HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/20/1988 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator
RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items
DATE: December 14, 1988
1. Attached is a letter from Dr. Gayden Carruth, Superintendent
of Schools, thanking the Mayor and Council for their vote to
approve the joint powers compromise in regard to the
TIF/referendum.
2. Attached please find a letter from North Star Risk services,
Inc. This letter indicates that a routine loss control
survey was conducted relating to the premises and operations
of the City of Shakopee in conjunction with the City's
participation in the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance
Trust Property and Casualty Program. The letter contains
various recommendations which are being evaluated by City
staff. At such time as conclusions are drawn our
recommendations will be made to the City Council for action.
No action is requested on this matter at this time by the
City Council, it is sent to the Council for information
purposes only.
3 . The City Finance Director has received a communication from
the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT)
indicating that the City is receiving a rebate of $14,000
from the LMCIT insurance program for last year. An
additional amount of $6,000 will be transmitted to the
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission, representing their
part of the insurance coverage that we share with them. No
action needs to be taken on this item at this time. — .
4. Attached is a memorandum from Barry Stock regarding the
Downtown Committee's Goals and Objectives.
5. Attached is a memorandum from Barry Stock regarding bait and
switch tactics.
6. Attached is a memorandum from Joe Ries regarding the Fire
Department's election of officers for 1989.
7. Attached is a memorandum from George Muenchow regarding a
progress report on the Stans Park skating rink lighting push
button switch.
8. Attached is a copy of an article entitled "Council seeks
cleanup of Minnesota River" from the December issue of the
Metro Monitor.
9. The new copier for City Hall was delivered 11/23/88. It is
33% faster and is smaller than the old copier. Two sided
coping is fully automatic vs. semi automatic for the old
machine. It is a nice machine.
10. The American Legion of Shakopee has applied for renewal of
their gambling license. They do meet the requirements of
the City Code.
11. Attached is the Revenue and Expenditure Report as of
November 30, 1988.
12. Attached is the Building Activity Report as of November 30,
1988.
13 . Attached is the Engineering Department's monthly report for
November, 1988 .
14 . Attached are the minutes of the December 6, 1988 meeting of
the Shakopee Coalition.
15. Attached are the minutes of the November 17, 1988 meeting of
the Energy and Transporation Committee.
16. Attached are the minutes of the November 9, 1988 meeting of
the Community Development Commission.
17 . Attached are the minutes of the November 9, 1988 meeting of
the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee.
DRK/jms
i
Shakopee Public Schools
Independent School District No. 720
Joan Lynch,Chair District Office
Suzanne Van Houf,Vice Chair 505 S. Holmes Street
James Sorensen,Clerk Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Janet Wendt,Treasurer (612)445-4884
Jane Carson,Director
James O'Brien,Director Gayden F.Carrufh,Ph.D.,Superintendent of Schools
Steven Johnson,Director Virgil S.Mears.Assistant Superintendent of Schools 01
December 6, 1988
Mayor Delores Lebens
Members of the City Council
129 1st Avenue East
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Mayor Lebens and Council Members:
On behalf of the School Board and school district, we would
like to thank you for your November 15 vote to approve the joint
powers compromise in regard to the TIF/referendum.
We look forward to continuing to work together in the best
interest of our schools and community.
Sincerely,
Gayden F. Carruth
Superintendent of Schools
GFC/nb
A Tobacco-Free School District An Equal Opportunity Employer
J�
North Star
Risk Services, Inc.
December 5, 1988
Mr. Dennis Kraft
Acting Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Mr. Kraft: -
A routine loss control survey was recently conducted concerning the
premises and operations for the City. This is in conjunction with
the City' s participation in the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance
Trust Property and Casualty Program. We sincerely appreciate your
efforts and assistance in completion of this loss control survey.
This letter will review my meeting with your City Engineer, Mr. Dave
Hutton, on November 9, 1988. At that time we had the opportunity to
review the current City sidewalk maintenance and upgrade program. I
was specifically asked by your agent to review the new brick
sidewalks being installed in the downtown area. From my meetings
and a partial tour of your sidewalk area, I have come up with the
following recommendations:
R-20-88 It appears from the review and partial inspection of some
of the brick sidewalk that the installation of the sidewalk
was done in an efficient manner. I would like to point out
that the City engineer says that his brick sidewalk will be
set up on an annual inspection and maintenance program. I
highly recommend that this inspection and maintenance
program be put into effect to make sure that no bricks
start sinking and cause an uneven walkway.
R-21-88 A partial review of the City sidewalks shows that the
sidewalks directly in front of the City Hall need to be
replaced. I am also aware that service utilities in this
area may be replaced in the near future. Unfortunately,
that doesn't reduce the liability situation incurred by
the City. It has been shown that it is very difficult to
defend the City with respect to sidewalk maintenance when
the accidents may occur directly in front of City Hall.
The upgrade and/or maintenance of these sidewalks should
be done as soon as economically possible.
1401 west 76th Street. Suite 550 0 Minnnpnhs, s innewm 55423 ■ (612) 861-8600 ■ ea (612) 861-8643
Mr. Dennis Kraft
City of Shakopee
December 5, 1988
Page Two
R-22-88 It is my understanding that the City of Shakopee has a
sidewalk ordinance mandating that affronting property
owners are required to not only remove snow and ice, but
also maintain the sidewalks. I would like to stress that
the City should be enforcing this sidewalk maintenance
program. Therefore, I would like to recommend that a
sidewalk inspection and maintenance program be put into
effect. Affronting property owners with sidewalk
maintenance problems should be adequately informed in
writing and a follow-up maintenance program put into
effect. Some cities have elected to take care of part of
the sidewalk removal and/or part of the cost of sidewalk
replacement. The City of Shakopee can review any or all
of those different areas with regards to who is going to
pay for sidewalk replacements and additions.
During my visit Mr. Hutton pointed out a situation where
some property owners had built sidewalks themselves and
that there were gaps in the sidewalk system in a block
because of this situation. A review of this by the legal
department at the League of Minnesota Cities shows that
the City would most likely be responsible for accidents of
individuals who were injured walking across the areas
where there was no sidewalk. For that reason, the City
should look into inspecting and documenting these areas
and having them filled in as soon as economically possible.
The exact status on who will pay to fill in these areas I
leave up to the City, but I would like to point out that
by not filling in these areas, the City leaves themselves
open to a liability situation. I am enclosing some
information that the League of Minnesota Cities reviewed
with regards to this situation for your City Engineer to
review.
R-23-88 A review of sidewalk slip and fall losses shows that the
Engineering Department is not informed on any details with
regards to slip and fall accidents. When it comes to
engineering and specifications of sidewalks, the
Engineering Department should be involved in at least
being alerted having to do with slip and fall accidents
and/or problems. By doing this, they can help address the
budgeting situation having to do with maintenance and
inspection of City sidewalks.
Mr. Dennis Kraft
City of Shakopee
December 5, 1988
Page Three
PLEASE RESPOND WITHIN 60 DAYS OF YOUR RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER
REGARDING THE STATUS OF YOUR HANDLING OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS.
For your convenience, enclosed is a self-addressed envelope. Feel
free to make your reply on a copy of this letter and return it in
this envelope.
Thank you for your continued efforts in the interest of loss control.
We look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
W. Michael Everist
Loss Control Consultant _
North Star Risk Services, Inc.
WME/cp
Enclosures
cc: Capesius Agency, Inc.
These recommendations are made for risk improvement purposes only.
They were not made for the purpose of complying with the require-
ments of any law, rule or regulation. We do not infer or imply in
the making of these recommendations that there are no other hazards
and exposures in existence. The purpose of the recommendations is
to assist in improving the risk exposure and to assist you with your
loss control program.
183 University Ave.East
St.Paul,MN 55101.2526
League of Minnesota Cities (612)227.5600(FAX:221-0986)
To: City officials
From: Pete Tritz
Re: LMCIT loss control visits
The League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust is a cooperative
organization through which cities jointly self-insure their
risks. To put it another way, LMCIT is a way for cities to
jointly use their own funds to pay their losses. The ultimate
cost to cities is therefor determined by the losses the member
cities have. Every loss that can be avoided represents money
that remains in the cities' hands.
For this reason, LMCIT places a great deal of emphasis on loss
control and prevention. That effort has paid off. Over the
past couple of years, I.MCIT's member cities have succeeded in
reducing losses well below past levels. This has made it
possible for the LMCIT property/casualty program to stabilize
and reduce rates, and to return over $4 million of surplus funds
to the cities in 1987. Much of the credit for this achievement
must go to the cities' own efforts to reduce losses, with the
help of the loss control representatives employed by LMCIT's
administrators, EBA and North Star Risk Services.
An important element of loss control is the on-site visit by the
loss control representatives. The purpose of these visits is to
help the city identify conditions and practices which present a
hazard, and to help find ways to reduce or eliminate those
hazards.
The best way to think of the loss control representatives is as
consultants there to help the city. Their expertise is in
recognizing conditions that tend to create injuries, claims, and
losses, and in proposing techniques to control those hazards.
They are there to make that expertise available to cities.
Of course, you should also keep in mind that because LMCIT is a
cooperative self-insurance organization, all of the member
cities have an interest in making sure that no one city is
contributing an unreasonable amount of risk to LMCIT. After
all, if one city's premises and operations are exceptionally
hazardous, all of LMCIT's other member cities will potentially
have to help pay for the losses that result. The loss control
visits help assure all of the cities that they are not
subsidizing someone else's unsafe practices.
(OVER)
N O T E T O F I L E
DATE: December 5, 1988
FROM: W. Michael Everist
SUBJECT: City of Shakopee
A loss control visit was made to the City of Shakopee after a letter
was received by the agent for the City of Shakopee with regards to
the current brick sidewalk installation program. A review of the
sidewalk brick installation program shows that a competent
engineering and construction program is in effect with regards to
the brick sidewalk. The brick currently being installed is an
abraded, non-slip type brick. The bricks are laid on a very
substantial base with a sand grouting. The sidewalk is designed to
have an annual inspection and maintenance upgrade program to level
any bricks which may sink during the year.
During this review it was noted that an upgrade needs to be done on
the current sidewalk inspection and maintenance program for the
whole city. It was noted during this visit that the previous city
administrator, Mr. John Anderson, has left and has been temporarily
replaced by Mr. Dennis Kraft.
WME/cp
LOK CONTROL
_ G?GV 1 ' 1988
183 University Ave.East
St Paul,MN 55101.2526
League of Minnesota Cities (612)227.5600(FAX:221-0986)
November 14, 1988
Mike Everist
North Star Risk Services, Inc.
1401 West 76th Street
Suite 550
Minneapolis, MN 55423
Dear Mr. Everist:
LMCIT received an inquiry as to a municipality's responsibility for
sidewalks, built by private property owners, parallel to the street,
where the public sidewalk would be if a public walk were built. The
problem posed occurs when the sidewalk does not extend the length of
the whole block. Perhaps a number of property owners have built
similar sidewalks, but some have not, and gaps exist in the sidewalk
thus created along the block.
The general rule is that the duty of keeping a sidewalk in a
reasonably safe condition for travel is upon a city or municipality,
not on the abutting owners or occupants. Sternitzke v Donahue's
Jewelers, 249 Minn. 514, 519 (1957) A sidewalk is part of a street
and a municipality, which is given exclusive control of the streets or
sidewalks, is required to exercise reasonable care in keeping them in
a safe condition. The municipality is liable to any person who is
injured as a result of want of such care. Id. at 520.
[T)he duty is placed on the city and is not on
abutting owners or occupants unless they created the
defect or dangerous condition or were negligent in
maintaining in a dangerous and defective condition
facilities erected on the sidewalk for their convenience
or for the benefit of their building.
Sternitzke v Donahue's Jewelers, 249 Minn. at 519-20.
The city's duty of reasonable care includes a duty of reasonable
expection.
To impose liability, however, for injuries resulting from a defect,
the city must have had actual or constructive notice of the defect.
Smith v. Village of Hibbing, 272 Minn. 1 (1965) The city must have
had knowledge of the condition, or the condition must have existed for
a sufficient length of time so that the city should have known of it,
ti
Page 2 of 4
yet failed to take steps to remedy it. Scott v. Villaqe of Olivia,
260 Minn. 346 (1961) What constitutes a sufficient length of time
depends upon the facts of the particular case. Hall v. Cityof Anoka,
260 Minn. 188 (1961) . The plaintiff has the burden of proof that the
city knew of the defect, or that the defect existed for a sufficient
length of time so that it should have been discovered and corrected by
the city. Id.
If a private property owner constructs a sidewalk in the place where
public sidewalks are usually built, but where the municipality has,
for whatever reason, chosen not to build a sidewalk, is the
municipality liable for defects or lack of maintenance which results
in injury to a user? The answer seems to be ^yes.' In Graham V.
City of AlbertLea, 48 Minn. 201 (1892) , a property owner abutting a
public street built a sidewalk parallel to the street along his
property. The city had acquiesced in the owner's action and built
crosswalks over the sidewalk constructed by the property owner. A
passerby was injured on the sidewalk and brought an action against the
city. The city disclaimed responsibility for the existence of the
sidewalk, as well as for its maintenance and repair.
The Court held that the city authorities so acted in reference to this
walk as to hold it out to the people as a public thoroughfare. The
city therefore assumed the duty of keeping it in repair. Id. at 205
The court said that where a sidewalk is placed in the street to be
used by the public as a part of it, and is permitted by the
municipality to remain and be so used, the city has a duty to see that
it is in a safe condition for such use. Id.
[Where] a municipality permits a -private citizen to build
a sidewalk in front of his premises, and the same is to be
used by the public, the duty devolves upon the corporation
to see that it is kept in repair.
Graham v. City of Albert Lea, 48 Minn. at 206
In succeeding cases, the Supreme Court of Minnesota has said that when
the owner of adjacent property constructs a sidewalk which replaces or
completes a public sidewalk, even without the city's express
authority, the municipality must exercise a reasonable supervision
over such construction and must seasonably remedy any defects.
Steliwagen v. City of Winona, 54 Minn. 460, 463 (1893) , Blyhl v.
Village of Waterville, 57 Minn. 115 (1894) .
On the other hand, in Holmwood v. City of Duluth, 134 Minn. 137 (1916)
the owner of adjacent property built a sidewalk along the street front
of his building where no sidewalk had existed. There was no evidence
that the authorities had ever approved either the construction or the
manner in which it was done. The city never made any attempt to
assume control of the sidewalk, or repaired or maintained the
sidewalk. When a user was injured because of an alleged defect in the
Page 3 of 4
sidewalk, the user sued the city for damages. The Court held the city
was not liable because there was no evidence that the city had ever
assumed control of that particular stretch of sidewalk. However, the
court said that the rule might be different had the city, in fact,
assumed jurisdiction of that part of the walk and treated it as part
of the public thoroughfare. Id. at 139 (emphasis added) .
The actual result of Holmwood is probably irregular, despite the pains
the Court took to point out that the city had not assumed control.
The prevailing attitude seems to be that permitting a privately built
sidewalk to exist where a public sidewalk would be expected to exist
is sufficient to constitute assumption of control.
The basis of liability in these cases seems to be the •invitation
principle.^ Casad, Street and Sidewalk Safety: The Scope of the
Municipal Duty in Minnesota, 45 Minn. L. Rev. 333, 355 (1961) . The
essence of the principle is that, if a private walkway runs along the
same place a public walk would run, if there were one, an invitation
to the traveler is implicit in the existence of the walk. This
invitation is the invitation of the city, not of the private owner.
Id. The reason is that the traveler would not suspect that the walk
Fad- been provided by a benevolent private party rather than by the
city. Id.
Similarly, if a walkway runs from the public walk to a private house,
the traveler would normally think that the walk had been provided by
the private owner, not the city. The invitation implicit is that of
the owner. The owner is responsible for injuries on that connecting
walk.
To lessen the burden of its duty, a city may, by ordinance, require
property owners to maintain and repair sidewalks that are adjacent to
or abutting their property. However, if the abutting owners neglect
their duty under the ordinance, the city is responsible. In such
cases, the city must do the necessary maintainence and repairs, but
may charge the costs to the property benefitted. Minn. Stats. 412.211
and 412.221 subd. 6. Cities may also, by ordinance, establish
sidewalk improvement districts and have authority to defray all or
part of costs of construction and repair of sidewalks therein by
apportioning costs to all the parcels located in the district on a
direct or indirect benefit basis. Minn. Stat. 435.44 subd. 1.
Thus, if in a particular neighborhood, where the city had not laid
sidewalks, but some of the private property owners did, the city may
pass and ordinance requiring the whole neighborhood to have sidewalks,
thereby filling in any gaps. Costs could be assessed according to the
provisions of 435.44.
If a city chose neither to incur this cost itself, nor to pass the
cost to the benefitted properties by assessment, it would still be
liable for maintenance and repair of the sidewalk thoroughfare that
y
Page 4 of 4
was created by the property owners, as the case law outlined above
indicates. Therefore the city would want, at a minimum, to insure
that any gaps in the sidewalk were not abrupt. The ends of the
sidewalks should be graded to meet the unfinished sidewalk area.
I am sending you copies of the applicable ordinances and a copy of a
1986 LMC research memo on local improvements. The memo relates to
improvements under Minn. Stat. 429 but also refers to Minn. Stat.
435.44 (on page 7) . Cities should always consult with their attornies
and other responsible officers or officials before pursuing a
particular course of action. I hope this has been of help.
Sincerely,
(�y�(!(xnnQ-�Jh�co��
Allen Jacobson,
LMCIT Research Asst
Enclosures
CC: Doug Gronli, GAB
Bob Weisbrod
Dave Drugg
Doug Rolm
y
MEMO TO: Shakopee City Council
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant
RE: Downtown Committee Goals and Objectives (Non-agenda
informational)
DATE: December 14, 1988
INTRODUCTION•
In October, the Shakopee City Council directed the Downtown
Committee to prepare a work plan identifying two or three major
goals and 'objectives for completion. The City Council requested
that the goals and objectives be forwarded to them for their
review prior to the end of the year.
BACKGROUND•
During the month of November the Downtown Committee
discussed the development of goals and objectives for the
Committee. On December 14, 1988 the Downtown Committee was
scheduled to approve a final set of goals and objectives to be
forwarded to the City Council for their review and approval.
However, another important issue consumed the entire meeting
time. The Downtown Committee was therefore unable to continue
the discussion of their work plan. I have scheduled the Downtown
Committee to prepare their final work plan for the Council's
review at their first meeting in January. I fully expect that
their goals and objectives will be forwarded to the City Council
for their consideration at the January 17, 1989 meeting.
5
MEMO TO: Shakopee City Council
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant
RE: Bait and Switch Tactics
DATE: December 14, 1988
INTRODUCTION•
At the Council meeting on December 5, 1988 Mr. Wampach
stated that several businesses in Shakopee were using deceptive
advertising techniques to lure people into their stores for sale
items which were not available. (Bait and Switch) At that time,
Council directed staff to investigate the issue and report back
to them.
BACKGROUND:
Following the December 4, 1988 meeting I met with Mr.
Wampach to determine which businesses were employing the bait and
switch tactics. Upon further investigation I did not discover
any recurring evidence which could be used to approach the
businesses in question regarding this issue. I will continue to
monitor the businesses that were alleged to be engaged in the
deceptive advertising. If I see recurring patterns occur, I will
contact the Minnesota Better Business Bureau to report my
findings. If you have any questions regarding this issue, please
feel free to call me.
(O
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Joseph P. Ries, Fire Chief
RE: Informational, Election of Officers
DATE: December 15, 1988
The Shakopee Fire Department held its annual election of
officers in November. The following people were elected by the
membership of the Fire Department, and will assume office January
1, 1989. I have decided not to seek reelection so I can pursue
other areas of the fire service.
Chief Charles Ries
1st Asst Chief Francis Ries
2nd Asst Chief Mark Huge
1st Captain Mary Athmann
2nd Captain Mike Theisen
3rd Captain Ed Siedow
4th Captain Dave Judd
Engineer Robert Latzke
Secretary Tom Pitschneider
Treasurer Mike Ryan
SPR/tiv
04oknper (Qnmmunitg Nerrentinn
129 Levee Drive
Shakopee, MN 55379
Phone: 612-445-2742
Memo To: Dennie Kraft, Acting City Administrator
From George F. Muenchow, Director - Community Recreation
Subject : Progress Report/Stene Park Skating Rink Lighting Push
Button Switch
Date December 8, 1988
Approximately one year ago the City Countil authorized an
experimental installation of a push button control for activating
the outdoor ice skating rink lights at Stene Park. This was to
be operational by the 1988-89 winter ice skating season. This
ask has_been_comeleted.
----
A mechanism is in place and working that includes a push button
mechanism on the exterior of the shelter building that can be
activated for a 90 minute interval during the hours of 4-11 PM.
When the lights go off after 90 minutes, they can then be re-
activated for another 90 minutes, if someone wishes, during that
four hour evening time period. The lights will not go on between
11:00 PH and 4:00 PM unless activated by another control switch
inside the building which is only accessible by authorized
personnel.
If this experiment proves to be successful, we will then discuss
with the Council the possibility of providing the same mechanisms
at other rinks in the community.
By next spring a similar switching system will be installed at
the tennis courts at the Jr High School where the current system
of coin operated switches has proven to be unworkable.
A COOPERATIVE EFFORT OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AND SCHOOL DISTRICT 720 SINCE 1954
1 Council seeks cleanup
of Minnesota River
/� rmunities and watershed man- least minimized, she said.
( agement organizations in the In an effort to provide information on -
4/ Minnesota River basin need to which Techniques work best to manage
reduce "nonpoint" pollution entering nonpoint pollution, the Council is
the river from their jurisdictions. If studying the effectiveness of several
they don't, it could mean another costly ways to manage the pollution in the
round of upgrading sewage treatment Metropolitan Area.The study, funded -
plants on the river, which would net by the state Legislative Commission on
only a minimal gain in water quality. Minnesota Resources (LCMR), is ser
This is the message communities and for completion in lune 1989.
watershed management organizations
will behearing from the Metropolitan
Council in 1989 as the Council, the 77ie real problem on
Metropolitan Waste Control Commis-
sion (MWCC) and the Minnesota the Minnesota River -
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) work
toward reducing nonpoint pollution of is nonpoint pollution.
the river by 40 percent —Carol Flynn
d o pollution enters the river
overer land or through storm sewers—in -
runoff, for example, from agricultural -
land, urban yards, streets and parking Promising-stormwater management
lots, and from stream-bank erosion. techniques include creating settling -
"Water is a major regional,resource, ponds, diverting runoff to wetlands,
and the Council's goal is to make all improving urban land management and, _
the regions eaters swimmable.and in rural areas, instituting soil conserva-
fishable' said Council Member Carol lion farming practices:
Flynn. "To accomplish his, sve must The Council has just finished up
address the problem of nonpoint pollu- - dating its regional sewer polity plan. - -
tion" All communities in the seven-county. -
The Council and the MWCC must area will soonreceivenotice of changes.
also meet, in 1992, new effluent to the regional plan and will need to
discharge limits for the Blue Lake and determine whether their local com-
Seneca sewage treatment plants on the prehensive plans need amending to -
Minnesota River. An MPCA study has conform with the regional plan.-Com-
determined that a 40 percentreduction munities within the Minnesota River
in organic pollutants is necessary to basin will also receivenotice of the -
meet water quality standards in the need to reduce nonpoint pollution.
Twin Cities Areas portion of the river Because some of the river's nonpoint- -
during periods of low water Bows, pollution originates outside the seven-
These pollutants include, among county area, solving the water quality
others, organic soils, animal waste, problem requires cooperation from both
• vegetative debris, oil and grease, and outsfate and Metropolitan Area com-
organisms living in the waten inanities and agencies.
The Council and MWCC are spend- Next July the MPCA will undertake a-
ing $TIO million to upgrade the two four-year study, partially funded by the
treatment plants, but these improve- LCMR, of nonpoint pollution in the
ments will result in only a slight Minnesota River basin outside the -
increase in the river's water quality, region. The study is expected to deter-
according to Flynn. mine major sources of-the pollution and
Even if the treatment plants were to what land uses contribute most to the
cease discharging treated sewage into problem.
the river, the MPCA study found, state -"State and regional agencies are com-
_ - water quality standards would he miffing significant resources to protect -
violated at certain times. water quality in the Minnesota River;'
"The real problem is nonpoint pollu- said Flynn. As communities and water-. -
tion;' Flynn said. Land use can have sheds join the effort, our chances for
damaging impacts on water quality— success are multiplied:' - ■
impacts that can be prevented or at - Jeanne Inndkamer -
�T
m N o
i
m �
y �
'an xvi Ip
I PIT
mNe ♦Ne
e.e
N
tg
Ml
-.. MAMs 2 MMMM ro -eeeM1ee - eee weN ee e`e oee a ee o -eu 9m
e_N0 ZZ: :M1M1 ePaYN�VN _
eN-Je - - M1e-1eNJa
a4wTv M: A m
m�mme- me m NeoJY-Ye - NeecauJYe u uJe u -I u y - \
t< nFONMNwe
�N. N N
i N
i
N LL I
tit t n6• � Gro - -
7 5
w0 M� m
i it I. m
x m
ro' in've�wmwlu - ''
v � w w o e N ew .o we N•.uwaou...nm+.0 Ywro u .e Yeewo�m. rw - '
_ NNNYN w
u u _ � ; YNYNaNeY�e�-ei� m m
y
I I �
j
W I I i i
'
e
i
I I I
I I
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT
PERMITS ISSUED
November, 1988
Yr. to Date Previous Year
Number Number Valuation Number Valuation
No. Ytd.
Single Fam-Sewered 4 76* 5,301,291* 7 41 3,384,400
Single Fam-Septic 1 13 1,410,000 3 15 1,810,600
Multiple Dwellings - 3 276,800 - 8 4,570,500
(# Units) (YTD Units) (-) (7) - (-) (129) -
Dwelling Additions - 49 247,663 1 61 320,117
Other - 7 225,995 - 16 354, 300
Comm New Bldgs - 4 612,200 - 5 1, 125,000
Bldg. Addns - 8 643,000 - 5 339,000
Industrial-Sewered - 1 915,000 - 1 600,000
Ind-Sewered Addns - 1 575, 000 - - -
Industrial-Septic - - - - - -
Ind-Septic Addns - - - - 2 167,475
Accessory/Garages 2 32 234,236 1 33 201,717
Signs & Fences 4 63 124,000 4 60 97,820
Fireplaces/Wood Stove 1 10 27,602 - 7 18, 100
Grading/Foundation 3 6 223,700 2 8 61,500
Remodeling (Res) 2 26 112,780 2 33 207,805
Remodeling (Inst) - - - - - -
Remodeling (Comm/Ind) 4 25 342,220 2 35 505,506
TOTAL TAXABLE 21 324 11,271,487 22 330 13,763,840
TOTAL INSTITUTIONAL - - - - - -
GRAND TOTAL 21 324 11,271,487* 22 330 13,763,840
No. Ytd. No. Ytd.
Variances 1 10 3 18
Conditional Use 1 22 - 15
Rezoning - 3 - 1
Moving -
3 - 3
Electric 18 270 14 235
Plbg & Htg 30 275 20 266
Razing Permits
Residential - 3 - -
Commercial - - - -
Total dwelling units in City after completion of all construction
permitted to date. . . . . . .4, 281
Cora Hullander *Totals adjusted to reflect cancellation of one
Bldg. Dept. Secretary permit
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED IN NOVEMBER, 1988
8026 Tim Magalis 2051 Ea$lewood Lane House $ 82,300
8027 Michael Menke 638 E. 7 hAve. Garage $ 5,800
8028 Summit Energy 8267 Horizon Dr. Fireplace $ 2,400
8029 Signs of Quality 321 W. 1st Ave. Sign $ 780
8030 Mike's Riverside 232 Marschall Rd. Sign $ 100
8031 Amcon Corp. 4571 Valley Ind. Blvd. Fndtn $ 12,000
8032 Gardner Bros. 1888 He vita Dr. House $ 80,000
8033 Jack Brambilla 133 N�. Lewis Alt. $ 400
8034 Highland Mgmt. 1245 E. Shakopee Ave. Sign $ 2,840
8035 Lilac Const. 221 E. 1st Ave. Alt. $ 26, 000
8036 Amcon Corp. 671 Co. Rd. 83 Alt. $ 25,000
8037 Gardner Brothers 2010 rit ge Dr.� J House $ 76,866
9f 14-1
8038 Gardner Brothers 1893 HeriVagecbr. House $ 57,600
8039 Busse Const. 1478 akevie%ODr. Grading $ 500
8040 Ray Erickson 700 Industrial Cir. Alt. $ 19,000
8041 English Const. 614 E. 2nd Ave. Alt. $ 3,375
8042 Valleyfair One Valleyfair Dr. Fdtn. $200,000
8043 Fredrickson Lumber 1789 Co. Rd. 89 Stg. Bld. $ 6,000
8044 Gardner Brothers 2051 Heri age Dr. House $ 60, 347
/ !%
8045 ' Arlen Stage 1 1105 9 Madison Alt. $ 1,700
8046 Attracta Sign 221 E. 1st Ave. Sign $ 3,000
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, City Enginee
SUBJECT: Engineering Department Monthly Report for November
DATE: December 13 , 1988
Attached is a project status report as of December 1 , 1988 for
projects that the Engineering Department is involved in. A brief
summary of several projects is as follows:
Vierlina Drive West ( Project No. 1988-1)
No change in status on this project from the last report.
