HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/07/1989 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator
RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items
DATE: February 3 , 1989
1. on January 27th, the City was served a summons regarding a
law suit against Valley Ice Arena, Inc. The City is also
named in the suit. (An individual was injured on January
29, 1988 when she fell on a patch of ice within the
building. ) Valley Ice Arena, Inc. has insurance and the
City is named as an additional insured. A copy of the
summons has been passed on to our insurance agent, pursuant
to our procedure.
2. Both the Knights of Columbus and the Eagles have applied for
renewal of their gambling licenses. They do meet the
requirements of the City Code.
3. The Conciliation Court decision regarding the DuBois/Hauer
Austin Street vacation was stayed (erased) . The City has
been served a summons for District Court on March 16, 1989.
The matter has been referred to Mr. Coller.
4. We have received a nice thank you card from the Brinkhaus
Family for flowers sent to the funeral for Todd Brinkhaus'
mother.
5. We have received a nice thank you card from the Vera H. Wall
Family for flowers sent to the funeral for Cora Hullander's
grandmother.
6. Attached is a memorandum from Julius Coller regarding
clarification of his earlier memos on the relationship of
the City Council and the Public Utility Commission.
7. Attached is a memorandum from Judy Cox regarding an
expression of appreciation to those who have served on
boards and commissions.
8. Attached are copies of two letters from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency granting approval of the final
plans and specifications and Addenda 0, 1 and 2 for the Blue
Lake Site preparations.
9. Attached is a copy of a letter to Chief Brownell from the
Mike Roles Family thanking Officers Clark and Koch for their
kind and professional response to a call to the Mike Roles
home on January 13th.
10. Attached is the monthly calendar for February.
11. Attached is the Business Update from City Hall for February.
12 . Attached is the Building Activity Report for January.
13. Attached is the Program Costs by Department as of January
24, 1989 .
14. Attached is the Ehlers and Associates, Inc. bi-monthly
newsletter.
15. Attached are the July 25, 1988 minutes of the Cable
Communications Advisory Commission.
16. Attached are the December 14, 1988 minutes of the Energy and
Transportation Committee.
17. Attached are the January 5, 1989 minutes of the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals and Planning Commission.
18. Attached are the February 9, 1989 agendas for the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals and Planning Commission.
DRK/jms
( .C?XMF MINNESOTA IN DISTRICT COURT {�
COUNTY OF SCOTT �J '
COURT NOU:E 212 . .
SH61cE444M
N 53 9
612 445-7750 EXT. 200 0IiCE
r, ZO
IN_IUE_MOIIEE-QE. C' C :- _' .. .. . . -
f
CASE NUSER SS-10764
TO: CITY OF SHAY.OPEE PLAINTIFF - OU BOIS, ALBERT
129 E. IST AVENUE VS.
SHAKOPEE KN 55379 DEFENDANT - CITY OF SW'.GPEE
COUNT i GENERAL CIVIL ACTION 9-1 KR
_ BE AIv;IGa THAT (ALAN) COURT TRIAL IN THE ABOVE NAM€O CAUSE WILL BE HELD AT 1
9:Ory A.M. 6.`J MARCH 16, 1969 BEFORE THE HONORABLE (TO BE ASSIGNED) OR AS IO EIiIATELY
( THEREAFTER AS THE COURT IS AVAILABLE. E
( f
f
GREGORY M. ESS 1
COURT AIkMINISTRATOR
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY QF THIS NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ABOVE ADORESS BY FIRST CLASS U.S. WAIL ON 89-01-19.
DEPUTY CLERK
A
(
1A6AY CC 10 � �� fw IRA u✓� '
Julius A. COLLER. II
-co uce ArroRNEY AT LAW slams-rasa
IBBB.IBRO weer nv anoe
SRAEOPEE.MINNESOTA
55379
January 12, 1989
Memo to: Lou Van Rout r"
Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator
Judy Cox, City Clerk
From: Julius A. Collar, II, City Attorney
Clarification of my memorandum of earlier this fall and my supplemental -
memorandum on November 23, 1988, on the relationship of the Shakopee City
Council and The Shakopee Public Utility Commission.
Just to avoid confusion, the first memorandum was based upon the State Law
as it existed at the time the Utility Commission was created and on the fact
that the City of Shakoepe was operating under a special Legislative Charter.
Since originally adopted original Chapter 453 was abolished and Chapter 412
was enacted and in my second memorandum I still quote Chapter 453 and also
quote 412. The reason for so doing is to show that the powers orginally
possessed by the utility commission as far as their relationship to the City
and the Coucnil is concerned remains substantially unchanged except the
Utility powers were somewhat broadened.
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk �f�
RE: An Expression of Appreciation to Those Who Have Served
on Boards and Commissions
DATE: January 30, 1989
INTRODUCTION-
The attached policy was prepared as a guide for Council for
expressing appreciation to those who have served on boards and
commissions.
BACKGROUND:
There is no consistent policy which addresses when a
resolution of appreciation is prepared for an individual who has
served on a board or commission. For the most part, they have
been prepared for anyone who has served on a board or commission
over a year. There are times when the number of meetings are
minimal and/or the amount of contribution is limited. In this
case an individual may not feel comfortable or deserving of being
presented with a framed resolution of appreciation. In addition,
the meaning of being presented with a framed resolution of
appreciation is diminished when it is a routine matter.
To make the presentation of a framed resolution of
appreciation more meaningful, and at the same time recognize the
contributions and time spent by everyone who has served on a
board or commission, the attached policy has been prepared.
If any Councilmember wishes to expand on it, please let me
know. If anyone wishes to discuss it at a Council meeting,
please feel free to do so.
FOLLOW-UP-
This will become an administrative policy, unless I here
from Councilmembers. It can be changed at any time whenever
there is a desire to do so.
JSC/tiv
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY NO.
SUBJECT: An Expression of Appreciation to Those
Who Have Served on Boards and
Commissions
DATE ADOPTED: February 7, 1989
SOURCE OF AUTHORITY: City Administrator
(CC:City Council 2-7-89 as an info item)
Residents (and sometime employees) of the City of Shakopee
give of their time and talents by serving on boards and
commissions established by the City Council. When a member of a
board or commission resigns or when a member's term expires, the
Council desires to express their appreciation to the member for
their time and effort. The following policy will be a guide used
in expressing appreciation to the board and commission members
when they retire from service.
1) A letter of appreciation, signed by the Mayor, shall be
mailed to anyone who has served on a board or commission up
to a total of five years. If the individual serves on two
boards or commission simultaneously, the time will not be
doubled to account for the total number of years of
service.
2) A Resolution of Appreciation will be adopted at a Council
meeting for anyone who has served more than five years on a
board(s) or commission(s) . The individual will be invited
to the Council meeting to receive a framed copy of the
resolution.
3) Council may, at their discretion, deviate from this policy.
For example: the Council may wish to adopt a resolution of
appreciation for an individual who has served less than five
years and whose efforts and contributions were above and
exemplary; or Council may wish to adopt a resolution of -
appreciation for all members of a committee which was set up
to accomplish a specific task.
The City Clerk will follow the above described policy,
unless directed otherwise, by motion of the City Council, as
outlined in number 3 above.
JSC/tiv
K)N
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
IMMA
January 23, 1989
Mr. Gordon Voss
Chief Administrator
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
Mears Park Centre
230 East Fifth Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Dear Mr. Voss:
RE: NPDES and State Disposal System
Permit No. MN 0029882
Plans and Specifications
MWCC - Blue Lake Site Preparation
Nongrant
We are pleased to inform you that we are hereby granting approval of the final
plans and specifications for the Blue Lake Site preparations. The approval is -
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 115 and 116, as amended. The legal
description of the location of the proposed facility is Section 2, Township 27
North, Range 22 West, Shakopee Township, Scott County.
The final plans and specifications and related information indicate that the
project will consist of :
1. Concrete diversion structure and related work to redirect flow from
78-inch line to aerated pond.
2. Floating baffles in aerated pond and related work.
3. Earthen dike with sheet piling cut-off at the east end of aerated pond.
4. Water and sludge removal from east end of existing aerated pond.
5. Site clearing and bulk excavation for future treatment units.
6. Fencing, site demolition, paving and miscellaneous incidental work as -
required.
Phone1672)296-9272
520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Regional Offices • DululhlBrainerd/Detroit Lakesimarshall/Rochester
Equal Opportunity Employer
Mr. Gnrdon Voss
Page 2
The required work is further described in the project manual by the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and Rieke, Carroll, Muller Associates,
Inc. , dated November 1988.
The Agency, its officers, employees and agents ("Agency") review, comment
upon, and approve plans and specifications for the limited administrative
purpose of determining whether there is reasonable assurance that the
treatment system, when constructed, will comply with the regulations and
criteria of the Agency.
Agency approval of these documents shall not in any way relieve the grantee or
the engineer of responsibility, nor shall it make the Agency responsible, for
the technical adequacy of the engineer's work.
Any alterations or additions to the treatment system's approved plans and
specifications must be submitted to the Agency as a Plan and Specification
Addendum and be approved by the Agency prior to bid opening. Any Addenda
received at the MPCA that does not allow sufficient time for Agency review
may result in changes being unallowable or cause the project to be rebid.
Alterations or additions to the treatment system's approved plans and
specifications proposed after award of contract must be submitted in a
Change Order and approved by the Agency.
There should be no advertisement for bids and no construction may be
initiated until one set of the Plans and Specifications that are to be bid
is submitted. If any changes are made to the original approved set, the
revised set should be submitted as an Addendum with an accompanying letter
that details all changes and the justification for these changes. The
Addendum must be submitted to the MPCA early enough to allow sufficient time
for Agency review and approval. Otherwise, this may result in changes being
unallowable or cause the project to be rebid.
This Agency must be notified at least one week prior to the start of
operation in order that a construction inspection may be performed by MPCA
personnel.
This approval shall not relieve the Permittee from complying with all
conditions and requirements of the NPDES and State Disposal System Permit
and shall be retained by the Permittee with the Permit.
After completion of construction, two sets of as-built plans and
specifications on microfiche must be submitted to the MPCA. The plan sheets
must be provided at 24X reduction and mounted in a white aperture card. The
specifications must be provided at 25X reduction in 5 channel white 6x4
microfilm jackets. Both documents must be filmed on negative silver film.
D
Mr. Cordon Voss
Page 3
Any questions regarding this approval should be directed to Bruce P.
Henningsgaard at (612) 296-9289.
Sincerely,
Richard
;r.Z.afent
Richard J. Sandberg,Municipal Wastewater Section
Division of Water Quality
RJS/BPB:jae
cc: Ms. Carol Mordorski, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
Mr. Sam L. Claassen, Rieke, Carroll, Muller Associates, Inc. , Minnetonka
Planning and Zoning Commission, Scott County
Township of Shakopee, Chairman
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
iffJanuary 23, 1989
Mr. Gordon Voss
Chief Administrator
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission .
Mears Park Centre
230 East Fifth Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
- -Dear Mr.Mr. Voss:
RE: NPDES and State Disposal System
Permit No. MN 0029882
Addenda 0, 1, 2
MWCC - Blue Lake Site Preparation
Nongrant
We are pleased to inform you that we are hereby granting approval of the above
addenda to the plans and specifications. Per the approval letter for the
final plans and specifications, the level of treatment is governed by the
provisions of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and
State Disposal System Permit No. MN 0029882 dated September 30, 1987. The
approval is pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 115 and 116, as amended.
The addenda are attached.
The Agency, its officers, employees and agents ("Agency") review, comment upon
and approve addenda for the limited administrative purpose of determining
whether there is reasonable assurance that the treatment system, when
constructed, will comply with the regulations and criteria of the Agency.
The Agency reviews and comments upon the advertisement for bids, information
for bidders, contract, and other front-end documents which provide the basis
for this approval solely for the limited administrative purpose of determining
whether there is reasonable assurance that these documents are in conformance
with applicable federal and Minnesota laws, regulations, rules and
administrative requirements.
Agency approval of these documents shall not in any way relieve the grantee. or
the engineer of responsibility, nor shall it make the Agency responsible, for
the technical adequacy of the engineer's work.
No other alterations or additions to the treatment system shall be made until
the Permittee has submitted plans and specifications for the change to the
Agency and has received the written approval of the Director.
Phone:if]3L9.Sz= 8
520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Regional Offices • DuluthlBrainerdlDetroit LakeslMarshall/Rochester
Equal opponunity Employer
g
Mr. l;nrdon Voss
Page 2
For those projects proposing to utilize Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
or Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) construction grant funds, there
should be no execution of the construction contract until MPCA endorsement is
received.
This approval shall not relieve the Permittee from complying with all
conditions and requirements of the NPDES and State Disposal System Permit and
shall be retained by the Permittee with the Permit.
Any questions regarding this approval should be directed to Bruce P.
Henningsgaard -at (612) 296-92289. -
Sin r ly,
John E. Hensel, "P.E. , Supervisor
Community Assistance Unit 2
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Section
Division of Water Quality
JEH/BPH:lyj
cc: Ms. Carol Mordorski, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
(with enclosure)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Treatment Works Section,
Attn: Bruce Ragan (with enclosure)
Mr. Sam L. Claassen, Rieke, Carroll, Muller S Associates, Inc.
Planning and Zoning Commission, Scott County
Township of Shakopee, Chairman
lel l�iE'q
/'Zj# I
k&o, ,ba � awtx� aG 7P . ��e
r � �
-of
q -do
�� fit, a�uc�0
,C+e�,� av�cQ Glu
February 1989
UPCOMING MEETINGS
SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SRT
1 2 3 4
5 5 7 8 9 10 11
4:30pm 7:00pm City 10:00am City
Public Council Council
Utilities 7:30pm
7:30pm Comp Planning
Plan Commission
Meeting
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
4:00pm 7:45am
Goals & Downtown
Objectives Committee
5:30pm CDC
7:00pm
Energy &
Transp.
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
City Hall 7:00pm City
Closed Council
26 27 28
January March
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30 31
BUSINESS UPDATE FROM CITY HALL
Vol. 3 No. 2
Dear Chamber Member: February 1, 1989
ADMINISTRATION
Council met with the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission to
discuss the amount of contribution from SPUC to the City.
According to opinions from the City's attorneys, the formula
being used to compute the contribution is legal. No action was
taken by either body to change the formula which resulted in a
1988 contribution to the City in the amount of $411,000.00.
BUILDING
Valleyfair's roller coaster construction is in full swing, they
hope to have it operational this spring. The Shakopee Jaycees
just donated $5, 000 to help complete the Community Youth Building
which will be open for use in early spring.
CITY CLERK
Council made appointments to fill expiring terms on Boards and
Commissions as follows: Melanie Kahleck to the Planning
Commission and Board of Adjustment and Appeals; John Roepke to
the Police Civil Service Commission; Jim Cook to the Shakopee
Public Utilities Commission; Elmer Otto, Donna Roman and James
Moline to the Energy and Transportation Committee; Bill Anderson
and Lillian Abeln to the Cable Communications Advisory
Commission; Robert Tomczik to the Shakopee Community Recreation
Board; Randy Laurent and Jim Link to the Housing Advisory and
Appeals Board and also to the Building Code Board of Adjustment
and Appeals; and Al Furrie, Jane DuBois and Jon Albinson to the
Community Development Commission.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
The City of Shakopee's Dial-A-Ride contract expires on April 15,
1989. In December, Shakopee in conjunction with the cities of
Plymouth, Chanhassen, Chaska and Eden Prairie jointly solicited
proposals for providing service to the Shakopee area and the
participating communities. On January 13, 1989 five proposals
were submitted in response to the request for proposal offer.
In early February, it is possible that the Shakopee City Council
may be selecting a new contractor to provide dial-a-ride service
in Shakopee. It is also very likely that all the present .
vehicles will be replaced with new vehicles in a new color
scheme. In the event that a new provider is selected to operate
the Shakopee Dial-A-Ride program, service levels will not be
interrupted during the transition period. The City of Shakopee
is not proposing any changes in the current dial-a-ride service
hours or service area as a result of the request for proposals.
COMMUNITY RECREATION (SCR)
Shakopee Community Recreation is a department jointly sponsored
by School District $720 and the City of Shakopee. Its primary
function is to assist citizens in enriching their leisure
moments. Networking with local businesses and organizations is
sought. A current example is the "Shakopee Showcase", an annual
gathering of over 75 local leisure and social service oriented
organizations and businesses exhibiting to over 4, 000 citizens
who pass through these booths in a two hour period. This years
event will be held at Canterbury Dows on Monday, April 17th, from
6:30 to 8:30 p.m. The Racetrack's participation is greatly
appreciated!
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
A public hearing was held on the West 3rd Avenue Sanitary Sewer
Project. It is no longer an active project.
On the other hand, plans and specs for the alley in Block 7 have
been ordered.
Two other public hearings will be held soon - 3rd Avenue
Reconstruction between Spencer and Shumway and County Road 17
sidewalk from 4th Avenue to 10th Avenue.
OOOOaaaa00 J
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT
PERMITS ISSUED
January, 1989
Yr. to Date Previous Year
Number Number Valuation Number Valuation
No. Ytd.
Single Fam-Sewered - - - 2 2 181,400
Single Fam-Septic - - - - - -
Multiple Dwellings - - - - -
(# Units) (YTD Units)
Dwelling Additions 3 3 16, 700 - - -
Other 1 1 98 , 000 - - -
Comm New Bldgs - - - - -
Bldg. Addns - - - 1 1 67, 000
Industrial-Sewered - - - - - -
Ind-Sewered Addns - - - - - -
Industrial-Septic - - - - - -
Ind-Septic Addns - - - - - -
Accessory/Garages 2 2 8,000 - - -
Signs & Fences 4 4 2,540 5 5 5, 060
Fireplaces/Wood Stove - - - - - -
Grading/Foundation 1 1 1, 348, 695 - - -
Remodeling (Res) - - - 2 2 4,200
Remodeling (Inst) - - - - - -
Remodeling (Comm/Ind) 3 3 16,800 2 2 8,500
TOTAL TAXABLE 14 14 1,490,735 12 12 266,160
TOTAL INSTITUTIONAL - - - - - -
GRAND TOTAL 14 14 1,490,735 12 12 266,160
No. Ytd. No. Ytd.
variances 1 1 1 1
Conditional Use 2 2 _ 2 2
Rezoning - - - -
Moving 1 1 - -
Electric 17 17 19 19
Plbg & Htg 13 13 10 10
Razing Permits
Residential - - - -
Commercial - - - -
Total dwelling units in City after completion of all construction
permitted to date. . . . . . .4,285
Cora Hullander
Bldg. Dept. Sec.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
BDILDING PERMITS ISSUED IN JANUARY, 1989
8072 Jasper Homes 1257 Marschall Rd. Alt. $ 15,000
8073 William Haverstock 2027 Hilldale Dr. Addn. 700
8074 Paul Sullwold 1420 West 3rd Ave. Alt. 1,500
8075 Linda Loffler 204 W. 8th Garage 5,500
8076 Gene Pass 1109 Monroe St. Garage 2,500
8077 Roger's Sign 104 E. let Ave. Sign 300
8078 Kevin Derhaag 1125 Monroe Addn. 10,000
8079 Void
8080 Val Theis 414 W. 4th Ave. Sign 40
8081 J.L. Shiely 6896 Hwy 101 Stg Tank 98,000
8082 Attracta Sign 489 Marschall Rd. Sign 1,800
8083 Rick Sames 312 W. 1st Ave. Alt. 300
8084 Enebak Const. 6957 Hwy 101 Grading 1,348, 695
8085 Amre Bldg. Systems 1963 Norton Drive Addn. 6, 000
8086 Vital Sign Co. 1420 W. 3rd Sign 400
RCN 0+4 ':v S+:?? PROGRAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PACE NO 1
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
01 GENERAL FUND PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTO
ON DEPARTMENT PROGRAM . ..HOURS . .DOLLARS COSTS COSTS APPROP- PERCENT
11 MAYOR d COUNCIL
1.41 MATER d OOVNCIL _ __L85. - -X4 .46 X5991_49. 24036, 46 57000.00 $1,0__.�S
980 OTHER LAY .00 1 1400.46 .00 140.46 .00 .0
990 .0 22391.06 .00 26191.06 .00 .0
DEPT TOTAL- .- . -__.-. -. .. _._ __103.6 __ .El0.Tb.iP3493_44_ _ 30367.63 _- .l2610.69 93.1
12 CITY ADMINISTRATOR
.121 ADMINISTRATION -- 3351-1 16166.59 _._17917.74 94006 33 96050.00 103.3
122 COUNCIL 6 AGENDAS 166.5 5606.15 .00 5908.35 8700.00 66.7
123 BUDGET 23.0 716.28 .80 716 20 4450.00 16.0
988 OTHER PAY __ .0 1539.31 -. _- .00 1519.31 .00 .0
991 208 3!86.06 .00 1516.06 .00 .0
992 174.6 2255.76 .00 2255.76 00 0
993 ... -. _105.1 _1194.TT ___ .00 _ __ . 1164.77 00 ,0_ _
DEPT TJTAL 4054.8 91659.19 I7917.7J 109176.96 103450.00 IRS _
13 .CITY CURIA
' 1311 GENERAL MANAGEMENT 820.1 44415.21 21475.91 6989I.lE 6)]95.00 10].9
' 137 ELECTIONS 1749.7 9200.61 A37.OS 13017.46 41490.00 119.]
U] LIClN9ING. __JL..0 �O1.61' 91,]0___ 171.10 490.01 .L6-L_:d
IA OFFICIAL OOCUMfNTS 9.0 IiG.10 .00 176.10 61-60.10 1-.0
135 COUNCIL { ACINOAS 111.1 1765.69 .00 1165./9 1014.10 40.4
137 0EVELOPERS AGREGMENT_1TJ. _TI7__OS-_-fib- TLT_08 2403.60_. as a
994 166.5 6030.1! .a0 2636.3s
!97 00.0 1266.70 .00 IG66.70 .00 .0
DfIT TOTAL 99] - _ 145__ EELS!_ -_ 20. 279.59 a6-0 �
' 5110.0 60106.80 LSJOE.ib 06069.16 !0064.00 90.3
1 q
- IS FINANCE _
ISI GENERAL MANAGEMENT 734.4 19t66.25 40285.48 59581 .7] 91990.00 64 i
ISe ACCOUNTING L1ET.6 40T95.17 25216.47 660T1.64 61300.00 104.1
183 PAIROLL _.437.6 _ 7139.56 5039.88 12279.44 9525.00 120 9
154 MIS 1047.0 19607-85 12056.70 30866.95 31115.00 19.2
ISS BUDGET 696.8 7243.27 00 7743.27 721'5.00 99.5
156 ASSESSMENTS _ 196.3 3699.72 239.16 3938.68 4265.00 92.3
159 PERS0NNEL 167.9 17962.80 881.97 13844 77 9400.00 147.2
998 OTHER PAY 16.0 1965.0? .00 1865 01 .00 0
. 991 _ __244,5 4204.10 _-00 4204.78 ,00-0___
992 606.0 3320.05 .00 3320.05 00 0 1.11
993 73 3 1013.5? .00 101).57 90 0
_990. _ ._ 212 ...362.42 ___BOO 262 42 ___ 00-0
DEPT TOTAL 6435 6 120780.51 83781.66 204562.t7 216870.4t 94.3
16 LEGAL.SOVNSEL- _. _.__
461 GENERAL LEGAL SERVIC .0 .00 43947.36 43947.36 46150.00 102.6
463 PROSECUTIONS .0 .00 50299.54 SOE99.54 14000.00 359.2
DEPT TOTAL _ . ._._ - p 00-X4246_96-_-94246.90. _ 20750..00 131_2- e
17 COMnUNtT• DEVELOPMEN
171 GENERAL MANAGEMENT 1726.5 26167.43 .8745.32 34912.75 23470.00 148.1
RUN D 7E i41iy PROGRAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE NO a
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
01 GENERAL FUND PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTO
ON DEPARTMENT PROGRAM - - --HOURS --DOLLARS ._COSTS ---COSTS - __APPROP. _ .PERCENT _e
172 CODE ENFORCEMENT 128H.3 14970.35 102.71 15073.06 18170.00 82.9
0ZSUBDIVISIONREVIEO_ _.-1AS.0 . .._-3A34.94_ _.__ - 04 ]434.94_.. 2300.00 _46_5- - --^.
174 PLANNING COMM. MTC. 8162.4 39155.51 .00 39155,51 40710.00 96.1
175 LONG RANGE PLANNING 8S5.5 17687.39 158.96 17846,35 44330.00 40.E
-e
-- - -176 ICC -..._. _496.5 - -7680-7419
57 19
2 _ - 940.00-BEZ.0
117 COMP PLAN 26.5 93,37 11982.51 1921575.94 9a .00
178 RECYCLING 127.5 1520.56 1905.41 3575.97 4990.00 75 6.6
119 HOME ENERGY _ ._._ ._._47.5 - 796.91 708.26 1505.17 18580.00. B 1
999 OCHER PAY .0 2111.36 .00 EIII 30 .00 .0
9$a 223.1 2805.16 .00 3Egos096.39 .00 .0
_992 - __ _54010 3096.39 ._ .. .00 ]096.39 .00 _0
99 138,5 1434.84 .00 1434.81 .00 0
9969 146.9 2059,96 00 8063.96 .00 0
-
DEPT TOTAL _. _ _ - _ _ _ _ . . ____4322.5 ___154062.88 _- 30E00.68 - 151563.53 _ _158550.00 97.2 _=
16 GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS
-- -- -- ..:. _ _-181- CITY WALL - - _.1128.] 9992.57_ --14370.59. X4293.16 - - 35340.00 ".z i.
ISE LIBRARY 688.2 1219,96 9653.46 17073,42 10360,00 104,8
183 EAGLE CREEP TOWN HAL .0 .00 518.18 518.19 5735,00 9.0
--- 124 SR_CITIMN CENTER _-386.5. X144..51 _- 2271.59 - _. 8416.10_. _6560.0.0 _16.3,
991 226.5 1886.59 .00 1896.29 .00 .0
13
992 158.0 1315.75 .00 1315,75 .00 .0
-885.7T _ _ _I
DEPT TOTAL 2693.S 27371.S5 27013.62 54385.67 39995.00 90.6 'M
1 F
- 8E COMM.OEVELOLCONNISS _- -
281 GENERAL MANASFMENT 131.5 4116.90 66487.91 10546.01 93110.00 15,7
DEPT TOTAL 231.5 4118.90 66427.91 70546.81 93110.00 75.5
- 31 POLICE _-
311 GENERAL MANAGEMENT 10779., 1!8004.41 135193.33 333797 74 307265.00 106 6
]12 PATROL 21H7817 411502.95 18203 82 429766 61 510165.00 T5 3
313 INVESTIGATION 3573,8 77765.43 950 94 79716 19 131460.00 53 6
314 IVVE'IILES 1551 .0 30106.97 701 51 30898 33 37640.00 53 5
..315 COURT TIME 370.8 $648,56 - .00 _ .8648.56 9660.00 89.3 _
316 SCHOOL LIAISON 1001.9 19244.46 00 IIE44.46 .00 0
319 GRANDSTAND 1410.E 28541.40 .00 28541 ,40 .00 .0
. _318 FIRING RANGE/TRAFFIC- .0- -00_ 10.20_ 90.70_ - 600_00__75 _
319 CODE ENFORCEMENT 1039.7 7734.03 13652.64 21386.67 1335.00 229. 1
351 CIVIL DEFENSE .0 .00 2416.54 2416.54 4000.00 60.4
_.361 ANIMALS _ A eo e2Re YA 5220.28. _-3820.00�bS_
998 OTHER PAY .0 6614.25 .00 6614,25 .00 .0
99t 2288,6 36510.61 .00 36510.61 .00 .0
99Z_ _ . 1 32..0 _ __27.845..31. _e0 0
993 942.6 14065.95 .00 14065.95 .00 .0
997 2.9 18.00 .00 18.00 .00 .0
. 998 _._601.4 _ 1252.02- a 0___9252.07 __--_00
A31 COUNTRY VILLAGE APT$ 445.0 9007.64 .00 9009.64 .00 0
Bat IND DIST 720 52.5 1062.36 .00 1062.36 .00 D
DEPT TOTBL _47428.9 886004,20 197109.76 1063113.96 1096985,00 96.9
R_'N 0-l9 PROGRAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PACE NO 3 j
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
J
01 GENERAL FUND PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL ITO '1
ON DEPARTMENT PROGRAM HOURS. DOLLARS - --COSTS. COBTB-_ _ _APPROP. -11:*C95T--...1
32 FIRE
- ._.. . .321 GENERAL MANAGEMENTa -_
. _.9288_1_- L4T9.93 196041.94 277544.SL 269560.00. 106_9
DEPT TOTAL 9988.4 81479.93 196064.94 27TS44.07 *59560.00 106.9
31 INSPECTION-BLDG-PLN
331 GENERAL MANAGEMENT 1643.3 30506.24 5907,13 36413.37 19500.00 166,7
332 PLAN REVIEU 106.0 17363.96 00 17363.90 10160.00 170.9
333 BUILDING INSPECTIONS 1415.5 28502.14 16296.70 44798 84 66375.00 67 4
334 PLNSG. 6 HTG INSPECT 732.0 14293.01 00 14293.01 22075.00 64 T
335 HOUSING INSPECTION 1022.1 13740.60 1508.67 1S309 27 15040.00 101 7
336 VALLEYFAIR co _ - 66.16 .00 $9.16 5090.00 1.4
337 CITI BUILDING MGT. 58.0 1276.37 00 1978.37 .00 .0
338 RACETRACK LO as Is .60 115 1s .00 .0
988 OTHER PAY .0 1429.5009 B192.50 _ -.so- _.0 _
991 378.3 5717.44 .00 $717.44 .00 .0
912 272.0 1519.11 .00 3819.11 .00 .I
_ -993 ._ - . _ ___ IE8_3- 1S001L _ _ . . _.YO _. 1.800.71 ---00._-
918 117.2 1484.49 .00 1484.49 .00 .0 i
DEPT TOTAL 6950.9 191104.SS 23772.s0 144877.38 139940.00 104.0
n
]5
351 CIVIL DEFENSE .0 .00 19.50 18.50 .00 .0
DEPT TOTAL _ - -. _. .__ _ _-. SO- I, ee a
36
DEPT TOTAL_ _ _.. _. . _ ._._._. _-_0___ -_ _..00 _.- ..00_ _. _00_ ..DD0--•�
1 41 ENGINEERING
u
_A018LDG.RECORDSALD0.2N 1.16.5_ _1099_TS__ . - -_ .0! _.. -_.2199.75.. _ 1010.00_ L139.. -
404 TRAY INCOA08 69.5 100.38 .00 1023.19 1010.00 91.8
401 PAVEMENT
72.0 1317.09 .60 1797 09 $460.00 36.1
405 PAVSN COT PRCSCROJECT 211.5 3220.48 1.60 7715 09 5460.00 68.2 _
406 CITE COUNCIL PROTECT 750,5 2214.45 3176. 10 9990 55 7640 00 104.5 "
407 MISCELLANEOUS 714.0 12116.73 00 12156 73 5460 00 ?.4
408 STATE AIS INN/OOT) 21.5 453.03 .00 153 17 3890.00 375
409 CiMM MAP4 61.0 10$1 86 00 1092 20 2910.00 37 5
410 GENERAL M9 6 BOARDS 4.0 21 .26 .00 01 .26 1450.00 5,6
411 GENERAL MANAGEMENT _1861.6 36355.02 .._1.9151.49 _---_55506.$, - 95410.00.FILING
11 9.2
`^
418 INSPECTIONS 6.0 111.81 .00 111 .81 1t10.00 9.2
418 FILING 52.0 636.60 .00 636.60 .00 .0
_ 419 RACETRACK _. _ _ _. ___1.0 _ .20.29 _-_ 00 _ _ ._20.29_ --- .-Do __-0
50OTHER IMPROV 849.5 12406.12 .,00 15006.12 11390.00 85.0
5066 VIP BAN ITARY SEWER E 331 .0 5019.30 ,00 5019.30 ,00 .0
e:
517 PR10R VALLEY
_ .__51.9_ _ 79.61 ---,A.O-__ ._259_01 00 .3 u
521 UPPER VALLEY ORAINAC $19.6 99$2.06 .00 9952.06 33910.00 II9.0
528 HOLMES ST.LATERALS 1.6 14.61 .00 11.61 .00 .0
- - -532 MARKET ST. IMP*. _ 0. _-._ . 20.30 .. .DO -_ _- 90..30_- _.00_ .-_0
537 4TH AVE FILOORE TO B 6810 993.20 .00 993.20 .00 .0
515 T H 101 BY-PASS ROU 11.0 293.42 .00 923 42 00 .0
S46 131 INTERSECTIONS 6.0 96.70 ,00 96.70 90 0
RSN 4.,-c i1 '%1 d, PROGRAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PAGE NO 4
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
01 GENERAL FUND PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTD
ON DEPARTMENT PROGRAM HOURS DOLLARS COSTS .. COSTS APPROP PERCENT -
552 169 BRIDGE-JUNCTION 76.5 1383.50 .00 1383 SO 7290.00 18.9 h
- --- SSa 13TH AVE - CR 09 TO _ . - 9..0 _- - _-_99.SB - -_ _..00. _99.58. .- _ _ .00 .0 _--
GOT U SIM SAN. $SUER 386.8 4963.10 .00 4963.10 .00 .0
S58 RAILROAD CROSSINGS 11.0 141.73 .00 141.T3 .00 .0
-- - S59 DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE 1874.2 27174.77 -00_ -.00 27170.77 __13350.00 ..81.4
560 MAR9CMALL RD WATERNA 11.0 192.22 .00 192 22 .00 .0
561 10TH AVE OVERLAY 328.0 S554.92 .00 5S54 92 6080.00 91 3
563 VIERLING DR 1i-MPUER 427.0 6050.64 .00 6050.64 12220.00 49.5
964 HERITAGE PLACE 130.5 364.57 .00 364 Si .00 .0
565 APSAR STREET e.0 40.63 .00 40.63 12230.00 .3
566 VIERLING DR - SCOTTL 463.0 . SORT 26 - .00 .5927.26 ___ _ .00 _ .0
567 ItTH AVE TO MN ST 147.0 1$78.41 .60 1876 41 .00 .0
E68 MARKET ST-FIRST TO S 19.5 326.67 .00 328.87 .00 .0
570 101 BYPASS ._ .._51.0 -_'40_42 _ _..00 __ 440.4$ _ .00 __ .0
985 OTHER PAY .0 2$61.33 .00 2661 ,33 .00 .0
989 4.5 75.69 .00 75.69 .00 .0
- --991 -412.3 - --560.88 -__ _00 _-SS80.U. .DO._ -_._D-_-
992 3114.0 5013.14 .00 501$.14 .00 .6
993 144.5 2131.04 .00 2131.04 .00 .0
998 _68.6 _- 940.38 _.00. _140.]$ _.00_A-
DEPT TOTAL 10135.T 168018.51 12932.19 184950.76 201676.00 91.7
42 -STREET I_ALLOY HAIRY
421 GENERAL MANAGEMENT 1632.5 3$409-56 130327.48 166716,911 114784.04 tDS.e
422 TREE 6 LIMB P/UP 97.7 1372-68 .00 t372.66 7150.90 19.1
424 WEED CUTTING 6 SPRAY., _.416.0 _-J'944,27- 00 _. _._3.4.27_ _ 3430.00__�_.3, _ A
4e6 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANC 76041 11840 49 ROSTin6 40718 OS 6196$.00 6S.6
A27 STREET 8 ALLEY MAINT Isis.* 13337.21 23186.31 46343 60 $0780.00 37.6
- 4311 SEAL COAT 77.0 _ _ -,4052.64 _ 127337-22 -131411 86 174000.00 _T5._4
4E] BITVMINOUS STREET RE 1269.0 16403.01 7165.04 23167 OS 4052000 51.1
All 141N1 STRIPING 468.1 7074.60 ESE3.51 1515 15 ISE40.00 62.1
431 SIGNS 732.3 __ 11622.11 5337 S3 16159 72 23270.00 67.1 _
432 SNO'J REMOVAL 1113.1 ,628 17 2582.50 zeal, AT 48150 00 46.1 -
433 SANDING STREETS 601.4 9582.60 4845 43 1442$.O3 1370.00 153 1
414 OOVNTOUN STREETSCAPa 431.3 6145.51 .00 _6145.5S .00 .0
46: NEED INSPECTION 241.7 2057.11 117 29 3034 AS 2330.00 130,2
108 OTHER PAY .0 2332.20 00 231a.20 .00 .0
991 J17.6 12413.99 __-00 -12493.91 _ _._ .._10 __0
192 $16.0 7941.31 .00 79.1.31 .00 .0
913 501.0 6555.21 .00 6535.21 .00 .8
X98 -22$.2 __ -..2961_20 _�➢9 _ 2969,20
DEPT TOTAL 11611.0 110606.17 332T57.11 523364.01 593020.00 08.2
44 SHOP. . _ ___ ___
441 GENERAL NANAGSKEBT 69.5 1997.19 85646.35 27645.54 3TN0.00 7343
442 PARTS INVENTORY 16.5 263.94 .00 263.94 480.60 54.1
a
443 MAINT. 6 REPAIR-ETRE ._1099.8 1T0$1.71 -_00 ___1Z081.77 __INOSAO 11D..8_
444 MAINT. 6 REPAIR-PARK 364.8 $640.16 .00 5646.16 1130,00 61.8
445 MAIt1T. 6 REPAIR-POU 215.7 3449,20 .00 3449.20 SAE*.00 62.6
446 MAINT, 6 REPAIR-AOMI 31 ,7 507.24 .00 507.24 1570.00 32.3
NCO ...1E c4.30 PROGRAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PACE .0
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
1 GENERAL FUND PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL YTO
ON DEPARTMENT _ 1_111 _ PROGRAM - . HOURS - DOLLARS -COtTI_ . -COSTS APPROP - PERCEtlT__.
447 MAINT. 8 REPAIR-JT.R 1.0 16.00 .00 16.00 600.00 2.6
_448 MAINT. 4 REPAIR-lJUC_-_83.1...- _1329.61 _ --Jl. 1+!9.31_..__960.00 138.5_-
991 96.0 1872.00 .00 1!72.00 .00 .0
992 80.0 1060.00 .AO 1060.00 .00
- - - -993. ._..__.___- _ ___ X2.4 --429.31_--_OB 429.1L_- __00
996 73.9 973.90 .00 973.90 .00 .0
DEPT TOTAL 2164.0 31028.32 25448.35 59676.67 7t045.00 83.9
61 SVIMITNG POG'._
611 GENERAL MANAGEMENT 1107.7 8382.74 19680.79 28063.53 20185.00 117.3
612 LIFEGUARDS 2244.2 11896.35 497.37 _ 12393.72 It560.00 107.2 _vl
613 LESSONS 988.0 5216.08 40.50 5256 59 6695.00 TO'S
614 CONCESSIONS 165.0 1602.34 8651.58 10253.92 9t45.00 112.t
US POOL AIDS _ 1]70.7 _ 4S85.81 -_ __00__4885.81 7700.00
616 POOL CASHIERS 110.5 4808.93 165.33 0374.26 1720.00 138.0
i17 MAINTENANCE 1561.8 9939.76 9904.87 19041.83 80400.00 97.8
.._.618 UA
SLIDE . . -448.] _ _-A.1L8.13- 1049.61 SJIE_74_ _86CS_00_. 60_0.�;59
" 988 OTHER PAY .0 12.00 .00 16.00 .00 .0
DEPT TOTAL 0995.6 48262.14 39989.47 88651.61 86210.00 10213
_• - 62 PARKS
612 LIFEGUARDS .0 .00 1064,28 1064.28 .00 .0
62l GENERAL.MANACEMENT__1.074-1 __-_25438_6L RTles e0 +wx33.8II�2_9_�n
622 PARK MAINT. 6 CONST. 1819.6 19647.54 14770.29 34417.63 ddT00.00 131.6
623 PARK MON 6 TRIM 689.3 7052.23 .00 70SY.23 5630.00 81.6
X24 ATHLETIC FLO.MAINT/C-124t.7 ._ -23205.58 88537_�411L9S_X4500.00. _18-4 . --
62S ATHLETIC PLO NOW/TRI 59.9 910.S4 .00 910.54 4194,00 81.1
626 TENNIS COURT MAINT. 66.0 922.27 270,18 1192.4S 1363.00 AT.4
-621 BOULEVARDILOT MAINT. -�S.S _-_489.06_ - ____PO ____419.08 _ _-2963.00 _L6
528 P N BLDG MAINT/CONS 546.0 7190.54 2467 81 9958.35 11031.00fa.E
629 PARK EGUIP MAINT/CON 732.4 10853.52 94,40 10947.92 17354,00 63 0
53D PARK BLDG MAINT/CONS 1138.5 17907.14 8401 99 _ _ !0]17.03 _ 337S6.00 60 1
631 PARK DEPT EONIA MAIN 281.2 4326.77 3037 AT 7314.64 9721 .00 75 7
632 RINKS MAIN7/CONST 742.0 10631.77 42.59 10674.36 10133.00 192 3
633 SNOW REMOVAL LOT/UAL 97.0 485.41 _ _00 1485.44 2013.00 T3 7
634 TPEEILIMR PICK-UP 264.0 3898.05 .00 3698.05 1223.00 319.7
988 OTHER PAY .O 2040.00 .00 8040.00 .00 .0
991 440.1 __. SSSI.78 _ 00 --SSS]_7B _00
992 320.0 4051.28 .00 4051.28 .00 .O
993 300.6 3817.84 .00 3617.04 .00 .0
- -998 _ 332.0 _ ._.4010.98 II. 066.0.SA_ . _-.00 _
DEPT TOTAL 10]86.4 {110{0.96 56619.17 L10660.11 016430.00 84.74.7
u
68. .FORESTRY -
ISO INSPECTION 6 BAMPLIN .5 8.47 60.66 69.33 3300.00 2.0
681 GENERAL MANAGEMENT 160.1 9377.18 2502.47 4879.65 6556.00 74.1
.._653 LIMB PICK-UP 6 REMOV- _ .483.7 _ 7490.55 e0 1190.58 _- 6956.00 83..6
654 CONFERENCES 6 SDUCAT 12.6 188.53 .00 188.5] 500.00 3717
6SE TRIMMING 6.5 99.09 .00 99.89 625.00 15 9
656 PLANTING 39.9 660.776 00 660 76 7578.00 8 7
R_':1 O:Ti OI114/SA PROGRAM COSTS BY DEPARTMENT PACE NO 6
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
01 GENERAL FVND PERSONAL SERVICES COSTS OTHER TOTAL iTD
ON DEPARTMENT -PROGRAM -- -- NOVRO- - COLLARS---COSTR Costs—
DEPT
osts DEPT TOTAL 702.7 10445.41 8543.33 13366.74 29815.60 46.1
72 GARBAGE COLLECTION ---
721 GENERAL MANAGEMENT .4 .00 199674.91 198694.91 213000.00 90.4
DEPT TOTAL — - ----- - - -- -- -- ----.4-- - ,00----L9t67A_!.1__ Llt6T4.4f__-21]00.0.00-_90..4__:,
91 UNALLOCATED
- 911 UNALLOCATED - __0 _ - _00 249178.04 249174.04 .237417.00 104 9 _
DEFT TOT,,L .0 .00 241174.04 249176.04 237417.00 104.9
LUNO TOTAL - - 134191.t - -9141797_60.__ 168974t-fit _3831531.29_ _.402002E.00 95.3
% Y
Ehlers andAssociates,
lEAOERS IN PUBLI FINANCE NEWSLETTER
1 1
OFFICES IN MINNEAPOLIS AND WAUKESHA
VOLUME 34. NUMBER l
FILE: Financial Specialists: Ehlers and Associates, Inc.
Please distribute to governing body members
JANUARY. 1989
W E ' R E M O V I N G !
After almost twenty-five years in the Soo Line Building (the old First National Bank Bond
Department), with three of these successful years under employee ownership and management, we
continue to grow. We are moving to the new Norwest Center in Minneapolis.
But first please change your directory to show us at our new address. Do come see us. Better yet,
use us.
2950 NORWEST CENTER
90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-4100
Our phone number will stay the same. The move is the latest development in thirty-five years of
change. progress, and growth that will better prepare us to help you build better communities through
finance.
May we take this opportunity to reflect (and brag a bit)? It perhaps began when, as a law school
senior. I was assigned the task of researching a paper on local self government which was published in
the Montana Law Review, cited in a number of cases and was the subject of a critical article by the
very professor for whom I wrote - Dr. David Mason.
After a stint as a legal editor and admission to the Minnesota Bar, I was invited to join the Harold
Moody law firm in St. Paul. Harold was responsible for much of the Minnesota bond law, some of
which has been adopted by other states and for some practices which continue. including the growing
use of independent financal advisors. Ehlers and Associates dates from January 1, 1955 following
Harold's death.
After a transition combining a law practice with municipal consulting, the decision was made to
concentrate on municipal finance. We've since grown to a staff of twenty-one dedicated, trained
people using the latest in computer programs to design and test a whole range of public financing
options.
As a new firm it was necessary to do things differently and better in order to compete. We were the
first to induce the bond rating agencies to visit the area. Several visits by the agencies plus
innovative meetings and presentations in New York began a progression of greatly improved bond
ratings in Minnesota and neighboring states. Minnesota then had an inordinate number of Baa and Be
ratings.
In 1965 when computers were only beginning their ubiquitous presence. Ehlers and Associates was the
first to successfully apply them to public finance. Since then, we have developed a library of
sophisticated proprietary computer programs. The computer, while not seen by us as a substitute for
skilled personal service, exponentially expanded our horizons to imagine what was possible in fiscal
planning.
2950 Norwest Center'90 South Seventh Street•Minneapolis,MN 55402-4100•612-339-8291•FAX 612-339-0854
We could see that old ways of structuring bond issues were often inappropriate for many financings in
the various local governments. With a new debt service plan computer program, we designed
constant tax rate, stepped wrap around financings which have averted so much distress to taxpayers,
voters, governing bodies and administrators. We can now construct debt service plans to fit given tax
rates, revenue flows and the community instead of just making revenues fit the bond issue. Other
innovative computer programs include:
o Genesis: A capitalization program which acts, as a cost item checklist, and figures
capitalized interest, debt service reserves, bond insurance and costs of issuance,
moving targets influenced by the amount of an issue but which also influence it.
o Revelate: A program which accurately measures the adequacy of a cash flow stream
To cover not only debt service but also other subordinated though essential costs
such as payments in lieu of taxes, reserves, and ongoing capital improvements.
o Refunding: This program determines whether a refunding can be done and whether it
is advantageous in present value terms. Other firms show value savings from a
refunding with the issuer unaware that the "savings" result from infusing its own
cash and that the there might even be a present value loss.
We financed public improvements at interest rates below 3% (we had no inflation) and were horrified
when tax-exempt rates pushed successively through four and five percent and, then, some projects
could not be financed within a long standing, statutory six percent! Rates were to go over thirteen
percent and are now back to seven and a half. Whatever the changing market conditions, our
computer technology allows us to quickly examine options that will build better communities with the
most cost effective financing.
Competition was and continues to be fierce. Ehlers and Associates competes and thrives because of
good people and timely, superior service to even the smallest clients. The talents and dedication of
Steve Apfelbacher, Marilyn Briest, Carolyn Orode, Steve Emerson, Bill Fahey, Jeanne Frederick,
Mike Grossman, and Seeger Swanson, to deliver superior services has been the key. It has not been
our goal to do the most or the biggest issues, but provide you with the highest quality in the industry.
That philosophy will continue.
The new (three year) employee ownership, new quarters, new computer, and new communications
system will further improve the firm's service. I am proud of the dedicated employee-owners and my
continued association. You will like them too!
Sincerely.
Robert L. Ehlers
�5
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE
CABLE COMMUNICATIONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
Regular Session Shakopee, Mn July 25, 1988
Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. with
Commissioners Anderson, Abeln and Harrison present. Commissioner
Davis arrived at 7: 30 P.M. Commissioner Moonen was absent.
Barry Stock, Administrative Assistant; Steve Stolen, United Cable
Manager; and Bill Lepley, Public Access Studio Manager were also
present.
Abeln/Harrison moved to approve the minutes of the February 1,
1988 meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously.
UNITED CABLE TELEVISION OWNERSHIP TRANSFER
Mr. Stock reported that the Cable Company has informed the City
in writing of a proposed ownership transfer of United Cable
Television Corporation to United Artists Communications Inc. Mr.
Stock noted that Section 14.02 0£ the Shakopee Cable Franchise
Ordinance outlines the procedure to be followed whenever a
transfer of all or a majority of the grantee stock occurs. Mr.
Stock reported that he felt the proposal outlined by Mr. Stolen
constituted a transfer of stock (ownership) and therefore
necessitates City Council approval. He went on to state that the
City did have the authority to determine if a public hearing was
necessary due to potential adverse affect on the Cable Company's
subscribers as a result of the proposed transfer. Mr. Stock
noted that in his opinion the proposed transfer as outlined would
not have a negative effect on the cable system and in fact would
solidify United Cable Televisions position in the cable industry
and enhance the service being provided to our local subscribers.
Therefore Mr. Stock recommended to the Cable Commission that
Resolution 42952 be approved and recommended to City Council for
approval.
Commissioner Harrison questioned whether or not Zylstra had sold
their portion of stock. Mr. Stolen stated that United Cable
Television acquired Zylstra's 1/2& of stock last year. He went
on to state that United Cable Television now owns 1% of stock in
the limited partnership. The remaining 99% is being held by
individual investors. Mr. Stolen stated that the name Zylstra-
United remains because of the cost that would be incurred to
legally change it. Chairman Anderson questioned whether or not
United Cable Television would be interested in buying out the
limited partners. Mr. Stolen noted that the call option for the
potential buy out came due in January of 1988. He noted that at
that time, United Cable Television did not have the funds to buy
out the limited partners and the limited partners did not have
the funding to buy out United's 1%. He went on to state that in
his opinion within the next 2-5 years, United Cable Television
would move to buy out the limited partners.
Chairman Anderson questioned whether there was a corporate
connection between United Artists and United Cable Television.
Mr. Stolen stated that the name United was merely a coincidence.
Mr. Stolen went on to give a brief history of the United Artists
Corporation. He stated that United Artists owns several other
large cable franchises and that they also own the movie theatre
chain. Mr. Stolen stated that he felt this would be a benefit
and give their cable systems an opportunity to show more quality
movies in a more timely fashion and at a lower rate then what is
currently being provided. Mr. Stolen went on to state that when
the merger is complete, United Artists and United Cable
Television will be the third largest cable provider in the United
States.
