The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/05/1988 TENTATIVE AGENDA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting April 5, 1988 Chairman Steven Clay presiding 1. Roll Call at 7: 00 P.M. 2. Approval of March 1, 1988 Meeting Minutes 3 . Other Business 4 . Adjourn Dennis R. Kraft Executive Director PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MARCH 1, 1988 Chairman Clay call 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; Judity S. Cox, City Clerk; Rod Krass, Assistant City Attorney; Barry Stock, Douglas Wise, City Planner; Administrative Assistant; Dennis Kraft, Executive Director. The Community Development Director, Dennis Kraft stated that Staff was to investigate the issues and concers presented by the Commission at the last meeting and to make recommendations. Barry Stock then commented on three alternatives that the HRA might want to consider. Alternative #1 was to adopt the revolving loan program as proposed by the Downtown Committee with minor changes such as size of loan. Alternative #2 was to direct staff to investigate the development of an interest write down program and report back to the Commission. Alternative #3 was to adopt a stricter code enforcement policy to insure that property owners would bring their buildings up to code. He then reviewed and anserwerd questions and concerns that were brought up by the Committee at the previous meeting. There was a general discussion by HRA members and Staff. Commissioner Scott entertained for a motion that the City look and adopting a sticter code enforcement policy. There was further discussion regarding this. Also brought up for discussion was the loan program. Scott/Zak to adopt a sticter code enforcement policy to insure that property owners bring their bildings up to code. Roll Call: Ayes: Wampach, Zak, Scott Noes: Vierling, Scott Motion Carried. Zak/Vierling motion to direct Staff and Barry Stock to investigate a loan program based on a write down situation with various marketing type incentives that will allow for a saftey valve for repayment. (this was never voted on) Mr. Terry Hennen from the Sport Stop then commented to the Committee. He stated how the City is losing business downtown because of expenses already placed on the businesses. - City Administrator recommended that the loan program be brought back before the Commission and discussed at another meeting. With no other business Wampach/Vierling moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7:56. Dennis Kraft - Executive Director Jakki K. Menk Recording Secretary 7 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MARCH 22, 1988 Mayor Lebens called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. with Councilmembers Wampach, Clay, Scott and Zak present. Councilwoman Vierling was absent. Also present were John K. Anderson, City Administrator; Rod Kress, Assistant City Attorney; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; and Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director. Wampach/Clay moved to accept the Special Call of the Mayor. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Lebens asked if there was anyone from the audience who wished to address anything not on the agenda. There was no response. Zak/Wampach moved to approve the consent business. Motion carried unanimously. Zak/Wampach moved to approve the minutes of March, 1st, 7th, and - 8th, 1988 (Approved under consent business) . Zak/Wampach moved to receive and file the letter from Fritz Ehlers dated March 16, 1988. (Approved under consent business) . Zak/Wampach moved to receive and file the letter from Arthur Gargen dated March 15, 1988. (Approved under consent business) . Wampach/Clay offered Resolution No. 2873, A Resolution Determining the Necessity for and Authorizing the Acquisition of Certain Property By Proceeding in Eminent Domain for Purposes of Constructing the Upper Valley Drainage Project No. 1987-5, and moved its adoption. Cncl. Clay stated that he is willing to meet with property owners to listen to their concerns and answer questions regarding the project and the need for acquiring property for construction of the project. Ray Ruuska, Engineering Coordinator, explained that he had met with each property owner, went over the project, explained how the project would impact them and answered questions. He is willing to meet again to avoid condemnation proceedings. Resolution No. 2873 Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None - - Motion carried. Clay/Wampach moved that a meeting be set up between now and April 5th to include Cncl. Clay, Mr. Ruuska, a representative from Orr- Schelen-Mayeron and Associates and property owners on the list for an informational meeting to discuss this project and condemnation for right-of-way. Motion carried unanimously. City Council March 22, 1988 Page 2 Clay/Zak moved to authorize easement payments totaling $13 ,250. 00 for parcels 2 , 19, 12, 13, and 15 owned by Warner True Value Hardware, A. Landowski, E. Swan, G. Poole and W. Schlechter pending receipt of executed easement documents. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Wampach/Zak moved to approve the sanitary sewer replacement at 750 Shumway Street by Permit No. 88-03-01. Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Wampach moved to approve an amendment to Administrative Policy No. 150 that street cuts may be allowed on new streets or overlay streets upon verification by city staff that the street cut is necessary to alleviate the problem and maintain service to -the home in Shakopee. Clay/Zak moved to amend the motion to include that any restoration work must be approved by the city engineering staff. Motion carried unanimously. Motion carried unanimously on main motion as amended. The Assistant City Attorney reminded the Council that in 1984 they had authorized the issuance of two sets of Industrial Development Bonds for the racetrack. One was for immediate construction of the facility and the second was to be parked for three years for future expansion. Both sets of bonds had to be issued at the same time pursuant to special law at that time. The three years have passed and the racetrack is not ready to expand and is asking that the bonds be allowed to be parked for an additional 12 to 18 months. He explained that the city has no liability with regard to the bonds that the risk is with the bond holders. Mr. Kress responded to questions. Wampach/Clay offered Resolution No. 2875, A Resolution Further Amending the Supplemental Indenture of Trust Dated as of October 15, 1984 for $44,000,000 Sports Facility Revenue Bonds, Series 1984-B and the Loan Agreement Executed in Connection Therewith, - and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Wampach, Zak and Clay Noes: Cncl. Scott and Mayor Lebens Motion carried. Mayor Lebens stated that no decisions would be made this evening regarding the operation of Murphy's Landing at the request of Councilwoman Vierling who was unable to attend the meeting. City Council March 22, 1988 Page 3 Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director, summarized Council actions to date regarding selecting an entity to operate Murphy's Landing. The most recent action by Council, on March 8th, 1988, was to invite the Minnesota Valley Restoration Board and the Scott County Historical Society to form a Coalition Board and present an agreement as to such to Council. Mr. Dick Mertz, Member of the Scott County Board, shared what the County Board had discussed this afternoon. They have never been concerned with who was in charge, but that they wanted someone in charge who would give them some kind of a report and someone who was financially responsible. In the earlier days they didn't feel that they were very responsible at all. They are pleased with the way things have been going during the last couple of years. The County Board decided today, and is offered only as a suggestion, 1) Review of the complete operational & financial prospectus of the past and upcoming year for the County Board prior to funding, starting with fiscal 1989, 2) A responsible working plan for the present reorganization of the site to be reviewed by the County Board prior to completion of the 1988 funding, 3) County voting representation in the organization of a new arbitration board established by the City. They believe an Arbitration Board should be set up with one member from the Scott County Board, one member from the City Council and one member appointed by the Stans Foundation. If these things can be worked out, they can't see any reason why Scott County can't continue funding. John Leroux stated that he was invited to come and speak tonight by Ms. Henderson. He explained that he had reviewed the proposals from both MVRP and SCHS, but that he had not seen the Request for Proposals from the City. He then went on to share what he had gathered and garnered from the various proposals. He stated that he believes that public funds should be eliminated, that tax payers should not be used to help supplement the operation. He suggested a fourth alternative which might be considered - the hiring of a consultant to identify items of concern who would be removed from the people in making a study and extend the current contract with MVRP for one year during the study. Dr. Pistulka, President of the Scott County Historical Society, explained that there were no dollars budgeted in the SCHS proposal from Scott County or the Stans Foundation because they had both stated that they would not provide funds to SCHS. He stated that the City should investigate if funds could go to a City Historical Society. The individual selected by SCHS to run Murphy's Landing has had 21 years experience with historical societies and his credentials were presented at the interview with the Council Committee when reviewing their proposal. They are okay with the City owning the site and are interested in cooperating with MVRP in establishing a Coalition Board. City Council March 22, 1988 Page 4 Jake Manahan spoke on behalf of the Minnesota Valley Restoration Board. Representatives of both Boards worked together to put together a viable Board to take back to their respective Boards. MVRP approved the Coalition Board tentatively, dependent upon what was to be in the paper. He explained that the MVRP Board represents a much larger community, volunteers, and people even outside the community. To operate successfully, the project needs the continued support of the people. It can't operate in a vacuum. There are different opinions as to how Murphy's Landing should be run. An organization can't have two heads. At a more recent meeting there was a motion to go along with the Coalition Board and it died for lack of a second. The project can't operate without people who have been out there for years. Dave Hildebrandt read a letter from his mother, Andrea Hildebrandt wherein she stated that Murphy's Landing has made progress over the last year and commended Marge Henderson. She lives in St.Paul and travels a considerable distance to work as a volunteer at Murphy's Landing. Mike Moline, who lives on the site, stated that he put in over 1, 500 volunteer hours last summer. Establishing a Coalition Board is the easy way out. Council should look at the history of the two groups. There have been vast improvements to Murphy's Landing over past years. Look at where MVRP has brought the site. Let SCHS have representation on MVRP Board. Greg Anderson, part owner of Creative River Tours, gives tours from Murphy's Landing and has promoted it along with their promotions, and would like to be included in any plans for the site. In the three years that they have operated at Murphy's Landing, MVRP has taken great strides in becoming financially sound, and feels that any organization chosen to operate the site has to be financially responsible. Helen Henderson, resident of Shakopee, noted that the individual presented by Dr. Pistulka as the curator of the museum was presented as a man who's bailed out floundering operations. She asked if the Council sees Murphy's Landing as a floundering operation. Cncl. Zak responded that the hiring of this individual was simply a part of SCHS's proposal. Discussion followed on time constraints for making a decision on the managing entity for Murphy's Landing. Cncl. Scott stated that he didn't think that he was riding the line. He thinks the Coalition Board is a good idea. City Council March 22, 1988 Page 5 Nancy Moline, lives on the site, stated that many people are waiting to see what happens, there is lots to be done before the site opens on May 1st, and they don't know if there will be a new director. She explained that some interpreters have been there under both the old and the new management and they are fearful of a new director -- could be upheaval again. The people love the site and are committed to it. She questioned why the site was making money now and not then; why put the site back in the hands of those who didn't make money? She said things are now solidifying. Betty Engel, from Murphy's Landing, said she works with the people at the site and questioned why Mrs. Henderson is being taken away. Ena Cisewski, Rosemount, stated that SCHS formed MVRP to run Murphy's Landing, now they want it back, why is the City considering letting them take it over? Mayor Lebens stated that neither side has heard the City's side. --- TheCitymay wish the Mayor to be on the Board, and maybe a Scott County Board member. Perhaps when Councilwoman vierling is back the matter can be ironed out. Maybe the Council will consider Mr. Leroux's suggestion of hiring a consultant. The matter will have to wait until the April 5th meeting when all Councilmembers are present. Cncl. Zak stated that he would like to meet with MVRP and SCHS and explain what he thinks and try and work with them to come up with a mutual solution. Having a representative from the Scott County Board on the Coalition Board is part of what he thought should happen. Dean Paul Johnson, resident of Shakopee, is a carpenter and his wife is an interpreter at the Norwegian House, stated that people come out not only for the history/facts, but are also looking for amusement, a little show. That is what they do. He would not like to work for anyone else but Marge Henderson. Marge Henderson,_ current Director of Murphy's Landing, stated that when she brought the Coalition Board proposal back to the people that it is important to listen to the people. It's not her, it's the people who make Murphy's Landing (work) . They do the research, they make the costumes, we have to listen to these people. She doesn't want to be the pivotal point. They will follow a good leader. Fritz Ehlers, Shakopee resident, engineer, history major, works for a company in marketing, spoke to a letter he had written to Council after he read the two proposals. All State Historical Societies have a marketing proposal. One proposal didn't address it and one proposal laid out what they are doing. Believes the Council should look at the marketing aspects of the proposals. City Council March 22, 1988 Page 6 When Cncl. Zak and Cncl. Clay meet with representatives from the two proposals, John Leroux asked that they keep in mind another alternative - the City appointing a Board to run Murphy's Landing. Jeff Henderson, resident of Shakopee, has leased food rights at Murphy's Landing through 1992, stated that what happens has an impact on him. He stated that things are working now and that is what we should be looking at. Zak/Wampach moved to recess at 9:04 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Lebens/Zak moved to reconvene at 9:18 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Wampach authorized city staff to contact our legislators and express our concern about the impact two proposed bills on workers' comp reform will have on cities (S.F.1304 and S.F.1739) . Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Clay authorized staff to contact our legislators expressing our opposition to Senate File 970 which would mandate that cities bargain for retiree health insurance coverage and mandate that all accumulated and unused sick leave be traded in to help pay for health insurance premiums. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Zak moved to approve the bills in the amount of $312,895.45. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Clay/Wampach authorized staff to contact our legislators and express our concern about proposed legislation regarding comparable worth and that we support a bill which provides for financial penalties for cities who do not implement comparable worth without giving a lot of authority to the State Dept. of Human Services. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Clay moved to adjourn, at 9:27 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. (The City Administrator explained to the audience that there would be no decision on the operation of Murphy's Landing tonight. Councilmen Zak and Clay will be meeting with people representing both proposals regarding a joint board. The Council will respond to it at the next meeting. ) Judith S. Cox City Clerk Recording Secretary L2 C� N S 2. /\( 7- ' minnesota department of health, 717s.e.delawatest. p.o.box 9"1 Minneapolis 55W ry (612)6215000 UAR 2 21988 March 21, 1988 C/Tf GF SHAKOpEE Shakopee City Council c/o Ms. Judith Cox, City Clerk Shakopee City Hall 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Gentlemen/Ladies: We are enclosing a copy of the report of our district office covering an investigation of your community water supply. If you have any questions concerning the information contained in this report, please contact Mr. Michael Piechowski , Public Health Engineer, at 612/623-5361. Sincerely .� yours, Gary L`,/ EI��nd,�Chi of Sectio o Water Supply and Engineering GLE:MJP:mjk Enclosure cc: Art Young, Water Superintendent Scott County Community Health Services Action Revuested Move to receive and file the letter from Gary -L. - Englundof the Minnesota Department of Health dated March 21, 1988 regarding the City's water supply. an equal opportunity employer. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF-HEALTH REPORT ON INVESTIGATION OF PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY Name of Water Supply PWS ID Numbs Shakopee Public Utilities Commission Street Telepbane Numbers: 1030 E CityShakonpp Sure zlo Cove City: 445-3650 MN 55379 Operator: 445-198 Dinrict Engineer: 445-3650 Scott Metropolitan O,h,: - e) waur Sumuime Mem Classification Plam Classic tion Owner Type Art Young B C Munici al Omer Operawn Clas.ifitarkm Plan,Time Plumbing Permitt and Ken Menden c Community InSpPCtiOn6 Repuired yea No Data of Previous Survey Date of Surrey September 4, 1986 September 20, 1987 City Engineer Ken Ashfeld SERVICE AREA CHARACTERISTICS: Municipal ❑$cbaol pr College ❑Reereation Area ❑Mobile Home Park ❑How/Mmol ❑ce-wo.mf ❑Company Town ❑Resort ❑Housing Developmem ❑Institmlon ❑Resraur.m ❑Omer Popularion Served Serve Connections Storage Capacity: 10,300 2,948 ILiat Sapararelyl Design Capacity lgaudavl Average Daily Production fgapEayl 250,000-gal . elevated 740000 1 9 MG 2,000,000-gal . standpip Emergency Capocity (sal/day) Here.,Daily Production lgal/mrl 1,500,000-gal . elevated 1,100,000 Well #3 5. 1 MG Total: 3,750,000 gallons TREATMENT WELL DATA D 3 c c - c o u o_ ' o _ o 4 � a o Pcsoa. ervam a. ranconia Well #1 G P Dc I I I Va 1911 1 8 216715 Dresbach 28 360 ranconia Va 1945 16 287 730 Presbach 117 7 ranconga W P Dc Va 1956 16 286 780 Drpqbach JQ5 68 900 Va 1971 12 184 239 Jordan 47 X20 820 796bb0 Well #6 G P D Va 1981 24 147 22 Jordan 23 30 130 Va 1986 20 145 215 Jordan 25 27 tib Rema.ks: S-veyedbv, Michael Piechowski APPtovedb,, Richard Clark _ ,f HE 008x2-02 Shakopee Public UttN ities -Commission September 20, 1987 - Q/ Recommendations: ✓J 1. Chlorine cylinders and all pressure lines should be stored in a separate room or shed located outside of the pumphouse. (Wells _ Nos. 1 and 2) 2. The Commission should develop a hydrant flushing .program. 3. The fluoride feed point should be relocated to the lower half of the main. (Well Nos. 2 and 3) 4. Undersized mains (less than 4 inches in diameter) should be replaced as the opportunities present themselves. 5. The 01 pumphouse roof should be repaired or replaced to eliminate leaks. 6. Chlorine rooms should have: a. A louvered air intake located near the ceiling and as far away from the exhaust vent as possible. (N3 - no air intake) 7. The opportunity for additional training in water supply work should be made available to the operators. Attendance at the annual waterworks operators seminar, held in the area, is a valuable experience for anyone in this field. Approved: Richard D. Clark, P.E. , Supervisor Michael J. Piechowski Engineering Unit Public Health Engineer Section of Water Supply Section of Environmental and Engineering Field Services - i MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT`07HEALTH DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Samples ANALYTICAL DATA Collected By_ Michael piechowski Report To_ Metro Field TownCounty,ounty, Etc. Number Sampling Point and Source of Sample a 0 b + q n c r d f q hiS line for lab use only. e b Sample Number 19235 19236 19237 c d e f 19238 14239 19240 Date Collected 9 10 $7 Time Collected 87 9 10 87 9 10 87 9 10 87 9 10 87 Date Received b Lab 9/11 87 9 11 87 9 11 87 9/11 87 9/11 87 9/11/87 Coliform M.P.N.1100 mL o rou Con.❑ Com .0 or anisms M.F.C./100 mL Arsenic ug 1 Barium a /1 Cadmium u /1 Chromium p 1 Fluoride m /1 Lead ug/l Mercury L. /1 Nitrate Nitrogen m /1 Residual Chlorine Selenium Ug 1 Silver F Sodium L /1 m Gross Al ha Radium Aloha Uranium Al he Aadium-228 �-00843-02 MINNESOTA -DEPARTMENT OFHEALTH- DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Samples ANALYTICAL DATA Collected By Michael Piechowski Report To Metro Field Town, County, Etc. Number Sampling Point and Source of Sample a MP 05 Shako ee Scott u b MP 906 Shako ee Scott Co nt 11 0. D-P- d e his line for lab use only. a b c d _ Sample Number e F 19243 Date Collet[ed Time Collected Date Received b , Lab 0 , Coliform M.P.N./100 mL rou Con.❑ Com .O or anisms M.F.C./100 mL Arsenic ug/l Barium u /1 Cadmium u /1 Chromium /1 Fluoride m /1 Lead u /1 Mercury Nitrate Nitrogen mg/l Residual Chlorine Selenium ug 1 Silver Sodium m /1 Gross Al ha e Radium Al ha + ' Uranium Alnhz Radium-228 r -00843-02 as ociation of B U L L E T I N metropolitan municipalities MAR2 81988 March 24 , 1988 CITY Gr= SHAK;_ ; tt' TO: AMM Member Cities FROM: Roger Peterson, Director of Legislative Affairs Vern Peterson, Executive Director RE: LEGISLATIVE UPDATE - ANNUAL MEETING INFORMATION 1 . AMM ANNUAL MEETING WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 1988. The 1988 AMM Annual Meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday evening May 18, 1988. Many of the meeting details have not been finalized as yet but it will be a dinner meeting beginning with a social hour starting at about 5: 30 P.M. Please mark your calendars now for this important and fun events A notice detailing the the specific arrangements will be mailed in late April. 2. NOMINATING COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY BOARD OF DIRECTORS: A seven member Nominating Committee was appointed by the Board of Directors on March 5th. Members are: Chair Mary Anderson, Golden Valley Mayor; Duke Addicks, Minneapolis Legislative Liaison; Betty McCollum, North St. Paul Councilmember; Carl Meissner, Cottage Grove Administrator; Bill Seed, Inver Grove Heights Mayor; Dennis Schneider, Fridley Councilmember; and Gloria Vierling, Shakopee Councilmember. The officies of President, Vice-President and eight directors are up for election. We are asking for your help in putting forth candidates for Board of Directors and Officers. If you know of a city official who would be considered for nomination; please give his or her name and a brief written resume of qualifications to Vern Peterson or to a member of the Nominating Committee by no later than April 8, 1988 . 3. LEGISLATIVE STATUS: It is that time of the Legislative Session when the status and content of major pieces of Legislation change on a daily basis or even more frequently. Eventhough the status and situation will have probably changed by the time you receive this bulletin, we did want to provide a brief update on some of the key items we have discussed with you in previous bulletins. 183 university avenue east, st. paul, mi�tnesota 55101 (612) 227-5600 A. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND ZONING (HF 1888/SF 1759) . This bill which combines and standardizes county, municipal and town planning authority into a single statute has been held over for interim study as recuested by the AMM Board. We will have to do our 'homework' on this issue prior to the start of the next session. B. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING RESTRICTIONS (HF 1871/SF 1659). HF 1871 which has several bad features was passed by a House Tax Subcommittee on Friday March 12th. and will be considered by the full House Tax Committee this week. This bill will likely become a part of the House Omnibus Tax Bill and as such will have a new House File number which we think will be HF 2590. The House version has several troublesome features including he gasie elimination oP the soil and terrain test for a redevelopment district street improvements adjacent to a parcel no longer eligible to meet the four year breakdown and Nn original mill rate certification provision which might adrastically reduce the amount of increment captured for the TIF istrict. SF 1659 was amended into SF 2370 and was passed out of the Economic Development and Housing Subcommittee of the Senate Tax Committee on March 21st. This bill was substantially amended in subcommittee and its most objectionable features were modified or eliminated. Some small problems still remain (mostl technical) such as the school district referendum levy An we wi continue to work on them. In view of the House action, it is likely that SF 2370 will end up in the Senate Omnibus Tax Bill for which we do not have a Senate File number. C. PROPERTY TAX REFORM. Three proposals are now on the table with Senator Johnson's expected this week. 1'te Outstate/Minneapolis/St. Paul coalition bill has had a hearing in Senate Property Tax Subcommittee without any testimony and House Full Tax Committee with testimony. It is not nor will it be included in either Omnibus Tax bill unless amended in Burin committee discussion pr oor action. The Governors reform package similarly has had hearings in both houses and also is not included in either _Omnibus Tax Bill. The House Omnibus bill at this time contains no LGA increase but does increase Homestead Credit to 53 of the first $80.000 value with no dollar limit This is good for the metro area. There are also provisions for C/I relief which impact well for outstate areas. It includes a 'truth in taxation' provision -2- e � v which is currently unwieldy but may be reasonable with some change. Finally, 3t returns to the pre 1988 levy limit base using the implicit price deflator or �i whichever is less as Lhe increase factor. D. FISCAL DISPARITIES. The Fiscal Disparities bill HF 1126 (Rep. Rest) is still hung up in House Metropolitan Affairs Committee by its Chair Tom Osthoff, a St. Paul legislator. The Senate companion SF 1134 (Sen. Reichgott) has passed a Tax Subcommittee and is awaiting a hearing in Senate Tax Committee. Given the problems in the House it is probable that it will not pass this year. SENATORS SHOULD BE CONTACTED TO URGE THEIR SUPPORT AND SUGGEST THEY CONTACT SEN. DOUG JOHNSON TO URGE A FULL TAX COMMITTEE i HEARING AND INSERTION OF THE FISCAL DISPARITIES BILL INTO THE (1`Q� SENATE OMNIBUS TAX BILL. E. TRANSPORTATION FUNDING. The House passed HF 1749 which includes a 3 cent gas tax and an additional 30 percent Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) for a total of 35 percent. This position was the recommendation of the Legislative Transportation Funding Commission and is supported by the AMM as a realistic compromise providing necessary Highway and Transit funding._ The Senate Finance Committee changed the 30% MVET transfer to An equal one time appropriation with 25% for transit and the other 75% directly to MNDOT. This eliminates MVET distribution to counties and cities and leaves Transportation funding undecided for future years. Senate Tax after making several changes, voted the bill to the floor on a close vote. It now includes gas tax indexing and increased vehicle license fees. .�, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR SENATOR TO SUPPORT THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT OF yJ, ',/}y „ 35% MVET TRANSFER ALONG WITH THE 3 CENT GAS TAX. IT IS UNLIKELY r'f^' Q..b.M"A THAT THE HOUSE WOULD SUPPORT ANYTHING ELSE. WE STILL NEED A QyN BILL WITH STABILITY AND ONLY MVET PROVIDES THAT STABILITY. 1�1J F. SOLID WASTE. The House version (HF 2069) of the Comprehensive Waste Reduction and Recycling act was passed out of the House Environment Committee minus the beverage container deposit legislation but still containing the container packaging tax and the ban on certain plastic containers. The bill now rests in the House A ro riations Committee and still contains the mandate or man atory curbside recvclina by 1990 for all cities jv_er 5,000 population in the metro area. -3- The Senate companion, SF 1902, was stripped of both the beverage container deposit section and the packaging tax by a subcommittee of the Environment and National Resources Committee and then was passed to full committee. The bill was not heard in full committee prior to the Committee deadlines because there were no provisions left in the bill to pay for the mandatory curbside recycling activities. It is uncertain as to what this bill's ultimate fate may be in the last few weeks remaining. DISTRIBUTION NOTE: This Bulletin has been mailed to all Mayors, Managers/Administrators and Legislative Contacts. -4- SCOTT COUNTY WC' BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS COURTHOUSE 109 SHAKOPEE, MN.55379-1382 (612)937-6100Id JOHN F.CASEY,District 5,Chairman City � R.E.MERTZ,District 3,Vice ChairmanDALLAS b WM.KONIARSKL District 1 strict 2 MARK H BSTROMWALL IDistrit4 �OF ShgkOa�� March 3, 1988 To: All Government Jurisdictions in the Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District - Cities of Savage, 4YIlVelisa and Prior Lake; Spring Lake Township, Sand Creek Township From: Jane F. Hansen Recording Secretary Subject: Appointment of Managers Pursuant to Minnesota Statute 112,42, the Board of Commissioners for Scott County will be making appointments for two Managers of the Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District following expiration of the terms of Ronald Kroyer and Andrew Franklin on March 3, 1988. No person shall be appointed who is not a voting resident of the watershed district, and none shall be a public officer of the County, State or Federal government, except that a soil and water conservation district supervisor may be appointed as a manager. The appointments are for 3-year terms which expire March 3, 1991 . The Board of Commissioners requests that you submit your recommendations for appointments for Manager as soon as possible. Please contact your Commissioner, or submit your recommendation to the County Administratorts Office. Thank you. cc: Chairman of the Board PL/SL Watershed District Liaison Co. Attorney Co. Administrator File: PL/SL Watershed District An Equal Opportunity Employer G MEMO TO: Shakopee City Council FROM: John X. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Nomination for Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District DATE: March 11, 1988 Attached is the map illustrating the portion of Shakopee from which we must obtain nominees for appointment to the Prior Lake/SPring Lake Watershed District. JEA/tiv MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Appointment to Manager to Prior Lake/Spring Lake watershed District DATE: January 30, 1987 Introduction On January 20, 1987 Council received a letter from Glenda Spiotta, Recording Secretary, Scott County Board of Commissioners, advising that the Board of Commissioners would be making an appointment for a Manager of the Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District prior to expiration of the term of James Laabs on March 3 , 1987. Background I have talked with four of the five recommended individuals that the Mayor suggested we might contact to see if they might be interested in serving in this position. Two of the individuals have indicated that they would be willing to serve; Fred Corrigan and Bill Henning. This is a five member commission. Currently . three of the members are from Prior Lake and two of the members are from Jordan. Mr. Laabs is one of the two from Jordan. I do not know whether or not Mr. Laabs has indicated an interest in being reappointed for an additional three year term. Since Shakopee has no representation on this watershed District, Council may wish to submit the name of Mr. Corrigan and/or Mr. Henning to the County Board of Commissioners for consideration in filling this expiring term. Recommended Action Move that the names of Fred Corrian and Bill Henning be submitted to the Scott County Board ofer as candidates for appointment for Manager of the Prior Lake/Spring Lake watershed District. JSC/jms P G MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council ±rior FROM: Judith S. Cox, City ClerRE: Appointment to Manager to Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District DATE: March 15, 1988 I have contacted the two individuals who offered their names for consideration of an appointment last year to the Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District. One individual no longer lives within the City of Shakopee and the second is interested in -k being considered for appointment - Fred Corrigan who is employed; by Midland Products. If the City can recommend at least three names to the County for consideration, it is my understanding that the County must appoint one of them. Therefore, we need to come up with at least IA"j -Gwo- additional names for consideration at the April 5th Council meeting. Enclosed is a map outlining the area where an appointee must live. Also is a list of resident property owners within the designated area. Please advise John or myself, by March 28th, of any individuals from within the designated area whom you would like us to contact to see if they might be interested in the position. jc PL-S1DIS _I CO RD 83 DRUB N N l y l c 21 1 I � I 6d N F^ i I I I ' I 3qp I I o / I - 11 �m -- Hii I a I�7 10 I_ _ w � 1 � 1 � pid ownerl addrl ---.;----- ___________ _________ ____----_-----_-________.__- 27-924001-0 MUHLENHARDT/MAGDALENE 2385 MUHLENHARDT ROAD 27-924002-0 MUHLENHARDT/LINDA M 7802 HORIZON DRIVE �`I B b DFIrta�Gr--T n 27-924003-3 CRONKITE/WAYNE A & CAROL M 2560 MUHLENHARDT RD 27-924004-0 RICKING/H CHARLES & HEIDI A 2350 MUHLENHARDT ROAD 27-924004-2 ROGNLIE/JAMES D & MARSHA K 2360 MUHLENHARDT ROAD .id owned addrl _ _________ ___ ""001-0 METROPOLITAN WASTE C 27-922 _ 19555 XEON AVE C'/ 27-922003-0 MCKENNA/HAROLD 2451 MCKENNA RD 27-922005-0 WHIPPS/WILLIAM O & EDNA 2292 MCKENNA RD' pid ownerl addrl ------- ______________________________ ______________________________ IGYI�iIiBrtY1Ml L 4 KfiT11L�EfiH A 27-923001-1 5JORKLUND/JOHN M & SHEILA 2326 PIKE LAKE ROAD (/ fl!#11!!AlIIh1*PII I I Myyl1llolii` pid owners addri ----------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ 27-062004-0 MATHWIG/JERRY E & KAREN 6045 HORIZON DRIVE 27-062005-0 RIFFE/G THOMAS & JANE C 8153 HORIZON DR BOX 224 27-062006-0 ROGGE/PATRICIA D 8175 HIRIZON DRIVE IItlIICOAlI�01fl l f I I �lCEEH 27-062006-0 MCKENNA/DAVID C & SANDRA M 8221 HORIZON DRIVE 27-06201 - dW OLD SHAK.OPEEtD 27-062011- EILEEN SHAKOPEE RD , -n ICHAD L. 27-062013-0 LEMKE/PAUL W 2360 HORIZON CIRCLE 27-062014-0 LOTHENBACH/ROBERT J & BRENDA 2360 HORIZON CIRCLE 3. E - NO 111111 i1�M171 " "�-N 27-062016-0 SHARP/WILLIAM Gam& BONNIE 2310 HORIZON CIRCLE 27-062017-0 HAORIZON CIRCLE �21-0 SEN/THOMAS E & MARY N 6341 27-0626341 TI E AVE SO 27-062LLIAM V & JODIE E 104 W BRUCE/ Z7-66-2022-0 SANDAU/WAYNE A & JANE 8204 HORIZON DRIVE 27-062023-0 KRUEGER/DENNIS A & KAREN M 8214 HORIZON DRIVE pid ownerl addrl ----------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ 27-062024-0 FORAR/GEORGE W/& WIFE 8224 HORIZON DRIVE 27-062025-0 GOSEWISCH/ALLEN C & CLAIRE 8234 HORIZON DRIVE 27-062026-0 GRAF/M ERIC & CELIA H 8244 HORIZON DRIVE 27-062027-0 DAWSON/SALLEE JO 8270 HORIZON DRIVE 27-062028-0 DELANEY/DALE M & DEBORAH K 8296 HORIZON DRIVE 27-062029-0 DELANEY/DALE M & DEBORAH K 8296 HORIZON DRIVE 27-062030-0 ZIERHUT/ THOMAS P & KATHLEEN 8364 HORIZON DRIVE 27-062031-0 FINK/DENNIS A & GAIL 8394 HORIZON DR 27-062032-0 MUHLENHARDT/WALTER C 2385 MUHLENHARDT ROAD 27-062033-0 BEARD/MICHAEL L & KAREN L 8434 HORIZON DR pid ownerl addr.l ____ ------------------------------ __________________ ____________ 27-069001-0 KLEIN/WILLIAM J 8051 HORIZON DRIVE 27-069002-0 LUNDBY/CHARLES A 8040 HORIZON DRIVE 27-069003-0 HAMILTON/THOMAS A/JR 7960 HORIZON DRIVE 27-069005-0 KEITH/EVERETT J S MICHELLE 7850 HORIZON DRIVE 27-069006-0 MUHLENHARDT/WALTER C 2385 MUHLENHARDT ROAD �AGw n IG�hi��llC pid ownerl addrl ----- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ IM R v WASTE CONTROL 7-915004-0 ME350 METRO SQUARE BLD al -0 EF 4935 EAGLE 27-415008- /CORDON E/& WIFE 50 BLVD 27-915009-0 WAALEN/ & EDNA 15 EAGLE CREEK BLVD 27-915010-0 SORENSON/GARV M 4915 EAGLE CREEK BLVD 27-915011-0 GERLA R & KATHY 4855 EAGLE CREEK BLVD 27-915011- CH/JAMES R & KATHY L E CREEK BLVD 27- --0 QUALY/STEPHEN J 4835 EAG LVD v --a7-915014-0 STRO m + CG lI`GD if, R. GUMC -- �Ii1�HL pid ownerl addrl ----------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ AVID J & SUSAN S 5035 E 27-915 - EAGLE CREEK BLVD 27-915020-0 HENNE CREEK BLVD 27-915")^ /JOSEPH JOHN/& WIFE 4751 EAGLE SON/ROBERT L/& WIFE LE CREEK BLVD 27-915026-0 LASC I 5085 EAGLE CREEK BLVD 27-915027-0 J & SUSAN S BLVD -O P GLE CREEK pad atldrl ___________ ______________________________ _________ _____________ 27-069001-0 KLEIN/WILLIAM J 8051 HORIZON DRIVE r 27-069002-0 LUNDBY/CHARLES A 8040 HORIZON DRIVE 27-069003-0 HAMILTON/THOMAS A/JR 7960 HORIZON DRIVE 27-069005-0 KEITH/EVERETT J & MICHELLE 7850 HORIZON DRIVE 27-069006-0 MUHLENHARDT/WALTER C 2385 MUHLENHARDT ROAD pid ownerl addrl ___________ ______________________________ ______________________________ 27-062004-0 MATHWIG/JERRY E & KAREN 8045 HORIZON DRIVE 27-062005-0 RIFFE/G THOMAS & JANE C 8153 HORIZON DR BOX 224 27-062006-0 ROGGE/PATRICIA D 8175 HIRIZON DRIVE 27-062008-0 MCKENNA/DAVID C & SANDRA M 8221 HORIZON DRIVE a _ 27-062010-� r .xr W OLD SHAKOPEE 27-062011- EILEEN SHAKOPEE ftD D L. 27-062013-0 LEMKE/PAUL W 2380 HORIZON CIRCLE 27-062014-0 LOTHENBACH/ROBERT J & BRENDA 2360 HORIZON CIRCLE _ 27-062016-0 SHARP/WILLIAM Gf& BONNIE 2310 HORIZONCIRCLE 27-062017-0 HANE -+ HORIZON CIRCLE r tRSEN/THOMAS E & MARY N 634! - 27-062 1 - 6341 TING LE A'lE 50 . 27-06202 - 'LLIAM V & JODIE E i 104 27-062022-0 SHNDHU/WAYNE A & JANE 8204 HOkIZON DRIVE 27-062023-0 KRUEGER/DENNIS A & KAREN M 6214 HORIZON DRIVE pid owner! addrl ----------- --------------------------- 27-062024-0 ________ _________________27-062024-0 FORAR/GEORSE W/& WIFE 8224 HORIZON DRIVE 27-062025-0 GOSEWISCH/ALLEN C & CLAIRE 6234 HORIZON DRIVE 27-062026-0 GRAF/M ERIC & CELIA H 8244 HORIZON DRIVE 27-062027-0 DAWSON/SALLEE JO 8270 HORIZON DRIVE 27-062028-0 DELANEY/DALE M & DEBORAH K 8296 HORIZON DRIVE 27-062029-0 DELANEY/DALE M & DEBORAH K 6296 HORIZON DRIVE 27-062030-0 ZIERHUT/THOMAS P & KATHLEEN 8364 HORIZON DRIVE 27-062031-0 FINK/DENNIS A & GAIL 8394 HORIZON DR 27-062032-0 MUHLENHARDT/WALTER C 2385 MUHLENHARDT ROAD ---- .,,QiU ' n Wn EN L 8434 HORIZON DR pid ownerl atldrl ___________ __________________ 27-923001-1 BJORKLUND/JOHN M & SHEILA 2326 PIKE LAKE-ROAD- Q---. d Jaid ownerl atldrl _ _ _________ ________ - '91001-0 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONT G 27-9220 + - 19355 XEON AVE ^- � 5 27-922003-0 MCKENNA/HAROLD 2451 MCKENNA RD - 27-922005-0 WHIPPS/WILLIAM G & EDNA 2292 MCKENNA RD pid ownerl atldrl ___________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ... 27-924001-0 MUHLENHARDT/MAGDALENE 2385 MUHLENHARDT ROAD 27-924002-0 MUHLENHARDT/LINDA M 7802 HORIZON DRIVE r_nnnc.e.. .. B frwrr aigCt-z 27-924003-3 CRONKITE/WAYNE A & CAROL M 2560 MUHLENHARDT RD 27-924004-0 SICKING/H CHARLES & HEIDI A 2350 MUHLENHARDT ROAD 27-924004-2 ROGNLIE/JAMES D & MARSHA K 2360 MUHLENHARDT ROAD Action from the Alert League of Minnesota Cities 183 University Ave. E., St. Paul, MN 55101-2526 (612) 227-5600 March 30, 1988 TO: Mayors, Managers, and Clerks FROM: Donald A. Slater, Executive Dire 6W RE: Tax Increment Financing The League of Minnesota Cities needs your help. Legislation concerning tax increment financing is speeding through the Senate and the House. Presently, S.F. 2260 (Senator Reichgott, DFL-New Hope) has been reported out of the Senate Tax Committee and H.F. 1871 (Rep. Rest, DFL New Hope) passed out of the House Tax Committee unamended, despite our attempts to reach a compromise position. Both the House and Senate files were folded into their respective omnibus tax bills. The House passed its Omnibus tax bill late Tuesday afternoon and the Senate followed suit on Wednesday. Tax increment, therefore, will be a part of the House/Senate Omnibus Tax Conference, after the Easter recess. It is virtually certain that some tax increment provisions will emerge from the tax conference and become law. Unfortunately, both bills have negative provisions which will be harmful to tax increment. Unless legislators hear from their city officials on this legislation, we can count on severe damage to tax increment finance. We need you to contact your legislators. You should urge them to speak to members of the tax conference committee concerning tax increment finance. While the tax conference committee has not been appointed at this time, we think the likely members of the tax conference committee will be: Senate House Doug Johnson Gordon Voss Steve Novak Lona Minne Lawrence Pogemiller Ann Wynia LeRoy Stumpf Robert Vanasek John Brandl Dee Long or Bill Schreiber The League and National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO) have reviewed both the House and Senate bills. We favor some and oppose some of each. In general the House bill is very negative but it does not have the limits on economic development projects as amended into the Senate bill by the Senate Tax Committee. The Senate bill is better than the House bill in that Senator Reichgott has accepted numerous recommendations from the IMC/NAHRO in order to improve the legislation. Specifically, the League opposes these provisions of the House bill: 1. The requirement that all pre-1979 districts, as well as proposed expansions, comply with the four-year knockdown requirement (this means that each parcel within the district must have had activity conducted on it within for years of the creation of the district) ; 2. The exclusion of street development activities as qualifying activities for the provisions of the four-year knockdown (this applies only to new districts) ; 3. The very strict soils test needed to qualify districts as redevelopment districts. (Only pollution, as defined by the Pollution Control Agency would allow the longer redevelopment period of 25 years in a soils correction district) ; 4. The imposition of an original mill levy limit which would not allow collection of additional increments on a district after the creation of the district; and 5. The bill's various effective dates. Several sections are applicable to districts certified after April 1, 1988 even though the district was approved prior to April 1, 1988. The house bill also contains a provision that would allow counties to recover road costs. The proposal would require the county board to find that •but for• the TIF district, the county would not undertake the particular road project. In the event the county road costs and the proposed district's activities exceed the amount of projected increment to be available, the county and the TIF authority would have to negotiate in order to achieve an acceptable result before certification of the district. The League has not been opposing, nor advocating, this provision.. On the Senate side, the League opposes: 1. The amendment authored by Senator Linda Berglin (DFL-Minneapolis) which eliminate the use of economic development district for commercial projects. when discussing tax increment finance with your legislators please point out that tax increment finance is the city's last remaining tool to help with redevelopment and to provide jobs. Also, piecemeal impairment of tax increment finance is totally unfair and is likely to cripple local efforts to improve the community. Please send the League a copy of your correspondence with your legislators concerning tax increment financing or call the League with any significant information you obtain from your legislator. Thank you. 183 University Ave.East St.Paul,MN 55101.2526 League of Minnesota Cities (612)227-5600(FAX:221-0986) ,�3 TI98b G17Y OF smy'onl March 29, 1988 MEMORANDUM: TO: Mayors, Managers, and Clerks From: Laurie Fiori Hacking and Sarah Hackett Re: HOUSE TAX BILL'S "TRUTH IN TAXATION- SECTION UNFAIR TO CITIES The House Omnibus Tax bill (H.F. 2590) contains a provision ("Truth in Taxation") that would require only cities --not counties or schools-- to comply with detailed public disclosure, notice and hearing requirements whenever a city proposes a levy increase. The Omnibus Tax Bill was approved by the House on March 29 and will be considered by a House-Senate tax conference committee beginning April 5. As a result of League lobbying, the effective date of this "Truth in Taxation- section of the bill was delayed one year -- until 1989 (Payable 1990) . Nevertheless, the League remains opposed to this measure unless the requirements are extended to counties and schools and unless the public disclosure and notice requirements are amended to make them workable. During the Easter recess (March 31 - April 4) , legislators will be home in their districts. City officials are urged to contact their legislators during this recess and indicate their concerns with the 'Truth in Taxation" measure. Requirements of the "Truth in Taxation^ Measure 1) The city would be required to adopt a budget and certify it to the county auditor by August 1 of every year. 2) The county auditor would be responsible for calculating the tax increase proposed by the city budget and, by September 15, and mailing a notice to each parcel of property indicating the proposed city gross property tax increase (before subtracting aids and credits) for that parcel of property (the city is to reimburse the county for costs of mailing) . 3) The city would be required to advertise in a local paper its intent to hold a public hearing to adopt a budget (advertise- ment is to indicate proposed property tax increase and must be a one-quarter page ad) . 4) The city is directed to hold a public hearing prior to October 10 to allow public comment on the proposed city budget and finalize its budget. 5) If the city later adopts a final budget that exceeds the original August 1 estimate, the city would be penalized by having its levy rolled back to a "no increase- levy. League -Comment- - --- - - - -- - - In March 24 testimony before the House Taxes Committee, Mayor Duane Knutson, Chair of the LMC Revenue Sources Committee, identified the following problems with this ^Truth in Taxation^ provision: -- Taxpayer understanding of the property tax system will be extremely incomplete if the focus is just on city taxes. Cities represent only 19 percent of total statewide property tax levies, while counties account for 30 percent of levies and schools, 51 percent. -- Cities would be prohibited from exceeding the proposed budget which they must certify to the county auditor on August 1. This date is extremely early in the budget cycle for many cities and could force cities to overestimate their costs just to be safe. Often the costs for the following year are not known by August 1. For example, many cities contract with counties for services, such as police and fire protection. -- County auditors do not have the necessary information to compute the proposed city tax increase for each parcel of property by September 15 as required by the bill. Often increases in city_ -taxpayers taxes can be caused by property- value declines, not city spending increases. -- The mailed notices indicating the city's proposed tax increase will be confusing to taxpayers because they will not be related to the total tax which taxpayers will see on their final tax bills. This will occur because county and school taxes are not included in the notice and aids and credits are specifically excluded from the calculation. -- This is a costly requirement for cities. There are over 2.1 million parcels of property in the state. Counties estimate that mailing a notice to each parcel would cost $1 a piece (including postage, paper, etc. ) . The quarter-page newspaper ads required by the bill can cost as much as $1,500 to $2,000 for some cities. � on,5eMa. MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant RE: Dial-A-Ride Contract Amendment #6 - Addition of SWMTC vehicles DATE: March 15, 1988 INTRODUCTION• The Southwest Transit Commission (SWMTC) has requested the City of Shakopee to amend the Dial-A-Ride contract to provide three additional vehicles to service SWMTC's service area. (See attachment #1) BACKGROUND: In January the City Council approved Dial-A-Ride contract amendment #5. This amendment provided for the addition of a second vehicle to service the Chaska Dial-A-Ride program. Since December of 1986, the SWMTC has been operating an internal circulator on a fixed route through the communities of Eden Prairie and Chanhassen. They are now proposing to eliminate this service and implement a Dial-A-Ride program throughout their entire service area. They are therefore requesting the City of Shakopee to amend our Dial-A-Ride contract accordingly for the provision of three additional vehicles to service the SWMTC's service area. Provision of the vehicles will be totally funded by the Southwest Metro Transit Commission via our contract agreement. When the City of Shakopee agreed to provide Dial-A-Ride Service to the SWMTC, SWMTC agreed to pay a 58 administrative fee for administering the Dial-A-Ride contract. At that time, SWMTC did not plan on having more than two Dial-A-Ride vehicles. If the City of Shakopee intends to collect the 5% administrative fee on the entire SWMTC Dial-A-Ride fleet (5 vehicles) it would cost the SWMTC approximately $1,100 per month. The Energy and Transportation Committee believes that it would not be fair for the City of Shakopee to collect this sum of money from the SWMTC since actual staff time involved in administering their portion of the Dial-A-Ride contract is minimal. (Less than 8 hours per month) They are therefore recommending that the administrative fee charged by the City of Shakopee for servicing the SWMTC contract be capped at $500 per month as requested by the SWMTC. This would generate $6,000 per year that would be counted as a __.._.. _revenuesn_our_Dial-A-Rifle programandwouldhelpassist in off- setting our current Dial-A-Ride program costs. Shown in attachment #2 is the proposed Dial-A-Ride contract amendment. In addition to expanding the Dial-A-Ride service area to encompass the entire SWMTC service area and allowing for the provision of three additional vehicles for the SWMTC service, the proposed amendment caps the City's administrative fee at $500 per month and adopts a holiday schedule for both the SWMTC system and Shakopee program. The Energy and Transportation Committee is recommending approval of Dial-A-Ride Contract Amen en . ALTERNATIVES• 1. Move to approve Dial-A-Ride Contract Amendment #6. 2. Do not approve the Southwest Metro Transit Commission's Request and do not amend the Dial-A-Ride contract. 3. Move to suggest changes to the proposed Dial-A-Ride contract and approve the amendment accordingly. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #1. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to approve Dial-A-Ride Contract Amendment #6. Attachment #1 /O SOUTHWEST METRO 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie,MN 55344 (612)934-7928 r March 1, 1988 y19�a Mr. Barry Stocky SHp open City of Shakopee CIV 129 E. 1st Avenue Shakopee, Mn 55379 Dear Barry: The Southwest Metro Transit system began in December, 1986, as an eighteen- month demonstration project and has recently completed a comprehensive marketing and research study. The study was undertaken to aid in the evaluation of which services should be continued, expanded, or removed from operation after the demonstration period, which ends May, 1988. In reviewing our services, the Commission has voted to terminate our Circulator service, Route 56, and replace it with an expanded Dial-A-Ride service. This action provides the City of Chanhassen with one Dial-A-Ride van, and the City of Eden Prairie with two vans, totaling three additional vehicles for Southwest Metro operations. We would, therefore, like to amend our Dial-a-Ride contract to include these vans. Additionally, Southwest Metro is requesting a $500.00 monthly cap on administrative charges currently imposed under Section 9C of the contract. And finally, due to the large number of work related trips currently provided on our Dial-A-Ride system, we would like to amend Section 3B, which states "the program will not operate on Federal holidays" to the following: Southwest Metro Dial-a-Ride will not operate on New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Day After Thanksgiving, a half day on Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and a half day on New Year's Eve. On behalf of Southwest Metro Transit I want to express our sincere appreciation of your committment in working with us on what we feel is a truly unique transit partnership. Thanks for all your help during the past year. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, Beverley Miller Administrator BM:pb Attachment #2 Amendment #6 Shakopee Dial-A-Ride Service Contract Amendment The following Sections are hereby amended and adopted effective April 5, 1988. 1. Amend Section 7. Consideration to read: The contractor shall submit request for reimbursement of eligible actual cost not to exceed $623,652 for the contract period. The City will in turn examine and approve such requests as deemed appropriate and submit them to the Regional Transit Board. 2. Section 12M. Service Package: On or before April 9, 1988 and at the City's request, the contractor shall provide three additional vehicles to service the Southwest Metro Transit Commission's service area. The charge for this vehicle shall be based on a twelve (12) hour day for five (5) days per week and at the contract rate of $17.90 per hour. These vehicles shall be identified as Southwest Area Transit Vehicles and will be dedicated to service the Southwest Metro Transit Commission service area unless otherwise directed by the City. 3. Amend Section 3. Program Service Area to read: The service area for origins and destinations shall be operated within the City limits of the Cities of Shakopee, Chaska, Eden Prairie and Chanhassen for the contract period, unless otherwise directed by the City. 4 . Amend Section 4B to read: Operating hours, time for reservation calls shall be 6: 00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. , five days per week Monday through Friday. Actual transit service shall be available Monday through Friday from 6:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. 5. .Adopt Section 4 C. Holiday Schedule: Dial-A-Ride service shall not operate on the following holidays: New Year's Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Memorial Day, Thanksgiving Day, Day after Thanksgiving, half day on Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and half day on New Year's Eve. 6. Amend Section 9 E of the agreement between the SWMTC and the City of Shakopee for Dial-A-Ride service read: As compensation for the administration of the SWMTC_Dial-A-Ride program, the SWMTC agrees to pay the City a $500 monthly administrative fee. G`onsenf- /Od MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Year End Report for Board of Adjustment & Appeals DATE: March 30, 1988 INTRODUCTION• At their meeting on March 3, 1988 the Board of Adjustment and Appeals passed a motion recommending to the City Council approval of the Year End Report for the Board of Adjustment and Appeals as attached. BACKGROUND: Please find attached a copy of the Year End Report for Board of Adjustment and Appeals which outlines the activities of the Board during the year 1987. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals reviewed the attached report at their meeting on March 3rd and recommended it's approval. ALTERNATIVES• 1. The City Council may offer and pass a motion approving the Year End Report as attached. 2. If the City Council has questions concerning particular aspects of the Year End Report which can not be resolved at the meeting, the Council should direct staff to make the appropriate changes to the Year End Report and bring it back to the next Council meeting. ACTION REODESTED• Offer and pass a motion accepting the Year End Report for the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. �5 1987 ANNUAL REPORT _ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS Shakopee, Minnesota DATE ACTION March 5th Variance Resolution No. 481: Request for variances to allow the following: 1) two area identification signs, 2) one sign to exceed the allowed height by 20 feet, 3) a second sign to be located within 5 feet of the front property line and 4) the second sign to be only 1 foot off the ground upon the property located at County Road 89 and 13th Avenue. Public Hearing held. Denied. Appealed to CC 5/5/87 - Approved. March 26th Variance Resolution No. 484: To consider a request for a variance to increase the allowable signage of 100 square feet for a free-standing sign in an 1-2 zoning district by 312.5 square feet, in order to replace the existing marquee with a new sign upon the property located at One Valley air Drive. Public Hearing held. Motion failed. Appealed to CC 5/5/87 - Approved to increase allowable signage to 338 sq. ft. (Applicant was approved to apply for temporary sign, building permit with fees waived. ) April 9th- Variance Resolution No. 486: Request for a 22 foot variance from the required 50 foot front yard setback to construct a new dwelling at 1220 West 12th Avenue. Public Hearing held. Denied. April 9th Variance Resolution No. 485: Request for a 4 foot variance from the required 10 foot side yard setback to construct a three-season porch and deck at 1142 Jefferson Street. Public Hearing held. Approved. May 7th Variance Resolution No. 488 : Request for a variance to build an accessory building nearer the front lot line than the principal building upon the property located at 2032 Eaglewood Circle. Public Hearing. held. Approved with conditions. June 4th variance Resolution No. 494: An appeal of the administrative rulings by staff regarding the uses of the property located at 1199 Quincy Street. Public Hearing held. Approved staff ruling with conditions. (1) The BOAA affirmed the decision of City Staff that the structure in the rear yard is an accessory building and that construction of the structure does require a buliding permit and must comply with all City Code requirements applied to accessory buildings and uses. (2) The BOAR did l� DATE ACTION override the decision of City staff that the construction of a large boat in the rear yard is not allowed, so the applicant may continue construction of the boat in his rear yard.. June 4th - Variance Resolution No. 495: An appeal of the interpretation of the zoning ordinance regarding the use of temporary construction buildings as living quarters upon the property located at 232 Marschall Road. Public Hearing held. Ruled that temporary construction building does not include living quarters. Approved. June 4th Variance Resolution No. 493 : To consider a request for a variance to reduce the required parking stall requirements from 40 to 34 for the proposed addition at the existing Aamco Transmission Shop at 630 First Avenue East. Public hearing held. Approved. Appealed to CC 10-20-87 - Approved with conditions. July 9th Variance Resolution No. 496: To consider an application for variances from City Code Section 11.03, Subd. 6 regulating the construction of accessory buildings upon the property located at 1199 Quincy Street. Public Hearing held. Denied. Appealed to CC 8/4/87 - Upheld. July 9th Variance Resolution No. 497: To consider an application for a variance of 18 feet from the front yard setback requirements to build an attached garage at 1015 Shakopee Avenue East. Public Hearing held. Denied. August 6th Variance Resolution No. 502: To consider an application for a four foot variance from the average front yard setback as required by Section 11. 03, Subd. 7.F. for the property located at 620 West 5th Avenue. Public Hearing held. Denied. August 6th Variance Resolution No. 503: To consider an application for a five foot variance from the required ten foot side yard setback to construct an addition to the existing dwelling at 612 East 7th Avenue. Public Hearing held. Approved. August 6th Variance Resolution No. 504: To consider an application for variances to allow a 40 foot front yard setback instead of the required 50 foot setback and a 5 foot parking lot setback instead of the required 15 foot setback for the proposed addition to the existing Aamco Transmission Shop at 630 First Avenue East. Public Hearing held. Approved with conditions. Appealed to CC 10/20/87 Upheld. DATE ACTION September 3rd Variance Resolution No. 506: To consider an application for a variance to allow a 6 foot setback instead of the required 100 foot setback for an accessory farm building at 3374 South Marschall Road. Public Hearing held. Approved with conditions. Appealed to CC 10/20/87- Approved a 69' setback variance. September 3rd Variance Resolution No. 507: To consider an application for variances to allow a 75 foot setback from the lakeshore (which exists on three sides of the property) instead of the required 100 foot setback to construct a dwelling on Block 1, Lot 10, Weinandt 1st Addition. Denied. Appealed to CC 10/20/87 - Approved a 75' setback from the lakeshore. October 8th Variance Resolution No. 508: To consider an application for a variance to have a ten foot rear yard setback instead of the required thirty foot setback to construct a warehouse at 8959 13th Avenue East. Public Hearing held. Approved with conditions. November 5th Variance Resolution No. 509: To consider a variance to move an existing sign within 4' of the front property line upon the property located at 300 East 1st Avenue. Public Hearing held. Approved. November 5th Variance Resolution No. 510: To consider a variance on acceptable building materials to construct a dry felt storage warehouse upon the property located at 3303 4th Avenue East. Public Hearing held. Approved with conditions. November 5th Variance Resolution No. 511: To consider a variance on acceptable building materials to construct a glass recycling equipment building upon the property located at 4108 Valley Industrial Blvd. North. Public Hearing held. Approved with conditions-. December_ 3rd __Variance Resolution NO. 512: To _ consider a variance to exceed the allowed 185 square feet of signage by 223 square feet, for a total of 408 square feet of signage upon the property located at 232 Marschall Road. Public Hearing Held. Approved with conditions. ld DATE ACTION December 3rd Variance Resolution No. 513 : To consider a variance to allow a 0' front yard setback from Bluff Avenue instead of the required 30' setback to build a restaurant/snack bar on top of an existing brick structure at 1251 East 1st Avenue. Public Hearing held. Approved. December 3rd Variance Resolution No. 514 : To consider a variance to allow one temporary real estate sign to be 128 square feet instead of the allowed 18 square feet and two temporary I.D. signs of 8 square feet in lieu of one 24 square foot sign which is allowed at 1255 Marschall Road. Public Hearing Held. Approved. Respectfully submitted, Jane Van Maldeghem, Chair Dave Czaja, vice Chair Dave Rockne Todd Schwartz _ Gene Foudray John Schmitt Terry Forbord David Pomerenke ConSen+ MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Year End Report for the Planning Commission DATE: March 30, 1988 INTRODUCTION• At their meeting on March 3, 1988 the Planning Commission passed a motion recommending to the City Council approval of the Year End Report for the Planning Commission as attached. BACKGROUND: Please find attached a copy of the Year End Report for the Planning Commissionwhichoutlines the activities of the Planning Commission during the year 1987. The Planning Commission reviewed the attached report at their meeting on March 3rd and recommended it's approval. ALTERNATIVES• 1. The City Council may offer and pass a motion approving the Year End Report as attached. 2. If the City Council has questions concerning particular aspects of the Year End Report which can not be resolved at the meeting, the Council should direct staff to make the appropriate changes to the Year End Report and bring it back to the next Council meeting. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and pass a motion accepting the Year End Report for the Planning Commission. C- 1987 ANNUAL REPORT SHAKOPEE PLANNING COMMISSION Shakopee, Minnesota CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS DATE ACTION January 8th Renewal of Conditional Use Permit Resolution No 436: Request for renewal of Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 436 to continue a concrete and ready mix plant operation upon the property located at East Highway 101, SW 1/4 of Section 2, Township 115, Range 22. Model Stone Co. Public Hearing Held. Approved with conditions. February 5th Conditional Use Permit Resolution No 480: To consider an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow outside storage of construction equipment upon the property located on lots 1-10, Block 174 , City of Shakopee. Thomas Edman and James O'Brien. Public Hearing Held. Approved with conditions. March 5th Renewal of Conditional Use Permit Resolution No 465: Renewal of Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 465 to operate a commercial recreational use; a bicycle motocross track upon the property located on County Road 16 in the SW 1/4 0£ Section 5 and NW 1/4 of Section S. David Fischer. Public Hearing Held. Approved with conditions. March 5th Conditional Use Permit Resolution No 482: To consider an application for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a bed and breakfast facility upon the property located at 314 South Scott Street. Dennis & Judith Clausen. Public Hearing Held. Approved with conditions. March 5th Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 483 : To consider an application for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a truck maintenance garage upon the property located at 8949 13th Avenue East. Q Carriers. Public Hearing Held. Approved with conditions. April 9th Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 487: To consider an application for a Conditional Use Permit to operate an open sales lot upon the properties located at 1266 East First Avenue and 7380 Highway 101, both locations are in a B-1 zoning district. William Clifford Bakken. Public Hearing Held. Approved with conditions. DATE ACTION May 7th Condlitiagill Use Permit consider the a Res luti n No. 489: To Permit for a homer Occup ation or a for Conditional Use and theatre in the dance school ehnd dwelling at 1830 Marschall Road.ted Tib odlo a athe nd Sharon Hinck. Public Hearing Held. Withdrawn. June 4th Conditional Use Permit consider the . application for to on No. 490; To Permit to operate an open sales lot Conditional Use Upon the 36 acres located east of�flea market) Bart Bradford. Public Hearing Held. Withdrawn. June 4th Conditional use Permit Resolution No. 491: To consider the application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow liquid bulk storage in above ground tanks upon the in located at 3251 Held. East Highway 101. Peavey Company. Public Hearing Approved with conditions. June 4th - Conditional Use Pe r-mii Resolution No.itiona To consider the application for a Permit to operate an outdoor mesio d enter las Us, minor commercial recreational facility upon 86 acres located North Of 12th Park Drive, Avenue, South West Of valley Of Valley Industrizl Blvd. , South and East of the R-Mart Distribution on County Road 83. Scottland ComCenteres. Public pani Hearing Held. Approved with conditions. Appealed to CC 8/21/87 - cont. - 25-87. Application withdrawn 11- July 9th Conditional Use Permit Resolution NO. 498. consider an application f To - Permit to construct a church a upond12175 Condiuse tional located at 833 Marschall Road South. Mount Olive Lutheran Church. Public Hearing Held. Approved with conditions. July 9th Conditional Use Permit consider an a Resolution No. 499: To Permit PPlication for a Conditional Use to move a single family dwelling unit uno- the Property located on Lot 51 Block 1, Eaue� 2nd Addition. James Hauer, Public Hearing Heir. Approved with conditions. July 9+h Condit,onal Use Permit + • Consider an anPlicationResolu melon No. 500: To - Permit to IDOVE a singlefc a Conditional Use the property located On Lot family1 HilBlockl3� unit Ypon ls Addition. Eldon Greenwood. Killarney Held. Approved with conditions. Punlic Hearing DATE ACTION / August 6th Conditional Use Permit Resolution No 501: To consider an application for a Conditional Use Permit to permit a Class II Restaurant upon the property located on Lots 3 & 4, Block 12, Shakopee City (the property just East of the Dairy Queen) . Mark Gerry and Allen Plaisted. Public Hearing Held. Approved with conditions. September 3rd Conditional Use Permit Resolution No 505: To consider an application for a Conditional use Permit for a home occupation to continue auto body work upon the property located at 706 East 4th Avenue. Donald R. Plekkenpol. Public Hearing Held. Approved with conditions. 1987 Annual Report PLATS - DATE ACTION January 8th Preliminary and Final Plat of Yarusso Addition lying on property located at 1803-1885 Eagle Creek Boulevard. Public Hearing Held. Preliminary approved subject to final plat conditions. February 5th Final Plat of Yarusso Addition lying on property located at 1803-1885 Eagle Creek Boulevard. Moved to be continued at April Planning Commission meeting. Continued. . February 5th Preliminary Plat of Horizon Heights 4th Addition lying on the property located south of County Road 16, North of County Road 42, East of Muhlenhardt Road and West of Hwy 13 . Public Hearing Held. - Recommended approval with conditions. City Council approved 6/22/87 with conditions. March 5th Preliminary Plat of Hauer's 4th Addition lying on the property located North of 13th Avenue, South of CR r16 and East of Hauer's 1st Addition. Public Hearing Held. Recommended approval with conditions. City Council approved 3/17/87 with conditions. April 9th - Preliminary Plat of Canterbury Estates lying on the property located East of County Road 79 and South of 11th Avenue. Public Hearing Held. Recommended approval with conditions. City Council approved 4/21/87 with conditions. April 9th Final Plat of Hauer's 4th Addition lying on the Property located North of 13th Avenue, South of CR r16 and East of Hauer's 1st Addition. Recommended approval with conditions. City Council approved 4/21/87 with conditions. May 7th Preliminary and Final Plat of Behr' Addition, 10. 033 acres 1 f County s First 1 83, East of the Racetrack and South of the Racquetball Club. Recommended approval with -- _.— . ... conditions. -City. Council. approved 5/19/87. - May 7th Prelimina_-_v Plat of Heritage Place lying on the- property located Westerly of Hauer's 3rd Addition, Southerly of J_E.J. 2nd Addition and Hauer's 2nd Addition. Public Hearing Held. Recommended approval with conditions. City council approved 6/16/87 with conditions. Od � DATE ACTION July 9th Preliminary and Final Plat of Eagle Creek Junction 2nd Addition, 18. 5 acres lying South of County Road 16 and West of County Road 17 in an R-4 Zoning District. Public Hearing Held. Recommended approval with conditions. City Council approved 10/6/87 with conditions. July 9th Final Plat of Heritage Place lying on the property located Westerly of Hauer's 3rd Addition, Southerly of J.E.J. 2nd Addition and Hauer's 2nd Addition. Public Hearing Held. Recommended approval with conditions. City Council approved 7/14/87 with conditions. November 5th Final Plat of the Meadows 1st Addition (formerly Canterbury Estates) lying on the property located East of County Road 79 and South of 11th Avenue. Public Hearing Held. Recommended approval with conditions. City Council approved 11/17/87 with conditions. December 3rd Final Plat Approval - Stonebrooke - Tabled to get more information. 1987 Annual Report REZONING - DATE ACTION January 8th Request for rezoning of approximately 4 . 14 acres of property located on Lots 1-10, Block 174 and Lots 1-10, Block 40, City of Shakopee, from R-3 to I-1. Public Hearing Held. Recommended for. Approval. February 5th Request for rezoning of approximately 71.2 acres Of property located in Section 7, Township 115N, Range 22W, from AG to R-2. Public Hearing Held. Hearing continued to April 9th. March 3rd Request to consider the creation of a new zoning district, the Urban Redevelopment District (URD) for the property adjacent to and .located at 134 S. Main, presently zoned B-1. Public Hearing Held. Recommendation to approve failed. City Council approved 3/3/87. April 9th Request from above changed to rezone approximately 85 acres of land located East of County Road 79 and South of 13th Avenue from AG to R-2 and R-3. Recommended to City Council. July 9th Request for rezoning of the property located on the North side of Bluff Avenue, from Fillmore Street just West of Marschall Road from R-3 - to B- 1. Public Hearing Held. Recommended to City Council. I l � v 1987 Annual Report AMENDMENTS - DATE ACTION January 8th Amend Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. CC-334 to delete a condition which requires a person with a minimum of 5000 hours experience of working with mentally retarted in the event that person is the only supervisor in attendance, on property located at 111 East Third Avenue. Public Hearing Held. Amendement Approved. January 8th Amendment to City Code Sections 11.40, Subd. 4F and 12. 11, Subd. 4F to allow residential densities in Planned Unit Developments to be increased if substantially more site amenities are provided. Public Hearing Held. January 8th Amendment for a preliminary and final PUD of Canterbury Downs which shall include the construction of dormitory housing on property located at 1100 County Road 83 . Public Hearing Held. Recommended to City Council. September 17th Amendment to City Code, Section 11.25, Subd. 3 ; Section 11.26, Subd. 3 ; Section 11.277, Subd. 3 ; Section 11.28 Subd. 3 and by adopting by reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Section 11.99 to permit Temporary Sales Offices as a Conditional Use in the R-1, R-2, R-3, or R-4 Districts. Public Hearing Held. Recommended to City Council. November 5th Amendment to Shakopee City Code Chapter 12 Entitled "Subdivision Regulations (Platting) " to permit churches, schools, local government buildings, clubs and other non-profit organizations which carry on its activities in and is located and based in the City of Shakopee to be exempt from the park dedication requirement. Public Hearing Held. Recommended to City Council. 1987 Planned Unit Development (PUD) March 26th Request for a Preliminary Planned Unit Development for a golf course and residential development upon the property located North Of O'Dowd Lake Park, - -- South -of County Road 77, Bast of County Road 79 and West of Timber Trails Addition. Public Hearing Held. Recommended to Council. June 4th Request for a Final Planned Unit Development project for Stonebrooke (formerly O'Dowd Lake Estates and Golf Course) by Laurent Builders and Tom Haugen. Continued to 12/3/87 - continued to 1/7/88. October 8th Request for a preliminary and final Planned Unit Development project for the property located on approximately 29. 6 acres on the Northeast corner of the intersection of Hwy 101 and County Road 17 . The proposed project includes the existing Shakopee Valley Motel and a- proposed campground and resturant. Public Hearing Held. Approved with conditions. 1987 Special Actions January 8th Moved that the current ruled be amended to read that "no member may serve no more than two full consecutive terms as Chairman" Motion carried unanimously. Moved to approve the annual staff review of Conditional Use Permit No. 442 issued to L.P.V. Enterprises to construct a recreational vehicle park and campground. Motion carried unanimously. February 12th Moved for the adoption of the ordinance as per staffs recommendation of memorandum dated February 7, 1987, as originally published. Motion failed. March 5th Moved to recommend staff that they research and develop an amendment to the ordinance to provide for seasonal signage in a recreational environment on public property. Motion carried unanimously. - Moved to have staff begin immediately a comprehensive review and evaluation of the sign ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. Moved that staff be directed to advise Canterbury Downs that the placement of at least the easterly structure now falls under the provision of the building materials situation because of its visibility to be public and on that building they may have to meet code. Motion carried unanimously. April 16th Moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the city Council the hiring of additional Planning Staff. Motion carried unanimously. May 7th Moved to approve the annual review of conditional use permit 4448, 459, 366, 477 and 455. Motion carried unanimously. June 4th Moved to direct staff to seek alternative siting for commission meetings when issues warrent a larger crowd. Motion carried unanimously. Moved ..to recommend totheCity Council that City staff begin an analysis of the overall uses of the industrial zone and its lonf term viability or appropriate uses and that it should be done by staff or consultants and should not be placed on the developer because of the vested interest. Motion carried unanimously. July 9th Moved to direct staff to determine staff to determine what can be done with the Ramsey Street extension north of Shakopee Avenue immediately adjacent to Eagle Creek Junction 2nd Addition. Motion carried unanimously. July 30th Moved to request the City Council to fund the members of the Planning Commission attending a rock concert. Motion carried unanimously. November 5th Moved to proceed with sending the letter complimenting Shakopee Ford on their sign as drafted by staff. Motion carried unanimously. Community Development Report Year End Report 1987 Planning Division: Responsible for providing information regarding land use regulations for the public, reviewing land development applications for compliance with City Codes and preparing reports and recommendations for the Planning Commission and City Council. Employees: Position: Name- City Planner Douglas Wise Secretary Toni Warhol Activities: 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Variances & Appeals 15 10 22 12 22 Conditional Use Permits 16 20 40 31 17 Plats 4 6 17 4 12 Rezoning 0 6 6 4 5 Code Amend- 6 11 4 13 3 ments PUD's 4 Special Actions 24 24 38 17 13 Totals 65 77 127 81 76 N N z u U � N N � nI`y J N N, J � r(1 q � V � � N < J y 4 J y 1 0 r . J - q O 7 O O O O H _ z w a J a � � a � � w v A a H v ri W i � a " " 1 w o wm ro H H � 0 u o o s 1 z N \ L h ti n J G, v N J C u ^ r nn r 'J e .i I y I J �I J [ • - c ��. T._,!-%fn z5 /� G r m H � " . W �- H a am, w � - A I z � °' w � •� � a a a ., � � � � ,� N w '". � m w W m Q ~ c � � H H 0 U o o n Ol N <z.=.x,x.�n25 r 6 ;� Z a p. Y N ;.. J 4 _� w 1 N � \ � � e • -,�J �, -a C� ' Y n ^ ,,�.� � (` ^ m -1 ^ _�, � y 0 • ., -. c o 0 0 H w F W W Q U � G Q w , G Q H r 0 U r r • m 4 u Q G Q41 Ml � 0 J J 0 > q p 0 0, .^ b pj J r T o /0 Respectfully submitted, Jane van Maldeghem, Chair Dave Czaja, Vice Chair Dave Rockne Todd Schwartz Gene Foudray John Schmitt Terry Forbord David Pomerenke MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Preliminary Plat for Prairie Estates DATE: March 30, 1988 INTRODUCTION• At their meeting on March 3, 1988 the City Planning Commission passed a motion recommending approval of the preliminary plat for Prairie Estates subject to conditions. BACKGROUND: Jerome and Lawrence Vierling have submitted a preliminary plat for Prairie Estates, a proposed 80 acre urban residential development. The development will include 67 single family lots ranging in size from 12,750 sq. ft. to 22,800 sq. ft. and 5 out lots to be replatted in the future. The development is located West of County Road 17 and South of 11th Avenue. The North 1/2 of the site is presently zoned R-2 and the South 1/2 is presently zoned Ag. The City's Comprehensive Plan shows the Southern 1/2 of the site as B-1 in the future. The preliminary plat shows 11th Avenue extending across the entire Northern boundary of the plat. The Planning Commission and staff have recommended that the most Western block of 11th Avenue, located between Naumkeag and Shawmut Streets, be vacated. Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 should then be rotated to a East-West configuration so as to front on Shawmut Street. Continuation of 11th Avenue through this block would result in the existing residence being located within the street right of way. The proposed Upper Valley Drainageway bi-sects this plat and is shown as a separate outlot which would be dedicated to the City. The City has adopted a policy requiring dedication of the drainageway property and giving credit towards park dedication requirements to the developer for the area included in the drainageway. A trail will be located in the drainageway and at this time the City's consulting engineer is proposing an underpass for the trail which would go under County Road 17. At the Planning Commission meeting there was much discussion concerning whether street A should be eliminated from the preliminary plat. The City staff and County Engineer recommended to the Planning Commission that street A be eliminated in order to minimize access points onto County . Road 17. The developer indicated that they would like to keep the street to act as a buffer between an area which will be proposed for R-4 for Multi- family development and the area which will be proposed for highway commercial development. The Planning Commission approved the preliminary plat with the staff's recommendation, however the Planning Commission and City Council will both have another opportunity to look at this issue when the final plat is presented for approval. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: At their meeting on March 3, 1988 the Shakopee Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat for Prairie Estates subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of the title opinion by the City Attorney. 2. Access to CSAH 17 shall be limited to the proposed Prairie lane and Vierling Drive. The developer shall remove street A and combine Outlots C and D. An access . permit to CSAH 17 shall be secured from the Scott County Highway Department. No individual lots shall have direct access onto CSAR 17 or Vierling Drive. 3 . The developer shall dedicate 30 feet instead of the proposed 40 foot right-of-way for lith ave. 4 . The developer shall provide a temporary 25 foot construction easement on both sides of the 100 foot drainageway. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City for drainage, utility and park purposes. 5. Execution of a Developers Agreement for construction of the required improvements: a. Installation of the water system in accordance with the requirements of the SPUC Manager. b. Installation of the sanitary sewer and storm sewer in accordance with the design criteria and standard specifications of the City of Shakopee. C. Existing assessments shall be reapportioned according to city policy. d. The developer shall dedicate Outlot A to the City. Outlot A will count toward park dedication requirements for the plat, the remainder of the park dedication requirements shall be a cash payment in lieu of land dedication. e. Local streets and street signs to be constructed in accordance with the design criteria and standard specifications of the City of Shakopee. f. The developer agrees to reimburse the City for costs associated with Vierling Drive equivalent to the costs for a 36 foot residential street. Cost sharing to be determined by the City Engineer. g. The developer agrees to petition for improvements to 11th Avenue and to waive the right of appeal of assessment. h. A sidewalk along Vierling Drive and CSAH 17 will be required and must comply with the design criteria and standard specifications of the City of Shakopee. 16 6G 6. The developer shall rotate lots 1 and 2, Block 3 so as to allow an East-West configuration and access to Shawmut Street. 7. The name of Vierling Court must be changed. 8. Block 4 may not be final platted until the area included in lots 2, 3, & 4 has been rezoned. 9. The right of way for 11th Avenue between Naumkeag and Shawmut Streets must be vacated, but easements will be maintained. 10. No building permits will be issued for Outlots B, C, D, & E until they have been replatted. ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council should offer and pass a motion approving the preliminary plat subject to the above conditions. /O(f, MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Recommendation to Rezone the North 1/2 of Block 3 Koeper's Addition from I-1 to 1-2 DATE: March 30, 1988 INTRODUCTION• At their meeting on March 3, 1988 the City Planning Commission passed a motion recommending to the City Council the rezoning of the Northern 1/2 of Block 3, Lots 8-12, Koeper's Addition and the area immediately to the East of Lot 8 extending to the Western line of Lot 10, Block 175 of the Original Shakopee Plat from I-1 (Light Industry) to I-2 (Heavy Industry) . BACKGROUND: Fred Toole and Karen Dupont owners of the subject property applied to the City for rezoning of the property from I-1 Light Industry to I-2 Heavy Industry. The applicants are in the process of selling the property to Rahr Malting which has requested that the property be rezoned to I-2 which would enable them to expand their plant facilities onto this property. Rahr Malting does not have plans at this time to expand into this property but would like to have the opportunity in the future. The area to the North and East of the subject property is currently zoned I-2 and occupied by Rahr Malting, the area to the South and West of the subject property is currently zoned I-1. Other parcels of property in the area have been recently rezoned to I-1 (Edman Builders) . Located approximately 1/2 block to the South of the subject property is the R-3 zoning district. Within this zoning district on the South side of Third Avenue are located several small apartment buildings. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission at their meeting on March 3, 1988 approved a motion recommending amendment of the Shakopee Zoning Map to remove the North 1/2 of Block 3, Lots 8-12, Koeper's Addition and the area immediately East of Lot 8 extending to the Western line of Lot 10, Block 175, Original Shakopee Plat from the I-1 zoning district and placing it in the I-2 zoning district. __-_- The following reasons were given for the recommendation: 1. The rezoning is consistent with community goals and development policies in this area. Industrial land is the dominant use in this area. 2. Rezoning of the parcel is compatible with surrounding land uses and zoning. 3 . The proposed rezoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. ACTION REODESTED: Offer and approve a motion concurring with the Planning Commission recommendation and directing the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance rezoning Lots 8-12, Block 3, Eoeper's Addition and the area immediately East of Lot 8 extending to the Western line of Lot 10, Block 175, Original -Shakopee Plat from I-1 to I-2. CM OF SHAW ZONING ; x h R-v >57 4 S✓ L jl 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 discuss with them the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan 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 required to trade approximately 107 acres of tradeable industrial land for the 150 acres of residential land. On February 23, 1988 the City staff met 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 Amendment 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. 16 ALTERNATIVES• 1. The City Council can pass a motion directing staff to submit a Comprehensive 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 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. - - --- - -.. A. 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 COMMISSION 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 REOUESTED: Offer and pass a motion directing staff to submit a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the 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 (Alternative $3) . RESOLUTION NO. 2655 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A SANITARY SEWER PLAN FOR LAND WITHIN mgt M—MTROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (PiUSA) Ti%REBY ESTABLISHING A TRADEABLE AREA WHEREAS, the Year 2000 Sanitary Sewer Service Plan has been adopted by the City Council and approved by the Metropolitan Council; and WHEREAS, within the year 2000 Sanitary Sewer Service Plan a 305 acre area which consists of three parcels identified in the sewer inventory as 07, Y and *66 (and illustrated in attached exhibit A) shall be labeled as Tradeable Area, which means Citv Council approval must be granted nrior to issuance of z building permit for land within the Tradeable Area; and, WHER AS, ` the City allows development elsewhere in the commu__ity it is possible that land which is presently unsewered may not be eligible for development; znd, - WHEREAS, - e City Council sial! approve building ermits a fi=st come, 'first serve_ __S-s for land wit the nT aiiea'b-.-Area, only ` - the crcnosea use comn_i=- building andCity Codecs ` , -he average sewer=low s'ra_11 i not exceed 1,000 gallons per acre ner' ' - NOW, TH=REFORE BE IT RESOLVED by ••; -.. Council city of S axccee Minnesota - -- `ne plaor the wi' - the '-iJSA, which establishes sewer Plan, for _and _ _ Duncea._e Area is he=epy set D==?=_swcco - require City �Ccunc-'_ approval c`_ building -- - ---- - ccme, first served ra--_ r - _and within - -=ade v_e l=-_ a if prcpesec -a--_ use complies with _ _ _.,ling, buil _- r- na =` c--her _iv Col r_cu1 , the aver Gd= __„_r clow -:a-_ exceed. -, 000 ga-�„=scper acre per day. ^A:.o=ted inh. . RJA session cq ` - _ City Council cr shzxcpee,tel-,ae.!ota held this , 967 . ,M day or — Aalcr Q the A'"TEST: n ^dye 6s to fcrm t__i s 3 c=y cr - C' >oi . _ T [ , + 1 t yip � m i ` F _ Mr alb 1�- oR �lh C_ Y2COT& Gold Nugget Developnent, Inc. 8857 Zealand Avenue North Brooklyn Park, MJ 55445 March 1, 1988 Mr. Doug Wise Shakopee City Planning 129 Fast First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379-1376 Dear Mr. Wise: We at Gold Nugget Developnent, Inc. request the City of Shakopee to proceed with the carprehensive develcpnent plan for the 155 acres south of the High School and west of Co. Pd. 79. Our intentions are to proceed with the develcpnent of this land as soon as possible. We have a scheduled greeting with the Planning Depart ant on Tuesday, March 8, 1988. Our hopes and goals are to have final plat by June of 1988. If you should have any questions, please feel free to aive Ire a call at 424-4955. - S7 Wayne _ Fleck President Gold Nugget Develcpnent, Inc. WT-IF/lag tTHE VSCOTTLAND COMPANIES March 31 1988 Shakopee Planning Commission Shakopee City Hall 129 First Avenue East Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment For Proposed Annexation Area and Resulting _ - --- Impact on Industrial Growth in the City of Shakopee Dear Shakopee Planning Commission Members: We received today a copy of the staff memo dated February 24, 1988 concerning the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the proposed Annexation Area which discusses the possibility of the taking away of sewer capacity for all or a portion of the 305 acres of industrial zoned property owned by the J.L. Shiely Company, Kawasaki, and Scottland and North American Life and Casualty Company. As stated in the memo, on February 23rd, we and representatives of the J. L. Shiely Company and Kawasaki Motors Corporation met with City staff. At that meeting, all property owners stated they did not want to see the sewer capacity taken away from the industrial-zoned properties. It was suggested the City instead should seek toexpand the-MUSA line for the proposed annexation property and obtain additional sewer flows now. Most all other cities in the Twin City Area are attempting to do so on a daily basis. If the City does not request additional areas, there is no way in which the City will be able to expand its sewer flow. Although the Metropolitan Council staff may have expressed a reluctance to provide additional sewer capacity to the City, that does not mean the Metropolitan Council will not approve additional flow. We suggest the City have meetings with its local Metropolitan Council representative and other council members and see whether or not they will support the approval of additional flow. In the event they will not expand the Urban Service Area for the residential area at this time, the City may go back and request to manage "tradeable" area, guaranteeing that the sewer flows from the total area would be limited to 305,000 gallons per day. The annexed property should then be subject to the same sort of determination of availability of sewer capacity at the time of the drawing of a building permit for each building to be built similar to the restriction placed upon the industrial property that has previously been granted sewer capacity but is located in the ''tradeable area" . P.O. Box 509 1244 Canterbury Road Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 [612]4453242. March 3, 1988 Page 2 Additional capacity should be sought for the reasons stated and also because it seems patently unfair to take away sewer capacity from property owners who have owned their property for an extended period of time, have paid real estate taxes on it based upon an understanding that the property could be developed, and the property has been within the City. Moreover, these properties (at least the ones we own) have been assessed for city roadways in excess of $350, 000. Also, although there are substantial areas zoned industrial in the City, much of it is without sewer and has a 20 acre minimum lot size limitation. It has proven prohibitive in the marketplace to develop 20 acre industrial sites because no one wants to buy 20 acres when --- . they only need a 5 acre unsewered lot. (We suggest this be addressed in your review of the Comprehensive Plan) . Much of that property that is zoned industrial and is in a sewered area, is underlaid with bedrock which has made it economically unfeasible to develop. Additional reasons not to take action now that would grant sewer capacity rights to property that is presently outside of the limits of the City of Shakopee by taking away sewer capacity for property which has been zoned and taxed for years as industrial property and has paid special assessments, include the following: 1. The annexation decision has been appealed to the court which may take several months to decide that appeal. Thereafter, the losing party can appeal that decision to the State Court of Appeals and thereafter to the Minnesota Supreme Court. That whole process could take a minimum of six months and a maximum of 2 years. Of course the City could lose those appeals. 2. If the City allocates the sewer capacity now to property not within the City and the court thereafter rules against the City, the property owner may have vested rights to that sewer capacity even though his property is not in the City at this time. The City thereby opens itself to potential litigation in the event the City disputes that claim. 3. If the MUSA line is extended to included the 150 acres and the capacity is then taken away from the industrial property that presently has that capacity, and even if the annexation is already approved by the final Court of Appeals, the owner of the 150 acre parcel will claim vested rights to the sewer capacity even though he may not use it for many years. A 150 acre site could probably be developed into 400 to 450 lots. The City's historical absorption has been averaging approximately 75 new - - - single family houses per year. Already, the City has invested a considerable amout of money in public sewer, water and roads to service numerous parcels of property that have already been platted and developed by the property owners including the Meritor Parcel with approximately 350 lots, the Heritage March 3, 1988 Page 3 development with 92 lots and the Stonebrook development with 80+ lots. In addition, the owners of what is commonly referred to as the vierling Property are also in the process of obtaining preliminary plat approval for approximately 50 lots. The City is about to award a contract to build 13th Avenue, also known as vierling Drive, through an 80 acre parcel commonly referred to as the LaTour Parcel. The LaTour Parcel is presently serviced by municipal sewer and the condemnation of such a road through the LaTour Parcel and the assessments for the road, sewer and water will force the development of that parcel into residential lots which could potentially result in 175 more lots in the marketplace. Given the present absorption, even if it were doubled, which it will not be, there are at least 8 to 10 years of lots now available to the City before there is a need to add another 150 acres of lots to the inventory. Meanwhile, by having transferred the sewer allocation from the industrial zoned properties, the City will have limited the amount of industrial growth potential. As we know, industrial growth is generally more beneficial to the City in regard to the raising the tax -- _._ revenues and limiting of City expenses in that industrial growth does not place an adverse impact on the school district, is taxed at a much higher rate, and requires few police, fire and social service services. 