 25th and 26th and one police officer for the Gary and the Beachcombers Concert at the Shakopee Municipal Pool on the evening of June 26th. 5. City Council permission allowing sky divers to land on City property. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Move to approve the inkind contributions and requests by the Chamber of Commerce for the proposed Derby Days Celebration. 2. Do not offer any inkind assistance for the proposed Derby Days Celebration. 3. Select those activities in which the City agrees to provide inkind assistance for the proposed Derby Days Celebration. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #1. ACTION REOOESTED: Move to approve the Chamber of Commerce's request for inkind assistance for the proposed Derby Days Celebration and grant permission for the following: 1. Permission to block off Lewis Street between First and Third Avenues and Second Avenue between Lewis and Sommerville Streets from 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. on June 25th and 26th. 2. Permission for the sale of goods on public property. 3. City Council permission allowing sky divers to land on City property. // d, Attachment $1 Shakopee Derby Days Calendar of Events Shakopee Valley News Scavenger Medallion Hunt Saturday, June 25th. 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. Hardee's Derby Days Breakfast Fest 9:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. Derby Days Family Fun Walk for Foodshelf - MN River Valley Trail Lewis St. and Levee Dr. 10:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. Arts and Crafts Festival - Lewis St. 10:00 a.m. MCDonalds Cup Skydivers - Lewis St. (Alternative Date - Sunday 11:00 a.m. ) 10:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Ongoing Live Entertainment - Lewis St. 3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. Redwolf Dixieland Concert - Lewis St. 5:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Ongoing Live Entertainment - Lewis St. 6:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. MN Ultra Light Air Show All Day Events Both Jaycee Softball Tourney - Tahpah Park Sat. and Sun. Food and Refreshments Booths - Lewis St Sunday Events 11:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Arts and Crafts Festival - Lewis St. 11:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Ongoing Live Entertainment - Lewis St. 2:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Classic Car Parade 3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. Jordan Jam Concert (50's Band) Lewis St 5:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. Stage Entertainment - Lewis St. 6:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. MN Ultra Light Air Show 6:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Gary and the Beachcombers Beach Party Lions Park - Municipal Pool 6:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Hot Air Ballon Lift Offs - Lions Park Attachment #2 Parking Logistics All vendors must utilize the parking lots north of First Ave. All downtown merchants will be encouraged to have their employees utilize the parking lots north of First Ave. All property owners within six blocks of the downtown area will be contacted two weeks in advance of the celebration explaining potential traffic and parking problems. signs will be posted throughout the Downtown during the celebration directing people to designated parking lots. Mr. Wampachs lots will be available for parking during the celebration. owners of private lots not in use by the owner during the cele- bration will be approached to determine if they can be used by the public during our celebration. { <..3U�'�'Lu e..tii� � •L zi ga � ,cY � 4A 4 �4n MKO z-AMy.a . .;: �� Y Attachment #4 BUDGET PROJECTIONS (Excluding Marketing Budget) Expenditures Gary and the Beachcombers 900.00 #1 Family Fun Walk 1000.00 Redwolf Dixieland Concert 560.00 Jordan Jam Concert 250.00 Skydivers 800.00 Rennaissance Players 150.00 Gym/Dance/Music Demonstrations 475.00 Stage and Sound 75.00 Clean-Up/Waste Disposal 350.00 Shakopee Derby's 1853.00 Tent Rental 750.00 Hot Air Balloon Ride 150.00 Contingency 600.00 Total Estimated Expenditures $ 7913. 00 Revenues Chamber Retail Budget Transfer 1000.00 Corporate Sponsors (Actual) 2750.00 #2 Beach Party Admissions 300.00 #3 Vendor Contracts 100. 00 Arts and Craft Booth Fee 900.00 Twin Cities Musician Union Grant 148.00 Shakopee Derby Sales 2940.00 #4 Total Estimated Revenues $8138.00 EXCESS REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES $225.00 1. $800 Beachcombers and $100 Pool Staff 2. $500.00 Certainteed $300.00 Perkins *$500.00 Lions *$300.00 Mdewakaton Community $500.00 Shakopee Area Transit $250.00 Ryder Student Trans. $300.00 Country Medical *$100.00 Rahr Malting *Received Payment 3. 150 persons and $2. 00 ea. 4. Give 28 Derby's away and sell 980 @ $3.00 Ea. 5. Jaycees Softball Tourney - No Cost shziknprr Tommuttag 'i9mratinn 129 Levee Drive Shakopee, MN 55379 Phone: 612-445-2742 Memo To: John Anderson, Shakopee City Administrator From George F. Muenchow, Director - Shakopee Community Recreation Subject: Shakopee Derby Days Concert - Municipal Swimming Pool Date June 3, 1988 Introduction The Shakopee Chamber Of Commerce "Derby Days" Committee has been in touch with our office for sometime planning a family type concert to be held in the Municipal Swimming Pool Complex the evening of June 26. Today we have been informed of the finalization of their plans and we recommend cooperation with the same. Background 1. This musical event will be the climax activity of this weekend festival. 2. The concert will take place between 6-8 PM. on Sunday, June 26, 1988. 3. Normal open swimming hours at the pool occur until 7:00 PM that day. People that are in the pool complex before 6:00 PM will be allowed to stay for the concert at no additional charge. 4. Those entering the complex from 6-8 PM will be charged $2.00 per person and this money will be the property of the Derby Days Committee. Swimming Pool Season Pool Season Tickets will not be honored at this time. 5. The City Of Shakopee Swimming Pool Staff will operate and control everything within the pool complex. For this service the Derby Days Committee will contract to pay $100.00. 6. Concession stand and water slide activity will continue as normal with receipts going to the City. 7. Parking control will be the responsibility of the Derby Days Committee. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Of Shakopee cooperate with the Chamber Of Commerce "Derby Days" Committee in permitting a family type concert to be held in the Shakopee Municipal Swimming Pool Complex as outlined. A COOPERATIVE EFFORT OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AND SCHOOL DISTRICT 720 SINCE 1954 fie" MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Application for Temporary 3. Beer License by the Shakopee Jaycees DATE: May 25, 1988 INTRODUCTION: The Shakopee Jaycees have applied for a temporary 3.2 beer license to sell beer on the Gene Brown property during Derby Days, June 25th and 26th. BACKGROUND: The application from the Shakopee Jaycees for a temporary 3.2 beer license for June 25th and 26th is in order for Council approval, except for the public liability insurance. The City Code requires that all certificates of insurance state that the City shall receive 10 days notice prior to cancellation of the insurance. The public liability insurance certificate does not contain this clause. Instead it contains the standard cancellation clause used by the insurance industry: "Should any of the above desicribed policies be cancelled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing company will endeavor to mail 10 days written notice to the certificate holder named to the left, but failure to mail such notice shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon the company, its agents or representatives." The insurance company is unwilling to change the cancellation clause to meet our requirements. The liquor liability (dram shop) insurance certificate does contain the required cancellation clause. This is a requirement of state law and insurance companies have adjusted to complying with it. Based upon this information Council would be required to deny the Jaycees a temporary beer license for Derby Days as well as any other application they may make in the future, if the insurance company continues to use their cancellation language. I contacted a few other communities to learn what insurance requirements they have relating to temporary beer licenses on public property. The cities of Savage, Prior Lake, Bloomington, Burnsville, Chanhassen and Minneapolis do not require a public liability policy. I do not recommend that we dispense with requiring public liability insurance; however, I do recommend that we accept the standard cancellation clause used by insurance companies rather than the clause contained in the city code. If Council concurs, an amendment to the city code would be required. Such and amendment would have to be adopted and published before the Jaycees could be granted a temporary beer license. I have drafted the attached ordinance amending the city code. This ordinance has been reviewed by the City Attorney and is in order, as to form. The City Attorney, however, does not recommend that Council change the city code, but that the city continue to require the cancellation clause as currently worded in the city code. Temporary beer licenses are not available to anyone. In order to obtain a temporary beer license, an applicant must be a club or charitable, religious, or non-profit organization, duly incorporated as a non-profit or religious corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, and having its registered office and principal place of activity within the City. Why don't other communities require the public liability insurance coverage when they issue a temporary beer license? Because cities carry public liability insurance on city property through their own insurance. The advantage of requiring public liability insurance for a temporary beer license is that any claims occurring as a result of the issuance of the license would then go against the licensee's policy, not against the city's policy. ALTERNATIVES: 1] Deny application for a temporary beer license 2) Amend city code by changing the cancellation notification language - adopt attached ordinance 3] Eliminate requiring public liability insurance. (If Council wished to do this, an ordinance would have to be prepared for a later council meeting, and, the attached ordinance would have to be adopted now in order for the Jaycee application to be considered at the next council meeting.) 4) Table the Jaycees' application for a temporary beer license. RECOMMENDATION: Alternatives 2 and 4. Adopt the attached ordinance and table the application for a temporary beer license. The ordinance will be published on June 15th and council can then approve the application and grant a license on June 21st. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1] Offer Ordinance No. 245, Ail Ordinance Amending The City Code, Chapter 5, Entitled -Liquor, Beer, and Wine Licensing and Regulation", and move its adoption 2] Table the application of the Shakopee Jaycees for a temporary 3.2 beer license. ORDINANCE NO. 245 Fourth Series AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING SHAKOPEE CITY CODE, CHAPTER 5, ENTITLED "LIQUOR, BEER, AND WINE LICENSING AND REGULATION" BY AMENDING SECTION 5.07 AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE SHAKOPEE CITY CODE, CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 5.99, WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION 1: REPEAL Section 5.07 entitled "Insurance Requirements" is hereby repealed. SECTION IT. ENACTING A NEW SECTION 5, 07 ENTITLED INSURANCE REOUZREMENT^ Whenever a liquor liability (dram shop) insurance policy or certificate is required by this Chapter, the applicant shall file with the City Clerk a policy or certificate of insurance showing (1) that the limits are at least as high as required, (2) that coverage is effective for at least the license term approved, and (3) that such insurance will not be cancelled or terminated without ten (10) days' written notice served upon the City Clerk. Cancellation or termination of such coverage shall be grounds for license revocation. Whenever a general liability (public liability) insurance Policy or certificate is required by this Chapter, the applicant shall file with the City Clerk a policy or certificate of insurance showing (1) that the limits are at least as high as required, (2) that coverage is effective for at least the license term approved, and (3) that the issuing company will endeavor to mail 10 days written notice to the City Clerk prior to cancellation of the policy. Cancellation or termination of such coverage shall be grounds for license revocation. SECTION IIT: ADOPTION BY REFERENCE The general provisions and definitions applicable to the entire City Code including penalty provisions of Chapter 1 and Section 5.99 entitled Violations A Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim herein. SECTION IV: 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. 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 at to fors this _ day of June, 1988. City Attorney M® J`O' ENT I Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director Re: Mileage Reimbursement Date: May 19, 1988 Introduction The City currently reimburses employees for the use of their personal cars for City business at the rate of $.21 per mile. Back round The IRS has issued revised regulations on the use of vehicles and revised the mileage allowance to $.22.5 per mile. Therefore, staff recommends that the City set the reimbursement rate for business use of personal cars at $.22.5 per mile effective July 1, 1988. The rate of $.22.5 is the cut off set by IRS. Several things are accomplished by keeping the rate within IRS guidelines: 1.) The City does not have to compute and pay FICA on any overage. 2.) The City saves the staff work involved in sorting through the vouchers for employee travel and subsistence reimbursement. 3.) The employee is saved the trouble of having to file the extra forms with their income tax return documenting business use of their car and avoids any question of the necessity of keeping a log of business miles for their personal car. Alternative 1. Keep mileage reimbursement rate at $.21/mile. 2. Set mileage reimbursement rate at $.22.5/ mile. Recommendation Alternative no. 1. Action Recuested Move to set the mileage reimbursement rate for the use of personal vehicles for City business at $.22.5/mile effective July 1, 1988. GV:mmr Uj Memo To: John R. Anderson, City Administrator From: Marilyn M. Ramer, Personnel Coordinator Re: Employee Exemption Status under FLSA Date: May 27, 1988 Introduction The FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) provides standards for determining the exempt or non-exempt status of employees. Exempt employees (often referred to as salaried or white collar employees) are not paid overtime when they work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Background Exemptions are based on the specific job descriptions and duties of the employees involved. The Department of Labor (DOL) has outlined and interpreted these statutory exemptions in its regulations (29 C.F.R. Part 541). These rules provide interpretative guidelines and set the standards for determining whether a particular employee qualifies under the executive, administrative or professional exemptions. Several years ago, staff discussed these exemptions with Cy Smfthe, Labor Relations Associates. See Attached memo of 9/24/85. Because the City was in the middle of the ,pending Comparable Worth study and subsequent salary adjustments and potential reclassifications, the City Planner and the Deputy Police Chief continued to be treated as non-exempt employees and received overtime/comp time for any hours worked over 40. The City implemented comparable worth effective with the January 1, 1987 pay plan for non-union employees and department heads. The results of several TSP (Time Spent Profiles) were appealed and revisions made. All appeals have been resolved and changes incorporated into the current pay plan. To assure that all department heads and employees are treated consistently, the exempt/non-exempt status has been reviewed with several positions needing to be correctly classified, namely: Administrative Assistant This position was upgraded by Council authorization in Oct. 1986 and qualifies under the administrative exemption. Prior to October 1986 the position was Administrative Intern and non-exempt. When it was upgraded, we failed to catch the need to reclassify the exempt/non-exempt status. Refer to attached copy of Stanton Job No. 65. - group five cities. All Administrative Assistant listed positions, except for Shakopee, report n (no) for O/T (overtime). Planner II Results of the comparable worth study indicated the previous City Planner position to be of a higher level than classified, therefore Council authorized re-classifying to Planner II by Res. 2660, December 21, 1986. In December 1986, when re-classifying to Planner II, we did not review the exempt/non-exempt status. This position qualifies under the professional exemption. Refer to Stanton Classification Between Planner (No. 62) and Sr. Planner (No. 63). A telephone survey was made to the listed cities in Group Five to poll if reported positions received overtime pay. All cities listed with the exception of Bloomington (union), have classified those as exempt with no overtime pay. Deputy Police Chief This classification was added to the 1987 Pay Plan as the comparable worth study showed it was significantly different than the Sergeants and is in a position to supervise the Sergeants. The wage schedule is determined by the Annual Pay Plan and although this position is no longer union, it is 'grandfathered" to retain full Police union benefits. The position qualifies under the administrative exemption. Refer to Stanton Job No. 31, 19 of 22 Deputy Chiefs reported do not receive overtime pay and are non-union. Inspector In 1985 it was determined the Inspector was a "working" inspector. A full-time permanent assistant inspector has since been added to the Building Inspection Dept. In addition, the Building Inspector appealed the results of his TSP. He made, and the City Administrator approved, revisions significantly increasing time spent on supervising activities and management of all city building maintenance which resulted in points increased from 84 to 93. (There was no salary change as a result of the point change.) The Inspector position, based upon the above changes, qualifies under the administrative exemption in that the employee must exercise discretion and independent judgments and the special training that is required. Refer to Stanton Job No. 21. Recreation Supervisor II This position qualifies under the professional exemption and has been treated "unofficially" as exempt. This individual agrees with the classification and has no problems with it. Refer to Stanton Job. No. 55. Summary The question of exempt/non-exempt classification status for these positions is quite clearly defined. All should be classified as exempt. Staff is seeking direction on the method and timing of implementation. July 1st is the recommended date of implementation. The Personnel Coordinator and the City Administrator did meet individually with those affected, each having varying degrees of acceptance. This will have some financial effect plus a "psychological" effect on employees who feel something is taken from them. Conversely, it is important that City policy be consistent, following and adhering to the same guidelines for all employees. Not doing so creates morale problems amongst other employees who have previously been qualified as exempt and are treated according. The affected employees are currently at the top pay plan step for their position, except the Adm. Ass't. position. The comparable worth formula for the current pay plan includes Stanton market averages @ 498 for all the above listed positions, therefore the pay plan reflects rates comparable for exempt individuals. (518 of pay is based on actual comp worth points). Exempt employees are not allowed to accrue comp time as that is considered unpaid overtime. The City Administrator does have an "umttitten informel^ comp policy for exempt employees whereby he will allow them to occasionally take a few days off referencing excessive hours worked previously. He can explain in more detail. Note: Eden Prairie gives all exempt employees an additional one week/year vacation and some cities are beginning to incorporate a 5-10% pay plan adjustment for exempt employees under comparable worth. This is an issue we have noted before but not yet dealt with. Alternatives 1. Officially designate exempt status for Adm. Assistant, Planner II, Deputy Police Chief, Inspector and Recreational Supervisor II effective July 1, 1988. 2. Alternative #1 but with a later implementation date e.g. Jan. 1, 1989 when normal annual adjustments are made. 3. Maintain the status quo until the people filling the currently unclassified positions are changed. 4. Other Recommendation The City Administrator and I recommend alternative #1. We realize that this may be contested or challenged by some or all of the affected employees. According to Cy Smyth, employers have been reviewing employee status since the FLSA ACT of April 1986 and are continuing to review on a continuous basis to make certain employees are appropriately classified. He recommended determining appropriate status and advising employees that they will be treated accordingly. Action Renue t d Alternative #1. Memo To: John R. Anderson, City Administrator From: Marilyn M. Remer, Personnel Re: Employee Exemption Status under FLSA (Informational) Date: September 24, 1985 Introduction A Background The FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) guarantees employee certain minimum wages and time and one-half overtime standards. The "Act" defines several labor categories as exempt from provisions of the Act. Basic exemptions include elected officials, executive employees, administrative employees, professional employees and certain seasonal recreational workers. The first step in complying with the FLSA is to determine wnich employees are exempt under the Act. There are a number of specific definitions qualifying employees for the exempt status, such as salary of at least $250/week, primary duty of managing department, supervising work of employees, discretion A inde- pendent judgement and not more than 50% of time spent actually working. Cy Smithe, Labor Relations Associates was present at the September 18th staff meeting to help staff determine the exemptions based on the FLSA criteria. The following determinations were made: Department Heads are generally all exempt as executive employees. The City Clerk position is exempt as administrative. One Department Bead, the City Inspector was found to be non-exempt because 65% of his time is spent actually doing inspections rather than supervising/administrating. This position must then comply with the FLSA which means all hours worked over 40 hours/week must be paid as overtime. Public Works Department Super- visors, Harry Pass A Howard Heller were also determined to be "working foremen" and as such non-exempt. The Deputy Police Chief position is ex- empt. The City Planner and the Community Services Programmer were determined to be professional personnel and as such are exempt positions. These classifications are effective immediately with compliance to the Act retro to April 15, 1985. To recap, the only changes as a result of establishing these exemptions are the City Inspector position who was previously treated as exempt, but is now non-exempt and the City Planner who is now exempt but was previously non-exempt. Fair Labor Standards Act 13 • responsible with he el Com MY 9511.1 Eaeeutive, for rompliantt wish Nc minimum wage Pm[om,ed indefinitely et 98 FR 119'!2.Fep. rc0uircmmu of the Am during the time tM1e ThP tem' 'employee employed in a 12.108L eml9oyre on,a panirobr esmbinfor m.To Dona fitle lxeoutive npaCily' in The text of ceragnpn UI set forth above emoovry hnPrompany would beeomNaod section 13011(1)of the Act shall mean remmm m effect pending funkier action py e,po t,blr for Ihe puvmenl of any employ": Nr iumng agenq. The 11x1 of the post. hum tram Cooper over pored refulanon appear.below. Mmauon thIhremployernnren a la) Whose PTIMIl Cy duly m l f through ns act Lhn the employer recnvrd Ihr r l'^ DAUU•m p:dl.t fapalin. of the enterprise 111 aurked.O which ift etl Ina ovenimr a be winch he is employed m n a custom- worked..Of course.In the work eewoked in drily re hereof: tl department of subtli- One O of s0 horn in any workweek for any vision thereof,and ff)Who m romcemsted for ms senhoes on one ty mehtolibl, thin employer would of (b) Who customarily and regularly g salary Wsa al a rate of not less than$325 Jollity responsible for he proper prvmsnl re, ce Week beginning February 13. 1981 an, overtime u well u he proper minimum employees therein;and or MO per week beginning February 13. 1983 wage,or (e)Who has the authority to hire or 1981 and J20D me eek beginning ing]Fc r 13, 3. Where the anplMen are oat coin elel Bio- Der week beginning Febmary attributed with respect to he em o y fire other employees or whose sugges. 13.1983.If=Ploy"by other man toe Fed- W Ymrnl of. tions and Mompopendatiom as to the en] GOvemment in Puerto Rico, the Virgin a particular employee and may be deemed to hiring or firing and as m the advance- Islam he Amam. Samoa, exclusive of shwa Comrol of the employee,directly or in- merit and Promotio, or shother board.ladgmul.or otner facilities: Pa Unum, dircelh, by reasons of the fain M., one em- change of status of other employee That an employee who b eomcensued on a ployw ronuols, n ronirolled by, or m under all,be given particular weight and .alar bum at a tete Of not las than 6320 common convol with the othtt employer. (d) Who Cusmm¢rily and regularly $3M weak 95 cer week beg Febeuary 13. 1981 and exercises,discretionary k boric February, 33. 1883 Hor more if all the n men!fatty establish that Y powers:reit for Sand her week eek beiro February 13, two or more employers are awing mtircly Inde- (!) Who doe not devote more than 1981 and$285 per week tithe,i ng Febmary hudrnllY Of each other and me romplmely Ch- 20 pircent or, In the cue Of 8e, em- 13.1983,if employ"by other man me Fe0- almetaltd with trustee, to the employment ploy" of a retail or service establish.- era] Government m Puerto Rico,me Virgin P Ymrnt of a merit who tloes not devote at much as Islmds or Amenoan Samoa), exclusive of week C lar employee,who doing the ume work- board.]WM9,or other tadbties, it whose week cerforms work formorc thin one nnployer, 90 percent, of his hours of work in the primary duty eomists of the managemem of earn employer may disregard all work performed workw"k W a [[vines which Ire not the enterprise in which me employee m an by the employs fm the other employer (0, directly and closely relate to t e per- Ployed or of a customarily reepgnimd de empiayen)In duchni ning his own rcsponsibili- f m o e Wor !sin' 1n Partment or subtivmmn thereof, and in lies under In,A. p (a) mYg ( )o 15 s C- bgOa me Customary and reMar tlirectum tion: ProvidedThat this paragraph of me work of two or more other employees • shall not ¢pply in Ch e casmerem,shall he deemed o meet all me m. e of an !m, Ploy" who is m sole Ctlarge of an in- auiremmta of[his section. APPENDIX B. depentlenc establishment or a Phys- $5113 Adardisd wtire, DB}Initlans nl Fv iraBY Sepantetl braveh tstablishment, _emat F a H' •— or who owns at least a R0.percent in- The term "employee employed in a Adminlstrators. Professlonal9 [!rest m Ne enterprise in which heti bona fide • • • moinistranve • • • ea. Ona (BOC Eir-1 rs—�• employed and PItGLY" in section 13(a)(1) of the Act fD Who B eompermeted for his xrv- shall mean any employee: ices on a salary basis at a rate of not tat Whose Prim-Cl' darty consists of cow arsmnw a.rm.,we,mcga.aw,.scto-s,tw Jess than $155 per week (or $130 per either: Week, ft employed by other than the (1) The performance of office or PART 541—DEFINING, AND DELIMIT- Federal Government in Puerto Ric. 13OLI ua work air nc rdcri ,p ING THE TERMS ••ANY EMPLOYEE the Virgin Itatmis or American manaeelfent ppiil•les or EMPLOYED IN A BONA FIDE EXEC- OthBaper famhtiem,Provided 1 that M mor e nest Operations curt of his employer or his employer's cusmmers.or FESSIONALACAPACITY (INCLUD NINISTRATIVE, OR PRO G h¢syeeawho us COmPehsu;d an a than I (2) The performance of functions in lessthe administration Of a school system. ANY EMPLOYEE EMPLOYED IN THE per W"k (or 5200 per w"k. if em or educational establishment or insti- CAPACITY OFACADEMIC ADMIN- played by other than the Federal Gov- tutlon. or of a deparcment or stipple, ISTRATIVE PERSONNEL OR TEACH- ernmen[in Puerm Rimthe Virgin Is, tion thereof, in work directly related , ER IN ELEMENTARY OR SECOND- lands or American Samoa), exclusive to the muctemic instruction Or training ARY SCHOOLS), OR IN THE CA- of hoard, lotlging, or other facilities, carried on therein:and PACITY OF OUTSIDE SALESMAN" and whose primary duty.Consists of (m m Who customarily it regurl lay the management of the enterprise in which the employee is employed or of mtlgmeni:and Subpart A—General Reguibfiena a customanlY remgni¢ed deP¢nmem (C)(1J Who regularly nn d 1 or subdivision thereof. and includes — _a propnemr. or an employee em $Si I.0 Terms ueetl in rtxulationa the customary snit regular,direction of cloyed In a bona fide exem4ve or ad- M) "Admfnbtramr" means the Ad- the work of two or more other employ nonistmtive capacity (for such terms mtnistramr of the W ees therein, shall be deemed to meet are defined in the regulations of this vision. U.S. Department oafPLabor. The all the renuiremenfs of this section. subpart,or Secretary of labor has dela atm [as FR 11390.May 7.1073,as amended at 90 (2) Who Performs under O[dy genet, W M 7092.Peb.19.1975] al au erv' i k al - 1 tl the Atlministmtor the functions vested in him under section 13(a)(D of Pw mowed aermumiub5: Paragraph (fl in or fe`hnWal 'work rec ulrmg am,,, the Fair Labor Stands rda Al. 1891.1 was revised at 98 M 3013. Jan. 33. training,experience,or knowledge,or (b) ••Art" means the Fair labor last. a acro f Jct with 9. 