Mr. Stolen then briefly summarized the organizational flow charts
that would be in place following the merger. He noted that
United Cable Television would be the corporate branch responsible
for cable television. Mr. Stolen also noted that until such time
that the limited partners are bought out, United Artists would
only have a 1% interest in the Zylstra-United System. Mr. Stock
noted that when the limited partners either buy out United Cable
Television or United Cable Television buys out the limited
partners, the City would again have the authority to review the
change in ownership that occurs at that time.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the proposed
ownership transfer did not require a public hearing.
Harrison/Abeln moved to recommend to City Council approval of
Resolution #2952 approving a change of ownership of United Cable
Television Corporation to United Artists Communications Inc.
Motion carried unanimously.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS VIDEO SYSTEM
Mr. Stock reported that for the past two years the Shakopee City
Council meetings have been broadcast live over the public access
channel. At this time, the Council meetings and Planning
Commission meetings seem to be the most highly viewed public
access programs in the community. Mr. Stock noted that the City
has received several complaints from residents viewing the
programs regarding the poor picture quality. In response to the
residents concern, Mr. Stock reported that he has requested the
access coordinator to investigate alternatives for resolving the
problem.
Mr. Stock also noted that two years ago the City agreed to
several major franchise amendments. One of the amendments
relieved the Cable Company of providing several character
-
generators to institutional users in the community. In turn, the
City received $5,000 in cash to acquire necessary cable equipment
as requested by institutional users. At that time, the only
institutional user who had an interest in receiving equipment was
the Shakopee Public Schools. Earlier this year they acquired the
equipment that they needed and the access corporation disbursed
approximately $2,000 to the School District for the acquisition
of a character generator. At this time, approximately $3,000
remains in the institutional user equipment fund that is being
held by the Access Corporation.
The Access Corporation is willing to commit the remaining funds
in this account to improve the video system in the Council
Chambers. Mr. Stock noted that he is therefore recommending that
the Cable Commission recommend to City Council that the
appropriate City officials be authorized to contact the Access
Corporation with a request to acquire the video equipment as
outlined in Mr. Lepley's proposal.
Mr. Lepley stated that the City is currently using a six year old
camera to broadcast the Council meetings. The life expectancy of
this camera is normally four years. The current camera is also a
tube camera and has out lived it's use. Mr. Lepley stated that
he is proposing that the City acquire a chip camera to broadcast
the meetings. The camera could be hung from the ceiling in a
convenient location and operated by an operator located in the
public access studio. The camera would also be equipped with
tilt, zoom and pan capabilities. Mr. Lepley stated that the City
could buy a more elaborate system but that the one camera
alternative that he is proposing would be more than adequate.
The current Council Chambers are not conducive for a more
elaborate system. He was therefore recommending that the one
camera system be acquired at this time. He also noted that the
equipment could be moved and installed into a new City Hall. The
system could also have additional cameras added to it at a later
date if the City felt they were needed.
Chairman Anderson questioned the intensity of the zoom lens on
the camera. Mr. Lepley stated that the lens proposed is a 6 to 1
ZOOM. Mr. Anderson questioned the cost deferential between a 10
to 1 and a 6 to 1 zoom. Mr. Lepley stated that the cost
difference was approximately $400.00. Mr. Lepley also noted that
at it's widest angle, the camera should be able to pick up the
entire City Council. Mr. Lepley noted that the location of the
camera would also be able to pick-up the film screen, black board
and easel. The camera would also be able to pick-up persons
addressing the Council.
Chairman Anderson questioned who would operate the camera. Mr.
Lepley stated that the camera would be operated by remote from
the cable studio by public access personnel. Public access staff
could also use a character generator located at the studio to
place character generated messages over the video. This would
enable the viewing audience to know what issues are being
discussed by the Council.
Harrison/Abeln moved to recommend to the City Council that the
appropriate City officials be directed to request the Access
Corporation to order the equipment necessary to improve the video
system in the Council Chambers at no cost to the City. Motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. Lepley then gave a brief public access report. He noted that
Mike Schmitt was no longer affiliated with New Frontier
Productions. Mr. Schmitt has taken a job with a insurance firm
in Iowa. Mr. Lepley stated that he has hired Chris O'Brian, a
former Shakopee resident to handle the public access studio
operations. Mr. Stolen stated that Mr. O'Brian has a tremendous
amount of ambition and should be an assess to the public access
studio operations. Mr. Lepley stated that programing has been
fairly steady and new people are continuing to express interest
in utilizing the studio. Discussion ensued on programing that
would be done later this year.
Mr. Steve Stolen, United Cable Manager then gave a brief report
on the operations of the cable system. He noted that they will
be pursuing channel realignment early next year. He noted that
he will be requesting Cable Commission approval of the
repositioning of the government and educational channels to a
higher tier. This would give the Cable Company the ability to
move higher viewed programing such as ESPN to the lower spectrum.
Mr. Stolen noted that before he would pursue this issue he would
speak with the School District officials to determine if they
were opposed to the idea. Mr. Stolen also noted that he has
acquired the equipment necessary to utilize several of the FHA
restricted channels. This would also give him the opportunity to
add more programming.
Mr. Anderson stated that when channel realignment is requested he
would like to see the regional access channel activated. Mr.
Stolen stated that he has no intentions of moving the public
access channel or the regional access channel at this time. He
did however state that there was a move on the part of cable
systems in the metro area to have channel six (regional access)
relocated to a higher tiered channel. Mr. Stolen also stated
that at the present time, the programming on channel six was less
than satisfactory. Mr. Lepley confirmed Mr. Stolen's opinion of
the programming currently being broadcasted on the regional
access channel. Mr. Anderson stated that as the use and
awareness of the regional access channel grows, the programming
may improve.
Commission Abeln questioned when the Universal package would be
completed. Mr. Stolen stated that it would be completed in
April. At that time, cable subscribers who have HRC compatible
TVs and are only interested in basic service will no longer need
to have a converter box and remote control.
� a
Mr. Stolen stated that he is also considering one basic fee for a
cable package. The package would include basic service, remote
control, FM hook-up and additional hook-ups. Currently all these
items are separately billed and it is very confusing for the
consumer.
Finally, Mr. Stolen stated that he was considering assisting the
Chaska Access Corporation in covering the State Amateur Baseball
Tournament live from Chaska. He noted that he was also
considering sending the signal over the I-Net so that could also
be broadcast live in Shakopee. He noted that in order to do this
he would have to use the public access channel. Mr. Lepley
stated that he did not think this would be a problem. The
Commission concurred.
Discussion ensued on the next meeting. Mr. Stock noted that the
next meeting would be held sometime in November or early
December. He would notify all the Committee members in advance
to schedule a meeting date.
Davis/Abeln moved to adjourn at 9:00 P.M. Motion carried
unanimously.
Barry A. Stock
Recording Secretary
16
ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Regular Session Shakopee, MN December 14, 1988
Chairman Ziegler called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. with
Commissioners Prudoehl, Leverson, Roman, Kahleck, Spiotta and
Ziegler present. Also present was Barry A. Stock, Administrative
Assistant, Mike Burkopec, Waste Management, Al Frechette, Scott
County Environmental Health Specialist and several Shakopee
residents.
Leverson/Roman moved to approve the minutes of the November 17,
1988 meetings as kept. Motion carried unanimously.
Roman/Leverson moved to open the public hearing on the refuse
collection/recycling program. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock reported that the purpose of the public hearing is to
inform Shakopee residents of the proposed refuse
collection/recycling program that is being considered by the City
of Shakopee. Mr. Stock noted that the proposed program is quite
a bit different then what Shakopee customers are currently used
to. Mr. Stock introduced Mr. Al Frechette, Scott County
Environmental Health Specialist. Mr. Frechette provided some
background to the Committee on how Scott County arrived at their
Solid Waste Disposal Ordinance. Mr. Frechette noted that in 1984
the State Legislature mandated that no unprocessed refuse could
be disposed of in landfills after 1990. Mr. Frechette also
stated that the Metropolitan Council has also adopted policy
guidelines which require counties in the Metropolitan area to
meet certain waste reduction and source separation levels. In
light of these mandates, Scott County has adopted a Solid Waste
Disposal Ordinance. Mr. Frechette stated that the ordinance
requires refuse haulers in Scott County to be licensed.
Additionally, it requires all refuse haulers to provide recycling
services to their customers. Scott county will also be
collecting a $2.00 surcharge per gate cubic yard for all refuse
disposed of at the landfill. Mr. Frechette noted that persons
who collect recyclables in Scott County will be eligible for a
tonnage grant. Mr. Frechette referred to the grant as a PERCS.
He noted that for each ton of recyclables collected, the County
will return approximately $4.00.
Mr. Stock questioned what the County had in mind for the disposal
of yard waste. Mr. Frechette stated that Scott County has been
working with the landfill operator to establish a compost site.
Mr. Frechette stated that there are no disposal costs for
dropping off yard waste at the compost site.
Mr. Stock questioned whether or not Scott County would be
interested in assisting the City of Shakopee in educating their
1
residents about the solid waste dilemma. Mr. Frechette stated
that Scott County would consider grant requests from the City of
Shakopee. In fact, he noted that he had received the City of
Shakopee's request to fund 508 of the recycling container costs.
He thought that Scott County might be in favor of the City's
request.
Mike Burkopec, General Manager from Waste Management then gave a
brief slide show that revealed the need for recycling. Mr.
Burkopec then explained the program that was proposed for
Shakopee. He noted that Waste Management is willing to provide
Shakopee residents with a 65 gallon refuse cart. In addition to
the refuse cart, Waste Management was willing to provide each
Shakopee household with a recycling container. Waste Management
was proposing to pick-up recyclables disposed of in conjunction
with regular refuse collection. The approximate fee for the
service as explained would be $9.80 per month. Senior citizens
would receive a 158 discount on the rate.
Mr. Burkopec explained that if there is additional refuse that
does not fit into the container, Shakopee customers would have to
use a voucher. Vouchers would be prepaid by the customer and
sold at several locations in Shakopee. A voucher would be worth
an additional 30 gallons of refuse. Mr. Burkopec stated that
Waste Management would be providing all Shakopee customers with a
price listing which identified items which would not normally fit
into the refuse cart and the approximate voucher rate.
Additionally, if persons regularly disposed of additional waste,
they could request an additional refuse cart for an additional
fee of $5 per month.
Mr. Stock then outlined the proposed service area for the
recycling/refuse program. Mr. Stock noted that currently several
commercial units are being collected by our refuse hauler. under
the new program, staff was proposing that only residential
customers be provided service under the refuse/recycling
agreement. Residential units included single family dwelling
units up to and including 4-plexes.
Mr. Burkopec stated that Waste Management would work closely with
the City in developing a marketing and education campaign. He
noted that the 65 gallon refuse cart would be hot stamped with
Waste Management's logo. The recycling containers could be
stamped with a City of Shakopee recycling logo.
Mr. Stock stated that staff has met with representatives from
each of the volunteer organizations currently collecting
recyclables in Shakopee. He noted that two of the three
organizations have expressed interest in continuing in their once
a month curbside recycling program. Mr. Stock stated that the
City's refuse hauler did not have a problem with the
organizations program and stated that it would not interfere with
2
/ d
the City's program. Mr. Bert Notermann representing the Shakopee
Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts questioned whether or not the refuse
hauler had a problem with the Boy Scouts picking up materials
from the recycling bins as provided by the hauler. Mr. Burkopec
stated that he did not have a problem with this. Mr. Burkopec
stated that all recyclables collected by the hauler in
conjunction with the City's program would become the property of
the City of Shakopee. He also noted that the City of Shakopee
would also receive revenues derived from the County's PERC
Program (tonnage rebate) .
Mr. Stock stated that all revenues derived from the City's
recycling program would be placed in a recycling fund. Expenses
incurred by the City for marketing the program would be allocated
from this fund. At the end of the year, all excess revenues
would be distributed among Shakopee residents in the form of a
recycling rebate. Mr. Stock stated that he is hopeful that the
annual recycling credit will eventually be approximately $12 . 00
annually.
Mr. Stock noted that the billing system for the proposed refuse
collection/recycling program would continue as it presently
exists.
Mr. Stock then reviewed a survey of refuse rates that are
currently being proposed by refuse collectors in our area. Mr.
Stock noted that Shakopee residents will still have the lowest
refuse collection rate of nearby communities. In addition,
Shakopee residents would have the luxury of having a 65 gallon
refuse cart provided to them at no charge, Shakopee residents
would also be receiving a recycling container and an annual
recycling rebate.
Mr. Bert Notermann questioned if the Cub Scouts would still be
able to participate in the City's Annual Clean-Up Day. Mr. Stock
stated that he believed the City of Shakopee would be willing to
provide $1500 to the Shakopee Cub Scouts providing that they
agree to participate in an Annual Spring Clean-Up Day.
Prudoehl/Levenson moved to close the public hearing. Motion
carried unanimously.
Leverson/Prudoehl moved for a 5-minute recess. Motion carried
unanimously.
Spiotta/Roman moved to reconvene. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock stated that in order for the City to implement the
proposed refuse/recycling program it would be necessary for the
City to make several amendments to the current contract. Mr. .
Stock reviewed the major amendments to the contract. He noted
that the majority of the amendments related to the provision of
3
the 65 gallon refuse cart and the addition of the recycling
program. Mr. Stock stated that Waste Management has agreed to
provide recycling containers to the City of Shakopee via a lease
purchase agreement. At the end of the three year contract period
the City would own the recycling containers. During the contract
period the hauler would be responsible for maintaining and
replacing lost containers.
Chairman Ziegler asked Mr. Burkopec if he thought vandalism and
theft would be a problem. Mr. Burkopec stated that in other
programs that they have which are similar to the program being
proposed, they do not have a major problem.
Mr. Stock noted that the management contract would be three years
in duration from the effective date of January 15, 1989.
Roman/Spiotta moved to recommend to City Council that the refuse
collection/recycling contract be approved as proposed by staff.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock stated that as a result of the landfill surcharge which
goes into effect on January 1, 1989, our refuse hauler has
requested a rate increase to help off-set the surcharge costs.
Mr. Stock noted that the rate increase amounts to $.78 per home
per month. _
Roman/Prudoehl moved to recommend to City Council that the refuse
collection rate be increased by $.78 per home per month effective
January 15, 1989. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock reported that several persons have expressed interest
in starting a reverse van pool to Shakopee. Prior to initiating
a reverse van pool, he was recommending that a policy be adopted
which sets forth some guidelines regarding the creation of
reverse van pools. Mr. Stock stated that he would like to
recommend that in order to be eligible to participate in the City
of Shakopee's reverse van pool program that the following two
criteria must be met by the van pool group:
1. The final destination point of the reverse van pool must be
located within the City limits of Shakopee.
2. The origination point of the reverse van pool must be
located within the Regional Transit Board's taxing district.
(Seven county metropolitan area) .
Prudoehl/Roman moved to recommend Council approval of Transit
Policy No. 21 - Reverse Van Pools. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock then briefly reviewed the monthly reports. He also
noted that at the January meeting the Committee would be
considering the selection of Dial-A-Ride contractor.
4
J �
Spiotta/Roman moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 P.M. Motion
carried unanimously.
Barry A. Stock, Recording Secretary
5
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
Regular Session Shakopee, Minnesota January 5, 1989
Vice Chrmn. Foudray called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with
Comm. Stafford, Forbord, Czaja and Schmitt present. Absent:
Chrmn. Rockne and Comm. Allen. Also present: Doug Wise, City
Planner.
Stafford/Czaja moved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion
carried.
Schmitt/Czaja moved to approve the December 8, 1988 meeting
minutes. Motion carried.
There was no other business.
Czaja/Stafford moved to adjourn. Motion carried. Meeting
adjourned at 7:31 p.m.
/ 7
SHAKOPEE PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Session Shakopee, Minnesota January 5, 1989
Vice Chrmn. Foudray called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. with
Comm. Stafford, Forbord, Czaja and Schmitt present. Absent:
Chrmn. Rockne and Comm. Allen. Also present: Doug Wise, City
Planner.
Schmitt/Czaja moved to approve the agenda with the addition of a
discussion regarding a liaison between the Planning Commission
and City Council under Other Business. Motion carried.
Czaja/Stafford moved to approve the December 8, 1988 meeting
minutes. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - RANDY KUBES
Czaja/Stafford moved to open the public hearing to consider
preliminary plat approval of Kubes 2nd Addition, 7 lots located
in the NE corner of the intersection of County Road 79 and County
Road 72 in a R-1 Zoning District. Motion carried.
City Planner stated that the proposed plat consists of 43.98
acres to be divided into 7 lots of 3 .8 - 10 acres in size. There
will be no interior roadways constructed and he stated that the
County Engineer recommended that accesses to CR 79 be limited.
City Planner stated that there had been some concerns regarding
drainage of the parcel. City Planner stated that staff is
recommending the owner submit an application for a grading permit
to ensure that grading and driveway construction will not change
the drainage.
Randy Rubes, 5284 Eagle Creek Blvd. , stated that the intention is
to keep the water running in the same flow and said that the DNR
and the County said that the land is not a wetland.
Comm. Forbord suggested that Mr. Kubes check with the Army Corp.
of Engineers to ensure that it is not a wetland in order to build
a road.
Dick Schmitz, 436 Apgar, said that he farms the land to the west
Shakopee Planning Commission January 5, 1989
Page Two
of the development and stated that he gets all the water that
comes off of this land. He feels that the culverts aren't big
enough and that his crops have died out. He stated that all his
land is lower than the development and that the additional roofs,
etc. in the development will create more runoff and make matters
worse.
Comm. Czaja questioned whether or not the applicant could
petition the County Engineer to review the culverts.
City Planner stated that the City Engineer and County Engineer
both looked at the property and that no comment was made on the
culverts.
Vice Chrmn. Foudray stated that for the record the city received
a letter from Dave and Sharon Bensen, owners of 3.9 acres in the
SE corner of the proposed development, stating that they do not
oppose the platting which has been proposed by Randy Kubes and
that they were unable to attend the January 5, 1989 meeting.
Czaja/Forbord moved to close the public hearing. motion carried.
Schmitt/Czaja moved to approve the preliminary plat of Rubes 2nd
Addition, subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney.
2. Payment in lieu of land dedication for park purposes is
required.
3. Each lot will be allowed only one access, an access permit
shall be required from the County Engineer. Lot 3 shall only
be allowed access onto County Road 72.
4. All existing drainageways must be maintained.
a. Final plat must contain a grading plan.
b. Tile drains must be identified on the plat and provisions
for maintenance be incorporated.
C. Grading permits will be required for construction of
driveways on Lots 1 and 2 for the purpose of recognizing
and minimizing the impact on the water retention basin.
S. Secure determination of wetland status from the DNR and the .
Army Corp. of Engineers.
Shakopee Planning Commission January 5, 1989
Page Three
6. Petition the County for drainage review.
Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED - LYNCH ENTERPRISES. INC.
Czaja/Stafford moved to continue the public hearing to consider
amending the Planned Unit Development for Shakopee Valley Square
Properties to allow for a Western Star Water Ski Show. Motion
carried.
City Planner stated that the parking lot for the proposed Western
Water Ski show is located NE of Shakopee Valley hotel on the
bluff area. He stated that there had been some concerns
regarding Mr. Bakken's compliance of the items outlined in the
previous memo and that after the inspection, it was determined
that some items have been completed and some still remain undone.
He stated however, that the Building Department will not issue a
certificate of occupancy for the 1989 spring season until these
items are complete.
He stated that another area of concern was whether or not Mr.
Bakken could operate in the winter season. The City Code
requirement for seasonal RV parks does not allow operation from
November 1 to March 31. He stated that staff classifies Mr.
Bakken's park as a seasonal RV park and, therefore, he should not
open until April 1 and until all previously mentioned items are
complete.
City Planner stated that the Western Water Ski Show did provide a
memo explaining how they proposed to limit traffic at the point
of entry per the commission's request.
With regard to the width of the roadways, City Planner stated
that there are three different requirements. The fire code
requires a minimum of 20' wide on access roads and the city code
requires a minimum of 12' wide on one way roads and 22' wide on
two way roads. And that the original PUD for Shakopee Valley
Square was approved with a minimum of 16' wide for one way roads
and a minimum of 25' wide for two way roads. He stated that the
fire code takes precidence in terms of one way roads and added
that the Commission can change the condition regarding roadway
width if they want to.
Discussion was held regarding the fact that the orignal plan
approved showed 25' minimum for two way roads.
Wallace Bakken, Shakopee Valley Square, stated that he had no
problem with the 25' minimum except that it would require him to
take out some beautiful trees. He would like to save the trees
and have the roads reduced to 221 . He stated that the city had
Shakopee Planning Commission January 5, 1989
Page Four
told him to save all the trees he could. He also said that he
has measured quite a few streets lately and that the average or
norm seems to be 22' .
Comm. Czaja questioned Mark Laughlin of the Western Star Water
Ski show if there are any other lots in the area available for
parking as traffic is his big concern. He raised a concern about
people coming all the way to Shakopee for the show and that it is
in everyone's best interest to accomodate as many people as
possible. He would like to see another parking lot available so
that people are not turned away.
Mark Laughlin, Western Star Water Ski Show, stated that there are
other lots available if need be. He stated that they have to
have a cut off point somewhere and that he does not anticipate
any problems with parking. He also added in response to
questions that the boat goes an average speed of 16 mph, much
less than a lot of fishing boats on the river and that the length
of time to complete a roundtrip shuttle ride from the parking lot
to the show is approximately 5 minutes.
When asked about security and first aid, Mr. Laughlin replied
that they have trained personnel and first aid equipment and
supplies on hand.
Lynn Lean, Backstretch RV Park, questioned how the proposed show
fits into the RV ordinance under F; Accessory Uses. He also
questioned if staff will follow through with the items on the
list that Mr. Bakken is to comply with if this is approved.
City Planner stated that there is a provision in the RV code that
refers to accessory uses soley for residents of the park, i.e. ,
showers, lockers, etc. Staff's interpretation is that this is
not an accessory use of the property, but is an additional
principal use along with the hotel, etc. He went on to add that
a PUD allows for multiple uses of the property.
Vice Chrmn. Foudray stated that this amendment to the PUD
incorporates approval of a conditional use permit for the water
ski show.
There were no other comments from the audience.
Czaja/Stafford moved to close the public hearing. Motion
carried.
Schmitt/Forbord moved to approve the amendment of the Planned .
Shakopee Planning Commission January 5, 1989
Page Six
Unit Development for Shakopee Valley Square Properties to allow
for a Western Water Ski Show subject to the following conditions:
1. All conditions attached to the approval of the previous PUD
shall remain in effect except for Condition #16 which addresses
road width requirements. one way access roads shall be a minimum
of 20' as required by the Uniform Fire Code. The 25' width
requirement for two-way roadways will remain in effect.
2. Prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for
the camp ground and water ski show:
a. All items listed on the August 5, 1988 and December 22,
1988 letters to Mr. Bakken from the city Building
Department must be completed.
b. Construction of a second entrance road must be complete.
c. No temporary permits are to be issued for the camp ground
or water ski show.
d. The Planning Commission shall be notified of compliance
and issuance of the final certificate of occupancy.
3 . All structures of the water ski show must be removable and be
removed each fall at the end of the season and prior to any
flooding. Electrical service for the structures must have a
safety shut off located outside the floodplain and wires shall
mot be located in a manner that will obstruct flow of possible
flood waters.
4. Parking
a. The applicants shall limit the number of cars parking in
the parking lot for the water ski show to 63. No parking
for the show will be allowed on the street or in other
parking lots.
b. The parking lot must be constructed to include at least
63 spaces in addition to the parking spaces required for
the first phase of the Shakopee Valley Square PUD
previously approved.
C. Dust control measures will be required on an ongoing
basis.
5. Evening shows shall not begin before 8:00. Afternoon shows
-
shall not begin after 4:00 and within one hour of the opening of
Canterbury Downs.
6. Approval of this amendment to the PUD does not include
Shakopee Planning Commission January 5, 1989
Page Seven
approval of the future lodge buildings to be constructed NE of
the existing Motel. Prior to construction of either of these
buildings an amendment to the PUD must be approved by the City.
In approving such an amendment request, the City shall determine
that adequate parking for these buildings can be provided on the
site.
7. The applicant shall furnish copies of all permits required
from the DNR, Health Department and Water Patrol prior to
issuance of the final certificate of occupancy.
8. This amendment to the PUD incorporates approval of a
conditional use permit for the Western Star Water Ski . Show,
excluding successors and assigns without previous approval from
the Planning Commission. The method of operation shall be as
outlined in the applicant's Request for Permit booklet, Section
5. The booklet should be adjusted to read 63 parking spaces.
9. After conclusion of the first season of the water ski show,
the Planning Commission shall review the land uses approved by
this amendment to insure compliance with the above conditions.
Motion carried with Comm. Czaja opposed.
Schmitt/Forbord moved that staff be directed to determine whether
or not the remaining deposit has been refunded to the applicant
and if not to recommend that the deposit be held until all items
listed on the letter from the Building Department to Mr. Bakken
dated December 22, 1988 be completed. Motion became null and
void as Mr. Bakken already received his check.
Schmitt/Forbord moved that the conditions and circumstances
outlined in the staff memo to the Planning Commission on the
Shakopee Valley Square PUD amendment dated December 28, 1988
relating to (a. ) The $7500 deposit and (b. ) Two letters dated
August 5, 1988 and December 22, 1988 from the Building Department
to Mr. Bakken, be outlined in a memo by staff to be reviewed by
the Planning Commission for submittal to the City Council.
Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT OF CITY CODE SECTION 11.32 , SUBD. 4
AND 11. 33 , SUBD. 4
Shakopee Planning Commission January 5, 1989
Page Eight
Czaja/Stafford moved to open the public hearing to consider
amending City Code Section 11.32, Subd. 4 and and 11.33, Subd. 4
to allow a 20' rear yard setback when abutting a railroad in the
I-1 and I-2 Zoning Districts. Motion carried.
City Planner stated that a review of existing structures found a
20' setback. Current City Code requires a 30' rear yard setback
and a 0' side yard setback when abutting a railroad.
Jim Stillman, Rahr Malting, stated that the lower the setback the
better. The present 30' setback throws away 10' of land.
Czaja/Stafford move to close the public hearing. Motion carried.
Czaja/Forbord moved to recommend to City Council that in the I-1
and I-2 Zoning Districts the rear yard setback be changed to 20'
for buildings abutting a railroad spur. Motion carried.
Schmitt/Czaja moved for a 5 minute recess.
vice Chrmn. Foudray announced that item 7 (a) on the agenda
regarding the Market Street Corridor was to be discussed with the
City Engineer present, he was unavailable at that time so the
Commission moved on to item 7 (b) .
DISCUSSION - DAYCARE FACILITIES CONTINUED
City Planner stated that this is merely a discussion not a
hearing. He stated that the issue of daycare facilities and how
they were addressed in the city code was brought up several
months ago by a potential business planning to locate in the
industrial park. He stated that the code does not address the
day care issue at all.
City Planner stated that staff's proposal divides daycare into
two classes; Class I being free standing, not confined within a
home, and Class II being within a home and limited to less than
15 children.
Discussion was held as to whether or not daycare in the home
shouldn't fall under the home occupation ordinance and if all
existing facilities would be grandfathered in or not.
Kathy Stafford, 2328 Eagle Creek Blvd. , stated that she was a
licensed in home daycare provider. She stated that homes and
centers were licensed under different rules, Rule #2 for centers
-
and Rule #3 for homes. Some of the items contained in staff's
proposal are things that are left to the discretion of the
licenser, i.e. fencing and play area.
Shakopee Planning Commission January 5, 1989
Page Nine
Michelle Olson, 1245 Shakopee Ave. E. Apt. 127, stated that she
does daycare out of her apartment and that this is her only
source of income and that some of the provisions in the proposal
could put her out of business.
Shirley Bide, 811 E. 3rd Ave. , stated that the proposed off
street parking was a problem for her. She only has one spot
available in front of her house and that is used for her car.
She stated that she has never had a problem with the parents
dropping off their children.
Barbara Stark, 1017 S. Swift, stated that a lot of parents do not
want their children in a daycare center but prefer a home. She
recommended asking some parents their opinions.
Discussion continued regarding daycare as a growing thing.
Points were raised about the in home beautician, Mary Kay
representative and home interior representatives. They fall
under the home occupation ordinance requiring a conditional use
permit. And do daycare providers come under the same
requirements?
Kathy Stafford stated that in home providers are inspected by the
Fire Marshall and have to already follow strict regulations and
she was wondering why the Commission feels the need for more
regulations.
Comm. Forbord suggested that staff research other cities, obtain
documents from the audience members and to work together with
these daycare providers to come up with the best solution for
everyone.
Delores Fiske, Member of Scott Co. Daycare Assoc. Bd. , encouraged
staff to approve the daycare facility planned in the Industrial
Park. She stated that Scott Co. has a real need for daycare
facilities.
Comm. Czaja stated that he would like to see the legal definition
of home occupation pertaining to work exclusively in the home.
Czaja/Forbord moved to set a public hearing for the March
Planning Commission meeting to discuss the amendment of the City
Code concerning daycare facilities and that the daycare providers
present act as a committee to assist staff in preparing a
proposal for the hearing. Motion carried.
DISCUSSION - MARKET STREET CORRIDOR
City Engineer, Dave Hutton was present. He stated that Market
Street is one of the few North/South corridors. Regarding the
Shakopee Planning Commission
January 5, 1989
Page Ten
railroad crossing, he feels that Minnesota is more desirable from
a commercial standpoint because of the bank, etc. and that
Naumkeag is more desirable for closure because traffic counts are
less than Minnesota, it is in poor condition and it is closely
centered between Marschall and Market.
Discussion continued regarding the cost of assessments and the
other things that are happening independently as far as the 2nd
Ave. corridor and the 5th Ave. construction.
Comm. Schmitt feels that it would be beneficial to incorporate it
all into one project and do the whole thing at once.
City Engineer agreed in that a feasibility study done for 5th
Ave. dragged Market into it anyway. It is also his feeling that
funding from the state and Federal aid should take care of the
whole thing without assessments.
Comm. Forbord stated that he did not feel it was necessary and
that he would recommend waiting for the comprehensive plan. He
feels that the city should deal with the real problems and spend
money on the Co. Rd. 18 connection or the bridge.
Czaja/Schmitt moved to recommend to City Council that a
Feasibility Study be done on the Market Street Corridor from 1st
Ave. to 7th Ave. and to incorporate 2nd Ave. due to the railroad
crossing. Motion carried with Comm. Forbord opposed.
OTHER BUSINESS
City Planner suggested that a Planning Commission member attend
the City Council meetings in order to offer another voice on
recommendations and appealed to the City Council. Suggestions
were to alternate members each month or to designate one member
each time. It was decided that a decision would be made at the
next meeting.
Comm. Schmitt questioned whether or not the RV park on the West
end of town was constructed in the manner it was submitted. He
stated there was no hard surface access roads in that RV Park.
Czaja/Stafford moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 11:14 p.m.
l �
TENTATIVE AGENDA
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
Regular Session Shakopee, MN February 9, 1989
Chairman Rockne Presiding
1. Roll Call at 7:30 P.M.
2. Approval of Agenda
3 . Election of Officers
4. Passing the Gavel
5. Approval of January 5, 1989 Meeting Minutes
6. 7.30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider a variance to
build an addition 619" from the side lot line instead of the
required 10' at 1077 Minnesota Street.
Applicant: Barry and Janice Lusignan
Action: Variance Resolution #554
7. Annual Report
Action: Recommendation to City Council
8. Other Business
a.
b.
9. Adjourn
Douglas R. Wise
City Planner
NOTE TO THE B.O.A.A. MEMBERS:
1. If you have any questions or need additional information on
any of the above items, please call Doug Wise on the Monday
or Tuesday prior to the meeting.
2. If you are unable to attend the meeting, please call the
Planning Department prior to the meeting.
rK
TENTATIVE AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Session . Shakopee, MN February 9, 1989
Chairman Rockne Presiding
1. Roll Call at 7:30 P.M.
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Election of Officers
4. Passing the Gavel
5. Approval of the January 5, 1989 Meeting Minutes
6. 7:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider preliminary plat
approval of Heritage Place 2nd Addition upon the property
located South of Heritage Place Subd. and North of Vierling
Drive.
Applicant: Heritage Development of Minnesota, Inc.
Action: Recommendation to City Council
7. 7:50 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider a Conditional Use
Permit to allow a commercial recreation center including
video and pool games at 493 Marschall Road.
Applicant: Dan Betts and Paul Webster
Action: Conditional Use Permit Resolution #555
8. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider a Conditional Use
Permit to allow a commercial recreation center at 125 East
First Avenue.
Applicant: Edward A. Schmidt III
Action: Conditional Use Permit Resolution 4556
9. J.L. Shiely CUP Annual Review
Action: Approval of Annual Review
10. Vacation of Alley North of Taco John's
Action: Recommendation to City Council
11. Year End Report
Action: Recommend.:tion to City Council
12. Discussion:
a. Bakken - Building Dept.
b.
C.
13. Other Business
a. Appoint City Council Liaison
b.
14. Adjourn
Douglas Wise
City Planner
NOTE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS:
1. If you have any questions or need additional information on
any of the above items, please call Doug Wise on the Monday
or Tuesday prior to the meeting.
2 . If you are unable to attend the meeting, please call the
Planning Department prior to the meeting.
TENTATIVE AGENDA
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 7, 1989
Mayor Dolores Lebens presiding
11 Roll call at 7:00 P.M.
21 Recess for H.R.A. Meeting
31 Re-convene
41 Liaison Reports from Councilmembers
51 RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS
6] Approval of Consent Business - (All items listed with an
asterisk are considered to be routine by the City Council
and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember
so requests, in which event the item will be removed from
the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence
on the agenda. )
*7] Approval of Minutes of January 17th, 26th, and 31st, 1989
8] Communications:
*a] Melanie Eahleck re: resignation from Energy and Transpor-
tation Committee
b] Gary Englund, Mn. Dep't. of Health re: reporting to the
1989 Legislature, proposals for alternative funding for
water supply monitoring and surveillance in Minnesota
*C] Frederick Lantz re: Certificate of Achievement for
Excellence in Financial Reporting
d] Richard Ellsworth re: financial statements of Minnesota
Valley Restoration Project, Inc. (Murphy's Landing)
e] Shakopee Area Convention and Visitors Bureau 1988. Annual
Report
f] John Drees re: application for appointment to the Energy
and Transportation Committee
*g] Senator Robert J. Schmitz re: Minneapolis, St. Paul and
South Saint Paul combined sewer overflow charges
9] 7: 30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - Proposed improvements to 5th Ave.
between Spencer and Market; Market between 4th and 7th;
and Main between 6th and 5th
101 Boards and Commissions:
Cable Communications Commission:
a] Sale of Cable System (Exercising Right of First Refusal) _
*b] 1988 Annual Report
*c] Public Access Studio Contract
Community Development Commission:
d] 1989 Star City Recertification
TENTATIVE AGENDA
2/7/89 Page 2
10] Boards and Commissions continued:
Energy and Transportation Committee:
e] Refuse/Recycling Program - Spring Clean-Up Activity
f] Selection of Dial-A-Ride Provider
111 Reports From Staff:
a] Shakopee Community Youth Building
b] 6th Avenue East of Main Street
gf Erosion (Dust) Control Ordinance
(d Reimbursement for Meadows Subdivision Oversizing
Well No. 8 - East of Stans Park
Change Order Procedures
*gl Sand Creek Water Management Organization
Radio Purchase for the City Engineer's Car
Upper Valley Drainage
Employee Contributions to Group Insurance
Purchase of Dump Truck
1] Approve Bills in the Amount of $914,562.93
*m] Nomination and Appointment to Energy & Transportation
Committee - Debra Amundson
12] Resolutions and Ordinances:
a] Res. No. 3015, Receiving A Report and Calling A Hearing
on Improvments to 3rd Avenue between Spencer and Shumway
b] Res. No. 3014, Receiving A Report and Calling A Hearing
on Improvements to Marschall Road between 4th and 10th
*c] Res. No. 3018, Initiating the Vacation of the Alley North
of Taco John's
*d] Res. No. 3016, Apportioning Assessments Within Prairie
Estates 1st Addition
131 Other Business:
a] �Set a�J.da�te to interview applicajjl1is for City Attorney
b] /YNM.wAM. j'j 9'i�.�/ .�+i. -NJ", paw*sN
C]
9:s6 14] Recess for Executive Session to discuss Police Union
Negotiations
15] Re-convene
16] Adjourn to Thursday, February 9, 1989 at 10: 00 A.M. to hear
expansion plans for St.Francis Regional Medical Center
Dennis R. Kraft,
Acting City Administrator
REMINDER: The 1989 Strategic Planning Session with Department
Heads will take place on Monday, February 13th, at
4:00 P.M. at the Shakopee House, lower level
TENTATIVE AGENDA
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting February 7, 1989
Chairman Gary Scott presiding
1. Roll Call at 7: 00 P.M.
2 . Approve the Minutes of the January 3, 1989 Meeting
3 . Other Business
a.
b.
4 . Adjourn
Dennis R. Kraft
Executive Director
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MN JANUARY 3, 1989
Chairman Clay called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. with Comm.
Vierling, Zak, Scott, and Wampach present. Also present were
Mayor Lebens; Dennis Kraft, Executive Director; Judith Cox, City
Clerk; David Hutton, City Engineer; and Julius Coller II, City
Attorney.
Vierling/Scott moved to approve the minutes of December 20, 1988.
Motion carried unanimously.
Vierling/Wampach nominated Cncl. Scott for HRA Chairman.
Zak/Scott nominated Cncl. Vierling for HRA Chairman.
Scott/Wampach moved to close nominations. Motion carried
unanimously.
Wampach/Zak moved to close nominations. Motion carried
unanimously.
Vote was cast for HRA Chairman.
Cncl. Scott voted for Cncl. Vierling
Cncl. Vierling voted for Cncl. Scott
Cncl. Wampach voted for Cncl. Scott
Cncl. Clay voted for Cncl. Vierling
Cncl. Zak voted for Cncl. Scott
Cncl. Scott was elected HRA Chairman for 1989.
Vierling/Wampach moved to nominate Cncl. Zak for Vice Chairman.
Zak/Wampach moved to nominate Cncl. Vierling for Vice Chairman.
Comm. Vierling, Wampach, Scott and Clay voted for Comm. Zak for
Vice Chairman.
Vierling/Wampach moved that a unanimous ballot be cast for Comm.
Zak for Vice Chairman of the HRA for 1989. Motion carried
unanimously.
Zak/Scott nominated Comm. Clay for Secretary of the HRA.
Vierling/Zak moved to close nominations. Motion carried
unanimously.
Vierling/Zak moved that a unanimous ballot be cast for Comm. Clay
for HRA Secretary. Motion carried with Comm. Clay opposed.
Vierling/Wampach moved to direct the Executive Director to draw
on the $50,000 letter of credit in the amount of $16,372.61 and
return the remaining $33,627.39 to the Shakopee Valley Square
Partnership. Motion carried unanimously.
Dennis Kraft said Mr. David Dinistrand, Heavy Duty Air facility
recently constructed in the Canterbury Business Park, contacted
him last week and asked about possibility of seeking tax
increment assistance for their facility. Consensus was that tax
increment assistance is not available.
Wampach/Vierling moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 7: 15 p.m.
Dennis Kraft
Executive Director
Carol Schultz
Recording Secretary
Iagr Io Afnnewta Beal &rate laarnal January 8, 1989
The
9 AIN%
9 � r
13% I,
r
Minnesotaf9lij 1`r
A L E STAT E
RVEY
Eagan Is among likely future hod spots for development.
This srrnet rn-spasmredlryAnhurAnrler- What are the greatest challenges facing real kuswilic 49 51 Vadnais Hcighls 78 22
.ren & C.. and the Minnesota Real Estate estate developers currently and during the St.Cloud 94 6 Waymut 14 86
Jmmral.It intendedtosolicit opiniansof nest three years? St.Louis Park ZI 73 West St. Paul 53 47
rrernrims in the realesrrnre indmtryregnnl- are yea Sl. Poul 70 30 While Bear hkc 47 53
igefacreaulrichmayaffertdrefmureafihe C..1,hax8c. Shakopee 74 26 Woodbury 84 16
Minnrsnmmrdrrtrar nurrkrf. WeunuldlAe Oversupply 76% 49% Stillwater 63 37
top crpress ran tgrprec!nrirm it,all dee real Environmental 36 46 _
estate erertan esulux tr,ak afew minutes to Financing Z7 27
enngrlere rhesuncyfrrmr undremmit to At. Gov'I regulation 26 Z7 Heal Estate Financing
Thur Andersen& Co. Fees and exactions 23 23 Whichofthe following cities are"hod spots"
Traffic 19 77. currently,and which will be Race years from What will the prime rate be one year from
Real Estate
High Prices 16 18 now, for real Cstate dcniopmenf! nowt
i
Antigrowth scmimcm 10 19 9%tu lO% 38%
Development Trends Office tech.chanes 1 6 Th.Y.
8 Cun<my FmnHap IU%toll% 36
What is your ouBook for Minnesota realAnoka 9% 16% 11%to 12% 13
cstatedevclupuMntoverdn mxl9trceycit tohrch ofthe follrnvingcities do you consider Apppie Valley 21 24 Beim 9% 11
m have regulatory envnanments which arc Banc 12 21 12%to 13% 2
Gard 57% hostile to or supportive ofdeveloptnent? Bloomington 22 12 Over 13% 0
No uppor
Goal 30 Slivc Hostile Bnwkl Center 7 6
Cause far Concern 10
Very Bright 3 Anoka 75% 25% Brooklyn Park 17 17 To what extent will equity be used instead of
Apple Valley 80 20 Burnsville 25 14 dcbtto finance real estate tmnsadiomduring
Which of(lie following ordinances will be Blaine 72 28 Chanhassen 13 23 the nest year and three years from now?
- Bloamingtun 5446 Columbia Ilcigho I I
11 "' Vva,Ranids 18 16 am6
nr.Nr
•'r ' omouuyu w...•
gnvernnm
esinthc raining yeast Brooklyn Park 75 25 Caluge Grove 4 9 About the same 42% 29%
feeigrowth
a•Ih 37 70% Burnsville 65 35 Duluth 5 10 Somewhat mom 32 29
Limited gmChanhassen 76 24 I::tum 57 41 Much mom than now 21 32
Subdivision exactions 35 Columbia Heights 49 51 Eden Prairie 56 34 Somewhat less 5 8
Open space exactions 33 Cron Rapids 89 11 What 15 8 Much fess than now 0 2
L.cost housing exactions 29 Cottage Grove 81 19 Fridley 3 4
Mass tonsil exactions 26 Duluth 60 40 Colder Valle 6 10 What doyou
Day cam exactions 17 Eagan 53 47 y 2 Yo pectlo state ndustr during
Ba liner C. 2 financing yeag for the real estate industry during
No growth 5 [glen Prairie 47 53 Inner Gnnr Heights 7 19 ' next year?
Edina 30 70 1 akeville 15 24 ann<yra,
Over lbcnea lhrce%vin where in Minnesota Fridley 65 35 \hq+le Grove 31 ,12 uaanlrrmm Nov
will development he the rnasr attractive? Golden Valley 33 67 hbplewoal 6 7 Insurance companies 39% 23%
Suburban Minneapolis 57% Ilopkins 55 45 Mendota 1{gis. 8 10 Pension funds 20 37
Downtown Minneapolis 30 Invcr Grove Heights 85 15 Minneapolis 21 18 Banks 17 9
Suburban Sl. Paul 25 Lakeville 78 22 Minnetonka 22 15 Government agencies 11 6
SI.Clout) 19 Maple Grove 63 37 New Brighton 3 5 Investment bankers 6 9
Rochester 13 Maplewood 49 51 New Hope 2 2 Savings and loans 6 3
Duluth 4 Mendota Hgu. 43 57 Oakdale 14 18 Syndicators 2 13
Downtown SL Paul 3 Minneapolis 50 50 Plymouth 42 30
Minnetonka 27 73 Richfield I 1
Over dienew lhrre years•where rationally New Brighton 80 20 Ruchester 17 17
will development be the most attractive? New Hope 32 68 Rosemount 5 15 How resll et to the foil presidency offer,Minnesota
Southwest U.S. 41% Oakdale 77 23 Roseville 14 10 with inspect to the fallowing factory!
Midwest U.S. 30 Plymouth 33 67 St.Cloud 30 29 m+^
Southeast U.S. 24 Richfield 30 70 St. Louis Park 4 6 m¢¢.. n.,s.Dw"—
NnnhwslU.S. 20 Rochester 86 14 St. I�ul 3 7 Economic growth 34% 61% 5%
Northwest U.S. 8 Rosemount 86 14 Shakopee 7 19 1 Global
Pe competitiveness 37 54 9
Stillwater 7 17 Inflation 26 64 8
VaJmus Heights 7 7 Interest rates 27 58 15
>• . o s: ;'j1. Whyxata 4 6 Unemployment mus 20 66 14
m do Nhst St. PaulI I Government
White Bear Lakc 5 8 regulations 12 61 27
1 Woodbury 28 39 Intone axes 36 59 5
Other 4 7 Yields on real estate 23 59 18
• j r. � � Which Jcvclnpmenl products have the
greatest in Minn esota? y and three}ran Haw would have a Dukakis t to presidency w--
�, Jmm nmv in Minnesota? >t�W. lcaed Minnesota with respect to the(ollow-
v a 0.ardr amN ing factors?
�yq _ Strip moil 49% 18% u
Single-family homes 39 25 1...v r w rw< ..
Unimproved land 29 30 Economic growth 15% 32% 53%
Industrial/warehouse 26 25 Global
' Retirement housing 18 41 competitiveness 12 33 55
Multifamily homes 15 26 Inflation 82 13 5
- epq Low-rise office bids U 15 Interest rotes 80 16 4
'ip�4� j1 _ ,•se" [ Regional retail 8 11 Unemployment rales 56 36 8
A quarter of the su"e 's respondents see office/warehouse develo mend haw llmgh-rise office bldgs. 7 10 Government
y P R1kD office buildings 5 12 regulations 83 14 3
Ing potential now and In three years. Hotels 3 6 Income taxes 89 9 2
Other 2 3 Yields on mal estate 12 28 60
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL
ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JANUARY 17, 1989
Mayor Lebens called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Cncl.
Vierling, Zak, Clay, Wampach and Scott present. Also present
were Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator; Douglas Wise, City
Planner; David Hutton, City Engineer; Barry Stock, Administrative
Assistant; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; and Julius Coller II, City
Attorney.
Mayor Lebens read the City's Non-Discrimination Policy.
Vierling/Wampach offered Resolution No. 3007, A Resolution of
Appreciation to Tim Keane. Motion carried unanimously.
Zak/Wampach moved to nominate Mr. James Moline for the Energy and
Transportation Committee. Motion carried unanimously.
Liaison reports were given by councilmembers.
Mayor Lebens asked if there was anyone from the audience who
wished to address anything not on the agenda. There was no
response.
Vierling/Wampach moved to approve the consent business.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous
Noes: None Motion carried.
Vierling/Wampach moved to approve the minutes of January 3, 1989.
(Approved under consent business) .
Steve Rose, Minnesota Valley Trail Specialist, DNR, was present
to give an update on the DNR Trail from LeSueur to Fort Snelling
and the acquisition of the Sweeney Property. He said a final
proposal was submitted to Mr. Sweeney on December 28, 1988. The
issue of vacating Minnesota and Market Streets will have to be
resolved before any agreement with Mr. Sweeney can be completed.
The DNR is working hard to get the final agreement with Mr.
Sweeney finalized by April 30, 1989.
Vierling/Wampach moved to receive the letter dated December 5,
1988, from W. Michael Everist of North Star Risk Services, Inc.
and directed the City Engineer to prepare recommendations on how
to address the issues contained in the letter (DOC No. CC-162) .
(Approved under consent business) .
Vierling/Wampach moved to approve the 1989 dues, in the amount of
$2,119.00, for membership in the Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities. (Approved under consent business) .
Vierling/Wampach moved to appoint Gloria Vierling as delegate and
Dennis Kraft as alternate delegate to the Association of
Metropolitan Municipalities for 1989. (Approved under consent
business) .
Proceedings of the City Council
Janaury 17, 1989 Page -2-
The City Planner reviewed the preliminary plat application
received from Randy Kubes for 7 lots located on the northeast
corner of the intersection of County Roads 72 and 79. Both roads
are gravel and in a rural area of the City.
Zak/Vierling moved to approve the preliminary plat of Kubes 2nd
Addition subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney.
2. Payment in lieu of land dedication for park purposes is
required.
3. Each lot will be allowed only one access, access permits
shall be required from the County Engineer. Lot 3 shall
only be allowed access onto County Road 72 .
4. All existing drainageways must be maintained.
a. Final plat must contain a grading plan.
b. Tile drains must be identified on the plat and
provisions for maintenance be incorporated.
C. Grading permits will be required for construction of
driveways on Lots 1 and 2 for the purpose of
recognizing and minimizing the impact on the water
retention basin.
5. Secure determination of wetland status from the DNR and the
Army Corp. of Engineers.
6. Petition the County for drainage review.
Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner reviewed the amendment to Shakopee Valley Square
PUD to allow a water ski show to be conducted on the Minnesota
River adjacent to the campground that Mr. Bakken is presently
constructing. There is a parking area proposed that will
accommodate 63 cars. Maximum seating capacity for the shows
would be 250-500 people. The water ski show will also utilize a
horse drawn people mover to transport people from the parking lot
down to the riverbank area for the water ski show. Cncl. Wampach
asked if tax increment money would be requested in the future.
Mr. Bakken said no, that Lynch Enterprises will be taking care of
all finances. Cncl. Zak had a concern on a ramp being
-
constructed in the river. His concern was for the safety of
other boaters in the river and also for people who may want to
swim out to the ramp. Tim and Kim Lynch, Lynch Enterprises,
addressed his concerns and said there will be a protective gate
with a lock around the ramp and there will also be reflectors
around it. The City Attorney asked if all the proper Government
Proceedings of the City Council
January 17, 1989 Page -3-
agencies have been notified since it is located in the river.
They replied that the DNR, Corps of Engineers, and Coast Guard
have all been contacted. There will also be an open pass at all
times for other boaters to pass.
Scott/Clay offered Resolution No. 3011, A Resolution Approving
the Amendment to the Final Plan and Development Agreement for
Shakopee Valley Square First Addition Planned Unit Development
and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously.
Wampach/Zak moved to open the public hearing on the proposed
sanitary sewer and watermain improvements to 3rd Avenue between
Harrison Street and Highway 169. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Engineer reviewed the feasibility report relating to the
3rd Avenue improvements between Harrison Street and Highway 169.
The area that is benefitted is zoned Bl and R4. The proposed
improvements consist of installing sanitary sewer and watermain.
