Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/06/1988 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items DATE: December 1, 1988 1. The attached bulletin from the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) indicates that there are two vacancies on the Board of Directors effective January, 1989. If any member of the City Council is interested in filling one of these vacancies a written nomination needs to be forwarded to the AMM office by no later than December 21st. There are also other items in the bulletin which might be of interest to City Council Members. 2. A copy of the Moody's Municipal Credit Report is submitted for City Council information. This report indicates that the City continues to retain an A bond rating. 3 . The City Council has received a nice thank you note from Juane Wampach for the flowers sent to her when she was in the hospital. 4 . Pheasants Forever of Scott County has applied for a raffle license. The raffle will be held on February 23, 1989 in conjunction with a banquet. They do meet the requirements of the City Code. 5. Attached is a memorandum from the League of Minnesota Cities regarding tax increment finance/legislative activities. 6. Attached is a copy of a letter Judy Cox sent to Domino's Pizza thanking them for their thoughtfulness and generosity in providing pizza to our election judges on November 8th. 7. Attached is the monthly calendar for December. 8 . Attached is the Business Update from City Hall which went out with the Chamber's December newsletter. 9. Attached are the agendas for the December 8, 1988 meetings of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and Planning Commission. 10. Attached are the minutes of the November 3, 1988 meetings of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and Planning Commission. 11. Attached are the minutes of the November 1, 1988 meeting of the Shakopee Coalition. asad tion of metropolitan municipalities BULLETIN CITY °r 19gB November 28, 1988 TO: AMM Member Cities FROM: AMM Staff BE: BOARD OF DIRECTORS VACANCIES AND OTHER IMPORTANT MATTERS 1. NOMINATIONS WANTED FOR BOARD VACANCIES: There are two vacancies on the Board effective JaBuary 1989 due to the decision of Councilmember Leslie Turner of Edina to leave city office and Hank Sinda leaving his position as New Brighton City Manager. The persons selected to fill the vacancies will serve the balance of the terms which end May 31, 1989 and will be eligible for re-election at that point in time. The AMM Board of Directors is responsible for the overall management and administration of the AMM staff and yearly work program. The AMM Board meets the first Thursday night of each month commencing at 7:00 P.M. WRITTEN NOMINATIONS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO THE AMM OFFICE BY NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 21ST. IT WOULD BE APPRECIATED IF NOMINATIONS ARE ACCOMPANIED BY A BRIEF RESUME TO HELP FACILITATE THE BOARD DELIBERATION. 2. LEGISLATIVE CONTACT SYSTEM The Legislative Contact System initiated by the AMM last year, is enthusiastically off and running. The Contact System is designed to increase our effectiveness as a lobbying force on key issues through involvement of city officials. This year, the Legislative Coordinating Committee of the AMM has made an early start on establishing the Contact System for the upcoming legislative session. Energetic Legislative Contacts have already been designated for each member city. An early start is allowing for better preparation. -1- 183 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227-0008 An initial set of breakfast meetings has been slated for the Legislative Contacts: Wednesday, December 14th. at the Holiday Inn in Brooklyn Center for the northern cities; Thursday, December 15th. at the Holiday Inn East in St. Paul for the eastern cities; and Friday, December 16th, at the Hopkins House in Hopkins for the southern cities. The purpose of the breakfast meetings is to introduce the Legislative Contacts to what the Contact System can do for their cities and to brief them on AMM priority issues for the next session. A "how-to" manual is being prepared by the AMM. The manual will contain such features as: How a Bill Becomes a Law, Terms used in the Legislative Process, Lobbying Tips, Making Your Legislator Aware of your City's Needs, and AMM Priority Policy Briefings. It is hoped that the manual will be valuable to both the novices and veterans in the legislative field. The manuals will be distributed at the breakfast meetings. Tentative plans are being set to meet with city officials and metropolitan legislators in January. This is a great opportunity to build relationships with the legislators as well as inform them as to the AMM positions and rationale on upcoming key issues. Interest in metro caucusing is encouraging and we expect a high turnout. We are grateful for the support and responsiveness of the Legislative Contacts and are working hard to promote a unified lobbying force. COMPUTER MODELING The extraordinary effort of cooperation among the various city groups to develop some consensus on property tax issues for the 1989 legislative session is progressing on schedule. The charter of the Coordinating Committee on Property Tax Issues is to upgrade the existing computer model to first determine the effects of 1990 law, and then develop two proposals for change, one of which includes a homestead credit similar to the current law. The first task is basically complete with the effects of the 1990 law fairly well documented. A detailed description of the primary impact will be put together for AMM members in the near future. However, the most interesting fact developed is that based on the way transition aid is calculated as a replacement for homestead credit in concert with the new property valuing system, the states property tax relief declines by $85 million between 1989 and 1990. This state savings is a net $55 million -2- when GGA increases are added back into the equation. Based on this and an increase for normal growth, the task force has chosen $120 million as a target for relief in developing the two proposals. At this time the Coordinating Committee is in the process of shaping the contents of each proposal and has had one meeting to discuss them in very general terms. The first proposal draft included a reinstated Homestead Credit, Agricultural Credit, continuation of the 1990 LGA, grandfathering disparity aid, new C/I and non homestead credits to reduce these net tax rates, and reduced tax rates for higher valued homes. The second proposal retained the transition aid system (replacement for homestead credit), adds an agricultural credit to offset the effects on farms of the 1989 to 1990 tax relief decrease, retained LGA, added Welfare takeover for counties, changed the disparity aid to tax base equalization with additional dollars, and reduced tax rates for mid to high value homes. A third proposal may be considered which makes drastic changes to the 1990 law. All of the elements in these proposals are on the table for further discussion and refinement. Each will require detailed analysis, both technically and philosophically. As the process continues and we get closer to determining the actual contents and costs, we will communicate further with the membership. P.S. THE BOARD AND STAFF WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO WISH EACH OF YOU A JOYOUS HOLIDAY SEASON AND A PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR! DISTRIBUTION NOTE: This Bulletin has been mailed to Mayors, Managers/Administrators and Delegates. Please distribute to other officials in your city as you deem appropriate. Thank you. -3- _ Moodys Mun ici pal Credit Report Shakopee, Minnesota November 9, t 988 New Issue Update General Obligation/Special Tax sale: $1.015,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1988 B dale: For bids November 15 Moody's rating: A opinion: Despite substantial use of tux increment financing, retired debt. A significant share of expenditures the city's tax base continues to support satisfactory devoted to debt service and the prospect of future finances and provides average security for rapidly borrowing are noted. key kmft: G.O. Bonds Outstanding: $13,925,000 Average Annual Growth F.V., 1983-88: 5.1'9 Debt Burden: 5.4'9 Unemployment Rate, 7188, Payout, Ten Years: 85.8% Scott County: 3.0% F.V. per Capita: $48,705 State: 3.2% Per Capita Income, 1985: $12,107 Undesignated General Fund Balance As �. of State- 1081 as % of Operating Funds Revenues, 1987: 36.0% Median Value Owner Occupied Housing, 1980: $62,800 updale: Since our last report dated August 16, 1988, there use of tax increment revenues from the K -Man and has been no material change in the city's credit Canterbury Downs tax increment districts, which position. With the current offering, not anticipated have exceeded existing debt service requirements. at the time of the last bond sale, the city will make analysis: The city's substantial and diverse tax base promotes a satisfactory financial condition, and also moder- ates debt position. The strength of the tax base is underscored by a trend of commercial and industri- al growth both within and outside of the city's tax increment districts, as the city actively promotes development. However, a major portion of recent city development has occurred within these dis- tricts, and is exempt from the general tax tells for the life of the district. In the most recent year, taxable assessed value rose significantly as several construction projects were completed and placed on the city's tax call. The year before, taxable assessed values had actually declined 8.5% as the valuation of Canterbury Downs, the city's largest taxpayer, was removed from the general rolls and captured in a tax incre- ment district. Last year the state reduced the pari- mutuel tax at Canterbury Downs, and the track has increased the size of its purses, part of an effort to General Obligation/Special Tax November 9, 1988 Shakopee, Minnesota increase track attendance and the volume of bet- population growth. Further increases are expected ting, thereby improving the track's financial due to the city's large expanse of undeveloped land Prospects. and planned improvements to road access, particu- Financial operations remain satisfactory, as charas- holy the replacement of two bridges over the Min- terized by a large and growing undesignated Gener- resetsRiver. Wealth levels are above regional nouns, as are housing values. Scott County unem- al Fund balance. Fiscal 1988 is expected to produce mens rates traditionallyhave been moderate balanced operations, making use of a substantial ptolo reflect the overall health of the area economy. increase in the operating tax levy. Officials repair that year-to-date operations are in line with budget. The budget for 1989 anticipates a modest General Fund balance drawdown. Although the 1989 levy is level with the current year's, the city expects a 23.49c increase in state aid in 1989. The bulk of city debt is supported by tax incre- ments and special assessments, and debt service accounts for a high 35% of yearly expenditures. While special assessment current collections have been slow in some years, delinquent amounts are recovered at a satisfactory pace, and accumulated cash in the Debt Service Funds at December 31, 1987 was equal to debt service requirements for the next two years. The city's location just outside of the second tier of Minneapolis -St. Paul suburbs has aided its steady As is typical of expanding twin cities area com- munities, the city's debt burden is above average; bonds are structured for aggressive payout. Shakopee's substantial debt commitments appear manageable in view of its healthy growth in taxable valuation and stable economic base. The current issue, which officials expect will be fully supported by tax increment revenues from the Canterbury Downs and K -Mart tax increment districts, will finance the engineering costs of a highway bypass. The city expects to issue $1.9 million tax increment bonds in 1989 for the local share of the cost of bridge replacement, and $1 million special assess- ment bonds in summer 1989 for street and utility improvements. '1 W7 \.. General Obligation/Special Tax Shakopee, Minnesota November 9, 1988 P 3 deta85 of bond Legal Name of Issuer: City of Shakopee, Scon Average Life of Issue: 7.8 years. sale: County, Minnesota. Interest Payable: Semiannually beginning Security: G.O., ULT. August I, 1989. Date Of Bonds: December 1, 1988 Call Features: Beginning Febmary 1, 1996 at par. Denomination: $5,000. Registrar: To be determined. Annual Maturities 2/1 ($ 000) Paying Agent: To be determined. year Amount- -- year - Amount Delivery: - Within 40 daysof sale. - 1990 $ 50 1997 $ 90 Bond Counsel: Dorsey & Whitney, Minneapolis. 1991-92 65 1998 100 Financial Officer: Greg M. Voxland, Director of 1993 70 1999 105 Finance. 1994 75 2000 110 Advisors: Springsted. Inc., St. Paul. 1995 80 2001 120 1996 85 Auditor: Jaspers, StreeOand & Company, Shakopee (FY 1987). Interest Rate: To be determined. details of last Date of Sale: August 16, 1988. Interest Cost: 6,899 comparable ArnouM: $1.100,000. Moody's Index:+D 7.659 sale: PUfahQSef: Norwest Investment Services. p For A mom$ issues, as of Auyu l 19, 1M. rating history: August 1974: A August 1972: Baal analyst: J. G. Caden 8300P01 ■ V Moody s haw N. S avita, Le. M ta-d dm care mW —non in am po, anan of at, publiuliun. 11w annotation Mmin Jus ben omm-1 form wu—s MW,M to h at . vM seliabk, for house nN of Nss e ibil, at boom nx'abanical —, its nw're cY or copkuss is not guanmuA. Moody'$ Names ase opinims, nu recanmeMaliau w buy or sell, d anattar sarut is not V Iced. A Ming sbnuM be weighed witty ore ly as furor m an mvesmlmt decision, and You sMurt make yNa May and maluan of my issf whose aamrnras Or tied obligations YOU ronsiMr Guying or selling. Mow issue. of mryanle EmdL mmicipal bends and roles. Prdea l Wick, uW commes W gainer wNcb ae mW by MmdY's Nvewurs Servs, Inc, low, 'nor m na.min, th mine, moral as pay a fee to Moory s for at, appraisal and ruing servlces_'gM fee rages from EIA" as 8125.0%. Ccyynppt 0 1988 by MmdY ', Invescors service, line WbliJsing and exeutive otiiws at " Church Siren. New York. NY not 5 League of Minnesota Cities November 28, 1988 183 University Ave. East St. Paul, MN 55101.2526 (612) 227.5600 (FAX: 221.0986) - " °1968 C/TYCF Sl-jgKppEE TO: Mayors, Managers, and Clerks FROM: Donald A. Slater, Executive Director RE: Tax Increment Finance/Legislative Activities Tax increment finance (TIF) promises to produce considerable discussion during the 1989 legislative session. Preliminarily, at least, there are a number of indications that the Legislature may have several opportunities to consider proposals on this always controversial subject. Senator Ember Reichgott (DFL-Robbinsdale) will hold two hearings on TIF before the session begins. She will provide a forum for the opponents of TIF to discuss the most controversial aspects of the subject on November 28. She will hear from supporters of TIF on December 14. We expect county representatives to press for additional restrictions on TIF at the first hearing and to carry out that fight throughout the session. The League has been working since the adjournment of the 1988 session of the Legislature to develop positive information concerning tax increment finance. We expect to publish a compendium of case studies of exemplary tax increment projects this January. It is vitally important that cities who are active in TIF initiate contacts with their legislators before the beginning of the 1989 session of the Legislature. The League needs your help in building support for TIF among legislators. I strongly urge you to invite your legislators to inspect local tax increment projects before the legislative session begins in January. This would provide an excellent opportunity to brief your legislators concerning these projects and gain their support for keeping TIF available for your local program. I further suggest that you have photographs taken with your legislator at the project site. These photographs should be provided to the local newspaper with appropriate information for a news article. Enclosed is a press release and TIF background paper which we sent to your local press. I Page 2 The League will continue to work vigorously in support of tax increment finance before and during the 1989 session. It is, however, totally within your hands to develop a strong base of support for TIF by involving your legislators in your projects as soon as possible. The League is attempting to track each legislator's opinion of TIF. Please contact either Lynda Woulfe or me at the League office to inform us of any success or opposition you encounter with your legislators. CITY OF SHAKOPEE INCORPORATED 1870 129 EAST FIRST AVENUE, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379-1376 (612) 44536M November 16, 1988 Domino's Pizza 209 East 1st Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 To The Manager & Staff: I have been advised by the Chairpersons of the five voting precincts in Shakopee that Domino's Pizza delivered pizza to them on the evening of the election, November 8th. On behalf of the Election Judges, the City Council and Myself, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Domino's Pizza for their thoughtfulness and generosity. CC: Shakopee City Council JSC/tiv Sincerely, Judith S. Cox City Clerk The Heart Of Progress Valley AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER December 1988 UPCOMING MEETINGS SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SRT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 T 4:30pm 7:00pm City M 7:30pm W T F Public Council Planning 2 3 4 5 Utilities 2 3 Commission 5 6 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 8 9 10 7:45am 12 13 14 13 14 15 Downtown 17 18 19 15 16 17 18 Committee 20 21 20 21 22 23 5:30pm CDC 25 26 22 23 24 25 26 7:00pm 28 27 28 29 30 Energy & 29 30 31 Transp. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 7:00pm pm City Community Council Recreation 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 City Hall Closed November 1988 January 1989 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 27 28 29 30 29 30 31 BUSINESS UPDATE FROM CITY HALL Vol. 2 No. 12 Dear Chamber Member: December 1, 1988 The City Council appointed Dennis Kraft as Acting City Administrator. He will continue in this capacity until a permanent appointment is made. BUILDING The Community Youth Building in Lions Park is under construction - a little behind schedule but making progress. CITY CLERK Council renewed the subsidy agreement with St. Francis Regional Medical Center for ambulance service in the City of Shakopee. Applications are now being accepted from Shakopee residents to serve on the following boards and commissions: Planning, Cable, Energy and Transportation, Housing Advisory, Building Code, Community Development, Community Recreation, Public Utilities, Police Civil Service and the Downtown Committee. Applications are due December 19th. Call 445-3650 for an application. On November 8th, 5,211 Shakopee residents went to the polls to cast their vote. This was a 84% voter turn out for the City of Shakopee. Progress is moving ahead on the updating of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The first draft of the Economic Analysis has been completed and was reviewed by the Comprehensive Plan Task Force at a meeting on November 28th. The public opinion survey questionnaire has also been completed and was mailed out to 400 randomly selected households in the City. If you have been selected to receive a questionnaire please take the time to complete and return it. COMMUNITY RECREATION (SCR) The 30th Annual Shakopee Kemps "Skate Races" will be held on Sunday afternoon, January 8th in the Shakopee indoor ice arena starting at 1:30 p.m. This outstanding example of public/private partnerships helps to provide a "no cost" fun activity for area boys and girls administered through SCR, a tax supported agency. In turn, Kemps enhances an excellent local public relations image. other businesses interested in similar endeavors should contact SCR at 445-2742. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT City Council on November 1, 1988 rejected all bids for Phase I of the Upper Valley Drainage Project, based on legal advice. The City is continuing to negotiate with the Department of Natural Resources and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regarding the classifying of the Mill Pond area as a trout stream. Due to this trout stream classification, this entire project may be jeopardized or at a minimum cost the City upwards to $1.0 million in additional mitigative measures. Anyone who has an interest in this project or wishes to discuss it further should contact the City Engineer, Dave Hutton. The City has signed an agreement with Barton-Aschman and Associates to assist the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation in designing the T.H. 101 Shakopee Bypass (southerly). Engineering staff has just completed an extremely busy construction season. In 1988, over $3.0 million dollars worth of construction proiects were completed. These projects were administered by an Engineering staff consisting of only two full time technicians, two part time technicians and a secretary. Good Job. If you agree, please let them know. Preliminary surveys and feasiblility reports are being done for potential 1989 projects, which consists of: • 3rd Avenue Reconstruction, Spencer to Shumway • Bluff Street Construction, Marschall to Naumkeag • Marschall Road Sidewalk, 4th to 10th (east side only) • Pavement Preservation (overlays and seal coating) • Trail and Pond in Lion's Park N, TENTATIVE AGENDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Regular Session Shakopee, MN December 8, 1988 chairman Rockne Presiding 1. Roll Call at 7:30 P.M. 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of November 3, 1988 Meeting Minutes 4. Board of Adjustment and Appeals Schedule for 1989 5. Other Business H 6. Adjourn Douglas K. Wise City Planner NOTE TO THE B.O.A.A. MEMBERS: 1. If you have any questions or need additional information on any of the above items, please call Doug Wise on the Monday or Tuesday prior to the meeting. 2. If you are unable to attend the meeting, please call the Planning Department prior to the meeting. TENTATIVE AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Session Shakopee, MN December 8, 1988 Chairman Rockne Presiding 1. Roll Call at 7:30 P.M. 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of the Oct. 6, 1988 & Nov. 3, 1988 Meeting Minutes 4. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: To consider amending Shakopee City Code, Section 12.07, Subd. 6 to increase the required cash contributions in lieu of land dedication for park purposes for new subdivisions. Action: Recommendation to City Council 5. 7:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider amending the Planned Unit Development for Shakopee Valley Square Properties to allow for a Western Star Water Ski Show. Applicant: Lynch Enterprises, Inc. 10214 Mississippi Blvd. Coon Rapids, MN 55433 Action: Recommendation to City Council 6. 7:50 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider amending Shiely's Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a 60' storage bin and 90' bucket elevator upon the property located at 6896 Highway 101. Applicant: J.L. Shiely Company Action: Amend Conditional Use Permit #473 7. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider a conditional use for the building at 1257 Marschall Road to house classroom space for secondary/pre-school children. Applicant: Shakopee School District #720 & Carver -Scott District #930 Action: Conditional Use Permit Resolution #551 'buigaae aqg 04 JOTad 4uam4aed8a buTuueld aqg Ileo aseald 'buLgaam aqg puagge og algeun aaL nod 3I 'Z •buTgaaM aqg og zoTid depsany zo depuOW aqg uo OSTM bnop Ileo aseaTd 'suaagT anoge aqg ;o due uo uOTgemso;uT TeuOT;Tppe paau aO suOTgsanb due aneq nod ;I 'T i0uueid dgTO OSTM selbnod :SHHHWHW NOISSINWOO ONINNK'Id HHJI OSI alON uano[PV •11 .q 'e ssauTsng JOggO '01 gOTagSTO T -g aqg UT •8AV gSaTd buole sxoeggaS •o HE buTggngv sgoia*STO ierzgsnpul UT sxoeggas 'q zoprssOO gaazgS gaXieW •e :uorssnoSTO '6 6861 ao; aTnpagOS uOTSSTo OZ) buTuueld '8 IU BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Regular Session Shakopee, Minnesota November 3, 1988 Chrmn. Rockne called the meeting to order at 7:32 with Comm. Czaja, Schmitt and Forbord present. Absent: Vice Chrmn. Foudray, Comm. Stafford and Allen. Also present: Doug Wise, City Planner. Czaja/Schmitt moved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried. Schmitt/Forbord moved to approve the September 22, 1988 meeting minutes. Motion carried with Chrmn. Rockne abstaining due to his absence. Czaja/Schmitt moved to approve the October 6, 1988 meeting minutes. Motion carried with Comm. Forbord abstaining due to his absence. VARIANCE REQUEST - ALLSTATE LEASING CORPORATION Schmitt/Czaja moved to open the public hearing to consider a variance request to place an accessory building nearer the front lot line than the principal building upon the property located at 8050 E. Hwy. 101. Motion carried. City Planner stated that the proposed location of the accessory building is nearer the highway than the principal building. The City Attorney reviewed it and determined that an additional variance was needed. Tom Egan, Attorney for the applicant, stated that they had nothing to add but would be glad to answer any other questions. Schmitt/Czaja moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Comm. Schmitt suggested that there be a 3 year time limit on this variance to run concurrent with Conditional Use Permit Resolution #543. Schmitt/Czaja moved to approve Variance Resolution #548 to allow the placement of an accessory building nearer the front lot line than the principal building subject to the condition that it run concurrently and expire concurrently with Conditional Use Permit Resolution #543 dated 10/6/88. Motion carried. Chrmn. Rockne advised the applicant and audience of the 7 day appeal period. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL RESOLUTION #549 Czaja/Schmitt moved to open the public hearing to consider an appeal of staff's interpretation of the City Zoning Ordinance regarding the definition of front yard as it applies to the of BOAA Nov. 3, 1988 - Page two property located at 1064 South Marschall Rd. City Planner stated the property in question is located on Marschall Rd. When the property was developed in 1986, only the N. half of the right of way of 11th Ave. was dedicated. The builder therefore, after receiving approval from the City Council built the home with access directly off of Marschall Rd. 11th Ave. has now been improved and staff has determined that the front property line is along lith Ave. because it is the only property line abutting a public street. The house faces the opposite direction. City Planner stated the applicant wants to construct a fence higher than the allowable 3' and possibly build a storage shed in what the applicant considers their back yard. City Planner also stated that whatever decision is made concerning this lot will probably have an impact on Lot #9, the lot next to the one in question, as both are facing the same direction. Comm. Forbord questioned if there is anything in the code that refers to lots that are served by private driveways and how that effects what is considered the front yard, side or rear yard. City Planner stated that there is a section in the code which addresses private driveways but does not address specifically front vs. rear yard. Comm. Schmitt recommended that any further discussion be held until the applicant has had a chance to be heard if desired. Applicant, Richard Fox, stated he had a letter from Joseph Link, builder, stating that the City Engineer said that 11th Ave. would be vacated at the time the Fox's purchased the home. He stated that he was never informed of the council meeting regarding the development going in and that he feels stuck because he can't build anything in his yard. City Planner stated that the City Engineer at that time is no longer here but in talking to the current City Engineer and the Asst. Engineer who was here at that time, neither were aware of anyone ever saying that 11th Ave. would be vacated. He went on to add that the Fox's name was found on a list of people to be notified of the public hearing regarding approval of the Prairie Estates Plat. City Planner also stated that staff's decision was based strictly on the wording of the code. He added that the applicant may have a hardship situation and that he could apply for a variance for a higher fence or to build a storage shed. BOAA Nov. 3, 1988 - Page three Comm. Forbord stated that the applicant has a unique situation and that City staff did not intentionally leave his name off of the list. Comm. Schmitt stated that in the original development of the property it was not anticipated that the property to the south would be developed in the time frame that it was. He stated that staff has interpreted the ordinance very clearly and that he saw no problem in granting a variance for the proposed changes. He went on to add that staff could be faced with this type of situation at another time. ,He stated that the applicant has the right to petition waiver of the fee due to the unique circumstances of the property. Comm. Forbord suggested that staff research property served by private driveways because this could happen again and again. He went on to add that some of the burden of responsibility falls on the people who buy the property. Applicant asked what time frame he was looking at in requesting a variance. Comm. Schmitt stated it could be put on the agenda for the next regularly scheduled meeting on December 8, 1988. There were no other comments from the audience. Schmitt/Czaja moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Schmitt/Czaja moved to sustain the staff's interpretation of the City Code regarding the definition of a front yard and approve Resolution #549 determining that the portion of the Fox's lot between the house and lith Ave. is the front yard. Motion carried. Schmitt/Czaja moved to enter the letter from Joseph Link dated 8/16/88 into record. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - PETER HAUKOOS Schmitt/Czaja moved to open the public hearing to consider an appeal of staff's interpretation of the City Zoning ordinance regarding the definitions for Class I and Class II Restaurants as they apply to the property located at 221 East First Ave. Motion carried. City Planner stated that the applicant would like to establish a restaurant in a B-3 zoning district. City Code presently allows Class I restaurants as a permitted use in the B-3 zone and does not allow Class II restaurants. Staff has determined that the applicant's proposed restaurant more closely fits the Class II BOAA Nov. 3, 1988 - Page four restaurant category. He stated that the applicant feels that his restaurant fits Class I rather than Class II. Applicant, Pete Haukoos, stated that he had nothing to add other than the letter he sent to the City Planner but will answer any questions staff might have. Comm. Czaja asked the applicant how exactly his restaurant would operate. Applicant stated that his proposed submarine sandwich restaurant would serve customers that come in and place an order from a menu on the wall or a hand held menu from the counter. He said that it takes 2-4 minutes to prepare a sandwich and that they are not pre -made but made to order. The applicant stated that 80% of the customers do eat inside. He went on to add that the customers orders would be brought to their table. Comm. Schmitt questioned how this restaurant would differ from the submarine sandwich restaurant on Hwy. 169 as he believed there is no seating available and the food is taken out. The applicant stated that his restaurant will contain approximately 50 seats, 28 of which are inside and 20 will be outside after the building next door is knocked out. Food can be prepared quickly due to the fact that it is prepared cold. Comm. Czaja stated he felt the applicant's restaurant leans more toward a Class I restaurant because the Class II category includes drive-ins. He feels that the applicant intends to make it a traditional restaurant. Comm. Forbord asked what the parking requirements were. City Planner stated that there are no parking requirements in a B-3 zone. Comm. Schmitt brought up the issue of code enforcement. He stated that the restaurant's primary concentration is take-out in which most customers take their order back to their desks for lunch. He stated that Class II restaurants are fast food convenience and that the Class I category is clearly traditional restaurants and does not talk about take-out. He stated the reason they don't have Class II restaurants in the CBD is; a) lack of parking and b) highway right of way. Newton Parker, Housing Inspector, voiced his opinion in that he feels the proposed restaurant will improve the property and be a good addition to downtown. He is familiar with Subway and his experience is that most food is eaten inside. BOAA Nov. 3, 1988 - Page five There were no additional comments from the audience. Czaja/Schmitt moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Forbord/Czaja moved to pass Resolution #550, overriding the decision of City Staff finding that the proposed Subway Sandwich and Salad Establishment to be located at 221 East First Ave. is a Class I restaurant subject to the following: 1) The restaurant must have available a minimum of 28 seats inside and 20 outside. 2) The food is served to the table Comm. Schmitt requested that each commission member visit a Subway restaurant by the next commission meeting. Discussion was held in comparing the proposed restaurant with other fast food restaurants. Members discussed that the ordinance is vague and that it should be amended. Motion carried with Comm. Schmitt opposed. Chrmn. Rockne advised the applicant and audience of the 7 day appeal period. Schmitt/Forbord moved that staff be directed to provide word clarification of Class I and Class II definitions of restaurants. Motion carried. There was no other business. Czaja/Forbord moved to adjourn. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. /D SHAKOPEE PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Session Shakopee, Minnesota November 3, 1988 Chrmn. Rockne called the meeting to order at 8:52 with Comm. Czaja, Schmitt, Forbord and Allen present. Absent: Vice Chrmn. Foudray and Comm. Stafford. Also present: Doug Wise, City Planner. Schmitt/Czaja moved to approve the agenda with the addition of 4 items under Other Business. Motion carried. Czaja/Schmitt moved to approve the September 22, 1988 meeting minutes. Motion carried with Chrmn. Rockne and Comm. Allen abstaining due to their absence. Schmitt/Allen moved to defer approval of the October 6, 1988 meeting minutes until the next meeting due to a spelling error on page 5 and Commission comments missing on page S. Motion carried with Comm. Forbord abstaining due to his absence. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - DENNIS FETZER Schmitt/Czaja moved to open the public hearing to consider a conditional use permit to operate a cabinet making business from the property located at 1850 County Rd. 89. Motion carried. City Planner stated that the applicant originally received a conditional use permit in 1983 to operate a cabinet shop in an accessory building on his property. The applicant never followed through with the business and the permit became void after 1 year. He stated that the applicant is currently constructing a new accessory building in the rear part of the property to use for the cabinet making business and therefore, has applied for a new conditional use permit. Comm. Schmitt questioned if the application states that there will be 3 additional employees. City Planner stated that the application states that there will be 2 FT employees, including the owner and 2 PT employees but that the code only allows 1 employee outside of the household. Comm. Schmitt questioned why to application was not just denied due to the 3 employees. City Planner stated that the applicant has been informed of the City Code requirement and that he must comply. Since all other aspects of the application were in order, the application was processed. Planning Commission Nov. 3, 1988 - Page 2 Applicant, Dennis Fetzer, stated he would be glad to answer any questions staff might have. Comm. Czaja wondered why the original permit issued in 1983 was not used. Applicant stated that he had toomanyemployees at that time to reduce to 1 to comply with the code. He stated he has changed some of his procedures and has no problem with the criteria set forth by staff now. He stated in response to a question regarding hazardous chemicals that he uses lacquers and paints that need to be stored in a certain manner. He claimed that the Fire Marshall saw no problem with his set up and that federal containers are supplied and picked up for disposal. There were no additional comments from the audience. Comm. Forbord raised two points for discussion: 1) should there be a time limit for review every year in the number of employees and 2) change #4 in staff's conditions to add the word disposal after ventilation. Schmitt/Forbord moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Schmitt/Czaja moved to approve Conditional Use Permit Resolution #546 allowing for a home occupation to operate a cabinet making business subject to the following conditions: 1. The entire business must be contained within the accessory building, with no exterior storage or indication of the business. 