198 Prealdent's (3)Who executes under poly oeol,,t Standards Act of 1938.ar amended. 11227,rbmbbu8, 1981). the leffective(date waz [aasP l[s anan special d 14 Management Information Service tl) Who does not devote more than eq°al b Me Ntralltt Wary IM take N <e) Who b mmcensated fm services 20 reent, or, ip the case of an em the school ,a.. edusavonal numism on a salary or fee basis at a rate of not i pbyee of a re_11 Or service Irstablish- mens or Institution by which employed: Iryy Nan $170 Per week (E150 per mint who does not devote u much as Pmvlded.That An employee who h eompem week. If employed by other than the sated on a salary or lee bap at a rate Of not 40 percent,of his hours aneked in the les than 1320 per week bexmning February Federal Government In Puerw Rico. .or, [o activities which are not 131981 and 1345 per week beginning Febm the Virgin islands. Or American directly and closely related t0 Ne per- a,, 13. 1983(3260 per week beginning Pet- Samoa). exclusive of board.lodging, or immance of .the work described m a ruy W. 1981 and 9=5 per week beginning other facilities: Provided. That this pi)3agranhs,,_(A)through (e)of.this sec- February 13. 1983. If employed by other paragraph shall not apply to the case hors;and than the Federal Govemment in Puerto of an employee who it the holder of a Will Who m- win for his Rim, the V)rpn Islands. or American valid Iicimme or certificate permitting tee baso ata 5anw1, excluswe of boats. Iotl9mg. or the practice of law or medicine or any services on a salary of rate of not less than $fee per week °the, faclllus, and whose primary duty of their branches and who is actually consists of the cert°nnam, of work de engaged in the practice thereof.nor in (5130 per week. Ifemployedby other scribed In pknerspi (O of this section. the ease Of an employee who is the than the, Federal Government in which inebdea work requiring the exemise Puerto Rim, the Virgin Islands. Of of discretion and independent Aidgment. holder of the requisite a officamed. American Samoa), exclusive of board, shall be deemed b meet all Me Mines- lodging. qutrO tlegr!!for N!general Practice of !d- lodging,or other facilities,or mens of this section. icine and v engaged in a , Internship (2)Who. in Me case of academic ad- or resident program pursuant to the mmistratne personnel, v compensated W 5J1.9 Prefeaional. practice of medicine or ani' Of its for services as Moored by paragraph The term "employee employed in a branches, nor in the case of an em- (e) (ll of this section. Or On a salary bona fide ' ' ' rofealo PI.Yee employed and engaged as a basis which is at least mus] M the en- in section 13(a)-U) of the Act shall teacher h polars: b paragraph trance salary, for teachers in the mean any employee: That of ads section:Provided earthed school system, educational establish- (a) Whose primary duty consists of That an employee who a compensated mens. or institution by which em- the Performance of few a salary or fee basis at a rale of not ployed: Provided. That an employee less than $250 per week fpr $200 per mmcensated on a salary or fee week. if employed t other than the who is basis at a rate of not less than 5250 (1) Work requiring knowledgeFederal Government fill Puerto Rico. Per week (E200 per week ff employe edvanee tv in a held o science or the Virgin Islands. or American by other than the Federal Govern- earning cusm Y acqu)re i' a Samoa),exclusive of board, lodging. or mint in Puerto Rim, the Virgin la- `we.muv.M t°lel, other facilities, and whose primary lands. or American Samoa). exclusive ]^coal mstruc[1on and SLudY,as dmtm- duty formats of the performance of board,American or other faof]t[aes, gmffiietl from a general academic mu- either of work described in paragraph and whose Primary duty r facilit of ration and from an apprenticeship. (a) (1)or (3) of this section, which m- the Performance of work tleseribed in and from training m Me performance eludes work requfrinB-Me consistent l paragraph la) of this section, which of routine mental,manual. or physical exercise Of discretion and judgment.or paragraph s work Mulling ofhisthe exercise of processes•or of work requiring Invention, imagtna- incluesand n the judgment.Of (2) Work that u original and cre. tion, or talent in a recognized field of shall discretion deemed rad independent n M meet ail the rt. ative M character m a recognized field artistic endeavor, shall be deemed M of artistic endeavor in Opposed M meet all of the requirements of this qutrements of Inescetion. work which can be produced by a section. f38 FR 11390.1laY 7,1973.u upended at 40 person endowed with general manual (38 M 11390.)day 7.1973.as xmended at 40 FR 7092.Feb.19.1975) Or Intellectual ability and trambg). FR 1092.Feb. 19.19751 and the result of which depends pri- Pou2eM eeised .1 P 3013 (e) 3. madly on the invention tmagtna um. Ponpmd geralaa°na P14aRraph le) in 1591.2 was revved at i t e F Jan 13., or talent Of Me emplOYM Or 1541.3 was revised at 46 Rt 3014. Jan 13. 1981. In areortlance colts Me PtesidentY last. to somedoom with Me Prsident'a Memorandum Of January 29. 1981 (46 FR (3) Teaching. tutoring, instructing. Mem°random of January' 29. 1981 (46 1R 11227. Feb. 6, 1981). the effective date was or lecturing in Me activity of impart- 11227. Feb. 6. 1981).the eflecave its" was postponed Indefinitely at 46 PR 11972.Feb, mg knowledge and Who v employed pciahoned indefinitely at 46 FR 11972.Feb. 12.1961. and engagetl M Mas activity a5 a[each- 12.1991. The text of paragraph (el set forth aloove e, in the school system Or edumtional The unit of paragraph(a)act torte above remains in ankey pmtlmg further action by establishment or institution by which remains in effect pending further action by the Waiting agency. The text of the pow- he is employed:and the Tamm{ "on". The text of the post- poned regulon.appears below. (b)Whose work re save_� pond reguluion appears below. a6ilQ Adamish-0- t T fl� ItmanfR.and 96.11.3 P,oferional. r s redommantl [ellectual and varieaTn Taraeter tea ' Icy(1)Who Is mrmickm ed for his serewes opposed uy routine mermul, manual, (e) who is celmPanaated for servtces On a on a salary or lee blot at a rate of mm[)es mechanical, or physical work) and is Way or lee buts a1 It rate of not lea than teat 5225 Pee week beeittnme February 13, of such character that Me output pro- 12W per week leegmrdrlg PebruarY 13. 1981 1931 and $no Par week beapmng February duced or the result accomplished and sten per week beginning Fetomi,y 13. 13. 1983 (1190 her week teammate February cannot be standardized in relation to If 1983 (S225 Par week beglnnm9 February 13. 13.1981 and 5200 Par week begirmin Febw- given Period Of time:and 1981 and S25o per weak to mPyg Februay wry, 13. 1983.11 emploYcd by other than the (d) Who does not devote more than 13. 1983 u employed by other Man the Ped Federal Govemment In Puerto Aim. the 20 percent of his hours Worked b the meral Govemment m Pueno Rom.the Virgin virgin Islands, or Aerican Samml,exch, islandsor "an= Samoa). exclusive of sive Of Iceland. imerm.or other nclllteea,or workweek w activities which are not board imams. or other facllltles:Provided. X2)Who;1n'the case of academle admirm an essential part of and necessarily 1n- Tho[to. paragraph shall not apply to the ' agave bora m i, i OomPannted for aero- cident m Me work described in pars- cue of an employee who is the holder of a des as required by paragraph (e)(1)of thu graphs la) through (c) of thus section. valid littme car ttrilficate permitting Me section,Or on a salary bats w$Rh Ia at limit and practice of law or medicine or any of their i v Om'/1nO.�V1V • -NrPNnNbn . cora : ::obNNnnmPP • Y�.p r nvtr-•mr-Imm�N r �y yVVQV Vnnnr x~ � •NPVOti L r bnrrmv'mmbm • 0>.en • •PmNmbymON r • m1y � �P • rOnPyPNbbn • •yy rVn�-n�lnnn • x rpmObJnNi00 • (L �Pf.lPbpbnNPNNt�OPnVn Y •mY�NbyV1�bV • O �PNNOv yOn'n V1NmPY1NVN • y.p r NOryVNnP.yV . pF+N - - - - - - - - - i.- - - - - n • ano dw �P � •m.annnPV VP • Y O �NOOVOOPmOnV•YOPnnn •yV VVnVnnnnN ryVF �nVnnnnNNnNNNNNN.-r.y S A •mnbNm000V • �POnll�bNbNynOP.+e'1VO.y L •PnmYNOnOnP • Y �mbbONnPPnyPnmPnVP r (.>.m r nOOV FOND • OJ�Y •m111m V1�N•-1 - - - - - - - 0Ny • • dN0 � �m • ymyr4ynnNn • L iP •mbnOnn�ONnVp-10mn�p V1V� �yn •VnnVnnnnN r yn �Nt.1Ne.1NNNNNNNN•�•�•-I•-Mr x x rybN�ONVPNn � •PmnyNNbnNNmONnBbm Y •-�PNnmmNnV r M nPV pnpmrlNbynnNlOnrtl • p}y • rPVObnPOnn � Or1'•W rbVnNV NNONTVO)Of�Nbm • a•-.o r • a.yo • C • Y •m • Nbmm�VNOb � Y rm rYINVnVYnnVNPbbNVnn 0 •yN i VnnnnnnnN �yN •NnNNNNNNNN•-Irl•-I•-Ir+NN A A T• •nymrlbnmVO • L •VnPv'ONOPPVNbnV�'1nN 0 • •nr-'NN�OP•yn0 • Y n•GNOnPCInn•p�T r+b�lbmP Y • 601P r •NNPNHn•yVn • .60Y rOONyeybmNPPN00nnnP r dUVt • • dYVI r y r •pvO.pONPmV • Lyn •.tpf+1NI1NNNNOCIyyJnNN m •yN r V nnnNflNNN •y r r NnNNNNNNNNryyryyy-•N P • mp Y _l O �l �V Y Y UY 1Rm V 'O O /1'- y0�d C 1'Gn yu ym 1YUY �+. n Cum.+p� X b mY£m Y3 mr•..•.� O pl r d>�>•Y YY YW'ONN NI-1Ny >r10.0.C^ Y � ggY UUMeO Od 06ti 6 U H YU TTO m� r y O 9 CF u.y O•Ym MF Y EFI-1 m FnY-+ ' r<� myhl6•VU UL mYn .mU mr+FYpO\\Y� FV Jd VUC GCVM X Ym- X1O V • y e..�g>y 6� CS-�C6 MCL: YYYOu 3l : .--o 0a DL2x mo Em OVddemmum � � •Uf+.UP•UVG.NU ulG6WF<W yYFFy6VVCU ooOEEK^ o� unai:{oa oY iz � � � wmnxmw� xn�aH zgoaY.�nr .<.ocR n nY n Y= YYLPmn HSO CID W �S1n r� O CyO YNOO V 4y C NO yID SN N N 1 H O_ 9 - m rrrrr-r uruurur u yy ^+ ee"� -� - o r n " r r - rruurr , v N r " a 4 9 n u S y Or ID222LLLZLt8 S8StID 22 ZS 2 �[ \ O � Yr � YOY x€xS znS3 ���Si nx �; s H " i Swyw� NSM my-H- r n ays s\ ziz z z zi a¢ a :� C or � � � �zzzs � es�°z�s xz zt c HHwHHHHM ��1�i�i�-K�i �iH Hsi N ' K N nNH r Lp Y n :S 0 ' qm n u o a ma N o m •S AF- SE :SE t uu u N w :� OA MM � S N :&nam m a N E E t E * � — . � Air -r air or § ; 3 ._: or dr dir _ . ( ( § 91 - AD. ) ( \ - R § _ ) S. . ... . _ . or dr .. _. x dr . . . _ - ,` I _ \\§: : ) § \();!I . w - } } \ }� } }{ \ } } } } } R - - \ \ \- - - - - - _ .r w or J or n 4F • rvn or 4 nV Or y L � •i- S : C nn n m YN�: nN N n n F w y Y Or o O � VpV n v v w u¢ or � 4� n nn ann nn n KV 6� ! T u � n nry rvry nn n n 6 OC OC 4 qtv �rTi ¢ e s9 � �F V Vf Vm 4F4h 4 NM s �' of i ¢ seine e Or Y M1: 6V n p{wF FFF�F VVVV4V �[ . e' Nn nrvNn .rvN.ry �� o �F: zz z ¢ Nr rzzez eessse n °e tsnoz: ze n ¢ n Nr rzzep pzsspz 0 o a 0 o S^ 4w o n �jm n 4w O O O O 4 or O x9 Ce s6 CCC nC~ C C- n CC p n or _ C 6i b b b 6 4w or n 4E mG T: L�: nn n n ] 77 app ] nnn pa r 999 n9n9 n9n or vn V nry ! M F t t N NN ux S O: LZ_ V Vrxi p> pCL O Y4�0 or > Y V� V N C zOi ¢ VOFOV 6 V `` ei M. q u: C: 00 K V M1 4 O 4VLV¢ O e 6Fu 4: n: x � 4 SYm 3T8� mugSsu Yu�iY wrCnH "m .� Z u. ` bs V y e IY' a Z :y m !' w y n w p 0 y yj 9 s for nrnnrnunrrn nO . : �� w aorumu.oaur �u � � a p ^ dr O a der a Y O O p di �. runrn n 4 � • n or u w an y y z p zp z amnme _ ao or dr .szzzzzawzsaz ^ a p ^ p azzzzzzzzzaz a + '� � : Ce eq omRsnn ,'e°z Doom n �= o r7 ^ C < Y9 ^ q ar or or a• <^ a > Ap t F er dr r ` Y T y y y4y 3K . Cn.YiwOOm DyO N TO pR KwyyW40 y ryi �; Y WMwyN �_+•� O KP •u jo =9 s s aCaCao =a o �= s s x :a KnK.i C 2 a � �Z • m N a JD - :pqY f aaa a CC .ay • a ! Y SAm asuaa :'u:u YB • mn 2 u q n nn = O 9 A 9 A i • O 66 A 6 C no n a nN r N W C A in ,. nu A n u A. u m • na a ow a a i pr A O A Y aKaaa Kaa:. KN as aowzc i • n ! avaaav aazaK Kwa a va Ngo n •� c z e a ruoa Cuy ma yw0yy yy up .< C oYC 0000 �e i � YVb be O .mi � � < .Ciy CC N NNN yAaw Ou 4W nYnnn Y° YY A4 G n 'o ea ^a m aggaa am+ n S� 40 £ bbVV Sw Vq a N LL rNNNN , y n Y � YYrw ,i N AD u Oa uww um n . O� • a n a a nn o m mw e * ev n K e O e oo •^ °m 6 Zy K n ww m , YN : m :� ° umi nK n n mtl ^ .a . « r. « W 7 z 4 v u H �a V V'" d•• � _ � aanCU c c i q > z z z z z z z zzzzz z z z> 0 lip - V d C S S 7 3 m 4W "PO T .r ar oror or F wor m « , LV�" O" 046ni « �n4V 44zw4 „ wl a yOtF w 4C0 „ Z V V VVtOfU Vnm SVUNppnVO VOw6 wwOwv� o o 6 .010-Lm�22LEi2Z0�m�.0-z mi V • 06mYnp "-"mOn m 0000« 0025 ^O V F• dwV000Vd0m- 0000556000.0 �0aOm0 .... . ..... siiece r maem zsewsewze ¢ seewwzwecciee ewccw � nl " A� r oil In r 4x O m n n ..n.�n .n.• - C n .�n n ^ m or 0 F 4 MW x • � 23 �o,��q gg ee gg " "• ° V "^ 0. V: ViwC� 0 ,tt11 a.4.Nwimmss+ud N: WY�16Y0WuuSN05FYY°ytj ppK O .m°: £snEz �o°� Sx4" 3: o : Gp � cuo°eN� � -r yOL000Pu09AA uYnc9wMO Op npnwpwEl w.{ YOOPiKNmaa<S6SPY.• Oni wO�YPCmri MYn 9 p0a YYCr'aYl :•9np/� :Yn C� ^Po. n O „•'AN aM O ^IO• :M y 9 Yn�q n �•a e M :s ai ap CxN •C nt T A • n m •P O w y rN�i :q' :• r A ernn ��rNnn..,NnnNnrrnnnNrn 8 7� =.g .. NC• : u si ��Y n Oi A .N...::o.N.N.rNa...N.eN.N9NNwN ei K2a `OJr � 1 01n ^^ n P rr .pp ur nn r r nrrr N.Y n {+ p e r urn r r r e ny • • A r • P p > • n n ql 8 • 0 9 O Y r 3 .. ... . . ....... .......... wa :aonac > >e ru aoNeJ oreuwo Naeuoou o .<[• \ n... PPS&'SCC ('���� ' e ' R R9P8.9�P.'a^Pn3.03\gt109 OY CAA CZTCv'eYC9CY9\ paY A :n eyy yy'O\AAeOAO !\f AAOAO p'p00 m <w iaRPP /nl llu� lwfaS /n1u Sa .YiP AO \a uC An O C p OC < p 99W NA9 OA•i99 '3< M< y e cur .o. ni. o_e uw. ruu uN py Im a ru au u c w JJ Syq' 2m 0 p ^ o ue ou o o a oo :MOb 4 C N .� •" o N r J :N Y [• :O n Am p O Yw : O m u :�ON riK u c Am s ZK� •! :§ .. : GPM dew or � OX or § ® \ I' }\� or air § .. dw, § q ) \ { or or � ) ) dw \5 / ) dw dw cow ! ! � no, mw or or � MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: LeRoy Houser, Building Inspector Barry Stock, Administrative Assistant Doug Wise, Planner II John DuBois, Deputy Police Chief RE: Employee Exemption Status Under FLSA DATE: May 31, 1988 INTRODUCTION• We the employees affected by the proposed change in the exemption status per Marilyn Ramer's memo dated May 27, 1988 would like to address the issue and our concerns. BACEOROUNDz Those affected by the proposed change in the exemption status believe that the FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) does not mandate that employers classify employees as exempt. In our opinion employers have at their discretion the ability to decide who shall be classified as exempt. The FLSA provides standards and guidelines for determining the exempt or nonexempt status of employees. Furthermore, we believe that a change in the exemption status of our positions constitutes a reduction in compensation. When several of us accepted positions with the City of Shakopee, we were paid over time/comp time any hours worked in excess of 40. Any change in the current exemption status at this time would be a reduction in compensation for the affected persons and in some cases cause a hardship for the employee. While the Stanton Survey does indicate that the affected job classifications are usually treated as exempt, we do not feel that we are being treated fairly. We would like to propose the following alternatives for City Council's consideration. We believe that any of the following alternatives would justly compensate the affected employees if a change in the exemption status occurs. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Maintain the status quo until the people filling the currently unclassified positions are changed. 2. Adopt a 10% pay plan adjustment for those persons affected by the proposed changes in exemption status. 3. Provide an additional week vacation and 58 pay increase for those persons affected by the proposed changes in exemption status. RECOMMENDATION• The affected persons recommend alternative #1. ACTION RBODBBTBD• Move to maintain the status quo until the people filling the currently unclassified positions are changed. CONSENT lb" MEMO TO: CITY COUNCIL JOHN ANDERSON-ADMINISTRATOR FROM: JIM KARKANEN-PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT:STREET PERSON DATE: 5/13/88 INTRODUCTION: The Public Works department is requesting Council approval to fill a vacancy in the Street Division. The position was authorized by Council in the 1988 budget process. BACKGROUND: The Public Works department budget for 1988 provides for the addition of a light equipment operator in the Street division after April of 1988. Council approval is requested to advertise the position as required, review the applications, and make a recommendation to Council to fill the position. The position to be filled is that of a light equipment operator which would involve driving trucks and operating equipment as required. ALTERNATES: 1 . Advertise the street position 2 . Do not advertise the position 3 . Delay the position opening RECOMMENDATION: Alternate No. 1 . Advertise for the street position. ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Personnel Coordinator and Public Works department to advertise, select, and make a recommendation to Council to hire a Light Equipment Operator for the Street Division as authorized by the 1988 budget. MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer SUBJECT: State Aid Streets DATE: May 26, 1988 INTRODUCTION: This memo addresses revising the state aid street designations due to recent Council action authorizing the closing of Apgar Street at the railroad crossing. BACKGROUND: At the May 17, 1988 regular meeting, City Council directed staff to enter into an agreement with the Soo Line Railroad for the removal of spur tracks thru Atwood and Scott Streets. One of the conditions of the agreement was that the City would close Apgar Street to traffic at the railroad tracks. Apgar Street from 1st Avenue to 6th Avenue is a Municipal State Aid Street (MSAS) . A state aid street must terminate at either another state aid street, county or state facility. The closing of Apgar Street at the tracks will require a redesignation of our state aid routes. This issue has been discussed previously by staff and Council and was also discussed in a past consultants report on improving various street corridors. Alternative State Aid Designation Routea One alternative route is to designate Scott Street, from 1st to 2nd and 2nd Avenue from Scott to Apgar as the state aid route. This would eliminate the need for a complete shift of the route from Apgar Street to Scott Street , but it would require additional signing and traffic control to direct the traffic along this route. (See Exhibit A) . Another alternative would be to designate Scott Street as a state aid street rather than Apgar. This redesignation could be done one of two ways. As a minimum it should go from let to 6th Avenues to terminate at another state aid street. It could also be designated all the way to 10th Avenue, which is a state aid route and then as development occurs south of the current S corporate limits, Scott Street could curve back to join County Road 15 to complete the state aid system (See Exhibit B) . In comparing the two routes, Scott Street and Apgar Street are - very similar in grade profile and driveway access needs. Scott Street is more institutionalized between 2nd and 4th, including the fire station, St. Mark' s school and the hospital. State Aid Streets May 26 , 1988 Page 2 Redesignating Scott Street will probably increase traffic on this street although the closing of the Apgar Street crossing will probably do the same. Either alternative would probably be acceptable to Mn/DOT. Staff would like authorization to proceed with contacting Mn/DOT for a redesignation of our state aid streets for whichever alternative is desired . RECOMMENDATION: - Staff recommends that the state aid route be changed from Apgar Street to Scott Street from 1st to 10th. It is my opinion that the traveling public will not change their driving habits due to a redesignation of state aid routes. The majority of the public _ are not even aware that these routes exist. Changing the state aid route simply provides additional funding for improving Scott Street rather than Apgar Street. REQUESTED ACTION: Authorize staff to apply to Mn/DOT to redesignate Scott Street from 1st to 10th as a state aid route and remove Apgar Street from the State Aid System. DH/pmp SYSTEM ►1 m Tomes a Ids 1 1 d11 �rdd d11r =Wdn Ie n111 ' 1� u 1 ,� ► d ` "� -d�rr IIIdd � dlrlr rrrr` .. � dr�rr ��� X11 rlrrlrn� alrrd =$ s r��' 1�1 r1�rr Ilrod�r rrlrr rrrr — rIr �rdd I��d1�r rrr r11dd °rrr° �w � rlrld '� nId Ir ©r1rd '� '�I�Id rrr�j i�dd Irrr1 r11�Id Ir�Id rlrla �' rrrlr � r�r1 rr� �ri11 rlr� °rrrr r r►rr1 11,�� mrd rr d o + do d� m dWOO � rrrdd orno : on�oa �o © : eo epi : as aWA aiMA �i ►►► "�j 111►1 ►►Ia ► ►,� , ►1 ► 11 jj ���1��►111 �► 1 ,�1►� �1►r ��M►�► X11 11 �v� __ ►1 -----!� - ,�►gip M��3- 1�_'�_/1�1 .11'111 � �f11►1 Ie n111 �1� u. 1=�r11 1111 ►► v�►► � rr,�+►_►v►� � 1►rrr lrrr �v Ir�rr r11 ►n1► r► ►► = 111► 1111 � i►�►► Iw►► ►► �► . . ►rr►►=►►'�► ►rrrr '�►�► °►i►© . ;. ills vry vrrr Irv► ►r�r vr►► 1 1! Irrr1 ►►�►► m► -rm► ►rr� •� �► �� or�r► ' ►�, IMP 'I►► ra. 11 ► r1�►r IIr r . ► rv►► rr�v ►►r►1 ►►r►a ►►r ►rev m►� e��d �, rrrr► ►rrrr p���o �_ o e ''� �' e�11 orn► w ��• � . Q� �+� She X00 �p 0 0lo sus - SMA ��� l�k MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer SUBJECT: Upper Valley Drainage Project - Amendment to Extension Agreement DATE: May 26 , 1988 INTRODUCTION: Attached is a letter from Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates, Inc. requesting an amendment to our extension agreement for the Upper Valley Drainage Project. BACKGROUND: On May 10, 1988 staff provided Council with a status report on the Upper Valley Drainage Project. At that time, it was brought out that several agencies are now requiring the City to obtain permits in order for our storm drainage system to discharge water into the Mill Pond due to its trout stream status. When the City entered into the original agreement with OSM, obtaining these permits was not part of the scope of services. According to the attached letter from OSM , obtaining and processing all permits , preparing an Environmental Assessment Worksheet and preparing the plans and specifications required to adhere to the permit requirements will require an amendment to the extension agreement of up to $25 ,000 .00 . ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Approve of the request for additional consultant fees to a maximum of $25 ,000 .00 to obtain all permits have the various agencies. 2. Deny the request. 3. Obtain the services of another consultant to obtain all permits. RECOMMENDATIONS: Due to the overall project being designed by Orr-Schelen-Mayeron and their overall familiarity with the project, staff recommends Alternative No. 1 . ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the appropriate City officials to enter into an amended extension agreement with Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates to a maximum amount of $25 ,000 .00 for the Upper Valley Drainage Project. DH/pmp OON siahelen AS�at�,a� 2021 East Hennepin Avenue Minneapolis,MN 55413 612-331-8660 May 13, 1988 FAX 331.3n6 En...... S.eyon Planners City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 ATTN: Mr. David Hutton, P.E. City Engineer RE: Upper Valley Drainage Project Shakopee, MN - OSM Cortin. #3845.10 Dear Mr. Hutton: As you know, the scope of engineering services for the above project has expanded due to the additional public agencies that are now involved. The original project was to terminate between the railroad right-of-way and T.H. #101. It now appears that substantial work will have to be done north of T.N. #101 in the Mill Pond area. It is very difficult to specifically determine the amount of additional time that will be needed to prepare the necessary permit applications, exhibits, and construction documents necessary to address these agency's concerns and obtain permission to discharge water into or through the Mill Pond area. We estimate the cost to prepare the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), make application for and obtain the necessary permits to range from $6,000 to $10,000. The work required to prepare the plans and specifications necessary to adhere to the permit requirements is estimated to cost from $15,000 to $30,000. We request an amendment to our present extension agreement to allow for these changes in the scope of engineering services, to complete the project to meet the requirements of the PCA, DNR and Corp of Engieners. We suggest the City consider authorizing a cast amendment reflecting an increase in fees of up to $25,000, and we will pursue the work as effectively as possible to stay within budget. We would like to point out that on all of our previous projects with the City of Shakopee, our final billings have run well under the contract amounts agreed upon in advance. Page Two Mr. David Hutton May 13, 1988 OSM enjoys our relationship with the City of Shakopee and will continue to work for the city in the most cost effective manner. Very truly yours, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - '0. 4IJQ Robert D. Frigaard RDF:klm ItSTATE OF RIDEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES wage No. 296-7523 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN . 55106 FILE HC. May 19, 1988 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Mr. David Hutton City Engineer 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: SHAKOPEE MILL POND, UPPER VALLEY DRAINAGE PLAN Dear Mr. Hutton: At our May 5th meeting at OSM, Inc., we concluded that the City of Shakopee will proceed with its plans to provide an outlet for stormwater to the Mill Pond. Since this is a designated trout stream, there will be stringent requirements imposed upon the City to preserve water quality standards and fish and wildlife habitat. -In addition this project appears to meet the mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) category under EQB Rule #4410.4300 Sub. 26. Though the PGA's water quality standards and DNR's permit regulations contain guidelines for this project, it was agreed at our meeting that we would need additional information to proceed. Accordingly, the Department will be developing additional documentation of the fisheries and wildlife values provided by the Shakopee Mill Pond. To the extent possible, we will also seek ways to minimize and mitigate any impacts to these resources. I have taken the opportunity to solicit assistance from a variety of agencies and funding sources and will keep you appraised of any developments in that direction. Meanwhile, I understand the City will be proceeding with a phased construction of the drainage system though no discharge is anticipated for several years. There are also a number of technical aspects regarding: groundwater flows, ponding needs, stream dimensions, dike construction requirements and so forth which the City, OSM, DNR and PCA will continue to address. However, I believe the City should take the lead role in identifying hydrologic and engineering aspects. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Page Two Mr. David Hutton May 13, 1988 OSM enjoys our relationship with the City of Shakopee and will continue to work for the city in the most cost effective manner. Very truly yours, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. _ "� 0 -' " '4 Robert 0. Frigaard RDF:k Im 'CQN MNT JI L MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: David Hutton, City Engineer-Y>11"4 SUBJECT: Meadows 1st Addition Reimbursement Agreement DATE: June 1 , 1988 INTRODUCTION: Attached is a copy of the proposed reimbursement agreement prepared by the City Clerk for the above referenced project. BACKGROUND: The current City special assessment policy states that the assessments for new residential street construction will be based on a 36 foot wide pavement and the assessment for new watermain construction will be based on 6 inch watermains. Any costs due to larger sized streets or watermains shall not be assessed to the property owners . This is also consistent with past practices. In the Meadow' s 1st Addition subdivision, Viering Drive is being constructed as a 50 foot wide collector street. This street is proposed to be a collector street along its entire length eventually . The approximate cost to the developer for constructing a 50 foot wide collector street rather than a 36 foot local street is approximately $9 ,000.00 . All of the watermains in the subdivision are being constructed either as 8 or 12 inch watermains versus the standard 6 inch main . The SPUC manager has reviewed the proposed watermain design and agrees with it. The approximate cost to the developer for constructing oversized mains is $19,000.00. The City will reimburse the developer for the costs associated with oversizing the streets while SPUC will reimburse for the oversized mains. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Approve of the Reimbursement Agreement. 2. Deny the Reimbursement Agreement. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends Alternate No. 1 . ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the attached Reimbursement Agreement between the City and the developer of the Meadows 1st Addition subdivision for the oversized streets and watermains. DH/pmp CITY OF SHAKOPEE INCORPORATED 1870 129 EAST FIRST AVENUE,SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 553791376 (612) 445365 May 27, 1988 Mr. Wayne Fleck Gold Nugget Development Inc. 8857 Zealand Ave. No. Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55445 RE: Meadows 1st Addition Dear Mr. Fleck: Enclosed are two copies of a reimbursement agreement addressing the oversizing costs for the watermain and street constructions in Meadows 1st. In the agreement the City agrees to reimburse your contractor for the oversizing costs in the approximate amount of $28, 103 . 15. Please sign both copies and return them to me along with the developers agreement and the agreement regarding development of twin homes. Do not date the agreements. They will be dated on the day of closing. Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. I apologize for the delay in getting this agreement drafted and sent to you. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, "D�- �_ k Judith S. Cox City Clerk CC: Dave Hutton, City Engineer Lou VanHout, SPUC Manager The Heart of Progress Valley REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made this _ day of 1988, by and between Gold Nugget Development, Inc. , a Minnesota Corporation (hereinafter "Developer") and the City of Shakopee, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter "City") . WHEREAS, by Resolution dated November 17, 1987, the City has granted conditional approval for the platting of The Meadows 1st Addition, Scott County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Vierling Drive is a collector street which shall be constructed to a width of 50 feet as opposed to the standard 36 feet for a local street, and WHEREAS, the watermain within Vierling Drive and 11th Avenue shall be oversized to a diameter of 12 inches and the Minnesota Street watermain shall be oversized to a diameter of 8 inches as opposed to the standard sized watermain of 6 inches, and WHEREAS, it is City policy that the City shall pay for the oversizing of streets and watermains; and WHEREAS, Developer has submitted an estimate for the construction of the street and watermain oversizing within the Meadow's 1st Addition, based on bids submitted. NOW, THEREFORE, Developer shall cause the construction of 8" watermain lines along Minnesota Street and 12" watermain lines along 11th Avenue and Vierling Drive, and the construction of a 50' local collector street in the Meadows 1st Addition, and upon the satisfactory completion thereof, the City hereby agrees to pay to Developer's contractor the difference between the cost of installing 6" watermains and a 36' local street as opposed to 81- and "and 12" watermains and a 50' collector street in the approximate amount of $28,103. 15. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The parties have executed this instrument on the day and year first above written. CITY OF SHAKOPEE GOLD NUGGET DEVELOPMENT, INC. BY By Mayor President By By City Administrator By City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss COUNTY OF SCOTT ) On this day of 19 before me a Notary Public, within and for said County personally appeared Dolores M L bens John K d Anerson and Judith S. Cox to me personally known, being each by me duly sworn, did say that they are respectively the Mayor I the Citv Administrator , and the City Clerk of the City of Shakopee, the municipal corporation named in the foregoing instrument; and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City Council and Dolores M Lebens , John K. Anderson , and Judith S. Cox acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipal corporation. Notary Public, County, Minnesota My Commission expires STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss COUNTY OF SCOTT ) On this day of , 1988, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared and to me personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn, did say that they were respectively the and the of of the corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors and said and acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. Notary Public, County, Minnesota My Commission expires MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator i FROM: David Hutton, City Engineer © SUBJECT: Downtown Streetscape Project No. 1987-3 Atwood Street Sewer Extension DATE: June 1 , 1988 INTRODUCTION: This memo addresses the sanitary sewer extension on Atwood Street, between 1st Avenue and 2nd Avenue. SUMMARY: On May 17, 1988 Council authorized staff to extend the sanitary sewer on Atwood Street approximately 125 feet to the south as part of the Downtown Streetscape Project. The extension was needed to serve an existing house on the west side of Atwood as well as provide available sanitary sewer to the vacant lot along the tracks to make this lot "developable." This entire lot is currently owned by the Hastings and D Railroad (Soo Line) . Upon further research by staff, due to the zoning and setback requirements for this vacant lot, any structure placed on the lot would have to be located in the western portion of the lot. The eastern portion could be used for a parking lot, driveway access, etc. but is too narrow to put a building on. Any structure placed on this vacant lot would probably still get sewer service off Atwood Street because the other options would be to "bore" under the tracks from 2nd Avenue or install new sewer main on Scott Street, from 1st Avenue, both of which would be more expensive than a service line from Atwood. The sewer extension on Atwood Street is still necessary, but staff is proposing to eliminate any service lines to the vacant lot and also there would be no assessments on this property for the sanitary sewer work. Without knowing where the lot would be served from it would be difficult to prove any benefit at this time. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the installation of the sanitary sewer line in Atwood Street between 1st and 2nd Avenue and concur with the City Engineer ' s recommendation that no assessments will be levied against the railroad property until such time as the property may be buildable; and that should the property hook up to this sanitary sewer in the future a connection fee of $1 ,500 .00 will be charged. DH/pmp Atwood St . o C4 ® ® ® ® ® IMM ® ® ® ® 100' 42' 80' 62' o a ,Q) L � a � N .L +J EG� > v ° o z Q C: Qf � ° �, o o Q 4-1 o a� s o CO T� U M � U cn � C: N 37' Ln Cl) = o a 1n a 0 0 � ED- 14-2' ``' Scott St. Z U) MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator 8,44 C2 FROM: David Hutton, City Engineer Q7 SUBJECT: Downtown Streetscape Project No. 1987-2 Change Order No. 7 DATE: May 31 , 1988 INTRODUCTION: This memo addresses several changes to the Downtown Streetscape Project that are summarized by the attached Change Order No. 7. BACKGROUND: Staff would like to discuss several items affecting the Downtown Streetscape Project, which are included in Change order No. 7 . All of these items are recent developments that were not known at the last Council meeting and therefore were not covered by previous change orders. Electrical Conduit Extension The first change involves installing approximately 15 additional feet of electrical conduit along the west side of Holmes Street. The current project includes the installation of a conduit from the east side of Holmes Street near the alley between 2nd & 3rd Avenues to the west side of Holmes Street (+ 56 feet of conduit) . SPUC is requesting that the City extend the conduit about 15 feet to reach an existing light pole near the southeast corner of the drug store parking lot to provide underground service all the way to the pole (Please refer to the attached Exhibit A) . As is the case under our current contract, the City will pay for the conduit and SPUC will pay for all of the electrical work. At the existing unit price of $35 .75 per lineal foot, the 15 foot conduit extension will cost $536.25. Third Avenue Storm Sewer The second item refers to the addition of several new catch basins and associated new storm sewer connections at the intersection of 3rd Avenue and Atwood Street. An existing storm sewer pipe running along the west side of Atwood Street between 2nd and 3rd was removed as part of the Atwood Street reconstruction. This sewer was an old, corrugated metal pipe in extremely poor condition that was actually imbedded into the existing asphalt surface with little or no cover over the pipe. Due to the difficulties in trying to save this pipe during the removal of the existing pavement, the elevations of the new pavement and the poor overall condition of the pipe, an immediate decision was made by staff to remove the pipe. D.T. Streetscape/Change Order No. 7 May 31 , 1988 Page 2 Now that the storm sewer pipe has been removed, there are three storm sewer openings on the pavement along the south side of 3rd Avenue that are not connected to any storm sewer. These openings are basically protruding pipes, with extremely jagged edges or have protective grates facing in the direction of possible traveling bicycles. The existing storm sewer connections for these openings are also old, corrugated metal pipes which appear to have inadequate cover over them due to the pavement distress evident. The three existing storm sewer openings were not investigated by the design consultant and therefore were not shown on the plans because they were outside the project limits. In talking to the consultant, the assumption was made that these storm sewer openings connect to the existing concrete storm sewer running along the east side of Atwood Street. Simply put, an error was made in the design and gathering of field information. Staff can see no other choice but to replace these openings with new catch basins, reconnect them to an existing storm sewer manhole in 3rd Avenue, (See Exhibit B) and install new safer catch basin grates. These catch basins will need to be replaced as part of the 3rd Avenue project (future project) and therefore the money would not be spent needlessly. The contractor has indicated he will perform the additional storm sewer work at the same unit prices covered in the contract. The engineer's estimate for this change is approximately $7 ,000 .00 . Staff would like Council to note that at the last meeting a change order was approved to reflect the revised quantities for Phase I Part 2 of the downtown project which eliminated approximately $54 ,000 worth of storm sewer work from the original contract. Pipe Break-Ins The current plans show several new catch basins being added to streets with existing storm sewers. The new catch basins will connect to existing storm sewers. To do this, a hole is needed to be broken into the existing pipe and once the new connections are made, the hole is then "mortared" shut around the new pipe. Due to the fact that Part 2 of Phase I was bid together with Part 1 before all of the plans were completed and quantities known, a bid item for pipe break-ins was not included in the contract . At the last Council meeting staff was still negotiating the break-in prices with the contractor and therefore this item was not included in the previous change order. lI � YVI 1 ' l D.T. Streetscape/Change No. 7 May 31 , 1988 Page 3 Staff has now completed the negotiations with the contractor. There are 19 break—ins at a cost of $275 .00 each for a total for this change of $5 ,225.00. Service Wves Again, due to the fact that both parts of Phase I were bid together prior to the plans being completed and the quantities known , a bid item for service wyes were not included in the contract. The service wye costs negotiated with the contractor are as follows: 1 . 12" x 4" wyes @ $137.50 Ea. _ $ 137.50 2. 8" x 4" wyes @ $ 41 .80 Ea. _ $ 125.40 3• 12" x 6" wyes @ $143 .00 Ea. _ $1 ,287 .00 4. 8" x 6" wyes @ $ 46 .20 Ea. _ $ 508.20 Total $2 ,058 .10 Retaining Wall At the last Council meeting , staff had indicated that the proposed retaining wall at the First National Bank on Holmes would no longer be necessary due to the bank proposing to modify their parking lot. Since that meeting, the Board of Directors of the bank met and have decided not to make any internal changes to their parking lot. A retaining wall is now necessary to construct Holmes Street and maintain the bank parking lot. The cost for this change is $14 .30 per square foot. The proposed retaining wall is approximately 300 square feet for a total cost of $4,290 .00 . 3uuary of Chance Order No. 7 The four items discussed above and covered by Change order No. 7 can be summarized as follows: Electrical Conduit Extension $ 536.25 Storm Sewers 3rd and Atwood $ 71000.00 Pipe Break—ins $ 5,225.00 Service Wyes $ 2,058. 10 Retaining Wall $ 4.290 .00 Total $19, 109.35 Downtown Streetscape/Change No. 7 May 31 , 1988 Page 4 ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Approve Change Order No. 7 in the total amount of $19 , 109.35 covering the five items discussed above. 2. Deny Change Order No. 7 . 3 . Approve of parts of Change Order No. 7 . RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 to approve Change Order No. 7 for a total addition to the contract of $19 , 109 .35 . Council should note that Change Order No. 6 approved at the May 17 , 1988 meeting reduced the contract by $30 , 111 .45 . REQUESTED ACTION: Authorize Change Order No. 7 in the amount of $19, 109.35 addition to the contract for the Downtown Streetscape Project No. 1987-2 to Hardrives, Inc . of Maple Grove, Minnesota. DH/pmp I / �1'h�iB�r SCOTT-, COUNTY_ ABSTR. MINNESOTA' D. N: R. ATY PARKING _COT' 1ST'IN`:NAIR '&: TANNINGIINCr . 24'-IS"X R••CONCRETE > I CONWIT LM 1.00% I 1 I I a a a Wil;` 40FC.B.-60 -BREAK IN 8 CON�lECT TO g POWER - BREAK' IN 8 CONN: EXIST. MN, w/12 R.C.P. I . , N.N.. . ♦ EXIST. 48" R.C.P. w N — — — :5 a R.O.W. yLp gyp `' 6H_OLMES S" yy�' QIjjI to b yy } . . .y So NSWALE -- - - i � • _ - - ;1 X N CB:61 .-- — 75RXt _ M SEE SHEET NO. 5 F R A _ OF RETAINING WALT i I �fLrrYS✓/✓• ,S 1 NOTE:.: !ALL PROPOSED- CONDUIT CROSSING I HOUSE, X IN THE. FIELD FOLLOWING. THE..FIE- UTILITIES...PARTICULARLY BURIED CONNECT TO EXIST. 7Tg° 'E w/12" R.CP. ( INV. OF 12 47.20) ' SEE SHEET N0. 12 I I I O LU W a Z ai j I i °x a CC c tlt« tt M a smops 4Aob - - - - — 4�o4 ST n .rv�.l✓, - - - - - - - - E3 _ C3 Ott i — — I I POINT ELEV -BASE OF STEPS "L NO. / 70P OF CONCRETE U) 757. 7 CC 762.25 = EE 757.83 758.03 FF GG 761.31 CHANGE ORDER H Change Order No.: 7 Project Name: �towStMtscace Date: May 31 1988 Contract No.: 1987-2 Original Contract Amount $ 2-186-457.65+ Change Order(s) No. 1 thru No. 6 i 21 759.35 Total Funds Encumbered Prior to Change Order $ 2 208 217.00 Description of York to be Added: (1) Extend electrical conduit on Holmes, between 2nd A 3rd. (2) New catch basins and storm sewers at 3rd h Atwood. (3) Storm sewer break-ins for new catch basins - all streets. (4) Service wyes - all streets. (5) Retaining wall on Holmes by 13t Nat'l Bank. The above described work shall be incorporated in the Contract, referenced above, under the same conditions specified in the original Contract as amended unless otherwise specified herein. Any work mot so specified shall be performed in accordance with the Standard Specifications adopted by the City of Shakopee> Minnesota. The arrant of the Contract shall be increased by E 19-1D9-35 The number of calendar days for completion shall be increased by WA . Original Contract Amount $ 2,186,457.65 Change Order(s) No. 1 thru 7 E 40 868.70 Total Funds Encumbered j 2-227.326-15 Completion Date: No Change to Interim or Final Completion Date The undersigned Contractor hereby agrees to perform the work specified in this Change Order in accordance with the specifications, conditions and prices specified herein. Contractor: By: Date: APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED: City Engineer DWte APPROVED: City of Shakopee By: Approved as to form this Mayor Date 19 day of City Administrator Date City Attorney City Clerk ate 1 ( na MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator Gs� FROM: David Hutton, City Engineer�' SUBJECT: Downtown Streetscape Project No. 1987-2 Atwood Street Watermain Change Order No. 8 DATE: June 1 , 1988 INTRODUCTION: This memo addresses a proposed change order to install new watermain on Atwood Street, between 1st and 2nd Avenues. BACKGROUND: During the course of reconstructing Atwood Street, it became apparent that the existing properties along Atwood Street all share a common 1 1/4" copper service lateral from 1st Avenue rather than individual separate service laterals from a standard 6" ductile iron watermain. . At the time the plans were drawn, the location of the water service laterals could not be determined exactly and it was assumed that they all had separate laterals. The problem associated with the existing arrangement are numerous and are summarized below: • Having more than one property on a lateral severely reduces the reliability of that water service. If the lateral were to develop problems, all of the properties would be out of water until repairs were made. • Having extremely long runs of 1 1/4" pipe severely reduces the available water pressure due to friction loss. • State building codes now require separate service laterals for each property. • Without a main in this street, the potential for commercial development is severely hampered. Now that Atwood Street is under construction, it would be an excellent time to remedy a situation that would not be allowed under current codes and construction practices. In addition, several other utility companies (Minnegasco, Northwestern Bell , etc. ) are voluntarily replacing outdated utility lines throughout the entire downtown project limits at their own expense at our encouragement. These companies recognize that it's to their benefit to upgrade their systems now rather than tearing up a new street at a later date. Change Order No. 8 June 1 , 1988 Page 2 Since the existing water service is in the same trench and directly over the proposed sewer we plan to replace it during the sewer installation. I do not believe State Building Codes or the State Department of Health will allow the 1 1/4" service replaced in kind, but I am still checking on it. to be To compound the problem, the bedrock is fairly close to the surface in this block. To install a new watermain at the normal location (10 , from the sewer) will result in extremely high rock excavation costs ( approximately $13,000.00) . The alternative would be to install the watermain in the same trench as the sewer . If an 18 inch vertical clearance cannot be maintained, ductile iron sewer pipe is required which will add approximately $3 ,000.00 to the sewer costs. To install the watermain in the same trench would result in a wider area for rock excavation. The increased rock excavation costs will be approximately $7,000 .00 The estimated cost for installing a new 6" watermain, new service lines and associated appurtenances is approximately $10 ,000 .00 (does not include any rock excavation costs) . The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission Manager has indicated that they do not feel a new watermain is needed at this time due to the existing service functioning properly. This item will be going to the SPUC meeting on June 6, 1988 for their discussion and possible authorization to proceed. I will attend their meeting and report on their action Tuesday night. Due to the fact that all properties currently have existing water service, it would appear that no assessments could be levied for the installation of a new watermain because of the difficulty in proving any benefit. The existing watermain on 1st Avenue runs down the center of the street so a Mn/DOT permit to complete the construction will be required. ALTERNATIVES: Depending on the results of the SPUC meeting on June 6, 1988 Council may choose to do one of the following alternatives. 1 . If SPUC authorizes the City to proceed with the new staffto watermain, execute Change couldauthorize No. 8cad addthe ing to hewatermain lto the project. Change Order No. 8 June 1 , 1988 Page 3 2. If SPUC denies the request for the new watermain, Council could agree with their recommendation and also deny the request. 3. Council could also choose to install the watermain regardless of what SPUC recommends. The costs for the watermain would either be absorbed by the City as a project cost or if an agreement could be worked out with SPUC they could be billed back for any costs they agreed to pay. RECOMMENDATION: Staff feels strongly that the new watermain should be installed at this time rather than tear up a new street at a later date and will be attending the June 6th SPUC meeting to discuss the issue. The results of that meeting will be discussed at the Council meeting. REQUESTED ACTION: Assuming that SPUC agrees with the proposed watermain, staff is requesting authorization to execute Change Order No. 8 to add the installation of a new watermain and service laterals in Atwood Street, between 1st and 2nd Avenue, using the unit prices covered under the current City contract with Hardrives, Inc. for the Downtown Streetscape Project No. 1987-2 at an approximate cost to the contract of $10,000.00 . DH/pmp ATWOOD CHANGE ORDER Change Order No.: 8 Project Name: Downtown Streetaceoe Improvement Date: May 31, 1988 Contract No.: 19872 Original Contract Amormt $ 2.186.457.65 Change Order(s) No. 1 thru No. 7— i 40.868.70 Total Funds Encumbered Prior to Change Order f 2227 326 35 Description of Work to be Added: Install new 6" watermain, new service connections, and all appurtenances on Atwood Street, between 1st and 2nd Avenues The above described work shall be incorporated in the Contract, referenced above, under the same conditions specified in the original Contract as amended unless otherwise specified herein. Any work not so specified shall be performed in accordance with the Standard Specifications adopted by the City of Shakopee, Minnesota. The amount of the Contract shall be increased by $ 10.000.00 The number of calendar days for completion shall be increased by _WA . Original Contract Amount $ 2.186.457.65 Change Order(s) No. 1 thru 8 $ 50.868.70 Total Funds Encumbered $ 2,237,326.35 Completion Date: No Change to Interim or Final Completion Date The undersigned Contractor hereby agrees to perform the work specified in this Change Order in accordance with the specifications, conditions and prices specified herein. Contractor: REVIEWED: By: Shakopee Public Utilities Commission Date: Manager APPROVED AND RECOM®DED: City Engineer Date APPROVED: City of Shakopee By: Approved as to form this Mayor Date day of 19 City Administrator Date City Attorney MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator I' FROM: David Hutton, City Engineer SUBJECT: Upper Valley Drainage Project/101 Bypass DATE: June 1 , 1988 INTRODUCTION: This memo address the proposed construction schedule for the Upper Valley drainage project, Mn/DOT' s participation in the project and the overall drainage plan for the Hwy. 101 Bypass as it affects the Upper Valley Drainage Project and the City of Shakopee. BACKGROUND: On May 17 , 1988 a meeting was held between City staff and Mn/DOT representatives to discuss several items relating to both the Highway 101 Bypass Project and the Upper Valley Drainage Project. Specifically, the meeting discussed funding , drainage of the bypass and tentative construction schedules for both projects. Mn/DOT Funding Mn/DOT's main concern is due to the recent developments regarding the need to obtain various permits for our drainage system discharge into the mill pond, Mn/DOT wants to make sure that the City is committed to completing the project and cooperating fully with the various agencies before they commit to participating in the funding. Mn/DOT is reluctant to fund a storm sewer project that does not have an outlet. Mn/DOT' s share of the overall project costs is approximately 14.8% or $400 ,000 .00 , based on the amount of drainage being created by the Highway 101 Bypass and draining into the Upper Valley Drainage Channel. Construction Schedule The construction of the Upper Valley Drainage Project is also critical to Mn/DOT. The tentative schedule for the bypass construction is to let bids on Stages I, IIA , and IIB in 1989 and stages IIIA and IIIB in 1990 (See attached map for various stages) , although these dates may be delayed for one year due to the design work taking longer than anticipated. In order for our drainage project to be completed ahead of the bypass, Mn/DOT is also recommending a staged construction schedule for a project. Stage I would be to construct the drainage project from the Upper Valley to 4th Avenue. Stage II would be to construct the remainder of the current project including the discharge into the Mill Pond. Stage III would be to construct all storm sewer Upper Valley Drainage Project May 31 , 1988 Page 2 connections from the bypass to the drainage channel. Stage IV would be to extend the drainage channel westerly along the bypass thru lands currently outside the corporate limits (See attached map showing stages) . Mn/DOT would like the City to construct Stage I in 1988 since this will not involve obtaining any permits from any of the agencies. Mn/DOT has indicated that they would still participate in the project as long as the City was committed to obtaining all necessary permits. Staff along with our consultant have already made application to all of the agencies for the appropriate permits. Stage II construction would be completed in 1989 if all the permits are in order. Stage III would be constructed by Mn/DOT along with the Hwy. 101 Bypass in 1989 and 1990. Stage IV would need to be constructed in 1990 to provide an outlet for the drainage of the west end of the bypass. Staff is requesting that Council authorize the project to be constructed in the above outlined phases with Stage I being constructed in 1988. Should Council authorize the staged construction, Mn/DOT will proceed with processing the agreements for the shared funding, which may take several weeks. Once the agreement has been signed by the City, the project can be bid, although prior to awarding the contract Mn/DOT must sign the agreement first. Highway 101 Bypass Storm Sewers Another item that was discussed at the meeting was the cost sharing of any storm sewer feeder lines from the bypass to the Upper Valley Drainage Channel . At this time , Mn/DOT is anticipating 4 feeder storm sewer lines to carry the water from the bypass northerly to the Upper Valley Channel. These storm sewers will not only carry runoff generated by the bypass , but transmit water from the surrounding areas that would normally flow towards the channel without being intercepted by the bypass. Mn/DOT feels that the City should share in the costs of those feeder lines, based on a percentage of runoff generated by the bypass versus total runoff generated. The final design of the storm sewer feeder lines has not been completed as far as size of pipe and location. Mn/DOT has brought it to staffs attention that the preliminary design of one storm sewer line (the line going from the bypass to C.R. 16 thru the Hauer's 4th Addition area) indicates that a fairly large pipe will be needed to accommodate the runoff from a 100-year event. This is the same design storm event that was used for designing Upper Valley Drainage Project May 31 , 1988 Page 3 the Upper Valley Drainage Project and Mn/DOT feels the same criteria should be used for that line. The preliminary cost estimate for this storm sewer is $650,000 .00. Mn/DOT feels that the City's share of that should be 56% (or about $365,000) , based on runoff rates. Staff will be working with Mn/DOT on possibly reducing the size of this pipe by using upstream ponding or a lower storm event for the final design in order to reduce the costs. Mn/DOT has indicated that 3 other storm sewer feeder lines will be needed to carry water from the bypass to the drainage channel. The preliminary indications are that these lines will be much smaller than the first, but very little design has been done on them. No cost estimates or approximate percentage of City contributions are available at this time. Staff wanted to inform Council that Mn/DOT is expecting the City to contribute to the storm sewer costs for all four feeder lines, associated with the Hwy. 101 Bypass. Staff will work closely with Mn/DOT in reviewing all proposed drainage plans associated with the bypass and Council will be kept informed of any new developments regarding cost sharing as they become available. ALTERNATIVES: The only item staff is requesting action on tonite is authorization to proceed with the construction of Phase I of the Upper Valley Drainage Project during the 1988 construction season. The other items discussed were informational and should be noted Alternate 1 - Authorize staff to proceed with Phase I of the Upper Valley Drainage Project. Alternate 2 - Do not authorize staff to proceed with Stage I. Alternate 3 - Authorize staff to proceed in some other fashion. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternate 1 , to authorize staff to proceed with Phase I of the Upper Valley Drainage Project. Staff is not requesting permission to bid at this time because the plans need to be revised to reflect the construction. Council action is needed in order for Mn/DOT to proceed with finalizing the funding agreements. Upper Valley Drainage Project May 31 , 1988 Page 4 ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize staff to proceed with constructing Phase Iof the Upper Valley Drainage Project, from the Upper Valley to 4th Avenue, and revise the plans to reflect to staged construction. Staff should notify Mn/DOT to resume preparation of the shared funding agreement. DH/pmp STAGES PO /I ; r 7iA., - �! % i ' � H lL u X s fo _ ' -. W o- bqti 1 Ir 00 < _ o M Q �o O o -' d ►Xis .�� - CONSENT MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Application for Temporary 3.2 Beer License by Church of St. Mark DATE: June 2, 1988 Introduction The Church of St. Mark has made application for a temporary 3.2 beer license for July 30 and 31, 1988. Background The City Attorney has reviewed the surety bond and insurance exemption 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 Church of St. Mark at the 3rd Avenue and Scott Street Playground for July 30 and 31, 1988. JSC/jms MEMO TO: Mayor and City CQ N S E NT �� P FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Urban Corp Work-Study Agreement DATE: May 25, 1988 Introduction Attached is an agreement with the Urban Corps for work-study students. Background This program is for a ten week period, maximum is $6.75/hour of which we would be responsible for 408 which would be a cost to us of $1,080.00 or we can use the stipend program at $30.00/week. Over the last five years the City has used the stipend program and not the hourly program and that is the program we would continue to use. No one has contacted us regarding employment; however, should we have someone this year who is interested and had a background fitting our needs, I would ask for your approval to hire them outlining the tasks we would have them working on. Alternatives 1. Approve the contract as presented. This is the same contract we have approved the last several years and has provided us with several good interns working on stipend. 2. Drop Shakopee's participation in the Urban Corp Program. This is only one available source of interns. Recommendation Because Council will act on any individual applicant I recommend alternative No. 1 so that the program is available for our use. Entering this agreement now merely qualifies us to become a part of the program should we decide at some time to take advantage of it and budgeted funds are available. Requested Action Authorize proper City officials to enter into an agreement for participation in Urban Corps Program between the City of Minneapolis and the City of Shakopee for the period July 1, 1988 to June 30, 1989. JKA/jms Twin City Area Urban Corps 10761111,City Hall,Minneapolis, MN 55415.161 21 346-6967 MAyl .31988 c;r MEMORANDUM tL` DATE: May, 1988 TO: Program Directors FROM: Fran Hormel RE: 1988-89 Intern Agreement Enclosed are two copies of the agreement regarding joint participation o�yoet-agaocyand_Lhg Urban Corps in the internship program. They remain the same as the 198 Please obtain authorized signatures on both copies of the Agreement and return both copies to the above address. The agreements will be processed and one will be returned to you for your files. By completing the enclosed contract card, you can be assured that your Agreement will be returned to the correct person. If you have any questions, please call me at 348-6967. Thank you for your cooperation and participation in the Urban Corps program. FH/ns enc. Twin City Area Urban Corps—a creative experience in service learning An equal opportunity, affirmative action employer 1988 - 1989 AGREEMENT FCR PARTICIPATICN IN URBAN OCRPS PRCGRAM BETWEEN CITY CF MINNEAPCLIS AND THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of 19 by and between the City of Minneapolis (herein called "Urban Corps") and (herein called "Agency"). WHEREAS, the above named Agency, a public organization or private non-profit tax-exempt organization, desires to participate in the Twin City Area Urban Corps and in consideration for the assignment of Urban Corps student interns to the Agency, we do hereby agree to the following terms and conditions: 1. The Urban Corps shall have the right to approve or reject requests for student interns submitted by this Agency upon forms provided for that purpose by the Urban Corps. 2. The Agency will accept a student as an intern by completing and signing the Assignment section of the student's Urban Corps application form. 3. The Agency shall utilize such students as may be assigned to it in accordance with the specifications set forth in its written request to the Urban Corps, and shall immediately notify the Urban Corps of any change in nature of assignment, duties, supervisor or work location. 4. The Agency shall provide such students as may be assigned to it with a safe place to work and with responsible supervision. 5. The Urban Corps shall have the right to inspect the work being performed by such students as way be assigned to the Agency, and shall have the right to interview such students and their supervisors. 6. The Urban Corps shall have the right to require such students as may be assigned to the Agency to attend such general or special meetings, or to appear at the Urban Corps office, individually or as a group, as shall be necessary for the proper functions of the program. 7. In accordance with the mquimmnts of Ebderal and State law, work performed by such students as may be assigned to the Agency shall: a. Be in the public interest; b. Not result in the displacement of employed workers or impair existing contracts for services; c. Not involve the construction, operation or maintenance of so much of any facility as is used, or is to be used, for sectarian instruction or as a place of religious worship; and d. Not involve any partisan or nonpartisan political activity associated with a candidate, or contending faction or group, in an election for public or party office. 8. The Agency shall require such students as way be assigned to it to submit tine reports and follow such other procedures as may be established by the Urban Corps. 9. The Urban Corps shall have the right to remove any student assigned to the Agency from said assignment and from the Agency at any tim; for any reason without prior notice, and the Urban Corps shall not be obligated to replace said student. 10. The Agency shall have the right to remove any student assigned to said Agency at any time with prior notice given to the student and the Urban Corps. 11. The Agency warrants that it is in compliance with the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 252), and Minnesota Statutes Section 181.59 and Minneapolis Code of Ordinance, Chapter 139 and 141, where applicable. 12. The Agency shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless the Urban Corps from all claims, causes or actions which may result from the assignaents of students to the Agency. 13. The Agency stall obtain at its own expense Worker's Compensation insurance (or shall be self-insured under State law) for such students as may be assigned to it under this Agreement. 14. The Agency shall pay to the Urban Corps 40% or other percentage figure as agreed upon by identifying the pe roentage figure on the student's Urban Corps application form of the gross compensation earned by such students assigned and accepted by the Agency under a FIederal or State program. The Urban Corps will bill the Agency, in accordance with bi-weekly payroll periods, for its proper share of the compensation of such students as may have been assigned to the Agency and perforwed work during said period. Student hourly rates am set forth in Section 14(a) and 14(b) of this Agreement. a. hourly compensation for students will be set at minimum rates of $5.75 per hour for entering freshmen through receipt of a Bachelor's degree, and $6.75 per hour for graduate students; other agreed upon hourly compensation rates not to be below the specified rates in 14(a); or other rates for Urban Corps student interns as established by the City of Minneapolis, through a salary ordinance replacing current minimum rates. b. A graduate student is defined for purposes of this Agreement as one who has received a B.A., B.S., or equivalent degree or is enrolled in the fifth year of a five year program. 15. At the election of the Agency, the Urban Corps shall place students to intern under a Stipend program. This option will be specified in the Assignment Form which the intern's Agency supervisor must sign before oomuencement of the internship. The Stipend rate which the Agency shall pay the Urban Corps is $30.00 per week for each week the student Works. 16. At the election of the Agency, the Urban Corps shall place interns for whom the Agency will pay the intern's total compensation plus an additional ten percent (10%) for administrative costs. This option will be specified in the Assignment Form which the intern's Agency supervisor must sign before commencement of the internship. Agency rates for said option are set forth in Section 16(a) and 16(b) of this Agreement. a. Agency rates for students will be set at minimum rates of $6.33 per hour for entering freshmen tbrough receipt of a Bachelor's Degree, and $7.43 per hour for graduate students; other agreed upon bourly compensation rates not to be below specified rates in 16(a); or other rates for Urban Corps student interns as established by the City of Minneapolis tbrough a salary ordinance replacing current minimum rates. b. A graduate student is defined for purposes of this Agreement as one who has received a B.A. , B.S., or equivalent degree or is enrolled in the fifth year of a five year program. 17. To comply with P.L. 99-272, the agency shall pay to the Urban Corps, for students receiving an hourly salary according to the rates specified in Section 14(a) and 14(b), Section 16(a) and 16(b), an additional 1.5% or other percentage figure as agreed upon by identifying the percentage figure _ on the student's Urban Corps application form of the gross compensation _- earned by such students assigned to and accepted by the agency after April 1, 1986. 18. performance under this contract shall commence on July 1, 1988 and terminate on June 30, 1989 unless amended in writing as mutually agreed upon by both the Agency and the Institution; however, either party may terminate upon sixty (60) days written notice. Based upon the statements and affirmations made by the Agency through the above document, the Urban Corps hereby agrees to the assignment of students to said Agency, in accordance with said document and the applicable laws and regulations. CITY C' MINNEAPOLIS AGENCY By Mayor Agency Name ATTEST: Address City Clerk COUNTERSIGNED City State Zip Code BY City Finance Officer Title Approved as to Legality: ey Title Attest: Assistant City of Minneapolis Attorney N N N N N N N N Nw NNw NNN YY n J u u _ _ u u u u uuuuuw uu pro x m u u 1'o io N N • N > f ➢ i 4 • .1 i o Y J i > i bb JJJJJJ i PP F n Z 4 O K O O T D O o O o oe o 0o NN y m x m m\ m m m P P mP Pmbm mm PP 9 m m m m m mm mmmw mm mm m a z ae Ntl NN my �=1 Puaroaww_yro - - � rvry rou-u-IJ mm oe NNJN JN : oo a0 0o Jb o0 00 0o Pb wNNPNN I -f c .'' s o a o i m m 'viiav avviv cc - y x A x a9 T m aaanaaaa j s r 9 j noon nn nn o0 n m c � a xx xx xxxx m o I T o K z z' .. mmmmmmmm nn it y O C ' W A 9 ' m y I 99919999 ZZ O A � C � m 99999 aaa y .a Z 111 \ m W O 999 AA m W x r o mmmmmmmm as W n P m z s aAa,aa aAA rr m � z p ml x. P x 000,00000 ,Pcic x r M � ; I ! jIIII !I A m sm j m I1 ml W pmmlm P Pmm i mm C O O O A T' C G1CCLC CGC li 00 M 99'99999 ^^ Y11 T T Z 3 P f m Intl Amm'm mmmm X33 I G ` > WI �Ppibmm Pp i w�a-r �O D r Z 2 IC > y y 00 o I 1 ~ iW o l O0 1 Y o O a m m p m m IY a N N N.N N N ro ro Y y m pMp W W �e I r N N M + 10 + "m Im o b nN ro ;� mPm I I O to W I i .9 i f 10 J lis m m • • i li j i i li ,Im 9 F ', Ism a m m m m m m s m m m Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y V V V V V V V V W 1 1 I 1 I 1 V W 6 % a a • • i y • • y • 6 6 W_ 0 i 0 F O I 6 o i m 0 I i i i 1 1 i i -a-- a o In mm-a N al= �a n 1 i t 1 1 1 i i i 1 1 i i i r a Z n nnFln N nn D d dNdN N n nn n nn N 0 n O P PP PP n u 1 II a o 0000 e a ee o ee o o e z hr hr r mm mm UU 00 F %m 0 JJ J Z F_ rh_h_ 00 J mm 2 % > JJ 4 6 m %m oC 6 tl w x aasa w w < L O SLLL � m tltl JJ W J mGmO 6 O WW Qf J Q O JJJJ J K JJ Km W 0000 % 6 00 4 rr W L h W K0m U O I WWW Y U 2222 V 66Q6 m > W W W W Q V m UtJIUJ m p } F O o WWWW W m= J • y NN dN nh0 PP 0YN Fh i y NN -NNNNp 0m OaN NN - oa CC nFl e0 r dN Pp as n _ P FF PP aN .t NW Fr J aN O �- L W W 0 m000 mow0 m O 0 mm00 m % m0 m 0m m m 0 Y \ \ - m LL O o Dose o O o0 0 00 0 0 O T O F 2 V � P PPP _ p Irin m m W � FFFr d Pn tl o V n nnnFl n N da d N ^ n n n N NNNN N N Nh n - a x a i i N • � � • N y � y � • N NNNN N NN 0 N NN N N N O V U4UV V 4 x W Y Y Y 4 U V W Y V m V N y • N w NNNN Y N • tlJ • - • m ply • N k N f J F O Z -1 O K O T D w _ _ s F mmmm m mm m m m m m mmmm m mm m m mm m m m m a s roro o PWmYN mN C Z yPONN WY Nmm 4Y y 00 yY- mW NNJ OA U -- mm NN Py Wa as y0J roP m0 4W m yAPdlUroN mm " V 0o P yJ e00 ee Oo o0N NN NN yy �O 0 000 T m zz oo m z m T mmmw T o Wa o - sssx oo ' w ry o' cm m < m PP cc z -+ rr v z ' z o aamro.. yK a 9 ao m s m z r s W w W m T T r P W y P i j .. m m arovv c ilC c � mr a �„ on moo III .�M+v n m mv 'm 9 TTTA ^ 9 m V V y 9 9 3 im Ali I3 mmmm Tm � oo P i m m � W „ AAA9 m I W 0' ZZ W M I I o JPPW o I b0 p o O o O e n '' I 1 A 1 1 11 11 A' la la I I 1 I Ililm mvl > I uu I,.I m a 1 y W I I ~ 1 1 II I 1 1 n b m I II N m ' m s w w w w Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y V V V U W 1 1 I 1 I I m W < < A n w x m s m 1= o a N n o i n a 0 len n P nn n I 1111 II III m an n a _an o N a n a In rFeo -a z nn n N n 'nc i i 1 1 I i I i i i i I I f N z en � n n nen en a n en o n m v aw n a n nnnn n as U P P P PP I 1 I 11 I 1 ' IP '. II V n I Pr 6 ' O M1 Oe O O p1 Oo o i O % 6WW F m mamm '. a m mamm m m o ii a_ wmww _ _ m ♦ W A 66 > wWb • WO J LL WW m W ¢ 6 W < n pJ LL > W» ¢ VV r t J 00 N ¢ ¢ > ¢ ¢ On JJ F U W WW 6 d FOF1- ',mm W C Z W W p V r W W W m JJ O K W V FF LL .O UV I¢lU L li £ Y 000m F ws i a PW + nn NN Pan bm - - mm -ry ary p L w w m m m mW m m m mmmm m mm xm m mo m m mWm ; m 'mm x F < 0 0 0 00 a o e e eeeo a o0 LL b b u b.o b .o .o bomb .+ bb 0 } o F z v Y o m o o m n o a nnnn M1 m = P P n No O NNNN N NN - V N + N • N + Nm + N + N • N • NNNN • N + NN N y N N m NNN N N u N N y N N N n b Y Y W W 4 Y W Y W W Y W p W m m m w w O mww w o o e m P O - O b m J cPP N Y U N � e Y + b i m a F Z y O K O O T � � � o � ��� � � m � m � � � o m m m m m mwm m m m m m m m m m m m m mm m m m m m m m m a x nm uu i ro WW roro bb - _ uu y croro NON un uW PNNN roro uu �u oro mm ma N NJ NN OWWW NN +1N • mw K+1 ti WW •1•il IWiIYa NN ee o0 0 YW W Oo 0 00 bb � � 00 00 00 m rrr v a � a = _ < vz a a s a c x w am m a_ S D 3 AAP � C n D C 2 y � O C N C m KK-( i Z 9 � D A m 9 9 < y w z m o m m r mm a v w a z m z m o c s r err m a K n > v n v n s o00 < m m < � � m i o s o w o0o a m r o n n o z c z xxx m x o z o i v i T r n - n m v r m � n n n z 'c � c � � ^ z n � x ',o n � '. ''. x z '. a '.. ISI " z ''., w I P m O y m w mb w n m m 'm O 9 9 C '- C O O A O CGC C O_ T O '.p C o D � m I 9 2 Z ➢ rG. v T T v n rC. rC. m sri 9 i T T m 9 u�� � T 9 T m T y r a w y o � r � x m m e m � > � uuw m m a � a N A ' m n n z c <'.. v w �a o o c z o K -z+ y a m I�, � i O O T ti I y y I '.. o : l o l m l e o e e o e o e _ ��,e o o c > • i • a a a a • • • > '� = i 1O m u �I u u �.., ro m ro 'ro Y ro u .0 u _ N .. b ro 'O " ro ro = i _ � u I u u �i � u � 11 � � i i v I = .. ro j u — ro u '. u rod— u - -:m ro 'z P i 'u i i A e N � O ,1 I '' i m i � �. � v D I a m i i i m n F Fm F T� N w w N W u w a V N 6 N d W_ m Y m F O I N M o Y b N F m o O F F m ry m I i I 1 tl 1 1 1 I 1 I P I p c I 1 1 1 10 I 1 M N n M .a zo F d - p W W ^ Q W 6 LL J W o N s a a < w s F o L d d 1 U F O C Z 3 W p W 3 ^ F 6 % 3m m V pw - a w ' a r O V J p < O O F wN as R Y R • ptl FF • • 'Pp R R 00 oa R "aW FlFl Nw MFl . ww ed oo vMc nFl �n On eo ee eo ee eo oe eo eo oen mm nn %P 'w 'a n_ o mm ve nn lean va 2 PP Mn I. PP J O S a w w m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m I o o O e o O O e o p LL 60 0 o O O o 0 o e o 0 0 0 0 0 o e O > O F_ Z m m 0 0 o T a m n 0 m m a 3 O J O SONY H w oYOae Ytl Nro Puee aroroN . J PNOroOtly -��1 - Pe ro�o PP eo -I CCCCC CC CC . z L- NtlPN>Y+ O , A -i -I4ry-IJy1 -oa-ei �yyyoao m I DDDD > DDDD '. I rr rrrrrrr z ' am m"z�zsm, 3 I I. 39 90Dr9 D.,. O I '. '9C TOZm q II'. > OOmAO 9C A ' i 0 1 c z m a m s w -� CF C W W C"FF F F F F F' FF FW W W F' C F F"FF' F C S F• FDP O r Y r Q` O O pp O > r r N 0 0 � Y r 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 Y MF Y Y O r N N 0 0 w V � 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 o N mw r Y Y O O r?, N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O Y r Y Y m Y r N OO - r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O Y F Y Y r N N O O W N 0 0 0 0 0 080 0 O O O O O mmwoc 00 o m m woo 'm m m m ro mmmm m m rm Ym o 000 o r. z l i l o r r F u coo r r 0 N r N 0 r 0 o o 0 0 r io r r r o > 00 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 000 Y r r r r r r r Y r r r r r r r r Y r r r r m W cr m 0 O O 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 000 O n n K O C H m KK K N 9 00 Y O Y N N a {y to a 'o- C M NO\W N F- r rI`-+• O\ N.O �1 O1F mO O 0 ry W. NN .O��. F. � wN �.O W WFV. I rNYNY N. > moo o O O O O m m 0 000 O Y00 0 00 �� 0 OOmm� 0 0 0 W 0000O � O c 'J x a _ b a N N N N N N N N N N N O O O N a 0 0 - p 3 3 3 3, µ 3 0 0 O 3 3. > > 3 > 00 S 5 'tl m rn m oa w [J m m w t � 0 % 9 N N N K r > n O S > 0 O K H N K H O O 7 NW F m O > > 0y Imrnrn m rn m rnrnrn -rn m ONi rn m mmmrn m m rn NO. m MMM F F X K w W W w W w w w W W W W N NNN N ^ N Y O m m m � W O p W - O [�•J d t] m O m 0 W N 3 Z O 9 N ry y G > n Z Z N O O N o W N - H O S W W 7 `< m r µ M n Z Y N r r 0 W W M K r µ w Q 0 I m K N O > � � n y 0 m N N N w W m o m m K O 0 K K m < m v m � m m n � F Y NN Wym NN Nr ONO mOm� 0 wNH "rN W�O NFN" OF Wr m 0 1 O O O 0 N vNOi O 010 0 0 0 N 0 O 0 0 0OO _> O NLI O I�[- • m .I MM Y :J I v Y G U E Z H L � O U rol w F C N U y U � O Z �p t- � N U N N �I QIN O O F U T ai p � y}Mm C: O L O N I- m ' ro ,y c W m s m ¢ v L � V 0 O E 3 V O N N c O O E y W U ti OJ O .f 1 v ti C y V rl O rn m > M rI S G rl > t` W CONSENT Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director Re: Resolution No. 2909 Date: June 2, 1988 Introduction Attached is Resolution No. 2909 amending the 1988 Budget. Backeround The 1988 Budget needs to be amended for two items for the Police Department. Tom Brownell's memo is attached explaining the change for the clean up program. The other change is for the heating/cooling unit which was budgeted and ordered last year but not installed until 1988. Action Reauested Offer Resolution No. 2909, a resolution amending Resolution No. 2817 adopting the 1988 Budget and move its adoption. CV:mmr TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Tom Brownell, Chief of Police RE: City Clean-up Funding Request DATE: May 24, 1988 _ INTRODUCTION: The cost of the -1988 City Wide Clean-Up Program conducted May 13, 14, 15, 1988 exceeds the amount allocated for the program. BACKGROUND• In 1987 the Clean-Up Program cost $11,773.00 and was conducted for nine days. In 1988 Council authorized a three (3) day program and budgeted $4, 000.00. 2040 cubic yards of debris were removed in 68 containers, 36 truck loads of brush were transported to the burning site, 111 tires will cost $250. 00 for disposal. 1988 COST OF PROGRAM: 68 trash containers @ $191. 00 each unit $12, 988.00 Public Works employee wages 1,580. 00 Part-time employee on-site 132.00 *Public Works front end loaders, trucks 4, 070. 00 Tire disposal 250.00 Code Enforcement Officer time spent 300. 00 Printing costs 176. 00 $19, 496.00 * In 1987 Public Works equipment was not factored into the cost. RECOMMENDATION• Amend Code Enforcement fund 319 in the amount of $9,547. 00 using contingency funding. Public Works overtime $ 177. 00 Part-time employee 132.00 Tire Disposal 250.00 Trash containers 12 ,988.00 Less Budgeted 13,547. 00 4 .000. 00 $ 9,547.00 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt Resolution No. 2909. p- RESOLUTION NO. 2909 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 2817 ADOPTING THE 1988 BUDGET WHEREAS, the City Council has 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 theappropriations are increased as follows: Fund Cateeory Division Amount General Professional Serv. Police $ 9,550 General Building Maint. Police 46,160 and the increases are offset or funded by decreases in the following accounts: Fund Account/Categoo Division Amount General Contingency Unallocated $ 9,550 General Fund Balance 46,160 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 I � h MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Set Up Licensing DATE: May 25, 1988 INTRODUCTION• On May 17th, Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance eliminating the requirement that an on sale club liquor license must also have a set up license. BACKGROUND; Until recently, a set up license has been required for a private club or public place to allow the consumption or display of liquor or the serving of any liquid for the purpose of mixing liquor. State law recently eliminated the requirement that a club with an on sale club intoxicating liquor license also obtain a set up license. The City Code also requires that a set up license be obtained by club licensees. The City Attorney has prepared the attached ordinance which amends the City Code to be consistent with State law thereby eliminating the need for a set up license for the Knights of Columbus, VFW and American Legion. ALTERNATIVES• 1) Adopt Ordinance No. 244 2) Do Not adopt Ordinance No. 244 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Offer Ordinance No. 244, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Shakopee City Code, Chapter 5, entitled "Liquor, Beer and wine Licensing and Regulation" by Amending Section 5.45, Subd. 1 and Adopting by Reference Shakopee City Code, Chapter 1 and Section 5.99, Which Among Other Things Contain Penalty Provisions, and move it adoption. JSC/tiv SET-UP ORDINANCE NO. 244 Fourth Series An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Shakopee City Code, Chapter 5, entitled "Liquor, Beer and Wine Licensing and Regulation" by Amending Section 5.45 Subd 1 and Adopting by Reference Shakopee City Code, Chapter 1 and Section 5.99, which Among Other Things Contain Penalty Provisions THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION I: Repeal Subdivision 1 of Section 5.45 entitled "License Required" is hereby repealed. SECTION II: Enacting a new Subdivision 1 See 5.45 entitled "License Required". It is unlawful for any public place to allow the consumption or display of liquor or the serving of any liquids for the purpose of mixing liquor without a license therefore from the City. SECTION III: Adoption by Reference The general provisions and definitions applicable to the entire City Code including penalty provisions of Chapter 1 and Section 5.99 entitled "Violations a Misdemanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim herein. SECTION IV: 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 �23 daofMay, 1988. X, 'i, 4 :2cME1:20- MEMO MO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Recommended Changes to the City Zoning and Subdivision ordinances DATE: June 3, 1988 INTRODUCTION• At their meeting on April 19, 1988 the Shakopee City Council received a recommendation from the City Planning Commission regarding amendments to City Code Sections 11.02-11.05, 11.27- 11.34, 11.37, 11.60, 11. 07 and 12.07. At the April 19, 1988 meeting the City Council passed a motion directing the City Attorney to draft an ordinance making the recommended code changes. Attached is a copy of the ordinance. BACKGROUND: For background regarding the recommended code changes please see the attached memo dated April 15, 1988. At the April 19, 1988 meeting the City Council discussed several of the proposed amendments which were considered to be major changes. One issue not discussed at the April 19th meeting relates to the question of maximum street grades allowed by the City's Subdivision Ordinance. The City Subdivision Ordinance requires maximum street grades to not exceed 58, the staff had recommended the code be changed to allow street grades up to a 78 maximum. The attached memo contains an attachment B providing information from the City Engineer regarding a survey of other cities and examples of street grades in Shakopee. Also attached are results from another survey. The Planning Commission discussed this issue at some length and was not in total agreement on whether to change the provision for street grades. The Planning Commission recommended leaving the maximum street grade at 5%. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Offer and approve ordinance No. 246 amending Sections of the Shakopee City Code as drafted. 2. Amend Ordinance No. 246 and pass the ordinance as amended. 3 . Do not approve Ordinance No. 246 and not amend the City Code. ACTION REOUESTED• Offer and approve Ordinance No. 246 as outlined in either alternative #1 or #2. 0b MEMO To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Recommended Changes to the City Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances DATE: April 15, 1988 INTRODUCTION, At their meeting on April 7 , 1988 the Shakopee Planning Commission passed a motion recommending to the City Council that City Codes Sections 11. 02 - 11. 05, 11.27 - 11. 34 , 11. 37 , 11. 60, 11. 07 and 12 . 07 be amended as shown in attachment A. BACKGROUND: Last summer the City Planning staff presented to the Planning Commission a recommendation outlining proposed amendments to the City Zoning and Subdivision Sections of the Citv Code. Changes proposed by the staff were developed primarily as "housekeeping" changes which would clarify language and eliminate conflicts in the current code. Since that time the Planning Commission has been discussing these changes, and has added some additional changes which they feel are also of a priority to the City. The Planning Commission has held a public hearing on the proposed code changes and at their meeting on April 7th passed a motion recommending the proposed changes as am--ached. PLANTING COM*SISSION RECOMMENDATION• The Planning Commission at their meeting on April 7, 1988 recommended the changes as outlined in attachment i. Following is brief description of the proposed changes. Numbering for the following descriptions relates to the numbering in attachment A, you may wish to follow along with attachment A while reading the descrizzions. 1. Section 11. 02 Definitions. 13 . The definition for building height has been changed to simplify and clarify interpretation of the definition. 141. A definition has been added for the term opaque. Questions regarding the definition for opaque - have arisen in regard to screening requirements for outdoor storage and parking areas. 2 . Section 11. 03 Subd. 3 Lot Provisions Changes are proposed to setback requirements for lots which front on more than one street. The proposed change would allow the setback on the side or rear porion of a lot abutting a street to be reduced by 101 . � L U 3 . Section 11. 03 Subd. 6 Accessory Buildings C. The size limitation for accessory buildings in the R-2 , R-3, and R-4 Districts would be changed to prevent the accessory building from being larger than the principle dwelling on the property. Presently the code only requires that the accessory building be less than 10% of the lot area. Presently lots 20, 000 sq. ft. in size would be allowed an accessory building of 2, 000 sq. ft. E & F. The proposed changes to the language regarding setback requirements for accessory buildings will eliminate confusion reaarding existing requirements. 4 . Section 11. 03 Subd. 7 Required Yards & Open Space E. This section is being eliminated because of the reduced requirement for side yard setbacks on lots abutting a second street. The Commission feels that the new setback requirement will adequately address the need previously covered by this provision. F. Language regarding the required setback for new structures in previously built areas where the existing structures are closer to the street than the required setback has been changed to clarify this provision. H. This section regarding setbacks from high water lines is adequately covered in Section 11.35 (Shoreland District) . This provision should have been removed from the code at the time Section 11. 35 was added. 5. Section 11. 