4. If under any scenario, some sort of sewer capacity is allocated to the 150 acres either before or after the annexation, because of all the other lots presently available in the City in which there is substantial investment already by the property owners and by the City in the infrastructure servicing those lots, there is no reason to allocate all of the capacity to the 150 acres at this time, but instead, only a portion thereof should be allocated as a possibility and thereafter, it should be granted only based upon the actual performance by the developer of that property in subdividing and selling the property. Sewer capacity allocated should be only finally allocated as of the time a building permit is drawn on a specific lot. In summary, because of the fact the court has yet to rule on the annexation and becuuse of the importance of this issue, we ask to table any action until the district court rules in the appeal. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. .Very truly yours, THE SCOTTLAND COMPANIES Timothy J. Re ne Vice President/Counsel �6 0 r 1 l \ D o r ! .i 1 ( 1 1 �r I � � I - O i ' v , � I I f � V t r II. CD �'� :_G A ;mss Rs a u ` / t I Alli I i, sc 1 , I ! I I I 'a i i r I Jp ------------ klY j / W cn x of Im j b m ( I Lr 1 I g 8 m a rs ? 6P a _ 3 3 Ila, MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Community Development Director. .= - - RE: Murphy's Landing Operations Contract - DATE: March 29, 1988 INTRODUCTION• The City Council has been actively involved in attempting to find an operating entity for Murphy's Landing for the past three - or four months. The City Council needs to strive to arrive at some sort of temporary or permanent arrangement for the facility in the near future because the operating season will be starting soon. BACKGROUND: The City Council, at it's meeting of March 1, 1988 voted 3 to 3 to contract with the Scott County Historical Society (SCHS) for the operation of Murphy's Landing. After this vote failed City Council then voted 6 - to 0 to recommend - that the Minnesota Valley Restoration Project (MVRP) and SCHS form a coalition board to operate Murphy's Landing. - Subsequenttothis decision it appeared as though a coalition board would be formed and would be operational for the purpose intended by the City Council. The SCHS Board approved the concept however after an initial discussions by the MVRP Board the MVRP Board decided to bring it to their entire organization for a vote. Atthat time the MVRP membership did not approve the concept. On March 22, 1988 the City Council agreed to attempt to further pursue a joint board. The Council appointed Members Clay and Zak to work with the various participants in attempting to set up a coalition board. At this time a coalition board has not been formed. At the meeting of March 22nd, the City Council alsodirected - the staff to generate a draft contract for the - purpose of governing the operations of Murphy's Landing. Thiscontractis also intended to provide some protection for the Cityaswell as to insure that Murphy's Landing is operated in a manner consistent with what is desired for the residents of the City. Regardless of which . entity ends up operating Murphy's landing a contract for operations is needed: - Attached to this memoisa draft contract for the -operation - of Murphy's Landing. This contract is subject to discussion and - - - -modification -by the City Council as deemed necessary. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The City Council could review the contract and make the necessary changes and . direct the staff, to meet with the operating entity chosen to run Murphy'sLanding and attempt— ..-- to formulate a final contract for return to the City Council to subsequent meeting for official action. 2. The City Council could approve the contract in it's present form and direct that contacts and negotiations occur between the City's representatives and the Murphy's Landing Operating Board. 3 . The City Council could direct that an entirely new contract be drafted at this time and give instruction to the staff as to what elements should be included in that contract. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council endorse alternative rl above and discuss the elements of the contract and instruct the staff to make changes where applicable and to thendirectthe- staff to meet with the Murphy's Landing operating entity in order to receive their concurrence on the contract. If this happens it is expected that a revised copy of the contract will be presented to the City Council on either April 19, 1988 or May 3, 1988. ACTION REODESTED• - - - - Amend the contract as necessary and then move to direct the staff to meet with the operating entity for Murphy's Landing and produce a contract which is essentially in agreement with both the desires of the Murphy's Landing Operating Board and the City of Shakopee and then return this item to the City Council for final action. - �fCE/ Murphy's Landing AGREEMENT FOR MANAGEMENT SERVICES This Agreement is made and entered into in Shakopee, Minnesota, as of the _ day of , 1988, between the City of Shakopee, a body politic and corporate organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, ("Owner"), having its office at 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376, and , Inc. , a Minnesota (non-profit) corporation, ("Manager"), having its office at WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Owner owns and controls certain property located within the City of Shakopee, legally described on Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and which is known as "Murphy's Landing;" and WHEREAS, the Owner desires to enter into an agreement for the manage- ment of Murphy's Landing and the Manager desires to undertake the management of Murphy's Landing; and WHEREAS, both parties hereto desire to enter into this Agreement setting forth the terms, conditions, and covenants concerning the management of Murphy's Landing; WITNESSETH, in consideration of said terms, conditions, and covenants herein set forth, Owner and Manager agree as follows: ARTICLE I. 1.1 Appointment. Owner hereby appoints Manager and the Manager hereby accepts appointment on the terms and conditions hereinafter provided as managing agent of the property known as Murphy's Landing located in the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, consisting of the premises, improvements, and equipment contained -1- therein and thereupon ("Murphy's Landing"). 1.2 Authority. Manager understands that the ultimate- authority to make decisions with respect to Murphy's Landing shall lie with the Owner. The Manager shall confer fully and freely with the City Administrator of the City of Shakopee, or such other delegated representative as the Owner may deem proper, relative to the performance of the Manager's duties and the Manager shall be subject to the ultimate direction of the Owner in the performance of its duties as herein set forth. Manager shall not be authorized to make major changes in the operation of Murphy's Landing without written consent of the Owner. Manager shall not be authorized to enter into any contractual or other obligation on behalf of Murphy's Landing or Owner without prior written consent of Owner. 1.3 Meetings. Manager shall report to the City Administrator, or such other representative duly appointed by Owner, on a monthly basis, or other periodic basis deemed appropriate by Owner, for the purpose of conferring with the Owner relative to the performance of the Manager's duties hereunder and to receive direction of the Owner in the performance of said duties. 1.4 Mission Statement. On or before 19_, Manager shall prepare and present to Owner for approval a Mission Statement for Murphy's Landing. The Mission Statement shall generally address and set forth the future growth and development goals of Murphy's Landing. 1.5 Master Plan. On or before 19_, Manager shall prepare and present to Owner for approval a Master Plan which will outline and address the implementation of the growth and development goals of Murpby's Landing set forth in the Mission Statement. The Master Plan shall . include, among other things, a Marketing Plan and Budget for Murphy's Landing proposed for the implementation of the Master Plan for the initial twelve (12) month term of this Agreement. Thereafter, Manager shall prepare and present to the Owner -2- 62� for approval a Marketing Plan and Budget for Murphy's Landing annually. 1.6 Capital Expenditures Plan. On or before 19 Manager shall prepare and present to Owner for approval a Capital Expenditures Plan for Murphy's Landing for the initial twelve (12) month term of this Agreement. Thereafter, Manager shall prepare and present to the Owner for approval a Capital Expenditures Plan annually. 1.7 Operating Policy. On or before 19_, Manager shall prepare and present to Owner for approval an Operating Policy for the management of Murphy's Landing and the performance of the Manager's -duties hereunder. The Operating Policy shall address, among other things , the historical accuracy of Murphy's Landing, operation efficiency, maintenance policies and procedures, and a collections policy which will govern the acquisition of all artifacts and other property of historic significance whether by gift, grant or purchase. The Manager shall be responsible for the development and enforcement of the Operating Policy for the initial twelve (12) month term of this Agreement, and annually thereafter. 1.8 Schedule of Improvements. On or before 19_ Manager shall prepare and present to the Owner for approval a Schedule of Improvements proposed for Murphy's Landing for the initial twelve (12) month term of this Agreement. The Schedule of Improvements shall report on the condition of buildings, equipment and other property located at Murphy's Landing. The Schedule of Improvements shall propose repairs needed to keep said buildings, equipment and other property in good repair, and shall include an - Improvement Budget which sets forth the cost of repair of such buildings, equipment and other property. Manager shall cause the property to be inspected annually and shall report the results of this inspection in the Schedule of Improvements. Thereafter, Manager shall prepare and present to the Owner for -3- approval a Schedule of Improvements and Improvement Budget forMurpby's Landing on an annual basis. 1.9 Inventory and Appraisal. On . or before 19_ Manager shall prepare and present to the Owner an Inventory and Appraisal of all property including, but not limited to buildings, artifacts, equipment and other property, whether acquired by gift or purchase, located at Murphy's Landing. Thereafter, Manager shall prepare and present to Owner an updated Inventory and Appraisal of such property on an annual basis. Owner may, at its discretion, cause an inspection of the property to be made to verify the performance of Manager's duties and obligations hereunder. Manager shall keep and maintain all buildings, equipment and other property located at Murphy's Landing in good repair, and shall not allow said property to be kept or maintained in a hazardous or dangerous condition. Manager shall not cause any property, equipment or building at Murphy's Landing to be maintained, renovated, modified or constructed in a manner inconsistent with the goals of historical accuracy set forth in the Mission Statement, Master Plan, Operating Policy, any written directive of Owner concerning the same, or other applicable law of the State of Minnesota. Manager shall not cause the change or alteration of any building, equipment or other property located at Murphy's Landing whether by maintenance, renovation, modification or construction without the prior written consent of Owner. In the event Manager proposes an alteration, renovation, modification or construction affecting more than ten percent of the square footage of any building located at Murphy's Landing, Manager shall provide to Owner prior written notice justifying the alteration, renovation, modification ar__ construction. Owner reserves the right to approve all such alteration, renovation, modification or construction of property located at Murphy's Landing at Owner's sole discretion. -4- ARTICLE II. Property Rights Manager acknowledges that Owner has ownership of all property located at Murphy's Landing including, but not limited to, all past, present and future records relating to the ownership, management and control of Murphy's Landing; all past, present and future records to be prepared by Manager in accordance with this Agreement; all real property, buildings, structures, improvements, equipment, inventory, artifacts and other property of historical significance, and all other property located at Murphy's Landing, past, present or future, whether acquired by gift or purchase. Such property shall be and remain the exculsive property of Owner except as otherwise set forth in writing by Owner. Manager shall not acquire title in, or dispose of or disseminate (for consideration or otherwise) such property without the prior express written consent of Owner. Owner shall cause all such property to be handled with care so as to prevent damage or destruction of such property. Manager shall acquire no right, title or interest in such property, and shall not act in a manner inconsistent with the right, title and ownership of Owner in such property. In the event of a breach or threatened breach by Manager of any of the previous provisions of this paragraph, in addition to other remedies, Owner shall be entitled to injunctive relief without bond and without notice. Manager shall cooperate with Owner in protecting the proprietary interests of Owner hereunder. ARTICLE III. -- Duration and Termination This Management Agreement shall be for the duration specified, and may be terminated, as follows: 3.1 Term. This Management Agreement shall be in effect for an initial term of three years from the date of commencement. The commencement date is -5- 19 . 3.2 This Management Agreement may be terminated by either party on a reasonable basis upon ninety (90) days written notice to the other party. Such written notice shall be served upon Owner at the offices of the City of Shakopee located at 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376, during normal business hours. Notice shall be served upon Manager at its office located at , during normal business hours. 3.3 Accounting. Upon termination of this Management Agreement for any reason, Manager shall promptly deliver the following to Owner: (A) A final accounting, reflecting the status of Murphy's Landing as of the date of termination and their operations during the term of the Management Agreement; (B) All written data and materials including, but not limited to, all records, contracts, leases, receipts for deposits, unpaid bills, and other papers or documents required by this Agreement or which pertain to Murphy's Landing or the business or affairs of Owner. 3.4 Payment of Outstanding Fees, Bills, Accounts and Debts. Upon termination of this Management Agreement for any reason, Manager shall pay within ten (10) days of the c=itten termination notice all outstanding fees, bills, invoices, accounts or debts owed by Manager to Owner, or owed by Manager to others involving the operation, management, control or property located at Murphy's Landing. ARTICLE Iv. Duties of Manager 4.1 Duties. Manager shall. render services and perform duties as follows: -6- (A) Personnel. (1) investigate, - hire, maintain payroll, supervise and discharge the personnel necessarily required for the operation of Murphy's Landing (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Personnel"). (B) Maintenance and Repair. (1) Maintain and repair the real and personal property located at Murphy's Landing as necessary to efficiently operate Murphy's Landing in accordance with the conditions set forth herein and in accordance with applicable ordinances, statutes in law of the State of Minnesota. (C) Service of Complaints. (1) Maintain good relations with customers and tenants of Murphy's Landing and handle all complaints in a sympathetic and businesslike manner. (2) Use its best efforts consistent with all plans and directives adopted by Owner hereunder to enhance the sales volume and profitability of Murphy's Landing. (3) Cause Murphy's Landing to be inspected and maintained in accordance with the standards required by all state and local regulatory bodies. In the event any item of - replacement or repair involves uninsured or otherwise unbudgeted costs, Manager sball confer with Owner prior to making such repair or replacement, and receive its approval, unless the exigency of the situation requires immediate action and Owner is not available, in which -7- event repair or replacement shall be accomplished without consent only to the extent necessary to avoid or reduce the damage or destruction of property located at Murphy's Landing. (D) Compliance with Regulatory Agency Requirements. (1) Take all action necessary to comply promptly with any and all requirements of all regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the operations of Murphy's Landing. (E) Leases and Agreements. (1) Manager acknowledges that there currently exists leases and other agreements including, but not limited to, the sale of goods, the provision of services, and the rental of property for commercial and residential purposes. Manager agrees to comply with all of the terms and conditions of said leases and agreements, and to honor the same, unless instructed otherwise by Owner in writing in advance. Manager shall not be authorized to enter into any lease or other contractual obligation which exceed the term of three (3) years involving the management or property of Murphy's Landing including, but not limited to, the sale or lease of real or personal property, residential or commercial leasehold interests, the provision of services without prior written consent of Owner. Manager agrees to hold Owner and Murphy's Landing harmless and defend the same from all threat of claim, claims or damages caused or , occasioned by all leases and agreements entered into by —8— J� a� Manager, unless otherwise expressly agreed by Owner in writing in advance of such lease or contractual obligation_ 4.2 Accounting. Manager shall prepare for execution and filing all forms, reports and returns required by law in connection with unemployment insurance, workers' compensation insurance, disability benefits, social security, and other similar taxes now in effect or hereafter imposed, and any other reporting requirements relating to the employment of Personnel. Manager shall prepare and file all reports on a timely basis required by Owner or regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over Murphy's Landing. Manager shall manage daily cash flow and monitor monthly actual operating income expense and maintain records of the same. All funds received by Murphy's Landing shall be deposited into special accounts designated and controlled by Manager, under the direction and control of Owner. Manager shall prepare and deliver to Owner, within fifteen (15) days after the end of each month during the term thereof, a statement showing gross sales and receipts for that accounting month, in a form and content acceptable to Owner, including such categorizations as Owner reasonably requires. 4.3 Records. Manager shall keep, maintain and make available to Owner at all times at Manager's office, and Manager agrees to deliver same to Owner upon Owner's five (5) business days advance written request, a full, permanent and accurate set of books and records maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals of all sales of food-, beverages, merchandise, leasehold revenue, and all revenue derived from Manager's conduct of business. Manager shall keep, retain and preserve all sales slips, cash register tape readings, sales, bank books or duplicate deposit books, and other evidence pertaining to operations conducted by Manager during the term of this Agreement. -9- Manager shall provide to Ower immediate written notice of the actual or anticipatory breach of any contractual obligation by Personnel and other persons or entities involved in the sale or rental of property or services at or relating to Murphy's Landing. 4.4 Access to Premises. Owner will have free access to Murphy's Landing at all times. 4.5 Obligation of Manager. All salaries and other obligations incurred by Manager in performing its duties hereunder shall be the sole responsibility and obligation of Manager, except as otherwise agreed to in advance by Ower in writing. Manager's sole compensation is provided in Article V hereof. Manager shall hold Ower harmless, indemnify and defend Ower from any and all obligations and claims made by Personnel required for the operation of Murphy's Landing. 4.6 Ower reserves the right to evict any person or entity involved in the sale or lease of real or personal property, services or other activities located at or concerning Murphy's Landing. Owner shall comply with all applicable statutes, ordinances, rules or regulations involving the eviction or removal of said persons or entities. 4.7 Payment of Debt. Manager shall not be authorized to pay any contractual obligation or debt of Ower, Manager or Murphy's Landing for which Manager will seek repayment or reimbursement from Ower, except with Owner's advance written consent. This provision applies to past, present and .future debt or claims. - 4.8 Insurance. Manager shall obtain liability insurance as well as comprehensive property damage, flood and theft insurance on the structures and contents at Murphy's Landing, naming both the Ower and the Manager as insureds under the terms of such policies. The policy shall be inthe amounts and forms -10- as approved by Owner. Such amounts shall be $200,000/$600,000 unless otherwise indicated by Owner in writing. Proof of insurance must be filed with Owner prior to the effective date of this Agreement and shall be in effect without interruption throughout the term hereof. Such policies will require a minimum ten (10) day written notice of cancellation or termination given to both Owner and Manager. 4.9 Performance Bond. Manager shall obtain a performance bond in the amount of $50,000 in favor of the Owner to secure the performance of Manager, its shareholders, officers and Personnel in a form as approved by Owner. 4.10 Accountant. Manager shall cause all financial records maintained by Manager concerning Murphy's Landing to be audited on an annual basis by an a independent licensed or certified public accountant. Manager shall provide Owner copies of such audited reports and records within three (3) business days of Manager's receipt of the same. 4.11 Indemnification. Manager agrees to be solely. responsible for the operation, management and control of Murphy's Landing and any staff and Personnel that Manager deems necessary for such operation and control. Manager shall hold Owner harmless, indemnify and defend the same from any and all claims relating to the management and control of Murphy's Landing. 4.12 Board of Directors. Manager shall maintain a Board of Directors to oversee the management of Murphy's Landing. Manager agrees that Owner may designate one non-voting staff member and one non-voting elected official of the City of Shakopee as liasons who will be members of such Board of Directors. Owner shall be supplied copies of minutes, notes and resolutions respecting such Board of Directors meetings and the actions undertaken at such meetings. 4.13 Obligation to Rebuild. Neither Owner nor Manager shall be obligated to rebuild any building located at Murphy's Landing which is -11- substantially destroyed by fire or other natural disaster. A building or other structure is substantially destroyed when twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the building or structure is destroyed. 4.14 Incorporation. Manager shall be a for-profit or non-profit corporation, validly incorporated under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 4.15 Designation of Employer. Manager agrees that no person or entity providing goods or services at or for Murphy's Landing shall be deemed to be employees of Owner, except with Owner's prior written approval. ARTICLE V. Management and the Use Fee Owner agrees to pay Manager and Manager agrees to accept from Owner as sole consideration for this Agreement all income derived by Manager from admission charges, the sale of food and concessions, the sale of inventory maintained as gifts for sale to the public, rents derived from the lease of commercial and residential property, and the conduct of tours and other related services provided at or on Murphy's Landing. Manager shall be solely responsible for the payment of all costs and expenses necessary in generating such gross income, and Manager shall hold Owner harmless from any threatened or actual claim relating thereto. ARTICLE VI Miscellaneous Provisions 6.1 The parties hereto agree to enter into and effectuate any further documents or agreements necessary or convenient to effectuate the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 6.2 The parties agree that this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota, and that in the event that one or more provisions of this Agreement are legally without effect, the remainder of the -12- Agreement shall remain binding and enforceable. OWNER: MANAGER: - CITY OF SHAKOPEE Inc. By MayorIts Judy Cox, City Clerk ByyIts -13- I lb MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant RE: Huber Park Trail Project DATE: March 29, 1988 INTRODUCTION: On March 1, 1988 staff presented the final design plans for the Huber Park Trail Observation Platform and Trail Improvements to City Council for approval. Authorization to advertise for bids was subsequently tabled pending a meeting with MnDOT to discuss the proposed mini by-pass. BACKGROUND: In 1984 the City of Shakopee received a LAWCON/LCMR Grant for the construction of an overlook and improvements to the Huber Park Trail. Last October the Shakopee City Council authorized the appropriate City officials to enter into an agreement with Westwood Planning and Engineering for the landscaping and architectural design services associated with this project. Since that time, staff has been working with Westwood Planning staff in preparing the final design for the improvements and observation platform. On December 2, 1987 the Shakopee City Council approved locating the observation platform in front of the senior citizen highrise. In December soil borings were taken in this area and structural engineers have determined that is possible to construct the observation platform in the location as approved. The actual design of the observation platform will resemble a gazebo type structure. (See attachment #1) . The structure will be supported with steel columns and the observation platform itself will be constructed of pre-cast fabcon panels. Deck railing will be installed to prevent persons from falling off the platform. To improve the appearance of the facility we have also added decorative brick piers at 9' intervals along the platform. The roof of the structure will be constructed out of wood with asphalt Timberline shingles. Shown in attachment #2 is a complete landscape design of the entire Huber Park Trail Project area. The majority of the trail improvements are taking place in front of the overlook platform. Shown in attachment #3 are the preliminary cost estimates for the Huber _.Park_ Trail _improvement project. The cost estimate is within the budgeted grant amount. To insure that bids come in under the budgeted grant amount, staff is recommending that the landscaping portion of the project be bid as an alternative. This would give the City the ability to cut out some of the landscaping elements should the final bids come in higher than the engineers estimate. Shown in attachment #4 is a letter from Tim Erkilla, Westwood's Landscape Architect outlining a preliminary time schedule for completion of the Huber Park Trail Improvement Project. The City Building Inspector, Engineer and I have reviewed the final design plans and cost estimates and are recommending to City Council that the appropriate City officials be authorized to advertise for bids for the Huber Park Trail Improvement Project. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize the appropriate City officials to advertise for bids for the Huber Park Trail Improvement Project. 2. Make suggestions for improving the final design for the Huber Park Trail Improvement Project and authorize the appropriate City officials to advertise for bids. 3 . Suggest changes to the final design plans for the Huber Park Trail Improvement Project and direct staff to bring this issue back to City Council for their review at their next meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 11. ACTION REODESTED: Move to authorize the appropriate City officials to advertise for bids for the Huber Park Trail Improvement Project. Attachment #1 G � Ali Q I U a 8 0 � ia s x E a Z 1 ll Z P D S� _ i Vii Attachment #2 y [ K TT co o a i b a„� � •I i 9 b ¢. 3 CT1 E-1 9 a II waci I 4 C � I z 3� z m " r•Q "owe' eniooe.wr wa;ars I I i$ �f f I Fa MINNESOTA Attachment 92 Cont. RIVER �/ U . �•"� � �d �' � � I tiro ti, y , x . ---�—"` r .w; . M� ar ?S- . . _._ —• 9 - LEVEE DRIVE I SE BUIL XI-NISE BNIBIHG - . HUBER PARK TRAIL PROJECT City of Shakopee PIBIECI NC.E7-15 P Shakopee, Minnesota Attachment 63 - 1 WESTWOOD PLANNING 8, ENGINEERING COMPANY JANUARY 13, 1988 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE HUBER PARK TRAIL PROJECT SHAKOPEE, MN A. LANDSCAPE ESTIMATE ITEM COST 1 . Plant Material (includes trees shrubs, $ 27, 698. 00 sodding, seeding, mulch, edging) 2. 6 ' Wood/Cast Iron Benches (3) $ 3, 000.00 3. Pre-Cast Concrete Pavers (576 S.F. ) S 2,880. 00 4. Retaining/Seating Wall (2 @ 10 ') S 2,500.00 5. Concrete Walk (144 S.F. ) S 400. 00 6. Concrete Steps w/Railings (5 risers) $ 750. 00 7. Rework Bituminous Trail (70 L.F. ) S 630. 00 (accomodate handicapped access) 8. Depressed Curb (incl . curb removal) $ 150.00 9. Conduit (for possible lighting) $ 500.00 SUBTOTAL S 38,508.00 B. ARCHITECTURAL ESTIMATE 1 . Steel Railing includes fabrication, $ 4, 250.00 painting, and installation by fabricator) 2. Asphalt Roofing (installation to include $ 2, 000. 00 Timberline shingles, underlayment and metal roof edge) 3. Brick Pier (Construction w/top two S 9,500. 00 _ courses half bricks in stack bond, height 42") 4. Wood Roof (materials fabricated and S 6, 400. 00 delivered to site by Cedar Forest Products) Wood Roof (Erection to include $ 3,850. 00 prestaining of wood materials (pre-staining is $800) 6525 EDINSRD L OSSNG.SPO 'N PARK,MINNE6DTA SW3(612)4246662(Ruunes M,N ) 7415 W YV TA WULEV RD.ST.L.M I1W.MMNWDTA 55426(612)5460155 • Attachment k3 - Cont. �I U MUBER PARK ESTIMATE PAGE 2 6. Painting (of structural steel and S 1,500.00 precast plank deck edge) SUBTOTAL S 27,500. 00 C. STRUCTURAL ESTIMATi: 1 . Footings, steel frames, 6 precast S 36,000. 00 concrete above grade SUBTOTAL $102,008. 40 CONTINGENCIES 0 5% 5,100.40 GRAND TOTAL $107,108.40 ` Attachment q4 NNWWESTWOOD PLANNING & ENGINEERING COMPANY FEBRUARY 24, 1988 MEMORANDUM TO: Huber Park Trail Project (087-15) File Shakopee, MN FROM: Tim Erkkila RE: Meeting 2-23-88 Present: LeRoy Houser;Barry Stock Reg Silverthorne, John Oehlke, Randy Coertsen, Tim r The entire project shall be bid as one contract with the provision that plantings and benches may be deleted to conform to available funds. Deleted plantings could be rebid in a scaled down format (if necessary) in the fall. The target construction budget is $100,000. The Council will be asked for permission to advertise for bids at the March 1st, 1988 meeting. The City will advertise locally on March 17, 24 and 31st. Plans will be distributed by the City. The bid opening will be April 8th at 10:30 A.M. April 19, 1988 the Council will be asked to evaluate bids and potentially award a contract. Work could begin May 1, and be completed October 31, 1988. The City believes Timberline shingles will be donated to the project but will be installed by this contractor. The use of clay bricks in the railing piers was approved as was cedar roofing (under the shingles). The Landscape Architect, Architect and Structural Engineer shall coordinate relevant specifications into C.S.I. format. Westwood shall prepare the Advertisement for Bid, Contract forms and Bid Documents. Inspection of the construction work shall be by the City except for technical reviews by the design team as necessary and requested by the City. copies to these present. SUS EOINmWOK CROSSING,BROOKLYN VARK,MINNESOTA 55643(61.)A-.D I.