11th Avenue (Project No. 1988-5)
The final wear course of asphalt will not be placed on this
roadway until next year. The remainder of the project has
essentially been completed.
Downtown Streetscane (Proiect No. 1987-2)
Two light poles need to be replaced that did not meet
specifications. Next spring, the annuals will be planted in the
planters. Minor "punchlist" items will need to be finished next
spring, also. All other work has been completed on this project.
Prairies Estates Subdivision (Private)
No change in status from the last report.
Meadows Subdivision (Private)
No change in status from the last report.
Plans & specifications are being prepared for the Alley in
Block 81 , the Alley in Block 55, and the trail and pond in Lions
Park.
Feasibility reports are being prepared for the 3rd Avenue Sewer
and Water Project from Harrison West , the 3rd Avenue
Reconstruction Project from Spencer to Shumway, the County Road
17 Sidewalks, Bluff Avenue from Marschall Road to Naumkeag, and
5th Avenue Extension from Fillmore to Market Street.
DH/pmp
STATUS
13
I-L- AF-1--v
- ----�---- -- ----- ----- ----- ----- --- -I �-
-_ -------- -
---- ---- - -- -- - -- -
C
�- =
---------- --------- ---- - -- ------ --
----- ----- ------ -
-a-- ---- ---- ---- --------- -- - -
- --L-S--r-a--L-a-- ---- --------- ---- ---- --- -
-3--I-- --L- --I-- -- ---- ---- --------- -----I-
J---- ---- - -- ------------------- ----�0---
-- -- -- -- - -- - -- ---------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----
---- ----- ----- -
- '--g -- --1 ---- ------ ----- ----- -
-
3 5 $ 3
----- - -a�----- --------- ---- ---- ---- ----
---- ------ ----
-
---- ----- ----- ---
--- � -
- ---- ---�---- ----�----- ----- ----- - ---
---- ---- ---- ----� ---- ----� ---- ---- ----� -
---- ---- ----� ---- ---- ---- ---- --------- -�- -
S $
IIe
--- -�---- - -- ---- ---- ------ -- -�®�
e e
aa -- - -- ---------- ----- ----- - --
14
-�
-�- - ---- - -- --L-1-- -a ---- -1 - -1-- _1
F -1
e a--- ---------- -----I ---- ---- ----- --I-
---- --
- ---- ---- - -- -- -
L--- - - ----- ----L---- ----- ------ ----- ---------- ---- I
- -
------- -- -- - - -�--�
----� --<- ---ep
--e--�-
-�--------I_
---- ----
--- --- --a-1---- ---- ----
------- ----- ----- ---- ----- ---- -----
---I--- ---- ----`---------- --`---- ---- ----
-
----
--g
-
------- -------------- ---- ---
------------�----L---- ---- ----- ----� ___-____�-_----
- ---- ---- ---- ----
-a-`-=-� s--� � � _
----L-a-- ---- ----L- ----L----L - -
�Y
SHAKOPEE_COALITION
MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER_6,_1588
The meeting came together at 4:30 PM in the Meeting Room of the
Citizens State Bank. Claude Kolb volunteered to serve as meeting
chairperson.
Members present: Chuck Dustrud (Scott County Human Services),
Marianne Kibler (Scott County Extension
Office), Tina Floyd (St. Francis Medical
Center ), Theresa Roehrich ( let Natl Bank),
Claude Kolb (Knights Of Columbus), Cheryl A.
Champion (Community Action Agency), Jim Week.
(Citizens State Bank), and George Muenchow
(Shakopee Community Recreation) .
Members introduced themselves and shared regarding programs
currently taking place:
a. Human Services. . . Developing a support group for young
fathers. Laura Matuska serves as staff person.
b. Lions Club. . . . . . . Claude Kolb also is a member of the Lions
and they are providing funds for the Community Youth
Building under construction in Lions Park. They are good at
fund raising and like to assist worthy projects.
C. County Extension— Focusing on teen health issues,
particularly relating to social problems. Networking with
other agencies on this concern.
d. Chamber. . . . . . . . . . . . Theresa shared that the C. 0£ C. has
apace in its monthly newsletter to highlight community
needs.
e. St. Francis. . . . . . . . Developing a Life Line Program to be used
by people at home that are vulnerable to disabling
situations. These rental units (telephones) cost about
S12. 00 per month and have had great success elsewhere,
particularly Methodist Hospital which is providing St.
Francis with guidance in this effort. Need volunteers to
place the units. Hope to have operational by mid January.
Also looking for a Sick Child/facility.
f. Community Action Agency— Busy with Food Shelf and Holiday
Project with stacks of food etc in piles all over their
building. Reported that Phyllis Hussong, who normally
represents the Agency at these meetings, had emergency
surgery this past week. Cheryl is involved with the Child
Abuse Prevention Program. Interested in working with people
before problems occur. She distributed materials related to
this program. They work with Parente Anonymous.
g. Recreation. . . . . S. C. R. is available to work with everyone in
the community related to their leisure time interests.
Neighborhood ice skating rinks with supervised warming
houses will open December 17, weather permitting.
The meeting adjourned at 5:20 PM. The next meeting is January 3,
1989 at 4 :30 PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
George F. Muenchow, Secty.
ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Regular Session Shakopee, MN November 17, 1988
Chairman Ziegler called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. with
Commissioners Prudoehl, Leverson, Roman and Ziegler present.
Commissioners Kahleck and Spiotta were absent. Also present was
Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant.
Roman/Leverson moved to approve the minutes of the October 13,
1988 meetings as kept. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock reported that the current contract for the Dial-A-Ride
Program expires on April 15, 1989. Since our current contract
does not provide for an extension it becomes necessary for us to
prepare bid specifications and rebid the dial-a-ride service.
Mr. Stock noted that 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. Mr.
Stock stated that these cities were included in an effort to
achieve the lowest possible price for the Shakopee Dial-A-Ride
program as well as these services. Mr. Stock also noted that the
bid specifications were prepared in such a fashion to allow for
providers to bid on the entire service package including service
to SWMTC, Shakopee and Plymouth; on an individual system or a
combination of systems. Mr. Stock stated that following the
opening of the bids, staff from each of the systems will review
the bids and select the provider that offers the most efficient
and cost affective service to their service area. Mr. Stock
stated that it is possible for each individual system to have
separate providers. Mr. Stock also noted that each individual
system will have their own separate contract. The final
selection of the provider will be determined by the Energy and
Transportation Committee and City Council.
Mr. Stock noted that the proposed service specifications maintain
the level of Dial-A-Ride service that is currently being provided
in Shakopee.
Chairman Ziegler questioned whether or not the City would receive
the administrative fee that we are currently receiving for
administering the Southwest Metro System. Mr. Stock stated that
once we rebid the contract, SWMTC will be operating under their
own management authority with their own individual contract and
therefore the City would no longer receive an administrative fee.
Chairman Ziegler questioned where the dispatching center would be
located and the vehicle storage facility. Mr. Stock noted that
the exact location for these facilities was not specified in the
proposal specifications and that it would not be known until the
1
proposals are opened. Mr. Stock did note however that each
individual system would have their own local phone number.
Mr. Stock then reviewed the various bid alternatives that
providers may propose for the services being requested.
Commissioner Leverson questioned whether or not the providers
could bid each individual system individually and the entire
service package as a whole. Mr. Stock responded in the
affirmative.
Mr. Stock noted that the proposed service is for a three year
contract with a three year extension provision.
Commissioner Leverson questioned whether or not there would be
enough time between the bid opening and the Energy and
Transportation Committee's January meeting for staff to review
and interview the top three proposals. Mr. Stock stated that it
may be necessary for the Energy and Transportation Committee to
meet on a date different from the regularly scheduled meeting in
January.
Leverson/Prudoehl moved to recommend to City Council approval of
the Dial-A-Ride bid specifications and to authorize the
appropriate City officials to proceed accordingly. Motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock reported that at the last meeting the Energy and
Transportation Committee reviewed the refuse collection and
recycling program proposed by Waste Management in response to the
County's proposed Solid Waste Disposal Ordinance. At that time,
the Energy and Transportation Committee recommended to City
Council that a public hearing be held on the issue to answer
questions that residents may have regarding the program.
On November 1, 1988 staff presented the refuse/recycling program
as proposed by the Energy and Transportation Committee to City
Council for comment. At that time, the City Council did not
indicate any opposition to the program and concurred that a
public hearing should be held on the issue. However, the Council
did not indicate whether or not they wanted to be present at the
public hearing. Therefore, staff is suggesting that the Energy
and Transportation hold the public hearing on Wednesday, December
14, 1988 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers. Mr. Stock
noted that he would invite each of the Council members to attend
for their information and would request that at least one Council
member be present at the hearing.
Mr. Stock stated that he has met with officials from Waste
Management and that a preliminary agenda has been developed. He
noted that the meeting will begin with a brief historical
background of the waste disposal problem provided by Al
Frechette, Scott County Environmental Health Specialist. Staff
2
will then give a brief summary of the current recycling and
refuse collection program. This will be followed by the review
of the proposed service by Waste Management officials. Mr. Stock
asked the Committee if they wish to add any thing to the agenda.
Chairman Ziegler questioned whether or not Shakopee residents
would have to buy the 65 gallon container that would be provided
for refuse. Mr. Stock stated that the cost of the 65 gallon
refuse container was included in the residential refuse
collection fee. Commissioner Roman questioned whether or not
Shakopee residents would have to pay for the recycling
containers. Mr. Stock noted that he was attempting to negotiate
a deal with the County whereby Shakopee residents would only have
to pay half of the monthly fee for the recycling container. Mr.
Stock noted that the normal fee would be $.40 per month. He
stated that he was attempting to negotiate a 508 reduction in
this monthly collection fee under a subsidized program funded by
the County.
Mr. Stock noted that Waste Management is now proposing a one
container system for the collection of recyclables. He noted
that earlier, Waste Management was proposing a three container
system. They are now pursuing a one container system for the
following reasons: 1. Shakopee residents are used to placing
their recyclables in garbage bags and they fit very nicely in to
the container. 2. Technology is currently being developed to
provide for the placement of all recyclables in one common
container to be separated at a centralized processing facility.
3 . The one container system would be easier for senior citizens
to handle as compared to three separate containers. Mr. Stock
briefly reviewed the credit system that is being developed for
persons who recycle.
Mr. Stock then gave a brief report on the status of the City's
request for funding assistance associated with the
recycling/refuse collection program. He noted that Scott County
officials have informed him that they are unwilling to fund a
hazardous waste collection program at this time. They are
interested in a program but believe it should be done on a County
wide basis. Mr. Stock noted that Scott County is also not
willing to fund Spring and Fall leaf collection days at this
time. Mr. Stock did note however that the landfill operator is
willing to provide for the free dumping of debagged leaves and
compost. Mr. Stock stated that he is working with Waste
Management to develop some type of program to off-set the cost of
Spring and Fall leaf collection days.
Mr. Stock then noted that Scott County is not willing to waive
the surcharge placed on our operator until we can initiate the
program. Therefore, in an effort to maintain the current
collection rate, staff is attempting to develop a payback plan to
assist the contractor in covering the surcharge during the three
month extension period.
3
Mr. Stock then reviewed the Dial-A-Ride and Van Pool Monthly
reports.
Under Other Business Mr. Stock stated that the Flex Pool Van is
experiencing problems due to it's deviation from the fixed route.
Mr. Stock stated that Van Pool Policy #4 provided for the Flex
Pool and it's provision along a fixed route similar to the
previously provided MTC route. He asked for a motion from the
Committee endorsing the provision and enforcement of Van Pool
Policy #4. Mr. Stock noted that the Flex Pool Van was never
meant to deviate from the preestablished fixed route. Mr. Stock
stated that he would like to send a correspondence to the Flex
Pool Riders informing them of Van Pool Policy #4 and the
rationale behind the Flex Pool Program. Mr. Stock noted that the
Flex Pool route is fairly centralized and has several park and
ride lots along the route. He also noted that if any of the
current Flex Pool riders are upset with the enforcement of Van
Pool Policy #4, they do have the option of riding another 8:00-
4:30 van pool that does have vacancies.
Prudoehl/Roman moved to endorse the enforcement of Van Pool
Policy #4 and requested staff to send a letter to the Flex Pool
riders informing them of the policy. Motion carried with
Commissioner Leverson abstaining.
Leverson/Prudoehl moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 P.M.
Motion carried unanimously.
Barry A. Stock
Recording Secretary
4
Minutes of the
Community Development Commission
City Council Chambers
Shakopee, Mn
November 9, 1988
Chairman Keane called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. with the
following members present: Al Furrie, Jane DuBois, Tim Keane,
Mark Miller and Terry Joos. Commissioner Donald Koopman was
absent. Barry Stock, Administrative Assistant was also present.
Furrie/DuBois moved to approve the minutes of the October 5, 1988
meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock stated with the year coming to an end he thought it
might be appropriate for the Community Development Commission to
publish a newsletter on the activities accomplished this year and
projects scheduled for 1989. Mr. Stock presented several
newsletter topics to the Commission for their review and comment.
It was the consensus of the Committee to request staff to begin
putting together a draft copy of the CDC Newsletter for their
review at their December meeting. Commissioner Keane also
suggested that a highway project update be included in the
newsletter and a summary of the 1988 Development and Building
Permit Activity.
Mr. Stock reported that he has received correspondence from the
Department of Trade and Economic Development requesting that the
City of Shakopee's One Year Work Program and Five Year Economic
Development Plan be submitted to them by February 10, 1989. Mr.
Stock reported that in light of our recent meeting with the
Downtown Committee and City Council he felt that it would be a
good time to put the City's One Year Work Plan and Five Year
Economic Development Plan on a calendar year basis rather than a
fiscal year.
Mr. Stock then presented the City's current One Year Work Plan to
the Commission for their review. The Committee then went through
each of the goals as specified in the One Year Work Plan and
determined which ones should be deleted. Mr. Stock noted that
following the Downtown Committee's completion of their goals and
objectives, they could be incorporated into the One Year Work
Plan. Discussion ensued on possible goals for inclusion in the
One Year Work Plan and Five Year Economic Development Plan.
Commissioner Keane suggested that staff take all of the issues
discussed by the Committee and develop a final draft for the
Committee's review and consideration at their next meeting.
Mr. Stock reported that several weeks ago he had the opportunity
to attend the Twin West Development Fair. He noted that this
1
event was put together very well and attracted many potential
developers and brokers. He noted that the Community Development
Director from Prior Lake had approached him and questioned
whether or not the City of Shakopee might be interested in co-
sponsoring a joint development fair between the communities in
Scott County. Mr. Stock questioned the Committee to determine if
they were interested in such a development day. Commissioner
Furrie stated that several years ago the CDC Day was successful
in attracting people but had little impact on actually attracting
new developers who pursued a project in the community. He
questioned whether or not the cost was worth the effort.
Chairman Keane questioned whether or not the City would receive
any benefit from participating in a development day until such
time that the major highway projects are under construction. It
was the consensus of the Committee to not pursue a joint
Community Development Commission Day with Prior Lake at this
time.
Mr. Stock reported that he is in the process of preparing the
Celebrate Minnesota 1990 Grant application for submission to the
Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development for the
improvement of Huber Park. Mr. Stock shared with the Committee a
listing of possible contributors to the project. He requested
the Commission to provide assistance in contacting the
contributors and also questioned whether or not the Commission
has any other ideas for persons or organizations that could be
added to the contributors list. Commissioner Furrie stated that
the Rotary maybe a possible contributor for the project.
Commissioner Joos stated that the Jaycees may also be interested
in participating in the project.
Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director then gave a brief
update on the status of the Bergquist Company negotiations. Mr.
Kraft stated that the Bergquist Company requested additional
inducements from the City of Shakopee in addition to the
inducements as set forth in the City's Industrial Development
Assistance Program. Mr. Kraft further stated that the Shakopee
HRA responded to the Bergquist Company by not offering any
additional inducements at this time. To date, Mr. Kraft stated
that he has not heard a reply from the Bergquist Company.
Mr. Kraft then gave an update on the negotiations that are
currently taking place between the City and Mebco Company. Mr.
Kraft noted that Mebco Company does qualify for the City's
Industrial Development Assistance Policy. He noted that they are
currently looking for 50,000 square feet of building with the
potential for expanding to 200,000 square feet. Mr. Kraft
further noted that Mebco is also considering several other
communities in the Metropolitan area as a possible site for their
company.
2
Mr. Stock then reviewed the Business Update from City Hall. He
also noted that the Planning Commission tabled action on the
proposed park dedication fee increase as recommended by the
Community Development Commission until further information could
be provided. Mr. Stock stated that he felt that the park
dedication fees would be approved at the December meeting of the
Planning Commission. Mr. Stock then reviewed the 1987 Building
Permit Activity Report as compared to the 1988 report.
Discussion then ensued on the meeting time of the Community
Development Commission. Since several of the members have a
difficult time meeting at 5:00 P.M. , it was the consensus of the
Committee to change the meeting time to 5:30 P.M.
Joos/DuBois moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:10 P.M.
Barry Stock
Recording secretary
3
17
PROCEEDINGS OF THE
DOWNTOWN AD HOC COMMITTEE
Regular Session City Council Chambers Nov. 9, 1988
Chairman Laurent called the meeting to order at 7:45 A.M. with
the following persons present: Gary Laurent, Ruben Ruehle, Mary
Keen, Melanie Kahleck, Bill Wermerskirchen, Shiela Carlson and
Barry Stock. Absent were: Harry Koehler, Jim Stillman, Terry
Forbord and Jerry Wampach.
Ruehle/Carlson moved to approve the agenda of the November 9,
1988 meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Kahleck/Keen moved to approve the minutes of the October 19, 1988
meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock noted that on October 25, 1988 a joint meeting was held
between the Shakopee City Council, Community Development
Commission and Downtown Committee. At that time, it was the
consensus of the City Council to request the Downtown Committee
to narrow their focus and identify two or three major goals that
they felt needed to be accomplished in the downtown area. City
Council also requested that completion dates and cost estimates
be attached to each of the goals identified.
Mr. Stock suggested that the Downtown Committee discuss what they
feel are the three most important goals for the Downtown
Committee to work on in the next year. He suggested that
following the discussion, he would prepare a final draft for the
Committee's review at their December 14, 1988 meeting. Mr. Stock
further stated that he would like to have the Community
Development Commission review and approve the goals established
by the Downtown Committee at their meeting in December.
Following the CDC's review and approval, the goals would be
forwarded to City Council for their consideration on December 20,
1988.
Mr. Laurent suggested that we review the goals that were
previously established by the Downtown Committee several months
ago. Mr. Stock suggested that the Committee should attempt to
identify goals that are more broad based and objectives that are
more focused and measurable.
Mr. Laurent suggested that the Committee should attempt to
maintain their original focus and mission which was to improve
the economic vitality of the downtown area. It was the consensus
of the Committee to maintain this as the mission statement of the
Committee.
Mr. Wermerskirchen suggested that one of the Committee's first
goals should be to identify which two or three sites are most
appropriate for attracting developers. Commissioner
Wermerskirchen also questioned what type of development could
1
occur in Huber Park. Mr. Stock updated the Committee on the
Celebrate Minnesota 1990 grant application that is being pursued
to improve Huber Park as usable park land. Mr. Stock noted that
while commercial development could be done in the Huber Park
area, it would be very costly and there may be problems with
using dedicated park land for commercial purposes. Mr. Stock
noted that the grant application would simply provide for the
landscaping of Huber Park and general clearing to make it an
attractive entry point into the community.
Mr. Wermerskirchen then questioned the status of the marina. Mr.
Stock provided some background to the Committee on the property
owned by Mr. Sweeney. Mr. Stock noted that Mr. Sweeney has
expressed interest in developing this property for a marina and
is currently working with the Department of Natural Resources to
obtain necessary dredging permits. Mr. Stock stated that he felt
it would be several years before a marina would be developed.
Mr. Stock also stated that the marina was a fair distance from
the downtown area and that it probably should not be included as
a goal for the Downtown Committee.
Discussion ensued on the development of a property inventory in
the downtown area. Mr. Laurent stated that he felt a property
inventory would be useful in providing information to developers
who are interested in developing parcels in the downtown area
regardless of whether or not the City pursues the request for
proposal process. Commissioner Kahleck stated that it was
necessary for the City to pursue a property inventory analysis
before certain parcels could be identified for development and/or
redevelopment. Mr. Stock noted that some type of rationale must
be developed before the Downtown Committee can make a
recommendation on which parcel and/or parcels should be targeted
for development and/or redevelopment. Mr. Laurent stated that in
conjunction with targeting parcels for development and/or
redevelopment, the City must establish some parameters by which
acquisition and/or condemnation will occur. It was the consensus
of the Committee that an acquisition/condemnation policy should
be one of the objectives to be developed and proposed to City
Council for approval.
Discussion ensued on what types of commercial businesses are
needed in the downtown area. Mr. Wermerskirchen stated that he
felt that a hotel or motel would be a viable business opportunity
in the downtown area. He also stated that a hotel in the
downtown area would bring in shoppers. Several other business
opportunities were also discussed by the Downtown Committee.
Mr. Wermerskirchen suggested that the Committee should attempt to
develop amenities downtown which will attract traffic to the
downtown area and particularly pedestrian oriented shoppers.
Commissioner Ruehle stated that one item which would create
traffic in the downtown area was a City Hall. He felt that a
City Hall should located in the downtown area on one of the
parcels identified for redevelopment.
2
�7
Mr. Stock then gave the Committee a brief update on the status of
the mini by-pass. He stated that Mayor Lebens was not opposed to
the mini by-pass but was opposed to the City's contribution of
funds to the project, the elimination of City parking lots which
were partially assessed and the temporary termination of Levee
Drive at the bridge head. Mr. Stock stated that Mayor Lebens has
recently suggested that the South half of block 3 and the City
Hall block be demolished and replaced with a new City Hall at the
point of the new bridge head with parking lots on the East and
West side of the new City Hall. The Downtown Committee expressed
interest in Mrs. Lebens concept and stated that they have always
supported the location of a City Hall in the downtown area. Mr.
Stock stated that Mayor Lebens concept is similar to the plan
suggested earlier by Council member Wampach. The Committee felt
that the location of a new City Hall in the downtown area at it's
present site or in relation to the parcels proposed for
redevelopment by Mayor Lebens would have three immediate positive
impacts including: 1. Construction of a new City Hall, 2. The
elimination of blight and 3. The creation of additional parking.
Discussion ensued on whether or not the Committee should set as a
goal development of a facade improvement program. Commissioner
Kahleck stated that she felt the improvement of the buildings in
the downtown area was important but that it should not be one of
the first priorities focused on by the Downtown Committee. She
suggested that when the final goals are developed that they be
prioritized in order of importance. Commissioner Ruehle stated
that several of the downtown property owners were waiting to
improve their facades until the mini by-pass is complete and a
common theme could be developed for the downtown area.
Commissioner Kahleck stated that before we establish goals we
should attempt to identify what we want our downtown to do.
Mr. Stock suggested that perhaps before developing a list of what
we need in the downtown area we should complete the property
inventory. Certain parcels may lend themselves better to certain
types of development activity as compared to other parcels in the
downtown area. Upon identifying those parcels, the Committee can
attempt to identify through the use of a survey or some other
type of analysis what uses are most appropriate for the parcels
identified.
Commissioner Kahleck suggested that design standards be developed
in the 8-3 Zone and adopted as ordinance. Presently, she stated
the City has design standards for developers who utilize City
assistance programs in the downtown area. She suggested that
once the road improvements are complete, property owners will
build new buildings or remodel on their own without the use of
City assistance programs and may construct or redevelop using
types of materials that do not lend themselves to the type of
atmosphere the City is trying to create. It was the consensus of
the Committee to include this as one of the objectives of the
Downtown Committee.
3
Commissioner Keen questioned whether or not housing was needed in
the downtown area. She noted that the blue book plan called for
an additional 100 units of elderly housing in the downtown area.
Mr. Wermerskirchen stated that in his opinion, the creation of
new housing in the downtown area should be a goal of the Downtown
Committee. He noted that persons living in the downtown area
would be more apt to shop in the downtown area. Mr. Laurent
stated that housing could be one of the needs developed by the
Downtown Committee to be included in a future request for
proposal package.
It was the consensus of the Committee to have staff prepare a
final listing of the goals and objectives discussed by the
Downtown Committee. Mr. Stock stated that he would have a second
draft of the goals and objectives complete by the Committee's
next meeting.
Kahleck/Wermerskirchen moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 A.M.
Motion carried unanimously.
Barry Stock
Recording Secretary
4
TENTATIVE AGENDA
ADJ.REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 20, 1988
Mayor Dolores Lebens presiding
1] Roll Call at 7:00 P.M.
2] Recess for H.R.A. Meeting
31 Re-convene
4] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers
5] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS
6] Approval of Consent Business - (All items listed with an
asterisk are considered to be routine by the City Council
and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate
discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests,
in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda
and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. )
7] Communications:
a] Gloria Vierling re: Letter of Endorsement for MWCC Commissioner
for District 13/14
b] Timothy Keane re: Resignation from the CDC
c] Jim Slavik, Scott County re: Scott County Courthouse Parking
Plan
8] Public Hearings: None
9] Boards and Commissions:
Planning Commission:
a] Park Dedication Fees
Energy and Transportation:
b] Refuse Contract Amendments - Res. No. 3001
10] Reports From Staff: (Council will take a 10 minute break around
9:00 p.m. )
a] Murphy's Landing Request
b] Playground Equipment Bids
*c] 1988 Capital Equipment, Air Packs
*d] Computer for Direct Data Transfer to State Terminal
*e] Downtown Streetscape Project No. 1987-2, Change Order No. 9
*f] 13th Avenue, Vierling Drive Street Improvements Project No.
1987-12, Partial Estimate Voucher No. 9
*g] Vierling Drive Project No. 1988-1, Partial Estimate Voucher
No. 4
h] Upper Valley Drainage - Authorization to Obtain Soil
Borings at the Mill Pond
i] Marschall Road at County Road 16
j ] Non-Union Employee Benefits
TENTATIVE AGENDA
December 20, 1988
Page Two
10] Reports from Staff continued:
k] Health and Life Insurance Bids
1] Approval of the Bills in the Amount of $3,626,196.10
*m] Municipal Parking Lot Leases
*n] 1989 Cigarette Licenses
o] Contract with Municipal Ordinance Codifiers for Update the
City Code
p] Reimbursement of Fees from Scott County Lumber Company
Litigation
11] Resolutions and Ordinances:
a] Res. No. 2999, 1989 Pay Schedule for Officer & Non-Union
Employees
*b] Res. No. 3000, 1989 LAWCON Grant Application (East Side Park)
c] Ord. No. 261, Housing Code
d] Res. No. 2995, Amending Res. No. 2987 Adopting the 1989 Fee
Schedule
*e] Res. No. 2996, Appointing the Commissioner of Transportation
as the City's Agent for Federal Projects
*f] Res. No. 2998, Receiving a Report and calling a Hearing on
Improvements to 3rd Avenue West between Harrison and Hwy 169
*g] Res. No. 2997, Declaring Adequacy of Petition and Ordering
Preparation of Report for Alley Improvements to Block 7
Jasper & Smith Addition
12] Other Business:
a]
b]
13] Adjourn.
Dennis R. Kraft
Acting City Administrator
TENTATIVE AGENDA
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
Adjourned Regular Meeting December 20, 1988
Chairman Steven Clay presiding
1. Roll Call at 7: 00 P.M.
2. Approve the Minutes of the December 6, 1988 Meeting
3 . Shakopee Valley Square TIF Project
4 . Other Business
a.
b.
5. Adjourn
Dennis R. Kraft
Executive Director
PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Regular Session Shakopee, MN Dec. 6, 1988
Acting Chairman Wampach called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.
with Comm. Scott and Zak present. Also present were Dennis
Kraft, Acting City Administrator; Mayor Lebens; and Julius A.
Collar II, City Attorney.
Zak/Scott moved to approve the minutes of November 1, 1988, and
November 15, 1988. Motion carried unanimously.
Scott/Zak moved to table the letter of credit discussion on
Shakopee Valley Square TIF Project until December 20, 1988.
Motion carried unanimously.
Scott/Zak moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting
adjourned aatt7:10 p.m.