2. only one person from outside the household may be employed. 3. Signing be limited to a single two square foot sign. 4. Compliance with State Fire Marshall Regulations regarding ventilation, disposal and the storage of lacquer and paint products. 5. Compliance with road weight restrictions. 6. This conditional use permit shall become void if this property is subdivided. 7. Subject to an annual review. Motion carried. Chrmn. Rockne advised the applicant and audience of the 7 day appeal period. Planning Commission Nov. 3, 1988 - Page three Comm. Czaja raised a point for discussion that there is a $75.00 fee for appeals. City Planner stated that was correct. Money must accompany the request for an appeal. Chrmn. Rockne stated that staff should advise applicants that there is a fee for appeals. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - EDWARD JEURISSEN Czaja/Schmitt moved to open the public hearing to consider a conditional use permit to move -in a dwelling upon the property located east of Cty. Rd. 79 and north of Cty. Rd. 72. Motion carried. City Planner stated that the property is 39 acres located in Sect. 31 in the South end of the city. It is a rural area. The proposed dwelling would sit approximately 650 ft. back from the road and 100 ft. from the property line. He added that it is a gravel road that is not traveled much. Comm. Czaja questioned if the proposed dwelling is equal or greater in value to adjacent dwellings as City Code requires. City Planner stated that there are a variety of different valued homes in the area; homes of lessor as well as greater value. He also stated that there are no adjacent homes and that the nearest house is 1/2 - 1 mile away. Comm. Forbord asked what the value of the property is. Willie welter, representative for the applicant, stated that the value of the house is approximately $60,000 excluding land. He also stated that 11 acres of the 40 are high and dry and that the rest is wetland. There were no additional comments from the audience. Schmitt/Allen moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Czaja/Allen moved to approve Conditional Use Permit Resolution #547 to move -in a dwelling upon the property located East of Cty. Rd. 79 and North of Cty. Rd. 72 subject to the following: 1) The dwelling unit must meet all requirements of the Building Code within six (6) months after it is moved. 2) The applicant must post a certified check, letter of credit, or bond with the City equal in amount to the cost of abating all Code deficiencies. Planning Commission Nov. 3, 1988 - Page four 3) The applicant must provide the City with proof of ownership of the property prior to issuance of the building permits. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - PARK DEDICATION FEES Schmitt/Czaja moved to open the public hearing to consider amending Shakopee City Code, Section 12.07, Subd. 6 to increase the required cash contributions in lieu of land dedication for park purposes for new subdivisions. Motion carried. City Planner stated that the current dedication fee schedule was adopted in 1981 and should be amended to bring fees more in line with the value of the land. He stated that the park director contacted him and recommended not to change the fees at this time but to wait for the completion of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends to change the fees now and review and make any necessary adjustments later upon completion of the Comprehensive Plan. Comm. Schmitt, in response to staff's memo to the Commission regarding park dedication fees, stated that 10% of the fair market land value for commercial/industrial property is high. He also brought to the commission's attention an error on Attachment #2 under the Savage column. The 5 Acre Industrial Office Park line should read $3,250/acre not $350/acre. He stated that the single family home benefits from the park land. City Planner stated that existing park dedication fees for industrial land is 5% on a small parcel and that the purpose in increasing the fees is to bring them in line with other communities. Comm. Forbord stated that he feels it is appropriate to adjust park dedication fees and institute a trail plan but questioned why the Park Director wants staff to wait until the Comprehensive Plan is complete. He also stated that the person who ultimately pays is the buyer of the home and that they should not compare Shakopee with communities that have far greater populations and needs than Shakopee has. Comm. Czaja stated the need for an analysis of where the parks are to be and how much money is needed. Comm. Schmitt stated that in the 7 years the ordinance has been in effect, there has not been one new park constructed and further added that the clean-up, etc. of existing parks is done by volunteers. He feels that: a) there should be a plan b) questioned what funding is needed; and c) the community should be told what they'll be getting for their money. Planning Commission Nov. 3, 1988 - Page five City Planner stated he could provide the Commission with additional information on how much money is in the fund and where it has been spent. He said he would also provide information on planned expenditures for the next few years. There were no comments from the audience. Schmitt/Czaja moved to continue the public hearing to the December 8, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried. DISCUSSION - VACATION OF MINNESOTA AND MARKET STREETS NORTH OF BLUFF AVE. City Planner stated that the City has received a petition to vacate Minnesota and Market Streets North of Bluff from the property owner of all the land between the two streets and the DNR which owns the property on the opposite sides of the streets. He added that these streets are platted streets that have never been developed. City Planner said the staff is recommending approval of the vacation because it will facilitate the planned development of the property. Comm. Schmitt stated he recalled a discussion regarding the potential emergence of Bluff Ave. as a development area. He also feels that by vacating the two streets, the City would be giving up two trail accesses. Chrmn. Rockne stated he believed that there are some utilities that run either through one of these streets or behind one. City Planner stated that there is a storm sewer in one of the streets and that an easement would be retained for that. Comm. Forbord agreed with Comm. Schmitt. There is no reason to vacate. No one has come forward to say they are going to build or anything. He feels there may be a need for these streets in the future. Comm. Schmitt stated that council has set a hearing for this issue on November 15, 1988 that has already been publicized. Schmitt/Forbord moved to recommend to the City Council denial of the vacation of Minnesota and Market Streets North of Bluff Ave. pending the Comprehensive Plan review of the Bluff area and its future benefit to the community either as park, trail or developable land and by giving up these two parcels, the community gives up access to the trail which might have merit and value in the future, which also needs to be considered in terms of the Comprehensive Plan. Comm. Schmitt called for the question. Motion carried. Planning Commission Nov. 3, 1988 - Page six Motion to deny the vacation, carried unanimously. DISCUSSION - DAY CARE CENTERS City Planner stated that an industry wanted to locate a daycare center on the same property with the business for its employees. In reviewing the City Code, staff found that it does not address daycare centers so they put together a proposal for the Commission's review and discussion. The proposal divides day care centers into two classifications. Class I includes facilities not in an individual home. Class II relates to daycare located in the home. Daycare centers are licensed by the state and county. Discussion was held with concerns about both classes. Issues were raised as to what effect this proposal would have on existing daycare facilities in homes. Why it is not allowed in the CBD and allowed in the Shoreline district. All members agreed that it is an issue that must be addressed and that the City should have some control and regulations. However, more information is needed as far as state and county licensing, where the current licensed facilities are and how many there are, how in home daycare centers can affect property values, etc. Schmitt/Allen moved to direct staff to do further research on: 1) zoning for daycare facilities and to 2) bring back a redraft of the proposed ordinance amendment for the January commission meeting. Motion carried. DISCUSSION - SETBACKS IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS ABUTTING RR City Planner stated that the zoning code allows for zero setback on the side yard when abutting a RR and that there is no differential regarding rear yard setback if abutting a- RR. He added that staff started research regarding this but at this time any input is welcomed. Staff's recommendation is for further research. Czaja/Schmitt moved to direct City staff to do further research on the subject of building setbacks from RR tracks and come back to the Commission at a later date with the results of the research and a recommendation. Discussion was held regarding an applicant (Bush Lake Industries) and that council eliminated the provision that they had to build their rear storage tanks first in order to place them at the appropriate setback. If the applicant now chooses to build more tanks, he has created a hardship for himself which would require a variance. The Commission does not have to grant the variance if the applicant created his own hardship. Planning Commission Nov. 3, 1988 - Page seven Discussion was held regarding the term "railroad" and the effect of service spurs. Comm. Schmitt called for the question. Motion carried. Discussion - Floating Homes City Planner stated that Comm. Forbord had requested info relating to if there are particular regulations that apply to house boats. After review by staff, he stated that the DNR requires all floating structures, whether residence or not, be licensed and follow certain requirements including sanitary. He also stated that the next step would be for staff to contact other cities regarding their ordinances on the subject. Comm. Forbord stated that if they are docking in Shakopee they should be regulated. Schmitt/Czaja moved to direct staff to do further research on the issue of floating homes and come back to a future Planning Commission meeting with the results of the research and recommendations. Other Business - Shakouee Basin Water Manaaement Oraanization City Planner stated for information purposes, that a water management plan is being developed by the Shakopee Water Management Organization (WHO). The WMO includes representatives from Shakopee, Prior Lake, Louisville Twnshp and Jackson Twnshp. He stated that Commission members are welcome to come in and look at the book that is kept in the City Engineer's office if they need more information or would like to submit comments. Other Business - Advertisina Sians City Planner stated Gardner Bros. Homes wants to put a sign by Marschall Road and the code doesn't allow off site real estate signs. He questioned if staff should look at the ordinance or not. Discussion was held that they are allowed a 4 sq. ft. directional sign. Commission members discussed that they want to help businesses but if they allow this sign, where do they stop. The Commission feels that a 4 sq. ft. directional sign should take care of their needs. Other Business Comm. Czaja stated that he and two of his neighbors have been cited by the Code Enforcement Officer for vehicles without Planning Commission Nov. 3, 1988 - Page eight current licenses. He stated that these vehicles are used strictly within their property bounds and not used on public roads. City Planner stated that these requirements are not contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Discussion was held regarding what other communities do. Comm. Schmitt stated that the ordinance must provide for farm vehicles and suggested it be referred to staff. City Planner stated that staff will do further research. Other Business - Fish Houses Comm. Forbord questioned if there was any ordinance on people storing fish houses in their yards. City Planner stated that he was not aware of any regulations but that he will check on it. Other Business Comm. Forbord questioned if there was any ordinance for satellite dishes. He stated that most municipalities have some sort of ordinance and that staff should review this issue. Commissioner Forbord requested a update regarding the action taken by Mr. Link and the Council regarding the variances for the car wash at 612 East First Ave. Staff reviewed the history of the request and action by the City Council. Schmitt/Forbord moved to request that the Assistant City Attorney review the variance appeal and action taken by the City Council. Motion carried. Forbord/Schmitt moved to adjourn. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 11:33 P.M. SHAKOPEE COALITION MEETING MINUTES November 1, 1988 The meeting was called to order at 4:30 p.m. by Chairman Brian Norris in the Citizens State Bank meeting room. Members present: Kathy TenEyck (Shakopee Jaycees), Sister Esther Wagner (SACS), Jerry Knutson (Minnesota Correctional Facility), Judy Techam (Shakopee Community Recreation), Chuck Dustrud (Scott County Human Services), Barry Stock (City of Shakopee), Phyllis Hussong (Community Action Agency), Debra Bates (Shakopee Community Education) , Claude Kolb (Shakopee K of C) , and Brian Norris (Citizens State Bank). All members introduced themselves and the organization that they were representing. Phyllis Hussong gave the Coalition the October Food Shelf Report. She reported that the food shelf served 212 households and 733 individuals in the month of October. 60 households were from Shakopee representing 193 individuals. The figures for Scott County were 132 households served and 480 individuals. Carver County's figures were 80 households served and 253 individuals. Phyllis also reported that there would be a volunteer meeting the morning of November 7th at the agency for the holiday project. She noted that letters were sent to the various organizations and businesses soliciting donations and referrals of volunteers. The Thanksgiving distribution will take place in the afternoon on November 22nd.. Packaging for the Thanksgiving project will begin at approximately 8 a.m. on November 22nd. Food will be picked up at the back door of the food shelf. The Christmas Holiday project distribution will take place on December 15, 16 & 17 at the Shakopee Valley Mall. Packaging for the holiday project will take place on December 14th. Volunteers are still needed for these two projects. Phyllis also reported that the Scout Food Drive will take place on November 5th and that the Scouts will be picking up materials from your doorstep or at the drop off site located in the Community Action Agency parking lot. Phyllis noted that the Scott Carver Coop was also collecting toys and clothing for the holidays. She noted that any toys that were dropped off should be in new or like new condition. Phyllis also noted that teenagers were the most difficult to provide gifts for. She stated that there was usually a shortage of gifts for that age group and suggested that clothing would be a good idea for a gift for teenagers. Finally, Phyllis noted that the food share program would be beginning at the Shepherd of the Lake Church. Any one interested should contact Pat Wilson, in Prior Lake at the Shepherd of the Lake Lutheran Church. Phyllis also noted that if any one was in need of volunteers they should also contact Pat Wilson so that she might direct volunteers to their I' organization. Barry Stock reported that the City of Shakopee has recently received preliminary LAWCON grant funding for the development of East Side Park. He noted that the park was adjacent to the Jr. High property. Proposed improvements for the park include the construction of a basketball court, hockey rink and general grading and plantings. Mr. Stock also noted that the City of currently putting together a grant application for the Minnesota Celebrate 1990 Program. This program is sponsored by the State of Minnesota in anticipation for the 1990 Olympic Festival. The grant application being proposed includes improvements to Huber Park. Huber Park is adjacent to the Minnesota River near Downtown Shakopee. The improvements to Huber Park, it may be possible to hold the Derby Days Celebration in the area of Huber Park in 1990. Mr. Stock also noted that the City Administrator position has been advertised and that the City Council has not appointed an interim Acting City Administrator. Mr. Stock thought that the Council would act on the interim City Administrator at the Council meeting on November 1, 1988. Jerry Knutson reported that the Correctional Facility was at or near capacity. She noted that she has seen an increase in the number of repeat offenders in the last years. She also noted that the majority of the persons that tend to be repeat offenders are associated with drug related crimes. Doug Dustrud .reported that Scott County had the need for volunteer drivers. He noted that volunteer drivers were used to transport handicapped or persons in need of medical treatment. Drivers received a payment of $.25 per mile. If any of the volunteer organizations knew of any one who was interested in becoming a volunteer drives they should contact the Scott County Volunteer Coordinator (LoYen Matuska). Claude Kolb reported that the Scout building in Lions Park was proceeding very nicely. He also noted that the Lions were having their turkey bingo on November 11th at the K.C. Hall between 7:30 P.M. and 12:00 P.M. Chairman Norris stated that it was that time of the year to discuss the appointment of a new chairperson for the Coalition. Mr. Norris asked if any one was interested in filling his position as Chairperson. Mr. Norris also stated that he enjoyed serving as Chair of the Coalition and would continue to do so if no one else was interested in the position. It was the consensus of those in attendance that Mr. Norris should remain as Chair of the Coalition. The next meeting of the Coalition is scheduled for December 6th at 4:30 P.M. Barry Stock Acting Secretary Y1i a�SViV�i��T7�}J�7:1 REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 6, 1988 Mayor Dolores Lebens presiding 1] Roll Call at 7:00 P.M. 2] Resolutions of Appreciation for Corporate Foundation Grants to the Fire Department - Res. No. 2993 and 2994 31 Recess for H.R.A. Meeting 4] Re -convene 5] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 6] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS 7] Approval of Consent Business - (All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda.) *8] Approval of Minutes of November 1st and 15th, 1988 9] Communications: 10] Public Hearings: a] 7:30 P.M. - Proposed Project for Celebrate Minnesota 1990 b] 7:45 P.M. - Variance Request from the Parking Restric- tions by Donald and Soloma MCElderry, 1831 W. 6th Ave. c] 8:30 P.M. - Vacation of 6th Avenue East of Main Street 11] Boards and Commissions: Energy and Transportation: *a] Dial -A -Ride Bid Specifications *b] 1989 Regional Transit Board Contract for Transportation Services - Res. No. 2992 121 Reports from Staff: (Council will take a 10 minute break around 9:00 P.M.) *a] Murphy's Landing Audit b] Murphy's Landing Request *c] Approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Annexation Area *d] Refund of Check Submitted by Canterbury Downs for PUD Administrative Waiver zogeagsTuTmpV A4T3 buT40V g;ezg •g sruu90 N'd 00:L qe 896T 'OZ aagmaoea '.Cepseny oq uano CPV [ST [0 Oflds ggTM buTgaam guTOC ao3 agep a 40aTas [q g46Z 2aqu9AON P9ATaoaa dau2044V AgTO aqq moa; soucam buTaq - TTounoo AgTO aqq pue 3ndS uaemgaq dTgsuOTgeTaa ;o uoTuTdo TebaT uo �SauaoggV dgTO g4TM uoTSSRJSTQ [e :ssauTsng aagg0 [VI (asTgTH) 0861 ;o spuog 4uamaa0ui xey •0•g ;o uoTgdmapag buTZTaoggnV '8862 'ON •sag CO gabPng 686T agg buTgdoPV '686Z 'ON 'sag [q gaXaeyl og aaomTTTd - anueAv q49 zo; gaodag -zapaO pue uoT4Tad 3o AoenbapV buTaeToaa '1662 'ON 'sag [e :sa0ueucpa0 pue suoTgnTosag [CT a0uegsTssV zaguTM aogoezguoO [z PuZ asnOH aTzTead og sguaMeAoadal ao; gseO ;o pun;ag [b, 451 sagegsg OlaTead ao; gTpaaO ;o aaggaa ;o aoTgonpag [dx guamaaabV uoTgnoasozd ,{gunOO/dgTO [ox gaed suegS [u• T# aapaO 9bueg0 '409Coad anuaAV g4TT 9-886T Im* T# aspa0 abueg0 'gOa Coad zanaS Xav4 ueS 'aAV q49 Z -886T [Ts 98'9 W 8TZ$ 90 gunomV UT sTTTB anozddV [x spTg eoueansuT dnoag aadoTdmg [C aoT;30 s,aogTpnV Aqunoo 4400S bUTATonul sanssI ;o uoTgnTosag [T* sae0 Penbs ;o esegoand [qx 686T zo; 40ez4uoO TeOTa40aTg [b. 0661-686T ao; goeaguoO buTMOI [;,t buTPITng ggno,T dgTunmmoo [a :panuTquoo ;;egS moa; sgaodag [ZT -Z- abed 886T '9 aagma0a0 V(lNaE)V 3AI,LVINSI MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk (:[/ RE: Resolutions of Appreciation for Corporate Foundation Grants to the Shakopee Fire Department DATE: November 30, 1988 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND: On November 15, 1988 Council was advised by Mr. Joe Ries, Fire Chief, of two recent corporate foundation grants given to the Fire Department. Council asked that resolutions of appreciation be prepared for the two corporations who had given the grants. Attached for Council consideration are resolutions of appreciation for Rahr Malting Co. and Inland Container Corporation for their generous donations. Both Companies have been contacted and will have a representative present to receive a copy of the resolution. ACTION RECOMMENDED: 1) Offer Resolution No. 2993, A Resolution of Appreciation to Rahr Malting Company, and move its adoption. 2) Offer Resolution No. 2994, A Resolution of Appreciation to Inland Container Corporation, and move its adoption. JSC/tiv RESOLUTION NO. 2993 i�lwtiN-1*)NAW q 4G7.ff{imiT\:ki4R1kM4KeweliTi7X1Vn WHEREAS, the Shakopee Fire Department recently received a Corporate Foundation Grant from Rahr Malting Company in the amount of $5,000.00; and WHEREAS, the check was deposited in the Fire Department Equipment Fund and will be used to purchase new equipment; and WHEREAS, a new generator set has been purchased in the amount of $4,300.00 and is being installed by the Fire Department members in one of the pumper trucks, along with a cord reel and quartz lightings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Shakopee City Council, on behalf of the Fire Department and citizens of the community, does hereby extend its thanks and appreciation to Rahr Malting Company for their Corporate Foundation Grant to the Shakopee Fire Department. Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 6th day of December, 1988. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of , 1988. Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 2994 A RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO INLAND CONTAINER CORPORATION WHEREAS, the Shakopee Fire Department recently received a Corporate Foundation Grant from Inland Container Corporation in the amount of $800.00; and WHEREAS, the check was deposited in the Fire Department Equipment Fund and will be used to purchase new equipment; and WHEREAS, a new generator set has been purchased in the amount of $4,300.00 and is being installed by the Fire Department members in one of the pumper trucks, along with a cord reel and quartz lightings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Shakopee City Council, on behalf of the Fire Department and citizens of the community, does hereby extend its thanks and appreciation to Inland Container Corporation for their Corporate Foundation Grant to the Shakopee Fire Department. 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. ty Attorney TENTATIVE AGENDA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting December 6, 1988 Chairman Steven Clay presiding 1. Roll Call at 7:00 P.M. 2. Approve the Minutes of the November 1, 1988 and November 15, 1988 Meetings 3. Shakopee Valley Square TIF Project 4. Other Business a. co 5. Adjourn to December 20, 1988 Dennis R. Kraft Executive Director PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Regular Session Shakopee, MN November 1, 1988 Chairman Clay called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. with Comm. Wampach, Vierling, Scott and Zak present. Also present were John K. Anderson, City Administrator; Dennis Kraft, Executive Director; Julius A. Coller II, City Attorney, Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; and Mayor Lebens. Wampach/Vierling moved to approve the October 18, 1988, minutes. Motion carried unanimously. Dennis Kraft reviewed the negotiations the City has been doing with the Bergquist Companies on their potential development of the relocation of the headquarters of their firm in the eastern part of the city of Shakopee. Tax increment incentive has been offered them in the amount of three years of gross tax increment generated by the value of the project. He said at this point it looks like they want more than we are willing to give them at this point. Wampach/Scott moved to direct the appropriate City officials to inform Bergquist Companies that the City of Shakopee would like to offer them industrial revenue bond financing, an amount equal to three years of tax increment captured from the project. Motion carried unanimously. Dennis Kraft Executive Director Carol Schultz Recording Secretary HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SPECIAL REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MN NOV. 15, 1988 Commissioner Clay called the meeting to order with Comm. Wampach, Vierling, Scott and Zak present. Also present were Mayor Lebens; Dennis Kraft, Executive Director; Julius A. Coller II, City Attorney; David Hutton, City Engineer; and Judith S. Cox, City Clerk. Dennis Kraft reviewed the Shakopee Valley TIF project No. 6 that relates to the Shakopee Valley Campground facility. On Oct. 18 a 4 week extension had been granted to Mr. Bakken to secure financing for the project area. A $50,000 letter of credit was submitted with this project, at this point it looks like Mr. Bakken is close to obtaining financing both in the form of a SBA guaranteed loan for the campground and also for the motel expansion but at this time he does not have financing for either project. As of January 2, 1989, the project will have a minimum market value of three million dollars which will result in a considerable increase in the amount of taxes due. Discussion ensued on whether or not to continue the project in its present state of default. Mr. Bakken said his only concern as far as the HRA terminating this agreement off is that the finance company may think that the City is not backing this project. Brian Alton, Mr. Bakken's attorney, stated that there are two relevant factors he wanted the HRA to consider; these are (1) termination of the development agreement might adversely impact the bank's decision to provide project financing, and (2) the drawing upon the $50,000 letter of credit would impose an additional adverse economic impact upon the project. Comm. Scott said he would like to cancel the agreement now and take a look at it again as soon as the financing is in place. Comm. Zak said he would like to give a two week extension to see if the financing is secured by that time. Comm. Wampach asked the Mr. Alton what the delay was in obtaining financing. Mr. Alton replied that the market conditions changed over the past two years and the project has consumed a substantial amount of money. Vierling/Wampach offered Resolution No. 88-7, Resolution Terminating the Amended and Restated Contract for Private Development by and Between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Shakopee, Minnesota and Shakopee Valley Square Properties, and Terminating the Assessment Agreement and Assessor's Certification by and Between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Shakopee Minnesota (the Authority) and Shakopee Valley Square Properties (The Developer) and moved for its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Zak/Scott moved to keep the letter of credit intact until December 6 at which time the BRA will reconsider the disposition of the $50,000 letter of credit. Motion carried with Comm. Vierling opposed. The Executive Director reviewed the Bergquist Company Development Incentive Offer. He said the Bergquist Companies is requesting various financial inducements for them to locate in Shakopee. The City has offered them 3 years of tax increment. It was consensus of the Commission to have Mr. Kraft inform them by letter that the City will provide 3 years of tax increment, and no further economic incentive. Mr. Kraft said MEBCO Industries, Inc. is looking to build a major facility in Shakopee. He said they would like 3 years TIE as provided in the adopted HRA policy, and would also like additional TIE support if they decide to expand within the next 5 years. Vierling/Zak moved to direct the staff to pursue negotiations with MEBCO Industries and attempt to facilitate the location of their headquarter facility and manufacturing plant in the City of Shakopee. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Zak moved to recess until later in the evening. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Zak moved to reconvene at 9:14 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Zak Offered Resolution No. 88-6, A Resolution Approving Tax Increment Pledge Agreement relating to $1,015,000 General Obligation Tax Increment bonds, Series 1988B and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Wampach moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m. Dennis Kraft Executive Director Carol Schultz Recording Secretary J Jou .,2� vi—IRLING CLAY c: 0 WAMACH 2h Y, I� N O ct w vi—IRLING CLAY �k3 MEMO TO: Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Executive Director RE: Shakopee Valley Square TIF Project DATE: December 1, 1988 At the November 15th HRA meeting action was taken to terminate the development and assessment agreements between the City and Shakopee Valley Square Partnership. At that meeting a motion was also made to have the $50,000 letter of credit remain on file with the City and to review this question on December 6th. BACKGROUND - Since the meeting of November 15th, no information has been received relative to financing having been obtained for the above mentioned project. The financial interests of the City are still protected by the letter of credit. RECOMMENDATION• It is recommended that the HILA table this matter until the meeting of December 20, 1988. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to table the letter of credit discussion until December 20. 1988. OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MN NOVEMBER 1, 1988 Mayor Lebens called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Cncl. Clay, Vierling, Zak, Scott and Wampach present. Also present were John K. Anderson, City Administrator; Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director; David Hutton, City Engineer; Julius A. Culler II, City Attorney; and Judith Cox, City Clerk. Wampach/Vierling moved to recess for an HRA meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Vierling moved to reconvene to City Council at 7:20. Motion carried unanimously. Liaison reports were given by council members. Mayor Lebens asked if there was anyone from the audience who wished to address anything not on the agenda. There was no response. Vierling/Wampach moved to approve the consent business. Roll call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Vierling/Wampach moved to direct the City Administrator to contact Representative Sikorski and our legislators asking that they carefully weigh benefit against cost when considering National Primary Drinking Water Regulations and that legislation -- provide funds for implementation of any new regulations. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion ensued on the AMM Policy priorities for the 1989-1990 Legislative Policy. Mayor Lebens said her concerns were with property taxes, comparable worth, tax increment financing (TIF), street and highway funding and the seat belt law. The City Administrator said that staffs concern was in regards to the Suburban Rate Authority with regard to the combined sewer separation funding. He said the League policy is to finance storm sewer and sanitary sewer separation in the City's of Minneapolis and St. Paul through state aid rather than have those cities tackle that. Mayor Lebens/Vierlingmoved to vote against the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities policy regarding Tax Increment Financing. Motion fails with Cncl. Clay, Vierling, Scott, Wampach and Zak opposed. Wampach/Vierling moved to keep the seat belt law in effect. Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Wampach, Vierling, and Zak Noes: Mayor Lebens, Clay and Scott Motion fails City Council November 1, 1988 Page -2- Vierling/Wampach moved to drop AMM's policy for combined sewer separation funding for Minneapolis and St. Paul. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Wampach moved to support the following three items for the AMM policy. Comparable Worth Property Tax Reform Street Funding Motion carried. Vierling/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2981, A Resolution Opposing the Spreading Upon the State Treasury of Any Replacement Funding for Minneapolis and St. Paul Combined Sewer Separation Projects and moved its adoption. (Motion approved under consent business). Wampach/Vierling moved to open the public hearing on Vacation of Utility Easement in Meadows 1st Addition. Motion carried unanimously. The City Clerk said that this was a gas easement which was erroneously indicated on the plat as a utility easement and that this was more or less a housekeeping item. The City Council should determine if this easement serves any public purpose. Mayor Lebens asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak. Mr. Wayne Fleck, Developer, stated that it is correct that this is only a gas easement. - Clay/Vierling moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2980, A Resolution Vacating a Utility Easement With Meadows lst Addition and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Zak moved to open the public hearing on the Vacation of 6th Avenue East of Main Street. Motion carried unanimously. The City Clerk said the City received a petition from John and Ione Theis requesting the vacation of 6th Avenue East of Main Street. She said if the vacation is successful the proposed plan is to sell the property which will be made into three lots each of which would be large enough for a twin home. She said it is the consensus of the staff that 6th Avenue not be vacated at this time. She said if the street is vacated the catch basin should be removed as well as the curb and gutter and also a curb should be constructed north and south along main street. The restoration work could be performed by the new property owner. The Planning Commission is recommending approval of the vacation. Mayor Lebens asked if there were any comments from the audience. There were none. City Council November 1, 1988 Page -3- Wampach/Vierling moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Wampach moved that the 6th Avenue East of Main Street be vacated and direct staff to prepare the appropriate vacation resolution and notifying the abutting property owners that they are responsible for completing the restoration of the area and a deposit of the estimated funds should be made with the City in the amount of 110% of the estimate. Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Clay, Vierling, Scott, Zak, Wampach and Mayor Lebens Noes: None Motion carried. The City Administrator asked that staff check into the manner of — the -development --and review the lot split regulations. Wampach/Vierling moved to open the public hearing on Improvements to Alley Between Lewis and Holmes and between 6th and 7th by bituminous surfacing. Motion carried unanimously. The City Engineer said that Sept. 20 the City accepted a petition ordering a feasibility report for the improvements to the alley in Block 81. He reviewed the feasibility report with the Council. The petition that was received was for adding bituminous concrete on a gravel base. There are numerous driveways that Access off this alley. There will need to be some grading done also. ' There is also a..substantial dip at the east end of the alley, and the sidewalks and approaches will need to be replaced. Total project cost is estimated to be about $6,000. There was some discussion on the assessment of this project and how it would affect the property owner. Mayor Lebens asked if there was anyone from the audience who wished to address this issue. Chris Miller, one of the homeowners of a 120' lot, said he is aware of the additional cost of the project. Bernice Caspers, Lot 7, had a concern on the drainage in the alley. Cncl. Clay said the center should be lowered and the drainage would then run down the center of the alley. Zak/Wampach moved to close public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2979, A Resolution Ordering an Improvement and the Preparation of Plans and Specification for the Alley in Block 81, Project No. 1989-1 and moved for its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Clay moved to open the public hearing on Appeal by Clete Link from the Board of Adjustments & Appeals denial of a variance for setback requirements for a car wash at 612 East First Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. City Council November 1, 1988 Page -4- The City Planner said Clete Link requested several variances for construction of a car wash at 612 East First Avenue. The original project was located on 2 lots which are each 60 feet wide for a total of 120 feet. The building which is 76 feet wide will not have the required setbacks. The City Code requires a 15 foot setback from the street right-of-way for a parking lot. Since the Board of Adjustments & Appeals denial, Clete Link has added an additional lot which enabled him to meet the required setbacks for the building and parking lot. Mr. Link is still requesting a variance for the setbacks for the parking lot. Cncl. Vierling said that she would like to see the setbacks adhered to because this is a street that is used a lot. Cncl. Scott said he did not approve of the way that this request was handled by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and he felt that - the Council should go along with this variance request. Clete Link said he is requesting an 8 foot green area instead of the required 15 foot green area in the front due to the width of the driveway for the vehicles coming into the car wash. Discussion ensued on the criteria involved in getting a variance and what circumstances may apply. One of the criteria is if there is a hardship that the applicant can prove. Cncl. Clay felt that without a hardship being proved - that- the Council should stay with the required setbacks. Scott/Wampach moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Scott/Wampach moved that the City Council override the decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and grant the variance requested by Mr. Link for the parking lot setbacks. (Variance Res. No. CC-537, Variance of setback requirements for a parking lot) Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Wampach, Scott, Zak, and Mayor Lebens Noes: Cncl. Clay and Vierling Motion carried. Zak/Clay moved that a study on setbacks in this area be drafted by Mr. Wise and passed on the Planning Commission for reevaluation and eventually comeback to the Council for review and approval. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner reviewed the warning citation that was issued to Donald MCElderry for the parking of a semi truck on their property at 1831 West 6th Avenue. He said the city code does not allow parking of a semi truck in a residential area. The MCElderry's have requested a variance to park their truck, they will be building a garage for the truck. City Council November 1, 1988 Page -5- Wampach/Zak moved to have the City Council set a public hearing on the request to park a semi truck on property at 1831 West 6th Avenue for the December 6, 1988 meeting and directed the staff to notify surrounding property owners. This will allow the City Council the opportunity to receive input from the neighborhood before making a final decision. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Wampach offered Ordinance No. 259. An Ordinance of the -- — City Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Shakopee City Code, Chapter 11, enti nd Use Regulation (Zoning)'- by Repealing subd. 11 I of section11.aS anZY-by--enacting-. a New Subd. 11 I of Section 11.05; and by Amending Subd. 3 of Section 11.24 and Subd. 3 Section 11.25 by permitting Animal Hospitals and Veterinary Clinics in Ag and R-1 Zoning District as Conditional Uses; by Repealing Subd. D 3 c of Section 11.60 and by enacting a new Subd. D 3 c of Section 11.60 and by adopting by reference Chapter 1 and Section 11.99, which among other things contain penalty provisions, and moved for its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Zak moved for a 10 minute recess. Motion carried unanimously. Zak/Vierling moved to reconvene at 9:10 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Scott/Wampach moved to table discussion on amending gambling regulations until other interested organizations have a chance for their input, and direct staff to notify these organizations. Motion carried unanimously. The City Clerk reviewed what is an Escrow and Payment Agreement that would be part of a developers agreement as a fourth option for the City to consider to insure that the public improvements will be completed. As the work is completed and inspected and approved by the City the escrow agent would be authorized to make payment to the appropriate contractor. If the developer would default the City could then utilize the money that had been deposited with the escrow agent to complete public improvements. Wampach/Vierling moved to approve the use of an "Escrow and Payment Agreement" by Developer's to guarantee completion of. public improvements within a new subdivision; this being in addition to the cash, letter of credit, and bond now accepted by the City. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Zak moved to approve the use of a contract bond (not a performance bond) by the Developer to guarantee completion of public improvements within a new subdivision. Motion carried unanimously. City Council November 1, 1988 Page -6- Wampach/Zak moved to authorize proper City officials to enter into a contract with the State of Minnesota to provide fire protection at the Minnesota Correction Facility at 1010 West 6th Avenue at an annual fee of $1,200.00 plus $200.00 per hour for any calls. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Wampach moved to appoint Gerald Poole to the position of permanent police sergeant. (Approved under consent business). _ Vierling/Wampach moved to authorize staff to Mise for bids to obtain a vendor to tow -and -store vehicles for a two year period commencing January 1, 1989. (Approved under consent business). Vierling/Wampach authorize the execute an electrical contract remainder of the 1988 operating business). appropriate city officials to with Terry Krominga for the year. (Approved under consent Vierling/Wampach moved to authorize the proper City officials to purchase a Caterpillar 140g Motor grader from Ziegler, Inc., for the net amount of $127,546.00 which includes the trade-in of City unit #105, as proposed. (Approved under consent business). The City Engineer reviewed the Shakopee Water Management Organization. He said it consists of the City of Shakopee, Prior Lake, Louisville Township and Jackson Township. The WMO was formed in 1985. Wampach/Zak moved to direct the City Engineer to submit a formal response to the Shakopee WMO by December 1, 1988 regarding the review and comment of the Water Management Plan (509 plan) and solicit comments from various staff or Boards as directed by Council. Motion carried unanimously. The City Engineer addressed Adams street which is currently a gravel road from 6th to 3rd Avenue. Mr. Joe Notermann brought this to the City's attention with regards to dust control. It was his recommendation that the City order a feasibility report to be done in 1989. Vierling/Wampach moved to direct staff to notify Mr. Notermann of the current City dust control policy and the future of Adams Street. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Vierling moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution ordering a feasibility report on Adams Street, between 6th Avenue and 3rd Avenue in 1989. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Zak moved to direct staff to develop a long range plan for eliminating or upgrading all remaining gravel roads in urban Shakopee and submit this plan to the Planning Commission for a recommendation to City Council. City Council November 1, 1988 Page -7- The City Engineer reviewed the OSM Contract Extension saying that a Contract Extension Agreement from the Consultant Orr-Schelen- Mayeron & Associates, Inc., had been received for preliminary surveys for several proposed 1989 projects. Mayor Lebens said she had a concern as to whether or not a feasibility report had already been done on 3rd Avenue. Vierling/Clay moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the Contract Extension Agreement with Orr-Schelen- Mayeron & Associates Inc. in the amount of $12,500.00 to complete the field surveys for 3rd Avenue Reconstruction, Bluff Avenue, Marschall Road, Block 55 Alley, and Block 81 Alley Projects providing no duplication of work already done on Bluff Avenue. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Vierling/Wampach moved to concur with Staff's analysis that stop --_-signs are not warranted at the intersection of 5th and Sommer=i and direct -staff to notify Mrs. Schmidt of the action. (Approved under consent business). The Community Development Director explained that he has received a proposal from Coopers and Lybrand for an amount of $7,500 to review the Murphy's Landing records and provide an audit which he said in his opinion was high. Zak/Vierling moved to instruct the City Administrator to contact other firms outside the City of Shakopee for an estimate on an audit of Murphy's Landing. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Wampach moved to direct the City Administrator to send a letter to M -r. -Johrr Nelson informing him that the shed he owns which is located on City park property must be moved by November 15, 1988 and that he will not be required to remove the vegetation that he planted on City property but that this will become the property of the City of Shakopee and that the City will not compensate him in any way for this material. (Approved under consent business). Wampach/Vierling moved to authorize proper City Officials to sign a one year extension to the ambulance agreement with St. Francis Regional Medical Center increasing the City's subsidy to $1.69 per capita. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Vierling/Wampach moved to direct the Assistant City Attorney to file the Prior Lake -Spring Lake watershed District/City of Shakopee arbitration report with the Court and move the Court to enforce the arbitrator's findings. (Approved under consent business). City Council Page -8- November 1, 1988 The City Administrator reviewed the Joint Powers Agreement with Independent School District 720. He reviewed the changes that were made by the City staff. Cncl. Clay had a concern on the City's tax rate increasing. Vierling/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2982, Approving Joint Powers Agreement with Independent School District #720 and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Vierling, Clay and Wampach Noes: Cncl. Zak, Scott and Mayor Lebens Motion fails. Cncl. Zakaddressedhis opinion on the Joint Powers Agreement and said he feels that education is taking a back seat to salary increases. Vierling/Wampach moved to authorize proper City officials to execute a farm lease with Gene Hauer for 1989 under-tl�zame terms as 1988. (Motion approved under consent business). Clay/Wampach moved to authorize the purchase of a pair of Infotron multiplexors from LOGIS for $3,616.50 and the acquisition of a data line for communication for approximately $755.00. Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Clay, Zak, Wampach, Vierling, and Mayor Lebens Noes: None Motion carried. Cncl. Scott was absent for Roll Call. Vierling/Wampach moved to approve the bills in the amount of $250,565.13. Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Clay, Zak, Wampach, Vierling and Mayor Lebens Noes: None Motion carried. Cncl. Scott was absent for Roll Call. Vierling/Wampach moved to authorize City to pay the delinquent assessments from land acquired from Soo Line in the amount of $267.07 and direct issuance of a check therefore to Scott County and to deliver it to the City Attorney for processing. (Approved under consent business). The City Engineer reviewed the bids that were received on the Upper Valley Drainage Project. He said there were several concerns from the staff regarding the permit requirements for this project. They have received three bids from Minnkota Excavating in the amount of $1,368,319.50; J.P. Norex in the amount of $1,400,008.80; and Lametti & Sons in the amount of $1,434.122.50. It was the Asst. City Attorney's recommendation to reject all bids and rebid after these concerns have been resolved. City Council November 1, 1988 Page -9- Wampach/Vierling moved to reject all bids that were received on September 30, 1988 for Phase I of the Upper Valley Drainage Project No. 1987-5. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Vierling moved to set a date of November 15 for discussion on the Upper Valley Drainage Project. Discussion will be held in the Executive Session. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Wampach moved to receive and file the letter from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission regarding the Establishment of a Future System Charge for Costs Associated with the Improvements of Valley Park Drive, Project No. 1986-11, Resolution No. 2967. Motion carried unanimously. The City Engineer reviewed the concept of a systems charge saying the whole idea was to spread the costs of the Valley Park Drive improvements over the area that would benefit should a frontage road ever be constructed. Vierling/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2967, A Resolution Establishing a Future System Charge for Those Costs Associated with the Improvements of Valley Park Drive from Trunk Highway No. 101 Northerly for Approximately 350 feet Project No. 1986-11, and moved for its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2977, A Resolution Authorizing Execution of a zero percent Loan Agreement with the Metropolitan Council, and moved its adoption. (Motion approved under consent business). The City Engineer reviewed the Preliminary Layout for the T.H. 169/101 Bridge and Mini-Bypass Project. Mayor Lebens had a concern on signing this agreement because the bridge goes over a dedicated city parking lot which is against the law. The City Administrator read the letter received from the League regarding the bridge assessments and whether or not it would be legal. Cncl. Clay asked what recourse the Council would have if the Mayor refuses to sign something that the Council has authorized. The City Attorney replied that they would have to issue proceedings to get her to sign or have the court declare it an authorization without her signature. Clay/Vierling offered Resolution 2978, A Resolution Approving the Preliminary Layout (Layout No. 2A) for the Trunk Highway 169/101 Bridge and Minibypass Project State Project No. 7009-52 and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Clay, Vierling, Zak and Wampach Noes: Mayor Lebens, Cncl. Scott abstained. Motion fails due to lack of majority. Clay/Wampach approved Ordinance No. 258, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, adopting an Official Map for the right- of-Way and Temporary Easement for the Highway 169-101 Bridge and City Council Page -10- November 1, 1988 Minibypass in the City of Shakopee and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Clay, Vierling, Zak and Wampach Noes: Mayor Lebens, Cncl. Scott abstained. Motion fails due to lack of majority. Discussion ensued with Cncl. Scott saying that he was reluctant to vote if the City would have to bring the Mayor to Court just to get an answer to this issue. He said he wants to be assured that this is a legal action for the City to take before he actually makes a move. The City Attorney assured him that this was a legal action for the City to take. Vierling/Wampach moved to reconsider Resolution No. 2978. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2978, A Resolution Approving the Preliminary Layout (Layout No. 2A) for the Trunk Highway 169/101 Bridge and Minibypass Project State Project No. 7009-5002, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Clay, Vierling, Scott, Zak, Wampach Noes: Mayor Lebens Motion carried. Vierling/Zak moved to reconsider Ordinance No. 258. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Zak offered Ordinance No. 258, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, adopting an Official Map for the Right - of -Way and Temporary Easement for the Highway 169-101 Bridge and Mini by-pass in the City of Shakopee. Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Clay, Vierling, Scott, Zak, Wampach Noes: Mayor Lebens Motion carried. It was decided that the Worksession with Gerald Garski and Steve Hurni from the State Dept. of Revenue referencing Scott County Assessing Report, be held on November 29, at 7:00 p.m. Vierling/Zak offered Resolution No. 2976, A Resolution of Appreciation to the City Administrator, John K. Anderson for Outstanding Service to and For the City of Shakopee, and moved its adoption. Mayor Lebens read the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. Gregg Voxland, Finance Director gave an update on the 1989 Local Government Aid, He said the local government aid has been increased by $111,168. Vierling/Clay moved to reconsider Resolution No. 2958, A Resolution Approving 1988 Tax Levy, Collectible in 1989. Motion carried unanimously. City Council Page -11- November 1, 1988 Vierling/Zak moved to amend Resolution No. 2958 by replacing the 1988/89 Levy Amount of $1,738,729 with a new levy amount of $1,730,198. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Clay moved to approve Resolution No. 2958 as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Wampach moved to direct staff to prepare the 1989 Budget reflecting the changes to the draft budget contained in the Finance Director memo dated 11/1/88. Motion carried unanimously. The City Administrator reviewed the items that Council agreed to for the Police Labor Negotiations for 1989. The City Council had three items that they amended and he said at this point the Union is not interested and the next step is to file for arbitration. Clay/Zak moved to direct Mr. Smythe to file a letter of arbitration. Motion carried unanimously. Scott/Zak moved to appoint Dennis Kraft as Interim City Administrator at a salary increase equal to that of the current City Administrator until we select another administrator or keep him in that position. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Scott moved to adjourn to Tuesday, November 15, 1988 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. /lq/ Judith Coxd City Clerk Carol Schultz Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL AAT. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 15, 1988 Mayor Lebens called the meeting to order AT 7:00 p.m. with Cncl. Vierling, Zak, Wampach, Scott, and Clay present. Also present were Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator; Greg Voxland, Finance Director; David Hutton, City Engineer; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; and Julius A. Coller II, City Attorney. Wampach/Zak moved to recess for an BRA meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Vierling moved to reconvene to City Council at 7:41 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Liaison reports were given by councilmembers. Vierling/Zak moved to approve the consent business. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Mayor Lebens recognized anyone in the audience wishing to speak on anything not on the agenda. There was no response. Vierling/Zak moved to approve the minutes of October 18, 1988. (Motion approved under consent business). Vierling/Clay moved to approve the minutes of October 25, 1988. Motion carried with Cncl. Wampach abstaining. Discussion ensued on the report from Ronald Nelson regarding Murphy's Landing. It was the consensus of the Council that the report was not done adequately. Vierling/Wampach moved to receive and file the report from Ronald Nelson regarding Murphy's Landing. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Wampach directed the Acting City Administrator or the Finance Director to contact Mr. Ronald Nelson and explain to him the feelings of the Council regarding his report. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Zak moved that Cncl. Wampach, Clay and Mayor Lebens meet with Robert Vierling regarding his letters to the City Council and try to get these matters resolved. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Zak moved to receive and file the letter from the Metropolitan Council regarding their City of Shakopee Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review (Transportation Plan Amendment - Highway 101/169 Intersection). (Approved under consent business). City Council November 15, 1988 Page -2- Wampach/vierling moved to open the public hearing on the vacation of Market and Minnesota Streets lying north of Bluff Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. The City Clerk reviewed the proposed agreement between the Department of Natural Resources and Robert Sweeney which would provide a trail for the Minnesota Valley Trail. She said they have tentatively reached an agreement and are asking the City of Shakopee to vacate Minnesota and Market streets lying north of Bluff Avenue. Mr. Sweeney has some plans for developing the marina and is agreeable to provide the DNR with a trail easement over a City sewer line. If the vacation takes place it would expand Mr. Sweeney's property to include Market street on the west and Minnesota Street on the east. Mr. Sweeney will only acquire one half of the vacated streets immediately north of Bluff Avenue. Mr. George Muenchow, Community Services was present and he addressed the Council saying he would like to see the City approve this vacation. The State now has the funds to have this trail go all the way to Murphy's Landing which would provide a trail system to be used and enjoyed by many. Terry Forbord, 2103 Bridge Crossing, spoke on behalf of the Planning Commission. He said the Planning Commission's main concern is the waterfront area. He said it was one of the most valuable resources available in this area. He said the Planning Commission supports well planned development of the riverfront but wonders why should city street right of way be vacated for something that does not exist yet. Cncl. Scott asked about the proposed plans for the marina by Mr. Sweeney. Mr. Sweeney said he does indeed have a plan for the marina in the near future. Greg Murray, DNR, read a letter stating the DNR's current position on this matter. He said the DNR is continuing to negotiate with Mr. Sweeney for an acceptable route for the new Minnesota Valley State Trail in the Shakopee area. They request at this time that the vacation of Minnesota and Market streets be delayed until the issues can be resolved. Scott/Clay moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Zak moved to direct staff to start preparing the appropriate vacating resolution for Planning Commission and Council consideration after the City receives the sewer easement and after the agreement has been executed by the DNR and Mr. Sweeney and that this agreement should be completed by April 30, 1989. Motion carried unanimously. City Council November 15, 1988 Page -3- Dennis Kraft reviewed the request by the Planning Commission for a review of the variance appeal regarding variances issued to Clete Link for a car wash at 612 East 1st Avenue. Vierling/Wampach moved to not take any further action regarding Mr. Clete Link's variances for a car wash at 612 East 1st Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. Terry Forbord, member of the Planning Commission, explained that the request was simply a procedural question. Had the variance gone back to Planning Commission with the additional information Council received, there probably would have been no problem with Mr. Link's project. Zak/Scott moved for a 10 minutes recess. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Clay moved to reconvene at 9:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2986, A Resolution Authorizing Issuance, Awarding the Sale, Prescribing the Form and Details and Providing for the Payment of $1,015,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1988B, and moved for its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Clay/Vierling moved to recess for the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Vierling moved to reconvene to City Council. Motion carried unanimously. The City Clerk reviewed the 1989 Fee Schedule. The fees are primarily the same as last year with a few changes. Vierling/Clay offered Resolution No. 2987, A Resolution Adopting 1989 Fee Schedule, and moved for its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Clay moved to authorize the appointment of Officer Russell Lawrence as Detective and authorize a wage increase of $100 per month as provided by Union Contract, effective November 15, 1988. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. There was discussion on whether or not the City wishes to provide radon testing for Shakopee residents. The consensus of the City Council November 15, 1988 Page -4- Council was to not have the City get involved with something that is available in the private sector. Vierling/Clay moved to do nothing on the issue of providing radon testing. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion ensued on the Proposed 1989 League of Minnesota Cities Legislative Policies and Priorities. There was no objection to the policies and priorities as drafted. Vierling/Zak moved to authorize the Fire Department to purchase one Brute No. 2 Power Expander from Smeal Fire Equipment Co. in the amount of $3,250. (Approved under consent business). The City Engineer reviewed the supplemental agreement from Howard Needles Tammen and Bergendoff for the T.H. 169/101 downtown Minibypass Project. The Change Order they are requesting is for $41,739 which will be on an hourly rate. He said we will be paying for the actual hours worked. Wampach/Zak moved to direct the appropriate City officials to execute the supplemental agreement with Howard Needles Tammen and Bergendoff, Inc. and the City of Shakopee for the T.H. 169/101 Downtown Minibypass in the amount of $41,739.00. Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Clay, Vierling, Wampach, Scott, Zak Noes: Mayor Lebens Motion carried. Vierling/Wampach moved to direct the appropriate City Officials to execute the agreement with Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative to install street lights on Vierling Drive from County Road 16 to Emerald Lane for an estimated amount of $10,000.00. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Clay/Vierling moved to authorize appropriate City officials to execute Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $16,159.70 for S.M. Hentges and Son for Project No. 1987-12, Vierling Drive (in Hauer's 4th Addition). Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Vierling/Zak moved to award bid to Devney office Machines of Mankato, Minnesota for a Sharp SF -9750 plain paper copier in the amount of $14,964.20 . Funds to come from 1988 Capital Equipment Budget. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Wampach/vierling moved to hold out check No. 314806 in the amount of $806.13 to Mr. Ronald Nelson. Motion carried unanimously. City Council November 15, 1988 Page -5- Vierling/Clay moved to approve the bills in the amount of $470,360.57 minus $806.13. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Clay/Vierling moved to receive and file the letter from Al DuBois referencing Austin Street Restoration Claim. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion ensued on the recruitment of a new City Administrator. It was consensus of the Council to meet at 6:00 p.m. on November 28 to determine the screening process to be used for selection of a new City Administrator. Vierling/Wampach moved to direct staff to contact the individuals who terms are expiring on boards and commissions to determine if they wish to seek reappointment. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Clay moved to direct staff to advertise and post the vacancies on boards and commissions pursuant to the City's policy. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Zak moved to appoint Mayor Lebens, Cncl. Wampach and Cncl. Vierling to meet with the City Administrator to review the applications and the applicants prior to submitting qualified candidates for nomination in January. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion ensued on whether or not the Council wished to start mandamus proceedings compelling the execution of the documents that Mayor Lebens refused to sign Adopting the Official Map for 169/101 Bridge and Minibypass. Mayor Lebens asked the Council to consider a 30 day extension to consider a compromise, the alternative being that MnDOT would raise the bridge so that Levee Drive could be kept in place and tear down City Hall and the block to the East so that property can be retained for parking lots and for a possible new City Hall/commercial complex. Clay/Wampach moved to make the report of Judith S. Cox, City Clerk, part of the Council proceedings. (DOC # CC -160) Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Clay, Scott, Wampach, Zak and Vierling Noes: Mayor Lebens Motion carried. Wampach/Clay moved to instruct the Assistant City Attorney to start proceedings in the District Court to require the Mayor or Vice Mayor to sign Resolution No. 2978 and Ordinance No. 258 or the alternative, declare the resolution and ordinance valid without signature. Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Clay, Scott, Wampach, Zak and Vierling Noes: Mayor Lebens Motion carried. City Council November 15, 1988 Page -6- Clay/vierling offered Resolution No. 2984, A Resolution Authorizing Execution of An Agreement With Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. for Design Services Associated with the State Trunk Highway 101 Shakopee Bypass, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Clay/Wampach Offered Resolution No. 2983, A Resolution of Affirmative Action in Employment, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Scott moved to reconsider the motion of November 1, 1988 directing staff to prepare the resolution vacating 6th Avenue East of Main street and directing staff to advise the abutting property owners that they must deposit with the City estimated cost for restoration work. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Clay moved to direct staff to prepare the resolution vacating 6th Avenue East of Main Street and directing staff to advise the abutting property owners that they must deposit with the City estimated cost for restoration work. Motion fails. Clay/Wampach moved to vacate the proceedings thus far on the vacation of 6th Avenue East of Main Street. Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Vierling Offered Resolution No. 2985, A Resolution Initiating the Vacation of 6th Avenue From Main Street to the East, and moved for its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Lebens/Vierling moved to reconsider Resolution No. 2982, Approving A Powers Agreement with Independent School District #720. Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Vierling moved to approve Resolution No. 2982, Approving A Joint Powers Agreement with Independent School District No. 720. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Clay/Wampach moved to direct staff to draw up a resolution of thanks to Rahr Malting and Inland Container Corporation for grants to the Fire Department to purchase new equipment. Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Vierling moved to recess at 10:50 P.M. for Executive Session to discuss potential litigation. Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Vierling moved to reconvene to City Council. Motion carried unanimously. City Council November 15, 1988 Page -7- Clay/Wampach moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. dltox C t' Clerk Carol L. Schultz Recording Secretary MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant RE: Celebrate Minnesota 1990 - Public Hearing DATE: November 28, 1988 INTRODUCTION• On October 18, 1988 I presented the Celebrate Minnesota 1990 grant program to the City Council for their review and comment. At that time City Council authorized staff to prepare a preliminary application for the program. Council also felt that Huber Park should be considered as the 41 priority for the grant application. one of the requirements for submitting an application to the Department of Trade and Economic Development for funding under the Celebrate Minnesota 1990 Grant Program is that each community hold a public hearing to solicit comments from residents regarding the proposed project or projects. BACKGROUND: Staff has prepared a preliminary concept design plan for the improvement of Huber Park. (See attachment #1) The proposed improvement simply provides for the removal of a number of light poles that are currently unused. The grant application request would also provide for the excavation and leveling of Huber Park including the excavation of the dike area around the former rodeo site. The grant application request would provide funding for the installation of an electrical drop in the park for future community celebrations that may be held in this area. Finally, the grant application includes funding for landscaping and picnic tables. The preliminary budget for the grant application is shown in attachment #2. Staff is proposing that the majority of the park improvement costs be off -set by contributions from community businesses and organizations. The level of City assistance for the grant application includes staff time that has been incurred in developing the plan and time that may be incurred in implementing and overseeing the development of the park should be fortunate enough to receive grant funding. I would like to note that the improvements being considered in this area do not interfere with the future extension of Levee Drive or the mini by-pass construction area, should it be deemed necessary. The grant application also provides for the extension of the Minnesota River Valley Trail through the park area (which would be funded by the Minnesota River Valley Trail System). Staff would like City Council to discuss the proposed plan and make comments and/or suggestions where they think it is appropriate. ALTERNATIVES• Direct the appropriate City officials to submit the proposed Huber Park improvement plan to the Department of Trade and Economic Development for funding under the Celebrate Minnesota 1990 grant program. Suggest additions and/or alterations to the proposed improvement plan and direct the appropriate City officials to proceed accordingly in submitting the grant application. Do not submit a grant application to the Department of Trade and Economic Development for funding under the Celebrate Minnesota 1990 grant program. RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends alternative #1. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to direct the -appropriate City officials to submit a grant application to the Department of Trade and Economic Development for funding under the Celebrate Minnesota 1990 grant program. J I I I I V. • r ; —' fir jea1 I \r !..i ,. ',,\ j ,:,...: i.' .. . ,Id� ---- % 1 t •L :S 1 ii a--** • ems. .\ �.� � r i m ...\.-.i \ 0 �' In 1 ,'! 11 y Y l D i-N��' �I tJ: •� tf ;T. '. .-.. .11 II y• - 1 t '� ,4:----4,,i3 . , I I g \ • `\ e I '1' Oeic DM1 ' { °v ey'♦ .' 1 em`';; __— ,Ls �.u.,r I 00MM: '1 1% t c . , t) ............7.7‘. ___-'_-_ _-_,6--_- - --,-.PRAAHK -_ �t_ �;r:-. j,y ''Ei \ r i ; • l i -7,-- i • , I . x \'', "': .71 ,(Q<s" 11 ,.., 1 pj ° A-- — , , II . 0 , . 4.4.. _ ., 4, ) 11:1,0c ril .p . 11"1 • ‘ . '. •% o } .�� ee'`0 y, 4.* w'.. i 1 • ` I 1.•.. :gam,'4.Rtit.. '.(' '.T.j .-. ..-....L.,-e• '-i'.. -x -- \ ---' * \ - ... 