He reviewed the alternatives for the sewer and water
construction. The funding for this project will come from the
sale of 1989 bonds and will be recovered by special assessments
to benefitted properties. Since this is new construction, the
city policy is to assess 1008 0£ the cost of the sewer and water
main construction. Cncl. Vierling questioned the 5 foot depth
being adequate for sanitary sewer. Mayor Lebens asked if there
was anyone from the audience who wished to address this issue.
Gene Brown, OTB Inc. said they have tried to sell this property
since 1979 but have been unable without public sewer and water.
He also stated that it is not feasible if they have to pay for
looping the watermain. He asked about a deferred assessment
until actual hookup to the utilities. He also asked about some
assistance from the government because looping costs are a
hardship.
Paul Solwold, representing himself, had a concern on the
assessment saying that he would like the city to explore the idea
of the city picking up part of the cost because it is being
assessed to only one side of the street, and, he would also like
to know which way the storm water will be running. The City
Engineer responded that storm sewer will be addressed when there
is development.
Clete Link stated that the improvements were a little expensive
for him at this time, and that they are not worth it to him.
Lou VanHout, SPUC Manager, explained that it has been a policy of
Shakopee Public Utilities that a watermain must cross the
property not just come to the property. He also stated that the
Commission feels that it is logical to wait until there is a
development proposed for a large project and then construct the
watermain loop so that it can also serve its needs.
Proceedings of the City Council
January 17, 1989 Page -4-
Mayor Lebens asked if there was anyone else from the audience who
wished to address this issue. There was no response.
Wampach/Vierling moved to close the public hearing. Motion
carried unanimously.
Vierling/Zak moved that the sewer and water improvements to 3rd
Avenue between Harrison Street and Hwy 169 are not in the best
interest of the City at this time and not to proceed any farther
with the project. Motion carried unanimously.
Zak/vierling moved to open the public hearing on the proposed
improvement to the alley located between Scott and Atwood Streets
and between Shakopee Avenue and 10th Avenue. Motion carried
unanimously.
The City Engineer reviewed the feasibility report for the
proposed improvements to the alley between Scott and Atwood
Streets. He said approximately 11 of the 16 property owners did
sign the petition. The area is zoned R2, proposed improvements
consist of bituminous pavement. There will be some grading
necessary for proper drainage. There will be a concrete approach
at each end of the alley. Actual construction costs are
estimated at about $10, 395. 00 which will be assessed. Mayor
Lebens asked if there was anyone from the audience who wished to
address this issue.
Jerry Hennen, asked if the assessments could be put on a 10 year
time frame. The City Engineer replied that that is the usual
policy.
Brian Benz said he would like his name stricken from the
petition.
Mayor Lebens asked if there was anyone else from the audience who
wished to address this issue. There was no response.
Wampach/Clay moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried
unanimously.
Wampach/Zak offered Resolution No. 3008, A Resolution Ordering an
Improvement and the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for
the Alley in Block 7 of the Jasper and Smith Addition Project No.
1989-3 , and moved its adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous
Noes: None Motion carried.
The City Planner reviewed the current setbacks for industrial
buildings abutting a railroad spur. The Planning Commission
recommends that the code be changed to allow for a 20 foot rear
yard setback rather than the current 30 foot requirement. This
would be logical in terms of where the main lead spur is located.
Proceedings of the City Council
Janaury 17, 1989 Page -5-
Scott/Vierling moved to direct the City Attorney to draft the
appropriate ordinance amending the City Code to allow a 20 foot
rear yard setback in the I-1 and I-2 Zoning Districts for
buildings abutting a railroad spur. Motion carried unanimously.
Scott/Clay moved for a 10 minute recess. Motion carried
unanimously.
Vierling/Wampach moved to reconvened at 8:45 P.M. Motion carried
unanimously.
Vierling/Zak moved to table discussion on the Downtown
Committee's One Year Work Plan to January 31, 1989. Motion
carried unanimously.
Vierling/Zak moved to table discussion on the Community
Development Commission's Star City One Year Work Plan and the
Star City Five Year Work Plan until January 31, 1989. Motion
carried unanimously.
Clay/Vierling moved to remove from table the O'Dowd Lakes Chain
Association Request for Payment of Insurance Costs. Motion
carried unanimously.
The City Clerk reviewed the request from O'Dowd Lakes Chain
Association for payment of the premium for insurance for the
aerators on the lake. Cncl. Vierling said that she would prefer
the City pay 2/3 of the premium and the Township of Louisville
take up the other 1/3. Dave Brown, representing O'Dowd Lakes
Chain Association said that the people of Shakopee are the ones
that are really using the majority of the recreational space out
at the lakes and that the City really should consider paying the
full premium. Last year the City paid one half of the premium.
Vierling/Wampach moved to approved paying 2/3rds of the insurance
premium for the operation of the aerators on Lake O'Dowd.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous
Noes: None Motion carried.
Wampach/Zak moved to authorize proper City officials to enter
into a two year lease with Save O'Dowd Lakes Chain Association
for the purpose of providing easement for electrical power and
operation of aerators. Motion carried unanimously.
Vierling/Wampach moved to authorize proper City officials to
execute the maintenance contract with Associated Mechanical for
$1,920.00 and the rate of $46.00 per hour for all repair work
completed on call plus parts for work done not in conjunction
with normally scheduled maintenance checks, for the 1989
operational year. (Approved under consent business) .
Vierling/Wampach moved to approve Change Order No. 3 for Project
No. 1987-12, and authorize the appropriate City officials to
Proceedings of the City Council
Janaury 17, 1959 Page -6-
execute this change order in the amount of $1,350.00 to S.M.
Hentges and Sons, Inc. , P.O. Box 212, Shakopee, MN 55379.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous
Noes: None Motion carried.
Wampach/Vierling moved to direct the appropriate City staff to
submit a check in the amount of $10, 500. 00 to the Scott County
Transportation Coalition.
Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Vierling, Zak, Wampach and Clay.
Noes: Cncl. Scott and Mayor Lebens
Motion carried.
Vierling/Clay moved to remove the parking restrictions near the
Courthouse from the table. Motion carried unanimously. - -
Discussion ensued on implementing parking restrictions near Scott
County Courthouse. The City Engineer said one alternative is to
place a two hour parking limit on Holmes and Fuller street.
Another alternative is for Scott County to remove all their pool
cars from the parking lot to give more room for visitors. Cncl.
Scott said he feels that the City cannot make any decision until
the County has had a chance to sort out these options. The City
can not deal with the public parking problems until the County
has solved internal parking problems.
Scott/Vierling moved to take no action on establishing parking
restrictions around the Courthouse, until the County has time to
solve their internal parking problems. Motion carried
unanimously.
The City Engineer reviewed the three areas of design assistance
for the Shakopee Bypass Project that the City has agreed to
provide to Mn/DOT. The design assistance is divided into three -
areas:
1. Roadway design for 6 crossroads.
2. Bridge design for the same 6 crossroads.
3. Drainage design.
Orr-Schelen-Mayeron is requesting an extension to their contract
to complete the final design services for the drainage
improvements at a cost not to exceed $115, 000.00.
Vierling/Zak moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to
execute the contract extension agreement with Orr-Schelen-Mayeron
and Associates for the purpose of providing design services
associated with the T.H. 101 Shakopee Bypass storm drainage
improvements at a cost not to exceed $115, 000.00.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous
Noes: None Motion carried.
The City Clerk explained the results of the Council balloting for
appointments to Boards and Commissions, which was done before the
meeting.
Proceedings of the City Council
Janaury 17, 1989 Page -7-
Planning Commission - one opening:
Melanie Kahleck: Cncl. Clay, Scott and Mayor Lebens
John Schmitt: Cncl. Wampach, Vierling and Zak
Community Development Commission - three openings:
Jon Albinson: Cncl. Clay, Scott, Vierling, Zak, and Mayor Lebens
Debra Amundson: Cncl. Scott and Wampach
Jane DuBois: Cncl. Clay, Scott, Wampach, Vierling, Zak, and
Mayor Lebens
Al Furrie: Cncl. Clay, Wampach, Vierling, Zak, and Mayor Lebens
Elmer Otto: None
Community Recreation Board - one opening:
Frank Houser: None
Robert Tomczik: Cncl. Clay, Scott, Wampach, Vierling, Zak, and
Mayor Lebens
Because of a tie, a second balloting was necessary for the
opening on the Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment and
Appeals.
Melanie Kahleck: Mayor Lebens, Vierling, Scott, Clay
John Schmitt: Zak and Wampach
Clay/Vierling moved to appoint Melanie Kahleck to the Planning
Commission/Board of Adjustment and Appeals for a four year term
expiring January 31, 1993. Motion carried with Cncl. Wampach and
Zak opposed.
Scott/Wampach moved to appoint John Roepke to the Police Civil
service Commission for a three year term expiring January 31,
1992 . Motion carried unanimously.
Zak/Vierling moved to appoint Jim Cook to the Shakopee Public
Utilities Commission beginning April 1, 1989 for a three year
term expiring April 1, 1992. Motion carried unanimously.
Vierling/Wampach moved to appoint Donna Roman, Elmer Otto, and
James Moline to the Energy and Transportation Committee for three
year terms expiring January 31, 1992. Motion carried unanimously.
Wampach/Vierling moved to appoint Bill Anderson and Lillian Abeln
to the Cable Communications Advisory Commission for three year
terms expiring January 31, 1992. Motion carried unanimously.
Clay/Vierling moved to appoint Robert Tomczik to Shakopee
Community Recreation Board for a two year term expiring January
31, 1991. Motion carried unanimously.
Vierling/Wampach moved to appoint Randy Laurent and Jim Link to
the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board for three year terms
expiring January 31, 1992. Motion carried unanimously.
Proceedings of the City Council
Janaury 17, 1989 Page -8-
Wampach/Clay moved to appoint Randy Laurent and Jim Link to the
Building Code Board of Adjustment and Appeals for three year
terms expiring January 31, 1992. Motion carried unanimously.
Clay/Vierling moved to appoint Jane DuBois and Al Furrie to the
Community Development Commission for three year terms expiring
January 31, 1992. Motion carried unanimously.
Clay/Vierling moved to appoint Jon Albinson to the Community
Development Commission to fill the unexpired term of Tim Keane
expiring January 31, 1991. Motion carried unanimously.
Scott/Wampach moved to compensate Mr. Coller as City Attorney at
the rate of $2,491.67 per month for 1989 until such time that
Council makes other arrangements for the provision of legal
services.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous
Noes: None Motion carried.
Discussion ensued on the purchases of two pickup trucks with or
without air conditioning, one for the Inspection Department and
another for the Engineering Department.
Zak/Wampach moved to purchase from Thane Hawkins Polar Chevrolet
two 1989 S10 pickups one for the Inspection Department and one
for the Engineering Department in the amount of the lowest
possible bid, with air conditioning.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous
Noes: None Motion carried.
Vierling/Wampach moved to authorize the Finance Director to
purchase an intermediate or compact type car at a cost not to
exceed $9, 000 including tax and license. Said car to be used for
general administrative or pooled used by all departments.
(Motion approved under consent business) .
Vierling/Wampach moved to approve of the following interfund
transfers:
from Capital Equipment to General Fund $234,427.06
from Track Offsite to Debt Service 432 248,497.92
from 1976 Imp. Fund to Capital Imp. Fund 364,346.34
from 1977A Imp. Fund to Capital Imp. Fund 78, 099.01
from 1977C Imp. Fund to Capital Imp. Fund 383,978.25
(Approved under consent business) .
Vierling/Wampach moved to enter into a prosecution agreement with
-
the Scott County Board of Commissioners and the Scott County
Attorney, for the purpose of having Scott County prosecute all
worthless check misdemeanors for the City of Shakopee. (Approved
under consent business) .
Proceedings of the City Council
Janaury 17, 1989 Page -9-
Clay/Vierling moved to approve the bills in the amount of
$1,541,800.37.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous
Noes: None Motion carried.
Discussion on the Council Meeting Procedures was tabled until the
Council meets to discuss Goals and Objectives.
Discussion ensued on the letter from Trevor R. Walsten, from
Krass and Monroe, concerning the possible liability which the
City may face if it elects to fill the vacant City Administrator
position with an applicant who does not meet the advertized
minimum requirements for the position. Mayor Lebens suggested
that this be discussed at the goals and objectives meeting.
The meeting date to discuss the Housing Code Program was set for
January 31, 1989 at 7:00 p.m.
The meeting date to discuss the annual Goals and Objectives was
set for February 13 , 1989 at 4:00 p.m.
The Acting City Administrator reviewed the present snow removal
ordinance saying that at the present time the City is not
enforcing the ordinance. It was suggested that property owners
get 24 to 48 hours to clear the sidewalks. Consensus was to
change the City Code to require property in the downtown
district to remove snow from the sidewalks within 24 hours,
including residential property within the downtown district.
Scott/Zak moved to enforce the snow removal ordinance that is in
effect rather than go by complaints, by a timely inspection
within the time limits of the ordinance. Motion carried
unanimously.
Vierling/Wampach moved to set the mileage reimbursement rate for
the use of personal vehicles for City business at $.24/mile
effective February 1, 1989. (Approved under consent business) .
The City Engineer reviewed the feasibility report prepared for
improvements to Market Street between 1st Avenue and 7th Avenue.
He said the Planning Commission felt that 2nd Avenue should also
be addressed at this time in the feasibility report.
Vierling/Wampach offered Resolution No. 3010, A Resolution
Ordering the Preparation of a Report on an Improvement to Market
Street From 1st Avenue to 7th Avenue. Motion carried
unanimously.
Mayor Lebens addressed the issue of her not signing the
Resolution and Ordinance regarding the mini bypass. She said she
will sign the two papers if all the original property owners,
assessed for the parking lots, are notified that their rights may
be violated. Consensus was to hold a special meeting with Mr.
Krass, Assistant City Attorney, to discuss this further.
Proceedings of the City Council
January 17, 1989 Page -10-
Vierling/Scott directed the Acting City Administrator to set up a
meeting with Assistant City Attorney, as soon as possible, to
explore some of the possibilities relating to the parking lots so
that the Mayor would sign the Ordinance and Resolution regarding
the official Map for the Mini Bypass.
The City Engineer said it will be the State Highway Department
that will be purchasing all the right of way, so if it costs more
to obtain 102 parcels because of the parking lots, it will not
cost the City any more money. Secondly, the State must follow
the same eminent domain process that the City does.
Motion carried unanimously.
The City Attorney suggested that a new ordinance be drafted
regarding the adoption of the official map for the Mini Bypass
Right-o£-Way deleting reference to "temporary easements" .
Wampach/Zak moved to authorize the City Attorney to prepare a new
ordinance adopting the Official Map for the Mini Bypass Right-of-
Way deleting reference to temporary easements. Motion carried
unanimously.
Vierling/Scott offered Resolution No. 3012, A Resolution
Authorizing the Making and Delivery of a Quit Claim Deed - Lot 3,
Block 23, Plat of East Shakopee, on file and of record in the
Office of the County Recorder of Scott County, Minnesota and
moved for its adoption. Motion carried unanimously.
Clay/Zak moved to adjourn to Tuesday, January 31, 1989, at 7:00
p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:40
p.m. JYy/�
Ju ith S. co
y Clerk
Carol Schultz
Recording Secretary
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JANUARY 26, 1989
Mayor Lebens called the meeting to order at 9:05 A.M. in the
Council Chambers at City Hall with Councilmembers Wampach,
Vierling and Scott present. Cncl.Clay was absent and Cncl.Zak
arrived at 9:11 A.M. Also present were Dennis R. Kraft, Acting
city Administrator; Rod Krass, Asst. City Attorney; Judith S.
Cox, City Clerk; Dave Hutton, City Engineer; and Greg Voxland,
Finance Director.
Vierling/Wampach moved to accept the call of the Mayor. Motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. Krass brought the Council up to date on the status of the
litigation regarding the Mayor's refusal to sign Ord. No. 258,
Adopting the Official Map for 169/101 Bridge and Mini Bypass
Project and Res. No. 2978, Aproving the Preliminary Layout. He
explained that he has met with Mr. Lebens and has learned more
about the 1967 parking lot improvements. It is Mr. Krass'
opinion that there are property rights which must be extinguished
by property acquisition, if the parking lots are to be utilized
for the Mini Bypass. He disagrees that Ordinance No. 258 and
Resolution No. 2978 are illegal by taking away property rights.
Adopting an official map simply sets forth how improvements may
be made within the area; it just indicates procedure. He
recommended that Ordinance No. 258 be redrafted to eliminate
reference to easements, since there will be no easements
acquired.
Cncl.Zak arrived and took his seat.
Mayor Lebens stated that she agrees with Mr. Krass to this point.
She stated that before she would sign the two documents that she
would like the City to send out a letter to the property owners
of the original 102 parcels which were assessed for the parking
lot improvements. She would like them to be notified that their
interest may at sometime be taken. Discussion ensued on whether
or not the City should be sending out letters when the State will
actually be dealing with property owners on property acquisition.
Mr. Krass expressed his concern about the City sending out any
letters.
Mayor Lebens expressed concern about whether or not the State is
aware that there are 102 properties who may have some interest in
the parking lots and who they will have to contact. She said
that she will sign the documents. She believes that the
newspaper has done an excellent job in getting the word out about
this matter.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
January 26, 1989 Page -2-
Cncl.Zak suggested that the City contact the State and find out
what they are doing. He believes that the City shouldn't send
out letters; that it would be to confusing to property owners.
They would be unsure of with whom they are dealing.
Scott/Vierling directed the City Engineer to provide the State
with a list of the properties assessed for the parking lots and
to ask them to verify to us that they will be included as part of
the acquisition process.
Zak/Vierling moved to amend the motion to include requesting a
response by the end of February. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion carried unanimously on main motion as amended.
Discussion followed on the advertisement for the City
Administrator and whether a new advertisement should be published
which might more accurately describe the desired qualifications.
Mr. Kress responded to a memo written by Mr. Walsten, from his
office, regarding the hiring of someone who did not meet the
qualifications advertised. He stated that the advice to
readvertise was good advice and if followed the City could not
get into trouble. He explained that the city could be sued, if
they hired someone who did not meet the advertised qualifications
over someone from a protected class who did, but that it was
probably not likely that anyone would sue the city.
Wampach/Vierling moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 10:00 A.M.
idly Clerk
Recording Secretary
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADJ.REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JANUARY 31, 1989
Mayor Dolores Lebens called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
with Councilmembers Zak, Wampach, Clay, Vierling and Scott
present. Also present were Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City
Administrator; Julius A. Coller II, City Attorney; Judith S. Cox,
City Clerk; Leroy Houser, Building official; Newton Parker,
Housing Inspector; and Barry Stock, Administrative Assistant.
Liaison reports from Councilmembers were given.
Cncl. Scott, as liaison to the Police and Fire Departments,
advised the Council that the members of the Police Officer's
union (Teamsters Local 320) want to settle on their 1988 and 1989
contracts. He explained their 1988 requests: 3.5% salary
increase across the board, an additional $30 per month toward
health insurance, an additional vacation day per year beginning
in the 16th year through the 20th year with a maximum of 25 days
per year, and the clothing allowance remaining the same as in
1987. If this is agreed to, they will settle the 1989 union
contract as follows: 4.0% across the board salary increase, an
additional $10 per month toward health insurance, an additional
$25 per month in the uniform allowance, and increasing the
employee term life insurance from $25,000 to $50, 000. Discussion
ensued on paying for the cost of the additional life insurance by
eliminating the monthly compensation to all City employees who
have single health insurance coverage. Staff was directed to
prepare a memo addressing these issues for the next Council
meeting.
Mayor Lebens introduced Kristen Converse, the new Executive
Director of the Chamber of Commerce.
Clay/Vierling moved to approve the Consent Business. Motion
carried unanimously.
Clay/Vierling moved to approve the Minutes of January 10, 1989.
(Approved under consent business) .
Vierling/Wampach moved to remove from the table the Downtown
Committee One Year Work Plan. Motion carried unanimously.
Barry Stock, Administrative Assistant, explained that the
Downtown Committee has identified two or three main objectives
and that there would be no cost to the City unless Council wished
to further pursue any recommendations made by the Downtown
Committee and the Community Development Commission that may
involve potential City expenditures. Discussion followed.
Proceedings of the City Council
January 31, 1989 Page -2-
Vierling/Zak moved to approve the Downtown Committee Work Plan,
as submitted. (CC Doc. No. 163)
Roll Call: Ayes; Cncl. Zak, Wampach, Clay and Vierling
Noes; Cncl. Scott and Mayor Lebens Motion carried
Vierling/Wampach moved to remove from the table the Star City One
Year Work Plan. Motion carried unanimously.
Barry Stock explained the requirements in order to retain the
Star City status. Discussion followed.
Vierling/Wampach moved to approve the Star City One Year Work
Plan. (CC Doc. No. 164) Motion carried with Cncl.Scott and Mayor
Lebens opposed.
Vierling/Zak moved to remove from the table the Star City Five
Year Work Plan. Motion carried unanimously.
Clay/Vierling moved to approve the Star City Five Year Work Plan.
(Cc Doc. No. 165) Motion carried with Cncl.Scott and Mayor Lebens
opposed.
Vierling/Wampach moved to remove from the table the proposed
housing code. Motion carried unanimously.
Newton Parker, Housing Inspector, explained that the proposed
housing code would provide one source where housing requirements
can be found, and be more clearly defined, rather than the many
codes he is now using. He explained what he has been doing so
far regarding implementing the housing code adopted by Council in
1985. With the use of slides, he showed and explained life
threatening violations of the housing code within buildings in
the community. He also showed slides of violations which the
average person may come across in a home as new as 20-25 years.
Mr. Parker explained that he is inspecting for health and safety
violations of the use of the property. Often the use of
adjoining property may also put the occupants of a dwelling in an
unsafe situation. He explained that he is not inspecting older
buildings for conformance with todays standards, but rather that
they conform with the standards they were built under, and that
the building is in a reasonably safe condition. He does consider
the current standards when there are immediate health and safety
problems.
Mr. Parker and Councilmembers responded to questions asked by Mr.
John Scherer, Mr. Ron Scherer and Mr. Butch Notermann.
Proceedings of the City Council
January 31, 1989 Page -2-
Mr. Parker explained that he has only been working with the
program since July, starting from scratch, and that there are
parts that need to be fine tuned. The program encourages owners
to suggest alternative solutions to cited violations. He thanked
members of the audience for suggestions that were made.
Scott/Zak offered Ordinance No. 261, An Ordinance of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending the Shakopee City Code Chapter 4
Entitled "Construction Licensing, Permits and Regulations" 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
(deleting homestead property provisions) , and moved its adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes; Cncl.Zak, Wampach, Clay, Vierling and Scott
Noes; Mayor Lebens Motion carried
Vierling/Scott moved to approve the "Official Title and Summary
of Ordinance No. 261". Motion carried with Mayor Lebens opposed.
Vierling/Wampach offered Resolution No. 3017, A Resolution
Amending Resolution No. 2987 Adopting the 1989 Fee Schedule
(deleting references to homestead properties) , and moved its
adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes; Cncl.Zak, Wampach, Clay, Vierling and Scott
Noes; Mayor Lebens Motion carried
Clay/Vierling moved to authorize staff to disburse $5,000.00 to
the Southwest Metro Task Force in payment of the City's portion
of matching funds for a federal narcotics enforcement grant.
(Approved under consent business) .
Clay/Vierling moved to authorize staff to purchase one 1988
Subaru GL at a cost of $7,535.00. (Approved under consent
business) .
Vierling/Wampach offered Ordinance No. 260, An Ordinance of the
City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Adopting An Official Map for the
Right-of-way for the Highway 169-101 Bridge and Mini Bypass in
the City of Shakopee, and moved its adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes; Cncl.Zak, Wampach, Clay and Vierling
Noes; Cncl.Scott and Mayor Lebens Motion carried
Scott/Zak moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting
�adjj'o�urnned' at 9:26 P.M�.
C
JUdith S. Cox, City Clerk
i�eeording Secretary
CONSENT
1.1E MANECNALL SOHO.SN6KOVEE.MN 55399 16 @I KE-SF/5
Januaryz3, 1989
Mayor Dolores Lebens
Shakopee City Council
Shakopee, ME 55379
Dear Mayor Lebens and City Council Members:
Thank you for appointing me to the Planning Commission. I'm
honored that you've placed your trust in me, and I want to assure
you that I intend to be an extremely competent and conscientious
planning commissioner. I'm currently studying the 1981
Comprehensive Plan, the City of Shakopee Zoning Ordinance, the
minutes of the 1988 Planning Commission meetings, and will be
involved in the committee overseeing development of the new
comprehensive plan, in order to have as much background as
possible when I begin my duties in February.
I proffer my resignation on the Energy and Transportation
Committee. I resign from this committee, rather than from the
Downtown Ad Roc Committee, for two reasons: first, because I
believe I make a more unique and worthwhile contribution to the
Downtown Committee than I do to Energy and Transportation, and
second (and more important) because the Planning Commission and
the Energy and Transportation Committee often meet on the same
Thursdays, and their meeting times overlap.
I look forward to working closely with the City Council in this
new area.
S. ere y,
M anie Kahleck _
JAW2 is 1JS
m"
Action Requested
Move to accept the resignation of Melanie Kahleck from the
Energy and Transportation Committee.
minnesota department of health
717 s.e.delaware st. p.o.box 9441 minneapolis 55440
O 16121 6235 0 0 0 }p�
1589
MEMORANDUM :2
CITY
DATE : January 20, 1989
TO : City Council/Town Board/Rural Water Supply/System Operator
FROM : Gary L. Englund, P.E. Chief
Section of Water Supply
and Engineering
SUBJECT: Report to the 1989 Legislature, Proposals for Alternative Funding
for Water Supply Monitorino and Surveillance in Minnesota
By way of this notice, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) wants to alert
you to proposals that will be considered by the 1989 Legislature on funding
for public water supply monitoring. As the owner and/ operator of a pub-
lic water supply system You will be directly affected by the outcome of the
Legislature's deliberations in this matter. The following is a brief sum-
mary of the report including the costs that will be incurred by public water
supplies as a result of the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) amendments and
the funding alternatives submitted to the Legislature by MDH to cover these
costs.
As the state agency responsible for protecting and monitoring public drinking
water supplies in Minnesota, the MDH submitted a request to the 1988 Legisla-
ture for support of a significantly expanded program, which included funding
for 15 new positions and support for laboratory services. The funding request
was based on 1) the need to provide greatly expanded monitoring of public
water supplies due to the concern for the occurrence of many man-made chemi-
cals in drinking water and 2) the federal 1986 SDWA amendments that require
public water supplies to greatly expand the monitoring performed on their
drinking water. The 1988 Legislature directed the MDH to report back to it
prior to the 1989 session with proposals for funding the drinking water pro-
gram in the future.
Background
There are 12,000 public water supply systems in Minnesota divided into three
categories: community (1,000), nontransient noncommunity, (1,665), and noncom-
munity (9,305) systems. The noncommunity systems require minimal testing.
However, community (such as yours) and nontransient noncommunity systems will
be required to test for 83 contaminants compared to the 22 presently
monitored. MDH has estimated that theannual avgra a cost to each community
and nontransient noncommunity water system will be 830, with some systems
incurring annual costs of up to $3,500 because of the highly variable monitor-
ing frequencies. To fully fund the MDH drinking water program, including the
an equal opportunity employer
City Council/Town Board/ -2- January 20, 1989
Rural Water Supply/System Operator
cost of all required water analyses, requires approximately $3 million per
year.
The funding options for the drinking water program contained in the report are
as follows:
1. General Fund. Every taxpayer contributes to this fund and most state
programs use this as their source of funding, therefore there is consider-
able competition for these funds. The Commissioner's Drinking Water Task
Force recommended that the program be supported by general fund
appropriation.
2. Revenue-Generating Options.
a. Cost-of-Service Fee for Water Testing and Inspection for Each Public
Water Supply. Cost per person per year ranges from $33.20 (small
systems) to $.002 (very large systems).
b. Service Connection Fee for Each Customer Connected to a Community
Water Supply. Annual fee of $3.20 per water service connection
would generate sufficient revenue to support the program.
C. Fee Based on the Quantity of Water Used by Each Customer of a Commu-
nity Water Supply. A fee of $•021 per 1,000 gallons of water used
would generate sufficient revenue.
d. Operating Fee. Annual fee based on a sliding scale: noncommunity
systems $100 or $200 and community systems $1,300 (less than
100 persons served) to $4,200 (greater than 100,000 persons served).
e. Combination of One or More of the Above.
MOH, in its report, is recommending the annual service connection fee as the
preferred funding alternative, because it is reasonably equitable, easy to
administer and assures a stable funding source. A bill imposing this fee will
be submitted as part of the Governor's legislative package.
It is important to note that both federal and state rules place the responsi-
bility of water quality monitoring on the individual water systems. Thus,
if the Legislature takes no action on funding the state drinkina water Proaram
as outlined the responsibility for monitoring water quality and the associ-
ated costs will then be borne by the public water systems.
The Legislature will be discussing water supply funding during the current
session. Since every public water supply system in the state is affected, we
would encourage you to contact your state legislators and let your feelings be
known on the funding alternatives being considered. If you would like to
receive a copy of the complete report, please contact me at 612/623-5330 or
Dick Clark at 612/623-5227.
GLE:RDC:ter
CONSENT
December 29, 1988 GOVERNMENT FINANCE
OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
The Honorable Dolores M. Lebens t80N0f"1 AA0"s""''O�'E
SLi'E
Mayos zonvioo"�w ecao,
City of Shakopee f^"3129J"B06
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Mayor Lebens:
We are pleased to notify you that your comprehensive annual financial
report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1987 qualifies for a
Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting . The
Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in
governmental accounting and financial reporting , and its attainment
represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its
management .
When a Certificate of Achievement is awarded to a government, an Award of
Financial Reporting Achievement is also presented to the individual des-
ignated by the government as primarily responsible for its having earned
the certificate. Enclosed is an Award of Financial Reporting Achievement
for:
Gregg M. Voxland , Finance Director
The Certificate of Achievement plaque will be shipped under separate cover
in about six weeks . We hope that you will arrange for a formal presenta-
tion of the Certificate and Award of Financial Reporting Achievement, and
that appropriate publicity will be given to this notable achievement. A
sample news release is enclosed . We suggest that you provide copies of it
to the local newspapers and radio and television stations . In addition,
enclosed is the 1987 Certificate program results representing the most
recent statistics available.
We hope that your example will encourage other government officials in
their efforts to achieve and maintain an appropriate standard of excel-
lence in financial reporting . If you have any questions regarding this
matter , or if we may be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate
to contact us .
Sincerely,
GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
Frederick G. Lantz (/
Assistant Director/Technical Services Center
Action Requested
Move to acknowledge a communication from Frederick G. Lantz, Government
Finance Officers Association, regarding the City's Certificate of
Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting.
A V
NEWS RELEASE GOVERNMENT FINANCE
OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
RE: CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Is Awarded +eo�voitm m�crecnry nvErvuE
HIGHEST AWARD IN FINANCIAL REPORTING ����"�2', 1LNO1$bOd01
FPX.31Z 771
(Chicago) --The Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial
Reporting has been awarded to:
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
by the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and
Canada (GFOA) for its comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) .
The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in the
area of governmental accounting and financial reporting , and its
attainment represents a significant accomplishment.
When a Certificate of Achievement is awarded to a government, an Award
of Financial Reporting Achievement also is given to the individual
designated as primarily responsible for its having earned the certificate .
This Award of Financial Reporting Achievement has been presented to:
GREGG M. VOXLAND, FINANCE DIRECTOR
The CAFR has been judged by an impartial panel to meet the high
standards of the program including demonstrating a constructive "spirit
of full disclosure" effort to clearly communicate its financial story
and motivate potential persons and user groups to read the CAFR.
The GFOA is a nonprofit professional association serving 11,500
government finance professionals . The association produces a variety of
technical publications in various fields of governmental finance, and
represents the public finance community in Washington, D .C. The _
association provides numerous training opportunities , and conducts an
annual conference attended by 5,000 public finance professionals .
For more information, contact Fred Lantz at 312/977-9700.
14.�.:q--y'- :.. -.. . -,- ......-_ :,rr:1C FCW.2C2/4202750.c-i 2. :v 2...
gC,
PRESENTATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT PROGRAM AWARDS
The Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting
is the highest form of recognition for state and local governments. The
Certificate program thereby advocates that recipients be formally recog-
nized for their outstanding accomplishments . I£ you would like a formal
presentation of your award, you should contact your Government Finance
Officers Association state representative. Your representative 's
mailing address and phone number is as follows:
Dale Eggenberger
Director of Finance
City of Minnetonka
14600 Minnetonka Boulevard
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345
612/933-2511
oilThe Government Finance Officers Association
of the United States and Canada
presents di is
AWARD OF FINANCIAL REPORTING ACHIEVEMENT
to:
GREGG M. VOXLAND
FINANCE DIRECTOR
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
The Auwrd of Financial Reporting Achievement is presented by the Govenunertt Finan[e
OfficemAssociation to those individuals who have been in strurnental in theirgovemment
unit achieving a Certificate of Adrieoenuna for Ecellence in Financial Reporting. A
Certificate of Achievement is presented to those government units whosearmualfinanciul
reports are judged to adhere to program standards and represents the highest award in
government financial reporting.
Rxecuirw Director
Date DECEMBER 29, 1988
e
�d
GEORGE M. HANSEN COMPANY. P.A.
G M H C o
A Prufe„ional Caryarallan ICereled Public Aeroumano
January 27 , 1989
Mr. Dennis R. Craft
Community Development Director
City of Shakopee
129 East lst Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Mr. Craft:
Enclosed are twenty (20) copies of the financial statements of Minnesota Valley
Restoration Project, Inc. (Murphy's Landing) for the year ended February 29,
1988 and six months ended August 31 , 1988.
Also, enclosed is one copy of the management letter.
If you so desire, I will be available to meet with you or Council to review
the financial statements and management letter.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
GEORGE M. RANSEN COMPANY, P.A.
Richard 0. Ellsworth
ROE:iac
Enclosures
1433 UTICAAVENUE SOUTH. SUITE 175 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55416 613/566'2566
GEORGE M. HANSEN COMPANY, P.A.
G M H C o
A Pra/euional Corporarlon o/Cnr�eE her Arrounrmax
January 12, 1989
City Council
Shakopee, Minnesota
Dear Council Members:
We have recently completed our audit of the financial statements (cash basis) of
Minnesota Valley Restoration Project, Inc. (Murphy's Landing) for the year ended
February 29, 1988 and the six months ended August 31 , 1988 and have issued our
report thereon dated January 11 , 1989. During the course of our audit, we noted
certain conditions related to the accounting organization and procedures and other
matters which we are bringing to your attention in this letter.
Accountine Oreanizatiou and Procederes
At present, all transactions are manually recorded, classified and summarized into
a reporting format. The procedures used are adequate to record and control cash
receipts and disbursements, but are deficient in the following areas when
considered from a management point of view:
1 . Except for the recording of receipts and disbursements and
reconciliation of the bank account, all accounting routines are
performed by the Director. The result is that either the time
available to the Director for management and promotional activities
is reduced or she is required to work additional hours, resulting
is a reduction in the Director's effectiveness.
2. The present system is inadequate as a management tool in the
planning, operation and control of the organization. Although
revenue is generally recorded and reported by function, expenses
are recorded by object only with no provision for a functional
breakdown. As a result, management does not have the information
necessary to measure the financial performance of the various
programs or functions and to budget future operations.
We believe it is essential to relieve the Director of the accounting routines she
is presently performing in the interest of increased management effectiveness and
internal control. Because of the diversity of the Corporation's activities, it is
essential that revenue and expenses be recorded Under, or allocated to, the proper
function.
1433 UTICA AVENUE SOUTH. SMITE 175 MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55416 612/54fi-2566
City Council
Shakopee, Minnesota
January 12, 1989
Page 2
To accomplish these objectives, we recommend that:
1. A person with the proper training and experience be hired to
perform/manage the accounting function. Since the position is not
full-time, at least during parts of the year, perhaps it could be
combined with the "business manager" or "operations manager"
position which we understand has been identified as a need.
2. A properly designed accounting system be established providing
routines and forms for reporting transactions and a chart of
accounts for recording them. Computerization is an option that
should be explored as this would facilitate the processing and
reporting of information in the required detail as well as in a
timely manner. However, we would recommend that this step follow
the hiring of the person to be responsible for accounting. This
would allow him/her to participate in the computer selection
process and provide him/her with an incentive to make it work.
Accounting Record= and Financial Reporting
The accounting records and financial reports should be converted from the cash
basis to the accrual basis of accounting. Under this basis, revenue is recognized
when it is earned rather than when received and expenses are recognized when they
are incurred rather than when paid. The effect of the change on operations would
probably be minimal because of the nature of the operations, but the effect on
financial position would be significant since property and equipment would be
included in the financial statements as well as loan obligations and other
liabilities.
Including property and equipment in the financial statements would necessarily
require establishing detail records of these items. This should be done in any
case for management and internal control purposes. The records should include, for
each item, the description, location, date of acquisition, purchase cost or
appraised value if donated. The records should distinguish between property and
equipment used in operations and historical treasures. This is important because
Statements of Financial Accounting Standards (SEAS) Nos. 93 and 99 require that,
for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1 , 1990, non-profit organizations
depreciate long-lived tangible assets. Historical treasures, defined in SFAS 93
below, are exempt from this requirement.
"---- (an) historical treasure shall be deemed to have that
characteristic only if verifiable evidence exists demonstrating
that (a) the asset individually has cultural, aesthetic, or
historical value that is worth preserving perpetually and (b) the
holder has the technological and financial ability to protect and
preserve essentially undiminished the service potential of the
asset and is doing that."
City Council
Shakopee, Minnesota
January 12, 1989
Page 3
Unr la ed B .= 'ne=. Tnrome
As a non-profit organization, Murphy's Landing is exempt from income taxes on net
income from its exempt-function activities. Hovever, non-profit organizations may
be subject to income tax on income from unrelated business income (DBI). DBI is
defined in the tax regulations, and, in the case of Murphy's Landing might include
net income from the gift shop and general store as well as from commissions on
restaurant and boat operations, photo-shoot income, etc. Our audit procedures did
not include researching this matter sufficiently to enable us to advise you as to
the extent of the DBI tax liability, but we feel it is a matter that should be
investigated to determine what the liability may he and what steps the Corporation
should take.
We would be pleased to discuss the above matters with you and offer any assistance
you may require. At this time, we would like to acknowledge the courtesy and
cooperation extended to us during the course of our audit.
Very truly yours,
GEORGE M. HANSEN COMPANY, P.A.
Richard 0. Ellsworth
ROE:iac
1
i
i
GMHCo
GEORGE M. HANSEN COMPANY, P.A.
AP fmiowl Corporation ofCefieAPoh/h ACCOar,WlU
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55416
I
MINNESOTA VALLEY RESTORATION PROJECT. INC.
(MURPHY'S LANDING)
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FEBRUARY 29 , AND AUGUST 11 . 1988
GM H C o GEORGE M. HANSEN COMPANY, P.A.
A r of amn=1 c,,.y„/a1m„/c..TNe&brio n,ro,,.,o,,
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT
City Council
City of Shakopee
We have audited the accompanying statement of asset and liabilities arising from
cash transactions of the Minnesota Valley Restoration Project, Inc. (Murphy's
Landing) as of .February 29 and August 31 , 1988 and the related statement of revenue
and expenses for the year and six months thea ended. These financial statements
are the responsibility of the Corporation's management. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable
assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement.
An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as
evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
As described in Note 1, these financial statements were prepared on the basis of
cash receipts and disbursements and are not intended to be a presentation in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.
_ In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, is all
material respects, the asset and liabilities arising from cash transactions of the
Minnesota Valley Restoration Project, Inc. (Murphy's Landing) as of February 29,
and August 31 , 1988 and its revenue collected and expenses paid during the year and
six months then ended, on the basis of accounting described in Note 1.
January 11 , 1989
1433 UTICA AVENUE SOUTH. SUITE 175 MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55416 612/546-2566
(MURPHY'S LANDING) 1
C
STATEMENT OF ASSET AND LIABILITIES - CASH BASIS
FEBRUARY 29 , AND AUGUST 11 . 1988
August 31 , February 29,
1988 1988
ASSET
Cash S 29.594 S 9.946
LIABILITIES AND EU ULANCE
Liabilities
Payroll taxes withheld $ 3,101 $ 1,663
Deposits 900 ann
Total liabilities $ 4,001 $ 2,463
Fund balance 25 .593 7.483
Total liabilities and fund balance L29-UA
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
2
MINNESOTA 4 T EY RESTO ATION pgojECI IN 1
_ (MURPHY'S LANDING) Q P'
STATEMENT OF REVENUE AND ExpENSFS - CASH H SIc 0
YEAR ENDED FERROAFY 29. 19RR AND
SIR MONTHS ENDED AUGUST 31 . 19RR
August 31 , February 29,
Revenue 1988 1988
Admissions $ 69,435 $118,917
Special events 15,848 10,683
Horse and wagon 15,179 7,768
Merchandise sales 24,486 31,392
Rentals 27,697 52,585
Donations and grants 35,808 54,041
Memberships 2,200 3,956
Commissions 4,742 8,092
Interest 265 768
Insurance bond proceeds 10,000
Miscellaneous 1,525 6,737
Loan proceeds 20.00n
$217.185 8104.919
Expenses
Cost of merchandise sales $ 14,140 $ 18,502
Salaries and wages 84,797 129,303
Payroll taxes 7,726 12,599
Special events and programs 15,519 15,887
Horse and wagon 12,173 6,343
Maintenance 7,155 17,306
Advertising and promotion 5,513 6,351
Heat and light 6,758 14,031
Postage and telephone 3,397 6,381
Office supplies 1,051 1,762
Insurance 4,672 10,939
Professional 690 8,327
Capital outlay 8,925 34,230
Interest 3,172 2,763
Miscellaneous 1,849 8,519
Loan repayments 20 .000 1.000
S197.917 9294,241
Revenue in excess of expenses $ 19,648 $ 10,696
Cash, at beginning of period 9.946 (750)
Cash, at end of period 4 S 9.946
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
3
MINNESOTA V T E4 RESTORATION PROJECT- IN
(M➢RPR4'S LANDING)
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEKENTS
FEBRUARY 29, AND AUGUST 31 . 1988
Note 1 - Basis of Accounting
The Corporation's policy is to prepare its financial statements on the modified
cash basis of accounting; consequently, revenues are recognized when received
rather than when earned, and certain expenses and purchases of assets are
recognized when cash is disbursed rather than when the obligation is incurred,
except for withheld taxes and deposits which are recognized currently as
liabilities.
Not - Property and Ea.iu,ssnt
The accompanying financial statements do not include values for the Corporation's
property and equipment, including structures and improvements, artifacts and
restaurant, store and office equipment. Property and equipment was included in the
Form 990 for the year ended February 29, 1988 at a value of $2,062,465.
Note 3 - Lone-Term Oblieaticna
The Corporation has the following long-term obligations:
August 31, February 29,
1988 1988
Scott County RRA, non-interest bearing,
no fixed repayment date $ 6,500 $ 6,500
First National Bank of Shakopee, 11%,
due April 28, 1989 22,713 22,713
Note 4 - Income Taxes
Minnesota Valley Restoration Project, Inc. is exempt from income taxes under
Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, accordingly no provision for income
taxes has been reflected in the financial statements.
4
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator
RE: 1988 Annual Report on the Shakopee Area Convention
and Visitors Bureau
DATE: February 2, 1989
Introduction and Background
Attached is a copy of the 1988 Annual Report on the Shakopee Area
Convention and Visitors Bureau. Representatives from the Bureau
will be in attendance at the Council meeting on Tuesday evening
if you have any questions.
Action Requested
Move to receive and file the 1988 Annual Report on the Shakopee
Area Convention and Visitors Bureau.
DRK/jms
"8habef' CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
P
CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU
To: Shakopee City Council
From: Marilyn Hagerman, Chair
Re: 1998 Annual Report on the Shakopee Area Convention & Visitors Bureau
With the hiring of an Executive Director the Shakopee CVB launched its second
year of promoting Shakopee.
Staff: Theresa Roehrich, Executive Director; Darleen Schesso, Secretary.
Advisory Board: Marilyn Hagerman, Chair; Linnea Stromberg-Wise, John Anderson,
Mike Mulleady, Randy Williamson, Wally Bakken, Stan Rolfsrud, Cindy Perry and
Tom Mackin.
Channels for promotion of the area were:
TRAVEL SHOWS Participation was designed primarily toward group tour
operators, travel agents and finally individual travelers.
1. Jack Rabbit Trade Show in Sioux Falls, SO. A troupe of Renaissance
Festival performers gave added emphasis to Shakopee as an Entertain-
ment Showcase.
2. Jefferson show in Des Moines, IA which is a very strong show for
travel operators.
3. MN Association of Convention & Visitors Bureas show directed to
meeting planners in Metro area.
4. MN Recreation & Parks Association Meeting Trade Show with special
emphasis on Senior Citizens and Community tour groups.
5. Shakopee Showcase for local residents.
6. Star & Tribune show only for travel professionals in the five state area.
ADVERTISING:
1. Joint advertising with other Metro CVBs in 5 state area.
2. Ad in "Home and Away" magizine in Sept./Oct. Generated 350 responses
3. 2 billborads advertising hotels with "Shakopee Tonight" theme.
TRAVEL WRITERS AND FAMILIARIZATION TOURS:
1. Entertained ' travel writers from:
Stockhom, Sweden
Bahamas
People and MD magazines
2.Hosted a FAM tour for motorcoach operators. We will have a follow-up
tour in the Spring of those unable to attend.in the fall.
1801 Trunk Hwy. 101 P.O. Box 203 Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 612-445-1660
CUB/Shakopee City Council
198-8
Page 2
OTHER PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITY:
1. Received a $4000 Joint Venture grant f6rm the MN Office of Tourism
to produce a video selling Shakopee for use at trade shows or by
anyone wishing to sell the area.
2. Received an award from the MN Office of Tourism for a media FAM
tour held in 1987.
3. Co-sponsored with Burnsville CVB a training session on "How to Sell
to the Group Market Tour"
4. With assistance of Joint Venture grant joined the American Bus
Association.
5. Developed a Fall/Holiday package brochure.
6. Developed and distributed a new Shakopee map designed especially
for Tourism.
7. Cooperated with Southwest Suburban Publishing in new "Entertainment"
magazine.
BUSINESS ACTIVITY:
1. Conducted visitor survey (attached)
2. Recorded office tourism activity from Feb. -Dec. 1988
1175 tourism related phone calls, 238 mail requests and 4000 walk-ins.
3. Purchased a Computer.
4. Landscaped Tourist Information Center.
5. Installed outside pay phone.
6. Hired a new Executive Director.
1989 STAFF & BOARD:
Executive Director Kristen Converse
Secretary Darleen Schesso
Advisory Board: Linnea Stromberg-Wise, Chair, Mike Mulleady, Tom Haugen,
Nancy Dietrick, Mary Ann Mertz, Wally Bakken, Randy Williamson, Stan
Rolfsrud and Marilyn Hagerman.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
Balance from 1987 $46,218.41
Income for 1988 73,649.41
Expenditures:
Staff $24,661.85
Operations 22,892.06
Advertising/Promotions 48-16-44.90
TOTAL $96,198.81
Bal. Dec. 31, 1988 ffi3,250.00
SHAKOPEE �1
VISITOR SURVEY
Summary Report
November 7, 1988
This survey was conducted June - September, 1988 at the Tourist
Information Center. The surveys were completed by individuals
from outside the Twin Cities metro area l
1. How did you hear about the attractions in Shakopee, such as
Valleyfair, Canterbury Downs, etc.?
Newspaper ad 8.9%
Radio ad 13 .6%
Brochure 11.1%
Friends 48.98
TV 11.1%
other 6.7%
2. Please check all the activities you will be involved in
during your stay.
Meeting, Convention, Seminars 0$
Visit friends/relatives 7.8%
Sightseeing/Attractions 60.8%
Shopping 25.58
Festival/Sp. event 6.0%
3. Using the above categories again, which one item most closely
represents the primary reason you are visiting Shakopee?
Meeting, Convention, Seminars 0%
Visiting Friends/Relatives 03
Sightseeing/Attractions 93.88
Shopping 6.38
Festival/Sp. Event 0%
4. Is this your first visit to Shakopee?
Yes - 50%
No - 50%
1 A total of 68 surveys were completed. A representative of
fully completed surveys (32 in total) were used to prepare this
report.
5. If no, how many times have you visited Shakopee in the past
year?
Average - 2 .75
6. Is Shakopee your primary destination on this trip?
Yee - 504
NO - 506
7. Are you staying in Shakopee?
Yes - 726
No - 224
Maybe - 6. 34
e. How many nights are you staying in the Twin Cities area?
Average - 2. 1
9. Out of these nights, fill in the number of nights stayed in
each location below?
Shakopee hotel/motel 32 584
Minneapolis hotel 2 46
St. Paul hotel 2 44
Burnsville hotel 1 24
Bloomington hotel 1 24
With family/friends 2 46
In a camper or RV 16 164
Not staying 4 44
Other 7 76
10. How many people that do not reside in the Twin Cities area
are traveling with you? (include yourself)
Average - 3 .5
11. Using the categories below, please fill in how much money
you and your travel group will spend per day in the Shakopee
area.
Lodging $ 51 .80 27.74
Restaurants 35.27 18.96
Shopping 47 .50 25.4&
Recreation/Entertainment 52. 35 28.04
Local transportation 15.00 0.14
Total $201 .92 1004
12. How far did you travel to reach Shakopee?
75-100 miles 68
100-200 miles 288
200-400 miles 448
400-600 miles 168
over 600 miles 68
13. How many people in your traveling group are:
Age 0-17 458
Age 18-25 48
Age 26-35 268
Age 36-45 178
Age 46-55 48
Over age 55 48
14. How many people in your traveling group are:
Male 468
Female 548
15 . Estimated total household income for 1988:
Under $20,000 68
20 ,001-30,000 418
30,001-40,000 288
40,000-60,000 138
over 60,000 138
SURVEY88.CVB
APPLICA=ION FOR`. UNCIL AD'l15ORY BOA=RDS AN&.6R COr1!y1SS:
City of Shakopee V
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
We welcome you as a possible applicant for one of our City Boards
and/or Commissions.
What are the qualifications for serving on these advisory Boards
and Commissions? You must be a resident of Shakopee, except where non
residency is permitted by Council resolution, and more importantly, you
must have an interest in serving your community.
The Boards and Commissions meet during the evening and typically
have from one to two meetings per month, as follows:
Planning Commission/Board of lst Thursday after lst Tuesday
Adjustments and Appeals at 7:30 p.m.