,E7
Dennis Kraft
Executive Director
Carol Schultz
Recording Secretary
"W3
MEMO TO: Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Executive Director
RE: Shakopee Valley Square Tax Increment Project
DATE: December 16, 1988
INTRODUCTION•
At the meeting of December 6, 1988 the HRA tabled action on
the letter of credit for the Shakopee Valley Square Tax Increment
Project until December 20, 1988.
BACKGROUND:
July, 1986 the BRA entered into an agreement with the
Shakopee Valley Square Partnership wherein the HRA would provide
tax increment assistance in the amount of $330,000 provided that
certain improvements were made to the Shakopee Valley Motel.
Subsequent to that the contract was amended and the established
deadline dates were extended. After a period of slightly over
two years very limited progress was made on the project and the
HRA found the project to be in default. Last month, the HRA
terminated Tax Increment District #6 and also terminated the
contract between the HRA and the Shakopee Valley Square
Partnership. At the time of project termination, however, the
HRA did not draw on the $50,000 letter of credit which was had
been posted to insure performance under the contract. The HRA
tabled action on the letter of credit until the meeting of
December 6th. At that time, at the request of Mr. Wallace
Bakken, the HRA again tabled action on this item until the
meeting of December 20th.
The Executive Director spoke with Mr. Bakken on December
14th about his progress on obtaining financing. Mr. Bakken
indicated that he had still not obtained financing and that he
requested that the HRA give him additional time to obtain project
financing.
At this time the $50, 000 letter of credit is more then
sufficient to cover the outstanding costs that have been incurred
by the HRA relative to the issuance of the bonds for this
project. In as much as several deadlines have passed without
evidence of project financing, and that the future prospects of
financing appear to be unclear at this time, the HRA needs to
determine how long it wants to continue waiting for this project
to obtain financing.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. Draw on the letter of credit in an amount sufficient to
cover the shortfall of the project including project
issuance costs and capitalized interest which have not been
covered by investment revenues and allow the remainder to be
returned to the Shakopee Valley Square Partnership.
2. Continue to hold the letter of credit and table this item
until the BRA meeting of January 17, 1989.
3. Refund the entire $50,000 letter of credit to the Shakopee
Valley Square Partnership at this time and terminate future
discussions with the developer.
RECOMMENDATION•
Alternative #1 is recommended.
ACTION REODESTED:
Move to direct the Executive Director and the City Director
of Finance to determine the amount due the BRA by the Shakopee
Valley Square Partnership and to provide a summary of these costs
and accompanying resolution to the BRA for action to draw upon
the $50,000 letter of credit at the January 3, 1989 BRA meeting.
CC: Wallace Bakken
Brian Alton
7a,
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator
RE: Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC)
Endorsement
DATE: December 15, 1988
Introduction
There is an opening for MWCC Commissioner for District 13/14
effective January, 1989. In the past the City Council has
periodically taken positions on endorsing individuals to fill
vacancies on regional boards and commissions where the welfare of
the City of Shakopee is affected.
Background
Councilmember Gloria Vierling is soliciting a letter of
endorsement for the position of MWCC Commissioner for District
13/14. The needs of the City of Shakopee have not been well
represented by the current MWCC Commissioner for this district.
It is clearly in the best interest of the City to have someone
who will actively advocate positions which will be positive for
the future growth of the community. Councilmember Vierling is
well aware of the needs of the community and is willing to spend
the time necessary to positively represent Shakopee and other
southwestern area communities.
Alternatives
1. Endorse Councilmember Gloria M. Vierling for MWCC
Commissioner for District 13/14.
2. Do not endorse any candidate for MWCC Commissioner.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council endorse Gloria Vierling's
candidacy for the MWCC.
Action Recommended
Move to endorse the appointment of Gloria M. Vierling as
Commissioner of the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for
District 13/14.
DRK/jms
7
'RECEIVED
DEC 1 51988
12-14-88 CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Dear Mayor and Council: _
The M.W.C.C. Commissioner for District 13/14 is open for
appointment or re-appointment by the Metropolitan Council in
January 1989.
I am soliciting a letterofendorsement for this position
from you.
The Southwest Communities continue to fall behind in
infrastructures such as sewer capability and transportation.
Siting future landfills, of course, cannot be ignored. If
appointed, I can promise to actively support the needs of our
area. I live in Shakopee, County of Scott and understand the
needs of our Communities.
Again, a letter of support to the Metropolitan Council
would sincerely be appreciated. If there are further questions,
I can be reached at 445-3018.
i
,Cul
Respectfully,
Gloria M. Vier ling
76
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator
RE: Resignation from Community Development Commission (CDC)
DATE: December 15, 1988
Introduction
Timothy J. Keane, the present Chair of the Shakopee Community
Development Commission has submitted his letter of resignation,
effective January 31, 1989. Mr. Keane recently changed his place
of employment and is no longer working in the City of Shakopee.
It is recommended that the City Council accept Mr. Keane's
resignation.
Action Requested
Move to accept the resignation of Timothy J. Keane from the
Shakopee Community Development Commission, with regrets.
DRK/jms
••• LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. x�
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 2000 PIPER JAFFP OWEp xx
ii 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH 222 BOUT NH STREET L[n
BLOOMINGTON,MINNESOTA SS431 MINNEAPOLIS,M NESOTR SS 2
TELEPHONE 16121836-3800 TELEPHONE 16121336-6510
TELECORIER 16121835-5102 TELECOPIER 1612)338-1002 x ex•
nex NORTH SUBURBAN OFFICE Ix
x 8990 SPRINGBROON DRIVE.SUITE 260 SRI
LISA A. I
COON RAPIDS.MINNESOTA 55033
nx TELEPHONE 161ZI786 7117 I
TELECOPIEP 16121786-6711
"ANxRx Reply to Bloomington
December 14, 1988
Mayor Dolores Lebens and
Members of the City Council
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Mayor Lebens and Members of the City Council:
It is with sincere regret that I submit this resignation from my
position on the Shakopee Community Development Commission. The last
four years have witnessed great progress in the development of the
City of Shakopee and I have been honored to be a participant in the
community during that time.
I look forward to working with the City of Shakopee in the future.
Please call on me if I can ever be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Timothy J. Keane, for
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
kw
CC. Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
TJK:BF6s
7G
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator
RE: Request from Scott County on Parking Limitations
on Streets in the Vicinity of the Scott County
Courthouse
DATE: December 14, 1988
Introduction
The attached letter was received from Mr. Jim Slavik, the Central
Services Director for the County of Scott. Mr. Slavik is
requesting two hour parking time limits on various streets around
the Scott County Courthouse.
Background
Parking problems have been perceived in the vicinity of the Scott
County Courthouse. Apparently some people, such as County
employees, are parking all day on streets in the vicinity of the
Scott County Courthouse. This results in inconvenience for
visitors to the Courthouse. These people must either park in the
adjacent off street parking lot or park on streets at locations
farther from the Courthouse.
This matter was discussed with the Chief of Police and he
indicated that he thought it reasonable that two hour parking be
posted for the west side of Holmes Street in the Courthouse
block. However, Chief Brownell expressed some concern about
restricting parking along the south side of 4th Avenue, the north
side of 5th Avenue, the East side of Fuller Street and around
Block 57 which is the parking lot located between the Courthouse
and St. Francis. The Chief specifically indicated that he
thought there is not an over abundance of off street parking in
that parking lot and that the introduction of an extensive amount
of two hour parking would perhaps result in people moving farther
out into the residential areas in an attempt to find parking.
The matter was also discussed with City Engineer Dave Hutton. It
was Dave's recommendation that the City restrict parking on the
west side of Holmes Street in the Courthouse block and that a
study be conducted of the impact of restricting parking to two
hours in the other areas requested by Scott County.
Alternatives
1. Post the area along the west side of Holmes Street in the
Courthouse block for two hour parking.
2 . Restrict parking to two hours for all of the areas requested
by Mr. Slavik.
3. Make no changes in the parking restrictions around the
Courthouse until a study could be conducted on the impact of
this parking.
4. Study the impact of two hour parking restrictions on the
streets requested by Scott County and report back to the
City Council at the January 3rd meeting.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council restrict parking to two
hours along the west side of Holmes Street in the Courthouse
block and that they direct the City Engineer and the Chief of
Police to evaluate the impact of parking restrictions in the
other areas requested by Scott County.
Action Recuested
1. Move to post the west side of Holmes Street in the
Courthouse block for two hour parking.
2. Move to direct the City Engineer and the Chief of Police to
evaluate the impact of posting two hour parking restrictions
on the south side of 4th Avenue in the Courthouse block; the
north side of 5th Avenue in the Courthouse block; the east
side of Fuller Street in the Courthouse block, and on the
west side of Fuller Street in Block 57.
DRK/jms
SCOTT COUNTY
CENTRAL SERVICES G
COURTHOUSE B6
SHAKOPEE, MN.55379-1398 (612)445-7750, Ext.151
December 1, 1988
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Att: Mr. Dennis Kraft
Acting City Administrator
129 First Avenue E.
Shakopee, MN 55379
Re: Scott County Courthouse Parking Plan
Dear Mr. Kraft:
A Parking Plan Revision has recently been completed for the
Scott County Courthouse parking lots. As part of this revision,
we wish to also address the parking on city streets surrounding
the Courthouse building.
Please consider this as a formal request to provide posted two
(2) hour parking limits for on-street parking around the
Courthouse Square block.
The following streets would be effected by this change:
A. Courthouse Block, West side of Holmes Street
B. Courthouse Block, South side of Fourth Avenue
C. Courthouse Block, North side of Fifth Avenue
D. Courthouse Block, East side of Fuller Street
E. Block 57, West side of Fuller Street (parking lot west
of Courthouse)
I have already talked with Chief T. Brownell, Shakopee Police
Chief, and Ray Ruuska, of the City Engineering Department; and
the request meets with no resistance from their standpoint. In
addition, if the City wishes to carry the parking limits onto
further City streets, I would recommend that this be done at the
same time.
Please call me, at your earliest convenience, to arrange a
meeting to discuss this project, to further address any
questions or concerns that may exist.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Page Two
Courthouse Parking Plan
Thank You for your immediate attention to this request by Scott
County. Please contact me at the above address or telephone
number (612) 496-8114.
Sincerely,
J m Slavik
C ntral Services Director
JRS/js
cc: Cliff McCann, Deputy County Administrator
Fleet Management Team Members
File:FLEETMGT
I
90.
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant
RE: Park Dedication Fees
DATE: December 14, 1988
INTRODUCTION•
At the City Council work session on February 22, 1988 the
Council indicated they wanted a review of various park fees. The
staff prepared an analysis and review of the City's current park
dedication fee structure and presented the information to the
City's Community Development and Planning commission for their
review and comment. Subsequent to holding a public hearing on
amending the park dedication fee ordinance, the Planning
Commission is recommending to City Council an increase in the
park dedication fees.
BACKGROUND-
The Community Development Commission reviewed the park
dedication fee structure in terms of methodology and assigned fee
schedule during May and July of this year. Shown in attachment
#1 is a survey of park dedication fees for several communities in
the Metropolitan area including Shakopee. (Please note that each
of the cities are categorized by growth area or ring as defined
by the Metropolitan Council. ) Staff believes that Shakopee's
fees should be comparable to those charged by other cities within
the development ring, provided that a methodology can be
developed which substantiates the proposed fees.
Survey results indicate that Shakopee's park dedication fees
are generally lower than most other communities in the developing
ring. This is probably partially the result of no adjustments
being made to our schedule since it's enactment in 1981.
Shown in attachment #2 is a comparison of various city
application fees. This attachment compares and contrasts the
Shakopee fee structure with similar development projects in the
communities surveyed. From this comparison one might conclude
that Shakopee is lagging behind in it's park dedication fees.
Shown in attachment #3 is a copy of the five year park
improvement plan as approved by the City Council. Attachment #4
is a copy of the park reserve fund budget summary for the years
1983 to 1987 actual, and projections for the next five years.
The park reserve fund summary outlines the amounts collected from
fees, contributions and other sources and for what those funds
are expended. Staff would like to note that the monies received
annually through park dedication are divided on a 60/40 basis for
improvements and acquisitions respectively.
The attached data indicate that the City of Shakopee
receives an unusually large amount of contributions from
community organizations. From 1983 to 1987 contributions
accounted for 283 of all revenue. Staff would also like to note
that the City does not pay for park acquisition or improvements
from the general fund.
The park reserve fund budget summary projects that
contributions from City organizations will continue in the amount
of approximately $4,000 annually. This may be an optimistic
projection. Assuming completion of the projects as proposed and
the continued support by community organizations, the unreserved
portion of the park reserve fund will be running in a deficit
position in 1989. The unreserved portion is dedicated for park
development. (See attachment #4) The receipt of state and
federal grant funds has not been projected due to the phasing out
of many of these programs and the intense competition that
presently exists for grant funding.
Regardless of what other communities are charging for park
dedication fees, staff believes that the intent of the park
dedication fee ordinance is to have a fee that is justifiable in
terms of the impact of the development on the community's park
system. Therefore, a methodology that will withstand legal
challenge must be developed. The rationale that our fees are
similar to what other communities are charging would not be
sufficient to withstand judicial challenge. Therefore, staff has
developed what we believe is a proper methodology which justifies
the impact of developments upon the community and corresponding
payment (fee) in lieu of park land dedication.
The methodology developed by staff is shown in attachment
#5. The Planning Commission concurred with staff's
recommendation on the proposed fee for residential dwellings but
was opposed to staff's proposed commercial/industrial fee ($1500
per acre) . The Commission felt that in light of the following
considerations, the commercial/industrial fee should be increased
to $2,500 per acre: 1. The City's ambitious five year park
improvement plan and the need for park improvements; 2. The
impending shortage of funds to complete park projects; and 3.
The City's past practice of not using general fund dollars for
park improvements.
C.
If the City of Shakopee is to keep up with the demand for
parks, increasing park dedication fees should be considered at
this time. The Planning Commission is therefore recommending the
approval of the park dedication fee schedule and methodology for
residential properties as set forth in attachment #5 and a
commercial/industrial fee of $2500 per acre.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. Move to approve the park dedication fee schedule and
methodology for residential properties and a
commercial/industrial park dedication fee of $2,500 per acre
and direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary
ordinance amendment.
2. Move to approve the park dedication fee schedule and
methodology as originally proposed by staff and direct the
City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance amendments.
3. Amend the park dedication fee schedule and/or methodology
and move it's approval.
4. Table action on this issue pending further information from
staff.
5. Do nothing until completion of the City's Comprehensive
Plan.
RECOMMENDATION•
Staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REODESTED:
Move to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary
documents amending Shakopee City Code, Section 12.07, Subd. 6
increasing the required cash contributions in lieu of land
dedication for park purposes for new subdivisions in accordance
with the dwelling unit density methodology and following fee
schedule:
Single Family - $400.00
Duplex (2-3 units) - $338.00
Townhouse (4-6 units) - $312.50
Apt. (more than 6 units) - $250.00
Commercial/Industrial - $2500.00 per acre
tnO r ^ O r ^ Oto K] tn — .3 w
N G w N x M 0 W M g O N N o I a O <
J m tP W N WO rV1 � C . (D
P.. n q - nH rY O' C A Gro mr
oa7 omn (nmm �< o aG0alp no
on Y' oo n o � r5 Y'� G Wm nro
\ H K •� Orom oroH x r '3 (* m (D 3
u w \w 7 O m " N N rt mm N 7
ry N 'd An x G o x r N O
rr Y'
tR W r w r w o
fR W N W N A W (U
J 00 NN � O O
o no no
w m N +n�n w rn w w Xq
A r � rm w J y 3
Id
m w o \ o O m o
n w o a ,�
mn m m7 ro
q
r r "
+» tw as to w w aw ro Y H a
H
N O N-
A
r
n 0 n n 3 N
z
Yf fR tF N F' � 1R iA VI
00 OUl W
J \O \ O J O O O
ul w o w ul o o G
� o 0 O o �
(D O m
n
w w
O] lP Ut N- O� O UI
00 tIIN r
N O- OUB N A N N
o a p w o 0
no no a
n n n
m O m
n
as rn w
w v+w w, m IHJ a w rCD
n o m
m K
r r r m
N � mrom
N Y 0 .w
OJ lf� O U� J O O U1 O w
O` O nro x
N O O O P p p
N \ p \ O O O O .7O O
m m �
q a.•
N O O 3 h1 w
G
r H o w w
m YR, m a 0 00 0o to x �'
H N.O K ro
N0
ro0 Y-
ro a w < b m z
q 0o
w � w n ro Y-
x Y. a 0 Dl N
x4
x to an to +»
x A A w a
O O a N N
Y- Y- do Y• r G
R R O rt rt µ
M R
t« w w w +R e ro
W a O G w F A N
o o M •.i N pa or
o o Y•T rin ow
j � 7 H t-I
P.R R a rt S H n
n w
+A w 0H.Wf rtG am r luH G H
b w N SO � w a• a H0 a 1 a ro H 3
ro O W 1 0 a m wrr " NaW A O D
0 (D N 0 R M N R J Z a
41 \ \
H-0 H 1 0 M O O O t :x rt
• G G R R N +A F+ +A r M G M \ • C1
7 O (D Y•O• w NMNH 0 mV •g O x
w Y-
H. < G � \O wwr YH O. • 3 Y•
N R R pI (D O N Y' H ORa rtw G H ro
u1 (D R\ n \ 9 m 7 6 3 b
\ 7007 H N DI' rt H
n N NMoC K 0 N
w H 0 (D w n
O
Y = w
� 0M0 +a a H (] _ O 7 fD
0
mmM 1Nv a0 a w Co p'n
1010 Y- O O G A N NO Cr
• w • O o M MO 0 m H o w a
M (Hp M\ b 14 " 0 ro +A0 OtA Wrote G~
RrRN O g Wr (D F+ MOF+ NF+N NH
• w n < w w H - a- oG o 7
NP, fDO rr w OWro o ODI o MF r
tl1 % M NW 1Q ON � O ONO 1 0
R MM GGA OMO < NR
N H n
am w a O O a O H
O Y- a O O M O O O 1 N O Y-
TMM R O < � MF ' N
ry OH
\ •+J KJ (D O G O O
w 33 H H wo 0
r \
0 o m o ow
H o
(p o
n N ro ro a r o s n ro
x w 7 n Y w w w o w w
w m o m a pr a v m
W N m n F E Y. N r r rt
m » » r rt O Y m n 7 £
m ' X * a m » » r o
» m
» F
n w v+ to +n w m
N N lP W ut A A
O O O O N ll� O O O
GP \ \ eK \ \ \ \ (A
F F F F G F r F
O 7 :3 O p 7
M r r M r r r r r
R R rt rt rt R R
w w
r r
n n
3 S
X, 9: 0 7 o m uJi uNi o lNn o G b
rt r\ r\ rt r \ r 7 r r Stl
C rt N rt N < m x
O
C \ \ K R n R rt R H �t7
m m M
m n
0 o w «. v
M +A b M N N W N iA H
Y Y U O W J W H
z
a r a a c W m r n
Y• W Y• \ \ \ z
rt R R F F K R ro
O O R 7 N
r r r Pf
R rt rt H
0
z
Z
W
J N w N w Y
0 o
lb o 0 0
\ o w o w o n
n w as a a4 w
n n F O r Y
m n < H. n < r- W (D
m w < m w < o n
C r C r N
mm mm w w
o rt R n Y
ew (D r
O O 0
Y Y N
G3 en ew n
Y•
w
Y
u
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — 0 0 o 0 0
LD
Y Y �. QQ
F^ N OO. 'O F- .+LTO , OOOY 'Ox r. YmH � aS '2S � Yy �'
�,
V^J Y y
11. �i 1-� c��i -0o
0 0 0
rK
S
O bb O O UI Ib y
O 0 O CJ O O O b H
O O N
b H �
0 0 0 0
y � a
CF
n W
.y
r y
0 o b
a
O
O b
Q N
Y W
G v
O
O
R
O O O m O O 0 0 0 0 0 > O O O O yO7 ' 0 0 O �
��ppc pa`p o'�pcpGg , YNrri so
z re�- s � Y � µm m " .� G-i
" �aJ ,o `m ^g 2 2o W"
-fix xNac7 ABG g � � �° eecl1m `�� F nn° Ot� � � � �-� c'�� ����pppR 83
N
Y N O IY
O O O P
O
N Y Y
rD
a m m o o m in �n Y
000 O IP
co 0 0 0 0 0 o v
co 0 0 0 0 0 0
pp O O O O
O oO O O O IP
O O O O O O O
o m o
00 0
cc 0
I�
N
XFw
d� >
08 m
•v ~ N N 0 N N N N N
g06 (ap 080 p0 �0pC�1 ` X06 00000g {{= 0
8 ,o{ c
r.d ;$so( —
- O fD H
O N � G• G�.
T C � f�p fJ d � a y� � � ✓ �3� � imp N ^pJ a � ^�� r n £� ^� d � 'O q�
ME-
0
:
C' E
f' r• C\I ILP R ur N N K OCi F 2L �2S t"l a fJ r O w O f+
geCCce+JJ+-11 `G (dpT
I > >
I O N O
O O
O O O O
O O
lT UI H O tT N
0 0 O O O O
00 O O O
V N
O
O O 1
O O �
O N �
O p
W N H
O p O
N 1
O O 1��Fpp+
O p 1
O p0 N
O
0
� o � � 65
ID N = ID N
F N-
V F+
1+ Y-
T
� J �
O O fn 000 p3
d r. 4'O
� O O- O0 N E rI,FOO �n 2 r*
E 5 � r � �
rr- CK � lT
rmr �u 0 a
m � nf- � rrr d r G r
w rt R 0 0
X
N
N N
N
O O O
O
N O
O O
N N
O Y
u O h
0 0o O
0
r
Y
-a tp
0
m
Y 1-'
e I�
N
O
II
N .
O � C
V
a r� pp
yal
d O C C C C C • r n l Nf O�
• O P B O P
P m
P `L N W S • N O P , ,y N 1 N N � O
L I
w 1
0 o
Clc ccoo o . 00 ; o
a o co
d o a o o o P c
� 1 _ _
� O � I �i O � 1'1
N 1
w 1
1
r-1 V rl I i N
Q e
i
1
vl in O • O � m 0 .O � S S I P �n . S
m S O � n � O S O � m r l �'+ •+f r
N S •d O W N m .-� N � N vl ; O vl � vl
P L m N ; O � rd � N W 1 P W • W
6 j
1
d
F W a• J
d C m i-1 d d W
O a V m
y 'O d d m OO u d G Q 1'
N m d L
L L N EON d > m L d
OU mY9U4iEG U
C! '�
7 f• +' G N C 1+ d aYY m4E C � 4 m
w
F4U G C C 0 ++ d m J Y u w w Y J Y O % O 1++ 9 d
O
O O C 3 C v O m d d m C
E E O m m M
F P Y m V m O m C O d O J m d d ll an d d _ C
Attachment #Jr
Park Dedication Fee Methodology
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT DENSITIES*
A. B. B - A
Total Total Population Persons/Unit
S.F. - 3062 d.u. 9828 3 .2
Apt. - 741 d.u. 1447 2.0
Duplex - 174 d.u. 462 2 .7
Townhouse - 549 d.u. 1371 2 .5
Residential Property Methodology
1. National Park and Recreation Association Standard - One 10
acre neighborhood park per 1000 persons.
2 . Cost of 1 acre of undeveloped residential property-
$10,000.**
3. City of Shakopee average subdivision dwelling unit density-
2.5 units per acre.
4. City Ordinance residential subdivision park dedication
requirement - 10% of total development land area.
5. Average cost per dwelling unit for development of a one acre
neighborhood park - $10,000 acre -. 2.5 units per acre X lot
_ $400.00
6. Cost per person for development of a one acre neighborhood
park $400 - 3.2 = $125.00
Cost per Unit (Proposed Park Dedication Fee Schedule for
Residential Property)
S.F. - $400 (3.2 x 125)
Duplex (2-3 units) - $338 (2.7 x 125)
Townhouse (4-6 units) - $312.5 (2.5 x 125)
Apt. (more than 6 units) - $250 (2.0 x 125)
Commercial/Industrial Property Methodology
1. Ave. Dwelling Unit Density per acre = 2.5
2. Cost of 1 acre of undeveloped commercial/industrial property
- $15,000
3 . Ave. cost per dwelling unit for development of a one acre
neighborhood park on commercial/industrial property-
$15,000 acre - 2.5 units per acre x 10% _ $600.00
Cost Per Acre (Proposed Park Dedication Fee Schedule for
Commercial/Industrial Property)
Commercial/Industrial - $1,500 = (2.5 x $600)
*Annual school district census
**County Assessor
qb
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant
RE: City of Shakopee Refuse Contract Amendments
DATE: December 15, 1988
INTRODUCTION•
In November, the Scott County Board of Commissioners
approved a Solid Waste Disposal Ordinance. The ordinance
requires all refuse collectors in Scott County to be licensed.
Additionally, all refuse collectors will be requested to provide
a recycling service to their customers. The ordinance also
imposes a $2.00 per gate yard surcharge on all refuse disposed of
at the Louisville Landfill. Scott County's Solid Waste Disposal
Ordinance has a dramatic effect on our current refuse contract
and rates. Several actions are necessary on the part of City
Council to assist our refuse contractor in complying with the
requirements of Scott County's Solid Waste Disposal Ordinance.
BACKGROUND•
Landfill Surcharce and Proposed Rate Increase
In October, I shared with City Council the potential impacts
of Scott County's Solid Waste Disposal Ordinance on Shakopee. At
that time, City Council directed the appropriate City officials
to seek a three month extension to the Scott County Solid Waste
Disposal ordinance which would exempt the City of Shakopee and
Waste Management from the provisions of said ordinance during a
three month extension period. Scott County has agreed to exempt
our refuse hauler from having to provide recycling services
during the three month exemption period but is unwilling to
exempt them from the $2.00 landfill surcharge. Consequently,
Waste Management Inc. is requesting the City of Shakopee to
approve a rate increase to off-set the costs that will be
incurred by our contractor as a result of the landfill surcharge
increase. Shown in attachment 41 is a letter from Mike Burkopec,
General Manager Waste Management requesting that the refuse
collection rates be increased by $.78 per home per month to
compensate for the higher disposal fees. Waste Management is
requesting that the rate increase be effective January 15, 1989.
On December 14, 1988 the Energy and Transportation Committee
reviewed Waste Managements request. At that time, the Committee
moved to recommend to City Council that the refuse collection
rates be increased as requested. If Council concurs, it would be
appropriate to approve Resolution #3001 amending the 1989 Fee
Schedule providing for an increase in the refuse collection rates
effective January 15, 1989. (See attachment #2) .
Proposed Refuse Program
Under the provisions of the Scott County Solid Waste
Disposal Ordinance, refuse haulers will be required to provide
recycling services to their customers. Since September, the
Shakopee Energy and Transportation committee has been working
with waste Management to develop a refuse/recycling program that
is both convenient and cost effective for Shakopee residents.
On December 14, 1988 a public hearing was held by the Energy
and Transportation Committee to solicit comments from Shakopee
residents regarding the proposed program. The program as
proposed by the Energy and Transportation Committee will provide
each residential customer with a 65 gallon refuse container. The
proposed monthly collection rate for the 65 gallon container is
$9.80 per month for regular refuse collection and $8.30 per month
per home for senior citizens. Additional refuse that a customer
may have that does not fit into the 65 gallon container maybe
disposed of for an additional fee.
The Energy and Transportation Committee is proposing that a
voucher system be developed for Shakopee Residents to dispose of
additional wastes. For each additional 30 gallons of materials
disposed of, customers would be required to place a voucher (tag)
with their name and address in order to ensure pick-up. (See
attachment #3 for sample) The cost of each voucher would be
$1.00 and the voucher would allow for an additional 30 gallons of
materials to be collected. The vouchers would be prepaid by the
customer and made available at several locations throughout the
community. Waste Management will also be developing a fee
schedule for special waste that would not normally fit into a
container such as bicycles, Christmas trees, etc.
Proposed Recycling Program
Customers who on a regular basis have garbage in excess of
the 65 gallon cart will have the option of acquiring an
additional 65 gallon cart for an additional fee of $5.00 per
month.
Curbside Recycling Program
The Energy and Transportation Committee is proposing that
our refuse hauler offer curbside collection of recyclables in
conjunction with regular refuse collection. Waste Management
will be responsible for providing and maintaining recycling
containers (20 gallon bin) for each household in Shakopee. Costs
associated with the recycling program are included in the
aforementioned rate.
Waste Management has agreed to turn over all revenues -
generated from the sale of the recyclables and the Scott County
Tonnage Grant Program to the City of Shakopee. The Energy and
Transportation Committee is proposing that these revenues be used
to market our program and educate our residents in the area of
waste reduction. Additionally, the Committee is proposing to
return all surplus revenues generated from their recycling
program back to the customers in the form of a annual rebate. We
are confident that revenues generated from the sale of the
recyclables will eventually allow us to give customers a $12.00
annual credit on their refuse collection bill.