1 hS" � - I I •\\\:\\, { �— i 1 ' I f J 1 • .: Y - • r Y L' . _'_-_ - µ .asamp ''. I-vx T- 1 6 It ep ,-,C;` ,.l - -x- Br ,✓ r `\ i m J a m A w N r r r 10 m J. I m A W N Y N W H H 70 ro m m m m 0 a on m m m 0 N m 0 1011 � m o< mp pact m < m m � m m et W W 7 N r IY+ N N¢ O Y Y RIF-' IO O M H M M Z n 10 l O 0 0 N CL ' 0 x 0 m 0 'a w a� �ro 03 n 7 n ro +n Ew Icmp p c ro N R A Y N N Y N m rt k N m k R m R k Y Y C 'O m O R O 00000lnW a•a Io r O O• W P. w O R Y• rm R m N O k O N Q m S in C W W N m m I I l k N a m N o m Y- Y $a 0 O W Y01O A W a m O rt m 01 N O O G Im'! " O 001 O 0 S m N 01 OWm m I W p O" O O N 10 rat 0 II m m a n O n o c N N m N p O rNt N a rm m rmm B O O O a YO rm O O A N O oN ork o m a a a ON O 0 ry R O 11 A r O o N m II +n J Y O N m (D i/i• Y O k YN O I R 11 O A U O I +11 O • O O r N 00 N � O O m A Y O 0 0 O m W O O O o 0 0 0 0 n r• 071P)l mC1 k0•6zrkm m PIC an7<mmom0 Rro.momoaa. Y• -n 7 Y N- mN n R Y Y• wtom P, �•nrWt�lo 7 writ N ID rt 20 pa m Om O'7 00973O <mEamw10n0Hp z0 vFvoa�x pc as o O a 0. < R p a w N W woo rt e(rD� 1-' G r 7 < N to 7 P.m m 7 m +n ro J rY Y rn W OI W N A Y N N Y A N W O .n m W O O A 0 0 U 01 A J m 0 Y m O o 0 0 0 0 0 W O O N 01 N. 0000000 m. RR W O O 00000000000 0 00000000007 m m r Y on W W � w W t•-'< m m � m m p O O O O Y Y IO N N Z O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o n 0 +n r +n c ro N A Y N N Y N rt k W k Y- OAOOm m 00000lnW a•a Io 00000Am crt W R m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Y - O 0000000 O O � N +n +n m N Y k A 01 A W a m O rt m 01 Y J rt a W A O R m N 01 OWm W p O O O O O 5 N Rmm� m R 3 c w0 n m 0 k rmT d /016 MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: The Parking of Trucks on the Property Located at 1831 West Sixth Avenue DATE: November 30, 1988 INTRODUCTION: At the November 1, 1988 City Council meeting the City Council received a request from Donald and Soloma MCElderry to exempt their property from the requirements of City Code Section 9.30 regarding the parking of trucks on property in residential districts. The City council after discussion of this item voted to set a public hearing for the December 6, 1988 meeting in order to receive public input from the neighborhood prior to making a decision. BACKGROUND: For background on this item please review the attached information which was enclosed with the City Council packet for the November 1, 1988 meeting. CONSIDERATIONS• Subdivision 5 0£ Section 9.30 states: "Upon showing of undue hardship in individual cases the Council may grant modification or exemption of the above provisions and shall forthwith notify the City Engineer, the City Streets Department and the Police Department". There is no criteria for determining an undue hardship contained in Section 9 of the City Code. Section 11 of the City Code does contain criteria for granting variances from that Chapter for situations that are unique to the property. and outside the control of the property owner. Although the MCElderry's were not informed by the realtor prior to purchase of the property that the parking of trucks on the property would be in violation of the City Code, the MCElderry's did have the opportunity to contact City Hall and find out if their proposed plans were in conformance with City Codes prior to purchase of the property. The property is bordered by commercial zoning on the North and the City limits on the West. However, to the East and South of the proposed property is residential development. The property also utilizes the same access as the town houses immediately to the East. The staff is concerned about the impact of a semi -trailer truck parking in a area adjacent to residentially zoned land. For example, the townhouses constructed south of the subject property could be adversely impacted by truck parking. The question of a truck using the same access road as nearby residential properties is also troublesome. I£ the City Council were to allow a truck to be parked in an enclosed building would the truck be parked inside the building as all times? Would the cost of a building to house a semi -truck be prohibitive? Without answers to these questions the staff has serious concerns about allowing truck parking on the subject property. While the staff can readily recognize the plight of the property owner, it appears that the problem is a result of either the property owner not being informed by the real estate agent of the truck parking prohibition on this property, or the property owner not pursuing this question with either their lawyer or the appropriate city officials. ALTERNATIVES• The City Council could decide that an undue hardship does exist in the case of the McElderry's and pass a motion granting an exemption or modification from the provisions of Section 9.30 of the City Code. In granting such a modification or exemption the Council may stipulate the terms under which a truck may be parked on the property, such as it must be housed within a closed building. The City Council could determine that no undue hardship exists in the case of the MCElderry's and move to not grant a modification or exemption from the provisions contained in Section 9.30 of City Code. RECOMMENDATION• - It is recommended that the city Council deny the request to allow truck parking on the subject property. If the City Council does decide to grant the exemption staff recommends that the following two conditions be placed on the approval: 1. That the truck must be stored within an enclosed building. 2. That if the enclosed building required to store the truck is larger than allowed by City Code, the approval is conditioned on the ability of the applicants to receive a variance for construction of the building. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to deny the request to allow the parking of trucks on the property located at 1831 West Sixth Avenue. MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: The Parking of Trucks on the Property Located at 1831 West 6th Avenue DATE: October 31, 1988 INTRODUCTION: Donald and Soloma McElderry received a warning citation from Howard Jones, City Code Officer for the parking of a semi truck on their property at 1831 West 6th Avenue. According to City Code Section 9.30 the parking of trucks on property in residential districts is prohibited. Subd. 5 of Section 9.30 allows the City Council to issue a modification or exemption to this requirement in cases of undue hardship. Attached is a request from the MCElderry's for an exemption from City Code Section 9.30. BACKGROUND: On September 16, 1988 Mr. Howard Jones issued a warning citation to Donald and Soloma MCElderry for the parking of a semi truck on their property located at 1831 West 6th Avenue in Shakopee. The property is located within a R-4 Zoning District. Section 9.30 of the City Code regulates truck parking and indicates that "it is unlawful to park a semi trailer whether or not attached to a truck tractor, within an area zoned as a residential district, except for the purpose of loading and unloading the same." Subdivision 5 of Section 9.30 states: "Upon showing of undue hardship in individual cases the Council may grant modification or exemption from the above provisions and shall forthwith notify the City Engineer, the City Streets Department and the Police Department". There is no criteria for determining an undue hardship contained in Section 9 of the City Code. Attached is a letter from the McElderry's requesting an exemption from this Section. The MCElderry's indicate in their letter that they would be willing to construct an accessory building to house the transportation equipment. Mr. Jones in hiswarning citation also mentioned City Code Section 11.05, Subd. 3 C 6. This Section of the Zoning Code allows for the parking of one truck in a residential zone that is not in excess of 9,000 lbs. rated capacity. The provision goes on to say that under no circumstances shall parking facilities accessory to residential structures be used for open storage of commercial vehicles (copy of code provision attached). In discussing this with the City Attorney it is his opinion that since both provisions deal with the same subject matter, the last provision adopted would take precedence. Since Section 9.30 was amended in 1983 it would take precedence over Section 11.05 Subd. 3C6. The City's Zoning Code regulating accessory structures also contains provisions regarding the maximum size of accessory structures. The Zoning Code does not allow accessory structures in the R-4 Zone to exceed the height of the house or to exceed the square footage of the foot print of the house. If the accessory structure proposed by the McElderry's to house the truck is larger than allowed by the City Code, they would have the right to request a variance for the size of the structure from the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council could decide that an undue hardship does exist in the case of the McElderry's and pass a motion. granting an exemption or modification from the provisions of Section 9.30 of the City Code. In granting such a modification or exemption the Council may stipulate the terms under which a truck maybe parked on the property, such as it must be housed within a closed building. The City Council could determine that no undue hardship exists in the case of the McElderry's and move to not grant a modification or exemption from the provisions contained in Section 9.30 of City Code. Although it is not required by the City Code, the City Council could set a public hearing on the request for the December 6 meeting and direct the staff to notify surrounding property owners. This would allow the City Council the opportunity to receive input from the neighborhood before making a final decision. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends alternative ACTION REOUESTED: Offer and pass a motion as outlined in either alternative °,1, alternative n2 or alternative ,n,3 listed above. /b 4 - October 8, 1988 Mr. John Anderson City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue City Hall Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Re: City Ordinance Violation TRUCK PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL ZONE Property at 1831 West 6th Avenue/Shakopee Residence of Donald R. and Soloma McElderry Dear Mr. Anderson, On September 1, 1987, my husband and I purchased the above listed property on Sixth Avenue in Shakopee. At the time of the purchase of said property, it was discussed with both Real Estate agents as well as the seller Matheal Schneider, the fact that husband made his living by owning and operating a tractor/trailer rig, driving over the road. We were told at that time, that this property would be acceptable and that we would not encounter any problems parking his vehicle here and with our almost three acres of land, would not be a bother to any of our neighbors. It was been over a year now, and not only have we grown to love our home, but enjoy and love living in this community. Cur daughter has established herself in the Jr. High School and has made many friends. It was our belief that not only had we found the perfect home, but the perfect community to raise our family and make our lives. On September 16, 1988, we were notified by mail in the form of a warning citation issued by Mr. Howard Jones, that we were in violation of a city code which states that a tractor and/or trailer may not be parked for more than a few hours within the city limits of Shakopee. As our property does in fact, reside within the city limits, we were unable to park our equipment at home. I have discussed our situation with both Howard Jones and with Rick Paulseth and they seem willing to help resolve this problem so that we would not be forced into selling our home and moving out of this community that we have made our home. According to the Subdivision 5 of the code, if we can prove a hardship in our particular case, that it is possible for the Council may grant some modification or exemption from the provision. There is not a doubt in our minds that enforcement of the code will, indeed, cause a grave and undue hardship on our family. As I previously stated, my husband earns our living from driving truck. Because we are independent, driving in business for ourselves, the only way that we can make a living in trucking today is for him to be able to work and maintain his equipment at home. And, due to the fact, if he is unable to park said equipment on our property, we could suffer loss and/or damage if he had to leave them over at the truck stop. It is unfortunate, but vandalism is very much a part of todays trucking industry. We are willing to do anything within our means to do what is necessary to stay in our home. tie are making two suggestions that could helf solve the problem. In exhibit one, we show that by adding onto one of the existing structures, we could build a building large enough to put the equipment in and out of sight. In exhibit 2, we show the possibility of building a new building on the South side of our property which is bordered by the County line. In either event, we would not have the truck/trailer rigs parked in view of anyone. In that way, we would have them pro- tected and available for my husband to work on them. If the Council has any other suggestions, we would be open to thought when proposed to us. I have attached a cony of our prop- erty showing its boundaries as well as the two suggestions in placement of a containment building. We thank you for your consideration in this matter, and hope that some reconcilation and solution can be reached without us being forced to sell and move away from Shakopee. We will be awaiting an answer from you and the Counsii. Sincerely, Donald R. McElderry c✓%t Q4 u� Soloma B.McElderry cc: Rick Paulseth/City Hall Howard Jones/Shakopee Police Dept. Richard Perkins/Attorney at Law DATE: JP– /l. -Ypp City of Shakopee POLICE DEPARTMENT 476 South Gorman Street SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 Tel. 612/445-6666 TO: d,NnZg Ross /g4l lr/ 7Y %ro. hsU s X79 RE: Citv Ordinance Violation(s) Dear Sir or Madame: FROM: Howard C. Jones Code Enforcement Officer Shakopee Police Department Violation(s) of the City of Shakopee ordinance(s) have been observed on your property as indicated 'below. Please find enclosed a warning ticket with the specific violation(s) marked, as well as a copy of the city ordinance(s) for the violations noted. Please note the compliance date requested on the warning ticket, at which time we will again be checking the area(s) of concern while patrolling your area. If you have any questions please contact me at the Shakopee Police Department on any Monday, Wednesday or Firday (445-6666). The area(s) of concern are: 2. —� 6. N 4 7 Q 9. c.Scxve Oa iP:otret r { WARNING i CITY OF SNAKOtFE VC' Il Mr. Mrs. U,-✓n<c/ f2o=_-,, 10c"fyou have been issued a warning ticket for violation of City Code Section: /Fj� o✓G sr y _ Sactlen t L60 t a of m Leriion nereps tench and man[. known Located en pramlca commonly known as: Located ism :i E3 Section 11.60 Subdivision 2.A ! Fctarlorere" of refue erlals, debris and _ garbage Located on premba commonly known sr' O. Section tr 60 a 2. » Storage of Inoperable nMcld— ane/er vis, operable 10 On Pr miserwithout ......[ In rarldentlel district On prelim wn at commonly known ee. ly known 'p ❑ Sedan 11606ueellsi n10 A.6 C Maimalnu, .public nulanu due to nobs, Aden, Vibration. I Tike, .1, pollution, llauld, solid waste nare0a, nu[. para, dust, pollution of private or public water, well, thing rtnam I or lake. Located on premba commonly known se: ❑ Section dr 60 Subdirlalon 10 C Possession end control of unused refrigerator or container without removing latches or providing locks to prwant NCM 1 gg {{ by the public. Located an promise commonly known at; K i Section 1.0 Occupying a newly constructed bulleing without scouring a '1 Cenlflcen of Occupancy for Building Permit No. ' Section 11.26 S 11.21 Subdivblan .-A Maximum of three uncovered oil street perking pisco permitted ' -..i per ewrimg unit. violation located on promises commonly i ;1 known a. . o Sectlen 10.74 ' Startup junk can. furniture, household appliances end furnbhlnps on public ar Arnold Property en premia« commonly known as 0 section 10.0 J unlawful cannily of neer stored an Premises commonly 1 ' i known es: 1 �t,..�;:�•i. ._—_.�' <'s .ems a; c G Failure to abate the indicated violation(s) withn ten (10) days will result _ t -' in formal charges being brought against you. s COMMENTS: .i <?� r iii .7 ,:�/^�+�.✓. �f>bPY `j Issued by: 57— Date: r. Required Date of Compliance: f -s _ SEC. 9.30. TRUCK PARKING. Subd. 1. It is unlawful to park a detached semi -trailer upon any street, municipally -owned parking lot, or other public property. Subd. 2. It is unlawful to park a semi -trailer, whether . or not attached to a truck -tractor, within an area zoned as a residential district, except for the purpose of loading or unloading the same. .— Subd. 3. It is unlawful to park a commercial vehicle of more than 3/4ths ton capacity within any metered parking space, but parking of such vehicle for a period of not more than twenty (20) minutes shall be permitted in such space for the purpose of necessary access to abutting property for loading or unloading when such access cannot reasonably be secured from an alley or from an adjacent street where truck parking is not so restricted. Subd. 4. Parking of commercial vehicles is permitted in duly designated and sign -posted loading zones, and in alleys, for a period of up to twenty (20) minutes, provided that such alley parking doesnotprevent the flow of traffic therein, all of which shall be for the purpose of access to•abutting or adjacent property for loading or unloading. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-78 Subd. 5. Upon showing of undue hardship in individual cases the Council may grant modification or exemption from the above provisions and shall forthwith notify the City Engineer, the City Street Department and the Police Department. Source: Ordinance No. 140, 4th Series Effective Date: 12-29-83 SEC. 9.31. LOADING ZONES. The Council may, by resolution, establish loading zones to be used for the specific purpose of loading or unloading merchandise from a commercial vehicle or vehicle temporarily being utilized in the transport of merchandise. Such loading zones shall be installed by order of the City Administrator where in the judgment of the Council a commercial loading zone is justified and duly sign -posted. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-78 (Sections 9.32 through 9.39, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) -212- (1-1-84) 4Yjc r ,t, Me,e lupL 4.°e G �j• � DC:LItIpfZ0;i1 ..B Ail that part of the Wast j of the Nertheaet 4, Saetion 11, TovlahiP 115° Range 23, Scott County, Nim. dee.ribed a Iolloeet ' j �Ed�Ef;S�N N.� SvPL Be94 9 of the Int erection of the West line od e d W1 of NB}p With the eont.,Lin. of T.H. m.. 3W; th—ee N 59 -321 3 along said ...terlane a dietan.e of 451.19 f$et; thane. N 31'-04- N a dleten.e .f 241.20 feet; th...- 5 63 -191 W . dlstanee of 296.19 feat to the Neat line of void Wk of HE!, thm.e Seeth elo� said West line to the point of b.g. inB. SubJect to an eaemmt Ser med-purpoeee over the 311y;33 Yeti the leaf ter T.N. No. 3W. Centn,i.g 2.06 mr.. surveyed tyle 3_`-° d.y er Scri- 1y6 Sehxk.l,,Suresyd.-No. 730 • valley E11Binaerin6 C.. ln.. Prior I -, yl—. 55372 IW7 ;� u�/ 1i �y3oo, /l07 og5T R C14Nie0NUJY3001 aH1, 7- 02 Rv� N�ry �� aP�e® rY AT O Ull property within the B-3 District shay_ bx exempt as it relates to off-street parking requirements. Source: Ordinance No. 96, 4th Series Effective Date: 11-11-82 C. General Provisions. 1. Reduction of Existing Off -Street Space - off -street parking spaces and loading spaces existing upon the effective date of this Chapter shall not be reduced in number unless said number exceeds the requirements set forth herein for a similar new use. _2. Expansion of Existing Uses. Expansion of existing uses and/or structures will require the application of the provisions of this Section to both the existing and new uses and/or structures. 3. Floor Space. The term "floor area- for the purpose of calculating the number of off-street parking spaces required shall be the net usable floor area of the various floors, exclusive of hallways, utility space, storage areas other than warehousing. 4. Benches in Places of Public Assembly. In stadiums, churches and other places of public assembly in which patrons or spectators occupy benches, pews or other similar seating facilities, each 22 inches of such seating facility shall be counted as one seat for the purpose of determining required parking. 5. Minimum Size of Parking Spaces. Each park- ing space shall be not less than 9 feet wide and 20 feet in length exclusive of access drives, and each space shall be served adequately by access drives. 6. Use of Parking Facilities. Off-street parking facilities accessory to residential use shall be utilized solely for the parking of passenger automobiles, except that for each dwelling unit one truck not in excess of 9,000 pounds rated capacity may be parked by the occupant within a structure. Under no circumstances shall parking facilities accessory to residential structures be used for open storage of commercial vehicles nor open air parking of automobiles belonging to the emplovees, owner, ten- ant or customers of business or manufacturing establishments. 7. Location of Parking Facilities. Required off-street parking in "R" Districts shall be on the same lot as the principal building. 8. Joint Parking Facilities. Off-street park- ing facilities for a combination of one or more uses may be pro- vided collectively in any district except the "R-1" and "R-2" Districts, provided the total number of spaces provided shall equal the sum of the separate requirements for each use. 9. Control of Off -Street Parking Facilities. When required accessory off-street parking facilities are provided elsewhere than on the lot on which the principal use served is located, written authority for using such property for off-street parking shall be filed with the City so as to maintain the required number of off-street parking spaces during the exist, nce of said principal use. No such parking facilities at its closest point shall be located more than 300 feet from the premises. 10. Use of Parking Area. Required (loff-street -289- �12.00, MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engine SUBJECT: 6th Avenue, East of Main Street DATE: November 29, 1988 INTRODUCTION: The Council has set a public hearing for December 6, 1988 to consider the vacation of 6th Avenue from Main Street to the east. This memo addresses the impacts of vacating this street on the surrounding properties as far as availability of sewer and water, access, etc. BACKGROUND: The public hearing on December 6, 1988 will be the second hearing held on this issue. On November 1, 1988 City Council held a public hearing to consider vacating this portion of 6th Avenue. At the conclusion of the public hearing, Council directed staff to prepare the resolution necessary for vacating the street. The following day, an adjoining property owner, Mr. and Mrs. Dean Smith of 606 S. Market Street, informed staff that they had not been notified of the public hearing and requested that they be allowed the opportunity to comment on the proposed vacation. Subsequently, on November 15, 1988 the City Council reconsidered this item and scheduled another public hearing for December 6, 1988. Mr. and Mrs. Smith have been notified of this hearing. The developer who petitioned for the vacation of 6th Avenue owns the 2 lots just north of 6th Avenue and the lot just south of 6th Avenue. If the street is vacated, the developer proposes to reorient the lots such that 3, slightly larger lots would all face Main Street with twin homes being built on each. The portion of 6th Avenue proposed for vacation contains a small amount of bituminous surfacing, curb S gutter and storm sewer that would need to be removed and restored to grass. The cost for this work has been estimated at $2,400.00 (includes 10$ contingency). Mr. and Mrs. Smith live at 606 S. Market Street. They currently have a driveway going all the way from Market Street to Main Street on line with 6th Avenue extended. Their garage which faces north has access directly onto this driveway. They are on a well and septic system because no sewer or water is currently available to them. Mr. Smith recently installed a new well because of the unavailability of City water. SPUC did inform Mr. Smith that he could petition for City water rather than go to the expense of installing a new well, but Mr. Smith chose not to petition for City water. Sanitary Sever System Analysis Currently there is no sewer on Market Street, between 4th Avenue and just north of Hiawatha Park. There is sewer from 7th to Hiawatha Park, but due to the elevation of the existing manhole and the topography of the area, it is impossible to serve the Smith house from this sewer. There is no sanitary sewer in the portion of 6th Avenue proposed for vacation. There are several alternatives for providing sanitary sewer service to the Smith house, as shown on the attachments to this memo. Alternative A indicates that sewer service could be provided to the Smith house by extending the sewer at 6th Avenue and Main Street east to Market Street. This would require additional right-of-way from the Smith's to complete 6th Avenue all the way to Market Street. The sewer main .could also stop at the edge of the existing right-of-way on 6th Avenue with a service line running from that point to the Smith house. A rough cost estimate for this alternative is $16,000, most of which would be born by the Smiths (about 75% based on benefited acreage). It is doubtful if their lower lot could be served by this line. If 6th Avenue is vacated, this alternative would be eliminated, unless an easement is maintained which could affect the proposed development. Alternative B indicates that sewer could be extended from 4th Avenue to the Smith residence. The rough cost estimate for this alternative is $90.000, which includes 10% for contingency and 25% for administrative fees (actual construction cost is estimated at $65,000). This estimate is fairly high, but without any soil borings, a substantial amount of rock excavation was assumed. This alternative would benefit several properties abutting Market Street from 4th Avenue to the Smith property. This area is approximately 11 acres. Using the cost estimate of $90,000, the estimated assessment for all benefited properties is $8,000.00 per acre. The Smith property is approximately 2 acres so their assessment would be around $16,000.00. Attached to Alternative B is a rough map showing the benefited area for this alternative. Alternative C indicates that sewer could be provided by extending 5th Avenue to Market Street. The sewer would then run down Market Street similar to that shown on Alternative B. The cost for this alternative was not calculated as the cost for the sewer in 5th Avenue would be assessed to all benefited property owners. The total assessment to the Smith property would be approximately the same as for Alternative B. pb & Staff has received a petition to extend 5th Avenue to Market Street and will be doing a feasibility report on this proposal shortly• In the feasibility report, a more exact cost estimate and assessment breakdown will be discussed. Another alternative would be to replace the sewer on Market Street from 7th to the north with a deeper sewer in order to serve the Smith house (no map for this alternative). The manhole at 7th and Market is deep enough to accomplish this. The only property that would benefit from this proposal is the Smith house. Due to the topography on Market Street, this would be the farthest north the sewer could be extended and still flow south. The rough estimate for this proposal is $20,000.00, which would probably only benefit the Smith house. This alternative is not deemed feasible and would do little to promote development in the area. In reviewing the overall sanitary sewer system, staff has determined that the Smith residence, as well as the surrounding properties can be served by sanitary sewers without necessarily extending 6th Avenue to Market Street. The proposed 3 lots that would be created by the vacation of 6th Avenue would also need to be served by sewer. One of the lots could probably be served by the existing system, but the northern most two lots would require that the sewer main be extended north on Main Street to provide service to those lots. Vatermain System Analysis Since watermains are under pressure, the alternatives for providing City water to the Smith property are not as difficult. Water could be provided from 6th Avenue, if it were extended to Market Street (about $18,000). Again, this alternative would be eliminated if 6th Avenue were vacated. Another alternative would be to install watermain on Market Street from 7th Avenue to the Smith house. Apparently, the multi—family building on the east side of Market Street has a 1 1/2 inch copper line serving it. This line should be replaced with a main in Market Street. This cost is estimated at $25,000.00. The watermain should eventually be installed completely from 7th to 4th to complete the loop and also down 5th Avenue, if that street were extended. The estimated cost for this is $90,000.00. Again, all benefited properties would share in the cost of the watermain construction. There are numerous properties on this portion of Market Street that are served by 1 1/2" copper service lines which need to be replaced with 8" ductile iron mains. Mr. Smith, recently requested that SPUC provide them with a copper line to serve their house, but were informed that that practice is no longer acceptable to SPUC. They were informed that they could petition for watermains on Market Street or install a new well. Mr. Smith chose to install the new well, rather than petition for City water. The proposed lots that will be created by the vacation of 6th Avenue will also require that the watermain in Main Street be extended to their north property line in order to serve all 3 twin homes, similar to the sanitary sewer. Copper, service lines will not be allowed in Main Street as a substitute for ductile iron watermains. Street Svstem Analvsis Staff feels that either 5th Avenue or 6th Avenue should be extended to Market Street. Both are not necessarily needed, depending on the development, but at least one of the two is essential to good traffic flow. The City has recently received a petition to extend 5th Avenue through to Market Street. If 5th Avenue does get constructed to Market Street, the need for 6th Avenue diminishes. Proposed Development The developer has proposed to add vacated 6th Avenue to the 3 existing lots and create 3 larger lots facing Main Street. The City Planner has indicated that this would conform to a simple lot split definition of the City code and that replatting would not be necessary. The zoning ordinance would allow the construction of 3 twin homes as long as a minimum lot width of 70 feet and a minimum lot area of 11,000 square feet is achieved. Currently, the City has a policy that in the R-2 zone, only 10% of new plats can consist of twin homes with the remainder being single family homes. Since this development consists of a lot split, both the City Planner and City Attorney do not feel that the 10% policy would apply in this case. Staff did investigate the area surrounding 6th Avenue for twin homes and only found one twin home in the adjoining areas. This twin home is the second home west of Main Street on the north side of 6th Avenue. The property on the northwest corner of 6th and Main is a large, two story single family dwelling and may object to additional twin homes adjacent to his property. There is also one multi -family building on Market Street, across from Hiwatha Park. /b C. - ALTERNATIVES: After conducting the public hearing, the following alternatives are available to Council: 1. Deny the request for the vacation of 6th Avenue east of Main Street. 2. Determine that the street serves no public purpose and direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution for Council consideration. If this is the selected alternative, the property owner who petitioned for the vacation should be required to complete the restoration of that portion of 6th Avenue to be vacated (estimated at $2,400.00) and deposit this amount with the City prior to adopting the vacation resolution. In addition, the developer should agree to install sewer and watermains from the intersection of 6th and Main north to their north property line via a developer's agreement. 3. Send the issue back to the Planning Commission for further review. RECOMMENDATION: As indicated in the original memo from the City Clerk, drafted October 28, 1988, staff had recommended not vacating this street until the City could determine that 6th Avenue is not needed based on development proposals. The Planning Commission took the opposite approach and recommended vacating the street in order to promote development. The City has now received a petition to construct 5th Avenue to Market Street. If this is shown to be feasible and actually gets constructed the need for 6th Avenue diminishes. In addition, the developer of the 3 lots along Main Street may or may not be aware that sewer and water will need to be extended north on Main Street to serve those lots or that there is some minor restoration needed on the vacated portion of 6th Avenue. Staff is therefore recommending that if 6th Avenue east of Main Street is to be vacated, the following should be done first: 1. The feasibility report for 5th Avenue extended should be completed, a public hearing held and the project ordered. 2. The developer who petitioned for the vacation should execute a developer's agreement with the City agreeing to extend sewer and water north from 6th & Main to their north property line at their expense and to restore that portion of vacated 6th Avenue necessary as a result of the vacation. ACTION REQUESTED: Deny the proposed vacation of 6th Avenue, east of Main Street until it has been determined that 5th Avenue will be extended through to Market Street and the developer who petitioned for the vacation signs a developers' agreement with the City covering the costs of extending sewer and water north on Main Street to serve their property and addressing any restoration costs. or Determine that this portion of 6th Avenue which is east of Main Street serves no public purpose and direct staff to prepare the appropriate vacation resolution. Prior to the adoption of the vacation resolution, the developer should agree to extend the sewer and water north on Main Street and to complete any restoration on 6th Avenue and to deposit with the City the estimated costs of completing that work. DH/pmp VACATION cc: Jane DuBois Mr. Dean Smith Mr. John Theis 7 ,SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE A cI s i rl I HIAWATHA I � PARK o I 3 s7 - Existing Proposed l I I I I I I I I I 1 I ProPertY �o U N c< �a ^I J •_I 1 ,SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE A cI s i rl I HIAWATHA I � PARK o I 3 s7 - Existing Proposed l I I I I I I I I I 1 I ProPertY SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM,l ALTERNATIVE B N S I HIAWATHA PARK I s 717"7 P' Existing "MMM'" Proposed i1 —�S►�{ith Property ALTERNATIVE B SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM 6 � � 1_ --yam--• � ALTERNATIVE C 0 � I Q HIAWATIi,1 PARK I 7#7 5 3 3 Existing 3 7� Womw Proposed I 1 1 1 II I �1ith Property L� I �^ i ' I J �_I I 0 � I Q HIAWATIi,1 PARK I 7#7 5 3 3 Existing 3 7� Womw Proposed I 1 1 1 II I �1ith Property may' r—'lT PROPOSED SEWER (for 3 twin homes) U' 1 1 :-Propos S �We J III 1 HiAwATHA I PARK s 717 V 7 FTTlTFl v PrOPerty O I I � Cc kt 6. k^ II •—I I 1 1 :-Propos S �We J III 1 HiAwATHA I PARK s 717 V 7 FTTlTFl v PrOPerty ` I WATERMAIN SYSTEM J — y •, c r II9 6 7WAA 7 7M 3 ---��. Existing 1 "00-■ Proposed J Smith I rty 1 CONSENT //CL MEMO To: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant RE: Dial -A -Ride Bid Specifications DATE: November 28, 1988 INTRODUCTION: The current contract for the Dial -A -Ride program expires on April 15, 1989. Our current contract does not provide for an extension. Therefore, it becomes necessary for us to prepare bid specifications and rebid the Dial -A -Ride service. BACKGROUND: in an effort to allow transit providers adequate time in preparing a bid proposal for the Shakopee Dial -A -Ride program, staff and the Energy and Transportation Committee are recommending Council approval of the attached Dial -A -Ride Bid specifications. The proposed Dial -A -Ride bid specifications include the provision of service to Southwest Metro (Chaska, Chanhassen and Eden Prairie) and the City of Plymouth. In an effort to achieve the lowest price for the Shakopee Dial -A -Ride program, the Energy and Transportation Committee is recommending that the City work with SWMTC and the City of Plymouth in soliciting bids for the joint Dial -A -Ride bidding process. The bid specifications have been prepared in such a fashion to allow for providers to bid on the entire service package including service to SWMTC, Shakopee and Plymouth or on an individual system or a combination of systems. The Committee and staff believe that Dial -A -Ride bid specifications give transit providers a great deal of flexibility in preparing their bid as well as offering the City an opportunity to receive a lower bid than if we pursued a provider on our own. The bid specifications set forth a process in which staff from each of the three transit service areas will evaluate and rank the proposals based on five pre -established criteria. Upon an evaluation of staff, it is possible that each individual transit system may select different providers. Each individual to their transit area. The final selection of the provider will be determined by the City Council upon receiving a recommendation from the Energy and Transportation Committee. The proposed service specifications The' proposal also specifies that new vehicles will be provided for each system. The eventual contract agreement will be for three years with the possibility of a three year extension. Proposed bid deadline is January 13, 1989. Staff is also proposing that each of the participating bodies approve a provider of service by February 7, 1989. This gives the winning provider a little over two months to secure vehicles, hire drivers and set up operational procedures and facilities. The Energy and Transportation Committee is recommending Council approval of the Dial -A -Ride bid specifications. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Move to approve the Dial -A -Ride bid specifications. 2. Amend the Dial -A -Ride bid specifications and move for their approval. 3. Do not include the SWMTC system or the City of Plymouth in the Dial -A -Ride bid specifications and proceed on our own. RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends alternative #1. ACTION REODESTED: Move to approve the Dial -A -Ride bid specifications and authorize the appropriate city officials to proceed accordingly. r� a., CITY OF SHAKOPEE ° INCORPORATED 1870 129 EAST FIRST AVENUE, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 w t December 8, 1988 Dear Interested Provider: The Cities of Shakopee and Plymouth, and the Southwest Metropolitan Transit Commission are jointly soliciting proposals for the provision of up to approximately 35,252 annual hours of suburban Dial -A -ride service, operating primarily five days a week and generally utilizing small vehicles (8-15 passenger). It is estimated that ten vehicles will be required for the program. The contract for this service will be in effect for 36 months and may be extended for three additional years. The service is expected to begin on April 17, 1989. In reviewing the submitted proposals, each transit system will evaluate the proposals on an individual basis. Upon completion of this evaluation a joint evaluation will take place between each of the three transit jurisdictions. It is possible that each transit system may decide to enter into individual agreements with different providers. cost will not be the sole factor in determining the proposal selected by the transit jurisdictions. Proposals will be evaluated based on the cost of the service, experience with providing similar services, financial, management and administrative capabilities, vehicle quality, preventative maintenance procedures, driver training and selection process. A pre-bid conference will be held on December 21, beginning at 10:00 a.m. at the Eden Prairie City Hall located at 7600 Executive Drive in Eden Prairie. Staff will be present to discuss the RFP and answer any questions you may have. Attendance at the pre-bid conference is encouraged, however is not mandatory. Responses to this proposal must be received by the City of Shakopee no later than 4:00 p.m., January 13, 1989. Any questions regarding this RFP should be directed to Barry Stock at (612) 445-3650. The Heart Of Progress Valley AN EQUAL OPPoFTUNOY EMPLOYER We look forward to receiving your proposal. Sincerely, Barry A. Stock Administrative Assistant, Shakopee Beverley Miller Southwest MTC, Administrator Frank Boyles Assistant City Manager, Plymouth REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS To operate Dial -A -Ride Service in the Cities of Shakopee, Plymouth, Eden Prairie, Chaska and Chanhassen December 8, 1988 I! a' City of Shakopee 129 E. First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 (612) 445-3650 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pace INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 SERVICE OVERVIEW Timetable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Proposal Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Cost of Service . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6 Evaluation of Proposals . . . . . . . . . . 6-7 Bonding Requirements . . . . 7 Subletting or Assignment of Contract . . . . 7 Dispute Resolution Process . . . . . . . . . 8 SERVICE Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Fares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Marketing . . . . . . . . 10 Evaluation/Contract Renewal . . . . . . . . 10-11 Vehicle Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-13 Operating Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Service Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Service Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Service Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-15 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-16 Non-Descrimination . . . . . . . . . 16 Contractor to Make Examination . . . . . . . 16 Insurance . . . . . . . 16-17 Checklist for Completion of RFP . . . . . . 18 REQUIRED FORMS (A,B,C) . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-22 // 6L, Transit services in the City's of Shakopee, Plymouth, and the Southwest Metro Transit Commission (SWMTC) (Chanhassen, Eden Prairie and Chaska) were created through the Minnesota Transit Service Demonstration Program (Opt Out) . At the present time, separate contract agreements are in place for the provision of service to these jurisdictions. The three transit systems have agreed to join forces in soliciting proposals for Dial -A -Ride service to their communities. The joint solicitation process is being pursued in an effort to receive the most cost effective and viable transit services possible. In reviewing the submitted proposals, each transit system will evaluate the proposals on an individual basis. Upon completion of this evaluation a joint evaluation will take place between each of the three transit jurisdictions. It is possible that each transit system may decide to enter into individual agreements with different providers. Cost will not be the sole factor in determining the proposal selected by the transit jurisdictions. After evaluating the proposals, the selection panel may elect to interview one or more of the proposers for the purpose of obtaining additional information to finalize the selection process. The City of Shakopee has been operating a Dial -A -Ride transit program since the Fall of 1984. In the Spring of 1987, SWMTC entered into an agreement with the City of Shakopee to provide Dial -A -Ride service to the communities of Chaska, Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. The City of Plymouth has been operating an internal circulator system in their community since the Fall of 1983. The request for proposals outlined herein will replace the Dial -A -Ride programs in the City of Shakopee and the SWMTC service area as well as the internal circulator system in Plymouth. Questions regarding the individual services currently provided in each of the transit jurisdictions and/or services proposed should be forwarded to the appropriate staff person representing the transit jurisdiction. Barry Stock - City of Shakopee - 445-3650 Beverley Miller - SWMTC - 934-7928 Frank Boyles - City of Plymouth - 559-2800 -2- SERVICE OVERVIEW Timetable Outlined below is the timetable that will be followed in this RFP process: Activity Date RFP Issued ....................... December 7, 1988 Pre -Bid Conference ............... December 21, 1988 Proposals Due .................... January 13, 1988 Provider Approved by Participating Bodies ........ February 7, 1989 Contract Signed With Selected Provider .................... February 21, 1989 Service Begins ................... April 17, 1989 A pre-bid conference will be held on December 21, beginning at 10:00 a.m. at the Eden Prairie City Hall. Staff will be present to discuss the RFP and answer any questions you may have. Attendance at the pre-bid conference is encouraged, however attendance is not mandatory. Proposal Format The following is a summary of the information that prospective contractors are recuired to provide in response to this RFP. All proposals must include a detailed description on the following items: - A listing of all vehicles (including back-ups) to be used in this service including the following: 1. Date of Manufacture 2. Total Mileage 3. Seating Capacity 4. Type, Model and Condition 5. Equipment Features (Air Conditioning, Seat Belts, Grab Rails, etc.) Note: A vehicle data sheet must be completed for each vehicle proposed for service (see Form D) - The vehicle safety inspection program that will be in place for this service. - Preventive vehicle maintenance procedures and schedules that will be followed for this service. - Driver training programs and minimum driver qualifications that will be followed for this service. Also include any ongoing safety and risk management programs that will be followed for this service. -4- The number and function of personnel that will be assigned to administer this service. Provide resumes of key staff (including dispatchers) and an organizational chart. The process that will be utilized to identify and address passenger issues including passenger complaints. The administrative process that will be followed for passenger fare collection, ridership counts and other data that may be reported as part of this service. The location where vehicles will be headquartered and maintained for this service. Note: The contractor must provide indoor storage for vehicles between October 1st and March 31st. - The level and types of insurance coverage, plus the name of the insurance carrier. Company history that includes three references from services in which the contractor is currently operating. - A plan that outlines how start-up tasks will be performed and a schedule for these tasks. Financial information that demonstrates to the participating bodies that your company has the necessary financial resources to perform the contract in a satisfactory manner. Include bank and credit references. - A statement that describes your understanding of this service. Responses to this proposal must be received at the City of Shakopee offices no later than 4:00 p.m., January 13, 1989, and should be clearly marked "Transit Service Proposal". Cost of Service The proposed cost of the service must be presented on Form A included with this RFP. Form A is a summary of the total cost for operating the service and the rate that will be charged for each hour of service provided. The rate shall remain constant during the three year contract period. Contract extensions must be mutually approved by each party. -5- // a� Fares collected by the provider will be retained by the provider and will be deducted from the established hourly rate. Respondents are required to submit their proposed hourly rates based upon total costs. The RTB guidelines on evaluating costs permit providers that receive public funding to submit bids based on their marginal costs when properly justified. If a provider receiving RTB funding chooses to submit a proposal based on marginal costs, their fully allocated and marginal costs must be presented separately on form B. Additionally, the justification for submitting bids based on marginal costs must be submitted in writing with the provider's response to the RFP. Evaluation of Proposals A selection panel, comprised of staff representing the participating bodies, will evaluate each proposal based on five criteria and rank each in relation to the other proposals. Each participating body will evaluate the proposals as they relate to their individual system. One or more of the proposers may be interviewed by the selection panel for the purpose of obtaining additional information to finalize the selection process. The selection panel will develop a recommendation for the winning proposal or proposals with final approval required from each participating bodies board. The criteria that will be used for the evaluation and the importance of each are listed below: Evaluation Criterion Weight Total Cost/Hour of Service 25% Proposals with the lowest hourly rate will receive the highest ranking. Experience Providing Related Transit Service— and Personnel ervice_and-Personnel Assigned to the Project 25% The provider with the greatest level of proven operating experience of similar size and scope, in conjunction with the proposal that dedicates staff to this service with the greatest level of expertise will receive the highest ranking. Vehicle Types and Maintenance Practices 20% Proposals providing vehicles most closely to those requested and in best overall operating condition and appearance along with the most comprehensive vehicle maintenance and safety program will receive the highest ranking. S� 4. Management/Administrative Capabilities 20% Proposals demonstrating the most comprehensive employee training, customer relations and marketing programs, reporting and financial capabilities will receive the highest ranking. Understanding of RFP and Exceptions 10% The proposal that demonstrates the best understanding of the RFP will be ranked highest. Any exceptions to the proposal specifications will be weighed by the review team in this section of the evaluation. Bonding Requirements Bid Bond Each bidder must provide a form of financial security to insure that the provider selected will follow through on their proposal and enter into a contract if selected to perform the work. Bids must be firm for 90 days following bid opening. The amount of the security is 5% of the total proposed cost and may be in the form of a cashier's check, money order or irrevocable letter of credit (payable to the City of Shakopee) or a bond. This must be submitted with the response to the RFP. The security will be returned to all unsuccessful bidders within 15 days after the selection of a contractor. The selected provider's security will be held until a contract has been signed for the work. Performance Bond Some form of financial security will be required of the successful provider and provided to each participating body to insure that the service will be performed in accordance with the terms of the contract. The form and amount of performance security will be negotiated between the participating bodies and the provider. A performance bond will be an acceptable form of finanical security. Subletting or Assignment of Contract No assignments or subletting of this contract, all or in part will be permitted without authorization of the participating bodies. b. The Contractor alone will be held responsible for full and faithful performance of the contract. -7- // a, Reauest for Proposal Dispute Resolution Process When a provider is selected to operate this service, all unsuccessful respondents will be notified, in writing, of the decision. If a dispute should arise from this RFP process, the following steps will be followed to resolve the dispute: 1. A written protest must be submitted to the City of Shakopee within seven days of the aggrieved action. The protest must state the exact reasons for the appeal and the remedy requested. 2. A meeting will be called by the RFP review team within 7 days from receipt of the protest. 3. A decision on the protest will be made by the RFP review team within 14 days from receipt of the protest. All communications with the parties involved during the resolution of the dispute, will be made part of a docket, open for public inspection. A separate Dispute resolution process following bid award will be specified in each contract entered into by the participating bodies. -8- SERVICE SPECIFICATIONS // a' Introduction The service to be provided in response to this Request for Proposal (RFP) will consist of three service packages. Service will be provided on weekdays, weekends and selected holidays. Service will be custom designed for residents in each service area. Service will be comprised of demand response Dial -A -Ride. Dial -A -Ride features advance call-in and provides curb to curb service. All trips are coordinated to carry as many passengers as possible and as inexpensively as possible keeping in mind the comfort and safety of the passenger. Prospective bidders on this RFP are encouraged to submit creative and innovative ideas to enhance the proposed service plan. General Provisions Common to All Service Packages Revenues All revenues derived from the operation of the proposed services shall be and remain from the initial receipt thereof the absolute property of the participating body in which the fare was collected. The treatment of such revenues including collection, banking and accounting shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. The Contractor shall keep and maintain the books and records reflecting the operation of each individual Dial -A -Ride system as required by the participating bodies and the Regional Transit Board. All revenues derived from the operation of the Dial -A -Ride systems, whether from passengers or other sources, shall be thoroughly and accurately accounted for by vehicle showing the date, type and kind of service from which said revenue is derived. All accounting shall be in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Marketing A marketing proposal must be submitted for each service area. The final marketing program, will be jointly developed between the participating bodies and provider. The cost for implementing any marketing plan will be responsibility of each participating body. Evaluation/Contract Renewal This project will be monitored on an ongoing basis and the contractor will be required to develop a data collection plan to support the monitoring process. More specific information may be collected and analyzed, such as on -board ridership surveys, load counts and other research. These activities may occur at six months and at one year. The ongoing monitoring process will include collection of the following information by the provider: -10- ridership and load factors - revenues operating characteristics promotional activities Evaluation criteria will be developed for the proposed services based upon specific performance measures. These measures, to be developed by the participating bodies in consultation with the contractor, will be provided monthly and shall include: - ridership levels and growth - cost per revenue hour - subsidy per passenger - subsidy per hour - farebox recovery ratio - passenger per revenue mile - average fare - number of ride requests denied per day and rational - customer compliant log The target start-up date of these services is April 17, 1989. Evaluations will be conducted at six months, 18 months and 36 months. After 36 months, a determination will be made by each system under contract if the service is to continue or be terminated. If the evaluation of the service recommends continuing operating the service, the systems under contract may renew the contract with the provider for up to three additional years. Contract extensions shall be mutually agreeable between the provider and the system under contract. Vehicle Requirements a. Vehicle Type The contractor must provide vehicles in good working condition both operationally and in appearance. Although new vehicles are not required, they are preferred. The participating bodies reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to inspect and reject, temporarily or permanently, any vehicle the contractor proposes to use or subsequently uses that the participating bodies deem unacceptable. Vehicles shall have a minimum seating capacity for seven passengers and a maximum capacity for fifteen passengers. Mini- vans with raised roofs are preferred for use in these services. Note: The SWMTC Southdale Tn-❑n ,,tc unnro -11- b. Applicable Codes and Regulation All parts of the vehicle and all equipment mounted on or in the vehicle shall conform to state and federal vehicle safety standards. All vehicles shall have a certificate that the vehicle meets or exceeds all state and federal requirements as of the date of manufacture. This certificate must be affixed to the driver door post or outer door edge. C. Shell Design/Vehicle Cleanliness Vehicles shall have a clean, smooth, simple design; compact, correctly proportioned and properly balanced. Water and dirt shall not be retained in or on any body feature to freeze or bleed out onto the bus after leaving the washer. Body and windows shall be sealed to prevent leaking of air, dust or water under normal operating conditions. d. Windows All windshields and windows shall be tinted. e. Heater/Air Conditioning Heat system must be capable of maintaining 65 degrees in the passenger area with outside temperature of 15 degrees below zero. Heat system shall have floor discharges to keep ice from forming in winter conditions. The vehicles should also be equipped with an air conditioning system, maintained in working order during the summer months. f. Seats As a minimum, passenger seats shall be covered with cloth. Seat color shall coordinate with interior decor. g. Safety Equipment The following safety equipment shall be provided and mounted within the vehicle: - Warning Devices: Six (6) 30 -minute road flares and three (3) portable warning reflectors mountable on stands. - Fire Extinguisher: One fire extinguisher (10 BC) bracket mounted and easily accessible to the driver. -12- First Aid Kit: A first aid kit with a minimum of ten (10) different units (each unit shall be of a different type from every other unit) shall be mounted in a location easily accessible to the driver. The mounted location of any of the above equipment shall not interfere with passengers' limbs or placement of feet or interfere with movement of passengers within the vehicle. None of the equipment shall be mounted on a door. Back-up Service In the event of any breakdown or malfunction of a bus described in the vehicle data sheets, such bus shall be repaired within a period of 7 calendar days from the date of such breakdown and if not, there shall be substitured a bus not older than 1985 of equal or better general condition as the bus which has broken down or malfunctioned. Any vehicle out of service more than 24 hours shall be reported to the participating body. Radio communication Each vehicle shall be equipped with radio that permits two-way communication between vehicles and the contractor's dispatch center at all times vehicles are in service. The proposal must specify the type of radio system to be employed by the provider. j. Vehicle Identification Each vehicle shall display the logo or phone number of the service area in which it is operating. No commercial advertising shall be permitted on the interior or exterior of the vehicles specified. Operating Facilities The contractor shall provide and maintain appropriate vehicle storage, maintenance and dispatching facilities for the garaging and servicing of the vehicles. The contractor shall state the location of dispatching and garaging facilities in the response to the RFP. Each service will be designated with a local telephone number (prefix) for their system. Service Extensions Each system reserves the right to add additional vehicles on a per hour basis at the quoted hourly rate upon thirty day written notice to the provider. -13- // a- 7. Service Area Each systems service area shall be as specified in this RFP. Each system reserves the right to revise the service area at the quoted hourly rate upon thirty day written notice to the provider. Service Summaries Shakopee Service is designed to serve all persons interested in receiving a ride within the Shakopee City limits. Total service hours in service package A shall not exceed 10,244 hours annually unless otherwise directed by the City. Initially, 3 vehicles shall be assigned to this service package. Trips will be offered anywhere within the Shakopee City Limits (See Attachment #1). Since 1984 Dial -A -Ride service has been available in Shakopee. Ridership data for the program is shown in Attachment #2. The system in service package A shall be provided via a contract between the provider and the City of Shakopee. SWMTC Service is designed to serve all persons interested in receiving a ride within the area defined as the City Limits of Shakopee, Chaska, Chanhassen and Eden Prairie (See attachment #3). Additionally, one route will provide service to the Southdale Shopping Center on an In -Commute Basis. Total service hours in service package B shall not exceed 18,144 hours annually unless otherwise directed by the Southwest Metropolitan Transit Commission (SWMTC) Dial -A -Ride service has been available in the SWMTC service area since the fall of 1987. Ridership data for the SWMTC Dial -A -Ride program is shown in Attachment #4. Initially, 6 vehicles shall be assigned to this service package. The system in service package B shall be provided via a contract between the provider and the SWMTC. Plymouth Service is designed to serve alf person interested in receiving a ride within the area shown in Attachment #5. Total service hours in service package C shall not exceed 6,864 hours annually unless otherwise directed by the City. Initially, two vehicles shall be assigned to this service package. Plymouth has had an internal circulator system operating in their service area since 1984. The proposed Dial -A -Ride service will be replacing the internal circulator system. Shown in attachment #6 is the ridership data for Plymouth's internal circulator system. The system in service package C will be provided via a contract between the provider and the city of Plymouth. -14- -15- Shakopee SWMTC Plymouth Service Service Service Weekdays between 6:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. Yes Yes Yes Weeknights between 6:00 p.m. -9:00 p.m. Yes No No Saturdays between 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Yes No Yes Sundays between 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. No No Yes Service Specifications Vehicle Requirements Weekdays 3 6 2 Saturday Only 1 0 0 Weeknights 1 0 0 Weekends 0 0 1 Daily Vehicle Service Hours Weekdays 12 12 12 Saturdays 8 0 8 Weeknights 3 0 0 Annual Vehicle Service Hours 10,244 18,144 6,864 Target Performance Standards Passengers/Hour 3 3 3 Farebox Recovery 15% 15% 15% A. Limitations This RFP does not commit the participating bodies to award a contract or to pay any cost incurred in the preparation of a proposal. The participating bodies reserve the right to accept or reject any or all proposals received as a result of this project. The participating bodies reserve the right to clarify information set forth in this proposal, to waive any irregularities. Furthermore, the participating bodies reserve the right to correct any obvious errors in the proposals submitted. -15- 3 /j a-� The participating bodies reserve the right to cancel in part, or in its entirety, this RFP, if it is in the best interest of the participating bodies to do so. The participating bodies may require the proposers selected to participate in negotiations and to submit such prices, technical data or other revisions of their proposals as may result from negotiations. These terms and other conditions of the final contract will be derived on the basis of negotiations between the selected contractor and the participating bodies. Non -Discrimination Each provider submitting a proposal shall submit a copy of their certificate of Compliance as issued by the commissioner of the Department of Human Rights. Contractor to Make Examination The Contractor shall make his own examination, investigation, and research regarding the proper method of doing the work, and all conditions affecting the work to be done and the labor, equipment, and materials needed thereon, and the quantity of work to be performed. The Contractor agrees that he has satisfied himself by his own investigation and research regarding all such conditions and that his conclusion to enter into the proposed contract is based upon such investigation and research. 3. The Contractor shall make no claims against the Contractor, the Regional Transit Board because of any of the estimates, statements, or interpretations made by any official, officer, or agent of the participating bodies that may prove to be in any respect erroneous. The Contractor solely assumes that risk of all conditions, foreseen and unforeseen and agrees to complete the work without additional compensation under whatever circumstances which may develop other than as herein provided. Insurance Liability Insurance (A) The Contractor shall provide insurance under a primary policy, coverage shall include bodily injury insurance in the amount of at least $200,000 for each person and at least $600,000 for any number of persons included in bodily injury. Property damage insurance shall also be -16- provided by the contractor in the amount of at least $100,000. In addition to these coverages an umbrella excess liability policy in which the participating body and the Regional Transit Board is to be included as an additional insured shall be provided by the contractor in the amount of at least $1,000,000. Such policies must provide for a 15 day notice to the participating body of any change, cancellation or lapse of such policy. (B) The Contractor shall further guarantee to save the participating body and the Regional Transit Board harmless and indemnify the participating body and the Regional Transit Board for any and all laws, claims, suits, judgments, and recoveries which may be asserted, made or may arise or be had, brought or recovered against the participating body and the Regional Transit Board by reason of any of the foregoing claims; and that he shall immediately appear and defend the same at his own cost or expense. (C) Prior to the effective date of the contract the Contractor shall file a copy of such policies with the participating body. 2. worker's Compensation (A) The Contractor will at all times keep fully insured at his own expense all persons employed by him in connection with performance of this contract as required by the laws of the State of Minnesota relating to Worker's Compensation Insurance and shall hold the participating body and the Regional Transit Board harmless from liability from any cause that may arise by reason of injury to an employee of the Contractor who may be injured while performing work or labor necessary to carry out the provisions of the contract. Such policy must provide for fifteen (15) days notice to the participating body of any change, cancellation, or lapse of such policy periods. (B) Prior to the effective date of the contract the Contractor shall file a copy of such policy with the participating bodies. -17- 11,5c, PROVIDER CHECKLIST FOR RFP Bid Security (53 of total proposed cost) vehicle Safety Inspection Program Preventive Maintenance Procedures and Schedule Driver Training Program and Driver Qualifications Administrative Functions and Personnel Process for Handling Passenger Issues and Complaints Fare Collection Process Description of Maintenance Facilities Level and Types of Insurance Coverage Form A (Cost Summary) Form B (only for proposals based on Marginal Costs) Company History/Experience. Start -Up Plan and Costs Company Financial Information Description of Understanding of Service Certification of Proposal (Form C) Vehicle Identification (Form D) Marketing Dispatching List of Exceptions to RFP -18- FORM A DIAL -A -RIDE OPTIONS Southwest Metro Shakopee Plymouth 1. Proposed hourly rates for service provided to only one city S $ 2. Proposed hourly rates for service provided to any two cities: A. SW Metro & Shakopee $ g X B. SW Metro & Plymouth $ S X $ C. Shakopee & Plymouth S X S S 3. Proposed hourly rates for service provided to all three cities.. $ $ $ Bid Submitted by: Authorized Signature: Date: * To be completed by all providers submitting a proposal. -19- FORM B Marginal Costs DIAL -A -RIDE OPTIONS Southwest Metro Shakopee Plymouth 1. Proposed hourly rates for service provided to only one city S $ $ 2. Proposed hourly rates for service provided to any two cities: A. SW Metro & Shakopee S $ $ X B. SW Metro & Plymouth $ S X $ C. Shakopee & Plymouth S X $ $ 3. Proposed hourly rates for service provided to all three cities.. $ S $ Bid Submitted by: Authorized Signature: -20- Form C PROPOSAL TO OPERATE SHAKOPEE, PLYMOUTH AND SOUTHWEST METRO DIAL -A -RIDE TRANSIT SERVICE 1. Name of Contractor: 2. Principal Office: (Street Address or P.O. Number) (Area Code) (Telephone Number) 3. Authorized Representative: (Name) 4. Ownership: Is the contractor an individual , a partnership a corporation , or a joint venture ? (Check as applicable.) If partnership, provide a list of names and addresses of partners; if a corporation, provide a list of officers, directors and shareholders and state of incorporation; if a joint venture, provide a list of names and addresses of venturers and, if any venturer is a corporation, partnership or joint venturer, provide the same information for each such corporation, partnership and joint venture. 5. Location of Vehicle Storage/Maintenance Facility: (Street Address or P.O. Number) (City) (State) (Zip Code) 6. Certification and Signature: The undersigned certifies that he has been legally authorized by the contractor to make the statements and representations contained in this proposal document, and represents and warrants that the information is true and accurate to the best of his/her knowledge, and intends that the Regional Transit Board rely thereon in evaluating the contractor. The undersigned furthermore certifies that all work will be performed for the quoted price stated on the bid form that will become the fixed price upon completion of contract negotiations. CONTRACTOR'S NAME: SIGNATURE By: TITLE: -21- Date: i Form D r� RECIPIENT: ____�__ VEMCLE DATA Please 511 out this form for each vehicle designated to your service, including active and spare vehicles. Date: – Project Name: Registered to Whom: Model/Year: Vehicle Make: Chassis Body: Fuel Type: Serial Number: Purchase Date: In Service Date: Purchase Price: Gross Vehicle Weight: Pass. Capacity: Special Equipment: Radio Model _ Yr. _ Farebox Model ______ Yr. Make of W/C Litt Yr. _ No. of Tie Downs Other Funding: Federal $ Source of Fed. Funds _----- __ State $ Local Accumulated Mileage Major Repair History: Engine - Date Mileage Transmission - Date Mileage - Differential - Date Mileage Body - Date Mileage Tire - Replacement --- --- Mileage Estimate of any planned repair/renovation cast: C.Y. 89 $__ _ Estimate of Replacement Cost (if in C.Y. 89) $_—_ Estimate of Vehicle's Remaining Useful Life Years General statement of vehicle's condition, including body, engine, transmission, special equipment, etc. Additional information or comments: // a- GTY OF SHAKOPEE + Y Y Y 00744373"44 0Z0m744373"+14 = rOtVIQ r7`4411n P7 0.4 rt OW �' z l<Irot H Q 7 =`V m rGJ w OrtCKN vnKC MNO rt CKw P.0 pi rt O H PNN Y}r w 0!b'NN Y;7Cw Y H O H H w rt+ w 11 VPN 01+ A) M C O O O ry M K w N M O' K K �. + + K tl It K 7 n 7i N W N w N W w N N Y N N N N W A A W W W N Y N N N W W N W G J N A w SIO NYS V 1 W N O W O W S U I N N w O Y t T Y N P 5 J N J Y N A t O A A WO V I S b Y I D O J S J O J S O O. W VI S A S O 10 W A tD HY J W J J Y O A Y N VI A �0 O UI N w N K w Fm G Y ' w w J Y Y YYr rrrr Y n O Y w 1G WAS 10oboU101D YS 1p W 10N w W YSON I'7 A J Y O A A U I N J W S l0 Y W w J U 1 S W A J O W N S Y Y Y O A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y r Y Y Y Y Y Y Y W O J . . . _ .. . � O w S Y 0 0 0 W w w . _ _ _ _ . . . . . A N W l0 A Y O N N V I O W w O Y UI A �O SUTASSOSSJ IDYNOAIp W UI UIYYUI 7 r IS w J 1 H J w tD J J J J J w w J S J S VI VI S J w J S J M W J N J w w A Y N O J O A A V I Y J Y Y W N O V I w A W O J w w (11 w Y w VIN 0. 1p W tT Ul w N VI A 1D UI W lO Vl J A b [+1 O ro l+7 Y N S O W O O O A 0 0 0 O ID O 000000000000 5 T' O H H O Z Y w J o w Yr Y Y N A J w J S I D J J J 10 N Y 0 1 D O w V I w J w w t D I D w .R7 aro ro J U I J W A S O V I J N H - w AVwNJwOV YN 0 OwO.OS WDJDoWS NN i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . N. H3 O O Y 0J A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000 O O J 10 Ip Y J Ip W bbID OlOwwID ID �O �0 w�OwS wwJ w J S J O 3 UI O O Y W YIO OUTASA O w JA AS wUIS N w lO J rtv N Y A J w VI w N w J 1p UI w w w W O J w w Y N 1D N O G Y S J V I J S N V I J A O S A W V W J W N 10 U T A JAS S rum YN A O Y O A J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O J O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N H N N C7 J A A N W Y Y N N N W N N N N N N Y Y Y N N N Y N Oz O W UI JN10w W ONYJ W NN W ONwJONNwN Y< O N 10 J w Y W Y N N A O S 1p A A N Y A S N S Y J A N r Y J J VI W A VI W O W VI VI S W N P O A O J S A J W o C rt ID J Y O N O I p N O J W V l w J N U I U J J J N N O U I U I N N cn v cn mDc cr ,� mm* >m� m O -a D Z N =i N C e 2 D r m b rt rt d O N 7 rt �+% w r m z r D m m 0 b O mmmm_�'. 2:p pj ��m'=opom F »5o'A n ac's -N `gm fn ESx dam ��u u�3c=aim' O an�3cm«?rm c'�� 2.m�mgg4�SNnv 7 »53.a a��'<.m d m moi 3aE 1D -gym agib' jymo. gL ic'Q O 3ndoN 1D aa- m n- ammm n' m-31 n... > �s N 3moroa m^�"�Nv«u 3� j mQ C m� £6 ?$m' N m N m m m N N rii C a imam m� Nmm 3k� m rnp a_a�ry� mm om 0 p3ID m n nm mm�:Ho gg. OMO mNp.��NnEm O n O g5xO gel N � CJI O n _ m S 9 m 2y D ' ma3mZo N H OMO mNp.