Community Development Commission 2nd Wednesday at 5:00 P.M.
ranspor a ion- ommi:Etee 3rd Thurs _
Ad HOC Downtown Committee As Needed Wednesday at 7:30a.m.
Cable Communication Commissions As Needed Monday at 7:30 p.m.
Housing Advisory and Appeals Board As Needed
Building Code Board of Adjustment As Needed
& Appeals
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission 1st Monday at 4:30 p.m.
Shakopee Community Recreation 3rd Monday at 7:00 p.m.
PoliceCivilService Commission As ,Ne/eded I
Name: ./ol rl Drees- Address: IRT 6 ac-l( oly_T-7-
Phone: (H) M -o?7, (B) 372 - ;Z
How Long Have you Beenn� A Resident of Shakopee? !zEea/'S
Occupation: �. ks/'iN-�KZ—/i/75 Alts 'm. --< les<'
Does Your Work Require You To Travel? (check one)
A Great Deal Periodically Very Little X Not At All
Do You Have Any Special Interests or Training Which You Feel A
Particular Board or Comm� ss� on Could Use? (Use separate sheet if
necessary) At iQ ilei o; VaN /'ml airy B� /9FsTFull T%r+e-
� tLI
G'Gn 'UO /1d' vPv OT �IeX do
i
Board or Commission In Which You Are Interested?
Please State Briefly Why You Are Interested In Serving On this
Board/Commission For Which You Are Submitting An Application:
elc�qJ foNmi Ed/[P�NS s ycme r2u rUU"Pco/ A'P/ 5-"Ce IN-V 44
S 7 ni4 ;5 s`La err is id '4
5" 6'c"
IFA /4e b s rhe tAy 4/s c[u �iiwe
Conflict of interest is defined as the participation in any activity,
recommended action, or decision from which the individual has or could
have the potential to receive personal gain, whether it be direct or
indirect.
In accordance with this definition, do you have any legal or equitable
interest in any business, however organized, which could be construed
as a conflict of interest? Yes No If yes, please provide
details on a separate sheet of paper.
In accordance with this definition, do you own any real property
located in Scott County in which you have a legal or equitable interest
which could be construed as a conflict of interest? Yes No
If yes, please provide details on a separate sheet of paper.
Please List /Three References
7 (Name, Address and Phone) :
1. ROil7a 1W,deu - (IDS /7i;ejw. ETA)
2. 11;1e, e,s, (—nlGCrvz- ���✓ S�3 `� (7o6r?S?!
3. ZJisk
� lur ���f S> C �cvxe MN s�379 -
I hereby certify that the facts within the foregoing application are
true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
4�
Signature RETURN APPLICATION AND
PLEDGE TO:
O/ City Clerk
City of Shakopee
D to 129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
445-3650
DATE RECEIVED: - S-�
CITY OF SHAKOPEE y
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS U
VOLUNTEER PARTICIPATION PLEDGE
1) I agree to attend an annual Board/Commission evening
orientation held in January once during my first two years
on the Board/Commission.
YES X. NO
2) I agree to read the agenda material provided prior to the
Board/Commission meetings so that I am prepared to
participate in discussion.
YES x_ NO
3) I agree to read and use the attached "How To Aid Discussion
By Asking The Right Questions" to enhance my performance as
an active Board/Commission member.
YES X NO
4) I agree to offer discussion on the pros and cons of the
policy/issue being discussed and agree to refrain from
personal criticism directed toward citizens, applicants,
fellow Board/Commission members and staff.
YES /)� NO
5) I acknowledge the City' s requirements regarding attendance
(Outlined in Section B, Subparagraph I) and understand that
I can be removed from a Board/Commission because of poor
attendance.
YES NO
6) I agree to call City Hall to notify the appropriate staff
person when I cannot attend a regularly scheduled meeting.
YES Y NO
7) I agree to refrain from voting on issues where I have a
conflict of interest.
YES L� NO"
Ap licant
Date
0k" GENT
ROBERT J. SCHMITZ - -
Senator 36th District '
6730 Old Hwy. 169 Blvd. / -
Jordan,Minnesota 55352
Phone: 492-2192
Office:
235 State Capitol Senate
St.Paul,Minnesota 55155 -
Phone:296-7157
State of Minnesota
January 31, 1989
Mayor Dolores Lebens
City of Shakopee
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Dolores:
I have been informed by letter from Bill Schoell, Chairman of the
Suburban Rate Authority, that there will be proposals at the
Legislature to devise a formula to pay for Minneapolis, St. Paul
and South St. Paul' s combined sewer overflow charges.
I agree that the fees of this discharge should be paid by the
generator. Certainly the rest of the state 's residents must
arrange to have their own CSO costs paid for through their own
jurisdictions.
Thank you for calling this to my attention.
Sincerelyy,
R ERT J. SCHMITZ
State Senator -- District 36
RJS/st
Action Requested
Acknowledge receipt of a letter from Senator Robert Schmitz
regarding Minneapolis, St. Paul and South Saint Paul combined
sewer overlfow charges.
COMMITTEES • Chairman,Local end Urban Government• Rules and Administration• Transportation
Veterans • Taxes and Tax Laws • SUBCOMMITTEES • Property Taxes and Local Government Aids
COMMISSION:Legislative Commission to Review Administrative Rales
e
� ... b Minnesota
Department of Transportation
Transportation Building
�Tocra�`' St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Ietai zs6-a000
LEONARD W.LEVINE
COMMISSIONER
February 1, 1989
r '-
Honorable Dolores M. Lebens G:71
Mayor, City of Shakopee
129 First Avenue ..
Shakopee, MN. 55379
Dear Mayor Lebens:
Your letter to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) dated December 20,
1988, was forwarded to me for response. Your letter raised these concerns:
1. Request for Design Hearing
2. Parking Lot Impacts
3. Levee Drive Clearance
A combined location/design public hearing was held on February 25, 1987. The
City of Shakopee prepared notices to the property owners and an "Open House"
was held prior to the public hearing. The public hearing covered the
alternatives scoping process and presented geometric layout plans for the
alternatives discussed in the Environmental Assessment.
It is also my understanding that Mn/DOT District 5 representatives were at two
City Council meetings concerning the project and that the second City Council
meeting included a public hearing per City Council proceedings. I have also
been informed that at the second City Council meeting on November 1, 1988, the
City Council adopted the layout plans and an "Official Map Ordinance" on a
5-to-1 vote in both cases. Given these circumstances, the need for an
additional public hearing is unnecessary.
The City of Shakopee's desire to improve retail business in the downtown area
has been coordinated with two major approaches - one dealing with downtown
business people and a second one dealing with the regional/state traffic flow
on First Avenue. This coordinated effort has resulted in dealing with the
parking concerns in the downtown retail area. The parking analysis indicates
that 45 parking spaces will be impacted by the mini-bypass.
With the removal of traffic from First Avenue and by providing diagonal
parking, an additional 46 new parking spaces can be accommodated. This
is a net gain of one parking space in the downtown retail business area.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Honorable Dolores M. Lebens
February 1, 1989
Page 2
These additional spaces are on First Avenue at the store front locations
rather than in lots behind the stores. The added accessibility and
convenience should enhance shopping opportunities in the downtown area.
Since the Environmental Assessment and public hearing, modifications have been
made where feasible to accommodate concerns expressed during the T.H. 169
bridge replacement and mini-bypass project coordination. The bridge design
has been modified to provide nine feet of clearance to the present elevation
of Levee Drive. Provisions are also being made in the bridge design to locate
the footings at an elevation where Levee Drive could be lowered to provide the
AASHTO standard clearance of 14.5 feet. It is my understanding that Levee
Drive basically serves as access to a boat launch facility and that the
nine-foot clearance is adequate for local road purposes; clearance
requirements are not applicable. The FHWA concurs with this determination.
Considerable effort has been made by Mn/DOT in the project development process
to meet the City of Shakopee's desires as well as those of the traveling
public. Our West Metro District Engineer, Mr. W. M. Crawford, and his staff
should be contacted concerning the project development status. Mr. Crawford
may be reached at 593-8403.
Sinc ely,
LEONARD W. LEVINE
Commissioner
cc: Charles E. Foslien - FHWA
Representative Becky Kelso
Senator Robert Schmitz
Jerry Wampach - City of Shakopee
Dennis Kraft/Dave Hutton - City of Shakopee
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer—,
SUBJECT: 5th Avenue Between Market Street
and Fillmore Street
DATE: January 26 , 1989
INTRODUCTION:
Attached is Resolution No. 3013 , Ordering an Improvement and the
Preparation of Plans And Specifications for 5th Avenue between
Spencer Street and Market Street, Market Street Utilities between
4th Avenue and 7th Avenue and Main Street between 6th Avenue and
5th Avenue.
BACKGROUND:
On December 6 , 1988 City Council accepted a petition and ordered
the preparation of a feasibility report for improvements to 5th
Avenue between Fillmore Street and Market Street. The requested
improvements consisted of sewer, water , curb & gutter and
bituminous pavement. The feasibility report was distributed to
Council on January 3 , 1989 and subsequently a public hearing was
scheduled for February 7 , 1989 .
In preparing the feasibility report, it was necessary to expand
the project limits to include installing utilities on Market
Street between 5th Avenue and 4th Avenue as a minimum. The
report also recommended these utilities be installed on Market
Street from 5th Avenue to 7th Avenue.
The feasibility report also discussed the portion of 5th Avenue
between Fillmore Street and Spencer, which is currently a gravel
road with utilities. The report indicated that if 5th Avenue was
extended through to Market Street , then this portion between
Spencer Street and Fillmore Street should also be upgraded by
adding bituminous pavement to it. -
Staff will briefly go over the feasibility report at the public
hearing outlining all the various alternatives and options. At
the conclusion of the public hearing , if Council wishes to
proceed with all or part of the project, Resolution No. 3013 is
attached for Council consideration.
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Determine that the project should proceed and order staff to
prepare the plans and specifications by adopting Resolution -
No. 3013 for improvements to 5th Avenue from Fillmore Street
to Market Street, improvements to 5th Avenue from Fillmore
Street to Spencer Street and improvements to Market Street
by utilities from 4th Avenue to 7th Avenue.
2 . Determine that only a portion of the project should be
completed and order the plans and specifications for that
portion.
3. Determine that the entire project is not in the best
interest of the City and do not proceed any further with any
portion of the project.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 .
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer Resolution No. 3013 , A Resolution Ordering the Improvement
and the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for 5th Avenue
from Spencer Street to Market Street, Market Street Utilities
from 4th Avenue to 7th Avenue and Main Street from 6th Avenue to
5th Avenue, Project No. 1989-4 and move its adoption.
DH/pmp
MEM1
RESOLUTION NO. 3013
A Resolution Ordering An Improvement And
The Preparation of Plans And Specifications For
5th Avenue Between Spencer Street and Market Street,
Market Street Utilities from 4th Avenue to 7th Avenue
and Main Street from 6th Avenue to 5th Avenue
Project No. 1989-4
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 3003, adopted on January 3 , 1989 ,
fixed a date for Council hearing on the proposed improvement of
Street eUtilitiese fr mp4theAvenue Street Street ,
to 7 h Avenue and Main Street
from 6th Avenue to 5th Avenue; and
WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the hearing through
two weekly publications of the required notice was given and the
hearing was held on the 7th day of February 1989 , at which all
persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be
heard thereon.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1 . That the improvement is ordered as hereinafter
described :
Construction of sewer, water, curb and gutter and pavement
to 5th Avenue between Fillmore Street and Market Street; and
Construction of curb & gutter and pavement to 5th Avenue
between Spencer Street and Fillmore Street; and
Construction of sewer, water, murb"" S-ttap and p&vement-
on Market Street between 4th Avenue and 7th Avenue; and
Construction of sewer, water, curb and gutter and pavement
on Main Street between 6th Avenue and 5th Avenue
2. David Hutton, City Engineer is hereby designated as the
engineer for this improvement. He shall prepare plans and
specifications for the making of such improvement.
Adopted in session of the City Council of
the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of
19--
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this day of
19--
City
9_-City Attorney
CURTIN, MAHONEY, CAIRNS 5 WALLING
. PRorEaslonu AssocunoN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
RICHARC T.CURRN x150 MULTIF000a TW/ER OF COUNSEL
MICHAEL C.MAHONEY NIN NEAROLI4 CTI CENTER
JOHN A.CAIRNS MILAN EA PoLI S.MINNESOTA 30x02 E....C.AH OERSON
WRIGHT S.WALLING TELECOPIER(61.)339-Bp62 JOXN G.HORNER
SUSAN L.NEUMEYER 391183 ALVIN H.OANOAL.
DOUGLAS J.GIRNEY TELEFH.C (012) 0..
DOnNA E.HAn4ERv
MICHAEL W.SCNLEY OECONG BOOR
JEFFREY C ROEBIN9 014 CONxECT CUT AVENUE N.W.
NANCY ZALUSNY BERG NGTONr O.C.20000
DAVID J.s EINGAR R (zozl zpe-eros
5TEVEx J.DzURAn TELEPHONE(202)947-011.
RANDY L.DEDNER
JODY O.DESMIOT
S.,T.ANDERSON �
T XOMA4 J.NOROT WRITER'S DIRECT CAL NUMBER
(612) 344-9238
February 7, 1989
Mayor Dolores Lebens
City of Shakopee
City Nall
129 First Avenue East
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Mayor Lebens:
We represent CMC Real Estate Corporation ("CMC") , owner
of property included within the assessment district for
Shakopee City Project No. 1989-4.
We understand that the assessment being contemplated
for our client's property in respect of the above
Project will amount to $39 ,800, more or less. -
This letter is to protest the proposed assessment and
indicate to you our position that the assessment has
been unfairly calculated in respect of our client' s
property. Moreover, there has been no discussion prior
B109CMC1JACbkG207893
Mayor / City Council
City of Shakopee
February 7, 1989
Page Two
to today with our client concerning the public purpose
for the Project.
Please be advised that our client has directed us to
object to the assessment being levied at all and, in
addition, to object to the amount being contemplated
for assessment against this property. In the event
this assessment is levied on the terms as we understand
are presently contemplated, our client intends to
notice an appeal of that assessment and proceed
accordingly.
Ver truly yours,
J A. CAIRNS
AC/bk
cc: Members of the City Council:
Gloria Vierling
Gary Scott
Steve Clay
Gerry Wampoch
Joe Zak
Julius Coller, City Attorney
City of Shakopee
211 West First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Lawrence S. Adelson, Esq.
B109CMC1JACbk0207893
9
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
5th Ave. Improvements ;Market to Fillwrel
12/21/88 i Cast to he Assessed: 1 SEWER 1 NATER STREET : TOTAL
$353,400 1 : 511,291.78 1 $8,097.73 1 $25,064.70 ! Proposed
___________---- per acre per acre : per acre 1 Assessments 1
PID I Property Omer ;Acreage:
27-010016-0 !Eugene A i Esther N. Drown 1 0.74 1 $8,355.92 ' $5,992.32 1 $18,541.87 1 $32,896.11 1
!1661 N. 6th Ave.
!Shakopee, MN 55374
27-010017-0 !Associates Industrial Loan I 0.32 1 $3,613.37 1 $2,591.27 1 $8,020.70 ! $14,225.35 ;
;% Thomas A. Egan
114300 Nicollet Court I I I I
!Burnsville, MN 55337
I
27-010023-0 !Jahn A. 4 Iwe A. Theis 1 0.20 : : $1,579.06 1 1 $1,579.06 1
1447 Market St.
Nhakopee, MN 55379 I i
1
27-010024-0 ;John A. i Ione A. Theis 1 0.20 : 1 $1,579.06 1 $1,579.06 :
1447 Market St.
l Shakopee, MN 55379
27-906036-0 !Dorothy Jane Ten Eyck ; 1.85 1 $20,889.79 : $14,980.80 1 $46,369.69 1 $82,240.28 1
1502 E. 4th Ave. I I
!Shakopee, MN 55379 1 1 1 1 I
27-906117-0 !Dean A. 1 Serena F. Smith 1 2.07 1 $23,3373.90 : $16,762.30 1 1 $64,449.04 1
;606 S. Market St. 1 0.97 1 1 1 $24,312.75 !
!Shakopee, MN 55379 !(street)
27-906132-0 !Gordon 8elhaye 1 1.00 1 $11,291.78 1 $8,097.73 1 1 $28,663.45 1
12933 Spring Lake Road 1 0.37 1 1 $9,273.94 !
!Prior Lake, MN 55372 11streetl
27-906133-0 18ordon 8elhaye 1 0.25 ! $2,622.95 1 $2,024.43 ; 1 $7,855.14 1
12933 Spring Lake Road 1 0.12 1 1 $3,007.76 1
!Prior Lake, NN 55372 1(street)
27-906134-0 lGardon 8elhaye 1 0.16 ! $1,806.68 1 $1,295.64 ! $4,010.35 1 $7,112.67 1
12933 Spring Lake Road I I I
!Prior Lake, MN 55372 i
27-906144-0 IRJ Gregory - Property hgat 1 0.88 1 $9,936.77 1 $7,126.00 1 $22,056.93 1 $39,119.70 1
:547 N. Jackson Blvd i I I I
IPO Box 6205 1 i I
;Chicago, IL 60680
27-097203-0 IShakapee HRA 1 0.67 1 $7,565.44 1 $5,425.48 1 $12,990.97 !
:129 E. 1st Ave. I
!Shakopee, MN 55379
27-906135-0 ;John A. i lone A. Theis 1 0.93 : $10,501.36 1 $7,530.09 : 1 $18,032.25 1
1447 Market St.
!Shakopee, NN 55374
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
5th Ave. Improvements (Market to Fillmore)
12/27/88 Cost to be Assessed: 1 SEWER 1 NATER 1 STREET 1 TOTAL
$353,400 i 1111,291.78 1 $8,097.73 ; $25,064.70 1 Proposed
—'— —'--------------------- per acre 1 per acre 1 per acre 1 Assessments '
P10 Property Saner ;Acreage!
27-906043-0 :Edward R. Siebenaler 1 0.82 1 $9,259.26 1 $6,640.14 1 1 $15,899.40 1
1322 E. 5th Ave.
:Shakopee, MN 55374
27-906115-0 :NO. J. $ Julia McGoldrick 1 0.69 1 $7,791.33 1 $5,587.43 1 1 $13,378.76 :
:5716 Blake Rd.
:Edina, MN 55436 ,
27-906116-0 1Nilmer J. k Linda L. Carl on 1 0.69 1 $7,791.33 1 $5,587.43 1 1 $13,378.76 1
:3675 CR 140 ,
:Chaska, MR 55318 i ,
Sanitary Sewer 11.07 $125 000.00 1 $125,000.00
Natermain 11.46 $92,800.00 $92,800.00
Street 5.41 $135,600.00 $135,600.00
ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS Total Assessable Cost $353,400.00
$353,400.00 Total Cost
---___----------------—
$125,000.00 Ban. sewer cost
11.07 Total Acreage isan. sewer)
$119291.78 Cost per Acre Ilan. sewer)
$92,800.00 Natermain cost
11.46 Total Acreage (watermain)
$8,097.73 Cost per Acre (watermain)
+ $135,600.00
5.41 Total Acreage (street)
$25,064.70 Cost per Acre (street;
+ Includes R-O-N cast
322 E 5T 5TH d`(`,
FEE 7 :js7
pY OF S4A {CFc= ,M aC�tJ
v
v✓�1fL7 (v/�
1
To. --...,;-.rs of Che
J9-lbc 2j
--� ,_ of
13t'"._ _ of t.,at we ora ua :.L U attend Vi-, Pu','_io �� .44,�1`opri
de tae undersimed after reading t--.0 Feasi`ilit, Report or Improvcnent
of 5th Ave, between i''s^:<at St. And FilLore Street would like to naive imo`rn
the £ollot-ing comments of our position for Public '4cord.
We are only in favor of Uptioasi1 for Sewer, -later, a Street Improvene nts
We Disapprovc of Options i` 2 sad 3
,fie would further lire to state i:at z: 0- ' __ . --1. is Sot approv-'. '.a 'rill
be tr,-in at r. d7te to patitiol 'or t.-e iu;.r.:-: lents to co:u: =-ar'+et St.
fro.. ):t3 Ave. to Eta Avo, s,ad a-sc for iucrove:.ents oa 5t': iron �rseet $t. tp
Main St, beinT the sewer will not flow west from this property oa Wl A'✓e-
anyway.
U mess Cptioo-^s 1 for e. _
Please rs£er other aativ; on t".is proper t;,Ac�
Alvin Smith
17191 Zunbro Ave.
Shakopee, Minn. 55379
lJ
January 10, 1988 _
City of Shakopee 1
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 �• 'r ,_ y . _r
RE: Public Hearing
February 7, 1989
5th Avenue between
Filmore and Market St.
Council Members :
I shall be out of town at the time of the above hearing.
My son, attorney David G. Brown will represent my wife
and myself at the hearing.
I have read the feasibility report and am very much in
agreement to proceed.
Sincerely,
Euge/he A. Brown
Lr�
/ D ('
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant
RE: Sale of Cable System (Exercising First Right of
Refusal)
DATE: January 30, 1989
INTRODUCTION•
On January 17, 1989 I received a correspondence from
Zylstra/United Cable Television Company informing the City of
Shakopee that they have received a bid from another Cable
Television Company to purchase the Shakopee Cable System. (See
attachment #1) Please note that NorTel Cable TV has submitted a
bid in the amount of approximately $8.2 million for the
Shakopee/Chaska Cable Television System.
On January 23, 1989 the Shakopee Cable Commission reviewed
this issue and is recommending that the City of Shakopee waive
their right of first refusal to acquire the Shakopee Cable
System.
BACKGROUND•
The Cable Franchise Ordinance does set forth a process in
which the City may respond to the sale of the cable system.
Section 12.01 of the Ordinance grants the City of Shakopee first
right of refusal to acquire the system. (See attachment #2) If
the City of Shakopee would be interested in purchasing the cable
system, they must meet the price of the current offer or market
value which ever is less. The City is required to notify
Zylstra-United Cable Company within 60 days of our desire to
purchase the cable system or waive our right of first refusal.
On January 12, 1989 I met with Mr. Steve Stolen,
Shakopee/Chaska Cable Television Administrator to review the
possibility of the City of Shakopee's acquisition of the cable
system. Representatives from the City of Chaska were also in
attendance. At that time, we reviewed the 1988 operating
statement of United Cable Television Systems operations in
Shakopee and Chaska. We also reviewed 1989 projected budget and
capital expenditures. After a preliminary review of the data, I
do not feel it would be in the best interest of the City of
Shakopee for the City to acquire the cable television system.
While it is possible for the City of Shakopee to get into the
cable television business, in my opinion, the risks far out weigh
the benefits.
Since I am not a Cable Television expert, the City may wish
to utilize a consultant to review the feasibility of municipal
operation. (Approximate cost $5000.00)
Should the City of Shakopee decide to pursue acquisition of
the cable system, the following items deserve further
consideration.
1. The cable system currently provides service to Chaska, and
Shakopee residents. A joint powers agreement between the
two communities would be necessary before acquisition of the
system could be secured.
2. Due to the size of United Cable Corp. , they receive
discounts in their programming and royalty fees. If the
Cities choose to operate the system, it is likely that we
would be subject to higher programming and royalty fees.
3. United Cable Television is self insured. If the City of
Shakopee and Chaska select to operate the cable system, it
is doubtful whether we would be able to obtain insurance.
4. The cable operator for Shakopee and Chaska has not had a
positive cash flow since they began operations in 1982.
5. I am not aware of any other municipality who owns and
operates their own local cable television system.
In light of these factors, the Cable Commission is
recommending that the City of Shakopee waive their right of first
refusal to acquire the cable system.
Once Nortel and United Cable Television come to final terms
on the sale, the City of Shakopee will have the opportunity to
inquire into the qualifications of the prospective controlling
party and may condition said transfer of ownership upon such
terms and conditions as it deems appropriate.
ALTERNATIVES-
1. Move to waive the City of Shakopee's right of first refusal
to acquire the Shakopee Cable Television System.
2. Solicit a consultant to further investigate the possibility
of the City of Shakopee acquiring the Shakopee Cable System.
3. Do not recommend waiving the City of Shakopee's right of
first refusal to acquire the Shakopee Cable System.
RECOMMENDATION•
Staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Move to waive the City of Shakopee's right of first refusal
to acquire the Shakopee Cable System.
Attachment 41 i6
January 13, 1989
Barry Stock,
Assistant City Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
RE: City of Shakopee Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance (as
amended to date, the "Franchise")
Dear Mr. Stock:
This letter is to advise you pursuant to the Franchise that
Zylstra-United Cable Television Company, the current holder of the
Franchise, has received an offer to purchase all of its assets,
including its rights under the Franchise. The attached copy of the
offer is for your information and action.
We are hopeful that appropriate action can be taken as soon
as reasonably possible to facilitate a smooth transition.
Very truly yours,
ZYLSTRA-UNITED CABLE TELEVISION
COMPANY
By: United Cable Television
Corporation
�/
Ortel
CABLE TV PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
October 31, 1988
Mr. Fred Vierra
United Artists Entertainment
2930 East 3rd Avenue
Denver, Colorado 60206
Dear Sir:
Re: Chaste and Shakopee, Minnesota.
This letter constitutes our "BID" for the assets of the cable television systems
serving Chasta and Shakopee, Minnesota.
We understand that the systems at present have approximately 3,150 subscribers
and are comprised of two Head-Ends.
While we have not conducted an in-depth examination of the books and records
of the cable systems and have not had access to other technical Information,
we are prepared to bid $2,600.00 per "current subscriber." We define a "current
subscriber" as one who Is not more than 62 days In arrears and has been on
the cable system for at least 60 days as a paid subscriber.
Our "BID" of approximately $8.2 million dollars Is submitted subject to the usual
Purchase and Sale contract along with the normal covenants, warranties,
representations and adjustments found In normal cable television Purchase or
Sales.
We trust our "BID" will remain confidential and that you will treat our interest
In these cable properties on a confidential and professional manner.
Please do not hesitate to contact myself at Naperville, Illinois, (312) 357-6110.
Or contact Mr. Keith Cripps at Bloomington, (612) 888-8822.
Yours
i
�G�lr' azma ^—
President
GJK/mo
cc: Jim Clark
Keith Cripps
Leighton Stevenson
1300 Iroquois Oriw; Suite 210•Napamile, IL 60540•3121357-6110
• Attachment b2 ib W
SECTION 12. PURCHASE OF SYSTEM
12.01 City 's Richt to Purchase Svstem.
A. City shall be entitled to a right of first
refusal of any bona fide offer to purchase the system
made to Grantee. Bona fide as used in this section
means an offer received by Grantee that it intends to
accept. In the event the City decides to buy, the price
shall be current market value or bona fide offer,
whichever is less. City shall notify Grantee of its
decision within sixty (60) days of the date it becomes
aware of a possible purchase by receipt of notice from
Grantee.
12 .02 Procedures. In the event City elects to exercise
its right to purchase the System as provided in this
Section, the following shall then apply:
A. City and Grantee shall negotiate all other
terms and conditions of the purchase of the System.
B . If City and Grantee cannot agree upon the terms
and conditions of the purchase, City shall have the
right to proceed to arbitration. Arbitration shall com-
mence and proceed according to applicable Minnesota law
except as follows:
1 ) The parties shall, within fifteen (15 )
days of City's decision to proceed to arbitration, appoint
one arbitrator each who is experienced and
-87-
knowledgeable in the purchase and valuation of
business property. Arbitrators shall each agree
upon the selection of a third arbitrator, similarly
qualified, within fifteen (15 ) days after appoint-
ment of second arbitrator.
2 ) Within thirty (30 ) days after appointment
of all arbitrators and upon ten (10 ) days written
notice to parties , the arbitrators shall commence a
hearing on the terms and conditions of the purchase
in dispute.
3) The hearing shall be recorded and may be
transcribed at the request of either party. All
hearing proceedings, debates and deliberations
t
shall be open to the public and at such times and
places as contained in the notice or as thereafter
publicly stated in the order to adjourn.
I
4 . The arbitration panel shall be required
to determine the purchase price of the system .
according to the standards established in paragraph
C below.
' 5. At the close of the hearincs and within
thirty (30 ) days, the arbitrators shall prepare
written findings and make a written decision agreed
upon by a majority of the arbitrators which shall be
served by mail upon City and Grantee.
-88-
0 a�
6 . The decision of a majority of the
( arbitrators shall be binding upon both parties
except that City may, in its sole discretion and
without any penalty or cost to City of any kind,
withdraw its offer to purchase within ninety (90 )
days of receipt of the final decision of a majority
of the arbitrators.
7. Either party may seek judicial relief to
the extent authorized under Minnesota Statutes
5572.09 and §572. 19 as the same may be amended,
and, in addition, under the following circumstances:
(a) A party fails to select an arbitrator;
(b) The arbitrators fail to select a
third arbitrator;
(c) One or more arbitrator is unqualified;
(d) Designated time limits have been exceeded;
(e) The arbitrators have not proceeded
expeditiously; or
(f ) Based upon the record, the arbitra-
tors abused their discretion.
8 ) In the .event a Court of competent juris-
diction determines the arbitrators have abused
their discretion, it may order the arbitration pro-
cedure repeated and issue findings, orders and
directions, with costs of suits to be awarded to
_89-
the prevailing party.
9 ) Cost of arbitration shall be borne equally.
C. The purchase price of the System to be paid by
City shall be the fair market value of the System
including both tangible and intangible assets.
D. Grantee expressly waives its rights, if any,
to relocation costs that might otherwise be provided by law.
E . The date of valuation shall be no earlier than
the day following the date of revocation, forfeiture,
expiration or termination of this Franchise and no later
than the date City makes a written offer for the System.
12.03 Purchase by City Upon Termination of Franchise
Term or Revocation of Franchise
A. The City may in lawful manner and upon the
payment of a fair valuation lawfully ascertain,
purchase, condemn, acquire, take over and hold the pro-
perty and plant of the Grantee in whole or in part.
1 ) If such purchase or takinc over be at the
expiration of the Franchise, such valuation shall
be at fair market value, exclusive of the . value
attributed to the franchise itself .
2 ) In the event City shall terminate the
- Franchise purchase to the provisions of Section
14. 14 of this Franchise it shall reimburse Grantee
for the fair market value of the system, exclusive
-90-
of the value attributable to the Franchise itself.
3 ) In the event of any dispute, the arbitra-
tion procedures in this Section shall be followed.
4
-91-
SECTION 14 . MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
14.01 Compliance with Laws. Grantee shall comply with
all the state laws and rules regarding cable communications
not later than one year after they become effective, unless
otherwise stated. Grantee shall comply, with all federal
laws and regulations regarding cable communications as they
become effective. Grantee shall also comply with all City
ordinances, resolutions, rules and regulations heretofore or
hereafter adopted or established during the entire term of
the Franchise.
14.02 Sale or Transfer of Franchise.
A. Any cable communications franchise granted by
City shall he a privilege held by Grantee for the bene-
fit of the public. Except for any assignment or
mortgage which accompanies the initial financing of the
System, this Franchise shall not be sold, assigned or
transferred, either in whole or in part, or leased,
sublet or mortgaged in any manner, nor shall title
thereto, either legal or equitable, or any right,
interest or property therein, pass to or vest in any
person without full compliance with the procedure set
forth in this section. This section shall include sale
or transfer of all or a majority of a corporation 's
assets, merger (including any parent and its subsidiary
corporation) , consolidation, creation of a subsidiary
l
-96-
corporation or sale or transfer of stock in a cor-
poration so as to create a new controlling interest in
the System. The term "controlling interest" as used herein
is not limited to majority stock ownership, but includes
actual working control in whatever manner exercised.
1 ) The parties to the sale or transfer of
this Franchise shall make a written request to the
City for its approval of a sale or transfer of this
Franchise.
2) City shall reply in writing within thirty
( 30 ) days of the request and shall indicate appro-
val of the request or its determination that a
public hearing is necessary due to potential
adverse effect on the company's subscribers.
3 ) If a public hearing is deemed necessary
pursuant to (2) above, such hearing shall be con-
ducted within thirty (30 ) days of such deter-
mination and notice of such public hearing shall be
given pursuant to Board regulations. -
4 ) Within thirty (30 ) days after the public
hearing, the City shall approve or deny in writing
the sale or transfer request.
5 ) The City shall notify the Board of the
transfer of any interest in the System of this
Franchise in accordance with the then applicable
-97-
rules , regulations or laws. The notification shall �.
be accompanied by the written certification of the
transferee that it meets all of the requirements with
respect to technical ability and financial stabi-
lity demanded of the original Grantee.
6 ) Grantee, upon transfer, shall within
sixty (60 ) days thereafter file with the City a
copy of the deed, agreement, mortgage, lease or
other written instrument evidencing such sale,
transfer of ownership or control or lease, cer-
tified and sworn to as correct by the Grantee.
B. In reviewing a request for sale or transfer
pursuant to Section A above, the City may inquire into
the qualifications of the prospective controlling party
and Grantee shall assist the City in so inquiring. The
City may condition said transfer upon such terms and
conditions as it deems appropriate. In the absence of
extraordinary circumstances, the City shall not approve
any -transfer or assignment of the Franchise prior to
substantial completion of construction of the .System, as
determined solely by the City. In no event shall a
transfer or assignment of ownership or control- be
approved without the transferee becoming a signator to
this Franchise.
14.03 Expiration. Upon expiration of the initial term
-98-
CONSENT /off
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant
RE: 1988 Cable Commission Annual Report
DATE: January 30, 1989
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND:
Shown in attachment #1 is the Cable Annual Report for 1988.
The report is simply a synopsis of the activities of the Cable
Commission in 1988.
On January 23, 1989 the Cable Commission recommended City
Council approval of said report.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. Move to approve the 1988 Cable Annual Report.
2. Do not approve the 1988 Cable Annual Report.
RECOMMENDATION•
Staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REOUESTED:
Move to approve the 1988 Cable Annual Report.
Attachment Al -
1988 ANNUAL REPORT
SHAKOPEE CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Ongoing Administration Monitoring performance of and compliance
with the franchise ordinance.
Commission
Action
2\1\88 1987 Cable Commission Annual Report - The Commission
moved to approve and submit the 1987 Annual Report to
City Council.
2/1/88 Public Access studio Contract - The Commission moved to
recommend to the Shakopee Public Access Corporation
that the contract with New Frontier Productions be
extended for one additional year with a subsequent
expiration date of April 15, 1989. (The Shakopee Access
Corporation concurred with the Commission's
recommendation. 3/12/88)
7/25/88 Council Chamber Video system - The Commission moved to
recommend to City Council that the appropriate City
officials be directed to request the Shakopee Access
Corporation to acquire the equipment necessary to
improve the Council Chambers video system. (Council
concurred 8/2/88)
Amendments and Variances - When mutually desireable the City may
amend the Franchise Ordinance or grant a variance from the
Franchise Ordinance when not in conflict with FCC requirements
or any other rule or law.
Commission
Action
2/1/88 Cable Company Request to Eliminate Universal Service -
The Commission moved to recommend to City Council that
the Shakopee Cable Franchise Ordinance be amended to
eliminate the Universal Service Tier providing that the
Cable Company would provide six months of free basic
service and a remote control to all the current
Universal subscribers. (City Councl held a public
hearing on the proposed amendment 3/1/88 and 3/8/88.
On 3/8/88 City Council adopted ordinance No. 242
amending the Cable Franchise Ordinance; phasing out the
Universal Service Tier. )
7/25/88 United Cable Television Ownership Transfer - The
Commission moved to recommend to City Council approval .
of Resolution No. 2952, Approving the Transfer of
Ownership of United Cable Television to United Artists
Communications Inc. (Council Concurred 8/2/88)
Ncthlq ftf"e.
1993 - 113
Nor! - 1330
M, 1985 - 1A96
IM - 1306
HSI - 1316
1968 - 1513
IODD
15oe—
h
Ivy
Nit
W0D-
N xM
NA
-
Nh
IlOD-
I
-H-1-y--I-1-IH-1-V-r1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-ti1�1-1-1-1-ly-yy-1-1-1-1-1
J F NAM 7 7 R S O N D 7 f N A N 1 3 R 5 D N D J F N R N S T h S O N 0 7 F N h H 7 7 h 4 0 N D S F N R N T T h S O N C
MDn f h l y Subscri b-=r5
a
CONSENT /Oc_
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant
RE: Public Access Studio Contract
DATE: January 30, 1989
INTRODUCTION•
The access studio agreement between New Frontier Productions
Inc. and the Shakopee Community Access Corporation expires on
April 17, 1989. The current contract does not provide for an
extension. Therefore, on January 23, 1989 the Shakopee Cable
Commission reviewed this issue and is recommending to City
Council that the appropriate City officials be authorized to
advertise for request for proposals for the continued operation
of the public access studio.
BACKGROUND:
In January of 1986 the Shakopee City Council approved an
amendment to the Cable Franchise Ordinance which relieved the
cable company of several responsibilities for a five year period
including public access. As a result of this amendment, it
became necessary for the City of Shakopee to solicit an operator
for the public access studio. In cooperation with the Shakopee
Access Corporation, the City of Shakopee solicited and received
proposals for studio management and operation.
In March of 1986 the City of Shakopee and the Shakopee
Access Corporation accepted the proposal submitted by New
Frontier Productions. The affected parties subsequently entered
into a contract for the operation and management of the public
access studio which expires on April 17, 1989. The current
contract does not provide for extension or renegotiation.
Therefore, it becomes necessary for the City of Shakopee and the
Shakopee Access Corporation to solicit proposals for public
access studio operation and management.
The Cable Commission is recommending that we use the same
set of proposal specifications that were utilized in 1986.
(Copies for Council's review are available upon request. )
The 1986 Franchise amendment waived the cable company's
responsibility to provide continued support for public access
with the exception of the annual studio maintenance fee and
public access studio space. All other responsibilities related
to the public access studio were deferred for five years. The
deferment period ends on January 1, 1991. Staff is recommending
that the contract for operation of the studio be tied to the
duration of the public access studio deferrals. Staff is also
recommending that a three year renewable option be tied to the-
new public access studio contract. This will provide for the
continued operation of the public access studio beyond the five
year cable deferral period in the event the City of Shakopee
decides to continue deferrals relating to the studio.
The Cable Commission is recommending to City Council that
the appropriate City officials be authorized to advertise for
request for proposals for the operation and management of the
public access studio.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. Move to authorize the appropriate City officials to
advertise for request for proposals for the operation and
management of the public access studio.
2. Direct staff to investigate the possibility of the City
taking over the management and operation of the public
access studio.
3. Recommend some other plan for staffing public access.
RECOMMENDATION•
Staff recommends alternative ql.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Move to authorize the appropriate City officials to
advertise for request for proposals for the operation and
management of the public access studio.
I b�
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant
RE: 1989 Star City Recertification
DATE: February 1, 1989
INTRODUCTION:
In order for the City of Shakopee to maintain Star City
designation status, we are required to submit a response
indicating our intention to continue with the program to the
Department of Trade and Economic Development by February 15,
1989.
BACKGROUND:
On January 31, 1989 the Shakopee City Council approved the
One and Five Year Work Plans for the City of Shakopee. At that
time, I informed City Council that these were annual
recertification requirements established by the Department of
Trade and Economic Development. Several City Council members
inquired about the other annual requirements that are necessary
in order to maintain Star City designation. Shown in attachment
#1 are the 1989 Star City recertification procedures.
Of the recertification procedures shown in attachment #1,
the City has completed all of them with the exception of the
request indicating the City's intention to continue with the Star
City program. I noted at the January 31, 1989 meeting that both
the Community Development Commission and staff believe that while
the Star City Program may not bestow upon the City any physical
advantages, it does remind us to plan on a regular basis for
activities that we think should be accomplished in the preceeding
year and future years. It also does provide the City with a
positive image and periodic referrals of potential businesses
which might move to Shakopee.
At the present time, over 75 cities in Minnesota have
received Star City designation. Many of the communities are
relatively small in size. I believe that it would not bode well
for the City of Shakopee to discontinue being a Star City. Both
developers and real estate brokers are aware of the Star City
program and the amount of work that a City must annually put
forth to maintain Star City designation. I believe that
Shakopee's non participation in the program would be sending a
negative message to the development community regarding the City
of Shakopee's image, long range planning interest and overall
general preparedness for - economic activity. Star City
designation is one of many things the City can do to promote
economic development.
In light of the aforementioned issues, the Community
Development Commission and staff are recommending that the City
of Shakopee authorize the appropriate City officials to inform
the Department of Trade and Economic Development of the City's
intention to continue participating in the Star City program.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. Move to authorize the appropriate City officials to inform
the Department of Trade and Economic Development of the
City's desire to continue with the Star City program.
2. Move to inform the Department of Trade and Economic
Development of the City's desire to drop the Star City
program.
3 . Table this issue pending further information from staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REODESTED:
Move to authorize the appropriate City officials to inform
the Department of Trade and Economic Development of the City's
desire to continue the Star City program.
/0 4_
1989 STAR CITY RECERTIFICATION PROCEDURES
I. Aff i rmatioft_QL E&rticioation.
A response is requested from each Star City indicating its intention to
continue with or be dropped from the program. The letter must be signed by
your mayor and returned to MN/DTED by February 15, 1989.
2. 8i-Annual Presentation.
Minnesota Star Cities seeking recertification will biannually be scheduled
a meeting with MN DTED to overview the previous year's work program. State
staff will review with the local committee last years activities and its
recertification1989 work Program. o
visitduring 1989,ur community sscheduled
ascheduleoutliningomeeting date and
time is enclosed.
3. Annual Report.
Recognizing that membership in an economic development organization changes
over time and that the community is hopefully progressing toward its goals,
an annual report must be completed and submitted to the Development
Resources Office of MN DTED, it must contain the following information:
a. A 1989 Work Program describing the organization's plan for the
upcoming calendar year including a list of project priorities, related
costs, methods of financing, time schedules, individuals responsible
for carrying out each task and technical assistance required. (Refer
to 1 Year WorkPlancontained in the Star Cities Manual for
recommended format.)
b. A current five-year economic development plan and a description
of changes in the community's long range goals described in the
original economic development plan.
C. A description of the changes in responsibilities and membership of the
economic development organization.
d. A summary of organizational activities during 1988 such as the number
of meetings held and important matters discussed.
e. A description of the changes that have occurred in the community's
economy including industries or businesses currently operating and
newly opened; establishment or expansion of industrial parks;
construction or expansion of existing industrial and commercial
businesses; closings of existing businesses and reductions in
employment.
f. A description of the forms of assistance the organization has provided
to business and industry and assistance the organization has received
including financial and technical from federal , regional , state and
private organizations which relates to economic development.
The annual report must be submitted to the Development Resources Office or
before February 15, 1989. If a community fails to meet the time
requirements for either the presentation or the annual report,
representatives of the community will be requested to meet with DTED staff,
to determine whether the community should continue in the program or
withdraw. If extenuating or unusual circumstances beyond the community's
control are shown to be the reason for its inability to comply with the
deadlines, the Business Promotion Division, at its discretion, may approve
an extension.
4. Cce!aunity Profile.
Minnesota Star Cities for Economic Development must complete a Community
Profile on an annual basis in the format prescribed by the Development
Resources Office. The deadline for completing the profile is February 15
of each calendar year. Following its completion, the profile is submitted
to the Development Resources Office for official printing and distribution.
5. Jg2ingli Retention. (Should have been coopleted by 11/30/88.)
Minnesota Star Cities must contact all area manufacturers and major *
employers to determine (1) company plans for expansion-relocation and (2)
concerns of the business community which can be addressed through
legislative or administrative action. This is accomplished by surveying
companies with the Business Retention Survey provided to the community by .
DTED. Completed surveys must be returned to MN DTED by the 30th of
November to be included in the aggregate statewide Business Retention
Report.
6. Continuing Education.
Information training sessions will be conducted quarterly to provide
continuing education for all Star City Coordinators and committee
chairpersons. Changes in laws affecting business and industry, new
techniques in the field of economic development, and other vitally
important topics will be covered. Representatives from officially
designated Star Cities are required to attend.
7. Failure to Comply.
If no unusual circumstances prevent completion of the annual report and the
other requirements for recertification, a decision will be made to place
the community in reassessment status. Cities which retain this status for
more than' two years will be dropped from the Star City Program.
The recertification procedures have been established to retain the vitality
of the Star City Program. The process will prevent the following scenario
from occurring: A city launches a new, exciting development program
promising new ,jobs for its citizens and investment in the community. The
state announces that it is a "Minnesota Star City for Economic
Development. " Two or three years go by and nothing happens. Internal
efforts slacken. Disenchantment sets in followed by apathy and inaction.
Your efforts to date have been noteworthy. The recertification
requirements of the Star City Program are designed to maintain the momentum
your community has established.
believes that these two items alone could offset the cost
difference between the Morely and Metro-Ride proposal.
Additional positive aspects of the Morely proposal are shown in
Attachment 43.
Morely proposes locating the dispatching and maintenance
facility in Eden Prairie. The Energy and Transportation
Committee saw this as a possible negative aspect of their
proposal. However, Morely is proposing to utilize a local
telephone number for persons to call for a ride. Morely has also
stated their desire to hire as many of the current Dial-A-Ride
employees as possible. Additionally, Morely is planning on using
the Shakopee Job Service to recruit employees. Mr. Morely knows
that it would be advantageous for him to hire persons familiar
with the Shakopee area. The Energy and Transportation Committee
felt that given these considerations, having dispatching,
maintenance and possibly storage facility located outside of
Shakopee would not have an adverse effect on our program. The
Committee noted that the Southwest Metro (serving Eden Prairie,
Chaska and Chanhassen) Dial-A-Ride has been located in and
dispatched from Shakopee for the past year without any problems.
Summary
Regardless of whom the other participating bodies select for
their Dial-A-Ride contractor, the Energy and Transportation
Committee is recommending to City Council that the appropriate
City officials be directed to negotiate an agreement with Morely
Bus Co. for the provision of Dial-A-Ride Service in Shakopee.
The Morely Bus Co Proposal is within the cost Parameters of our
1989 Dial-A-Ride budget. The final contract agreement will be
reviewed by the Energy and Transportation Committee and forwarded
to City Council for final approval later this month.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. Direct staff to negotiate an agreement with Morely Bus Co.
for the provision of Dial-A-Ride Service in Shakopee.
2. Direct staff to negotiate an agreement with another of the
prospective contractors for the provision of Dial-A-Ride
Service in Shakopee.
3. Table action pending further information from staff.
RECOMMENDATION-
Staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REOUESTED:
Move to recommend to direct the appropriate City officials
to negotiate an agreement with Morely Bus Co. for the provision
of Dial-A-Ride Service in Shakopee.
Attachment 01
DIAL-A-RIDE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Bid January 13, 1989
Proseective Contractors Security A B C D E F G H I J K L
Manus Bus Linea K $19.60 $21.60 $21.75 $19.321$19.32 520.75 $20.75 $21.58 $21.58 $18.75 $18.75 $18.75
KAL Lines (Ryder) K $20.96 $20.96 $22.96 $20.96 $20.96 520.96 $22.48 $20.96 $22.48' $20.96 $20.96 $21.96
Medicine Lake Lines K $20.61 No Bid $19.79 No Bid No Bid $20.00 $19.00 No Bid No Hid No HSd No Bid No Bid
Metro Ride, Inc. 7 E18.50 E18.50 No Bid $18.271$18.27 Ne Hid No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid lNo Bid
I•:orley Bus Co. K 522.95 $19.75 521.50 $21.45 $19.15 522.55 $21.50 $19.75 521.50 521.41 $19.15 1 520.50
DIAL-A-RIDE OPTIONS
Southwest
Metro Shakopee Plymouth
1. Proposed hourly rates
for service provided to
only one city S A S B S C
2. Proposed hourly rates
for service provided to
any two cities!
A. SW Metro 6 Shakopee S D S E S x
B. SW Metro 6 Plymouth S F 5 K S G
C. Shakopee 6 Plymouth S X 5 H S I
3. Proposed hourly rates
for service provided
to all three cities. . S J S K S L
Attachment 42
Manus Bus Lines EAL Lines Metro Ride Inc. Morley Bus Co.
'T1 Total Cost/Hour of Service - 25% ITMS Ryder
Proposals with the lowest hourly rate
will receive the highest ranking:
O A. Shakopee Alone 4 3 1 2
t B. SNMTC and Shakopee 3 4 1 2
C. Shakopee and Plymouth 3 2 NA i
D. All Three Systems
Total Liability Points11 12 7
_
Percentage Point Total 2.75 3 50 1.75
2. Experience Providing Related Transit Service
and Personnel Assigned to the Project - 25%
A. The provider with the greatest level of
proven operating experience of similar
size and scope. 4 2 3 1
B. The proposal that dedicates staff to
this service with the greatest level of
expertise. 4 3 2 1
Total Liability Points a 5 5
Percentage Point Total 2 1.25 1 5
3. vehicle Twes and Maintenance Practices - 20%
A. Proposals providing vehicles most closely
to those requested and in best overall
operating conditions and appearance. 4 3 2 1
B. The proposal with the most comprehensive
vehicle maintenance program. 3 4 2 1
C. The proposal with the most comprehensive
safety program will receive the highest
ranking. 3 4 z 1
Total Liability Points 10 11 6 3
Percentage Point Total 2 2.2 1. 6
4. Management/Administrative Capabilities - 20%
Proposals demonstrating the most comprehensive:
A. Employee training. 3 4 2 1
B. Customer relations. 3 4 2 1
C. Marketing programs. 1 4 3 2
D. Reporting and financial capabilities. 4 3 2 1
Total Liability Points11 15 5
Percentage Point Total 2.2 3 1.0 1
5. Understanding of RFP and Exceptions - let
The proposal that demonstrates the best under-
standing of the RFP will be ranked highest.
Any exceptions to the proposal specifications
will be weighed by the review team in this
section of the evaluation.
Total Liability 4 3 2 1
Percentage Point Total 43.2 .1
TOTAL LIABILITY POINTS 44 points 43 points 24 points 18 points
PERCENTAGE POINT GRAND TOTAL 9.35 9.75 4.95 3.95
Attachment r3
DIAL-A-RIDE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL ANALYSIS
Name Pros Cons
Morley Bus Co. -Ability to add vehicles -Maintenance & dispatchin
in 2 hour increments at facility located in EP
stated bid price
-Price 4.8% higher than
-Service billed on a lowest bidder
revenue hour basis
-Storage facility possibly_
-No minimum hours guarantee located in EP
requested & we may reduce
hours with no penalty
-Perceived as most interested &
excited about operating the
program
-Highest level of actual Dial-
A-Ride experience
-Indoor vehicle storage
(year round)
-All drivers encouraged to
have at minimum, 2 years
experience
-Highest degree of flexibility
in selecting vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metro Ride -Dispatching & storage .-Some vehicles stored
facility located in outside
Shakopee
-Service billed on
-Lowest bid price scheduled hour basis
-Knowledge of service area -Propose to use current
Dial-A-Ride dispatching
-Good Dial-A-Ride experience storage facility
-Maintenance facility
located in Mpls. -
Memo To: Shakopee City Council
From: LeRoy Houser
Subject : Shakopee Community Youth Building
Date: 1/30/89
Introduction
We are nearing completion of the interior of the youth
building and wish to have Council reaffirm their previous
commitment for:
1. The building on completion will be turned over to the City
of Shakopee and the City will be the owner of this
facility.