On December 20, 1988 I will be requesting that the Scott
County Board of Commissioners fund 508 of the recycling container
costs. This equates to approximately $7200 annually. I am
hopeful that Scott County will approve our request. I have also
negotiated an agreement with Waste Management that essentially
allows us to lease the recycling containers from them during the
three year contract period. At the end of the contract period
the recycling containers would become the property of the City of
Shakopee. This will ultimately reduce our refuse/recycling
collection rates several years down the road.
Rate Comoarison
I have done a rate analysis comparing Shakopee to several
other communities in our area. (See attachment #4) You pleaEe
note that Shakopee's proposed rate of $9.80 for refuse/recycling
collection is lower than those cities surveyed. Additionally,
Shakopee residents will be receiving a refuse container and a
recycling container for no additional charge. And finally,
Shakopee residents will be receiving a recycling credit which
could eventually reduce their monthly rate by $1.00.
Proposed Contract Amendments
Shown in attachment 45 is a copy of the proposed
refuse/recycling contract. On December 14, 1988 the Energy and
Transportation Committee recommended that the Council approve the
following contract amendments. Note that all new language
incorporated into the contract has been underlined for your
convenience. Major amendments to the contract include the
following:
1. Language which addresses the types of materials to be
collected by the hauler.
2. The provision and maintenance of a 65 gallon refuse cart by
the contractor.
3. Establishment of a voucher system and fee schedule for all
refuse which does not fit into the refuse containers
provided.
4. The provision of service to all residential dwellings up to
and including 4 plexs and the elimination of all commercial
accounts currently provided service under the current
contract.
5. Language which addresses the collection of recyclables and
the provision and maintenance of a separate recycling
container which will be provided to the City via a lease
purchase agreement.
6. Language which identifies all recyclables collected by the
contractor as property of the City of Shakopee.
7. Language identifying the new refuse collection rates and
provision of an additional refuse cart upon request for an
additional $5. 00 per month by the customer.
8. Language extending the contract for two additional years.
(Total three year contract)
When we initiate the new program, refuse collection rates
will again need to be increased to cover the costs of the refuse/
recycling services requested. our contractor has stated that
pending Council approval of the contract's amendments in
December, they will be able to initiate the proposed
refuse/recycling program by March 1, 1989. Therefore the rate
increase for the implementation of the new program will go into
effect on March 15, 1989.
The Energy and Transportation Committee has recommended
Council approval of Resolution #3001 amending the 1989 Fee
Schedule increasing the refuse collection rate as a result of
increased landfill costs. Additionally, the Energy and
Transportation Committee is recommending Council approval of the
proposed refuse/recycling contract.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. Refuse collection rate increase effective January 15 1989
1. Move to approve Resolution No. 3001 increasing the
refuse collection rates to $7.83 for regular service
and $6.01 per month for senior citizens effective
January 15, 1989.
2. Do not approve Resolution No. 3001.
2. Refuse/Recycling Contract
1. Move to authorize appropriate City officials to execute
the garbage and refuse collection contract.
2. Amend the garbage and refuse collection contract as
proposed and authorize the appropriate City officials
to execute the garbage and refuse collection contract.
3 . Table approval of the garbage and refuse collection
contract pending further information from staff.
/ 1✓
RECOMMENDATION•
Issue 1 - Refuse Collection Increase Effective January 15. 1989
Staff recommends alternative #1.
Issue 2 - Refuse/RecyClina Contract
Staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Issue 1 - Refuse Collection Increase Effective January 15, 1989
Move to offer Resolution 43001 amending the 1989 fee
schedule increasing the refuse collection rates to $7.83 per
month for regular service and $6.01 per month for senior citizens
effective January 15, 1989.
Issue 2 - Refuse/Recycling Contract
Move to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute
the garbage and refuse collection contract.
Attachment # 1
A Waste Management Company
December 7, 1988
The cost of garbage disposal will increase significantly. on
January 1, 1989, Louisville Landfill will increase their charges per
yard from $6.00 to $7.95 yer yard.
Per our garbage and refuse collection contract, I would like to reopen
the contract and petition for an increased monthly cost per home of
$.78 per home/month to compensate for the higher fee. I have enclosed
a City of Shakopee disposal summary that explains the increase.
Consequently, the rate for regular citizen service will be $7.83 per
month and $6.01 per month for senior citizens effective January 15, 1989.
This includes the 4% increase per the existing contract.
Sincerely,
K
7:t;—
Mike
Berkopec
General Manager
MB/nmb
Enclosure
/) A Waste Management a ny
C
SHAKOPEE DISPOSAL
We have not seen any significant change in the average amount of waste
per household in 1988, compared to 1987. Consequently, 4.81 Yds./Home/Yr.
is the figure that the disposal cost increase is based.
1987 JANUARY 948 YARDS
FEBRUARY 660 YARDS
MARCH 785 YARDS
APRIL 1,263 YARDS
MAY 1,149 YARDS
JUNE 1,111 YARDS
JULY 1,088 YARDS
AUGUST 1,174 YARDS
SEPTEMBER 1,134 YARDS
OCTOBER 1,486 YARDS
NOVEMBER 19042 YARDS
DECEMBER 1,113 YARDS -
12,953 YARDS Divided by 2695 Homes =
4.81/Yds./Home/Yr.
4.81 Yds./Home/Yr, x $1.95 Increase/Yd. _ $9.38 per Yr. Increase or
$.78 per Month.
i
LOT M d TS—Tl1 S
�$:�e•:'.; — a:::SFI'.�.Pj '!, iC33a ::h9 tYg Ulyg jc�^, :i... _...'*.Y3a.1SY
e-Mill Dlc ease to s r .9 .;,.� •:11 •s dLa
to _ee in the count/ ir-,n 50/Y6. _ .C '�Y"1•-
a�.d�.a:. _.ncrCasz in t`,c �c•ar.ai.ir :ax $^oma . .. :Z .3` f9d•
�;s-00_ TSA d27.0 RIATES 91:S ZId_IA :3E SA,iF-
.CRE—,'V• rr7r7
a Effac ';. a a=mry 1, ie3g . all anc.3t is ru'�t be : Ya 'b7 the
30th mach laznti., ?i J]7.T a.�Coant 13 m017, �£._aU :.'e
M, tiF, f ..as ::cz:� vill - o? 6? x
a:!loed o d-ra: T9sa olcI
ur�ll .. z4s.ie8s s„aorc=a .
Tt
Attachment #2
RESOLUTION NO. 3001
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2987
ADOPTING THE 1989 FEE SCHEDULE PROVIDING
PROVIDING FOR AN INCREASE IN THE REFUSE
COLLECTION RATES
WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council passed Resolution No.
2987 adopting the 1989 Fee Schedule, and;
WHEREAS, landfill tipping fees increasing by approximately
$2.00 per cubic yard, and;
WHEREAS, the increase in tipping fees is more then 25% from
the current rate, and;
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee has a refuse collection rate
with Waste Management Inc. , and;
WHEREAS, the contractor has requested a rate increase to
off-set his costs associated with the increased tipping fee.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the
City of Shakopee, Minnesota, that the 1989 Fee Schedule is hereby
amended by increasing the refuse collection fees to the following
rates effective January 15, 1989:
Regular Citizen Service - $7.83 per month
Senior Citizen Service - $6.01 per month
Adopted in session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this _ day of
1988.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this _
day of 1988.
City Attorney
Attachment #3
O
VI
u 3 m 3 o o m � -{
m
'v o 3 Z z Z y �
m c 3v < Z
w
m � D
nm M
m
D m
m Z
N
D
a a m
0
y
m y u 0 a0 a
X
a
O n Z < 9
n C: D
o m d = D
a
s m
n Co
M
m m
T
o �
O
m
c
0
I
Attachment # 4
w
Y
ro �+
a c
Y ul
C
w co
H n
sn
7
V
Ot
GY
r-I b
>1 N w0 Ow O w w
U >1
CD
C4
Y
N
0
U
ewro
-0 di
u m •.+ m ro w w w o w w w
U q 0> . b T >1 >1 C
4) 0w
aow
w
>I Y Y Y W
N N N
O O O ol
M U U U C
wV> w wro rov o w
L) P, Ny p
>1 >1 >1 N
V
0 a W M
£ 41 OM Lo o m
wro Wwsa ao Y
N IY� C w u an yr w w w w w w
O -
m Id14
ti
O C 6a C
Y
O
C
C w
XtiN r-IN Y b ro w
O0 N 0 -0 z N w O E W .i w
x o77 ro7M N o C to Y
ro -r > 0 ro 0 0 U A 4
m P, = = vroix5 u a w % %
Attachment #5
GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION CONTRACT
Jenuary-3fr,-3.988--denuda -33-,-3990
January 16. 1988 - January 14 , 1992
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 4th day of
November 1 1987, by and between the City of Shakopee, a
Municipal Corporation, hereinafter called party of the first
part, and Waste Management - Savage, hereinafter called party of
the second part, as follows:
For and in consideration of the covenants herein set forth, the
said party of the first part does hereby hire the party of the
second part as garbage and refuse collector; and the said party
of the second part does hereby covenant and agree that for and in
consideration of the payments to be made by said party of the
first part to the party of the second part as herein provided,
that the said party of the second part will serve the party of
the first part as a garbage, and refuse, and recyclable collector
in accordance with the following specifications and terms:
a. ) One collection per week shall be made. Collection shall be
made between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M.
Collector shall endeavor to pick-up any particular residence
on the same day each week and approximately the same time of
day. Collector shall make a good faith attempt to notify
residents of any scheduling changes.
b. ) Collection shall be made of all garbage, household and yard
debris generated by the residents. Household refuse shall
mean and include such items as garbage (drained and
wrapped) , tin cans, bottles, sweepings, cleanings, trash
litter, domestic solid and yard debris such as grass
clippings and leaves. placed-iTr suc}r-containers-or-in-iTacJs
of`suckr site-arn}-materiat-that-can-eas ily-be-handled-#y=e
man:---3rr-addrtien;-tkeers-mag-be--krruslr-or-tri mRrngs-in-a
ren-�rtebi� emoemt-ti ixr�nxtdles not-wes-tie feet in
lengtrkr.-
subiect to the following conditions:
1. The contractor shall be responsible for Providing and
maintaining each household with a 65 gallon refuse
cart.
2 . The contractor will be responsible for collecting all
refuse disposed of in said cart on a weekly basis for
the fee stated in the contract.
3. Any refuse disposed of above and over the capacity of
the 65 gallon cart must have a contractor/City of
Shakopee voucher attached Said vouchers will be
-1-
provided by the contractor and sold to Shakopee
residents by the City of Shakonee. The fee for each
voucher shall be $1.00. All revenues collected from
the sale of vouchers shall be the property of the
contractor. The City will reimburse the contractor on
a monthly basis for all vouchers sold by the City.
4. Any extra refuse disposed of by residents which does
not fit into the refuse cart shall be Place in
containers or bags of such size and material so that it
can be easily handled by one Person In addition, any
brush or trimmings must be tied in bundles not over (3)
feet in length. Each extra container, bag or bundle of
materials must have secured to it a contractor/City of
Shakopee voucher.
5. Shakopee residents may request the provision of an
additional refuse cart for an additional disposal fee
of $5.00 per month The contractor shall be obligated
to provide additional refuse carts to residents upon a
30 day notice from the resident. Additional carts
shall only be made available to those persons who are
willing to provide Payment for the additional cart for
at least six months.
c. ) Collection service shall be for all dwellings, single,
duplex, triplex and fourplex, and --presently--co±1eeted
2PIttple--resYde'ntia2-arni-'epnmceiczai--es't'ab3is'hmerrts, that
desire collection services and are located in the "urban"
area of the City of Shakopee with approximate boundaries of
the Minnesota River, Shawnee Trail, Jasper Road, Vierling
Drive (Thirteenth Avenue) and Tyler Street.
d.) Refuse and recvclables shall be placed by the alley unless
other arrangements are agreed upon by the resident and the
collector. If there is no alley, refuse and recvclables
shall be placed at the curb, but not prior to the day of
collection.
e. ) Household appliances, excessive Amounts of brush, remodeling
and containable refuse must be picked up by the collector if
the resident calls the office of the collector and makes
necessary arrangements. Such service furnished by the
collector to the residents of the City of Shakopee will be
charged to said residents by volume, time or both. Such
special service shall be billed and collected by the office
of the collector.
£. ) The collector must furnish proper compactor units and other
necessary collection equipment. The collector also must
furnish all necessary help and labor in the performance of
his contract and to dispose of all such refuse so collected
in a lawful manner. The Collector will provide the City
with a collection route map and will alter routes to comply
-2-
with City road weight restrictions where the City has a
clearly established policy. The contractor shall be
responsible for notifying customers 10 days in advance of
any route chance.
g. ) The collector must obtain and file with the City of Shakopee
a performance Bond for the like of this contract in the
amount of $100,000.
h. ) The collector must keep a good and sufficient liability and
accident policy in force in the amount of $200,000-
$600,000 for bodily injury and $50,000 for property damage
saving and protecting the City harmless from any accident
that might result due to the use of the Collector's truck or
trucks and employees or from any act or omission of the
collector's employees. The collector shall keep at all
times in full force, at his own expense, proper and
sufficient Workman's Compensation Insurance.
I. ) The collector must file a valid Certificate of Insurance
with the City of Shakopee showing that the insurance
coverage mentioned herein is in full force and effect and
each policy or certificate must name the City of Shakopee as
an additional insured with the requirement that the City
shall be given at least ten (10) days notice in writing in
the event of any cancellation of said policies.
j . ) The City will act as billing and collection agent for the
collector. The collector will be paid on a monthly basis
with payment being made by the fourth Monday of each month.
beginning with the fourth Monday in March, 1988. The amount
of each monthly payment shall be the monthly charge times
the number of units picked up as determined by units billed
at the beginning of the month by the City. The rates that
will prevail during the life of this contract are as
follows:
1. For the year beginning January 15, 3988 1989 and-ending
Banuary-45--3989 the charge for regular pickup shall be
66:-78 $7.83 per month, senior citizen pickup shall be
65.43 $6. 01 per month.
2. For--the-year-beginning-Jwnrarp-i5q--t989-and -ending
aannary-3-4;-1990-,-the-charge-for Yegirlar-pickap-sfita33
-month,--se[rivr-citizen--pickup-strati--be
$5:64--per- month - Should landfill tipping rates
increase by more than 258 from their current $6.00/cu.
$8.00/cu. yd. the parties agree to reopen the contract
at six month intervals.
3. For any month that Louisville Landfill is closed, the
charge shall be increased by $0.70. for-}988-and-$0-70-
for-3990.
-3-
4. On or before April 1. 1989 the contractor shall
implement the refuse/recycling program On the 15th
day of the month in which the program is implemented
the charge for regular nick-up shall be $9.80 per
month. and the Senior Citizen Dick-up shall be $8.30
per month.
k. ) Recycling program
1. The City of Shakopee will provide a recycling area
which will be in use by the general public on the
second Saturday of each month. During open hours,
local organizations will provide manpower to supervise
materials discarded in roll-off boxes and containers
which are to be placed in the area by the contractor.
2. At the request of the City, the Contractor will furnish
two securable enclosed roll-off box containers of
approximately 30 cubic yards each for the collection of
newspapers. Eortti aeto-r-sfsaii-also-£axrsis�i-atle_A- -}a�d
contlir --£er---the--- Mals. An
additional 20 cubic yard roll-off container will be
made available to the City for the collection of
newspaper upon request. The containers shall be
delivered to the recycling area by the Contractor at
least one day prior to the scheduled collection day and
shall be picked up on the following Monday.
3. Designated local organizations shall keep the recycling
area open and staffed for the collection of such
materials on the second Saturday of each month, from
8:30 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. , January through December.
4. The City, Contractor and the designated civic
organizations shall assist in the distribution of any
promotional materials for the recycling program.
5. Any civic organization which operates the recycling
station must provide insurance coverage for its members
and public liability insurance in amounts and in a form
satisfactory to the City and the Contractor.
6. Contractor shall determine, subject to the approval of
the City, where all recyclable materials will be taken.
While rates vary at different recyclable material
handling centers, handling costs must be considered as
genuinely material as to the selection of the recycling
material handler. The City will consider advantages to
the hauler as well as the civic organization and the
City in determining whether or not to approve a handler
selected by the contractor.
7. City shall receive all monies paid under this program
directly from the recyclable material handler.
-4-
Contractor shall be responsible for directing the
recyclable material handler to forward all monies paid
under this program to the City. City shall pay
organizations involved for all materials so delivered
by the 15th of the month following the month in which
the payment is received from the recyclable material
handler. Documentation such as weigh tickets and pay-
off slips will be kept on file at contractor's place of
business for inspection and review by the City and any
civic organization involved. Additionally, contractor
shall supply to the City on the 15th day of each month
a brief report indicating the amounts of material
delivered to the recyclable material handler.
S. Should the recycling program be unable to operate due
to no commitment of manpower from local city
organizations, the program may be discontinued upon
thirty days written notice at the option of the
contractor.
9. The contractor shall agree to Permitting current
recycling organizations within the community to
continue their current curbside recycling Programs.
9.---The-ei.ty-reserves-the-right-Dpon-a-thtrty-Cay-nntinE7tD
request--separate--containers--f r--t a colieetiorr-and
de}iaerp-e£-gloss-nod-alnmimnm-gad-steel-beveragr tuns:
The-size-and-number-e£-eentainers-to-be-delivered-sfia}}
be-negetlated-apes-said-request.
10. The contractor shall be responsible for Providing and
maintaining a recycling container to each household.
Said container design must be acceptable to the City.
The contractor shall agree to relinquish the right of
ownership of all containers Provided to the City of
Shakopee upon completion of the contract
11. All materials collected by the contractor in
conjunction with the weekly curbside recycling program
shall become from the initial receipt thereof the
Property of the City. The contractor shall be
responsible for transporting all recyclable materials
to a ore-approved recyclable material handling center.
The contractor shall be responsible for submitting all
revenues to the City by the 15th day of each month
following the month in which the payment is received
from the material handler. Each monthly documentation
of materials collected, weight tickets and pay off
slips shall also be submitted to the City.
12. The contractor shall provide weekly recycling
collection of newspaper. glass and beverage cans in
coniunction with regular refuse collection. Additional
recyclable materials may be collected upon the mutual
-5-
agreement of the City and contractor.
1.38.-The breach of any of the terms and conditions of this
contract on the part of the collector shall be grounds for
cancellation of this contract by the City. Upon such
termination by the City, the City shall have the right to
contract with other parties to perform the work or to
perform the work without a contract. In either case, the
City shall hold the collector and his surety liable for any
excess cost for performing such work over and above the cost
to the City if the initial contractor had continued to
perform the work in the manner anticipated at the time the
contract was awarded. Termination of the contract as herein
provided shall not terminate, suspend or affect the
liability of the surety upon its bond.
Failure to comply with the terms of these specifications relative
to the collection and disposal of garbage, and rubbish and
recyclable materials on the part of the collector by reason of
major disaster or extreme emergency within the City of Shakopee
shall not constitute a breach of the contract.
The party of the second part covenants and agrees with the party
of the first part to do and perform all those things set fourth
in the above contract, which are to be performed by said party of
the second part as garbage and refuse collector of and for the
party of the first part, and it is mutually agreed by and between
the parties hereto that this contract shall continue from its
original effective date be-mor--a--ewe--yeas--peri«-Ueg-ini.ng-
January 16, 1988 and terminateing-on January 14, dA9-0. 1992.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the party of the first part has caused this
contract to be executed in its corporate name by authority of its
City Council and the party of the second part has caused this
instrument to be entered into by authority of its General Manager
all as of the date first above written.
THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, A MUNICIPAL-CORPORATION
BY
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
BY
City Administrator
BY
City Clerk
BY
Its
-6-
100,
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator
RE: Murphy's Landing Request
DATE: December 14, 1988
Introduction
The question of operating assistance for Murphy's Landing and the
entering into a five year operating contract with the Minnesota
Valley Restoration Project (MVRP) was discussed by the City
Council at their meeting of December 6th. At that time the item
was tabled until the meeting of December 20th.
Background
The attached memo, dated December 1, provides background on the
subject of assistance and a contractual relationship between the
City and the MVRP.
At the meeting of December 6th the City Council directed that the
City Administrator contact Marge Henderson of the MVRP, and Dr.
Roland Pistalka and Loren Gross of the Scott County Historical
Society and invite them to discuss this matter more fully with
the entire City Council. The above mentioned persons have been
contacted about the and Ms. Henderson also indicated that the
Vice President of the MVRP, Jake Manahan, would be in attendance.
Recommendation
The City Council should discuss the matter with the
representatives of the MVRP and the SCHS and provide direction
for the future funding and operation of Murphy's Landing.
Action Reauested
Once courses of action are identified by the City Council the
staff should be directed to prepare the necessary resolutions and
contractual documents to implement the desires of the City
Council on Murphy's Landing.
DRK/jms
/,2
MEMO TO: Shakopee City Council Q Q/
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 coroborate 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 anaj
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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
RECOMMENDATION•
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 REOUBSTED:
(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 East 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 expected to 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 communiRty 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.
Rnx ASA 0 ghaknnee. MN 55.179
IO C�
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-conditionsare 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
v�
R. D. Pistulka, M.D.
President, Scott County Historical Society
cc: Mary Henderson, Director MVRP
John M. Manahan, Vice President MVRP
Loren Gross, Director SCHS
lob
Memo To: Dennis Kraft, Acting Administrator, City of Shakopee
From: George Muenchow, Director, Shakopee Community Recreation
Subject: Playground Equipment Purchase/Holmes & Hiawatha Parke
Date: December 16, 1988
Intro_du_ctio_n
The City Council in September directed that preparation should be
made to secure new playground equipment for Holmes and Hiawatha
Parke. These acquisitions were a part of the 1988 Parks Capital
Improvement Plan. Since there had not been any success in locating
donated funds for this project, the Council further directed that the
cost shall be paid out of the Park Reserve Fund. . . a total of
9 20, 000. 00
Be_ckground
Playground Equipment analysis is a very subjective topic. Despite
this characteristic, specifications were prepared for the intent to
seek bids, and invitations were offered, according to law, seeking
out Bidders. Counsel was sought from other communities utilizing
criteria that they had established in similar undertakings.
Considerations stated and used in the selection process included:
1. Number, type and variety of play elements in each unit.
2. Over all design including how the elements fit together.
3. Quality of materials used and the durability of the fastening
system.
4. Aesthetic appeal. Color was encouraged.
5. Financial Responsibility.
6. Nature and extent of data furnished upon request.
Bids were opened on Monday, December 12. Three were received and
found to be in order:
1. Earl F. Anderson & Associated Inc. (Landscape Structures, Inc. )
2. Minnesota Playground, Inc. (Gametime, Inc. )
3. Bob Klein & Associated (Miracle Recreation Equipment Co. )
Alternatives
1. Accept recommendation of Staff to authorize the purchase and
erection of Playground Equipment form Earl F. Anderson &
Associates as agreed upon within the bidding process.
2. Reject bids and make no selection.
Recommendation
Authorize alternative F 1.
Action
Move to authorize the purchase and erection of playground Equipment
by Earl F. Anderson & Associates, Inc. to be place in Holmes and
Hiawatha Parks. With funding for this purchase to came from the Park
Reserve Fund with the cost totaling 9 19, 923. 00.
f K::�t
r
3
s
_�• � �'T i fi �.ln$a _ -� �� 2�� til
e '!�-" yc� i � _ � �+'. �$.t�� Y} "Sly` �•r L 'P,i4C do
{lJd lr d4�i 'e✓- YI: x•"7S"'slaiSrri,.`
1n I1/ I
EO1tl TME S'MNa _
9PGK 61.Nm MCI
TIC TK`TOE
1C0.X BU9BlE PiN6 e •_.:•.
FA. B1Gt MpIN3rPUCNRE
lase ER Actual size: 23' x 27' (701 cm x 823 cm)
(2)WIfi M. 1, Space required:37'x 39' (1128 cm x 1189 cm)
Approx.installation time:12 hours
azsu
COU. Number of play events:8
,,R., aoE CORK u'aE Platforms: 3/highest at 42" (107 cm)
I TENOEROECK SCREW Number of kids:15-20
\\
A resilientsafety surface u recpmmentletl
U underand around allplay equipment.
See pages 88-89 for newpory 51109 and
ills YRR61RUC1URE OmerCCnporN=M tle1
Landscape Structures/Mexico Forge 15
3'
sF
8716 _ ` '
se tart -
MNDOW
SUDE
I� Actual size:24' x 29' (732 cm x 884 cm)
BUBBU��
anl� rs Space required:42' x 43' (1280 cm x 1311 cm)
tax 117t.�Msl�UCIu��
BUBBLE Approx.installation time:22 hours
u TUNNEL SURE VOM PareL Number of play events:10
Platforms:3/highest at 70" (178 crr
Number of kids:15-26
A resilient safety surface x recommended
under and amund al/play equipment.
See pages 88-89M new larval slide.poly
16 Landscape Structures Mexico Forge shwandothwcomponentcletails.
CONSENT IUc,
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Joseph P. Ries, Fire Chief
RE: 1988 Capital Equipment, Air Packs
DATE: December 15, 1988
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND:
In August the Fire Dept received twenty-four 4.5 air packs
which were bid earlier in the year. Firefighters use self
contained breathing apparatus to enter hazardous atmosphere, and
they operate in pairs of two. The air packs have a provision in
case one fails, the user in an emergency can connect his
regulator into a quick connect manifold of his partners for
emergency escape. The specifications call for the air packs to
meet the new and current National Fire Protection Association
Standards. The standards called for a revision in the
connections of the manifold quick connect. The supplier of the
air packs said they would change the manifold t meet the
standards. The Manufacturer told us it would be February 1st
when the change could be made due to a large demand for change
over parts. We had $5,000.00 withheld from payment until changes
are made. Due to the fact that the changes will not be made
until February 1, 1989, I need the capital equipment budget
amended to carry over into 1989 $5,000.00 from the 1988 budget.
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REOUESTED:
Amend Capital Equipment Budget with the carry over of
$5, 000.00 from 1988 budget to the 1989 Capital Equipment Budget.
JPR/tiv
Recommendation:
Purchase one IBM PS/2 model 30 computer, IBM 3278
Emulation Board, IBM 3270 Emulation software, monitor, IBM PC
Network card, DOS 3. 3 operating program, and termination cable
from Rmeri-Data Systems, Inc. at a cost of $3137.00 including
installation and 90 day on-site warranty.
Funding Source:
The Police Capital Equipment Fund contains sufficient
revenue to purchase the requested equipment.
This purchase has been reviewed and approved by the
Computer Committee.
Council Action Requested:
Authorize the Police Department to purchase one IBM PS/2
model 30 computer, IBM 3278 Emulation Board, IBM 3270
Emulation software, monitor, IBM PC Network Card, DOS 3. 3
operating software, and termination cable from Rmeri-Data
Systems, Inc. at a cost of $3137. 00 including installation and
90 day on-site warranty.
CONSENT � � d
To: Mayor, City Council Members
From: Thomas Brownell, Chief of Police
Date: December 5, 1988
Subject : Computer for Direct Data Transfer to State Terminal
Introduction:
The Police Department recently purchased data management
software that contains a CJIS module for direct data transfer
to the State of Minnesota. It is now necessary to purchase a
computer that will accomplish this task.
Background:
The current procedure requires that data be entered into
the Police Department computer, retrieved and then manually
entered into the State terminal. This method is very time
consuming.
When the LEADRS program was purchased it was believed
that the direct data transfer could be accomplished with
current hardware.
In October, 1988 CPSI, the software vendor, received a
memo from Novell, Inc. that identified a communications
problem between their software and IBM' s communication
hardware. Both communications hardware and software use the
_ same interrupt signals. When transferring data through the
IBM 3278 emulation board, the computer reads the interrupt
signal on the Novell Network card and turns off the
transmission signal, thus terminating the transfer.
R solution was found by using an IBM PS/2-30 computer
with the IBM 3278 emulation board and IBM 3270 emulation
software.
Currently the State of Minnesota allows a direct link to the
State terminal under the following conditions:
• The personal computer be an IBM PC.
• The communications hardware be IBM 3278 Emulation
Board.
• The software be the IBM 3270 communications software.
These conditions plus the fact that current PC configurations
in the Police Department' s computers do not allow for more
expansion necessitate the addition of another computer.
CONSENT lu e
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator /n1�/
FROM: John H. DeLacey, Engineering Tech. III Ily/s
SUBJECT: Downtown Streetscape Project No. 1987-?r
DATE: December 13, 1988
INTRODUCTION:
A change order is needed for the above referenced project.
BACKGROUND:
The Downtown Streetscape Project is essentially complete at this
time except for some punch list items and planting of the Phase
II annuals which will be completed in the spring. A change order
has been prepared to cover some items that were not foreseen and
therefore not included in the original contract. Attached is a
description and cost breakdown of these items. Items 1 and 2 are
directly related to the installation of watermain on Atwood
Street. Staff is recommending that these items should be paid
for by SPUC along with other water related items previously
agreed upon.