-W.. 7415 WAYZATA BOULEVARD,ST.LOUIS PARK,MINNESOTA SS1.61B12)Si 60155 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Part-Time Code Enforcement Officer DATE: March 31, 1988 Introduction In October of 1987 the City Council reviewed procedures for enforcing Section 10.73 of the City Code regarding "grass and weeds on private property. " Council wanted a quicker response to grass complaints. One suggestion was that our present Code Enforcement Officer also do grass and weed enforcement because he can issue tab charges and our Weed Inspector cannot. This discussion lead to an overall re-evaluation of our code enforcement procedures. Background Attached is a list (comprehensive but not final) of the miscellaneous codes we enforce. The City currently hires a part- time Code Enforcement Officer from April through October to deal primarily with junk cars, exterior storage, unsightly debris, etc. The City also hires a part-time summer Weed Enforcement Officer and contracts for animal warden services. The suggestion of assigning our Code Enforcement Officer additional weed enforcement responsibilities uncovered a work load problem. Over the last three years we had assigned more and more code enforcement work to the Code Enforcement Officer. The Chief of Police indicated that he had, in fact, been assigned so many other miscellaneous code enforcement duties that he was unable to keep up with the removal of junk cars, his original assignment. We therefore decided to list all. miscellaneous code enforcement duties and to re-assign them to the appropriate department. That is the attached list. Staffing Needs After reviewing the list it appears that we are well staffed in all areas with the exception of Community Development (CD) . For the CD Department to do the necessary site inspections to enforce their codes they have to take employees from other major projects, including the Shakopee Comprehensive Plan activities. It was for this reason that CD code enforcement duties were gradually assigned to the Code Enforcement officer over the last several years. We have had good success with part-time Code Enforcement Officers.. They have helped clean up the community while holding the cost of the clean up efforts to a minimum. We believe it is time to consider a similar part-time code enforcement approach to the CD Department responsibilities. We estimate that a second part-time CD Code Enforcement Officer would work from April 1 to October 30 and cost approximately $5,000.00 per year. The Code Enforcement officer would not systematically patrol the community. Instead, he/she would patrol the community twice a year and the balance of the year respond to complaints received by CD. Staffing Alternatives 1. Continue with the present mix of full-time and part-time staff for code enforcement without employing an additional part-time seasonal person to do miscellaneous code enforcement for the CD Department. The City can "get by" with this approach as we have in the past, but it will pull full-time CD staff away from other major Planning and Community Development projects. 2. Employ a seasonal part-time Community Development Department/Planning Code Enforcement Officer for 1988 on a trail basis. The part-time Code Enforcement Officer would be hired through the normal process with ads in the newspaper and screening by Personnel with final selection done by the Department Head. The individual selected would be instructed in code enforcement practices and assigned the miscellaneous CD code enforcement duties designated on the attached list. Recommendation The City has operated under the conditions of Alternative No. 1 for many years. If Council would like to evaluate a different method of enforcement then I would recommend Alternative No. 2. By hiring a seasonal part-time person the City can end the experiment any time it becomes apparent that the proposal is not working. Moreover, at the end of one year Council and staff can evaluate how the proposal worked to determine if it is worth pursuing in future years. To implement Alternative No. 2 in 1988 would require amending the City budget by appropriating $5,000.00 from our 1988 Contingency which now stands at approximately $100,000. Action Requested Authorize the appropriate City officials to advertise for, screen, and hire a seasonal part-time Code Enforcement officer for the Community Development Department for the period from April through October of 1988 at a maximum expense of $5,000.00. JKA/jms �I v CODE INDEX I. Screening II. Refuse Collection III. Streets/Sidewalks IV. Parking V. Public Protection VI. Construction, Licensing, Permits and Regulations VII. Zoning Ordinance VIII. Sewage Services IX. Dog, Cat, and Domestic Animals X. Signs XI. Definitions RESPONSIBLE SUBJECT I: SCREENING PARTY Design and Maintenance of Off-Street Parking Comm. Dev. - Section 11.05, Subd. 3 D (p. 290) Junk Yards and Automobile Wrecking Comm. Dev. - Section 11.05, Subd. 5 (p. 293) Mining Operations Comm. Dev. - Section 11.05, Subd. 7 C (5) (p. 295) Recreational Vehicle and Recreational Vehicle Parks Comm. Dev. - Section 11.05, Subd. 11 H (p. 298-4) Performance Standards Comm. Dev. - Section 11.60, Subd. 1 - Exterior Storage (p.- 312-4) - Section 11.60, Subd. 3 - Screening (p. 312-4) Storing junk cars, furniture, household appliances Comm. Dev. and furnishings if related to screening - Section 12.74 (p. 298) RESPONSIBLE SUBJECT II: REFUSE COLLECTION PARTY Placement of Containers C.E.O.* - Section 3.15, Subd. 3 (p. 44) Disposal C.E.O. Section 3 .15, Subd. 4 (p. 44) * Code Enforcement Officer, Howard Jones in the Police Department RESPONSIBLE SUBJECT III: STREETS\SIDEWALKS PARTY Ice and Snow on Public Sidewalks Building - Section 7. 04 (p. 173) Regulation of Grass, Weeds and Trees in Streets Weed Insp/ - Section 7. 05 (p. 173) P.W. Obstruction, Fire, Dumping, Signs and Other Structures - Section 7. 08 (p. 177-1) Subd. 1 - Obstructions City Clerk Subd. 2 - Fires C.E.O. Subd. 3 - Dumping in Streets C.E.O. Subd. 4 - Signs and Other Structures Comm. Dev. RESPONSIBLE SUBJECT IV• PARKING PARTY Truck Parking Police - Section 9.30 (P. 212) Impounding and Removing Vehicles Police - Section 9.41 (p. 213) Unattended Vehicle Police - Section 9.42 (p. 213) Vehicle Repair on Street Police - Section 9.43 (p. 213) Parking for Advertising or Selling Merchandise Police - Section 9.44 (p. 213) Off Street Parking Spaces Comm. Dev. - Section 11.26 and 11.27, Subd. 4A (P. 304-1 and 306. 1) Recreational Vehicle and Trailer Regulations A. C.E.O. Section 11.60 Subd. 11 A 6 B (P. 316-1) B. Comm. A. Parking and Occupancy Dev. B. Parking in Agricultual and Residential Districts RESPONSIBLE SUBJECT V: PUBLIC PROTECTION PARTY Unlawful Deposit of Litter C.E.O - Section 10.05 (p. 228) Clearing of Litter from Private Property C.E.O. - Section 10.05, Subd. 8 (p. 230) Abandoning a Motor Vehicle C.E.O. - Section 10.33 (p. 242) Public Nuisances C.E.O. - Section 11.60 Subd. 10 (P. 316) SUBJECT VI: CONSTRUCTION, LICENSING, PERMITS RESPONSIBLE and REGULATIONS PARTY Building Permits - Section 4.03, Subd. 1 (p. 74-1 thru 75) A. Fence Construction Requirements (pg. 74-1) Bldg./ Comm. Dev. B. Junk Yards and Automobile Wrecking Yards Comm. Dev. (Pg. 75) C. Sanitary Landfills and Waste Disposal Comm. Dev. Sites (Pg. 75) D. Swimming Pools (Pg. 75) Bldg. RESPONSIBLE SUBJECT VII: SEWERAGE SERVICES PARTY Deleterious Substances P.W./Bldg. - Section 3.10, Subd. 4 (p. 43) Unlawful Discharge P.W./Bldg. - Section 3.10, Subd. 5 (p. 43) RESPONSIBLE SUBJECT VIZI: ZONING ORDINANCE PARTY Home Occupations (Conditionally permitted in Ag, Comm. Dev. R1, R2 and R3) Section 11.05, Subd. 10 (p. 298-1) Flood District Comm. Dev. - Section 11.34 (p. 311) Performance Standards (p. 312-4 thru 317) - Section 11.60, Subd. 1 - Exterior Storage (p 312-4) Comm. Dev. Subd. 2 - Refuse (p. 312-4) Subd. 3 - Screening (p. 312-4) Subd. 4 - Landscaping Maintenance (p. 314) Subd. 5 - Acceptable Building Materials (p. 314) Subd. 6 - Required Parking Setbacks (p. 314) Subd. 7 - Landscaping Requirements (p. 315) Subd. 8 - Glare (p. 315) Subd. 9 - Bulk Storage (p. 315) ? _ Subd. 10- Nuisances Subd. 11- Recreational Vehicle or Trailer ? Regulations (p. 316) Subd. 12- Soil Erosion and Sedimentation En g . Control (p. 317) SUBJECT IX: DOG, CAT, and ANIMAL REGULATION RESPONSIBLE and LICENSING (D 234) PARTY Section 10.21 Subd. 1 - Definitions Animal Warden Subd. 2 - Running at Large Prohibited Subd. 3 - License Required Subd. 5 - License Fee and Term „ Subd. 6 - Tag Required „ Subd. 6.5 - Inoculation Against Rabies Subd. 7 - Records „ Subd. 10 - Impounding „ RESPONSIBLE SUBJECT X• SIGNS PARTY Signs, Construction, Maintenance and Permits (p. 1) Comm. Dev. - Section 4.30, Subd. 2 Definitions Administration and Enforcement (p. 10) Comm. Dev. - Section 4 .30, Subd. 5 - Permit, Application and Fee, Maintenance Exemptions and Variance. Existing Non-Conforming Signs (p. 12) Comm. Dev. Section 4.30, Subd. 6 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Jon Glennie, Planning Intern RE: Park Dedication Fee Schedule DATE: March 30, 1988 INTRODUCTION• At the City Council Worksession on February 22, 1988 the Council indicated it wanted a review of various park fees. BACKGROUND: Following months of research and discussion staff has developed a new park dedication fee schedule. Attached please find not only the park dedication fees which are presently in place for the City of Shakopee but also a survey of fees for the Cities of Eagan, Coon Rapids, Brooklyn Park, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Woodbury, Oakdale, Lakeville, Maplewood, Plymouth, Prior Lake, Chaska, Savage and Chanhassen (see attachment #1) . Each of the cities is broken down into growth areas as defined by the Metropolitan Council. Survey results indicate that Shakopee's park dedication fees are generally lower than most other communities in the developing ring. This is probably due in part to the fact that no adjustment to our schedule have been made since enactment of the ordinance in 1981. Attachment #2 is an example of application comparisons of various city fees. I have tried to show the inadequacy of the Shakopee fee structure as compared to similar projects in each of the communities surveyed. From this comparison one might conclude that Shakopee is lagging behind in it's park dedication fees compared to other cities in the developing ring and other suburbs in the Twin Cities. After thorough analysis, I came to the conclusion that our present fee structure has no rationale for charging the fees it does. I have therfore attempted to develop a rationale for our park dedication fee structure as required by law. (See atachment #3. ) After pulling together the needed information and talking with participants active in the park dedication process I have constructed the fees as outlined in attachment V. - The per unit costs are meant to show you that if we apply proper rationale to justify impact, then we should be charging the fees as outlined. Our present park dedication fee schedule is lacking the rationale to justify impact. It is standard practice to allow the Community Development Commission to review these types of items before City Council takes final action. Additional Attachments: #4 - Park Reserve Fund Budget Summary #5 - 5 Year CIP - Parks ALTERNATIVES• 1. Direct the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on adoption of a new park dedication fee schedule. 2. Adjust the park dedication fees to reflect market increases in property values that have occurred since 1981 and wait until the Comprehensive Plan is updated and at that time adopt a new park dedication ordinance with accompanying rationale. 3. Table action pending further information from staff. 4. Refer to Community Development Commission for review and comment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #4. ACTION REODESTED: Move to refer to the Community Development Commission for review and comment. HOU 3 C9 w O L+f m 0 7 G m Y a K O a 7 a m O O W w N K H N a 0 7 O rt ro I-� xl • � f.. A1r. 0 aRY O K K a m a YO ra a 7 b �p s a a W a O O p7 J w Y• W aN rrG rt T R R a o Y. M �{ O w w w w wG ro W d O F w G a N q 0 o M 7 N a s o p0 O O Y01 rIn m � F G w 7 7 Z H Ips] n q w w OYNw TGb MH � H C H q W N 77 � W 7' a t�0 a i s q7 H b O w i 0eww aF-C Kew ra^ w O R to W N m N a R N N R J Z N \ \ Y•a K I N rn 0 O O � 3 • F C rt rt m w N w W rn G M \ • O a 7 NY-o. W NMNn 7 mt7 ^] O w W r < F 3 N rt R w m O N > " O R a T a C K ro q H 0 0 \ 7 0 C a K 7 N q R H F WKa W m MT• w (� < N cn 0 mbr Ia-' q rt m mMOG F O to N K O m m K O O N N r d K 0 K O w a H o a m m0ft N 0 910 3o3 a 0 acKi iA Q Y. o O G 3 a N m o < r m O O M N m O O\ K O a s K m \ T K F+ F+ rnn rn\ ro Kn 0 wo 0 ow wvw G RrrtH n Y� Y• m YMON NF+ N MH • a • a K as K O� OGO a r o. m o rr N Owro O ON O OtYP. w N M lPW OI-+ F+ O ONO IM V rt dP dF � FF OtlPO < NT �+ n r om N o 0 o won p p r• w o o a• � rnrn T 00 � o Mr � pr 3. w 33 K K a o 0 N 3 G • in y, O O m O aW K O �w1 m O n w n ro ro 3 r o E n ro 7 w >• n �- a w a o w a o w m o r n a a 7 m a n a c E YH c YK m X * a m * r * * * * a * C N N U1 W In a N lfi O H J N O O U� O O O O to �n O O O c c c c c c c 0 0 � o > > ❑ c o m K K R K K R K w w YY' K K 3 3 X C O C O X J N O N lI� p ro G R H K I-' G 7 ❑ ❑ 7 7 N � N N H S n M V+ fR M 19 N W N &1 F] 7 \ \ 7 \ N N N \ Y• YY• \ \ \ Y- 3 3 R rt K C C C K ro C 7 C 'i1 b R R R H N Z N J N w N w H in � m in m N 0 o H s o H s o \ o w o a o n n n c n c r m w < m w < o n o Hw rw o n n c H C r \ w m m m m w a r > > n r O K K n O M M a M C H H 41 < Y a H 41 O H O ro NI O O O O \ O pyl O O ro O O O Id N W V1 N O O Vl (Q m P VI V+ Nf ri M M y}q y} M W H O H H O ro O U O U O O O O ro Oro O V1 O �p .N th t(1 W H ro O W y O O U O U � 0 0 o r o \ o \ r 7-. H O1 W N .r nn P O a H yq bF a Q O G H 0 4 V N 0 U U 0 oro Z rov o 0 0 o\ O � o 0 0 00 0o io H a V N H N N rIN NM m H +i a W W VA tRW tR M a a a W N 4 U O H 0 0 U ro O O o \ 00 - W ' h1 ti N Ifl OP OO N E ro - r c m Orn e - Q W W yt W H H H W O U O H p ro U W O O O Nv1 O \ v N W 10 tiN C.0 r UI m ,Ip .� .y iR P N O .n H tli H •i m w ro roJ t9 ro ro H O P H I!1 y l O U pxU CXU G� 4 - C E x +� cvwE .v+ 1Gi 04 vao wsv,� d yl v .+ 7 E -+ H T O Q U NH .-1 p � �N.. E Qwm OWH m H ❑ a W �+ o ro w w o w +n .-1 c .H WF — ui Gu mo — Om zossassy IgunoO :�� ' snsueo gozsgsip Tooqos TEnuuy �. •anTEn pueT ;0 %S (OOS' Z£S ;o dgsadozd I/J ;o asoe ue ;0 aOTid abezanE uo pasaq) az0e/009TS - dgzadozd TET-gsnpuI/Tezozammo� (OCT x O 'Z) .09ZS - (OCT x 9'Z) 8E£S - -H-W (OCT x V-Z) ZT£S - O/Hy (OCT x L 'Z) TSCS - - xaTdnCl (OCT x Z• £) 9TSS - •g•S gcup aaa gsoo (O£TS = OOOT - 000'OCTS) OCTS - $zed p00gz0gqbzau a ;o guamdoTanap ZO; u0szad lad gsoo abezany- - - 000 ' 65 - .SgzadOzd TeTwapcsaz padoTanapun ;o asoe T ;o gsoo •Z -suoszad 'OOO 'OETS OOOT/xzEd poogzogqbzau azoE OT pzepuEgs a ;o gsoo •T b m"a 8T6 •n•p 9SE - n/d 9 • Z - -H-H 29b 'n•p ELT - n/d L'Z - xaTdna ESb - •n•p E6T - n/d q •Z - b/Hy L6bT 'n•p T6L - n/d Z - •gdy/-j-W 8Z86 'n•p Z90C - gTun/suoszad Z • E uocgeTn od TEgoy TE--4-01 S3ISISN30 yINR JNI'I'I3MO 'IYISN OIS3iI• �� ^ A^� _ �i� � ~ � i] [I< < C �� C � � C n n _ V n3F ran � < ; ^ � O ] 3a v ; � ; nq 3 � n ] � 03 n � F o � _. _ ._ - i i N � n b � m � � i � � m � � � m 3 V - mY0 i O O o o Q m - � � .. m � e f Oo 0 0 000 ' o p tl vi .. tli � i o oa c e ' , o e � u � m „ � � 1 � � o o O o a o o o o _ ' _ m3o o o o N s R W N r 4H �t vr81 'O � din RGGGrt � UV r L+ I N r O N O O G lJ r V N r O tT �U{1 O O UI Im O O N O O O H7 r C.� m � r m m N r N J I y O O O O UI t0 �O O O O O O O N r a+ to r r 0 o r ro m o �F, O N m L r .+ r u J � O � V - ry N N d r• n• M ✓ w ai I'Myy yy �sj� yy yy C: iifiLC �t N N O O O O O O m rn o N O O O O O 00 m O O O O 00 N O O O O 00 N N N N N N O O O O O O 00 w O O O O O O O O m 1f1 i(1 0 O O W 0 V N N N N O O O O O O O N 0 0 O O N ei N 6q xs� � .`� 5 � Ia�18 tiR 4- 2y xa a N O O O O O O N rll 0 O O O O O N � O N n O p n• O ti o C m p m h h O O O 00 N O O O O O H N H m n• o p ml 0 0 0 0 m N m N ti N sl' d 01 ° Q. 0 h W _" it N 6 m '�OpIO aF W� C CjCJp '�•Oi y 'ti Y ri F� Y• W Y- a 1� o 4 149 N N RF N N Y O O H � N U •J p O O W O p y N A O N O O N p I F+ O N � N O II J N _ 1 2 � W .1yyp j�1�y N Y 1((1(ryyy0hypyp• •J��'IIDD�11 �1�((ln�ppyl, N w O p N P MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ray Ruuska, Engineering Coordinator Z kZ RE: 6th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Project No. 1988-2 DATE: March 28, 1988 INTRODUCTION• City Council ordered plans and specifications for the above referred project on December of 1987. It is proposed this project be expanded to include replacement of downstream sanitary sewer main. (See map attached) BACKGROUND: As a result of problems encountered during routine maintenance of the sewer main on Adams Street between 5th Avenue and 2nd Avenue, televised inspection of the pipe was done by Public Works on March 2nd, 1988. This inspection revealed serious problems that need to be corrected, including numerous cracks, missing portions of clay pipe and heavy root growth throughout the length of pipe proposed for replacement. The Acting City Engineer, Bob Frigaard of OSM estimates the cost of the additional replacement at $60,000.00. I checked with the Finance Director and our Sewer Fund cash balance for 1988 is $832,274 and was established for repair/replacement projects such as this. REQUESTED ACTION: 1. Move to include plans and specifications for sanitary sewer replacement on Adams Street between 6th and 2nd Avenues with the 6th Avenue sanitary sewer Project No. 1988-2. 2. Move to authorize the appropriate city officials to enter into an amended extension agreement with Orr-Schelen-Mayeron for the 1988-2 project. RGR/tiv 6thAvenue \1\ a■ I O °e Evil H�5� ,U� Cruex` a�•=,.gib o � 1 all ons mo ' tea; c� iii v6 � e- lo onmC► do� � sem - ss �1� �\ �s 0 ora va to No 0 �- N� va �'� = %aola MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ray Ruuska, Engineering CoordinatorZ RE: VIP Sanitary Sewer Extension Project No. 1987-13 DATE: March 29, 1988 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 2878 for the above referenced project. BACKGROUND: Orr-Schelen-Mayeron has completed plans and specifications for this project. The attached map depicts the proposed sanitary sewer interceptor extension. Staff is now requesting Council approval of plans and specifications and authorization for advertisement for bids. Plans and specifications are available in the Engineering Department and will also be available at the Council meeting. REOUESTED ACTION: Offer Resolution No. 2878, A Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for the VIP SanitarySewerExtension Project No. 1987-13 RGR/tiv SEWER r RESOLUTION NO. 2878 A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR VIP SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PROJECT NO. 1987-13 WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 2770 adopted by City Council on August 4, 1987, Robert Frigaard, Acting City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the improvement of VIP Sanitary Sewer Extension Project No. 1987-13 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 in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvements under such approved plans and specifications. The Advertisement for Bids shall be published for three weeks (ten days if project cost is under $100,000. ) , shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be received by the City Clerk until 10: 00 a.m. , on April 29, 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 May 3, 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 1988. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 1988, City Attorney y� J 1 n - t1 F 4 cp- p _ t C34H H 19 , � uvv A, I - -N,I it 1 /B§CP / tit z /F MEMO TO:John K Anderson, Con Sent' City Administrator FROM: Steve Hurley,Engineering Technician -1 SUBJECT: Video Equipment Purchase DATE: 3/28/88 INTRODUCTION: The Engineering department has budgeted$2000 in its 1988 Capital Equipment fund for the purchase of video camera and related equipment. BACKGROUND: A distinct need exists to improve both pre and post construction documentation in the form of video images. The current practice is to shoot still pictures of select sites along a proposed job then follow up with more photos at the end of construction This method requires the photographer to anticipate trouble spots,something not always possible,nor 100%ac- curate. Video taping of the project will allow total coverage and will be a tremendous help should questions or disputes arise. Video taping will also provide a convenient means of providing Council and the public current construction progress reports in a graphic format. In addition, other departments will benefit by using the monitor and recorder to play tapes for computer software training sessions. Quotes have been received on four different systems from two vendors.Prices were re- quested on a video camcorder with battery backup, a video cassette recorder (VCR), monitor/receiver and a mobile stand. EPA Audio Visual of Rockford,MN quoted two systems differing only in the mmcor- der type. System 1,$2361 and system 2,$2032. National Camera Exchange of Golden Valley,MN quoted two systems differing in the monitor/receiver. System 1, $2000 and system 2, $1930.The$2000 system is based on a 26"monitor which may or may not be available at the time of purchase. The lower priced system is with a 20"monitor.In addition,the quote from National Camera Ex- change includes a video tripod. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Do nothing. 2.Purchase video recording and playback equipment as described above. RECOMMENDATION: Alternate number 2 is recommended for reasons indicated in"BACKGROUND". The$2000 System is recommended since it has a considerably larger monitor for an ad- ditional$70.However,there was only one monitor at that price and it may not be avail- able when we are ready to purchase. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to purchase video system from National Camera Exchange for $2000, funds to come from Engineering department Capital Equipment budget for 1988. MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, C ty Administrator FROM: Steve Hurley, MIS Coordinator SUBJECT: Computer Equipment Purchase DATE: 3/30/88 INTRODUCTION: This memo is a follow-up to a previous memo requesting purchase of an additional network station and a high speed dot matrix printer to be used in the City's storm drainage utility. BACKGROUND: Quotes have been received on comparable computers,printers, network boards etc. and are listed below.All computers quoted are of the XT type with dual floppy disk drives, 14"monochrome monitor, enhanced keyboard, some have 768k of RAM and the others have 640L Computer/ Printer/ Northgate Computer Systems Arenet card Booster Total Computer(Northgate Xturbo) $969/200 $1169 Printer no quote nnTuote $1169 InfoNet Computer(Acer 710) $1500 Printer(Fujitsu DX 2300)(270 cps) R00 $2300 Quannon Computer Products Computer(Acer 710) $1150/250 $1400 Printer (Citizen MSP 55)(300 cps) $575/400 975 $2375 Quest Information Systems Computer(Acer 710) $1025/239 $1264 Printer (Epson FX 286E)(280cps) $550269 819 $2083 All prices include cable and installation except in the case of Northgate Computer Systems The computer is to be installed in the Building Department and the printer installed in Finance and would serve as the bill printer for the storm drainage utility. ALTERNATIVES 1. Do nothing. 2.. Purchase one of the computer/printer combinations as described above. RECOMMENDATION: Alternate No.2.The Quest Information Systems package is not only the lowest cost but would provide the City with the same type of computer as already installed on the network plus they are the vendor who is providing the storm utility software we will be using and so we have an establihed working relationship. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to Purchase computer and printer,Arcnet card,booster, cabling and installation from Quest Information Systems for a total price of$2,083.Funds to come from MIS Capital Equipment in the amount of$1264 and Storm Drainage Utility fund in the amount of$819. CITY OF SHAKOPEE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 376 WHEREAS, Scott County Lumber/Bert Notermann having duly filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit dated September 21, 1984 under the provisions of the Shakopee Zoning Ordinance, Section 11.04, Subd. 6, as follows: to approve the application for mineral extraction and land rehabilitation in the Agriculture zoned area; and WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made is described as the SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Section 17, NE 1/4 of NW 1/4 of Section 16, W 1/2 0£ NW 1/4 of Section 16, on County Road 83; and WHEREAS, the City Council did on August 20, 1985 adopt Resolution #2427 denying the Conditional Use Permit, which denial was appealed; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has ordered the City of Shakopee to issue the Conditional Use Permit with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the aforementioned Conditional Use Permit be and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The Conditional Use Permit and Mining Permit be reviewed annually. Both permits to be renewed every three years. 2. Conditional Use Permit approval be contingent upon City Council approval of the Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation Permit. 3. Security fencing shall be used on the main access roads to control vehicular access to the mining and equipment area. 4 . The applicant shall obtain a County Road Entrance Permit from the Scott County Highway Engineer. 5. County Road weight restrictions shall be adhered to. Truck traffic shall be limited to the use of County Road 83 to Hwy 101 and CR 42. Absolutely no truck traffic from the mining operation shall be routed through the urban portion of the City of Shakopee. 6. Eight to ten foot berms shall be built around the perimeter of each phase. Berms must be fully seeded to prevent erosion. 7. The mining operation shall maintain the following minimum setbacks: 100 feet from any residential or commercial property line; 500 feet from any residential or commercial structure; 30 feet from any road right-of-way. a. All portable buildings must be approved by the Building Official. 9. The hours of operation shall be limited to 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. , Monday thru Friday. 10. Dust must be controlled by paving main access roads, watering haul roads and equipment and by any other means which will control adverse affects of dust on neighboring properties. 11. Noise emissions shall not exceed the noise limits as noted in Section 10.60 (Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention) of the Shakopee City Code, nor the MPCA Standards. 12. There shall be no on-site storage of fuel and no use or storage of explosives. 13 . No exterior lighting shall be used at the operation site. 14. Stockpiles of gravel shall not exceed 25 feet in height. 15. The applicant shall be responsible for reimbursing the City for all costs incurred in reviewing the permit through the life of the operation. 16. The Gravel Extraction Plan (Map B) and the End Use Plan (Map C) as submitted by the applicant, shall be adhered to, without modifications, unless approved by City Council. 17. The applicant shall prepare in report form, a plan for operation, which if acceptable, shall be adopted by resolution as the Mining Permit. The Plan for Operation shall be comprised of 1) the submitted maps A, B, C; 2) the conditions of the approved permits 3) background information as contained in the memo prepared by Merila and Associates, Inc. ; dated April 30, 1985. 18. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet shall be prepared and processed in accordance with the State of Minnesota's adopted Environmental Review Program. No action shall commence on the subject property until a Negative Declaration has been filed and the required 30 day review and comment period has elapsed. If the EAW substantiates the need for an Environmental Impact Statement, no action shall commence on the subject property until said document has been prepared and any and all modifications have been made in the proposed operation, to mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts. 19. The City's approval of the permits (C.U.P. and Mining) is made in reliance upon the applicant's representations regarding the life of the operation (17 years) . Any factors, or future developments which significantly delay the completion of the mining operation, may be viewed by the City as sufficient grounds to deny the three year renewal of the permit. 20. The Conditional Use and Mining Permits may be reviewed prior to the scheduled annual review, if the City receives complaints, supported by evidence indicating that the conditions of this permit are being violated. Upon receipt of such complaints, or a the City Council's own initiation, the City shall schedule a public hearing, in accordance with the proper procedures for notice and publication. If the City Council finds that the applicants have substantially, or repeatedly violated the terms of this agreement, the Council may revoke said permit. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to Shakopee City Code, Sec. 11.04, Subd. 6C-12, if an approved Conditional Use Permit is not utilized within one year from date herein approved or by 19_ it shall become null and void. 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 , 1988 . City Attorney MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Community Development Director RE: Scott County Lumber Company, Inc. , ETAL, vs. City of Shakopee DATE: March 31, 1988 INTRODUCTION• The City Council authorized Assistant City Attorney to appeal the decision of the Minnesota Appeals Court on the above mentioned case to the Minnesota Supreme Court. BACKGROUND: As the attached letter from Rod Krass, dated March 28, 1988, indicates the Supreme Court has denied the City's request for Supreme Court action. Therefore, the City Council must issue the Conditional Use Permit as proposed with the 20 conditions attached. RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council issue the Conditional Use Permit with the 20 attached conditions consistent with the order of the State of Minnesota Appellant Court. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to rescind the City Council action of July 9, 1985 denying the Conditional Use Permit for the Scott County Lumber Company and further move to approve the Conditional Use Permit with the attached 20 conditions. LAW OFFICES �CEfVL'S KRASS & MONROE CHARTERED �R2 91988 Phillip R. Kray C7rY L'F sk t roe Dennis K.Meyer Marschall Rmd&aft r Trevor R. W Wa, 327 Marschall Road Jay D.Goldberg P.O.Box 216 Ellmbeth 8.McLaughlin Susan L Estill Shakopee,Minnesota 55379 Dane M. Cm6 Telephone 0455080 Lachlan B.Muir FAX 0457640 Robert J. Walter March 28, 1988 Kent A. Carlson, CPA Mr. John Anderson 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: Scott County Lumber Company vs. City of Shakopee Our File No 1-1373-177b Dear John: Enclosed please find the Order 1 received from the Supreme Court denying our Petition for further review of the Court of Appeals decision. It will, therefore, be necessary for the City to issue the conditional use permit as proposed with the 20 conditions. Please make sure this is on the council agenda for April 5th, which I understand to be the next council meeting. Very truly yours, KRASS 6 MONROE CHARTERED Phil Kress �v PRK:ph Enclosure Al STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT C6-87-897 Scott County Lumber Company, Inc., at al., Appellants, VS. City of Shakopee, Respondent. _ ORDER Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein, ' IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of the City of Shakopee for further review be, and the same is, denied. Dated: 3 -z 7 BY THE COURT: OFROF OF APPELLATE COURTS M ((Y 19 - FILE:D Chief Justice MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judi Simac, City Planner - - RE: Application for a Conditional Use Permit- and a Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation Permit to remove sand and gravel aggregate in the Southwest corner of the intersection of { County Roads 16 and 83, by Scott County Lumber Co. and Bert Notermann DATE: July 3, 1985 - - Introduction: At their June 20, 1985 meeting, the Shakopee Planning Commission - approved a motion to deny Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 376 and to also recommend to the City Council that the applica- tion for a'Mineral Extraction .and Land Rehabilitation Permit (Mining Permit) be denied. The applicant has appealed the decision on the Conditional Use Permit to the City Council, therefore a -public hearing is scheduled for July 9, 1985 at 7 :00 P.M. At that time it is -requested that the City Council also make a final decision on the- Mining. Permit. Attached are the various documents which . comprise the application, along with the staff report. The attachments areasfollows : . - I. Application in memo form prepared by Merila -and Assoc. , Inc. dated 4-30-85. - - - 2. Environmental -Assessment Worksheet prepared, as directed _ by Council, by Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban,- Inc. dated 4-18-85. 