2. The City will place the physical plant and exterior
maintenance on our regular building maintenance program.
3. The City will pay the utilities and insurance on this
facility.
Back round
The intent of this project was to provide a meeting place for
any and all supervised youth activities in our City. We
believe there is an established need for this type of
facility as the schedule to date the Youth Building Committee
has provided you tends to affirm this.
Considerable concern exists on the "turf" question by the
Youth Building Committee . This committee was established to
assist in providing labor to erect this facility and to
develop scheduling, building use rules and small maintenance
and cleaning plans for this building. The committee members
feel that they should be the responsible party for developing
a users schedule and providing it to the recreation dept. one
month in advance. Their assistance to date has been
invaluable. It is the request of this committee that they be
officially appointed by the Shakopee City Council as the
"Shakopee Youth Building Committee" and charged with this
responsibility. It is their feeling that a good working
relationship can be established with community recreation and
still maintain their autonomy.
They have put considerable work into this project to get it
where it is to date and feel they have a vested interest in
it and would like to maintain it. Their use rules are as
follows and parallel the original intent of the project by
the Lions and other donators .
Council , page two.
These rules are as follows :
1 . The Scouting schedule has precedent over all other
intended uses . The building committee will provide a
schedule one month advance and submit it to Rec. dept. to
reduce the possibility of conflict. Any unscheduled time
can be scheduled to other youth groups through rec. dept.
2. The users will provide cleaning services for this
building.
3. No drugs , liquor or tobacco will be permitted on the
premises.
We talked over the possibility of leasing this facility to
the Scout groups however, with a single use/tenant lease,
they could preclude any other youth organization or potential
user from using it if they wanted to. It is the Lions and
other donators intent to have this facility available to many
different groups within our City. Consequently, a users
request review appeal panel should be apppointed should an
apppeal be requested.
The building designated as the "Shakopee Community Youth
Building" does not preclude itfrombeing used for other
purposes as long as it does not interfere with scheduled
Scouting or youth activities . many organizations have already -
indicated they would like to use this facility on occasion.
and the possibility of Senior Citizens use exists for day
time use.
Alternatives
1. Lease the building to the youth organization for one
dollar per year with the City paying maintenance, utility
and insurance costs .
2. Lease the building to the youth group for one dollar per
year with them paying all maintenance and utilities.
3. Officially appoint the "Shakopee Youth Building Committee"
lease the building to them for one dollar per year with the
City paying utilities , insurance and maintenance and have
them responsible for scheduling and cleaning the building and
responsible to the rec. department for submitting the
schedule s month in advance. The time left over, Rec. can
schedule. And; also appoint a users request review committee
4. Do not accept the building and lease the land to the -
Shakopee Lions Club and have them responsible for the
City Council , page three.
operation, maintenance, utilities and insurance.
Recommendation
The membership and the building committee recommends number
three on a trial basis for one year. If it works , don't fix
it.
The Lions hope the City Council will accept this building in
the spirit in which it was given, community betterment,
commitment and a concern for our youth in our City. We are
looking forward to showing you all the building at the ribbon
cutting some time in April .
The Lions membership and executive board of directors have
voted unanimously to refund the $7,500. 00 to the Council that
they have donated. It is their feeling that this is a
Lions/community project and I should not have approached the
Council for assistance. The intent was to provide the
City/tax payer with a first class facility at no cost to them
other then the normal operating cost and maintenance.
We feel that volunteer work of this type can provide a
community with amenities that are affordable to the tax
payer. Your donation was sincerely appreciated however, some
comments in the local coffee shops diminished the spirit in
which it was given and the spirit of acceptance.
Consequently, the membership and board has voted to refund
it. Thank you again.
One thing I would like to point out to Council is that
Johnson Block donated about $16 , 000.00 in block and concrete
for this project on the condition that if a user fee was
charged to any youth organization, the Lions would be
immediatley responsible for paying Johnson Block Company
$16,000.00. We signed a contract to this and hope the City
Council will honor this commitment
Recommended Action:
Offer Resolution No. 3019, A Resolution Accepting the Shakopee
Community Youth Building From The Shakopee Lions and Establishing
A Committee to Oversee It' s Operation, and move it' s adoption.
RESOLUTION NO. 3019
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY
YOUTH BUILDING FROM THE SHAKOPEE LIONS AND
ESTABLISHING A COMMITTEE TO OVERSEE
ITS OPERATION
WHEREAS, the Shakopee Lions Club has received donations
and constructed a building upon City property in Lions Park to be
used as a meeting place for scouting groups, and other structured
youth groups, in Shakopee; and
WHEREAS, the Shakopee Lions Club has turned the building
over to the City of Shakopee to own and maintain; and
WHEREAS, the Shakopee Lions Club is recommending that a
"Shakopee Youth Building Committee" be established to oversee the
scheduling and cleaning of the building; and
WHEREAS, members of the Shakopee Lions Club have spent
much time and energy in the construction of a building which can
be used by the boy scouts, cub scouts, girl scouts, and other
structured youth groups within the City of Shakopee; and
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee can be grateful for and
proud of the facility constructed by the Shakopee Lions Club for
the community betterment and concern for the youth of Shakopee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
11 The City hereby accepts the community youth building
located at Lions Park so generously donated by the Shakopee Lions
Club, other persons, firms, organizations and fraternal organiza-
tions to the City of Shakopee for community youth activities.
21 The City shall maintain the physical plant and
exterior of. the building and the Lions will maintain the interior
of the building; and the City will provide and pay for the
utilities and insurance costs of the building.
3] A Shakopee Youth Building Committee is hereby
established which shall be responsible for the scheduling of the
use of the community youth building, for scouting groups and
other structured youth groups in Shakopee, as well as interior
maintenance of the building; the Committee will operate as
follows:
a] The Committee shall be comprised of (five)
members to be appointed by the City Council, a majority of which
shall be members of the Shakopee Lions Club. The Lions Club
shall submit names to the Council for their consideration.
// 6LI
2 -
b] The members shall serve staggered terms which
shall expire on January 31st as do terms of other City board and
commission members.
C] The Committee shall establish its own meeting
dates, elect its officers, and shall follow Roberts Rules, Newly
Revised in conducting its meetings.
d] The Committee shall submit a schedule of times
and users, at least one month in advance of the scheduled times,
to the Shakopee Community Recreation Director. The Director may
schedule other community groups for times which have not been
scheduled by the Committee.
e] The Committee shall submit an annual report to
the City Council, not later than February 1st of each year,
outlining the use of the building during the preceding calendar
year. The annual report shall include the preceding year end
financial statement as well as the budget for the current year.
f] The City Council shall serve as the Appeals Board
should there be any matter which needs to go to an appeals board.
g] Consistent with a commitment made by the Shakopee
Lions, council has determined that there shall be no charge for
the use of the building by any Shakopee youth organization.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council may amend
this resolution from time to time, as it deems appropriate.
Adopted in session of the City Council of
the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of
1989.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of 1989.
City Attorney
��wuAm s RR�na r Awa a MAV s .1wR s .9u�v app
TPO
6 40-
591)8 92021 9 to 11 12 1314 554 5 9918 91011119 915 FEBRUARY 11199179 920 2134151.11 a B9'Y1,119
72232125282138 1920212223 7/25 181 19202127 ���� 71222321252827 1B 19 TO 7122232/ x0111819202122
29]031 262]28293031 TI 2$282]2829 28293031 25282192930 la"Il 25282723n
SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 6 9 10 11
(� �o I WPM 4.5 lo'1 eo•S:ooP.m-
Ie.Y3-8'10G16 p
W.W.
8.�;lo.y:aa P.m. JCS
12 4aalre ama.. 13 14 .. 15 16 17 16
q;le-9:ooPm. CRE IWd. 4:RP-8'.K Pm. b;oo- B:oo P.M.
yJQOG109 G.S p500
19 20 w." 21 22 23 24 25
l:mE .S• u e}la IO:ro H.m. (.:eo-Y:ee P.M. y:Va-8.1S pm. 6.:oo - S'oo
4.5. play Webcbs G S. 0loo
. 6Ao-9fooPa J.Cf
26 27 26
S. '.So-9: .n C
rYMIA2 3 4 /IWi1L'BB MOY 'BB MARCH JVIVF'BB JVIY•BB gVBVBT'BY
BMT.T FB BMTWTFB BMTWTFB BMTWTFB BMTWTFB BMTWTFB
I z91 I I1 ) 4sti I � a/ 8910 I 89o42
5 8 1 8 91011 2 1 5 6 i 8 I H '1 III 11 IP IJ 4 5 6 / fl Y 10 2 9 4 5 6 I N 6 1 0 Y 1011 12
R 1911 15 16018 9101112191415 14 1
5
16V IN 1920 II 12 11 14 1111 I) 9 10 11 12 19 14 15 IJ II IS '16121119
IB 202122812425 16 P IS 19202122 212221124252621 ���� I B 19 20 21 22 29'24 I6V 1N 192011n 20'21 12 10 24 25 26
2627M °n&2526212829 282Y:9):It 2526212tl 2990 ��25262/1N 19 1]20199091
SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY
1 2c'O°.i:oo r.m. BS00 3 a
b:us•b•ISPm. U1eRla6 7:Oo 4 e 4cudeT
5 6 7 B 9
ww-lwltm. 4100• vloe M1m. 10 11
4.s. BDoy 4:'46-laSPm. IWbe1BB 4.5 w Seo
.
w -1cmitm. .Ce
12 13 14 16 16 V•,00-Y:mv.m. 17 sr nnrrolsu4+ 18
I:W.q:Wr.m.CW 1WA &,t,,-v!Ir Pm.Webr4B G.S. w 300
19 MIB BInO+ 20 21 2223 24
4:oo-Y:ao Lm.
4:990 - . P.m. G 3. u 300
G.S5. B Soy 4�u a-4'.16 Rm Ylcbelet
8 W.O. -V:oo Pm.
261.51.,, 27 28 29 30 31
4tfo•Y+So P.M. Dock C. ajoo
MI•RCH 71! MAY'W JVN! '!! ^/ JWY'!! .MOUSY'!! EERTEMEERY
eMTWTFE EMTWTFe IMTWTFE APRIL I L% eM IYS 616 fi~] 12345 •MI561119
1231 12 ) 156 123
5 6 8 81011 ] e 91011 121) 1 5 6 1 8 910
1213
11 IS Ifi 1/iB HIS 16 1]
18 1920 II 12 IJ 11 IS Ifi 1] 9 10 I1 12 IJ H 15 IJ 11 IS 1911 IB 19 10 11 12 13 IC 15 16
19 20 21 22"21 25 21 22 2J 21 25 26 27 16 19 N 21 22 23 21 1989 Ifi 1]18 19 2021 22 20 21 22 23 21 25 26 If 16 19 20 21 R 23
28 2]N NM 31 28 28 M 31 2s 26 21 28 29 m y"n252fi 272629 212829)031 21252627202930
SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY
2 3 4 5 66:oo-roo aR. Doo 7 H
b:Do -Y:oo am. 1:10 -Y:lo v.m.
4.5. a9oM buS Y:t+v.m.IllcEv.b� 45. LcaMn
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
wlbly s /.:m-l:aoam. 03e
16 17 16 19 20 . 21 22
'7:so-4•oo am.CublRd m. W! 61oo-dloe P.m. y!m
btua-Y'.15a �'3M
d W: -W-0-Vm. *8-4
23 24 25 26 27 26 29
b:ae.l'jo r.n. 9oek (F:oo-Qvoo am. l800
30
an.2425
J4Na•H Jul w 1
45610811 91011 1YPW 5618 MAY 11 � �p 9 11 12 3 St61i 169 I3l'4. 16789 SID1B2"t1
19192021222324 1611 i919 N 2122 1989 N2122292/NN 11 16 19 20 21 22 2] 22 23 24 11 211
252921292939 nvHn 2526212928 2129293091 2425262129 N 30 293031
SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY
1 2 3 4 L'm-rmam. +� S 6
L:7o•Y:ooam• Gs ilyy L�urn:lsam. wablgt 7fo0Yao0.m•
7 B 9 10 11 12 13
p5e-4'0o
P. Crb kaA La4s- 1%1B0.a.Wabela5 (.;oo -rw am.
G.S. a 900
14 .ona9 n. 16 16 17 16 1'°O-re°+. n 19 20 ...
4:70 •Y:oo 0..m. G.aojo4 L'.i0-82ovm. P�,li �
21 22 23 24 28 26 27
L.ys -7uSFm Wabelq 4:00-`��3�'
28 29 30 31
�;y p _ry�1 S 0.m. �Jcbelw•.
FN869MIIY O .IT M
a
10 }I3 BMTWMBW BFB A / BMT'WTFB 6 x616913411151611161920 910111213 N 15 11 1w JUNE f u/ 1011121.1 II IS9 IS 6% 1619 A 21 12131115161110
212[2321292621 16111611M 2122 1989 11181928212223 22232.1111111 19202122232125
E203031 '� � 2526212629 2.252621291930193031 M21MM30
SUNOAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY
1 t:oe6:eF am. 2 3 xnywva nvF
G1 S. Icude+s
4 5 6 7 H 9 10
11 12 13 14 y1K m. 16 16 17
1H y.1.e1s B.. 19 20 21 22 23 t14
25 26 27 28 29 30 —
-60
BM WBT R .
BMT WB TpR • BM TMW T'o- O � � O � � �I BM2H456 BMTUW TTFZB •MT W~; i.
2 3 4
3 / 5 6 1 6 9 5 6 ] 8 91011 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 7 8 910111213 4 5 6 ] 6 910 4 5 6 7 8
10 11 1213 11 15 18 12 13 14 1516 1]I8 10 11 12 13 1 15 I6 11 15 1611 18 19 20 II 1213 14 1516 1] 11 12 13 14 15 1'
1]181828212223 1920212223 24 25 1] 181920212223 1989 21222324MM21 18192021222321 16192021222.
24 25 25 27 28 iB 30 26 27 28 29 M 1x,,25 26 27 28 29 M 28 29 3031 25 26 27 28 25 26 27 28 29 3
SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
$:aO P.m.
6 .`._—.. 9 OT V.B6 nor r.TleBwm4 10 11 12 nvwae n>v 13 14
Vpl Nigq
� NoeN
15 16 17 16 19 20 21
22_-- - 23 24 25 26 27 2B
29 30 31 ..,.
SHAKOPEE YOUTH ACTIVITY BL72LDING
MA I N T E NA N C E PIAN
After each use of the building, the group(s) using the building
shall be responsible for cleaning the building according to the
attached checklist, a copy of which shall be given to each group
that utilyzes the building.
Every week (or two weeks , to be determined by necessity over a
trial period of two months) one of the regularly scheduled youth
groups and their adult leaders will give the building a thorough
cleaning. This cleaning shall include a thorough cleaning of the
washroom and kitchen facilities, washing of the table tops and
sweeping and mopping the floors .
During this regularly scheduled cleaning, the walls, windows and
doors should be inspected, and cleaned as required. The
washrooms should be re-stocked with toilet paper, and paper
towels.
If there is a maintenance aspect of the building that the
cleaning group feels that it cannot or should not handle, the
building scheduler should be contacted with a description of the
problem. The Building Committee will make sure that required
corrections are made.
att: Shakopee Youth Activity Building Dseage Checklist
/iCL,
S HAK QP E E YOU= A C T 2 V Z T Y B U = L D 2 NG
U S E A G E C H E C K L S S T
UPON OPENING BUILDING FOR ACTIVITY:
-----------------------------------
❑ All EXIT Doors must be unlocked during occupancy. Each
EXIT door must be manually UNLOCKED by turning the DEADBOLT
LATCH until it stops.
NOTE: EXCEPTION - The door in the basement does not
have a deadbolt latch. It is unlocked and opened at the
same time by pushing on the release lever.
❑ The THERMOSTAT may be turned up to no higher than 72.
❑ There shall be ABSOLUTELY NO SMOKING, CONSUMPTION OF
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, OR USE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES during
any youth activities .
UPON LEAVING BUILDING AFTER ACTIVITY:
-------------------------------------
❑ The tables must be cleared of debris and the floor swept.
❑ The washrooms must be clean (all paper picked up, no water
on the floors) , and make sure there is no water running.
❑ All appliances (except refrigerator) must be turned off .
❑ All food must be removed from the building.
❑ All garbage must be removed to the dumpster outside.
❑ All EXIT doors must be locked (turn DEADBOLT LATCH
until it stops . ) Make sure that the door in the basement
is latched closed.
❑ The thermostat must be turned down to 60 .
❑ All lights must be turned off, except the light over the
stairwell going to the basement, which will be left on at
all times . NOTE: The outside light at the entrance is
automatically controlled via a photo-sensitive switch . Do
not attempt to control this light.
❑ Return the key to the issuing authority within 24 hours .
PLEASE NOTE ANY MAINTENANCE OR OPERATIONAL ITEMS WHICH YOU FEEL
NEED ATTENTION, AND INFORM THE PERSON THAT YOU RETURN THE KEY TO.
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer ,L
SUBJECT: 6th Avenue East of Main Street
DATE: January 30 , 1989
INTRODUCTION:
Attached is Resolution No. 3009, A Resolution Vacating 6th Avenue
East of Main Street for Council consideration.
BACKGROUND:
On November 1 , 1988 the City Council held a public hearing to
consider the vacation of 6th Avenue east of Main Street. At the
conclusion of the public hearing , Council directed staff to
prepare the appropriate vacation resolution after the developer
had executed an agreement to complete all restoration work
associated with the vacated part of 6th Avenue. On November 15 ,
1988 this action was rescinded and a second public hearing was
set.
A second public hearing was held on December 6 , 1988 to allow one
property owner who had not been notified of the first public
hearing to appear and express their concerns. At the conclusion
of the second public hearing, Council tabled any action on the
6th Avenue vacation until after the public hearing on the 5th
Avenue extension project.
Previously, staff had recommended to Council that 6th Avenue be
vacated if 5th Avenue is ordered through to Market Street and
once the developer executes an agreement to restore the vacated
portion of 6th Avenue. The Planning Commission has also gone on
record as supporting the vacation of 6th Avenue east of Main
Street in order to promote development in this area.
The public hearing for the 5th Avenue Improvements is scheduled
for February 7 , 1989 •
The developer has executed a developer' s agreement covering the
cost of restoring the vacated portion of 6th Avenue and agreeing
to pay for any sewer and water extensions necessary on Main
Street abutting her property. The agreement states that the City
will construct the improvements and assess the costs to the
developer. If 5th Avenue does not get ordered as a project, the
developer ' s agreement, as drafted , is incorrect. Additional
improvements will be necessary north of the developer' s property
and the developer is not prepared to absorb these costs. If 5th
Avenue improvements are not ordered, the developer would like the -
vacation of 6th Avenue tabled in order to re-evaluate the
proposed development and would like Council to keep the
possibility of vacating 6th Avenue open.
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Determine that this portion of 6th Avenue serves no public
purpose and adopt Resolution No. 3009 vacating the street.
2. Deny the request for vacation and do not adopt Resolution
No. 3009 .
3• Table the request if Council desires additional information
from staff, or if Council would like to give the developer
time to re-evaluate the feasibility of the development.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discuss the overall pros and cons of vacating 6th Avenue east of
Main Street and take the appropriate action. If 5th Avenue is
ordered extended through to Main Street, staff recommends
Alternative No. 1 , vacating the street by adopting Resolution
No. 3009.
ACTION REQUESTED:
1 . If 5th Avenue improvements are ordered:
Offer Resolution No. 3009 , A Resolution Vacating 6th Avenue
East of Main Street, According to the Plat of Wermerskirchen
2nd Addition to the City of Shakopee , Scott County ,
Minnesota and move its adoption, or
2. If 5th Avenue improvements are not ordered:
Table the vacation of 6th Avenue East of Main Street in
order to give the developer an opportunity to re-evaluate
the project.
DH/pmp
MEM3009
U '`
V
0
J
I I
1
5 1
Lo J 5 1
4
v CP ovrccr
r z
^ 3 s
— � 1
7 IF
8 L
F^ I
b 9 6
/o Y
/o
J
I Propose
S reet' Vac ti
Eft„ I!E W
HIAWA HA
VISI I �
PARK
I 3 3
Ir 3 3
1 I I F ,_
RESOLUTION NO. 3009
A RESOLUTION VACATING 6TH AVENUE EAST OF MAIN STREET,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF WERMERSKIRCHEN 2ND ADDITION TO THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Shakopee City
Council that that part of 6th Avenue lying East of Main Street
within the plat of Wermerskirchen 2nd Addition no longer serves
any public interest or use; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing to consider said vacation was held
in the Council Chambers of the City Hall in the City of Shakopee
at 8:30 p.m. on December 6, 1988; and
WHEREAS, two weeks' published notice has been given in the
Shakopee Valley News and posted notice has been given by posting
such notice on the bulletin board on the main floor of the Scott
County Courthouse, and on the bulletin board in the Shakopee City
Hall; and
WHEREAS, all persons desiring to be heard on the matter were
heard at the public hearing in the Council Chambers in the City
of Shakopee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1. That it finds and determines that the vacation
hereinafter described is in the public interest and
serves no further public need as a street.
2 . That that part of 6th Avenue, dedicated to the public
in the plat of Wermerskirchen 2nd Addition lying East
of Main Street, Scott County, Minnesota, be, and the
same hereby is vacated.
3. That after the adoption of the Resolution, the City
Clerk shall file certified copies hereof with the
County Auditor and County Recorder of Scott County.
Adopted in Session of the City Council of the City
of Shakopee, Minnesota held this day of ,
1989.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this _
day of , 1989.
City Attorney
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Dave Button, City Enginee€�914tr
SUBJECT: Erosion Control Ordinance
DATE: January 25, 1989
INTRODUCTION:
Staff has been instructed by City Council to revise the current
City ordinance regarding erosion control measures.
BACKGROUND:
During the summer of 1988, one particular subdivision created an
adverse situation on surrounding neighborhoods due to inadequate
erosion control measures being utilized during construction.
Specifically, the issue was dust control or lack thereof.
At the time, staff indicated that the current erosion control
requirements was inadequate and extremely weak in dust control
measures. The existing City ordinance does not aid staff in
preventing this situation from occurring on future subdivisions.
Council directed staff to revise the code and add language
specifically covering dust control measures.
In researching the City code , erosion control measures are
mentioned in two different sections of the code. The Zoning Code
( Chapter 11 ) mentions erosion control in Section 11 .60 ,
Subdivision 12 and 13 under "Performance Standards". The Zoning
code is the main section of the code that discusses erosion
control.
Erosion control measures are also mentioned briefly in the
Subdivision Code ( Chapter 12 ) under Section 12 . 12 titled
"Environmental Protection" .
Excerpts from both the Zoning Chapter and Subdivision Chapter of
the code are attached for reference.
The City Planner, Building Inspector and myself have discussed
the erosion control requirements and would like to suggest a
revision to the City Code. Staff does not feel that the Zoning
Code is the appropriate chapter for discussing erosion control
measures. It would be more appropriate to place erosion control
requirements in the Subdivision Chapter or the Building
Regulation Chapter and cross-reference it with any other chapters
that are appropriate. Erosion control measures should be
required in both private subdivision work and also large multi-
family, commercial or industrial development, hence the need to
cite erosion control measures in both the Subdivision Chapter and
Building Regulation Chapter of the code.
Staff has prepared a rough draft of a new erosion control
ordinance. Basically, the existing erosion control measures
contained in the Zoning Code were assimilated and expanded upon.
Staff is proposing the following revisions to the City Code:
1 . Section 11 .6 Subd . 12 of the Zoning Code should be
revised . The entire section should be deleted and
replaced with the following" "All development shall
adhere to the erosion control and sedimentation
requirements stated in Section 12.20 of this code".
2. Add the proposed erosion control ordinance to the City
Code as Section 12 .20 (Subdivision Chapter) . The
language in the proposed erosion control ordinance
shall be discussed and modified per Council direction.
3. The Building Regulation section of the code (Chapter 4)
should be revised to include the following section.
"Section 4 . 10 Erosion Control Measures. All
multi-family , commercial and industrial
development shall conform to the erosion control
measures and requirements stated in Section 12.20
of this code. "
4. The Streets and Sidewalk section of the code
(Chapter 7) should be revised to include the following.
"Section 7 . 16 Erosion Control Measures . All
multi- famitly , commercial and industrial
development shall conform to the erosion control
measures and requirments stated in Section 12 .20
of this code. "
Because staff is recommending a revision to the Zoning Code, the
Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the
proposed changes . If Council concurs with staff ' s
recommendation, the issue should be referred to the Planning
Commission for action.
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Direct staff to amend the Zoning Code by eliminating the
section dealing with Erosion Control Measures . To
accomplish this, the Planning Commission must first hold a
public hearing and recommend appropriate action.
2. Do not revise the Zoning Code, but rather leave this portion
of the Code as is and simply add a new section on Erosion
Control.
3 . Make some other code revisions.
4 . Do Nothing.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 .
ACTION REQUESTED:
Discuss the proposed erosion control ordinance and direct the
Planning Commission to review the proposal and hold a public
hearing on the proposed Zoning Code revisions prior to making a
final recommendation to Council.
DH/pmp
CODE
PROPOSED ORDINANCE ) I 0/
Section 12.20 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance.
The purpose of this section is to promote the public health,
safety, property and general welfare of the citizens of the
City and to conserve the soil, water and related resources
and to control erosion and sedimentation caused by land
disturbing activities.
Subd. i Administration
The City Council hereby designates the Building Inspector or
City Engineer (depends on the land disturbing activity) as
the administrator of this section of the City Code. Erosion
control plans shall be covered under the existing building
permit process. A separate fee is not required for erosion
control plans.
Subd. 2 Activities Subject to Erosion Control Measures.
a) Any land disturbing activity in multi-family ,
commercial or industrial zones shall be subject to
erosion control measures provided that:
1 . An area of 10,000 square feet or greater will be
disturbed by excavation, grading, filling or other
earth moving activities resulting in the loss of
protective vegetation, or
2. Excavation or fill exceeding 500 cubic yards, or
3 . The installation of underground utilities, either
public or private , resulting in more than 300
linear feet of trenching or earth disturbance, or
4. Any subdivisions as defined by Chapter 12 of this
code which requires plat approval or a certified
survey map.
b) Agricultural lands used mainly for the production of
food , general farming , livestock and poultry
enterprises, nurseries, forestry, etc. are not subject
to the provisions of this section.
SURD. 3 EROSION CONTROL PLANS
a) All land disturbing activities covered by this section
shall be required to have an approved erosion control
plan on file with the City prior to any construction
starting.
b) The erosion control plan shall contain any such
information necessary for the Building Inspector and
City Engineer to determine that adequate erosion
/ /
control and sedimentation measures are proposed. As a
minimum a topographic map showing existing and proposed
contours , location of any natural water courses and
drainageways , the extent of the land disturbing
activity and any erosion control measures should be
shown on the plans submitted and approved.
SUM. A Performance Standards
a) General Standards
In general, this ordinance does require the use of any
particular type of structure to control erosion and
sedimentation. The City Engineer or Building Inspector
shall evaluate the proposed measures to determine if
they follow current accepted design criteria and
engineering standards.
1 . Erosion control plans shall incorporate best
management practices to reduce soil loss during
construction to 10% of the gross soil loss as
estimated by the universal soil loss equation.
2. The smallest practical area of land shall be
exposed at any given time during development.
3 . When soil is exposed , the exposure shall be for
the shortest period of time. No exposure shall
exceed sixty ( 60) days , unless an extension is
granted by the City Engineer or Building
Inspector.
4. All development shall conform to the natural
limitations presented by the topography and soil
as to create the best potential for preventing
soil erosion.
5 . Erosion control measures shall be coordinated with
the different stages of development. Appropriate
control measures shall be installed prior to
development to control erosion.
6 . The natural vegetation and plant covering shall be
retained whenever possible. Temporary vegetation,
mulching or other cover shall be used to protect
critical areas and permanent vegetation shall be
installed as soon as practical.
b) Standards - Stormwater Runoff Erosion
1 . The natural drainage system shall be used as far
as is feasible for storage and flow of runoff.
Stormwater drainage shall be discharged to
marshlands, swamps , retention basins or other
ilC�
treatment facilities. Temporary storage area or
retention ponds should be considered to reduce
peak flows, erosion damage and construction costs.
2. Silt fence or hay bales should be utilized to
control erosion and prevent sedimentation from
leaving the construction site. These structures
shall be properly installed according to current
standards.
3. If needed , sod shall be laid in strips at
intervals necessary to prevent erosion and at
right angles to the direction of drainage.
4 . At existing storm sewer inlets , temporary
sedimentation traps may be necessary to prevent
erosion from entering the storm sewer system.
5 . Adequate provisions should be made to prevent the
tracking or dropping of dirt or other materials
from the site onto any public or private street.
C) Exposed Slopes. The following control measures shall
be taken to control erosion during construction:
1 . No exposed slope should be steeper in grade than
five (5) feet horizontal to one ( 1 ) foot vertical.
2. Exposed slopes steeper in grade than ten (10) feet
horizontal to one ( 1 ) foot vertical should be
contour plowed to minimize direct runoff of water.
3. At the foot of each exposed slope, a channel and
berm should be constructed to control runoff. The
channelized water should be diverted to a
sedimentation basin (debris basin, silt basin or
silt trap ) before being allowed to enter the
natural drainage system.
4. Along he top of each exposed slope, a berm should
be constructed to prevent runoff from flowing over
the edge of the slope. Where runoff collecting
behind said berm cannot be diverted elsewhere and
must be directed down the slope , appropriate
measures shall be taken to prevent erosion. Such
measures should consist of either an asphalt paved
flow apron and drop chute laid down the slope or a
flexible slope drain. At the base of the slope
drain or flow apron, a gravel energy dissipater
should be installed to prevent erosion at the
discharge end.
5. Exposed slopes shall be protected by whatever
means will effectively prevent erosion considering
the degree of slope, soils material, and expected
length of exposure . Slope protection shall
consist of mulch, sheets of plastic, burlap or jut
netting, sod blankets, fast growing grasses or
temporary seeding of annual grassings . Mulch
consists of hay, straw, wood chips, corn stalks ,
bark or other protective material. Mulch should
be anchored to slopes with liquid asphalt, stakes,
and netting or should be worked into the soil to
provide additional slope stability.
6 . Control measures , other than those specifically
stated above, may be used in place of the above
measures if it can be demonstrated that they will
effectively protect exposed slopes.
d) Dust Control Measures
1 . Temporary mulching or seeding shall be applied to
open soil to minimize dust.
2. Barriers such as snow fences, commercial wind
fences and similar materials should be used to
control air currents and blowing soil. Barriers
should be placed at intervals of 10-15 times their
height.
3. The exposed soil should be watered to control
dust, with frequency of watering repeated as
necessary.
4. Permanent vegetation should be established as
quickly as possible.
Subd. 5 Maintenance of Erosion Control Measures
a) The owner or developer shall be responsible for
maintaining all erosion control structures in a
condition that will insure continuous functioning of
those devices.
b) Any erosion or sediment that runs off or blows off the
site onto adjoining properties , City streets , storm
sewers, etc. shall be the responsibility of the owner
or developer for clean up and restoration. If the
owner fails to properly clean up or restore all areas
affected by erosion the City will hire a contractor to
complete the work and bill the owner for the expenses
associated with the clean-up.
Subd . 6 Violations
Any person, either by the owner or the occupant of the
premises who violates, neglects or refuses to comply with
l� C�
the requirements of this section shall be punishable as a
misdemeanor. In addition, if the Building Inspector or City
Engineer determines that adequate erosion control measures
are not being followed and there is little cooperation on
the part of the owner to do so, a "stop work" order may be
issued to the land disturbing activity until such times as
adequate measures are implemented. In all cases, the owner
may appeal the "stop work" decision to the City Council for
review.
S 11.60
C. A camper, travel trailer, or other recreational
vehicle may not be parked on any land outside of an approved
trailer park or an approved sales lot, except that the parking of
one (1) unoccupied trailer , less than thirty-five (35) feet in
length is permitted provided that no living quarters shall be
maintained or any business practiced in said trailer while it is so
parked or stored.
D. A camper or travel trailer of the type described
in Subparagraph A above and owned by a non-resident, guest, or
visitor may be parked or occupied by said guest or visitor on
property on which a permanent dwelling unit is located for a period
not to exceed thirty (30) days while visiting the resident of said
property. The recreation vehicle or trailer shall have self-
contained sanitary facilities or standard on-site facilities as
required by the City building official/sanitarian.
E. The terms of said temporary period shall not
exceed one hundred twenty (120) days or upon completion of
construction of the residential home in question, whichever comes
first.
F. The Zoning Administrator may attach such
conditions and obligations to the issuance of the temporary permit
as it deems necessary to protect the health, safety, and general
welfare of the citizens of the community.
( *F
Subd. 12. Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control -
andards.
A. All development shall conform to the natural
s presented by the topography and soil as to create the
ial for preventing soil erosion.
B. Development on slopes with a grade between
eighteen percent (12-168) shall be carefully reviewed to
quate measures have been taken to prevent erosion,
on and structural damage.
C. Erosion and siltation control measures shall be
coordinated with the different stages of development. Appropriate
control measures shall be installed prior to development when
necessary to control erosion.
D. Land shall be developed in increments of
workable size such that adequate erosion and siltation controls can
be provided as construction progresses. The smallest practical
area of land shall be exposed at any one period of time.
E. The drainage system shall be constructed and
operational as quickly as possible during construction.
F. Whenever possible, natural vegetation shall be
retained and protected.
G. Where the topsoil is removed, sufficient arable
soil shall be set aside for respreading over the developed area.
The soil shall be restored to a depth of four (4) inches and shall
be of a quality at least equal to the soil quality prior to
development.
-317 (9-1-85)
�e
/( C-
S
5 11.60
H. When soil is exposed, the exposure shall be for
the shortest feasible period of time. No exposure shall be planned
to exceed sixty (60) days. Said time period may be extended only
if the Planning Commission is satisfied that adequate measures have
been established and will remain in place.
I. The natural drainage system shall be used as far
as is feasible for storage and flow of runoff. Stormwater drainage
shall be discharged to marshlands, swamps, retention basins or
other treatment facilities. Diversion of stormwater to marshlands
or swamps shall be considered for existing or planned surface
drainage. Marshlands and swamps used for stormwater shall provide
for natural or artificial water level control. 'Temporary storage
areas or retention basins scattered throughout developed areas
shall be encouraged to reduce peak flow, erosion damage, and
construction cost.
Subd. 13. Exposed Slopes. The following control
measures shall be taken to control erosion during construction:
A. No exposed slope should be steeper in grade than
five (5) feet horizontal to one (1) foot vertical.
B. Exposed slopes steeper in grade than ten (10)
feet horizontal to one (1) foot vertical should be contour plowed
to minimize direct runoff of water.
C. At the foot of each exposed slope, a channel and
( berm should be constructed to control runoff. The channelized
water should be diverted to a sedimentation basin (debris basin,
silt basin or silt trap) before being allowed to enter the natural
drainage system.
D. Along the top of each exposed slope, a berm
should be constructed to prevent runoff from flowing over the edge
of the slope. Where runoff collecting behind said berm cannot be
diverted elsewhere and must be directed down the slope, appropriate
measures shall be taken to prevent erosion. Such measures should
consist of either an asphalt paved flow apron and drop chute laid
down the slope or a flexible slope drain. At the base of the slope
drain or flow apron, a gravel energy dissipater should be installed
to prevent erosion at the discharge end.
E. Exposed slopes shall be protected by whatever
means will effectively prevent erosion considering the degree of
slope, soils material, and expected length of exposure. Slope
protection shall consist of mulch, sheets of plastic, burlap or
jute netting, sod blankets , fast growing grasses or temporary
seeding of annual grassings. Mulch consists of hay, straw, wood
chips, corn stalks, bark or other protective material. Mulch
should be anchored to slopes with liquid asphalt, stakes, and
netting or should be worked into the soil to provide additional
slope stability.
F. Control measures, other than those specifically
stated above, may be used in place of the above measures if it can
be demonstrated that they will effectively protect exposed slopes.
-318- (9-1-85)
retaining walls is specifically prohibited; a�
(d) No on-site disposal system shall be
placed on a slope of greater than 12 percent. The natural slope
may not be altered in any way where the septic tank system or part
thereof is to be located. The drain lines shall be located paral-
lel to contour lines;
(e) In no case shall slopes with a nat-
ural slope in excess of 18 percent be developed.
4. Run-off. The proposed development will not
increase the run-off rate of storm water so as to cause an adverse
effect upon adjacent lands.
5. Erosion. Erosion protection measures shall
make maximum use of natural in-place vegetation rather than the
placing of new vegetation on-site as erosion control facilities.
The use of natural erosion control devices shall be preferred to
the maximum extent over the construction of artificial drainage
devices including culverts, holding ponds and ditches.
6. Location. The development shall be located
in such a manner as to minimize the removal of vegetation and al-
teration of the natural topography.
7. Soil Conditions. The applicant shall dem-
onstrate that the types and densities of land use proposed shall be
suited to the site and soil conditions and shall not present a
threat to the maintenance of the ground water quality, a potential
increase in maintenance cost of utilities, parking areas or roads
and shall not be subject to problems due to soil limitations in-
cluding but not limited to, soil bearing strength, shrink/swell
potential and excessive frost movement.
8. Debris. No cut trees, timber , debris,
earth, rock, stones, rubbish or waste materials of any kind shall
be buried in any land or left or deposited on any lot or street
without the approval of the City Engineer. Said debris shall also
be removed no later than the time when the performance bond shall
be released by the City or at such earlier time as determined by
the City' s Director of Public Works.
9. Topsoil. Topsoil removed from lots during
construction shall be stockpiled or re-spreading over lots and
shall not be sold or otherwise removed from the .subdivision area
unless the removal of excess topsoil is approved by the City Engi-
neer.
10. Sodding. On grades or exposed areas which
are not sodded, lawn grass %eed shall be sown at not less than 4
pounds to each 1,000 square feet of land area. It is recommended
the seed shall be sown between March 15th and May 15th; and between
August 15th and September 30th. Seeding during other periods shall
be approved by the City Planner. The seed shall consist of a maxi-
mum of 10 percent rye grass by weight and a minimum of 90 percent
of permanent bluegrass and/or fescue grass by weight.
-356-
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, City Enginee
SUBJECT: Reimbursement for Meadows ubdivision Oversizing
DATE: February 1 , 1989
INTRODUCTION:
Attached is a request from the developer for reimbursement for
street and watermain oversizing costs associated with the Meadows
Subdivision for Council consideration.
BACKGBOURD:
The current City of Shakopee assessment policy states that the
City will only assess those costs associated with the
construction of local streets up to the standard width of 36
feet. Any street constructed wider than that is "oversizing" and
the City absorbs those costs.
In the case of a private development whereby the owner is
constructing all of the improvements and there are no
assessments, the City has typically reimbursed the developer for
the oversizing costs.
Shakopee Public Utilities has a similar policy on oversized
watermains.
Consequently, a reimbursement agreement was executed on
June 1 , 1988 with the owner of the Meadows Subdivision, Gold
Nugget Development, Inc. covering the amount of oversizing costs
that would be paid by the City. The agreement stated that the
City would pay the difference between the construction of a 50
foot wide collector street (Vierling Drive) versus the standard
36 foot wide local street and also the difference between the 12
inch watermain constructed versus the standard 6 inch standard
watermain.
The total amount agreed upon was $28, 103.15, which consisted of
$7 ,943 .43 for the street oversizing costs and $20 , 159 .72 for the
watermain oversizing costs.
The Utilities Manager did review the watermain oversizing costs
prior to the execution of the reimbursement agreement and did not
indicate any problems with that amount. The Utilities Commission
will reimburse the City for those costs associated with the
watermain oversizing.
Attachment 1 is a copy of the executed reimbursement agreement.
The developer is now requesting that the oversizing costs be
amended to include some additional watermain costs. The original
/r L�-
watermain costs were based on actual bid amounts. The contract
was awarded prior to the Utilities Commission granting final
approval of the design . During construction the Utilities
Commission required additional 12 inch watermain on Vierling
Drive.
The developer has calculated the revised watermain oversizing
costs to be $26 ,501 .80 , an increase of $6 , 342 .08 from the
original amount and is now requesting reimbursement for the
revised amount. The street oversizing costs did not change .
Attachment 2 is a letter from the developer summarizing the
oversizing costs and requesting a total reimbursement in the
amount of $34,445 .53 • The Finance Director has indicated that
since this item was not budgeted, the money would have to come
out of the Capital Improvements Fund or the Contingency Fund.
The Utilities Commission should reimburse the City for the
watermain oversizing ($26 ,501 .80) , so the net amount from City
funds would be $7 ,943 .43 .
Staff has forwarded the additional watermain costs to the
Utilities Manager for review and approval, but to date there has
been no response. The letter from the developer was received on
December 4, 1988. Staff feels that two months is a sufficient
time period for the Utilities Commission to evaluate this
request, but to date there has been no response. Staff has
periodically requested that some action be taken on this matter.
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Reimburse the developer the original amount of oversizing
costs as stated in the agreement ($28 ,103 .15) and inform the
developer that any additional costs should be obtained
directly from the Utilities Commission.
2. Reimburse the developer the total revised amount
($34 ,445 .23) and inform the Utilities Commission that they
should reimburse the City for all oversizing costs
associated with the watermain.
3 . Reimburse the developer the total revised amount
( $34 , 445 .23 ) but do not require that the Utilities
Commission pay for the additional watermain costs. The City
would then absorb those additional costs ($6 ,342 .08) .
4. Do not reimburse the developer any amount until the
additional watermain costs are resolved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff feels that the developer has been extremely patient in not
receiving any reimbursement for two months. As a minimum, staff
feels that the original amount should be reimbursed to the
developer totalling $28 ,103 .13 , of which $20 ,159 .72 would be paid
back to the City from SPUC for the watermain oversizing costs.
(/ C&
Staff also feels that the additional watermain oversizing costs
are justified since the Commission requested the additional
watermain and the oversizing costs are based on actual quantities
and unit prices in the contract.
In addition, the current procedure is for developers to normally
work through City staff on new subdivisions, with the Utilities
Commission involved in final approvals but not actually being an
active party to agreements. For example , the developer ' s
agreement and reimbursement agreement for the Meadows Subdivision
was executed between the City and the developer, not SPUC. While
this may or may not be the preferred method on handling these
situations , it has been the procedure on past subdivisions .
Staff does not feel that the developer should now be required to
obtain the additional watermain costs directly from SPUC, when
all previous agreements and negotiations have been through the
City.
Staff therefore recommends that the City reimburse Gold Nugget
Development, Inc. the entire, revised amount of $34 ,445 .23 and
inform the Utilities Commission that they should reimburse the
City the total watermain oversizing costs of $26 , 501 . 80 .
(Alternative No. 2)
ACTION REQUESTED:
Move that the appropriate City Staff reimburse Gold Nugget
Development, Inc . the costs associated with the street and
watermain oversizing in the total amount of $34,445 .23 and direct
staff to submit an invoice to the Utilities Commission in the
amount of $26 ,501 .80 for the watermain oversizing costs, to be
paid to the City of Shakopee.
DH/pmp
MEADOWS
- i
ATTACHMENT 1
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made this _ day of , 1988,
by and between Gold Nugget Development, Inc. , a Minnesota
Corporation (hereinafter "Developer") and the City of Shakopee, a
Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter "City") .
WHEREAS, by Resolution dated November 17, 1987, the City has
granted conditional approval for the platting of The Meadows 1st
Addition, Scott County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Vierling Drive is a collector street which shall be
constructed to a width of 50 feet as opposed to the standard 36
feet for a local street, and
WHEREAS, the watermain within Vierling Drive and 11th Avenue
shall be oversized to a diameter of 12 inches and the Minnesota
Street watermain shall be oversized to a diameter of 8 inches as
opposed to the standard sized watermain of 6 inches, and
WHEREAS, it is City policy that the City shall pay for the
oversizing of streets and watermains; and
WHEREAS, Developer has submitted an estimate for the
construction of the street and watermain oversizing within the
Meadow's lst Addition, based on bids submitted.
NOW, THEREFORE, Developer shall cause the construction of 8"
watermain lines along Minnesota Street and 12" watermain lines
along 11th Avenue and Vierling Drive, and the construction of a
50' local collector street in the Meadows 1st Addition, and upon
the satisfactory completion thereof, the City hereby agrees to
pay to Developer's contractor the difference between the cost of
installing 6" watermains and a 36' local street as opposed to 8"
and 12" watermains and a 50' collector street in the approximate
amount of $28, 103 .15.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The parties have executed this
instrument on the day and year first above written.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE GOLD NUGGET DEVE ^NT INC.
By
Mayor ,
orr . By
M ,
^_y ��
B
; may Aam"nis to Y
Bt
Ci/y Clerk
STATE MINNESOTA)
) as
COUNTY OF SCOTT )
On thiso.�/ day of 19p�, before me a
Notary Public," .71"t�in and fo said County personally appeared
Dolores M. Lebens , John K. Anderson , and Judith
S. Cox to me personally k wn, being each by me duly sworn, did
say that they are respectively the Mayor the City
Administrator , and the City Clerk of the City of Shakopee, the
municipal corporation named in the foregoing instrument; and that
the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said
corporation, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in
behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City
Council and Dolores M. Lebens John K. Anderson and Judith
S. Cox acknowledged aid instrument to be the free act and deed
o£ id municipal cc oration.
Nota Public,rY unty, MinnesotaNMI
ire . 1�
STATE OF MINNESO )
) ss
COUNTY OF SCOTT )
On this Z N� day of V.v c- , 1988, before me a
Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared
and to me personally
kno , whWn o, being eackk��,, by me duly sworn, did say that they were
respectively the l�rr- i f and the
of �a/d Nc,v GAJ �_i f.i 6 of the corporation named
in the foregoing instrument, afid that the seal affixed to said
instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of sa, corporation by
authority of its Board of Directors and said _ ir5 �1: . E
and acknowledged said
instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation.
Notary.Public,(/ fi - Counts,7 Min
nesota
My Commission expires z .F- .F' -- - - " -"
* -+ ATTACHMENT 2 I ( c�-
PIONEER Civil Engineers • Land Planners • land Surveyors . Landscape Architects
engineering
-
ti
November 23, 31988 RECEIVEL
DEC 91988►
Mr. David Hutton P.E.
Hutton, un or s,uro,rs
City Engineer wei"aai"e our. ��
City of Shakopee S
129 E. let Ave.
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 61
RF.: The Meadows
P.E. Job 4 88007
Dear Dave:
On behalf of Gold Nugget Developers, we are requesting that the
agreement for oversizing credits for streets and utilities be amended.
The quantities used to calculate the oversized credits were based on
the original bid proposal used to solicit bids for the project. The
bids were let prior to final plan approval by the Shakopee Public
Utility Commission. Subsquently, the comission required construction of
additional 12" watermain along Vierling Drive.
The discrepancy between the quantities used to calculate the oversize
credits and the final quantities on the approved plans, was discovered
in a recent review of quantities for final payment to the contractor.
We have recalculated the oversize credits for streets and utilities to
reflect the quantities on the approved plans as follows:
Vierling Drive
Local Collector Section
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
Subgrade Prep 2400 S.Y. S .20 $ 480.00
8" CL 5 Aggr. 2400 S.Y. $ 2.08 $ 4,992.00
2 1/2 Bit Base 2257 S.Y. $ 2.43 $ 5,484.51
2" Bit Wear 2257 S.Y. $ 2.20 $ 4,965.40
TOTAL $ 15,921.91
Local Street Section
Subgrade Prep 1780 S.Y. $ .20 $ 356.00
6" CL 5 aggr. 1780 S.Y. $ 1.56 $ 2,776.80 _
1 1/2 Bit Base 1558 S.Y. $ 1.46 $ 2,274.68
1 1/2 Bit Wear 1558 S.Y. $ 1.65 $ 2,570.70
TOTAL $ 7,978.18
DIFFERENCE $15,921.91 - $7,978.18 = $7,943.73
f
2422 Enterprise Drive Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 (612) 681-1914
Mr. David Hutton, P.E.
City of Shakopee
November 23, 1988
Page 2
Oversize Watermain
12" D.I.P. 1844 L.F. $ 20.18 $ 37,211.92
8" D.I.P. 1230 L.F. S 13.30 $ 16,359.00
D.I. Fittings 6093 lbs. $ 1.00 $ 6,093.00
12" G.V. 5 Ea. $780.70 $ 3,903.50
8" G.V. 3 Ea. $415.10 S 1,245.30
TOTAL $ 64,812.72
Base Watermain
6" D.I.P. 3074 G.F. $ 10.80 $ 33,199.20
D.I. Fittings 2685 L.F. $ 1.00 $ 2,685.00
6" G.V. 8 Ea. $303.34 $ 2,426.72
TOTAL $ 38,310.92
DIFFERENCE 64,812.722 — 38,310.92 = 26,501.80
TOTAL CREDIT 7,943.A + 26,501.80 = 34,445
Based on the above calculations, we request that the City o& Shakopee
reimburse Gold Nugget Developers in the amount of $ 34,445�k for the
cost of street and utility oversizing. All work on the improvements
referenced above has been completed and accepted by the City Engineer
and by the Shakopee Public Utility Cortmission.
If you have any questions or need further information, Please call.
Sincerely,
PIONEER ENGINEERING,
ENGINEERING, P.A.
Joel G. Cooper, E.
JGC:bh
cc: Wayne Fleck
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Proposed Spuc Well No. 8
East of Stans Park
DATE: February 2 , 1989
INTRODUCTION:
This memo addresses a proposed Shakopee Public Utilities
Commission well that will be located just east of Stans Park on
school property.
BACKGROUND:
The Utilities Commission originally proposed to install a new
well within the boundaries of Stans Park, located near 10th
Avenue and Fuller Street. The City Attorney has informed the
Commission that they cannot install the new well on park property
because of the current statutes regarding the public use of park
land. This use would not be acceptable, according to the City
Attorney.
The Commission has decided to relocate the proposed well to just
east of Stans Park on school ground property. The new well would
be located near the existing hockey rink. A new watermain would
connect the new well to the existing pumphouse near the water
tower. Please refer to the attached site plan.