As an informational item to Council staff has recently completed
the verification of the contract quantities for this project and
the contractor has agreed to them. Prior to this change order of
$7 ,281 .63 the total encumbered funds was $2 ,237 ,326 .35 . With
this change order the total encumbered funds will be
$2 ,244 ,612 .58 . Staff anticipates that after the work is
completed in the spring, the value of the work completed will be
approximately $2 ,230 ,000 .00 , leaving a net balance of about
$14,000 .00.
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Approve Change Order No. 9 in the amount of $7,286 .23•
2. Deny Change Order No. 9 .
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 .
REQUESTED ACTION:
Approve of Change Order No. 9 in the amount of $7 ,286 .23 to
Hardrives, Inc. , 7200 Hemlock Lane N. , Maple Grove, MN 55369 for
the Downtown Streetscape Project 1987-2 .
JHD/pmp
HARDRIVES
CHANGE ORDER ITEMS
ITEM DESCRIPTION
1 . One hour of crew time to tie onto existing watermain at
1st and Atwood. Staff agreed with the contractor that
connecting to the existing watermain involved more work
than normally associated with watermain construction
and further agreed to pay for a portion of the extra
labor.
TOTAL COST
1 Hr. Crew Time @ $425.00/Hr. _ $425.00
2. Due to the depth of the watermain installed on Atwood
Street (6 '-71 ) S.P.U. C. required the watermain to be
insulated.
TOTAL COST
1 ,216 S.F. 2• insulation @ $2.64/3.F. _ $3,210.24
3 . Contractor had to tie an additional existing storm
drain into a new catch basin @ 2nd & Fuller that was
not shown on the plans.
TOTAL COST
1/2 Hr. Crew Time @ $425.00/Hr. _ $212.50
4 . The City had the contractor install SDR 26 watermain
grade PVC pipe for the sanitary sewer on Atwood due to
the watermain being installed in the same trench. The
additional cost for this is $10 .00/L.F.
TOTAL COST
247 L.F. @ $10.00/L.F. _ $2,470.00
5 . Contractor had two men help City staff determine
location of roof drain on the jobsite.
TOTAL COST
$95.00
6 . The contract called for 4" bends for sanitary services.
Some 6" bends were also required on the job. The
contractor is requesting an additional $4.00/Bend.
TOTAL COST
35 Bends @ $4.00/Bend = $140.00
7. Due to the changing of material type (i.e. SDR 26 for
sanitary sewer) the contractor had extra material on
the jobsite which he restocked. This item is for the
restocking fee of various items restocked.
TOTAL COST
$733.49
GRAND TOTAL $7,286.23
CHANGE ORDER
Change Order No.: 9 Project Name: Downtown StreeU-cgve
Date: December 13 1988 Contract No.: 1987-2
Original Contract Amount $ 2 186 457.65
Change Order(s) No. 1 thru No. 8 $ 50 868.70
Total Funds Encumbered Prior to Change Order $ 2 237 326 35
Description of Work to be (Added/Deleted):
See Attached Sheets.
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, Elinnesota.
The amount of the Contract shall be increased $ 7,286.23
The number of calendar days for completion shall be (increased/decreased) by WA
Original Contract Amount $ 2,186,457.65
Change Order(s) No. 1 thru —9 $ 58,154.93
Total Funds Encumbered $ 2,244,612.58
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:
Title T a • -i /YJ�✓N'f 6�
Date: 'F
�APPR�OVED AND ED
City Engineer Date
APPROVED: City of Shakopee
B9: Approved as to form this
mayor Date
day of 19
City Administrator Date City Attorney
CONSENT l o f
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Ray Ruuska, Engineering Coordinator (
SUBJECT: 13th Avenue, Vierling Dr. Street Improvements
Project No. 1987-12
DATE: December 15 , 1988
INTRODUCTION:
Partial Estimate Voucher No. 9 for the above referenced project
requires Council approval.
ACTION REQUESTED:
A motion to authorize payment of Partial Estimate No. 9 for 13th
Avenue, Vierling Drive Street Improvements, Project No. 1987-12
in the amount of $44,951 .97 to S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. , P.O.
Box 212, Shakopee, MN - 55379•
RR/pmp
PAYMENT
ESTIMATE VOUCHER
Contract No. 1987-12 Partial Estimate Voucher No. 9
Period Ending: November 30, 1988
TO: Contractor S N Heaates & Sons Inc.
Address P.O. Box 212 Shakopee MN 55379
Project Description 13th Avenue (Vierlim Drive) Street Improvements
1. Original Contract Amount $ 527.7527.7 856
2. Change Order No. 1 Thru No. 2 $ 147.159.70
3• Total Funds Encumbered $_67j.918-26
4. Value of Work Completed $ 671.985.04 Value of Work
Remaining
5. _ 5 Percent Retainage $ 33.599.25
$ 3.000.00
6. Previous Payments ; 93.433.82
Percent Complete
7. Deductions or Charges $
99%
8. Total $ 627.033.07
Payment Due (Line 4 - 8) $ 44.951 .97
CERTIFICATE OF PAYMENT
(I, We) hereby agree that the quantity and value of work sham herein is a fair
estimate of the work
completed to date.
BY G
APPROVED - CITY OF SHAKOP /
�n Project Engineer Date
61Z
City Administrator
ate
1 list its ml tot list
:i
POW: PIP110 1 11
gill: ! fl
it
i
Ml 1 ill Ell
11 sae se eves a. .vee a 1 a
i e e e bthh bob babe hitveva
; ale:
.
.._ .
.. . . . . . :33i sEE
I '
. a ;
. . . . . . . . _ . ....6-6� . . :5?
SI - - _ - . _..; ..
I
7L1 le
ie :
T . _ �. i
40
....... ... .
124 a
POP Or . ..... .... „
IL
_ oc
UkkooMbbbb
1 :IT
csi
... . . .. .. . ... ... ... . is
lee
6r.r r
.
.. . . .6 6. .. ... . . . I . . . . .. :9' ..
'. F .
R'
7F1 -
� = a
e
IFm
I
� y
sm
. i
• �I
:R
F F C I $
I
I :
iz
: I
o ..... .. . ... . ..
/d
no
..
e — e227
I :
: F
:8
. S . .... . . 19. $9 '
: ` IC
Y . . .... . . . . . .
is
EI ? His
: C.
CONSENT 103
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Ray Ruuska, Engineering Coordinator
SUBJECT: Vierling Drive, Project No. 1988-1
DATE: December 15, 1988
INTRODUCTION:
Partial Estimate Voucher No. 4 for the above referenced project
requires Council approval.
ACTION REQUESTED:
A motion to authorize payment of Partial Estimate No. 4 for
Vierling Drive, Project No. 1988-1 in the amount of $12,270 .20 to
Northdale Construction Co. , Inc. , 14450 Northdale Blvd. , Rogers,
MN 55374.
RR/pmp
PAY
ESTIMATE VOUCHER
Contract No. 1988-1 Partial Estimate Voucher No. 4
Period Ending: November 30, 1988
TO: Contractor Northdale Construction Co Inc
Address 14450 Northdale Blvd Rogers MN 55374
Project Description Vierling Drive
1. Original Contract Amount
2. Change Order No. Thru No. $ -0--
3. Total Funds Encumbered E 399,732.33
4. Value of Work Completed $ 323.773.03 Value of Work
Remaining
5. 5 Percent Retainage $ 16,188.65
$ 76.000.00
6. Previous Payments $ 295.314.18
Percent Complete
7. Deductions or Charges $ -0-
805
8. Total $ 311,502.83
Payment Due (Line 4 - 8) $ 12.270.20
CERTIFICATE OF PAYMENT , ,.t i ,i 5 v
(I, We) hereby agree that the quantity and value of work show herein is a fair
estimate of the work completed to date.
CONTRACTOR
TITLE
APPROVED - Cl/TY OF SHAKOPEE
/j Projec r Date
yG/2 Ci ,y
City e.n�;n;� rotor to
lee :
I
. . S Z ._ A O.F: _ . ..
st
. . . . . . . .......... .. . .I . ... .
4
I . . . . . . .. ...�66 ... . . .. .
I . . . . ..... ... . . ... . .
I
rr
6L66
I `s
£:
. . . . . . . . . ..... ... el. .... . . .
s .... . . .
. . . . 6 6 6 is 8
s is
Ioh
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting CityAdmin ' s trafor
FROM: Dave Hutton, City Enginee�
SUBJECT: Upper Valley Drainage - Authorization to
Obtain Soil Borings at the Mill Pond
DATE: December 14, 1988
INTRODUCTION:
Staff is requesting authorization for funding to obtain soil
borings at the Mill Pond in conjunction with the Upper Valley
Drainage Project.
BACKGROUND:
This project has been discussed in great detail at previous
Council meetings. Staff is continuing to negotiate with the
Department of Natural Resources to obtain the appropriate permits
to discharge this storm system to the Mill Pond.
As part of the process in gathering all available information to
resolve these concerns, staff is requesting that soil borings be
obtained throughout the Mill Pond area. Up to this point, there
has been several alternatives and proposals suggested for
mitigating the affects of the storm sewer on the designated trout
stream and existing wildlife . Without soil borings or
information on the soils in that area, it is difficult to
actually determine what can or cannot be done. The fact is, this
project will require some type of mitigative measures for the
trout stream and soil borings will be needed eventually as this
project progresses . Staff, along with the City' s consultant,
Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Assoc. feel that now is the time to obtain
some preliminary soil investigations prior to winter setting in.
Several quotations have been obtained from soil boring companies.
They differ depending on how much the City would like done at
this time. Attached is a copy of one such proposal from
Geotechnical Engineering Corporation which is a very detailed
analysis of this area. The total amount indicated in this
proposal is approximately $6,000.00 for some preliminary borings
with an additional $14,000 .00 for a more detailed analysis with
several more borings. Staff does not feel that a full fledged
analysis is needed at this time. The main item is to get out to
the pond before winter sets in and obtain some hand probes to
determine exactly what the structure of the soil is in the area.
This work as indicated in the Geotechnical Engineering Corp.
proposal is approximately $1 ,900 .00 plus $400 .00 for an analysis
and report, for a total estimate of $2,300.00 .
Also attached is another quotation from Allied Testing Company.
This quotation is for a total amount of $2,490 .00 to do the soil
borings and report similar to that proposed by Geotechnical.
Staff has obtained one other verbal proposal to do hand probes
from Braun Engineering estimated at approximately $2 ,500 .00.
Based on personal experience with these companies, abilities and
their existing workloads , staff is recommending that Allied
Testing Company be retained to preform the preliminary soil
investigations of this area. Staff is also requesting that the
City Council authorize a maximum amount of $3,000 .00 to obtain
these preliminary soil reports. No additional monies would be
spent on obtaining soil information without Council approval.
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Deny staff' s request to spend any money for soil borings in
this area.
2. Approve of staff' s request to spend the maximum amount of
$3,000.00 for soil borings and authorize staff to utilize
Allied Testing Company to perform these services.
3. Authorize the $3,000 .00 for soil borings but instruct staff
to utilize a different engineering company.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends Alternative No. 2 , to utilize Allied Testing
Company to perform soil boring investigations with a maximum
expenditure of $3 ,000 .00 . Staff, along with the consultant, feel
that this soil information is going to be needed anyway
regardless of what the final outcome of this project is .
Therefore, we do not feel the money will be spent needlessly.
Once the preliminary soil investigations have been done, staff
can continue to negotiate this project with the DNR and refine
the cost estimates for any proposals. Allied Testing has done a
lot of soil boring work in the City of Shakopee and staff is very
comfortable with their abilities and expertise.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Move to authorize the City Engineer to utilize Allied Testing
Company to obtain preliminary soil borings and analysis of the
Mill Pond area with a maximum amount of $3 ,000.00.
DH/pmp
ALLIED
Nvc � n
GEO147;5 GEOTEC.i3It'.ICAL UJGINEEPWG CORPORATION
Consulting Engineers . Soil Testing
November 10, 1988
Orr, Schelen, Mayeron
2021 East Hennepin Avenue, #238
Minneapolis MN 55413 ,
Attn: Mr. P. Willenbring
Re: Soil Borings for Storm Water Project
Shakopee Mill Pond
Shakopee, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Willenbring:
As requested, this is our proposal for providing a subsurface exploration
program for the storm water project at the Shakopee Mill Pond. We proposed
to complete this program in two phases. This letter proposal addresses our
understanding of the project, the scope of work proposed for each phase and
our approach with estimated costs.
We understand the objective of this project is to build a retaining struc-
ture to separate storm water from a spring-fed pond. Refer to the attached
copy of a concept sketch (provided by you) of the area. The retaining
structure has been proposed as a earth berm or a sheet pile wall . The
objective of the subsurface exploration project is to obtain subsurface
soil data to evaluate alternate retaining structures.
After briefly viewing the site and the concept plan provided us, we pro-
posed to complete this project in two phases. The first phase would
involve soil borings and rod probes. The soil borings would be drilled
using a rubber tired all terrain vehicle (ATV) drill rig. Four borings
would be drilled with the ATV rig. Soil samples would be obtained for
future laboratory testing. Field vane shear tests would be completed to
help evaluate soil shear strength. We proposed to supplement that with a
series of hand probes using waders or a small boat. All data would be
reviewed and presented in a preliminary report.
1925 Oakcrest Avenue . Roseville. Minnesota 55113 .(612) 636-7744
Apple Valley. Minnesota .(6121431-5266
Orr, Scht,en, Mayeron
November 10, 1988
Page 2
The second phase, if needed, would involve drilling deem rto do "wash
in the
areas where hand probes were previously completed. We proposed
borings" from a pontoon. Wash borings are completed by driving casing and
N-values
cleaning out the casing by jetting with drilling mud or water.
(blows per foot) with split spoon samples are obtained using this drilling
method. Vane shear tests can also be completed.
A final report would be prepared with all soil data and subsurface parame-
ters for alternate berm methods. The alternative berm methods with physi-
cal dimension boundaries would be provided by your firm.
We have estimated costs for our approach to this project. Actual costs
will be based on the attached fee schedule.
Phase I - Four borings with ATV and hand probes.
Hours $/Hour $
Item --
Mob/Demob and moving
6 $ 145 $ 870
at site
Soil Borings -
18 145 2610
(Est. depth - 40 ft.)
_ 400
Vane Shear Test Equipment -
Hand Probes with boat 24
80 1920
or waders
Soil Logs, Analysis
4 85 340
1 S5 85
Report 2 28 56
Total Phase I Estimate $6280
Orr, Schelen, Mayeron `D j
November 10, 1988
Page 3
Phase II - Twelve borings with pontoon.
Item Hours $/Hour E
Mob/Demob and moving 32 $ 90 $2880
on site
Soil Barings 72 90 6480
Vane Shear Test Equipment - - 400
Soil Logs, Analysis 24 85 2040
Laboratory Tests - - 1800
Report 4 85 340
2 28 56
Total Phase II Estimate $13,955
The general conditions are attached and apply to this project.
We estimate about 3 weeks to complete the Phase I and IT field work. Time
for laboratory testing would be added to that. We estimate another 2 to 3
weeks to complete the lab tests as proposed.
We anticipate working closely with your staff on this project. We proposed
to keep you informed about the subsurface data as it is obtained and how
that data may effect the project.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal . Tf you have any
questions please call us. We look forward to working with you on this
project.
Yourstruly,truly,
vLawrence F. Felddssien, P.E.
Vice President
LFF/j w
enc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERIN. )RPORATION
FEE SCHEDULE
(Effective c—U'over 1, 1988)
1. TEST BORINGS AND MONITORING WELLS (Two-man Crew and Drill Rig): Travel
A. Truck-mounted or skid-mounted rotary Diedrich D-25 $110/hour
B. Truck-mounted (4-wheel drive) rotary CME 55 $120/hour
C. Truck-mounted (4-wheel drive) rotary Mobile B-57 $130/hour
D. Rubber tire-mounted (ATV) rotary CME 550 $145/hour
E. Portable, non-rotary rig (gasoline or electric) $85/hour
F. Portable Rig on Pontoon $90/hour i
Notes: - Fees include use of auxiliary vehicles and tractor/trailer.
- Pluslli t wear when coring -or rotary drilling.
- Replacement of abandoned drilling equipment is charged when more
economical than recovering equipment at normal hourly rate.
- Mobilization of portable, non-rotary rig and pontoon priced on
individual job basis.
- Monitoring well materials priced on individual job basis.
2. ROUTINE FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTS
A. Field Density Tests (Rates include technician and equipment.)
1. Sand Cone $40/hour
2. Nuclear $48/hour
B. Proctor (moisture-density relationship of soils)
1. Granular Soil
a. Standard $48/test
b. Modified $57/test
2. Cohesive Soil
a. Standard $67 test
b. Modified $86/test
C. Maximum-Minimum Density of Sand $88/test
D. Density by Displacement $14/test
E. Moisture Content $10/test
F. Atterberg Limits $44/test
G. Sieve Analysis $47/test
H. Hydrometer Analysis $46/test
I. Unconfined Compressive Strength S27/test
J. Torvane $9/test
K. Pocket Penetrometer $9/test
L. Electrical Resistivity $39/test
3. OTHER TESTING SERVICES (see attached list) Priced on individual job basis
4. PERSONNEL
A. Chief Engineer. $85/hour
B. Senior Professional Engineer. $79/hour
C. Professional Engineer. Professional Geologist. $58/hour
D. Engineer. Geologist. $53/hour
E. Senior Technician. $48/hour
F. Technician II. Drill Crew Chief. $42/hour
G. Technician I. Drill Crew Assistant. $34/hour
H. Typist. Draftsperson. $28/hour
S. DIRECT PROJECT EXPENSES
Out-of-town per diem; plowing and towing; diamond bit wear;
special equipment, materials, and supplies; special travel ,
transportation and freight; and subcontracted services. Cost + 15%
NOTE: For items 1, 2, 3, 4F. 4G, and 4H, fees for services rendered over 10 hours per
day and on Saturdays are increased by 20%, and on Sundays and Holidays by 30%•
TERMS OF PAYMENT: 30 DAYS FROM INVOICE. FINANCE CHARGE ON OVERDUE BALANCES
/1/8d GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION
v
J - \
IV
aq_ Q
. O
w
• / =p =p rV / " W U
d W
2 h o
h q7
SF
Q
m m %
O
U +'
fi Q� Gac `ti O by •.,)
N
Q
4
�q-AP� {��
?3P Q�
1( \ QO fM J2ay,0
TESTING SERVICE..` OFFERED
(Some subcontracted or rented)
Borings, Bore Hole Tests Monitoring Wells
Truck, ATV, and Pontoon Mounted Drills
Standard Penetration - Split Spoon Sampling
Rock Coring
Auger Borings
Thin Wall Tube Sampling .
Piston Sampler
Dennison A Pitcher Tube Samples
Static Cone
Pressuremeter
Vane Shear
Screw Plate
Inclinometer
Piezometer
Monitoring Wells
Stabilization A Recovery Rate
Field Permeability '
Pumping Test
Screened Hollow Stem Auger
Field Tests and Observations
Exploration Seismograph
Electrical Resistivity
Field Density: Sand Cone, Nuclear, A Balloon
Hand Cone Penetrometer
Excavation Observation
Piling Observation
Caisson Observation
Plate Load Test
Static Pile Load Test
Dynamic Pile Load Test (Case Method)
Laboratory Tests
Proctor Test : Standard and Modified
Maximum/Minimum Density
Moisture Content
Density
Atterberg Limits
Sieve Analysis
Hydrometer Analysis
Specific Gravity
Unconfined Compressive Strength
Pocket Penetrometer
Torvane
Triaxial Shear
Direct Shear
Consolidation
Permeability
Electrical Resistivity
Shrink/Swell
R-Value (Hveem Stabilometer)
CBR (California Bearing Ratio)
6187 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION
Page I of 3
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION
GENERAL CONDITIONS
FOR SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAMS
INTRODUCTION
Unless indicated otherwise and agreed to in writing (or initialed) by GEC and Client,
the following conditions apply to the contract.
In general , GEC provides work and services on properties not owned by GEC. GEC is
responsible for its work and services, but (except as indicated herein) it is not
responsible for the property and any structures, materials, contents, etc., in the air,
on the ground, or underground at the property.
Right-of-access to the site must be obtained by Client (or others). Unless informed
otherwise, GEC will assume that right-of-access has been obtained and will proceed
accordingly.
TERMINOLOGY
Client. The party (firm, organization, individual , or representative thereof) with whom
=contracts.
GEC. Geotechnical Engineering Corporation and its employees and agents.
Liability. Damages, costs of defense, and/or other expenses adjudged against GEC or
paid by GEC arising out of claims made against GEC.
Materials containin pollutants. Drill cuttings, drilling fluids, cleaning liquids, .
we deve opment water, soi and rock samples, protective clothing and equipment, etc. ,
which are exposed to or may contain pollutants.
Pollutants. Any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including
smo e, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste.
Scope of work. Principally the type, number, location, and depth of borings. Also the
type and num er of laboratory tests and the type and extent of engineering analysis.
Underground structures. Conduits, tanks, vaults, boxes, caverns, tunnels, walls,
ootrngs, etc.
Utility lines. Overhead and underground wires, cables, pipes, pipelines, mains,
ai aT , services, connections, etc., for natural gas, electricity, telephone, cable
TV, water, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, steam, condensate, oil , gasoline, other fuels,
etc.
SCOPE OF WORK
The outcome of a subsurface exploration program is the direct result of the scope of
work. GEC has expertise to determine the scope of work, and offers to do so at current
fee schedule rates.
Alternatively, Client may determine the scope and in so doing accepts commensurate
responsibility for the outcome.
During the course of the work, if - due to unexpected site conditions or other reasons -
it appears that the scope of work should be changed, GEC will make reasonable effort to
contact and inform Client. The scope will not be changed unless requested or authorized
by Client.
Page 3 of 3
BASIS Of COST
GEC will perform the services described in this Contract and anyeadditional servicesfas
requested by Client, and, unless indicated otherwise,
will invoicSchedule rates.
Any estimate of cost shall not be considered as a firm figure unless specifically stated
otherwise.
PAYMENT TERMS
about an invoice, Client should so
If Client has any dispute, question, or disagreement
inform GEC within 15 days of date of invoice. Payment is past due thirty days from date
of invoice. A finance charge A eone-half
amount ppercent per month or the maximum rate
allowable by law will be app to Past d
INSURANCE
GEC is protected by Worker's Compensation, Public Liability, Property Damage, and
Professional Liability insurance. GEC will furnish certificates of insurance to Client
upon request. -
WARRANTY
GEC warrants that its services will be performed in accordance with ns, times,tices oandnlocay
exercised by reputable geotechnical engineers under similar conditions,
tions.
LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY
om
encountered in
Client should recognize subsurface recommendatio�ns sdevaeloped by y vary r GEC t are ebasedu
and solely on
borings, andthatconclusions
e
the information available and that such conclusions and recommendations may have to
modified because of variances in subsurface conditions.
s, breach of
n d
Client agrees to limit omissions, liability
against
igence tEC on o a pum not to exceed count of 9$5O OOO for the amount
contract, errors,EC at t if Client does not wish to limit
of GEC's fee, whichever is greater. Alternatively,
GEC's liability, Client
amust
itioso na1�1O% of the totalfee.
the contract is entered, and
Client agrees to pay
ences due
orCforllcosts relatedlto the failuretofocontractorssorumaterialmenotoainstall nged conditions
r other work in
accordance with plans and specifications.
A ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY
4000 BEAU D'RUE DRIVE
EAGAN, MN 55122
Exploration - Evaluation - Foundation Engineering
(612) 452.6913
15 December 1986
Mr Dave Hutton, PE
City of Shakopee
Engineering Dept
129 East First Street
Shakopee MN 55379
Re: Estimate of Price
Proposed Subsurface Soil Investigation
VIP Outfall Area, North of TH SOI
Skakopee, Minnesota
in accordance with your invitation, as communicated to us by
Pete Willenbring of OSM, we hereby offer the following quota-
tion for the above referenced investigation. This proposal is
made in accordance with the general outline of requirements
as communicated to us by Mr Wiilenbring, my interpretation of
the data required, and my recent inspection of the site. The
investigation would be conducted in accordance with usual and
accepted soil engineering practices.
We understand that the primary purpose of this investigation
is to ascertain data sufficient for you to locate low berms
at the outfall area, to separate trout stream flow and storm -
11 water flow. The main cause for concern is the potential for
deposits of organic or soft soils in the vicinity. These
soils, upon loading, could consolidate or otherwise fail in
shear, thus rendering the berm less effective for the intend-
ed purpose.
To accomplish this, we would obtain soil samples at rather
close intervals throughout the berm routes using a combina-
tion of the power flight auger, hand auger, shelby tube, and
possibly other methods ieg, piston sampler) as necessary. We
may submit selected soil samples for organic content tests,
consolidation tests, etc. Insofar as possible or applicable,
all testing would be in accordance with ASTM requirements.
On a very preliminary basis, we anticipate performing 17 bor-
ings, depths from between 8 and 15 feet. As many as possible
would be accomplished using a power flight auger. I assume we
may obtain access- through a campground to the west. Some
brush cutting on the actual site may be necessary, but this
has been taken into account in the unit price. If enough cold
weather occurs, we can accomplish our borings through the
ice. If not, we can attemp to wade into the selected areas.
loe
Mr Dave Hutton, PE
15 December 1988
Page 2
As a last resort we mays have to rent a boat to gain access
to drilling points in deeper open water. Depths of borings
would be variable, sufficient to evaluate soil profiles in
the area, and to render a preliminary opinion as to require-
fTients for obtaining undisturbed samples. These undisturbed
samples would be subject to full or 1 -load consolidation
test=_ by a separate laboratory.
Near the ❑ridge, I note that the stream bottom is naturally
armored. Hand auger borings may not be possible here.
On the oasis of the above, our estimate of price is as
follows:
Item
Mobilization, Daily Mileage
Power Flight Auger Borings
Hand Auger Borings
Shelby Tube Samples
Consolidation Tests
Normal
1 -load
Organic Content Tests
Boat Rental
Analysis & Report, Eng Sup
Total Estimated Price
Est
Unit
Quantity
Price
Lump
Sum s
125.00
130
if
6.00
56
if
5.00
4
ea
25.00
2
ea
280.00
2
ea
185.00
2
ea
5.00
actual
cost
Lump
Sum
240.00
Extended
Price
$ 125.00
780.00
280.00
100.00
280.00
370.00
10.00
$ 2490.00
Refusal borings, if encountered, will be invoiced at $ 5.00
per foot. Otherwise, the project will be accomplished in ac-
cordance with the above unit prices. Of course, some varia-
tion in quantities could occur depending upon conditions en-
countered. Hence, the final price could vary.
A written report will be issued containing a project narra-
tive, description of method of investigation, results of the
investigation, including copies of lab test reports, boring
logs and a location map, and such conclusions and recommenda-
tions as are required to answer questions regarding soil
suitablility for the intended purpose. Especially, a settle-
ment estimate will be offered.
Mr Dave Hutton, PE
15 December 1988
Page 3
I hope this provides you with the information you require. If
you wish to proceed, please advise. If I can furnish addi-
tional data, or if you have any questions an this or any oth-
er matter, do not hesitate to contact us at your convenience.
Sincerely,
ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY
Patrick J Hines, PE
President
cc: Mr Pete Willenbring, OSM
pH
►oi
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer-2ew -
SUBJECT: Marschall Road at County Road 16
DATE: December 13, 1988
INTRODUCTION:
Attached is a letter from Scott County indicating that the
estimated cost to eliminate the "bump" at the Gorman Street
intersection is $4,500.00, which would be a City of Shakopee
expense.
BACKGROUND:
Scott County is proposing to install a traffic signal at the
intersection of Marschall Road (C.R. 17) and County Road
16/Gorman Street. In February, 1988, the City of Shakopee
executed an agreement with Scott County to pay for 25% of the
construction costs since one-fourth of the intersection was a
City street. At the time the agreement was executed, the
estimated cost of the project was $70,000.00. The City portion
was estimated at $17,500.00 for construction plus $2,450.00 for
engineering fees for a total City cost estimated at $19,950.00.
Scott County has now finalized their plans and is getting ready
to bid the project. Their cost estimate for construction has now
been revised from $70,000 to $75,000.00, which will raise the
City cost slightly (by approximately $1,250.00).
The County has also indicated that due to the installation of the
traffic signal, the "bump" at Gorman Street must be removed for
safety reasons. Staff has indicated to the County that Gorman
Street is on the City's 5 -Year Capital Improvement Plan for total
reconstruction, so there should be minimal work and expense on
this leg of the intersection at this time.