3. Response to Questions Memo prepared by Mer-41a and Assoc.., Inc! dated 6-14-85. - . 4.. Alternative End Use Plan memo prepared by -Merila and - Assoc. , Inc. dated 6-14-85. - - - 5. Noise Level Report prepared by Merila and Assoc. , Inc. dated- 6-28-85. - - - 6. Appraisal Report prepared by Hagemeister and Assoc. 7. Start Report. to Planning Commission• 6-14-85. _ 8._ Minutesofthe Planning Commission meetings on May 16th. and June 20th, 1985. - - - 9.- Required Mao Submittals A, B, C, and alternative end use plan C-1. Background: - "he findings for the Planning Conrii ssion denial of both the Condi tionalUse and Mining Permit are as follows : -. The .use will definitely deny property owners in the viciniof the use and enjot ty ymenof their proper-y - r w".-_ch they are entitlec. ' -,as use will adversely- affect DcoDer-♦ values in the area immediately surrounding the r, - -. _ .-ring site. Scott-Cty. Lbr. Co. ' July 3, 1985 Page -2- 3. The Proposal will impede the normal and orderly develop- ment of the surrounding property for the uses predominant in the area. - . .4• There has been no showing that the use is reasonably related to the over all and existing land uses. needs, nor benefits the City 5• The use is not consistent with the purposes of the P. 1 coda and the purposes of the zoning district in which 6 • the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. The use is in direct o£ e ity. conflict with the Comprehensive Plan _ - thC When the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA6') was re the proposed life of the operation was nine ears, three phases. The Prepared years c actual proposed life of Y to occur in conducted in three phases. Council .will a=i on is 17 October, 1984, they directed that an EAW be recall that last application. prepared for the Shardlow, Ub.n, B the processthe Of Preparing the PAW„ Dahlgren, y major issues involved with the not adequately observation led to the applicant ' s action of hi ng tMerThisand Assoc t Inc. to prepare a detailed application which submittal. requirements of the .Ordinance. c_ differentiation in Star believesthe at the description and actual rsuthat exists -in the EAW Project - - minor importance emitted project description - approvalPis ante for the reason that one of '-s °£ - a Negative Declaration c t- - the conditions o£.approval the State of Minnesota. Submittals'he Environmental Review - - Review will not only be the EAW IOi the Environmental - information. , but all other_ application - AttheJune 20th meeting- a petition containing approximately 300. signatures was submitted in objection to the p_o osed operation. The petition is on file at C; - able- fo. al P mining _ - Your review prior to o. - �Y Y:a11 and is avail- - r the the meeting: - Stn£_' would like to amend a £ew of the recommended conditions of approval as follows : r- 4 The applicant shall obtain -a County Road Entrance Permit from the Scott County Highway Engineer. The applicant will also provide a private stop sign on the access drive, placed - prior-_to entrance on County Road S3, but not within R-O-W. =11 Noise emissions shall not exceed the noise -- --s as - _ _ noted in. Section 10:$0 (Noise Elimination and Noise Tne ai- on) of the City Code,. nor the MPCA Stand'_ ' - c_�Lcant shall Provide an on =yes. - - a-1 Z_mes- noise control 1i 3 No exterior lighting shall be used at the -operation Site, extent - build' for security lighting to be directed- oa Ings and equipment on site. Scott Cty. Lbr. Co. ' July 3, 1985 Page -3- Action Requested: Offer Conditional Use Permit Resolution of the City Council No. CC-376, to approve or deny the application for mineral extraction and land rehabilitation in the Agricultural zone. Offer a motion to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of approval or denial for the Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation Permit. JS : cah - Attachments cc: - Scott County Lumber Co. - _ Bert Notermann . - - - r. Johnston, C.S. .McCrossan, Inca Jim_ Merila, Merila & Asso. , Inc. - - - Tim Thornton, —Rider, Bennett, Egan & Arundel Rod Kress - - Shakopee Environmental Assoc. - - - MEMO TO: Shakopee Planning Commission II FROY.: Judi Simac , City Planner DATE : June 14 , 1985 APPLICANT : A. Land Owner : Scott County Lumber Co . , Inc. and Bert Notermann B. Proposed Operator: C. S . McCrossan Construction, - Inc. LOCATION : BE 1 /4 of NE 1 /4 of Section 17 and NE 114 of NW 1 /4 of Section 16 and W 1/ 2 0£ NW 1/4 of Section 16 , TW? 115 , R 22 West. ( 130.73 acres ) ZONING : Agriculture LAND USE: Undeveloped Crop Land APPLICABLE REGULATIONS.: Section 11.04, Subd. 6 ; Section 11.24, Subd. 3R; Section 11.05 , Subd. 7 FINDINGS REQUIRED : . Section 11 . 04 , Subd . 6A; Section 11 . 05. , -Subd. 7 PROPOSAL : The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit and a Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation Permit to remove sand and gravel aggregate at the above location. - SURROUNDING LAND USES : North: Eillarney Rills Adda. , agricultural land and vacant property . South: Agricultural land end scattered farmsteads East: Thrift Shop and agricultural land -West: Agricultural land and scattered farmsteads PUBLIC UTILITIES: Sanitary Sewer , Storm Sewer and Water not - available .' - - - Background : - The applicant submitted the application in September 1984, without- adequate submittals as required by -ordinance. On October 29 , 1984 the City Council required that 1 ) an LAW be prepared bya consultant hired by the. City; withallcosts born by the applicant, 2) the EAW be prepared prior to issuance of a perm_. and 3 ) the applicant would sign an agreement to pay all costs related to review of .the application. In May 1985 the application was determined complete, as well as the LAW. The Planning Commission conducted a- public bearing on May 16 , 1985 during which the applicant made a formal - - presentation and testimony regarding the application was received. ' The publicandPlanning Commission members were requested to submit their questions regarding . the proposal , which they wished to be addressed a: the public hearing continuation on June 20, 1985 . 1 Lon s56erati ons : 1. The details of the proposal are presented in the attached application memo prepared by Herila and Associates , Inc . and the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAS) as prepared by Dahlgren, Shardlow and DBAD, Inc. , consulting. planners_ 2. The Comprehensive Plan designates the area of the proposed mining operation as agricultural . To the north of the project site is a proposed interchange of the by-pass and County Road 83 . The immediate land surrounding the interchange is designated as commercial land in the plan. The Comprehensive - - Plan does not indicate significant changes in land use in the vicinity of the, proposed mine , however the Canterbury Downs Racetrack, which is northwest of the interchange., was not a consideration when the plan was prepared. The two types of land uses (mining and regional commercial recreation ) may mot be as compatible as one would expect industrial and agricultural to be. 3 . Because the surrounding land is primarily used £or agriculture, the impact of theproposedmine on adjoining land uses would be minimal . However , scattered farm residences do exist near the project site, is addition to several residences is Killarney Rills Addition. The potential impact of the proposed mining operation on these residences would consist of noise, dust , traffic , safety , and aesthetics. These impacts are addressed is the two attached documents. 4. A report published in Hay 1983 by the 'Metropolitan Council , entitled Aecregzre Resources inthe T -iCit a if ropo2i z A_ea, indicares tan_ _oe proposed project sate 1 potettiall .s; g- + eica les within ` y - -- - at deposit of sand and gravel . The report, vhicb advocates the protection of the aggregate resources , concludes - that the opportunities for planning for the aggregate resources and for preserving the resources for orderly development would be greatly enhanced if the public and local government -officials had an understanding Of the aggregate resourcesofthe metropolitan region . - lt is .stated that education would help support mixing as E .legitimate land use , thereby '_imiting land use conflicts. The report also recommends that in order to increase the . acceptability of aggregate mining the public needs to he asssur ed that the mining operations aac reclamation controls w ill 'min-imiz a "ori-tae- e£iects - on-land use., local roads , the. environment and other community development objectives. 5. _ A"-ees `= T- d . . - ' o _r - hm. Statute 24E . 75 ren wires payment of aggregate materia '. removal Production rawhich is the form of a ere "oy Scott County . Operators pay tencents per cublio yard or seven cents per ton of aggregate material removed . Nosey collected by the County board is distributed as follows : a) 602 to the county road and bridge fund for the maintenance , construction and reconstruction of roads , highways and bridges . b) 302 to the . City in which the facility is located and transporting done within. c) 102 to a special reserve fund for the restoration Of abandoned pits, quarries, or deposits located upon public and tax forfeited lands within the - county . If there are none, the funds are deposited inthecounty road and bridge fund. Because this law exists , the City has no legal right to require an additional escrow account for restoration. - 6. The mining operation shall. be divided into three phases : Phase 1 - consist Of stripping topsoil and building topsoil berms along north and east sides, seeding berms , and 3 1/2 year mining beginning at the east and moving in a westerly direction. Phase II- Topsoil stripped and used to reclaim Phase I and build topsoil berms along vest side of Phase II, Phase I and new berms seeded and 6 year mining period. Phase III- Reclamation Of Phase II with topsoil in berms along north and east sides of Phase 1, and west - side of Phase II , all to be seeded. Phase III- - to be conducted similarily to other phases and Operate 7 1/2 years before reclaimed and seeded. l-minim g operation -17 years . - - - 7. Presently approximately62acres of the site has acct ace water draining off site to the northwest, north and northeast. During the mining operation all surface crainage will be retainedonsite through the use of topsoil berms andd- surface depressions on site. - - The average depth of the proposed excavation is 12.5 feet _ - 'for Phase 1, 18 -0 feet for Phase iI and 17 .5 feet for Phase - III . Theminimum approximate depth of groundwater on the site is 60 feet . Therefore groundwater level will no- be affected by - the excavation. S . Theapplicant does not anticipate water ponding to a- depth - of more than 1 1 /2 feet nor slopes steeper than 1 foot 3 vertical to 3 feet horizontal , therefore code requried - sefsty fencing is no: applicable . However , proposed is security fencing for access roads , which should be provided. 9 . The main access road varies in length from 200 feet in Phase I to 1600 feet in Phase I11. The paved road shall enter on to County Road 83 which is being upgraded to a design speed of 50 HPE based upon stopping site distance . A- County Road entrance permit will be required . The County can not legally restrict the types of trucks on any County Road, however weight restrictions will apply . Truck distribution should be limited to the use of County Road E3 north to Hwy 101 and south to County _Rus- --43. - -- 10 . Screening of the miningoperation will be handled through the use of topsoil berms 8 to 10 feet in height ,. which shall be seeded with MnDOT Seed Mixtures 2 and 13 . If preferred by residents Rudd, Fitch and those in . Killarney Hills, natural screening consisting of 6 to 8 foot Chinese lilacs spaced four feet apart and Green Ash trees, which - start a : 6 foot heights , and spaced 20 feet apart could be substituted where the operation abuts their properties. The green ash would be approximately 12 feet high at the end of Phase I and 16-25 ft. high at the and of Phase II; they can grow to approx. 60 feet in height. _ 11. The applicant must meet the specific setbacks for the actual mining operation which include 100 feet- from any residential or. commercial structure and 30 feet from any road right-of-way. 12.'- Structures to be located on the site include a scale house - and portable field office which should be determined acceptable by the Building Official . - - - 13 . The ordinance limits hours of operation from 7:BD -E.-H_ tro - 7 : 00 P . E. It is recommended that the hours of operation be limited to 8 : 00 A.H. to 5 : 00 P.E. , Monday thru Friday . 14 Dust control must be maintained through the use of paved access roads sad watering of haul roads and ecuipment , if necessary . - 15 . The attached. LAW indicates noise levels to be in- a r snge of 47 to 49 dBA a: distances of one eighth to one quarter of a mile . The noise level equivalents , when .compared, indicate that the noise- created: by - - - - the trucks and crusher shouldnot have an adverse impact on nearby residences. Iroise levels can be moritored by the City of Shakopee and the Hinnesota Pollution Control Ageucy (HPCA) . 4 c 16 . There should be no on—cite storage or usage of explosives. The existing Northern Natural Gas Company pipeline is proposed to remainin place . - 17 . The most significant component to the mining operation is land reclamation. The applicant proposes anenduse plan which leaves the site suitable for agricultural use or future commercial/industrial use requiring some regrading. As discussed in above item #6 , the miningwillbe conducted in three phases , which allows for reclamation in stages .and to be performed prior to initiation of the next phase. The submitted Hap C — End. Ilse Plan indicates the final grade of the . site. All areas will be fertilized and seeded f or legumes and perennial grasses , to create . a permanent ground cover. A two foot berm will be built to retain surface drainage and control sediment atthenortheast corner of Phase I. Rainfall and surface drainage in the areas of Phase II and IIIwillbe retained until absorbed into the soil . The applicant is - in the process of preparing an end use plan which shows how the site can be developed for commercial or industrial use , assuming that trunk sanitary sever and storm sewer is located at the northeast corner of the site. The plan should indicate that the coat of locating utilities,- road etc. should not exceed the land value (acre per acre) . Sts:` Recommendation : - - It is recommended.that the Planning Commission offer Conditional Use Permit Resolution. No . 376 , which would approve the application - for mineral extraction and land rehabilitation in the Agriculture . zone , subject to the following listed conditions numbered 1 through 20. - Additionally , the Planning Commission recommend, to the City .Council, approval:of the Mineral ExtractionandRehabilitation 'Permit (Mining Permit ) , subject to the following same conditions numbered 1 through 20: - - 1. .The. Conditional Ilse Permit and Mining Permit be reviewed annually. Both permitstobe renewed every three years . - -- - 2. -Conditional Use Permit approval be. contingent upon City Council approval c` the Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabil— itatioa Permit. - 5 3 . Security fencing shall be used on the main access roads to control vehicular access to the mining .and equipment area. - 4 . The applicant shall obtain a County Road Entrance Permit from the Scott County Highway Engineer. 5 . County Road weight restrictions shall be adhered to. Truck traffic shall be limited to the use o£ County Road 83 to Bwy 101 and CR 42 . Absolutely no truck traffic from the mining operation shall be routed of the . City - pf Shakopee. through the urban portion 6 . Eight to tea foot berms shall be built around the- perimeter of each phase. Berms must be fully seeded to prevent erosion. 7 . The mining operation shall . maintain the following minimum setbacks : 100 feet from any residential or commercial property line ; 500 feet from any residential or commercial structure; 30 feet from anyroad right—of—way . - All portable buildings must be approved by the Building Official . 4 The hours of operation shall be limited to 8: 00 6.M. to 5 : 00 P.E. , Monday thru Friday . 10 . Dust must be controlled by paving main access roads , watering haul roads and ea uipm ent and by any other means which will control adverse affects of dust on neighboring Properties. 11 .- Noise e=isslons shall not exceed the noise limits as noted is Sect : cn 1.0 . 60 ( Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention) Of the Shakopee City Code, nor the ?'PCA Standards . 12. There shall be no on—site storage of fuel and no use or - storage of explosives. - 13 . No exterior lighting shall be used at the operation site. - 14. S-tockpiles of gravel shall not exceed 25 feet in height. 15 . The applicant shall be res-ponsible . for reimbursing the City for all costs. interred is reviewing the permit through the life of the operation. - 16 . TheGravelExtraction Plan (hap B ) and the End Use Plan (Eap - C ) as suba.tted by the apul "ant , shall be adhesed to, without aodif ica:ions, unless approved by C-tv Council . i 6 17 . The applicant shall prepare in report form, a plan for operation, which if acceptable , shall be adopted by resolution as the Mining Permit . The Plan for Operation shall be comprised of 1) the submitted maps A, S, C ; 2) the conditions of the approved permits 3) background information as contained is the memo prepared by Herila and Associates, Inc. ; dated April 30, 1985 . 18 . An Environmental Assessment Worksheet shall be prepared and processed in accordance with the State of Hinaesota ' s adopted Environmental Review Program . Wo action shall commence on the subject property until a Negative Declaration has been filed and the required 30 day review and comment- - period has elapsed . If the LAW substantiates the need for an Environmental Impact Statement ,. no action shall commence on the subject property until said document has been prepared and any and all modifications have been.made -- in the proposed operation, to mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts. 19 . The City ' s approval of the permits (C . U. P . and Mining ) - is made in reliance upon the applicant ' s representations regarding the life of the operation (17 years ) . Any factors , or future developments which significantly delay the completion of the mining operation, may be viewed by the City as sufficient grounds to deny the three year renewal of the permit. 20. The Conditional. Use -and Mining Permits may be reviewed .prior to the scheduled annual review, if the City receives . complaints, supported by evidence indicating that the conditions Of this permit are being violated. Uponreceiptof such _ complaints , Or a : the City Council ' s own initiation, the City shall schedule a public herring, in ac cordaace with - the proper procedures for notice and publication. If the City Council finds that the applicants have substan-tially, or repeatedly violated the terms of this agreement, the Council may revoke said permit. tv J �J Memo To: John R. Anderson, City Administrator nn((,,yy From: John H. DeLacey, Engineering Technician Subject: Railroad Crossing Improvement Project No. 1988-3 Date: March 30, 1988 Introduction: On March 30, 1988 bids were publicly opened and read aloud for the above referenced project. - Background: On March 29, 1988 bids were publicly opened and read aloud for the above referenced project. The proposed Resolution No. 2879 lists the bidders and the amount of their respective bids. The low bidder on this project is Red Hawk Rubber Company, Inc. with a bid of $40,620.00. The engineer's estimate is $45,000.00. Red Hawk Rubber Co. , Inc. was also the supplier of last years rubberized crossings at Lewis and Sommerville Streets. It may interest the Council to know that this projects cost for the supplying of rubberized crossings is $894.00 less per crossing than last years project. Staff is still working with the Soo Line Railroad to negotiate the elimination of the spur tracks on Atwood Street. We feel that the contract for the rubberized crossings should be approve at this time so the supplier can schedule the delivery of materials in a timely manner . The contract for this project allows for deletion of rubberized crossing at Atwood Street should the City Council decide to delete Atwood Street from the Downtown Streetscape Project at a later date. Should Atwood Street be deleted from the Downtown Project, Council may wish to have staff look into the possibility of still having the rubberized crossing installed at Atwood Street. Alternatives: 1. Accept the lowest bid and adopt Resolution No.2879. 2. Reject all bids. Recommendation: Staff recommends alternative No. 1. Requested Action: Offer Resolution No. 2879, a Resolution accepting bid on Railroad Improvement Project No. 1988-3 and move its adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 2879 A Resolution Accepting Bid On Railroad Crossing Improvement Project No. 1988-3 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the Railroad Crossing Improvement Project were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: Red Hawk Rubber Co. , Inc. $40,620.00 Goodyear Tire 6 Rubber Co. $40,920.00 Riedel OMNI Products, Inc. $41,526 .00 Hi-Rail Corporation $43,638. 00 Structural Rubber Products Co. $53,286.00 AND WHEREAS, it appears that Red Hawk Rubber Co. , Inc. , 3911 Dayton Street, McHenry, Illinois 60050 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 Red Hawk Rubber Co. , Inc. in the name of the City of Shakopee for the improvement of Railroad Crossings, 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_. ATTEST: Mayor of the City of Shakopee City Clerk - - _-- Approved as to form this day of 19_. City Attorney - C aN 'S N i Ilk MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ray Ruuska, Engineering Coordinator SUBJECT: Appointment to Shakopee WHO DATE: March 18, 1988 INTRODUCTION: Since Ken Ashfeld left the City, I have represented Shakopee at meetings of the Shakopee Water Management Organization on an interim basis. According to the rules of the WHO an appointment to fill this vacancy should be made by City Council. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this organization is to preserve and use the natural water storage and retention of the Shakopee Basin Watershed to (a) reduce to the greatest practical extent capital expenditures necessary to control excessive volumes and rates of runoff, (b ) preserve water quality , ( c ) prevent flooding and erosion from surface flows, (d) study ground water recharge, (e) cooperate in protecting and enhancing fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities, (f) secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface water, (g) to exercise the authority of a watershed district under section 112 . 65 to accept the transfer of drainage systems in the watershed and to construct all new drainage systems and improvements of existing drainage systems in the watershed, provided that projects may be carried out under the powers granted in Chapter 106, 122, or 473 and that proceedings of the board with respect to the systems must be in conformance with the watershed plan adopted under Section 473.878; and (h) carry out- all the duties and responsibilities outlined in Minn. Statutes 473 . 875 through 473 .883 , to the extent authorized in this agreement. Appointment by Council to fill this vacancy is necessary to provide long term representation of the City during formation of WMO policies and rules and for the normal business of the WMO. ACTION REQUESTED: A motion by City Council appointing David Hutton, Shakopee City Engineer, to the Board of Commissioners of the Shakopee Water Management Organization. - - - - RR/pmp WMO Cofisen f Ili MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ray Ruuska, Engineering Coordinator tZ1Z- RE: Agreements with Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Co. for a Utility Crossing on the Upper Valley Drainage Project No. 1987-5 DATE: March 30, 1988 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 2880 authorizing execution of agreements with the railroad company. BACKGROUND: The above referenced project includes a 90" storm sewer pipe crossing of railroad right-of-way in the vicinity of T.H. 101 and the Mill Pond. The railroad requires execution of standard agreements and a resolution by City Council authorizing that execution. The above agreements have been reviewed by the City Attorney and are on file in the Engineering Department. An annual fee of $180.00 is required by the railroad. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 2880, A RESOLUTION OF THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT TENDERED BY THE CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY AND AUTHORIZING THE PROPER PARTIES TO EXECUTE THE SAME IN BEHALF OF THE CITY, and move its adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 2880 A RESOLUTION OF THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT TENDERED BY THE CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY AND AUTHORIZING THE PROPER PARTIES TO EXECUTE THE SAME IN BEHALF OF THE CITY WHEREAS, In the installation of municipal storm drainage facilities, it is the intention of the City of Shakopee to install and use 90 inch storm sewer upon the property and under the track of the Chicago and Northwestern Transportation Company, all as set out in detail by the submitted license agreement, and WHEREAS, it is necessary to construct and use the storm sewer above described in order to provide for storm drainage facilities. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Shakopee City Council that the City enter into the License Agreement proposed by the Chicago Northwestern Transportation Company licensing the City to construct and maintain and use a 90 inch storm sewer upon the property and under the tracks of the railroad in the City of Shakopee in accordance with specifications shown on maps dated January 20, 1988 attached to said agreement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the proper city officials be and the same hereby authorized and instructed to execute said License Agreement for and in behalf of the City of Shakopee. Passed in session of Shakopee City Council held this day of , 1988. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Prepared and approved as to form this day of 1988. City Attorney Pg. -2- Memo: Off Duty Law Enforcement Employment performed by off-duty officers. The cost of the service is paid by the employing facility. Canterbury 's cost for two officers in the grandstand area will be approximately 24,000 during 1988. Additional funding will be spent for traffic control when necessary. The payroll system will not cost the city any additional monies. The Fair Labor Standards Act allows for this type of activity and does not impact on-duty employment. The Teamsters Labor Union has no objections. The city administrator and finance director have reviewed the proposal and have found no objections. Canterbury Downs will pay the additional fee. RECOMMENDATION Authorize the finance department to process police officers off-duty employment funding through the payroll system upon approval of the chief of police. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Authorize the finance department to process police officers off-duty employment funding through the payroll system upon approval of the chief of police. TO: Mayor, Councilmembers FROM: Tom Brownell, Chief of Police RE: Off Duty Law Enforcement Employment DATE: March 23, 1988 INTRODUCTION Police department officers have been employed by Canterbury Downs when off duty for the past three years, for law enforcement services in the grandstand area. The officers are requesting council authorization to process the wages through the city payroll system. BACKGROUND Since the opening of Canterbury Downs Officers have been paid directly by the facility at a rate of $15.00 per hour. The rate charged by most departments is one and a half times the officer' s on-duty hourly rate. Scott County deputies receive $26.00, the State Patrol charges $35.50 per hour for traffic control. I regulate the off-duty employment of the officers to ensure the work is appropriate and does not expose the city to unusual liability. I require two officers to be employed by Canterbury in the grandstand area to provide officer and patron safety. Many cities and counties use the payroll system to maintain the appropriate controls. The department and Scott County researched the feasibility of forming a private entity comprised of officers and deputies to contract independently with the various attractions for law enforcement services, including traffic control. It was determined that a private law enforcement cooperation could not obtain liability insurance. The officers are willing to work at Canterbury at a rate of $19.50 per hour with the fee being processed through the city payroll._ _. The additional $4.50 per hour covers payroll deductions. The obvious advantage for the city of having off-duty officers working at the facilities is reduced work load for the on-duty staff, as the majority of services required are Wo TO: Mayor, Councilmembers FROM: Tom Brownell, Chief of Police RE: Promotion/Police Sergeant DATE: April 4 , 1988 INTRODUCTION The Shakopee Police Civil Service Commission has completed the required promotional process for the position of Police Sergeant. BACKGROUND On February 24, 1987, Council authorized the department to fill the vacant position of police sergeant vacated by the retirement of Sergeant Kenneth Hanel. Due to budgetary considerations the position has been vacant todate. The position is budgeted for 1988 and monies provided for the examination process. On March 31, 1988, the Commission met and upon recommendation of the chief of police appointed Officer Gerald Poole to the position of Police Sergeant as required under Mn Statute 419.05. RECOMMENDATION Appoint Officer Gerald Poole to the position of probationary Police Sergeant effective April 6, 1988, COUNCIL ACTION REDUESTED Appoint Officer Gerald Poole to the position of probationary Police Sergeant effective April 6, 1988. CD/75Pwf l�O TO: Mayor, Councilmembers FROM: Tom Brownell RE: City Cleanup Report Funding DATE: March 29, 1988 INTRODUCTION For the past three years the city has provided residents with an opportunity to dispose of litter in an effort to make the city more attractive. BACKGROUND The responsibility for the activity was assigned to the Police Department as the Code Enforcement Officer functions at our direction. Attached is the financial report submitted to Council regarding the 1987 clean-up program reflecting a cost of $11,773. for the nine day period. During the budget process Council approved $3,000 in funding for the 1988 program. Councils intent was to continue the program and reduce the number of days residents could dispose of debris. Due to increased landfill costs which will affect the number of trash containers we may provide, funding is limited to two days and is not worth the effort. Having three years of experience with the program, staff has made the following observations: 1. Due to increased costs for landfill disposal, city employee labor and equipment the cost of the program has significantly increased. 2. The original intent was to dispose of exterior stored items to improve the appearance of the city. The majority of the items are from interior storage such as garages, businesses and residential dwellings. Non-residents are using the program. Staff also discussed city funds being used for this purpose or is it the responsibility of the individual to dispose of unwanted property? Staff has been receiving inquiries as to the dates of the cleanup which indicates people are relying on the program to dispose of property rather than use the customary methods. Pg. -2- City Cleanup Funding Due to the communities expectations of a program this year, we feel that it should be conducted with consideration being given to terminating the program in the future years. ALTERNATWES 1. Authorize the expenditure of an additional $1,000 in contingency funding for a three day city-wide cleanup. 