One of the requirements of a new well is that it must be at least
50 feet from any sanitary sewer or potential source of pollution.
This would restrict construction of any future facilities within
50 feet of the well . Consequently, there would be a small
portion along the east edge of Stans Park that would be
restricted to any future facilities involving sanitary sewer.
The Commission is requesting Council approval to locate this well
at this location which creates a restriction on a portion of
Stans Park.
The Community Recreation Manager has indicated that the proposed
well would not interfere with any future parks and expansion.
The Utilities Commission is proposing to obtain an easement for
that portion of the watermain that passes thru their property.
The Commission will be awarding the contract for drilling the
well on February 13 , 1989 .
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Approve of the proposed well location which creates a
restriction to a small portion of Stans Park.
2. Request that a new location of the well be found such that
it would be sufficient distance away from Stans Park so that
there would be no restrictions in that park.
RECOKKENDATIONS:
Staff recommends Alternative No. t , to allow the proposed well to
be located just off Stans Park. Because the Community Recreation
Department does not have any future plans on constructing a new
building in this vicinity, staff does not feel the proposed well
would adversely affect the use of that park.
REQUESTED ACTION:
Move that the City of Shakopee allow the Shakopee Public
Utilities Commission to construct a new well just east of Stans
Park recognizing that no sanitary sewers may be installed within
50 feet of the new well thereby restricting the future expansion
of any facilities in Stans Park that would fall within that 50
foot radius.
DH/pmp
� I .
_r wNEHWSE
V
✓^
N•.0
W 1T'
r
3 .y
HOCKEY
RINK
MANTIMt
aww..K
I " g
H Al
� 6EvaiW T4VN v
was MR
pEro
I P AQ NTd TENKMRY
P[RNONEXT FAXMFNT EwX/TRYLT ON
In�rooNIT
YmQ m Yr WATER"Mf 1, iln
C /y mT EX.
_a _ Yf .\ \ TME. y]
RENEE
�R°fiery �� l w Wr
of srnrs �,ve I
ROMSED
ELL LL
I WN0.8
/TF� �/1� �M �OCl0.l Tl WTI
7J/,pr kp+tD BE
r�C
WHI � /tib!
RMS
¢ I
3 •
HOCKEY
o RINK
8
az, e�4T PROPOSE
POSED 2d TENPORM
PRO
PEHN4NfNT EASENENT I OONSTRUO ON
PJSINE I
175.wo
PROPOSED p WATERNRIN
•g11 a EX
'R
\ TREE
-ymo
FENDS
�ropos�D
FRO�S
sys PshY
ED
WELL
WELL NO 8
A �R (eronal
Isca-hen
71/9T (+kri<D BE
�_T I WMP V
{ NOUSE
6icaA
L
VAGIE
RX6
R NTIMG
O MMNK
250.000 GAL.
ELEVATED TANK
j
O)
1-
a 1'
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator /�✓
FROM: Dave Button, City Enginee
SUBJECT: Change Order Procedures
DATE: January 24, 1989
INTRODUCTION:
The existing Administrative Policy regarding the change order
procedures for construction contracts was adopted in 1981 . Staff
is requesting that Council review these procedures and implement
the requested changes.
BACKGROUND:
Attached is a copy of the current Change Order guidelines for use
during the contract administration of a public works project.
Staff would like to suggest that this system is considerably
outdated, severely hampers both the contract administrator and
contractor , is ineffective and just plain not working in the
field .
For Council to approve all change orders (very few change orders
are less than 1%) prior to the work being done is impossible when
decisions need to be made almost daily out in the field, while
Council only meets twice per month . In order to keep a
construction project going, negotiations between the City and the
contractor are constantly taking place and a decision regarding a
change to the contract cannot always wait two weeks.
As evidence that this policy is not working , the majority of
change orders approved by Council in 1988 were approved after the
work was done simply because the contractor cannot be expected to
shut down his crew.
1 . At the time the Council awards a construction contract,
staff will request that a contingency amount (say 5 or
10% depending on the size and complexity of the
project) be approved also. A contingency is usually
included in the amount budget or bonded, so the funds
are available.
2. The project administrator (City Engineer) would have
the authority to approve any and all change orders with
the concurrence of the City Administrator up to the
amount of contingency. The contingency amount cannot
be exceeded without Council approval.
3 • All change orders would be included in the regular
monthly payments to the contractor, which Council
approves.
ll �
4 . The Mayor ' s signature would no longer be required on
the actual change order . Only the City
Administrator' s , City Engineer ' s and contractor' s
signature would be required, as is the case on monthly
pay requests.
5 • Major change orders that would affect the projects
original design parameters would require prior Council
approval. The City Administrator and City Engineer
would determine what constitutes a major change.
By definition, a change order is only necessary to resolve
omissions or discrepancies in the plans and specifications
whereby the bid does not contain a price for such errors or
omissions. A change in quantity does not constitute a change
order because a unit price has already been established to in the
contract for that bid item, unless it is a major quantity change
by increasing or decreasing the project limits.
Staff is requesting that Council discuss the overall change order
procedures and implement the new policy as discussed above.
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Adopt a new administrative policy for change orders
utilizing the guidelines described in this memo.
2 . Continue to use the present policy.
3 . Revise the policy in some other fashion.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 .
ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a revised change order policy utilizing the guidelines
described in the memo from the City Engineer dated January 24 ,
1989 .
DH/pmp
CHANGE
_ � 1
MEMO TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: John K. Anderson
RE: Change Order Administrative Procedures
DATE: July 2, 1981
i
I
Introduction
In early April City Council implemented a new policy on
the Administration of Change Orders beginning with the VIP San-
itary Sewer Project. Council has asked that the policy be re-
viewed now that wehave had some experience with three projects.
Background
In the City Engineer' s original memo dated April 10, 1981, ,I
he outlined a number of considerations and potential adminis-
trative procedures . Council came to a consensus that each pro-
ject' s Change Order guideline would be established individually
and that in most instances the following guidelines would be
used:
1. Individual Change Orders and/or quantity changes of 1
less than 1% could be made by the project administrator
(Bo or Lou) with the concurrance of the City Admini-
strator and then
ext
meeting. pl,�.d:, ct 0a.0 w.Y'oi__*
2. Change Orders and/or quanity changes in excess of
1% required prior Council approval . Major Change
Orders that effect the project' s original design
concepts, etc. also required prior Council approval.
3. When project Change Orders of type 1 and 2 above
exceed 5% of the project costs in aggregate, all
must be brought to Council for review and a decision
on how to handle future project Change orders. ,I
Two other concerns were discussed at the April meeting:
(1) Emergency Situations. Council decided to stick with
guidelines #1, #2, and #3 above and call a special meet-
ing to handle situations #2 or #3 if required.
(2) Small Contracts. Council decided that it would pro-
ably set a fixed number in excess of the 1% and
5% in guidelines #1 and #3 above.
Change Order Administrative Procedures
July 2, 1981
Page 2 II
Policy Guidelines Established
VIP Sanitary Sewer Project - $617,823.65
Policy: Specific Guidelines set at 1% and 5% or
$6,170 and $30,850 respectively for
guidelines #1 and #3 above.
101 Watermain Project - $170,643.75
Policy: Specific guidelines set at 1% and 5% or
$1,706 and $8,530 respectively for guide-
lines #1 and #3 above.
Hauer Addition Sanitary Sewer Project - $44,422,87
Policy: Specific guidelines set at $2,000 and
$5,000 for guidelines #1 and #3 above
because of the size of the project.
Experience To Date
There have been no emergency meetings required of Council
and several Change Orders have been brought before Council for
action by the project administrators. The most difficult ele-
ment to evaluate will be quantity changes (these are not con-
sidered "Change Orders" by engineers) that exceed the guidelines .
Quantity Changes that exceed the guidelines are supposed to come
t before Council , however, we haven't seen any yet. This is some-
thing new and it may require a careful analysis of the final
contract payment voucher to see where we are on this. I have
reminded both Bo Spurrier and Lou to watch for this as project
administrators .
Recommendation
Continue to use the present guidelines and monitor the
programs overall effect.
Action Requested
Establish September 15, 1981 as a date to again review
the policy.
JKA/jam
rc '�n.uMuP (✓�2 A/ C r"4� irn.vQe1
�S�a'i ur„�-
uONSEAI i
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator
FROM: David Hutton, City Enginee�t,10/
SUBJECT: Sand Creek Water Management Organization
DATE: January 24, 1989
INTRODUCTION:
Attached is an invoice from the Sand Creek Watershed Management
Organization in the amount of $1 ,085 .48 , representing the City of
Shakopee' s share in developing the WHO 509 Plan.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Shakopee is a member of several water management
organizations. Whenever part of the legal boundaries of the City
fall within a watershed district, the City is automatically a
member of that organization and therefore must help in supporting
those organizations.
All of the WHO' s received a loan from Scott County in the amount
of $15 ,000 .00 in order to prepare the 509 plans for managing
stormwater and groundwater (mandated by Statute 509) . The law
further stipulated that the cost to prepare the 509 plans would
be divided by all members of the WHO based on 50% land area and
50% valuation.
In October, 1988 the City of Shakopee' s share of the expense for
the Shakopee Basin WHO based on the above formula was approved by
Council at $8,242.00 and paid.
Shakopee is also a member of the Sand Creek WHO, although one of
the smaller members (only 915 acres out of the total in the
watershed of 103 ,393 acres or about 0 .9% of the land area) .
Attached is an invoice from the Sand Creek WHO in the amount of
$1 ,085 .48 , which represents Shakopee' s share in the expense to
create the 509 plans. Also attached are the calculation sheets
summarizing the breakdown by area and by valuation. The grand
total on these sheets is slightly in error due to an additional
amount of 10% being added in to everyone ' s share to cover
administrative costs. The Finance Director has indicated that
the funding for this item would come out of the Storm Drainage
Fund .
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Approve of the amount and authorize staff to reimburse the
Sand Creek WHO $1 ,085 .48 .
2. Deny the request.
3 . Request additional information.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 .
ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the appropriate staff to submit payment to the Sand
Creek Water Management Organization an amount totalling $1 ,085 .48
representing the City of Shakopee' s share in preparing the 509
plan.
DH/pmp
a�7 ��r� 75352
00492 -ZZ96 tia-<
1 -
SAND CREEK WMD PRELIMINARY COST BREAKDOWN FOR TOWNSHIP AND CITY MEMBERS
Total Budget: $15,000. 50% based on area ($7,500) & 50% based on value ($7,500).
SUMMARY
- 8P3E.D a va�ia��i ----
5oZ bAR�A ter v"WKjaN__TUfAL510
__
Belle Plaine $1,155 $ 405 $1,560 00.4
Cedar Lake 1,672 1,193 2,865 , 1.o .-
Helena 1,612 983 2,595 I "I•Z
Louisville •315 375 690 9 .b
New Market 668 600 1,268 3.5 X /7 zoc
Sand Creek 1,305 893 2,198 14.}
St. Lawrence 217 98 _ 315 2. 1 -
Spring Lake 367 481 848 6.1
City of Jordan 105 1,298 1,403 9 . 4
City of Prior Lake 15 210 225 1,6
City of Shakopee - 67 960 - 1,027 _ 6.4
Jackson 2 4 6
$7,500 $7,500 $15,000
P/7 200
x/07 nooOo r, 6$rt4 Fr«
,4F-,ar.Z cult.-I+T� � av-,4-
7 500 BASED ON AREA ,q,,,1131M,,,,,.� Ey�er+s ss
Ta6l % Aig 501. i PXV9T
9 p�� ll1 sl {IJP EASWD
in w i.vuwioo wM6 euo�er� y�Uea
Belle Plaine 15,907 r 103,393 - 15.4% X 7,500 -#1,155
Cedar Lake 23,040 -t103,393 - 22.3% X 7,500 - 1,672
Helena 22,278 *103,393 - 21.5% X 7,500 - 1,612
Louisville 4,307 +103,393 - 4.2% X 7. 500 - 315 -
New Market 9.209 �103,393 - 8.9% X 7,500 - 668
Sand Creek 18,061 -a 103,393 = 17.4% X 7,500 - 1, 305
St. Lawrence 2,957 103.393 = 2.9% X 7,500 - 217
Spring Lake 5,100 103,393 - 4.9% X 7,500 - 367
City of Jordan 1,395 F103,393 - 1.4% X 7, 500 - 105
City of Prior Lake 195 103,393 - 0.2% X 7,500 - 15 -
City of Shakopee 915 .r 103,393 - 0.9% X 7,500 = 67
Jackson 29 T103,393 = 0.03% X 7,500 - 2
103,393 acres 100.0% $7, 500
r
Tom acitale
!A Sa'd Cj�l vl ba„„daricS)
,Wl
$7.500 BASED ON VALUATION,
anal AcwnqG Valualtme4 Valus" aF of, d ffi -
A4xCµt NmT4 d T+�4d N en{iYa 7umshp (yanf�p N _ _yva1 an Vdw+bti La
'rn t 1.a p1'
prMO .,i � owl It cf+y'Y _ _ S�w+a uad: who -_� WMo iA W40 B 50 y VaIUE
Belle Plaine 15,907 _ 24,960 - 63.7% X $ 4,862,889 - $3,097,660 r $56,711,303 - 5.4% X $7,500 - $ 405
Cedar Lake 23,040 23,040 - 100.0% X 8,985,994 - 8,985,994 r 56,711, 303 - 15.9% X 7,500 - 1,193
Helena 22,278 22,278 - 100.0% X 7.444,138 - 7,444,138 t 56,711,303 - 13.1% X 7, 500 - 983
Louisville 4,307 9,000 - 47.9% X 5,876,069 - 2,814,637 - 56.711,303 - 5.0% X 7,500 - 375
New Market 9,209 + 21,965 - 42.0% X 10,783,478 - 4,529,061 56,711, 303 - 8.0% X 7,500 - 600
Sand Creek 18,061 - 20,658 - 87.5% X 7,703,462 - 6,740.529 56,711, 303 - 11.9% X 7, 500 - 893
St. Lawrence 2,957 9,459 - 31.3% X 2,369,550 - 741,669 - 56.711.303 - 1.3% X 7,500 - 98
Spring Lake 5, 100 - 20,816 - 24.5% X 14,927,791 - 3,657, 309 56, 711,303 - 6.4% X 7, 500 - 481
City of Jordan 1,395 1,395 - 100.0% X 9,828,231 - 9,828,231 56,711,303 - 17.3% X 7,500 - 1,298
City of Prior Lake 195 T 7,955 - 2.5% X 63,606,366 - 1, 590, 159 56,711,303 - 2.8% X 7,500 - 210
City of Shakopee 915 16,928 - 5.4% X 134,318,846 - 7,253.220 56,711,303 - 12.8% X 7,500 - 960
Jackson 29 5, 146 - 0.6% X 4,782,735 - 28.696 56,711, 303 - 0.052 X 7,500 - 4
$56,711,30 $7:?3
(To o 4I VNlUADo
10 Sand C14 WmD
C(,�ed an Iayal taada+ies
oAd asSomiaq valvahw0 'Is PMPA441 .-
fo srPa N1 MD.)
CONSENT 1�
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Ray Ruuska , Engineering Coordinator
SUBJECT: Radio Purchase for the City Engineer's Car
DATE: January 25, 1989
INTRODUCTION:
The 1989 Engineering Department budget includes $1 ,000 .00 for a
two-way radio.
BACKGROUND:
I have received price quotations for this radio from two sources.
The quotation are for comparable radios from different
manufacturers.
Contact Mobile Uniden Radio Force $748.80
Communications, Inc.
Communications and Motorola Radio $840.00
Electronics, Inc .
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Purchase the radio from Uniden Radio Force.
2. Do not purchase the radio.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 .
ACTION REQUESTED:
City Council authorization to purchase the Uniden Force Radio
from Contact Mobile Communications, Inc. , 6830 Washington Ave .
So. , Eden Prairie, MN 55344 in the amount of $748.80 .
RR/pmp
RADIO
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Upper Valley Drainage Project
Stormwater Management Plan and Status
Update on Mill Pond
DATE: February 3 , 1989
INTRODUCTION:
Staff would like to address two issues relating to the Upper
Valley Drainage Project, namely a proposed City Comprehensive
Stormwater Management Plan and also a status update on proposed
trout mitigation measures at the Mill Pond.
Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan
Currently , the City of Shakopee does not require stormwater
ponding for new development. The Storm Water Drainage Utility
provides financial incentive for ponding by giving up to 50%
credit to the storm sewer drainage fee for wet ponds and up to
25% credit to the storm sewer drainage fee for detention ponds.
Ponding is not mandatory.
The current trend in the State of Minnesota and around the
country is to address non-point pollution, i.e. that pollution
that is generated from storm water runoff such as sedimentation,
erosion from farm fields, etc. Both the DNR and the Pollution
Control Agency are making efforts to clean up the Minnesota River
by reducing non-point pollution. The EPA is also involved and is
proposing legislation that would require mandatory ponding to
reduce non-point pollution. The Water Management Organizations
( of which Shakopee is a member of several ) are currently
preparing the 509 Plans which will also require ponding. Mn/DOT
will be ponding for the Shakopee Bypass and has indicated that
the City of Shakopee should also establish mandatory ponding.
The long and short of it is that mandatory stormwater ponding is
going to be required of all communities in the near future.
The Upper Valley Drainage Project was designed based on the
Jackson Township Stormwater Plan which requires ponding. The DNR
and PCA have requested that the areas of the City of Shakopee
tributary to the Upper Valley Drainage system also pond
stormwater . This may or may not be a condition of the final
permit approval at the Mill Pond.
By providing stormwater ponding within the drainage basin, the
final discharge rate of the Upper Valley Drainage System can be
reduced from 960 efs to 645 efs. This would substantially reduce
the impacts of the storm water on the Mill Pond area.
ll �
The City' s consultant, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Assoc. has prepared
a draft copy of a proposed Comprehensive Stormwater Management
Plan. Attached is a copy of the plan for Council review.
Highlights of the plan include the following:
• A minimum of 275 acre-feet of stormwater storage
would be required in the City of Shakopee. This
would convert to approximately 21 acres of ponding
(out of a total drainage area of 2144 acres or
about 1% of the area for ponding) .
• Peak discharges for subwatersheds would be limited
to 1/3 efs per acre.
• Ponding would be obtained as development occurs.
There would be no immediate expense to the City.
• Ponds would be built and constructed at the
developer' s request. Areas required for ponding
would be acquired through the development process.
Once the ponds are constructed , the City would
then be responsible for future maintenance of
those ponds.
• Erosion control measures would be encouraged as
listed on Page 4 of the plan.
• Ponding would provide additional groundwater
recharge.
Staff is submitting the Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan
to Council for review and comment. Staff would like to allow
Council adequate time to review this proposal in depth and would
like to bring the item back to Council on February 21 , 1989 or
March 6 , 1989 and implement any revisions at that time. Once the
final plan has been worked out, it probably should be adopted by
resolution.
Mill Pond Mitigative Measures
As indicated previously, it appears that the City will need to
provide mitigation at the Mill Pond due to the trout stream
classification. The Assistant City Attorney and staff will be
meeting with both the DNR and PCA in the near future, but the
Assistant City Attorney has indicated that it will be difficult
to contest the DNR trout stream classification, but that the PCA
requirement for a NPDES permit is questionable.
The main thrust on the trout stream issue is to reduce the
expense on the City of Shakopee' s part, but still resolve the DNR
concerns. To determine exactly what can be done in the Mill
Pond , Council authorized soil borings to be taken in the Mill
Pond .
The borings have now been completed and our consultant has
developed a proposed plan to mitigate the trout stream. Staff
will present the plan at the Council meeting. Cost estimates
will also be available.
Staff is proposing that this plan be submitted to the DNR as a
"reasonable" approach to mitigation, but that if they want any
additional mitigation it would be at their expense. The proposed
plan represents a compromise and staff feels that it sufficiently
represents the City's obligation in this matter.
Staff would like Council approval to present the proposed plan to
the DNR as the final mitigation measures and to indicate that the
City has no obligation to provide additional measures.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Submit the mitigation measures to the DNR as the City's
final plan.
2 . Submit a variation of this plan.
3 . Do not submit any plan at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative No. I.
ACTION REQUESTED:
a) Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan
Move to receive the draft copy of the Comprehensive
Stormwater Management Plan within the Mill Pond
Watershed for review and that it be placed on the
Council agenda for discussion on February 21, 1989 or
March 6, 1989.
b) Mill Pond Mitigation Measures
Move to endorese the draft Comprehensive Stormwater
Management Plan within the Mill Pond Watershed as the
City's final plans for the Mill Pond Mitigation
Measures for the trout stream and that staff submit it
to the Department of Natural Resources.
DH/pmp
UPPERVALLEY
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting Administrator
Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: Employers Contribution To Group Insurance
DATE: February 2, 1989
Introduction
A memo has been requested reviewing the City's contribution to group
insurance costs, specifically the situation of single coverage versus family
coverage.
Background
There are several points to be made regarding the suggestion made at the
1/31/89 Council meeting of using the amounts paid directly to employees with
single coverage to finance increased life insurance and the related comments of
"kickbacks" to single coverage employees.
1. The attached memos dated 3/2/84 and 6/13/85 explains the start and the
rational of the payments to single coverage employees. The 1984 employee
benefit package provided $45 per month to all emolovees in lieu of 2% of wages
to be committed to an individualized health care account for tax free
reimbursement of medical expenses. The IRS disallowed the City's initial
intended plan, therefore in March 1984 Council action provided the additional
cash benefit as part of payroll pending clarification or modification of the
IRS position.
Employees with single coverage received the $45/mo. on a quarterly basis
as a payroll reimbursement in lieu of a health maintenance account. Employees
with family coverage applied the $45/mo to the cost of their benefit package
and also for a short time received a payroll reimbursement when the cost of the
insurance was less than the benefit provided.
In each subsequent year the City contribution has increased $10 per month
for all employees and has been distributed in the same manner. There are now
several health maintenance accounts which meet IRS regulations, although none
will allow the employee to receive in cash any unused balances in the health
maintenance account at year end.
All employees are covered or eligible, this arrangement is not limited to
just union or nonunion employees. The payment is a partial attempt to equalize
the benefit provided by the City to employees with single coverage as compared
to the benefit provided to those employees who select family coverage. The 2%
wage reduction from Stanton averages is still in the calculations for the
current comparable worth schedule and the pay plan. See attachment for the
footnotes (H) to the calculations supporting the 1989 Pay Plan.
The payments are part of the compensation package that has been provided
for several years and is an established labor practice. Finally, the
comparable worth act mandates compensation equity therefore contributing a
lessor amount to those employees with single coverage is inconsistent with
achieving comparable compensation to all employees. 11�
2. We are part way through 1989 with the compensation packages set for the
nonunion, public works and the police sergeants. Even if this issue is not
specifically addressed in the labor contracts for the latter two groups, it is
an established practice and could probably be challenged by the union if it is
changed unilaterally in the middle of a contract.
The City just bid the insurance contracts for group insurance. Changing
the single arrangement could result in a significant number of employees
changing from single to family coverage and raising the possibility that Blue
Cross would not accept the conversions because it is different from the bid
specifications and the reason for the change is not a valid reason from their
perspective and it is not an open enrollment period. Therefore, if this issue
is pursued, it should be a 1990 issue and not a 1989 issue.
3. Currently there are 24/26 (24 with single insurance, 26 get the single
reimbursement - 2 have opted for no coverage for health insurance) employees
with single coverage, 6 with two party coverage and 24 with family coverage.
The City is providing the singles with $107 of benefit for insurance and $95
cash payment (taxable income) for a monthly total of $202. The two party
employees get $216 for insurance and the family employees get $245 for
insurance per month. For every employee that elects to get off of family
coverage (i.e. get family coverage or spouse coverage from spouses employer)
there is a savings of $43 per month to the City.
The following chart showing information for health insurance only may help
Council visualize the cost difference.
Monthly
Premium City cost Employee cost
Family Avg 247 220 26
2 Party Avg 191 191 0
Single Avg 82 82 0
Single vs Family diff. 165 138 26
Single reimbursement 95
Net City diff. single vs fam. 43
Note: the cost of the other insurance coverage of life, AD&D and long
term disability is about $25 per month per employee.
If the single reimbursement is taken away, there are employees who will go
back on family coverage at an increased premium of $1,656 per year per
employee, a net increased cost to the City of $516 per year per employee. The
scenario of all singles switching to family is unlikely but to put things in a
perspective, if all 26 switched to family it would cost the City $13,416 more
per year. I can not say how many employees will switch, but there are
definitely some that will. Also, having dependents on some other policy helps
our loss history which helps keep the rates down. /IY
To take the reimbursement payment away from just the singles when it was a
trade for wages would be entirely unfair. It should be taken from all
employees or adjustments made to pay rates to compensate for the loss.
4. The City currently provides all eligible employees with $25,000 of life
insurance. It appears from the Stanton survey that the average for other group
five cities is about $14,000 of coverage, ranging from $5,000 to $50,000. I
don't believe that it ever was the intention of the City to meet all life
insurance needs of its employees, just to provide some basic level of coverage.
Depending on the circumstances, other sources of benefits in the event of death
could include the Accidental Death and Dismemberment policy, workers
compensation insurance, PERA, social security and other parties if at fault.
There are a number of employees that have purchased additional insurance
through the deferred compensation plan of the city. If the level of insurance
is changed, I would recommend it be changed for all employees at the same time
at the start of a policy period.
5. One of the goals/objectives of the Finance/Personnel department is to
review the status of the 28 trade-off, the level of the City contribution to
the insurance cost for the employees and possibly establishing an employee
health maintenance account for the 1990 benefits package. Also, depending on
what changes actually might take place, there is a possibility of complications
for compliance with IRC Section 89.
Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator (� A
From: Gregg M. Voxland , Finance Director
Re: Health Care Accounts
Date: March 2 , 1984
Introduction & Backgound
The City was preparing to implement individualized health
care accounts as part of the 1984 benefit package. However,
the I.R.S. issued a ruling in February which made most plans of
the type we were implementing unacceptable. There will
undoubtedly be lobbying and congressional hearings on this
issue throughout the year. Our consultant firm has been to
Washington to clarify the situation and will advise us of any
changes.
Alternatives
1 . Proceed as planned even though I .R.S. has ruled against
such plans and hope for a change before year end .
2. Pay in cash as part of payroll the amount that would have
gone into the accounts from the employer ($45/mo. for
single and $195 less premium for family) . These payments
are taxable income.
3 . Put the $45/mo . into the accounts for all employees.
They can draw on the account for premiums and costs , but
forfeit any unused balance of the account. There is no
erdployee contribution to the account, but the account is
tax free.
Recomm nda -' on
The employees are being polled , but as of the time when this is
written , it appears that the employees prefer number 2 because
of the forfeiture provision of number 3. They have shown the
desire to return to the original concept should the I . R.S.
change- it 's position on the issue.
Action Recurs ` d
Move to authorize the payment of $45 per month to employees
with single insurance coverage and the payment of the
difference of the $195/month benefit level and the average
insurance premium when the premium is less than $195/mo. to
the employees with family coverage. Such payment to be part
of a payroll check.
GV:mmr
Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
Fron: Marilyn M. Remer, Sr. Acct'g. Clerk/Personnel
Re: Clarification of 1985 Health & Life Compensation
Date: June 13, 1985
Introduction & Background
The 1984 Employee Compensation package included an additional $45.00/mo. for
Health & Life in lieu of an average 2% wage increase. The $45/mo. was to
be an equal benefit for all employees by establishing individual employee
health maintenance accounts into which this $45/mo. was to be credited and
drawn from by the employees for specified expenses. This new concept is similar
to many "cafeteria" health plans. Due to unfavorable Federal government regu-
lations this was not feasible. Therefore, employees with family coverage
applied the $45/mo. towards the cost of their health & life coverage and were
reimbursed the balance on a quarterly basis thru payroll. Employees with
single coverage receive their $45/mo. also on a quarterly basis through the
payroll system.
The 1,985 compensation package included an additional $10/mo. towards Health
& Life at such time the cost would increase by like amount. The rates did
increase over $10 effective March 15th raising the City's contribution to
$205/mo. The average cost of family coverage is currently $216.93/mo. with
employees paying the difference through a payroll deduction.
There are currently 16 employees with single coverage at an average monthly
cost to the City of $67.50. At the time the yearly compensation package was
discussed, .many employees assumed the policy established the previous year
would continue with all employees receiving the $10/mo. The cost to the City
for the single coverages would be $160/mo. ($10 x 16 employees) for the remaining
9 months for a total 1985 cost of $1440. -
The average monthly cost of $67.50 plus the $55 for a total single coverage
cost to the City of approx. $122.50 is still substantially less than the $205
cost for family coverage. Besides being more equitable for all employees,
this policy has served to encourage some employees to drop family coverage
due to their spouses also carrying insurance, which ultimately helps to reduce
-
the high cost of insurance for everyone.
The last payroll in June (6/28) is the date for the 2nd quarterly adjustment
in lieu of health maintenance, therefore I am asking for clarification at
this time whether all employees are to receive the $10 benefit. -
Alternatives
1. Give additional $10/mo. to single coverage employees.
2. Do not give additional $30/mo. to single coverage employees.
Recommendation
1 Staff recommends alternative no. 1. Staff cannot recall this being discussed
previously, therefore Council's clarification and approval is being requested.
Action Requested
Move that the 1985 Compensation Plan for Non-Union Employees be clarified
that all employees are to receive the additional $10/mo. Health & Life increase
by City.
R
YaBc 7
George Muenchow, Community Services Director, gave a presentation regard-
ing his department's desire to "go on computer". He is requesting 50/50
contribution from the City and the School Board. At this point he is just
looking for direction as far as if this is a viable alternative for them
to look at.
Cncl. Lebens asked how this program would be affected if the City leaves
LOCIS. The City Admr. responded there would be an additional annual cost
of $2,500 for them.
Mayor Reinke asked about the possibility of more than 50% funding from
the school with the Community Services fund that is in place.
Cucl. Leroux discussed with Mr. Muenchow more detailed questions about
the computer. He .would like to see more detailed supportive data regard-
ing pricing and components before actually supporting the purchase.
Vierling/Wampach moved to indicate City Council is interested in Community
Services' exploration of the adoption of a computer system, but will not
be able to provide any funds to assist with this project at this time.
Cncl. Leroux suggested Community Services making its request to the City
through the computer selection committee.
Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Wampach moved to refund $345.66 to Deloris Schmitt, 120 East First
Avenue, for garbage service.
-
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Leroux/Wamapch moved that the 1985 Compensation Plan for Non-Union Employees
be clarified that all employees are to receive the additional $10/month
Health 6 Life increase by City.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Lebens/Vierling moved to remove from the table On Sale, Sunday, Off Sale
and Club liquor license applications. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Vierling moved to approve the applications and grant a 1985-86
On Sale and Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor license to Pullman Club, Inc. ,
124 West Ist Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. -
Colligan/Leroux moved to approve the applications and grant a 1985-86
On Sale, Sunday and Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor license to XX Corp. 6
Wittles, Inc., 1561 East lst Avenue. Motion carried unanimously.
Wampach/Vierling moved to approve the applications and grant a 1985-86
On Sale and Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor license to Clair's Bar, Inc. ,
124 South Holmes. Motion carried unanimously.
Lebens/Wampach moved to approve the application and grant a 1985-86
Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor license to Valley Liquor Inc. , 1104 Minnesota
Valley Mall. Motion carried unanimously.
TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting Administrator
FROM: Oreo Voxland, Finance Director
RE: Purchase of Du Truck
DATE: February 1, 1989
Introduction
The street Department is scheduled for the Purchase of a replacement
single axle dump truck in 1989.
Bac]¢lrrowxi
The 1989 Budget contains $46,000 for the purchase of a single axle dump
truck and related items. This truck has worked its way through the 5 Year
Equipment list and through the 1989 Budget process and the review of the
equipment list by the Equipment Committee. The Equipment Committee has
reviewed this purchase,
The truck being replaced is a 1976 International which, besides being due
for replacement, was totaled a couple of months ago and taken by the insurance
O=PanY (the plow hit a manhole that was sticking up slightly) . Features of
the new truck are the same as the last two trucks that the city has purchased.
This memo is for the purchase of the truck and body only, purchase of plots and
other equipment will be brought back to Council at a later date.
Hennepin County Cooperative has awarded the bid to Boyer Ford in the
amount of $30,250 including manuals and a standard color. The special green
color that Public Works has used would cost an additional $650. A special
manufacturers color world cost an additional $75.
The Public Works Superintendent recommends keeping the special color for
the reasons of; matching the rest of the fleet, it is a brighter color at night
and it is distinctive during the day. This color was a one time a
manufacturers special or standard color.
Alternatives
1. Buy as per above in a standard color ($30,250) .
2. Buy as per above in the special color ($30,900) .
3. Rebid on our own.
4. Do not buy a truck this year.
Recommendation
dation
Alternative number one is recommended by the Acting Administrator and the
Finance Director, alternative number two is recamwnded by the Public Works
Superintendent.
Action Requested
Move the authorize the purchase of a single axle amp truck from Boyer
Ford in the amount of $30,250 under the Hennepin County Cooperative purchasing
contract.
1988 CITY OF SHAKOPEE CHECK REGISTER 02-01-69 PAGE 1
CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT N0. INV. B P.O. N MESSAGE
032029 OB/01/89 S81.05 E F ANDERSON 6 ASOC SUPPLIES 01-1210-131-12
581.05 A
owwww ow-CKB
032035 02/01/89 171.00 ASSOC MECH CONT" INC BLDG MINT 01-1230-182-18 10616
171.00 -
.. - «uu wwA-CNB '
03208] 02/01/89 150.00 BUREAU OF CRIMINAL RENTS 01-1380-311-31 1317
150.00 w
•w...w o.-pc6
0X098 02/01/89 17,33 COMM OF TRANS PROF SERV 21-1310-561-11 69881
17.]3 w
o wwo wu-CN8
032102 02/01/89 BEE.03 COPY EQUIP. INC. SUPPLIES 01-1210-111-11 209636
285.03
Awwwww - ws-CN8
0321]1 02/01/89 _ _213.05 EARL F.DRESSEN MOTOR FUEL __ 01-1222-321-32 13851
213.05
wwoo Au-CKs
032179 02/01/89 22.90 FIRST AVE CLEANERS BLDG MINT 01-1[JO-181-18
0X179 OE/01/B9 22.90 FIRST AV2 CLEANEIIB ILO" MA1NT 01-1230982-18
0]2179 OL/01/89 22.90 FIRST AVE CLEANERS SLOG 'AIT 01-1230-311-31
032179 OL/01/89 E2.90 FIRST AVE CLEAVERS BLDG MAINT 01-{&]0-121-12
91 .60
ww ww• www-CMS
0]2221 02/01/89 1.008.20 NNTB PROF SERV 29-1310-352-11
1.808.20
wwwww• arA-CKS
032039 OB/01/89 65.10 INET. TESTING INC PROF SERV 65-1310-S63-/1
., 68.10
ANwww• w-CKB
032295 02/01/89 18.29 CAROL LEVERSON MOTOR FUEL 11-12E2-113-11
46.29 A
•wwwww www-CNS
032297 02/01/89 9.60 LOCIS SUPPLIES 01-1210-153-15
OX&97 02/01/89 999.51 LOGIS RENTS 01-1380-152-15
IVES CITY OF SHAKOPEE CHM" REGISTER 0E-01-09 FLOE E
CHECK NO, DATE AM"T VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV, R P.O. 0 MESSAGE
032297 02/01/89 181.12 LOGIS RENTS 01-1380-153-1S
032297 OE/01/E9 3.870.00 LOGI9 CAPITAL EQUIP 01-1311-131-15 _.. -
03tt97 02/01/69 470.09 LOGIS RENTS T]-0]00-731-TJ
S.CJ0.62
i. .s... -. - -. ..•-CNS
03231E _. OL01/E9 100.00 MLKERSON MOT, INC. EQUIP MAINT 01-1232-31 8-31
100.00
032310 02/01/89 160.00 METRO SALES INC PROF EERY 01-9310-911-11 233506
- 160.00 • _ -
.wo. .0-CK8
0]!360 0!/01/E9 1,068.51 MINNESOTA UC FUND UNEIPLOY COMP 01-1192-171-17
1.068.04
YR11E __02/017.4 189120 0 0 M 6 ASSOC INC PROF EERY 21-1310-561-11 _.._-
0]211! 62/01/09 2.129.16 0 6 M 6 ASSOC INC PROF MY E3-1310-5TOM1
0]211@ Od01/N 792.00 0 6 M I ASSOC INC PROF SERV 25-1310-961-11
-. _ __ _].110.]8 • _ . ,'
...... ...-CKB
031S185 02/01/89 201267.80 RYDER STU TRANS SERV SURTC GRANT 11-ml'-000-00
032485 Ot/01/6f 11,204.33 RYMN STY TRANS SERV UTILITIES 11-1370-112-14
]1.352.1] . ,_
1111.. .0-CNS -
032517 02/01/89 160.22 SPUC OTHER IMPROV 6S-1S19-566-11 1939
160.[2 .
032515 02/01/09 179.00 6T FRANCIS RK ROD PROF SERV 01-1310-3E1-3E
rn.6o .
1111..
032531 _OG01/09 - ._21.00 2MAR0l22 CIL __IOUIFAA1NT - _-.---OL-Il3E-JI t-Jt TME1_ ___ -_-
01.00 .
1111.• - __ --_. _ _ _ •..�1- 50-.-
032580 0E/01/8V 11.30 MITOG RENTAL WRY OLDC MINT 01-1230-311-31
032580 02/01/89 _ _.14,10 UNITOG RENTAL WRY RUG MAINT 01-1230-1211!
".To
...... w•-CKS
032800 02/01/89 15.80 MRV ATMAN 2100 MINT 01-1230-321-32 -
Iles CITT M StMOKIra4 CN4C1I Racism Oa-01-e9 PA"
-__CNaCN N0._OATS —mwWL— WNOOR _ tTO1.0asCRirTIpl. ACCOUNT NO. INV,.1 P.D. 0 MSsAW _ -_-r
_.__ - - - - -- - -- -------.. ._ -.- _... . ----- --..._-- . _ -- -----
' eaeeol o¢/Ovel e,ole.ea 4oReAr• uA1TNsr rRor euv aT-No-sao-u wou- -
'
__ _- _ _— _._. ._-.- -OV-41110-321-32.
eRsOe OdOt/0f H.» OAVA NOD e1RrL[[e
04.7? +
0]!110] 011/01/49 __..-x.is'- - WGA 64C111IC - ---' 0116WSW
les.00 .
OYeG�—Oe/O1/el 004.ss LABOR eRl. AM0 C SNC "OF RAV 21-Z,a
OR/01/st /T4.mi MOTT-CARWM-OANOTA reOr eeOV - e1-190-IT/-IT- - -- —
1 97e.>i
i"090866 00/01/01 49.14 GLORIA R VIGLINO TRAVEL 0 Wee RT O"MO-111-11
17.1s
FUND TOTALS
01 - General Fund $ 9,914.97
14 - Transit 31,600.42
21 - Capital Improvement Fd 236.53
23 - Southerly By-Pass 4,471.38
25 - Drainage Capital Projects 792.00
29 - 169 Bridge-Junction 1,808.20 '
65 - 1988 Improvement - CP 228.62
73 - Storm Drainage Utility 470.09
9,522.21
1989 T'T1 OF 6HPKOPEE CNSCN REGISTER at-01-69 PAGE I
CHECINO DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. 0 P.O. a MESSAGE
012014 02/01/69 80,000,00 AMERICAN NAT. BANK PRINCIPAL PAINT 45-4610-000-00
032014 02/01/49 11050.00 AMERICAN NAT. SAW INTEREST PAYMENT 45-4611-000-00
03201a 02/01/89 --- - 56.00 'AMIRICAN NII]. SANE PAYING AGENT FEE 55-4610-000-00 - -
• 81,106.00 • ,sCNt—la'
0]8029 08/01/69 I78.H E F ANDERSON 6 A60C "Mica 61-4210-431-N
-.. - _-_--WS.Y4 .
032030 02/01/09 2.204.00 AB6N.METRO.MUN. DUES 6 SUBSCRIPT 01-4391-121-12
- l,Eo4.00
032031 02/01/69 227.64 ALBY GRAPHIC SUPPLIES 01-4210-411-41
-- 287.64
..r... ..a-CKS
032030 08/01/69 83.00 AM PLANNING ASSN DUES b SUBSCRIPT 01-091-I71-17 6027
032069 08/01/69 lKtTi — -INOMAp O.SROUNELL SUPPLIES '0646410-311_21
�I 032046 06/01/696.60 THOMAS G.BROKNELL TRAVEL b SUBSIST 01-4330-]I 1-31
184.]3 . an
.o... H.CAS
038070—"-00IOT/69'"- --"' TC30-- - -BORCHERT-INGER-INC- --EWIW MINT —'-
11.30 ,
032089 08/01/69 13.17 CASE POWER 6 EQUIP EUVSP MINT 01-4232-426-42
-.13.17 .
uar.. .,a-CNi
03211? 02/01/B9 5.99 3UOITH COX SUPPLIES 01-4810-111-11
032112 02/01/59 3.70 3UDITH CON TRAVEL 6 SUBSIST 01-030-111-11
__ ..9.60.•
.. ....a __._ .__-. _ . ....me =1
Le' 038134 08/01/M 194.70 EMIL F.ORESSEN EQUIP MINT 0I Naa- f 4 13964
194.70 .
�• � .r.r+. -_ _—__— - ._. ___--_.__ _._—.__—_— __ ___ ra,-qts
_- ..a
032191 - 02/01/89 ---"95.00 ""GOV TRAINING SERV CONF 6 SCHOOLS - 51-1]90-012-]1 5254
95.00 .
..r... _ ...-qta
038205 02/01/69 5.60 LEROY IRIIIBER TRAVEL 6 SUBSIST 01-4330-333-33 4'..
1909 CIT' OF SHAKOPEE CHECK RECISM 02-01-69 PAW 2
CMEC: RO DATE AMOIMT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT W. INV. 1 P.O. 0 MESSAGE
NO-CIfE ��
0322IS 02/01/69 "0.40 0 M MENTORS A KN4 ROT0 01-1320 ]=ME 9644
-2911.00
03a217 02/01/+9 40.60 MENNEN ELEC INC EWIP (MINT 41-1232-427-42
40.50
0]d319 -Oi/01/a9 40 00 HENEPIN CWNTt -WES { SU"CNIPT 01-4391-311-21 -
-
-++.... - - - - - - _.. - - - ARY-CRE aI
.� 039R34 02/01/09 54.70 ICNA PRINT { Pn 01-4SOMI1-11 01MOSS j
N4-12(0
03"27 02/01/09 -- -- L4.K INWSTRIAL DOOR DUG (MINT 01- 10-311-31 67192 ---- -_--
U1.K
-032243 —02,01/69-- --72':K --1NTnE.-DIESEL INC EQUIP MAINT 01-1232-441-N 15i 4 - ' -
•+»»». __ __ -._ .- ._.- _ -_ . _. AAS-CNS -
0322.6 02/01/09 93.75 INTL 9M ILINC SVS INC RENTS 01-4380-131-13 50119E
93.75 -
+.»... !..-CNS
039949 02/01/00 264.00 1 i A RADIATOR CORP EQUIP MAINT 01-4232-44I-44 135107
564.00 + __
�..-- -OURS _--K700N--- .. _ -741.92- O01O112"IQAPT __ _ -EWIP IM3M-_____ 01-4232-121-12
„j CURTI 02/01/09 27.31 DENNIS RRAR TRAM { WSSIST 01-4330-121-12 ---
42.312
•l-' OW245- --01701/+9 -- """-- —4+110 'Z-{ L AIR-INC '- - EQUIP MAIM 01-1232-311-31 112775
10.10
032220 02/01/29 95.$ LAMMB MPC. EWIP SAINT 01-4232-426-42 3056 -
95.5
1989 CTfI OF 9MAROPEE CHECK REGIBTER 02-01-69 PAGE 3
CKEC10 DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. 0 P.O. + MESSAGE
Due&$ 02/01/89 67.18 LATHROP PAINT INC. SUPPLIES 01-1210-629-62
67.18 +
rrr.w+ o«-CNB
ni
n--032945'"-
-0214 r/69--' " -'76.60 -- LEAGUE OFMINC}TIF9 -- -SUPPLIES - - 01-4210-III-1f
-4
76.00 +
032497 02/OVS9 147.36 LINK BLDG SUPPLY SUPPLIES 01-4210-622-62 3299
147.36 .
032295 02/01/89 255.60 CAROL LEVERSON MOTOR FUEL H-422E-143-14
265.60 ♦ _. -_ ..-.I
nr-Cltf
032130 02/01/09 0.95 MINE TV 6 APPL SUPPLIES 01-4210-311-31
a
1].K +
.+...r ....CNS wl
.-01£14T�-" 02/6t/89__ _...- _ _.- 25100 -.—MOR-T2FCO . ._ .. _—__.-_EWA MINT
' �• 26.00 r
- -.o-CNS
1 0383E2 Oe/01,e9 5.59 RN CtLLUIMI TGE CO 1E.41PNO E 01-1321-321-32
6.59 r
032363 02/01,99 97.50 MN CONWAY FIRE SUPPLIES 01-4210-321-32 10826
97.50 «
+ow+r w+r-CNS
0323"----02/Ot/BY- - 349.94 -- --NfP -- _ - - UTILITIES 01-4374-427-42
L.
319.91 + u.
0]2146 "OQJpf/89 " '""' -29:99 _ 'N9P - - UTILITIES 01-1370-127-12
:r
29,92 +
u�1
y
0]2429 00/01/89 742.50 PATCHIN 0 ASSOC INC PROF SERV 25-4310-521-41 6741
712.50 • - _ _.
032419 02/01/89 16.60 HAROLD PASS TRAVEL 6 SUBSIST 01-4330-421-42
16.60
rwrrr. ar-CNB
1989 CITY CP SNANOPEE MACK RESISTER 02-01-89 PAW 1
CHECK NO DATE AMOUNT mom ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. R P.O. R M688AQG
0]E112 02/01/89 338.SS P[OGeON ELL INC EOVIP RAINY OI-N32-Ni-M 16251
338.28 .—.—
....(WE
032497 02/01/89 178.68 MOIO 811ACR SUPPLIES 01-.210-111-11 —
176.N
...... ...-Me
0]2RT0 02/01/09 - -'- -e.n - -- MARILYN RAER TRAVEL 6 SUBSIST 01-1330-158-15
032180 02/01/89 110.90 R.s.MEANS DUES 6 SUBSCRIPT 01-1391-333-33
_ Tics0 •
11-CIKS
0]0197 02,01/89 N0.00 SCOTT CTT. SHERIFF COMP 0 8CHODLS 01-1390-321-32
N0.00
1, 0]@198 82,01/09 50,70 SCOTT ClY COLLECT PRM ERV 01-1310-I7I-17 39951
W
1 .• _ ___ ]0.70 • _._ __. __I,1
-032S0i —02,01/89 -2:729:50' --11MROPE ACCESS CORP -PADF ERV - 01-1310-125-12
• e.7e9.eo .
-
032517 02/,01,99 165.19 SPUC UTILITIES 01-1370-191-19
032517 - 02/01/99 121.00 SPUC UTILITIES D1-1370-192-19
032517 02,01,89 319.59 SPUC UTILITIES 01-070-311-31 '
032517 02,01,89 237.00 SPUC UTILITIES 01-070-321-32
03251` 02,01/99 19.50 SPDC "UTILITIES 01-1370-351-31
032517 02/01/89 666.18 SPDC UTILITIES 01-1370-121-12
032517 02/01/89 365.90 SPDC UTILITIES 01-1370-127-12
" 032517-"--02/01/09 - - _ -258.16 SPUD UTILITIES 01-1370-611-61 -- - - "-""
832517 02/01/99 298.96 SPUC UTILITIES 61-1370-622-62
0210 9
Fy D]251T'"—02/01/09 = - 209.18 SPDC VfiLITIES — 01+1370=6Q2
11 3,269.76
III-'�191ry9'—_. 1 .tlIP--ia
_032]21 02/01/?^ 656.00 BTREICHERS SUPPLIES 01-1210-]21-]2
656.20
r..,•. 991-M9
032Fii 02/01/89 28.00 BARRY STOCK TRAVEL 6 SUBSIST 01-1330-176-17
------. ---- -- ----- - ----- - - --... . -----.. _. .. . . - _ - -,
1989 CIT( OF 9NA80PEE CIECK REGISTER 02-01-89 PAGE 5
CME:1, 1QO. DATE MOUNT SENSOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT N0. INV. ! P.O. ! MESSAGE
032531 02/01,99 10.S MARRY STOCK TRAVEL 6 SUBSIST 01-4330-I76-IT
032533 04/01/19 5.04 MARRY STOCK TRAVEL 6 SUBSIST 14-4330-142-14
032476 02/0,169 BE.00 UNIVERSITY OF IRK CONF 6 SCHOOLS 01-4390-131-13
032576 02/01/19 50.00 _ UNIVERSITY OF MN GINA 6 SCHOOLS 01-4390-ITI-17 ,.
-032576 -02/01/09 - - - -25.00 - - UNIVERSITY OF MN - CONF 6 SCHOOLS 01-4390-311-31
100.00
uw.♦ - •r.-CKS
03235E 02/01/89 84.60 UNITOG RENTAL SERV BLDG MINT 01-4230-311-31
031-'' 9F/0I/09 86.90 UNITOG RENTAL SERV BLDG MINT 01-4830-491-42
■1.40 .
032600 00./01/89 MM.43 ME" WILMD TMVEL 6 SUBSIST 01-4330-ISI-IS
»- ----_---- - - ---- - -. _-- -'
0]2606 O8/Ot/e9 3,349.10 VAN POOL MY INC UTILITI69 14-4370-143-14 - -_
3.Mt.
•.o.n -._-_ . ...-Me
- -032624" "12/Ot/89 TI:00 '-- -UMI.-IUML INC EQUIP MINT -01-42]2-121-12 - .
03262) 02/01/99 76.00 WAHL 6 UAHL INC EQUIP MINT 01-42]2-131-13
03262r 02/01/69 _ _ 18.00 UAHL A UMIL INC EOMI MINT 01-423E-171-17
-I 95.00 . -
03c's24 02/01/89 _- 11.62 WILL.IMt STEEL SUPPLIES 01-4210-621-GZ
19.52
..... ....CN8
032651 - 02/01/89 - - 89.40- "'- ' UCKM'- --'- - - --SUPPLIES - - 01-4210-4R1-42
,. 032651 02/01/89 47.00 ZAW "PLIES 01-4980-426-42
032651 02/01/09 4.00 ZAM6 "Kin 01-4210-441-44
p.