The County is proposing to remove approximately 20 feet of the
Gorman Street leg and reconstruct that portion to eliminate the
"dip". They are proposing to complete this work with County
forces. They have estimated the cost for this work to be
$4,500.00, which they indicate would be a City expense.
Staff has indicated to the County that since this is a County
construction project, it should be a County expense not a City
expense. There have been many instances where City projects
sometimes "encroach" on County streets but as a show of
cooperation, the City has seldom asked the County to pay for that
work. Staff has told the County that this request obviously
indicates that the County is unwilling to cooperate with the City
on projects.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Inform the County that the City agrees to pay County forces
to remove the bump on Gorman Street at a cost of $4,500.00.
2. Utilize City forces to remove the bump.
3. Add this work to an existing City contract under a change
order.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends Alternative No. 2, to utilize City forces to
remove the bump on Gorman Street at the time the traffic signals
are installed. The Street .Superintendent has indicated that City
forces would be able to complete this work.
The Finance Director has also indicated that the City portion of
the signals (25%) which is estimated at $21,400.00 and covered by
the existing agreement has not yet been funded. He indicates
that the two options for funding this work is the General Fund
Contingency or the Capital Improvement Fund.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Direct staff to notify Scott County that the City will be
utilizing our own crews to eliminate the bump on Gorman
Street, rather than County forces.
2. Move to fund the City portion of the traffic signals,
estimated at $21,400.00 (25%), out of either the General
Fund Contingency or the Capital Improvement Fund, whichever
Council prefers, and inform the Finance Director of the
decision.
DH/pmp
AGREE
SCOTT COUNTY
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT %D
mim" 600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST
JORDAN, MN 55352-9339 (612)496-6346
BRADLEY J. LARSON
Highway Engineer
DANIEL M. JOSE
Asst. Highway Engineer
DON D. PAULSON November 26, 1966
Asst. Highway Engineer
Mr. Dave Hutton, Engineer
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Re: SAP 70-617-07
Dear Mr. Hutton:
The Engineer's Estimate for the above project is $75,000
for the construction contract. In addition, the Scott
County maintenance forces will be reconstructing the Gorman
Street approach to eliminate the "bump" at the intersection
of CSAH 17.. This work is estimated to cost approximately
$4,500.
If you have any questions or would like any further
information, please contact this office.
DMJ/kmg
Sincerely,
Daniel M. Jobe, P.E.
Assistant Highway Engineer
An Equal Opportunity Employer
TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting Adm;nistrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director J
RE: Non-union Employee Benefits
DATE: December 16, 1988
It -IL .3%`•iW.iiJn
Annually, in recent years, there has been a meeting of the con -inion
employees to review the benefit package provided by the City. A meeting was
held 12/15/88 and the employees wished to bring a couple of it before
council.
A3CnRnT9,TY�
Attached is a schedule of benefits provided to the various labor groups in
the City of Shakopee work force. The non-union emgployee group requested that
Council consider two changes (either individually or jointly) to the benefit
schedule. Neither item involves arra immediate out of pocket cost to the City.
1. Provide the non-union employee group with the same vacation schedule
that the public works group has. This would provide one additional day
of vacation per year after 20 years with a maximum of 25 days. Current
maxi,m,m is 20 days at the 16 year point. There is only one employee who
would currently benefit fxtimi this charge (a Community Recreation
en1ployee) and there would a very low cost impact fxam this at least for
many years.
Also attached is a memo from several department heads addressing this
same vacation benefit schedule.
2. Increase the sick leave aclrmlation cap from 800 haus to 960 hours.
Public works group has an 800 has cap with a severance pay out rate of
338, which is what the non-union grasp currently has also. The police
officer unit and the police sergeant unit have unlimited ac utmrlation and
a severance pay out rate of 453 of a maximim, 960 hours. The run -union
group is requesting consideration of increasing the cap from 800 to 960
hours to provide more sick leave benefit for long term illness which is a
growing concern and also provide more incentive for employees not to use
acre of the leave that they have earned because they will lose it due to
the 800 hour cap. They are not asking for an increase in the pay out
rate upon severance.
Another item which has been mentioned or briefly discussed aver the past
two years, particularly in connection with comparable worth is the "extra" hours
worked by exempt employees. Non-exempt employees get paid overtime or comptime
at time and one half for work over forty hours per week. Exempt employees, with
the exection of the current City Planner, Building official and Administrative
Assistant, have no compensation for any work over forty hours. The payplan is
based on comparable pay for "straight time" work. When an exempt employee and a
nonexempt employee both work overtime, the nonexmgmt employee gets time and
onehalf while the exempt employee get no compensation, which may result in loss
of comparable pay contrary to the comparable worth act.
Some cities are addressing this issue by giving exempt employees additional
pay any where from 28 to 108 inaddition to the base pay. A few cities are
providing extra "vacation or leave" days off instead of pay. Days off result in
no out of pocket cost to the city and does not show as wages or in the pay plan.
Five days off are equal to a little less than 28 of salary. A brief survey of
12 metro area mmmnmities indicated that 758 provided some additional form of
compensation to exempt employees. The communities surveyed and the compensation
Provided is as follows;
Anoka
108
Blaine
108
Brooklyn Center
58 to qualified employee
Fagan
8%
Golden Valley
28
Prior lake
no
Fridley
58
Hopkins
no
£den Prairie
5 days additional vacation
Richfield
58
Apple Valley
108
Crystal
no
Because of the use of Stanton market data in our pay plan there is some
fraction of other cities bump in pay showing up in our pay. One half of cur pay
Plan is based on Stanton and not all cities have a bump so the result may be on
the order of 28 basad on the above data.
Prior to the more strict application of the Fair Labor Standards Act, there
was a system by which exempt eMPloyees could take time off based on overtime put
in previously and with the approval of the Administrator. So in a sense there
was a similar benefit which employees lost under current condidtions.
The exert employees are requesting that Council give consideration to
granting 5 extra days of leave to the actual exeunt employees who qualify by
fairly consistently working more than 40 hours per week.
Alternatives
1. Grant requests
2. Grant part of the requests
3. Deny all requests
4. Grant modified requests
Recommendation
Discuss the above requests and information and give staff direction on haw
Council wishes to proceed.
January 1, 1989
Health, Life & Disability
Police Sergeants
Uniforms
** Except Police Chief
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
Non -Union Police
$245/mo. $226.82/mo.*
$246.82/mo.
** --- $450 1008
(3 in, 3 out, 1 on shelf,
& 2 jackets)
Public Works
$245/mo.
Holidays
11
11
11
Sick Leave - Earnings
12 days
12 days
12 days
Cap
800
Unlimited
800
Severance 1/3 of
800
800
Severance 458 of
960
Vacation
0-5 years
10 days
10 days
10 days
6-10 years
15
15
15
11
15
16
15
12.
15
17
15
13
15
18
15
14
15
19
15
15
15
20
15
16
20
20
20
17
20
20
20
18
20
20
20
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
21
20
20
21
22
20
20
22
23
20
20
23
24
20
20
24
25
20
20
25
Holiday Buy Back ---
Yes
---
Minimum Call Back
2 hr.
2 hr.
Standby ---
Hourly Pay
---
Working out of Classification
---
Higher Pay
***
Injury on Duty
(Not charged to Sick Leave)
---
75 days
25 days
*Personnel Policy allows that
a Police
Officer who retires at age 55 or
thereafter with 15 years of service
with
the City of Shakopee
shall be able to
participate to age 65 with Officer paying
actual premiums.
This is not covered
in Union Contract.
***All personnel with Light Equipment Operator/Parkkeeper
classifications are
paid at the Heavy Equip. Operator hourly
rate for the last
four pay periods of
IwiByD
TO: DENNIS KRAFT -Acting Administrator
SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DEPARTMENT HEADS
SUBJECT: EXTENSION OF BENEFITS
DATE: DEC. 9TH, 1988
INTRODUCTION:
Certain benefits, earned by longevity, are given to union
workers that are not available to non-union personnel. A request
is being made by these workers to receive similar vacational
benefits for personnel who are affected by this disparity.
BACKGROUND:
Several years ago, Police and Public Works union personnel
bargained for, and received, longevity compensation for workers
who have completed over 20 years of service to the City of
Shakopee. This compensation was never given to non-union
workers, although it was requested of Administration several
times. As a result of this disparity, workers who utilize a
bargaining agency receive more vacational benefits than co-
workers who have many more years of service.
Public Works union personnel receive 20 vacation days after
16 years, and also receive one day of vacation for each service
year after 20 years, with a cap placed at 25 years for 25 days),
while non-union workers receive 20 days, with a cap after 16
years of service. Police personnel receive longevity
compensation in their pay plan commensurable to their years of
service.
Non-union personnel are again asking for an extension of
their vacation benefits recognizing their many years of service
to the community. Because they have no recognized bargaining
body, this request for service related parity is now being
requested of Administrative staff and City Council to be
implemented effective January, 1989.
In a survey of metropolitan communities conducted several
years ago, it, was learned that the majority of the other
municipalities offer this longevity benefit to their senior
employees, whether they are union or non-union, in the form of
one day of vacation given for each year completed over 20 years
of service. Not all of these surveyed municipalities imposed a
service cap.
The following deparment heads are asking that this same
benefit be given to the non-union employees of the City of
Shakopee.
Jim Karkanen - Public Works Tom Brownell - Police
George Muenchow - Comm. Rec. Judy Cox - City Clerk
LeRoy Houser - Building Insp. Dave Hutton - Engineer
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer vacational benefits, proportionate to longevity, to
City employees not represented by bargaining agents, effective
January, 1989.
10K
TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: Health & Life Insurance Bids
DATE: December 16. 1988
Introduction
Council received the employee group health and life bids last council
meeting. They were tabled pending an employee meeting and are now brought back
for Council action.
Back rg ound
Attached is the memo Council received last meeting with the consultants
report. The employee meeting was held 12/15/88 and was well attended including
Lee Hennen and Gary Monnens representing both Principal Mutual and Blue
Cross/Blue Shield as agents, John Kessler from Blue Cross and Charles Jelinek
from Corporate Risk.
Principal Mutual (current carrier) is the low bidder for life and long term
disability which they bid together and will not split. Blue Cross/Blue Shield
is the low bidder for health coverage. Their bid is not exactly the same as the
current coverage but is an equivalent package with some features slightly better
and some slightly worse. One item that was not in their bid was routine
physicals that is in our current coverage. The Bl�-es will add that coverage for
an additional premium of $2.88/mo. for single, $9.45 for employee plus 1, and
$11.48 for family. The employees want this add back to the package. Our
current carrier would have made some changes upon renewal so their bid is not
exactly the same as our current coverage either.
This bidding seems pretty clear cut. The employee meeting went well and it
seemed that all the questions were answered. I have not had any calls or
questions from Council on this issue. Charles Jelniek of Corporate Risk inc.,
who Council retained to do the bidding and evaluation, did a fine job of
evaluating the bids and explaining them to the employees. Accordingly, I have
told him that he did not need to attend the Council meeting unless I notified
him otherwise. If Council wants him to attend they should let me know so I can
contact him.
Alternatives
1. Rebid.
2. Award bids as per above.
3. Make other award.
Recommendation
Alternative number 2.
Action Recuested
Move to authorize the proper city officials to execute the appropriate
documents awarding the life and long term disability bid to Principal Mutual at
an annualized cost of approximately $9,291 for long term disability and $6,876
for life and accidental death and dismemberment and awarding the health
insurance bid to Blue Cross/Blue Shield at an approximate annualized cost of
$108,912.
J
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 508 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, as -the report
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.
7515 macne0 roan • suite 109 • ecen prairie. mmnesota 55344 . (612) 937-8942
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 405. 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 705. In otherwords, they feel they need $0.30 of every $1.00 premium
to support the program. Also, they are using a 245 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 eoxland
November 30, 1988
Page 2
p K_
Leaeue 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 Cross/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 100%
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. Aswithany 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
LONG
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,
CORPORATE RISK MANAGERS, INC.
Aees Jelinek
Benefits Manager
Enclosure
CJ/lb
W
0
m
d
b
Z
^
0
4
P
W
m
Z
^
0
4
P
5
N
m
_•
m
O
O
w
Y Y
c m
a
w
m
c F
m
a u
n
m
m
0
m
m
P
N
OQI
N
of
iJ
U
A ul
N
n
m
H
< c
a
CC
O
O
tbv
'I
N
d
N
CSC
m
N
^mV
R
O
O8
O
0
n
�SU
O
0
P
n
n
��SU
Oh
P
LSU
O
O
rOi
b
5
Blue Cross anti
Blue Shield
of Minnesota
P.O. Box 64560 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55164
December 5, 1988
Gary M. Monnens
A & M Insurance Services
16228 Main Avenue S. E.
P. 0. Box 308
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Dear Gary:
Here is a sumrary of the routine benefits that were quoted to
you over the phone today:
lb K
1. Persons over 24 months - one routine office physical per person
per calender year. Unlimited dollar amounts for routine lab and
x-ray. No imtmizations. Waive deductible and coinsurance.
2. Baby up to 24 math - unlimited dollar amounts for all well
baby services including imanications. Waive deductible and
coinsurance.
Adding these benefits to the previously quoted plan will make the
rates:
Single
$81.74
2 Party
$190.83
Family
$246.55
Please call me with any questions.
Sincerely,
John W. Kessler
Marketing Representative
(612)456-1586
JWK:jr
USA
9BB U B.
OIYmm� Team
IOL
i
~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~
a0000
00
mmmmw
iiiiii
a
:zxxzsi2==xx
---------
mmmmm
K<.
a
mmmmm
..mmmmm
m
-�axavvyy+vim.
....mmmmm
mmm
..
W
Y
Y
Y
W
�
�
W
<
.
n
w
i
wee
=
�
dPw
-
NN
ro
a
n
nu"
roro
.
n-u-�io
ro.
-
ro
___
66
«
r
n
n
�
>:
nrom
nrororo�a
_
s
-
NN
ro
a
n
nu"
roro
.
n-u-�io
ro.
-
ro
x
muu
TT
a
6 «
22
COC
22
u
-
•
nnn
•
pA
n
nnn
n
•
n
•
p
•
n
e
In
f
nIPI I<1
•
I1
go!
IT2
11
Tr
a
....
oo°o
eM.p
n
x
=aa
M.
«
go!
IT2
m
a
-.
see
a
eeo
uu�
�
e
�
eeeee
zzz
m
w
e
s
m
-
»i
mmmmu
m
muu
m
naa
e000 mo
a
iii
�'+��
m
o
x
n
xss
zxzzc
s
z
ooe
NN
-
aw
w
Am�mil
m
m
T
m
r
a
as
m
m
m
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
NN
-
m
m
m
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
m
Y
zu'iFi
.
s
a<
• -
m
-
-su'.ii.`i
m
mem.
=
m
oo
oa==wo
.
....
...min.
.
......
m
m.mm
.
w
mmm
i
wuau
.......
a
......
.
----
zu'iFi
.
s
a<
• -
m
-
-su'.ii.`i
m
mem.
=
m
oo
....
...min.
.
......
m
m.mm
.
w
mmm
I..1 * W 4 w 4 W W ► w • w • w w W W W * w • W • 44
A * A * A • A A • A * A * .4 A A A A • A * A • A 0 .O
.0 * .o * .0 • .O.O * a * .0 r 0.0 m.0.0 ► .0 • .O 4 0 2 Co
O• * P 4 U1 r Uf VI * to * U1 * 0 U1 co UI N • U1 1.51 • VI m CD
4 0 * .O * .0.7 * CO * -J * .4 A A A A * A w (.1 * W 0
-4 * 0 4 -.1 * N.f • - * O. * U1 UI A A A • N . 0 r A F 0
-
Z (
o -<
0
_ _ _. o 71
a
CO CO N co N N CO N N N CO N CO N CO -1 CO
N N N. N.N. N. N. N.N. N N N . N N. 111 x
-. _
a
A A A A A A A A A A A A A R A 1v
N N N \\ N N N\ N.N N. N N N 0
CO dD 0 00 OD AD .A CO CO CO 0 OD Co OD 03 V
OD CO OD 0(0 OD OD 0 0 0 00 CO 0 OD CO m
M
a
s
0
10 C
Z
CO 0 d•4 W-4- W N 0- -I
00 NN O.O. .04))-J A A .0.O O•.0-1 UI a NN b.0 W W 0.Co
A A U1 U1 .0A N N N 00 0000 •••...U1UI 00 W W (00
W W NN -1N 0 00 0 o IUON A 0 A0 00 00 00
00 P0• 000 O.Cr. O0 000 0000 00 00 0O
* * * * * * * * * * *
C 0 < << C C OD CO CO N 0 11 05 0)
> A •-• I.^• Z Z Z 111 C -i 0
o m U) x x 4) >> room r D 2
m o .-. I.CY < '9 N D D D -4 A
GI W
7D z C m I I rrr 0 r <
U) r o m 7D o o z -I N m
< m (0 0) z z 1111 11 z Z
_
0 _ .4 .. ....... N H 0 0
Z X 0 Z Z -4 -4 1 A A W 0 W 70 0
o r o 0o 0 -( oo rnmm x C Z z
a s 0 0o r z > 0
z v 1 o r mmm m m 1 2
o c 00 1 11 070 000 m m
-1 m m o z 0
m Z Z s 0 0 0 0 0 2 -1 7C
73 -I-4 Z 0 0 0 0 0 a a
mm .v 70 1 r z
vv vv m
c)
m
-I
M
A1
'V -4 co ws -I 0 (0(n 0100) 0 v m •-.
a a c ca m o cc aoc 0 70 0 •1
y v 'v vv
0 r z vv vcv z .-• c m
z < x m -n v v m z •-• 1
1 m r r v r -1vr -1 v
r .-.a I a .-.. > a 0
a m In o mm r s m a s m
Q. N N m Z co NUJ aU) CO a (0
N O m () m.. 0 v .. 0
C W C I 0 Z 2 C Z A
W C .. 0 C 1 0 W -I ..
W N 0 .. 0 v
r v r
-4O
-4Z
O O O y o 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 D
.. -4 0
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I n
A A 4 A- A A AA AAA A A A 0
W W CO NUI W W NN UINN W W N C
UI W -•O+ N 0 -W- .O in W Z
0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 o CO 0 0 0 N •1
1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I
0 -1 0 W 0 A W W W W A Z
-.o UI W N A N N N W CO RJ 0
UI P +O l.7 -.-. -. W CO
I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I
.or 0 W 0.4 W W W W -. A ...
N U1 -o in W N A NNN W N CO Z
f
N
'O I
0 a
CO
it 0
I
m v
CO >
* 4 * • • ► •
* * N 4)
* ► • • ► •
• ► • a m
I I I I I I
I I 1 m
X CO x x X CO F x CO
C7 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 0
owe
..
+m
m
$
mmmmmmm
m
rc
d
a
m
n
mm m
__
••
ooa>�aa22
m
Xi +
w
mm
m
m
mmmmmmm
m
mm
m
m
m
m
mm m
a
mm
m
m
mmmmmmm
m
mm
m
m
m
m
mm m
x
..
.
.
.......
.
e.
.
.
.
.
.e
M1
N
m
S
�CCCCC
'
O� OOOOoo
11
m
1717,
t
Am
q
wmw -pau-
yn
Y
m
a
00000
p.
«
a
S
m
_
_
>
a
A,
n
p,..
_____
m
m
m
m
mm
OOOOOHOOOr-O0000
m
m
m
m
m
mmm
m
o
r
<�
0
F
F
F
F
F
YrYrrO\rrr�/Irrrrr
r
r
H
Y
r
YYY
r
N
H
W
W
W
W
W
FFFFt FF FCCC FCCF
C
F
F
F
F
FFF
F
W
CJ 0
Y
r
Y
Y
Y
WWW W4�wWW WWWWWwF
�O
�O
�O
�O
�D
�O �O �O
�D
a
W
W
W
W
W
NN NNNNNN NNNN N NCO
N
N
N
W
w
NNN
N
r
r
r
Y
Y
Y
rrrrrrrF•F•I-�Yrrr�D
w
J
�1
w
r
mN0
H
r
O
O
00000
O
O
H
u
m
0000
O
O
0
.0.p.O
O
w
0-
0
O
O
O
O
[<+
0
0
0
0
0
00Ow0
0 0 F �n 0 0 0 0 vl O F N F r F
O
m
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
000
O
r
0
O
O
O
O
O
wwW r CNF• r Hr FW rrr
0
0
0
0
0
600
O
W
00
O
O
O
O
O
H r N mNw�r N�OrW VIW�n
O
O
O
O
O
000
O
W
m
mF
OFo
m
m
OY 0�000H O'FO'FO'FO'FO'
m
m
mOmm
N
m
'm
F0' F0'
m
0
0
0
0
0
000000000000000
r
r
r
Y
Y
rrr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
000000000000000
0
0
0
0
0
000
0
0
0
o
w
m
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00000000 0 000000
o
o
o
o
o
000
R
O O 0 m 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
N w M M O 'C W (H] H H K
P H h m O P
O
a r w
O O r 0 K
b b 6 w m
o <
K
N N N N N NNNNNNNNNNN NNNN N N N N N NNN N N R) N
� W w W W w W W W W W W w W W W W W W w w W w N N NNN N N N N
m-
m
O
C
O
m
O
NO
cNf
0
0
M
[%]
d
N
3
P
a+
a
P
?
O
m
N
O
z
<
O
O
H
u
m
H
O
O
O
a�+
w
0
0
ut
B Y O
H
[<+
N
w
0
0
0
0 0 F �n 0 0 0 0 vl O F N F r F
O
m
0
0
0
W m �n
O
O
C
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
mm�
w
0
r
O O 0 m 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
N w M M O 'C W (H] H H K
P H h m O P
O
a r w
O O r 0 K
b b 6 w m
o <
K
N N N N N NNNNNNNNNNN NNNN N N N N N NNN N N R) N
� W w W W w W W W W W W w W W W W W W w w W w N N NNN N N N N
i
L
m-
m
O
C
O
m
O
NO
cNf
0
0
M
[%]
d
N
3
P
a+
a
P
?
n
z
<
O
O
a�+
N
M
'J
[<+
O
1
Y
C
4
0
I
I
<
33
W
m
M
'm
y
w
m
W
O
o
w
m
0
3
K
b
v
m
'°a
�
m
m
m
m
N
F
VIW
F
F
O
rm
m
O
O
N
O
m
m
N
\n
—rl
0
vl
O
O
O
w
�O
w
0
0
vl
0
0
0
m
00
w
m
0
0
0
w
4
0
1 0
0
W
O
r
0
0
i
L
C]
O H N N M 000000 H N N D\ O
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 N N
W
W
M
u � N
w F U S
N U c N 0
F O
y C W A A Y O yy
E U2 Y m W d2 v N' W L O m W W d
U uY W
U tll h v U W W Y Y r-1 N W Y Iy
W W h C I b c W c W n 0 +i W O W
O W 3 {. V m 3 C 0 +-I P. 0 % 0 E c Y 0
Oo v o o s.
0 a W W W= = 0= = a: [� O x p ZO w
O O 1�0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m O M SO D` O O O OO N O H O H O
X O N In In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I N I MN O In N OH M O� N
O CO O. N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO rl N N S .-I O d l� O N 0� 16 N n 1
O I
N H ON O O In 0 0 0 0 .i Y� 1 3 O N -Y rl T 1M
H N N N M N
N b
M
0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0
H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H R H H H
o 0 o Oo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0
HH
.Y
0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W
QO p {� t- ti N N N N N N W N N CON O N N O O O
O0000 S ?^gym 0000Oti0O�OM
O O O H0 0 H H H H H O H.YHHHH 0 0 0 00 H O O M H M
0 0 0 HO O INn INn INn O H H. NH M H 0 0 0 0 0 0� 0 O M Y M
O O O H O O
H N H H M O M M M M M X 0 0'0'0* 0 0 H H H O O N H In O N O
M H In H M H H H H H H H � H H H M M M 00 N M N m N H
e w X X .Y X M X X rH'l nH'1 M N N m
N O N N[-1N,N N N N N N N N N 0 000000 w N N N NwN 0 OJ N 0 0 0
0N
0
0
0
00
0N
o
HH
o
0
0
000
00000
.
.
1
.
O
.
.
.
.
.
10
.
.
.
.
C;
N
.
.
.
.
0
0
N
N
0
1�N
..O
YY.
000000
OO
OO
M
.07
.0Y
1
L`
O
N
M
M
a;
C
O
In
N
M
N
N
�
M
N
W
S.
O
m
Y
a
C
d
H
Z
v
s
HN
b
u
c
m
F
F
0
U
x
7a
E
E
U
m
H
•d
W
m
0
O
h
W
U
W
W
>a
c
H
Y
O
W
m
c
3
E
O
Y
Y
3
Y
E
W
W
W
N
W
W
h
V
£
CL
M
W
X
r]
h
u
U
O
v
U
O
Z
E
N
Z
m
X
X
P
Y
V
N
0
7
m
'd
0
O
c
>
h
m
0
O
(5
.i
.i
>
h
0
Z
0
'L
O H N N M 000000 H N N D\ O
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 N N
W
W
M
u � N
w F U S
N U c N 0
F O
y C W A A Y O yy
E U2 Y m W d2 v N' W L O m W W d
U uY W
U tll h v U W W Y Y r-1 N W Y Iy
W W h C I b c W c W n 0 +i W O W
O W 3 {. V m 3 C 0 +-I P. 0 % 0 E c Y 0
Oo v o o s.
0 a W W W= = 0= = a: [� O x p ZO w
O O 1�0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m O M SO D` O O O OO N O H O H O
X O N In In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I N I MN O In N OH M O� N
O CO O. N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO rl N N S .-I O d l� O N 0� 16 N n 1
O I
N H ON O O In 0 0 0 0 .i Y� 1 3 O N -Y rl T 1M
H N N N M N
N b
M
0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0
H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H R H H H
o 0 o Oo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0
HH
.Y
0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W
QO p {� t- ti N N N N N N W N N CON O N N O O O
O0000 S ?^gym 0000Oti0O�OM
O O O H0 0 H H H H H O H.YHHHH 0 0 0 00 H O O M H M
0 0 0 HO O INn INn INn O H H. NH M H 0 0 0 0 0 0� 0 O M Y M
O O O H O O
H N H H M O M M M M M X 0 0'0'0* 0 0 H H H O O N H In O N O
M H In H M H H H H H H H � H H H M M M 00 N M N m N H
e w X X .Y X M X X rH'l nH'1 M N N m
N O N N[-1N,N N N N N N N N N 0 000000 w N N N NwN 0 OJ N 0 0 0
��F �wFy+vNi rnvri� zcz
I I I I I I I I I O
7 m a �+N"ama o
<n�eosaca❑ H
.01+E ra"'w" ro �
n c r
i+ ro
Y "
µ 4
'C a
n
w
w w
wr
r rn F N r r
vINNN W W �n
NW ON NN OD
W-1 W�OY N�nrYN
m�IWON OVI .n vl
•rnme m0000w
N r F m.n rn o �n �n o0
II
n
0
i+
W
�e
_D
M
L
CONSENT )DM
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clark -
RE: Municipal Parking Lot Leases
DATE: December 16, 1988
Introduction
The annual municipal parking lot leases with Bergsted Properties
and Brambilla's Autos expire at the end of the year.
Background
The City has granted the two leases to both parties for a number
of years now. They are for the municipal parking lot west of
Holmes and south of Levee Drive. Because this parking lot is not
heavily used, leasing spaces has not posed a problem. The lease
includes a 30 day notice of cancellation by either party and by
the City of Shakopee. When work on the mini by-pass begins, the
leases will have to be terminated.
Bergsted Properties are leasing seven spaces. Brambilla's Autos
are leasing 25 spaces at $12.00 and an additional 12 spaces are
being provided at no charge for the tenants in the Brambilla
apartments. This is consistent with the agreements of last year.
Mr. Brambilla takes care of snow removal in this area and cleans
up the litter.
Alternatives
1. Enter into the leases.
2. Do not enter into the leases.
3. Amend the leases.
Recommendation
Alternative No. 1, enter into the leases.
Action Requested
Authorize and direct proper city officials to enter into an
agreement with Jack Brambilla and Bergsted Properties for a
municipal parking lot permit for 1989 for the Black Arrow parking
lot at $12.00 per parking space.
JSC/jms
1989
SPECIAL PERMIT
MUNICIPAL PARKING LOT
The City of Shakopee, Minnesota, the owner of a municipal
parking lot known as the Black Arrow Parking Lot, hereby grants
to Brambilla's Autos the right to park vehicles in thirty-seven
(37) spaces in said parking lot without limitations of time, and
which spaces are to be appropriately marked where possible by the
City, and shall be the eighteen (18) spaces in the middle of the
lot east of the street light, seven (7) spaces in the northeast
corner of the lot abutting Levee Drive, and the first twelve (12)
spaces west of State Highway 169 abutting the alley, all in Block
5, Original Shakopee Plat.