��NnEm ,m•�O oUFF- g5xO sw�$m _ m S g m 2y ma3mZo - � cm TH 31 � d N N > 0 ��m20 O Attachment R4 S.W.M.T.C. DIAL -A -RIDE PASSENGER/MILEAGE REPORT 1986-1988 (Inception) cZ PASS. ACTUAL MONTH TRIPS MILES OCT. '88 2288 18568.4 SEPT. '88 1710 17351.2 AUG. '88 1653 19303.9 JULY '88 1514 16074.3 JUNE '88 1324 15322.0 MAY '88 10.71 1028 13301.0 (Rte 56 Discontined) 12.43 1140.50 APRIL '88 842 12337.0 MARCH.'88 19,704.80 742 6506.0 FEB. '88 "609 2714.0 JAN. '88 458 2161.0 DEC. '87 467 4098.0 NOV. '87 205 2233.0 OCT. '87 195 2210.0 SEPT. '87 214 2320.0 AUG. '87 143 2820.0 JULY '87 136 3000.0 JUNE '87 200 3000.0 MAY '87 4,988.55 132 2300.0 APRIL '87 160 2340.0 MARCH '87 138 2370.0 FEB. '87 106 2300.0 JAN. '87 59 2580.0 DEC. '87 30 2298.0 (Inception) cZ Note: Mgmt. fees and Admin. costs are not included in the cost of service for the purposes of this report. SUBSID COST OF FAREBOX SUBSIDY PER SERVICE LESS RECOVERY PER PASSENG REVENUES REVENUES RATIO MILE TRIP 1817.05 17,687.99 10.3% 1.05 7.73 1715.50 18,318.50 9.4% 1.06 10.71 1382.50 20,559.50 •6.7% 1.07 12.43 1140.50 17,939.50 6.4% 1.12 11.85 1283.20 19,704.80 6.5% 1.29 14.88 876.00 19,158.00 4.5% 1.44 18.64 706.50 19,327.50 3.7% 1.57 22.95 637.00 8,139.80 7.8% 1.25 10.97 516.25 5,589.35 9.2% .48 9.18 431.00 3,194.20 13.0% 1.48 6.97 350.25 3,751.95 9.3% 1.09 8.03 175.25 3,449.95 5.0% 1.54 16.83 130.75 4,988.55 2.6% 2.25 25.58 180.75 4,750.05 3.8% 2.05 22.19 128.50 4,907.30 2.6% 1.74 34.32 123.75 5,367.80 2.3% 1.79 39.47 140.00 5,145.18 2.7% 1.72 25.73 - 4,715.00 - 2.05 35.72 115.50 5,031.10 2.3% 2.15 31.44 104.75 5,048.15 2.0% 2.13 36.58 63.50 4,651.50 1.4% 2.02 43.88 47.50 4,937.90 0.9% 1.91 83.69 29.00 5,108.78 0.5% 2.22 170.29 Note: Mgmt. fees and Admin. costs are not included in the cost of service for the purposes of this report. 7K OZON T,� 43 D'3'74 < m m O O m G C G W•O w m w O m> O < rt•O� Y7K n R u Z MW m m O rt L K m H- O R G H tr H x C) r tx VM 3 R N n m0 m0Rv nK Z n n m K G] n Y m O�JJJO�JJ�DOOHw m Y O NYYN�D �O YlO �DY�00 m m O� OYNNNJamNYNJ U� < m H R !A o m V� YIOm U�NN> W U� W USN m m O� N0laamm�ONamOY m n G Y O rt J �o �omaaatn tnmw�oN m R a YmU1m NU�m OUtJ am J C\ n Y m a wawaaaa �o n F` OtO �OOYNW m a N�pNmmO�W m Y W W W W W a a a N N N N N m O� �O Ut O�NJNYJJNInH > N Y m �o z UI U� U� lJ� a lJ� U� Vt W N 4� U1 UI m G Y NJUIN JNwO�NO�OH Ul (7 H F• H (% O O �n to �naWJrnmwarnaa m Cmm H Y moowwNalfaaJo O� rn K w� 10m K w m m o Y a a w W win in inw ainaa IH m n l!1 �pNN W aNa0��0 W \OJ J Y m w aawwaww m �o NH�caama m Y Y U� Jmmmaam W inmain m J NmJatD BOJ>OJNW N KOH O O�aNmO�DY O��OO�O IO m m Y J mO�aJHOWJmN>Y m 3 Y Y a W �O m�O �p F -'m YU1a J W �O OOJY�OJN01aONm J Y a aaaaaaa �o �n Ntnwammm m N`� CONSENT I j L MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant RE: 1989 Regional Transit Board Contract for Transportation Services - Resolution No. 2992 DATE: November 29, 1988 INTRODUCTION• Each year the City of Shakopee enters into an agreement with the Regional Transit Board for transit service funding. In order to continue transit service levels as they presently exist within our community, the City of Shakopee must enter into an agreement with the Regional Transit Board for funding in 1989. BACKGROUND - On November 28, 1988 staff received an agreement from the Regional Transit Board that provides funding for our program in 1989. The contract agreement simply establishes the amount of funding for our program in 1989 and the process by which these funds will be disbursed to the City. The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the agreement as to form. Due to the length of the agreement I have not enclosed a copy with this memo. Copies are available in my office if you wish to review one before the meeting. Resolution No. 2992 (shown in attachment #1) authorizes the appropriate City officials to enter into a service contract agreement with the Regional Transit Board to provide public transportation service in Shakopee for calendar year 1989. The resolution also specifies that the City of Shakopee will not be responsible for any transit deficit that may occur in conjunction with our transit program. The 1988 agreement between the City of Shakopee and the Regional Transit Board provided funding in the amount of $189,780. The 1989 agreement provides funding in the amount of $217,661. The increase in funding for 1989 is primarily due to the fact that our current Dial -A -Ride contract expires in April of 1989 and it must be rebid. To be safe, staff projected a higher rate for Dial -A -Ride service in 1989. The funding request also included funding for possible service expansions. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Move to approve resolution #2992. 2. Do not approve resolution #2992. 3. Table approval of resolution #2992 pending further information from staff. RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends alternative #1. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution #2992 AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATE CITY OFFICIALS TO ENTER INTO A TRANSIT SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH THE REGIONAL TRANSIT BOARD FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES IN SHAKOPEE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1989 and move for it's adoption. RESOLUTION NO 992 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE TO ENTER INTO A SERVICE CONTRACT WITH THE REGIONAL TRANSIT BOARD TO PROVIDE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICE IN SHAKOPEE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1989 Resolved that the City of Shakopee, Mn enter into Contract with the Regional Transit Board, to provide a public transportation service in Shakopee. Further resolved that the City of Shakopee, Mn agrees to provide -0- percent of the total deficit of the transit project from local funds for State Transit assistance and/or exurban funding. Further resolved that authorization to execute the aforementioned Contract and any amendments thereto is hereby given to the City Administrator, City Clerk and the Mayor. Further resolved that the City Administrator or the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute request for reimbursement from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this day of 1987. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this _ day of , 1987. City Attorney CONSENT /-� a, MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant RE: Murphy's Landing Audit DATE: November 22, 1988 INTRODUCTION• In October, the Shakopee City Council directed staff to obtain cost quotations for a financial audit of Murphy's Landing. BACKGROUND: In October, staff reported that a cost quotation from a national accounting firm for a financial audit of Murphy's Landing had been obtained. The estimated cost for the audit was $7,500. At that time, City Council directed staff to obtain additional cost quotations from regional accounting firms. The financial quotations received were based on the following assumptions: 1. The audit would primarily be a financial audit focusing on internal controls and cash disbursements. 2. The audit period would be 18 months in duration. 3. The audit would be completed by year end. During the week of November 14, 1988 staff contacted the following three accounting firms: Abdo, Abdo and Eick; George Hansen and Associates; and Boeckermann, Heinen and Mayer. All of the firms stated that they could complete the audit for approximately $3,000. In an effort to determine which firm would be best suited to complete the audit, I requested that each firm submit a written proposal to the City describing the scope of services to be performed. I also requested information on relevant experience in performing the services requested. If Council feels an audit should be performed of Murphy's Landing, staff would recommend that Council proceed immediately or risk delay in completion of the audit. All three of the firms have stated that they can complete the audit within 30 days if they are notified prior to December 15, 1988. With the end of the tax year drawing near, all three firms were leery of completing the audit within 30 days if they could not commence the audit in what is remaining of 1988. Staff is recommending that the firm of George Hansen and Associates be selected. I base my recommendation on the research and time commitment that George Hansen and Associates displayed in preparing their cost quotation and the completeness of their proposals. I have copies of the proposals in my office if any Council members wish to review them prior to the meeting. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Direct the appropriate City officials to solicit an audit on Murphy's Landing from George Hansen and Associates. 2. Do not pursue an audit of Murphy's Landing at this time. 3. Select some other firm to complete an audit of Murphy's Landing. RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends alternative #1. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to direct the appropriate City officials to solicit an audit of Murphy's Landing from George Hansen and Associates for an amount not to exceed $3,000. MEMO TO: Shakopee City Council FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator RE: Murphy's Landing Request DATE: December 1, 1988 ACTION• The City Council has been dealing with the question of the operation of Murphy's Landing for the past one to two years. The attached letter from Dr. Roland Pistulka, President of the Scott County Historical Society (SCHS) specifically speaks to this question and also asks certain things of the City Council. BACKGROUND: At the present time the Shakopee City Council controls the Murphy's Landing site. The facility is being operated under a contract with the Minnesota Valley Restoration Project (MVRP). This contract will expire at the end of this year. There is a need to find an entity which will be able to operate Murphy's Landing in a manner satisfactory to the City Council. The City Council met with representatives of both MVRP and SCHS at a meeting on October 7, 1988. At that meeting it was decided that Loren Gross and Dr. Pistulka of the SCHS would attend the MVRP Board meeting as guests. on November 16th this meeting was held. The outcome of the meeting was positive in that it looks as though both MVRP and SCHS are trying very hard to work together in a positive manner and in a way which will be beneficial to Murphy's Landing. The attached letter goes into much greater detail on items discussed at the meeting of November 16th. One of the major outcomes of the meeting was the MVRP Board's decision to ask Dr. Pistulka and Mr. Gross to join the MVRP Board. Conditions have been cited which are apparently very relevant in terms of whether the two aforementioned people will join the MVRP Board. These conditions include a long range (five year) operating contract with the City of Shakopee. It is indicated that this type of stability is needed if the financial donations and grants are to be obtained. This is consistent with other information that has been received earlier on this subject. The second request is that the City of Shakopee provide financial support in the amount of at least $50,000 per year for at least a three year period and preferably for a five year period. The letter indicates that this type of financial support by the City would allow the MVRP to obtain full time experienced museum director and support staff that is needed for the site to move forward. The third provision is for an independent financial audit conducted at City expense. Another item on this agenda does address that and information on audits has been obtained from three auditing firms. The fourth item relates to an inventory of artifacts to be conducted. I think this could probably be accomplished by hiring one or more graduate students in the area of museum management. This would appear to be more reasonable then using an accounting firm which would both be more costly and perhaps not as historically accurate. The fifth condition requests that a search be started immediately for the hiring of a formally trained and experienced museum director. I think this is also consistent with the other information that we have been receiving over time from various people on the operation of Murphy's Landing. The hiring of a formally trained and experienced museum director is probably contingent upon the provision of financial support by the City. The last stated condition was one of assuming that the Board occupy a policy making role and that it delegate management responsibilities to the staff. Other information received from Mr. Ronald Nelson as well as conversations I have had with other professionals in the area coroborats this position. The Board should be in a policy making and money generating role and the management clearly should be carried out by the Executive Director, not the Board of Directors. None of the above requests appear to be unreasonable however the City Council should discuss the annual $50,000 contribution. It is possible that the City Council might wish to have the annual allocation be viewed as a loan rather than a grant and have some or all of it paid back if Murphy's Landing is successful in generating more grants and other income in the future. ALTERNATIVES• 1. The City Council could grant of the requests as stated above. 2. The City Council could provide a loan of $50,000 per year for three years as requested and make some provision for the pay back of this loan if it is financially possible in the future. 3. The City Council could provide less than $50,000 per year financial support to Murphy's Landing. If this alternative is followed the Council needs to be sure that the amount of support they provide would be adequate to have a positive impact on the operation of Murphy's Landing. At this time I could not say what amount that might be. 4. The City Council could provide no additional financial support to Murphy's Landing. The City Council could enter into a five year operations contract with MVRP. The operations during the past year would seem to indicate that this would be a sound course of action to take at this time. The City Council could provide the audit and inventory as requested in the letter and prove the initiation of a search for a formally trained and experienced museum director. It is recommended that the City Council discuss the annual allocation request before deciding on an annual contribution. It is recommended that the City Council approve the remaining above mentioned requests. If the City Council decides to provide $50,000, or a lessor amount to Murphy's Landing, in either the form of a loan or a grant the money could be obtained from three different sources. These include: (1) The General Fund - Fund Balance, (2) From the General Fund Budget with cuts in other programs, and (3) The surplus, (if there is any) from one of the debt service funds. Once decisions are made a formal contract will be drafted for formal Council action. ACTION REODESTED: (1) Move to provide for financial support to Murphy's Landing in the amount of $ per year for at least the next three years and to direct the City Attorney to prepare an operating contract between the City of Shakopee and the MVRP for the next five years. (2) Also move to direct the City Administrator to work with the MVRP Executive Director in finding someone to conduct an artifact inventory.. Scott County Historical Society November 23, 1988 Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 Bast 1st Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr. Kraft: After the meeting of October 7, 1988 held at the restaurant in Murphy's Landing with members of the council, MVRP and SCHS, it was decided that Loren Gross and I would attend a MVRP Board Meeting as guests. On November 16, 1988, Mr. Gross and I attended a MVRP regular Board Meeting as guests and participants. After much discussion, the following points were noted: 1. Attendance has risen each year from 15,101 in 1981 to 43,267 in 1988. 2. Income barely covers expenses without taking out loans. 3. Paid employees which are minimum in number are doing a superior job of what they are expectedto do but have no basic fringe benefits, such as health insurance. 4. Increased donations and grants must be explored and sought now. 5. Board is doing management, not governing. 6. Present director is working at maximum that is physically and mentally possible, such as doing the entire accounting system, marketing, public relations, program, managing the site, coordinating the volunteers, responsible for getting donations and writing grants and taking care of personnel. 7. This site has become a one-half million dollar operation which is trying to continue in a proper mode with a few people trying to do everything. 8. Cash is a premium. 9. No long-term contract committment. 10. Scott County Historical Society and MVRP are a non -supportive mode. Must work together as a solid force. 11. MVRP must continue its mission of historical preservation and education. The comprehensive plan of Murphy's Landing must be a guide. 12. MVRP is more than a local communitty project but is regional, state and national in scope. 13. Strong local support from individuals, City of Shakopee and County of Scott is needed to obtain the area wide support that is so vitally needed. Box 354 • Shakopee, MN 55379 Dennis Kraft Page 2 November 23, 1988 The MVRP Board has asked Mr. Loren Gross and me to join them. The Scott County Historical Society, with much discussion, agrees that the two organizations must present themselves as a strong unified force. It has been decided by the Scott County Historical Society Board that Mr. Loren Gross and I would be allowed to join the MVRP Board to give the solid joint effort that is needed to enhance the further development of the MVRP into the 21st Century under the following conditions. 1. Need a long-range operating contract from the City of Shakopee for 5 years. This denotes stability and is needed for any financial donations and grants that are so desperately needed. 2. Need City of Shakopee financial support of at least $50,000 per year for at least 3 years, preferably 5 years. This would allow the MVRP to obtain the full-time experienced museum director, the secretarial and accounting support staff that is needed for the site to move forward. This also shows strong local financial support. 3. The independent financial audit be done that has been promised by the city, at city expense. 4. The inventory of the artifacts should be arranged for and in process as promised by the city. 5. A search must be started for the hiring of a formally trained and ex- perienced museum director immediately. 6. The board must assume policy making duties and delegating management to staff. The above conditions are needed to show the region that the local people and organizations are strongly supportive of this operation. Without it, no dona- tions or grants will be forthcoming. How will the City of Shakopee benefit? 1. A beautiful opportunity to educate the public to the historical culture of our forefathers of this area. 2. These same people that enjoy the site use the restaurants, motels, shops and service stations. 3. It adds to the beautification of the city, enhances already what the city has so admirably started and hope it will continue. 4. It will attract more people to the downtown area for the benefit of the tax paying merchants. 5. It will enhance the marketing of the area. 6. It will reveal the progressiveness of the cities planning into the 21st Century. If the above conditions are accepted, we will be happy to become members of the MVRP Board and become actively involved in obtaining the museum director and the supportive staff and accounting system that are so desperately needed. We must work together as a team, with a unified goal, not as independent indi- viduals groping around in the dark. Dennis Kraft Page 3 November 23, 1988 We will be waiting for your reply and will be available for any further discussions. We encourage immediate attention be given this matter, for us to implement the program as of January 1, 1989. Thank you for your time and your future support. Sincerely A. D. Pistulka, M.D. President, Scott County Historical Society cc: Mary Henderson, Director MVRP. John M. Manahan, Vice President MVRP Loren Gross, Director SCHS CONSENT 1),e - MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Annexation Area DATE: November 30, 1988 INTRODUCTION• Attached is the letter from the Metropolitan Council approving the Comprehensive Plan Amendment extending the MUSA line to include the newly annexed parcel of property South of the High School. The City Council now must hold a public hearing and approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment. BACKGROUND: On July 19, 1988 the City Council approved submittal of a Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Metropolitan Council for extension of the MUSA line to include the newly annexed parcel of property South of the High School and West of C.R. 79. The amendment submitted to the Metropolitan Council included the trade of the area North of the Minnesota River out of the MUSA in exchange for inclusion of the annexation area in to the MUSA. Prior to submittal of the amendment the Metropolitan Council staff had indicated to the City that they would not consider an outright expansion of the MUSA but would only favorably consider a trade. After review of the proposed amendment by the Metropolitan Council staff the City received a call indicating that they would not recommend favorably the trade of the area North of the river for inclusion of the annexation area because the area North of the river is included in the flood plain. The City staff met on several occasions with the Metropolitan Council staff reviewing the request of the City for extension of the MUSA and reviewing the Metropolitan Council's figures regarding land supply within the MUSA. The City staff was finally successful in gaining the support of the Metropolitan Council staff and their recommendation that the MUSA be extended to include the annexation area. The approved amendment does not include the trade of the area North of the Minnesota River. The City Council must now set a public hearing on the proposed amendment and then take action to approve the amendment as approved by the Metropolitan Council. ALTERNATIVES• Offer and pass a motion setting a public hearing for January 3, 1989 on the amendment of the Shakopee Comprehensive Plan to include the annexation area in the MUSA. Offer and pass a motion to not set a public hearing amending the Comprehensive Plan at this time. Staff recommends alternative #1. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and pass a motion setting a public hearing for January 3, 1989 to consider the amendment of the City Comprehensive Plan to include the proposed annexation area within the MUSA. LI -1 ,,2 G METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mede, rax Cemm. 230 F„ Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN. 35101 612 291-6159 November 18, 1988 ivVV2 3I938 John Anderson, Administrator - City of Shakopee ' 129 1st Avenue East Shakopee, Mn 55379 RE: City of Shakopee Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review Jackson Twp. Annexation MUSA Addition Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 14159-4 Dear Mr. Anderson: At its meeting on November 17, 1988, the Metropolitan Council considered Shakopee's comprehensive plan amendment. This consideration was based on a report of the Metropolitan and Community Development Committee, Referral Report No. 88-85. A copy of this report is attached. The Council adopted the following recommendations contained in the above report: 1. That the Council adopt this report and findings as stated above as part of these recommendations. 2. That the City of Shakopee's request for extension of the MUSA line to allow urban services to be extended to a 150 -acre site on the south side of the city be approved. Sincerely, Steve Keefe Chair SK: 11 Attachment cc: Doug Wise, Planner, City of Shakopee Roselyn Menke, Clerk, Jackson Twp- R.A. Odds, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Paul Baltzersen, Metropolitan Council Staff Bob Overby, Metropolitan Council Staff G Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area Mears Park Centre, 230 E. 5th St. St, Paul, Minnesota 55101 Tel. 612 291-6359/TDD 291-0904 DATE: November 3, 1988 TO: Metropolitan and Community Development Committee FROM: Robert Overby, Research and Long -Range Planning SUBJECT: City of Shakopee Comprehensive Plan Amendment Addition to Metropolitan Urban Service Area Metropolitan Council District 14 Metropolitan Council Referral No. 14159-4 INTRODUCTION The city of Shakopee has submitted a comprehensive plan amendment to request the addition of 150 acres into the MUSA of Shakopee. The land was annexed in July of 1987 from Jackson Township. The proposed land use is single-family residential: 340 houses at 2.5 units/acre, and $75,000 to $120,000 in cost. AUTHORITY TO REVIEW The Metropolitan Land Planning Act of 1976 requires that amendments to local comprehensive plans be prepared, submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review, and adopted in the same manner as the original plans (Minn. Statute 473.864, subd.2, 1978). Guidelines adopted pursuant to Minn. Statute 473.864 for reviewing proposed amendments provide a 90 -day review for amendments that potentially affect one or more of the metropolitan systems and a 60 -day review period for amendments that do not have a potential impact upon metropolitan systems. Shakopee submitted its proposed amendment on August 30, 1988. On September 13, the Chair determined that the proposed amendment presented a potential impact on the metropolitan sewer system. Therefore, the 90 -day review period applies. The review period will end on November 28, 1988. ANALYSIS The following analysis addresses Metropolitan Development and Investment Frame- work issues and sanitary sewer issues. Council staff have met with city staff to discuss these issues and reach agreement on their resolution. Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework Shakopee is currently designated as a Freestanding Growth Center. The city has discussed with the Council the possibility of being included within the MUSA, but no action has been taken beyond the study and discussion phase. The annexation area proposed for addition to the Shakopee MUSA is located on the south side of the community, west of Co. Rd. 79 and north of the planned bypass for highway 101. Please refer to attached map "D-2" for the specific location. The plan amendment originally proposed to trade 150 acres of land located north of the Minnesota River and adjacent to both sides of highway 169. The need for trading land was based upon the Council's determination that the total supply of MUSA land in Shakopee for 1989-2000 is 1,327 acres and the total demand for MUSA land for 1989-2000 is 1,010 acres. On that basis alone, a MUSA addition could not be justified, and a land trade would be necessary. Council staff reviewed this land trade proposal, met with city staff, and then determined that the site did not meet the Council's requirements for land trades as outlined in the MDIF. The city staff agreed to consider other possible areas in the Shakopee MUSA for the land trade. City staff and Council staff held another meeting to review new information on land supply, land demand and possible land trade areas. The city was unable to identify any new candidate areas for the land trade. It was at this time that the city offered the argument that the data on residential development trends and forecasts indicates there will be a need to add residential land to the Shakopee MUSA, in order to prevent a shortage of available land. The following table summarizes the data from the city and the Council. The explanation of the data is found in the text that follows the table. SHAKOPEE LAND SUPPLY, LAND DEMAND, AND HOUSEHOLD FORECASTS: 1988 - 2000 Forecasts of Household Growth, 1989-2000 1989-2000 City Data: 1,560 to 1,794 households Council Data = 907 households Estimated Residential Land Demand, 1989-2000 City Data Council Data Steady Growth Increased Growth (75 permits Projection Projection per year 1989-1994 232 acres 252 acres 206 acres 1995-2000 232 acres 320 acres 206 acres TOTAL 464 acres 572 acres 412 acres Estimated Residential Land Supply, 1989-2000 280 acres (Council data) In 1980, the population of Shakopee was 9,941. The April 1, 1988 population estimate was 11,733. The Council's forecast of Shakopee's population is 129500 in 1990 and 13,900 in 2000. The Council's forecast of growth in the number of households is from an estimated 3,993 in April of 1988 to 4,900 in 2000; an increase of 907 households in 12 years. This is equivalent to an average of 75 households per year. /a-- Ci The city has prepared two forecasts of household growth from 1989 through 2000. One forecast takes the average number of building permits for single-family and duplex units issued annually in the last five years (68) and uses it throughout the entire 12 -year period. This trend would result in 816 new households. The second forecast uses the figure of 75 building permits per year for 1989 through 1995 and 100 permits per year for 1995 through 2000. This higher growth trend is based on increased development from the highway 101 bypass and new County road 18 bridge over the Minnesota River. This trend would result in 1,050 new households. Conversion of the Council's household growth forecast to number of acres of land demand for 1989-2000 yields the figure of 321 acres. This figure includes an amount of acreage to allow for a five-year oversupply of land. Conversion of the city's household growth forecasts to number of acres of land demand yields a "low" figure of 370 acres and a "high" figure of 478 acres. Council staff have taken the city's data and map of developed and undeveloped MUSA land areas and have calculated that Shakopee's 1989-2000 residential land supply is currently 280 acres. A comparison of the Council's land demand figure (321 acres) and land supply figure (280 acres) indicates that a shortage of land for residential development may occur in the 1990-2000 decade, if development trends continue as forecast by the Council, and if there are no additions to the MUSA in the near future. The Council's revised 1990-2000 total land supply estimate for Shakopee is 1,327 acres; the 1990-2000 land demand estimate is 1,010 acres. Using only these community -wide figures, one would have to reject the city's request for an addition to its MUSA for residential development. However, based upon the Council's estimates of household formation, land demand, and land supply, the city's request to add 150 acres to its MUSA at this time is reasonable. City staff have suggested that development of the 150 acres could be done in stages, if the Council felt that this is desireable. The attached map (B-2) shows the amended Future Urban Service Area. The site is part of the "phase B", 1985-1990 urban expansion. The site is already in the city's comprehensive plan for sanitary sewer service, 1980-1990, as an area of future service expansion. Map C-2 (attached) shows the 1990 land use plan as amended to include the subject site in an area of single family residential land use. Sewers Wastewater from the area proposed to receive sewer service will be conveyed by a local sewer trunk line to Metropolitan Interceptor MSB 7024. This method of providing sewer service is consistent with the approved comprehensive sewer plan (CSP) for the city. Presently, there is sufficient capacity in the inter- ceptor to provide for the wastewater service needs of the 150 acres proposed to be added to the urban service area. The approved CSP for the city provides for wastewater from this area to be diverted to an -alternate sewer trunk line when the capacity of MSB 7024 is reached. Approval of the CSP by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission stated that the city should plan to construct any facilities necessary to divert flow as local facilities, using local funds only. A copy of the letter from the MWCC is attached to this report. E FINDINGS 1. The 150 -acre site proposed for addition to the Shakopee MUSA was annexed to the city in July of 1987. 2. The amended comprehensive plan proposes a single-family residential land use, at a density of 2.5 units per acre. Approximately 340 homes could be built on the site. The price range of the majority of homes will be from $75,000 to $120,000. 3. The city proposes to add the 150 acres to its MUSA, rather than trading existing MUSA land. The Council's current estimate of total MUSA land supply and land demand for the period 1989-2000 indicates an excess of supply available to meet the estimated demand. The city was unable to find land areas suitable for a trade: potential areas were already assessed for urban services, or included in a service moratorium area, or partially developed. The city will stage the development, if the Council so desires. 4. An analysis of city data and Council data on forecasts of new household growth in Shakopee between 1989 and 2000 indicate that local estimates of the residential development trend are comparable to Council estimates. 5. Council estimates of the residential land demand and land supply for the 1989-2000 time period indicate that a shortage of land may occur. 6. Eased on its estimates of household formation, residential land demand and residential land supply, Council staff consider this 150 -acre MUSA addition to be a reasonable request. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That the Council adopt this report and findings as stated above as part of these recommendations. 2. That the City of Shakopee's request for extension of the MUSA line to allow urban services to be extended to a 150 -acre site on the south side of the city be approved. RO0054, PHDEV2@5 cc: City of Shakopee, Jackson Township, and Scott County Id- Metropolitan Council Meeting of November 17, 1988 Business Item: B-5 M E T R O P O L I T A N C 0 U N C I L Mears Park Centre, 250 E. 5th St. Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 612-291-6359 B REPORT OF THE METROPOLITAN AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Referral Report No. 88-85 IV DATE: November 10, 1988 C !;ia' TO: Metropolitan Council SUBJECT: City of Shakopee Comprehensive Plan Amendment Addition to Metropolitan Urban Service Area Metropolitan Council Referral No. 14159-4 BACKGROUND At its meeting on November 10, 1988, the Metropolitan and Community Development Committee discussed a staff report and recommendations dealing with the review of the Shakopee comprehensive plan amendment. ISSUES AND CONCERNS Robert Overby, Council staff (ext. 6381), presented the report and answered questions from the Committee. City staff were also present, and made some additional comments after the comments by council staff. FINDINGS 1. The 150 -acre site proposed for addition to the Shakopee MUSA was annexed to the city in July of 1987• 2. The amended comprehensive plan proposes a single-family residential land use, at a density of 2.5 units per acre. Approximately 340 homes could be built on the site. The price range of the majority of homes will be from $75.000 to $120,000. 3. The city proposes to add the 150 acres to its MUSA, rather than trading existing MUSA land. The Council's current estimate of total MUSA land supply and land demand for the period 1989-2000 indicates an excess of supply available to meet the estimated demand. The city was unable to find land areas suitable for a trade: potential areas were already assessed for urban services, or included in a service moratorium area, or partially developed. The city will stage the development, if the Council so desires. 4. An analysis of city data and Council data on forecasts of new household growth in Shakopee between 1989 and 2000 indicate that local estimates of the residential development trend are comparable to Council estimates. 7 5. Council estimates of the residential land demand and land supply for the 1989-2000 time period indicate that a shortage of land may occur. 6. Based on its estimates of household formation, residential land demand and residential land supply, Council staff consider this 150 -acre MUSA addition to be a reasonable request. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That the Council adopt this report and findings as stated above as part of these recommendations. 