03 Subd. 11 Property Abutting Highways The terminology for street classifications would be changed to conform to the current terminology used by the Metropolitan Council. 6. Section 11. 04 Subd. 4 Appeals The appeal period for a staff decision would be reduced from 90 days to 7 days. This change would conform to the current anpeal period for decisions of the Board of Adjustment and Planning Commission. The staff Pelt that 90 days was an excessively long period of time. 7 . Section 11. 04 Subd. 5 variances The current State Planning Enabling Legislation allows for the placing of conditions on variances that are granted by the City. The City' s current ordinance does not recognize this, the proposed change would include this provision in our ordinance. S. Section 11. 04 Subd. 6 Conditional Use Permit Criteria 11 and 12 for granting Conditional Use Permits would be eliminated and made requirements for submission of the application. The staff and Planning Commission feels that these statements are really requirements and not criteria. The code would also be chanced to place a limit on the amount of time the Planning Commission can take in approving a Conditional Use Permit. This change would conform to the proposed State Enabling Legislation now before the legislature. 9 . Section 11. 05 Subd. 1 Motor Fuel Stations E. This provision would be chanced to require paving of parking and drive areas for motor fuel stations. 10. Section 11. 05 Subd. 3 Off Street Parking and Loading D. Design and Maintenance of Off-Street Parking Areas 2 . Access drives to required parking areas would be allowed a width of uD to 28 ' , the current code only allows a access width of 24 ' . This change is based on a recommendation of the previous City Engineer. 7 . Screening requirements for parking lots which abut a R District would be changed to allow the use of evercreen hedges in addition to fences. 9 . This section is eliminated because it is adequately covered by r7 above. 11. Section 11.27 Subd. 6 Performance Standards 12 . Performance Standards Performance standards for Sections 11. 25, Subd. 6 ; Section 11. 29, Subd. 6; Section 11.30, Subd. 6; Section 11.31, Subd. 6; Section 11.32, Subd. 6; and Section 11. 333 , Subd. 6. These sections would be removed from the code because the-. are duplicates of the requirements found in Section 11. 60 v c� The individual sections would then be crossed referenced to allow administration of the code by referring to Section 11. 60 where these performance requirements are included. The main purpose for this change is to eliminate bulk from the existing code. This change would also simplify administration of the code. 13 . Section 11. 29 , Subd. 5 M. Screening requirements for B-1 areas across the street from R Districts would be changed to conform to similar requirements elsewhere in the code for the purpose of consistency. 14 . Section 11. 30 Subd. 5 Lot Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements C. This section is again changed in order for terminology regarding street classifications to be consistent with those of the Metropolitan Council. 15. Section 11. 33 Subd. 2 Permitted Uses (1-2 Zone) The change as contained in attachment A shows major commercial recreation uses in the I-2 District being changed from a permitted use to a conditional use. The Planning Commission passed a motion outlining two alternatives regarding this section. Alternative 1 would create a moratorium on new major commercial recreation development in the I-2 Zoning District for a period of at least six months while the City reviewed and approved changes to the code regarding the use of I-2 property for commercial recreation purposes. This alternative is preferred by the Planning Commission but is subject to a ruling by the City Attorney. If the City Attorney rules against this alternative, the Planning Commission recommends that the alternative of making major commercial recreation in the I-2 zone a conditional use until the City takes further action to change this section of the code. 16. Section 11.34 Subd. 3 Floodfringe District Changes to the wording of the City's Floodplain Ordinance are being made to comply with requirements of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. - 17 . Section 11.34 Subd. 7 Mobile Homes u Mobile Home Parks This is also a change to language within the City's Floodulain Ordinance to conform with requirements of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 16. Section 11 . 37 Urban Redevelopment District The Planning Commission is recommending that the Urban Redevelopment District be eliminated from the City Code. This district was set up a little over a year ago for the purpose of allowing the Fairest Made Foods industry to expand on their present site. They were previously zoned B- 1 which prohibited expansion of the industry in that location. The Planning Commission feels that the zoning district has not accomplished it's purpose and that the area should be rezoned back to B-1. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this proposed rezoning and no opposition to rezoning the property back to B-1 was expressed at the public hearing. The two owners of propertv within the Urban Redevelopment District which includes Mr. Jongquist, support it's rezoning back to B-1. 19. Section 11. 60 Performance Standards Subd. 9 Presently the City requires a Conditional Use Permit for bulk storage tanks. In researching other city ordinances, staff found that no other cities require a conditional use permit for tanks. In also discussing this with the Fire Marshall it was felt that the requirements cf the State Fire Marshall and Department of Agriculture are sufficient to insure protection of the local community. Therefore, the Planning Commission has recommended changes to this section which would not require a conditional use Permit for bulk storage tanks. 20. Section 12 . 07 Subd. 1 B Design Standards The following changes are proposed to Design Standards for subdivisions. Collector streets would be defined as major and minor collector streets. Major collector streets requiring a 100' right-of-way, minor collector requiring a 80' right-of-way. This change . streets proposed a the reqCounty request of the County Engineer. The would like 100' of right-of-way for County Roads which are classified as collector streets. The change also proposes a chanoe in right-of-way widths -from 55' to 60' and a roadway width change from 2e ' to 28 ' for one-way collector streets. The Planning Commission has recommended the maximum grade for arterial streets be changed from 6£ to 5%. The Planning Commission had considerable discussion on whether to increase the maximum grade allowed for local and marginal access streets. The Citv's Engineer and Planning staff recommended to the Phad lanning Commission that the maximum grade be changed to 7$ which is more consistent with other suburbs in the Metro Area. Staff Provided the Planning Commission with Attachment B showing a survey of maximum street grades allowed by other cities in the State of nnesota. The Planning Commission after discussion felt 0- that that the street grade should remain at the current 5% maximum grade and has recommended to the City Council that no change be made to this requirement. Also added to the street grade requirement is a maximum 1$ gradient for the first 100 feet in all directions from an intersection. This would provide for a level area adjacent to the intersection. ALTERNATIVES• 1. If the City Council agrees with the recommendations of the Planning Commission regarding code changes a motion should be passed directing the City Attorney to draw up the appropriate ordinance amending the City Code. 2. Direct staff to either eliminate proposed specific sections from the recommended code changes or alter the language within specific sections and bring back the revised draft to the next meeting for further discussion and action. 3 . The City Council could eliminate proposed code changes from the recommendation and/or alter language regarding changes to specific sections and direct the City Attorney to draw up the appropriate ordinance with these changes. ACTION REOUESTED' Offer and pass a motion to proceed with the code changes as outlined in either alternative 1, 2 or 3 . Zoning & Subdivision Code Change 1. ) Section 11. 02 DEFINITIONS 13 . "Building Height" - The vertical distance from: F_} the average elevation of the adjoining ground level or-fa} f^re-es<zc__ari=rradr,--wpi-e:-erer-rs=-erre- to the top of the cornice of a flat roof, tatt-'r�r-cee)r-3:r�-cc-� mznsar&-reed to a point on the roof directly above the highest wall of a shed roof, tc-tire-nppe_-mast-paint-ea z-reeae-o_-ct-trey are?--tYpc-zoe�- to the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. 141. 'lOpacue" - For the Purposes of this chapter , the opagveness of an object shall be measured by the ability of a vertical surface plane to obstruct lith` when viewed from a point Perpendicular to that plane 2 . ) Section 11. 03 Subd. 3 IAT PROV-ISION'S D. On double frontage lots the required front vard setback shall be Provided on both streets However , in R:1 and R-2 districts the setback maybe reduced by 10 feet in the direction determined to be the rear vard. The 'front yard" shall be the shortest o' the two frontages. E. On corner lots , the required front vard setback shall be Provided on both streets However , in R-1 and R-2 districts the setback may be reduced by 10 feet in the direction determined to be the side yard The ' � opt yard" shall be the shortest of the two frontages 3 . ) Section "_1. 03 Subd 6 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS C. In "R-2" through "R-4" Districts no accessory building shall exceed ten (lo) percent of the lot area or exceed the square footage of the foot Print of the habitable no_tion of the principal d ellinc whichever is less E. All accessory buildings shall meet the same front yard setback requirements as the principle dwelling. Accessory building= shall not be located nearer the side or rear lot lines abvttin a street tbzn the Principle dwellinc 01 close than the required setback for the prig ciple dwellinc whichever is less F. A detached accessory building may not be located less than five (5) feet from the rear or side lot line. ereept--+fie:, Where the entrance to a garage is on an alley or street, &r.-x$ e_-case, the building shall not 1 be less than twenty (20) feet from the lot line abutting the street or alley. 4 . ) Section 11. 03 Subd. 7 REQUIRED YARDS 6 OPEN SPACE E. lets-w=iei-sbut-rot-�r..are-Ehan-crx: t?le-ree^ -ee-Fra-it-pe-x -a+ong eve-:-lam et--___ � pt-€e_- iste-�larte�- prersac-e-r-�rrsm�mr-ef-99-�eeF-'_-rer..-any- _`__ _: -surface vtrer.--C?te--jet-Disc- doeo--trot--Jmakc-�N-p-_,aet-irt3r-tc F=�cr-ce-mere- For corner and double frontage setback requirements see Sec. 11 03 Subd 3 D 5 E F. Where adjoining structures existing on the effective date of this chapter have a different setback from that required,. the front setback of a new structure shall conform to the average prevailing setback ter.--the -kdr_r.i-stratar--sitr 6. ) Section 11. 04 Subd 4 APPEALS B. At any one time within seven (7) days after the decision of the City Administrator under the provisions of this chapter, except in connection with prosecutions for violations thereof, the applicant or other person or officers of the City thereby may appeal to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals by filing a written notice to the City Administrator stating the action. 7 . ) Section 11. 04 Subd. 5 VARIANCES B. Additional Conditions in granting a new variance the Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose in addition to the_standards and recuirements erpressly speci`ied bythis chapter, additional conditions which the Commission considers necessary to protect the interests of the surrounding area and the health safetv and General welfare of the community as a whole. Additional restrictions may include matters relating to appearance lighting hours of operation and performance characteristics B-C. Procedure 6. ) Section 11. 04 Subd. 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A. Criteria for Granting Use Permits. -- _:r-£,er•elope�-she'=-�•i-xrv__e_��:ue- ='_.___yam-€sem _= =Yee-Bene}seer-s+e_=-y4.yY� =-c€ro:rne-s?- -� t�-srorertr-pc-tsa-;r�:.rr.:s�raE-_- C. Procedure 1. The person applying for a conditional use permit shall fill out and submit to the Administrator a conditional use application form plus fee. At the time of submission of the permit, the developer shall supply the City with a time schedule for completion of the project and prof o- ownership Of subject property and the Administrator may request the developer to deposit up to $1, 000. 00 held in a special developers escrow account and shall be credited to the said developer. Engineering, Planning, Administrative and legal 3 expenses incurred by the City shall be paid by the developer. The Administration of the escrow account shall follow section 12. 03 , Subd 3 , of the Subdivision Regulations, 6. The Planning Commission must take action on the application within sixty (60) days after the public hearing is closed. In all cases the Planning Commission must act on the request within 12D days of submittal of the application unless time extension is reoliested ax the alpnlicant in writinc If it grants the conditional use permit, the Planning Commission may impose conditions (including time limits) it considers necessary to Protect the public health, Safety and welfare. ar. aeeh-eendi`_iet�s-me7'--i�2ude--a-eime-limit Jw:--dire rsc-tc-exist-cr-eperatr- 9 • ) Section 11. 05 Subd. 1 MOTOR FUEL STATIONS B. A fence or wall of acceptable design shall be constructed along the property line when said use abuts Property residentially used or in an "R" District, and said fence shall be adequately maintained. Application of this provision shall not require a fence within the required front yard. The entire site other than that taken up by a structure or planting shall be surfaced with a �o-arerrz-_-Ec-ceritr�-dtsa-s•;r=c.,,e-;mage- concrete Or bituminous binder. 10. ) Section 11. 05 Subd. 3 OFF-STREET PARKING & LOADING D. Design and maintenance of off-street parking areas. 2. Access and Location. Parking areas shall be designed so as to provide an adequate means of access to a public alley or street. Said drivewav access shall not exceed is 28 feet in width at the public walk centerline and shall be so located as to cause the least interference with traffic movement. � Parking Space Abutting R Districts. When a required off-street parking space for six or more vehicles is located abutting an R District, a compact evergreen hedge or a fence of adequate aesxgn, not over 6 feet in height nor less than 3 1/2 feet shall be erected and maintained along the R District property line, (except such fence shall not be located within the front yard) . Said fence shall not be less than 75% opaque. 4 9• Screc^tng---�T'p'�-anw-�e����_ -__ Piart-sho`r+�g--ort�p2�-o-F-�-h--serecn_nc-�3xa�=--be aebr..:tircf hcr..rnistrator- -t-Y 11. ) Section 11.27 Subd. 6 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 6 A. EX-erior Storage (for applicable provisions see Section 11. 60 Subd. 1) 12 . ) PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The following changes will be made to Sec. 11. 28, Subd. 6 ; Sec. 11 . 29 , Subd. 6; Sec. 11. 30, Subd. 6; Sec. 11. 31, Subd. 6; Sec. 11. 32 , Subd. 6; and Sec. 11. 33 , Subd. 6. A. Acceptable Building Materials. (for applicable provisions see section 11. 60 Subd. 5) B. Reouired parking Setback. (fcr app 6) licable provisions see Section 11. 60 Subd. C. Landscaping Requirements. (for applicable provisions see Section 11. 60 Subd. 7) D. Screening. (for appiicable provisions see Section 3D) 11. 60 Subd. E. Roof Ton Facilities. (for applicable provisio 3 D (1) ) ns see Section 11. 60 Subd. F. Parking Areas. (fcr applicable provisions see Section 11. 60 Subd. 3 D (2) ) C. Outdoor Storage and Trash Handling. or applicable provisions see Se 3 D (3) ) ction 11. 60 Subd. H• Loading and Service Areas. (for applicable provisions see Section 11. 60 Subd. 3 D (4) ) Source: Ordinance No. 158, 4th Series Effective Date: 1-31-85 13 . ) Section 11. 29, Subd. 5 M. Whereas a B-1 use abuts or is across the street _from an R-District, a fence or compact everg in hereen hedge not less than -;;E-re 75s opaque not less than not over 6 Peet high nt } nor less than 3 1/2 feet (excepwhen adjacent to a street where it shill be not higher than 3 feet in height) , shall be erected and maintained in 5 the front yard portion of the lot and along the side or rear on the property line that abuts or is across the street from the R District. said screening maybe erected in the front vard but if desired it shall not exceed 3 feet in height 14 . ) Section 11. 30 Subd. 5 LOT AREA, HEIGHT, LOT WIDTH AND YARD REQUIREMENTS C. Front yard: the front yard setback for all principal structures from planned right-of-way lines shall be 70 feet for F".�-P -a -interr,:ectsatc major arterials, 50 feet for minor arterials, 40 feet for collectors, and 30 feet for all other streets. Rear yard: 3D feet. Side yard: 15 feet. Lot width: 100 feet. 15. ) Section 11.33 , Subd. 2 PERMITTED USES (I-2 Zone) ... 2oar.+e�-c:ai-Ree+-eatror.,-jia}c- Section 11. 33, Subd. 3 CONDITIONAL USES 0. Commercial Recreation, 16 . ) Section 11.34 Subd. 3 FLOODFRINGE DISTRICT B. Conditional Uses 1. Residences. Where existing streets, utilities, and small lot sizes preclude the use of file other methods of elevating the lowest floor above the regulatory flood protection elevation may be authorized. P:-or_ a--�?ia�- - e i •d-e -E-^BCCC:'BaEC�-2T-aL EBr$a�Ce-K;�a_op.e_ctaEC-$���='t^y E _ . R°di-eert=ei-Baseaer,�-__Raa�ert=a_baser_r.E-s bersr. -`isFf=crr�-prei-act;er.-rcase§r..--me}�-be BZt-�iT -K .-eo�ae"_'___be}eK___Y`�'e-__�•egu-1`ron�____c__•yev grateefi cr.-cic��iosr-nep-�-�ye;=-fcr_-=nrear, eeergar,cyr— 17. ) Section 11.34 Subd. 7 MOBILE HOMES & MOBIL HOME PARKS D. The first floor elevation of a manufactured bousinc unit must be elevated to at O* above he regulatory flood protection elevation. 6 18 . ) Section 11.37 SRHhh-R':BBF�'cOP!�g>�?-Bzc_ . The Commission wishes to repeal Ordinance f215 deleting this District from the code. This action will cause the property located within the district to revert back to its previous zoning classification (B-1) . 19 . ) Section 11. 60 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Subd. 9 Bulk Storage (Liquid) . All uses associated with the bulk storage of oil, gasoline, liquid fertilizer, chemicals and similar liquids (except within the Ac s R-1 Districts in which all uses associated with bulk storage of liquid shall be above ground) shall rege:z-a-z�er-sine=-ese-serr.._r-=r,-ey-�e• t-er-e7 c-aei-e^-�i��od}�-rrrr-heac-�-ssc�-r,«w-t-lre�-�=:-e; ew=es=e�,--r_-�ret�-:--cr-se__-t`crtt_:..:-rtecivrr:.��a-rz'rr-are (2 . ) One Way Streets Classification Rioht-of-Wav Roadwav Local 45 Feet 24 Feet Collector Streets SS 60 Feet ?i 28 Feet Arterial Streets 60 Feet ii 28 Feet (c) Classifications Gradient Percent Arterial Streets 6 5 Collector Streets 5 Local Streets 5 Marginal Access Streets 5 Intersection Design. A 1 percent gradien` pe- 100 feet in all directions 8 (Y Pi ret-rrestzt_--(t'•�--weeie--�-eetr_�rrertai_tr�tc-pcn_i-e ' c€etr--ene-ve-� -gyre=?'e'-'eY-- iic-�tc -eE re4CYrec-v.--}�-oz-btP er-r�'r"_ic-`fli ir-Seed-oer�-of--t'ne 2-tr-£oee-___his- _�s-t�N-aberc-g�onna-�ri�-sterage tang-s--tees.-r•�-.e--eapaeity--rn �:.__-_ -tr_'--ten--tt�oesam3 <,E-E&&}-ge=?ere-shed-SecYr_e--r-eoxxiit-rcmrt-use--perrrif th-s-2hngte-:--=-re-{cr_�`-yrtr.��-eci r_+e-t-:-�-drreicpr..ere sez?-ee--and-s^ie3i-±eo?c-�-�,r-ce-rreri���gtra-l-�bne h-enrrec--F_#t�exr-peree-i-{?iFe=-�-the-tarr3:-�epnert}� isnr-er.:9ein5-stc^e-.re-v�--thnt-__.-_t�rro -i-��-the erorern_.r_ -w'%`,--rt-'o^s'�cct�-a--k�azrc-t�-�Se--nti ci-e snfetr--arm=-d�sean=:=.ne--eperetiens-��Tt�r�. years-4-_low nS-enaetr,.ent-ct-tk=s-2hapter- Comply with the requirements of the YN State Fire Marshall and the M14 Dent of Agriculture and have documents from these Offices stating the use is in conformance Afte- installation , in conformance with State Fire Marshall or MN Dent. of Agriculture, a follow-un inspection of the tanks shall be made by the City Fire Marshall o State Fire Marshall. 20. ) Section 12 . 07 Subd 1 B DESIGN STANDARDS (a) Width of Streets (1. ) Two Way Streets Classi`ications Right-Of-Wav Roadwav Rural Local Street 60 Feet 28 Feet Arterials 100 Feet 68 Feet Collector Streets &C Feet ++-r - major 100 Feet 44 Fee- - Minor 80 Feet 44 Feet Local Streets 60 Feet 36 Feet Marginal Access Street. 50 Feet 28 Feet 7 Attachment S emn-rm GRAD='S Survey of 27 communities at the Fall ' 1957 Conference of Minnesota Public Works Association as to maximum street grades. of Cities 1 (Shakopee) 6€ - 2 7s - 2 st - 17 12% - 4 20; - 1 (Duluth) LOCA; rC MnLrS DF STREET CRPD"c Spencer Fifth to Sixth - 4 .5e Hauers Trail CSAti 16 to Parxridoe Drive - 5% Atwood (Third to Fourth) - 6e Amar Street Third to Fourth - 60 Shumway ____rd to Fourth - 6% >crizon Drive - 6.2e Dean Lake Road - 10� aasDer Road - ) 5s iMinnesota CHALKLSNE— Page 5 Standards for PW Facilities At the Fall Conference, a survey was taken on 20 Standards of Public Works Construction at the IME Con- O current Session. A brief o - report of the results was made at the session with a comment that a written re- port would be made on the results. 30 different cities responded with the following results: 1. Concrete curb and gutter is required on a treats in new developments. (30 Yes, 0 No) r e 2. Allow mountable curb and gutter. es, of <E es) Sidewalk required on all residential streets. (3 Yes, 25 No) ONo 4. Street lights required in new subdivisions. (24 Yes, and 5 No) Ye 5. Have establisned storm sewer utility. (Question may not have been clear.) (9- Yes, 21 No es 6. Allow plastic pipe for sanitary sewer. (25 allow PVC, 3 allow ABS Truss, 2 No) es 7. Allow curvilinear sanitary sewers. (5 Yes, 23 No) N S. Allow plastic pipe for watermains. (4 Yes, 25 No)-"No 9. Standard spacing between manIles on 8" sanitary sewer. - (11-800' , 2-350' , 15-400') 00' - 10. Standard size ofyanitary sewer house service. (27-4", 2-6") 11. Standard minimum size of watermain. (24-6", 5-8") E" 12. Standard material for watermain. (1 CIP, 27 DIP, DI - and 1 plastic) 13. What is standard for concrete rb and gutter? - (21-B618, 5-B624, 4 " cher) -678 14. Standard width of s:;ewaOlk (Boulevard type) (3-4' , 16-5' , 6-6') S' 15. Standard width of T . Ievard between curb and sidewalk. (2-3' , 6-5' , 1-5'15' . .-6' , 3-7' , 1-7'�' , 3-8' , 2-9' 5 2-10' , 2-12' , 1-1- 72' 16. Standard residenti:- street width. (1-26' , 4-281 , 4-30' , 1-31' , 12-t 5-36') 36' 17. Standardminimum e f treats. (1-.33%, 3-.4%, 17-.5%, 3-.6%, 2- . 0. 5$ 18. Standard maximum -e for streets. (11-5%, 2-6%, 2-7%, 1-615%, 6-8%, 3-1:. -12X, 1-13%, 1-20% 6% 19. Standard curb re. radius on residenti-astreets. (1-13' , 8-15' , 5- 1-25' , 1-30') 75' 20. Standard minimum aential lot size in square f-et. (2-4800, 1-5200. 00, 1-7500, 1-8000, 1-812., -9000, 1-9600, 7-1000__ 0800, 1-11000, 1-12000, 1-=} 00, 1-22,000) — ural 9,000 S.F. - Urc-- ; Obviously, not ryone Draw your own cont- :ions answered every qua 'm. from the survey. ORDINANCE U 246 Fourth Series An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota Amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 11 Entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning)" and Chapter 12 Entitled "Subdivision,Regulations (Platting)" By Repealing Certain Portions Thereof and By Adding Additional Regulations and Restrictions as Herein Provided; and Adopting By Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Sections 11.99 and 12.99, Which Among Other Things Contain Penalty Provisions THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: SECTION I: Repeal The foloowing sections,& subsections are hereby repealed: Section 11.02(13), Section 11.03 Subd 6C and 6E and 7F, and 11; Section 11.04 Subd. 4B, 6CJ and 6C6; Section 11.05 Subd 1B, 3D2, 3D7; Section 11.29 Subd 5M; Section 11.30 Subd 5C; Section 11.34 Subd 3B(l) ; Section 11.60 Subd 9; and Section 12.07 Subd B1. SECTION II: New Provisions Added to Chapter 11 1. ) Section 11.02 DEFINITIONS 13. "Building Height" - The vertical distance from: the average elevation of the adjoining ground level to the top of the cornice of a flat roof, to a point on the roof directly above the highest wall of a shed roof, to the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. 141. "Opaque" - For the purposes of this chapter, the opaqueness of an object shall be measured by the ability of a vertical surface plane to obstruct light when viewed from a point perpendicular to that plane. 2. ) Section 11.03 Subd. 3 LOT PROVISIONS D. On double frontage lots the required front yard setback shall be provided on both streets. However, in R-1 and R-2 districts the setback maybe reduced by 10 feet in the direction determined to be the rear yard. The "front yard" shall be the shortest of the two frontages. E. On corner lots, the required front yard setback shall be provided on both streets. However, in R-1 and R-2 districts the setback may be reduced by 10 feet in the direction determined to be the side yard. The "front yard" shall be the shortest of the two frontages. 3. ) Section 11.03 Subd 6 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS C. In "R-2" through "R-4" Districts no accessory building shall exceed ten (10) percent of the lot area or exceed the square footage of the foot print of the habitable portion of the principal dwelling, whichever is less. E. All accessory buildings shall meet the same front yard setback requirements as the principle dwelling. Accessory buildings shall not be located nearer the side or rear lot lines abutting a street than the principle dwelling or closer than the required setback for the principle dwelling, whichever is less. F. A detached accessory building may not be located less than five (5) feet from the rear or side lot line. Where the entrance to a garage is on an alley or street, the building shall not be less than twenty (20) feet from the lot line abutting the street or alley. 4. ) Section 11. 03 Subd. 7 REQUIRED YARDS & OPEN SPACE E. For corner and double frontage setback requirements see Sec. 11.03, Subd. 3 D & E. F. Where adjoining structures existing on the effective date of this chapter have a different setback from that required, the front setback of a new structure shall • conform to the average prevailing setback. The average prevailing setback shall be the average of all existing principal buildings on the same block face or if there are less than three (3) structures existing on the same block face, the adjoining block face closest to the subject property shall also be included in the computation. H. No building permit shall be used for any lot or parcel which does not abut a dedicated public street. 5. ) Section 11.03 Subd. li PROPERTY ABUTTING HIGHWAYS Property Abutting Highways. Along streets designated in the Transportation Plan, the front yard setback for all principal structures from planned right-of-way lines shall be 70 feet for major arterials, 50 feet for minor arterials and 40 feet for collector streets. 6. ) Section 11. 04 Subd 4 APPEALS B. At any one time within seven (7) days after the decision of the City Administrator under the provisions of this chapter, except in connection with prosecutions for violations thereof, the applicant or other person or officers of the City thereby may appeal to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals by filing a written notice to the City Administrator stating the action. -2- 7. ) Section 11.04 Subd. 5 VARIANCES /o-)-- 0— B. Additional Conditions 1. In granting a new variance, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose, in addition to the standards and requirements expressly specified by this chapter, additional conditions which the Commission considers necessary to protect the interests of the surrounding area and the health, safety and general welfare of the community as a whole. Additional restrictions may include matters relating to appearance, lighting, hours of operation and performance characteristics. C. Procedure 8. ) Section 11.04 Subd. 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT C. Procedure _ 1. The person applying for a- conditional use permit shall fill out and submit to the Administrator a conditional use application form plus fee. At the time of submission of the permit, the developer shall supply the City with a time schedule for completion of the project and proof of ownership of subject property, and the Administrator may request the developer to deposit up to $1,000.00 held in a special developer's escrow account and shall be credited to the said developer. Engineering, Planning, Administrative and legal expenses incurred by the City shall be paid by the developer. The Administration of the escrow account shall follow section 12.03, Subd 3 , of the Subdivision Regulations. 6. The Planning Commission must take action on the application within sixty (60) days after the public hearing is closed. In all cases the Planning Commission must act on the request within 120 days of submittal of the application unless a time extension is requested by the applicant in writing. If it grants the conditional use permit, the Planning Commission may impose conditions (including time limits) it considers necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. 