The grantee, Brambilla's Autos, shall pay to the City in
advance, the sum of twelve dollars and no cents ($12.00) for 25
parking spaces. On a temporary basis, twelve parking spaces will
be allowed at. no charge for tenants in the Brambilla Apartments.
The vehicles using the 12 free parking spaces shall also obtain a
temporary parking permit.
This permission is for a period terminating on December 31,
1989, and may be cancelled by either party on thirty (30) days
written notice to the other, in which case unearned portions of
the fee charged, if any, shall be refunded. If permission is
cancelled by the City for a violation of the terms and conditions
hereof by the grantee herein, there will be no refund.
There shall be no sales of vehicles and no repairs or
storage of vehicles incapable of being legally operated upon
public streets pursuant to the terms hereof. Cars which will not
start because of dead batteries shall be permitted. Cars which
do not have current registration shall not be permitted. The
permit granted hereby is for the sole and exclusive use of the
grantee named herein and agents and employees of said grantee and
no other person.
The grantee shall keep the portion of said lot covered
hereby in a neat, clean, and safe condition at all times and
shall not permit or tolerate snow birds on any portion of the
areas covered hereby, and the grantee assumes all risks incident
to the use of the premises for parking space and shall indemnify
the City against any loss, damage, or expense resulting from
personnel injury or damage to, or loss of, property caused in any
manner by the Lessee, and against any loss, damage, or expense
resulting from injury to the Lessee, and against any loss,
damage, or expense resulting from injury to the Lessee, to the
agents of the Lessee, to the employees of the Lessee and to the
general public.
/6 7K-�
This agreement supercedes the agreement dated November 24,
1987 by and between these same parties.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, this instrument is executed this
day of , 19_
BRAMB LAPS AUTOS
BY
t Owner
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
By
Its Mayor
By
Its Administrator
By
Its Clerk
1989
SPECIAL PERMIT
MUNICIPAL PARKING LOT
The City of Shakopee, Minnesota, the owner of a municipal
parking lot known as the Black Arrow Parking Lot, hereby grants
to "Levee Drive Associates", and their tenants, the right to park
vehicles in seven (7) spaces in said parking lot without
limitations of time, and which spaces are to be appropriately
marked by the City, and shall be the first seven (7) spaces
immediately east of Fuller Street and south of Levee Drive in
Block 5, Original Shakopee Plat, and the lessee shall pay to the
City in advance, the sum amount of Twelve Dollars and no cents
($12.00) per space per year.
This permission is for a period terminating on December 31,
1989, and may be cancelled by either party on thirty (30) days
written notice to the other, in which case unearned portions of
the fee charged, if any, shall be refunded. If permission is
cancelled by the City for a violation of ther terms and
conditions hereof by the grantee herein, there will be no refund.
The lessee hereby agrees to provide up to three parking
spaces as needed, at the highrise site for handicapped congregate
dining parking.
There shall be no sales, repairs, or storage of vehicles and
all vehicles must be currently licensed and operational. The
permit granted hereby is for the sole and exclusive use of the
lessee named herein and tenants of said lessee and no other
person.
The lessee shall keep the portion of said lot covered hereby
in a neat, clean, and safe condition at all times and shall not
permit or tolerate snow birds on any portion of the areas covered
hereby, and the lessee assumes all risks incident to the use of
the premises for parking space and shall indemnify the City
against any loss, damage, or expense resulting from personnel
injury or damage to, or loss of, property caused in any manner by
the Lessee, and against any loss, damage, or expense resulting
from injury to the Lessee, to the tenants of the Lessee, and to
the employees of the Lessee.
The City shall continue providing snow removal services for
the parking lot in the same manner as it provides services to all
municipal parking lots. The lessee and his tenants shall
cooperate with the City as needed to permit snow removal. This
agreement supercedes the agreement dated November 24, 1987 by
and between the same parties.
16 "YUP
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, this instrument is executed this
_ day of 19_
LEVEE DRI IATES
By
John
Ber s ad Properties
Su' a 257
33 South 10th Avenue
Hopkins, MN 55343
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
By
Its Mayor
By
Its Administrator
By
Its Clerk
CONSENT 10Y)
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
RE: 1989 Cigarette Licenses
DATE: December 2, 1988
Introduction
Although the City Code does not specifically state that the
Council shall approve applications for a cigarette license, the
City Attorney has advised that it would be in order to authorize
the City Clerk to issue cigarette licenses for 1989.
Background
The applications are in order and there are no delinquent and
unpaid taxes, when owner occupied.
For your information attached is a copy of the 1988 cigarette
licenses issued.
Recommended Action
Authorize the City Clerk to issue cigarette licenses for 1989.
(No need to list all licensees.)
JSC/jms
1988 Tobacco Licenses
88-1
Cleve's Red Owl
828 East 1st Avenue
88-2
Scottland Hotels, Inc.
1244 Canterbury Road
88-3
Snyder Drug
1128 Minnesota Valley Mall
88-4
Valleyfair
One Valleyfair Drive
88-5
Eastman Drug
214 South Holmes
88-6
Hennen's ICO
807 East 1st Avenue
88-7
Rock Spring Supper Club
1561 East 1st Avenue
88-8
Holiday Station Stores
444 East 1st Avenue
88-9
Backstretch Bar
124 South Holmes
88-10
American Legion
1266 East 1st Avenue
88-11
Jim & Lucy's
201 West 1st Avenue
88-12
Sport Stop
101 South Lewis
88-13
Riverside Liquors
507"East 1st Avenue
88-14
Super 8 Motel
581 South Marschall Road
88-15
Brooks Superette #28
615 Marschall Road
88-1b
Brooks Superette #42
1147 Canterbury Road
88-17
K -Mart
Minnesota Valley Mall
88-18
Koehnen's Standard
804 East 1st Avenue
88-19
Valley'Liquor
1102. Minnesota Valley
88-20
Shakopee Bowl
222 East 1st Avenue
88-21
Tom Thumb
590 Marschall Road
88-22
Shakopee House
1583 East 1st Avenue
88-23
Superamerica
1155 East 1st Avenue
88-24
Mpls. Northstar Auto Auction
7700 State Highway 101
88-25
Cy's Amoco
312 West 1st Avenue
88-26
Juba's Super Valu
1100 Minnesota Valley
88-27
Budget Liquor
6268 Highway 101
88-28
Art Berens & Sons Inc.
123 West 2nd Avenue
88-29
Wampach's Restaurant
126 West 1st Avenue
88-30
Friendly Folks Club
122 East 1st Avenue
88-31
Minnesota Concessions
1100 Canterbury Road
88-32
Q Petroleum
234 West 1st Avenue
88-33
Anchor Glass Container
4108 Valley Ind. Blvd.
'st�svenae-
88 34
88-35
Wo i..-fsa-ter Spo ag-6eeda
Happy Chef
--S^' BasE
1120 East 1st Avenue
88-37
The Pullman Club
124 West 1st Avenue
88-38
K -Mart Distribution Center
901 Canterbury Road
88-39
Roberts Drug
814 East 1st Avenue
88-40
VFW Post 4046
132 East 1st Avenue
88-41
Perkins
1205 East 1st Avenue
88-42
Fraternal Order of Eagles
220 West 2nd Avenue
88-43
Shakopee Dairy Queen
835 West 1st Avenue
88-44
Racing Promotions
OneCheckeredFlag Blvd.
88-45
Backstretch RV Park
8855 E. 13th Avenue
88-46
Damile, Inc.
2400 E. 4th Avenue
88-47
.7 & D of Shakopee
911 E. 1st Avenue
Mall
Mall
ioo
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City�Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk --'K—
RE: Contract with Municipal ,Ordinance Codifiers for
Updating the City Code
DATE: December 16, 1988
INTRODUCTION:
Attached is a 1989 maintenance proposal from Municipal
Ordinance Codifiers, Inc. for updating and maintaining the
Shakopee City Code.
BACKGROUND:
Our current contract with Municipal Ordinance Codifiers,
Inc. expires at the end of the year. Municipal Ordinance
Codifiers prepared the current City Code in 1978 and have been
under annual contracts for updating and annual revision
conferences since that time.
Mr. Rodger Jensen, Counsel and Lori O'Reilly, Codifier, meet
annually with the City Administrator, City Attorney, and City
Clerk for a revision conference. During the revision conference,
Mr. Jensen points out changes which have occurred in the state
Law since the last revision conference and makes recommendations
for changes to the City Code in order that the City Code might be
consistent with the State Law: In some cases a ordinance may
need to be adopted in order to implement a new State Law. In
addition, Mr. Jensen reviews all the ordinance$ the City has
adopted since the last City Code update and clarifies any
questions he may have and points out any inconsistencies with
State Law which may need to be clarified. After the revision
conference, Mr. Jensen prepares the ordinances for Council
consideration, which have been discussed within the revision
conference. After Council adopts the recommended ordinances, the
Codifiers type up therevision pages for the City Code and
present them to staff for copying.
The attached proposal for 1989 contains the same fees as
were used in the 1988 proposal. The cost for the 1988 City Code
revisions, including conference in City, drafting amending
ordinances, and preparation of revision pages came to $1,483.00.
Assuming Council adopts approximately the same number of
ordinances between conferences, funds are budgeted in 1989 for
the updating of the City Code.
Continue with the annual updating of the City Code.
Regularly update the City Code every two years.
Begin an unstructured updating of the City Code.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, to Continue with the
annual updating of the City Code. Many departments rely daily on
the City Code. The Police Department especially, needs an
accurate City Code to reference for violations. Staff strongly
recommends that the Council continue to have the City Code
updated annually to provide staff with a current tool with which
to operate. (Codification is a special area, and current staff
has neither the expertise nor the time to update the City Code.)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Authorize appropriate City officials to enter into a 1989
contract with Municipal Ordinance Codifiers, Inc. at $90.00 per
hour for council, $50.00 per hour for codifier, and $25.00 per
hour for typing revision pages for updating the Shakopee City
Code.
JSC/tiv
• . OW4
p0
1989 MAINTENANCE PROPOSAL
TO: THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA (City)
FROM: MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE CODIFIERS, INC. (Revisor)
7400 Lyndale Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55423
THE REVISOR HEREBY PROPOSES to revise, update and maintain the
City Code of the City on a regular basis. Upon acceptance of this
Proposal, the City and the Revisor agree, as follows:
At a time agreeable to both the City and Revisor, the City
shall forward to the Revisor all ordinances adopted during the
preceding year.
Thereafter, the City and Revisor shall hold a revision
conference in the City for the purpose of reviewing City Code
provisions affected by interim court decisions and legislative
enactments. Revisor shall, as a result of such conference, prepare
revision ordinances and submit them to the City for adoption.
Copies of the revision ordinances, after adoption, shall be
provided the Revisor and the Revisor shall prepare substitute Code
pages ready for off -set printing by the City.
The City shall provide Revisor with two copies of all
substitute pages at no cost to Revisor.
The City shall pay Revisor for such maintenance, billed semi-
annually, at the following hourly rates:
$90.00
- Counsel
$50.00
- Codifier
$25.00
- typing revision pages
(No separate charge for typing ordinances prepared by
Revisor).
This Maintenance Proposal encompasses the calendar year 1989.
This Proposal expires forty-five (45) days after the date
hereof unless previously accepted.
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE CODIFIERS, INC.
) U
Rodg r . Jense , Date
PresfdVt and Counsel
THE FOREGOING PROPOSAL is hereby accepted by the City this
day of , 19
IOP
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator
RE: Reimbursement of Fees from Scott County Lumber Company
Litigation
DATE: December 14, 1988
Introduction
The City of Shakopee was involved with the Scott County Lumber
Company on a zoning case during the past two to three years. The
insurance company, International Surplus Lines Insurance Company,
is offering to reimburse the City for 358 of the defense costs
incurred in this lawsuit.
Background
The City of Shakopee was sued by the Scott County Lumber Company
over the use of property south of County Road 16 for a quarry
operation. The initial trial in District Court resulted in the
City winning the lawsuit. Subsequent to that the District Court
decision was overruled by the Appeals Court. Following the
Appeals Court decision the City Council appealed to the State
Supreme Court. The State Supreme Court refused to hear the case
and therefore the Appeals Court decision stood.
Subsequent to that the City filed a claim for reimbursement of
fees regarding this litigation with the City's insurance company.
The insurance company has indicated that they are willing to
reimburse the City for 358 of the defense costs. The
reimbursement is subject to. the City's $2,500 self insurance
retention.
The matter has been discussed with both Assistant City Attorney
Rod Krass and with the City's Finance Director Gregg Voxland.
After a review of the offer Rod, Gregg and I all recommend that
the City accept this 358 reimbursement offer from International
Surplus Lines Insurance Company.
Alternatives
1. Accept the offer as stated.
2. Do not accept the offer and indicate to the insurance
company that we do not accept their offer.
Recommendation
It is recommended that we accept the 358 reimbursement offer.
Action Requested
Move to accept the reimbursement of 358 of the defense costs
incurred from the International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
in conjunction with the Scott County Lumber Company versus City
of Shakopee lawsuit.
International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
♦ November 17, 1988
GCity of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, NN 55379
Attn: Phillip Kress
INSURED: CITY OF SHAKOPEE
CLAIM NO.: 96-410339
POLICY NO.: 524-062342-8
CLAIMANT: SCOTT LUMBER COMPANY
Dear Mr. Kress:
A XEROX Financial Services
200 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 993-M
We have reviewed your request for reimbursement of fees regarding the
above captioned claim.
We have reviewed the complaint and have applied our policy exclusion
to the allegations. As such we are offering to reimburse the City
for 35% of Defense costs incurred for this matter, as the bulk of the
complaint seeks non -monetary relief. We are also requesting that we
be provided with a copy of the dismissal and any other pertinent
documents for our records.
Please advise us if this offer is acceptable to you. Any reimbursements,
as you know is subject to the City's $2,500 self-insured retention.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at (312)993-6319.
Sincerely,
aida Tones
Senior Claim Representative
2a/j:/08/02
cc: Sue Sichmiller
Capesius Agency, Inc.
P.O. Box 97
129 S. Holmes Street
Shakopee, MN 55379
//021
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator
RE: 1989 Pay Plan for Non -Union Employees
DATE: December 15, 1988
Introduction
Attached is Resolution No. 2999 Adopting the 1989 Pay Plan for officers
and non-union employees.
Background
The 1989 budget has 4% built in for wage increases, 3.5% for "cost of
living adjustment"(cola) and .5% for market adjustments. There was no study
done at budget time to pick the 3.5% vs 4% or 5%, it was just an arbitrary
pick. The City went 3.5% cola for 1988 while the Stanton average for all
positions in the group 5 cities was 4.1%. Part of this comes back through our
pay plan formula as market adjustments. Based on a couple informal surveys at
meetings, a c1Par majority of other cities are going up 4% for 1989. Council
may want to consider whether 3.5% or 4% is the appropriate adjustment for 1989.
The 1/2% more would be a budget impact of about $4,000 which could be
considered to be offset by the vacant administrators position. The 3.5% plus
market adjustments fits with the overall budget as adapted.
The pay plan and pay schedule presented for 1989 has an adjustment of 3.5%
for 1989 and adjustments due to Stanton market data are incorporated according
to the schedule or plan we have used the past two years. wages for the Fire
Department are unchanged. The top of the range for temporary employees was
increased 3.5%.
The schedule upon which the pay plan is based has an added column to
indicate which positions are classified as exempt (for overtime) according to
the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Earlier this year the City Council acted
to pay Overtime to three employees who occupy exempt positions. If the Council
wants to reconsider any of these positions on this issue, it should be done at
this time.
There is also position added to the plan for the parttime/seasonal
positions that the City has. This will clarify what the pay rates will be for
those position in advance of the hiring.
The City contribution to health and life insurance (and dental if
provided) is increased by $10 per month (included in the budget).
Alternatives
1. Approve pay plan as presented
2. Modify percentage increase for 1989
3. Make other modifications
Recommendation
Alternative 1.
Action Recuested
Offer Resolution No. 2999, A Resolution Adopting the 1989 Pay Schedule for
the Officers and Non -Union Employees of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, and
move its adoption.
pck�
RESOLUTION NO. 2999
Z40,61PUR
•w• • • • i 1• • 9i• • 1
• P N•i �I I i.•Y•
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIAIMPEE, MM SOTA,
that the City Administrator is hereby authorized to issue warrants upon the
City Treasury, from and after January 1, 1989 or other date as specified and
payable to the duly elected, appointed, or hereby designated and appointed
non-union eplcyees of the City of Shakopee, in accordance with the attached
1989 pay schedule dated January 1, 1989 heretofore adopted, or hereinafter
adjusted.
BE IT FTWHER RESOLVED, that all aforesaid disbursements shall be made
subject to the prevailing conditions of employment and satisfactory performance
of all the respective duties and responsibilities as specified in State Law,
City Code and Resolutions as adopted, or amended and supplemented from time to
time by the Council.
BE IT FU= RESOLVED, that the City contribution for health, life,
long-term disability and dental insurance and/or an individualized health care
account as may be provided by Council, shall be no more than $245 per month per
employee, effective January 1, 1989. All employees shall receive this $10 per
month increase over the benefit provided in 1988.
BE IT FtMHER RESOLVED, that all Resolutions in conflict with this
Resolution are hereby repealed and terminated, effective January 1, 1989.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 19
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 19
City Attorney
1989 PAY SCHEDULE
JANUARY 1, 1989
Positions
Elected Officials Salary Authorized
Mayor $4,200 /yr 1
Councilpersons 3,600 /yr 5
City Employees
---------------
See attached 1989 Pay Plan
City shall pay 1/10th of the amount
shown on
the pay plan as its share for the
Community Recreation Director
Fire Chief
2,000
/yr
1
Assistant Fire Chief (1st)
1,000
/yr
1
Assistant Fire Chief (2nd)
900
/yr
1
Fire Department Engineer
1,650
/yr
1
1st Asst Fire Dept. Engineer
1,350
/yr
1
2nd Ass't Fire Dept. Engineer
700
/yr
1
Fire Training Officer
1,350
/yr
1
Fire Captain
500
/yr
2
Firemen
7.50
/hr
35
Misc. Temporary Employees
from 3.85
/hr
N/A
to 11.01
/hr
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
16 -Dec -88
Print
16 -Dec -88
Revised
1989
Pay Plan
------------------------------------------------------
Step
Step
Step
Step
Step Step
#1 -Start
#2-lYr
#3-2Yr
#4-3Yr
#5-4Yr #6 (Top)
JOB TITLE
------------------------
OVT
-----------------------------------------------------------
758
808
858
908
959 1008
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City Admin.
E
42,169
44,981
47,792
50,603
53,414 56,226
Fin. Director
E
35,463
37,827
40,192
42,556
44,920 47,284
Comm. Develop. Dir
E
33,440
35,669
37,898
40,127
42,357 44,586
Police Chief
E
37,489
39,988
42,488
44,987
47,486 49,986
Comm. Services Dir
E
29,582
35,060
37,251
39,442
41,634 43,825
City Engineer
E
33,945
36,208
38,471
40,734
42,997 45,260
PW Superintendent.
E
30,137
32,146
34,155
36,165
38,174 40,183
Building Official
E
29,470
31,435
33,400
35,364
37,329 39,294
City Clerk
E
25,825
------------------------------------------------------
27,546
29,268
30,990
32,711 34,433
step
Step
Step
Step
#1 -Start
#2-lYr
#3-2Yr
#4 (Top)
759
808
908
1008
Planner II
E
--------------------------------------
26,837
28,626
32,205
35,783
---------------
Dep Chief
E
31,534
33,636
37,840
42,045
Admin. Asst.
E
24,618
26,259
29,542
32,824
MIS Coordinator
E
25,678
27,390
30,814
34,238
Program Supervisor
E
24,084
25,690
28,901
32,112
Eng. Coordinator
25,169
26,847
30,203
33,559
Ass't Bldg Inspect
24,181
25,793
29,017
32,242
Housing Inspector
24,181
- 25,793
29,017
32,242
Tech III/MIS Cord.
23,940
25,536
28,727
31,919
Planner I
23,383
24,941
28,059
31,177
Sr.Act.Clk/Prsnl.Cord.
23,420
24,982
28,104
31,227
Tech III
21,698
23,144
26,037
28,930
Tech II
19,285
20,571
23,142
25,714
Secretary
16,831
17,953
20,198
22,442
Acct'g Clerk
15,766
16,817
18,919
21,021
Clerk/Typist II
15,640
16,683
18,768
20,854
Clerk/Typist I
13,838
14,760
16,605
18,450
Receptionist
13,537
14,440
16,245
18,050
Custodian
13,697
14,611
16,437
18,263
TEMPORARY/SEASONAL POSITIONS
START
1YR TOP
Engineering Inspector
9.61
10.68
Tree/Weed Inspector
5.40
6.00
Code Enforcement Officer
5.78
6.43
Public Works Laborer
5.40
6.00
Pool Aid
3.60
4.00
Pool Guard/Instructor
5.18
5.75
Pool Cashier
5.18
5.75
Pool Asst Manager
6.07
6.75
Pool Manager
6.30
7.00
/I
1AFMn
ro o
c� s.mmEiin
m
Eoo8oe8.�%�$
* ¢axq„ser
E�:: S.s""s2C.-
o ron�oomnl ,,,
P�
H"
.
1S'
9FM
�pp
n�fNmx
°
rni
Rp•
p0
Yn�Mi �� n pn�
6C
E
p.°O t'O
"'mak"e
g9n 9n Oe
:sFaR-
P ww wMp T"
Y. O
ia°r�E7
�f�.m1
-n"
°P6�
5,E
`we ••
iro5�2 r.
No
ggNb tlgrmmNN
ommmomrNm m............ tlbPmP
� oeEA�m
� �Z
,
M
.5
W.0OEM
@ a�moxE
¢
E0
as
m
o
g
° e
R Eoo H'
ii!»
n n
onoy �
mmmmm
.........
+neP U ......
......... moat/✓.eomq.eooummoNm
.ue✓Nomor1„1
1ruoN
a
M.1rr
rrrm
ormmNmm
mNrNru rm mr..r ......
rrrr rr I r 1
4m3
Z
mmromrom 2't/ S Z
MSSS S2Sr m2
tlo
n
�xxx
x x
x xx
xx xxx x x x�
xx x xxl°��"v
'm O$
,roiFP
ou
.allo mPPPmbm
oU....... uooa"rN�O�JmNNCNO>Nu
uauaOmmNi
♦ .Ufa
YPf R..R♦.ff
iflN♦R11.R...fY.iRRRR.11f.f YffY.R..RR♦fYf
YR.RR.1•
leo
p
m
i cm
r r,eaNrr
rr
uumm
....mm..ma
I . ....NNNmmbN .o
,.rw
it
NM
o
UUNNeobooNNUoemo.,
a......
00
µ w w
e�
m
?�s$i
..........,w,.
btl
ummb
b+Pwtltl+ oii`�;
,EC”
NN...........
NomromPmtlomNoao�a
abbrmom
NNNWetl...tlum..o00
Flil
.
NbN+m+w
.
rmrNOP
n
�r
NNNN.....................
........N..
8e
n°1110,
la„�„m�omNotlmmmgamN.,
bbtlromm
asm
�uoa:»N
¢
,mnmi
°
aaPm
Nggm
..,N.PN..
tl..m.m.mamAmm.P+maP
amPmPoa m¢
'six
w
N m
;A
V
p
i6a
Omj
NNUNN
C.i
C
E�m
ugNo
ooNb
borrwNN
oNNNo
uaab o..NNN+otlbbtloquP
.u.00Vm
i0
.mO
i Ia�1
s
rte'
m4
.Mboi
�1
1S'
...............Y
ueY..R u.........f♦.f..♦.fYYYf•
Rp•
°
5,E
No
ggNb tlgrmmNN
ommmomrNm m............ tlbPmP
amaooNm
'gm
m
o
.....a... mm....NmbgmNNN+Pmo.
.mmmmm-
+neP U ......
......... moat/✓.eomq.eooummoNm
.ue✓Nomor1„1
1ruoN
'm O$
ou
.allo mPPPmbm
oU....... uooa"rN�O�JmNNCNO>Nu
uauaOmmNi
♦ .Ufa
YPf R..R♦.ff
iflN♦R11.R...fY.iRRRR.11f.f YffY.R..RR♦fYf
YR.RR.1•
p
��
r r,eaNrr
NNuuorrorrrrogrrr
✓✓✓torr
it
NM
o
UUNNeobooNNUoemo.,
a......
µ w w
?�s$i
,EC”
NN...........
NomromPmtlomNoao�a
abbrmom
Flil
.
e
rel
mmmmm.,
�r
NNNN.....................
........N..
8e
n°1110,
la„�„m�omNotlmmmgamN.,
bbtlromm
mtl.orNmPm+..,q
........:.iza��9
v Fn�gg °rnE A >Y G5>fn
mos
Mit'^xPt;v
nrq M � S°XOM �� nn0. F1^i �-S� r� „E0.✓��•
x2^ s ^ Xg1 A
G O °02 PM„Xs
PM
X 0a z
ry WWMMW
a
inn 3 S Z 2 nnAAnn n 3 3
xxx x x x xx � xx xxx x x x 3E
�pJYY mNmm YJNWJN. JpJ.-NpmbNNNmmmr»Ybm
'ooU`
YN mmtl NbN N� rWrN.p off' :#� r
.m
� P�
sNNaPObNP
iVZ
xx
xxxx xxxxxxx
....... ...........
xxxxxxx
�w
rNONYNNosu000rrpsoY
iyi
otavivaJe
xx x
xavi�Niebisotauiwa........
♦f fffff
Rlafaffif
iRiiaaafff RRtaaaff lR Rftaaa afiRfR
iK 4ir
m„ooe�.oCoI.
�m5;
No
M. boYYrNv
ONNNourum un�boJNNN�omubOowwa
rt.`I O
iG
iaq
1.
Ml.
t zl
666666666 =1
u
.......
00000000. ...... ....NNN�.mOJ
sOoouoO N.'
v w
yy00
rY
000000N
N
0000YNO NONNNN NpNNNO
OJOYIp>giT
uNNJi01
PNr......
pu
NbOP 0N1J
NUUUO pWupNJ.O�N.PPJYubUu
rbubsNu
_
�r
"ppb
N . N=aN”
�mNNJN NN
»Cn
'Atl b'
PJ
M. sNUVus�
u000Nupuu YJtl.uo0o0JSJJr.....
OSJbJJr
i4fRfRafaf
4ltRaif RtRfRaaf
ltf Rf Ra of lff Hlafflf RRRif It
tfRaaaff tf laffif tRa
c
>
5
r0
flYN.NYr
n NNNN.rr.rrYY.pYrr
rrYY.YY
Mi
I$�81
.Ex
I
�E5»,
to
.
... ..... .p....
NI
..tl.JrxWtl.N.�
YI
x�r
' =N.
xxxxxxx
xxxx xxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx
Trade and Economic Development.
4. That the United States of America and the State of Minnesota
be and they hereby are, assured of full compliance by the
applicant with the regulations of the Department of
Interior, effectuating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964; Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504; Age
Discrimination Act of 1975; and Executive Order 11246, Equal
Employment Opportunity.
5. That the City of Shakopee enter into an agreement with the
State of Minnesota, Department of Trade and Economic
Development, Outdoor Recreation Grants Section, to provide
such grants as are specified in numbered paragraphs 1 and 2,
above, for the years 1988-1990.
6. That the Mayor of the City Council, the City Administrator
and the City Clerk are authorized and directed to execute
such agreement and any supplemental agreements thereof.
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:
ty Clerk
Approved as to form this _
day of 1988.
City Attorney
RESOLUTION #3000
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATE CITY
OFFICIALS TO SUBMIT A FINAL APPLICATION AND EXECUTION
OF SUBSEQUENT GRANT PROJECT AGREEMENTS TO DEVELOP EAST -SIDE
(JEJ) PARK UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE STATED BONDED FUND.
WHEREAS, the State Bonded Fund provides for the making of
grants to assist local governments in the acquisition and
development of outdoor recreation projects; and
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee desires to develop certain
land known as East -Side (JEJ) Park, which land is to be held and
used for permanent open space; and
WHEREAS, in order for the proposed project to be eligible
for approval, there must be proof that it is part rof a
comprehensive outdoor recreation plan and five-year action
program (capital improvement); and
WHEREAS, it is estimated that the cost of developing said
interest shall be $43,800.00; and
WHEREAS, upon project approval, the City of Shakopee must
enter into formal grant project agreements with the State for the
specific purpose of developing East -Side (JEJ) Park.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the
City of Shakopee:
That an application be made to the State of Minnesota,
Department of Trade and Economic Development, Outdoor
Recreation Grants Section, for a grant from the Bonded
Minnesota Laws 1987, Chapter 400, Section 8, subdivision 2
(a) for an amount presently estimated to be $43,800.00 and
the applicant will pay the balance of cost from other funds
available to it.