2. Direct staff to terminate the program for 1988. RECOMMFNDATTON Alternative 1 COUNCIL IL ACTIO REOUESTED Authorize $1,000. using contingency funding to supplement the 1988 three day city-wide cleanup program. TO: Mayor, Councilmembers FROM: Tom Brownell RE: City Clean-up Report/Funding Request DATE: June 5, 1987 INTROD CTTO The city clean-up program was conducted May 9 to May 17, 1987. BACKGROUND For the past three years the city has provided residents with an Opportunity to dispose of litter in an effort to make the city more attractive. During the first two years the program was supervised by the Engineering Department. This year it was transferred to the Code Enforcement Officer within the Police Department. An effort has been made to maintain accurate data for council as to the cost of the program. The trash containers were placed on bid and BFI Corp. was the low bidder. A part-time person was hired in an effort to reduce the amount of prohibited materials. We still received these materials due to the fact that persons dumped during the early morning hours (2 - 3 a.m. ) . The city paid $102.55 for the removal of 125 tires. Sixty two trash containers were used to remove 1900 cubic yards of debris. City trucks took ten loads of tree branches to the burning site. Public Words employes spent 148 hours loading the trash containers and restoring the dump site. We do not have a cost factor for loaders and trucks. The Code Enforcement Officer spent 50 hours managing and organizing the effort. Cost Factor 62 - Trash Containers 9,276.00 Public works Employes Wages 1,844.00 Part-time Employee 250.00 Tire Removal 103.00 Code Enforcement Officer03 0.00 $11,773.00 - This was a non-budgeted activity charged to the Code Enforcement activity 319. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Authorize the transfer of contingency funds in the amount of $11,773. , to the Code Enforcement activity 319 for the city clean-up program. s s s s s V V U U V V 1 I 1 1 V W 6 6 W_ 0 i 0 � O 1 d N 7 A m Nw n a a a a mma v In - o e A e e e P PPP \ w 1 ' 1 I ei 1 1 11 1 1 a o - ee m o o 0 0 000. e iw m m i� R z a o m b rc m J 6 N W 6F J ' JJJ 1 F K 0 06 0 O O J JJJ J Q m F w ' O 6 1- JJ M W J m OOm m O J 00 3 F J ZO WW Z O 6 V ZZZ V O 2 Y> 6 0 m £ Z www O o 'o 0o a a o o aaa i ry m m m 0 V V V m W W W WW f i i f FF i ww • Nwst FF i PNP 00 FF 0w FN\\ PP NN ' 0w NN wbP mb P ep PNN 00 VO FM1 oPP nn bA bb Nb O t 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 O 0 0w0 0 0 w \ w0 0 0 0 ` 000 0 0 a en on n non en n w F \ nA o o Aon o I Q o 0 0 o e O LL O I O I V U n 0 e \P w N W - - Po 0 _ x c N N NNNN NNN N M T O 0m m JM W • o t maw y i VI i yyWW f o0o i 0 ♦ J x � x N S Z 4 O KO O T D U W U W J W Y W U y WWUY YYW U W W D F 000 0 0 0000 m00 0 0 W 0 9 m mmm m m mama mmm m m m m m m x 0 oro c u mo roro roro 4 00 NyU- NN - N VImWU WU yN NN yYyJ NN 0>eJP CyO � yN NN yN yN mNJO NJooW UooW yVl 0o WY- o >A NN Poo -y > 00 0o Oo 00 r rrr r r 0000 FFS � O T ' m ssa s mama aaa z o r � 141 z w zzz � aa o < m xxx o ^��i yw c m m o O c rFFF o- o-o- r m Y r z T 999 .. A AaAa xxx a a z m o Hz 9A 2 Z _ Z yY m n 4111 O O 9 z oa o o m I m a A w 0my m m 1n1w 999 m y r C rrC O O AOAC Aa9 r O C '1 9 009 0 '. c aza9 000 o z 9 m f mo�. a 9 mTmf TTT w 4] 9 x 'xx2 rP1a� may P 'O u s.ai m. a a o-mo- ava m m 1 COC 2 A 00m O yrw O 1 O I alol I loll 1 I I la 11 n N NNN N N WUWm UtlW U N W a C P Y>N N m WMy J_ NPP W V p y -O 1 PAP L - SSSI J- I 1 � 11 P NtN N 0 NJJy U0P N W N - Z i O a 9 I O O- i 0 3 D T • i • i i i i m F z z z s x F F m m m m w m m m m N n m b b m m m s Y s V V U U U U U V � I I I I a < a m s • • . x n w L m a m I o a aalPu 14 m mmm � o a. mmm P eoo `, j d e F NNM1 � 'N d � d n p N mn� 1 1 i i. 1 i i O NNn Nn d n N N N - � N 2 ��h n n n P '. e o e mel 1 0 1 I Z' 000 u nM n � N m � P � INq O PPP n NN P N O P P n p "dP U I I 1 II 1 Y I 1 "I 6' Oh eo O e e o o e O m. c m n _ m - r+ > > m F �. z z ''. m o i m z ' W i i J \ m W rwi W O mmm 6' 66 W.. F a � J m - £ •Fr J rr >. r 2 m 6 J Y.. � W ZZ2 m JJ p 6 r � W ' ¢ O ¢KK Y WW t V 1 6 C. m J 6 � W W '. � '.. N m. '. m <. m ' z w a w .. 1= s m >> '. m o v o o a i m a Ir. '.. a d d ww r w '< o J 2 > 6 o zz a < < < 1 Z m W W J m Y 'J V W Z W W m Z V > mmb JJ O O m 00 6 O m U 1 V V V S F J 6 6' n 000 £ Q< < O W 2 m LL JJJ J LS £ L £ L £ Z O O oN t mOm ` , NN y i m0 + ' VnPP deo nn NN NN N nRPN �Na NN NN ' 0Nh PNP �� nn N ' ', F UPON M1h � � OP � bb MM �� 2 J N O L 6 W n mmm 0 mm 9 0 � m 0 m m O \ \\ \ \ Y < en en en en en en en en n x � � � � � � � b nnn n nn n n n n n co0o a oo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o i � z. '. ', U y hh1- hh N m OA N i U �� P- P m T W dNN nn n n n M n O I S P o0 0 0 ' fix- ' �e= -- = -- � = I yen vl m in vel eY eY eY a m m y N Yl N P a 0 s N • W a m a y a P x J • MW x N ♦ NNNm O Z Y O < O O T O o o e c o 0 0 00 0 0000 D w W W \ \ W\ \W\W m = u u w uu u uuww as m m m m m m m m mm m mmmm m m m m m m m m mm m mmmm m m a x 0 c _ z rory _ W r uw_ roro roro mm Pma-N 00 Ym 0N�O0 YY NN NN oN O 00 00 Oo e0 00 00 0o N0y o0 00000 C -1 m m m A 0000 2 A Z D y D ff TTTT C D A m Z O DD Z TT9T < m A T W O b0 JC < o x T mmmm m m a z r y n s a x x 9999 'o onao A o z z m x m z o00o n O m N A X '' 32 + ' CCCC S T r I. m I AA m' 00 m 2 W I O O YY 0 m0yy F z o x -um n A w m A n m W J n m W WW W mmmm n O 9 A O m r C CC 0000 -y 2 C D Z O O 9 CCCC m_ T 9 � < 0 n r rr f 9999 m > p p W D D m mm m 3323 m i i b ma b aasa ~ J JYY-1 O y C O r O N O y r w W n o y z o o o ee ,s rom T roYm l'o iv 'co rorororo y +0 W+yu S 'a i u 0 I u 0 O + 0 i 0 2 m 9 w n z s z x s z n i I m m m m b m m m m m m a V U Y Y Y W 1 1 I 1 O w a v a ♦ Y ! Y ♦ f < a z m z m 1 a pe a o _ z m TTN NN W N n N M MP FlFl M p I 1 I Ilb I 1 1 to I 1 z Mp nFl n i i i i I I i � T , -_ I i i N Z MM n M1 N MP Mn' J NN ', N n NdN nn d N M M N N- U 1 I 1 P'p p MM P ; P P PP Q o � o e0e 00 O 00 0 0 0 O S L I £ F L S Z. �e' ♦. Q. L V M i 2 RL6 >LL V 6 0 0 F ' V I W W U O Y W W 2 66 W C 2 66 0 O 22 6 a SS C W )Y- 3 0 C O W W J J f F W <6 Z 1- O ZC U J 0 <t 3 Uu K Q LL 2 O J W W W £ O W UV Y 6 ZZ W J f m L > 00 W 1 0%0 S JJ J F W V H YYY » O LL Z % V V U W L 6 C O 22 6 6 W 666 <6 J WWW O C C JJ > > 3 NNN LL Q 0 UU U V O 6 ! ! Mn Y f ♦ ♦ Y f NON ♦ NN f b0P YIN oNN 0PM1 NN Nd N0� NN FF PNM1 O-Nb NN Pp 0oP 00 N NNN nn NN � nbPp NWO P nM N0M Nd M 2 J nM O 6 W W 00 0 m m00 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 m 00 W 0 0 0 Y % F Mn M M Mn nn n M Mn M M n 6 00 o O o Ooo eo 0 0 0o O o O o LL O O ) O V 2 Y MM N r. W0 � NNN ee P M1 mW = NN m0 00 0 0 0' U oo f o i o i o i oo O 00 o Jl A _ nl i m m m m m m m m m m mmm m m m N N N N 2 Y O S O O T w W W W W W W W W V W M Y W W W W W VWW S \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ O m m m m m m 0 0 0 0 m m 0 0 mom 0 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m > x ua roro o - c tlP PWP bN mw wN ➢ Y y0y N NN NN 00 mN mw NNem PW .Wee _ .%b oo ma oo mew o0 PP oo e0 Oo 0m o0 oe ♦ 00 0o N--W o iF t t R i 4 i i e i i i i i i R i C Y 0 A A ^ 9 ZO Y 3 C r y n c xN o v m z a o m o v v v' m cc m a o azi m y o a y n r wwm i 00 o p m i a A 9 r y a n c TA o00 m < m m m Y c < c w x m = m m AAA Zm = z z m a r z m o TT'll O r r r AAA o m' A 00 r z Z DD D i y z �' s rrr z m �� 'A m z m « m :m 'z c a z m > z a p m A YO n Y 9 Z m N Y m m n O N www p Y AP O p O A Oz C C C9�C Y a z z > O o „ 9 ^ C T a m 9 9 O m G �m T < T T 9 G T w 999 T S r w w r P r yr P m m x mN x z P m mmm m m T n P < < = P P c m wwm < n c 0 0 A O O O m O w r i. it r a a a > s �z 'Y O P 1 IP 1 1 N < N = y 9 0 m 9 m a am m p n m F W P F w W < V m a w a z m s m o a P 0 z 2 O U I U 6 F U O :+ I F.. aa'i wmm W m ' Y JJJJJJ 660004 W FFFFHF V FFFYFF K O N -N�nP O �wmFFm 2 W G00000 J > zzzzzz a o�0000 444444 O N oN PmoNPM1 mbNwPP mm�an z m i m P L a w w 0 Y Q S W m FQ LL O O N 0 F Z 0 0 rn mN 0 0 Com` O N vi 0 o - O N M N S N l0 •i M Q N U b L O Y L b L J m N L N b W OL b O > 4 k Y Y 6 q O O k O � W a Y) Y O O K0 U C q L N w F Yid W N G t O y y O T k. _ L Q Cl > S r~-1 P c 6 g U O Z O N NN M 1 OC O NN NNNNN N M �"� M MM M m s. s ssssses s s U N In NN N In �. �tO��m NlO w N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N OI b b V ti C L m C 0 4 4 L d L G U O J J - N h Y K- Y U U C L C C U Y C N G > > Gam: O W W C k E > L F b U N U E d O W z �+ C O m m U b CJ F O C N N OJ O M Q W 3 N = OMS O> N N 0 O O N V N 0 0 It O O N O M n W O O M� O� O M N O O N OJ N O p O O\ 1 N \p T M O D\ N �O O N M Cp N •-I M > rl M �llll � rl I W y v m m 00 Y j k N m O O O Op O O O O 0000000 O O W 0 � O O 00 O O O O 0000000 O O N q N U O 0 . 00_ OJ 0_0._00000-000 0 l-_ l- E k O T .. ... ... N Y N" E ow d O I I I Z N N NN O O N N N N N N M? N O O W 0 O N OO L S M S M O O S N O u w O O b N N N N O 0 N N N N N in MSN O O O O S N -7 D\S N N S S O O Q 0 N N N �O (y N O 00000 N N N N T N N N N .3 I H N M N N N M M N N . C ' .y S SS S M S S SSSy'SSS M M 0loo m 0 0 0000000 o- ti 0 o m o o m o .i x y N ti Cp M N O O\ N N cc X 4iJ .i M U N O N N O O - X N X F FO L (R W Ul I 0 I (K 2 ❑ Y W L W Z O Z O L O z ❑ E V Q C m > Z w O m ❑ W W £ .i = = U O O y Y xYY x Y Y x Y - U N N N N N N N N N �I cD > E E m L O O G' 0 W O W U Q M H pFj N 6 O Y C u E U q O C E E E E E E E E U} 6 G y E z 0 0 QU O N OJ 0 x 0 0 [� M O O �O OJ O O N OJ Y 0 Y E N 1� rM1 N NO G O O m D d H m u o 000 0 0 0 0 0 a v m o 000 0 0 0 0 0 N N .i H N N N N N ❑ I I U 0 O c0 OJ O) OJ OJ c0 OJ N W 0 O of rl 4 N O O O O O O O O 6 D < NSSSSo0 0 t ++ O O N N 14 .i t• ti M • ✓ O\ N N N N M N N N SQ C Y xxY Y .Y x x Y 0 a7WN C o N.S e A/ -7— MEMO MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Application for Pull-tab License - Hockey Association DATE: March 11, 1988 INTRODUCTION: The Shakopee Valley Amateur Hockey Association Inc. has filed an application for a Class B Gambling License with the State Gambling Control Board and is asking the City to waive the City's 30 day reviewal period. BACKGROUND: The Hockey Association has filed an application for a pull- tab license with the State Gambling Board and has filed a copy with the city. The City has 30 days in which to respond requesting that a license be denied. If after 30 days the city does not respond, the license is issued. If the City waives that 30 day reviewal period, the Gambling Board may issue the license sooner. The Hockey Association desires to begin selling pull- tabs as soon as possible and has asked that the City waive the 30 day reviewal period. The Hockey Association meets the requirements of the City Code as far as being eligible for a gambling license. They are a non-profit organization carrying on their activities in and are located and based in the City. They have held a gambling license previously at a different location. They will be selling pull-tabs at Canterbury Inn upstairs in the lounge known as Players. According to the lease, Canterbury Inn and any of their employees will not be participating in any selling. Selling will be conducted by employees and/or volunteers of the Hockey Association. ALTERNATIVES: 1] Waive 30 day reviewal period 2] Do not waive 30 day reviewal period 3] Request Gambling Board to deny license RECOMMENDATION: Alternative No. 1. 1 have already polled five members of the Council and they concurred with waiving the 30 day reviewal period. Based upon that approval I have already advised the Gambling Board that the City waives the 30 day reviewal period. Action taken by Council at this time will be for the record. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to waive the 30 day waiting period for a gambling license from the Charitable Gambling Control Board for Shakopee Valley Amateur Hockey Association Inc. 6On ,5e07'- 11f, MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Heritage Development Public Improvements DATE: March 29, 1988 INTRODUCTION: The City has received a request from the developers of Heritage Development asking that they be allowed to construct the improvements for Phase II of their development versus the City installing the improvements and assessing them. BACKGROUND: Under the developers agreement for Heritage Place, the developer selected Plan B for construction of the public improvements (city construct and assess) . The developers agreement does provide that the developer may request that the improvements be changed from a Plan B (city constructs) to a Plan A (developer constructs) . The developer has requested that the city now allow him to construct the public improvements for Phase II of the development. The developer understands that he will be required to deposit a letter of credit in the amount of 125% times the engineers estimate of the cost of improvements, as does any developer constructing improvements under Plan A; and agrees to do so. The Engineering Coordinator has no objections to the developer constructing the public improvements instead of the city constructing them. ALTERNATIVES: 11 Approve request and allow developer to construct improvements. 2] Deny request and construct improvements and assess them, RECOMMENDATION: Alternative 1, approve request and allow developer to construct improvements. REQUESTED ACTION: Approve the request quest of Heritage Development to construct the public improvements for Phase II of Heritage Place, conditioned upon compliance with the Plan A requirements as outlined in the developers agreement dated July 14, 1987. Heritage Development 450 East County Road D Little Canada, Minnesota 55117 481-0017 j?^� M�R2 81988 March 24, 1988 Doug Wise CITY OF SHAKOPEE 1030 East 4th Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr. Wise: Heritage Development is making preparations to begin the 2nd phase of the Heritage Place subdivision in Shakopee, MN. It is our intention to privately install for the 2nd phase, y where previously Heritthe improvements had petitioned the age Development 1st phase. citto do the improvements Agreement wiit is our undfor the erstanding that the Developers ll have to be amended to reflect this change. this summer. We anticipate improved lots in the 2nd phase to be available Please inform us on the proceedings to this matter. Sincerely, DAVID 4� ER Heritage Development, Inc. . DH/bcm Con5e of 05 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk Cit,/ RE: Prosecution of Gross Misdeme\aJ-`,.ors DATE: March 31, 1988 INTRODUCTION: The agreement between the City of Shakopee and Scott County for the prosecution of gross misdemeanors has expired and the County has submitted a new agreement for Council approval. BACKGROUND: The most recent agreement between the City of Shakopee and Scott County for the prosecution of gross misdemeanors has expired and the County has forwarded the attached agreement to Council for approval. Five of the six councilpersons were called and approved the agreement. The agreement has been executed and returned to Scott County. The action requested of Council at this time is to simply ratify their earlier approval. The agreement is the same as the two earlier agreements entered into by the two governmental bodies. The City Attorney continues to recommend approval of this arrangement. ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the proper city officials to execute an agreement with the County of Scott for the prosecution of gross misdemeanors. j PROSECUTION AGREEMENT ll� THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between the Scott County Board of Commissioners and the Scott County Attorney, hereinafter referred to as "Scott County" and the City of Shakopee, hereinafter referred to as "City" . WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 487. 25, Subdivision 10 has been amended to authorize a municipality to enter into an agreement with the County Board and County Attorney to provide prosecution services for any criminal offenses: WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council at its regular meeting on October 2, 1984, requested that Scott County prosecute all gross misdemeanors for the City; and WHEREAS, the Scott County Board of Commissioners and the Scott County Attorney wish to enter into an agreement with the City for the prosecution of all gross misdemeanors; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual convenants contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: ' I. TERM The term of this contract is from November 1, 1986 through December 31, 1988, the date of signature by the parties notwithstanding, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. II. TERMINATION This agreement may be terminated by either party at any time upon not less than sixty (60) days written notice delivered by mail or in person to the other party. Notice to Scott County shall be delivered to the County Attorney, Scott County Courthouse, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379. Notice to the City shall be delivered to the City Administrator, 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379. III. SERVICES TO BE FURNISHED BY SCOTT COUNTY Scott County through Scott County's Attorney's Office agrees to provide prosecution services for any gross misdemeanor criminal offense occurring within the city limits of the City of Shakopee. IV. COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES The City agrees that the City's portion of fine proceeds pursuant to Minnesota Law for providing prosecution of offenses for cases prosecuted by Scott County pursuant to this Agreement shall be paid over to Scott County as compensation for services rendered herein. V. RATIFICATION The City, in binding itself to this Agreement, hereby agrees to and ratifies all actions taken by the Scott County Attorney's Office in its prosecution of gross misdemeanors for the City for the period of time covered by this Agreement. VI. AMENDMENT This Agreement may be amended at any time when expressed in writing and duly signed by the parties. Dated: 3 _ 29- SCOTT COUNTY J h!i (Jack) asey, Chairman ScPtt County B�rd of Commissioners ATTEST: s h r . Rie Sc t ounty Administrator and C rk of the Board Dated: �� O SCOTT COUNTY ATTORNEY es e o Dated: CITY OF SHAKOPEE Mayor City Administrator (ATTEST: U / If MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Review of 1987 Strategic Plan DATE: March 30, 1988 Introduction The attached memorandum dated March 15, 1988 has been reviewed and discussed by department heads. We believe it accurately reflects the desires of City Council as a result of the joint Council/Department Head review of the 1987 Strategic Plan. Background The City Council has formally adopted the Goals and Objectives or a Strategic Plan each year. The process for 1988 should be to reaffirm the 1987 Strategic Plan along with the 18 follow-up items addressed in my March 15, 1988 memo. Councilmembers should review the discussion items and the specific "follow-up" for each item so that any changes can be discussed at the Council meeting on April 5th. Not all department heads will be in attendance at the meeting on April 5th, so call me with detail questions on Monday _please. Alternatives 1. Approve the 18 discussion items and the "follow-up" listed in my memo dated March 15, 1988. 2. Modify any of the 18 items listed and then move their approval as in alternative No. 1. 3. After review and discussion of the 18 items listed in my March 15, 1988 memo direct that staff make changes where appropriate and bring the item back to the April 19th meeting. Recommendation I recommend alternative No. 1 or 2 unless there is a major problem with any of the items as presented in my March 15, 1988 memo. Action Requested -- - --_ - --- Pass a motion approving Items 1 through 18 in the City Administrator's memo of March 15, 1988 representing the City Council's 1988 review of its 1987 Strategic Plan and reaffirming the elements of the 1987 Strategic Plan. JKA/jms MEMO TO: Mayor and Council All Department Heads FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Review of 1987 Strategic Plan DATE: March 15, 1988 INTRODUCTION• The City Council met with Department Heads in two work sessions, February 22 and March 7th, to review the 1987 Strategic Plan. My meeting notes indicate that the following items required additional attention. The purpose of this list is to insure that it corresponds to everyone's recollection of what resulted from the review. Please contact me if something is stated incorrectly or has been omitted. ITEMS DISCUSSED DURING 1988 REVIEW OF STRATEGIC PLAN: 1. Action Items #B-4-C and #E-4-D related to a local quarterly newsletter to citizens. Council discussed the new CDC Newsletter, the "Business Update", included in the Chamber Newsletter and the schools newsletter as examples of what might be accomplished and how a newsletter might be distributed. FOLLOW-UP. Staff will prepare a memo for Council outlining the alternatives, costs and pros and cons. 2. Action Item #C-1-A review existing Tax Increment Financing (TIF) policies. Council agreed to review the existing policies and to work towards a method of: (1) Classifying types of development, (2) Developing a standard method to show the proportion or ratio of public benefit, (3) Developing a method of showing a per household or per assessed value cost, and (4) Listing all existing TIF projects and their status. FOLLOW-UP. Staff will provide Council with a review of existing policies and develope responses to 1 - 4 above. 3 . Item #C-2 Council agreed that we must continue to work with the Scott County Transportation Coalition for financing the County Road 18 Bridge. No specific action was added to action items a - c listed under this goal. FOLLOW-UP. No new action required. 4. Council discussed the need to review City Council action on Planning Commission recommendations. Council requested that staff provide them with a statistical analysis of the percentage of Planning Commission recommendations supported by Council. ll � Review of 1987 Strategic Plan Page -2- FOLLOW-UP. Staff will provide this information for Council by its April 19th meeting. 5. Council discussed appropriate guidelines for condemnation procedures for both public and private uses. FOLLOW-UP. Staff will develop a "draft" set of policy guidelines for both types of condemnations for Council review and discussion by Council's May 3rd meeting. 6. As a corollary to item #1 on this list Council discussed the usefulness of a monthly update for their personal use that would function as a "crib sheet" listing public improvement projects, capital equipment purchases, etc. FOLLOW-UP. Staff will review alternative ways to present this information and provide Council with suggestions by its May 3rd meeting. 7. Council requested an evaluation of the pros and cons of the City retrieving the accessing function from Scott County. FOLLOW-UP. This memo has been prepared and Council is meeting on this subject on April 12th. 8. Council requested that we review the City's use of the Assistant City Attorney's office to determine the overall cost. It was also suggested that we review our practice of referring things to the City Attorney and/or the Asst. Attorney which might reduce some of the costs to the City. FOLLOW-UP. Staff will prepare a memo reviewing the policies and costs for use in August when we prepare the 1989 budget. 9. Council requested that we review our practice of printing full minutes in the Shakopee Valley News. FOLLOW-UP. The City Clerk reported our practice of _ _printing_ only motions and Council has accepted that practice. 10. Council requested a review of the Ad Hoc Downtown Committee to determine if they had completed the initial Committee charge as set forth in the resolution creating the Committee. Review of 1987 Strategic Plan Page -3- FOLLOW-UP. Staff will prepare a memo reviewing the initial Committee charge and any other goals established for (or by) the Committee. This will be presented to City Council for their review by August for discussion during the 1989 budget preparation or sooner. 11. Council discussed Action Item #C-3-(A-D) , Discussion revolved around temporary downtown bridge/road improvements and alternative long range bridge improvements. FOLLOW-UP. It was determined that the Mayor and City Administrator would meet with Mn/DOT to review temporary bridge/road improvements and that the Council as a whole would meet with Mn/DOT representatives on April 4th to review the long term bridge alternative currently being pursued and the one proposed by the Mayor. 12. Council discussed the City Hall project and its future status. Discussion revolved around where the new structure would be located as a result of the preferential vote in November and which Departments would be located in the new building. It was suggested that the City might rent space rather than make the commitment to build a new building. The cost of the new structure was discussed and Leroy Houser indicated that he might be willing to serve as the "Project Supervisor" coordinating local builders to save money on the project. FOLLOW-UP. Staff will need to discuss this item with Council again to more clearly focus on the next steps to be taken. This can be done at a Council meeting or work session in April. 13. Council requested that staff prepare a review of our park dedication fee structure (comparing it with other communities) and to review procedures to determine if we have missed requiring payments by any developers. FOLLOW-UP. Staff will prepare a memo reviewing this item for Council's. April 5th meeting. 14. Council had a general discussion about the City's use of consultants and wondered whether or not the City had become to dependent on the use of consultants. The discussion focused on the possibility of saving money by accomplishing more with existing staff. Review of 1987 Strategic Plan Page -4- FOLLOW-UP. Staff will prepare a master list of consultants for Council review at its April 5th meeting so that Council might determine what, if any, steps they would like to take to alter current consultant usage. 15. Council requested that staff look into earmarking the 10 cent admission tax receipts the City receives from Canterbury Downs exclusively for Police and Fire operations. The discussion focused on the fact that the impact of Canterbury Downs fell primarily on Police and Fire Operations and that earmarking the admissions tax revenue would appropriately reflect this. FOLLOW-UP. Staff will prepare a memo discussing this alternative and reviewing current usage of the 10 cent tax forCouncil by August for budget discussions or - sooner. 16. Council discussed the creation of a Community Development Commission (CDC) "hit squad" that would aggressively seek out new business development for Shakopee. The discussion revolved around who might be on the hit squad, how it would function, and what it might do to attract new industry to Shakopee through a coordinated out reach program. FOLLOW-UP. Staff will prepare a memo for Council review by August for the 1989 budget or sooner that will outline how such an approach to development might work. 17. Council reviewed the problems the City had regarding enforcement of its new Planning and Zoning Performance Standards on existing industries. The new regulations which require screening etc. have been required when any existing building or facility approaches the City for a new building permit, etc. There was also discussion about the inappropriate application of screening to certain types of existing businesses such as auto sales lots. Council was interested in reviewing these regulations to determine if there was a more balanced approach that the City might take. There was concern that we needed a new mechanism for triggering Performance Standards on existing structures. FOLLOW-IIP. Staff will include a review of the Planning and Zoning Performance Standards in the update of the Comprehensive Plan that Council has recently ordered. This process will require specific action if it is to be resolved in less than 9-12 months. Review of 1987 Strategic Plan Page -5- 18. Council discussed approaches to Downtown Revitalization. Discussion was focused on the alternative of buying down the interest rate on improvement loans, fixing up the exterior of buildings VS. fixing up the interior of buildings (Code enforcement issues) . There was considerable concern about whether an incentive program would actually be sufficient to encourage absentee owners to fix up their dilapidated exteriors or bringing the interior of their buildings up to code. There was also some discussion about City wide Systematic Code Enforcement, such as discussion about the St. Louis Park program which requires inspections upon the resale of any property. FOLLOW-UP. Council requested that staff prepare a memo outlining alternatives for the March 8th Council meeting. The memo was prepared and Council tabled it for detailed discussion at a Council work session on --- April 12th. ,TKA/tiv GOALS G 00 Se,f //0 Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Gregg M. Voxland, Finance Director Re: Deferred Watermain Hook-up Charges - Hauer Trail Date: March 25, 1988 Introduction Watermain was installed in Hauer Trail under Project 74-1 and some of the charges were deferred as a hook-up charge instead of being assessed at that time. Background ` Two house on Jasper Road are included in the list of deferred charges. The charges are for the 8" water lines running up the hill from C.R. 16 on Jasper Road and Hauer Trail. These two houses did not have water service and did not have a 6" line in front of the house as did the houses on Hauer Trail. The charges were deferred until hook-up. One house hooked-up recently and the City collected the charge, the other house is planning to hook-up soon. The two houses have water service from the south. The lateral in front of the property was installed by B 6 D Development as part of Hauer*, 4th Addition. The owners paid B 6 D for the lateral and also paid S.P.U.C. a trunk charge. Since the two lots have paid a trunk and lateral cost already, collecting the deferred charge for the 8" line to the north seems like double billing. The deferred charges were part of a special assessment fund. The bonds have been paid and the special assessment fund closed into the Capital Improvement Fund. Alternatives I. Collect charge 2. Cancel charge Recommendation Alternative No. 2. The charges total $862.12 and will have no material impact on the financial position of the City if they are dropped. Action Requested Move to drop the deferred charges for 8" watermain connecting Hauer Trail and C.R. 16 as part of Project 74-1 in the amount of $431.06 for parcel 27-908067-0 and refund $431.06 for parcel 27-908065-0. GV:mmr co nr s e 1\1 -r /�Q MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) Service Availability Charge (SAC) Refund Program DATE: March 21, 1988 Introduction In 1987, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) changed its policy regarding the collection of Service Availability Charges (SAC) . The MWCC also provided cities with the option of refunding SAC fees previously paid by unsewer buildings. This subject was presented to Council in the attached memo dated June 19, 1987. Background City Council reviewed and discussed the June 19th memo and -_- ---directed city officials to place an article in the newspaper explaining the policy options for refunding the SAC. That article appeared in the Shakopee Valley News (copy attached) . Based upon the lack of citizen response to the story in the paper it appears that the recommendation not to refund the SAC charges paid by buildings that have not received sewer is acceptable to the community. The City can finalize the SAC refund issue by passing a resolution formally notifying the MWCC that the City will not seek a refund of Shakopee SAC charges from the MWCC or, the City can let this issue ride because the refund program is available through 1989. Alternatives 1. The City can approve Resolution No. 2874 formally notifying the MWCC that the City of Shakopee does not wish to have the MWCC pay the City SAC charges collected from units which do not have direct access to the present MWCC disposal system. This alternative would close the book on this issue in a manner that has been recommended by staff and is acceptable to the community. 2. City Council could chose to delay action on Resolution No. 2874 up to the end of 1989. The only purpose for selecting this alternative would be to provide City Council with the flexibility of implementing a refund program should circumstances warrant it between now and 1989. Recommendation Staff recommends alternative No. 1 for the reasons listed above. Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 2874, A Resolution Relating To The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission' s service Availability Charge Refund, and move its adoption. JKA/jms RESOLUTION NO. 2874 A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION'S SERVICE AVAILABILITY CHARGE REFUND WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission the City of Shakopee had been collecting a service availability charge (SAC) whenever building and/or sewer connection permits were issued; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission initiated a new policy in 1987 to collect SAC only when building and/or sewer connection permits are issued and when these facilities have access directly or indirectly to the Metropolitan Disposal System; and WHEREAS, MWCC has approved a voluntary SAC refund program for units where a SAC was previously collected and which do not have sewer service; and WHEREAS, MWCC has given each community the option of obtaining the refund during the period of 1987 through 1989 and submitting it at a later time when these units are connected to the sewer system, or not obtaining the refund and no additional SAC will be required later when these units, are connected to the sewer system. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the City does not desire the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to refund service availability charges (SAC) collected from units which do not have access directly or indirectly to the Metropolitan Disposal System. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That no additional SAC will be required from units previously charged when these units are connected to the sewer system. Adopted in Regular Session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this 5th day of April, 1988. ------------------------------- ATTEST: Mayor of the CityofShakopee ----------------------------- City Clerk Approved as to form this 5th day of April, 1988. City Attorney C0Ajse /V lob Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Marilyn M. Remer, Personnel Coordinator Re: Procedures for hiring of Seasonal/Temporary Employees Date: March 24, 1988 Introduction There is currently no policy defining hiring procedures for seasonal/temporary employees. Personnel is requesting that official procedures be approved and be included in the Personnel Policy. Background A procedure for hiring seasonal/temporary employees is desirable in order to maintain the City's Equal Opportunity Employment Guidelines and provide a policy of consistency for filling vacancies as they occur. Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 2876, A Resolution Amending the City of Shakopee Personnel Policy Adopted by Resolution No. 1571, and move its adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 2876 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE PERSONNEL POLICY ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 1571 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1571 was adopted by the City to provide reasonable and clear expectations of the conditions of employment for it's employees; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend certain sections of Resolution No. 1571 from time to time to maintain reasonable and clear conditions of employment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that Section 4, APPOINTMENTS, of the City of Shakopee Personnel Policy is hereby amended by adding the following Subdivision. Subdivision 4 Seasonal/Temporary Positions The employment process for seasonal/temporary employees generally follows the same procedures as for permanent employees although the following deviations may allow: 1. Re-hires of previous employees can be accomplished without benefit of an open application process. a. The Department Head will notify Personnel of the number of seasonal/temporary positions to be filled. b. Former employees receiving a good review and recommendation for re- hire from the Department Head will be offered positions for the current season. Personnel will notify those employees on file from the previous year by letter, informing them of current seasonal positions available and offering them first chance for filling those positions. If they do not respond by the designated deadline, the remaining vacancies shall be filled by new applicants. 2. The available seasonal/temporary positions will be posted by Personnel at all City buildings and advertisements will be placed in local publications; namely, the Shakopee Valley News and The Mint. a. The Department Head will notify Personnel of the number of seasonal/temporary positions to be filled, period of employment, description of duties, salary range and qualifications required. Personnel will draft an appropriate ad and review it with the department head. Personnel will place the agreed upon employment ad in local publications. It shall be Personnel's discretion as whether to advertise concurrently with thenotificationof the eligible re-hires, taking into consideration the number of vacant positions versus the number of eligible re-hires. Eligible re- hires will be given first consideration in filling the positions. b. All applications for City positions will be received at the Personnel Dept. at City Hall. Those applying at remote sites (i.e. , Public Works Dept. , Comm. Rec. , Swimming Pool, etc.) shall be referred to City Hall. c. After the application deadline, Personnel will present the applications to the department head, who will screen and interview the applicants according to the skills, knowledge and experience as required. The successful candidate will be offered the position at the appropriate established salary ranges pending the City Administrator's approval. d. All applications are returned to Personnel for filing, with a list and documentation of those interviewed a d references checked,— h ck d e. Personnel shall receive all employment authorization forms, including copies of certificates or licenses which are a requirement of the job. To comply with Federal Immigration Law, the employee must also establish employment eligibility by presenting any of the following documents: a U.S. passport, a U.S. birth certificate, a Social Security card or a alien I.D. card. To establish identity, either a driver's license issued by any state or a MN. state photo identification card must be presented. No other document is acceptable. Personnel is to be notified (on form provided) of the effective date of the termination of the seasonal/temp. employees' services with the Department Head's recommendation for possible future re-hire. .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 Gor) _Cep n MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Metro Area Bid for 1996 Summer Olympics DATE: March 29, 1988 Introduction The City of Shakopee was invited to meeting hosted by Mayors George Latimer and Don Fraser regarding a Twin Cities bid for the the 1996 Summer Olympics. Theresa Roehrich, Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce, attended on behalf of City and submitted the attached memorandum dated March 10th regarding the proposed 1996 Summer Olympics bid. Background The Mayors have asked that metro area City Councils support their bid with a resolution that can be presented to the site selection committee which meets in Washington, D.C. on April 29, 1988. They enclosed a sample resolution along with a booklet explaining the Twin Cities bid. That booklet is on file for any Councilmember who wishes to review it. I have copied for your information the cover letter presented with the booklet. The only Olympic competition that might be appropriate for Shakopee would be the equestrian events which could be conducted at Canterbury Downs. The problem is that the games would be held during Canterbury Downs normal season, and they have learned that it is better to attract tourists to the normal track events rather than trying to sandwich in the equestrain events. The equestrian events are tentatively scheduled for the State Fairground Grandstands in St. Paul and the Minnesota Horse and Hunt Club in Prior Lake. Alternatives 1. Pass a resolution supporting the Twin Cities metro area bid for the 1996 Summer Olympics. 2. Modify the draft resolution supporting the Twin Cities 1996 Sumner Olympics bid. 3. Do not pass a resolution supporting the bid. Recommendation I recommend alternative No. 1 because of the overall beneficial economic impact to the Twin Cities area. Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 2877, A Resolution Supporting The Concept Of Minneapolis-St. Paul Hosting The 1996 Summer Olympics, and move its adoption. hakO ee CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CE MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Dolores Lebens FROM: Theresa L. Roehrich, Executive Director `_ DATE: March 10, 1988 RE: Notes from a Meeting of Metro Area Mayors about the 1996 Summer Olympics Bid NOTES Twin Cities is in the running to host the 1996 Summer Olympic Games. Other U.S. cities competing for U.S. designation are San Francisco, Nashville and Atlanta. Of these the forerunner is Atlanta. Mayors George Latimer and Donald Frazier spoke on the enormous impact hosting this would have on industry, tourism and overall image. Calgary, site of 1988 Winter Olympics, has seen a direct economic impact of $2 million. If the Twin Cities were to host 1996 Games, they estimated a $17-2.5 million impact. The Chairman of the Bid Committee, Roger Parkinson, President and Publisher of the Star Tribune outlined the venues or athletic facilities that would be used. All but the Olympic Stadium are existing or already planned facilities. The closest venues to Shakopee are the Minnesota Horse and Hunt Club,in Prior Lake, which will be used for Equestrian events and Bloomington sites as listed in the attached Bid copy. Dick Zehring, President of the Bid Committee, talked about the upcoming 1990 Olympic Sports Festival, July 4-16, 1990. Over 4,000 athletes and coaches from the U.S. will compete in the Twin Cities hosted Olympic Sports Festival. Held yearly, this Festival draws the.best amatuer sports competitors in the U.S. 34 games of Winter and Summer Olympics will be held. In the past ESPN has covered the games and over 1,300 national journalists have attended. The Olympic Sports Festival will provide an excellent dry-run toward hosting the Olympic Games in 1996. IMMEDIATE NEEDS 1. The Bid Committee would like to receive Letters of Support from Mayors, City Coucils, and local Civic organizations in support of the efforts in bidding to host the Games. These Letters must be received by March 23, 1988, (Samples are in the attached bid copy) On March 25-z7 the site selection committee for the United States Olympic Committee will tour the Twin Cities and selected venues. These Letters will be presented to the Committee members. 2. Resolutions of Support by Metro area City Councils are needed by April 28, 1988. (Samples are in the attached Bid copy) On April 29 the Site Selection Committee meets in Washington, D.C. to review Bids and select the U.S. designated City. These resolutions will be added to the Bid to indicate a united appeal. 1801 Trunk Hwy.101 P.O. Box 203 Shakopee,Minnesota 55379 612-4451660 ta- C�- If the Twin Cities is selected as the U.S. designated City a two year marketing campaign will begin with the help of the U.S.Olympic Committee to draw the votes needed from the International Olympic Committee. Other international cities competing would include Toronto, Paris, Brisbane and Athens. COMMENTS The Bid Committee is extremely well prepared and and the enthusiasm is contagious. Unbiased opinions indicate the Twin Cities bid is competing neck-to-neck with Atlanta as the best site. Such a worthy and ambitious effort as Bidding to host the 1996 Summer Olympic Games deserves the support of Shakopee. cc: John Anderson George Muenchow j Bid Committee for the 1 XXVI th Olympiad Minneapolis Saint Paul March 9, 1988 Dear Mayors: On behalf of the Committee for the Twin Cities Olympic Bid, we wish to thank you for attending tonight's meeting and for your interest in our efforts to attract the 1996 Olympic Games to the Twin Cities. - i We hope you will leave tonight's meeting with the clear message that we are the most viable candidate to be selected as the United States bid city to the International Olympic Committee. We believe the Games will have a tremendously positive economic impact on the metropolitan area and Duluth- Superior and will leave a legacy benefitting our youth through amateur athletic programs and facilities. We have assembled this packet to provide you additional information regarding our bid. Our ability to demonstrate strong community support to members of the United States Rlympic Committee is an essential element in our bid effort. As such, we ask that you submit two pieces of evidence in support of our bid efforts: - Please submit a personal letter of support (refer to the enclosed sample letter) - - Please introduce and lobby for a resolution of support from your city council (refer to the enclosed sample resolution). We can't stress enough the importance of these actions. The letters .and resolutions we receive will be the chief documentation which we will present to the U.S.O.C. as evidence of local support for our bid effort. Thank you in advance for your valuable support of our bid. We look forward to continuing to work with the many communities surrounding the metropolitan areas of the Twin Cities and Duluth-Superior which will play a major role in the success of this major athletic event. Sincerely, Roger P�ncMdhring Chairman President 88-67 p, C� RESOLUTION NO. 2877 A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CONCEPT OF MINNEAPOLIS-SAINT PAUL HOSTING THE 1996 SUMMER OLYMPICS WHEREAS, the Secretary General of the United States Olympic Committee has initiated an inquiry to determine whether the cities of Minneapolis-Saint Paul are interested in hosting the 1996 Summer Olympics; and WHEREAS, the mayors of Minneapolis-Saint Paul have asked area municipalities for their general support to the concept of hosting the 1996 Summer Olympic Games; and WHEREAS, The Minneapolis-Saint Paul Metro Area enjoys a temperate summer climate well suited to international athletic competitions and now possesses numerous excellent athletic facilities suitable as Olympic venues; and WHEREAS, the Minneapolis-Saint Paul Metro Area has the capacity to provide the necessary accommodations to support visiting athletes and spectators; and WHEREAS, the 1996 Summer Olympic Games would bring significant revenues to the Minneapolis-Saint Paul Metro Area as well as extensive international recognition, without expending taxpayer funds; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that. the City .Councilof the City of Shakopee, State of Minnesota, hereby expresses to the Mayors of Minneapolis and Saint Paul its firm support for the concept of hosting the Summer Olympic Games in 1996. ADOPTED in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, held this _ day of 1988. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of , 1988. City Attorney ■ FDear 1988 s Kraft HAKOPEE MN 55379 is: Enclosed please find an estimatedcost sheet taken from Mean's Square Foot Costs, 1988 Addition. This shows what anticipated cost would be for a community center. I have added several numbers at the bottom in the sitework category. This was done, as this work is already included. The purpose of this is to show you what it would cost if you were to build only that portion of the shopping center we would be selling to the City of Shakopee for $15.00 per square foot. As you can see, it should cost Shakopee an estimated $44.73 per square foot to duplicate what we would sell for $15.00 per square foot. I have checked in red those categories that I have included in MY total. It should also be noted that we have added nothing for land costs, assuming it would be built on existing park property. Very nutru'(lAy��, Richard R. Curry RRC/k encl O F F I C E S: D E N V E R M I N N E A P O L I S O M A H A MEANS SQUAREFOOT COSTS Residential Commercial Industrial v . Institutional . . 9th Annual Editionv 1i k 7u - u 2.170 Community Center sts oaloulWmd br a 1 story bu8dny wRh 12 toot story heiyM and 10,000 puan bet of 9oorTITEa/WaImNENI YYtf lm I)EGFI4710Ni YIR WTn�a FveeativNS.F.fNaM 5.10 5.10 Ueswv NIA _t.a Bar dl Siro alpailipn W yap an0 vnal ter IpMation nil ane Im�nSFGq 7NIE 6nae a'ieiNovee mmele wim vwar panic erb eaular pace Stop 2.55 2.55 SWsmnuss N/A S.F.. - _ u Wpstrrk8NlRE .1Ca a Beam A Sn l Wale torivero pbck SF.Wal 4.39 .72 .5 9ewbd Fbbs 2. 6 Rod Abai a m opm wep nM psa S.F.Rod 2.76' .B Stairs N/A - - 'U t27ara 4MIE Im Faea prnk mb mvsle plots pacne eD4 d was S F.Wall la.M 6,37 W F d N/A _ Gable aankean ad plm ab MMw metol FaN 1335 .53 a 6taae WaNs Apnwn sNeiaO 20\d MN Earn 2b .82 6 Ygs bNnw to ane yawl wits nasMp S F.Red 1.90 1.90 S.F.Roof1.p8 1.Wb SaeeLlim GmM stop am laltlms SF.Raol .m .Ss f U mew warm el O .1 Bavtva 4ylNun pony m mebt sW6s,taint patitioes to S F.AWILF.Banivm $.F.Patnsn 339 3.21 .a kleiv Gobs S9ek baf lo0oe meW 10 S.F.Fb /Dov Each ao 32 m .5 WW Fsknes Bent S.F.Sb1aw 35 .50 .B Fkv FinslWies 504®rya,.50L riryl nb S.F.Fbv 2.88 2W .7 fikq FriNim XiwWlbv Nkmmrake ae pais S.F.failop 3.79 3.79 .9 YNsv$ufo/Savior Wa0 Bairn e04 d etll S.F.Wall 1.01 W . L Oalfl'IM .1 eevaltli XIA - 1 Speial LmFe/aa N/A u 6YI WE .1 PkftM 6ipdan,finer as aevke Ipmam,apply ant ftmp 1 Fa1ba7910 S.F.Fl- Fane 2580 2.M �.A1Z- .2 Fn Fmlclim NIA _ .3 Neatry Ncptlee net _ - _- .a cod.y SYgk ID m w uNt.w pets9 electric moroe S.F.Fka 6.36 6.36 3.L9 .5 Spe1aN System N/A _ u eaarAE - - .1 SerKa 8 Dsbbupm Xq amps wvim,11yAI poe0 ant ler8rs S.F.Fton 2 49lNae a Pow INFarieesvit fmuc,bvabdm.aailela ale mss.OOeN S.F.Z: 2.13 2.13 07 .� Sprat EbNni Albm synem ad ematary lMleO n� � !U IFBL,I WKIatl01pY .1 Soedeties 8dn-n mal rade,hem nooea.heen,klchie�earipanl 1 EaobaY N/A3 Ulm. NIA3AKarfFGf FSa M4 MNAIII CUT e3.75 1f ' Shakopee -hockey Assvctattalr P.O. BOX 238 SHAKOPEE,MN 55379 March 22, 1988 MAR? 31'* CITY OF SHAKOPEE TO: MAYOR LEBENS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: DONNA HYATT, PRESIDENT SHAKOPEE HOCKEY ASSOCIATION SUBJECT: PROPOSED COMMUNITY CENTER The purpose of this memo is to enthusiastically support the proposed community center in the City of Shakopee. The Shakopee Hockey Association respectfully asks the council to give this project serious consideration. Being the parents of ath- letes who participate in a variety of sports other than hockey, we feel a community center is long overdue for our town. The benefits are numerous for adults as well as the young people. Thank you. MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: T.H. 169 Minnesota River Crossing/Downtown Shakopee Approach DATE: April 5, 1988 INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND: On April 4, Council met in a worksession with representatives from Minnesota Department of Transportation and Metropolitan Council to review the T.H. 169 Minnesota River Crossing/Downtown Shakopee Approach alternative and to review the Midwest Planning and Research (Dahlgren & Hawks 1963) alternative. After review and discussion Council members asked that the T.H. 169 Minnesota River Crossing/Downtown Approach be put on the April 5th Council agenda in order that previous Council action might be re-affirmed. Attached is the "Revised Memorandum of Understanding'- signed nderstanding"signed by MnDOT and the City, dated April 27, 1987 itemizing commitments for the T.H. 169 Minnesota River Crossing. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to re-affirm Council action of May 19, 1987 approving the "Revised Memorandum of Understanding" between the City of Shakopee and Minnesota Department of Transportation, dated April 27, 1987, outlining commitments to the T.H. 169 Minnesota River Crossing/Downtown Shakopee Approach. JSC/tiv TH169 p April 27, 1987 296-3051 Mr. John Anderson, Administrator City of Shakopee 129 E. First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379-1376 Re: C.S. 7009 (T. H. 169) At Jct. T.H. 101 and Bridge No. 4175 "Revised Memorandum of Understanding" - Dear Mr. Anderson: - - On November 4, 1985 a Memorandum of Understanding showing the Mn/DOT committment to the above referenced project was signed and sent to the City of Shakopee. From that date up to the present, there have been changes and additions as to that originally agreed to by the involved parties. These changes and additions along with a brief summary of the original committments are as - - follows: 1. That the City has a committment of $1. 9 million to this project. 2. . That the City has paid for the preliminary design of this project. 3 Thatethe City will purchase the right of way for this proja. That said right of way will include all lands necessary for this project south of the Minn. River within the limits as set forth by the Mn/DOT staff approved Layout No. S.P. 7009 and that all R/W proceduresshall conform to FHWA Stds. - 4. That the City will proceed with and fund the final roadway design for this project. 5. That Mn/DOT accepts the responsibility to fund and design the replacement of Bridge No. 4175 over the Minn. R. in relationship with this project to accommodate a Dec. 1989 bid letting. 4 e Mr. John Anderson April 27, 1967 Page 2 6. That the project designs be consistent with the approved Iayout, PPR/FA and LDSR for this project. 7. That the remaining city funds available from the $1.9 _ million minus items $2, 3 a 4 above be the city' s lump sum ! share for local construction costs. -- j This letter serves as Yin/DOT's committment to the City of Shakopee on this project. Sincerely, (Mn/DOT Committ me ) City of Shakopee Committment _ C^ � G F M. Crawf ro, P.E/ \, John Anderson - y District Engineer City Adminis ra r \a cc_ L. Levine/D. Differt L_ Korth/J. Weingartz J. Povich M. Christensen/C. Michalko D. Flemming ! E. Howe i �s MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Community Development Director RE: Proposed Community Center at Minnesota Valley Mall DATE: March 29, 1988 INTRODUCTION• The Essex Corporation is in the process of purchasing the Minnesota Valley Mall on the Western edge of Shakopee. Discussions earlier indicated that they would be willing to work in conjunction with the City to construct a community center, including an ice skating facility, as a part of the mall renovation project this spring and summer. The developer has requested a City Council decision by April 19, 1988. BACKGROUND: The Minnesota Valley Mall has been in existence for the past 12-15 years. During much of this time the mall has been producing less than market rate taxes because of the high vacancy rate. Several years ago the owner of the mall appealed the tax levy on the basis of the low income stream. That appeal was granted and the taxes were subsequently reduced on the mall. At the time of purchase the Essex Corporation indicated that the vacancy rate of the mall was 428. (This is far above the viable average for a facility such as this. ) If the community center facility were to be a part of the mall it is my opinion that it would have a positive impact on the operation of the mall. This would also probably be a facility unique in the State of Minnesota. The City Council, early this year, appointed a Committee of two members (Steven Clay and Joe Zak) to meet with various groups who might be interested in recreational facilities as part of the mall. Several meetings were held with the developer and with groups interested in various types of recreational activities in the community including ice skating, gymnastics, wrestling, and other activities. The estimated net cost of the community center, including an equipped ice arena, would be $1,550,000 (see attached preliminary estimate) . Based upon the prevailing residential share of the property tax base, this would represent approximately $73 per community resident. For an eight year period the approximate annual per capita cost would be $12 to $14. A free standing facility to be built by the City on another site would have an approximate estimated cost of $2,400,000, based upon a construction cost of $45 per square foot. If the City Council is interested in the construction of a community center, it appears that a savings of 30-358 could be realized by constructing in community center at the Minnesota Valley Mall. A free standing facility would cost more because it would have to be bid in accordance with applicable State Statutes and would include additional costs for excavation, paving, wiring, lighting and landscaping. Also there are other efficiencies which would exist as a result of the Essex Corporation working on the facility and already having a construction superintendent and crew on the site. It is also believed that the Essex Corporation will be able to purchase steel at a cheaper price than the City because of their volume buying another projects. Also the Essex Corporation will be able to share the parking lot with the City and the City's responsibility for up keep will be at a prorata rate rather than the full responsibility for this type of maintenance. LEGAL ASPECTS It is our opinion that the City can purchase the facility on a turn key basis and that the City use surplus TIF for this project. The operation will be self sufficient from an operating prospective, according to estimates by the City's Community Recreation Department, based upon information from other facilities. This does not mean that the capitalization, or payment of the structure, would be included in this however. The site is within the tax increment project area and it would be a permissable use of TIF funding. In looking at the present status of the tax increment cash flow for the City there would sufficient increment available to pay for the facility if the City Council so desired. COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVE various recreational groups in the community have supported the concept of constructing a community center in the Minnesota Valley Mall. For example, the attached letter from the Shakopee Hockey Association indicates that they would be quite interested in this facility. That particular group has attended three or four meetings held with representatives of the City and have held several additional meetings on their own to discuss this subject. The Community Recreation Department has also indicated that there is a extensive amount of interest in the part of gymnastics, wrestling, baseball and basketball groups (see attached estimated use information) . The concept for the renovation of the mall and detailed cost figures are included as an attachment to this memo. Information was provided by the Essex Corporation. RECOMMENDATION• No action is sought on this subject at this time. The two committee members, Council Members Clay and Zak, and the Community Development Director will be happy to answer any questions that other Council Members might have on this subject at this time. Also the developer will make a presentation at the April 5 City Council meeting. it is intended that this item appear on the April 19, 1988 agenda for action at this time in a manner consistent with the requests of the developer a presentation will be made on the concept/facility at that time. Additional supporting documentation will be on the Council table Tuesday evening. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE ONLY SPORTS CENTER ICE RINK INTERIOR FINISH - 43,400 S.F. EXISTING BUILDING ($15.00/SF) = 13, 500/SF $ 202,500.00 IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING BUILDING General Requirements 1 LS 81500.00 Remove Cone Floor 750 SF 563.00 New Concrete Floor 6,500 SF 9, 100.00 Misc. Blocking 500 LF 750.00 Doors & Frames ( Inc. Hdware) 12 EA 4, 200.00 Entrance Doors 3 E 4, 500.00 Partitions 585 LF 14,625.00 New Ceiling 15,000 SF 11, 250.00 VCS Flooring 4, 700 SF 5,875.00 Rubber Mat Flooring 3,700 SF 24,975.00 Carpet 1 ,080 YD 13, 500.00 Wall Finish 12,000 SF 12,000.00 Toilet Partitions 2,400.00 Plumbing - Toilets 91000.00 Plumbing - Urinals 700.00 - Lavatories 6,400.00 - Showers 5,500.00 - Sink/Fast Food 500.00 - Water Heater 5,000.00 HVAC Existing Units 2 EA 500.00 HVAC Added Units 4 EA 28,400.00 Light Fixtures - Add 140 EA 14,000.00 Light Fixtures - Relocate 50 EA 1,750.00 Power Outlets 15,000 SF 3, 750.00 Fee (108) 18, 750.00 TOTAL $ 206,488.00 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE ONLY ICE RINK ADDITION General Conditions 1 LS $ 40,000.00 Building Excavation - 28,800 SF 10,800.00 Concrete Footing 1 LS 22,000.00 Concrete Floor/Out. Rink 12,500 SF 17,050.00 Metal Building 1 LS 182,000.00 Bleachers 12 SEC .00 (Existing ) Ice Rink (Complete Equip) 1 LS 360,000.00 Brine System Heating for Rink 1 LS 12,000.00 Heat for Spectators 5,000 SF 6, 250.00 Electric Service S Meter 1 LS 7,500.00 Rink Lighting 70 EA 17,500.00 Power Outlets - Distrib. 28,800 SF 10,000.00 Electric - Ice Equip. 15,000.00 Rubber Mats - 6.75/psf 2,000 SF 13,500.00 Painting 15,000.00 Plumbing - 20,000.00 Equipment Room 30,000.00 Fee (78) 56,901.00 TOTAL ICE RINK ADDITION $ 835,501.00 SUMMARY Existing Building Purchase $ 202,500.00 Gymnasium Addition 199,042.00 Improvements to Community Center 206,488.00 Ice Rink Addition 835,501.00 Architectural S Engineering 35,000.00 Contingency 50,000.00 Concession Area 25,000.00 PRELIMINARY COST SUMMARY $1,553,531.00 OPTIONS- Masonry 40,000.00 Existing Equipment Sale (40,000.00) Labor Contribution Equipment Installation (30,000.00) GYMNASIUM ADDITION SIZE: 70 x 120 = 8,400 sq_ It. General Conditions $ 7, 100.00 Building Excavation 3, 200.00 Concrete Footing 10,640.00 Concrete Floor 13,020.00 Building - Concrete 36, 100.00 Steel Roof & Structure 51,660.00 Heating & Makeup Air 12,000.00 Electric Service & Meter 3,000.00 Electric - Distribution 2,000.00 Lighting 6,400.00 Painting 7, 500.00 Fire Doors (Manual ) 81000.00 Entrance Door 1, 500.00 Service Door 500.00 Contingency 15,000.00 Fee ( 7%) 12, 923.00 Architectural & Engineering 8, 500.00 TOTAL: $199, 043.00 Sprinkler Rink & Gym $ 27, 900.00 EOLMSTEN SYSTEM verbal Quote 1 ) 135 Ton System: Includes: Concrete Refrigeration System Subsoil Heat Ice Melt Pit with Hot Water $ 339,988.00 2) Dasher Boards: 1. Steel Frames 75,000.00 2. Fiber Glass 104,000.00 3) Dehumidifier Unit: 25,600.00 TOTAL COST: $ 440,558.00 *This does not include Heat Reclaimation System It has been indicated to me that item $1 could be negotiated down to $275,000.00 to $300,000.00. If this is true, the cost would be $404, 100.00. 6F w o 1 7 y H a w m y N n m 0 m w m (l t^ O A F A b n 0 P x n m y ^ N 5 H H t•1 9 9 n O m C [nil y C r 9 0 • • [' Y Y H O A C F to H� P 'AY 7 a R m •,I • q y ,n n r o D H z H _ ^ N s NO IO t'I Z 2 n A n i I Z 5 m A b M O 3 A= x � A Y d • � a Y Y N 0 0 C7 I^ A [+f O [' C 3. Y N R H d d A N M A O b 1 d Z CI� V i O O O H m O O n 3 3 Z m M v q H p O O y d Q d N C ^ '� '� m ID d R 1*1 N w • N • H 3 • 3 C ,� y • H H n g K `^ m m c2i y n la 111 6 A O Z n W g N M N N M M M M OQ M M N C Y O W O Z Z H o v� O o m �o vn C O 1n c O I 9 9 aH C b n O f P 9 Z O � W O O wG o • • c a � • L G1 n N Y ^ • 01 n Y iv • _YrrT9 `c G n • • • M li O M Po H ^ ^ I ^ O O • wig R b ^ • an oo • 0 W O Fn I m n O'b n yM n • 1'° 019 Y 4 n u t O 9 Z W � s P 1 ESTIMATED USERS - .PROPOSED COMMUNITY CENTER 3/31/88 I Note: These figures are Shakopee users and do not take into consideration people from outside of the community. ICE ARENA 1989 1 . High School Hockey Teams Nov. - Feb. 40 2. Shakopee Hockey Assn Nov. - March 120 3. Broomball Nov. - March 100 4. Figure Skating Nov. - March 75 5. Open Skating All Year 400 6. Sr Citizen Walkers All Year 150 7. Runners/Joggers All Year 200 8. Indoor Track Meets March - April 100 1185 GYMNASIUM 9. Youth BaAketball Sept. - March 290 10. Adult Basketball Nov. - March 70 11 . Mens Volleyball Nov. - March 90 12. Womens Volleyball Nov. - March 200 13- Co-Rec Volleyball Nov. - March 100 14. Youth Volleyball All Year 100 15. Youth Wreptlin March - April 80 16. Youth Baseball Softball All Year 600 17. Adult Baseball/Softball All Year 1300 18. Exercise Classes All Year 19. Gymnastics Sept. - April 150 20. Tennis All Year 100 21 . Misc. Instruction Sept. - April 50 3280 MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM 22. Babysitting All Year 50 23- Sr Citizens All Year 60 24. Fine Arts Activities All Year 100 25. Cable TV Studio All Year 50 26. Teen Dances/Center All Year 100 27. Square Dances Sept. - May 25 28. Football Assn. Meetings Aug. - Nov. 25 29. Basketball Assn. Mtgs. Aug. - March 30 30- Youth Baseball/Softball Mtg. All Year 30 20 31 . Hockey Assn. Mtg All Year 150 32. Youth Coaches Trg. Clinics All Year 20 33- Wrestling Assn. Mtgp. Sept. - April 34. Ski Club Mtge. Sept. - April 155 35. Sports Coalition Mtgs. All Year 36. Adult Baseball Mtgk. Feb. - October 15 37. Adult Softball Mtge March - August 1;50 38. Adult Broomball Mtgs Oct. - March 39. Adult Basketball Mtgs Oct. - March 10 40. Adult Volleyball Mtgs Oct. - March 100 41 . Adult Football Mtgs Aug. - Oct. 42. General Public Mtgs/Socials All Year 150 lobo TOTAL POTENTIAL USERS OF REGULAR ACTIVITIES 5525 p2 ESTIMATED USERS - PROPOSED COMMUNITY CENTER 3/31/88 Note: These figures include Shakopee users and others from outside of the community. These activities were not included in information provided in page 1 . SPECIAL EVENTS Participants Spectators Total 1 . Youth Hockey Tournaments Feb.-Mar. 600 4000 4600 2. Broomball Tournaments Dec.-Mar, 150 1000 1150 3. Figure Skating Show April-May 75 2000 2075 4. Hockey School June-July 300 300 5. Youth Basketball Tourney Jan.-Feb. 580 2000 2580 6. Adult Basketball Tourney March 175 500 675 7. Youth Wirestling Tourney April 300 1000 1300 8. Adult Volleyball Tourney March 150 350 500 9. High School Track Meet March-Apri1200 500 700 10. All Comers Track- Meet Sept-April 100 200 300 11 . Circus June-Aug. 2000 2000 12. Trade Shows April-May 1000 1000 13. Professional Ice Show All Year 1500 1500 14. Rummage sales All Year 100 2000 2100 75. High School Hockey Games Nov-March 750 4000 4750 34 0. 0 22050 25530 TOTAL POTENTIAL USERS OF SPECIAL EVENT — ACTIVITIES INCLUDING BOTH RESIDENTS AND NON RESIDENT --------------------- COMBINED POTENTIAL TOTAL USERS: Residents & Non Residents 3480 22050 25530 Residents Only 550205 5525 2200 TOTAL POTENTIAL USERS