9. ) Section 11. 05 Subd. 1 MOTOR FUEL STATIONS B. A fence or wall of acceptable design shall be constructed along the property line when said use abuts property residentially used or in an "R" District, and said fence shall be adequately maintained. Application of this provision shall not require a fence within the required front yard. The entire site other than that taken up by a structure or planting shall be surfaced with a concrete or bituminous binder. -3- 2 . Access and Location. Parking areas shall be designed so as to provide an adequate means of access to a public alley or street. Said driveway access shall not exceed 28 feet in width at the Public walk centerline and shall be so located as to cause the least interference with traffic movement. 7. Parking Space Abutting R Districts. When a required off-street parking space for six or more vehicles is located abutting an R District, a compact evergreen hedge or fence of adequate design, not over 6 feet in height nor less than 3 1/2 feet shall be erected and maintained along the R District property line, (except such fence shall not be located within the front yard) . Said fence shall not be less than 75% opaque. 11. ) Section 11.27 Subd. 6 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 6 A. Exterior Storage (for applicable provisions see Section 11. 60 Subd. 1) 12. ) PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The following changes will be made to sec. 11.28, Subd. 6; Sec. 11.29, Subd. 6; Sec. 11. 30, Subd. 6; Sec. 11.31, Subd. 6; Sec. 11.32, Subd. 6; and Sec. 11.33, Subd. 6. A. Acceptable Building Materials. (for applicable provisions see section 11. 60 Subd. 5) B. Required parking Setback. (for applicable provisions see section 11.60 Subd. 6) C. Landscaping Requirements. (for applicable provisions see Section 11. 60 Subd. 7) D. Screening. (for applicable provisions see Section 11.60 Subd. 3D) E. Roof Top Facilities. (for applicable provisions see Section 11. 60 Subd. 3 D (1) ) F. Parking Areas. ' (for applicable provisions see Section 11. 60 Subd. 3 D (2) ) G. Outdoor Storage and Trash Handling. (for applicable provisions see Section 11.60 Subd. 3 D (3) ) 4 �G H. Loading and Service Areas. (for applicable provisions see Section 11.60 Subd. 3 D (4) ) Source: Ordinance No. 158, 4th Series Effective Date: 1-31-85 13. ) Section 11.29, Subd. 5 M. Whereas a B-1 use abuts or is across the street from an R-District, a fence or compact evergreen hedge not less than 75% opaque not less than not over 6 feet high in height nor less than 3 1/2 feet (except when adjacent to a street where it shall be not higher than 3 feet in height) , shall be erected and maintained in the front yard portion of the lot and along the side or rear on the property line that abuts or is across the street from the R District. Said screening maybe erected in the front yard, but if desired it shall not exceed 3 feet in height. 14. ) Section 11.30 Subd. 5 LOT AREA, HEIGHT, LOT WIDTH AND YARD REQUIREMENTS C. Front yard: the front yard setback for all principal structures from planned right-of-way lines shall be 70 feet for major arterials, 50 feet for minor arterials, 40 feet for collectors, and 30 feet for all other streets. Rear yard: 30 feet. Side yard: 15 feet. Lot width: 100 feet. 16. ) Section 11.34 Subd. 3 FLOODFRINGE DISTRICT B. Conditional Uses 1. Residences. Where existing streets, utilities, and small lot sizes preclude the use of fill, other methods of elevating the lowest floor above the regulatory flood protection elevation may be authorized. 17. ) Section 11.34 Subd. 7 MOBILE HOMES 6 MOBILE HOME PARKS D. The first floor elevation of a manufactured housing unit must be elevated to at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation. 5 19 . ) Section 11.60 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Subd. 9 Bulk Storage (Liquid) . All uses associated with the bulk storage of oil, gasoline, liquid fertilizer, chemicals and similar liquids (except within the Ag & R-1 Districts in which all uses associated with bulk storage of liquid shall be above ground) shall comply with the requirements of the MN State Fire Marshall and the MN Dept. of Agriculture and have documents from these offices stating the use is in conformance. After installation, in conformance with State Fire Marshall or MN Dept. of Agriculture, a follow-up inspection of the tanks shall be made by the City Fire Marshall or State Fire Marshall. SECTION III: New Provisions Added to Chapter 12 1,) Section 12. 07 Subd 1 B DESIGN STANDARDS (a) Width of Streets (1. ) Two Way Streets Classifications Right-Of-Way Roadway Rural Local Street 60 Feet 28 Feet Arterials 100 Feet 68 Feet collector Streets - Major 100 Feet 44 Feet - Minor 80 Feet 44 Feet Local Streets 60 Feet 36 Feet Marginal Access Street 50 Feet 28 Feet (2. ) One Way Streets Classification Right-Of-Way Roadway Local 45 Feet 24 Feet Collector Streets 60 Feet 28 Feet Arterial Streets 60 Feet 28 Feet (c) Classifications Gradient Percent Arterial Streets 5 Collector Streets 5 Local Streets 5 Marginal Access Streets 5 Intersection Design. A 1 percent gradient per 100 feet in all directions. SECTION IV: Adopted BAdopted B-Ye The general provisions anddefinitions applicable to the entire City Code in- cluding the penalty provisions of Chapter 1 and Sections 11.99 and 12.99 entitled -6- "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim herein. SECTION V: 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 andafter 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 2nd day of June, 1988 L City Attorney -7- MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: David Hutton, City Engineer '�Npji SUBJECT: Vierling Drive - Project No. 1988-1 DATE: May 27 , 1988 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No . 2903 , approving plans and specifications and ordering advertisement for bids for Vierling Drive, Project No. 1988-1 . BACKGROUND: On December 15 , 1987 Council ordered plans and specifications prepared for Vierling Drive, from County Road 17 to approximately 3 ,200 feet east. The project consists of constructing new roadway, storm sewers and concrete curb and gutter. Vierling Drive is a Municipal State Aid Street (Section 112-010) . Orr-Schelen-Mayeron has completed the plans and specifications for the project . Mn/DOT is currently reviewing the plans and their review is expected to be completed the first week in June. Staff is now requesting Council approval of plans and specifications and authorization to advertise for bids. The scheduled bid opening , contingent on Council approving of the plans, is July 1 , 1988 . The property acquisition process is currently proceeding. Since this project basically passes thru properties owned by one owner, the Scottland Companies, and since they have indicated they will be very cooperative it is not anticipated to take very long to acquire the right-of-way for this project. They are even willing to grant a "right-of-entry" if needed. Plans and specifications are available in the Engineering Department and will also be available at the Council meeting. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Pass Resolution No. 2903 approving of the plans. 2 . Deny Resolution No. 2903 and order revisions or new plans prepared. 3 . Approve the plans but do no authorize bidding until the right-of-way has been obtained. Vierling Drive May 27 , 1988 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternate No. 1 . ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No . 2903 , A Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for Vierling Drive from C.R. 17 to the East, Project No. 1988-1 and move its adoption. DH/pmp MEM2903 RESOLUTION NO. 2903 A Resolution Approving Plans And Specifications And Ordering Advertisement For Bids Vierling Drive from County Road 17 to the East Project No. 1988-1 WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 2851 adopted by City Council on December 15 , 1988 , Bob Frigaard of Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Assoc . , Inc . has prepared plans and specifications for the improvement of Vierling Drive from County Road 17 to the East Approximately 3 , 200 Feet and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1 . Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file and of record in the Office of the City Engineer, are hereby approved. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertise- ment for bids upon the making of such improvements under such approved plans and specifications. The Advertisement for Bids shall be published for three weeks, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be received by the City Clerk until 10: 00 A. M. , on July 1 , 1988, at which time they will be publicly opened in the Council Chambers of the City Hall by the City Clerk and Engineer, or their designated party, will then be tabulated, and will be considered by the Council at 7:30 P.M. , or thereafter on July 5 , 1988, in the Council Chambers, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier' s check, bid bond or certified check payable to the order of the City of Shakopee for not less than five (5% ) percent of the amount of the Bid. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 19_• Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of , 19_• City Attorney CONSENT �a MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer— � SUBJECT: Market Street - 1st Avenue to Bluff Avenue Feasibility Report DATE: June 1 , 1988 INTRODUCTION: On May 17 , 1988 City Council accepted a petition and ordered the preparation of a feasibility report for Market Street, from 1st Avenue to Bluff Avenue. 1DUND: The feasibility report has been completed and the report is attached for Council review. Attached is Resolution No. 2906 receiving the feasibility report and calling for a public hearing on the proposed improvements. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Adopt Resolution No. 2906 and hold a public hearing on the proposed improvements on June 21 , 1988. 2. Do no accept Resolution No. 2906 . RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 , to adopt Resolution No. 2906 and hold a public hearing on June 21 , 1988. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 2906, A Resolution Receiving a Report and Calling a Hearing on an Improvement to Market Street from 1st Avenue to Bluff Avenue, Project No. 1988-6 and move its adoption. DH/pmp MEM2906 RESOLUTION NO. 2906 A Resolution Receiving A Report And Calling A Hearing On An Improvement To Market Street From 1st Avenue To Bluff Avenue Project No. 1988-6 WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 2889 of the City Council adopted May 17 , 1988 , a report has been prepared by David Hutton, City Engineer , with reference to the improvements of Market Street from 1st Avenue to Bluff Avenue by streets, curb & gutter, storm sewers and sidewalks , and this report was received by the Council on June 7 , 1988 . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1 . The Council will consider the improvement of Market Street from 1st Avenue to Bluff Avenue in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting and benefitted property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvements pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $30 ,000 .00. 2 . A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvements on the 21st day of June , 1988 , at 7 :30 P. M. , or thereafter, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 129 East 1st Avenue and the Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. 3. The work of this project is hereby designated as part of the 1988-6 Public Improvement Program. 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: David Hutton, City Engineer OV SUBJECT: Alley Improvements in Block 55 DATE: May 26 , 1988 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 2900 , declaring the adequacy of a petition and ordering a report prepared for alley improvements in Block Number 55, between Lewis and Sommerville Streets and 4th and 5th Avenues. BACKGROUND: A petition has been received and approved by the City Attorney requesting alley improvements in Block Number 55 , bordered by Lewis , Sommerville , 4th and 5th Streets . The requested improvements consist of bituminous pavement. This alley is currently gravel , with no utilities. There are nine (9) garages that face the alley. The property owners that signed the petition indicate that they will agree to share the cost for these improvements under the special assessment process. (Chapter 429) ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Deny the petition for alley improvements. 2 . Accept the petition and pass Resolution No. 2900 . RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 2 . ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 2900 , A Resolution Declaring Adequacy of Petition and Ordering Preparation of a Report for Alley Improvements, Block 55 Between Lewis and Sommerville Streets and 4th and 5th Avenues and move its adoption. DH/pmp PETITION DATE: April 20, 19se �p TO: Ms. Judy Cox , City Planner FROM: Home Owners of Block *55 RE: Petition to Pave Alley Due to the amount of traffic and the fact that we have nine (9) oaraoes in our alley, located between Lewis and Sommerville, 4th and 5th streets we are requesting this alleyway be paved . We do not feel this would be a luxury as much as it is necessity . By granting this request a number of our problems would be eliminated . for instance this area is extremely dusty, muddy, and any substantial rainfall washes out the east end . In addition many of us are planning to install new driveways and feel this to be a 000d time to determine grade. After a brief discussion with Mr . David Hutton of the City Engineers Office, we were able to approximate the following figures: 250' ( length ) x 14' (width ) x 3" (depth ) asphalt required would be approximately 70 'tons a $22.50 per ton would total $1 ,545.00, an additional $1 ,000.00 for grading plus incidentals, the project should not exceed 63,000.00. Prior to its conception the cost for the study to determine feasibility would be absorbed by the city. We understand if no funds are available for this project, by our signature we acres to share the cost thru special assessment. Thank you for your prompt attention to this request . Homeowner Address Phone Number 1 . t� _ :�'��. lL• 'Yo75 d[r hQdli�t 5�9G -33/G. v S. L tw a �'T. ✓ S 5'/6 i.� 5. 'M . Iftl,.. a53 54cDu y 5 Y9 6. 7. age, � 'an?4 S. 9, M RESOLUTION NO. 2900 A Resolution Declaring Adequacy Of Petition And Ordering Preparation Of A Report For Alley Improvements Block 55 Between Levis And Sommerville Streets And 4th And 5th Avenues BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1 . A certain petition requesting the improvement of the Alley in Block 55 between Lewis and Sommerville Streets and 4th and 5th Avenues, filed with the Council on June 7 , 1988, is hereby declared to be signed by the required percentage of owners of property affected thereby . The declaration is made in conformity to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429 .035. 2 . The petition is hereby referred to David Hutton, City Engineer and he is instructed to report to the Council with convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement , and estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. 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: David Hutton, City Engineer \\&.V SUBJECT: 6th Avenue Sanitary Sewer iii...��� DATE: May 26 , 1988 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No . 2901 , approving plans and specifications and ordering advertisement for bids for 6th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Project No. 1988-2. BACKGROUND: This project consists of installing new sanitary sewers on 6th Avenue from Madison Street to Adams Street and also replacing existing sanitary sewers on Adams Street from 6th Avenue to 2nd Avenue (See attached map) . Orr-Schelen-Mayeron has completed plans and specifications for this project. Staff is now requesting Council approval of plans and specifications and authorization to advertise for bids. Plans and specifications are available in the Engineering Department and will also be available at the Council meeting. The scheduled bid opening, contingent on Council approving of the plans, is July 1 , 1988. REQUESTED ACTION: Offer Resolution No. 2901 , A Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for 6th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Project No. 1988-2 and move its adoption. DH/pmp MEM2901 - t J 47 S. 17 y � � .� e E� 3C F �� - RESOLUTION NO. 2901 '� 0 A Resolution Approving Plans And Specifications And Ordering Advertisement For Bids 6th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Project No. 1988-2 WHEREAS, Robert Frigaard of Orr-Schelen-Mayeron and Assoc. , Inc. has prepared plans and specifications for the improvement of 6th Avenue Sanitary Sewer and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1 . Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file and of record in the Office of the City Engineer, are hereby approved . 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertise- ment for bids upon the making of such improvements under such approved plans and specifications. The Advertisement for Bids shall be published for three weeks, shall specify the work to be done , shall state that bids will be received by the City Clerk until 10 : 00 A. M. , on July 1 , 1988, at which time they will be publicly opened in the Council Chambers of the City Hall by the City Clerk and Engineer, or their designated party, will then be tabulated, and will be considered by the Council at 7:00 P.M. , or thereafter on July 5 , 1988, in the Council Chambers, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier' s check, bid bond or certified check payable to the order of the City of Shakopee for not less than five (5°s ) percent of the amount of the Bid. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 19_. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of , 19_. City Attorney CONSENT is MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator* FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer i� .4 SUBJECT: Downtown Streetscape -Railroad License Agreements --- -- DATE: May 27, 1988 INTRODUCTION: This memo addresses two separate license agreements between the Chicago and Northwestern Transportation Company and the City of Shakopee. . BACKGROUND: Attached are two separate license agreements along with Resolution No. 2904 authorizing the execution of these agreements between the City of Shakopee and Chicago and Northwestern Transportation Company regarding the installation of electrical conduits and also sewer and water crossings at Lewis and --—_--_ SemmerviYle-Streets. Apparently, these agreements were sent to the City in September of 1987 , but were evidently lost or never reached the City . Staff has researched all possible files and can find no correspondence or memos indicating that these agreements were ever sent to Council for action. The railroad is now requesting that we execute these agreements. The construction has already been completed on these proposed crossings. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Authorize the appropriate staff to execute the agreement by passing Resolution No. 2904. 2. Deny their request and do not pass Resolution No. 2904. RECOMMENDATION: Since the work has already been completed and this appears to be just a formality to make the files completed on this project, staff recommends Alternative No. 1 . ACTION REQUESTED: Move to pass Resolution No. 2904 authorizing the execution of two separate license agreements between the Chicago and Northwestern Transportation Company and the City of Shakopee and move its adoption. DH/pmp CHICAGO AND P TRANSPORTATION COMPANY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 312/559-6294 May 19, 1988 27-27-50 28-100 Mr. Dave Hutton City Engineer 129 E. First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr. Hutton: Attached are duplicate copies of two separate license agreements covering- facilities under our track in Shakopee. These were originally submitted to the City back in September of 1987, but were evidently lost. Will you please arrange for the proper execution and attesting of both copies of both licenses and return them all to me, along with a certificate of resolution, for my further handling. A fully executed copy of each license will be returned to you at that time. Very truly yours, A. Nolin Assistant to Vice President-Engineering cc: R. H. Gilbertson JAN/bd 18 ONE NORTH WESTERN CENTER/CHICAGO. ILLINOIS BW W Form 2976 Page 1 (Revised 1981) CHICAGO AND NORTH WESTERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY and BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY (hereinafter called "Company"), hereby licenses the CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA (hereinafter called 'Licensee"), subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, to construct, install , maintain and use electric cables (hereinafter called "facility"), upon and across the right of way and property and under the tracks of the Company at Shakopee, Minnesota pursuant to request of the Licensee and in accordance with the plan and in the location shown in yellow on map dated July 30, 1987 attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked Exhibit "A", for the sole purpose of conveying electric current at nominal potentials not to exceed 240 volts for power and lighting. The Company may, at its option and without liability to the Licensee, revoke this license at any time by giving written notice thereof to the Licensee, if the Licensee shall use or attempt to use said facility for any other or different purpose than above specified, or if the Licensee shall violate or breach any of the following terms and conditions: 1. The Licensee will procure all necessary public authority for the construction, installa- tion, maintenance and use of said facility, and in addition to the requirements of this license, will construct, install, maintain and use said facility in conformity with all requirements of public authority. 2. The Licensee will pay all taxes and assessments that may be levied or assessed upon or against said facility, or upon or against the premises or property of the Company because of the construction, installation and maintenance of said facility as herein provided for; and in the latter case, the Company shall render to the Licensee a bill for the proportion of taxes or assessments levied or assessed because of the presence of said facility upon its premises, and the Licensee will promptly pay the same. 3(a). Said facility shall be constructed, installed and maintained by and at the expense of the Licensee, in a manner satisfactory to the Company. Construction of telephone, telegraph and other communication wires or cables shall comply with specifications of the Association of American Railroads. Construction of electric light, power or trolley lines shall comply with specifications of the American Railway Engineering Association, except as modified by said Exhi- bit "A". (b). If, in the judgement of the Company, it shall be necessaryto provide protection or support (or both) for its tracks and property during the work of construction, installation or maintenance of said facility, the Company shall have the right to furnish such protection or support (or both) and the Licensee will promptly pay the entire cost thereof. (c). All material and workmanship pertaining to the construction, installation or mainten- ance of said facility shall be subject to the inspection and approval of the Company. (d). The Company shall have the right at any time to judge the necessity of repairs to said facilities, and in the event the Licensee shall fail within ten (10) days after receipt of writ- ten notice to make such repairs as the Company deems necessary, the Company may at its election revoke this license or make such repairs. The Company shall have the right to make emergency repairs to said facility in the event the Company deems such repair necessary for the safety of its tracks or property. The Licensee will promptly reimburse the Company for the cost and ex- pense of all repairs to said facility made by the Company. ii Form 2976 Page 2 (Revised 1981) (e). If at any time it shall be necessary in the judgement of the Company to change the location, elevation or method of construction or installation of said facility, such change will be made by the Licensee, at its sole expense, and in the manner requested by the Company, within thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice thereof from the Company. 4. If : any time the Company shall deem it necessary to change, alter or rearrange any of ; .cks, e,ectrical conductors, poles, wires, appurtenances, structures or other facilities .: ted upon, over or across the right of way or property of the Company because of the construction, installation, maintenance, or use of said facility, the Licensee will promptly pay to the Company the -entire cost and expense of making any such change, alteration or rearrangement. 5. The Company shall have the right to use, occupy and enjoy its tracks and property, or permit the use or occupancy thereof by others, for such purposes, in such manner, and at such times as -the Company shall desire, the same as if this instrument had not been executed by it. If any such use shall necessitate any change in the location or construction of said facility, or any part thereof, such change shall be made by the Licensee, at its own cost and expense, upon demand of the Company, and the Company shall not be liable to the Licensee on account thereof, or on account of any damage growing out of any use which the Company may .make or permit to be .made of its said tracks and property. As an alternative to changingthelocation or construction of the facility, the Company may request the Licensee to disconnect said facility during the period of the Company's construction. The costs of any Licensee personnel that the Licensee deems necessary to observe or inspect such construction shall be borne by the Licensee. 6. Licensee agrees that in the construction, maintenance, and use of the facility, it will comply with all applicable laws, including, but not limited to, any laws, standards, regulations, permitor contamiation Or to occuatinal health and requirements and Licensee agrees�ton findemnify ental Pol ands holdr harmless nthe Company frau pany nand all claims, demands, lawsuit, or liability for loss, fines, damage, injury, and death and all expenses and costs, including attorneys ' fees, resulting from or arising out of the construction, maintenance, or use of the facility, including any discharge or emission therefrom or for the violation of any law, standard, regulation, or permit -requirement relating to environmental pollution or contamination or to occupational health and safety. 7. It is understood and agreed by the Licensee that said facility is subject to and may increase the dangers and hazards of the operation of the railroad of the Company and that this license is subject to all risk thereof. Therefore, the Licensee assumes and agrees to protect, indemnify and save harmless the Company, its officers, agents, employees, invitees and other. licensees, from and against any and all claims, demands, suits, liability and expense by reason Of loss or damage to any property whatsoever or injury to or death of any person whomsovever, from any cause whatsoever, arising or growing, directly or indirecly (1) out of the construc- tion, installation, maintenance, renewal , existence, use or removal of said facility, (2) out of any defect in said facility or any failure thereof, (3) out of any act or omission of the Licen- see, its officials, agents or employees while on or about the right of way or property of the Company or while working on or using said facility, or (4) out of the failure of the Licensee, its officials, agents or employees to abide by or comply with any of the terms or conditions of this license, even though such loss, damage, injury or death may have been caused or contributed to by the operation of the Company's railroad or by the condition of its Property. The Licensee will also indemnify and save harmless the Company, from all liability for damages sustained br the Licensee by reason of want or failure at any time of title on the part of the Company to al*i or any part of the premises upon or across which the facility is located. Notice to or know' - edge by the Company of any act or omission by the Licensee which is or might be a breach by _ Licensee of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement to be performed by the Licensee. the acquiesence by the Company in or to such act or omission, shall neither be consider; relieve the Licensee of any obligation assumed by it unser this paraeraph nor be considered a waiver or release by the Company of any rights granted to it unaer this paragraph. Form 2976 page 3 (Revised 1981 h D 8. The Licensee shall remove all debris, material, false work and the like, caused by or used during the construction, installation or maintenance of said facility, from the right -of way and property of the Company in a manner satisfactory to the Company. 