_.-032651 - --02/01/69- _----1II:00. ____2ACK9 -. _ --_- - PPLIE6. _._—_. - 01-4210-622-62
032651 08/01/99 892.75 2AGN$ EQUIP MINT 01-4232-426-4E
198.15
.s.... ....CN8
032807 -04/01/99 -150.00 AXLE 6 SP REPAIR INC 'EQUIP MIw 01-4232-441-44 2147
140.00
032803 02/01/89 40.00 ASSN FOR SYS WANG DUEB A MIMSCIIIPT 01-4391-154-15 1899
80.00
1989 CITY OF SHAKOPEE CHECK REGISTER M-01-29 PASS i
CME4. .0 0A79 AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. A P.O. R MESSAGE
032809 .OQ/01/89 3127.79 MYER FORD TA INC EQUIP nAINT 01-12]e-6 "4 747197
032810 02/01/89 62.50 CITY ENGINEERS SUPPLIES 81-4210-111-41
n •
032811 02/01/09 2.202.00 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PROF SERV 01-4310-111-11
2.202.00
ui
032912 02/01/69 19.97 COMPUTER SHOPPER DUES 6 SUBSCRIPT 01-4391-154-15
19,97
032613 02/01/09 29.00 CORPORATE REPORT DUES 6 SUBSCRIPT I5-4391-191-19
---29.00
032914 02/01/69 147.42 FARIBAULT MILL CO SUPPLIES 01-4e10-312-31 29900
032BI5 02/01/89 424.42 GOODIN CO SUPPLIES 01-4210-431-12 S]QR24
r•_. ._ _.. _-_ _-124.46
032916 02/01/89 15.00 GOLOSN VALLIY CONE 6 SCHOOLS 01-1390-ISB-IS
Y
032217 02/01/99 906.00 LINK CASINSTS SLOG MAINT 01-12]0-311-31
032810 02/01/89 110.00 HN CNAPTER IAAI CONF 8 SCHOOLS 01-4390-3el-32
110:00 rt -
032819 _ 02/01/89 _ 790.06 MINN690TA POLICE Me 6 SUBSCRIPT 01-4391-311-31
.. _ -X40.00 • - _ _ _ _ __
• 032920 02/01/S9 ISE,00 MILE CONF 6 SCHOOLS 01-4390-312-31
in,00 + -
032821 02/01/89 64.00 ROBIN MCCULLOUGX CONF 6 SCHOOLS 01-4390-021-32
64.00 +
032822 02/01/89 9.95 PLAN TO GET CUT SUPPLIES 01-4210-321-3e
_ -
9
- .95 +
u .:
0]4362] 02/01/09 41.96 PXYSICIANS 02979 IRINT 6 PUB 01-I]50-]I1-31
u
�d 03e829 02/01/99 109.92 PRINTERS SERV INC [OIIIP MAINT 01-QR-6]1-fe 3]477
032926 08/01/89 10.00 REGIONAL MUTIML DY22 6 SUYCRIPT 01-1391-401-42
0329e6 02/01/89 150.00 TRAFFIC INSTITUTE COUP 6 SCHOOLS 01-4390-312-31 16623
ISO.UO
032697 02/01/89 136.00 VALLEY SIGN CO SUPPLIES 01-4210-171-17 6442
1999 CITY OF SNAKOPEE - - _ - - - - CHECK REGISTER 08-01-49 PAGE T
CHECK NO DATE ANK)LNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT N0, INV. 1 P.O. 0 ME0SAGE J
032417 02/01/49 Gt.00 VALLEY 410N CO SUPPLIES 01-1810-319-11 SNR
i:- .011017 02/01 of 310. 0 VALLON EY BICO SUPPLIES 01-4210-411-41 64,C11
i
0 l
201619.0] FUND OfTOTALGENERAL FUND
I.. ]1B10.55 FUND 11 TOTAL TRANSIT
29.00 FUND IS TOTAL NPA
-- ]12.50 FUND 25 TOTAL DRAINAGE CAPITAL PROJECT - - - —'!I
21 ,050.00 FUND S TOTAL IMPROVEMENT FUND-D5
S 71
. 56.00 FUND 55 TOTAL 619-A IMPROVEMENTS-DS
16,067.08 TOTAL
y
ACCouNTS PAraer.r crnrrtR 19x8
Month Janaury Page 2 Ditch s
rk ML Acct. Cr. Acct. Amount Remarks Ck. No. Vendor Ck. Amt.
01.4499.151.15 01.1010 $ 1.87 Misc 27824 AT & T $
✓ 1.4499.171.17 01.1010 1.00 1. 27824 "
✓14.4321.142.14 14.1010 3.20 Telephone 27824 "
/oi.4321.41i.41 01.1010 •56 " 27824 "
101.4321.151.15 01.1010 6.01 27824
,/01.4321.171.17 01.1010 13.34 27824 "
✓01.4321.121.12 01.1010 1.66 27824 "
✓01.4321.421.42 01.1010 1.66 27824 "
../01.4321.182.18 01.1010 2.00 27824 "
101.4321.311.31 01.1010 39.84 27824 71.14
/ 01.4310.221.22 01.1010 2 655.15 Prof Sery 27838 Convention & Visitors 2 655.15
$2,'729!2 2,72 .29
FUND TOTAIS
01 - General Fund $2,723.09
14 - Transit20
2,72 .29
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LEDGER 1989
MONTH January PAGE 2
// Debit Acct Cr. Acct Amount Remarks Ck. No. Vendor Ck. Amt.
1.61.4511.421.42 01.1010 917.75 Capital Equip 27810 Deputy Registrar N89 917.75
./01.3512.000.00 01.1010 4.00 Assessment Search 27811 Northwest Title 4.00
�1-4920.000.00 81.1010 7,812.67 Remit FIT 27812 1st Nat'l Bank - Shakopee
1.4922.000.00 81.1010 6,603.22 Remit FICA 27812 '
,/81.4928.000.00 81.1010 134.34 Remit Medicare 27812 14,550.23
✓81.4931.000.00 81.1010 1,225.00 Remit Payroll Say. 27813 lst Nat'l Bank - Shakopee 1,225.00
81.-.921.000.00 81.1010 3,167.76 Remit SIT 27814 Comm of Revenue 3,167.76
81.4927.000.00 81.1010 50.00 Remit Defer Comp 27815 IDS 50.00
Z4927.000.00 81.1010 3,778.01 Remit Defer Comp 27816 PEBSCO 3,778.01
.4923.000.00 81.1010 8,655.27 Remit PERA 27617 PERA 8,655.27
1.4926.000.00 81.1010 402.10 Remit Cancer Ins. 27818 Am Fam Life Assur. 402.10
,/01.4310-111-11 01.1010 10,500.00 Prof Sery 27819 Scott Cty Trans Coal. 10,500.00
,/84.3131.000.00 84.1010 450.00 C.O. Chg, 27820 Mark Houser 450.00
✓84.3131.000.00 84.1010 585.00 C.O. Chg. 27821 R.J. Ryan Cons't 585.00
84.3131.000.00 84.1010 31.50 C.O. Chg. 27822 Pat O'Neill 31.50
1/01.4390.125.12 01.1010 80.00 Conf & Schools 27823 MACTA 80.00
,/$6.2300-000-00 86.1o10 13,172.68 IT Deposits 27825 lst Nat'l - Shakopee 13,172.68
✓01.4310.161.16 01.1010 2,491.67 Prof Serv. 27826 Julius Coller 2,49'.67
✓84.3131.000.00 84.1010 2,700.00 C.O. Chg. 27827 Certainteed 2,700.00
84.3131-000.00 84.1010 813.15 C.O. Chg. 27828 Novak-Fleck 813.15
1/01.4310.421.42 01.1010 328.50 Prof Sery 27829 Great Lks Weather 328.50
•,/84.3131.000.00 84.1010 450.00 C.O. Chg. 27830 Earl Zacharias 450.00
�/ p1.4390-171.17 01.1010 16.00 Conf & Schools 27831 U of Minnesota 16.00
01.4991.911.91 01.1010 980.o6 Contingency 27832 O'Dowd Lk chain Assn 980.06
J 81.4926.000.00 81.1010 134.83 Remit Cancer Ins 27833 MN Benefit Assn. 134.83
✓ 63.461o.0oo.00 63.1010 55,000.00 Principal Paymt 27834 1st Nat'l - Shakopee
1 37.461o.000.00 37.1010 250,000.00 " 27834
c/63.4611.000.o0 63.1010 21,433.75 Interest Paymt 27834 "
✓37.4611.000.00 37.1010 68,112.50 27834 394,546.25
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LEDGER 1989 A' k
MONTH January PAGE_
Debit Acct Cr. Acct Amount Remarks Ck. No. Vendor Ck. Amt.
1 56.4610.000.00 56.1010 $225,000.00 Principal Paymt 27835 1st Natl - Shakopee $
v 56.4611.000.00 56.1010 22,331.25 Interest Paymt 27835 "
✓/56.4612.000.00 56.1010 300.00 Paying Agent Fee 27835 247,631.25
,J 01.3650.000.00 01.1010 20.79 Refuse Disposal 27836 SPUC 20.79
✓81.4932.000.00 81.1010 313.60 Remit Uniform Rent 27837 Unitog Rental Serv.
✓01.4210.441.44 01.1010 6.o0 Supplies 27837 319.60
,/84.2300.000.00 84.1010 46,212.48 LT Deposit 27839 Heritage Dev.
✓84.2300.000.00 84.iolo 3,59o.42 1. 27839 11 49,802.90
✓01.4511.313.31 01.1010 7,535.00 Capital Equip 27840 Northstar Auto 7,535.00
01.4511.171.17 01.10108 0 00 Capital Equip 27841 Avis 8 305.00
773, 30 773, 30
FUND TOTALS
01 - General Fund $ 31,184.77
37 - 1987A TIF 2.6 318,112.90
56 - 80-A Improvements-SD 247,631.25
63 - 1987 Improvements-DS 76,433.75
81 - Payroll Trust 32,276.8o
84 - Escrow 54,832.55
86 - Kmart Trust 1 172.68
773, 3o
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LEDGER 1989
MONTH February PAGE 1
Debit Acct Cr. Acct Amount Remarks Ck. No. Vendor Ck. Amt.
81.4921.000.00 81.1010 $ 3,145.11 Remit SIT 27842 Comm of Revenue $ 3,145.11
81.4920.000.00 81.1010 7,758.75 Remit FIT 27843 1st Natl - Shakopee
81.4922.000.00 81.1010 6,458.68 Remit FICA 27843 "
81.4928.000.00 81.1010 142.82 Remit Medicare 27843 14,360.25
81.4931.000.00 81.1010 1,225.00 Remit Payroll Sav 27844 let Natl - Shakopee 1,225.00
81.4927.000.00 81.1010 50.00 Remit Defer Comp 27845, IDS 50.00
81.4927.000.00 81.1010 3,828.01 Remit Defer Comp 27846 PEBSCO 3,828.01
81.4933.000.00 81.1010 180.00 Remit Spousal Maint 27847 Henn. Cty Support 180.00
81.4923.000.00 81.1010 8,710.72 Remit PERA 27848 PERA 8,710.72
01.4511.313.31 01.1010 472.85 Capital Equip 27849' Deputy Reg. #89 472.85
25.4310.521.41 25.1010 1,295.09 Prof Serv. 27850 Ray Joachim 1,295.09
25.4310.521.41 25.1010 1,211.52 Prof Serv. 27851 Ma,jorie Henderson 1,211.52
25.4310.521.41 25.1010 1,437.00 Prof Serv. 27852 Ed Sharkey 1,437.00
01.4499.311.31 01.1010 5,000.00 Misc 27853 S W Metro Task Force 5,000.00
84.3131.000.00 84.1010 787.50 , C.O. Chg. 27854 Certainteed 787.50
84.3131.000.00 84.1010 450.00 C.O. Chg. 27855 Betaseed, Inc. 450.00
84.3131.000.00 84.1010 450.00 C.O. Chg. 27856 Canterbury Dwns 450.00
2, 03.05 42, 03.05
FUND TOTALS
01 - General Fund $ 5,472.85
25 - Drainage Capital Projects 3,943-61
81 - Payroll Trust 31,499.09
84 - Escrow 1 687.50
$42 603.05
CONSENT
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk!--,-./
RE: Nomination and Appointment to Energy & Transportation
Committee
DATE: January 23, 1989
INTRODUCTION:
I have received a telephone call from Debra Amundson
expressing her interest in serving on the Energy & Transportation
Committee.
BACKGROUND•
In response to the City's advertisement for openings on
various boards and commissions, Debra Amundson submitted an
application indicating her interest in serving on the Community
Development Commission. There were 5 applicants interested in
serving on the Community Development Commission and there were
only 3 openings. Debra was not appointed to the Community
Development Commission. When I advised Debra that she was not
appointed to the Community Development Commission, I advised her
that there were still openings on the Energy & Transportation
Committee. I spoke with Debra this morning regarding the Energy
& Transportation Committee and what role they play and she asked
that I advise Council of her interest in serving on this
Commission.
The membership of the Energy & Transportation Committee is
from 7 - 10 members. with the resignation of Melanie Kahleck
from the Energy & Transportation Committee, the membership is
comprised of 6. The appointment of Debra Amundson will bring the
membership back up to it's minimum of 7.
Since Council recently advertised for all the boards and
commissions, and since Debra is the only individual currently
interested in appointment to the Energy & Transportation
Committee, Council may wish to nominate her and dispense with the
rules and make the appointment all on the same evening.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. Do not nominate Debra Amundson to the Energy &
Transportation Committee.
2. Nominate Debra Amundson to the Energy & Transportation
Committee.
3. Nominate Debra Amundson to the Energy & Transportation
Committee, dispense with the rules, and appoint Debra
to the Energy & Transportation Committee.
RECOMMENDATION:
Alternative No. 3.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Nominate Debra Amundson to the Energy & Transportation
Committee.
2. Dispense with the rules, and appoint Debra Amundson to
the Energy & Transportation Committee to fill the
unexpired term of Melanie Kahleck expiring january 31,
1991.
JSC/tiv
/ APPLICATION FOR COUNCIL ADVISORY BOARDS AND/OR COMMISSIONS �I
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
We welcome you as a possible applicant for one of our City Boards
and/or Commissions.
What are the qualifications for serving on these advisory Boards
and Commissions? You must be a resident of Shakopee, except where non
residency is permitted by Council resolution, and more importantly, you
must have an interest in serving your community.
The Boards and Commissions meet during the evening and typically _
have from one to two meetings per month, as follows: -
Planning Commission/Board of 1st Thursday after 1st Tuesday
Adjustments and Appeals at 7: 30 p.m.
Community Development Commission 2nd Wednesday at 5:00 p.m.
- Energy & Transportation Committee 3rd Thursday at 7: 00 p.m.
Ad HOC Downtown Committee - As Needed Wednesday at 7:30a.m.
Cable Communication Commissions As Needed Monday at 7 :30 p.m.
Housing Advisory and Appeals Board As Needed
Building Code Board of Adjustment As Needed
& Appeals
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission 1st Monday at 4:30 D.M.
Shakopee Community Recreation 3rd Monday at 7:00 p.m.
Police Civil Service Commission As Needed
'� '�``
Name: Jlpbra-- A /Yund&oVl Address: 16F7
Phone: (H) 45709) (B) 931- 5477
How Long Have you Been A Resident of Sha kopee? l � LJ2 2A
A
Occupation: ��
Does Your Work Require You To Travel? (check one)
A Great Deal Periodically ✓ Very Little _ Not At All
Do You Have Any Special Interests or Training Which You Feel A
Particular $oard or Commission Could Use? (Use sep-rate�sheel
necessary) /'ui .zi�,ncQ i�.e, iiw, rMX.f J ,Q-�fN-[C.e. QnnG� Crul�14.0
a-11 �r ru:4ba m Zrzi�cJ .
Hoard or Commission Ian Which You Are Interested? �r vvi•uovtilc - ',l-
Please State Briefly Why You Are Interested In Serving On this
Board/Commission For Which You Are Submitting An Application.:
4, /
Conflict of interest is defined as the participation in any activity,
recommended action, or decision from which the individual has or could
have the potential to receive personal gain, whether it be direct or
indirect.
In accordance with this definition, do you have any legal or equitable
interest in any business, however organized, which could be construed
as a conflict of interest? Yes No +/ If yes, please provide
details on a separate sheet of paper.
In accordance with this definition, do you own any real property
located in Scott County in which you have a legal or equitable interest
which could be construed as a conflict of interest? Yes No ✓ i
If yes, please provide details on a separate sheet of paper.
Please List Three References (Name, Address and Phone) :
1. 4Zh3 bA 9441? 109') 4arr n
2. (,tik. to '/LS- yss
I hereby certifv that the facts within the foregoing application are
true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Signature RETURN APPLICATION AND
PLED TO:
n �.J /S�( City Cleric
G City of Shakopee
Date 129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
711 445-3650
DATE RECEIVED: 1988
CITY Cr"
/'? a_/
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, City En in
SUBJECT: 3rd Avenue from Spencer Street to Shumway Street
DATE: January 26 , 1989
INTRODUCTION:
Attached is Resolution No. 3015 Receiving a Report and Calling
for a Public Hearing on Improvements to 3rd Avenue Between
Spencer Street and Shumway Street and all north-south streets
within those project limits between 3rd Avenue and 4th Avenue.
BACKGROUND:
On October 18, 1988 City Council ordered the preparation of the
feasibility report for improvements to 3rd Avenue between Spencer
Street and Shumway Street and all north-south streets within
those project limits between 3rd Avenue and 4th Avenue by
Resolution No. 2971 . The proposed improvements consist of
reconstructing the street including sewer, water, sidewalk, curb
& gutter and pavement.
The feasibility report has been completed and the report is
attached for Council review. Attached is Resolution No . 3015
receiving the feasibility report and calling for a public hearing
on the proposed improvements. The resolution sets the date of
the public hearing for February 21 , 1989 at 7:45 P.M.
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Adopt Resolution No. 3015 and hold a public hearing on the
proposed imporvements on February 21 , 1989•
2 . Do not adopt Resolution No. 3015•
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 .
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer Resolution No. 3015, A Resolution Receiving a Report and
Calling a Hearing on Improvements to 3rd Avenue Between Spencer
Street and Shumway Street and all North-South Streets Within
Those Project Limits Between 3rd Avenue and 4th Avenue, Project
No. 1989-5 and move its adoption.
DH/pmp
MEMS
RESOLUTION NO. 3015
A Resolution Receiving A Report
And Calling A Hearing On Improvement
To 3rd Avenue Between Spencer Street and Shumway Street
and all North-South Streets Within Those Project Limits
Between 3rd Avenue and 4th Avenue
Project No. 1989-5
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 2971 of the City Council
adopted October 18 , 1988 , a report has been prepared by David
Hutton, City Engineer, with reference to the improvements of 3rd
Avenue between Spencer Street and Shumway Street and all north-
south streets within those project limits between 3rd Avenue and
4th Avenue by street reconstruction including sewer, water ,
sidewalk , curb & gutter , and pavement , and this report was
received by the Council on February 7 , 1989 .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1 . The Council will consider the improvement of 3rd Avenue
between Spencer Street and Shumway Street and all north-south
streets within those project limits between 3rd Avenue and 4th
Avenue in accordance with the report and the assessment of
abutting and benefitted property for all or a portion of the cost
of the improvements pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at
an estimated total cost of the improvement of $1 , 117 ,000 .00.
2 . A public hearing shall be held on such proposed
improvements on the 21st day of February, 1989 , at 7:45 P.M. , or
thereafter, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 129 East 1st
Avenue and the Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of
such hearing and improvement as required by law.
3 • The work of this project is hereby designated as part of
the 1989-5 Public Improvement Program.
Adopted in session of the City Council of
the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of
19
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this day of
19
City Attorney
FEASIBILITY REPORT
IMPROVEMENT OF THIRD AVENUE
BETWEEN SPENCER TO SHUMWAY STREETS
AND ALL NORTH-SOUTH STREETS BETWEEN
_ 3RD AND 4TH AVENUE WITHIN THESE PROJECT LIMITS
IN THE ORIGINAL SHAKOPEE PLAT
IN SECTION 1 , RANGE 23 , TOWNSHIP 115
SCOTT, MINNESOTA
_ I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a
duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State
of Minnesota.
Date - ''`/ f-� Registration No. 19133.
JANUARY 1989
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Feasibility Report Page No.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Scope. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
Proposed Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
Cost Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
Special Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7
_ Alternate Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . 8
INTRODUCTION
_ The City Council of Shakopee, Minnesota ordered the preparation
of a Feasibility Report by Resolution No. 2971 on October 18,
1988 for street improvements to 3rd Avenue between Spencer Street
and Shumway Street and all north-south streets between 3rd Avenue
and 4th Avenue within these project limits.
_ BACKGROUND
Third Avenue between Spencer and Shumway Streets is one of the
oldest streets in Shakopee. The existing street and utilities
were constructed in the 1940 ' s. Improvements to the street have
since been limited to partial curb and gutter installation,
partial sidewalk installations, street patching and occasional
seal coating.
_ The existing pavement is extremely deteriorated. There are many
transverse and longitudinal cracks , rutting , potholes , severe
"crown" problems, and curb and gutter deficiencies. The sewer
and watermains are essentially the original systems.
Due to the poor condition of Third Avenue, that portion from
Spencer to Shumway was included in the City of Shakopee 5-Year
_ Capital Improvement Program with reconstruction scheduled for
1989 • Because Fourth Avenue was reconstructed in 1986 and the
downtown area recently reconstructed, the Third Avenue project
was expanded by City Council to include all north-south streets
between Third and Fourth Avenues within these project limits.
The condition of the north-south streets are similar to Third
Avenue , with the exception of Holmes Street. Holmes Street was
reconstructed in 1980 and is therefore excluded from this
project.
The existing zoning for this area is shown on the drawing in the
appendix . Basically, the north half of 3rd Avenue is zoned
commercial and the south half is zoned residential.
SCOPE
This report evaluates the feasibility of reconstructing Third
_ Avenue between Spencer and Shumway Streets, including all north-
south streets between 3rd and 4th Avenues, except Holmes Street.
Alternatives were developed for the "fringe" areas by adding or
deleting certain blocks from the project in order to tie this
project in with the downtown reconstruction and Fourth Avenue
reconstruction projects.
1
Throughout the report, the entire project will be referred to as
Third Avenue, which automatically includes the north-south
streets.
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Roadway
_ No information is available on the existing pavement
thickness for Third Avenue. The existing pavement is 44
feet wide . Because of the age of the street, the quantity
and quality of gravel base under the pavement is
questionable. Soil borings will be obtained as part of the
design process in order to adequately design the pavement
structure.
The existing curb and gutter throughout this project is
inconsistent in type and location. The curb and gutter
varies from none to standard B-618 to a "vertical wall" of
2-3 feet. A drawing showing all existing curb and gutter
locations is found in the appendix.
Unless inadequate soils are encountered, it is recommended
that a 44 foot wide, 9 ton street be constructed with B-618
curb and gutter on both sides of the street. Current City
of Shakopee Design Standards require a 36 foot wide street,
but all other streets abutting 3rd Avenue are constructed as
44 foot wide streets.
B. Sidewalks
The existing sidewalks within the project limits and
adjacent streets are shown in the appendix. The location of
existing sidewalks is inconsistent and nonuniform from block
to block.
According to City of Shakopee Design Criteria, sidewalks are
required on only one side of the street for commercial areas
and none at all for residential areas except for along
commercial routes. If this criteria were strictly adhered
to, sidewalks would be installed on the north side of 3rd
Avenue only, with none on the north-south streets.
Due to its close proximity to downtown and the presence of
institutional buildings in the vicinity of 3rd Avenue
(church , school , etc . ) this report recommends additional
sidewalks . The recommended sidewalk locations are as
follows:
a) Between Sommerville and Atwood Streets an 8 ft.
sidewalk is recommended on both sides of Third
2
ly �y
Avenue. The 8 ft. walk is desirable in order to
match the downtown sidewalks . In addition ,
several locations on this segment have severe
slopes which may require retaining walls and the
sidewalk will need to be located immediately
adjacent to the curb and gutter. A wide sidewalk
is more desirable in those instances to provide
adequate snow storage.
b) Between Spencer and Sommerville, a 5 ft. walk on
both sides of the street is recommended to match
3rd Avenue just east of these project limits.
C) Between Scott and Shumway Streets a 5 ft. walk is
recommended on the north side of the street as a
minimum and possible both sides.
d) Sidewalks on both sides of the street on Atwood,
Fuller, Lewis and Sommerville Streets.
e) Sidewalks on the east side only of Spencer, Apgar
(optional) and Shumway (optional) .
Refer to the drawing in the appendix showing the
proposed sidewalks.
Another option would be to install sidewalks on
both sides of all streets rather than being
selective . Again this may be a more desirable
option due to the close proximity to downtown.
C. Sanitary Sewer
The existing sanitary sewer is an 8 inch clay pipe and
was installed around 1940 . With the exception of
-' Holmes and Lewis Street there are no sanitary sewers on
any of the north-south streets. Refer to the drawing _
in the appendix for the location of existing sewers.
The sewer has not been televised yet, but based on the
condition of sewers in 4th Avenue and downtown prior to
their replacement, it is anticipated that the entire
sewer is in poor condition . As part of the design
process, the sewers will be televised but this report
assumes total reconstruction.
The Public Works Department does not keep an accurate
history of sewer backups, but backups have occurred on
3rd Avenue and they recommend replacement of the sewer.
It is recommended that all sewers within the project
limits, with the exception of Holmes Street , be
replaced in conjunction with the street reconstruction.
The Holmes Street sewer was replaced in 1980 . Any
service connections that are found to be deteriorated
3
will be replaced from the main sewer line to the
'- property line as part of the project. It would be the
property owners responsibility to replace the remainder
of the service line from the property line to the
structure . Any manholes that are not constructed to
current standards would be reconstructed.
D. watermain
A drawing in the appendix shows the location of all
existing watermains . The age of this watermain is
unknown but undoubtedly it is around the same age as
the sanitary sewer.
Based on past street reconstruction projects, Shakopee
Public Utilities Commission ( SPUC ) has taken the
position of not replacing watermains unless the street
_ or sewer construction creates a substandard watermain
situation ( i.e. lowering the street grades would reduce
the minimum allowable cover over the watermain) .
Preliminary design indications are that the street
reconstruction will not create any substandard
watermains , although minor changes such as a hydrant
_. relocation may be necessary. Due to the age of this
system and potential for watermain breaks, this report
recommends that all watermain within the project area,
_ except on Holmes Street, be replaced as part of the
reconstruction project.
No cost estimate was prepared for the watermain work
since SPUC has jurisdiction. Discussions will be held
with SPUC to determine the scope of any watermain work
for this project.
E. Storm Sewer
The existing storm sewers are shown on the appendix.
'- There are no storm sewers in 3rd Avenue, although most
of the intersections and cross streets have storm
sewers.
Additional storm sewers are proposed at two locations,
as shown in the appendix. At Holmes Street additional
_ catch basins are proposed to eliminate the "dip" at the
intersection . At Scott and Apgar Streets , an
additional storm system is also proposed .
4
- COST ESTIMATE
A detailed cost estimate can be found in the appendix. A summary
- of the estimated costs are as follows:
Roadway (includes curb & gutter $549 ,000 .00
and any retaining walls)
Sidewalk $ 82,500 .00
- Sanitary Sewer $141 ,300 .00
Hatermains SPUC Cost
Storm Sewers $ 40.000 .00
Total Estimated Construction Costs $812,800.00
Add 10% Contingency $ 81 ,200 .00
�- Subtotal $894,000 .00
Add 25% Engr. & Admin. Fees $223 .500.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS $1 ,117,500.00
FUNDING SOURCES
A breakdown of all funding sources can be found in the appendix.
A. Roadway and Sidewalks
The City Council of Shakopee Resolution No. 2278
establishes the funding mechanism to be used for street
reconstructions . This policy provides for 25%
assessments to abutting property owners and a City-wide
ad valorem levy for 75% of the project costs.
That portion of Spencer Street and Apgar Street between
3rd and 4th Avenues are part of the Municipal State Aid
System. Because these streets represent only two
- blocks out of the total project consisting of sixteen
blocks and because the City State Aid Fund balance is
relatively low, it is recommended that State Aid Funds
not be utilized for those two blocks.
B. Storm Sewers
The Special Assessment Policy states that 50% of new
storm sewer improvements in developed areas should be
5
special assessed . For this project, the storm sewer
improvements are only needed because of the street
improvements . That is to say without the street
reconstruction the storm sewer would not be needed.
This report recommends including the storm sewer costs
in with the street costs to be assessed at 25% of the
project costs.
C. Watermain
_ Watermain reconstruction is uncertain at this time.
Any proposed Watermain work would be funded by the
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission.
D. Sanitary Sewer
Funding for this element would be from the Sanitary
Sewer Enterprise Fund . Main line sanitary sewer
construction would not be assessed .
Sanitary sewer services found in poor condition would
be replaced with costs assessed back to the property
owner.
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
It is proposed to special assess 25% of those costs associated
with the street reconstruction ( pavement , curb and gutter ,
sidewalk and storm sewers) . For 3rd Avenue, those lots abutting
would be assessed at a
the north-south side equal based ofront
streets , these will
footage .
Forbe
assessed based on the corner lot adjustment method , since all
lots abutting these streets are corner lots.
For corner lot adjustments , there are three alternative
assessment methods as described on Page 14 of the Special
Assessment Policy of the City of Shakopee (adopted August 15 ,
_ 1978 by Resolution No. 1298) , as follows:
a) If both streets are improved simultaneously, 100% of
the short side footage will be used. Since many lots
will not be having both streets improved , this
alternative is not recommended.
_ b) All lots within a block will be assessed equally for
long side improvements. Short side improvements will
be assessed by the full frontage . This method is
recommended for this project.
c) Assess all lots for 100% of the utilities on the short
side of the lot and 25% of all costs on the long side
of the lot. Again, since not all lots are having both
6
streets improved as part of this project , this
alternative is not recommended.
Therefore, for the north-south streets, all lots in that block
will be assessed equally for those improvements.
All assessment calculations can be found in the appendix.
Alternate Segments
The project limits as ordered by Council consists of 3rd Avenue,
between Spencer and Shumway Streets and all north south streets
between 3rd and 4th Avenue within these limits . There are
several alternatives to the final project limits, as shown on the
drawing in the appendix.
One alternative would be to eliminate the block of Shumway ,
between 3rd and 4th and add the block of Scott Street between 2nd
and 3rd Avenue . This block of Scott Street is also in need of
repair and would help "tie" this project to the downtown
reconstruction project. The fire station is also located on this
block. A separate report is being prepared to address the
upgrading of 2nd Avenue between Scott and Atwood Streets, which
will further enhance the downtown corridor . This report
recommends this revision in the project limits.
Another option would be to eliminate the block of 3rd Avenue
between Shumway and Apgar Street. This block is currently part
of the State Aid System, which includes 3rd Avenue from Apgar to
Adams . 3rd Avenue west of Shumway is in relatively good
condition compared to the block east of Shumway. In addition,
the cross section of 3rd Avenue changes at Shumway and is a
logical place to end the project. This report recommends that
the project limits end at Shumway Street , as originally
requested.
Another option would be to eliminate the one block of Apgar
Street, between 3rd and 4th. Again, this block is part of the
State Aid System. All of Apgar Street from 1st Avenue to 6th
Avenue should be improved. Improving only one block of Apgar
would only be a small portion of the overall improvements needed.
The elimination of Apgar Street from this project would also
reduce the overall project costs.
The rough approximation for revising the total project costs due
to adding or deleting blocks based on the above alternatives can
_ be estimated at approximately $40 ,000 .00 per block (construction
costs only. )
7
l a a'
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Third Avenue is worn out and in extremely deteriorated condition.
Sanitary sewers are in need of replacement. Curb and gutter and
sidewalks are inconsistent and nonuniform . This report
recommends the complete reconstruction of streets, watermains,
sewers, sidewalk and curb & gutter for 3rd Avenue, from Spencer
to Shumway all north-south streets between 3rd and 4th Avenues
between Spencer and Agpar (excluding Holmes) and Scott Street,
_ between 2nd and 3rd Avenues.
Property owners would be assessed for 253 of the street
reconstruction costs . The remaining 753 would be funded by
General Obligation Bonds. The sanitary sewer would be funded by
the Sanitary Sewer Fund.
_ g
APPENDIX
Zoning Map
Existing Curb and Gutter p
Existing Sidewalk 3
Proposed Sidewalk q
Existing Sanitary Sewer 5
Existing Watermains 6
Existing & Proposed Storm Sewer 7
Scope of Project with Alternatives g
Cost Estimate 9_10
Assessment Calculations 11_12
Funding Summary 12
ZONING
but� .�. 111U IMIT D1 ��i
= � i;I:.�� [.—�—���.1�� y—Lle�t—L+ !•l lr1 _� 1- 1_..�i._ I� C�� I� Jc,I � � F`�ir.•I i ! 1
FJ
�, _ ;� �� ir�l��k ►, � ! a �LTA C � a��J� � _� � ;_��� ! � ; � � .
{ , E
l 1 � �� R� T.• I.�,I—�.� �� 1dt4 .�� ._� CJ, �4I _ i j + .
Lid I
_ �,
1'� [17;11 l I:l 1 rl,rirt,u ua+lr F I�
! —,— ...gi cHUNIHt
H AL'f_.lAl ;
_ i,'
I_.. U r
_
a EXISTING CURB & GUTTER
�11J --M- M
H-0FFiSCTt'
_� 1
�• ! 1 iol_I• a ITATIUI 8 Q s 1 nj yl li
nil Fi
ihMST
LJJU RG11 _ a N RI IT I I II`�
SCIIOOI.
HOLME S
PARK $H11rvL..
SUH
CEM:L MAgYS — 11 R- 11
1�I� W9C3_L 1 l 1_L L1J 1�L11JJ e °°L SAV°E°L 1 —ion -
FMfl
-Ion.
T 71 1 F71 11 T1-n1 FI I , , ' _.r.. , 77 ' ) i'
EXISTING SIDEWALK
EEO
OFFICE'
Lo
RMFTA
IR
Au
FFMARKS a
'" _ — Ir 3I {I
(�I I. I SCI/OOL
E V U W L-I.
IIOLMES •. ® y% • � �.
PAflST
K `
II I CEM RAI MA Y9 I
'ef—�Jov-
am
CHURCHIAV£A SCHOOL.�
L1J I ✓� L1LJJJ l. I I I I 1
i
F� 1 1 I '19l I`-f� Y 11 f -UT7r IJ I 7 1 717 7T1 9 r7, r ,1 • —TP--'i-r— 1
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
8' SIDEWALK
- - 5' SIDEWALK
I1.1 l [ LAID Elul
11111 ill l 1 I
_� - a==•f4i -
a.,. 4PFiCE'
i11EllIT TAT"
r
ST
MARKS uVu t a
- � ttIU
SCHOOL
C,\..
APMES
O �7
. I ��►r�����-- �������. ,������ { (� [C:M RAL MA YS6lA CtH RCl CHOOL SCHOOL
•L..I.:S�--.1�1 •� 2 1
I p. I f� I -7 1 'I 1 - 1 1 7 -.!}, ' _.1 '
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
380 382 380-1 379-1 381—,2� 380,
I �
¢�
_ O 378 379 386 380 245 x 37G j
176 w _
O
�v � � i � •a ! i gaygy �7 �� i � �{ � t � ! ;-'(.. 5 r ' � x�� � i p 3 j "I
380 3 79• -� � 379 f7 y -'22 �• ` �• 3r9 � ` 380 380 1
C E
8 ..�«""`�3�1}• 232 Ann 381 33d
# L.o 0 1 t t
1 1 380' i 380 389 372 n ,
3/9, 7 . . 95• , 230 378 337 43
3 - � i � 79
T380'379 80 379 i _
112�
i..
i '
i
57' 13d
I i
13A1 390 3 Y ,
i
EXISTING WATERMAINS
rl 1 • i • •.. / W W
..,: L....______) LEVEE i J A4/VE .tsadJ�BLDC. nr ------
---------
--;
..
J—1-2n _______� -NUBER P RK
ll TY Ifl
'
C
OST
LIE
Y
a .. tton
t�_ � �rcL• t ���� � 1 A OFFICE'
IMM
'1 JJI1I� 1� I I•' ��a��� �� �" $TR�T—M�M� •a � �F-�'-��r s�r
ST
-CHURCH 1FELI1 =V p I _^ / I a NV • ,r4I[W-n;I.IIL_L�_AI+yJqI ___. �1IlTI�l7Il'.�Ii.
,. SCHOOL ("�•„
JmI IHO.L ME�
PARK
S
Y u •- �
1 [CEtWe.R MARYS1CHURCH/ r� -(lOp.�L 9aHEL
EXISTING & PROPOSED STORM SEWER
o---o PROPOSED
• EXISTING
_ i .�...J bL `
HUBER Y.k,
'V 4" n . 'II I� I TI �L I {kig _ - NAl , O
L Li j. I JJ�W • / / �� V I r l r r b
717 + <"n a"�'T-T�j` T'TT I
FYr Rip i
aWi1 (� 1� :I Ir w �wi_ i i �,
� v
Jr
I
.-���
1""� . f 1 G({URCIi 1 .'•.l 1pl 1..1. �i 1 ^ ... 1_ .,;.1U _� _ —.� i I
I 11.`
,_ i �
�unL� . _n ' fHO�MES f� T UItdG � �I
i 44 1`r
PARR
h I 14
A
r v
_L� -
CEN7 RAL NA4YS
_ f > i
Ir r m —.o � r ButRNeta
r.. .1�.J L`1PY31JI V - 61 SCHOOL I SCHOOL
VOL - L.
1 -7� J
SCOPE OF PROJECT WITH ALTERNATIVES
DOWNTOWN
INEI STREETSCAPE RECOMMENDED CHANGE
•rty I _t. ���u� w
PROJECT LIMITS \\(\\\�� �O�T�HEER� �A�LTIE�RINIAITIIVES� �
III i l J L1J A^ - ^ L3_L L I.l 1� I 1 V 1.191) .L7 J LLJ I:M I I I_I
osrut
LTi I I y1 11
yFFiCE,. ._ _ . .. _I . .
duo
TIM
SCHOO l..lyL1+J go,
8 [J ` - i• 1 IT! d5
� rn .LIIURLNI �• I IrI �J =
SCN00�
TFI I. IFA s
OL' L.lyL1r1 H �$ 411_J�J 5�
IYM1. t 1J1 a \�
f L
[ 1
an_ ] a I� [C:NIRAL MP VS �1 o , CNURLNICHOOL SCHOOL
V 6/ AV£
iS.i I I FI I I' I _7711
COST ESTIMATE
-TEN UNIT
NO. ITEM UNIT PRICE QUANTITY AMOUNT
ROADWAY
1 CLEARING EACH $200.00 30 $6,000.00
2 GRUBBING EACH 6130.00 36 $3,900.00
3 REMOVE PIPE CULVERT L. F. $7.15 650 $4,647 .50
4 REMOVE CURB 6 GUTTER L.F. $2.10 6948 814,590.80
5 REMOVE SIDEWALK S.F. $0.50 27,890 $13,945.00
8 REMOVE PAVEMENT S.Y. $1 .35 2B.398 $38,337.30
'. 7 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY S.F. 0.75 2.200 $1 ,650.00
8 REMOVE CATCH BASIN EACH $230.00 3 $880 .00
8 REMOVE MANHOLE EACH $286.00 B $2,288.00
10 COMMON EXCAVATION C.Y. $5.50 12,293 $67.611 .50
11 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 (B"] TON $6.75 12.390 $83.632.50
100 % CRUSHED
12 BIT. MATERIAL FOR MIXTURE [5%) TON $163.00 ISO $26,080 .00
13 BASE COURSE MIXTURE (2%) TON $11 .75 3195 $37,541 .25
14 BIT. MATERIAL FOR MIXTURE (6%) TON $163.00 144 $23 ,472.00
15 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE [1 1/2"1 TON $13.00 2396 $31 ,148.00
1fi BIT. MIXTURE FOR PATCHING TON $49 .50 100 $4.950.00
17 CONCRETE CURB 6 GUTTER DESIGN B-618 L.F. $5.25 10,384 $54,518.00
18 4" CONCRETE WALK S. F. $1 .65 50,000 $82.500 .00
19 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT S. F. $2.40 9,775 $23 ,460.00
20 8" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT S.F. $2.75 3 ,740.00 $10,285.00
21 SODDING S.Y. $2.35 15.000 $35.250.00
22 FURNISH 6 PLANT SHADE TREES.
_ SUGAR MAPLE 1 1/2" DIAMETER EACH $100.00 90 $9 ,000.00
23 RETAINING WALL S.F. $14.00 4,000 $56 ,000.00
STREET TOTAL $631 .494.85
9
ITEM
NO.
UNIT
ITEM UNIT PRICE QUANTITY AMOUNT
SANITARY SEWER
1 4" PIPE SEWER. EXTRA HEAVY CAST IRON L. F. $19.70 1 .640 $32.308.00
2 6" PIPE SEWER, EXTRA HEAVY CAST IRON L.F. $21 .50 160 $3-440.00
3 INSTALL 4" OUTLET WYE EACH $57.75 41 $2.367.75
4 INSTALL 6" OUTLET WYE EACH $80.60 4 $322.40
5 INSTALL CONNECTION TO EXIST. EACH $158.00 45 $7.110.00
SERVICE LINE (4" OR 6-1
6 S" PIPE SEWER. 0-8 L. F. $25.00 2.800 $70.000.00
7 S" PIPE SEWER, B-10 L.F. $26.50 100 $2,650.00
8 B" PIPE SEWER. 10-12 L.F. $29.50 30 $855.00
9 10" PIPE SEWER. 10-12 L. F. $32.50 340 $11 .050.00
10 CONSTRUCT MANHOLE. SHAKOPEE STD. EACH $1 .258.00 R $10,064.00
11 CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL DEPTH IN MANHOLE L.F. $91 .00 3 $273.00
12 AD -UST FRAME & RING CASTINGS EACH $170.00 5 $950.00
SANITARY SEWER TOTAL $141 ,290 .15
iTORM SEWER
1 12" R. C. PIPE SEWER. CLASS III L. F. $28.20 P40 $6.769.00
2 15" R. C. PIPE SEWER, CLASS III L. F. $29.60 360 $10,656 .00
3 18" R. C. PIPE SEWER. CLASS III L.F. $31 .70 360 $11 ,412.00
4 CATCH BASIN WITH CASTINGS EACH $1 .050.00 8 $8,400.00
5 ADJUST FRAME & RING CASTINGS EACH $170.00 2 $340.00
6 STO. MANHOLE EACH $1 ,000.00 2 $2,000.00
STORM SEWER TOTAL $39 .576.00
GRAND TOTAL $812.361 .00
10
ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS
Total Assessable Cost
Roadway Construction $549,000 .00
Sidewalk Construction $ 82,500 .00
Storm Sewer Construction $ 40 .000 .00
Total Construction Costs $671 ,500.00
Plus 10% Contingency $ 67,000 .00
Plus 25% Engr./Admin . Fees $168.000 .00
Total Project Costs for
Assessment Calculations $906,500.00
25% of Cost Assessable = $906 ,500 .00 x 0 .25 =
$226 ,600.00 (Total Assessable Cost)
Special Assessment Policy:
1 . All lots abutting 3rd Avenue will be assessed for 3rd
Avenue on a front foot basis.
2. The north-south streets border on corner lots. All
lots within the block will be assessed equally for the
side street improvements.
The project consists of 16 block, 8 on 3rd Avenue and 8 on side
streets.
Assume that 1/2 of the total assessable cost is for the 3rd
Avenue portion and 1/2 of the assessable cost is for the side
streets.
3rd Avenue Assessment
Total Cost = 1/2 x $226 ,600.00 = $13 ,300.00
Total Front Footage = 4 ,800 L.F.
Assessment = Total Assessable Cost = $113 .300
Total Front Foot 4 ,800 L.F.
$23 .60 per front foot
Typical Lot = 60 ft. x $23 .60 = $1 ,416 .00
North-South Street Assessments
Total Cost = 1/2 x $226 ,600 .00 = $13 ,300.00
Total number of Lots = 80 Lots
-' 11
Assessment = Total Assessable Cost = $113 ,300
Total Number of Lots 80
_ $1 ,416 .00 per Lot
(Note: Based on 10 equal lots per block. Some property
owners may own more than one lot. )
FUNDING SUMMARY
Total Estimated Project Cost $1 ,117,500 .00
Less Assessed Amount 226 ,600.00
Less Sanitary Sewer Fund Amount 190 .800 .00
Total Funded by G.O. Bonds $ 700 ,100 .00
_ 12
�a h
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer�;4�
SUBJECT: County Road 17 Sidewalk
DATE: January 26 , 1989
INTRODUCTION:
Attached is Resolution No. 3014, Receiving a Report and Calling
for a Public Hearing on Improvements to County Road 17 (Marschall
Road) between 4th Avenue and 10th Avenue.
BACKGROUND:
On October 18 , 1988 City Council ordered the preparation of a
feasibility report for improvements to Marschall Road between 4th
Avenue to 10th Avenue by Resolution No. 2972 . The proposed
improvements consist of installing sidewalks along the east side
of the street.
This feasibility report has been completed and the report is
attached for Council review. Attached is Resolution No . 3014
receiving the feasibility report and calling for a public hearing
on the proposed improvements. The resolution sets the date of
the public hearing for February 21 , 1989 at 7: 30 P.M.
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Adopt Resolution No. 3014 and hold a public hearing for the
proposed improvements on February 21 , 1989•
2 . Do no adopt Resolution No. 3014.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 .
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer Resolution No. 3014, A Resolution Receiving a Report and
Calling a Hearing on Improvements to Marschall Road from 4th
Avenue to 10th Avenue, Project No. 1989-6 and move its adoption.
DH/pmp
MEM2
RESOLUTION NO. 3014
A Resolution Receiving A Report
And Calling A Hearing On Improvement
To C.R. 17 (Marschall Road)
From 4th Avenue To 10th Avenue
Project No. 1989-6
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 2972 of the City Council
adopted October 18 , 1988 , a report has been prepared by David
Hutton, City Engineer, with reference to the improvements of the
C.R. 17 between 4th Avenue and 10th Avenue by Sidewalks, and this
report was received by the Council on February 7 , 1989 .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1 . The Council will consider the improvement of C.R. 17
(Marschall Road ) between 4th Avenue and 10th Avenue in accordance
with the report and the assessment of abutting and benefitted
property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvements
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total
cost of the improvement of $72 ,500 .00 .
2 . A public hearing shall be held on such proposed
improvements on the 21st day of February, 1989 , at 7:30 P.M. , or
thereafter, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 129 East 1st
Avenue and the Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of
such hearing and improvement as required by law.
3. The work of this project is hereby designated as part of
the 1989-6 Public Improvement Program.
Adopted in session of the City Council of
the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of
19_.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this day of
19
City Attorney
FEASIBILITY REPORT
IMPROVEMENT OF MARSCHALL ROAD (C.R. 17)
BY SIDEWALKS ALONG THE EAST SIDE
BETWEEN 4TH AVENUE AND 10TH AVENUE
— IN
SECTIONS 6 AND 7, RANGE 22, TOWNSHIP 115
SHAKOPEE, SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a
duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State
of Minnesota.
u
Datei����Yt� Registration No. 19133.
JANUARY 1989
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Feasibility Report
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
— Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Proposed Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
Estimated Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Assessment Procedure and Funding . . . . . . . 2-3
Development Information . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
INTRODUCTION
The City Council of Shakopee, Minnesota ordered the preparation
of a Feasibility Report by Resolution No. 2972 on October 18 ,
1988 for improvements to Marschall Road (C.R. 17) by sidewalks
along the east side of the roadway between 4th Avenue and 10th
Avenue.
BACKGROUND
Marschall Road (County Road 17) is a 4 lane, paved- major arterial
highway carrying approximately $109000 vehicles per day on this
portion of the street (based on 1987 Mn/DOT traffic counts) .
There are existing sidewalks along the west side of Marschall
Road. There are also existing sidewalks on the east side of
Marschall Road north of 4th Avenue and south of 10th Avenue.
The existing zoning along Marschall Road is B-2 , Community
Business and R-4 , Multifamily Residential . The approximate
location of the zoning change is at County Road 16 . North of
C. R. 16 is basically commercial zoning and south of C.R. 16 is
basically multifamily residential. Please refer to the zoning
map in the appendix.
A traffic signal with cross walks currently exists at 4th Avenue
and Marschall Road . Scott County is proposing to construct
another traffic signal at C.R. 16 and Marschall Road during 1989.
The Shakopee Junior High School is located on Marschall Road , one
block south of 10th Avenue on the east side of the highway.
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
In accordance with the current City of Shakopee Design Criteria,
sidewalks are required on both sides of arterial highways,
regardless of the zoning.
The recommended improvements consist of installing 5 foot wide
sidewalk, 4 inches thick located approximately 1-2 feet off the
property line . Within commercial driveways, the sidewalk is
_ recommended to be constructed 8 inches thick.
At the intersection of 4th Avenue and Marschall Road , the
elevation of the parking lot for the apartment building located
in the southeast quadrant of this intersection will require the
construction of a retaining wall to accommodate the sidewalk. A
brick decorative retaining wall similar to that used in the
downtown area is proposed, although a timber wall will also be
considered during the design process.
— 1
A small retaining wall is also needed on the property just north
of Shakopee Avenue.
All proposed improvements would be in conformance with current
City of Shakopee Standard Specifications.
ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the proposed improvements are detailed in
the appendix and are summarized below:
Total Construction Costs $53 ,700 .00*
Plus 10% Contingency 5 ,400.00
Plus 25% Engr. A Admin. Fees 11 .400.00
Total Estimated Project Costs $72,500.00
* Of this amount, approximately $15,000 is for the retaining
walls.
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE AND FUNDING
All costs associated with this project would be 100% assessable,
which is consistent with past practices and current City
policies.
It is proposed that all abutting properties be assessed based on
actual front footage on Marschall Road for the sidewalk.
There are several alternatives for assessing the retaining wall
costs, as follows:
1 . Since the retaining wall is only necessary for the parking
lot at 4th and Marschall, assess all costs of the wall to
the apartment building (PID Number 27-906018-0) . The small
retaining wall just north of Shakopee Road would also be
assessed to that property (PID 27-030001-0)
2 . Include the costs of the retaining wall in the overall
project costs and assess them to all properties affected by
the project by calling it a "systems" cost.
3 • Do not assess any costs of the retaining wall and simply
absorb it as a City expense.
This report recommends Alternative No. 1 because at the time the
parking lot was constructed the property owner in effect received
a net cost savings by not grading the parking lot down to the
existing street elevation. Because the parking lot is so high, a
retaining wall is now necessary to construct the sidewalk.