2. That the Mayor of the City Council, City Administrator and
City Clerk are directed to execute and file: a) such
application and the five-year action program with the State
of Minnesota, Department of Trade and Economic Development,
Outdoor Recreation Grants Section and to provide additional
information and furnish such documents as may be required by
said Department; and b) to act as the authorized
correspondents of the applicant.
3. That the proposed development is in accordance with plans
for the allocation of land for open space uses and that
should said grant be made, the applicant will develop and
retain said land for uses designated in said application and
approved by the National Park Service and the Department of
ALTERNATIVES•
1. Move to approve Resolution #3000 authorizing the appropriate
City officials to submit a final application and to execute
subsequent grant project agreements under the LAWCON
Program.
Do not approve Resolution #3000.
Staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Move to offer Resolution #3000 authorizing the appropriate
City officials to submit a final grant application and the
execution of subsequent grant project agreements to develop East-
side Park under the provisions of the State Bonded Fund (LAWCON).
CONSENT
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant
RE: 1989 LAWCON Grant Application (East -Side Park)
DATE: December 15, 1988
INTRODUCTION•
In June the Shakopee City Council authorized the appropriate
City officials to submit a preliminary grant application to the
Department of Trade and Economic Development for funding under
the 1989 LAWCON Program.
BACKGROUND:
In July the City of Shakopee submitted a preliminary
application for 1989 Outdoor Recreation Grant Program Assistance
(LAWCON). The application provided for the improvement and
development of East -Side Park (JEJ). The initial total project
cost estimate for the improvements was $55,000. The proposed
improvements included grading, sodding and seeding. The proposal
also addressed the construction of an ice rink, walking trail,
basketball court, archery range and relocation of a tot lot.
In November I received notification from the Department of
Trade and Economic Development indicating that the City of
Shakopee has received preliminary grant approval. The majority
of the project components were approved with the exception of the
archery range, biking/walking trail and relocation of a tot lot.
The present estimate for improvements that are eligible for
funding is $43,800. LAWCON program requires that 50% of this
amount be funded with local dollars. Shakopee's local match for
this project was not budgeted for in the upcoming 1989 budget.
It is my understanding that in 1989 the Park Reserve Fund will be
carrying a $15,000 shortfall on the funds available for
improvement, assuming all scheduled projects are completed. If
we are fortunate enough to receive final grant approval for the
East -Side Park project, Council will have to address the source
of local funds for this project. Alternatives include re -
prioritizing projects proposed for construction in 1989 or
adjusting the current City policy on the allocating park
dedication fees (development vs. acquisition). Since final grant
approval is not guaranteed, I am not proposing that we address
this issue at this time.
If City Council wishes to pursue the LAWCON application for
the development of East -Side Park, it would be appropriate at
this time to move approval of Resolution #3000 which authorizes
the appropriate City officials to submit a final application and
execution of subsequent grant project agreements to develop East -
Side Park.
0
rT{
yY]
H
x
H
0
m E
0
0 0<
K K N G) R N
'O WT W.
vHi
0
no
P mm
N p O R r
0
m
m
m F K
o rt
S F
0
0
nwOY
O
0
nm
O
Am
1
O
V R
rt K
m Y
T T
0 P00o
rt
W
Rl W m m Yw\0m
QH
HM
�C
xSab
W
rt
m µ
O pµ tn% 0
CO
• µ
\O
3
o m In
p
m
<
O
K 2'+
mSJ
O
m
m
R
W
M
M
a'J' m'J' rt G
K 0
N`
0
m O-
0 0
- 0
w
K
Q
0
a d
K
.
H 7
C µ
K
m
m m rt F
m 7
F
KIO W
C d
Wrt
m m
E
H C
K
0\
6
K K
m o
W O m
d
W
O w
-
o
m F rt m z
O Q
q w
W Q µ
m `0
'O
m K
d- m
R
K m m
m E
Y
d
F T r Y rt m
m O m
K F
Y
rt W
K 6 m
µ
�G
O R
0
O
0
O
0
R d N m
E w
o rt
�C b m
m
TSR
0
H
P
N S m
O
r rt O Y O
'o 7
W
0 µ
b S
Y
W m
I-
pnp
Km
N�o
RW
mG 49I
Y
rtrt
Pow
W K Q
Cm
'Jm
=O •
mR
SM
m
KO\to
'OP
n
O
mW 0
W
m O
0
MN
O
W r
m
O.5
MKF
NW
0 O
7m
\Wm
C o m
NO
Y
P 0 •O w
m m
W
w Y H
a 0
0
O
O
0 0 Y w
a C r
K m
µ P
m
M
p.
.
w
a
m K m W
0 m M
m 0
m O
0
£ O P
Nm
O PFHOOa
K W
R rtW
m rt
<'9
Q Y m T O
F 9 n
a m
0 R 0
0 n
a m
rt
m R m Po m
m 0 0
m y
0
W
rt
0 0
0
0 0 O d
rt K R
n
O
• N rt
m
91iM"0.0.0
0.
Moog
0>"M
o o
0
l
w
y
µ
w r
0
.O O
m
M 0 m R m
rt 0
N Ho
rt
O m
0 Y
R
0
rt
O M
FwEKm
o
•
t
g
a
O
WdµWWmKµm9O
Cm0
OH
n.rtHYy'xrtm'J
Q. 0
P Q
m
0 O .lm
rt W0
Y 0
O m
CYC
C
-
Rm
m
m
0
RO
WO
0
0
µ
O
H
7 m M rt S
W
O
0 H
wY
'J
b
m
Q M 00 µm
0
O rtSM
NW�K00K
o'MO
WCW
Row0
FPm'9
O
TxK
m
K
a
o .
wo
nwrtaQrWnr
m'<
0
m n
W
m
`°bv'dWpXBrtYWOnQ<C°
O
Tm
ort0-0
T v
0
r •
YTm
m
9
KnO
C
m a
00
O
m 0
H
O
irt
m
rrt
04rF
o
.oNnWS
IW
Wn
aa✓trt'.nRY•
o
mC
0
CW
mw
n3S
m
m
µM
00
0.KFan
mwO
••
0
O'd
M
M
µ• 0
a w
MN
<09m
Y£ Mw
M0rt
MPYbO
W
aoWKmmWW
-
mG.WKCap.
n
n H
H
0 n
n
H rt 0-
rt
0 o
mo
0W
0
rt
o
P0 0
O r
o
O
Y
m
O
µ
m
0
O
S
m Od P w
D a
m 0
M w
o
o
m
7
W
K O m
E
T
p
H
X
m
K
T q rt E
m
�•
n'c
m
m
R
W
W
0 E m
R rt
w
rt m
O
PW
n
0
O
mm
m
m
o
m
m
o
K
K
rt O
rt
F
m
W
S H S
n
m W P
N
Q
m
Q m
O
N N N
0
M
a
Y rt rt rt
b
N
N
K
F
0 W
N•
0 R
FT'•
K
rt
'O 'J p
w
nO
O
m K
o
K
W
Kh w
W m O w
• m
n
m w rt
rt
Q W
-
M
0 0
K m
o
�
n
Y
H
m w
-
m m
. N
m
w
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Newton Parker, Housing Inspector
RE: Adoption of Housing Code
DATE: December 14, 1988
INTRODUCTION:
At the Council's request, staff separated the fee section from
the proposed Housing Maintenance Code and attached it to an
amendment (2995) of the general fee resolution. The fee schedule
was also studied and modified. While looking at the fees, a
number of clarifications were suggested and incorporated in the
proposed code. The changed sections are 4.424 (1&5), 4.425(#1),
and 4.427. Section 4.429 (1) was also changed to March 15, 1989,
to allow more time to set up the Homestead program. All other
sections remain the same. As instructed the City attorney has
reviewed the code and prepared a summary for publication.
BACKGROUND:
The ad hoc committee that studied the fees for the Housing
Maintenance Code had some good suggestions for the clarification
and improvement of the Homestead portion of the code. Changes
were therefore made in the proposed code that better define the
process and which will facilitate the issuing of certificates of
occupancy.
The starting time for the Homestead part of the program was also
moved to March 15, 1989, for a couple of good reasons. Once in
place, homestead certificates will take priority over all other
certificates except those involved with immediate hazard
situations. The later date will give staff more time to inspect
the city core area before being pressed by the real estate
community. Moving the date will also give staff more time to
inform realtors and the public about the program and how it will
work. There is often a sharp rise in real estate listings during
February which might overload staff during the start-up phase.
By moving the date, staff should be better prepared to deal with
the increased load. As the program progresses, inspections of
homesteads will cycle quite well with inspections for rental
properties producing a steady year-round work load.
As directed by the Council, the City Attorney has reviewed the
proposed code and has prepared a summary ordinance for
publication in the newspaper.
- 2 -
ALTERNATIVES•
1) Adapt Housing Maintenance Code (Ordinance #261).
2) Make additions/changes in proposed Code.
RECOMMENDATION•
Staff recommends alternative number 1, adopting the Housing
Maintenance code (Ordinance #261).
ACTION REOUESTED:
Offer Ordinance 261, Housing Maintenance Code, and move its
adoption.
ORDINANCE # 261
Fourth Series
pC,
An ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota,
Amending the Shakopee City Code Chapter 4 entitled
"Construction Licensing, Permits and Regulations" by
Repealing Section 4.40 entitled "Housing Code" and by
Enacting a New Section 4.40 entitled "Housing
Maintenance Code" and by Adopting by Reference Shakopee
City Code Chapter 1 and Section 4.99 Which Among Other
Things Contain Penalty Provisions
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
SECTION I: Repeal
Section 4.40 of the Code entitled "Housing Code" is hereby
repealed.
SECTION II: Adopt
New Section 4.40 entitled "Housing Maintenance Code" is
hereby adopted.
Subd. 4.401. The Uniform Housing Code, 1985 edition,
published by the international conference of Building
Officials, is hereby adopted by reference as though set
forth verbatim herein. One copy of the said code shall be
marked CITY OF SHAKOPEE - OFFICIAL COPY and kept on file in
the office of the City Administrator and open to inspection
and use by the public.
Source: Ordinance No. 225, 4th series.
Effective date: 5-27-87
Subd. 4.402. Title and Scope (See Chapter 1, Uniform
Housing Code).
1. Application. The provisions of this Housing Code shall
provide minimum requirements to safeguard health,
property and public welfare by regulating and
controlling the use, occupancy, location and
maintenance of all residential buildings, structures
and accessory structures within the City of Shakopee.
The provisions of this Housing Code shall apply to all
buildings or portions thereof used, designed or
intended to be used for human habitation. Applicable
requirements shall apply to all accessory structures,
rooming houses, lodging and/or boarding houses and
house trailers used for human habitation.
2. Conflict of Ordinances. In any case where a provision
of this ordinance is found to be in conflict with a
provision of any zoning, building, fire, safety, or
health ordinance or code of this City, the provision
which establishes the higher standard for the promotion
and protection of the health and safety of the people
shall prevail.
Effect of Partial Invalidity. If any subsection,
paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
ordinance should be declared invalid for any reason
whatsoever, such decision shall not affect the
remaining portions of this ordinance, which shall
remain in full force and effect; and to this end the
provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be
severable.
Alteration. Existing buildings which are altered or
enlarged shall be made to conform to this Code insofar
as new work, alterations or enlargements are concerned.
If the alterations are such that they cause or threaten
to cause unsafe conditions in the unaltered portions of
a building or threaten the safety or safe operation of
other nearby structures, then said alterations are
prohibited unless the affected structures are also
brought into compliance with this and/or other
appropriate codes.
Requirements for. Repair and Replacement Work. Any
person doing any repair and/or replacement work on any
residential building, structure and accessory structure
covered in this ordinance Code shall complete the
repair and/or replacement work in compliance with the
standards contained in the definitions of repair and/or
replacement in Subd. 4.410 herein.
6. Relocation. Existing buildings which are moved or
relocated shall be considered as new buildings and
shall comply with all requirements of this Code.
Subd. 4.403. Enforcement (reference Chapter 2, Uniform
Housing Code).
Authority. The Building Official is hereby authorized
and directed to enforce all the provisions of this
Code.
Right of Entry. Upon presentation of proper
credentials the Building official or his duly
authorized representatives may enter at reasonable
times any building, structure, or premises in the City
to perform any duty imposed upon him by this Code.
Privacy. The Building Official shall keep confidential
all evidence exclusive of the inspection record, which
it may discover or obtain in the course of an
inspection made pursuant to this section and such
// C'
evidence shall be considered privileged.
Responsibilities Defined
a. Every owner remains liable for violations of duties
imposed upon him by this Code even though an obligation
is also imposed on the occupants of his building, and
even though the owner has, by agreement, imposed on the
occupant the duty of furnishing required equipment or
of complying with this Code.
b. Every owner, or his agent, in addition to being
responsible for maintaining his building in a sound
structural condition, shall be responsible for keeping
that part of the building or premises which he occupies
or controls in a clean, sanitary and safe condition
including the shared or public areas in a building
containing two or more dwelling units.
C. Every owner shall, where required by this Code,
furnish and maintain approved sanitary facilities as
required, and shall furnish and maintain approved
equipment or facilities for the prevention of insect
and rodent infestation, and where infestation has taken
place, shall be responsible for the extermination of
any insects, rodents or other pests.
d. Heating Rental Properties. Every owner, operator
or manager of any building who rents, leases or lets
for human habitation any habitable room contained
within such building on terms, either expressed or
implied, to supply or furnish heat to the occupants
thereof, shall maintain a minimum temperature of 68
degrees Fahrenheit between September 1 and June 1,
inclusive, at a point 3 feet above the floor level and
not closer than 36 inches from any wall. The heating
equipment shall be properly installed and maintained
throughout the year.
e. All occupants shall, where required by this Code,
keep their premises in a safe and sanitary condition.
f. Every occupant of a dwelling unit, in addition to
being responsible for keeping the dwelling or dwelling
unit or premises which they occupy and control, in a
clean, sanitary and safe condition, shall dispose of
all rubbish, garbage and other organic waste in a
manner required by this Code.
Subd. 4.404. Hazardous Buildings (reference Chapter 10,
uniform Housing Code). All buildings or portions thereof
which are determined to be substandard as defined in this
Ordinance Code are hereby declared to be public nuisances
and shall be abated by repair, rehabilitation, demolition or
removal in accordance with the procedure specified in
Chapter 11 of the Uniform Housing Code.
Subd. 4.405. Posting to Prevent Occupancy (reference
Chapter 11, Uniform Housing Code and section 4.09 of this
code). The Building Official may post any building or
structure under his jurisdiction when found to be in direct
violation of the Housing Code, preventing further occupancy.
Posting will occur if any owner, agent, licensee or other
responsible person has been notified by inspection report of
the items which must be corrected within a certain stated,
reasonable period of time and that the responsible person or
persons has failed to correct the cited items. In cases of
emergency, a building or premises may be immediately posted
and the occupants, if any, evacuated. No person shall
remove or tamper with any placard used for posting. No
person shall reside in, occupy or cause to be occupied any
building, structure or dwelling which has been posted to
prevent occupancy.
Subd. 4.406. Appeals !reference Chapter 12, Uniform Housing
Code). Whenever the Building Official shall take action
which is disputed, or when it is claimed that the provisions
of the Code do not apply or that the true intent and meaning
of the Code have been misconstrued or wrongfully
interpreted, the aggrieved party may appeal within 30 days
from the date of the decision of the Building Official to
the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board as directed by
section 203 of the Uniform Housing Code. Actions of the
this board may also be appealed to the City Council for
final decision. All appeals to the City Council require a
non-refundable fee.
Subd. 4.407. Procedure for Conduct of Hearing Appeals
(reference Chapter 13, Uniform Housing Code).
Subd. 4.408. Permits and Insoections (reference Chapter 3,
Uniform Housing Code). The following repairs are exempt
from building permit requirements, if they do not affect or
involve any plumbing, electrical, mechanical, structural or
subsurface member and if the repair returns the affected
area to its intended original condition:
Paint
Siding
Roofing/Gutters/Downspouts
Trim/Moldings/Shutters/Decorations
Glass (but not window frames)
Weatherstripping/Caulk/Tuck Pointing
Walks/Landscape Masonry (if not on City easement)
Non -Structural Hardware
Finish Flooring/Carpets
Door Slabs (but not door frames)
Fences
O££icial or Housing Advisory and Appeals Board. (reference
Chapter 14, Uniform Housing Code).
Subd. 4.410. Definitions (reference Chapter 12, Uniform
Housing Code). For the purpose of this Code, certain
abbreviations, terms, phrases, words and their derivatives
shall be construed as specified in this Part. Words used in
the singular include the plural and the plural the singular.
Words used in the masculine gender include the feminine, and
the feminine the masculine. Terms, words, phrases and their
derivatives used but not specifically defined in this Code
shall have the meaning defined in Chapter 4 of the Uniform
Building Code, as adopted by reference as a part of the
Shakopee Ordinance Code.
Accessory Building or Structure. Accessory building or
structure shall mean a detached building or structure in a
secondary or subordinate capacity from the main or principal
building or structure on the same premises.
Apartment House. Apartment house is any building, or
portion thereof, which is designed, built, rented, leased,
let or hired out to be occupied, or which is occupied as the
home or residence of two or more families living
independently of each other performing their own cooking
services in the apartment house.
Bulk Container. Bulk container shall mean any metal
garbage, rubbish and/or refuse container having a capacity
of (2) cubic yards or greater and which is equipped with
fittings for hydraulic and/or mechanical emptying, unloading
and/or removal.
Board of Appeals. Board of Appeals when used herein shall
mean the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board of the City of
Shakopee.
Building Official, Health Officer. The Building Official or
Health Officer shall be defined as the person or persons
designated as Building Official or Health Authority by the
City Administrator.
Dormitory. Dormitory shall mean a building or group of
rooms in a building used for institutional living and
sleeping purposes by (4) or more persons.
Dwelling. Dwelling shall mean any space wholly or partially
used or intended to be used for living, sleeping, cooking,
and eating: provided that temporary housing as hereinafter
defined shall not be classified as a dwelling.
Industrialized housing and modular construction which
conform to nationally accepted industry standards and used
or intended for use for living, sleeping, cooking and eating
purposes shall be classified as dwellings.
Dwelling Unit. A dwelling unit is a room or group of rooms
located within a dwelling forming a single habitable unit
with facilities used or intended to be used by a single
family for living, sleeping, cooking and eating purposes.
Efficiency Living Units. Efficiency living unit is any room
having cooking facilities used for combined living, dining
and sleeping purposes and meeting the requirements of
Section 503(b) Exception, of the Uniform Housing Code.
Egress. Egress shall mean an arrangement of exit facilities
to assure a safe means of exit from buildings.
Family. For housing purposes family shall mean one or more
individuals living together and sharing common living,
sleeping , cooking and eating facilities. For purposes of
this code family shall mean the same as household.
Habitable Room. Habitable room shall mean a room or
enclosed floor space used or intended to be used for living,
sleeping, cooking, or eating purposes, excluding bathrooms,
water closet compartments, laundries, furnace rooms,
pantries, kitchenettes, and utility rooms of less than (50)
square feet of floor space, foyers, or communicating
corridors, stairways, closets, storage spaces, and
workshops, hobby and recreation areas.
Hot Water. Hot water shall be water at temperature of not
less than 110 degrees fahrenheit.
Household. A household shall mean a family as defined in
this subdivision.
Guest. Guest shall mean an individual who shares a dwelling
unit in a non -permanent status for not more than (30) days.
Kitchen. Kitchen shall mean any room used for the storage,
preparation, and serving of food and that contains at least
the following equipment: sink, stove or microwave oven,
refrigerator, cabinets and/or shelves, and a counter or
table.
Kitchenette. Kitchenette shall mean a small kitchen or an
alcove containing cooking facilities.
Nuisance. The following shall be defined as nuisances:
1. Any public nuisance known at common law or in equity
jurisprudence.
2. Any attractive nuisance which may prove detrimental to
children whether in a building, on the premises of a
// C,
building, or upon an unoccupied lot. This includes any
abandoned wells, shafts, basements or excavations;
abandoned refrigerators and motor vehicles; or any
structurally unsound fences or structures; or any
lumber, trash, fences, debris, or vegetation which may
prove a hazard for inquisitive minors.
3. whatever is dangerous to human life or is detrimental
to health.
4. overcrowding a room with occupants.
S. Insufficient ventilation or illumination.
6. Inadequate or unsanitary sewerage or plumbing
facilities.
7. uncleanliness.
8. Whatever renders air, food or drink unwholesome or
detrimental to the health of human beings.
Occupant. Any person, firm, partnership, association,
organization, corporation or other who shall be in actual
possession or have charge, care or control of any dwelling
within the City.
Ordinary Summer Conditions. ordinary summer conditions
shall mean a temperature of (92) degrees fahrenheit.
ordinary winter Conditions. ordinary winter conditions
shall mean a temperature of (-18) degrees fahrenheit.
Owner. Any person, firm, partnership, corporation or other
association who alone, jointly, or severally with others is
the fee owner of record of any dwelling or dwelling unit
within the City or any trustee or guardian or other
representative of the fee owner or his estate.
Person. The word "person" shall include a corporation,
firm, partnership, association, organization and any other
group acting as a unit as well as individual. It shall also
include an executor, administrator, trustee, receiver or
other representative appointed according to law. Whenever
the word "person" is used in any section of this Code
prescribing a penalty or fine as to partnerships or
association, the word shall include the officers, agents or
members thereof who are responsible for any violation of
such section.
Plumbing. Plumbing shall mean any and all equipment,
fixtures, and connections made to water, sewer or gas lines
including but not limited to the following: gas pipes, gas
burning equipment, water pipes, garbage disposal units,
waste pipes, water closets, sinks, installed dishwashers,
lavatories, bathtubs, shower baths, installed clothes
washing machines, catch basins, drains, vents, valves and
connectors.
Premises. Premises shall mean a parcel of land either
occupied or unoccupied by any structure or structures.
Privacy. Privacy shall mean the existence of conditions
which will permit an individual or individuals to carry out
an activity commenced without interruption or interference,
either by sight, sound, or presence by unwanted individuals.
Properly Connected. Properly connected shall mean connected
in accordance with accepted industry standards and/or all
applicable code and ordinances of this City as from time to
time enforced; provided, however, that the application of
this definition shall not require the alteration or
replacement of any connection in good working order and not
constituting a hazard to life or health.
Repair. Repair shall mean to restore to a sound, acceptable
state of operation, serviceability or appearance. Repairs
shall be expected to last approximately as long as would the
replacement by new items.
Replace or Replacement. Replace or replacement shall mean
to remove an existing item or portion of a system and to
construct or install a new item of a quality similar to that
of the existing item when it was new. Replacement
ordinarily takes place when repair of the item is
impractical.
Rooming House. Rooming house shall mean any dwelling other
than a hotel or motel or that part of any dwelling
containing (1) or more rooming units, and/or (1) or more
dormitory rooms and in which persons either individually or
as families are housed without the provision of meals.
Space Heater. Space heater shall mean a self-contained,
heating appliance of either the convection or radiant type
and intended primarily to heat only a limited space or area
such as one room or two adjoining rooms.
Temporary Housing_ Temporary housing shall mean any tent,
trailer, mobile home or any other structure used for human
shelter which is designed to be transportable and which is
not attached to the ground, to another structure, or to any
utility system on the same premises for more than (30)
consecutive days.
Water Closet. Water closet shall mean a toilet bowl which
is flushed with water which has been supplied under pressure
and equipped with a water sealed trap above the floor level.
// C'
Subd. 4.411. Built-in Deficiencies Exempt. The following
are built-in deficiencies and shall be exempt from
compliance with the Ordinance Code; provided, that such
built-in deficiencies were in compliance with a building
code at the time of construction and/or do not pose a
hazard.
1. Ceiling Height: Any existing habitable room with less
than a 7.5 foot ceiling height shall be considered a
built-in deficiency which is beyond reasonable
correction.
Superficial Floor Areas: Any existing habitable room
of less than 90 square feet shall be considered a
built-in deficiency and beyond reasonable correction.
Natural Licht and ventilation: Any existing habitable
room with window area less than 10 percent of the floor
area shall be considered a built-in deficiency beyond
reasonable correction but in no case shall the required
natural light and ventilation be less than 5 percent of
the floor area.
Subd. 4.412. Space and Occupancy Standards (reference
Chapter 5, Uniform Housing Code). No person shall occupy as
owner, occupant or let to another for occupancy any dwelling
or dwelling unit, for the purposes of living, sleeping,
cooking or eating therein, which does not comply with the
following requirements:
Every dwelling unit shall have a room or portion of a
room in which food may be prepared and/or cooked, which
shall have adequate circulation area, and which shall
be equipped with the following:
a. A kitchen sink in good working condition and
properly connected to a water supply system which
is approved by the appropriate authority and which
provides at all times an adequate amount of heated
and unheated running water under pressure, and
which is connected to a sewer system approved by
the City of Shakopee.
b. Cabinets and/or shelves for the storage of eating,
drinking, and cooking equipment and utensils and
of food that does not under ordinary summer
conditions require refrigeration for safe keeping;
and a counter or table for food preparation; said
cabinets and/or shelves and counter or table shall
be of sound construction furnished with surfaces
that are easily cleanable and that will not impart
any toxic or harmful effect to food.
A stove, or similar device, for cooking food, and
a refrigerator, or similar device, for the safe
storage of food at temperatures less than 45
degrees (F) but more than 32 degrees (F) under
ordinary maximum summer conditions, which are
properly installed with all necessary connections
for safe, sanitary and efficient operation;
provided that such stove, refrigerator, and/or
similar devices need not be installed when a
dwelling unit is not occupied and when the
occupant is expected to provide same on occupancy,
and that sufficient space and adequate connections
for the safe and efficient installation and
operation of said, stove, refrigerator and/or
similar devices are provided.
2. Within every dwelling unit there shall be a non -
habitable room which affords privacy to a person within
said room and which is equipped with a flush water
closet in good working condition. Said flush water
closet shall be equipped with easily cleanable
surfaces, be properly connected to a water system that
at all times provides an adequate amount of running
water under pressure to cause the water closet to be
operated properly, and shall be properly connected to a
sewer system which is approved by the City of Shakopee.
The room shall have an operable window or mechanical
ventilation sufficient to provide the equivalent of 5
air exchanges per hour.
Within every dwelling unit there shall be a lavatory
sink. Said lavatory sink may be in the same room as
the flush water closet, or, if located in another room,
the lavatory sink shall be located in close proximity
to the door leading directly into the room in which
said water closet is located. The lavatory sink shall
be in good working condition and properly connected to
a water supply system which is approved by the
appropriate authority and which provides at all times
an adequate amount of heated and unheated running water
under pressure, and which is properly connected to a
sewer system approved by the appropriate authority.
Water inlets for lavatory sinks shall be located above
the overflow rim of these facilities.
Within every dwelling unit there shall be a room which
affords privacy to a person within said room and which
is equipped with a bathtub or shower in good working
condition. Said bathtub or shower may be in the same
rooms as the flush water closet or in another room and
shall be properly connected to a water supply system
which is approved by the appropriate authority and
which provides at all times an adequate amount of
heated and unheated water under pressure, and which is
/I G
connected to a sewer system approved by the appropriate
authority. Water inlets for bathtubs shall be located
above the overflow rim of these facilities.
Every dwelling unit shall have at least two (2) means
of egress leading to safe and open space at ground
level, and which meet all requirements of Chapter 8 of
the Uniform Housing Code. Every dwelling unit in a
multiple dwelling shall have immediate access to two
(2) or more approved means of egress leading to safe
and open space at ground level, or as required by the
laws of this State and the City of Shakopee. Bedrooms
located below the fourth (4th) floor shall be provided
with an exterior door or window of such dimensions as
to be used as a means of emergency egress.
6. Structurally sound hand rails shall be provided on any
steps containing four (4) risers or more. Porches,
patios, and/or balconies located more than three (3)
feet higher than the adjacent area shall have
structurally sound protective guard or hand rails.
7. Each dwelling unit shall have facilities for the safe
storage of drugs and household poisons.
8. Access to or egress from each dwelling unit shall be
provided without passing through any other dwelling
unit.
9. No person shall let to another for occupancy any
dwelling or dwelling unit unless all exterior doors
and windows of the dwelling or dwelling unit are
equipped with appropriate, functioning locking devices.
10. Every foundation, roof, floor, exterior and interior
wall, ceiling, inside and outside stair, every porch,
and every appurtenance thereto, shall be safe to use
and capable of supporting the loads that normal use may
cause to be placed thereon; and shall be kept in sound
condition and good repair. Every inside and outside
stair or step shall have uniform risers and uniform
treads.
11. Every foundation, roof and exterior wall, door,
skylight and window shall be reasonably weather -tight,
water -tight and damp -free, and shall be kept in sound
condition and good repair. Floors, interior walls and
ceilings shall be sound and in good repair. All
exterior wood surfaces, other than decay resistant
woods, shall be protected from the elements and decay
by paint which is not lead-based paint or by other
protective covering or treatment. Walls shall be
capable of affording privacy for the occupants.