2. That the City of Shakopee's request for extension of the MUSA line to allow urban services to be extended to a 150 -acre site on the south side of the city be approved. Respectfully submitted, Joan Campbell, Chair If�lr Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Mears Nark Centre, 230 East Fifth Street. St Paul. Minnesota 55101 612 222-8423 September 27, 1988 Mr. John Rutford Referral Coordinator Metropolitan Council 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 RE: Metropolitan Council Referral File Number 14159-�i Dear Mr. Rutford: 7 The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission has reviewed the comprehen- sive plan amendment submitted by the City of Shakopee for an altera- tion in its urban service area. The amendment proposes to add 150 acres of land the City annexed from Jackson Township to the service area and delete from the service area 150 acres of land in the City lying north of the Minnesota River. sewer beOur review indicates that wastewater from the area proposed to receive sewer trunk to ed InterceptorcMSB1ll 7024. cThisymethod a ofocal providing sewer serviceoislcon- sistent with the approved comprehensive sewer plan (CSP) for the City. Presently, sufficient capacity is available in Metropolitan Interceptor MSB 7024 to provide for the wastewater service needs of the 150 acres proposed to be added to the urban service area. The approved CSP for the City provides for wastewater from this area to be diverted to an alternate sewer trunk line when the capacity of MSB 7024 is reached. Commission approval of the local CSP stated that the City should plan to construct any facilities necessary to divert flow as local facilities using local funds only. Very truly yours, R. A. Odde Municipal Services Manager RAO:EJB:jle v ears �`j33•i9;��i q� a • i ■ _ ,q1 i wm■x m 50 � � I i i I r a 9 K Im k EI IG m N „n L 3 A /ad MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Refund of Check Submitted by Canterbury Downs for PUD Administrative Waiver DATE: November 30, 1988 INTRODUCTION• On February 24, 1988 the City issued Canterbury Downs an administrative waiver allowing them to install approximately 30,000 sq. ft. of temporary horse stall facilities. As a condition of the administrative waiver Canterbury Downs was required to provide the City with a check for $5,000 to be held until the time that the stalls have been removed. The stalls have been removed and Canterbury Downs is requesting refund of the $5,000. BACKGROUND: On February 24, 1988 the City issued an administrative waiver to Canterbury Downs for installation of approximately 30,000 square feet of temporary horse stall facilities. A condition of the waiver was that Canterbury Downs must provide the City with a check for $5,000 to be held until such time as the stalls have been removed. The purpose of retaining the check was to allow the City to utilize the funds for the cost of removal of the stalls if Canterbury Downs failed to remove them. The stalls were removed by the middle of October. City staff inspected the site and found that the stalls have been removed as required. The staff has determined that approval of the City Council is required in order for the funds to be returned. ALTERNATIVES• The City Council can offer and pass a motion authorizing the return of the $5,000 to Canterbury Downs. The City Council can offer and pass a motion to not return the $5,000 to Canterbury Downs. RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends alternative #1. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and pass a motion directing staff to refund to Canterbury Downs the $5,000 provided to the City to comply with the conditions of the administrative waiver issued for temporary horse stalls. ONTUBURY D 0 W N 5 October 27, 1988 Mr. Douglas K. Wise City Planner City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379-1376 RE: Issuance of administrative waiver to Canterbury Downs racetrack for the construction of temporary horse stall facilities. Dear Mr. Wise, On February 24, 1988 the City of Shakopee granted Canterbury Downs an administrative waiver allowing for the construction of portable horse stalls subject to several conditions. Canterbury Downs has met all of these conditions including the condition addressing the removal of the portable stalls from the roadways in our backstretch area. Additionally the roadways have been graded and restored to their original condition. Therefore, I am requesting the return of Canterbury Downs' certified check in the amount of $5,000.00 currently being held by the City of Shakopee. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at 937-7736. P rely, Pete Huber Director, Physical Plant PH:mh cc: John Anderson, City Administrator Michael Manning, General Manager, Canterbury Downs Canterbury Downs/1100 County Road 83, P.O. Box 508/Shakopee. Minnesota 55379/ (6121445-7223 T CITY OF SHAKOPEE INCORPORATED 1870 129 EAST FIRST AVENUE. SHAKOPEE. MINNESOTA 55379-1376 (612) "5.3650 February 24, 1988 Mr. Peter Huber Director of Physical Plant Canterbury Downs 1100 County Road 83 P.O. Box 508 Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: The Issuance of an Administrative Waiver to Canterbury Downs Race Track for the Construction of Temporary Horse Stall Facilities. Dear Mr. Huber: This letter is in response to your letter dated February 8, 1988 requesting an administrative waiver of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment requirements for the installation of approximately 30,000 sq. ft. of temporary horse stall facilities. The City Administrator has reviewed your request and after _ consulting with the entire Planning staff notified all Planning Commission and City Council members of his intent to issue a waiver for your request. Since the City Administrator has not received any objections to the waiver from the City Council and Planning Commission members, we are hereby granting you the waiver and authorizing you to proceed with your plans to install the temporary horse stall facilities subject to the following conditions: 1. The temporary horse stall facilities must be located in the areas between the existing barns as shown on the drawing submitted with your February 8, 1988 letter. 2. The temporary horse stall facilities must be removed by October 12, 1988. 3. Canterbury Downs must provide the City with either a letter of credit or certified check for $5,000.00 to be held by the City until the time that the stalls have been removed. If the stalls are not removed by October 12, 1988 the City will utilize the funds to remove the stalls. The Heart of Progress Valley J 4. The temporary stalls will not have floors, foundations, electrical connections, water connections or sewer connections. 5. The facilities will not be visible from roads outside of the Canterbury Downs property. 6. All horse trailers must be parked in the area designated for parking of horse trailers which is screened from adjacent roadways. 7. Both the Building Inspector and the City Fire Chief will have the right to inspect the stalls after they have been erected to insure that no problems are in existence in relation to the aisles between the horse barns. If any problems are perceived by either the Building Inspector or Fire Chief the stalls must be moved to comply with their requirements. a. The stalls must be freshly painted and kept in a neat and orderly manner. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at 445-3650. Sincerely, -- Douglas K. Wise -- City Planner DKW:trw CC: John Anderson, City Administrator /2 -2�) MEMO TO: City Council FROM: LeRoy Houser, Building Official RE: Community Youth Building DATE: November 28, 1988 The community youth building project is well undbrway. The frame and roof are up at this date. We have some changes in the program that we would like Council's approval on and possibly some financial assistance as outlined. BACKGROUND Council was originally approached for the conceptual approval of the community youth building. This was granted unanimously. The intent was to turn the building over to the City and lease it to community youth organizations for $1.00 per year with the City paying sewer and water charges and insurance costs, Shakopee Public Utilities (SPDC) providing the electricity, and the tenant providing all building maintenance. We have since found that SPUC cannot provide electricity or water at their expense. It is not within their policy. SPUC employees did run the underground for us at no charge and on their own time. This is very much appreciated. We are at this time asking Council to treat this building as we treat all other City buildings by placing it on our regular maintenance schedule and paying for the electrical/sewer/water charges. We anticipate this to be an average of $60.00 per month. I do not mean that we want the building cleaned by our custodians, only that we maintain the exterior and equipment. In addition, due to circumstances beyond our control, we are in dire need of assistance in funding the cost of the electrical system for this structure, which is about $7,500. All other building components are funded. This projects total cost is over $120,000. It is our opinion this youth facility will be an asset to the City of Shakopee. we believe structured youth activities provide for better future citizens, politicians and employees. The changes we ask for are small when you look at the overall project. ALTERNATIVES Do not comply with our request. Comply with any part of the request. RECOMMENDATION I recommend the City include this building in our building maintenance program, pay for all utilities except the cost of heating, and pay for the cost of the electrical system, which totals $7,500. ACTION REQUESTED Direct finance to bill the utilities. Include this building in ou Direct finance to pay for building out of the general LH:cah general fund park dept. for all r building maintenance program. the electrical system for this fund park. CONSEN i To: Mayor, Councilmembers From: Tom Brownell, Chief of Police Ref.: Towing Contract Date: November 22, 1988 On November 1, 1988, Council authorized staff to advertise for competitive bids to provide vehicle towing service for city departments for a two year period. tItL &IS•10Z11 Staff advertised for bids as required and received one bid from Shakopee Towing, Inc. and no other bids as of November 22nd. Shakopee Towing has provided excellent towing service at a reasonable rate for the past three years. RECOMMENDATION Award the city towing contract to Shakopee Towing, Inc. effective January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1998. Authorize proper City officials to execute a City towing contract with Shakopee Towing, Inc. effective January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1990. AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 6thday of December 19 88, by and between the City of Shakopee, hereinafter referred to as the "City," and Shakopee Towing. Inc. , hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee desires to enter into a contract for the towing, impounding, and storage of motor vehicles. WHEREAS, the Contractor is the operator of a towing and storing facility located in the City of Shakopee and is desirous and willing to enter into such a contract with the City; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, for and in consideration of the covenants hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: 1. The Contractor hereby agrees to tow, impound, and store all motor vehicles which are ordered removed under the direction of the Police Chief of the City of Shakopee or persons so authorized by them. A. The Contractor agrees to unlock vehicles upon the request of motor vehicle operators. 2. The Contractor shall have satisfactory equipment and personnel to provide immediate service on all vehicles ordered impounded by authorized City Officials at all times, twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week, holidays included. 3. The Contractor shall own or have available to the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, the following equipment: A. A minimum of two (2) tow trucks having a gross vehicle weight of eight thousand (8,000) pounds or more, equipped with a crane and winch, and further equipped to control the movement of the towed vehicle; and H. Equipment sufficient to move a completely demolished vehicle on dollies or low -bed trailer. The Contractor agrees to maintain said equipment in good condition and repair. The City reserves the right to inspect the Contractor's equipment from time to time for the purpose of determining whether the equipment is in good condition and repair and in conformance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement. 4. All storage and parking lot facilities and equipment of the Contractor must be located within the City limits of Shakopee, Minnesota. The storage and parking lot facilities of the Contractor shall meet all applicable state building code standards and municipal license and zoning requirements,, including those relating to screening and - landscaping. 5. The Contractor shall control and operate facilities capable of storing a minimum of two (2) vehicles inside and facilities capable of storing a minimum of ten (10) vehicles outside. It is further agreed that vehicles will be stored inside only when so directed by an authorized City Official. 6. The Contractor assumes full responsibility for the conduct of its employees and guarantees that its employees will respond promptly to calls, use safe and adequate equipment, be clean in appearance, use decent language, and treat the public courteously at all times. 7. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for the loss or damage to any motor vehicle, including its equipment and contents, from the time the vehicle is turned over to the Contractor or his agent by an authorized City Official until such time as the vehicle is released to the registered or actual owner or agent thereof. 8. The Contractor agrees to maintain proper records of all vehicles received. These records shall be approved by the Police -2- Chief of the City and are to be available at all times for inspection by authorized City Officials. The records shall include a copy of the police impounding report. The Contractor must submit to the Police Chief of the City monthly reports to vehicles stored and released. The contents of these reports shall be determined by the Police Chief of the City. 9. All vehicles towed or impounded for the Police Department of the City are to be released by the Contractor only upon the showing of a release form issued by the Police Department of the City. Either the Contractor or his employee(s) must be present at the Contractor's parking facility oron call at least between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and on Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., and Sunday from 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., for the purpose of releasing vehicles to authorized claimants. 10. It is agreed that motor vehicles will not be driven during the towing procedure. Where a motor vehicle is without tires or has flat tires, the Contractor agrees to tow the vehicle without damaging the wheels and further agrees not to tow a vehicle on its rims, on wheels without tires, or on flat tires. 11. When the Contractor arrives at the scene of a tow where a motor vehicle accident has occurred, the Contractor assumes respons- ibility for removing, without charge, any vehicular parts or other debris resulting from the accident. 12. The Contractor shall be entitled to a charge for its towing and storage services pursuant to those fees specified in the following schedule. These fees shall apply only when the car is towed to the Contractor's storage area at the direction of the City of Shakopee. Towing requested by vehicle owners shall be subject to fees agreed on -3- between the Contractor and the owner including charges for towing vehicles outside the City of Shakopee. A. Towing Charges Type I, all tows which involve a vehicle which is on or immediately adjacent to a public street or alley and which can be secured for towing with the usual type of winching. $ 45.00 Type II, all tows which involve a vehicle which is not on or immediately adjacent to a public street or alley and which requires an unusual amount of winching to secure it for towing by one tow truck or the use of a dolly to tow the vehicle. $ 70.00 Type III, all tows which involve a vehicle that requires, and for which a specific request has been made, two or more tow trucks. $ 90.00 NOTE: The designation as to the type of tow performed will be by the duly authorized agent of the City. Any disagreement with this designation shall be made in writing to the City Administrator within 24 hours. B. Towing of Large Vehicles Towing of vehicles of more than five (5) ton factory rated capacity. $ —85:90-.rnimum C. Reclaimed Vehicles at Scene If an operator of the Contractor is called to tow a vehicle and after arriving at the scene of the tow, the owner appears to claim said vehicle, the vehicle may be turned over to the owner provided the police authorize the release of the vehicle and the towing operator is paid a service fee in the amount of one-half (1) of the Type I towing charge. D. Storage Charges 1. First 24 hours or fraction thereof A. Inside storage $ 12.50 B. Outside storage $ 8.50 2. Each additional 24 hours or fraction thereof A. Inside storage $ 12.50 B. Outside storage $ 8.50 E. Unlocking Vehicles: $ 20.00 The City shall not be responsible to the Contractor for the payment of any charge for towing and/or storage, and/or unlocking vehicles. a45 13. Should the Contractor fail to appear at the designated point of tow within twenty (20) minutes after a call, the City reserves the right to call another tow service to perform the work. If the Contractor is called for a tow and is unable to respond, it must immediately so inform the City Official or department requesting the tow, and the City nereby reserves the right to call another tow service to perform the work. 14. This Agreement will not be executed nor shall the Contractor commence work under this Agreement until the Contractor has established that it has obtained the insurance coverage set forth below and that said insurance is in full force and effect with respect to all oper- ations of the Contractor. The Contractor agrees to furnish to the City a copy of the policy or policies issuedthereto which shall be in force on the date of the execution of the Agreement and shall continue for a period equal to the duration of the Agreement. The following coverage is required: A. Public Liabilitv insurance including general liability automobile liability as follows: 1. Bodily Injury Liability in the amount of at least $250,000 for injury or death of any one person in one occurrence. 2. Bodily Injury Liability in the amount of at least $500,000 for injuries or deaths arising out of any one occurrence. 3. Property Damage Liability in the amount of at least $50,000 without aggregate limit for any one occurrence. Such property damage insurance shall include coverage for property in the care, custody, and control of the Insured. 4. Garage Keepers' Legal Liability policy in the amount of at least $30,000. Each of these policies shall carry an endorsement which reads: It is understood and agreed that the insurance provided under the undermentioned policy and endorsements attached thereto, is hereby extended to apply to the liability imposed by law on the City of Shakopee for bodily injury and for damage to property, which liability is assumed by the Insured under the towing Agreement between the City of Shakopee and the Insured. B. Workmen's Compensation Insurance covering all employees of the Contractor working in the job in accordance with the Minnesota Workmen's compensation Law. C. Cancellation Notice The policy shall provide for 10 days' notice to the City before any changes or cancellation of each policy becomes effective. 15. The Contractor shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its employees and agents, from any and all claims, causes of action, lawsuits, damages, losses, expenses on account of bodily injury, sickness, disease, death, and property damage as a result, directly or indirectly, of the operations of the Contractor in connection with the work performed under the Agreement. In the event any such action is brought therefor against any said indemnities, the Contractor shall assume full responsibility for the defense thereof; and upon its failure to do so on proper notice, the City shall have the right to defend such action and to charge all costs thereof to the Contractor. 16. The Contractor shall operate its parking facility in compliance with the terms of this Agreement and all applicable laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations which are now in effect or which may hereafter be adopted. 17. It is mutually understood and agreed that no altercation or violation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto. 18. In the event of a breach by Contractor of any term or condition of this Agreement, the City shall have, in addition to any other legal recourse, the right to terminate this Agreement forthwith. 19. This Agreement shall be for a period from January 1. 1989 to December 31. 1990 , provided that either party may terminate the same by ninety (90) days' written notice to the other. 20. A copy of this Agreement and a schedule of the fees authorized shall be posted in a conspicuous place In the Contractor's garage. TN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their appropriate officers and their seals affixed as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF SHAKOPEE: By Its Mayor Its Clerk Its Administrator CONTRACTOR: By Its CONSENT MEMO TO: City Council PROM: LeRoy Houser, Building Official RE: Electrical Contract DATE: November 21, 1988 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: We currently have Terry Krominga under contract for our electrical inspections. His contract expires December 31, 1988. We have attached a new contract to be executed for 1989 with Mr. Krominga. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Renew the contract with Mr. Krominga. 2. Do not renew the contract and seek another source for electrical inspections. I recommend we renew our electrical contract with Mr. Krominga. ACTION REOUESTED: Authorize the appropriate city officials to execute the electrical contract with Terry Krominga for the 1989 operational year. LH:cah Attachment CONTRACT FOR ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS CITY OF SHAKOPEE Terry Krominga, Box 91, LeSueur, MN 56058, is hereby appointed electrical inspector for the City of Shakopee to serve at the pleasure of the City Council. The City of Shakopee acknowledges receipt of his electrical inspector's bond in the amount of $1,000 payable to the City of Shakopee in case of default. As such inspector, he hereby agrees to enforce the Minnesota Electrical Act, the Rules and Regulations of the State Board of Electricity thereunder and the appropriate Ordinances of the City of Shakopee, as pertaining to the licensing of electricians and inspection of electrical installations. The rate of compensation for his services shall be 80% of the electrical inspection fees collected by the City of Shakopee. In addition to any other rules, regulations or directives promulgated or issued under authority of the City of Shakopee, he hereby agrees to comply with the following rules: 1. Report to this office when called upon. 2. Supply the City of Shakopee with a verification of automobile liability insurance on Form 1927 of the amounts of not less than -$50,000 for any one per- son, $100,000 for anyone accident for personal injury and $10,000 for property damage. 3. Supply a monthly report of inspection completed. (Payment shall not exceed percentage or work completed). 4. Deposit with the City of Shakopee any inspection fees received in the field. 5. Delegate authority and responsibilities to no one except duly authorized representatives of this office upon request. 6. Keep a Journeyman or Master electrician's license in force at all times. By this appointment, the City of Shakopee places trust and authority upon Terry Krominga as an independent contractor qualified and certified as such to make electrical inspections in behalf of the City of Shakopee in the geographical area defined by the City's corporate limits. This appointment shall be dated concurrent with said bond, which shall terminate on December 31, 1989, unless amended or withdrawn previous to that date by the City of Shakopee or its duly authorized agents, or which shall terminate upon 30 days written notice by Terry Krominga requesting same. Approved by the Shakopee City Council this day of , 198 Terry ominga jo f 9/ Present Address City, State, Zip CITY OF SHAKOPEE Mayor of the City of Shakopee City Adm. City Clerk, Judith S. Cox CONTRACT FOR ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS CITY OF SHAKOPEE Terry Krominga, Box 91, LeSueur, MN 56058, is hereby appointed electrical inspector for the City of Shakopee to serve at the pleasure of the City Council. The City of Shakopee acknowledges receipt of his electrical inspector's bond in the amount of $1,000 payable to the City of Shakopee in case of default. As such inspector, he hereby agrees to enforce the Minnesota Electrical Act, the Rules and Regulations of the State Board of Electricity thereunder and the appropriate Ordinances of the City of Shakopee, as pertaining to the licensing of electricians and inspection of electrical installations. The rate of compensation for his services shall be 80% of the electrical inspection fees collected by the City of Shakopee. In addition to any other rules, regulations or directives promulgated or issued under authority of the City of Shakopee, he hereby agrees to comply with the following rules: 1. Report to this office when called upon. 2. Supply the City of Shakopee with a verification of automobile liability insurance on Form 1927 of the amounts of not less than $50,000 for any one per- son, $100,000 for any one accident for personal injury and $10,000 for property damage. 3. Supply a monthly report of inspection completed. (Payment shall not exceed percentage or work completed). 4. Deposit with the City of Shakopee any inspection fees received in the field. 5. Delegate authority and responsibilities to no one except duly authorized representatives of this office upon request. 6. Keep a Journeyman or Master electrician's license in force at all times. By this appointment, the City of Shakopee places trust and authority upon Terry Krominga as an independent contractor qualified and certified as such to make electrical inspections in behalf of the City of Shakopee in the geographical area defined by the City's corporate limits. shall be dated concurrent with said bor December 31, 1989, unless amended This appointment of Shakopee or shall termination De date by the City upon 30 d which shall terminate withdrawn previous or which sameo duly authorized agents, a requesting written notice by Terry Krominq day Approved by the Shakopee City Council this 198 Terry Kr minga Present Address S6os City, State, Zip CITY OF SHAKOPEE Mayor o£ the City of Shakc City Adm. Judith SCo-' City Clerk, CONSENT JA Memo To: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator From: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director Re: Purchase of Squad Cars Date: November 29, 1988 Introduction The Police Department would like to purchase two squad cars. Background The 1989 budget contains $26,000 for the purchase of two replacement squad cars. The Hennepin County Cooperative Purchasing Contract has been awarded to Viking Southdale Ford. The cars ordered would be equipped comparable to the cars already in use. The cost for 2 cars is $26,226 including one set of manuals. There are some other minor costs to be incurred in putting these cars into service that are not included above. The additional cost over budget will be funded by a larger transfer from the Capital Equipment Fund. Alternatives 1.) Buy as per above 2.) Do not buy 3.) Bid on our own Recommendation Alternative No. 1 Action Reauested Move to purchase two squad cars from Viking Southdale Ford in the amount of $26,226 per Hennepin County Contract No. 9524. GV:mmr CONSENT P't, Memo To: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator From: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director Re: Resolution of Issues Involving Scott County Auditor's Office Date: November 29, 1988 Introduction Council from time to time has gotten information on some problems/issues at the Scott County Auditor's office. Background Three of the issues that the School District and the City have been looking at in the Auditor's office have been resolved. Issues one and two involve TIF assessed values reported to the State and the third is an error on tax settlements during 1987. The tax settlement error should be correctly settled before the end of the year, allowances were made in the 1987 financial report for the settlement. The errors on reporting values to the State resulted in the City contributing too much value to the Fiscal Disparities pool and the School District receiving less aid than it should have. Payable 1989 taxes will be correct, based on correct values. Payable 1990 will have an adjustment for the over contribution to the fiscal disparities pool by the City for 1986- 88. The corrections of the values have been reviewed the State Department of Revenue, Department of Education, and the Fiscal Disparities Administrative Auditor. This matter has been reviewed and discussed by Tom Herman, County Auditor; Bob Martin, ISD 720; Jim Streefland, Auditor for ISD 720 and the City and myself. We feel the results are reasonable and that these issues should be put to rest. I have some schedules showing numbers and calculations if Council wishes to see them. The effect of the correction of values was the increase in State Aid -LGA reported to Council a month ago. The adjustment in 1990 for 1986-88 would result in an estimated 14 mil total reduction in taxes for Shakopee taxpayers due to the fiscal disparities value retainage but with the change in the tax law and possible offset with state aids, the adjustment may wash out to something much less. The County Board would like to have a letter form the City and ISD 720 indicating acceptance of the resolution of these issues in order that they may be put behind us. Attached is a proposed letter. Alternatives 1.) Send letter 2.) Amend letter 3.) Decline to respond Recommendation Alternative No. 1 Action Reauested Move to direct the City Administrator to send a letter to Scott County indicating acceptance of the resolution of the 1987 tax settlement issues and the T.I.F. assessed value issues for 1986-1988 as drafted (amended). CITY OF INCORPORATED 1870 1 SHAKOPEE 128 EAST FIRST AVENUE, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379-1376 (612) 4453850 November 29, 1988 Joe Ries, County Administrator Tom Hennen, County Auditor Scott County Courthouse 428 So. Holmes Shakopee, MN. 55379 Gentlemen: The City of Shakopee has had concerns about some issues involving the Scott County Auditor's office. These concerns included: A.) Tax Increment District No. 1 captured value that is fiscal disparities exempt (pre 1979 district). The values related to this have been incorrectly reported to the State for the past three years. Based on reviews by the Anoka County Auditor (Fiscal Disparities Administrative Auditor) and the State Departments of Revenue and Education, values for 1988/89 will be reported correctly and an adjustment for 1985/86-88 will be made in 1989/90. B.) T.I.F. captured value reported to the State for school aids. This issue does not directly affect the City but is a concern with respect to the tax burden on residents. C.) Oversettlement for T.I.F. District No. 1 in 1987. Correction of and resettlement payments should be completed in December 1988. Error was result of simple error on the 1987 settlements. Staff members from the County Auditor's office, ISD 720, the City and the Auditor for the City and the School District 720 have meet and reviewed the issues and reached consensus that the corrections/adjustments are reasonable and the above issues have been resolved. Accordingly, the Shakopee City Council has received a report from its staff on the issues and has concurred with the staff conclusion that the issues are resolved. Sincerely, Dennis R. Kraft Acting City Administrator The Heart of Progress Valley AN EOOAL OPPORTMTY EMPLOYER TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Employee Group Insurance Bids DATE: November 30. 1988 Introduction In accordance with state law, we have taken bids for the renewal of employee group insurance due to the four year requirement of rebidding. Background State law requires rebidding employee group insurance at least every four years or 50% increase in rates/premium. Council retained the services of Corporate Risk Managers, Inc. to handle the bidding process and analyze the bids. Their report is attached. The City has had Principal Mutual for more than 20 years and the staff and employees seem to be well pleased with the coverage. However, asthereport indicates, the cost to remain with Principal for the health coverage is substantially more than the other two fee for service plans. By keeping the life and long term disability coverage with Principal, we could take out their health coverage in the future. Once the City drops Principal entirely, we could not obtain any coverage from them again because we have grown too large for their program which is designed for the smaller employers. There does not seem to be a whole lot here for Council to discuss. My suggestion is for Council to discuss, table the issue pending an employee briefing and then award the bid on the following Council meeting. Policy period would commence January 1, 1989. Alternatives 1. Table 2. Award the health insurance bid to Blue Cross/Blue Shield and the life and long term disability to Principal Mutual. 3. Status Quo and leave the total package to Principal Mutual by default. 