9. The Company shall have the right to revoke this license at any time by giving thirty (30 days written notice thereof to the Licensee. The Licensee shall have the right to terminate this license at any time-by giving thirty (30) days ' written notice thereof to the Company. Any notice to be given under this license shall be in writing and may be served by delivering it, or a true copy thereof, to the other party or its general operating or engineering officers, or by depositing the same in a United States Post Office, enclosed in an envelope addressed to such party at its last known post office address with the postage thereon prepaid. At the expiration of the time limited by any revocation or termination notice, or upon termination of this license in any other manner, the Licensee will , at its own expense promptly remove said facility from the right of way and property of the Company, or from above the right of way and property of the Company as the case may be, and will restore the Company's right of way and property to a condition satisfactory to the Company. Upon default of the Licensee so to do, the Company shall have the right to remove said facility and to restore its right of way and property and the Licensee will promptly reimburse the Company for the cost and expense of so doing. 10. The waiver of a breach of any of the terms or conditions hereof shall be limited to the act or acts constituting such breach and shall never be construed as being a continuing or Dermanent waiver of any such terms or conditions, all of which shall be and remain in full force and effect as to future acts or happenings, not withstanding any such waiver. 11. This license is personal to the Licensee, and is not assignable or transferable without :he written consent of the Company first obtained; provided, however, that in case of any assignment, passing or transfer of ownership of said facility without the Company's written :onsent to said assignment, the Licensee and the new user or owner shall both be jointly and severally liable to the Company under all of the terms and conditions hereof and this license hall be deemed a .joint license to said parties, revocable forthwith by written notice which the onpany at its option may serve upon said parties at any time. 12. The benefits of this license shall accrue to the Company, its successors and assigns. -i accepting this license the Licensee covenants and agrees to perform and to be bound by all of ie terms and conditions hereof to be performed by the Licensee, even though the performance iereof may not be required by the Company until after the revocation or termination of this `cense. 13. All property of whatsoever kind and nature in which the Company has a leasehold interest which is used by the Company wholly or in part regardless of ownership thereof, shall for the �rpose of this agreement be deemed property of the Company and be owned by the Company. 14. In case any of the terms or provisions of this license have been performed or carried t prior to the actual date of execution hereof, it is understood and agreed that this license all nevertheless be of the same force and effect as though same had been executed by the -ties prior to such performance. -m 2976 3 Form 2976 Page 4 (Revised 1981) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument is executed at Chicago, Ill ., this day of ,1g ATTEST: CHICAGO AND NORTH WESTERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY By Assistant Secretary Vice Fresioent - Engineering Pursuant to authority granted by resolution of the of the CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, adopted The undersigned, the Licensee mentioned in the foregoing license, ACCEPTS the same subject to the terms and conditions therein stated. Attest: CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA By City Clerk Mayor L3 80 c �_. __ 24__x_ B0• __— .. - - 25 6U _ 60 60' �� 60 -- 3 TI I s I p ' OT[L r� '1� 1 • f 6 cau oLD SltbAs 125' 3 , wE@ _ 6 C.I SErup� pf2 ' Z �Y.s>ef,.„R 2ND 2s 6k,awncD s,trAL 1 . z = AVE. irtgl fSf nFP [9/' �� 25 VALLEY PAR :Rfuslrc v r - 60'. 80 - I 60' O - 60' PLAN cn SCALE:1"=100 ' NOTE: " NO MEN, MACHINES, MATERIALS OR OPEN CUTS ALLOWED WITHIN 26'OF ` ANY TRACK CENTERLNJE AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO . THE TRACK. OAS[ OF RAIL _ - - _ _ — n,,...2 4#4 AWG_ 1.38"I.D. rmc cowovlT� — — "— 178 AWG -- - SECTION— NOT TO SCALE-LOOKING W. C. & N. W. TRANS. CO, PXHIBIT I.A( „ SHAKOPEE— MINN. I UNDERGROUND CROSSING OF C,& N.W.TRANS.CO. TRACK T.J .ROY BY CABLES OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE -- -- — (HIGHEST VOLTAGE PRESENT-200) FOR A.D.M.. ENGINEERING R[<o..+ewD[o J.E.BIEBEL NOFTyERN .DIY. OFFICE OF ADM-E ST. PAUL, MN. FOR A.V.P,& Di V,MGR. 7-30-87 - SCALE- AS NOTED r— _ --- __ i IOLHTI[RD Anc VOR ! VICE PRE$ -ENGINE[F:uif �wTIF IED i ArC _�oROYEL Form 2036 - Page 1 �- �� �"'�✓ Revised 1981 CHICAGO AND NORTH WESTERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY (hereinafter called "Company") li- censes the CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA (hereinafter called "Licensee") to construct, maintain and use various pipelines (hereinafter called "facility") upon the property and under the track of the Company at Shakopee, Minnesota in the locations and positions, and in accordance with the specifications shown on maps dated July 29, 1987 hereto attached marked Exhibits "A" and "B" and, by this reference, made a part hereof. The foregoing license is given upon such express terms and conditions as are inserted below, as well as those contained upon the subsequent printed pages, and should the Licensee at any time violate any of said terms or conditions, or use or attempt to use said facility for any other or different purpose than that above specified, then the Company may, at its option, immediately revoke this license. The foregoing license is subject to the following conditions: FIRST. The work of construction and maintenance shall be done and completed in good and workmanlike manner at the sole expense of the said Licensee. Said work shall be done in such manner as in no way to interfere with or endanger the use of the property or tracks of the Company, or the operation thereon of any engines, cars or trains. The Chief Engineer of the Company shall have the right to inspect such work from time to time and to require such changes to be made as will in his opinion decrease the hazards incident to said facility; but any such inspection or required changes or any failure to so inspect, or to require changes to be made, shall not effect any of the obligations assumed by the said Licensee hereunder. SECOND. The said Licensee shall bear the cost of all protection which the company may require for its tracks or property during construction and maintenance hereby authorized and of all repairs, changes, additions or betterments to said Company's track or property made neces- sary on account of same. If in the judgement of the Company it shall be necessary to provide support for its tracks during the work of construction or maintenance the Company will provide such support, and the entire cost thereof will be paid by the said Licensee promptly upon re- ceipt of bill therefor. Form 2036 - Page 2 Revised 1981 THIRD. The Licensee shall charges which may become due Day all taxes, general and s ecial , because of the or which may be assessed a p license fees or .business condo conducted ^u ction, existence, 0 9ainst the premises of the Cggihef connection with said facilityyr use of said facility, the Licensee, npany such taxes, license fees or other charge which may the and shall reimburse the Lorman °r the Presentation by the Conpany of bills therefor. Y for any FOURTH. 7h paid by the Lorryany prormtly Loon the days, notice in writsaid Licensee will give to the Chief Engineer of the Purposes, or for the g before entering upon the right of way of the CompanyCorry any at least ten judge of the n Purpose of making necessary repairs. The Comaan ese for construction necessity of repairs to said facility, and to repairs upon ten da require the Licensee toe make h� to right of way withouts then tens days'.y writing. In such case, said Licensee may make such repairs, and u notice above referred to, such and shall o enter upon said to make said re Pon failure to do so within ten da Proceed forthwith to pairs and col le ci the entire cost days, the Company shall have the richt reserves the richt in case in its opinion the safet thereof the Licensee. The Cortgan make emer enc r from 9 Y repairs without notice to the y Pf its tracks or pr y Licensee as herein provided. Licensee and to D Pe rty demands it, to ost FIFTH, Licensee agrees that in the construction, maintenanceandsec of the facility from it will comply with all applicable laws, including, but not limited to, regulations, or permit requirements relatingtandarty, occupational health and Safety; to environmental any laws, standards, from any and all claims, demands,ilawsuit,ee agrees Pollution or contamination or to g iab to indemnify and hold harmless the Company death and all expenses and costs, includine oat liability for loss, fines, damage, in the construction, maintenance, or use attorneys' fees, resulting ��rY, and therefrom or for the violation of an of the facility, including 9 from or arising out of to environmental y law, standard, regulation, g9 dny discharge or emission SIXTH pollution or contamination, or to occupationalithealthre and relz;ina increase the dangers is understood b the Licensee that said facility safety. license is subject to all risks thereof.Operation of the railroad of the Co subject to and may Cortpany for entering into this license and without Therefore, htlthas a e Co maadyial consideratdi nate to at this Licensee agrees to assume and pay for all loss or damage y will not enter same, or death of any person, or to property thereto, however arising fromor ons wh oms never, includin Y whatsoever, and injury to repair, renewal, reconstruction, o in connection with g all costs and expenses incident opera ion, existence, construction, maintenance, therein or failure thereof, use or removal of said facility, or andefect ermlcyees of the Licensee tooabide bas lure of the Licensee or members, officers, aye ror license; and the - Licensee forever indemnifiesy thet Co ny of the terms harmless from any and all claims, or conditions of this injury and death, de ntls, lawsuits oryja bil tynst aan agrees to save it have caused costs and expense, even though the operation of the Lorym, nay's loss road ao or contributed thereto. Notice to or knowledge by the Company uch omission by the Licensee which is or might be a breach o the Licensee of an conditions of this Agreement to be °F' Y of any act or y of terms or Lorry any in or to such act or omission �neibherh be Lice red to relieve the the of y and the acquiescense by tr,e by the lCormann assumed rights it under this paragraph nor be considered to be a waiver or release y of any rights granted to it under this paragraph. SEVENTH. The Loupany reserves the right to use, Poco and right of way, for such purpose, in such manner, same as if this instrument had not been executed n it PY and enjoy its tracks, ir , rte chance and at such time as it shall desire, tris repair, renewal, removal or relocation of If any such use shall necessitate any Licensee shall perform such work at such time as the said facility, fails to d° so. such work may Corryan or any part thereof, the said Cormany shall not y be Performed by the Coup any at any mezpensaove the Li ce the eeLicensee e :se Which be liable to the Licensee on account of an and the Company may make of its tracks, In case any of the Y damage growing out of any rior to the attual terms or provisions of this license have been and right date of execution h of way. hall nevertheless be ereo`, it is understood and aoree Performed or carried out artier of the same force and effect as thoueh same had bed that this license orrPr to such Performance. ^n executed by the Form 2036 - Page 3A Revised 1981 EIGHTH. The Company shall have the right at any time to revoke this license by giving thirty days ' notice in writing to the Licensee and at the expiration of the time limited by said notice upon any other revocation of this license, the Licensee shall promptly, and in the manner directed by said Chief Engineer, remove all construction hereby authorized from the premises of the Company and leave said premises in the same condition in which they were before the installation of the same. Upon default of the Licensee so to do, the Company may remove the same and restore its premises, and the Licensee will promptly pay to the Company the cost of so doing. NINTH. The waiver of a breach of any of the terms or conditions hereof shall be limited to the act or acts constituting such breach, and shall never be construed as being a continuing or permanent waiver of any such terms or conditions, all of which shall be and remain in full force and effect as to future acts or happenings, notwithstanding any such waiver. TENTH. This license is personal to said Licensee and is not assignable or transferable, without the written consent of the Company being first obtained. ELEVENTH. In consideration of the Company's giving to the Licensee the rights and privileges above specified without any charge therefor, the Licensee, by the acceptance of this license, hereby agrees that it will not levy or assess any special against Company or against or upon Company's properties tax or special assessment for the c improvement of which said facility iconstruction or use of the s a part; and, the Licensee hereby forever indemnifies Company against and agrees to save Company harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits or liability whatsoever for any such special tax or special assessment. If notwithstanding the foregoing provisions any such special tax or special assessment shall be levied or assessed upon or against said Coapany's properties, the Company shall wit: have the following elections to (a) Company may make such payments as may be necessary to satisfy and discharge any liens for such special tax or special assessment and in case of such payment the Licensee agrees to make repayment on demand with interest at the rate of five Per cent (5%) Per annum from the date of such payment so made by Company. (b) Company may file this license agreement for recording in the office of the Recorder of Deeds of the county in which said properties are located and such filing shall constitute a complete discharge and release of any lien against said Company's properties for such special tax or special assessment. (c) Company may terminate this license by filing notice of termination with such Recorder of Deeds for recording and forwarding a copy thereof through certified or registered mail, postage prepaid to Licensee whereupon all rights, privileges and interests herein granted to Licensee shall immediately cease and determine with the right of Company to make immediate re-entry and without any further obligations or any liability on the part of Company in respect to any payments, setoffs, counterclaims, recoupment, crossbilis or cross demands. All rights, remedies and elections of Company shall be cumulative. TWELFTH. Licensee further agrees that there is no benefit to the Company's properties, either for railroad use or for any possible use facility or project of which said facility is a parin the future from the construction of the t. Form 2036 - Page 4A Revised 1981 In Witness Whereof this instrument is executed this day ATTEST: CHICAGO AND NORTH WESTERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY Assistant Secretary By Vice President - Engineering Pursuant to authority granted by resolution of the of the CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, adopted The undersigned, the Licensee mentioned in the foregoing license, hereby accepts the same subject to the terms and conditions therein stated. CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Attest: By Mayor (Seal ) ity er � < Y 40- 00§ d6 ' �W m61 ww Ww W14NYml<� f ty. \IU YO Yp Oil IOYV Wp Wp 2Ol' •m� { o FU em y: p: < ': c.. . o o { 2 ul E 133815 91-~ W— e'-- 311I�J3W WOS r " s! i ' s 3 qN M-B.<3 335 \ m 133815[ 31pN 9.e.F3 335 „ $I Mal' — I i GENERAL REOUER02NES: Pipe lines under railway tracks or across or along railway ciant-cf-ma, shall Can she to e"[rtnt Mance Rall-, Engineering ksaoelct°n Specifiu[im+ if eon c ece4 1n tali Untied St.c., a whoa leve p ardor• of public authority prescribe a hlghet degree of protection than specified herein, than the higher defeat of protection •a y �. . m,aclfled •hall be adhered tO /+- Plan. and peelfl [la a far proposed installation .hall be .ubnftctd t0 D1"b1an Eng lneerins Office andnee she a she of the railway earl before construction is begun. Plana shall be draw„ to rale showteg the relation a the proposed pipe lint angle f «—tril. taeaeion of 1.1-he Ive Tell-, s y . .[fon. Tl Rho"f-w., lint .^d `.n rat layout of tracks and railway facilities. Plan should •bo hall • Gr.......timer lar Mercian.) fico field eury y. alluvia, pipe in relation [0 actual prefile of ground .ad track•. eomPleeto be C.acrlpclm of material be mod, ted location of jacking and receiving t pits, If open Collins alt ctmntl"i, l• necessary. details of .belting and method of .upppr[L.,clock.tck• or drlvfnt t net ..."Id be •limn. Tale eaeoil- Of sheMark o Q the railway tight-a(-wry, Inudim, elle ..,pore- Lnt of [ eek•, he be .ub)eec [a Me ln.,.,Ilon -it direction o6 ties O i.im Engineering Office, Pipe It... .hall! be installed most tracks by baring or Jacking. If practicable. faring a s"cal mus n0[ exceed ore Outside diameter of the Pipe. !.eking or boring of CDcruRaced Metal pipe. cut Iran Pipe or Pipe wish flanges. bell• oupli.le .111 nas be pm-IrI& Pipe 11 ea shall be located. here Practicable, t cress Cracks •c approximately Italic an [here[. but pre(erWly rt leer than 45 oerreu end shall not be plated wl[Aln a culvert. most railway brldee• a clear than 45 feet to an, Portion of he railway bridge, builds r other important cr"rs-ii. except in •peeial uses and then by special du 1R^ a. .pvrmee bine Chef Eno^neer a( he railway cc.y.ny. Pipe lin • laid longitudinally railway ^Rht of- ay hll e located as far a Ptac[icahle (rm any Cracks O ocer important tic turd. PIP, linea rat ,l , fl•. able product. or apt da¢. -del pr....r located within 25 feet of shecsecline of any encrack or where there is danger of damage from leakage t any bridge. building or ether Lmpor[important structure. .hall he cased or of special design as approved by the Chief Engineer of the railway ccoon , Fla. line. laid toe6f u4ifally on he railway right-of-way, 50 feet or loc s from the centerline Of track shall be s buried nor le. i an 4 6" from the ground surface [ top of pipe Minimum . If more [M1- 50 fee[ from ante[I Soe of [calk, Great be 3 feet. ` If Additional [racks . ..started in he farm., or railway Caryaer Sectral— that roadbed .humid be widened, the ...ins ahall be extended c egP-m"Rly by license.. .11 Cul., pip l[ x avnave laid t pipe lin.. he Ii ne[ebe Installed ..ow000dudrestle. shall be bess I-. io pirmit,lnt •tterne,at In .coal open• Mere era ...his Islamic would be required to Provide •eP•r [e a Geeing o macercsy, public w or r.ura.e. Tale nae Of eneing pips .nal] be securely and permanently .e.t.a co mtalde at c reser pipe wish MpNtme d Joint wass-;a Kate., a .h .c of outside ala•enu. no what pip.. .hall rbe con—sea m the Gap surface ai ...1^g pipe both end of cne cast., Pipe. ` CASING PIPE FOR E 72 LOADING su1pM+r,°Mnnn vn PIPE xES CARRYING .YeasSV89 Ta W411 STEEL PIPE nnn.,palsaewe o..euro w..mo uamnass.wNrealb Thltkne.s fpr Steel Casing Pipe vav p n ^r yield StranIsh 35,000 P.5. 1.1 Q d°PROvED CASINO PIPE: Pipe Cooled or Pipe N.ICdd:d w 0iamel er Of Pipe Gas.m Call'hem IM, °II ex—r.. Calhadicalll Pro Cathodic.'],Pro- Inches ALL MINIMUM DIMENSIONS MEASURED NORMAL TO (OFOUTSIDE Ii Glea. ...I'd TSIDE TRACR Min Thickness Min Tivekae s3 $ Yin I°e n vane lv or aur w Mehta.R/W 111. I0 ISO Incee3 O IBB GIBE pH'ER Ia 25 M1 `- a, t5 Mw. 0219 O2a2 .016 - SIdaNE♦ I[a,nvProa SMvedl ..� = if rain[m:n PI8.9rmad 0.250 OL2 1B p1p.IM. a54m `e= a aS 4m.I Cv ainG Pi p.Op.n1 $[coon 02e1 03+a $_ Yvn IC .i.,Pip.Op.nl C' S' �— OJR OPS 22 v,vJ Std.A.RE A Pip,lira site D.Sea OA06 24 is } le.`f Sep, �d OPS DA38 2fi V :- 0006 Oe69 2g.xO 50 n,n. . ' , Oa36 0500 32 2 O OA69 0531 3..X036 aurtau In°n M^ 1 0.500 0,,.3 38,A 0 AND a2 Oh eek 12 n�r$.—I 031. - Ll n. � lam, O Fpr myid vlviml al laver ld sl,en Olhincnasa C`---------- + ------- a --------- thick meis on vddlll...I I/I6 in, CS.ai=[a Sx6 plpE!See l..I.toevivemse wish a.., •-Seel REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE METAL CARRIER PIPE 70MEET CURRExTA RE A SPECIFICATIONS^ Pim shall rn,term 1a 4.5TM Dei'Jnalian C-76, nate°---a' r all wwMI MI. , r Erin P.M.q 2 1O c Class lV.WPII*0 wiln).Round Pip* shall have C^C - n B-atom Mv,]� Ion IB•le li r...... p.. m. alAd-Ips cwri.. an or Pwnv loan Iagonal Mli.lital r mf.rG wM,I. I.' +alp it As .11.G1 wwf mmunc tan. CAST IRON PIPE PIPE LINES CARRYING NON-RauM.BLE SUBSTANCES N Mafalla lion r,uSl DeDy pCEllberK^.Five elpll cCn fee fo A.Mic..Noonvl Standards Mihlme Spealil.tan ,Me m ..... M o ,. . m May me.Ilemmm ° MIr 1 . . en . we w...... A21 2 a CIA,,I501ar 1nd unoe and Class 250 It,anew ° 11. slow',vl r .e......try.5°... and a 12 d.Plpe fa ho ...home.[ Idnli Or emmpnivon ^ °tl ser P m 1, ,A 'lith. we...... ..... , vl N k .l M shoM<' ora p(in va. A.1 aural!canal r.°ern .liIk tuhil C-72 IMme, lead..,. APPROVED CASING PIPE: CORRUGATED METAL PIPE See.Cel on 771w.savr.,. Pip. shall be pNIAndled,..beat.. Donald and Rambo...CpnIll.III CMIMI.A.4aal l M....nv.elp.I hen 100 FILL IS ahM1 coaled. ALL MINIMUM DIMENSIONS MEASURED NORMAL TO (DFOUTSIDE TRACK Go,. of MCIM Diami lar o1 Plpa 1.50.12- IZSuIn.1 before oal.mirlep (men.•1 (5ermao•y U.S.Sld.pea• me M..:w, pam--1 (M.I.1...1 Mir ill 14 16 and undo, 12 25.30.and 36 1°.el Sit,, 10 42 vM 49 MS in in c CBNW.TRANSPORTATION CO. EXHIBITS' - --- ==a_ ----- -- --_-_---_-_ SPECIFICATIONS FOR PIPE LINE CROSSINGS casino wPER.e Iaex lw eMva.Ielse eel ....w.n1 al lee cO+m`.1.b.m.Meme AND LONGITUDINAL OCCUPANCY OF RIGHT OF WAY ..it.ml Ills amino are al he pew.own, eq'Iss I.ili....p°." e....I.Pn. Office alAp!Lill Vice P...ihnl and CN*f E^pin .........dam ern Yenrnl wT mv,as wn enrren *1 IM1,4n neeaal,pn.npn nm I. Clicova,111inc. Morph 10.1961 es. nac� t III.. m... .I. m rnMl • e .Nap. as ......men........ 1'v IS ....... Revised February 20,1/975 at 10 50x.* CAPRIE R PIPE TO MEET CURRENT°R E. SPECIRCATIcla JAS Gle .nip ..ran a,1-Ia ,2' Appealed JC-I a q I^ TMw I nu.r °pal nr p.v.fi p..nv n wd acv . Vial Assistant all Nm Pra ir.en end CM eI Enwr +a al u• v ael wn,immm�. - DRAWING NO C.E. 25767 EXIIB"DTD 7-29-87 RESOLUTION 2904 A Resolution Authorizing the Execution of Two License Agreements and Northwestern Transportation Company and the City of Shakopee WHEREAS , The City of Shakopee is improving Lewis and Sommerville Streets in the City of Shakopee in the vicinity of the railroad tracks on Second Avenue ; and WHEREAS, As a part of the said improvements it is necessary to install certain electrical conduits and two 15 inch storm sewers, a 10 inch sanitary sewer and a water service line under the railroad tracks of the said Chicago and Northwestern Transportation Company; and WHEREAS , The said railroad has submitted the license agreements authorizing the performance of said improvements in accordance with the terms of the agreements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL That the proper City officials are hereby authorized and instructed to execute on behalf of the City said agreements covering said improvements. 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 I, CONSENT ia ,c )ULIUS A. COLLE&. II J iese ieno a A=onNEY AT LAW air ins-rza. �11 WEST FIRST AVE-. SHAKOPEE. MINNESOTA 5539 Memo to: John K. Anderson , City Administrator and Shakopee City Council From : Julius A. Coller, II, Shakopee City Attorney Date: May 23, 1988 Re: Regarding transfer of City Property to Malkerson Motors, Inc. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The City of Shakopee is the owner of record title to Lot A. and the West 20 feet of Block 30, Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota. This is the property that is practically surrounded by Malkerson property and after considerable negotiations the City and Malkerson Motors have come to an agreement whereby the City will sell the above described property to Malkerson Motors for the sum and amount of $25,000.00 and herewith is tendered to the City a Purchase Agreement to thateffect signed by Malkerson Motors and accompanied by a down payment of $500.00 with the balance of $24,500.00 to be delivered at the time the City can transfer good title of record to the property. To do this the City will have to institute proceedings to register title. RECOMMENDATION That the City pass a Resolution attached hereto and execute in behalf of the City of Shakopee a Purchase Agreement and accept the $500.00 down payment check . From the Council proceedings of February 2, 1988: The City Attorney informed Council regarding negotiations with Malkerson for a City lot surrounded by Malkerson property. The lot has variously been appraised at $30,000 and $23,000 and Malkerson has offered the City $20,000 for it. Scott/Vierling moved to counter Malkerson with an offer to sell the lot for $25,000, with a decision to be made by February 16, 1988. Motion carried unanimously • I� r RESOLUTION 2910 A Resolution Authorizing the Sale of Property to Malkerson Motors, Inc. WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee is the owner of Lot A and the West 20 feet of Lot B, Block 30, East Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota, according to the plat thereof,and WHEREAS, the City has offered to sell and Malkerson Motors, Inc. has offered to purchase the above described property for $25,000.00 and have tendered $500.00 earnest money, the balance to be paid upon the date of the closing, which shall be within 30 days after the City notifies Malkerson Motors, Inc. that title to the above described property has been registered in the name of the City of Shakopee, and WHEREAS, the sale of the property is to the best interests of all parties concerned. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL, in regular meeting assembled, that the above transaction is hereby ratified and confirmed and the proper city officials are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Purchase Agreement above referred to. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City accept the down payment check of $500.00 tendered by Malkerson Motores, Inc. according to the terms of the Purchase Agreement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Julius A. Coller, II, Shakopee City Attorney, is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to order an Abstract of Title to the above described property and proceed forthwith to clear title thereto by a Registration proceedings. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all parties are hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary and proper to carry out the terms and purpose of this Resolution. Passed this day of 1988, by the Shakopee City Council. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Prepared and approved as to form this 23rd day of May, 1988. .�/Vly4�f.' City Attorney of the City f Shakopee CONSENT MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk -'� RE: Meadows lst Addition DATE: June 1, 1988 INTRODUCTION: The developer of Meadows 1st Addition is requesting that the city deviate from normal procedure in the filing of this plat. Background: The developer (Gold Nugget) is purchasing property owned by Bethel College and Wetterlin Development. The developer can not actually receive a deed until after the property is platted because some of the property is torrence property. The developer is requesting the city to sign the plat, developers agreement, the agreement regarding access and development of twin homes, and the reimbursement agreement and deliver them to Minnesota Title. In addition, the park dedication fee and letter of credit will be deposited with Minnesota Title. The seller will sign the deeds and the developer will pay the money and all will be delivered to Minnesota Title. Minnesota Title will act as the Escrow Holder and will be responsible for receiving and recording the proper documents in the proper order and delivering funds involved to the proper parties. In the event some part of the whole transaction falls apart, Minnesota Title will return the documents to the proper parties and the plat will not be recorded. Ordinarily the city would receive the park dedication fee, the letter of credit, the developers agreement, the agreement regarding access and development of twin homes and reimbursement agreement at the time the city signs the plat. The city clerk then sees to it that these documents are recorded behind the plat. The attached escrow agreement describes how the whole process (platting and conveying of property) will be handled, protecting everyones interests. If all goes according to plan, Minnesota Title will file the above mentioned documents and will deliver to the city the letter of credit and the park dedication fee. The city attorney has reviewed the escrow agreement. Under these circumstances, this is the only way to insure that everyones interests will be protected. Meadows 1st Addition June 1, 1988 Page -2- ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve signing escrow agreement 2) Do not approve signing escrow agreement RECOMMENDATION: Alternative No. 1, approve signing escrow agreement. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 2907, A Resolution Authorizing The Execution of An Escrow Agreement Relating to Meadows lst Addition, and move its adoption. MEADOWS RESOLUTION NO. 2907 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN ESCROW AGREEMENT RELATING TO MEADOWS IST ADDITION WHEREAS, Bethel College and Seminary Foundation, desires to plat property which will be known as Meadows 1st Addition; and WHEREAS, Bethel College and Seminary Foundation will sell Meadows 1st Addition to Gold Nugget Development Corporation immediately after it has been recorded with the County Auditor; and WHEREAS, Bethel College and Seminary Foundation does not wish to sign any of the documents in connection with the platting, but requests instead that Gold Nugget Develoment Corporation be allowed to sign the necessary development documents; and WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee is agreeable to the request upon the condition that there is assurance that all necessary documents are properly signed and recorded in their proper sequence. _ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the proper city officials are hereby directed and authorized to sign the Escrow Agreement, attached hereto and made a part hereof, which sets forth the recording of the plat, developers agreement, the agreement regarding access and development of twin homes, and the reimbursement agreement; as well as the delivery of the letter of credit and park dedication fee to the City. Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 7th day of June, 1988. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this 7th day of June, 1988 City Attorney J ESCROW AGREEMENT Date: June 9 , 1988 Parties: Title Insurance Company of Minnesota, Inc. ("Escrow Holder") 400 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55401 Bethel College and Seminary Foundation ("Bethel") c/o Dale Moe Eastlund, Solstad & Hutchinson, Ltd. 1702 Midwest Plaza Building Minneapolis, MN 55402 Wetterlin Development, Inc. ("Wetterlin Development") c/o Samuel E. Wetterlin 4000 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 South Ninth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Gold Nugget Development Corporation ("Gold Nugget") c/o Wayne Fleck Novak & Fleck 8857 Zealand Avenue North Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 City of Shakopee ("City") 129 E. 1st Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Norwest Bank Minnesota, National Association ("Bank") 9353 Jefferson Highway Maple Grove, MN 55369 BACKGROUND RECITALS: A. Bethel has agreed to sell to Wetterlin Development certain property in Scott County, Minnesota (the "Property") . B. Wetterlin Development in turn has agreed to sell the Property to Gold Nugget in two pieces, referred to herein as Phase 1 and Phase 2 . Phase 1 is intended to be platted as "The Meadows 1st Addition, " Blocks 1, 2 and 3 . C. In connection with the conveyances referred to above, the parties have caused the execution of the following documents: 1 I. Contract for Deed between Bethel as vendor and Wetterlin Development as vendee, relating to Phase 2 (the "Bethel-Wetterlin Development Contract") . 2 . Warranty Deed from Bethel as grantor to Gold Nugget as grantee, relating to Phase 1 (the "Bethel-Gold Nugget Deed") . 3 . Contract for Deed between Wetterlin Development as vendor and Gold Nugget as vendee, relating to Phase 2 (the "Wetterlin-Gold Nugget Contract") . 4 . Quitclaim Deed from Wetterlin Development as grantor to Gold Nugget as grantee, relating to Phase 1 (the "Wetterlin-Gold Nugget Deed") . 5. Certain other certificates, affidavits and documents (the "Miscellaneous Documents") . D. Gold Nugget has also caused the approval by the appropriate governmental agencies of a plat (the "Plat") of the property, under the name "The Meadows. " The Plat has been executed by Bethel as property owner and by appropriate governmental bodies, except that signatures of certain county officials have not yet been obtained. In connection with the Plat, Gold Nugget and the City have caused the execution of the following documents, each of which will be referred to by the following title: 1. Development Agreement; 2 . Agreement Regarding Access and Development of Twin Homes; 3. Reimbursement Agreement; 4. Letter of Credit in the approximate amount of $459, 600, issued by Bank; and2 5. Mortgage executed by Gold Nugget in favor of Bank, relating to reimbursement of draws under the Letter of Credit. E. The parties anticipate that the recording of the deeds and contracts for deed described above will not be possible until the Plat has been recorded, and desire to provide for a mechanism by which all necessary documents can be recorded to perfect the conveyances made in such documents, and to provide for escrow of the purchase price until such recording has been accomplished. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth below, and in consideration of the conveyances and 2 payments involved in the transactions described above, the parties hereto agree as follows: Section 1. Appointment of Escrow Holder. City, Bethel, Wetterlin Development and Gold Nugget hereby appoint and designate Title Insurance Company of Minnesota, Inc. as the Escrow Holder for the purposes set forth herein, and Title Insurance Company of Minnesota, Inc. hereby accepts such appointment and designation. Escrow Holder shall hold, deliver or otherwise dispose of all escrowed items in accordance with the terms of this Escrow Agreement unless otherwise directed in written directions executed by all of City, Bethel, Wetterlin Development and Gold Nugget. Escrow Holder shall not be deemed the separate agent of City, Bethel, Wetterlin Development or Gold Nugget, and shall not be under the separate direction or control of any of them. Section 2. Escrowed Documents and Funds. The parties hereby deliver to Escrow Holder, and Escrow Holder acknowledges receipt of, the following documents (the "Escrowed Documents") and funds (the "Escrowed Deposits") : 1. The Bethel-Wetterlin Development Contract. 2. The Wetterlin Development-Gold Nugget Contract. 3 . The Bethel-Wetterlin Development Deed. 4 . The Wetterlin Development-Gold Nugget Deed. 5. The Plat. 6. The Development Agreement. 7 . The Agreement Regarding Access and Development of Twin Homes. 8. The Reimbursement Agreement. 9. The Letter of Credit. lo. The Mortgage. 11. An executed easement from Gold Nugget to Minnegasco (the "Minnegasco Easement") . 12 . The sum of $ , deposited by Gold Nugget (the "Gold Nugget Deposit") . 13 . The sum of $ deposited- by Wetterlin Development (the "Wetterlin Development Deposit") . 3 14 . The sum of $6, 375, deposited by Gold Nugget (the "City Fee") . Section 3 . Escrow Deposits. The Gold Nugget Deposit, the Wetterlin Development Deposit and the City Fee shall be held by Escrow Holder (until disbursed as required herein) in an interest bearing or non-interest bearing account, at the discretion of Escrow Holder. Any interest earned on any such deposit shall belong to Escrow Holder as compensation for its services hereunder. Section 4 . Recording of Plat. As promptly as is reasonably possible, Escrow Holder shall determine whether it is willing to issue the Title Commitment as required in Section 7, and if it is so willing, it shall promptly record the Plat with the County Recorder of Scott County, Minnesota, and file the Plat with the Registrar of Titles Of Scott County, Minnesota. All fees and payments (including recording fees and property taxes) required in connection with such recording and filing shall be paid and disbursed by Escrow Holder from the Gold Nugget Deposit; provided that Escrow Holder shall use reasonable efforts to determine whether the Plat is in acceptable form for recording and filing, prior to making any such payments. Section 5. Recording and Delivery of Other Documents. (a) Immediately upon the occurrence of both of the following events: (i) the recording and filing of the Plat and (ii) Escrow Holder's continued willingness to issue the Title Commitment described in Paragraph 7, Escrow Holder shall record with the Scott County Recorder and file with the Scott County Registrar of Titles, as appropriate, the following documents (such recording and filing to be done simultaneously, but with the documents designated as being effectively filed and recorded in the following order) : (i) the Bethel-Wetterlin Contract; (ii) the Wetterlin-Gold Nugget Contract; (iii) the Bethel-Gold Nugget Deed; (iv) the Mortgage; (v) the Development Agreement; (vi) the Agreement Regarding Access and Development of Twin Homes; and (vii) , the Minnegasco Easement (provided that the Minnegasco Easement shall not be recorded until Escrow Holder has received and recorded a release (the "Release") of the existing Minnegasco easement referenced in 4 the Title Commitment attached hereto as Exhibit A. All fees and payments required in connection with such recording (including recording fees, deed tax and property taxes) shall be paid and disbursed by Escrow Holder from the Gold Nugget Deposit. (b) Promptly after recording such documents, Escrow Holder shall deliver by mail photocopies of all such documents to Bethel, Gold Nugget and Wetterlin Development, and shall also deliver original copies of the following: (i) the Wetterlin Development-Gold Nugget Contract, Bethel-Gold Nugget Deed, Wetterlin Development- Gold Nugget Deed and Reimbursement Agreement; (ii) The Letter of Credit, Development Agreement and Agreement Regarding Access and Development of Twin Homes to City; (iii) The Bethel-Wetterlin Development Contract to Wetterlin Development. (iv) The Mortgage to Bank. Section 6. Release of Escrowed Funds. Immediately following recording and filing of the deeds and contracts for deed as set forth in Section 5 (but without regard to whether the Minnegasco Easement has been recorded or whether the Release has been received or recorded) , Escrow Holder shall remit to Bethel by mail at the address set forth on the first page of this Agreement, all of the Gold Nugget Deposit and Wetterlin Development Deposit remaining after disbursement of the amounts as set forth in Section 4 and Section 5, and shall remit to City the City Fee. Section 7. Delivery of Title Commitment. Immediately following recording and filing of the documents as described in Section 5, Escrow Holder shall deliver to Gold Nugget, at its address as set forth on the first page of this Agreement, an original executed title commitment in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. Section B. Failure of Conditions. If, for any reason, the recording of the Plat as set forth in Section 4, and the recording of the other documents as set forth in Section 5, is not completed on or before June 16, 1988, then Escrow Holder shall promptly return the Plat to the City, shall return and any undispursed portion of the Gold Nugget Deposit and City Fee to Gold Nugget, shall return the undisbursed portion of the Wetterlin Development Deposit to Wetterlin Development, and shall destroy the Bethel-Wetterlin Development Contract , the Wetterlin 5 Development-Gold Nugget Contract, the Bethel-Gold Nugget Deed, the Wetterlin Development-Gold Nugget Deed, the Mortgage, the Minnegasco Easement, the Development Agreement, and the. Agreement Regarding Access and Development of Twin Homes. Upon such disposition of the funds and documents, this Escrow Agreement shall terminate and the parties shall have no further obligations under this Escrow Agreement. Section 9. Effectiveness of Documents. It is the intention of the parties that all Escrowed Documents shall become effective simultaneously. The parties agree that no document deposited with Escrow Holder shall be deemed effective or legally delivered until all Escrowed Documents are recorded, filed or otherwise delivered by the Escrow Holder in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, and that none of the Miscellaneous Documents shall be deemed effective until all of the Escrowed Documents have become effective; provided, that any delay in recording of the Minnegasco Easement shall not impair the effectiveness of any other document. Section 10. Term. This Escrow Agreement shall remain in effect until all Escrowed Documents and escrow funds have been delivered, recorded, filed, disbursed or otherwise disposed of as provided in this Agreement, whereupon this Agreement shall terminate and no party shall have any further obligations hereunder. Section 11. Costs. All costs associated with the recording and filing of documents as provided above shall be paid from the Gold Nugget Deposit as described above, and Escrow Holder is hereby authorized and directed to pay such costs from such deposit. Section 12 . Hold Harmless. City, Bethel, Wetterlin Development and Gold Nugget shall hold Escrow Holder harmless from any and all claims and expenses out of or in connection with its performance under this Escrow Agreement, except for Escrow Holder's failure to account for the funds and documents deposited with Escrow Holder hereunder. Whenever the existence or non-existence of any state of facts is relevant to the performance of Escrow Holder's obligations hereunder, Escrow Holder may, in determining the existence or non-existence of such state of facts, rely upon any written certificate of any public body or public officer, or of any person other than Bethel, Wetterlin Development, Gold Nugget, or their known principals. Escrow Holder has no liability for loss caused by an error in any certification furnished it hereunder. Escrow Holder shall not be responsible for any loss of documents or funds while such documents or funds are not in its custody. Documents or funds which are deposited in the United States mail shall not be construed as being in the custody of Escrow Holder. No liability is assumed by Escrow Holder to Borrower as regards protection against mechanic's lien claims. 6 CONSENT MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Special Election - June 28, 1988 DATE: May 26, 1988 INTRODUCTION: The attached resolution appoints the election judges for the upcoming election and sets their compensation. BACKGROUND: _ The judges listed in the attached resolution are judges who -- -_---were appointed-_ and qualified to work during the Municipal Election last November. According to state law, they are also qualified to work for the Special Election on June 28th. The compensation contained in the resolution is an increase in the compensation that judges have been paid for the past six to eight years. The increase is from $3.40/hr to $4 .00/hr for regular judges and from $3.90/hr to $4. 50/hr for the chairpersons. This increase is in line with what neighboring communities are paying their election judges - see attached. This amounts to an additional $300.00 for this election. I had budgeted for the increase for the September Primary and the November General Election. With the special election I would like to implement the increase earlier. The school board has already implemented the increase with their recent election. (The school board always pays their election judges the same as the city - we use the same people. ) In my estimation, the cost for the Special Election will be approximately $750.00 for ballots (programming, ballots, printing) and $1400.00 for election judges. My budget will handle this additional cost without a budget amendment. This is because the information management intern who was going to be working for us this summer will not be able to do so, consequently those funds can be used for the election costs. ALTERNATIVES: 1] Adopt Resolution No. 2899 as drafted 21 Amend Resolution No. 2899 RECOMMENDATION: Offer Resolution No. 2899, A Resolution Appointing Judges of Election and Establishing Compensation, and move its adoption. ELECTION.JUD COMPENSATION TO ELECTION JUDGES MAY, 1988 COMMUNITY REGULAR JUDGES CHAIRPERSONS Savage $4. 00 $4.25 Chaska 5.00 staff Hopkins 4.50 5. 00 Shorewood 3 .50 4 . 00 Inver Grove Heights 4. 50 5.00 Shakopee 4. 00 4.50 No. St. Paul 4.00 4.50 Prior Lake 4.50 4.50 Osseo 4.00 4.25 JUDGES--.PAY RESOLUTION NO. 2899 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING JUDGES OF ELECTION, AND ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that: 1. The following persons are hereby appointed Judges of Election for the five polling precincts with the City of Shakopee designated in Resolution No. 2021, adopted July 6, 1982: FIRST PRECINCT: Regular Judges Ann Noterman Winnie Anderson. Chair Dorothy Breimhorst Marcie Schmitt Marie Kocks Susan Niewind SECOND PRECINCT: Regular Judges Paulette Rislund, Co-Chair Robert Kubes, Co-Chair Lucille Odenwald Barbara Runge Ethel Schneider Marilyn Lang THIRD PRECINCT: Regular Judges Maetta Jurewicz. Chair Joyce Schwartz Marinda Schmit Loretta Jaspers Jan Gerold FOURTH PRECINCT: Regular Judges Lillian Weinandt. Chair Sylvester Gerold Sharon Fernholz Jerma ne Leavitt Helen O'Brien Muriel Koskovich Hazel Ecklund FIFTH PRECINCT: Regular Judges Virailla Geske. chair Carol Link Rudy Maurine Thea May Joan Hart Louise Vvskocil 2. The Election Judges shall be compensated for their work at the rate of $4. 00 per hour and the Chairperson of the Election Judges shall be compensated at the rate of $4.50 per hour. 3. The proper officials be and hereby are authorized and directed to do and perform all acts necessary to carry put the terms, intents, and 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 CONSENT �� k wP%W TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk^ RE: Vacation of Apgar Between 1st and 2nd Avenues DATE: May 26, 1988 INTRODUCTION• The attached resolution sets a public hearing date to consider the vacation of Apgar Street between 1st Avenue and 2nd Avenue. BACKGROUND: On May 17, 1988 Council authorized signing an agreement with the Soo Line Railroad Company relating to the removal of railroad spur tracks between Atwood and Scott Streets. The agreement requires the City to vacate Apgar Street between First and Second Avenues following the removal of the tracks. According to the agreement the tracks will be removed no later than June 15th. Prior to any vacation of public right-of-way, state law requires that a public hearing be held by the Council. In order to meet the publication requirements, the public hearing can not be held prior to the July 5th Council meeting. The railroad company understands and is agreeable to this time frame. ALTERNATIVES• 11 Set public hearing for July 5th 2) Set public hearing for another date 31 Do not hold a hearing - do not vacate street RECOMMENDATION: Alternative No. 1, set public hearing for July 5th RECOMMENDED ACTION: Offer Resolution No. 2902, A Resolution Initiating The Vacation of Apgar Street Between 1st and 2nd Avenues Within The City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota, and move its adoption. APGARVAC RESOLUTION NO. 2902 A RESOLUTION INITIATING THE VACATION OF APGAR STREET BETWEEN IST AND 2ND AVENUES WITHIN THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, the City has agreed to the vacation of Apgar Street between 1st and 2nd Avenues in exchange for the Soo Line Railroad Company removing railroad spur tracks between Atwood and Scott Streets; and WHEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Shakopee City Council that the said street serves no public use or interest; and WHEREAS, a public hearing must be had before such action can be taken and two weeks published and posted notice thereof must be given. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that a hearing be held in the Council Chambers on the 5th day of July, 1988 at 8: 00 p.m. , or thereafter, on the matter of vacating the public right-of-way of Apgar Street between 1st and 2nd Avenues, within the City of Shakopee. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that two weeks' published notice be given by publication in the Shakopee Valley News and posted notice be given by two weeks posting a copy of such notice on the bulletin board in the main floor of the Scott County Courthouse and on the bulletin board in the Shakopee City Hall. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this _ day of 1988. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 1988— City Attorney NSEN 12 M MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Ad atp 4st/rator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk 1 RE: Apportionment of Speci I Assessments Eagle Creek Junction 2nd Addition DATE: INTRODUCTION• Special Assessments against the property platted into Eagle Creek Junction 2nd Addition should now be apportioned against the new lots. BACKGROUND• Outlot A of Eagle Creek Junction 1st was replatted into four lots in Eagle Creek Junction 2nd. The existing special assessments against the outlot need to be spread among the four newly created lots. The apportionment is consistent with that agreed to by the developer as contained in the Developers Agreement for Eagle Creek Junction 2nd Addition. ALTERNATIVES• 1) Approve apportionment 2) Amend apportionment RECOMMENDED ACTION: Offer Resolution No. 2989, A Resolution Apportioning Assessment Among New Parcels Created As A Result Of The Subdivision Of Eagle Creek Junction 2nd Addition, and move its adoption. JSC/tiv i � N1 RESOLUTION NO. 2898 A RESOLUTION APPORTIONING ASSESSMENT AMONG NEW PARCELS CREATED AS A RESULT OF THE SUBDIVISION OF EAGLE CREEK JUNCTION 2ND ADDITION WHEREAS, October 6, 1981 Resolution No. 1925 adopted by the City Council levied assessments against properties benefited by construction of the 1980-4 CR-16 Utilities Improvement Project, and WHEREAS, the developer of Eagle Creek Junction 2nd Addition agreed to the apportionment of the 1987 payable remaining balance of assessments as outlined in the developers agreement for said plat dated October 6, 1987, and WHEREAS,. the 1988 payable assessments were certified to the County Auditor on October 10, 1987, thereby reducing the remaining assessments due the City Treasurer, and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to apportion the installments remaining unpaid among the newly created parcels, and WHEREAS, the property owners involved have been notified of this proposed action. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE: 1. That the 1988 payable remaining balance of assessments to the following parcels is: 80-4 CR-16 Utilities Parcel No. Code 53 27-128007-0 2.79 Acres $ 59. 01 27-128008-0 15.27 Acres $24, 898.41 and is hereby apportioned as follows: 80-4 CR16 Legal Utilities Parcel No. Name/Address Description Code 53 27-134001-0 Mt Olive Evang. Lot 1, Block 1 59. 01 Lutheran Church 833 South Marschall Rd. 27-134002-0 INCA Development Lot 2, Block 1 11, 201.84 108 South Fuller 27-134003-0 INCA Development Lot 3, Block 1 8,576.66 108 South Fuller 27-134004-0 INCA Development Lot 4, Block 1 5, 119 . 91 108 South Fuller 2 . That all other parts of Resolution No. 1925 shall continue in effect. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this _ day of 1988. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of , 1988. City Attorney CONSENT MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerkl X RE: Apportionment of Special Assessments - Prairie House 1st Addition DATE: June 1, 1988 INTRODUCTION: The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services has purchased property from Bradberg Inc. and the existing special assessments should now be apportioned among the newly created parcels. BACKGROUND: Before the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services purchased part of Outlet A from Bradberg Inc. , the City and Bradberg Inc. agreed that the street improvements (to Valley Park Drive North) assessed against Outlot A would not benefit the U.S. Fish & Wildlife when they purchased the property. On November 17, 1987 , Council adopted a resolution which stated that after part of Outlot was purchased by U.S. Fish & Wildlife, the special assessments would all be apportioned to the remainder of Outlot A not being purchased. ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve apportionment 2) Amend apportionment RECOMMENDED ACTION: Offer Resolution No. 2908, A Resolution Apportioning Assessments Among New Parcels Created As A Result of A Lot Split to Outlot A, Prairie House 1st Addition, and move its adoption. PRAIRIE-. 1ST RESOLUTION NO. 2908 A RESOLUTION APPORTIONING ASSESSMENTS AMONG NEW PARCELS CREATED AS A RESULT OF A LOT SPLIT TO OUTLOT A, PRAIRIE HOUSE IST ADDITION WHEREAS, on September 8 , 1987, Resolution No. 2794 was adopted by the City Council levying assessments against properties benefited by the construction of Valley Park Drive North from T.H. 101 to the North Approximately 350 Feet, and WHEREAS, on November 17, 1987, Resolution No. 2836 was _ adopted by the City Council providing for the apportionment of special assessments against Outlot A after purchase of part of the Outlot by U.S. Fish & Wildlife; and WHEREAS, U.S. Fish & Wildlife has purchased part of Outlot A from Bradberg Inc. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE; 1. That the 1988 payable remaining balance of assessments to the following parcels is: 1986-11 Valley Park Drive No. Parcel No. Code 63 27-127-004-0 $136,097.54 27-127-004-1 0 and is hereby apportioned as follows: 1986-11 Valley Legal Park Drive No. Parcel No. Name/Address Description Code 63 27-127004-0 Bradberg Inc. Outlot A Prairie $136.097.54 126 North House lst ex. Franklin lying N'ly of W'ly Hutchinson, Mn extension of So line of Outlot D 27-127004-1 United States P/O Outlot A 0 of America Prairie House 1st US Fish & Lying N'ly Of W'ly Wildlife Services extension of So Federal Bldg. line of Outlot D Fort Snelling,Mn 2. That all other parts of Resolution No. 2794 shall continue in effect. Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 7th day of June, 1988 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this 7th day of June, 1988. City Attorney jPRAIRIE HOUSE 1ST ADDITION � - �U �Fish, / d1dLi�e'. OUTLOT B 2 I 2 OUTLOT A 1 Lu 0 OH/Oq� Y Q a ? c 2 MEMO TO: CITY COUNCIL/JOHN ANDERSON FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. SUBJECT: SECRY/RECEPTIONIST DATE: JUNE 7 , 1988 INTRODUCTION: The position of Secretary/Receptionist for the Public Works department has been vacant since last November and applications have been received to fill this position. BACKGROUND: The vacant Secretary/receptionist position had been advertised and 6 applicants responded to the published notice. Several applicants were selected for an interview, and after the interviews were performed, Barbara Potthier of Shakopee has been selected for the position in the Public Works department. Becaused Mrs. Potthier has had several years experience with the Scott-Carver Economic Council, we recommend that we set her salary at $6. 55 per hour which reflects Step 2 in our pay schedule and would recognize her prior work experience with the Scott-Carver Council. This Sec/receptionist position in the Public Works department normally works a minimum of 30 hours for a normal work week which makes the employee eligible for pro-rated vacation, sick leave and hospitalization benefits . In case of a heavier work load, the Sec/recpt. is requested to work more hours, as required. Because Mrs. Potthier needs two weeks to notify her previous employer of her intention to change positions , we request that the City Council authorize her appointment effective June 22nd, 1988, with a normal 6 month probationary period as a condition of her employment. We would like to start her employment as soon as possible because of the current work load in the Public Works department. ALTERNATIVE: 1 . Re-advertise the position. 2. Hire Barbara Potthier. 3. Not hire Barbara Potthier. RECOMMENDATION: Alternative # 2 . ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Public Works Dept. to hire Barbara Potthier as a Secretary/Receptionist commencing June 22nd, 1988 , at a Step 2 salary of $6 . 55/hour, with a 6 month probationary period, and pro-rated employment benefits . 1 � 3 TO: Sohn Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Lou Van Hout, Utilities Manager RE: Sprinkling Ban DATE: June 7, 1988 Due to the continued hot dry weather the Utilities CQRmission has had to adopt a sprinkling ban between the hours of 12 noon and 9 PM. Would you please convey this information to the City Council? They should be assured that we are not "out" of water, but have taken this step in an attest to keep enough water in reserve for fire fighting. In other words it is a precautionary step, and a serious one, but it is not an "emergency"