2
Therefore, this report recommends assessing the retaining wall
solely to the property at 4th and Marschall. Prior to adopting
the final assessments at the conclusion of this project, the
proposed assessment for the retaining walls should be evaluated
further by the City Attorney.
The assessment costs for each property owner , using both
Alternatives 1 and 2 for the retaining wall, are summarized in
the appendix.
According to the Finance Director, the funding for this project
will come from the proposed 1989 improvement bond issue. Those
funds obtained through the bond issue will be used to construct
the project , but they will be recovered by the special
assessments.
DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION
There are several property owners that have signed agreements
with the City regarding the proposed sidewalk.
That portion of the proposed sidewalk abutting the Eagle Creek
1st Addition Subdivision (PID 27-134001-0) is discussed in their
developer' s agreement. Per that agreement, the property owners
waive their rights to a public hearing, waive their rights to
special assessments and agree that the sidewalk can be
constructed at the discretion of City Council.
That portion of the proposed sidewalk abutting the property owned
by Brook ' s Hauser ( PID 27-906025-0 ) was petitioned for
construction by the owner in September, 1988 . The petition also
states that the owner waives all rights for a public hearing and
for any special assessments.
That portion of the proposed sidewalk abutting the property owned
by Shakopee Super 8 Partnership is also covered by a developer's
agreement. Per that agreement, the developer had agreed to
construct the sidewalk. The City is currently retaining a letter
of credit for the completion of this work. The owner has now
requested that the City construct the sidewalk at its earlier
convenience and assess the costs of the sidewalk. The letter of
credit is valid until July, 1989 .
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Due to the large number of commercial establishments and
multifamily residential buildings located along this major _
arterial highway, this report recommends sidewalks for the east
side of Marschall Road, between 4th Avenue and 10th Avenue. The
City has planned this sidewalk for several years as evidenced by
the language in the various existing developer' s agreements.
3
the language in the various existing developer' s agreements.
Current special assessment policy requires that abutting property
owners be assessed for new sidewalk construction. This report
concludes that the requested improvements are feasible and
recommends the construction of the proposed improvements.
4
APPENDIX
Zoning Map
Estimated Project Costs p
Property Location Map 3
Proposed Assessments 4
ZONING pA-
, i
_ 81
R 4
R3
J62 PROJECT LIMITS/
:. _ R4 / R4
11
R4 1111
R2
B1
-
:R 4
B1
MARSCHAI, ROAD _ 418 TO 1018 AVENUE
SIDEWALK COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
NO. ITEM QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 . Common Excavation 730 C.Y. $ 5.50 $ 4,015.00
2. Remove Bit. Pavement 133 S.Y. $ 1 .35 $ 179.55
3. Relocate Trees 5 EA. $200.00 $ 1 ,000.00
4. Retaining Wall 1 ,065 S.F. $ 14.00 $14,910.00
5. 4" Sidewalk 14,800 S.F. $ 1 .65 $24,420.00
6. 8" Sidewalk 1 ,200 S.F. $ 2.75 $ 3,300.00
7. Bit. Patching 20 TON $ 45.00 $ 900.00
8. Sod 2,133 S.Y. $ 2.35 $ 5,012.55
TOTAL $53,737.10
z
' T-ION MAP
iPRO�EF��I�LOGA- -
i
UTILITY y 333' • - 27-906018-0 /2
BLDG
S I Q
1111 O
- PRtfPED W LK
c _
O oc
o�`` 95.92• ,r 2.7- 121002-0
MUNICIPAL
SERVICES
BUILDING 58 89 .= 2 — 121003-0
' 2
GORMAN
IELD 1 —6 27- 121004-0
OUTLO
A ole 06025-0
Fq
TY�Ei 6 ..: 7-9( 6+
2 F
6
Iz / 2 c9FFk
4 1
-7} '-I 7- 134 1-0
7 694.1 b'
Bow
I I / 3 `F 4
1 I II . -
� 9p�
6 7 6 1
—_ 4 1
c 5 Z I
6 t 3 \ I O
� c q
5 127-03 01 -0• , 6 s ,;
salt' s 7 z 201 .0z'. � v 1
IUP,H 1 4
— � 3
--' �- 0' IRST PRESS. 1
/ CHURCH ~ S q
1480'. i � 2 1
-B. F. PEARSON
K y
SCHOOL pSSMB Y I h h
OF GOD
CHURCH
224.22'\, -✓ ,
3 '/ h` AE`
•� � y t4 i4 1 3
VLL
Q
Q \ [ 7 J
y
J i
,A a
s + '
--� I 1
I 117
- i a P✓
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Alternate 1 1 Alternate
Marschall Road (C.R. 17) Sidewalk 1 Assessments 1 Assessments
19-Jan-89 ! Assessable 1 Assessable
Amount: i Amount:
$72,500.00 1 $52,400.00
Front 1 $25.7392 1 $18.6033
PID i Property Owner :Footage:per frt foot ;per frt foot
________________________________________________________________________________
27-906018-0 !Shakopee 62 Partnership ;333. 00 1 $8,571. 17 1 $26,294. 89
1% Ralph L. Peter ! *(See Note)
12101 Hennepin Ave. So. #101
!Mpls, MN 55405 I
I
27-121002-0 !Cletus J. & Helen C. Link 1195.92 1 $5,042.83 1 $3,644. 75
112831 Link Drive
: Shakopee, MN 55379
_27-121003-0 !Cletus J. & Helen C. Link 1156.89 1 $4,038.233 1 $2,918.67
112831 Link Drive
!Shakopee, MN 55+79
-27-121004-0 !Shakopee Super 8 Partnership 1181 .46 1 $4,670.64 1 $3,375.75
16115 Lincoln Dr. #149 t
!Edina, MN 55436 t
27-906025-0 W. Brooks Hauser 1200.00 1 $5, 147.85 1 $3,720.65
11244 Canterbury Rd. I
_ !P.O. Box 512
!Shakopee, MN 55379 1
1 1
27-906027-0 ! Harmon H. Harrison 1250.00 1 $6,434.81 : $4,650.62
1414 1/2 E. 1st Ave. I
:Shakopee, MN 55379 i !
! i
-27-134001-0 !Mt. Olive Ev. Lutheran Church 1594. 15 1 $15,292.97 1 $11 ,053. 13
1911 E. Shakopee, Ave. i t i -
!Shakopee, MN 55374
-27-030001-0 !John R. & Melba E. Nelson :201.07 1 $5, 175.39 1 $3,740.56
11162 Limestone Dr.
!Shakopee, MN 55379
- 1
27-907017-0 !First Presbyterian Church 1480. 00 1 $12,x54.84 1 $8,929.57
1909 Marschall Rd.
!Shakopee, MN 55379
27-129001-0 !Maplewood 1st Addn. Townhouse :224.22 $5,771 . 25 ; $4, 171 . 22
1126 S. Holmes
!Shakopee, MN 55379
2816.7 $72,500.00 $7,500.00
This assessment contains $20, 160 for construction of retaining wall .
ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS
Assessable Cost/Total Front Feet=Front Foot Assessment
4
CONSENT
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting Cyty Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk ../
RE: Initiating The Vacation of"The Alley in Block 12
Original Shakopee
DATE: January 31, 1989
INTRODUCTION:
The attached resolution sets a public hearing date for March
7th to consider the vacation of the alley North of Taco John's.
BACKGROUND:
Taco John's was built in the summer of 1987. In conjunction
with the construction of Taco John's, a retaining wall was also
constructed to the North of Taco John's. This construction was
done without consulting city staff and does encroach into the
alley right-of-way. Rather than incur the cost of relocating the
retaining wall, the property owner, Allen Plaisted, submitted a
petition to vacate the alley. Before staff could recommend that
Council set a date for a public hearing, Mr. Plaisted was
required to sign and submit a watermain easement across his
property and an access agreement to maintain the electric line
within the alley. These documents have now been received and
properly recorded.
There still remains a watermain and an electric line within
the alley; however, the retaining wall does not extend over the
watermain. The vacation, therefore, would retain easement rights
for utilities.
ALTERNATIVES:
11 Set a date for a public hearing
2] Deny request
3] Other
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative, that Council set a date for a
public hearing to consider the vacation of the alley North of
Taco John's.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Offer Resolution No. 3018, A Resolution Initiating the
Vacation of the Alley in Block 12 , City of Shakopee, Scott
County, Minnesota, and move its adoption.
TACOJOHN
1 r �
S
_ rV7
° O ` yll•
01
,F
tar
zl w 1Itr.
,r t
t
Ok
i 6 a ♦— � 'tet"�
W �
Ci
RESOLUTION NO. 3018
A RESOLUTION INITIATING THE VACATION OF THE ALLEY IN BLOCK 12,
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, A petition has been received by abutting property
owners requesting the vacation of the alley in Block 12, Shakopee
City; and
WHEREAS, It has been made to appear to the Shakopee City
Council that said alley serves no public use or .interest; and
WHEREAS, A public hearing must be held before such action
can be taken and two weeks published and posted notice thereof
must be given.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that a hearing be held in the
Council Chambers on the 7th day of March, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. , or
thereafter, on the matter of vacating the alley in Block 12 ,
Shakopee City, Scott County, Minnesota.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that two weeks published notice be
given by publication in the Shakopee Valley News and posted
notice be given by posting a copy of such notice on the bulletin
board on the main floor of the Scott County Court House and the
bulletin board in the Shakopee City Hall.
Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City
of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 7th day of February, 1989.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of 1989.
City Attorney
MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City dministrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerlg
RE: Resolution No. 3016, Apportioning Assessments Within
Prairie Estates 1st Addition
DATE: January 30, 1989
INTRODUCTION•
The attached Resolution No. 3016 apportions existing special
assessments against the lots within Prairie Estates 1st Addition.
BACKGROUND:
There are existing special assessments for the 1981 VIP
Interceptor and for the 1987 Valley Industrial Sewer Extension
for the lots within Prairie Estates 1st Addition. The attached
resolution apportions these special assessments against the new
lots. The apportionment has been figured by the engineering
office and copies of this resolution have been provided to the
effected property owners.
You may recall that last October a resolution was adopted
apportioning these same special assessments. Because the plat
was not filed at the time and because parcel numbers had not been
assigned to the lots, the resolution is not valid. Therefore,
the attached resolution has been prepared for Council
consideration. The apportionment of the special assessments
contained in Resolution No. 3016 are less than the apportionment
of the special assessments in the resolution adopted in October,
1988. This is because of the certification in October to the
County Auditor of one years payment.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Adopt Resolution No, 3016
2) Do Not Adopt Resolution No. 3016. If the apportionment
is not made, the assessments will not be of record
against the new lots as described. When these lots are
sold, the assessments will then not be paid.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Offer Resolution No. 3016, A Resolution Apportioning
Assessments Among New Parcels Created As A Result Of The Platting
Of Prairie Estates 1st Addition, and move its adoption.
JSC/tiv
RESOLUTION NO. 3016
A RESOLUTION APPORTIONING ASSESSMENTS AMONG
NEW PARCELS CREATED AS A RESULT OF THE PLATTING
OF PRAIRIE ESTATES 1ST ADDITION
WHEREAS, on August 25, 1981, Resolution No. 1891 was adopted
by City Council levying assessments against properties benefitted
by construction of the 1981-1 VIP Interceptor; and
WHEREAS, on September 20, 1988, Resolution No. 2946 was
adopted by City Council levying assessments against properties
benefitted by construction of the 1987-13 Valley Industrial Park
Sewer Extension from the West side of CR-17 to the East side of
CR-79; and
WHEREAS, parcels 27-907-005-0 and 27-907-005-1 have been
subdivided into Prairie Estates 1st Addition; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to apportion
the installments remaining unpaid against these two parcels among
the new parcels in Prairie Estates 1st Addition; and
WHEREAS, the property owners involved have been notified of
this proposed action.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE:
1. That the 1989 payable remaining balance of assessments
to parcels 27-907-005-0 and 27-907-005-1 for the 1981-1
VIP Interceptor and for the 1987-13 Valley Industrial
Park Sewer Extension are hereby apportioned as outlined
in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.
2. That all other parts of Resolution 1891 and Resolution
No. 2946 shall continue in effect.
3 . That this Resolution supercedes Resolution No. 2975.
Adopted in Session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this day of ,
1989.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1989.
City Attorney
EXHIBIT A
SUMMARY
PRAIRIE ESTATES IST
NO. LOTS/ 1981-1 1987-13 TOTAL
I PID I OWNER I LOT/BLK. ]OR ACREAGE( ASSESSMENTS I ASSESSMENTS (ASSESSMENTS
1 1 1-1
127-138001-OlVierLing PartnershiplL 1 . Elk. 1 1 1 $57.15 I $278.20 I $335.35
1 - 11461 C. P. 79 1 I 1 I
I IShako Pae. MN 55379 1 I I I 1
I I I I I I I
127-138002-0 IV1erL Ing PartnershiplL 2 . Elk. 1 I I $57 .15 1 $278.20 1 $335.35
1 - 11461 L. P. 79 1 1 I 1 1
I IShakopee. MN 55379 I I I I I
I I I I I I I
127-130003-OIV1erLing PartnershiplL 3. Elk. 1 1 I $57.15 I $278.20 1 $335.35
1 - 11461 C. R. 79 I I I 1 I
I IShekopea, MN 55379 I I I 1 I
I I I I I 1 I
127-138004-DiViarLing PartnershiplL 4. Elk. 1 1 I $57.15 I $278.20 I $335.35
1 - 11461 C. R. 79
I IShakopee. MN 55379 I I I I I
1 I
127-138005-OlVierLing PartnershiplL 5 . Elk, 1 1 I $57.15 I $278.20 1 $335.35
1 - 11451 C. R. 79 I -- I I 1 I
I IShakopee, MN 55379 1 I I I I
I I I I I I I
127-136008-01VierLing PartnershiplL 6v 8Lk. 1 1 I $57.15 I $278.20 1 $335.35
I 11461 C.P. 79 I I I 1 I
I IShakopee. MN 55379
I I I I I I I
127-138007-01V1arLing PartnershiplL 7 . Elk. 1 I I $57 .15 I $278.20 1 $335.35
1 - 11461 C. P. 79 1 I 1 I 1
I IShakopee. MN 55373 1 I I I 1
I 1 1 1
127-138008-91VierLing PartnershiplL 8 . Elk. 1 I I $57 .15 1 $278.20 1 $335.35
1 - 11461 C. P. 79 1 I I I I
1 IShakopee, MN 55379 I I I I
I I I I I I I
127-i3800S-O lVierLing PartnershiplL 9 . Elk. 1 I I $57 .15 1 $278.20 1 $335.35
I - 11461 C.R. 79
I IShakopee, MN 55379 I I I I I
I I I I I I I
127-138010-OIV1erLing PartnershiplL 1O. Elk. 11 1 $57.15 1 $278.20 1 $335.35
I 11461 C. R. 79 1 I I I 1
I IShakopee, MN 55379 I 1 1 1 1
I I I I I I I
127-13BB11-01VierLing PartnershiplL 11 , Elk. 11 1 $57.15 1 $276.20 1 $335.3--
11461
335.3511461 C.R. 79 I I 1 I I
1 IShakopee, MN 55379 1 1 1 1 1
I I I I I I I
127-138012-OlViarLing PartnershiplL 12. Elk. 11 I $57 .15 1 $278.20 I $335.35
1 - 11461 C. R. 79 1 I I I I
1 IShekopea, MN 55379 I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I I
SCMMARY
p^AIRIE ESTATES 1ST
NO. LOTS/ 1981-1 1987-13 TOTAL
PID I OWNER I LOVELK. 109 ACREAGEI ASSESSMENTS I ASSESSMENTS (ASSESSMENTS I
I 1-1-1
2 138013-GIVierling Partnership [L 13, BLk. 11 1 $57 .15 1 $278.20 I $335.35
11461 C. R. 79
]Shakopee, MN 55379 I I I I 1 I
I 1 I I I I I
2'-138014-OlVierLing PartnershiplL 1 , BLk, 2 1 I $57.15 1 $276.20 1 $335.35 1
11461 C.R. 79 I I
IShakopea, MN 55379 I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
27-138015-OIV1erLing Partnership IL 2 , Rik. 2 1 I $57 .15 1 $278.20 1 $335.35 1
11461 C. R. 79 1 1 1 1 1 1
IShakopee, MN 55379 1 I i 1 1 1
I I i I I I I
27-138016-OlVierting PartnershiplL 3, BLk. 2 1 I $57.15 1 $278.20 1 $335.35 1
11 451 C. R. 79 I I I I I I
IShakopee, MN 55373 I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
$7-138017-OIV1arLing PerCnershlp]L 4, BLk. 2 1 I $57.15 I $274.20 1 $335.35 1
11461 C. P. 79 1 1 1 I 1 1
IShakopee. MN 55379 1 I I I 1 1
I I I I I 1 1
g7-138018-01Vierting Partnership IL 5, BLk. 2 1 1 $57 .15 1 $278.20 1 $335.35 1
11461 C. R. 79 1 I I - 1 1 1
IShakopea, MN 55379 1 I I I I I
I I I I I I I
127-138019-OlVierling PartnershiplL 5 , BLk. 2 1 I $57.15 I $278.20 I $335.35 1
11461 C. R. 79 1 I 1 I I 1
IShakopee, MN 55379 1 I I I I 1
I I I I I I i
27-13SD20-0lVierLing PartnershiplL 7 . BLk. 2 I 1 $57.15 1 $278.20 1 $335.35 1
11461 C. R. 79 1 1 1 1 1 I
1Shakapsa, MN 55379 1 1 1 I I
1 I I I I I I I
1II7-138021-OlVierltng PartnershiplL 8 , BLk. 2 1 I $57.15 I $278.20 I $335.35 1
1 - 11481 C. P. 79 I I I I I I
IShakopee, MN 55379 I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
127-138022-DlViarLing PartnerahiPlL 9 , BLk. 2 1 I $57.15 I $278.20 I $335.35 1
11481 C. R. 78 1 1 I - I I 1
IShakopee, MN 55379 1 1 I 1 I 1
I I I I I I
127-138023-OIV1erLing PartnershiplL 10, BLk. 21 I $57.15 I $278.20 I $335.35 1
1 11461 C.P. 79 1 I I I - 1 1
IShakopee, MN 55379 1 I I 1 I 1
I 1 I I 1
127-138024-O lVierLiag PartnershiplL 11 , BLk. 21 I $57 .15 I $278.20 I $335.35 1
11461 C. R. 79 1 I I 1 I - 1
I IShakopee, MN 55379 1 I I I I 1
7 I I I I I I I
i I I I 1 I I I
z�a3
SUMMARY
PRAIRIE ESTATES IST
NO. LOTS/ 1981-1 1987-13 TOTAL
PIG 1 OWNER I LOT/BLX. IOR ACREAGE[ ASSESSMENTSi ASSESSMENTS JASSESSMENTS
1 1-1-1-
127-138025-011l1arL1n0 PartnerehlPIL 12, Slk. 21 1 $57 .15 1 $278.20 I $335.35
1 - 11461 C.P. 79 1 [ I 1 [
IShakopea, MN 55379 I I [ 1
I 1 I 1 1 I I
427-138026-OlVierlin9 PertnershiplL 13. Blk. 21 1 $57 .15 1 $278.20 I $335.35
6 ' 11481 C.R. 79 I I I 1
1 IShakapee. MN 55379 I I I
4 1 I I I I I
127-138027-0]Vtarttn9 PertnershiplL 14. BLk. 21 1 $57.15 1 $279.20 1 $335.35
1 - 11461 C. R. 79 1 1 1 1 1
1 IShakopea, NN 55379 1 1 1 1 1
1'27-138028-01Vtorl Ing PartnarahiplL 15, BLk. 21 $57 .15 1 $278.20 I $335.35
1 - 11461 C. P. 79 1 I I 1 I
I IShakopea, MN 55379 I [ 1 1
1 1 I I I I I
627-138029-0IVIarLln9 PertnershiplL 15, BLk. 21 I $57 .15 i $278.20 1 $335.35
1 - 11461 L.P. 79 1 1 1 I I
1 [Shakopee, MN 55379 1 1 1 I I
4 1 I 1 I I 1
127-138030-OlVierling Partnarshipll 17, Blk. 21 I $57.15 1 $278.20 1 $335.35
1 - 11481 L.R. 79
E IShakapee, MN 55379 1 I 1 1
F I I 1 I I I
127-138031-OIVIarLing PertnershiplL 1 , BLk. 3 I I $57.15 I $278.20 1 $335.35
1 - 11461 G.R. 79
1 [Shakopee, MN 55379 I 1 I 1
I 1 I I I I i
127-138032-0 lViarling Partnership IL 2 . BLk. 3 [ I $57 .15 1 $270.20 I $335.35
111481 C.R. 79
1 IShakopea, MN 55379 [ [ I I 1
1 I I I I I I
127-138033-OlViarLing PertnershiplL 39 BLk, 3 I 1 $57.15 I $278.20 I $335.35
I - 11461 C.R. 79
I IShakopea, MN 55379 1 I I 1 I
I I 1 I I I 1
127-138034-OlVierLing PertnershiplL 4, Elk. 3 I I $57.15 1 $276.20 I $335.3°
I 11461 C. P. 79 I I I [ I
I IShakopea, MN 55379 I I I I 1
I I I 1 I I 1
127-138035-01Viarling PartnershiplOut Lat A I 13.14 1 $1 ,521 .51 I $7,407.07 I $8.928.63
I 11461 L.R. 79 1 I I I - - 1 •
1 IShakopea, MN 55379
I I [ I I I I
127-138036-01City of Shakopee IOutLot 8 1 3.73 I $431 .93 I $2,102.62 I $2,534.55
11123 E. First Ave. I I I I 1
I [Shakopee, MN 55379 I I I I 1
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
SUMMARY
PRAIRIE ESTATES IST
NO. LOTS/ 1981-1 1987-13 TOTAL
PID I OWNER I LOT/SLK. ION ACREAGE( ASSESSMENTS I ASSESSMENTS (ASSESSMENTS I
_I I i I 1-1-1
27-138037-0lVierLing PertnerehlplOutLot C I 18.04 I $2,089.03 1 310.165 .22 1 $12,258.25 I
11481 C.N. 79 1 I I 1 I I
15hekepee, MN 55379 1 1 1 I I I
1 1 1 I I I I
27-138038—OlVierling PertnerehiplOutLat 0 1 26.10 1 $3.022.37 1 $14.712.67 I $17,735.04 1
11461 C. R. 79 1 1 1 1 - 1
IShekopee, MN 55379 1 I I I I 1
I I I I I I I
I 1 I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I TOTALS 1 I $9,008.04 I $43.850.38 I $52.858.42 I
1e08
13b
MEMO TO: City Council
FROM: LeRoy Houser, Building official
RE: Termination of Probationary Period
Newton Parker
DATE: February 7, 1989
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Newton Parker has successfully completed his 6 month probationary
period.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue probation
2. Terminate employee
3. Terminate probation
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend alternative No. 3 that Council terminate his
probationary status effective January 15, 1989, and place him in
the temporary full time employee status for the remainder of the
one to two year period, as designated at hiring.
ACTION REQUESTED
Move to terminate the probationary status of Newton Parker
effective January 15, 1989, and have him continue as a temporary
full time employee for a one to two year period as provided at
the time of his appointment.
LH:cah
iy
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting City Administrator
Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: Police Union Negotiations
DATE: February 3, 1989
Information has been requested regarding the settlement of the
police officers contract for 1988 and 1989 as it related to the
proposal presented by Councilman Scott at the January 31, 1989
Council meeting.
State law allows City Councils to discuss labor negotiations in
executive session. Therefore at about 9:00 p.m. the Council will
adjourn to executive session and discuss the police union
contract with Cy Smythe, the City's labor consultant. Additional
information will be presented to the City Council at that time.
DRK/jms
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Acting Administrator
Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: Police Union Negotiations
DATE: February 7, 1989
INTRODUCTION•
Information has been requested regarding the settlement of
the police officers contract for 1988 and 1989 as it relates to
the proposal presented by Councilmember Scott, functioning as
liaison to the Police and Fire Departments, at the January 31,
1989 City Council meeting.
BACKGROUND:
Tentative Position of Union and City
The information presented by Councilman Scott on behalf of
the Police Officers Union (Teamsters Local #320) requests the
following for 1988.
1. A 3.5$ across the board salary increase.
2. An additional $10.00 per month to be applied toward Group
Health Insurance.
3. An increase in vacation benefits starting with 21 days
vacation at the end of sixteenth year and increasing the
rate of one day per year until the twentieth year at which
time the amount of vacation would remain capped at 25 days
per year.
4. A $450. 00 per year clothing allowance (the same as in 1987) .
The unanimous position of the City, for purposes of
arbitration, as of November 1, 1988 is as follows.
1. Wages a 3 1/2$ increase with 1 1/2$ on the base and 23 in
cash.
2. A $10.00 per month increase in the employer paid portion of
medical insurance payments.
3 . A fitness program of up to three hours per week with a
monitory minimum fitness standard.
Analysis
The City's position on 28 of the 3 1/2% wage increase being
in cash represented in an attempt to bring the police
officers more into conformity with the remaining employees
in the City organization for the purposes of trying to
conform to comparable worth.
A $10.00 per month increase in medical benefits is
consistent with what was received by other City employees,
however there is a slight difference of over $1. 00 in the
amount received by the Police Union.
The clothing allowance being the same as 1987 does not
appear to be unreasonable.
The increase in vacation is more then that received by other
employee groups. Other employees will receive 21 days per
year starting at the end of the 20th year and this amount
will be capped at 25 days per year at the end of the 25th
year.
The above present the differences between the two requests.
1989 Union Requests
A 43 across the board increase in salary.
An additional $10.00 increase in health insurance benefits
is also requested.
Uniform allowance to increase from $450.00 per year to
$475.00 per year.
A request to increase the amount of group life insurance
from $25,000 to $50,000. (It was proposed that the City
finance this increase in group term insurance costs by not
giving employees with single coverage health insurance
benefits a quarterly cash reimbursement. Agenda item #llj
addresses the group health insurance item in greater
detail. )
The City Council does not have a position on the 1989
contract yet so a comparison can not be made. Other City
non-union employees settled for a 3 1/23 increase in 1989,
and Police sergeants settled for 33 in 1988 and 1989. The
Public Works Union settled for 2 3/43 to 3 1/23 depending
upon position for 1988 and 1989, with the foreman receiving
an upward comparable worth adjustment.
Process
At this time the City Council has acted to send the police
officer contract to arbitration following established
processes (see attachment B) . This process is underway as
evidenced in attachment C which is a letter to the Public
Employee Relations Board from the Bureau of Mediations
Services. The City Council voted unanimously to go to
arbitration in November of 1988.
The City Ccuncil may wish to clarify the process that they
want to follow relative to dealing with the Police Union
Contracts for 1988 and 1989. The contract with the
Teamsters specifies that the City Administrator is the
negotiator for the City and this is the process that has
been followed in the past. The present situation is a
result of well intentioned discussions between the City
Council Liaison to the Police Union and the Stewart of that
Union and resulted in the January 31st presentation to the
City Council. According to the agreement between the City
and Teamsters Local 280, Mr. Robert Weisenburger is the
exclusive bargaining agent for the Union (see attachment A) .
Mr. Weisenburger is aware of the City Council consideration
of this item at this time and has discussed the matter with
both the Police Union Stewart and the Acting City
Administrator. The City Council may wish to delineate the
role of the Council Liaison to the Police Department and to
determine whether this also relates to the other two
employee groups in the Police Department, the Police
Sergeants Union and the non union employees. The City
Council needs to insure that they are not engaging in
anything which may be construed as an unfair labor practice.
Cy Smythe of Labor Relations Inc. has been appointed by the
City Council to represent them in the arbitration process.
Mr. Smythe is in the process of working with the Union's
Business Agent, Mr. Weisenburger, in striking arbitrators
for the arbitration process. Mr. Smythe will be in
attendance at tonight's City Council meeting and he will be
discussing this issue with the City Council in executive
session as allowed by State Law.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Subsequent to discussing this matter the City Council should
react to the Union's request and instruct the Acting City
Administrator on what steps to take next.
A
MINNESOTA TEAMSTERS PUBLIC & LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES UNION
(IT
' LOCAL NO. 320
affifidad vfM the
rt^ INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS CHAUFFEURS. WAREHOUSEMEN L REVERS OF AMERICA � u ✓
3001 University Avenue S.E — Minneapolis, Minnasote 55414 — P1wne )613) 331.3873
.sus
P.ECEIVED
May 20, 1987 AMY21 1987
ClTY OF SHAKOFEg
Mr. John Anderson
City Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 E. 1st Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
RE: 1988 Contract Negotiations - Shakopee Police Department
Dear Mr. Anderson_
As the exclusively certified bargaining unit representative for our
me=mbers employed by the City of Shakopee in the above cited unit, ode are
hereby notifying you that we are opening the contract for negotiations.
Our demands will be submitted at a later date.
Sincerely,
TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. -3O20ow.�
Robert J. Weisenburger
Business Agent
RJW/jm5
OF'EIU-<12
Enc l osu.re
United To Protect
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
INCORPORATED 1870
129 EAST FIRST AVENUE. SHAKOPEE. MINNESOTA 55379 1376 (68) 415.3650
r �1
1
November 2, 1988
Mr. Cy Smythe
Labor Relations Associates, Inc.
7501 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Re: Arbitration with Teamsters Local No. 320 - Police
Dear Cy:
The Shakopee City Council, at its regular November 1, 1988
meeting, voted unanimously to direct you to begin preparation of
the City's arbitration case. The Council wishes to state the
City's positions entering arbitration as follows:
1. Wages - 1988 3-1/2$ with 1-1/2% on the base and 2% in
cash.
2 . Medical Benefits - $10. 00 per month increase in the
employer paid portion of the medical insurance monthly
payment.
3 . Fitness Program of up to three hours per week with a
mandatory minimum fitness standard.
My last day with the City of Shakopee is November 4.... Our
Community Development Director, Dennis Kraft, has been appointed
Acting City Administrator until City Council completes the
selection process for my replacement. Please contact Dennis at
445-3650 in following up on the arbitration case. If you wish to
meet with City Council please contact Dennis so that it can be
scheduled for our regular November 15th meeting.
jo
inc rely,hn K. Andersoon
ity Administrator
JKA/jms
cc: De nis Kraft
8 Police Negotiations File
The Heart 01 Progress Valley
1'• t
6LRENU0f};mLXU0N 5En110E` -
-[ate .r Nlt.11FIQ�Otj
Chair 1, r :=:
Public Employment Relations Board
1380 Energy Lane, Suite 2 _
St. Paul, MN 55108
RE: Teamsters Local No. 320 CASE NO. R8-PN-631
-and-
City of Shakopee
CERTIFICATION OF MATTERS FOR ARBITRATION
In accordance with the Public Employment Labor Relations Act of
1971 , as amended, I certify the interest dispute between the above
parties to arbitration. The Bureau of Mediation Services has
determined that further mediation efforts would serve no useful
purpose in resolving this dispute.
The following item(s) remain in dispute:
1) Wages - Establish wage schedule for 1988 - Appendix A
2) Wages - Establish wage schedule for 1989 - Appendix A
3) Longevity - Establish rate for 1988 - Article 20
4) Longevity - Establish rate for 1989 - Article 20
5) Health Insurance - Amount of emplover contribution for
1988 - Article 17
6) Health Insurance - Amount of employer contribution for
1989 - Article 17
7) Uniform Allowance - Amount of allowance for 1988 - Art. 19
8) Uniform Allowance - Amount of allowance for 1989 - Art. 19
9) Holiday - Premium pay for - Article 21
10) Holidays - Number of - Article 21
11) Seniority - Article 9.4
12) Sick Leave - Maximum accumulation - Article 23
13) Court Time - Pay for cancelled court time - Article 14
14) Vacation - Amount of accrual - Article 22
15) Dental Plan - Employer contribution for - New
Enclosed is a copy of the request for arbitration and those final
offers or positions of the parties on the item(s) in dispute which
have been received by the Bureau.
Final positions are classified as confidential data until both
parties to this dispute have filed them with the Bureau or until the
interest arbitration hearing is convened, whichever occurs first, at
which time they are considered to be public data. Confidential final
positions may be forwarded to the PERE and/or the arbitration panel
selected in this case, but may not be disclosed to the public or the
parties unless and until they become public data as specified in
Bureau Rules and herein.
3,0 Ener;'
Equ Oppunrrmrr Emp4nxr
en...
C
Page 2
The representatives to be notified are:
For the Union For the Employer
Robert Weisenburger John Anderson
Business Agent City Administrator
Teamsters Local No. 320 City of Shakopee
3001 University Ave SE 129 E. 1st Avenue
Minneapolis, MN. 55414 Shakopee, MN. 55379
612-331-3873 612-445-3650
COMMISSIONER
BUREAU OF MEDIATIOI SERVICES -
STATE OF MINNESOTA
PWG:MP•;t
xc: Robert Weisenburger
John Anderson
Dated at St. Paul, Minnesota, December 28 , 1988
SHAKOPEE PAY EQUITY ANALYSIS FOR 1987
ORIGINAL REGRESSION LINES — 12/14/88
65
60
55
p
50
5we45 -
w c
0 40 p AA
o p
z �
30
p
25 p e p
p
20
p CA
15
30 50 70 90 110 130
POINTS
p POSITION
SHAKOPEE PAY EQUITY ANALYSIS FOR 1987
10% ADDED TO EXEMPT JOBS — 12/14/88
70
60
.. 0
50
v 4
W o
Q 40 AA
� o �
L
Z
30 -
20
10
30 50 70 90 110 130
POINTS
4 POSITION
12/14/65 SMENCPEE PAY A.",WALY615 rp 107
E ORIGINAL REGRESSION LIMES
CLASS M M 1902 ANNUAL AM. AMMLML REGRESSION LIMES MIIM 109
......-1 A MW IMJX LW DE RATE 02 RATE OF RATE Or ADDED TO EXEMPT POSITIONS
Ert%EWT MWele L l PHRASAL LW OF 10G% I"%5 I'm E 1110%5 ....................................
R•XON 14 2.,.1.E E TOTAL PERCEMIAU RWE "MIT ESTIANTLY 0.90 I.CO 1.10 0.90 0." 1.00 1.10
1. TITLE EMEMT 2.0 461Md S 4 EMPLOYEES TEMPLE MIMt$ NLONO RATE LINE LIME LIME LIME LIR LINE LIME LIME
................... . .. .............. ............._.... .. ... --------------------------- .. ..... ......
City AMfnblrelor E 1.00 N 1 1 M 124 52213 10.M 10.92 49902 55442 60992 S@% SN42 60772 65091
If-..Dlrector E 1.00 M 1 1 M 102 SRM 10.62 10.71) 39695 44294 48773 43351 W262 48223 53SW
C-,,, Of, E 1.00 N E 1 ON 103 39330 IS." 10.0 3813 42014 46216 415. A 399 "SIR 50532
C-,,,Servleo Dlr L .in M 1 1 OR 101 M330 10.58 10.62 YY2 4.19 41011 40510 4220 45011 WWII
POI lee Chief E 1.. M E I IS 10E 43155 10.69 10.62 Metz 4019 45011 4010 4220 45011 49512
[IIY EMircer E 1.00 M 1 I OR . 36216 10." 10.53 33524 S. 41035 ROWS 1.963 41035 45138
PWlle Works Lprinterelmt E 1.. M 1 1 OR . W13 10." 10.53 MITI ITS. 41035 MISE 30969 41035 45135
.1Id1M Olf101el E 1.. N 1 1 O% 93 Ulm 10.50 10.51 33133 MITI 4.96 NEWLY W72 4.% 445"
Plemer 11 E 1.. 5 1 1 0% SO 33153 10.0 10.62 31%6 353M SEATS 3503E 36922 NOTES SEATS
DeWtY Police Chief E 1.0 M I 1 0% 59 36253 10.52 TO." 314M U920 38412 MIT, MAPS W12 42253
Sr SLOT Clk1I-I See" M 2.00 1 1 1 1.1 52 26.6 10.24 10.32 28652 31836 35019 EM52 30244 31669 35.9
ixE 111016 CHerd N 2.. M I E HE 82 29159 10.28 10.32 OUST 31836 35019 28652 3@0 31836 33019
Plermr 1 A 2.. M 1 1 0% 62 ROOM 10.24 10.32 2865E 315M 35019 28652 6920 31836 35019
Ifly Cbrk E I.. S 1 E 1.% 51 32001 10.02 10.36 26226 31418 M50 311. 32692 U50 3016
1,.ree SApervlwr E 1.00 M E E ON % 2.97 10.29 IO.. 202]6 31118 MIN $11% 32632 M50 3W16
A.I.Inntln..let. E 1.00 M 1 E M 61 29261 10.20 10.69 25226 31410 54560 311% 3202 AIN M016
EMlreerlM 1. M 2.0 M 1 I OR . MOST IO.A 10.69 22905 31CM 341M SARIS 29155 310M 341%
Pot lu Ser9eAnt M 2.. M 3 3 % M 32563 10.53 10.32 221" 30192 31212 22177 2067 M192 33212
Pollee Detectln M 2.. M 2 2 OR M SAM 10.46 10.32 221" 30192 33212 221" 28682 30192 U217
Aen WIId1M Iropcter M 2.. M 1 I DR M 30332 10.32 10.32 221" 30192 33212 221" 28682 30192 UNIT
H-., IMpcter M 2.00 M 1 1 0% TO 30332 10.32 10.3E 271" 30192 33212 221" 28682 30192 3321
Polfce 1-11.Officer M 2.00 M I 1 05 73 MSM 10.43 10.20 26121 2WS 31926 26121 22523 291124 31926
Street Eorwrr 0 2.. M 1 1 03 74 2"0 10." 10.69 25"9 .3 315. STA E1211 2.3 31507
IeoE 111 A 2.0 M 1 I OR TD 27122 10.21 10.21 24412 2710 295M 24452 21610 27169 29696
Itch 11 N 2.0 1 1 ON 65 23811 IO.M 10.14 22MD 25432 27975 22559 2410 25432 27715
Pnllce Pnml Offlnr M 2.0 M 9 9 OR 65 33M 10.0 10.14 22M9 25432 27777 226. 2110 2.32 Mn
Pmk L n}mn M 2.. M 1 I 05 63 26182 10.12 MIS SUPS 2470 27246 22772 235" 2470 27246
1ane 1
li/ll/W SXXFWEE PAY ILLST ANALYSIS .p 1901
i ONNIXIL REGESSIPI LINES
E ...........................
CLASS X X '"T AXMAL AXMYL AXMYL RPGF591W LIXES.." in
.......... A IMXIN.N L6 OF RATE O. RATE OF RATE OF WED i0 EXEWt POSITIONS
ErtxEXPT X•X.I. L L NATIONAL LW OF IOpX (MEET (I WSI 111Ok) ....................................
MMM- 1•E F•F-I.E F TOTAL PERCENTAGE RATE WAIT FSTIMTED 0.50 1.OR I.10 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.t0
1. TITLE ROT ART 2a11E .•RLM6 S S EgLMEES FEMLE POINTS WLCMO RATE 414 I$" LINE I." LINE LINE LINE LIRE
....... ...................... . ... . ..................................................... ------------ .
eY-lc X 2.00 X 1 1 0i 59 2662, 10.19 10.05 M93 22WI 25110 20193 21232 22001 x IM
xe.W EWI9 Mr.mr A 2.00 X 2 2 01 51 26146 10.12 10.05 2050 22WI 251{ 20593 21232 22001 251 TO
1arner, N 2.00 r 5 5 INS 56 2,63 9.93 10.02 MSD 2501 2409 01323 21,52 2501 x{059
e 1.,Cl.rk A 2.03 1 1 1 1Ni 55 19610 9.0 10.01 20356 22205 2,513 20056 21121 222M 24513
Cle1k/(191.111 X 2.03 1 z 2 1,X X 1060 1.NO 10.03 1910 21992 2410E 19293 2030 2102 241"
1I9X1 EWI9 WNr lAr N 2.03 X 3 3 0i 53 25.5 10.6 9.W 1033 211, 238A 19633 ME" 21204 ZM2,
A.eeper X 2.03 X 3 3 01 13 P5,5 10.13 9.W 1033 zt2, x032, 1"33 20619 x12, ZM74
Xelntnume W/Pk. A 2.03 '.. 1 ON 51 1. 9.01 9." IN24 21130 23252 19024 ERNST 211. 6252
uerknWla I A 2.00 F 1 1 1NX a 16931 9.74 9.91 10345 MOST 22055 IM45 103,2 ME noss
Receptlenla A 2.03 F 2 z INi 46 1625 9.2 9.0 12E, 19MT 21265 12601 15292 19252 2665
C-1.1.0 A 2.03 F 3 3 tNi 32 16950 9.11 9.2 15312 12569 1026 15612 16690 no 19326
45 16 ez 2.
RAN....ION wt":
C-Atnt 9.255055
PIT Err 0 E 9.1 0.112"5
R Sgxrad 0.0,3925
XO. OI OM.rralon .
Onr.e. Or Fr. 36
x C"fFICIAPt(s) 0.613210
516 Cr, OI COST. 0.000,2
P., M
STANTON GROUP V 01/25/99
MONTHLY WAGE RATES FOR TOP PATROL
1991 - 1989
Coa unity 1982 1983 1984 1995 1986 1987 1999 1989 1990
Andover (added 185) -------- No Police ________ ________ --------
Anoka $2100.00 $2221.00 $2335.00 $2452.00 $2562.00 2664.00 2731.00 2827.00 reopener
Apple Valley 2098.00 2224.00 2335.00 2452.00 2570.00 2675.00 1791.00
Blaine 2099.00 2224.03 2335.00 2452.00 2562.00 2659.00
Bloomington 2136.00 2244.00 2339.00 2456.00 2567.00 2670.00 2783.00 2894.00
Brooklyn Center 2098.00 2224.00 2335.00 2452.00 2565.00 2671.00
Brooklyn Park 2098.00 2224.00 2335.00 2452.00 2562.00 2664.00 2757.00 2954.00
Burnsville 2121.00 2297.00 2377.00 2496.00 25B5.00 2688.00 2790.00
Ch"Plin (added 185) _______ _______ _______ 2475.00 2574.00 2677.00 2744.00 2826.00 reopener
Chaska (added 188) _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ 2716.00 2812.00
Columbia Heights 2098.00 2224.00 2335.00 2452.00 2562.00 2660.00 2753.00
Coon Rapids 2126.00 2250.001 2375.00 2470.00 2581.00 2684.00 2765.00 2848.00 2933.00
Cottage Grove 2070.002 2215.00 2306.00 2432.00 2553.00 2655.00
Crystal 2099.00 2224.00 2335.00 2452.00 2562.00 2677.00 2794.00
Eagan 2163.00 2293.00 2385.00 2463.00 2549.00 2651.00 2717.00 2799.00
Eden Prairie Footnote3 Footnote3 Footnote3 Footnote3 Feetnote3 Footnote3 Footnote3
Edina 2113.00 2240.004 2362.00 2490.00 2605.00 2683.97 2791.33
Fridley 2098.00 2224.00 2335.00 2452.00 2562.00 2664.00 2757.00 2853.00
Golden Valley 2098.00 2224.00 2335.00 2452.00 2562.00 2670.00 2770.13 2960.16
Hastings 2041.00 2204.00 2325.00 2430.00 2540.00 2606.00
Hopkins 2096.005 2220.005 2341.005 2440.OD5 2550.00 2652.00
Inver Grove Heights 2098.006 2224.006 2335.006 2452.006 2562.00 2667.00 2760.00 2954.00 2954.00
Lakeville 2044.00 2213.00 2252.00 2452.00 2576.00 2679.00 2785.00 2893.62
Maple Grove 2027.00 2207.00 2270.00 2452.00 2562.00 2664.00 2759.90
Maplewood 2098.00 2224.00 2335.00 2452.00 2562.00 2664.00 2744.00
Minnetonka 2114.00 2240.008 2358.00 2476.00 2600.00 2717.008
Mounds View 2090.00 2212.00 2335.00 2452.00 2562.00 2664.00 2744.00 reopen[
New Brighton 2099.00 2224.00 2335.00 2452.00 2562.00 2664.00 2771.00 2892.00
New Hope 2098.00 2224.00 2335.00 2452.00 2562.00 2664.00 2770.56 2974.46
North St. Paul 2098.00 2224.00 2335.00 2452.00 2562.00 2664.00 2757.00 2653.50
Oakdale 2098.00 2224.00 2335.00 2452.00 2562.00 2652.00 2745.00 2841.00
Plymouth 2098.00 2224.00 2335.00 2452.00 2562.00 2664.00 2771.00
Prior Lake (added '88)_______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ 2730.00 2939.00
Ramsey 2045.00 2229.00 2336.00 2440.95 2539.00 2616.009 2744.00
Richfield 2109.00 2236.00 2339.00 2452.00 2562.00 2664.00 2763.00
Robbinsdale 2098.00 2224.00 2335.00 2452.00 2562.00 2664.00 2757.00 2853.00
Roseville 2098.00 2224.00 2335.00 2452.00 2562.00 2664.00 2757.24 2853.74
St. Louis Park 2099.00 2251.4070 2370.23 2489.00 2601.00 2705.00 2793.00
Shakopee 2098.00 2202.90 2291.00 2410.00 2518.00 2632.00
Shoreview ------- (No Police)
South St. Paul 2122.00 2303.00 2412.39 2521.OD 2622.00 2727.00 2922.00 2921.00
Stillwater 2098.00 2230.00 2337.00 2452.00 2562.00 2653.00
West St. Paul 2098.00 2224.00 2335.00 2452.00 2562.00 2664.00 2764.00
White Bear Lake 2099.00 2224.00 2335.00 2452.00 2562.00 2664.00 2763.00 -
Woodbury 2118.00 2245.00 2335.00 2452.00 2562.00 2664.00
subtotals 01,799.00 87.009.30 91,145.62 99.220.95 102,621.00 106.648.97 91,141.16 54,238.48 5,887.00
♦ 39 ♦ 39 ♦ 39 a 40 • 40 ♦ 40 a 33 • 19 2
YEARLY AVERAGES $ 2,097.41 $ 2,231.01 $ 2,337.07 $ 2,455.52 S 2,565.53 $ 2,666.22 $ 2,761.85 $ 2,854.66 2,943.50
PERCENTAGE CHANGE 9.1% 6.3% 4.8% 5.0% 4.4% 3.9% 3.5% 3.5% 3.2%
STANTON GROUP V GW6/59
1982-1989 MONTHLY WAGE RATES FOR TOP PATROL
FOOTNOTES
'Coon Rapids: Effective 1/1/83 $2,232/month; effective 7/1/83 S2,268/month; average rate of $2,250.00
Is reported.
2Cottage Grove: The top patrol wage rate for MAMA cities is reduced by the dollar amount
($29.00) paid by the City of Cottage Grove for LTO Insurance.
3Eden Prairie: Eden Prairie has not been included In the average monthly wage rate due to differences
In their salary program, police Officers may be hired at any one of the following
steps commensurate with education and experience:
For 1982: Entry - $1,606 Step 7- $1,942 For 1983: Entry - $1,702 Step 7 - $2,059
Step 2 - 1,662 Step 8- 19998 Step 2 - 1,762 Step 8 - $2,118
Step 3 - 1,718 Step 9- 2,054 Step 3 - 1,821 Step 9 - 2,177
Step 4 - 1,774 Step 10- 2,110 Step 4 - '1,880 Step 10 - 2,237
Step 5 - 1,830 Step il- 2,166 Step 5 - 1,940 Step 11 - 29296
Step 6 - 1.886 Step it- 2.222 Step 6 - 1,999 Step 12 - 2,355
For 1984: Entry - $1,796 Step 5 - S29190 For 1985: Entry - $1,894 Step 5 - $2,310
Step 2 - 1,994 Step 6 - 2,288 Step 2 - 1,998 Step 6 - 2,414
Step 3 - 1,193 Step 7 - 2,386 Step 3 - 2,102 Step 7 - 2,518
Step 4 - 2.091 Step 8 - 2,495 Step 4 - 2,206 Step 8 - 2,621
For 1986: Entry - $1,989 Step 5 - $2,425 For 1987: Entry - $2,069 Step 5 - $ 2,522
Step 2 - 20098 Step 6 - 2,534 Step 2 - 2,182 Step 6 - 2,636
Step 3 - 2,207 Step 7 - 2,644 Step 3 - 2,296 Step 7 - 2,749
Step 4 - 2.316 Step 8 - 2,752 Step 4 - step 8 - 2,862
For 1988: Entry - $2,151 Step 5 - $29624 For 1989: Entry - $2,165 Step 5 - $ 3,209
Step 2 - 2,269 Step 6 - 2,741 Step 2 - 2,400
Step 3 - 2,386 Step 7 - 2,859 Step 3 - 2,625
Step 4 - 2,506 Step 9 - 2,975 Step 4 - 2,883
4Edlna: Averaged wage rate of $2,240 reported. Effective 1/1/83 $2,230; effective 7/1/53
$2,250.00.
%opklns: In addition to the Top Patrol Rate the City of Hopkins provides an additional
$25.00 contribution per month for a variable annuity retirement plan. Longevity
Is calculated on the base wage rate excluding the $25.00 of deferred Income.
6lnver Grove Heights: The tap patrol rate is reduced by the dollar amount paid by the City for group
health, welfare, life, dental and long-term disability insurance over the MAMA
GROUP V settlement.
1982 Top patrol rate $2098 reduced by $96.
1983 Top patrol rate $2224 reduced by $82.
1984 Top patrol rate $2335 reduced by $58.
1985 Top patrol rate $2452 reduced by $74 Or $138.
7Maplewuod: The City of Maplewood pays an additional $50.00 per month Into a deferred
compensation plan.
STANTON CROUP Y
1982-1989 MONTHLY WAGE RATES FOR TOP PATROL
FOOTNOTES (continued)
BMtnnetonka: Averaged wage rate of S2,240 reported for 1983. Effective 1/1/83, $2,230.00;
effective 7/1/83, S2,250.00.
Averaged wage rate of $2717 reported for 1987. Effective 1/87 $2,704.00;
effective 7/87, $2730.00.
911asoey; Averaged wage rate of $2616 reported for 1987. Effective 1/87 $2,590.00;
effective 7/87, $2,642.00.
10St. Louis Park: Averaged wage rate of $2,251 reported for 1983. Effective 1/1/83, $2,234.64;
effective 7/1/83, $2,268.16.
G•�
L,I
- � Cc.�-Cc:?�- .Z �/ cyl �..-�..._�,.�--� �-�--'.mss--,-�• /Z��.,..:<.
�7ts C��J l ` — P Gam-
a� �jr
Com, -ALC 1'7Y7
Jl_
��