4. Other award. Recommendation Alternative number 1. Action Reauested Move to table the employee group insurance bid until the next Council meeting. Corporate Risk Managers, Inc. 7525 Mitchell road • suite 109 • eden prairie. mmnesota 553" • (612) 937-8962 November 30, 1988 Mr. Greg Voxland Finance Director City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 RE: Group Insurance Bids Dear Greg: - Following is a report on the bids received by the City for the various group benefit plans. Premium rate structures with projected annual costs are outlined on a separate report. HEALTH INSURANCE Bids for this coverage were received from five (5) carriers; Principal Mutual (incumbent carrier), League of Minnesota Cities, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Physicians Health Plan and MedCenters. Principal Mutual Principal offers to continue the City's existing health plan but at somewhat higher cost. Rates were provided only on a two (2) tier system rather than the four (4) requested. On a composite basis, it appears that rates effective January 1 would increase by approximately 40%. Considering the City's very good claims experience over the past three (3) years such an adjustment seems very large. The carrier's retention for this program seems quite high. Per their answer to the bid questionnaire, the tolerable loss ratio of premium paid versus claims is only 70%. In otherwords, they feel they need $0.30 of every $1.00 premium to support the program. Also, they are using a 24% inflation factor (which again seems high) so this will significantly increase premium rates. The advantage of this program is that it would continue benefits and adminis— tration status quo which would serve as a convenience to the City. Mr. Greg Voxland November 30, 1988 a Page 2 League of Minnesota Cities As noted on the bid tabulation sheet, this proposal is appreciably less expensive than the above program, costing about that of the current plan. The League, through its administrator, Employee Benefit Plans, states that it will duplicate the benefits of the City's current plan. The majority of cities in the League program have less than 25 employees and their claims experience is pooled. Because of Shakopee's size, it would be in a category with 4 or 5 other groups for which premium rates are determined by claims experience and a pooling factor. This formula for rate calculation is in a transitional period and it is not now known how much credibility will be assigned to claims experience alone. The League does purchase insurance to protect against claims in excess of $45,000; it self -insures up to that amount. I believe this is a rather high reinsurance level considering that the pool of groups in the 25 to 99 participant range can number only a few hundred (at best) employees. The new rating formula could place quite a bit of emphasis on a group's own claims experience. The League program would be easier to review if the new rating formula, and possibly reinsurance level, was already determined. All participating groups in the League program share a common anniversary date of July 1. The rates we have received in the recent bid are guaranteed only to that date and could change thereafter. By rate -setting time little would be known about Shakopee's claims experience so any change from bid rates would be determined primary by the experience of other cities in the Pool and the projected inflationary trend set by the plan administrator. Blue Gross/Blue Shield BC BSM has submitted the lowest cost proposal. They do not intend to duplicate each and every benefit of the existing plan but the differences are not major. For example, the present plans waives the deductible for certain specified surgical procedures if performed on an outpatient basis; BC/BSM does require satisfaction of the deductible. The present plan pays up to $200 per calendar year for illness -related diagnostic x-ray and laboratory tests and pays 1007 for such tests when done as an outpatient just prior to a hospital confinement. BC/BSM covers such expenses but they are subject to the deductible and coinsurance requirements. The present plan pays up to $1,000 for injury expenses after which deductible and copay apply. BC/BSM waives the deductible and copay com- pletely so expenses are covered in full up to the usual and customary payment limits. Both plans have out-of-pocket maximum limits of $500 per person, $1,000 per family, subject to usual and customary payment limits. Perhaps the biggest difference between Principal and BC/BSM is that the first plan pays for routine physical exams, the latter does not in this bid. It may be possible to add such coverage for additional premium. Mr. Greg Voxland November 30, 1988 Page 3 BC/BSM will offer an alternative drug coverage at no additional cost. Under such arrangement, prescription drugs will be covered in full subject to a $5.50 copayment. They are not subject to the usual $100 deductible and 20% copay. The $5.50 does not, however, apply toward satisfaction of the $100 deductible. Renewal premium rates are determined based primarily on the City's experience. However, a major advantage to the BC/BSM program is that there is a low pooling limit of $20,000, after which the City's experience is no longer charged. This limit is set on a per contract basis rather than the usual per claim method. In the case of a multi -person contract (e.g. employee and spouse or employee plus all dependents) all claims incurred during the policy period are charged against the $20,000 limit. This could have a very positive effect on renewal rates should the City suffer a large claim which is becoming quite common with today's health care costs. Physicians Health Plan/MedCenters Both of these proposals are for HMO benefits. As with any HMO, the benefits offered are excellent. Considering this, the premium rates bid are competitive. The major problem with these plans are the generous benefit structure. Under current State law, if the City was to implement one of these plans a new, higher level of benefits would be established. In the future, the City would be re- quired to continue similar benefits regardless of premium cost unless the majority of employees or their bargaining agents agreed to a reduction. Ex- perience shows that this has been a difficult change to effect. CONCLUSIONS Considering both benefits and costs, my primary recommendation is for acceptance of the Blue Cross/Blue Shield bid. Even though the benefits are not quite equal to the present plan, there are other less obvious advantages. The premium savings is substantial such that the City could self -fund, if necessary, certain of the benefit differences, such as one (1) routine physical exam per year. The employees with family coverage would benefit in reduced premium contributions. Should the employees not agree with the above stated benefit changes or the City not wish to make such a change, my second recommendation would be for the League of Minnesota Cities program. Although more expensive than BC/BSM the benefit structure of the present plan can be duplicated. The City will be exposed to a possible rate change next July and there is a question about the final format of the rating formula. However, I believe that the League will act to control costs as best as possible for its member cities. Mr. Greg Voxland November 30, 1988 Page 4 M.4 LONG TERM DISABILITY As noted on the bid tabulation sheet, only two (2) bids for this plan were received. The current carrier's rate is decidedly better than the competition. The present benefit structure remains unchanged. This appears to be a very good plan. LIFE/ACCIDENTAL DEATH AND DISMEMBERMENT Referring again to the bid tabulation sheet, it can be seen that the lowest bid was submitted by Minnesota Mutual Life. This plan is equal to, if not better, than the existing program. There is a noticeable reduction in cost from the Principal Mutual bid. Under normal circumstances, I would definitely recommend the Minnesota Mutual bid. However, Principal Mutual has "packaged" the Long Term Disability with the Life/AD & D plan and will not offer the LTD only to the City. Combining the cost for the two (2) programs shows that the Principal Mutual package is a little less expensive than the other possible combination of Minnesota Mutual/ Schools Insurance Fund. The City should, therefore, retain coverage for LTD and Life/AD & D with the present carrier. SUMMARY Health Insurance First choice is Blue Cross/Blue Shield; second choice is League of Minnesota Cities. Long Term Disability — Life/AD & D As a "packaged" plan, accept the bid from Principal Mutual Life. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, CORP0 ATE RISK MANAGRS, INC. ar es Jelinek Benefits Manager Enclosure CJ/lb E E a d Y Sf P R P t•N~UI m SIM O O .i b Y N pol '1 C `6 N H NO w O m N W Od U V y U wd. p V 9 b d � ti2 .gy 6 5 4fli 4ei W 4. < Q s 6 i 4l 41 G 6 W9qq O N fl Oh O O q S 0 m � CNi O O W N pp�� y r• mlml m ti N H � '�..Off O Ql N q ¢Y ~ yN M m O *'I q �<I 0 m m p N P U f.l m iJ O• O m W$ b Vl� Lu C P N O O N .•l N N N N q V1 C•I Oy U •.lI C„ O .-1 •O n 0I9� � O 9 W ry C 0 9 V� yC 0.SI•� � m YC GGO m y 6�SI� p P L�S� H n •O N 0 C O Y hil. N N N O M •O Y N pol '1 C `6 N H NO w O m N W Od U V y U wd. p V 9 b d � ti2 .gy 6 5 4fli 4ei W 4. < Q s 6 i 4l 41 G 6 NNNUWi N o _ . Otl I o _ . Otl I NN m n 22222 ^ n m n a a n amzza m n o m N n n - i m m o _ . m V y O+ y wwww A TTv y y wwww w m m m m 0 m mm o 0000 0 0 _ _ a m m ro m - - _ "` - _ S O y N u m tl�tl7 J6C O + F M7 W nnnn n m bSW F b W �N mm _ �NR MMnitl'� d ddd N m tl�tl7 J6C + F M7 W nnnn n m bSW F b W _ ?m 14 3.38 S n6 m m m bpW tl d -N. mw s 01 pp w N N 4 < o e _ e o o e e - o F eo e e o e o e NN YY 4 JO NN OM1 OR 2 u� 0 00 D> a a a w CCC a frrf CCC - T 0 z TTTT V2 m'n - mti "' T NONNu _ m N m w w w w m w N NN YouenoMa� pryeNoeep eoo eoe o 00 O HCZ____IZ_ r 0000000000 n pwNNp rm 0000000000 � m f»D)»f>Df mp rrrrrrrrrr mm 'm obii:m Tm m'zm n err <c M2< c yYfrW3 � � • Hym e �y uN m Y 0 o m m m m m m r m O m m O' m 00 m om- o 0 r PH PH F F F F F W F r r Y Y F c PH r r r Y r F F F r Y N M l0 wO Y r r r Y 'PH Y W W W W �Wl N� N 00 0 r r r r Y �Pm m m r Y r r 00 �n r r o 0 O m r F 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 O O O 0 HW Fo 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 o S o o Mr 0 0 0 r w 0 r N Y O 0 0 0 0 0 000 O O O OmY FO 0 0 0 0 0 000 O O O O. 0 0 o FW O O O H N O r w F O 0 0 0 0 0 000 O o 0 0 0 0 0 N Y O O O �1 N m H Om m m m m m HMO m m O m M m m 00 m N r0- r0 r r Y Y r F F F F F. F I r r r Y r Y r r r r r r Y Y Y Y r r Y r Y r Y r r r Y r Y r O 00 00 O O O O O 000 0 0 0 0 0 H 0 00 Y 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r O vl N F Y r F O w W O r 0 �O N Ymw FF' FN' F �/I vl D\ N N Y 0 O Y O 0 O m o O o O t F N O O, m X00 v10� O O D\ O m 000 m Y 0 0 0 0 �0 N 0 0 Y mo 00 0 0 o O 000 w o o 0 r m a c m 0 n O o 0 w n m m m w _ = = 0 = c m = M = O K N N O 0 0 0 0 0 O W µ µ n O Y 3 L a Y N M • • [1 (h c1 Y ai ^3 W y to H I M bl] w n n r r < S 0r (+ m m n N• N 3 w H K N S N 0 F0' r W N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N y yy yy y y -� y y yyy m rn rn rn m rn rn rnrn m m m m m 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 000 m mm m yy Q`m � c w N Y 000 �O m -1 N N H 0 0 p Y 0 A M 0 3 O z 3 R' 3 3 Y. O W '3 .01 0 m Ox O n< WY ry H W < ro M n 0 O m n n n 0 N N N m W N x W W N 00 n G R' N � D < K 0 W � N _ Y W Y F F O W O F O\ N VFi F 0 W O Y N 0 N Y r F NO O H O O m F F N O m i0 Y O O O, O m 0 m r O 0 O O O O r N v� O O r m o 0 0 0 0 1 0 w o o W u d r Y H O H N M O NN H M H Z U fn N ¢ a H Y N W fG U .m -I HA n" a ti s c c MSD\ O H N M 1 NNN � l w 000 H H H H H H H H H H H N N N N N N N N N N N N N N i� O H H 0 O O O N O H H H N M M OO H OJ N N M H t W m o m O y E E H m N j N> O H O 1 [O OJ N O N N N M O N N b H U U .Y .] W N N N W N OJ v H O .Y > m IH+1 M N Y a www N0 M M a o N H O .oi- so. v m ¢ o a H .n � m[� b > NOJ OOC H'g G 1 w W ro N OOti 0 OJ N C� O O .Y C- N R H N m Y b ro iA O U1 C r Y H O H N M O NN H M H Z U fn N ¢ a H Y N W fG U .m -I HA n" a ti s c c MSD\ O H N M 1 NNN � l w 000 H H H H H H H H H H H N N N N N N N N N N N N N N i� B O O O O H 0 O M H H O N 00 H H H N M M OO H OJ N O M H t W m o m O N N y E E H m N j N> O H O H 00 H N O N N IBX N M O N N F H U U .Y .] W N N N W N OJ ro H O .Y CO CO IH+1 M N N H www N0 M M N O .oi- so. v v ¢ o H .n m[� > NOJ OOC H'g w W wI N OOti 0 OJ N C� O O .Y C- N R iA U1 U U N�000�0 NO CAH Y.1 Yi Y U N .Yi .Yi .Yi .Y -I W C N� X N N E E E E E E E !+ G O O O N .Y N O H B O O O O H 0 O M H H O N 00 H H H N M M OO H OJ N O M H t W m o m O N N N O "C H O N j N> O H O H �O�HC- H N C� N N IBX N M O N N D\N N H H H M O .Y .y W N N N W N OJ C-�O H O .Y CO CO IH+1 M N N H www N0 M M N O H .n 000 0 0 0 0 0 000 O O O H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 000 0 0 0 0 0 000 O O O H H H H H R H H H R H H H H H H H H H H H N H H M H .Y .y W N N w W N OJ N O O C O of w 000 MN 0 0OOOO H .i I- OO 0000 0 0 0 H N M H H O O 000 O O O O N NNM N O O O O O O O O O N H H C- N O O . . . 0N N H . IH+1 N N N O www N0 M M w W wI N OOti 0 OJ I m Y u o m 00000000000 0 0 F Y F 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y r W W FFFFFFFFFFF t �n Y wwwwwwww www �n �.: — rw �1JNNN�-tNJJY r r r 00000000000o r a o o wrrnw rnrw rrnFrn Y Icy O O Nmr.nNmYNNNN O O YNYYO�Yr YN�1m r O O wYO�W O�Yw FO�CO� Y 3 O O N m Y Y N m Y N N N N I mo o m 00000000000 0 0 Fr c r F rr Yrrrrr YrY r .� I I O N r 00F' 0 0 r' 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a N Y Y 000 000 O O O 00000000000 O O O O O O O O O O O 0000 O � H N E L9� Y r� Y G a r, F- a 3- Y W NFN FN�nrwN I w ,1 TY O N Y W O� N O� V I N H Y O� O� r �O �O �O Y S O WY�lvl�l�l�l�n M� W F N O O �n O O F Q O O O� d N �1 C Y F b I � m h 1= I^ WbwS C b S y i� vri vri i� N N NNNNNNNNNNN N Ir N N ��N NNNN�NNN � N- H 00000000000 G =tl N < 0 V s � O � m M I_ N w n � I N I n 5 s v a N 1F, m W O n v Y O O Y 0 V� 0 0 O n -- .,11 MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator FROM: John H. DeLacey, Engineering Tech. V11 U SUBJECT: 6th Avenue Sanitary Sewer, Project No. 1988-2 DATE: November 28, 1988 INTRODUCTION: A change order is needed for the above referenced project. BACKGROUND: During construction of the 6th Avenue sanitary sewer project, an existing sewer pipe was discovered that was not shown on the plans, but needed to be "hooked up" to the new system. This change order is for that work performed by the contractor. The cost for this work is $204.75• Although this will add to the total funds encumbered to the project, there actually will not be any extra cost to the project due to the fact that the actual project cost is going to be $5,389.18 less than the contract amount. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve Change Order No. 1. 2. Deny Change Order No. 1. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $204.75 to Holst Excavating, Inc., P.O. Box 36, Prescott, WI 54021 for the 6th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Project No. 1988-2. JHD/pmp CHANGE ORDER Change Order No.: 1 Date: November 14. 1988 Original Contract Amount Change Order(s) No. = thru No. Total Funds Encumbered Prior to Change Order Description of Work to be (Added/Deleted): Connection of Additional Sanitary Sewer. Project Name: 6th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Contract No.: 1988-2 S 76.918.50 $ -0- $ 76.918.50 The above described work shall be incorporated in the Contract, referenced above, under the same conditions specified in the original Contract as amended unless otherwise specified herein. Any work not so specified shall be performed in accordance with the Standard Specifications adopted by the City of Shakopee, Minnesota. The amount of the Contract shall be increased $ 204.75 The number of calendar days for completion shall be (increased/decreased) by WA . Original Contract Amount $ 76.918.50 Change Order(s) No. 1 thru $ 204.75 Total Funds Encumbered $ 77.123.25 Completion Date: No Change in Completion Date The undersigned Contractor hereby agrees to perform the work specified in this Change Order in accordance with the specifications, conditions and prices specified herein. Contractor: r)St By: vv✓✓II // a Title Date: APPROVED AND EFD•! City Engineer Date APPROVED: City of Shakopee By: Mayor Date City Administrator Date City Clerk Date Approved as to form this day of City Attorney 19 Office Hoist Excavating, Inc■ Mobile 715-792-5301 P.O. Box 36 715.792-2751 Prescott, WI 54021 ld October 14, 1988 City of Shakopee 129 East First Ave Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mike: Enclosed please find sand tickets you requested. A180, listed below a breakdown of extra work performed on 8/18/88. 1 Foreman 1'k hour at $25.00. 37.50 11 Backhoe w/op 1 hour at $90.00 90.00 2 Laborers A at $17.50. 52.50 1 Clay to PVC Fernco at $24.75. 24.75 $204.75 Thank you Greg Williams Enclosure gh CONSENT Ja /q MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator FROM: John H. DeLacey, Engineering Tech. III SUBJECT: 11th Avenue DATE: November 28, 1988 INTRODUCTION: A Change Order is needed for the above referenced project. BACKGROUND: During the course of construction of 11th Avenue, it became apparent .that concrete sidewalk and concrete driveway would have to be removed and replaced due to the new street grade. The original contract did not include any pay item for concrete sidewalk or driveway. Change Order No. 1 reflects the costs for the removal and replacement of the sidewalk and driveway. Staff has reviewed the contractor's prices and found them to be comparable to similar work performed. The total additional cost for the concrete sidewalk and driveway is $2,009.87• Of this amount $712.73 will be directly assessed to the property owner at 1070 Main Street. The property owner had requested that our contractor replace a portion of his driveway that was on private property and agreed to pay for that portion of the work. ALTERNATIVES: Approve Change Order No. 1. 2. Deny Change Order No. 1. Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $2,009.87 to Hardrives, Inc. 7200 Hemlock Lane N., Maple Grove, MN 55369 for the 11th Avenue Street and Storm Sewer Construction Project No. 1988-5• JHD/pmp 6L AW1011Y PM 3o Sep STM mro3 014 se PeeoJddV ane0 AJaTO 4TO aneQ JOl8J39TU=ff AIT0 area Joft •66 aadarW 30 4TO :aMoM" w4ma JaWEBU3 AU3 0� P:b8W07N CY 03AONddP d l ' o - :age0 y o anu :10 LY 01 yb :J040eJIU03 •utaJaq POT3Toads saOTJd Pue suOTITPuoO '9aoTneOT3Toads aqn gnTA aOMPJOOOe uT JaPJo aBuego stun uT PaT3T3ads ]golf aun wo3Jad oq saoi8e SgaJaq xOl0eJluO3 pauBTsJapun aqL ane0 uotnaT moo uT avueM ON :ane0 uoTnaTdMOO i paJagmnou3 spund TegoS 00 Z f = nJgn l 'of (epap,io aaueqD o a, %E`69 S nunomV l0eXWOO TeuTBTJO Y/N Sq (paseaJoaP/paS jom) aq TTegs uoTgaTdmoa l03 SSep JePuaTe 3o Jagmu aqt . 00 Z $ paseaJxT aq TTeW ;oealuoo agn 3o nunome au •enOsawTW `aadoWiS 3o SnT3 agn Sq Mdope saot;eOT3TOadS PJePUM atl PITA aOaePJooae uT PMJOJ.Iad aq nT W paT3Toods os lou ]IJoM guy •uTaJau PaTJTOads astluagno ssaTun PaPuame se n0eJIUO3 Te=BTJO aq; uT PaT3Toads suoT3Tpuo0 amen ata Japun aeoge PawaJaja 'imiwoo agn uT paneJodJo=T aq TTegs vom POOJOsap aeoge aqt f r, C r, "QQ :-ON IJ Jlaco •19u00 JaMas WOOS V 4a-nS anuaAV Intl :a N 4oaCoJj 'SenanTJP anaJouoo 3o nuamaOeTdad pue Teeom H •Z ':RPJfaPTs anaJouoo 3o 3uam eTdaJ Pue TeeomaN 'l :(PanaTaa/PaPPV) aq 0n 31JOA 3o uoTndTJOsaO JaPJo a8ueM 0n JOTJd PaJagM0u3 spM3 TenOS H3GHo 30NYRJ *ON nJgn — 'ON (s)JaPJO aBuel,5 nunomV noeJnuo3 TeutBTJo SSL gZ agmaeo :ane0 :•ON JapJo a8uem �ONSENT ,� N MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer SUBJECT: Stans Park DATE: November 29, 1988 INTRODUCTION: This memo addresses Stans Park, which is located at the intersection of 2nd Avenue 6 Fuller Street. BACKGROUND: During the Downtown Streetscape Project this summer when Fuller Street was reconstructed, it was discovered that an underground irrigation sprinkler system on the Stans Park property needed to be relocated. The sprinkler system was located approximately one foot off their property line into the street right-of-way. When the sidewalk was being constructed, the sprinkler system became exposed and we notified the representative for Stans Park who authorized their contractor to relocate the sprinklers to within their property line. The representative for Stans Park, Marge Henderson, has now requested that the City of Shakopee reimburse their contractor for the expense of relocating the sprinkler system. The cost to do this work is $950.00. In April 1987, the Stans Foundation consultant submitted a set of drawings to the City for review regarding the landscaping proposal for this area. The plans that were submitted consisted of drawings Number L1 thru L3 as shown on the attached letter of transmittal from the architect. The City staff reviewed these drawings and subsequently approved of them with certain changes and issued a building permit for the work to be done. Drawings L1 thru L3 are in the property data files. Also attached are 2 staff memos regarding this project, neither of which discuss the proposed irrigation system. These drawings do not show any underground irrigation system. Staff has contacted the architect associated with this project and he has indicated that a fourth drawing, No. L4, shows the underground irrigation system. This drawing has now been forwarded to the City. This plan does show the proposed sprinkler system to be located approximately 1 foot off their property line into the street right-of-way. It is quite apparent from the original transmittal letter and the plans in our files, that the City never received this drawing (L4) and therefore never reviewed it or approved it. The architect does not know why this drawing was inadvertently omitted from their original submittal. A copy of the original transmittal letter and the most recent transmittal letter from the architect are attached. The landscaping plan submitted by Stans Foundation was being reviewed at approximately the same time as the Downtown Streetscape plans were being prepared. The representative for Stans Foundation is upset because the sprinkler system was relocated one year after it was installed, supposedly with plans that were reviewed and accepted by the City. ALTERNATIVES: Inform the representative from Stans Foundation that the City never received nor approved of the underground irrigation system plan and therefore the property owner is responsible for relocating the sprinkler system. Recognize the fact that during the review process, an error may have been made in the submittal, but the consultant installed the sprinkler system assuming the irrigation plans had been approved. Due to the fact that the sprinklers had to be relocated within one year after they were installed and since the Stans Foundation has donated many dollars to the City, authorize staff to pay the requested bill as a show of appreciation to the Stans Foundation. Inform the representative of Stans Foundation that the architectural consultant failed to obtain approval on the irrigation system and that they are the responsible party for the relocation costs of the sprinklers. Staff recommends Alternative No. 3, to inform the representative of Stans Foundation that the architect failed to submit and obtain approval for the irrigation system from the City and that the City feels that the architect is responsible for the relocation of the sprinklers. ACTION REQUESTED: Direct staff to notify the representative of Stans Foundation that the irrigation systems plans were never submitted to the City and that the City never approved of the location of the underground sprinkler system, therefore the City does not feel obligated to pay for the cost of relocating the sprinklers. The representative of Stans Foundation should be informed that the City feels that the architect consultant was remiss in failing to obtain approval for the sprinkler system. DH/pmp cc: Marge Henderson Gene Ernst MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer SUBJECT: Stans Foundation DATE: April 1, 1987 The following are my comments as a result of reviewing the Stans foundation Layout and Grading Plan. 1. If possible, benches should match those of the downtown redevelopment project. The product to be used is manufactured by Timberform Civic furniture, model 2118. 2. Our records do not indicate the location of the sanitary sewer as shown on sheet L1. 3. The Shakopee Public Utilities will require removal of the abandoned water service and plugging of the watermain. 4. The trash receptacles should match those of the downtown project. Ernst Associates should coordinate product selection with Tim Erkala of Westwood Planning and Engineering. 5. The pedestrian light at the main garden entrance may conflict with those installed on the downtown project. Ernst Associates should coordinate the lighting of this entrance gate with Westwood Planning and Engineering. KA/pmp STANS Emst Associates TO: CITY OF SHAKOPEE, CIN ADMINISTRATOR JOB; STANS FOUNDATION / RESTORATION 1129 E. IST ST. SHAKOPEE. bN 55379 ATTENTION: JOHN ANDERSON SENDING TOtt: ® AtbchM ❑ UMr separate rover m ® pats ❑ Originals ❑ REF: LANDSCAPE E IRRIGATION DATE: BY: BY: GENE Copra Date Description SET BLIJELINE PRINTS a 1/8rr= 1r, SHEETS L1 — L3 TRANSMITTED AS FOLLOWS ❑ As r"Uestw ❑ Fpr your use Cl For app.val ❑ For W.M. ® S. remarks ® Far .view A cpnnwe ❑ ApppveC b Wts0 ❑ For bOs Gw REMARKS WE HAVE SENT THESE TO YOU TO BRING YOU LP TO DATE ON THE FINAL SET OF PLANS FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED PROJECT. IF THERE ARE ANY COMMENTS OR OLESTIONS IN REFERENCE TO THE ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS, PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO CONTACT MARGE HENDERSON OR MYSELF. CC: MAURICE STANS, STEVEN STANS. SIGNEO:-- MARGE HENDERSON WDSCRI£ 4RLIRECTIRE 0 LA.I IXA.aNG 0 122 WEST SIXTH STREET a LEVEL ONE a CHASNA, MINNESOTA 55310 a PHONE 61] 448-4096 TRANSMITTAL MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Stans Foundation DATE: April 6, 1987 I have reviewed the site plan for the Stans Foundation. Following are my comments: 1. I concur with the City Engineer's comments on integrating the site amenities with the City's streetscaping improvements. 2. The hedge proposed around the southwest corner of the site will limit visibility, particularly for traffic exiting the alley. The hedge design could be altered in this area to allow better visibility. 3. Although not required by City Code, the driveway could be easily enlarged to provide two or three off street parking spaces. This could prevent future pressure on parking lots if other redevelop- ment were to occur in the area. ©® as Ernst Associates CITY OF SHAKOPEE TO: JOB: 129 E. 1ST. AVE. REF: SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 DAVE HUTTON, CITY ENGINEER ATTENTION: samw YOU: ® Attapbed ❑ usider, separate Dover via ® Prints ❑ Originals ❑ TRANSMITTAL STANS FOUNDATION IRRIGATION 11/22/88 GENE ERNST DATE: BY: Copies Date Description f5 I SHEET L4, IRRIGATION PLAN 1 4/1/87 MEMO TO JOHN ANDERSON yy�� AAN.i`aLv 1 4/6/87 MRMO TO JOHN ANDERSON rA NOV 2 3 1 3/20/87 ERNST ASSOC. TRANSMITTAL G11Y os SNA:geiE TRANSMITTED AS FOLLOWS ® As requested ❑ For your use ❑ For approval ❑ For "timate ® See remarMs ❑ For review 8 comn,NM ❑ Approved as rated ❑ For bids due 11 REMARKS THE ENCLOSED COPIES OF DRAWINGS ARE AS PER OUR TELEPHONE CONVERSATION ON MONDAY, 21 NOVEMBER. AS YOU WILL NOTE ON THE TRANSMITTAL, IT INDICATED THAT 11-13 WERE SENT FOR REVIEW BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE L4 SHEET, WHICH IS THE IRRIGATION. I AM NOT SURE WHY THAT WAS NOT PART OF THAT TRANSMITTAL AND SUBMISSION FOR REVIEW. AS YOU WILL NOTE, THE MEMO HAD BEEN PREPARED REFERRING TO LANDSCAPE E IRRIGATION DRAWINGS. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO GIVE US A CALL. CC: MARGE HENDERSON SIGNED: XI F.I Q, :7—'- LO/ AAX LANDSCAPE APCWTECTURE a LAND PLANNING a 122 WEST SIXTH STREET IN LEVEL ONE a CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55818 a GHONE 612448-4094 TRANSMITTAL midland nursery inc. 2425 Highway 55 Hamel, MN 55340 478-6122 Stans Foundation c/o Marge Henderson 118 South Fuller Shakopee, MN 55379 Id - -'v INVOICE October 20, 19 ambo IVO. 1038 RE: Lawn Sprinkler 6,91lem Repairs Stans Foundation TERMS 30 dap ad. All oast due aamams (oma ] daysl — 2%—thly i fmmt— unpaid balame. QUANTITY DESCRIPTION PRICE AMOUNT Northeast Corner X $ 450.00 3AC Northwest Corner r.7�aj, 550.00 Southwest Corner jj 500.00 Along side west side of home 250.00 Winterize Lawn Sprinkler System 96.00 $1.846.00 SALES TAX III TOTAL I I I $1,846.00 WE APPRECIATE YOUR BUSINESS V UUNdLIV 1 iz c MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting ¢aty Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Cleryk__ RE: City/County Prosecution Agreement DATE: November 18, 1988 INTRODUCTION: Attached is a new agreement between the City and the County for the prosecution of gross misdemeanors. BACKGROUND: In 1984 the City requested Scott County to prosecute all gross misdemeanors for the City and an agreement to that effect was signed by both parties. That agreement is expiring the end of December. The attached agreement is for one year beginning January 1, 1989, and is automatically renewed for successive one (1) year periods, unless earlier terminated. The agreement is identical to the agreement signed in 1984. Part of the fees that are collected for the gross misdemeanor pay the County's expenses. The City does not have to pay any additional costs for this service. 1) Enter into agreement with County. 2) Do not enter into agreement with County. RECOMMENDATION• Alternative No. 1, enter into agreement with the County. It is less costly to have the County handle the gross misdemeanors because their attorney's are on site. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the proper City officials to execute an agreement with Scott County for the prosecution of gross misdemeanors. JSC/tiv THE OFFICE OF THE SCOTT COUNTY ATTORNEY or COURTHOUSE 206 SHAKOPEE, MN 55379-1380 (612)-937-6240 JAMES A. TERWEDO County Attorney November 2, 1988 Mr. John E. Anderson Shakopee City Administrator 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: Prosecution Agreement Dear Mr. Anderson: Enclosed please find the new City/County Prosecution Agreement which would be effective from January 1, 1989 through December 31, 1989. Please review the agreement and, if acceptable, please obtain the required signatures and return to me as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your help in this matter. Sincerely, JAMES A. TERWEDO SCOTT COUNTY ATTORNEY Brian A. Nasi Assistant Scott County Attorney BAN/jkf enc. cc: James A. Terwedo, Scott County Attorney Thomas J. Harbinson, Assistant Scott County Attorney Criminal Div. Thomas J. HarEinson. First Assistant Warren A. Kocais Neil G. Nelson Kathryn A. Santelmann W. R. Glasser, Special Assistant Civil Div. Human Services Div. Brian A. Nast Peggy A. Flaig Susan K. McNellis An Equal Opportunity Employer PROSECUTION AGREEMENT 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 covenants contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: I. TERM This contract shall continue for the term commencing January 1, 1989 through December 31, 1989, the date of signature by the parties notwithstanding, and shall thereafter renew for successive one (1) year periods 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. ,/ 4 6 1 John (Jack) F. Casey, Chairman Scott County Board of Commissioners ATTEST: Joseph F. Ries Scott County Administrator and Clerk of the Board SCOTT COUNTY ATTORNEY James A. Terwedo Dated: CITY OF SHAKOPEE Mayor City Administrator ATTEST: City Clerk CONSENT /zP MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting C' Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Reduction of Letter of Cre t for Prairie Estates 1st Addition DATE: December 1. 1988 The City has received a request for the reduction of the letter of credit for the public improvements within Prairie Estates 1st Addition. BACKGROUND• The City of Shakopee has on file a letter of credit in the amount of $384,730.00 for the improvements to Prairie Estates 1st Addition. The public improvements have been completed and accepted by the City with the exception of the sidewalk on lith Avenue and with the exception of the final lift of asphalt, wear course upon the streets. The estimated cost of the amount of work remaining times 125% comes to $31,000.00. According to the Developer's Agreement, the City shall receive a one year warranty bond prior to reducing the letter of credit. It is my understanding that a warranty bond will be provided to the City within the next couple of days. ALTERNATIVES• 1) Reduce the letter of credit upon receipt of the warranty bond. 2) Do not reduce the letter of credit. RECOMMENDATION• Alternative No. 1, reduce the letter of credit on receipt of a one year warranty bond and upon payment of the work to the contractor. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the reduction of the letter of credit for Prairie Estates 1st Addition to $31,000.000, upon receipt of a one year warranty bond, and upon payment of the completed work by the developer to the contractor in the amount of $274,039.76. JSC/tiv WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES, INC. (unm/ling fnginrr,� 1107 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 16121448-8838 November 22, 1988 City of Shakopee C/o Mr. David Hutton 129 East lst Avenue Shakopee, MN. 55379 RE: Prairie Estates lst Addition Dear Mr. Hutton: Iti C ` NOV p��L 4�IF OF FH Jg�� ,F�FFF � •ter. Enclosed is a copy of the pay request submitted by Richard Knutson, Inc., for payment on the above named project. We are hereby requesting a reduction in the Vierling letter of credit in the amount of $274,039.76. The remaining work to be completed amounts to $23,797.00. This amount is for the wearing course ($15,264.00), sidewalk ($3,913.00), bituminous walkway ($1,190.00), sod ($3,000.00), and barricades ($430.00). A warranty bond will be forwarded to the City directly from the Contractor in the amount of $274,039.76. The Contractor's bonding agent spoke with us this morning to confirm the amount and should be forwarding the bond by December 1, 1988. If you have any questions please contact us at your convenience. Very truly yours, WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES, INC. William R. Engelhardt WRE/las encl. (1) cc: Mrs. Jerome (Gloria) Vierling CONSENT /�Y MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting y Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Cler RE: Refund of Cash for Improve nts to Prairie House 2nd Addition. DATE: December 1, 1988 The City has received a request for the refund of the cash deposited with the City for the public improvements within Prairie House 2nd Addition. BACKGROUND: The City received $2500.00 in cash from the developer of Prairie House 2nd Addition to insure completion of the required public improvements. The public improvements have been completed and accepted by the City. According to the Developer's Agreement, the City shall receive a one year warranty bond prior to refunding the deposit. It is my understanding that a warranty bond will be provided to the City within the next few days. When the developer chooses to deposit cash with the City rather than a letter of credit, the money on deposit with the City does earn interest. The interest is figured at the rate earned on the City's investment portfolio as of the year ending December 31, 1987 less 1%. In this case the interest on $2500.00 for three months comes to $42.19. 1) Refund the deposit for the improvements plus interest. 2) Do not refund the deposit. RECOMMENDATION• Alternative No. 1, Refund the deposit plus interest upon receipt of a one year warranty bond and upon payment of the work to the contractor. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve refunding $2542.19 to the developer of Prairie House 2nd Addition, upon receipt of a one year warranty bond, and upon payment of the completed work by the Developer to the contractor. JSC/tiv lir MEMO TO: DENNIS KRAFT & CITY COUNCIL FROM: JIM KARKANEN, PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: CONTRACTOR WINTER ASSISTANCE DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 1988 INTRODUCTION: Authorization to obtain contractual assistance is requested for winter snow maintenance in several areas for the winter season 1988-89 by the Public Works department. BACKGROUND: Permission from City Council is requested by the Public Works department to enter into a contractual agreement with S.M. Hentges and Sons, Inc., to assist the City with winter snow plowing in the Eagle Creek rural area. Because of manpower and equipment shortages, it is practically impossible to meet public demand for prompt and efficient service in the former Eagle Creek rural area unless a portion of the plowing and cleaning responsibilities is shared by an independent contractor. By splitting the priorities in this area, we can respond to emergency situations more promptly, by at least getting the rural roadways open, then coming back later to widen, wing, and sand these roadways when time permits. When utilizing the contractor in the rural areas, we will also have one of our own plows in the sector with his own plow route. It is necessary to have several Plows in the area because we have an obligation to open the main roads by 6:00 AM for the school bus routes and early commuters who use our roadways. The contractor is generally used only for emergency conditions, as determined by City officials. As a rule, we consider a snowfall over 3" as an emergency condition, depending on wind velocity and direction. We generally will call out the contractor when he is needed as the storm situation is identified for our area. These contractual services are also available for natural disasters, such as tornadoes, floods, etc. In the event of a natural disaster, we are aware that federal and state reimbursement is only possible if the contractual services and hourly prices have been agreed upon prior to the emergency. We have been satisfactorily using S.M. Hentges & Sons since 1980, and we feel that his submitted hourly rate ($80.00/hour) is consistent with the rental scale of a machine of this size. The wing that is attached to the grader provides another 11 feet of plowing width, which is one of the reasons that we use this type of machine in this area. There are no other graders with a wing attached that are available for this type of service to our City• r'� Q Authorization for contractual assistance is also requested for snow removal of the downtown streetscape for the winter season. We have solicited prices for snow removal on the Downtown streetscape project from several contractors. The lowest price per hour quotation was provided by Peter Link Co., of Shakopee. His prices for 2 bobcat loaders and for hand labor was substantially cheaper than we paid last year for the same type of service. Because we have more streetscape and nodes to clean this year, we feel fortunate that this contractor has 2 bobcat loaders available for the snow removal service, and his quotation was $5.00 per hour cheaper than the other contractor, who was Jerry's Lawn Service, last years contractor. This cheaper price per hour will help offset the fact that we have more sidewalks to clean, and the fact that he has two machines available, will help speed up the cleaning procedure. We feel that the streetscape cleaning operation will be somewhat less expensive this year, unless the demand for a "broomed appearance" is made again this year. Unfortunately, we do not have enough personnel to even attempt to clean this area ourselves, because our crews are plowing streets when the downtown area should be cleaned. One of our front end loaders will be working in the downtown area, but does not have the maneuverability to clean around the nodes, trees, and bench area. The bobcat loader will work the snow toward the curb area, and the front end loader will clean it from the street side of the curb. The Park department has been requested to help with the downtown sidewalk cleaning operation until the skating rinks have to be built and maintained. Also, to eliminate some of the hand labor, we have requested permission to remove the settees/benches during the winter months until mid- April, when they will be replaced in their original locations. This request has been forwarded to Barry Stock, our liason with the Downtown Committee, who will communicate with the downtown people. We anticipate no objections because the settees are not used during the winter months, and their removal will assure us that they will not be vandalized during the winter, and that they will not be subject to machine damage during the snow removal operation. Removal of the settees will permit the snow cleaning operation to be more efficient by eliminating about 50% of the hand labor, and removing the obstacles that impede the cleaning operation. QUOTATIONS: S. M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. 140G Motor grader w/wing $50.00/hr (No other quotations were available for a comparable machine) Peter Link Co. * 2 Bobcat loaders B 37.00/hr each * hand labor W 7.00/hr John Deere loader Q 45.00/hr Jerry's Lawn Service, Inc * Bobcat loader 9 42.00/hr hand labor R 15.00/hr S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc Bobcat loader 0 50.00/hr